NH-90 Problems?
Thread Starter
NH-90 Problems?
Sweden just bought 15 UH-60M's for Medavac duties in Afghanistan as it appears it will be 2020 before the NH-90's will be operational.
Sweden Ordering H-60M Helicopters for Afghan CSAR/MEDEVAC
Sweden Ordering H-60M Helicopters for Afghan CSAR/MEDEVAC
Last edited by SASless; 19th Jul 2012 at 14:54.
Thread Starter
Sans....are you speaking in some kind of secret code?
Pray tell....enlighten us....why is no mention of the 92 "telling"?
This was an acquisition through the Defense Foreign Sales program....why would they buy 92's a civilian helicopter?
Pray tell....enlighten us....why is no mention of the 92 "telling"?
This was an acquisition through the Defense Foreign Sales program....why would they buy 92's a civilian helicopter?
I guess you missed all the drama of CSAR-X where the H92, AW101, HH47, and NH90 were duking it out between 2004-2007 or so. It was basically similar to an MHP part II.
First of all, H92/CH148 is a "military helicopter". It was the big prize Sikorsky has been after since S92 was certified. MHP was supposed to be the opening of the floodgates for that military market for the 92 airframe. To date that has not happened; with the MHP contract in shambles, its no wonder why...
So, lets remember that the HH/UH-60 airframe was actually what was being replaced by the CSARX contract, and was readily available for both it and MHP. All interested parties at the time essentially said "we want a larger more dedicated CSAR bird". This is why the NH90 was born in the first place.
Fast forward to the current situation. Sweden had bought into the NH90 program along with most of Europe. With the longstanding problems its having, they are falling back on an alternative machine for the CSAR mission.
Historically, CSAR customers faced this choice before...and either ignored the -60 as an option or were specifically looking to replace them. Sweden has an alternative for the NH90 with the H92 (have you also not read about Germany's interest in H92?), the machine that beat it in MHP and was a top contender for CSARX. If the NH90 was suitable, then inherently the H92 would have been suitable, otherwise why didnt Sweden go with HH-60 from the get-go?
In my eyes it reinforces how bad of a situation the H92/CH148 has become. Ever browse the Cyclone thread? Its not pretty.
First of all, H92/CH148 is a "military helicopter". It was the big prize Sikorsky has been after since S92 was certified. MHP was supposed to be the opening of the floodgates for that military market for the 92 airframe. To date that has not happened; with the MHP contract in shambles, its no wonder why...
So, lets remember that the HH/UH-60 airframe was actually what was being replaced by the CSARX contract, and was readily available for both it and MHP. All interested parties at the time essentially said "we want a larger more dedicated CSAR bird". This is why the NH90 was born in the first place.
Fast forward to the current situation. Sweden had bought into the NH90 program along with most of Europe. With the longstanding problems its having, they are falling back on an alternative machine for the CSAR mission.
Historically, CSAR customers faced this choice before...and either ignored the -60 as an option or were specifically looking to replace them. Sweden has an alternative for the NH90 with the H92 (have you also not read about Germany's interest in H92?), the machine that beat it in MHP and was a top contender for CSARX. If the NH90 was suitable, then inherently the H92 would have been suitable, otherwise why didnt Sweden go with HH-60 from the get-go?
In my eyes it reinforces how bad of a situation the H92/CH148 has become. Ever browse the Cyclone thread? Its not pretty.
Sweden CSAR in Afghanistan
Sans,
I have zero inside knowledge on their decision, but it is possible that the Swedish Pilots had a chance to read up on what the US Army requirements for UH-60 and AH-64 are with regard to the " C " part of CSAR, that is, the area of specification requirements covering combat and all of it's associated risks:
Just a guess.
Thanks,
John Dixson
I have zero inside knowledge on their decision, but it is possible that the Swedish Pilots had a chance to read up on what the US Army requirements for UH-60 and AH-64 are with regard to the " C " part of CSAR, that is, the area of specification requirements covering combat and all of it's associated risks:
- Ballistic Survivability/Vulnerability.
