Jump to content

No AAR probe in USCG H-60s?


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by HeavyArty
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Tank
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...