1987Unpublished venueRequires access

Apportionment and Tactical Airpower in Airland Battle -- An Evaluation of CAS (Close Air Support), BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) and AI (Air Interdiction) from an Operational Perspective,

Michael L. Combest

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Abstract : This monograph examines the relative effectiveness of three key Air Force ground support missions: Close Air Support (CAS), Battlefield Air Interdiction (BAI), and Air Interdiction (AI). The costs and benefits associated with each mission are examined in light of the missions ability to influence the outcome of major operations and campaigns rather than local tactical engagements. The various missions are examined with respect to their ability to disrupt enemy operations by delaying, diverting, and destroying forces. They are also evaluated in light of the degree to which they complement or supplement ground force power. The study concludes that while there are no fixed rules to govern apportionment decisions, there appear to be some basic principles which one can apply to the apportionment process regarding the relative utility of the three stated missions.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract : This monograph examines the relative effectiveness of three key Air Force ground support missions: Close Air Support (CAS), Battlefield Air Interdiction (BAI), and Air Interdiction (AI). The costs and benefits associated with each mission are examined in light of the missions ability to influence the outcome of major operations and campaigns rather than local tactical engagements. The various missions are examined with respect to their ability to disrupt enemy operations by delaying, diverting, and destroying forces. They are also evaluated in light of the degree to which they complement or supplement ground force power. The study concludes that while there are no fixed rules to govern apportionment decisions, there appear to be some basic principles which one can apply to the apportionment process regarding the relative utility of the three stated missions.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract : This monograph examines the relative effectiveness of three key Air Force ground support missions: Close Air Support (CAS), Battlefield Air Interdiction (BAI), and Air Interdiction (AI). The costs and benefits associated with each mission are examined in light of the missions ability to influence the outcome of major operations and campaigns rather than local tactical engagements. The various missions are examined with respect to their ability to disrupt enemy operations by delaying, diverting, and destroying forces. They are also evaluated in light of the degree to which they complement or supplement ground force power. The study concludes that while there are no fixed rules to govern apportionment decisions, there appear to be some basic principles which one can apply to the apportionment process regarding the relative utility of the three stated missions.

Key concepts: Interdiction, Apportionment, Battle, Adversary, Battlefield, Operations research, Aeronautics, Software deployment

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Apportionment and Tactical Airpower in Airland Battle -- An Evaluation of CAS (Close Air Support), BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) and AI (Air Interdiction) from an Operational Perspective, — Research Paper | ScholarLens