Publisher's Synopsis
In response to U.S. Army reorganization and lessons learned from Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, the Air Force and Army agreed to realign the Air Support Operations Center (ASOC) with the Army division instead of the corps. Implementation has since stalled because of funding reductions and command-level disagreements. Squadrons directed to realign lack guidance about how this is to be accomplished, often resulting in unit level company grade officers executing as they see fit. These officers are missing a sufficient frame of reference to help them understand how to realign or why it is being directed. Additionally, each Army division has a unique mission that the ASOC must be molded to fit, but the ASOC remains a one-size-fits-all organization based on corps alignment. A frame of reference is needed to make informed decisions at all levels. A cost-benefit analysis is necessary to determine whether realignment is economically viable, even if it remains the best decision for joint interoperability. This research supplies a practical frame of reference through the lens of a coherent and critically analyzed history of the ASOC, focusing on the timeless principles that are required for optimal execution. The principles identified are flexibility, proximity, and communications. Whether the Air Force continues to build a division aligned ASOC, or withdraws it to the corps, these historically-derived principles should be applied to its design.Command and Control (C2) of Close Air Support (CAS) has a long history of learning, and subsequently forgetting, the principles of effective implementation. Since World War I first required management of offensive air power in close proximity to friendly ground forces, the military components have debated over the methods of CAS management in each successive conflict. Near the end of each of these conflicts, an effective organization has typically been achieved; one that largely conforms to the pre-war doctrine and the organization in place at the end of the previous conflict. At the center of this recurring debate is the Air Support Operations Center (ASOC). The ASOC is the organization responsible for providing C2 of the air commander's assets that have been allocated to support the mission of the ground commander. It has gone by many names and taken a variety of forms over the years, but its mission and the general principles that make for effective execution of that mission remain the same. In the last 13 years, Army restructuring has caused Air Force leaders to reevaluate where the ASOC should be aligned in the Army's new organization. Planning shortfalls in Operation Anaconda led both services to reexamine how the ASOC should integrate in joint mission execution. The realignment plan, and subsequently the joint integration process, has stalled because of high costs coupled with shrinking budgets. Contributing to slowed implementation is the fact that the current ASOC is not designed for the specific mission needs of all the units it is now meant to support. These challenges call for an examination of ASOC history to provide clear guidance for leaders designing the contemporary ASOC. Research Question - What does the historical interaction between the doctrine and practice of air-to-ground command and control reveal about the Air Support Operations Center? Can enduring principles be identified that should be applied to its design? - An examination of close air support command and control history since World War I will reveal that flexibility, proximity, and robust communications are critical to fielding an effective Air Support Operations Center.
