It's a very new concept for the Air Force as well. In fact, I'm not sure how far they've gotten actually implementing it in the field. It came out after I retired so I never got to see it used (even in a simulated environment). But the premise is to push down authority to act to lower echelon forces so they can continue a coordinated fight in the event the upper echelons are cut off. Air University (its the USAF's educational institution and also home to doctrine development) published this article with some more info. But its still very vague. So nothing like a TTP. Hopefully it helps to make more sense. www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Article-Display/Article/2575321/evolving-the-command-and-control-of-airpower/
Started getting back into DCS and came across your videos. As a retired USAF targeteer who has worked many AOCs, I can say this explanation is spot on. I won't judge on your pronunciation of the JIPTL acronym however haha. Love the channel!
ha Neat man! Just started following your channel, love the caliber of work here. Your videos deserve soooo many more views, I'm learning a lot for my DCS shenanigans. I noticed the F-22 in your thumbnail, that's my shot from back in April! Good taste and good decision on grabbing that photo! 😉 I work at the U.S. Air Force Academy, so that shot is DoD, and Public Domain as it was during a pretty badass F-22 demo at the Academy. Just saying how cool it is to see that shot go all over the place, and pop up in random place, it's pretty cool randomly running into my photos. Keep up the cool stuff man! Been combing through them all!
You took that shot? Awesome! That is a fantastic photo. Definitely pat yourself on the back for it. I try to stick to images I won't get copyright strikes on. One of the things I remember from my time in the USAF is that DoD imagery is not something you will get hit with copyright on. I think its awesome that it works that way.
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have learned, every USAF wing has its own type of aircraft. Therefore, each wing can only carry out missions specific to its aircraft type. For example, an F-15C wing would not be able to perform a strike mission or a SEAD mission. In order to execute complex missions, coordination between different wings is necessary. Wouldn't it be better if the USAF were organized into task forces (similar to the German Kampfgruppe)? The wings would be divided into different task forces, and these task forces would be under the command of the JFACC. Each task force could comprise a fighter squadron, a strike squadron, reconnaissance units, SEAD units, and necessary support groups. With this setup, each task force could be assigned a specific airspace or a group of targets. The task force would have the capability to operate independently, thereby eliminating the need for complex coordination between other wings.
Nope. A prime example of what you describe is a Russian BTG fighting in Ukraine. A BTG unit is as you describe, has components of armor, infantry, support, reconnaissance, CAS, maybe some others that would be useful. Problem is that each BTG can function only with what it has and can't integrate component services from outside the BTG easily. It's not flexible enough to be assigned the resources it needs to accomplish a specific task, instead the BTG has to go to war with what it has.
@@tonysu8860 I thought the issue with BTG is that it is vulnerable to casualties. If any unit within the BTG experiences losses, it can significantly diminish the overall effectiveness of the entire BTG. Both the task force in the US Army and the Kampfgruppe in WWII Germany are temporary formations, meaning they are highly flexible and can vary in size. Typically, they are formed together just for a specific mission or joint operation. After the mission, those units will return back to their Division or Brigade. In the case of hitting the target on JIPTL, such a USAF task force would be very effective in accomplishing their assigned objectives. In terms of resources, it will have to be organized by JFACC.
Generally, this is the case stateside. But expeditionary wings (ie the ones that are under the control of combatant commands) will often have a mix of airframes. This makes it easier to train, equip, and organize a unit during peace time, but give an operational commander all the tools needed for a mission. Hope that makes sense. Here's an example of an expeditionary wing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/379th_Air_Expeditionary_Wing
Nice and clear. And, definitely of interest to anyone who is interested in corporate structure how a very large and complex responsibility can be organized in a "makes sense" way distributing responsibilities and assignments. You can see all this not accomplished well at all in the Russian operation in Ukraine. Russia's simpler BTG organizational structure ensures top/down authoritative operational constrol but limits functionality to the available forces within that BTG and can't seem to integrate resources as needed from outside the BTG. The American command structure isn't as much based on lines of authority as it is based on ensuring a basketful of numerous required tasks are meted out to specialists in that area while maintaining overall authority and mangement from on high.
