It’s all about money. Squadrons, air wings, BGs are now SGs…. All justified in the message that we still have more capability. Simple question, how can four Burke class DDGs have more missiles in their magazines than two Aegis class cruisers, and four Burke’s and a couple of FFGs? Or how can 48 F/A-18s do more than 24 F-14s, 12 A-6s, 24 F/A-18Cs and 4- 5 EA-s6s. Answer is they can’t. Here’s the problem they, our Navy leaders, don’t like to talk about. The fallacy of building fewer multi-mission ships, when you lose one for whatever reason, you lose ALL their capability. Hence, you become risk averse because the SG can ill afford to lose one of the ships. That affects strategy and tactics. Marc Liebman https://www.marcliebman.com https://www.facebook.com/marcliebmanauthor/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_sDoFQM5wupNaCeGIvKL1g From: Terry McKearney <terry.mckearney@therangergroup.com> Date: Friday, July 24, 2026 at 11:04 AM To: Brian Miller <brianjmiller1977@gmail.com>, Mike Brattland <mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> Cc: HeloBubbas <helobubbas@helobubbas.com> Subject: [Helobubbas] Re: Why Carrier Air Wings Need a Sixth HSC Helicopter A SWO’s-eye view: sure; you can never have enough helos so add a sixth. The personnel impact discussion was lost on me, of course, although I get the gist: more opportunities to qualify for career milestones. It’s not unreasonable to look at such issues in the discussion; every community does it. The surface guys are enthused about the LSM because it will (supposedly) add LCDR commands. (Not a good enough reason for supporting that turkey of a ship.) I was a bit surprised that the plane guard helo can wander off up to 40 miles and do logistics things while on duty. Not what I remember from my days of chasing the “bird farm.” WARNING - EXTERNAL EMAIL This Email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. From: Brian Miller <brianjmiller1977@gmail.com> Date: Friday, July 24, 2026 at 06:21 To: "Michael G. Brattland" <mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> Cc: HeloBubbas <helobubbas@helobubbas.com> Subject: [Helobubbas] Re: Why Carrier Air Wings Need a Sixth HSC Helicopter In my opinion, the HSC world made a terrible strategic business decision when it put all its eggs in the CSAR basket. Despite being a disgruntled LAMPS guy, the community went forward with an excellent understanding of how to sell the capabilities of the Romeo to the air wing while HSC clung to VERTREP and CSAR. One of those missions was soon outsourced to Evergreen; the other was locked up by the AF, Army, and Marines. At no time during my deployments and later CENTCOM planning conferences was a Navy CSAR package ever even mentioned. At the time a lot of big choices had to get made, HSC seemed content with plane guard and they structured themselves accordingly. The community has found a way to make itself a valid point defense asset, but HSM does the same job from the same flight deck. On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:25 AM Michael G. Brattland <mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com<mailto:mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com>> wrote: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2026/july/why-carrier-air-wings-n... MGBrattland Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S23 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone _______________________________________________ Helobubbas mailing list -- helobubbas@helobubbas.com<mailto:helobubbas@helobubbas.com> To unsubscribe send an email to helobubbas-leave@helobubbas.com<mailto:helobubbas-leave@helobubbas.com> _______________________________________________ Helobubbas mailing list -- helobubbas@helobubbas.com To unsubscribe send an email to helobubbas-leave@helobubbas.com

I am with you Marc.  Had we bought the A-7F as a upgrade to the E and the A-6F and kept the fighter mix about the same,  both those aircraft could haul more tonnage further with more loiter time than the Hornets in any variation and with modern stand off weapons that would matter quite a bit.  Then we get to looking at the enormous hole left by not having a S-3 type capability.  A modern "S-4" with modern fan engines, materials and avionics would be doing some really good work for us.  Plus it probably would fill the hole where we don't have a dedicated tanker really.  I know the drone tankers are all but here and they will take on a bulk of the future but had we had a A-7F..G  etc where we have a dedicated MULTI attack platform with long range and capacity we might be doing even more.  Frankly shooting down other airplanes has been extremely limited in comparison to delivery of ground ordnance of all kinds for the past 25 years.  We need more trucks, not more sports cars.  We haven't had a real cruiser since Long Beach decommissioned.  Everything else has been a glorified DDG. Or "DLG" in earlier parlance.  I know it comes down to money but also to lobbying and think tanks and the fact we don't have 4 or 5 companies building our stuff.. we have 2 and maybe at times 3. Having Sikorsky under Lockheed is not going to end well eventually.  Pretty much every ship building program fielded since 1990 has had serious problems or died early.  What exactly are we doing with those 2 Zumwalts?  The Constellation?  As for the 6th HSC..  Too bad we got rid of HCS.  Don't know if the reserve squadrons have been called or not.  My MH-60S experience was pretty limited to SAR but I have a year flying it and I don't know that I wouldn't want my old APS-124 radar back as I had in the 60B and a real ESM system.  Surprised they don't want another HSM / 60R onboard. On 7/24/2026 12:40 PM, Marc Liebman wrote:

It’s all about money. Squadrons, air wings, BGs are now SGs….  All justified in the message that we still have more capability. Simple question, how can four /Burke/ class DDGs have more missiles in their magazines than two /Aegis / class cruisers, and four B/urke’s/ and a couple of FFGs?  Or how can 48 F/A-18s do more than 24 F-14s, 12 A-6s, 24 F/A-18Cs and 4- 5 EA-s6s.  Answer is they can’t.

Here’s the problem they, our Navy leaders, don’t like to talk about. The fallacy of building fewer multi-mission ships, when you lose one for whatever reason, you lose ALL their capability. Hence, you become risk averse because the SG can ill afford to lose one of the ships. That affects strategy and tactics.

Marc Liebman

https://www.marcliebman.com <https://www.marcliebman.com>

https://www.facebook.com/marcliebmanauthor/ <https://www.facebook.com/marcliebmanauthor/>

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_sDoFQM5wupNaCeGIvKL1g <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_sDoFQM5wupNaCeGIvKL1g>

*From: *Terry McKearney <terry.mckearney@therangergroup.com> *Date: *Friday, July 24, 2026 at 11:04 AM *To: *Brian Miller <brianjmiller1977@gmail.com>, Mike Brattland <mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> *Cc: *HeloBubbas <helobubbas@helobubbas.com> *Subject: *[Helobubbas] Re: Why Carrier Air Wings Need a Sixth HSC Helicopter

A SWO’s-eye view: sure; you can never have enough helos so add a sixth.

The personnel impact discussion was lost on me, of course, although I get the gist: more opportunities to qualify for career milestones. It’s not unreasonable to look at such issues in the discussion; every community does it. The surface guys are enthused about the LSM because it will (supposedly) add LCDR commands. (Not a good enough reason for supporting that turkey of a ship.)

I was a bit surprised that the plane guard helo can wander off up to 40 miles and do logistics things while on duty. Not what I remember from my days of chasing the “bird farm.”

*WARNING - EXTERNAL EMAIL* This Email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

*From: *Brian Miller <brianjmiller1977@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, July 24, 2026 at 06:21 *To: *"Michael G. Brattland" <mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> *Cc: *HeloBubbas <helobubbas@helobubbas.com> *Subject: *[Helobubbas] Re: Why Carrier Air Wings Need a Sixth HSC Helicopter

In my opinion, the HSC world made a terrible strategic business decision when it put all its eggs in the CSAR basket. Despite being a disgruntled LAMPS guy, the community went forward with an excellent understanding of how to sell the capabilities of the Romeo to the air wing while HSC clung to VERTREP and CSAR.  One of those missions was soon outsourced to Evergreen; the other was locked up by the AF, Army, and Marines.  At no time during my deployments and later CENTCOM planning conferences was a Navy CSAR package ever even mentioned.

At the time a lot of big choices had to get made, HSC seemed content with plane guard and they structured themselves accordingly.  The community has found a way to make itself a valid point defense asset, but HSM does the same job from the same flight deck.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:25 AM Michael G. Brattland <mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> wrote:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2026/july/why-carrier-air-wings-n...

