យុទ្ធសាស្ត្រប្រឆាំង គោលដៅ និងពេលវេលា

 Counterair Strategy, Targets, and Timing

The Counterair Companion: Short Guide to Air Superiority for Joint Force Commanders.

Report Title: The Counterair Companion

Report Author(s): JAMES M. HOLMES

In this chapter, I’ll examine the process of gaining and maintaining air superiority. Understanding the strategy, targets, and forces that make up the counterair process will help joint force commanders build the right mix of counterair forces, competently monitor, and if required, direct the air superiority process. I’ll start with a brief discussion of the elements of the counterair system. Next, I’ll show how counterair strategy relates to the counterair forces’ means to the joint force commander’s ends by considering basic strategic considerations and methods. I’ll then use the results of the strategy discussion to suggest profitable counterair targets and attack timing. Finally, I’ll make some conclusions about the counterair process.

The Counterair System

Counterair operations employ a large fraction of the total joint force, and test the broad capabilities of the entire nation. Achieving air dominance over a modern threat requires a combination of sophisticated weapons delivery and control systems and trained people. Designing, developing, and deploying this system requires a significant investment of time, money, and effort. The counterair process is not just airplanes—it’s a system.

The weapons delivery component of a counterair system includes weapons, the systems that deliver them, and the resources required to support them. A weakness in any one of these elements can render the weapons delivery component of the system ineffective. Counterair weapons include air-to-air, surface-to-air, and surface-to-surface missiles, air-to-air and surface-to-air guns, antiradiation missiles, and conventional precision and area weapons. Modern weapons deliver significant improvements in lethality and accuracy, but even the best weapons require effective delivery systems. Air and surface delivery systems can transport and orient weapons for successful attacks, help weapons penetrate enemy defenses and defeat enemy countermeasures, and link the counterair weapons to the command and control system that directs them. The effectiveness of these weapons delivery systems is enhanced by support aircraft and systems. Air- and space-based sensors provide reconnaissance, surveillance, and warning. Tankers extend aircraft range and station time. Electronic warfare systems exploit or jam enemy communications and emissions. Air- and space-based command, control, and communications (C³) systems make counterair forces more responsive and flexible. Both weapons delivery and support systems require maintenance support and the steady supply of the spare parts, fuel, and other resources that make sustained counterair operations possible.

Command and control (C²) elements provide intelligence, warning, and communication; and a successful system must meet the needs of both counterair system operators and their commanders. Intelligence provides an understanding of the enemy’s capabilities and intentions. Warning, surveillance, and reconnaissance build knowledge of current enemy operations. Communications allow commanders to receive and disseminate this information and control their forces.

A C² system also ensures cooperation and integration between system components by establishing common counterair procedures and doctrine. Established procedures and doctrine are the score commanders provide to orchestrate the counterair system. This score allows system operators to understand the function of the entire system and their part in it. The process of developing, coordinating, and institutionalizing doctrine and procedures can resolve struggles over ideas and functions, and coordinate the activities of all the components of the system.³ C² systems provide the link between the weapons delivery hardware and the people who operate the counterair system.

Finally, a counterair system requires skilled, trained people in both leadership and operator roles. Recruiting, training, and retaining quality people is a challenge, and skilled operators and leaders aren’t developed overnight. The basic skills of running the components take years to master, and developing competent leadership requires additional time. Effective training is also costly. Initial training costs can run into millions of dollars, and recurrent training in expensive air control systems is a large part of annual budgets. There is, however, no substitute for this constant training. The air battle may be won or lost in the first few days or hours. The ability of the weapons systems, command and control components, and the people who operate them to work together will determine the results of those first few hours of war.

Basic Strategy Considerations

A capable counterair system, equipped with appropriate technology and manned with competent people, does not guarantee air superiority. These systems, for all their sophistication and complexity, require an appropriate strategy to gain a successful outcome. Some basic considerations for developing an air superiority strategy include campaign objectives, the relative balance between friendly and enemy forces, the nature of the theater, and any policy restraints.

Developing a strategy begins with determining objectives, and the objectives of the air superiority battle do not exist in a vacuum. Air superiority objectives should be tied to campaign objectives. Why does the joint force commander need air superiority? How much does he need? For how long? How important is air superiority to joint campaign success? Answering these questions will link the air superiority battle to the joint campaign, and the answers should provide a framework for examining the other strategic considerations.

