CSAR-X

[Danny Noonin]

Considering personnel recovery is one of the AF's 12 core functions, an O-6 is a pretty puny way to back that up.

...

Respect? Yes. Adequately support? No.

All of the core function teams at ACC are led by a colonel. PR is no different than any other core function in that regard.

And show me a single mission set in the AF that is "adequately supported" right now.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Danny Noonin

[Breckey]

CBTs

[17D_guy]

PT Testing.

[slackline]

I agree that this would certainly be an easy road to go down for AFSOC. ACC talks a big game about appreciating rescue guys. When I flew the HH-60, guys at the club were real great about buying drinks, etc. But when it comes down to supporting the mission, as a command, ACC was/is pretty weak.

Just asking, were you around when we were AFSOC? If you think we are inadequately supported under ACC, it was worse with AFSOC. This is just one reason why this is yet another stupid decision.

Helicopters will never be truly supported as other airframes are in a fixed-wing Air Force. That's just my opinion. The Army hates that we have any Helos at all, and I would say that the AF is not far behind. We're a far cry better than 10 years ago, but there are still people in the AF that don't even know of the existence. I'd say that's not representative anymore, but it exists.

As far of everything else you say, meh. You're very optimistic of the Osprey's caps. IMHO too much so, but that's your right, and I won't disrespect that. I'll stick with my pros and cons statement, and that the 60 has more pros than does an Osprey in a CSAR environment.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[RescueRandy]

Just asking, were you around when we were AFSOC? If you think we are inadequately supported under ACC, it was worse with AFSOC. This is just one reason why this is yet another stupid decision.

Wasn't around when CSAR was under AFSOC, so I can't speak to how it was. However, I think it's worth noting that AFSOC's been through and done a lot since they had the CSAR mission.

Honestly, I think that regardless of how the decision goes, it's important for AF leadership to be having this conversation. If ACC thinks they might be losing the mission (money) maybe they'll pony up a little more in order keep it.

Helicopters will never be truly supported as other airframes are in a fixed-wing Air Force. That's just my opinion. The Army hates that we have any Helos at all, and I would say that the AF is not far behind. We're a far cry better than 10 years ago, but there are still people in the AF that don't even know of the existence. I'd say that's not representative anymore, but it exists.

Agreed.

As far of everything else you say, meh. You're very optimistic of the Osprey's caps. IMHO too much so, but that's your right, and I won't disrespect that. I'll stick with my pros and cons statement, and that the 60 has more pros than does an Osprey in a CSAR environment.

Like I said, I freely admit that the CV still has some significant features with which crews and teams must contend during every mission. Are they insurmountable? Not by a long shot.

Also like I said before, the Osprey vs. 60 argument is very much dependent on the specific missions (within PR) that we're talking about. I thought better of doing a pro/con listing in this venue, but the CV has some serious strengths when it comes to the traditional CSAR (big war) mission set. Clearly the -60 is a proven platform in the CASEVAC arena and has proven acceptable in the CSAR arena.

Either way, while likely a more expensive option, I'm fully in favor of a (more) mixed fleet of CSAR assets. ACC already has the "rescue triad." What's to say that the CV-22 doesn't have a place somewhere in there as well? If asked, I'd be in favor of tasking some CAS assets with a primary mission of PR as well. If we all pigeon-hole ourselves into doing one type of mission only, we'll all end up specializing ourselves out of a lot experience and usefulness; as rescue learned in AFG when they accepted the CASEVAC tasking.

As far as AFSOC vs. ACC: I still believe that rescue forces meet the joint definition of SOF. As far as if the forces and the mission would actually fair better in AFSOC... Well, only having them there would give us the answer.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Hella-Copters

[busdriver]

What's to say that the CV-22 doesn't have a place somewhere in there as well? .

As far as AFSOC vs. ACC: I still believe that rescue forces meet the joint definition of SOF. As far as if the forces and the mission would actually fair better in AFSOC... Well, only having them there would give us the answer.

To the first: They do, as long as SOCOM is willing to let them sit alert/get re-tasked. There are plans currently in existence that have SOCOM assets sitting alert to support PR, but they are only willing to do that because there is no SOCOM mission otherwise.

To the second: Just because the capabilities to support one mission very closely resemble another doesn't mean that's the best fit. A lot of this question really comes down to whether SOCOM wants to truly take ownership of the CSAR portion of the PR umbrella, and SOCOM & AFSOC makes a serious effort to improve their CAF integration capabilities and TTPs.

[craino21]

As far as AFSOC vs. ACC: I still believe that rescue forces meet the joint definition of SOF. As far as if the forces and the mission would actually fair better in AFSOC... Well, only having them there would give us the answer.

And we've tried that and it was worse. I'd agree that AFSOC has changed in the last decade, but so has ACC. Do we really need to change MAJCOM every decade to see if things have changed for the better? Also, a word of caution, ACC's support of CSAR is far different from USAFE's, and for the better (assuming this is who I think it is).

In a perfect world if we were just adding helicopters to the Air Force I'd agree that AFSOC would probably be the place to put us, but this push feels like a cheap grab for money and additional airframes. I do not see this as AFSOC trying to do the best they can for PR.

I'm a huge fan of the tilt-rotor concept, and I think the CV-23 would be a fantastic CSAR aircraft, however I think the CV-22 is too compromised to truly replace the HH-60. And if we're talking a mixed fleet it's not just a little more expensive, it's fantastically more expensive. The only way to replace the -60 is a direct replacement, at least in this economic environment. What prevent's the CV-22 from having a place? Training, asset allocation and money. As soon as the CVs at Hurlburt start flying up to Moody for CSARTFs we can begin this discussion. Do you see that happening any time soon? I don't.

EDIT: Busdriver beat me to it.

Edited June 24, 2013 by craino21

[JSChmed]

As I line pilot, my impression is that ACC's support has been pretty good. They don't understand helos, but don't need to. They understand the "air war" and what each player brings. They value CSAR for obvious reasons. I was there under AFSOC. It was a bunch of -130 guys who thought they understood helos and liked to get in everyone's shit.

The "USAF" hates that we have helicopters? I dunno, but I do know they stood down multiple fighter squadrons and cut flying hours for numerous other units. Helos haven't been touched yet. Not saying that it won't happen, but it hasn't yet.

You guys look like a couple of sissies in a slap fight when you go back and forth about how unsupported and unappreciated we are.

[slackline]

.

You guys look like a couple of sissies in a slap fight when you go back and forth about how unsupported and unappreciated we are.

You sound like someone failing at trying to be funny by saying something that doesn't apply. Who was whining about facts? It's not a big deal, it's just life. Don't worry though, you sounded much tougher though.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[busdriver]

Pretty sure he was thinking along the same lines as Noonin, who is getting as much support as they would like or need in this day and age? I mean acquisition buffoonery aside, they are actively trying to buy us a new helicopter.

Money is short and will be for the foreseeable future, how do we make sure rescue capability doesn't atrophy like it did post Vietnam? This isn't about airframes, it's about the mission.

[Guest ThatGuy]

http://snafu-solomon...ssion-back.html

This article was also in AF Times. Lookout ACC...

Edited June 29, 2013 by slick999

[osulax05]

Discussed in the CSAR-X thread.

[drewpey]

Good. Never understood the move out from AFSOC in the first place. Seems like there are some redundancies to be eliminated in keeping it under AFSOC, especially during the budget crisis. Plus we'd be glad to have them.

[Guest ThatGuy]

Discussed in the CSAR-X thread.

Please move this thread then moderator. My bad...

Good. Never understood the move out from AFSOC in the first place. Seems like there are some redundancies to be eliminated in keeping it under AFSOC, especially during the budget crisis. Plus we'd be glad to have them.

From 2003-2006 it was under AFSOC. I was told by a retired Lt Col type that it got moved to ACC because AFSOC wasn't doing a good job. Take that for what its worth and I am not bashing anyone. Not trying to offend anyone...

[HeloDude]

From 2003-2006 it was under AFSOC. I was told by a retired Lt Col type that it got moved to ACC because AFSOC wasn't doing a good job. Take that for what its worth and I am not bashing anyone. Not trying to offend anyone...

It got moved back to ACC because Big Blue didn't want their dedicated CSAR assets being used by SOCOM for anything else under the sun. Having dedicated CSAR under ACC allows the fighter guys to fly higher risk missions because leadership can say that they have CSAR ready to go in if something happens. If those same assets are being tasked as SOF units under AFSOC/SOCOM, then they might not be available to sit alert as dedicated CSAR whenever the fighter guys want to launch a mission. That's pretty much it in a nut shell.

But sore some time now, the HH-60's aren't just doing 'dedicated CSAR', the CV's are up and running and can provide a different aspect to the CSAR/PR mission as shown in Libya (debatable), and we have budget issues...this all equates to AFSOC/SOCOM making another push to get the 60's and HC's under their command, and possibly get more CV's out of the mix too.

My bet is we'll know something definitive by the end of the calendar year, and quite possibly even sooner as the CRH contract is supposed to be awarded by early October.

[Guest ThatGuy]

First the B-52s and B-2As, now CSAR might depart ACC. The AF Times basically thrashed the F-35 in their latest edition. Things in ACC are going to get quite interesting. Next thing you know ISR will branch off.....

[Skitzo]

ACC doesn't have a monopoly on ISR anyways.

[Chaff]

Next thing you know ISR will branch off.....

Just when I thought I was having a good weekend...

[Breckey]

Just go old school and put them under AMC.

[Skitzo]

This just doesn't make sense to me. It makes sense to me to have a majority of assets designed to conduct CSAR in the same organization as those that depend on them. I'd file this under one of the SOF truths....Most Special Operations require non-SOF assistance.

[Azimuth]

Just go old school and put them under AMC.

Huh?

[bronxbomber252]

Huh?

Rescue used to be the Air Rescue and Recovery Service which was under MAC.

[Skitzo]

Afsoc was once under Mac too. Maybe just move everything there.

[AnimalMother]

This just doesn't make sense to me. It makes sense to me to have a majority of assets designed to conduct CSAR in the same organization as those that depend on them. I'd file this under one of the SOF truths....Most Special Operations require non-SOF assistance.

So you're saying that doing this would violate a SOF truth? I know you know that we excel at that. The SOF truths are just words that AFSOC likes to throw around to make themsleves feel, well, special. similar to the "if you don't want to be here in AFSOC, then you can leave" line that I've heard from almost every commander I've served under. We say it, but at the end of the day we don't really mean it.

[Skitzo]

Not only are violating a truth we are depriving the majority user of the close working relationship that will ensure more positive personnel recovery results.

Then again it could be a move to allow more procurement of CSAR assets. If everything that is on a helo or herc that is dedicated towards CSAR is now special and comes out of a different pot of money and makes it easier to increase capability maybe it's justified.