DOCSLIB.ORG

Air & Space Power Journal, November-December 2012, Volume 26, No. 6, AFRP 10-1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

November–December 2012 Volume 26, No. 6 AFRP 10-1 Senior Leader Perspective Airmen ❙ 4 Delivering Decision Advantage Lt Gen Larry D. James, USAF Features For and from Cyberspace ❙ 12 Conceptualizing Cyber Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Col Matthew M. Hurley, USAF Manned Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance ❙ 34 Strategic, Tactical . Both? Maj Tyler Morton, USAF The F-22 Acquisition Program ❙ 53 Consequences for the US Air Force’s Fighter Fleet Lt Col Christopher J. Niemi, USAF Personnel Recovery ❙ 83 Strategic Importance and Impact Col Lee Pera, USAF Paul D. Miller Darrel Whitcomb Departments 113 ❙ Views A Culminating Point for Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance . 113 Col Jon Kimminau, PhD, USAF, Retired Realizing the Potential of Analytics: Arming the Human Mind . 130 Maj Robert D. Folker Jr., USAF Capt Kyle Benjamin Bressette, USAF Lightning Strikes and Thunder Claps: The Strategic Bomber and Air Superiority . 137 Maj Wade S. Karren, USAF 146 ❙ Historical Highlight The Evolution of Air Force Targeting Capt John R. Glock, USAF 175 ❙ Book Reviews Leading with Honor: Leadership Lessons from the Hanoi Hilton . 175 Lee Ellis Reviewer: Dr. Richard I. Lester Eisenhower 1956: The President’s Year of Crisis—Suez and the Brink of War . 178 David A. Nichols Reviewer: Maj Thomas F. Menza, USAF, Retired 7 Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21st Century . 182 Andrew F. Krepinevich Reviewer: 2d Lt James W. Anderson, USAF (active) Drugs and Contemporary Warfare . 184 Paul Rexton Kan Reviewer: Jan Kallberg, PhD Flying from the Black Hole: The B-52 Navigator-Bombardiers of Vietnam . 186 Robert O. Harder Reviewer: Col Joe McCue, USAF, Retired After Khomeini: Iran under His Successors . 188 Saïd Amir Arjomand Reviewer: Maj Michael A. Thomas, USAF The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One . 190 David Kilcullen Reviewer: Toby Lauterbach November–December 2012 Air & Space Power Journal | 2 Editorial Advisory Board Gen John A. Shaud, PhD, USAF, Retired, Air Force Research Institute Lt Gen Bradley C. Hosmer, USAF, Retired Dr. J. Douglas Beason (Senior Executive Service and Colonel, USAF, Retired), Air Force Space Command Dr. Alexander S. Cochran, Office of the Chief of Staff, US Army Prof. Thomas B. Grassey, US Naval Academy Lt Col Dave Mets, PhD, USAF, Retired, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (professor emeritus) Board of Reviewers Dr. Kendall K. Brown Col Merrick E. Krause, USAF, Retired NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Department of Homeland Security Dr. Clayton K. S. Chun Col Chris J. Krisinger, USAF, Retired US Army War College Burke, Virginia Dr. Mark Clodfelter Dr. Benjamin S. Lambeth National War College Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Dr. Conrad Crane Mr. Douglas E. Lee Director, US Army Military History Institute Air Force Space Command Col Dennis M. Drew, USAF, Retired Dr. Richard I. Lester USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Eaker Center for Professional Development (professor emeritus) Mr. Brent Marley Maj Gen Charles J. Dunlap Jr., USAF, Retired Redstone Arsenal, Alabama Duke University Mr. Rémy M. Mauduit Dr. Stephen Fought Air Force Research Institute USAF Air War College (professor emeritus) Col Phillip S. Meilinger, USAF, Retired Col Richard L. Fullerton, USAF West Chicago, Illinois USAF Academy Dr. Daniel Mortensen Lt Col Derrill T. Goldizen, PhD, USAF, Retired Air Force Research Institute Westport Point, Massachusetts Dr. Richard R. Muller Col Mike Guillot, USAF, Retired USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Editor, Strategic Studies Quarterly Dr. Bruce T. Murphy Air Force Research Institute Air University Dr. John F. Guilmartin Jr. Col Robert Owen, USAF, Retired Ohio State University Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Dr. Amit Gupta Lt Col Brian S. Pinkston, USAF, MC, SFS USAF Air War College Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Dr. Grant T. Hammond Dr. Steve Rothstein USAF Center for Strategy and Technology Colorado Springs Science Center Project Dr. Dale L. Hayden Lt Col Reagan E. Schaupp, USAF Air Force Research Institute Naval War College Mr. James Hoffman Dr. Barry Schneider Rome Research Corporation Director, USAF Counterproliferation Center Milton, Florida Professor, USAF Air War College Dr. Thomas Hughes Col Richard Szafranski, USAF, Retired USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Toffler Associates Lt Col Jeffrey Hukill, USAF, Retired Lt Col Edward B. Tomme, PhD, USAF, Retired Air Force Research Institute CyberSpace Operations Consulting Lt Col J. P. Hunerwadel, USAF, Retired Dr. Christopher H. Toner LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education University of St. Thomas Col Mark P. Jelonek, USAF Lt Col David A. Umphress, PhD, USAFR, Retired Air Force Space Command Auburn University Col John Jogerst, USAF, Retired Col Mark E. Ware Navarre, Florida Twenty-Fourth Air Force Mr. Charles Tustin Kamps Dr. Harold R. Winton USAF Air Command and Staff College USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Dr. Tom