# AFSOC's Aircraft way-ahead.



## DA SWO (Mar 7, 2012)

_This is from the AF Association's daily e-mail:_

Recapitalizing Special-Mission Aircraft: Efforts to recapitalize and modernize US Special Operations Command's rotary- and fixed-wing fleets are progressing well, said Adm. William McRaven, SOCOM commander. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, McRaven said Air Force Special Operations Command has fielded 23 of its 50 planned CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. The Osprey "continues to deliver unmatched speed and range to SOF battlefield commanders," he said. AFSOC also has completed modifying 12 MC-130Ws with a precision strike package, "which continues to perform superbly in combat," said McRaven. It has also started efforts to field AC-130J gunships to replace legacy AC-130 platforms, "using the MC-130W PSP as a key risk-reducing capability," he noted. Further, AFSOC's MC-130J successfully completed developmental testing in June and is on track to replace aging MC-130E and MC-130P special-mission aircraft, he said.

_Anyone here use an Osprey yet?  _

_I also think it's funny how many J-model 130's we are buying.  Funny, because big blue tried to kill the program and is now the biggest customer._


----------



## Vat_69 (Mar 7, 2012)

Ugh...i dont want to get started on the fraud, waste and abuse of the J model program and how Lockgreed forced the AF to buy into it.

But in a nutshell, the c130 had evolved to its apex form in the H3 model and H3.5s were even making their way into production. The AF and the Herc community were happy as hogs in shit with the H3 series but Lockheed wanted to make more money per aircraft, so under the guise of performance, efficiency, and crew reduction cancelled the H3 "legacy" series without any input from the DOD and said if you want hercs you have to fund the J program.  Yes the J performs a little better but not enough to justify the price tag of the program or cost per plane.  The herc is a pick up truck,  i dont want an automatic with leather seats and 20 inch rims or a carbon fiber hood for a freakin pick up truck.  To me thats just what the J is.


----------



## talonlm (Mar 9, 2012)

Like it or not, the J is the way ahead.  It's not like we have a lot of choice--even the 'new' gunships and talon-2s are approach twenty years old.  The H-model gunpigs are closing rapidly on 45 and the Combat Talon is just this side of 50(!).  Well maintained or not, airframes only hold up so long.   Much as I hate to see these old birds retired, it's definitely time to replace them.  Had AFSOC not sold their soul for that whirling Cuisinart of death in the 90s, we might have something newer sooner, but that's all politics and short-sightedness under the bridge now.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see the C-27Js turn up in the AFSOC inventory--small footprint, lots of parts-commonality with the J-model, damned capable airframe and, oddly enough, Big Blue just decided to throw away twenty or so of them in the name of budgetary expediency (None with more than 500 flight hours, and nine still on the assembly line!).  Seems to me to be a simple decision to pick those up but a pretty difficult budget fight; justifying another new airframe with money like it is could be pretty tough.  
Don’t see a long future for the rest of the smaller assets AFSOC has been picking up lately, though.  They seem to me to be something of a mission-specific purchase, ‘niche-flyers,’ if you will.  Not flexible enough to hang onto long term if the budget gets further constrained.


----------



## Vat_69 (Mar 12, 2012)

I get it the J is the future.  Its just a constant freaking reminder of grossly expensive "geez whiz" spending IMO.


----------



## talonlm (Mar 14, 2012)

Vat_69 said:


> I get it the J is the future. Its just a constant freaking reminder of grossly expensive "geez whiz" spending IMO.


 
I have to disagree, at least with regard to the -J models. The AC-130Hs, MC-130Es and MC-130Ps are all at least 40 years old. That's pretty long for something that flies in the regime they do. Even with serious maintenance work, they only last so long before you start having continuous maintenance problems or worse. Those birds are tired, and they need a replacement. Even the "new" gunships and Talon 2s are in their early twenties, with some older than that. The time for the introduction of the J-model into AFSOC has come.

