You are very contradictory. First you claim that all controllers are Air Force pilots, which was the context of the USAF, now you use USMC documents to try to prove your argument. First of all, it is flawed. The document itself states that NFOs can also serve permanently as JTACs. Furthermore, the document (executive order allowing aviators to join as JTACs) only proves that aviators - including naval ones - can also be JTACs, which is clearly true, after all, an aviator would know much more about all the procedures related to CAS and aircraft than a MOS like a JTAC, only he would receive a certificate after successfully completing TACP school, but here is the interesting thing: at no point does this document prove that only controllers trained as pilots can serve.
I am still waiting for this confirmation.
Are you for real? JTAC/TACP is an unit (a team specifical), not a single person, and as a Unit it is ALWAYS controlled by an Officer, in USMC case, it's 7502 (Forward Air Controller/Air Officer) which have to be a Marine Aviator and 8002, which don't need to be a flight officer.
As for Air Force, ALO in a TACP team, usually are pilots
The United States Air Force (USAF) employs teams of skilled Tactical Air Command and Control specialists, known as Tactical Air Control Parties (TACP), to support conventional Army units and Special Operations Forces. These teams, typically consisting of two or more members, are comprised of...
special-ops.org
As I said, I know no one in the Air Force and the last JTAC team I use was from the Marine, but would it kill you just google? I can't do everything for you
You didn't understand anything I said. It doesn't matter if Ukraine is capable of JTAC or not, whether it has certification or not, what matters is the task of coordinating the entire CAS effort. JTAC is just part of this process, not the entire process involved in joint operations. Until you understand this, you will keep going around in circles. And yes, CAS is much more difficult than it is supposed to be for several reasons that I have already mentioned before, which the ZSU never even came close to achieving, especially in the targeted environment that Ukraine finds itself in with thousands of airborne aircraft, airborne threats, and the lack of airborne situational awareness. I will not repeat the same arguments that I made before.
Air Force training included ground attack, unless you are saying Ukrainian pilot wasn't trained in Joint Operation, which I highly doubt because they DO have their FAO team before 2014 (again, you had to have the whole basis of the functioning area if you want to integrate into NATO standard, otherwise what are you migrating to?) It's both way wasn't it, if they have the NATO certification, that mean Ukrainian Forward Controller can direct NATO aircraft and NATO controller can direct Ukrainian aircraft.
That's the definition of Standardised Training, unless you can show me Ukrainian pilot weren't train or weren't allowed to perform CAS, I would more incline to believe Ukrainian have the capability.
It is not faster or more direct. On the contrary. The air strike needs to be launched, if the aircraft is not already in the air, it needs to be fully prepared for takeoff, and this also takes into account the pre-flight requirements. An air force that does not have tanker aircraft that allows it to keep air assets in the air for longer can never be faster than the commander receiving indirect fire support from artillery that could potentially perform the same task. The ZSU would have much more freedom, agility, precision and joint capabilities to make this coordination much more effective over the artillery than the aircraft performing CAS as it has been doing. Indirect fire support has the same capability of providing fire support to destroy, disrupt, suppress, harass, neutralize or delay enemy targets as the joint fire support element of a CAS, although there are differences between both requirements, in fact, it would be in this way that a ground army without CAS support is able to do the same things that an army with extensive air support capability via CAS could do, including the US Army, as it knows that in a war of equals, the chances of obtaining air dominance is an unknown as it has happened in other wars.
Again, I don't know where you are from or how you do CAS in your countries. This is NOT how we do in NATO, I can only tell you this much.
Each CAS mission was planned before head, as a ground unit, you are allocated Air Asset, and those asset would be ALWAYS on station until it was specify. When I was a O-3 in the US Army, before I plan any mission, first of all, I always have a cheat sheet on which air element available on station for the day, and then I always have a ALO/FLO from the JTAC team to talk to. Usually it's more about what you want and they saying no. But that's was before you have Troop on Ground (TOG) or Troop in Contact (TIC)
While you are right Ukraine don't have Tanker to keep 24/7 CAS, but then will they need to? Even the USAF don't have 24/7 CAS support, you can make it continuous if the Air Party agree. But that's not a given. Your S-2 plan the battle around what support you get
And finally, there are some target you just can't hit with indirect fire, it could be moving, it could be time sensitive, it could just be hanging on with mass so much that Ground Indirect Fire can't cope, whether or not those are the consideration for the Ukrainian is another issue, we aren't here arguing that, you are aruging whether or not Ukraine have the capability, not need to conduct such a thing.
No. It does not deviate from what I just said. I am denying the need for legality in calling for CAS airstrikes against Russian forces occupying Ukrainian territory. If you think that is happening, that is really your problem for believing that. Unless you can provide me with proof that this is happening, I do not see any reason to believe that the Ukrainians would have the need for legality in calling for CAS airstrikes. Especially considering the hatred involved in this war with both sides committing war crimes.
I don't know, I know for us, we need to clear target to the JAG before you hit it, it doesn't matter if you are coin, whether or not Ukraine have the same principle, I don't know, if you know, great, I am just talking about our principal. Of course sometime, well, a lot of time, even US Air Force ignore the legality of the target, and hit civilian home, wedding and so on, so that's that
No. The only evidence was that pilots can serve as JTACs. Not that there is a mandatory requirement to have a pilot who is a member of a JTAC team. Not even the staff officer who coordinates the JTAC at the joint operations center needs to be an aviator to coordinate the CAS effort.
Again. There is no single confirmation that there is a need for a pilot attached to a JTAC team. Furthermore, directing the CAP flight is not the JTAC's job, that is the job of the joint staff officer of the unit attached to him, who is responsible for coordinating all CAS support to the target area. As I said, the JTAC would never have the all-domain information capability in the area because he is simply performing another type of activity, which is directing CAS fires. That would be why there is a need to have not only the joint ground commander but also the air force commander to coordinate all this support.
This subject has already fed me up. See you soon.
No, You must have a ALO or FLO in a JTAC team, that team consist of 4 people) one of them have to be a pilot.
www.atlanticcouncil.org
