# New pipeline for TACP



## Red-Dot (Dec 7, 2012)

For all those concerned, it looks like a new pipeline (which will take a little over a year) for TACP's is in the works. All TACP's will now go through JTACQC. Once completed they will roll into their ASOS's and then undergo their evals and be ready to hit the ground running. This is supposed to take place 2014/2015 time frame. More words to follow. Regards


----------



## AWP (Dec 7, 2012)

That is fantastic news.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 7, 2012)

Interesting, everyone will be JTAC Qual'd?

You should see a shitload of retirements from the larger units soon (ASOC's?).

What will the pipe look like?


----------



## CDG (Dec 7, 2012)

SOWT said:


> Interesting, everyone will be JTAC Qual'd?
> 
> You should see a shitload of retirements from the larger units soon (ASOC's?).
> 
> What will the pipe look like?


 
I am answering this based off what was put out at drill this month, and if I am wrong the fault lies squarely with me.  The pipeline will go Prep Course--->Tech School--->SERE--->AST (Advanced Skills Training)--->JTAC QC.  What was put out to us was that the TACP, or ROMAD, position was largely irrelevant now.  The Army has guys that can maintain radios, they need JTACs to call in CAS.


----------



## Red-Dot (Dec 7, 2012)

CDG said:


> I am answering this based off what was put out at drill this month, and if I am wrong the fault lies squarely with me. The pipeline will go Prep Course--->Tech School--->SERE--->AST (Advanced Skills Training)--->JTAC QC. What was put out to us was that the TACP, or ROMAD, position was largely irrelevant now. The Army has guys that can maintain radios, they need JTACs to call in CAS.


 
Ditto


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 7, 2012)

Any idea where the school is being moved too?


----------



## Red-Dot (Dec 8, 2012)

Only speculation, but I have heard Lackland or Keesler......

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2...and-keesler-compete-tacp-alo-schools-051612w/


----------



## amlove21 (Dec 8, 2012)

I had heard this was  due (in some part) to the no-kidding TACP billets at RQS's. I worked with a couple during train up, and the slots are there, but that a more formalized course (granting the JTAC qual) was one of the selling points to get them on the teams. Not 100% sure I would say that with any certainty, but it makes sense.


----------



## goon175 (Dec 8, 2012)

What is 'RQS'?


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 8, 2012)

Red-Dot said:


> Only speculation, but I have heard Lackland or Keesler......
> 
> http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2...and-keesler-compete-tacp-alo-schools-051612w/


 
I hope Lackland.  



goon175 said:


> What is 'RQS'?


 
Rescue squadron.


----------



## Psyc_9780 (Feb 5, 2013)

I have a quick question for you guys regarding TACP. Does it fall under SOCOM, I mean as far as their pipeline? Also, do they train to conduct any DA or IW besider their main mission?


----------



## Red-Dot (Feb 5, 2013)

Psyc_9780 said:


> I have a quick question for you guys regarding TACP. Does it fall under SOCOM, I mean as far as their pipeline? Also, do they train to conduct any DA or IW besider their main mission?


 
PM sent.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 5, 2013)

Psyc_9780 said:


> I have a quick question for you guys regarding TACP. Does it fall under SOCOM, I mean as far as their pipeline? Also, do they train to conduct any DA or IW besider their main mission?


No, for the most part.

They may accompany a unit doing DA/IW; but they are enablers.


----------



## Johca (Mar 2, 2013)

goon175 said:


> What is 'RQS'?


RQS is the abbreviation of Rescue Squadron. These days a Rescue Squadron is one of three capabilities. The Helicopter Rescue Squadron, the HC-130 fixed wing rescue squadron, and the Pararescue Squadron. At deployed locations the expeditionary rescue squadron is generally some sort composite mix of aircraft and PJs.


----------



## Johca (Mar 2, 2013)

CDG said:


> I am answering this based off what was put out at drill this month, and if I am wrong the fault lies squarely with me. The pipeline will go Prep Course--->Tech School--->SERE--->AST (Advanced Skills Training)--->JTAC QC. What was put out to us was that the TACP, or ROMAD, position was largely irrelevant now. The Army has guys that can maintain radios, they need JTACs to call in CAS.


Appears to be a sound mission need change.  Hope it happens.

The ROMAD position began becoming irrelevant when the enlisted TACP AFSC was established in 1977 and continued to transform to being irrelevant when BALO positions were converted to enlisted full time controllers in 2005.  Up until 2005 (the policy, not necessarily the being there reality) rated officers and specifically A-10 pilots were the preferred qualification for performing BALO duties to specific Army ground combat battalions. 

In order to qualify as a BALO prior to 2005 (and perhaps still), a pilot had to attend a three-week school, pass a physical fitness test, and go through a local certification program which included controlling live air strikes.  The first female distinguished graduate, but never operationally deployed to perform BALO duties prior to 1997 is retired Martha E. McSally, Colonel, USAF.  BTW she is leading the charge to open all combat occupations and combat duties to woman on the Air Force side of the house.



amlove21 said:


> I had heard this was due (in some part) to the no-kidding TACP billets at RQS's. I worked with a couple during train up, and the slots are there, but that a more formalized course (granting the JTAC qual) was one of the selling points to get them on the teams. Not 100% sure I would say that with any certainty, but it makes sense.


Perhaps but a strong argument can be made much of the new pipeline initiative and expanding into STS and PJ rescue squadron push is connected to validating and justifying PAST need and criteria now that gender is no longer a combat assignment or combat duty  utilization restriction.  The hurdle needing overcoming is why should TACP have “new higher” or never required before classification and mission ready standard.  The reasoning to the why is connected ROMAD becoming irrelevant and lack of any physical fitness standards necessary to obtain JTAC qualification and certification and more importantly perform JTAC duties. 

The question raised by “I had heard this was due” is it suggests or infers a good portion of TACP duty positions are being pushed into STS and Pararescue RQS to be utilized as small tactical team members supporting Pararescue and STS missions when the numbers of such duty positions don't support it.  It also may and can give appearances of such duty positions are to give some justification and validation for the longer pipeline and implementing more robust PAST standards.  Another perspective offerd for consideration having stronger influence is both ROMAD and ASOC work center duties are becoming 3-level and 5-level irrelevant as all TACP will be JTACs regardless of rank and unit of assignment.  A significant enlisted AFSC classification duties and responsibilities description change. I'll wait until the next revision of the TACP CFETP and TACP classification description gets published before I'd hang my hat on any I heard this speculation as being implemented.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 3, 2013)

Johca said:


> entire post


Not real sure I follow.

Are TACP's coming to the RQS? You are talking at a level that is "theory" as opposed to "practice". I didn't see any inputs as far as "will we see TACP in the RQS in X time frame."

Also, since when has gender consideration been an issue? Are you implying that females are now able to be TACP?


----------



## Johca (Mar 3, 2013)

I responding to your comment of "I had heard this was due (in some part) to the no-kidding TACP billets at RQS's.  I worked with a couple during train up, and the slots are there, but that a more formalized course (granting the JTAC qual) was one of the selling points to get them on the teams.”No-kidding is not the same as just-kidding and the slots are there implies practice.

Gender isn’t an issue or a consideration however the Direct Ground *Combat Exclusion* Rule was rescinded this January so in this regard females are technically able to be PJs, CCT, and TACP. The 13L ALO is already open and rated female pilots have gone through the training and got qualified but not utilized operationally only because of the ground combat exclusion policy. 

The rated pilot ALO training program has proven women indeed are capable of getting trained and the ALO 13L ALO training program will soon validate there are women having requisite physical strength and stamina to perform BALO duties that require the person performing such duties to have JTAC certification and experience.

Unlike PJ and CCT, TACP is lacking an award and retention of AFSC physical ability and stamina standard.Incorporating JTAC being an entry into the job-training requirement and 3-level duty performance and moving away from radio maintenance tasks does give increased war fighting need to determine, develop, and implement such standards.This will be a significant enlisted AFSC classification duties and responsibilities description change. The statement "the TACP, or ROMAD, position was largely irrelevant now"is indicationg next published revision of the TACP CFETP and TACP classification description will be significant and interesting.But then again so will the next published PJ, CCT, and SOW CFETP and classification descriptions as I’ve seen no official statement any AFSC will not be opened before 2016 or after 2016. For example the USMC put out a press release 1 February 2013 stating "At this time, infantry, reconnaissance and special operations MOSs will not be opened to females. However, female Lieutenants graduating from officer training at The Basic School will continue to be allowed to volunteer to go through the Infantry Officers Course for research purposes. Two officers are expected to participate in the upcoming IOC class beginning this March." I'm just connecting dots others put out for all to see and giving an opinion how the dots connect.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 3, 2013)

Some of these changes have been called for by the TACP community for years (5+), so I really don't think this is tied into the women in combat decision.


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 4, 2013)

The TACP career-field as a whole is really in a state of change.  The pipeline is changing and morphing into what I understand is for the better. In my opinion ALO's are not needed at anything below the Brigade level, which seems to be the current trend. Additionally, ALO's should not be controlling air. Their job is to set in a TOC to liaison,  provide support to Battalion and below TACP's, and give the Brigade, Division and Corp commanders advice on air power for the Army's scheme of maneuver.
As far as the PAST goes, I'm all for it it, and it should have been incorporated long ago. Just as the JTAC qual should have been made a part of the pipeline.  A ROMAD is great for helping the JTAC, but in reality is not really needed. Any good JTAC worth his salt really does not need one. It would/does make better sense to embed a JTAC team (two qual'd JTAC's) with infantry,SF or whoever..... in case one of them goes down.

As far as women doing it....well....good luck.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 4, 2013)

Red-Dot said:


> The TACP career-field as a whole is really in a state of change. The pipeline is changing and morphing into what I understand is for the better. In my opinion ALO's are not needed at anything below the Brigade level, which seems to be the current trend. Additionally, ALO's should not be controlling air. Their job is to set in a TOC to liaison, provide support to Battalion and below TACP's, and give the Brigade, Division and Corp commanders advice on air power for the Army's scheme of maneuver.
> As far as the PAST goes, I'm all for it it, and it should have been incorporated long ago. Just as the JTAC qual should have been made a part of the pipeline. A ROMAD is great for helping the JTAC, but in reality is not really needed. Any good JTAC worth his salt really does not need one. It would/does make better sense to embed a JTAC team (two qual'd JTAC's) with infantry,SF or whoever..... in case one of them goes down.
> 
> As far as women doing it....well....good luck.


