FAC, SCAR and related topics

[skidkid]

ahh the FSCL now you have muddies the waters, want to get even muddier we'll talk BCLs.
The AF still thinks of CAS as anyhting inside the FSCL whether there are friendlies anywhere near or not. The Army can still range to the BCL with MLRS which is great but team Green doesnt have that so we have a BCL means the same only shorter.
For the uninitiated the FSCL is a line on a map that on the friendly side an aircraft must coordinate wiht ground commander who owns the dirt's to engage targets on the bad guy side they are free to engage ROE permitting.
The BCL is jsut a Marineized version of the FSCL to allow us to run SCAR between the CFL and the FSCL
Anyone confused yet
FSCL-Fire Support Coordination line
BCL-Battlespace Coordination line
CFL-Coordinated fire line0beyonf which Arty can engage without coordination

Ok I gott go fly good stuff

 

[phrogpilot73]

I don't think so, but then again, I wasn't at the last JCAS symposium. Bottom line (the way I read it) is that type 2 you have to see the exact target at some point (including scout/COLT/UAS, but do not have to see the attack) and do not have to see the a/c at all. You could keep your head down or button up that way.

In type 3 you just need the approx position for a target/array of targets via sight, UAS, or scout/COLT/observer. Then it's a talk on to "armed recce short of the FSCL". You don't have to see the target or a/c during all of this.

I know, I know.....don't confuse it by talking about the FSCL, but for us older dudes, that's what it boils down to, with restrictions, of course.

Yeah, we beat the definitions to a dead horse in MAWTS-1. Both Type 2 and Type 3 require the target to be seen by a "qualified observer", after reading and re-reading Mongo pointed out that the only difference was whether you were controlling each individual attack or not...

 

[eddie]

Heyjoe,

Yes, this is what I was looking for. Thanks to all for posting; this is fascinating.

 

[skidkid]

Yeah, we beat the definitions to a dead horse in MAWTS-1. Both Type 2 and Type 3 require the target to be seen by a "qualified observer", after reading and re-reading Mongo pointed out that the only difference was whether you were controlling each individual attack or not...

Im not sure on this one. I dont think there is a requirement on type 3 control to see the target, the whole basis for type 3 is to safely engage targets that cannot be observed by the FAC/JTAC adding some depth to the battlefield.
Type 2 and 3 are better definitions of the old "reasonable assurance" control. With much better definitions and controls emplaced, and the ability to train to it which we never had for reasonable assurance.
This is where the changing the battery example breaks down a bit, if I were running type 1 and had to change a battery either my TACP guys dont have a spare radio for me or I wont run attacks for the 10 seconds it takes to swap out. If there is an enemy position I can see with some decent terrain between us and them then I would use type 3 GROUND COMMANDER APPROVED OBVIOUSLY.
Another option is to use a FAC(A) if available and continue to run type 1.

 

[Harrier Dude]

My basic heartburn with the system as written is that many people think that one type of control is easier/better/safer/more accurate/more tactical/more responsive than another. It is completely dependant on the situation. They all work, but have different benefits and limitations.

I think that some of this false "knowlege" is based on fear of the unknown or over-reliance on technology, depending on which method you prefer. Sometimes it's just irrational clinging to outdated procedures and "the way we've always done it".

For instance, I know a few guys who are insistant on having aircraft "pop" for them in the CAS environment. They want to see them prior to release and WILL NOT allow anybody to drop until they are past their physical ground position. Any discussion of the laws of physics or the capabilities and limitations of particular ordnance types are lost on these men. Obviously, these are "type 1 control freaks".

Conversely, many folks think that in the age of GPS and ROVER, all we need to do is pass a grid and wait for the boom.

Neither of these views are correct.

Don't get me wrong. Low pops are a very valid tool (and a lot more fun to do), but they don't always optimize weapon to target matches.

I love GPS, ROVER, and many other gucci gadgets too, but technology can only take us so far. Things break, PGMs dry up (leaving us with good old GP) and weather can scew us all.

It is up to us, as professional aviators, to stamp this out wherever we see it. We can't be seen as pushing any particular method of control, but rather trying to show our ground commanders what tools they have in their tool box. This is one of the many reasons that we should give thought to who we send to work with the grunts. If TAD to the CAOC and FAC tours always go to the guy needing a sh!t-can deal, we'll reap what we sow. Sometimes the best place for your WTI isn't in Ops writing the weekly and giving lectures.

Hopefully this will change in the long term, especially since so many of our JTACs are 0302s and 0802s. Once these guys get more senior and get batallions of their own, they'll be more informed when they get advice from their AO/FACs.

Of course, this may have all changed by then and their outdated knowlege may become a hinderance to progress, but we (actually all of you young guys) will have to fight that battle when it comes up.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Im not sure on this one. I dont think there is a requirement on type 3 control to see the target, the whole basis for type 3 is to safely engage targets that cannot be observed by the FAC/JTAC adding some depth to the battlefield.
Type 2 and 3 are better definitions of the old "reasonable assurance" control. With much better definitions and controls emplaced, and the ability to train to it which we never had for reasonable assurance.
This is where the changing the battery example breaks down a bit, if I were running type 1 and had to change a battery either my TACP guys dont have a spare radio for me or I wont run attacks for the 10 seconds it takes to swap out. If there is an enemy position I can see with some decent terrain between us and them then I would use type 3 GROUND COMMANDER APPROVED OBVIOUSLY.
Another option is to use a FAC(A) if available and continue to run type 1.

The biggest reason that we haven't been utilizing FAC(A) in my battalion (and I've been pushing for it), is that "in theatre" they're hesitant to utilize them. I told them that I don't give two flying fvcks what's done in theatre, FiST leaders need to see what capabilities the skids (and Delta guys, sorry Harrier Dudes) bring to the fight. Not to mention just how much it can extend our battlefield, build the ground commanders SA, etc...

OK, as for your first question - yup, I was a little rusty on the JCAS, and it's good you pointed it out because I got my nose back into the book. I'm so used to quoting the first sentence of the definition as I tell the CO the big difference between Type 2 and 3. Those sentences are "Type 2 control will be used when the JTAC requires control of the individaul attacks but assess..." and "Type 3 control is used when the JTAC requires the ability to provide clearance for multiple attacks within a single engagement subject to specific attack restrictions." I like to use those two sentences to point out the big difference being single attack vs. multiple attacks. My CO and OpsO keep trying to apply the old "gouge" definitions of Type 2 having to see either the target/or the aircraft, which is not true. Then I have to show them the full definition of Type 2:

"Type 2 control is used when the JTAC requires control of individual attacks and any or all (my emphasis) of the following conditions exist. JTAC is unable to visually acquire the attacking aircraft at weapons release. JTAC is unable to visually acquire the target. The attack aircraft is unable to acquire the mark/target prior to weapons release." So, as I point out to my CO, under Type 2 - I don't have to see the aircraft or the target, and the aircrew doesn't have to see the mark or target, but I can still clear him hot. He starts to get squimish here, then I show him - "Because there is no requirement for the JTAC to visually acquire the target or the attack aircraft in Type 2 or 3 control, JTACs may be required to coordinate CAS attacks using targeting information from an observer. An observer may be a scout, COLT, FIST, UAV, SOF, or other asset with real-time targeting information." That definition of an observer was a big change between the original JCAS and CH1. I keep muddying the waters, and forget that it says "MAY", and think too much about ROE, etc... I would learn towards the idea that perhaps in the future in may be "SHALL" vice "MAY"

Anyway, long winded answer - but the big difference is still multiple attacks vice single engagement. ROE is classified so can't discuss that one here, but those of you on the pointy edge (such as myself) could understand why ground commanders might learn towards having to have SOMEBODY observing the target, visually or electronically.

The reason I use the battery example is because discussions like this on airwarriors are saved for the wardroom (when the CO is able to escape the flag mess) rather than when he's popping his head in Ops on his way to a meeting with a quick question.

 

[phrogpilot73]

My basic heartburn with the system as written is that many people think that one type of control is easier/better/safer/more accurate/more tactical/more responsive than another. It is completely dependant on the situation. They all work, but have different benefits and limitations.

I agree wholeheartedly! Maybe I'll start off with Type 1, but because of battlefield environmentals and after I've wasted some dead dinosaurs, I realize Type 2 would be more appropriate - yet I can control the attack as much as if it was Type 1.

I think that some of this false "knowlege" is based on fear of the unknown or over-reliance on technology, depending on which method you prefer. Sometimes it's just irrational clinging to outdated procedures and "the way we've always done it".

Not for us Phrog guys doing FAC tours... We rely on the pub, because we've NEVER done it - yet the ground commanders still look at us as experts. Ever have to give a class to FiST teams on CAS platforms? Some of the questions they asked I had to give the "I'll have to look that up and get back to you answer". WTF? But I digress, I would argue that the confusion of the Types of control stem from the fact that ground commanders want a simple definition, something they can write on the palm of their hand or their map with a map pen. Unfortunately, it ain't that easy.

Conversely, many folks think that in the age of GPS and ROVER, all we need to do is pass a grid and wait for the boom.

Met an F/A-18D guy that thought this way - and he was a Regimental AirO. Doing Type 3 from the COC looking at rover feeds when he had forces maneuvering. He was also the guy that planned an entire heliborne raid and then called us to ask us if we could put 8 Phrogs on the schedule the next night. I was not impressed.

It is up to us, as professional aviators, to stamp this out wherever we see it. We can't be seen as pushing any particular method of control, but rather trying to show our ground commanders what tools they have in their tool box. This is one of the many reasons that we should give thought to who we send to work with the grunts. If TAD to the CAOC and FAC tours always go to the guy needing a sh!t-can deal, we'll reap what we sow. Sometimes the best place for your WTI isn't in Ops writing the weekly and giving lectures.

While I do view that I was "sh!t canned", mainly because as soon as the billet came out, I knew my XO was eyeing me - our CO was adamant that he WOULD NOT send sh!t bags to the grunts. Ergo - the guys on FAC tours from my squadron are myself (a WTI), and my two buddies (two division leaders and TERFIs, one an FCP, each over 1200 hours in the Phrog). Some commanders get it, some don't.

Hopefully this will change in the long term, especially since so many of our JTACs are 0302s and 0802s. Once these guys get more senior and get batallions of their own, they'll be more informed when they get advice from their AO/FACs.

Have you TRIED to get a school seat at EWTGLANT yet? I don't know about PAC, but LANT sucks! We have a couple dudes that have been through the primer, and we have been trying to get them school seats every TACP class. Since we can't, we just keep running them through the codes with the three of us supervising - he's got more controls than I do now. And we STILL can't get him a school seat. JTAC is a great idea, but until there is more money for them to go to TACP, it's going to take a while before we see the effects.

 

[Harrier Dude]

Maybe I'll start off with Type 1, but because of battlefield environmentals and after I've wasted some dead dinosaurs, I realize Type 2 would be more appropriate - yet I can control the attack as much as if it was Type 1.

Agreed, but we need to make that determination before we start killing dinasaurs. Don't be that guy (and I know you wouldn't) that controls Type 1 until he can't see the guy in the chute and then "flexes" to type 2 control. The decision needs to be done preferably prior to check-in. If circumstances change at check-in (CAS players have Litening w/ LGW for instance), then that would be a good time to change control, CO permitting.

Not for us Phrog guys doing FAC tours... We rely on the pub, because we've NEVER done it - yet the ground commanders still look at us as experts.

The pub is a great starting point, but you are the expert. This is why it's great (if possible) to have a mix of backgrounds in the Air shop.

