SECDEF's DoD Budget Proposals

[Entropy]

This makes me cry inside:

Second, we will terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X (CSAR-X) helicopter program. This program has a troubled acquisition history and raises the fundamental question of whether this important mission can only be accomplished by yet another single-service solution with single-purpose aircraft. We will take a fresh look at the requirement behind this program and develop a more sustainable approach.

Say goodbye to Air Force rotary wing aviation and the only dedicated personnel recovery force in DoD.

[Danny]

That the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle survived. I'm rather surprised, actually. So be it. They'd better get it right, and soon, without the cost overruns and system failures that have plagued it.

[William F. Owen]

Say goodbye to Air Force rotary wing aviation and the only dedicated personnel recovery force in DoD.

I don't know how closely you've followed this fiasco, but if they hadn't scrapped it, it would probably have resulted in folks getting sacked, or worse. It's a very sorry story when studied in detail.

[Entropy]

I don't know how closely you've followed this fiasco, but if they hadn't scrapped it, it would probably have resulted in folks getting sacked, or worse. It's a very sorry story when studied in detail.

Yeah I have. There's no question the Air Force completely screwed up the competition for the HH-60 replacement - I just hope this isn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Ken White]

Like the new choppers for the WH, Entropy. Both requirements exist now and will only get worse with age. Both will die temporarily only to resurface later and be more expensive. Hopefully each with a decent bird not over equipped; though we do seem to have to try to gold plate everything...

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Entropy: Not so much a reduction to the budget. It's being couched as a “re-balancing” and I would be surprised if there wasn't a net increase in the Defense budget for POM-10. As to CSAR-X, I wouldn't necessarily say goodbye to it. Together with the cut to the Presidential helos I believe what the SecDef is getting at is we have to stop reinventing the wheel (or helicopter) every time we want to make a system better. IMO he feels we should leverage on the existing airframes to fill the requirement, i.e. build more of X rather than create a whole new Y. As it says he doesn't want to buy “another single-service solution with a single purpose aircraft.” The C-130 is a prime example of one airframe that is built with an eye towards fulfilling a plethora of roles. Ken's belief that both program will rise phoenix like from the ashes in much more expensive mode should also be of concern to the SecDef. Better to get both programs realigned with existing airframe designs as soon as possible.

Stevely – The contractor reductions are initially targeted at those who work in the Building. I agree that the contractor force in acquisitions should completely be GS. Can you say conflict of interest. As to the others, and those outside of the P'gon, it is a tough call reducing them until the government personnel system is revamped and the union rules change.

Two issues IMO drive the government's appetite for on-site contractors. First is speed. Most contractors can reply to an RFP in a week or two, a contract can be let, and people in place (if they aren't already) in a much shorter time than the existing personnel system. Sometimes it is just a matter of adjusting an existing contract, then folks are on site with an even quicker turn. Second is divestiture. Once a contract requirement is fulfilled, or even before, the contractors can be let go, since most fee for service contracts are written with the Government as an “at will” employer. Try getting rid of a GS in a day, a week, a month. Some who have nearly criminal conduct can take years to get rid of (ask almost any lawyer in the DoD GC).

The fear mongering has already begun: Heritage Foundation fired a nice propaganda salvo and it's posted over at Abu Muqawama. Can't wait to see who's next.

[Entropy]

As it says he doesn't want to buy “another single-service solution with a single purpose aircraft.” The C-130 is a prime example of one airframe that is built with an eye towards fulfilling a plethora of roles.

If CSAR-X/HH-60G is a single-service, single purpose aircraft, then the C-17 must be too. Since OEF began, USAF CSAR assets have rescued a handful of downed or isolated pilots and hundreds (if not thousands) of ground and SoF personnel. Doctrinally, each component is responsible for it's own personnel recovery, but many missions fall on USAF CSAR because the other components lack the capability (either in equipment or training) to make it happen. There are a lot of soldiers and marines who are alive today as a result. If the SECDEF intends to make CSAR a joint effort, then that's great, I look forward to hearing those ideas.

[Ken White]

is a single service and single purpose aircraft -- that provides service to all the Armed Forces and therefor is joint and multipurpose in that sense. I don't think he or anyone else is saying the HH-60G * is a single service single purpose aircraft -- but there is no doubt the VH71 would have been such.

Could there have been an HH 71? Sure but the USAF for whatever reason opted for an HH 47 (to achieve multi service commonality??? As a result of USSOCOM pressure to reduce aircraft types??? ** Maybe Gates is torqued at GAO for sustaining the protest and LM for protesting ) so the 71 became the one-off item he was citing. I'm sure he also considered that the EH 101 from which the VH 71 was derived has multiple problems in wolrdwide service; I believe ALL operators are having mechanical problems with varying models of the a/c.

As for the CSAR assets picking up Medevacs and lost SOF troopies, why not? You've got a capable bird with trained crews as you point out and other, equally capable birds and crews are (one would hope) doing other mundane haulage things and it makes little sense to let that CSAR cape just sit. As I know you know, there are also a few pilots picked with non CSAR assets here and there. LINK, LINK. I think we're all on the same side...

Oh -- and keep your eye on the newer Sikorsky bird...

* Not least because the HH 60G is used by the USAF for other things and the entire 60 series is about as joint as one can get with only the Marines insisting on a less capable bird and figuring that the lower cost to buy and operate compensates for the lack of more capability (that they don't need as the CV 22 fills that requirement for them -- and for AFSOC. For future CSAR also? I've read all the arguments; we'll see...).

** If so, somebody forgot the rotor disks and fitting them on even the big decks...

P.S.

Last I thought I knew, the USAF was the DoD proponent for CSAR (and thus also responsible for some oversight) but each service was indeed responsible for its own CSAR -- anyone know if that has changed or is planned to do so?

[Entropy]

Ken,

As I think you know, I spent several years in the CSAR community. There is a lot of speculation about the HH-47 pick because, frankly, most CSAR folks much prefer either the 92 or the 101. There are some legitimate advantages to the 47, of course, but the same can be said for the other airframes and the 47 comes with some significant CSAR-specific disadvantages. Anyway, the speculation is that the 47 was picked with the intent to simply roll the CSAR mission into AFSOC's ball of wax as simply another mission in the AFSOC set. As you probably know, CSAR WAS tranferred, briefly, from ACC to AFSOC. The AFSOC people were 100% for the 47 and most of their excitement seemed to come from all the missions those aircraft could perform that weren't CSAR. Again, that is simply the perception of a lot of people in the CSAR community. They don't want to see their CSAR skillset diluted too much with other tasks, which isn't an unreasonable fear, IMO, given the OPTEMPO of AFSOC and the other SoF components.

As for the CSAR assets picking up Medevacs and lost SOF troopies, why not? You've got a capable bird with trained crews as you point out and other, equally capable birds and crews are (one would hope) doing other mundane haulage things and it makes little sense to let that CSAR cape just sit.

I agree completely and the CSAR folks do too, for the most part - the units in theater are pretty aggressive about advertising their capabilities and very rarely turn down a potential mission. Birds were OPCON'd to the land component to assist their efforts. For the most part, the HH-60's are used on those missions that are too risky for others, which makes sense.

As I know you know, there are also a few pilots picked with non CSAR assets here and there. LINK, LINK. I think we're all on the same side...

Agree totally there too. My main point in all this is simply to suggest the DoD needs a dedicated personnel recovery capability, and currently USAF CSAR is the only force that meets that requirement. I worry that Sec. Gates and others see PR as a secondary mission that does not require a dedicated force. If true, I think that's a mistake. That has been tried before and didn't work out too well in many cases (like the Navy in Vietnam, for example).