Looks like we are getting the HH-47 for CSAR...

Grant,

No need to sit in the corner.  You keep on playing with us kids...everything's gonna be O.K.  It's actually not a bad idea (S-92s).  I just don't see the powers that be in the USAF springing for TWO brand new airframe (helo) types.

Mac,

I know what ya mean brutha.  The AK ARNG were really taking the lead in developing TTPs for US Army CSAR.  Hell, they even purchased and installed hoists and FLIR on 6 (I think) of their UH-60Ls and called 'em Rescue Hawks.  Then NGB and the Army had a S$#@ fit and said "your a Scout BN support asset...cease and disist with the CSAR BS".  Really sad when ya think about it.

My unit in Alaska is considered the premier CSAR squadron in the USAF simply because of the environment we work in.  On any given day we could be called on to perorm a SAR mission dealing with extreme high altitudes (already broke the record twice), Glacial terrain, extreme terrain (Mt McKinley, Foraker, St Elias, Etc..), Arctic ocean extreme cold water, LOTS of dark in the winter, and REALLY bad weather.  We've had Coastie guys come over and made out O.K. (FEs and pilots), and we have had a few Army folks (FE and pilots) work out.  We would NEVER turn someone down before we ever got the chance to give them a try just based on what branch they came from.  But then we're always lookin for folks as well.  We're a strange Guard unti in that we're predominantly full time (AGR) as opposed to predominantly part time (traditional) like most other guard units.  This stems mainly because of the qualification requirements for our area/unit/environement and that we have a mandated 24 hour SAR alert mission.

Anyway, I will say that at least (for the most part) USAF Rescue Squadron SOPs are standardized, at least much more than what I've experienced (and heard of) in most Army Aviation units.  As for the Reserve guys down in Patrick...Damn, I wish you would have told me about this a few years back.  I used to know the DO down there really well.  He's since gone on to other things.  He was also the project officer for their support to "Armageddon" and even had a cameo in the movie.

Keep up the faith bro and remember....we're NCOs...we're the ones who change, work around, adapt, and make S$#@ happen even when the higher ups make it harder and harder.  No offense to any ring knockers out there.  

salbando wrote:

Let me first say that I'm not trying to start an inter-service flame war here.  I'm gonna simply state what my squadron's experience has been with taking Army Helo drivers who tried to join the unit.  SO far they're 1 for 4.  And the one guy was a prior 160th dude.  It's just a different type of flying.  Lot's of NVG, lots of reacting to the situation, and it's never a simple "take this here" type of mission.  A biggie seemed to be instrument flying proficiency as well.

Me and another CE here looked at the USAFR CSAR unit in Fla.  I can't speak for pilots my self but I know that they told us both to take a flying leap in the nicest way.  I really see the point.  Sal, you would have a goat if you saw how much variation there is from one unit to another.  Unit SOP's suck, a single standard is what we need.

Mac

Let me first say that I'm not trying to start an inter-service flame war here.  I'm gonna simply state what my squadron's experience has been with taking Army Helo drivers who tried to join the unit.  SO far they're 1 for 4.  And the one guy was a prior 160th dude.  It's just a different type of flying.  Lot's of NVG, lots of reacting to the situation, and it's never a simple "take this here" type of mission.  A biggie seemed to be instrument flying proficiency as well.

Oh, and as far as earning yer keep and feeling good at the end of the day.....brutha, there ain't NOTHING like SAR/CSAR?SOF Support.  We also don't eat our own.  You are right in one aspect that the pointy nosed guys don't really understand or appreciate us until they're hangin from a chute, but then again we never gave a S%$# about that.  It's not our way....no need fer thanks, have a nice day, where's the bar and yer women.

Trigger,

I could be waaaay off but I think the trend is to go to DOD common airframes.  I don't think were gonna see an S-92 although it's a pretty remarkable system.  I see a simple airframe with maybe a little better support capabilty, easier maintance, a little more range and interior capacity.  Again, possibly low time Pavehawks, but they'd STILL need a future replacement.  I'm thinking Huey IIs or actaully, brand new H-60s without all the crap we have hangin in and outside our Pavehawks.  The Site Support dudes really don't need all that stuff.  A straight -60 would be PERFECT for them, they're proven and they're still cranking them out.  Plus Sikorsky would still be alive and well in the USAF.

I'll bet yer cocky Pave Pig gunner is thinking seriously about crosing over to the dark side now that we're getting HH-47s.  We should be sending a couple transition project guys out sometime in the near future so stand by for some details.  Of course as soon as I get the stuff I'll pass it on to my bruthas here on the forums.

Trigger wrote:

Nah, my vote would go for the Huey II, since the AF has already acquired some as trainers Actually, I was thinking of the H-92 as a UH-60L/M Black Hawk replacement

Neat idea Trigger but I don't see it happening.  CSAR-X was probably the last possibility.  Like I said before though, since Uncle Igor isn't building it, I am glad that they chose the HH-47.

As for the AF taking Army pilot's, I know that they don't want Army CEs, too much trouble finding an excorcist that can successfully get all of the Army way of thinking out of us.

Nah, my vote would go for the Huey II, since the AF has already acquired some as trainers

Actually, I was thinking of the H-92 as a UH-60L/M Black Hawk replacement

Yahoo!!!  Actually, the latest we had heard before the announcement was that the US-101 was the front runner.  I will say that we're some happy campers right now.  We're gonna have to hire a buttload of new gunners.  Actually we're looking at combining the gunners with the FEs, kinda making gunners FE-Lights.

That'll be the next question...what will replace the missile site support birds.  I'm gonna agree with Grandad that the Huey II looks like a good candidate, but you never know.  Low time HH-60s, S-92s??  I just don't see them using Chinooks.

As far as the CSAR-X group build, since I'm the dude who started it PLEASE continue with whatever you had intended on building (47s, 101s, 46s, 53s, Helix, Mi-17).  There's two ways to go on this GB...one being what you think it should be or will be (we know that now), and then some fun ideas given the fighter mafias tendancy to treat USAF Helos like red-headed step children.  In other words, what THEY would rather give us.  ANyway, you'll see what I mean when I complete my two entries (HH-47G and a mystery bird) 

Looks like a gret choice to me!
I do have to admit though that I am a little disappointed that the S-92 wasn't chosen.  That would have paid some great dividends to the 60 community.

Mac