self deployment vs. big hauler
Flt Safety
Some years ago, at the time when a C130 crashed at Alert (lat 80N+), I was associated with the then current effort to buy EH101s for Canadian SAR. We were considering whether to urge the customer to go for an air refuelling option.
Analysis showed that it would have taken 17hrs. from launch to get an EH101 to Alert from Trenton AFB (on Lake Ontario) with air refuelling, but only 4 hrs more to land in Northern Quebec and refuel.
In the actual case, weather intervened to delay rescue, but the actual rescue vehicles were Alaskan HH-60s carried in USAF MATS transports (C141s, I think, but my memory is a little vague) to Thule, which is not far from Alert. (I've flown from Thule to Alert, and it isn't out of helo range unless you're talking Jet Rangers.) The time penalty to get the HH-60s on scene compared to the theoretical air refuelled EH101s was trivial. We therefore couldn't convince the customer that it was a worthwhile option.
On a longer range deployment, i.e. USA to Indonesia, obviously big hauler would be the way to go unless there is a CVN in the vicinity. In that long range scenario, what's wrong with an AN124? Or a C17, for that matter? I'll bet that if NGO helos were important, the USAF could be convinced to send C17s.