SOAR

[nittany03]

I should have said that I wholly enjoyed the reread, even if I eye-rolled at some of the ASW stuff. But I knew it was coming.

Well, there's always Hunt for Red October and the super cool 2-seat ASW Harrier Clancy was sure could be a thing. Apparently it can do buoys and searches and sonar and whatever that other stuff is ASW people do while simultaneously being below ladder because, you know, Harrier.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Well, there's always Hunt for Red October and the super cool 2-seat ASW Harrier Clancy was sure could be a thing. Apparently it can do buoys and searches and sonar and whatever that other stuff is ASW people do while simultaneously being below ladder because, you know, Harrier.

*Hairier

 

[Flash]

Someone once told me that CIWS stands for "Captain, It Won't Shoot" and I've never been able to get it out of my head.

To be honest the CIWS out in the desert worked pretty well shooting down what they were supposed to, though they certainly weren't quiet about it. I knew one guy who 'slept' about 75 feet from a Phalanx and he said, "they sound like God is unzipping the sky" when they did their work.

 

[red_stang65]

I'm confused about parts of this discussion (may be from ignorance). There have been multiple statements that the Navy doesn't do CSAR because of, budget, we're not good at it, and so on. The core of Naval Aviation is the CVW. The CVW deploys aboard CVs. CVs are an American asset that can be deployed any where in the word quickly and employ the CVW in combat operations. mostly unsupported, except for the capabilities of the battle group. So why wouldn't an robust organic CSAR component be part of a CVW?

Did they talk about the “Air Wing of the Future” at Hook this year? I know there were a few panels about Navy rotary CSAR experience in Vietnam, but not sure how it was delivered/received. Either way, @jmcquate, the image you’re rightfully imagining is no longer an option. Rotary presence on carriers is shrinking, and won’t be able to support a CSAR organically. I hope this gets talked about at NHA next month. Really curious if the Strike community is tracking the impacts of these changes, and what their take is

Can the Navy really do CSAR…sure. The real question is can they do it well and do it well enough from the start.

Right now, probably not. That isn’t because they’re worse pilots, or that the aircraft isn’t capable, it’s more that the skill doesn’t happen by accident—it takes dedicated time and resources. Too many missions (some important, some not), asking pilots to learn/fly two different T/M/S (Fire Scout), and zero advocacy from those that would be supported if they went in the drink.

I think this is covered in a number of the other HSC threads, but I think CSAR capability really stems from lack of advocacy from NAE leadership, and presumption that “someone else” (USAF) will take care of it, so why bother.

How much greener is the grass on those Air Force bases, though? I’m sure those who’ve done the RQS exchange tours will agree that RQS and USAF Rescue are their own type of redheaded step-children to Big Blue (no offense to redheads or step-children). Just look at how long it took to get the Whiskey, and how much of a stop-gap that is.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Did they talk about the “Air Wing of the Future” at Hook this year? I know there were a few panels about Navy rotary CSAR experience in Vietnam, but not sure how it was delivered/received. Either way, @jmcquate, the image you’re rightfully imagining is no longer an option. Rotary presence on carriers is shrinking, and won’t be able to support a CSAR organically. I hope this gets talked about at NHA next month. Really curious if the Strike community is tracking the impacts of these changes, and what their take is

Aren’t all components required by doctrine to provide their own PR capabilities? If the CAG can’t support a CSAR effort then who provides that capability? It’s sure not going to be the Marines nor the AF.

 

[insanebikerboy]

How much greener is the grass on those Air Force bases, though? I’m sure those who’ve done the RQS exchange tours will agree that RQS and USAF Rescue are their own type of redheaded step-children to Big Blue (no offense to redheads or step-children). Just look at how long it took to get the Whiskey, and how much of a stop-gap that is.

The man and training are more important than the hardware. AF RQS trains almost exclusively to CSAR. The 60W definitely makes them more ‘lethal’ in the execution.

 

[red_stang65]

@insanebikerboy That’s why I’m really curious to hear what CAGs and the rest of the Air Wing pilots think about the changes. Granted, nothing says organic PR has to look like helos from the carrier, though, I’m just not sure what else NAE leadership have in mind.

 

[red_stang65]

The man and training are more important than the hardware. AF RQS trains almost exclusively to CSAR. The 60W definitely makes them more ‘lethal’ in the execution.

Totally agree on the training (“People are more important than hardware,” right?). While the 60W is an improvement, it’s still a very far cry from what USAF Rescue was looking for, and is a very expensive “marginal” upgrade. Any marginal increase in speed and range it had over the 60G got eaten up by more boxes that don’t really transform how it does it’s job.

Keep in mind, too, that USAF only has 160-180 HH-60G/Ws. That’s probably a blessing when it comes to sustainment (not many aircraft to maintain), but a curse when it comes to procurement (you want me to spend how much on how few airframes?! And how much do these things move the needle?).

 

[Pags]

Aren’t all components required by doctrine to provide their own PR capabilities? If the CAG can’t support a CSAR effort then who provides that capability? It’s sure not going to be the Marines nor the AF.

Perhaps a case where the doctrine hasn't been updated to reflect current realities?

Or, as you said, CSAR doesnt have to be helos. It could be a sub or something else.

Or maybe it's an acknowledgement of the futility of rescuing people inside the advanced air defense system of a peer competitor.

 

[Gatordev]

Or maybe it's an acknowledgement of the futility of rescuing people inside the advanced air defense system of a peer competitor.

Some caveats...this was told to me second hand and I'm not completely sure of the forum, but I think it was a SAR conference. That said, as it was told to me recently, "leadership" has said that part of the issue is range to pickup in a near-peer scenario as well as, and because of, IADS. The other line that was quoted was, "the pilots will just have to bring a Snickers and wait a while until someone else can come pick them up."

No doubt it's more complicated than that, and again, I don't know how senior the senior man in the room was, but the quote was part of the discussion of reducing HSC.

 

[croakerfish]

The other line that was quoted was, "the pilots will just have to bring a Snickers and wait a while until someone else can come pick them up."

 

[HSMPBR]

If the CAG can’t support a CSAR effort then who provides that capability? It’s sure not going to be the Marines nor the AF.

Gleaming white CMV-22Bs. The community flying aircraft procured to move people and parts will probably find itself internally torn between PAX/LOG and CSAR based on which airframe the front offices and DHs flew before transitioning to VRM. Does any of this sound familiar?

 

[Pags]

Gleaming white CMV-22Bs. The community flying aircraft procured to move people and parts will probably find itself internally torn between PAX/LOG and CSAR based on which airframe the front offices and DHs flew before transitioning to VRM. Does any of this sound familiar?

And what the Boss wants.

Also there was discussion about replacing the VRM snoopy paint with a more subdued scheme.

 

[Pags]

Some caveats...this was told to me second hand and I'm not completely sure of the forum, but I think it was a SAR conference. That said, as it was told to me recently, "leadership" has said that part of the issue is range to pickup in a near-peer scenario as well as, and because of, IADS. The other line that was quoted was, "the pilots will just have to bring a Snickers and wait a while until someone else can come pick them up."

No doubt it's more complicated than that, and again, I don't know how senior the senior man in the room was, but the quote was part of the discussion of reducing HSC.

The current CSAR model does seem to be based off of a Vietnam/OIF/OEF type scenario where we have general air superiority and control the surrounding seas or have access to local land based sites.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

View attachment 32768

I have a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.

Just kidding I just do vertrep.