Area for Forward Arming and Refueling Operations

A Path Forward

By MSG Stuart L. Mcquinn, CW3 Michael J. Sturgill, CW4 Edward A. Smith, and CW3 Joseph M. Schwermer

Article published on: April 1, 2025 in the April-June 2025 Issue

Read Time: < 13 mins

The area for forward arming and refueling (AFAR) is a forward arming and refueling point (FARP) variation that is quickly gaining traction throughout Army Aviation. As Army Aviation shifts its focus to Large-Scale Combat Operations (LSCO), survivability and sustainment become paramount. Traditional FARPs are increasingly vulnerable to enemy detection and precision fires, necessitating a more agile alternative. Area for forward arming and refueling operations provide a solution by enabling rapid, concealed refueling close to the forward line of own troops (FLOT). The Eagle Team has observed a best practice, which is units establishing multiple AFAR locations with concealed fuel trucks. These trucks rapidly approach inbound aircraft, execute refueling, and immediately displace. This new agile tactic, technique, and procedure (TTP) enhances survivability and extends operational reach. With appropriate measures in place, AFAR operations can be performed safely with minimal risk. This article examines the problem set, safety considerations, training strategies, and planning methodologies necessary to integrate AFAR into aviation operations.

In the contemporary operational environment (OE), “Peer threats use a wide variety of actions, activities, and capabilities to preclude [emphasis added] a friendly force’s ability to shape an operational environment and mass and sustain combat power” (Department of the Army, 2022, p. 2-9). A very simple way to preclude Army Aviation’s ability to sustain combat power is to quickly and decisively eliminate our FARPs. Given the depth at which aviation will be established on the battlefield (division rear or beyond), attack and lift aircraft will have to travel greater than 150–200 km to reach the FLOT. Without the ability to rapidly refuel, aviation units risk culmination, leading to an inability to mass combat power.

During the conflict in Ukraine, persistent drone surveillance has enabled precision strikes on logistical nodes within minutes of detection. Traditional FARPs, with fixed fuel lines and visible equipment, present lucrative targets for adversaries with long-range fires and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The AFAR mitigates this risk by leveraging terrain for concealment and enabling rapid displacement.

The AFAR provides commanders and leaders the ability to place all vehicles and equipment in defilade, where they remain (hidden) until air mission commanders notify the officer-in-charge (OIC)/noncommissioned OIC (NCOIC) that aircraft are inbound for refueling and rearming. This hinders the enemy’s ability to detect and target friendly aircraft and equipment. The AFAR can enhance survivability for sustainment personnel, while prolonging the culmination of aviation operations. However, the successful application of any emerging TTP in combat all starts with mitigating risk through focused training.

Safety Mindset

As with any new concept, safety concerns must be addressed throughout training and operational implementation. Given the high personnel turnover rates within Army units, it is essential that AFAR procedures are regularly practiced to maintain proficiency. Currently, Army doctrine, specifically Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 3-04.17, “Techniques for Forward Arming and Refueling Points,” (2018) and ATP 3-04.1, “Aviation Tactical Employment,“ (2020)¹ lack specific techniques or procedures for conducting AFAR operations. Since AFAR is a new concept, units must experiment in training to refine best practices. As units gain experience, they should incorporate these lessons into their tactical standard operating procedures (SOPs) and unit SOPs. This creates a foundational base upon which the Army can build and refine its execution of AFAR operations. Over time, this will lead to the development of standard TTPs that will inform future doctrine.

Certification Process for AFAR Operations

A critical aspect of implementing AFAR operations is the certification process. While ATP 3-04.17 includes a sample checklist for FARP certification (Department of the Army, 2018, Appendix C), many aspects of that checklist will not apply to the AFAR. A structured certification framework should mirror the rigor of FARP validation, while accounting for AFAR’s unique considerations. It is necessary to create a new checklist that combines elements from the FARP certification checklist, the Aviation Resource Management Survey checklist for cold fuel procedures,² and other requirements specific to the AFAR and the unit’s requirements and operations.