Keaney Johns Hopkins University November–December 2012 Air & Space Power Journal | 3 ISR Focus Senior Leader Perspective Airmen Delivering Decision Advantage Lt Gen Larry D. James, USAF ir Force intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) provides global vigilance—our hedge against strategic uncer- tainty and risk—to the Air Force, the joint war fighter, and our Anation. Our mission, in defense of America’s interests, is to enable de- cision advantage by operating integrated, cross-domain ISR capabilities with joint, national, and international partners. Our Air Force ISR vi- sion is to be the preeminent ISR enterprise providing the right infor- mation to the right decision makers at the right time. Our objective is to provide our nation’s decision makers, commanders, and war fighters with a continual information advantage over our adversaries—an ad- vantage measured not in terms of the volume of information gathered but in the value and quality of the intelligence we provide. The funda- mental job of Air Force ISR professionals is to answer questions by en- gaging decision makers at all levels in a dialogue that seeks to refine what they need to know in order to make decisions, command forces, and employ weapons. November–December 2012 Air & Space Power Journal | 4 ISR Focus Senior Leader Perspective When our nation’s leaders select a military option, Air Force ISR is integral to American power projection and indispensible to the effec- tive application of airpower. Air Force ISR provides the intelligence necessary to characterize the battlespace and determine how airpower should best be applied, not only in tactical execution but also at the op- erational and strategic levels of war. We provide Airmen the ability to hold targets at risk across the depth and breadth of the battlespace—on the ground, at sea, in the air, in space, and in cyberspace—and to apply deliberate, discriminate, and (when required) deadly combat power. Today, Air Force ISR operates the world’s premier global network of collection capabilities and analysts. Our worldwide network of ISR Air- men performs this mission for our country every day. These analysts are the backbone of our ability to move actionable intelligence to the right person at the right time. Deployed around the world and at home, we have conducted distributed operations to fulfill ISR require- ments since Operations Southern and Northern Watch. Since 2001 we have increased our overall ISR hours flown by 4,300 percent, added 47 sites into our distributed network, and expanded the ISR force by 4,228 Airmen. In less than nine months, we developed, acquired, and fielded the MC-12 Liberty—the fastest fielding of a weapon system since the P-51 in World War II—to meet wartime ISR requirements. Today it sus- tains the highest operational tempo of any Air Force manned platform. In 2011 our global network demonstrated its robustness when we seamlessly executed ISR operations for counterinsurgency missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, humanitarian assistance for Japan after the tsu- nami, and combat air operations against Libyan forces. Global Network: All Sources, All Domains Following two decades of combat, the Department of Defense and the Air Force are adjusting to new priorities as outlined in Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense and the Cap- stone Concept for Joint Operations: Joint Force 2020.1 As we refocus our attention and rebalance our capabilities, the Air Force ISR enterprise November–December 2012 Air & Space Power Journal | 5 ISR Focus Senior Leader Perspective will remain focused on mission accomplishment. To remain the world’s preeminent ISR force in an era of increased strategic uncer- tainty, where threats may arise quickly from multiple locations, our network of ISR Airmen must seamlessly integrate and fuse informa- tion from all sources across the air, space, and cyber domains, as well as operate a mix of sensors across the entire spectrum of conflict. Our Air Force ISR enterprise today leverages years of experience ex- ecuting global distributed operations to ensure that our Air Force can continue to hold targets at risk anywhere on the globe, even in non- permissive environments. In the future, the mix of sensors and capa- bilities we employ to execute global integrated ISR will change as we prepare for operations in antiaccess, area-denial environments. It is clear that ISR in contested, degraded, and operationally limited envi- ronments challenges us to use sensors from all domains to collect the right information. As Airmen we recognize that in addition to operat- ing in the air domain, we also operate in the space and cyber domains; this is especially true with respect to our ISR mission as we orient our enterprise to operate across the full spectrum of conflict. The integration of air, space, and cyber information is a powerful ca- pability—one in which we must continue to invest our talent and re- sources. For instance, the space layer provides a broad spectrum of ca- pabilities to characterize nonpermissive environments.
Recommended publications
  • 1 Police Chief No, Chief Politician Yes the Life of Leon Mercer Jordan, and the Shaping Memories of His Father and Grandfather

    1 Police Chief No, Chief Politician Yes the Life of Leon Mercer Jordan, and the Shaping Memories of His Father and Grandfather

    1 Police Chief No, Chief Politician Yes The Life of Leon Mercer Jordan, and the Shaping Memories of His Father and Grandfather By Robert M. Farnsworth 2 Dedicated to James C. Olson, whose professional dedication to history led him to complete his biography of Stuart Symington despite years of physical difficulty near the end of his life. His example challenged me in my elder years to tell the story of a remarkable man who made a significant difference in my life. 3 Preface How All This Began I moved from Detroit to Kansas City with my wife and four children in the summer of 1960 to assume my first tenure-track position as an Assistant Professor of American Literature at Kansas City University. The civil rights movement was gathering steam and I had made a couple of financial contributions to the Congress of Racial Equality while still in Detroit. CORE then asked if I were interested in becoming more socially active. I said yes, but I was moving to Kansas City. It took them months to catch up with me again in Kansas City and repeat their question. I again said yes. A few weeks later a field representative was sent to Kansas City to organize those who had showed interest. He called the first meeting in our home. Most who attended were white except for Leon and Orchid Jordan and Larry and Opal Blankinship. Most of us did not know each other, except the Jordans and the Blankinships were well acquainted. The rep insisted we organize and elect officers.
  • Joint Force Quarterly 97

    Joint Force Quarterly 97

    Issue 97, 2nd Quarter 2020 JOINT FORCE QUARTERLY Broadening Traditional Domains Commercial Satellites and National Security Ulysses S. Grant and the U.S. Navy ISSUE NINETY-SEVEN, 2 ISSUE NINETY-SEVEN, ND QUARTER 2020 Joint Force Quarterly Founded in 1993 • Vol. 97, 2nd Quarter 2020 https://ndupress.ndu.edu GEN Mark A. Milley, USA, Publisher VADM Frederick J. Roegge, USN, President, NDU Editor in Chief Col William T. Eliason, USAF (Ret.), Ph.D. Executive Editor Jeffrey D. Smotherman, Ph.D. Production Editor John J. Church, D.M.A. Internet Publications Editor Joanna E. Seich Copyeditor Andrea L. Connell Associate Editor Jack Godwin, Ph.D. Book Review Editor Brett Swaney Art Director Marco Marchegiani, U.S. Government Publishing Office Advisory Committee Ambassador Erica Barks-Ruggles/College of International Security Affairs; RDML Shoshana S. Chatfield, USN/U.S. Naval War College; Col Thomas J. Gordon, USMC/Marine Corps Command and Staff College; MG Lewis G. Irwin, USAR/Joint Forces Staff College; MG John S. Kem, USA/U.S. Army War College; Cassandra C. Lewis, Ph.D./College of Information and Cyberspace; LTG Michael D. Lundy, USA/U.S. Army Command and General Staff College; LtGen Daniel J. O’Donohue, USMC/The Joint Staff; Brig Gen Evan L. Pettus, USAF/Air Command and Staff College; RDML Cedric E. Pringle, USN/National War College; Brig Gen Kyle W. Robinson, USAF/Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy; Brig Gen Jeremy T. Sloane, USAF/Air War College; Col Blair J. Sokol, USMC/Marine Corps War College; Lt Gen Glen D. VanHerck, USAF/The Joint Staff Editorial Board Richard K.
  • Download the Report

