American air power is not only based on its aviation technology, but also the strategies used to deploy it. Aviation has evolved over the past century from its original role of strategic reconnaissance in World War I, to modern stealth bombers, attack helicopters and hand-launched killer robots. Personnel roles have also evolved as a result. Ground units are assigned pilotsfor mid-level commanders and specific ground operators are trained as air controllers for tactical air control to assist the lowest-ranking commanders. These are ground air controllersThey are also equipped with radios and tablets, lasers and drones to identify and spot enemy.
The development of air-to ground operations could be a model in the midst of a wide-ranging debate about how America can gain superiority in cyber, information and space. The current armed forces must adopt a similar approach in doctrine, organization, training, and logistics in these new environments. Commandos at all levels can maintain an information advantage by pairing information specialists at mid-level commands with ground multi-domain terminal effects specialist at the battlefield edge.
Bombs
Innovative aviation approaches in World War I, and World War II opened the door to modern aviation support for ground operations. The historians have analyzed this period. Richard Hallion and Richard MasonThey argue that until World War I, aviation was primarily focused on providing intelligence and reconnaissance on enemy movements and locations. This changed in 1916 when the British military began using armed surveillance aircraft to sweep through German trenches. The Second World War saw another transformation. blitzkriegThe Second World War. German Gen. Heinz GuderianHe was the first to use simultaneous armored attack and airstrikes. This helped to propel the Nazis to quick victories across Europe and North Africa. The British used the same tactics in World War II. First air controller teamsTo help direct strike aircraft, it is possible to pair air liaison officers with communications specialists at the front lines.
Vietnam saw further progress in air-to-ground integration when the United States Marine Corps introduced it first armed helicopterIn 1964, the UH-1E Huey was introduced. In 1975, the modern AH-1 Cobra helicopter and AH64 Apache attack helicopters provided armed escorts to other helicopters as well as close air support for troops on the ground. The United States Air Force and Marine Corps still used pilots as air controllers. Some of these controllers were attached at ground units while others were trained for flying air attacks. The assignment of pilots was efficient, but costly. It took highly-trained pilots out the cockpit. The Air Force was able to train enlisted servicemembers. Tactical air controllersIn the 1980s, the trend continued to push tactical airpower towards smaller units at lower echelons.
Modern air-to ground support has continued devolved to enhance operations at a lower tactical level. 1995 saw the Joint Staff formalize the air to ground process and define close air support. Air attacks in close proximity to friendly troopsThis requires a higher level coordination. Pilots are still assigned to midlevel commands to facilitate this coordination. These pilots aid with Planning, execution, liaison with aviation units. They bring aviation expertise, a vast understanding of aviation procedures, and the perspective from having flown close-air support missions in the past. Joint doctrine also codified the previously used Air Force tactical air controller concept. These Joint terminal attack controllersThey are the tactical ground operators who operate at the front edge, directing aircraft involved in close air support. They also control joint-fires delivery. Ground commanders receive guidance from joint terminal attack controllers about how to best use aviation assets. They communicate with ground commanders and ground fires agencies to provide guidance and information on how to use aviation assets. Although the organizational structure of each service is different, pilots tend to reside at the battalion, company, or team level, while attack controllers are pushed lower, to a platoon, or team level. The goal in all cases was to ensure tactical utility of air power through pairing ground personnel with experts in the use of aviation capabilities.
Drones allow leaders at the bottom to survey the environment in an offensive or defensive setting to drive a bottom up targeting process. Even the smallest ground units can now have a drone. A stack of dronescapable of intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance, and surveillance. These tools are crucial in building the military force that will be the future. They allow for the identification of friendly or enemy targets for strategic strike assets such as the F-35, B-52, and cruise missiles. Special operations units go one step further and employ special weapons. killer drones. These drones are frequently flown by the pilots and air controllers who advise ground commanders. Their expertise in aviation ensures that tactical drones work together with helicopters, fighter planes, and larger remotely piloted aircraft. The U.S. military can use airpower to its fullest extent by combining the organizational skills of these pilots and joint-terminal attack controllers with tactical aviation capabilities.
Bits
The military has the knowledge, skills, and training to use aviation at every level. However, this cannot be said about information. The strategic level is where the most powerful organizations, capabilities, or authorities are located. Since 2017, the Navy has experimented in the assignment and use of Information warfare officersat the strike group level. The Army and Marine Corps have created new units in order to provide these services. Information capabilities at the CorpsAnd Levels of marine expeditionary force. The Marine Corps also has a new career field. information maneuver. Since 2019, Special Operations Command has been the leading entity. Psychological operations, has stood up for both the Joint Military Information Support Operations Web CenterThe 1st Special Forces Group Information Warfare Center. These entities are all important evolutionary steps in cyber operations. However, they don’t address the need to have information tools and training at the tactical level.
This gap can be filled by the force adopting information, cyber and space capabilities that reflect the advancements in air-to ground integration. First, it is crucial to have subject matter experts at the battalion level or company level in order for operations in the information environment to be executed efficiently. This is currently the greatest obstacle to success: manpower. Cyber operators, Information warfare officers, Space plannersThey are rare and require extensive training. The military cannot rely on experts to fill all the positions required to master the information realm. To bridge this gap, individuals from ground combat arms or information warfare backgrounds should be trained as information, cyber and space controllers. They will also be trained to control aviation and joint fires assets. These multi-domain terminal effect controllers would be at the tactical lowest level and advise ground commanders how to use information, cyber, or space capabilities.
What would a multi-domain controller for terminal effects do? Simulating the Air controllers main tasksA multi-domain controller would concentrate his efforts in three areas: advising ground commanders and assisting with mission planning. Multi-domain controllers could answer questions about space capabilities, cyber attacks and deception operations. Ground forces maneuver plans.
It is difficult to analyze the current Russo–Ukraine conflict, but it might be helpful to consider how Russian front-line troops use information, cyber and space effects in their campaign. Russia was praised for its ability use information, cyber and space effects in the decade preceding the conflict. Electronic warfareAnd cyber-attackstogether with ground-based fires. Russia may be having difficulty synchronizing its ground maneuver with its national-level capabilities, which includes aviation. CyberSpace, and. These are the types of missions where a multi-domain terminal effects controller or cyber-joint attack controller could prove to be very useful. They could bridge the tactical-strategic gap by identifying potential targets and utilizing multi-domain effects to support tactical mission achievement. They could also assist the ground force in managing its electromagnetic signature, or request support to use United States Cyber Command capabilities to affect targets or change their function.
The planning phase is not the only time a multi-domain terminal effect controller could play. The effects controller could also identify virtual or tangible information targets and recommend how information, cyber, and space capabilities can be used to support ground units in their maneuver or plan for attack. An organic multi-domain controller could coordinate an electronic or cyber operation to degrade the enemy’s communication network before a tank platoon advances. The multi-domain controller could coordinate with regional psychological warfare experts to use social media messaging to influence local target audience after the attack is over. It is difficult for a national-level cyber capability to quickly identify and sync effects in complex, fast-moving combat operations if there is no one on the ground to assist with this task. A multi-domain terminal effects controller, much like an air controller who identifies targets and relays their position to support aircraft and coordinates the timing and attack of their attacks, would identify local physical and virtual targets, relay their positions at information, cyber or space experts at a greater command, and synchronize their effects with ground forces maneuver.
Multi-domain terminal effects controllers would also be able to manage information, cyber and space activities. This is similar to how modern ground units control large drones and other aviation assets. These capabilities would allow the ground force to assess the information environment and build awareness. This multi-domain intelligence stack, surveillance, reconnaissance technologies could include AI powered social media analytics and sentiment analyses programs, real time natural-language processing, local open-source information, enemy material exploitation, electromagnetic range analysis, near realtime space imagery and meteorological, crowd-sourced imaging, and AI-powered ground photography. In additional to battlefield awareness tools, action or engagement tools are also needed, such as limited intelligence-collection capabilities, communications jamming, and social- or rich-media analysis tools. This next-generation stack would be controlled by a certified multi-domain terminal effects controller. This would allow for a refined targeting process that allows more specialized units and units to focus on sensitive targets.
There are limitations to the parallel between air/ground coordination and cyber activities. One, the aviation that supports a ground force can be easily allocated for a time and area via the air tasking order. This is not possible with cyber and satellite assets. Second, space, cyber, and information planning and effects often span all areas, while aviation effects do not. Multi-domain terminal effects controllers wouldn’t be able plan for long-term permanent effects, as joint terminal attack controllers are unable to. The current authorizations to use cyber- and space capabilities are still at very high approval levels. A tactical model must include target engagement authority, target control authority, and target engagement authority in order to evolve.
Conclusion
Every ground officer is familiarized with the concept air-to-ground coordination. It remains a unique model to consider the emerging multi-domain space. The role of the joint terminal attacker controller is understood by all levels of the military, NATO field officers and civilians. The same cannot be said for the lexicon or tactical capabilities in the information environment.
Current efforts fail to empower the lowest tactical level with the training, tools, and organization required to be effective in information, cyber and space environments. The solution is to learn from military aviation’s evolution. A good technique is to pair information experts at the mid-level command with ground multidomain terminal effects controllers on the edge of battlefield. These multi-domain terminal effect controllers can bridge the gap between ground maneuver, national-level information, cyber and space capability. They can equip every command with the right equipment and personnel to maintain and gain an information advantage. Instead of waiting another century, the United States could learn from the aviation history.
Terry Traylor, a Marine officer, has operational experience in information warfare, cyber, electronic war, and space. He has served as a Cyber Planner, a Targeting Officer, and an Information Operations Officer in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, as well as multiple crisis response contingencies. He is also the author of Introduction of a Maritime Model to Cyber and Information WarfareAnd An Influence Model for Cybersecurity and Information Warfare.
David Nass is a Marine Staff Non-commissioned Officer with operational experience in both standard and special operations units. He served over 10 years as a joint-terminal attack controller, supporting Operation Enduring Freedom (Operation Inherent Resolve) and other operations. He is currently a graduate candidate at Naval Postgraduate School’s Defense Analysis Department.
These views are the author’s and do not represent the official policy or position of either the United States Marine Corps, or the Department of Defense.
