CSAR-X

[Guest Krabs]

Gates calls for cancellation of CSAR-X and VH-71

Among other programs getting the axe...here's what Gates had to say about the pending helo programs.

First, I recommend that we terminate the VH-71 presidential helicopter:

• This program was originally designed to provide 23 helicopters to support the president at a cost of $6.5 billion. Today, the program is estimated to cost over $13 billion, has fallen six years behind schedule, and runs the risk of not delivering the requested capability.

• Some have suggested that we should adjust the program by buying only the lower capability “increment one” option. I believe this is neither advisable nor affordable. Increment One helicopters do not meet requirements and are estimated to have only a five- to 10-year useful life. This compares to the current VH-3 presidential helicopters that are 30 to 40 years old.

• We will promptly develop options for an FY11 follow-on program.

Second, we will terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X (CSAR-X) helicopter program. This program has a troubled acquisition history and raises the fundamental question of whether this important mission can only be accomplished by yet another single-service solution with single-purpose aircraft. We will take a fresh look at the requirement behind this program and develop a more sustainable approach.

www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1341

Sad day. I want to know what a "more sustainable approach" is for this program.

[Guest Jollygreen]

"Second, we will terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X (CSAR-X) helicopter program. This program has a troubled acquisition history and raises the fundamental question of whether this important mission can only be accomplished by yet another single-service solution with single-purpose aircraft. We will take a fresh look at the requirement behind this program and develop a more sustainable approach"

The SECDEF erred. At least this will give me something to do tomorrow.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Jollygreen

[contraildash]

So how come we can buy PC-12s (U-28s), MC-12s, and other random stuff without any big competition, or whiny A$$ corporations (insert any of the CSAR-X or Tanker-X competitors here) and get the planes to the warfighters quickly, yet this other stuff gets so damn political? Why cant the military (legally) say "hey we want this" and that be the end of it?

I'm confused as to why some things go right through, but others don't.

[Guest Krabs]

I'm confused as to why some things go right through, but others don't.

I would venture a guess that it has a lot to do with who is running the acquisitions process and who is "competing" in it. Also is the fact that programs like the U-28 are not as high cost, relatively speaking.

[contraildash]

I would venture a guess that it has a lot to do with who is running the acquisitions process and who is "competing" in it. Also is the fact that programs like the U-28 are not as high cost, relatively speaking.

It should be more like those "what if firefighters ran the world" commercials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6DORwBzuA

[busdriver]

The programs you mentioned were sole source awards and generally not nearly as expensive, hence less political.

As to the "more joint" solution to the CSAR fleet, it could mean as Buddha pointed out that the 160th would take over the RV portion; but that would mean many more aircraft and crews, and they already have problems with getting as many crews as they want, so still not a cheap option. It could also mean that the AF would get a "joint" HH-XX (just buy the MH-47, an HH version of an MH-60M/S, etc.) this would be an approach similar to the JSF.

Or I may be one of the last AF Helo pilots.

[Eeyore]

Gentleman, Time to tighten belts, once again. AF must make do with what we have for the future. I believe if AF is smart might be able to get a SLEP for the HH-60. Yes, a stop gap measure but can extend the service life and keep CSAR in the fight. I still believe we'll have UH-1Ns flying in AFSPC as we slowly put HH-60s in the boneyard because we won't be able to keep up the current pace of deployments to all those small brush fire conflicts. This is starting to look more like the olden days of yore just ten years ago.

[Fud]

Gentleman, Time to tighten belts, once again. AF must make do with what we have for the future. I believe if AF is smart might be able to get a SLEP for the HH-60. Yes, a stop gap measure but can extend the service life and keep CSAR in the fight. I still believe we'll have UH-1Ns flying in AFSPC as we slowly put HH-60s in the boneyard because we won't be able to keep up the current pace of deployments to all those small brush fire conflicts. This is starting to look more like the olden days of yore just ten years ago.

I agree with you statement about the times, and I think that it is wise of the AF to tighten the reigns quite a bit. We are overextending ourselves in two wars and spending more money than ever before. I hope they stick to what Gates has chosen, but there will be a lot of political rhetoric in the future. As in previous program cancellations, we will see the congressman start to complain about jobs lost, since parts for the F-22 are made all over the US.

[Duck]

As in previous program cancellations, we will see the congressman start to complain about jobs lost, since parts for the F-22 are made all over the US.

45 of the 58 states, I have been told.

Edited April 7, 2009 by leadeagle05

[Guest Lockjaw25]

Thoughts?

[Guest JollyFlight21]

Same old cycle. They won't realize until it's too late, and then they'll build it back up again after they recall us from Preds

[busdriver]

Yep, pretty accurate. The original intent of transferring CSAR to AFSOC was to combat that cycle. If CSAR forces have a secondary role as SOF, the thought was we could maintain our funding level in times of non-crisis. We never went full AFSOC though, it was in name only.

[Guest Lockjaw25]

I figured as much. Something that's been bothering me is the following quote:

“Frankly, the notion of an unarmed helicopter going 250 miles behind enemy lines by itself to rescue somebody didn’t seem like a realistic option". -Gates

I'm a bit confused as to where that concept of CSAR came from. Most everything I've read of has included more than one aircraft...usually with plenty of iron from the supporting aircraft. As far as I know, a solo mission with absolutely no armament 250 miles behind the lines was not the plan for CSAR-X.

Oh well...

[busdriver]

CSAR-X wasn't going to be unarmed either. Lightly armed, sure. And I'm not talking about machine guns.

[M2]

From yesterday's AFA Daily...

Cheers! M2

No Doubt, None: Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said last week that, although the combat search and rescue replacement vehicle program was canceled, "we didn't cancel a mission." Speaking at a National Aeronautic Association-sponsored event April 16 in Washington, D.C., Schwartz said, "there is no doubt in my mind—none—about the need for a vertical-lift capability which can bring Americans and our friends home from denied space." But, how this will be accomplished, whether jointly, or by each service independently, is a matter for discussion in upcoming defense reviews, he said. Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates axed the CSAR-X program, saying it was shaping up misguidedly as a single-service platform for a joint mission. (See below, "Roles and Mission Shift?")

Roles and Mission Shift?: Combat search and rescue/personnel recovery has long been a core USAF mission; however, Defense Secretary Robert Gates clearly wants to rewrite the CSAR portion of roles and missions. In remarks April 15 at Air University, Maxwell AFB, Ala., he said, "Frankly, the notion of an unarmed helicopter going 250 miles by itself to rescue somebody did not seem to me to be a realistic [operational concept]," he said. (For the record: CSAR-X would have crew machine guns and likely would operate with other air assets, as needed.) Gates added, "What I want is a joint effort." He was responding to a question from an Air National Guard HH-60 Pave Hawk pilot, who said: "The advocacy for Air Force rescue seems to have been sidetracked by the CSAR acquisition program to the detriment of our mission itself. As you know, we've performed thousands of joint and coalition recoveries in [uS Central Command's area of responsibility] largely because the operational flexibility of our profession transcends the risk capability of other recovery forces and … often provides the best chance, if you will, to recover a wounded soldier from the point of injury back to effective trauma care within the golden hour." So, the rescue pilot asked, "Given the dichotomy between the current issues and that objective, can you clarify for us please what is your vision for Air Force rescue as a core function of the Air Force and what would be a more sustainable approach at this time?" (Read for yourself the full exchange; Gates' complete response is very telling.)

[Guest jacob]

Sec. Gates seems to be obsessed with the word "Joint"

[M2]

Here's the linked response...

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

April 15, 2009

Remarks by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.

Question: Sir, Lieutenant Colonel Looney (sp) from the Air War College. I'm an HH-60 pilot from the Alaska Air National Guard. The advocacy for Air Force rescue seems to have been sidetracked by the CSAR acquisition program to the detriment of our mission itself.

While I recognize the arguments that drove your recommendation to cancel the CSAR-X, I know that Air Force rescue is not a single -- or does not merely have a single purpose itself.

As you know, we've performed thousands of joint and coalition recoveries in CENTCOM, largely because the operational flexibility of our profession transcends the risk capability of other recovery forces and allows often -- often provides the best chance, if you will, to recover a wounded soldier from the point of injury back to effective trauma care within the golden hour.

Given the dichotomy between the current issues and that objective, can you clarify for us please what is your vision for Air Force rescue as a core function of the Air Force and what would be a more sustainable approach at this time?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think if you look back at the last time we had a pilot down in hostile territory it was in the Balkans. And it ended up involving several services, including the Special Forces, to rescue that pilot.

The notion of -- the design of CSAR-X was basically to have a helicopter with the range to rescue a downed pilot 250 miles inside enemy territory. Frankly, the notion of an unarmed helicopter going 250 miles by itself to rescue somebody did not seem to me to be a realistic OPCON.

So what I want is a joint effort. We're also not just talking about Air Force pilots here. So what I want -- and we will start in FY '10 -- is to look at what we do next in combat search and rescue. It is an area where we need more capability. There's no question about that. But this is an area a little bit like the presidential helicopter where the acquisition and the requirements process got out of control.

And so I think that we need to take a hard look at it and a joint look at it and then go ahead and try to do something that we can bring to fruition. But again, I think it needs to be a joint capability.

And nobody cares more than I do about that golden hour. And one of the things that I've been devoting a lot of time to over the last several months is how do we get our troops in Afghanistan within that envelope of the golden hour? And we polled grade 60s from around the country and we added 10 helicopters a couple of months ago to give us the kind of -- and three additional field surgery -- surgical hospitals to Afghanistan to make sure that we could provide that capability for the troops there. That need will be met when the next -- when the combat aviation brigade deploys in May.

So I feel very strongly about giving our troops on the ground the assurance that somebody will be there within an hour for them. And we will provide that capability, but we will provide it, I think, more on a joint basis and an affordable one.

[Opie]

Air Force Times Article, 21 Apr 09. CSAR Airmen worried about mission

"The CSAR-X program, Gates added had gotten “out of control” with requirements that did not match the high threat a helicopter faced flying 250 miles behind enemy lines to rescue a downed aircrew."

"Another CSAR officer told Air Force Times, again on the condition of anonymity, that Gates is equating the mission with helicopter acquisition. There is a wide range of opinions on which helicopter is the best for CSAR, but the debate is about acquisition — not the merit of the mission."

You can't help but get the feeling that AF CSAR is getting sidelined due to a failed acquisitions process rather than mission necessity.

[dmeg130]

I was giving the SecDef the benefit of the doubt until this:

SEC. GATES: Well, I think if you look back at the last time we had a pilot down in hostile territory it was in the Balkans. And it ended up involving several services, including the Special Forces, to rescue that pilot.

First, let's talk about OIF. F-14 crew (mechanical failure) picked up by HH-60s on night 2. A-10 gets shot down, picked up by US ground troops. Sounds pretty hostile to me.

Second, let's talk about the "services" involved. The JSOTF was tasked with CSAR because rescue was still on its ass from OSW/ONW commitments and unable to provide coverage. The SF contingent's contribution was "ground security" aboard the helos, although some would argue all they did was extend the time the package spent on the ground. So it's not like the Army said, "send in the SF!". And A-10s provided SANDY coverage. Although there were some kinks in the mission, all ended OK. Services involved: AF + half an ODA.

What I've heard out of OSD leads me to believe that nobody on that side has an inkling of what the hell they are talking about. Perhaps if rated staff allocations weren't manned at 3%, there might be some SMEs to brief them.

The path this is going right now looks like:

1) All tankers and PJs to AFSOC.

2) Army gets all helicopters. 160th gets the -60s or more -47s. Big Army gets more -60s for MEDEVAC/CASEVAC.

It is POSSIBLE that their answer would be keeping AF rotary, but it'll either be HH-47s or CV-22, and it'll be in AFSOC.

And by AFSOC, I mean SOCOM, not Half-SOC like '03-'05. We'll see how this plays. Norty is a SOF guy too....

[disgruntledemployee]

Perhaps if rated staff allocations weren't manned at 3%, there might be some SMEs to brief them.

It wouldn't matter.

1. Any SME on a staff wouldn't be asked.

2. They would be busy making the ice cream cone.

3. Nobody would listen anyway.

They've made up their mind, now we get to figure it out.

Out.

[busdriver]

dmeg, if we're talking about the F-117 crash I'm pretty sure the 60 just landed and the PJs grabbed him.

[SVFR]

It's official,

Gates is on my 'do not save' list.

[selfc23fe]

According to The Hill, it sounds like he is offering up the Army's C-27s to ease the pain...

Despite settling a bitter, years-long battle to protect a coveted cargo aircraft program, the Army is now likely to be left empty-handed.

The Army, and in particular the Army National Guard, likely will no longer receive the C-27J Spartan, also known as the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA), under a new Pentagon plan, according to multiple sources at the Defense Department, in Congress and the defense industry.

Those sources say Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his inner circle are considering cutting the program in half and leaving the Air Force in charge of the remaining planes.

[Guest Curt22]

And by AFSOC, I mean SOCOM, not Half-SOC like '03-'05. We'll see how this plays. Norty is a SOF guy too....

"Half-SOC"...ROFLMAO! Perfect description, and can't believe this is the first time I've heard this!

[pbar]

From www.af.mil talking about next year's AF budget

"Air mobility and personnel recovery requirements are supported in the budget with $400 million for the development of the KC-X tanker, $1.4 billion for M/H/C-130Js and $90 million to acquire HH-60M helicopters. "

Anyone know what the helo buy is about? Isn't the HH-60M the Army medical evac version of the UH-60M?

PBAR