    Download the Report

    Oregon Cultural Trust fy2011 annual report fy2011 annual report 1 Contents Oregon Cultural Trust fy2011 annual report 4 Funds: fy2011 permanent fund, revenue and expenditures Cover photos, 6–7 A network of cultural coalitions fosters cultural participation clockwise from top left: Dancer Jonathan Krebs of BodyVox Dance; Vital collaborators – five statewide cultural agencies artist Scott Wayne 8–9 Indiana’s Horse Project on the streets of Portland; the Museum of 10–16 Cultural Development Grants Contemporary Craft, Portland; the historic Astoria Column. Oregonians drive culture Photographs by 19 Tatiana Wills. 20–39 Over 11,000 individuals contributed to the Trust in fy2011 oregon cultural trust board of directors Norm Smith, Chair, Roseburg Lyn Hennion, Vice Chair, Jacksonville Walter Frankel, Secretary/Treasurer, Corvallis Pamela Hulse Andrews, Bend Kathy Deggendorfer, Sisters Nick Fish, Portland Jon Kruse, Portland Heidi McBride, Portland Bob Speltz, Portland John Tess, Portland Lee Weinstein, The Dalles Rep. Margaret Doherty, House District 35, Tigard Senator Jackie Dingfelder, Senate District 23, Portland special advisors Howard Lavine, Portland Charlie Walker, Neskowin Virginia Willard, Portland 2 oregon cultural trust December 2011 To the supporters and partners of the Oregon Cultural Trust: Culture continues to make a difference in Oregon – activating communities, simulating the economy and inspiring us. The Cultural Trust is an important statewide partner to Oregon’s cultural groups, artists and scholars, and cultural coalitions in every county of our vast state. We are pleased to share a summary of our Fiscal Year 2011 (July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011) activity – full of accomplishment. The Cultural Trust’s work is possible only with your support and we are pleased to report on your investments in Oregon culture.
  • Secretary of Defense Task Force on Dod Nuclear Weapons Management

    Secretary of Defense Task Force on Dod Nuclear Weapons Management

    Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management Phase I: The Air Force’s Nuclear Mission September 2008 Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management Chairman The Honorable James R. Schlesinger Task Force Members General Michael P. C. Carns, USAF (Ret) The Honorable J. D. Crouch II The Honorable Jacques S. Gansler Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN (Ret) The Honorable John J. Hamre The Honorable Franklin C. Miller Mr. Christopher A. Williams Executive Director Dr. James A. Blackwell, Jr. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TASK FORCE ON DOD NUCLEAR WEAPONS MANAGEMENT 1901 SOUTH BELL STREET, CRYSTAL MALL 4, SUITE 900-D, ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4521 PHONE: (703) 602-1450 FAX: (703) 602-0968 The Honorable Robert M. Gates 12 September 2008 Secretary of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1000 Dear Mr. Secretary: The Task Force you appointed on 12 June has completed the first phase of its work, addressing the nuclear mission of the Air Force. The attached Phase I Report provides independent, professional advice on our findings and our recommended improvements in Air Force organization and stewardship. Such improvements are essential both to sustain public confidence in the safety and surety of our nuclear weaponry and to bolster clear international understanding in the continuing role and credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. As compared to its role in the Cold War, the nuclear mission is both different and more circumscribed. Nonetheless, it remains crucial. Other nations have substantial capabilities; some of which are growing. The number of nuclear states may be increasing—making the challenge of deterrence ever more complex.
  • Next Steps in the Military Uses of Space

    Next Steps in the Military Uses of Space

    Mastering the Ultimate HighGround Next Steps in the Military Uses of Space Benjamin S. Lambeth Prepared for the United States Air Force R Project AIR FORCE Approved for public release; distrubution unlimited The research reported here was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003. Further information may be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lambeth, Benjamin S. Mastering the ultimate high ground : next steps in the military uses of space / Benjamin S. Lambeth. p. cm. “MR-1649.” Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8330-3330-1 (pbk.) 1. Astronautics, Military—United States. 2. United States. Air Force. 3. United States—Military policy. I. Rand Corporation. II.Title. UG1523.L35 2003 358'.8'0973—dc21 2002155704 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. © Copyright 2003 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 2003 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 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 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 This study assesses the military space challenges facing the Air Force and the nation in light of the watershed findings and recom- mendations of the congressionally mandated Space Commission that were released in January 2001.
  • Chasing Success

    Chasing Success

    AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Chasing Success Air Force Efforts to Reduce Civilian Harm Sarah B. Sewall Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Project Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell Sewall, Sarah B. Copy Editor Carolyn Burns Chasing success : Air Force efforts to reduce civilian harm / Sarah B. Sewall. Cover Art, Book Design and Illustrations pages cm L. Susan Fair ISBN 978-1-58566-256-2 Composition and Prepress Production 1. Air power—United States—Government policy. Nedra O. Looney 2. United States. Air Force—Rules and practice. 3. Civilian war casualties—Prevention. 4. Civilian Print Preparation and Distribution Diane Clark war casualties—Government policy—United States. 5. Combatants and noncombatants (International law)—History. 6. War victims—Moral and ethical aspects. 7. Harm reduction—Government policy— United States. 8. United States—Military policy— Moral and ethical aspects. I. Title. II. Title: Air Force efforts to reduce civilian harm. UG633.S38 2015 358.4’03—dc23 2015026952 AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS Director and Publisher Allen G. Peck Published by Air University Press in March 2016 Editor in Chief Oreste M. Johnson Managing Editor Demorah Hayes Design and Production Manager Cheryl King Air University Press 155 N. Twining St., Bldg. 693 Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026 [email protected] http://aupress.au.af.mil/ http://afri.au.af.mil/ Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the organizations with which they are associated or the views of the Air Force Research Institute, Air University, United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or any AFRI other US government agency.
  • Air Base Defense Rethinking Army and Air Force Roles and Functions for More Information on This Publication, Visit

    Air Base Defense Rethinking Army and Air Force Roles and Functions for More Information on This Publication, Visit

    C O R P O R A T I O N ALAN J. VICK, SEAN M. ZEIGLER, JULIA BRACKUP, JOHN SPEED MEYERS Air Base Defense Rethinking Army and Air Force Roles and Functions For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR4368 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0500-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. 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 growing cruise and ballistic missile threat to U.S. Air Force bases in Europe has led Headquarters U.S.
  • April 2000 – February 2001)

    April 2000 – February 2001)

    U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (click on heading to be linked directly to that section) Phase 1 (July 1998 - August 1999) Major Themes And Implications Supporting Research And Analysis Phase 2 (August 2000 – April 2000) Seeking A National Strategy: A Concert For Preserving Security And Promoting Freedom Phase 3 (April 2000 – February 2001) Roadmap For National Security: Imperative For Change 71730_DAPS.qx 10/12/99 5:06 PM Page #1 NEW WORLD COMING: AMERICAN SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY MAJOR THEMES AND IMPLICATIONS The Phase I Report on the Emerging Global Security Environment for the First Quarter of the 21st Century The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century September 15, 1999 71730_DAPS.qx 10/12/99 5:06 PM Page #3 Preface In 1947, President Harry Truman signed into law the National Security Act, the landmark U.S. national security legislation of the latter half of the 20th century. The 1947 legislation has served us well. It has undergirded our diplomatic efforts, provided the basis to establish our military capa- bilities, and focused our intelligence assets. But the world has changed dramatically in the last fifty years, and particularly in the last decade. Institutions designed in another age may or may not be appropriate for the future. It is the mandate of the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century to examine precise- ly that question. It has undertaken to do so in three phases: the first to describe the world emerging in the first quarter of the next century, the second to design a national security strategy appropri- ate to that world, and the third to propose necessary changes to the national security structure in order to implement that strategy effectively.
  • Air Force Strategic Planning: Past, Present, and Future

    Air Force Strategic Planning: Past, Present, and Future

    C O R P O R A T I O N Air Force Strategic Planning Past, Present, and Future Raphael S. Cohen For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1765 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9697-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. 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 For a relatively young service, the U.S. Air Force has a remarkably rich intellectual history. Even before the Air Force’s official formation, the development of airpower has been dotted with such visionaries as Billy Mitchell and Henry “Hap” Arnold.
  • The Billy Mitchell Syndrome A

