Luke expands forward air-control program

United States Air Force ^ | Mar 22, 2004 | Maj. Mark Jennings - 310th Fighter Squadron

[Spruce]

Luke expands forward air-control program

by Maj. Mark Jennings
310th Fighter Squadron

3/22/2004 - LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFPN) -- Unconventional warfare can be defined as the absence of a clearly defined enemy and lacking classic lines of battle.

Combining this definition with the rugged terrain of Afghanistan and Iraq, it is easy to see why commanders throughout the combat air forces are clamoring for forward air control (airborne)-capable pilots. These pilots are known as FAC-As.

The airborne controller supports a ground commander by solving tactical problems using airpower. The FAC-A acts as the quarterback of a multifaceted team, which strives to destroy or neutralize any target as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Once a target has been identified, the FAC-A coordinates with supporting fighter or bomber aircraft to get “eyes on that target.” The airborne controller then directs an attack against that target using the best aircraft and weapon pairing.

The 310th Fighter Squadron here runs the only schoolhouse for F-16 Fighting Falcon pilots training to become FAC-As. Each class lasts five weeks and includes a 12-ride program that tests technical knowledge and piloting skills. The school graduates 13 classes of pilots annually.

"Because of the FAC-As' mission efficiency, I'm not surprised by the recent increase in FAC-A emphasis here at Luke and Air Force-wide," said Maj. Monty Hostetler, a FAC-A instructor pilot with the 310th FS. "We are both close-air support and forward air control. We're airborne artillery with precision employment capability.

"We have the battlefield perspective to see what's on the other side of the mountain, and effectively orchestrate putting bombs on the target quickly and precisely, while protecting friendly forces," he said. (Courtesy of Air Education and Training Command News Service)

[Spruce]

The US Warrior of the 21st century is taking shape.

[Bedford Forrest]

At any altitude below which the "FAC-A's" "eyes on the target" are even in the same zip code of precision and accuracy as those of the Marine FAC [the only kind worth talking about], on line with a Marine rifle company engaged with the enemy, the "FAC-A's" cute little Electwic Aewopwane is going to get taken out. Then there is the matter of being in the same zip code as the enemy while blue suited drivers are delivering their special brand of close air support, [pickle & pray] particularly at night or in low viz conditions. Sad to say, from WW II on down to recent times, such situations have frequently turned out poorly for Marines and doggies on the ground, not to mention large numbers of civilians. Sad to say, the blue suit set and their predecessors have always viewed the CAS mission with fear and loathing. In marked contrast, Marine aviators have been in the CAS business since the banana wars of the 1920s. Marine fighter pilots [and attack pukes] learn early on that they are a supporting arm, and that in the final analysis, the only real measure of their worth is how well they protect and serve the Marines actually charged with the duty of taking and holding the ground, the riflemen. Very early on the Marines learned that safe and precise close air support required the forward air controller to be on the ground, just as in the case of an FO for artillery missions or an ANGLICO for naval gunfire missions. The results speak for themselves. Ask any infantry commander his preferences for close air support and he will say, Marines first, Squids second, blue suiters, not. FAC-A's in electric airplanes? What a joke, if it weren't so pathetic.

[SwampFoxOfVa]

We used to say that the Air Force supported us from cloudtop level, the Navy from treetop level and the Marines from grasstop level :-)

[opbuzz]

The Marines have had FAC(A)s for over 30 years.

From an old DASC guy.

SF

[Rokke]

"What a joke, if it weren't so pathetic"

Which summarizes your whole dumbass ignorant post. I've flown in combat with USMC FAC-A's flying in 2 seat Hornets (in 2003). The very first CAS sortie I ever flew (in 1990) was directed by a USMC FAC-A flying an OV-10. The Navy uses FAC-A's in both its Tomcats and Hornets.
Ironically, I just spent two weeks on the ground in the Nevada desert training with USAF special tactics squads who were on the ground in Iraq months before the war started and directed CAS missions throughout its duration.

I don't know what your background is but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about now.

[Bedford Forrest]

"I don't know what your background is but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about now.

Your background is apparently so sketchy you have to resort to ad hominem attacks, you idiot. Whatever your background [PIO in a C-130 squadron, perhaps, dropping leaflets on the heathens?] it is clear you are very confused about the respective uses of inductive and deductive reasoning, idiot. I don't recall criticizing the use of FAC-A's by the Marines. Nor did I criticize the training of special ops people in the control of close air support from the ground. I believe the posted article referred to Air Force FAC-A's. My criticism, however obscure it may have seemed to you, was general in nature and directed at the Air Force's well-known and long standing lack of commitment to the CAS mission. That is a corporate cultural phenomenon within the Air Force tacair community and not going to be changed by a few people doing the same old thing at Luke and calling it a new departure. BTW, does dropping leaflets and candy bars out of C-130s really count as a CAS mission in the Air Force? It does? Well then, a hearty well done to you, old boy.

[Rokke]

"I don't recall criticizing the use of FAC-A's by the Marines."

Well, let's take a look at your original post. You said...
"Very early on the Marines learned that safe and precise close air support required the forward air controller to be on the ground."
That is hardly a ringing endorsement for the very capable USMC FAC-A's currently flying their own version of a "little Electwic Aewopwane." You go on to say...
"Nor did I criticize the training of special ops people in the control of close air support from the ground."
True, but you spent a whole paragraph slamming the Air Force for its lack of commitment to the CAS mission. Air Force TACPs have become a mission requirement for Army special forces teams operating in Afghanistan. During Anaconda, some of the greatest acts of heroism were conducted by Air Force TACPs calling in air strikes by Air Force fighters on targets less than 100 meters from friendlies. Not a bad effort from a service with a "lack of commitment to the CAS mission." 80% of the sorties flown in OIF were apportioned by the Air Force Air Component Commander for CAS or Kill Box interdiction. A vast majority of those sorties were flown by Air Force aircraft. Again, so much for "lack of commitment."

I've flown fighters for 15 years. I've lead Marine fighters into combat. I've worked directly with FAC-A's, ground FACs, and ODA units from every service while in the cockpit and on the ground. I spent four years in the Navy and spent the last war attached to the Combined Forces Maritime Component Command as a liaison between the Air Force and the Navy/Marine Corps. Your posts make it very clear you have zero actual exposure to the "Air Force tacair community". In fact, your posts indicate you've had very little actual exposure to any tacair community. You do have a lot of pride in the Marine Corps. You should. They are probably the most effective service we've got in many respects. But having worked directly with Marines my whole career, I will attest that your bias against the Air Force is not shared by Marines currently in the fight.

[ASOC]

I know more than a few folks at an airbase in Fl, who did not get their tan locally, who might want to talk to you about USAF CAS doctrine.

USAF Enlisted (NOT Officers like in the Corps) FACs have been calling the shots for a good number of years - and if the pilots pay attention, get very good results. They have the gear, training, desire and (pardon my french) the balls to go in at the company level or better and get the job done.

Have a nice day!

[Bedford Forrest]

Are you dyslexic or are you just incapable of grasping the meaning of words? Whatever the case, you have a true gift for spinning out the howling non sequiturs, straw men and drive-by logical disconnects.

First, "That is hardly a ringing endorsement. . . ." Yes, and your point is????

Second, "Nor did I criticize the training of special ops people in the control of close air support from the ground." "True, but you spent a whole paragraph slamming the Air Force for its lack of commitment to the CAS mission. Air Force TACPs have become a mission requirement for Army special forces teams operating in Afghanistan."

Are you equating CAS in the special ops context with CAS in the context of an infantry battalion on line and engaged against numerically superior forces? You want to talk about Air Force tacair in Afghanistan? That would be two months into the war, right, after you finally got a base up in one of the adjacent Stans, right? I cannot believe you want to talk about air force tacair performance in Anaconda or in Afghanistan in general. It certainly endeared us to a good number of civilians, not to mention the Canadians. You left out a couple of other your "friendly fire" pigs that need some lipstick - Kuwait [dead Marines] Kosovo [dead civilians, lots of them] and Iraq [more dead Marines]. You can mouth off all you want about your "Kill Boxes" and the percentage of tactical sorties flown - those do not rebut my main contention, which I will re-phrase in the hope of getting you to look outside of your bubble. Ask the end user of close air support, the infantry commander, Marine, Army or special ops, which service he would prefer to have bombing and strafing enemy personnel in close proximity to his own people. The answer is no secret and all the air force tacair press releases, staff reports, training directives and pins in the syllabus board can't change the facts. BTW, you never did answer my question about the propaganda leaflets and the candy bars. Inquiring minds, etc., etc.

[Bedford Forrest]

". . .and if the pilots pay attention, get very good results"

You know, ASOC me lad, if I've been raising old Rokke's blood pressure by explaining a few things to him, I think you may have given him a stroke! On the assumption that you are a blue suiter, at an AF base "somewhere in Florida" [wow, sounds spooky to me] I believe that your statement that ". . .[I]f the pilots pay attention, [they] get very good results" is very revealing. I commend you for your candor. I leave aside the question whether, in the air force tacair community, the term "good results" means inside one or two zip codes. But I must suggest that you find out who this Rokke is and stay the heck away from him. He cannot be happy that you have committed truth, in a very public forum, concerning what for him is a very painful issue. Regards to you, ASOC, hang in there.

[Rokke]

I'm trying to find something you got right in your last post, but there just isn't anything there. Nothing. I can only guess that you haven't served in uniform in decades (if ever). Your ignorance slimes all our armed services, and especially the Marine Corps.

[ASOC]

Actually, you stump, I'm retired USAF. And did the close air support "thing" for more then a few years. Nickname on F/R ASOC = Air Support Operations Center - pretty slick *if* you know what you are talking about.

BTW -You don't build yourself up by trying to tear others down - it just makes you look like a fool.