Awesome A10 HUD and JTAC video

It's a debrief note, indicates weapons were released, or an attempt to release occurred (aka trigger/pickle was pressed). It appears on all HUD tapes, it's not hiding anything and sadly I don't know the actual term for it.

Often referred to as a witness mark. ;)

Often referred to as a witness mark. ;)

:thumbup::thumbup::pilotfly:

On 4/27/2018 at 8:10 AM, Harzach said:

I found it odd that after being told "all friendlies are to the North" of the target, they did a South-to-North run-in. Clearly the guys on the ground had no problem with it, but...?

They were taking cover with trenches, marines always do this in a danger close situation like this, it's to prevent a possible ricochet from the ground hitting one of them in the face. So that's why he didn't have a problem with it and I believe the enemies were not visible from the North considering how they were in a building, around other buildings.

On 4/27/2018 at 1:10 AM, Harzach said:

I found it odd that after being told "all friendlies are to the North" of the target, they did a South-to-North run-in. Clearly the guys on the ground had no problem with it, but...?

Yeah it gave me the willies too. I mean stuff like that may cause a friendly fire incident from ricochets, but I would tell HAWG something different, like NE SW, not South to North.

41 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Yeah it gave me the willies too. I mean stuff like that may cause a friendly fire incident from ricochets, but I would tell HAWG something different, like NE SW, not South to North.

 

I'm hoping friendlies were actually NE or NW of the target.  'All friendlies are to the north' would still be technically correct if he was telling Hawg to keep his fires south of the target

17 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

I'm hoping friendlies were actually NE or NW of the target.  'All friendlies are to the north' would still be technically correct if he was telling Hawg to keep his fires south of the target

 

Yeah luckily nothing happened to them, but I'd smoke the <profanity> out of any of my FOs if he allowed that back during my deployment. I can understand being under fire and all, but realistically that wasn't a safe call.

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Yeah luckily nothing happened to them, but I'd smoke the <profanity> out of any of my FOs if he allowed that back during my deployment. I can understand being under fire and all, but realistically that wasn't a safe call.

Realistically there’s no way of assessing this was unsafe based on this video. The JTAC would have to get approval from the ground commander prior to the strike regardless of whether or not its danger close, multiole clearances we’re given, so he didn’t seem that concerned.

The video doesn’t include any of the coordination that happens prior between the pilot and the JTAC, but You can see the pilot had the friendlies in a steerpoint and you can see in the HUD it’s more than 30 degrees off of his run in direction and they were some distance away.  So he had situational awareness of the target and friendlies. Presumably there was a run in restriction passed along with the 9 line prior to the strike that we didn’t hear. Also the pilots and JTACs both know their strafe/ricochet fan, and risk estimate distances. And we don’t know where the friendlies were and what kind of cover they were taking.  A-10 pilots are smart and their tactics are designed around doing stuff like this. I’d give them the benefit of the doubt. 
 

also a cardinal directions like “attack south to north” means their nose can be pointed anywhere between 325-045 degrees magnetic. So it’s not that hard to not point at or overfly friendlies. Sounds like the JTAC was giving less restrictive run in directions because he probably trusting the guy he was talking to was competent. 

1 hour ago, ASAP said:

Realistically there’s no way of assessing this was unsafe based on this video. The JTAC would have to get approval from the ground commander prior to the strike regardless of whether or not its danger close, multiole clearances we’re given, so he didn’t seem that concerned.

The video doesn’t include any of the coordination that happens prior between the pilot and the JTAC, but You can see the pilot had the friendlies in a steerpoint and you can see in the HUD it’s more than 30 degrees off of his run in direction and they were some distance away.  So he had situational awareness of the target and friendlies. Presumably there was a run in restriction passed along with the 9 line prior to the strike that we didn’t hear. Also the pilots and JTACs both know their strafe/ricochet fan, and risk estimate distances. And we don’t know where the friendlies were and what kind of cover they were taking.  A-10 pilots are smart and their tactics are designed around doing stuff like this. I’d give them the benefit of the doubt. 
 

also a cardinal directions like “attack south to north” means their nose can be pointed anywhere between 325-045 degrees magnetic. So it’s not that hard to not point at or overfly friendlies. Sounds like the JTAC was giving less restrictive run in directions because he probably trusting the guy he was talking to was competent. 

 

No dude, you don't point ordnance at your own friendly troops. I mean a steerpoint doesn't stop ordnance from flying into the face of the soldiers and whoever may be hunkering down from the enemy fire. I mean you can reference any cue you want, but it doesn't stop a bullet from ricocheting in your face. God forbid he drop a bomb and it missed. Again the two HAWGs got lucky without hitting friendlies

On 1/22/2023 at 6:26 PM, bigcomputerman said:

They were taking cover with trenches, marines always do this in a danger close situation like this [...]

I'm just an armchair DCS pilot with a bit of armchair DCS JTACing experience, so I won't pretend to have any inside knowledge.

May I ask, though, if what you wrote there is what you know to be true? Or is it an educated guess? From the video, I couldn't tell whether the friendlies were taking cover, whether there were trenches available to them, whether they were Marines, or whether this was danger close, and I would very much like to learn more about the circumstances surrounding this video.

53 minutes ago, EricJ said:

No dude, you don't point ordnance at your own friendly troops.

I totally agree with that.

Going by the video in question, can you tell whether that was the case? I don't think we heard the CAS brief that was given and don't know the final attack heading that was briefed to the pilot, nor any restrictions, nor whether this was a type 1 or type 2 control.

But going by the sequence of events for the first gun run "Hawg 01... is friendlies in sight.. building in sight... South to North, running in hot... Hawg 01 is in hot" followed by "[That's clear/Guns clear], you're cleared hot, go hot!", it would seem that the FAC/JTAC has assessed the geometry of the attack and is perfectly fine with it, seeing as the clearance authority is obviously with the controller and not with the pilot.

On a general note, a situation with "all friendlies to the north" and "attack heading to the north" sounds like a recipe for disaster. Judging the situation from the warmth of my home 15 years after the fact, I simply don't know whether this is a text-book case of "never, ever do that!" or if it's more like a "hey, they got the desired effect on target, and that's all that counts" kind of situation.

I would very much like to learn more about the specifics of that situation, because that's one of the very few real world examples of the innards of close air support that I'm aware of from public sources.

12 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

I'm just an armchair DCS pilot with a bit of armchair DCS JTACing experience, so I won't pretend to have any inside knowledge.

May I ask, though, if what you wrote there is what you know to be true? Or is it an educated guess? From the video, I couldn't tell whether the friendlies were taking cover, whether there were trenches available to them, whether they were Marines, or whether this was danger close, and I would very much like to learn more about the circumstances surrounding this video.

I totally agree with that.

Going by the video in question, can you tell whether that was the case? I don't think we heard the CAS brief that was given and don't know the final attack heading that was briefed to the pilot, nor any restrictions, nor whether this was a type 1 or type 2 control.

But going by the sequence of events for the first gun run "Hawg 01... is friendlies in sight.. building in sight... South to North, running in hot... Hawg 01 is in hot" followed by "[That's clear/Guns clear], you're cleared hot, go hot!", it would seem that the FAC/JTAC has assessed the geometry of the attack and is perfectly fine with it, seeing as the clearance authority is obviously with the controller and not with the pilot.

On a general note, a situation with "all friendlies to the north" and "attack heading to the north" sounds like a recipe for disaster. Judging the situation from the warmth of my home 15 years after the fact, I simply don't know whether this is a text-book case of "never, ever do that!" or if it's more like a "hey, they got the desired effect on target, and that's all that counts" kind of situation.

I would very much like to learn more about the specifics of that situation, because that's one of the very few real world examples of the innards of close air support that I'm aware of from public sources.

 

No because the JTAC said that they were okay after the first gun run or whatever, so they were safe and got lucky, I just wouldn't make that kind of call regardless. But I think the JTAC was running a best case scenario given what they were going through. I bet he was praying things went right. Granted I've never been in a situation like that I can't tell him he didn't make a call, just one that I wouldn't make, and have the luxury of saying that's wrong, given my experience in Afghanistan. And yeah it's a recipe for disaster. Its only luck that they didn't hit any friendlies, I just wouldn't make that call if I was in his situation. I mean it would be his investigation not mine too, so I'm glad it worked out for him.

43 minutes ago, EricJ said:

No dude, you don't point ordnance at your own friendly troops. I mean a steerpoint doesn't stop ordnance from flying into the face of the soldiers and whoever may be hunkering down from the enemy fire. I mean you can reference any cue you want, but it doesn't stop a bullet from ricocheting in your face. God forbid he drop a bomb and it missed. Again the two HAWGs got lucky without hitting friendlies

LOL. Did we watch the same video? Luck had absolutley nothing to do with it. Superior training, discipline, and teamwork kept the friendlies safe. Man I love these forums. CAS pilots are not hillbillies with shotguns shooting at anything that moves. Those are very experienced pilots working with a very experienced JTAC following strict JP 3.09-3 procedures, and have done their due diligence to make sure they don't shoot the wrong guys. The pilot does an excellent job of pumping the breaks and methodically identifying where the target is and doesn't let his wingman shoot on the first pass becasue the wingman doesn't have high enough situational awareness.