    The Billy Mitchell Syndrome A

    Airpower advocates always have, and always will, face certain occupational hazards. The Billy Mitchell Syndrome By Rebecca Grant Mitchell, shown standing at his 1925 court-martial, wrote that airmen “are bluffed and bulldozed so that they dare not tell the truth [about airpower], knowing full well that if they do, they will be deprived of their future career.” irpower advocacy is part of tion of complex capabilities, delivered Air Force chief historian, has written being an airman. Air Force at just the right time, in the right place, that one result, among senior airmen, Doctrine Document 2 tells to the right persons. The message has is a “tendency to not be as aggressive Aall USAF members, “Each of you must not always been welcome. Today is in arguing the airpower case as one be articulate, knowledgeable, and un- no different. would expect them to be.” Call it the apologetic advocates.” It adds, “We Advocacy has a checkered history Billy Mitchell Syndrome. must understand what it means to be an in the Air Force and its predecessor Mitchell, America’s first great air airman” and explain “what air and space organizations. Start with Brig. Gen. commander, was the master of air- power can bring to the joint fight.” William Mitchell in the 1920s, and power advocacy. (See “The Real Billy Advocacy rarely has been easy or you see that speaking up for airpower Mitchell,” February 2001, p. 64.) He safe. It has required reasoned articula- carried risks. Richard P. Hallion, former saw that it was a multipronged task, 52 AIR FORCE Magazine / December 2006 requiring work in the joint community, American officer knew who to convince, mirals.” That all-out Washington brawl with allies, inside the US government, what to say, how to explain airpower, pitted Air Force backers against Navy in the press, and in the public arena.
  • Generations of Chevrons a History of the Enlisted Force

    Generations of Chevrons a History of the Enlisted Force

    Generations of Chevrons A History of the Enlisted Force ★ Edited by Janet R. Bednarek Generations of Chevrons A History of the Enlisted Force ★ Edited by Janet R. Bednarek AIR FORCE HISTORY AND MUSEUMS PROGRAM UNITED STATES AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. 2004 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the au- thor(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air Force History and Museums Program, the U.S. Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other U.S. Government agency. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Generations of chevrons : a history of the enlisted force / edited by Janet R. Bednarek. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. United States. Air Force—Non-commissioned officers—Biography. 2. United States—Biogra- phy. I. Bednarek, Janet R. Daly (Janet Rose Daly), 1959- 9- UG626.G44 2004 358.4’0092’2—dc222 2004026962 ★ This book is dedicated to the memory of four great chief master sergeants of the Air Force: CMSAF DONALD L. HARLOW 1920–1997 CMSAF RICHARD D. KISLING 1923–1985 CMSAF ARTHUR L. “BUD” ANDREWS 1934–1996 CMSAF THOMAS N. BARNES 1930–2003 CONTENTS Preface . ix Foreword . xi Introduction . 1 CHIEF MASTER SERGEANTS OF THE AIR FORCE Paul W. Airey. 45 Donald L. Harlow . 57 Richard D. Kisling. 69 Thomas N. Barnes. 81 Robert D. Gaylor . 93 James M. McCoy. 105 Arthur L. “Bud” Andrews. 117 Sam E. Parish . 129 James C. Binnicker . 141 Gary R. Pfingston . 153 David J. Campanale. 167 Eric W. Benken . 179 Frederick J. Finch . 191 Gerald R.
  • Long-Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency and Options

    Long-Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency and Options

    LONG-RANGE STRIKE: IMPERATIVES, URGENCY AND OPTIONS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic and Budgetary Smarter Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Long-Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency and Options by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments April 2005 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, non-partisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions in matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on future U.S. military strategy, force structure, operations, and budgets. These assessments are integrally linked to CSBA’s research on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), The Revolution in War (2004), and Winning the Race: A Naval Architecture for Enduring Maritime Supremacy (forthcoming, 2005). The analysis and findings presented here are solely the responsibility of the Center for Strategic and the Budgetary Assessments and the author. 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS GLOSSARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. i I. FRAMING THE PROBLEM .........................................