Implementation Actions for Improving Air Force Command and Control Through Enhanced Agile Combat Support Planning, Execution, Monitoring, and Control Processes

Implementation Actions for Improving Air Force Command and Control Through Enhanced Agile Combat Support Planning, Execution, Monitoring, and Control Processes

Kristin F. Lynch
John G. Drew
Robert S. Tripp
Daniel M. Romano
Jin Woo Yi
Amy L. Maletic
Copyright Date: 2014
Published by: RAND Corporation
Pages: 82
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt14bs2s3
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Implementation Actions for Improving Air Force Command and Control Through Enhanced Agile Combat Support Planning, Execution, Monitoring, and Control Processes
    Book Description:

    Using the architecture developed as a companion piece to this analysis, this report identifies and describes where shortfalls exist between current agile combat support (ACS) processes and the vision for integrating enhanced ACS processes into Air Force command and control (C2). It evaluates C2 nodes at each echelon of responsibility and across operational phases and suggests mitigation strategies needed to facilitate an efficient and effective global C2 network.

    eISBN: 978-0-8330-9004-1
    Subjects: History, Technology

Table of Contents

  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-ii)
  2. Preface
    (pp. iii-vi)
  3. Table of Contents
    (pp. vii-viii)
  4. Figures
    (pp. ix-x)
  5. Summary
    (pp. xi-xviii)
  6. Acknowledgments
    (pp. xix-xx)
  7. Abbreviations
    (pp. xxi-xxiv)
  8. 1. Introduction, Background, and Motivation
    (pp. 1-4)

    Air Force Doctrine Document 1 states that command and control (C2) of air, space, and cyber power is a fundamental function of the United States Air Force.¹ C2 enables the United States military to conduct operations that accomplish specific military objectives. Agile combat support (ACS),² another fundamental function of the Air Force, plays an integral role in C2. Often referred to asagile combat support command and control(ACS C2), the planning, execution, monitoring, and control of ACS processes are an integral part of Air Force and Joint C2. Prior Project AIR FORCE (PAF) research³ found that ACS planning, execution,...

  9. 2. Gaps and Shortfalls Identified Using the Operational Architecture and Recommended Strategies to Enhance Command and Control
    (pp. 5-26)

    We began this analysis by evaluating previous RAND-developed operational architectures from 2002 and 2006.¹ Then, we refined the previous work in light of the current operational and fiscal environments and developed an updated architecture. The updated architecture outlines roles and responsibilities at each echelon—the President and SECDEF, combatant commands (COCOMs), joint task forces (JTFs), C-NAFs, global ACS functional managers, supporting commands, units, and sources of supply—and across the phases of an operation—readiness, planning, deployment, employment and sustainment, and reconstitution.² The architecture presents a vision for integrating enhanced ACS processes into Air Force C2 at the strategic and...

  10. 3. Conclusions and Recommendations
    (pp. 27-30)

    The focus of this analysis is on how enhanced ACS processes can be implemented and integrated within the Air Force and Joint C2 enterprise. The updated architecture, developed as a companion piece to this analysis, provides the vision for enhanced C2.¹ We use this architecture to identify specific improvements that are needed at the strategic and operational levels. We evaluate C2 nodes from the level of the President and SECDEF to the units and sources of supply. We also evaluate these nodes across operational phases—from readiness preparation through planning, deployment, employment, sustainment, and reconstitution. The concepts we describe have...

  11. Appendix A. The Agile Logistics Evaluation EXperiment
    (pp. 31-36)
  12. Appendix B. Suggested Revisions to Air Force Documents to Enhance ACS Processes
    (pp. 37-52)
  13. Bibliography
    (pp. 53-58)