Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

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

Comments

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.

Posted by: Cliff at March 14, 2006 2:28 PM


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.

Posted by: Edward Liu at March 3, 2006 10:17 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.

Posted by: Mike at March 3, 2006 9:27 AM


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.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 2, 2006 10:56 PM


» Post a Comment