- Crash Worthiness.
Just a guess.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Thread Starter
Plainly it appears "Medevac" and "CSAR" mean the same to Sans....despite their being two entirely different concepts. The UH-60Q is a Medevac aircraft outfitted with an AirMethods designed Medical interior....but based upon the UH-60M airframe. The CSAR variant is the Pavehawk equipped with lots of different avionics and in-flight refueling gear.
Two very different helicopters for two very different missions.
Two very different helicopters for two very different missions.
Months old news (at least). The best part of it, the helicopters are supposed to go to A'stan somewhere at the end of the first quater of 2013, and Swedish troops should start to withdraw this year. Perfect planing.
Arrakis
Arrakis
Plainly it appears "Medevac" and "CSAR" mean the same to Sans....despite their being two entirely different concepts. The UH-60Q is a Medevac aircraft outfitted with an AirMethods designed Medical interior....but based upon the UH-60M airframe. The CSAR variant is the Pavehawk equipped with lots of different avionics and in-flight refueling gear.
Two very different helicopters for two very different missions.
Two very different helicopters for two very different missions.
Sweden Ordering H-60M Helicopters for Afghan CSAR/MEDEVAC
Their mission? Combat Search And Rescue & MEDEVAC missions in Afghanistan, a Swedish program worth over $750 million all told.
Sweden’s FMV will also purchase and install the specialized equipment required to turn the helicopters into CSAR/MEDEVAC machines like the USA’s HH-60s: stackable litter system, hoist, medical equipment, etc.
Sweden’s FMV will also purchase and install the specialized equipment required to turn the helicopters into CSAR/MEDEVAC machines like the USA’s HH-60s: stackable litter system, hoist, medical equipment, etc.
SASless : "Sans....are you speaking in some kind of secret code?
Pray tell....enlighten us....why is no mention of the 92 "telling"?
This was an acquisition through the Defense Foreign Sales program....why would they buy 92's a civilian helicopter?"
Hello SASless,
I don't know if SansAnhedral can enlight us but I know that Sikorsky can, just read their website :
"the H-92 helicopter performs troop transport, combat search and rescue, medical evacuation and head of state missions throughout the world"
.
Pray tell....enlighten us....why is no mention of the 92 "telling"?
This was an acquisition through the Defense Foreign Sales program....why would they buy 92's a civilian helicopter?"
Hello SASless,
I don't know if SansAnhedral can enlight us but I know that Sikorsky can, just read their website :
"the H-92 helicopter performs troop transport, combat search and rescue, medical evacuation and head of state missions throughout the world"
.
Last edited by HeliHenri; 19th Jul 2012 at 21:24.
What people without military background don´t seem to understand is:
The less people you have on the ground-the more important the capability to transport them by air becomes......
The less people you have on the ground-the more important the capability to transport them by air becomes......
Arrakis
NSHP Relived
For better or worse I lived the Nordic Standard Helicopter Program (NSHP) from 1998 to 2002. From the get go Sikorsky was merely the stalking horse for the program. Throughout the proposal process Sikorsky was instructed to not present the H-60 series as a candidate because it was not considered state of the art and was not large and capable enough for their mission requirements.
From the beginning the countries were split. Denmark did not consider the S-92, the H-60 or the NH-90 as serious candidates. It was obvious at the time that the Danish government was in bead with Agusta Westland. This fact was substantiated when I received a very terse phone call from a Danish General shortly after the final decision was made. Norway similarly had early on decided to go with the NH-90. At multiple times during the selection process Norway was provided with unsolicited proposal information on the SH-60 series. All were rejected. At one point a very attractive proposal was actually slid back across the table and never reviewed by the Norwegian government. I believe, that, until very late in the process Sweden and Finland actually leaned toward the S-92 but a late program management change seemed to sway the program away from the Sikorsky. The rest is, as they say, history. Looking at it now from a position ten years later and considering the Canadian issues with the S-92, none of the candidate aircraft proposed at the turn of the last millennium would have successfully met all of their requirements. Now in hind sight many are looking to that non state of the art less than capable H-60.
