okay so ive been trying to retrain forever, and for the past year have alrady decided i wanted to fly. im basically at the point where i just need to scan my documents and send them to AFPC.
anyway what i really want is to be assigned to a helo. first choice was aerial gunner but the wife isnt too impressed with it, plus theres no open quotas and there wasnt much when they openned up last sep(2nd termer)... so after reading a few more threads, i hear about the huey. i didnt even know air force flew these!!! this increases my chances to get on helos as i thought before! are there other helos the air force flys besides hh-60,mh-53,cv-22, and uh-1n? the hh-60 and uh-1n seems pretty close in mission besides the obvious like being a 2ndary gunner etc... can anyone tell me mission differences that arent as obvious and what FEs do differently than the other helo?
also, what bases can they get assigned to? malstrom,minot,fe warren,vandenberg... but i see hueys are also at farchild and hulburt?
Originally posted by herm21: this increases my chances to get on helos as i thought before! are there other helos the air force flys besides hh-60,mh-53,cv-22, and uh-1n? the hh-60 and uh-1n seems pretty close in mission besides the obvious like being a 2ndary gunner etc... can anyone tell me mission differences that arent as obvious and what FEs do differently than the other helo?
I’m clueless of how or why the Air Force flying UH-1s increases opportunity to become a helicopter crewmember. The Air Force’s H-60 acquisition plan in 1976 was for it to replace all Air Force owned and operated UH-1 helicopters. The idea was to give each Air Force base a local base air rescue and range/missile site support capability. The H-60 ended up replacing the Air Force’s medium lift (H-3) and heavy lift (H-53) CSAR helicopters. The buy decreased from about 500 helicopters to about 100 helicopters.
The big difference between H-60 and H-1 helicopter is that the H-1 helicopter units lack any combat mission. This means these units and assets do not deploy. The UH-1 primary purpose is to provide range/missile support and VIP transportation. They do an occasional local base rescue of a lost hiker/skier or the drunk who decides to have an accident at 1AM.
If AF CSAR rescue program managers can ever actually get a CSAR-X acquisition approved and funded, the UH-1 one will finally go to the bone yard. Sort of a good testimony of the reliability of the UH-1 though. They were supposed to be all gone from the Air Force inventory by 1980 and it appears the H-60 will be gone from the Air Force inventory before the UH-1.
the reason i say increases my chances is just only because with the mh-53 gone and hh-60 on its way out, and cv-22(yes its not a helo but i just classified it as because they are all ones i want to get assigned to) being mainly for experienced FEs, my chances of gettin on a helo as a FE was slim.
but thanks for all the info though it clarified alot! oh and no im not in any mechanical career field at all. im medical admin, but ironic my mech asvab score was higher than the rest and my admin was lowest!my exception to policy letter is actualy all im waiting on before submitting package.
Originally posted by herm21: the reason i say increases my chances is just only because with the mh-53 gone and hh-60 on its way out, and cv-22(yes its not a helo but i just classified it as because they are all ones i want to get assigned to) being mainly for experienced FEs, my chances of gettin on a helo as a FE was slim.
but thanks for all the info though it clarified alot! oh and no im not in any mechanical career field at all. im medical admin, but ironic my mech asvab score was higher than the rest and my admin was lowest!my exception to policy letter is actualy all im waiting on before submitting package.
New FE's are getting helo's. I am one of them. I am heading to Minot in May, with the 54th helicopter squadron. Previous job won't affect the airframe, just luck/timing. CV-22 and AC-130 is virtually the only airframes we can't get on as a new FE.
for the airframes we can't get on first time around, add a few more...
-any C130's/helos in AFSOC -C130/C5 in AFMC flight test squadrons -white jets
Pretty much the only non-slick route we are afforded is some rescue units as first time AD FE's.
Some of the ones we can't get on first have 300 hour requirements, some 500, and some have IFE requirements.
Herm21, keep in mind you can switch airframes later on. I have no clue how they work that though. Guy I used to work with wanted AFSOC but was given C5's. Three years later now and he is at Hurby on T-2's.
Originally posted by johca: Sort of a good testimony of the reliability of the UH-1 though. They were supposed to be all gone from the Air Force inventory by 1980 and it appears the H-60 will be gone from the Air Force inventory before the UH-1.
Hueys are like cockroaches and Dodge Darts...you can stuff them under the carpet, or park them in the barn...but you just can't seem to kill them off. No matter where you go in the world, there is SOMEONE flying a Huey for some reason.
I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the H-1 airframe. Nothing else in the world sounds quite like a Huey.
The H-60 ended up replacing the Air Force’s medium lift (H-3) and heavy lift (H-53) CSAR helicopters. The buy decreased from about 500 helicopters to about 100 helicopters.
True, the H-60 replaced the H-3 and SOME of the H-1's, but they did NOT exactly replace the H-53's...since the H-53's became SOF acft.
"If AF CSAR rescue program managers can ever actually get a CSAR-X acquisition approved and funded, the UH-1 one will finally go to the bone yard."
Sadly, this is not the case...the CVLSP intended to replace the aging H-1's are NOT part of the CSAR-X program of record. Why? Because since the CSAR-X cannot fly in space...Space Comm didn't fund a nickel towards the CSAR-X program so OSD chopped CVLSP off from the CSAR-X program.
Originally posted by jtek77: for the airframes we can't get on first time around, add a few more...
-any C130's/helos in AFSOC -C130/C5 in AFMC flight test squadrons -white jets
Pretty much the only non-slick route we are afforded is some rescue units as first time AD FE's.
Some of the ones we can't get on first have 300 hour requirements, some 500, and some have IFE requirements.
Herm21, keep in mind you can switch airframes later on. I have no clue how they work that though. Guy I used to work with wanted AFSOC but was given C5's. Three years later now and he is at Hurby on T-2's.
This is an untrue statement. There are a bunch of first term FE's that I know in my squadron and the 4th SOS (AC-130's). The only squadron you might not get from AFSOC first assignment is T2's or CV-22's, though I could see the Osprey possibly taking first termers also. I know the MH-53's used to take airmen as well as other first assignment flyers.
...I'm still tryin to figure out your user name here...did you mis-spell Cannondale? They make nice bikes. Anyways, I got my info from emails from the fe functional and from a few posts on these forums. I'll clip and paste some of those emails when I get back in from leave next week. Here are some posts from here:
quote:
Originally posted by pavejim: Just a heads up...currently CSAR (ACC) operates all of the USAF helos (except for UH-1's). With regard to AFSOC, most FE positions are filled by already qualified FE's. As for CV-22's, we are only taking qualified FE from other airframes.
quote:
Originally posted by mtmccormick:
As to the Osprey, they said unless you were a crew chief on one already, getting the FE slot ain't looking good for quite some time. Exceptions to policy are always a possibility, but if I were a bettin' man, I'd be bettin' against you
Yeah, a guy in my class is the only non-prior FE to get a slot, someone really pulled the strings there, he had at least 4 prior years as maint on it.
They will eventually take them. The line of folks waiting to go to them isn't exactly long from the Pave community. I fly MC-130P's and we have a pretty tight community with the Pave guys. Most of them have no idea where they want to go, but I know many who are outspoken against going to the Osprey. Most C-130 engineers in AFSOC aren't lining up to do it either. Once you get established in an airframe in AFSOC, you don't go switching a bunch because it puts you back in the bottom rung of the ladder for upgrades. Let the dust settle from the initial spin-up of the Osprey, and you will see first assignment FE's going to it just like they did with the 53's and 60's. When the line for the cross flow guys runs out, they are going to have to do something to get new FE's. It is inevitable. There is nothing magical about the Osprey that will prevent it.
I have flown the U-model, King, and Shadow since 1998, including a four year stint at Kirtland as an instructor. I know for a first hand fact they take first assignment FE's. My current squadron has three of twelve assigned that were first assignment FE's.
Hey now, thats good news to me. I'm one of the few who have read all about the early hiccups of the v22 and still want to be a part of it. I also see all the time that the "Best needs of the AF" will always trump "Hey I don't think we should do it that way". People just get lucky sometimes being in the right place at the right time.
Herm21, Here are the non opsec busting definitions of what they do:
hey guys thanks for the replies. those factsheets explain a lot. the UH-1 still would be awesome to get assigned on, but the hh-60 to get on a gunner, or the cv-22 would be a dream!
