CSAR-X

[Breckey]

As the AF crimes article said, it is a move to try and get AFSOC more CV-22s and MC-130Js.

AFSOC wants to replace 31 of the 66 active-duty HH-60s with 18 new Bell-Boeing CV-22s. This would be in addition to AFSOC’s planned fleet of 49 Ospreys for special operations....The AFSOC plan also includes upgrading the HC-130s to the MC-130 special operations configuration.

[bronxbomber252]

Honestly, after talking with guys from the squadron that have been around for a while, I hope we just stay in ACC. Things may not be perfect here, I suspect that AFSOC would just screw us, and cannibalize us for airframes, I honestly don't se much positive change potential based on the stores I have heard from those older guys in my squadron.

[stract]

Just go old school and put them under AMC.

Please no! Even though we've been passed around since our inception, a move to AMC would be HORRIBLE!

Honestly, after talking with guys from the squadron that have been around for a while, I hope we just stay in ACC. Things may not be perfect here, I suspect that AFSOC would just screw us, and cannibalize us for airframes, I honestly don't se much positive change potential based on the stores I have heard from those older guys in my squadron.

I was in Pakistan when we found out we were moving from AFSOC back to ACC. Literally changed patches overnight. Even in AFSOC we were treated as the red-headed step children. At Balad we lived and worked in the JSOAC, but we had to stay in our little corner the entire time ("well, you're not really SOF, so we're not actually going to give you any details for the missions you're supporting daily, or allow you to talk to anyone, or eat at DFAC 5, or have access to X pot of $$, or really support you as a command"). We've been treated better in ACC. I'd only want to go back to AFSOC if it's done right this time.

edit: multiquote fix

Edited June 30, 2013 by stract

[slackline]

Please no! Even though we've been passed around since our inception, a move to AMC would be HORRIBLE!

I was in Pakistan when we found out we were moving from AFSOC back to ACC. Literally changed patches overnight. Even in AFSOC we were treated as the red-headed step children. At Balad we lived and worked in the JSOAC, but we had to stay in our little corner the entire time ("well, you're not really SOF, so we're not actually going to give you any details for the missions you're supporting daily, or allow you to talk to anyone, or eat at DFAC 5, or have access to X pot of $$, or really support you as a command"). We've been treated better in ACC. I'd only want to go back to AFSOC if it's done right this time.

edit: multiquote fix

2!

[Snooter]

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.....

What we really need to do is create some more GO billets...

[arg]

AFSOC wants the money and thats it.

[busdriver]

From the acting SecAF: SOCOM is really convinced they can do it better for less, ACC is really convinced SOCOM is full of it (ie numbers are off) and it's the wrong fit for the mission. Both were told to go back and do some deeper analysis, he expects a decision in the next month or so, affecting the FY15 budget.

Also:

No shocker, he expects sequestration to continue.

New Tanker, Next Gen Bomber and JSF are the protected babies. Any cuts to the JSF at this point risk putting it on the death spiral of increasing costs and partner pullouts, therefore legacy airframes will suffer to support the JSF. Specifically mentioned the A-10 and F-15.

Tap danced around manpower cuts, but this was particularly telling: "Guidance is to build a force that is sustainable" along with a lot of talk about not having a hollow force, take that how you will.

He talked a lot about a ten to twenty year outlook, and how the methods we used to react to sequestration in FY13 and will use in FY14 are not what will be used in FY15 and beyond, he really hated the furlough of our civilians and "they" don't want to do it again for risk of making it a permanent tool.

He said that the AF has made significant strides in telling our story and explaining readiness on the Hill. Specifically that readiness is not about whats going on now but if something like Syria pops up and what that would mean, to the point that other services are being asked to use the AF model to quantify readiness. Whatever that means.

Overall, he talked for a very short period of time and answered a lot of questions, when he got a weird low level question from a young enlisted troop he admitted when he didn't know and said he'd get back to them with a comment to his note taker person. Whether he actually follows through, who knows.

In all, he seemed like he actually was engaged and doing the best he can, but until the budget builders get any clear guidance they're trying to build as many COAs as possible to plan for whatever congress shits out.

[slackline]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130820/DEFREG02/308200016/Letter-One-Cut-We-Can-t-Afford?fb_action_ids=722827317732954&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=artsharetop&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B433486743433443%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.recommends%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%22artsharetop%22%5D

Hope this works from an iPhone. This is for that cat who didn't believe that Rescue was pulling their fair share of the weight. Check out the DoD study a former CSAF cites.

[Liquid]

The AF are OSD are looking for ways to save money. AFSOC offered to take CSAR and replace CRH with CV-22s. Since AFSOC flies CV-22s, and MC-130Js are virtually identical to HC-130Js, there are efficiencies. Replacing CRH with CV-22s and HH-60 SLEP would save billions. $3-8B depending how you do the math. Real money in today's tough fiscal environment.

The money to buy new CV-22s and SLEP 60s would come from Air Force TOA (MFP-4) not SOCOM (MFP-11). SOCOM would not pay for CSAR, since it is not a special ops mission. SOCOM CDR agreed to AFSOC taking the CSAR mission and allowing efficiencies in organizing, training and equipping. SOCOM also agreed to efficiencies with CSAR mission tasking, like they do now. CV-22 may not be as capable as the CRH that doesn't exist yet (based on requirements) but it is very capable of specialized mobility. But combined with SLEP HH-60s and H/MC-130Js, CV-22s would provide a robust CSAR capability.

AFSOC doesn't want to steal money. They would keep AF funding separate from SOCOM funding because the law requires it. They do it every day. 58 SOW at Kirtland trains AFSOC crews and CSAR crews in AETC with mixed funding, not hard.

AFSOC didn't screw up CSAR or give it back. SOCOM commander GEN Brown made comments about MH-47Gs being selected for CSAR-X and moving them all into USASOC and CSAF moved CSAR back to ACC the next day. AFSOC didn't agree with the comments and SOCOM didn't have the authority to do either, but it made CSAF nervous. And ACC has slipped CSAR-X/CRH out of the FYDP for years. Frees up money for higher priorities. We have been unwilling to recap our aging HH-60s, period.

AFSOC, or AMC or any other MAJCOM, would not deliberately refuse a mission they were tasked to do. It is ridiculous to say only ACC values fighter pilots and anyone else would choose another "higher priority" mission over rescuing a downed airmen. The "contract" to never leave a downed airman behind is not something only ACC can do.

The chow hall you eat in and the compound you work from depends on who your boss is. It doesn't matter which MAJCOM you come from. Your OPCON commander will determine where you eat and sleep. If you weren't OPCON to JSOAC at Balad, why would they be responsible for your care and feeding? You were in AFSOC, but assigned via DEPORD to AFCENT. Same goes for AFSOC enablers supporting AEF taskings. AFSOC CSAR crews deployed to conduct CSAR may or may not be assigned to SOCOM commanders (TSOCs, JSOACs, or Task Forces). It would depend on the RFF, DEPORD and OPORD defined by the GCC. Combining the equipment and expertise in CSAR and AFSOC makes sense, especially in certain areas of the world now.

Right now, it seems ACC and HAF don't support the move. AFSOC offered to help pay a big bill by offering an alternative to CRH but doesn't really have dog in the fight. OSD may have a different view. We'll see in a few months.

[backseatdriver]

The AF are OSD are looking for ways to save money. AFSOC offered to take CSAR and replace CRH with CV-22s. Since AFSOC flies CV-22s, and MC-130Js are virtually identical to HC-130Js, there are efficiencies. Replacing CRH with CV-22s and HH-60 SLEP would save billions. $3-8B depending how you do the math. Real money in today's tough fiscal environment.

The money to buy new CV-22s and SLEP 60s would come from Air Force TOA (MFP-4) not SOCOM (MFP-11). SOCOM would not pay for CSAR, since it is not a special ops mission. SOCOM CDR agreed to AFSOC taking the CSAR mission and allowing efficiencies in organizing, training and equipping. SOCOM also agreed to efficiencies with CSAR mission tasking, like they do now. CV-22 may not be as capable as the CRH that doesn't exist yet (based on requirements) but it is very capable of specialized mobility. But combined with SLEP HH-60s and H/MC-130Js, CV-22s would provide a robust CSAR capability.

AFSOC doesn't want to steal money. They would keep AF funding separate from SOCOM funding because the law requires it. They do it every day. 58 SOW at Kirtland trains AFSOC crews and CSAR crews in AETC with mixed funding, not hard.

AFSOC didn't screw up CSAR or give it back. SOCOM commander GEN Brown made comments about MH-47Gs being selected for CSAR-X and moving them all into USASOC and CSAF moved CSAR back to ACC the next day. AFSOC didn't agree with the comments and SOCOM didn't have the authority to do either, but it made CSAF nervous. And ACC has slipped CSAR-X/CRH out of the FYDP for years. Frees up money for higher priorities. We have been unwilling to recap our aging HH-60s, period.

AFSOC, or AMC or any other MAJCOM, would not deliberately refuse a mission they were tasked to do. It is ridiculous to say only ACC values fighter pilots and anyone else would choose another "higher priority" mission over rescuing a downed airmen. The "contract" to never leave a downed airman behind is not something only ACC can do.

The chow hall you eat in and the compound you work from depends on who your boss is. It doesn't matter which MAJCOM you come from. Your OPCON commander will determine where you eat and sleep. If you weren't OPCON to JSOAC at Balad, why would they be responsible for your care and feeding? You were in AFSOC, but assigned via DEPORD to AFCENT. Same goes for AFSOC enablers supporting AEF taskings. AFSOC CSAR crews deployed to conduct CSAR may or may not be assigned to SOCOM commanders (TSOCs, JSOACs, or Task Forces). It would depend on the RFF, DEPORD and OPORD defined by the GCC. Combining the equipment and expertise in CSAR and AFSOC makes sense, especially in certain areas of the world now.

Right now, it seems ACC and HAF don't support the move. AFSOC offered to help pay a big bill by offering an alternative to CRH but doesn't really have dog in the fight. OSD may have a different view. We'll see in a few months.

And that's how you debate...

[HeloDude]

Right now, it seems ACC and HAF don't support the move. AFSOC offered to help pay a big bill by offering an alternative to CRH but doesn't really have dog in the fight. OSD may have a different view.

Nice post man. You make a lot of solid points, but to be fair, there are always two sides to the story when both parties involved don't agree in the beginning. I'm not saying that your argument is any more or less correct, just saying that Big Blue has their reasons for wanting ACC to keep the CSAR birds/mission, some of those reasons you correctly pointed out. And if you asked someone from ACC or HAF, they would probably tell you that AFSOC/SOCOM has 'additional' motives for wanting to take over the mission as well.

We'll see in a few months.

...unless CRH source selection gets bumped again, my guess is it will be earlier than that.

[busdriver]

$3-8B depending how you do the math.

The money to buy new CV-22s and SLEP 60s would come from Air Force TOA (MFP-4) not SOCOM (MFP-11). SOCOM would not pay for CSAR, since it is not a special ops mission.

Does this account for the difference in O&M costs wrt a Osprey vs a Hawk? Does the AF plan to buy CV's for rescue or MV's? As I understand it (I've certainly been wrong before) the AF currently buys MV's for AFSOC then SOCOM pays to make them CV's. Am I off base?

I disagree that AFSOC doesn't have a dog in the fight, they want more CV-22s and this might get that but maybe I'm just cynical. This isn't about money, it's about iron. It could certainly work out well for the mission, but would require a change in joint doctrine. Keeping things "separate" doesn't benefit anyone. Joint PR doctrine is certainly fucked up, if we're going this route let's shake up the boat and fix things.

As for CSAR, if you can't shoot back and you're going to rely on an F-35 to do your shooting for you.... don't bother with a contested objective.

As far as your points about who has OPCON/TACON and where you live and eat, I've been on just about every end of that and it always seems to work itself out, no argument.

[Liquid]

Does this account for the difference in O&M costs wrt a Osprey vs a Hawk? Does the AF plan to buy CV's for rescue or MV's? As I understand it (I've certainly been wrong before) the AF currently buys MV's for AFSOC then SOCOM pays to make them CV's. Am I off base?

