JTAC Counterpoint
Another look at training requirements for joint terminal air controllers
by LtCol Steve "Psycho" Wilson
This article is written in response to the April 2006 Marine Corps Gazette article written by Maj Michael D. Grice, entitled “Marine Corps Joint Terminal Controllers.” While Maj Grice’s article does make some relevant and thought-provoking points, there are some issues that need further elaboration in order to fully understand the current joint terminal air controller (JTAC) training requirements.
A TACP calls an airstrike during training. The author provides a perspective
on training air controllers. (Photo courtesy of author.)
The premise of his article, that JTACs are “second-class citizens who are begrudgingly allowed to fill the role that was previously the exclusive domain of aviators” and that the Marine Corps Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) Training and Readiness Manual (TACP T&R Manual):
. . . is based on two erroneous assumptions: first, that only pilots have the requisite experience and ability to control CAS [close air support] without excessive and unnecessary training and, second, that ground combat arms officers and staff noncommissioned officers (SNCOs) are ignorant of fire support integration, and deconfliction . . .
could not be further from the truth. Each military occupational specialty (MOS), whether ground- or aviation-related, has certain skill sets that are learned and refined over time. To say that the aviator brings some skill sets to the JTAC arena that the ground Marine does not is not prejudicial. It is a fact. Conversely, the ground Marine also possesses certain skill sets that the aviator does not. The important point is to identify what skill sets are required and what type of training is necessary to ensure that all students, regardless of background, meet a certain level of performance prior to being certified as JTACs.
The mission essential task list (METL) outlined in the joint CAS (JCAS) memorandum of agreement (MOA) and the TACP T&R Manual was developed over the course of many years by JTACs, forward air controllers (FACs), and FACs (airborne) (FAC(A)s) from all Services, with thousands of controls both in combat and in peacetime. The best and most experienced from all Services agreed that these METLs were the minimum a JTAC must know. A review of these METLs shows that currently there are 9 duty areas that are broken down into 42 separate skill sets. Terminal control encompasses a myriad of different responsibilities. It requires knowledge of not only fire support but also a specialized knowledge of airspace coordination, aviation ordnance, fixed- and rotary-wing tactics, attack geometry and parameters, aircraft capabilities and equipment, ground- and airbased designator and spot capability, target acquisition equipment and utilization, communications equipment and procedures, briefing and debriefing requirements, suppression of enemy air defense requirements for each type of threat and the associated tactics and, most importantly, a general understanding of what the CAS aircrew is seeing and doing during different phases of the mission in order to effectively locate and destroy the target in a timely manner that does not expose friendly forces to undue risk. The application of this knowledge encompasses the ability to visualize and anticipate events in time and space, adapt to changing information and situations, and coordinate multiple agencies and agendas within a sophisticated communications environment in a time-critical setting. Almost every one of these METLs directly relates to aviation and aviation-related activities. With that in mind, it is clear that someone with an aviation background is more likely to possess, or at a minimum be more familiar with, the skills required to be a JTAC.
The Basic Elements
Breaking down each one of these elements into its basic components and teaching them is an extremely time-consuming process. The aviator and the ground Marine both arrive at TACP school with some of these skills. Regardless of what aviation community a FAC student comes from (CAS or non-CAS), as an aviator he has spent years acquiring aircraft platform knowledge, communications skills, spatial orientation from the air, task prioritization and management in the cockpit, and the utilization of aircraft systems in an extremely dynamic environment. In his progression through flight school and fleet aviation, each aviator has passed an extremely rigorous training syllabus and exercised many of the skills that prepare him for the challenges faced by terminal controllers. This is not to say that a Marine from a ground MOS is not fully capable of becoming a JTAC. A Marine from a ground MOS can make an excellent JTAC. However, the aviator, on average, arrives with a stronger grasp of those skill sets that directly relate to terminal control. This statement is verified by statistical data. Despite the fact that the student JTAC must attend the JTAC primer course and complete the 100-level controls before arriving at TACP, on average, the aviators are more prepared and require less time to train than JTACs to achieve the required skill level for executing CAS. Statistics over the last 10 months reveal that aviators consistently had higher academic averages. More importantly, though, aviators performed at a higher level of proficiency during both practical application exercises and live fire controls. Undoubtedly, there are some outstanding JTACs. I have seen many who are every bit as good as the FACs that we have produced. However, this is the exception rather than the rule. The fact is that aviators have honed many more of the required JTAC/FAC skills through years of training than the ground MOS Marine; thus, aviators require less time to train and on average complete TACP school at a higher level of proficiency than the ground Marine. What happens after TACP school is completely dependent upon how often they exercise the JTAC/FAC skills.
The following statement by Maj Grice is incorrect:
Neither definition [of JTAC] requires that the JTAC be an aerial planner, but the training syllabi and certification promulgated by the Marine Corps introduce that requirement, levying a time-consuming, expensive, and unneeded training prerequisite that a JTAC must fulfill before he is considered qualified—a training requirement that is not levied on aviators.
All JTACs across all of the Services are required to understand the planning process as it relates to CAS and be able to advise a ground unit commander on fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and unmanned aircraft systems employment in conjunction with the ground scheme of maneuver. This capability, however, does not make him an aerial planner. The syllabi for FACs and JTACs train these Marines to the same METL, with no exceptions. One point of note is that the Marine Corps TACP T&R Manual currently has “Duty Area 9” that includes some air officer responsibilities. This duty area, however, only encompasses 3 out of the 42 skill sets and entails approximately 4 out of the 141 hours of academic training at TACP school. This training is neither expensive nor very time-consuming, but it does help to provide a broader perspective to the JTAC.
Maj Grice goes on to say that the experience of ground combat arms personnel is ignored by requiring them to attend the JTAC primer course and TACP in order to teach them skills that they already possess. While it is true that there is fire support integration and call for fire (CFF) taught in the JTAC primer course, the majority of the syllabus is CAS-related and deals with controlling aviation in the terminal phase. As stated earlier, JTACs come from different communities. Some are more familiar with CFF and indirect fire support integration than others. The time spent reviewing these topics is not wasted. Regardless, all JTAC primer students benefit from the exposure to CAS procedures. To suggest that the experiences of our ground Marines are ignored is ridiculous. To the contrary, that experience is why they are selected. They are chosen above others based upon their experience as fire support integrators. JTAC primer is simply an introduction and exposure to another element of that continuum and a review of the components that relate to that element.
As mentioned above, all Services must train to the same METL. The current JTAC primer course and JTAC training syllabus are simply the first attempt at trying to create a syllabus that ensures the success of our ground combat arms Marine in the area of terminal control. Expeditionary Warfare Training Group Pacific (EWTGPac) began teaching this course in October 2005. Much information has been gained since that time. Many changes are currently in progress. Admittedly, there is duplication between TACP school and the JTAC primer course. Much of this duplication is by design, but improvements could and are being implemented. As we learn more and receive feedback from the Operating Forces, this course will be further refined and improved.
Cobra gunships fly CAS. The author states that aviators in general performed
better as terminal air controllers. (Photo
courtesy of author.)
In May representatives from EWTGPac, EWTG Atlantic, Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1, Tactical Training Evaluation Control Group, Training and Education Command, Headquarters Marine Corps (Aviation Plans and Policies 36), air/naval gunfire liaison company, Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, II Marine Expeditionary Force, 2d Marine Division, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing, and the Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and Integration met to discuss the TACP T&R Manual. All items discussed in this article were analyzed at this meeting, and multiple changes were recommended on a host of relating topics.
JTAC primer. The JTAC primer course will continue to be revised. It will be moved to a distance learning (DL) format that will delete some training modules and add others. This change will help eliminate unnecessary duplication while ensuring that the JTAC/FAC of the future is exposed to the skill sets required prior to arriving at TACP school. Because the course will be DL, it will eliminate the need for the unit to send a Marine on temporary additional duty.
All TACP students will be required to complete the JTAC primer course via DL and will be required to pass an exam regardless of MOS. These requirements will ensure that all students, regardless of background, arrive at TACP with the requisite knowledge to increase their probability of success.
Training progression, qualification/designation process, and the use of simulation. The T&R Manual will be reorganized to ensure the appropriate progression of training. If approved, the progression will look something like the following:
..... • 100 level. Contains basic platform/system employment training and introduces core skills at EWTG. At the completion of this phase, individuals return to their respective commands.
......• 200 level. Contains basic core skill training essential to wartime employment of JTACs, FACs, and air officers (AOs). This phase will be used for sustainment and proficiency.
......• 300 level. Introduces AO core skills and contains basic core skill training essential to wartime employment of AOs.
......• 400 level. This phase of training allows additional unit training flexibility and will likely contain events such as AC–130 employment.
......• 500 level. Contains JTAC instructor and JTAC evaluator workup and certification syllabus events.
......• 600 level. Contains events for requirements, qualifications, designations, and evaluations.
Currently, JTACs are required to attend the JTAC primer course and subsequently return to their units for 100-level controls prior to attending TACP. JTACs are certified at TACP school. After TACP school, JTACs are required to return to their units and complete the 300-level controls prior to becoming “full combat qualified.” The changes to the TACP T&R Manual will mean that JTACs will no longer be required to complete the 100-level controls at their units. These controls will be incorporated into TACP school via the use of simulation, practical application training, and classroom academics. Additionally, each student will graduate TACP school as a certified JTAC ready to be designated as full combat qualified by his commanding officer. These changes will help to increase production while maintaining and increasing standards of performance and significantly reducing the total number of live controls necessary to fully qualify a JTAC/FAC and maintain his currency. All of these changes are predicated upon the use of simulation and an increase in instructor involvement. Hence, the Marine Corps will need to continue to pursue the acquisition of simulators and increase the number of instructors at the schoolhouses. Also, TACP school will have to increase in length in order to fill the gap. In the end we will create a more highly skilled JTAC/FAC and reduce the overall number of live controls.
Joint schools. Many inroads have been made over the last year to align the schools across the Services. Currently, representatives from each Service are assigned to the JCAS Standardization Team that performs biannual reviews to accredit each school based upon its adherence to the JCAS MOA, joint METL training, and overall standardization and effectiveness of training. This process is evolving, and the schoolhouses are working together to further align the syllabi. It may be possible in the near future to allow student exchanges on a limited basis. Unfortunately, each schoolhouse is faced with the same problem of demand grossly exceeding the ability to produce. Increased operations tempo and competition for aviation assets, coupled with a reducing number of aircraft in all Services, has made it impossible to meet the high demand for JTACs. Once the schools are more closely aligned it will still be very difficult to allow for student exchanges when each school is producing approximately half the number of JTACs demanded.
Joint fires observer (JFO). Representatives of the joint community have suggested that the use of a JFO could help to bridge the gap between the number of required JTACs and the number of JTACs available. The concept of a JFO involves an individual with limited training in the execution of CAS. This individual could be used in conjunction with a fully qualified JTAC in order to leverage his terminal control capabilities. For example, the JFO could be trained to identify targets and provide essential information to a JTAC. The JTAC could then provide the oversight via Type 2 or Type 3 control (see sidebar) from a separate location.
While there is definite potential for this type of relationship, it would have to be strictly defined. Allowing an individual with limited training and experience to execute terminal control entails an extremely high amount of risk, and the potential for disaster is great. The specifics of the JFO to JTAC relationship, their interaction and responsibilities, and the equipment required to facilitate this interaction would have to be clearly defined. There is much to be discussed in this area if it is to be pursued by the Marine Corps.
Conclusion
The CAS environment is a dynamic, three-dimensional situation, making safety considerations difficult to control. A JTAC attached to a small unit far from other friendly forces and located in a remote nonurban area, executing Type 2 control with global positioning system (GPS)-guided weapons against an unsophisticated threat is operating in a vastly different environment than a JTAC in support of a large ground maneuver element located in an urban area executing Types 1, 2, and 3 control with a variety of weapons against a threat that possesses sophisticated air defenses. The JTAC of today has no way to know the type of environment in which he will be operating. It could be one of the two listed above or anything in between. He must be ready for anything, as a mistake not only affects those involved in the engagement but could also have strategic implications. Reviewing recent mishaps related to errors made by terminal controllers demonstrates, through the tragic loss of lives, the price of a mistake in the CAS environment. Additionally, there were many incidents that could have been reportable but where caught at the last moment narrowly averting disaster. Given this fact and the nature of the conflict that the United States is involved in today, it has never been more important to ensure the safety of our forces and the safety of the noncombatants who are unlucky enough to be near the action. As technology continues to evolve, rules of engagement continue to be more restrictive, and procedures are refined, the role of the terminal controller will continue to become more complex and demand higher level training. We should all keep this in mind when we begin discussing the use of JFOs, the use of simulation as a replacement for live controls, prerequisites for attending TACP school, follow-on training, and currency requirements. The end goal is not to produce as many JTACs as possible. The end goal is to produce as many JTACs as possible while ensuring that they have the skills necessary to execute the mission safely and effectively.
>LtCol Wilson is the Head, Tactical Aviation Division, EWTGPac. This division runs the Marine Corps TACP School, FAC(A) Ground School, and JTAC primer course. LtCol Wilson has over 1,700 hours in the F/A–18 with experience in Operations SOUTHERN WATCH and IRAQI FREEDOM. His qualifications include FAC(A), FAC, FAC instructor, JTAC, and JTAC instructor.
Types of CAS Terminal Attack Control “Recent technological advances in aircraft capabilities, weapons systems and munitions have provided JTACs additional tools to maximize effects of fires while mitigating risk of fratricide when employing air power in close proximity to friendly forces. GPS-equipped aircraft and munitions, laser range finders/designators, and digital system capabilities are technologies that can be exploited in the CAS mission area. There are three types of terminal attack control (Type 1–3). —Joint Publication 3.09.3, Joint Tactics, Techniques, |