And the best example I can think of regarding AFSOC's preference for shiny new baubles would be the CV-22. I don't know how the Marines feel about it, but I don't know very many folks around who feel the Osprey is a fine repalcement for a Pave Low.


----------



## Vat_69 (Mar 15, 2012)

Dont mistake my general dislike for the J as me not feeling the legacy gunpigs and talon/shadow needs to be recaped.  Its should have begun yrs ago with H3.5s.   Ask any pilot that flew the H 3.  Its perfect.


----------



## Dead Last (Oct 5, 2012)

I know I'm a little late to the conversation but yes the H3 was the pinnacle!  But if someone told me to go fly the J I wouldn't say no...  Just sayin

cheers


----------



## talonlm (Oct 6, 2012)

Nothing wrong with H3s.  The problem is, Lockheed isn't building them anymore.  As is often the case, it's not a question of what's best, but one of what's available.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 6, 2012)

SOWT said:


> _This is from the AF Association's daily e-mail:_
> 
> 
> _Anyone here use an Osprey yet? _


 
Yup, I have jumped out of one, and they terrify me.


----------



## AWP (Oct 6, 2012)

amlove21 said:


> Yup, I have jumped out of one, and they terrify me.


 
Oohhhhh, refueling in one: better or worse than a helo?


----------



## talonlm (Oct 6, 2012)

Can't say from the driver's end, but they're interesting to watch from the loadmaster's point of view.  Just flat out _different_.  The accordian effect--when the tanker pilot speeds up and the reciever pilot slows down--will really get your attention.  A bit more comfortable (from the aircraft performance perspective) for the tankers, as well.  Better than hanging on the edge of a stall while in formation, at any rate.


----------



## AWP (Oct 6, 2012)

talonlm said:


> Can't say from the driver's end, but they're interesting to watch from the loadmaster's point of view. Just flat out _different_. The accordian effect--when the tanker pilot speeds up and the reciever pilot slows down--will really get your attention. A bit more comfortable (from the aircraft performance perspective) for the tankers, as well. Better than hanging on the edge of a stall while in formation, at any rate.


 
I was mainly picking at amlove...he or one of the other J's have a serious dislike for riding in a helo when it refuels, so I threw in his "love" of the Osprey for comparison.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 7, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> I was mainly picking at amlove...he or one of the other J's have a serious dislike for riding in a helo when it refuels, so I threw in his "love" of the Osprey for comparison.


Oh it was me. Least favorite thing to do in a helo. 

And I haven't refueled in a 22 yet, I have a couple jumps out of them, and that's about it. A lot of the reports of AIE's from friends aren't favorable.


----------



## talonlm (Oct 7, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> I was mainly picking at amlove...he or one of the other J's have a serious dislike for riding in a helo when it refuels, so I threw in his "love" of the Osprey for comparison.


 
Guess I better find my Crayons.


----------



## AWP (Oct 7, 2012)

talonlm said:


> Guess I better find my Crayons.


 
HAHAHAHA!!!! It took me a second to figure out your post. No, no need to shut up and color. :)


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 7, 2012)

smoothest ride I ever had in a 53 was during inflight refueling. The only reason I woke up was because shit got "too smooth" for being in controlled flight.


----------



## USAFReshef (Oct 10, 2012)

I know I'm not a pilot or SOF guy, but I have a serious question about the Osprey that makes me wonder about it's real utility in a hostile environment: what happens if you take a shot in the engine? You can't autorotate down like a chopper, and I VERY much doubt it has the glide characteristics of anything other than a brick.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 11, 2012)

Each engine doesn't just power a single rotor.  Both powerplants feed a driveshaft to a gearbox that has a cross-shaft linking both rotors.

You lose a ton of performance, but it will still fly with a degraded performance envelope.... just like any multi-engine aircraft.


----------



## USAFReshef (Oct 11, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> Each engine doesn't just power a single rotor. Both powerplants feed a driveshaft to a gearbox that has a cross-shaft linking both rotors.
> 
> You lose a ton of performance, but it will still fly with a degraded performance envelope.... just like any multi-engine aircraft.


Ah. Thank you for clearing that up.


----------



## Hella-Copters (Aug 18, 2013)

USAFReshef said:


> I know I'm not a pilot or SOF guy, but I have a serious question about the Osprey that makes me wonder about it's real utility in a hostile environment: what happens if you take a shot in the engine? You can't autorotate down like a chopper, and I VERY much doubt it has the glide characteristics of anything other than a brick.



Without getting into FOUO, in short, Ranger Psych is correct.  The Osprey has an interconnecting driveshaft that allows one engine to drive both proprotors.  After the Osprey's notorious mishaps in the early 2000s, is was completely redesigned.  Part of that redesign was added redundancy and redistribution of critical controls throughout the airframe to reduce the risk of losing critical systems. 

You are correct that the Osprey cannot autorotate.  In a dual-engine failure scenario - which is _incredibly_ rare - the crew is trained convert to airplane mode and glide like an airplane.  The glide ratio is not great, so you're not gliding home, but - when performed correctly to an unobstructed area - the crew and passengers will walk away from the aircraft.  The proprotors will strike the ground and are designed to "broomstraw" away from the fuselage.


----------



## Hella-Copters (Aug 18, 2013)

Out of curiosity, anybody have experience with the Osprey (MV or CV) in training or down range?  I'd like to hear your positive and negative feedback.  

I'm also happy to answer any other questions that I can about the Osprey.  Cheers!


----------



## ProPatria (Aug 19, 2013)

I was a passenger in a few while doing air assaults during WTI in Yuma a few years back. I thought they were a good aircraft, fast and you could get a decent amount of guys in them compared to the Canadian A/C that we used before we got the Chinooks.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 19, 2013)

Hella-Copters said:


> Out of curiosity, anybody have experience with the Osprey (MV or CV) in training or down range?  I'd like to hear your positive and negative feedback.
> 
> I'm also happy to answer any other questions that I can about the Osprey.  Cheers!


Got to fly in an Osprey once in country, and once here in the states.  I have to say that I greatly prefer them to the alternative (CH-53), due to the fact that it doesn't bounce around once it hits level flight, and because it doesn't leak hydraulic fluid everywhere!  The ride was always very comfortable, even though the transition from vertical to horizontal flight always made you lean reeeeeeeeally hard!


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 19, 2013)

Hella-Copters said:


> Out of curiosity, anybody have experience with the Osprey (MV or CV) in training or down range?  I'd like to hear your positive and negative feedback.
> 
> I'm also happy to answer any other questions that I can about the Osprey.  Cheers!


I did jump out of one a couple times, freefall. For that it was awesome, for anything underneath it- uh, no thanks. I have never heard of a single person that said, "Yea, it wasnt that bad!" when talking about working underneath it, at nearly any height. I have heard (anectdotally) that its rough on the pilots from a human performance standpoint, also. Any input here?


----------



## Hella-Copters (Aug 20, 2013)

ProPatria said:


> I was a passenger in a few while doing air assaults during WTI in Yuma a few years back. I thought they were a good aircraft, fast and you could get a decent amount of guys in them compared to the Canadian A/C that we used before we got the Chinooks.



Being a former helo guy, I really appreciate the speed and range that we can get out of the Osprey.  My helicopter unit would turn down plenty of opportunities for training because they were too far away.  In the Osprey, the opposite coast of the USA is a viable option for training.  Of course, the ability to deliver you bearded killers to an LZ twice as far away in half the time ain't too bad either.



Deathy McDeath said:


> Got to fly in an Osprey once in country, and once here in the states.  I have to say that I greatly prefer them to the alternative (CH-53), due to the fact that it doesn't bounce around once it hits level flight, and because it doesn't leak hydraulic fluid everywhere!  The ride was always very comfortable, even though the transition from vertical to horizontal flight always made you lean reeeeeeeeally hard!



