THE ARTS This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public CHILD POLICY service of the RAND Corporation. CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION Jump down to document6 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research NATIONAL SECURITY organization providing objective analysis and effective POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY solutions that address the challenges facing the public SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and private sectors around the world. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2009 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2009 to 00-00-2009 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Combat Support Execution Planning and Control. An Assessment of 5b. GRANT NUMBER Initial Implementations in Air Force Exercises 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Rand Corporation,1776 Main Street,PO Box 2138,Santa REPORT NUMBER Monica,CA,90407-2138 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 101 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discus- sions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research profes- sionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for re- search quality and objectivity. Combat Support Execution Planning and Control An Assessment of Initial Implementations in Air Force Exercises Kristin F. Lynch, William A. Williams Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release; distribution unlimited PROJECT AIR FORCE The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003. Further information may be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lynch, Kristin F. Combat support execution planning and control : an assessment of initial implementations in Air Force exercises / Kristin F. Lynch, William A. Williams. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-8330-3996-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Command and control systems—United States. 2. United States. Air Force—Maneuvers. 3. Military planning—United States. I. Williams, William Appleman. II. Title. UB212.L96 2009 358.4'133041—dc22 2009003509 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R ® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2009 RAND Corporation Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/ permissions.html). Published 2009 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] Preface Since 2000, RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF) researchers have documented the need for a well-defined, closed-loop future (“TO-BE”) combat support execution planning and control (CSC2) operational architecture that would enable the Air Force to achieve the goals of an air and space expeditionary force (AEF). Using lessons learned during Joint Task Force (JTF) Noble Anvil and Operation Enduring Freedom and an in-depth analysis of the processes asso- ciated with CSC2, PAF researchers defined a TO-BE operational architecture (Leftwich et al., 2002), which the Air Force is in the process of implementing. The CSC2 operational architec- ture calls for an integrated approach to providing service forces and sustaining them during joint combat operations. As the Air Force continues to enhance its expeditionary capabilities, exercises provide opportunities to evaluate the extent to which elements of the CSC2 architec- ture have been implemented, as well as areas that need additional improvements. The research for this report was completed in 2004. While the agile combat support com- mand and control system is continuing to evolve, a number of the findings in this report are still applicable. This report presents an analysis of CSC2 implementation actions as observed during the Pacific Command (PACOM) exercise Terminal Fury 2004 (TF04) and the U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) exercise Austere Challenge 2004 (AC04). These operational-level com- mand and control (C2) warfighter exercises presented an opportunity to compare the current (“AS-IS”) CSC2 operational architecture, in two different theaters, with the Air Force future, or TO-BE, architecture. While neither the PACOM nor the USAFE exercise was focused on combat support func- tional capability, each provided an operational environment in which combat support issues could be discussed and assessed. A joint PAF and Air Force assessment team, with Air Force strategic partners based in the continental United States (CONUS), reviewed the informa- tion flows and agile combat support (ACS) and operational processes and systems that linked combat support nodes with operational needs that were employed during these exercises. The team assessed the effectiveness of the CSC2 TO-BE nodes, information systems, and products available in a collaborative environment, as well as training and education. The assessments were not an evaluation of the exercise itself but an observation of some of the key CSC2 tasks, such as allocation of scarce resources, within an operational context of a major C2 exercise. The Directorate of Logistics Readiness (HQ USAF/ILG) was assigned overall responsi- bility for the assessment. The Planning, Doctrine, and Wargames staff (HQ AF/ILGX) con- iii iv Combat Support Execution Planning and Control ducted the assessment in conjunction with RAND Corporation researchers, who worked in the Resource Management Program of Project AIR FORCE. The work was part of a project entitled “Balancing Combat Support Equipment Resources.” The research for this report was completed in April 2004. This report should be of interest to military commanders, logisticians, operators, civil engineers, C2 planners, and mobility planners throughout the Department of Defense, espe- cially those in the Air Force and those who rely on Air Force bases and support to shape their combat capability. This study is one of a series of RAND publications that address agile combat support issues in implementing the AEF. Other publications in the series include the following: • Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: An Integrated Strategic Agile Combat Support Planning Framework, Robert S. Tripp, Lionel A. Galway, Paul S. Killingsworth, Eric Peltz, Timothy L. Ramey, and John G. Drew (MR-1056-AF). This report describes an integrated combat support planning framework that may be used to evaluate support options on a continuing basis, particularly as technology, force structure, and threats change. • Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: New Agile Combat Support Postures, Lionel A. Galway, Robert S. Tripp, Timothy L. Ramey, and John G. Drew (MR-1075-AF). This report describes how alternative resourcing of forward operating locations can support employment time lines for future AEF operations. It finds that rapid employment for combat requires some prepositioning of resources at forward operating locations. • Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: A Concept for Evolving to the Agile Combat Sup- port/Mobility System of the Future, Robert S. Tripp, Lionel A. Galway, Timothy L. Ramey, Mahyar A. Amouzegar, and Eric Peltz (MR-1179-AF). This report describes the vision for the ACS system of the future based on individual commodity study results. • Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: Lessons From the Air War Over Serbia, Amatzia Feinberg, Eric Peltz, James Leftwich, Robert S. Tripp, Mahyar A. Amouzegar, Russell Grunch, John G. Drew, Tom LaTourrette, and Charles Robert Roll, Jr. (MR-1263-AF, not available to the general public). This report describes how the Air Force’s ad hoc implementation of many elements of an expeditionary ACS structure to support the air war over Serbia offered opportunities to assess how well these elements actually supported combat operations and what the results imply for the configuration of the Air Force ACS structure. The findings support the efficacy of the emerging expeditionary ACS structural framework and the associated but still-evolving Air Force support strategies. • Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: An Operational Architecture for Combat Support Execution Planning and Control, James A. Leftwich, Robert S. Tripp, Amanda Geller, Patrick H. Mills, Tom LaTourrette, Charles Robert Roll, Jr., Cauley Von Hoffman, and David Johansen (MR-1536-AF). This report outlines the framework for evaluating options for combat support execution planning and control. The analysis describes the combat support C2 operational architecture as it is now, and as it should be in the future. It also describes the changes that must take place to achieve that future state. Preface v • Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: Lessons from Operation Enduring Freedom, Robert S. Tripp, Kristin F. Lynch, John G. Drew, and Edward W. Chan (MR-1819-AF). This report describes the expeditionary ACS experiences during the war in Afghanistan and compares these experiences with those associated with JTF Noble Anvil, the air war over Serbia. This report analyzes how ACS concepts were implemented, compares current experiences to determine similarities and unique practices, and indicates how well the ACS framework performed during these contingency operations. From this analysis, the ACS framework may be updated to better support the AEF concept. • Supporting Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: Lessons from Operation Iraqi Freedom, Kristin F. Lynch, John G. Drew, Robert S. Tripp, and Charles Robert Roll, Jr. (MG-193-AF). This monograph describes the expeditionary ACS experiences during the war in Iraq and compares these experiences with those associated with JTF Noble Anvil, in Serbia, and Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan. This report analyzes how combat support performed and how ACS concepts were implemented in Iraq, compares current experi- ences to determine similarities and unique practices, and indicates how well the ACS framework performed during these contingency operations. RAND Project AIR FORCE RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF), a division of the RAND Corporation, is the U.S. Air Force’s federally funded research and development center for studies and analyses. PAF pro- vides the Air Force with independent analyses of policy alternatives affecting the development, employment, combat readiness, and support of current and future aerospace forces. Research is conducted in four programs: Force Modernization and Employment; Manpower, Personnel, and Training; Resource Management; and Strategy and Doctrine. Additional information about PAF is available on our Web site: http://www.rand.org/paf/ Contents Preface ........................................................................................................... iii Figures ........................................................................................................... ix Tables ............................................................................................................ xi Summary .......................................................................................................xiii Acknowledgments ............................................................................................ xix Abbreviations .................................................................................................. xxi CHAPTER ONE Introduction, Motivation, and Approach .................................................................. 1 Study Motivation ................................................................................................. 1 Analytic Approach ............................................................................................... 2 CSC2 Case Studies .............................................................................................. 4 Terminal Fury 2004 ........................................................................................... 5 Austere Challenge 2004 ....................................................................................... 6 Organization of This Report .................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER TWO Combat Support Execution Planning Command and Control ........................................ 9 CHAPTER THREE Organizational Structure ....................................................................................13 Nodal Organization ............................................................................................14 Case Study Findings ..........................................................................................16 Nodal Organization Implications ...........................................................................18 AOC Staffing and Organization ..............................................................................19 Case Study Findings ..........................................................................................19 AOC Staffing Implications ................................................................................. 20 CHAPTER FOUR Command and Control Systems Integration and Decision-Support Tools ........................ 23 A Common Operating Picture ............................................................................... 23 vii