# Need for advanced infil techniques...



## surgicalcric (Feb 2, 2012)

So, taken from the ARSOF Recruiting MI Brief thread so as not to derail that discussion...



			
				Lindy said:
			
		

> Their program... get infil/exfil via any method whereas we're pretty much ruck, truck, or oh ffffffffuuuuuuudddddgggggeeeeee.


 
I contend that SF in particular and SOF as a whole has little need if any for sending the majority of their support slice to MFF/CDQC (specifically SOT-As) or to BAC for that matter.

What purpose do they have for going to MFF/CDQC? How is their mission impacted by not currently being MFF/CDQC? (And while on that topic, if the Navy wasn't sending SWCC -God knows why - guys to MFF there would be an ass-ton more slots for guys that might use them.)

BAC is nice to have for the soldier's "bling" and can look good for the CDR if thats a briefing topic but tactically it adds nothing to the units ability to perform its function in a wartime environment. The likeliness of any PAC, LW mechanic, cook, intel analyst, etc jumping in to a hot DZ or UWE is the same as that same guy jumping in with the 173rd or 82nd ABN (inf) to secure a runway or conduct a force entry into a country where open combat is being conducted, little to none...

Fact is BAC, for the wide majority, is nothing more than a recruiting tool.


----------



## Brill (Feb 2, 2012)

BAC is definitely a tool. 

I contend, and will continue to do so over many drinks throughout the month, that advanced infil techniques of direct support elements would give the commander more options to employ his close in SIGINT assests. CAVEAT: I am not trying to do the job of a SF soldier or become a cool guy but rather get us the ability to be used to the utmost of our potential.

Check your AKO.

I'll call ya when I get into town on Sunday before the game inshallah!


----------



## 18C4V (Feb 2, 2012)

Crip,
You can just tanden jump the guys in. Having a guy whose qualified in MFF is alot different than a guy whose proficient in MFF. Besides why would I want a SOTA guy to get in my stack and then he gets lost under canopy and now I lose that capability of what that SOTA had to offer.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 2, 2012)

18C4V said:


> Crip,
> You can just tanden jump the guys in. Having a guy whose qualified in MFF is alot different than a guy whose proficient in MFF. Besides why would I want a SOTA guy to get in my stack and then he gets lost under canopy and now I lose that capability of what that SOTA had to offer.


 
I dont think we would be able to fly two guys plus two rucks under one canopy....  If so that would be one huge 'chute and corresponding reserve. 

Not against the idea totally but a valid argument about how not being MFF or CDQC qualified has prevented them from doing their jobs.  I would say that MFF/CDQC should be much further down the list of schools they need to attend, with Ranger school being near the forefront.  This is especially true if they are talking about being "on patrol" solo.

As for being proficient, we have a difficult enough time maintaining proficiency on the ODA level.

Crip


----------



## Brill (Feb 2, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> *I dont think we would be able to fly two guys plus two rucks under one canopy*.... If so that would be one huge 'chute and corresponding reserve.
> 
> This has been done at a another level: same idea but different folks.
> 
> ...


 
Completely agree. In my opinion, it's about getting the right guys with the right tools in the right spot in order to provide better support...IF needed. ;)


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 3, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> The likeliness of any PAC, LW mechanic, cook, intel analyst, etc jumping in to a hot DZ or UWE is the same as that same guy jumping in with the 173rd or 82nd ABN (inf) to secure a runway or conduct a force entry into a country where open combat is being conducted, little to none...
> 
> Fact is BAC, for the wide majority, is nothing more than a recruiting tool.


 
Beg to differ, things may have changed since I was in, but our PAC NCOIC, DFAC NCOIC, and a couple other non-rifle-primary-weapons-system MOS types were safeties for the jumps into afghanistan and iraq.  Couple that with the combat taskings within Bn for the S2, PAC office and DFAC involving rifles and not spoons or pens...  Damn near everyone jumped because everyone had an actual combat mission. Gearheads aka mechanics with JM would typically end up safteying then airland with their vehicle(s) and provide oh-shit fixes if necessary on the ground, if not divvy for follow-on stuff. 

You strip away BAC from the Regiment's requirement for support guys, that's 2 JM's per bird for safety duties, that will have to be slotted with 11B2V or better which specifically means now you have teams or squads that don't have their combat leaders with them.

No JM experience so I can't say what duties a JM has related to bundle prep for air drops, but once again that would be something that someone without BAC and JM wouldn't be able to do.

I have no MFF experience so I don't know how that works, but I feel comfortable in the operational assumption that you have a JM who's jumping and don't really need a safety since you have no static lines to manage?  If it works that way then I concur wholeheartedly on MFF not being a requirement, necessity, or the like. CDQC,  perhaps it can/does open up secondary taskings for maintenance intensive stuff related to the dive shop.  Congrats you've been to scuba school, here's your patch kit for the zodiacs you only get to use for DZ boat detail? *snicker*

The way things work in the Groups is probably significantly different judging by how you feel combined with common knowledge of the limited amount of actual 'combatants'.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 3, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> Beg to differ, things may have changed since I was in, but our PAC NCOIC, DFAC NCOIC, and a couple other non-rifle-primary-weapons-system MOS types were safeties for the jumps into afghanistan and iraq. Couple that with the combat taskings within Bn for the S2, PAC office and DFAC involving rifles and not spoons or pens....


 
I did say majority... 

But I see where you are going and agree.  However, how many guys from Regiment were tasked with JM duties for those jumps out of your entire SPT slice?  And bundles are prepped by riggers who are already ABN qual'd by the nature of their job.  

Would love to see what "combat" related duties that S2, PAC, and DFAC SGT were assigned.  I am sure somewhere there was a list of Os and Sr NCOs that didnt need to be there other than to get their mustard stain just like in Grenada, Panama, and the 173rd jump into Iraq. 

My argument isnt against every Support guy not going to BAC, but more so that there is a disproportionate number who go vs. the number who need to go.


----------



## mike_cos (Feb 3, 2012)

Maybe you are right guys... but unfortunately for me I have an idea of special Operation (maybe wrong) old fashion...

http://www.eliteukforces.info/gallery/uksf-misc/sas-parchute-jump.php


----------



## AWP (Feb 3, 2012)

In my very humble opinion, not being an MFF guy, I think the Army would be better off going to a static-line, ram-air method of infil for SOF. You could still do a stand off exit and glide to the DZ without the overhead of teaching guys how to freefall, O2, etc.

Failing my Nobel Prize winning idea, you have as Crip mentioned the simple problem of slots for school or you do a tandem insert which is quite possible, but jumping tandem requires more competency than a "normal" jump and also more currency.

This is more rhetorical than anything, but how many MFF/ UWO ODA's out there have all of their personal fully qualified in their infiltration specialty? You will be hard pressed to find an 18A willing to give up school slots for an Enabler over his 18 series.

I'm going to "pick" on the SOT-As for a moment: Until all of your soldiers are Ranger and SERE-C qualified, asking for an advanced infil technique is a bad idea. I've been out for awhile, but I already know how it will be perceived because human nature is constant: "They want the cool guy school instead of the gut check." Everyone knows those are V coded slots when they join a SOT-A. As a commander I would have a hard time justifying any school beyond MOSQ if that soldier wasn't Ranger qualified. Yes, there are indeed exceptions, especially if you're prepping for a deployment, but every SOT-A should go to Ranger school as soon as possible because that is part of being qualified. That "V" isn't there as a polite suggestion.

I'm very pro-SOT-A and if anything I think each BN should have more than 3 because of what they bring to the fight. I think having SOT-A's with an advanced infil technique is a good idea with a lot of merit, but the system is stacked against it and there are more worthwhile dragons to slay.


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2012)

For clairification: the 35PX billets in USASOC are V coded for ONE reason: to exclude females from occupying those billets.  RSLC is much more appropriate to our job vice Ranger school (but I'm still trying to go).

Wait just a f'ing second: MFF, CDQC, Combat Swimmer, or learning to step off with your left foot then moving your right foot forward is a way to get from point A to point B as has zero to do with anyone's MOS.  They are infil (exfil) techniques.  Going through a "gut check" school is a BS artificial pre-req.  Ranger school is, as I understand it, a leadership school for ANY soldier, some sailors, airmen, and Marines to learn to LEAD subordinates in combat from squad to platoon sized elements.  SERE-C is probably the best military training I've ever attended and am shocked that 37 and 38-series soldiers have precedence to attend over 35-series.  WTF? 

This attitude of "it's never been done before" is exactly the roadblock that hinders progress.  The bottom line is that if a Team has had a good experience with a SOT-A they are more likely to "adopt" a particluar SOT-A ensure they are "one" with the ODA as far as their SOPs.  Conversely, some Teams have had very bad experiences with 35P soldiers (I myself have too as well) and, as most of you know, one dipshit can screw things up for quite a long time.  We still hear ODA's talk about "on the '09 deployment, we had this one retard SOT-A who..." and sadly they're not all talking about the same guy.

I was recently at 10th SFG clinic getting a Ranger physical and there was a female PFC who was getting a MFF physical because she was a rigger who was heading to Yuma for the training.  Think she'll ever make a combat jump?  Yeah, sure she needs the course to pack chutes; I get it.  Just don't try to sell me the keeper of the badge or cool guy school because I'm not buying it and it's a weak argument that clearly indicates a lack of understand of SOT-A capabilities, which is most likely rooted in a poor unclassified briefing (our fault). 

Personally, I believe that the advanced infil techniques should be reserved for the most competent and mature direct support soldiers vice every Joe who has a heartbeat.  Out of the 12, there should be at least one per team IF the need arises.

I'm not saying that I'm cool because I have a clearance and operate "technical stuff" and you should send me to X school, I'm just advocating to give us the pre-reqs so we can meet the standards to attend.

The infil techniques are no different than having a team who has advanced knowledge of CDMA, UMTS, LTE, or 802.11 technologies.  They are all just skillsets that allow us to get there and do our jobs to either support the Team, the BN CO, or to meet National requirements.

Hristos, next you guys are going to tell me we shouldn't attend SOTACC!  

In closing, I'm not trying to be YOU but I'm trying to support YOU better!  If we can go where you go, take care of ourselves medically (within reason), be able to use YOUR weapons systems, and be able to use our radios to support the ODA/SOT-A team, then the ODA could focus on their mission vice always having to play big brother to the SOT-As and look after us.  That is my end state.  Do-able?  I don't know but we cannot stop trying because WE, the ODA/SOT-A team, cannot fail.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 3, 2012)

I don’t have first hand experience/knowledge on this subject but a simple question arises. 

Are there any mission profiles where SOT-A (or other SOF Combat Support) personnel would be required to infil by advanced means, together with a SF Team?

If the answer is yes, then I suppose at least some of them should get those schools, to cover contingencies.

The “how often it happens” is also part of the equation, but in my humble opinion, just for prioritizing school slots

If “how often” becomes a primary argument by itself, then I suppose you would also have to ask if there is a reason for UWO Teams to exist.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 3, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> ...If “how often” becomes a primary argument by itself, then I suppose you would also have to ask if there is a reason for UWO Teams to exist.


 
Every SF ODA is a "UWO Team." 

But with respect to your quoted statement, what makes you think it (UW) isnt ongoing?  ;)


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 3, 2012)

lindy said:


> For clairification: the 35PX billets in USASOC are V coded for ONE reason: to exclude females from occupying those billets. RSLC is much more appropriate to our job vice Ranger school (but I'm still trying to go).
> 
> I disagree about RSLC but am open to hearing how you would benefit more from a course teaching reconnaissance than one that teaches patrolling from the Squad to Company level. The basics of patrolling is what many of us (ODA guys) have found to be lacking in the SOT-As in a tactical setting.
> 
> ...


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 3, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> Every SF ODA is a "UWO Team."
> 
> But with respect to your quoted statement, what makes you think it (UW) isnt ongoing? ;)


 

UWO as in UnderWater Operations :-"

In other words, I meant SCUBA Teams.

I do think UW is ongoing, although I am not sure if this is correct in your "doctrinal" terms. I get a bit mixed up with proper definitions of IW, COIN, FID and UW.


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2012)

Crip,

Everything you said are known issues within our community (especially the capabilities brief) and there is a force driving us to improve.  So, do you really think Ranger school would be beneficial?


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 3, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> UWO as in UnderWater Operations :-"
> 
> In other words, I meant SCUBA Teams..


 

How did I miss that...lol.  Having one of those days.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 3, 2012)

lindy said:


> ... So, do you really think Ranger school would be beneficial?


 
For some it would be.  I think you may be hopeless.


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> For some it would be. I think you may be hopeless.


 
You would not believe how many "young whipersnapers" at pre-Ranger asked me "Wow, how old are you?"

grumble, grumble, grumble...


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 3, 2012)

lindy said:


> You would not believe how many "young whipersnapers" at pre-Ranger asked me "Wow, how old are you?"


 
I got the same thing while in BCT...


----------



## 18C4V (Feb 3, 2012)

As a MFF Team daddy, MFF JM, and MFF JM ATIC grad, tandem is the way to bring enablers for MFF operations. It's a TTP that's been proven in combat and I'll leave it at that.

The force does need to move to a better rig and maybe even do what the Marines do for MFF Stand offs which is using a static line to deploy their main. Obviously you still have to do the work up to be proficient under canopy, using NODS, compass, computer, talking on radio and listening to the high man under canopy and that's doing it slick.

As for proficiency, it's like any other ODA in any SF Company, it's up to the detachment leadership to make things happen regardless of their infil skills. I know budget's are tight but there's ways to think outside the box to make things happen. I just had four guys on my team re-enlist in January, three guys who re-enlisted in December, that's seven guys on my team who re-enlisted because of me doing my job as the Zulu. The other teams look like student company with their high turn over rates.

Riggers need to go to MFF school so that they can do IP's or rigger checks on the rigs while we're packing our chutes. Malfunction NCO's are E-5's and above and they have to be riggers. A long time ago, a SOF JM could be a malfunction NCO if you went to the class to be a malfunction NCO. I was one of the last guys who went to that class in 2004.

The active duty teams depending on what Group they belong to can have most of their guys MFF qualified. In the guard, it's a little different since slots are hard to get. I got 11 guys on my team with 8 guys qualed, 1 in school right now and 2 with hard reserved slots so by the end of April, I'll have 11 guys fully qualified. I lost my 12th guy who was  qualed  who went on to better and bigger things in the Army. ;)

As for Ranger School, go while you can...with the Army downsizing they will go back to how it used to be....combat arms only (I went in 1993 when it was combat arms only). 

My last trip, we used alot of enablers. They went on HAF's and GAF's with us, but our mission was mostly DA and Combat FID.  We did not allow them to drive, gun...pretty much they stayed with the head shed during movement and when it came to actions on, it was up to the TA who decided when it was ok for them to come inside the house.


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2012)

MSG,


18C4V said:


> As a MFF Team daddy, MFF JM, and MFF JM ATIC grad, tandem is the way to bring enablers for MFF operations. It's a TTP that's been proven in combat and I'll leave it at that.
> 
> I know exactly what you mean.;)
> 
> My last trip, we used alot of enablers. They went on HAF's and GAF's with us, but our mission was mostly DA and Combat FID. We did not allow them to drive, gun...*pretty much they stayed with the head shed during movement and when it came to actions on, it was up to the TA who decided when it was ok for them to come inside the house.*


 
MSG,

This brings up a good point. While I have no problems working my gear at the VDO or pulling security while you guys make the hit, but WHICH FACTORS determine whether your enablers (PJ, CCT, TACP, SOT-A, OGA, etc) transition from a support role to actual participation (drive, working the gun, etc)? Trust? Confidence? Necessity?

From a SOT-A standpoint, I cannot be effective if I'm in a stack or placing a breaching charge. BUT I also don't want your guys to have to carry me on their shoulders (or clip in to their rig).


----------



## 18C4V (Feb 4, 2012)

lindy said:


> MSG,
> 
> 
> MSG,
> ...


 
Those are great questions but the answers will vary from team to team based upon their task org, staffing needs, and detachment leadership. For example, we had a dedicated JTAC or CCT assigned to our team. Their sole function was ISR, watching the Rover, and going kinetic when the need to go kinetic happened.  My trip to OEF, we did not have a JTAC/CCT but one of the guys on my team was a ETAC.  

I do know that one of my sister teams used a support guy as a driver, but that guy was connected to that team by constantly doing the work ups with that team. And they had a different mission then our team. For me to use a non ODA guy as a driver, he needs to know all of our mobility SOP's to include down gunner drills (not using RG33's)  and that includes being a gunner or mini gunner. 

My team switched out driver/gunner based upon mission cycle of the TA's. For example, I was a TA and when my jundies were on leave, I was either the lead driver or a gunner. When I was on mission cycle, I sat in the TA seat while the other TA's drove or manned the gun.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 4, 2012)

18C4V said:


> ...I do know that one of my sister teams used a support guy as a driver, but *that guy was connected to that team by constantly doing the work ups with that team*....For me to use a non ODA guy as a driver, he needs to know all of our mobility SOP's to include down gunner drills (not using RG33's) and that includes being a gunner or mini gunner...


 
Lindy:

We can talk more about it when you get here but this is the way you will find it with most ODAs.

We had two CRD guys, a mechanic, and a 25-series guy sliced off to us for our trip to OND. All 4 spent from Sep 10 (NTC) - Feb 11 training with our ODA during PMT. They drove, gunned, worked in the shoot-house, too part in med classes, commo classes, demo, mortar and Carl Gustav ranges, etc... A couple of them drove and gunned for us from time to time depending on the mission and task org. However had they shown themselves not interested in learning our SOPs or not proficient at them they would have been left "in the rear with the gear."

On your next rotation you would do well to find what team you will be assigned to, if you dont get stuck in the AOB, and embed yourself with them. Now, due to personalities found pervasive in the SOT-A community this will not work for everyone. Some guys are just gonna sit in the truck no matter how much they think they are "up to speed" and in all honesty those may be the guys you slice off to the AOB, but for some of the others it may work out that they are given the opportunity to be more than a backseat rider.

Crip


----------



## 0699 (Feb 4, 2012)

18C4V said:


> As a MFF Team daddy, MFF JM, and MFF JM ATIC grad, tandem is the way to bring enablers for MFF operations. It's a TTP that's been proven in combat and I'll leave it at that.
> 
> The force does need to move to a better rig and maybe even do what the Marines do for MFF Stand offs which is using a static line to deploy their main. Obviously you still have to do the work up to be proficient under canopy, using NODS, compass, computer, talking on radio and listening to the high man under canopy and that's doing it slick.
> 
> ...


 
Just to be clear, my "agree" refers to this part.

I can't speak intelligently to all the MFF/HAF/GAF stuff.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 4, 2012)

18C4V said:


> Those are great questions but the answers will vary from team to team based upon their task org, staffing needs, and detachment leadership. For example, we had a dedicated JTAC or CCT assigned to our team. Their sole function was ISR, watching the Rover, and going kinetic when the need to go kinetic happened. *My trip to OEF, we did not have a JTAC/CCT but one of the guys on my team was a ETAC. *
> 
> I do know that one of my sister teams used a support guy as a driver, but that guy was connected to that team by constantly doing the work ups with that team. And they had a different mission then our team. For me to use a non ODA guy as a driver, he needs to know all of our mobility SOP's to include down gunner drills (not using RG33's) and that includes being a gunner or mini gunner.
> 
> My team switched out driver/gunner based upon mission cycle of the *TA*'s. For example, I was a *TA* and when my jundies were on leave, I was either the lead driver or a gunner. When I was on mission cycle, I sat in the *TA* seat while the other *TA's* drove or manned the gun.


 
Dont want to hijack the thread, but I am a bit perplexed about the difference between a ETAC and a JTAC (since a JTAC can be enlisted) and/or  a JFO. Would appreciate an explanation in plain english if it can be given without breaching OPSEC.

Also, whats a TA?


----------



## 18C4V (Feb 5, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> Dont want to hijack the thread, but I am a bit perplexed about the difference between a ETAC and a JTAC (since a JTAC can be enlisted) and/or a JFO. Would appreciate an explanation in plain english if it can be given without breaching OPSEC.
> 
> Also, whats a TA?


 
ETAC is was what we had before JTAC....I think ETAC was replaced in 2005 or 2006, I can't remember exactly what it stood for...either Emergency Tactical/Terminal/Air/Controller. TA has been defined as either training advisor or tactial advisor.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 5, 2012)

EDIT: Stupid post, back in my lane...


----------



## goon175 (Feb 5, 2012)

> Hristos, next you guys are going to tell me we shouldn't attend SOTACC!


 
If were talking about a skill that is hard to stay current on, SOTAC is probably one of the hardest out there as far as that goes.

As far as going to the cool guy infil schools, or cool guys schools in general, I think the way the 75th does it is the way to go: Go to Ranger school, pass that, and then we will send you to the cool stuff as needed, because you have "proven" yourself.

As far as slots at these schools go, I think that could be remedied by just giving the Army guys preference to the slots over other branches. The Navy has their own free fall school now, and I heard a rumor that the USMC has a free fall course as well now. Maybe the Navy could quit sending all the EOD and SWCC guys to free fall and open up slots the AFSOC guys to attend their course. USASOC is the largest SOF organization out of the four branches, let the smaller branches go to the Navy one, and the SWC course can be for USASOC units.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 5, 2012)

goon175 said:


> If were talking about a skill that is hard to stay current on, SOTAC is probably one of the hardest out there as far as that goes.


 
Something to the effect of 4 controls every 6 months with one needing to be within 30 days of arriving in theater and a graded control once a year with an instructor... Unfortunately you cant count controls like jumps and do 8 mid year to count for the entire year... It is very difficult for guys to stay current with the AD Groups having a SOTACC guy at the Ops Det, the chances the NG can get it done - since USASFC/USASOC wont fund the sustainment - remains slim. We end up having to call down to the HAVEACE committee to make ad hoc arrangements with whomever is taking care of their stuff and schedule a training event around that one thing.




> ...As far as slots at these schools go, I think that could be remedied by just giving the Army guys preference to the slots over other branches. The Navy has their own free fall school now, and I heard a rumor that the USMC has a free fall course as well now. Maybe the Navy could quit sending all the EOD and SWCC guys to free fall and open up slots the AFSOC guys to attend their course. USASOC is the largest SOF organization out of the four branches, let the smaller branches go to the Navy one, and the SWC course can be for USASOC units.


 
Has the Navy's course been blessed off on by the AF? If I am not mistaken, and I could be, at one time attendees of the Navy MFF course could not attend the USASOC MFFJM course and subsequently couldnt put guys out. Curious if they got all that worked out.  B, do you know the details on that?

In the not too recent past someone had the brilliant idea of sending every SFQC grad to MFF. And while I believe every SF guy who can be should be the logistics of doing so just isnt there. Even if the sister services withdrew all their guys from the USASOC course and they started a class every two weeks there would be enough slots or time to send everyone. Eventually a guy with enough smarts called BS on the plan and it was stopped before getting started.

Crip


----------



## goon175 (Feb 6, 2012)

> In the not too recent past someone had the brilliant idea of sending every SFQC grad to MFF. And while I believe every SF guy who can be should be the logistics of doing so just isnt there. Even if the sister services withdrew all their guys from the USASOC course and they started a class every two weeks there would be enough slots or time to send everyone. Eventually a guy with enough smarts called BS on the plan and it was stopped before getting started.


 
Ya know, static line insertions do the trick for about 85% of the things SOF need to do. What is it in SF, about on MFF team and one Combat Diver team per battalion? That is honestly probably enough. Does every SEAL need to be MFF qualified? probably not, the same ratio would probably be appropriate, but hey they are doing it so whatever. Rangers? Only the Recce teams have a real use for it, and we barely jump enough static line as it is. I guess overall what I am getting at is, no force (outside of the SMU's) needs absolutely everyone in the unit to be MFF qualified. As far as SOT-A and other CS enablers go, having a couple slots per group or whatever would be adequate, so that when the once in a blue moon need arises, you just grab one of those guys for that mission. Would I love to get the chance to go to MFF? sure, but honestly there are quite a few other "non-insertion" schools that I would rather go to. As much as everyone denies it, sometimes it really does come down to "yeah, I wanted the badge/recognition of having that qualification". I have said it before, and I will say it again: alot of the coolest schools/training the army or military in general has to offer don't come with a badge.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 6, 2012)

> Something to the effect of 4 controls every 6 months with one needing to be within 30 days of arriving in theater and a graded control once a year with an instructor... Unfortunately you cant count controls like jumps and do 8 mid year to count for the entire year... It is very difficult for guys to stay current with the AD Groups having a SOTACC guy at the Ops Det, the chances the NG can get it done - since USASFC/USASOC wont fund the sustainment - remains slim. We end up having to call down to the HAVEACE committee to make ad hoc arrangements with whomever is taking care of their stuff and schedule a training event around that one thing.


 
That sounds about right. I know our 13F's said it was a pain in the nut sack to schedule the jet's, the ranges to drop on, etc. I did not envy the logistics they had to work through to stay current.


----------



## 18C4V (Feb 6, 2012)

goon175 said:


> I have said it before, and I will say it again: alot of the coolest schools/training the army or military in general has to offer don't come with a badge.


 
that's true!!! If every cool guy school that I went to had a badge or widgit, I will be walking around with a magic wand, wearing a dark cloak and have pockets full of tools that would be considerd a felony to possess. I think one of the coolest exams I had was...I had to steal a car and drive it to a certain location in order to graduate.


----------



## 18C4V (Feb 6, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> Has the Navy's course been blessed off on by the AF? If I am not mistaken, and I could be, at one time attendees of the Navy MFF course could not attend the USASOC MFFJM course and subsequently couldnt put guys out. Curious if they got all that worked out. B, do you know the details on that?
> 
> In the not too recent past someone had the brilliant idea of sending every SFQC grad to MFF. And while I believe every SF guy who can be should be the logistics of doing so just isnt there. Even if the sister services withdrew all their guys from the USASOC course and they started a class every two weeks there would be enough slots or time to send everyone. Eventually a guy with enough smarts called BS on the plan and it was stopped before getting started.
> Crip


 

J,
My MFF JM class, we had a Navy EOD guy who did not go to the Army Course. The Marines have their own MFF PC due to the different parachute system that they use. However, the Army MFF JM Course and ATIC is the proponent that Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Army have to go though or until the sister services stand up thier own courses. The Marines sit on the same classes that we do, but during JMPI, they have their own different track.

My guys who go though the basic course tell me that SEALS go through the Army course when the SEALS can't pass their own Navy Course. I do know that there are more SF slots than ever before and that's because the Navy and Marines have thier own schools.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 6, 2012)

18C4V said:


> that's true!!! If every cool guy school that I went to had a badge or widgit, I will be walking around with a magic wand, wearing a dark cloak and have pockets full of tools that would be considerd a felony to possess. I think one of the coolest exams I had was...I had to steal a car and drive it to a certain location in order to graduate.


