Question on platforms

[SSGTJONES]

Im applying to crosstrain into Flight Engineer and was just wondering if there was any diffrence, besides the obvious, between the Rescue and Special Ops side of the house. Will picking one over the over impact my carear? Do their missions overlap?

[Sandy 1]

Hopefully a helo guy can come here and give you specifics, but yes - the missions overlap some, but only in one direction. All rescue helo's are rescue only, but not all special ops helo's are special ops only. As far as career implications, neither will affect your career adversely. However, the career field is small, and you know what that will do to cutoffs for promotion. As far as the job - you won't find a better one in the world than flying for a living. I am partial to the AFSOC community, but I'm sure the rescue community is very good as well. Good Luck!

[Pavejimm]

I am a MH-53M Engineer, and have been one for 4 years. The 53 is the only USAF Special ops helo in the USAF. The HH-60G is the Rescue asset for Air Combat Command. The 53 has a wide variety of Special Ops mission as well as CSAR (Combat Search and Rescue). As a matter of fact, of the 5 CSAR's since end of the Vietnam War, 3 were carried out by MH-53's, 1 by a USMC CH-53E, and 1 by US Army MH-60K/L. As you can see USAF rescue has not really done anything other than Peacetime rescue, which they are well suited for. But when it comes to penetrating today’s integrated air defense networks, there is no better platform than the MH53M. As far as the job of a MH53M FE and an HH-60 FE, there is a BIG difference. I like to compare the job of a 53 FE to the job of everyone on a B52, except the pilot. You are a Navigator, Electronic Warfare Specialist, Defensive System operator, gunner and system specialist. You start the engines, monitor all the instruments, run all the checklist, do all the preflights ect. In addition you are also a hoist operator, ropemaster, and loadmaster. An HH-60 FE on the other hand is just checklist reader, preflighter, hoist operator, gunner and loadmaster. As you can see there is a big difference in the jobs and responsibilities. However, you do compete for promotion against all USAF FE's. And the future, all be it cloudy, is that 53 FE will transition to the CV-22 when the USAF brings on line in 2005-2007. If you are interested in being a 53 FE let me know and I will get you talking to the RIGHT people.

[SSGTJONES]

my email is sallymonte@hotmail.com.

[jeff]

I'm a huge fan of the 53s. BUT....in the two most recent CSARs it was actually the MH60s that made the pick-ups. The 53s were the primary defensive platforms and the C&C for the missions.

[Pavejimm]

Well dude, I WAS THERE, and I am here to tell you today, that the MH60'S were able to make the last TWO PICKUPS, because there were PAVES at the front(CHALKS 1 AND 2). With out one of them, the mission doesn't go.

[jeff]

Steady, i'm betting we know each other. I too "WAS THERE". I was the assistant ground commander in the second pave. I agree that without the 53s the mission would not have flown but the nimble little 60 was a good call to include it in the package. Actually during the SOAPs we rehersed one of the aircraft not going or being shot down, which almost happened as you well know, that valley sucked.

[This message has been edited by jeff (edited 12-22-2000).]

[FLTCREW1]

I can't believe where this is heading.

------------------
NSDQ

[jeff]

whats not to believe? Are we going places that don't belong here? Both incidents that we're refering to have been widely publized, even to the exent of things that I thought were classified being published.

[Tom Hunter]

Yes, both incidents are well-documented and in the public domain. One was the 117 pilot CSAR and the other was, if I remember, CSAR of an F-16 pilot. Both in the Balkans I think.

What I have always been curious about is what makes either the MH-47E or the MH-53 better for long range insertions/extractions. They would seem to have duplicate missions and capabilities (all service biases aside). You don't hear too much about the 47s except in Mount Hope and some NEOs, (with the exception of the non-MH model RAF 47s used to insert the Brits in the Gulf). The MH-53s seem, also, to be more focused on pathfinding. Neither of the big platforms would seem to be preferable over the other. Thoughts?

[This message has been edited by Tom Hunter (edited 12-23-2000).]

[jeff]

They seem to be redundant to me also. Here in Europe we never see any of the MH-47s. The new MH-53M has some great stuff, a monitor in the back so us ground guys can follow along on a map, real good for situational awareness and as you stated the navigation gear is top notch making them good for the "pathfinder" mission. Although i think that the pathfinder mission was an anomoly and with upgraded attack helos i doubt you'll see that again. The weapons mounted on the two aircraft are the same. I'm not sure about payload and range, i'm sure one of these guys has all the stats.
One thing i do like about the AFSOC setup is that the tankers, gunships and helos are all in one wing. It makes coordination and training much easier.
I am biased towards the 53s but that is the aircraft i've ridden around in for the last 10 years. I've been on one MH47 in those same 10 years. I think they primarily support the 75th maybe 7th Grp down south and SF JRTC rotations.

[SSGTJONES]

Lord never ment to start this!!! Jim my email is sallymonte@hotmail.com or Monte.Jones@Ramstein.af.mil. I would appreciate any information on x-training u have. And since u mentioned it how are the Fe's liking the v-22? and if i x-train will i be forced into that airframe?

MONK OUT

[SSGTJONES]

Forgot if you go rescue, or Spec Ops, can u switch later or are u stuck after tech school? Just wondering.

Monk out

[whisky8]

Hey,
What about EBRO 33, is that included in the tally for the MH53s?. Know a couple of FEs got Purple Hearts for that one...
Jeff, guess the awards thing is pretty much dead in the water?.

W8
(SF guy who's a big fan of 53s also)

[jeff]

Whiskey, I forgot about Ebro, those guys got joint service achievement medals, they got the shit shot out of them and they didn't recover the frenchies. A bad mission if ever there was one. No MH-60s on that one.
Never say die. We've resubmitted with a slightly embellished write-up(used A1C tail scanners writeup for his DFC). We're god damn war heros, "streaking through constant and intense...blah blah blah...lol.
Where your from?

[This message has been edited by jeff (edited 12-29-2000).]

[whisky8]

Jeff,
We go way back...

[This message has been edited by whisky8 (edited 11-07-2001).]

[PaveVargas]

Good to see this forum working again. I was wondering if no one cared about us pampered aircrew guys. Anyway, as one of the instructor nerds at Kirtland, thought I would try and shed some light on two of the above topics.
As far as the Rescue vs SOF thing goes, you're probably going to be happier in 53Ms than in the 60G. ACC, home of the fighter mafia, has treated rescue like crap for the last 10 years and it shows. The Rescue guys are trying to turn things around, but they are getting zero support from ACC. ACC has given them nothing but idiotic tactics that they are forced to use. I have a lot of friends flying 60s and they all think morale and readiness are pretty low. Pave Low has been lucky enough to hide from the pencil-necked bean-pushers that run the big blue Air Force and get some good missions in the recent past (in the military, it's all about What Have You Done For Me Lately. No one cares how cool your unit was in Vietnam).
As for the 47/53 question, I got some good info this summer from a former TF160 MH-47 warrant who crossed over to the Air Force, got his butter bar and is now flying Paves. After talking to him, here is how I see it.

The MH-47E:
- has longer legs
- more reliable maintenance-wise
- can carry a lot of cargo (more than a 53)
- a little better at dust-out landings

The MH-53M
- has a better nav system
- better defensive systems
- better use of radar (MH-53 has an older radar but gets more use out of it)
- Easier to air refuel
- better at shipboard ops
- better crew coordination (53 has two pilots, two FEs and two gunners. 47 has two pilots and two crew chiefs. Plus, the 53 pilots actually listen to their back-enders)

Therefore, as you can see, the 47 and 53 actually compliment each other, when the two systems aren't getting into pissing contests over who has the better platform. For a while, I actually lived next door to some of the B/2/160 guys in Kuwait and thought they were a great bunch of guys. We all agreed on who the real enemy was (the MH60K pilots) and generally got along pretty well. If anyone has some better info, feel free to fire back.

[Sharky]

Great Post! Good info. I have a feeling FLTCREW1 will want to talk to you in rotorheadese. He's on leave right now but should be back on soon.

------------------
F.I.D.O.

[whisky8]

Here's my "users" analogy of the MH47 vs MH53: The MH47 is like riding in a souped up high speed Greyhound bus. If Ferrari ever made a mini van or panel truck with a rotor on it, it would be a MH53. The Ferrari analogy may not be tecnically accurate since I believe a 47 may be faster than the 53?. The 53 definitely feels like a Ferrari when she gets down in the dirt and flies...

W8

[jeff]

Now that all the 60s have moved to ACC it really limits some of the options we had before for infil/exfil.
Maybe i'm way off base, but i was in Turkey when the SOW left and ACC arrived. Night and day. SOW was combat oriented and ACC was admin rescue. Of course the only exciting thing happened when ACC showed up, they scraped by but it was a close one.
Jeez, Rucksack Rokus, whoa. I'll fire you a e-mail on tuesday from work my e-mail is all screwed up since i've moved. If you were a medic in my platoon that means you must have gotten alot of sleep http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif
Jeff

[Snow]

Do either MH-47E or MH-53M has a de-icing system?

[whisky8]

Yes, they do have a super secret technique for de-icing their helicopters while in flight, it's called the barrel roll...

W8

[PaveVargas]

The 53 has engine anti-ice and windshield heat. Don't know about the 47E, I think they have roughly the same thing. The Blackhawk has a really nice heating system for the blades and engine inlets. The Pave Low is cleared to fly in icing conditions up to medium (icing comes in light, medium, and severe), but it isn't very comfortable.

[Snow]

Is the 53`s windshield heat made with those tiny little heating wires moulded inside the windshield, right? Or blowair from engines?