Air Force Community - Air Force Times

Tough choice

There is a long and unfortunate history of ill-conceived decisions made in Washington, D.C., that have negatively affected the military. But a new one, having to do with the contentious Air Force selection of a new rescue helicopter, has the potential to put every member of the military at greater risk and limit the ability of the military to respond to civil emergencies. Called CSAR-X, this program intends to replace the fleet of aging HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters. This is a program that is desperately needed, but it has led to another flawed decision.

In November, after a spirited competition, the service picked a winner that surprised everyone — even the chief of staff: Boeing and its more than 40-year-old Chinook. The Chinook is a nice heavy-lifting cargo helicopter, but it is the least likely dedicated combat search-and-rescue helicopter one could imagine because of its size, slow speed and noise; imagine driving a freight train to a bank robbery. The chief, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, even told the media and Congress that he’s “not sure that [it’s] the one I’d pick.”

Numerous articles and editorials in a variety of publications attest to the limitations and weaknesses of the Chinook in the combat search-and-rescue role. In a rare show of solidarity, even The New York Times and The Weekly Standard agree the Air Force botched its selection of the winner for this $15 billion program.

The rescue of shot-down military pilots or isolated ground troops frequently takes place in an environment that is not only subject to ground fire, but also limiting topographic constraints. Many of the characteristics that make the Chinook a poor combat search-and-rescue helicopter conspire against it when trying to conduct civil search and rescue: Its size, the downwash generated by its rotor blades and its inability to fly in bad weather all mean it may not be able to reach those in need of rescue.

The large size of the Chinook — it’s about 100 feet from tip to tip — makes it difficult to get into tight spots between trees or buildings, or amid rough terrain where other helicopters might fit.

During rescue operations following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Chinooks were pulled from trying to rescue people from trees or rooftops due to the amount of debris the huge helicopter generates when hovering low to the ground or water. Instead, the Chinook took on and performed well the role for which it was originally conceived — carrying massive amounts of food, water and supplies, and people rescued by smaller helicopters. Based on this experience, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., wrote to Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne expressing her concerns about the selection of the Chinook.

Experience has shown that the Chinook is not suitable for rescuing people from the water because the massive downwash can drown swimmers before they can be retrieved. Desert operations have proved similarly dangerous. More than a dozen Chinooks have crashed while trying to land in Iraq or Afghanistan — their downwash kicks up so much sand and dust that the helicopters are enveloped by blinding clouds, causing their pilots to lose sight of the ground.

Lastly, despite being able to fly higher than many helicopters, the Chinook is incapable of flying in cold-weather conditions that cause ice to build on the rotor blades. Modern helicopters — including the other competitors for the CSAR-X contract — have de-icing technology that keeps the blades free of ice. This limitation could prevent the Chinook from conducting high-altitude mountain rescues except when the weather is clear and free of ice. While Chinooks have repeatedly conducted such mountaintop rescues, the lack of de-icing technology could cause unnecessary delay. And in the rescue business, delay means added but unnecessary risk of losing those who need to be saved.

All Americans need to be assured the military has the best equipment when we send it off to fight, or when we need help dealing with disasters at home. My friend and fellow Jolly Green pilot Joe Guilmartin got it right: “Beyond the courage and skill of our helicopter crews, the critical integer of success [for Air Force CSAR operations] was the speed and agility of their helicopters. To ignore the vital importance of these qualities — as we have done in the decision to procure the HH-47 — is to needlessly place our rescue personnel at risk and to compromise their chances of mission success.”

This acquisition is not in the best interest of the CSAR forces, the Air Force or the taxpayer. A new look is needed now.

The writer, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, spent 26 years in the military flying rescue helicopters and reconnaissance aircraft. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, seven Air Medals and five Meritorious Service Medals.