Should I stay or should I go? Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love HSC.

[AllAmerican75]

At least the Navy hasn't caught on to recursive acronyms yet.

PHP: PHP Hypertext Preprocessor
GNU: GNU's Not Unix

And so on . . . ?

Don't give them ideas.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Please point me toward the AAR you read, or provide examples as to what you are talking about.

Second part - You're right on the focus, but writing out overland CSAR as a capability and is a lesson we in Naval RW have learned many times before and the people making these decisions are inept due to their ignorance. What if Jack is 3 miles inland on an Island? "Sorry guys, I am not trained to overland". What if he is on the beach... "hell guys I have never done a brown out so can you have him swim out a few miles". Where do we draw the line? Well, what will happen is we will still go, but now with ill trained helicopter crews at a much higher risk.

The history of Navy RW CSAR is riddled with leaders and strategists making stupid assumptions about the future, giving up a capability, only to need that capability again after learning through the loss of good people. After the Korean War there was no investment into it and eventually Naval RW found themselves in Vietnam learning on the fly. Post Vietnam again we let the capability largely go away and we had Grenada, Lebanon, Libya. Many of those actions were covered with ill-trained crews and aircraft. Yes HS was around but in many cases not in position to cover those actions. And USAF ARS/RQS units were not always in place quick enough (or available) From there Desert Storm, Bosnia, OEF/OIF/OIR, etc.

It needs to be a clear that, HSC had no doctrinal place in OEF/OIF/OIR (with some limited exceptions). As much as we all wanted to be in the fight, it wasn't a Navy RW fight. Lots of GWOT baby's joined the wrong branch if that's what they wanted. To put in perspective:

Afghanistan coast: 0 mi
Iraqi coast: 36 mi

Iranian coast: 1750 mi
Russian coast: 23,400 mi
Chinese coast: 9,000 mi

Yes A2AD and the tyranny of distance will have massive affects on if we (or anybody) can make it overland in the opening days of peer MCO fight, but what about 30 days in, 60 days, 1 year. And before we start playing the game of "it will be over by then so we don't need to plan for it" I refer back to history with WW I, WW II, Vietnam, etc. Many of those same assumptions were made.

To all the fixed wing nerds, have fun knowing the Navy isn't coming to get you if you bail out over land. And before you say "but the Air Force" let me stop right there and let you know they aren't everywhere the Navy is and they will have their hands full. I would be irate if I was a Fighter Attack Guy.

You make good points, but no HAR. Not sure how HSC can reconcile that in a from-the-sea CSAR during a near-peer fight.

 

[Griz882]

You make good points, but no HAR. Not sure how HSC can reconcile that in a from-the-sea CSAR during a near-peer fight.

Others have suggested it, but I imagine Osprey’s will take on the mission. I think the entire RW force structure will be reset once the Army selects a FVL winner.

 

[IKE]

Others have suggested it, but I imagine Osprey’s will take on the mission. I think the entire RW force structure will be reset once the Army selects a FVL winner.

Perhaps, but the Navy parted ways with the Army on FVL and is pursuing its own answer. It might not be an MH-60X, but I'm guessing it will look a lot like one.

 

[Notanaviator]

Perhaps, but the Navy parted ways with the Army on FVL and is pursuing its own answer. It might not be an MH-60X, but I'm guessing it will look a lot like one.

Is it conceivable that the Navy will instead double down on the expanded mission set of HSC and let that mission set drive priorities for Navy’s FVL equivalent, whether it should or not? Certainly I’m at the risk of getting over my skis here and this isn’t my world, just find the existential topic here pretty interesting and how it overlaps with acquisitions.

 

[Pags]

Is it conceivable that the Navy will instead double down on the expanded mission set of HSC and let that mission set drive priorities for Navy’s FVL equivalent, whether it should or not? Certainly I’m at the risk of getting over my skis here and this isn’t my world, just find the existential topic here pretty interesting and how it overlaps with acquisitions.

Likely no. The Clif notes version of this thread is that Big Navy doesn't want what HSC currently has due various reasons. That only ends one way.

There's certainly some good questions being asked in here about whether the USN is serious about organic CSAR. But that's a pretty niche high dollar capability and proficiency set that arguably the USN has never been quite serious about.

 

[Notanaviator]

Likely no. The Clif notes version of this thread is that Big Navy doesn't want what HSC currently has due various reasons. That only ends one way.

There's certainly some good questions being asked in here about whether the USN is serious about organic CSAR. But that's a pretty niche high dollar capability and proficiency set that arguably the USN has never been quite serious about.

Fair enough. This has been a really interesting discussion. The overland CSAR piece especially given the A2AD/range realities in a peer fight.

 

[loadtoad]

You make good points, but no HAR. Not sure how HSC can reconcile that in a from-the-sea CSAR during a near-peer fight.

Even if we had HAAR in HSC, who is our tanker? No point of having a probe if I don't had a dedicated tanker to support me at my altitudes and speeds.

