Attack operations: first layer of an integrated missile defense

Air & Space Power Journal, Spring, 2003 by Lt Col Merrick E. Krause

The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology--when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail the US., or to harm the US., or to harm our friends--and we will oppose them with all our power.

President George W. Bush

West Point, New York

1 June 2002

To MANY AIRMEN, "Attack!" is the nature of the business. Air Force operations and perhaps even Air Force culture are historically geared toward the offensive application of air and space power to execute combat operations in war. However, the joint community--particularly those members engaged in high-priority missile-defense programs--perceives "attack operations" differently. This article introduces the concept of attack operations in the context of missile defense and similar time-sensitive targets, asserting that such operations provide the critical first layer of an integrated missile defense. It also presents key themes, issues, and proposals to increase the capabilities of integrated missile defense.

Attack Operations: A Critical Capability

In a joint environment, attack operations are essentially offensive actions that seek to destroy or disrupt enemy missile systems and support structures, preferably before missiles are fired. (1) Aircraft, special operations forces (SOF), information operations, or uninhabited aerial vehicles can perform attack operations today. Although they represent both a joint capability and a multiservice "organize, train, and equip" issue, attack operations are one mission with which the Air Force has considerable practical experience, particularly in the realm of time-sensitive targeting and threats intended to limit US access to a region.

The United States has a long history of conducting attack operations. In World War II, Operation Crossbow attempted to destroy German V-1 and V-2 missile sites, which were terrorizing the British through disruptive and deadly attacks on cities. Between August 1943 and March 1945, the US Army Air Forces and Royal Air Force flew 68,913 sorties and expended 122,133 tons of ordnance in the campaign to destroy German missiles. (2) Indeed, Crossbow was a large-scale counterair and strategic-attack operation that expended substantial effort to delay V-weapon attacks and then limit their effectiveness once Germany began to employ the missiles. (3)

Although the Cold War produced intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and a variety of specialized missile-defense systems, theater ballistic missiles (TBM) captured the imagination of third world nations as a relatively cheap supplement to bolster both their status and their anemic air forces. Deterrence by a robust American nuclear capability was the counter to the Soviet ICBM threat. (4) Because of the Cold War legacy, however, US missile-defense systems were divided between theater and intercontinental systems, with testing and deployment of the latter severely restricted by provisions in the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the Soviet Union.

The 1991 Persian Gulf War radically increased the priority of TBMs in US national security policy. Once regarded by many military leaders as a tactical nuisance, especially when armed with conventional high explosives, TBMs suddenly became weapons of terror that could cause significant political and diplomatic problems. Although Iraq did not use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the 1991 war, when Iraq fired conventionally equipped Scud missiles against Israel, it created a political crisis for the coalition. (5) Moreover, a single conventionally armed Scud produced the greatest number of US fatalities of any single event during Operation Desert Storm when it struck a barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

During the Persian Gulf War, hundreds of sorties and thousands of man-hours were devoted to countering the Scud threat. Some people suggest that the resources used against Scuds could have been employed to attack other targets, perhaps ending the war more rapidly. Undoubtedly, "Scud hunts" diverted some of the coalition's military resources; however, the utility of the Scud hunts may be better measured more in political than purely military terms. The experience of Desert Storm helped shape how the United States is now actively investing to better defend against missile threats in the future. These threats include ICBMs and cruise missiles, as well as other theater air and missile systems.

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) of September 2001, published in the shadow of the al Qaeda terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, recognized a changing international strategic environment affected by missile and WMD proliferation. The QDR articulated the need for transformational change in the US military. (6) One important directive stated that the Department of Defense (DOD) would examine options for establishing standing joint task forces to address the capability to "continuously locate and track mobile targets at any range and rapidly attack them with precision." (7) The QDR also noted that the continued proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles is a threat to "U.S. forces abroad, at sea, and in space, and to U.S. allies and friends." (8) Therefore, the QDR refocused US missile defense toward research and deployment of a layered system of systems to defend forward-deployed troops and allies threatened by theater missiles and to provide a "limited defense" against long-range missiles for the US homeland. (9)