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

Published: 1 December 2008
Air & Space Power Journal - Winter 2008

Shifting the Air Force’s Support Ideology to
Exploit Combined Arms in the Close Fight

Lt Col Collin T. Ireton, USAF

The Normandy invasion lost momentum in June 1944 as Allied troops encountered hedgerow country. Here, German soldiers made each hedgerow a fortified line, every encircled pasture a killing field. With machine-gun pits in each corner, entrenched riflemen armed with Panzerfaust antitank weapons and presighted artillery waited for Allied troops to make the mistake of a haphazard advance.

Those troops had arrived with no training on how to assault these barriers successfully but quickly learned that a combined-arms approach was the answer. Attack teams capitalized on the inherent strengths of coordinated and varied weapons effects. First, engineers blew a hole in the hedgerow, allowing a Sherman tank to poke through and put a white-phosphorus round into the corners of the opposite hedgerow, engulfing German machine-gun pits in the burning chemical. While a slowly advancing tank covered the top of the hedgerow with .50-caliber machine-gun fire, the mortar team worked the area behind the berm to neutralize the entrenched enemy. Infantry advanced behind the tank and, after reaching the far side, used grenades and rifle fire to destroy the remaining Germans.¹ Even an entrenched, skilled, and dedicated enemy had no means to resist a determined advance that used the multiple weapons effects intrinsic to combined arms.

Later, forward artillery observers (and, eventually, tank crews) were linked via radio with P-47 fighter-bombers and Piper Cub aircraft, providing additional options to frontline troops in need of support. Not only were the heavy machine guns and rockets of the P‑47s at their disposal, but also the Piper Cubs could spot for long-range artillery or, when needed, relay requests to higher headquarters.² These tactics, born of necessity and engendered on the battlefield, fueled the Normandy breakout. For the first time, US ground and air forces communicated directly to achieve real-time battlefield effects through close air support (CAS).

On many levels, today’s global war on terror (GWOT) differs from the US experience in World War II. There are, however, parallels that lead to lessons of value for today’s conflict. In this article, I posit that the US Air Force should accept as its main tactical mission the provision of varied weapons effects associated with classic combined arms on all US battlefields. Additionally, I point out current barriers to assembling combined arms, gaps in current CAS capabilities, and a possible solution.

Roots of Success with
Combined Arms

What is the root cause of the synergistic effects of combined arms? Clearly, an enemy can devise a defense or counter any one threat relatively quickly. If rifle fire is the predominant danger, he can dig a trench; if the other side releases gas, he can wear a mask; if attacked by massed and unescorted bombers, he can employ fighters—and so forth. For the defense, multiple methods of attack and varied weapons effects cause defensive integrity to fail.

Not entirely obvious is the fact that varied weapons effects are more important than multiple methods of attack. A single, survivable platform that can continue to deliver a variety of weapons, despite environmental conditions, will generate the synergistic effects of combined arms. The individual effects of classic combined arms (armor, artillery, mortar fire, etc.) do not derive from their being generated individually from different platforms; rather, they result from each munition’s having its own strength. Essentially, we must match each target with ordnance that meets the challenges of the situation. For example, we could destroy an enemy bunker impervious to 105 millimeter (mm) cannon fire with a penetrating bomb; we could use a string of general-purpose rather than precision bombs against a dispersed enemy; and we could direct precise cannon fire instead of a bomb at an enemy in close contact with friendly troops.

If, however, no single platform has all the engagement options required or if environmental conditions or enemy defenses prevent its use, then we may need multiple platforms (usually a combination of ground and air assets) to produce the desired effects. For example if poor target weather or asset availability dictates selection of a B-52 against a dispersed enemy, we may use it to conduct semiprecise strikes with Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) or to cover an area with multiple unguided bombs. However, we may need armor’s direct cannon fire to support closely engaged ground forces. The effective use of combined arms is not a function of utilizing multiple delivery platforms but of appropriately and smartly matching weapons effects and targets in time and scale to overwhelm defensive efforts.

Clearly, the combined-arms effects available to US ground-air teams can be decisive. But are they always available on today’s battlefield? How will the US military ensure that its engaged troops always have the synergistic firepower effects of combined arms on hand? Before answering these questions, let’s consider an example.

March 2002, Afghanistan

In early 2002, the United States launched Operation Anaconda against Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in the Shah-e-Kot Valley in southeastern Afghanistan—an isolated area, rugged and difficult to reach. Coalition forces had no access to artillery or armor—only small arms, mortars, eight AH-64 helicopters, and fixed-wing CAS aircraft.³ The plan called for indigenous forces, augmented by embedded special operations forces and ground forward air controllers (GFAC), to attack and push enemy forces through mountain passes where US forces pre-positioned by helicopter insertion would kill or capture them.⁴

The helicopter insertion of infantry came under immediate fire from an entrenched enemy’s small arms, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades.⁵ It quickly became clear that the enemy forces did not plan to flee as expected and that there were many more of them than just the several hundred irregulars originally estimated.⁶ Later calculations placed their numbers between 500 and 1,000.⁷

Errors made in estimating enemy numbers and their intent (to stay and fight), as well as the lack of supporting armor and artillery, led to heavier reliance on CAS than the coalition had planned.⁸ In the first 24 hours of the ­battle, F-15Es, F-16s, F/A-18s, and an AC-130 executed 177 attacks, strafing and dropping JDAMs as well as laser-guided bombs (LGB) in an area only about five and a half miles long by three miles wide.⁹ Airborne assets again made up for the lack of ground-based combined-arms elements.

Our use of 37 enlisted terminal attack controllers to observe the same valley and many of the same targets, combined with a lack of forward air controllers (airborne) (FAC[A]), amounted to poor employment of assets. In some cases, redundant attacks were called in on the same objective. More importantly, because of the lack of control, the extreme urgency of the situation, and redundant CAS requests, we did not always select the most survivable aircraft and most effective munitions for the job. As a result, all but two AH-64s suffered significant combat damage, making them unavailable for duty on the second day of the battle.¹⁰

Initially planned as a quick operation for trapping the enemy, Anaconda devolved into a patchwork of friendly troops fighting defensive battles where “small-arms and mortar fire and effective and timely CAS . . . ensured that none of the small, isolated forces were over-run.”¹¹ The effects of airborne-supplied combined arms proved pivotal, but we must wonder about the effectiveness had poor weather developed after the helicopter insertion or had an enemy well supplied with advanced surface-to-air missiles been present. We may not be so lucky in the future.

A Change in Mind-Set

Clearly, at certain times US operations, whether planned or unplanned, require the massed and varied weapons effects of the combined-arms concept. But are combined arms always available on today’s battlefield? Recent examples suggest they are not. In the battle of An Najaf in Iraq (28–29 January 2007), artillery never became available, and Stryker armor didn’t arrive until several hours after the battle had begun.¹² The situation in Anaconda proved even direr: we had no armor or artillery at all.

Why were those assets not available? Surely, a variety of reasons present themselves, ranging from incorrect intelligence (and the consequent flawed planning) to political requirements. However, geography also plays a role. Today’s battlefields encompass large geographic areas (at times, much of Iraq) without obvious areas of enemy concentration, a situation that precludes stationing artillery and armor units near every potential battlefield. Second, as in the case of Anaconda, battlegrounds can be so isolated, either by terrain or distance, that we can’t transport artillery and armor to the scene without a large-scale logistical undertaking, which may not prove feasible, depending on the tactical situation. These examples support the following propositions:

The nature of the GWOT ensures that our troops will engage the enemy nearly anywhere, anytime, in a variety of tactical situations. In this war, since the tactical thrust of the Air Force is to support our ground forces, it must embrace this understanding and position itself to maximize support. I do not mean to say that other Air Force roles have simply faded away—only that their importance diminishes in light of new challenges.

I suggest that the Air Force can optimally contribute to this war by assuring that the effects of classic combined arms remain available to our ground forces at all times and all places. In short, we must be capable of delivering scalable destructive power with a variety of kill mechanisms where our ground forces need them and when they need them—all the while surviving possible battlefield threats. The Air Force must be able to employ weapons close to or far from our troops, day or night and in poor weather.

Because of a lack of focus or failure to recognize the importance of this requirement, the Air Force has not developed such a capability. The current inventory of dedicated close-support (i.e., both CAS and FAC[A] roles) assets consists of eight AC-130Hs, 17 AC-130Us, and a planned strength of 356 A-10s.¹³ Though formidable weapon systems in their own right, neither the AC-130 nor the A-10 can deliver the envisioned close-support capability.

For the AC-130U, high-resolution sensors (such as the all light level television and the infrared detection set) and a sophisticated fire-control system enable this aircraft to target its side-firing 25 mm, 40 mm, and 105 mm guns with remarkable accuracy. A strike radar even allows for all-weather and night-target acquisition and strike capability. Although the AC-130H lacks the strike radar (and associated all-weather capability), it retains much of the AC-130U’s strengths.¹⁴ However, that gunship can’t deliver the variety of cluster bomb units or low- and high-yield general-purpose and penetrating munitions available in JDAM and LGB packages. Nor is it reasonable to expect any AC-130 model to operate in or near surface-to-air-missile or guided antiaircraft artillery (AAA) threat zones. Indeed, the ubiquity of shoulder-launched missiles and truck-mounted/-pulled AAA underscores the significant risks to any daylight AC-130 operation. Certainly, the aircraft has defensive countermeasures, but systems as simple as optically guided AAA will plague a platform that requires a predictable left-hand orbit to employ its weapons.

When the A-10 became operational in 1976, it represented a significant step forward in its niche, but today’s modernization programs, despite adding capability, are not the leap forward commensurate with our current need.¹⁵ Upon completion of the A-10C modernization program, the aircraft will have the ability to drop precision LGBs, near-precision JDAMs, and strings of bombs or cluster bomb units. Also, its versatile 30 mm cannon can employ armor-piercing and high-explosive incendiary rounds. These varied weapons effects hint at the ideal combined-arms platform envisioned in this article.

Nevertheless, even though the A-10 is more robust than its gunship brethren, it is still vulnerable. Its ability to fly at low and medium altitudes and to maneuver aggressively mitigates many threats. However, the jet’s poor thrust performance makes it vulnerable when climbing back to the safer medium-altitude environment after a diving weapon delivery. All A-10s downed in Operation Desert Storm were hit by shoulder-launched missiles after delivering ordnance and climbing back to medium altitude.¹⁶ No doubt the proliferation of increasingly sophisticated antiaircraft systems will further challenge this nearly 30-year-old aircraft.

These and other airframes offer pieces to the puzzle of the envisioned close-support platform, but none offer an entire solution. Nor does the intersection of various aircraft abilities. A B-52 may be able to fly high enough to avoid some threats, but it is restricted to providing only near-precision JDAMs or strings of general-purpose bombs. F-16s or F-15Es may be able to fill the gap by strafing for troops in close contact with the enemy, but the pilots still need to see the target to hit it with the precision required to avoid injuring friendly troops. This is one of many examples of current gaps in our close-support capability.

The Key West Agreement of 1948 clearly assigns the Air Force responsibility for providing CAS. However, “the Air Force’s preoccupation with strategic bombers, missiles, and air superiority has led to lapses in other areas of its responsibility. Close air support had to be learned and relearned in World War II, Korea, and Viet Nam.”¹⁷ A lack of emphasis on close support has led to this patchwork of capabilities, spread over various aircraft and cobbled together in an attempt to fulfill an Air Force responsibility.

The traditional mind-set with regard to Air Force missions is that air superiority enables all other missions. Without air superiority, other roles (e.g., interdiction, suppression of enemy air defenses [SEAD], or CAS) become difficult, if not impossible, to execute. Hence, the Air Force has emphasized the development and fielding of specialized air superiority fighters, most recently the F-15A, F-15C, and F-22A. The Air Force developed this group of aircraft and trained its pilots to do one thing: destroy enemy aircraft in aerial combat.

All of the Air Force’s other fighter-based roles were levied on the other group of fighter aircraft. Although capable of using air-to-air weaponry, these platforms were expected to execute the other Air Force roles, such as interdiction, offensive counterair (OCA), SEAD, nuclear strike, FAC(A), and CAS. Aircraft in this second grouping often performed multiple roles. For example, the F-16C is, or was at one time, expected to perform all of the above functions.

The required training, however, is role specific, each role requiring a separate skill set created through an upgrade program and developed with experience. Pilots also need proficiency flying to preserve these skills, but maintaining a high level of proficiency in all roles is unlikely (fig. 1).

Figure 1. Current mind-set

Resources followed the perceived importance of roles. For example, consider the archetypical air-to-air fighter and an attack aircraft from opposite ends of the spectrum. The selective acquisition report of 31 December 2006 listed the cost of the F-22A program (almost exclusively air-to-air) at $65.2 billion, equating to approximately $353 million for each of a projected 184 aircraft.¹⁸ The A-10C program (almost exclusively CAS/FAC[A]) costs $420 million.19 If the F-22 airframe were a unit of currency, the entire A-10C program would cost the same as about 1.2 F-22s. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. The A-10C isn’t a new aircraft. The production line was not restarted, new airframes were not built, and new engines were not fitted. This version amounts to an A-10A with a glass cockpit, carrying upgraded weapon systems to allow JDAM use and employing enhanced sensor integration.

The capabilities of new aircraft, such as the F-22, often leap beyond existing capabilities that fill the same role. Creating an entirely new platform ensures incorporation of improvements to the strengths of other aircraft but also enables the addition of new technology. The F-22 program has combined improvements and new technology synergistically to create unsurpassed mission capability.

Modernizing older aircraft, though essential to force sustainment, does not achieve comparable success. It can add capabilities such as JDAMs, utilization of the global positioning system, AIM-120 missiles, new radars, and so forth, but does not incorporate a set of new abilities into an optimized package that ensures an entirely new level of performance. For example, the packaging of LGBs and improvement of stealth technologies, both first used extensively in the Vietnam conflict, resulted in the F-117, which fundamentally shifted US power projection. Modernizing, however, often simply brings current platforms up to the current standard or fixes aging problems to enable the platform to reach its phaseout date. To fix the structural problems that will allow 356 A-10Cs to make their projected phaseout in 2028, we must spend $4.4 billion, or 12.5 F-22s.²⁰ My point is not that we need fewer F-22s or more A-10s; rather, I wish to show the difference in asset allocation for aircraft in the two different groups at opposite ends of the spectrum. This clearly demonstrates the Air Force’s priorities and views on the relative values of roles.

I suggest a change to the Air Force’s mind-set. We should stop viewing air-to-air assets as the priority and focusing their capabilities on a single role while allowing other “nonspecialized” aircraft to handle all other fighter-based tactical roles. Instead, we should reverse the situation by elevating the CAS and FAC(A) (close-support) roles to paramount importance (fig. 2)

Figure 2. Required mind-set

Critics may point out that the F-22 is capable of employing the 1,000-pound-class JDAM and is currently integrating the Small Diameter Bomb, and that this already represents a movement in the direction I suggest. But that falls short of my point. The F-22 significantly advances aerial combat: the combination of speed, stealth, sensors, data handling, and advanced air-to-air weapons will ensure that air-to-air combat reaches a new level of sophistication. By revamping older CAS systems, we cannot achieve anything on this order in the CAS world. And if we are willing to invest heavily in a capability that might possibly be used in the next decade, shouldn’t we devote the same resources to a capability that will surely be used? These same critics and others may point to developing Chinese, Indian, and Russian airpower, arguing that the Air Force must have specialized aircraft—without “a pound for air-to-ground”—not only for power projection but also for protection of the aircraft providing close support. A need for such a capability exists but should not become the focus.

Furthermore, when considering such an argument, we should address an important development that has slowly built momentum over the last decade and that has far-ranging implications. Increasingly, fighter aircraft are becoming networked via data links such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s standard Link 16.²¹ Formerly, we designed and built air-to-air fighters around their radars. Generally, longer detection ranges equate to earlier weapons employment against enemy aircraft, but in a networked battlespace, the sensor does not have to be on the fighter employing the ordnance. Essentially, all properly networked aircraft have the same detection capability. The F-22’s greater speed may allow farther missile ranges, but it seems more efficient to develop a longer-range missile for all fighters than to acquire a weapon system as expensive as a specially designed air-to-air platform.

