88 // DECEMBER 2018 #369 http://www.airforcesmonthly.com
Column Commander’s Update Briefing
synchronisation of multiple assets means that
combat aviators will spend almost as much
time planning and briefing (and sometimes
more) as they will flying the mission.
Mission evolution
Once planning is complete, crews will ‘step’
to their aircraft (or control cabin – remotely
piloted aircraft system [RPAS] missions
follow the very same planning processes),
where the digitally stored mission and
navigation data is then downloaded into the
aircraft’s main computer. Less sophisticated
aircraft can use a portable tablet device,
which is simply placed in the cockpit or
on a knee pad as a standalone system.
Even so, while military aviators will
undoubtedly walk to their aircraft with Plan
A carefully mapped out and measured to the
second and the nearest pound of fuel, they will
know that it’s unlikely to be flown as planned.
The mantra ‘no plan survives contact with the
enemy’ means the real trick is how to adapt once
airborne and still complete the mission as tasked;
or, as is often the case, when re-tasked, because
the tactical situation has changed in the short time
between mission planning and getting airborne.
Once airborne, modern combat aircraft
will continually seek updates on mission
information, enemy disposition or, in the case
of a mobile target, its updated location.
Data links will constantly revise not only
the mission data but also the relative
location to other aircraft; this allows the
route to be regularly updated and ensures
the aircraft remains co-ordinated with
other friendly aircraft or systems.Striking a balance
Today, it’s increasingly the case that a serviceable
and accurate navigation system and secure data
links are mission-critical. Without them, mission
success is significantly downgraded at best, but at
worst you become a liability in today’s increasingly
interconnected and interdependent air battle.
The most capable air forces today walk
the line between procuring the very best
mission systems that money can buy,
while training in hostile environments
where not all systems function perfectly.Future high-tech air wars will undoubtedly be
a test between the relative successes of both
these endeavours. The recent shootdown of a
Russian Il-20 intelligence-gathering aircraft by a
‘friendly’ Syrian S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) surface-
to-air missile (SAM) system is a stark reminder of
what happens in a relatively sterile environment,
when you can’t tell friend from foe and you fail
to execute simple procedures for deconfliction.
While a good mission plan isn’t a
guarantee for success, a poor one or an
uncoordinated one is almost certainly
a precursor for mission failure.NEXT MONTH:
Combined Air Operations Centres (CAOCs).Above: A sensor operator from the USAF’s 29th
Attack Squadron prepares an MQ-9 Reaper for
a training mission from inside a ground control
station at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.
Today, RPAS missions follow the same planning
processes as their manned cousins. USAF/Staff Sgt
E’Lysia Wray Left: A USAF captain from the Air Force
Central Command Air Warfare Center Tactical
Airlift Branch fi nalises details with Egyptian
F-16 fi ghter pilots before a simulated mission
during Exercise Bright Star 2018 at Cairo West
Air Base, Egypt, this September. USAF/SrA Amanda
Stanford Below: Finding a way around air defence
systems, such as this Syrian Air Defence Force
SA-2 ‘Guideline’, is a vital part of mission planning.
A good strategy will include the most tactical
approach to a target, avoiding known enemy
defences and high-threat areas.A pair of USAF F-16Cs from Kunsan Air Base, South Korea, refuel from a Royal Australian Air
Force KC-30A over the Northern Territory. Vital support assets, such as tankers, are positioned and
synchronised as part of the mission planning procedure. USAF/Senior Airman Savannah L WatersAFM