SOCOM Five-Year Plan: Ideas Needed

[DA SWO]

Every other ARSOF one that has a direct-action mission as part of its core responsibilities. Not sure about CA or PSYOP, hence the caveat.

4th POG had a TPT that was Ranger Tasked. Discussions with the team leader led me to believe they went on a LIMITED type of DA. USASOC PA routinely puts stories out about this particular TPT (or is it MIST now?).

In the Guard, the States have a say in pay and allowances whereas most actual course money comes from Army or other sources. Point being, we can get travel & per diem money for a class but the State has, for us red hats, been unable to find the money for MI sustainment training. The other fellas don't seem to have this issue however but they may: I'm just giving my perception.

Additionally, my skills as a 35P will never have a State mission. Ever. Unless Red Dawn occurs and then, we'll have other things to worry about rather than Title 10 vs Title 32 authorities.

I have not heard of similar type bullshit excuses related to pay issues with Reserve MI units.

States have a habit of stealing SOF training dollars and funding TAG directed crap.

 

[Brill]

Funny story: During my last Iraq deployment (Late 07 to early 08), there was an NSW squadron living on the same FOB as us, and their intel guys (A senior chief and an IS1) would come over every once in a while for a data dump or product support or whatever. One day, the IS1 comes by and, with the most serious look I've ever seen him wear on his face, asks us if we have a GRG of Damascus. I'll let you ponder that one for a minute.

The highlight of my time there.

 

[Marauder06]

Agreed 100%. This place seems to have a greater degree of thoughtful and competent posters than other sites.
I'm trying to look for the article you talked about but I cant seem to find it. Did you post it here? ....

It's probably buried in the "Professional Writing" subforum somewhere. Here's a version I recently updated.

 

[Salt USMC]

It's probably buried in the "Professional Writing" subforum somewhere. Here's a version I recently updated.

This is also a very good paper. Aren't those standards a little high, though? Im not sure, but those look close to the standards for RASP (Correct me if I am wrong on this). Is there a particular reason why you modeled it off of that? I mean, you're trying to create Intel guys who can physically hang with SF, not make Rangers. I wholeheartedly agree with the other assessment steps, however.

Also, I retract my earlier statement about individual services having assessment programs. This definitely looks like something that could work across all of SOCOM, provided that you could get each service to buy into it.

 

[Ranger Psych]

The fact of the matter is that it'll weed out the weaklings, when everyone who's an enabler in an SOF unit will more than likely be required to fill a seat on an actual mission... and as such, even if it's not their primary job, a minimum standard of knowing that HEY we need a guy for this patrol and oh we need the intel capacity as well.... bam there you go, rather than being able to just straight up not rely on them basically at all for that.

Regiment softskills have been, can, and do get pulled specifically for all sorts of non primary MOS shit.... in combat. SF could use the same capacity when they need the extra manpower and have it already attached at the group level.

 

[Marauder06]

This is also a very good paper. Aren't those standards a little high, though? Im not sure, but those look close to the standards for RASP (Correct me if I am wrong on this). Is there a particular reason why you modeled it off of that? I mean, you're trying to create Intel guys who can physically hang with SF, not make Rangers. I wholeheartedly agree with the other assessment steps, however.

Also, I retract my earlier statement about individual services having assessment programs. This definitely looks like something that could work across all of SOCOM, provided that you could get each service to buy into it.

Thank you for reading the paper.

I never went through RASP and I'm not sure exactly what their standards are. I did go through other assessments/selections for other SOF units, I kind of used those experiences as a baseline. I don't really think the standards are that high; in the PT test, for example, max is 300 points, passing is 180, my recommended standard is only 210. Five miles in 45 minutes is a 9-minute-per-mile pace, that's kind of slow (even for me). Footmarch 12 miles in 3 hours is a brisk walking pace, not really that hard either.

 

[goon175]

Aren't those standards a little high, though? Im not sure, but those look close to the standards for RASP (Correct me if I am wrong on this). Is there a particular reason why you modeled it off of that? I mean, you're trying to create Intel guys who can physically hang with SF, not make Rangers.

The standards cited in the paper are not as high as the ones in RASP, you need 240 on the PT test (80 in each category), and the 5 mile has to be under 40 minutes. As Ranger Psych said, the 75th has each and every one of our support personel attend and pass RASP, meeting the same standards as the "main effort". Honestly, the physical standards Mara put in his paper are not ridiculous at all, there "shouldn't" be a single soldier in the Army who cannot meet them. But we obviously know that is not the case, and is a whole 'nother discussion.

 

[Etype]

The standards noted are more or less what EVERY soldier in the 82nd is held to, not meeting any one of them is a negative counseling or a bullet on an NCOER- there's no reason every able bodied soldier shouldn't meet them. As a standard to be held for enablers, I think it'd be great.

I think the biggest take away from the enabler argument shouldn't be the negative implications of a poor enabler, but rather how much of an asset a good enabler truly is- especially at a VSP. When you are doing VSO, a poor enabler is just another body to leave on radio watch and to wash windows at the VSSA. A good enabler you can take on dismounted patrols, rely on to pull security at a patrol base, and all around trust just as much as the other team guys. One point that I think most people can agree on, and I'm sure can be shown by statistics in both Ranger School and SFAS- people who are good at individual events (like PT tests) also do well on team events. Barring a personality disorder, if you are a self-starter and can put in the work to keep yourself in shape, you will probably get yourself moving to help keep the team in shape as well.

 

[Salt USMC]

Good points all. Thank you for your input, gentlemen.

 

[Viper1]

I've spoken with about six or seven support soldiers on this very subject, from SSG to brand new PV2. They all said that they would have welcomed going through a selection and assessment program as part of the process for working at Group. For them, it would be a rite of passage and an increased sense of belonging within the organization. For us, it would be a realization that our support guys can be counted on to do more than their MOS when called upon.

Sure six or seven Soldiers isn't a good statistic to base anything on. But coming from within one BN is enough for me.

 

[Brill]

As a support guy, there is not one SOT-A in my unit who is against a support A & S. So, without rehashing a tired thread, where the F is the disconnect? Speaking for all services 35Ps, Rangers have one for their linguists, Marines have their indoc for Radio Recon, Navy has one for their Tactial Info Ops; why do the guys in charge of the "no brainers" not have a brain?

Where's the resistance within USASFC?

 

[MilkTruckCoPilot]

As a support guy, there is not one SOT-A in my unit who is against a support A & S. So, without rehashing a tired thread, where the F is the disconnect? Speaking for all services 35Ps, Rangers have one for their linguists, Marines have their indoc for Radio Recon, Navy has one for their Tactial Info Ops; why do the guys in charge of the "no brainers" not have a brain?

Where's the resistance within USASFC?

Is there resistance? I've heard that the SOT-A course is becoming quite popular and is evolving (albeit slowly) into an A & S.

I'd be interested to see what would happen if Group does implement a selection process. By the time this would come about I would imagine SOT-A's would be in full swing. You could have everybody go through Group's and then 35p's would move through the SOT-A school.

Lindy, would I be correct in the fact that only SOT-A's are actually training on equipment/TTP's specific for their job?
If Group did start a screening process then open the SOT-A course up to the Rangers. It would definitely clue in new guys so they don't have such a "deer in the headlights" look when they get to their unit.

My .02

 

[AWP]

The sad thing is that you could do an A&S for the SF support side "on the cheap." If you wanted to go a step further and make it a mini-RASP where actual skillsets are taught, so much the better.

The only guys who would complain are the dudes you don't want anyway.

 

[Brill]

Is there resistance? I've heard that the SOT-A course is becoming quite popular and is evolving (albeit slowly) into an A & S.

I'd be interested to see what would happen if Group does implement a selection process. By the time this would come about I would imagine SOT-A's would be in full swing. You could have everybody go through Group's and then 35p's would move through the SOT-A school.

Lindy, would I be correct in the fact that only SOT-A's are actually training on equipment/TTP's specific for their job?
If Group did start a screening process then open the SOT-A course up to the Rangers. It would definitely clue in new guys so they don't have such a "deer in the headlights" look when they get to their unit.

My .02

Well, they don't have dedicated instructors and funding is an issue (FOUNDRY picks up the bill for us) plus 18 days is just scratching the surface in my opinion for a selection and SIGINT training course (telecomunications, LAN setup/maintenance, commo, AND how SF work), so it's not officially official. In my opinion, a SOT-A should graduate SFSIET and be able to operate independently...holy shit! Just like a CCT, EOD, dog handler, or any other SOF enabler? Novel fricken concept.

I also think that SOT-As should not be first tour duty assignments (no SOT-A babies) but we don't have that luxury yet. Just like 18-series are rooted in 11B skills, we SHOULD be solid in our 35P skills.

I firmly believe that if a soldier is motivated to pass RASP I or II, he's motivated to keep up with technology and actually learn how/why those majik boxes do what they do and what to do if they don't do. Hell, RASP would be good for us since we cannot go to SUT, which is only for SF candidates (I'm sure we would overload the course (note: there are only 12 SOT-As per BN)).

OJT in OEF is a NG (No Go or National Guard, you decide ).

Venison in the headlights. Pfftt...

 

[MilkTruckCoPilot]

Well, they don't have dedicated instructors and funding is an issue (FOUNDRY picks up the bill for us) plus 18 days is just scratching the surface in my opinion for a selection and SIGINT training course (telecomunications, LAN setup/maintenance, commo, AND how SF work), so it's not officially official. In my opinion, a SOT-A should graduate SFSIET and be able to operate independently...holy shit! Just like a CCT, EOD, dog handler, or any other SOF enabler? Novel fricken concept.

...

It is but it's a start and it's better than nothing. The course continues to evolve and like any new course it has it's growing pains. You expect somebody to be able to operate on their own coming straight from their AIT/A&S or whatever? I'd expect somebody to have an idea of how to operate but they are going to need to be mentored. Radio Recon Platoon does an indoc and then holds in-house training which I believe lasts 3-6months..I could be completely wrong on the timeline. We're simply looking at an indoc here in SFSIET. The fact that it exposes them earlier to SIGINT equipment/implementation than just showing up to their team without seeing it is a good thing, IMO. If nothing else it introduces a little bit of suck factor (other than the obvious of an indoc) of "holyshit I have to do all of this wearing this and carrying this house on my back?" You and I mean that in general terms can talk and talk till your blue to a brand new guy about this job and the lightbulb just doesn't come on until they are completely immersed in it.... They will get exposed to all of it, albeit briefly, but that's the point. It enables them to understand and then decide.."hey this is kickass, I really want to be a SOT-A" or "Umm maybe I just want to sit in a windowless room."

Without getting into specifics, the classes are tiny. You know the instructor/student ratio I believe. The small size makes up for the short amount of time that they have at this point.


Again my .02

 

[Brill]

What the fuck is with the Eye-tal-icks?

You expect somebody to be able to operate on their own coming straight from their AIT/A&S or whatever?

Yes, it's called a Qualification Course.

You (general terms) can talk and talk till your blue to a brand new guy about this job and the lightbulb just doesn't come on until they are completely immersed in it.... They will get exposed to all of it, albeit briefly, but that's the point. It enables them to understand and then decide...

"When do I get issued my Oakleys and get to blouse my ASUs? I already have my Krylon to paint my weapon so where's my PEQ?"

 

[goon175]

I firmly believe that if a soldier is motivated to pass RASP I or II, he's motivated to keep up with technology and actually learn how/why those majik boxes do what they do and what to do if they don't do. Hell, RASP would be good for us since we cannot go to SUT, which is only for SF candidates (I'm sure we would overload the course (note: there are only 12 SOT-As per BN)).

Not a terrible idea. I'm a fan of USASOC working together, and just taking RASP and SURT out of RSTB and putting it under JFKSWCS, making Ft. Bragg the central training location for all USASOC soldiers. The 160th could run green platoon up there as well. You could send select pax (such as SOT-A guys) through phase 2 of RASP 1 to get a solid foundation of shooting, medical, SOF TTP's, etc. after they go through there own SOT-A specific selection course (thus why phase 1 of RASP would not be needed). Also, SURT would be there for all USASOC soldiers to use in preperation for Ranger School. Also, they could axe pre-rasp and just use SOPC as the prep course for both RASP and SFAS. Also, a huge benefit would be guys coming into USASOC getting a lot of exposure to other branch's of USASOC right off the bat, developing relationships early on that can benefit the mission years down the road.

 

[reed11b]

In my opinion, a SOT-A should graduate SFSIET and be able to operate independently...holy shit! Just like a CCT, EOD, dog handler, or any other SOF enabler? Novel fricken concept.



OJT in OEF is a NG (No Go or National Guard, you decide ).

Venison in the headlights. Pfftt...

A) What the F is SFSIET?
B) At ease on that NG crap, unless you mean the WA NG, then I agree.
Reed

 

[Marauder06]

...

Where's the resistance within USASFC?

USASFC "is" the disconnect. USASFC has traditionally not been willing to make a significant, long-term, meaningful commitment to its enablers. That's the reason there is not a program in place.

 

[Brill]

A) What the F is SFSIET?
B) At ease on that NG crap, unless you mean the WA NG, then I agree.
Reed

A) Special Forces

B) It's your WANG, do want you want with it. I don't judge.