Author Topic: FOO vs. FOO Tech  (Read 18508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 213,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,868
FOO vs. FOO Tech
« on: November 21, 2004, 20:22:56 »
One is an officer and the other an NCO; both are the eyes of the guns.  What are differences in how they are employed?

Offline Gunnerlove

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -45
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 313
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2004, 21:38:30 »
One plays less spin the map and gets out of the truck to use his compass ;D

"Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty." Unknown

"In a gunfight four rounds in four inches in 4 seconds will always be a better grouping than two rounds through the same hole in twice the time" My father

Offline trajectomologist

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2004, 22:26:08 »
Very basically... The officer plots tgts, and initially orders the data for a fire mission... the NCO "corrects" any bad data produced by the Officer and keeps the signaler in line.
Having a double check is vital... cannot emphasize that enough!
If you don't like it,  get in there and do something about it!

Offline RCA

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 558
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2004, 16:40:58 »
The tech doesn't correct, just either agrees or disagrees. He is there as the double check. As well he is the FOOs second set of eyes. Technically, both know OPs fire discipline, theory of indirect fire, and can shoot. The FOO has greater depth on the support and coordination role. The FOO is the fire support adviser and coordinator to his arms comd.

The FOO tech does shoot on his own (sig being the double check), particularly during Fire Plans (if this has changed since I was  a FOO Tech, pl let me know.)
Ubique

Offline Gunnerlove

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -45
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 313
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2004, 21:42:37 »
No change, the sig is still the techs double check.
"Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty." Unknown

"In a gunfight four rounds in four inches in 4 seconds will always be a better grouping than two rounds through the same hole in twice the time" My father

Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 269
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2004, 20:13:01 »
There has been a lot of talk on these posts about the 120mm mortar replacing the guns in close support batteries.  I agree with this, but that's not my point.  If in fact the close support batteries are all re-equipped with 120mm mortars, would the FOOs (or Fire Effects Officers as they have been renamed) be eliminated and NCO Mortar Fire Controllers take over this role?  This would eliminate officer billets and those save money.  Would it be effective?

Offline RCA

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 558
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2004, 16:37:37 »
Read above, The FOOs job is not only to call down fire, but be the Fire Support guru. I don't think the MFC has the tools to do the job or that matter NCMs because the FOO must advise and be heard by other officers.
Ubique

Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 269
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2004, 18:18:13 »
Thanks for the opinion.  That was what I was wondering.  I thought that perhaps a sergeant MFC in a mortar battery, who has been working the guns (mortars) for all his career, as opposed to the present infantry MFC, would be just as experience and knowledgable as a FOO.  Sometimes officers accept the advise or imput of a well experience senior NCO just as good as they would an officer.  And we are only talking about fire support advisor at the infantry company level.  You would still have the battery commander at the battalion/battle group HQ.  I thought maybe it would be a way of eliminating some officer positions from the officer-heavy Army and thus save money.  A MFC is capable of calling down fire on a target, I just thought that maybe you could add the fire support advisor role to this and give the MFC a FOO Tech and signaller to assist him the same as the FOO has now.  Basically just replace the Captain FOO with a Sergeant MFC.


Offline RCA

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 558
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2004, 19:33:50 »
Trimming officers means at the top not the "sharp end". And how does a FOO get the experience to become a BC.

Besides, The arty have a net that call fire from multi-bty-regts, something a MFC is also not eqpt for.

There is a whole lot involved. weight and types of fire, Anchor OPs and Mobile OPs. replacing the BC just to name a few.
Ubique

Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 269
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2004, 02:43:20 »
I agree the officers need to be trimmed off the top, but less at the bottom will mean less at the top eventually.  My thought was that a the mortar troop commander would eventually become the BK and then BC.  Again I'm not talking about an infantry MFC like today.  I mean an artillery MFC if the artillery re-organized into mortar batteries.  Each battery would have a single troop of six LAV-III 120mm Armoured Mortar Systems.  The AMS requires a crew of four.  A MBdr could lead the each mortar detachment.  That means six MBdr det commanders in each battery.  They would progress to sergeant MFC and on to TSM or BQMS.  The artillery MFC would have experience as a MFC Tech (FOO Tech) as a Bdr and then experience commanding a mortar detachment as a MBdr before becoming a MFC.  He would also have the same course as the present FOO.

If an infantry MFC can call down the fire of 81mm or 120mm mortars in a infantry battalion mortar platoon why can't an artillery sergeant with his full career being spent in a mortar battery not be capable of doing the same thing, plus giving fire support advice to the infantry company commander that he is supporting.   

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 213,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,868
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2004, 02:56:48 »
If an infantry MFC can call down the fire of 81mm or 120mm mortars in a infantry battalion mortar platoon why can't an artillery sergeant with his full career being spent in a mortar battery not be capable of doing the same thing, plus giving fire support advice to the infantry company commander that he is supporting.
Is it acceptable that the Cbt Tm of tomorrow not have the ability to call down other types of fire (rocket, howitzer, fast air, naval, helo, NLOS, etc)?

Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 269
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2004, 17:00:51 »
I'm just trying to think outside the box a little.  Change isn't always bad. Why couldn't a sergeant with more than 10 years experience on the guns be trained equal to a Captain FOO.  Then he could call down all the other kinds of fire as well.  A TAC CP at battalion headquarters could be responsible for close air support, similar to what the Americans do.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 213,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,868
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2004, 17:05:23 »
So, where you say "MFC" it would be more accurate to say "FOO Tech"?  Clearly you do not see this individual's role being limited to calling mortars.

Offline Gunnerlove

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -45
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 313
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2004, 18:55:03 »
There is no reason why a non commissioned member could not be trained to fill the role currently occupied by a commissioned officer. The problem would stem from the class imposed gap in ranks between the NCO and the officers he would have to work with interfearing with his ability to do his job.

Tradition is the reason we tolerate a class based system that allows a brand new 2Lt to tell a Sgt with over a decade in the forces how to do his job.

Or I could be out in left field and just bitter about being told how to do my job by someone with fewer months in the military than I have years.
Yes, bitter.



"Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty." Unknown

"In a gunfight four rounds in four inches in 4 seconds will always be a better grouping than two rounds through the same hole in twice the time" My father

Offline Mountie

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 269
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2004, 01:24:02 »
McG hit the nail on the head.  Basically I am meaning for a FOO Tech to take over the role of a FOO.  I just thought it would be referred to as a MFC because it is a mortar battery.  Call it what you like.  You could call it a Fire Support Tech or a Fire Effects Tech if you wanted.

As far as the infantry company commander not giving a sergeant the respect he deserves and interferring with or not listening to him that is just a mentality that would have to be dealt with.  Would it really be that different from the relationship between a platoon commander and platoon warrant?  Or a a unit CO and the RSM?  Maybe, I'm just asking. 

Offline Spr.Earl

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,718
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2004, 02:35:27 »
Is it acceptable that the Cbt Tm of tomorrow not have the ability to call down other types of fire (rocket, howitzer, fast air, naval, helo, NLOS, etc)?
Oh No  :o
We are going to lose the FOO in the FEBA??
THE PRECEDING POST AND OTHERS MADE BY MYSELF ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT FOR REPRODUCTION, NOT FOR CUT AND PASTE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF, NO QUOTES ARE PERMITTED ELSEWHERE,ANYWHERE OTHER THAN EXCLUSIVELY IN THIS WEB FORUM.




UBIQUE
Be Safe

Offline Bomber

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 422
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2004, 09:47:29 »
When an officer joins the guns, he is low on the pole, usually the safety guy, or just going around with the BC for a while seeing different positions.  After he gets some experience around the battery, he will be trained by the Artillery school to perform different jobs, such as recce, CP and GPO stuff.  being promoted to Lt will the place the officer into a new position, a junior one might go first to recce, under the tutelage of a strong recce TSM, the Lt will learn the ins and outs of placing a battery on the ground.  More importantly, they will gain a time appreciation.  From there, the Lt might move into the CP to get some good training on the procedures of firing the battery.  As more time progresses, the Lt will climb to being a GPO, getting a good look at the overall running of a Battery, from admin to fighting local defence battles.  Some day that Rosy cheeked Lt will become a grizzled captain and be known as BK, he will always think in a tactical sense.  After all of this OJT, plus trips to various artillery school, regimental, and battery level training exercises, the Captain will be sent to Gagetown to learn how to employ the guns as a Fire Effects Officer.  There they learn all about calling for fire from all kinds of systems, but they learn to liaise with Battalion, Squadron, and Company commanders.  FE's are there to support the combined arms battle.  They need to learn how the infantry moves and fights when attacking, defending, flanking, and a bunch of other good moves.  Then they learn how to advise the support arms commander on how they can help them achieve their aim.  An FE officer that knows his batter is moving, pullingg in, or pullin out, would advise the supported arm that he should stay in position for a few minutes, until he has guaranteed fire.  The whole point I am going for is that Officers are trained from the get go to eventually become an FE officer.  They have been taught to understand the battle higher and lower than themselves.  By doing every job in the battery, it is hoped that they are then more knowledgeable and realistic in dispensing advice both in regard to effectiveness of fire and reaction to calls for fire.  I am not saying that the NCO's of a regiment could not be trained to do this job, but with the way that we are going, 3 streams, there is a possibility that the former BK has spent 10 years on the gun line, and the FE tech has done is DP1 arty, then his drivers, comms course and FE tech course.  And has not been on the guns since DP1.  He might get a bad case of "remember in the old days when I was on course and it took 45 seconds to pull in and be finished my check bearing" But even if he doesn't, he still has not got the tactics school training, the time employing a battery, or the rank (even as a Sgt, a Company commander might not be taking what you say as the gospel truth) to do the FE officers job.  There are plenty of times when the FE tech gets to shoot the battery on their own, like during fire plans.  But the actual logistics of training a reg forces FE techs to do the job of the FE officer might just be a drain on resources.  Plus, being an MFC shouldn't be like some kind of "Last Mile" revolutionary change, Other than a higher rate of fire, less range, and a steeper trajectory it should be no harder to fire a battery of Mortars than a battery of guns.  Just grab the other TOF tables and get it on.

Offline Scott937

  • Member
  • ****
  • 15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 217
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2004, 23:09:06 »
Very Good post Bomber...

And mountie, you mention the TACP for Close Air Support in the US are you familiar with how that works...

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 213,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,868
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2004, 01:11:58 »
A year back, in conversation with a FOO it came up that he was not qualified as a FAC.  Is this to be expected?  I would think that the ideal FOO would be qualified to coordinate all the fire support needs of a supported sub-unit or Cbt Tm.

Offline Scott937

  • Member
  • ****
  • 15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 217
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2004, 16:01:51 »
The FOO should be qualified FAC, but it is not necessary. When they are, it is usually operationally based, however more and more FOOs from the Regiments are getting qualified. I don't know of any Reserve FOOs who are qualified, nor would they need it. At the very least the FOO should have an understanding of how to employ Fast Air in operations.

Offline 45B

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
  • Facta non Verba
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2004, 19:01:48 »
During a normal AN mission, the "job" of the tech is to remember the officer what will be the next correction ( ie "200" ). All the officer has to do is to determined wheter it is an ADD or DROP. After that, if the crew is experienced, the sig already knows the correction he will send. He just need to know the ADD or DROP and wait for the order "sig send".This technique (400-200-100-50FFE) never fails. If the impacts are aligned with the target and the direction, the rest is piece of cake. A common mistake is to try guessing the exact correction right at the beggining.
FACTA NON VERBA

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 213,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,868
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2004, 21:01:09 »
A common mistake is to try guessing the exact correction right at the beggining.
Does the LAV OPV not change this?

Offline 45B

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
  • Facta non Verba
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2004, 21:21:14 »
Does the LAV OPV not change this?
Hi,
I took a look at your profile, maybe you are not familiar with some indirect fire notions? If you are, I will place few explanations for the others.
There is many ways to adjust indirect fire. With today's modern equipment, we can hit the target the first time, and the first set of order normally comprises the order FFE. We never need more than one round to adjust.
With the LAV OPV, that's very simple. The method of adjustment is called Target Grid Correction. Basically, you just have to aim at the impact, and lase it. The resulting data is 10 figures grid (accuracy to the meter). This grid is sent as a correction. You can also use Direction and Distance as a correction, but tgt gd correction is better, because to use the Direction and Distance you need the location of the vehicle, and on the battlefield the OPV is constantly moving and hidding. With the grid the only thing you send is the grid, that's it.
But the FOOs are still trained to master the old manual method of bracketing, which is the method describe in my previous message.
FACTA NON VERBA

Offline Scott937

  • Member
  • ****
  • 15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 217
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2004, 19:55:43 »
45B, essentially you are correct, but Target Grid Correction is name of the L-R/A-D method, and the method you had described is specifically known as impact adjust. However, the LAV OPV normally sends an exact correction based on the initial round of adjustmentand a direction of 6400, as you have stated, but the data is there for them to use the impact adjust method. The impact adjust method existed for the new is safe laser(when connected to a PLGR) which produces grids for lased items as WP, also when the LAV3s first came into service with the Artillery, they were not the OPVs but rather the Inf CP versions, which did not have the INS and TOFCS. TACNAV was used, it produced a 6 figure grid to the item lased, hence the need for impact adjust.

The one round in adjustment has been around for years in laser mission, but as 45B mentioned, they were based on a direction and distance and knowing the point of origin (the OP Location). Good for static defensive positions but not good for anything else.

So, MCG, I think what 45B was trying to tell you was that you are correct the LAV OPV does change the adjustment proceedure.

Offline 45B

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
  • Facta non Verba
Re: FOO vs. FOO Tech
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2004, 21:21:21 »
45B, essentially you are correct, but Target Grid Correction is name of the L-R/A-D method, and the method you had described is specifically known as impact adjust. However, the LAV OPV normally sends an exact correction based on the initial round of adjustmentand a direction of 6400, as you have stated, but the data is there for them to use the impact adjust method. The impact adjust method existed for the new is safe laser(when connected to a PLGR) which produces grids for lased items as WP, also when the LAV3s first came into service with the Artillery, they were not the OPVs but rather the Inf CP versions, which did not have the INS and TOFCS. TACNAV was used, it produced a 6 figure grid to the item lased, hence the need for impact adjust.

The one round in adjustment has been around for years in laser mission, but as 45B mentioned, they were based on a direction and distance and knowing the point of origin (the OP Location). Good for static defensive positions but not good for anything else.

So, MCG, I think what 45B was trying to tell you was that you are correct the LAV OPV does change the adjustment proceedure.

Impact adjust:
!!!Thank you Scott937 for that correction!!! I am always confusing the terms Impact Adjust and Target Grid Correction.
FACTA NON VERBA