Pointing guns at friendly forces is bad. Never said it wasn't. What I'm saying is that is very clearly not what happened in that video. Obviously a steerpoint isn't going to prevent weapons effects on the friendlies. I pointed it out because it shows the pilots knew exactly where the friendly forces were when he employed. Since we clearly had very different takeaways from the video... I'd like to point out a few things:

At 28 seconds into the video he fly's up the river valley and says "I'm visual you, I'm in for a low pass show of force. I have white smoke in sight (The JTAC said the enemy is marked by smoke a few seconds earlier), confirm that's the enemy" While doing this you can see that steerpoint container which is labled "FRND" is on the west side of the river about a half mile from the white smoke (bad guys) which is visible on the east side of the river. He's on a 355 heading which is roughly his attack direction later. you can see that the friendlies are west-north-west of the bad guys, well clear of any strafe fan ricochet pattern.  The JTAC responds "That's the enemy PUT ROUNDS ON THAT TARGET NOW"

The pilot then says "copy I'm repositioning" and sets up for a directly south to north run in after having just established that the friendlies are well clear to the west along that attack axis. Also indicating that is probably the run in direction the JTAC told him he wants when he passed the 9 line (I'm making an assumption because you never here the 9 line passed). He then calls "HAWG 01 is friendlies in sight, building in sight south to north run in, in hot" Then he rolls in, calls "IN" again and gets cleared hot.  Here's why that is important: the "IN" call means means they were using TYPE 1 or 2 control, and the delay in the JTACS response probably means that the JTAC didnt' clear him immediatley because he was doing his job and analyzing the A-10's nose position to make sure he wasn't pointed at friendlies. If the A-10 was pointed at them the JTAC would have spoken up and stopped the attack.

When the A-10 shoots you can see that the good guys are so far west of that river that runs between good and bad guys that they are well outside of the A-10's HUD. Again the A-10 pilot knows this. The wingman didn't see where the bad guys were so the flight lead told him to cover and wouldn't let him shoot because he didn't have the required level of SA.

The JTAC was so comfortable with the run in direction that both he and the pilot picked that he said "GUNS GOOD" and subsequently approved him to use the exact same run in direction even after the pilot says "Confirm you want another south to north run in?".  to which he respons "good copy south to north run in"

Here's a screen shot from the video showing the relationship between friendly forces and the target. Notice how they friendly's are slightly north but mostly west of the target. Why did the JTAC say all forces to the north? I don't know, maybe he was referencing a different reference point that he was north of other than the target. Maybe he mixed up directions while talking on the radio in the middle of a fire fight.

I'd bet the 9 line restrictions probably sounded something like "make final attack heading south to north or north to south, keep all weapons effects east of the river" or "north to south, don't over fly or point at friendlies." Also the 9 line has a line that says where the nearest friendlies are in relation to the target. The utmost care was taken to protect friendlies.

This got long winded... my point is... This is not a video of anyone doing anything reckless or dangerous to friendly forces. It was skill and training that keep the guys on the ground safe not luck. This is a perfect example of a highly trained pilot working with an expert JTAC to dispense very percise destruction on enemy forces and saving the guy on the ground. The dude probably got a well deserved air medal for it.

1 hour ago, ASAP said:

LOL. Did we watch the same video? Luck had absolutley nothing to do with it. Superior training, discipline, and teamwork kept the friendlies safe. Man I love these forums. CAS pilots are not hillbillies with shotguns shooting at anything that moves. Those are very experienced pilots working with a very experienced JTAC following strict JP 3.09-3 procedures, and have done their due diligence to make sure they don't shoot the wrong guys. The pilot does an excellent job of pumping the breaks and methodically identifying where the target is and doesn't let his wingman shoot on the first pass becasue the wingman doesn't have high enough situational awareness.

Pointing guns at friendly forces is bad. Never said it wasn't. What I'm saying is that is very clearly not what happened in that video. Obviously a steerpoint isn't going to prevent weapons effects on the friendlies. I pointed it out because it shows the pilots knew exactly where the friendly forces were when he employed. Since we clearly had very different takeaways from the video... I'd like to point out a few things:

 

At 28 seconds into the video he fly's up the river valley and says "I'm visual you, I'm in for a low pass show of force. I have white smoke in sight (The JTAC said the enemy is marked by smoke a few seconds earlier), confirm that's the enemy" While doing this you can see that steerpoint container which is labled "FRND" is on the west side of the river about a half mile from the white smoke (bad guys) which is visible on the east side of the river. He's on a 355 heading which is roughly his attack direction later. you can see that the friendlies are west-north-west of the bad guys, well clear of any strafe fan ricochet pattern.  The JTAC responds "That's the enemy PUT ROUNDS ON THAT TARGET NOW"

The pilot then says "copy I'm repositioning" and sets up for a directly south to north run in after having just established that the friendlies are well clear to the west along that attack axis. Also indicating that is probably the run in direction the JTAC told him he wants when he passed the 9 line (I'm making an assumption because you never here the 9 line passed). He then calls "HAWG 01 is friendlies in sight, building in sight south to north run in, in hot" Then he rolls in, calls "IN" again and gets cleared hot.  Here's why that is important: the "IN" call means means they were using TYPE 1 or 2 control, and the delay in the JTACS response probably means that the JTAC didnt' clear him immediatley because he was doing his job and analyzing the A-10's nose position to make sure he wasn't pointed at friendlies. If the A-10 was pointed at them the JTAC would have spoken up and stopped the attack.

When the A-10 shoots you can see that the good guys are so far west of that river that runs between good and bad guys that they are well outside of the A-10's HUD. Again the A-10 pilot knows this. The wingman didn't see where the bad guys were so the flight lead told him to cover and wouldn't let him shoot because he didn't have the required level of SA.

The JTAC was so comfortable with the run in direction that both he and the pilot picked that he said "GUNS GOOD" and subsequently approved him to use the exact same run in direction even after the pilot says "Confirm you want another south to north run in?".  to which he respons "good copy south to north run in"

 

Here's a screen shot from the video showing the relationship between friendly forces and the target. Notice how they friendly's are slightly north but mostly west of the target. Why did the JTAC say all forces to the north? I don't know, maybe he was referencing a different reference point that he was north of other than the target. Maybe he mixed up directions while talking on the radio in the middle of a fire fight.

I'd bet the 9 line restrictions probably sounded something like "make final attack heading south to north or north to south, keep all weapons effects east of the river" or "north to south, don't over fly or point at friendlies." Also the 9 line has a line that says where the nearest friendlies are in relation to the target. The utmost care was taken to protect friendlies.

This got long winded... my point is... This is not a video of anyone doing anything reckless or dangerous to friendly forces. It was skill and training that keep the guys on the ground safe not luck. This is a perfect example of a highly trained pilot working with an expert JTAC to dispense very percise destruction on enemy forces and saving the guy on the ground. The dude probably got a well deserved air medal for it.

Um yeah. The GAU-8 isn't a precise weapon, so there's that, but a JDAM is. It's funny I was trained by JTACs who taught against this, so whatever. I doubt the steerpoint is the friendly location (we don't know really). The JTAC doesn't specify distance so they could be anywhere, which he said was to the north of the target, ergo it's unsafe. Plus you can change the run in headings, etc on the fly as the tactical situation dictates, so you're not bound by the initial 9-Line. And he probably did get a medal, but knowing the Air Force he probably would have got it for surviving the deployment, if he did.

I mean you seriously think with the 11 month tour of duty I spent as a JFO in-country that I don't understand weapon safety? I mean DCS is pretty realistic, but it's still a game, and not what happened there.

Oh yeah Yurgon, the guy on the ground is probably and more likely a JTAC given his callsign. I had AXEMAN as mine when I was in-country and NIGHTOWL sounds more JTAC-ish than an Army callsign, which would have been obvious to some. So it was a Type 1 control

57 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Um yeah. The GAU-8 isn't a precise weapon, so there's that, but a JDAM is

Well I'm not sure where that assertion comes from. The risk estimate distance for the gun is about a third the size of a JDAM, and I've seen A-10's shooting out at the range from 500 feet away. They are extremely percise. every round within about 30 feet of the target, most of them struck the vehicle they were aiming at. That vs a 500 lb with significant blast and fragmentation effects... Whatever, danger close numbers speak for themselves on that one.

57 minutes ago, EricJ said:

It's funny I was trained by JTACs who taught against this, so whatever.

Whats "this" refering to exactly?

57 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I doubt the steerpoint is the friendly location (we don't know really).

That's a strange thing to doubt. The pilot had the steerpoint called up for a reason. Presumably the JTAC passed his grids. No A-10 pilot that could pass a checkride would not at least plot that out. That would mean he could also see where they are on the TAD. Plus he had visual on the friendlies, as he stated multiple times throughout the video, so even if the steerpoint is off (unlikely), it doesn't matter as long as the pilot was visual friendlies and able to make sure he had a clear line of fire and he was complying with the JTACs run in restrictions.

57 minutes ago, EricJ said:

The JTAC doesn't specify distance so they could be anywhere, which he said was to the north of the target, ergo it's unsafe.

The JTAC most assuredly does give his distance and direction from the target in the CAS 9-line brief which happened before the video, its a requirement. The video picks up as they are doing target correlation, which is a few steps further down the timeline after the pilot was already briefed on the target and given attack remarks and restrictions. The pilot was visual the friendlies and they were visual the A-10. Also there are more than 4 directions in real life. North does not mean they were 360 degrees north of the target. In CAS Its generally accepted that cardinal directions are +- 45 degrees. But again the pilot had eyes on both the target and friendlies, and was able to determine there was no danger to the ground party. The JTAC also had eyes on the aircraft and target and came to the same conclusion. Both JTACS and A-10 pilots are very very familiar with the capabilities and limitations of gun, and all that is weighed in the weaponeering decision. The ground commander also allowed the JTAC to call in that strike and the JTAC was probably talking to the ground commander as it was happening. Lots of people had a chance to step in if they saw a problem and nobody did. Saying the word "north" alone doesn't make anything unsafe. Your assertion here seems to be predicated on the idea that everyone here is braindead. The pilot obviously wont point directly and friendlies on a strafe pass.

57 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Plus you can change the run in headings, etc on the fly as the tactical situation dictates

The pilot absolutley cannot change the run in without the JTACs coordination. He asked the JTAC if he (and by extension the ground commander) wanted to change anything and the response was do the same thing again. So clearly the ground commander, JTAC, and two pilots all disagreed with your assessment that it was unneccessarily risky.

Look, it started out as "I don't think it's safe" and all of a sudden you want to argue with me about it. Why I don't know but that's the forums here. Anyway I wouldn't make that call and wouldn't suggest that to my commander. It's just not right. I mean I cringe when I replay that video in my head and just glad nobody friendly got killed.

I mean it's a cool topic and it's starting to go nowhere fast. So believe what you believe and that's it.

11 hours ago, Yurgon said:

I'm just an armchair DCS pilot with a bit of armchair DCS JTACing experience, so I won't pretend to have any inside knowledge.

May I ask, though, if what you wrote there is what you know to be true? Or is it an educated guess? From the video, I couldn't tell whether the friendlies were taking cover, whether there were trenches available to them, whether they were Marines, or whether this was danger close, and I would very much like to learn more about the circumstances surrounding this video.

I totally agree with that.

Going by the video in question, can you tell whether that was the case? I don't think we heard the CAS brief that was given and don't know the final attack heading that was briefed to the pilot, nor any restrictions, nor whether this was a type 1 or type 2 control.

But going by the sequence of events for the first gun run "Hawg 01... is friendlies in sight.. building in sight... South to North, running in hot... Hawg 01 is in hot" followed by "[That's clear/Guns clear], you're cleared hot, go hot!", it would seem that the FAC/JTAC has assessed the geometry of the attack and is perfectly fine with it, seeing as the clearance authority is obviously with the controller and not with the pilot.

On a general note, a situation with "all friendlies to the north" and "attack heading to the north" sounds like a recipe for disaster. Judging the situation from the warmth of my home 15 years after the fact, I simply don't know whether this is a text-book case of "never, ever do that!" or if it's more like a "hey, they got the desired effect on target, and that's all that counts" kind of situation.

I would very much like to learn more about the specifics of that situation, because that's one of the very few real world examples of the innards of close air support that I'm aware of from public sources.

 

I just noticed the actual waypoint on the hud for the friendlies lol, I originally had thought they were in a building to the front since the person I replied to said they did a south-to-run strafe. So assuming that, I'd expect that they were taking cover to prevent possible ricochets. I thank the guy who marked out on the hud what is what since the terrain quality looks horrible in the HUD camera! Also it was an educated guess since an A-10 pilot would never strafe when there are friendlies in front of them. I just took the guess that when he said south-to-north and when they said friendlies were to the north, I expected them to literally be in the direction where the plane was facing lol.

50 minutes ago, bigcomputerman said:

I just noticed the actual waypoint on the hud for the friendlies lol, I originally had thought they were in a building to the front since the person I replied to said they did a south-to-run strafe. So assuming that, I'd expect that they were taking cover to prevent possible ricochets. I thank the guy who marked out on the hud what is what since the terrain quality looks horrible in the HUD camera! Also it was an educated guess since an A-10 pilot would never strafe when there are friendlies in front of them. I just took the guess that when he said south-to-north and when they said friendlies were to the north, I expected them to literally be in the direction where the plane was facing lol.

 

Yeah I totally thought the same thing the first time I heard all friendlies are to the north. After watching the rest of the video it was a lot less concerning. He never says what they are north of though, and he throws it out as the pilot says he’s visual the friendly position and the target.  Based on context I think he meant all friendlies are north of his (the jtacs) position that the pilot called visual on. Either way it wasn’t very clear or situational awareness enhancing comm for us armchair quarterbacks watching after the fact. But based on the fact that the friendly position was marked to the west of the target it makes the most sense. 

the easy thing to forget is that these guys had probably been flying overhead and talking to these guys for a while and were probably supporting their operation and understood where everyone was. The pilot probably didn’t query the JTAC after he said it because he understood what they meant, knew they were safely out of the way and it wouldn’t be a factor. If we had the full 9 line along with ground commanders intent remarks and restrictions this whole thing would probably be a lot more clear cut.

12 hours ago, EricJ said:

I doubt the steerpoint is the friendly location (we don't know really).

Well it's called "FRND", so it seems to be the most sensible assumption that the steerpoint is either directly on the friendly position, or on a nearby landmark that helps the pilot build and maintain SA.

But you're right, we don't know for certain.

12 hours ago, EricJ said:

The JTAC doesn't specify distance so they could be anywhere

Line 8.

We didn't hear the CAS brief, so we can't say for sure what was talked about between the controller and the pilots, but that's where the controller would pass the nearest friendlies relative to the target.

It is entirely unclear how you assert that no CAS brief was given before the the video begins, or that line 8 was not passed. From the video, I find it impossible to come to that conclusion. Quite the opposite in fact, I would assume that line 8 was passed and that the pilot had a mental picture of the friendly location relative to the target, plus we see the steerpoint labeled FRND.

12 hours ago, EricJ said:

The JTAC doesn't specify distance so they could be anywhere, which he said was to the north of the target, ergo it's unsafe.

He said "north", but didn't say in relation to what.

And as ASAP points out, "north" doesn't mean 360°, it could be anywhere from 315° to 045° degrees, just like the final attack heading "north" could be within that same cone.

12 hours ago, EricJ said:

Plus you can change the run in headings, etc on the fly as the tactical situation dictates, so you're not bound by the initial 9-Line.

No you can't. Simple as that. The pilot absolutely does not have the authority to change or override the final attack heading that was briefed. The pilot can request a new final attack heading, but simply doesn't have the authority to change it without talking to the JTAC.

The JTAC can change the final attack heading. Obviously, this needs to be briefed to the pilot. In the video, we don't hear anything to indicate that the final attack heading was changed. In the previous 9-line, the JTAC could have briefed "make your final attack heading 350 to 030", he could have briefed "south to north", he could have briefed "all attacks to the north" - we simply don't know. But given what we do know from the video, the pilot and the JTAC were obviously both fine with the 350° to 355° that the pilot did select during the attacks.

12 hours ago, EricJ said:

Oh yeah Yurgon, the guy on the ground is probably and more likely a JTAC given his callsign. I had AXEMAN as mine when I was in-country and NIGHTOWL sounds more JTAC-ish than an Army callsign, which would have been obvious to some. So it was a Type 1 control

I'm not following. What does the callsign have to do with the type of control?

We can deduce that this was either type 1 or type 2 because individual attacks are cleared by the controller, plus we never hear "cleared to engage". Basically, it was not a type 3 control. Whether it was type 1 or type 2 seems impossible to tell from the video.

I'm not aware that the branch the FAC/JTAC is in changes the rules of CAS, or the meaning of types of control.

What I'm saying is, going by this video, the execution seems like an almost textbook case.

And yeah, mistakes were made. The controller saying "all friendlies north" without specifying in relation to what, that's not great. The wingman going for a gun run after he was clearly briefed the cover-role was a mistake. Lead not specifying the role for the wingman on a consecutive run was a mistake. But from what we can tell with certainty from the video, and from what we can safely assume or deduce from it, the whole execution looks very well done, very professional, and I wouldn't be surprised if this video was played in a JTAC classroom somewhere in the US today to teach controllers how to do it right (and what to learn from the small mistakes that were made).

23 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

Well it's called "FRND", so it seems to be the most sensible assumption that the steerpoint is either directly on the friendly position, or on a nearby landmark that helps the pilot build and maintain SA.

But you're right, we don't know for certain.

Line 8.

We didn't hear the CAS brief, so we can't say for sure what was talked about between the controller and the pilots, but that's where the controller would pass the nearest friendlies relative to the target.

It is entirely unclear how you assert that no CAS brief was given before the the video begins, or that line 8 was not passed. From the video, I find it impossible to come to that conclusion. Quite the opposite in fact, I would assume that line 8 was passed and that the pilot had a mental picture of the friendly location relative to the target, plus we see the steerpoint labeled FRND.

He said "north", but didn't say in relation to what.

And as ASAP points out, "north" doesn't mean 360°, it could be anywhere from 315° to 045° degrees, just like the final attack heading "north" could be within that same cone.

No you can't. Simple as that. The pilot absolutely does not have the authority to change or override the final attack heading that was briefed. The pilot can request a new final attack heading, but simply doesn't have the authority to change it without talking to the JTAC.

The JTAC can change the final attack heading. Obviously, this needs to be briefed to the pilot. In the video, we don't hear anything to indicate that the final attack heading was changed. In the previous 9-line, the JTAC could have briefed "make your final attack heading 350 to 030", he could have briefed "south to north", he could have briefed "all attacks to the north" - we simply don't know. But given what we do know from the video, the pilot and the JTAC were obviously both fine with the 350° to 355° that the pilot did select during the attacks.

I'm not following. What does the callsign have to do with the type of control?

We can deduce that this was either type 1 or type 2 because individual attacks are cleared by the controller, plus we never hear "cleared to engage". Basically, it was not a type 3 control. Whether it was type 1 or type 2 seems impossible to tell from the video.

