3 ms·

I understand that. And this isn't about me trashing the operator. But I also have a logical mind and I can't avoid the implication that if his JTAC was a bad a

by riggins 13y ago

I understand that. And this isn't about me trashing the operator. But I also have a logical mind and I can't avoid the implication that if his JTAC was a bad apple, he'd do what the JTAC said.

jread 13y ago
Aircrews have their own ROE and approval process for engagements. They aren't simply trigger pullers for the JTAC. However, there is an implicit trust in the JTAC, and desire to protect the ground unit. If ROE is satisfied and approvals are in place, the aircrew is generally not going to second guess the guys getting shot at.
olympus 13y ago
I don't want to get into an argument and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but the military is a pretty old profession and has dealt with this problem before. JTACs are basically radio/telephone operators, and often aren't physically with the unit calling in the fires because there are more platoons than there are JTACs, so the JTAC sits at the company (or sometimes up to the brigade) HQ and handles a whole bunch of platoons at once. He takes what the ground commander says (via radio in the field), and passes that to a control center via telephone, IRC (seriously), satcom, etc. The control center then routes a plane overhead and facilitates direct contact between the pilot and JTAC (not the ground commander). The real specialty of the JTAC is speaking in both Air Force-isms and Army-isms and communicating clearly with both parties. Imagine a weird game of telephone where adding another person in the chain actually makes the message come out more clearly at the end. So to wrap up a long story, there's a whole lot of communication being passed around and it would be awfully difficult for a JTAC to just decide "I'm going to get that family over there killed because I feel like it"
maxerickson 13y ago
People with doubts about the process are going to tend to self select out of it. If they are sitting there with ambivalence about each release, at some point they aren't going to want to face it again.

by riggins 13y ago

I understand that. And this isn't about me trashing the operator. But I also have a logical mind and I can't avoid the implication that if his JTAC was a bad apple, he'd do what the JTAC said.

jread 13y ago

Aircrews have their own ROE and approval process for engagements. They aren't simply trigger pullers for the JTAC. However, there is an implicit trust in the JTAC, and desire to protect the ground unit. If ROE is satisfied and approvals are in place, the aircrew is generally not going to second guess the guys getting shot at.

olympus 13y ago

I don't want to get into an argument and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but the military is a pretty old profession and has dealt with this problem before. JTACs are basically radio/telephone operators, and often aren't physically with the unit calling in the fires because there are more platoons than there are JTACs, so the JTAC sits at the company (or sometimes up to the brigade) HQ and handles a whole bunch of platoons at once. He takes what the ground commander says (via radio in the field), and passes that to a control center via telephone, IRC (seriously), satcom, etc. The control center then routes a plane overhead and facilitates direct contact between the pilot and JTAC (not the ground commander). The real specialty of the JTAC is speaking in both Air Force-isms and Army-isms and communicating clearly with both parties. Imagine a weird game of telephone where adding another person in the chain actually makes the message come out more clearly at the end. So to wrap up a long story, there's a whole lot of communication being passed around and it would be awfully difficult for a JTAC to just decide "I'm going to get that family over there killed because I feel like it"

maxerickson 13y ago

People with doubts about the process are going to tend to self select out of it. If they are sitting there with ambivalence about each release, at some point they aren't going to want to face it again.