I certainly appreciate how much more smoothly the aircraft flies.  I find it particularly less susceptible to turbulence.  And yes, the transition to airplane mode and conversion back to VTOL tends to catch customers by surprise on their first ride.  We can generally get from 0 to 230+ in around 20 seconds.



amlove21 said:


> I did jump out of one a couple times, freefall. For that it was awesome, for anything underneath it- uh, no thanks. I have never heard of a single person that said, "Yea, it wasnt that bad!" when talking about working underneath it, at nearly any height. I have heard (anectdotally) that its rough on the pilots from a human performance standpoint, also. Any input here?



I think anybody would tell you, the V-22 has taken a looooong time to mature.  For a few reason, I think.  This aircraft is a miracle of engineering.  I was once told that helicopters are the result of using engineering to null out 10,000 opposing forces.  In the V-22, this is at least 10-fold.  Another reason, I think, is that for years (possibly decades) engineers, pilots and customers were trying to make it fly like a helicopter.  Unfortunately it's a pretty bad helicopter.  Once people started to understand the tilt-rotor concept and fly it like a tilt-rotor and not a helicopter (fairly recently), things started getting better.  As a result of the above phenomenon, there were some very highly publicized mishaps in the late 90's and early 00's.  These two factors and the political ramifications of the mishaps, really made the development a nightmare.  On a positive note, I think the last couple years have shown significant gains with respect to knowing the Osprey's strengths and weaknesses.  The AF spent far too long trying to make it a PaveLow replacement, when it could never do what the PaveLow did.  On the flip side, there's a myriad of stuff that the CV-22 can do that the PaveLow could never dream of.

No question, the rotor downwash is a _significant_ fact of life for the Osprey, its crew and its customers.  As you can see in my avatar and in some videos on YouTube, the downwash is unprecedented.  At roughly 85 knots 20' below and directly beneath the aircraft, it's a cat-1 hurricane down there.  The design limitations associated with being able to land on a ship as well as fold-up for shipment contributed to this feature.  As a result, crews and customers have and must continue to develop and test TTPs in order to mitigate the downwash

Finally, the human performance factors associated with operating the Osprey are unique.  There are points during conversion/transition that, due to shifting CG, control forces are somewhat counter-intuitive.  I found that this was pretty easy to overcome during initial qual.  Our units train to fly medium to high risk tactical missions at night, in the weather, in a low-level flight regime.  More so than the actual mechanics of flying the aircraft, the mission is extremely demanding.  (I know, it's special ops, that's what we do.)  I find that executing the special ops assault mission (and everything that goes with it) in this flight regime, at over 300 mph, to be undoubtedly the most demanding aspect of operating the Osprey.


----------



## Hella-Copters (Aug 21, 2013)

http://www.airforcetimes.com/articl...180038/AF-may-use-V-22s-combat-rescue-mission

"For several months, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) has been quietly lobbying to take over the combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) mission from Air Combat Command (ACC), arguing, according to sources and internal Air Force documents obtained by Defense News, they can do the mission with fewer aircraft, at lower cost."

Any thoughts?


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 21, 2013)

Hella-Copters said:


> http://www.airforcetimes.com/articl...180038/AF-may-use-V-22s-combat-rescue-mission
> 
> "For several months, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) has been quietly lobbying to take over the combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) mission from Air Combat Command (ACC), arguing, according to sources and internal Air Force documents obtained by Defense News, they can do the mission with fewer aircraft, at lower cost."
> 
> Any thoughts?


They have had it twice, and twice it was taken away.

Put an AFSOC STS (or Flight) with each Rescue Group and keep the Air Frames with ACC.


----------



## AWP (Aug 21, 2013)

V-22's as a CSAR platform? How's the rotor wash going to work with a ramp-mounted hoist? How much defensive weaponry is it carrying?


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 21, 2013)

Hella-Copters said:


> http://www.airforcetimes.com/articl...180038/AF-may-use-V-22s-combat-rescue-mission
> 
> "For several months, _*Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) has been quietly lobbying to take over the combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) mission from Air Combat Command (ACC), arguing, according to sources and internal Air Force documents obtained by Defense News, they can do the mission with fewer aircraft, at lower cost.*_"
> 
> Any thoughts?


