Fighter Wing: A Guided Tour of an Air Force Combat Wing

ONCE upon a time in America, there was an Air Force. It was created in 1947 as a separate service (from the U.S. Army), with a simple set of goals: to deter our primary Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, from expanding beyond its borders, and, if deterrence failed, to successfully fight the Soviets with the other armed services and achieve victory. For over forty-five years, the United States Air Force stood up to the challenge and outlasted its opponents. This is not to say it did so in the most efficient, economical, or even acceptable way. Its bitter turf battles with the U.S. Navy are legendary around Washington, D.C. Also, like all large organizations, the USAF was prone to internal conflicts. Throughout the Cold War, there were continuous squabbles between the primary commands of the USAF. The bomber pilots and ICBM missileers that made up the leadership of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) were always at odds with the fighter pilots who led the Tactical Air Command (TAC). If this was not divisive enough, the "combat" fliers at SAC and TAC scorned those who flew the transports for the Military Airlift Command (MAC), whom they considered "trash haulers."

And in 1991, the U.S. Air Force suffered the greatest disaster (save defeat in battle) that can befall a military force. Its primary enemy, the Soviet Union, collapsed as a result of the failure of the August Coup. Of course, only a truly sick and cynical observer of world events would have wished the Cold War to continue indefinitely. Yet scarcely anyone foresaw the end of the conflict between the U.S. and the USSR and the end of the bipolar world we'd known for half a century. Now, if you think you were surprised, you should have seen the shock of the armed services leadership!

Within the halls of the Pentagon, the leadership of the Air Force was quick to realize that with their primary threat nullified, and with severe budget cuts already planned by the Administration of President George Bush, they would have to remake themselves if they were to survive the coming lean years of the 1990s. Thus, in early 1992, USAF Chief of Staff General Merrill McPeak ordered a complete, USAF-wide reorganization. But don't call it a reorganization. Call it a revolution. It so stunned members of the service, they are still trying to fully understand it.

The three traditional flying commands, SAC, TAC, and MAC, were abolished, with combat aircraft (fighters, bombers, electronic warfare and theater transport aircraft) going to the newly formed Air Combat Command (ACC) headquartered at Langley Air Force Base. Virtually all heavy airlift (C-141, C-5, and C-17) and airborne tanker (KC-135 and KC-10) aircraft went to the newly formed Air Mobility Command (AMC), based at Scott AFB, Illinois. The strategic nuclear mission was handed off to a new unified (i.e., joint USAF/Navy) command called Strategic Command (STRATCOM). Incidently, STRATCOM does not own any of the bombers, submarines, or missiles that it operates.

On June 1st, 1992, when the reorganization took place, it was as if every major airline in America (and a few large service companies as well) had merged overnight and thrown their individual corporate cultures to the winds. As might be imagined, this has caused a great deal of stress and personal disorientation. It has also created one of the most powerful and diverse fighting forces in the world. Definitely a revolution! Let's take a look at it.

TAC TO ACC: THE GREAT MERGER

When ACC was formed in June 1992, the man who was tasked as its first commander had the advantage of also being the last commander of TAC. Thus, General Michael Loh, USAF, had the unique distinction of commanding major USAF military commands on both sides of the great merger. A career fighter pilot, he suddenly found himself leading a force that would have been inconceivable just five years ago.

General Loh makes no secret of his tactical bias in the eternal struggle between the fighter pilots of TAC and the bomber pilots of SAC. It is even conceivable that on the night of May 31st, 1992, he may have hoisted a beer or two to celebrate the end of TAC's "true" enemy, the Armageddon-oriented bomber culture of SAC, which was to vanish at midnight that evening. But to listen to him now is to understand the transformation of the old Air Force he grew up in into the new one that he helped create. Gone is the cocky, triumphant fighter pilot. As he hands off command of ACC to General Joe Ralston there is an intense (you could define intensity by spending an hour with General Loh!), almost desperate drive to weld the formerly distinct elements of his new command into a single fighting force. Not in ten years, or even five. But now! Before they are needed again in some far-off, dangerous place. This is the reality that he faced as he finished his final year of command at ACC (he retired in the summer of 1995). His challenges have been simple but formidable. They included:

• Merging personnel, bases, and aircraft from all three of the former major flying commands (bombers from SAC, medium transports from MAC, and tactical aircraft from TAC) into a unified combat flying command.

• Continuing modernization of ACC aircraft, weapons, and equipment, despite the fiscal limitations of the 1990s.

• Maintaining operational and tactical proficiency when out-of-area (i.e., overseas) operations rates (Op Tempos, as they are known) for our forces have never been higher, and operations and maintenance budgets (per pilot and aircraft) have never been lower.

• Supporting Administration plans to be able to fight in two near-simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRCs) of the size that might be anticipated in Korea, or perhaps Iran.

• Doing all this in a time of planned drawdowns and budget shortfalls that are challenging even to those who survived the dark fiscal days of the 1970s.

ACC currently has units spread over the globe, conducting missions on a global scale. In Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Italy, ACC aircraft are helping to enforce no-fly zones over Iraq and Bosnia. In Korea, ACC aircraft and personnel are providing muscle to diplomatic efforts to maintain peace and stability in that troubled region. And U.S.-based ACC aircraft were key to the recent efforts to build and enforce democracy in Haiti. All this while trying to maintain normal commitments in NATO, Latin America, and the Far East, as well as providing continental air defense for North America.

THE ACC MISSION

All this brings us to the question of just what are normal operations for ACC. To understand this requires a short history lesson. Back in the mid-1980s, during the Reagan buildup, questions were asked about the effectiveness of the military the buildup was buying. Less-than-perfect joint operations in Grenada (1983) and Libya (1986), along with the disaster of our intervention in Lebanon (1982 to 1984), were disturbing signs that more than just money was needed to get the most out of the American forces. The Congressional response was the Military Reform Act of 1986, known more popularly as Goldwater-Nichols, after its sponsors. Goldwater-Nichols reformed the various military chains of command, and concentrated actual power to command forces in the field in the hands of regional commanders in chief, or CinCs as they are called. These CinCs, of which there are currently eight, control all forces, regardless of service, that are assigned to their geographic area of responsibility (AOR) in the world. These joint commands range from the Middle East (U.S. Central Command, CENTCOM) to forces based in Europe (U.S. European Command, EUCOM). For example, anyone assigned to operate in Latin America would come under the command of General Barry McCaffrey, USA, who (at the time of this writing) is CinC of the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) based in Panama. In addition, the Goldwater-Nichols bill strengthened the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), so that the billet is now considered a cabinet-level position and the President's senior military advisor. The underlying idea was to clarify the chain of command between the civilian leadership of the national command authority in Washington, D.C., and the forward leadership of our armed forces in the field.

So far, Goldwater-Nichols seems to have worked, with joint operations from Panama to the Middle East running more smoothly than those of the post-Vietnam era. This is not to say that poor political objectives can't cause such operations to fail, as was proven in Somalia in 1992. On the contrary, Goldwater-Nichols places a much greater burden of responsibility for military operations on the civilian leadership of the United States, something future Presidential candidates might be wise to consider before seeking the office.

At this point, you might ask just what all this has to do with getting a wing of combat aircraft into action somewhere in the world? More than you might think, actually. Since the end of the Cold War, the military of the United States has increasingly become a home- or continental-based force. Just in the last five years, we have closed the bulk of our overseas bases in the Philippines, Germany, Spain, and many other countries. This means that interventions by U.S. armed forces are increasingly made at the request of a host nation or as part of a coalition of forces. Thus, the current U.S. military basing strategy has relatively few units forward based, with the CinCs frequently owning few or no forces of their own.

For example: When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf owned exactly nothing in the way of combat forces. All he had was a staff and a headquarters. So where did he get the nearly 500,000 soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who fought in Operation Desert Storm? Well, those forces were "packaged" and "chopped" to his command (CENTCOM) for the duration of the crisis in the Persian Gulf, and included units from virtually every other command in the U.S. armed forces. At the time, this action was regarded as something of an anomaly, but today it is a fundamental principle of our national defense strategy. By the year 2001, something like 90 % of all U.S. forces will be based in the continental United States, meaning that if we want to intervene somewhere, we're going to have to take our show on the road.

To support this shift in the U.S. defense paradigm, a new joint command has been created, called United States Atlantic Command (USACOM). In essence, this massive command "owns" virtually every military unit based in the continental United States. The role of USACOM is to be the "packager" of joint task forces for shipment to the various unified commands around the world. Delivery of the package is handled by the folks at U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) at Scott AFB, Illinois. TRANSCOM controls all the ships, heavy airlift, trucking, and rail assets needed to move the packaged forces to wherever they are needed.

This is where ACC comes in — as the one-stop supplier for USAF combat aircraft. If you need a wing of F-15s with AWACS support to keep a no-fly zone patrolled, ACC supplies the units that will make it happen. In addition, they can supply airbase construction teams (Red Horse battalions), Tactical Air Control Centers (TACCs), medical teams, and even field kitchens, for use at undeveloped airfield sites. They are also, as was demonstrated recently in Haiti, capable of deploying forces from their home bases in America directly into a crisis area.

ACC: THE FORCE

So just what is ACC made up of? The slides of the "ACC Today" command briefing (September 1994) are full of numbers, some of them almost numbing in magnitude. Over 250,000 personnel, including 117,700 in the Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserves (AFRES). Twenty-five dedicated ACC bases, with ACC units "bedded down" at eleven other USAF installations. ACC boasts a force of some 3,230 aircraft (1,640 active, 1,590 ANG/AFRES) in some 160 different "battle management units," as they are called. These are distributed in four numbered air forces across the continental United States:

• 1st Air Force—Provides fighters, radars, and other units as the primary air component of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD).

• 8th Air Force—Provides the bomber force for ACC, as well as being the primary air component for STRATCOM and USACOM.

• 9th Air Force—Equipped mainly with fighter and transport aircraft, it is the primary air component for CENTCOM.

• 12th Air Force—This is the primary air component for SOUTHCOM, as well as the airborne battle management component for STRATCOM.

In short, if it is a combat USAF aircraft, it belongs to ACC.

Headquartered at Langley AFB, Virginia, near Hampton Roads, ACC is commanded from the old TAC headquarters building. From here, General Joe Ralston (the current ACC commander) oversees one of the largest aerial combat units in the world today. But it's a shrinking unit, down from its 1980s high point of almost forty combat wings. In the fall of 1994, ACC was based around a force of some 22 1/2 combat wings. The calculus of counting military strength is an arcane science at best, but for our purposes, we will assume that a fighter wing equivalent (FWE) is composed of roughly seventy-two aircraft in three squadrons of twenty-four planes each. The bad news is that preplanned cuts will drop this number to 20 1/2 wings by 1996. Despite this, Generals Loh and Ralston have worked hard to make this force stretch to meet the requirements of the current Administration's two near-simultaneous MRCs strategy.

One way is to retrofit older airframes with the new series of precision munitions. Another is to make the limited number of new airframes (B-2As and F-22As) as capable as possible, so they might do individually more than the aircraft they will replace. In General Loh's view, any air force that buys new aircraft that are neither stealthy nor equipped with new generation precision and fire-and-forget weapons is committing a criminal act. This is not an extreme point of view; it is borne out by the results of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The effectiveness of aircraft like the F-117A and the F-15E shows what can be done with modern systems and advanced aircraft engineering.

When you think of ACC today, the cutting edge of its capability is the fighter force. The word fighter is broadly defined. The USAF classifies any tactical combat aircraft as a fighter, regardless of whether it has an air-to-air capability or not. As shown in Table 1 below, the ACC fighter force is currently based around six different types of aircraft (F-15, F-16, F-15E, F-111, F-117, and A-10), which provide it with the bulk of its strike and interdiction capability. A further look shows that something like 25 % of the ACC force is based overseas with United States Air Forces Europe (USAFE) and the Pacific Air Force (PACAF). These will almost certainly be pulled back to U.S. territory. In the Pacific, this has already begun, with units previously assigned to the Philippines being transferred to bases in Alaska, Okinawa, and Hawaii. Similar cuts and transfers are being made in Europe, with the bulk of the remaining USAFE units now based in the United Kingdom and Italy, with a continuing presence in Turkey.

Another point to notice is the small but significant force of air defense fighters which "chop" to the control of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) for purposes of continental air defense and airspace control. It is a sign of the times that these aircraft are no longer flown by active duty USAF personnel, but by units of the ANG. In fact, if you look closely, over 40 % of the ACC fighter force is made up of AFRES/ANG units flown by dedicated weekend warriors who might fly you commercially from Washington to Boston on a normal weekday. This is the total force concept put forward after the Vietnam War, where reserve and national guard units are equipped with the same up-to-date equipment as the active components, and trained with them to be able to work together in time of crisis. For example, during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, AFRES and ANG provided the bulk of the deterrent reserve for Korea, as well as virtually all of the air defense for the United States, while the bulk of the active force was fighting the war with Iraq. The process, called backfilling, is vital to the multiple MRC strategy, if it is to work.

As for the future, the good news is that there is a new airframe on the way to replace the F-15 Eagle, the backbone of the fighter and interceptor force for over two decades. When the F-22 arrives for service in the early part of the next decade, it will probably become the basic "heavy" fighter airframe for the USAF. The bad news is that the program will only see production of 442 fighter versions, about enough for four and a half wings of fighters in the current ACC structural scheme. In addition, there will be further cuts in the aircraft shown in Table 1 in some especially critical areas. The most likely place for cuts will be in the force of F-111Fs operated by the 27th Wing at Cannon AFB, New Mexico. While the Aardvarks of the 27th are some of the oldest and most expensive aircraft in the ACC force to operate and maintain (O&M), they also have the longest range and some of the best weapons systems in the whole of the USAF. Most important, to lose the entire force of F-111s, with their invaluable Pave Tack delivery systems, is to give up almost 25 % of the Air Force's PGM delivery capability. According to current ACC plans, the B-1B force will take over this role when the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) programs come online in the late 1990s. The problem is that none of the munitions these critical programs are designed to deliver is yet in service, meaning that if we prematurely retire aircraft capable of precision strikes, we will have a window of vulnerability that might prove critical in a time of crisis.

And then there is the shortage of F-15E Strike Eagle airframes. To sustain the current force of roughly two hundred F-15Es, ACC will need about forty additional airframes to make up for aircraft lost in accidents and projected combat attrition. Despite a hard fixed price offer by McDonnell Douglas ($50 million per copy), there is no money for such a sensible purchase. Lockheed has submitted a similar bid for its F-16 Block 50/52 Fighting Falcon, at $20 million per aircraft, and Northrop has submitted a bid of $595 million per aircraft for the B-2A Spirit. Money is just that tight right now.

"What the hell are we going to do with bombers?" When ACC was created in 1992, some of the former TAC-types were asking that question. And the answer they wanted to hear was: "We don't need them. Throw them the hell away." The TAC types were wrong. We need bombers; we need them bad.

Without bombers, General Loh would tell you today, there is absolutely no way ACC can hope to accomplish its assigned missions. Though they seem large and ponderous to fighter pilots, the big birds represent a known and ready capability to deliver massive amounts of firepower over great distances, with rapid responsiveness. Current ACC plans have the bombers armed with a variety of precision munitions (JDAMS and JSOW), conventional bombs (Mk 82/83/42 and CBU-87/89/97), and standoff missiles (ALCM-C/CALCM and AGM-142 Have Nap), so they might provide the necessary firepower to prevail in a future conflict. And in time of international crisis, elements of the force of B-52Hs and the B-2 force may be chopped over to control of STRATCOM, to provide additional nuclear deterrence muscle. The Cold War may be over, but the need to present a credible nuclear deterrence force is still with us. Remember, settling our problems with Russia only leaves a couple of hundred potential enemies (countries, terrorist groups, etc.) to deal with out there in the world. Many of them are trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility of suffering nuclear annihilation from an overwhelming and undeniable U.S. deterrence force is one way to keep proliferation of such weapons under control.

As with the fighter force, the good news for the bomber community is that a new, highly capable airframe is on the way. With the B-2A, ACC has a penetrating bomber capable of flying a good payload into virtually any air-defense environment in the world. The bad news is that the USAF is only buying twenty of the production B-2s, with further production greatly in doubt. General Loh has stated his support for maintenance of the heavy bomber production capability, and obtained some $125 million in FY-1995 funding to keep the Northrop production line and its subcontractors alive while the question of further production is studied. ACC's long-term problem is to keep the bomber force viable in the face of pressure to cut ACC force levels.

This is where the long-standing disputes between the "fighter mafia" and "bomber barons" become most evident. The fighter supporters question both the ability of bombers to operate in a modern war and their relatively high O&M costs. The bomber supporters will tell you that fighters do not have the range or carrying capacity to haul the loads of precision munitions required in future conflicts. Who is right? In a manner of thinking, both of them. Generals Loh and Ralston, as well as the rest of the ACC leadership, have tended to bet on the bird-in-the-hand theory, which is to say that the bombers are here, they are paid for, and as such should be made use of. Nevertheless, there will inevitably be cuts in the bomber force. Though General Loh would prefer to maintain a force of 180 bomber airframes on duty, this number will probably have to be cut, mostly though a mix of B-52H and B-1B mothballing.

To sustain a force of one hundred available bombers requires a total of about 180 airframes to cover those in test, training, refit, and maintenance. Note that I say mothballed, and not retired or scrapped. ACC wants the bomber airframes that are taken out of service to be protected, so they can be "bought back" should a crisis arise or attrition from combat casualties become critical. Moreover, the ACC leadership have done their best to buy back capabilities that were lost when the last of the B-52Gs were retired in 1993. During a recent visit to ACC headquarters at Langley AFB, General Loh was almost ecstatic when he heard that six B-52Hs of the 2nd Bombardment Wing at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, had been made capable of launching the AGM-142 Have Nap standoff missile, and that their AGM-84 Harpoon anti-shipping missile and mining capabilities would also soon be restored. Such is the state of affairs in the U.S. military that a senior military leader is excited over a restored capability in just six airframes of a forty-year-old bomber design. It is something to keep in mind.

Of equal concern to the ACC leadership is the problem of their limited fleet of electronic warfare (EW) aircraft. EW aircraft are what is known as "force multipliers," and no aerial campaign in the last two decades has succeeded without them. Unfortunately, the linchpin of the USAF EW fleet, the SAM hunting Wild Weasel version of the venerable F-4G Phantom II, is — well — ancient. With the airframes hitting their twenty-fifth year of continuous service, it is essential to find a replacement airframe to do the mission of suppressing enemy air defenses. However, since there is absolutely no money to even consider producing a dedicated replacement Wild Weasel aircraft, the two remaining squadrons of F4-Gs will have to soldier on, supplemented by the hundred Block 50/52 F-16Cs equipped with the new Texas Instruments AN/ASQ-213 HARM Targeting System (HTS) pods and support from other ACC EW surveillance aircraft.

The other ACC EW airframes are in somewhat better shape, though their numbers are much lower than the ACC leadership would like. The EF- 111A Raven (called the Spark 'Vark by their crews) fleet is in good shape. Unfortunately, they are scheduled to be retired in the next few years. The EC- 130H Compass Call birds are also quite capable, though their lack of numbers is somewhat troubling.

Certainly the most diverse part of the ACC fleet is the aircraft that fall in the general category of support. At the top of the list is the fleet of E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft. Few communities in the USAF have more temporary duty (TDY) assignment days than the 552nd Wing at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. Like the other force multipliers, the E-3 community is limited by their relatively small number of airframes. In addition, they suffer because of their 1960s computer technology and less-than-efficient turbojet engines. The good news is that the AWACS Radar System Improvement Program (RSIP) should resolve the worst of the Sentry's problems, and the USAF is studying the retrofitting of new engines as well. In the long term, the next generation of surveillance aircraft will have to wait for some time, probably well into the 21st century.

The problem of numbers is also of concern to the EC-135 Looking Glass and EC-130 Airborne Command and Control Center (ABCCC) communities. These airborne command posts provide command and control for a variety of USAF operations. Both are invaluable national assets, and are beginning to get a bit long in the tooth. Watch for a replacement or supplement for these airframes in the next few years. Happier thoughts surround those in the OA-10 community, whose performance as forward air controllers during the recent Persian Gulf was nothing short of outstanding. Though short on all-weather/day-and-night systems, their crews and support personnel have taken their Warthog attitude of operations and made lemonade from what some folks might consider lemons. Right now they are starting to consider using night vision goggles to get more out of their already busy birds. Finally, in one of the ironies of the 1992 mergers, ACC took over beddown and control of the fleet of E-4s. Once known as the "Doomsday Planes," these modified 747s still remain on alert to provide a secure, safe haven for the national command authorities in the event of a crisis or national emergency.

So what will be the next addition to the American fleet of support aircraft? Probably the new E-8 Joint Surveillance Tactical Reconnaissance Systems (JSTARS) aircraft, which will become available in the late 1990s. The E-8 (another modified 707 airframe) will provide information on ground forces the way the E-3 AWACS keeps an eye on airspace. While extremely expensive, the E-8 will undoubtedly become one of the crown jewels of the USAF fleet.

Nowhere in ACC is there a greater shortfall of capability, or more frustration, than in the airborne reconnaissance community. At the top of the problem list is the fleet of RF-4C Phantom II photo reconnaissance aircraft. These birds are antiquated and obsolete. They suffer from structural fatigue problems, short range (due to their thirsty J-79 turbojet engines), lack of modern radar warning receivers (RWRs), electronic countermeasures (ECM) gear, and outdated sensors. Only the loving care of their operators in units of the Nevada and Alabama ANG is keeping the RF-4C as a viable system. There had been plans to replace the RF-4C with a reconnaissance version of the F-16, carrying a podded version of the Advanced Tactical Reconnaissance System (ATARS). But when the system ran into technical problems, the USAF canceled the program. This caused much shock and displeasure for the other planned ATARS users, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. Following this programmatic fiasco, as well as complaints with the overall direction of airborne reconnaissance, the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) was created in 1993 to coordinate all airborne reconnaissance systems for all services. For now, though, the Air Force's contribution to the tactical photo reconnaissance mission is going to be limited to satellite assets from the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and the aging fleet of RF-4Cs.

Operational-level reconnaissance assets are another thing entirely. The USAF fleet of U-2 reconnaissance aircraft is headed into its fifth decade of continuous service, and going strong. It is sometimes hard to believe that this Cold War icon has outlived even the aircraft that was designed to replace it, the SR-71 Blackbird. Presently, the U-2 is the best operational-level reconnaissance aircraft in the world, assuming a benign volume of airspace for it to operate in. The memory of what happened to Francis Gary Powers on May 1st, 1960, is still strong in the minds of the USAF, and they will not operate the U-2 anywhere where there is a significant surface-to-air missile (SAM) threat. How long will the U-2 continue to soldier on? Right now that is anyone's guess. It does the job, and nothing has yet come along which does the job better or cheaper.

Perhaps the most valuable airframe in the whole ACC finishes out our look at reconnaissance aircraft, the RC-135 Rivet Joint. These heavily modified airframes are packed from end to end with electronic surveillance equipment to locate enemy radars, communications centers, and command and control sites. The "RJs," as they are known, are literally electronic vacuum cleaners for electronic intelligence (ELINT)/signals intelligence (SIGINT), and thus are almost irreplaceable national assets. Again the problem is one of numbers. When we visited Nellis AFB in the spring of 1994, we saw two RJs working in the Green Flag exercises being held there. These aircraft were fully one third of the fleet. Meanwhile, Rivet Joint is becoming ever more important to the ACC mission, because their ability to locate and track SAM radars makes them vital in helping the F-16s assigned Wild Weasel duties find their targets and put their High Speed Radiation Missiles (HARMS) on target.

Of all the challenges borne by General Loh in the 1992 merger, certainly none was more alien to him than taking over beddown and command of the USAFs large fleet of C-130 Hercules transports. Tasked with the job of inter-theater transport, the C-130s are the backbone of combat logistics for deployed air units, and thus it makes perfect sense for them to be assigned to ACC. They also provide the bulk of combat airlift for the paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division within the XVIII Airborne Corps. The C-130 is yet another design with some four decades of service under its belt, with no end in sight. The C-130H model is still in production for the USAF and a number of other nations; and a new version, the C-130J, is being built and tested. It will likely come into service with the USAF in the early 21st century.

There are no plans to replace the basic C-130, and no perceived shortcomings in the design. The aircraft are structurally sound, and have no vices that anyone who flies them cares to complain about. In fact, if you look at Table 6, you will notice that the vast majority of the C-130 fleet is operated by the forces of the ANG and AFRES. The inter-theater transport mission is made-to-order for the Guard and Reserves, and will remain one of their most valuable contributions for decades to come. Thus, the C-130 will likely become the first combat aircraft to remain in production and service for five decades and in two different centuries.

In addition to the C-130s, ACC also took over the small fleet of C-21 Learjets used for VIP travel, and twin-engine C-27 transports used for local logistical support in the Canal Zone down in Panama.

ACC has also been assigned a small, but significant force of KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-10 Extender aerial tanker aircraft. These have been assigned to various units, such as the 4th and 366th wings, to provide them with rapid-deployment capabilities.

Finally, there is the vital area of combat search and rescue (CSAR). Prior to the 1991 Gulf War, the CSAR mission was the property of the USAF Special Operations Command (USAFSOCOM). Their promise was that when the time came, their force of MH-53J Pave Low helicopters would be there to scoop up any fliers unfortunate enough to be shot down over enemy territory. There was just one little problem with this promise: It was a lie. It is not an exaggeration to say that the command leadership of the U.S. Central Command Special Operations Command (SOCCENT) was fixated on supporting the various teams of special operations ground forces operating in Iraq and Kuwait and not on picking up flyers unfortunate enough to get themselves shot down. Therefore, SOCCENT laid down an almost impossible set of criteria to be fulfilled before a rescue would be attempted. Thus, an F-15E Strike Eagle crew shot down in western Iraq spent days on the ground, waiting for a rescue mission that SOCCENT would not authorize, and which never came. Eventually they were captured, and they and their fellow aircrews were howling mad at the "snake eaters" of the special operations world for breaking what they considered to be a special covenant that dated back to the days of the Korean War. For forty years, U.S. combat aircrews took it as a matter of faith that if they were shot down, survived the ejection, and were free in enemy territory, their fellow warriors would stop the war, move heaven and earth, and risk their own lives to get to them before the enemy did. When that didn't happen, they felt betrayed. And they were right.

Because ACC is committed to re-creating that original covenant, CSAR has been the only real area of growth in the ACC inventory. Since the end of the Gulf War, the USAF has stood up a number of combat SAR squadrons dedicated to the CSAR mission. These are equipped with the latest version of the HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopter, together with HC-130 Hercules aircraft to provide both in-flight refueling as well as command and control for the rescue forces. In addition, ACC has built a CSAR weapons school at Nellis AFB, to make sure that the art of CSAR is never again lost.

The CSAR helicopter force is not limited to SAR operations. It is also used for exercise support, CSAR training, disaster relief, and even support during space shuttle launches. Nevertheless, the forces shown in Table 7 will always have one overriding imperative, to support the combat flyers of the USAF and their joint partners. First, last, and always!

