An Apache helicopter crashed in the water off the coast of
Oman and the military is telling us that the 2-man crew was rescued by an
unmanned boat, a 24 ft Corsair. That’s
astounding! An unmanned boat rescued
downed aircrew who had been adrift for two hours. Here’s the headline.[1]
The promise of unmanned is finally being fulfilled!
We have no details, only sensationalistic headlines but,
presumably, the boat located the aircrew on its own, plotted a course, found
the crew, lifted the crew into the boat, applied emergency first aid as needed,
and returned the crew to safety.
Of course, unless the boat had capabilities I’ve never heard
of, it didn’t locate the crew, lift the crew into the boat, or apply emergency
first aid because unmanned boats can’t do any of that. Don’t get me wrong. Pulling up near the crew so that they could
climb aboard, unaided, see to their own first aid (were there any emergency
supplies on the boat? I doubt it), and
be transported out of the area is very helpful if no manned asset was available
but to call this a rescue by an unmanned boat is akin to saying that a sling on
a helicopter rescued a swimmer in the water.
The sling didn’t do anything. It
was just a tool.
My larger question is, given that we’re in a high intensity
war in the area, shouldn’t we have manned assets blanketing the area, including
dedicated search and rescue units? For
example, an SH-60 type helo traveling 170 mph could travel the length of the
strait in a half hour or so, depending on the start and end point and could
reach any specific point in less time than that, flying a straight line. Was there no manned ship, boat, or helo anywhere
in the strait? To rescue downed aircrew,
we pull out all the stops. All the stops
meant no manned assets? We’re not
talking about covering the entire Pacific Ocean. The area around the strait is pretty
small. The Navy’s presence in the area
seems abnormally sparse which may explain why we seem incapable of escorting
ships through the strait. Is this a war
we’re serious about or not? The Navy
doesn’t seem all that serious about it and this is just one more example.
____________________________
In First, 2 US Apache
Pilots Rescued by Drone Boat
https://www.newsmax.com/us/drone-boat-rescue-us-pilots/2026/06/09/id/1259057/
The Apache was reportedly downed by a Shaheed, so I suppose the fear is that the SH-60 coming in to rescue the crew gets taken out by a second Iranian drone, and now you have a cascading failure.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I concur with the overall point - that our assets appear to be deployed very sparsely, for whatever reason(s)
If, with total aerial dominance and total sensor coverage of the area, we could allow not just one, but two, drones to attack us then we're doing something very, very wrong.
DeleteOur entire future warfighting is predicated on total regional sensor awareness and networking, instantly linking sensors and weapons. This would be the most permissive and favorable conditions imaginable for such a setup and if we can't spot and destroy a drone then our entire future warfighting is suspect ... as I've been preaching for several years.
Honestly this is the same dilema that we've faced since Vietnam, 60 years ago. SAR helos coming to make a rescue are incredibly vulnerable to ground fire. A soldier with a machinegun, or a shoulder-fired SAM, is a very tiny signature to see and detect from the air - note the Millenium Challenge, where Van Ripper wiped out the heliborne assault with camoflaged AA teams.
DeleteThe doctrinal answer to this is to have escort gunships and CAS aircraft to try and sanitise the area, but historically this has not been a resounding sucess.
Detecting a Shaheed is even harder than a SAM - a Stinger or an Igla has a bright exhaust plume that can be detected by missile warning systems. The Shaheed is driven by a battery-powered prop: there's very little heat sig to detect. Helos don't carry warning radars.
"same dilema "
DeleteIt is and, historically, we've ignored the risks and gone all out to rescue downed aircrew. It's the "covenant" we have with aircrew.
"Detecting a Shaheed is even harder"
It may be difficult for a helo but the radar coverage we presumably have in that small area should be more than adequate. We claim our radars can detect mosquitos at a thousand miles, periscopes at hundreds of miles, and have perfect awareness of all enemy movement. Detecting a slow, non-stealthy drone should be automatic. I'll be very interested to hear the full story on this. It doesn't bode well for our vision of future warfare.
"It is and, historically, we've ignored the risks and gone all out to rescue downed aircrew. It's the "covenant" we have with aircrew."
DeleteFor sure. I'm just pointing out for other readers that this is an inherently difficult problem that does not have an easy answer, which is why we've been struggling with it for the last 60 years.
"It may be difficult for a helo but the radar coverage we presumably have in that small area should be more than adequate."
As you've noted in the past, detecting something and disseminating the information are two very different things. There is inherently lag that comes from a sensor asset detecting something and transmitting the data to the command node that then filters and sends the data to the receiving unit - it's the same point you've raised several years ago when you noted that it was unlikely that Japanese E-2s could spot targets for shore-based missile batteries to engage.
The odd part of the story is Shaheeds are not known to be antiair weapons. But potting Shaheeds with a cannon
Deletecan be dangerous to the shooter, the Ukrainians have lost helos and have had aircraft damaged by detonating Shaheeds.
"odd part of the story is Shaheeds are not known to be antiair "
DeleteInitial reports are ALWAYS wrong and generally significantly so. We don't yet know what happened. Perhaps it was a drone used in kamikaze mode (fly into the rotor blades?). Perhaps it was a Golden BB. We'll have to wait and see.
It is also slightly odd that reports suggest it happened close to Oman which would mean a drone (if it was) had to fly across the strait to reach the helo. Of course, depending on exactly where, the strait is not very wide. Still, that would be 20+ miles of flight without being detected, assuming it wasn't detected.
"There is inherently lag that comes from a sensor asset detecting something and transmitting the data to the command node that then filters and sends the data to the receiving unit"
DeleteThis is the disturbing point that should be screaming warnings at us about our plans for our future vision of warfare. Our systems are claimed to be networked such that EVERY asset has EVERY bit of sensor data that exists. THAT'S the point of the network. Every sensor is linked to every asset and every weapon. How often has the military trumpeted this grandiose claim? I've pointed out incident after incident that refutes this and this incident is yet another.
Our vision of future warfare is magnificent. The reality is abysmal. Reality means our future vision is incorrect and we're idiots for making it the foundation of our future approach to warfare.
"The Shaheed is driven by a battery-powered prop..."
DeleteThey likely don't have a huge heat signature, but all the models I've read about are powered by small gas engines, either rotary or piston- think lawnmower size... and still should be readily detectable...
"The odd part of the story is Shaheeds are not known to be antiair weapons."
DeleteI suspect this was a Shaheed being intended for an antiship strike that was retargeted to hit the helo because it was in the right place and the right time. It's not inconceivable - Javelin, Hellfire and Vikhr, for example, have secondary anti-air capability for engaging helicopters.
Maybe I’m being a bit simplistic, but in this case they system they used (i.e. sending an un maned boat) worked. I would be very surprised if there weren’t manned assets involved and (one would hope) on standby in case they were required). One assumes contact had been made with the crew who could confirm they were all physically able to climb aboard the recuse vessel unaided?
ReplyDeleteYes, in an ideal world you have complete military control of the area but as the helicopter was shot down, one assumes this wasn’t the case. I also assume whilst this rescue was going on other assets were removing the source of the “downing”?
IMHO if the crew can be extracted by a relatively stealthy (compared to helicopters) autonomous boat with no additional risk to personnel it may be a good option. However, if it was me in the drink I would welcome / prefer being picked up by some of my compatriots in case I needed first aid and could make decisions on the spot about self-defence (i.e. fighting our way out of the area).
In summary, it should be another option rather than THE option. Like all unmanned sytems they should be an extra option not a replacement, to be used depending on the specific situation for that specific mission.
Just my opinion. It would be interesting to know a wholistic view of all the operation and who / what was involved, but I doubt that will be made public.
Clive F
"I would be very surprised if there weren’t manned assets involved"
DeleteThen why wouldn't they get directly involved? Iran has no naval assets or air force left so there was no further danger. If there were the threat of additional drones and we had no way to detect and destroy them, that would be a massive condemnation of our asset density and our concept of all-seeing, networked systems that we're basing our entire future warfighting approach on.
"I would welcome / prefer being picked up by some of my compatriots in case I needed first aid"
Crashed aircrew who spent two hours in the water ALWAYS need first aid for exposure and exhaustion, if nothing else, and almost certainly injuries sustained in the crash. Even if they didn't need any aid, it would be foolhardy in the extreme not to have medically trained rescue personnel there. Injured people often don't realize that they've been injured or the extent of their injuries. Things like concussions and internal bleeding are often difficult to recognize.
We can try to spin this in some sort of positive light but it was a total failure no matter how you view it.
As ACES&EIGHTS
ReplyDeleteMaybe there is a “drone mafia cabal” pushing an agenda seeking any opportunity to illustrate success. Bomber advocates pre-WW-2, fighter mafia in late ‘60’s early’70’s. Convinced of the theory, straining to show proof.
I think this drone escapade is in the same category as modified ww2 bombers dropping lifeboats to downed aviators In the Pacific. Possibly useful, but extremely limited, and only in ideal, test-range like conditions
It is not in intensive fighting now, at least CENTCOM thinks so otherwise won't dispatch Apache if they suspect Iran still have air defense capabilities. I don't know whether frontline commander still believe "ceasefire" or thought Iran had no air defense nearby.
ReplyDeleteIf crews could send GPS locations, there is no reason remotely controlled unmanned ships won't sail to close by.
The Iranian Shaheed drones have an HE/Fragmentation warhead of between 15kg and 50kg depending on the model.
ReplyDeleteIf the Apache got hit by either one I’d say the crew was pretty lucky to survive.