DISTRIBUTION A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Document created: 1 June 03
Air & Space Power Journal - Summer 2003

After the difficulties encountered in the air war over Vietnam, USAF leaders went to work on creative solutions to enhance aircrew training. Rigorous and standardized initial qualification training (IQT), mission qualification training (MQT), and continuation training (CT); the inclusion of dissimilar air-combat training (DACT); the formation of aggressor squadrons; and the creation of Red Flag characterized these innovations. That tactical foundation has stood the USAF in good stead as demonstrated by combat effectiveness in the Gulf War and the Balkans. However, the USAF must now expand that foundation to meet rapidly changing operational, informational, and technological challenges. This article proposes changes to USAF training institutions, personnel management, training processes, and technologies, allowing the service to meet the demands of the air and space expeditionary force (AEF).

Military training serves three interrelated purposes: to provide essential skills necessary for mission performance, to socialize members of the organization, and to improve performance of commanders and their staffs. The ultimate measure of military training effectiveness is readiness for combat, which now implies mastering a range of tasks, including traditional force-application missions and support for peacekeeping and humanitarian-relief operations. US forces place a high premium on training, especially since the inception of the all-volunteer force with its role as an invaluable force multiplier. Identifiable goals that are consistent with assigned missions and the corporate culture should form the cornerstone of any comprehensive training system to preserve the combat edge that the service derives from training investments.

Purists argue about the distinction between education and training. Absent definitions in either the Air Force Glossary or the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, we rely on Webster to clarify the relationship:

educate. 1.a. To provide with training or knowledge, esp. via formal schooling: teach. b. To provide with training for a specific purpose, as a vocation. 2. To provide with information: inform. 3. To stimulate or develop the mental or moral growth of.¹

train. 1. To coach in or accustom to a mode of behavior or performance. 2. To make proficient with special instruction and practice. 3. To prepare physically, as with a regimen.²

Airmen should minimize these pedagogical debates in recognition that both approaches are complementary and necessary to allow programs to move across a spectrum from education through training as required by instructional goals. In fact, we should stop talking about "education" and "training" and instead develop a "lifetime learning" ethos that favors advantages derived from both pedagogical categories.

While education, specifically professional military education (PME), will continue to be an important aspect of lifetime learning, the remainder of this article focuses on a transformation in Air Force training. This new approach aims to create a rational flow for functional integration and professional growth that aligns training institutions, processes, and technologies with war-fighter requirements, Air Force capabilities, and the career paths of the individuals involved.

A New Institutional
Framework for Expeditionary
Air and Space Forces

Before embarking on a detailed discussion of the training system, this article will consider the following proposal for reorganizing how the USAF conducts cradle-to-grave training. Any organizational scheme must meet the mandates of Title 10, "Armed Forces," of the United States Code and provide theater commanders with trained USAF teams to be part of joint and coalition task forces. Under a proposed new major command structure, all three commands would execute the Air Force’s organizing, training, and equipping responsibilities. The following diagrams illustrate how such a structural reorganization will facilitate providing trained expeditionary forces for theater combatant commanders (fig. 1).

General Headquarters Air and Space Forces (GHQ AF) will provide forces to combatant commanders and meet Title 10 responsibilities through the numbered air forces (NAF). Air and Space Materiel Command (ASMC) will manage all materiel acquisition required to support the full spectrum of air and space operations. This includes large scale, long-range programs such as aircraft or satellite acquisition as well as the rapid turnover of software and hardware associated with command and control (C2) systems.³ Air and Space Doctrine, Training, and Education Command (ADTEC) will contain the Air and Space Warfare Center (AWFC), Nellis AFB (fig. 2).

The AWFC will be responsible for the USAF battlelab, the tactical center of excellence wing (57th Wing, Nellis AFB), the operational art center of excellence wing (53d Wing, Eglin AFB), functional wings for space (Schriever AFB), air mobility (Fort Dix), information warfare (Kelly AFB), and the Air Force Experimentation Office (AFEO) (fig. 3). The battlelab will be a central organizing structure that will establish temporary detachments as needed to support experimentation. This concept would replace the multitude of independent battlelabs in today’s construct. Because of the need for experienced personnel with career maturity, the rank structure of the AWFC units may be more "top heavy" than equivalent operational and training wings. But, AWFC will also have the flexibility to look for officers of relatively junior rank, with good ideas and leadership skills to offer them an opportunity to create innovative war-fighting operational concepts.