From the beginning the countries were split. Denmark did not consider the S-92, the H-60 or the NH-90 as serious candidates. It was obvious at the time that the Danish government was in bead with Agusta Westland. This fact was substantiated when I received a very terse phone call from a Danish General shortly after the final decision was made. Norway similarly had early on decided to go with the NH-90. At multiple times during the selection process Norway was provided with unsolicited proposal information on the SH-60 series. All were rejected. At one point a very attractive proposal was actually slid back across the table and never reviewed by the Norwegian government. I believe, that, until very late in the process Sweden and Finland actually leaned toward the S-92 but a late program management change seemed to sway the program away from the Sikorsky. The rest is, as they say, history. Looking at it now from a position ten years later and considering the Canadian issues with the S-92, none of the candidate aircraft proposed at the turn of the last millennium would have successfully met all of their requirements. Now in hind sight many are looking to that non state of the art less than capable H-60.
Thread Starter
Quoting an Air National Guard pilot who was headed back to Afghanistan flying Air Force HH-60's. He very much separates CSAR from Medevac operations.
The US Army definitions of Medevac and Casevac. The US Army does not have CSAR capability or Aircraft as a primary mission. The US Air Force has the primary CSAR function and considers Medevac either a subset task or a secondary mission. The US Marine Corps does not do CSAR in the sense the Air Force does but uses the TRAP concept and is considered a secondary tasking.
My unit is an AF HH-60G CSAR unit that will be deploying to Afghanistan as MEDEVAC for the ground force. We've been to Afghanistan a couple of times before, but have previously worked in the traditional CSAR role for the CFACC, though almost all our missions were MEDEVAC and not traditional CSAR. So we know the theater pretty well and our crews are tactically proficient. What I'm really looking for are some general MEDEVAC lesson's learned along with any specific gouge on AF CSAR filling this role. We've got some stuff from the AF side obviously, but the Army/Marine perspective would be very helpful. I think some of our people are working on AKO access, so NIPR or SIPR url's to products would be fine.
a. Medical Evacuation. MEDEVAC is defined in FM 8-10-6 as the timely, efficient movement and en route care by medical personnel of the wounded, injured, and ill persons, from the battlefield and other locations to MTFs. The term MEDEVAC refers to both ground and air assets. Divisions are equipped with both ground and air MEDEVAC assets.
b. Casualty Evacuation. CASEVAC is defined as movement of casualties to initial treatment facilities and movement of casualties to MTFs in the combat zone. It does not include en route care by medical personnel and implies that nonmedical assets (UH-60s or CH-47s) are being used to move casualties. CASEVAC should only be used when the unit has a large number of casualties (exceeding the ability of the MEDEVAC aircraft to carry) or MEDEVAC is not available.
b. Casualty Evacuation. CASEVAC is defined as movement of casualties to initial treatment facilities and movement of casualties to MTFs in the combat zone. It does not include en route care by medical personnel and implies that nonmedical assets (UH-60s or CH-47s) are being used to move casualties. CASEVAC should only be used when the unit has a large number of casualties (exceeding the ability of the MEDEVAC aircraft to carry) or MEDEVAC is not available.
Last edited by SASless; 20th Jul 2012 at 01:42.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 44
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll just throw In a bit of info since I recently got back from Afghanistan flying Medevac in a UH-60A+ aircraft (U.S. Army).
Rumor has it when a General was touring Afghanistan and was told of the shortage of Medevac aircraft to provide timely coverage he noticed his fleet of CSAR aircraft that had done almost nothing and asked why they weren't doing Medevac and soon after they were doing Medevac while staying ready for their primary CSAR mission. I've also heard they asked to do Medevac to keep their skills fresh.
