DOCSLIB.ORG

Air Expeditionary Warfare Operations Redux

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Air Expeditionary Warfare Operations Redux Signposts from the Past: Expeditionary Air Force Operations Revisited Robert Martyn Between Machiavelli’s admonition that there is nothing more difficult than taking the lead in introducing a new order of things, and Sir Basil Liddell Hart’s oft-quoted witticism that the toughest part about getting a new idea into a military mind is getting the old one out, air expeditionary warfare proponents appear to face daunting obstacles.1 Yet, what if Expeditionary Aerospace Forces are not such a daring new order of things? Are there not previous examples, which may calm the military sceptic and nay-sayer? This essay will explain what aerospace expeditionary operations are, and in so doing, illustrate with earlier historical examples that these structures are a positive contribution to CF Aerospace Doctrine and the way ahead for smaller, cost-conscious air forces. So as a starting point, what exactly is meant when bandying about the term “Aerospace Expeditionary Force”? Military vernacular contains far too many examples of inadequately understood concepts becoming popular buzzwords, to which anyone grappling with the so-called “Revolution in Military Affairs” can attest. It has been argued, with some logic, that absent a credible conventional threat against the North American homeland, virtually every Canadian military operation has been “expeditionary.”2 A clear difficulty lies in the absence of a coherent definition in any of the Canadian Air Force’s touchstone doctrine or concept publications.3 We therefore turn to the United States, a reasonable move given the importance placed upon interoperability with our closest ally, being the nation assuming a greater leadership role in regional and international security engagements.4 Further confusing any debate, some writings appear to use Expeditionary Aerospace Forces (EAF) and Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEF) interchangeably. This paper will assume that EAF relates to the conceptual or doctrinal 1/15 paradigm, whereas AEF refers to the core air combat power, i.e., the tasked, or actually forward- deployed aircraft, personnel and sustaining capabilities. The United States Air Force (USAF), which has been working this problem since the late-1990s, defines Aerospace Expeditionary Forces as: Tailorable and rapidly deployable air and space assets that provide the National Command Authority and the theatre commanders-in-chief with desired outcomes for a spectrum of missions ranging from humanitarian relief to joint of combined combat operations.5 Syndicate discussion during this symposium reached consensus that one vital aspect of this definition was lacking: that to be an effective operational force over any appreciable period of time demands a degree of sustainability. While clarifying that the constituent slices of the Aerospace Expeditionary Forces are “geographically separated [but] operationally-linked,” USAF General Michael Ryan merely infers the sustainability issue in his statement that the units provide both “rotational support to ongoing operations and rapid response to crises.”6 The geographic separation refers only to their peacetime basing; it is assumed that wherever possible, the force package will operate from the same forward location. One way of envisaging this deployed operation is to use USAF General Merrill McPeak’s metaphor, wherein the “best example of a composite wing is provided by the modern aircraft carrier, where the typical deck loading creates a true composite unit with a range of capabilities tailored to the mission.”7 Also, that the definition states that this force should provide a commander with “desired outcomes” is pretty much unnecessary typesetting. Assets not contributing to the commander’s expectations are just taking up highly-valued ramp space and would be quite unwelcome. Thus, a suggested Canadian definition of Aerospace Expeditionary Force is: “task-tailored aerospace assets, which are rapidly deployable and able to sustain themselves in operations outside Canadian territory.”8 2/15 This definition conceptually includes the consideration of the various airframes to comprise an effective force package, as well as the requisite command and control elements, intelligence, airfield engineers, aircraft technicians and other support and sustainment entities. Another consideration is the reality that expeditionary deployments may be to very austere locations, with inherent heightened demands upon sustainment. The USAF began experimenting with this operational construct for many of the same reasons that Canada is now examining this issue. The Cold War’s end brought many new crises to the fore, yet the USAF was contracting as part of the global “peace dividend” imperative. Over the ten-year period ending in 1995, the USAF’s budget was reduced by 40 percent, accompanied by a personnel reduction from 600,00 to 370,000. During a roughly corresponding period of reduction, Canada’s Air Force was left with 48 percent fewer personnel and 49 percent less aircraft; those remaining aircraft had flying hours cut by 59 percent. Yet a dramatically increased operational tempo, making demands upon the range of airframes and capabilities available, produced severe negative personnel repercussions through retention and training issues.9 The Chief of Defence Staff, in his 2002 Annual Report, acknowledged the personnel issue: “The reality of post-Cold War military operations has been the repetitive deployment of CF personnel into very stressful, usually hostile environments. These