Again, how close can we actually get to the threat area not being 5th Gen day 1 vs day 30 vs day 45 will change. A topic not open for this forum clearly, but the mindset should not be that since we don't have HAAR, the tyranny of distance wins so lets drop this capability and give up on our fellow aviators. The mindset should be we get creative, we find solutions.

Maybe the question to ask is:
Is it easier to teach these guys to land on a ship or HSC guys to do the overland mission?
View attachment 26884
Heh heh. I know the answer to this.

Make sure they get L16 and install AN/ARS-6 V12 LARS/DALS so they can Find/Fix/Track Jack, and make sure they get all of the doctrinal training/workups prior to deployment. I've worked around plenty of Army Hawks (regular or ANG dudes) and they didn't come close to the CSAR knowledge/capability that HSC or RQS has. Could they learn, sure, anybody can. Would it be easier to plum a MH-60S with more gas than to retool/train the Army. Yes. Oh yeah, don't forget to train the back enders to be rescue swimmers too!

Simple fact is that each parent service is to provide their own PR ability to support their own forces. If jets have NAVY stenciled on the side go overland, so should the PR forces. I understand the AWoF plan and space on the CVN is at a premium. But I don't understand the "drop overland" mantra leadership is pushing out. The willful ignorance to a lesson which we have paid for in blood over and over again kills me.

VFA guys, I seriously hope your are talking to your leadership about this because if you want the chance of being rescued you need to be your biggest advocate. HAHAHAH I just realized, this is a HSC thread sooo yeah no self respecting VFA bro gonna be reading a rotor trash thread.

 

[nittany03]

HAHAHAH I just realized, this is a HSC thread sooo yeah no self respecting VFA bro gonna be reading a rotor trash thread.

Way to end your argument on an insecure, douchey note.

 

[loadtoad]

Way to end your argument on an insecure, douchey note.

You serious? Can't make jokes? I bet you are great to hang out with at the bar.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Russian coast: 23,400 mi

Most of it is on or beyond the Polar circle so it is doubtful somebody of USN FW guys would be there, and it one would, the wolves and bears will find him far sooner than capture teams or CSAR assets. Same fate will be assigned to any Russian crewmember forced to bail out there. War for survival with the wildest nature will be their first and foremost task.

In a lesser part of Russian shoreline within civilized regions it is better to reach the highways and take the sympathy of locals - those who are driving on the federal highways are usually urban people and the support of a Putinism in big cities is quite weaker - and try to get the embassies or the border of satellite countries (Ukraine is the best one) without mounting the huge CSAR efforts since AAW forces will be even more furious in hunting the ARS/RQS ot Naval CSAR down.

 

[Griz882]

Historically the only example we have dealing with CSAR in a near-peer environment Is WWII and very little overland SAR was done. The top two systems for rescuing downed aviators were submarines and blimps followed by VP (amphibians), VS (BB/CA scouts), and then DD/DE at sea. In the island war an aviator shot down might get help from the locals who would get him to a coast watcher and then to a sub or PT boat. In Korea and Vietnam Navy CSAR assets flew off of ships that operated closer to shore but even there the goal was to get feet wet.

In the war I think we are talking about I don’t think the current USAF structure will be of any use until the ground forces establish some kind of a sustainable beachhead close enough to be of use. The navy will have to adopt CSAR by strategic choice or by forced circumstances. I do find the counter-argument that CSAR is a niche job not worth the time and money (in peacetime) to be kind of silly when one could easily ask why the navy bothers with a “niche job” like ASW...a ship hasn’t been sunk by a sub since 1982! ?

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

a ship hasn’t been sunk by a sub since 1982!

With all due respect, South Korean shoes will argue with you Though the corvette lost all power instantly, the shore was so close that Samsung smartphone in the pocket of a CO got the net and this was enough for distress call directly to ROK Navy HQ. "Hello, we are evidently sinking". Nevertheless, this is a case for "feet wet" SAR study

 

[Griz882]

With all due respect, South Korean shoes will argue with you Though the corvette lost all power instantly, the shore was so close that Samsung smartphone in the pocket of a CO got the net and this was enough for distress call directly to ROK Navy HQ. "Hello, we are evidently sinking". Nevertheless, this is a case for "feet wet" SAR study

Mini-subs don't count. ? Besides, according to Kim it was an accident and,......"we have so far regarded the accident as a regretful accident that should not happen in the light of the fact that many missing persons and most of rescued members of the crew are fellow countrymen forced to live a tiresome life in the puppet army."

 

[taxi1]

dealing with CSAR

Need to refer to the guys on the ground as "JTACs of Opportunity" and then it changes the perspective. ?

I volunteered to be "shot down" for a Fallon workup. Me and another guy, leg broken. Remember seeing the rotor disc of this H3 popping up out of the arroyo as he slithered his way up to us. He was low. Told the rescue dude my leg was broken, he tossed me over his shoulders in a fireman's carry and started running. I told him, "Feeling much better now," and asked to be put down. Awesome ride back to the base.