• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

USN The Slow Death Of The Carrier Air Wing - Or a CSAR Threadjack

CommodoreMid

Whateva! I do what I want!
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I can't be too hard on the Navy Times when the Naval Air Systems Command says that the TH-57 has a turbofan engine


View attachment 22786

smileys and shit...
I mean, it’s a big ass fan on top that goes at turbo speeds, so.....
 

croakerfish

Well-Known Member
pilot
CSAR Air Taxi (read: basically this whole thread)

Yeah don’t even worry about PR Naval Aviation. The Air Force totally has you covered.
 

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
It’s posts like these that makes me wish we had a SIPR Airwarriors.
This post is stupid. I've embarked a lot of things on my 3x CRUDES ships that we can't talk about on here. It's all Phase 0 stuff; not worthwhile to this discussion at all. Look at the larger point. Why risk 300x lives (and a $2B asset) on a CRUDES to save one pilot? It won't happen.
 

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
How to balance the requirements between shooters and support ships is up pto fleet staffs but how to recover personnel is something that would need to be considered. Keep in mind that we're talking about PR as though it only applies to Aviators. In a big fight there will likely be a need to recover Sailors from ships that have been sunk by enemy action. The USN maintained a strong PR effort in WWII and it paid dividends in terms of morale and in returning experienced personnel to the fight. The IJN didn't do the same and lost many experienced personnel and left them with very few experienced personnel by the end of the war.

@BigRed389: concur that picket ships near an enemy coast would require maritime supremacy as I mentioned in an earlier post. Or a willingness to take losses to support the big picture such as at Oki when the radar Pickett DDs suffered terribly from kamikazes to protect the CVs and landing force.

I understand why you wouldn't want to tie up a DDG doing lifeguard duty but there may be other ways. Maybe a use for LCS? Or keep a long term PR det afloat on an LPD or other ship that may be less used in a peer naval conflict. Or just use the DDG as a lilypad for PR assets on the CVN. I'm in no position to know what's best, just some need on the internets.
Good post. In the war we're talking about (the next potential war in the Pacific)...

I don't think you'll see any Lifeguard DDGs... or LCS... Most of all, they would make those platforms very vulnerable; also, they have other missions to execute. The concept of lifeguard subs is interesting. I have a feeling our subs may be too busy to act as lifeguards in this type of fight.

Point being... Don't get shot down... Don't get sunk.
 

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
This post is stupid. I've embarked a lot of things on my 3x CRUDES ships that we can't talk about on here. It's all Phase 0 stuff; not worthwhile to this discussion at all. Look at the larger point. Why risk 300x lives (and a $2B asset) on a CRUDES to save one pilot? It won't happen.
But it isn't just about one pilot - the benefit is across the entire air war/campaign!

The whole point is to motivate strike crews to press the boundaries and take risks to get more ordanance on target more accurately - motivated by the assuring notion that if the crews put destruction of the target first and they take battle damage, that rescue assets will do whatever is necessary to recover you - the crew.

This has been core to AF doctrine for 2 generations. Its not a calculus of return vs investment.
 

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
But it isn't just about one pilot - the benefit is across the entire air war/campaign!

The whole point is to motivate strike crews to press the boundaries and take risks to get more ordanance on target more accurately - motivated by the assuring notion that if the crews put destruction of the target first and they take battle damage, that rescue assets will do whatever is necessary to recover you - the crew.

This has been core to AF doctrine for 2 generations. Its not a calculus of return vs investment.
As a layman, I think that if you're relying on a sure-thing PR effort to motivate strike crews, we've already lost the war.

As someone pretty well-versed on larger OPLAN CONOPS, I think you're wrong.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
As a layman, I think that if you're relying on a sure-thing PR effort to motivate strike crews, we've already lost the war.

As someone pretty well-versed on larger OPLAN CONOPS, I think you're wrong.
I wouldn't be so sure. I've talked to several guys who have gone on to the outside commercial world (in some form or fashion) and these people had varied backgrounds to include a sanctioned contractor operating in various hot-spots, a former Task Force guy, and a conventional forces guy. They all very specifically talked about asking their (perspective) employer about personnel recovery.

The point being that it's very much in the minds of U.S. aircrew, services-wide, and beyond.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
Good post. In the war we're talking about (the next potential war in the Pacific)...

I don't think you'll see any Lifeguard DDGs... or LCS... Most of all, they would make those platforms very vulnerable; also, they have other missions to execute. The concept of lifeguard subs is interesting. I have a feeling our subs may be too busy to act as lifeguards in this type of fight.

Point being... Don't get shot down... Don't get sunk.
Yeah, the subs may be busy and reluctant to expose themselves.

But there's a benefit in bringing your guys back so it's something that I hope folks are thinking about for the next war. However, if we keep looking back to WWII, it's worth noting that a mature PR effort didn't exist at the start of the Pacific War. Sailors who abandoned their ships during early engagements (java sea, sunda strait, etc) were left to the elements and providence. In other engagements, PR efforts were aided by the fact that the USN maintained control of the waters after the battle such as Ironbottom Sound and Midway. I get that modern planners are dealing with limited resources so PR may end up in the "nice to have" column for the start of the next big war.
 

insanebikerboy

Internet killed the television star
pilot
None
Contributor
As someone pretty well-versed on larger OPLAN CONOPS, I think you're wrong.
I'm trying to avoid a dick measuring contest here, but I've been involved with actually creating OPLANs and I can tell you that the PR aspect is one of the most important to the COCOMs.

Anecdotally, I've personally seen an entire AOR's operations come to a halt because there wasn't a clear, concise plan on the 5Ws of PR support.
 

BigRed389

Registered User
None
Sounds like a good job for high endurance cutters...

It’s an interesting topic. You can definitely see the problems that could come up if PR is expected to be a non-starter for lost aircraft or ships.

Sort of relates to one of the issues in a Fleet almost entirely composed of high value combatants.
There is no longer a modern day DD that could be easily detached to the odd jobs like this one.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
Sounds like a good job for high endurance cutters...

It’s an interesting topic. You can definitely see the problems that could come up if PR is expected to be a non-starter for lost aircraft or ships.

Sort of relates to one of the issues in a Fleet almost entirely composed of high value combatants.
There is no longer a modern day DD that could be easily detached to the odd jobs like this one.
Comes back to your comment on FFG(X).
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
This post is stupid. I've embarked a lot of things on my 3x CRUDES ships that we can't talk about on here. It's all Phase 0 stuff; not worthwhile to this discussion at all. Look at the larger point. Why risk 300x lives (and a $2B asset) on a CRUDES to save one pilot? It won't happen.
As a layman, I think that if you're relying on a sure-thing PR effort to motivate strike crews, we've already lost the war.
But it isn't just about one pilot - the benefit is across the entire air war/campaign! This has been core to AF doctrine for 2 generations. Its not a calculus of return vs investment.
A longtime mantra in the US military has been 'leave no man behind'. While not always practiced for various reasons it has been a consistent theme across 70 years of war and peace and has been the practice in many cases, some famous and some not. To this day we go to much further lengths to retrieve our military personnel, dead or alive, than almost any other country with the possible exception of Israel.

This mantra has cost us dearly many times, if you read a decent history of CSAR efforts in Vietnam there were numerous instances where rescue efforts to retrieve just one or two aircrew caused numerous casualties to the rescuers and supporting forces. 'Bat 21' is one famous example where 11 personnel were KIA and 2 more were captured to rescue a single USAF aircrew before a pair of SEALs, one US and one Vietnamese, infiltrated enemy territory to rescue him. Another more recent example is the Battle of Mogadishu, where a relatively quick 'grab and dash' operation turned into a recovery mission turned free for all battle when a single soldier was injured rappelling from a helo at the start of the operation.

It is also very ignorant to discount the impact on morale how CSAR is run, either good or bad. One of the few things that kept morale up as the war dragged on in Vietnam for aircrew was that they knew their fellow aircrew and the leadership was 'keeping the faith' and would make every reasonable effort to rescue them if they got shot down. The air campaign would almost instantly be reoriented and focus on the rescue of aircrew if they were shot down and recoverable, almost every time. This dedication went all the way up to the President, who authorized a risky operation in 1970 to try and POW's at Son Tay. While there were no prisoners there the impact on morale for both the aircrew who were still flying missions and the POW's in Vietnam, who found out about it, was pretty dramatic and reinforced the belief that we would go to almost every length we possible could to rescue our countrymen.

Point being... Don't get shot down... Don't get sunk.
While probably sarcastic that has got to be one of the stupidest statements I've seen in a while from a military professional. In many cases that can't be helped much and it has more to do with luck than anything else.

I'm trying to avoid a dick measuring contest here, but I've been involved with actually creating OPLANs and I can tell you that the PR aspect is one of the most important to the COCOMs.

Anecdotally, I've personally seen an entire AOR's operations come to a halt because there wasn't a clear, concise plan on the 5Ws of PR support.
While I don't see us putting an LCS or DDG alone and unafraid out in the middle of the East China Sea to recover downed aircrew in the middle of the war with China if there is not a sensible CSAR plan to recover aircrew you can bet that operations would likely suffer. I don't think any air commander worth his or her salt would put up with a CSAR plan of 'don't plan on getting shoot down', not only from an integrity and credibility standpoint but also if he or she wanted maintain aircrew morale and performance.
 

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
I'm trying to avoid a dick measuring contest here, but I've been involved with actually creating OPLANs and I can tell you that the PR aspect is one of the most important to the COCOMs.

Anecdotally, I've personally seen an entire AOR's operations come to a halt because there wasn't a clear, concise plan on the 5Ws of PR support.
Fair enough. My referenced experience is limited to one, single COCOM. It is what it is. But I've worked in the same world you speak of for a while; and pretty often. And I disagree.
 
Top