FOO vs. FOO Tech

[45B]

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.

 

[McG]

A common mistake is to try guessing the exact correction right at the beggining.

Does the LAV OPV not change this?

 

[45B]

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.

 

[elscotto937]

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.

 

[45B]

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.

 

[45B]

Concerning the FAC/FOO *issue* I think in the US the two are two different MOS. I think the FACs are from the Air Force and attached to ground units(there was an article in the SOF magasine about a FAC sgt attached to a Special Forces ODA in A-Stan).
Maybe somebody here can bring little light on this??

 

[45B]

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)?

Just my .02,
A Cbt Tm is a relatively low level unit. The air assets are normally associated with a brigade or a battle group, or higher echelons (US Army).

B-GL-371-002/FP-001, Field Artillery, Volume 2, Duties of the Battery Commander and
the Observer, p228:

"fire support coordination centre (FSCC) (centre de coordination des feux d'appui (CCFA))
A single location in which are centralized communications, facilities and personnel
incident to the coordination of all forms of fire support."

p17
"The following communication nets may be found in a battle group FSCC:
a. battle group command net;
b. artillery regimental command net;
c. artillery battery net;
d. Tactical air direction (TAD) net (when controlling aircraft);
e. mortar platoon net;
f. air request net (if a tactical air control party (TACP) is allotted to the battle
group);
g. naval gunfire net (if allotted); and
h. air defence nets, when these elements are allotted.
"

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I enter this thread at my peril, since I am not in the Guns and my knowledge in this field is fairly limited.  I have learned some interesting things here (it is good Professional Development to intellectually step outside your branch every now and then).  On the question of what type of fire support a "combat team" should have I will waffle and say that it depends.  If a Canadian sub-unit is the only one in contact in a non-linear battle then perhaps it will get the full range of fire support that the free world can provide.  Air strikes might even be available to a Coyote Patrol if the situation warrants it.  On the other hand, in a traditional warfighting scenario then I would suggest that guns and mortars would be the usual support for a sub-unit.  Fast air and rockets would normally be part of the deep battle.  My own thoughts are that we will most likely be involved in non-linear and non-traditional scenarios where we will have to flexible in how we employ fire support.

As an Armoured Officer, I am a firm believer in having FOOs attached to our Infantry and Recce sub-units who can get access to whatever fire support assets are available.  I'd love to have FOOs attached to the supported unit for a year as a posting, but I recognize the real-world problems with that.  I would also like to see an FSCC support a deployed Task Force even if no guns are deployed.

45B,

I read a book recently called The Hunt for Bin Laden by Robin Moore.  The book is rather gung-ho but it is a quick and interesting read (a good book to read at the airport or on a plane).  It has some accounts describing the air support process used by the SF teams in Afghanistan during the fall of the Taliban. Apparently two-man teams from the Air Force were attached to each SF team to assist with bringing in airstrikes.  There are some accounts of "blue on blue" incidents that show the dangers of technology and the absolute requirement for rigorous training (in one incident it appears that the observer's grid was sent instead of the target's for a GPS bomb).

Cheers,

2B

 

[45B]

I enter this thread at my peril, since I am not in the Guns and my knowledge in this field is fairly limited.   I have learned some interesting things here (it is good Professional Development to intellectually step outside your branch every now and then).   On the question of what type of fire support a "combat team" should have I will waffle and say that it depends.   If a Canadian sub-unit is the only one in contact in a non-linear battle then perhaps it will get the full range of fire support that the free world can provide.   Air strikes might even be available to a Coyote Patrol if the situation warrants it.   On the other hand, in a traditional warfighting scenario then I would suggest that guns and mortars would be the usual support for a sub-unit.   Fast air and rockets would normally be part of the deep battle.   My own thoughts are that we will most likely be involved in non-linear and non-traditional scenarios where we will have to flexible in how we employ fire support.

As an Armoured Officer, I am a firm believer in having FOOs attached to our Infantry and Recce sub-units who can get access to whatever fire support assets are available.   I'd love to have FOOs attached to the supported unit for a year as a posting, but I recognize the real-world problems with that.   I would also like to see an FSCC support a deployed Task Force even if no guns are deployed.

45B,

I read a book recently called The Hunt for Bin Laden by Robin Moore.   The book is rather gung-ho but it is a quick and interesting read (a good book to read at the airport or on a plane).   It has some accounts describing the air support process used by the SF teams in Afghanistan during the fall of the Taliban. Apparently two-man teams from the Air Force were attached to each SF team to assist with bringing in airstrikes.   There are some accounts of "blue on blue" incidents that show the dangers of technology and the absolute requirement for rigorous training (in one incident it appears that the observer's grid was sent instead of the target's for a GPS bomb).

Cheers,

2B

Hi!
I agree with you.
The assets are assigned to the main effort, possibly a combat team (ie in a brigade attack). The same apply for FOOs: they are normally located near the main effort. In the Observer BGL there is a part describing the procedure in case the FOO can't adjust. I don't remember exactly, this is like a simplification of an observer set of order and you probably know it. This is the job of the FOO to translate it in complete fire orders. But with today's technology, even if nobody sees the impact, and if we need to adjust, we can still use ballistic radars. So the old procedures are just becoming back-ups.

 

[elscotto937]

45B, You're right, the US have the TACP in the the Airforce and they are Enlisted Terminal Air Controllers, and they are trained to direct a pilots eyes on to the target and are authorized to clear the plane "hot" These are small teams that are attached to unit and maybe be controlled by an Air Liaison Officer at the higher level. They work independently from the Artillery Fire support Teams, however, both work directly for the supported arm commander. The FIST is commanded by a brand new 2Lt, this is one of their first jobs in the unit, they simply request fire.

 

[Observer23]

Before this gets to carried away in a conversation about capabilities of a Forward Observing Sgt, there are a couple of things we should review.  Yes, an Artillery Sgt as observer (which is currently a practice) can call in fire missions, direct aircraft, and organize a multi target fire plan (and if he couldn't he should be there in the first place).  But, you must first explore the role of an officer verse an NCO.

Officers plan and organize.  It is their job to conduct their estimate and arrive to some kind of plan and issue orders.  They will do the coordinating with the supported arm commander.

NCOs do not plan battles.  They are given their task and the execute it.  It is their job to do the dirty nail work to get the job done.  It is their technical know-how that sets in motion their part of the plan.

As for the MFC, they filled the role as the representative of the mortars and carried out the plan of the battalion commander.  They worked for the Battalion Commander and would be coordinated through the FSCC (artillery) as part of the collective fire plan.  The MFC in this case was another set of eyes on the battlefield.

The organization of the Fire Effects Detachments (new) has an Officer (for planning and advising the supported arm commander), a Sgt to engage targets (or to function as a separate entity), a MBdr to also engage targets and to spell off the Sgt in the role as the primary FE Tech.  There would also be a couple of Bdrs to fill the role of Dvr/Sig.

If you ever read â Å“Falklands Commandoâ ? by Hugh McManners, he describes what his party was doing during his role as a FOO.  Everyman with a map and a radio was employed in coordinating and direct some for of indirect fire