53
53
0
(serious answers please, I'm not contending that they shouldn't be, just researching)
They both performed the same mission during the Vietnam Conflict. They both deal in emergency medicine. They both perform aircraft extrication and crew rescue. It seems the primary difference is in the combat-specific role of pararescue. Firefighters can attend water rescue courses in surface-, flood-, and swift-water rescue and scuba; and, they are encouraged to obtain NREMT and even Paramedic. In some instances, they had "combat firefighters" who were Airborne qualified and taught small unit tactics, which I think ultimately became a RED HORSE institution.
In the past, Air Force Fire Protection Rescue Companies required higher skill sets than Engine and Ladder Companies. Why not make Pararescue a shred-out of fire protection and staff the Rescue Companies with them, and backfill them with prior service Pararescue civilians who are willing to attend the 3E7X1 Apprentice course at Goodfellow? Wouldn't that also give them real-world experience in emergency medicine while they are stateside? I'm not an expert on their stateside activities, but it seems that most career fields in combat/emergency fields train for deployment while they are stateside, while fire and some others perform their jobs every day whether stateside or deployed. (If I'm wrong I apologize).
I'm sure the main reason would be financial, but I'm curious if sending one individual who has NREMT in fire protection to Paramedic, airborne, combat dive, advanced tactical medicine courses, SERE, and small unit tactics would be cheaper than sending an additional person through BMT and then the entire PJ pipeline? Not to mention only one person is insured instead of two, only one potential VA disability recipient, retirement recipient, etc.
Researching for my Masters in Military Operations. Would appreciate your thoughts.
They both performed the same mission during the Vietnam Conflict. They both deal in emergency medicine. They both perform aircraft extrication and crew rescue. It seems the primary difference is in the combat-specific role of pararescue. Firefighters can attend water rescue courses in surface-, flood-, and swift-water rescue and scuba; and, they are encouraged to obtain NREMT and even Paramedic. In some instances, they had "combat firefighters" who were Airborne qualified and taught small unit tactics, which I think ultimately became a RED HORSE institution.
In the past, Air Force Fire Protection Rescue Companies required higher skill sets than Engine and Ladder Companies. Why not make Pararescue a shred-out of fire protection and staff the Rescue Companies with them, and backfill them with prior service Pararescue civilians who are willing to attend the 3E7X1 Apprentice course at Goodfellow? Wouldn't that also give them real-world experience in emergency medicine while they are stateside? I'm not an expert on their stateside activities, but it seems that most career fields in combat/emergency fields train for deployment while they are stateside, while fire and some others perform their jobs every day whether stateside or deployed. (If I'm wrong I apologize).
I'm sure the main reason would be financial, but I'm curious if sending one individual who has NREMT in fire protection to Paramedic, airborne, combat dive, advanced tactical medicine courses, SERE, and small unit tactics would be cheaper than sending an additional person through BMT and then the entire PJ pipeline? Not to mention only one person is insured instead of two, only one potential VA disability recipient, retirement recipient, etc.
Researching for my Masters in Military Operations. Would appreciate your thoughts.
Posted in these groups: 
3E7X1: Fire Protection
1T2X1: Pararescue
Special Operations
Goodfellow AFB
JBSA-Lackland
3E7X1: Fire Protection 1T2X1: Pararescue Special Operations Goodfellow AFB JBSA-Lackland
Posted 12 mo ago
Responses: 6
8
8
0
First they don't do the same things.
Second Fireman attend a tech school to be a fireman and then a paramedic.
PJ's go through a rigorous Spec Ops training course over a two year period to be able to go into combat situations with firepower and pretty much be a field doc and also search, rescue, and retrieve downed airmen and others behind enemy lines under fire. Just the indoc portion of their school has the highest DoD Washout rate of any SPec Ops pipeline at 86-90%
https://coffeeordie.com/air-force-pararescue
Second Fireman attend a tech school to be a fireman and then a paramedic.
PJ's go through a rigorous Spec Ops training course over a two year period to be able to go into combat situations with firepower and pretty much be a field doc and also search, rescue, and retrieve downed airmen and others behind enemy lines under fire. Just the indoc portion of their school has the highest DoD Washout rate of any SPec Ops pipeline at 86-90%
https://coffeeordie.com/air-force-pararescue
‘That Others May Live’: What It Takes To Be an Air Force Pararescueman
Since 1947, US Air Force pararescuemen have been conducting America’s highest-stakes rescue operations, often in austere environments behind enemy lines.
(8)
(0)
SSgt James Hall
Replies like this seem driven by an emotional attachment. I'm not concerned with wash-out rates of a pipeline, although I have my own opinions about the lowered standards in the fire service. But pipeline wash-out rates have no bearing on the topic.
Second, you are arguing that they don't do the same thing. The fact is, they do perform some of the same functions. In the fire service we have Engine Co.s whose job is fire attack/suppression; Ladder Co.s whose job is ventilation/search-and-rescue; Rescue Co.s whose job is specialized rescue. We perform personnel rescue/recovery and emergency medicine. That's why I said it seems like the primary, not only, difference is the combat focus of pararescue.
Again, I am doing this for research for a history project, not to demand that fire protection's pipeline is harder than pararescue's, or that we should do away with pararescue. I was doing research on the history of the ARS/ARRS which is where pararescue claims its origins are, and firemen were involved.
Second, you are arguing that they don't do the same thing. The fact is, they do perform some of the same functions. In the fire service we have Engine Co.s whose job is fire attack/suppression; Ladder Co.s whose job is ventilation/search-and-rescue; Rescue Co.s whose job is specialized rescue. We perform personnel rescue/recovery and emergency medicine. That's why I said it seems like the primary, not only, difference is the combat focus of pararescue.
Again, I am doing this for research for a history project, not to demand that fire protection's pipeline is harder than pararescue's, or that we should do away with pararescue. I was doing research on the history of the ARS/ARRS which is where pararescue claims its origins are, and firemen were involved.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
SSgt James Hall - Not emotional at all...fact based. I got it but my point is that the length of training and the various schools they go to to be trained they are not the same. PJ's 24 + months all over the US training plus certification...firefighters, 13.5 weeks at Goodfellow...not the same training and thus not the same qualifications. The only thing they are the same at are being paramedics...and they even have a longer training than most paramedics because they are combat certified medics.
I have a great deal of respect for firemen. Anyone that would voluntarily run into a burning plane, car, or building has my upmost respect BUT they are two totally different jobs...both deserve upmost respect and admiration but they are definitely unique in their jobs.
I have a great deal of respect for firemen. Anyone that would voluntarily run into a burning plane, car, or building has my upmost respect BUT they are two totally different jobs...both deserve upmost respect and admiration but they are definitely unique in their jobs.
(5)
(0)
1SG Dean Mcbride (MPER) (CPHR)
As an Army guy, I am not attuned to Air Force career field issues. However, it seems to me that you answered your own question...
"We perform personnel rescue/recovery and emergency medicine. That's why I said
it seems like the primary, not only, difference is the combat focus of pararescue."
In other words, it's as everynone else has stated. It is the mission essential training elements that seem to seperate the two.
3E7X1 are Fire Protection Specialists trained to protect people, property, and the environment from fires and disasters. They provides fire prevention, fire fighting, rescue, and hazardous material responses.
1T2X1 are Air Force Pararescuemen, a combat force specifically organized, trained, equipped, and postured to conduct conventional and unconventional combat rescue operations.
"We perform personnel rescue/recovery and emergency medicine. That's why I said
it seems like the primary, not only, difference is the combat focus of pararescue."
In other words, it's as everynone else has stated. It is the mission essential training elements that seem to seperate the two.
3E7X1 are Fire Protection Specialists trained to protect people, property, and the environment from fires and disasters. They provides fire prevention, fire fighting, rescue, and hazardous material responses.
1T2X1 are Air Force Pararescuemen, a combat force specifically organized, trained, equipped, and postured to conduct conventional and unconventional combat rescue operations.
(1)
(0)
While I can’t give you specific comments in a side-by-side comparison, just off the top of my head, I would expect there to be a significant difference between the two as the mission focus of the AFSCs and the organizations they are employed in are significantly different.
One aspect that you need to keep in mind when looking at a comparison of the two AFSCs is the mission of the organization that have those personnel. The mission of the organization drives what resources (personnel, equipment, funding, etc.) are required to meet that mission and that includes what training is needed for those personnel in order adequately support the mission.
Training can be broken into four categories – formal (residential) & unit and individual & collective. You are likely correct in your observation of overlapping formal (individual and collective) training, but just because individuals have much of the same formal training does not mean they are interchangeable. Unit training is often mission specific and tailored to “just in case” education that may be needed in the conduct of those operations. There is a LOT of unit level individual and collective training that doesn’t make it onto a MILBIO of an individual but is just as essential in the training of those individuals to meet the organization’s mission.
Just looking at the Career Field Education and Training Plan (CFETP) for a the AFSCs for Fire Protection (3E7X1*) and Pararescue (1T2XX*) there are significant differences between what is expected of equivalent skill levels, core training, duties, responsibilities, employment, etc. There is overlap at times, but when looked at in context with the mission that they are expected to accomplish, the stark contrast comes out.
Yes, funding is a constraint, but that is not why the AFSCs are different, that is mission. There are fiscal efficiencies that can be obtained by combining training if the training objectives (TLOs, ELOs, etc.) are the same, but again (the equivalent of the institutional training “foot stomp” for a testable block of instruction), mission drives everything. The training and experiences of an individual within an AFSC will be driven by the mission. The next stage for that individual will be based on the expected knowledge and skills those individuals acquired in a previous stage and is built on by the training and experiences that will be gained in career progression.
I would no more expect a PJ who’s AFSC is focused on “full spectrum personnel recovery” to be “pluggable” into a Fire Protection role that is focused on protecting people, property, and the environment from fires as I would for the reverse to occur.
Yes, there is overlap in training and there may be some overlap in organizational capabilities, but the mission of those organizations will be distinctly different, and THAT is what everything else is based on.
--------------------------------------------------------------
* DAF CFETP (3E7X1) - https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/cfetp3e7x1c1/cfetp3e7x1c1.pdf
* DAF CFETP (1T2XX) - https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3/publication/cfetp1t2xx/cfetp1t2xx.pdf
One aspect that you need to keep in mind when looking at a comparison of the two AFSCs is the mission of the organization that have those personnel. The mission of the organization drives what resources (personnel, equipment, funding, etc.) are required to meet that mission and that includes what training is needed for those personnel in order adequately support the mission.
Training can be broken into four categories – formal (residential) & unit and individual & collective. You are likely correct in your observation of overlapping formal (individual and collective) training, but just because individuals have much of the same formal training does not mean they are interchangeable. Unit training is often mission specific and tailored to “just in case” education that may be needed in the conduct of those operations. There is a LOT of unit level individual and collective training that doesn’t make it onto a MILBIO of an individual but is just as essential in the training of those individuals to meet the organization’s mission.
Just looking at the Career Field Education and Training Plan (CFETP) for a the AFSCs for Fire Protection (3E7X1*) and Pararescue (1T2XX*) there are significant differences between what is expected of equivalent skill levels, core training, duties, responsibilities, employment, etc. There is overlap at times, but when looked at in context with the mission that they are expected to accomplish, the stark contrast comes out.
Yes, funding is a constraint, but that is not why the AFSCs are different, that is mission. There are fiscal efficiencies that can be obtained by combining training if the training objectives (TLOs, ELOs, etc.) are the same, but again (the equivalent of the institutional training “foot stomp” for a testable block of instruction), mission drives everything. The training and experiences of an individual within an AFSC will be driven by the mission. The next stage for that individual will be based on the expected knowledge and skills those individuals acquired in a previous stage and is built on by the training and experiences that will be gained in career progression.
I would no more expect a PJ who’s AFSC is focused on “full spectrum personnel recovery” to be “pluggable” into a Fire Protection role that is focused on protecting people, property, and the environment from fires as I would for the reverse to occur.
Yes, there is overlap in training and there may be some overlap in organizational capabilities, but the mission of those organizations will be distinctly different, and THAT is what everything else is based on.
--------------------------------------------------------------
* DAF CFETP (3E7X1) - https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/cfetp3e7x1c1/cfetp3e7x1c1.pdf
* DAF CFETP (1T2XX) - https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3/publication/cfetp1t2xx/cfetp1t2xx.pdf
(8)
(0)
Training, scope of mission, physical and psychological mindset to complete the more demanding training cycle. The Special Operations aspect of the AFSC. Qualified to handle combat wounded dealing with those type of catastrophic injuries. Evacuating them from the combat zone. Also the combat aspect as you yourself pointed out.
Personally I think it’s apples to oranges and similar to comparing a Combat Controller to Radio Operators or Air Traffic Controllers. But my opinion of course.
Personally I think it’s apples to oranges and similar to comparing a Combat Controller to Radio Operators or Air Traffic Controllers. But my opinion of course.
(7)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google