Slightly disagree, ALO's need to go outside the wire every now and then to get a feel for what you guys do.  Ride along, give someone a break;doesn't matter, just do it.


----------



## Johca (Mar 4, 2013)

Red-Dot said:


> A ROMAD is great for helping the JTAC, but in reality is not really needed. Any good JTAC worth his salt really does not need one.


The benefits of miniaturized solid state technology, more efficient batteries and SATCOM replacing much of the HF long over the horizon communication makes it so.
The current ground environment not being armor, artillery, or mechanized infantry sort of does put much more reliance on hoofing and man packing (ruck marching) the communications around too. If you look at the Koran War and Southeast Asia conflict many pictures of jeeps with large radio suite in the back. Not saying radio were not rucked marched in with the rest of the infantry in those days, just saying equipment and Air Force aircraft support to the ground fight tactics have changed much since then and now.

Radio repair and maintenance has changed some as result of miniturized solid state circuitry technology too.


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 10, 2013)

Couple of follow up questions. 



Johca said:


> No-kidding is not the same as just-kidding and the slots are there implies practice.


Sorry if that statement implied practice. It does not. There are currently 0 TACP's occupying any positions at any active duty RQS that I am aware of. There are not plans to fill any TACP slots, speaking specifically of my RQS, although they have been included in our train ups recently. So, in theory, those slots exist. In practice, they aren't filled and there aren't immediate plans to fill them. Red-Dot any insight as to why? 



Johca said:


> Gender isn’t an issue or a consideration however the Direct Ground *Combat Exclusion* Rule was rescinded this January so in this regard females are technically able to be PJs, CCT, and TACP.


Not following. From the NY Times 
"A military official said the change would be implemented “as quickly as possible,” although the Pentagon is allowing three years, until January 2016, for final decisions from the services.
Each branch of the military will have to come up with an implementation plan in the next several months, the official said. If a branch of the military decides that a specific job should not be opened to a woman, representatives of that branch will have to ask the defense secretary for an exception."
From what I understand of the combat exclusion, each branch has until 2016 for their final decisions. No SOF career field has opened their selection course to women to my knowledge. As you stated, the USMC publicly announced that females won't be allowed in "infantry, recon, or special operations MOS's", showing that regardless of what combat exclusion was passed, individual services control what career fields are/aren't open to women until January 2016, at which time they can further lobby to keep certain career fields closed. I interpret that as "technically, women are not able to become PJs, Controllers, or TACPs", unless the Air Force has specifically allowed it.  Has the Air Force publicly stated that Pararescue, Combat Control, and TACP are open to women?


----------



## CDG (Mar 10, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Not following. From the NY Times
> "A military official said the change would be implemented “as quickly as possible,” although the Pentagon is allowing three years, until January 2016, for final decisions from the services.
> Each branch of the military will have to come up with an implementation plan in the next several months, the official said. If a branch of the military decides that a specific job should not be opened to a woman, representatives of that branch will have to ask the defense secretary for an exception."
> From what I understand of the combat exclusion, each branch has until 2016 for their final decisions. No SOF career field has opened their selection course to women to my knowledge. As you stated, the USMC publicly announced that females won't be allowed in "infantry, recon, or special operations MOS's", showing that regardless of what combat exclusion was passed, individual services control what career fields are/aren't open to women until January 2016, at which time they can further lobby to keep certain career fields closed. I interpret that as "technically, women are not able to become PJs, Controllers, or TACPs", unless the Air Force has specifically allowed it. Has the Air Force publicly stated that Pararescue, Combat Control, and TACP are open to women?


 
Female ALOs are allowed, but not TACPs.  We have two here right now.  One is about a month from graduating and the other was eliminated after failing the FTX three times.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 10, 2013)

CDG said:


> Female ALOs are allowed, but not TACPs. We have two here right now. One is about a month from graduating and the other was eliminated after failing the FTX three times.


What happens to an ALO that fails?


----------



## DJM (Mar 11, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Slightly disagree, ALO's need to go outside the wire every now and then to get a feel for what you guys do. Ride along, give someone a break;doesn't matter, just do it.


 
I second that. Ride along and be a help, not a hindrance.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 11, 2013)

SOWT said:


> What happens to an ALO that fails?


 
Promotion...


----------



## Johca (Mar 11, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> From what I understand of the combat exclusion, each branch has until 2016 for their final decisions.


Part of the confusion is you read the PR interpretation put forth in poorly researched news articles. The reality is when and how the decision gets implemented.

The actual pertinent 9 January 2013 DOD policy guidance is “ The Services and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) will proceed in a deliberate, measured, and responsible way to assign women to currently closed MOSs as physical standards and operational assessments are completed and ass it becomes possible to assign cadre as described above. The services and USSOCOM must complete all studies by 1st quarter, FY 2016, and provide periodic updates each quarter beginning in 3rd quarter FY2013.”
The cadre guidance is—“Ensuring that a sufficient cadre of midgrade/senior women enlisted and officer women are assigned to commands at points of introduction to ensure success in the long run. This may require adjustment to our recruiting efforts, assignment processes and personnel policies. Assimilation of women into heretofore “closed units” will be informed by continual in-stride assessments and pilot efforts.”

Potential pilot effort IMO is new TACP pipeline decision and implementation with concurrent strong preference to move the TACP tech school from Hurlburt Field to Lackland AFB. The official party line preference reasoning is this location has favorable weather conditions, training efficiencies, and beddown costs.
Consider the following other possible training efficiencies gained:

Access to midgrade/senior women enlisted and officer Security Forces military training instructors already supervising and training female security force in land navigation, ruck marching and many other skills taught to the TACP tech school student. 
No extra cost or difficulty to ensure the SERE positions already existing at Lackland AFB are filled with more female SERE trainers .
Plenty of barracks available to collocate in close proximity a male and female student trainee barracks.

The TACP career field under going transformation of all holding TACP AFSC will be JTAC qualified and concurrently increasing the training time and cost to produce a 3-skill level TAP from a couple of month to being as much in duration as it needed to produce a 3-skill level PJ and 3-skill level CCT with required combat ready mission qualifications. It should be noted TACP doesn’t actually have any award of and retention of AFSC classification PAST standards and has difficulties without making JTAC a core 3-skill level requirement explaining why TACP’s human performance classification and combat ready Physical Ability and Stamina standards must be more robust than AF EOD’s and USAF Security Forces.

Perhaps I’m reading too much between the lines with Hurlburt Field no longer having room to train TACP and TACP reengineering its classification description to being JTAC more so than being drives and radio maintenance, but the appearances of such actions gives me strong thoughts TACP has volunteered itself to lead the Air Force way in providing continual in-stride assessments and pilot efforts. 13L ALO first, TACP second and everybody will know second how and when NLT 1st quarter, FY 2016.


----------



## CDG (Mar 14, 2013)

SOWT said:


> What happens to an ALO that fails?


 
They will be re-classed into something else, as I understand it.  The female that failed was already a Munitions Officer, so I believe she ended up going back to that.  The cadre down here have been pretty open about their opinion that ALOs shouldn't be here at all due to the minimal "operating" they will actually do.  A couple have said they don't think ALOs should be anywhere below Brigade level.


----------



## Johca (Mar 15, 2013)

CDG said:


> The cadre down here have been pretty open about their opinion that ALOs shouldn't be here at all due to the minimal "operating" they will actually do. A couple have said they don't think ALOs should be anywhere below Brigade level.


 Interesting considering the 13L ALO utilization is either Air Support Operations Center (ASOC) or JTAC.  I’m pretty sure being a nonrated Battalion Air Liaison Officer (BALO ) is integrated in there someplace.  I wonder how these officers will get the required “Must have a minimum of two (2) years operational experience as a JTAC” to perform these BALO duties?


----------



## CDG (Mar 15, 2013)

The consensus seems to be that ALOs don't need that much operational experience, and shouldn't get it.  The prevailing thought process is that this job is for enlisted and the officers should worry about approving 1972s and making sure the TACP has what they need to accomplish the mission. The only time an ALO should be outside the wire is when he is going to check on his dudes. Let me make it clear that this is not my opinion, but it is what I have heard down here.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 15, 2013)

CDG said:


> The consensus seems to be that ALOs don't need that much operational experience, and shouldn't get it. The prevailing thought process is that this job is for enlisted and the officers should worry about approving 1972s and making sure the TACP has what they need to accomplish the mission. The only time an ALO should be outside the wire is when he is going to check on his dudes. Let me make it clear that this is not my opinion, but it is what I have heard down here.


 
Weak NCO Leadership then.

What they want is a Col Potter who signs anything they (RADAR) put in front of him.

They can then whine that their officers are clueless (ignoring the part where they set him/her up to be clueless).

The career field (as a whole) constantly bitched that the Fighter Pilots were clueless and didn't understand the operating conditions (among other bitches), now they want the career ALO's to be the same way.

Pathetic.


----------



## Johca (Mar 15, 2013)

CDG said:


> The consensus seems to be that ALOs don't need that much operational experience, and shouldn't get it.


Ouch-that’s a consensus that’s doing the TACP career field more harm than good.

TACPs reliance on having a Col Potter or General Potter who signs anything they (RADAR) put in front of him is only secondary contributing of why TACP is floundering with what to do now that the combat exclusion policy has been rescinded.
The actual problem is NCO lacking understanding of Force Structure in terms of roles-and-mission, how and why the Air Force gives JTAC combat support to the Army and more importantly what performance standards are and what standards are not. 
What does TACP in terms of performing duties in the field as combat support to the Army that distinguishes its training and performance standards from performing Security Forces Air Base Defense, DAGRE, and RAVEN duties in terms of physical ability and stamina performance standards? Answering this question must also take into consideration the percentage of TACP duty positions currently existing to support those performing BALO duties and in the rear support to TACP (radio serviceability and other equipment serviceability for TACP performing JTAC duties. 
TACP is combat support to the Army and its force structure purpose has encompassed primarily doing duties at the ASOCS and Army tactical command centers to coordinate the availability of aircraft sorties with the appropriate munitions to support Army tactical operations in the field. The Army puts more daily support requirements on the table than the Air Force has aircraft to support. Part of the ALO and TACP job is to help the Army prioritize an order of importance to what it put on the table and to should a sudden emergency need occur figure out what to divert to the emergency. Having JTAC experience is a necessity in making those decisions as is having a service member of NCO or officer rank doing these duties. Consequently, the attitude ALOs don’t need that much operational experience is a painful attitude to have as a clasificationdescription change that TACP is JTAC and nothing but JTAC doesn't eliminate needing JTAC experience to perfrm BALO duties and ALO duties in the ASOCS.
Another clue to this operational experience is needed are the STO and CRO commissioned officer AFSCs.


----------



## xGenoSiide (Dec 30, 2013)

To revive this, is there any news on when the pipeline will roll out and if it will, in fact, contain JTAQC as a school?


----------



## Johca (Dec 30, 2013)

The latest Air Force Enlisted Classification Directory (September 2013) still identifies JTAC qualification course completion as being a requirement "only" for award of the 7-level.  No revision to the TACP CFETP since September 2012 either.



> From September 2013 AFECD:
> 
> 3.3. Training. The following training is mandatory for award of the AFSC indicated:
> 3.3.1. 1C431. Completion of the following courses:
> ...



My suspicions is the funding to make JTAC a 3-level core skill (mission need) requirement for TACP is lacking.


----------



## xGenoSiide (Jan 14, 2014)

If any TACP are available, I would appreciate a PM from a 7-level TACP.

Thank you


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 14, 2014)

xGenoSiide said:


> If any TACP are available, I would appreciate a PM from a 7-level TACP.
> 
> Thank you



You will need to be vetted before any questions are answered. Who are you?


----------



## xGenoSiide (Jan 14, 2014)

Red-Dot said:


> You will need to be vetted before any questions are answered. Who are you?



I submitted my paperwork for vetting when I created my account months ago, but as I have read, patience is a virtue.  I am currently Combat Arms for an STS.


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 14, 2014)

xGenoSiide said:


> I submitted my paperwork for vetting when I created my account months ago, but as I have read, patience is a virtue.  I am currently Combat Arms for an STS.



If it has been months you may want to take some initiative and check to see what the hold up is....I will answer your questions when I see some vetting going on...sorry, that's how I roll.


----------



## xGenoSiide (Jan 14, 2014)

No issue with that. I just had no valid reason to press the vetting issue until now.


----------



## goon175 (Jan 14, 2014)

@xGenoSiide re-submit your vetting request and we'll get it taken care of.


----------



## xGenoSiide (Jan 14, 2014)

Ok, I'll submit it here in a second. Just have to scan it.


----------



## xGenoSiide (Jan 14, 2014)

goon175 said:


> @xGenoSiide re-submit your vetting request and we'll get it taken care of.



Done.


----------



## xGenoSiide (Jan 15, 2014)

@goon175  I just realized I fucked up and confused you with reed. I don't know how I did that, sorry.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 15, 2014)

xGenoSiide said:


> @goon175  I just realized I fucked up and confused you with reed. I don't know how I did that, sorry.


Sorry?!? You mean "You're Welcome!"
Reed


----------



## CDG (Feb 12, 2015)

Wanted to update this thread with what's been going on recently.  JTACQC is not an official part of the pipeline, but there is a time limit now in place for getting there.  It's called the Zero to Hero program, not sure if that's official, and it requires a guy to have gone to JTACQC within 18 months of becoming a 3-level.  This essentially puts a guy into JTAC Upgrade status as soon as he graduates all the schools and arrives at an ASOS.  This requirement isn't retrograded to require everyone already past that mark to attend first, AFAIK.  The talk is still going about making it an official part of the pipeline, but there are logistical issues with QC handling that increased workload and how it would work with all the guys currently at units that aren't JTACs.  There has been at least one supplemental class at JTACQC which was an all-ANG class (my class).  This was done as an effort to get a jumpstart on plussing up the numbers after all the slots were converted to SEI914 slots.  It wasn't all that well received by the Instructors as it required them to have zero downtime between courses to adjust course content, schedule air, etc.  They pulled it off without a hitch, but QC probably needs more Instructors if the classes are going to be run more frequently.  The only other option is to increase class size, but that does no one any good during air week in particular.

The schoolhouse has moved to Lackland already, although I'm not sure if they are 100% out of Hurby.  There was supposed to be some overlap between the two sites as part of the transition.


----------



## Johca (Feb 12, 2015)

The last TACP apprentice course at Hurlburt started 10 January 2015.  The first TACP apprentice course at Lackland supposedly scheduled to start during April 2015.

To pull your chain a bit - considering rumors of JTACQC imminently becoming a 3-skill level requirement has persisted since at least 1997.

The first TACP zero to hero female students not far behind.  No occupational physical fitness standards or mission ready fitness standards to lower, adjust, or modify.

Current TACP integration plan published by SECAF since 24 April 2013:

31 May 15 TACP (1C4X) physical standards validated, congressional notification

30 Sep 15 TACP AFSC open, begin recruit/assess/select phase (one year)

The integration of women into TACP AFSC and performing JTAC duties is clearly on a faster track to happen than JTACQC becoming a 3-skill level mandatory core requirement for award and retention of AFSC 1C431 as there are official source documents disclosing the integration of women into TACP will happen.

You are aware part of the reasoning behind the TACP apprentice course relocation from Hurlburt to Lackland was the availability of female dorms and female Security Forces instructors at Camp Bullis to supervise the field training of female TACP students?


----------



## CDG (Feb 12, 2015)

I was not aware of that.


----------



## Johca (Feb 12, 2015)

CDG said:


> This was done as an effort to get a jumpstart on plussing up the numbers after all the slots were converted to SEI914 slots.


On a more less pulling your chain path of discussion the unit requiring Special Experience Identifier 914 on all Unit Manning Documents, particularly at a Air Guard Unit does not correlate the SIE being a AFSC core skill and knowledge requirement.

The special experience identifiers (SEI) provide a means of retrieving special experience for certain requirements and are intended as management tools to add a degree of flexibility to the personnel system not available by using prefixes and suffixes.  SEIs are intended to reflect an unusual or changing management need for identification that may not be common to an AFSC, any group of AFSCs, or to a specific command.  SEIs are not used in lieu of AFSCs, suffixes, prefixes, reporting identifiers, or special duty identifiers.

SEIs may be identified on manpower documents, but by themselves do not drive capability need or utilization.

A SIE has slightly similar purpose to the Special Qualification Identifier the Army adds to an MOS to identify certain qualifications such as: V – ranger-parachutist, G – ranger, S – special operations support personnel, P – parachutist, F – flying status and etc.

_SIE 914 is similar to going through Ranger School and getting the TAB.  Lot of Army officers, warrant officer, and enlisted with Ranger TAB  and SQI V or G tagged onto their MOS, but few of them are sporting the Ranger Scroll and being utilized in a 75th Ranger Regiment  to perform Ranger duties and accomplish Ranger missions._

SIE 914 identifies those individuals in the Combat Control and TACP AFSCs who have successful completion of a USJFCOM-accredited JTAC qualification course and certification as a JTAC according to AFI 13-112, Volume 1, _Terminal Attack Controller Training Program, _and Volume 2, _Terminal Attack Controller Standardization/Evaluation Program. 

A bit more combat need substance of validated concept of operations and mission utilization needs to exist beyond SEI914 being a unit recruiting and retention tool to drive making JTACQC a mandatory required 3-skill level training and qualification requirement.

Origins of SIE914 is ca. 1986/87 as  Enlisted Terminal Attack Controller (ETAC).  AFSCs authorized SIE 914 was limited to 1C451/71/91.   Requirement for SIE 914 ETAC was successful completion of TAC course 228560 (PDS code ZEP) or 228561 (PDS code 5RG), certification as an ETAC according to applicable MAJCOM directives, and recommendation by unit commander.

Concurrent with the development and implementation of Joint Publication 3-09.3 Joint Close Air Support (ca. 2000)  that began establishing a common, joint training and evaluation standard that applies across the components.  This resulted in SIE 914being renamed from ETAC to JTAC and the list of AFSCs authorized SIE 914 expanding to 1C400, 1C200, 1C291, 1C271/51, 1C491 and 1C471/51._


----------



## Johca (Feb 12, 2015)

CDG said:


> I was not aware of that.


How about this award and retention of TACP AFSC criteria found in the AFECD: "3.5.2.3. Must maintain eligibility to deploy and mobilize worldwide. Personnel with an Assignment Limitation Code of C-1 or C-2 may retain AFSC 1C4X1 as long as they are capable of successfully completing all core tasks in the 1C4X1 Career Field Education and Training Plan. "  reference http://specialtactics.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/download/Number/6/filename/AFECD-Apr 14-TACP.pdf.

TACP  is the "*only*" enlisted Battlefield Airman AFSC currently allowing individuals with an Assignment Limitation Code of C-1 or C-2 may retain AFSC stipulation.  It correlates to AFI 10-203 Duty limitations policy of "3.5.1.3. Duty limitations associated with pregnancy may require temporary removal from certain AFSC duties. Retraining will not be required. "  AND other managing pregnant airman policies.  It is also the only enlisted AFSC in the AFECD having such policy stipulation.

BTW the all the battlefield airman AFSC classification description can be found at http://specialtactics.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/6/Selected_AFECD_and_AFOCD_speci.html#Post6


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 12, 2015)

Johca said:


> How about this award and retention of TACP AFSC criteria found in the AFECD: "3.5.2.3. Must maintain eligibility to deploy and mobilize worldwide. Personnel with an Assignment Limitation Code of C-1 or C-2 may retain AFSC 1C4X1 as long as they are capable of successfully completing all core tasks in the 1C4X1 Career Field Education and Training Plan. "  reference http://specialtactics.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/download/Number/6/filename/AFECD-Apr 14-TACP.pdf.
> 
> TACP  is the "*only*" enlisted Battlefield Airman AFSC currently allowing individuals with an Assignment Limitation Code of C-1 or C-2 may retain AFSC stipulation.  It correlates to AFI 10-203 Duty limitations policy of "3.5.1.3. Duty limitations associated with pregnancy may require temporary removal from certain AFSC duties. Retraining will not be required. "  AND other managing pregnant airman policies.  It is also the only enlisted AFSC in the AFECD having such policy stipulation.
> 
> BTW the all the battlefield airman AFSC classification description can be found at http://specialtactics.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/6/Selected_AFECD_and_AFOCD_speci.html#Post6


Why is a C-2 code such a show stopper for you?


