presentation departments reproduced

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Operational Control (OPCON) Joint Publication (Pub) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, December 17, 2003, defines operational control as “command authority that may be exercised by commanders at any echelon at or below the level of combatant command. Operational control is inherent in combatant command (command authority) and may be delegated within the command” (p. 385). Basically, OPCON is the foundation for command at all levels; it gives commanders the authority to organize commands and employ the necessary forces for assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction for carrying out an operational mission. Additionally, OPCON allows commanders to direct all aspects of military operations and joint training for the purpose of conducting an assigned mission. According to the definition in Joint Pub 1-02, combatant commanders and their designated representatives (subordinate commanders) have the express authority to exercise OPCON; neither the service chief nor the commander of the major command is in the loop. In order to accomplish an assigned mission effectively, the combatant commander will delegate OPCON of assigned (or attached) forces to the subordinate component commanders, who may include a joint force air and space component commander (JFACC) or a commander, Air Force forces (COMAFFOR). Regardless of the individual to whom the combatant commander relinquishes OPCON, the chain of command still goes up to the combatant commander. When a subordinate commander receives OPCON over joint forces, that control normally carries with it full authority to organize the commands and forces as he or she deems necessary for accomplishment of the operational mission. According to joint doctrine, this authority— granted by the president and secretary of defense—can provide for the transfer of OPCON from one combatant command to another. Such a transfer might occur because forces are often located in one area of responsibility (AOR) but are assigned to another command located elsewhere. In such situations, the national leaders decide which commander has OPCON of which forces. Normally, the geographic combatant commander has OPCON of these forces although there are exceptions to this rule. For example, forces that transit through a different AOR for a brief stint do not normally become part of that combatant commander’s OPCON. Similarly, when forces actually bed down in one geographic command but are tasked to support a different combatant commander, the commander tasked with the mission retains OPCON. Although the lines of distinction are somewhat hazy in these examples, the authority for OPCON traditionally remains with the commander tasked to achieve mission objectives rather than with the geographic commander to whom the forces are apportioned for planning purposes. The lines of distinction are further blurred when the original geographic commander temporarily surrenders OPCON of the apportioned forces but continues to have responsibility for providing logistical support, including food, water, bedding, air traffic control, and many other administrative functions. Although charged with logistically supporting the forces on his or her “base,” the original commander does not necessarily have OPCON of them. When it comes to preparing to fight wars and actually fighting them, we airmen believe in our air and space power doctrine. We use it to guide our employment of air and space assets in military operations. Based upon experience and historical examples, Air Force doctrine represents what we have come to understand. Although doctrine cannot provide a solution to every problematic situation, it does give us a starting point. We then have to utilize our own experiences and analyses of past situations in order to determine how best to handle the new ones. Air Force doctrine should reflect what has worked over the years, and for cases with which we have no experience, it should grow in order to capture and include such events. The key lies in determining which combatant commander is responsible for conducting the operational mission and ensuring that he or she has OPCON of those forces. To Learn More . . . Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1. Air Force Basic Doctrine, November 17, 2003. https://www.doctrine.af.mil/ library/doctrine/afdd1.pdf. 76
Military Applications of Information Technologies PAUL W. PHISTER JR., PE, PHD IGOR G. PLONISCH* Editorial Abstract: The information age has increased the amount of data available to all commanders. Consequently, the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate seeks to transform military operations by developing systems that focus on unique Air Force requirements. The major thrusts include Global Awareness, Dynamic Planning and Execution, and the Global Information Enterprise. Supporting these developments are technology-focus areas, ranging from information exploitation, to air and space connectivity, to command and control. AMONG OTHER REASONS, warfare constantly changes because advancements in technology lead to advancements in “the art of war.” Today’s information age has produced an explosion in the amount of information that is (or will be) available to commanders at all levels. Some observers believe that by 2010 “[air and space] planners will have an incredible amount of information about the target state. They’ll never know everything, but they will detect orders of magnitude more about the enemy than in past wars. With this information, commanders will orchestrate operations with unprecedented fidelity and speed. Commanders will take advantage of revolutionary *We wish to thank all the individuals assigned to the Information Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL/IF). Without their dedication and devotion to duty, we could not have written this article. Special thanks go to the following: Dr. Northrup Fowler III (AFRL/IF chief scientist); division technical advisors Dr. Warren Debany, Mike Wessing, and John McNamara; and others who contributed to the development of this paper, including Scott Adams, Carson Bloomberg, Tim Busch, Col Matthew Caffrey Jr., USAFR, Joe Caroli, Steven Drager, Steven Farr, Dan Fayette, Joe Giordano, Rick Hinman, Richard Jayne, John Lemmer, Dr. Mark Linderman, Dr. Richard Linderman, Dr. Mark Minges, Dr. Thomas Renz, Dave Legare, William McQuay, Richard Metzger, Dr. Don Nicholson, Paul Oleski, E. Paul Ratazzi, Dr. John Salerno, Scott Shyne, Lt Justin Sorice, Clare Thiem, Derryl Williams, Dave Williamson, and Bill Wolf. 77
Page 2 and 3:
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen John P
Page 4 and 5:
The Nonrescue of Corvette 03 © . .
Page 6 and 7:
APJ COL ANTHONY C. CAIN,EDITOR WE A
Page 8 and 9:
What We Believe Air Force doctrine
Page 10 and 11:
elevant flight data such as airspee
Page 12 and 13:
hardware, while McDonnell Douglas
Page 14 and 15:
the JHMCS. They must always concern
Page 16 and 17:
the luxury of flying with a three-d
Page 18 and 19:
flux—reflected and focused sunlig
Page 20 and 21:
can control and optimize is their r
Page 22 and 23:
of high-energy lasers become releva
Page 24 and 25:
airship. Relays mounted on a space-
Page 26 and 27:
Relay mirrors not only will enable
Page 28 and 29: fighting stuff, are the real source
Page 30 and 31: contained labs for the production o
Page 32 and 33: Effectiveness of Axiological Target
Page 34 and 35: unpredictability of human behavior
Page 36 and 37: 34 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRING
Page 40 and 41: Centralized Control It is crucial t
Page 48 and 49: POM BES PB POM BES PB POM BES PB PO
Page 62 and 63: Decentralized Execution Executing t
Page 102 and 103: Tactical Control Accomplishing the
Page 104 and 105: 102 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRIN
Page 128 and 129:
APJ Air and Space Power Journal is
Page 130 and 131:
128 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SPRIN
show all

presentation departments reproduced

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?