This video really downplays just how important a technological advantage is in establishing air superiority. Obviously tactics, communication, and coordination play an absolutely vital part in this, but having aircraft capable of infiltrating enemy airspace and destroying enemy air defenses without being shot down is primordial as well, and stealth technology/electronic warfare/advanced sensors and avionics plays a huge part in that
Wealth. America has much land, resources, and no enemies anywhere near. Canada is a chill ally, and Mexico is, well... even if it was an enemy, not much they'd be able to do given they have less of absolutely everything that the US has
The short answer is money. The US has had almost unlimited money for r&d for 89 years. No one could compete. The amount of waste if could be figured, would be more than any other country could spend.
Sort of. But China could spend twice as much as us and still not have the intellect to achieve anything… and stealing IP is not an achievement it all comes down to the people and the culture.
@@feels6233 exactly. I remember a guy saying, we could give Russia an aircraft carrier and they couldn't run in the thing in ten years.... US can create anything...the rest can merely copy it
@@feels6233 Do you think american people are better than chinese? Stop this bullsh*t, if China spend twice time US of course it would be better than US.
Fighting tin pot countries gives you a false sensecof superiority. And then said tinpot countries like vietnam somalia afghanistan still won. So much for slam dunk tech........
Somalia Afghanistan won? maybe the US removed themselves from the conflict politically as the US had total domination. Name me one battle Vietnam won in that war? This guy is talking about warfare and achieving dominance your talking politics.
Thanks for this great series, Mike. Your narration and visuals are superb!
Awesome. Can’t wait for the future videos
Excellent work. I admit the term “distributed control” is new to me. Can you elaborate on that?
It's a very new concept for the Air Force as well. In fact, I'm not sure how far they've gotten actually implementing it in the field. It came out after I retired so I never got to see it used (even in a simulated environment).
But the premise is to push down authority to act to lower echelon forces so they can continue a coordinated fight in the event the upper echelons are cut off.
Air University (its the USAF's educational institution and also home to doctrine development) published this article with some more info. But its still very vague. So nothing like a TTP. Hopefully it helps to make more sense.
www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Article-Display/Article/2575321/evolving-the-command-and-control-of-airpower/
@@TheOpsCenterByMikeSolyom TYVM 🙏
Started getting back into DCS and came across your videos. As a retired USAF targeteer who has worked many AOCs, I can say this explanation is spot on. I won't judge on your pronunciation of the JIPTL acronym however haha. Love the channel!
Please continue the series's!
Amazing, i wonder if similar principles could be used in national economy planning or to tackle issue like natural disasters and epidemics.
Thanks Mike.
Really nice video, I hope there will be a video about how targets of opportunity get handled
Always pleasent and super interesting to watch your videos! Thx a lot, looking forward to the rest of it :)
Thanks for the video I have a better understanding of the joint force and the deep structure of the combat commands, really enjoyed it
Thanks for sharing that the video was useful to you. When I know people find these videos useful it gives me an incentive to make more.
ha Neat man! Just started following your channel, love the caliber of work here. Your videos deserve soooo many more views, I'm learning a lot for my DCS shenanigans.
I noticed the F-22 in your thumbnail, that's my shot from back in April! Good taste and good decision on grabbing that photo! 😉 I work at the U.S. Air Force Academy, so that shot is DoD, and Public Domain as it was during a pretty badass F-22 demo at the Academy. Just saying how cool it is to see that shot go all over the place, and pop up in random place, it's pretty cool randomly running into my photos.
Keep up the cool stuff man! Been combing through them all!
You took that shot? Awesome! That is a fantastic photo. Definitely pat yourself on the back for it.
I try to stick to images I won't get copyright strikes on. One of the things I remember from my time in the USAF is that DoD imagery is not something you will get hit with copyright on. I think its awesome that it works that way.
Thanks again!
Simply outstanding
Very nice!
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have learned, every USAF wing has its own type of aircraft. Therefore, each wing can only carry out missions specific to its aircraft type. For example, an F-15C wing would not be able to perform a strike mission or a SEAD mission. In order to execute complex missions, coordination between different wings is necessary.
