Military Community, military installations, discussions, blogs, photos, videos - Military Times

Letters

RESCUE: NOT JUST CSAR

I read with dismay Robert F. Dorr’s column concerning use of the HH-60 for medical evacuations in Afghanistan [“Don’t use CSAR assets for medical evacuation,” Aug. 10].

Given the changes in core missions the Air Force has undergone, there is a lot to the combat search-and-rescue story that Mr. Dorr doesn’t understand.

Air Force rescue encompasses a variety of missions, including search and rescue, medical evacuation, disaster response and humanitarian relief. At stake in the current political landscape is the traditional view of rescue — historically referred to as CSAR — as an alert force ready to launch at a moment’s notice to pluck some unlucky fighter pilot out of the ocean or some remote jungle hideout.

The old attitude is a Vietnam-era paradigm, and it is at the heart of the Air Force’s failure to assign a truly relevant role to rescue forces in an era when few fighter pilots are being downed.

Modern Air Force rescue is provided by the HC-130P Combat King, HH-60G Pave Hawk and Guardian Angel weapon system. Like many other Air Force weapon systems, the number of aircraft rescue forces operate is small and most are ancient; the men and women flying them or jumping out of them are young.

When rescue forces are deployed to Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, Iraq or elsewhere, the combatant commander typically selects them first because of the capabilities of their airplanes and crews. Rescue (not CSAR) forces are relevant, prepared and capable of succeeding at any task they are assigned, and we need to use them.

The fact that Air Force HH-60s are conducting medevac is not the issue for today’s rescue forces; the issue is the op tempo for a high- demand/low-density fleet, and the continuing failure to deploy the other part of rescue’s capability, the HC-130.

The Air Force is recapitalizing the HC-130P fleet with the HC-130J. The total force for those aircraft was recently revalidated at 78 airplanes — more than double the current fleet of 35. CSAR-X was shelved, and the need for dedicated rescue forces is under review, but the use, utility and ongoing modernization of the HH-60 fleet makes a powerful statement in support of dedicated rescue forces, as does the recent approval of personnel rescue as a core Air Force function.

The true beauty of rescue forces is their utility. More than an alert force, more than CSAR, rescue forces are true force multipliers and will be so for the foreseeable future.

— Lt. Col. Joel L. Martin, Moody Air Force Base, Ga.

LEAVE UNIFORMS ALONE

When will the Air Force brass get off the idea of changing the uniforms?

On the front page of the July 27 Air Force Times, the picture of airmen boarding an aircraft shows them wearing at least two different styles of battle dress uniforms and at least two styles of combat boots.

The military has enough to worry about without taking the time, energy and expense of figuring out the correct color, style or material of any given uniform.

There is an adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The Pentagon generals should heed that advice.

— Maj. Richard L. Westby (ret.), Glendale, Ariz.

ENOUGH WITH PT ALREADY

If there is anything in this world I am tired of hearing about, it’s Air Force physical fitness tests.

It is a bit pathetic that we are the only force with the PT issue. The Air Force keeps revising it to make everyone happy, but we can’t keep revising it when people are still getting away with not passing.

The only part of the latest revision that I might agree with is the waist measurement. But even that would not be an issue if people PT’d like they’re supposed to.

If an airman can’t pass the set standard, he or she should get out of the Air Force. I don’t want to work hard to get a 100 percent on the test while someone next to me — with a 46-inch waist and incapable of running a mile and a half without stopping — can get a pass from his buddy. I am aware of civilians doing the testing now, but still, active-duty members know those civilians.

The issue isn’t who administers the test; the issue is that people are failing. They are failing either because they are lazy or were lazy in previous years and we as a force let it slide.

Airmen who fail should get no more than six months for a retest. Airmen who can’t pass the test after six months should be shown the door.

— Tech. Sgt. Craig Dawdy, Scott Air Force Base, Ill.