I'm not aware that the branch the FAC/JTAC is in changes the rules of CAS, or the meaning of types of control.

What I'm saying is, going by this video, the execution seems like an almost textbook case.

And yeah, mistakes were made. The controller saying "all friendlies north" without specifying in relation to what, that's not great. The wingman going for a gun run after he was clearly briefed the cover-role was a mistake. Lead not specifying the role for the wingman on a consecutive run was a mistake. But from what we can tell with certainty from the video, and from what we can safely assume or deduce from it, the whole execution looks very well done, very professional, and I wouldn't be surprised if this video was played in a JTAC classroom somewhere in the US today to teach controllers how to do it right (and what to learn from the small mistakes that were made).

 

Yah pretty much I didn't catch the FRND marker, so I missed that. The callsign isn't a typical Army callsign, so it's Air Force. Nightowl isn't a common callsign in the Army, so it wouldn't be a Type 2 control. That I can tell is a Type 1, from the callsign. It seems pretty obvious to me. And besides he called Cleared Hot so it was a JTAC, and nobody else. I mean in extreme situations I could do a Type 1 control no problem, but I wouldn't have the authority as an Army JFO on a clear day, unless they allowed me to. So yeah got it.

I mean this isn't a laser bomb drop so I can see where you're going with this. I just cringe at saying "my Friends are to the north" and I'm saying "come from south to north". I mean okay got it was safely done and nobody friendly got killed. I'm just saying I wouldn't take the chance myself with that call that's all.

3 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Nightowl isn't a common callsign in the Army, so it wouldn't be a Type 2 control. That I can tell is a Type 1, from the callsign. It seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm still not following; what does the type of control have to do with who's controlling?

As far as I'm aware, the type of control depends on the tactical situation only (Can the controller see the target AND the attacking aircraft during the final attack phase? Can the pilot see the target during the final attack?)

Unless you're playing a practical joke on the eyesight of Army controllers vs. Air Force controllers, I don't understand how you asses the type of control from the callsign.

15 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

I'm still not following; what does the type of control have to do with who's controlling?

As far as I'm aware, the type of control depends on the tactical situation only (Can the controller see the target AND the attacking aircraft during the final attack phase? Can the pilot see the target during the final attack?)

Unless you're playing a practical joke on the eyesight of Army controllers vs. Air Force controllers, I don't understand how you asses the type of control from the callsign.

Okay, when I deployed to Afghanistan I deployed as a JFO. In Air Force terms, it means that I can do Type 2 controls, meaning a JTAC has to give final authority in the attack. It seems annoying but if you know what you're doing it works out pretty well. It's what the Air Force and US Army agreed to, so that's way above my pay grade. ONLY in special cases could I do a Type 1, which was a JTAC doing in the video. 

As for targeting you gotta see the target with something, like binoculars and the like, and sometimes seeing the plane too. The pilot confirmed he was heading south so you can hunker down and pray, and so on. And the pilot may see the target. Afghanistan is hellacious territory, so some sort of target ID is sometimes out of the window from the pilot's perspective. Matter of fact the unit we were replacing came to NTC and gave us a brief on what to expect, and one slide had a soldier standing there 100 meters away in plain sight. Some people could see them, some people couldn't (I couldn't see him initially), and take that from thousands of feet up the pilot would have to take it on faith that the JTAC/JFO/Observer could see the target and so on.

As for the callsign, mine was ROCK9N back then, so I would have to say that each time that I was talking to the pilot, and the pilot talking to me. Army callsigns have a number signifying their position in the callsign. I doubt that it was an Army JFO on the radio, and so on. If it was an Army JFO there would be profound amounts of Over too in the transmissions.

3 hours ago, EricJ said:

Okay, when I deployed to Afghanistan I deployed as a JFO. In Air Force terms, it means that I can do Type 2 controls, meaning a JTAC has to give final authority in the attack. It seems annoying but if you know what you're doing it works out pretty well. It's what the Air Force and US Army agreed to, so that's way above my pay grade. ONLY in special cases could I do a Type 1, which was a JTAC doing in the video. 

I'm not familiar with JFOs. Would it be roughly correct to describe it as "JTAC light" when a JFO controls an aircraft in Close Air Support?

Regarding the type of control, it is still unclear to me how the type of control would be limited by who does the control.

To the best of my knowledge, JTACs/FAC(A)s have all 3 types of control available to them and will decide on a type of control based on the tactical situation.

Both type 1 and type 2 require clearance for each individual attack. To the pilot, the difference between type 1 and type 2 is almost nil. To the JTAC/FAC(A) the difference is that for type 1 control, he must visually acquire both the target and the attacking aircraft immediately before weapon release in order to clear the aircraft for this particular attack. In type 2 controls, the JTAC/FAC(A) should still make a best effort to visually acquire both the target and the aircraft, but isn't required to do so, provided that the best available means are used in order to achieve the desired weapon effects while keeping friendlies and outsiders safe.

