DTIC ADA544686: Air and Space Power Journal. Volume 25, Number 2, Summer 2011

2.9 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

A
I
R

&

S
P
A
C
E Summer 2011 Volume XXV, No. 2

P
O
W
Right-Sizing Airpower Command and
E
R
Control for the Afghanistan
J
O
U Counterinsurgency
R
N
Maj Gen Charles W. Lyon, USAF
A
L Lt Col Andrew B. Stone, USAF
,

S
u
m The Criticality of Defense-Focused
m
e Technical Education
r

2 Maj Gen Walter D. Givhan, USAF
0
1 with
1
Maj Eric D. Trias, PhD, USAF
Maj William H. Allen, USAF
The Cyber Warfare Professional
Realizations for Developing the Next Generation
Lt Col Timothy Franz, USAF
Tools of Change
Tactical C4ISR and Conflicts—Past, Present, and Future
Thomas J. Rath
Airpower and Counterinsurgency
Building on a Proper Foundation
Paul Smyth
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
2011 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2011 to 00-00-2011
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Air and Space Power Journal. Volume 25, Number 2, Summer 2011
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Air and Space Power Journal,155 N. Twining Street,Maxwell REPORT NUMBER
AFB,AL,36112-6026
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 132
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Chief of Staff, US Air Force
Gen Norton A. Schwartz
Commander, Air Education
and Training Command
Gen Edward A. Rice Jr.
Commander, Air University
Lt Gen Allen G. Peck http://www.af.mil
Director, Air Force Research Institute
Gen John A. Shaud, USAF, Retired
Chief, Professional Journals
Lt Col Michael S. Tate
Deputy Chief, Professional Journals
Maj Darren K. Stanford
Managing Editor
http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil
Lt Col David H. Sanchez
Editor
Capt Wm. Howard
Professional Staff
Marvin W. Bassett, Contributing Editor
Tammi K. Long, Editorial Assistant
Daniel M. Armstrong, Illustrator
L. Susan Fair, Illustrator
Ann Bailey, Prepress Production Manager
http://www.au.af.mil
The Air and Space Power Journal (ISSN 1554-2505), Air
Force Recurring Publication 10-1, published quarterly,
is the professional journal of the United States Air
Force. It is designed to serve as an open forum for the
presentation and stimulation of innovative thinking on Air and Space Power Journal
military doctrine, strategy, force structure, readiness, 155 N. Twining Street
and other matters of national defense. The views and Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6026
opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those
e-mail: [email protected]
of the authors and should not be construed as carrying
the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Visit Air and Space Power Journal online
Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air at http://www.airpower.au.af.mil.
University, or other agencies or departments of the US
government.
Articles in this edition may be reproduced in whole or in
part without permission. If they are reproduced, the Air
and Space Power Journal requests a courtesy line.
Summer 2011
Volume XXV, No. 2
AFRP 10-1
Senior Leader Perspectives
Right-Sizing Airpower Command and
Control for the Afghanistan Counterinsurgency ❙ 5
Maj Gen Charles W. Lyon, USAF
Lt Col Andrew B. Stone, USAF
The Criticality of Defense-Focused Technical Education ❙ 12
Maj Gen Walter D. Givhan, USAF
with
Maj Eric D. Trias, PhD, USAF
Maj William H. Allen, USAF
From the Editor
Air Force Institute of Technology in Focus;
the Historic “Empowered” Air Component Coordination
Element; and a Farewell to Maj Darren Stanford ❙ 19
Capt Wm. Howard, Editor
Features
The Cyber Warfare Professional ❙ 87
Realizations for Developing the Next Generation
Lt Col Timothy Franz, USAF
The cyberspace environment presents conceptual and operational challenges for military leaders not
unlike those associated with the early days of human flight. As technologies emerged to exploit each
new domain, leaders at first dismissed them before finally recognizing the importance of dominance in
the new environment. Although exploiting and defending cyberspace carries an opportunity cost, as
early military leaders discovered with airpower, failing to properly organize, train, and equip for the
new domain can undermine our current military advantage and our prospects for success.
