CSAR-X

[MD]

Thread Revival, looks like another year or so of delay...

I give up, can we at least fix the Hawk then?

CSAR-X Delay

Anybody want to open a Vegas sports book line of what hits the flightline first? The CSAR-X or the new KC-X tanker?

[JarheadBoom]

Anybody want to open a Vegas sports book line of what hits the flightline first? The CSAR-X or the new KC-X tanker?

Good one...

I'll go first - the first production model of either will NOT hit the flightline before 2012.

[stract]

the CASF visited our location last week, and the the Q&A, our DO asked about the status of the CSAR-X, to which he replied it would be 6 months to a year before a contract was awarded b/c they've got to issue another amendment to the RFP. Didn't go into further details other than to say our acquisitions process needs less civilians and more uniforms involved.

[Opie]

By Michael Fabey

Editor's Note: These articles are part of an exclusive series on combat, search and rescue (CSAR) that originally ran in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report in late January 2009.

U.S. forces may have to reconsider the way they plan for combat, search and rescue (CSAR) missions with the advent of fifth-generation aircraft like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Pentagon acquisition chief John Young says.

“The whole conops is doubtful,” Young said in an interview with Aerospace DAILY. Indeed, he said, there are likely no existing or planned CSAR helicopter fleets – including the $15 billion CSAR-X replacement program – that would be able to conduct rescue missions in the kind of deep enemy territory missions envisioned for Raptors and JSFs, Young said.

“No CSAR helicopter is going to be able to get to those regions,” he said.

Range issues

Even the planned upgraded CSAR helicopters have neither the range nor survivability to support the range of operations for the new-generation fighters, Young said. “If we have that situation we are going to do our best to rescue those people,” he said. “I think the V-22 could have some of the speed and range.”

The V-22 was pulled from CSAR-X competition because of downwash, cost and other concerns — and Young was quick to add that he was not pushing the aircraft for the job.

It may be worthwhile to look at other ways of doing the mission, he added.

While the Air Force begs off any direct confrontation with Young (Aerospace DAILY, Jan. 28, 29), service officials maintain they have met all the acquisition requirements to move ahead with the CSAR-X fleet selection and eventual contract award.

Young maintains that some of those requirements should have been vetted more thoroughly much earlier in the process. “You have to start further back,” he said. “Those requirements are not carved in stone, and they shouldn’t be. Program managers are not advocates for their programs. They are not used-car salespeople shilling for their programs.”

Young said classified data show that dedicated Air Force CSAR aircraft have made no recent long-range rescues deep in enemy territory – the very mission CSAR-X is supposed to perform.

But Air Force officials connected with CSAR acquisition and requirements maintain that dedicated CSAR fleets have been called upon numerous times for a variety of rescues, especially by sister services, and that CSAR requirements have been proven and honed through the decades.

They also point out that CSAR requirements have never been based on the maximum range of other aircraft, because the distribution of a downed crew is more of a function of where U.S. forces fight than long-rage aircraft potential. B-1Bs performing missions over Afghanistan fly thousands of miles from bases through the Middle East, covered by ships and Navy helicopters until they get near their targets. Then they would come under the purview of the dedicated Air Force CSAR forces that do not operate from the same bases as the bomber.

Afghanistan

Young said Afghanistan is such a benign environment now that dedicated CSAR fleets would not likely be needed if a rescue was warranted. But he did acknowledge that range differential between the new and legacy fighters could be offset by mission configuration.

Young’s comments continue in the same vein as thoughts he voiced at a November breakfast roundtable interview with Washington journalists, during which he questioned “the premise [that the] CSAR-X community is in desperate need.” His comments drew the ire and fire of some in the CSAR community. “I offered a view,” Young said later. “I have not directed any specific actions. I have looked at the past data, and there are only a modest number of CSAR operations, and very few at long range. Indeed, the Army and the Marine Corps largely conduct CSAR as an adjunct mission with the equipment the services own or can access.”

But even some U.S. allies are wondering about the Pentagon’s commitment to CSAR. In a Sept. 4 letter to Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz, Lt. Gen. J.H. Jansen, commander of the Royal Netherlands Air Force, wrote, “I am concerned that the development of certain advanced capabilities, such as Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) or Joint Personnel Recovery, is being hindered by a lack of focus and direction.”

Jansen continued, “No European nation has the capability to autonomously plan and execute a complex CSAR mission in a high threat environment. It has been generally assumed by some that U.S. forces will meet the shortfall. However, I believe this is an unrealistic assumption, not least because of the constraints this could impose on future operational planning. Instead, we should be combining our capabilities and resources so that we can at least conduct CSAR missions in a low-medium threat environment.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...0CSAR%20Concept

[stract]

there's already a 7-page CSAR-X thread in existence. Post this at the end of that thread to keep the subject matter consolidated. There's some interesting discussion in that thread (though none yet on this recent article you posted).

http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index...3&hl=csar-x

[Anon Ymous]

While I would love to argue the contrary to many of the points he makes about CSAR - I don't think this is the place to discuss what that mission is.

[rescue]

Young's quote of "Afghanistan is such a benign environment now that dedicated CSAR fleets would not likely be needed if a rescue was warranted." just goes to show you he has no &^#$%*^ clue about what CSAR platforms are doing over there (excluding the MEDEVAC mission). It's not just about picking up the fighter pilot on a bad day. Take Luttrell's situation (Lone Survivor); just one example of a Combat Rescue performed by USAF Pavehawks.

What a moron. I offered a view...

[M2]

there's already a 7-page CSAR-X thread in existence. Post this at the end of that thread to keep the subject matter consolidated. There's some interesting discussion in that thread (though none yet on this recent article you posted).

http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index...3&hl=csar-x

Correct, and the new thread has been merged into the existing CSAR-X thread...

Cheers! M2

[busdriver]

U.S. forces may have to reconsider the way they plan for combat, search and rescue (CSAR) missions with the advent of fifth-generation aircraft like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Pentagon acquisition chief John Young says.

“The whole conops is doubtful,” Young said in an interview with Aerospace DAILY. Indeed, he said, there are likely no existing or planned CSAR helicopter fleets – including the $15 billion CSAR-X replacement program – that would be able to conduct rescue missions in the kind of deep enemy territory missions envisioned for Raptors and JSFs, Young said.

“No CSAR helicopter is going to be able to get to those regions,” he said.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the ASE suite that is eventually developed and purchased. Not to mention the tactics used in the entire package.

Even the planned upgraded CSAR helicopters have neither the range nor survivability to support the range of operations for the new-generation fighters, Young said. “If we have that situation we are going to do our best to rescue those people,” he said. “I think the V-22 could have some of the speed and range.”

Complete conjecture and babbling. This is really Young's way of saying can the entire rescue community, cause we can just have the Ospreys do it when something happens.

Young said classified data show that dedicated Air Force CSAR aircraft have made no recent long-range rescues deep in enemy territory – the very mission CSAR-X is supposed to perform.

You mean aside from the opening days of Iraq and Afghanistan? What's recent? Is he advocating continuing the OAF tradition of AFSOC covering Air component PR? Plan on buying more Ospreys then, cause they don't have enough to do this job.

Young said Afghanistan is such a benign environment now that dedicated CSAR fleets would not likely be needed if a rescue was warranted. But he did acknowledge that range differential between the new and legacy fighters could be offset by mission configuration.

So we should plan our future fleet based on being in Afghanistan forever? F-22?? JSF??

“the premise [that the] CSAR-X community is in desperate need.” His comments drew the ire and fire of some in the CSAR community. “I offered a view,” Young said later. “I have not directed any specific actions. I have looked at the past data, and there are only a modest number of CSAR operations, and very few at long range. Indeed, the Army and the Marine Corps largely conduct CSAR as an adjunct mission with the equipment the services own or can access.”

The Army doesn't do CSAR at all they have Medevac. The Marines train to a different tactic that is much closer to CSAR as the AF does it, but they have helos by default, and I imagine they plan to set a couple aside to recover their personnel. What assets does the CFACC have to set aside for recovery operations? Unless he plans on completely overhauling joint doctrine........

He needs to learn a little more about things before he opens his yap.

[busdriver]

Guess I should be known as the thread killer

[JarheadBoom]

The Marines train to a different tactic that is much closer to CSAR as the AF does it, but they have helos by default, and I imagine they plan to set a couple aside to recover their personnel.

TRAP - Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel

It's a standard secondary-mission training event for USMC helo crews in a MEU(SOC) workup cycle. The grunts have TRAP as a secondary mission as well (for instance, the TRAP platoon during the MEU I was on was the 81mm mortar platoon). I forget how it works once the footprint gets larger than a MEU though...

[MD]

The Army doesn't do CSAR at all they have Medevac.

While the Army doesn't do CSAR as we know it, I believe they do have "recovery birds" for a sort of ad-hoc pickup if one of their birds goes down during an op. Seems strictly an in-house to the unit kind of thing, ie-within the division or so. But they do have some planning for it. Again, not anything like a dedicated CSAR bird in the classic sense that we do it, no medics on board, no hoist, no real search capability, etc.

[stract]

right now the Army is asking us for help with CASEVAC, at least in OEF, as we're willing to forward deploy to be closer support during a pre-planned op, and most of their birds aren't. So we are their "recovery birds".

Edited February 27, 2009 by stract

[busdriver]

Gen Ryan (ret) doesn't agree with Mr Young:

Ryan's reply to Young

[Guest Krabs]

Anyone experienced in helos (especially in the design aspect) want to comment on how to make a helicopter:

"swift"

"agile"

"quiet"

"armed"

"...with self protection" (I'm assuming he means countermeasures outside the norm here which are necessary for CSAR)

"net-enabled"

"...with mission systems that allow them to perform the rescue tasks in severe conditions" (FLIR? Night-vision?)

Just my opinion here, but the first three adjectives are almost antitheses of helicopters. Would it take a new dedicated-design helicopter (which would cost a lot more time and money than has already been spent) to incorporate these things, or is there a way to make existing designs "swift, agile, and quiet" in the "it's relative" sense?

As far as being armed, what should this entail in a CSAR scenario, miniguns or something more? How much should these things really be armed? Weight is always a serious design penalty, especially when it comes to range (which these types of birds should have right?).

"Net-enabled" I will take to be an Air Force buzz-word for being able to talk to all of the other assets used for CSAR missions -- tankers, close air support, AWACS/JSTARS...whatever, as well as the dude who needs help. The CSAR mission, in my opinion, would benefit the most from an aircraft-to-aircraft comm system that is compatible with everything, but given proprietary technology issues, I'm not holding my breath. Anyone have thoughts on what "net-enabled" is and how to do it?

And "mission systems that allow them to perform the rescue tasks in severe conditions" I'm going to construe into meaning "survivable." Besides being able to do things in weather and brown-outs, what can be done design-wise to protect the guys throwing themselves into really dangerous spots (and of course whoever they are picking up when they are on the way out)?

I understand that there is a reason these things are talked about vaguely in the press, but sometimes it seems like the Air Force is continually trying to figure out what it's supposed to be doing and this results in botched programs/acquisitions.

Feel free to educate me on anything.

[Guest Jollygreen]

Gen Ryan (ret) doesn't agree with Mr Young:

Ryan's reply to Young

Thanks for the link busdriver.

Gen Ryan focuses on what Young questioned...the need for a trained and dedicated force to conduct rescue missions. Not what aircraft they need. What is humorous are the comments in the link. It was easy to see that there were a few too many bag men trying to sell their wares.

The issue isn't aircraft...but rather the mission.

The concept of a dedicated CSAR force was questioned by Young...probably for cost reasons. Of course, since he will never have a need to depend on these forces, I can understand his ignorance.

I believe a dedicated CSAR force exists for a few reasons, one more important than others. First is the idea that they can return a valuable asset to US control to fight again. That is true. A second is to deny the enemy a source of intelligence and propaganda. That is also true. But I believe the most important purpose behind having a dedicated CSAR force is to ensure the combat crew that goes out to deliver death upon the enemy knows that there are people ready to do all they can to bring them back home to their family. I believe that our fighter, bomber, SOF and other warriors know that they can press the attack a little bit more knowing that someone will try to pull them out if things go wrong. This is where Ryan "gets it" and Young "doesn't".

It isn't the aircraft...it is the mission.

Of course, I am the first to admit I am bias in this discussion.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Jollygreen

[stract]

Krabs,

Helicopters are very agile. Swift and quiet? Not so much...and the Chinkook is the least agile of the three, I would wager.

As for "net-enabled" some of the stuff I've read says they are trying to have a wireless ICS system, so maybe it refers to that? Or maybe SADL/LINK 16. We can talk to most everyone with our current radios, already...

Mission systems I think refers to all the stuff we currently have (FLIR, AR probe, etc) plus more (hover coupler, TFTA, etc).

As for "armed" and "self-protection system" I'm quite sure that refers to what we currently have, but improved upon (maybe DIRCM or LIRCM?) and at one point Boeing was touting defensive missles. Sounds like fun!

[busdriver]

Why do people continually claim the Chinook is the biggest turd in this competition? Some of these same people will in their next breath say that a new build MH-53 would be a good choice despite the fact that they are essentially the same size. I'm not saying it's perfect, none of the three choices are, but it's hardly a turd.

[stract]

all I said was that it was the least agile of the three.

[Guest Krabs]

That's a sweet video. Very impressive indeed.

busdriver, stract, Jollygreen, if you could pick any helicopter for the job (even besides the ones in the competition) what would you guys pick?

[busdriver]

stract, I didn't mean you. But that very same conversation was with another pilot in our unit. I don't know that it's even the least agile of the group. I haven't seen any EM diagrams for the Hook (doubt they exist) but I have talked to guys who've flown it and they didn't think it lacked agility. For-sure it's the heaviest of the group and will no doubt spend the most time on the approach. 40,000+ lbs is a lot of mass to bring to a halt.

Krabs, the helo I would pick doesn't exist. I am partial to the X2 demonstrator, if Sikorsky could scale that bad boy up, I'd pick that. But that's WAY too much money for this competition. Of the three I think it's really between the 47 and the 101(71). I think the 92's spread between empty and max gross doesn't leave much room for the extra avionics/defensive systems/weapon systems/team/team gear(very heavy) without running into the same problem we have now, flying way to heavy, way to regularly and wearing out aircraft way too fast. To get around that problem Sikorsky has to do some major redesign to increase the max gross. For what it's worth, the 101(71) is going to require some redesign as well, as it was built to a different crash standard. (15g vertical vs 20) I think the 47 is getting grandfathered in since it's a legacy design, but I don't know for sure.

I have to admit, when the 47 first got picked, I thought it was ridiculous, until I started to run some numbers and fill out a survey were we rank ordered what was important to us. (Basically a house of quality for you engineers) I finally came to my current opinion. I can't really decide between the 101(71) and 47 now without seeing the actual proposals. Basically most of our opinions are based on conjecture and gut feeling, with a little research. None of who will talk about it have seen the proposals, those that have can't.

[Guest Jackonicko]

There are plenty of USAF CSAR blokes who've had decent exposure to the HH-71/US101 and those I've spoken to were impressed.

Some years ago, one of them (a major whose name I don't recall) wrote a letter to Av Week that said much the same, but which had the advantage of being from a named individual.

I KNOW that the RAF Merlin and the proposed HH-71 are totally different animals, but the Merlin is proving its worth in IRT and JPR missions in theatre.

The Chinook is an unbeatable heavy lift helicopter - but a CSAR platform? Not the same beast, quite.

stract, I didn't mean you. But that very same conversation was with another pilot in our unit. I don't know that it's even the least agile of the group. I haven't seen any EM diagrams for the Hook (doubt they exist) but I have talked to guys who've flown it and they didn't think it lacked agility. For-sure it's the heaviest of the group and will no doubt spend the most time on the approach. 40,000+ lbs is a lot of mass to bring to a halt.

Krabs, the helo I would pick doesn't exist. I am partial to the X2 demonstrator, if Sikorsky could scale that bad boy up, I'd pick that. But that's WAY too much money for this competition. Of the three I think it's really between the 47 and the 101(71). I think the 92's spread between empty and max gross doesn't leave much room for the extra avionics/defensive systems/weapon systems/team/team gear(very heavy) without running into the same problem we have now, flying way to heavy, way to regularly and wearing out aircraft way too fast. To get around that problem Sikorsky has to do some major redesign to increase the max gross. For what it's worth, the 101(71) is going to require some redesign as well, as it was built to a different crash standard. (15g vertical vs 20) I think the 47 is getting grandfathered in since it's a legacy design, but I don't know for sure.

I have to admit, when the 47 first got picked, I thought it was ridiculous, until I started to run some numbers and fill out a survey were we rank ordered what was important to us. (Basically a house of quality for you engineers) I finally came to my current opinion. I can't really decide between the 101(71) and 47 now without seeing the actual proposals. Basically most of our opinions are based on conjecture and gut feeling, with a little research. None of who will talk about it have seen the proposals, those that have can't.

[busdriver]

Jacko is this is the article you were referring to? If so, Maj Patrick didn't fly it himself, he and his co-workers came up with some better questions to ask when evaluating a new helo.

[Guest Jackonicko]

Thanks, but no, it isn't.

It was a letter published on the normal letters page, some years ago.

The letter stuck in my mind, because it astonished me at the time. It was such a clear endorsement of the 101/Merlin from a named serving USAF CSAR pilot who had flown it.

Jacko is this is the article you were referring to? If so, Maj Patrick didn't fly it himself, he and his co-workers came up with some better questions to ask when evaluating a new helo.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Jackonicko

[Guest Jollygreen]

That's a sweet video. Very impressive indeed.

busdriver, stract, Jollygreen, if you could pick any helicopter for the job (even besides the ones in the competition) what would you guys pick?

All things considered, performance, logistics, training, personnel ready to go, etc...HH-47. It is 90% there without an additional $ for R&D.

Does the US/EH101s have an operational, not test, AR capability? Does it have an operational, not test, TF/TA system? How many 101s are in the US inventory, for supply purposes, compared to 47s?

I'd take the 47.