Infantry Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Cutting Air Controllers Down To Size
   Next Article → INFORMATION WARFARE: Career Sailors In The Cyber Sea
October 9, 2010: The U.S. Air Force JTACs (Joint Terminal Attack Controllers, who call in air strikes) are in short supply, so an effort is being made to train more JTACs from NATO allies. These nations train their own JTACS, but not always to NATO standards (which is required to call in U.S. and other NATO aircraft) and rarely in great numbers. One of the two U.S. Air Force training schools is in Germany, and that one will have its annual output doubled to 144 JTACs a year. Half of those will be from allied nations. There is a certain urgency to this, as the air force needs over a thousand JTACS, and only 526 are currently on duty.

One of the problems is that the U.S. Air Force is having a hard time holding on to their JTACs. Some 40 percent of them leave the air force as soon as they can, choosing not to make it a career. This despite being offered bonuses of up to $90,000 to stay in. JTACs are difficult to recruit and train. The work is exacting and dangerous. For example, JTACs currently spend most of their time overseas with army units. The combat duty is stressful, and many JTACs complain that they joined the air force, but spend most of their time with the army. The persistent shortage has made the overseas tours longer and more numerous, and hurt JTAC morale still further. Last year, the air force solution was to try and increase the number of JTACs to nearly 1,100 over the next three years. That is not going to be easy, although the sharp drop in demand for JTACs in Iraq helps.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army has a solution for this; train army artillery observers (who call in artillery and helicopter strikes) to call in air force bombing missions. This is not a new concept. Last year, France reorganized its approach to forward observers (the specialists at the front who call in artillery fire and air strikes.) Their new "fire support specialists" will now call in artillery strikes as well as air power. In most nations, the air force insists on having its own controllers for air strikes, leaving to army "forward observers" the task of calling in artillery fire. But the French generals recognize that this approach is counterproductive. Thus the current French force of 500 fire support specialists will be increased to 900, and all will be trained to handle artillery and air strikes.

The U.S. Army is still having a hard time making that switch, mainly because the U.S. Air Force refuses to give up control over air strikes. For decades, the air force has resisted, and insisted that only air force personnel, trained and equipped to be "air controllers," perform this task. Then came smart bombs, like JDAM, and targeting pods, like LANTIRN and Sniper, which proved enormously popular with the troops on the ground. That's because the smart bombs and targeting pods made friendly fire from the air much less likely. It's a dirty little secret in the air force, but in the last half century, more U.S. troops have been killed by American warplanes, than by enemy ones. But U.S. warplanes are now much less of a threat to American troops, and now the ground troops can't get enough air support.

Now the air force has become a victim of its own success, and cursed with an inability to provide enough air controllers to fill the demand. There's a war on, and there are many emergency situations where a smart bomb could save the day. But without an air force air controller on the scene, it takes longer, if ever, to get the air force involved. Often pilots in the air get linked up with some desperate ground troops who don't have an air controller handy, and witness the impact of the air controller shortage first hand. Over the last eight years, hundreds of air force pilots have personally experienced this shortage of air controllers, and are coming over to the army concept of training a lot more people to handle calling in air strikes. Pilots, who have used the targeting pods (which enable the pilot to see, close up, what is going down there) know that pilots are not entirely dependent on instructions from the ground anymore. Ground troops also have video receivers (Rover) that allows them to see what the pilot above is looking at via the targeting pod. JTACs are being made obsolete by technology.

Yet the air force is still mesmerized with the idea that the air controller job is one that can only be done by air force personnel, preferably an officer. But the army points out that they have had NCOs calling in firepower from mortars, artillery and attack helicopters for years, and that this works. The navy and marines have also had forward observers that can call in anything. Moreover, the army has developed a concept of "joint fires", where their "artillery controllers" would handle air strikes and naval gunfire, and thus become "joint fires" controllers. Moreover, the army believes that better tools make it possible to quickly train enough people, most of the them sergeants, to provide at least one controller for every 30 or so troops.

