Common organizational structure?

[swamppirate]

Battlefield Airmen

A transformation initiative that blends technology, concepts of operations, and organization is producing a new breed of "Battlefield Airmen." This group comprises combat controllers, pararescuemen, combat weathermen, Tactical Air Control Party specialists (TACPs), and others. The Air Force intends to bring them together in a common organizational structure to further improve precision strike.

The evolving Battlefield Airman concept will spur new ways of operating and will be an important addition to joint warfighting. Sensors on unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) will extend the Battlefield Airman's awareness. In the future, these Airmen will help decrease the load on aircrews, shorten the sensor-to-shooter chain, provide secure machine-to-machine interfacing, and more.

Future battlefields most likely will be discontinuous, with shadowy

hostile forces organized in small unlinked groups. Eliminating these forces will require integration of air and ground forces on a scale greater than today’s. The Air Force is preparing for the future by exploring concepts of operations featuring asymmetrical air attacks on enemy ground forces, wherever they are hiding. The Air Force and the Army are working to strengthen Joint Air-Ground Operations in order to improve combat capability.

USAF proudly defines itself as one Air Force--with Airmen (both uniformed and civilian) executing strike, space, mobility, support, and special operations missions. They are waging war on terrorism, performing joint operations, and transforming in place, all while maintaining America's air and space dominance.



What common organazational structure would that be?

[SgtUSMC8541]

Originally posted by swamppirate
combat weathermen,

"Quick! Attack that cloud!! Lookout! Take Cover! Incoming rain!"

"Oh My God! Look at the size of those snowflakes!!!! I think we are going to need more ammo!"


Sorry, I just had too.:D :D

Back to the Marine side.

[Fire-Gunner]

You're gonna get WSC Guy all riled up now!:D

[SN]

Originally posted by Fire-Gunner
You're gonna get WSC Guy all riled up now!:D

Nah, give 'em a bone, he's a yankees fan. I can go home knowing my team didn't take a 3-0 lead and then choke like his team did.

[DY]

swamppirate, is this an article you pasted? If so, what is the source. Is this something you wrote?

I don't know much about the strategic level, but I do understand that transformation for the future is moving much more rapidly than it used to. Projects and concepts are being introduced on the battlefield as a work in progress. As for "organizational structure", no doubt it starts with "Joint".

Oh, by the way. The Red Sox won the World Series.

[SgtUSMC8541]

Thanks... was starting to feel better....... next year, next year!:D

Can't I pick on anyone without geting picked on for the Yanks!

I guess not.

[swamppirate]

DY, here is the adresss for the article I pasted.



http://www.afa.org/AboutUs/PolicyIssues05.asp

[MS275]

Currently, not all of the "ground combat" MOS'/AFSC's in the Air Force reside under one common AF command. There is talk about restructuring in order to "put all of the eggs in one basket."

Additonally, all of the career fields will be equipped similarly and recieve like minded initial training (shoot, move , and communicate) in order to get rid of four places teaching essentailly the same skills.

MS

[SN]

Originally posted by MS275
Currently, not all of the "ground combat" MOS'/AFSC's in the Air Force reside under one common AF command. There is talk about restructuring in order to "put all of the eggs in one basket."

MS

Frightening scenario- Can't imagine going back to ACC, hopefully all the battlefield airman go to AFSOC, but I can't see that happening.

[swamppirate]

WSC, I'm with you, ACC does suck ass. No doubt, all the funding is going to the jets and the fighter fags. Hmmmm.... Maybe somebody ought to look at that!!!!!!

[DY]

Originally posted by MS275
Currently, not all of the "ground combat" MOS'/AFSC's in the Air Force reside under one common AF command. There is talk about restructuring in order to "put all of the eggs in one basket."

Additonally, all of the career fields will be equipped similarly and recieve like minded initial training (shoot, move , and communicate) in order to get rid of four places teaching essentailly the same skills.

MS What four places are you talking about? I can see consolodating training for basic skills, such as marksmanship, even small unit tactics and mission planning. But the tendency to say Security Forces can do this, Combat Control can do that, and Pararescue can go fuck themselves is a mistake.

[KJ]

Originally posted by MS275
Currently, not all of the "ground combat" MOS'/AFSC's in the Air Force reside under one common AF command. There is talk about restructuring in order to "put all of the eggs in one basket."