deployments are taking a toll on our people, who require time to recover, connect with their families, and train between deployments.”10 No one Air Force “community” is bearing solely the burden of these campaigns. The demand for CF18 Hornets, CH146 Griffons, and their essential personnel, for example, during the 1999 Kosovo operation illustrates the varied force packages commanders require. In order to respond to similar complex human resource and airframe conditions bedevilling CF planners, the US 3/15 began experimenting with EAF concept. There are two main aspects to this program: rotating the deployment burden more equitably, and providing more responsive, task-tailored capabilities to commanders.11 The reduced number of personnel and aircraft available to respond to government taskings causes recurrent deployments for particular crews and support personnel. This naturally has a detrimental impact upon skills development and quality of life for those deployed. Although it seems counterintuitive that deploying on operations degrades operational skills, not all capabilities are required during deployments. For example, the increased CH124 Sea King deployments to the Persian Gulf or Adriatic Sea on maritime surface interdiction operations has eliminated most, if not all, antisubmarine training opportunities. There is a similar dilemma in developing skilled aircraft technicians, as when trades journeymen endure this same operational tempo their deployed absence or subsequent release removes that ability to train apprentices.12 The US EAF structure presently consists of 10 Aerospace Expeditionary Forces, each consisting of approximately 175 aircraft and 15,000 personnel. Barring any crises calling for expanded mobilization, as seen in the Iraq war, two of the 10 are on heightened alert during a 90- day rotation. This allows for stability and training, because it is forecast well in advance which two elements are “on-call” and which two are recuperating from their 90-day alert shift. Furthermore, the personnel from the remaining six Aerospace Expeditionary Forces are able to plan various stages of training and professional development.13 On the personnel side, the Canadian Air Force is experimenting with a “V12” deployment pattern for tactical aviation, in which a squadron is “on-call” or deployed for 12-months (“12”), with personnel deployed for variable tour lengths (“V”) ranging from six months for key personnel to 56-day rotations for other personnel.14 The “V12” arrangement also facilitates Reservist employment on 28-day 4/15 rotations - a potentially huge benefit considering the growing scarcity of suitable Regular Force personnel in some key positions. This is proving to be an effective use of innovative scheduling options, aspects of which may be further integrated into a Canadian AEF program. The desire to create task-tailored packages to respond quickly to theatre commander’s plans, however, is slightly more problematic for the Canadian Forces than for the USAF. Contrasted with the USAF’s aforementioned 1,750 EAF airframes, the CF inventory of equivalent aircraft is approximately 230.15 Therefore, Canada simply does not possess the equipment and skill sets to duplicate an Aerospace Expeditionary Force of 175 fighters, bombers, and the resources associated with suppressing enemy air defences, combat Search and Rescue, and reconnaissance - essentially the entire gamut of air warfare. Yet we can still task- tailor a suitable package, depending upon the operation undertaken. For example, a humanitarian mission in a semi-benign environment could utilize a force of four to six CF18s for defensive counter-aerospace operations, four to eight CH146s primarily for force protection reconnaissance / airfield defence force mobility, but with an on-call task of emergency MEDEVAC or Non- Governmental Organization (NGO) support, and a requisite number of CC130s for intra-theatre transport and possible air-to-air refuelling (AAR) if required by the Force Commander. For this hypothetical expedition,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 47Th FLYING TRAINING WING
    47th FLYING TRAINING WING MISSION The 47th Flying Training Wing conducts joint specialized undergraduate pilot training for the United States Air Force, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard and allied nation air forces utilizing the T-37, T-38 and T-1A aircraft. The 47th FTW commands a flying operation which exceeds 105,000 flying hours and 90,000 sorties per year. It is composed of more than 1,300 military personnel, 1,124 civilian employees and a total base community exceeding 4,200 people. LINEAGE 47th Bombardment Wing, Light, established, 28 Jul 1947 Organized, 15 Aug 1947 Inactivated, 2 Oct 1949 Activated, 12 Mar 1951 Redesignated 47th Bombardment Wing, Tactical, 1 Oct 1955 Discontinued and inactivated, 22 Jun 1962 Redesignated 47th Flying Training Wing, 22 Mar 1972 Activated, 1 Sep 1972 STATIONS Biggs Field (later, AFB), TX, 15 Aug 1947 Barksdale AFB, LA, 19 Nov 1948-2 Oct 1949 Langley AFB, VA, 12 Mar 1951-21 May 1952 Sculthorpe RAF Station (later, RAF Sculthorpe), England, 1 Jun 1952-22 Jun 1962 Laughlin AFB, TX, 1 Sep 1972 ASSIGNMENTS Twelfth Air Force, 15 Aug 1947-2 Oct 1949 Tactical Air Command, 12 Mar 1951 Third Air Force, 5 Jun 1952 Seventeenth Air Force, 1 Jul 1961-22 Jun 1962 Air Training Command, 1 Sep 1972 Nineteenth Air Force, 1 Jul 1993 ATTACHMENTS 49th Air Division, Operational, l2 Feb 1952-1 Jul 1956 WEAPON SYSTEMS A (later, B)-26, 1947 B-45, 1949 B-45, 1951 B-26, 1951 RB-45, 1954 B-66, 1958 KB-50, 1960 T-41, 1972 T-37, 1972 T-38, 1972 T-1, 1993 T-6, 2002 COMMANDERS Col William M.
