Future Ground Commanders' Close Support Needs and Desirable System Characteristics
Download
Download Support Files
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| zip file | 2.4 MB | The file(s) provided above are ZIP-formatted archives, which most modern systems can natively unpack. If your computer does not unpack the archive when you double-click it, you may need to use a separate decompression program such as UnZip. |
Purchase
Purchase Print Copy
| Format | List Price | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add to Cart | Paperback182 pages | $35.00 | $28.00 20% Web Discount |
The fundamental importance of close support (augmenting firepower to support engaged ground forces) has been understood for decades, but Desert Storm and more recent operations have raised questions about whether the demand for close support has changed or even disappeared. Changed demand might, in turn, require new or different capabilities. To explore these questions, the authors developed detailed combat vignettes to illustrate situations in which close support could be critical, defined success criteria, then simulated the effects of varying types and levels of close support. The results suggest that there are situations in which close support may not be helpful (most notably, in an ambush) but that it may be crucial in others (such as a prepared defense by light forces). While timing can be important, other important matters are matching the damage patterns of weapons to target dimensions; choosing appropriate types and capabilities of weapons for the situation, with terminally guided submunitions having special potential value; and taking advantage of all available sensor and targeting systems, unmanned aerial vehicles in particular.
Table of Contents
Preface
Figures
Tables
Summary
Glossary
Chapter 1
The Problem and Approach
Chapter 2
Augmenting Allies
Chapter 3
Supporting Light Infantry
Chapter 4
Handling "Leading Edge" Problems
Chapter 5
Supporting Mechanized Offensive Operations
Chapter 6
Implications for Future Close Support
Appendix A
Scenario Assessment
Appendix B
RAND's Tactical Combat Simulation Environment
Appendix C
Data for Systems, Units, and Vignettes
Bibliography
Research conducted by
The research described in this report was performed under the auspices of RAND's National Security Research Division.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Monograph report series. The monograph/report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1993 to 2003. RAND monograph/reports presented major research findings that addressed the challenges facing the public and private sectors. They included executive summaries, technical documentation, and synthesis pieces.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.
Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.