DISTRIBUTION A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Document created: 1 September 04
Air & Space Power Journal - Fall 2004

 

Operation Summit CAP

Enabling New NATO Members to Meet New Threats

Col James R. Smith, USAF

This is the most important operation NATO will undertake this year [2002].

—Gen Joseph Ralston
—Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) summit of November 2002 in Prague, Czech Republic, was unquestionably a land-mark event for the alliance. Seven new members received invitations to join its ranks, NATO made commitments to reorganize its military structure, and—in a major step toward combating new threats in the twenty-first century—a NATO Response Force came into being as members agreed to conduct operations outside the alliance’s traditional boundaries. Examining its role in the global war on terrorism, NATO embraced the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan as a direct result of commitments made at the Prague summit. The simple fact that NATO held a meeting of this scope for the first time in one of the states granted membership in 1998 sent an important signal to other prospective members and to the alliance as a whole: NATO was at a cross-roads, determined to remain relevant to every one of its partners, new and old alike.

Behind—or, more properly, “above”—the scenes, where alliance heads of state reached these momentous decisions, another important dimension of NATO’s success in dealing with challenges posed by the global war on terrorism unfolded. Even before the events of 11 September 2001, extraordinary measures would have been put in place to protect an assembly that might include up to 46 heads of state. The singular importance of this historic summit and the type of signal a successful attack would send worldwide provided plenty of incentive to prevent the kind of mayhem that modern terrorism can create. After 9/11, NATO took stock of its ability to deal with a new weapon in the arsenal of international terrorists—airliners hijacked by suicidal operatives. The air-defense arrangements conducted in support of the Prague summit would serve as an important test of the alliance’s effectiveness in providing a collective defense against this type of threat.

NATO successfully met the challenge with an operation known to the US Air Force as Summit CAP (combat air patrol), which saw the NATO Integrated Air Defense System (NATINADS), the Czech air force (CZAF), and US Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) team up to provide the Prague summit round-the-clock protection from terrorist air attack. This effort, which relied on NATO’s air-defense command and control (C2) structure, included surveillance from ground-based radar and NATO Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, CZAF surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries, CZAF and USAFE air-battle managers, USAFE aerial tankers, and combined CZAF/USAFE fighter CAPs.

Even more important than the impressive array of resources brought to the table for Summit CAP was the process of planning and preparation that went into this unique operation, especially the plans for engaging aircraft piloted by terrorists. The NATINADS would provide overall situational awareness for determining if a potential attack were under way. In terms of defeating such an attack, a CZAF/USAF bilateral air-defense force would protect the airspace by sharing responsibilities in ways never before attempted. A successful outcome would require a level of training and exercising unprecedented in an effort involving one of NATO’s new members.

The first significant NATO contingency operation conducted in and over the territory of a new partner in the alliance, Summit CAP offered the Czechs an opportunity to prove they were prepared to assume full responsibility for such an endeavor. Although the CZAF had made great strides in modernizing its weapons and C2 systems since 1998, the air force needed more work before it could become a seamless part of the NATINADS. The daunting task of protecting such a lucrative target as the Prague summit proved to be just the catalyst for more fully integrating the CZAF, making it interoperable with NATO in every sense of the word. That outcome proved just as important as declaring “mission success” for the operation at the summit’s conclusion.

The Problem

Since its inception, NATO has emphasized collective defense against a common enemy. Through more than four decades of the Cold War, it developed extremely robust air defenses to counter an attack by the Warsaw Pact. After the Berlin Wall came down, the alliance no longer needed a vast array of high-readiness interceptors and SAM batteries throughout central and western Europe. But the “system” itself was not dismantled. Indeed, NATO continued to make technical and procedural improvements to the NATINADS in the decade after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, a process that continued as former Pact members Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary became part of the alliance in 1998. In a larger sense, the dominance that key NATO members had demonstrated in the first Gulf War and later over Kosovo proved beyond a doubt that their air forces were fully capable of defending member nations from attack.

Even though the NATINADS was not “tailored” to deal with attacks like those on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the system did bring quite a bit to that fight by virtue of its decades-long program of development. Ground-based and aerial radar surveillance, capable of monitoring every cubic inch of central European airspace, used secure, redundant communications systems to collect and fuse data, displaying it in real time for seasoned decision makers in 10 combined air operations centers (CAOC) located around the continent. Fighter interceptors stayed on high alert, ready to respond within minutes to identify and monitor suspicious aircraft. In the post–Cold War European environment, NATO referred to its day-to-day air-defense operations as “air policing,” primarily designed to counter smuggling or deal with the unusual or unexpected. This capability proved vital after the emergence of the new terrorist threat in 2001.

However, air policing for hijacked airliners was no easy task, especially from the political perspective. A fundamental tenet of NATO holds that each nation reserves the authority to exercise sovereign rights in and over its own territory.¹ That precept became central to the issue of coping with an adversary who had no scruples about using a commercial airliner filled with innocent people as a weapon, killing the passengers as well as many more civilians on the ground. Thus, determination of hostile intent on the part of the aircraft in question proved far more problematic than ascertaining the intent of military aircraft during a state of conflict.

Indeed, NATO designed its NATINADS to defend against military aircraft, and all alliance members have generally agreed upon air-defense rules of engagement (ROE) during a conventional conflict. But each member has examined the question of shooting down a civil aircraft within the confines of its borders a little differently. Ideally, most of the countries would prefer to use their own military resources if such a necessity should arise. Assets used for nonlethal aspects of air defense are easily shared, as occurred when NATO AWACS aircraft supported Operation Noble Eagle in the United States for several months. Understandably, though, severe repercussions would follow if a non-US allied fighter shot down an airliner over a major American population center—especially as the result of an erroneous decision to engage.

Of course, not every NATO member can deal with a terrorist air threat through military intervention. Since Luxembourg and Iceland, for example, have no air forces of their own, they must rely on arrangements with the alliance or one of its members to protect themselves from attack. The United States, United Kingdom, and Germany, however, have the kind of air and ground-based forces capable of sustaining a persistent defense against aircraft flying at all altitudes and in all weather conditions. Similarly, Italy proved itself very much equal to the task in its air-defense operations designed to protect the first NATO summit conducted after 9/11 (Rome in May 2002). Specific NATINADS procedures developed after September 2001 identified the engagement authority for suspected terrorists and the ways in which each member nation would authorize and conduct a final engagement. The Czechs wanted to make that final engagement decision over their republic themselves and, ideally, execute it with their own fighters. In fact, their parliament assigned this engagement authority by name as a matter of law.

The CZAF maintained MiG-21 fighter aircraft on alert daily as part of the NATINADS and protected key infrastructure with SAMs, thus providing the means to engage terrorist attacks against Czech territory or to broadly defend against a series of attacks against central Europe in general. In terms of protecting an event of the Prague summit’s magnitude, however, the daily alert posture needed considerable reinforcement in order to present an effective defense against multiple, coordinated attacks on the Czech capital. The central problem confronting the CZAF was its limitations in terms of fighter aircraft and their weapons.

Even before NATO accession took place, the Czech Defense Ministry faced the problem of replacing the aging MiG-21 interceptors. Only half a squadron was operationally capable by the fall of 2002. The MiGs could not refuel in flight to facilitate long-duration CAPs, and their short-range, infrared-guided missiles were only marginally effective in adverse weather. Their limitations in terms of numbers and lack of in-flight refueling meant that the MiG-21s could not maintain a constant presence aloft to protect the high-profile NATO summit. The CZAF planned to put its new, indigenous L-159 light attack aircraft to use in anticipated air-defense operations, but it could not reliably intercept aircraft flying at the altitudes and speeds typical of commercial airliners; furthermore, it had only short-range infrared missiles. To beef up its fighter defenses for the Prague summit, the Czechs turned to the alliance for help.²

This was no easy decision. The Prague summit, the first NATO event of its kind hosted by one of the three new member nations admitted in 1998, could well represent a major turning point for the alliance. Hosting it was a matter of considerable pride for the Czechs, who clearly wanted to demonstrate that they could faithfully meet the expectations of their allies. Unfortunately, the worst floods in over a century had ravaged Prague in July, and the citizens of the capital needed a boost in morale after that cataclysm. The last thing Czech officials wanted to do was send a signal that their country, now a full-fledged partner in the NATO alliance, could not overcome the challenges posed by Mother Nature or the global war on terrorism.³

Planning and Preparation

When Gen Joseph Ralston, NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, learned of this issue of bolstering Czech fighter forces, he recommended that only one nation provide support. Despite the number of workable C2 options available to meet the needs of the situa-tion, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe wanted to counter terrorist air operations by having the NATINADS provide surveillance and initial identification of a potential threat. At that point, NATO would transfer authority to Czech national air-defense forces, and the Czechs would decide upon an appropriate course of action. Thus, the Czechs only needed to find a NATO partner willing to bolster their fighter assets.⁴

Soon after the Czechs approached the United States through diplomatic channels, senior military leaders considered the question of feasibility. Wearing his hat as commander of US European Command (USEUCOM), General Ralston asked Gen Gregory “Speedy” Martin, his air component commander for NATO’s Allied Forces North (AIRNORTH) and the USAFE commander at Ramstein Air Base (AB), Germany, for his analysis of the situation. General Martin was in an ideal position to do so, ably supported by a team of expert planners in an organization he had created himself a year before—the USAFE Theater Air and Space Operations Center (UTASC). If tasked, he had the forces needed for the effort at his immediate disposal in Europe. Perhaps even more importantly, General Martin was the right man for the job because he, like General Ralston, wore more than one hat as a commander. In his capacity as AIRNORTH commander, he oversaw operations for the northern half of the NATINADS, including the Czech Republic as well as neighboring Germany and Poland. This position would have clear advantages from the outset of planning in terms of delineating alliance versus national roles and responsibilities.

Indeed, roles and responsibilities were precisely the focus of the first meeting conducted at AIRNORTH on 6 August 2002, which dealt with the question of organizing air defenses for the Prague summit. The participants established initial ground rules critical to effective planning and assessments on the part of the three primary parties involved: AIRNORTH, the CZAF, and USAFE. AIRNORTH would ensure the reinforcement of NATINADS and see that it maintained surveillance and situational awareness, not only within the Czech Republic but also throughout central Europe. The Czechs and Americans would work out arrangements for orchestrating “national” fighter support and the attendant requirements of fighter C2. Bilateral discussions to this end opened in Prague between Czech and US Airmen on 20 August, before the summer’s floodwaters receded.⁵

UTASC planners quickly determined that USAFE could certainly support the Czechs if necessary. That optimism, however, was tempered by the knowledge that a number of important issues had to be resolved before completion of an effective operations plan. Fortunately, the CZAF and USAFE agreed completely on the issues and maintained an effective dialogue to tackle each in turn. Both parties had to work out a plethora of details, but the most important concerns fell into five general areas:

• A clearly defined mission statement. Such a statement was central to the effective development of a plan and the successful resolution of every other issue on the table.

• Forces required and basing. The two countries needed to know the number of CAPs required throughout the summit; their location; the kind of aerial-refueling support for US fighters; and basing arrangements that offered the greatest flexibility and lowest adverse impact.

• C2. Having a senior US commander involved in any decision to use a US fighter to engage an aircraft over the Czech Republic raised certain questions: who would produce the ROEs and air tasking order (ATO), and could the countries develop effective measures to prevent “blue-on-blue” engagements, especially between weapons systems designed by two former Cold War competitors without much collective experience in combined operations?

• Effective communications. The two parties also needed to know the kind of air--surveillance picture that senior decision makers would have to deal with; the security, reliability, and redundancy of the lines of communication among radar sites, NATO AWACS aircraft, and the Czech Air Defense National Command Center (NCC); and the people who would “talk” to US fighters aloft and direct their actions.

• Dealing with every contingency imaginable. Finally, US and Czech personnel had to consider the options available for coping with central European weather in November, which was far from ideal for air operations; defensive weaknesses that a determined terrorist might exploit; and the consequences of making a wrong decision with respect to engagement.

By the third week of September, nearly all the issues had some form of proposed resolution, and a draft operations plan had been sketched out as part of a combined AIRNORTH-CZAF-USAFE planning-group effort led by Maj Anthony Roberson, chief “master air attack planner” from the UTASC’s 32d Air Operations Group. Although questions continued to arise right up to the time the summit began, the essentials of the plan changed little from that point until actual exe-cution two months later. Providing continuous fighter CAPs over Czech territory, the plan called for the deployment of F-16CGs from the 555th Fighter Squadron, the “Triple Nickel,” at Aviano AB, Italy, to Caslav—a Czech fighter base about 45 miles southeast of Prague—where their hosts would also operate MiG-21s and L-159s as part of summit operations. Detailed weather analysis suggested that low cloud ceilings and fog might keep Caslav fighters grounded for significant periods of time; thus, to give senior decision makers every possible edge in determining the intentions of suspect aircraft, the force would include fighters from outside the Czech Republic—specifically, F-15Cs from the 493d Fighter Squadron “Grim Reapers” at Royal Air Force (RAF) Lakenheath, United Kingdom. To keep the American fighters aloft for extended periods of time, KC-135R tankers from the 100th Aerial Refueling Wing at RAF Mildenhall would be sent to Rhein-Main AB, Germany (Frankfurt International Airport), where the combination of US base support; long, instrumented runways; and relative proximity to Prague offered significant advantages. A tanker would also remain in alert status back at RAF Mildenhall just in case Frankfurt’s weather proved uncooperative.

Of course, the small air armada assembled for the effort would need effective C2. AIRNORTH would generate the ATO, capturing in a single reference document all assets dedicated to the defense of the summit, including those based outside the Czech Republic. NATO’s ROEs would remain in effect up to the point at which the Czechs desired to transfer authority from the NATINADS to the CZAF during the process of investigating a suspected air terrorist. Taking advantage of recent experience in dealing with air terrorists over the United States, USAFE and the CZAF came to an early agreement on the framework for the ROEs after that transfer took place. NATO’s CAOC four (CAOC-4), located in Messtetten in southern Germany, would organize the NATINADS to respond to summit threats. NATO AWACS aircraft would remain aloft continuously, based at two locations as a precaution against bad weather, and would have their own dedicated KC-135R tankers (US Air National Guard, assigned by NATO) collocated at Geilenkirchen AB in northern Germany.

These AWACS aircraft would serve primarily as a sensor to fill in gaps in ground-based radar coverage at low altitude. After a transfer of authority to the Czechs, AWACS and CAOC-4 would not perform any C2 functions with respect to an engagement over Czech territory; rather, those would take place in Stara Boreslav at the NCC, an underground facility located just outside Prague near the CZAF headquarters. Normally, the NCC operated within the NATINADS as a control and reporting center that reported to CAOC-4, an arrangement which simplified the mechanics of a transfer of authority. Senior decision makers from USAFE and the Czech defense establishment would sit side by side, comfortably situated in a bunker complex built in the 1970s to withstand an attack by NATO, assessing the same picture and determining an appropriate course of action. If Czech fighters or SAMs were employed, the United States would merely monitor the situation, but if an F-16 or F-15 were in the best position to intercept a potential terrorist, then the senior US officer present would become involved before approval of the engagement.⁶

Stara Boreslav offered much to enhance air defense of the summit. In 1998 US defense contractor Lockheed Martin installed in the NCC a state-of-the-art digital system that fused data from the NATINADS as well as from Czech ground-based radars and SAMs into full-color graphic displays. These images appeared on large screens and individual consoles in a well-equipped operations room whose layout proved particularly well suited to the proposed plan. One location housed every element of the combined Czech-US air arsenal, under the watchful eye of decision makers and controllers responsible for execution: surveillance teams, SAM-battery directors, weapons directors who talked to the fighters, and air-battle managers who pulled it all together. Significantly, having all the key C2 players in one spot greatly reduced the possibility of fratricide.

The way the Czechs organized the NCC floor proved fundamental to the ultimate success of the bilateral operation after Czech and US teaming became a feature of every key position in the NCC (with the exception of SAM direction—exclusively a Czech domain). When USAFE planners first looked at the facility, they swiftly resolved the question of who would talk to the US fighters. Weapons directors/ technicians from the 606th Air Control Squadron “Scorpions” at Spangdahlem AB, Germany, would deploy to Stara Boreslav itself and sit beside their Czech counterparts, who directed the MiGs, L-159s, and other Czech military aircraft.

It all looked good on paper, but the Ameri-cans and Czechs had to address two essential requirements before executing the plan. Thus far, USAFE had been tasked only to “plan” for supporting the Czechs. Actual execution required approval by the secretary of defense and consent of the president. Approval by both the secretary and the Czech defense minister raised the second requirement—a convincing demonstration that it could work. On 23 September, after General Martin outlined the proposed plan to General Ralston in Stuttgart, Germany, both commanders flew that same afternoon to Warsaw, Poland, where they met with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was attending a conference of NATO defense ministers. Secretary Rumsfeld was very familiar with the issues and risks associated with counterterrorist air-defense operations, having become intimately involved in Noble Eagle from its inception a year before. He directed USEUCOM to continue planning and prepare for a return visit as soon as the operations plan was fully developed. This requirement generated a series of team training events and exercises to produce the kind of fidelity necessary for the confident risk assessment the secretary had to contemplate if the United States were to participate in summit air operations.⁷

In fact, the CZAF, AIRNORTH, and USAFE had already devoted much thought to this process. At the urging of Lt Gen Glen “Wally” Moorhead, USAFE vice-commander, the principals sought the assistance of USAFE’s Warrior Preparation Center (WPC)—a joint Air Force/Army organization located not far from Ramstein. A former WPC commander, General Moorhead knew that the WPC already had the means to plug into the UTASC in support of crisis/contingency operations. The center, which conducted war-gaming and operational assessments on behalf of USEUCOM, had an abundance of experienced “warriors” who understood how to test a war-fighting organization and, in the process, enable it to reshape itself in terms of tactics, techniques, and procedures. Air Force colonel Tony Rock, WPC vice-commander, put his best minds on the project, and a three-phase plan for air--defense training and exercising soon emerged.

Of course this effort required close coordination with NATO since AIRNORTH had plans to conduct some form of exercise in preparation for the summit. Thus, the WPC worked in conjunction with the AIRNORTH tactical evaluation (TacEval) office of Lt Col Wolfgang Moser of the Luftwaffe. Colonel Moser and Maj Patrick Matthews, Colonel Rock’s project officer, produced an exhaustive series of scenarios designed to test every potential vulnerability of the plan developed for the summit. During the first week of October, the WPC and AIRNORTH TacEval facilitated a daylong roundtable session conducted at Stara Boreslav involving key players from AIRNORTH, the CZAF, and USAFE, which helped address some unanswered questions and led to certain refinements in the operations plan. It also served as an introduction to personnel who would play leading roles in the plan’s execution.

What really made a difference, however, was the manner in which personnel conducted the second phase of the WPC/AIRNORTH TacEval preparation program. The Czechs planned to conduct a full-blown simulation—a command-post exercise (CPX)—in the NCC at least one month prior to the summit. The NCC’s operations-room facilities, modernized in 1998, now offered a rare opportunity for realism: technicians directed behind the scenes by Colonel Moser and Major Matthews could display and manipulate synthetic renegade aircraft, fighters, and tankers at will. From the perspective of decision makers and controllers in the operations room, for all practical purposes the displays depicted real events unfolding in real time.⁸ On 16 October, General Martin and Lt Gen Frantisek Padelek, CZAF chief of staff, presided over a series of NCC simulations designed to exercise air-battle managers and weapons directors from both air forces. Czech defense minister Jaroslav Tvrdik and his deputy, Mr. Stephan Fule, -attended as well. Unfortunately, the results were disappointing.

First, the information presented to senior decision makers on the NCC’s displays did not make sense to individuals who did not have to interpret it daily. Second, although the Czechs maintained a firm grasp on controlling their own assets, it soon became clear that they were still grappling with US/NATO air-battle-management practices developed over decades of mutual cooperation. The CZAF, which had less than four years of NATO indoctrination to fall back on, had never conducted an air-defense exercise of this kind and scope. Practices that USAF weapons directors took for granted, such as cycling fighters across tankers and establishing backup CAPs when one set of fighters committed to a target, were somewhat novel to the Czechs. Finally, not every key player in the NCC’s C2 process had exactly the same situational awareness and understanding of the actions directed, a problem primarily caused by language and procedural differences between US and Czech air-battle managers. In accordance with standard NATO procedure, the Czechs spoke English, but in the heat of simulated battle, they tended to fall back on their native tongue and familiar practices. Failure to resolve this last issue quickly and effectively would have spelled disaster for the plan.⁹

At this point it is appropriate to comment on the personal working relationships and sense of trust that developed among the key players involved in the planning effort from AIRNORTH, the CZAF, and USAFE. American military professionals have a natural tendency to demonstrate leadership in a combined planning effort such as the one undertaken for air defense of the summit. In our enthusiasm to “do the right thing,” however, we have frequently been guilty of not giving our alliance partners full credit for the effectiveness of their own tactics, techniques, and procedures. USAFE worked very hard at ensuring that AIRNORTH and the CZAF understood that the US command was not trying to take over the operation, carefully explaining recommendations to allow each party to arrive at its own conclusion. Although USAFE felt it had much to offer the CZAF, learning was not a one-way street. Through dealing with the challenges of the global war on terrorism, the Czechs had proven themselves world leaders in consequence management. Their method of integrating air-defense C2 within the NCC made a great deal of sense, putting everything needed into one neat package in a single room. Nobody instilled the right sense of team building for this effort better than General Martin, who at the end of the day charged the AIRNORTH/CZAF/USAFE team with resolving the difficulties encountered on 16 October as soon as possible. Three days later, he would return to participate in another set of NCC simulations, followed that same day by a live-flying exercise.

The NCC put those next two days to good use. Since the simulations had proven their worth at wringing out key C2 issues that needed resolution, the team subjected itself to a regimen of computer-generated scenarios, providing an opportunity for full development of US-Czech teaming. During the CPX, the two nations had sat side by side in the NCC only at the most senior level (General Martin and General Padelek) and the lowest level (weapons directors who orchestrated air--defense fighter activities). Now, US weapons directors/mission coordinators sat with their Czech counterparts at every key position in the NCC, excluding those that dealt exclusively with SAM C2. This arrangement facilitated information flow and situational awareness for all concerned, enabling air-battle managers of the 606th Air Control Squadron to pass on the benefits of their wealth of experience more directly to intermediate-level CZAF decision makers. This hands-on training was like nothing attempted before with a new NATO partner in terms of duration, intensity, and motivation. Everybody involved was motivated by the knowledge that this was no mere training exercise—that the plan had to work if the summit were to enjoy the kind of robust air defense it deserved.

Defense Minister Tvrdik and General Padelek joined General Martin again at the NCC on 19 October for a full-blown dress rehearsal of planned summit air-defense operations. The day started with a convincing demonstration that the team had conquered the difficulties encountered on 16 October. The response to scenarios like those used in the CPX clearly indicated that the Czech-US teaming approach and the simulation drills had paid off handsomely. Following that “warm-up,” the CZAF took to the air over the Czech Republic along with Aviano-based F-16s, Mildenhall KC-135s, and NATO AWACS aircraft from Geilenkirchen. A CZAF Tupolev Tu-154 airliner and light trainer aircraft were put to use as “targets” to provide an added dimension of realism to the live exercise, enabling full validation of the connectivity between CAOC-4 and the NCC as well as communications between aircraft and controlling agencies. The rehearsal demonstrated effective handoff measures by flying the Tu-154 target into Germany, where Luftwaffe F-4F Phantoms intercepted the aircraft and then escorted it back to the Czech border, where CZAF MiGs took over. Most importantly, the live flying served as a final exam of sorts, proving that the concepts developed over the weeks of planning and preparation did indeed work.

That said, more work remained, including modifications to the NCC’s displayed data to enhance user-friendliness, as well as installation of additional secure communications and backup data links over the next few weeks. At the end of the day, though, General Martin believed he could report to Secretary Rumsfeld that USAFE was prepared to conduct operations in support of the summit if so tasked—precisely the assessment delivered to the secretary in the Pentagon four days later. After listening to General Martin’s briefing on the results of the prior week’s exercises, he was satisfied with the thorough planning that had gone into the entire effort and gave his approval for USAFE to support the CZAF in -providing air defense of the Prague summit. Shortly thereafter, the Joint Staff prepared an execution order that put the final phase of preparation into motion.¹⁰

From this point on, the project would be known in US channels as Operation Summit CAP. The senior US decision makers in the NCC for the actual operation would include General Martin himself and Maj Gen Charles “Chuck” Simpson, USAFE director of operations. Czech senior decision makers resident in the NCC would include General Padelek and Brig Gen Emil Pupis, a CZAF officer assigned to the Czech General Staff and a recent (2000) graduate of the USAF Air War College. The tasked forces deployed from USAFE: personnel from the 606th Air Control Squadron arrived a week prior to the summit to hone C2 teaming through more NCC simulations; on 18 November, 555th Fighter Squadron fighters landed at Caslav AB to establish operations there, and the 100th Air Refueling Wing relocated seven tankers to the parking ramp at Rhein-Main AB; F-15Cs from the 493d Fighter Squadron were armed and placed in readiness at RAF Lakenheath; and NATO AWACS aircraft took to the air to augment the picture provided by ground-based radars as USAFE and CZAF forces went into place. The two-day summit would officially begin on the 21st, but everything was ready to go well ahead of the opening session.

Execution

As the host of dignitaries attending the summit began to arrive on 20 November, Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, paid a visit to Stara Boreslav to witness firsthand what the combined air-defense effort had accomplished. Everything had gone into motion exactly as briefed to the secretary a month before. The NCC’s computer-generated displays were alive with commercial-airline traffic under the watchful eye of NATO sensors, while fighters and tankers aloft were ready to respond at a moment’s notice. Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers spoke at length with Czech and US controllers, who expressed confidence and enthusiasm regarding the task before them. They departed the NCC satisfied with what they had seen and turned their focus to the important events ahead of them in downtown Prague.

Within hours of their departure, the moment of truth arrived. On the afternoon of the 20th, a Tupolev Tu-154 airliner originating from central Asia announced its intention to land at Prague’s Ruzyne International Airport as it crossed the southern Czech border. The Czechs had placed tight controls on granting permission for aircraft to land at Ruzyne during the time frame of the summit. This aircraft was not a regularly scheduled commercial flight; neither was it on the list of approved missions cleared into Prague for the summit. To make matters worse, the aircrew failed to comply with some of the instructions issued by Czech civil air-traffic controllers as they tried to alter its course while deciding what to do with it. This failure could have resulted from communications difficulties, or—in the minds of the people responsible for protecting the summit—it could have had more sinister implications. Because nobody in the NCC wanted to take any chances, controllers vectored a flight of F-16s to rendezvous with the Tu-154, escorting it to a safe recovery at Pardubice AB, well outside Prague. There, authorities learned that the Kazakh minister of defense was on board and that his ministry had failed to apply for the appropriate diplomatic clearances prior to his plane’s departure. Within an hour of its arrival at Pardubice and following completion of the necessary arrangements, the Tu-154 was allowed to proceed to Ruzyne.¹¹

The Czech-US team members remained composed and deliberate during the incident, and everything worked precisely as they had practiced during simulations and the live-fly exercise. The team scrambled another F-16 CAP to replace the flight that escorted the Tu-154 through Czech airspace, repositioned a tanker to accommodate the escort flight, and postured F-15Cs and MiG-21s to intercept any other suspicious aircraft throughout the duration of the incident. It was almost as if AIRNORTH TacEval and the WPC had arranged the whole scenario. In fact, as soon as the Tupolev parked at Ruzyne, the entire NCC team, including General Martin and General Padelek, conducted a brief after-action review very similar to those held during the simulations and live-fly exercise. This procedure served to reinforce success, just as it had during the workup events.

Three other times during the summit, the team dispatched fighters (alternating between MiG-21s and F-15Cs) to observe suspicious aircraft from a safe distance. The outcome again validated the effectiveness of the C2 arrangements put into place at the NCC. Just as importantly, if not more so, other arrangements were vindicated as well—specifically those adopted in the event bad weather restricted operations. Low ceilings and persistent fog kept the F-16s, MiG-21s, and L-159s on the ground at Caslav for more than half of the summit’s duration, but Lakenheath’s Grim Reapers maintained a constant presence in the meantime. Backup KC-135s at Rhein-Main provided the additional fuel needed by the F-15Cs. Similarly, the two bases used for NATO AWACS aircraft endured bad weather that periodically shut down operations at one location or the other. At the summit’s conclusion, General Martin noted that the most significant lesson in execution was the value of sound contingency plans, such as those used in case of adverse weather, and the need to commit the necessary forces to support those procedures up front—as early in planning as possible.¹²

Conclusions

Operation Summit CAP provided convincing evidence that NATO could meet the challenges posed by international terrorism and could do so with its newest members playing a prominent role. It was all the more fitting that this particular effort occurred in support of a meeting in which NATO heads of state charted a new course for dealing with evolving threats to the alliance and agreed to accept new members into the fold. AIRNORTH, USAFE, and the CZAF had used legacy NATO and Warsaw Pact weapons systems in an air-defense structure that had proven its worth during the Cold War, and in a manner that proved very adaptable to the global war on terrorism. Summit CAP could not afford to fail—not only in terms of preventing a catastrophe delivered at the hands of terrorists, but also as a test of the alliance’s enduring relevance.

Some critics might argue that NATO did not fully meet the requirements of protecting the summit, pointing out that the Czechs had to turn to the United States to provide additional air-defense fighters. To do so misses a key point. Although their choice had certain political motivations, the Czechs could have asked any one of a number of other NATO members for assistance—the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy all had capabilities essential to the task. In this situation, having only one other nation involved in executing a Czech sovereign decision to engage a civil aircraft over its own territory simplified C2 arrangements tremendously. Given the nature of this decision and the risk it implied for innocent civilians, one cannot overstate the need for less complexity and more clarity in its execution. Involving only one other member nation in engaging a terrorist aircraft made common sense.

It may have made sense, but it certainly wasn’t easy. No one had ever attempted a bilateral air-defense arrangement like this one. The fact that it played out successfully in a -relatively short time with a new member of the alliance speaks volumes for the value of commonality in NATO tactics, techniques, and procedures, which provided the framework essential to preparing USAFE and CZAF forces to work together, using weapons systems that only 13 years before they had arrayed against each another. The task would have proven far more difficult had the Czechs not upgraded their NCC facility so that it could easily accommodate the structure of NATO air-defense practices developed by the alliance after decades of hard work and determination. Not only did personnel from AIRNORTH, USAFE, and the CZAF have to work effectively within the confines of Stara Boreslav, but also information needed to pass with speed and accuracy between CAOC-4 and the NCC to afford the summit the added measure of security NATO offered outside Czech boundaries. During the operation, Stara Boreslav proved beyond question that it was a viable node in the NATINADS network.

But questions surfaced concerning its viability when AIRNORTH, USAFE, and the CZAF first set about planning the operation less than four months before its execution. Communications and data links between CAOC-4 and the NCC had never undergone severe strain prior to the workup to the summit. The Czechs, still new to the alliance, had not fully integrated themselves into its practices, a fact made clear when controllers in the NCC first confronted air-battle-management practices familiar to NATO for years. But the program of preparation undertaken by AIRNORTH and USAFE in the tabletop seminar, CPX simulations, and the live-fly exercise of 19 October enabled unprecedented acceleration of the integration process. After all, a great deal more was at stake in this effort than in an exercise not tied to an event of the summit’s magnitude. Operation Summit CAP now served as an example of what was possible. As General Martin related in his preliminary observations after the fact, “After nearly three years of immersion in the process of NATO integration, I believe this kind of focused, cooperative effort with our new NATO members gets results.”¹³

We should continue to pay attention to future NATO air-defense operations for the purpose of supporting high-profile events as well as ensuring the daily security of its member nations. In addition to revealing the possible, Summit CAP uncovered issues that deserve further development. In retrospect, more direct involvement of civil agencies in operational planning and exercising would have reduced the number of questions that passed between the NCC and Prague’s air traffic control center during the summit. The same sense of trust between NATO partners needs fostering at the most senior levels if the alliance wishes to effectively pursue high-risk operations of this kind in the future; trust can develop through the direct participation of senior leaders involved in such operations from their inception. Will the new NATO Response Force be able to contribute a member nation’s air-defense fighters to a cooperative venture of this kind in the future, especially in support of new member nations that, like the Czech Republic, lack a full complement of air-defense assets? One hopes that it can since the United States can ill afford to augment the forces needed to protect every summit or conference attended by allied dignitaries.

On the evening of 21 November, NATO’s heads of state dined in grand style, hosted by President Vaclav Havel in Prague Castle. Sitting prominently atop a hill overlooking the city, the castle complex was brilliantly floodlit, a nightly custom. No place within the Czech Republic shone more brightly that night. The streets below the castle were eerily quiet, most citizens respecting their government’s recommendation that they stay at home after work during the two days of the summit. A persistent drizzle and mist would have complicated matters for a would-be air terrorist in search of such an otherwise easy target, but something else would have provided much more formidable resistance on that peaceful evening. High above the castle, distant but distinct nonetheless, the unrelenting drone of two F-15Cs from the Grim Reapers could be heard, flying watch over the Czech capital and proving that the alliance could confidently pursue its collective interests in an uncertain world.

Notes

1. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, 4 April 1949, protects national rights with respect to self-defense.

2. Meeting, Jaroslav Tvrdik, Czech defense minister; Lt Gen Frantisek Padelek, CZAF commander in chief; and Gen Gregory Martin, AIRNORTH and USAFE commander, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic, 31 August 2002.

3. Comments by Craig Stapleton, US ambassador to the Czech Republic, to Col Marc Neifert, US defense attaché, Prague, Czech Republic, August 2002.

4. Message, 061219Z, US mission to NATO, to US secretary of state/secretary of defense, 6 August 2002.

5. Report, “Results of 6 August AIRNORTH Meeting,” USAFE TASC/CV, to USAFE commander (COMUSAFE), 7 August 2003.

6. Concept of operations briefing, 32d Air Operations Group, subject: Prague Summit Air Defense, 20 September 2002.

7. Briefing, COMUSAFE to SECDEF, subject: NATO Summit—US Air Support, Warsaw, Poland, 23 September 2002.

8. USAFE Warrior Preparation Center, “Red Team Playbook,” 3 October 2002.

9. Col Anthony Rock, vice-commander, Warrior Preparation Center, to COMUSAFE, memorandum, 24 October 2002.

10. Briefing, COMUSAFE to SECDEF, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC, subject: Operation Summit CAP, 23 October 2002.

11. CTK Czech News Service, “US Fighters Force Kazakh Defense Minister to Land,” 21 November 2002.

12. Message, 222101Z, COMUSAFE to commander, USEUCOM, 22 November 2002.

13. Ibid.

Contributor

Col James R. Smith (USAFA; MA, Florida State University; MMAS, Army Command and General Staff College; MSS, Air War College) is commander of the 420th Air Base Group, United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE), Royal Air Force Fairford, England. He previously served as vice-commander of the USAFE Theater Air and Space Operations Center and command director of USAFE Air Force Forces, Ramstein AB, Germany, as well as commander of the 35th Fighter Squadron, Kunsan AB, Republic of Korea. Colonel Smith is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, USAF Fighter Weapons Instructor Course, Air Command and Staff College, Army Command and General Staff College, and Air War College.

---

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.