DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Planes, Copters, Blimps » The Search and Rescue Shuffle

The Search and Rescue Shuffle

When fighter pilots get shot down behind enemy lines, they can count on res­cue crews to risk their own lives to retrieve them.
That’s the ideal. In real­ity, the Air Force’s Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) com­mu­nity has failed on a num­ber of occa­sions in the last 15 years to come to downed fliers’ aid. In the Gulf War, res­cue forces were too slow to pre­vent the Iraqi Army from grab­bing sev­eral avi­a­tors. And in 1995, downed Air Force Capt. Scott O’Grady was retrieved from Bosnia by Marines, of all peo­ple.
The result is some deep ani­mos­ity within the ser­vice towards the small CSAR force, which flies around 100 old HH-​​60G Pave Hawk heli­copters and a hand­ful of even older HC-​​130 Hercules tankers.
The Air Force announced last week that it was trans­fer­ing respon­si­bil­ity for the CSAR force for the sec­ond time in three years. Historically, the res­cuers have been admin­is­tered by the tac­ti­cal air force, which today means Air Combat Command head­quar­tered at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. But in 2003, smallH92.jpgthe Air Force gave CSAR to Special Operations Command in Florida, cit­ing SOC’s exper­tise in fly­ing heli­copters low into enemy ter­ri­tory.
But SOC was never happy with the res­cue mis­sion, see­ing it as a dis­trac­tion from its main, non-​​conventional mis­sions. And when it came time to replace the old Pave Hawks, SOC started lean­ing towards the large, cum­ber­some 1960s-​​era H-​​47 Chinook heli­copter, which SOC’s Army fly­ing bat­tal­ions use for long-​​range mis­sions.
So last week, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley announced that ACC would take CSAR back from SOC. This would return res­cue to “pri­mary mis­sion” sta­tus, accord­ing to Moseley, and allow SOC to focus on its core mis­sions.
Inside Defense expounds:

Moseley added that one fac­tor that led him to approve the plan was that the move will make the com­man­ders of ACC and [Pacific Air Force] “an advo­cate” for the CSAR mis­sion dur­ing con­tin­gency plan­ning.
Senior Air Force offi­cials decided to make the move after exam­in­ing lessons gleaned from oper­a­tions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Moseley said.
…
“[Special Operations] has its own chal­lenges and has its own pri­or­i­ties and often, com­bat res­cue is not at the top of their list,” Moseley said. … “If you’re a guy who’s out hang­ing in a tree some­where” after a U.S. mil­i­tary air­craft has been felled, Moseley said, “you’re not amused by that — you want some­body to come get you.”

As a bonus, Defense News reports, the Air Force would gain con­trol of the $8 bil­lion CSAR-​​X/​Personnel Recovery Vehicle pro­gram to replace the Pave Hawks, mean­ing it will choose an air­frame it prefers, rather than one SOC favors.
Look for the change to boost the mod­ern, large-​​cabin Sikorsky H-​​92’s chances of win­ning. Its main com­pe­ti­tion now is the Westland EH.101 that won the recent Presidential Helicopter com­pe­ti­tion.
– David Axe

Share |

March 2nd, 2006 | Planes, Copters, Blimps, Strategery | 304023 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/03/02/the-search-and-rescue-shuffle/The+Search+and+Rescue+Shuffle2006-03-02+18%3A49%3A22hambling You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Rapid Fire 03/​02/​06 | Guns-​​B-​​Gone » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Anonymous says:
    March 2, 2006 at 10:56 pm

    The rea­son that CSAR forces were unable to retrieve the peo­ple Mr. Axe men­tions is that we were woe­fully under­funded and equiped by ACC. If these peo­ple needed res­cue today, CSAR would be first in line (and most capa­ble) of res­cue­ing them. There were many instances in Afghanistan and Iraq where CSAR was the most capa­ble and suc­cess­fully com­pleted their mis­sion. Under ACC we were strug­gled to get approval for unim­proved air­fild land­ing qual­i­fi­ca­tion, night vision aided land­ings, mod­i­fied con­tour night fly­ing and a whole host of other tac­tics. All of these proved effec­tive and nec­es­sary in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of these are used by AFSOC and not under­stood by ACC. Mr Axe needs to get all the facts before he throw stones at the peo­ple tasked to risk their lives to save oth­ers. …That Others May Live.

