Guided Standoff Weapons: A Threat to Expeditionary Air Power

The Air Base has long been a potential target of attack for enemy planners. An effective way to attack the United States Air Force (USAF) is to avoid the United State’s usual dominance in the air, attacking airbases with ground forces inserted into the Joint Rear Area. The history of airbase ground attacks from 1942 to 1994, documented in the book Snakes in the Eagle’s Nest, shows that the dominant strategy employed by air base attackers has been the standoff attack. Roughly, 75 percent of all airbase attacks have been through the use of rockets or mortar fire from outside the airbase’s perimeter defenses. In Vietnam, where the defenses against penetrating ground attacks were emphasized, this percentage rose to 96 percent. Historically robust main operating bases, with passive defensive measures such as hardened facilities and redundant systems, have been able to withstand standoff attacks. The relative inaccuracy of the attacker’s standoff systems and their limited ability to sustain fire on the air base minimized damage. The USAF finds itself operating in an expeditionary mode across the globe. Expeditionary Air Forces cannot depend on the luxury of operating off main operating bases. In addition, the emergence of guided munitions for mortars and anti-tank missiles has increased the accuracy of potential standoff weapons. Finally, the sophistication of Improvised Explosive Devices in Iraq and of modern radiocontrolled model aircraft even suggests a potential for attackers to build guided weapons. The potential for a “one shot, one kill” standoff weapon is here, negating the effectiveness of passive hardening measures. Disrupting these attacks will take new strategies. Understanding current Joint and USAF doctrine is the first step. Areas for further study include disrupting the enemy forces before they launch a standoff attack, intercepting the standoff round in flight and mitigating the damage on impact are discussed.