DTIC ADA518766: Log-centric Airbase-opening Strategies in Korea

0.38 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

Log-centric Airbase-opening
Korea
Strategies in

By Steven M . An derSon and doug lAS A. Cunni n ghAM
O
perations Enduring Freedom
The airlift of supplies to the forward elements of the 8th Army, at a time when such and Iraqi Freedom have
an operation was our only means of supply, has permitted ground troops to continue afforded the U.S. military
their combat mission in the forward area. The keen application of the logistics situ- unique opportunities to open
ation, and the efficiency . . . demonstrate the close cooperation that exists between airfields under wartime conditions—mis-
ground and air in the Korean War. sions that have become increasingly impor-
—Lieutenant General Walton H. Walker, Commander, 8th U.S. Army, Korea, 19501 tant as more overseas bases close down. These
opportunities have demonstrated the global
reach capabilities of U.S. airbase-opening
forces and the ways in which regional com-
manders employ these forces to achieve
mission goals. The experiences have proven
particularly valuable for specialized, task-
organized airbase-opening units, such as the
Air Force’s Contingency Response Groups
(CRGs), built as “first responders for opening
airbases . . . [that] bridge the gap between
the seizure forces and the follow-on combat/
expeditionary combat support forces.”2
As valuable as ongoing operations have
been for exercising new airbase-opening
structures and ideas, current theory remains
focused specifically on opening airbases for
fighter aircraft and other operations-centric
missions already codified in doctrine.3 In
addition, present discourse centers almost
exclusively on U.S. unilateral base-opening
efforts, rather than exploring the ways mul-
tinational partners combine to accomplish
airbase-opening missions. Alexander M.
Wathen stresses this latter point: “Missing
from the CRG concept of operations . . . and
training plans is the construct of joining with
Govea II) oItu irs ctiomalei ttioo nst paratr ttnheinrsk tihnrgo buegyhoonudt ‘tjhoein gtlnoebses.’
V.
dron (Francisco asaicnntdcio ebn re egisci nebn emtc ohomivsitinongrg yi p nsotholoi ttwihcsea tlrhleyaa tll emusns oivlfai a‘tcbeorlaea.ll”i 4tUio.Sn., ’
qua In the Korean theater of operations
S
mera (KTO), Republic of Korea (ROK) and U.S. plan-
South Korean military members participate with U.S. Ca ners, from Combined Forces Command (CFC)
Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors in the air operations mbat and its components, are exploring ways to share
center at Osan Air Base, Exercise Foal Eagle 2007 th4 Co the burden of airbase openings while, at the
same time, focusing on how such airbases can
Brigadier General Steven M. Anderson, USA, is Deputy Chief of Staff, Resources and Sustainment, Multi- serve as logistics (log)-centric distribution hubs
National Force–Iraq. Major Douglas A. Cunningham, USAF, served as Chief of the Tactical Airlift Branch in the for airlifted materiel. Both of these issues are
Transportation Division of Combined Forces Command between 2004 and 2006. He is currently pursuing a important for further study and analyses; in the
Ph.D. as part of the Air Force Institute of Technology’s Civilian Institution program. post-9/11 era, when American forces are spread
ndupress.ndu.edu issue 46, 3d quarter 2007 / JFQ    115
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
2007 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2007 to 00-00-2007
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Log-centric Airbase-opening Strategies in Korea
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
National Defense University,Institute for National Strategic Studies,260 REPORT NUMBER
Fifth Avenue SW Bg 64 Fort Lesley J. McNair,Washington,DC,20319
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 5
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
FEATURES | Log-centric Airbase-opening Strategies in Korea
thin among various contingencies and conflicts medical/equipment backhaul is certainly not integration] processes, tactical air operations,
