TYR Tactical

Archive for the ‘Profession of Arms’ Category

Marines Update Female Hair Style Guidance

Monday, November 28th, 2022

Based on the final results of Uniform Board 220 and released in MARADMINS Number 615/22, the Marine Corps has authorized the following hair styles for female Marines:

Short hair length for female Marines.  Per CMC decision, twists are authorized for short hair (in all uniforms).

Medium hair length for female Marines.  Per CMC decision, medium length hair is defined as hair that does not extend beyond 2 inches below the base of the collar’s lower edge; however hair length must not obscure the collar rank insignia.  One unsecured half ponytail or up to two unsecured half braids (unsecured in this context is defined as hair on the crest / crown of the head is pulled back into a ponytail or braid(s) and the rest of the hair is left to fall naturally) that provides a neat and professional military appearance are authorized for medium hair length with the MCCUUs, flight suit, or physical training (PT) uniforms only.  Half ponytails / braids must be secured over the crest of the head but no lower than the crown of the head with a ponytail holder that is consistent with the hair color, and cannot extend beyond 2 inches below the base of the collar’s lower edge or interfere with the proper wear of any headgear. 

Long hair length for female Marines.  Per CMC decision, long hair is defined as hair that extends beyond 2 inches below the base of the collar’s lower edge.  When styled, long hair will be secured up so that it does not extend beyond 2 inches below the base of the collar’s lower edge, except when authorized in the physical training uniform.

There is no requirement to have tightly pulled back or slicked back hair at any length.

As always, Marine Corps Uniform Board information is available at www.hqmc.marines.mil/Agencies/Marine-Corps-Uniform-Board

Indigenous Airman Celebrates Being Among First to Receive Religious Hair Accommodation

Sunday, November 13th, 2022

MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. (AFNS) —

For most, the days and hours leading up to their basic military training departure are filled with excitement and anticipation for what’s to come in the next four to six years. For others, the feelings are tainted with fear and anxiety.

For Connor Crawn, the day before he shipped off to boot camp was one of the worst in his life.

The 18-year-old graduated high school only six months earlier as the class of 2020, eager to enlist in the U.S. Air Force but curious about whether he could keep his hair long in accordance with his Kanien’kehà:ka faith.

When Crawn decided to speak to a recruiter his dark, neatly braided hair draped straight down the length of his spine.

For the Kanien’kehà:ka, Crawn explained, keeping the hair long reflects spiritual strength, protection and resilience. Certain styles, like braids, signify even greater strength.

His recruiter took the steps necessary to request a religious accommodation and Crawn went through military entrance processing successfully, but his BMT departure date continued to get pushed as he waited for an answer about his hair.

“I was at the point where I couldn’t wait any longer,” Crawn described of the hurry-up-and-wait process. “I had to get out of my situation.”

Crawn agreed to cut his hair if it meant getting an earlier departure date. He kept his hair long until the last minute, hoping approval would arrive at the last-minute to spare him from the trauma of severing his symbolic strength. He waited, fruitlessly, until the day before he left for BMT.

“My dad and I cut our braids together,” Crawn began, eyes saddening. “I wish I never had to go through that. I felt like a part of me died when I lost my braid.”

Now officially branded as an Airman, the next chapter in Crawn’s life began: BMT and technical training simply became two obstacles to overcome before the fight for accommodation resumed.

In July of 2021, Crawn was stationed at the 341st Missile Wing as part of the security forces group. Before he was even assigned a flight, his priority was visiting the base chapel to begin the request process all over again.

Capt. Trevor Wilson, one of the chaplains on duty at the time of Crawn’s visit, cemented himself as an ally and quickly went to work figuring out the requirements of a process that, just one month earlier, had been introduced to the Department of the Air Force.

The duo spent hours together during that first meeting, poring over instructions, regulations and guidelines for a reality Crawn hoped would soon come to fruition.

My dad and I cut our braids together. I wish I never had to go through that. I felt like a part of me died when I lost my braid.

Airman 1st Class Connor Crawn

According to the process for religious accommodation, as lined out in the DAF Instruction 52-201, the timeline from request to approval was supposed to take no longer than 60 days. Considering the overwhelming number of religious requests being vetted at that time due to COVID-19 pandemic, though, goalposts had to be moved and Crawn’s request would not be approved until October of 2022.

“I knew it was going to take longer than expected,” Crawn explained. “But as the time dragged on, my hope started to waver a little bit. After a year passed, people used to joke that it would be the end of my contract before I heard anything—and honestly, that’s what I was beginning to expect.”

Though the timeline dragged on like a heavy-burdened traveler, Crawn’s case was carefully corralled through coordination by Wilson.

“I know how hard his leadership and the wing worked to get his package up,” Wilson shared. “I had to ensure his request would not get lost or overlooked in the bulk of all that [COVID-19] paperwork. I regularly followed up and tracked his request, because part of my role as the chaplain is to be an advocate.”

Nearly halfway into his contract is when Crawn finally received the good news that he could grow his hair out in accordance with his faith. For him, this was not just a personal win, but a Department of the Air Force-wide win for all his native brothers.

With the approved accommodation, Crawn was authorized to abide by female standards in DAFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance.

“It was incredible,” he chuckled. “I mean, I thought I was dreaming for the next few days. I kept thinking I would wake up and learn it wasn’t real.”

Crawn’s excitement did not end with reception of the news; immediately after learning about the approved accommodation, the first thing he did was call his family to share. Then, he decided to share with the world.

“My first thought after calling my family was, ‘I gotta let other native men know that it’s possible,’” Crawn eagerly said, grin widening to meet the corners of his eyes. “I could not find a single person who received a religious accommodation like mine as I was going through the process, so I wanted to put the information out there. It wasn’t until I made a TikTok video about it that I began to hear from other people.”

Crawn’s video went viral, sparking an important conversation for U.S. military members and those interested in joining. His statement served as a spark of hope for a demographic who, previously, was uncertain that their organization would be true to their word.

Through DAFI 52-201, Religious Freedom in the Department of the Air Force, the DAF maintains an environment in which members can realize their highest potential. For Crawn, this environment was established when he felt that the leadership around him was willing to fight for something he cared about deeply.

Our Airmen chose us once; the environment we create must encourage them to choose us again.”

Col. Barry Little

Wilson, spearhead for Crawn’s request, felt pride knowing other Airmen would be encouraged to use their voice to be a beacon of change.

“Crawn chose to speak up, to ask for something he believed in, to place trust in the process, and it worked,” Wilson enthused. “The Air Force cannot help if Airmen’s needs are not communicated, and if you share your concerns and requests professionally, you can often get the results you need.”

Col. Barry Little, 341st MW commander, praised Crawn’s dedication as an example of the direction that the total force needs to continue moving toward.

“There has never been a time where what our Airmen do for this country has been so important,” Little said. “Creating an environment of dignity and respect is critical to winning the strategic competition for talent. Our Airmen chose us once; the environment we create must encourage them to choose us again.”

Little’s message, targeted to leaders, is partnered by Crawn’s sentiments to fellow Airmen looking for motivation in times where they may feel defeated by bureaucracy.

“I think it’s all about the person and how much they fight from the start,” he encouraged. “I think that [attitude] really shows your leadership and the people around you how dedicated you are. I never gave up; I never shut up about it to anyone who asked.”

Two years into his career, Airman 1st Class Connor Crawn has some time before needing to decide which direction he prefers the next chapters of his life to go in. Currently, he serves as a convoy team leader with the 341st Missile Security Operations Squadron, and with a recent win in his back pocket, he is optimistic about a future in uniform.

“I might as well stay in, now that I’m able to grow my hair,” Crawn chuckled. “I’m definitely considering it. It’s incredible being able to express my heritage in uniform.”

For more information on diversity and inclusion efforts across the DAF, please visit here.

Story by SSgt Elora J. McCutcheon, 341st Missile Wing Public Affairs

Some photos by A1C May A. Bowers

The Baldwin Files – The Case for Pathfinders

Thursday, November 3rd, 2022

I am going to take this opportunity to introduce readers to small, specialized, teams of infantry called “Pathfinders.” Teams that no longer exist. Pathfinders were first trained and employed during the last half of WWII. Through trial and error, in combat and training, Commanders realized that mass Airborne Operations were more successful if someone was already on the ground to confirm and clearly mark drop zones. The mission required newly formed Pathfinder teams to jump in early to provide that critical ground to air link for larger follow-on formations of Airborne troops. The Pathfinders proved their utility in combat and the skills were retained exclusively by Airborne units after the war.

In 1947, the history starts to get a little more complicated. The Air Force became a separate service that year. There was some consideration at the time for aligning Army Airborne Divisions in some fashion under the Air Force. Perhaps akin to the USMC and US Navy relationship. Of course, we know that did not happen. However, the Air Force did want to retain control of their aircraft delivering Army forces. Therefore, they formed the Combat Control Teams (CCTs) with essentially the same mission – and linage – as the original Army Pathfinders. Indeed, this issue was an early exemplification of the reality that the operational mission “divorce settlement” of the two Services was never entirely clean cut. For instance, then and even today, the Army continued to fly quite a few of its own fixed wing STOL cargo and support aircraft. The C7 Caribou and the C23 Sherpa being just two examples.

Still, with the CCTs available in sufficient numbers, many in both Services began to consider the Army’s remaining few Pathfinder teams redundant at best for Air Force supported Airborne Operations. That might very well have spelled the end for the Pathfinders. However, that all changed dramatically with the introduction of capable “medium lift” helicopters after the Korean War. Specifically, the UH1 “Huey” that started coming into limited service in 1956; and shortly thereafter was being delivered in both “Slick” and heavily armed versions. Suddenly, the Army could imagine and practice a version of “Air Mobile” operational maneuver warfare that was much less dependent on Air Force lift assets. Likewise, a new more robust pattern for Army Pathfinder distribution and employment emerged.

As the Army fielded rotary wing aviation units throughout the force, Pathfinder trained infantry teams of various sizes were assigned to each new formation. That is the arrangement that was tested in combat in Vietnam from the time the first conventional Army units were deployed until the last major unit redeployed. Since I cannot do that extensive history justice in the space of this article, I am going to recommend two references for those that might want to have more details. One is a link to the Pathfinder Association’s website. The link goes to a page which has an official Army video of Pathfinder School, circa 1969. Army Pathfinder History Vietnam (nationalpathfinderassociation.org)

Additionally, there is a book available in paperback by Richard R. Burns, called “Pathfinder: First In, Last Out” that describes his training at Fort Benning and subsequent experience in Vietnam as a Pathfinder in the 101st Airborne 1967-68. The book was published in 2002 and is the only one I know of that is exclusively focused on Pathfinders. Unfortunately, Burns died of cancer in 2001 before the book went to print. I read it years ago and then read it again before writing this. It would have been invaluable to me if it had been available in 1976 when I joined the Pathfinder Detachment of the 3rd Aviation Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division, Kitzingen, Germany.

Obviously, peacetime service in Germany is in no way equivalent to combat duty in Vietnam. However, the techniques, tools, and Pathfinder mission profiles, Burns describes are very familiar to me. Not surprising really, since the Pathfinder Handbook I studied was dated 1970 and the gear we wore, carried, and employed, was almost all Vietnam vintage – if not earlier. Pathfinders are trained to set up and operate Fixed-Wing Landing Strips (FLSs) for aircraft that need a runway, Drop Zones (DZs) for cargo and personnel delivered by parachute, and Helicopter Landing Zones (HLZs) for vertical takeoff and landing birds. However, facilitating helicopter borne insertions and larger scale air assaults is the signature tactical mission that Pathfinders have been best known for since the 1960s. Any MOS can become a Pathfinder, and running a singular PZ, DZ, or HLZ is MOS agnostic. But the inherent tactical tasks involved in that close combat mission helps explain why Pathfinder units were specifically manned by infantry soldiers.