This new checklist should be tailored to the needs of the unit, as the certification process will vary based on mission sets and equipment. For example, in an AH-64 Apache battalion, special consideration must be given to handling munitions such as Hellfire missiles, rockets, and 30 mm. A standardized method for positioning the formation safely, with the aircraft pointed in a safe direction, must be established before executing AFAR operations. The certification process can be streamlined and simplified compared to regular FARP procedures. For example, a one-page checklist created by the aviation safety officer, could be completed by a trained officer or NCO to ensure the operation is conducted safely and efficiently.

Passenger Safety and Marshalling Areas

In traditional FARP operations, passengers are required to exit the aircraft and move to a marshalling area for safety. This procedure is in place due to the inherent fire risks associated with refueling. However, AFAR operations involve significantly faster refueling and rearming times, sometimes within 10 minutes of the aircraft’s arrival, given a highly trained crew.

For instance, when fully equipped Soldiers are reboarding a UH-60 after refueling, it typically takes a well-trained team 3–5 minutes. This process can take more than twice as long in a CH-47 Chinook. The time spent offloading and reloading could lead to 10–15 extra minutes of unnecessary exposure. This delay further exposes the operation to enemy detection. Commanders must weigh the risk of refueling aircraft with passengers aboard vs. prolonging the occupation of the AFAR. Striking the right balance is key to minimizing exposure and addressing risk to force vs. risk to mission.

Night Operations and Ground Safety Considerations

Night and blackout driving is a critical skill for ground guides maneuvering fuel trucks near aircraft. Many Soldiers in combat aviation brigades (CABs) lack proficiency to drive in blackout conditions. Attempting to guide fuel trucks under such circumstances—especially when rotors are turning—poses a significant risk. To mitigate this risk, commanders must focus on building foundational driving skills, starting with daytime missions that transition into night operations. This allows Soldiers to gradually build proficiency and confidence before tackling AFAR operations under full night-vision goggle conditions.

Another potential solution is to re-evaluate how fuel trucks approach aircraft from a safety perspective to further minimize the risk to aircraft and personnel. Area for forward arming and refueling operations are likely to take place in low light/nighttime conditions, making nighttime proficiency essential. It is crucial that the Army continue to prioritize this type of training to ensure the effectiveness of AFAR operations during both day and night.

Communication and Coordination Across Units

Effective communication is critical to the success of any complex operation, especially one as intricate as the AFAR. Many units experience challenges with communication, which can lead to increased risk during operations. Miscommunication or a lack of coordination between company, battalion, and brigade levels could derail the operation and compromise safety. Given that the AFAR is still a new concept with limited established doctrine, units must engage in thorough planning and constant feedback loops. Lessons learned during training and initial operational attempts should be documented and shared across the aviation community. The development of standardized TTPs and SOPs will be essential in making the AFAR concept a repeatable and reliable process.

Employment

Eagle Team Observer, Coaches/Trainers recently observed a general support aviation battalion (GSAB) conducting AFAR training to refine and practice procedures to prepare for future operations. The key points are:

1. Pre-Mission Planning and Coordination

The battalion S-3 (operations officer) determined mission requirements, site selection, and timing. The S-4 (logistics officer) assessed sustainment requirements, including fuel and munitions needs. The forward support company (FSC) commander developed the execution plan and coordinated logistical assets. Communication and rehearsals were conducted between aviators and sustainers to ensure synchronization.

2. AFAR Deployment and Site Preparation

Once an AFAR team has been activated, the first task is ensuring a suitable landing zone (LZ) for inbound aircraft. Terrain elevations play a much greater factor in safe execution, with aircraft to M978 distances being much shorter than a traditional FARP’s layouts utilizing the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Tanker Aviation Refueling System or the Advanced Aviation Forward Area Refueling System. After thorough site reconnaissance is completed, the AFAR team begins marking locations for aircraft to land safely with to land safely with standard visual markers commonly used for night operations. The team can then maneuver the M978s into the terrain for concealment until aircraft arrive. This phase of the operation will generally be 10–30 minutes prior to aircraft arrival.

3. Execution at H-Hour

Displacing M978s into separate sections of the LZ allows the AFAR team to adjust rapidly if aircraft alter the landing plan. Upon arrival, the command and control (C2) node coordinates which vehicles will be utilized during the operation using a ground guide, ensuring safe and minimal maneuvering toward the aircraft on the ground. Upon completion of refueling, those vehicles coordinate with C2 to return to its concealed position. This phase generally lasts between 10–20 minutes and concludes with the AFAR team cycling to the next location.

Training Progression

The recent GSAB training event demonstrated the effectiveness of AFAR operations; however, it also revealed critical areas where refinement is needed. While the execution was successful in a controlled environment, challenges such as nighttime vehicle movement, rapid refueling under pressure, and coordination between aviation and sustainment elements underscore the need for a deliberate and standardized training progression. Without structured instruction, key operational risks such as fuel handling errors, munitions mishaps, and vehicle movement in blackout conditions could compromise the operation. To ensure AFAR operations become a repeatable and reliable capability, units should adopt a phased training approach that builds proficiency at all levels before execution.

Phase 1: Individual Training–Before AFAR can be successfully integrated into full-spectrum operations, personnel must master AFAR-specific tasks. Ground crews train on refueling procedures, blackout driving, and munitions handling, ensuring each team member understands the fundamentals and can operate safely in austere environments.

Phase 2: Crew Certification–To build cohesion and efficiency, AFAR teams conduct full setups in controlled environments, refining coordination, safety procedures, and execution under simulated combat conditions. This phase ensures that each team can perform AFAR operations safely and efficiently before integration into larger-scale training.

Phase 3: Collective Training–Finally, AFAR operations must be incorporated into battalion- and brigade-level exercises to validate interoperability with aviation and sustainment elements. This phase ensures that the AFAR can be executed effectively in LSCO, giving commanders confidence in their unit’s ability to sustain aviation operations forward on the battlefield.

By implementing this phased training model, units can ensure that AFAR operations are not just an emerging concept but a sustainable and standardized capability. A deliberate approach to training will improve operational readiness, reduce risk, and enhance the ability of aviation units to support the ground force commander in dynamic, contested environments.

Planning at Echelon

The AFAR should be a deliberate effort directed at the squadron or battalion level through the operations process to prevent culmination due to sustainment. A key element to any operation is depth, which Army Doctrine Publication 3-90, “Offense and Defense,” defines as “the simultaneous application of combat power throughout an area of operations” (Department of the Army, 2019, p. 4-2). Field Manual 3-04, “Army Aviation,” further states that “depth is best achieved when aviation attacks, air assaults, and FARP/AFAR placements are deliberate, iterative division-level considerations” (Department of the Army, 2025, p. 15).³

At the National Training Center (NTC), we have seen considerable success when CAB commanders delegate C2 of AFAR and FARP operations to the aviation support battalion (ASB)–specifically the support operations officer. This enables centralized control of all sustainment planning in the military decision making process (MDMP) and provides product uniformity across all brigade squadrons and battalions.

Army Techniques Publication 3-04.17 establishes FARP (AFAR) site selection as a function of METT-TC⁴ and is controlled by the battalion S-3. The primary planning considerations are that the FARP (AFAR) meets unit mission requirements, provides support throughout the battlefield under all conditions, and avoids threat observation and engagement. Area for forward arming and refueling site selection should be planned in-depth across all phases of the operation, not just one mission at a time. Provided adequate equipment and personnel, multiple AFAR teams should be employed as close to the FLOT as feasible, with each team occupying its own respective zone. A well-developed decision-support matrix (DSM) should define specific conditions or triggers for AFAR displacement, as determined through MDMP.

In addition to in-depth AFAR site planning, sustainment and resupply of the AFAR should receive equal consideration. In the contemporary OE, it may be realistic to assume that once the AFAR team(s) are employed, it could be weeks to months before they are able to return to the aviation tactical assembly area for refit. So the primary question(s) then is by what means, from what location, and at what points in time is Class I (food, rations, and water)/III(petroleum, oil, and lubricants)/V (ammunition) being resupplied to the AFAR, and are these resupplies time-based or trigger-based? These are also decision points that should be included on the DSM.

As Army Aviation refines AFAR operations, success will depend on deliberate training, standardized certification, and institutional backing. Leaders at all echelons must champion AFAR’s integration into training cycles and advocate for its inclusion in future doctrine. By prioritizing agility, survivability, and sustainment, aviation units will enhance their ability to project power and sustain combat operations in LSCO.

Notes

References