Cross Commissioning

hornetguy said:
I've been told that, legally, only an officer can authorize a kill order or to drop bombs. I can't remember the specifics off the top of my head (had it in class about a year ago), but that was what I was told. Flieger, do you have any knowledge on the subject?
Click to expand...

That's what I figured. Which is why they would need an officer overlooking an UAV pilot, right? So that s/he could step in when something needed to be destroyed. But I'm sure there is more to it than that. Maybe Flieger or Bullet can step in with some insight.
 
hornetguy said:
I've been told that, legally, only an officer can authorize a kill order or to drop bombs. I can't remember the specifics off the top of my head (had it in class about a year ago), but that was what I was told. Flieger, do you have any knowledge on the subject?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that's urban legend. I know of no legal rule that would require that. Perfect cases in point: the Riverine Patrol Craft in VNam were commanded by NCO's, army helo's are flown predominantly by WO's, and not commissioned officers. Remember, a warrant is NOT a commission until offered at W3 or W4. W1 and W2 are "warrents" only: neither NCO nor officer.

Dropping a bomb...much like firing a piece of artillery and I don't think most artillery pieces are commanded by officers. The "company/battalion" etc., yes, but not the individual guns.

Nope...I think its a long "prejudice" that the AF inherited from the Army and never adapted. I remember as a young boy when the last AF warrent officer retired. The AF eliminated the grade, nobody else did then.

Just my opinion though.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
I'll ask the JAG that teaches my law class tomorrow, see if he can shed any light on this for us!
 
i was going to mention that to you in class, to see if you wanted to bring this up. further off topic, here we come! lol. at least its always deep and interesting dicussions
 
our law teacher has never heard of a law preventing enlisted to fly, or even preventing them from making the call to kill (drop bombs, etc). in fact, he echoed flieger's argument about artillery in the army being commanded by NCOs.

i have actually heard a rumor that a UAV pilot was in consideration as an AFSC for the enlsited career field sometime in the future
 
I don't know much about the protocols that the fliers have to follow, but I can tell you for a fact, that enlisted as low ranking as PFC have called in Artillery and Air Support without going through an officer.

Now, maybe the fast movers had to get permission before dropping, but I don't think they did in all cases though.

Now for us on the ground, an officer would be only be with the unit if it was a platoon size or larger. So fire teams and squads on patrol didn't ask for permisison to engage unless their mission was of a reconnaissance nature. Engaging and thus giving away your position, may not be in the best interest of the overall mission. But then again, maybe engaging and preventing the enemy unit from moving further into the theatre might be the right thing to do. Only person who can answer that is Intel back at CIC.

Then when in a platoon, company or battalion formation, again, you didn't call to the LT or CPT and say, is it okay to shoot back.

These things were all decided and communicated before hand. The rules of engagement are gone over in great detail prior to going on patrol. Prior to leaving, the patrol leader (regardless of rank) gives a briefing, called a 5 paragraph order, also known as a SMEAC.

Situation
Mission
Execution
Administration and Logistics
Command and Signal

Administration and Logistics would cover the rules of engagement at that point, if it had'nt already been brought up. Usually Marines bring it up right after hearing about the Situation. Someone usually starts off with, let's light them up. Then the patrol leader says, hold on, here are the rules of engagement. Then he gets back on track and finishes his briefing before going on mission.

JB
 
Two points -- because jbrown is spot-on.

First, every 11Bravo (the US Army Infantry MOS) has the ability to "pull the trigger" without asking for permission. The "rules" are all decided before you ever get into the situation, as jbrown describes. It is the backbone of our Services from probably the Revolutionary War. You are taught the "rules of engagement" and are thus, authorized, to engage when necessary. The fact that in some instances people ask a higher authority "permission to engage" not withstanding, we teach our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen what to do and when, then expect them to do it. Jbrown has it right for Marines, and for the Army too. In actuality, it is a main difference between us and the old Soviet regime, which was driven top-down. We, with our tremendous NCO corps, are bottom up. In reality, it is the difference between our two systems of government.

Second, the Situation, Mission, Execution, Administration and logistics, and Command and Communications (as I remember it! ) as JBrown says, "known as a SMEAC" is the source of the derogatory term "Smack" when used for a lowly person in an officer training status, at least in the US Army. I'll bet, too, that's the genesis of its use to describe 4-digs at USAFA. In years past, it was used on lowly officer trainees to get them to commit it to memory, because it is a useful checklist for any operations plan and operations order when you are under fire. No matter what's going on, if you can remember SMEAC you cover most all bases needed. I have used it many times in many situations, including things as innocuous as going on a camping trip, since I first learned it, long ago....

Thank you, jbrown, "for the memories!" :shake: Now, jbrown, did you use the term "bean-head" too?
 
"Smack" (at USAFA) is usually said to translate into "soldier, minus ability, courage, and knowledge"...not exactly a postitive term here, either!
 
raimius said:
"Smack" (at USAFA) is usually said to translate into "soldier, minus ability, courage, and knowledge"...not exactly a postitive term here, either!
Click to expand...

Hmm...how things/times change...from the 1979 - 1983 definition: "Soldier Minus Ability, Coordination, and Knowledge."

Courage was never included...back then.
 
i was always told they were called "smacks" because that's the sound they made when they hit the wall to make way for an upperclassman.
 
Haha, well at least everyone that goes through the service is a "smack" sooner or later, right? A right of passage. For all those in my class ('13) remember that those yelling at you during I day and beyond-they were in your shoes ..er boots.. exactly 2/3 years before.
 
actually, not the case

we had black boots, which are different than what they issue you know :biggrin: lol
 
let's just stop talking now so we don't say something stupid and regret it over our summer of fun k c/o '13? lol:thumb:
 
lol. unless you call me or my class out for something, you're fine on here as far as i'm concerned, and we'll esnure other potential cadre agree. as long as you're not being disrespectful, there's nothing to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top