DOCSLIB.ORG

Air Force Posture Statement 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 2 O F F S T THE S E A OF EC I E RE F C T H I A F F R F C Y O ✯ ✯ U E N C U I E T R N C E IT R O O D ED F F R S STATES AI T I R A T E S A The Air Force Fiscal Year 2001 budget, though constrained, is a balanced, integrated, carefully crafted plan that supports our transformation as an Expeditionary Aero- space Force. With your continued support, it will: Put our people first. We can never lose sight of the fact that it is our great people — active-duty, guard, reserve and civilian — who make the Air Force the world’s pre- mier aerospace force. This budget continues our commitment to improving pay, ben- efits, and quality of life. It also contains increased emphasis on improving recruiting and retention to ensure that we are growing the force of the future. Emphasize readiness. The Air Force has been in a constant state of high operations tempo since the end of the Cold War. We are smaller than we have ever been, yet tasked at a level many times the Cold War pace. The stress is showing. By commit- ting to better organization, more money for spare parts, and increased training, we will halt the downward readiness trends of the late 1990s. Continue our carefully balanced, time-phased modernization program. There is no single modernization program that is a “silver bullet” for the Air Force. In- stead, we are committed to modernizing existing systems, where it makes sense and provides the needed capability. Likewise, we must purchase new systems to ensure we maintain our ability to provide the full spectrum of aerospace capability. We continue to believe that the key to success is an integrated system of systems. That will provide the global reach, global power, and global vigilance that make the Air Force a premier instrument of national defense and national security. Our FY01 modernization plan touches every part of the Air Force, including space, mobility, surveillance, power projection and information superiority, just to mention a few. Without the steadfast support of the President and Congress, the stunning successes of the last several years would not have been possible. We are a combat-proven, mission-focused, decisive fighting force for America. With your support we will remain so. F. WHITTEN PETERS MICHAEL E. RYAN, GENERAL, USAF SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE CHIEF OF STAFF 3 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 USAF Supports Operations Across the Spectrum of Conflict in FY99 ..................................................... 18 Combat Proven ........................................................................................................................................... 20 The United States Air Force in 1999 ............................................................................................... 20 Mission Focused ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Our Role in National Security ......................................................................................................... 22 Shaping ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Deterrence ................................................................................................................................ 23 Promoting Stability .................................................................................................................. 23 Threat-Reduction Efforts ......................................................................................................... 24 Information Superiority and Network Defense ................................................................................ 24 Countering Chemical and Biological Weapons ............................................................................... 26 Force Protection ............................................................................................................................... 26 Counter-Drug Operations ................................................................................................................. 27 Responding ...................................................................................................................................... 28 Operation ALLIED FORCE ........................................................................................................... 28 Contingency Operations ..........................................................................................................28 Humanitarian Operations .........................................................................................................28 Preparing .......................................................................................................................................... 29 Expeditionary Aerospace Force ............................................................................................... 29 Total Force Integration ............................................................................................................. 32 Aerospace Integration .............................................................................................................. 32 Innovation ................................................................................................................................ 34 Battlelabs.......................................................................................................................................... 34 Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment ............................................................................................35 Wargaming ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Headquarters Air Force 2002 ........................................................................................................... 35 Defense Reform Initiative/Air Force Management Reform ............................................................ 36 Financial Management Reform ........................................................................................................ 37 Decisive Fighting Force .............................................................................................................................. 37 People .............................................................................................................................................. 38 Recruiting ................................................................................................................................ 38 Retention .................................................................................................................................. 41 Quality of Life ......................................................................................................................... 44 Equal Opportunity ................................................................................................................... 47 Readiness ......................................................................................................................................... 48 Upkeep of Equipment .............................................................................................................. 48 Spares Funding ........................................................................................................................ 49 Spares Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 50 Depot Consolidation ................................................................................................................ 51 Equipment Modifications ........................................................................................................ 52 Engines : A Special Case ......................................................................................................... 55 Training .................................................................................................................................... 55 Modernization .................................................................................................................................. 57 Full Spectrum Dominance ....................................................................................................... 58 Aerospace Superiority ...................................................................................................................... 58 Global Attack ................................................................................................................................... 60 Precision Engagement ...................................................................................................................... 64 Information Superiority ................................................................................................................... 66 Rapid Global Mobility ..................................................................................................................... 69 Agile Combat Support ............................................................................................................. 71 Science and Technology ..........................................................................................................72
Recommended publications
  • 1) ATQ Summer 2004

    1) ATQ Summer 2004

    CONTENTS… Association News Chairman’s Comments......................................................................... 2 President’s Message ............................................................................... 3 AIRLIFT TANKER QUARTERLY Volume 12 • Number 3 • Summer 2004 Secretary’s Notes ................................................................................... 3 Airlift/Tanker Quarterly is published four times a year by the Airlift/Tanker Association, Col. Barry F. Creighton, USAF (Ret.), Secretary, Association Round-Up .......................................................................... 4 1708 Cavelletti Court, Virginia Beach, VA 23454. (757) 838-3037. Postage paid at Belleville, Illinois. Subscription rate: $30.00 per year. Change of address requires four weeks notice. Cover Story The Airlift/Tanker Association is a non-profit professional organization dedicated to providing a forum for people interested in improving the AMC: 12 Years of Excellence ......................................................... 6-17 capability of U.S. air mobility forces. Membership in the Airlift/Tanker Association is $30 annually A New Era in American Air Power Began on 1 June 1992 or $85 for three years. Full-time student membership is $10 per year. Life membership is $400. Corporate membership includes five individual memberships and is $1200 per year. Membership dues include a subscription to Departments Airlift/Tanker Quarterly, and are subject to change. Airlift/Tanker Quarterly is published for the use of the officers,
  • Theater Airlift Lessons from Kosovo

    Theater Airlift Lessons from Kosovo

    Theater Airlift Lessons from Kosovo by Lt Col Rowayne A. Schatz, USAF This basic doctrine presents the guiding principles of our Service and our view of the opportunities of the future… As airmen, we must understand these ideas, we must cultivate them and, importantly, we must debate and refine these ideas for the future.1 General Michael E. Ryan Chief of Staff, USAF Operation Allied Force, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military operation to compel Serbia to cease hostilities against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and allow a peacekeeping presence on the ground, was the first major war in history fought exclusively with air power. NATO air forces flew over 38,000 sorties from 24 March through 9 June 1999 to allow NATO to achieve its political objectives in Kosovo.2 Although you may not have heard or read much about them, air mobility forces were key to the success of the air war over Serbia. The air mobility team moved enough airmen and equipment to increase the number of air expeditionary wings in Europe from three to ten, provided aid directly to thousands of Kosovar refugees, and deployed a large US Army contingent to Albania—all at the same time. In the words of Colonel Scott Gray, the USAFE Assistant Director of Operations during Operation Allied Force, "This was a phenomenal success, enabling the forces which forced Milosevic to back down while sustaining the refugees he created until they were able to go home.3 According to AFDD1, "Air and space doctrine is an accumulation of knowledge gained primarily from the study and analysis of experience, which may include actual combat or contingency operations as well as equipment tests or exercises."4 I am a firm believer that doctrine is key to warfighting.
  • The Demand for Responsiveness in Past U.S. Military Operations for More Information on This Publication, Visit

    The Demand for Responsiveness in Past U.S. Military Operations for More Information on This Publication, Visit

    C O R P O R A T I O N STACIE L. PETTYJOHN The Demand for Responsiveness in Past U.S. Military Operations For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR4280 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0657-6 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. 2021 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: U.S. Air Force/Airman 1st Class Gerald R. Willis. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The Department of Defense (DoD) is entering a period of great power competition at the same time that it is facing a difficult budget environment.
  • Disjointed War: Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999

    Disjointed War: Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999

    Disjointed War Military Operations in Kosovo, 1999 Bruce R. Nardulli, Walter L. Perry, Bruce Pirnie John Gordon IV, John G. McGinn Prepared for the United States Army Approved for public release; distribution unlimited R Arroyo Center The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army under contract number DASW01-01-C-0003. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Disjointed war : military operations in Kosovo, 1999 / Bruce R. Nardulli ... [et al.]. p. cm. “MR-1406.” Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8330-3096-5 1. Kosovo (Serbia)—History—Civil War, 1998—Campaigns. 2. North Atlantic Treaty Organization—Armed Forces—Yugoslavia. I. Nardulli, Bruce R. DR2087.5 .D57 2002 949.703—dc21 2002024817 Cover photos courtesy of U.S. Air Force Link (B2) at www.af.mil, and NATO Media Library (Round table Meeting) at www.nato.int. RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. Cover design by Stephen Bloodsworth © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2002 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 102, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] PREFACE Following the 1999 Kosovo conflict, the Army asked RAND Arroyo Center to prepare an authoritative and detailed account of military operations with a focus on ground operations, especially Task Force Hawk.
  • Military Helicopter Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

    Military Helicopter Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress

    Order Code RL32447 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Military Helicopter Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress June 24, 2004 Christian F. M. Liles Research Associate Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division Christopher Bolkcom Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Military Helicopter Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress Summary Recent military operations, particularly those in Afghanistan and Iraq, have brought to the fore a number of outstanding questions concerning helicopters in the U.S. armed forces, including deployability, safety, survivability, affordability, and operational effectiveness. These concerns are especially relevant, and made more complicated, in an age of “military transformation,” the “global war on terrorism,” and increasing pressure to rein in funding for the military, all of which provide contradictory pressures with regard to DOD’s large, and often complicated, military helicopter modernization efforts. Despite these questions, the military use of helicopters is likely to hold even, if not grow. This report includes a discussion of the evolving role of helicopters in military transformation. The Department of Defense (DOD) fields 10 different types of helicopters, which are largely of 1960s and 1970s design. This inventory numbers approximately 5,500 rotary-wing aircraft, not including an additional 144 belonging to the Coast Guard, and ranges from simple “utility” platforms such as the ubiquitous UH-1 “Huey” to highly-advanced, “multi-mission” platforms such as the Air Force’s MH- 53J “Pave Low” special operations helicopter and the still-developmental MV-22B “Osprey” tilt-rotor aircraft. Three general approaches can be taken to modernize DOD’s helicopter forces: upgrading current platforms, rebuilding current helicopter models (often called recapitalization), or procuring new models.
  • Historical List of National Awardees

    Historical List of National Awardees

    AAAA, 593 Main Street, Monroe, CT 06468-2806 – Tele: (203) 268-2450 – Fax: (203) 268-5870 – [email protected] NATIONAL/FUNCTIONAL AWARDS OUTSTANDING AVIATION UNIT OF THE YEAR BACKGROUND – Sponsored by The Boeing Company, this award is presented “to the Army aviation unit, (multi component or single component of unconstrained size/component), that has made an outstanding contribution to or innovation in the employment of Army aviation over and above the normal mission assigned to the unit during the awards period encompassing the previous calendar year.” Any unit meeting the criteria is eligible for consideration. 1959 ‐ First Recon Squadron (Sky Cavalry), 2nd U.S. Army Missile Command (Medium), LTC Robert F. Tugman, Commander. 1960 ‐ 937th Engineer Company (Aviation) (Inter‐American Geodetic Survey), LTC Jack W. Ruby, Commander. 1961 ‐ 45th Transportation Battalion (Helicopter), accepted by MAJ Milton P. Cherne for LTC Howard B. Richardson, Commander. 1962 ‐ USA Utility Tactical Transport Company, MAJ Ivan L. Slavich, Commander. 1963 ‐ 11th Air Assault Division & attached 10th Air Transport Brigade, MG Harry W.O. Kinnard, CDR, 11th Air Assault Div., COL Delbert L. Bristol, 10th Brigade Commander. 1964 ‐ 13th Aviation Battalion, LTC Jack V. Mackmull & LTC J.Y. Hammack, Co‐Commanders, 13th Aviation Battalion. 1965 ‐ 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), MG Harry W.O. Kinnard, Commander, & SGM Kenneth W. Cooper, Senior NCO. 1966 ‐ 1st Aviation Brigade, MG G.P. Seneff, Jr., Commander, & Brigade SGM Douglas W. Sims, Senior NCO. 1967 ‐ 52nd Combat Aviation Battalion, LTCs Raymond G. Lehman, Jr.; Edward P. Luckert, Jr.; Paul C. Smithey, Co‐Commanders, & SGM Ernest J. Winters, Senior NCO. 1968 ‐ 25th Aviation Battalion (Infantry Division), LTC Kenneth J.
  • 224 Lives $11.6 Billion 186 Aircraft

