Check out Mike Fabey's latest investigative article in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report on the U.S. Air Force's troubled efforts to purchase a new fleet of aircraft for performing combat, search and rescue (CSAR) missions.
According to documents and emails Fabey obtained, the Pentagon pushed the USAF toward a directed buy of Bell-Boeing CV-22s, Boeing MH-47 Chinooks, Sikorsky MH-60s, or a mixed fleet of these types. Mike's reporting has uncovered a struggle between Pentagon and USAF leaders over not just aircraft, but the very nature and future of the CSAR mission.
The eventual CSAR-X competition settled on a Chinook variant, although that award was derailed my multiple industry protests and is now the subject of a Pentagon inspector general investigation.
We welcome your comments.
A CSAR force trained to the Large-force, integrated CSARTF standard can accomplish myriad of other less demanding UJTL tasks that lower-end assets simply can't do. This is evidenced by the Army's perpetual tasking of USAF CSAR platforms to perform medevacs when the conditions exceed the Army's risk criteria. I find it amusing that Solomon thinks that CSAR brings nothing to the table. That opinion is not borne out in the combat, civilian disaster, or international humanitarian assistance record.
To ACQBadger's words. A review of the JCIDs process and the FAR is in order. CSAR followed every step including JROC validation of the mission and requirements. And other services simply don't have the solution required. The mission set is a USAF priority and a moral imperitive. Your comments about the bastardized process show a patent lack of understanding of the system, laws, and FAR.
"Training for integrated large-force CSAR is not as simple as the MEU would suggest in their TRAP model, is non-existant in Ranger Battalions..."
the MEU(SOC) is able to conduct "in extremis" CSAR missions. the O'Grady recovery being the prime example. unless the Ranger Battalions have given up a mission then they too also possess that ability.
"I find it amusing that Solomon thinks that CSAR brings nothing to the table. That opinion is not borne out in the combat, civilian disaster, or international humanitarian assistance record."
humanitarian missions have been the province of large cargo helicopters-not CSAR H-60's (unless you're counting Coast Guard JayHawks as CSAR aircraft--careful though you'll lower the standard of your PAVEHAWK)...'47s and '53s...providing everything from relief supplies, to relocating individuals, and finally to providing an ad-hoc medivac to affected persons. the same dynamic applies to civilian disaster relief. in combat, evacuation of personnel is again provided by the unit closest with available assets. finally the combat evacuation and recovery of personnel has always been a joint mission using adhoc equipment to achieve the mission. USAF CSAR traces its history to WWII. in its bio, it states that as part of its recovery "package" were submarines and ships. in todays parlance that would be MEU(SOC), Rangers, SF (which you left out in your initial response), SEALs and even the 82nd would all be tasked with performing recovery of personnel and equipment.
We need to separate some things here. CSAR is a valid mission. The real question is whether we can afford a full up CSAR-X program or do we need something different.
i'm coming from the fact that the recovery of those individuals, and i didn't know the number was that high...are you sure(?), did not require a helo with dedicated CSAR mission specific avionics. disaster relief is where you see '53s and '47...think the tsunami in Indonesia...that's where i'm coming from. as far as the LCDR is concerned. GOD BLESS HIM. but you're mixing apples and oranges--to arrive at your desired result. if we don't need a full up CSAR-x program then the very need for the specialty, in my mind comes into question. that would appear to be the real reason behind the vigorous defense of this program. if a specialized helo isn't necessary then is the unit?
The Air Force is truly the only service that has consistently organized, equiped and trained a 'dedicated' rescue force. The have a proud history, and many have given there lives so that others may live. The AF as an institution has embraced CSAR as a core mission, albeit the level of support has not always been funded appropriatley, as other mission areas received robust funding in comparison. During my days we would remind our AF leaders that Rescue is like the spare tire in the trunk of your car...if you did not check it's pressure and ocassionaly put it to use, it would atrophy and would not be ready when you needed. But this is not the argument today. The issue here is that we have a key Senior OSD political appointee questioning the very existences of a service capability and crossing the line of common sense. First and foremost, Mr Young's area of responsiblity is to provide guidance and oversight to the Acquistion process within the DoD. Last time I checked, roles and missions were not in his portfolio. Second, his lack of expertise in this mission area is little to none. It is hard for me to imagine that he actually accused of the AF of not following the processes or actually short cutting the JCIDS process. It was Congress who mandated the JCIDS process, not the Joint Staff, Services or OSD. This process is managed by the Joint Staff and all services participate. The AF followed this process, just as every other service follows it, despite the time, pain and rigor it requires. I find it equally alarming that a senior OSD offical such as Mr Young, would dare to call out the AF or any other service in the open press. Is Mr Gates listening? I can only imagine that the reporter, Mike Fabey, was stunned at the opportunity to have a one on one interview with Mr Young. Clearly there is more involved here than just a mission area that Mr Young questions. It appears that perhaps he has a built in bias against the Air Force from something in his past, perhaps when he was the Senior Acquisition Official for the Department of the Navy. Whatever the issue, Mr Young is not an expert on the CSAR mission area, and needs to stay in his lanes regarding Roles and Missions. Needless to say the actions of Mr Young need to be reviewed by others in the current administration.
The very fact that the AF is pursuing a new Rescue helicopter for the brave men and women who fly into harms way to rescue a fellow service member speaks volumes. These Rescue warriors, no matter the service, deserve to have the best equipment available in order to execute successful missions. The AF only pursues a new helicopter about every 20-25 years, and have been plannng for CSAR-X since the late 90s. During this time frame they did complete the Comat MNS, ORDs and these were approved by the JROC. However, they were just a little slow, and as a result they had to do it all over again, when the JCIDS process took over. So to think that they rushed the process is clearly the answer of the misinformed. It appears to me that perhaps Mr Young's organization actually slowed down the process by mandating addition studies on sole sourcing the MH-47, or a mix of H-60s, MH-47s, and V-22s. I recently learned that this directive to accomplish these studies occurred after the AF has published it's Request for Proposal to Industry for CSAR-X (note: Mr Young was not OSD ATL when this happened). This speaks volumes as to where OSD ATL was headed. Is this even legal???
As a former Rescue Commander, I can tell you that the worst feeling you ever will have is to have to notify the families of the troops you command that their loved on is not coming home. Those commanders who have experienced this know exactly what I am saying. In the AF, saving the lives of fellow Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines...is a moral imperative. Perhaps Mr. Young needs to experience this horrific experience. Then perhaps he would understand the passion that exists in the Rescue community.
I have some history papers in pdf file format found on my personal web page that discloses the uniqueness Air Forces air rescue assets and capability have contributed over the years since 1947.
http://www.alaska.net/~jcassidy/
USAF PJs and USAF air rescue aaircrews have sustained and continue to sustain an unbreakable willingness in doing SAR and CSAR that is best reflected by the biblical verse---
"Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us? And I said, "Here I am. Send Me." -Isaiah 6:8
Regardless of how the battlefields change and how much modification and change is made in tactics to win the fight, three undeniable truths never change: (1) reckless actions in ignorance or from incompetence needlessly results in the enemy killing and capturing our warriors, our combatants, our comrades; (2) no matter how technology causes it to change those being there doing the exposed to the hazards of combat fighting still want some sound, common sense advice that they could follow in order to keep from being killed or maimed; and (3) when it comes to needing combat rescue our combat pilots, our ground combat warriors and combat support personnel want confidence rescue is coming to help them.
Now I understand the F-22 debate in total. They've (USAF) been battling the civilian leadership over different programs for years now. Even if they win this fight, they've lost.