Additonally, all of the career fields will be equipped similarly and recieve like minded initial training (shoot, move , and communicate) in order to get rid of four places teaching essentailly the same skills.

MS The sheer stupidity of this statement leaves me bewildered. These AFSC's do not belong in the same basket. Their missions are at odds with each other. That is like saying F-16's and AWACS should be put under the same command also because "air combat" airframes should all be "in one basket".

Neither should they be "equipped similarly". Do Security Forces need SATCOM, portable TACANs, and what next...parachutes? Should we start equiping STS's with Bradley fighting vehicles (what the SF forces currently require but are consistently denied due to funds "hey, the M-119 is still working right?). Again, they have different missions with different functions. Would you modify an KC-10 with stations that it could fire AIM-9's? Or would you now restrict the F-15 from being able to equip and train on the AIM-9? I can make a similar parable for Security Forces and Pararescue/Combat Control. And of course, the answer (like the Bradleys for SF) will be the less cost prohibitive one.

Neither should they receive like minded training (shoot, move and communicate). Again, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT MISSIONS. Different sized organizations and tactical employment sizes and methods. Although this would make AETC happy, it would kill airmen in the field. Specifically, STS airmen. Do we now need to rob even more slots from HALO school, and SFUO Combat Diver's courses to fulfill an unused and (even at a stretch) "requirement" for Security Forces? You tell me.

[SN]

I believe the original concept was for cops (Lackland AFB), TACP, CCT,Cwx (H-Fld/Pope AFB), PJ's (KAFB) (hence the four places) to roll the shoot, move communicate protion into one school, then split out for career field specific training. With We all have instructors teaching the same concepts, this reduces each career fields instructor load, and creates a baseline of instruction so we all start with the same knowledge base.

[MS275]

KJ,

Not really sure how Security Forces (never mentioned in my post) even ended up in this conversation, but I guess I was unclear on which four career fields/places I was talking about. when I speak of AF "combat" units, I am referring to guys who cross the LD and are involved in direct combat operations. SP's (SF is reserved for the 18 series) do not fit that bill.

Back to BA: TACPs currently recieve basic field skills at Hurlburt, CCT at Pope, PJs at Kirkland, and CWX at Hurby. The intent is to create one school to teach these basic skills and then farming guys out to their intended pipelines. As far as equipping, I am referring to certain Pro gear and not large end items.

I personally think that in these four carrer fields, much of this training can be accomplished at one school. Basic shooting skills, radio/communication procedures and operations, land navigation, and small unit tactics/tactical movement, etc. are common skills all of these carrer fields need. If certain career fields need "advanced skills" (which they will), they can receive them at their respective tech schools or AST.

I am not advocating ST pick up SP's, but ST picking up certain TACPs (SF and RGR) may not be a bad idea. We do overlap in certain mission sets (TAC) and falling under the same AFSOC umbrella would have it's advantages for all involved.

As far as the sheer stupidity of my initial statement? I'll attribute that comment to the misunderstanding of my post. XOXOXO's

MS
720th STG/DOTF
ST TACP

[SN]

MS275-

The original brief I heard (Col Holmes?) was briefed as ST, CWx,TACP and Cops. I don't believe the intent was to put cops into the ST mix, but to give them a good training baseline. More shoot, communicate, less move. The introduction of the CRGs (IMO) increases the need for a standardized (initial) training baseline.

[MS275]

WSC,

There has been mention of the 820th guys getting into the mix, but not sure where that stands. Currently, BA is for the four above mentioned career fields, or at least that is what has been briefed on my end. I'm sure in the future it may expand to meet the CRG needs, but not at this point. I concur, the training would be good for eveyone, but the current focus is on the full time operators.

MS

[Doogie320]

Dudes,

Whenever I hear "battlefield" and "airman" in the same sentence I have to laugh. Not at the CCT's, PJ's, TACP's, CWx, and some of the SP's, but at the rest of the AF. As you are all painfully aware, if you can change the "Let's not get our hands dirty" mentality of the rest of the USAF then almost anything is possible.

In comparing the Army to the AF (even at the support level since I am a support troop) the difference is night and day. The AF's concern (well, lack thereof) or thought patterns concerning combat is appaling to a somewhat outside observer like myself.

I wish you all the best, but my God at the upcliff (not even uphill)battle you have ahead of you. You could almost start a thread on "Why the AF isn't ready for combat".

Good luck gents. Truly. You have a lot of "dudes" to convince in your battle.

[dogman]

Hey, Doogie.
You have to admit you know at least one high-speed, low-drag AF guy that wasn't CCT, PJ, TACP:D

[swamppirate]

MS275, I agree there should be a common "core" field skills for the battlefield airman. But who is going to run this animal, AFSOC? ACC, God let's hope not. But I concur there does need to be a "centralized" training "facility" that puts everyone on the same sheet of music.

[Doogie320]

Originally posted by dogman
Hey, Doogie.
You have to admit you know at least one high-speed, low-drag AF guy that wasn't CCT, PJ, TACP:D

Yeah, but that guy is a statistical anomaly. :)

Don't get me wrong, there are some great folks wearing a blue suit, but they are better suited to a boardroom than a battlefield. A certain mentality or spirit was never fostered in them during their training and subsequent duty stations. 3 years after 9/11 and nothing has changed for them and that's sad....

[simulatedbadass]

Originally posted by swamppirate
But who is going to run this animal, AFSOC? ACC.......

How about AETC? Now that would be a fun thing to watch. ;)

[SN]

Originally posted by Doogie320
Dudes,

Whenever I hear "battlefield" and "airman" in the same sentence I have to laugh. Not at the CCT's, PJ's, TACP's, CWx, and some of the SP's,

Dude.

These are the career fields identified as Battlefield Airman. FYI- We have Airman doing convoys in Iraq, not one has voted not to go, unlike the Army Reserve.

As far as combat ready, show me a fighter wing that can't deploy... Our wartime job isn't dedicated to takeing ground, it's dedicated to supporting those who do take the high ground.

[swamppirate]

Doogie, are you coming to your conclusions by personal observation, random surveys, or what? I can't speak for the rest of the Air Force (mainly because I haven't been around them), but I know in my AFSC and my unit the "warrior" mentality and the feeling of urgency/purpose has never been higher. Just my thoughts......

[DY]

The "Warrior mentality" of the Air Force, generally speaking is sorely lacking. A sense of urgency is good, and most necessary, but does not "foster" a readiness or understanding of the willingness to kill actual human beings. The term is exploited in the Air Force to cultivate a spirit of cooperation. Again, this is generally speaking.
-
I can see consolodating a block of instruction that the Army would call "Common Tasks" or "basic soldier skills". And I do mean BASIC. Everybody should understand the fundamentals of basic marksmanship, how to break down and maintain an M-4, etc. Some other things such as INDIVIDUAL land navigation skills WITHOUT a Damn GPS. Basic small unit tactics and conducting a proper 5 paragraph operations order, verbatim out of the Ranger Handbook. Hell, the flyers even base their mission planning off that. The problem with all this is I will put a paycheck on AETC taking over this animal. And as KJ implied, it would only add momentum to the insanity of consolodating an unrealistic, and ultimately useless mission. We would cancel each other out.

[Doogie320]

I'm aware that Airmen are doing convoys. Those I'm working with aren't but guys from their work centers back at their home station are. They stay in touch so I'm getting some observations from those emails. Others are based on conversations with Airmen here. I believe the performance of those Airman running convoys is due to human nature overcoming adversity and not the Air Force preparing them for combat. My guys did not zero their weapons or even undergo weapons training prior to arriving in Afghanistan. The armory is not open on Sundays for them to draw ammo prior to us going downrange. When we are rocketed the AF has one response and the Army's response is completely different; the AF almost panics over one rocket impacting 2 clicks away.

The AF does not have the mentality for closing with the enemy and it is my opinion based on what I'm seeing and hearing that the GWOT has changed all of the rules as to how we are fighting. How we thought we would go to war is different from how we are going to war.

I am aware of Army Reserve issues with that one unit and those at Abu Ghraib. I was never comfortable with the way Army CS/ CSS units prepared their soldiers ("laughable" is a kind way of putting it).

My point is that the AF leadership does not grasp what it takes to put men downrange. Until they change their minds I believe you gentlemen will fight a very uphill battle. As I stated earlier, this isn't directed at those that the Battlefield Airman program is designed for, rather your highers in places like ACC and AMC. They control the bulk of the dollars in the Blue World and money talks.

I spoke to a TACP from the 25th ASOS and he described the Battlefield Airman from an equipment perspective. I tmakes a lot of sense and I wholeheartedly agree with issueing an Airman his gear and him keeping it throughout his career. He briefly mentioned the fight that it took to get that implemented and I also recall a thread or two on here about it.

I just think that the AF neglects her Airmen that go downrange in BDU's vs. those that do the same in flight suits and any attempt to level the playing field will be met with serious opposition. That is the point of my initial post, not a slam on those guys going downrange.

[Cujo]

Originally posted by WSC Guy
MS275-

The original brief I heard (Col Holmes?) was briefed as ST, CWx,TACP and Cops.


Isn't Col Holmes the new Director of Cops?

[SN]

Originally posted by MasterCujo
Isn't Col Holmes the new Director of Cops?

Yep,

Which is why (IMO) the Battlefield Airman Initiative got moving.

[SATCOM]

Brig. Gen. Holmes had a minute part in the BA initiative. The real reason it got wings and flew is because the Sec. of the Air Force (Dr. Roche) and Gen. Jumper were getting daily briefs on CCT/TACP involvement in GWOT. During those briefs, equipment shortfalls (mostly on the TACP side) were discussed ad nauseum. Due to lack of proper equipment and training, there was a limitatiing factor (LIMFAC) on the USAF's ability to put weapons on targets. BA sought to first equip TACP's with the latest targeting gear, and second, train/upgrade more TACP's to the ECAS level. Not every TACP is certified to call in air (fact). Every CCT is (fact).

BA was never envisioned as a "fix all" for certain ground combat AFSC's in the USAF. It has morphed into that realm via the puzzle palace and policy makers. Those with the most to gain; Combat Weather, saw over 10 million dollars worth of new gear come their way in the last 300 days. Typically, CWX would get their gear from the US Army unit they were assigned to. This proved problematic. The whole program, parts of which are real, with others being figments....is in the advanced-thought-design-dream stage.

[AMMOTECH]

Originally posted by Doogie320
My guys did not zero their weapons or even undergo weapons training prior to arriving in Afghanistan. The armory is not open on Sundays for them to draw ammo prior to us going downrange. When we are rocketed the AF has one response and the Army's response is completely different; the AF almost panics over one rocket impacting 2 clicks away.

The AF does not have the mentality for closing with the enemy and it is my opinion based on what I'm seeing and hearing that the GWOT has changed all of the rules as to how we are fighting. How we thought we would go to war is different from how we are going to war.


My point is that the AF leadership does not grasp what it takes to put men downrange. Until they change their minds I believe you gentlemen will fight a very uphill battle. As I stated earlier, this isn't directed at those that the Battlefield Airman program is designed for, rather your highers in places like ACC and AMC. They control the bulk of the dollars in the Blue World and money talks.

I just think that the AF neglects her Airmen that go downrange in BDU's vs. those that do the same in flight suits and any attempt to level the playing field will be met with serious opposition. That is the point of my initial post, not a slam on those guys going downrange.

Well said and very true; When I was at Bagram last year with my unsighted rifle and one 30rnd mag of 55gr ammo I raised a stink to get more ammo and some range time. The higher up's just looked at me like I was nuts. When the guys were getting ready for this years trip I tried to raise the subject again with a few other issues that were left open and I think that is why I was pulled from the line-up.
As for the attack responses.... They like to stick their heads in the sand so they can't see but it is going to cause them to get their tails shot off. During our last exercise here there was a ground attack on an ECP at the flight line, about a mile from the ammo area. As always we had to hide under our desk. I of course always call BS on this and try to get my crew to take up defensive positions. It is a ground attack not a missile/rocket. I've been hammered a few times for it. I try to explain that the "enemy" can do this in more then one place at a time and if your not ready for it they will kill/capture us. Again I get the "your nuts" look and sent on my way.
I've said it before; Big Blue is still set in its cold war ways and will not change.
I have found that I can do very little to change it.:mad:

[Grand58742]

I have said for the longest time "If it doesn't fly and drop bombs, the Air Force doesn't care about it." Ground combat for the majority of the USAF was just something that can be watched on Fox News safely 500 miles from the FEBA. However, with the post 9/11 world, airmen are facing a radically different threat than the Cold War postured USAF. Provided, some career fields (PJ, CCT, TAC-P, CW, even SF for the most part) have been screaming for years the USAF is, nor ever was, ready for any type of ground action. Both OIF and OEF changed the outlook. With traditional combat service and support jobs...mainly convoy operations in Iraq...going to non-traditional ground pounders (I use the term loosely) like CE, Supply, Transportation, etc, the USAF will be forced to look at the way we do ground operations. The Air Force actually has taken a hard look at the convoy operations some units are doing in Iraq and have started or are starting a school at Lackland to help train airmen before they deploy. While it probably will take a while to iron the bugs out, it is at least a step in the right direction. For the most part though, the USAF still thinks you will be proficient with your M-16 is you fire once every 3 years. Or in the case of cops, twice a year. They have yet to realize if our airmen are going to be involved in direct combat in OIF and OEF, we need better weapons training before deployment (which we rely on the Army for as of now in Kuwait,) better communications, far better tactics and overall, a warrior ethic. Eventually someone has to realize while the air and space war is extremely important, the war will eventually be won on the ground.

As for the Battlefield Airman concept. Yes, I agree TAC-P, CW, CCT and PJ should be trained in the "basic" skills together....to an extent. Do I think Security Forces should be involved? Not a chance. Completely different mindset of the involved career fields. Traditional USAF SOF forces (which the SF career field is NOT a part of) are typically going into action in small units, normally no more than a dozen or two people. SF relies on initial small unit actions creating a delaying action, with larger follow on forces, usually responding within 30 minutes or less of initial contact. Do I think the same basic martial skills apply? Yes, however, SF should be trained on being integrated into a larger force. USAF SOF guys would not be trained in this. Integrating USAF SOF forces into a larger battle on an Air Base would be like assigning an Army SF team as a Mech Infantry squad. While they could do the job, it's not really practical due to thier training in small unit tactics. Do I think cops should be able to perform some aspects of the USAF SOF forces? Absolutely. Should we be able to call in air strikes from gunships? By all means. Should we be able to adjust indirect fire from an Army or Marine artillery battery? Hell yes. Should we be able to rescue downed pilots behind lines, prepare runways and coordinate airborne drops, check for weather changes above target packages or lase targets for precision guided strikes? Not a chance in hell.

Do I think USAF SOF forces should be under one common command? Maybe, maybe not. It could have advantages for funding and training if all SOF forces were under the AFSOC heading. But then again, you have the different missions for each. Do I think ACC should own certain TAC-P units......IMO, no. ACC just can't figure out there is more to life than sucking oxygen, blasting away at mach 2 and wearing a big watch.

Doogie, you are exactly correct about the USAF reacts to an attack, either indirect fire, air attack or ground attack on the base. For the past 30 years, we haven't faced any type of attack on our air bases, save some Scud attacks during Desert Storm. Quite honestly, we don't know how to react....because we have forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. Most bases, for the most past, are more worried about chemical threats and practicing to hide in "simulated" hardened facilities (temper tents and Alaska shelters) then they are about teaching the airmen to survive. AFMAN 10-100 is a prime extent of this mindset. It is the USAF's weak response to the Army's SMCT. You want fun sometime? Come watch an AFSPC wing ATSO exercise.

I am hoping Brig Gen Holmes brings some sanity to the SF career field. It is kind of unusual.....a traditional non-cop filing a traditional cop post. However, we in the career field are waiting to see what happens in the next few years.

Just my $0.02.

[Doogie320]

I'm won't belabor the point anymore than I have, but I'll add one last thing to the USAF and incoming:

I watched an AF E-9 (not a cop or Battlefield Airman type, nor an aviator) stand up and make fun of his own service for "freaking out" whenever a rocket attack occurs.

If you folks want specifics, please feel free to PM me. I'm around the AF for another 9 months over here. About the saddest thing that I've heard was an AF guy referring to a lazy member of another branch with, "He's got the heart of an Airman." There was no disgust, laughter, or remorse in his voice either.

Y'all deserve better.