OverTQ Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 CSAR is a mission that needs to stay. Even if it does not get used that often, the fall out is too high to risk. Having a pilot paraded out on TV never works out well. It is much too complex a mission to be thrown together. The Army has even coughed up a SME to work in the PR cell in the CAOC. However, I do not understand why there is Special Operations Helios in the AF when there is the 160th. It seems as though they are competing for missions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiFlyer Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 CSAR is a mission that needs to stay. Even if it does not get used that often, the fall out is too high to risk. Having a pilot paraded out on TV never works out well. It is much too complex a mission to be thrown together. The Army has even coughed up a SME to work in the PR cell in the CAOC. However, I do not understand why there is Special Operations Helios in the AF when there is the 160th. It seems as though they are competing for missions While I agree with a lot of this discussion (I'm a CSAR fan, too) I think it misses the mark a little. The issue is not whether or not CSAR is good, its whether in a declining economy (meaning declining funding available for the military) you should spend a large amount of money for a useful mission you might occasionally do in the future, or for an equally useful mission you do every day and will continue to frequently do in the future. The SECDEF's point, as I've seen it expressed by knowledgeable people around my area, seems to be that he doesn't have enough money for everything, so is there a way to cover 80% of the mission space using existing assets (perhaps augmented a little and with more specialized joint training, if appropriate) and re-allocate the five or six billion dollars to other equally worthwhile projects that can't be done in another way? He hasn't make that decision, by the way, he only asked the question and told his people to look into it and come back with answers in September. That's his job...asking tough questions. You have to remember that his background is largely in "doing" ops, not "preparing" for possible ops, so he tends to hate to compromise current ops by holding/investing assets for possible stuff in the future if he doesn't have to. It will be interesting to see what the study outcome is, but the comment by the Coast Guard seems to support the idea that AF CSAR is already a "joint" event, and is counted on by many for more than just the odd deep mission to grab a pilot. We're in the midst of another similar discussion on another program generated by a "senior" who believed one DoD program was just a convienience for another agency and had little military utility. He was unaware of its widespread use throughout the DoD and COCOMs for dozens of key missions on a daily basis. Sometimes when you fully explain what is really going on, instead of just the "30 second sound bite" info, opinions are altered and decisions changed. I hope that is the case here...MEDEVAC and CSAR are both great missions, but in my opinion only overlap a little (and I've been heavily involved with both over the years, including FAC'ing for deep SAR missions and hauling critically wounded GIs out of "indian country" in a UH-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I'll just say we had a visit from someone in a position to have his voice heard earlier this week and I was heartened by what I heard about the future for CSAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...an-battles.html their bird is pretty sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 If by sweet you mean freakishly covered in external armor, then sure. I do like the comments the french have made about what they want: "If they could just give one more ton of weight, I'd probably ask for two." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 they came up the road and did a static/capes with us. We were all drooling over their bird, and by we I mean not me, as I was asleep (it was 9 am), but we heard all about it from the boss, who was sufficiently impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pavehawk Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I'll just say we had a visit from someone in a position to have his voice heard earlier this week and I was heartened by what I heard about the future for CSAR. What kind of things did you hear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingHerc Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Well i just read that a couple of congressman are proposing to eliminate any future osprey procurements stating that it has been a total failure. it has not delivered on anything that it was promised to do. It cant defend itself, it cant land on the smaller navy ships, it requires too many parts. all in all if this really goes through then the marines and air force will be looking back at rotary wing assets. since afsoc got rid of all of theirs then they will be dying to get rotary wings back and the quickest way to do this is to acquire all CSAR assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 60DriverPete Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 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. All DUSTOFF birds in OEF are required to have FLIR of some sort. On our Slick L's your description of the FLIR is accurate, and in my opinion its only usefull purpose is to take up even more of my visible area from the cockpit, It's rarely turned on red illum or not. On our HH's our FLIR is fully inegrated just like yours and is much more functional. It is displayed on our MFD's which can then be overlayed with evertying else the MFD can display. Speaking with the PAVE guys here your ball right under your nose is a magnet for strikes in non standard HLZ's, not sure if thats why they put the HH FLIR and stormscope in a duckbill that protrudes from the front of the aircraft. I dont kow what the answer is for your new CSAR bird is, as far as DUSTOFF goes i would kill for an Army HH front end with a slick L ass and external hoist. All the nice stuff upfront with none of the heavy excessive crap in the back. I'm interested in seeing how it pans out for you guys though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Speaking with the PAVE guys here... Unless there are still some MH-53's flying around that I don't know about--Air Force 60 guys aren't really 'Pave' guys. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'Pave' part of a 53 had a lot to do with it's ability of using terrain following/avoidance radar which our HH-60's do not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperWSO Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Unless there are still some MH-53's flying around that I don't know about--Air Force 60 guys aren't really 'Pave' guys. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'Pave' part of a 53 had a lot to do with it's ability of using terrain following/avoidance radar which our HH-60's do not have. Just a bomber guys opinion, but I believe that there are Pave Hawk MH-60s still flying and the MH-53 Pave Low helicopters were recently retired. Either way, I would expect that there are a great many guys still flying that had experience in either platform who could be considered "Pave" guys. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Just a bomber guys opinion, but I believe that there are Pave Hawk MH-60s still flying and the MH-53 Pave Low helicopters were recently retired. Either way, I would expect that there are a great many guys still flying that had experience in either platform who could be considered "Pave" guys. Just my 2 cents. I understand where you're coming from...but in the helicopter world, calling someone a 'Pave' guy was referring to someone on 53's, not 60's (even though the Air Force HH-60 does have the name 'Pave' in the aircraft's name). This is how it was explained by a 53 pilot when I was a young copilot and referred to 60 guys as 'Pave' guys. Any of the CSAR dudes want to weigh in on this one...very good chance I'm totally wrong, and definitely wouldn't be the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 The term Pave usually refers to the Pavelows, mainly by tradition more than anything. Most of us in Pavehawks refer to the birds as Hawks, or 60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curt22 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Speaking with the PAVE guys here your ball right under your nose is a magnet for strikes in non standard HLZ's, not sure if thats why they put the HH FLIR and stormscope in a duckbill that protrudes from the front of the aircraft. I dont kow what the answer is for your new CSAR bird is, as far as DUSTOFF goes i would kill for an Army HH front end with a slick L ass and external hoist. All the nice stuff upfront with none of the heavy excessive crap in the back. I'm interested in seeing how it pans out for you guys though. Yes...I'm sure SAC developed the "Quack Hawk" nose extension after seeing RQS and SOF H-60's using million dollar FLIR turrests as "curb feelers"...might be a bit funny looking, but the duckbill is worth it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingHerc Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I am curious what other rescue guys are hearing about the possibility of us going back to afsoc. i know the rumors have been going around a bit here, but has there been any actual rumors about any move like that in the works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 While I think that's the direction that we need to go, I doubt it will happen unless someone outside the Air Force steps in to make it happen. I imagine nothing is remotely solid until OSD gets its joint rescue whatever study later this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingHerc Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 You are probably right, and something that actually makes sense and seems logical would of course be unfavorable for the air force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbar Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/09/airforce_csar_091109w/ Study shows that the AF needs 171 rescue helos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JollyFlight21 Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/09/airforce_csar_091109w/ Study shows that the AF needs 171 rescue helos... Boy, wouldn't this be nice. Once again, people in high places, though, will ignore this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKopack Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Boy, wouldn't this be nice. Once again, people in high places, though, will ignore this. I'm sure that even now there looking at another, ummm... "study" that contradicts this one. Probably says that we could get by with a Predator and a couple of Humvee's... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverTQ Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 USAF Secretary: CSAR, Bomber Restarts Years Away Staff report Published: 15 Sep 2009 12:08 Print | Email U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley suggested that it might take years for the service to finish developing technologies that could be needed for a new long-range bomber, as well as a next-generation search-and-rescue helicopter. Donley told reporters September 14 at the Air Force Association's Air and Space Conference near Washington, D.C., that the service "expects" the fiscal 2011 defense spending plan will seek research and development funds for a new bomber. Related TopicsAmericas Air Warfare "The question is how far beyond [fiscal years] 2011 or 2012 does a new program develop," Donley said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in April ended the long-range strike program, saying he was not satisfied with the Air Force's work to date on the classified development effort. Gates said then he had every intention of re-starting the initiative when the Air Force had done more analytical work on what it needed the plane to do, and what kind of platform it might buy. To that end, Donley said "we have had several conversations" with Gates on the topic and he expects to submit to the defense secretary more information in coming weeks to allay his concerns. On the search-and-rescue-helicopter effort, which Gates also terminated in April, Donley said it likely will take "one or two years to get through … some specialized requirements we have to work through" the Pentagon's weapons requirements approval process. Only then would a new acquisition effort begin. Donley said Gates ended the former CSAR-X program "because he thought it was overspecced for the need." In response, Donley said the Air Force will likely "be less ambitious" if it is cleared to begin a new CSAR helo program. "We have money in the outyears of our budget" to begin a new search-and-rescue effort, he said, "but it will take a couple of years to ramp back up." Defense News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 over speced for the mission? Jesus! we're currently flying an aircraft that has NEVER met our need, we make due. Now if we can secure the funding, maybe we can reduce the weight of what we're currently flying, with no additional gain in capability, and build an aircraft that isn't very power/weight limited. The Pavehawk mod is basically 3000 pounds of weight that can currently be carried out by a laptop, I mean seriously our computer is a no shit 486. After spending however much money to SLEP what we've got now, we'll still be limited in internal space and range and ability to penetrate certain threats. Basically, what we have now can be fixed for the current fight, given enough money. BUT, for us to be REALLY be able to go into any area to get our downed airmen (our primary mission, yes it's kind of the same argument as the F-22) we need a lot more money. Picture this, you've got the LO guys penetrating a double digit IADS, and low and behold one of them has to bailout for whatever reason, how do you go and get them? Could we do it with what we have now? What would be required? The answers aren't for this forum, but the thought scares the shit out of me given what I'm flying now. I think I could do it circumstances permitting, but no small amount of luck would be involved. I just don't think we should be banking our guys' lives on luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lockjaw25 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm currently reading "Leave No Man Behind," almost an encyclopedia size book about the history of CSAR from WWI to the present. It's sad to see the same failures in terms of neglect repeated again...and again...and again...which only end up costing us lives and sending guys into POW camps when the time comes. And good job fixing that acquisitions process, so it takes us "one to two years," to get the competition started again. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jackonicko Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 if you want to see the best helicopter for this job, just get yourself down to El Centro, where the nearest thing to an HH-71 is presently strutting its stuff on Merlin Vortex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Soon enough we won't have enough airplanes left to warrant a CSAR-X platform. 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