This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation. 6 Jump down to document Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. Limited Electronic Distribution Rights For More Information CHILD POLICY CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution Support RAND This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Bruce R. Pirnie, Alan Vick, Adam Grissom, Karl P. Mueller, David T. Orletsky Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release; distribution unlimited Beyond Close Air Support Forging a New Air-Ground Partnership The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R ® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2005 RAND Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2005 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beyond close air support : forging a new air-ground partnership / Bruce R. Pirnie [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. “MG-301.” ISBN 0-8330-3741-2 (pbk.) 1. Close air support. 2. Military doctrine—United States. 3. United States. Air Force. I. Pirnie, Bruce, 1940– UG700.B48 2005 358.4'142—dc22 2004030608 The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003. Further information may be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF. iii Preface Although airmen have been providing close air support (CAS) to friendly ground forces since World War I, recent operations in Af- ghanistan and Iraq have brought renewed attention to the unique demands of this mission. The Army increasingly views air power as indispensable to its future warfighting concepts and seeks mecha- nisms to ensure that it is available and responsive to the needs of the land forces. For the Air Force, counterland operations are becoming more important, but airmen remain concerned with ensuring that air power’s unique ability to mass rapidly is not lost in efforts to provide on-call fires to small ground elements spread across a large battle space. To address these and related policy challenges, Project AIR FORCE conducted a study of close support on the future battlefield. The study addressed three major policy questions: (1) How should air attack and ground maneuver be integrated? (2) How should the CAS terminal attack control function be executed? (3) How should ground maneuver/fires and air attack be deconflicted? This research builds on work done in Project AIR FORCE over the past ten years to provide a better understanding of the air-ground partnership as well as to en- hance the Air Force contribution in operations against enemy land forces. Previous RAND reports in this area include: • The Stryker Brigade Combat Team: Rethinking Strategic Respon- siveness and Assessing Deployment Options, by Alan Vick, David T. Orletsky, Bruce Pirnie, and Seth G. Jones, MR-1606-AF, 2002. iv Beyond Close Air Support: Forging a New Air-Ground Partnership • Aerospace Operations Against Elusive Ground Targets, by Alan Vick, Richard M. Moore, Bruce Pirnie, and John Stillion, MR-1398-AF, 2001. • Aerospace Operations in Urban Environments: Exploring New Concepts, by Alan Vick, John Stillion, Dave Frelinger, Joel S. Kvitky, Benjamin S. Lambeth, Jefferson P. Marquis, and Matthew C. Waxman, MR-1187-AF, 2000. • Enhancing Airpower’s Contribution Against Light Infantry Targets, by Alan Vick, John Bordeaux, David T. Orletsky, and David A. Shlapak, MR-697-AF, 1996. The research reported here was sponsored by the Director of Operational Planning, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, and was con- ducted within the Strategy and Doctrine Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE. RAND Project Air Force RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF), a division of the RAND Corpo- ration, is the U.S. Air Force’s federally funded research and develop- ment center for studies and analyses. PAF provides the Air Force with independent analyses of policy alternatives affecting the development, employment, combat readiness, and support of current and future aerospace forces. Research is conducted in four programs: Aerospace Force Development; Manpower, Personnel, and Training; Resource Management; and Strategy and Doctrine. The research reported here was prepared under contract F49642-01-C-0003. Additional information about PAF is available at http://www. rand.org/paf. v Contents Preface iii Figures ix Tables xi Summary xiii Acknowledgments xxi Abbreviations xxv CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1 Background 1 Purpose and Organization of This Report 4 CHAPTER TWO The Evolving Relationship Between Air Power and Land Power 7 Air Power Against Armies: Counterland Operations 7 The Spectrum of Counterland Missions 8 Differences Among the Counterland Missions 10 Operational Conceptions of Air Power and Land Power 13 Air Power Augments Land Power 14 Air Power Complements Land Power 15 Air Power Partners with Land Power 16 Air Power Dominates Land Power 18 Air Power Trumps Land Power 19 The Air-Land Partnership in Perspective 20 vi Beyond Close Air Support: Forging a New Air-Ground Partnership Envisioning Air Power and Land Power on Future Battlefields 21 Counterland Operations Are Critical to U.S. Strategy 21 Air Power Is Increasingly Effective Against Land Forces 22 Land Forces Provide Unique and Essential Capabilities 25 Land Forces Are Increasingly Reliant on Aerial Firepower 26 Enemy Reactions Reinforce the Need for Air-Land Integration 27 Why Forge a New Air-Land Partnership? 28 CHAPTER THREE Trends in Counterland Operations 31 Introduction 31 Land Forces Are the Critical Target Set 32 Joint Action Is Improving Counterland 33 Jointness Is Descending to Lower Echelons 36 Kosovo (Operation Allied Force) 38 Strategy 38 Operations 41 Insights 44 Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) 46 Strategy 46 Operations 50 Insights 56 Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) 61 Strategy 61 Operations 64 Insights 70 Changes to Doctrine 74 Missions 75 Fire Support Coordination Line 81 Supported and Supporting Commanders 84 CHAPTER FOUR Army Transformation and the Air-Land Partnership 87 Introduction 87 The Changing Battlefield 88 The Precision Revolution 88 Contents vii Information Technology 90 Force Projection 92 The Army’s Vision of Transformation 93 New Equipment 93 New Combat Organizations 98 New Doctrine 100 Trends in Army Firepower 102 Results 106 Implications for the Air Force 111 CHAPTER FIVE Air Attacks on Call 115 Introduction 115 Desired Characteristics for Aircraft on Call 117 Assessing Required Aircraft 119 Force Structure for Protracted Coverage 121 On Call During a Campaign 122 Conclusion 130 CHAPTER SIX Terminal Attack Control in the Air-Land Partnership 133 Introduction 133 Background 133 The Terminal Attack Control Mission 135 TAC-Aircraft Communications 136 TAC Proficiency Standards and Training Requirements 140 The TAC Manning Dilemma 142 Support for Army Special Forces 143 TACs and the War on Terrorism 144 Current Demand for TACs 144 Future Demand for TAC Elements 145 New Concepts for Terminal Attack Control 150 Expand Situational Awareness of Ground TACs 150 Place TACs on Helicopters 153 Use Helicopter Pilots as Airborne FACs 154 Enhance Capabilities of FAC-As 156 viii Beyond Close Air Support: Forging a New Air-Ground Partnership Enhance Bombers as CAS Platforms 157 Disaggregate the Terminal Attack Function 160 Conclusion 164 CHAPTER SEVEN Conclusions 167 Key Findings 167 Recommendations for the Air Force and the Army 170 Bibliography 173 [...]... ETAC FAC FAC -A Air Force Special Operations Command air interdiction air liaison officer air operations center air support operations center air support operations squadron Army Tactical Command and Control System Airborne Warning and Control System battlefield air interdiction Brigade Unit of Action close air support combat control team Combined Force Air Component Commander Combined Force Land Component... forces in planned offensive operations, and to act as a theater reserve • Air attack and ground maneuver should be planned as mutually enabling activities Close air support is an inaccurate term that implies a one-sided relationship In modern combat, air and ground forces increasingly operate in mutually enabling ways This partnership should be encouraged Close air attack” is a more accurate description... xvi Beyond Close Air Support: Forging a New Air- Ground Partnership more frequently in recent years, take jointness down to the level of very small teams An Operational Detachment-Alpha in the Army’s Special Forces is just a squad, yet it may operate independently, and, normally augmented with terminal attack controllers (TACs), it may call in large numbers of air attacks Conventional forces are operating... terminal attack controller Kosovo Liberation Army laser-guided bomb Multiple Launch Rocket System North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operational Detachment Alpha Stryker brigade combat team secure, mobile, antijam, reliable, tactical terminal special operations forces special tactics squadrons terminal attack controller tactical air control party tactical operations center unmanned aerial vehicle weapons... Functions 161 xi Summary Recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have reawakened interest in counterland operations One battle in particular, Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, sparked a heated debate between the Air Force and the Army about the conduct of close air support (CAS) and led to new efforts to improve the integration of air power and ground power prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom Although these... replacing xiii xiv Beyond Close Air Support: Forging a New Air- Ground Partnership artillery in some cases Marines habitually take this approach, and it might also be valid for Army forces in some situations, such as an airborne assault At the other extreme, air power might coerce an opponent or destroy his military forces in the absence of any ground operation Between the extremes are three plausible alternatives,... weather services (Air Force Doctrine Center, 2000, pp 5–24) 7 8 Beyond Close Air Support: Forging a New Air- Ground Partnership with friendly ground operations or largely independent of them.3 Counterland does not constitute all air attacks against land targets, however; combat operations in the other functional areas, especially counterair, counterspace, strategic attack, and special operations, also... frequently) Marine Corps fighters However, the Army’s relationship to air power is far different from that of the Marine Corps Marine units fight as part of a Marine air- ground task force that includes attack helicopters and fixed-wing attack aircraft The Marines train their ground and air units to fight as a combinedarms team Their airmen see their sole mission as assuring the survival and success of Marines... Beyond Close Air Support: Forging a New Air- Ground Partnership ETAC, Task Force 3-6 9 Armor, 1st Brigade; and TSgt Kevin A Butler, ETAC, 2nd Brigade Maj Michael Pietrucha, the project action officer, provided outstanding support to the study on both substantive and administrative matters We greatly appreciate his detailed and constructive comments on an earlier draft of this report We thank Col Carl Fosnaugh... Commander Central Intelligence Agency Combined Joint Task Force direct attack Department of Defense Defense Satellite Communications System enlisted terminal attack controller forward air controller forward air controller–airborne xxv xxvi Beyond Close Air Support: Forging a New Air- Ground Partnership FCS FSCL FSCM FSE FSO GBS GPS IP ISR IT JAOC JDAM JSTARS JTAC KLA LGB MLRS NATO ODA SBCT SMART-T SOF . as Airborne FACs 154 Enhance Capabilities of FAC-As 156 viii Beyond Close Air Support: Forging a New Air- Ground Partnership Enhance Bombers as CAS Platforms. 45 1-7 002; Fax: (310) 45 1-6 915; Email: order@rand.org Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beyond close air support : forging a new air- ground