across the globe, the military must increasingly new to the Korean Peninsula. United Nations ground operations, or special operations sepa-
plan and coordinate with its international part- forces, for instance, successfully employed rately, and they do not adequately describe the
ners to ensure the effectiveness of host-nation the concept on several occasions during air-ground, inter-modal, and combined nature
transportation infrastructures and supply the Korean War. Recently, however, CFC of the concept.5
distribution strategies. Without such coordina- planners, inspired by the successes of base
tion, commanders assume significant risk to the openings in Operations Enduring Freedom The white paper went on to provide its
time-tested logistics promise of getting the right and Iraqi Freedom, recognized the continu- exact definition of ATSP:
materiel to the right place at the right time. ing viability of the concept within the KTO,
dusted off the history books, and placed new The term Air Terminal Supply Point
emphasis on log-centric airbase openings. marries the air concept of an air terminal to
it is time to start thinking
To this end, in October 2004, the C4 the ground concept of a supply point [both
beyond “jointness” and begin Transportation Division established the ATSP of which are doctrinal terms]. The term is
moving into the realm of Working Group, a combined/joint team simple, intuitive, and easily understood when
“coalition” consisting of transporters, log planners, secu- translated literally as “a place to receive supply
rity forces, air mobility experts, operators, by air.” Based on this construct, we currently
engineers, and various other functional areas. define an ATSP as a designated air transporta-
As part of the effort to reach com- This working group operated with a mandate tion hub that accommodates the loading and
bined airbase-opening solutions and robust to plan combined, log-centric airbase open- unloading of airlift aircraft and the in-transit
plans for aerial resupply of combat or other ings and operations, and later to execute a processing of traffic [not to include cargo
ground forces, CFC planners have adopted field training exercise to validate these mis- breakdown] in support of ground forces. The
and adapted strategies employed in both sions and to develop/maintain proficiency. ATSP also serves as a designated location in an
Afghanistan and Iraq to develop a concept for By March 2005, the working group had area of operations used as a base for supply and
forward-located distribution hubs in the KTO, developed a white paper for distribution at the evacuation by air 6 (see figure 1).
known as air terminal supply points (ATSPs). CFC Spring 2005 Senior Leaders Seminar that
This article examines the development of explicitly addressed a doctrinal gap in airbase The term ATSP generates some con-
these combined airbase-opening concepts in terminology: troversy in the KTO (particularly among Air
the KTO and the lessons learned as a result of Force personnel with base-opening experi-
planning and executing a combined, proof- ATSP is a current term, specific to the ence in Operations Enduring Freedom and
of-principle ATSP field training exercise and KTO, that fills a doctrinal gap in both the Iraqi Freedom) because it is theater-specific
operational vignette during spring 2006. terminology and operational concepts related and, for the time being, nondoctrinal. The
Throughout the concept and exercise to theater airlift operations. . . . [T]he term irony, however, is that since the term was
development processes, several key questions originated from the need to describe the introduced to the theater in 2004, it has dem-
presented themselves. How would ROK and location and purpose of a forward airfield onstrated its value and come into common
U.S. forces combine to open airfields on the specifically designated for air-landed re-supply use at all levels on both the ROK and U.S.
Korean Peninsula? Which nation and which operations in support of ground forces. Histori- staffs, from action officers up to the four-star
units would assume responsibilities for which cally, the term Forward Operating(-ions) Base commander of CFC.
