# JTAC capability within an SF ODA



## BrassOverBolt (Oct 22, 2015)

Do any personnel in the 18E MOS have JTAC Qualifications? If not, is JTAC as a capability, organic to an SF ODA within any MOS? Or is that skill-set just on loan from other services personnel such as TACP or CCT?

I appreciate any responses from QPs or otherwise.

-E.B.

NOTE: Obviously, if this question is in violation of OPSEC, Please disregard.


----------



## CDG (Oct 23, 2015)

Depends.  Could be any combination.  Why do you want to know?


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 23, 2015)

EchoBravo said:


> Do any personnel in the 18E MOS have JTAC Qualifications? If not, is JTAC as a capability, organic to an SF ODA within any MOS? Or is that skill-set just on loan from other services personnel such as TACP or CCT?
> 
> I appreciate any responses from QPs or otherwise.
> 
> ...


Yes.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 23, 2015)

I don't think there is any reason to be evasive.

Do you want to be a Special Forces Soldier or a JTAC? If you only want to do one for the other, you should do the other.

18 series can and do become JTACS.


----------



## BrassOverBolt (Oct 24, 2015)

Understood.
TLDR20 you hit the nail on the head...
CDG, I have considered both CCT and SF as options and wanted to know if they both shared that capability
I understand that I should choose a path based on unit mission/goals and not just get caught up on potential skill-sets.

-E.B.


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 24, 2015)

EB:

Being a JTAC is an extra skill and responsibility placed on the list of many others because JTACs are few. Most JTAC qual'd SF guys I know would rather leave the dropping of bombs and controlling aircraft to those who do it as their primary mission.

If you want to be an SF soldier work towards that goal, if you want to control aircraft and drop ordinance then be a CCT but being the former in order to do the latter shows evidence of a poor decision making matrix.


----------



## CDG (Oct 24, 2015)

EchoBravo said:


> Understood.
> TLDR20 you hit the nail on the head...
> CDG, I have considered both CCT and SF as options and wanted to know if they both shared that capability
> I understand that I should choose a path based on unit mission/goals and not just get caught up on potential skill-sets.
> ...



I wasn't attempting to be evasive.  It really can be any combo of what you asked.  If you are interested in being a JTAC, then TACP is your best option.  Not every CCT gets JTAC, and they are falling off of that mission and back to their original one right now.  So, a lot of CCTs and some SF guys get JTAC, but not all and it is not a primary duty.  The whole purpose of the TACP careerfield is to be a JTAC.  All about what your primary goal is.


----------



## BrassOverBolt (Oct 24, 2015)

CDG, thank you for the clarification.


----------



## pm410 (Dec 20, 2015)

I don't know if anyone would be familiar with this, but I heard that they're looking to implement JTAC training for senior 13F's, and that JFO will be taught in 13F AIT. The argument being that there aren't enough AF JTACs to go around for conventional infantry units.


----------



## CDG (Dec 20, 2015)

There aren't enough of us anywhere. "Implement JTAC training" could mean a lot of things.  We train on a shitload of stuff.  Are you saying that you've heard senior 13F's will become JTACs?  The Army has wanted to do this for a long time but it will never happen in any meaningful way, for a variety of reasons.


----------



## pm410 (Dec 20, 2015)

Yes I heard senior 13f becoming JTACS .. Why could it never happen, training pipeline to complex or long? I'm not all that familiar with it.


----------



## CDG (Dec 20, 2015)

pm410 said:


> Yes I heard senior 13f becoming JTACS .. Why could it never happen, training pipeline to complex or long? I'm not all that familiar with it.



In a nutshell, it's logistically unfeasible, there are concerns with 13Fs being browbeaten by their commanders into poor decisions, the conventional Army doesn't fully understand what it takes to be a JTAC and judging by the time they allow their JFOs to train, they will never sustain a viable product, and USAF pilots have voiced opposition to the idea.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 21, 2015)

CDG said:


> In a nutshell, it's logistically unfeasible, there are concerns with 13Fs being browbeaten by their commanders into poor decisions, the conventional Army doesn't fully understand what it takes to be a JTAC and judging by the time they allow their JFOs to train, they will never sustain a viable product, and USAF pilots have voiced opposition to the idea.


# of sorties available for JTAC training is limited.
The Army would have to hire contract air to fly training sorties and that will drive the cost up significantly.


----------



## AWP (Dec 21, 2015)

I think we had a member here, a former instructor at the SOF JTAC course out west, once comment that the AF was not at all happy with the SOF course A) because they are Army and B) I want to say he even cited the course's duration.

Having watched the Army and AF go at it in Afghanistan I can easily see Big Blue's vehement opposition to a 13F to JTAC process. I don't know enough to have a solution, even by Internet standards, but I'd think the Army would be better served spending political capital on a different solution instead of "We'll just do your job."


----------



## CDG (Dec 21, 2015)

The issue a lot of guys take with the JTAC course is the lack of airspace control that it has.  Being able to spit 5-lines or 9-lines does not a JTAC make.  At least not a good one.  There's a lot more to it than that.  Honestly, it's much more difficult to control for conventional forces than it is SOF.  With SOF, you just throw up a fucking 10km ROZ and call it a day.  With conventional, you're trying to deconflict with up to 4 other JTACs, plues keep your a/c safe from threats, meet the GCs intent, maximize effects, not waste the pilot's time, etc.  It's a lot more work.

The Army is pushing to add an 18J MOS to the SF community, and that MOS would be JTAC.  So they would have their own guys.  They dislike relying on us to provide that capability because we're not always available.

The Army, I think, wants JTACs they can more easily control.  They don't like it when a SrA JTAC tells a Captain or a Major, "No, Sir, we're not going to do that."


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 21, 2015)

CDG said:


> The issue a lot of guys take with the JTAC course is the lack of airspace control that it has.  Being able to spit 5-lines or 9-lines does not a JTAC make.  At least not a good one.  There's a lot more to it than that.  Honestly, it's much more difficult to control for conventional forces than it is SOF.  With SOF, you just throw up a fucking 10km ROZ and call it a day.  With conventional, you're trying to deconflict with up to 4 other JTACs, plues keep your a/c safe from threats, meet the GCs intent, maximize effects, not waste the pilot's time, etc.  It's a lot more work.
> 
> The Army is pushing to add an 18J MOS to the SF community, and that MOS would be JTAC.  So they would have their own guys.  They dislike relying on us to provide that capability because we're not always available.
> 
> *The Army, I think, wants JTACs they can more easily control.  They don't like it when a SrA JTAC tells a Captain or a Major, "No, Sir, we're not going to do that.*"



........and will gleefully court martial one of their own who says that, or has a bad drop killing the wrong people.


----------



## CDG (Dec 21, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> ........and will gleefully court martial one of their own who says that, or has a bad drop killing the wrong people.



Yep.  Most guys have stories of having to request to go somewhere else after refusing to control a bad drop and being left behind on subsequent missions because the GFC didn't like being told he was wrong.


----------



## pm410 (Dec 25, 2015)

CDG, exactly was the purpose of implementing the JFO program? From everything I have read this far on it, it doesn't allow you to do anything more once you've completed it.


----------



## CDG (Dec 25, 2015)

JFOs are able to control artillery strikes, helicopters (anyone can use Army helos but JFOs have more training), and are better trained on CAS than the average soldier.  They provide a valuable tool for a JTAC to be able to build a 360 degree picture of the battlefield.  Oftentimes we can't see everything.  Having a JFO on another mountainside, or in another OP, to feed us targeting info can greatly assist in the timely execution of CAS.  A good JFO can really help lighten the workload on a JTAC.  And in emergency situations, if no JTAC is present or available, having a JFO on the ground can help the pilot feel a little more comfortable about dropping.


----------



## Red-Dot (Dec 29, 2015)

The JFO is a great program and skill set to have if used correctly. We had some of the initial graduates of this course in OIF. They were, let's say a little over zealous and over stepped their bounds. Our ALO who was a LTC, quickly shut that down.

CDG is correct. The Army wants dudes they can keep under thumb, to say. I have seen SRA and SSGT's tell CPT's and MAJ's they are ate up (in a tactful way) and need to leave the CAS to the experts.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 29, 2015)

Red-Dot said:


> The JFO is a great program and skill set to have if used correctly. We had some of the initial graduates of this course in OIF. They were, let's say a little over zealous and over stepped their bounds. Our ALO who was a LTC, quickly shut that down.
> 
> CDG is correct. The Army wants dudes they can keep under thumb, to say. I have seen SRA and SSGT's tell CPT's and MAJ's they are ate up (in a tactful way) and need to leave the CAS to the experts.


Same can be said for CCT,SOWT too.
One reason the AF maintains administrative control is so we can say no.
As a 2Lt I told the Cdr of the 82nd Sig Bn (LTC) to pound sand, and he had to leave our AO.
Would not have happened if I was administratively owned by the Army.


----------



## Red-Dot (Dec 29, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Same can be said for CCT,SOWT too.
> One reason the AF maintains administrative control is so we can say no.
> As a 2Lt I told the Cdr of the 82nd Sig Bn (LTC) to pound sand, and he had to leave our AO.
> Would not have happened if I was administratively owned by the Army.



Yep....I love the memorandum of agreement. Aligned....not owned.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 29, 2015)

Red-Dot said:


> Yep....I love the memorandum of agreement. Aligned....not owned.


We went one better with a Joint Reg.


----------



## pm410 (Jan 4, 2016)

Red-Dot said:


> Yep....I love the memorandum of agreement. Aligned....not owned.



So say a JTAC is overseas attached to an infantry unit at batt or brigade level, they technically are still independent of that command?


----------



## CDG (Jan 4, 2016)

pm410 said:


> So say a JTAC is overseas attached to an infantry unit at batt or brigade level, they technically are still independent of that command?



Yes.  We work with the Army, not for them.  We aren't cowboys running around doing whatever we want, and it's the ground commander's battlespace, but we have a lot of latitude to make our own decisions.  A good JTAC knows when and how to tell a commander no.  Whether that's a platoon leader or a DIV commander, and most dudes have dealt with both and most everything in between. We get our beans, bullets, and bandages from the Army, but wear our own gear (much to the chagrin of many a Sergeant Major), and we are under admin control of the USAF . Guys have gotten themselves transferred to new FOBs or COPs when Army units they were working with wanted to use them as an extra hand at KP and guard duty, but not let them control air.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 4, 2016)

CDG said:


> Yes.  We work with the Army, not for them.  We aren't cowboys running around doing whatever we want, and it's the ground commander's battlespace, but we have a lot of latitude to make our own decisions.  A good JTAC knows when and how to tell a commander no.  Whether that's a platoon leader or a DIV commander, and most dudes have dealt with both and most everything in between. We get our beans, bullets, and bandages from the Army, but wear our own gear (much to the chagrin of many a Sergeant Major), and we our under admin control of the USAF still. Guys have gotten themselves transferred to new FOBs or COPs when Army units they were working with wanted to use them as an extra hand at KP and guard duty, but not let them control air.


Same goes for the Weather guys and gals.
They are with the Army for Operational Support, and can be pulled by their AF Command (I have done that with a Cav unit) if the command feels it's necessary.


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 4, 2016)

CDG said:


> Yes.  We work with the Army, not for them.  We aren't cowboys running around doing whatever we want, and it's the ground commander's battlespace, but we have a lot of latitude to make our own decisions.  A good JTAC knows when and how to tell a commander no.  Whether that's a platoon leader or a DIV commander, and most dudes have dealt with both and most everything in between. We get our beans, bullets, and bandages from the Army, but wear our own gear (much to the chagrin of many a Sergeant Major), and we are under admin control of the USAF . Guys have gotten themselves transferred to new FOBs or COPs when Army units they were working with wanted to use them as an extra hand at KP and guard duty, but not let them control air.



The battalion SGM especially loved my Mossy Oak camo GIT'R Done hat and the five different types of camo on my rack. He never complained because we had our shit wired tight.


----------



## pm410 (Feb 6, 2016)

CDG, so I was recently told that our command is planning on having all of our JFOs within our fires section sent to become TACPs. Have you ever heard of this before?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 6, 2016)

Red-Dot said:


> The battalion SGM especially loved my Mossy Oak camo GIT'R Done hat and the five different types of camo on my rack. He never complained because we had our shit wired tight.



Ah you are one of those guys...

Do you know why SRNCO's push all that regulation BS? Discipline, in line units, you have to have it and you would be surprised how quickly a unit can fall apart when its not enforced. It starts with the little things like wearing the proper uniform and meeting the grooming standard. Lax up and let your guys run a muck with uniform and grooming standards, and stand there scratching your head when you find out a squad as been going out killing locals for fun, or raping girls, or all kinds of stupid shit (extreme example).

Disciplined units need to be, more so than being an outcast cool guy. Being wired tight and performing a job well, isn't a get out of jail card for wearing unauthorized head gear. Some Joe is looking up to you, man that air force cat is cool, look at him, he kills more guys with a radio than our platoon could, and he wears what he wants, when he wants. Man I want to be like that guy. Next thing you will see is him sporting a ball cap in the field, trying to look like you. As someone who is being looked up to, what example do you want to set with him?  Your rank may be funny looking, and your service branch may be different, but you're still a leader, still an American service member and still an influence on the soldiers you work with.

I get it with SOF guys, they are mature, disciplined and need to be different. My advice would be when running around with an ODA look and act the part, when running around with Infantry, look and act the part. But above all, represent yourself and your branch in the best manner possible, from regulations to job performance. Doing so will not only win the admiration of your peers, and PVT snuffy, but also those SRNCO's. And that's something to really be proud of, vs your cool "get her done" ball cap.

As for putting leaders in their place when they are wrong. I absolutely agree, you're the expert in that subject, that's why your job exists. And applaud you for being able to do so in a professional manner.

My $.02


----------



## CDG (Feb 6, 2016)

pm410 said:


> CDG, so I was recently told that our command is planning on having all of our JFOs within our fires section sent to become TACPs. Have you ever heard of this before?



I don't know what your command is trying to say, but there's no such thing.


----------



## pm410 (Feb 6, 2016)

CDG said:


> I don't know what your command is trying to say, but there's no such thing.



That was the word today. I haven't the slightest idea how, I'm sure I'll hear more tomorrow on the subject. It didn't sound right to me either.


----------

