0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
312 tayangan163 halaman
This is an introduction to the United States MIlitary concepts of Joint Forces and their ability to interact within the framework of a joint operating environment. This means that they are put together to fight wars and they describe how this helps them to win battles and thing that are necessary to the unification and aid to the national security of the United States of America.
This is an introduction to the United States MIlitary concepts of Joint Forces and their ability to interact within the framework of a joint operating environment. This means that they are put together to fight wars and they describe how this helps them to win battles and thing that are necessary to the unification and aid to the national security of the United States of America.
This is an introduction to the United States MIlitary concepts of Joint Forces and their ability to interact within the framework of a joint operating environment. This means that they are put together to fight wars and they describe how this helps them to win battles and thing that are necessary to the unification and aid to the national security of the United States of America.
JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE
LESSON OVERVIEW LESSON THESIS
Doctrine provides guidance for the conduct of military affairs, both at the service and joint level. Understanding its fundamental intent both at the service and joint level is essential to comprehending military operations.
The US Air Force is the nations decisive air combat force. It is capable of a wide array of missions across the air, space and cyberspace realms. To understand the Air Force it is essential to explore its organization, capabilities and limitations, and unique force presentation structure. LESSON OBJECTIVES
1. Comprehend the role of doctrine and how each service organizes it.
2. Comprehend Air Force missions, capabilities and limitations.
3. Comprehend how the Air Force presents forces for joint operations.
4. Comprehend how the Air Force is organized to support joint operations.
LESSON INTEGRATION AND RATIONALE
This lesson introduces the course as a whole and presents specific information regarding the US Air Force. To inform the introduction, material is presented that describes what joint operations are and explains why the US places such a high value on them. The course then presents information regarding concepts that will be used throughout the course. These include the role of doctrine both service and joint and organizing concepts. Finally, the lesson introduces the first of the services the building blocks of joint forces the US Air Force. The focus here, as with the other services in following lessons, is on organization, capabilities and limitations and force presentation.
1 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE INTRODUCTION US military forces exist for the purpose of fulfilling national security objectives, and they do this by operating together as joint forces. In fact, today it is considered intuitive that military operations and joint operations are virtually synonymous, although this was not always the case. Through experience both successful and not so successful the US military and its civilian leadership grew to understand the benefits of truly joint operations.
LESSON READINGS AND VIDEOS Readings and videos will be listed in the appropriate section.
REQUIRED LESSON MATERIAL
Murray, The Evoluti on of Joint Warfare (2002). Read the entire article. This reading provides a broad overview of the evolution of joint operations. It points out how failure to consider and apply joint operating concepts can be costly, and describes how the US military increasingly valued jointness.
Goldwater-Nichols Act: Time for Reform (2000). Read pages 1 through 4. This reading provides an overview of how the Goldwater-Nichols Act changed the DODs role in national security. In doing so it reviews the national security system from the NSA of 1947 through the GNA of 1986.
2 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE PREPARATION FOR THE COURSE DOCTRINE
Doctrine beliefs about the best ways to conduct affairs forms the foundation for how the military carries out operations, but it is more than that. It both synchronizes understanding within and across organizations, and provides friction points that drive the future best ways to conduct affairs. Accordingly, doctrine is not set in stone and it is not even prescriptive. It is an authoritative guide to action that can, and does, change when required. For the military, it occupies an important niche below strategy and above tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs).
Airpower Journal 1992
The services and the joint community develop doctrine and this is important for two reasons. First, what the services believe about how best to conduct operations influences their budgets, training and operational constructs, and this is no small matter. Second, the joint community must consider what each service brings to the fight and then develop how best to integrate those capabilities and limitations. This is accomplished through doctrine. It is here that doctrinal clashes can occur when two services have different beliefs about how best to approach a problem. In addition, doctrine both service and joint will be presented throughout this course.
REQUIRED LESSON MATERIAL
Drew and Snow, Military Doctrine (1988). Read the entire article. This reading defines the purpose and scope of doctrine as it pertains to the military.
Ai r Force Doctrine, Volume 1, Basic Doctrine. Read selected text. This reading provides a broad overview of the Air Forces view on the relation of policy, strategy, and doctrine, as well as the uses, source, levels, and types of doctrine.
3 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE SERVICE DOCTRINE
Each of the services approach doctrine differently and while the reasons for this are beyond the scope of this course, it is interesting to note the number of doctrinal publications produced and the specificity with which the different services draft doctrine. Some publications are very broad and accordingly long enduring, while others are quite specific requiring shorter reproduction times.
For each service below, a link to their doctrine site is provided as well as a listing of their primary doctrinal publications.
An Army Knowledge Online (AKO) account is required to access the Army doctrine site.
Army Doctrine Publication 1, The Army (2012). Scan. This capstone doctrinal publication describes the purpose, roles and functions of the Army, and links it to the joint environment.
Army Doctrine Publication 3-0, Unified Land Operations (2012) This capstone doctrinal publication describes how the Army conducts operations.
The Air Force The LeMay Center provides links to Air Force Doctrine. Air Force Doctrine website. Scan Volume 1, Basic Doctrine and Annex 3-0, Operations and Planning. Thes documents codify and describe what the Air Force believes about warfighting, organizing, and operations.
Click on the patches below to hyperlink to each services doctrine site. In addition, click on the primary doctrinal publications provided for each service and scan the contents to gain familiarity with their beliefs.
4 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE
The Marine Corps Doctrine website provides links to Marine Corps doctrine. (CAC required)
MCDP 1 Warfighting (1997) This document describes what distinguishes the Marine Corps perception of warfighting from the other services.
MCDP 1-0 Marine Corps Operations (2011) This document explains the Marine Corps expeditionary approach to maneuver warfare.
The Navy Doctrine website provides links to Navy doctrine. (CAC required)
NDP 1, Naval Warfare (2010) This document describes what the Navy believes about the distinctiveness of military operations in the maritime domain. .
This Coast Guard doctrine site provides links to key Coast Guard doctrine publications.
Pub 1, US Coast Guard: Americas maritime Guardian (2009) This document describes what the Coast Guard believes about itself and the operations it conducts.
5 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE JOINT DOCTRINE
J oint doctrine is different from service doctrine because it must integrate the capabilities and limitations inherent in disparate services. This amalgamation of service skills, traditions and expertise should result in new approaches to warfare that rise above simply working together, and result in true integration. The goal, as with all military doctrine, is enhanced operational effectiveness. Born out of service doctrine, joint doctrine incorporates many considerations such as lessons learned from joint operations, changing force structures and shifting mission requirements.
Joint Doctrine Hierarchy - Jun 2012 (JEL)
Click on the links below and scan these primary joint publications to gain familiarity with these primary joint publications.
J P 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States (25 March 2013). This document describes basic doctrine for the joint community.
J P 3-0, J oint Operations (11 Aug 2011) This document describes fundamental operational considerations for the conduct of joint operations.
6 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE REQUIRED LESSON MATERIAL CJCSI 5120.02, Joint Doctrine Development System (30 Nov 2004). Read Enclosure A. This reading describes the role of joint doctrine and its relationship to service doctrine.
Joint Publication (JP) 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, (25 March 2013). Read Chapter VI, Section 4. This reading describes many aspects of doctrine including its purpose, elements and application.
7 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE ORGANIZING FUNDAMENTALS Equally as important to how the military believes it should conduct operations is the notion of how it organizes itself to do so. This important concept goes well beyond understanding a simple organization chart. Many factors influence organization and these include internal elements, external environments, rate of change, etc. Accounting for these is an important consideration when striving for operational effectiveness the very purpose of military operations.
From an organizational standpoint the military fundamentally organizes for two purposes. First, it does so to promote institutional efficiency, and this is evident in the positions of the services with the Department of Defense (DOD) or the major commands within the services. The focus here is on hierarchical organizations, function, internal controls and chains-of-command institutional efficiency. Second, the military organizes for operational effectiveness, and this is evident when service assets are brought together as joint forces.
The difference between these two approaches is relevant to this course in two ways. First, it brings into focus the two chains-of-command operating within the DOD the operational and other-than-operational chains-of-command. Second, the concepts explored here are of paramount concern when evaluating how the services transition from their legacy organizational structures into operationalized joint forces via force presentation.
DOD Organization (JP 1)
8 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE An important issue to consider, given the external environment and rates of change experienced by the military, is the efficacy of these organizational structures. Are there better ways to organize todays military at either the macro or micro level? Other organizational structures flattened structures, matrixed organizations with dual chains- of-command and horizontal linkages, etc exist and may offer opportunities to improve operational effectiveness.
REQUIRED LESSON MATERIAL
Understanding and Designing Military Organizations for a Complex Dynamic Environment (2008). Read pages 10 through 16. This reading describes basic organization theory and relates it to organizations within the Department of Defense. It is relevant here and throughout the remainder of the course.
DODM 8260.03 Vol 2, 14 Jun 2011. Read pages 11 through 13 and page 19. This reading describes DOD precepts for leadership and command and how they relate to organizing the force.
9 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION
The Air Force fulfills certain functions which are listed below. Within this framework, and under the other than operational chain-of-command, it organizes, trains and equips in preparation for use in joint operations.
DOD Chain-of-Command (JP 1)
Service Functions (JP 1)
10 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE
While this context is common to all of the services, each is unique in how they approach their responsibilities. For the Air Force, this means preparation for warfare through the exploitation of airpower air, space and cyberspace with a focus on theater-wide and national objectives versus linear force-on-force engagements. This is an important distinction that drives how the Air Force organizes, trains and equips itself.
REQUIRED LESSON MATERIAL
Joint Publication (JP) 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, (25 March 2013). Read I-11 through I-16 and II-11 through II-13. These readings provides context for the presentation of the services. They describe the instruments of national power, the chains-of-command relevant to the DoD, the missions of the services and the roles and functions of the military departments. The concepts presented here apply to all the services.
Manpower and Organization, AFI 38-101 (16 Mar 2011). Read 1.2 through 1.2.5 and 2.2 through 2.2.1.2. This reading describes why the Air Force organizes the way it does, and then explains the purpose of core Air Force organizational units.
NWC Learning Module Air Force Review the following sections. Major Commands Organization-Typical Structure Fighter/Bomber Wing Mobility Wing Network Warfare Wing
11 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS
The Air Force organizes, trains and equips its forces for the expressed purpose of meeting national security objectives. This overwhelmingly means by supporting joint operations where capabilities, limitations and interdependencies are critically important concepts.
Capabilities abilities of service forces may seem to be a simple concept, but it is actually nuanced and can be viewed in several ways. Fundamentally, capabilities like doctrine center on the notion of effects. Accordingly, desired outcomes should inform the discussion, not the assets that provide them. For example, a desired outcome may be for 24 hours of sustained air refueling over a specific region, and this should be expressed this way versus a platform-based discussion focused on the KC-135 or KC- 10. On a similar note, capabilities are often expressed at different levels such as functions or missions.
Limitations shortfalls in abilities or vulnerabilities inherent in the application of service abilities are rarely mentioned directly in service publications. Instead, their identification is more intuitive. For example, to carry the above example a bit further, the capability to provide 24 hours of sustained air refueling may be accompanied by the limitation of asset vulnerability to enemy air attack. Consideration of limitations is just as important as that of capabilities, and they must be mitigated in some way technological advances, changes in intended use, effective joint integration, etc.
Interdependencies relationships across capabilities and limitations that generate mutual benefit occur within and across services. Not surprisingly, for military operations the intent is improved operational effectiveness. To continue with the above example, if the capability of 24 hours of sustained air refueling, limited by air-to-air
12 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE threats, was supported with a friendly air-to-air capability, the interdependencies inherent in the matching of these capabilities and limitations would enhance operational effectiveness. The goal is finding these interdependencies and exploiting them.
For the Air Force, capabilities are considered across the domains of air, space and cyberspace, and at several levels. The two key levels considered here are at the function and mission level, and these are supplemented by presentations that link assets to capabilities.
Air Force Doctrine categorizes the services capability into eighteen operations:
REQUIRED LESSON MATERIAL.
NWC Air Force Review the following sections. (Click on Additional Resources in the upper right corner of the module screen, then Aircraft.)
13 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE MC-130E/H
Ai r Force Doctrine, Volume 4, Operations. Read selected text. This reading provides an overview of the eighteen Air Force operations.
AIR FORCE FORCE PRESENTATION
Force presentation how a service presents forces for use in a joint environment is a critically important concept. It is how service forces transition to the operational chain- of-command, and it involves much more than assets and their capabilities and limitations. It also includes their organization, garrison-to-deployment issues, command and control considerations, and deployment timelines. The Air Force concept of force presentation has evolved over the years but its two central elements remain the same the Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) and the Air Expeditionary Task Force (AETF).
The AEF constitutes a management mechanism to schedule, train and deploy Air Force assets for expeditionary use in joint operations. Accordingly, central elements include rotation cycles, personnel management and available capabilities. Within this construct, Air Force capabilities (personnel and assets) are assigned to AEF buckets that flow through training and vulnerability for deployment windows. It is important to understand that the AEF concept is evolutionary in that it is updated continuously. On the short horizon is the next iteration AEF Next.
14 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE
The AETF constitutes the war-fighting presentation of Air Force forces for use by joint force commanders. Pulled from AEF elements, the AETF is a specifically tailored force designed explicitly to meet operational requirements. One important point is that Air Force forces presented for joint use will always fall under a Commander of Air Force Forces (COMAFFOR). This point will be reemphasized with each service and explained in detail in Lesson 4.
REQUIRED LESSON MATERIAL.
AFI 10-401, Air Force Operations Planning and Execution (7 Dec 2006, IC 3 21 Jul 2010) Read 2.1 through 2.11. This reading describes the methodology supporting the Air Forces AEF construct, the AEF structure and the AETF concept.
NWC Air Force Review the following sections. How We are Organized Organization-Total Force How We Fight Providing Forces For J oint Operations Air And Space Expeditionary Forces AEF Combat Support J FACC Responsibilities
15 JOINT FORCES LESSON 1 INTRODUCTION AND THE AIR FORCE J FACC Internal to J oint Task Force J FACC External to J oint Task Force
Ai r Force Doctrine, Volume 1, Basic Doctrine. Read selected text. This reading provides an overview of the Air Expeditionary Task Force, its organization, several examples, and its command and control mechanisms.
AEF Next Brief (2011) Review entire brief. This AEF Online brief outline the next evolution in the AEF construct.
CONCLUSION This lesson introduced the course and presented important elements doctrine and organizing considerations that will be used throughout the course. It then explored the organization, capabilities and limitation, and force presentation schema used by the Air Force. The next two lessons will explore the other services using this same framework.
16
30 JFQ / Summer 2002
J O I N T
W A R F I G H T I N G the use of military capabilities in con- cert. That is a complex process, not because of obstacles posed by individ- ual service cultures alone, but because the evolution of joint warfare poses intractable problems. Moreover, such capabi l i ti es can requi re l evel s of spending that cannot be allocated to the military in peacetime. The Continental Powers Of the emerging states in the early 1700s, England had the greatest tradi- tion of cooperation between land and J oint warfare is largely a phe- nomenon of the last century. Yet ever since the 17 th century, as Western militaries developed into professional, disciplined institu- tions responsive to their rulers, many states have sought to project power abroad. Technology has increasingly shaped the conduct of war, forcing The Evolution of Joint Warfare By W I L L I A M S O N M U R R A Y Williamson Murray is coauthor of A War To Be Won: Fighting the Second World War and coeditor of The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 13002050. British landing in Egypt, 1801. Courtesy Special Collections, NDU Library sea forces. That nation originated with the invasion of William the Conqueror which brought the Normans to power. His descendants, particularly Edward III and Henry V, used domination of the English Channel and adjacent wa- ters to invade the Continent, which came close to destroying France. While impressive, one cannot speak of those campaigns as joint warfighting because military institutions of the day were not professional or permanent. Per- haps one exception was the Battle of Sluys in 1340, when Edward III launched a fleet with archers bearing longbows to slaughter the French, leading to an era in which Edward was lord of the sea. 1 Nevertheless, it was only with the end of the 16 th century that Europeans began thinking in terms of joint coop- eration. The destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588 underlined the perils in coordinating forces on land and at sea. Planning an expedition in Madrid and moving a fleet in the Channel with armies in the Low Countries proved overwhelming. Such a combination had worked against tribal levies of American Indians, who had stone-age weapons and no knowledge of firearms, while diseases spread by the Spaniards killed those natives who survived combat. But Spain was unprepared for the complex- ity of land and sea warfare against a Eu- ropean power. Such difficulties were ex- acerbated by the skillful leadership of British maritime forces, and unfamiliar- ity with the Channel inevitably turned the great expedition launched by Philip II into a failure. By the mid-17 th century a num- ber of European states, led by Holland and Sweden, created recognizable armies and navies that were respon- sive to war ministries and admiralties. The major ingredient in the rise of these institutions was intense compe- tition for hegemony on the Conti- nent, a struggle in which growing and disciplined armies grappled for domi- nation. But as the century unfolded Europeans found themselves vying for empire. At first the competition in- volved navies contending for mar- itime supremacy, but at the end of the century more significant colonies like the Sugar Islands in the Caribbean boasted grand fortifications and gar- risons. France and England emerged as great powers competing for empire by the dawn of the 18 th century. At the same time the army of Louis XIV threatened the balance of power. The War of Spanish Succession broke out in 1702 and was the first world war. On the Continent, the Duke of Marl- borough, with Dutch and Hapsburg allies, won a number of victories that rocked the French monarchy. London waged war at sea for supremacy over the Atlantic and Mediterranean while contesting control over North Amer- ica, the Caribbean, and India. English colonists in North America called this conflict Queen Annes War after the sovereign. Neither nation could proj- ect ample power beyond Europe to win decisively, but the war was the opening round in a struggle that lasted the rest of the century. The New World The Seven Years Warknown as the French and Indian Wars in North Americadecided which nation was the dominant power outside Europe. It also resolved that English would be- come the dominant world language. Moreover, it was the first instance in which naval power projected land forces over great distances, supported them, and prevented an enemy from being reinforced. From an American point of view, the decisive campaign occurred in 1756 when the British under James Wolfe besieged Quebec. Historians argue that the fate of North America was decided on the Plains of Abraham when Wolfe defeated Mont- calm. In fact, British forces occupying Quebec City spent a winter near star- vation and under threat of attack from the French in the province. Yet when the spring thaw melted the ice on the river, the Royal Navy, with substantial reinforcements, sailed into the Gulf of St. Lawrence before the French, and the fate of North America was sealed. The capacity to employ land and naval forces together over great oceanic distances allowed the British empire to survive the strategic and po- litical ineptitude demonstrated in its war against the American colonists in the 1770s. Control of the sea and the ability to extend power almost at will could not overcome errors made by Lord Frederick North. Despite project- ing great armies across the Atlantic, the British could not stifle the inde- pendence movement. The capture of New York in 1776by means of a real Summer 2002 / JFQ 31 M u r r a y J O I N T
W A R F I G H T I N G Storming Badajos Castle, 1812. Courtesy Special Collections, NDU Library J F Q F O R U M 32 JFQ / Summer 2002 J O I N T
W A R F I G H T I N G the projection of Army forces by the Navy. Grant secured access to the southern heartland in one brilliant move. The victories at Forts Donelson and Henry gave the North an advan- tage in the West from which the South never recovered. It took close coopera- tion between Navy officers who ran the gunboat fleet and Army command- ers to use this edge to the fullest. The importance of that cooperation was underlined in April 1862 when Union vessels reinforced Grant with troops under General Don Carlos Buell at Shiloh. Joint cooperation developed in 1862 was crucial to the campaign against Vicksburg in spring 1863. Ad- miral David Porter dashed past the de- fenses at Vicksburg in April, which al- lowed Grant to cross the Mississippi to the south and begin the most impres- sive campaign of the Civil War, which resulted not only in the capture of Vicksburg but of an entire Confederate army in the field. The Great War Joint warfare existed primitively and under specialized conditions be- fore 1900. It became increasingly cru- cial with a fitful start in World War I. The Dardanelles campaign, which Winston Churchill launched over strong opposition from Admiral Sir John (Jackie) Fisher, failed largely be- cause the British army and navy could not cooperate. This dismal example of jointness on the tactical and opera- tional levels resulted in the collapse of the one strategic alternative to slug- ging out the war on the Western Front with an enormous cost in men and matriel. One area of joint cooperation on the tactical level did enjoy significant success. By 1918 both the Allies and Germany were using aircraft to support ground attacks. The Germans actually designated close air support squadrons, specially equipped and trained for the Michael Offensive in March 1918. Sim- ilarly, the British supported tanks and infantry with air in the successful at- tack of August 1918which General Eric Ludendorff described as the black- est day in the war, especially because joint operationand the offensive across New Jersey almost destroyed the revolutionary army. Nevertheless, Gen- eral George Washington and his forces survived, and the campaign in the next year that launched the British under Sir William Howe against Philadelphia also left the invasion of upper New York by General John Bur- goyne in the lurch, leading to defeat at Saratoga. The die was cast when other powers intervened. Nevertheless, the union of land and seapower extended British control from the Caribbean to India against a great coalition. Basil Liddell Hart characterized the approach by London in this period as the British way of war. But as Sir Michael Howard pointed out, Britain was only successful when its opponents in Europe fought a continental and overseas war, which demanded the commitment of substantial land forces. France failed throughout the 18 th cen- tury because its leaders were unclear on which war was being fought. In at- tempting to fight both, they lost both. French revolutionaries in 1789 and Napoleon had clear goals, largely in- volving conquest on the Continent. British amphibious expeditions against French-controlled territory were dismal failures, at least until the war in Spain. Joint warfare only worked in distant places in efforts to grab French posses- sions or areas removed from French power. Joint, in this context, meant landing troops at some distance from an enemy and then supplying them by sea. But when Britain committed forces and a first class general to the Conti- nent, it had a major impact on the strategic position of France. The Penin- sula War against the French in Spain was one of the few instances of joint- ness in the Napoleonic era. North and South The Civil War saw the first gen- uine joint operationsan approach that developed because of the geo- graphic situation, namely, the river- ways of the west. At the outset, the Union dominated the maritime bal- ance, which allowed Lincoln to impose a blockade on the Confederacy and control offshore forts. In the spring of 1862, General George McClellan launched a seaborne attack on the Yorktown Peninsula. The Navy landed troops and supported the Fed- eral advance on Richmond. At that point a series of blows launched by General Robert E. Lee drove Union forces back down the Yorktown Peninsula. U.S. gunboats rendered signal service by stopping an enemy assault on Malvern Hill, inflicting horrendous Confederate losses. Nevertheless, there was only rudimentary jointness during these engagements. The western theater was the scene of real jointness on the Mississippi, Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee Rivers which offered deep avenues for Union forces. The fall of Forts Donel- son and Henry to General Ulysses S. Grant in winter 1862 opened Ken- tucky, Tennessee, and northern Missis- sippi to Muscle Shoals in Alabama to N a v a l H is t o r ic a l C e n t e r Admiral David Porter. the Civil War saw the first genuine joint operations because of the riverways of the west of the increased confusion and great disturbance air attacks caused the ground troops. 2 However, only the Germans learned from such experi- ences in the joint arena. There was more movement to- ward creating joint capabilities in the interwar period, though there were major differences among nations. In Germany, the Luftwaffe became a sepa- rate service in 1935. Its leaders showed considerable interest in strategic bombing from the outset, but they also supported other missions. As a result, they devoted substantial resources to capabilities to assist the army in com- bined-arms mechanized warfare. At the same time the navy and air force ex- hibited virtually no interest in working together, the results of which were evi- dent in World War II. The British organized the only joint higher command during the in- terwar years, the Chiefs of Staff Sub- committee. On the other hand, the military proved unwilling to develop joint doctrine and capabilities. The Royal Air Force, fearing that joint co- operation would end its independence as a separate service, wrote such exclu- sionary basic doctrine on strategic bombing that real teamwork among services hardly existed. When war came in 1939, the air force proved quickly that it could support neither land forces with interdiction attacks nor maritime forces in protecting sea lines of communication in the Atlantic. In addition, the air force pro- vided the navy with carrier aircraft that were obsolete in comparison to American and Japanese planes. But the other services were hardly more forthcoming than the Royal Air Force. In 1938 the commandant of the Royal Navy Staff College raised the possibility of joint amphibious opera- tions, which met with total rejection. The attitudes of senior officers ranged from a smug belief that such opera- tions had been successful in the last war to plain confidence that they would not be needed again. The Deputy Chief of the Air Staff argued that Gallipoli revealed that nothing was really wrong with amphibious techniques except communications. The navy was just as unenthusiastic. The Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, Admi- ral Andrew Cunningham, who eventu- ally commanded naval forces in the Mediterranean, reported that the Ad- miralty at the present time could not visualize any particular [joint] opera- tion taking place and they were, there- fore, not prepared to devote any con- siderable sum of money to equipment for [joint] training. 3 Finally, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Lord John Gort, declared that the railroad enabled landpower to be concentrated more rapidly than seapower. Thus the strategic mobility conferred by seapower, while politically attractive, would no longer work in favor of seapower. Such attitudes go far in ex- plaining the disastrous conduct of the Norwegian campaign. The American record is much bet- ter in several respects. The nascent air service, which was a branch of the Army administratively (first as the Army Air Corps, then as the Army Air Forces), displayed much the same dis- regard for past experience as did the Royal Air Force in Britain; it was unin- terested in cooperating with land or naval forces. In the sphere of joint am- phibious doctrine, however, the United States was ahead of other na- tions, undoubtedly because of the pe- culiarities of its military organization. The Department of the Navy had its own land force, the Marine Corps, and because no unified air component had been created, both the Navy and Marines had air assets. Maritime strate- gists considered joint amphibious op- erations by the realities of distance in the Pacific. It was clear that amphibi- ous capabilities would be needed to seize logistic bases in the region. The Marines led the effort on am- phibious warfare throughout this pe- riod. By the outbreak of World War II, the Corps developed doctrine and pro- cedures with considerable cooperation from the Navy and some help from the Army. Although the equipment re- quired for such operations had not been fielded, the services had estab- lished a conceptual basis for joint am- phibious operations. Summer 2002 / JFQ 33 M u r r a y J O I N T
W A R F I G H T I N G N a t io n a l A r c h iv e s German maneuvers in Bavaria, 1931. J F Q F O R U M 34 JFQ / Summer 2002 J O I N T
W A R F I G H T I N G military problems that the British had created before World War II played a major role. The system was not so im- pressive in the early years, but that was largely due to overwhelming Axis strength. But Britain was able to set the conditions for the recovery of Western fortunes once the United States en- tered the war. The analytic power of the system persuaded America to embark on major op- erations in the Mediterranean, a commitment that was funda- mentally counter to Washingtons view of the war. The success of this ap- proach by London to a joint articula- tion of strategy, particularly at the Casablanca Conference, led to the es- tablishment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an organizational approach that emphasized jointness on the opera- tional level. U.S. joint operations reached their high point in the Pacific. The tyranny of distance meant that the services had to work together to project military power. In the Southwest Pacific, Gen- eral Douglas MacArthur advanced up the coastline of New Guinea with the superb support of Fifth and Thirteenth World War II It is almost as difficult to extol joint warfare conducted by the Axis as combined warfare. Germany, with its ability to cooperate on the tactical level, achieved stunning results at the start of World War II. But the invasion of Nor- way, Operation Weserbung, was in large part the result of British bungling. The Germans lacked joint strategy or, for that matter, joint operational concepts. Planning for Operation Sealion in sum- mer 1940the proposed invasion of Britaindisplayed no common concept of operations or even common lan- guage. Matters never improved. There was no joint high commandthe Armed Forces High Command, Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, was little more than an administrative staff that supported Hitler. General Walter War- limont, one of its members, noted: In fact the advice of the British Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Joint Chiefs was the deciding factor in Allied strategy. At the comparable level in Germany, there was nothing but a disastrous vacuum. 4 This situation was as much due to interser- vice rivalry as to der Fhrer. The same was true for the other Axis forces. In the case of Italy, the so- called Commando Supremo exercised no real power over the services, which waged three separate efforts. The result was that the Italian military never pro- posed sound strategic or operational al- ternatives to a regime which in its ideo- logical fog did not balance available means with attainable ends. Things were no better in Japan which had no joint high command. Without higher direction, the Imperial army and navy waged two separate wars until their misfortunes in early 1944. Thereafter, the preponderance of American strength was such that it mattered little what Japan did or did not do. The conduct of joint warfare by the Allies was on a different plane. On the strategic level, the organizational structure for analyzing strategic and U.S. joint operations reached their highpoint in the Pacific U . S .
