OK,
Tell me more.
I knew the concept as SST, S(AR) Security Team (an acronym in an acronym, awesome x 2)
CSAR-X
- Thread starter DA SWO
- Start date
Tell me more.
I knew the concept as SST, S(AR) Security Team (an acronym in an acronym, awesome x 2)
So there was a push for a while to get us out own SST (both your acronyms are correct) instead of requesting outside forces. Makes sense, right? Organic rescue force as a single package right?
I'll speak anecdotally (I was t there first hand), but from guys who were- they basically set up a training exercise for the joint forces. That training exercise went so badly that the idea literally died.
From the several stories I have heard, the PJs involved offered to help with employment (fast roping, overland, helo work, etc) and the general response was "Thanks, but we are ground guys we got this."
They didn't. And it showed, and that's why the 'infantry of the air force' does not provide security for a force that requests it from outside services.
I'll blame the cops, AFSOC and ACC for this one.
The correct way would have been as assessment to select the best cops. Then run those selected through an Advanced Skills Course to get them up to speed on SAR Tactics/Support procedures.
Too many folks think a Silver Flag-Alpha (or whatever it's now called) or Ranger Tab makes one an operator.
Another reason I tell folks to avoid Security Forces as an AFSC. Lot of good folks, but non-existent leadership.
Kheenbish
Verified Military
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2012
- Messages
- 222
Did an exercise with these "DAGR" teams at Cannon while being part of OPFOR, one guy said he was picked because he failed out of the PJ indoc... another one of these high speed guys told me it was against the rules when I took his weapon as he put it through the window to clear the room.
The program is still around in some form or fashion, I just dont know what that is. I had heard it was completely done, but then started back up, whatever.
Many more of these types of stories vs. "Yea, I worked with them they were ok." And there are exactly ZERO "Those guys were locked on" stories.
ETA- I was wrong in the acronym. It's DAGRE
From amlove's link above:
That may be a good program, but I've seen it utilized here* and all I can say is:
You can have all of the hard dicks in the world, all of them*, but if their leadership is jacked up then it doesn't matter. You're rockin' jello penis.
* - Pulling security while the aircrew eats pizza? You went to school for that?
* - I'm skeptical of Security Force's actual percentage, but I think it is pretty low.
That may be a good program, but I've seen it utilized here* and all I can say is:
You can have all of the hard dicks in the world, all of them*, but if their leadership is jacked up then it doesn't matter. You're rockin' jello penis.
* - Pulling security while the aircrew eats pizza? You went to school for that?
* - I'm skeptical of Security Force's actual percentage, but I think it is pretty low.
From amlove's link above:
That may be a good program, but I've seen it utilized here* and all I can say is:
You can have all of the hard dicks in the world, all of them*, but if their leadership is jacked up then it doesn't matter. You're rockin' jello penis.
* - Pulling security while the aircrew eats pizza? You went to school for that?
* - I'm skeptical of Security Force's actual percentage, but I think it is pretty low.
I think most of the good Airman leave security Forces at the 4-6 year mark (i.e. re-enlist for a new AFSC). Weather TACP and a few other AFSC's get a lot of Cross-Trainees as SrA/SSgt's.
That leaves the wannabees to parade around and pretend to be Security Professionals.
I blame ACC and AMC for the low standards.
We had a contracrtor do this and he ran into two problems:
1. Though he retired after 20 years, he didn't carry his AFSF time on his resume. The gov't frowns upon such things apparently (or at least whoever does the resume review prior to hiring). When asked about it he admitted that he was embarrassed to have that 6 year block on his resume. Which is probably true....
2. .....because when other techs found out he was in the dog house for a bit. "Something's wrong with him if he was Security Forces." Better or worse, there's a stigma attached and one site didn't take the guy precisely because of his background.
I personally think the guy is a goober, but he was a solid enough tech out here and should be judged on those merits (or lack thereof). For him to omit his AFSF time, it leads me to believe that it's caused issues before.
