Aerospace Control Operator ( AC Op )
- Thread starter commo_dude
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Loachman said:
Scifiguy, Airmich, and our Pilot friend Loachman, stay safe over there!
M
MikeL
Guest
I thought up a couple more questions on this.
For a AC Op to get into TACP is it more preferable for them to be in a certain side/employment(Weapons or Air Traffic). Also, can a QL3 qual'd person get into TACP or does it have to be a 5's qualified person.
For a AC Op to get into TACP is it more preferable for them to be in a certain side/employment(Weapons or Air Traffic). Also, can a QL3 qual'd person get into TACP or does it have to be a 5's qualified person.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Air force in the FAC teams doing strikes has been tried before and found to be a degradation in capability, this may have changed with the current ops. I await the after action points from this latest war to see if that view changes. As the lead FAC instructor for NATO in the last dust up (war) it never worked very well having Air types at the pointy end. It will be interesting to see the results.
3rd Horseman
Editn Typo
3rd Horseman
Editn Typo
A
aesop081
Guest
3rd Horseman said:
My recent experience contradicts yours. This was in training but if its any indication, an F-18 driver, when propely trained can do one hell of a job as a FAC.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
3rd Horseman said:
... and the A-10 incident being the shining example of how things were being done? The tremendous amount of study that went into that incident all led to one conclusion FAC/TACP is more effective and safer in the hands of AF pers who have the fast air/fast thinking/spatial reasoning capabilities already proven by their primary occupation. Hence the focus on placing figher jocks and scope dopes back into these roles.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Aerospaced_out said:
Placing fighter jocks and scope dopes in the FAC roles was and still is a way of employing people who would otherwise not have a plane to call there own. Its a PY issue not a battle capability issue.
The studies that I have had a hand in crafting have always detailed a cooperative combined approach between air and ground forces. Specifically combining the air elements within there skill sets of air caused them to be the airbourn FAC and the ground FAC was the ground guy within his skill set. When the air FAC and ground FAC are used in combination you get the best result. It is only when one of those elements is missing that you get a degradation in capability. More importantly when you lose the ground aspect of the FAC team and the air aspect acts solo you have almost all causes of incidents. So before you cast out incidents be sure they fit into the argument, if they do then I need to know the incident to see if it applies to your argument or mine.
3rd Horseman
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Aerospaced_0ut
That's a horrible comment. 3rd Horseman is talking from something that he knew 20 years ago and made a general comment, that's it and you haul out something like that, it was junk and I'm calling BS.
Who was it exactly who did this supposed "tremendous" study ? How many AF JTACs are actually outside of KAF for as opposed to Army ones ? Where are AF JTACs going to get their field trg from so when they are out (like you suggest) they don't get themselves killed when not controlling a/c, or do they just do it from the TOC ? How do you control a non ROVER capable a/c from KAF ?Are you suggesting then that only Hornet pilots and scope dopes should be the only ones qualified JTAC cause they have all these attributes ?Anyhow I'm sure you have the answers to all these questions.
The TACP is not in the BG or TF to primarily control air, they are there to handle the administration side first and foremost then afterwards help out and usually in the deep battle(and they do outstanding work) as opposed to close TICs (which usually the Army guys handle or direct, hope they don't strafe anyone eh)
Yours was a junk post, your trying to snow the readers, better have your facts before you post garbage like that using a fratricide incident
That's a horrible comment. 3rd Horseman is talking from something that he knew 20 years ago and made a general comment, that's it and you haul out something like that, it was junk and I'm calling BS.
Who was it exactly who did this supposed "tremendous" study ? How many AF JTACs are actually outside of KAF for as opposed to Army ones ? Where are AF JTACs going to get their field trg from so when they are out (like you suggest) they don't get themselves killed when not controlling a/c, or do they just do it from the TOC ? How do you control a non ROVER capable a/c from KAF ?Are you suggesting then that only Hornet pilots and scope dopes should be the only ones qualified JTAC cause they have all these attributes ?Anyhow I'm sure you have the answers to all these questions.
The TACP is not in the BG or TF to primarily control air, they are there to handle the administration side first and foremost then afterwards help out and usually in the deep battle(and they do outstanding work) as opposed to close TICs (which usually the Army guys handle or direct, hope they don't strafe anyone eh)
Yours was a junk post, your trying to snow the readers, better have your facts before you post garbage like that using a fratricide incident
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
meniOn
You pose a good question, one which has been argued about for years since the airforce and army got to feuding over who got to play with the toys in late WW2 and the Korean war air to ground support battles. This was when FACing was created and came to being in its current form.