----------



## CDG (Feb 12, 2015)

@Johca , I'm awaiting account approval on specialtactics.com in order to read through the links you posted.


----------



## Johca (Feb 12, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Why is a C-2 code such a show stopper for you?


It's not a show stopper but rather an availability of trained and qualified combat mission ready capability concern.  It gets more of a concern when how much training time is needed after medical condition causing the medical condition is resolved.   Although not an absolute will happen reality, typically a medical condition causing a not qualified to perform duties of AFSC and not mission ready qualified available for six months or longer generally drives a MEB for involuntary retraining into another AFSC or involuntary medical separation for Pararescue, CCT and presumable for Special Operations Weather.    One of the causals resulting in origin implementation of SOW AFSC is that combat weather parachutist positions have been open to women and have had women in those positions since 1993.

The SOW AFSC was needed to implement occupational fitness and mission ready fitness standards that didn't exist and couldn't be justified while SOW shared the combat weather parachutist alpha AFSC shredout with combat weather parachutist.


----------



## Johca (Feb 12, 2015)

CDG said:


> @Johca , I'm awaiting account approval on specialtactics.com in order to read through the links you posted.


I just approved your registration.


----------



## CDG (Feb 12, 2015)

Interesting reads.  I'll have to crack open the CFETP and see what exactly constitutes a core task.  For example, we have a 20km ruck with a minimum of 90# total weight that must be completed annually.  I'm not sure if this qualifies as a core task, but a pregnant woman wouldn't be able to complete this task.  I strongly disagree with the inclusion of women as enlisted JTACs, for reasons that have been covered ad nauseum in the other threads on this topic.  I think Security Forces women overseeing the training of potential female TACPs is about the worst combination I can think of.  ACC continues to force things on TACP that it does not want, need, or ask for.  First they attempted to eliminate DORs (technically they did, but the cadre are crafty), then 13Ls were not required to pass the PAST during the Schoolhouse, which directly led to the first female ALO.  TACPs struggle enough to maintain second class citizen status amongst CCTs/PJs/SOWTs.  This certainly doesn't help anything.


----------



## Johca (Feb 12, 2015)

CDG said:


> For example, we have a 20km ruck with a minimum of 90# total weight that must be completed annually.  I'm not sure if this qualifies as a core task, ...


It does not. It was never validated as an occupational standard and if it was the must be tested to this standard would be implanted in other policies that comply with occupational specific fitness standards policies of DOD Instruction 1308.3 and AFI 36-2905 .

The CFETP ruck march policy is "Progressive foot marches of 5 and 10 kilometers with minimum combat load of 72 pounds includes boots/clothing, helmet, body armor and weapon are mandatory training for 1C4X1s assigned to operational units and must be scheduled regularly per FM 21-18."    There is no AFI  policy implemented this as a mandatory requirement for award of AFSC, retention of AFSC, or requirement to obtain and sustain TACP or JTAC mission readiness.

Further scrutiny of TACP CFETP from mid 1990 to current CFETP reveals TACP PAST is only a COIE and apprentice course requirement only recently put into the CFETP.

It doesn't help TACP that the rated ALO standards implemented for the 13L ALO officer specialty are the same standards unchanged from WWII which is a complete lack of implemented mission ready and specific occupational fitness standard.

It doesn't help TACP that JTAC certification and qualification completely lacks any any physical fitness human performance standards (PAST, ruck march, foot march, running and etc) connected to performing such duties.

It doesn't help TACP that at no time from the 1977 origins of the enlisted TACP AFSC being established there has never been any officially approved and scientifically validated mission ready fitness standards or occupational specific fitness standard implemented in any AFI or other official document.

It doesn't help TACP that the first female rated officers obtained JTAC qualification and certification ca. 1994 and that these rated female officers have significant not to happy on how they were bared from getting TACP ALO duty assignments back during the Gulf War.  Best look at the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) for who the rated female JTACs are having these not to happy memories who have influence with DACOWITS particularly if increased or tougher physical standards for TACP are pushed.

Although many in the TACP ranks and community share opinion of " I strongly disagree with the inclusion of women as enlisted JTACs", the argument went out the widow/door with the bath water when the first female rated officers obtained JTAC qualifications back in 1994.   This is why the 13Ls lost the remain closed to women battle tears ago and why TACP has nothing of sufficient human performance utilization to justify or validate why "now" specific occupational or mission ready fitness standards are needed for reliable and dependable occupational and mission utilization that hasn't needed such standards from WWII to present.  To implement such standards TACP needs to convince SECAF who subsequently much convince the US Congress.  Current SECAF, a women, is on record all the BA AFSCs will be opened to women with no lowering or changing of standards.  Finding support to increase standards or making tougher standards is unlikely to get SECAF support and US Congressional approval.


----------



## Wild Bill (Feb 12, 2015)

This is FUBAR.  Although I've been out of the career since my deployment to Iraq in 2003 after 11 years , I just can't see a female making it through the course. If standards must stay the same any female that gets through will definitely be in shape. Maybe when they have the Lightning Challenge every year they will create a separate one for them. This seems all to nuts but I guess we'll have to wait to see if one gets through.


----------



## Johca (Feb 12, 2015)

Back during the 1990s the only prerequisites for the  ACC JFCC Joint Firepower course was meet AF weight management program and comply with dress and appearance standards.  It was a 3-week course with the FTX during the third week.  The FTX was a 4 day bivouac field exercise focusing on control of close air support, control of theater airlift, adjustment of artillery and providing instruction in land navigation.

Unfortunately in 1996, and perhaps still today, the 13L ALO and enlisted TACP AFSCs had or have limited if any influence in the training of rated officers to be ALOs who are qualified to control CAS.

Joint Firepower course also was not the ca. 1996  Tactical Air Command and Control Apprentice Course (14 weeks) either.  The physical fitness requirements in effect for the apprentice course in 1996 was "Graduating students must obtain a minimum score of 60 points on each of the following exercises: pushups, situps, and a two-mile run. The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), stated in FM 21-20, is used to conduct and evaluate physical training."  The enter day-one training physical fitness prerequisites however were "no speech impediment or any physical limitations preventing students from participating in a rigorous physical conditioning program and meeting and maintaining worldwide mobility criteria."

I do agree the FTX the enlisted TACP were put through is significantly more physically demanding then and now, but unfortunately the physically demanding difficulties of an apprentice course FTXs do not drive implementation of physical fitness pass-fail, or go/no-go criteria for award of AFSC and retention of AFSC.  From a different perspective the controlling CAS support the U.S. Army depends and expects is much different post 9-11.  How the Army goes with implementing its Physical Readiness Test/Army Combat Readiness Test standards is likely what TACP will follow.


----------



## CDG (Feb 13, 2015)

We need to do a better job of documenting and educating on what the AFSC needs and what the official standards should be. Having dedicated officers helps, but it's going to take time for that train to catch up to itself and allow significant change. There's a lot of frustration in the careerfield right now, and some even think we will be abolished as an AFSC within the next 10 years.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 13, 2015)

CDG said:


> We need to do a better job of documenting and educating on what the AFSC needs and what the official standards should be. Having dedicated officers helps, but it's going to take time for that train to catch up to itself and allow significant change. There's a lot of frustration in the careerfield right now, and some even think we will be abolished as an AFSC within the next 10 years.


We are victims of the exact same thing. 

"Girls? What if they need to pull me, a 215lb dude in my kit, out of fire?! THEY CANT NO GIRLS!!!"

Hate to say it- but nowhere in the entire pipeline is a buddy carry/drag of that nature any sort of graded event. Ever. Nor is it a core task. You need the PAST (3 mile run, pushups, situps, pullups, swim) every 18 months as a physical requirement to be a PJ. No buddy drag/carry/functional fitness test of any kind in there. Guys take a shit on this test, PS, for any number of reasons and still work. We do the Operator Ugly (at the Vegas unit) and hold the guys to a standard for points- but if push came to shove and I wanted to reprimand a guy for not making that standard? I have ZERO leg to stand on if he wants to IG/lawyer up. 

Inevitably, what follows is, "Well, Mr. PJ, if this is SO important that you're using it to discount and entire population (women), then why haven't you taken the time to make it a core task/graded event? Maybe it isn't that important?" I still haven't met a single PJ with a good answer for that, or for the "physiological output" argument. 

I think the biggest question here is a simple manning issue. If women occupy combat jobs, are we then allowed to ORDER them not to get pregnant? Because holy shit what a nightmare that conversation would be. Legally, morally, ethically- no one wants to touch it. But a female getting pregnant takes her out of the operational game for 12 months, period. That's a serious issue.


----------



## Johca (Feb 13, 2015)

t





amlove21 said:


> But a female getting pregnant takes her out of the operational game for 12 months, period. That's a serious issue.


Longer than that.  9 months to get to term to delivery the baby, six more months (180 days) of post child birth (after completion of pregnancy) physical fitness test waiver and then the time to do all the requalification training.  18 months at minimum.

Also consider a female student getting pregnant in the training pipeline to include the apprentice course is in medical limbo of not medically qualified to be trained for at least 18 months too.


----------



## Johca (Feb 13, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> I still haven't met a single PJ with a good answer for that, or for the "physiological output" argument.


That's because all the  PJs and Flight Surgeons and other that established the functional and physiological fitness standards retired made their final jump before you were old enough to enlist.   The following document traces the functional and physiological concerns from WWII to present.

The operational heritage of the Pararescue Indoctrination Course with focus on shifts in student attrition, approaches to fitness training, and student demographics


----------



## Johca (Feb 13, 2015)

The WWII Special Operations unit and forces Heraldry on specialtactics.com may be of interest as it is mostly WWII video documentaries found on Youtube.  The film footage from WWII is much more interesting than reading about what led to the origins and development of current special force and special operations capabilities.   Certainly more interesting than reading lots of boring info.


----------



## amlove21 (Feb 13, 2015)

Johca said:


> *That's because all the  PJs and Flight Surgeons and other that established the functional and physiological fitness standards retired made their final jump before you were old enough to enlist. *  The following document traces the functional and physiological concerns from WWII to present.
> 
> The operational heritage of the Pararescue Indoctrination Course with focus on shifts in student attrition, approaches to fitness training, and student demographics


This gives me pause. 

We apparently don't care enough about our career field to update our standards post 1998?

Our career field is 100% different now. Constant combat across what, 5 AOR's and we decide that the bullshit we have is 'good enough'??


----------



## Johca (Feb 13, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> ...and we decide that the bullshit we have is 'good enough'??


Yep, you nailed it.  However, the PJ PAST standards for entry classification puposes did become a bit more robust than the CCT PAST in 2014.

However Public Law 103-160, Section 543 (1993) requiring all performance standards must be gender neutral combined with the repeal of the combat exclusion policy *included*  stipulation all changes in performance standards must be submitted  to the US Congress for approval makes it significantly difficult to make performance standards more robust in difficulty than they currently are.

*SEC. 543. GENDER-NEUTRAL OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.*


(a) GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT- In the case of any military occupational career field that is open to both male and female members of the Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense--


(1) shall ensure that qualification of members of the Armed Forces for, and continuance of members of the Armed Forces in, that occupational career field is evaluated on the basis of common, relevant performance standards, without differential standards or evaluation on the basis of gender;


(2) may not use any gender quota, goal, or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law; and


(3) may not change an occupational performance standard for the purpose of increasing or decreasing the number of women in that occupational career field.


(b) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO USE OF SPECIFIC PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS- (1) For any military occupational specialty for which the Secretary of Defense determines that specific physical requirements for muscular strength and endurance and cardiovascular capacity are essential to the performance of duties, the Secretary shall prescribe specific physical requirements for members in that specialty and shall ensure (in the case of an occupational specialty that is open to both male and female members of the Armed Forces) that those requirements are applied on a gender-neutral basis.


(2) Whenever the Secretary establishes or revises a physical requirement for an occupational specialty, a member serving in that occupational specialty when the new requirement becomes effective, who is otherwise considered to be a satisfactory performer, shall be provided a reasonable period, as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, to meet the standard established by the new requirement. During that period, the new physical requirement may not be used to disqualify the member from continued service in that specialty.


(c) NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF CHANGES- Whenever the Secretary of Defense proposes to implement changes to the occupational standards for a military occupational field that are expected to result in an increase, or in a decrease, of at least 10 percent in the number of female members of the Armed Forces who enter, or are assigned to, that occupational field, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report providing notice of the change and the justification and rationale for the change. Such changes may then be implemented only after the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date on which such report is submitted.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 13, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> This gives me pause.
> 
> We apparently don't care enough about our career field to update our standards post 1998?
> 
> Our career field is 100% different now. Constant combat across what, 5 AOR's and we decide that the bullshit we have is 'good enough'??



I think this is more common than just your career field.  Everyone wants to be high-speed, but few want to do the paperwork.  Keeping documentation up to date, whether it's task/condition/standard or SOPs, seems to be a difficult task for across the board.


----------



## 8654Maine (Feb 13, 2015)

Very enlightening thread.


----------



## CDG (Feb 13, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> We are victims of the exact same thing.
> 
> "Girls? What if they need to pull me, a 215lb dude in my kit, out of fire?! THEY CANT NO GIRLS!!!"
> 
> ...



100% agree.  We constantly bring up the same buddy carry/drag argument.  We do it regularly at drills and FTXs, and at the Schoolhouse.  Nowhere is it graded or a pass/fail event though.  We are required to complete the regular USAF PT test every year, and that's it.  Guys HATE that being the standard.  We push all the time to at least do the TACP PAST and I've tried to get Operator Ugly implemented.  As of now it's just big boy rules for staying in the right kind of shape, and not everyone does.  The TACP field, I think, has the biggest issue with holding fitness standards post-pipeline.  If dudes decide, "Fuck it. I got my beret and I'm set." and let themselves go, as long as they pass the USAF PT test, you can't do much.

The pregnancy issue, like you stated, is a hot potato that no one wants to touch.

"Women can and should be able to do any job."
"Ok, assuming they make it, what if they get pregnant and we lose them for a long period of time."
"That's their right as women."
"Uhhhhh.....ok, so can dudes just up and decide to take 12-18 months off?"
"You think pregnancy is taking time off?!?!?! Feminist Portlandia rage out."

I saw it in the Navy and we'll see it here.  Chicks will decide they don't want to deploy, go TDY, etc.  They'll get pregnant, wait until the deployment/TDY is far enough in that they won't have to join it, and they'll terminate the pregnancy.  Short of being dumb enough to admit it to the wrong person, there's no way to prove it and they'll remain in service.


----------



## Johca (Feb 13, 2015)

CDG said:


> 100% agree.  We constantly bring up the same buddy carry/drag argument.  We do it regularly at drills and FTXs, and at the Schoolhouse.  Nowhere is it graded or a pass/fail event though.  We are required to complete the regular USAF PT test every year, and that's it.


Well true for TACP, but not exactly accurate for Pararescue.

AFI 10-3502v2 Pararescue and Combat Rescue Officer & Evaluation Program  complements and implements operational capability put forth in the AFECD and AFOCD specialty description and the Career Field Education and Training Plan (CFETP).  The mission evaluation policies (chapter 3) and Task Evaluation Requirements (chapter 4) should if not will require certain tactical profiles (TACP calls them evaluated Field Training Exercises and PJs used to call it evaluated Combat Rescue Training Exercises) to be periodical accomplished and core task evaluations to be periodically accomplished to a pass-fail standard.

AFI 10-3502V1 Pararescue and Combat Rescue Officer Training also complements and supports the AFECD and AFOCD specialty description by putting forth proficiency training requirements to sustain mission ready qualifications and certification in addition to providing specific training requirements for initial qualification training, mission qualification training, upgrade training, continuation training, specialized training (jumpmaster, Dive Supervisor, Team Leader, etc) and physical fitness certification grading criteria and scoring.

The presumption is NCO and CRO leadership in the units are leading by example and are also evaluating human performance to safely, effectively, and efficiently do tasks with adequate or sufficient physical fitness.

This evaluation methodology was adopted by CCT ca 1982 initially at the first original STS and then for the career field ca. 1988.  The CCT officer who had STS concept of and stood up STS wrote a book disclosing this.  The previously linked to Indoc development history provides a little bit more of the timeline specifics as it directly connects to the joint or combined PJ-CCT Indoc course existing from September 1987 to 2008. It also directly connects to PAST being known as the PJ and CCT PAST from September 1987 to ca. 2014.  Each AFSC now has AFSC specific PAST requirements for GTEP enlistment contract and as prerequisite for course of initial entry.


----------



## Johca (Feb 13, 2015)

0699 said:


> I think this is more common than just your career field.  Everyone wants to be high-speed, but few want to do the paperwork.


Unless it is to justify authorization and approval of a beret, and in a few instances the actual justification and approval documents are some what lacking in substance.

Attached is copy of the official USAF EOD proposal for a EOD beret submitted into official channels back during 2011.

ROFL still on the justifying reason put out by the EOD career field manager (a CMSGT) to EOD career field included:

"I was given this example by an EOD Airman who favors the beret. He explained to me that when we go to events on base or to special classes like PME everyone looks around at the Airmen as they walk in, mingle about or stand in formation. Everybody who walks in is an Airman. When an Airman walks in wearing a maroon beret everyone recognizes that a PJ walked in. The same goes for a red beret, everyone knows that a combat controller just walked in. They are looked at differently, looked at as being warriors. He mentioned that no one in the AF is doing what we do in this war and EOD should be recognized as being a unique warrior Airman. We aren't just part of the group; we are elite and should be recognized for it. I happen to agree with this TSgt."

BTW, The Distinctive Beret Uniform History  of US Armed Forces may provide some reading of interest.  Lots of units locally authorized officially and unofficially wear of berets, this history focuses on military department approval of beret wear with the Service uniform both on and off duty.  The military department approval of wear with service uniform both on and off duty is what distinguished beret being an element of a distinctive service uniform.


----------



## 0699 (Feb 13, 2015)

Johca said:


> Unless it is *to justify authorization and approval of a beret*, and in a few instances the actual justification and approval documents are some what lacking in substance.


 
Or a patch, or specialty pay, etc.  But work hard to improve things just because it needs to be done?  Fucking crickets from 95%...

It reads like it was written by an 8th grader, not an E-9.  I do love the use of Wikipedia as a source.


----------



## AWP (Feb 13, 2015)

I lost a few brain cells reading the EOD beret proposal. The doc and argument could be shredded like pulled pork. I think the world of EOD techs as a whole, but that doc is insulting.


----------



## Johca (Feb 13, 2015)

0699 said:


> ...
> It reads like it was written by an 8th grader, not an E-9.  I do love the use of Wikipedia as a source.


Yep, but I figured there wasn't a need to identify specific service members.   It was the AF EOD community that put it up on Wikipedia.   Go to HQ AMC EOD and scroll back to July 20, 2011.



Freefalling said:


> The doc and argument could be shredded like pulled pork.


It was by the Air Force Uniform Board.


----------



## CDG (Feb 13, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I lost a few brain cells reading the EOD beret proposal. The doc and argument could be shredded like pulled pork. I think the world of EOD techs as a whole, but that doc is insulting.



I think the continuing addition of people authorized to wear berets is ridiculous.  Somehow SERE managed to get a beret and a sweet shoulder scroll.  I guess they're double elite. The way the USAF is going, we'll run out of colors as all the units justify their eliteness and beret deservedness. Security Forces continues to be the most ridiculous of all the authorizations, IMO.   From the link Johca posted: 

_In 1976 Navy Blue beret was adopted as a duty uniform regardless of unit security/law enforcement members were assigned, justification reasoning being beret gives others means of readily identifying Security Forces members in a crisis situation, *unique appearance has effect of providing deterrence to those who may seek to violate the law, damage and steal property, or harm others.*..........had the purpose of identifying members of Security Forces careerfield of *being an elite group of Air Force personnel charged with primary purpose of protecting the Air Force on the ground. 
*_
Bolded emphasis is mine.  Total fucking clownshoes.  The SecFo beret is a crime deterrent?  That was the justification?  AND IT WORKED???


----------



## Johca (Feb 13, 2015)

s





CDG said:


> The SecFo beret is a crime deterrent?  That was the justification?  AND IT WORKED???