A r m y Casablanca conference, 1943. Air Forces under General George Ken- ney as well as naval components. By conducting joint operations, MacArthur kept the Japanese permanently off guard. Similarly, after the losses at Tarawa alerted Admiral Chester Nimitz and his commanders to the problems of opposed landings, the Central Pacific is- land-hopping campaign emerged as one of the most impressive operational-level campaigns of the war, especially the co- operation displayed by soldiers, sailors, and marines. The result was seizure of bases in spring 1944 which Army Air Force strategic bombers used for their attacks against the Japanese homeland. The situation in Europe was simi- lar. By spring 1944 the Allies developed the capabilities to enable the most complex joint operation of the waran opposed landing on the coast of France. Cooperation was not always willingly given. The American and British strategic bomber communities struggled in March 1944 to escape being placed under the operational command of General Dwight Eisen- hower. They lost because Eisenhower was willing to appeal to Roosevelt and Churchill. Eisenhower and his deputy, Air Marshal Arthur Tedder, then used air forces, including strategic bombers, to attack transportation across France. By June 1944 the transport system was wrecked; in effect the Germans had lost the battle of the buildup before the first Allied troops landed. Joint operations were less success- ful on Omaha Beach, where U.S. casu- alties were three times heavier than those suffered at Tarawa six months earlier. General George Marshall had been impressed by landings in the Pa- cific. Consequently, he detailed the commander of 7 th Division at Kwa- jalein, Major General Pete Corlett, to pass along lessons learned. However, when he arrived in Europe, Corlett dis- covered that Army commanders re- sponsible for Overlord had no interest in learning from a bush league the- ater. 5 The result was that soldiers who went ashore at Omaha received twenty minutes of naval gunfire support from one battleship (whereas the enemy gar- rison at Kwajalein had been bom- barded by no less than seven battle- ships). The landing at Omaha came perilously close to defeat, which might have led to the failure of Overlord. Postwar Period When World War II ended, Allied forces were poised to launch the largest joint operation in historyOlympic, the invasion of Japanwhich would have dwarfed even Overlord. By then jointness had peaked. Unfortunately, such cooperation would not be equaled until Desert Storm in 1991. Many factors were at work. The first was the advent of nuclear weapons, which changed war to such an extent that many leaders, particularly airmen, believed the lessons of World War II were no longer valid. Secondly, those who had conducted the war in Europe came to dominate the postwar mili- tary, and that theater had seen less joint cooperation than the Pacific. Finally, while joint cooperation had reached significant levels, it was largely the result of operational and tactical requirements. The peacetime culture of the prewar military returned. Thus General Omar Bradley, who became Chairman in the late 1940s, in an ef- fort to eviscerate the Marine Corps in the name of jointness, announced that there would never be another major amphibious operation. The Key West Agreements, which were the result of interservice bicker- ing, determined the course of joint op- erations until the Goldwater Nichols Act. They represented a weak compro- mise between the Army belief in a strong joint community and the Navy and Marine Corps desire for service communities. But to a certain extent the Army undermined its own position by attempting to eliminate the Marine Corps from the equation. Moreover, the establishment of the Air Force, with a corporate culture that deni- grated all roles and missions except strategic bombing, a concept which was reinforced by nuclear weapons, did little to advance cooperation. Jointness after Key West was unim- pressive. The Air Force resisted support- ing land forces throughout the Korean War. The Army and Marine Corps coop- erated when necessary, but hardly waged what could be termed joint opera- tions on the ground. Part of this predicament can be traced to the nature of the conflict during its final two years, Summer 2002 / JFQ 35 M u r r a y J O I N T
W A R F I G H T I N G U . S .
A r m y
( H o w a r d
C .
B r e e d lo v e ) Recon platoon, Vietnam, 1967. J F Q F O R U M 36 JFQ / Summer 2002 J O I N T
W A R F I G H T I N G powers to the unified commanders. It also made joint assignments an essen- tial step in promotion to general and flag rank. Where Do We Go from Here? The Armed Forces are facing rapid change. Some contend that technolog- ical advances are revolutionary and will allow the military to detect ene- mies from afar and destroy everything that moves. Some even contend that technology can remove the fog of war. But such possibilities are unlikely be- cause they defy modern science and what science suggests about the world. Nevertheless, technologists do have a point: modern information sys- tems may significantly decrease the friction that U.S. and allied forces might encounter while increasing those of enemy forces. And it is in the realm of joint command and control that such technologies might make the greatest contribution. As Eisen- hower wrote in 1946: Separate ground, sea, and air warfare is gone forever. If we ever again should be in- volved in war, we will fight with all el- ements, with all services, as one single concentrated effort. 6 Yet impediments to jointness remain today. One problem is that the services still control budgeting. Thus unified commands have put capabilities on their wish lists such as unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic countermeasure air- craft, and other platforms dealing with intelligence, surveillance, and recon- naissance. The services have under- funded programs to the point that the Pentagon describes such capabilities as high demand, low density. Unwilling- ness to fund such items that could con- tribute to joint operations is only the symptom of systemic problems within the Armed Forces. Bluntly, joint culture does not form the outlook of general and flag officers. Without that perspec- tive, those serving in joint assignments find it difficult to develop realistic con- cepts of how one might actually use emerging technologies to fight future wars. Joint culture depends on complex factorseducation, operational experi- ence, and deep understanding of indi- vidual service capabilities. as Washington was willing to accept stalemate. Nevertheless, the services very often put American lives at risk in pursuit of parochial goals. Vietnam was no better. A key fac- tor in the mistaken assumptions which the United States entertained in sum- mer 1965 were service perspectives that prevented the Joint Chiefs of Staff from speaking coherently or giving joint strategic and operational advice. Two tactical air forces waged inde- pendent campaigns. Air Force fighter bombers, flying mostly from Thailand, attacked in and around Hanoi. Naval aircraft from carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin limited themselves to targets near Haiphong and the North Viet- namese coast. But there was minimal joint cooperation, which resulted in mounting losses in an air campaign which had minimal focus. Jointness in the ground war was also problematic. The nominal theater commander, General William West- moreland, deployed Marine units in central Vietnam instead of using them in the Delta where amphibious capa- bilities would have been more effec- tive. The Air Force dropped tons of ordnance across South Vietnam but paid relatively little attention to the re- quirements of land forces. While close air support often proved crucial to sol- diers and marines, the Air Force con- sidered it in terms of what was most convenient to a mechanistic view of war and measures of effectiveness rather than what would be most help- ful to land forces under attack. When the war ended in early 1973, the U.S. military was in shambles. Poorly disciplined, riven by racial strife, disheartened by defeat, and reviled by civilian society, each service had to put its own house in order during a period of downsizing, fiscal constraints, and changing missions. It is not surprising that redressing weaknesses in jointness was not a high priority, especially in light of other problems. In spring 1980 the United States launched a raid to res- cue embassy personnel held hostage in Iran. Luckily for most of the partici- pants, the raid failed before it really began with the disaster at Desert One. But whatever the outcome, the plan- ning and execution of the operation underscored a lack of cooperation among the services, weak command that was anything but joint, and a serv- ice focus that was inexcusable to most Americans. The presidency of Ronald Reagan saw increased defense budgets and military capabilities. But the perform- ance of joint operations left much to be desired. In autumn 1983 the United States intervened in Grenada, ostensibly to lib- erate American medical students, but in fact to pre- vent Cuba from helping a revolutionary regime solid- ify its hold on the island. Given the power brought to bear on that small locale, there was never any question of failure. However, the services once again appeared to focus on parochial interests rather than the larger joint picture. The Constitution gives Congress responsibility for every aspect of na- tional defense except command, yet that body rarely involves itself on a theoretical or organizational level. For the most part it is content to bicker with defense witnesses and divvy up military spending among districts and states. Nevertheless, Congress some- times intervenes, usually when the ex- ecutive branch does not resolve a na- tional security matter. Pressure from Capitol Hill that resulted in Army and Navy reforms at the turn of the century and the Morrow Board in the mid- 1920s are both cases in point. The lat- ter resolved that there would be no in- dependent air service and that airpower would remain divided between the two services. This was the situation in the 1980s as Congress, upset by the lack of progress in enhancing jointness, passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act. That legis- lation would change the relationship between the Chairman and service chiefs, providing the former with greater authority, and granting wider the Goldwater-Nichols Act made joint assignments an essential step in promotion to general and flag rank One suggested way to create a more pervasive joint culture would be to destroy service cultures. But that would throw the baby out with the bath water. The basis of a joint ap- proach to operations is understanding warfare in a given medium: land, sea, or air. Until officers master a dimen- sion of war, they can only be amateurs. Thus service cultures must develop warriors completely attuned to their own milieus, because if they are not, they cannot significantly contribute to the conduct of joint operations. At the heart of the problem beset- ting joint culture is a military person- nel system established in the 1940s. Subsequent changes have addressed only the symptoms of the problem. One purpose of this system was pre- venting atrophy in the officer corps during the interwar period. An up-or- out mentality captured rigid timelines for promotion. That system remains in place today with inducements to en- courage officers to retire between the ages of 41 and 45. Moreover, Congress as well as the services have added re- quirements for advancement. The lat- est was a prerequisite for joint duty in consideration for promotion to general officer. This stipulation in Goldwater- Nichols aimed to solve the problem of the services refusing to send their best officers to the Joint Staff. Officers face many requirements for promotion, including joint duty. Personnel systems in the 1940s did not take into account todays complexities of education and technology. Yet a sys- tem designed for the military in the in- dustrial age is still in effect. The result has generally been to deprive officers of flexibility in professional develop- ment outside of narrow career tracks. Although Goldwater-Nichols heightened the prestige of joint billets, the services must push a maximum number of officers through a finite number of positions to qualify an ade- quate pool for promotion. This means that most aspiring eligibles serve only the minimum time in the joint world, barely enough to learn their jobs, much less a broader perspective on joint operations. The obstacles that the personnel system present to joint cul- ture are exacerbated by a general fail- ure to take professional military educa- tion seriously. U.S. Joint Forces Command should fill the gap. Unfortunately, it has real world missions as the successor to U.S. Atlantic Command. Accord- ingly, it has tended to place its best of- ficers in jobs that do not involve exper- imentation or concept development. The Joint Staff, which supports the Chairman and Secretary of Defense, is also partially responsible for joint con- cept development. But it is so con- sumed by day-to-day actions that long- range (beyond the in-box) thinking is almost impossible. This dilemma con- tributes to a weak joint community largely inhabited by officers who serve two-year tours with virtually no chance to do anything but learn their jobs. The prospects for changing this situation do not appear favorable because no senior officer in either the joint world or the services has been willing take on per- sonnel systems that are deeply and happily entrenched. The past three centuries have seen the evolution in joint warfighting, often at considerable cost on the battle- field. Yet military history since the out- break of World War II has underscored the critical role of joint warfare. If the Armed Forces are to utilize new tech- nologies to the fullest, they must foster authentic jointness based on profes- sional thinking and education. As Michael Howard has suggested, war is not only the most demanding profes- sion physically, but also intellectually. It is that latter aspect that military profes- sionals must cultivate. Joint warfighting must be grounded in concepts that can provide the flexibility of mind and habit the future demands. JFQ NOT E S 1 Clifford J. Rogers, War Cruel and Sharp, English Strategy under Edward III, 13271360 (Woodbridge, U.K.: Boydell Press, 2000), p. 198. 2 For a discussion of close air support in World War I, see Richard Muller, Close Air Support, in Military Innovation in the Inter- war Period, edited by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2001). 3 PRO CAB 54/2, DCOS/30 th Meeting, 15.11.38., DCOS Subcommittee, p. 4. 4 Walter Warlimont, Inside Hitlers Head- quarters (New York: Praeger, 1964), p. 54. 5 Williamson Murray and Allan R. Mil- lett, A War To Be Won (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2001), p. 419. 6 Dwight D. Eisenhower in memoran- dum to Chester W. Nimitz, April 17, 1946. Summer 2002 / JFQ 37 M u r r a y J O I N T
W A R F I G H T I N G U . S .
A ir
F o r c e F100D over Vietnam. USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT Goldwater-Nichols Act: Time for Reform by LTC Kenneth M. Crowe U.S. Army Dr. Jerome J. Cormello Project Advisor The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, or any of its agencies. U.S. Army War College CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. GOLDWATER-NICHOLS ACT: TIME FOR REFORM HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Goldwater- Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (hereto referred to as GNA) is a continuum of congressional interests, proposals and acts dating as far back as 1921. Proposals to combine or unify military departments under a single executive agency were considered as early as 1921, with some fifty proposals to reorganize occurring between 1921 and 1945. 1 However, due largely to opposition from the War Department and Department of the Navy, legislative initiatives did not occur. Both departments, supported by Congress, preferred independence instead of unification. The United States' involvement in WWII brought to light the need for unification of the military departments. Even before formally entering the war, the weakness of the decentralized American military system was demonstrated when coordinating with the British in 1941. 2 Military departments (Army and Navy) basically went their own directions without integration and with little guidance and oversight from above. In short, the integration and oversight of the departments did not exist in a manner to efficiently plan for and employ nationalmilitary assets. As a result, the executive branch established the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1941. This body, consisted of the Army Chief of Staff, the Army Chief of Staff for Air, the Commander of Army Air Forces, and the Chief of Naval Operations, and in 1942, it added the Chief of Staff to the Commander-in-Chief, who chaired the committee and served as liaison to the president. The committee functioned as an ad hoc organization lacking statutory authority and an institutional foundation. The JCS reported directly to the President usurping the role of the Service Secretaries. 3 The campaigns in WWII included numerous amphibious operations and sea based invasions involving Army and Navy forces. The further evolution of air support to both Army and Navy operations further increased interoperability among the services. The pursuit of strategic, operational and tactical objectives in WWII demanded the establishment and operation of unified commands-components of one service working under the direction of anotherto ensure unity of command in winning the war. General George C. Marshall recognized a unified approach to the pursuit of war as early as 1943 and subsequently proposed a unified defense establishment. In 1945 President Harry S. Truman sent to Congress a message outlining his observations during the war, noting the United States military had achieved unity of command but: "...we never had comparable unified direction in Washington. And even in the field our unity of operations was greatly impaired by the differences in training, in doctrine, in communications systems, and in supply and distribution systems that stemmed from the division of leadership in Washington... it is now time to take stock, to discard obsolete organizational focus...We cannot have the sea, land and air members of our defense team working at what may turn out to be cross-purposes, planning their programs on different assumptions as to the nature of the military establishment we need, and engaging in an open competition for funds." Following two years of debate, the National Security Act of 1947was enacted. The Act created a Secretary of Defense, without department, and three military departments consisting of the Army, Navy and Air Force. All departments carried cabinet status, were members of the NSC and were allowed to appeal any matter directly to the President or the Director of the Budget. Additionally, along with this enactment came the National Military Establishment, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Council. The establishment of the Department of Defense is commonly associated with the National Security Act of 1947 (NSA). However, because the NSA did not create a unified military department with a strong central authority, a decade of further reforms occurred. The NSA did not clearly define the lines of command, authority and responsibility between the uniformed military, the military departments, the Secretary of Defense and the President. 5 Congress's concern in crafting the NSA of 1947was fear of yielding much of its control over the military establishment to the executive branchit wanted to keep tight rein on the military and not allow it to become controlled by the President. Colleen Getz notes, "In sum, the composition of the JCS reflected a Navy victory over the Army's desire for a single Chief of Staff. It also demonstrated Congress's will that centralization of military authority remain limited." 7 The first Secretary of Defense, former Naval Secretary James Forrestal, was confronted with a fundamental problem. He lacked the power to resolve service rivalries over funds, roles, missions and coordination. Forrestal worked closely with the service Chiefs to resolve these problems but to no avail. Subsequently, Forrestal sought Congressional support. Congress in turn amended the NSA of 1947 in 1949, creating the Department of Defense and increasing the authority of the SECDEF over the military departments. This amendment provided the SECDEF "direct" authority as opposed to the previous "general" authority over the military departments inclusive of administrative and budgetary authority. The Secretary's staff was increased to include a Deputy Secretary and three assistant secretaries. Probably the most important aspect of this amendment was that the SECDEF became the principal assistant to the President for all matters pertaining to the Department of Defense. The military departments' cabinet and NSC status were abolished. The departments also were designated as "military departments" from the previous "executive departments", reducing their power. 8 The JCS benefited from the creation of a non- voting Chairman and doubling the size of the joint staff. Congress rejected any ideas of a single Chief of Staff (with authority over all services) thus sustaining congressional influence over the military establishment through traditional means of decentralization, the ability to hear from each of the service chiefs. 9 Each military department remained separately administered and permitted the department Secretaries and the JCS members to present separate views and recommendations to the Congress after first informing the SECDEF. Upon assuming the Presidency in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower sought further reforms drawing upon his extensive military experience. During the period between 1953-1958, the Department of Defense underwent further reform. The most notable of these reforms were: 1. An increase in the centralization of authority in the office of the SECDEF by authorizing additional assistant secretary positions. 2. The Chairman, JCS was given authority to select and direct the Joint Staff. 3. The Chairman, JCS was subordinated to the President, Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense and subject to congressional oversight. 4. Civilian control of the military departments was maintained by replacing as executive agents the individual service Chiefs with service secretaries of the military departments (Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of the Air Force). Thereby the chain of command ran from the President, to the SECDEF through the Joint Chiefs to the commanders of the unified and specified commands. 5. The SECDEF was provided the power to reorganize the DOD. 6. The requirement that the military departments be "separately administered" was changed to "separately organized". 10 President Eisenhower stated, "Separate ground, sea and air warfare is gone forever. If ever again we should be involved in war, we will fight all elements, with all services, as one single concentrated effort. Peacetime preparatory and organizational activity must conform to this fact." During the next three decades, although there were multiple studies by blue ribbon panels that 12 assessed military organization, DOD reorganization was ignored even in the face of Vietnam. Several conflicts occurred in the late 1970's and 1980's highlighting what was deemed a need for additional reform in defense organization. Major concerns centered on the command of military forces and the organization, training and employment of these forces. Conflicts calling for further defense reform. The failure of Desert One/Operation Eagle Claw (1979) to rescue the U.S. hostages being held by Iranian militants at the U.S. embassy in Tehran raised questions concerning unified command, unified action and joint training of forces. 1 The loss of 241 U.S. military personnel and wounding of over 100 others in a suicide bomb attack on the U.S. Marines headquarters building in Beirut, Lebanon (1983) highlighted recurring deficiencies from Desert One, most notably unified action. A subsequent investigation also noted problems with the military reporting system to the civilian chain of command and the failure of the civilian leadership to heed the advice of senior military leaders. Although Operation Urgent Fury (1983), intended to evacuate approximately 1000 U.S. citizens from the island of Grenada and defeat Grenadian and Cuban forces, was deemed a success, problems once again occurred in unified action and training which further fueled the debate for reform. U.S. Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia confirmed this call for reform. The failed Iranian hostage rescue mission "Desert One", and the flawed victory in Grenada confirmed and reinforced Nunn's view that it was time to pursue further defense reform. According to Senator Nunn, these events along with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) defense reform project convinced him that the time to pursue reform had arrived. 16 Subsequently, in January 1985 following an 18 month study in the form of hearings, interviews and research, Senators Nunn and Goldwater directed a more formal and vigorous study be conducted. 17 Goldwater-Nichols came to fruition in law as the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act on October 1,1986. GNA came as a final product of debate, compromise and concession driven by two major studiesthe Locher Report and the Packard Commission. Senator Barry Goldwater and Representative William Nichols championed the passage of the law. The scope and grounds for the subsequent legislation can be summarized as follows: 'The scope of the legislation clearly evidenced congressional dissatisfaction with the lack of unified direction and action of the United States armed forces. Congress believed the problems derived from dysfunctional relationships among the Secretary of Defense, Service Secretaries, CJCS, JCS, CINCs and service components and the service chiefs." 18 A summary of the purposes of GNA in layman's terms is: 1. To reorganize DOD and strengthen civilian control. 2. To improve military advice to the NCA. 3. To place responsibility clearly on the commanders of the unified and specified combatant commanders for accomplishment of assigned missions. 4. To ensure CINCs have the authority commensurate with responsibility. 5. To increase attention to strategy formulation and contingency planning. 6. To provide for the more efficient use of defense resources. 7. To improve joint officer management policies. 8. Otherwise, to enhance the effectiveness of military operations and improve DOD management and 19 administration. REORGANIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) AND STRENGTHEN CIVILIAN AUTHORITY Absent prior to the GNA were specific relationships and authority of the Office of the Secretary of Defense in regard to the Service Secretaries. Desiring to clarify the authority of the SECDEF, Congress stated, 'The Secretary has sole and ultimate power within the Department of Defense on any matter on 20 which the Secretary chooses to act." The GNA has strengthened civilian authority and has empowered the SECDEF to efficiently influence, lead and manage DOD. Dick Chaney, former SECDEF, found that the act "significantly improved the way the place functions." 21 In designing GNA, the intent of the Congress was to end claims by defense officials to jurisdictions that were independent of the Secretary's authority. An explanation of http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/readings/drew1.htm Military Doctrine by Dennis Drew and Don Snow INFLUENCES on the strategy process are both numerous and important. Most are relatively well known and understood because they are similar to the influences that affect almost any political decision. This chapter, however, deals with an influence peculiar to national security strategy decisionsmilitary doctrine. A detailed examination of doctrine is in order for at least two reasons. Doctrine has, or should have, an extraordinary impact on the strategy process, and doctrine is an ill-defined, poorly understood, and often confusing subject in spite of its considerable importance. What Is Doctrine? One can readily find a number of definitions for doctrinesome official, some unofficialthat often differ by country or military service of origin. Most fail to capture the significance of doctrine. Official definitions written in legalese even obscure doctrines importance. Perhaps the best definition, one that is accurate, concise, and yet retains the vitality befitting doctrines importance, is also one of the simplest. Military doctrine is what we believe about the best way to conduct military affairs. Even more briefly, doctrine is what we believe about the best way to do things. Two words are particularly important in the definition. The use of the word believe suggests that doctrine is the result of an examination and interpretation of the available evidence. In addition, it implies that the interpretation is subject to change should new evidence be introduced. Doctrinal beliefs are not immutable physical laws but are interpretations of changing evidence (e.g., new technology and new circumstances). The word best connotes a standarda guide for those who conduct military affairs. Sources The principal source of doctrine is experience. In a sense, doctrine is a compilation of those things that have generally been successful in the past. The repeated success or failure of actions over time can be generalized into beliefs that, we hope, will be relevant to the present and the future. Unfortunately, not all past experience is relevant to the present (not to mention the future), and there is no guarantee that what is relevant today will remain relevant in the future. Thus, doctrine is a constantly maturing and evolving thing. Those lessons from the past that seem to have proved themselves over an extensive period of time, however, can be, and have been, not only generalized into doctrinal beliefs but have also been raised to higher levels of abstraction to become the so-called principles of wardoctrinal beliefs that are axiomatic. Of course, doctrine is not just the result of experience. Experience by itself has limited utility. As Frederick the Great pointed out, if experiences were all-important, he had several pack mules who had seen enough of war to be field marshals. The real key is the accurate analysis and interpretation of history (experience)and therein lies the rub. Each individual looks at history through different lenses, lenses shaped by a variety of factors, lenses that interpret history in very different ways. The results are differing views among nations and among military services within nations about the lessons of history and their applicability to the present and future. This problem is best illustrated by the disparate views concerning an enemys center of gravity. Moreover, experience and the analysis of experience are not exclusive sources of doctrine because there are subjects for which there is no empirical evidence on which to base beliefs. This is particularly true of nuclear issueshow to deter nuclear war, how to wage nuclear war, and so on. Even though two nuclear weapons were used during World War II, by no stretch of the imagination could one consider that experience illustrative of what might transpire in a full-scale nuclear war. No one has any real experience to draw on, or any history of the best way to deter or conduct a nuclear conflict. For example, we assume that US nuclear retaliatory forces have deterred attack for four decades, but we have no solid evidence that this is the case. In such evidential voids as that found in the nuclear arena, we are forced to rely on extrapolations of experience from other areas. We hope that such extrapolations are pertinent, but our standards for judgment can only be logic, intuition, and gut feelings. This is, obviously, a risky but unavoidable situation. Even worse is the fact that in the nuclear realm we cannot afford to be wrong. Development Problems We have already alluded to several significant problems in the development of doctrine. The lack of concrete evidence in the nuclear area should be placed at the top of the problem list because of the consequences should we make an error. What nonnuclear evidence is pertinent to nuclear issues? Does any nonnuclear doctrine really apply to weapons of mass destruction? Does conventional logic apply when the consequences of nuclear war might include the death of civilization? Would anyone but a madman actually initiate a nuclear war? What would deter a madman? Can there be a winner (in some rational sense) in a full-scale nuclear war? These are all doctrinal questions of the utmost importance that frustrate nearly everyone who has to deal with them. Problematic nuclear issues are not the only difficulties encountered in the area of doctrine. Objective analysis of experience can be especially difficult. This fact is best illustrated by the US experience in attempting to deal with the legacy of the Vietnam War. The passions of the Southeast Asian experience have died hard and have colored nearly every attempt to analyze the conflict. To some, the lesson of that war is a simplistic plea for no more Vietnams, a rather ill- defined lesson at best. Others have attempted to identify scapegoatsfinger pointing among some military professionals, civilian leaders, and antiwar activiststhe lesson apparently being that if the scapegoats had been controlled or eliminated, everything would have worked out for the best. Still others have passionately criticized how the war was conducted and earnestly proposed fanciful remedies and reforms. In short, objective analysis has been in short supply. In such a situation, it is unlikely that sound doctrine will result. In the case of Vietnam, almost no doctrine has resulted. Perhaps the most ubiquitous doctrinal problem is the tendency to let doctrine stagnate. Changing circumstances (for example, technological developments) must be constantly evaluated because they can modify beliefs about the important lessons of experience. If current and projected circumstances do not affect the analysis of historys lessons, doctrine rapidly becomes irrelevant. The French experience after World War I exemplifies the problem. Based on the demonstrated superiority of the defense when ensconced in strong trench works during the war, the French constructed the worlds most elaborate and sophisticated fortifications along the Franco-German border. Unfortunately, the Maginot Lines static fortifications were irrelevant to the mobile warfare conducted by the Germans in World War II. The French analysis of historys lessons was not tempered by technological change, particularly the advent of motorized ground warfare supported by air power. Finally, doctrine can become irrelevant if the assumptions that support it are not frequently reexamined for their continuing validity. The development of US air power doctrine provides a pertinent example. Based on the ideas of Gen William Billy Mitchell and further developed at the Air Corps Tactical School by Mitchells protgs, the Army Air Forces went into World War II with a doctrine based on the belief that strategic bombing would (and should) be decisive in war. The World War II experience and the availability of nuclear weapons and long-range aircraft in the postwar era further ingrained this notion. Military budgets, force structures, equipment procurement, and training were all based on the central doctrinal belief in the deterrent and warfighting decisiveness of strategic bombardment. Even the tactical air forces became ministrategic forces in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The crisis came in 1965 when the United States entered the Vietnam War and the bombing of North Vietnam began. American air power doctrine was found to be bankrupt in Vietnam because its underlying assumptions were untrue in that situation. Strategic bombing doctrine assumed that all US wars would be unlimited wars fought to destroy the enemy and that Americas enemies would be modern, industrialized states. Both assumptions were crucial to strategic bombing doctrine. They were reasonable and valid assumptions in the 1920s and 1930s, but invalid in the 1960s in the age of limited warfare in the third world. The results were frustration, ineffective bombing, wasted blood and treasure, and eventually the renaming of Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City. Types of Doctrine For many years there has been considerable confusion regarding the subject of doctrine. Some of this confusion has resulted from ill-considered doctrinal publications in the wake of the Vietnam War. In some cases these publications reflected the confusion and consternation caused by the American failure in Southeast Asia, and they certainly reflected an inability to analyze the war dispassionately. Part of the confusion about doctrine also stems from the fact that there are three distinct types of doctrine. A brief survey of these types should help resolve some of the confusion. Fundamental Fundamental doctrine forms the foundation for all other types of doctrine. Its scope is broad and its concepts are abstract. Essentially, fundamental doctrine defines the nature of war, the purpose of military forces, the relationship of military force to other instruments of power, and similar subject matter on which less abstract beliefs are founded. The following examples are typical statements of fundamental doctrine: War is policy carried on by other means. War is the failure of policy. The object of war is to overcome an enemys hostile will. The object of war is a better state of peace. An examination of these statements reveals two significant characteristics of fundamental doctrine. The first is the almost timeless nature of fundamental doctrine. It seldom changes because it deals with basic concepts rather than contemporary techniques. The second characteristic, which is really the basis of the first, is that fundamental doctrine is relatively insensitive to political philosophy or technological change. The statements, if accepted, seem applicable in democratic or authoritarian states and cogent whether discussing Napoleons campaigns or recent conflicts. Environmental As technological innovations allowed man to put to sea and take to the air, mans proclivity for war quickly followed. Quite naturally, beliefs also developed about how best to use sea power and air power. Thus, environmental doctrine (the rubric for sea power, air power, land power, and space power doctrine) is a compilation of beliefs about the employment of military forces within a particular operating medium. Environmental doctrine has several distinctive characteristics. It is narrower in scope than fundamental doctrine because it deals with the exercise of military power in a particular medium. Environmental doctrine is significantly influenced by such factors as geography and technology. Sea power doctrine, for example, is obviously influenced by geography (there are many places one cannot take a naval vessel) and by technology, particularly since the advent of naval aviation and submarine warfare. Air power doctrine, on the other hand, is less influenced by geography but depends totally on technology for its very existence. Organizational Organizational doctrine is best defined as basic beliefs about the operation of a particular military organization or group of closely linked military organizations. It attempts to bring the abstractions of fundamental and environmental doctrine into sharper (yet still somewhat abstract) focus by leavening them with current political realities, capabilities, and cultural values. Typically, organizational doctrine discusses roles and missions of an organization, current objectives, administrative organization, force employment principles as they are influenced by the current situation, and, in some cases, tactics. Organizational doctrine has several salient characteristics that distinguish it from fundamental or environmental doctrine. Organizational doctrine is very narrow in scope. Organizational doctrine concerns the use of a particular force (e.g., US or Soviet) in a particular environment (e.g., US Air Force or Soviet Air Force) at a particular timetoday. In addition, organizational doctrine is current and must change to stay current. This tendency to change contrasts sharply with the almost timeless qualities of fundamental doctrine and the considerable staying power of environmental doctrine. In the United States, organizational doctrine comprises the bulk of doctrinal publications. It has been further subdivided and specialized into doctrine for specific types of forces, types of conflicts, and other subcategories. As the content of these publications increasingly narrows in scope, it assumes the characteristics of regulations or standard operating procedures. The distinction between beliefs about how to do things at this level of detail and directives on the same subject is a matter of conjecture. Interrelationships How do these complex puzzle pieces fit together? Clearly, fundamental doctrine is the basis for all other types of doctrine, and environmental doctrine is at least part of the basis for organizational doctrine. One way to understand these relationships is to visualize them as parts of a tree (fig. 4). The trunk of the tree is fundamental doctrine and, of course, has its roots in historythe primary source of doctrine. The tree branches represent environmental doctrine each springing from the same trunk, each individual, and yet all related. The leaves represent organizational doctrinedependent on both the trunk and the branches and changing from season to season.
The analogy of the tree can be carried even further. For example, what would happen if the lessons of history cannot be accurately interpreted? The results would be analogous to cutting the roots and therefore killing the tree (i.e., defeat). What would happen if there was no valid fundamental or environmental doctrine? This is analogous to a diseased trunk or branch that could kill the tree, including the leaves (again, defeat). The analogy of the doctrine tree illustrates that doctrine must be a coherent whole to be valuable, shows the dependencies involved, and emphasizes the often ignored importance of fundamental and environmental doctrine. Relationship of Doctrine and Strategy Doctrine has many functions. Its first function is to provide a tempered analysis of experience and a determination of beliefs. Its second function is to teach those beliefs to each succeeding generation. Its third function is to provide a common basis of knowledge and understanding that can provide guidance for actions. All three of these functions come to fruition in doctrines relationship to strategy decisions. Doctrine provides, in essence, a knowledge base for making strategy decisions. Doctrine is always somewhat abstract and thus provides the foundation from which to begin thinking when facing a concrete and specific decision. Without doctrine, strategists would have to make decisions without points of reference or guidance. They would continually be faced with the prospect of reinventing the wheel and repeating past mistakes. Superior doctrine should be the storehouse of analyzed experience and military wisdom and should be the strategists fundamental guide in decisionmaking. The importance of this function was succinctly put by T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) when he commented that with 2,000 years of examples there is no excuse for not fighting a war well.*
*Quoted in J. A. English, "Kindergarten Soldier: The Military Thought of Lawrence of Arabia," Military Affairs, January 1987, 10.
As important as doctrine should be at nearly every level of strategy, it often does not control strategy or even have a significant influence on strategy decisions, a source of great frustration for the military professional. This tendency has been most notable since World War II as traditional military doctrine has often clashed with political decisions in conducting limited warfare. In both Korea and Vietnam, military leaders chafed under the close control of civilians whose decisions about the conduct of the wars often ran counter to military advice. Many military leaders contend such decisions played a major role in preventing a clear-cut victory in Korea and in causing a clear-cut failure in Vietnam. Civilian leaders, on the other hand, contend that traditional military doctrine is incompatible with limited warfare. They believe that either or both of those wars could have escalated to a superpower confrontation if the military had been allowed to implement its doctrine. The frustrations of Korea and Vietnam highlight the fact that military doctrine is only one of a host of factors influencing strategy decisions. The influence of doctrine is inversely proportional to the importance attached to other factors. In Korea and Vietnam, the threats of escalation and confrontation were of overwhelming importance and negated the influence of military doctrine. These same kinds of phenomena can also occur in peacetime. Military advice and requests concerning force structures, weapon system procurement and force deployment (all of which areor should be based on military doctrine) are often ignored, overruled, or modified because of economic and political factors that assume overwhelming importance. In both peace and war, the influence of military doctrine can be negated, modified, or limited by any of the host of other factors that influence strategy decisions. The degree to which doctrine influences strategy depends on the relative importance of doctrine in the eyes of the decisionmaker. Thus in an imperfect world, doctrine is not always accorded its proper influence, which suggests yet another important function of doctrine. As the best way to conduct military affairs, doctrine provides a standard against which to measure our efforts. Many factors prevent the military from doing things in the best manner, but doctrine can still provide a yardstickan indicator of success and a tool for analyzing both success and failure. Doctrine can measure not only its own impact on the decisiomnaking process but also its own relevance. If military doctrine were followed to a substantial degree and success were not achieved, this would indicate that changes to doctrine were in order; that is, experience of failure would feed the development of new doctrine. If, under the influence of doctrine, the strategy decisions led to success, the experience of success would also add to the experience that feeds the development of doctrine. This brings the strategy and doctrine relationship full circle. Doctrine influences strategy (or it should) and the results of strategy become the experiences that are the basis for doctrine.
Reprinted from Making Strategy: An Introduction to National Security Processes and Problems, Chapter 11, August 1988, pp. 163174. Published 1988 by Air University Press.
1 CHAPTER ONE: DOCTRINE Last Updated: 14 Oct 2011 DOCTRINE DEFINED Doctrine is defined as fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application (Joint Publication [JP] 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms). This definition is explained in more detail below. fundamental principles Doctrine is a body of carefully developed, sanctioned ideas which has been officially approved or ratified corporately, and not dictated by any one individual. Doctrine establishes a common frame of reference including intellectual tools that commanders use to solve military problems. It is what we believe to be true about the best way to do things based on the evidence to date. There is no end to the number of people who will line up to make flippant remarks that the doctrine is too long, too short, has too many pictures, is too academic, is not academic enough. The acid test is do we read it, do we understand it, and do we use it, and DOES IT WORK? all else is rubbish to borrow from Baron von Richthofen. Our doctrine does not mirror the Navys, nor the Marines, nor the Armys it is aerospace doctrine our best practices and we should not be bashful about how we write it or what it says. From briefing notes by then-Brigadier General Ronald Keys to a doctrine symposium, 1997 VOLUME 1 BASIC DOCTRINE 9 We have identified danger, physical exertion, intelligence, and friction as the elements that coalesce to form the atmosphere of war, and turn it into a medium that impedes activity. In their restrictive effects they can be grouped into a single concept of general friction. Is there any lubricant that will reduce this abrasion? Only one: combat experience. Carl von Clausewitz, On War military forces For the purposes of Air Force doctrine, this includes all Airmen, both uniformed and Department of the Air Force civilians. These constitute the uniformed warfighters, their commanders, and the capabilities and support that they employ. They operate across the range of military operations (ROMO) and can be task-organized into the right force for any particular joint contingency. in support of national objectives Military forces should always conduct operations in order to support objectives that create continuing advantage for our nation. guide their actions authoritative judgment Doctrine is a guide to action, not a set of fixed rules; it recommends, but does not mandate, particular courses of action. Air Force doctrine describes and guides the proper use of airpower in military operations. It is what we have come to understand, based on our experience to date. The Air Force promulgates and teaches its doctrine as a common frame of reference on the best way to prepare and employ Air Force forces. Subsequently, doctrine shapes the manner in which the Air Force organizes, trains, equips, and sustains its forces. Doctrine prepares us for future uncertainties and provides a common set of understandings on which Airmen base their decisions. Doctrine consists of the fundamental principles by which military forces guide their actions in support of national objectives; it is the linchpin of successful military operations. It also provides us with common terminology, conveying precision in expressing our ideas. In application, doctrine should be used with judgment. It should never be dismissed out of hand or through ignorance of its principles, nor should it be employed blindly without due regard for the mission and situation at hand. On the other hand, following doctrine to the letter is not the fundamental intent. Rather, good doctrine is somewhat akin to a good commanders intent: it provides sufficient information on what to do, but does not specifically say how to do it. Airmen should strive above all else to be doctrinally sound, not doctrinally bound. 10 In the current turbulent environment of expeditionary operations and the arena of homeland security, doctrine provides an informed starting point for the many decisions Airmen make in what seems to be a continuous series of deployments. Airmen no longer face the challenge of starting with a blank sheet of paper; with doctrine, Airmen now have a good outline that helps answer several basic questions: What is my mission? How should I approach it? What should my organization look like, and why? What are my lines of authority within my organization and within the joint force? What degrees of control do I have over my forces? How am I supported? Who do I call for more support? How should I articulate what the Air Force provides to the joint force? From one operation to the next, many things are actually constant. Doctrine, properly applied, often can provide a 70-, 80-, or even 90-percent solution to most questions, allowing leaders to focus on the remainder, which usually involves tailoring for the specific operation. Good doctrine informs, provides a sound departure point, and allows flexibility. A study of airpower doctrine should draw a distinction between theory and practice. Theory is less constrained by limited empirical context, and designed to encourage debate and introspection with an eye towards improving military advantage. It is part of a vital, iterative investigation of what works under particular circumstances, and why. Theoretical discussion is critical to a successful military. To date, however, a truly enduring, all-encompassing theory of airpowerone that is not merely a point in time has yet to be developed. Thus, this publication does not present a comprehensive theory for airpower. Instead, it focuses on those ideas and validated concepts, grounded in experience and Service consensus. This is the heart of doctrine. Finally, a study of airpower doctrine should also distinguish between doctrine and public relations-like pronouncements concerning the Air Forces role. There have been many of the latter since the Air Forces inception. Some have been developed with an eye towards influencing public and congressional perception of the Air Forces role and value. Others have been made in a strategic planning context (e.g., a vision-mission- goals development process) that are a normal part of formal, long range corporate planning. Such statements are not enduring and not doctrine; they should be viewed in the context in which they were created. . 11 Although air officers have not been prolific writers, they have expressed their beliefs freely. In fact, one may almost say that the Air Force has developed an oral rather than a written tradition. Frank Futrell, Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the United States Air Force, 1907 - 1960 POLICY, STRATEGY, AND DOCTRINE Last Updated: 14 Oct 2011 The term doctrine is frequently (and incorrectly) used when referring to policy or strategy. These terms are not interchangeable; they are fundamentally different. Because policy and strategy may impact each other, it is important to first understand their differences before delving into a discussion of doctrine. Policy is guidance that is directive or instructive, stating what is to be accomplished. It reflects a conscious choice to pursue certain avenues and not others. Thus, while doctrine is held to be relatively enduring, policy is more mutable and also directive. Policies may change due to changes in national leadership, political considerations, or for fiscal reasons. At the national level, policy may be expressed in such broad vehicles as the National Security Strategy or Presidential Executive Orders. Within military operations, policy may be expressed not only in terms of objectives, but also in rules of engagement (ROE)what we may or may not strike, or under what circumstances we may strike particular targets. Strategy defines how operations should be conducted to accomplish national policy objectives. Strategy is the continuous process of matching ends, ways, and means to accomplish desired goals within acceptable levels of risk. Strategy originates in policy and addresses broad objectives, along with the designs and plans for achieving them. Doctrine presents considerations on how to accomplish military goals and objectives. It is a storehouse of analyzed experience and VOLUME 1 BASIC DOCTRINE 12 wisdom. Military doctrine is authoritative, but unlike policy, is not directive. In practice, as leaders develop strategies for particular contingencies, political, economic, or social considerations may dictate strategic and operational approaches that modify or depart from accepted doctrine. As an example, doctrine may support long-range, air-to-air engagements beyond visual range, or high altitude interdiction of surface targets, both using long-range sensors; ROE, however, may require visual identification of all targets before firing due to political concerns over fratricide or collateral damage. If policy seriously affects the application of doctrine, military commanders should describe for political leaders the military consequences of those adaptations. However, because war is an instrument of policy, military commanders should ensure that policy governs the employment of military power and thus tailor their operations accordingly. 13 USES OF DOCTRINE Last Updated: 14 Oct 2011 One way to explore good doctrine is to use a compare and contrast model to walk through some key issues. This technique also amplifies the point that doctrine should be written broadly, allowing decision makers latitude in interpretation and flexibility in application, yet be specific enough to provide informed guidance. This technique also illustrates the use of doctrine in explaining contentious issues and how doctrine can be used to think more effectively about the best means to integrate various aspects of military power and organization. In the following discussion, there may be overlap among some of the principles expressed; this is desirable in that often there are different aspects or nuances to a particular issue. In doctrine, language is important. Finally, the following discussion presents an Air Force perspective; not all Services may entirely agree with these points. Doctrine is about warfighting, not physics. This principle specifically addresses the perceived differences between operations in air, space, and cyberspace. Air, space, and cyberspace are separate domains requiring exploitation of different sets of physical laws to operate in, but are linked by the effects they can produce together. To achieve a common purpose, air, space, and cyberspace capabilities need to be integrated. Therefore, Air Force doctrine focuses on the best means to obtain warfighting effects regardless of the medium in which a platform operates. As an example, Airmen should be concerned with the best means of employing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, not whether a particular ISR platform is airborne or in orbit. This is requisite to achieving true integration across any given collection of forces. Doctrine is about effects, not platforms. This focuses on the desired outcome of a particular action, not on the system or weapon itself that provides the effect. For example, doctrine states that Airmen should seek to achieve air superiority, but doctrine does not focus on which platforms should be used to achieve that effect. A parallel example of this is seen in the recognition that bombers are not strategic, nor are fighters tactical. Similarly, it does not matter if an F-16 or a B-52 accomplishes a given task, or whether a particular platform is manned or unmanned, or whether a C-17 or a C-130 delivers a certain load; the outcome of the mission, the effect achieved, is whats important. Thus, Air Force doctrine does not explicitly tie specific weapon systems to specific tasks or effects. Doctrine is about using mediums, not owning mediums. This illustrates the importance of properly using a medium to obtain the best warfighting effects, not of carving up the battlespace based on Service or functional parochialism. Focusing on VOLUME 1 BASIC DOCTRINE 14 using a medium is a vital first step to integration of efforts. Ownership arguments eventually lead to suboptimal (and usually at best tactical) application of efforts at the expense of the larger, total effort. Doctrine is about organization, not organizations. Modern warfare demands that disparate parts of different Services, different nations, and even differing functions within a single Service be brought together intelligently to achieve unity of effort and unity of command. However, merely placing different organizations together in an area of operations is insufficient to meet these demands. A single, cohesive organization is required with clearly defined lines of command and commanders with requisite authorities at appropriate levels. Doctrine explains why certain organizational structures are preferred over others and describes effective command relationships and command authorities; this facilitates the rapid standup of joint and Service organizations during rapidly evolving situations. Ultimately, doctrine is not about whether one particular element of a joint force is more decisive than another, nor about positing that element as the centerpiece of joint operations; its the total, tailored joint force thats decisive. Getting to that effective joint force requires smart organization and a thorough understanding of Service and joint doctrine. Doctrine is about synergy, not segregation. True integration of effort cannot be achieved by merely carving up the operational environment. While segregation may have some benefit and may appear the simplest way, from a command and control viewpoint, to manage elements of a diverse joint force, it may actually suboptimize the overall effort. It guarantees that the whole will never be greater than the sum of its parts. For example, Airmen should have access to the entire theater of operations to maximize their ability to achieve joint force commander (JFC) objectives; they should not be restricted from any area due to unnecessarily restrictive fire control measures. Also, segregating the battlespace into smaller areas of operation may create competition for scarce, high-demand, low-density capabilities and reduce combat effectiveness. Doctrine is about integration, not just synchronization. Synchronization is the arrangement of military actions in time, space, and purpose to produce maximum relative combat power at a decisive place and time (JP 1-02). Integration, by comparison, is the arrangement of military forces and their actions to create a force that operates by engaging as a whole (JP 1-02). Synchronization is, in essence, deconfliction in time and space between different units. It is a useful means to plan and execute operations and to prevent fratricide. However, it doesnt scale up to the operational level and hence is not the best means for achieving the maximum potential of a joint force. Synchronization emphasizes timing, while integration considers priority and effect to be both efficient and effective with scarce resources. Synchronization is bottom-up; integration, on the other hand, starts at the top with a single cohesive plan and works downward. Synchronization is an additive sum of the parts model, while integration may produce geometric results. 15 Doctrine is about the right force, not just equal shares of the force. This addresses the proper mix of Service components within a joint force. Some believe that a joint force requires equal parts of all the Services. This is an incorrect view. As one senior Air Force officer said, joint warfighting is not like Little League baseball, where everybody gets a chance to play. Any given joint force should be tailored appropriately for the task at hand. Some operations will be land-centric, others air-centric, others maritime-, cyberspace-, or information-centric. The composition of the joint force and the tasks assigned its various elements should reflect the needs of the situation. 16 [Doctrine] reflects an official recognition of what has usually worked best from observation of numerous trials. These may be reports of actual combat operations, or they may be limited to tests, exercises, and maneuvers. Only when necessary will doctrine consist of extrapolations beyond actual experience of some sort, for example, in the use of nuclear weapons where the nature of the weapon normally precludes the gathering of experience in any but the most limited sense. Maj Gen I.B. Holley, Technology and Military Doctrine SOURCES OF DOCTRINE Last Updated: 14 Oct 2011 Doctrine should be based in critical analysis and the lessons of warfare rather than driven by rapidly changing policies, promising technologies, individual personalities, budget battles, and politically trendy catch-phrases. Doctrine should not be written to backwards-justify a policy position or codify a uniquely-tailored organization. As such, doctrine reflects what has worked best with full consideration of what has worked poorly. In those less frequent instances in which experience is lacking or difficult to acquire, doctrine may be developed through analysis of exercises, wargames, and experiments. The military experience of other nations should also be considered. It should be emphasized that doctrine development is never complete. Any given doctrine document is a snapshot in timea reflection of the thinking at the time of its creation. Innovation has always been a key part of sound doctrinal development and continues to play a central role. Doctrine should evolve as new experiences and advances in technology point the way to the operations of the future. Three constantly evolving variables affect doctrine: theory, experience, and technology. Sound doctrine strikes a balance among all three. Theory may be an excellent starting point, but doctrine based solely on theory may not survive contact with reality. An VOLUME 1 BASIC DOCTRINE 17 example of this is the Army Air Corps advocacy of daylight precision bombing; bombers initially had neither the necessary precision nor the survivability required to implement the theory. On the other hand, theory can support technological investment and experimentation, as in the German Wehrmachts decision in the interwar years to pursue air-ground integration. A good grasp of operational art can provide the flexibility to adapt new theories within real-world situations, and prevent doctrine from becoming dogma. While experience plays a major role in doctrine formulation, too great a reliance on past experience leaves one open to always fighting the last war. Experience must be tempered with current realities to develop future plans. New technology can provide solutions to long-standing problems, as the advent of mobile, mechanized forces and aviation overcame the stalemate of trench warfare. Theories of war, sufficiently taught, should be open to reinterpretation in light of current circumstance. The US military experienced this in its recent formulation of doctrine for irregular warfare. Technology constantly evolves, but by itself is not a panacea. While technology alone may be good at providing single-point solutions, technology should be acquired with due consideration for operational art and design, taking into consideration theory and experience; sound reasoning must accompany realistic projections of what capabilities will actually be available to warfighters. Discussion in the 1990s of the Revolution in Military Affairs pointed to a similar interplay of ideas involving technology, organization, and doctrine. Thinking at that time held that all three were necessary to achieve a revolution. Thus, technology should not be acquired in isolation. 18 LEVELS OF DOCTRINE Last Updated: 14 Oct 2011 As implemented in the Air Force, doctrine affects operations at three levels: basic, operational, and tactical. These levels speak to the intellectual content of the doctrinal concepts, not to the architectural structure of doctrine publications. Basic doctrine states the most fundamental and enduring beliefs that describe and guide the proper use, presentation, and organization of forces in military action. It describes the elemental properties of airpower and provides the Airmans perspective. Because of its fundamental and enduring character, basic doctrine provides broad and continuing guidance on how Air Force forces are organized, employed, equipped, and sustained. Because it expresses broad, enduring fundamentals, basic doctrine changes relatively slowly compared to the other levels of doctrine. As the foundation of all doctrine, basic doctrine also sets the tone and vision for doctrine development for the future. Air Force Doctrine Volume 1 is the Air Forces basic doctrine publication. Operational doctrine contained in doctrine annexes describe more detailed organization of forces and applies the principles of basic doctrine to military actions. Operational doctrine guides the proper organization and employment of air, space, and cyberspace forces in the context of distinct objectives, force capabilities, broad functional areas, and operational environments. Operational doctrine provides the focus for developing the missions and tasks to be executed through tactical doctrine. Doctrine at this level changes a bit more rapidly than basic doctrine, but usually only after deliberate internal Service debate. Tactical doctrine describes the proper employment of specific Air Force assets, individually or in concert with other assets, to accomplish detailed objectives. Tactical doctrine considers particular objectives (stopping the advance of an armored column) and conditions (threats, weather, and terrain) and describes how Air Force assets are employed to accomplish the tactical objective (B-1 bombers dropping anti-armor cluster munitions). Air Force tactical doctrine is codified as tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) in Air Force TTP (AFTTP) -3 series manuals. Because tactical doctrine is closely associated with the employment of technology and emerging tactics, change will likely occur more rapidly than other levels of doctrine. Also, due to their sensitive nature, many TTPs are classified. VOLUME 1 BASIC DOCTRINE 19 TYPES OF DOCTRINE Last Updated: 14 Oct 2011 There are three types of doctrine: Service, joint, and multinational. Service doctrine outlines Service capabilities and guides the application of Service forces. Joint doctrine, as it applies to airpower in joint operations, describes the best way to integrate and employ air, space, and cyberspace capabilities with land, maritime, and special operations forces in military action. Multinational doctrine, as it applies to airpower, describes the best way to integrate and employ US air forces with the forces of allies in coalition warfare. It establishes principles, organization, and fundamental procedures agreed upon between or among allied forces. When developed as a result of a treaty, as in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) doctrine, multinational doctrine is directive. VOLUME 1 BASIC DOCTRINE 20 A hiatus exists between inventors who know what they could invent, if they only knew what was wanted, and the soldiers who know, or ought to know, what they want, and would ask for it if they only knew how much science could do for them. Winston Churchill, The Great War DOCTRINE, OPERATING CONCEPTS, AND VISION Last Updated: 14 Oct 2011 The doctrinal maxims of this document are based on experience, hard-won with the blood of Airmen, and tempered by advances in technology. If properly employed, doctrine can lead to great success, and if ignored, can lead (and has led) to disaster. Therein lies the challenge: doctrine should convey the lessons of the past to guide current operations, but should still be flexible enough to adapt to change. Yet while forming that baseline for current operations, doctrine also provides a baseline for future thinking. One way to put this relationship into perspective is to understand the different uses of vision, operating concepts, and doctrine. If placed along a continuum, doctrine, operating concepts, and vision provide a model for thinking about future technology, operating constructs, and doctrine in a coherent temporal framework. Doctrine is focused on near-term operational issues and describes the proper employment of current capabilities and current organizations. Doctrine addresses how best to employ, how to organize, and how to command todays capabilities. Doctrine is examined and validated during training, exercises, contingency operations, and times of war. Exercises, wargaming, and experiments allow us to test emerging doctrinal concepts and better align predicted capabilities with sound operational practices. Experience during conflict refines doctrine in real time. Encounters with unpredictable adversaries often highlight doctrinal gaps and provide fresh perspectives on historic and future challenges. Operating concepts generally look out from five to fifteen years, and postulate reasonable operating scenarios that, through a combination of analysis and the use of descriptive examples, examine a range of issues such as employment, operating environment, command and control, support, organization, and planning considerations. As new technologies mature to the point where their performance can be reasonably bounded as a new, separate system or part of another system, they can be VOLUME 1 BASIC DOCTRINE 21 examined within the framework of an operating concept. Depending on their purpose, operating concepts can speak to the present, near future, or distant future. Operating concepts define the parameters of envisioned capabilities. Experiments, wargames, and historical study, when honestly and rigorously conducted, are useful methods for evaluating new operating concepts and providing a basis for doctrinal considerations. Vision statements describe key operating constructs and desired operational capabilities well in the future, usually fifteen years out and beyond. Vision serves to focus technology investments toward achieving these capabilities. Emerging concepts and technologies are best investigated through experimentation and wargaming techniques. As future concepts are envisioned, it is important to also examine doctrine to support these potential capabilities. Vision provides the basis for wargaming, and the results of wargaming may point to doctrinal considerations requiring further examination. Using doctrine, operating concepts, and vision, the Air Force can look toward the future and consider the long-term impacts of advanced technologies such as directed energy weapons, new unmanned systems, new space capabilities, and conceptual advancements. As this framework builds from the general (long term) to the specific (near term), Airmen can investigate a wide range of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, logistics, personnel, and facilities issues at the appropriate point during technology development, concept exploration, and systems acquisition. 22 CJCSI 5120.02B 4 December 2009 2 doctrine. Throughout the instruction, references to using Defense Messaging System (DMS) messages as part of the joint doctrine development system have been deleted.
8. Releasability. This instruction is approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOD components (to include the combatant commands), other Federal agencies, and the public may obtain copies of this instruction through the Internet from the CJCS Directives Home Page-- http://www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives.
9. Effective Date. This instruction is effective upon receipt.
LLOYD J. AUSTIN III Lieutenant General, USA Director, Joint Staff
Enclosures:
A -- General B -- Responsibilities C -- Joint Doctrine Development Process Appendix A -- Sample Project Proposal Format Appendix B -- Sample Program Directive Format Appendix C -- Joint Doctrine Research Sources (By Type) Appendix D -- Sample Doctrine Tasker E-mail Appendix E -- Sample Comment Matrix and Line-Out/Line-In Format Appendix F -- Procedures to Comment on Adjudicated Comment Matrix Appendix G -- Sample Evaluation Directive D -- Joint Publication Organization Framework E -- Formatting and Distributing Joint Publications Appendix A -- Sample Joint Publication Organization and Format F -- Staffing Allied Joint Publications G -- References GL -- Glossary CJCSI 5120.02B 4 December 2009 A-1 Enclosure A
ENCLOSURE A
GENERAL
1. Joint Doctrine in Perspective
a. Joint doctrine consists of fundamental principles that guide the employment of U.S. military forces in coordinated action toward a common objective. Joint doctrine contained in joint publications (JPs) also includes terms, tactics, techniques, and procedures.
b. Joint doctrine represents what is taught, believed, and advocated as what is right (i.e., what works best). Joint doctrine is written for those who:
(1) Provide strategic direction to joint forces (the Chairman and combatant commanders).
(2) Employ joint forces (combatant commanders, subordinate unified commanders, or joint task force (JTF) commanders).
(3) Support or are supported by joint forces (combatant commands, subunified commands, JTFs, component commands, the Services, and combat support agencies (CSAs)).
(4) Prepare forces for employment by combatant commander, subordinate unified commanders, and JTF commanders.
(5) Train and educate those who will conduct joint operations.
c. The purpose of joint doctrine is to enhance the operational effectiveness of U.S. forces. With the exception of JP 1, joint doctrine will not establish policy. Joint policy will be reflected in other CJCS instructions (CJCSIs) or CJCS manuals (CJCSMs). These instructions and manuals contain CJCS policy and guidance that do not involve the employment of forces. Although joint doctrine is neither policy nor strategy, it serves to make U.S. policy and strategy effective in the application of U.S. military power.
d. Only those doctrine publications approved by CJCS will be referred to as joint publications. They are developed in coordination with the Services, combatant commands, CSAs, and the Joint Staff. Documents involving the operations of two or more Services that are approved by the relevant chiefs of Service (or their designated agent) will be referred to as multi-Service and will identify the participating Services (e.g., Army and Air Force doctrine; Army, CJCSI 5120.02B 4 December 2009 A-2 Enclosure A
Navy, and Air Force procedures). These documents are not JPs, but they must be consistent with approved JPs.
e. Joint doctrine is based on extant capabilities, i.e., current force structures and materiel. It incorporates time-tested principles; e.g., the principles of war, operational art, and elements of operational design for successful military action, as well as contemporary lessons that exploit U.S. advantages against adversary vulnerabilities. Use of joint doctrine standardizes terminology, training, relationships, responsibilities, and processes among all U.S. forces to free joint force commanders (JFCs) and their staffs to focus their efforts on solving the strategic, operational, and tactical problems confronting them.
f. Joint doctrine is authoritative guidance and will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. That means doctrine does not replace or alter a commanders authority and obligation to determine the proper course of action (COA) under the circumstances prevailing at the time of decision; such judgments are the responsibility of the commander, and doctrine cannot be a substitute for good judgment. Joint doctrine is not dogmatic -- the focus is on how to think about operations, not what to think about operations. Its purpose is to aid thinking, not to replace it. Yet it must be definitive enough to guide operations, while versatile enough to accommodate a wide variety of situations. Joint doctrine should foster initiative, creativity, and conditions that allow commanders the freedom to adapt to varying circumstances.
g. Joint doctrine applies to the combatant commanders, subordinate unified commanders, JTF commanders, subordinate component commanders of these commands, as well as forces assigned or attached to these commands. In developing joint doctrine, existing Service and multinational doctrine will be considered; however, joint doctrine takes precedence over individual Service doctrines, which must be consistent with joint doctrine. Joint doctrine should not include detail that is more appropriate in regulations and instructions, Service doctrine, standing operating procedures, plans, or other publications. If conflicts arise between the contents of a JP and the contents of Service publications, the JP will take precedence for the activities of joint forces unless CJCS, normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance.
h. When the Armed Forces of the United States participate in multinational operations, U.S. commanders should follow multinational doctrine and procedures that have been ratified by the United States. For multinational doctrine and procedures not ratified by the United States, commanders should evaluate and follow the multinational commands doctrine and procedures, where applicable and consistent with U.S. law, policy, and doctrine.
CJCSI 5120.02B 4 December 2009 A-3 Enclosure A
i. In addition to guidance discussed above, joint doctrine provides:
(1) The U.S. national position for multinational doctrine consistent with existing security procedures. Every effort will be made to ensure any proposed doctrine is not introduced directly into Allied joint publications (AJPs) without having been introduced and established in joint doctrine. Exceptions to this policy require Joint Staff/J-7 approval.
(2) A basis for multinational or interagency coordination during joint operations.
(3) The foundation for building a joint culture and a basis for joint training.
(4) Instructional material for joint professional military education (JPME).
(5) A basis for the development of joint models and simulations.
(6) Information for U.S. Government agencies concerning the employment of U.S. joint forces.
2. Influence of Joint Doctrine
a. Doctrine and Policy. Policy and doctrine are closely related, but they fundamentally fill separate requirements. Policy can direct, assign tasks, prescribe desired capabilities, and provide guidance for ensuring the Armed Forces of the United States are prepared to perform their assigned roles; implicitly policy can therefore create new roles and a requirement for new capabilities. Conversely, doctrine enhances the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces by providing authoritative guidance and standardized terminology on topics relevant to the employment of military forces.
(1) Most often, policy drives doctrine; however, on occasion, an extant capability will require policy to be created. Policy makers and doctrine developers should work interactively and in full understanding of the other arena, striving to issue harmonized policy and doctrine. It is not always clear when a void is identified whether filling it will require new (or revised) doctrine or policy (or perhaps both). As a general rule, if the need can only be adequately addressed by using such prescriptive words as shall and must then the void is in policy and policy development should precede doctrine development.
(2) Of particular note, terminology developed within the two arenas serves different purposes. The terminology required to support the employment of forces (doctrinal terms) may not be optimal within the policy CJCSI 5120.02B 4 December 2009 A-4 Enclosure A
lane, whose purpose may be, for instance, to illuminate resource or requirement documents. Development of terminology to support policy is not limited by the constraints imposed on the development of doctrinal terms. The terminology development policy and guidance contained in this instruction amplifies that found in references c and d.
b. Doctrine and Strategy. A primary role of joint doctrine is to provide guidance for unified action in the employment of U.S. military power. As such, joint doctrine is closely linked to the development of national military strategy. In general terms, joint doctrine establishes a link between the ends (what must be accomplished) and the means (capabilities) by providing the ways (how) for joint forces to accomplish military strategic and operational objectives in support of national strategic objectives. Joint doctrine also provides information to senior civilian leaders responsible for the development of national security strategy as to the core competencies, capabilities, and limitations of military forces. In addition, it provides other government agencies and nongovernmental organizations an opportunity to understand better the roles, capabilities, and operating procedures used by the Armed Forces of the United States, thus facilitating coordination.
c. Joint Doctrine and Operation Planning
(1) Use of approved joint doctrine during contingency and crisis action planning facilitates both planning for and the execution of operations. Planning for joint operations is continuous across the full range of military operations using two closely related, integrated, collaborative, and adaptive processes -- the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) and the joint operation planning process (JOPP). JOPES and JOPP share the same basic approach and problem-solving elements, such as mission analysis and COA development. Joint doctrine provides a basis for analysis of the mission, its objectives and tasks, and developing the commanders intent and associated planning guidance. The development of the COA using decision-making processes is also based on joint doctrinal principles. JOPP provides a detailed and orderly way of translating task assignments into an operation plan or an operation order in crisis action planning. However, the COA development phase in JOPP involves both art and science and has its foundation in joint doctrine. Joint doctrine provides fundamental guidance on how operations are best conducted to accomplish the mission.
(2) Joint operation plans are developed in conformance with the criteria of adequacy, feasibility, acceptability, completeness, and compliance with joint doctrine. In accordance with (IAW) reference e, the Joint Staff/J-7 is responsible for reviewing the combatant commanders strategic concept for compliance with approved joint doctrine.
CJCSI 5120.02B 4 December 2009 A-5 Enclosure A
d. Doctrine and Training
(1) Joint doctrine establishes the fundamentals of joint operations and provides the guidance on how best to employ national military power to achieve strategic ends. Since it is axiomatic that we train as we fight, it follows that joint doctrine logically provides the foundation for joint training. To that end, reference f mandates that joint training will be accomplished IAW approved joint doctrine. Joint doctrinal publications, which are not intended to be textbooks or stand-alone documents, describe common procedures and establish uniform operational methods from a common baseline, using common terminology. This baseline assists commanders and their staffs in developing standards for joint training, exercises, and operations.
(2) Reference g contains a list of tasks that identifies what can be performed by the Joint Staff, Services, combatant commands, and components, activities, joint organizations, and agencies responsive to CJCS in terms common to the Armed Forces. The Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) task description does not address how or why a task is performed (found in joint doctrine or other governing criteria), or who performs the task (found in the commanders concept of operations and joint doctrine). UJTL language and terminology must be consistent and compliant with existing joint doctrine language and terminology in accordance with reference h.
(3) Approved joint doctrine is the basis for joint training, but when it is necessary to introduce experimentation events into joint training exercises, JFCs will use care to ensure that exercise participants understand that doctrinal deviations are solely for experimentation purposes, and may not indicate that promulgated JPs are dated or that changes to doctrine and procedures are required.
e. Joint Doctrine and Military Education
(1) Joint doctrine provides the foundation for JPME at all five military educational levels. Reference i and reference j, based on the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, outline the five military educational levels, and provide specific JPME requirements for each. Each JPME level has standards, career- appropriate learning areas, and objectives that may be taught within the context of the Service roles and functions. Although the standards are primarily described in qualitative terms, the JPME requirements are designed to prepare officer and enlisted personnel to operate in a joint environment and to bring a joint perspective to their planning and decision-making processes. JPME supports the sequential and progressive nature of Service career paths while systematically increasing the exposure to joint doctrine at every educational level. CJCSI 5120.02B 4 December 2009 A-6 Enclosure A
(2) The Services are assigned responsibility to provide an introduction to joint doctrine at the precommissioning and the primary professional military education levels. CJCS certifies or accredits JPME programs at the intermediate and the senior levels, whether at a Service- or a CJCS-sponsored school. All curricula must be joint doctrine-based. National Defense University (NDU) ensures that the CAPSTONE program is thoroughly and inherently joint, and that participants understand joint doctrine and joint operational art.
(3) The Officer Professional Military Education Policy provides the mechanism for periodic review and revision of all five JPME levels to ensure that the standards and learning areas maintain linkage to joint doctrine. In addition, at the Intermediate and the Senior Levels, the CJCS tasks Commander, United States Joint Forces Command (CDRUSJFCOM) to provide a representative to assist in reviewing joint doctrine references in curricula during Process for Accreditation of Joint Education visits. The JPME process promotes a career-long, doctrinally based educational framework for all officers.
f. Doctrine and Lessons Learned
(1) A major influence on doctrine is lessons and observations from operations, exercises, and training. This review provides a standard from which to judge what works and what does not work. As a military institution, these lessons also consider changes in the threat and operational environment. This ensures JPs remain current and relevant.
(2) Relevant lessons learned are normally adopted during the routine development or maintenance of a JP; however, if urgent or significant change is required, a recommendation may be used.
g. Doctrine and Concepts. There is a close and complementary relationship between concepts and doctrine. In general terms, a concept contains a notion or statement that expresses how something might be done. In military application, a joint concept describes how a joint force commander (JFC) may plan, prepare, deploy, employ, sustain, and redeploy a joint force within the range of military operations; guides the further development and integration of the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (reference k) and subordinate Joint Operating Concepts, Joint Functional Concepts, and Joint Integrating Concepts and Service concepts into a joint capability; and articulates the measurable detail needed for experimentation, assessment, and decision making. From a ways, means, and ends perspective, concepts and doctrine both describe how (the ways) a joint force uses given capabilities (means) in a generic set of circumstances to achieve a stated purpose (ends). There also is an important distinction between the two. Approved joint CJCSI 5120.02B 4 December 2009 A-7 Enclosure A
doctrine is authoritative, describes operations with extant capabilities, and is subject to policy, treaty, and legal constraints, while joint concepts -- whether near-term or futuristic in nature -- can explore new operational methods, organizational structures, and systems employment without the same restrictions. Joint concepts provide the basis for joint experimentation and assessment. These concepts are refined and validated during experiments, modeling and simulation, selected training events and exercises, and capabilities-based assessment. Joint doctrine provides the basis for education, training, and execution of current joint operations.
(1) Concepts may be conceived for a variety of reasons, such as to respond to inadequacies in current joint capabilities, test new capabilities, or propose innovative solutions to military problems. Whatever the reason, concepts should embrace the overarching goal of improving joint force effectiveness. Concepts provide a venue to explore solutions to problems and emerging missions for which no doctrine exists. They also may enable consideration of alternatives to methods described in approved doctrine, based either on lessons learned from recent operations or on emerging capabilities whose military application has not yet been exploited. Futuristic concepts typically focus on new ways and means with which the joint force can meet expected future operational challenges using advanced technologies and capabilities, many of which are not yet developed. This requires concept developers to project the nature of the operating environment 8-20 years in the future and describe new approaches and advanced capabilities required to operate successfully in that environment. However, this process of forecasting the future and evaluating concepts may uncover ideas that could improve how joint forces operate today and could have an immediate impact on established doctrine.
(2) Transformation efforts put a premium on exploring and validating concepts through joint experimentation and assessment. Validated, value- added concepts can impact favorably on doctrine, training, and education. The results of experimentation are not sufficient to require doctrinal change. The concept must clearly demonstrate value-added to current joint doctrine and represent an extant capability. In other words, approved joint doctrine is the authoritative, generic baseline against which concepts and experimentation results will be compared to assess their transformational value. In addition, current combatant command operation plans provide situation-specific application of current doctrine, which can be useful in evaluating a concept. Concepts typically are not copied directly into joint doctrine, but their central themes and essential constructs may be incorporated in a number of ways.
(a) Most commonly, new ideas will be considered during the routine process of developing, assessing, and revising existing JPs. Any authorized organization can recommend such changes during this process per procedures in CJCSI 5120.02B 4 December 2009 A-8 Enclosure A
this instruction. These proposals will be evaluated on merit during the normal joint doctrine development process.
(b) While most concept-based changes to JPs will be incremental in nature, a validated concept might provide a substantially new and beneficial way of accomplishing a particular function or task, thereby affecting a significant part of an existing JP or requiring a new JP. In such cases, the joint doctrine development community (JDDC) might use a joint test publication (JTP) and associated evaluation to field test the concept. It is important to note the difference between the process of a field-tested, concepts-based JTP versus the experimental testing of an emergent concept. JTP field-testing is limited to the use of extant forces and capabilities. Concepts that remain dependent upon simulated forces, capabilities, or processes are not appropriate for field-testing as JTPs. The JTP evaluation directive (ED) would establish the authority and applicability of the publication. (See Enclosure C for more details.)
(c) Concepts can form the basis of recommended changes to doctrine that are submitted in accordance with reference l and reference m. These documents provide the policy and process for translating the results of concept development and joint experimentation into joint warfighting capabilities in the areas of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF). With Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) endorsement of DOTMLPF change recommendations (DCRs) and approval by CJCS (or designated representative), conditions are met for the introduction of these doctrine recommendations to the JDDC. (See Enclosure C for more details.)
h. Doctrine and Joint Capabilities Areas (JCAs). JCAs are an integral part of the evolving capabilities-based planning process. JCAs are intended to provide a common capabilities language for use across many related DOD activities and processes. Processes identified for incorporation of JCAs include the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process; Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System; and joint force development. Many JCAs are being described using joint doctrine and joint terminology and are already covered by joint doctrine. As capabilities described in the JCAs that affect the employment of the joint force are fielded and validated, they will be incorporated through the joint doctrine development process. 25 March 2013 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States Joint Publication 1 J oint Force Development VI-3 4. Joint Doctrine J oint doctrine provides the fundamental principles that guide the employment of US military forces in coordinated action toward a common objective. It also provides authoritative guidance from which joint operations are planned and executed. a. Joint Doctrine Fundamentals (1) J oint doctrine is based on extant capabilities (i.e., current force structures and materiel). It incorporates time-tested principles of joint operations, operational art, and elements of operational design. J oint doctrine standardizes terminology, relationships, responsibilities, and processes among all US forces to free J FCs and their staffs to focus efforts on solving the complex problems confronting them. For more discussion of the principles of joint operations, see JP 3-0, J oint Operations. For more discussion of operational art and operational design, see JP 5-0, J oint Operation Planning. (2) Joint doctrine is authoritative guidance and will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. Doctrine does not replace or alter a commanders authority and obligation to determine the proper COA under the circumstances prevailing at the time of decision; such judgments are the responsibility of the commander. J oint doctrine is not dogmaticthe focus is on how to think about operations, not what to think about operations. It is definitive enough to guide operations while versatile enough to accommodate a wide variety of situations. J oint doctrine should foster initiative, creativity, and conditions that allow commanders the freedom to adapt to varying circumstances. The judgment of the commander based upon the situation is always paramount. (3) J oint doctrine applies to the J oint Staff, CCDRs, subordinate unified commanders, J TF commanders, and subordinate component commanders of these commands, the Services, and CSAs. In developing joint doctrine, existing Service, multi- Service, and multinational doctrine is considered. However, joint doctrine takes precedence over individual Services doctrine, which must be consistent with joint doctrine. J oint doctrine should not include detail that is more appropriate in Service doctrine, standing operating procedures, plans, and other publications. If conflicts arise between the contents of joint doctrine and the contents of Service or multi-Service doctrine, joint doctrine takes precedence for the activities of joint forces unless CJ CS has provided more current and specific guidance. (4) Joint doctrine is not policy. Policy and doctrine are closely related, but they fundamentally fill separate requirements. Policy can direct, assign tasks, prescribe desired capabilities, and provide guidance for ensuring the Armed Forces of the United States are prepared to perform their assigned roles; implicitly policy can create new roles and a requirement for new capabilities. Most often, policy drives doctrine; however, on occasion, an extant capability will require policy to be created. As doctrine reflects extant capabilities, Chapter VI VI-4 J P 1 policy must first be implemented and/or new capabilities fielded before they can be written into doctrine. (5) When the Armed Forces of the United States participate in multinational operations, US commanders should follow multinational doctrine and procedures that were ratified by the US. For multinational doctrine and procedures not ratified by the US, commanders should evaluate and follow the multinational commands doctrine and procedures where applicable and consistent with US law, policy, and doctrine. (6) J oint doctrine is developed under the aegis of the CJ CS in coordination and consultation with the Services, CCMDs, and CSAs. The J oint Staff leads the joint doctrine development community and is responsible for all aspects of the joint doctrine process, to include promulgation. For further guidance on the development of joint doctrine, refer to CJCSI 5120.02C, J oint Doctrine Development System. b. Purpose of Joint Doctrine J oint doctrine is written for those who: (1) Provide strategic direction to joint forces (the CJ CS and CCDRs). (2) Employ joint forces (CCDRs, subordinate unified commanders, or J TF commanders). (3) Support or are supported by joint forces (CCMDs, subunified commands, JTFs, component commands, the Services, and CSAs). (4) Prepare forces for employment by CCDRs, subordinate unified commanders, and J TF commanders. (5) Train and educate those who will conduct joint operations. 5. Joint Education a. Education is a key aspect of the joint force development process. (1) Professional military education (PME) conveys the broad body of knowledge and develops the cognitive skills essential to the military professionals expertise in the art and science of war. Additionally, affective or attitudinal learning is paired with education to better inculcate the values of joint service as discussed in Chapter I, Theory and Foundations. (2) Service delivery of PME, taught in a joint context, instills basic Service core competency within topics associated with joint matters. J oint education is the aspect of PME that focuses on imparting joint knowledge and attitudes. USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJ ECT
UNDERSTANDING AND DESIGNING MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS FOR A COMPLEX DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT
by
Commander Christopher E. Hicks United States Navy
Dr. Sandra Martinez Project Adviser
This SRP is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree. The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
U.S. Army War College CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
Organizational Designs Military professionals typically understand their chain-of-command and the internal processes of their organization but unfortunately it is often these same leaders who do not understand or recognize the type of organization they work within. The design or structure of an organization not only denotes vertical and horizontal reporting chains, it also describes organizational culture which in turn influences organizational behavior. Having the ability to recognize and understand organizational structures allows leaders to comprehend and potentially influence behaviors. Rational theorists have been espousing optimal structural designs for many years and their recommendations and theories have changed and evolved over time. In the latest (as of this writing) Organizational Dynamics journal, Bahrat N. Anand and Richard L. Daft describe current thinking and analysis of the right design for todays organizations. The two authors provide a historic rational approach consisting of three organizational design eras. 19
Era 1: Self-Contained Organizational Designs Era 1 began in the mid-1800s, lasted until the late 1970s, and was dominated by self-contained hierarchical structures with clear but steep chains of command. 20 These organizations have been described as Functional, Divisional, and Matrix. 21 Though the era is said to have lasted until the late 70s, these types of structures still exist in abundance today. Era 1 organizations were created for internal control and efficiencies in producing an enduring output or, in other words, building the same widget or service for the same market over time. These structures work well in a simple-stable 10 environment but began to suffer as the environment progresses to a complex-dynamic condition. Anand and Daft write: In a functional structure, activities are grouped together by common function from the bottom to the top of the organization. 22 This is commonly referred to as Stove Pipes and it is well understood they exist within DoD. As a matter of fact, each branch of the armed services can be labeled a functional component of DoD. Choosing the US Navy and drilling down further, one can identify three more functional components; aviation, submarine warfare and surface warfare. According to Anand and Daft, The divisional structure occurs when departments are grouped together based on organizational outputs. In the business world, most large corporations have divisions that encompass numerous functions. The people within these divisions focus on a common product and the functional boundaries are more transparent. 23 Taco Bell is, for example, a division of PepsiCo. The divisional structure is still pyramid in nature but is supposedly suited for a slightly more complex- dynamic environment than the functional organization. Divisional structure exists in DoD; at least in design. A J oint Task Force (J TF) created by a Geographic Combatant Commander (GCC) is designed to be a divisional entity of the GCC but in reality is a series of functional component commanders that tend to operate within their domains. The organization becomes divisional when planning and efforts are combined to achieve a common goal with understood responsibilities. However, as seen in a great deal of literature, defining supported and supporting commands is considered an important function for the J TF commander. But this is indicative of stove-piped elements concerned more with self-relevance and 11 internal desires than the overarching purpose of why they were put together as an organization. In other words, it is an organization designed to be divisional but behaves functionally. As the environment has become more complex and dynamic over the last three decades, structures have evolved. Anand and Daft state, once again, Few organizations can be successful today with a pure functional structure. Functional or divisional silos inhibit the amount of coordination needed in a changing environment. 24
Horizontal coordination is needed between functional components and organizations have used inter-department liaisons, networked information sharing, and other means to achieve this. However, organizations that needed even stronger horizontal cooperation evolved into matrix organizations. 25 The matrix organization contains a traditional vertical hierarchy but overlays an equally strong horizontal coordinating chain of command. The DoD is itself, a matrix organization. Each service provides functional components that report to operational or combatant commanders. These same components are organized, trained, equipped, and maintained by the service chiefs two different chains. Matrix organizations do allow for greater flexibility and divided responsibilities but can also create confusion for lesser organizations or commands. Confusion based on whom to report or answer to. Matrix organizations exist within specific services as well. Naval Aviation is a perfect example. Carrier based squadrons report operationally to a Carrier Air Wing Commander (06) but are resourced through a shore-based commodore (06). The two chains continue upward. The Air Wing Commanders chain continues up through the operational hierarchy while commodores report directly to Commander Naval Air Forces 12 (CNAF) a three star resource provider. The functions and responsibilities of the two chains are completely different but allow for the commanders to concentrate efforts within their lanes while coordinating their work. Era 1 organizational structures have been referred to as Industrial Age structures indicative of their period of creation. This connotation is descriptive of old or outdated relative to the views of those analyzing organizations within the context of the information age. These organizational structures are common within DoD and its important to recognize what they are, how they evolved, and the behaviors they display. Era 2: Horizontal Organization Design with Team and Process Based Emphasis Era 2 began in the 1980s as the global market place began to become more complex. The internal structures of traditional designs began to hinder the ability of organizations to respond readily to rapid changes in the environment. 26 To cope, layers of hierarchies were removed and cross-functional teams created to break down stovepipes. A flattened organization reacted faster by eliminating vertical control measures and teams of various functionaries provided for greater innovation through close coordination of the various stove-piped departments. The teams effectively managed organizational processes instead of hierarchies. 27 Examples of Flat organizations are plentiful in the tech sector of industry as that market is known to change rapidly with ever newly introduced or improved products. While not as wide spread, organizations within DoD have also flattened to better respond to internal and external requirements. CNAF (mentioned earlier) eliminated several internal structural levels during the early 1990s creating a vertical chain that went from 3-star flag level directly to the 06 level. Relative to traditional military 13 structure, CNAF is a flat organization and it uses cross-functional teams to manage resource allotment, repairable manufacturing, personnel distribution, planning, and scheduling. Flat organizations tend to react and adapt better to dynamic environments. It is the behavior of the organization that allows for adaptability and flattened organizations produce cultures conducive to adaptive behavior. Somewhat unique to the military are organizations structured traditionally that behave adaptively or flatten out when operating. As discussed, environmental conditions change for organizations, especially military units that may be either in garrison or conducting combat operations. As such, some military organizations have evolved cultures that allow behavioral change based on current environmental conditions. Special Forces teams are great examples, they are administratively steep in rank and hierarchy, like most military units, yet allow and push decision allocation to near equal levels during operations. This is an evolved and desired organizational behavior realized through environmental influence - A concept beyond scope here but deserving more study. Era 2 organizations are not as prevalent in the DoD but the behaviors are desired. Decentralized operation is a trait of the flattened organization; a trait derived from the culture a flattened organization creates. This organizational trait derived from structural design and controlling processes is necessary for complex dynamic environments. Era 3: Organizational Boundaries Open Up Era 3, as described by Anand and Daft, began in the late 1990s as a result of improvements in communication technology and emerging economies that produced pools of skilled expertise around the world. This era produced managers less reluctant 14 to go outside the organization for processes traditionally kept in-house resulting in Hollow and Modular organizations. 28
The hollow organization is more a method than design centered on outsourcing to organizations that can provide a desired process better or cheaper than the parent organization. The modular organization is the same with the only difference being outsourcing portions of a product instead of process. Outsourcing is profuse in the DoD and Anand and Daft use DoD and Halliburton as an example of a hollow organization outsourcing to another business. 29
Cost reduction is the primary reason for outsourcing and is relevant to competiveness in the external environment. Cost reduction is important in DoD as reductions in one sector provides resources to another and abundant resources reduce uncertainty. However, leaders within DoD must tackle the difficult problem of balancing feasible outsourcing with actual cost reductions, risk, and benefits of resources gained. Era 1 and Era 2 organizational designs are both great historical descriptions of industrial age organizations and define most current DoD structures. However, the Era 3 design seems to be indicative of the rational theory loosing steam in the Information Age. Describing cost saving methods as a modern organizational design is overreaching and illustrates the limits of the rational approach and Industrial Age thinking. The corporate realm has pursued aggressive structural transformation in keeping pace with global change but DoD has been more reluctant to do so. Traditional military leaders have and will have a disinclination to abandon current Napoleonic structures but, at the same time, desire behaviors found in modern organizations. As such, it will 15 be imperative to incorporate processes and controls that provide for agile organizational behavior in the Information Age. Edge Organizations The edge organization is a conceptual framework for organizational design relevant to the Information Age. A concept promoted by the Command and Control Research Program (CCRP), it is an agile organization centered on information sharing, decentralization and self-synchronization. While Industrial Age organizations are still considered complex-adaptive systems, they are slow to adapt and far from agile. The concept of Edge Organization is a product of complexity theory that is not only highly adaptive but very agile. In the book, The Agile Organization, Simon Atkinson and J ames Moffat write: Agility is the gold standard for Information Age militaries. Facing uncertain futures and new sets of threats in a complex, dynamic, and challenging security environment, militaries around the world are transforming themselves, becoming more information- enabled and network-centric. 30 The CCRP, in a series of books, outlines processes and concepts required for organizational agility in the Information Age. The premise is based on networked edge organizations managed and led through flexible command and control structures orchestrated around thoroughly understood commanders intent. 31
32
33 Understanding, acceptance, and corporate-wide implementation of these concepts will enable the DoD to maintain global superiority among conventional and asymmetrical competitors. 16
Department of Defense MANUAL
NUMBER 8260.03, Volume 2 J une 14, 2011
USD(P&R)
SUBJ ECT: Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFM DI) Implementation: The Organizational and Force Structure Construct (OFSC)
References: See Enclosure 1
1. PURPOSE
a. Manual. Pursuant to DoD Instruction (DoDI) 8260.03 (Reference (a)), the authority in DoD Directive (DoDD) 5124.02 (Reference (b)), and in accordance with DoDD 8320.03 (Reference (c)), this Manual implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures and rules for the electronic documentation of force structure data across the DoD.
b. Volume. This Volume sets forth responsibilities and procedures for implementation of the OFSC for authorized force structure in GFM DI Organization Servers (OSs) and for task organized force structure in systems that consume OS data.
2. APPLICABILITY. This Volume applies to OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the J oint Chiefs of Staff and the J oint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the DoD, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (hereafter referred to collectively as the DoD Components).
3. DEFINITIONS. See Glossary.
4. POLICY. In accordance with Reference (a), this Volume implements DoD policy to:
a. Electronically document and maintain currency of authorized force structure in a suite of authoritative data sources (ADSs), known as GFM DI OSs, hereafter referenced to as OSs, in a comprehensive and hierarchical format usable by systems across the DoD as a common reference for data integration, and to ensure that force structure data is visible, accessible, understandable, and trusted across the DoD, as required by DoDD 8320.02 (Reference (d)).
DoDM 8260.03-M-V2, June 14, 2011
2 b. Implement the electronic documentation of DoD force structure elements and relationships in accordance with Reference (a).
5. RESPONSIBILITIES. See Enclosure 2.
6. PROCEDURES. See Enclosure 3.
7. RELEASABILITY. UNLIMITED. This Volume is approved for public release and is available on the Internet from the DoD Issuances Website at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives.
8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Volume is effective immediately upon its publication to the DoD Issuances Website.
Clifford L. Stanley Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
Enclosures 1. References 2. Responsibilities 3. The Organizational and Force Structure Construct Glossary
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS (USD(P&R)) ........................................................................................................................8 UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS (USD(AT&L)) ................................................................................................8 USD(I)........................................................................................................................................8 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION/DOD CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (ASD(NII)/DOD CIO) ........9 SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS ........................................................9 CHAIRMAN OF THE J OINT CHIEFS OF STAFF .................................................................9 COMMANDERS OF THE COMBATANT COMMANDS .....................................................9
ENCLOSURE 3: THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND FORCE STRUCTURE CONSTRUCT .....10
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................10 Purpose ...............................................................................................................................10 Aggregation Based upon Leadership and Command .........................................................11 Enhancing the DoD Levels of Authority ...........................................................................12 Authorization Data as a Fundamental Building Block ......................................................14 FORMALISM TO REPRESENT FORCE STRUCTURE ......................................................15 Graph Theory .....................................................................................................................15 The Tree Property and Time-Based Trees .........................................................................17 DEFAULT OPERATIONAL ORGANIZATION ...................................................................19 Stable Nodes and Dynamic Links ......................................................................................19 Authorization Inventory and Related Terms......................................................................19 Five Conditions that Induce an Organizational Element ...................................................20 Associations .......................................................................................................................21 Equivalence of Command Structures and Chains of Command ........................................22 Relations versus Associations ............................................................................................25 IMPLEMENTING LEVELS OF AUTHORITY WITH RELATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS ...............................................................................................................26 Interpreting DoD Levels of Authority ...............................................................................26 Unity of Command ............................................................................................................27 Deriving Relations from Associations ...............................................................................28 ADCON AND THE ADMIN RELATION .............................................................................30 ADCON .............................................................................................................................30 ADMIN ..............................................................................................................................30 THE C2DEF RELATION........................................................................................................31 ROLES AND REPRESENTING REQUIREMENTS .............................................................32 IDENTIFYING LEADERSHIP USING THE IS-LED-BY DEFAULT ASSOCIATION .....35 CONTENTS 3 DoDM 8260.03-M-V2, June 14, 2011
ASSIGNMENT AND THE COCOM RELATION .................................................................39 The Process and Properties of Assignment ........................................................................39 The COCOM Relation .......................................................................................................40 Interacting Assignment and COCOM Propagation ...........................................................41 ALLOCATION AND THE OPCON RELATION ..................................................................44 The Process and Properties of Allocation ..........................................................................44 The OPCON Relation ........................................................................................................45 Consistent Implementation of Assignment and Allocation ...............................................45 TACON COMMAND AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................47 SUPPORT COMMAND AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................48 Review of Direct and General Support Relationships .......................................................48 General Support and the COCOM Relation ......................................................................50 SPECIAL AND SPECIFIC CASES: CREWS ........................................................................50 Introduction to Crews ........................................................................................................50 Placement of Crews within Command Structures .............................................................55 Crews with Separate Transportation and Mobility Requirements .....................................58 Reserve Stock, Floaters, Pre-Positioned Stocks ................................................................60 SPECIAL AND SPECIFIC CASES: BILLETS .....................................................................61 Civilian Billets or Willets ..................................................................................................61 Reserve Component Billets................................................................................................61 Billets for Temporary Status Personnel .............................................................................63 Individual Augmentees (IAs) .............................................................................................63 SPECIAL AND SPECIFIC CASES: J OINT OEs INCLUDING BILLETS ..........................63 SPECIAL AND SPECIFIC CASES: MULTI-HATTED POSITIONS .................................68 Introduction to Multi-Hatted Positions ..............................................................................68 Simple Case-Service Chief Leadership .............................................................................69 More Complicated Cases in Multi-Hatted Leadership ......................................................71 REPRESENTING THE UPPER ECHELONS ........................................................................75 THE TOP OF THE WORLD ...................................................................................................80
APPENDIXES 1. OFSC BUSINESS RULES ...........................................................................................82 2. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE FOR GFM DI ORG SERVERS .........................88
PART I: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................89 PART II: DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................92
TABLES
1. OFSC Relations and Associations .....................................................................................27 2. OFSC Relation Characteristics ...........................................................................................30 3. Example of Habitual and Non-Habitual Relationships .......................................................53 4. Examples of Upper DoD Echelon OEs ...............................................................................77 CONTENTS 4 DoDM 8260.03-M-V2, June 14, 2011
force structure data so that it can be manipulated in a consistent manner by computer programs to the benefit of decision makers. Both the OFSC and the GFM XSD are required to accomplish this objective. Without the OFSC, the GFM XSD can be used and interpreted incorrectly.
(4) Pursuant to Reference (a), the OFSC is to be implemented in the GFM Component OSs and in all automated systems that utilize a force structure representation. The OSs are the ADSs for the default force structure authorized for procurement by Congress. The initial suites of OSs exist in unclassified and classified domains, under the management of OSD, the J oint Staff, Defense Intelligence Enterprise, and the Military Services. External applications integrate OS data with instance data and manipulate the default force structure to represent ad hoc organizations while maintaining linkages through unique identification back to the original authorizations. Appendix 2 to this enclosure provides implementation guidance for GFM DI OS.
b. Aggregation Based upon Leadership and Command
(1) The first OFSC rule is the fundamental military concept that every organization has a leader. This statement requires elaboration, however, and the challenge of defining principal terms with the necessary precision to support automated information exchange must be approached carefully. Conceptually, an OFSC organization is an aggregation point with a leader, to which arbitrary entities can be associated, and that may be used to unite other organizations. The OFSC delineates these aggregation points using the criteria of leadership, defined as the authority (both military and civilian) exercised over subordinates by virtue of grade or assignment within the DoD.
(2) A primary subtype of leadership is command. Command is the core theme of military leadership and drives many related concepts and terms, to include command relationships and command authority. The objective of GFM DI is to provide the basis, and to satisfy force structure requirements, for all DoD users at any DoD echelon or function where leadership is involved. The OFSC must not limit aggregation based only on military command. Any recognized level of leadership in either the military or civilian hierarchies, and through operational and administrative relationships, must be available to justify the creation of an OFSC organization. This requires that the OFSC formalism for some (but not all) military command relationships be expanded to allow the electronic documentation of OSD civilian organizational structures. To this end, the term command relationship will be expanded to refer to the exercise of authority in either civilian or military hierarchies. In the OFSC, command relationships are synonymous with leadership relationships.
(3) The OFSC distinguishes between the exercise of command relationships through a sequence of individuals, routinely referred to as a chain of command, and the full organizational hierarchy through which leadership and command is exercised, coined a command structure. This distinction is explained in section 3 of this enclosure. As with command relationships, these terms are expanded to include any leadership authority, military or civilian, and the resulting operational and administrative hierarchies. Therefore, chain of command is synonymous with chain of leadership and command structure is synonymous with leadership structure.
ENCLOSURE 3 11 DoDM 8260.03-M-V2, June 14, 2011
(4) The logical expressions for these various leadership concepts and structures are defined in sections 4 through 12 of this enclosure. Special cases requiring greater explanation on how the formulism is to be deployed are described in sections 13 through 16 of this enclosure. Enclosure 3 concludes with an explanation of the challenges presented by digitizing the upper echelon of the DoD hierarchy, where the command structures of the Services Active and Reserve Components, the joint community, and OSD agencies are united into a bridge that spans across the Department to facilitate data integration.
c. Enhancing the DoD Levels of Authority
(1) A command structure and its corresponding chain of command must demonstrate equivalence (see Rule 2 and section 3.e). In accordance with J oint Publication (J P) 1 (Reference (e)), the military establishment recognizes two basic branches of the chain of command. Although not named by Reference (e), they have been traditionally referred to as the operational chain of command and the administrative chain of command. The OFSC incorporates these notions as fundamental concepts and characterizes relationships in both branches to harmonize the interactions between them.
(2) To further define various command relationships and resulting aggregations based upon them, the OFSC incorporates the terms and concepts defined in Reference (e) as the DoD levels of authority. A basic taxonomy of these authorities or relationships derived from Reference (e) is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The DoD Levels of Authority Taxonomy
I. Command Relationships (or Command Authority) A. Combatant Command (Command Authority) (COCOM) B. Operational Control (OPCON) C. Tactical Control (TACON) D. Support 1. General 2. Mutual 3. Direct 4. Close II. Administrative Control (ADCON) III. Coordinating Authority IV. Direct Liaison Authorized (DIRLAUTH)
(3) To consistently represent the interactions between diverse command and leadership relationships, the OFSC employs a taxonomy of leadership relationship, shown in Figure 2. This taxonomy expands the scope of the command relationships to include the administrative and operational branches of the chain of command and their interaction with the DoD levels of authority. This allows all leadership and command relationships to be consistently represented and integrated across the joint community and recognizes that commanders exercising authority in an administrative chain of command share authority comparable to their operational ENCLOSURE 3 12 DoDM 8260.03-M-V2, June 14, 2011
counterparts. Using leadership relationships as an umbrella category, a new category of relationship, called administrative relationships, is introduced to complement the Reference (e) category called Command Relationships. Since the Command Relationships category is operational in nature, it has been renamed Operational Relationships in the OFSC. This differs from Figure 1, which does not consider administrative control (ADCON) to be a command relationship. The OFSC does not differentiate between command relationships exercised in an administrative versus operational capacity.
(4) As shown in Figure 2, under the Administrative Relationships category, a new relationship is introduced called default administrative leadership (ADMIN). ADMIN is a relationship to build structures based upon the administrative chain of command and represents default administrative leadership in both the military and civilian hierarchies. The ADMIN relationship implements, in part, the organizing function identified in sections 3013, 5013, and 8013 (b) of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) ((Reference (f)), and initiates a correlation with the administrative chain of command. The use of default in the relationship title indicates a preset option designated by a Service or DoD Component to serve as an initial condition. The OFSC treatment and implementation of the interactions between the concepts of the administrative chain of command, the Title 10 function of organizing, the GFM ADMIN default relationship, and ADCON are covered in section 5 of this enclosure.
Figure 2. OFSC Leadership Relationship Taxonomy
I. Command (Leadership) Relationships A. Operational Relationships 1. COCOM 2. OPCON 3. TACON 4. Support a. General b. Mutual c. Direct d. Close B. Administrative Relationships 1. Default Administrative Leadership (ADMIN) 2. ADCON II. Coordinating Authority III. DIRLAUTH
(5) The OFSC categorizes ADCON as an administrative relationship to acknowledge that any of the inherent Service functions outlined in Reference (f) may involve command of an administrative nature. This does not imply that an ADCON function will require command relationships, but only that it may, and therefore, it is placed under the leadership relationships umbrella. The set of ADCON functions and associated responsibilities is complex and the subclasses of ADCON may not be defined, distributed, or interpreted consistently across Service and joint boundaries. For these reasons, ADCON is defined separately from the ADMIN default ENCLOSURE 3 13 DoDM 8260.03-M-V2, June 14, 2011
relationship that is defined consistently across the Services via Title 10 and is manifested in the OFSC via the administrative chain of command.
d. Authorization Data as a Fundamental Building Block
(1) Authorization data and force structure data are closely associated. In the GFM DI, authorization data refers to the permission to procure personnel or equipment. It is not the actual personnel or equipment, but the congressional permission to obtain it, as described in DoDI 7730.64 (Reference (g)). Manpower is reported in terms of what has been determined necessary (manpower requirement) and what is authorized for employment (manpower authorization). Manpower documents describe the qualifications and types of jobs required to operate an organization. Section 13 of this enclosuredescribes how manpower and selected equipment authorizations are tightly intertwined with force structure because they contain the primary assets that constitute an organizations resources.
(2) Authorization data is used as the basis for the OFSC because it is relatively stable. While the actual people and equipment are transient, the authorization persists and typically evolves slowly over time at predefined intervals. This allows the authorization data to be treated as if it were static, for example, to be maintained in a shared reference library, analogous to a phone book.
(3) The principle of using authorization data as building blocks is illustrated in Figure 3. Diagram A illustrates people (triangles) and platforms (squares) geographically located within a set delineated by the Unit Identification Code (UIC), denoted by an octagon, to which they belong. Generally, UIC resolution is standard for current systems (e.g., command and control, readiness, logistics). Diagram B illustrates the same UIC set subdivided or decomposed into smaller and smaller groups denoted by the ellipses, circles, and squares. These groupings can be based upon any of a number of criteria, but often are based on tactics, training, and doctrine of employment. Each group can be further decomposed into smaller groups until a group is comprised of a single person or piece of equipment (platform).
Figure 3. Real Objects versus Authorizations
B C A UIC Resolution Set LEGEND: Person Vehicle (Platform) ENCLOSURE 3 14 25 March 2013 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States Joint Publication 1 Theory and Foundations I-11 warfare may take a variety of forms. It may erupt among or between states or non-state entities with war-making capabilities. It may manifest as traditional warfare or IW. When the US commits military forces into conflict, success is expected. (3) Deter Our Adversaries. Defending national interests requires being able to prevail in conflict and taking preventive measures to deter potential adversaries who could threaten the vital interests of the US or its partners. These threats could range from direct aggression to belligerent actions that nonetheless threaten vital national interests. Deterrence influences potential adversaries not to take threatening actions. It requires convincing those adversaries that a contemplated action will not achieve the desired result by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction. Because of the gravity of potential nuclear aggression by a growing list of actors, maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent capability will remain a critical national security imperative. (4) Security Cooperation. Security cooperation encompasses all DOD interactions with foreign defense establishments to build defense relationships that promote specific US security interests, develop allied and friendly military capabilities for self- defense and multinational operations, and provide US forces with peacetime and contingency access to a host nation (HN). Establishing, maintaining, and enhancing security cooperation among our partner nations is important to strengthen the global security framework of the US and its partners. Security cooperation allows us to proactively take advantage of opportunities and not just react to threats. Contributing to security cooperation activities is a large part of what the US military does and will continue to do. Supporting security cooperation activities is an essential element of the CCDRs day-to-day work to enhance regional security and thereby advance national interests. Like deterrence, security cooperation activities can reduce the chances of conflict, but unlike deterrence, it does not involve the threat of force. Security cooperation and deterrence should be complementary as both contribute to security and prevent conflict. (5) Support to Civil Authorities. The US will continue to respond to a variety of civil crises to relieve human suffering and restore civil functioning, most often in support of civil authorities. These crises may be foreign or domestic and may occur independently, as in a natural disaster disrupting an otherwise functioning society, or they may occur within the context of a conflict, such as widespread suffering in a nation embroiled in an insurgency. (6) Adapt to Changing Environment. The strategic security environment and national security challenges are always changing. The ability to address the changing environment and meet our security challenges falls to the instruments of national power and the ability of the Armed Forces of the United States to conduct military operations worldwide. 9. Instruments of National Power and the Range of Military Operations a. The ability of the US to advance its national interests is dependent on the effectiveness of the United States Government (USG) in employing the instruments of Chapter I I-12 J P 1 national power to achieve national strategic objectives. The appropriate governmental officials, often with NSC direction, normally coordinate the employment of instruments of national power. (1) Diplomatic. Diplomacy is the principal instrument for engaging with other states and foreign groups to advance US values, interests, and objectives, and to solicit foreign support for US military operations. Diplomacy is a principal means of organizing coalitions and alliances, which may include states and non-state entities, as partners, allies, surrogates, and/or proxies. The Department of State (DOS) is the USG lead agency for foreign affairs. The credible threat of force reinforces, and in some cases, enables the diplomatic process. Geographic combatant commanders (GCCs) are responsible for aligning military activities with diplomatic activities in their assigned areas of responsibility (AORs). The chief of mission, normally the US ambassador, and the corresponding country team are normally in charge of diplomatic-military activities in a country abroad. In these circumstances, the chief of mission and the country team or another diplomatic mission team may have complementary activities (employing the diplomatic instrument) that do not entail control of military forces, which remain under command authority of the GCC. (2) Informational. Information remains an important instrument of national power and a strategic resource critical to national security. Previously considered in the context of traditional nation-states, the concept of information as an instrument of national power extends to non-state actorssuch as terrorists and transnational criminal groupsthat are using information to further their causes and undermine those of the USG and our allies. DOD operates in a dynamic age of interconnected global networks and evolving social media platforms. Every DOD action that is planned or executed, word that is written or spoken, and image that is displayed or relayed, communicates the intent of DOD, and by extension the USG, with the resulting potential for strategic effects. (a) DOD makes every effort to synchronize, align, and coordinate communication activities to facilitate an understanding of how the planning and execution of DOD strategies, plans, operations, and activities will be received or understood by key audiences. This effort is undertaken to improve the efficacy of these actions and create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable to advancing defense and military objectives. Communication synchronization entails focused efforts to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of national interests, policies, and objectives by understanding and engaging key audiences through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power. In support of these efforts, commanders and staffs at all levels should identify and understand key audience perceptions and possible reactions when planning and executing operations. This understanding of key audience perceptions and reactions is a vital element of every theater campaign and contingency plan. Real or perceived differences between actions and words (the say-do gap) are addressed and actively mitigated as appropriate, since this divergence can directly contribute to reduced credibility and have a negative impact on the ability to successfully execute current and future missions. Attention paid to commanders communication guidance during planning and execution improves the alignment of multiple lines of operation and lines of effort over time and space, which aligns the overarching message with our actions and activities. Theory and Foundations I-13 (b) Commanders communication guidance is a fundamental component of national strategic direction. It also is essential to our ability to achieve unity of effort through unified action with our interagency partners and the broader interorganizational community. Fundamental to this effort is the premise that key audience beliefs, perceptions, and behavior are crucial to the success of any strategy, plan, and operation. Through commanders communication synchronization (CCS), public affairs (PA), information operations (IO), and defense support to public diplomacy are realized as communication supporting capabilities. Leaders, planners, and operators at all levels need to understand the desired effects and anticipate potential undesired effects of our actions and words, identify key audiences, and when appropriate, actively address their perspectives. Inconsistencies between what US forces say and do can reduce DOD credibility and negatively affect current and future missions. An effective combination of themes, messages, images, and actions, consistent with higher-level guidance, is essential to effective DOD operations. (c) Within DOD, J FCs implement higher-level communication guidance through the CCS process. J FCs provide guidance and their staffs develop the approach for achieving information-related objectives and ensuring the integrity and consistency of themes, messages, images, and actions to the lowest level through the integration and synchronization of relevant information-related capabilities. Considering the messages our words, images, and actions communicate is integral to military planning and operations and should be coordinated and synchronized with DODs interorganizational partners. See JP 3-0, J oint Operations, and JP 5-0, J oint Operation Planning, for more information on commanders communication guidance implementation. (3) Military. The US employs the military instrument of national power at home and abroad in support of its national security goals. The ultimate purpose of the US Armed Forces is to fight and win the Nations wars. Fundamentally, the military instrument is coercive in nature, to include the integral aspect of military capability that opposes external coercion. Coercion generates effects through the application of force (to include the threat of force) to compel an adversary or prevent our being compelled. The military has various capabilities that are useful in non-conflict situations (such as in foreign relief). Regardless of when or where employed, the Armed Forces of the United States abide by US values, constitutional principles, and standards for the profession of arms. (4) Economic. A strong US economy with free access to global markets and resources is a fundamental engine of the general welfare, the enabler of a strong national defense. In the international arena, the Department of the Treasury works with other USG agencies, the governments of other nations, and the international financial institutions to encourage economic growth, raise standards of living, and predict and prevent, to the extent possible, economic and financial crises. b. The routine interaction of the instruments of national power is fundamental to US activities in the strategic security environment. The military instruments role increases relative to the other instruments as the need to compel a potential adversary through force increases. The USGs ability to achieve its national strategic objectives depends on Chapter I I-14 J P 1 employing the instruments of national power discussed herein in effective combinations and all possible situations from peace to war. c. At the Presidents direction through the interagency process, military power is integrated with other instruments of national power to advance and defend US values, interests, and objectives. To accomplish this integration, the Armed Forces interact with the other departments and agencies to develop a mutual understanding of the capabilities, limitations, and consequences of military and civilian actions. They also identify the ways in which military and nonmilitary capabilities best complement each other. The NSC plays key roles in the integration of all instruments of national power, facilitating Presidential direction, cooperation, and unity of effort (unified action). d. Political and military leaders must consider the employment of military force in operations characterized by a complex, interconnected, and global operational environment that affect the employment of capabilities and bear on the decisions of the commander. The addition of military force to coerce an adversary should be carefully integrated with the other instruments of national power to achieve our objectives. e. The military instrument of national power can be used in a wide variety of ways that vary in purpose, scale, risk, and combat intensity. These various ways can be understood to occur across a continuum of conflict ranging from peace to war. Inside this continuum, it is useful from a strategic perspective to delineate the use of the military instrument of national power into three broad categories. Mindful that the operational level of warfare connects the tactical to the strategic, and operations and campaigns are themselves scalable, the US uses the construct of the ROMO to provide insight into the various broad usages of military power from a strategic perspective. See Figure I-3 for these three broad categories, noting that the delineations between the categories are not precise, as each application of military power has unique contextual elements. Each category will be discussed in turn. Figure I-3. Range of Military Operations Range of Military Operations Major Operations and Campaigns Military Engagement, Security Cooperation, and Deterrence Crisis Response and Limited Contingency Operations Range of Military Operations Our national leaders can use the military instrument of national power across the conflict continuum in a wide variety of operations that are commonly characterized in three groups as this figure depicts. Peace Conflict Continuum War Theory and Foundations I-15 (1) Military Engagement, Security Cooperation, and Deterrence. These ongoing activities establish, shape, maintain, and refine relations with other nations. Many of these activities occur across the conflict continuum, and will usually continue in areas outside the operational areas associated with ongoing limited contingency operations, major operations, and campaigns. (a) Military engagement is the routine contact and interaction between individuals or elements of the Armed Forces of the United States and those of another nations armed forces, domestic or foreign civilian authorities or agencies to build trust and confidence, share information, and coordinate mutual activities. (b) Security cooperation involves all DOD interactions with foreign defense establishments to build defense relationships that promote specific US security interests, develop allied and friendly military capabilities for self-defense and multinational operations, and provide US forces with peacetime and contingency access to an HN. This includes activities such as security assistance. Security cooperation is a key element of global and theater shaping operations. (c) Deterrence helps prevent adversary action through the presentation of a credible threat of counteraction. As discussed previously, deterrence convinces adversaries not to take threatening actions by influencing their decision making. (d) Military actions such as nation assistance (e.g., foreign internal defense, security assistance, humanitarian and civic assistance), counterinsurgency, DOD support to counterdrug operations, show of force operations, and combating WMD activities are applied to meet military engagement, security cooperation, and deterrence objectives. (2) Crisis Response and Limited Contingency Operations. A crisis response or limited contingency operation can be a single small-scale, limited-duration operation or a significant part of a major operation of extended duration involving combat. The associated general strategic and operational objectives are to protect US interests and prevent surprise attack or further conflict. Included are operations to ensure the safety of American citizens and US interests while maintaining and improving US ability to operate with multinational partners to deter the hostile ambitions of potential aggressors (e.g., Operation SHINING EXPRESS in 2003; United States European Command [USEUCOM] launched a joint operation that rescued US citizens and embassy personnel from Monrovia and supported African peacekeeping forces during the Liberian civil war). Many such operations involve a combination of military forces and capabilities in close cooperation with interorganizational partners. Note: Some specific crisis response or limited contingency operations may not involve large-scale combat, but could be considered major operations/campaigns depending on their scale and duration (e.g., Operation UNIFIED ASSISTANCE tsunami and Hurricane Katrina relief efforts in 2005, Operation TOMODACHI Japanese tsunami and nuclear relief efforts in 2011). Chapter I I-16 J P 1 (3) Major Operations and Campaigns. When required to achieve national strategic objectives or protect national interests, the US national leadership may decide to conduct a major operation or campaign involving large-scale combat. In such cases, the general goal is to prevail against the enemy as quickly as possible, conclude hostilities, and establish conditions favorable to the US and its interorganizational partners. Major operations and campaigns feature a balance among offensive, defensive, and stability operations through six phases: shape, deter, seize initiative, dominate, stabilize, and enable civil authority. The immediate goal of stability operations often is to provide the local populace with security, restore essential services, and meet humanitarian needs. The long- term goal may be to develop the following: indigenous capacity for securing essential services, a viable market economy, rule of law, democratic institutions, and a robust civil society. Major operations and campaigns typically are composed of multiple phases. 10. Joint Operations a. In the context of the military instrument of national power, operations are military actions or the carrying out of a strategic, operational, tactical, service, training, or administrative military missions. Operations include combat when necessary to achieve objectives at all levels of war. Although individual Services may plan and conduct operations to accomplish tasks and missions in support of DOD objectives, the primary way DOD employs two or more Services (from two Military Departments) in a single operation, particularly in combat, is through joint operations. b. J oint operations is the general term to describe military actions conducted by joint forces and those Service forces in specified command relationships with each other. A joint force is one composed of significant elements, assigned or attached, of two or more Military Departments operating under a single J FC. c. The extensive capabilities available to forces in joint operations enable them to accomplish tasks and missions across the conflict continuum in operations that can range from routine military engagement commonly associated with peacetime to large-scale combat required to fight and win our Nations wars. In conjunction with these two extremes, military forces can provide security in a wide variety of circumstances and can help other partners restore essential civil services through relief and reconstruction in the wake of combat, breakdown of civil order, or natural disaster. These four broad areas, often integrated and adapted to the commanders requirements in a joint operation, represent the military instruments contribution to meeting our Nations challenges in the strategic security environment. (1) The scope and nature of military engagement activities can vary, reflecting differing strategic relationships between the US and partner nations. Engagement includes stability operations and other missions, tasks, and actions that improve the capabilities of, or cooperation with, allies and other partners. It is the primary military contribution to the national challenge of establishing cooperative security. Military engagement may be conducted complementary to broader diplomatic or economic activities, to aid a governments own security activities, and even during war itself. However, commanders and staff must be aware of myriad laws and regulations governing everything from limits on Doctrine Governing Unified Direction of Armed Forces II-11 c. The Armed Forces of the United States are most effective when employed as a joint force. This comprehensive approach involving all participating organizations, both military and nonmilitary, within an operational area requires the J FC to understand the capabilities, limitations, and mandates of those organizations involved and to effectively communicate the mission of the joint force. The basic doctrinal foundations for joint functions at all levels are outlined in this chapter. 7. Combatant Commands a. The President, through SecDef and with the advice and assistance of the CJ CS, establishes combatant (unified) commands for the performance of military missions and prescribes the force structure of such commands. b. The CJ CS assists the President and SecDef in performing their command functions. The CJ CS transmits to the commanders of the CCMDs the orders given by the President or SecDef and, as directed by SecDef, oversees the activities of those commands. Orders issued by the President or SecDef normally are conveyed by the CJ CS under the authority and direction of SecDef. Reports from CCDRs normally will be submitted through CJ CS, who forwards them to SecDef and acts as the spokesman for the commanders of the CCMDs. c. CCDRs exercise COCOM of assigned forces. The CCDR may delegate operational control (OPCON), tactical control (TACON), or establish support command relationships of assigned forces. Unless otherwise directed by the President or SecDef, COCOM may not be delegated. During deliberate planning, generic forces are apportioned to specific plans according to Global Force Management procedures. This requires supported CCDRs to coordinate with the supporting CCDRs and Services on required capabilities during planning and on mission criteria for specific units once they have been allocated. 8. Military Departments, Services, Forces, Combat Support Agencies, and National Guard Bureau a. The authority vested in the Secretaries of the Military Departments in the performance of their role to organize, train, equip, and provide forces runs from the President through SecDef to the Secretaries. Then, to the degree established by the Secretaries or specified in law, this authority runs through the Service Chiefs to the Service component commanders assigned to the CCDRs and to the commanders of forces not assigned to the CCDRs. ADCON provides for the preparation of military forces and their administration and support, unless such responsibilities are specifically assigned by SecDef to another DOD component. b. The Secretaries of the Military Departments are responsible for the administration and support of Service forces. They fulfill their responsibilities by exercising ADCON through the Service Chiefs. Service Chiefs have ADCON for all forces of their Service. The responsibilities and authority exercised by the Secretaries of the Military Departments are subject by law to the authority provided to the CCDRs in their exercise of COCOM. c. Each of the Secretaries of the Military Departments, coordinating as appropriate with the other Military Department Secretaries and with the CCDRs, has the responsibility for Chapter II II-12 J P 1 organizing, training, equipping, and providing forces to fulfill specific roles and for administering and supporting these forces. The Secretaries also perform a role as a force provider of Service retained forces until they are deployed to CCMDs. When addressing similar issues regarding National Guard forces, coordination with the National Guard Bureau (NGB) is essential. d. Commanders of Service forces are responsible to Secretaries of the Military Departments through their respective Service Chiefs for the administration, training, and readiness of their unit(s). Commanders of forces assigned to the CCMDs are under the authority, direction, and control of (and are responsible to) their CCDR to carry out assigned operational missions, joint training and exercises, and logistics. e. The USCG is a military Service and a branch of the US Armed Forces at all times. However, it is established separately by law as a Service in DHS, except when transferred to the Department of the Navy (DON) during time of war or when the President so directs. Authorities vested in the USCG under Title 10, USC, as an armed Service and Title 14, USC, as a federal maritime safety and law enforcement agency remain in effect at all times, including when USCG forces are operating within DOD/DON chain of command. USCG commanders and forces may be attached to J FCs in performance of any activity for which they are qualified. Coast Guard units routinely serve alongside Navy counterparts operating within a naval task organization in support of a maritime component commander. f. The NGB is a joint activity of DOD. The NGB performs certain military Service- specific functions and unique functions on matters involving non-federalized National Guard forces. The NGB is responsible for ensuring that units and members of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard are trained by the states to provide trained and equipped units to fulfill assigned missions in federal and non-federal statuses. g. In addition to the Services above, a number of DOD agencies provide combat support or combat service support to joint forces and are designated as CSAs. CSAs, established under SecDef authority under Title 10, USC, Section 193, and Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 3000.06, Combat Support Agencies, are the DIA, National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA), Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), DLA, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), DTRA, and National Security Agency (NSA). These CSAs provide CCDRs specialized support and operate in a supporting role. The CSA directors are accountable to SecDef. 9. Relationship Among Combatant Commanders, Military Department Secretaries, Service Chiefs, and Forces a. Continuous Coordination. The Services and USSOCOM (in areas unique to SO) share the division of responsibility for developing military capabilities for the CCMDs. All components of DOD are charged to coordinate on matters of common or overlapping responsibility. The J oint Staff, Services, and USSOCOM headquarters play a critical role in ensuring that CCDRs concerns and comments are included or advocated during the coordination. Doctrine Governing Unified Direction of Armed Forces II-13 b. Interoperability. Unified action demands maximum interoperability. The forces, units, and systems of all Services must operate together effectively, in part through interoperability. This includes joint force development; use of joint doctrine; the development and use of joint plans and orders; and the development and use of joint and/or interoperable communications and information systems. It also includes conducting joint training and exercises. It concludes with a materiel development and fielding process that provides materiel that is fully compatible with and complementary to systems of all Services. A key to successful interoperability is to ensure that planning processes are joint from their inception. Those responsible for systems and programs intended for joint use will establish working groups that fully represent the services and functions affected. CCDRs will ensure maximum interoperability and identify interoperability issues to the CJ CS, who has overall responsibility for the joint interoperability program. Other government departments and agencies, IGOs, and NGOs should be invited to participate in joint training and exercises whenever possible. 10. Interagency Coordination a. General (1) Interagency coordination is the cooperation and communication that occurs between departments and agencies of the USG to accomplish an objective. Similarly, in the context of DOD involvement, coordination refers to coordination between elements of DOD and IGOs or NGOs to achieve objectives. (2) CCDRs and subordinate J FCs must consider the potential requirements for interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination as a part of their activities within and outside of their operational areas. Military operations must be coordinated, integrated, and deconflicted with the activities of interorganizational partners, including various HN agencies within and en route to and from the operational area. Sometimes the J FC draws on the capabilities of other organizations, provides capabilities to other organizations, and sometimes the J FC merely deconflicts activities with those of others. These same organizations may be involved during all phases of an operation including pre- and post-operation activities. Roles and relationships among USG departments and agencies, state, tribal, and local governments, must be clearly understood. Interagency coordination forges the vital link between the military and the diplomatic, informational, and economic instruments of national power. Successful interorganizational coordination helps enable the USG to build international and domestic support, conserve resources, and conduct coherent operations that efficiently achieve shared goals. For more information on interagency coordination, see JP 3-08, Interorganizational Coordination During J oint Operations. b. Interagency Unity of Effort (1) Achieving Unity of Effort. Some of the techniques, procedures, and systems of military C2 can facilitate unity of effort if they are adjusted to the dynamic world of interagency coordination and different organizational cultures. Unity of effort can only be BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 38-101 16 MARCH 2011 Manpower and Organization AIR FORCE ORGANIZATION COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available on the e-Publishing website at www.e-publishing.af.mil/ for downloading or ordering. RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication.
OPR: HQ USAF/A1MO Supersedes: AFI 38-101, 4 April 2006 Certified by: HQ USAF/A1M (Brig Gen Philip M. Ruhlman) Pages: 116
This Instruction implements AFPD 38-1, Organization, and AFPD 38-5, Unit Designations. It describes the objectives and principles of Air Force organization. It prescribes various levels and standard structures for organizations and it outlines procedures for establishing and modifying organizations. This publication applies to Air Force Reserve Command and the Air National Guard to the extent that it has the organizations and functions discussed herein. This AFI may be supplemented at any level, but all supplements that directly implement this Instruction must be routed to HQ USAF/A1MO for coordination prior to certification and approval. Refer recommended changes and questions about this publication to the Office of Primary Responsibility using the AF IMT 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication; route AF IMT 847s from the field through the Major Command (MAJCOM) manpower, organization and resources division. Ensure that all records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 33-363, Management of Records, and disposed of in accordance with the Air Force Records Disposition Schedule (RDS) located at https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af61a/afrims/afrims/. SUMMARY OF CHANGES This change: Updates office names and symbols and references. Clarifies definitions for: Primary Subordinate Unit, MAJCOM and Consolidate. Clarifies the use of the terms Command and Agency for MAJCOMs and AF FOAs, respectively. Adds organization size guidance for wings, groups and squadrons. Adds a new chapter on provisional units, including expeditionary units. Updates Director of Staff information. Updates Numbered Air Force information. Makes changes to the Wing Staff to: add Information Protection and change Military Equal Opportunity to Equal Opportunity. Updates standard structure figures for: Civil Engineer 6 AFI 38-101 16 MARCH 2011 Chapter 1 AIR FORCE ORGANIZATION OBJECTIVES, PRINCIPLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1.1. Organization Objectives. Air Force organizations are designed to achieve the characteristics outlined in AFPD 38-1. 1.2. Organization Principles. Air Force organizational structure follows these management principles: 1.2.1. Emphasis on Wartime Tasks. Organizations must be structured to accomplish wartime tasks without reorganizing. 1.2.2. Functional Grouping. Organizations have these characteristics: a clear-cut purpose, goal and scope, with one individual in charge; parts that form a logical, separable activity; a close relationship among the parts, constituting a complete entity; and natural divisions of work that clearly define where responsibility begins and ends. 1.2.3. Lean Organizational Structures. Organizations must encourage rapid decision making, so they should be flat structures without intermediate levels, unless mission requirements cannot otherwise be met. When used, intermediate organizations will consist of tactical functions only, without a full range of staff functions. Organizational levels that exist only to review and transmit information or tasking should be eliminated. Both the number of supervisors and the number of internal subdivisions within organizations should be designed to minimize layers and maximize worker-to-supervisor ratios. 1.2.4. Skip-Echelon Structure. Major commands (MAJCOM) sit on top of a skip-echelon staffing structure. MAJCOMs, wings and squadrons possess the full range of staff functions needed to perform required tasks. Numbered/named air forces (NAF), groups and flights have no or minimal staff. These tactical echelons are designed to increase operational effectiveness rather than to review and transmit paperwork. The chain of command and responsibility for mission accomplishment runs through commanders at all levels. Problems, however, often are solved by staff communication through the functional chain, bypassing echelons where the function is not found. (NOTE: Component NAFs (C-NAFs) possess a broader staff to support the Air Force component commander; see paragraph 2.2.5.2 and Figure 3.2). 1.2.5. Standard Levels. The Air Force uses the standard levels described in Chapter 2 to design organizations. Establish organizations at the lowest level required to successfully accomplish the primary mission. Factors such as scope of responsibility, span of control and functional grouping of related missions/activities are the predominant factors that determine organizational type. 10 AFI 38-101 16 MARCH 2011 2.1.3.1.3. Operating Location. Part of a unit that is separated geographically from its parent unit. It is used to account for personnel by location. Personnel remain assigned to the parent unit. An operating location has none of the administrative attributes of a unit and does not have nonjudicial punishment authority under the UCMJ. 2.1.3.1.4. Squadron Section. A function responsible for the administrative control of all members assigned to a unit. A squadron section is created by appointing a section commander on special orders in accordance with guidance in AFI 51-604. A squadron section commander has nonjudicial punishment authority under the UCMJ unless withheld by superior competent authority. Section commanders at other organizational levels may use a term reflecting their unit level, e.g., Group Section Commander, etc. 2.1.3.1.5. Air Force Element. The nomenclature used to account for manpower authorizations and to identify Air Force personnel on duty with organizations outside the Air Force, such as defense agencies, defense field activities and Air National Guard units not in federal service. Although not a unit for organizational purposes, an element may function as a unit if so designated by competent authority, an eligible commissioned officer either assumes command or is appointed to command and Air Force members are assigned or attached to the element (see paragraph 4.3.3.5). 2.2. Standard Levels of Air Force Organization. The following standard levels of organization are used in structuring and designating Air Force units: 2.2.1. Headquarters US Air Force (HQ USAF). The senior headquarters of the Air Force, consisting of two major entities: the Secretariat (including the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary's principal staff) and the Air Staff, headed by the Chief of Staff. 2.2.2. Major Command (MAJCOM). A major subdivision of the Air Force that is assigned a major part of the Air Force mission. A MAJCOM is directly subordinate to Headquarters US Air Force. Most MAJCOMs have the word Command as part of their designation; Command should not be used in the designation of any unit that is not a MAJCOM. MAJCOM headquarters are management headquarters and thus have the full range of functional staff. MAJCOMs, in turn, may be subdivided according to either of the organizational schemes shown in Figure 2.1. The levels are in descending order and represent levels of assignment. For example, a group may be assigned to any organization listed above it, but a group may not be assigned to another group or to a squadron. The terms below Center represent internal staff structure and are not units as defined in paragraph 2.1.2. AFI 38-101 16 MARCH 2011 11
Figure 2.1. Organizational Schemes. Unit Oriented Scheme Scheme with Major Non-Unit Organizations
Major Command Major Command NAF Center Wing Group Directorate* Squadron Division Flight Branch Section *Limited Use 2.2.2.1. Lead MAJCOM. A type of MAJCOM that consolidates responsibilities for a particular function in a single MAJCOM, supporting the entire Air Force as applicable. For example, Air Education and Training Command is the Lead MAJCOM for education and training. 2.2.2.2. Component MAJCOM (C-MAJCOM). A type of MAJCOM that is the USAF component to a Unified Combatant Command. For example, Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) is a C-MAJCOM that is the USAF component to United States Pacific Command (USPACOM). A C-MAJCOM is commanded by the Commander of Air Force Forces (COMAFFOR) and includes supporting staff, one or more CNAFs (through which it presents its forces to the Combatant Commander (CCDR)), and all assigned and attached forces. The C-MAJCOM integrates, at the strategic level, component activities across all phases of conflict. The C-MAJCOM staff should not duplicate the functions of the C-NAF AFFOR staff or AOC (see Figure 3.2). The C-MAJCOM commander is the CCDRs theater COMAFFOR and may function as a theater Joint Force Air and Space Component Commander (JFACC) when required. Refer to AFDD2, Operations and Organization, for additional information on component relationships and roles. NOTE: A MAJCOM can be both a C-MAJCOM and a Lead MAJCOM. 2.2.3. Direct Reporting Unit (DRU). A subdivision of the Air Force, directly subordinate to the Chief of Staff, US Air Force. A DRU performs a mission that does not fit into any of the MAJCOMs. A DRU has many of the same administrative and organizational responsibilities as a MAJCOM. 2.2.3.1. Major Command Direct Reporting Unit (MAJCOM DRU). DRU also applies to a subdivision of a MAJCOM. A MAJCOM DRU reports directly to the MAJCOM commander and performs a mission that does not fit into any of the MAJCOM's primary subordinate units. 12 AFI 38-101 16 MARCH 2011 (NOTE: See paragraph 6.2.4. for additional guidance on establishment of DRUs or MAJCOM DRUs.) 2.2.4. Field Operating Agency (FOA). A subdivision of the Air Force, directly subordinate to a Headquarters US Air Force functional manager. A FOA performs field activities beyond the scope of any of the major commands. The activities are specialized or associated with an Air Force-wide mission and do not include functions performed in management headquarters, unless specifically directed by a DoD authority. Air Force FOAs usually have the word Agency as part of their designation; Agency should not be used in the designation of any unit that is not a FOA directly under HQ USAF. NOTE: Organization guidance for MAJCOMs also applies to the large Air Force FOAs that are structured along MAJCOM lines, e.g., Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AFISRA). 2.2.4.1. Major Command Field Operating Agency (MAJCOM FOA). FOA also applies to a subdivision of a MAJCOM. A MAJCOM FOA reports directly to a MAJCOM functional manager and performs specialized field activities beyond the scope of any of the MAJCOM's primary subordinate units. The activities are specialized and are associated with MAJCOM or theater-wide missions that transcend the scope of routine wing functions. FOA activities do not include functions performed in management headquarters unless specifically directed by DoD authority. (NOTE: See paragraph 6.2.4 for additional guidance on establishment of FOAs or MAJCOM FOAs.) 2.2.5. Numbered/Named Air Force (NAF). A level of command directly under a MAJCOM. NAFs provide operational leadership and supervision. A NAF is assigned subordinate units, such as wings, groups and squadrons. They do not have complete functional staffs. They are not management headquarters (unless specifically directed by a DoD authority). 2.2.5.1. NAFs designated as component NAFs (C-NAF) support the Air Force component commander (COMAFFOR) at the operational and tactical level. When designated as the Air Force component to a Unified Combatant Command (UCC), the component NAF will function at the strategic, operational and tactical level. A C-NAF is authorized a broader staff as depicted in Figure 3.2. 2.2.5.2. The number of persons assigned to a NAF headquarters varies from case to case, but, with the exception of C-NAFs, should not exceed 99 manpower authorizations without an approved waiver from AF/A1M. The size of the C-NAF headquarters staff is not limited to 99 manpower authorizations. 2.2.6. Wing. A level of command below the NAF or higher headquarters. A wing has a distinct mission with significant scope. A wing is usually composed of a primary mission group (e.g., operations, training) and the necessary supporting groups. By pulling together the mission and support elements, a wing provides a significant capability under a single commander. It is often responsible for maintaining the installation. A wing has several squadrons in more than one dependent group. Wings will have a minimum adjusted population of at least 1000 per paragraph 2.2.13. A wing may be either an operational wing, an air base wing, or a specialized mission wing. 2.2.6.1. Operational Wing. A wing that has an operations group and related operational mission activity assigned to it. When an operational wing performs the primary mission of the base, it usually maintains and operates the base. In addition, an operational wing is AFI 38-101 16 MARCH 2011 13 capable of self-support in functional areas like maintenance, supply and conventional munitions, as needed. When an operational wing is a tenant organization, the host organization provides it with varying degrees of base and logistics support. 2.2.6.2. Air Base Wing. A wing that performs a support rather than an operational mission. It maintains and operates a base. An air base wing sometimes provides functional support to a MAJCOM headquarters. 2.2.6.3. Specialized Mission Wing. A wing that performs a specialized mission and usually does not have aircraft or missiles assigned to it. For example, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance wing; training wing and so on. This wing may be either a host wing or a tenant wing, depending on whether it maintains and operates the base. 2.2.7. Group. A level of command between wings and squadrons. Groups bring together multiple squadrons or other lower echelon units to provide a broader capability. For instance, a mission support group pulls together several squadrons in a variety of areas to provide a full spectrum mission support capability. A group is generally a tactical echelon without significant staff support. A group has two or more subordinate units. Groups will have a minimum adjusted population of at least 400 per paragraph 2.2.13. 2.2.7.1. Dependent Group. A dependent group is a mission, maintenance, mission support, medical, or large functional unit (e.g., communications) that encompasses a number of related squadrons to provide the specified capability to a parent wing. Such groups may possess small supporting staff elements, such as standardization and evaluation or quality control, that are organized as sections. 2.2.7.2. Independent Group. An independent group has the same functions and responsibilities as a like-type wing but its scope and size do not warrant wing-level designation and associated overhead costs. 2.2.8. Squadron. The basic unit in the Air Force. Squadrons are the basic building block organizations in the Air Force, providing a specific operational or support capability. A squadron may be either a mission unit, such as an operational flying squadron, or a functional unit, such as a civil engineer, security forces, or maintenance squadron. A squadron has a substantive mission of its own that warrants organization as a separate unit based on factors like unity of command, functional grouping and administrative control, balanced with efficient use of resources. Squadrons vary in size according to responsibility, but will have a minimum adjusted population of at least 35 per paragraph 2.2.13. Do not fragment a capability into multiple squadrons when a single squadron provides a parent wing or group commander the best approach in terms of a coordinated, focused capability under single direction. In extreme cases, when squadron population exceeds 700 manpower authorizations, MAJCOMs, FOAs and DRUs may request establishment of two squadrons. Functional squadrons will employ the 7-series numbering convention in these instances; i.e., XX and 7XX Squadrons. 2.2.9. Flight. If internal subdivision is required, a flight may consist of sections, then elements. A flight may be either a numbered flight, named flight, alpha flight, or a functional flight. CHAPTER THREE: A REVIEW OF AIR FORCE OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 The Air Force supports joint force commanders by conducting specific airpower operations that provide specific effects using the planning processes previously described. The following is a summary of these operations, with links to the doctrine annexes that describe them in much more detail. Each Air Force doctrine annex contains more specific discussion on planning, organization, and command and control considerations of their respective topic areas. The order of presentation should not be interpreted to imply any degree of relative importance; all Air Force operations are necessary in varying degrees, depending on the task at hand. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS STRATEGIC ATTACK Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Strategic attack is defined as offensive action that is specifically selected to achieve national or military strategic objectives. These attacks seek to weaken the adversarys ability or will to engage in conflict, and may achieve strategic objectives without necessarily having to achieve operational objectives as a precondition. Strategic attack involves the systematic application of force against enemy systems and their centers of gravity, thereby producing the greatest effect for the least cost in lives, resources, and time. Vital systems affected may include leadership, critical processes, popular will and perception, and fielded forces. Strategic attack provides an effective capability that may drive an early end to conflict or achieve objectives more directly or efficiently than other applications of military power. Strategic attack seizes upon the unique capability of airpower to achieve objectives by striking at the heart of the enemy, disrupting critical leadership functions, infrastructure, and strategy, while at the same time avoiding a sequential fight through layers of forces. Click here to go to Annex 3-70, Strategic Attack. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS COUNTERAIR OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Counterair is a mission that integrates offensive and defensive operations to attain and maintain a desired degree of air superiority. Counterair operations are conducted across all domains and determine the level or degree of air control. Air control describes a level of influence in the air domain relative to that of an adversary, and is categorized as parity, superiority, or supremacy. The level of air control can range from a parity (or neutral) situation, where neither adversary can claim control over the other, to local superiority in a specific area, to supremacy over an entire operational area. Levels of control may vary over time. Air parity. A condition in the air battle in which one force does not have air superiority over others. This represents a situation in which both friendly and adversary land, maritime, and air operations may encounter significant interference by the opposing air force. Parity is not a standoff, nor does it mean aerial maneuver has halted. On the contrary, parity is typified by fleeting, intensely contested battles at critical points during an operation with maximum effort exerted between combatants in their attempt to achieve some level of favorable control. Air superiority. That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, air, and space forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force (JP 1-02). Air superiority may be localized in time and space, or it may be broad and enduring. Air supremacy. That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, air, and space forces at a given time and place without effective interference by the opposing force. Air supremacy may be localized in time and space, or it may be broad and enduring. This is normally the highest level of air control to which air forces can aspire. The concept of air superiority hinges on the idea of preventing prohibitive interference to joint forces from enemy air forces, which would prevent joint forces from creating their desired effects. Air supremacy prevents effective interference, which does not mean that no interference exists, but that any attempted interference can be easily countered or should be so negligible as to have little or no effect on operations. While air supremacy is most desirable, it may not be operationally feasible. Air superiority, even VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS local or mission-specific, may provide sufficient freedom of action to create desired effects. Click here to go to Annex 3-01, Counterair Operations. COUNTERLAND OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Counterland operations are airpower operations against enemy land force capabilities to create effects that achieve joint force commander objectives. The aim of counterland operations is to dominate the surface environment using airpower. By dominating the surface environment, counterland operations can assist friendly land maneuver while denying the enemy the ability to resist. Although most frequently associated with support to friendly surface forces, counterland operations may also be conducted independent of friendly surface force objectives or in operations where no friendly land forces are present. The JFC has two distinct means for engaging enemy land forces that support counterland operations. The first is air interdiction (AI), in which airpower indirectly supports land forces or directly supports JFC objectives in the absence of friendly land forces. The second method is close air support (CAS), in which airpower directly supports land maneuver. The Air Force defines AI as air operations conducted to divert, disrupt, delay, or destroy the enemys military potential before it can be brought to bear effectively against friendly forces, or to otherwise achieve JFC objectives. AI is conducted at such distance from friendly forces that detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of friendly forces is not required. CAS is defined as air action by fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and that require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces(JP 3-0). Click here to go to Annex 3-03, Counterland Operations. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS COUNTERSEA OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Countersea operations are defined as those operations conducted to attain and maintain a desired degree of maritime superiority by the destruction, disruption, delay, diversion, or other neutralization of threats in the maritime domain and prevent opponents from doing the same. The countersea function entails Air Force operations in the maritime domain to achieve, or aid in the achievement of, superiority in that medium. This function fulfills Department of Defense (DOD) requirements for the use of Air Force forces to counter adversary air, surface, and subsurface threats, ensuring the security of vital sea and coastal areas, and enhancing the maritime scheme of maneuver. More importantly, it demonstrates the teamwork required of Service forces working together in a joint environment. Air Force forces achieve effects in the maritime domain through the integrated employment of airpower. The overarching effect of countersea operations is maritime superioritydenial of this domain to the adversary while assuring access and freedom of maneuver for US and allied maritime forces. From a military perspective, the maritime domain is not limited to the open seas. JP 1- 02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines the maritime domain as the oceans, seas, bays, estuaries, islands, coastal areas, and the airspace above these, including the littorals. The littoral comprises two segments of the operational environment: 1. Seaward: the area from the open ocean to the shore, which must be controlled to support operations ashore. 2. Landward: the area inland from the shore that can be supported and defended directly from the sea (JP 2-01.3, Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment). Countersea operations are equally relevant to brown water (navigable rivers, lakes, bays and their estuaries), green water (coastal waters, ports and harbors) and blue water (high seas and open oceans) environments. (Naval Doctrine Publication [NDP] 1, Naval Warfare) The inclusion of the airspace above these in the domain definition indicates the decisiveness of air operations within the maritime domain. Although the airspace above could be considered the air domain, nothing in the definition of that domain implies or mandates exclusivity, primacy, or command and control of that domain. Command and control is established through command relationships within VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS the various operational areas as described in JP 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, and is the authority of a joint force commander based upon most effective use of available resources to accomplish assigned missions. With the potential emergence of a credible naval opponent, maritime operations are once again focusing on defeating enemy naval forces while retaining a focus on the role of power projection ashore from the littorals. Airpower provides a rapid, maneuverable, and flexible element in this environment. Air Force capabilities can extend the reach and increase the flexibility of naval surface, subsurface, and aviation assets, playing a key role in controlling the maritime domain. Air Force and Navy capabilities synergistically employed enable the joint force to control the maritime domain. Click here to go to Annex 3-04, Countersea Operations. AIRSPACE CONTROL Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Airspace control is defined as a process used to increase operational effectiveness by promoting the safe, efficient, and flexible use of airspace. Properly employed, airspace control maximizes the effectiveness of combat operations while minimally impacting and without unduly restricting the capabilities of any Service or functional component. Never static, airspace control operations may begin prior to combat operations, continue after, and may transition through varying degrees of civil and military authority. The airspace control procedures within the joint operations area (JOA) are approved by the joint force commander (JFC) and are derived entirely from the JFCs authority. Airspace control does not infringe on the authority vested in commanders to approve, disapprove, or deny combat operations. Airspace control is extremely dynamic and situational, but to optimize airspace use, that control should accommodate users with varied technical capabilities. In addition to expected threat levels, the available surveillance, navigation, and communication technical capabilities of both the airspace users and controlling agencies often determine the nature of the airspace coordinating measures (ACMs) used. Generally, limited technical capabilities result in increased ACM requirements with an implied decrease in airspace management efficiency. Similarly, higher technical capabilities normally result in decreased ACM requirements and an associated increase in airspace efficiency. Areas with the greatest air traffic congestion and risk of mid-air collisions often correspond to heavily accessed points on the ground (e.g., navigation aids, airports, drop zones, targets, and ground firing systems). Adherence to the JFCs guidance on ACMs should prevent airspace planners from exceeding the JFCs risk tolerance. This integration of ACMs into operations deconflicts airspace usage while decreasing potential fratricide. Planners should acknowledge these issues and allocate resources accordingly. Airspace control is essential to accomplishing the JFC's objectives. It allows all users to access needed airspace while preventing conflicts among those competing users. To better organize operational airspace three characterizations exist: Permissive combat airspace: a low risk exists for US and coalition aircraft operations within the airspace of interest. Operations can expect little to no use of adversary electronic warfare, communications jamming, anti-aircraft systems, or aircraft. Air superiority or air supremacy has been achieved. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS Contested combat airspace: a medium risk exists to US and coalition aircraft within the airspace of interest. Expect the enemy to employ fighters, anti-aircraft systems, and electronic jamming. US and coalition aircraft can achieve localized air superiority for operations within portions of the airspace. Enemy air defense assets are neither fully integrated nor attrited. Denied-access combat airspace: a high risk exists for many, but not all, US and coalition aircraft from integrated air defense systems, radars, anti-aircraft systems, electronic warfare, and fighter aircraft. The airspace is characterized by pervasive enemy activity. Expect operations to result in high losses or denial of sustained operations until a measure of air superiority can be achieved. Click here to go to Annex 3-52, Airspace Control. SPACE OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 The Air Force views space operations as integral to joint force planning and operations. Space operations involve space superiority and mission assurance. The essence of space superiority is controlling the ultimate high ground of space. However, space superiority is focused on mission assurance rather than dominating or owning space. The ultimate goal of achieving space superiority should be to maintain our own space capabilities when contested and ensure unhindered mission continuity through any conflict. Joint doctrine defines space superiority as the degree of dominance in space of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, air, space, and special operations forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force. The Air Force further describes space superiority as the ability to maintain freedom of action in, from, and to space, sufficient to sustain mission assurance. Space superiority may be localized in time and space, or it may be broad and enduring. Airmen should understand space capabilities are vital to joint campaign and operational planning. Integration of space capabilities occurs within Air Force, joint, and combined operations in uncontested, contested, and denied environments, and throughout the range of military operations (ROMO). Since space assets like Global Positioning System (GPS) and Milstar complement existing capabilities (e.g., navigation aids, long- haul communication), space capabilities are inherently cross-domain integrated. The synergistic effect of combining space capabilities with land, maritime, air, and cyberspace capabilities creates an operational advantage for the joint force commander (JFC). Air Force space operations often rely on partnerships with external organizations including other military services, allies, national and civil agencies, and commercial and foreign enterprises. Integration of partner space capabilities requires diligent establishment of command relationships. Click here to go to Annex 3-14, Space Operations. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Cyberspace operations are defined as the employment of cyberspace capabilities where the primary purpose is to achieve military objectives or effects in or through cyberspace. Cyberspace is defined as a global domain within the information environment consisting of the interdependent network of information technology infrastructures, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers. Cyberspace operations are not synonymous with information operations (IO). IO is a set of operations that can be performed in cyberspace and other domains. Operations in cyberspace can directly support IO and non-cyber based IO can affect cyberspace operations. Cyberspace is a man-made domain, and is therefore unlike the natural domains of air, land, maritime, and space. It requires continued attention from humans to persist and encompass the features of specificity, global scope, and emphasis on the electromagnetic spectrum. Cyberspace nodes physically reside in all domains. Activities in cyberspace can enable freedom of action for activities in the other domains, and activities in the other domains can create effects in and through cyberspace. Click here to go to Annex 3-12, Cyberspace Operations. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Air mobility operations doctrine represents an accumulation of best practices and lessons learned from World War II to the most recent conflicts and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief operations. Air mobility operations support all of the geographic combatant commanders (GCCs) and functional combatant commanders (FCCs). Joint doctrine defines air mobility as the rapid movement of personnel, materiel, and forces to and from or within a theater by air. Mobility air forces (MAF) provide rapid global mobility and conduct air mobility operations. These forces deliver the global reach and global power necessary to achieve US national objectives. The four types of air mobility operations are: Airlift. Airlift is defined as operations to transport and deliver forces and materiel through the air in support of strategic, operational, or tactical objectives. Airlift provides rapid, flexible, and secure transportation. Because airlift is a high demand asset, it should be used carefully when satisfying warfighter requirements. Air Refueling. Air refueling (AR) is defined as the refueling of an aircraft in flight by another aircraft. AR extends presence, increases range, and serves as a force multiplier. AR significantly expands the options available to a commander by increasing the range, payload, persistence, and flexibility of receiver aircraft. Air Mobility Support. Air mobility support provides command and control, aerial port, and maintenance for mobility air forces (MAF). Air mobility support is part of the global air mobility support system (GAMSS). The GAMSS consists of a limited number of permanent en route support locations plus deployable forces that deploy according to a global reach laydown strategy. Air mobility support forces are divided between USTRANSCOM and geographic combatant commands. Aeromedical Evacuation. Aeromedical evacuation (AE) provides time-sensitive en route care of regulated casualties to and between medical treatment facilities using organic and/or contracted aircraft with medical aircrew trained explicitly for that mission. AE forces can operate as far forward as aircraft are able to conduct air operations, and in all operating environments. Specialty medical teams may be VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS assigned to work with the AE aircrew to support patients requiring more intensive en route care. Click here to go to Annex 3-17, Air Mobility Operations. SPECIAL OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Special operations (SO) are operations requiring unique modes of employment, tactical techniques, equipment and training often conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments and characterized by one or more of the following: time sensitive, clandestine, low visibility, conducted with and/or through indigenous forces, requiring regional expertise, and/or a high degree of risk. SO typically differ from conventional operations in the operational techniques and the small size of the friendly force (compared to the enemy), degree of physical and political risk, relative independence from friendly support, mode of employment, reliance on detailed and perishable intelligence, extensive use of indigenous assets, and preference toward detailed planning and rehearsals. Air Force special operations forces (AFSOF) should complement and not compete with, nor be a substitute for conventional forces. As an example, an AC-130 gunship should not be employed when a conventional aircraft would be more appropriate for the target and the operational conditions. The need for an opportunity to attack or engage strategic or operational targets with small units drives the formation of special units with specialized, highly focused capabilities. Although not always decisive on their own, when properly employed, SO can be designed and conducted to create conditions favorable to US strategic goals and objectives. Often, these operations may require clandestine or low visibility capabilities. AFSOF are composed of special operations aviation units (including unmanned aircraft systems), battlefield Battlefield Airmen (including combat control teams, pararescue teams, special operations weather teams, and select tactical air control party units), dedicated SOF intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) units, aviation foreign internal defense, and support capabilities such as command and control, information operations / military information support operations, and combat support functions. C2 of SOF is normally executed within a SOF chain of command. The C2 structure for SOF depends on objectives, security requirements, and the operational environment. In complex environments SOF have found supporting to supported command relationships are extremely agile and beneficial to both SOF and conventional forces. Click here to go to Annex 3-05, Special Operations. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS HOMELAND OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 For the Air Force, homeland operations is the umbrella construct through which it supports homeland defense (HD), defense support of civil authorities (DSCA), and emergency preparedness ( EP). It incorporates all operations planning and execution designed to detect, preempt, respond to, mitigate, and recover from the full spectrum of incidents and threats to the homeland, whether man-made or natural. The geographic homeland boundaries include the 50 states, four territories, and numerous island possessions. The United States also enjoys exclusive sovereignty 12 miles out to sea and exercises responsibilities extending 200 miles from the coast. Homeland Defense. HD is defined as the protection of US sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats and aggression or other threats as directed by the President. For the Air Force, HD operations involve significant counterair emphasis and may be supported by preemptive actions through global strike operations against threats to the US homeland or US forces and installations throughout the world. In addition, special operations forces operating to locate, characterize, and secure weapons of mass destruction (WMD) provide another option to defend and respond against WMD attacks or threats. Cyber defense capabilities are continuing to develop, and may also be employed to support and defend US assets. Defense Support of Civil Authorities. DSCA, often referred to as civil support, is defined as DOD support to US civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities. It includes military assistance for civil law enforcement operations in very limited circumstances. For example, DSCA missions can include support to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in preventing or defeating terrorist attacks, or aiding local agency response to natural disasters, among others. In all these missions, various federal, state, or local civilian agencies are responsible for the management of the particular incident. Emergency Preparedness. The Air Force includes EP within the homeland operations umbrella. EP is defined as the measures taken in advance of an emergency to reduce the loss of life and property, and to protect a nations institutions from all types of hazards through a comprehensive emergency management program of preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery. A key distinction between HD and DSCA is that in HD, DOD is the lead federal agency (LFA), while in DSCA, another federal organization is the LFA, with DOD acting in support. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS Homeland operations routinely involve a unique collection of federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, which present a number of challenges. These agencies may have different resources, levels of experience, and legal considerations. Click here to go to Annex 3-27, Homeland Operations. NUCLEAR OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 The Air Force role in nuclear operations is to organize, train, equip, and sustain forces with the capability to support the national security goals of deterring adversaries from attacking the United States and its interests with their nuclear arsenals or other weapons of mass destruction (WMD); dissuading competitors from developing WMD; assuring allies and partners of the US' ability and determination to protect them; and holding at risk a specific range of targets. The fundamental purpose of the US nuclear arsenal is to deter an enemys use of its nuclear arsenal or other WMD. The end of the Cold War has had a major impact on the perceived utility and role of nuclear weapons in the United States. Force reductions have reduced the specter of a large-scale, Cold War-type nuclear exchange; however, as long as nuclear weapons exist, the possibility of their use remains. This risk is aggravated as potential adversaries seek to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This continuing proliferation places US forces, allies, and civilians around the world at greater risk. Thus, while nuclear operations are not as visible a component of national security as they were during the Cold War, they continue to underpin US deterrence. Although nuclear forces are not the only factor in the deterrence equation, our nuclear capability underpins all other elements of deterrence. The fundamental purpose of the US nuclear arsenal is to deter adversaries from attacking the United States and its interests with their nuclear arsenals or other WMD; dissuade competitors from developing WMD; and assure allies and partners of the US' ability and determination to protect them. Additionally, our nuclear forces assure allies of our continuing commitment to their security, dissuade potential adversaries from embarking on programs or activities that could threaten our vital interests, and defeat threats that are not deterred. The physical employment of nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the President. The law of armed conflict does not expressly prohibit the possession or use of nuclear weapons. Click here to go to Annex 3-72, Nuclear Operations. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS IRREGULAR WARFARE Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Irregular warfare (IW) is defined as a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s). IW favors indirect and asymmetric approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capacities in order to erode an adversary's power, influence, and will. The United States overwhelming dominance in recent conventional wars has made it highly unlikely that adversaries, especially those state and non-state actors with less- robust military capabilities, will choose to challenge the United States in traditional force-on-force engagements. Irregular forms of warfare have become attractive, if not the most preferred options for adversaries such as terrorists, insurgents, criminal networks, and non-friendly states to credibly challenge US interests and national security. Both IW and traditional warfare seek to resolve conflict by compelling change in adversarial behavior. However, they differ significantly in both strategy and conduct. Traditional warfare focuses on dominance over an adversarys ability to sustain its war fighting capability. IW focuses on population-centric approaches that affect actors, behaviors, relationships, and stability in the area or region of interest. Therefore, IW requires a different level of operational thought and threat comprehension. As an integral part of the IW campaign, the Air Force is prepared to support and conduct principal IW activities or operations that may be undertaken in sequence, in parallel, or blended within a coherent campaign to address irregular threats. Five such principal activities include: foreign internal defense (FID), unconventional warfare (UW), counterinsurgency (COIN), counterterrorism (CT), and stability operations (SO). Additionally, there is a host of key related activities including security force assistance (SFA), information operations (IO), civil-military operations (CMO), support to law enforcement, intelligence, medical, and counterintelligence operations, all of which may be used to counter irregular threats. Across the range of IW scenarios a set of overarching concepts provide a foundation for planning and employing Air Force capabilities. These do not apply to all conceivable situations. However, they do represent broad concepts that Airmen should consider. These overarching concepts either reflect a best practice in evolving IW concepts or are based on significant lessons learned from operations that failed to meet expectations. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS Though combat is often present in IW, traditional strategies that seek continuing advantage through combat alone are seldom appropriate or successful in IW. In IW, winning the populations support for the strategic objectives and desired end state is paramount. The Air Force should be prepared to simultaneously conduct irregular and traditional warfare operations. IW is a different form of warfare and not a lesser form of conflict within traditional warfare. The struggle for legitimacy and influence over a relevant population is the primary focus of operations, not the coercion of key political leaders or defeat of their military capability. IW is intelligence-intensive. Unity of effort across all instruments of power is essential to overall strategic success. Integrated command and control (C2) structures enable flexibility at all levels and are vital to successful IW scenarios. Effective working relationships between people and organizations are key to success in IW. Operational effectiveness can be very difficult to measure; thus, feedback through a strong operations assessment and lessons learned process is essential to strategic success. The adversary may be highly complex and adaptive. In an IW context, non-combat support elements can deliver effects that matter more than those of kinetic engagement platforms. IW is about right-tech, not about high- or low-tech. The desired IW end state is a self-sufficient partner with a supportive population. This partner is able to sustain its self-defense capabilities and is a trusted partner in regional security structures which support both partner nation and US national interests. Click here to go to Annex 3-2, Irregular Warfare. FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Foreign internal defense (FID) is defined as participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency. The term FID was devised by the US Army in 1976 as a euphemism for support for counterinsurgency. In reality, FID is a very large domain encompassing the total political, economic, informational, and military support the United States provides to enable other governments to field viable internal defense and development (IDAD) programs for counterinsurgency, combating terrorism, and counter-narcotics. FID is a component of irregular warfare (IW), defined as a violent struggle among state and non- state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations. Generally, the preferred methods of helping another country are through education and developmental assistance programs. Most Air Force FID actions entail working by, with, and through foreign aviation forces to achieve US strategic and operational objectives. With Presidential direction, however, FID can entail the use of US combat units and advisors in coercive roles aimed at stabilizing the security and survival of a foreign regime and vital institutions under siege by insurgent or terrorist forces. FID includes military training and equipping, technical assistance, advisory support, and infrastructure development as well as tactical operations. When feasible, military assistance should be closely coordinated with diplomatic, economic, and informational initiatives. Air Force FID operations fall under the broad category of nation assistance. Nation assistance is comprised of three separate but complementary programs: humanitarian and civic assistance (HCA), security assistance (SA), and FID. Security assistance though having much broader application than FIDcan be integrated with FID strategies and operations. Security assistance is designed to help select countries meet their internal defense needs and to promote sustainable development and growth of responsive institutions. Click here to go to Annex 3-22, Foreign Internal Defense. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS GLOBAL INTEGRATED INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 The Air Force defines Global Integrated Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance as cross-domain synchronization and integration of the planning and operation of ISR assets; sensors; processing, exploitation and dissemination systems; and, analysis and production capabilities across the globe to enable current and future operations. This definition differs from the joint definition of ISR in that the Air Force eliminates references to in direct support ofoperations. In addition to providing direct support to operations, ISR operations are also conducted to inform strategy, planning, and assessment. The Air Force conducts global integrated ISR operations through a five-phase process: planning and direction; collection; processing and exploitation; analysis and production; and dissemination (PCPAD). The process is not linear or cyclical, but rather represents a network of interrelated, simultaneous operations that can, at any given time, feed and be fed by other operations. The planning and direction phase begins the process by shaping decision-making with an integrated and synchronized ISR strategy and collection plan that links global integrated ISR operations to the joint force commanders intelligence requirements and integrating them into the air tasking order (ATO). The collection phase occurs when the mission is executed and the sensors actually gather raw data on the target set. The collected data in its raw form has relatively limited intelligence utility. The processing and exploitation phase increases the utility of the collected data by converting it into useable information. During the analysis and production phase analysts apply critical thinking and advanced analytical skills by fusing disparate pieces of information and draw conclusions resulting in finished intelligence. Finished intelligence is crucial to facilitating informed decision-making, but only if it is received in a timely manner. Dissemination, the final phase of PCPAD, ensures the commander receives the derived intelligence in time to make effective decisions. Click here to go to Annex 2-0, Global Integrated intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Operations. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS TARGETING Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Targeting is defined as the process of selecting and prioritizing targets and matching the appropriate response to them, considering operational requirements and capabilities. Targeting is a command function requiring commander oversight and involvement to ensure proper execution. It is not the exclusive province of one type of specialty or division, such as intelligence or operations, but blends the expertise of many disciplines. Targeting helps translate strategy into discrete actions against targets by linking ends, ways, means, and risks. It is a central component of Air Force operational art and design in the application of airpower. Strategy allows commanders to choose the best ways to attain desired outcomes. Strategy forms the plans and guidance that can be used to task specific airpower assets through the tasking process. The processes of planning, tasking, targeting, and assessing effects provide a logical progression that forms the basis of decision-making and ensures consistency with the commanders objectives and the end state. A target is an entity or object considered for possible engagement or other actions. Examples of entities include areas, complexes, installations, forces, equipment, capabilities, functions, individuals, groups, systems or behaviors. It is a fundamental tenet of targeting that no potential target derives its importance or criticality merely by virtue of the fact that it exists, or even that it is a crucial element within a target system and other interdependent target systems. Any potential target derives importance, and thus criticality, only by virtue of the extent to which it enables enemy capabilities and actions that must be affected in order to achieve the commanders objectives. Possible actions may be kinetic or non-kinetic, and they may be lethal or non-lethal. Multiple actions may be taken against a single target, and actions may often be taken against multiple targets to achieve a single effect. Click here to go to Annex 3-60, Targeting. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS INFORMATION OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 The purpose of Information Operations (IO) is to affect adversary and potential adversary decision-making with the intent to ultimately affect their behavior. The definition of IO is, the integrated employment, during military operations, of information- related capabilities in concert with other lines of operation to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision-making of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own. The deliberate targeting of the adversarys decision making process is enabled by understanding the cognitive factors related to their decision-making process, the information that they use, and how they receive and send their information. As an integrating staff function, the objective is to incorporate the use (planning, execution, and assessment) of capabilities that touch (have a relation to) the information used by an adversary decision-maker with the intent of influencing, disrupting, corrupting, or usurping that process. IO is a means to target an adversarys decision-making process. The decision-making process can be modeled with a cycle of steps referred to as an observe, orient, decide, act-loop or OODA loop. The steps of this model occur within the information environment and give three targetable dimensions: 1) informational dimension; 2) physical dimension; and 3) cognitive dimension. The information dimension represents the content of the information used by the decision-maker. The physical dimension is how the decision-maker is connected to the information. The cognitive dimension is the internal cognitive or mental processing of the decision-maker. While we cant directly target the cognitive processing of the adversary, with an understanding of the adversary to include culture, organization, and individual psychology, we can target the information (or content) and physical (or connectivity) dimensions to affect the adversarys OODA loop and ultimately their behavior. IO is fundamental to the overall military objective of influencing an adversary. IO involves synchronizing effects from all domains during all phases of war through the use of kinetic and non-kinetic means to produce lethal and non-lethal effects. The planning and execution processes begin with the commanders design that encompasses the strategy and operational art that guide planners as they coordinate, integrate, and synchronize the information-related capabilities and other lines of operation identified in the definition of IO described above. From a doctrinal standpoint, IO planning should be integrated into existing planning processes, such as the joint operation planning process (JOPP). IO planning is not a standalone process. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS Additionally, IO is complimentary to the practices, processes, and end goals of an effects-based approach to operations. IO facilitates targeting development, intelligence requirements, and matches actions with intended messages. Through planning, execution, and assessment processes, IO provides the means to employ the right capabilities (lethal or non-lethal) to achieve the desired effect to meet the combatant commanders objectives while supporting the commanders communication synchronization strategy. Click here to go to Annex 3-13, Information Operations. ELECTRONIC WARFARE Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Electronic warfare (EW) is defined as military action involving the use of electromagnetic and directed energy to control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the enemy (JP 3-13.1, Electronic Warfare). The term electromagnetic spectrum refers to the full range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation from near zero to infinity. It is divided into 26 alphabetically designated bands. EW operations may include friendly force use of the EM spectrum, attacks on adversaries, and denying enemy exploitation efforts. Coordinating EW operations has historically been an important element in all operations and takes on an increasingly important role as use of the EM spectrum grows. EW is waged to secure and maintain freedom of action in the EM spectrum. Military forces depend on the EM spectrum for many applications including, but not limited to, communication, detection, identification, and targeting. Effective application of EW in support of mission objectives is critical to the ability to find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess the adversary, while denying that adversary the same ability. Planners, operators, acquisition specialists, and others involved with Air Force EW should understand the technological advances and proliferation of threat systems to enable friendly use of the EM spectrum and protect US forces. When improperly coordinated, EW can disrupt our own command and control. Modern military forces rely heavily on a variety of complex electronic offensive and defensive capabilities. EW is a specialized capability that enhances many air, space, and cyberspace functions at all levels of conflict. Proper employment of EW enhances commanders ability to achieve operational superiority over the adversary. Modern weapons and support systems employ radio, radar, wireless networks and datalinks, infrared (IR), optical, ultraviolet, electro-optical (EO), and directed energy (DE) technologies. Commanders should prepare to operate weapons systems in an intensive and nonpermissive EM environment. This may be aggravated by both intentional and unintentional emissions from friendly, neutral, and enemy forces. Unfettered access to selected portions of the EM spectrum can be critical for mission effectiveness and protection of critical assets. Click here to go to Annex 3-51, Electronic Warfare. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS PERSONNEL RECOVERY OPERATIONS Last Updated: 5 Jun 2013 Personnel recovery is defined as the sum of military, diplomatic, and civil efforts to effect the recovery and return of US Military, DOD civilians, and DOD contractor personnel who are isolated or missing while participating in a US government- sanctioned military activity or missions in an uncertain or hostile environment, or as determined by the Secretary of Defense. The Air Force organizes, trains, and equips personnel to conducts personnel recovery operations (PRO) using the fastest and most effective means. Air Force PRO forces deploy to recover personnel or equipment with specially outfitted aircraft/vehicles, specially trained aircrews and ground recovery teams in response to geographic combatant commander (CCDR) taskings. Although traditionally PRO assets have focused on the recovery of downed aircrews, recent experiences suggest that Air Force PRO forces are responsible for the recovery of any isolated personnel. The Air Force provides unique PR capabilities to CCDRs. The primary mission of Air Force PRO is to use a combination of specially trained Airmen and unique equipment to recover any isolated personnel. By virtue of the inherent capabilities of PRO forces, they can accomplish other collateral missions. Historically, these collateral missions have included: casualty evacuation, civil search and rescue, counter-drug operations, emergency aeromedical evacuation, homeland security, humanitarian relief, international aid, noncombatant evacuation operations, support for National Aeronautics and Space Administration flight operations, infiltration and exfiltration of personnel in support of air component commander missions, and special operations missions, including PR of special operations forces. Click here to go to Annex 3-50, Personnel Recovery Operations. VOLUME 4 OPERATIONS
BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 Incorporating Through Change 3, 21 July 2010 Operations AIR FORCE OPERATIONS PLANNING AND EXECUTION COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available for downloading or ordering on the e- Publishing website at www.e-publishing.af.mil/. RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication
OPR: AF/A5XW Supersedes: AFI10-401, 25 April 2005 Certified by: AF/A5X (Brig Gen Gorenc) Pages: 358
This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 10-4, Operations Planning: Air & Space Expeditionary Force Presence Policy (AEFPP). AFI 10-401 prescribes and explains how the Air Force participates in the Joint Planning and Execution Community (JPEC), including force presentation and Deliberate and Crisis Action Planning and Execution Segment (DCAPES), for the planning, deployment, employment, sustainment, redeployment and reconstitution of forces. It covers the procedures and standards that govern operations planning and execution throughout the Air Force. It also carries out the tenets of Executive Order (E.O.) 12861, Elimination of One-Half of Executive Branch Internal Regulations, September 11, 1993; and E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, September 30, 1993. It applies to all Air Force, including Air Reserve Component (ARC) personnel, who participate in the JPEC, including the planning, deployment, employment, sustainment, redeployment and reconstitution of forces. If this publication is in conflict with DOD or Joint guidance, then the joint publication will take precedence. Refer recommended changes and conflicts between this and other publications to AF/A5XW, 1480 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1480, on Air Force (AF) Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication; route AF IMT 847s from the field through the appropriate functionals chain of command. Any organization may supplement this volume. Major commands (MAJCOM), field operating agencies (FOA), and direct reporting units (DRU) send one copy of their printed supplement to AF/ A5XW and an electronic copy to afa5xw.plans@pentagon.af.mil; other organizations send one copy of each printed supplement to the next higher headquarters. Ensure that all records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with AFMAN 37-123, Management of Records and disposed of in accordance with the Air Force Records Disposition Schedule (RDS) located at AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 25 Chapter 2 OVERVIEW OF AIR FORCE PLANNING Section 2APurpose 2.1. Purpose. To provide an overview of the Air Forces force presentation and the planning policies, processes, and systems used to support the joint planning process. This includes the Air & Space Expeditionary Force (AEF), War and Mobilization Plan (WMP), Deliberate and Crisis Action Planning and Execution Segments (DCAPES), and the Air & Space Expeditionary Task Force (AETF) force modules. Section 2BBackground 2.2. Function of the AEF. The Air Force supports global combatant commander (CCDR) requirements through a combination of assigned, attached (rotational), and mobility forces that may be forward deployed, transient, or operating from home station. The AEF is the force generation construct used to manage the battle rhythm of these forces in order to meet global CCDR requirements while maintaining the highest possible level of overall readiness. Through the AEF, the Air Force establishes a predictable, standardized battle rhythm ensuring rotational forces are properly organized, trained, equipped, and ready to sustain capabilities while rapidly responding to emerging crises. Section 2CGuidance 2.3. AEF Force Generation Construct. The Air Forces Total Force is part of the AEF. There are four major elements of the AEF structure: readily available force, Enabler force, in-place support, and Institutional Force. The first three elements are components that primarily constitute the Air Forces warfighting capability and are therefore postured in UTCs (see Chapter 7); the fourth element provides the Air Forces sustainment capability necessary to meet SECAF statutory functions outlined in 10 USC 8013(b). 2.3.1. Readily Available Force. The readily available force is the primary pool from which the Air Force fulfills GFM Allocation Plan (GFMAP) rotational requirements. To meet these requirements, the Air Force aligns its warfighting capabilities into a baseline of 10 AEFs (5 pairs), each intended to contain an equivalent capability from which to provide forces. During periods of increased requirements, capability areas from these 10 AEFs may be realigned within the Global AEF construct to a Tempo Band that provides a deeper pool of capability, deploying that capability at a higher deploy-to-dwell rate (i.e. the ratio of time deployed in support of a contingency versus the time not deployed in support of a contingency). The baseline AEF (Band A) is organized to support a one-to-four ratio. The alternative Tempo Bands are organized to support an increasing deploy-to-dwell ratio with Bands C, D, and E supporting one-to-three, one-to-two, and one-to-one ratios respectively. Band B, like Band A, supports a one-to-four ratio but with a 6 month vulnerability period vice 4 months; the vulnerability periods for Bands C, D, and E are also 6 months. Two additional Tempo Bands are designed to support Air Reserve Component (ARC) forces in capability areas that might require mobilization. Tempo Bands 26 AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 M and N are designed to support mobilization-to-dwell ratios of one-to-five and one-to- four respectively. When forces are realigned to a different Tempo Band, each block within the Tempo Band is intended to contain an equivalent capability. 2.3.1.1. (DELETED) . 2.3.2. Enabler Force. The Enabler force includes common user assets, such as global mobility forces, special operations (SOF) and personnel recovery forces, space forces, and other uniquely categorized forces that provide support to authorized organizations within and outside the Department of Defense (DOD). Most high demand/low supply (HD/LS) assets, National Air Mobility System, and Theater Air Control System (TACS) elements are postured as Enabler forces and will rotate as operational requirements dictate. Due to their unique nature, these forces cannot be easily aligned in one of the Tempo Bands; however, every effort must be made to develop a sustained plan. Enabler force details are in Chapter 7 (Note: ARC is not required to posture assets as Enablers). 2.3.3. In-place support. There are two types of in-place support -- those forces that almost exclusively employ in direct support of a Combatant Commander mission, and those that represent the minimum number of requirements to support critical home station operations. In-place support forces are also included in the AEF Tempo Bands. Details on in-place support forces are in Chapter 7. 2.3.4. Institutional Force. The Institutional Force consists of those forces assigned to organizations responsible to carry out the SECAF Title 10 functions at the Air Force level (i.e. organize, train, equip, recruit, supply, etc (see Table A8.2. for examples)). These organizations will not posture UTCs in the AEF Capability Library (unless a waiver is granted by AF/A3/5 (see paragraph 10.2)). Although these organizations as a whole do not represent a warfighting capability, the individuals assigned to these organizations are inherently deployable. Details on AEF association, sourcing, and employment of individuals in the Institutional Force are in Chapter 14. 2.3.4.1. (DELETED) . 2.3.5. AEF Capability Library. The blocks within the five primary and two ARC Tempo Bands, plus the Enabler force make up the AEF Capability Library as depicted in Figure 2.1 The AEF Capability Library consists of 100% of the USAFs postured capability and encompasses one iteration of each of the 41 AEF blocks plus the Enabler force. The AEF Capability Library contains a finite capability that at any given time identifies forces that constitute the total force that has been made available or allocated for scheduling and provides a composite of capabilities from which AETFs are task organized to meet mission requirements. AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 27 Figure 2.1. AEF Capability Library.
