systems integration, system architecture, framework, operational database, integration requirements

In 2000 Air Combat Command (ACC) designated two Red Flag periods each year as �US-only� exercises in order to integrate selected special-access programs.¹³ This special exercise would expose tactical-level participants to operational capabilities previously not discussed at Red Flag and would ensure that these future AOC planners understood the scope of those capabilities before deploying in response to a crisis. With the freedom to plan and debrief at a higher classification level, US-only Red Flags add a number of atypical elements, including B-2 and F-117 stealth aircraft, C2ISR platforms (including Compass Call, Rivet Joint, Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, U-2, and Predator), and space and information-warfare capabilities. US-only Red Flags have been instrumental in bringing previously stovepiped communities together with combat air forces in a live-fly environment.

Red Flag also shifted its training focus, �greening up� to compensate for the Air Force�s elimination of Green Flag exercises. This change acknowledged the fact that our air forces will never operate in a hostile air environment without the protection afforded by suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and electronic-combat aircraft. Navy and Marine Corps EA-6Bs and Air Force F-16CJs participate in virtually every Red Flag to jam or target enemy radars. The proliferation of munitions guided by the global positioning system (GPS) has also led to an increased emphasis on bombing enemy SAM and AAA systems, a mission known as destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD). Additionally, US-only Red Flag exercises incorporate a vast array of systems capable of targeting enemy air defense networks�both kinetically and nonkinetically.

Red Flag For Joint Campaigns

Building a more effective Air and Joint Force
through better operation and strategic wargaming.

Almost every airman knows the story of Red Flag. In the skies over Vietnam both the Navy and the Air Force were loosing almost as many aircraft as they shot down. The Red Barron study revealed that most of our losses occurred during a pilot�s first eight missions. Clearly, we were teaching our pilots how to fly, but they were learning how to fight through on the job training - and the tuition was high. Navy then started their Top Gun school with dissimilar combat training and the Navy�s aerial combat score started to improve. Just after the war the Air Force built on Navy concepts and started Red Flag, a live wargame that simulated an entire enemy integrated air defense system. The effect on the tactical proficiency of our force has been tremendous.¹

Can the Air Force improve its operational and even strategic proficiency to the same degree? While our sister services have been using wargaming to improve their effectiveness for over a hundred years, the Air Force has �only� been using wargames for the past several decades. Just as we built on Top Gun and created an even more effective training environment, we need to build on the wargaming experience of our sister services and create something even more effective � wargames that adjudicate effects in an asymmetric, network centric environment. In doing so we can help improve the wargaming of the Joint community and all the services, thereby improving their effectiveness as catalysts of transformation.²

First we will look at the importance and scope of wargaming today. Then we will examine some of the enduring and emerging challenges to effective wargaming. Finally we will address how war gaming needs to evolve to meet those challenges.

All aircraft were deployed at the Konya air base 250km south of Ankara. The aircraft trained over the plains of Anatolia, near the borders with Syria, Iran, and Iraq. The war games included combat maneuvers and ground-attack sorties with live ammunition. The participating aircraft staged attacks on ground-based air-defense missile sites and conducted mid-air refueling in an area covering some 7,600 square miles near the Turkish city of Konya.

More than 120 52nd Fighter Wing members returned home 01 July 2001 after a two-week deployment to Konya, Turkey, for Anatolian Eagle. The multinational weapons training exercise was the first of its kind involving the US Air Force, primarily 22nd Fighter Squadron F-16CJs. Members of the 37th Airlift Squadron and Polygon Electronic Warfare Range, Ramstein Air Base, and the 4th Air Support Operations Group, Heidelburg, Germany, also participated.

In February 2002 it was announced that Turkey, Israel, and the United States had decided to hold three comprehensive air maneuvers during the year. The Anatolian Eagle maneuvers will be held in April, June, and September, and will include at least 30 warplanes each from the three countries.

As Israelis are myopically focusing on the Palestinian issue, the most important event of the last month in Middle Eastern international affairs passed by almost unnoticed. Dozens of American, Israeli and Turkish pilots engaged in mock aerial battles over central Turkey as part of a burgeoning trilateral relationship, which has come to be one of the most formidable ties in the region, muchto the annoyance of the Arab countries and Iran.

The Anatolian Eagle air exercise, the first of its kind, lasted for two weeks and was aimed at creating a realistic training environment. The war games included combat maneuvers and ground-attack sorties with live ammunition. The militaries of the three countries upgraded their military cooperation by adding an important air element to past trilateral naval search and rescue exercises.

This trilateral demonstration of airpower follows the visit of the US Secretary of Defense,

Donald Rumsfeld, to Turkey in early June, which marked another breakthrough in the triangular relationship. The higher priority awarded to ballistic missile defense by the current Bush administration seemed to have led to an understanding on trilateral cooperation regarding the incorporation of the Israeli Arrow anti-ballistic missile in the deployment of an anti-missile system in Turkey. Ankara has been pressing Washington since 1988 for formal missile defense cooperation with Israel based on the Arrow system.

The closer American-Israeli-Turkish military cooperation has a positive effect on the peace process, which amounts to a reluctant acceptance of Israel as a regional player by most Arab states. It reinforces the notion that Israel is militarily strong and cannot easily be removed from the map. Moreover, this relationship has a moderating effect on Arab ambitions and revanchism, which are still nurtured in the region.

Indeed, the coordination among Ankara, Jerusalem and Washington is beneficial in deterring rogue states such as Iraq, Syria and Iran (all bordering Turkey). Such coordination is necessary for acquiring better offensive options in dealing with the Weapons of Mass Destruction programs of these revisionist states. Moreover, the collaboration in the intelligence area is useful in fighting international terror, which the rogue states encourage. In an era of globalization, with more freedom of movement, there is greater need for intelligence cooperation in order to engage in effective counter-terror policies.

The cooperation between the US and its two most loyal allies in the Middle East also provides limited deterrence for Jordan should Syria and/or Iraq attempt to invade it. It also allows Hashemite Jordan a somewhat freer hand in dealing with domestic challenges from Palestinian nationalists or Islamic radicals, having less to worry about foreign military involvement. Damascus, Baghdad and Teheran, who have all been engaged in subversion against the Hashemites, face a stronger Jordan - one equipped with an American-Israeli-Turkish umbrella.

The trilateral strategic partnership is useful also in Gulf-related contingencies. Projecting force from the eastern Mediterranean to Baghdad, rather than from Saudi Arabia, has many advantages. The so-called "northern strategy" for the defense of the Persian Gulf could bring US, Turkey and Israel even closer. So far Israel was reluctant to play a supportive military role in US engagements, but this may gradually change, as it would like to upgrade its value as an American ally. Some Gulf states, such as Qatar and Oman, do not object to a Turkish and Israeli presence to counter the weight of Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The triumvirate between the US and its two strongest and most reliable Middle East allies

may also encourage democratization and the liberalization of the economies in the region,

values cherished by the three countries. Turkey and Israel refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of their neighbors and are fully aware that the ripening of the socio-political conditions necessary for the emergence of democratic regimes may take a long time. Yet, the success of their societies in achieving far more freedom and prosperity than any other country in the Middle East is a constant reminder that democracy is not a feature found exclusively in Western Europe and North America. This fuels the hope that their neighbors can emulate such a course.

The recent trilateral air exercise is also an indication of the resilience of Israeli-Turkish relations. Turkey has continued to maintain good relations despite the prolonged Palestinian armed confrontation with Israel that started in September 2000. Moreover Ankara capitalized on the crisis to increase its diplomatic involvement in the region, by making efforts to facilitate a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel welcomed the more active Turkish approach as it felt that its interests and dilemmas are well understood in Ankara.

The Israeli-Turkish relationship has become mature enough to concentrate on the main issues of common interest and to ignore the different perspectives on marginal issues. Various irritants in the bilateral relations have not changed the calculus of expediency that brought about the strategic partnership between the two states. Above all, their usefulness in checking aggression in their immediate neighborhood is a goal shared by their ally -the US.

Israel and Turkey recently signed a groundbreaking agreement that will have Turkey export 1.75 billion cubic feet of water from its Manavgat River to Israel each year for the next 20 years.

While the Turkish water is expected to fulfill only about three percent of Israel�s needs during the 20-year period, it is Israel�s first water import agreement and a further expansion of burgeoning economic ties between the two countries. The deal, which will be worth $800 million to $1 billion, �will create a new reality in the region,� Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said. �I hope that Turkey will be the major supplier of water to the region.�

Still at issue is the actual transporting of the water to Israel, which is expected to entail a high cost. Oil tankers will likely be used, but must first be refurbished to make them safe for hauling water.

The water-purchasing deal was signed August 6 during a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and visiting Turkish Energy and Natural Resources Minister Zeki Cakan. The penning of the agreement was the end result of years of negotiations between the two nations to finalize the terms of the deal.

This accord is the latest in a number of steps taken by Ankara and Jerusalem to solidify ties. The growing partnerships between Israel and Turkey in the economic, strategic and humanitarian realms have emerged with the strong support of the United States.

Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer visited Turkey in December 2001 to coordinate a range of shared military projects with Turkish defense officials. Part of Ben-Eliezer�s discussions centered around the possibility that Turkey could purchase and deploy Israel�s defensive Arrow missile system, including its sophisticated Green Pine radar, which tracks incoming missiles and targets them in mid-air before they can strike their intended destination. The Arrow was jointly developed by Israel and the United States.

In addition to high-level strategic discussions, the air forces from Israel, Turkey and the United States have joined together to carry out aerial exercises. Jet fighters from the three nations joined together in the skies above Turkey last year for a major joint training operation dubbed Anatolian Eagle. The two-weeks of drills involved �dog-fighting� in mock combat, staged attacks on ground-based targets and mid-air refueling.

The three nations also have conducted multiple humanitarian/search-and-rescue exercises in the Mediterranean Sea to rehearse various scenarios for responding to maritime emergencies.

'Desert Pivot' Exercise Series Wins DoD Modeling And Simulation Award
Theater Aerospace Command And Control Simulation Facility
Also Honored By The U.S. Air Force

ORLANDO, Fla., Aug. 13 -- The Department of Defense recently selected the U.S. Air Force's Theater Aerospace Command and Control Simulation Facility as winner in the training category of the fourth annual Modeling and Simulation Awards. Lockheed Martin Information Systems is the prime contractor for the Facility.

The Theater Aerospace Command and Control Simulation Facility was recognized for its role in Desert Pivot, the first Department of Defense recurring, multi-service simulation training event that provides live, constructive and virtual training in a highly realistic, weeklong exercise. Lockheed Martin Information Systems, a unit of Lockheed Martin Training, provided developmental and operational support for the recent Desert Pivot series of exercises in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

"Our customers' readiness is our business and we are proud to share in this prestigious award," said Lockheed Martin Information Systems President John Hallal. "We partner with our customers to jointly develop innovative training applications of constructive and virtual simulations that prepare the warfighter for the time when reaction must be automatic."

Over 80 nominations were received for the Modeling and Simulation Awards. The awards recognize achievement during the year 2001 in support of the Department of Defense's modeling and simulation objectives. Winners were selected in four categories, the first three consisting of modeling and simulation functional areas: training, analysis and acquisition. The fourth category, a cross-functional area, considered endeavors that impact all aspects of the overall Department of Defense modeling and simulation effort.

The unique training environment offered by Desert Pivot allows crews to fully interact with other command, control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C2ISR) and shooter platforms. Desert Pivot's challenging scenarios facilitate strengthening individual, team and inter-team skills through the use of increasingly difficult training blocks. Crews are immersed in a robust and dynamic shared-simulation environment.

The exercise also represented the U.S. Air Force's first "Virtual Flag," the simulation world's Red Flag equivalent. The training was carried out at the operational and tactical levels of war. Desert Pivot also was recently selected as the U.S. Air Force's best simulation and training program for 2001.

The Theater Aerospace Command and Control Simulation Facility is the Department of Defense's largest man-in-the-loop command and control simulation facility in operation, using virtual, constructive and live simulations to provide training, testing and experimentation for tactical level command and control assets. High-fidelity models of AWACS, JSTARS, CobraBall, F-15s, and other command and control assets are networked with numerous sites across the country to create one of the most sophisticated and realistic virtual battlespaces for command and control training.

Lockheed Martin Training, the global leader in military training products and services, has provided operations and maintenance, development, and studies and analysis support as the prime Theater Aerospace Command and Control Simulation Facility contractor for the past 11 years and was recently selected to continue that role for an additional five years. Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) is a global enterprise with core businesses in systems integration, space, aeronautics, and technology services.

15 June 2001
World's largest air and missile exercise kicks off
Air Force News Archive

FORT BLISS, Texas (AFPN) -- More than 15,000 people from all branches of the U.S. armed forces, as well as Germany, United Kingdom, Netherlands and Canada are participating in Roving Sands, the world's largest joint theater air and missile defense exercise.

The exercise is taking place in and around Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range, N.M., from June 15 to 24.

Roving Sands is a joint service theater air and missile defense field training exercise designed to train forces from all four services and multinational air defense and aircraft. A common computer-driven scenario helps to hone in skills on joint theater air and missile defense and joint tactical air operations.

Roving Sands melds command, control, communications and computer elements, air defense artillery, and the aircraft of the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines and multinational forces into a joint integrated air defense system.

ROVING SANDS is a Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) directed, United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) sponsored, US Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) executed joint interoperability training exercise that focuses on Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense (JTAMD) and Joint Tactical Air Operations (JTAO).

Field Training Exercise (FTX) ROVING SANDS is the world's largest joint theater air and missile defense exercise. It provides unique training opportunities to US joint and multi-national participants in Joint Tactical Air Operations (JTAO) Interface operations, joint operations, air defense and joint interoperability, while simultaneously achieving unit-training objectives. Because the aircraft force ratio is designed to heavily favor the opposition force, friendly forces must develop an integrated air defense system and execute coordinated management of joint air defense assets to succeed. The opposition force, comprised of a variety of Unified coalition aviation elements, plans and executes joint strikes against a joint and combined integrated air defense system.

FTX ROVING SANDS focuses on planning and executing JTAO integrated air defense of a Joint Task Force (JTF) during a contingency operation. The exercise lasts approximately two weeks.

This is a Total Force Exercise with participation by all four Services and their National Guard and Reserve Components. In addition, multi-national participation is ever increasing. Primary players include Army Air Defense Artillery (ADA) Brigades, Navy Carrier Air Wings, Marine Air Control Groups, Air Force Theater Air Control System (TACS) units and a wide variety of combat aviation units from the four Services. Joint logistics and communications support is provided by various Service units.

WASHINGTON -- In fiscal 2001, federal funding for defense and nondefense research reached parity for the first time in 20 years -- a Clinton administration goal. While fiscally responsible in many respects, this goal put pressure on photonics research in both academia and government labs for which the US Department of Defense is the largest federal sponsor.

   The Bush administration has goals of its own and -- as did its predecessor -- it will need more than a few years to achieve them. The President's amended defense budget increases science and technology funding from 2.5 to 2.7 percent of the overall budget -- an improvement, but not the 3 percent the department had hoped to achieve.
   Despite signaling the largest increase in defense spending since the 1980s, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld indicated that his department was forced to take the long view in amending perceived shortfalls, noting that "you can simply not do everything in a single year."
   In fact, science and technology spending, which underwrites much of photonics research, dropped $200 million from fiscal 2001 spending levels. It could be considered good news, however, that most of this came from budgetary tiers not associated with photonics research. Basic and applied research -- academics' bread and butter -- stayed relatively untouched.
   "So this budget won't especially hurt us, but it's not going up, so it won't help us all that much either," said Richard Powell, president of the Optical Society of America and vice president for research and graduate studies at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
   Predictably, anything linked to missile defense stands to benefit under Bush's administration. That includes high-energy lasers, optical coatings and adaptive optics used to deliver laser beams in free space over large distances. Rumsfeld said proposed high-energy laser research funding climbs $14 million to $108 million in 2002.
   Next year, programs for the Airborne-Laser, Space-Based Laser and Space-Based Infrared System will move under the administration of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, which will receive $133 million for science and technology research under the 2002 proposal, up $41 million from fiscal 2001.
   It is unclear whether either of those figures will contribute to research programs for the projects mentioned above. Spending on each project breaks down as follows:

A NEW BATTLEGROUND
But funding that hit an annual high of $2 billion was cut dramatically after the
collapse of ... The Pentagon's marquee project is the airborne laser (ABL), ...
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010325-ts.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

$6 Billion More Sought for Pentagon
... request is funding for the C-17 strategic airlifter, the nascent Airborne Laser
... The 2001 budget has $6.5 billion left for the entire government's ...
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/5/31/190311.shtml - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

FY 2001 Defense Supplemental: How Much Is Enough?
The administration argues that this extra funding is needed to cover a number of
... The Bush Administration recently requested a fiscal year (FY) 2001 ...
www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/U.20010607.FY_2001_Defense_Su/U.20010607.FY_2001_Defense_Su.htm - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

President Clinton appreciated the importance of the ABM Treaty for maintaining international strategic stability, and as a result sought to negotiate with Russia an amended Treaty that would accommodate a U.S. NMD system. Negotiations, however, did not go well as Russia remained skeptical of changing the Treaty and reiterated its belief that to do so would in itself undermine strategic stability. Supported by China, France, and the United Nations, the Russian Duma, under the leadership of newly-elected President Vladimir Putin, quickly approved the START II and CTBT treaties in spring 2000 and positioned Russia with the moral high ground in the ABM negotiations.

Ultimately, Clinton elected not to authorize work to begin on deploying a NMD system. In reaching his decision, Clinton cited the underachievement of current NMD technologies, Russia�s refusal to modify the ABM Treaty to permit deployment of an NMD system, and the reluctance of U.S. allies to endorse NMD unless strategic stability could be assured through a modified ABM Treaty.

On May 1, 2001, newly elected President George W. Bush delivered what came to be known as the �missile defense speech� at the National Defense University. In making a case for a national missile defense program, Bush cited the increasing danger of hostile states using weapons of mass destruction, and sought conceptually to move the Cold War strategic framework away from an arrangement of massive retaliation and mutually assured destruction. He stated, �To maintain peace, to protect our own citizens and our own allies and friends, we must seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us. This is an important opportunity for the world to re-think the unthinkable, and to find new ways to keep the peace�. Deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation.� The Bush Administration argued that constructing a NMD system would alleviate the necessity of essentially defending the country solely through an implicit threat of retaliation.

To this end, the Bush Administration adopted an increasingly unilateralist tact with regard to NMD . It insisted upon developing a NMD system, preferably with the consent of key allies and Russia, in conjunction with making substantial cuts to the U.S. strategic missile force. However, many of the European allies gave only reserved, qualified support for NMD; Moscow insisted that the ABM Treaty retain its integrity and that Washington refrain from breaching it; and China viewed the nascent U.S. NMD system as a means of neutralizing its minimal nuclear arsenal. However, seemingly undeterred, the Bush Administration continued toward development and deployment of a missile defense system. Opponents of NMD in Congress in turn succeeded in offering provisions that would limit funding for the system, as well as seriously restrict Bush�s ability to conduct further testing that would abrogate the ABM Treaty without congressional approval. However, the character of the NMD debate, and indeed the security and collective psyche of the American people, were about to undergo a wrenching change.

During the morning of September 11^th, four U.S. commercial airliners were hijacked within minutes of each other. Two planes were flown into the World Trade Center towers (one plane into each tower), one crashed into the Pentagon, and the other crashed in rural Pennsylvania. The Trade Center towers collapsed shortly after being struck. Close to 4,000 people are presumed dead. The event, the most deadly terrorist attack in history, utterly reorients U.S. defensive and military strategies. As the Bush Administration prepares to undertake a lengthy �war on terrorism�, proponents of NMD argue that the U.S. government should take measures to defend the homeland against all potential threats, and specifically missile attacks from terrorists or hostile nations. Critics of NMD, conversely, saw their position, that there were more immediate threats to U.S. national security than rogue missiles, tragically underscored.

Silver Flag

The Silver Flag Exercise Site, located at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., is home to Detachment 1, 823rd RED HORSE Squadron. The squadron�s 68-person cadre provides combat support training to active-duty units, the Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Command, Army, Marine Corps and allied nations. More than 5,600 people are trained each year at the site. During the five and one-half day primary course, civil engineer, Services, and Personnel Support for Contingency Operations (PERSCO) personnel learn how to build and maintain bare-base operations at forward-deployed locations. Students hone a variety of combat and survival skills, such as repairing bomb-damaged runways, setting up base facilities and disposing of explosive ordnance. Services members receive additional training on providing food service and lodging under simulated wartime conditions, while PERSCO members receive training on accounting for deployed forces, processing casualty reports and conducting personnel sustainment actions. The Silver Flag cadre also hosts the Air Force Institute of Technology�s Introduction to Base Civil Engineer Organization and Services Initial Skills course four times a year for Air Force and allied officers. The Silver Flag site is the home of Readiness Challenge, the Air Force�s biennial contingency support competition. This international competition tests the leadership, teamwork and war-fighting skills of civil engineer, Services and PERSCO personnel. The staff of Detachment 1 plans and executes competition events and acts as host for the several hundred participants and visitors who come to the area for the event. Silver Flag training was originally conducted at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, but moved to Tyndall in 1972. Training at that time consisted primarily of beddown, demolition, well-drilling and security operations. In 1979 training moved to Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., near Ft. Walton Beach, to take advantage of an unused runway and taxiway system. Silver Flag training returned to Tyndall in 1992. The site is located on 1,200 acres north of U.S. Highway 98, about eight miles east of Tyndall�s main gate. It has 25 permanent buildings and a 6,000-foot training runway. Over the years, training has expanded to its current program, which includes force beddown, advanced base recovery after attack, disaster preparedness, fire protection, explosive ordnance disposal, food service and lodging skills, chemical warfare operations and personnel accountability. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/silver-flag.htm

Cope North

The purpose of the Cope North exercise, held two to three times per year, is to enhance U.S. and Japanese air operations. Cope North is one of the longest series of bilateral exercises held in the Pacific theater.

Since the first Cope North exercise in 1978, thousands of American and Japanese airmen have honed skills vital to maintaining a high level of readiness. Cope North is all about the defense of Japan. Under the Mutual Defense Treaty, the U.S. is obligated to assist in the defense of Japan. Typical training scenarios test pilots� ability to defend territory from intrusion. The first day included two-ship flights defending under peacetime rules of engagement. As the scenario unfolds, packages grew larger and wartime rules were introduced. Americans and Japanese alternated attack and defense roles.

Following each day�s duels, Japanese pilots shuttle north to Kadena from their operating location at Naha Airport in a CH-47 helicopter for a comprehensive debrief with their American allies. The 10-minute debriefing during the helicopter flight payed big dividends. The aggressor talked about his plan and the defender spoke of his. Each benefited from the lessons of the mission.

Cope North is both a challenging and educational event. Tankers, AWACS, fighters and all the support elements from both countries work together toward enhancing their combat capabilities. Exercising combined skills here gives us the chance to work on relationships both in the air and on the ground. The ultimate goal of Cope North is to develop and improve techniques that enhance bilateral air operations for the purpose of being able to better provide for the defense of Japan.

U.S. Air Force and Japan Air Self Defense Force units conducted exercise Cope North Guam �00 at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, beginning May 30. Cope North Guam �00, which ran until June 3, was a regularly-scheduled bilateral exercise and is the latest in the bilateral exercise series designed to enhance both countries� air operations. This marked the second time that Cope North was conducted outside of Japan. The previous time was in 1999, also held at Andersen. U.S. aircraft deploying to Guam for the exercise were F-16CGs from the 354th Fighter Wing at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska; and an E-3B from the 18th Wing at Kadena Air Base, Japan. The JASDF deployed F-15Js from the 6th Air Wing at Komatsu Air Base, Japan; and E-2Cs from the JASDF�s Northern Aircraft Control and Warning Wing at Misawa Air Base, Japan. This Cope North exercise had been in the planning stages for several months and bears no connection to any real-world events.

With the successful deployment of fighter aircraft outside of Japan for only the third time in its history, Japan Air Self-Defense Force F-15s took to the South Pacific skies June 7 to train with their U.S. counterparts in Exercise Cope North Guam 2001. During this year's two-week exercise, pilots from both countries will conduct training in air combat tactics, electronic combat and airborne air control. The training pits U.S. pilots against Japanese pilots in scenarios in which one side tried to defend its airspace while the other side attempted to penetrate it. Participating in the exercise were ten JASDF F-15 Eagles from the 2nd Air Wing, Chitose Air Base, Japan; an E-767 airborne warning and control system from Hamamatstu AB, Japan; 16 U.S. Air Force F-16s from Misawa AB and one E-3 AWACS aircraft from Kadena AB; and two Marine EA-6Bs from Iwakuni Naval Air Station. And while pilots test their air-combat skills far above the skies of Guam, the 30 Air Force, Marine and JASDF aircraft provided a constant workload for the 150 Air Force and 76 JASDF maintainers. Cope North Guam 2001 also marked the debut deployment of the JASDF E-767. Based at Hamamatstu Air Base, Japan, the E-767 is six feet longer than the Boeing 707, has 50 percent more floor area, nearly twice the cabin volume, and can fly higher, faster and remain on station longer without re-fueling than the U.S. E-3 AWACS aircraft. The exercise also marked the first time the U.S. Air Force E-3 and JASDF E-767 aircraft have been operationally co-located -- sharing not only ramp space, but aircrews as well.

In November 2001 American fighter jets flew across the sky headed for defense sectors near Okinawa. One aircraft has penetrated one of the sectors and is showing hostile intent. An American pilot vectors toward the intruder and finally gets a visual. The F-4 belongs to Japan�s Air Self Defense Force, which teamed up with U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps units to test their ability to defend Japan through an exercise named Cope North 02-1. More than 70 people deployed to Okinawa to join units from Kadena�s 18th Wing for the weeklong drill. At the pinnacle of the exercise, more than two-dozen aircraft battled for air supremacy.

Because of real-world concerns and unit deployments, the exercise was scaled back to roughly one-third of the original package and compressed into one week rather than two. But that didn�t make it easier on planners. Fifth Air Force and all the units involved demonstrated a great deal of flexibility to get this exercise off the ground and in the books. After more than 250 sorties, hours of spin-ups and debriefings, tactics talk and lessons learned, American and Japanese pilots are better prepared to defend this country -- together.

During normal training, U.S. weapons directors only control American aircraft and Japanese control their own planes. Exercise Cope North, held at Kadena Nov. 12-16, gave directors from both nations the opportunity to control each other�s aircraft. With safety monitors available if required, American weapons directors controlled Japanese fighters and vice versa. These indirect advisory missions provide invaluable training and a better understanding of each other�s combat capability.

Working out of the Southwestern Direction Center in Naha, the 623rd�s Theater Control Operations Team builds pilots� real-time situational awareness. Employed in conjunction with the 961st Airborne Air Control Squadron�s E-3 and Japanese E-767 AWACS, this integrated air defense system provides the command and control necessary to effectively employ air power. Weapons directors identify and track all aircraft in assigned sectors around the island. Much like the AWACS, their ground-based scopes display the progress of a battle while directors provide information to pilots about how many bad guys are out there, where they are and the status of friendly forces.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/cope-north.htm

46. The main focus for all three Services in 2001/02 was Exercise SAIF SAREEA II, undertaken in Oman between September and October 2001. This was the largest UK military exercise since the 1980s, and involved around 22,500 Armed Forces personnel, together with 49 aircraft, 44 helicopters, over 4,500 vehicles (of which 547 were armoured), and a Naval task force of 21 ships, all with integrated logistic support. A further 12,800 personnel from the Sultan of Oman's Armed Forces took part.

47. This was the first time since the Gulf War that the UK had deployed a medium-scale joint task force over such a long distance, and the logistics, communications and engineering challenges were particularly significant. The large number of concurrent real-world commitments, including the start of operations in Afghanistan, exacerbated these demands. Nevertheless, the exercise provided invaluable training from unit level up to the joint task force, and identified many important lessons that will enhance the development and effectiveness of the UK's Joint Rapid Reaction Forces (see paragraphs 43-44).

war game reference articles 9/11

Red Flag For Joint Campaigns

Building a more effective Air and Joint Force
through better operation and strategic wargaming.

History of National Missile Defense

The 2000s

Silver Flag

Cope North

war game reference articles 9/11

Red Flag For Joint Campaigns

Building a more effective Air and Joint Force through better operation and strategic wargaming.

History of National Missile Defense

The 2000s

Silver Flag

Cope North

Building a more effective Air and Joint Force
through better operation and strategic wargaming.