tasks? What challenges might hinder progress (FOB) was used in the attempt to describe The term’s usage persists because it
toward combined goals? How would deci-
sions be made regarding airfield selection and
the concept of opening austere airfields to support aerial
identification of the Senior Airfield Authority
(SAA, the component charged with airfield resupply is not new to the Korean Peninsula
operations) and Base-Operating Support Inte-
grator (BOS–I, the component charged with
life support and security for the airbase)? Who what logistics planners intended; however, addresses a specific mission performed at an
would make these decisions? Which agencies experience working with our ROK counterparts equally specific airbase scale. Throughout
would own the ATSPs? While final answers to and exercise AARs [after action reports] 2005, however, planners continued to grapple
these questions are still under development, indicated that this term was confusing, had with the term’s nondoctrinal status, and for this
CFC and ATSP Working Group planners have different meanings to different users, and was reason, the ATSP Working Group designed an
nevertheless reached 10 interim conclusions not adequately descriptive. An initial survey aerial port of debarkation (APOD) continuum
that help light the way ahead for airbase- of doctrinal terms listed [in Joint Publication (see figure 2) to represent where an ATSP (as
opening operations in the KTO and in other 1–02, Department of Defense Dictionary of an emerging doctrinal concept) might sit in
combined environments. Military and Associated Terms, and Field relation to doctrinally accepted APOD sizes.
Manual 101–5–1, Operational Terms and This representation helped by acknowledging
Background Graphics] shows that no one term is particu- that an ATSP was not yet a doctrinal concept
The concept of opening austere airfields larly suitable. The terms tend to speak of RSOI while, at the same time, providing planners
to support aerial resupply of regional forces or [reception, staging, onward-movement, and with a doctrinal context for its local application
116 JFQ / issue 46, 3d quarter 2007 ndupress.ndu.edu
ANDERSON and CUNNINGHAM
vignette slated for the spring of 2006. After
Figure 1. Air Terminal Supply Point Layout (Notional)
Figure 1. Air Terminal Supply Point Layout (Notional) a year of planning, Working Group plan-
ners executed the field training exercise and
operational vignette with great success. These
events included practice and demonstrations
of CRG airfield assessment and establishment
of Air Force Red Horse Assault, Assessment,
and Repair Operations; combined air-traffic
control; combined airbase-ground defense;
combined cargo-offloading and transload-
ing (to both rotary-wing aircraft and ground
transport); and combined SAA to BOS–I
interaction (CFC’s Air Component Command
acted as SAA while Ground Component
Command provided the BOS–I).
Legend (Not to scale) Ten Early Lessons Learned
Roads Airbase/Logistics Hub Perimeter
Two years of exercise planning and
Railroad Air Terminal Supply Point Operations
execution by the ATSP Working Group have
Terrain Marshalling/Cargo-Transloading Yard
yielded some valuable and unique lessons
regarding combined airbase openings in the
KTO. These lessons will almost certainly
prove useful in other theaters as planners
Figure 2. APOD Continuum
Figure 2. APOD Continuum evaluate options for reducing demand on U.S.
forces to open log-centric, ATSP-like airbases
in environments where forward basing has
been dramatically reduced.
Crawl First, Run Later. C4 Transporta-
tion, as the head of the ATSP Working Group,
THROUGHPUTCAPACITY A/F CAPABILITY (MOG/ST) bntUhrinteieyi Ktf teeoTdd OpSthet aaremtn AedsaT .nt ASoeP nlvt tich sopoitnauorcgrteshyp femtr xoaictml iiett evatdherr yeay bcp oooepnruspttoi otnnhrentenue t-la iln
ATSP even at senior levels, leaders
and planners often had
APODs
misconceptions about the
LZ LZSA FARP FOB COB MOB
scale and potential of air
COMPONENT OR SERVICE TRANSITION COMBINED/JOINT
terminal supply
point operations
in the KTO. The chart also demonstrated that number of theater-level command post exer-
airfield sizes could be tailored to fit operational cises (CPXs). Each of these CPX experiences Working Group’s efforts, many watching the
requirements, thereby eliminating the “one- helped to define the concept further while, briefings asked questions that were beyond
size-fits-all” APOD versus ATSP thinking concurrently, educating theater planners the current level of planning. Many of these
that had come to characterize thinking in the (particularly surface transportation planners) questions dealt with the specifics of execu-
Korean theater of operations. Finally, the chart about the inherent strengths and limitations tion at the component levels, which would
reflected the fact that an ATSP airfield has of ATSP operations. necessarily be answered by the components
the potential to grow beyond its log-centric More importantly, these CPXs made themselves when writing the supporting plans
mission to become a larger-scale APOD, clear the need for a physical execution of the for the CFC-level plan. During these early
such as a collocated operating base or a main concept. Even at senior levels, leaders and presentations, briefers always explained that
operating base, during which time its owner- planners often had misconceptions about the the concept was in its “crawl stage” and that
ship would grow distinctly more joint and scale and realistic potential of ATSP opera- the “run stage” would come later (which it
combined. tions. The ATSP Working Group planned did). In almost every case, inquisitive audi-
Between 2004 and 2006, planners in to dispel these misconceptions with a com- ence members accepted this answer, and their
the KTO exercised the ATSP concept in a bined field training exercise and operational well-intentioned questions contributed to
ndupress.ndu.edu issue 46, 3d quarter 2007 / JFQ    117
FEATURES | Log-centric Airbase-opening Strategies in Korea
future thought and planning for the ATSP at ertheless required the presence of empowered between the United States and ROK. That
both the theater and component levels. decisionmakers (this would have been espe- helped the Working Group ensure that the
Go Combined Early. The ATSP Working cially true during fast-paced, real-world execu- airbase openings would truly be combined,
Group enjoyed the advantage of working in tion when the need to reduce the planning cycle with plenty of opportunities for the ROK
a well-greased combined environment in the time would be paramount). Eventually, the side to act as full partner and contribute
KTO because the 56-year-old ROK–U.S. alli- ROK planners appointed two capable and pas- significantly in areas such as airlift, security,
ance provided long-tested channels through sionate ROK army colonels (with several action engineering, aerial-port operations, air-traffic
which to communicate. Language and cultural officers in tow) to represent its interests at major control, and cargo loading, unloading, and
differences presented their share of challenges, planning meetings. The U.S. planners kept transloading.
but ATSP planning undoubtedly benefited their senior leadership informed and engaged, While the ROK military did not match
from great ROK interest and participation. The but they did not arrive on the ground at the American capabilities unit for unit, it did
combined nature of the planning, for example, field training exercise site until 2 weeks prior to feature significant aerial port, engineering,
quickly revealed many of the strengths and execution. The key is to plan with cultural dif- security, and cargo-handling teams. For
limitations that each nation would bring to ferences in mind while, at the same time, ensur- example, while the United States seeks to
actual ATSP execution, and it generated impor- ing the presence of participants who can make employ an ad hoc arrival/departure airfield
tant discussion at the ROK component levels decisions on behalf of their organizations. control group as its primary cargo-handling
about the scale and supportability of the ATSP Engage Operational Planners. Undoubt- and marshaling authority, the ATSP Working
concept. Similarly, U.S. planners tempered their edly, operational planners have a lot on Group quickly learned that the Korean side
initial expectations based on ROK feedback, their plates. They realize the logistics fight is has standing airlift service support point
and the resulting planning products proved all important, but sometimes their attention is teams that perform the same mission. This
the more realistic. necessarily focused elsewhere. When planning discovery resulted in more planning and exe-
Stress Flexibility in Planning. As ATSP something as important as log-centric airbase cution flexibility. Similarly, both the ROK and
planning progressed, many combined logisti- openings, however, the input from operational United States explored ways to utilize their
cians, engineers, and even operators in the planners is both invaluable and required. These equivalent engineering capabilities, expertise,
KTO became overly focused on the specifics individuals help to frame ATSP planning by and equipment essential to opening any
of the planned ATSP locations, SAA, BOS–I, providing requirements, schemes of maneuver, airbase. Interestingly, the ROK side grew so
and so forth, and lost sight of the greater and operational timing/synchronization advice. enthusiastic about the Air Force CRG concept
need to remain flexible enough to respond Working Group planners succeeded in roping during discussions about the ATSP that they
to operational needs. C4 Transportation and operational planners into ATSP concept plan- quickly researched ways to develop their own
the ATSP Working Group strived to correct ning through sheer persistence, demonstration equivalent from preexisting ROK military
this course of thought by stressing the need of relevance, and a mutual understanding that units, and the ATSP field training exercise
to think outside of the deliberately planned operational planners will often have higher presented the ROK with its first opportunity
box. While purposeful planning remains priorities on any given day. Because of the good to test this concept.