2.4. AEF Schedule, Battle Rhythm, and Timeline. 2.4.1. AEF Schedule. The AEF Capability Library is the basis for the AEF Schedule (see Figure 2.2). The AEF Schedule operates on a 24-month life cycle that aligns with two GFM Cycles and coincides with fiscal years. Prior to the beginning of every GFM cycle, functional areas will revalidate the Tempo Band alignment of their respective capability areas and realign forces if necessary. It is the Air Force goal that functional areas align to the least strenuous band (ideally Band A) to minimize risk to the force. Every 12 months, a new 24-month AEF Schedule will be established. The various actions that lead up to the AEF Schedule are outlined in paragraph 2.4.3 28 AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 Figure 2.2. AEF Schedule.
2.4.2. AEF Battle Rhythm. The AEF operates on a 24-month life cycle. This cycle includes periods of normal training, preparation, and deployment vulnerability. However, each Tempo Band within the AEF construct operates under a different battle rhythm (see Figures 2.3.1 through 2.3.5). 2.4.2.1. For most forces (those other than Band E), the majority of the AEF battle rhythm is spent in normal training during which forces concentrate on unit missions and basic proficiency events in accordance with applicable Air Force directives and Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) requirements. This may include Joint, Air Force, or MAJCOM exercise participation (exercises of less than 30 days duration) such as Red Flag and Silver Flag. Most contingency and deployment training should take place during this period. This training and exercise period is also used to fill CCDR requirements with forces that are employed from home station, filling contingency requirements for 30 days AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 29 or less and crisis response (including HUMRO and OPLAN) needs. For the baseline AEF (Band A) this period is approximately 14 months. For Bands B through E, the normal training period is approximately 22, 16, 10, and 4 months, respectively. 2.4.2.1.1. Post-deployment reconstitution is included in this period. During the month immediately after deployment, the unit is focused on recovery. PCS/PCA moves into and out of the unit will be deconflicted to the maximum extent possible to occur during the 3-month period immediately after the vulnerability period. 2.4.2.2. Prior to a units deployment, a 2to 3-month deployment preparation period focuses unit activities on specific deployment preparation activities and area of responsibility (AOR) specific events, if known. Exercises of less than 30 days may be supported if the training is appropriate to deployment preparation (e.g. Eagle Flag). 2.4.2.3. The 4-month (Band A) or 6-month (Bands B through E) vulnerability period is the period of time the forces aligned in a specific AEF block are susceptible to initial deployment. Forces will not initially deploy outside of the vulnerability period except in cases of reach forward. Only one AEF block from each Tempo Band will be vulnerable at a time. Individuals and equipment must not participate in any activity that directly impacts their availability to deploy during their AEF vulnerability period unless specifically approved by applicable wing commander/equivalent. Exercise estimated tour lengths (ETLs) of 30 days or more are sourced from forces in their AEF vulnerability period. 2.4.2.4. Enabler forces do not operate within a 24-month life cycle/battle rhythm. The Enabler battle rhythm is provided by the HAF/MAJCOM FAM as a part of the Enabler nomination request package. For forces aligned in the Enabler force, unit commanders should develop a deployment schedule that provides a measure of predictability to associated Airmen. However, operational requirements may force deviations from the applicable battle rhythm. MAJCOM/CVs will ensure appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure Airmen postured as an Enabler are provided a measure of predictability/stability and do not violate CSAFor SecDef-redlines with respect to dwell. 30 AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 Figure 2.3. AEF Battle Rhythm (Band A).
2.4.3. GFM Cycle and AEF Schedule Timeline. 2.4.3.1. Joint GFM Cycle Actions. Approximately 18-24 months prior to the start of each GFM cycle, Joint Staff will publish a planning order outlining various milestones necessary to staff and publish the associated GFMAP. The timing of these actions directly affects the timeline needed to develop and implement the AEF Schedule. 2.4.3.1.1. DELETED. 2.4.3.1.2. DELETED. 2.4.3.1.3. DELETED. 2.4.3.1.4. DELETED. 2.4.3.1.5. DELETED. 2.4.3.1.6. DELETED. AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 35 2.4.3.2. AEF Schedule Preparation Timeline. The AEF Schedule timeline is required to meet the Joint Staff GFM Master Timeline. These milestones will be modified as necessary to meet the GFM Master Timeline. Prior to each 24-month AEF Schedule, Air Force leaders, planners, and Functional Area Managers (FAM) at every level review lessons learned, make assessments of significant force structure changes that have impacted the Air Force or a particular functional area, and consider initiatives that may impact the way we posture, schedule, present, or execute combat capability. A significant increase or decrease in combatant commander requirements will also warrant adjustment in the rotational battle rhythm of a particular functional area. AF/A3/5 will publish specific milestones to support the AEF Schedule timeline. As co-chairs of the AEF Steering Group, AF/A5X and AFPC/CC will monitor the tasks associated with planning for the upcoming AEF Schedule. Air Force planners and commanders, as well as HAF, MAJCOM, and component headquarters FAMs must ensure their actions are completed in accordance with published timelines. 2.4.3.2.1. DELETED. 2.4.3.2.2. DELETED. 2.4.3.2.3. DELETED. 2.4.3.2.4. DELETED. 2.4.3.2.5. DELETED. 2.4.3.2.6. DELETED. 2.4.3.2.7. DELETED. 2.4.3.2.8. DELETED. 2.4.3.2.9. DELETED. 2.4.3.2.10. DELETED.
Figure 2.8. DELETED 2.4.4. (DELETED) . 2.4.4.1. (DELETED) . 2.4.4.2. (DELETED) . 2.4.4.3. (DELETED) . 2.5. AEF Vulnerability Period. At any given time, one AEF block/pair from each Tempo Band is in the AEF vulnerability period. Available forces postured in these AEF blocks/pairs will be used to meet known rotational expeditionary requirements and emerging operational requirements across the range of military operations (ROMO). Individuals assigned to institutional organizations, will also be associated to a specific AEF vulnerability period (see Chapter 14). 2.5.1. Forces aligned to the AEFs in the vulnerability period but not tasked to deploy will remain in an on-call status to reinforce forward-deployed forces or provide additional 36 AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 capability for the duration of the AEF vulnerability period (Note: ARC forces do not serve in an on-call status). If tasked, their deployment commitments may extend outside their vulnerability period. In such cases, AFPC/DPW will coordinate with supported component headquarters to synchronize deployments with AEF vulnerability periods (see Chapter 8). 2.5.2. Regardless of AEF vulnerability period, all AEF forces are vulnerable for OPLAN tasking at all times including the period immediately following redeployment. 2.5.3. All Airmen will be given an AEF Indicator (AEFI) (Note: Reserve components will determine component-specific AEFI policy). For individuals assigned to warfighting organizations, the AEFI will correspond to the same AEF block as the units UTCs; for individuals assigned to the Institutional Force, the AEFI will correspond to an AEF vulnerability period. Except in cases of reaching forward, individuals will deploy during their associated AEF blocks vulnerability period. Changing an individuals AEFI will only be done under extenuating circumstances. See Chapter 14 for details on Airmen and the AEF. 2.6. AEF Surge. If requirements exceed forces available within the AEF vulnerability period, the AEF is designed to surge to meet increased requirements. Various methods of surging include reaching forward (using forces in the next AEF block/pair), reaching deeper (using forces in the current AEF block/pair that are not normally available not to exceed the unit's total deployable capability), rebanding capability area (an out-of-cycle realignment of the functional area into a different tempo band), and/or mobilization of ARC forces. Once a functional area re- aligns in a Tempo Band with a lesser dwell period and operates in that band for at least one full rotation (current rotation plus next), that functionality is not considered in surge. The matrix at Table 2.1 and paragraph 3.7.5 outline the various trigger points, process, and approval levels for surge mechanics. Emerging requirements include, but not limited to, JET solutions, JMD-IA, and/or standard force (blue-on-blue) solutions. Surging may require forces in their normal training and/or predeployment training periods to be deployed/employed for operational requirements. Table 2.1. Decision Matrix for Emerging Requirements. The capability area is operating in Tempo Band: And the Decision is to: Source within current Block Reach Forward 1, 4 Next Block Beyond Next Block
Reach Deeper 4
Re- Band 3, 4
A HAF FAM DCS A3/5 N/A A3/5 B HAF FAM DCS A3/5 N/A A3/5 C HAF FAM A3/5 CSAF 2 DCS A3/5 D DCS CSAF 2 CSAF 2 DCS CSAF E DCS CSAF 2
N/A A3/5 N/A Note 1: Reaching forward should be used for initial increase in requirements. If increase will be enduring, the capability area should re-band during the subsequent AEF Schedule Note 2: Need to consider mobilization/additional mobilization as a mitigation strategy Note 3: Assumes moving to more stringent Tempo Band (e.g. from Band C to Band D) AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 37 Note 4: Reaching forward, deeper, or re-band requires HAF FAM coordination with the applicable MAJCOMs 2.6.1. Through surge operations, the Air Force can make available all AEF blocks plus available Enablers but will require a sustained period, following this level of effort, to reconstitute the force during which time Air Force capabilities will be severely curtailed. 2.6.1.1. Surge operations will not be used to support exercises or rotational presence, unless specifically directed by AF/A3/5. 2.6.1.2. Some capabilities may need to surge at different rates and durations to meet combatant commander requirements. 2.6.1.3. Enabler assets, except those coded for specific operations, (ref. paragraphs 7.12.8 and 9.9.1), are also used for sourcing. 2.6.2. An active component (AC) employment ratio of one deployment period followed by a dwell period of twice the deployment period (1:2) for all postured capabilities is considered the maximum sustainable utilization rate while maintaining total Air Force unit readiness at C1/C2. This ratio coincides with the SecDef deploy-to-dwell planning objective. 2.6.3. Functional areas aligned in Band D experiencing demand that exceeds postured capabilities within the AEF vulnerability window should consider involuntary recall of ARC forces (see paragraph 3.8). 2.7. DELETED. 2.7.1. DELETED. 2.7.2. (DELETED) . 2.7.3. DELETED. 2.7.3.1. DELETED. 2.7.3.2. DELETED. 2.7.3.3. DELETED. 2.7.3.4. DELETED. 2.7.4. DELETED. 2.7.4.1. DELETED. 2.7.5. DELETED. 2.7.6. DELETED. 2.7.6.1. DELETED. 2.7.7. DELETED. 2.7.8. Unit and UTC readiness SORTS and ART reporting must be timely and accurate. 2.7.9. Airmen will be ready to immediately deploy during their AEF eligibility period. New CCDR requirements can be sourced any time during the AEF period. 38 AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 2.7.9.1. If deployed near the end of the AEF eligibility period, the Airman must be prepared to remain deployed through the end of the next AEF rotation. 2.7.10. If unable to fill AEF requirements, AEF reclama rule sets apply. See Chapter 10. Note: Reclamas will only occur under the most extenuating circumstances. Reclamas are minimized when UTC Availability and ART are properly maintained. Units will ensure UTC Availability and ART are accurate and up to date. 2.8. AEF Composition. The operations, command and control, and ECS elements required to task organize an AETF are resident in each AEF vulnerability period. Those capabilities may include aircraft-oriented and/or non-aircraft-oriented forces. A Numbered Expeditionary Air Force (NEAF) is the largest AETF and consists of multiple Air Expeditionary Wings (AEW) with subordinate Air Expeditionary Groups (AEG) and Air Expeditionary Squadrons (AES). An AEW is structured in accordance with the Air Force combat wing structure and is capable of establishing and operating an expeditionary base as well as exercising C2 of subordinate units at geographically separated locations. Normally, only one AEW will be at a single location. Subordinate units, regardless of size, will be organized as an AEG or AES. When an AETF is comprised of AEGs at multiple operating locations, each AEG will normally be attached to the nearest AEW in the same AETF. An AEG does not normally possess the capability to establish and operate a base; therefore AEGs are typically tenant units at a deployed location. 2.8.1. Each vulnerability period should have sufficient AC and ARC volunteer forces to support five AEWs and a mixture of eight AEGs. With mobilization, each vulnerability period should have sufficient forces to support an additional three AEWs and four AEGs. 2.8.1.1. Surging beyond the capability within an AEF vulnerability period will not necessarily yield an additional 5 AEWs and 8 AEGs (8 and 12 with mobilization) worth of capability. As capability areas are rebanded in a tempo band with lesser dwell periods, the flexibility to surge forces from the next AEF vulnerability period may be limited. 2.8.1.2. Determining the exact number of AESs, AEGs, and/or AEWs that can be generated is dependent on elements such as environment (permissive/non-permissive), available infrastructure, and duration of the requirement. Each AETF Force Module, in its entirety, may not be required for each location. 2.8.1.3. Critical enabling capabilities and/or ECS may be exhausted before the full capability within the AEF vulnerability period has been committed. The resulting residual capability can either be directed to support an existing location or can be added as a dependent element to support another operation. 2.9. Presentation and Command & Control (C2) of AEF Forces. The Air Force presents the full range of Air Force capabilities to the Joint Task Force (JTF) Commander via an Air & Space Expeditionary Task Force (AETF). The AETF is presented under the command of a single Commander of Air Force Forces (COMAFFOR). 2.9.1. AETFs are sized and tailored to meet the specific mission requirements. AETFs are sized as Air Expeditionary Groups (AEG), Air Expeditionary Wings (AEW) or Numbered Expeditionary Air Forces (NEAF). Reference AFPD 10-4 for further detail. AFI10-401 7 DECEMBER 2006 39 2.9.2. The AETF commander (COMAFFOR) must be ready to quickly assume the C2 functions necessary to command, control and coordinate air, space and information operations (IO). 2.9.2.1. The component NAF is organized and trained to support the UCC across the full range of military operations, with a core C2 capability that can be readily adapted to a specific theater requirement. The component NAF headquarters with its AOC weapons system will provide the required operational-level C2 capability, tailored for a specific AETF. 2.9.2.2. Due to the unique characteristics of air, space and information power (speed, range, flexibility, etc.), if there are multiple simultaneous JTF operations in a given theater, the AETF will normally be organized at the theater level, to optimize AF capabilities across all JTFs. 2.9.3. AETF forces (wings, groups, and/or squadrons) will be under the command of the COMAFFOR. 2.9.3.1. Administrative control (ADCON) and specified ADCON are Service responsibilities and will be detailed in the appropriate G-series orders. 2.9.3.2. Operational Control (OPCON) and Tactical Control (TACON) are combatant command authorities and will be delegated by the combatant commander (CCDR), as required, to the JTF commander and then to the COMAFFOR. 2.10. AEF Command and Control (C2). Air Force C2 operates under two central themes: the principle of unity of command and the tenet of centralized control and decentralized execution. Deployed active duty AEF force packages are operationally and administratively allocated to the COMAFFOR. Operational control of ARC forces is assigned to the theater command elements; however, administrative control of ARC forces remains with the National Guard Bureau and HQ/AFRC. Detailed C2 concepts are contained in the AFPD 10-4; AFDD 2, Operations and Organizations; and AFDD 2-8, Command and Control. 2.11. AETF Deployment. AETFs may deploy to meet known rotational, crisis response and combatant commander theater engagement and theater security cooperation (TSC) requirements. Unit readiness, proper positioning of air mobility assets, TPFDD development, deployment requirements manning document (DRMD) development, and expeditionary site planning for reception, beddown, and employment are keys to the process. 2.11.1. CJCS orders provide the mission and authority to task and deploy forces to support operations. MAJCOM/USAF component/unit supporting plans, installation deployment plans (IDPs), and expeditionary site plans (ESPs) provide procedural deployment details. 2.11.2. Although CJCS taskings will not always match the requirements established during the planning process, this prior preparation will enhance time-critical execution of AETF operations. 2.12. (DELETED). 2.12.1. (DELETED) . 2.13. AEF Agile Combat Support. Agile Combat Support (ACS) underpins the ability of the AEF to provide force capabilities that can rapidly respond by creating, sustaining, and protecting I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL 1 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL 2 AEF Next - BLUF An evolution, not an overhaul, of the current AEF Presents AF combat power via 117 Air Power Teams More unit-based emphasizes teaming Accounts for all Airmen on-line for the COCOMs Postures the AF on a standardized cycle A construct, not a conops yet more work to do
Explainable Comprehensive Teams I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL Overview 3 CSAF Vector Presentation Generation Conclusion
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL Develop a force presentation methodology that: Comparable to BCT/CSG/MEF presentation based on existing units Wing terminology Teaming concept Identifiable support of AF forces, core functions & iron assets Useable in force planning, execution and strategic analysis Facilitates easy identification of Institutional, CCDR committed, and CONUS & Forward Stationed rotationally available forces Easily understood by Public, Congress, Joint/Interagency communities, AF Senior Leaders and Airmen
CSAF Vectors 4 CSAF Vectors as of Dec 09 TASK: Provide a definable and quantifiable unit of measure that captures AF Combatant Commander commitments I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL AEF Next Features 5 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL Heavy Brigade Combat Team 73 BCTs Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 CSGs III II I 3 MEFs 10 AEFs Tempo Band A 5 AEFs Tempo Bands B thru E Force Presentation Model Comparison 6 Current construct fails to communicate AF Force presentation with same simplicity as other Services I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL 7 AEF NEXT - Force Presentation How will the AF present forces under AEF Next? 117 Air Power Teams (APTs)
What is an Air Power Team? Air, Space, & Cyberspace capability-based teams derived from:
Strike Mobility C2ISR Space & Cyberspace Special Operations Mission Support Bridges gap between in garrison forces and those deployed
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL C C D R
R E Q U I R E M E N T S
8 AF Total Force Team Summary (~7) Air Superiority (~12) Close Control Strike (~4) Air Electronic Attack (~2) Nuclear (~1) Long Range Strike (~5) Personnel Recovery (~31) Strike* (4) Command & Control (7) Airborne ISR (2) Ground ISR (13) C2ISR (1) Space Control (1) Space Support (1) Space Force Enhance (1) Cyber Support (1) Cyber Defense (1) Combat Comm (6) Space & Cyberspace (1) Precision Strike (2) Specialized Mobility (1) Nonstd Aviation (1)ISR (1) MISO (1) AvFID (1) Battlefield Ops (8) Special Ops (6) Intertheater (8) Intratheater (1) Light Mobility (10) Air Refueling (6) Special Mission (31) Mobility (~13) Available Rotation (~15) Committed (~28) Agile Combat Spt* G a r r i s o n
U n i t s
(~117) APTs * work in progress I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL 9 APT Component Breakout APTs Active Component (AC) Reserve Component (RC) AC / RC Mix* STRIKE 17 9 5 MOBILITY 17 13 1 C2ISR 9 4 0 SPECIAL OPS 4 1 3 SPACE 0 0 3 CYBERSPACE 3 0 0 MISSION SUPPORT 15 0 13 Total 65 27 25 * Non-Total Force Equivalent (TFE) AF presents forces as APTs to operating locations to meet global requirements AF total of 117 APTs 31 Strike, 31 Mobility, 13 C2ISR, 8 Special Operations, 3 Space, & 3 Cyberspace Contains respective operations & maintenance/munitions support Mission Support Teams provide WG HQ C2 & BOS/ACS 13 Deployable (Each drawn from ~3-4 AC Wings / ~8-9 RC Wings) 15 Committed In-Place (Each drawn from ~3-4 AC Wings)
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL 10 APTs Notionally Available / Committed AF Combat Power 87 of 117 APTs Committed to CCDRs Today * Partially available and may include OT&E iron assets (if applicable) when directed ** Globally Utilized Airpower Teams (APTs) AVAILABLE CONUS COMMITTED CONUS COMMITTED OCONUS COMMITTED DEPLOYED Strike 10 2 13 6 Mobility 2 0 2** 27** C2ISR 3 2 0 8 Space-Cyberspace 0 5 0 1 Special Operations 1 0 0 7 Agile Combat Support 14* 7* 2 5
TOTAL = 117 30* 16* 17 54 August 2011 Snapshot of Total Force APTs / 5-12 August 2011 Snapshot of MOBILITY APTs I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL (12) ST-APT (7) MO-APT (5) CI-APT (5) SC -APT (1) SO - APT (21) MS-APT *MO-APT *CI-APT *MS-APT *ST-APT *MO-APT (2)SO-APT *MS-APT (8) ST-APT * MO-APT * CI-APT (1) MS-APT (5) ST-APT * MO-APT * CI-APT ( 1) MS-APT (6) ST-APT *MO-APT (8) CI-APT (1) SC-APT (5) SO-APT (5) MS-APT 82 APTs: Supporting CCDRs 35 APTs: Available for Deployment Current AF Total Force APT Global Support 11 *Globally Utilized I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL New AEF Model 12 AEF Presents Right Sized Capability-Based Air Power Teams Heavy Brigade Combat Team 73 BCTs Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 CSGs III II I 3 MEFs 117 APTs S t r i k e
C 2 I S R
S p a c e
&
C y b e r s p a c e
S p e c i a l
O p s
M o b i l i t y
M i s s i o n
S u p p o r t
Garrison Units I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL Force Generation 13 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL Why Force Generation Must Change Tempo Banding: Will not work with Force Presentation model Iron and ECS not aligned Precludes Force Development/Assignments integration with AEF deployments Is difficult to understand Every deployment is a custom-made wooden shoe
14 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL 18-Month AEF Cycle 24-Month GFM Schedule Enablers 6 Months Force Generation 1:2 Baseline 15 AEF 6 AEFs; 6-month ETLs; 1:2 AC, 1:5 RC mob-to-dwell 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months AEF 1 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 AEF 1 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 Institutional Force X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X1 Spin-up/ Deployment Prep AEF 2 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 AEF 4 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 AEF 5 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 AEF 6 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 AEF 3 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep AEF 2 ARC 1:5 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL Spin-up/ Deploy Prep Force Generation 1:2 Baseline 18-Month AEF Cycle 24-Month GFM Schedule 6 Months 16 Spin-up/ Deploy Prep
Assignment/Training AEF 2 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 Assignment/Training AEF 3 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 Spin-up/ Deploy Prep Assignment/Training AEF 4 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 Assignment/Training AEF 5 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 Assignment/Training AEF 6 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 Assignment/ Training 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months AEF 1 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 AEF 2 ARC 1:5 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL 18-Month AEF Cycle 24-Month GFM Schedule Force Generation 1:1 Max Surge 17 Enablers AEF Max Surge: By functional area, 9-month ETLs; 1:1 AC, 1:4 RC mob-to-dwell; no re-posturing Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep AEF 1 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 AEF 2 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 AEF 3 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 AEF 4 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 AEF 5 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 AEF 6 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 ARC 1:4 9 Months 9 Months 9 Months AEF 1 ARC 1:5 ARC 1:5 Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep Spin-up/ Deployment Prep AEF 2 ARC 1:5 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X1 Institutional Force I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL ECS Taskings FY13 Requirements Top 9 MS-APT
Tempo Band Taskings
Two hit policy: 60% for 6-mths followed by 40% AEF Next provides 3-mths white space every 6-mths Each Team (Big/Small Hit) deploys every 18-mths
18 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL AEF Next vs ECS Taskings FY13 Requirements Top 9 MS-APT
Two hit policy: 60% for 6-mths followed by 40% AEF Next provides 3-mths white space every 6-mths Each Team (Big/Small Hit) deploys every 18-mths
19 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL Spin-up/ Deploy Prep Spin-up/ Deploy Prep AEF 3 18-Month AEF Cycle 24-Month GFM Schedule 6 Months
Langley Squadron X 400 Authorizations 280 Rotationally Available; 120 Home Station Support
20 RTB
AEF Next creates white space
AEF 1 60% of rotation available deployed AEF 1 60% of rotation available deployed Spin-up/ Deploy Prep RTB AEF 4 40% of rotation available deployed Spin-up/ Deploy Prep AEF 2 Spin-up/ Deploy Prep AEF 5 Spin-up/ Deploy Prep AEF 6 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months Spin-up/ Deploy Prep AEF 2 Spin-up/ Deploy Prep I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL Spin-up/ Deploy Prep AEF 1 Deploy Committed Jul Dec 2012 Jan Jun 2013 Jul Dec 2013 Jan Jun 2012 Airman Schwartz First Duty Assignment 21 Jul Dec 2014 Jan Jun 2015 Jul Dec 2015 Jan Jun 2014 Spin-up/ Deploy Prep first basemission training/ career field upgrades Jul Dec 2016 Jan Jun 2017 Jul Dec 2017 Jan Jun 2016 AEF 1 Deploy Committed Assignment Consideration Assignment Consideration Spin-up/ Deploy Prep AEF 1 Deploy Committed
AEF 1
Career/professional development Spin-up/ Deploy Prep
Force Development/Assignments Aligned to AEF Battle Rhythm
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL AEF Next Way Ahead 22 PEOPLE POLICIES PROCESSES ORGANIZATIONS EQUIPMENTS CONOPS ANALYSES TECHNOLOGIES AEF NOW C O R O N A
0 9
AEF NEXT A E F
N E X T
AEF Next: Expeditionary AF Forces to meet CCDR Requirements & National Strategies Simplifies, Codifies, & Generates AF Capability-Based Teams I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e UNCLASSIFIED PRE-DECISIONAL PRE-DECISIONAL Conclusion Force Presentation: Preserves the UTC building block Promotes teaming Captures all forces committed to CCDR missions Commanders more in control: at home and deployed Useable for strategic analysis and risk assessment Establishes a clear redline for DoD & AF decision making Force Generation: Force development/assignments are aligned to AF/AEF battle rhythm Connects Iron and ECS; Enables teaming Easy to understand 18-month cycle Complies with GFM planning guidance Reacts quickly to adaptive planning and execution 23