Canada to beef up training for soldiers who call in air strikes in Afghanistan

[3rd Herd]

The usual disclaimers and permission to move:

Canada to beef up training for soldiers who call in air strikes in Afghanistan
Home
Thu, 2007-07-19 16:52
National News
OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian army is proposing to double the amount of training given to soldiers who call in air strikes on the battlefields of Afghanistan and is urging other NATO countries to do the same thing.

The beefed-up training comes as the military alliance faces a storm of criticism in the war-torn country over the rising civilian death toll and follows a Canadian investigation that said preparation given to forward air controllers last year was "insufficient."

In the past, soldiers who directed fast jets and helicopters to attack Taliban positions were required to complete 34 practice runs before being considered "combat ready."

Maj. Steve Hewitt, at the army's training division in Kingston, Ont., says a recommendation has been forwarded to the head of the army to increase the requirement to 74 runs.

The bombing of civilians by warplanes has been a growing source of outrage among the Afghans and a spokesman for the Senlis Council, an international agency that operates in Kandahar, says it's the biggest factor driving people away international troops.

Hewitt wouldn't address the issue of civilian casualties other than to say both Canada and NATO work hard to keep innocent people out of harm's way. http://www.cjad.com/node/558587

 

[geo]

hmmm..... how do I say this.....


IT'S ABOUT FFFFING TIME!

 

[McG]

The FAC/JTAC should also be filled as a primary job and we should adjust organizations in Canada to make that a permanent reality.

 

[freeze_time311]

Only a fool would disagree with this. If more training means the difference between killing enemy targets, and killing civillians, then go for it, train away. How angry would you be if a force from a different country, came to your aid, and ended up killing your innocent family in the process. Although this is at times inevitable, it would be great if we could reduce civillian casualties.

Just my opinion.

Jimmy

 

[3rd Herd]

My thoughts:
Topic: British / US Blue on Blue Incident
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57194.0.html

 

[SeaKingTacco]

As a FAC course alumni, I have to agree that controlling airstrikes is just about the toughest thing that I have ever done in the military.  Even on a training run (with no one shooting at you)  you have only a few seconds to read the aircraft on to the target, make an assessment wrt the geometry of the aircraft and target to make sure the ordnance only goes where you want it, then clear the aircraft "hot".  It is very easy to fall behind the curve...

That said, I'm not sure that FACing is necessarily a full time "profession", requiring it's own MOC.  You just have to be very diligent about staying current.

My two cents worth.

 

[McG]

That said, I'm not sure that FACing is necessarily a full time "profession", requiring it's own MOC.

Agreed, but it should be a full time job (like a FOO, an Engr Recce Sgt, or an Inf Sect Comd are all full time jobs).

 

[3rd Horseman]

FOOs are full time FACs
No need for FAC trade that is the US model and the US model is the current problem not ours.

 

[McG]

FOOs are full time FACs
No need for FAC trade that is the US model and the US model is the current problem not ours.

If a FOO is FACing, then he is focused on the air game.  Each (FOO & FAC) should be its own full time job (& niether one is a trade in the CF).  This observation was repeated by most (if not all) the JTACs from TF ORION.

 

[3rd Horseman]

If a FOO is FACing, then he is focused on the air game. 
I hope not as his job is to provide fire support from many different weapons sysytems and arms and elements in a combined fire support plan.

Each (FOO & FAC) should be its own full time job (& niether one is a trade in the CF).  Disagree and not required to solve the current problem.

This observation was repeated by most (if not all) the JTACs from TF ORION. On this last point I agree and the point is that training and expierence was lacking. The solution IMHO is not to go the US way as they are the current problem. Read 3rds (other 3rds) thread on the issue and see the full arguments.

 

[KevinB]

I beg to disagree that the US model is the issue, I would also comment that ones hat colour does not inherintly give anyone special FAC powers be that hat maroon, green, black, blue or... Tan
 

 

[McG]

Disagree and not required to solve the current problem.

Our FAC (Arty or Infantry) all felt that the job took all of thier concentration.

The solution IMHO is not to go the US way as they are the current problem.

Which part of the US way is the problem?  I am not advocating a JTAC trade.  Is it that you do not think the FAC should be controling all the things that he is moving around in the air above him?

Read 3rds (other 3rds) thread on the issue and see the full arguments.

Do you have a link?

 

[3rd Herd]

Do you have a link?

Interjecting,
I think the other 3rd is referring to the Blue on Blue thread. In addition, I also have come across a couple of reports including pictures of  the FAC/FOO role in the Balkans and Kosovo. This I did not include in the Blue on Blue but if it is desired I can dig out the links to those.

edit to add:
a_majoor has come up with a post in http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64574/post-594937.html#msg594937, that bears on this topic as well.

 

[rampage800]

Absolutely has to be its own trade or at least sole purpose on a TF. To think that the one person who arguably controls the most firepower on the battlefield should have more than  one job other than controlling sense/strike assets(which includes integration, coordination, total and clear understanding of FF and En posits, talking with Coalition a/c and the SAC, weapon selection just to name a few) I would say is crazy or uninformed.

Have heard that this training upgrade isn't going as planned.

Not all FOOs are JTACs.

Sorry for re-hashing an old subject