The Security Forces Beret actually has justification source documents to be found and scrutinized, however, beret wear within the Air Force while proliferating in SEA in the late 1960s does go back to the 1950s.  The difficulty is the berets were worn as a duty uniform typically approved by the local unit or local base commander, if approved at all, and there is few, if any, source documentation to find.

The problem is several Air Force Specialties have back or dark blue beret duty uniforms during the 1960s.

During the 1950s the Air Force had law enforcement military police and  air base defense infantry.   The two AFSCs merged into Security Police in 1956 as result of Air Force saying there was no threat need for local Air Base Defense. However the Air Base Defense Squadrons (mostly at SAC locations in CONUS and overseas) and the HQ SAC Elite Guard (mostly a ceremonial honor guard) had MAJCOM (SAC) approval and authorization to wear the dark blue or black beret.  When TAC decided to resurrect Air Base Defense (SAFESIDE) it basically recreated two squadrons of Air Base Defense Infantry and resurrected the beret wear for the security police folks assigned to the safeside squadrons.  Regardless the Security Forces justification for the beret source documents are available for scrutiny.

The other groups during the SEA conflict that began wearing Dark Blue or Black berets were: (1) the ALOs (not limited to Tactical Air Control Party designated ALOs), (2) enlisted and officers assigned to Combat Control Teams, and officers, and (3) enlisted parachutists assigned to combat weather teams (supporting both conventional and Special Forces Army).

Both TACP and CCT had ROMADS integrated into the teams, so TACP gets the beret linage from both CCT and TACP.

The Weather beret linage is a bit more complicated as there was about a half dozen Hurlburt Field weather folks connected to ops in Laos (1964-1973) that wore the grey beret, however, the Black Beret was worn by the Air Weather Service Combat Weather Team members in SEA assigned to 30th WS and 5th WS.  In 1970 the Blue Beret was authorized as a duty uniform for all Air Weather Service Parachutists.   The weather parachutist beret becoming Gray in 1986 when it was approved and authorized as a Distinctive Uniform (worn with Service Uniform both on and off duty).

BTW it was CCT, Combat (Special Operations) Weather, and PJs doing CAS aircraft control in Laos.   The USAF Pararescue’s Team Player History of Role and Mission Crossover Utilization documents CCT, SOW, and PJs doing FAC and CAS controlling on pages 19 through 32.


----------



## Wild Bill (Feb 16, 2015)

Everything about it is wrong. What about capture? You shitting me. She would be used against all the other guys like in SERE. Rape her in front of you. Guy could kill himself trying to save her or give up info. Just too many issues. No way she could lift dead weight of even 150lbs let alone more.  They can approve it, question is what woman would want to do it then actually graduate. Not gonna happen.


----------



## CDG (Feb 16, 2015)

Wild Bill said:


> Everything about it is wrong. What about capture? You shitting me. She would be used against all the other guys like in SERE. Rape her in front of you. Guy could kill himself trying to save her or give up info. Just too many issues. No way she could lift dead weight of even 150lbs let alone more.  They can approve it, question is what woman would want to do it then actually graduate. Not gonna happen.



I think there are women who could lift the 150#.  Look at the weight some CrossFit chicks put up.  However, 150# for a dude with kit on is probably pretty rare.  I weigh around 205#, so me with just my plate carrier and 117G on is going to be a tough move for a female.  Especially if I'm completely out of it and can't assist at all.  There are dudes who can't do it either though, and I feel the same about them as far as their unsuitability for this job.  I remember a guy who had to pick me up and move me slick and it took him 20 minutes to finally get me up onto his shoulders and take a step.  Unsat.

I think you bring up an interesting point with what woman would want to do it.  Maybe it's not fair, but I'm pretty cynical about a lot of these chicks saying they want to do X.  I'm sure there are those that want it for the right reasons, but how many just want to be able to say "Yeah, I have a vagina and I did TACP/0311/Ranger School/etc.  Look at me."?  This is why standards HAVE to stay the same.  It will severely limit the percentage of females with that mindset that make it through, like it does with the guys.


----------



## Wild Bill (Feb 16, 2015)

CDG said:


> I think there are women who could lift the 150#.  Look at the weight some CrossFit chicks put up.  However, 150# for a dude with kit on is probably pretty rare.  I weigh around 205#, so me with just my plate carrier and 117G on is going to be a tough move for a female.  Especially if I'm completely out of it and can't assist at all.  There are dudes who can't do it either though, and I feel the same about them as far as their unsuitability for this job.  I remember a guy who had to pick me up and move me slick and it took him 20 minutes to finally get me up onto his shoulders and take a step.  Unsat.
> 
> I think you bring up an interesting point with what woman would want to do it.  Maybe it's not fair, but I'm pretty cynical about a lot of these chicks saying they want to do X.  I'm sure there are those that want it for the right reasons, but how many just want to be able to say "Yeah, I have a vagina and I did TACP/0311/Ranger School/etc.  Look at me."?  This is why standards HAVE to stay the same.  It will severely limit the percentage of females with that mindset that make it through, like it does with the guys.


Totally agree. I've met a few guys that made me wonder WTF were the instructors thinking.


----------



## Wild Bill (Feb 16, 2015)

CDG said:


> I think there are women who could lift the 150#.  Look at the weight some CrossFit chicks put up.  However, 150# for a dude with kit on is probably pretty rare.  I weigh around 205#, so me with just my plate carrier and 117G on is going to be a tough move for a female.  Especially if I'm completely out of it and can't assist at all.  There are dudes who can't do it either though, and I feel the same about them as far as their unsuitability for this job.  I remember a guy who had to pick me up and move me slick and it took him 20 minutes to finally get me up onto his shoulders and take a step.  Unsat.
> 
> I think you bring up an interesting point with what woman would want to do it.  Maybe it's not fair, but I'm pretty cynical about a lot of these chicks saying they want to do X.  I'm sure there are those that want it for the right reasons, but how many just want to be able to say "Yeah, I have a vagina and I did TACP/0311/Ranger School/etc.  Look at me."?  This is why standards HAVE to stay the same.  It will severely limit the percentage of females with that mindset that make it through, like it does with the guys.


Totally agree. I've met a few guys that made me wonder WTF were the instructors thinking.


----------



## Johca (Feb 17, 2015)

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...gration-assessment-female-operators/23243457/

...Little so far has been revealed about how the various forces within Special Operations Command are planning in light of the upcoming integration deadline. ...

The Navy has announced plans to open up its SEAL track to female sailors as soon as this fall if the Department of Defense ordered the service to integrate. Officials said they don't plan to conduct any test classes ahead of the integration order, however.

In the Air Force, Secretary Deborah Lee James said last fall she plans to open the service's seven male-only jobs -- including special tactics officer and pararescue -- to female airmen by next spring.

Osterman's comments provide the first look at what MARSOC is doing ahead of a possible integration order. The command has a grueling and lengthy training pipeline for its critical skills operators: after an assessment and selection process, Marines undergo the nine-month Individual Training Course. The four phases of ITC cover everything from Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) to irregular warfare and urban combat.
...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 17, 2015)

From the article that @Johca posted:


Johca said:


> http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...gration-assessment-female-operators/23243457/



I intend no sarcasm or snarkyness about the whole women in combat debate, I just want to better understand the article as written:


_"We're bringing in folks to conduct a review of our standards within MARSOC and our training pipeline," Osterman said in an interview. "Just to make sure that we've got a good objective set of gender-neutral standards that are there."_
Q - In regards to the 'gender-neutral standards'...does/could this mean that exercises such as pull ups, push ups (at least quantity) and long rucking (in regards to weight, distance and time) would be adjusted to ensure that female candidates have an equal shot of reaching the updated standard?

_Female soldiers will soon undergo a one-time assessment at the Army Ranger School, set to start in April with about 60 female volunteers on board. Those who graduate the course will receive a Ranger tab, officials have said._
Q - Is this the same Ranger course that the men attend?
Q - I wonder if there is a requirement, (official or unofficial) that a certain % pass?
Q - With the Ranger tab, would they then be considered SOF?


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 17, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> _Female soldiers will soon undergo a one-time assessment at the Army Ranger School, set to start in April with about 60 female volunteers on board. Those who graduate the course will receive a Ranger tab, officials have said._
> Q - Is this the same Ranger course that the men attend?
> A: I hope so. The Pre-Ranger course at Bragg seems to be the same. 4 women at Bragg are currently in Pre-Ranger, having passed day-0 entry here.  Former teammates of mine are in the class and verified all events were given to the same standard.  Originally, 12 started and only 4 made it.  The guys had no complaints about the four who did.
> Q - I wonder if there is a requirement, (official or unofficial) that a certain % pass?
> ...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 17, 2015)

@Viper1 , thank you for the response.  One follow up question in regards to the Ranger tab.  Up until today I had always believed that a Ranger is a Ranger, is there a way to tell by looking at the tab whether or not a person has completed the Q course or is only Ranger-qualified?


----------



## AWP (Feb 17, 2015)

We already have a similar discussion (Women and the Tab) elsewhere. Let's go back to the OP.


----------



## Wild Bill (Feb 17, 2015)

Can you imagine the smell coming from her after a month with no good shower? Just wet wipes. i smell bad enough. I think I just vurped. Or is it vurpped. Could give away your position. Would they carry feminine products in the med kit or new type of MRE's. I've got my tobasco and this. Could plug a hole in the Hoover Dam or bullet wound.


----------



## AWP (Feb 17, 2015)

Ok, we already have a similar discussion (Women and the Tab) elsewhere. Let's go back to the OP.


----------



## Red-Dot (Feb 18, 2015)

Wild Bill said:


> Totally agree. I've met a few guys that made me wonder WTF were the instructors thinking.


I remember while at Hurby, instructors asking what shitbags were not cutting the mustard. Mysteriously, they 5E out....hmmmm


----------



## CDG (Feb 18, 2015)

Red-Dot said:


> I remember while at Hurby, instructors asking what shitbags were not cutting the mustard. Mysteriously, they 5E out....hmmmm



It's still the same.  Or they come up juuuuuuust a little shy on their push-ups during the PT test. Everyone has their 10% though, as I know you are well aware.


----------



## KH (Dec 4, 2016)

Wow, I'm impressed with how far this career field has come.  Any updates to a new pipeline?  I scanned through the recently updated CFETP and read that JTAC is a 5-level requirement now (awesome!), but it appears that the "pipeline" is still the same as when I was in (except for the addition of the prep course).


----------



## WILAX (Aug 2, 2019)

Ive seen multiple instances of "please post this in a relevant thread that has already been created" and "why would you necro post?" with other users, therefore ill choose the latter and knock out a set if I'm in the wrong. 
Furthermore, CDG, the seeming in house resident TACP has been away for over a year, which is why I didnt just DM him.

With that said:
I spoke to an ANG AGR TACP today who stated that he discovered on 31 July that the TACP school house now includes the JTAC QC and is required for graduation, thus saving months of waiting for a JTAC QC slot. Any truth to this?

Research conducted:

ROMAD.com

AFSPECWAR

Current TACP CFETP (dated 1 July 2017)

Hopefully I covered my bases.


----------



## AlphaVictor (Aug 4, 2019)

JMsmith said:


> Ive seen multiple instances of "please post this in a relevant thread that has already been created" and "why would you necro post?" with other users, therefore ill choose the latter and knock out a set if I'm in the wrong.
> Furthermore, CDG, the seeming in house resident TACP has been away for over a year, which is why I didnt just DM him.
> 
> With that said:
> ...



The answer is sort of. They have been trying for a while to make QC part of the pipeline, but it hasn't really been possible yet. Especially on the Guard side, I can say confidently you will not be going straight to QC without at least going to your unit for a spin up. You will be grateful for this time, as the guys who go straight to QC without any training from their unit sometimes do very poorly and even wash out, thus burning a valuable slot. No point in saving months sending someone to QC right away if he's going to fail because he doesn't know what he's doing.


----------



## WILAX (Aug 4, 2019)

AlphaVictor said:


> The answer is sort of. They have been trying for a while to make QC part of the pipeline, but it hasn't really been possible yet. Especially on the Guard side, I can say confidently you will not be going straight to QC without at least going to your unit for a spin up. You will be grateful for this time, as the guys who go straight to QC without any training from their unit sometimes do very poorly and even wash out, thus burning a valuable slot. No point in saving months sending someone to QC right away if he's going to fail because he doesn't know what he's doing.



Got it, thanks for the response!


----------



## Patient Candidate (Nov 2, 2019)

I am curious if this official news alludes to the inclusion of JTACQC in the TACP pipeline as mentioned above. It seems to be very recent. I also wonder if that 22 week time-line includes airborne/SERE... 
6th CTS activates new TACP training detachment


----------



## Johca (Nov 2, 2019)

Well the new TACP training detachment is recent, but it follows AFSOC's  Advanced Skills Training concepts and model: ---> Special Tactics Training Squadron. This training squadron was formerly known as the Advanced Skills Training Flight. The concept model is " final phase of training for combat controllers and special tactics officers before they depart for operational special tactics squadrons." Just replace Special Tactics squadron with the more generic operational combat line unit and the similarities become more transparent.

Such courses are better described five level upgrade training course more so than an entry pipeline course required for award of 3-skill level.  Scrutiny of the AFECD reveals both SERE and airborne is a requirement for award of TACP 3-level AFSC.  SERE has been a requirement for decades, but airborne became a requirement for award for any and all TACP skill levels (including 3-level) effective no earlier than 3 March 2017.  Thus these two courses are completed before starting training day one of the new TACP training detachment course being discussed.


----------



## Patient Candidate (Nov 2, 2019)

Thanks for the insight! I also see the consistent reference to TACP as Special Warfare (newer articles by AF), but my understanding is that there is still a clear dilineation between SOF (STS) and conventional TACP... At least on the active duty side.


----------



## AWP (Nov 2, 2019)

People worry about this course or that course, but no one thinks about what a ruck starts doing to your body after about 8-10 miles. "I'm in the best shape of my life!" The pool and the ruck do not care and they see into men's souls harder and deeper than any prophet...


----------



## ilikeairplanes12 (Nov 4, 2019)

If the pipeline will be reduced from 18 months to 22 weeks, any clue on what is being removed? Will SW prep be taken out?


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 4, 2019)

ilikeairplanes12 said:


> If the pipeline will be reduced from 18 months to 22 weeks, any clue on what is being removed? Will SW prep be taken out?


I don't believe Prep is counted in the 22 weeks.
It's possible to get all events into a 22 week school.
Currently guys (and gals) graduate and go to their unit to get certified.  Local procedures, a "check ride" and other mission focused training.  How long it takes depends on aircraft availability, unit taskings, etc, range availability, etc.  Lots of downtime in that 18 months.


----------



## ilikeairplanes12 (Nov 5, 2019)

Interesting, I was thinking that SW prep would be removed as it involves many skills such as water con that aren’t really applicable to TACP.  Among other things that are over specialized that make the training time longer which as the article mentions affects the Army which heavily relies on TACPs and hurts the production rate as more people will drop when you add more specialized training to the pipeline.


----------



## AWP (Nov 5, 2019)

ilikeairplanes12 said:


> Interesting, I was thinking that SW prep would be removed as it involves many skills such as water con that aren’t really applicable to TACP.  Among other things that are over specialized that make the training time longer which as the article mentions affects the Army which heavily relies on TACPs and hurts the production rate as more people will drop when you add more specialized training to the pipeline.



You're basing this on what military experience?

Water confidence goes a long way outside of the pool. Besides, you know how many soldiers have drowned in Iraq and Afghanistan?


----------



## ilikeairplanes12 (Nov 5, 2019)

Water Confidence may very well mean a lot outside of the pool but at the end of the day can hold up the production rate of TACPs which will hurt big army. You make a good point of the purpose of teaching water con for surviving in life or death situations but that shouldn’t involve weeks of training involving underwater, 500s, etcs instead such should involve gear-dismounts in water and just being able to survive in water rather than becoming Micheal Phillips.


----------



## Arf (Nov 5, 2019)

Make them swim😈


----------



## AWP (Nov 5, 2019)

ilikeairplanes12 said:


> Water Confidence may very well mean a lot outside of the pool but at the end of the day can hold up the production rate of TACPs which will hurt big army. You make a good point of the purpose of teaching water con for surviving in life or death situations but that shouldn’t involve weeks of training involving underwater, 500s, etcs instead such should involve gear-dismounts in water and just being able to survive in water rather than becoming Micheal Phillips.



Again, you're basing your opinions on what military experience?


----------



## ilikeairplanes12 (Nov 5, 2019)

I have none whatsoever, but I am basing my opinions off of numbers, stats and the well established needs of the army which the over abundance of water con disrupts.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 5, 2019)

ilikeairplanes12 said:


> Water Confidence may very well mean a lot outside of the pool but at the end of the day can hold up the production rate of TACPs which will hurt big army. You make a good point of the purpose of teaching water con for surviving in life or death situations but that shouldn’t involve weeks of training involving underwater, 500s, etcs instead such should involve gear-dismounts in water and just being able to survive in water rather than becoming Micheal Phillips.


You don't know what you don't know.
Where does it say swim failures get washed out of prep/TACP Pipeline?
Fuck the Army, the AF provides JTAC's and has done so for decades.  The process is constantly refined and changed as technology changes or as the operating environment changes.
Swimming improves overall cardio levels and is generally low impact.  
Your gonna be "that guy" in RASP who gets shitty peer reviews and doesn't know why.


----------



## Arf (Nov 5, 2019)

ilikeairplanes12 said:


> over abundance of water con disrupts.




Have you tried shaving your back to get through your water troubles? Swimming with a sweater on is like swimming with a parachute. That was my secret to success in SWCC school.


----------



## AWP (Nov 5, 2019)

ilikeairplanes12 said:


> I have none whatsoever, but I am basing my opinions off of numbers, stats and the well established needs of the army which the over abundance of water con disrupts.



You are wrong about twenty ways from Sunday. Stop posting the "I heards" and opinions of others. This isn't a request.

For the rest of the members, I say again because some of you "don't read so gooder", *FOR THE REST OF THE MEMBERS,* we're done with any dogpile in this thread. Back to the TACP Pipeline discussion.


----------



## jsamhake (Nov 26, 2019)

Didn't they just release a new Pipe line and move their school to TX back in Oct?


----------



## AlphaVictor (Nov 26, 2019)

jsamhake said:


> Didn't they just release a new Pipe line and move their school to TX back in Oct?



Their school has been in Texas since 2015. What you are referring to is 6th CTS standing up a new Fornal Training Unit, which from my understanding is active duty's version of ANG TACP ICST now built into the pipeline following the TACP apprentice course.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 26, 2019)

AlphaVictor said:


> Their school has been in Texas since 2015. What you are referring to is 6th CTS standing up a new Fornal Training Unit, which from my understanding is active duty's version of ANG TACP ICST now built into the pipeline following the TACP apprentice course.


ANG going to transition to the AD course? or just stay the course?


----------



## AlphaVictor (Dec 3, 2019)

DA SWO said:


> ANG going to transition to the AD course? or just stay the course?



I don't have a for sure answer for you, but from what I have heard the plan is to stay the course for now. I will ask around next drill to see if anyone knows more.


----------



## AlphaVictor (Dec 8, 2019)

DA SWO said:


> ANG going to transition to the AD course? or just stay the course?



As it was explained to me, the plan is when the AD FTU course finally stands up, ANG will send their guys through it and do away with ANG ICST. After completion of FTU, TACPs will proceed on to JTACQC and return to their units ready for their initial JTAC evaluation. We are at least a year out from this happening, however.


----------



## Arf (Dec 8, 2019)

What is the difference between CCT and TACP? I see that CCT can set up airfields and direct traffic, but it looks like they can do everything a TACP can do also?


----------



## AWP (Dec 8, 2019)

Arf said:


> What is the difference between CCT and TACP? I see that CCT can set up airfields and direct traffic, but it looks like they can do everything a TACP can do also?



Not all CCT's are JTAC's, TACP's are designed to support Army maneuver elements, vast differences in training and supported mission sets, etc.

As an outsider and staff member here who often sees the comparison question, the killer for everyone is the belief that every CCT is a JTAC. Right behind that is "every TACP is a JTAC" or something similar. The JTAC qualification vice the jobs (CCT/ TACP) really messes with some brains.


----------



## Arf (Dec 9, 2019)

AWP said:


> Right behind that is "every TACP is a JTAC" or something similar.



