At one point that was actually the plan, I can only guess that politics and the AF's apparent inability to run a successful competition led us down the current path.
The CSAR-X was the AF's number 2 acquisition priority at one point, meaning we can dream big. Not so much the case with CRH, which almost didn't happen. Actually back in Jan the plan was to SLEP the 60G, staff didn't think there'd be money for new iron. That's the crux of the problem, the current fleet has aircraft well past design life in flight hours. Some of the oldest birds actually started out as alpha models before being converted. In the current fiscal environment, there were only two options: SLEP or buy more 60M's. The only reason I think the CRH is the better plan is if we SLEP'd the 60G, our SPO would be running that program and I have zero faith in our SPO; ref those stupid ass seats they bought.
When I say 60 sized cabin (minus the aux tanks) being about right, I'm referring the the smallest cabin I think is acceptable as my min requirement is the ability to self-SAR. Bigger is fine, with the caveat it needs to be survivable in a radar environment. The bigger you make the radar cross section, the more robust you have to make your countermeasures. As an example if I'm going to rely on a jammer to defeat radar threats I have to have a high enough jam to signal ratio, the larger the aircraft the larger the signal so I need a more powerful jam amplifier which requires larger generators, more weight, bigger aircraft, etc. It's kind of like the Lotus sports car philosophy vs the Lamborghini philosophy.
The reality of the situation is that the ideal recovery vehicle for CSAR doesn't exist, and since we'll never have the money to one-off design our own aircraft we'll always be beholden to tagging onto Army designs. The same issue meant AFSOC had to tag onto the Marine design for the MV-22. If I was king for the day, we'd have a vertical lift aircraft that was pressurized, could cruise at 250 knots in the mid 20's with some RCS reduction measures, with a radar jammer and the ability to sustain at least 4g and standoff weapons with requisite sensor. I want an A-10 that can hover like a helo. Like I said, pipe dream.
@amlove21 I know we said we'd not go too far down the PR doctrine nerd hole, but part of my point needs some explaining. We're tasked with PR for the air component, a sub set mission of that is CSAR (more specifically the AF's chosen methodology for conducting air component PR) so PR is recovering isolated people, CSAR is the gaggle of aircraft swirling overhead a downed fighter pilot in a major conventional war. I intentionally didn't talk about the team in that sentence. It's the dichotomy of the AF Rescue community, my hardest/ highest threat mission that drives my aircraft design is conversely one of the simplest missions for the team. There are of course exceptions to that very general statement (BAT21b was recovered by a ground team) but when ground dudes wonder what the hell is going through the aircrew guys heads, it can usually get traced back to what's my most demanding mission, and what's yours?
I fucking hate the Rescue Triad term, it's ridiculous and pigeon holing. By its very nature it makes us all single mission "platforms." In an era where multi-mission is the name of the game, we're making ourselves irrelevant in the joint environment.
As to the CROs commanding larger Rescue units, I'm still a bit floating in the breeze as to what I think the correct answer is. I'm adamantly against CROs commanding flying squadrons, but that's rooted in my belief that a squadron commander needs to lead from the front and fly. Once you get to the group and especially the wing level I'm basically agnostic. Once a guy is at the O-6 level he should be able to understand and lead Airman, period. If that means we deploy as separate squadrons, so be it. But that goes back to deploying as tiny units, pigeon holed into a single role. And clearly I'm at the point where I don't have well defined thoughts anymore so I'll close this post.
