HSC-84 and 85 Need Your Support

[JB(A)]

Gentlemen,

I am reaching out in the hopes of getting some support for these squadrons. As many of you may be aware, the two squadrons have been ordered to decommission by the Navy due to sequester (aka Budget Control Act). Rationale: SOF support is not a 'core mission' of the Navy.

What you may not be aware of is the fact that there has been a lobbying effort to prevent this decommissioning. Congressman Zinke (R-MT) put an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to prevent decommissioning. Congressman Thornberry (R-TX) inserted language to authorize funds to reverse retirement. Congressman Wilson (R-SC) also contributed language requiring SECNAV to report to Congress on the issue. These amendments were in the version passed by the House of Representatives and then handed to the Senate.

Once in the Senate, the NDAA (HR 1735) was gutted due to an amendment put forward by Senator McCain that replaced all the House language with all the Senate language. The provisions to ensure the survival of the squadrons were removed along with everything else in the House version of the bill.

So, the applicable sections are in the House version, but not in the Senate version.

The House and Senate are now moving to conference committee, where each disparity between the versions will be voted on before proceeding back to the House and Senate for a final vote.

The facts are these: HSC-84 and 85, as per a MOA between Navy and SOCOM, currently comprise approximately 31% of the dedicated SOF support fleet when combined with the SOAR in the Joint Air Allocation process and 44% of the dedicated medium lift helicopter support (H-60s). SOCOM is only meeting 70% of their total helicopter requirements, even with these units onboard. Both units are deployed today. HSC-84 is working for SOCCENT and 85 is working for SOCPAC. Their overseas RFFs will go unfilled should they decom, and their CONUS training commitments will either go unsourced or sourced by non-dedicated assets at higher risk. The units are currently providing around 7,000 hours annually in operational support and training to SOCOM.

If we win the fight in Congress, Navy leadership will likely begin to give this community the support they have historically failed to give. The attention of a few Congressmen has already changed some attitudes and given the Navy a reality-check on this capability. Naval leadership has now conceded that they can not replicate the capability and capacity of HSC-84 and HSC-85.

With that, I humbly ask for your support and for you to contact your Senators and Representative and ask them to support HSC-84 and HSC-85 in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, aka HR 1735) in Conference committee. Also ask them to ensure the squadrons gain the requisite funding in the DoD Appropriations bill.

Currently, the applicable sections in the NDAA are Section 1056 (Zinke Amendment to prevent the decom) and Sections 4301 & 4401 (Thornberry amendment to reverse disestablishment & authorize funds for Operations and Maintenance & Personnel).

Find your Senator here: http: www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
Find your Representative here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/


Thank you again for your support.

For your viewing and reading pleasure:
Youtube The Impact of Decommissioning HSC-84 & HSC-85

Youtube: HSC-84 & 85 in Action

"Congressman, Former SEAL Pushing to Keep Helicopter Combat Squadrons in Navy Budget"
http://news.usni.org/2015/05/13/con...ep-helicopter-combat-squadrons-in-navy-budget
"Navy Wants to Shutter Its Only Two Special Operations Chopper Squadrons"
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-wants-to-shutter-its-only-two-special-operations-c-1690359284#
"HSC-84/85 and the USSOCOM Helicopter Deficit"
http://fightersweep.com/1841/hsc-8485-and-the-ussocom-helicopter-deficit/
"Service Cute Could Hamper Special Operations"
http://tbo.com/list/military-news/service-cuts-could-hamper-special-operations-20150421/

 

[JB(A)]

Also, if you PM me I can give you a specific email address for a Congressional staffer to contact.

 

[Il Duce]

@JB(A) I'm sure those squadrons do excellent work and are filled with committed professionals. However, my opinion is that Congress ordering specific units to remain open - not nested at all within the greater force structure plan - is a horrible way of doing business with significant second and third order effects. We see it frequently in the Army as we're ordered to buy more tanks or keep open posts.

The services and Joint Staff have a rigorous process for aligning resources - including personnel and equipment - with force structure and capability. They do that based on the end strength and total budget dictated by Congress. They don't always get it right, but they get a lot closer than anybody trying to do it from the outside. Those alignments require tough choices. If the plan calls for shutting down certain squadrons and the Congress orders them not to - but makes not concomitant alteration to end strength or budget - the second and third order effects as Peter gets robbed to pay Paul can be devastating to the force.