In my view, it takes four things to be a good FAC/JTAC. First, basic intelligence. You don't have to be a rocket surgeon, but you can't be a window-licker either. Second, book knowlege. TACP school does a great job of this already. Third, perspective. Knowing what it looks like from the air and from the ground is absolutley crucial to giving a good talk-on and selecting reference points. Fourth, experience. Both as a FAC/JTAC (which will come with time) and resident corporate knowlege. Being an attack pilot helped me with timing, TTPs, capabilities, etc., but did SQUAT for me planning a heliborne raid or NEO. We all have something to bring to the fight. If you think that you're the only guy who's been stumped by a question "out of your normal lane", then don't worry. Try it with a general sometime.

.........that ground commanders want a simple definition, something they can write on the palm of their hand or their map with a map pen. Unfortunately, it ain't that easy.

Amen. Making this simpler is our goal, but there's a reason he has a SME (us). Once you build trust with him, he'll let you do more. Probably about the time you rotate.

Met an F/A-18D guy that thought this way - and he was a Regimental AirO. Doing Type 3 from the COC looking at rover feeds when he had forces maneuvering.

You're falling into the trap! This is a perfectly valid course of action, many things permitting. Type 3 control works. In this situation, type 1 may have been less optimal for whatever reason, and the AirO had confidence in the SA of the CAS aircraft and was able to integrate their fires into the scheme of maneuver with the FSCC.

He was also the guy that planned an entire heliborne raid and then called us to ask us if we could put 8 Phrogs on the schedule the next night. I was not impressed.

See what I mean about all of us being out of our "lane" from time to time?

While I do view that I was "sh!t canned", mainly because as soon as the billet came out, I knew my XO was eyeing me - our CO was adamant that he WOULD NOT send sh!t bags to the grunts.

Unfortunately, many times the hard deals go to the best performers. The sh!tbags get to skate at the TRACOM (no offense VT dudes, not all of you, but you know of whom I speak) while the hard worker gets sent off to a deploying FAC tour. The other way, which happens, screws us in the end and does not support the guys on the ground. The call should be made on ability, timing (career progression and time in the squadron), and availability. It shouldn't be an emotional choice for the command (i.e. "revenge" or punishment). I'm not naive enough to believe that doesn't happen, but that's flawed logic on the commands part.

Many times the grunts will make up their mind now and forever about airwingers based on the FAC they had. Years of making up for a bad example follow for the next few guys and the community at large.

Have you TRIED to get a school seat at EWTGLANT yet? I don't know about PAC, but LANT sucks! We have a couple dudes that have been through the primer, and we have been trying to get them school seats every TACP class. Since we can't, we just keep running them through the codes with the three of us supervising - he's got more controls than I do now. And we STILL can't get him a school seat. JTAC is a great idea, but until there is more money for them to go to TACP, it's going to take a while before we see the effects.

Dude, that is a HUGE part of what I do. I hardly (if ever) get to call CAS at the division level. It's all about manning AirOs, sourcing ATO cycles for exercises, sourcing JTAC seats, and advising the CG. I have been beating my head against the wall trying to get two more JTAC slots for the past 3 months. This is for an OIF bound unit, too. This ain't gravy.

It's not primarily about funding, though. The sticky wicket is seats, which is largely driven my available air for TACP shoots. EWTGLANT/PAC is busting their butt to churn out qualified JTACs, but they absolutley HAVE to make FACs. That's direction from CMC himself. They cannot screw with the FAC program to make more JTACs. To get more guys qualled, they need more sorties to get more engagements IAW the T&R.

The T&R is being re-written to fix the disparity between what is written and reality. It's an adjustment we all knew would be done. Nobody gets it perfect the first time. The MARFORs, MMOA, and TECOM all have part of deciding who goes to TACP school. The EWTGs are not to blame. Getting 2 more JTAC slots required GO level attention to MARFORPAC.

In short, I feel your pain there. More than you even realize, since I have many batallions to worry about, plus all of the Regimental AirOs and my shop here at Division. There just isn't the available sorties to do it all at once. Rome wasn't built in a day. Until then, we need to be VERY careful about who we send to the course and spend this training on.