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

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

Network-centric warfare seems to possess the peculiar and unfortunate quality of magnifying the consequences of bad doctrine and bad decisions. Ironically, the formal and cumbersome processes of command and control served in the past to dampen and somewhat mitigate such effects. In World War II, Adolf Hitler was very much involved in his army's day-to-day battles. Thinking that he knew what was going on at the front--that the radio, teletype, and telex were giving him up-to-the-minute reports--Hitler would send detailed orders. In fact, however, there was an inherent and substantial time lag in the reporting system. By the time his orders were received back at the front they had typically been overtaken by events and simply added to confusion. By default, field commanders who were effective in combat made the necessary decisions. Those who waited for Hitler's delayed guidance or tried to implement it after the fact were crushed by the enemy. (48)

TRAINING, SPEED, TRUST, AND EFFICIENCY

From the foregoing analysis, several recommendations can be made. The first is that advantage be taken of network-centric concepts to make the air operations center lighter, less centralized, and more flexible. The need to deploy air operations centers rapidly into dynamic and unanticipated situations mandates this. The constructs of expeditionary warfare need to be applied to command and control systems and architecture. It can be accomplished through reachback and networking, as already described.

Second, in a NCW environment, the concept of "control" needs to be reevaluated as something separate from "command." The argument that control needs to be restricted to higher headquarters because only they have all pertinent information is no longer valid. Network-centric warfare promises to make a common operational picture available at all levels of control. This distributed knowledge, allowing all commanders to distribute a sense of their purposes equally widely, will allow control of assets at lower levels. That, in turn, will speed the decision-making process.

Third, NCW should be used to train JFACCs and their staffs "jointly." Networking geographically dispersed entities and services will enable robust and realistic training scenarios at a fraction of the cost of today's single-location exercises. It will become practical to exercise command-and-control structures more often and across service boundaries. Such training, in the air-component community, will serve three purposes: it will allow commanders to prepare their staffs to respond properly in time of crisis; it will develop and inculcate doctrine and resolve interservice disputes; and it will enable organizations to train as they will fight. In this way trust and confidence will be built among joint forces air component commanders and their staffs, and also among higher authorities toward their subordinates. This trust and confidence should reduce the temptation to micromanage; as Air Force service doctrine states, the focus of the joint forces air component commander needs to remain at strategic and operat ional levels. (49)