EDITOR'S NOTE

Sea Power,  Jul 2004  by Barnard, Richard C

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

The term "precision strike" conjures high technology and familiar television news reports of U.S. munitions hitting their targets on the nose time after time. But the public spotlight rarely focuses on the intrinsic difficulties and dangers of using precision munitions. Lack of mapping data - yes, today! - technical incompatibilities and munitions with error ratings 200 meters in diameter are among the difficulties that U.S. forces encounter in modern warfare. And those problems multiply when the battle ensues in densely packed urban centers such as Baghdad or Tikrit.

This month, our special report takes a look at the fascinating, but complex, world of precision engagement, the series of tasks from target detection to assessment and attack.

In an intriguing article (p. 16), Associate Editor Hunter C. Keeter reports that the Defense Department today is re-evaluating its approaches to precision engagement and coming up with innovations that may fundamentally change the way of warfare. These include low-tech tactics such as the use of close air support "boxes" and greater reliance on human operators within the engagement loop. Careful matching of munitions to targets also is getting more attention, especially when collateral damage is an issue. As one officer put it: "A pilot is not going doing to drop a 2,000 pound JDAM [Joint Direct-Attack Munition] with a 200-meter [error rating] and hope he gets it right."

On page 12, we review a little-known, but vital, key to precision engagements of the future, the "family" of operational pictures that is being designed to bring order and harmony to the Pentagon's maze of targeting and battle management systems. The sheer size of that task is, frankly, awesome, but a lot rides on the outcome. Recent history is riddled with tragic evidence that different combat elements using different pictures of the battle area comprise a recipe for disaster.

The subject of our Interview this month is Rear Adm. (select) Joseph F. Kilkenny, a central figure in the formulation of strike warfare requirements for the Navy. In a conversation with Managing Editor Richard R. Burgess (p. 26), Kilkenny challenges industry to come up with "a decision-making aid," a software link that will tie reconnaissance data to engagement priorities such as collateral damage and target allocations. "That would really shorten the time between identifying a target and getting permission to drop," he said.

Also in this issue, we talk (p. 30) with the winners and loser in the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship competition about the way ahead. Burgess interviews Vice Adm. John G. Cotton, commander, Naval Reserve Force, about the Navy's efforts to close the cultural divide between the active and reserve forces. The "most startling conclusion" of a recent assessment of reserve forces was cultural differences, Cotton said. The active component had to be educated about what the reserves could do. A detailed report on recent operations of the Military Sealift Command is on page 32.

We hope you agree that this issue of your magazine offers a look at sea services issues unavailable in any other publication. As always, thanks for reading Sea Power.

Richard C. Barnard

Editor in Chief

We are eager to get your feedback. Contact me at rbamard@navyleague.org or by mail at Sea Power, 2300 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22201-3308.

Copyright Navy League of the United States Jul 2004
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved