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

[hscs]

I was just about to ask why the hell we are considered so incapable of pretty much anything. Was there some massive cockup by HSC is recent history?

No, but remember that the only non-permissive option for a long time was 2xHH60s (aka 2 to make 2 at all times) for potential OSW tasking. OBTW, the HS squadrons never had a PUK allocated or a det on a manning document so the CAOC would only call when in dire straits and the CSG would only release a det for tasking when told to do so. This went on for over a decade, so by the time OEF kicked off, the HS squadrons were a last resort for initial PR. So as @robav8r mentioned, the MTE bill was never paid and everyone knew it.

As for an L class CSAR - until the exped squadrons change how they allocate pilots to their dets, someone is buying a ton of risk. You can’t man a det (and expect a CSAR alert) with copilots who have barely finished their travel claim from Whiting, brand new HACs, and an OIC that spent two years out of the cockpit. Yes, it can be done but man, that risk level from crew background is pretty high. It is a moot point considering the speed of the MV22 anyways.

 

[SynixMan]

Big picture, overland CSAR isn’t a mission big navy wants to be in. They’ll let HSC dabble so as not to leave LT Timmy stranded on day 1 of a a shooting match, but not much more.

We shouldn’t be surprised in the days of limited budgets, things get cut. Kinda like fixed wing dedicated SIGINT, rotary SOF support, heavy lift helicopters, etc. We’re peeling back to strike warfare and it’s enablers, ASW, and sea control. Cats and dogs are going away. It’s the way it is.

 

[HackerF15E]

Although it seems in the AF, CSAR is part of thebigger picture - basically telling the Fighter/Bomber folks "be aggressive, put the mission first - if you get shot down we have the resources ready to bring you home no matter what"

True @HackerF15E ?

Yep, that's the refrain I heard all throughout my 20 years, and I had 100% confidence that they would make good on their promise.

 

[DanMa1156]

Is this different from the one on youtube where you can see the local cops and firemen just standing around and kids running all over the place?

Didn't know it was there nor have I looked, but that sounds about right... "CSAR."

 

[Griz882]

Big picture, overland CSAR isn’t a mission big navy wants to be in. They’ll let HSC dabble so as not to leave LT Timmy stranded on day 1 of a a shooting match, but not much more.

We shouldn’t be surprised in the days of limited budgets, things get cut. Kinda like fixed wing dedicated SIGINT, rotary SOF support, heavy lift helicopters, etc. We’re peeling back to strike warfare and it’s enablers, ASW, and sea control. Cats and dogs are going away. It’s the way it is.

I get it, and I think you are right, but it is funny that you mention ASW and sea control. The last time the USN sank an enemy sub from the air was nearly 75 years ago. With the 2015 retirement of the USS Simpson, the only Navy ship in the system to sink an enemy vessel is the USS Constitution. Still, the Marines plucked O’Grady from the Balkans a mere 22 years ago! Seems to me the Navy isn’t “going back” to anything, they are searching for a mission.

 

[SynixMan]

I get it, and I think you are right, but it is funny that you mention ASW and sea control. The last time the USN sank an enemy sub from the air was nearly 75 years ago. With the 2015 retirement of the USS Simpson, the only Navy ship in the system to sink an enemy vessel is the USS Constitution. Still, the Marines plucked O’Grady from the Balkans a mere 22 years ago! Seems to me the Navy isn’t “going back” to anything, they are searching for a mission.

Fair, but we’re the only game in town for ASW, whereas USMC and Air Force are somewhat better positioned to execute CSAR worldwide with few exceptions. When Congress is asking how we’re going to protect our $10B boats from a ChiCom sub, the answer can’t be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. And we did get the money for the P-8 and -60R plus associated facilities.

 

[Griz882]

No, you are correct in your analysis and I agree. I just think all the discussions of “what’s next” are pretty funny when compared to what has happened in recent history. But, you guys get paid to win wars in the future, not the past.

 

[Brett327]

No, you are correct in your analysis and I agree. I just think all the discussions of “what’s next” are pretty funny when compared to what has happened in recent history. But, you guys get paid to win wars in the future, not the past.

We generate capabilities based upon current and anticipated threats. The fact that there hasn't been an ASW kill (or a lot of A/A kills) in recent decades is largely irrelevant. As long as adversary nations maintain a credible submarine force, we must maintain a capability to counter it.

 

[Hotdogs]

Big picture, overland CSAR isn’t a mission big navy wants to be in. They’ll let HSC dabble so as not to leave LT Timmy stranded on day 1 of a a shooting match, but not much more.

We shouldn’t be surprised in the days of limited budgets, things get cut. Kinda like fixed wing dedicated SIGINT, rotary SOF support, heavy lift helicopters, etc. We’re peeling back to strike warfare and it’s enablers, ASW, and sea control. Cats and dogs are going away. It’s the way it is.

Fair, but we’re the only game in town for ASW, whereas USMC and Air Force are somewhat better positioned to execute CSAR worldwide with few exceptions. When Congress is asking how we’re going to protect our $10B boats from a ChiCom sub, the answer can’t be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. And we did get the money for the P-8 and -60R plus associated facilities.

I think you're missing a real good reason why TRAP is positioned better vice CSAR from a Navy -60 when afloat. There's a pretty decent difference in what they actually bring to the table. From a doctrinal standpoint, TRAP has all the makings of a hasty assault support raid with a couple TTPs and templates thrown in for simplicities sake. We're really just adding some business rules to another mission set and executing it similarly to how we do other assault support missions. Navy pilots don't have the resident assault support training that transfers as well as Marine crews do. So while the Navy will talk in circles about when, where, and why they would execute a CSAR mission, just understand that the guys making the decisions to launch those high profile missions are getting briefed on multiple different options. It's always easier to take the units that are mutually supportable, organic, more numerous, and have done significant training with each other beforehand. I don't doubt a Navy -60S ability to do CSAR, I just think our resident knowledge we have in assault support that we leverage is very useful and the fact the entire MEU (even the Harrier dudes...) buys into the mission as a whole. Besides NEO and HADR, that's the mission that we'll most likely get a call for on the boat. That's in addition to the obvious difference in assets and resources. That's also in comparison to a Navy Airwing, where it sounds like CSAR is all but a check in the box for work ups. I get the impression that Navy jet guys could care less about your overland CSAR capability as long as you can still pluck them out of the water.

 

[Gatordev]

No, you are correct in your analysis and I agree. I just think all the discussions of “what’s next” are pretty funny when compared to what has happened in recent history. But, you guys get paid to win wars in the future, not the past.

If you don't think ASW is currently a mission set conducted regularly against near-peer entities, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[robav8r]

I don't doubt a Navy -60S ability to do CSAR, I just think our resident knowledge we have in assault support that we leverage is very useful and the fact the entire MEU (even the Harrier dudes...) buys into the mission as a whole.

Now, if only we can pair TRAP assets with every CVN deployment, in every theater, all the time . . . . . .

 

[DanMa1156]

-5’s overland det was an awesome step in the right direction of relevance that higher leadership wanted nothing to do with. It wasn’t their fault nothing super interesting happened. Why the hate?

Sorry just saw this. The det absolutely was a step in the right direction if HSC wants to be a player at the table; and BZ to that CAG for letting assets stay off the ship for an extended period. However, without having seen the video in 2 years and still haven't seen it on youtube, I won't comment further than to say three things:

1. Compare what they did to what the SEAWOLF manual tells us to do / basic helo stuff.
2. Consider who was at the scene of the CSAR before the helos... calling it CSAR is a streeeeeeeeeeetch.
3. Our ready room went secret was briefed "yup this is a big deal... continue to message this as a big deal... but hey, what would you have done different? You should be thinking a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j, and k. If you weren't thinking those things, go brush up on SEAWOLF." Of course we are all armchair quarterbacks and should be striving for constant improvement, but I think we can all recognize that the hype of the event was a bit more than the substance.

 

[zippy]

Sorry just saw this. The det absolutely was a step in the right direction if HSC wants to be a player at the table; and BZ to that CAG for letting assets stay off the ship for an extended period. However, without having seen the video in 2 years and still haven't seen it on youtube, I won't comment further than to say three things:

1. Compare what they did to what the SEAWOLF manual tells us to do / basic helo stuff.
2. Consider who was at the scene of the CSAR before the helos... calling it CSAR is a streeeeeeeeeeetch.
3. Our ready room went secret was briefed "yup this is a big deal... continue to message this as a big deal... but hey, what would you have done different? You should be thinking a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j, and k. If you weren't thinking those things, go brush up on SEAWOLF." Of course we are all armchair quarterbacks and should be striving for constant improvement, but I think we can all recognize that the hype of the event was a bit more than the substance.

This is the video floating around out there.

 

[Hotdogs]

Now, if only we can pair TRAP assets with every CVN deployment, in every theater, all the time . . . . . .

Point taken. However there are Ospreys and C-130s positioned all across the mediterranean and Centcom right now due to a lack of available amphibious shipping. Not exactly dedicated to the CVN but other regional and political factors. I would also take a guess that when major contingencies take place we’re adding more to the tool bag when the dudes in fast movers with good looking hair and scarfs hanging out the window are going downtown bad guy country.

 

[wlawr005]

I think you're missing a real good reason why TRAP is positioned better vice CSAR from a Navy -60 when afloat. There's a pretty decent difference in what they actually bring to the table. From a doctrinal standpoint, TRAP has all the makings of a hasty assault support raid with a couple TTPs and templates thrown in for simplicities sake. We're really just adding some business rules to another mission set and executing it similarly to how we do other assault support missions. Navy pilots don't have the resident assault support training that transfers as well as Marine crews do. So while the Navy will talk in circles about when, where, and why they would execute a CSAR mission, just understand that the guys making the decisions to launch those high profile missions are getting briefed on multiple different options. It's always easier to take the units that are mutually supportable, organic, more numerous, and have done significant training with each other beforehand. I don't doubt a Navy -60S ability to do CSAR, I just think our resident knowledge we have in assault support that we leverage is very useful and the fact the entire MEU (even the Harrier dudes...) buys into the mission as a whole. Besides NEO and HADR, that's the mission that we'll most likely get a call for on the boat. That's in addition to the obvious difference in assets and resources. That's also in comparison to a Navy Airwing, where it sounds like CSAR is all but a check in the box for work ups. I get the impression that Navy jet guys could care less about your overland CSAR capability as long as you can still pluck them out of the water.

CSAR is slightly more than just a check in the block, especially for RMC candidates. However, from the F-18 perspective, the mission set isn't that far from our normal ways of doing business. Where the HSC guys are operating at "max tactical" we are just providing some dudes to man a fighter cap and some dudes to provide on call fires and DEAD. Usually the flights are fairly benign, however I really enjoy them and the opportunity it provides to support the HSC guys.