# HSC-84 and HSC-85: The Navy's 160th?



## mm23 (Jun 4, 2014)

http://navyseals.com/2227/navy-seal-air-support-helicopter-sea-combat-squadron-85/

Hey fellas, 
Found an article on navyseals.com about the navy's 2 helicopter squadrons exclusively tasked with supporting NSW/NSO. The 160th SOAR is the go-to transportation for SOF but how could these guys fit in to the picture? Do you see this as a benefit or a mistake? Could these guys reach the level of the 160th? 

Thanks


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 4, 2014)

The ghey is strong with this thread.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 4, 2014)

SOWT said:


> The ghey is strong with this thread.


I hope when people write LOL, they really do laugh-out-loud.  I did!


----------



## Muppet (Jun 4, 2014)

Ooh-Rah1069 said:


> I hope when people write LOL, they really do laugh-out-loud.  I did!



I did and I also peed my pants a little...

F.M.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 5, 2014)




----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 5, 2014)




----------



## Muppet (Jun 5, 2014)

Fucking awesome movie also!

F.M.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Jun 5, 2014)

I would love to see what the attrition rate would be when the HSC guys are sent to the 160th's A&S...


----------



## AWP (Jun 5, 2014)

I have a buddy who is an SH-60 pilot, I should ask him about these guys.

So, if I understand it from the article: these guys fall under a conventional command, have no A&S program, no SOF-specific airframes, and are just now showing up to the dance? And they are supposed to be the 160th's equals?

Navy, I'm not going to bash you, but the math isn't adding up


----------



## mm23 (Jun 5, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I have a buddy who is an SH-60 pilot, I should ask him about these guys.
> 
> So, if I understand it from the article: these guys fall under a conventional command, have no A&S program, no SOF-specific airframes, and are just now showing up to the dance? And they are supposed to be the 160th's equals?
> 
> Navy, I'm not going to bash you, but the math isn't adding up


By the way, I see it (I'm admitting right now that I become a "ghey" fanboy when it comes to SOF) as somewhat deceiving given that in the article it states that only one of the two squadrons is actually capable of doing the job and this article is a little over a year old so things could've changed on their end.


----------



## AWP (Jun 5, 2014)

Inflight refueling? Nein
DAP's? Nein
The 160th engineering and flight test section/ platoon/ whatever (I know it is exceptionally good)? Not bloody likely
Pilots who will spend the rest of their careers in that unit? Not bloody likely

So other than my previous posts, MH-47's, and Little Birds, they are EXACTLY like the 160th...


----------



## mm23 (Jun 5, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Inflight refueling? Nein
> DAP's? Nein
> The 160th engineering and flight test section/ platoon/ whatever (I know it is exceptionally good)? Not bloody likely
> Pilots who will spend the rest of their careers in that unit? Not bloody likely
> ...


Thanks for clearing up the haze Freefalling.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 5, 2014)

Here's the easy way to look at comparing military units that appear similar to SOCOM variants.

Think of what SOCOM element you're trying to compare TO, then do your best Sinead O'connor karaoke impression.

That'll be your answer every time. Really.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 5, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Inflight refueling? Nein
> DAP's? Nein
> The 160th engineering and flight test section/ platoon/ whatever (I know it is exceptionally good)? Not bloody likely
> Pilots who will spend the rest of their careers in that unit? Not bloody likely
> ...



They do have armed birds.

The trace their history back to HAL-3 Seawolves of Vietnam fame.

They use to be HSC-4 and HSC-5. 

They are (or were) a 50/50 mix of AGR's and Traditional Reservists who did spend most of  their careers in the unit.

The Navy axed the one squadron so they could take their birds.  They then put two birds/crews (CO/XO of the  squadron were the AC's) and had them organic to a Carrier Battle Group  Air Wing.  It didn't work well in the Post 9/11 world, so they activated/redesignated the Squadrons.

Are they 160 light, probably.  But like the 160th; they will hang their butts out for the guys on the ground.  They are confined to a conventional command/support structure because the Navy doesn't have the large Reserve SOF infra-structure that the Army and Air Force have.

IIRC the HH-60H's will become MH-60S aircraft (may have already happened).


----------



## CrewGuy (Jun 16, 2014)

Send the HSC guys on over and we will see if they can hang with some of the best rope throwing mini gun shooting men around.. All in all when it comes down to it we all know who gets the call. When's the last time someone on shadowspear took a ride from the Navy to get to a TST or VI?


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 16, 2014)

CrewGuy said:


> Send the HSC guys on over and we will see if they can hang with some of the best rope throwing mini gun shooting men around.. All in all when it comes down to it we all know who gets the call. When's the last time someone on shadowspear took a ride from the Navy to get to a TST or VI?


1994 (IIRC).


----------



## JB(A) (Jun 25, 2014)

Here is the skinny:

HSC-84 was commissioned out of HCS-4 in a direct transition. HCS-5 was axed mid-OIF due to a helicopter plan that was developed in 1997/1998 that the Navy refused to change after 9-11. HCS-5 was in Baghdad 6 days after it fell, SP out of Kuwait during the invasion period. Operated ISO SOF through a JSOAD/JSOAC...working with NSW, ODA, and other coalition SOF.  They swapped back and forth until '05, and HCS-4 took it for the last swap. HCS-5 was decommissioned altogether. The only reason HCS-4 was able to stay alive was because a SOTF SEAL o-5 and the HCS-4 OIC met with the Vice-CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) in theater and he had the decommissioning stopped. HCS-4 renamed HSC-84 in order to keep the new Navy Helo naming convention.
Eventually, the Navy realized that they screwed up after Olsen sent a memo to the CNO in '09. That is when they brought HSC-85 onboard and the arraignment went from constant back-door deals between SOCOM and Pentagon to signed agreements between SOCOM and the Navy, although technically still outside official USSOCOM umbrella. They are guaranteed to SOCOM for deployment OCONUS and CONUS. There were a few prior HCS-4/5 guys in HSC-85, but they had (and still have probably) work to do. Since the realignment, HSC-84 has worked extensively with HSC-85 in order to bring them up to capability. They train with SOF units across SOCOM, including the SOAR. If you are part of a qualified crew, you are either training around the country or deployed 8 months out of the year at least. 
Are they the SOAR? No. But it has more to do with Naval leadership than it does the personnel at the unit. There are administrative, manning, and equipment requirements that the Navy is not meeting...partly because NSW needs to yell louder. There are those within NSW that are working to bring them into full integration....but it is all about money. The unit is doing the best they can with what they have and trying to retain real-world experienced talent. Given the 'free' asset, SOCOM hasn't pushed the issue of bringing them fully under the umbrella, which would result in all the additions expected. As far as unit experience...HSC-84 was supporting 3-5 DAs a week for several years, from '05 to the end of OIF. . I don't remember the figures exactly, but they have about 1500 DAs between their HCS-4 and HSC-84 days, the best I recollect. That includes TSTs and a few VIs. 
Say what you will. From when I was there as a crew chief/gunner, I can tell you that they are not a standard HSC unit, although we admit out limitations posed by the antiquated bird and manning debacle. The training instituted at the unit level is difficult and the standards demanded are high because the guys in charge know the risks because we/they have done the mission. This is so much so that we/they do destroy careers by kicking guys out of the unit who don't meet the standard. Training is always done live, with SOF troops. Most of the HSC units 'simulate' things. Gunners fire over 30,000 rounds prior to qualification, compared to 600-1200 at fleet units. Each crew member will fly many full-mission-profile training flights prior to becoming deployable as a co-pilot or gunner. It is amazing to watch guys with 2000 flight hours from other units get their head-spun during training because they can't mentally keep up with the evolving mission...as you guys know, it can get dynamic. 
They still have experienced talent, although they are battling everyday to keep them s the Navy needs to fix the manning. That being said, guys stay there as long as possible and cycle back in voluntarily when they come up for orders. The COs have tried to fix these issues...but it once again all comes down to how much money the Navy is willing to throw at it and if SOCOM is willing to accept the expenditure on their end too. 

As far as the SOAR goes Crewguy...I/we have never tried to take anything away from you guys. We wish we had new birds, a blank check, and an upper echelon that understood the slightest bit our mission. As it sits...combat experience and supporting SOF isn't overwhelmingly important to most of the Admirals. All they care about is Fighters..boats...and submarines. You are lucky to have a chain of command outside the unit that supports your mission instead of undermining you and your customers at every turn.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 25, 2014)

@JB(A) Post an introduction per the site rules. Do not post again until you do so.


----------



## JB(A) (Jun 26, 2014)

Marine0311 got me for not posting an into prior to my response to this thread. You know how those marines are with their rules....maybe he will repost my lengthy response with the low-down on these two squadrons...like most of my personal relationships...its complicated. 

To answer some core questions. 

Are they the SOAR? 
No. They are not the SOAR. They have some limitations, ones that they will admit to. As everyone knows, never confuse enthusiasm with capability. In order to correct this, they need to be more fully supported by the 'powers that be.' The Navy cares about blue water and hunting submarines. HSC-84/85 represent an expenditure in the budget that provides no capability supporting the aforementioned missions of blue water and submarines. Guess how well they are liked within Naval Aviation....not very much. The good news is...this is being debated right now. 

Benefit?
Yes. This is not a biased opinion. Having an intimate knowledge with the capabilities of standard HSC squadrons, I can tell you that 84 trains to a higher standard. This is just a fact. Most HSC guys have no clue other than what they read in some book. I have seen this tested when one of the air-wings pushed a squadron out to Iraq in order to try to prove a point. They flew behind us on about 4 DAs and then 84+SOTF put them on logistics duty for the remainder of their time. This was with 6 months of training time to build up to the deployment. However, the Navy needs to continue to cultivate the unit instead of trying to cancel them every 12 months. 

Could they reach 160th level? 
Yes. (I can hear the SOAR guys screaming now). As a matter of fact, we have a pretty descent relationship with 3rd Battalion. Most of the guys I have talked to are glad the Navy is participating since SOAR assets are stretched thin. BUT....they will never reach that level without closing off the manning and making it a career choice for those who wish to go there. As it sits now, going there is usually bad for your career as it doesn't 'check the normal blocks' for advancement. Of course...they also need a new airframe to reach that level.


----------



## AWP (Jun 26, 2014)

JB(A) said:


> Marine0311 got me for not posting an into prior to my response to this thread. You know how those marines are with their rules....


 
That's a board policy/ rule and he just happened to be the first staff member to notice your post.

As to the rest of your post, I appreciate your candid insight particularly your final point about capability.

How does entrance into the squadron work? BUPERS or whoever assigns a sailor based on Rate/ NEC and need of the unit or is there some type of selection or even an informal weeding-out process? If you have a bad sailor, does he remain in the unit or is he canned?

I can imagine the Navy looks at those two squadrons and thinks: Do we need this? Can't we just send them to Reserves like the last guys? Oh, war's over! Dont need them!


----------



## JB(A) (Jun 26, 2014)

I addressed some of your points in my original post...the one that got removed. 

As for the manning. There is a lot of behind the scenes string-pulling that happens on the PERS side. However, it is all handshakes and winks. We do shit-can dudes that don't make the cut. We would never field a guy who wasn't ready. The squadron knows that the only thing we had was our reputation, so we always sought to keep that clean. Neither the officer pilots nor the enlisted crewmen have any problem whatsoever in removing a guy from training. At that point, he either sits on the sidelines, does FCF (maintenance flights), or we send him out if the detailer can find him a spot somewhere else. There is no doubt that this needs to be fixed over the long term. 

During OIF it was easier to keep guys trained to a higher level. You could send them through the training pipeline and then send them off to war. By the time they were done with their first rotation, they were usually locked-on tight. We had a pretty good system running and we were making great crews. But..just like anything else, if you don't institutionalize it, you will lose it. 

The Navy's history on these squadrons is bi-polar. You are spot-on with your assessment about war-peace transitions. It is very political beyond that though. The guys who support 'fleet' operations are the ones who promote to positions of authority. They want their guys to get the SOF mission and they think it is unfair how it is distributed. They were brought up in a culture that hates the HCS-4/5 and now HSC-84/85 mindset. To be in 84/85 means you are constantly swimming upstream and against all other forces that are in place. You are constantly having to justify yourself to higher echelons. It is a real pain in the ass from an administrative standpoint.


----------



## JB(A) (Jun 26, 2014)

To put them in perspective, HCS-4/HSC-84 (same unit, different designation) did somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500 DAs during OIF/OND. So, they have real-world experience. I don't want that point to be missed during this discussion. In total, we had over 11,000 combat flight hours. So, it isn't like 84 is just showing up. They had OIF from sometimes in late '03-'04 and from '05-the end of the war.


----------



## mm23 (Jun 28, 2014)

JB(A) said:


> I addressed some of your points in my original post...the one that got removed.
> 
> As for the manning. There is a lot of behind the scenes string-pulling that happens on the PERS side. However, it is all handshakes and winks. We do shit-can dudes that don't make the cut. We would never field a guy who wasn't ready. The squadron knows that the only thing we had was our reputation, so we always sought to keep that clean. Neither the officer pilots nor the enlisted crewmen have any problem whatsoever in removing a guy from training. At that point, he either sits on the sidelines, does FCF (maintenance flights), or we send him out if the detailer can find him a spot somewhere else. There is no doubt that this needs to be fixed over the long term.
> 
> ...



So what would be the process of finding your way into this unit from out of A School and what ratings would see flight time?


----------



## JB(A) (Jun 29, 2014)

Your rate needs AWS. That will send you through Aircrew Candidate/Water Survival School, Aviation Rescue Swimmer School, AWS A-school, SERE School, H-60 FRS School (aircraft-specific ground and flight training), then to an HSC squadron where you will go through a tactical flight training syllabus. Your chances of getting 84/85 probably aren't extremely high for your first tour since you don't have as much latitude in choosing your first unit..it is more needs of the Navy. 
If/When you make it to 84/85, you will go though a pretty demanding tactical flight training syllabus. If it is your second tour...forget most of what you learned at your previous squadron and be prepared to learn because: (1) What you thought you knew, you didn't really know (2) You don't know what you don't know.


----------



## melon (Aug 13, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I can imagine the Navy looks at those two squadrons and thinks: Do we need this? Can't we just send them to Reserves like the last guys? Oh, war's over! Dont need them!



Brother, you have no idea. Being the red-headed step child is a tough row to hoe in the Navy and even though SOCOM himself fights for us in budget battles it's a never ending justification. 

Best case, we keep doing what we do where we are doing it. Long and short, we aren't the 160th but we're doing the same thing they do, even alongside them at times. 

Worst case, the Navy chops us and then four years from now someone says, "oh we need them again" and we have to stand these squadrons back up, starting the cycle all over again.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Aug 13, 2014)

melon said:


> Brother, you have no idea. Being the red-headed step child is a tough row to hoe in the Navy and even though SOCOM himself fights for us in budget battles it's a never ending justification.
> 
> Best case, we keep doing what we do where we are doing it. Long and short, we aren't the 160th but we're doing the same thing they do, even alongside them at times.
> 
> *Worst case, the Navy chops us and then four years from now someone says, "oh we need them again" and we have to stand these squadrons back up, starting the cycle all over again*.


The bold can be applied across the entire Navy...  Fucking sad the complete lack of foresight that exists.


----------



## Etype (Aug 15, 2014)

The 160th would never use Blackhawks with only one door, or PEQ-2s on their weapons...


----------



## CrewGuy (Aug 23, 2014)

This... 

I've had team guys say they don't like training with those the squadrons because they have already been spoiled by us doing 2 door FRIES ops among other things...


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 23, 2014)

@JB(A) how long before you guys get the MH-60S?


----------



## 0699 (Aug 23, 2014)

CrewGuy said:


> Send the HSC guys on over and we will see if they can hang with some of the best rope throwing mini gun shooting men around.. All in all when it comes down to it we all know who gets the call. When's the last time someone on shadowspear took a ride from the Navy to get to a TST or VI?


 


> "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 14:11


 
//HIJACK//

It's funny how your signature line contradicts what you write. 

//HIJACK OFF//


----------



## CrewGuy (Aug 23, 2014)

0699 said:


> //HIJACK//
> 
> It's funny how your signature line contradicts what you write.
> 
> //HIJACK OFF//



Exalted
1.
raised or elevated, as in rank orcharacter; of high station:
2.
noble or elevated; lofty:


So how did I exalt myself? I hold the regiment in high regard because it is the best of the best. The tip of the aviation spear one could say.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 23, 2014)

CrewGuy said:


> Exalted
> 1.
> raised or elevated, as in rank orcharacter; of high station:
> 2.
> ...


You don't seem very humble.


----------



## 0699 (Aug 23, 2014)

CrewGuy said:


> The tip of the aviation spear one could say.


 
Yet you feel the need to minimize the contributions of other aviation professionals.  IMO, the humble man appreciates and applauds the contributions of others while downplaying his own work.


----------



## CrewGuy (Aug 23, 2014)

Well you are entitled to your opinions as am I. Just because you read my comment a certain way doesn't mean that's how it was intended. But there's no point in arguing about being humble online. So you gentleman enjoy your nights.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 24, 2014)

Lets go back to the title...Navy's 160th

If they are the best Helo pilots in the Navy..then the title is correct...end of transmission.......


----------



## Etype (Aug 24, 2014)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Lets go back to the title...Navy's 160th
> 
> If they are the best Helo pilots in the Navy..then the title is correct...end of transmission.......


So then maybe you should petition to have the thread closed...

Is there a point hidden in there?

*insert cute little thumbs up here*


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 24, 2014)

Etype said:


> So then maybe you should petition to have the thread closed...
> 
> Is there a point hidden in there?
> 
> *insert cute little thumbs up here*


Good idea.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 24, 2014)

Here, I fixed it. Thread closed.


----------

