bobdina
09-22-2009, 03:09 PM
Air Force combat search and rescue should grow — not shrink as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested, a new study concludes.
The Air Force needs 171 rescue helicopters to meet the requests of the service and joint combatant commanders, according to a report by the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency.
The agency, part of U.S. Joint Forces Command, helps coordinate rescue training and equipment needs across the services. The report was done as part of an ongoing review of the Defense Department’s rescue forces.
The recommendation is a boost to the Air Force rescue community after Gates canceled the CSARX helicopter program in April and questioned whether the military needed a large number of troops and aircraft set aside for search and-rescue missions. Many airmen wondered if their mission would be turned over to another service.
Today, the Air Force flies about 100 HH-60G Pave Hawk rescue helicopters, most bought more than 20 years ago. If Congress approves, another five Pave Hawks could be purchased in fiscal 2010, which begins Oct. 1.
The report raises hope among the airmen who have seen it.
“The data is impossible to argue with,” said a rescue officer who asked that his name not be used because he isn’t authorized to talk to the media. “It is time to get [airmen] more resources.” For Darrel Whitcomb, an author
Air Force needs 171 helos for CSAR
and rescue historian, the study “revalidates the importance of the mission and recognizes the requirement for each service to maintain its own recovery capability.” “It shows that the Air Force, with its well-developed and historically proven CSAR capabilities, has been the leader in this critical mission,” Whitcomb added.
The report is far from the final word in the Pentagon CSAR debate. The Joint Staff and Gates’ advisers will have their say, and the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review could address the rescue mission as well.
Joint Forces Command refused to discuss the report because it was written for Pentagon officials, a command spokesman said. Pentagon officials would not discuss the report either, saying they were too busy planning commemorations of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The details
The agency looked at the CSAR capabilities of the four services’ conventional units as well as Air Force Special Operations Command and Army Special Operations Command.
The 11 areas looked at included the training of medics, communications gear, night operations, ability to launch a mission on short notice, urban operations and capability to rescue people trapped at high altitudes.
The Air Force got the highest scores in seven categories and second place in three. Army special operations ranked second with a pair of first places and seven second places. Conventional Army and Marine units got their top scores for urban operations because the services’ ground forces figured into the equations. The Navy did best with its abilities to rescue people with hoists.
The report concludes that each service needs a rescue capability as a quick response force, from carrier-based Navy helicopters responding to an aircrew in the water to Army medical evacuation helicopters flying out wounded soldiers.
However, the services depend on each other in extreme conditions, such as mountaintop rescues.
“There is no single service solution to recovery of isolated personnel,” the report states.
As an example, the study cites ongoing operations in Afghanistan, where Air Force Pave Hawks often get the call to fly night missions to evacuate wounded soldiers because the helicopters have sophisticated navigation gear — forward-looking infrared cameras and terrain avoidance radar — and door mounted machine guns. Army helicopters are unarmed and have only limited night operations capability.
To fly those high-risk missions, the Defense Department needs aircraft and crews qualified for those assignments, the study states.
When the agency looked at aircraft, it concludes “only current Air Force and Army Special Operations Command [helicopters] are likely to have the capabilities sufficient to succeed at the range of expected missions.” The report argues against a mixed fleet of rescue aircraft —
some helicopters able to fly in benign conditions and others equipped for difficult missions.
“The concept of ‘mixed fleet’ of different aircraft types was originally considered by the study team, but no practical concept of operations could be envisioned that ensured the right mix of capabilities in the right time,” the report states.
As an example, the report cites complications of using tilt-rotor V22 Ospreys flown by the Marines and Air Force special operations for rescue missions.
The V-22’s “excessive” rotor downwash makes it impractical to use a hoist to lift people onboard, ruling out the Osprey for rescues at high altitudes where it couldn’t land, the report states. The agency also questions the V-22’s self defense capabilities since the air craft lacks 360-degree coverage by guns.
Another aircraft would have to be deployed to fill the V-22 gaps.
“The result would be an excess of assets assigned to the CSAR mission to ensure coverage across the range of potential conditions with no assurance of operational benefit,” the report states.
Instead of advocating a fleet of aircraft with widely different capabilities, the agency favors investing in aircraft able to fly the full range of missions.
The recommendation for the 171 Air Force helicopters is based on past operations and current deployment rates for the service’s CSAR units. The report does not suggest specific aircraft to fill the role.
To arrive at the 171 aircraft recommendation, the report’s authors cited the Defense Department goal of service menbers expecting to deploy for one year out of every four and historical requests for CSAR aircraft.
Those factors led the agency to conclude the service needs 115 helicopters for operations, 25 for training, 29 as backups and replacements, and two for testing. About 25 percent of the helicopters would be assigned to Guard and Reserve units
The Air Force needs 171 rescue helicopters to meet the requests of the service and joint combatant commanders, according to a report by the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency.
The agency, part of U.S. Joint Forces Command, helps coordinate rescue training and equipment needs across the services. The report was done as part of an ongoing review of the Defense Department’s rescue forces.
The recommendation is a boost to the Air Force rescue community after Gates canceled the CSARX helicopter program in April and questioned whether the military needed a large number of troops and aircraft set aside for search and-rescue missions. Many airmen wondered if their mission would be turned over to another service.
Today, the Air Force flies about 100 HH-60G Pave Hawk rescue helicopters, most bought more than 20 years ago. If Congress approves, another five Pave Hawks could be purchased in fiscal 2010, which begins Oct. 1.
The report raises hope among the airmen who have seen it.
“The data is impossible to argue with,” said a rescue officer who asked that his name not be used because he isn’t authorized to talk to the media. “It is time to get [airmen] more resources.” For Darrel Whitcomb, an author
Air Force needs 171 helos for CSAR
and rescue historian, the study “revalidates the importance of the mission and recognizes the requirement for each service to maintain its own recovery capability.” “It shows that the Air Force, with its well-developed and historically proven CSAR capabilities, has been the leader in this critical mission,” Whitcomb added.
The report is far from the final word in the Pentagon CSAR debate. The Joint Staff and Gates’ advisers will have their say, and the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review could address the rescue mission as well.
Joint Forces Command refused to discuss the report because it was written for Pentagon officials, a command spokesman said. Pentagon officials would not discuss the report either, saying they were too busy planning commemorations of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The details
The agency looked at the CSAR capabilities of the four services’ conventional units as well as Air Force Special Operations Command and Army Special Operations Command.
The 11 areas looked at included the training of medics, communications gear, night operations, ability to launch a mission on short notice, urban operations and capability to rescue people trapped at high altitudes.
The Air Force got the highest scores in seven categories and second place in three. Army special operations ranked second with a pair of first places and seven second places. Conventional Army and Marine units got their top scores for urban operations because the services’ ground forces figured into the equations. The Navy did best with its abilities to rescue people with hoists.
The report concludes that each service needs a rescue capability as a quick response force, from carrier-based Navy helicopters responding to an aircrew in the water to Army medical evacuation helicopters flying out wounded soldiers.
However, the services depend on each other in extreme conditions, such as mountaintop rescues.
“There is no single service solution to recovery of isolated personnel,” the report states.
As an example, the study cites ongoing operations in Afghanistan, where Air Force Pave Hawks often get the call to fly night missions to evacuate wounded soldiers because the helicopters have sophisticated navigation gear — forward-looking infrared cameras and terrain avoidance radar — and door mounted machine guns. Army helicopters are unarmed and have only limited night operations capability.
To fly those high-risk missions, the Defense Department needs aircraft and crews qualified for those assignments, the study states.
When the agency looked at aircraft, it concludes “only current Air Force and Army Special Operations Command [helicopters] are likely to have the capabilities sufficient to succeed at the range of expected missions.” The report argues against a mixed fleet of rescue aircraft —
some helicopters able to fly in benign conditions and others equipped for difficult missions.
“The concept of ‘mixed fleet’ of different aircraft types was originally considered by the study team, but no practical concept of operations could be envisioned that ensured the right mix of capabilities in the right time,” the report states.
As an example, the report cites complications of using tilt-rotor V22 Ospreys flown by the Marines and Air Force special operations for rescue missions.
The V-22’s “excessive” rotor downwash makes it impractical to use a hoist to lift people onboard, ruling out the Osprey for rescues at high altitudes where it couldn’t land, the report states. The agency also questions the V-22’s self defense capabilities since the air craft lacks 360-degree coverage by guns.
Another aircraft would have to be deployed to fill the V-22 gaps.
“The result would be an excess of assets assigned to the CSAR mission to ensure coverage across the range of potential conditions with no assurance of operational benefit,” the report states.
Instead of advocating a fleet of aircraft with widely different capabilities, the agency favors investing in aircraft able to fly the full range of missions.
The recommendation for the 171 Air Force helicopters is based on past operations and current deployment rates for the service’s CSAR units. The report does not suggest specific aircraft to fill the role.
To arrive at the 171 aircraft recommendation, the report’s authors cited the Defense Department goal of service menbers expecting to deploy for one year out of every four and historical requests for CSAR aircraft.
Those factors led the agency to conclude the service needs 115 helicopters for operations, 25 for training, 29 as backups and replacements, and two for testing. About 25 percent of the helicopters would be assigned to Guard and Reserve units