DEPLOYABILITY: THE ACC STYLE OF WAR

So, you might ask, just how will ACC use their resources in future conflicts? Again, ACC's mission is to "package" USAF units for USACOM to be fed out to unified command JTFs. That is a fancy way of saying that ACC headquarters tells their folks where to go and how to get there. It also places the responsibility on ACC to train their people not only to use the array of weapons and equipment in the inventory, but to deploy and work with other JTF component units from other U.S. services (the Navy, Army, etc.), or those of other coalition/host nations. These basic weapons training skills are accommodated within the standard training system of USAF schools and squadrons. Local bombing, gunnery, and air-to-air training ranges are used to keep basic skills honed. Currently, the USAF has some thirty-eight live-fire bombing and gunnery ranges, six electronically scored bombing ranges, five electronic combat ranges, 775 air-to-air training range zones, and ten instrumented air-to-air (ACMI/TACTS) ranges. But to teach the more sophisticated skills of joint warfare, something more is required. These are the various Flag exercises that the USAF runs around the world. They teach USAF personnel, as well as the personnel of other services and countries, how to fight the kind of war we saw during 1991 in the Persian Gulf. These include:

• Red Flag—A series of five yearly composite force exercises run in the vast western training range complex north of Nellis AFB, Nevada. These are detailed war games run against simulated aggressor aircraft, ground threats, and target arrays, designed to teach units how to deploy and operate in a joint environment. Since its inception in 1975, air units from every U.S. military branch and twenty-one foreign air forces have participated in Red Flag.

• Green Flag—Essentially a Red Flag with real-world electronic warfare capabilities being exercised. Extremely expensive to run, these take place once a year at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

• Blue Flag—A large command post exercise designed to teach U.S. command staffs how to run theater-level deployment and combat operations.

• Checkered Flag—A large theater-level combat training exercise run several times a year. These exercises include direct participation of coalition/ host nations. In 1994 alone, some twenty-one different nations from every continent in the world participated. These included such well known allies as Australia and Saudi Arabia, as well as some less well known participants such as Chile, Kenya, and Singapore.

And there are several other Flag exercises, with narrower goals. Other exercises are used to train specific types of units in particular scenarios. Some of the FY-1994 examples include:

• Coronet Havoc—F-117As from the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, rapidly deployed from their home base to a base in the Netherlands.

• Bright Star—Aircraft from the 366th Wing at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, ran a composite intervention wing deployment/combat exercise with the Egyptian Air Force, and other allies, in Egypt. This included deploying fighters and tankers to Cairo West Airfield in Egypt, as well as bombers and tankers to the Azores.

• Global Power—These demonstrations of bomber capability are usually run about eight times a year. For example, on the fourth anniversary of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in 1994, two B-52Hs from the 2nd Bombardment Wing at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, flew non-stop (with in-flight refueling) to Kuwait, where they delivered their conventional bomb load on a Kuwaiti training range, then continued around the world to their base. In another Global Power demonstration, B-1Bs from the 28th Bombardment Wing at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, also flew non-stop around the world (also with in-flight refueling support).

Another way of building skills and unit esprit is to hold weapons competitions. As might be imagined, these contests of skill appeal at a basic level to the ACC flyers, who by their very nature are competitive creatures. These include:

• Gunsmoke—This is ACC's biannual worldwide gunnery and bombing meet run every September of odd-numbered years at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

• William Tell—One of the longest-running exercises in USAF history, William Tell is ACC's worldwide air-to-air missile and gunnery meet held at Tyndall AFB, Florida. This is also a biannual event, run in even-numbered years.

• Long Shot—A new competition to ACC, Long Shot is a global power projection exercise which tests units' ability to both deploy and put combat power on target. Also a biannual, it is held during even-numbered years at Nellis AFB, Nevada.

• Proud Shield—A new event, this is the ACC long-range bombing competition that is held at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, in odd-numbered years.

How does all of this training, exercising, competing, and expense pay off? Well, it gives us the best air force in the world for starters. No other air force trains as hard to go somewhere and fight as hard. Even such vaunted units as the air forces of Great Britain and Israel can't begin to match the mobility, capability, firepower, and professionalism of today's USAF.

So just how would ACC respond to an MRC? While the following comments reflect current ACC policy, as set down in their September 1994 command briefing, it should not be considered a one-size-fits-all kind of doctrine. The keystone of the responses is flexibility to the particular situation at hand.

The first part of any intervention is called the Contingency Response — how quickly different types of ACC units can be ready to move out to a crisis area. Consider the following types of ACC unit responses:

• U.S.-Based Bombers—Within three hours of any alert, every bomber unit in ACC is prepared to upload any ordnance in its required table of organization and equipment (TO&E), and launch the first cell of two or three aircraft on a mission. Following this, the units are required to maintain a continuous sortie rate (it varies with different types of bomber units) during the duration of the crisis. They also must be ready to deploy all of their equipment, aircraft, and personnel within seventy-two hours of an alert order for deployment to the crisis zone.

• Active Fighters—Active-duty ACC fighter units must be ready to deploy their first full squadron of aircraft within twenty-four hours, with all squadrons ready to move within seventy-two hours.

• Reserve/Air National Guard Fighters—These ACC units are given twenty-four hours to recall all personnel; they then must meet the same standard as active fighter units. First squadron wheels up in twenty-four hours, last bird in the air at seventy-two hours from the end of the mobilization period.

This is an impressive standard to meet, and one that the former bomber crews from SAC are proud to have brought with them to ACC. Now it should be said that not all ACC units would deploy to a crisis area all at once. Just the limitations of heavy airlift and available ramp space would restrict movement to those units absolutely required in the early stages of a crisis. Right now, the USAF is in the midst of the most serious airlift crisis in its history. With the C-141 fleet quickly coming to the end of its life, and the C-17 program only coming on-line slowly, the U.S. military's ability to rapidly deploy is greatly in question. This is one of the reasons for a new kind of ACC unit — the composite wing. It is designed to rapidly deploy airpower into a region with all the pieces necessary to start a successful air campaign. Three of these units have been formed to help get the ball rolling on any crisis response that might require USAF support. They include:

• 23rd Wing—Based at Pope AFB, North Carolina, this unit is paired with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Equipped with A/OA-10 Thunderbolt II attack fighters, F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters, and C-130 Hercules transports, it is designed to provide the first airborne units of the 82nd the kind of support that they would need early in a crisis.

• 347th Wing—Located at Moody AFB, Georgia, the 347th is teamed with the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia. Equipped with a similar TO&E to the 23rd, it will help support the only heavy armored unit in XVIII Airborne Corps.

• 366th Wing—The crown jewel of ACC's quick-response strategy, the 366th, which is based at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, is designed to provide a core air intervention capability on day one of a crisis. Composed of five different squadrons of F-15C Eagle fighters, F-15E Strike Eagle fighter bombers, F-16C Fighting Falcon strike fighters, B-1B Lancer heavy bombers, and KC-135R Stratotankers, the 366th is a miniature air force in a wing-sized package. It also contains a command and control element that can generate Air Tasking Orders (ATOs) for up to five hundred sorties a day.

Designed to deploy with less than half the normal number of heavy airlift sorties of normal combat wings, these composite wings are light on their feet and ready to move at a moment's notice. The price they pay is that they will only be able to operate for about a week on their own, before reinforcements will be required. Nevertheless, with the rapid response capability inherent in these composite wings, the commander of a JTF on the way to a trouble zone will have something waiting for him when he gets there. And that is more than General Horner had when he assumed the job of CENTCOM Forward in August 1990. It should also avoid the nightmare that met Lieutenant Colonel Howard Pope and his wingman when they arrived as the first elements of the 1st Fighter Wing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Alighting on an almost empty airfield, expecting some kind of welcome from the Saudi authorities, what Pope got instead were directions to the arming and fueling pit, with instructions that he and his wingman would be on alert; and for the next twenty minutes (until the next pair of F-15s was due), they were the only American airpower in the region!

With all that behind us, let's consider the initial phase of a crisis. The President has decided to use force in response to the actions of a threat nation. The first units capable of responding to an emerging crisis would be bomber units and their associated tanker assets. The missions could cover a spectrum of possibilities. You might have B-52Hs hitting hardened enemy command and control facilities with penetrating AGM-142 Have Nap standoff guided bombs. Another possibility could have B-1Bs firing ALCM-C/CALCM cruise missiles into critical nodes of a threat nation's electrical power grid. Or B-2As might be penetrating enemy airspace to do precision drops of naval mines inside an enemy harbor or river estuary. Whatever the mission, the rapid application of airpower, and the demonstration of American will, probably have a significant effect on the actions of enemy leadership, as well as on the world scene. Thus, within twenty-four hours of the national command authority giving the order, the first bombers will have put ordnance on target. This done, they can return to the continental United States for another load, or continue on to a host nation base to raise their OpTempos even further by cutting the range to their targets.

Meanwhile, AMC will be positioning key command and control units, as well as airborne tanker assets, to support the massive flow of units and aircraft that will be headed towards the crisis. While this is happening, the first of the composite wings, the 366th, will deploy from its base at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, to provide an initial JFACC capability in the forward area. In addition, if contingency ground forces are due to deploy, the 23rd (if the deploying unit is the 82nd Airborne Division) and/or the 347th (if the 24th Mechanized Infantry is used) will be getting ready to move and be in place when their associated ground units arrive in-theater. Unlike Operation Desert Shield, where this level of deployment took weeks, the whole sequence will take days. The idea is to respond so rapidly that a crisis can be contained, rather than become a drawn-out campaign.

With the initial phase completed, the deployment will transition to a more sustained pace. Additional fighter units will deploy, the bombers will continue their strike operations, and a sustained tanker air bridge will be established. During this transition phase, the 366th would be generating ATOs for all of the deployed forces, as well as for the bomber/tanker missions coming in from the United States. Should host or coalition aircraft wish to join in, they can supply their own command and control hookups into the 366th Air Operations Center (AOC). And if the crisis were to escalate, or the tempo of operations grow, you would probably see a full-sized theater-level JFACC Tactical Air Control Center (TACC) from one of the numbered air forces dispatched to relieve the 366th AOC. At this point, air operations would intensify, and you would see a sustained Op Tempo similar to that of Operation Desert Storm.

This is the current scheme for deploying airpower with ACC. Whether it survives the first hours of a crisis remains to be seen. But given the experience of some of the people who have worked on these plans, it represents the best use of the available ACC assets today. Of course, as new aircraft, weapons, and sensors come on-line, the plans will be altered to suit the new situation.

No military operations plan ever runs completely as designed. When General Horner laid out the deployment plan for Operation Desert Shield in August 1990, he did it in an office in CENTCOM headquarters at MacDill AFB near Tampa, by himself, on a pad of paper with a pencil. No other JTF commander will ever have to do that again. That is the promise that Mike Loh, Joe Ralston, and the ACC staff have made to unit commanders throughout this new air force that they have built.

ACC TOMORROW: COUNTDOWN TO 2001

And what of the future? The next few years will be, if anything, more dangerous and uncertain than the last few. Given the wild rush of events since Mikhail Gorbachev took power in 1985, we can only imagine what the final years of the 20th century will bring.