Wouldn't it be better if the USAF were organized into task forces (similar to the German Kampfgruppe)? The wings would be divided into different task forces, and these task forces would be under the command of the JFACC. Each task force could comprise a fighter squadron, a strike squadron, reconnaissance units, SEAD units, and necessary support groups. With this setup, each task force could be assigned a specific airspace or a group of targets. The task force would have the capability to operate independently, thereby eliminating the need for complex coordination between other wings.
Nope. A prime example of what you describe is a Russian BTG fighting in Ukraine. A BTG unit is as you describe, has components of armor, infantry, support, reconnaissance, CAS, maybe some others that would be useful. Problem is that each BTG can function only with what it has and can't integrate component services from outside the BTG easily. It's not flexible enough to be assigned the resources it needs to accomplish a specific task, instead the BTG has to go to war with what it has.
@@tonysu8860 I thought the issue with BTG is that it is vulnerable to casualties. If any unit within the BTG experiences losses, it can significantly diminish the overall effectiveness of the entire BTG.
Both the task force in the US Army and the Kampfgruppe in WWII Germany are temporary formations, meaning they are highly flexible and can vary in size. Typically, they are formed together just for a specific mission or joint operation. After the mission, those units will return back to their Division or Brigade. In the case of hitting the target on JIPTL, such a USAF task force would be very effective in accomplishing their assigned objectives. In terms of resources, it will have to be organized by JFACC.
Generally, this is the case stateside. But expeditionary wings (ie the ones that are under the control of combatant commands) will often have a mix of airframes.
This makes it easier to train, equip, and organize a unit during peace time, but give an operational commander all the tools needed for a mission. Hope that makes sense.
Here's an example of an expeditionary wing:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/379th_Air_Expeditionary_Wing
@@TheOpsCenterByMikeSolyom Thanks for answering. It makes sense.
Nice and clear.
And, definitely of interest to anyone who is interested in corporate structure how a very large and complex responsibility can be organized in a "makes sense" way distributing responsibilities and assignments.
You can see all this not accomplished well at all in the Russian operation in Ukraine. Russia's simpler BTG organizational structure ensures top/down authoritative operational constrol but limits functionality to the available forces within that BTG and can't seem to integrate resources as needed from outside the BTG. The American command structure isn't as much based on lines of authority as it is based on ensuring a basketful of numerous required tasks are meted out to specialists in that area while maintaining overall authority and mangement from on high.
another good video.
So… “it’s the pilot not the plane”? 😂
They got that phrase for the movie from real life!
This video really downplays just how important a technological advantage is in establishing air superiority. Obviously tactics, communication, and coordination play an absolutely vital part in this, but having aircraft capable of infiltrating enemy airspace and destroying enemy air defenses without being shot down is primordial as well, and stealth technology/electronic warfare/advanced sensors and avionics plays a huge part in that
Wealth. America has much land, resources, and no enemies anywhere near. Canada is a chill ally, and Mexico is, well... even if it was an enemy, not much they'd be able to do given they have less of absolutely everything that the US has
Best content!
Us forces in Vietnam never lost a battle, the defeat was politically not warfare.
The short answer is money. The US has had almost unlimited money for r&d for 89 years. No one could compete. The amount of waste if could be figured, would be more than any other country could spend.
Sort of. But China could spend twice as much as us and still not have the intellect to achieve anything… and stealing IP is not an achievement
it all comes down to the people and the culture.
No, he said just the opposite.
@@feels6233 exactly. I remember a guy saying, we could give Russia an aircraft carrier and they couldn't run in the thing in ten years.... US can create anything...the rest can merely copy it
@@feels6233
Do you think american people are better than chinese? Stop this bullsh*t, if China spend twice time US of course it would be better than US.
@@feels6233 It achieves keeping within 10 to 15 years of your opponent...............still to come second is to lose.
Fighting tin pot countries gives you a false sensecof superiority.
And then said tinpot countries like vietnam somalia afghanistan still won.
So much for slam dunk tech........
Somalia Afghanistan won? maybe the US removed themselves from the conflict politically as the US had total domination. Name me one battle Vietnam won in that war? This guy is talking about warfare and achieving dominance your talking politics.