Introduction
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, ADM Samuel Paparo, the Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command, described that “China’s unprecedented aggression and military modernization poses a serious threat to the homeland, our allies and our partners.” This statement is supported by readily apparent facts, not the least of which is China’s rapid buildup of its rocket force, including the fielding of the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile that is capable of conducting precision strikes against the U.S. territory of Guam. This growing threat complicates air and naval operations, as historic sanctuaries in the Pacific may now be held at risk. The U.S. Air Force must be prepared to project power and defend national interests in the face of this threat. Doing so will require the U.S. Air Force to execute its Agile Combat Employment (ACE) concept, a “proactive and reactive operational scheme of maneuver executed within threat timelines to increase survivability while generating combat power.”
The U.S. Air Force recently exercised ACE at scale during Exercise RESOLUTE FORCE PACIFIC, or REFORPAC, after which General Schneider, the Commander of Pacific Air Forces, highlighted a few major challenges that the exercise exposed. Among these challenges was managing the flow of aircraft to ACE-enabling locations as these aircraft returned from combat. General Schneider noted that the Air Force must determine “how do we best enable those aircraft to go to the places where there’s fuel, there’s munitions, there’s maintainers, there’s parts, and there’s a serviceable runway from which they can operate, so we can turn them quickly?” This post will explore how operational command and control (C2) and tactical C2 and air battle management (C2ABM) platforms can address this challenge.
Desired Effects
In combat against a peer competitor, airborne packages consisting of strike, escort, and other support aircraft will fly into contested areas, deliver effects to achieve the Commander’s intent, and egress to an area of relative safety to recover and prepare to fight again within hours or days. This post will focus on the egress and recovery portion of the mission – arguably the least impactful phase from a tactical perspective, but the most important from an operational lens. Egressing crews should endeavor to recover with the following order of preference, based on airborne fuel availability, aircraft condition, and the best available information on the status of potential recovery locations:
1) Recover to locations where crews & aircraft can be readied to provide combat power for subsequent missions (i.e., a location with fuel, weapons, and required maintenance personnel and equipment), biasing strongly toward the planned recovery location.
2) Recover to locations from which crews & aircraft can be readied for follow-on recovery to a location from whence combat power may be generated (i.e., a location with fuel and required maintenance personnel and equipment).
3) Recover to locations where the crew can be sustained and where eventual regeneration of the aircraft may be possible (i.e., an emergency/min fuel divert – a suitable runway in a friendly area that lacks any of the kit required to quickly regenerate the aircraft).
4) Conduct an emergency landing or ditch in an area most favorable to a personnel recovery effort.
As aircraft egress, the crews themselves will have the highest awareness of the status of their fuel and the condition of their aircraft, but may lack the current airfield status information required to make a fully informed decision. Operational C2 and tactical C2ABM platforms should be leveraged to fill this gap and actively manage the recovery plan to ensure that aircraft recover in a manner that enables sustained airpower for the duration of the campaign or operation.
Requirements
To manage the recovery plan, C2 will require awareness of the assets being recovered, asset apportionment requirements for the next-day Air Tasking Order (ATO), and detailed information regarding all possible recovery locations for an egressing formation.
Awareness of recovering assets can be gained via organic/offboard sensors, or through line-of-sight (LOS) or beyond line-of-sight (BLOS) communications with egressing formation or package leads. Tools, including radar, Link-16, securable UHF radios, SATCOM radios, or chat relay through a capable platform, can enable this effort.
Awareness of next-day requirements and apportionment can be gleaned from the ATO, if published, or directly from the Master Air Attack Plan (MAAP) or ATO production teams in the Combat Plans Division (CPD) of the Air Operations Center (AOC). This information may be communicated via a SharePoint website on an appropriate network, or through real-time communications mechanisms such as chat or secure phone.
The status of recovery fields, to include the availability of parking, fuel, weapons, and maintenance, may be more challenging to determine, though a widespread adoption of a flexible web-based airfield status reporting tool such as C2IMERA could simplify this challenge. Barring this, the AOC should produce and publish a new product summarizing daily airfield statuses. This product should include the amount of fuel available, weapons available, and relevant personnel, equipment, and supply footprints. This product may be based upon information provided by elements of the Joint Forces Commander’s (JFC’s) logistics directorate (known as J4), and real-time updates could be posted throughout the day on a webpage or in a designated chat room.
Finally, whatever C2 entity is managing the recovery plan must have the ability to communicate the plan to egressing aircraft, either via secure LOS or BLOS voice communications, via Link-16, or via chat or chat relay if available.
Platforms
The requirements described above can be satisfied by both legacy and contemporary C2ABM platforms, including the E-3G AWACS, Control and Reporting Center (CRC), or Tactical Operations Center-Light (TOC-L), especially when augmented by a communications and network relay platform such as the E-11 BACN. This function may also be accomplished by an appropriately-equipped Combat Operations Division (COD) floor within the AOC, assuming the egressing package can communicate directly with the COD.
Processes
C2ABM crews should provide updated air refueling and recovery instructions to egressing formations in consultation with the egressing aircrews who alone will know critical information regarding their fuel and aircraft status. As fuel and recovery plans are developed, C2ABM crews must also inform the AOC.
Upon receipt of any changes to the ATO-directed recovery plan, the AOC CPD should quickly determine whether the affected formation will be required to support the next day’s ATO. If so, the AOC should communicate basic mission instructions, including key timings, routing/fuel plans, and weapons loadouts to the C2ABM crews to be relayed to the egressing formations. This will support sustained airpower throughout the campaign, as it will enable crews and aircraft to begin posturing for the next day’s mission upon landing at their ACE recovery locations. In cases where a formation is forced to recover to a location from whence combat power cannot be generated, the AOC should develop a plan to more properly recover the crew and/or aircraft expeditiously so that they may be apportioned to future ATOs as quickly as practical.
People
While C2ABM platforms are well equipped for this problem mission, C2ABM crews will need to train extensively if recovery management is to be executed with success during conflict. Recovery management is challenging to practice during live training with limited basing options, so this task should be deliberately included in certain exercises – perhaps even to the extent that combat egress and recovery are afforded exercises of their own. This mission set should also be included in routine simulator training regimens for C2ABM units and in AOC training and exercises.
Conclusion
Should the U.S. Air Force be called upon to engage in combat with a peer competitor in the Pacific, it will succeed through the employment of ACE. To successfully execute ACE, C2ABM will be required to manage the flow of aircraft to recovery locations that will enable continued projection of airpower for the duration of conflict. Legacy C2ABM platforms, such as the E-3G AWACS, are well-suited to accomplish this critical role even as these platforms approach obsolescence in other mission sets, though the C2ABM crews that operate these platforms will require dedicated egress and ACE recovery training during major exercises and at home station to be successful in execution. Operational C2 platforms such as the AOC must also adapt their processes, products, and training to enable efficient execution. It is no exaggeration to suggest that effective C2 of this challenging mission could be the single most important function that C2ABM crews will execute to enable long-term sustained air combat operations and, ultimately, victory in a high-end conflict.
Maj Douglas “Opie” Foulk, USAF, is a Senior Air Battle Manager, currently on staff as a Legislative Affairs Officer at the United Stated Indo-Pacific Command. He previously served in various positions across multiple E-3G AWACS squadrons.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Air Force, Department of Defense, or U.S. government.
Photo by Brigitte Pellerinon on Pexels
Leave a Reply