The recent events with the downed Jordanian pilot got me thinking what kind of SAR capability do we have in place in case an American pilot goes down over ISIS territory? Is it the type of thing we have rescue crews standing by in the hope they can get to a downed American pilot before the bad guys? I hate to think about what would happen if they got ahold of one of our pilots.

Thread over

Stars and Stripes

quote:

---

WASHINGTON The gruesome killing of a Jordanian pilot who had crashed in Islamic State territory laid bare a problem of the U.S.-led
coalition: There's no sure way to rescue an airman who's down behind
enemy lines. Now, in response, the U.S. has moved search-and-rescue
aircraft closer to the battlefield, defense officials said Thursday....

Nonetheless, three defense officials said that in recent days the U.S.
has moved search-and-rescue aircraft into northern Iraq to shorten the
response time in the event of another pilot loss. Al-Kaseasbeh's plane
went down in December and he was quickly captured by Islamic State
fighters before U.S. rescue crews could reach him. The three officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because they
were not authorized to speak on the record about a movement of rescue
crews that has not been announced.

---

Thanks Stars and Stripes. Glad to know you are searching for dip****s willing to violate OPSEC so you can quote them "under condition of anonymity"

Serious question: Is S&S that independent? I wouldn't think they'd publish anything not "approved".

I would think that there is the same SAR capabilities available as there was in any other operation. But when you go down and they are standing there waiting on you, it doesn't matter how good or what your assets are. That is what happened to the Jordanian.

The great misnomer of only using air assets is that planes break and when they do you have to put boots on the ground to get those pilots back. Those boots on the ground have to be relatively close and staged ahead of time.

I wonder what the SAR would have looked like if an American pilot went down. Then we'd see what we are really capable of.

quote:

---

The great misnomer of only using air assets is that planes break and when they do you have to put boots on the ground to get those pilots back. Those boots on the ground have to be relatively close and staged ahead of time.

---

Not true, as many brothers in the CSAR mission will testify, including a number of good Ags who frequent this site.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The great misnomer of only using air assets is that planes break and when they do you have to put boots on the ground to get those pilots back. Those boots on the ground have to be relatively close and staged ahead of time.

---

Not true, as many brothers in the CSAR mission will testify, including a number of good Ags who frequent this site.

---

Nothing in that video refutes what he said, at all. He's saying that if a plane goes down, someone has to land to get them, and they have to be based relatively close to be responsive.

Point taken. I guess it depends on what is meant by "relatively close" and "boots on the ground".

. I guess it depends on what is meant by "relatively close" and "boots on the ground".

And that's where opsec takes over.