Kheenbish
Verified Military
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2012
- Messages
- 222
They explained it to me as the Phoenix Ravens who protect SOF Aircraft. They're awarded a number and a dagger at the end of their grueling training... A buddy of mine who is a Loadmaster/Gunner on the C-130 Gunships says they're a bunch of guys who think there killer SOF security robot ninjas, and they prefer not to have them since he is just as qualified on the M4/M9 as they are.
Last edited:
I have had friends that were Ravens in the past- good dudes (and two girls that were some of the most squared away E4's I had ever met), but they knew the cup game they were playing. They were only cool because they had no pretension.
Most of these other guys- read every single person in the 820th Security Forces Group or whatever- are awful to be around and engaged in a big dick game no one else cares to play cause they're too busy screwing the prom queen.
amlove21: In this case the 60 Mike was the only option due to fiscal constraints. I think it was the right choice for the short term, what CSAR really needs is something more along the lines of Sikorsky's X-2; able to fly high and fast and in my opinion something 60 sized without the aux tanks is about right.
First; we talk about larger PR and rightfully so, if we actually change the way we train AF Rescue can basically be a multi-mission QRF for the entire DoD. But that isn't our designated mission, if we're honest with ourselves, our job is to pickup fighter pilots in a conventional war.
That mission requires the ability to survive in a radar threat environment and big ass helos are a detriment to that. Likewise inserting a large ground force that will be instantly surrounded and out numbered well behind enemy lines will be a detriment. We have to design our force around our baseline mission, then explore what else we can do after addressing the baseline requirement. If a lower intensity conflict allows and requires extended GA ground ops with larger teams, the correct answer is to deploy more helos not build them bigger.
As to what you can actually expect from the CRH from your perspective:
Increased cabin room: we'll have the same endurance in the CRH with a 200 gallon tank as with the Golf with dual aux tanks, so you'll get about two feet of cabin back
Slightly better high/hot performance: we'll have a bit better technical rescue capability at high altitude
Other than that, the CRH is essentially a band aide to keep the 60 flying for another 15 or so years. It's not the future of rescue, just a hold over until the FVL program comes to fruition.
First; we talk about larger PR and rightfully so, if we actually change the way we train AF Rescue can basically be a multi-mission QRF for the entire DoD. But that isn't our designated mission, if we're honest with ourselves, our job is to pickup fighter pilots in a conventional war.
That mission requires the ability to survive in a radar threat environment and big ass helos are a detriment to that. Likewise inserting a large ground force that will be instantly surrounded and out numbered well behind enemy lines will be a detriment. We have to design our force around our baseline mission, then explore what else we can do after addressing the baseline requirement. If a lower intensity conflict allows and requires extended GA ground ops with larger teams, the correct answer is to deploy more helos not build them bigger.
As to what you can actually expect from the CRH from your perspective:
Increased cabin room: we'll have the same endurance in the CRH with a 200 gallon tank as with the Golf with dual aux tanks, so you'll get about two feet of cabin back
Slightly better high/hot performance: we'll have a bit better technical rescue capability at high altitude
Other than that, the CRH is essentially a band aide to keep the 60 flying for another 15 or so years. It's not the future of rescue, just a hold over until the FVL program comes to fruition.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
Great post, too bad you cannot follow simple instructions. Post an introduction in the proper place and then you can post here.
I can not wait to violently disagree with this post. Looking forward to you posting an intro and getting vetted.
xGenoSiide
SOF Support
As a cop, I couldn't have said this any better myself. It says something when the best commanders I've had were STO's, with the exception of 1 that was prior enlisted.
Exactly what I'm trying to do now. After spending 4 years at an ST and seeing some of the amazing things that these guys can do and some of the impacts that they have had, I simply cannot go back to the monotony that is a base firing range or 'patrol.' I would absolutely lose my mind.
Just had this conversation this week, and can echo the fact that the cool guys are the ones who are aware that they aren't all that special, just have a bit more, or rather different, training.
Last edited:
I figured you would, and it's certainly not flawless in-argueable logic. I remember when the HH-47 was the answer, we were really wondering how it would change our tactics in the terminal area, then again there were more than a few pilots I knew that thought it was a great answer. However, in this particular case it really was about money.
For sure. It seems (just like the new seats pictured here, that take away 20% of the back and 400lbs of weight) that this was an idea that wasn't passed to, you know, the primary user group for the sanity check.
Know what would have been even more cost effective? Not buying an airframe at all and re-focusing our efforts logically and pragmatically in a cost conscious culture and fiscally restrained environment. Who knows how the new budgets are going to shake out? We could be tight- or, with some measured and mature planning/budgeting, the 60 community could find themselves the lucky recipient of money freed up from programs, personnel, and fiscal cuts- which is what has happened across the GA community, and isn't showing signs of fading immediately, if not any time soon.
For all to note- @busdriver is an AF Rescue 60 pilot, and he and I have a pretty good amount of time together on the same aircraft over 2 or 3 different spots. I am personally excited to talk about some topics (Joint PR, CSAR-X, so forth), but we are going to wait until his vetting is complete and his tag is assigned. Just want to make sure those reading know it's on the level.
@Ooh-Rah1069 you can keep the popcorn warm buddy!
SpongeBob*24
Verified Military
Famous last words: "I thought you said you were a pilot!!!!"
:blkeye:
:blkeye:
@amlove21 @busdriver
Why treat it as a new program if thy just went the HH-60 route?
Why not just say we are buying new 60's to replace the older birds?
Why treat it as a new program if thy just went the HH-60 route?
Why not just say we are buying new 60's to replace the older birds?
I am going to defer to @busdriver on this one. He has way more insider/actual info than I have.
As for my *opinion*? From my side of the fence, this entire- 'packaging' we will call it- is starting to chafe the Pararescue and CRO community, and the CSAR-X platform/program is a great example.
We keep getting told we are part of the 'Triad', and I know what you're thinking, but it's not the totally badass Asian gangs. The Rescue Triad refers to the 60's, 130's, and Pararescue/CRO squadrons, now called "Guardian Angel" squadrons.
Seems simple, right? Pararescue/CRO's (with SERE and specialized support) are a "non-aircraft based weapons system...GA may be visualized as the ground element of the USAF Rescue triad, and functions in conjunction with the HH-60 and HC-130, the vertical lift and fixed wing elements, respectively. When tasked separately, such as during Joint Personnel Recovery Task Force (JPRTF) operations, GA can work autonomously or be integrated with joint or coalition vertical lift, airdrop, command and control, resupply, and other platforms or weapon systems."
Well- it's not that simple. Because Pararescue has been so inexorably linked to the airframe (PJ's were once the gunners as well, and still hold aircrew classification, vice for example Combat Controllers who are 'mission essential ground personnel') that there is a lot- a lot- of confusion about what/where exactly the 3 entities fit in terms of priority. We have Rescue Wings- and there hasn't been a CRO Wing Commander yet, and many of these decisions are labelled as "For the Rescue Community"- without equal/full representation.
So, let's bring it full circle. Why not just say we are buying new 60's to replace the older birds? There isn't the money for that.
But there is money for an already-named "Combat Rescue Helicopter" replacement when said program supports "The Triad"- which is funny, cause 1/3rd of the Triad goes, "Why the HELL are we buying new 60's, to replace the old 60's, when we could just go literally any other direction we want?"
We get the, "Yeah, yeah, guys, let us handle the aircraft part. We will decide on the best vertical lift rotary wing platform." The reaction we get when we point out that we are "non-aircraft based" and we can handle the ground element tasks (to include insertion/extraction of forces) or when we broach the subject of PR happening without the two remaining prongs of 'the triad' (which is doctrinally supported)? I would use words from 'incredulous' in some cases to 'mocking' in others to describe the response.
Anyway, that's just one dude's opinion.