The long-term fix to providing US ground forces access to the benefits of multiple and varied weapons effects inherent in combined arms starts with a mental shift. It’s clear that the GWOT defines our enemies, who operate as covert irregulars far from traditional power bases. Because of their ability to hide within or just outside the societies they infest, we need ground forces to conduct offensive operations to defeat them. In light of these facts, the Air Force should embrace the idea that its primary tactical job is to provide lethal close support. The best support ensures survivable, scalable destructive power that should come in varied weapons effects to give our troops access to the synergistic effects of combined arms. Our service’s priorities, concept development, and asset allocation must evolve to reflect this shift.

It’s unlikely, however, that the Air Force will begin an acquisition program for a dedicated CAS/FAC(A) platform that meets the above requirements. Current efforts include acquiring new tankers, continuing to build and field the F-22, as well as refurbishing and buying more cargo aircraft. We simply have no budget left to create this pivotal platform. In the absence of a shift in thinking that comes to regard a dedicated CAS/FAC(A) platform as the preeminent Air Force contribution to the GWOT, we will not develop such an asset.

But budget constraints should not stop the proposed shift. The Air Force’s decision that the F-35 will replace the F-16 and A-10 is now beyond recall, so we should embrace it.22 A traditional Group Two aircraft, the F-35 is nonspecialized, and we envision that it will perform the same host of duties currently executed by the F-16 and A-10. But this should not stop the shift toward giving CAS/FAC(A) higher priority than other roles. The question becomes how to best use this nonspecialized aircraft to enhance close support of ground forces. We must take the following steps to ensure that the F-35 is best used in this role, and the sooner we take them, the more successful and seamless the transition.

The first step involves mission-specialized equipment. By dedicating onboard F-35 equipment to the close-support role, we ensure the availability of combined-arms effects to ground forces. For the Allied forces, the first link in improving the use of combined arms in Normandy was the establishment of communications among the artillery observers, tanks, and roving P-47s. We too must concentrate on communications—for the F-35. Thus, during its development, we should emphasize integration of secure, jam-resistant communications to effectively connect the pilot with a host of agencies.

Initially, we must ensure effective communication between the pilot and GFAC. The ability to talk, pass images, send and receive target data, locate friendly positions, and communicate the ground commander’s intent is key. Voice communication is not sufficient; instead, we need a ground-to-air data link that passes a host of pertinent information, layered by mission and intuitively displayed. This implies not only potential changes to F-35 software but also a concurrent effort to develop an automated GFAC tool to guarantee seamless interaction between ground and air forces. This tool must be able to provide high-resolution target data in the appropriate coordinate reference for weapons guided by the global positioning system; display GFAC and friendly locations, preferably on a terrain-representative map; show target imagery if appropriate; and provide laser illumination for LGBs. The device should be man portable and should connect the GFAC and close-support-adapted F-35s so that they form an integrated system.

Because F-35s will also have to perform the FAC(A) role, they must be capable of seamlessly passing this information to other aircraft. No doubt the aircraft will be able to use the most current version of Link 16. System avionics must capitalize on this link, or a gateway when necessary, to pass critical targeting data to inbound bombers and fighters of the FAC(A)’s choice. It must then confirm accurate receipt of this data and do so via secure means in a jamming environment.

Just as Piper Cubs prowled the lines, spotting for distant artillery (whether shore- or ship-based), so should the F-35 if called upon to do so. Such an ability would amplify the effects of combined arms. The appropriate communication links to Army, Navy, and Marine artillery coordination cells would give the GFAC another route to request artillery fires (through the FAC[A]) and would allow the FAC(A) to adjust that fire for maximum effect.

A weak area in the Anaconda operation concerned limited ability to communicate over the horizon with headquarters or the coalition air and space operations center.23 Incorporation of satellite communications gear would enable the overhead FAC(A) to relay critical requests as well as provide an accurate battlefield picture to decision makers. The aircraft communications suite will prove pivotal in increasing not only its close-support role but also overall battlefield awareness.

Mission-specialized software should greatly simplify the control and use of such gear. A portion of the aircraft’s computer-driven avionics should focus on CAS/FAC(A) capabilities. Such systems not only will enable efficient use of multiple radios and data links while communicating with a host of agencies, but also could intelligently narrow the information being passed. Given the plethora of data available from onboard and off-board sensors, such as the RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems, that data must undergo heavy filtering before relaying. The best way to smartly tailor this information involves consulting with both aircrews and GFACs during software development. After all, the software must be designed around their needs.

Equipment efficacy, however technically advanced, relies on proper training and proficiency, yet we lack realistic, standardized CAS training. Among other things, this results from the fact that we have few such opportunities and that CAS training occupies a lower priority than other types. Thus, regrettably, “joint close air support missions [are] forced to conduct last-minute training or create ad hoc procedures on the battlefield.”24 The proposed GFAC tool and mission-specialized aircraft software that would link air and ground crews are a system—and should be used as such. To truly exercise the proposed air-ground close-support system, we should incorporate Air Force, Army, and Marine FACs into CAS/FAC(A)-specialized F-35 units. This notion encompasses two separate concepts.

The first concept, designating certain F-35 units as CAS/FAC(A), differs from saying that their primary function should be close support; rather, their only function should be close support. If the Air Force is to accept its role as the acme of close support, it must field a skilled team of CAS/FAC(A) providers. The F-35 is just hardware and, in and of itself, cannot replace the A-10 weapon system, which consists of the A-10 aircraft and the community of expert aviators who live and breathe close support. Certainly, CAS/FAC(A) F-35 units should receive sufficient training to defend themselves against air-to-air threats, but the focus should remain on close support (as it would if they were flying A-10s).

The second segment of this concept involves recognizing smooth and practiced teamwork as essential to effective close support. The proposed equipment and software would link the F-35 and GFAC in such a way as to make their sum a weapon system. The stakes are high: if this team doesn’t perform, then friendly positions may be overrun—and the risk of fratricide is always a concern. This team cannot attain effectiveness through separate training; its members must prepare for combat together. Currently, Air Force enlisted members and officers work with the other services as enlisted terminal attack controllers and air liaison officers. Rather than change this system, we should expand it, incorporating Army, Navy, and Marine FACs into the dedicated F-35 close-support units as proposed. This can take the form of either a temporary duty rotation or an actual unit assignment—just as long as effective team training occurs. Such a scheme would ensure that both ingredients—GFAC and CAS/FAC(A) pilot—become experts with their equipment. Then, together, they would form a true weapon system. Both would also develop an inherent understanding of the other’s requirements, leading to simpler and quicker coordination of close support. The two ingredients shouldn’t simply meet on the battlefield or during major exercises. By working together in the same unit, they will develop a synergistic relationship.

Conclusion

The GWOT defines our current enemies, who operate as covert irregulars far from traditional power bases. Our ground forces will continue to seek and engage them in expansive, sometimes rugged and often isolated, areas that can prevent us from assembling traditional combined-arms assets. The Air Force has the ability to overcome these barriers to provide the advantages of varied and multiple weapons effects inherent to combined arms.

Our service must commit fully to the close-support role, recognizing that close support is its most effective fighter-based, tactical input to the GWOT—now and for the foreseeable future. The Air Force must make a mental shift with regard to its tactical aircraft: close support must eclipse other roles. Our priorities, concept development, and asset allocation must evolve to reflect this shift. The question then becomes how to best support troops on the ground.

Ideally, the Air Force would acquire an advanced platform that would catapult CAS/FAC(A) capability forward as much as the F-22 raised the air-to-air bar. However, it’s unlikely that we will begin an acquisition program for such a platform, so we must find other solutions.

One possible remedy involves the F-35, an asset that the Air Force must embrace as the next CAS/FAC(A) provider, equipping it with specialized onboard and off-board equipment for the close-support role. Additionally, we should designate specialized F-35 units as CAS/FAC(A) and imbue them with interservice GFACs to maximize training and ensure seamless operations.

None of this can take place without first accepting close support as the primary tactical responsibility of today’s Air Force. Our service must affirm the support of our ground forces as its primary fighter-based role and take action concomitant with this decision. If we are willing to do anything to win this war, then this mental shift must be among the first the Air Force implements.

[Feedback? Email the Editor ]

Notes

1. Stephen E. Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers: The U.S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to the Bulge to the Surrender of Germany, June 7, 1944–May 7, 1945 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), 67–68.

2. Ibid., 71–72.

3. Maj Edgar Fleri et al., “Operation Anaconda Case Study” (Maxwell AFB, AL: College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education, 13 November 2003), 23, http:// 64.233.167.104/search?q= cache: Ovga80WD8UgJ:www .maxwell.af.mil/au/awc/ns/electives/AirpowerPostGulfWar/Lsn08/ ANACONDA% 2520Case%2520Study%2520UNClass%2520Final.pdf+%E2%80%9COperation+Anaconda+Case+ Study% E2%80%9D&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us (accessed 30 June 2008).

4. Ibid., 19–21.

5. Headquarters United States Air Force, USAF/XOL, Operation Anaconda: An Air Power Perspective (Washington, DC: Headquarters United States Air Force, USAF/XOL, 7 February 2005), 62–63, http://www.af.mil/library/posture/Anaconda_Unclassified.pdf (accessed 26 December 2007).

6. Fleri et al., “Operation Anaconda Case Study,” 21.

7. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, s.v., “Operation Anaconda,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ Anaconda (accessed 26 December 2007).

8. Headquarters United States Air Force, USAF/XOL, Operation Anaconda, 6.

9. Ibid., 7; and Fleri et al., “Operation Anaconda Case Study,” 18.

10. Fleri et al., “Operation Anaconda Case Study,” 28–30.

11. Ibid., 29.

12. Erik Holmes and Gina Cavallaro, “800 Insurgents: Airmen Play Pivotal Role in Victory at Najaf,” Air Force Times, 3 December 2007, 14.

13. “AC-130H/U Gunship,” Air Force Link, October 2007, http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71 (accessed 31 December 2007); and David R. Hopper, “A‑10 Thunderbolt II Gets Technological ‘Thumbs Up,’ ” Air Force Link, 27 August 2007, http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123065959 (accessed 30 December 2007).

14. “AC-130H Spectre, AC-130U Spooky,” FAS [Federation of American Scientists] Military Analysis Network, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm (accessed 20 January 2008).

15. “A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II,” FAS Military Analysis Network, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm (accessed 20 January 2008).

16. William L. Smallwood, Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War (Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 1993), 142–43, 178–79, 190–91, 200, 205–7.

17. Maj David D. Dyche, “Military Reorganization: Challenge and Opportunity,” GlobalSecurity.org, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1990/DDD.htm (accessed 23 April 2008).

18. Christopher Bolkcom, F-22A Raptor, CRS Report for Congress RL31673 (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 12 June 2007), 4, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf.

19. “A Higher-Tech Hog: The A-10C PE Program,” Defense Industry Daily, 22 January 2008, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-highertech-hog-the-a10c-pe-program-03187 (accessed 27 June 2008).

20. Hopper, “A-10 Thunderbolt II”; and “A Higher-Tech Hog.”

21. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Link 16, a standard for passing digital information, employs netted communication techniques via a standard message format to allow properly equipped airborne assets to exchange that information. Shipborne information collectors also add data to this network.

22. “[The Joint Strike Fighter] Program,” F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, http://www.jsf.mil/program (accessed 27 June 2008).

23. Fleri et al., “Operation Anaconda Case Study,” 28.

24. United States General Accounting Office, Military Readiness: Lingering Training and Equipment Issues Hamper Air Support of Ground Forces, GAO-03-505, Report to the Ranking Minority Members, Subcommittees on Total Force and Readiness, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives (Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, May 2003), 3, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03505.pdf.

Contributors

Lt Col Collin T. Ireton (USAFA; MS, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University) is the Air Force Materiel Command chief of Policies and Procedures for Fighter, Trainer, and Unmanned Aircraft Systems as well as an F-16 experimental flight-test pilot. Previously, he served as an experimental flight-test pilot and director of operations for the F-117 combined test force in Palmdale, California. Before that, he flew F-117s operationally and served as an assistant director of operations for the 9th Fighter Squadron at Holloman AFB, New Mexico. Formerly, Lieutenant Colonel Ireton was an experimental flight-test pilot in the A-10 and F-16 aircraft, serving as the developmental flight-test flight commander for the A-10. He completed two overseas tours as an operational F-16 pilot and has amassed over 2,500 hours in 28 different types of aircraft. Lieutenant Colonel Ireton is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, Air War College, and the USAF Test Pilot School.

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

[ Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor]