A sad day for the soldier/seaman/airman on the ground.... (A-10/CAS Discussion)

[Johca]

I think we're victims of our own success and technology. If you can hang a JDAM from it, then it becomes a CAS platform.

There is an accompanying nativity of risk aversion stemming from WWII contributing to this problem. There is also a contributing factor of technology that has put a demise to operating a large number of airplane formations in a hostile enemy environment. that has technology based ground to air weapons or rather the ability to put an high explosive detonation in close proximity of an aircraft where the indirect shrapnel and shock wave hit from the explosion takes out the aircraft. The need to do a direct hit to take out a combat aircraft went away towards the ending days of WWII. The two option of high and fast or low and fast is now risk avoidance pushed to stand-off capability and unfortunately the political preference to use stand-off no boots on the grounds military solutions is contributing to the existence of a significantly vulnerable Achilles Heel should boots on the ground need CAS. It also seems to me the Army seems to be pushing CAS towards being provided by helicopter capability owned and controlled by the Army. A solution of convenience if combat operations are in a small area of operations or a low number of battalions and regiments conducting combat operations against small groups of enemy forces. The A-10 or something similar remains a needed CAS capability.

 

[AWP]

It also seems to me the Army seems to be pushing CAS towards being provided by helicopter capability owned and controlled by the Army. A solution of convenience if combat operations are in a small area of operations or a low number of battalions and regiments conducting combat operations against small groups of enemy forces. The A-10 or something similar remains a needed CAS capability.

I agree with the above, but to highlight it:

There are multiple instances in Afghanistan of:

Multiple flights of CAS going Winchester while supporting a TIC
Running out of airframes* to support a TIC.
At least one that I'm aware of where an AC-130 and multiple flights of CAS went Winchester while prosecuting a TIC.

I have nothing but love for the Army's CCA community, but anyone who thinks that CCA can replace CAS is living in fantasyland. Think of what it takes to make an AC-130 run out of ammo...

* - By this I mean airborne assets are used up, alert assets are used up, and nothing's ready to fly. The AF had to tell the Army "We cannot provide CAS for x more hours, you're on your own until then."

 

[CDG]

political preference to use stand-off no boots on the grounds military solutions is contributing to the existence of a significantly vulnerable Achilles Heel should boots on the ground need CAS. It also seems to me the Army seems to be pushing CAS towards being provided by helicopter capability owned and controlled by the Army.

The Army does not consider its rotary wing assets as CAS platforms. The USMC does, but not the Army. So it's a different ballgame. The majority of the Army doesn't seem to fully understand what JTACs are, what they bring to the fight, what goes into prosecuting targets with CAS, and how different weapons and platforms work together. It ain't just throwing out a 9-line and calling "Cleared Hot". We aren't Air Traffic Controllers either, a title that constantly gets thrown out when you try and explain airspace deconfliction. Part of it is our problem, as we need to be more proactive in getting the word out on who we are and what we do. The new JFIRE was written by the USMC, with minimal input from USAF JTACs and the result is that it falls well short in some areas. That's our own damn fault. We sent a couple senior enlisted guys down to battle it out with USMC field grades, and now bitch about how the JFIRE isn't well-written enough.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

One issue IMO is that you need a JTAC to use fast air, but only need a radio and and a ground commanders authority to call in an Apache.

TACP/JTACs are normally a brigade level asset for the Infantry, and can be a pain in the ass getting attached for a basic patrol. Its one thing to know you are going to raid or assault an objective, you can tack on all the support you would ever want or need. Its another thing to get caught up in a complex ambush after doing a day long patrol, and having to work the situation with whatever support assets you have available.

I would like to see TACP as a company or even platoon level asset and JTACs at the brigade or even better battalion level.

But I think USAF TACPs would have to grow a whole hell of a lot or the Army would have to start sending soldiers through the TACP course.

 

[pardus]

One issue IMO is that you need a JTAC to use fast air, but only need a radio and and a ground commanders authority to call in an Apache.

TACP/JTACs are normally a brigade level asset for the Infantry, and can be a pain in the ass getting attached for a basic patrol. Its one thing to know you are going to raid or assault an objective, you can tack on all the support you would ever want or need. Its another thing to get caught up in a complex ambush after doing a day long patrol, and having to work the situation with whatever support assets you have available.

I would like to see TACP as a company or even platoon level asset and JTACs at the brigade or even better battalion level.

But I think USAF TACPs would have to grow a whole hell of a lot or the Army would have to start sending soldiers through the TACP course.

Or just have 13F's learn it and do it.

 

[DA SWO]

Or just have 13F's learn it and do it.

Maintaining currency would be a bitch.

 

[CDG]

Or just have 13F's learn it and do it.

It's a long way from a 13F to a JTAC. That's not a knock on 13Fs, but there is a whole hell of a lot that goes into JTACery. The easy part is calling up the 9-line and talking the pilot onto the target. All the shit that comes before that is where the distinction comes in.

 

[CDG]

One issue IMO is that you need a JTAC to use fast air, but only need a radio and and a ground commanders authority to call in an Apache.

TACP/JTACs are normally a brigade level asset for the Infantry, and can be a pain in the ass getting attached for a basic patrol. Its one thing to know you are going to raid or assault an objective, you can tack on all the support you would ever want or need. Its another thing to get caught up in a complex ambush after doing a day long patrol, and having to work the situation with whatever support assets you have available.

I would like to see TACP as a company or even platoon level asset and JTACs at the brigade or even better battalion level.

But I think USAF TACPs would have to grow a whole hell of a lot or the Army would have to start sending soldiers through the TACP course.

JTACs are assigned from BN up to Corps level. There are definitely not enough of us, but in a lot of cases the Army doesn't use JTACs to their full potential either. I've heard plenty of stories of ground commanders not trusting a USAF guy to come out on patrols and so they get left in the TOC. Now, we as a community need better quality control starting at the TACP Schoolhouse, but that is not the only issue.

 

[AWP]

JTACs are assigned from BN up to Corps level. There are definitely not enough of us, but in a lot of cases the Army doesn't use JTACs to their full potential either. I've heard plenty of stories of ground commanders not trusting a USAF guy to come out on patrols and so they get left in the TOC. Now, we as a community need better quality control starting at the TACP Schoolhouse, but that is not the only issue.

A small piece of that is managing your customer's expectations. Outside looking in, I wonder how many Army commanders from the company to BDE know what the AF can do, how fast, and what JTAC's can do and how they integrate into the plan. I'm not staying you guys aren't trying to educate the Green side, but it is something every ALO/ JTAC/ TACP should work on.

Some commanders simply won't care or won't take the time to learn and you can't help them, but their subordinates are a different angle to work. I think the move towards your own officer careerfield will pay dividends down the line, but there aren't enough of them to make a difference right now.

I'm sure it's an uphill fight for you.

Historically speaking, I don't know that I've ever really worked with an organization, SOF or CF, that understood how their support slices fit into the puzzle. I've also seen many instances where the support slices didn't know how they fit in the picture. I liken unit cooperation to a piece of tile that was mislaid and protrudes just about the tiles around it. It looks great, the color matches, it fits, and there aren't any issues...until you stub your toe. That's when you realize your tile's jacked up and fixing it will be problematic.

 

[pardus]

It's a long way from a 13F to a JTAC. That's not a knock on 13Fs, but there is a whole hell of a lot that goes into JTACery. The easy part is calling up the 9-line and talking the pilot onto the target. All the shit that comes before that is where the distinction comes in.

Understood, hence the "learn" part. This could be a skill identifier for 13Fs once they hit X rank e.g. E6-E7. Ship them of for 6mths (or whatever) and get them up to speed.

 

[CDG]

Understood, hence the "learn" part. This could be a skill identifier for 13Fs once they hit X rank e.g. E6-E7. Ship them of for 6mths (or whatever) and get them up to speed.

As Freefalling already said, maintaining currency would be pretty difficult. Being a proficient JTAC is a full-time job, so you would also have to convince the Army that it's worth it for them to let their dudes spend time learning a lot of USAF knowledge. I haven't been a TACP very long, but I don't think turning the job over to the Army is the answer.

 

[CDG]

A small piece of that is managing your customer's expectations. Outside looking in, I wonder how many Army commanders from the company to BDE know what the AF can do, how fast, and what JTAC's can do and how they integrate into the plan. I'm not staying you guys aren't trying to educate the Green side, but it is something every ALO/ JTAC/ TACP should work on.

Some commanders simply won't care or won't take the time to learn and you can't help them, but their subordinates are a different angle to work. I think the move towards your own officer careerfield will pay dividends down the line, but there aren't enough of them to make a difference right now.

I'm sure it's an uphill fight for you.

Historically speaking, I don't know that I've ever really worked with an organization, SOF or CF, that understood how their support slices fit into the puzzle. I've also seen many instances where the support slices didn't know how they fit in the picture. I liken unit cooperation to a piece of tile that was mislaid and protrudes just about the tiles around it. It looks great, the color matches, it fits, and there aren't any issues...until you stub your toe. That's when you realize your tile's jacked up and fixing it will be problematic.

Having our own O's is a big step in the right direction, but it is going to take time for those Os to get into positions where they can really affect change. Not only that, but we constantly suffer from the stigma that is applied to being in the "Chair Force". Everyone knows about PJs and Controllers, but they don't think there are any other jobs that put USAF personnel in harm's way as a primary mission. It can be tough to educate the Army, because a lot of Army dudes seem to have the idea ingrained that being a good JTAC is no big deal. They think their JFOs are JTACs, when the reality is much different. Drop a JFO into a TIC with multiple assets checking on at once, multiple targets, SA threats, CDE concerns, friendlies all over the place, and a GC calling you every 2:00 for a SITREP and see what happens. And that's just a training scenario where you don't have real bullets flying. I'm not trying to sound cocky, or like other people couldn't do it, but it's just not as easy as a lot of people seem to think. It's taken the TACP community years to get to where it's at, and it currently has a lot of institutional knowledge from the last 12 years of combat. I really think we should be giving Army dudes a chance to step into our shoes, from FRAGO to mission execution, and let them see just how hectic things can get. It would give them a better appreciation for what a good JTAC really does, and can do, if utilized properly. The fault lies with us too though, because too often we get caught up in talking shit about how the Army has no idea how much we do, when we should be showing them and teaching them how to use us.

 

[pardus]

As Freefalling already said, maintaining currency would be pretty difficult. Being a proficient JTAC is a full-time job, so you would also have to convince the Army that it's worth it for them to let their dudes spend time learning a lot of USAF knowledge. I haven't been a TACP very long, but I don't think turning the job over to the Army is the answer.

I'm not saying turn it over, I'm saying train more people, people in the branch that use it. Other countries do it without any problem.

 

[CDG]

I'm not saying turn it over, I'm saying train more people, people in the branch that use it. Other countries do it without any problem.

Tracking. Do other countries have the same inter-service squabbling that we do? The problem is getting the Air Force to sign off on non-SOF Army guys controlling their assets, and convincing the Army to allot the proper amount of training time for their guys to maintain proficiency with a non-Army asset.

 

[AWP]

Musing aloud, but we exchange pilots with foreign nations, it would be nice if the Army would give up 25, 40, whatever 13F's to the various local ASOS' for a year. 4-5 per base, something like that. No PCS involved, even chop over 13A's or 11A's in a liasion capacity for a year. Hell, we deploy to combat for a year at a time, a year's"deployment" for a Captain to their friendly neighborhood ASOS shouldn't be horrible...

it's just not as easy as a lot of people seem to think.

What? You don't just read off a 9-line and call it a day?

:-"

 

[CDG]

Musing aloud, but we exchange pilots with foreign nations, it would be nice if the Army would give up 25, 40, whatever 13F's to the various local ASOS' for a year. 4-5 per base, something like that. No PCS involved, even chop over 13A's or 11A's in a liasion capacity for a year. Hell, we deploy to combat for a year at a time, a year's"deployment" for a Captain to their friendly neighborhood ASOS shouldn't be horrible...



What? You don't just read off a 9-line and call it a day?

:-"

That's not a bad idea at all. The issue again comes in with maintaining that knowledge base that they would gain. And we would have to do a better job of really showing them the job instead of just throwing a few sims up and calling it good.

LMAO. Ask a lot of people, it is that easy! :wall:

 

[pardus]

Tracking. Do other countries have the same inter-service squabbling that we do? The problem is getting the Air Force to sign off on non-SOF Army guys controlling their assets, and convincing the Army to allot the proper amount of training time for their guys to maintain proficiency with a non-Army asset.

The US seems to have taken inter service childishness to stellar levels I do concede. Which in practice would make my idea virtually unworkable. Frankly I think it's obscene but WTF would I know?
IF something like this were to be done, I wouldn't think they'd ever be as well trained and proficient as JTAC, just an additional asset.

 

[CDG]

The US seems to have taken inter service childishness to stellar levels I do concede. Which in practice would make my idea virtually unworkable. Frankly I think it's obscene but WTF would I know?
IF something like this were to be done, I wouldn't think they'd ever be as well trained and proficient as JTAC, just an additional asset.

Agree with the bolded text 100% and then some.

Having more JTACs would be fantastic. We're doing away with the ROMAD role and pushing the force towards 100% JTAC. That brings both goods and bads though. We've seen standards change in other places to push more guys into a role, and that's happening with us. We don't have enough JTACs, and the Schoolhouse is pushing guys through that have no business in this careerfield.

 

[DA SWO]

Musing aloud, but we exchange pilots with foreign nations, it would be nice if the Army would give up 25, 40, whatever 13F's to the various local ASOS' for a year. 4-5 per base, something like that. No PCS involved, even chop over 13A's or 11A's in a liasion capacity for a year. Hell, we deploy to combat for a year at a time, a year's"deployment" for a Captain to their friendly neighborhood ASOS shouldn't be horrible...



What? You don't just read off a 9-line and call it a day?

:-"

Which 11A's and 13A's is the Army going to chop? Future GO's, or Cpt Braindead?

 

[DA SWO]

Agree with the bolded text 100% and then some.

Having more JTACs would be fantastic. We're doing away with the ROMAD role and pushing the force towards 100% JTAC. That brings both goods and bads though. We've seen standards change in other places to push more guys into a role, and that's happening with us. We don't have enough JTACs, and the Schoolhouse is pushing guys through that have no business in this careerfield.

You really don't need a dedicated maintainer anymore. I think the 100% JTAC is a good goal, don't know if it is realistic and don't be surprised when it gets watered down.