Talk:United States special operations forces/Archive 1

Raven

someone is obviously being misguided because there is such units as phoenix raven and task force 11 if this person takes them off again i'm advising an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.202.119 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ravens are a sub-branch of the USAF SF's, but not really considered a unit themselves, rather a specialized detatchment. Phoenix was a program in Vietnam, not a unit. Please do not make threats to advise an administrator over your factually incorrect information. Swatjester 10:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix Raven is a Security Forces program run by Air Mobility Command, not AFSOC. [1] As such, it has been deleted BQZip01 08:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good reason to delete it. It's may be considered as a SOF because charged to a Counter-terrorisme mission - protection of AMC aicrafts. If it's just because Ravens are not under AFSO Command, why not suppress also TACP, or Recon and Force Recon because they are not under MARSOC. Rob1bureau 17:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

TACP does fall under AFSOC. They are generally assigned to the 21st, 22d, 23d, or 24th Special Tactics Squadrons and attached to Army/Navy SOF units for air support: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/tacp.htm. By your logic, Security Forces and Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel should be considered special operations, since they are both charged with counterterrorism missions (SF - base security, EOD - destroy bombs). Just because someone supports or has one of the missions of Special Operations, doesn't make them Special Operations.

As for Marine Force Recon Force, from the wikipedia page: "[They] have been recently integrated into the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), and are now part of Marine Special Operation Battalions East and West. However, United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) won't be fully integrated into SOCOM until 2010." (see http://specialoperations.military.com/marine-force-recon/missions.html for more details) BQZip01 18:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake. Well, I agree with your arguments about Ravens. About Force Recon, they were not integrated in SOCOM from 1987 to recently while being a SOF, so we should keep in mind that a SOF is not compulsorily under a "SOC". Otherwise, I didn't found evidence that TACP are under AFSOC, even in the page you have given a link to ; and the can operate with conventionnal forces or special forces as well. Isn't it a confusion with CCT ? Rob1bureau 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, don't you think that USCG units and FAST should be removed ? And what about recon units for conventional forces (LRS, RSTA and airborne pathfinders) ? Maybe we may create three "levels" of SOFs : JSOC's SMUs, SOF, and something such as "special operations capable forces" Rob1bureau 19:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

TACPs are trained by and are assigned to AFSOC, plain and simple: http://www2.afsoc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123029059 Sorry about the previous link. While they are not exclusively assigned to Special Operations units, they are still AFSOC assets. Army Rangers are also considered Special Operations, but individual members may be assigned to regular army billets, but are subject to being called into a Ranger Battalion. This is for purposes of integration.

There is no need to create "levels," but there are many different roles of special operations forces. I was assigned as a communications officer for AFSOC for 3 years and was in what is now the 1st SOW. Was I an "operator," no. Was I in Special Operations, you bet, as were the logistics personnel, maintainers, personnelists, etc. Special Operations is not limited to SEALs, Rangers, etc, but are also supported by many otehr personnel. One person I once knew calculated how many military personnel it really takes for a bullet to reach a bad guy. The answer was something like a thousand with the last guy in the chain pulling the trigger. Some special operations forces are embedded with the regular folks. Others are supporting the guys at "the pointy end of the spear." Not everything is neat and tidy either. By Navy regulation, Underwater Demolitions Teams belong to both the Navy and SOCOM and ownership is cyclically rotated, but they are generally lumped in with SEALs for discussion purposes.

Upon further reading FAST should be removed. It is not special operations in the classic sense

As for the USCG, they are not exactly part of the DoD and we have to take this with a grain of salt. Given their unit descriptions, I believe all of these Coast Guard units seem to meet the criteria for Special Operations Forces. They serve as a link to the domestic policing role in the US and they work with the Navy and other units to secure out coasts. IMHO, some of these are analagous to Army Rangers and TACPs. However, let's not lose sight of the definition: a police SWAT team is not "special operations forces," but may be labeled Special Operations in their respective police forces. BQZip01 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, im laughing so hard right now at the thought that someone thought thunder chickens were SOF! hahahahaha — -dainomite   13:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• How about if we stop trying to figure out a way to include everyone and concentrate solely on actual special operations forces. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

TACPs are NOT SOF unless they complete Special tactics TACP training afterwhich they are assigned to the 17th STS and they usually work with the Ranger Regiment or Grenn Berets. (Mickteen11 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC))

Intelligence Support Activity

Why having supppressed the Intelligence Support Activity from the list ? It is a SOF, because charged of support "on the ground" of conter-terrorist ops, and also sometimes tasked of special reconnaissance, foreing internal defense and direct action. Rob1bureau 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rob, please slow down while typing. Is your question "why is the ISA not on the list?" If so, yes it should be included as a component of JSOC. BQZip01 20:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't speak english fluently... Someone as removed the ISA from the list (see History, it is the modification "01:31, 8 March 2007 68.78.112.215 (Talk) (→Counter-Terrorist Units"). My question is why : "68.78.112.215" did that ? I don't see any reason to do it. I prefered ask it in order to let "68.78.112.215" explain his reasons, rather than directly re-add the ISA in the list. Rob1bureau 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

TACP / Raven

66.69.1.232 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Syberphule (Former 1721st CCS (CCT) / Former 1/75 Ranger TACP) TACPs may be assigned to AFSOC however only specific units / personnel and not the career field as a whole. The majority of the field is assigned to Air Combat Command (ACC), Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) and US Air Forces Europe (USAFE) and supports non-SOF units. A very small percentage have any training in any of the SOF specialties (HALO, SCUBA, Airborne, etc.). And (according to folks in the 720th) they are not a "part" of that unit either. They may "play" with them and be a part of AFSOC but are integrated into the STTs they are not - only CCT, PJ and CWT are members. They do not attend the PJ or CCT Pipelines, AST or any of the other STS phases. Ravens are cops, and are not SOF forces in any way. They are specialized and have highly advanced skills comparable to civilian SWAT or Executive Protection teams but again, are not SOF.

Three-quarters of your comment is comprised of acronyms. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. Atypicaloracle (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Atypicaloracle:, The IP is saying that USAF TACP and Phoenix Ravens aren't SOF, which they aren't. I wouldn't even go so far as to say Ravens "have highly advanced skills comparable to civilian SWAT or Executive Protection teams". — -dainomite   15:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Dainomite. I've been trying to get some clarification on who/what the Ravens even are. So far the internet says they're air traffic controllers which... doesn't seem right given the debate about their inclusion here. So basically the TACP Ravens are advisors for air unit use, and Phoenix Ravens are like a military analog to Air Marshals? Atypicaloracle (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Atypicaloracle:, Not a problem. Here's the Air Force factsheet on Phoenix Ravens / Ravens if it helps, link. Also to clarify they aren't their own career field, they are Security Forces (USAF quivalent of Military Police). That fact sheet seems to put them on a pedastal which I find kind of funny. Basically they fly with aircraft, like C-130s for example, if the aircraft won't be staying on "secure installations" for a period of time; then while the bird is on the ground at the "unsecure location" they provide security for the plane for however long it's on the ground for. TACP is it's own career field, they aren't inherently SOF though I'd say they are "enablers" if anything. Kind of like how the Marine Force Recon aren't SOF but are 'special operations capable'. — -dainomite   16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dainomite: - perfect, that's just the sort of document I was looking for. So if an airbase doesn't have native (by which I mean, stationed there as opposed to belonging to a host/occupied country) security, the Ravens go along to guard the aircraft while it is on the ground and therefore vulnerable. I don't know why it took so long to track that fairly simple definition down! Atypicaloracle (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the Special Amphibious Reconnaissance Corpsman (SARC)? What is their function?

I've been trying to find information on this unit but haven't been able to find much The SARC are so Navy Corpsman can serve with Marine recon units, since the Marines don't have medics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer1157 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason for not making links bold

Read Wikipedia:Lead, which states,

Bold title

"The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. Avoid links in the bold title words."

In my opinion the main reasons for avoiding links in the bold title words are that

1. the title loses it's boldness because it turns blue, and
2. it is hard to read when it is both blue and bold.

So quit reverting a helpful edit. 199.125.109.19 03:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Recovered link

This link was listed as being in this article, and dead. I have found a new link, but the old one appears to have been removed, so I do not know where to put it, so I will post it here. Dean Wormer 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• U.S. Coast Guard International Affairs

Non SOF info

Why were the edits removing info about non SOF units reverted? The content that was changed or removed was factually inaccurate. Isn't less info better than wrong info? Outdawg (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Special Operations is not exclusively a military function (see SOF page). Loosely defined some of these units are indeed Special Operations, but certainly don't fall under SOCOM in any way. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore a definition of the mission is certainly warranted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the United States Special Operations Forces article. So shouldn't DoD or USSOCOM's definition of a SOF apply to this article?

DoD's SOF definition "Those Active and Reserve Component forces of the Military Services designated by the Secretary of Defense and specifically organized, trained, and equipped to conduct and support special operations. Also called SOF. See also Air Force special operations forces; Army special operations forces; naval special warfare forces."

DoD's Spec Ops definition (DOD) Operations conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives employing military capabilities for which there is no broad conventional force requirement. These operations often require covert, clandestine, or low visibility capabilities. Special operations are applicable across the range of military operations. They can be conducted independently or in conjunction with operations of conventional forces or other government agencies and may include operations through, with, or by indigenous or surrogate forces. Special operations differ from conventional operations in degree of physical and political risk, operational techniques, mode of employment, independence from friendly support, and dependence on detailed operational intelligence and indigenous assets. Also called SO. Outdawg (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Law enforcement does not conduct special operations. Some of the military units listed in this article do not conduct special operations. I removed them for that reason. Outdawg (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotta get some sleep, but short answer, no, we shouldn't confine ourselves to the DoD definition. While all of those in DoD are clearly special ops, by definition, the term "Special Operations" can also be used in a wider context (which the vast majority of the world also uses) to include those you deleted. I'm not saying that anything per se was done "wrong" but we shouldn't necessarily limit ourselves to a U.S. DoD-only perspective on the matter, IMHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand what you're saying. We don't have to limit ourselves. IHMO, units that wouldn't normally be considered special operators in the U.S. Spec Ops community shouldn't be included especially when they don't meet what the U.S. government considers special operators. I just think U.S. government definitions should be used for an article specifically about U.S. SOF. If this article were not about U.S. SOF but of SOF in general I would have a different opinion. Outdawg (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, point taken there. How about a disclaimer stating that certain elements are not formally part of the DoD-SOF, BUT fall under the international definition of SOF? We could simply parse those out into a different section? I gotta get some sleep. I'll catch you tomorrow. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats sounds good. I just realized most of the subheadings were already linked to USSOCOM components before I started. I'll fix that now. Outdawg (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ranger School?

Ranger School is listed in U.S. special operations centers, schools, and courses, however, graduation from Ranger School does not make one part of USASOC, or USSOCOM. As it takes men from any branch, and returns them with superior small unit tactical and leadership skills, but it does not make them SOF.--Vidkun (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

I can't edit the top line, United States special operations forces, but all words should have initial caps. 173.210.125.42 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

USCG

Someone appears to have decided to begin a conversation with themselves in the USCG section, essentially ruining the entire area. If someone more knowledgeable on this area of SOF would be so kind as to fix it completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.128.4 (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

JSOC

Why is there so many JSOC elements listed? There are no sources or verifications for these units and I think they should be removed. There is no evidence of them on the internet as far as I am concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.105.172 (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

DEVGRU

DEVGRU is already listed under JSOC - where it belongs. Yes, it is a part of the USNSWC, but administratively only, it's not part of the command structure as it belongs to (>drumroll< wait for it...) JSOC. Listing it twice is needless and redundant. The very same situation applies to 1SFOD-D or ISA, you don`t see them listed twice. - thewolfchild 05:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason I initially listed them is that the SOCOM factbook lists them this way. I don't see why for instance DEVGRU or the 24th STS couldn't be listed as both when there are RSs supporting it. Just like if we expanded the AFSOC section the 24th STS (currently under JSOC) would also be present under the 724th STG under 24th SOW. — -dainomite   05:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RS or not, just cuz it's there, doesn't mean we have to list it. It's already on the list, under the heading it belongs. The fact that the group is called the US Naval Spec War Dev Group, satisfies the fact that it is from the USN. To list it again is, like I said, needless and redundant. - thewolfchild 07:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there some logical reason that would proclude the 24th STS and DEVGRU from being listed under JSOC aswell as their respective service commands when it's verifiable and reliable sources support it? If not then I will seek outside parties who haven't been involved in this discussion for added opinions, input and feedback to this discussion. — -dainomite   07:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Asked and answered. - thewolfchild 20:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on United States special operations forces/Archive 1 and can recall no prior involvement with the editors involved in this discussion which would bias my opinion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that sort. I disagree with the argument that the listing is "needless and redundant". Wikipedia does not exist for the benefit of its editors, but for the benefit of the general public. A member of the general public coming to this list and looking for Naval units may well click on "United States Navy" in the contents box and skip right over the the JSOC section, or may well just scroll right down to that section without looking at the intervening material, thus receiving the false impression that the units listed only under JSOC do not exist. The units listed in JSOC should also be listed under their individual "organic" organizations.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> U.S. Special Ops Are Soldiers Committing Suicide in Record NumbersLihaas (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on United States special operations forces

Cyberbot II has detected links on United States special operations forces which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.robertankony.com/lurps-gallery/

  Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Large scale source issue

There are 94...yes 94, citations of the same primary source. The link is a dead link because the online source is no longer valid. Another 16 are from the previous year edition of the same no longer available primary source. This article needs clean up. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Battlefield Airmen vs. Special Operations

According to the Air Force, as of 2016, All SOF careers are Battlefield Airmen, but some (TACP/ALO) are not inherently SOF and are considered conventional unless Special Tactics. (http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/858167/policy-changes-allow-airmen-to-retrain-into-special-ops/), furthermore according to AFDD 2-7 if all AF SOF forces are under AFSOC, and if not are not considered to be SOF, even if they are elite (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afdd2-7.pdf)Garuda28 (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• • While the above statement is not wrong, it bypasses a larger discussion and it is odd that the Air Force specialties have a caveat while others do not. Nearly every other career field in this list is conditionally "SOF". Only Rangers in the 75th Ranger Regiment Fall under USASOC, most Navy EOD falls outside of NSW, as well as every other enabler listed. Even under this logic, Special Forces or SEAL personnel attached to assignments outside of USASOC or NSW are no longer considered SOF.

The main point of confusion is that DoD does not consistently define SOF. Individual branch regulations lean towards defining "SOF" as any personnel (from admin to operator) assigned under a "Special Operations Command." Joint publications and congress define SOF in regards to a profession's unique mission and standards, with no mention of administrative commands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocGecko (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you please cite some joint publications on SOF doctrine that back up your claim? Garuda28 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The previously provided article does not make the point that PJ/CRO are not inherently SOF. While TACP/ALO need to attend a selection and additional training, PJ/CRO personnel are routinely assigned between Rescue and Special Tactics and there is no difference in training. A PJ Chief iterated this point well on an internal memo that was posted on Shadowspear about halfway down the page. PJs and CROs that go to JSOC need to do an additional selection and training but so do SF, SEALS, and everyone else. That's a whole other story. AFDD 2-7 is no longer a valid document and has been replaced by Air Force Doctrine Annex 3-05 which noticeably does not include the requirement of belonging to AFSOC. If we are to interpret SOF from the perspective of USSOCOM/USASOC/NSW/AFSOC/MARSOC chain of command (JP 3-05 1-4), then every career from supply to operator is justified in being called a “SOF Career Field” and included in the list.

The publication that deliberately specifies SOF careers is the DoD pay manual , vetted by the services, CJCS, and approved by Congress. Sections under 080304 of DoD 7000.14-R 2017 states “SOF operators are individuals with the following critical specialties:” and provides a short list limited to Army Special Forces, Navy SEALs/SWCC, Air Force CCT/PJ/TACP/SOWT, and Marine Critical Skills Operator. Assignment under a particular command is not taken into consideration, only MOS/NEC/AFSC. This list is consistent with the definition of SOF Personnel provided in JP 3-05 1-4.c. Pararescue/CRO/TACP/ALO personnel across the Air Force receive this pay, regardless of ADCON, specifically allowed at "any location" by AFI (Air Force SDAP table reiterate this for all DOD pay manual listed SOF operators ).

If the previous information does not match the intent of this page then I suggest that additional caveats be added to specify that other highly trained and specialized combat forces are also conditionally SOF. Here is a short list of similar cases.

• Army Civil Affairs - Page I-3 of JP 3-05 only lists the 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (Airborne) as SOF. The 350th, 351st, 352nd, and 353rd Civil Affairs Commands are different entities that fall under the Army Reserve Command.
• Army Rangers – This debate goes back to the “tab vs scroll” argument. AR614-200 para 5-4 states that the Ranger designation (SQI “G” and “V”) is found in both non-regiment positions and within the 75th Ranger Regiment. Tabbed, non-regiment rangers are found throughout the several commands in the Army and also the Air Force (often Security Forces) and Marines (Recon)
• Navy EOD- Not mentioned in JP 3-05. Unless they volunteer for an NSW position, EOD personnel fall under Navy Expeditionary Command — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocGecko (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sweet! Guess I learn something new every day (this was contradictory to everything I've been taught, so its great to get some new info!)Garuda28 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah terms like "SOF" "Operator" "SOF Support" "Enabler" and more are pretty poorly and inconsistently defined. The Air Force came up with the term "Battlefield Airman" in response to "SOF" personnel getting assigned under different commands. The term is a band-aid. Before 2006, all Rescue squadrons belonged under AFSOC , but were moved under ACC. Nothing about the mission, scope, or training changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocGecko (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

References