The lobbying for keeping that force structure should have been done at the Service level and Joint staff. I think going the Congressional route is the wrong way to go.

 

[JB(A)]

The requirements are validated.
I would normally agree with your statement. This is due to a budgetary dispute between Navy and SOCOM.
This has nothing to do with requirements or capability.
Both units have been requested by their respective combatant commanders to be retained.
General Votel spoke about them as a negative impact on SOCOM due to sequester.
I appreciate your input, but you are wrong in this particular case.

 

[Il Duce]

But that's what I mean. SOCOM has articulated the requirement but the Navy has chosen not to support it - so as to use those resources for another requirement. Congress' role is to provide the overall resources. If Congress wants to help they shouldn't dictate how to apportion the resources they have left the service, they should apportion enough resources to meet all the service requirements.

If it's important enough to Congress to vote to tell the Navy to reapportion their resources why not make the effort to fund two more squadrons, that way the Navy can support the requirement without taking resources away from other requirements they deemed higher priority through their service resourcing process.

 

[JB(A)]

Zinke, a former SEAL himself, thinks the squadrons (and capability) should remain. I have given you enough information and links in my initial post to make an informed decision, yet you chose to shoot from the hip without knowing all the facts. I understand your concern, but the case of HSC-84 and 85 is more akin to the A-10 situation than to the situation you cited about Congress ordering tanks the Army didn't want.

https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=6706406
Go to this link and scroll down a few posts to find the SOCOM J5's comment on these units being decommissioned.

Being intimately familiar with current and projected SOF RW requirements, I can tell you that this cut is going to be felt and is already being felt. Bureaucracy doesn't always make the right decision for the warfighter. Sometimes the bureaucratic inertia of pet and protected programs forces bad decisions to be made.

If you don't support it, that is fine. It doesn't bother me. Don't write Congress.

I'l leave you with a large quote from the foxtrotalpha article I posted above:

"There are many places for the Navy to find savings, especially when it comes to procurement, and the F-35C is just one example out of many. But the continued sacrifice of proven and highly relevant capabilities when it comes to the dire fight we are currently in today, not a fantastical fight we could potentially be in decades in the future, is not the way to go about doing it. The Pentagon needs to learn to balance its techno-lust for future wartime applications against the active battlefield we are on today. Just like keeping the already paid for A-10 Warthog and providing it with plentiful funding to go after ISIS, keeping HSC-84 and HSC-85 flying should be part of this rationalization.

Then again these are relatively small units that operate in the shadows, they don't make the news and they are not making any defense contractors rich, nor are they gaining big votes back home in the Representatives Congressional Districts or in Senators states.

So who is looking out for them no matter how important they are or how much value they provide? It seems like next to nobody and that is a symptom of a much larger disease in itself."

Have a good one.

 

[Ranger Psych]

I guess I don't get how it's a 33% cut when I never once through the time I was in Ranger Regiment, did I ride on a navy *anything*. Heck, ya'll only even supported a company element back in the day and they flew 160th, not HSwhatever.

 

[JB(A)]

99.9% of the time we supported an ODA, SEAL team, or MARSOC element. In all my years there I never worked with the 75th or any other Ranger element, so I couldn't speak to it.
I think I might have heard a story or two about an early OIF raid with a Rangers, but my recollection could be off.

 

[DA SWO]

@JB(A) I'm sure those squadrons do excellent work and are filled with committed professionals. However, my opinion is that Congress ordering specific units to remain open - not nested at all within the greater force structure plan - is a horrible way of doing business with significant second and third order effects. We see it frequently in the Army as we're ordered to buy more tanks or keep open posts.

The services and Joint Staff have a rigorous process for aligning resources - including personnel and equipment - with force structure and capability. They do that based on the end strength and total budget dictated by Congress. They don't always get it right, but they get a lot closer than anybody trying to do it from the outside. Those alignments require tough choices. If the plan calls for shutting down certain squadrons and the Congress orders them not to - but makes not concomitant alteration to end strength or budget - the second and third order effects as Peter gets robbed to pay Paul can be devastating to the force.

The lobbying for keeping that force structure should have been done at the Service level and Joint staff. I think going the Congressional route is the wrong way to go.

No different than A-10 supporters getting Rep. McSalley to ensure the A-10 stays for a few years.