11bee Posted February 21, 2017 Author Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, HeavyArty said: The Army wants to. The MedEvac community does not and refuses to. Their reasoning is that if they have armed helos, they can and will be used for other missions besides MedEvac. Commander's will abuse them and have them doing other missions that will take away from their primary MedEvac mission. They (the MedEvac community) are fine with using M4s and other handheld weapons for self defense and having armed escorts provide a wider defense for their ops. They see it as the ground commanders' responsibility to secure the LZ and provide escorts as needed. This was a controversial issue a few years back. I believe an injured grunt died because they couldn't get any escort for the dust off helo. Personally, I thinking arming them is appropriate. Edited February 21, 2017 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clinstone Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Not to continue to derail the thread but war correspondent Michael Yon was the one that I first remember highlighted this issue. Link to Article. This was back in the thick of the surge in 2010-2011 when both DUSTOFF and PEDRO were jobbing it hard. Yon was very fond of PEDRO and it troubled him seeing the difficulties of DUSTOFF to get into the fight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crushkill Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I've never had Pedro, but had Army CASEVAC pick up buddies, and myself. I've had them land in relatively hot LZs but we were also responsible for ground security and on more than one occasion we had to wait for air escort to get them out to us. That being said, I owe them a lot and I've never seen a crew turn down a pickup, it was usually their higher headquarters that would delay them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FM-Whip Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 2 hours ago, 11bee said: This was a controversial issue a few years back. I believe an injured grunt died because they couldn't get any escort for the dust off helo. Personally, I thinking arming them is appropriate. This is not new - it goes back to the Vietnam era. There's legal issues with having Medevac-marked helicopters using offensive weapons in some sort of attack role - it jeopardizes the status of Medevac aircraft as covered by multiple Geneva Conventions. . Would you mount a minigun on an ground ambulance? John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 21, 2017 Author Share Posted February 21, 2017 32 minutes ago, FM-Whip said: This is not new - it goes back to the Vietnam era. There's legal issues with having Medevac-marked helicopters using offensive weapons in some sort of attack role - it jeopardizes the status of Medevac aircraft as covered by multiple Geneva Conventions. . Would you mount a minigun on an ground ambulance? John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com) First off, none of the folks we are fighting recognize the Geneva Convention. Secondly, we are not talking about mounting Hellfires here, a couple of M240's can hardly be classified as "offensive" weapons. And yes, if I was driving that ambulance and bad guys where trying to kill me, I sure as hell would mount a mini gun on it. The USAF Pedro's are considered some of the most effective medevac units out there. They are armed (as are British medevac units). What's the problem? Not always going to have a couple of Apaches covienently waiting on the pad to provide escort services. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crushkill Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Technically, at least according to the medics I work with, any belt fed weapon is considered and "offensive weapon" which is why they don't mount the 240's on the -60's Quote Link to post Share on other sites
snake36bravo Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Per my sister, senior flight medic and CE at the time, they armed themselves because often they would have to post security outside of their own Dustoff and of course in the event they went down. Plenty about this online as 11Bee points out. The CE Spc. Timothy Johns, in my first image with the tan furniture on his M4 is pictured below posting security for SSG Robert Cowdrey as he returns with a casualty they are evacuating.. They often took fire. Staff Sgt. Robert B. Cowdrey, 39. KIA 13 October 2011, Kunar provence, Afghanistan while evacuating a casualty. Blackhawk pilot CW 2 Robert A. Campbell, with the U.S. Army Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, after landing safely back at his outpost outside of Sangin, Helmand Province, on June 3, 2011. During a rescue mission, his medevac helicopter came under fire and took bullets in the pilot's window and the helicopter's blades I'll save my thoughts on Army brass and their ability to make decisions. I'd rather build a model of my sisters Dust Off instead. Maybe someone makes decals for the Angels? Edited February 21, 2017 by snake36bravo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clinstone Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 The point is moot at least for modelers because the new HH-60Ms have faired over gunners windows. Unless somebody some some handiwork with a saws-all they will never have guns. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 21, 2017 Author Share Posted February 21, 2017 9 hours ago, Clinstone said: The point is moot at least for modelers because the new HH-60Ms have faired over gunners windows. Unless somebody some some handiwork with a saws-all they will never have guns. Never understood the point of that. If you don't want to arm the helo, just don't mount weapons. No need to eliminate the windows (unless there are equip racks inside). You restrict visibility and now you have guys hanging out of the cargo door window like in the pic above. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HeavyArty Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, 11bee said: Never understood the point of that. If you don't want to arm the helo, just don't mount weapons. No need to eliminate the windows (unless there are equip racks inside). You restrict visibility and now you have guys hanging out of the cargo door window like in the pic above. The HH-60M does have equipment covering the area that was formerly for the gunners' windows. It has a totally different interior layout. It is not some big conspiracy to keep guns off MedEvacs, but a better way to treat/care for patients inside the aircraft. First off, none of the folks we are fighting recognize the Geneva Convention.... Yes, but we do. ...The USAF Pedro's are considered some of the most effective medevac units out there. They are armed (as are British medevac units). The difference w/USAF PEDROs is that they are not considered MedEvac aircraft. They conduct CSAR (Combat Search And Rescue) and are combat assets, hence they are offensively armed and do not carry medical red crosses on them. Edited February 21, 2017 by HeavyArty Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scotthldr Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, HeavyArty said: The difference w/USAF PEDROs is that they are not considered MedEvac aircraft. They conduct CSAR (Combat Search And Rescue) and are combat assets, hence they are offensively armed and do not carry medical red crosses on them. If the a/c carries a Red Cross on it it can't have fixed weapons on it of any sort, the crew can carry side arms and assault weapons as defensive aids. The UK doesn't have a dedicated CSAR capability, but does operate the Chinook in a combat MedEvac role. These a/c do not carry any Red Crosses and are armed with M-134 and M-60. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 21, 2017 Author Share Posted February 21, 2017 2 hours ago, HeavyArty said: Yes, but we do. I'm sure that means a great deal to the pilot of the Blackhawk pictured above with the bullet hole in his windshield. I'd argue that the lines between medevac and CSAR are getting pretty blurred these days. Certainly doesn't take anything away from the bravery of the crews who fly those helos though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FM-Whip Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, 11bee said: I'm sure that means a great deal to the pilot of the Blackhawk pictured above with the bullet hole in his windshield. I'd argue that the lines between medevac and CSAR are getting pretty blurred these days. Certainly doesn't take anything away from the bravery of the crews who fly those helos though. Regardless of whether enemy forces abide by various treaties or not, Medevac crews know what the risks are. Medevac crews carrying arms for personal protection is different from using Medevac aircraft for offensive purposes, and Medevac crews know the difference. You need to read http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf specifically Section 7.14 Military Medical Aircraft. 7.14.2.2 "Search, Rescue, or Other Recovery Excluded Medical aircraft may engage in the removal of wounded, sick, or shipwrecked combatants. However, medical aircraft may neither prevent the capture of combatants by enemy military forces nor otherwise interfere with enemy military operations. Therefore, medical aircraft do not include combat search and rescue aircraft, and medical aircraft should not engage in such activities lest they forfeit the special protection afforded by the GWS or GWS-Sea. Special agreements between the opposing forces, however, may provide protection to aircraft engaged in search, rescue, or other recovery missions." John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com) Edited February 22, 2017 by FM-Whip Quote Link to post Share on other sites
salvador001 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) Heres some photos of this UH-60L i took at the Ilopango airshow last month. The bird belongs to the JTFB 1-228th. The bird has a very faded CARC, she has some patches made from fresh CARC but painted by hand. The AN/AAR-57 CMWS and the new AN/AVR-2B laser warnings are installed in this bird. Enjoy! Rod. Edited February 22, 2017 by salvador001 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
torchf4 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, salvador001 said: Heres some photos of this UH-60L i took at the Ilopango airshow last month. The bird belongs to the JTFB 1-228th. The bird has a very faded CARC, she has some patches made from fresh CARC but painted by hand. The AN/AAR-57 CMWS and the new AN/AVR-2B laser warnings are installed in this bird. Enjoy! Rod. Wow interesting! Would really like to know what was mounted on the tail boom previously for the T-shape shadow! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anvil6 Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 10 hours ago, torchf4 said: Wow interesting! Would really like to know what was mounted on the tail boom previously for the T-shape shadow! I would guess they were two separate paint patches that happen to overlap. the long bit across the tail cone is where it used to say US ARMY. that stencil got moved up as soon as they started mounting chaff and flare dispensers on both sides. that flare bucket also didnt used to be there, at least for regular units before GWOT, so that would explain the vertical paint patch. just my educated guess, but there might be other reasons as well. -Ramon Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rotor_head_Dan Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 @Snake36Bravo... I flew that dirty bird.. 843 and have it as a screen saver on the laptop. I loved the splotchy CARC on it from all the mods, upgrades, and corrosion inspections and have it as a "need to build". After several years in A-Stan it was quite the dirty bird. The only gray you will see on the blackhawk is the cabin area and any "art work" such as tail numbers. The blades did get colorful when operating in the desert and you made due with what ever spray paint you had to cut down on the erosion of the leading edge of the blades. I saw some tan, orange, and even red that looked pink when they were spinning ones on various aircraft. Dan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 5, 2017 Author Share Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) Found this picture in a Russian blog. Was going to post but I then realized it was originally from the Airliners site and I believe that posting their pics is verboten. Here's the link: http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Sikorsky-MH-60L-Black-Hawk-(S-70A)/1295277/L?qsp=eJx1jbEOwjAMRP/Fc4ZWhYKy0YWRDvyA5RiIVNrI9kBV9d9JU4mN7fTe6W4Bmkbjj93nxOBBGYVe4CCh4FvBL4BRSPBhHWqkvVbX56pxP3PlkeWPA384Vu3JgU5i3ZwvAhpfiDgZB9j5TQLLplipfD%2B3oRxY%2BpKhaTMPUdOAZYMN4wDr%2BgVH1T76 Very interesting bird. Circa 2007, it's labeled as an MH-60L but it doesn't have any of the defensive gear that was added to 160th Blackhawks. It also is painted in either extremely weathered CARC or a mix of CARC and flat brown. Edited March 6, 2017 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 5, 2017 Author Share Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) While surfing Airliners after seeing the pic listed above, I found this interesting shot of an MH-60M, taken a few months back. http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Sikorsky-MH-60M-Black-Hawk-(S-70A)/3994347/L?qsp=eJxVjT0KwkAQhe8ytUKCECSdVjZBCy8wzD40GN1ldiAuIXd3XCu7x/f%2BFpL4MrztWhKopwxWudOGEis/M/ULBTYcRJAMwRPtvnH7gTJHDR6g4bTtmsFZjmrH4uSv8eNnDdCvhSx1/eZvrQvopWradc7DmNPEdQPG40Tr%2BgHuZTRO What's the deal with that device on top of the rotor hub? Edited March 6, 2017 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
strikeeagle801 Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 That's mis-labled. It's not an MH-60L. It's a standard UH-60L. Aaron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 5, 2017 Author Share Posted March 5, 2017 14 minutes ago, strikeeagle801 said: That's mis-labled. It's not an MH-60L. It's a standard UH-60L. Aaron I was wondering the same thing but it still has the nose mounted radar and FLIR. Hadn't seen any regular UH-60's with that equip. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HeavyArty Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 From info I can track down on the helo, as of Feb '07, it was a UH-60L assigned to 2-3 AVN Bn at Ft Stewart, GA, not the 160th as an MH-60L. Based on the features it has (pointy stabilator, no other extra sensors or antennas, etc.) it looks like an L with FLIR and weather radar added. Not sure why it would have these features, maybe a command bird or something like that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hawkwrench Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, 11bee said: While surfing Airliners after see the pic lined above, I find this cool shot of an MH-60M, taken a few months back. http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Sikorsky-MH-60M-Black-Hawk-(S-70A)/3994347/L?qsp=eJxVjT0KwkAQhe8ytUKCECSdVjZBCy8wzD40GN1ldiAuIXd3XCu7x/f%2BFpL4MrztWhKopwxWudOGEis/M/ULBTYcRJAMwRPtvnH7gTJHDR6g4bTtmsFZjmrH4uSv8eNnDdCvhSx1/eZvrQvopWradc7DmNPEdQPG40Tr%2BgHuZTRO What's the deal with that device on top of the rotor hub? As far as the MH-60M, I know it may look different, but that's nothing top secret, Its just the bifilar system on the rotor head. As for the UH-60L, I agree with Gino, it's probably a C2 helo. But, I do wonder why, it has the internal Robbie tank installed if it's just a vanilla 60. Don't see too many of those! Tim Quote Edited March 6, 2017 by hawkwrench Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FM-Whip Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 5 hours ago, HeavyArty said: From info I can track down on the helo, as of Feb '07, it was a UH-60L assigned to 2-3 AVN Bn at Ft Stewart, GA, not the 160th as an MH-60L. Based on the features it has (pointy stabilator, no other extra sensors or antennas, etc.) it looks like an L with FLIR and weather radar added. Not sure why it would have these features, maybe a command bird or something like that. There's been some vanilla UH-60s with radars forever, used for VIP transport. Haven't seen one with a FLIR though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
torchf4 Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 12 hours ago, 11bee said: While surfing Airliners after seeing the pic listed above, I found this interesting shot of an MH-60M, taken a few months back. http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Sikorsky-MH-60M-Black-Hawk-(S-70A)/3994347/L?qsp=eJxVjT0KwkAQhe8ytUKCECSdVjZBCy8wzD40GN1ldiAuIXd3XCu7x/f%2BFpL4MrztWhKopwxWudOGEis/M/ULBTYcRJAMwRPtvnH7gTJHDR6g4bTtmsFZjmrH4uSv8eNnDdCvhSx1/eZvrQvopWradc7DmNPEdQPG40Tr%2BgHuZTRO What's the deal with that device on top of the rotor hub? Must be relatively new! That is the blackest MH I've seen ever! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.