Fifty-six & Two Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 News says the French stole the first air to air kill. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/24/french-fighter-jets-reportedly-shoot-libyan-warplane-qaddafi-violates-fly-zone/ Unfair and biased... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craino21 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I know a downed aircrew situation is not a good time to start a turf war...but DAMMIT! The first real CSAR in years and the Marines get the call! WTF. Not the full story. Ask your intel bubbas, they should be able to tell you what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Seriously, that is your concern? Good to know if I ever turn my helicopter into a 30 million dollar, one time use, ditch digging machine the big concern will be over who gets credit for coming to get me of the side of the mountain Im currently bleeding on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usaf36031 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) Good to know if I ever turn my helicopter into a 30 million dollar, one time use, ditch digging machine the big concern will be over who gets credit for coming to get me of the side of the mountain Im currently bleeding on. First of all, I never said it was the biggest concern. When I made that comment the crew had been safe for more than two days. It's well after the fact, which is where this type of discussion belongs. Secondly, If I were bleeding on the side of the mountain, I'd be fucking glad to know that there were people fighting over who got to come rescue my little pink ass. It's what we train to do every day, not any different than the fighter guys chomping at the bit to be the first to snag an air to air kill, which has already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. Edited March 24, 2011 by usaf36031 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) First of all, I never said it was the biggest concern. When I made that comment the crew had been safe for more than two days. It's well after the fact, which is where this type of discussion belongs. Secondly, If I were bleeding on the side of the mountain, I'd be ######ing glad to know that there were people fighting over who got to come rescue my little pink ass. It's what we train to do every day, not any different than the fighter guys chomping at the bit to be the first to snag an air to air kill, which has already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. Its not just you, dont get me wrong there. Its the dangerous precedent thats being set by the whole level of media impression and this "who gets credit make sure we get it on camera" attitude thats been going on. Other great examples, holding the rescue force that was being sent in to get PFC Lynch because we didnt have cameras and media ready to record the rescue. Or stopping members of 4th ID during the capture of Saddam because people wanted the Spec Ops dudes to do the grab. How about we worry about whats important, a US crew is down in hostile territory. Whoever the hell can get there and do something about it do it now, Go! Great you train for the mission and thats awesome. But I dont give a damn whose name is painted on the side of the aircraft that comes and gets me, I just want out of Indian Country. Your statement just reminds me of the retarded statement I hear out of Ground Marines with that BS of "well all our Air guys train to do is CAS so they are better at it than you." I guarantee in a real TIC they dont give a damn if its me or an Air Force guy or the ######ing Post Office Reserve dropping fire for them as long as they know somebody is there trying to save their ass. Edited March 24, 2011 by Lawman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usaf36031 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Your points are valid, and if my tone came off like that it's not what I intended. My initial comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, more of a rivalry driven jab at the Marines. As has been said, there was more to this decision than is currently available open source... But since you've brought up the political side of things, please consider this. Our community has been fighting in the halls of congress for the past several years to basically convince the politicians that the CSAR/PR/Whatever you want to call it mission is not one that can just be dropped on the nearest rotary wing asset. To be done right it requires a high level of technical proficiency and expertise, it's what we focus on and practice perfecting every time we fly. It is disheartening to see an opportunity go to somebody else. While I agree with your point that the nearest asset capable should get the call when the shit hits the fan, I was simply pointing out that I wish it had been us, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 No hate, they want to replace me with a UAV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breckey Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 How trained are the TRAP teams in CSAR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usaf36031 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) TRAP teams do a similar mission, but they do it very differently. I'm not an expert on their TTP, but suffice it to say it involves big ass helicopters and a platoon of combat loaded ground pounding marines vs. our 2 x HH-60's plus maybe a rescort and our J's in the back. EDIT: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/rmd.htm Article is old, but maybe still somewhat useful, at least for general reference Edited March 25, 2011 by usaf36031 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 On open source side of this discussion, there are a lot of negative lessons learned as to the value of the traditional CSAR mission when you look at the assets that were available to even stage the mission. As was stated previously this is the first CSAR since O'Grady that occurred in a contested environment and we didn't not even have the opportunity to execute IAW doctrine. It will be interesting to see what the future holds and what lessons are derived. Especially, after the reports of civilian injuries, if they start putting handcuffs on where a CSAR package can shoot during the mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usaf36031 Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) On open source side of this discussion, there are a lot of negative lessons learned as to the value of the traditional CSAR mission when you look at the assets that were available to even stage the mission. As was stated previously this is the first CSAR since O'Grady that occurred in a contested environment and we didn't not even have the opportunity to execute IAW doctrine. It will be interesting to see what the future holds and what lessons are derived. Especially, after the reports of civilian injuries, if they start putting handcuffs on where a CSAR package can shoot during the mission. I wasn't there, and I don't know the details of the mission or the Marine Corps weapons employment procedures/ROE. I do know that our weapons are defensive in nature, generally speaking they aren't used except to defend our helicopter, our wingman or our survivor. I don't know how much more restrictive you can get than that. If you take away our guns then we might as well be Army Medevac with a big red cross (target) painted on our side. Edited March 25, 2011 by usaf36031 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) our weapons are defensive in nature I really wish guys would stop saying that. It's like saying a B-52 is a strategic bomber. Weapons are weapons, they get employed within the ROE. Missions are missions, you don't go executing on something that is not your mission, that's the difference. Our mission is to get an isolated person(s) if we have to employ weapons IAW the ROE to accomplish our mission, we will. EDIT: Sorry, it's a pet peeve. Edited March 25, 2011 by busdriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usaf36031 Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) The point is, we don't go out looking for people to shoot. If someone engages us, we return fire and fly away. I don't see why that upsets you. They don't load bombs on a B-52 to deter the enemy from engaging them. That's the difference. Edited March 25, 2011 by usaf36031 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 The point is, we don't go out looking for people to shoot. Agreed If someone engages us, we return fire and fly away. Not always They don't load bombs on a B-52 to deter the enemy from engaging them. That's the difference. Deterrence is only a side benefit of being armed. We're at the point I don't want to go any further on a message board. If you really want to hear my opinion let me know, I'd be happy to talk on NIPR/SIPR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breckey Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 As was stated previously this is the first CSAR since O'Grady that occurred in a contested environment and we didn't not even have the opportunity to execute IAW doctrine. Vega 31 and Hammer 34 during OAF. Both successfully rescued by the AF Hawk bubbas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FourFans Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Vega 31 and Hammer 34 during OAF. Both successfully rescued by the AF Hawk bubbas And both actually paid attention in SERE refresher. It helps when you do things right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Every fighter pilot should read about LtCol Zelko. He is the best example of a survivor affecting his own rescue I have ever heard about in recent time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usaf36031 Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Every fighter pilot should read about LtCol Zelko. He is the best example of a survivor affecting his own rescue I have ever heard about in recent time. '2' P.S. PM sent Busdriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) How trained are the TRAP teams in CSAR? Pretty well. Probably not to the same level as the USAF CSAR community, but that's because TRAP is just one of many missions that the MEU/MEB/MEF trains for (and are evaluated/graded on) before deploying. Perspective: the TRAP platoon for the 24th MEU's rescue of O'Grady was the mortar platoon of the BLT. Official USMC propaganda Marines TV In an interesting coincidence, Kearsarge was the launch & recovery ship for the O'Grady rescue as well... Every aircrew member should read about LtCol Zelko. He is the best example of a survivor affecting his own rescue I have ever heard about in recent time. Fixed for ya. edit: add quote Edited March 25, 2011 by JarheadBoom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breckey Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 He gave a lecture at the USAFM, it's really quite incredible to hear his side of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQZip01 Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Your points are valid, and if my tone came off like that it's not what I intended. My initial comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, more of a rivalry driven jab at the Marines. As has been said, there was more to this decision than is currently available open source... But since you've brought up the political side of things, please consider this. Our community has been fighting in the halls of congress for the past several years to basically convince the politicians that the CSAR/PR/Whatever you want to call it mission is not one that can just be dropped on the nearest rotary wing asset. To be done right it requires a high level of technical proficiency and expertise, it's what we focus on and practice perfecting every time we fly. It is disheartening to see an opportunity go to somebody else. While I agree with your point that the nearest asset capable should get the call when the shit hits the fan, I was simply pointing out that I wish it had been us, that's all. 2. Had the same feeling when the B-2 rolled in and the BUFF was left behind. They don't load bombs on a B-52 to deter the enemy from engaging them. That's the difference. Those in Guam on the Continuous Bomber Presence mission may disagree...though you certainly have a point in the tactical sense. On the Strategic Level, that's what those heavy bombers are there to do: dissuade our enemies and reassure our allies. Every fighter pilot should read about LtCol Zelko. He is the best example of a survivor affecting his own rescue I have ever heard about in recent time. Hey rescue, just as long as you don't forget about the fellas other than the pink bodies in the front seats... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 As was stated previously this is the first CSAR since O'Grady that occurred in a contested environment and we didn't not even have the opportunity to execute IAW doctrine. Nope. Junker 14 A/B OIF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetter Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 TRAP is not CSAR. Lots of higher leadership thinks it is... We were lucky with how things turned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Nope. Junker 14 A/B OIF And you should know. Navy sources reported that mechanical failure involving the fuel system forced down the F-14, call sign Junker 14, on 1 April. Assigned to Fighter Squadron 154 aboard the USS Kitty Hawk, the aircraft was over southern Iraq when the crew safely ejected. (13) Two Air Force HH-60s from the 66th RQS, led by Maj Chris Barnett and using the call signs Vampire 25 and 26, scrambled to pick up the crew members, who landed 80 miles southwest of Karbala. They rendezvoused with a flight of A-10s led by Maj Jim "Rainman" Stephenson from the Massachusetts Air National Guard, who had located the survivors and acted as the on-scene commander. The survivors' lack of familiarity with their rescue equipment and procedures caused some confusion among the rescue forces. Regardless, under the watchful eye of the "Sandy" A-10s, the helicopters proceeded directly to the survivors' locations and successfully rescued both men. "Once we heard the guys coining to get us it was a great feeling," said the pilot, Lt Chad Vincelette. (14) From: BNet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 And you should know. Steve - Well played. Rainman - Well done. Regardless of platform or service, cheers to all those involved in getting the bros in this situation back to safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now