SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > U.S. Army Special Operations > Special Forces

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 26 May 2000, 06:13
Jasper Jasper is offline
Testee
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 8
Question SF Restructure

A while back, there was a link to a site that had some interesting SF restructuring ideas; eliminating the SF bn, new ODA structure, etc. If anyone remembers the link, I would appreciate it if you would post it. Thanks.

------------------
Arch hard and take it like a man.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26 May 2000, 16:03
Tracy
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
I don't know about a URL link, but I was asked my opinion SF Organization a while back. Here's a reprint:

-------------------------------------------

I can think of several hundred ways, IMHO, to improve SF. I think the best route is the one that can save money and streamline command and control.

Personnel Retention:
Implement a policy of a MINIMUM 5-year initial tour on an SF A-Team for all new graduates. No exceptions. They also must receive formal school cross-training in another 18 series MOS (18B,C,D,E) also during the initial tour. During the initial tour they must complete a minimum of one 6-month rotation overseas with their team. The SF Soldier must spend at LEAST one year on an A-Team AFTER graduating from his secondary MOS School. Officers must also serve five years on a Team.

After the Initial Tour, they are eligible for other assignments within the Army SF community. Team Time doesn't start until after graduation from SFS, Language, and any other specialty courses. All personnel who finish the initial tour with favorable evaluations are eligible for 18F School.

After 10 years A-Team time, Enlisted SF are eligible for assignment within the Unified Spec Ops Community. Officers are eligible for Unified Assignments after serving on a Group Staff.

SF A-Teams:
Keep it 12 personnel. Eliminate one officer position; and replace it with another 18F. The single officer position can be manned with either a WO or CPT or MAJ. An A-Team is nothing more than an Infantry squad with some interesting job skills. It doesn't need two officers to handle the work.

The Team breakout would be:
One Team Leader (WO, CPT or MAJ);
One Team Sergeant (SFC,MSG,SGM);
Two 18F;
Two 18B;
Two 18C;
Two 18D;
Two 18E;

Every SF ODA must complete one 6-month rotation overseas every 2-3 years. This is an unaccompanied tour. There's plenty of work for them; the big problem is getting the chain of command off it's ass to implement the policy. SF personnel who don't want to deploy can find a job in the fast-food industry.

Every Team member will have standard rifle with grenade launcher and pistol; plus each team will have one 60mm Mortar, two sniper systems, one GPMG, two SAWs, and one Javelin Launcher set. All personnel will be equipped with Night Vision Equipment, SAR Radios, and personal commo systems for intra-team commo.

SF Company:
Plus up the number of ODAs from 6 to 9 per company. With 9 Teams, 4-5 will have Line Officers (CPT or MAJ), 4 or 5 will have Warrant Officers.

Four Teams will be Specialty Teams: Free Fall, Amphibious Operations, Ground Mobility and Rough Terrain. Another Four Teams will be plain 'Vanilla' Teams. One Team will be specially organized and equipped for Intelligence Operations.

All Specialty Teams primary mission is Reconnaissance and Surveillance. Their special means of insertion and recovery lend themselves to sneaking in and gathering information. The Specialty Teams are also responsible for assisting the Company in movement operations involving their skills. These teams should have the more experienced personnel in the Company.

All of the Vanilla Teams primary mission is Combat Patrolling: Raids, Ambushes, Offsets, etc. They are the "Heavy Hitters". They will also specialize in Urban Combat and CQB.

All Teams have FID as an additional mission. All Teams must complete an Area-Study and Language Training refresher program every two years for their Area of Responsibility. All teams must pass annual evaluations in Reconnaissance, Surveillance , Combat Operations, and Urban Operations.

Keep the Company HQ strength at 14 personnel: 12 SF, 1 Logistics NCO and 1 NBC NCO.

SF Battalions:
Eliminate them completely. Wipe out 70% of the personnel slots (approximately 140 people); and send the other 1/3 (70 per battalion) to the Group. They are a useless layer of Command.

SF Groups:
Keep all five Groups and their orientation. Reduce the number of SF Companies from 9 to 6 Companies per group. Today, on paper, there are 9 SF Companies with 6 ODAs in each company; a total of 54 Teams. With my recommendation, there would be 6 SF Companies with 9 ODAs in each company; a total of 54 Teams. The key difference is I can eliminate 450-500 slots and remove one layer of command between the Teams and the Group Commander. This will NOT affect command and control; hell, it enhances it.

With the extra 30% from each of the old battalions, blend those slots into the existing Group. Reorganize the Group into:
Six SF Companies.
One Group HQ Company;
One SF Support Battalion, consisting of :
--Headquarters and Headquarters Company.
--Operations Company (Ops, Intel, PSYOP, CA, OPLANS),
--Logistics Company (Supply, Maintenance, Transport, and Log Planning),
--Signal Company.

During deployments, the SF Group HQ Company and Support Battalion would ‘clone’ themselves into two Forward Operations Bases; each capable of supporting 3 SF Companies. Each FOB consists of the standard Operations Center, Support Center and Signal Center.

For those Groups with permanent forward locations overseas (1st and 10th Groups), they would permanently ‘clone’. One FOB stays in the US; the other stays forward.

Well, there’s my .02 worth. This should start some ‘conversation’…

--------------------------------

End of Reprint

That help any? And why are you interested?

tracy.**********@60mdg.travis.af.mil
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26 May 2000, 16:29
jmbjs jmbjs is offline
Probationary User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Ft. Polk
Posts: 17
Tracy,
I like it, however, I would do away with 18B MOS, make it part of the "Q" course, along with SOT....I feel that everybody should do what a weapons man does...replace the lost MOS on the teams with the critical MOS that we have trouble keeping...18E's or D's maybe an extra 18F when we get rid of the Warrant slot...I know to suggest getting rid of the B slot is heresy, but....shouldnt we expect any SF NCO that has been in Group for at least 4-5 years to do that job?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 26 May 2000, 16:30
jmbjs jmbjs is offline
Probationary User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Ft. Polk
Posts: 17
Tracy,
I like it, however, I would do away with 18B MOS, make it part of the "Q" course, along with SOT....I feel that everybody should do what a weapons man does...replace the lost MOS on the teams with the critical MOS that we have trouble keeping...18E's or D's maybe an extra 18F when we get rid of the Warrant slot...I know to suggest getting rid of the B slot is heresy, but....shouldnt we expect any SF NCO that has been in Group for at least 4-5 years to do that job?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 26 May 2000, 18:30
Jasper Jasper is offline
Testee
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 8
Thanks. The reason that I asked was that my team and i were talking the other day and the topic of SF structure came up. I remembered your article and wanted to show it to the guys. Thanks again.

------------------
Arch hard and take it like a man.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26 May 2000, 21:41
SOTICgrad
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Hey JMBJS....
Interesting thought on the Bravos, but...You mentioned "shouldnt we expect any SF NCO that has been in Group for at least 4-5 years to do that job?"

First...how do you get them to that point if you have no subject matter expert to teach them? Especially with the losses we're taking these days. Without being to confrontational, you may THINK you know a lot of non B's that can do the job, maybe you, but you're wrong. If the B's on your team agree with you then you might wanna send 'em over to weapons committee to brush up. I doubt you could expect everyone to keep their MOS current and have to combine the B's into it.

I think you're missing some of the things B's do, because they don't do them on a regular basis and the stuff you see us do all the time is stuff that many with an infantry background may be able to do. But don't forget that 30% of current SF candidates don't come from combat arms.

I truly doubt that a medic is going to have time to stay current on how to breakdown a multitude of foreign weapons. You can't always "brush up" before you go somewhere. Not to mention everyone on the team having time to maintain currency on doing adjust, shift, and polar plot fire direction indirect fire missions. Nothing like plotting below the pivot point. Ask your Bravo's about how simple it would be for everyone on the team to plot and fire a coordinated illum mission. If they think that's easy then they're studs, cause we've got B's from A-teams running through the committee every week to freshen up on stuff....yes I'm there.

What I'm saying is don't sell us short because we seem like the guys in college that were phys ed majors. There's a lot more to the B's than you see on a daily basis and finding out that inconveient fact in some mud hole is not a good thing. We do a lot more than shoot and loot...that's just what a lot of us like to do most. Stepping off the soapbox.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26 May 2000, 21:42
SOTICgrad
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Hey JMBJS....
Interesting thought on the Bravos, but...You mentioned "shouldnt we expect any SF NCO that has been in Group for at least 4-5 years to do that job?"

First...how do you get them to that point if you have no subject matter expert to teach them? Especially with the losses we're taking these days. Without being to confrontational, you may THINK you know a lot of non B's that can do the job, maybe you, but you're wrong. If the B's on your team agree with you then you might wanna send 'em over to weapons committee to brush up. I doubt you could expect everyone to keep their MOS current and have to combine the B's into it.

I think you're missing some of the things B's do, because they don't do them on a regular basis and the stuff you see us do all the time is stuff that many with an infantry background may be able to do. But don't forget that 30% of current SF candidates don't come from combat arms.

