DISTRIBUTION A:
Approved for public release;
distribution is unlimited.
Published: 1 December 2008
Air & Space
Power Journal - Winter 2008
|
|
Maj Steven Maceda, USAF*
I READ WITH GREAT interest Lt Col Michael Downs's article "Rethinking the Combined Force Air Component Commander's Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Approach to Counterinsurgency" (Fall 2008). I agree that the system needs reform but disagree with his proposal to use the close air support request process for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). Though faster than the air tasking order cycle, the joint tactical air strike request process used for close air support still does not allow the flexibility in execution required by the ground commander. Given that the Air Force has decided to apply theater ISR assets to tactical priorities, that commander must have the ability to shift those assets when priorities change. The combined air operations center (CAOC) must allow decentralized execution of ISR assets-particularly full-motion-video platforms-by delegating tactical control of platforms apportioned to Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) during execution. Doing so would speed the process of dynamic retasking and shorten the time required to respond to the ground commander's shifting priorities and time-sensitive targets.
As ISR collection manager, I see firsthand how the ground commander's operations tempo demands flexibility in ISR procedures. In particular, there is an insatiable demand for full-motion-video ISR to provide overwatch for raids as well as longer-term target-development missions. Many operations are triggered and approved only hours before execution. Neither the present planning cycle for the air tasking order nor the process for a joint tactical air strike request works fast enough to move ISR assets to cover these operations.
All full-motion-video assets can be retasked during execution, but Army assets are more responsive than the Air Force's. The current ISR system has the combined force air component commander (CFACC) apportioning a certain number of ISR combat air patrols to MNF-I. Through Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I), these patrols are then further allocated to the various major subordinate commands (MSC) for planning purposes. For instance, my organization can rely on a particular time block on a given Predator combat air patrol and schedule the asset to cover missions during that time according to our priorities. MNC-I also controls its own ISR assets (referred to as echelons above division [EAD]), which include manned and unmanned platforms, notably Warrior Alpha and Sky Warrior-Army versions of the Predator. These EAD assets are also allocated to the MSCs for planning.
Based on the known allocation, my organization and the other MSCs attempt to schedule assets to cover as many preplanned operations as possible. Since some operations may receive approval only hours (or less) before execution, dynamic retasking of assets to cover these time-sensitive targets is common. Compared to EAD assets, CFACC assets require an extra level of approval before retasking. At best, this is a minor annoyance to the ground force; at worst, it can cause an asset to arrive on target after an assault has begun, missing the most critical portion of the operation.
When a time-sensitive target calling for dynamic retasking arises, the MSC collection manager receives an ISR request from the tactical unit, weighs the new request against existing priorities, and may direct an asset to the new mission location. Retasking an EAD asset already allocated to the MSC by MNC-I follows a simple procedure: the MSC simultaneously notifies MNC-I of the impending move and passes the new target information to the ISR mission commander; the asset then moves to the new location. This rapid retasking is possible because the MSC collection manager knows the command's priorities and can determine if the new operation warrants moving the asset from another mission.
Occasionally, MSCs request EAD assets to cover operations outside their allocated coverage times. In these instances, the requesting command works through MNC-I to coordinate shifting an asset from another MSC. If the latter does not wish to relinquish control of the asset, the MNC-I chief of operations can make a decision on relative priority. After MNC-I approves reallocation, the requesting command can direct the asset to the new mission.
Retasking a CFACC combat air patrol to accommodate an MSC involves a similar process, but navigation of another level of bureaucracy adds to the time expended. Requesting assistance from a CFACC asset that supports another MSC requires MNC-I's approval-a sensible prerequisite because it involves weighing priorities between different units. The CAOC must then approve the change as well. Though sometimes done quickly, this process often results in delays of 10 minutes or more. Even when an MSC wants to shift an allocated CFACC asset between MSC missions, both MNC-I and the CAOC must sanction the change. This delay wastes precious time-after all, the asset has already been apportioned to MNF-I and allocated to the MSC. If the latter's priorities change during execution, it should be able to shift the asset to a new mission-of course, keeping MNC-I and the CFACC informed of the move.
Certainly, the CAOC needs to know where its assets are flying and, as Colonel Downs says in note 27 of his article, must prevent changes from affecting the availability of aircrews or aircraft. Having already apportioned certain assets to MNF-I (and from there down to the MSCs), however, the CAOC is not adequately positioned to judge the ground commander's priorities. Execution authority (tactical control) should pass with apportionment to MNF-I during the scheduled mission time. Extensions beyond planned coverage windows (e.g., late return to base) should remain subject to the CAOC's approval. Within the apportioned windows, however, those commanders closest to the fight should employ the assets. The CFACC should remain informed yet stand outside the normal approval process, intervening only by exception. Having already made the decision to apportion full-motion-video combat air patrols to MNF-I, the CFACC should pass tactical control during the scheduled windows as well. Doing so would give the ground commander maximum flexibility with the assets the CFACC has already decided to apportion. Meanwhile, keeping the CFACC informed of movements would enable intervention in the rare case when an asset is asked to exceed crew- or aircraft-availability requirements. The half measures currently in place only slow the process of shifting assets and delay fulfillment of ground commanders' ISR requirements. Using joint tactical air strike requests to task ISR will not effectively close this gap.
*The author is an Air Force intelligence officer deployed to Joint Base Balad, Iraq, as a collection manager.
Joint Base Balad, Iraq
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 ]