I would suggest that the US is so large that they have developed a JTAC response unlike us were we have followed the British model of army FAC. If we were bigger and had the luxury of manpower then we could develop such a specialized Niche. That being said it may not be the best result. I have worked under and with both systems and find ours with a slight modification of AirFAC to be the best use and employment of this type of of firepower.
As I said in my post a combination approach were the air and ground work together within there skill sets provides the best result for the soldiers fighting at the pointy end. After all it is all about them.
3rd Horseman
You pose a good question, one which has been argued about for years since the airforce and army got to feuding over who got to play with the toys in late WW2 and the Korean war air to ground support battles. This was when FACing was created and came to being in its current form.
I would suggest that the US is so large that they have developed a JTAC response unlike us were we have followed the British model of army FAC. If we were bigger and had the luxury of manpower then we could develop such a specialized Niche. That being said it may not be the best result. I have worked under and with both systems and find ours with a slight modification of AirFAC to be the best use and employment of this type of of firepower.
As I said in my post a combination approach were the air and ground work together within there skill sets provides the best result for the soldiers fighting at the pointy end. After all it is all about them.
3rd Horseman
M
MikeL
Guest
meni0n said:
Yea the USAF has TACP (NCMs assigned to Regular Army units as FACs) and Combat Controllers(NCMs assigned to Army SOF as FACs); plus Pilots working as ALOs with TACP. An I believe the RAF also has TACP pers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
rampage800 said:
Call it what you want. His observation that "Air force in the FAC teams doing strikes has been tried before and found to be a degradation in capability" is completely contradictory to current thinking, doctrine and experience in this area. Certainly whatever experiences that led to his view has indeed changed. Much of that change resulted from the investigation into that particular fratricide incident.
As to all your other questions... I fail to see the relevance.
Sounds Joint to me and with this I can agree.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Aerospaced_Out
Glad to see you can't actually back up what your saying, where exactly is this current thinking and doctrine coming from ? Just one reference will do. If you can't see the relevance to my other questions let me refresh your memory all led to one conclusion" FAC/TACP is more effective and safer in the hands of AF pers", Seeing how you bring up that they already know so much stuff about how to deconflict all things air exactly what do they know about ground tactics, or is that not relevant ? Anyhow, still waiting for those answers.
Keep bringing up the fratricide incident and I'll keep posting rebuttals, don't talk to a subject that you know nothing about, maybe if all AF pers had attributes like you said the incident wouldn't have happened in the first place.
Glad to see you can't actually back up what your saying, where exactly is this current thinking and doctrine coming from ? Just one reference will do. If you can't see the relevance to my other questions let me refresh your memory all led to one conclusion" FAC/TACP is more effective and safer in the hands of AF pers", Seeing how you bring up that they already know so much stuff about how to deconflict all things air exactly what do they know about ground tactics, or is that not relevant ? Anyhow, still waiting for those answers.
Keep bringing up the fratricide incident and I'll keep posting rebuttals, don't talk to a subject that you know nothing about, maybe if all AF pers had attributes like you said the incident wouldn't have happened in the first place.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
You are taking my comment out of context. That said, I probably should have focused on the "aptitudes" aspect wherein the aptitudes to make for safer and more effective TACP/FACs is inherently resident within certain AF occupations. I never said the AF should be the end game wrt FAC/TACP. In fact I indicated that increasing the "jointness" of the FAC/TACP realm will pay huge dividends and likely help prevent frat incidents.
What is it specifically that bothers you about bringing up the A10 incident? If you took from my comment that the reason the incident happened was because it wasn't an AF FAC, well, that certainly wasn't my intent. The BOI into that incident highlighted several areas where lessons could be learned. The point I made regarding the increased presence of the AF into the FAC/TACP realm is just one of many. Regardless, I will try to get the specifics you desire. None of it is currently available on the Internet.
What is it specifically that bothers you about bringing up the A10 incident? If you took from my comment that the reason the incident happened was because it wasn't an AF FAC, well, that certainly wasn't my intent. The BOI into that incident highlighted several areas where lessons could be learned. The point I made regarding the increased presence of the AF into the FAC/TACP realm is just one of many. Regardless, I will try to get the specifics you desire. None of it is currently available on the Internet.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Aerospace_out
Nice blank profile....
Careful what you say about the A10 incident, first off that FAC was/is Amazing. He left that tour with the most aircraft runs then any other Canadian. And he now teaches how to be a FAC.