 
Now _that_ sounds like a fun, highly diverting way to spend a few days on Uncle Sam's dime!


----------



## 18C4V (Feb 6, 2012)

policemedic said:


> Now _that_ sounds like a fun, highly diverting way to spend a few days on Uncle Sam's dime!


 
I haven't had to use that skill yet, but other skills sure came in handy ;)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 6, 2012)

policemedic said:


> Now _that_ sounds like a fun, highly diverting way to spend a few days on Uncle Sam's dime!


 
Yeah that sounds like a damn fun and useful course, especially on the E&E in denied A/O. Our SOP when I was in the sniper section, was to car jack an Iraqi and drive like hell to the green zone ECP.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 6, 2012)

18C4V said:


> ETAC is was what we had before JTAC....I think ETAC was replaced in 2005 or 2006, I can't remember exactly what it stood for...either Emergency Tactical/Terminal/Air/Controller. TA has been defined as either training advisor or tactial advisor.


ETAC=Enlisted Tactical Air Controller, Pre-GrenadaEnlisted were severely limited when it came to calling airstrikes in.

Ranger ALO made it happen.


----------



## RetPara (Feb 6, 2012)

Is it just me or does this topic get rehashed in one form or another on annual basis?  Seriously this shit has been debated for AT LEAST the last thirty years that I have been privy to or held an interest in it.    Seriously... BAC keeps going as a motivational tool from one point.  But lurking in the dark recesses of my mind is the capability to rebuild a Brigade from the 82nd from scratch if one of the national level Good Idea Fairy's actually pulled the trigger on one of the nightmare contingency plans I worked on.  There have been a number of times in the past the trigger was damn near pulled.

As for "advanced infil techniques"...   If you inserting such a large package that you can afford to add bodies for CTT, SOTA, and so on...  That is one HELL OF A BIG PACKAGE to try and do a covert insertion by "advanced methods".  Improbable as it could be...  stranger things have happened.  Outside of the SMU's I don't see that happening all that much...


----------



## goon175 (Feb 7, 2012)

Here is one question: with all the competitiveness for these schools for guys already IN the Army, how do ROTC cadets get slots to these courses?


----------



## x SF med (Feb 7, 2012)

18C4V said:


> that's true!!! If every cool guy school that I went to had a badge or widgit, I will be walking around with a magic wand, wearing a dark cloak and have pockets full of tools that would be considerd a felony to possess. I think one of the coolest exams I had was...I had to steal a car and drive it to a certain location in order to graduate.


 
We all know that school doesn't really exist and if it did it wouldn't and nobody would ever graduate anyway, they'd just disappear in a puff of smoke.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 7, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Here is one question: with all the competitiveness for these schools for guys already IN the Army, how do ROTC cadets get slots to these courses?



Which one? I only know of BAC CDQC, Sapper, being available to Cadets, not MFF. CDQC is prolly available because guys in group don't really want to go.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 7, 2012)

BAC and CDQC were the ones I was refering to. Not that BAC is hard to get in a SOF unit, but in the rest of the army, it is hard to get unless you get it at initial entry into the service.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 7, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Here is one question: with all the competitiveness for these schools for guys already IN the Army, how do ROTC cadets get slots to these courses?


 
Couple of reasons.  One, it's a recruiting/retention tool.  Many cadets are not on contract or are not 100% committed to an Army career, if they go to a hooah school the thinking is they might say "hell yeah" and want to take the plunge.

For another, it may make sense financially.  It's a hell of a lot cheaper to send a cadet to BAC than it is to send a 2LT.  Plus, that's one less step in the training pipeline to get that young officer into his or her first job with troops.

Finally, it may be a credibility thing.  Most of us know that BAC really isn't that hard, and isn't that much of a gut check.  Most other badge/tab producing schools are WAY harder.  In fact, I can't think of a single one I'd consider easier than BAC.  Nonetheless, it's "something" for those young leaders to show when they get to their first unit.

I'm not defending any of those potentially reasons, just explaining what they might be.


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 7, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Most other badge/tab producing schools are WAY harder. In fact, I can't think of a single one I'd consider easier than BAC


 
Air Assault?


----------



## Brill (Feb 7, 2012)

AA has a ruck and O course. The hardest thing about BAC is taking the "instruction" seriously. I'm no hard ass but that was some silly training. 5 days of instruction packed into 3 weeks.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 7, 2012)

tigerstr said:


> Air Assault?


 
You think Air Assault was easier than BAC? Reasonable minds can disagree, but I (and most of the people I've spoken to who have been to both) think that Air Assault was WAY harder.

I didn't almost fail out of BAC like I did the slingload phase of Air Assault. Plus I was far better conditioned for the running at BAC than I was the footmarches at Air Assault School. Thank goodness for retests and Moleskin ;)


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 7, 2012)

Just that BAC involves "jumping out of a perfectly good airplane"... 

I think a lot of people would rather run and ruck, but admittedly I havent done any kind of "polling" about it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 7, 2012)

The overall concept of jumping out of an airplane while in flight is a bit scary for a lot of people, but to be honest, by the time we got to that point I think most of us were over it.  And unless you're standing in the door, actions in the aircraft happen so quickly it's kind of over before you have a lot of time to think about it.  Once that green light comes on, everyone is kind of borne along by the people shuffling along behind them.  I was far more terrified of the 34' towers the first couple of times we did it than I have ever been actually jumping.  Except for maybe my 6th jump, since it had been 12+ years since I had done a jump.

