ST0RM Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Just thinking out loud. But why aren't the Coastie's Jayhawks equipped with probes? They've got the long range tanks, but wouldn't the ability to aerial refuel increase their range and mission times? Or is it a Cutter space limitation? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HeavyArty Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) It is more of an issue with USCG not having (nor wanting) any aerial tankers. The aux tanks usually provide enough range from the coast for their operational needs. MH-60J/Ts are not usually stationed on cutters, but from on-shore CGASs. Edited July 1, 2022 by HeavyArty Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andyf117 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 While watching episodes of the 'Coast Guard' TV series (Alaska, Florida, Pacific NorthWest) there were some missions where an HC-130 would go ahead to act as on-scene commander, provide 'overwatch', and act as a radio relay for the H-60s... ....it struck me then that it would be perfectly logical for the Jayhawks to be AAR-equipped in order to refuel from a tanker version of the Hercules - especially on long-range rescues, where not only were two helos used, but they had to stage through other airfields/bases in order to top off their tanks to complete the sorties... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tank Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 I am sure like everything else it comes down to funding, for the tanker aircraft, for the training of both crews, for the extra personal and then maintenance for them all. Take all those dollars then compare what else is needed and what you get in return. They feel it’s not needed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted July 1, 2022 Author Share Posted July 1, 2022 Thanks for the replies. Good to know I'm not the only one who thought it would make sense. But the budgeting vs overall need prevailed. Maybe a What-If someday Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andyf117 Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 Doubtless funding played a part, although I wouldn't have thought there would have been a huge extra cost regarding the aircraft, as AAR-capable versions of both types already existed - HC- and KC-130s in USAF and USMC service respectively, and HH/MH-60s in USAF and US Army use... ....but yes, there are the air and ground crew factors, extra equipment and associated maintenance, etc - all of which involve time and money, and there are probably nowhere near enough missions which involve multiple aircraft and require en-route refuelling stops to make the added capability cost-effective... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Da SWO Posted July 1, 2022 Share Posted July 1, 2022 They'd need internal (Benson?) tanks which can be a pain. We had them on our WC-130's, fumes in the cargo area was not unheard of. AAR in the weather they fly in isn't easy (see the Perfect Storm), so cost vs benefit may not be that great, plus the ANG can handle really long range missions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tank Posted July 2, 2022 Share Posted July 2, 2022 (edited) 23 hours ago, andyf117 said: Doubtless funding played a part, although I wouldn't have thought there would have been a huge extra cost regarding the aircraft, as AAR-capable versions of both types already existed - HC- and KC-130s in USAF and USMC service respectively, and HH/MH-60s in USAF and US Army use... Yes they exist but they are not in the CG inventory. They would have to retro fit the existing helos and 130’s. DA does bring up a good point. The CG operates in less then ideal conditions. You want to bring your own members back home. Yes not are all PS but also not prefect conditions either. Either way command has stuck with the current arrangement without AAR whatever the actual reason/s. Edited July 2, 2022 by Tank Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Par429 Posted July 4, 2022 Share Posted July 4, 2022 Hey- There's also the issue of the extra weight of the AAR probe, pipes, pumps, etc that cuts into your usable load and range. And you're stuck with it all the time. I heard that's the reason why the Navy opted not to include an AAR probe on thier H-60s, maybe the same for the USCG. For the few times you might actually need it, it's not worth carrying around all the time. Regards, Phil Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SpiritZeroThree Posted July 19, 2022 Share Posted July 19, 2022 Another reason we don’t AAR - time spent trying to plug a tanker is time not spent on scene searching or hoisting. Worst case we can HIFR from a cutter to increase sortie time. 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.