So when you say you aren't usually allowed to do type 1 controls as a JFO, I don't understand the logic behind it. Type 1 seems like the safest and easiest way for a controller to ensure good effects on target with maximum safety for friendlies, because you can (and are required to) visually asses the geometry of each individual attack.

Either way, I assume that the controlling agency in the video is a fully qualified JTAC/FAC(A) with the full toolset of types 1, 2, and 3 available; at least I'm not getting any indication from the video that that's not the case. And based on what we see in the video, I'm unable to tell whether this was a type 1 or a type 2 control.

4 hours ago, Yurgon said:

No you can't. Simple as that. The pilot absolutely does not have the authority to change or override the final attack heading that was briefed. The pilot can request a new final attack heading, but simply doesn't have the authority to change it without talking to the JTAC.

My understanding is that this is technically only true if the JTAC passes it as a 'restriction', and that requires specifying a final attack heading or heading range.  AFAIK reading the JP3, using the cardinal directions is not specific enough and implies it's a request.  I suspect, though, that if he specifically says "restriction - south to north attack" then that would count.

22 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

I'm not familiar with JFOs. Would it be roughly correct to describe it as "JTAC light" when a JFO controls an aircraft in Close Air Support?

Regarding the type of control, it is still unclear to me how the type of control would be limited by who does the control.

To the best of my knowledge, JTACs/FAC(A)s have all 3 types of control available to them and will decide on a type of control based on the tactical situation.

Both type 1 and type 2 require clearance for each individual attack. To the pilot, the difference between type 1 and type 2 is almost nil. To the JTAC/FAC(A) the difference is that for type 1 control, he must visually acquire both the target and the attacking aircraft immediately before weapon release in order to clear the aircraft for this particular attack. In type 2 controls, the JTAC/FAC(A) should still make a best effort to visually acquire both the target and the aircraft, but isn't required to do so, provided that the best available means are used in order to achieve the desired weapon effects while keeping friendlies and outsiders safe.

So when you say you aren't usually allowed to do type 1 controls as a JFO, I don't understand the logic behind it. Type 1 seems like the safest and easiest way for a controller to ensure good effects on target with maximum safety for friendlies, because you can (and are required to) visually asses the geometry of each individual attack.

Either way, I assume that the controlling agency in the video is a fully qualified JTAC/FAC(A) with the full toolset of types 1, 2, and 3 available; at least I'm not getting any indication from the video that that's not the case. And based on what we see in the video, I'm unable to tell whether this was a type 1 or a type 2 control.

From what I can tell it's type 1. The Air Force doesn't have a high opinion of JFOs so they restrict us to Type 2. One of my JFOs got handed a Type 1 clearance due to weather so he managed to pull it off quite well in a demanding engagement, so it can be done. We were trained on Type 1 for school so we knew what to do in case we did but as said, we're restricted mainly to Type 2, regardless of the practicality of the situation, and in use it doesn't seem to make a difference anyways when talking to the pilot and so on. We can't do Type 3 at all (which is fine, never bothered me) so there's that. Pretty much what you say is pretty much true

24 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

My understanding is that this is technically only true if the JTAC passes it as a 'restriction', and that requires specifying a final attack heading or heading range.

I can't think of a way for the JTAC to tell the pilot an attack direction without this being a mandatory restriction. Do you have an example?

I'm thinking along the lines of "Remarks: Final Attack Heading between 320 and 360" or "Remarks: Make your run-ins north to south or south to north" - if the pilot can't fulfill these, he'd have to tell the JTAC about it. But the pilot couldn't just decide to make a west to east run although north to south was requested, as an example.

Of course, technically, it's still the JTAC who clears the attack, so if the pilot is on the wrong heading and the JTAC is fine with it, there could still be a "Cleared Hot".

But if I understand you correctly that a requested cardinal attack direction requires the word "restriction" to take effect, I'm not aware of such a requirement. When the JTAC wants run-ins to the north, he'll call "run-ins to the north" and the pilot has to do it. At least that's my understanding.

31 minutes ago, EricJ said:

The Air Force doesn't have a high opinion of JFOs so they restrict us to Type 2.

The good old inter-service rivalry at play? Yeah in that case, "it makes no sense" probably doesn't count.

(Maybe it does actually make sense, but I don't see how).

56 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

So when you say you aren't usually allowed to do type 1 controls as a JFO, I don't understand the logic behind it. Type 1 seems like the safest and easiest way for a controller to ensure good effects on target with maximum safety for friendlies, because you can (and are required to) visually asses the geometry of each individual attack.

Maybe the way to think of this is that while type 1 is inherently safer, you end up using it in hairier situations than type 2