That article is full of some pretty serious over-simplifications and inaccuracies. The idea that the Army can shoot in support of a ground unit without a FAC purely based on the pilot is ludicrous. The fact is that most Apaches weren’t anywhere near the ground forces and if they were they would need the same coordination everyone else uses.
CWO4 K and I discussed this at great length (unfortunately not over a beer, damn CENTCOM AOR...), and you're correct - most Apaches weren't near any ground forces. He's a big beliver in the Joint Pub 3-09.3, and was able to convince his battalion commander to send him, 3 others and 2 Apaches to MAWTS-1. He was the one that brought the PAO with him, and wanted the PAO to ask me (and Skull and Lance) specific questions. It's all part of his grass roots effort to change how the Army does business.
What the article over-simplified, but is true - is how the Army uses Apaches. The way CWO4 K explained it to me is that they're essentially integrated into the Army fight as a mechazied, crew-served weapon. In that respect, if an Apache is fighting in an Army battlespace, solely in support of an Army maneuver unit, then what was in the article is true. The Army refers to it as "Close Combat Attack" and it does not require a FAC or JTAC to control. The ground commander is directing an airborne commander, much like an Infantry Battalion commander is directing an LAV to support his scheme of maneuver. The Air Force JTACs assigned to the Army are there to control fixed and rotary-wing Navy/Air Force/Marine strikes, but not Army rotary wing. At least, that's how he explained it to me.
His frustration with the Army's doctrine came about during the battle for Fallujah, when he said that the Apaches set an outer cordon and as he's flying around with 16 Hellfires on board, he's watching skids go in full and come back Winchester. It seems he was not let into the fight because the Army hasn't bought off on the JCAS Pub for their own aircraft. So, in essence with the way the doctrine is set - Army rotary wing can support Army units, and no-one else. He's trying to change that. My guess is that the article was simplified and pumped up Army aviation's no need for FAC crap as the first step in laying the groundwork for why a FAC(A) makes sense, eventually leading to the Army embracing the JCAS Pub. The exercise with us came about because he wanted his younger pilots (who had never been controlled by a FAC) get controlled by both FACs and FAC(A)s, and also to convince some element of the USMC that the Army knows what they're doing. It turned out pretty good from my side of the coin - and I'd work with them again.