    224 Lives $11.6 Billion 186 Aircraft

    MILITARY AVIATION LOSSES FY2013–2020 4 22 Lives $11.6 billion 186 aircraft ON MIL ON ITA SI RY IS A V M I M A T O I O C N L National Commission on A S A N F O E I T T A Y N NCMAS Military Aviation Safety Report to the President and the Congress of the United States DECEMBER 1, 2020 ON MIL ON ITA SI RY IS A V M I M A T O I O C N L A S A N F O E I T T A Y N NCMAS National Commission on Military Aviation Safety Report to the President and the Congress of the United States DECEMBER 1, 2020 Cover image: U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors from the 199th Fighter Squadron Hawaii Air National Guard and the 19th Fighter Squadron at Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Hickam perform the missing man formation in honor of fallen servicemembers during a Pearl Harbor Day remembrance ceremony. The missing man formation comprises four aircraft in a V-shape formation. The aircraft in the ring finger position pulls up and leaves the formation to signify a lost comrade in arms. (Department of Defense photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth.) ON MIL ON ITA SI RY IS A V M I M A T O I O C N L A S A N F O E I T T A Y N NCMAS The National Commission on Military Aviation Safety dedicates its work to the men and women who serve in the aviation units of the U.S.
  • BIOGRAPHY General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army, Retired

    BIOGRAPHY General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army, Retired

    BIOGRAPHY General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army, Retired General Ham is the president and chief executive officer of the Association of the United States Army. He is an experienced leader who has led at every level from platoon to geographic combatant command. He is also a member of a very small group of Army senior leaders who have risen from private to four-star general. General Ham served as an enlisted infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division before attending John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio. Graduating in 1976 as a distinguished military graduate, his service has taken him to Italy, Germany, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Macedonia, Qatar, Iraq and, uniquely among Army leaders, to over 40 African countries in addition to a number of diverse assignments within the United States. He commanded the First Infantry Division, the legendary Big Red One, before assuming duties as director for operations on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon where he oversaw all global operations. His first four-star command was as commanding general, U.S. Army Europe. Then in 2011, he became just the second commander of United States Africa Command where he led all U.S. military activities on the African continent ranging from combat operations in Libya to hostage rescue operations in Somalia as well as training and security assistance activities across 54 complex and diverse African nations. General Ham retired in June of 2013 after nearly 38 years of service. Immediately prior to joining the staff at AUSA, he served as the chairman of the National Commission on the Future of the Army, an eight-member panel tasked by the Congress with making recommendations on the size, force structure and capabilities of the Total Army.
  • Army Resolving Lessons Learned Regarding the Apache Helicopter

    Army Resolving Lessons Learned Regarding the Apache Helicopter

    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on GAO Armed Services, House of Representatives March 2001 KOSOVO AIR OPERATIONS Army Resolving Lessons Learned Regarding the Apache Helicopter GAO-01-401 Contents Letter 3 Appendixes Appendix I: Doctrine Change or Implementation Lessons Learned 18 Appendix II: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence Lessons Learned 19 Appendix III: Training Lessons Learned 20 Appendix IV: Additional Capability Lessons Learned 22 Appendix V: Force Structure Lessons Learned 24 Figures Figure 1: Map of the Balkans 5 Figure 2: Apache Helicopter 6 Figure 3: Status of Task Force Hawk Lessons Learned 11 Abbreviations DOD Department of Defense HQDA Headquarters Department of Army TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command Page 1 GAO-01-401 Kosovo Air Operations Page 2 GAO-01-401 Kosovo Air Operations United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Leter March 2, 2001 The Honorable Bob Stump Chairman, Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Following the failure of peace talks and escalating violence against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, on March 24, 1999, the United States provided military forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization combat operations against Yugoslavia. Combat operations officially ended on June 20, 1999, with the Yugoslav acceptance of a peace plan and the U.N. endorsement of the plan. Your Committee requested that we examine a number of issues associated with the conduct of these combat operations, called Operation Allied Force. This report, one in a series responding to your requests, addresses the Army’s participation in the operation—the deployment of Apache attack helicopters and supporting equipment and personnel, called Task Force Hawk.

  • One Problem Led to Another, and the Apache Helicopters Never Flew a Combat Mission in Kosovo

    One problem led to another, and the Apache helicopters never flew a combat mission in Kosovo. Task Force Hawk By Benjamin S. Lambeth An Army AH-64 Apache in Albania. At right, a line of Apaches in Bosnia. nly days after Operation Allied dorse the deployment. That approval Force commenced in March finally came on Day 12 of Allied 1999, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, Force. The US Defense Department NATO’s Supreme Allied Com- at first indicated that it would take omander Europe, asked the up to 10 days to deploy the package. United States Army to deploy In the end, it took 17 days just to a contingent of its AH-64 Apache field the first battalion of Apaches, attack helicopters to the combat zone which arrived in Albania on April to provide a better close-in capabil- 21. ity against enemy tanks and armored At first glance, the idea of using personnel carriers than that offered Apaches to reinforce NATO’s fixed- by fixed-wing fighters, which re- wing aircraft seemed entirely appro- mained restricted to operating at me- priate, considering that the AH-64 dium altitudes as a general rule. Clark had been acquired by the Army ex- initially had hoped to deploy this pressly to engage and destroy enemy force to Macedonia, where the roads armor. As Pentagon spokesman Ken- and airfields were better and the ter- neth Bacon put it in announcing the rain was less challenging. The Mace- deployment, they would offer NATO donian government, however, de- “the type of tank-killing capability clined to grant permission because it that the bad weather has denied us.
  • Wesley Clark's

    Wesley Clark's

    EN. Wesley K. Clark, United Clark’s candid memoir gives a States Army, led NATO’s view of Allied Force very different G military forces to success in from all others to date. The narrative 1999 in Operation Allied Force. And is dominated not by details of air Gas recently as February, the former combat operations, as one might ex- US Army photo by Spc. Christina Ann Horne Supreme Allied Commander Europe pect, but rather by recapitulations of told a large USAF–sponsored con- lost political battles and fervent plan- ference, “The US Air Force saved ning for a ground operation that never me, and it saved NATO.” Clark, how- took place and was never really in ever, delivered these remarks before the cards. His tale provides a dis- the appearance of his book, Waging turbing inside look at a Supreme Modern War, in May. Allied Commander who was distrust- Since publication, he has been ful of airpower and out of step with singing a different tune. Clark has military colleagues and political su- been unwilling to describe Allied periors in Washington. Force as an airpower success. The now-retired SACEUR, appearing in Going to War May at National Defense University Waging Modern War takes note of in Washington, D.C., declared to all the fact that Allied Force began on assembled that airpower could not March 24, 1999, with Clark’s full be expected to do much in future backing. In early March of that year, armed conflict. “Boots on the ground,” Clark told Secretary of State Made- he said, would be needed for deci- leine Albright that NATO air strikes sive military action.
  • Beyond Karbala: the U.S. Army's Approach to Apache Doctrine

    Beyond Karbala: the U.S. Army's Approach to Apache Doctrine

    BEYOND KARBALA: THE U.S. ARMY’S APPROACH TO APACHE DOCTRINE Major P.A. Gautron JCSP 39 PCEMI 39 Master of Defence Studies Maîtrise en études de la défense Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and do Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs et not represent Department of National Defence or ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Ministère de Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used la Défense nationale ou des Forces canadiennes. Ce without written permission. papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par le ministre de la of National Defence, 2013 Défense nationale, 2013. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 39 – PCEMI 39 2012 – 2013 MASTER OF DEFENCE STUDIES – MAÎTRISE EN ÉTUDES DE LA DÉFENSE BEYOND KARBALA: THE U.S. ARMY’S APPROACH TO APACHE DOCTRINE By Major P.A. Gautron Par le major P.A. Gautron “This paper was written by a student “La présente étude a été rédigée par un attending the Canadian Forces College in stagiaire du Collège des Forces canadiennes fulfillment of one of the requirements of the pour satisfaire à l'une des exigences du cours. Course of Studies. The paper is a scholastic L'étude est un document qui se rapporte au document, and thus contains facts and cours et contient donc des faits et des opinions, which the author alone considered opinions que seul l'auteur considère appropriate and correct for the subject.