Rotary-winged Breakthrough: The Air Force wants to do in Fiscal 2009 what it hasn’t been able to do in past budgets: include funding for the future helicopter that will replace its Vietnam War-era Huey UH-1Ns. USAF has sought for years to retire these Hueys, which help protect the nation’s ICBM fields, shuttle VIPs, and perform civil rescue missions, with a new more capable helicopter provisionally called the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform. But it hasn’t had the money to do so, given the long list of more pressing recapitalization and modernization needs—can anyone say, “new tanker,” or “new CSAR helicopter?” Now, however, CVLSP appears to be emerging out of the shadows, as USAF seeks $3.87 million to start the CVLSP program in Fiscal 2009 and lay the groundwork for fielding the platform in Fiscal 2015. Granted the amount is truly miniscule by Pentagon standards, and the Air Force has yet to earmark the kind of money that would make the mid-decade fielding goal doable, but, hey, at least it’s a start. (For more read USAF’s 'Other' Helicopter Program) —Michael C. Sirak
By common, does it imply they are going to use whatever the CSAR ends up being for commonality? It wouldn't make sense that the AF would dump the trusty huey and start using a helocopter way too big for the mission like the HH-47.
Thus, it remains to be seen if the platform that emerges later this year as the winner in the CSAR-X contest will end up being chosen for CVLSP.
Never mind. I think the article answered the question. I did find the fact the 3.9 million wasn't goint towards funding or designing a single plane. Rather it was to set up the office to start the program. Just like the Air Force to spend money so they can spend a lot more money.
Air Force gets 10 million to build a new base...5 million goes into the O club...5 million goes into the chow hall...They go back to Congress and ask for more money to build a runway.
Forward progress is better than stagnant discussion, however. There are so many platforms that are superior to the HH-47...insofar as the Huey mission goes...that are commercially available NOW, and will not break the bank.
By common, does it imply they are going to use whatever the CSAR ends up being for commonality? It wouldn't make sense that the AF would dump the trusty huey and start using a helocopter way too big for the mission like the HH-47.
Not necessarily...There was a time when the USAF tried to tie CVLSP and CSAR-X together, but since AFSPC didn't have any funding identified...OSD required CVLSP to be cut from the CSAR-X program.
Space Comm COULD adopt the CSAR-X requirements if they WANTED to, but they don't need the range, payload etc the CSAR folks are asking for so they could come away with a very different acft.
On a lighter note...if AFSPC picked up "hooks" they could deliver the cops and crews to the holes in the ground WITH their Chevy Suburbans!
Very true. They could also carry another missle in via chopper so it wouldn't get lost...wait they already tried that with B-52's and they did get lost. Nevermind.
So question for the helo enge's... When i came to this base as a 1A5 (now 1A3), there was 2 crew postions they could put us in. and we really had no say whatsoever where they put us. one guy is sitting this seat, one guy sitting this seat..without much rhyme or reason. In the FE career feild, does it work kind of the same way? I want helos and definatly dont' want to come back to awacs and i flew on c-130s in iraq and wasn't to impressed with that airframe either. I dont' want anyone else to think these jobs are lame, cuz flying is pretty much the most awesome thing ever reguardless of your airframe or where u sit on the plane, but if/when i reclass, i don't want to be totally at the mercy of the politics of the air force simply playing a numbers game.
Very true. They could also carry another missle in via chopper so it wouldn't get lost...wait they already tried that with B-52's and they did get lost. Nevermind.
Funny you should mention moving warheads. I remember back in the 80's at Ramstien AB Germany flights of several Army CH-47's and one UH-1 (Comm Acft) that used to land on the hot cargo pad next to a recently arriving C-5 every so often and park in such positions that no one could see cargo box/ramp area's of any of the acft.
Then what seemed like a thousand armed grunts poured out of the "Hooks" and secured the perimeter of the whole couple of acres of ramp...no acft would shut down, but after a few minutes of loading "something"...all the troops would reboard and the whole flight would be gone in moments.
It's no secret the Army had Pershing nuclear missiles in Germany till the mid 80's...I wonder if AFSPC is thinks Hooks today could be a useful tool to transport more than just crews, cops and spare parts as was the case for the Army?
I’m clueless of how or why the Air Force flying UH-1s increases opportunity to become a helicopter crewmember. The Air Force’s H-60 acquisition plan in 1976 was for it to replace all Air Force owned and operated UH-1 helicopters. The idea was to give each Air Force base a local base air rescue and range/missile site support capability. The H-60 ended up replacing the Air Force’s medium lift (H-3) and heavy lift (H-53) CSAR helicopters. The buy decreased from about 500 helicopters to about 100 helicopters.