We did our fair share of air assault missions in Germany. Certainly, compared to Vietnam, our air assaults were relatively small and of short duration. Usually involving a single Rifle Company, but a couple of times it was an entire Infantry Battalion. The Aviation Battalion had only one “Lift Company” – that the Pathfinders were also assigned to. IIRC we only had a total of 20 UH1s and a smaller number of OH58s. The Huey, fully loaded, was designed to carry 11 passengers (PAX) + Crew, and a Rifle Squad in those days was 11 soldiers. 10-12 birds were about all that could realistically be made available at any one time. Therefore, a lift could be no more that 110-132 Pax total. In other words, approximately one Rifle Company – minus heavier weapons like dismounted TOWs and Mortars. Adding those required a second lift. If, as often happened, the unit wanted to sling load a couple of M151s (Jeeps) with radios for C2 that might require more lifts as well. Depending on the complexity of the Ground Commander’s plan, the size of the target HLZ(s), and the flight time from pick up to drop off, the supporting air movement plans in and out can get quite complicated.

In that baseline scenario, a significant part of a Pathfinder’s pre-mission activities was that of a liaison between the air and ground elements. Deconflicting and synchronizing the supporting and supported efforts and balancing the real equities of both units. I did not think of it in those terms as a young Pathfinder. I just knew it was my job to help work the shit out so that the mission could be successful. Another large part of our mission was simply reconnaissance – again, a common infantry small unit tactical task. For example, depending on the tactical situation, a couple of Pathfinders might get dropped off by an OH58, move cross-country, survey (recon) the proposed HLZ and recommend by radio any adjustments to the air or ground plans. If the initial threat level is higher, the Pathfinders can insert with a Scout Platoon or other element to get eyes on and establish some level of initial security of the HLZ. Or, if complete tactical surprise is deemed more essential, Pathfinders come in with the lead bird of the first lift to provide real-time ground to air contact for the follow-on lifts.

We were more than capable of doing other, more diverse, and less traditional, missions as well. We were the Aviation Battalion’s de facto Downed Aircraft Recovery Team (DART) – although I do not remember us using that term. We responded to a couple of real-world crashes. One with casualties, one with fatalities while I was there. Plus, we flew out to secure a number of aircraft that had to land away from home station for maintenance issues until a maintenance team could get to them cross country. We always kept our LCE and other gear staged in our team room – much like firefighters – in case we got a call out. The two “Attack Companies” of the Battalion were based at a different Airfield in Giebelstadt. They were the first in Germany to field Cobra Gunships with TOW missiles. We participated in portions of an “Aero-Scout” experiment for their future employment as tank killers. The concept involved the OH58s dropping us off where we could select and observe a potential engagement area and then call in the Cobras when there were targets available. The ground part did not work out, but the OH58’s partnership with the Cobras was codified and continued.

We were also adjunct instructors for the 3rd Division’s Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC). About every six weeks, we had the students for two days of Rappelling Training. On day one we did a ground and tower train up and on day two the helicopters. This was a win/win situation for the school cadre, the students, for us, and the Battalion. Fast Roping had not been invented yet, so rappelling was the preferred technique to get people – including Pathfinders – on the ground in places where the helicopter cannot land. The pilots had to certify on the skills involved as did we. Frankly, there were more pilots than Pathfinders and after we had practiced a couple of times each, we got really tired of doing it over and over to train the pilots. So, the PLDC students were perfect training aids. They got a new experience, the pilots took turns getting trained, and we made better use of our time practicing our “Rappelmaster” skills.    

And, we were even involved in some missions with potential operational and strategic level impacts. Tactical nukes were more integrated into our Theater Defensive Plans during the Cold War in Germany than I think most people realize. When I was in A/1/15th Inf (75-76) we did several live ammo load outs to provide security for convoy deliveries of 155 and 8? Howitzer nuke rounds. Presumably, all the rounds we delivered to notional firing sites and then returned to storage were dummies – but we never knew for sure. It was the only time we wore Flak Vests, and the mission was taken very seriously while I was there. Lance Missile Batteries (Nuclear Capable) had organic infantry platoons to provide full time security. One of the missions of the 3rd Aviation Battalion was to deliver 12Es and their Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) package(s) to the detonation site(s) in the Division’s sector. Certain aircrews had to certify for that mission. The Pathfinder Detachment I was part of was involved at both ends and we practiced that drill with the Engineers on a regular basis. Only those with a Secret Clearance or higher were allowed to participate. The sites we practiced on were not the actual target sites. Those were TS and only the most senior Engineers supposedly were privy to that information.

All of that is not to say we were well resourced in every way. A Divisional Pathfinder Detachment was supposed to have 14 soldiers led by a 1st LT OIC and a SFC NCOIC. For some administrative reason they were not coded as Team Leader or Team Sergeant – but that is what they were. And three 4-man Pathfinder Teams, each led by a Staff Sergeant. When I arrived, there were six of us. One SSG, two Sergeants, and three Specialists. Three months later we had dropped down to 4 people. That was unsustainable. In the 28 months or so that I was there, we had only two NCOs arrive in the “normal” way. One was a SFC who had just been cadre at the Pathfinder School at Benning. The other was a Sergeant out of the 101st Pathfinder Company. Both had “pinpoint” orders to our Detachment. Two examples of the Pathfinder Mafia at work.

Most infantry soldiers E-6 and above, and most Officers, came to Germany on those kinds of orders – already wearing the patches of the units they were going to. Those units usually met them at Rhein Main Airport in Frankfurt and took control of them almost immediately. However, E5s and below were almost always “Europe Unassigned” and spent several days at the Theater Replacement Detachment at the Airport before they were divvied out to the Divisions or other major units. We decided to take advantage of that loop hole. With our Battalion leaderships’ tacit approval, we would drive to the Rhein Main terminal and watch as Army chartered commercial airliners unloaded. If someone showed up with no patch, bloused jump boots, and an infantry blue cord we would approach them for a hasty interview/selection process. Mostly, “hey, how would you like to be a Pathfinder?” If we liked their answer, we grabbed their duffel from the baggage carousel and shanghaied them to Kitzingen.

Once there, out Battalion S1 would cut them orders assigning them to one of our unfilled slots. Basically, reverse pinpoint orders. Usually, we netted maybe one guy each visit, but once we picked up two – one from each of the Ranger Battalions. That way, in a few weeks, we got healthy with 10-11 assigned. When one guy would get ready to PCS, we would just make another trip or two to get his replacement. We ended up with 3 Ranger qualified guys and 2 SF qualified, but only the two NCOs I mentioned who came to us from Stateside Pathfinder units were school trained Pathfinders. The rest of us had to OJT. Because of that fact, technical and tactical training and mandatory pre-mission rehearsals to a high standard was a constant. We were all conscious of our “elite” status and we took it seriously. People inside and outside our chain of command were watching our performance all the time. I personally felt challenged every day to keep up with everyone else on the detachment and maintain the same standard of excellence.  

I will give one example of the team ethos that I am talking about. In the summer of 1976, the 3rd Division held an Expert Infantry Badge (EIB) Test in the Kitzingen Training Area. In those days, it was common for each Infantry Battalion to send 40-45 candidates to the Test Site and they could expect to earn a half dozen EIBs at the end. It worked out that way that year. We sent 6 candidates – everyone who did not already have an EIB. Four of us – myself included – earned the EIB. The other two guys missed it by one task each. It was a pretty impressive showing and was noticed by leadership up to the Division level. Our Battalion Commander, who was an Aviation qualified Artilleryman IIRC, liked to brag that his Aviation Unit had earned almost as many EIBs as an actual Infantry Battalion. Even now, I attribute that performance to individual and collective motivation more than talent. None of us wanted to be the one that let the team down and performed accordingly.

Let me explain the picture I put together and attached (above). On the top left is the DUI or Crest of the 3rd Aviation Battalion. On the top right the Pathfinder “Winged Torch” Badge. The picture of the role player on the far right is supposed to represent a Pathfinder in Vietnam circa 1970. That is what we looked like when we were working. We were authorized and wore the ERDL Jungle Fatigues. They were supposed to be “field uniforms” only – not to be worn in garrison. We cheated on that rule all the time. The weather had to be bitterly cold before we would cover up with OD Field Pants and Field Jackets. Yes, sometimes we froze our asses off, but we always looked good doing it. The ERDLs were issued, but we had to get Jungle Boots, OD Patrol Caps, and Kabar Knives from Shotgun News. We wore M1956 LCE loaded with Smoke Grenades, VS 17 Panels, and some of the same Survival Gear that the Aircrews carried. We almost always had a radio on our backs when working. The Pathfinder mission is comms heavy, so we actually had two radios (PRC 77s) assigned for every man and even had the same radio headset the model is wearing.

The building featured in the center of the picture is emblematic of my time with the Pathfinders. It was an old Luftwaffe structure. The picture was taken in the 1960s but it was the only one I could find on line that showed the face of the building. As the reader can see, the Airfield Control Tower is on the left side. Flight Operations for the Battalion was on the first floor on the right side. Whoever took the picture is probably standing on the near edge of the runway which ran parallel to the building. While not clearly visible, a taxiway runs along the left of the picture from the runway to the building. Almost all of our missions started and ended in front of that structure. About a quarter of a mile to the left, while coming back from a mission early one night, I rode a Huey in that lost engine power and auto rotated into the dirt just off the far end of the runway. The skids were crushed and the bird belly flopped into the ground, but we all walked away. Good times.

I met 5-Star General Omar Bradley in front of that Building. He was in his 80s at the time. Apparently, he was never technically retired. He had an SSG Enlisted Aid who pushed his wheel chair around. He was physically frail but his mind was still sharp and several of us talked with him for about an hour before an Army fixed wing aircraft showed up to take him away. It was an honor. I saw the first A10 to visit Europe there in 1976. The Air Force sent one bird with a very photogenic pilot and ground crew to show off the new plane to the US Army and our allies. It was supposed to be proof positive that the Air Force took the Close Air Support mission and Airland Battle Doctrine seriously. The plane did a one bird airshow over the Kitzingen Airfield and then taxied up to the building so that we could gawk at it. I tried to steal a dummy 30mm round but they caught me and took it back.

Reference back to the picture, on the far right I superimposed the 3rd Division Patch. That is because our Pathfinder Detachment painted that patch on the building in 1977. I just could not find a picture of it. We got the job because we had to do the top part of it by rappelling down the side of the building. Yes, the right side of the building had just as may windows as the left side. We just painted over the windows. I doubt if anyone was ever able to get any of those windows open again. Getting the job done was a weeklong chore and I managed to get myself in some trouble before we were done. But I will save that story for another time. In fact, there is a lot more to the saga of that Detachment and that time but those can wait too. I have been talking about the past, but I am truly trying to make a point that is relevant to the future. I want to make the case for bringing Pathfinder units back ASAP.  

Recently, I traveled to Fort Campbell for the annual 5th SF Group Reunion. However, when I got on Post, I stopped first at the Air Assault School (AAS). I spent about 40 minutes with the school XO and several of the cadre NCOs. Specifically, I was looking for some answers about the status of Pathfinders in the Army since the deactivation of the last units (2017) and the closing of the school at Fort Benning (2020). I admit that I am still confused about the Army’s thought process on the subject. It seems that the proponency for Pathfinder training was passed to AAS without much specific guidance. AAS has dedicated cadre that focus on teaching Pathfinder skills, and awarding the Torch, through Mobile Training Teams (MTTs). Not long ago, SSD had an article about one that happened in support of the National Guard. I believe it was at Fort McCoy. They also do a couple each year at Fort Bragg.

That is all positive. Except, the Army clearly has no real institutional interest in the program. Units apparently select candidates for these classes based only on local Commanders’ criteria. The Army has not even specified any target density for Pathfinder qualified personnel, i.e., at least two per Rifle Company for example. When I was in the Infantry in ancient times, the S-3 Air/Deputy S-3 and S-3 Air NCO slots were routinely filled by PF qualified people if available. Of course, there were more Infantry Pathfinders being produced each year back then. No doubt, the Pathfinder Cadre at AAS are true believers in the Pathfinder mission – as they should be. They were happy to talk about it and hope someone can reinvigorate and reprioritize the program soon. I do too. As a side note, the school is sending multiple Air Assault and Pathfinder MTTs to Alaska to jump start the rapid transition of the 11th Airborne’s Stryker Brigade to Air Assault status.

Obviously, I am proud of my time with the Pathfinders. I know now, better than I knew then, that as a unit we consistently punched well above our weight. We set a high standard of excellence and did everything asked of us with consummate professionalism and elan. Moreover, I think Pathfinder skills are still highly relevant to the Army; both on an individual basis and in terms of eventually reactivating dedicated teams focused on the Pathfinder mission. Perhaps, I am just waxing nostalgic and Pathfinders and other small specialized units like Long Range Surveillance (LRS) teams – deactivated along the same timeline as the Pathfinder units – do not matter now that we have drones, etc. After all, some might say, the Horse Cavalry went away when modern mechanized warfare made them obsolete. That might appear to be a valid point, except, the Cavalry mission clearly did NOT go away. Sure, they changed their mounts from equines to motorized vehicles. They evolved, adopted new tools, updated techniques, and found new ways to do their mission. Indeed, I think – and the Army seems to agree – that Cavalry units will need to constantly change, but they still have a vital mission and are here to stay.

I took the following quotes from Army guidance put out at this year’s AUSA Convention in the order they were presented. The Army wants to:

“Acquire sensors to see more, farther, and more persistently than our enemies.”

“Concentrate highly lethal, low-signature [emphasis added] combat forces rapidly from dispersed locations to overwhelm adversaries at a place and time of our choosing.”

“Deliver precise, longer-range fires as part of the Joint Force to strike deep targets and massing enemy forces.”

The U.S. Army relies on cohesive teams that are highly trained, disciplined and fit to fight and win [emphasis added].”

To me, that sounds like Pathfinders and LRS units – if they still existed – would already be examples of exactly the kind of capabilities that the Army is talking about building. To borrow from the “SOF Truths,” exactly the kind of competent force structure that cannot readily be built after emergencies occur. Bottom line. In my professional opinion, both LRS and Pathfinder unit deactivation decisions were ill informed and involved an over confidence in the same false assumptions about the “hi tech” future of “hybrid” or “near peer” warfare that the Army is infamous for getting wrong all too often. A well trained and motivated human is still the most capable all-weather, all-terrain, multifunctional, intelligence gathering sensor AND formidable full spectrum fighting instrument on the planet. As I have learned many times during my career, a team of those kind of people can be practically unstoppable. And that is not going to change anytime soon. Even in the 21st Century, People are still much more important than hardware!

First In, Last Out!
De Oppresso Liber!

LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (Ret) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments. SSD is blessed to have him as both reader and contributor.

New Air Force Combat Dive Badges Approved

Wednesday, October 19th, 2022

ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) —  

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown, Jr. approved new Air Force combat dive badges and associated wear criteria for Airmen who have been wearing the Navy scuba badge.

Airmen who have graduated the Air Force Combat Dive Course are now authorized to wear the new Air Force-specific qualification badges for divers and diver supervisors as soon as they become available in Army and Air Force Exchange Service stores. 

“Air Force combat divers are essential to both combat and austere rescue situations,” said Maj. Gen. Charles Corcoran, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. “Having our own service-specific qualification badge accurately represents our unique capability to augment missions with any sister service component, and most importantly, highlights our member’s heroic actions to conduct rescue and retrieval operations to ensure no one gets left behind.”

The Air Force Combat Dive Course was established in January 2006 at Naval Support Activity Panama City, Florida. Prior to the establishment of the AFCDC, Air Force personnel had to attend the U.S. Army Combat Diver Qualification Course or U.S. Marine Combat Diver Course to earn combat diver qualifications.

Upon graduation, graduates were awarded the Navy Scuba qualification and badge, even though the Navy-designed badge does not accurately represent Air Force combat diver capabilities.


The Air Force Combat Diver badge is pictured. (U.S. Air Force graphic)


The Combat Dive Supervisor badge is pictured. (U.S. Air Force graphic)

“Navy scuba divers are trained for submarine and salvage diving,” said Senior Master Sgt. Christopher Uriarte, Air Force Command Dive Program manager and diver. “In contrast, U.S. Air Force combat divers are trained in the fundamentals of underwater tactical diving for insertion, extraction, and maritime rescue and recovery operations.”

These fundamentally different qualifications drove the requirement to establish a separate and distinct qualification badge for Air Force members and follows the precedent of other military branches replacing the Navy scuba badge with their own.

The new badges were developed by 350th Special Warfare Training Squadron Detachment 1 personnel. Two levels are authorized: Air Force Combat Diver, with a closed-circuit rebreather and Air Force Combat Dive Supervisor, identified by a traditional star and wreath on the badge, positioned on the rebreather.

Eligibility for wear of the respective badges is approved for graduates, both officer and enlisted, who have completed a Combat Diver or Combat Dive Supervisor course authorized in accordance with AFI 10-3504, Air Force Dive Program, paragraph 3.7.

The Air Force combat dive badges will be worn in accordance with AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel, guidance for wear of Miscellaneous Badges.

The textile badges are expected to be available in AAFES by the end of October 2022. The metal badges are currently in pre-production development.

Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

US Army Training and Doctrine Command Updates Army Capstone Doctrine, Codifying Shift to Multidomain Operations

Friday, October 14th, 2022

WASHINGTON — U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command will release the latest version of the Army’s capstone operations doctrine, Field Manual 3-0, Oct. 11, 2022, as senior leaders gather for the 2022 Association of the United States Army Annual Meeting and Exposition, Oct. 10-12, in Washington D.C. The manual is available to view and download on the Army Publishing Directorate website.

The newly updated FM 3-0 establishes multidomain operations as the Army’s operational concept. The focus remains on large-scale combat operations against adversaries able to contest the joint force in the land, air, maritime, space and cyberspace domains. The updated doctrine defines multidomain operations as “the combined arms employment of joint and Army capabilities to create and exploit relative advantages that achieve objectives, defeat enemy forces, and consolidate gains on behalf of joint force commanders.”

“Training and Doctrine command drives change for the Army,” said Gen. Gary M. Brito, commanding general, TRADOC. “Doctrine shapes our thinking about operations and is foundational for integrating all modernization efforts in support of the Army,” Brito explained.

According to Rich Creed, director of the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, observations from recent conflicts inspired several updates. Among those changes is a deeper understanding of the current operational environment through three dimensions — physical, information and human — and five physical domains — air, ground, space, cyberspace and maritime.

“This update to our operations doctrine is just one evolutionary step in how we need to adapt to deal with current threats,” Creed said. “We may have to operate from a position of disadvantage and that should drive changes to our organizations, acquisition priorities, and training.”

The Army has had four significant operational concepts since 1986. Each has built on the earlier concept and adapted to changing operational environments. While AirLand Battle focused primarily on threats in Europe, full spectrum operations in the early 2000s recognized Army forces did more than operate during big wars against big threats.

Unified land operations as an operational concept entered the lexicon in 2011, recognizing the lessons learned during the Global War on Terror, even as it acknowledged the changing threat environment and an increased likelihood of large-scale combat operations. Multidomain operations represent a maturation of capstone concepts and recognizes the need to deal with threats that have capabilities specifically designed to defeat U.S. forces across the competition continuum.

To ensure readiness and increase understanding of the new operations doctrine, the Army will use mobile training teams to introduce the new FM 3-0 to leaders responsible for professional military education, at the combat training centers, and in the operational force. Subject matter experts at the U.S. Army Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate are also developing a series of training materials and presentations designed to augment mobile training team support to units.

Brito emphasized that the new FM 3-0 will have an impact across the force and encouraged every Army leader to read, understand and use its concepts in training, education and worldwide operations.

“The TRADOC team is committed to building the Army of 2030 down to the Soldier level through training, education and exercising our foundational operations doctrine,” Brito said.

For more information on Army doctrine and to access associated resources, visit the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate website.

By Randi Stenson, Mission Command Center of Excellence

From the “AFSOC We Have” to the “AFSOC We Need”

Wednesday, October 12th, 2022

HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. —  

HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. – This month, Air Force Special Operations Command, AFSOC, is transitioning the way Air Force Special Operations Forces, AFSOF, present to the joint force. 

Following September 11, 2001, AFSOC’s force presentation focused heavily on providing crisis response capabilities and countering violent extremist organizations, or CVEO, through the Joint Special Operations Air Component, or JSOAC, deployment model.

This model, while historically successful in conducting crisis response and countering violent extremist organizations during more enduring operations, does not provide the necessary attributes required to succeed in the new operational environment.
 
AFSOC’s focus on C-VEO and crisis response has evolved to also include campaigning in the gray zone, employing SOF-peculiar capabilities, and developing and advancing relations with our international partners and allies.


 
“While the JSOAC model was effective for conducting command and control, or C2, of SOF air assets in recurring fixed deployment locations, the JSOAC was manned through an individual augmentee approach that didn’t properly allow commanders and staff to train, certify and deploy specifically for their deployed mission,” said Maj. Gen. Wolfe Davidson, AFSOC deputy commander. “The JSOAC was not trained or equipped to conduct the joint warfighting functions necessary for effective and adequate mission command. We had to take a look at how we were presenting forces and ask ourselves, ‘Does this look right?’ And if it doesn’t, what does?”
 
Enter the Special Operations Task Group, or SOTG.

“This change in how we present forces is transformative and drastically enhances AFSOC’s ability to present options to compete with and deter our adversaries below the threshold of armed conflict and add more strategic options for our nation’s leaders,” said Davidson.

Adhering to the U.S. Special Operations Command Comprehensive review, as well as Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown Jr.’s, “Accelerate Change or Lose” priorities, these squadron-based, task-focused groups take a significantly different approach than their JSOAC predecessors in a variety of ways.
 

While deployed, the JSOAC previously provided impromptu support on an “as needed basis.” The SOTG, unlike the JSOAC, will instead offer forces designed uniquely for each mission.
 
Additionally, the JSOACs provided operational staffs who relied on spontaneous manning that didn’t train or prepare teams for deployments whereas the SOTGs are tactical units that are manned through the force generation cycle, meaning Air Commandos are training together as they prepare for deployments.

“This new construct will allow us to not only accurately articulate our forces but will also enable us to deliberately develop a more credible, capable, and precise force with these purpose-built teams.” said Lt. Col. James Caldwell, AFSOC C2 Implementation Planning Team lead. “Airmen and their families will have much more predictability regarding deployments and the training that’s required before deploying.”

This predictability is due to the design of force generation model, which consists of four, 150-day phases – individual training, unit training, collective training and validation, and the deployment phase. Commanders will also have more deliberate oversight on deployment preparations which ultimately will increase mission success and drive down the risk to mission.

In addition to this predictability, this new structure of force presentation will enable commanders to more effectively accomplish mission command, which is key as the operational environment continues to shift.

The SOTG at its core, will be a squadron-based, O-5-led unit that will focus primarily on integrating multi-domain SOF air power into joint operations. Once forward, the SOTG will command flight-based echelons called Special Operations Task Units, or SOTUs. Each SOTU will have a unique capability tailored to that AORs requirement. These units may offer but are not limited to AC-130J, MC-130H, Special Tactics, U-28 or even agile combat support.

“This restructure will bring us in alignment with how all other SOF tactical units present forces,” said Lt. Col. Shawnee Williams, AFSOC C2 Implementation Planning Team lead. “It also ensures that AFSOFs unique multi-domain contributions give the Joint SOF community a competitive advantage.

With the first SOTG set to replace a JSOAC this month, the offerings of SOTG capabilities will likely evolve, as they’re structured to support Theater Special Operations Command’s tailored needs in their respective area of responsibilities.

Air Force Special Operations Command Public Affairs

Army of 2030

Tuesday, October 11th, 2022

WASHINGTON — As the Army comes out of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and refocuses on the pacing challenge of China and the acute threat posed by Russia, Army leaders are directing the most significant reorganization and technical innovation since the end of the Cold War — ensuring our adversaries cannot outrange or outpace us on traditional battlefields, or the new frontiers of space and cyberspace. The world is changing, and the Army is changing with it. On the battlefields of the future, the Army of 2030 must:

Acquire sensors to see more, farther and more persistently than our enemies.

Concentrate highly lethal, low-signature combat forces rapidly from dispersed locations to overwhelm adversaries at a place and time of our choosing.

Deliver precise, longer-range fires as part of the Joint Force to strike deep targets and massing enemy forces.

Protect our forces from air, missile and drone attacks.

Be secure from enemy cyber and electronic attacks in order to reliably communicate and share data with ourselves, sister services and coalition partners.

Ensure we can sustain the fight across contested terrain and over time.

To meet the evolving threat, the Army is undergoing a once-in-a-generation transformation to develop the capability to converge effects on land, in the air, sea, space and cyberspace. This transformation includes investment in our people, reorganization of our forces, the development of new equipment, and the adoption of new concepts on how to fight that allow the Army to maintain superiority over any potential adversary.

People: The U.S. Army’s Military Advantage

More than any other area, the U.S. Army relies on cohesive teams that are highly trained, disciplined and fit to fight and win. To maintain a quality force, we must transform the way we recruit, train, educate and prepare America’s sons and daughters for an increasingly complex battlefield. The Army is building a 21st century, data-driven personnel management system to transform how we identify, develop and manage the talent that is the bedrock of our military advantage. Instead of the industrial age system of assigning people to jobs based on a few factors, the Army of 2030 will look at skills, education, experiences and personal attributes to match individuals with positions to which they can best contribute.[1] The Army is also investing in programs and education to improve how leaders identify their own strengths and weaknesses and to allow their organizations and their people to thrive.[2] The Army of 2030 will harness advances in virtual reality and simulations technology to train in more realistic environments at lower cost and with reduced risk to our forces. With the investments we are making, the Army will train Soldiers in simulated environments, where they can interact with and prevail against limitless threats and scenarios, enhancing preparedness from the smallest unit to the largest formation. The Army of 2030 will improve upon our longstanding commitment to the Soldiers who serve, not only with gratitude for their sacrifices, but with investments in their future. In addition to investments in advanced education, comprehensive health and fitness, and development of skills that will benefit them for life, the Army is transforming the way we protect Soldiers, civilians and families from harmful behaviors. The Army is leading the charge to develop prevention efforts for suicide, sexual crimes and extremism while strengthening our support systems to care for those affected.

Transforming How We Organize

To remain the dominant land force on battlefields of 2030, the Army is changing the way it organizes, equips and fights. After two decades of focusing on brigades rotating in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army is shifting its organizational focus to larger formations that are more capable of working with our sister services, allies and partners around the globe. Theater armies, corps and divisions will gain the personnel, organizations and equipment they need to disrupt and defeat an adversary’s ability to achieve their objectives. These organizational investments are multiplied by leveraging advances in commercial data analytics to improve the speed and accuracy of leader decision-making. Our study and analysis of recent conflicts, exercises, simulations and training indicate that brigade commanders must fully focus on winning the close fight. To allow front-line leaders to concentrate on the close fight, division and corps commanders will have the responsibility and capability to visualize the larger picture. Divisions and corps must be able to employ and allocate the growing array of lethal and non-lethal weapons to attack an enemy across all domains.

Evolving How We Fight

As the Army refocuses from conflict in the Middle East to focus on near-peer challenges, we must adapt to changes in technology and enemy capability and rethink how we deter our adversaries from using force to achieve their objectives. We know that forward positioned ground forces — able to converge effects from land, air, sea, space and cyberspace — complicate our adversaries’ decision-making, disrupt their actions, and assure our allies and partners. Whether in the Pacific or Europe, control of key nodes in the land domain will be required to win in large-scale combat.

The Army of 2030 must equip its forces with new and different capabilities. Many current systems are enduring capabilities developed during the Cold War. To defeat our adversaries on the modern battlefield, the Army is developing newer and more-advanced equipment, and is incorporating cutting-edge technologies to enable us to win on the battlefields of the future.

We are developing a network of connected unmanned and manned sensors that will enable us to see more, farther and more persistently than our enemies.[3]

We will deliver faster, more-survivable fighting vehicles, including unmanned robotic systems able to deliver more firepower.[4]

We will deploy new missiles that are able to travel at hypersonic speeds, increasing the range and ability to avoid traditional air-defense systems.[5]

We will harness the potential of high-energy lasers and microwaves for mobile short-range air-defense systems.[6]

We are innovating, through experiments like Project Convergence, to transform the Army into a data-centric force where commanders at all levels have the information they need to make decisions.