The Air Force does in fact do CSAR, and they do it in a PaveHawk. The difference between the PaveHawk and the Typical Medevac UH-60 was minimal and the capabilities they have are really more geared to missions unlike what we see in Afghanistan. They have an external hoist, Medevac has internal. They can Mid Air refuel, Med cannot. And the biggest difference- the air force has guns (mini guns), by Geneva convention Medevac birds are unarmed except for personal weapons. Med birds are a bit faster because of less weight and drag then CSAR birds.
The difference in crew is the Air Force uses PJ's and the Army uses flight medics. PJ's are more like Special Forces infantrymen with medical training. Flight Medics are just as skilled in their medical training but do not get any sort of special combat training.
The Air forces Casevac mission is really designed with this scenario in mind - FW pilot flying mission over Iran (or someplace with no friendly troops) goes down needs extraction before he's caught, and may need medical treatment. This mission would likely be out of range for med birds hence the mid-air refuel or transition to V-22's, since the mission is not Medevac legally speaking they can carry guns.
In Afghanistan however this is just not likely, anyone who goes down would likely be in range of either- ground troops, Med birds, or other aircraft and since quick extraction is more important than anything else nobody is going to wait for a CSAR bird which may be on the other side of the country especially when none of those capabilities they have are helpful in this situation.
So in Afghanistan CSAR birds are doing MEDEVAC, except they keep their guns on and call themselves Casevac. In the off chance there was a CSAR mission (every couple of years maybe) that required their assistance, they would do that to.
So to make this a little more long winded. Medevac flys probably the least advanced Uh-60 in the Army, the A+ model, basically the the same bird bought in 1978 with a new engine, the rest of the Army transitiond to L models years ago- New engine and transmission allowing them to pull more torque. However med birds are very light and typically have a larger power margin than most combat ready birds and can fly faster.
The latest version of a UH-60 is the M model which is the most extensive remake the Hawk has received. Glass cockpit, autopilot, changes in blades etc. That model with a med kit is a HH-60. I believe it has some med systems that are more integrated than bolt on, (like oxygen for patients, and electrical outlets, etc.) However nobody except for maybe a Guard unit has these, I've never seen one. Maybe I'll track down the Swedes while I'm over there and check one out.
So which aircraft is best for the mission? Because of the glass cockpit in the M model they start slower than old models because the computers must come online, just a few minutes. At max speed, about 155 (what we fly in Medevac) the M model and PaveHawk are about 5-10 KTS slower. So truth be told in Medevac the faster I get to the patient and get them to a hospital the better chance they survive and all the other stuff is just something to look at in the cockpit. So I can start it faster and fly it faster than any of the improvement models.
I've seen the specs on the H-90 and they appear very much the same as a UH-60, except with a host of other problems. I'm sure everyone that gets one will be happy but will any of these improvements help CSAR or Medevac in Afghanistan- no. Maybe it's improvements in fly by wire or whatever will be useful in other mission profiles, or in other locations.
This is not a knock on any of those aircraft because I would very much like to fly something more modern with moving maps and autopilot but if I'm honest about the mission it was used for, that stuff wouldn't be all that beneficial.
Rumor has it when a General was touring Afghanistan and was told of the shortage of Medevac aircraft to provide timely coverage he noticed his fleet of CSAR aircraft that had done almost nothing and asked why they weren't doing Medevac and soon after they were doing Medevac while staying ready for their primary CSAR mission. I've also heard they asked to do Medevac to keep their skills fresh.
The Air Force does in fact do CSAR, and they do it in a PaveHawk. The difference between the PaveHawk and the Typical Medevac UH-60 was minimal and the capabilities they have are really more geared to missions unlike what we see in Afghanistan. They have an external hoist, Medevac has internal. They can Mid Air refuel, Med cannot. And the biggest difference- the air force has guns (mini guns), by Geneva convention Medevac birds are unarmed except for personal weapons. Med birds are a bit faster because of less weight and drag then CSAR birds.
The difference in crew is the Air Force uses PJ's and the Army uses flight medics. PJ's are more like Special Forces infantrymen with medical training. Flight Medics are just as skilled in their medical training but do not get any sort of special combat training.
The Air forces Casevac mission is really designed with this scenario in mind - FW pilot flying mission over Iran (or someplace with no friendly troops) goes down needs extraction before he's caught, and may need medical treatment. This mission would likely be out of range for med birds hence the mid-air refuel or transition to V-22's, since the mission is not Medevac legally speaking they can carry guns.
In Afghanistan however this is just not likely, anyone who goes down would likely be in range of either- ground troops, Med birds, or other aircraft and since quick extraction is more important than anything else nobody is going to wait for a CSAR bird which may be on the other side of the country especially when none of those capabilities they have are helpful in this situation.
So in Afghanistan CSAR birds are doing MEDEVAC, except they keep their guns on and call themselves Casevac. In the off chance there was a CSAR mission (every couple of years maybe) that required their assistance, they would do that to.
So to make this a little more long winded. Medevac flys probably the least advanced Uh-60 in the Army, the A+ model, basically the the same bird bought in 1978 with a new engine, the rest of the Army transitiond to L models years ago- New engine and transmission allowing them to pull more torque. However med birds are very light and typically have a larger power margin than most combat ready birds and can fly faster.
The latest version of a UH-60 is the M model which is the most extensive remake the Hawk has received. Glass cockpit, autopilot, changes in blades etc. That model with a med kit is a HH-60. I believe it has some med systems that are more integrated than bolt on, (like oxygen for patients, and electrical outlets, etc.) However nobody except for maybe a Guard unit has these, I've never seen one. Maybe I'll track down the Swedes while I'm over there and check one out.
So which aircraft is best for the mission? Because of the glass cockpit in the M model they start slower than old models because the computers must come online, just a few minutes. At max speed, about 155 (what we fly in Medevac) the M model and PaveHawk are about 5-10 KTS slower. So truth be told in Medevac the faster I get to the patient and get them to a hospital the better chance they survive and all the other stuff is just something to look at in the cockpit. So I can start it faster and fly it faster than any of the improvement models.
I've seen the specs on the H-90 and they appear very much the same as a UH-60, except with a host of other problems. I'm sure everyone that gets one will be happy but will any of these improvements help CSAR or Medevac in Afghanistan- no. Maybe it's improvements in fly by wire or whatever will be useful in other mission profiles, or in other locations.
This is not a knock on any of those aircraft because I would very much like to fly something more modern with moving maps and autopilot but if I'm honest about the mission it was used for, that stuff wouldn't be all that beneficial.
Last edited by Shenanigan; 20th Jul 2012 at 08:21.
Shenanigan
Thanks for the summary.
Blackhawk has been doing good service for three decades now, glad to see that the A model is still taking care of the troops.
As you probably know, the Army's force goals in the longer term are a mix of L's and M's, with the A's either retiring, being converted to L, (some "sold" or "granted" for FMS to non-wealthy allies? ) and (from a AAAA briefing I saw a while back) a portion of them being either dismantled for spares, or put into the DM "strat reserve."
Interesting to see your point on speed, and its impact on time of flight for a CASEVAC or MEDIVAC mission.
Thanks for your service. *salute*
Thanks for the summary.
Blackhawk has been doing good service for three decades now, glad to see that the A model is still taking care of the troops.
As you probably know, the Army's force goals in the longer term are a mix of L's and M's, with the A's either retiring, being converted to L, (some "sold" or "granted" for FMS to non-wealthy allies? ) and (from a AAAA briefing I saw a while back) a portion of them being either dismantled for spares, or put into the DM "strat reserve."
Interesting to see your point on speed, and its impact on time of flight for a CASEVAC or MEDIVAC mission.
Thanks for your service. *salute*
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 20th Jul 2012 at 13:31.
I was always of the impression that the difference is quite clear under international law.
If it has a red cross, it doesn't have guns. Thus 'dust off' callsigns are unarmed and have a red cross - operating as MEDEVAC.
The RAF CH-47 and USAF Pavehawks in Helmand [I'll stick to what I once knew well] have big guns and no red cross - operating as CASEVAC.
Good luck to all those who now carry out the task - MEDEVAC or CASEVAC.
If it has a red cross, it doesn't have guns. Thus 'dust off' callsigns are unarmed and have a red cross - operating as MEDEVAC.
The RAF CH-47 and USAF Pavehawks in Helmand [I'll stick to what I once knew well] have big guns and no red cross - operating as CASEVAC.
Good luck to all those who now carry out the task - MEDEVAC or CASEVAC.
Last edited by minigundiplomat; 20th Jul 2012 at 16:00.
Thread Starter
There has been some complaints about the US Army leadership doing the un-armed Red Cross Geneva Convention approved "Medical Evacuation" flight deal which under the Accords requires coordination with the opposing forces to ensure the safeguarding of the Aircraft and crew.
As that just ain't gonna happen in Afghanistan...and the Army requiring Attack Helicopter escort for most Medevac missions and there sometimes being a delay in dispatch of the Dustoff helicopter due to the lack of assets....some argue the Red Crosses should come off...and guns go on...and thus relieve the need for armed escorts in most situations.
As the other forces including our own USMC and USAF aircraft do the armed and unmarked thing....it makes for a good argument for the Army doing the same thing. It must be noted the US Army has a reputation for being hard headed that is well earned.
Being a Vietnam era helicopter pilot I am lean towards the guns over red crosses concept....as timely delivery to a proper medical facility is very important.
The fight at Robert's Ridge and some other places in Afghanistan prove that point. A young Air Force PJ bled to death because the Army would not send any more aircraft into the LZ despite the tactical situation being reported as being safe for such an effort. The After Action Report showed the commander who made the call was a thousand miles away and did not have a full grasp of the actual situation.....and relied on out of date intel/sitreps in making his decision. Memory serves me that it was an Air Force C-130 Pilot that was the Joint Commander that made the decision.....and was in Bahrain.
As that just ain't gonna happen in Afghanistan...and the Army requiring Attack Helicopter escort for most Medevac missions and there sometimes being a delay in dispatch of the Dustoff helicopter due to the lack of assets....some argue the Red Crosses should come off...and guns go on...and thus relieve the need for armed escorts in most situations.
As the other forces including our own USMC and USAF aircraft do the armed and unmarked thing....it makes for a good argument for the Army doing the same thing. It must be noted the US Army has a reputation for being hard headed that is well earned.
Being a Vietnam era helicopter pilot I am lean towards the guns over red crosses concept....as timely delivery to a proper medical facility is very important.
The fight at Robert's Ridge and some other places in Afghanistan prove that point. A young Air Force PJ bled to death because the Army would not send any more aircraft into the LZ despite the tactical situation being reported as being safe for such an effort. The After Action Report showed the commander who made the call was a thousand miles away and did not have a full grasp of the actual situation.....and relied on out of date intel/sitreps in making his decision. Memory serves me that it was an Air Force C-130 Pilot that was the Joint Commander that made the decision.....and was in Bahrain.
From the beginning the countries were split. Denmark did not consider the S-92, the H-60 or the NH-90 as serious candidates. It was obvious at the time that the Danish government was in bead with Agusta Westland. This fact was substantiated when I received a very terse phone call from a Danish General shortly after the final decision was made. Norway similarly had early on decided to go with the NH-90. At multiple times during the selection process Norway was provided with unsolicited proposal information on the SH-60 series. All were rejected. At one point a very attractive proposal was actually slid back across the table and never reviewed by the Norwegian government. I believe, that, until very late in the process Sweden and Finland actually leaned toward the S-92 but a late program management change seemed to sway the program away from the Sikorsky. The rest is, as they say, history. Looking at it now from a position ten years later and considering the Canadian issues with the S-92, none of the candidate aircraft proposed at the turn of the last millennium would have successfully met all of their requirements. Now in hind sight many are looking to that non state of the art less than capable H-60.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 44
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely SASless.
If the threat on the request is deemed possible or expected than we had to wait for escort. Many times they would detour an attack bird in the area and it didn't slow anything down, many other times that could take 20-30 minutes maybe more. Some people don't have that long. If the Med bird got to the location before armed escort than the PC was aloud to land if he deemed it necessary, and often we would but if we couldn't even get approved to launch our hands were tied.
The problem with these rules are-
The threat called in for the Medevac might as well have been randomly generated. I think it was up to the person calling it in and I saw transfers on safe fobs deemed high threat, and places in known areas with a gunfight going on where the threat was said to be none. The people that make these launch decisions are making all their decisions based off this and the people filling it out are not really sure what to put.
I don't blame them, you're in a fire fight, your buddy gets shot, your trying to get your grid and get all the information on a nine line together and figuring the med bird is coming either way so probably are just trying to get the call in under chaotic circumstances. The safety of the landing IMO is best made by the PC when he arrives on scene and talks to the ground force. Permission to launch should be automatic.
Because the CSAR birds are doing Medevac in Afghanistan they will get launched to a threat area because they have guns, sometimes even if they are much further away. I don't really mind that other than the fact that they are doing the exact same job, sans red cross, with guns and now they are deemed better prepared and get more missions over Medevac birds. Why can they have guns? I'm told because they are Casevac. Ok, fine than take the cross off, give me guns and call me Casevac if the only difference is we can get there faster and save more lives.
But there are a lot of people who disagree, personally I think they're too in love with the romantic idea of the unarmed med going into a hot LZ. It is against Geneva conventions to do this, but they're also not supposed to shoot at Med birds and that ain't happening.
I'm not an expert on how Medevac works at the upper echelons but here is my understanding. Nine line comes in- it goes to a medical unit who determines which assets should get the mission and what hospital to go and whether there needs to be an escort. That recommendation goes to the brigade of the unit who approves the mission and assigns armed escort aircraft. Med receives approval and launch.
In army Medevac we monitor the communication and have the bird run up and ready to launch if we get approval so we run up a lot more than we actually launch. We usually launch within a minute or two of approval, other services don't seem to do this, they run up after they get approval and the difference could be ten minutes or more.
The Med unit making these decisions is usually run by a medical professional who probably doesn't know anything about aviation, the recommendations they make on aircraft assignment are frustratingly poor.
The British had a Med bird. It was a Chinook and was always launched with an Apache. It had a Doctor on board and the ability to give blood. Having a doctor and it's own armed escort they got a lot of missions even if they were much farther than Army Medevac birds. It's a good platform but it's not right for alot of things and the main reason is they were very slow. We were mandated to be in the air in 15 minutes from approval on urgent Medevac but would typically be up in 3 minutes or so. The Chinook was aloud 30 minutes day and 45 night, I guess because of having a larger team to assemble- I'm not really sure. They would typically take almost 30 minutes to launch. So on most missions by the time they launched we could have had the patient at a hospital.
We saw a nine line get called in for a Marine with a gunshot wound to the chest one night. It was a 6 minute flight. We ran up and waited for approval, got told to stand down it was going to the Chinook who was 25 minutes away because the threat was too high. Now you don't need a degree in medicine to know a patient with GS wound to the chest does not have a lot of time. It took another 5 minutes for the mission to get approval. Then we sat and waited for what seemed an eternity to hear the wheels up call from the chinook as the Marine air controller kept asking where is my Med bird, why didn't they send dustoff, why hasn't anybody launched. About twenty minutes after the mission was approved the Chinook called wheels up, 30 seconds later the ground unit called in the patient is Hero.
Could we have saved him? Can't say for sure. But I can say he probably would have been at the hospital if they'd simply launched the closest Med asset. I am fairly sure that if we were "Casevac" and had guns the mission would have been assigned to us. And I am definitely sure that as a coalition force our ground troops deserve better.
