JTAC teams (Army) vs. Fire Control Teams (Marines)

[Dietrich]

I seek the best available communication between my on-map pixeltruppen and their support assets, whether artillery or air. Platoon-/company-level 60mm mortars are good for this, since (if you use an HQ to spot) you generally have green "+" comms to them.

In my recent playing through of "Battle for Objective Pooh", I was glad for the presence of the MEU Fire Control Team, which afforded me green "+" comms to the attack helos.

I couldn't recall ever having green "+" comms to air support with any other unit before, so I fiddled with the editor and discovered that evidently no Army unit, even an actual JTAC, has better than small "+" comms with air assets, whereas if your pixeltruppen are Marines and you have an actual Fire Control Team on map, you can have green "+" access even to F/A-18s and Harriers.

The reason for this thread is to hopefully find some sort of answer to the question: Why do the Marines have better comms with their air support? (The Fire Control Team is captain rank, while the JTAC is first lieutenant rank, but I don't think rank would really have anything to do with the quality or alacrity of communication with air assets.) Is is because (in the context of CMSF, at least) the Marines air assets available are, not simply attached to, but actually components of the MEU? Is there one or more links in the C2 chain between a JTAC and an air asset? Would this be because the air assets are USAF and not actually Army?

In planning possible future SOF scenarios featuring significant air assets in support of few (no more than two dozen) Blue infantry, I'm tempted to have a Marines Fire Control Team stand in for what IRL is a USAF CCT (Combat Control Team), but I suspect this would yield unrealistically good comms between the maneuver units and the air assets.

[akd]

If I recall, the FCT is led by a naval aviator or flight officer doing a stint on the ground, and thus has the best possible experience to communicate directly with pilots. Not sure if this justifies JTACs always being less than optimal. Does unit experience modify the support asset comms rating?

[slug88]

Another factor may be that Marine CAS is organic to the ground forces, while the Army gets its fixed-wing CAS from the Airforce.

[Dietrich]

If I recall, the FCT is led by a naval aviator or flight officer doing a stint on the ground, and thus has the best possible experience to communicate directly with pilots. Not sure if this justifies JTACs always being less than optimal.

The officer in charge of a JTAC could similarly be an Air Force pilot doing a stint on the ground.

Does unit experience modify the support asset comms rating?

That's one thing I didn't think to try when testing this in the editor. (I just purchased the units, team and assets, then clicked on "Deploy Blue" and took note of what the comms rating was.) My passive observation has been the unit experience isn't a modifying factor when it comes to support asset comms ratings, though. I'll fiddle some more in the editor and see what I can find out.

Another factor may be that Marine CAS is organic to the ground forces, while the Army gets its fixed-wing CAS from the Airforce.

My in-editor tests showed that no matter what type of air asset, whether helo or fixed-wing, the JTAC always had no better than small "+", while the FCT had big "+" for both helos and jets, Harriers as well as F/A-18s (which, in the context of CMSF, would most likely operate from a carrier in the eastern Mediterranean rather than a land base).

Pardon my ignorance, but jets are Air Force (obviously) whereas helos are Army? If yes, that makes sense, since helos are there to support the Army more or less directly, whereas Air Force assets range far and wide on a variety of missions.

[SlapHappy]

In the testing grounds map, the only effective difference I saw between JTAC and FCT was that FCT had an equal delay time when calling CAS and a slightly shortened delay time when calling in artillery strikes. I'm uncertain if any of this was affected by troop experience level.

[Clevinger]

What about JTAC (Army) teams in a FS3-equipped vehicle?

[akd]

The officer in charge of a JTAC could similarly be an Air Force pilot doing a stint on the ground.

"Could" being the operative word. Some Wiki stuff I just looked up:

A Joint terminal attack controller is a qualified (certified) military service member who, from a forward position, directs the action of combat aircraft engaged in close air support and other offensive air operations. A qualified and current joint terminal attack controller will be recognized across the U.S. Department of Defense as capable and authorized to perform terminal attack control. Also called JTAC.

United States Marine JTACs are trained at Expeditionary Warfare Training Group, Pacific (EWTGPAC), and Atlantic (EWTGLANT), United States Air Force students are taught at Nellis AFB in Nevada and United States Navy students at the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC) at NAS Fallon in Nevada by SEALs assigned to NSAWC.

Forward Air Controllers or "JTAC's" are now also trained at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany through the JFCOE (Joint Firepower Center Of Excellence).

The Royal Australian Air Force in 2006, became first foreign air force to receive Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) accreditation from the United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM)[1].

A Tactical Air Control Party, commonly abbreviated TACP (pronounced TAC-P), is usually a team of two or more United States Air Force Tactical Air Controllers (AFSC 1C4X1), sometimes including an Air Liaison Officer (a qualified aviator), which is assigned to a United States Army combat maneuver unit, either conventional or special operational, to advise ground commanders on the best use of air power, establish and maintain command and control communications, control air traffic, act as an inter-service liaison, control naval gunfire, and provide precision terminal attack guidance of U.S. and coalition close air support and other air-to-ground aircraft.

Along with being assigned to all conventional Army combat units, TACP airmen are also attached to Special Forces, Navy SEALs, and Army Rangers, as well as Joint Special Operations Command units and multi-national Special Operations task forces, primarily as communications experts and precision airstrike controllers.

United States Marine Corps

The United States Marine Corps is the only United States service to refer to its JTACs as FACs. The USMC requires that:

FACs must be a winged Naval Aviator or Naval Flight Officer with at least 2 years operational flying experience.

FACs must have attended and graduated from the Expeditionary Warfare Training Group (EWTG) Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) course.

At the completion of the TACP course Aviators are granted the 7502 FAC Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) and are considered certified and qualified JTACs.

Non-aviator JTACs in the United States Marine Corps must meet the following requirements:

They must be a Staff Noncommissioned Officer or above, and must have a combat arms MOS.

To be eligible for JTAC training the individual must be in or slated to serve in a JTAC billet per unit T/O's.

Must complete JTAC primer course at EWTG (Now a distance learning program).

Must attend and graduate from EWTG TACP (Certified but not qualified) at this point the Marine is authorized the 8002 (formerly 9986) Skill designator.

Must complete the 300 level training syllabus after TACP school per the USMC TACP T&R (Qualified JTAC)

After completion of one the DoDs JTAC courses non-aviator Marines are given the secondary MOS of 8002 (formerly MOS 9986), that of a qualified JTAC/FAC.

Pardon my ignorance, but jets are Air Force (obviously) whereas helos are Army? If yes, that makes sense, since helos are there to support the Army more or less directly, whereas Air Force assets range far and wide on a variety of missions.

F-16s/F-15s/A-10s are Air Force

F/A-18s are Navy/Marines

AV-8s are Marines

AH-64s/OH-58s are Army

AH-1s are Marines

[Apocal]

Are the more extensive C2 suites in command vehicles simulated? IE. do I gain a bigger, greener + by sitting my Air Controllers in certain kinds of vehicles?

[Dietrich]

What about JTAC (Army) teams in a FS3-equipped vehicle?

Are the more extensive C2 suites in command vehicles simulated? IE. do I gain a bigger, greener + by sitting my Air Controllers in certain kinds of vehicles?

My initial in-editor testing showed no improvement in connection to the air assets when in an FS3-equipped vehicle, whether an M7A3 Bradley BFIST or an M1131 Stryker FSV.

According to my limited understanding of the technology involved (and according to what the CMSF manual says about it), a spotter -- whether a Forward Observer team for artillery or a JTAC/FAC for air support -- in an FS3-equipped vehicle gains improved capability to spot targets and coordinate the support, whether air or artillery. According to the v1.11 game manual:

[FS3] can put laser light on the target, identify a unit based on its unique heat signature, get GPS coordinates of the target, track the target at ranges in excess of CM's max map size, has a direct digital uplink to the aircraft to transmit all pertinent data, and it can do this in all weather, day or night.

However, being in an FS3-equipped vehicle yields no concrete improvement in connection to air assets. In other words, a JTAC in a BFIST still has just small "+" comms to aircraft. Still, having your JTAC or FO in a BFIST (or FSV) is best, since the spotter will have the best view and targeting capability available.

According to the "Version 1.11 Feature List" thread, a BFIST or FSV must be unbuttoned for the on-board spotter to use the FS3.

[stikkypixie]

My initial in-editor testing showed no improvement in connection to the air assets when in an FS3-equipped vehicle, whether an M7A3 Bradley BFIST or an M1131 Stryker FSV.

According to my limited understanding of the technology involved (and according to what the CMSF manual says about it), a spotter -- whether a Forward Observer team for artillery or a JTAC/FAC for air support -- in an FS3-equipped vehicle gains improved capability to spot targets and coordinate the support, whether air or artillery. According to the v1.11 game manual:

However, being in an FS3-equipped vehicle yields no concrete improvement in connection to air assets. In other words, a JTAC in a BFIST still has just small "+" comms to aircraft. Still, having your JTAC or FO in a BFIST (or FSV) is best, since the spotter will have the best view and targeting capability available.

According to the "Version 1.11 Feature List" thread, a BFIST or FSV must be unbuttoned for the on-board spotter to use the FS3.

Have you tried putting a JTAC team inside the BFIST or FSV and then unbuttoning them?

I recall that delays were shorter for artillery missions than when they're outside the vehicle, but I don't know if that's the case for air missions. Oh and select the JTAC team instead of the vehicle.

[Dietrich]

Have you tried putting a JTAC team inside the BFIST or FSV and then unbuttoning them?

Yes. But as I said in the post I started this thread with, my questioning is about the Army JTAC's not-quite-optimal connection to air assets vis-a-vis the Marines FCT's consistent big-"+" connection, rather than the promptness and accuracy of the support mission itself. Having the spotter -- whether JTAC or FST or whatever -- in an unbuttoned BFIST or FSV will yield the best results overall, but what I'm wondering about is why a JTAC never has connection to air assets as good as the FCT's connection. By the way, thanks for the detailed info in that regard, akd.

Even a unit with small-"x" comms to an air asset can get good results. For example, in the first mission of the Marines campaign, my SEALs can consistently get the on-station CAS to drop a bomb right on the static T-54 (the SEALs' Elite experience level may have something to do with that, though), even though their connection to the CAS is just small-"x" level and thus it takes a while for the JDAM to arrive.

[stikkypixie]

Yes. But as I said in the post I started this thread with, my questioning is about the Army JTAC's not-quite-optimal connection to air assets vis-a-vis the Marines FCT's consistent big-"+" connection, rather than the promptness and accuracy of the support mission itself. Having the spotter -- whether JTAC or FST or whatever -- in an unbuttoned BFIST or FSV will yield the best results overall, but what I'm wondering about is why a JTAC never has connection to air assets as good as the FCT's connection. By the way, thanks for the detailed info in that regard, akd.

Even a unit with small-"x" comms to an air asset can get good results. For example, in the first mission of the Marines campaign, my SEALs can consistently get the on-station CAS to drop a bomb right on the static T-54 (the SEALs' Elite experience level may have something to do with that, though), even though their connection to the CAS is just small-"x" level and thus it takes a while for the JDAM to arrive.

Oops my bad. Btw did you ever see the difference between the delays? Or does the "+" already reflect this? Just curious.

[Bonecrusher-17]

Without talking to the programmers and any technical advisor's to the CMSF team I'd say these are all pretty close to why a Marine FCT might have better comms with choppers vs Army FISTers. I'll add my two cents as a 13series (13B/F) based on my experience with Fire Support planning:

-Marine FCTs and USAF TCPs usually aren't tasked down in the fight much below BN/SQDRN level unless involved in battle in which Fixed Winged CAS is involved and the Navy/AF unit tasked with CAS wants a dedicated CAS controller. This is so the O-5 has control through his S-3/Air over what targets are engaged during the fight due to collateral damage/fratricide concerns and the HVT dynamic of using a $$$$$ plane and pilot.

-Marines are sent in as MEUs (Marine Expeditionary Units) or MAGTFs (Marine Air Ground Task Force). The O-6 in charge of these units have full control over the Air assets (fixed and rotary) in these formations both in combat and typically during training prior to. So the relationship is habitual between Marines on the ground and Marines in the air. Also Marine pilots mindset is CAS first, which is a result of their training as pilots.

-as 13F (Army Fire Support SPC/NCO)the only time I saw TACP personnel from the AF was when our O-6 made CAS support vital to my COLT/BRT teams mission. Typically in 'deep fight' setting or when CAS was vital to getting High Value TGTs (HVTs) killed/destroyed quickly. We couldn't use CAS except in emergency situations because we weren't certified CAS observers, not matter what type of training we went through, unless that AF SQDRN/WING commander trusted us to do it.

-Rotary Wing was an easier proposition for us, but still it involved a lot of coordination through the BN FSE/FECC who had to talk to the Liaison officer or S-3 Air before we could get choppers on station to the PLT/CO in the fight. Though once released that PLT FO or maneuver shooter had full control until released by them, or the pilots had to egress on their call.

-DOD wants a concept of a universal JTAC/JFO program so that in theory any observer can call any type of CAS or tube FS asset. The Air Force seems to be the biggest roadblock to this happening, although they do staff alto of the courses that Fort Sill is running, it seems that the Wing/SQDRN commanders in the field still are slow to embrace it. They still have the ability to kill any CAS release to any non AF/SOF forces they do not trust.

[Dietrich]

did you ever see the difference between the delays? Or does the "+" already reflect this? Just curious.

I have not done any testing to determine differences in promptness of called-for support, but I will soon. My first concern has been and still is the comms between the support and whoever will act as spotter -- in other words, in every scenario where I have support assets, I check each FO or HQ (presuming that an FO/HQ will have been comms than a squad/team) to see which has the best comms to the particular asset I want to use.

-Marine FCTs and USAF TCPs usually aren't tasked down in the fight much below BN/SQDRN level unless involved in battle in which Fixed Winged CAS is involved and the Navy/AF unit tasked with CAS wants a dedicated CAS controller. This is so the O-5 has control through his S-3/Air over what targets are engaged during the fight due to collateral damage/fratricide concerns and the HVT dynamic of using a $$$$$ plane and pilot.

Would this apply also to the Harriers which -- according to the CMSF manual as well as other info I've read -- are often organic to an MEU, as opposed to F/A-18s (which can be called on by an FCT but are Navy rather than USMC)?

-Marines are sent in as MEUs (Marine Expeditionary Units) or MAGTFs (Marine Air Ground Task Force). The O-6 in charge of these units have full control over the Air assets (fixed and rotary) in these formations both in combat and typically during training prior to. So the relationship is habitual between Marines on the ground and Marines in the air. Also Marine pilots mindset is CAS first, which is a result of their training as pilots.

In other words, MEU-level air assets are dedicated to support of the parent MEU and its component units, so the FCT has more-or-less direct comms with the air assets as well as undivided support from them, correct?

-Rotary Wing was an easier proposition for us, but still it involved a lot of coordination through the BN FSE/FECC who had to talk to the Liaison officer or S-3 Air before we could get choppers on station to the PLT/CO in the fight. Though once released that PLT FO or maneuver shooter had full control until released by them, or the pilots had to egress on their call.

So helo support below company level is likely to be fairly rare, at least in part because a dedicated liaison (such as a JTAC) is not likely to be attached?

In light of this, the seemingly suboptimal amount of CAS (a pair of Cobras) in "Battle for Objective Pooh" seems more realistic than I had previously thought. (In light of the multple ATGMs, I would have liked a Harrier or F/A-18 or two to JDAM the hell out of those suspect positions. Of course, the scenario briefing does mention that the MEU fixed-wing assets are operating elsewhere at the time.)

Thanks for the info, Bonecrusher-17.

As it applies to CMSF, it may be fun to have half a dozen air assets in a given scenario, but if that's way beyond what would likely be available to a company CO.... *shrug* I'd rather have a realistic TOE (and a realistic tactical situation) than fanboish overkill... usually.

[Bonecrusher-17]

Would this apply also to the Harriers which -- according to the CMSF manual as well as other info I've read -- are often organic to an MEU, as opposed to F/A-18s (which can be called on by an FCT but are Navy rather than USMC)?

Harriers are part of the MEU, so in theory the FCT wouldn't have to be there. FCTs focus more on the F/A-18 fast movers, regardless of Navy or Marine designation, partly because they are controlled by a Navy chain of command on the carrier.

In other words, MEU-level air assets are dedicated to support of the parent MEU and its component units, so the FCT has more-or-less direct comms with the air assets as well as undivided support from them, correct?

Correct. Again though FCTs would focus more fast movers from off shore.

So helo support below company level is likely to be fairly rare, at least in part because a dedicated liaison (such as a JTAC) is not likely to be attached?

Not necessarily. I can't speak with 100% Fidelity on how Marines handle planning/controlling choppers, but I would assume that like the Army its more about leveraging risk/benefit interms of accomplishing mission objectives.

Does it make sense to dedicate an expensive/vulnerable AH-6/64 against an a few ATGM teams? Depends. If those ATGMS are threatening a vital supply route? Yeah maybe. Are they just hanging out and make life difficult for Company Team of Strykers? Well then, Captain, 'use thine mortars first' and suck it up! Having FOs or 'qualified' air controllers with choppers seems to be less of a consideration for use of attack helos. You can see helicopters dedicated to Army truck companies with no dedicated 'trained' observers on high value convoy runs.

In Iraq and Afghanistan you may have some limited number of emergency CAS missions available from loitering choppers, also.

In light of this, the seemingly suboptimal amount of CAS (a pair of Cobras) in "Battle for Objective Pooh" seems more realistic than I had previously thought. (In light of the multple ATGMs, I would have liked a Harrier or F/A-18 or two to JDAM the hell out of those suspect positions. Of course, the scenario briefing does mention that the MEU fixed-wing assets are operating elsewhere at the time.)

Having not played this scenario I can't say if it makes sense or not. Again its more mission dependent than anything else.

[stikkypixie]

I wonder too what the effects is of having good C2 links to superior units.

[taccovert4]

-Marines are sent in as MEUs (Marine Expeditionary Units) or MAGTFs (Marine Air Ground Task Force). The O-6 in charge of these units have full control over the Air assets (fixed and rotary) in these formations both in combat and typically during training prior to. So the relationship is habitual between Marines on the ground and Marines in the air. Also Marine pilots mindset is CAS first, which is a result of their training as pilots.

-DOD wants a concept of a universal JTAC/JFO program so that in theory any observer can call any type of CAS or tube FS asset. The Air Force seems to be the biggest roadblock to this happening, although they do staff alto of the courses that Fort Sill is running, it seems that the Wing/SQDRN commanders in the field still are slow to embrace it. They still have the ability to kill any CAS release to any non AF/SOF forces they do not trust.

Those 2 sentances are why, IMHO, the Air Force should have never been given the CAS mission in the first place. The Army should have retained dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10 (and the others that would have been built) and the Air force could have had fun with their strategic bombers and interceptor/fighters. Marine pilots will fly straight into Hell and back because there are Marines in there that need that firepower. They have trained with those men for the CAS mission, and no matter what you say about cameraderie between all US servicemembers, you'll risk a whole lot more for the guys you trained with, that wear the same uniform as you, than you will for the other guys. IIRC, during operation Anaconda, the few AF assets that were on station were continually ordered to leave after being fired on by enemy forces. To the best of my knowledge, none of them ever recieved a significant hit. The Apaches in the fight were shot to hades and gone, and one of them was actually abandoned after egressing from the valley, with the crew being rescued. That's the unchangeable, fundamental difference between supporting a joint operation, and getting in there and covering "your boys" arse.