Project AIR FORCE

Project AIR FORCE 2001 Annual Report R Director’s Message The research findings highlighted in this year’s Project AIR FORCE (PAF) annual report represent the broad spectrum of work the Air Force has asked us to undertake. Our mission is to conduct an integrated program of objective, independent analysis on issues of enduring concern to Air Force leaders. PAF addresses far- reaching and interrelated questions: What will be the role of air and space power in the future security environment? How should the force be modernized to meet changing operational demands? What should be the size and characteristics of the USAF workforce, and how can that workforce be most effectively recruited, trained, and retained? How should sustainment, acquisition, and infrastructure be streamlined to control costs? PAF conducts research in four programs that represent core competencies: Strategy and Doctrine seeks to increase knowledge and understanding of geopolitical and other problems in the national security environment that affect Air Force operations. PAF maintains expertise in defense strategy; regional analysis; the objectives and tasks of evolving joint operations; and the potential contri- butions of air and space power to joint operations, defense planning, and requirements for force development. Aerospace Force Development identifies and assesses ways in which technolog- ical advances and new operational concepts can improve the Air Force’s ability to satisfy a range of future operational demands. This research involves assessments of technology feasibility, performance, cost, and risk. PAF assesses major force components needed in the future and the systems and infrastructure supporting their operations. Manpower, Personnel, and Training concentrates on questions about workforce size and composition and about the best ways to recruit, train, pay, promote, and retain personnel. PAF’s research encompasses the total workforce: active duty, guard, reserve, civilian, and contractor personnel. Resource Management analyzes policies and practices in logistics and readiness; outsourcing, privatization, and contracting; the industrial base; planning, pro- gramming, and budgeting; infrastructure; and weapon-system cost estimating. iv PROJECT AIR FORCE ANNUAL REPORT The goal of this program is to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of Air Force operations in a resource-constrained environment. PAF also conducts wide-ranging research on topics that cut across all four programs, and we regularly respond to Air Force requests for help on time-urgent problems. The research described in this annual report is broad ranging: • We provide an historical perspective on operations conducted against enemy leaders, and we offer an analysis of why Milosevic decided to settle the conflict over Kosovo when he did. We discuss the activities carried out by special operations forces against elusive ground targets during the Vietnam and the Persian Gulf wars as well as current efforts to detect and destroy such targets. Each of these reports has direct applicability to Operation Enduring Freedom today. • We report on NATO enlargement that could occur in a 2000–2015 time frame and its implications for defense planning. We also extract lessons for future coalition operations that emerged from Operation Allied Force in general and from NATO’s air war over Kosovo in particular. • In the context of the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, we describe the results of a comparison of the three prior defense reviews—the Base Force analysis, the Bottom-Up Review, and the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. • The analysis we conducted for Air Combat Command of the links among infrastructure, mission and training requirements, and available airspace and ranges lays the foundation for continuing assessments of important training needs as USAF combat forces evolve and change. • Ongoing research on support concepts for the Expeditionary Aerospace Force resulted in several reports, two of which are included here: intermediate maintenance of F-15 avionics and support for LANTIRN. • In the area of acquisition, we assessed the credibility of cost-savings claims resulting from acquisition reform and from lean manufacturing in the defense sector. We developed new processes for estimating military airframe costs, and we devised a framework for cutting costs while supporting small businesses by using bundled services. • Our research on Latin America remains important. Included in this report is an account of the relationship between drug trafficking and insurgent activity in Colombia. FISCAL YEAR 2001 v • We conclude with an overview of our ongoing work on Asia by discussing a new U.S. strategy for a changing Asia, the implications of China’s commercial technology for future military capabilities, India’s emerging nuclear posture, and the importance of Indonesia’s future to regional stability. In addition to reflecting the comprehensiveness and depth of PAF capabilities, some of this work now seems prescient. We were concluding work on our FY2001 research agenda and were expecting approval of the FY2002 research plan jointly developed with our Air Force Steering Group when the nation was stunned by the tragic events of September 11. The entire Department of Defense was called into immediate action, and the Air Force hastened to develop a coherent and effective response to the terrorism being directed against our homeland on a previously unimagined scale. RAND and PAF were able to offer relevant reports, as well as the expertise of highly qualified staff members who had conducted long-term studies of terrorism and counterterrorism. We were also able to work with the Air Force leadership to quickly reshape PAF’s FY2002 agenda, which now includes research on homeland security and defense, strategies for countering global terrorism, and analyses of the long-term effects of this new form of conflict on the active- reserve force mix. This flexibility reflects the trust that the Air Force places in PAF as a result of our 56-year partnership. And it is the Air Force’s vision and continuing demonstra- tion of confidence that enables us to contribute our collective energies and expertise to the safety and well-being of this nation. Natalie W. Crawford Director,Project AIR FORCE vii Contents Director’s Message . iii Research Highlights Operations Against Enemy Leaders . 1 Why Milosevic Decided to Settle the Conflict Over Kosovo When He Did . 5 Special Operations Forces and Elusive Ground Targets: Lessons from Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War . 10 Meeting the Challenge of Elusive Ground Targets . 14 NATO Enlargement 2000–2015: Implications for Defense Planning . 19 Operation Allied Force: Lessons for Future Coalition Operations . 25 NATO’s Air War for Kosovo: A Strategic and Operational Assessment . 31 Balancing Strategy, Forces, and Resources: Lessons for the Current Defense Review . 36 Airspace and Ranges: Linking Infrastructure Needs to Mission and Training Requirements . 43 F-15 Avionics Intermediate Maintenance Options for Expeditionary Aerospace Force Support . 47 Supporting LANTIRN in the Expeditionary Aerospace Force . 54 Acquisition Reform and the Defense Sector: An Assessment of Cost-Savings Claims . 59 Lean Manufacturing and the Defense Industry: Lessons for Cost Analysts . 62 New Processes for the Estimation of Military Airframe Costs . 67 Bundled Services: A Framework for Cutting Costs, Improving Performance, and Supporting Small Businesses . 70 Drugs and Insurgents in Colombia: A Regional Conundrum . 75 viii PROJECT AIR FORCE ANNUAL REPORT A New U.S. Strategy for a Changing Asia . 78 China’s Commercial Technology: Implications for Future Military Capabilities . 81 India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture . 85 Indonesia’s Future: Challenges and Implications for Regional Stability . 92 Publications Fiscal Year 2001 Publications with Abstracts . 97 Administration USAF Project AIR FORCE Steering Group . 113 Project AIR FORCE Management . 113 Project AIR FORCE Program Directors . 114 Air Force Fellows at RAND . 114 RAND Organization . .115 Corporate Officers . 115 Research Units . 115 Education Unit . 116 Board of Trustees . 117 1 Operations Against Enemy Leaders Operations that threaten the person and power of senior enemy decisionmakers have long been considered to be promising instruments for shortening wars, affecting other changes in enemy policy and behavior, and degrading enemy warfighting capability. Over the years, the United States has mounted both overt and covert operations to kill enemy leaders directly or to secure their overthrow either by indigenous coup or rebellion or by external invasion and takedown. RAND research analyzed some two dozen cases of attacks on leadership from World War II to the present. Policy and operational lessons were derived regard- ing the comparative efficacy and prerequisites for success of different forms of attack, their potential coercive and deterrent value, and the possible unintended consequences of their ill-considered use. Direct Attacks, Coups, and Rebellions Have Poor Results Because enemy leaders devote priority attention and large resources to the pro- tection of their persons and power, they are hard to kill and overthrow. With the single exception of the shootdown of Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto’s air- craft in World War II, all U.S. efforts to directly attack senior enemy leaders— from Fidel Castro to Muammar al-Qaddafi to Saddam Hussein to Slobodan Milosevic—have failed. Direct attacks typically do not succeed because the tar- geted

Load more