Once counterair objectives are established, consider the relative balance of forces.What are the limits of friendly counterair resources? How well are these forces equipped and trained? Are afrces opitimized for the coutnerair battle or required to perform multiple roles? What is the balance between offensive and defensive capabilities? Are all existing resources available or will some be held back in reserve? Will the counterair commander⁶ have centralized control over all counterair resources or share control with other commanders?

By answering these questions, the counterair commander can determine how friendly counterair resources compare with enemy forces. What is the overall balance? Does either side possess a clear advantage in numbers of systems? In the quality of systems, weapons, or training? In the ability to control or exploit the electromagnetic spectrum? In range or on-station time? In night or adverse weather capabilities? In the number or quality of support systems? In generation rates or weapons stocks? Are there mission areas that present a clear advantage or disadvantage? Are there cultural factors that will limit or emphasize the importance of any physical factors? Will new production or reinforcements chage the balanace in the futrue or will it remain stable? Does the balance of counterair forces favor a particular joint force strategy?

With a clear view of the objectives and relative forces, counterair commanders are ready to examine the nature of the theater. Theater characteristics are defined by time and space. First, time impacts the battle in several ways. How fast must friendly forces achieve the desired level of air superiority to meet campaign objectives? How fast can they do it? How long must they maintain this desired level? Does the joint force commander have a long- or short-term strategy? Does he plan a decisive stroke or a battle of attrition?

Space is the second theater consideration. How big is the theater of operations? How much of it must counterair forces protect? How much enemy space must they control? Will there be a surface battle? Is the desired area limited by geography or altitude? What impact will weather or the seasons have on the campaign?⁸ Does either side possess a sanctuary where they can’t, or won’t, be attacked? Is there a mature theater logistic infrastructure, or will forced entry require a rapid buildup coincident with initial counterair operations?

Political restraints to counterair operations are the final basic consideration for counterair strategy. National policy provides a framework for all military operations, including counterair operations. Policy considerations may dictate limits to counterair strategy based on a desire to limit the intensity of a campaign, to prevent the war from spreading to a larger area, or to limit the impact of the war on other areas or interests.

These policy restraints may also dictate limits in the choice of weapons or weapons systems and limit the choice or timing of targets. Commanders define these limits in rules of engagement.

Strategic Choices

Strategy provides a link between the means (counterair force structure) and the ends (joint force objectives). It creates the answers to how and why means are translated to ends. How has been the focus of strategy for centuries, and describes the ways power will be applied to fulfill objectives. Why provides a mechanism, or reason, why we expect our actions to produce changes in the enemy. The counterair strategy should identify how and why the available means will achieve the desired ends in light of the basic considerations described in the last section.⁹

Enemy counterair systems can be defeated in a variety of ways. Air commanders can attack them in the air, on the ground, or in the factory. They can prevent the flow of resources to factories and bases, or eliminate the people who lead and operate the system. They can also apply these methods in sequence or combination.

In the Air

The enemy counterair force can be eliminated in the air by air-to-air or surface-to-air weapons. Air-to-air combat is glamorous and exciting, but surface-to-air systems usually account for more aircraft kills. An integrated system, that employs air and surface systems together, poses the greatest threat to enemy forces. The Patriot surface-to-air missile (SAM) has demonstrated some capability against ballistic missiles, and both surface-to-air weapons and aircraft have limited capabilities against cruise missiles, but both types need significant improvements before they will seriously threaten ballistic missiles or stealthy cruise missiles and aircraft.

Counterair commanders should emphasize killing the enemy in the air if they enjoy a weapons advantage, operator advantage, or command and control advantage that guarantees a favorable exchange ratio. However, commanders must always prepare for air battles because the enemy commander may force the issue at any time. A strategy that relies on air battles alone kills aircraft one at a time, resulting in bloody, lengthy struggles—the modern equivalent of World War I’s trench warfare. Commanders will need to attack the enemy counterair system on the ground to achieve decisive air supremacy.12

On the Surface

The enemy counterair force can be destroyed on the ground by air-to-surface attacks or surface forces. Air attacks on enemy air bases, C^2 systems, and   logistics have become a standard element of offensive counterair campaigns. Aircraft in the open make attractive targets, and one attack aircraft can destroy many aircraft parked in the open. However, modern air defenses and redundant, survivable bases make air base destruction a difficult and time-consuming task.

Fortunately, these fixed bases, air defenses, and C² centers also make excellent targets for the surface forces’ long-range tube artillery, the multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), or the Army tactical missile system (ATACMS), and may also be vulnerable to direct attacks by surface forces or helicopters. Special operations forces can eliminate aircraft, air defenses, or the key elements that allow the enemy counterair system to function.¹⁴ Conventional surface forces can provide the ultimate offensive counterair by taking and holding enemy air defenses, C² centers, and air bases.

In the Factory

In a long conflict, the enemy’s ability to reinforce and renew his counterair forces can be destroyed by attacks on factories. Factories, like the air bases, are static. Both air and surface forces can destroy aircraft, surface-to-air systems, and the weapons and command systems that help them function before they join fielded forces. These attacks can have a great long-term influence on the future performance of enemy air forces, but will probably not generate a short-term effect in a campaign designed to achieve rapid air superiority.

Offense and Defense

No matter where counterair commanders choose to destroy the enemy counterair system, their strategies will probably include both offensive and defensive components. Counterair battles require a balance between the military principle of security (and the defensive requirements that are associated with it) and the maritime principle of command of the seas (which is extrapolated in command of the air for air forces). Commanders must establish a balance between the requirement to safeguard their forces from possible enemy actions, and the desire to seize the offensive initiative and eliminate the threat posed by enemy forces before they can act.¹⁶ Technology can also affect the offensive-defensive balance by providing a relative advantage to one method or the other. For example, the apparent advantages that sophisticated surface-to-air defenses once held are currently countered by stealth technology. However, another generation of improved defenses will probably develop counters to stealth, completing the technological cycle.

Defensive Counterair

A defensive strategy may be appropriate for an air commander who possesses inferior forces. By safeguarding his key responsibilities and husbanding his resources, he can remain in the game until reinforcements or attrition change the balance of forces in his favor. A defensive strategy may also be appropriate against an enemy with a very sophisticated air defense system and well-protected air bases and infrastructure. By waiting for enemy aircraft to fight over friendly territory, the counterair commander can use all of his own air defense system and may be able to gradually reduce enemy forces until they can no longer challenge his air defense system.

Counterair commanders can employ both point and area approaches in a defensive strategy. The point defense strategy only defends key friendly points. By concentrating around a few points, defenses should be able to extract a substantial cost from any attacking force. However, a point defense strategy cannot threaten the survival of the enemy counterair forces or extend air superiority beyond the range of the point defense systems.

An area defense expands point protection to prevent the enemy force from operating in a designated area. An area defense can provide advantages based on the depth of the defensive system. A defense in-depth confronts enemy forces with a layered system that extracts a toll of effort or loss at each layer. This layered defense may employ active and passive techniques. SAM launches and fighter intercepts are the most easily identified active defensive measures, but active defense also includes the electronic emissions associated with warning and communications. Passive measures include attempts to limit damage through camouflage and decoy techniques and passive (receive only) electronic information gathering.

Airborne defenses, or combat air patrols (CAP), are also effective, but can become thirsty drains on air resources. A 24-hour CAP requires at least two aircraft for every one aircraft in the CAP, so extensive CAP requirements reduce the number of aircraft available for offensive missions.¹⁹ Ground alert aircraft can reduce CAP requirements, but they need extensive warning systems to get them airborne and in the right place in time to affect the attack.

Surface-to-air systems provide more efficient point and area defensive coverage. Unless friendly forces possess a surplus of air superiority fighters, ground alert aircraft and airborne CAPs should be used sparingly as added protection for high-value assets, as a way to concentrate air defenses against expected attacks, or to fill gaps between surface-to-air systems. A coordinated area system that combines air-to-air and surface-to-air weapons is difficult to coordinate, but it is also more difficult to concentrate against, flank, or envelop than a system that relies on just air or surface defenses.

No matter how superior they feel, joint forces will almost certainly maintain a defensive counterair system. Even an injured enemy can mount limited offensives. A strictly defensive strategy will not, however, gain air superiority over enemy territory or gain air superiority anywhere in a short time.²¹ Rapid air superiority requires an offensive strategy.

Offensive Counterair

An offensive strategy allows counterair commanders to maintain the initiative, forces the enemy counterair system to react, and reduces enemy decision time.22 Offensive actions allow friendly forces to attack or threaten all the parts of the enemy system, and force counterair battles to occur over enemy territory and away from friendly forces. Offensive attacks also provide commanders a range of options, from limited precision attacks to saturating enemy defenses with overwhelming numbers.

Offensive strategies are especially attractive for commanders with qualitative or quantitative advantages. They may also help commanders with inferior forces by inducing the enemy to keep some of his aircraft at home to defend against attacks. Offensive air attacks against sophisticated defenses require significant support operations, particularly suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD). Stealth aircraft can make successful offensive attacks with much less support.23

These offensive strategies include lethal and nonlethal actions. Attempts to confuse or disrupt the enemy, without destroying his capabilities, may complement direct attacks designed to eliminate enemy forces. For example, electronic jamming of enemy surveillance and warning radars does not damage them, but it makes lethal attacks on surface-to-air systems easier by forcing individual surface-to-air systems to operate autonomously without advance warning. A combination of lethal and nonlethal means may achieve a synergistic degrading of enemy counterair capabilities that allows decisive air superiority to be achieved rapidly.

A similar balance should be achieved between direct and indirect attacks. Direct attacks destroy the enemy's combat forces and eliminate them from the battle. Indirect attacks are aimed at the logistics and command and control systems that support combat forces. Well-planned and executed indirect attacks may make direct attacks more effective by isolating or limiting enemy combat systems. Indirect attacks may limit friendly losses by avoiding the enemy combat forces and may, in rare cases, make direct attacks unnecessary. However, indirect attacks will usually limit enemy capabilities, but not eliminate them. Support systems are usually resilient and elastic, and a capable commander will find alternative ways to continue to support his forces.

The fast transient attack is a variation of the indirect approach based on John Boyd's description of the "O-O-D-A (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop"24 decision process. It aims to slow the enemy decision cycle while enhancing the friendly process, hoping to gain a cumulative advantage based on repeated faster, better decisions. A fast transient approach usually depends on attacks on the enemy C2 system, particularly information-gathering and distribution systems and leadership.

In the Air

Offensive action can destroy or disrupt air and ground elements of the enemy counterair system. Air superiority fighters destroy enemy aircraft in the air by performing fighter sweeps and force protection missions. Fighter sweeps are the most flexible of these offensive air operations. Sweeps allow friendly air superiority fighters to seek out enemy aircraft and challenge them wherever they fly—to fight when and where they choose. However, if the enemy recognizes and avoids the sweeping aircraft, friendly counterair forces may have to attack important enemy targets to induce the enemy air force to attempt a defense.²⁵ On these missions, air superiority aircraft destroy enemy fighters while they protect friendly air-to-surface attack aircraft. The effectiveness of these offensive counterair actions is multiplied by specialized support assets that make hostile territory more friendly; assets that suppress enemy surface-to-air defenses, assist with command and control, jam and exploit enemy communications and warning systems, and locate and recover downed crew members. Aircraft missiles, a nd surface forces can also destroy or disrupt surface elements of the enemy counterair system.

On the Surface

Hardened aircraft shelters, although vulnerable to precision, penetrating munitions, make the systematic destruction of enemy air on the ground a time-consuming task. These “shelter busting” operations can’t be accomplished in significant numbers without suppressing enemy air and surface defenses.²⁶ Ballistic and cruise missile preparation and launch areas are attractive targets, but hardened storage and launch facilities and mobile launch platforms make missile destruction time-consuming and costly, as well.

Indirect attacks on the enemy’s ability to support his counterair force can disable aircraft and missiles without destroying them. Without fuel, oxygen, or weapons, a counterair force is a paper shell. These support targets are usually large, static, and easily identified. Air base complexes are spread over several square miles, and the runways make them easy to find. Because these targets don’t move, they make ideal targets for unmanned weapons like cruise and ballistic missiles. Although air forces have expended a lot of effort and resources on the precision penetrators and antirunway weapons designed for air base attack, a hardened and well-defended air base is not an easy target. Modern experience shows that air bases may be degraded, or temporarily shut down, but their size and redundancy make them difficult to eliminate from the air.

Enemy counterair forces also depend on specialized support systems. Destroying the opposing force’s tankers, Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), and electronic warfare aircraft can drastically reduce enemy offensive potential and pay great dividends on limited investments of counterair effort.

Command and control facilities are also rewarding targets. Disrupting a hardened C² center requires a concentrated effort with penetrating precision and antiradiation weapons, but even a partial success can generate effects that ripple all the way through an air defense system. Larger elements of the enemy air defense system, like radars and strategic surface-to-air missiles, are also relatively static and make good targets for friendly aircraft, missiles, and surface forces.

The counterair commander can also destroy the resources used to build and support counterair systems before they reach the factory or base. By destroying long lead-time items that are essential to aircraft manufacture, enemy replacements may be eliminated months, or years, before they are needed. By destroying fuel resources at their source, or eliminating the transportation required to get them to where they are needed, an air force can be effectively eliminated without direct attack.

Finally, an enemy air force can be destroyed by eliminating the people who operate the components. Without the people who operate and support the counterair system, the machine can't function.32 The people can be removed from the system by killing them in direct attacks, disrupting or limiting their training, forcing an operations tempo that exhausts them over time, or discouraging them from coming to work. Targeting the system leadership for death or capture requires highly accurate and timely intelligence, but may reduce short-term effectiveness.

The counterair commander's strategy should describe how and why the means (the counterair forces) are applied to achieve the ends (the joint force commander's objectives). The counterair commander will probably choose more than one of these methods for destroying the enemy air force to build a strategy that fits the Joint Force objectives, the balance of forces, the nature of the theater, and any political restraints.

Choosing targets begins to transform strategy from a mental exercise to a physical act. The targets should be selected, consistent with the counterair strategy identified by the air commander, to provide a mechanism that will achieve the level of air superiority required by the joint force commander in the time frame he specified.

Targets

Target choices should flow from the counterair commander's strategy decisions. A list of possible counterair target systems appears in table 7.

Table 7

Counterair Targets

Weapons Systems 

Aircraft

Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAM) 

Surface-to-Surface Missiles (SSM) 

Antiaircraft Artillery (AAA) 

Infrastructure 

Bases 

Parts

Fuel/Electricity 

Weaons

Service

Training

Production

Research and Development 

People

Command and Control 

Sensors

Data/Security Systems 

Facilities

Communications Links 

Table 8 shows how strategic choices affect target choices. For example, a force attempting a defensive strategy can only attack two target sets, and then only at the discretion of the enemy. A direct strategy ignores the potentially lucrative targets provided by the command and control and support systems. Attacks on the “indirect” target set will eventually affect the direct target set as well. Many of the targets can be attacked with both lethal and nonlethal means, and nonlethal methods like electronic warfare systems can complement lethal attacks, or multiply results by allowing the air commander to concentrate lethal force in some places and nonlethal force in others. Training, production, and research and development (R&D) have almost no short-term effects, and should be attacked only for long-term benefits. Finally, table 8 shows that the rapid, parallel destruction of the enemy counterair system will usually require extensive active, lethal, offensive counterair efforts while defensive forces provide force security.

Table 9 provides another way to look at targeting choices by comparing the possible targets to some of the essential counterair processes. First, table 9 highlights the importance of logistic and support systems in all the counterair processes. Second, it shows why the proponents of information warfare concentrate on the potentially paralyzing effects that may be generated across the spectrum of counterair processes by concentrating on information, communications, and people.34 Without current, appropriate information, the systems that communicate this information to the right places (feedback loops), and the people who interpret it, all the counterair processes will be degraded and may eventually fail.

Strategy, Targets, and Timing

Attack timing choices return the strategy process back to the basic considerations (objectives, forces, the theater, and policy limitations) that framed this chapter’s initial strategy discussion. Choosing attack timing is the final step in the counterair strategy process and provides a framework that turns strategy and targeting ideas into air tasking orders (ATO).

Commanders can choose between or combine graduated, sequential, cumulative, or parallel attacks. In a graduated strategy, counterair commanders attempt to convince the enemy to stop fighting to avoid future consequences. To execute this strategy, counterair forces make one attack, or a short series of attacks, on elements of the enemy counterair system; then pause to allow the enemy to consider the threat of future attacks. If the enemy continues to resist, attacks would continue against increasingly important targets. This method is most often selected in limited campaigns in pursuit of limited objectives. It depends on a credible threat of escalation and the air commander’s ability to put something the enemy holds dear at risk. If the enemy values his counterair system more than his objectives, he may respond. It may not be effective against an enemy willing to suffer pain to achieve his goals.

A sequential strategy pursues individual steps or phases that lead to a final objective. Each phase depends on the successful accomplishment of the previous phase. A sequential strategy allows concentration of forces against a specific objective until that objective is accomplished. Sequential attacks may be appropriate when the balance between counterair forces is relatively close. Against an equivalent force, an air commander who concentrates his forces against one counterair target set at a time can gain an effective numerical advantage against an opponent who spreads his counterair resources thin and tries to accomplish many things at once.

A cumulative strategy is a collection of individual actions that eventually create crushing results. The individual objectives are not arranged sequentially and may not seem to be related. This strategy allows service or functional components to pursue semi-independent objectives, cooperating only in the pressure they place on their opponent. For example, the combination of an oil interdiction campaign, a naval blockade, and continuous air attacks might have the cumulative effect of crushing the enemy counterair force’s ability to resist by making him use up resources faster than he can replace them.

A parallel strategy pursues several objectives at once. These objectives may or may not be contingent on one another, but the effect achieved against one objective may have an effect on the others. A simultaneous attack on key airfields, surface-to-air defenses, C² facilities, and communications links might drive the entire enemy counterair system to failure. Parallel strategies are most often employed by air commanders with numerical or qualitative superiority, and are often associated with rapid air superiority.

A counterair strategy may blend sequential, cumulative and parallel attacks, with the balance determined by the basic considerations of the joint force commander’s objectives, the balance of forces, the nature of the theater, and policy limits. Attack timing provides a final tool for the counterair commander’s efforts to deliver freedom of action for joint forces.

Measures of Success

If freedom of action is the product of air dominance, how is it measured? At the operational level, this freedom of action provides options for joint force commanders. It allows them to plan and execute strategies without worrying about the potential effects of enemy air interference. They are able to employ their air, land, and sea forces to maximize the combat effectiveness of each component, and the entire force. They do not have to make trade-offs requiredto a defend themselves against, or counter, enemy air operations. They are free to exploit the options, branches, and sequels that may occur during campaign execution.

Unfortunately, strategic flexibility and freedom of action are hard to quantify. Joint force commanders will know them when they have them, but the steps along the way and measures of progress toward the goal are hard to define. Counterair commanders need the feedback provided by a measure of success to adjust their strategy. Ultimately, success is measured through the progress toward decisive air supremacy, and attrition rates provide a simple measure of this process.

Counterair forces can measure their success by comparing the rate of friendly aircraft loss to the enemy's aircraft loss rate. For surface forces, a similar measure compares friendly surface losses to the enemy's aircraft loss rate. These measures are not perfect; they concentrate on numbers instead of effects, and they emphasize aircraft at the expense of surface-to-air missiles and other significant factors. However a combination of declining friendly loss rates and increasing enemy loss rates indicates progress towards air superiority and the a freedom of action it allows.

Accurate enemy sortie and loss rates may be difficult to determine. Friendly air loss rates and enemy sortie rates provide alternate measures that are easier to determine and simpler to evaluate. When the rate of friendly aircraft losses, expressed as a percentage of friendly sorties flown, becomes very low, the enemy air force is no longer able to interfere with friendly operations. When enemy aircraft sorties and missile launches are reduced to very low numbers, the enemy air force is losing its ability to conduct its own air operations.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I examined the process of gaining and maintaining control of the air, and stressed the importance of a balanced strategy chosen to provide answers for how and why means will accomplish ends. First, I briefly described the parts of the counterair system, and showed that it's not just airplanes, it's a system. Next, I reviewed the basic considerations and choices that shape counterair strategy. I showed how targets should be selected, consistent with the counterair strategy identified by the air commander, to provide a mechanism that will achieve the level of air superiority required by the joint force commander in the time frame he specified. This discussion showed that rapid air supremacy requires offensive counterair operations against targets that provide short-term effects across the enemy system. Attack timing choices provide the final cog in the counterair strategy machine and affect the rate and degree of air superiority. Finally, attrition, sortie, and launch rates can provide the feedback that allows counterair commanders to adjust their strategy and forces. The flow chart in figure 1 shows how basic considerations and measures of success influence the development of a mechanism that applies the counterair force means to achieve the joint force commander's ends.

[Image of a flow chart titled "Figure 1. Counterair Strategy Process"]

Figure 1. Counterair Strategy Process

Means (Counterair Forces) leads to ->

Basic Considerations which includes:

Objectives

Balance of Forces

Theater

Policy Limits

This leads to ->

Mechanism which includes:

Methods

Targets

Timing

This leads to ->

Ends which includes:

Strategic Flexibility

Freedom of Action

There is a feedback loop from Ends to ->

Measures of Success which includes:

Attrition/Sortie Rates

Enemy Actions

There is a feedback loop from Measures of Success back to Mechanism.

Target selection, as shown, is dominated by a choice of strategy that links ends to means. Without foresight in acquisition and training, target selection might also be restricted by the means, as well. In the next chapter, I'll discuss the balanced counterair force required to fulfill a range of counterair strategies.

Notes

1.R. A. Mason, Airpower: An Overview of Roles (London; Washington, D.C.: Brassey's Defence Publishers, 1987), 18; and J. R. Walker, Air Superiority Operations (London; Washington, D.C.: Brassey's Defence Publishers, 1989), 1, 136.

2.Benjamin S. Lambeth, The Outlook for Tactical Airpower in the Decade Ahead, Rand Study P-7260 (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, September 1986) describes the aircraft portion of the counterair system, especially 6, 17, 33.

3.“A wise commander thinks the unthinkable, uses the precious time of peace to ponder the unlikely, to work out his options, to do his lateral thinking, because the very basis of his doctrine could be called into question as the survivors of that first sortie land back.” Quoted from J. R. Walker, Air-to-Ground Operations (London; Washington, D.C.: Brassey's Defence Publishers, 1987), 125.

4.For a detailed description of counterair command and control, see M. B. Elsam, Air Defence (London; Washington, D.C.: Brassey’s Defence Publishers, 1989), 67–74; and Mason, 19–30.

5.For training details, see Walker, Air Superiority Operations, 149–161. Elsam, x, shows the importance of the first few hours and days: “Air defense is, at its simplest level, a matter of survival. It is the type of conflict in which you rarely get a second chance or time to rethink your tactics. In today’s fast moving war scenarios a country has to fight with the forces it has in place at the time, and if the original decisions are flawed or expenditure is given an incorrect emphasis, the battle may be lost before it has begun.”

6.Who will be the counterair commander? Depending on force size and circumstances, the counterair commander might be the joint force commander, the joint force air component commander, a service component commander, or anyone down to the person who pulls the trigger. To avoid confusing the issue or unintentionally polarizing readers, I’ll use counterair commander throughout.

7.The balance of forces will affect strategy, targets, and attack timing. A superior force can probably win with many strategies. An inferior force will face limited choices. A superior force will still have to think to win control of the air rapidly.

8.For a discussion of the impact, and possible operational use, of weather for air operations, see Walker, Air-to-Ground Operations, 21.

9.Pentland describes the strategy process from theory to course of action development in an unpublished handout for Air War College students and faculty. This paragraph parallels his Part I, “Strategy and Theory,” 1–4 through1–5, and this strategy chapter includes many of his ideas. See Pat A. Pentland, unpublished notes, School for Advanced Airpower Studies, Maxwell AFB, Ala., 1994.

10.I’ll discuss the relative merits of surface and air systems in more detail in chapter 4. Department of Defense, Report of the Secretary of Defense to the President and Congress (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, January 1994), 51–55, describes the current ballistic missile threat and proposed improvements for surface and air systems.

11.However, air battles are more likely to kill the enemy aircrews with the aircraft. Trained pilots may be an air force’s limiting factor. Both Germany and Japan ran out of trained pilots in World War II before they ran out of aircraft.

12. For a thorough discussion of the impact of exchange rates on attrition, see Walker, Air-to-Ground Operations, 117–126. John D. W. Corley, Air Superiority: Blunting Near Sighted Criticism, study project (Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: US Army War College, 1993), 12–13, describes defensive requirements. For the trench warfare metaphor, see Phillip S. Meilinger, “Achieving Air Superiority: Issues and Considerations” (Unpublished paper, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Maxwell AFB, Ala., February 1994), 4. “The battle for air superiority cost the Allies over 160,000 men and 40,000 planes. In reality, the trench carnage of World War I, which so many theorists had promised that air warfare would end, was not eliminated, it was simply moved to twenty thousand feet.”

13. Mason, 47–54, describes the history and problems of airfield attack. Counterair commanders must also choose base attack timing based on objectives. Do they want to reduce sorties at that base as much as possible through repeated attacks, or wait and attack at just the right moment to limit sorties at a particular time? Mason, 53.

14.Elsam, 4.

15.Factory attacks were the initial basis of American World War II counterair strategy. See Heywood S. Hansell, Jr., The Air Plan That Defeated Hitler (Atlanta, Ga.: Higgins-McArthur/ Longino & Porter, 1972).

16.Mason, 17.

17.For discussions of the offensive-defensive pendulum, see Mason, 47; and Elsam, 79.

18.Phillip S. Meilinger, 8. The defensive allows counterair commanders to use surface and air systems to kill enemy aircraft, and friendly systems may also enjoy the benefits of better coordination, communications, and warning. Finally, defensive operations allow friendly pilots who survive having their aircraft shot out from under them return to their units instead of reporting to prisoner of war camps.

19.This two-to-one ratio allows for transit time to and from the aircraft's combat air patrol station and the maintenance and reloading required to keep aircraft ready to fight.

20.Alert aircraft can be "cocked" on the ground with all preflight preparations complete, but they still need about five minutes to get airborne and a minute for every 10 miles they must fly out to intercept the threat. A scramble launch to intercept a threat 60 miles from the launch site would require 11 minutes for the aircraft to reach the 60-mile point. However, the threat is not standing still, either. A 600-knot threat must be detected another 110 miles out to allow the ground alert aircraft time to reach the 60-mile intercept point. In this example, the threat aircraft must be detected at least 60+ 110 = 170 miles out to allow a successful intercept.

21.Mason, 37, describes the destructive and disruptive effects of surface-to-air systems. Corley, 12, justifies continued defensive efforts. Meilinger, 7, describes the benefits of offensive actions.

22.Corley, 12.

23."Stealth" aircraft and missiles may not need all the counterair and SEAD resources that support a conventional attack package. These support aircraft are then available to support other, more vulnerable, attack craft.

24.John Boyd, "A Discourse on Winning and Losing," briefing slides, 1987, 5.

25.The enemy may choose to maintain an "air force in being" in hardened shelters or sanctuaries instead of challenging friendly counterair forces. Attacking valuable targets during the counterair battle may convince him that he must fly and fight.

26.So, friendly forces must win control of the air before they can begin significant shelter-busting operations. These attacks produce gratifying videos of destruction, and may be the only way to eliminate an "air force in being," but will have limited short-term effects.

27.Mason, 53.

28.For a description of the temporary effects of air base attacks, see P. D. L. Glover, "Air Supremacy-The Enduring Principle," in War in the Third Dimension: Essays in Contemporary Air Power, ed. R. A. Mason (London; Washington, D.C.: Brassey's Defence Publishers, 1986). Mason,8, also makes a case for ballistic missiles in air base attack.

29.Meilinger, 10-11.

30.Elsam, 25, 34.

31.Attacks on resources generally produce long-term effects because stockpiles and delays in distribution systems increase the time required to see results. Resource attacks may, however, have short-term effects if the enemy decides to ration the threatened resources, or if stocks are attacked close to the users.

32. Meilinger, 10.

33. Target effects are divided between no effect, short-term effects, and long-term effects. Although some targets may produce short- and long-term effects (attacking oil at the well is a long-term effect; attacking jet fuel at the airfield produces a short-term effect). I took a conservative approach and indicated only the most likely effect.

34. Benjamin F. Lambeth, The Winning of Air Supremacy in Operation Desert Storm, Rand Study P-7837 (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1993), 3. The Iraqi command and control system was destroyed in eight hours with devastating results for their counterair effectiveness.

35. The air tasking order is the document that designates targets and timing for air operations, and deconflicts and coordinates air attacks and support.

36. Parallel attacks require an advantage in numbers or a qualitative factor (like a superior exchange rate, a sortie generation advantage, a stealth or SEAD advantage that reduces support requirements, or a weapons accuracy advantage that reduces the number of surface attack sorties required to destroy the required targets) that provides an equivalent advantage.

37.This attack timing discussion borrows heavily from Pentland.

38. Lambeth, The Winning of Air Supremacy in Operation Desert Storm, 6; Walker, Air-to-Ground Operations, 118-126; and Air Superiority Operations, 3, all relate attrition rates to measuring success.

Report Title: The Counterair Companion