    Reply
  2. Mike says:
    March 3, 2006 at 9:27 am

    The Army still doesn’t have a seri­ous answer for CSAR. Army avi­a­tion is expected to pro­vide ‘inter­nal’ CSAR capa­bil­ity, and local unit cross train­ing with sup­ported ground forces. The real­ity is that we have been lucky with Army avi­a­tion shoot­downs. The Blackhawk down sce­nario went WELL com­pared to some of the things that could hap­pen now, with large scale oop­er­a­tions by con­ven­tional (not SOF) avi­a­tion oper­at­ing over Iraqi cities, often with­out coor­di­na­tion with ground forces.

    Reply
  3. Edward Liu says:
    March 3, 2006 at 10:17 am

    Anonymous: “Mr Axe needs to get all the facts before he throw stones at the peo­ple tasked to risk their lives to save oth­ers.“
    I don’t think Axe was slam­ming the indi­vid­ual oper­a­tors in CSAR for their trou­bles over the years. Based on his prior blog entries, I believe his loy­al­ties lie first and fore­most in the indi­vid­ual sol­diers, sailors, air­men, and marines in the front lines.
    I don’t want to put words into Axe’s mouth, but look­ing over this arti­cle, I get the impres­sion that the mes­sage being sent is that lack of strong sup­port from USAF high com­mand has often ham­pered the mis­sion that you guys are tasked with. From what I’m led to believe, fail­ures to under­stand and embrace the mis­sion at senior lead­er­ship lev­els (both mil­i­tary and civil­ian) have plagued spe­cial­ized and special-​​ops forces for decades.
    On a per­sonal note, to you and all the guys at CSAR: thank you for your ser­vice, and I hope you guys stay really, really bored but not because I think you can’t do the job.

    Reply
  4. Cliff says:
    March 14, 2006 at 2:28 pm

    I’m a Hog pilot (ex-​​Sandy) cur­rently at Naval War College…writing my JMO paper on putting the “Joint” into Joint CSAR…would love any point­ers or leads on arti­cles cov­er­ing JCSAR in OIF and/​or today.

    Reply
  5. cheap zeny says:
    August 2, 2008 at 12:48 am

    But, slowly, we are all the rea­sons more and more dis­tant from the RO, RO to leave the dis­tance we have much more. I am a lot busier than before, not like before, often on the line. Although some­times he also give me a lit­tle cheap zeny, but I l know that there are mis­un­der­stand­ings between us, and increas­ingly deep.

    Reply
  6. Requiem money says:
    August 8, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    Angels as we know them soft, cheru­bic her­alds of Valentine’s Day do not exist in Requiem money: Avenging Angel.

    Reply
  7. cheap 2moons dil says:
    August 16, 2008 at 1:10 am

    I often search which place see the cheap 2moons dil, it also spend me much time.

    Reply
  8. buy dofus kamas says:
    August 16, 2008 at 1:32 am

    I spend many money to buy dofus kamas for her.

    Reply
  9. FFXI gold says:
    September 2, 2008 at 4:04 am

    Now my class­mate and my game friend, we often together to play, together to earn the FFXI gold or search the cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold, we all likes this feel­ing. thank for this game, let us such happy.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Sexing up the Headline
      a href="http://www.game4pow er.com">Buy wow...
      buy wow  gold
    • New Army PEO on the way
      To get our AAA quality shoes at reasonable price, Your...
      nike air force ones
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage