Controlling from the TOC

[VMI_Marine]

Since the reading list thread is starting to head that way, I'm going to try to pull that part of the discussion to its own thread.

Forest - Thanks for the reply/guidance and for checking around to see if others have had any issues, like I said, these are stories I have heard and am always looking for the real scoop. Another thing I had heard from guys were that some JTAC's are not even outside the wire and doing the whole thing from the FOB. Running Type 2 stuff with Rover and the like.

I don't know, I appreciate technology like the next guy, but I would feel very uneasy not being out there with my Marines in the thick of it. Not that I don't think they would be able to handle it, I know they would, but I am a Marine and we lead from the front, not from a a/c building while my guys are out sweating. S/F

I'm right there with you, brother, I'd rather be on the ground any day. That said, I can think of a few instances where I was less effective as a JTAC because I did not have as much information at my fingertips as I would in the COC. It's a balancing act at times. How effective are COC personnel at handling all of the myriad tasks you need them to perform? Can they anticipate your information requirements and push you the information you need? If they can't, then maybe you shouldn't be out tromping around the AO. In ANGLICO, you also have to balance your effectiveness as a JTAC with your responsibilities as a team leader - i.e. to get out and do the same things that your Marines are doing.

We definitely need to train to TOC/COC operations a lot more, and train some of our younger Marines on the functions that need to be performed so that we can get out in the field from time to time, rather than being leashed to the SIPR computer (been there way too much).

[Birdman23]

I recently returned from OEF where about 65% of my controls were Type II from the TOC. While being out forward provided the most responsive CAS and targeting, the JTAC can only be in one place at a time. So in a very kinetic AO I had to sacrifice going out forward a lot of times so that we could support all ground parties from the TOC. If there were enough JTACs to go around we could all be out there getting bombs on target, but given the current push for JFOs I don't see it heading this way. The JFO program is great for when a JTAC can't be there, but IMO it shouldn't be the solution to the problem of not having enough of us.

I definitely agree with you VMI_Marine, there needs to be more of a training focus on controlling from the TOC.

[USMC_ANGLICO]

Gents,

After returning from the school house I have to say, although my heart is always on the ground with my Marines, I understand more about the efficiancy of have a JTAC in the TOC. You are absolutely correct about needing to train to the TOC/COC operations more. Without having the big picture as much as you can, it will inhibit operations for you as a JTAC and for the Marines / Forces you are supporting.

We all know there is a shortage of JTAC's in both AO's and with the environment being as it is, you can go from benign, to many elements going kinetic and needing terminal control in a heartbeat. The JFO program I think is going to enhance the ability of units like ANGLICO to get definitive repsonse into the battlespace quicker and with more accurancy. This is of course when dealing with TIC, I feel it is my responsibility to not only educate the supported commander but my own Marines on things like ROE/LOW regarding CAS operations TIC and preplanned and CDE and the process' needed to get to the point where "Cleared Hot" is stated.

Being on the ground is important for a multitude of reasons but being able to control the battle or multiple battles from the TOC where you can just lean over to the guy you need to make the call to higher for approval or be there with the supported commander, etc to make that call on CDE and Danger Close is also important. Finding that true balance seems as if it will be a never ending process and will change on a daily basis.

Stay safe and see ya at NTC.

[foxcolt13]

I'm not familiiar with the new FO program JFO so if I sound dumb forgive. I was a FO and I have done CAS ( NTC) and I think it would be a good idea to send FO's or at list the team leaders to the same school as the TACP's or have the AF ALO's set up a school at the Army base's for all the FO's to attend. The FO's are already equipped for the mission minus some commo equippment. I think FO's would perform the CAS missions with the same confidence as the Arty,Mortors and MLRS missions with more trainingfrom the AF ALO's. The problem was not enough CAS training for the guys up front and beyond.

[foxcolt13]

sill-www.army.mil/jcid/PowerPoint%20Presentation/Joint%20Fires%20Observer%20Course.ppt

I just found this site, it sounds like a good start and has been much needed .

[Stupify]

<-- USAF TACP

There's so much more to it than just "commo gear". There's a reason that the Air Force has the TACP/JTAC and the Army doesn't. FO's don't specialize in CAS, as you know as an FO, you do indirect fires. Not starting a pissin contest. As an army FO, it will be rare thing to initiate terminal control of an attack aircraft (fixed wing AF asset). It's easier for us (TACP's) to act as FO's.

I'm not familiiar with the new FO program JFO so if I sound dumb forgive. I was a FO and I have done CAS ( NTC) and I think it would be a good idea to send FO's or at list the team leaders to the same school as the TACP's or have the AF ALO's set up a school at the Army base's for all the FO's to attend. The FO's are already equipped for the mission minus some commo equippment. I think FO's would perform the CAS missions with the same confidence as the Arty,Mortors and MLRS missions with more trainingfrom the AF ALO's. The problem was not enough CAS training for the guys up front and beyond.

[VMI_Marine]

Many of the required skills for indirect fire also apply to CAS. The ability to derive accurate target locations being the most prominent, IMO. The majority of USMC JTACs (i.e. non-aviator terminal controllers) are infantry and artillerymen. In ANGLICO, I spent a lot of time with my team chief and junior 0861 scout observer (equiv to 13F) teaching them the basics of requesting, tracking, and controlling CAS. There is no reason 13Fs can not learn the requisite skills. The only practical limitation on training 13Fs as controllers, IMO, would be the training support required. The flying squadrons can not produce enough sorties for CAS training to train the number of controllers everyone would like to have, obviously. However, I'm attending the Army's career level school for their infantry and armor captains, and I'm hearing a lot of dissatisfaction with the support provided by TACPs from my peers in the course. The notable exception would be the guys with experience in SOCOM. That could be somewhat alleviated by allowing the Army FOs to be more involved in CAS.

[foxcolt13]

That could be somewhat alleviated by allowing the Army FOs to be more involved in CAS. VMI Marine
It seems like the Army agrees with us, that the FO's need more CAS training. The New JFO program is just that ,more CAS training for FO's. I have called in a lot of rounds and never made a mistake , I'm still alive, so CAS wasn't that much of a difference for me. FO's have alot of irons in the fire at once so I know they can successfully do CAS with more training, nobody ever did it without the proper training first which leads to confidence and then precision.We ,FO's were training for CAS ( live ..thousand pounders) at Hood in 92', I don't remember what type of fixed wing it was but I remember the thud I felt all over my body. yehaw

[SN]

However, I'm attending the Army's career level school for their infantry and armor captains, and I'm hearing a lot of dissatisfaction with the support provided by TACPs from my peers in the course. The notable exception would be the guys with experience in SOCOM. That could be somewhat alleviated by allowing the Army FOs to be more involved in CAS.

Can you be specific here? One of the problems we have is the Army thinking the actually "own" the individuals and "forgetting" they belong to the AF. So having an E-5 tell the Bde CSM no pisses them off.

That said, I think it's possible for the Army to take the TACP mission over, but it has to be a complete takeover; from training to execution. Army ensuring CAS requests get into the ATO (The Army has enough pilots to do this), and keeping their folks qualified. The AF has problems generating enough sorties for it's folks, imagine doubling or tripling the Training CAS requirement? Who pays for the Army generated sorties?

[SATCOM]

This tit-for-tat makes the rounds every few years. The Army recognizes that the USAF is best suited to handle the "Airmanship" issues of CAS, and has made a few steps (standing up SOTACC) to alleviate the JTAC-deficiency within the DOD. Just got back from OEF and had numerous Army SOF SOTACC grads out at the FOB's.....yet even they would not get on the mike to control CAS when CCT/TACP were nearby. I think it's akin to WO's that fly helo's in the Army, in that all they do is fly! Who would you rather fly YOU into harms way, an O-2 that graduated from Rucker last year, or a 3000 hour CWO-4 from the 160th?

[foxcolt13]

The problems with CAS when I was in was that the INF. platoons didn't have to support on hand when it was needed, it took way too long. The FO's do carry designators and are trained to use them ie: Hell Fire from 64's and copperhead rds. The JFO program IMO seems to be filling the gap , I at least hope so.

[VMI_Marine]

Can you be specific here? One of the problems we have is the Army thinking the actually "own" the individuals and "forgetting" they belong to the AF. So having an E-5 tell the Bde CSM no pisses them off.

That said, I think it's possible for the Army to take the TACP mission over, but it has to be a complete takeover; from training to execution. Army ensuring CAS requests get into the ATO (The Army has enough pilots to do this), and keeping their folks qualified. The AF has problems generating enough sorties for it's folks, imagine doubling or tripling the Training CAS requirement? Who pays for the Army generated sorties?

SN, I'll work on getting some more specifics from my Army brethren. I believe a lot of it stemmed from the fact that there are not enough JTACs to provide support to many of the companies and platoons. I don't think that giving the Army the TACP mission is a good idea. Coming from a community where we had controllers from the aviation and ground communities, I absolutely believe there is a lot of value to keeping Air Force SME's involved in the mission. Training Army FOs to be "remote observers", like the JFO program, is the best answer IMO. Perhaps a limited number of Army JTACs, but the ASOS's should continue to be the primary agency for coordinating and controlling fixed wing air support to the Army.

There are a couple of ways to remedy the issue of sorties available for training. One is simulation. There are several simulators out there that allow for increasingly realistic CAS training. Also, incorporating observers into live fire training doesn't necessarily take controls away from the JTACs. Both the JFO and JTAC can get credit for the control if it is done right. For instance, if my JFO-qualified team chief passes the target location to the aircraft, while I supervise and provide the cleared hot, we both log a control towards our proficiency. I won't delve any more into specific TTPs - you guys know how it is done. If your live fire training is planned correctly, both the JFO and JTAC can get the required controls from the same sortie. Unfortunately, we didn't do it very often at ANGLICO, as it required more work than sticking with the "canned" TACP shoots where the JTACs all just line up behind the radios and give the usual 9-line briefs. That is one of the things I criticized heavily in my outbrief when I left the unit.