Also from personal experience that FAC saved mine and a Company's worth of lives, you are treading very close to an edge....
Nice blank profile....
Careful what you say about the A10 incident, first off that FAC was/is Amazing. He left that tour with the most aircraft runs then any other Canadian. And he now teaches how to be a FAC.
Also from personal experience that FAC saved mine and a Company's worth of lives, you are treading very close to an edge....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Sigh, now we have Internet foot stomping :
When do I get to see the chest thumping?
As a strong believer in the Flight Safety System I am not interested in the blame game. However, as with the FS system, any and all incidents should be examined to find usable lessons learned. Heck even a world renowned cardiac surgeon will examine his or her actions when a patient dies on the table. Doesn't mean the surgeon sucks or hasn't saved a a company's worth of lives in their career.
People should really stop trying to personalise this debate.
When do I get to see the chest thumping?As a strong believer in the Flight Safety System I am not interested in the blame game. However, as with the FS system, any and all incidents should be examined to find usable lessons learned. Heck even a world renowned cardiac surgeon will examine his or her actions when a patient dies on the table. Doesn't mean the surgeon sucks or hasn't saved a a company's worth of lives in their career.
People should really stop trying to personalise this debate.
Hello all,
The current ref for TACP is a CAS Tactical Doctrine Note which can be found on the DWAN, LFDTS site, right side under "Joint OPs", and then under Docs. Sorry, I won't have access to the DWAN for the next little while to include the link.
The CDS recently signed a document which stated that the TACP is a responsibility of the Air Force, FAC is a responsibility of the Land Forces. The doctrine note describes CAS Ops to include FAC and TACP from a Canadian Context and is an amalgamation of primarily NATO docs (ATP 3.3.2.1) and the American JFCOM (3-09.3). These can be found open source.
While we should all be extremely sensitive to the friendly fire incident, the AAR was the start point for getting the AF back into the integrated fight. Since that report, G3 Air positions have been re-populated with fighter pilots and AECs at the Brigades, Air Ops folks have been to theatre and have provided terminal controls (primarily from the TOC), and we are seeing a much closer cooperation between Blue and Green back here in Canada. While nothing will make up for the losses and injuries we suffered during that incident, at least in this instance considerable change has occurred which has greatly improved our capabilities.
As for the AC Ops, this trade, along with AESOPs, has proved to be an excellent source of experts in the technical (radios, comms, technical enablers) as well as the operational side of the TACP equation. While they may not get to do the FAC course, there are many other training opportunities to be had during work ups, not the least of which is learning a little about how to fight with their brothers in the Army.
From what I hear, the TACPs in theatre are continuing to provide excellent support to the troops in the field. Keep it up!
The current ref for TACP is a CAS Tactical Doctrine Note which can be found on the DWAN, LFDTS site, right side under "Joint OPs", and then under Docs. Sorry, I won't have access to the DWAN for the next little while to include the link.
The CDS recently signed a document which stated that the TACP is a responsibility of the Air Force, FAC is a responsibility of the Land Forces. The doctrine note describes CAS Ops to include FAC and TACP from a Canadian Context and is an amalgamation of primarily NATO docs (ATP 3.3.2.1) and the American JFCOM (3-09.3). These can be found open source.
While we should all be extremely sensitive to the friendly fire incident, the AAR was the start point for getting the AF back into the integrated fight. Since that report, G3 Air positions have been re-populated with fighter pilots and AECs at the Brigades, Air Ops folks have been to theatre and have provided terminal controls (primarily from the TOC), and we are seeing a much closer cooperation between Blue and Green back here in Canada. While nothing will make up for the losses and injuries we suffered during that incident, at least in this instance considerable change has occurred which has greatly improved our capabilities.
As for the AC Ops, this trade, along with AESOPs, has proved to be an excellent source of experts in the technical (radios, comms, technical enablers) as well as the operational side of the TACP equation. While they may not get to do the FAC course, there are many other training opportunities to be had during work ups, not the least of which is learning a little about how to fight with their brothers in the Army.
From what I hear, the TACPs in theatre are continuing to provide excellent support to the troops in the field. Keep it up!
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
twigs2, wasn't able to track down the doctrine by how you described, but I went to a different source and I believe that this is what you are referring to: Canadian Forces Close Air Support
It's too big to attach as a pdf, but here is the txt version of it for those that are interested. You just lose out on some of the diagrams.
It's too big to attach as a pdf, but here is the txt version of it for those that are interested. You just lose out on some of the diagrams.
Similar threads