the essential baseline for eventual execution, working relationship established between the Share Costs, Facilities, and Equipment.
the mission, enemy, terrain and weather, ATSP Working Group and the planners, both As with the previous point, efforts to ensure
troops available, time available, and civilians parties now comprehend the ways in which truly combined airbase openings in the KTO
almost always dictate that the plan will have each can effectively respond to the needs of the would necessarily include shared costs, facili-
to change. The working group wants KTO other in deliberate, exercise, or crisis-action ties, and equipment. While many of the details
planners prepared for these potential vector planning. These interactions have also edu- of these shared efforts will have to be identified
changes, and it has developed policies and cated the logistics community about the scope and resolved at the component levels, primary
procedures to ensure that all ATSP options get of operational requirements, and this educa- areas for such sharing have surfaced during
weighed in the struggle to meet operational tion has enabled the ATSP Working Group to both ATSP concept planning and field training
requirements. address those requirements more effectively. exercise planning (for example, life support,
Empower Working Group Decisionmak- Exploit Equivalent Capabilities. First fuel, water, engineering, lodging, and materiel-
ers. As the ATSP concept began to mature during the ATSP concept planning and later handling equipment). As the concept matures
and the planning for a field training exercise during the ATSP field training exercise plan- in supporting plans, the ATSP Working Group
began, combined ATSP exercise planners soon ning, the Working Group sought to identify will continue to look to precedents in Enduring
encountered significant cultural differences and take advantage of similar capabilities Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and even the Korean
in decisionmaking at the action-officer level. War to help materialize the mutually support-
While the U.S. senior leadership empowered its the key is to plan with cultural able solutions.
action officers to discuss issues and make key Secure Buy-in from Senior Leadership.
differences in mind while
decisions at planning conferences, the ROK The ATSP Working Group planners secured
ensuring the presence of
senior leadership preferred to have action offi- a great deal of buy-in by placing the ATSP
participants who can make
cers collect issues at planning conferences and concept before combined, four-star leader-
then present those issues for decision at the O–6 decisions of behalf of their ship at two key events: the Senior Leaders
or O–7 level. While neither method proved organizations Seminar in spring 2005 and the ATSP field
right nor wrong, the planning conferences nev- training exercise and operational vignette in
118 JFQ / issue 46, 3d quarter 2007 ndupress.ndu.edu
ANDERSON and CUNNINGHAM
as a result of the field
training exercise, the Working
Group identified a lack of
codified procedures
for combined pallet buildup
and cargo loading
spring 2006. At each of these events, planners
poastntrrhedaset epern rRtetheOpeda Kv rtei haadebn siCdlci FteUynC. Soa c.rf ioftolhmaseg md AoeafsTfniigScdPneere rcsd o aw nntoicdt ehd dp ebotm.rz Dieoennfuis-nr oignfs g Suzanne Jenkins)
tehxep lSaeinneiodr tLheea cdoenrsc eSpetm (tihneanr, itnh eit ds einpfuatnyc Cy)4 and S. Air Force (
Supplies are loaded onto Korean U.
described a tactical vignette scenario to which
Republic of Korea air force security C–130 at Hickam Air
audience members contributed comments and
advisor speaks with U.S. Army Base, Hawaii
questions. For the ATSP field training exercise officer in Kirkuk, Iraq
U.S. Air Force (Ed Foster)
and operational vignette 1 year later, the Air
Component Command of CFC planned and planning teams to generate, codify, and secure get the right materiel to the right place at the
executed a major ATSP orientation briefing approvals for proposed solutions. right time, through close coordination and
and a real-world, scripted aerial port and Practice, Evaluate, Advertise Success. participation of multinational and host-nation
cargo-transloading demonstration designed Certainly, any endeavor improves after prac- forces. And such cooperation with our allies
to communicate the scope of ATSP opera- tice under the watchful eyes of both internal is exactly what the United States needs to
tions and capabilities. Both events were well and external observers. After practicing the achieve success in its coalition efforts. JFQ
received, generated a great deal of discussion ATSP concept during a major command post
among senior leaders, and contributed to a exercise in the spring of 2005, Working Group
greater emphasis on ATSP operations in the planners arranged for future planning over- Contributors: Lieutenant Colonel Ken
KTO than the ATSP Working Group could sight from CRG subject-matter experts during Stanfill, USAF, Major Lars Hubert, USAF,
and Captain Jeffrey Jacques, USAF.
possibly have envisioned in 2004. KTO planning conferences. The experience
Develop and Codify Procedures. The that these experts brought to further plan-
planning processes for both the ATSP concept ning, both for the ATSP concept and the field NoTEs
and the ATSP field training exercise have training exercise, proved priceless. In addi-
provided unique opportunities to identify tion, exercise planners arranged for observers 1 Quoted in William M. Leary, Anything, Any-
where, Anytime: Combat Cargo in the Korean War
gaps in current policies and procedures. from U.S. Joint Forces Command to provide
(Washington, DC: Air Force History and Museums
For example, as a result of the field training feedback after watching the field training
Program, 2000), 10–11.
exercise, the Working Group identified a lack exercise and operational vignette. This feed-
2 Barbara Lee, “Air Force Contingency
of codified procedures for combined pallet back, too, proved invaluable to future plan-
Response Group Operational Concept, Version
buildup and cargo loading. Resolution of ning efforts.
1.0” (Washington, DC: Headquarters U.S. Air
this issue has now become a C4 Transporta- Force, 2004), 2.
tion priority. Similarly, ATSP play in various The U.S. military needs to look beyond 3 Rodney L. Croslen and Marsha Kwolek,
command post exercises uncovered a need its current paradigms for opening airbases by “Retooling Global Mobility and Forward Presence:
for a more structured method of selecting examining the ways in which multinational Solving the Challenge of Opening Airbases,” Air
ATSP locations and their respective SAAs or host-nation partners can play a major Force Journal of Logistics 29, no. 2 (Summer 2005),
and BOS–Is, which, in turn, could work in role in relieving the American burden and 18–31, available at <www.aflma.hq.af.mil/lgj/
Vol_29%20No%202%20WWW.pdf>.
tandem with future command, control, and contributing to current and future fights.
4 Alexander M. Wathen, “Contingency
communications plans, processes, and time The ATSP concept, developed for austere,
Response Group: Time to Expand the Box and
cycles. C4 Transportation, in concert with C4 log-centric airfields opened by the combined
Think ‘Coalition,’” Air & Space Power Journal 19,
Plans, devised a decision-tree process for this ROK–U.S. forces, offers a proven template for
no. 2 (Summer 2005), available at <www.airpower.
purpose for approval by the ATSP Working airbase openings, one that incorporates the
maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj05/sum05/
Group, and this process will soon find a home latest lessons of operational requirements and sum05.html>.
in the next edition of the C4 Logistics, Poli- logistical constraints. 5 C4 Transportation, C4 Plans, and the ATSP
cies, and Procedures. As these procedural While still under development as emerg- Working Group, “Air Terminal Supply Points: A
gaps arise, planners should convene the ing doctrine, ATSP planning has demon- White Paper on a New Operational Concept,” 2005.
necessary working groups and operational strated substantial promise as a key enabler to 6 Ibid.
ndupress.ndu.edu issue 46, 3d quarter 2007 / JFQ    119