To clarify, is every TACP a JTAC?

If the answer question above is yes, what is the difference between a TACP and a Operator with a JTAC Qual?


----------



## Johca (Dec 9, 2019)

Operator???  SOF-JTACs are more special than conventional  JTACs?

A recent December 2019 Air Force Association article that may be of interest, The ups and downs of Close Air Support

Reference AFECD, 31 October 2019, 1Z3X1-Tactical Air Control Party (TACP):  

3.5.3. For award and retention of AFSC 1Z351/71/91/00:
3.5.3.1. Certification as a JTAC according to AFI 13-112, Volume 1, Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) Training Program, and AFMAN 13-112 Volume 2, Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) Standardization/Evaluation Program.
3.5.3.2. Must not be permanently decertified as a JTAC IAW AFMAN 13-112, Volume 2.

The intent for the past three decades is to make JTAC also a requirement for award and retention of AFSC 1Z331 (3-skill level).

Reference:  
JCAS AP MOA 2004-01, Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) (Ground), 1 Sept 2010

This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) also provides for the participation of Partner Nations in order to standardize JTAC certification and qualification requirements with Allied military forces.

Under United States domestic law, training and equipping JTACs is a Title 10 responsibility of each Service component within the Department of Defense. In fulfillment of its Title 10 responsibility to train and equip the forces, each Service component has independently and voluntarily determined that it is in their Service's best interests to meet or exceed the minimum standards for JTAC training and certification identified in this MOA.

Background: JTACs are the forward element of the theater air-ground system (TAGS) and must be organized, trained, and equipped to operate within that infrastructure. A JTAC is defined as, “A certified/qualified Service member who, from a forward position, directs the action of combat aircraft engaged in close air support and other air operations.” (JP 1-02, DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) Contents of this MOA – specifically the Joint Mission Task List (JMTL) and training standards are based on Joint Publication (JP) 3-09.3, CAS. A qualified JTAC will be recognized across DOD and participating nations as capable and authorized to perform terminal attack control.

The following list may have changed since 2010.   The Air Combat Command (ACC) Joint Terminal Attack Controller Qualification Course (JTACQC) is supposedly the required qual course for all TACP obtaining 5-skill level, but there is a Special  Operations qual course too.

5.2.2.1. Accredited JTAC Schoolhouses. The following organizations/training processes are currently recognized by the JFS ESC as being in compliance with JTAC MOA requirements:

– Expeditionary Warfare Training Group (EWTG) Atlantic/Pacific (LANT/PAC) Tactical Air Control Party Course (TACP).
– Air Combat Command (ACC) Joint Terminal Attack Controller Qualification Course (JTACQC).
– Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC) Joint Terminal Attack Controller Course (JTACC).
– Special Operations Terminal Attack Controller Course (SOTACC).
– U.S. Air Forces Europe (USAFE) Air Ground Operations School (AGOS) JTACQC.
– Australian Defense Force (ADF) 4 Squadron Joint Terminal Attack Controller Course (JTACC).
– Canadian Armed Forces (CF) Forward Air Controller Course (FACC).
– Netherlands Air Ground Operations School (AGOS).
– Norwegian Air Ground Operations Section (AGOS).
– Swedish Forward Air Controller (FAC) Basis Course.
– United Kingdom (UK) Joint Forward Air Control Training and Standards Unit (JFACTSU).


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 9, 2019)

Arf said:


> To clarify, is every TACP a JTAC?
> 
> If the answer question above is yes, what is the difference between a TACP and a Operator with a JTAC Qual?


TACP-JTAC and a CCT-JTAC have the same quarterly JTAC requirements.
It's kind of like the difference between SWCC and the Riverene folks, both drive small boats, but the other skill sets make for a completely different NEC.
FWIW Their is a small set of TACP assigned to AFSOC as SOF-TACP.


----------



## AWP (Dec 9, 2019)

DA SWO said:


> TACP-JTAC and a CCT-JTAC have the same quarterly JTAC requirements.
> It's kind of like the difference between SWCC and the Riverene folks, both drive small boats, but the other skill sets make for a completely different NEC.
> FWIW Their is a small set of TACP assigned to AFSOC as SOF-TACP.



This is probably the best answer out there.


----------



## AlphaVictor (Dec 9, 2019)

Arf said:


> What is the difference between CCT and TACP? I see that CCT can set up airfields and direct traffic, but it looks like they can do everything a TACP can do also?


CCT primarily does the pathfinder mission. Some of them are either JTAC or SOTAC qualified, but it is a secondary duty to the CCTs primary mission. CCTs are broken up into provisions strike and global access teams. The precision strike teams are made up of JTAC qualified CCTs who primarily attach to Army SF ODA and direct close air support for them. This is a mission that should be carried out by SOF TACP, however manning shortages have hindered this from being the case. The global access team performs pathfinder duties such as airfield survey to allow for aircraft to operate and land in the previously denied area. All CCTs are under AFSOC, and thus, under SOCOM, so it is easier for them to get attached to other SOF units who are also under SOCOM.

TACPs, on the other hand, are mostly under ACC in the Air Force. This means they belong to the conventional flying air force, and their job is to support the conventional Army combat maneuver units. The entire job of the TACP is close air support. They serve as the subject matter experts on close air support in the US military (and even NATO). There is much more to it than just getting on a radio and calling in coordinates, and so the TACP fully integrates with an aligned Army unit, planning, coordinating, and executing all aspects of air power into the ground scheme of maneuver. You may be calling in bombs under fire, or advising and briefing Army battle staff during the planning phase. These are all parts of the job. Some TACPs have gone through an additional selection and serve as SOF TACPs, assigned to the various Special Tactics Squadrons, where their mission is to provide JTAC support for the 75th Ranger Regiment, SF ODA, or whatever SOF element requires them.

As to the question of TACP or JTAC:
TACP is a career field, JTAC is a qualification that allows you to provide terminal control of air to ground munitions. Previously, a TACP may not ever become a JTAC, and would remain a ROMAD. Those days are gone. TACPs are expected to become a qualified JTAC within a specific amount of time (I believe 18 months from graduation date?) Or they go away. You are not deployable as a non JTAC qualified TACP.

I hope that clears up some of the confusion.


----------



## Arf (Dec 9, 2019)

@AlphaVictor 

This was the most beneficial to me, thank you. I have the ability to go to JTAC school as SWCC, and I was wondering how a TACPs job would different than mine would be, other than my obvious SWCC specific stuff. You all pretty much answered my questions.

One more question in relation to what you touched on. Not all TACPs are considered Special Operators?

Edit: I reread some of this thread and it makes it pretty clear that the answer is no, not all TACPs are SOF. I think it’s interesting that they are listed on the AFSOC recruiting page though.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 9, 2019)

AlphaVictor said:


> CCT primarily does the pathfinder mission. Some of them are either JTAC or SOTAC qualified, but it is a secondary duty to the CCTs primary mission. CCTs are broken up into provisions strike and global access teams. The precision strike teams are made up of JTAC qualified CCTs who primarily attach to Army SF ODA and direct close air support for them. This is a mission that should be carried out by SOF TACP, however manning shortages have hindered this from being the case. The global access team performs pathfinder duties such as airfield survey to allow for aircraft to operate and land in the previously denied area. All CCTs are under AFSOC, and thus, under SOCOM, so it is easier for them to get attached to other SOF units who are also under SOCOM.
> 
> TACPs, on the other hand, are mostly under ACC in the Air Force. This means they belong to the conventional flying air force, and their job is to support the conventional Army combat maneuver units. The entire job of the TACP is close air support. They serve as the subject matter experts on close air support in the US military (and even NATO). There is much more to it than just getting on a radio and calling in coordinates, and so the TACP fully integrates with an aligned Army unit, planning, coordinating, and executing all aspects of air power into the ground scheme of maneuver. You may be calling in bombs under fire, or advising and briefing Army battle staff during the planning phase. These are all parts of the job. Some TACPs have gone through an additional selection and serve as SOF TACPs, assigned to the various Special Tactics Squadrons, where their mission is to provide JTAC support for the 75th Ranger Regiment, SF ODA, or whatever SOF element requires them.
> 
> ...


ACC drug their feet when creating SOF-TACP's.
CCT jumped in, sadly, when the better solution was increasing the number of TACP's assigned to SF.


----------



## Johca (Dec 9, 2019)

From my perspective and recollection the more accurate hindrance was ACC being reluctant, even after Desert Shield and Desert Storm to buy into the need for ETACs until 2000.  AFSOC was a bit more proactive with CCT under the Special Tactics Squadron capability umbrella.  JTAC was neither a qualification or certification until 2010.  JTAC implemented in 2010 significantly beefed up training, qualification and certification of the ETAC qualification program.

AFSOC is actually the air component of USSOCOM, so easier exists as the air component command provides the assets it owns. AFSOC owns Special Tactics Squadrons and the enlisted Combat Control Specialty. AFSOC also created SOF-TACPs to fulfil its component command obligations to USSOCOM, ACC had minimal, if any, involvement in this.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 9, 2019)

Johca said:


> From my perspective and recollection the more accurate hindrance was ACC being reluctant, even after Desert Shield and Desert Storm to buy into the need for ETACs until 2000.  AFSOC was a bit more proactive with CCT under the Special Tactics Squadron capability umbrella.  JTAC was neither a qualification or certification until 2010.  JTAC implemented in 2010 significantly beefed up training, qualification and certification of the ETAC qualification program.
> 
> AFSOC is actually the air component of USSOCOM, so easier exists as the air component command provides the assets it owns. AFSOC owns Special Tactics Squadrons and the enlisted Combat Control Specialty. AFSOC also created SOF-TACPs to fulfil its component command obligations to USSOCOM, ACC had minimal, if any, involvement in this.


The initial SOF-TACP's were ACC assets.
4 man teams assigned to SF Groups,  and the Ranger TACP's.


----------



## amlove21 (Dec 9, 2019)

I have love for all of you. I really do.

Maybe another post needs to be made, maybe a discussion... point being, as a guy that’s a Troop Chief, right this second, I gotta tell you- there is a lag in information as to what capabilities are what.

BL- I value TACPs and Controllers equally, separately, and sometimes mutually exclusively than what’s been explained here.

Maybe a little less guessing and a little more asking what the current situation may be is in order, no?


----------

