In the last decade, air defense developments have culminated in systems that oppose tactical aircraft with a technically advanced and dense air defense. As evidenced in the 1973 Middle East war, this poses a severe threat to air support operations. The author argues first, that there is still need for battlefield air support in modern combined arms conflict and, secondly, that the vital contribution of man's unique intellectual capabilities to that function can be retained while avoiding much of his exposure to battlefield air defense required by current operational procedures. This paper proposes a remotely-manned, real-time surveillance, acquisition, designation, and fire direction capability combined with a conventional, manned strike aircraft to form a cooperative, complementary system. The remainder of the paper describes the components of a possible system, suggests how these might be integrated into a joint Army-Air Force operational concept, and speculates on benefits to be obtained.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Paper series. The paper was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
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.