Talk:Forward air control

message: More work...
We need to summarise the background of FACs/TACPs and list the different types of FAC both historically and contemporarily with separate pages for individual examples. 
The FAC works in the joint force environment, where commonality of equipment and procedures is difficult to achieve and providing an accurate depiction here needs co-ordination too.
I am working in the background to make my contribution and hope that those who have their own specialist knowledge can do the same.
The first line in the NATO FAC training manual refers to ‘Safety of own Troops’ but we all know that the way to win the war is to close with the enemy as fast as possible and kill him. In doing so the FAC lives on a fine line between success and failure.
FAC equipment and deployments are varied so I hope we can garner as much data as we can to make this subject as interesting as its history.
----
This page needs alot of work but I added the USMC heading so that Non US types don't get the wrong impression.  It would probably be a good idea to break this out by Country and then service. --Looper5920 21:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on prior article (since removed)

message: * DisagreeThese articles should not be merged.  While a FAC is a JTAC a JTAC is not necessarily a FAC.  Also, outside of US doctrine a FAC is sometimes airborne which is much different.  While similiar, and I realize the articles need work, there are enough differences to keep them separate. --Looper5920 23:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merge

message: I would consider adding examples of friendly fire incident where either FAC made mistakes or were ignored. e.g. the case that has just being ruled 'a criminal act'. 217.7.209.108 13:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you are referring to this incident. I'm not aware of any particular instance in which it was the failing of the "doctrine" or concept of forward air control itself that has lead to any deaths, esp criminally neglegent ones. This is for the coverage of the doctrine itself so unless these were the result of this doctrine or capability being the direct culprit (as it was not in the cited story) then I don't really think it belongs in this article. NeoFreak 15:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Let me begin by stating that because I worked as support personnel for an American FAC unit, I admittedly have a narrow point of view. I realize that other nations have also used FACs, though I don't even know whom they were.
Nevertheless, here's what I see needed for American FACs.
1) Coverage of U. S. Army FACs during World War II.
2) Coverage of USMC FACs (if any) during WW II.
3) Korean War FACs. I know they existed because I have met one. He was Army, but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other programs, other service branches.
4) In America's Vietnam War, there were at least 50 FAC callsigns used; that's a lot of units, mostly U. S. Air Force. They worked in three countries: South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. There were also fledgling South Vietnamese and Lao FAC efforts under USAF auspices.
This article needs to be broken out into sections to make it comprehensible. It needs a lot of research. It probably needs to have a lot of links leading to a lot of callsigns/units.
Recommended resources: Hit My Smoke: Forward Air Controllers in Southeast Asia by Jan Churchill. Go to www.ravens.org and work the links listed on the site.
And for what's it worth, I am writing a Wikipedia article on Raven FACs.
Georgejdorner (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial Blueprint for Development

message: Should the present article be limited to the role of the Forward air controller (airborne)?
* Agree: For the reasons of clarity, and to keep the article a manageable size.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Just started to have a look at the article following a request from one of the editors. One question leaps out after just reading the intro - it makes not mention at all of forward air control. Apart from going straight into acronymn land it appears to be a description of a Forward Air Controller which as far as I know is not the same as the concept of forward air control. I wont read the rest of the article yet because I would just like to know what this article is about first. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly. I think we need to distinguish the subject of forward air control from the definition of various US/NATO doctrinal roles such as FAC, JTAC and ALO. My only slight reservation is that I have now looked at the Close Air Support article, and it contains a lot more about forward air control than this article does! Perhaps the Forward Air Control article should be a redirect to Close Air Support, and we could then have as many articles as are requred to cover the detailed US/Nato job descriptions - so long as each one makes it clear what it is covering and where the main subject article is. Cyclopaedic (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't have a view about whether airborne and ground-based FAC's need separate articles, but I'm with MilborneOne here: the article is suppoesed to be about forward air control, and is getting diverted into dealing with job roles rather than its subject. Cyclopaedic (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Yesterday the article was assessed as B-Class on the MilHist scale. I have removed taht rating as I don't think it can meet the Content requirement until the content matches the title. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still find it hard to get pass the intro, cant find any real history on the forward air control role (either airborne of ground) or at least any that is clear. Perhaps all the detailed history of american units should be removed elsewhere, and I am not sure why every callsign ever used is encyclopedic. I think we need to stop editing the article and work out what is going on and what is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I have asked some of the recent editors to stop editing the article until a consensus is reached on what the article is about and a clear indication of what is needed. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite my polite request to stop editing the article it appears that User:NetherSarum has ignored the request, I will protect the article from editing if more edits are made. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the article about ?

message: All the comments above are six years old or older, and directed at a version of the article that no longer exists. They should be archived or deleted.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Exception made of the US-centric section, which has just been updated 69.165.196.103 (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  All comments above are now (mostly) null and void 

message: This article serves as a chronological history of the development of forward air control. Large forward air control operations, such as widespread usage of forward air controllers in a major war, can be summarized, with a link leading to the main article. Pending examples might be the Gulf War, etc. This will keep this root article to reasonable size, while systemizing detailed coverage of the subject.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future development of this article 

message: Hello all,
The section for South Africa needs better citations for [75] and [76]. Neither contain hyperlinks nor have information that could be accessed/researched by any reader. I am willing to give the original editor some time to amend them, but I will remove them and add a citations-needed link instead if it is not updated relatively soon.  <[▪︎_▪︎<] ^[▪︎_▪︎]^ [>▪︎_▪︎]> (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa citations