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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