Finally, we are transforming how we sustain the fight by rethinking how the Army provides logistics and sustainment support with lighter and more climate-resilient vehicles and headquarters.[7]

Modernizing for an Uncertain Future

As we transform for the future fight, we are also setting the Army on a sustainable strategic path — one that balances the generational investments we are making to prepare for the future fight with the realities of our fiscal environment. The nation depends on the U.S. Army to respond to a broad range of missions at home and abroad. We must modernize sustainably, maintaining readiness now, while transforming at a pace informed by available resources. This will require hard choices about the pace of modernization and the risk we assume in order to chart a long-term course to integrate new capabilities while maintaining our ability to respond to crises.

Rarely in the Army’s history have we seen changes this significant. As we transform to meet an uncertain future, we must adapt how we recruit and retain talent, how we organize and how we fight to ensure that the Army of 2030 is ready to win when the nation calls. Winning matters.

DOWNLOAD: Army of 2030 Information Paper

DOWNLOAD: Army of 2030 Infographic

By U.S. Army
???????????????

[1] The Integrated Personnel and Pay System – Army (IPPS-A) will become the Army’s total personnel management system. The update pending release in early FY23 will provide the capability for all components of the Army to manage talent and career development.

[2] The Commander Assessment Program (CAP) assesses senior leaders’ ability to lead the Army’s most important organizations. The program was initiated in 2019 and has steadily expanded each year, with an anticipated permanent facility and staff stationed at Fort Knox in FY24. Project Athena provides junior leaders feedback about the skills, capabilities and tendencies they possess as they progress through their careers. The assessment tool is used for officers, warrant officers and noncommissioned officers at each step of their professional military education.

[3] Unmanned Aerial Vehicles have demonstrated in Ukraine the importance of persistent sensors. The Army is investing in systems like the Future Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (FTUAS), Future Unmanned Aircraft System (FUAS)-Air Launched Effects (ALE), and High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES).

[4] The Army will start fielding Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles (AMPV) in early 2023. The Army recently awarded a contract to field Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF), which will provide infantry units with armored firepower. We are experimenting with Robotic Combat Vehicle technology, with the goal of delivering initial capability by 2030.

[5] The Army is developing four long-range fires systems: Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), Extended Range Cannon (ERCA), Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), and Mid-Range Capability (MRC).

[6] The Army is developing 50-kW high-energy lasers for Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD DE) and Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC-DE). The Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office is experimenting with a 300-kW high-energy laser.

[7] The Army is modernizing our watercraft fleet to provide heavy and light versions to enable the execution of contested logistics in the Pacific. The Army is experimenting with hybrid combat vehicles and alternative power for deployed forces to reduce the demand for fuel.

Air Force Introduces New, Foundational Ready Airman Training Program

Sunday, October 9th, 2022

ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) —  

The Air Force announced plans to transition foundational training for all Airmen beginning Oct. 1 ensuring they have the necessary skillsets to survive and operate during contingencies both at home station and deployed, including remote and contested environments. 
 
Ready Airman Training will prepare Airmen to develop and demonstrate the mindset required to support the Air Force Force Generation, or AFFORGEN, deployment model. 
 
“The vision for how Airmen train and deploy embraces an emerging culture of support maintaining and building readiness across the AFFORGEN phases,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown, Jr. “We must challenge the status quo to prepare our Airmen for operating in environments far more complex than we have in the past.” 
 
Aligned with the Oct. 1 implementation of AFFORGEN, Airmen will begin receiving tailored training spread throughout the 18-month Reset, Prepare and Ready phases of the AFFORGEN cycle. Unit commanders may adjust the number of training events required based on an Airman’s level of preparedness and the deployment phase they are entering. 
 
Previous deployment training, which at a minimum consisted of Basic Airman Readiness and Basic Deployment Readiness, was accomplished as just-in-time training, once notified of a deployment, and consisted of approximately 30 hours of training. 
 
In March, a team of 70 experts gathered in San Antonio for a Ready Airman Training Design Sprint where they identified 12 focus areas, designated as Ready Training Areas, with specific desired learning objectives necessary for Airmen to deploy faster while simultaneously increasing overall expertise. 
 
Ready Training Areas include: Law of War; Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape; Small Arms; Integrated Defense; Active Threat Response; Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Training; Explosive Ordnance Hazard; Tactical Combat Casualty Care All Service Members Course; Comprehensive Airman Fitness; Cross Cultural Communications; Information Environment Awareness; and Basic Communications. 
 
The Ready Training Area associated training events will be spread over the entire AFFORGEN cycle incrementally over the next two years. The total estimated training hours required over the course of the two-year cycle – four years for Guard and Reserve – depend on whether the Airman is considered inexperienced (40 hours), experienced (24 hours) or staff (15 hours). 
 
“Ready Airman Training serves as the continuum of combat learning for all Airmen while being adaptable to each individual Airman’s experience level and allowing commanders the flexibility to tailor training for specific operating environments,” said Maj. Gen. Albert Miller, Air Force Training and Readiness director. 
 
Cross-functional training requirements and training packages for commanders were developed using validation methods that will present an Airman prepared to execute missions based on emerging operational timelines. Additionally, Ready Airman Training increases flexibility for commanders at all levels to tailor training requirements to their Airmen. 
 
“This is the model and method needed to compete and deter where the adversary’s tactics and techniques have evolved in an effort to match ours,” said Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force JoAnne S. Bass. “Ready Airman Training is how we, as an Air Force, continue to outpace our strategic competitors and win the high-end fight.” 
 
Specific training objectives for Ready Training Areas are available on the AEF Online and AFFORGEN Connect websites. Major commands are responsible for tracking and reporting readiness annually through myLearning.

Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs