# Battlefield Airmen



## tomahawk6 (28 Oct 2006)

From Army Times.

Working alongside soldiers, airmen are future of joint ops

By Bruce Rolfsen
Staff writer


The two dozen airmen of 5th Expeditionary Air Support Operations Squadron are living the roles of the future of joint operations.

They are joint terminal attack controllers, radio operators, weathermen and liaison officers.

Every day, “battlefield airmen” are an operational link between the Army and Air Force. The lessons learned by these airmen and hundreds of others in Iraq and Afghanistan will be tomorrow’s curriculum for airmen preparing for the war.

They have been in Iraq since July, supporting Army units, most deployed from Fort Lewis, Wash. 


The squadron had hoped to use a version of the Stryker customized for JTACs. A shortage of the specialized Strykers put those plans on hold.

Instead, the airmen travel in a command version of the Stryker, often sitting near the patrol’s commander.

The JTACs and radio operators go on patrols several times a week with the Army units they are partnered with, said Tech. Sgt. Christopher Spann, a JTAC and superintendent for the deployed squadron.

Spann is on his fourth deployment to the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones since 2001. During the previous deployments, Spann was assigned to Army special operations teams, and he traveled light.

Now, as a squadron superintendent and the deployed unit’s senior noncommissioned officer, he spends more time with paperwork than he does in the field. 

He does have the chance to mentor the new controllers. 

“Everyone I’ve been around is top-notch,” he said. “They step up and do what they need to do.”

Spann’s commander is Lt. Col. Jeffrey Wilson, who made his first trip over Iraq in 1991 as a B-52 pilot. Now an air liaison officer, Wilson has seen from the ground some of the targets his bomber struck at Baghdad International Airport. 

“As a lieutenant, I didn’t expect to be back here on the ground,” Wilson said.

Senior Airman William Walden is a joint terminal attack controller deployed to Forward Operating Base Marez in northern Iraq. Aside from an attack that wounded him badly enough to earn a Purple Heart, Walden said this tour has been quiet compared to his stay in Mosul two years before. On that tour, Walden said, the controller he was assigned to as an apprentice called in airstrikes. That hasn’t happened so far on this tour.

Much of the controllers’ job in the Mosul area involves working with jets flying what the Air Force calls “nontraditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance,” the airman said. Instead of a fighter using its targeting cameras to aim a bomb, the cameras observe what is going on below, often close to the ground patrols.

At other times, the controllers will direct aircrews to fly over in a show of force to discourage insurgents from attacking patrols or convoys.

Although Walden wears the three stripes of a senior airman, as the JTAC assigned to the 5th Battalion, he is the air power adviser to the Army unit’s fire support officer and commander, a lieutenant colonel.

Spann said JTACs have to be prepared to explain the reasons behind their advice and to disagree with their Army superiors.

“Always stand for what is right,” Spann said.

Sometimes that means having to explain why releasing a bomb is the wrong decision. “We can’t just bomb stuff these days,” he said.

While deployed, the airmen try to be indistinguishable from their Army partners.

The airmen live in Army quarters fashioned from steel cargo boxes and wear the Army’s combat uniform with its distinctive digital camouflage. The idea is that airmen with the Army on Mosul’s city streets will be less of a target if they look like soldiers. 

“You don’t want to be the one standing out,” Spann said.

Bruce Rolfsen covers the Air Force.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Oct 2006)

JTACs are G2G!  Best ambassadors the AF has for working joint ops with the Army.  I think we'll see capabilities along these lines develop in the CF as well...

G2G


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Oct 2006)

I was thinking this would be a good way to go for the CAF. How much training time does the CAF put into CAS ?


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Oct 2006)

we're getting back into FACing more and more...the 90's were not particularly kind to the skill...

On the flying side, I still think things are biased a bit more to air-to-air, but NORAD plays well in the "protecting Canadians" arena.  Attack has always been in the tool box, but only in the late 90's (around Kosovo period) did attack get the attention it needs.  That said, attack focus is moving more towards CAS than strat attack and BAI.  I know many Hornet drivers who would give up a little something or two to be lifting up from KAF's runways with a couple of 500lb surprises...

G2G


----------



## 3rd Horseman (29 Oct 2006)

Tom,

   The CF does not operate in the same way as the US forces when it comes to support arms advice, co-ord and execution. I think it would take a very big shift to change the way we have, and do business. I have been on both sides of the coin providing fire support advice to CF Army units and attached to US units to do the same. It was a completely different way of doing business (steep learning curve for both of us). It was my perception after these exchanges that we were doing it best, and on occasion convinced my US CO our way was better.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Oct 2006)

Without getting into details.......you will see lots of changes on the army/air force coord in the near future.  EX MAPLE GUARDIAN and EX WOLF SAFARI are the testing ground for the new Air Expeditionary Unit.....lots of  air force types spending time under canvas with the various HQs coordinating fighter and CP-140 support to land operations. Some of us are also spending a month at sea on the USS Gunston Hall for the SCF trials.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Oct 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Tom,
> 
> The CF does not operate in the same way as the US forces when it comes to support arms advice, co-ord and execution. I think it would take a very big shift to change the way we have, and do business. I have been on both sides of the coin providing fire support advice to CF Army units and attached to US units to do the same. It was a completely different way of doing business (steep learning curve for both of us). It was my perception after these exchanges that we were doing it best, and on occasion convinced my US CO our way was better.



3rd, times have changed.  

You'd be surprised how closely aligned we now are...my CCA, 5-liner and 9-liner's are identical to US ones.  Even NATO is getting in on the standardization game.  

Stuff's happening today.


G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Oct 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Without getting into details.......you will see lots of changes on the army/air force coord in the near future.  EX MAPLE GUARDIAN and EX WOLF SAFARI are the testing ground for the new Air Expeditionary Unit.....lots of  air force types spending time under canvas with the various HQs coordinating fighter and CP-140 support to land operations. Some of us are also spending a month at sea on the USS Gunston Hall for the SCF trials.



Back in my day, half the ground crew in the Air force that I met seem to be ex-combat arms, if it still is the case they should do well under canvas. At sea they will likely turn as green as their CadPats.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Oct 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Back in my day, half the ground crew in the Air force that I met seem to be ex-combat arms, if it still is the case they should do well under canvas. At sea they will likely turn as green as their CadPats.



Collin.........some people in my line of work have quite alot of sea time....you know....CH-124 Sea King and all. And i am not refering to ground crews, of which i am not.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Oct 2006)

G2G,

   I thought we (royal we) were all striving towards NATO stanags rather than towards US standards. If this is not so then things have really taken a drastic shift. I reserve judgement on that end result being good. 

   I can see a technical movement making sense but the approach to Command, Control and Coord of fire support being driven by unit design and years of training, it will be a tough one to change. Notwithstanding, I believe our system is far superior to the US. We have always adopted each others technical ways. As early as Gulf War 1 when I was tasked to provide one of the Recce teams, I was attached a pair of US Spec Cpls. They arrived with all the kit to load and run all the keen tech stuff the US wanted us to have. My party went from a 5 man team to a group of 7 and loads of high tech gear over night. Being interoperable has always been the norm but I suspect the advise and coord will remain miles apart. I guess I will see.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Oct 2006)

NATO has become so unwieldy that we* have turned almost uniformly towards ABCA(NZ) for interoperability standards.


* The royal "We" refers to those of us actually _doing_ the job, not rehashing decade-old war stories from a second-career office.  :


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (30 Oct 2006)

I'm sure this will upset the terminology commissars, but we (the Canadian BG) were calling our personnel JTACs when I was there.  Personnaly, I'm in favour of dedicated JTACs for today's battlefield as opposed to double-hatting someone.  Find Sgts with a knack for it and specialize them.

We adopted US formats for most things that ended up relying on US systems (CAS, medevac).  All in all I think its a good idea.  

Cheers

Red5


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Oct 2006)

Journey,

   The Royal we stands for Commonwealth.
    The Gulf War 1 scenario is an example of the close relationship and exchange of approaches that has always been, not just in the past few years. I had to rely on my own experience in finding an old example that showed my point. I guess I could have found one from the past 5 years but it would not have had the same impact as a 15 year old one.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Oct 2006)

3rd, like JM said...today, "We" usually means ABCA.  NATO would have a hard time sorting itself out of a sopping wet paper bag.  I endured attended one brief in Brussels where the visiting AUS LO was "invited" to the cafeteria while a member nation provided a "classified"  :  briefing...OMFG, I flailed through the 1-1/2 hour briefing wishing the earth would open up beneath me and swallow me up, thus ending the sheer pain I and others who ply our craft were enduring.  NATO...idea's not bad, execution needs a bit of work.

Say what you will, but I'm with Red_Five.....JTACs qualified to US standard is where we should be heading.

G2G


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Oct 2006)

G2G,

   Red five has an interesting point. I don't subscribe to that approach but then I'm a dinosaur, but always willing to accept a new way of doing business. With that said I don't think the dynamics of battle in the current theatre are as complicated as was in  past battles when our system was perfected. On that I may very well be wrong since I have not had the privilege of serving anymore. On that I await the interesting out comes of change.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (30 Oct 2006)

I am neither a pilot nor a JTAC, but I will say with some conviction that the current company fight is very complicated with all sorts of enablers and supporting arms that can rapidly overwhelm one person and thus the ground force commander by extension.   I can't say if it is more or less complicated than battles fifteen years ago, but a company or even a platoon can have artillery, attack helicopters, a B1 and two types of UAVs supporting it in a non-linear fight.  All those enablers have airspace issues and they must be resolved by the guy on the ground.  That guy on the ground is also more likely than not to also be in the direct fire fight whether he wants to or not.  That company might even be coalition in nature, adding a further wrinkle, while there will certainly be ANSF present (Afghan National Security Forces). 

I can vaguely remember being told on my Troop Leading course that "you'll never get Apaches and jets supporting you." Who knew?

I'll sacrifice some national procedural uniqueness at the alter of simplicity of coordination in combat.  Since the US brings most of the enablers to the table I figure we can let them set it.  I'm a fan of ABCA, but of course the more NATO standardization the better.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Oct 2006)

Sounds interesting.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (30 Oct 2006)

I was primarily a spectator (it was my job to spectate).  The whole JTAC issue intrigued me, however, and I delved into it throughout the tour.  Our guys did awesome, although of course things can always be tweaked and improved.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Oct 2006)

....or "perfected"  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (30 Oct 2006)

Yeah, apparently it's easier to do these days....


----------



## paracowboy (30 Oct 2006)

boy, I'm glad I wasn't around when things were so difficult. Thank goodness war has become so easy these days.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Oct 2006)

;D


----------