    [Show full text]
  • Adapt Or Fail: the USAF's Role in Reconstituting the Iraqi Air Force
    AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Adapt or Fail The United States Air Force’s Role in Reconstituting the Iraqi Air Force, 2004–2007 George w. Cully, jd Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Project Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Belinda Bazinet Names: Cully, George W., 1946- author. | Air University Copy Editor (U.S.). Air Force Research Institute, issuing body. | Sandi Davis Air University (U.S.). Press, publisher. Title: Adapt or fail : the USAF’s role in reconstituting Cover Art, Book Design and Illustrations the Iraqi Air Force 2004-2007 / George W. Cully. Daniel Armstrong Description: First edition. | Maxwell Air Force Base, Composition and Prepress Production Alabama : Air University Press, Air Force Research Nedra O. Looney Institute, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2016043990| ISBN 9781585662692 | Print Preparation and Distribution ISBN 1585662690 Diane Clark Subjects: LCSH: Air forces—Iraq| Air power—Iraq— History. | Coalition Provisional Authority. Coalition Military Advisory Transition Team. | Coalition Provisional Authority. CMATT-A. | United States— Armed Forces—Stability operations. Classification: LCC UG635.I72 C85 2016 | DDC 956.7044/348–dc23 | SUDOC D 301.26/6:IR 1 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016043990 AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS Director and Publisher Published by Air University Press in February 2017 Dale L. Hayden, PhD Editor in Chief Oreste M. Johnson Managing Editor Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell Design and Production Manager Disclaimer Cheryl King Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author and do Air University Press 600 Chennault Circle, Bldg.
    [Show full text]
  • “Air Force 101” a Handbook for Air Force Spouses
    “Air Force 101” A Handbook for Air Force Spouses This handbook is not designed to answer all your Air Force questions. We hope to provide you with enough information that you know what questions to ask, and who to ask them of. And to understand the answers, when you get them! I’d like to thank everyone at bases around the world who supplied essential information used in this handbook! A special thanks to all the spouses on AF Crossroad’s Spouse Forum at www.afcrossroads.com, for showing me what questions to answer – and giving me a lot of the answers themselves! You’re all terrific! Our Air Force active duty members couldn’t accomplish their mission without your caring, support, hard work and adaptability. The information in this handbook is accurate to the best of my knowledge. If anyone finds that any of these facts are not correct, please let me know, and I’ll make the necessary corrections. Family Support Center, Hill AFB, Utah mailto:[email protected] Updated: 13 August 2003 1 Table of Contents The Ten Commandments of a Military Spouse 3 Military Acronyms 4 Common Military Phrases 7 Military Time 9 Military ABCs 10 Operations Security 11 Force Protection Conditions 12 Family Support Center overview 13 Overview of other useful base agencies 17 Base Exchange (BX) and Commissary 19 AF Chain of Command & Organization of the AF 20 Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEFs) 22 Major Air Force Bases Around the World 24 What to expect when your spouse is in Basic Military Training 26 AF Technical Training 28 AF Officer Training School (OTS)
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey System to Assess Abuse and Misconduct Toward Air Force Students in Occupational Specialty Training
    C O R P O R A T I O N A Survey System to Assess Abuse and Misconduct Toward Air Force Students in Occupational Specialty Training Laura L. Miller, Coreen Farris, Marek N. Posard, Miriam Matthews, Kirsten M. Keller, Sean Robson, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Mauri Matsuda, Rachel M. Burns, Lisa Wagner, Barbara Bicksler For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2692 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0203-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2019 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 This report documents a RAND Corporation study designed to adapt a survey system for monitoring abuse and misconduct in the Air Force Basic Military Training (BMT) environment to extend it to the next stages of the Air Force technical training and flying training environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force World by Aaron M