AWFC is the link between the war fighters in the NAFs of GHQ AF and ASMC and the acquisition process. The NAFs are advocates to both their theater combatant commanders and, through AWFC and GHQ AF, to the USAF. AWFC also becomes a crucial part of the feedback loop necessary for rapid acquisition. AWFC will evaluate the constantly shifting desires of the NAFs, look across the network, and provide balanced requirements to ASMC.

The organization of ADTEC presented in figure 2 unifies training and education responsibilities under a single commander. ADTEC would serve as a feedback conduit between the acquisition and war-fighting communities to help identify and validate operational and training requirements. Incorporating all the basic missions into one command will bring the same focus to training missions and activities that centralized command brings to war-fighting missions.

People, Process, and Technology

The Air Force has long worshipped at the altar of technology- the benefactor of winged flight for man. The airplane has, from its inception, been an expression of the miracles of technology. The very knowledge of how to fly came from technical devices and experiments, and fliers have been the major instigators and beneficiaries of technological advances in everything from structural material to microelectronics.

- Carl H. Builder
- The Icarus Syndrome

We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.

- Petronius Arbiter (210 b.c.)

The interaction of people, process, and technology sets the stage for effective air and space power employment. If the institution fails to integrate these functions, it may find itself uninformed, ill prepared, subject to inflexible dogma, and- as Carl Builder noted in the quote above- caught up in the religion of technology as savior. When addressed in an integrated manner this triumvirate creates a trained team that is equipped with flexible, relevant doctrine and able to launch innovative solutions from standard processes with whatever technology is available- this is the essence of a capability-based force.

People must encounter a challenging training environment that is relevant to the war-fighting missions they will execute. In the broadest sense, military training is pervasive and includes training activities within operational units. "Good leaders are good trainers" is a motto the military can live with. USAF training will not only provide the essential tools for completing assigned tasks, but will infuse all members of the force with a unifying ethos- a common vision of airmanship. In the proposed reorganization, a direct relationship between each NAF and its assigned combatant commander will allow ADTEC to be responsible for accession training (table 1). The war fighters and the NAFs will identify USAF training priorities that result from mission-oriented dialog between operational and training functional managers. This vision is essential when contemplating a training mission that not only supports the war-fighting commanders, but also encourages innovation and experimentation.

A leadership career path defines individual and team skills at each level of warfare. Progress through all levels is required before nomination for a joint command. Career progress is marked by a demonstrated ability to perform- not just to fill a square. Just surviving a command tour also is not enough to justify promotion or selection for future command. The leadership evaluation metrics must be capable of recognizing when a unit is changed (either in organization or process) without any motive other than to demonstrate change. Such change, as noted above by the ancient Petronius Arbiter, is not only a waste of time, but also potentially dangerous.

Recruitment starts the training journey. The ability to attract qualified enlisted accessions and officer candidates will be ADTEC’s first challenge. Shaping candidate expectations is one of the most important institutional functions at this critical training stage. Contrary to popular mythology, not every graduate of the Air Force Academy has a chance to become chief of staff of the Air Force. A reasonable system affords all entering candidates an environment that will give them an opportunity for growth and fulfillment. The military’s best marketing tool is not money; the dual opportunity to serve one’s country and excel at a challenging profession appeals to the better recruits and serves to increase their retention. In an era when military television ads appeal to self-focus- what’s in it for the individual- there is a missed opportunity that ties enlistment to selflessness- what’s in it for society. Living up to recruit expectations should not be a hardship; it should be the norm.

ADTEC will be the bridge between the civilian and military communities and must continually adjust its assumptions about entering recruits. For example, can computer literacy be assumed for all categories of entering candidates? If the USAF decides to migrate to more computer-based training systems, this becomes a critical assumption. The military makes these assumptions on a regular basis. We assume candidates know how to use a telephone, indoor plumbing, and an electrical switch; yet for the majority of American society, each of these has been a modification of culture in the last century.

Embedded in the ADTEC role is the vision of what it is to be an airman. This is a unifying theme that is consistent throughout all USAF training and is the bedrock of the lifetime- learning construct. The Air and Space Doctrine Center is the keeper of this flame, and it is manifested in the mundane yet essential answer to the question of what it is to be an airman. By way of illustration, walk up to a marine and say: "Every marine is a ____________." The marine you are addressing will most likely automatically respond, "rifleman." That is the ethos of the corps, and it transcends generations of marines. It is independent of technology and holds meaning for veterans of World War II and the newest recruits at Parris Island. The USAF must develop and communicate the same essential professional ethic to its members. It is a bond that sustains service members through crisis and combat. It is neither dogma (resulting in the brainless automatons so popular in media and entertainment caricatures of military members, especially career officers and NCOs) nor the next advertising slogan for a 60-second television spot. Instead, it is a vital, professional identity that produces an esprit de corps and force-multiplier effect.

Understanding basic processes enables airmen to adapt to the situation and the tools at hand. At a basic level, an air tasking order (ATO) is no more than a rational attempt to organize the application of air and space power. Sometimes the construct involves the equivalent of a flying schedule for a wing; sometimes it involves thousands of sorties provided by many nations. In any case, standardized processes must exist to facilitate training and preparation, thus building the framework on which necessary modifications can then be made to respond agilely to situations encountered in combat. A desirable process is a flexible, rational map of interrelated activities. When the task or environment changes, the process may also need to change to remain relevant to tactical and operational circumstances.

Future wars may include such complex technology that the complexity itself creates vulnerabilities that an enemy can exploit. Therefore, airmen should embrace technological advances with a clear appreciation of their potential risk. To do less invites the asymmetric warfare described in the book Unrestricted Warfare, written by Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui of the People’s Liberation Army, and in Tom Clancy’s novels.⁴ It is essential to employ technology within the appropriate context. Sometimes the best computer is a human with a pencil and a piece of paper, and the best solution is a bayonet to the throat. Advances in technology do not wipe out all previous military concepts; they add to the war fighter’s toolkit.

For example, a tool that could transparently automate course of action (COA) development would enhance resource-allocation discussions and decision making. Using such a tool, planners could develop COAs that clearly reflect resources required to support effects-based operations. Armed with such insight, planners could propose shifting assets from one theater to another based on a commonly understood rational approach. This illustrates the importance of well-trained people understanding processes and integrating technology to enhance combat readiness. The question remains, however, when do we introduce new technology, modify processes, and look for new people? Our future capabilities will depend, in part, on how we approach that answer.

Pulling It All Together

The Red Flag staff used the same building block approach established by the Fighter Weapons School to lay out the mission. The first few Red Flag sorties were flown as four-ships, the basic fighting unit, to targets that were not difficult to find. Only one or two Aggressors defended the targets, and they were limited in the attacks they could make on the Blue forces. During the second week, though, the missions started to build in intensity. Larger attack packages thundered westward into Red territory, escorted by fighters looking to kill the Aggressors. Tacticians integrated aircraft capable of jamming the Red radars into the strike force. By the end of the second week, it was all-out war with the Blue force throwing everything they could at the targets while the Red force defended in full strength.

- C. R. Anderegg
- Sierra Hotel

The Red Flag program provides a historical model for matching training-system elements to operational-mission requirements to achieve greater tactical and operational effectiveness. Parts of a robust capability already exist and now must be harnessed to support Air Force, joint, and coalition forces. The goal of training is preparation for employment across the tactical, operational, and strategic spectrum. The critical issue becomes how to link training activities to operational force employment. With the advent of the expeditionary concept, the AEF rotation schedule can and must be integrated with air and space expeditionary task force (ASETF) employment.

Air Force training must continue to have a firm air and space power doctrinal foundation. This is not the wild-eyed fanaticism of some airpower zealots; it is the rational explanation of air and space power’s legitimate force-employment role as a full and equal member of the joint task force operational team. Sound, well-articulated air and space power doctrine must be the common thread that unites all USAF education and training, providing the intellectual path for operational effectiveness and professional leadership development.

Individual training provides the basis for tactical-level mission effectiveness. It starts with Air Force specialty code (AFSC) training. The existing enlisted AFSC training architecture is designed to work through various skill levels and schools and offer a clear development scheme within which airmen can move from entry-level technical skills to the rank of supervisor, and which finally will prepare them for senior enlisted leadership roles. Officers graduate from accession programs into a very structured initial training environment regardless of tactical or technical specialty. Using the model for F-16 pilots, officer graduates of undergraduate pilot training progress through a clearly defined pipeline that leads first through a formal training unit (FTU) where they receive syllabus-defined training in flying the aircraft and acquire the appropriate tactical skills necessary for the mission. They then move to an operational unit where they get a local checkout in the specifics of the mission and environment and generally become mission capable (MC) as wingmen. Here the pilots gain experience and began to move through various training programs to become qualified as F-16 flight leads, multiship flight leads, and instructor pilots.

Even at the tactical level, a transition is beginning to occur for our notional pilots. Leadership demands the integration of various weapon systems in a strike package to achieve a greater overall capability. The challenges to do that are often daunting and are not well defined. The desire to integrate is a philosophy that helps develop the ability to use a tool in more than one way. Twenty-first-century airmen cannot allow their contributions in this integration process to stagnate because of a dogmatic mind-set or too much comfort with current operating procedures. These self-imposed constraints lessen the warrior, cause him or her to be predictable, and make life easy for an opponent who only has to anticipate one well-defined set of tactics. Integrating multiple capabilities within tactical-level mission tasks offers airmen a transformational tool that bridges the tactical and operational levels of war.

Operational Training and the
Air and Space Expeditionary
Task Force

The first quality that must be sustained is the mental capability for flexibility; CENTAF personnel possessed the ability to solve unexpected situations quickly because they were trained to do so. The tough, realistic training accomplished at exercises such as Red Flag nurtured mental flexibility.

- Lt Col William F. Andrews, USAF
- Airpower against an Army

Operational art lies in the ill-defined terrain between tactics and strategy and is under constant review. Training at the operational level of warfare requires the practitioner to move to a philosophical level of warfare where the integration of the full spectrum of functional specialties is required to effectively plan and execute the mission.⁵ The following paragraphs reflect the post–Cold War reality where an ASETF may have units distributed over a wide geographic area. In this environment, the traditional continental United States (CONUS)-based wing commander becomes a force provider rather than a combat leader.

Air Force doctrine directs the creation of an ASETF as the air component of a JTF.⁶ The size, structure, and capability of an ASETF is based on mission tasking and requirements. A key notion of this approach is that the in-garrison wing is the force provider tied to an AEF cycle. With 10 AEFs on a 15-month cycle, every wing provides forces with appropriate capabilities, as described by their unit type code (UTC), to help create each AEF. The AEF training cycle evolves from a focus on unit training to a focus on integration and must include not only the AEF employment force but also the C2 capability of the Air Force forces (AFFOR). The NAFs will be able to provide the C2 capability with a NAF restructure aligned with the regional and functional combatant commanders as shown in table 1.⁷

Consider the 4th Fighter Wing (FW) at Seymour-Johnson AFB. If the wing were to be restructured with five operational squadrons of 12 aircraft, then each squadron could be aligned with one of five AEFs. In the AEF rotational cycle, the squadrons are aligned with AEFs 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 (fig. 4). The 4th FW is the lead wing for AEF 8. The wing commander is responsible for all of his or her wing’s squadrons in the recovery and individual and unit training phases. During the deployment preparation and deployment ready phases, the operational control of those squadrons changes from the wing commander to the AEF commander. The AEF commander will be one of five brigadier generals collocated with a small staff at the AEF Center at Langley AFB under the GHQ AF. The AEF Center will have tasking authority across the USAF. Each of the five brigadier generals will be responsible for two of the 10 AEFs. The generals will monitor their designated units during recovery and individual and unit training phases, and when the units have completed all requirements, the generals will accept the operational control of these units for the final two phases- deployment preparation and deployment ready.

The AEF commander will ensure, during deployment preparation, that integration training and readiness certification of the appropriate UTC personnel are accomplished. That includes the people who will man the expeditionary operations center (EOC) and the proposed AEF C2 capability, which will provide the deployed integration and connectivity between the operational and tactical levels. The commander of the Air Expeditionary Group (AEG), or Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW), will require an EOC in order to fight the group or wing and link to the AOC- the ASETF’s C2 center. The ASETF commander is responsible to the joint force commander (JFC) for all air and space issues and for the interface at the operational level of warfare. ASETF command will be provided by the NAF assigned to the engaged region or function. Regional and functional commanders have both supported and supporting roles. Let there be no mistake about roles and missions; the ASETF commander is the commander of Air Force forces (COMAFFOR) and, if so designated, the joint force air component commander (JFACC). The operational control of AEWs and AEGs is transferred to the COMAFFOR, and that is why the AEF cycle will source the component command from a NAF headquarters and the combat capability from contributing wings.

The 4th Fighter Wing commander has lead-wing responsibilities for this example’s AEF 8 as it approaches the deployment preparation phase (fig. 5). His or her contribution of forces, with the appropriate UTCs, is more significant. The AEF 8 EOC will be built around the 4th Operational Support Squadron (OSS). With the 4th FW commander as lead for AEF 8, his or her role is no longer as a fighter wing commander; however, he or she may be called on to command an AEW or AEG of mixed forces.

So far this article has attempted to tie the organization and employment structure together, albeit based on some proposed assumptions; it now turns to the nature of the deployment-preparation training. The centerpiece of the AEF training will be AEF Flag, a modified version of Red Flag. The goal of this new exercise will be to build on years of tactical experience while pursuing a dramatic increase in the exercise’s operational fidelity. During the deployment preparation phase, most designated AEF units will deploy to Nellis AFB. This will bring all the component pieces of the AEF together. The AEF commander will have to execute the Red Flag–type missions as he or she simultaneously creates a base infrastructure from training equipment stored at Nellis. The AEF’s assigned mission will also require that the lead wing commander establish communications and logistics links and create an architecture to provide ISR data flow. The AEF commander will exercise the time-phased force and deployment data (TPFDD) and the time-phased force and deployment list (TPFDL) flows of his or her assigned forces.⁸ In the case of units that don’t deploy or deploy to a geographically separated location, the commander will also have to establish connectivity and processes for executing assigned missions. These are the tasks the AEF would be expected to accomplish if employed as an AEG or AEW. Individual crews would see few changes other than residence in a tent city.

Logistics play and organic command and control of deployed forces are weaknesses in current Red Flag exercises. Likewise, large-scale training efforts afford little experience with the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) and the importance of TPFDD flow. Ad hoc solutions to organizational, logistical, and execution problems have been characteristic of every deployment and operation since the Gulf War and should not be mistaken for a demonstration of competence.

Logistics and C2 expansion alone will not complete the ASETF structure. Fourth and Ninth Air Forces, because of their deployment posture, will participate initially in the ASETF training cycle and provide the operational level of warfare interface.⁹ First Air Force will participate as the air component of USNORTHCOM. Fifth Air Force will be added once a robust telecommunications network is established. Seventh and Eighth Air Forces will leverage existing modeling and simulation centers and in-theater forces for training events. Scenarios for the NAFs will incorporate training for the AEF Flag from home-station facilities. This is a logical option, since the COMAFFOR’s headquarters will not necessarily be collocated with the AEG or AEW. AEF Flag provides a forum for air mobility integration by including the tanker-airlift control element (TALCE) and airfield-management aspects of TPFDL flow. Air mobility involvement will integrate the Phoenix Readiness Training program.¹⁰ A full-spectrum exercise will expose USAF personnel at the wing and unit levels to the language and processes of mobilization, deployment, operations, and redeployment in a controlled, bare-base environment. With this basic knowledge, personnel should be able to make the adjustments that are always necessary in real-world operations.

AEF Flag will provide the NAF with only limited training because tactical goals and objectives will dominate the exercise. NAFs that are deployable from the CONUS must participate in two Blue Flag scenarios and one Unified Endeavor, in sequence, every 15 months.

The first Blue Flag will be very structured, built around the guidance of the NAF commander and his or her staff to reflect their training goals and objectives. The exercise control cell will drive events to meet the training goals and objectives. There will be an increase in logistics play over the existing Blue Flag exercises. TPFDD and TPFDL flow and discipline were a problem in the Gulf War and have continued to be a problem in every crisis since. Shipping things twice to get them to the theater once, usually without en route visibility, may provide a veneer of competence, but it is not a very pretty reality. A second Blue Flag will involve a neutral scenario without a direct relationship to existing plans. This second exercise will be akin to the Silver Flag concept proposed by Col Bobby Wilkes in his Aerospace Power Journal article of the same name.¹¹ Opposing forces (OPFOR) will not be scripted and are expected to employ creative challenges in a "free play" exercise environment. This will help lay the foundation for a Red Force concept of operations, ultimately available for crisis-action planning and course-of-action development.¹² Goals and objectives will be broad and not under the control of the NAF commander. Externally imposed rigor at this level is unusual, but essential, if commanding generals are to have a clear picture of both the demands that will be placed on them and the capabilities of their staffs.

The final phase of training will integrate the JFC, the AFFOR team, and the other components in the Unified Endeavor series of exercises. At this point the AFFOR team will come to fully develop their relationship with the JFC. Service or functional exercises tend to reinforce tribal perspectives, not necessarily bad or good as long as exercise objectives provide productive training, but a good joint exercise will transcend the tribal perspectives.

Professor McAdams had a rather abrasive way of reminding graduate students to first assess the obvious. In the era after Vietnam, innovations in training and processes at the tactical level of warfare, coupled with new technology, led to a dramatic increase in combat capability. That foundation provides the vision of how the USAF can make a transition to a fully integrated training program that provides combat-ready air and space forces to combatant commanders. All the capabilities addressed in this article are in place or can be fielded at low cost and with minimal modifications. This is one path to creating a transformational training structure that provides the USAF with leaders and an ASETF team prepared to command and support joint or coalition task forces.

Notes

1. Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (Boston, Mass.: Riverside Publishing Company,1994), 418.

2. Ibid., 1225.

3. For the purposes of this paper, C2 will include the C2 of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets.

4. Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999), on-line, Internet, 25 March 2003, available from http://www. terrorism.com/documents/unrestricted.pdf.

5. The full spectrum of functional specialties is described by a unit type code (UTC), which is a Joint Chiefs of Staff–developed and –assigned code that consists of five characters that uniquely identify a unit’s capabilities.

6. Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2, Organization and Employment of Aerospace Power, 17 February 2000, 33.

7. Lt Col John M. Fawcett Jr., USAF, retired, "Leadership and Reorganization: A New Model for the Air Force," Aerospace Power Journal 15, no. 2 (summer 2001): 65–77.

8. Time-phased force and deployment data (TPFDD) is the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) database portion of an operation plan. It contains time-phased force data, non-unit-related cargo and personnel data, and movement data for the operation plan to include: (a) in-place units; (b) units to be deployed to support the operation plan with a priority indicating the desired sequence for their arrival at the port of debarkation; (c) routing of forces to be deployed; (d) movement data associated with deploying forces; (e) estimates of non-unit-related cargo and personnel movements to be conducted concurrently with the deployment of forces; and (f) estimate of transportation requirements that must be fulfilled by common-user lift resources as well as those requirements that can be fulfilled by assigned or attached transportation resources, also called TPFDD.

The Time-Phased Force and Deployment List (TPFDL) is a JOPES database located at Appendix 1 to Annex A of deliberate plans. It identifies types and/or actual units required to support the operation plan and indicates origin and ports of debarkation or ocean area. This listing is to include both in-place units and units to be deployed to support the deliberate plan.

9. Fawcett.

10. Lt Col Michael E. Dickey, commander of the 421st Ground Combat Readiness Squadron, interviewd by author. The Phoenix Readiness (PR) program at the USAF Air Mobility Warfare Center (AMWC) is the USAF’s premier program for expeditionary combat support training. It is the only program- DOD wide- which assembles personnel representing virtually all the AF specialty codes necessary to provide expeditionary combat support, trains them for a week, and then exercises them for five days in a challenging field environment. The PR program is an effective and relatively inexpensive training venue, which is overseen by functional representatives of the Air Mobility Command staff and has Air Force–wide applicability. The PR focus is on specialty and functional areas and the integration of combat support and combat service support at the tactical level of warfare. Its objective is to train and educate today’s total Air Force through integrated and joint training for tomorrow’s contingencies.

11. Col Bobby J. Wilkes, "Silver Flag: A Concept for Operational Warfare," Aerospace Power Journal 15, no. 4 (winter 2001): 47–56.

12. Col Timothy G. Malone and Maj Reagan E. Schaupp, "The ‘Red Team’: Forging a Well-Conceived Contingency Plan," Aerospace Power Journal 16, no. 2 (summer 2002): 22–33.

Lt Col John M. “Jay” Fawcett Jr., USAF, retired (USAFA; MBA, Cornell University), is a contractor supporting the commander of the US Air Force Command and Control Training and Innovation Group at Hurlburt Field, Florida. Formerly a division chief with the Joint Forces Air Component Commander Operations Division, 505th Command and Control Evaluation Group, he retired in 1998. His articles have appeared in Aerospace Power Journal, Air Chronicles, and Parameters. Colonel Fawcett is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College, and Air War College.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

[ Back Issues | Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor ]