HeloDude Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 From www.af.mil talking about next year's AF budget "...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 As I understand it, those are purchases for the U.S. Army. On second thought...does the Air Force even have helicopters?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JollyFlight21 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I know guys that have already built the request for the 60M model. If for nothing else but to replace the ones we've lost. Guard/reserve would get them so AD didn't have a "mixed fleet", and we'd get their old G models. I predict the M model is where we'll end up anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Talon Six Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 They're going to the missile fields to replace the UH-1Ns, I'll bet. Hell, maybe even the whole CVLSP package will now be the HH-60Ms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JollyFlight21 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 They're going to the missile fields to replace the UH-1Ns, I'll bet. Hell, maybe even the whole CVLSP package will now be the HH-60Ms. I hope there was sarcasm in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lockjaw25 Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 "Instead, the Air Force proposed spending $90 million for 2 HH-60M Pave Hawk helicopters built by Sikorsky to replenish its current search and rescue helicopter fleet." Major Changes In FY2010 Defense Budget There ya go. A whole two aircraft. And now we wait on Congress... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingHerc Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 its inevitable, af rescue is coming to the end of its life. its a shame and a waste but i dont see any other end result in all that is happening. the only way for the csar community to survive is if the secdef and csaf moves all remaining assets under afsoc as actual afsoc assets. no more rescue wings or rescue squadrons, just sos and sow. its the only way for us to survive. Besides if they make that move then afsoc will have rotary wing assets again, and more shadows to relieve the over tasked shadow squadrons out there now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeyore Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 its inevitable, af rescue is coming to the end of its life. its a shame and a waste but i dont see any other end result in all that is happening. the only way for the csar community to survive is if the secdef and csaf moves all remaining assets under afsoc as actual afsoc assets. no more rescue wings or rescue squadrons, just sos and sow. its the only way for us to survive. Besides if they make that move then afsoc will have rotary wing assets again, and more shadows to relieve the over tasked shadow squadrons out there now. Yes, this was tried in late 80's and early 90's with 23rd AF at Hq Mac since there was no AFSOC Hq. The problem today is AFSPC would have to give up its UH-1Ns and AFSOC would then need to incorporate the Rescue community in the fold. Funding in AFSOC then becomes problematic. The shifting of funds and buy in from the AF leadership is needed. If AFSOC were to grow this then creates pressure on the Army SOF helo forces and their program. So once again a food fight over dollars and mission. SecDef and others are playing a balancing game of dollars and mission. Therfore: back to square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Basically if we stay pure Rescue, we're too "specialized" if we adopt the SOF mission in addition, we're "duplicating effort." Hopefully someone realizes that the 160th is having problems with manning as well and having another pool of crew members to draw from would be a good thing. I guess HCS-84 is slipping under the radar since they're so damn small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usaf36031 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 So how do you guys interpret Gates' comments about a "joint" solution. Do you think that he is hoping to strip the AF of it's CSAR capabilities or rather to find an airframe that all the services can use, like the F-35? It is sounding a bit to me like he wants to give all SAR missions to the Army. Also, what is the story with the HH-60M? Is this a viable replacement for the G models assuming that we're allowed to keep the rescue mission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingHerc Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I personally think that the Army could in no way support the CSAR mission and realistically doesnt want to. they have enough on their hands as it is. I think what Gates and the CSAF is doing is setting up a situation where the end result is a massive plus up for AFSOC. They way i see this playing out is they cancel the csar-x, they let afsoc take the first two years worth of hc/mc-130J, and the continue to use words like joint when it comes to rescue. once the budget is approved i think they will then go to congress and basically say listen af rescue is dying. they have no new helicopter they are already falling behind in the tankers with most now going to afsoc. the community will not survive unless they let them move all rescue assets under afsoc and end the long proud tradition of air force rescue. All remaining units will be redeisgnated sos and sow, afsoc will get their over 2000 personnel plus up they want and the rescue mission now becomes a joint socom mission that can be accomplished by the air force in conjuction with the army 160th soar. to me this is the only possible way for the community to survive, in addition it is the only way for the guard to hold on to its critical rescue assets that are heavily used in the civil sar arena. the agreement would be that those three units will at home station just specialize in civial rescue to maintain a capability new york california and alaska refuse to let go of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pavehawk Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 So do you guys see the 60's being scrapped anytime soon or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingHerc Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 So do you guys see the 60's being scrapped anytime soon or what? Like I said the only way for the helo community in the air force to have a future is if we all move into afsoc. i guarantee afsoc would kill for helo's again after giving everything up for the cv-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curt22 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 So do you guys see the 60's being scrapped anytime soon or what? Nah....there will be no "scrapping" any time soon...The usual suspects are working hard to make the case to show the value of USAF RQS. I'm sure there will be some sort of RQS in the future...However...King may be right, in order to stay relevant...SOF (AFSOC) may have to pick up RQS for once and for all and for REAL (with funding) and show DoD what many in RQS already know...that USAF RQS can be more than a one trick pony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 60DriverPete Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 I personally think that the Army could in no way support the CSAR mission and realistically doesnt want to. What CSAR mission? I get that in a more conventional war this could one day become necessary again, but really nowadays all the pavehawk guys I know are flying chase for me or poaching my MEDEVAC missions. I have no personal hard feelings towards the individual aircrews, good guys just trying to do a job but I agree your community is looking for a reason to exist. As far as wanting to do the CSAR mission depends on who you talk to, but in no way able to support the CSAR mission, well we are all allowed our own opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RescueRandy Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 What CSAR mission? I get that in a more conventional war this could one day become necessary again, but really nowadays all the pavehawk guys I know are flying chase for me or poaching my MEDEVAC missions. I have no personal hard feelings towards the individual aircrews, good guys just trying to do a job but I agree your community is looking for a reason to exist. As far as wanting to do the CSAR mission depends on who you talk to, but in no way able to support the CSAR mission, well we are all allowed our own opinions. Lets not get into whether or not we need to support the CSAR mission. That could be said for more than one mission that's getting tons of funding... air-to-air, nuclear, etc. CSAR is a completely different animal than MEDEVAC and, despite what the DoD says, requires very dedicated and specialized training for many different types of professionals from Pilots to PJs, maintainers to rescue coordinators and more. Real CSAR is not as easy as a pickup game of basketball that can be thrown together as a patchwork of whoever is available (Desert-One). Air Force CSAR exists so that the men and women who put bombs on target (and unarmed Dustoff guys) can do their job knowing that there are trained professionals out there prepared to go the distance to bring them home if they get shot down. It seems that the American military has been repeating many mistakes from our history, and scrapping dedicated CSAR would be just another one of those mistakes. Just because the AF currently uses the Pave to save lives is other arenas does not mean that they don't train to a higher standard to prepare for the worst-case; a deep in denied territory, marginal weather rescue in 0 illum. Not two weeks ago, I saw an Al-Jazeera video on the news. An Afghani insurgent was taping a Blackhawk in OGE hover, presumably during a MEDEVAC mission, so as to say, "Look! I could shoot him down right now!" I don't know about you, but if I was in that bird, my only protection being that bright red cross on the door, I would want to know somebody has the skills to come get my a$$ out of the mountains before the insurgents find me and cut my head off. $.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 60DriverPete Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 (edited) CSAR is a completely different animal than MEDEVAC and, despite what the DoD says, requires very dedicated and specialized training for many different types of professionals from Pilots to PJs, maintainers to rescue coordinators and more. Real CSAR is not as easy as a pickup game of basketball that can be thrown together as a patchwork of whoever is available (Desert-One). Air Force CSAR exists so that the men and women who put bombs on target (and unarmed Dustoff guys) can do their job knowing that there are trained professionals out there prepared to go the distance to bring them home if they get shot down. Just because the AF currently uses the Pave to save lives is other arenas does not mean that they don't train to a higher standard to prepare for the worst-case; a deep in denied territory, marginal weather rescue in 0 illum. An Afghani insurgent was taping a Blackhawk in OGE hover, presumably during a MEDEVAC mission, so as to say, "Look! I could shoot him down right now!" I don't know about you, but if I was in that bird, my only protection being that bright red cross on the door, I would want to know somebody has the skills to come get my a$$ out of the mountains before the insurgents find me and cut my head off. $.02 Okay, I dont disagree that scrapping CSAR completely is a bad idea, it is needed just not right now, not in either of the current AOR's which i'm assuming you have flown in. What very specialized traing do Pave crews have that cant be found in the rest of the services? You guys can AR, well thats great perfect for overwater stuff which you guys are very good at but we are not at war with China right now and I dont think your'e gonna be doing any "deep in denied territory" ops any day soon. Be honest you can count the number of true PR events CSAR has done in the last decade on one hand. Thats not a personnal attack thats the truth, so go ahead and train to your "Higher Standard" and when the time comes it will pay off i'm sure. The Afghan video I saw it, sure it happens but what are you gonna do besides get the mission done right. But come on, are Pave crews really that good that they are gonna launch, locate and recover me before the guy who just shot me down from 250 feet away gets to me, cause that is comforting! I'm assuming you have operational knowledge with little green feet to prove it and are just defending your own but try BS'ing someone else with your motivational speech, because I know plenty of green guys just as good as you blue guys that have the "skills" to come get the helpless little Dustoff guys, and I used to be a blue guy. my $.02 Edited June 8, 2009 by 60DriverPete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmeg130 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Corners, please.... First, when we say "Army", we mean the 160th, not DUSTOFF. Great Americans, noble mission...but see Bengal 15. 160th have plenty of specialized training and a boatload of hours to boot. What they don't train for is interoperability with conventional air, which would be tough to reconcile in a big shooting war. But likely still do-able. Second, You may think we're giving a motivational speech, but until you get a FLIR, they're going to pass the HH guys all of the low-illum missions. That probe also means that they don't have to go from FARP to FARP, which speeds up the overall response time dramatically, especially in a theater where you're gross-weight limited already. Third, everyone trains to (or should) the highest standard, so that everything else is easy. Should we tell Talons not to do TF because no one is looking for them? Better yet, should we get rid of the M1A1 because we're not going to fight any armor-on-armor engagements any more? Should we be training more toward an irregular environment? I think so -- not all conflicts will be irregular, but the majority probably will be ("Most likely") . Does that mean we shouldn't keep looking at the "Most dangerous" eventuality? No. What we're trying to avoid is an unexpected situation where we have to throw our hands up and hope that SOF has enough extra resources to do their own missions and cover down on CSAR too (DS'90-OAF'99). We either give SOF the mission and resources to match, or maintain the capability elsewhere. That's the crux of the CSAR-X debate/cancellation, not the relevancy of CSAR/PR across the spectrum of conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Something else: The AF is not out shopping for missions to justify the cost of CSAR. Pete, based on your posts your experience with Pave guys is Afghanistan; we're there doing that mission because the Army put out an RFF, due to shortfalls of Medevac assets. The mission set in OIF is very much different. The crux of your argument is correct, we train for a different mission and it just so happens that the required skill set lends itself well to other missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lockjaw25 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Regardless, CSAR is going to be kept around. Where the AF puts us is one matter, but I sincerely doubt we're going anywhere anytime soon. There would be an enormous uproar if they were to scrap the whole dedicated mission, to include from the (don't laugh now, seriously) USCG. When Gates made his ridiculous "unarmed helicopter going 250 miles" comment (CV-22, anyone?) the USCG Commandant followed it up a few days later by saying his service was "very interested" as to the CSAR-X debate. They use us a lot for overwater rescues far out to sea, and they will be among those adding pressure to keep the mission (and the ANG bases near the coasts) in some way shape or form. Additionally, I saw that we're planning a CSAR aircraft replacement study to come out in September. I'm still a bit worried, but not nearly as much as I was regarding the future of the mission back when the news of the cancellation first broke. And DUSTOFF guys have my highest respect ...a good friend of mine just graduated the program for 60s at Rucker and is going to fly Mike models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usaf36031 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Lockjaw, could you please cite where you read that there was a CSAR replacement study coming out in September. I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum who would be interested in following that up. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lockjaw25 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 As per Aviation Week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 some of the DUSTOFF birds have a FLIR now, yes, but it's not integrated like ours, and there are still limits imposed upon the Army crews about how low they can fly in low illum situations, which in turn mitigates some of the benefits of the FLIR. Theirs is mounted on the side of the nose, with an additional viewing screen mounted on the side of the center console (in front of the pedal adjust lever). It's an improvement, but not as capable as our system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (re poaching Medevac missions) I think I have the prize for that, I was flying chase and landed first ("hot" LZ) our medic got off, the grunts loaded patients into the opposite door, my gunner ran and grabbed the medic and we took off. All this while our Dustoff was waiting behind a ridge for us to clear out the LZ. When we told them we had all the patients and we could RTB, the only response on the radio was "Cock Blockers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RescueRandy Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Whatever... my point is that the last thing the world needs is another UPT stud (myself included) pontificating about the finer nuances of Air Force missions. Point well taken. I'll take my foot out of my mouth on that one. However, I do have experience talking with the Army Medevac guys around Rucker and at home, whom I highly respect for both their courage and expertise. When not scratching tooth-and-nail to defend their mission, they will say some of the same things. Even a newly minted UPT pilot can learn a lot from good conversations with both Pavehawk and Blackhawk guys. Did A1C Snuffy at AFPC tell you this when he gave you your Kirtland dates? Sarcasm aside, I'm glad to see that more experienced guys around here can speak to the "finer nuances" that I have neither the experience or skill to pontificate about... I don't know A1C Snuffy, he sounds nice though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingHerc Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 K-FED if all you are is a UPT stud.. then stay out of a conversation of rescue and army professionals actually out in the field and in a situation where our future is at risk. until you actually join the community then dont throw stones. 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