We sit through another briefing. After an hour, the General asks, “How are we going to command and control (C2) those assets?” The briefer, “Sir, we are working on that right now between these two headquarters and will get you an answer next brief.” In the other room a planner whispers, “your C2 is not my C2.”
“What does that mean?” another responds.
“Well what did the General just ask?”
“He asked how we are going to C2 that asset?”
“Well, how do you think?”
“We need to make sure a C2 platform, like an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), is able to manage the assets in real time?”
“No, the general meant authorities, tactical control (TACON), and operational control (OPCON).”
Which planner is right? Was it both?
Introduction
JP 3-0 describes “the C2 function is commander-centric and network-enabled to facilitate initiative and decision making at the lowest appropriate level,” yet the term C2, despite always meaning command and control, can be interpreted to have different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. While there are some scenarios in which the context is obvious, others –especially those that include elements of tactical mission execution– can be more ambiguous as the term may refer to either battle management functions or commander-level authorities. To ensure clarity across contexts, the battle management community should use more descriptive terms other than the broad “C2” to describe the warfighting function that they provide to the joint force, reserving “C2” for the its more doctrinal use.
An Overused Term
Air battle managers –defined in this post as military professionals who provide the battle management and control function to the air domain, not solely U.S. Air Force officers in the 13B career field– and those who work with them may use the term C2 to describe the functions of asserts that provide tactical control. In the U.S. Air Force, these platforms include the E-3G AWACS, an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) asset, the Control and Reporting Center (CRC), a ground-based system capable of providing warning and control, or even emerging platforms such as the E-7, which Boeing describes as an “Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft [that] provides complementary leaps forward in aerial surveillance and battle management and control (BMC2) operations.” Notably, none of these are named or principally described as command assets, only control.
The U.S. Air Force is not alone in conflating tactical battle management with C2. Adaptive C2: Modernizing Army Command and Control states “[t]he Army is modernizing its C2 systems through two key initiatives: C2 Fix and Next Generation Command and Control (NGC2).” While the article provides a clear focus on Army C2 within Army unit structure, the article also describes that “these initiatives aim to standardize the tactical combined operational picture (COP), enhance interoperability, and ensure readiness for complex, multi-domain operations,” highlighting tactical execution in addition to broader command and control.
Command, Control, and C2 in Mission Command
U.S. Air Force Doctrine Publication 1-1 Mission Command provides distinct definitions for command, control, and C2:
Command: The authority that a commander in the armed forces lawfully exercises over subordinates virtue of rank or assignment.
Control: Authority that may be less than full command exercised by a commander over part of the activities of subordinate or other organizations.
C2: The exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission.
C2 is further described as a function and the activities through which a commander exercises authority. While numerous actions involved in the conduct of C2 activities are commonly referred to as control, they should be understood apart from the command authority required to conduct them.
There are clear differences in the terms above, including distinctions made between authority and action, or exercise of authority. AFDP 1-1 also describes centralized command, distributed control, and decentralized execution as the way the U.S. Air Force conducts mission command. Centralized command gives the commander the responsibility and authority to plan, direct, and coordinate military operations. Distributed control enables commanders to delegate authority for planning, coordination, execution, and assessment activities to dispersed locations, achieving an effective span of control and maintaining initiative, particularly in contested environments. Commanders enable decentralized execution by empowering subordinate decision making to enable flexibility, initiative, and responsiveness in mission accomplishment. Mission Command is focused on commanders completing their various missions at various levels of warfare.
Air Battle Management and Tactical Control
Air Battle Managers execute the four functions of battle management: force management, information management, surveillance management, and continuum of control. The article Air Battle Managers, DAF BATTLE NETWORK, a lethal combo states “[a]ir battle managers serve as human command and control nodes, providing real-time situational awareness and decision advantage to achieve mission objectives. Their ability to fuse information, make rapid decisions, and coordinate diverse assets drive requirements for the Air Force’s modernization efforts and its vision for a networked battlespace.”
A simple example is the defense of the homeland mission. The air battle manager can coordinate with surveillance platforms to optimize coverage across Battle Management Areas (BMAs) to protect sites on the Critical Asset List and Defended Asset List (CAL/DAL). Once a potential threat to the homeland is identified, the air battle manager can move a fighter formation to a proper defensive position. Depending on the strategy and political situation, this may result in the potential threat being intercepted in international waters prior to entering sovereign United States airspace. This type of mission might involve units such as the 611th Air Operations Center (AOC), the 962nd Airborne Air Control Squadron (AACS), and the 18th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, all under the authority of the 11 Air Force Commander in Alaska.
So who has or executed C2 in the scenario above? The 11th Air Force Commander has the authority for actions in the battlespace. The combat operations division of the 611th AOC and air battle managers of the 962nd AACS’s execute the real-time direction of commander’s intent and guide the intercepting aircraft to a successful mission. Based on definitions provided earlier in this post, it is clear that the 11th Air Force retained command, but elements of control were delegated far lower in echelon, even to the tactical edge.
Coming to Terms
While the terms used matter little at the highest and lowest echelons where there is little room for contextual confusion, it is important to use accurate terminology to describe the functions that air battle managers will provide in a mission as something distinct from C2 as defined in doctrine. Doing so will minimize confusion and increase the likelihood that planners across all levels of the joint force can emerge from planning events or even pre-mission briefings with a shared mental model to carry forward through mission execution.
Instead of co-opting the term “C2,” air battle managers should focus on describing the battle management or tactical control functions that they provide. Options may include Command and Control Air Battle Management (C2ABM), which has been widely adopted in articles posted on C2_Coord; Battle Management, Command, and Control (BMC2), an established term with similar issues to C2ABM; or Tactical C2 (TACC2), to distinguish between C2 being exercised across different levels of warfare. While this post will, perhaps distressingly, not offer a “best” solution, it should serve as a starting point for ongoing discussion that will ultimately result in the use of more accurate terminology across all levels of command, control, and battle management.
Maj David “Solo” Blessman, USAF, is an Air Battle Manager, husband, and father.
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 Snapwire on Pexels
Leave a Reply