Here I am

Military News

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Johnny Crawford

Ocala, FL

Thought I would make this thread since there is so much diversity with the military it would save starting new posts whenever different topics arose.

Ho, ho, ho! Here’s the name of the Air Force’s combat rescue helicopter

#ad

Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett on Feb. 27 announced that the service's new combat rescue helicopter would be known as the HH-60W Jolly Green II. (Lockheed Martin Sikorsky)
ORLANDO, Fla. — The U.S. Air Force’s new combat rescue helicopter will be known as the HH-60W Jolly Green II, the Air Force secretary announced Thursday.

The name harkens back to the Sikorsky HH-3E used to rescue downed pilots during the Vietnam War, nicknamed the “Jolly Green Giant” due to its distinctive green paint scheme. In 1965 alone, the HH-3E crews rescued 122 troops from the jungles of Vietnam, said Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett.

During a speech at the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium here, Barrett also recognized current airmen who perform the combat search and rescue mission.

“Americans owe these courageous airmen the very best equipment. The new combat rescue helicopter, the HH-60W improves range and survivability for safer search and rescue operations everywhere, every time,” she said. “In recognition of these heroes, the Air Force is naming our newest CSAR helicopter the Jolly Green II.”

As rock music played, Barrett unveiled a mockup of the Jolly Green II with new paint scheme.

But in a somewhat unsettling twist, airmen were sighted at the conference carrying around disassembled parts of a full-size plastic Jolly Green Giant statue earlier Thursday morning, likely spoiling the surprise for attentive attendees.

The Air Force plans to buy 113 HH-60Ws over the program of record, and has already procured 10 helicopters in fiscal 2019 and 12 in FY20. In its FY21 budget, the service requested $1.1 billion for 19 HH-60Ws, and production is planned to ramp up to 20 helicopters in FY22 and FY23.

After the announcement, Lockheed Martin Sikorsky, which produces the HH-60W, revealed that the company had been awarded a second low-rate initial production contract for 12 aircraft, valued at more than $500 million.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief
Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

The HH-60W derivative of the Black Hawk boasts better defensive systems than the HH-60G Pave Hawk currently used for combat rescue missions. The “Whiskey” model also includes a new fuel system that nearly doubles the capacity of the internal tank, as well as improvements to hover performance, avionics and weapons, according to Sikorsky.

The helicopter entered low rate production in September. At that time four test aircraft had clocked in more than 150 hours of flight testing, and five more aircraft were in production at Sikorsky’s facility in Stratford, Conn.

“Currently seven CRH aircraft are in flight, two of which are with the Air Force at Duke Field [at] Eglin Air Force Base in Florida,” Sikorsky said in a Thursday news release. The company is currently conducting major assembly on the first batch of LRIP aircraft.
 
Too bad the Air Force was forced into these black hawks. The MH-47 was picked for SARX back in 2006 and John McCain put the halt to it. The MH-47 is far superior and the Air Force PJ's fell in love with it even more in Afghanistan. Can hold 24 litters, carry tons of medical equipment, is the fastest helicopter in the US military (faster than an Apache) and has tons of power and defenses.

#ad
 
Do you know the reason mccain put a halt to it ?
CSAR X was the name of the program, the HH47 won and was protested by sikorsky (which is normal) so GAO ordered the contract to be re bid, the HH47 won again. John McCain stepped in (the only reason most can come up with is because he was mad because of the Boeing tanker deal failure around the same time) President Obama cancelled the program that year even as the current pave hawks being used by SAR were being grounded for stress cracks. They were over worked and overloaded, the AF needed a bigger more capable Airframe but the politicians had their way.
The new Pave Hawk won the contract recently because no one else bid.
 
McCain stepped in (the only reason most can come up with is because he was mad because of the Boeing tanker deal failure around the same time) President Obama cancelled the program that year even as the current pave hawks being wa used by SAR were being grounded for stress cracks
Thanks, mccain had a decent war record for the most part. He did his job the way he was expected. But he didnt do anything that almost every ground pounder didnt do every day. After he came home, he was no hero. His actions were mostly done for his own reward or because he liked or didnt like someone. The good of the country was far down on his list.
 
The use of "Pave" is interesting. In Vietnam we had "Pave Nail", which used the USCG Loran C navigation positioning that I was involved in.
 
America’s bomber force is facing a crisis
The nation faces a bomber crisis, and it is time to openly acknowledge the scale and scope of the problem.

Tasked with deterrence and, if necessary, striking targets around the globe, Air Force crews operating these aircraft afford the nation’s security leaders unique options best embodied in the phrase: anytime, anyplace. Despite the criticality of this mission, the Air Force currently operates the smallest, oldest fleet of bombers since its 1947 founding. No other service or ally has this capability, which places an imperative on this finite force. The service’s recent announcement that it will be ending its continuous bomber presence in Guam further amplifies the precarious state of bombers. It is a stark warning to senior leaders in the Pentagon, in the executive branch and on Capitol Hill that the Air Force is “out of Schlitz” when it comes to the critical missions they perform.

Bombers are unique instruments of power. They can strike targets with large volumes of kinetic firepower without requiring access to foreign bases and without projecting the vulnerability associated with regionally based land or sea forces. The striking power of a single bomber is immense. In fact, B-1Bs flying missions against ISIS in the opening days of Operation Inherent Resolve were able to carry more munitions than that delivered by an entire carrier air wing.

Stealth bombers can penetrate enemy air defenses, depriving mobile targets of sanctuary. They can also carry large bunker-buster munitions required to eliminate deeply buried and hardened facilities. Bomber aircraft are also cheaper to operate on a per-mission basis when compared to alternate options, like ships, large packages of smaller strike aircraft or standoff missiles.

The erosion of the bomber force is no secret. At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Air Force possessed 400 bombers arrayed to fight the Soviet Union. Today, it has just 157, with a plan to cut a further 17 in the fiscal 2021 budget submission. Air Force efforts to modernize the bomber force a decade ago were thwarted within the Department of Defense by an excessive near-term focus on counterinsurgency operations. Bombers are requested by combatant commands on a continual basis given the concurrent threats posed by peer adversaries, mid-tier nations like Iran and North Korea, and hostile nonstate actors.

The Air Force knows this mission area is stretched too thin, and that is precisely why in 2018 leaders called for an additional five bomber squadrons in “The Air Force We Need” force structure assessment.

Well-understood risk exists with operating a high-demand, low-density inventory for too long. The B-1B force, which makes up over one-third of America’s bomber capacity, offers a highly cautionary tale in this regard. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the service retired 26 of these aircraft to free up modernization funds, which subsequently were snatched away from the bomber mission area for other uses. For the next two decades, the Air Force flew the B-1B in a nearly continuous string of intense combat deployments. Sustainment funding was under-resourced, which further wore down the B-1B force. Last summer, B-1B readiness rates plummeted below 10 percent — effectively putting them out of commission.

As Air Force Global Strike Command Commander Gen. Tim Ray explained: “We overextended the B-1Bs.” It was a toxic formula of too much mission demand and too few airplanes. Air Force leaders continually signaled concern, but their calls for help went unanswered.
The normal solution to this sort of a challenge would be straight-forward: Go buy more airplanes. However, operational B-21s will not be in production until the latter 2020s. The Air Force is asking to retire 17 B-1s to free up resources to nurse the remaining aircraft along as a stopgap measure.

COVID-19 emergency spending and corresponding downward pressure on future defense spending are only going to aggravate the complexity of this juggling act with mission demand, available force structure and readiness. Whether world events will align with these circumstances is yet to be seen.

It was in this context that the Air Force decided to end its continuous bomber presence on Guam. Launched in 2004 to deter adversaries like China and North Korea and to reassure regional allies, the mission has been a tremendous success. It clearly communicated U.S. readiness to act decisively when U.S. and allied interests were challenged. Ending continuous bomber presence in the Pacific now sends the opposite message, just as the region grows more dangerous. This is a decision with significant risk, yet it is an outcome compelled by past choices resulting in a bomber force on the edge.

The path forward begins with admitting the nation has a bomber shortfall. Retiring more aircraft exacerbates the problem. Nor is this just an Air Force problem. Bombers are national assets essential to our security strategy and must be prioritized accordingly. If other services have excess funds to invest in ideas like a 1,000-mile-range cannon when thousands of strike aircraft, various munitions and remotely piloted aircraft can fill the exact same mission requirements, it is time for a roles and missions review to direct funding toward the most effective, efficient options. Bombers would compete well in such an assessment. Ultimately, the solution demands doubling down on the B-21 program.

There comes a point where you cannot do more with less. Given the importance of bombers to the nation, rebuilding the bomber force is not an option — it is an imperative.
 
DavidC maybe this administration should not have passed the massive tax cut. This stuff cost big bucks. I watched U-Tapao being built from down the road in Sattahip, Thailand in 1966. I was on and off the base 1 or 2 times each week on a log run for 11 months. We were actually bunked there for the first month is country. 200 Red Horse construction guys we I arrive first of July 1966 and 7000 Airmen when I left June 2nd 1967.
 
Sno, I am sure if the tax cut did not happen the Govt. would have wasted the money on other things. When they think Bombers the thought I presume is either we don't need those, we have cruise missles, drones etc. Until they need something no action/support will probably happen. We can spend all this money to keep the latest fighters flying but not bombers that can do more damage. They destroyed or moth balled a lot of B-52's because the cold war is over (I really do not think so) and signed all of these agreements with Russia. Most of these Govt. people never spent any time in the Military and like most things have no idea.
 
Sno, I am sure if the tax cut did not happen the Govt. would have wasted the money on other things. When they think Bombers the thought I presume is either we don't need those, we have cruise missles, drones etc. Until they need something no action/support will probably happen. We can spend all this money to keep the latest fighters flying but not bombers that can do more damage. They destroyed or moth balled a lot of B-52's because the cold war is over (I really do not think so) and signed all of these agreements with Russia. Most of these Govt. people never spent any time in the Military and like most things have no idea.

The B-52 in the Tucson bone yard have the fuse cut and turned at an angle so the Russia sats can see that they are disabled. All those bombs they dropped on Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam Nam came to an end a couple days to early, as NV was ready to surrender and Nixon stopped short. From the fall of 1966 to when I rotated back state side in June 1967 they left U-Tapao each morning rattling our Loran Station buildings. I blame my hearing issues on them, we were 4 miles off the end of the runway and 3 miles to the side. End of the runway is the center of the picture. I climbed the 625' Loran C tower to take this picture.

U-Tapao from USCG Tower 1966.jpg
 
A quick look at today’s news. For updates:
seattletimes.com

A plan to fix Boeing tanker:

The air Force’s top military officer says he’s convinced that Boeing finally has a solid plan to fix the flawed refueling system that has bedeviled its $44 billion aerial refueling tanker program. “There were some engineering design flaws” in the original remote Vision system for the KC-46 tanker that have “taken us far too long to resolve,” Gen. david Goldfein, the air Force chief of staff, said in an interview. “But now i’m as confident as i ever have been that we have good, solid science and engineering behind the fix.” Boeing agreed this month to complete a major overhaul at its cost to replace the 3d cameras that feed a console where an airman guides a refueling boom during the midair minuet to connect with another plane. The 33 tankers that have already been delivered with the flawed system will need to be retrofitted.
 
A quick look at today’s news. For updates:
seattletimes.com

A plan to fix Boeing tanker:

The air Force’s top military officer says he’s convinced that Boeing finally has a solid plan to fix the flawed refueling system that has bedeviled its $44 billion aerial refueling tanker program. “There were some engineering design flaws” in the original remote Vision system for the KC-46 tanker that have “taken us far too long to resolve,” Gen. david Goldfein, the air Force chief of staff, said in an interview. “But now i’m as confident as i ever have been that we have good, solid science and engineering behind the fix.” Boeing agreed this month to complete a major overhaul at its cost to replace the 3d cameras that feed a console where an airman guides a refueling boom during the midair minuet to connect with another plane. The 33 tankers that have already been delivered with the flawed system will need to be retrofitted.

I have been reading about this issue for quite some time now.
 
Back
Top