It hasn't been that quiet. There are tons of rumors and some of those "in the know" hint that a no shit move to AFSOC is imminent. Take that for what it's worth though, there have been these discussions since Pararescue went to ACC. But I will say that some very high ups have addressed the possibility of a move back to AFSOC career field wide, and they didn't address it before. 



Freefalling said:


> V-22's as a CSAR platform? How's the rotor wash going to work with a ramp-mounted hoist? How much defensive weaponry is it carrying?


It carries weapons/ammo for self defense, and there have been tests with different weapons configs. @Hella-Copters can weigh in, but it's just as capable as a 60 in the "self defense/defense of the team" aspect as the 60- maybe even moreso, considering the ammo they can carry, the way gunners/FE's can engage targets standing with plenty of room vs sitting, ramp weapon, etc.  As for the CSAR platform- we've used it in training and it's sold as a platform specifically for the "deep mission"- great distances, the need for a much faster platform (vice the 60), etc. Working in the wash was addressed earlier- it's horrendus. But to defeat the "tyranny of distance" problem we may be seeing in future conflicts like Africa, the 22 is actually WAY more capable. More power, faster flight, bigger payload, bigger teams, etc. Working underneath it though- challenging isn't even the word.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 21, 2013)

SOWT said:


> They have had it twice, and twice it was taken away.
> 
> Put an AFSOC STS (or Flight) with each Rescue Group and keep the Air Frames with ACC.


Disagree here. Opens up weird conversations about TACON/ADCON/OPCON when you split the airframe and the team from the people employing each, at least in our world. Dedicated AFSOC pilots/crews will operate in the same structure, speak the same language, be commanded by the same people. One of the main issues I see with ACC pilots/airframes and an AFSOC team has played out literally hundreds of times, like this:

Team Commander- "I want to pre position at 'X', it sets us up better for the mission."
Deployed Aircraft Commander- "That may be- but I won't preposition my iron where you want."
TC- "Uh, ok, but it's a better tactical decision- I am granting the CSAR team launch/pre position authority."
DAC- "Great. The airlift will be here, and not prepositioned, I control the aircraft and the crews. How you getting to 'X'?"

It gets into a deeper issue, but as for the airframe- you want your airlift and teams aligned alike with the same chain of command. Continuity is king.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 22, 2013)

That's why working with the 160th is great and combined with that, the same JTF/TF/whatever.  "Hey, we're gonna need to be able to get anywhere within X lickity split" "ok, make us a spot we can park and deal with our shit" "who knows how to run a bobcat to fill up more hescos"


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 22, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Disagree here. Opens up weird conversations about TACON/ADCON/OPCON when you split the airframe and the team from the people employing each, at least in our world. Dedicated AFSOC pilots/crews will operate in the same structure, speak the same language, be commanded by the same people. One of the main issues I see with ACC pilots/airframes and an AFSOC team has played out literally hundreds of times, like this:
> 
> Team Commander- "I want to pre position at 'X', it sets us up better for the mission."
> Deployed Aircraft Commander- "That may be- but I won't preposition my iron where you want."
> ...


Agree, but could you OPCON them to the Rescue Group?  I was thinking that CRO/PJ in one command would allow more standardization for gear (or has that problem gone away?)

My other question, retention was a problem (PJ-wise) you guys still lose folks at the end of enlistment #1, or has retention climbed?


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 22, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Agree, but could you OPCON them to the Rescue Group?  I was thinking that CRO/PJ in one command would allow more standardization for gear (or has that problem gone away?)
> 
> My other question, retention was a problem (PJ-wise) you guys still lose folks at the end of enlistment #1, or has retention climbed?


 
1- This gets into a huge discussion. The lines are very blurry, and having the RQS involved as it stands- the CROPJTL are the tactical leaders and SME, with a rescue helicopter 05/06 actually controlling the total force (airframes/crews/CSAR team) and allowing mission execution- is extremely convoluted. If I actually wrote out the way that mission approval is handled, even for simple "no kidding" casevac missions on my upcoming deployment, youd be shocked. Absolutely insane. Org charts and yarn and dotted lines and animated graphics would be involved.

2- Retention kills more PJs than helicopters, gunfire, and accidents could ever hope to. Guys will dedicate their lives for 3 years to get fully qualified- and then cant deal with the politucs, minutiae, headaches, and actual time needed to dedicate the proper amount of effort to our day to day "no shit" lives. Guys get disillusioned and punch out for greener pastures. It's just the way it goes. You cant tell a dude for 2 years that he is going to be johnny effing hardcore badass and then tell him to write EPR's and chase currencies 3/4 of his time, it's just not going to work out. All you need then is one slow deployment, one too many conversations about length of hair, hands in pockets, the right shirt and pants combo- and you get a dude that no longer feels that the mission set is equal to the crap he has to deal with.


----------



## talonlm (Aug 22, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> 2- Retention kills more PJs than helicopters, gunfire, and accidents could ever hope to. Guys will dedicate their lives for 3 years to get fully qualified- and then cant deal with the politucs, minutiae, headaches, and actual time needed to dedicate the proper amount of effort to our day to day "no shit" lives. Guys get disillusioned and punch out for greener pastures. It's just the way it goes. You cant tell a dude for 2 years that he is going to be johnny effing hardcore badass and then tell him to write EPR's and chase currencies 3/4 of his time, it's just not going to work out. All you need then is one slow deployment, one too many conversations about length of hair, hands in pockets, the right shirt and pants combo- and you get a dude that no longer feels that the mission set is equal to the crap he has to deal with.


 
Not to sidetrack this conversation, but that last bit there takes out more than just PJs.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 23, 2013)

talonlm said:


> Not to sidetrack this conversation, but that last bit there takes out more than just PJs.


Noted.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 23, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Noted.


And re-reading my reply- I agree with you. That wasn't a "fuck you" noted, that was an "I agree and don't have anything to add there, you're right" noted.


----------



## Hella-Copters (Aug 23, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> V-22's as a CSAR platform? How's the rotor wash going to work with a ramp-mounted hoist? How much defensive weaponry is it carrying?


The rotor wash is a significant factor with respect to hoisting a survivor, if required.  The primary way we mitigate the rotor wash is by using a higher hover altitude.  The CV-22's ability to hover coupled can provide the ability for a much more stable hover at higher altitudes.  Of note, when I left the community, the HH-60G was testing an improved altitude hold/hover stabilization system as well.  Of course, lets not forget that the primary option for recovery for _both _communities is to land.

As of now, the defensive weaponry on the CV is comparable to that of the HH-60G.  Of note, our guns are ramp-mounted as opposed to side-fire.  The V-22 is able to be retrofitted with an "all-quadrants" gun and operated by a crew-member inside via a playstation-type controller.  However, that gun requires serious tradeoffs in time, weight and cabin space.  The CV community has pretty much written it off.  Other systems are being developed.

That said, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.  The machine guns on either aircraft are really only useful in the terminal area.  It's the _other_ defensive systems on the CV that make it tolerant to the high threat environment, whereas the 60 is only tolerant to a medium threat environment.  Additionally, the increased speed and higher operating altitudes of the CV significantly reduce or eliminate its vulnerability to SMARMs fire while enroute.  When we look at the big picture, these platforms do not employ "alone and unafraid" as a 60 flight lead would have you believe.  Reality is that, in a CSAR, they are 100% _always_ part of a larger task force where armed escort/overwatch and air superiority are the responsibility of people who specialize in those areas.  Even if they were on their own, it's my opinion that the CV would fair better.


SOWT said:


> They have had it twice, and twice it was taken away.
> Put an AFSOC STS (or Flight) with each Rescue Group and keep the Air Frames with ACC.


The problem with this proposal, while not flawed by nature, doesn't solve the problem that AFSOC is trying to solve by taking over rescue.  Due to the limited fiscal environment, AFSOC proposed a takeover of the Air Force PR mission in order to scrap the CRH contract and save the $6.8B required to see it through.  They would also convert existing HC-130Js to MC-130Js and halt HC production in favor of MC production.  As I understand it, their alternative expands the already existing CV and MC production lines, absorbs RQS GAWS personnel, and SLEPs existing HH-60Gs.


amlove21 said:


> 1- This gets into a huge discussion. The lines are very blurry, and having the RQS involved as it stands- the CROPJTL are the tactical leaders and SME, with a rescue helicopter 05/06 actually controlling the total force (airframes/crews/CSAR team) and allowing mission execution- is extremely convoluted.


Shack.  The team/aircrew relationship in rescue is _very_ tenuous.  All three legs of the "rescue triad" see themselves as essential pieces of the pie and (for some reason) almost capable of hacking the mish independent of the others.  I find the SOF community much more customer centric & cohesive and, by extension, more effective.


amlove21 said:


> It hasn't been that quiet. There are tons of rumors and some of those "in the know" hint that a no shit move to AFSOC is imminent. Take that for what it's worth though, there have been these discussions since Pararescue went to ACC. But I will say that some very high ups have addressed the possibility of a move back to AFSOC career field wide, and they didn't address it before.


Interesting that you say this.  I've heard the same things on my end.  Our unit flew Gen Hostage (COMACC) a while back on, what I can only guess to be, a comparison of the CV's PR capes. 


amlove21 said:


> ...standing with plenty of room vs sitting, ramp weapon, etc.  As for the CSAR platform- we've used it in training and it's sold as a platform specifically for the "deep mission"- great distances, the need for a much faster platform (vice the 60), etc. Working in the wash was addressed earlier- it's horrendus. But to defeat the "tyranny of distance" problem we may be seeing in future conflicts like Africa, the 22 is actually WAY more capable. More power, faster flight, bigger payload, bigger teams, etc. Working underneath it though- challenging isn't even the word.


This.  I was on PR alert for Libya in the 60.  That mission would have been _terrible_.  It was just about as complex as eagle claw and would have been just as painful to successfully execute.  It was a 4-hour flight just to GET to Libya.  
-The CV-22 could have executed that mission in 1/3 the time (or gone 3x as far), with half the tanker support. 
-The factor threats to the 60 would have been a non-issue for the CV
-There's space in the back of the CV for (you pick):
   -A full med staff with litter space and standing room
   -A PJ/SOF team and ATVs
   -Aux fuel tanks and a team
   -Is this really a debate?

I agree with rescue forces that PR is not a "pickup game" to be executed on the fly.  But, like the A-10s and their Sandy program, I think that SOF aircrew could train to PR as a dedicated mission-set and reap the benefits of more resources, better aircraft and a MAJCOM that doesn't treat them like the base's airborne crash-rescue unit.  Of course, let's not forget that the only rescue that happened in Libya was performed by MV-22s.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 24, 2013)

Hella-Copters said:


> ...  Of course, let's not forget that the only rescue that happened in Libya was performed by MV-22s....


I was in Stuttgart poised for a myriad of special tactics options during that time, and yes, that's true. But, to be fair- that rescue was- um, unique? 

Other than that, you and I are in violent agreement, on every topic. 

One of them bears repeating, and I will do so only because it's become my personal mantra, and I feel we _have_ to move this way as a community (Pararescue)- we are a customer. We are not part of an "aircraft team", PJs are a team of unique Airmen, steeped in ground expertise, employing special skills in a special way to complete a no-fail, special mission set. We are _customers. _Only in the Air Force does this "Triad/team/all one big family" thing present itself. The fact that you said "AFSOC is more customer oriented..." is not only dead on, but it's the switch I feel would best benefit the PJ career field. My $.02.


----------