So what will ACC look like as it moves towards the 21st century? Almost certainly it will be smaller. Older types of aircraft such as the B-52 and F-111 will disappear, and the small fleet of B-2A Spirit bombers will make itself felt. Also arriving will be the first of the new F-22A stealth air superiority fighters which will revolutionize air-to-air warfare. It would be nice to think that these new airframes will be bought in the kind of numbers that will make them decisive in future combat situations. But with B-2A production limited by Congress to a mere twenty airframes, and the F-22 production run planned at just 442 units, such hopes may be just that. Hopes. Nevertheless, it has been an Air Force tradition to equip their aircrews with the best that the American treasury can buy, despite the numbers involved. Also, there is a firm commitment by USAF leadership to keep critical design and manufacturing capabilities from wasting away. The USAF needs to maintain its share of the defense industrial base. Three areas that General Loh has identified as critical are:

• Design, development, testing, and production of bomber and fighter stealth airframes such as the F-22, F-117, and B-2.

• Design, development, testing, and production of heavy airlift aircraft such as the C-17, capable of carrying outsized cargo loads.

• High-speed computer and electronics design to support improved avionics capabilities, as well as improving reliability and maintainability of new and existing aircraft.

In particular, he would like to see continued low-rate production (two to three a year) of the B-2, so that the bomber force might stabilize at around 120 airframes (say, 80 B-1Bs and 40 B-2s) at the turn of the century. In this way the force would remain both credible and survivable following the retirement of the last of the B-52s. As for the F-22, that is another problem. Recently, senior Administration officials proposed that the F-22 program should be "stretched out" so that the new fighter's service introduction would be delayed until around the year 2005. This would undoubtedly result in a rapid escalation of the program's cost and force ACC to push their already limited and aging fleet of F-15Cs to last another five years more than planned. It may well be that the program stretch will be required. But it will come at a high price in time and treasure. The old adage "Pay me now, or pay me later" was never truer than in the game of defense procurement.

As for the rest of the ACC combat force, there will be a modest series of upgrades. Addition of Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers and new Have Quick II radios will certainly be applied across the board. These are relatively low-cost upgrades which will be felt across the whole of the USAF. A more subtle upgrade is being applied across the entire ACC fleet in the form of improved sensors to target improved weapons. Some of these are as simple as software upgrades to enable a greater percentage of the ACC fighter force to fire the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. Others — such as adding the AN/ASQ- 213 HTS pods to the Block 50/52 F-16C — cost a bit more, yet provide a cost-effective, interim replacement for an existing but dying capability. Still others, like the AIM-9X version of the classic Sidewinder air-to-air missile and the new series of air-to-ground munitions, are costly, but necessary to maintain the credibility of a shrinking force. It is important that Congress and the American people understand that the money spent on these programs is not just being spent to protect the stock values of defense contractor shareholders, but to maintain the very credibility of our military forces. A bit of money spent today may prevent an aggressor from deciding that tomorrow is a good day to test the will of America and her allies. A war never fought is always the cheapest war. We should always look for the real bargain.

Another financial problem for ACC, and the entire U.S. military, is that they must bear the burden of an unnecessary support infrastructure that is essentially a large public works program for members of Congress. Let me explain. Unless you have been on Venus the last few years, you probably have heard something about the Base Reduction and Closing (BRAC) Commission which has been recommending the closing or realignment (i.e., reorganization) of various surplus military facilities around the United States. The fights over which bases will remain and which will be closed have been among the most vicious and partisan in memory. Because of the loss of civilian jobs inherent in any base closing, individual members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate have taken the fight to keep pet facilities open to sometimes absurd lengths.

For the USAF and ACC, this has meant they have been forced to keep facilities open and paid for that they simply do not require or desire. For example, the USAF currently maintains five Air Logistics Centers (ALCs) around the United States. These are massive facilities, where the Air Force modifies or rebuilds aircraft of virtually every kind. However, the requirement for five ALCs was set for the USAF during the Cold War, not with the reduced force of today. Senior USAF officials have publicly stated to me that they only require two ALCs to service the current USAF fleet. The ALCs at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma (near Oklahoma City), and Hill AFB, Utah (near Ogden, Utah), have won awards for their facilities and personnel, and they can handle, with capacity and capability to spare, every aircraft in the USAF. Yet mainly due to the efforts of the congressional delegations of California, Texas, and Georgia where the endangered facilities are located, the Air Force has been unable to close any of the excess facilities. Between payroll and O&M costs, each ALC probably costs the USAF close to a billion dollars a year to keep open. Just the savings from closing these three facilities could support between ten and fifteen wings of combat aircraft every year!

Bases are, of course, not the only pork in the military budget. The USAF and other services are also forced to bear the financial strain of buying weapons and systems they do not need or desire, so that a contractor can be sustained in a home state or district. I wonder at times how the shame does not show on the faces of those elected and appointed to serve the people. So, will the Air Force and other services ever be allowed to cut the unnecessary overhead costs from their budgets? Doubtful to impossible. Closings cost votes, and the members of Congress much prefer to let our combat forces shrink than suffer a loss at the polls.

It should also be said that USAF leadership would love to restructure their support facilities to get more out of them. One of the more interesting ideas I have heard is the concept of merging all U.S. military flight test facilities and test pilot schools into a small group of consolidated facilities in the open areas of the western United States. This would allow the Department of Defense to close a number of facilities such as Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, and Eglin AFB, Florida, while retaining a robust test capability at bases such as Edwards AFB and NAS Point Mugu, California. Again, hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved yearly, if only Congress and the Administration would allow it. So the next time you hear a member of Congress whining about the inefficiency and bloat in the U.S. military, send them a letter, fax, or e-mail, and ask them when they last closed a base in their home state or district! The burden of their pork is being borne by folks like General Ralston and his combat aircrews.

Despite these problems, ACC remains the single most powerful air force in the world today. In spite of the challenges and financial burdens that they bear, they will always do their best with what we the taxpayers care to give them. Let us hope that it is enough, and that they will not come back saying, "You could have done better."