If the threat on the request is deemed possible or expected than we had to wait for escort. Many times they would detour an attack bird in the area and it didn't slow anything down, many other times that could take 20-30 minutes maybe more. Some people don't have that long. If the Med bird got to the location before armed escort than the PC was aloud to land if he deemed it necessary, and often we would but if we couldn't even get approved to launch our hands were tied.
The problem with these rules are-
The threat called in for the Medevac might as well have been randomly generated. I think it was up to the person calling it in and I saw transfers on safe fobs deemed high threat, and places in known areas with a gunfight going on where the threat was said to be none. The people that make these launch decisions are making all their decisions based off this and the people filling it out are not really sure what to put.
I don't blame them, you're in a fire fight, your buddy gets shot, your trying to get your grid and get all the information on a nine line together and figuring the med bird is coming either way so probably are just trying to get the call in under chaotic circumstances. The safety of the landing IMO is best made by the PC when he arrives on scene and talks to the ground force. Permission to launch should be automatic.
Because the CSAR birds are doing Medevac in Afghanistan they will get launched to a threat area because they have guns, sometimes even if they are much further away. I don't really mind that other than the fact that they are doing the exact same job, sans red cross, with guns and now they are deemed better prepared and get more missions over Medevac birds. Why can they have guns? I'm told because they are Casevac. Ok, fine than take the cross off, give me guns and call me Casevac if the only difference is we can get there faster and save more lives.
But there are a lot of people who disagree, personally I think they're too in love with the romantic idea of the unarmed med going into a hot LZ. It is against Geneva conventions to do this, but they're also not supposed to shoot at Med birds and that ain't happening.
I'm not an expert on how Medevac works at the upper echelons but here is my understanding. Nine line comes in- it goes to a medical unit who determines which assets should get the mission and what hospital to go and whether there needs to be an escort. That recommendation goes to the brigade of the unit who approves the mission and assigns armed escort aircraft. Med receives approval and launch.
In army Medevac we monitor the communication and have the bird run up and ready to launch if we get approval so we run up a lot more than we actually launch. We usually launch within a minute or two of approval, other services don't seem to do this, they run up after they get approval and the difference could be ten minutes or more.
The Med unit making these decisions is usually run by a medical professional who probably doesn't know anything about aviation, the recommendations they make on aircraft assignment are frustratingly poor.
The British had a Med bird. It was a Chinook and was always launched with an Apache. It had a Doctor on board and the ability to give blood. Having a doctor and it's own armed escort they got a lot of missions even if they were much farther than Army Medevac birds. It's a good platform but it's not right for alot of things and the main reason is they were very slow. We were mandated to be in the air in 15 minutes from approval on urgent Medevac but would typically be up in 3 minutes or so. The Chinook was aloud 30 minutes day and 45 night, I guess because of having a larger team to assemble- I'm not really sure. They would typically take almost 30 minutes to launch. So on most missions by the time they launched we could have had the patient at a hospital.
We saw a nine line get called in for a Marine with a gunshot wound to the chest one night. It was a 6 minute flight. We ran up and waited for approval, got told to stand down it was going to the Chinook who was 25 minutes away because the threat was too high. Now you don't need a degree in medicine to know a patient with GS wound to the chest does not have a lot of time. It took another 5 minutes for the mission to get approval. Then we sat and waited for what seemed an eternity to hear the wheels up call from the chinook as the Marine air controller kept asking where is my Med bird, why didn't they send dustoff, why hasn't anybody launched. About twenty minutes after the mission was approved the Chinook called wheels up, 30 seconds later the ground unit called in the patient is Hero.
Could we have saved him? Can't say for sure. But I can say he probably would have been at the hospital if they'd simply launched the closest Med asset. I am fairly sure that if we were "Casevac" and had guns the mission would have been assigned to us. And I am definitely sure that as a coalition force our ground troops deserve better.
Last edited by Shenanigan; 20th Jul 2012 at 18:56.