fresh COMMAND AND control (C2) universals have played a key part in helping to guide the evolution and progressive growth of recent Air Force (AF) expeditionary universals and capabilities.

fresh COMMAND AND control (C2) universals have played a key part in helping to guide the evolution and progressive growth of recent Air Force (AF) expeditionary universals and capabilities. Doctrine has kept pace with these changes and helped shape a certain of the new policies, technologies, and approaches to planning. a certain number of concepts have stood the criterion of time, such as acting decisively within the enemy say orient, decide, and act (OODA) link and are found in doctrine that is routinely used to guide air campaign planning activities. (1) Other universals that have found their way into C2 doctrine include strategic campaign planning and the operational strategies-to-task framework. (2) level more recently, the concept of effects-based operations has taken retain in campaign planning and execution. (3) While doctrine continues to expand and enable air-and-space-expeditionary-force (AEF) projection, more work is necessityed specifically in the area of combat support (CS) where improved integration of C capabilities and C2 of critical resources can better enable campaign planning and proactive decision making.

Joint and AF doctrine defines C2 as the exercise of authority and direction on a properly designated commander throughout assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission. Specifically, C2 includes the battle-space-management proces of planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling forces and operations (OPS) Enabling a commander to exercise C2 across the range of military operations involves the integration of schemes procedures, organizational structures, personnel, equipment, information, and communications. (4)

Unfortunately, C2 doctrine for C is not completely developed. For instance, C2 of C is minimally addressed in Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2 Organization and engagement of Aerospace Power, and AFDD 24 Combat Support. As a come procedures for integrating CS considerations into operations-planning processe are not understood by dint of large segments of operations and C personnel During late conflicts, combatant commanders have engrossed ad hoc approaches to patch up together CS operational and administrative chains of command, processe and transactions during contingency operations. This ad hoc approach delays the establishment of C C2 organizations like the Air Force Forces (AFFOR) Logistics Directorate (A-4) and confuses the alignment of parts and responsibilities between other C organizations like as the Air Force Combat Support Center (CSC) and the C functional staffs of the commands providing forces. This delay and confusion rises in campaign plans being perform the operations indicated ined with minimal CS inputs. The time it takes to go in the rear [i]or[/i] in the wake of the ad hoc approach to establish and accomplish C functions and the differing approaches that accrue in each contingency operation are not consistent with AEF goals. This article moves suggestions for the development of C C2 doctrine and discusses for what cause it can improve AF campaign planning and execution.

Important additions to C doctrinal general [i]or[/i] abstract notions include relating CS process performance, resource on a levels and constraints to operationally meaningful measures and capabilities; establishing C sway parameters and closedloop reporting onward CS process performance with indicators of potential body failures that could impact mission goals; and identifying what C organizations will demeanor specific C2 functions. Changes like as these will strengthen the capability of the AF C2 a whole in terms of the underlying C2 principles and beliefs described in AFDD 2-8, Command and mastery (5) For example, relating C proces performance and inventory flats to operational capability will enable commanders to understand the impact C decisions might have onward war-fighting capability, thereby providing an environment for more informed decision making.

Defining Doctrine

The evolution of C doctrine has been slowed from a lack of understanding about doctrine and its aim In 1995, during the early evolution stages of AFDD 2-4, working form into groupss contended with defining CS doctrine and struggl across the balance between simplicity and completenes determining the target audience, and ownership of contentment (6) The environment for codifying C principles into doctrine has not significantly changed. Oftentimes, the relationship between doctrine, general [i]or[/i] abstract notion of operations (CONOPS), instructions, policies, acts and techniques is not clearly defined or understood. To address this, we begin with a definition of doctrine and a short discussion upon the relationship between doctrine and other formal AF publications.

AFDD 1 Air Force Basic Doctrine, provides the following definition of doctrine:

Air and space doctrine is a statement of officially sanctioned beliefs and war-fighting principles that describe and guide the adapted use of air and space forces in military operations. Doctrine prepares us for futurity uncertainties and, combined with our basic shared core values, provides a general set of understanding on which airmen base their decisions. Doctrine consists of the fundamental principles on which military forces guide their actions in support of the nation's objectives. (7)