The air force does have one good argument against army JTACs. SOCOM did train a lot of Special Forces and Ranger NCOs to be "JTAC Lite." These guys were good, but often they would go years without using their skills, but still maintained their rating as a JTAC. The air force insists that their JTACs maintain their skills via constant training. One suggestion has been to transfer the JTAC jobs to the army, but leave the air force in charge of training and supervision (insuring that all JTACs maintain their skills, especially the ability to also act as a local air controller, to prevent collisions up there). That one is still being debated. The army is also willing to use JTAC simulators to certify army JTACs regularly.

Technology makes a big difference. The army has a binoculars type system, which incorporates a laser range finder and a GPS. This unit produces the GPS coordinates of whatever the user is looking at, and zaps, with the laser rangefinder. If the binoculars are hooked up to a digital military radio, the controller can send those GPS coordinates to a warplane overhead, discuss the type of attack (bomb size, strafing) required, and order it to proceed.

As much as the air force dislikes having its pilots taking orders from army sergeants, equipped only with some high-tech binoculars, the growing demand from the ground, and pilots urgent for a solution, has compelled the air force to compromise. The current arrangement allows the army to train its joint fires controllers to call in air strikes, but only as a last resort. Otherwise, the joint fires controllers must work through the nearest air controller. Failing that, the soldier controller can do what they know how to do. It's a workable compromise, and the soldiers like and respect the air controllers (who are fighter pilots doing a tour of duty on the ground.)

 

 

Next Article → INFORMATION WARFARE: Career Sailors In The Cyber Sea
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
warpig       10/9/2010 12:12:44 PM
What idiot wrote this, "It's a dirty little secret in the air force, but in the last half century, more U.S. troops have been killed by American warplanes, than by enemy ones."  No, really, what IDIOT wrote this?  All it would take would be a single casualty of any kind for there to be more U.S. troops even just injured by American aircraft of all types, even including Army helicopters, than by enemy ones.  Oh, and in response, everyone who have devoted their careers and lives to achieving that amazing statistic says, "You're welcome."  I wonder what a similar analysis of Army fire support would show?  I wouldn't be surprised if friendly fire casualties from our own artillery is actually pretty close to the number of casualties from enemy artillery during that same period.
 
Quote    Reply

CASNUT       10/9/2010 7:06:01 PM
WRONG
Majority of AF controllers are enlisted.  Yes there has been frat by US warplanes.  There has also been frat by US Soldiers.  Remember that one guy?  Pat Tillman.  Yea, the Army's dirty little secret.  Good job with that one dork.  Yes in the last century more troops have been killed by US aircraft than enemy aircraft.  When was the last time US troops were threatened by enemy warplanes?  The answer to that is about 70 yrs ago.  Good job one that one to.  No most pilots don't have heartburn over sergeants directing where their bombs are going.  Seriously, who wrote this garbage?
 
Quote    Reply

Bohica       10/10/2010 6:03:20 AM
Whoever wrote this is a moron.  There was  zero correct or relevant information in it.  Thanks for wasting my time with this useless drivel of an article.  No wonder the authors name is no where to be found, I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with it as well.
 
Quote    Reply

lablover    Way off the mark...   10/10/2010 9:35:24 AM

This article is a great example of "lazy journalism".  It is unfortunate that from an editorial process this article was allowed to be posted.  Close Air Support subject matter is complex at the least, and requires a great deal of explanation and history to understand where we have arrived at today.  

 

Does the author/editor even know or understand the Key West Agreement and what it outlined?  My guess is no.  That does not even begin to address the rule set that JTAC's and CAS/CCA assets play on today?s battlefield.  The fratricide comparisons/innuendos are completely irresponsible, and obviously written by someone who has no understanding of the world of Close Air Support or by comparison other fratricide events inside of military service.

 

Other insinuations this article makes from a technology standpoint are also ludicrous.  For the uneducated reader this ?Liberal Journalistic Slant? to one of the most contested Joint service issues outlines the need for better information.  Additionally the T.A.C.P. footprint in relationship to a respective Army customer is completely wrong.

 

All that being said, as someone who has followed this blog on a regular basis, I am very disappointed that this article was allowed to move forward.  My suggestion is more accurate research, better interviews with those of us who operate in this environment, and a more stringent editorial review. 

 

Strategy Page, do you have the professional where with all to publish an editorial response to the comments that you will get on this?  Most of the comments that you will receive will more than likely from those inside this world.  It is easy to weed out those comments that are from outsiders.

 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle       10/13/2010 7:38:11 PM
I find some of the opinions expressed in the article seem to be somewhat reminiscent of attitudes that were common during and immediately after Vietnam.  I believe at that time the Air Force was still very much an organization that was trying to establish itself as an independent entity within DoD and trying to lay the organizational doctrine that justified that effort.  In this the Air Force did not want to tie itself to tightly to the requirements/ missions of the Navy or the Army but instead wanted to justify it's existence (and Budget as did the Army and Navy) to an independent strategic mission with a set of doctrines to execute that mission.  If I recall correctly at that time the Tactical Air Command (TAC let alone SAC) saw its mission more in line with marshaling area's, weapons depot's, and train yards rather than close air support.  As a result of this at the time the proficiency of Air Force pilots to perform this critical mission (if your an infantryman) was not perhaps as highly developed as was that of Navy or in particular Marine Corps Pilots.  This tendency was probably exacerbated by Administration (at that time) and by extension Pentagon staff to hold tightly onto anything to do with air tasking so as that those nasty nasty generals wouldn't start world war three.  This also led to procedures for air tasking and re-targeting that did not lend themselves to rapid re-assignment to suit requirements of a rapidly changing battlefield.  Unlike today it may be that Air Force pilots, if assigned a CAS mission, would arrive at the IP and be under practiced in the art of CAS and not entirely oriented correctly to complete the mission.  Air Force people scream here.   
I had occasion to meet a Air Force enlisted Forward Air Controller who had worked as part of A-Teams during the early part of the war and as I recall he was very bitter at Air Force Brass.  I believe he said that (I guess for a while) the whole ground FAC community was being dissolved or disbanded and from what I gathered he was saying that Air Force Brass just didn't want to do CAS.
 
Quote    Reply

Patton       12/20/2010 1:09:28 PM
You probably have a valid point, but Battlefield Coordination Detachments, which are joint elements, and Fires Coordinators within arty units are taking up the slack.
 
Quote    Reply

Mike From Brielle    Patton   12/20/2010 8:23:06 PM
"Battlefield Coordination Detachments" is that some kind of Army/ Air Force Anglico or DASC or that Firepower Coordination thing above the DASC?
 
Also although I am not an expert I was always led to believe Artillery is more powerful than CAS IF YOU HAVE THE TAIL to support the Artillery otherwise its expensive heavy luggage.  If supportable and used correctly (maybe even use Excaliber or PGK when available) Artillery is supperior to CAS but CAS has legs and and can be an astounding force multiplier on occasion.  Either on CAS's own or used properly with Artillery (see first Gulf War Marines crossing the Berm/ Sadam line and Kafji) CAS can be used to good effect as a tool of shock and surprise.
 
Quote    Reply

Patton       12/21/2010 10:24:13 AM

"Battlefield Coordination Detachments" is that some kind of Army/ Air Force Anglico or DASC or that Firepower Coordination thing above the DASC?

 

Also although I am not an expert I was always led to believe Artillery is more powerful than CAS IF YOU HAVE THE TAIL to support the Artillery otherwise its expensive heavy luggage.  If supportable and used correctly (maybe even use Excaliber or PGK when available) Artillery is supperior to CAS but CAS has legs and and can be an astounding force multiplier on occasion.  Either on CAS's own or used properly with Artillery (see first Gulf War Marines crossing the Berm/ Sadam line and Kafji) CAS can be used to good effect as a tool of shock and surprise.


You've got the right idea bud...
They dont call Artillery "The King of Battle" for nothing. CAS is primarily used for supporting airassault ops, amphib landings, static positions and so forth.  It can also be used to support armored force ops.  But you can bet that Arty  fire plan is going to play a roll as well.  MLRS is probably the best thing going right now.  HIMARS is only a wheeled version of the same system.  JTACS are few because the AIR FORCE has the toughest spec ops school in the entire Armed Forces.  80% failure rate.  Imagine that...
 
Quote    Reply