    Air Force World By Aaron M. U. Church, Associate Editor Welsh Becomes Chief of Staff head of the National Guard Bureau, Gen. Mark A. Welsh III succeeded succeeding Air Force Gen. Craig R. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz on Aug. 10, McKinley, who is retiring. McKinley was screenshot becoming the 20th Chief of Staff of the the first head of the Guard Bureau to be Air Force, after the Senate lifted a hold a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. on his nomination two weeks before. Welsh, most recently head of US Air Nineteenth Air Force Stands Down Forces in Europe, is a command pilot Air Education and Training Com- with more than 3,400 hours in the F-16, mand inactivated 19th Air Force, which USAF photo by SSgt. Sheila deVera A-10, and training aircraft. Before that, oversaw the command’s flight training he served as associate director of the mission for nearly two decades, in a Central Intelligence Agency, for military ceremony at JBSA-Randolph, Tex., affairs. He is a 1976 graduate of the US July 17. Air Force Academy. “Nineteenth Air Force led the stand-up The Senate confirmed Welsh on of the F-35 [strike fighter] schoolhouse Aug. 2 after Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and the Air Force’s only undergraduate lifted a hold on his nomination. Cornyn remotely piloted aircraft training pro- placed the hold because he wanted gram for pilots and sensor operators. The reassurances the Air Force would unit also activated student squadrons, address the underlying causes of sex streamlining the administrative control abuse by military training instructors at of the nearly 1,400 student pilots who JBSA-Lackland, Tex.
    [Show full text]
  • Anatomy of a Reform the Expeditionary Aerospace Force
    ANATOMY OF A REFORM THE EXPEDITIONARY AEROSPACE FORCE Richard G. Davis Air Force History and Museums Program 2003 FOREWORD SINCE MY ASSIGNMENT as Chief of Staff in October 1997, I have worked to bring the USAF into line with the realities of the post–Cold War era. Since 1991, the service has lost two-thirds of its foreign bases and one-third of its force structure and personnel. Yet our nation’s strategy of selective engagement dic- tated that the service be ready to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars, while maintaining its commitments to a growing string of small- scale contingencies. The mismatch between resources and requirements was forcing the men and women of the USAF into a lifestyle characterized by high personnel tempo at the expense of family life. Drops in retention rates and recruitment indicated that the situation, if allowed to go unchecked, would soon reach serious proportions. The answer was to create the Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) — a new way of doing business that improved predictability and stability in personnel assignments and furnished the service with a powerful management tool to more efficiently align its assets with the needs of the warfighting Commanders in Chief. Fortunately, my predecessor had already poured the footings of the con- cept by beginning development of expeditionary forces for employment in Southwest Asia and elsewhere. EAF was an idea whose time had come, and on August 4, 1998, Acting Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters and I announced that the time for development had passed and that the USAF would now move as rapidly as possible toward full implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol 16 Issue 5
    -W ^ AIR UNIVERSITY R eview Roll Call UMPIRING AND EVALUATING JOINT EXERCISES.. .LESSONS OF LEBANON .. .THE JAPAN AIR SELF DEFENSE FORCE JULY-AUGUST 1965 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY REVIEW T — * AIR UNIVERSITY FIeview THE PROFESSIONAl JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE U mpuung E xehcise Deser t Strike............................................................................................................. 2 Maj. Gen. John C. Meyer, USAF Air Mo bil it y in the Fie l d Test Laboratory.....................................................................................................14 Biig. Gen. Andrew S. Low, Jr., USAF L esson s of Leba n o n : A S tudy in Air Strategy....................................................................................28 Col. Albert P. Sights, Jr., USAF Air c r a f t Commitments to Rússia : T he M oscow C onference, S eptember -O ctober 1 9 4 1 .......................................................................44 Dr. Richard C. Lukas T he Negl ec t ed Tasks of Officer Education.......................................................................................... 54 Lt. Col. Ralph L. Giddings, Jr., USA Military Affairs Abroad J apans Air Sel f Defen se Force................................................................................................................... 60 Maj. Gilbert \1. Billings, Jr., USAF Air Force Review Air c r a f t Integrated Data S ystem s.......................................................................................................72 Maj. Gen.
    [Show full text]
  • By Order of the Secretary of the Air Force Air Force
    BY ORDER OF THE AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 84-101 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 30 JULY 2009 History HISTORICAL PRODUCTS, SERVICES, AND REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available on the e-Publishing website at: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication. OPR: AF/HO Certified by: AF/HO (Mr. C. R. Anderegg) Supersedes: AFI 84-101, 1 August 2005 Pages: 73 This instruction implements AFPD 84-1, History and Museum Programs. It provides guidance and procedures for collecting historical data and documentation, preparing historical reports, and providing historical services. MAJCOMs may supplement this instruction to provide additional guidance to subordinate units, but supplements must not conflict with any Air Force Instruction. AF/HO must approve all MAJCOM supplements. This publication applies to the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) units. The Air National Guard (ANG) headquarters’ history office performs MAJCOM functions under this instruction. Ensure that all records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with AF Manual 33-363, Management of Records, and disposed of in accordance with the Air Force Records Disposition Schedule (RDS) located at https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af61a/afrims/afrims SUMMARY OF CHANGES This document is substantially revised and must be completely reviewed. Recent changes to AFI 84-101 clarify AFHRA, commander/director, field organizations, and
    [Show full text]
  • Site Visit on Thurday, 30 JUN Page 1 of 2 Mandzia, Lesia, CIV, WSO
    Site visit on Thurday, 30 JUN Page 1 of 2 DCN: 11934 Mandzia, Lesia, CIV, WSO-BRAC From: Gagliano, Donald COL AMEDDCS [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 28,2005 12:lO PM To: Mandzia, Lesia, CIV, WSO-BRAC Cc: Stevens, Gregg C Mr AMEDDCS; Agee, Richard L COL AMEDDCS; Pantelides, Thomas, CIV, WSO-BRAC; Forrest, Kevin M MAJ BAMC Ft Sam Houston TX; Riley, James D LTC BAMC-Ft Sam Houston Subject: RE: Site visit on Thurday, 30 JUN CHANGE. 1 just spoke with Kevin and confirmed that we are on from 0930-1130. Thank you, Don Gagliano COL Donald A. Gagliano AMEDDC&S 21 0 221 -8558 From: Gagliano, Donald COL AMEDDCS Sent: Tuesday, June 28,2005 11 :06 AM To: 'Mandzia, Lesia, CIV, WSO-BRAC' Cc: Stevens, Gregg C Mr AMEDDCS; Agee, Richard L COL AMEDDCS; Pantelides, Thomas, CIV, WSO-BRAC; Forrest, Kevin M MAJ BAMC Ft Sam Houston TX; Riley, James D LTC BAMC-Ft Sam Houston Subject: RE: Site visit on Thurday, 30 JUN Lesia, Understood. We will plan on 0830-1030 on Thursday 30 JUN at the AMEDDC&S Headquarters. I will call your cell to confirm. Don Gagliano COL Donald A. Gagliano AMEDDC&S 21 0 221 -8558 From: Mandzia, Lesia, CIV, WSO-BRAC [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 28,2005 9:24 AM To: Gagliano, Donald COL AMEDDCS; Mandzia, Lesia, CIV, WSO-BRAC Cc: Stevens, Gregg C Mr AMEDDCS; Agee, Richard L COL AMEDDCS; Pantelides, Thomas, CIV, WSO-BRAC Subject: RE: Site visit on Thurday, 30 JUN COL Gagliano: The morning of the 30th is open right now.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Expeditionary Force Deployments
    UNCLASSIFIED (U) LIGHT, LEAN, AND LETHAL: AIR COMBAT COMMAND AND THE AEROSPACE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE 1998-2001 ACC Office of History Headquarters, Air Combat Command Langley Air Force Base, Virginia October 2018 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED (U) PREFACE (U) This study was begun in the early 2000’s by Dr. Edward G. Longacre, who closely followed the evolution of the Expeditionary Air Force (EAF) concept and the standup of the Aerospace Expeditionary Forces Center (AEFC). He completed a draft manuscript before his retirement in 2009, but it remained unfinished for many years after. Two recent events prompted the Air Combat Command (ACC) History Office to resurrect the study for final publication. The first was the 20th anniversary of the EAF initiative, which had become emblematic of the way in which the Air Force had conducted its deployed operations. The other was a renewed call by Air Force Chief of Staff, General David L. Goldfein for the Air Force to “return to our expeditionary roots.” At the Air Force Association’s annual Air, Space, and Cyber Conference in September 2018, General Goldfein noted the Air Force had come to rely too heavily on established bases and routine methods of supporting steady-state deployments in the nearly 17 years of operations in Southwest Asia since September 11th, 2001. He felt that a new era of great power contests had commenced which in turn compelled the Air Force to sharpen its expeditionary skills.1 We hope this study can explain the story of how we got here in order to illuminate where we are going. (U) The bulk of the documentation used to compile this study is held within the EAF collection of the ACC History Office’s archives.