At Airborne School I had the added motivator of my father being the next man behind me in my stick.  Airborne allows folks who are on status to come jump with friends/relatives who are in the school, my dad was on active duty at Bragg at the time and came down for my first couple of jumps.  So I could either jump or my old man was going to put his boot in my ass, because he was going out the door.  So I was exiting the aircraft, I might as well get into a good body position first.

I think rappelling is pretty comparable in "fear factor" to jumping, though.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 7, 2012)

> by the time we got to that point I think most of us were over it.


 
Speak for yourself, I'm still terrified everytime I jump.

The only reason I have airborne wings is because I was that kid, when growing up their mom would ask "if all the other kids jumped off the bridge, would you?" and my answer was always "yes". So basically...all the cool kids in the C-17 were jumping, and I am always too embarassed to be a jump refusal like I would prefer to be.

Atleast I'm honest! haha


----------



## CDG (Feb 7, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> At Airborne School I had the added motivator of my father being the next man behind me in my stick. Airborne allows folks who are on status to come jump with friends/relatives who are in the school, my dad was on active duty at Bragg at the time and came down for my first couple of jumps. So I could either jump or my old man was going to put his boot in my ass, because he was going out the door. So I was exiting the aircraft, I might as well get into a good body position first.
> 
> .


 
That is extremely cool!   My dad was a paratrooper in VN and I would  love to have the chance to jump with him when I end up at BAC.  I know it's not possible, I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 7, 2012)

CDG said:


> That is extremely cool!  My dad was a paratrooper in VN and I would love to have the chance to jump with him when I end up at BAC. I know it's not possible, I'm just sayin'.


 
Well, when it starts getting close, post up the details here on the site.  You never know who might show up...


----------



## CDG (Feb 7, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, when it starts getting close, post up the details here on the site. You never know who might show up...


 
I'll be sure to do that.


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 7, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Speak for yourself, I'm still terrified everytime I jump.
> 
> The only reason I have airborne wings is because I was that kid, when growing up their mom would ask "if all the other kids jumped off the bridge, would you?" and my answer was always "yes". So basically...all the cool kids in the C-17 were jumping, and I am always too embarassed to be a jump refusal like I would prefer to be.
> 
> Atleast I'm honest! haha


 

For me the actual jumping part isn't a problem anymore, it's that "I'm going to hit the ground like a 300# bag of shit every time" that gets me.  I think if I could jump a square, or maybe do better PLFs or SOMETHING, I'd enjoy jumping a lot more.


----------



## reed11b (Feb 7, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> For me the actual jumping part isn't a problem anymore, it's that "I'm going to hit the ground like a 300# bag of shit every time" that gets me. I think if I could jump a square, or maybe do better PLFs or SOMETHING, I'd enjoy jumping a lot more.


Go to 4/25 and enjoy snow jumps. Like a big fluffy pillow landing every time.
Reed


----------



## goon175 (Feb 7, 2012)

Once I exit the bird, I actually am no longer scared, not even of the landing, even though I know full well that is the most dangerous part of the jump. I am most scared from the time you stand up and hook up the static line until I exit the bird. Once I have stepped off, I'm good to go. Well, let me clarify, the aforementioned scenario is if I am jumping a c-17, doing a ramp blast of any kind, etc. If I am jumping the door on a c-130...I am nervous from the time I find out I am jumping a c-130 until I exit the door. Fuck C-130's....


----------



## Brian1/75 (Feb 8, 2012)

Yeah seriously, fuck C-130s. I wouldn't say I was terrified after I did 6 or 7 jumps, but it was definitely still uneasy every time. Getting hit by prop blast and all that coming out of a jump door never felt good. I didn't use to fear the landing until I had one rough one that I hurt my ankle on. I also learned to dodge the tarmac after my first airfield seizure. That whole 'the airfield is not an obstacle' is bs.

I didn't know guys didn't want to go to CDQC. I figured that was a high demand school.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 8, 2012)

The only thing I hate more than jumping is fast roping.


----------



## AWP (Feb 8, 2012)

I love jumping.

I hate landing.

I hate -1B's even more.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 8, 2012)

> The only thing I hate more than jumping is fast roping.


 
I don't mind roping, but then again I have never done a 90 ft. rope either, like some have. Well, MH-60's and MH-6's are awesome, but I do get a little uneasy when roping from a 47, just because you kind of have to lean out and grab the rope, and if your the first guy down its hard to get your feet on the rope.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 8, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> ...I didn't know guys didn't want to go to CDQC. I figured that was a high demand school.


 
Oh no.

If the only guys on AD UWO teams were ones who wanted to go to CDQC, vice being told they are going, I imagine AD groups would have about enough qual'd guys per BN to fill an ODA.    

However, if CDQC was as much about diving as MFF is about MFF Ops there would be plenty more who would attend.  

Crip


----------



## Brian1/75 (Feb 8, 2012)

So wait guys get forced to go to the CDQC? How does this work in the NGSF units? I understand a lot of it is to make sure guys are in the right condition not to drown and to perhaps mimic some of the requirements of BUD/S. I've personally always wanted to go.


----------



## CDG (Feb 8, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> So wait guys get forced to go to the CDQC? How does this work in the NGSF units? I understand a lot of it is to make sure guys are in the right condition not to drown and to perhaps mimic some of the requirements of BUD/S. I've personally always wanted to go.


 
Have you seen the Surviving The Cut episode that deals with CDQC?  The drownproofing test is exactly the same as the BUD/S one. I can't speak to the diving parts, but the basics of being comfortable in the water look to be very similar to 1st Phase at BUD/S.


----------



## Brian1/75 (Feb 8, 2012)

Yeah both me and Goon actually know a guy in that episode.


----------



## 18C4V (Feb 8, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> So wait guys get forced to go to the CDQC? How does this work in the NGSF units? I understand a lot of it is to make sure guys are in the right condition not to drown and to perhaps mimic some of the requirements of BUD/S. I've personally always wanted to go.


 
As long as I've been in my NG SF Company, the dive team has never been fully qualed. Maybe two guys at the most...In fact I got two W7 (CDQC) guys on my MFF Team.  And one of my W7's taught pre scuba. In fact, some of the guys to include myself are thinking of going to CDQC with my two W7's doing a train up for our team.

 The dive team in my NG SF Company has zero guys qualed in CDQC and we do have slots. My sr 18E just graduated from MFF so I got 9 guys qualed with my jr 18B leaving for MFF PC at the end of this month and jr 18D going in March. The problem with my company is that we're split in  half and guys who are up North don't want to commute 400 plus miles South to be on a dive team that doens't dive.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 9, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> So wait guys get forced to go to the CDQC? How does this work in the NGSF units? I understand a lot of it is to make sure guys are in the right condition not to drown and to perhaps mimic some of the requirements of BUD/S. I've personally always wanted to go.


 
Guys on AD get assigned to specific teams.  Once on that team you are expected to attend the schools necessary to be a functioning member of that team.

As for the NG, pretty much what 18C4V said.  The guys who want to go do, the guys who dont dont.  There is always plenty of slots for CDQC and generally the money to send guys is there too, but guys dont really care to go as a general rule.  

Crip


----------



## Brian1/75 (Feb 9, 2012)

Interesting, I always thought there was an invitation/OML for special teams. I guess this makes sense. My buddy over at 10th was talking about guys wanting to get on CIF for 6 years and 18xs fresh out of the Q being assigned instead.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 9, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> ...My buddy over at 10th was talking about guys wanting to get on CIF for 6 years and 18xs fresh out of the Q being assigned instead.


 
Funny story about 18X's and B/2/3...

So my class graduated and one of the freshly Tabbed studs who wanted assignment to the CIF because, "thats where real SF soldiers go to do SF stuff."       Well he meets his BN CSM and during their first conversation the CSM asks the young E5 what sort of team he envisions himself on.  The kid replied, "well SGM, honestly I came to SF to be on the CIF and if not I would just as soon not be in SF."  The conversation finished with the E5 at parade rest.  Later that next week he was taking his shit down the road to the 82nd.  He got what was coming to him.

Crip


----------



## goon175 (Feb 9, 2012)

Wow. I'm guessing 'tact' was not a skill he thought very useful, but maybe in hindsight wished he had....


----------



## CDG (Feb 9, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> So my class graduated and one of the freshly Tabbed studs who wanted assignment to the CIF because, "thats where real SF soldiers go to do SF stuff."  Well he meets his BN CSM and during their first conversation the CSM asks the young E5 what sort of team he envisions himself on. The kid replied, "well SGM, honestly I came to SF to be on the CIF and if not I would just as soon not be in SF." The conversation finished with the E5 at parade rest. Later that next week he was taking his shit down the road to the 82nd. He got what was coming to him.


 
Holy shit!


----------



## TB1077 (Feb 9, 2012)

Ever have one of those moments when you say to yourself, man I wish I didn't say that?  That is a very expensive lesson to learn (although some would probably say it was priceless).  

And yes CDG, holy shit!


----------



## 18C4V (Feb 9, 2012)

Brian1/75 said:


> Interesting, I always thought there was an invitation/OML for special teams. I guess this makes sense. My buddy over at 10th was talking about guys wanting to get on CIF for 6 years and 18xs fresh out of the Q being assigned instead.


 
The company SGM has a say in what team the guy goes to. For example, I just picked up an 18 Xray (echo) from C/1/1. Our current SGM's policy is that experienced guys get first crack at speciality teams (MFF, CDQC) unless they express an interest to go to the other teams.

As for CIF assignments, it's like throwing darts on a a board. It varies from Group to Group. Who knows what those CSM's think about when decide about CIF assignments.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 10, 2012)

surgicalcric said:


> Funny story about 18X's and B/2/3...
> 
> So my class graduated and one of the freshly Tabbed studs who wanted assignment to the CIF because, "thats where real SF soldiers go to do SF stuff."  Well he meets his BN CSM and during their first conversation *the CSM asks the young E5 what sort of team he envisions himself on*. The kid replied, "well SGM, honestly I came to SF to be on the CIF and if not I would just as soon not be in SF." The conversation finished with the E5 at parade rest. Later that next week he was taking his shit down the road to the 82nd. He got what was coming to him.
> 
> Crip


 
IME, the best answer to that question is always "whatever team you need me on Sgt Maj."


----------



## tigerstr (Feb 10, 2012)

18C4V said:


> The company SGM has a say in what team the guy goes to. For example, I just picked up an 18 Xray (echo) from C/1/1. Our current SGM's policy is that experienced guys get first crack at speciality teams (MFF, CDQC) unless they express an interest to go to the other teams.
> 
> As for CIF assignments, it's like throwing darts on a a board. It varies from Group to Group. Who knows what those CSM's think about when decide about CIF assignments.


 
How does it work for Officers? Is it a second assignment?


----------

