The joint forces air command problem: is network-centric warfare the answer?

Naval War College Review, Wntr, 2003 by Major William A. Woodcock

The first of these is the air tasking order, the single-source plan for all air operations in an area of operations in a twenty-four-hour period. The air tasking order assigns to individual units their targets, weapons, and arrival times over those targets. Second, it tells all "players" what will be going on around them as they execute their missions; this "deconfliction" is critical to the execution of aerial operations, to avoid fratricide and duplication of effort and increase the safety of flight. Already, however, a given day's air tasking order takes anywhere from thirty-six to forty-eight hours to produce. (16) By the time the order is issued, the majority of its assumptions, analyses, and targeting decisions are out of date.

A second issue is that of target recognition and identification, one of the most severely limiting factors in the high-speed warfare of today. The need for speed is particularly critical in the prosecution of "time-sensitive" (that is, moving) surface targets. The problem they represent is not new but is receiving increased visibility in light of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, mobile surface-to-air missile launchers, and theater ballistic missiles. Too often, by the time the target is analyzed and identified, it is no longer visible. The limiting inherent factors in the prosecution of fleeting targets are the processes of detection and identification. Current technology has not caught up with requirements; these tasks are not being performed rapidly enough. Another vital piece of the identification puzzle is the threat of fratricide. In DESERT STORM, coalition forces suffered 107 casualties to friendly fire. (17) In a casualty-conscious world, and for a technologically advanced military, th is is unacceptable.

This litany of problems with the joint forces air component command structure of today, as long as it is, is not all-inclusive. There are other problems, such as service doctrine disputes, connectivity, and joint integration. Network-centric warfare cannot address them; however, it has great potential to bring improvements to the particular problem areas we have discussed.

WHAT NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE CAN DO FOR THE JFACC

Network-centric warfare's major contribution in the arena of command and control will reside in its ability to assimilate large amounts of data, translate the data into coherent and useful information, and provide conduits that allow the key decision makers to communicate and collaborate at speeds currently unrealized and then quickly pass their decisions to weapon platforms. Additionally, NCW will distribute shared "awareness" to all battlespace entities. It is these qualities that must be capitalized upon if the current shortcomings of joint forces air component command are to be alleviated.

By its very nature, the connectivity NCW provides permits decentralization of the joint forces air component command infrastructure. Networking would enable a "virtual" air operations center; (18) its functions would no longer need to be collocated. The vulnerability of the AOC would be reduced, and therefore that of the command and control system as well--it would no longer have a single "pressure point." A geographically dispersed system is, by nature, less susceptible to attack and collapse. Additionally, networking would allow for parallel operations, and thus for redundancy at critical nodes. For example, an alternate joint air commander and staff, themselves geographically distributed, might monitor operations; should the JFACC be forced to move or be lost in combat, the alternate could take over operations seamlessly. Single-point failures could virtually be eliminated; the robustness of such a system would be invaluable as the intensity of warfare increases.