全球智库信息集成服务系统

• Creation of deputy COMAFFORs for combat support and operations in demand-side organizations (e.g., component major commands/numbered air forces) could improve dialogue between these functions and improve contingency resource requirements estimates.
• New global supply-side organizations (e.g., Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center and Air Force Sustainment Center) must be better informed of requirements in order to meet demand most effectively.
• A neutral integrator (e.g., global Agile Combat Support C2 Reachback Cell) should be appointed to make scarce-resource allocation decisions as needed.

Planners for contingency operations generally assume that sufficient combat support (CS) resources will be available to support operational plans. This assumption carries a degree of risk: budgetary constraints, the inability to perfectly predict demands, the variability in supply processes, the possibility of multiple unplanned contingency operations taking place simultaneously, and other factors mean that there will always be imbalances between the global CS resources available and those requested to meet operational demands. Combatant commanders (CCDRs) and their component commands often lack information about global CS resource availabilities and constraints. Part of the challenge, from an Air Force perspective, is that the operations and CS communities do not have a cohesive approach (including doctrine, processes, analytic tools, training regimen, and organizations) to systematically include CS resource capabilities and constraints within the contingency planning process. Processes and assessment capabilities that relate CS resource availabilities/capabilities and constraints to operationally relevant metrics exist within some CS functional communities (e.g., munitions), but not others (e.g., impacts of casualties on operationally relevant metrics, such as sortie generation). The Air Force has not developed the processes and tools needed to assess the impact of resource capabilities and constraints across the diverse set of CS resources and to determine the integrated impact of these capabilities or constraints on operational plans. This publication describes a conceptual framework for better integrating CS capabilities and constraints into contingency planning and execution at the global, combatant command (COCOM), component, and wing levels.

• Skip to page content

Objective Analysis. Effective Solutions.