Rescue Mission Commander

[60 driver]

By the way sir, please don't think for a minute that your flying around the missile fields in a Huey somehow constitutes a "perspective from both platforms." That's like me claiming I have perspective of what it's like to fly an A-10 because I went cross country in a tweet.

Since you mentioned perspective: I am a current HH-60 EP and former A-10 Sandy 1 and Sandy IP. What Rainman and Busdriver have to say is 100% correct. IMHBAO.

P.S. Rainman is a former A-10 WIC instructor. Bus is an HH-60 patch. Voice your opinion but know your audience. Show some respect.

Edited May 5, 2012 by 60 driver

[JSChmed]

Since you mentioned perspective: I am a current HH-60 EP and former A-10 Sandy 1 and Sandy IP. What Rainman and Busdriver have to say is 100% correct. IMHBAO.

P.S. Rainman is a former A-10 WIC instructor. Bus is an HH-60 patch. Voice your opinion but know your audience. Show some respect.

Jesus dude. H-60 EP? Congrats....

Seems like you could add something more useful based on your background, but I guess this is better than nothing.

I went to the WIC too. Maybe I fell asleep during the CSAR part of the H-60 course which is why my point of view is so effed, I dunno.

[mach2m3]

Being a relatively new hh-60 guy I will not attempt to advocate one side or the other in this argument. However it seems to me that with the recent announcement of so many A-10 squadron closures, that the rescue community has seen the writing on the wall for our relied upon RMC. While the Hog is certainly not going away tomorrow, the prospect of losing all the Sandy experienced dudes (to other cockpits that do not generally fill that role or out of the AF) has galvanized everyone to start looking for other options. The consensus appears to be that we must be fully prepared to operate should the day come that there are no longer any Sandy qualified assets available. To that end (and those of us at DM have heard it endlessly) it would make sense for rescue to "own our mission" to ensure that a fully trained RMC is always available and we are not left relying on someone else in the CAF. No one is getting any more flying hours and adding yet another highly demanding mission set to another platform is obviously going to have a slow, steep learning curve. There are several platforms that posses all the capabilities to fulfill the RMC role effectively besides the A-10 but until the torch of Sandy is effectively handed off, it seems the only way for rescue to ensure that level of expertise remains consistent is to begin training to it. While there are serious limfacs to having an HH-60 or HC-130 RMC, it can only help to have both sets train to that level since it allows for options down the road and will help bridge the gap between the end of one era of Sandy and the beginning of the next.

Edited May 5, 2012 by mach2m3

[Smokin]

On a related topic that's probably not worthy of an additional thread... Is there a reason we use the term IP talking about an isolated person when the same term will be used on the fight freq for initial points? I have seen this cause confusion when Sandy told someone "to stay 10 miles east of the IP" and the aircraft subsequently went back to their hold point when they could have continued to fight. Any chance someone here is going to the next rewrite and could maybe come up with a different term?

[Hacker]

I'm no kidding penetrating an IADS MEZ at 50' the whole way or have an extensive conventional ground threat. Afghanistan is a different animal, but I'd still prefer to have some trained to be OSC overhead start working the objective before I get there.

This is part of the root cause of the clown act in the thread about RPA drivers gettin' no respect. There are a lot of young pilots right now who want to tear down established paradigms because they don't understand why they were developed. All many of these folks have ever known is operation in the permissive environments of OEF and OIF, and while their 'new' ideas may work perfectly fine for those scenarios most of the time these new ideas wouldn't last 5 minutes in an actual denied environment.

The closest I've ever been to this is as a Sandy 3/4 rescort on a couple of A-10 WIC support deployments, so I have no real basis of experience to comment on the specifics. That being said, the CSARTF concept has been developed and honed over years and years of experience. A lot of very smart guys from many different platforms have been involved in determining tactics and planning and executing many CSAR operations. I would be surprised if a major paradigm shift like this hadn't all ready long since been considered and rejected.

[busdriver]

Is there a reason we use the term IP talking about an isolated person

Yes, but I agree IP is a bad term to use on the fight freq and I've always used other terms.

[busdriver]

Maybe I fell asleep during the CSAR part of the H-60 course

If you managed this and graduated, please tell me your secret.

That said, I don't think we're too far off in opinion, just delivery. There aren't enough Sandy1 qualed guys in the CAF, that's a fact and there is only so much training available to make more, we have to figure out when a no shit Sandy1 is required and when that duty can be handled by the alternate and contingency plans. Once that's figured out we can decide how to train folks for the less optimal setup. This is isn't about re-inventing the wheel, it's about making sure everyone is trained to still make the mission happen when the traditional wheel isn't an option.

[Guest]

There are a lot of young pilots right now who want to tear down established paradigms because they don't understand why they were developed. All many of these folks have ever known is operation in the permissive environments of OEF and OIF, and while their 'new' ideas may work perfectly fine for those scenarios most of the time these new ideas wouldn't last 5 minutes in an actual denied environment.

Shack.

That being said, the CSARTF concept has been developed and honed over years and years of experience. A lot of very smart guys from many different platforms have been involved in determining tactics and planning and executing many CSAR operations. I would be surprised if a major paradigm shift like this hadn't all ready long since been considered and rejected.

Shack.

[busdriver]

Rainman, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that there aren't enough Sandy1s available to cover everything. How do we we train guys for the contingency where there is no Sandy1? That is the current operational reality.

[Guest]

Rainman, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that there aren't enough Sandy1s available to cover everything. How do we we train guys for the contingency where there is no Sandy1? That is the current operational reality.

Depends on the contingency. You probably weren't around during the cold war. There was no plan to do a conventional CSAR in that scenario. There was a plan but it rarely involved a SANDY and never involved a JOLLY.

There are certain scenarios when the threat is great enough that JOLLY may not even launch for a day or more while the CSAR rages on. Maybe not ever.

Now, for the low threat scenario where you don't need a SANDY you also don't need an RMC so the whole point is moot. In that scenario the JOLLYs will likely have the highest SA of any aircraft in the air wrt CSAR so they should definitely do whatever they can to make the rescue happen. That does not mean they are replacing a full up RMC. You can call it RMC if you want to but recognize you're not doing the tasks required by a full up RMC in an opposed CSAR.

JOLLY as full up RMC backup in every scenario just isn't feasible. It is not about manhood or balls or courage or skill. There are such things as LIMFACs and no-go criteria. Anyone in any aircraft who says they're going to accomplish their mission regardless of the rest of the package and/or regardless of the threat is simply nuts.

I think the JOLLYs should always train to and plan for the worst case scenario. I hope the right call will be made in the JSRC about whether or not to try a pickup without a SANDY qualified RMC...but I've seen much buffoonery from the JSRC in the past.

I know how seriously JOLLYs take the CSAR mission. I know if it is possible they will make it happen.

[slackline]

Now, for the low threat scenario where you don't need a SANDY you also don't need an RMC so the whole point is moot. In that scenario the JOLLYs will likely have the highest SA of any aircraft in the air wrt CSAR so they should definitely do whatever they can to make the rescue happen. That does not mean they are replacing a full up RMC. You can call it RMC if you want to but recognize you're not doing the tasks required by a full up RMC in an opposed CSAR.

JOLLY as full up RMC backup in every scenario just isn't feasible. It is not about manhood or balls or courage or skill. There are such things as LIMFACs and no-go criteria. Anyone in any aircraft who says they're going to accomplish their mission regardless of the rest of the package and/or regardless of the threat is simply nuts.

Shack! Why bother typing up a reply on an iPad when this says it quite nicely?

[busdriver]

There was a plan but it rarely involved a SANDY and never involved a JOLLY.

you're not doing the tasks required by a full up RMC in an opposed CSAR.

JOLLY as full up RMC backup in every scenario just isn't feasible.

Cold war was well before my time, but I know what you're getting at CSAR is only one subset of the PR umbrella.

Part of the problem is the joint definition of RMC is vague and based solely on that definition the AF standard Sandy package is the best answer that fits that definition across the broadest threat spectrum, as it should be. However, as an example Sandy2 is a FAC(A) why? The Marine WTI I worked with swore up and down that a FAC(A) was not required for cross FSCL CSAR since there was no GFC to require close coordination with and SCAR-C was what they were really doing. Once again, Sandy for the win over a broader spectrum as not all CSAR events will be past the FSCL. But you can see where the argument could be made for differing skill sets filling the role in certain circumstances.

If there's a rescue mission, someone has to be in command of said mission doesn't that make them RMC? I'd argue that we need to establish when a Sandy1 is required, when a Jolly1 would suffice, etc. Then we can say "In scenario X, we have to deploy A-10s to sit CSAR alert." or "This threat level is acceptable for a properly trained RV to act as RMC if given the appropriate supporting players." I know you're saying that I can call it RMC but it isn't, I'd argue that Sandy1 is more than "just" RMC.

No argument on that last point I quoted and by no means am I suggesting we should change our paradigm from our current CSARTF construct, it works and is the standard for good reason. I'm only saying that as a community (including Hog guys) we need to train to the contingency that it isn't an option, and know based on training to that standard when we can and cannot execute with less than the optimal solution, that goes for loss of all Sandys and a partial Sandy package.

[Guest]

However, as an example Sandy2 is a FAC(A) why?

He needs to be able to conduct ASC and have positive control over ordnance going down near the survivor.

The Marine WTI I worked with swore up and down that a FAC(A) was not required for cross FSCL CSAR since there was no GFC to require close coordination with and SCAR-C was what they were really doing.

I like the Marines. However, they have a very different (and in many ways fucked up) approach to CSAR.

[JSChmed]

If there's a rescue mission, someone has to be in command of said mission doesn't that make them RMC? ..... I know you're saying that I can call it RMC but it isn't, I'd argue that Sandy1 is more than just RMC.

That's what I'm saying. Sandy is RMC plus OSC plus FAC(A) plus Rescort. An RMC needs to get those things but doesn't need to be those things.

[slackline]

If there's a rescue mission, someone has to be in command of said mission doesn't that make them RMC? I'd argue that we need to establish when a Sandy1 is required, when a Jolly1 would suffice, etc. Then we can say "In scenario X, we have to deploy A-10s to sit CSAR alert." or "This threat level is acceptable for a properly trained RV to act as RMC if given the appropriate supporting players." I know you're saying that I can call it RMC but it isn't, I'd argue that Sandy1 is more than "just" RMC.

Also said quite nicely. This is what we see in the permissive environment that we currently fly in (Jolly/Pedro filling that role), but it would be extremely beneficial to anyone involved in CSAR to have a "flow chart" of sorts to delineate what and who is required when. We know the answers to that already, but it would make our jobs easier to go to leadership for support of our requirements.

[brabus]

but it would be extremely beneficial to anyone involved in CSAR to have a "flow chart" of sorts to delineate what and who is required when

I bet someone on here can make that flowchart into a pretty awesome powerpoint presentation for the Generals.

[busdriver]

This is what we see in the permissive environment that we currently fly in

As a community we're not even close to being able to claim RMC right now.

[TAMInated]

Hijack:

Got the chance to be a survivor for a CSAR WUG ride this week. If you ever get the chance to do the same thing, take it.

[slackline]

As a community we're not even close to being able to claim RMC right now.

Correct. I misspoke. What we're doing isn't CSAR. We fly Med/CASEVAC mostly while constantly on alert for CSAR. Some missions more complicated than others. On the more complicated we are performing a bastardized version of RMC.

[Guest]

Hijack:

Got the chance to be a survivor for a CSAR WUG ride this week. If you ever get the chance to do the same thing, take it.

2

We used to make the students in the Trough be survivors. It was always an eye opener to be right in the middle of a CSAR CT sortie with lots of live ordnance.

When I was a student I snuck up w/in 50 meters of some targets on the 70s and had the SANDYs shooting rockets and strafing them. I took some serious shit for that in the debrief but it was totally worth it to see what 30mm HEI and WP rockets looked like up close.

[TAMInated]

It was dry passes only, unfortunately, but still awesome.

[busdriver]

On the more complicated we are performing a bastardized version of RMC.

Really stretching it. Those are the types of missions where we could do it, or where Rainman would say a full up RMC isn't required. Most missions I'm aware of were making up for a lack of training with balls.

totally worth it to see what 30mm HEI and WP rockets looked like up close.

Danger close over the shoulder rocket attacks with the right gun hammering down is a surreal experience.

[Breckey]

Most missions I'm aware of were making up for a lack of training with balls.

[Champ Kind]

making up for a lack of training with balls.

Quote of the week.

[Ram]

...especially when so many in the USAF make up for a lack of balls with queep.