Creating new operational concepts to conduct battlefield operations and developing innovative force designs that provide versatile new organizational and employment arrangements are essential to the success of Joint Vision 2010 and the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). The very foundation of Joint Vision 2010 involves the harnessing of new advanced technologies via emerging operational concepts that dramatically alter how U.S. forces conduct the full range of military operations. These alterations subsequently lead to significant changes in joint and Service doctrine and ultimately to new organizational arrangements.

As the Joint Staff and the Services develop their visions for the 21st century, they must address the fundamental challenge identified in the Quadrennial Defense Review of fulfilling near- and mid-term requirements to shape the security environment and respond to a wide variety of crises and conflicts while simultaneously transforming U.S. forces to meet the challenges of an uncertain future. This transformation involves not only developing and integrating new technologies into the joint force, but equally as important, developing new operational concepts and organizational arrangements that can be applied in conducting joint operations.

Joint Vision 2010 provides the conceptual framework within which U.S. forces will develop new technologies and leverage resulting technological opportunities and new doctrine to achieve new levels of effectiveness in joint operations. By defining new operational concepts—dominant maneuver, precision engagement, full dimensional protection, and focused logistics—Joint Vision 2010 provides the Services, joint organizations, and DoD combat support agencies a common direction as they seek to develop the new capabilities, battlefield operational concepts and doctrine, and organizational configurations that will enable and shape the future joint forces necessary to meet the full range of critical challenges.

The development of operational concepts falls into two broad categories. The first involves development of specific battlefield operational concepts that integrate surveillance and reconnaissance activities, intelligence assessment, command and control measures, and mission preparation and execution activities to accomplish a critical operational task. The second involves the development of new organizational arrangements that seek to leverage new technologies and redefine how U.S. forces will conduct successful operations across the conflict spectrum.

A battlefield operational concept links together a series of functions that must be accomplished in order to carry out a critical operational task, such as locating and destroying mobile transporter-erector launchers (TELs) that could be used to launch theater ballistic missiles against U.S./coalition forces and other critical targets in the friendly rear area.

To achieve the capabilities needed to implement these concepts, the Department employs a system-of-systems approach that links surveillance and reconnaissance, intelligence assessment, command and control, mission preparation, and mission execution. The three battlefield operational concepts discussed later in this chapter are representative of these same functional elements and describe an end-to-end operational concept. This end-to-end approach leverages new technologies to accomplish the critical tasks that must be carried out to implement the U.S. defense strategy. Promising new battlefield operational concepts are often tested and refined during the conduct of advanced concept technology demonstrations (ACTDs) and joint warrior interoperability demonstrations. Advanced warfighting experiments (AWEs) aid in their timely transition to the warfighter.

As new operational concepts and advanced technologies are proven, they will lead to innovative changes to the organization and employment of forces. For example, efforts to achieve information superiority are providing more timely, accurate, and reliable intelligence support. This information dominance allows a shift in focus from merely concentrating forces for attrition warfare to obtaining desired effects from dispersed, synergistic forces at a critical place and time to achieve a tactical or strategic objective. The Army’s Force XXI Operations, the Navy Operational Concept, the Air Force’s Air Expeditionary Force concept, and the Marine Corps’ capstone concept of Operational Maneuver from the Sea, and its tactical enabler, Ship-to-Objective Maneuver, can deliver crippling blows against enemy centers of gravity.

The rapid pace of the transformation of military capabilities demands a thorough understanding of the potential impact of new battlefield operational concepts. Therefore it is essential that they be tested by a full range of joint and Service warfighting experiments and ACTDs and be accompanied by focused efforts to develop a new joint doctrine.

The Services have embarked on an ambitious concept development and testing process that involves warfighting centers, battle labs, and warfighting experiments. Joint- and Service-specific concept development is undertaken at warfighting centers and battle labs. Concepts considered operationally feasible are then tested in the field. When the results of these tests indicate improved warfighting capability can be achieved, the concepts can be expeditiously integrated into the requirements and doctrine development processes to provide new capabilities to the fighting forces as quickly as possible.

This testing and validation process often includes unified command exercises that provide critical operational feedback early in the concept development phase. The Services and the unified commands then have the proof-of-concept necessary to permit them to reconfigure force elements and support organizations, where appropriate, as new battlefield operational concepts are proven in the field.

The sections below present three promising new battlefield operational concepts that are under development using advanced concept technology demonstrations or warfighting experiments, followed by three new organizational or force employment concepts. These examples represent only a few of the many new operational concepts being developed by the Department.

The mobile theater ballistic missile (TBM) demonstrated its political and operational impact during the Gulf War. Theater ballistic missiles carrying chemical or biological weapons represent one of the most significant challenges facing the United States in future conflicts. Coordinated joint missile defense that integrates active defenses, passive protection measures, and offensive attack operations is required to successfully defeat this increasingly dangerous threat.

The most efficient method of dealing with the theater missile threat is to destroy enemy missiles and their launchers prior to launch. Since most regional powers have hundreds of missiles, but only several tens of launch platforms, the value of attacking the enemy’s launch platforms, including TELs used to support mobile operations, is very high, even if a TEL has already launched its missile.

Mobile missile TELs represent one of the most demanding time critical targets on the modern battlefield. TELs are highly mobile, relatively autonomous, and produce a low discriminating signature prior to launch. It is very difficult to locate and identify TELs while they are hidden or moving into launch positions, but intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems have a reasonably good chance of detecting TELs on the battlefield just after launch. This window of opportunity, where the TELs are stationary, may exist for only three to five minutes. Therefore, success requires an end-to-end battlefield operational concept that permits the warfighter to move rapidly from detection and identification, through appropriate battle management at a command and control center to the assignment of an appropriate attack system, and finally successful engagement and attack.

The essential elements of the end-to-end operational concept for destroying mobile TELs are depicted in the accompanying graphic. The keys to time critical targeting of theater ballistic missile TELs include timely detection and discrimination, automatic target recognition coupled with moving target indicator tracking, and the transfer of data in near real-time to key command and control elements that can quickly task lethal attack operations.

The Air Force has developed a Rapid Targeting System (RTS), a system of systems containing the functional elements of ISR, command assessment and mission preparation, and mission execution to enable the suppression of mobile TBM TELs. The Rapid Targeting System can find targets, facilitate planning and task attack systems, engage and destroy the TELs, assess the effectiveness of attacks, and report these results to key command elements.

Rapidly collecting and evaluating ISR information, predicting potential enemy courses of action, and transmitting only relevant data to the warfighter is referred to as intelligence preparation of the battlespace (IPB). With regard to the theater missile threat, IPB is the most critical function required in the near-term to underwrite the end-to-end battlefield operational concept for destroying TBM TELs.

ISR systems include not only surveillance and reconnaissance assets, but also systems that can focus and thereby improve their effectiveness for IPB. Examples of systems that are a part of the RTS include:

Following assessment of ISR information in the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance cell at the Air Operation Center, targets are nominated to the battle staff. Approved tasking of appropriate attack aircraft then flows via the Rapid Targeting Dissemination System to squadron operations facilities, a control platform, and in some cases, directly to attack platforms, such as F-15Es. Aiding in this process are command, control, communications, and computers (C⁴) systems designed to ensure the timely flow of information. They include:

Complying with theater specific rules of engagement, the attack aircraft locates the target, in some cases assisted by JSTARS controllers, attacks using precision-guided munitions, and reports real-time assessment data through airborne command and control channels to the battle staff, completing the mission execution and initial battle damage assessment phase. An example of the Air Force’s capability to execute the rapid transmission of information required in this end-to-end task against mobile TBM threats is currently fielded in the Bosnian area of operations. The Gold Strike Rapid Targeting System transmits near Real Time Information in the Cockpit to an F-15E in flight, enabling rapid tasking of strike assets against detected threats.

Time critical targeting will continue to be validated and tested in Air Force and joint exercises, including Roving Sands and the Global Engagement exercise series. Future development of time critical targeting will explore automation of IPB information for graphic display on operator consoles and interface with decision aids that cue battle managers to find and identify entities, task assets, attack and kill targets, and utilize near-real time battlefield assessment data. IPB will form the basis of Dynamic Battle Management (DBM), an approach that will ensure the dissemination of the right information to the right command and control node and shooter at the right time. The DBM environment will evolve to include:

In addition, an improved ISR systems capability will be developed for data collection, processing and dissemination, target acquisition, and identification and tracking, relying on systems like the Integrated Battlespace Intelligence Server, Unmanned Ground Sensors, and Unmanned Ground Measurement Intelligent Sensors. Finally, time critical targeting will include boost phase intercept by an Airborne Laser, which will dramatically reduce the load in terminal defense systems protecting critical assets. It will also increase the capability of critical active defense systems through early cuing on incoming TBMs. Early sensing/cuing will aid battle management/command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (BM/C⁴I) by enabling commanders to more easily prioritize targets, deconflict events, and allocate task resources.

The near-term development plan for the improved TBM attack operations system of systems will provide the new capabilities needed to achieve the desired level of rapid targeting capability against TBM TELs. It is important to note that this architecture, although built specifically for attacking mobile missile TELs and the entire theater missile target set, also enhances air and space power employment across the board by improving real-time management of combat power.

Many future crises will likely occur in environments where mines on land and at sea serve as serious obstacles to U.S. military operations. Mines are inexpensive weapons, available worldwide. Often emplaced along with other pre-placed obstacles, mines in combination with other obstacles restrict maneuver, disrupt operating tempo, deny flexibility, and increase friendly casualties at sea, during amphibious landings, in airborne forced entry, and in ground operations.

The Joint Countermine Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (JCM ACTD), will evaluate the capability of U.S. forces to conduct integrated mine countermeasures operations from deep water, through the shallow water, very shallow water, and the surf zone onto land. Some of the major objectives of the JCM ACTD are to integrate new mine countermeasure systems into a JCM-tailored digital command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C⁴ISR) architecture, and to develop a tactical software application that provides a JCM common operational picture. New systems that prove effective in this demonstration will be integrated with already fielded Army, Navy, and Marine Corps C⁴ISR and countermine capabilities to develop an overall JCM system-of-systems.

The operational sponsor for the JCM ACTD is the United States Atlantic Command (USACOM). The USACOM staff will assess the military utility of the new systems in achieving joint employment objectives under varied conditions while leveraging previously scheduled joint and Service field training exercises.

The JCM ACTD consists of a two-phased demonstration. Demonstration I, centered on Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 97-3, was concluded in September 1997. A JTFEX is a joint field training exercise that evaluates and certifies the readiness of sea, air, and land forces to deploy and carry out assigned tasks. JTFEX 97-3 focused on enhancing near-shore mine clearing capabilities, with an emphasis on detection and neutralization of mines and obstacles during the conduct of amphibious operations. The second phase of demonstrations will emphasize the use of technologies to perform surveillance and reconnaissance and demonstrate the integration of various technologies to continuously carry out an effective transition of countermine operations from the sea to the land. Following completion of the second demonstration, the most effective ACTD hardware, software, and documentation will be transferred to the operating forces of several Services for further refinement and the development of appropriate tactical and operational concepts.

In JTFEX 97-3, a joint task force conducted forced entry missions into a simulated area of operations that included an airborne assault objective on an airfield at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and an amphibious assault on the beaches of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. This scripted scenario specifically focused on a series of intelligence collection and other mission execution functions in accordance with the Joint Countermine end-to-end operational concept.

During the 1997 demonstration, clandestine intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance operations against the Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg operating areas were demonstrated using a littoral remote sensing software application that linked national assets and experimental processing/exploitation techniques, including:

These new, integrated mine detection systems facilitated planning and helped determine the pace and timing of the assaults, as well as the specific countermine forces necessary to support the operation. Demonstration of supporting communication links and the development of a common tactical picture received particular emphasis in the pre-assault phase. Mine and countermine communication links and information processing and display systems received and assimilated data from sensor and collector systems, processed and displayed the data, and transmitted relevant information to commanders and operational forces.

Prior to and during the amphibious and airborne assaults, priority operations included mine and obstacle neutralization in shallow water through the beach zone and the marking of mines and obstacles or areas clear of mines and obstacles. Several new systems designed to breach or clear minefields and obstacles were used, including:

Neutralization of mines and obstacles, both at sea and on land, was undertaken only to the extent necessary to successfully carry out the mission. Operations occurred in several areas at the same time, as will occur in an actual assault. Effective and rapid mine and obstacle clearance was a key factor in facilitating the rapid buildup of combat power ashore and the subsequent successful breakout from the amphibious landing area.

The commander of the amphibious forces employed a tailored C⁴I system to leverage the individual capabilities of new and existing systems to display a common operational picture. The Joint Countermine Operational Simulation system was used by the commander’s staff for course of action analysis and to visualize and brief the assault plan prior to the assaults.

In FY 1998, milestones for the JCM ACTD include demonstrating the ability to conduct seamless operations from deep water, through the beach to land objectives.

With Joint Vision 2010 and the Marine Corps concept of Operational Maneuver from the Sea emphasizing a need for joint fires in the littoral battlespace, the Navy is exploring new battlefield operational concepts to provide effective naval fire support to joint forces ashore. One concept being examined is the Navy’s Ring of Fire, designed to provide flexible and distributed firepower from naval forces for offshore support of operations on land.

The Ring of Fire end-to-end battlefield operational concept will use a series of Land Attack Weapons System (LAWS) to link together a group of naval platforms within range of a given objective area ashore to provide a seamless integration among the available weapons launchers. As a platform checks into the ring, its ordnance inventory is entered into the LAWS data base containing the overall force inventory. It is made available for apportionment to different mission areas in accordance with the operational commander’s guidance. When either a scheduled fire support mission or short notice fire mission is tasked, the joint task force (JTF) commander can use his LAWS to automatically designate a platform and the type of ordnance to be used to complete the mission. The designated platform receives the mission and its land attack weapon system provides the solution to shoot the specified ordnance at the proper time. Data on target location can come from a number of sources. For example, forward observers in the field using a hand-held computer configured to digitally pass preformatted messages through a radio can quickly and accurately call for fires. Other theater sensors like UAVs or JSTARS could provide surveillance and reconnaissance locating data on enemy formations directly to commanders at sea.

The Ring of Fire concept will rely upon a digital means via the land attack weapons system to assign fire missions, eliminating many of the errors and difficulties associated with voice tasking and reducing the time from a request for fire support to ordnance on target. Success will depend upon the development of accurate targeting information and the capability to transmit this information rapidly to operational commanders and fire support units at sea. To enable rapid, reliable multiple tasking, weapons systems and fire control systems must be internetted to permit the timely flow of accurate surveillance information, requests for fire, and command and control direction among units. With the development of long-range munitions, multimission ships interconnected via LAWS will not be restricted to operating in small fire support areas that leave them vulnerable to attack and limit their availability to perform other operational tasks. Consequently, a ship may be assigned during any given period to more than one warfare or component commander for operational use and the ordnance of that ship may also be used for more than one operational task. Some ordnance may be apportioned for direct support missions to be delivered relatively close to friendly forces, while others may be made available to the theater commander to shape the battle by destroying targets deeper in the enemy rear area. Automating some of the decision making at the Engagement Integration Center expedites the process of passing fire missions from the sensor through command assessment and assignment to the shooter.

With this concept, a ship that is located in the amphibious operating area to provide force protection can concentrate on protecting itself and other assigned forces. A ship that is entering the amphibious operating area and the Ring of Fire can be designated to execute a fire support mission by firing allocated weapons.

Central to the execution of this battlefield operational concept is the development of the Land Attack Weapons System that conducts naval fire support in what has been described as a network-centric approach to warfare. By dynamically allocating the firepower from several ships rather than allocating ships and aircraft to different missions, the force’s collective firepower can be better integrated to achieve specific target objectives.

The Ring of Fire battlefield operational concept was demonstrated in Fleet Battle Experiment (FBE) Bravo in September 1997. This was the second in a series of experiments designed to examine emerging systems and technologies using innovative operational concepts in support of Joint Vision 2010 and Forward . . . From the Sea, the naval operational concept. FBE Bravo investigated precision fires with a major focus on the Ring of Fire. LAWS was installed aboard JTF command ship (USS Coronado), in the Supporting Arms Coordination Center (SACC) carried on USS Peleliu, and in a fire support ship, USS Russell. The LAWS unit aboard the command ship was the master unit that received all requests for shore fire support.

During FBE Bravo, surveillance and targeting was conducted by the Forward Observer/Forward Air Controller (FOFAC), who determined target coordinates and using a hand-held computer, passed digital targeting information directly to the JTF command ship via satellite. The master LAWS aboard the command ship paired the target with a specific platform or weapon and transmitted the mission order to a LAWS-equipped fire support ship to execute the fire support mission. The Army’s Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System was also integrated into the local area network and was used to relay target information from the FOFAC to LAWS.

FBE Bravo successfully demonstrated that the Ring of Fire concept using LAWS was scaleable to the tactical situation, could apply a distributed arsenal of weapons to targets, and could respond to high rates of digital calls for fire. The Navy is currently evaluating the results of the two Ring of Fire demonstrations to identify its implications to future littoral warfighting.

In addition to developing new battlefield operational concepts such as those discussed above, DoD is also conducting concept development of a broader nature. The Services are exploring new organizational arrangements and new concepts of force employment to meet future key security challenges. Several examples follow.

Conducting military operations in an urban environment poses many challenges. Built-up areas create a very rugged urban terrain that seriously limits observation distances, engagement ranges, weapons effectiveness, and mobility, thereby forcing extremely close combat. Command and control is extremely difficult because leaders cannot easily observe the battlespace and radio communication is subject to interference caused by man-made structures. The presence of large numbers of civilians requires special measures to prevent noncombatant casualties. Nevertheless, in the coming years, land forces will almost certainly be called upon to carry out various types of military operations, including humanitarian assistance operations, peace operations, and high-intensity combat. These operations may occur simultaneously in adjacent neighborhoods. Overcoming these challenges will require new and innovative ways for conducting military operations in urban terrain.

Historically, military operations on urban terrain have been attrition-style operations, relying upon overwhelming firepower to pulverize the area and destroy an enemy. Fierce and continuous close combat resulted in great material destruction and high casualties among combatants and noncombatants alike. This level of destruction is not acceptable in a wide range of situations. Alternative capabilities are needed that permit the penetration of urban areas in order to execute a discrete set of limited operations with minimal collateral damage. To meet this challenge, the Marine Corps is developing and testing new battlefield operational concepts that apply close coordination of dispersed small units employing maneuver warfare principles in urban environments.

In maneuver warfare, strength is applied against the enemy’s weaknesses, using rapid tempo to shatter the enemy’s cohesion, organization, command, and psychological balance. In urban environments, Marines plan to take advantage of the peculiarities of the surroundings to develop and maintain superior operating tempo, creating a cascading effect that overwhelms the enemy.

Enhanced automated awareness on the urban battlefield based on a variety of new reconnaissance sensors will allow Marines in a built-up area to gather information despite the presence of terrain-masking features that obscure their fields of view. This capability will allow an individual Marine or a unit to collect and accurately assess information regarding the terrain and the presence of friendly, enemy, and noncombatant personnel. Much of the volume of a major city is interior—the space found inside structures above or under the ground. Land forces need the capability to gather surveillance information through walls and to detect the presence and shape of tunnels and sewers. Surveillance and reconnaissance systems, including specifically designed UAVs carrying electro-optical and infrared sensors, and reconnaissance patrols with tailored radars, infrared and optical devices will collect information and disseminate it to commanders.

The resulting information must be rapidly fused into a common tactical picture available to all operating units in near real-time. Although all combat units will probably be involved in urban battle, it is likely to be conducted primarily by dispersed teams or squads of dismounted infantry in coordinated operations. Information must flow to these basic tactical units. Accordingly, the focus of information systems in urban operations is on enabling lateral coordination and opportunistic decision making at the small unit level.

Command and control systems for military operations on urban terrain must be capable of representing the three-dimensional nature of urban terrain. Associated communications devices must provide reliable communications paths between and through structures, streets, and subterranean features like sewers or subway tunnels. Computer-generated map products need to be developed to provide a graphic representation of the terrain. These products must be quickly updated to reflect changes caused by combat action. Command and control systems must provide for the retrieval, exchange, storage, display, and manipulation of the large quantities of data required for such representations.

Mobility and countermobility capabilities must be developed that can allow U.S. forces to gain control of movement throughout the multiple dimensions of urban terrain. For surface movement, Marines will readily create avenues of approach through structures and along rubble-strewn streets. Below the surface, Marines will exploit the many forms of subterranean architecture which exist in modern cities—subways, sewers, and other underground pathways. Above the surface, Marines will move through and across the upper stories of buildings, crossing streets and alleys high above the ground, often without the aid of aircraft. The most complex mobility challenge Marines will face will be to provide vertical mobility, conducted between the sub-surface, surface, and above-surface zones.

In an urban environment, Marines plan to apply measured firepower which will deny the enemy the protection he will seek from urban structures, while reducing the risk of injury to nearby noncombatants and infrastructure. Marines will possess the ability to successfully engage enemy forces located within buildings or rubble, and they will conduct engagements between the street level and the subways. Nonlethal weapons will be used to help clear structures shared by enemy troops and noncombatants. The overall fire support system must be able to coordinate the use of a wide range of weapons, including munitions with variable penetration and explosive characteristics, and direct lethal and nonlethal fires against different targets located very near one another.

In urban combat, Marines will use force protection measures to reduce the risk of casualties while facilitating rapid maneuver. Individual and collective protection might serve to lower the incidence of casualties. Protective measures will include special medical capabilities. Land forces may be exposed to a wide variety of infectious diseases in tomorrow’s urban environment which might be avoided by the use of antibiotic body-covering ointments or personal air filtration systems.

Maneuver warfare is based on rapid tempo. Such tempo is tied closely to logistics, which sets the bounds for what is operationally possible. In future urban operations, the logistics system must be adapted to the characteristics of the environment to enhance tempo. The two most distinctive features of urban operations—built-up terrain and the presence of a large number of noncombatants—will both impact logistics. Sustainability efforts must provide for supply, maintenance, transportation, health services, engineering, and services under the special conditions of future military operations in urban terrain. In some cases, the urban environment itself might be subject to exploitation for purposes of logistics support. Relevant supplies might be available within the contested area, either for use by Marine units or to provide for the needs of noncombatants or enemy prisoners of war. Indigenous facilities and infrastructure (hospitals, vehicle maintenance depots, and communications systems), as well as heavy equipment and civilian vehicles, could serve the needs of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. Subject to security considerations and the laws of armed conflict, local residents with special expertise might be able to provide some assistance.

Conducting effective military operations on urban terrain will require highly flexible concepts, which, in turn, will require highly flexible organizational arrangements. All units must be capable of readily disassembling into a number of independently functioning component parts and then reassembling again, without losing momentum. Most importantly, commanders must be able to rapidly change the organization and capabilities of any unit to gain maximum tactical advantage as the situation develops. As operations progress, the force must be able to change shape as special assets shift from one unit to another. In this way, leaders will smoothly adjust the focus of effort to maintain pressure against critical enemy vulnerabilities, while bypassing and isolating the enemy’s positions of strength.

The Army has a long history of developing innovative approaches to future warfighting challenges. Prior to World War II, General George C. Marshall began the Louisiana Maneuvers to explore new concepts for the employment of large forces in combat. As the strategic environment changed in the early 1990s, the Army revived the Louisiana Maneuvers as a means to keep ahead of the rapid pace of change. This effort has evolved into the Army Battle Lab program, discussed in more detail in Chapter 15, which helps identify concepts and requirements for new doctrine, training, leader development, organizations, materiel, and soldier systems.

The future Army, Force XXI and its follow-on Army After Next, must be designed with organizations and capabilities that will allow it to be rapidly tailored, strategically deployable, and effectively employable in joint and multinational operations. Current developmental efforts include digitized heavy forces capable of rapidly processing and acting on tactical information to enable effective operations in a variety of environments. Future work on digitized light forces will build on this base. Innovative approaches to challenges, such as military operations in urban terrain being developed in concert with the Marine Corps, are being explored in Force XXI operations and will help achieve the necessary capabilities for the Army After Next to meet critical warfighting challenges in the 21st century.

The land forces required to meet future security challenges must be able to respond across the spectrum of possible military operations. The Army’s concept of operations for Army XXI incorporates the full life cycle of modern military operations, from initial receipt of mission through return to home station. This conceptual framework serves to identify both the enduring characteristics of Force XXI operations, the many tasks armies have always performed in war and other military operations, as well as to identify areas where new technologies and new concepts can be combined for truly revolutionary increases in overall capabilities. The concept describes six operational capabilities that Army XXI will develop to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The Force XXI operational concept is an evolving concept, the result of the continuous integration of experimentation, experience, and conceptual thought. This concept represents a way point along the path to Army XXI, the Army of the 21st century. Further developmental work is ongoing to create the capabilities to execute these concepts. Central to the developmental effort was the brigade-level AWE, Task Force XXI, at the National Training Center, California, in March 1997 and the division-level AWE, Division XXI, at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 1997. Along with other AWEs, these experiments will allow the Army, in concert with the other Services, to refine concepts and produce a clearer conceptual framework for full spectrum dominance.

The Air Force is currently implementing the Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) concept to provide a light, rapidly deployable, and highly capable force for the nation in peacetime, crisis, and war. The primary AEF mission is to provide regional commanders in chief (CINCs) and joint force commanders with air and space forces which can carry out wide ranging airpower options and to meet specific theater needs across the full spectrum of military response options. Humanitarian relief in Africa, disaster relief in South America, augmentation of forces in Southwest Asia, and the conduct of timely attacks to halt invading forces on the opening day of a major theater war are a few examples of the varied missions AEFs are designed to undertake. Across the spectrum of possible military operations, a rapid response may deter conflict or make the difference between a quick, efficient victory and a protracted, costly engagement. Furthermore, the regular deployment of Air Expeditionary Forces in individual theaters helps strengthen mutually beneficial cooperative defense relationships and improves the ability of the United States to remain globally engaged.

The key to U.S. global dominance is the ability to project power quickly any place in the world. This global response can be executed with rapid projection of an AEF that can deploy or reposition to a crisis within 48 hours. With focused and agile combat logistics, these forces can demonstrate U.S. resolve through mere physical presence or the conduct of specific operations. The reduced footprint of an expeditionary force reduces the vulnerability of U.S. forces in potentially hostile regions—especially those containing terrorist forces.

Air Expeditionary Forces can be tailored to match the requirements of the situation. For example, in a humanitarian relief AEF, airlift and special operations aircraft would predominate, while in a force projection AEF a tailored mix of air superiority aircraft, precision strike platforms, and assets to suppress enemy air defenses would likely be employed. In a major theater war, a force enhancement AEF can respond as a flexible deterrent option at the outset of a serious crisis, as a precursor to execution of an operational plan by a much larger force. In some cases, a contingent of long-range bombers, originating from the continental United States or from a number of forward-deployed sites, could be added to a force enhancement AEF to promote the capability to conduct precise attacks on a range of targets in the early stages of a conflict.

In all cases, the various types of AEF will make use of air and space-based assets that provide C⁴ISR to maintain the requisite situational awareness and connectivity while forward deployed. The AEF commander will be able to use modern global communications to reach back to home station or anywhere else in the world for required support that would have previously been forward deployed. This reach-back capability distinguishes the modern day AEF from past rapid deployment force packages.

Global connectivity and internetted computer systems will enable AEFs to operate with lean sustainment logistics and a minimum forward-deployed footprint of materiel and personnel, supported by time-definite delivery of spare parts and other critical supplies. Commanders will also be able to track people, inventory, munitions, and spare parts efficiently, permitting optimum use of scarce long-range and theater mobility assets. This, in turn, will reduce the timeline for employment and the potential for casualties. Effective use of reach-back and modern information processing will also provide the basis for dynamic battlespace assessment, timely operational planning, and mission execution in near real-time. Intelligence analysts and assorted data bases, as well as back-up planners and modern campaign and mission planning tools, will all be available to the AEF through the reach-back method.

One key role of AEFs will be to enhance deterrence in crisis. Force enhancement AEFs will include intelligence and reconnaissance assets that help the CINC or joint task force commander achieve superior real-time awareness of the theater. In addition to its own intelligence, analysis, and targeting assets, such an AEF will be directly linked to surveillance, intelligence assessment, and command and control systems to find, fix, track, and target adversary forces. This dominant battlespace knowledge capability, when combined with a force capable of prompt and decisive air strikes, will serve as a credible deterrent by denying would-be aggressors the prospect of success.

Building on the dominant battlespace knowledge associated with a force enhancement AEF, a force projection AEF can be structured to carry out devastating attacks against an aggressor. The rapid, precise application of U.S. airpower, leveraged by space assets, can rapidly halt an initial enemy offensive, thereby denying an enemy any fait accompli for political bargaining, and possibly delivering a serious psychological blow to the adversary. By conducting focused, precision attacks on command and control infrastructure, a force projection AEF can also hold at risk the enemy’s ability to control its fielded forces, as well as the internal security forces that stabilize its regime. Assuming the adversary government is authoritarian, the impact of threatening the regime may result in concessions that reduce the effectiveness of enemy forces. This strategy was pivotal in Bosnia, where NATO air strikes helped convince Bosnian Serb leaders to remove heavy weaponry from the Sarajevo exclusion zone.

During 1996 and 1997, the United States deployed six AEFs to different bases in Southwest Asia to support the United Nations sanctions against Iraq. These deployments demonstrated the flexibility and effectiveness of first generation AEFs.

A few of the promising new battlefield operational concepts and new organizational configurations being developed in the Services and elsewhere in the Department of Defense have been described here. To manage its fiscal and personnel resources, the Department must continue to place major emphasis on the development of new operational concepts that help ensure mission success on the battlefield. However, it is essential that before significant portions of the defense budget are committed to programming for revised organizational arrangements or the procurement of new technologies, new operational concepts be fully developed in joint and Service battle labs and validated in warfighting experiments. The Department remains committed to developing and then incorporating new operational concepts in the U.S. armed forces that help transform their ability to meet the challenges of the 21st century.