Special Action Force (SAF)
 

Do you think we need to go back to this concept?

BMT

I don't know what it is. Is this close?

SAF

... That's just strange.

SAF
 

Not even close but a nice looking gal. SAF was when SF Gps. had assigned Eng.,MP, ASA, CA and Med. Det.

BMT
Sr. FOG

Aaah! Like the Jarhead thing with the MEU. I'll wait for a while, need to think about it and read some other posts. Right off, it sounds like a good idea to me, which means something is wrong.

BTW, from what I hear, those young ladies have been trained at considerable expense and are not just models. Apparently they are considered "competent" with their weapons.

Yeah..competent!! Don't even start in on me you_______! :DLOL

You better reread that site's bio... Mr. Jack may have to stomp a mud hole in you for ripping on his girls. haha http://www.groundzerointernational.com/staff1.htm

No seriously, from what I hear they really can shoot. Quit hijacking the thread.:D

BMT, when did they get rid of the SAF and why?

SAF
 

I forgot to include an MI det. The only problem I see is getting INSCOM to turn men. Doesn't present day Gps. have an MI det.?

BMT
Sr. FOG

Re: SAF
 

Yes we do and they can be a pain in the ass.

They tried something like this idea with Force XXI. I forget all the different add ons they had, other than the Psyop Detachement.

In 7th, the GP Cdr didnt like the Psyop guys and made them the USR bitches, since no one knew the latin mind like SF Guys.

What would such a set-up do with relations with the rest of the Army? While it might increase SF's ability by allowing them to run the show their own way, wouldn't it also drive a further wedge between SF and the Army?

Solid

Team Sgt:

LMAO!! Especially when you have to live with the squirelly beggars!!

1st SAFAsia was as described. We also had aviation assets if I remember correctly. It allowed teams to deploy on a wider variety of missons with assets directly linked to the command, instead fo borrowed assets. The primary assist was in Civic Action, Disaster Relief, and FID efforts. Easier to get a package on the ground running.

Some problems arose over the fact that some elements, ie Engineers, were not SF and some friction occured. However, it orked well overal and I would recommend going back to it.

As far as jealousy from the Army, we really didn;t get it becasue they were happy we were not using up their assets, only our own.

My 2 cents. :munchin

I work in the Future Capabilities Division of SOCPAC and we have had a few discussions that this may be the way to go in the future. If you look at the TARSOC concept they are almost there already anyway.