Jump to content
Baseops Forums

Recommended Posts

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27998/shot-down-the-usaf-now-wants-to-air-drop-you-an-air-taxi-to-fly-you-out-to-safety

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a27508870/air-taxi-air-force/

 

Did a quick, non-exhaustive search to no avail. Things like this, plus CAF PR’s inability to sell themselves to AFSOC as a worthwhile platform signify the quickly approaching end to AF CSAR. Not overnight mind you, but it’s coming...

 

Edited to add another link.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFSOC want the airframes and funding, not the mission. The relatively small number of traditional PR events in GWOT and the ending of CASEVAC have hindered  the ability for CSAR to fight for itself. Everybody was all about it after BLADE 11 but since then that enthusiasm has dropped off the cliff. Also I feel the realization that the A2AD environment in any future conflict will severely limit the ability to get Jack back using conventional forces is starting to take hold.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against a high-end adversary, be prepared for a truly robust CSAR task force or get ready to go non-conventional.
If you can't bring a HH-60 in, I doubt you'll want to fly a C-130 overhead to drop the flying Uber out the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I’m not arguing the merits for or against this idea. Fact is, it’s taking hold, and it won’t be going away.

Regardless of what AFSOC wanted, there is a solid argument for more highly capable crews in SOCOM, and that was the one shot at relevancy for AF CSAR. They failed to seize the moment because old school though prevailed both on the rotary and fixed sides.

If I were a betting man, I wouldn’t put money on AF CSAR being in it for the long haul anymore. At least not how we recognize it today. They need to adapt, accept more mission sets, and realize the AF’s way of doing PR, CSAR, is becoming obsolete in a resource scarce and A2AD environment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFSOC is good at what it does operating in a low threat environment, but they’d be useless for CSAR in a near-peer war. ACs, MCs, Ospreys, U-28s, etc will all be a burning wreckage trying to get anywhere near an environment where fighters are being lost once the SAMs and AAMs start flying. AFSOC would ruin the RQS. A jack of all trades and master of none isn’t what you want trying to do a specialized mission. The reason our CSAR is so competent is because they don’t try and train to a plethora of mission sets, nor should they. The AF way of doing PR is much better than other branches, and the fact that training for the worst day of some dude’s life is their sole purpose is a major reason. Find one of the Navy exchanges and talk to them about the difference between the two. Also, look at some of the dumb shit the army has accomplished trying to recover people in Afghanistan. Everything from crashing their helicopters to unknowingly leaving individuals behind. AF CSAR hasn’t lost relevancy to people doing the job. The morons allocating funds who don’t see value in it because no one is currently dying or punching out is the issue. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawg15 said:

 The morons allocating funds who don’t see value in it because no one is currently dying or punching out is the issue. 

I hear versions of this often about a lot of AF mission sets.  Money is a finite resource and priorities shift as situations change.  That’s just life, and all communities must adapt to changing realities or be left behind.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

I hear versions of this often about a lot of AF mission sets.  Money is a finite resource and priorities shift as situations change.  That’s just life, and all communities must adapt to changing realities or be left behind.  

 

And CSAR is something that should always be receiving part of this finite money to keep it healthy. There isn’t much that holds a higher priority over isolated personnel. Cutting funding to it is pretty disgraceful for a country constantly reassuring its service men and women that it will do anything within its power to recover them. We exist to serve the guys on the ground. But we have a bunch of disconnected careerist politicians that need more government contract money for their district or another star on their shoulder. So let’s spend tons of money on armed T-6s that can barely kill a Toyota Hilux before rearming and unneeded MC-130 terrain following radar instead. Hopefully the insurgents don’t get to them first when they have to punch out of that light attack aircraft in the middle of nowhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Breckey said:

AFSOC want the airframes and funding, not the mission. 

Not true, they were ready and willing to take it all (sts). Bottom line, the GA made a better decision than the -60 drivers on this one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hawg15 said:

AFSOC is good at what it does operating in a low threat environment, but they’d be useless for CSAR in a near-peer war. ACs, MCs, Ospreys, U-28s, etc will all be a burning wreckage trying to get anywhere near an environment where fighters are being lost once the SAMs and AAMs start flying. AFSOC would ruin the RQS. A jack of all trades and master of none isn’t what you want trying to do a specialized mission. 

Are you saying we need a new aircraft for these situations? Perhaps something with stealth? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Best-22 said:

Are you saying we need a new aircraft for these situations? Perhaps something with stealth? 

AFSOC certainly doesn’t. They aren’t ACC and that’s not their job. 

Edited by Hawg15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, norskman said:

Not true, they were ready and willing to take it all (sts). Bottom line, the GA made a better decision than the -60 drivers on this one. 

GA is going to get carved up and not have the pull they do in an RQS. You think they’ll be able to tell a ODA team that they need a 6 man team with a CRO to do their mission? They will be on the QRF bird with a two man team waiting for the bell just like they are now. AFSOC wanted to divest most of the AD 60Gs and curtail the 60W to pay for more CV-22s so they can have 6 to make 2 when deployed and they wanted the HC’s to turn into MC’s. The line crews in AFSOC want the mission, the Bobs want the iron, manning, and funding.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Hawg15 said:

AFSOC certainly doesn’t. They aren’t ACC and that’s not their job. 

I don’t see a -60 being any more survivable than the other airframes you listed is all I’m saying. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Best-22 said:

I don’t see a -60 being any more survivable than the other airframes you listed is all I’m saying. 

 

They aren’t by themselves, how the overall SARTF is employed what makes them effective. The casevac missions of Afghanistan and OEF are nothing like real PR. The rescue guys actually didn’t want to go with another -60, it was forced on them. Also, the last thing we need is mission dilution, lack of comms, and fighting with another majcom over rescue resources who are geared towards the ACC/regular ground mission. It’s already hard enough to get the ball rolling on things when people are in need. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawg15 said:

And CSAR is something that should always be receiving part of this finite money to keep it healthy. There isn’t much that holds a higher priority over isolated personnel. Cutting funding to it is pretty disgraceful for a country constantly reassuring its service men and women that it will do anything within its power to recover them. We exist to serve the guys on the ground. But we have a bunch of disconnected careerist politicians that need more government contract money for their district or another star on their shoulder. So let’s spend tons of money on armed T-6s that can barely kill a Toyota Hilux before rearming and unneeded MC-130 terrain following radar instead. Hopefully the insurgents don’t get to them first when they have to punch out of that light attack aircraft in the middle of nowhere. 

I understand you are passionate about your opinions.  Reference the bolded section- If that were happening you’d see rescue prioritized.  But it’s not common, so they aren’t.  That’s reality of how it works, regardless of what “should” happen.  I’m not defending short sightedness, just acknowledging human nature.

 Do you think the AF rescue community has appropriately adapted to maintain relevancy in low intensity conflicts which have defined our last several decades of war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The robot recovery vehicle is misguided, putting up throw away air vehicles in the hope that one makes it to the survivor ignores half of the exposure time (egress).  This is engi-nerds building toys.

There are folks working to build the support for what is really needed for near-peer CSAR, but as tac airlifter said money is always a finite resource.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hawg15 said:

And CSAR is something that should always be receiving part of this finite money to keep it healthy. There isn’t much that holds a higher priority over isolated personnel. Cutting funding to it is pretty disgraceful for a country constantly reassuring its service men and women that it will do anything within its power to recover them. We exist to serve the guys on the ground. But we have a bunch of disconnected careerist politicians that need more government contract money for their district or another star on their shoulder. So let’s spend tons of money on armed T-6s that can barely kill a Toyota Hilux before rearming and unneeded MC-130 terrain following radar instead. Hopefully the insurgents don’t get to them first when they have to punch out of that light attack aircraft in the middle of nowhere. 

Really? There isn’t? Because anybody that can look at a map and the power point slide depicting coverage circles of the Iraq/ISIS AO in 16-17 could see CSAR was about as in its ass as it could be and nobody seemed to have any give a crap in fixing that. You had the Italians pulling down an entire portion of the region and a whole other chunk taken care of by the Marines.

I can only imagine how great the coverage is gonna be once double digit SAMs and Red Air are present in the problem. Probably a good idea to review the spins because I’ve seen plenty of them where a 60G or guys jumping out of a 130 weren’t going to be the plan of action. Fact of the matter is it’s easier and arguably safer when your enemy isn’t ISIS crazies to rescue you post capture or do what we did in previous conflicts get you after it’s over. We have people that do that for a living too, and fortunately we’ve invested a ton of money in them even if we haven’t in CSAR.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, there are multiple unfilled requests for PR support across multiple AORs, so I don’t think the need is going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

I can only imagine how great the coverage is gonna be once double digit SAMs and Red Air are present in the problem. 

Agm-129_acm.jpg.b65e1763c4678681c9d7246694b37b2e.jpg

This is supposed to represent the new LRSO under development but to paraphrase a  comedian "all the thrill of being a kamikaze without the commitment" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t see a -60 being any more survivable than the other airframes you listed is all I’m saying. 
 

Not for a discussion on here, but go talk to a patch in a vault. You’d be very surprised...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bigred said:

I mean, there are multiple unfilled requests for PR support across multiple AORs, so I don’t think the need is going away.

ORM check box.  Makes their plan look better on paper, they're still going to do what they were planning to do originally.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lawman said:

Really? There isn’t? Because anybody that can look at a map and the power point slide depicting coverage circles of the Iraq/ISIS AO in 16-17 could see CSAR was about as in its ass as it could be and nobody seemed to have any give a crap in fixing that. You had the Italians pulling down an entire portion of the region and a whole other chunk taken care of by the Marines.

To give them some credit, the Italian Army CSAR detachment actually had some pretty good organic capabilities (but not great range, since their attack helos can't AR).  

MV-22s are interesting and have great range/speed once they get rolling, but I'm not sold on them being a great solution (MX in particular).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, raimius said:

To give them some credit, the Italian Army CSAR detachment actually had some pretty good organic capabilities (but not great range, since their attack helos can't AR).  

MV-22s are interesting and have great range/speed once they get rolling, but I'm not sold on them being a great solution (MX in particular).

The only thing those guys brought of any use was the coffee shop they set up.

We launched the ARF more than a couple times because they didn’t have their crap together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Lawman said:

coverage circles of the Iraq/ISIS AO in 16-17 could see CSAR was about as in its ass as it could be and nobody seemed to have any give a crap in fixing that. 

When you only pay for partial coverage, but commit to covering everything, then there isn't enough peanut butter to spread around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...