MGBrattland Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S23 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone

_______________________________________________ Helobubbas mailing list -- helobubbas@helobubbas.com To unsubscribe send an email to helobubbas-leave@helobubbas.com

_______________________________________________ Helobubbas mailing list -- helobubbas@helobubbas.com To unsubscribe send an email to helobubbas-leave@helobubbas.com

_______________________________________________ Helobubbas mailing list --helobubbas@helobubbas.com To unsubscribe send an email tohelobubbas-leave@helobubbas.com

This article brings up a number of good point. Especially wrt training JOs and the ripple effect down the line for underqualified DHs. As the saying goes, those who do not learn form history are condemd ot repeat it. We saw the same thing during the ACTC transition. Squadrons had to spend significant training resources gettting the O-4s up to speed and qualified which resulted in some squadrons neglecting the development of JOs. There is also a leadership impact where excellent LCDRs may not be held in the esteem they deserve by the younger pilots solely due to them not being a LVL III or IV - thta's just human nature. The argumant that civilian contractors have negated the need for additional HSC aircraft is complete hogwash. There are only four commercial helicopter VERTREP contracts, each with 2 aircraft. Due to the lift requirements of the JSF Power Module, those detachments only fit on T-AKEs. The material condition of that fleet has dramatically limited the number of air capable decks for those detachments. Recently, only 3 of the 4 detachments have had homes. These ships are not attached to the Strike Groups and are not always in the vicinity of the carrier. In the mid-90's, the Navy finally recognized that HS squadrons, with their 4 Primary Misison Areas and 9 overall misison sets required more than 4x SH-60Fs and 2x HHs. ASW had, at best, taken a step back and CSAR/Special Misisons was on the rise - they finnaly added a 3rd HH for deployment (3 to make 2). In '98, most of the 7 aircraft in HS-15 flew through the phase cycle at lest once (4,800 hrs) with 10 crews (20 pilots). Now we have JOs rotating into shore based instructor billets with less than 800 total hours which also affects retention. It appeared that the value of the multi-mission helicopter to the carrier strike group was finally recognized with the adoption of the Helo Master Plan, but now we're back to doing more with even less. Best regards, Derek "Droopy" Fry On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 11:04 AM Terry McKearney < terry.mckearney@therangergroup.com> wrote:

A SWO’s-eye view: sure; you can never have enough helos so add a sixth.

The personnel impact discussion was lost on me, of course, although I get the gist: more opportunities to qualify for career milestones. It’s not unreasonable to look at such issues in the discussion; every community does it. The surface guys are enthused about the LSM because it will (supposedly) add LCDR commands. (Not a good enough reason for supporting that turkey of a ship.)

I was a bit surprised that the plane guard helo can wander off up to 40 miles and do logistics things while on duty. Not what I remember from my days of chasing the “bird farm.”

*WARNING - EXTERNAL EMAIL* This Email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

*From: *Brian Miller <brianjmiller1977@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, July 24, 2026 at 06:21 *To: *"Michael G. Brattland" <mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> *Cc: *HeloBubbas <helobubbas@helobubbas.com> *Subject: *[Helobubbas] Re: Why Carrier Air Wings Need a Sixth HSC Helicopter

In my opinion, the HSC world made a terrible strategic business decision when it put all its eggs in the CSAR basket. Despite being a disgruntled LAMPS guy, the community went forward with an excellent understanding of how to sell the capabilities of the Romeo to the air wing while HSC clung to VERTREP and CSAR. One of those missions was soon outsourced to Evergreen; the other was locked up by the AF, Army, and Marines. At no time during my deployments and later CENTCOM planning conferences was a Navy CSAR package ever even mentioned.

At the time a lot of big choices had to get made, HSC seemed content with plane guard and they structured themselves accordingly. The community has found a way to make itself a valid point defense asset, but HSM does the same job from the same flight deck.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:25 AM Michael G. Brattland < mgbrattland@gerlecreek.com> wrote:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2026/july/why-carrier-air-wings-n...

MGBrattland Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S23 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone

_______________________________________________ Helobubbas mailing list -- helobubbas@helobubbas.com To unsubscribe send an email to helobubbas-leave@helobubbas.com

_______________________________________________ Helobubbas mailing list -- helobubbas@helobubbas.com To unsubscribe send an email to helobubbas-leave@helobubbas.com _______________________________________________ Helobubbas mailing list -- helobubbas@helobubbas.com To unsubscribe send an email to helobubbas-leave@helobubbas.com