I truly doubt that a medic is going to have time to stay current on how to breakdown a multitude of foreign weapons. You can't always "brush up" before you go somewhere. Not to mention everyone on the team having time to maintain currency on doing adjust, shift, and polar plot fire direction indirect fire missions. Nothing like plotting below the pivot point. Ask your Bravo's about how simple it would be for everyone on the team to plot and fire a coordinated illum mission. If they think that's easy then they're studs, cause we've got B's from A-teams running through the committee every week to freshen up on stuff....yes I'm there.

What I'm saying is don't sell us short because we seem like the guys in college that were phys ed majors. There's a lot more to the B's than you see on a daily basis and finding out that inconveient fact in some mud hole is not a good thing. We do a lot more than shoot and loot...that's just what a lot of us like to do most. Stepping off the soapbox.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26 May 2000, 21:43
SOTICgrad
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Sorry about the double post folks.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 27 May 2000, 01:03
spy
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Question

hello all

what about geting rid of the CAPT and the Maj and put the team leaders slot only for WO? and have another 18f and have the rest of them as is and have the wo bid them all together. the other ? is that would you have a capt and maj as a TL or a wo?
is this a good, bad or what?

later

------------------
ooooo rrrraaaahhhh KILL KILL KILL
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 27 May 2000, 01:18
spy
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Question

hello all

what about geting rid of the CAPT and the Maj and put the team leaders slot only for WO? and have another 18f and have the rest of them as is and have the wo bid them all together. the other ? is that would you have a capt and maj as a TL or a wo?
is this a good, bad or what?

later

------------------
ooooo rrrraaaahhhh KILL KILL KILL
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 27 May 2000, 12:09
OldSFer OldSFer is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 53
I second SOTIC's view. Weapons men are very important to a team.

SPY,

Would you please restate your question(s)...this time in English please.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 27 May 2000, 14:02
Swat1 Swat1 is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NOVA
Posts: 388
Exclamation

spy,

Have you been skipping your English classes or what?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 27 May 2000, 14:04
Swat1 Swat1 is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NOVA
Posts: 388
Exclamation

Double Post

[This message has been edited by Swat1 (edited 05-27-2000).]
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 27 May 2000, 16:33
jmbjs jmbjs is offline
Probationary User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Ft. Polk
Posts: 17
Sotic Grad,
All Q-course students would go through the 18B course, that includes the mortars...you say that it would be hard for a medic to stay current on the breakdown of foriegn weapons...well, most of the B's I know couldnt just pick one up and tear it down and put it together without having to finger it here and there to jog their memory...So every body would have that training, that means that medic would pick that weapon up, finger it for a while, then be able to give a familiarization to the other guys, who have had the SAME training as him...As far as infantry background goes(the 30% you mentioned)why would that figure change if you dropped the MOS? You would still have about 30% of the guys that dont have an infantry background....Although Im not sure of your original #'s.
You would now have EVERYBODY, regardless of backgrounds, on the same sheet of music. We have a great weakness in SF on people with basic infantry skills, so lets make it part of the "Q".

As far as your point on how hard it is to keep up with the skills, I agree completly. Most guys, with maybe the E's being the exception, dont really practice much on what they were trained in the course, ESPECIALLY the B's (i.e. mortars). So, imagine this, you get a mission to go train LBG's in mortars, anyone can be tasked with being NCOIC because of the basic training....doesnt matter what his former MOS is....everybody know how to plot, everybody can shoot (SOT), can tear down weapons and sometimes even fix them...
Im not busting on the MOS, I have a B on my team that is very good due to his interest in guns BEFORE he came in...but there are also guys on the team that probably know as much about them that are not B's.
Everybody runs ranges and fights with range control, everybody writes training schedules, everybody teaches LBG's anyway....
Oh yeah, HALO should also be part of the Q course....
My .02 cents.....
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 27 May 2000, 20:07
spy
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

hello

sorry about the double post and the confusion, what i was saying was that, could we get rid of the CPTs and MAJs as the team leaders and put a WO in the place of them (Maj and Capt) and put another 18F in the place of the WO slot? any suggestions?

later

------------------
ooooo rrrraaaahhhh KILL KILL KILL
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 27 May 2000, 20:54
PatK9681 PatK9681 is offline
Probationary User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28
Why do people seem to think that the cure all for spec ops is to get rid of those 'career minded', 'lazy' O's (I hope you can detect my sarcasm) and replace them with enlisted troops?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 27 May 2000, 23:57
Mac679 Mac679 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Italy
Posts: 342
my guess would be because they spend more time on a team than O's do. Two years on an ATeam and a Captain goes to a BTeam. Not great for continuity in the team itself if you're breaking in a new Captain on a regular basis. Not dogging on O's, there's good ones and bad ones out there, but I'll bet there's a lot of good ones that would like to spend more time on an ATeam.
Just 2 cents from someone who hopes to make SF,
Mac
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 28 May 2000, 11:22
jmbjs jmbjs is offline
Probationary User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Ft. Polk
Posts: 17
On "O's",
The problem is not that "O's" are lazy. Its that an NCO can sign into Group along with a Cpt he went to the course with, and that Cpt is gonna be around only about 18 months, sometimes longer, most of the time shorter. He is gone with the team. Life is good, both he and the NCO are fired up about deployments and they stay gone alot. Just about everything he can sign up for he takes because, he knows that he has a limited time on the ODA and he MUST get in certain types of trips if he wants to stay competitive. Plus, team life is the easiest thing he has EVER done in the military and the deployments are just plain fun! Alas, that wise organization we call DA, consults the oracles and sends an edict, "Move on young Cpt, to another job, you have many blocks to fill on your OER and you mustn't stay on an ODA too long, least we RIF you as a Major"!
And move he does.... to lets say, JRTC or someother slot. A nice job, relaxes with the family for a few years, maybe even goes to school and gets his Masters, and the Army pays for it! Down time with the family... School... Great pay... What a DEAL!
Meanwhile, years later, back at the ranch, SFC Gonealot, has been on the same ODA, maybe done a year or two working at the company or Bn level, good chance he's been divorced, hasnt seen his kids in their formative years, cannot go to school "due to mission requirements", and is just burned out. He has seen many Cpt's come and go within the Bn...Some of them competent leaders who want nothing more than to stay on an ODA.
Then the next time you see that Cpt- Major by now, he is now a Company CDR. Only got bout 18 months so he knows the deal. Gotta get certain blocks checked so he turns to the NCO who he knows to be competent, and can find his way around the Bn well.
By this time Sgt. Gonealot is a sr E-7 maybe an E-8, has been doing it for 8-10 years, pays his child support on time, and knows the toll the revolving door policy of the officer career management field takes on the NCO's in SF. In all the surveys they give him, he repeatedly writes that the best thing that could happen to SF, is to subject the officers to the same career management (or mismanagement) policies as the NCO's. The best officers that he has seen, violate their career paths, find a way to stay on a team, and are bent on getting out afterwards.
So the Company Cdr does his time, with the help of the ever faithful but growing weary NCO, and wonders if the last 10 or so years has been worth the cost to he and his family. As the guidon is passed to another Major, he recognizes and welcomes the new Cdr with a grip-and-a-grin. Welcome BACK Sir. Here we go again.......

Officers should stay on teams and as company CDR's at least 4 years, maybe even longer....They are there long enough to see a fundemental problem in the system, but not there long enough to address it...and that leaves the NCO's to deal with the problems year in and year out. They are not willing to fall on a sword, after all, why risk pissing off somebody as a team leader or company cdr and paying for it later. After all, Command time is such a small percentage of time spent with troops during ones career so they can put up with it for a short while, they will be gone soon....

*Bottom line: Keep the "O's" on the Company level for at least 4 years so they can get a good taste of what the NCO's have to put up with year after year. If we do that, maybe these issues that come up in all of our surveys can be solved. Maybe by the time an officer is a Bn or Grp CDR, he knows full well how the Op-Tempo, staff imcompetence, absence of funds for white SOF, and lack of confidence in our leadership effects his CMD and is willing to do something about it...


Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 28 May 2000, 15:49
Snake's Avatar
Snake Snake is offline
COL Quaritch is my CO
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,821
Exclamation

Find a way to keep Officer's in field command slots for a decent amount of time, -without- torpedoing their careers...


Snake
25th ID(L)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 30 May 2000, 11:16
SAPPER317
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Gents,

The removal of the officer from an ODA sounds good, but the US would never allow a WO or NCO be the "Representative" of America. Much of the friction that surfaces when a team is deployed, stems from the fact that maost nations only consider officers as having any authority in the military. Polititions don't relate with NCOs, they relate with Officers.

Why don't we (US) restructure the SF officer management? SF NCO management is different than regular Army NCO management. Look at the Brits. Members of their military get into a unit, and stay for most of their career. It is common for a Brit E4 to be there 20 years. When I worked with them, they all new each other very well, as they worked with each other for many a year. Brits competed for job openings within their regiments. If a soldier wanted a job outside his regiment, they would almost always lose rank. Possibly because they are so small, compared to the US Military, they have to be so selective. But then again, that is what we are asking our SF community to do.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:34.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2020