Global distributed ISR operations: the changing face of warfare

Joint Force Quarterly, July, 2009 by David A. Deptula, James R. Marrs

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The establishment of the AFISRA as the Air Force's Service Cryptologic Component, and the realignment of the 480th ISR Wing to the AFISRA, also enabled the creation of five regional ISR groups that allowed the integration of both Title 50 and Title 10 ISR functions. The ISR groups are standardized in function and provide a unified force presentation of Air Force ISR capabilities to their respective combatant commands. Each of the five Active-duty DGS organizations forms the operational core of the ISR groups, and each group is operationally aligned with a primary Component Numbered Air Force (C-NAF).

By July 2008, these changes established the foundation for powerful regional ISR teams that live and breathe the operations of their respective C-NAF and combatant commands. The ISR groups and their accompanying Sentinel architecture were created to possess the inherent flexibility to rapidly focus local and global capability on their area of operations while simultaneously shifting elements of ISR capability from one region to another as theater and national priorities require. They truly are the foundation for a new operational paradigm that executes regionally focused, globally networked joint and allied ISR operations.

By establishing an Air Force-wide enterprise solution, we are providing more ISR access to the major commands, combatant commands, and national Intelligence Community than ever before. Optimizing the capabilities that ISR brings to the fight requires streamlined command chains and a single focal point of leadership. DCGS is a perfect example; it is a network-centric weapons system relied upon by joint forces everywhere. Through the new organizational construct, the Air Force has brought responsibility for managing its globally distributed capabilities under one roof to ensure consistent, smart oversight. This centralized oversight allows the synchronization of complex operations across the globe and adjustment of tasking to optimize all the capabilities of the system as operational situations dictate, while decentralized execution ensures end users are provided the ISR they specifically require.

Beyond Reachback

Not long ago, the term reachback was used to describe the relationship between forward deployed and in-garrison, geographically separated units. The forward site received the task and then passed back a portion of the ISR requirement to a second (usually based in the continental United States) site to assist in exploitation and dissemination. Specifically, this arrangement allowed forward-deployed forces to converse directly with centers of operational or analytical expertise wherever they existed. This construct also promised to reduce the size of a forward footprint that presented increasing logistical and force protection concerns.

While the current joint definition of reachback is fairly broad in scope, the term has also developed a negative connotation in some operational circles--where it has become synonymous with "not having the same sense of urgency" as the operational units forward (and therefore less likely to be trusted by forward commanders). Even though these views are in most cases without merit, detractors used the perceived faults of reachback to build a wall between them and any organization not located within the confines of their physical operational space. To them, if it was not organic or they did not control it, it did not matter.