With reference to the comments offered by
@Flash and others I think the frustration is that right now the navy appears to be stuck in a post-modern version of Wood & Sails vs Steal & Steam. Except now it is "We'll stick with what we know because it gets us promoted." vs "We'll accept experimentation and readaptation to become a more relevent and flexible force."
People keep asking "why?" when it comes to this idea...well one good answer is that a C-130 has twice the range and greater cruise speed than a V-22 without the risk of dragging a refuler along on a mission. Saving a single pilot or even an aircrew of two guys is low-rent, small war stuff. What happens when the Chinese sink a carrier LHD, or even a cruiser? History notes that in sea battle like Leyte Gulf a large number of survivors (from Taffy 3) were not rescued for several days, and died unnecessarily as a consequence, because ships were too slow in crossing vast distances. On the other hand, most survivors from that battle were rescused by flying boats. BLUF...even confined areas of the Pacific are vast in scale.
But, back to the question...let's go small. Say the USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) goes down after having lost 75 crew trying to save the ship after a CHYCAP strike. That leaves about 260 sailors in the water. How are they rescued before the Pacific gobbles them up? I promise you we will not disengage a carrier (probably out looking to smash a few CHYCAP ships) from an operation. That same carrier (maybe short a cruiser in her defense package) will need the rest of her screen for protection. Now what? Will we have the USNS Kanawha dash over at a whole 20 knots? We could use an entire MV-22 complement off a ship like the Wasp...assuming they aren't otherwise occupied but they would require at least two refueling birds to come along.
Or...we could have a small fleet of long range amphibians and helicopters and V-22's standing by at any number of friendly airfields/harbors to do the work. We are a nation that wets our pants when as few as 13 good servicemen (and women) die but we are going to allow 200 to 300 to drown because it doesn't fit in with the standard, safe vision? Good luck keeping those stars, admiral.
But CSAR is just one tiny thing. I also fully grasp that it really isn't fair to compare AFSOC to the entire US Navy...but what is it with the contemporary reluctance to get a little "outside the box" thinking going? I think the USMC EABO concept is genuine forward thinking with an eye on the capabilities a known enemy. But, when someone says "Hey, let's plug a crap load of cruise missiles into the hull of a super-tanker!" or "Let's stand up a dedicated over-water CSAR capability focused on the ACTUAL realities of a war with China." and the automatic navy reply is "No, that's not how we do things." there is a fundamental leadership problem.
Of course all of this is based on an opinion that has the weight of air and I know that. Still, when my son comes to me and asks what service he should join I'll feel compelled to say - Not the one that will leave you drown in the Pacific because "that's not how we do things."