I disagree that AFSOC doesn't have a dog in the fight, they want more CV-22s and this might get that but maybe I'm just cynical. This isn't about money, it's about iron. It could certainly work out well for the mission, but would require a change in joint doctrine. Keeping things "separate" doesn't benefit anyone. Joint PR doctrine is certainly ######ed up, if we're going this route let's shake up the boat and fix things.

As for CSAR, if you can't shoot back and you're going to rely on an F-35 to do your shooting for you.... don't bother with a contested objective.

As far as your points about who has OPCON/TACON and where you live and eat, I've been on just about every end of that and it always seems to work itself out, no argument.

The savings take into account cancelling the CRH (expensive new start), buying new CV-22s and SLEP the remaining 60s. It compares O&M of CV-22 vs CRH estimates, not new HH-60s or old HH-60s. The big money savings is in canceling the CRH and using established supply chain and parts available with the mature V-22 program. The proposed reduction in the number of aircraft is mitigated by AFSOC's CV-22s and MC-130s.

7.62 and .50 cal aren't great at defeating threats in CSAR role. CV-22 has .50 cal on ramp and AFSOC is looking at options for forward firing rockets, missiles and guns. The CV-22's range, speed, cargo capacity, defensive systems and terrain following capability make it a very good CSAR platform for contested objectives.

It makes total sense to put CSAR into a MAJCOM that generates and employs C-130Js and CV-22s, specializes in short notice taskings, understands mobility missions, is partially funded with joint dollars, is globally positioned far forward in small units and has unique command and control capabilities suited for MCO and IW.

All AFSOC has done is articulate options for the decision makers. With 32/50 CV-22s delivered, they have plenty of iron and plenty to do. No emotion, drama or hidden agendas, just warfighting options in a fiscally constrained environment.

[RescueRandy]

The savings take into account cancelling the CRH (expensive new start), buying new CV-22s and SLEP the remaining 60s. It compares O&M of CV-22 vs CRH estimates, not new HH-60s or old HH-60s. The big money savings is in canceling the CRH and using established supply chain and parts available with the mature V-22 program. The proposed reduction in the number of aircraft is mitigated by AFSOC's CV-22s and MC-130s.

7.62 and .50 cal aren't great at defeating threats in CSAR role. CV-22 has .50 cal on ramp and AFSOC is looking at options for forward firing rockets, missiles and guns. The CV-22's range, speed, cargo capacity, defensive systems and terrain following capability make it a very good CSAR platform for contested objectives.

It makes total sense to put CSAR into a MAJCOM that generates and employs C-130Js and CV-22s, specializes in short notice taskings, understands mobility missions, is partially funded with joint dollars, is globally positioned far forward in small units and has unique command and control capabilities suited for MCO and IW.

All AFSOC has done is articulate options for the decision makers. With 32/50 CV-22s delivered, they have plenty of iron and plenty to do. No emotion, drama or hidden agendas, just warfighting options in a fiscally constrained environment.

Outstanding. I agree that the CV-22 faces some significant LIMFACs when it comes to performing the PR mission. But, having now piloted both airframes, I also think that the benefits of performing PR with appropriate TTPs to mitigate the CVs weaknesses and SLEPing the remaining HH-60G is a good option for rescue. The principle reason I volunteered to leave the 60 for the 22 was because of what I saw as ACC's poor management of the PR mission. The foremost example (of many) of that mismanagement is the CSAR-X/CRH debacle.

I won't get into TTPs in this forum, but I wholeheartedly disagree that the HH-60 (be it a G model or the inevitable M model) is better equipped to face a contested area than the CV-22. The missions of both aircraft clearly state the the 60 is for low to medium threat environments whereas the CV is for medium to high threat. The CASEVAC mission will be significantly reduced (if not eliminated) for the AF as we draw down in AFG. Even in that mission going into a hot LZ requires attack escort.

We'd be naive to think that sending rescue back to AFSOC wouldn't benefit AFSOC. But given the current fiscal environment, the state of current dedicated rescue airframes, and ACC's inability to adequately support the mission, it seems to me that the previously detailed plan would benefit AFSOC and the rescue triad.

[busdriver]

buying new CV-22s and SLEP the remaining 60s. It compares O&M of CV-22 vs CRH estimates, not new HH-60s or old HH-60s.

No argument that cancelling a new start would save some money, it just seems like maintenance costs for an Osprey are crazy high compared to a 60. Does Big blue plan to buy full up CVs? My understanding was that big blue(FP-4) pays for MV-22s and SOCOM (MFP-11) pays for the CV modifications.

7.62 and .50 cal aren't great at defeating threats in CSAR role. CV-22 has .50 cal on ramp and AFSOC is looking at options for forward firing rockets, missiles and guns. The CV-22's range, speed, cargo capacity, defensive systems and terrain following capability make it a very good CSAR platform for contested objectives.

7.62 is dumb, and the fact that we still keep it around annoys me. .50 cal actually punches above it's weight class with the correct ammo, ball/ap/api ain't the correct ammo. I should have clarified wrt to contested objective, I really meant the terminal area. Without a doubt it has more advanced systems to deal with a more advanced enroute threat. But if AFSOC is looking at legit forward firing standoff weapons for the CV, that's pretty cool, I'd be curious about the EM performance however and ability to balance weight gain and power available to actually land. I could see three ship tactics make a come back.

specializes in short notice taskings,

AFSOC logistics is much better than the CAF.

contested area...... The missions of both aircraft clearly state the the 60 is for low to medium threat environments whereas the CV is for medium to high threat. .....Even in that mission going into a hot LZ requires attack escort.

Don't get too wrapped around the axle with mission statements, the 60 can in fact survive in a high threat environment, but I'll admit the CV-22 is better suited. However, requiring attack escort is a ORM measure not something that is truly "required." Ever been "escorted" by OH-58s? They're not any more capable than you were in the 60. It's a training issue not a capability issue.

We'd be naive to think that sending rescue back to AFSOC wouldn't benefit AFSOC.

Based on what Liquid has posted (I now assume he's an AFSOC guy) and what the then acting AFSEC said, I'll buy that AFSOC is being an honest broker, rather than grabbing for money and iron. But I think you're right, we'd be naive to think they'd be offering this up if it didn't benefit them in some way.

Whether this will benefit the "rescue triad" in the long term, I think only time will tell if this goes through.

[RescueRandy]

Ever been "escorted" by OH-58s? They're not any more capable than you were in the 60. It's a training issue not a capability issue.

Actually I have. Among others, they called us out of a hot LZ to engage targets after a CW-IED went off 50' outside our rotor disk in Arghandab and put shrapnel into our Chalk-2 overhead. I don't even want to get into the "alone and unafraid" thing. As far as I'm concerned, it just doesn't happen in a real, big war, CSAR. In CASEVAC (which is going away with the AFG mission), sure. CSAR, not really. That said, you're absolutely right. It's a training issue. Jolly/Pedro just doesn't train to be experts at attack.

That said, if the AFSOC move doesn't happen, the RQSs will remain in ACC and will get M-model 60s with same "extra" gear they've got already on/around 2018 (maybe). If that happens, they will barely outpace the capes of the current G-models. The CV has an issue with rotor wash. Okay, I get it. Rock solid, coupled (if required), high hovers mitigate that when they can't use the primary option (for both communities) of an airland. I admit, yes, the HH-60G can reach roughly 1.5% of the earth above 9,000 that the CV can't. Great. If you want super high hovers, they should've got the H-47 in '06. Or... maybe we could ask the 160th, or the AD 47s, or the guard, or the reserve to take that one.

But the speed, range, cabin space, defensive systems, marginal WX capes, funding, experience with "non-traditional" aircraft and expeditionary focus that come with an AFSOC CV-22 - in my opinion - make the AFSOC move a far better option than CRH.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Hella-Copters

[slackline]

Actually I have. Among others, they called us out of a hot LZ to engage targets after a CW-IED went off 50' outside our rotor disk in Arghandab and put shrapnel into our Chalk-2 overhead. I don't even want to get into the "alone and unafraid" thing. As far as I'm concerned, it just doesn't happen in a real, big war, CSAR. In CASEVAC (which is going away with the AFG mission), sure. CSAR, not really. That said, you're absolutely right. It's a training issue. Jolly/Pedro just doesn't train to be experts at attack.

That said, if the AFSOC move doesn't happen, the RQSs will remain in ACC and will get M-model 60s with same "extra" gear they've got already on/around 2018 (maybe). If that happens, they will barely outpace the capes of the current G-models. The CV has an issue with rotor wash. Okay, I get it. Rock solid, coupled (if required), high hovers mitigate that when they can't use the primary option (for both communities) of an airland. I admit, yes, the HH-60G can reach roughly 1.5% of the earth above 9,000 that the CV can't. Great. If you want super high hovers, they should've got the H-47 in '06. Or... maybe we could ask the 160th, or the AD 47s, or the guard, or the reserve to take that one.

But the speed, range, cabin space, defensive systems, marginal WX capes, funding, experience with "non-traditional" aircraft and expeditionary focus that come with an AFSOC CV-22 - in my opinion - make the AFSOC move a far better option than CRH.

Heaven help me, this is actually starting to make sense...

[Breckey]

Acting AF Secretary "Hard-pressed to imaging" CRH contract soon

Welp, we're boned.

The Air Force is unlikely to see a new combat search-and-rescue helicopter in the near future, but the service remains committed to the mission, according to its top civilian.

“It’s an important platform with a lot of support, but it will be very difficult because of how little money there is for new starts in the coming year,” Eric Fanning, acting Air Force secretary, told reporters at an Air Force Association breakfast Monday. “I’m hard-pressed to imagine we can afford to start that soon based on the sequestration numbers and mechanics.

[Hodor]

I picked a peach of a time to get into this community.

On a not so sarcastic note no where else to go from here but up...right?

[slackline]

Acting AF Secretary "Hard-pressed to imaging" CRH contract soon Welp, we're boned.

Their version of committed to the mission means we'll continue to do the mission because we love it even if we have substandard equipment, and we'll still be really good at it. At some point their BS commitment won't matter when our HH-60's can't fly anymore. This isn't like a KC-135 that can fly for 50-60 years. Helo's destroy themselves in benign conditions. We don't fly in benign conditions... Edit: they're vs their... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Edited November 20, 2013 by slackline

[NEflyer]

Their version of committed to the mission means we'll continue to do the mission because we love it even if we have substandard equipment, and we'll still be really good at it. At some point their BS commitment won't matter when our HH-60's can't fly anymore. This isn't like a KC-135 that can fly for 50-60 years. Helo's destroy themselves in benign conditions. We don't fly in benign conditions...

Exactly. Who are these people who keep proposing a "SLEP" as a viable idea? Do they know anything about 60's? Hell, do they know anything about mx or helicopters? Have they missed that they've been deployed/abused constantly from 1990-present? We're not talking about just slapping on new components, these things are bent/patched together well beyond any sort of viability for continued use. It's borderline ridiculous where we're at now expecting mx to keep them in the air and crews to keep flying them, let alone where we'll be in five years... Either do the mission right, or don't do it at all.

[craino21]

It's going to take a 308 beam completely failing (which I've already been expecting daily for a couple of years now) and a complete loss of the crew to get any traction on a -60 replacement. And even then, they'll just ground the -60 fleet and completely kill CSAR when that happens. Hooray.

[stract]

I already know of two times in recent past where a crew has PL'd b/c a backender saw daylight through a 308 beam crack. They've stiffened the beef-up plates enough that the new weak point is the engine bay. Both Patrick and Nellis have seen cracks there in the last year.

[craino21]

Well I'd rather an engine fall off than the cockpit (statements I never thought I'd have to make).

[TOML]

"A federal budget agreement announced Monday night includes money for the Air Force to award a contract to a Sikorsky Aircraft/Lockheed Martin joint venture to build a new generation of 112 combat search-and-rescue helicopters.The deal includes $333.5 million for the Air Force to approve the project...The Sikorsky/Lockheed Martin proposal calls for the modification and upgrade of the existing H-60M Black Hawk platform."

I feel like this is too good to be true. Someone help me come back to reality. Does the "$333.5 million for the Air Force to approve the project" mean the AF can still screw it away or say we don't need them?

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20140113/BUSINESS/301130087/After-budget-deal-Lockheed-Martin-would-share-Air-Force-helicopter-contract