    [Show full text]
  • Air University Review: May-June 1966, Volume XVII, No. 4
    v^-T~ l A,R UNIVERSITY MAY-JUNE 1966 R ev iew THE PROFESSIONAl JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE T he Bir d ’s-Eye Vlew of Arms Control and Disa r m a m e n t .......................................................2 Lt. Gen. Fred M. Dean, usaf E xercise DEEP FURROW 6 5 ........................................................................................................12 Lt. Gen. Benjamin J. Webster, usaf T he Ch .alle.vge of the Per for ma n c e Spec t r u m for Mil it a r y Air c r a f t .............................. 30 Hans Multhopp T he Jolvt Chiefs of Staff and Defen se Policy F ormulation.................................................40 Vlaj. Lawrence B. Tatum, usaf T he Rise and Fall of the Stuka Div e Bomber............................................................................... 46 Col. William F. Scott, usaf T he \'ext Dec a de in Computer Devel o pmen t ............................................................................... 64 Lt. Col. James E. Hughes, usaf Rellability Analysis..........................................................................................................................................71 Dr. James A. Fraser NATO T actical Air Exercise, Chaumont................................................................................... 76 Lt. Col. Jack E. Barth, usaf Air Force Review Sel l ing Value En c ineer inc —T he USAF Road Show Appr o a c h .....................................81 Col. Stanley E. Allen, usaf In Mv Opinion Promotio.v : A Vie w from the Bottom................................................................................................85
    [Show full text]
  • The Space Force
    | 32 Virtual Reality for Maintainers 38 | Q&A with AETC's Lt. Gen. Webb 10 | The Next Offset Strategy 54 Riding the KC-46 HACKING THE SPACE FORCE Securing Satellites Against Cyber Attack is USSF's Job One | 42 August 2021 $8 Published by the Air Force Association STAFF Publisher Bruce A. Wright Editor in Chief Tobias Naegele Managing Editor Juliette Kelsey Chagnon Editorial Director August 2021. Vol. 104, No. 8 John A. Tirpak Brian Everstine/staff Brian News Editor Amy McCullough DEPARTMENTS FEATURES Air Force Maga- Assistant zine attended the 2 Editorial 10 Q&A: Training the Force Managing Editor Declassify the Lt. Gen. Marshall B. Webb, head of Air Education and Train- waning days of the Chequita Wood Space Force ing Command, spoke with Editor in Chief Tobias Naegele on exercise and is the By Tobias Naegele Senior Designer leveraging technology and a more customized and tailored first independent Dashton Parham 4 Letters approach to educating Airmen. news organization Pentagon Editor to fly on a KC-46. Brian W. Everstine 6 Index to See “Pegasus Digital Editor Advertisers 32 Pegasus Power Power,” p. 32. Greg Hadley By Brian W. Everstine Senior Editor 9 Verbatim What it’s like aboard the new KC-46 tanker. Abraham Mahshie 12 Strategy and Policy Production The players changed, Manager but digital engineer- 38 The Classroom on Your Head Eric Chang Lee ing and modeling is By Amy McCullough Photo Editor here to stay. Air Education and Training Command embraces virtual and Mike Tsukamoto 14 Airframes augmented reality for all. Contributors 20 World 42 Hacking the Space Force John T.
    [Show full text]