Tools of Change ❙ 100
Tactical C4ISR and Conflicts—Past, Present, and Future
Thomas J. Rath
The Air Force’s irregular warfare strategy calls for new approaches and synchronization of effort for
the counterinsurgency (COIN) “long war”; however, this article contends that the Air Force’s improvised
airpower solutions for the unique COIN environment perpetuate mistakes of the past and jeopardize
future successes in asymmetric conflict. The author echoes the call for a purpose-built command, con-
trol, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) aircraft for the
irregular warfare environment, which the Air Force can share with partner nations.
Airpower and Counterinsurgency ❙ 115
Building on a Proper Foundation
Paul Smyth
Since the end of the Cold War, both the East and the West have engaged in protracted counterinsurgency
(COIN) warfare. While historic COIN lessons remain obscure, advanced nations discover, to their frus-
tration, that superior airpower employing conventional tactics can actually prolong conflict with a radical-
ized, recalcitrant enemy. The author explores limitations in the application of airpower, advocating an
improved partnership between surface and air components to more effectively influence outcomes in
irregular warfare.
Departments
20 ❙ Ricochets and Replies
24 ❙ Air Force Institute of Technology
Precision Position, Navigation, and Timing without the
Global Positioning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Maj Kenneth A. Fisher, PhD, USAF
Dr. John F. Raquet
Achieving the Air Force’s Energy Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Lt Col Frederick G. Harmon, USAF
Lt Col Richard D. Branam, PhD, USAF
Lt Col Doral E. Sandlin, USAF
Unintended Consequences: Potential Downsides of the
Air Force’s Conversion to Biofuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Lt Col Mark N. Goltz, PhD, USAF, Retired
Dr. Charles A. Bleckmann
Dr. Douglas M. Mackay
Maj Khai Vuong, USAF
Capt Jerrod P. McComb, USAF
Jet Propellant 8 versus Alternative Jet Fuels:
A Life-Cycle Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Lt Col Peter P. Feng, PE, PhD, USAF
Maj Wayne C. Kinsel, USAF
Dr. Alfred E. Thal
Dr. Charles A. Bleckmann
Using Nanotechnology to Detect Nerve Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Lt Col Mark N. Goltz, PhD, USAF, Retired
Dr. Dong Shik Kim
Maj LeeAnn Racz, PhD, USAF
X-HALE: Designing the Atmospheric Surveillance
Platforms of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Lt Col Christopher M. Shearer, USAF
Aerospike Rockets for Increased Space Launch Capability . . . . . . . . . . 65
Lt Col Carl Hartsfield, PhD, USAF
Lt Col Richard D. Branam, PhD, USAF
Capt Joshua Hall, USAF
Mr. Joseph Simmons
A Taskable Space Vehicle: Realizing Cost Savings by
Combining Orbital and Suborbital Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Capt Thomas C. Co, USAF
Dr. Jonathan T. Black
81 ❙ Views & Analyses
Centralized Execution, Decentralized Chaos: How the
Air Force Is Poised to Lose a Cyber War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1st Lt John Cobb, USAF
127 ❙ Mission Debrief
Editorial Advisory Board
Gen John A. Shaud, PhD, USAF, Retired, Air Force Research Institute
Lt Gen Bradley C. Hosmer, USAF, Retired
Dr. J. Douglas Beason (Senior Executive Service and Colonel, USAF, Retired), Air Force Space Command
Dr. Alexander S. Cochran, Office of the Chief of Staff, US Army
Prof. Thomas B. Grassey, US Naval Academy
Lt Col Dave Mets, PhD, USAF, Retired, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (professor emeritus)
Board of Reviewers
Lt Col Eric Braganca, USAF Col Merrick E. Krause, USAF, Retired
Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland Department of Homeland Security
Dr. Kendall K. Brown Col Chris J. Krisinger, USAF, Retired
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Burke, Virginia
Dr. Clayton K. S. Chun Dr. Benjamin S. Lambeth
US Army War College RAND
Dr. Mark Clodfelter Mr. Douglas E. Lee
National War College Air Force Space Command
Dr. Conrad Crane Dr. Richard I. Lester
Director, US Army Military History Institute Eaker Center for Professional Development
Col Dennis M. Drew, USAF, Retired Mr. Brent Marley
USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Redstone Arsenal, Alabama
(professor emeritus)
Mr. Rémy M. Mauduit
Maj Gen Charles J. Dunlap Jr., USAF, Retired Air Force Research Institute
Duke University
Col Phillip S. Meilinger, USAF, Retired
Dr. Stephen Fought West Chicago, Illinois
USAF Air War College (professor emeritus)
Dr. Daniel Mortensen
Col Richard L. Fullerton, USAF Air Force Research Institute
USAF Academy
Dr. Richard R. Muller
Lt Col Derrill T. Goldizen, PhD, USAF, Retired USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies
Westport Point, Massachusetts
Dr. Bruce T. Murphy
Col Mike Guillot, USAF, Retired Air University
Editor, Strategic Studies Quarterly
Col Robert Owen, USAF, Retired
Air Force Research Institute
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Dr. John F. Guilmartin Jr.
Lt Col Brian S. Pinkston, USAF, MC, SFS
Ohio State University
The Pentagon
Dr. Amit Gupta
Col Bob Potter, USAF, Retired
USAF Air War College
Air Force Research Institute
Dr. Grant T. Hammond
Dr. Steve Rothstein
USAF Center for Strategy and Technology
Colorado Springs Science Center Project
Dr. Dale L. Hayden
Lt Col Reagan E. Schaupp, USAF
Air Force Research Institute
Naval War College
Mr. James Hoffman
Dr. Barry Schneider
Rome Research Corporation
Director, USAF Counterproliferation Center
Milton, Florida
Professor, USAF Air War College
Dr. Thomas Hughes
Col Richard Szafranski, USAF, Retired
USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies
Toffler Associates
Lt Col Jeffrey Hukill, USAF, Retired
Lt Col Edward B. Tomme, PhD, USAF, Retired
Air Force Research Institute
CyberSpace Operations Consulting
Lt Col J. P. Hunerwadel, USAF, Retired
Dr. Christopher H. Toner
LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education
University of St. Thomas
Col Mark P. Jelonek, USAF
Lt Col David A. Umphress, PhD, USAFR, Retired
Air Force Space Command
Auburn University
Col John Jogerst, USAF, Retired
Col Mark E. Ware
Navarre, Florida
Twenty-Fourth Air Force
Mr. Charles Tustin Kamps
Dr. Harold R. Winton
USAF Air Command and Staff College
USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies
Dr. Tom Keaney
Johns Hopkins University
4 | Air & Space Power Journal
Senior Leader Perspective
Right-Sizing Airpower
Command and Control for the
Afghanistan Counterinsurgency
Maj Gen Charles W. Lyon, USAF ized control procedures for a mature, endur-
Lt Col Andrew B. Stone, USAF ing campaign. Finally, I offer a few thoughts
on how and why we arrived at this juncture.
On 3 November 2010, the commander
Empowered Air Component
of United States Air Forces Central
Command (COMUSAFCENT) signed Coordination Element (2009–10)
and released an order establishing the 9th
Air and Space Expeditionary Task Force– I will cash any check my ACCE
Afghanistan (9 AETF-A). This order represents writes.
an important moment because it alters the —Lt Gen Mike Hostage
20-year-old model of how COMUSAFCENT, COMUSAFCENT
in his role as the 9 AETF commander, pres-
The dialogue to empower the ACCE-
ents forces to the supported joint force com-
Afghanistan (ACCE-A) organization began
mander (JFC)—in this case, the commander
in earnest in 2009. My predecessor, Lt Gen
of US Forces–Afghanistan (COMUSFOR-A).1
(then Maj Gen) Stephen Mueller appealed
This article serves as a complementary piece
for and received sufficient resources to
to Lt Gen Mike Hostage’s article “A Seat at
place liaison officers across adjacent head-
the Table,” which appeared in the Winter 2010
quarters (HQ) structures in Kabul. This ad-
issue of this journal.2 It documents how this
ditional manpower ensured an Airman’s
change in USAFCENT’s airpower command
presence in planning cells at Headquarters
and control (C2) structure developed, tem-
pered by my observations and perspective International Security Assistance Force (HQ
as the commander charged with imple- ISAF), Headquarters ISAF Joint Command
menting the COMUSAFCENT’s vision. (HQ IJC), and Headquarters United States
First, I explain the initial tasks that Gen- Forces–Afghanistan (HQ USFOR-A).3 Simply
eral Hostage gave me as director of the “em- stated, these Airmen “connected the wires”
powered” air component coordination ele- for cross-domain activities. General Hostage
ment (ACCE). As I do that, I illustrate how presented me his vision of the empowered
we began to evolve into what has become ACCE construct when I first arrived in-
the AETF staff. Next, I discuss why this evo- theater in May 2010, saying, “Be all things
lution was necessary and the rationale for Afghanistan.” Initially, he gave me three
creating a subtheater C2 echelon in today’s tasks, later adding a significant fourth task.
war-fighting environment. I do so to give These four basic assignments set us on the
the readers of this journal one Airman’s evolutionary path from the empowered
sight picture on how we can adapt central- ACCE organization to the 9 AETF-A.
Summer 2011 | 5
Task 1: “Support the commander of agreed to the classified performance that we
ISAF. . . . Help him succeed . . . by measure. The leaders responsible for succeed-
his measures of success.” ing on the ground have identified their “de-
mand” signal, and we “supply” the assets to
In order to help the commander of ISAF
meet their objectives.
(COMISAF) succeed, I first needed to know
what he and his subordinate commanders
Task 2: “Execute Air Force forces duties and
considered important to the success of the
conduct planning activities.”
population-centric counterinsurgency (COIN)
campaign. I redoubled ACCE-A’s efforts to Air Force Forces Duties. The US Air
understand the operational design of the cam- Force is “all in.” Just over half of the US Air
paign and to translate that design into mea- Force Airmen deployed to Afghanistan oper-
surable airpower objectives. The COMISAF’s ate under the C2 of AFCENT. The remainder
success does not hinge on the application of execute missions under the operational con-
effects in the airpower domain (or in any trol of five other commands in Afghanistan—
single domain or mode). Rather, his success mostly led by commanders from the ground
results from combined effects produced across domain. These Airmen provide combat sup-
three themes in the COIN operation: security, port and combat service support capabilities
governance, and development. The COMISAF at the request of the JFC in Afghanistan—
uses these themes to reach the military end from individual augmentees at the four-star
state: creating a safe, secure environment sus- ISAF headquarters to joint expeditionary
tainable by and for the Afghan people. tasked explosive ordnance disposal teams pro-
I shifted our organizational focus—people, tecting maneuver units at the battalion/
processes, and products—to make sure we squadron level. Nearly all troop-contributing
fully understand the commander’s intent and nations in Afghanistan operate within force-
keep the combined force air component com- management limits.4 Our nation is no differ-
mander (CFACC) informed. Does COMISAF ent. As the war evolves, the COMUSFOR-A
particularly care how many sorties the reshapes his forces to adjust to conditions on
CFACC generates in a day or the number of the ground. The AETF commander now has
bombs his aircraft deliver? No. The com- responsibility for balancing risk across the
manders on the ground care about the ability task force to ensure that the right force struc-
of the air domain to shape and influence the ture is in place to meet campaign objectives.
