Navy CSAR det gets rescue

[SynixMan]

The unit capable and nearest is going to get the call in most situations. In Lybia, had that been a CVN and not a MEU working off the coast, probably would've been a Navy package to pickup the Strike Eagle crew member. The nature of what we've been doing since "leaving" Iraq in ~2010 hasn't leant itself to Navy assets ever even being in position to do anything even if it occurred, stuck in CVOA whatever, running strike missions with 4 tanker hits.

I get there's some hand wringing here about the recent divestment in 84/85. I hope the Navy sees the shortsightedness of that decision, but we can also push the quality of fleet units up to meet the call.

I think the message here is get your helos off the boat and into a position to actually succeed, and we'll produce. Whether or not those with Stars and Eagles on their shoulders see it, we shall see.

 

[jtmedli]

Only one service has dedicated PR units (Air Force).

Yeah I should've been more clear. But other services do have dedicated roles vice the one squadron does it all approach.

 

[jtmedli]

HSC-5 got a PR event. Not a CSAR event, there is a difference. After seeing behind the curtain, this, in my opinion, does not validate Navy CSAR. The guys out there got to fly and pick some dudes up, which is good, but there were some serious process flaws, which was bad. That's about all that can be put out on NIPR.

Which is why I worded the title the way I did. Like I said, I see the argument. But there are those in this mans navy who would see us completely ditch the overland missions altogether just so they don't have to deal with the risk involved in TERF training and so they can CYA.

Navy CSAR doesn't need validation IMO. Its a capability that you can't go without and you need to maintain. But it is good to see that training to land in the dirt and having a det in the right place and at the right time actually pays off. Especially when some of those same people wanted to see this whole det concept get squashed.

 

[DocT]

Angel Thunder 2015 had a good deal of Navy assets participate - in exactly these kind of scenarios. HSC-8 was reported by AF PAO articles to have made a "good showing" in Desert CSAR exercises.

View attachment 15680

We did an entire 1.0 VMM in support of AT last year. It was eye opening in many ways. It also was a great primer on how everybody else does TRAP/PR.

Glad to see the Navy were the ones flying the 60s on this one. They're definitely better positioned location wise execute this one.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Navy CSAR doesn't need validation IMO. Its a capability that you can't go without and you need to maintain. But it is good to see that training to land in the dirt and having a det in the right place and at the right time actually pays off. Especially when some of those same people wanted to see this whole det concept get squashed.

I will never fault the dudes out there flying, they are doing stuff that we aren't. I'm happy they got the pick up.

However, the whole 60S community is seeking validation right now. I should rephrase, CSAR is a validated requirement but this PR event did not meet what would help give validation to the 60S right now. There is a definite trend of jack of all trades and master of none and the other services take notice and plan accordingly. I hate to sound like a dick but I've seen it myself when comparing the various services. This event didn't help reinforce the 60S CSAR capability to many with stars on their shoulders.

 

[MIDNJAC]

My understanding is that the DoN is about to become the lead service in the CSAR world. I'd guess that is a decent amount of validation.

 

[hscs]

My understanding is that the DoN is about to become the lead service in the CSAR world. I'd guess that is a decent amount of validation.

When / how? I am holding judgement until I see the memo from OSD.

Did USAF roll over on this one?

 

[azguy]

I think the message here is get your helos off the boat and into a position to actually succeed, and we'll produce.

However, the whole 60S community is seeking validation right now.

I don't get this... -60S guys play a necessary role in the fleet. Hauling ass/trash/parts/food, SAR, chokepoint ATFP, etc... It's sure isn't sexy, but it's an important mission set that an F-18 or E-2 can't perform.

Why the push to make them expeditionary? Also, do we really think the fleet will let them leave?

 

[Recovering LSO]

Why the push to make them expeditionary? Also, do we really think the fleet will let them leave?

You kinda answered your own question/s:

Hauling ass/trash/parts/food, SAR, chokepoint ATFP, etc... It's sure isn't sexy

it's an important mission set that an F-18 or E-2 can't perform.

This point seems lost on a lot of folks.

Several years ago when CSGs were deploying some of their TACAIR to expeditionary airfields in Iraq to cut down on transit time/increase over target time, there was a pretty big food fight between the powers that be. Those assets belong to somebody, and by-God, they want them around in case "X" happens.

 

[Hotdogs]

The unit capable and nearest is going to get the call in most situations. In Lybia, had that been a CVN and not a MEU working off the coast, probably would've been a Navy package to pickup the Strike Eagle crew member.

There were other assets there that I won't go into details on that could've done the mission. Some of those decisions at higher levels weigh more with timeliness of response and not just sheer capability. People bash on the Osprey (myself included) but this is one of those situations where speed matters and it showed during execution. The execution wasn't flawless either, and there were debrief points afterwards that aren't really widely known.

My understanding is that the DoN is about to become the lead service in the CSAR world. I'd guess that is a decent amount of validation.

Which part of the DoN? I am pretty skeptical that the USAF just rolled over on this one. Especially since they have dedicated squadrons for this type of stuff.

 

[SynixMan]

I don't get this... -60S guys play a necessary role in the fleet. Hauling ass/trash/parts/food, SAR, chokepoint ATFP, etc... It's sure isn't sexy, but it's an important mission set that an F-18 or E-2 can't perform.

Why the push to make them expeditionary? Also, do we really think the fleet will let them leave?

The squadrons on the carrier are built to send a detachment to support missions off the carrier and be fully capable if the need arises. We all want to be relevant in the work being done.

RLSO hit it on the head though. Our bosses are loathe to let us off the boat because that means they're losing control over their assets.

 

[hscs]

The squadrons on the carrier are built to send a detachment to support missions off the carrier and be fully capable if the need arises.

I ask - how?

Keep answer to yourself and remember there is a lot more to execute this mission successfully than just flying.

And here in lies the issue that no one understands.

 

[SynixMan]

I ask - how?

Keep answer to yourself and remember there is a lot more to execute this mission successfully than just flying.

And here in lies the issue that no one understands.

I know what you're digging at and I don't disagree with you.

 

[Python]

I know what you're digging at and I don't disagree with you.

I don't know what he's digging at. Can you explain?

 

[hscs]

I don't know what he's digging at. Can you explain?

Let's just say that there will hopefully be some good lessons learned that lead to improvement.