situation on the ground. Instead of focusing Arguably, the AETF-A commander functions
on sorties/hours flown, we now measure the as the “commander of Air Force forces–
percentage of joint tactical air strike requests Afghanistan” (COMAFFOR-A) in this capacity.
we fill per air tasking order (ATO) cycle and Regardless of the C2 relationships of the sup-
the average time it takes for an aircraft to re- porting Airmen, the AETF-A commander pro-
spond to a troops-in-contact situation. We also vides unique insight into the value of all US
measure our effectiveness rates for weapons Air Force Airmen deployed to Afghanistan.
employment. In other words, do we have air- As we seek to deploy more “trigger pullers”
craft in a position to support and enable and off-ramp more “enablers,” I now have the
ground operations in accordance with the ability to prioritize the Airmen and the capa-
COMISAF’s priorities? Can we respond to an bilities they provide relative to campaign ob-
emergency for his troopers in a timely man- jectives. This is an important contribution in
ner? Can we produce precision-weapons ef- my advisory role to the COMUSFOR-A.
fects exactly where the ground commander Planning. The COMUSAFCENT wanted
asks for them? These are the questions we a senior Airman with “boots on the ground”
ask. Furthermore, the staffs of United States in Afghanistan to serve as the nexus for stra-
Central Command (CENTCOM), AFCENT, tegic and operational planning support to
ISAF, IJC, and USFOR-A have vetted and the COMISAF/COMUSFOR-A. I instructed
6 | Air & Space Power Journal
Senior Leader Perspective
my staff to be certain that they maintain a Task 3: “The deputy CFACC remains
clear understanding of both strategic- and responsible for execution—centralized
operational-level deliberate plans while C2 through the CAOC.”
maintaining awareness of regional command /
This task appropriately scoped the mission
division-level operations. The presence of
of the empowered ACCE—a reminder that
liaison officers in key planning teams affords
the theater CFACC and the CAOC construct
maximum opportunity to synchronize air
remain in place to conduct the details of
component support to COIN operations. These
building, distributing, and executing the
officers request augmentation of subject-
daily ATO that services operations from the
matter expertise from the combined air and
deserts of Iraq, across the Arabian Gulf,
space operations center (CAOC) or AFCENT/
through the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan. The
AFFOR staff, as needed.
deputy CFACC continues daily execution of
We increased the air component’s in-
AFCENT air operations; this arrangement
volvement in the other two pillars of the
ISAF COIN strategy—governance and socio- retains the proven centralized control model
economic development—by infusing the “as is” across the entire CENTCOM area of
expertise of Airmen into developing civil responsibility through the theater air control
aviation infrastructure in partnership with system (TACS). The 9 AETF-A staff concen-
US agencies and international partners. We trates on short- and midterm future plans,
work with members of the United States while the CAOC and TACS perform the ATO
Embassy staff in Kabul to form an inte- planning and daily execution tasks (fig. 1).
grated civilian-military team that presents a Beyond the execution role, the deputy
unified approach to the Ministry of Trans- CFACC is the ultimate arbiter of staff effort
port / Civil Aviation as we jointly advise and and priority as he weighs the multitude of
assist ministry personnel in aviation issues. tasks aimed at the CAOC and AFFOR staffs by
We also have increased our interaction with himself, the CFACC, and both of the subordi-
the NATO Air Training Command–Afghani- nate 9 AETF commanders (Afghanistan and
stan to further leverage our Air Force’s abili- Iraq). Again, Airmen understand centralized
ties to transform the Afghan Air Force into control—in the air and in the execution of
a professional partner. staff duties. We established business rules
Planning Execution
TACP + AOC + TAC C2 + ASOC
L
e
v
e
l o
f E
9 AETF-A Staff ff
o
rt
Time
ATO Production
AOC = air and space operations center
ASOC = air support operations center
TAC = theater air control
TACP = tactical air control party
Figure 1. The 9 AETF-A’s level of effort: planning versus execution over time
Summer 2011 | 7