|
By
Benjamin S. Lambeth
Only days after Operation
Allied Force commenced in March 1999, Gen. Wesley K.
Clark, NATo'S Supreme Allied Commander Europe, asked
the United States Army to deploy a contingent of its
AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to the combat zone
to provide a better close-in capability against enemy
tanks and armored personnel carriers than that offered
by fixed-wing fighters, which remained restricted to
operating at medium altitudes as a general rule. Clark
initially had hoped to deploy this force to Macedonia,
where the roads and airfields were better and the terrain
was less challenging. The Macedonian government, however,
declined to grant permission because it was already
swamped by the flood of Kosovar refugees, so Albania
was sought instead as the best available alternative.
Within four hours, NATO approved Clark's request.
It took more than a week, however, for the US and Albanian
governments to endorse the deployment. That approval
finally came on Day 12 of Allied Force. The US Defense
Department at first indicated that it would take up
to 10 days to deploy the package. In the end, it took
17 days just to field the first battalion of Apaches,
which arrived in Albania on April 21.
At first glance, the idea of using Apaches to reinforce
NATO's fixed-wing aircraft seemed entirely appropriate,
considering that the AH-64 had been acquired by the
Army expressly to engage and destroy enemy armor. As
Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon put it in announcing
the deployment, they would offer NATO "the type
of tank-killing capability that the bad weather has
denied us. It will give us the capability to get up
close and personal to the Milosevic armor units units
in Kosovo." In a normal weapons load, the Apache
mounts up to 16 Hellfire anti-tank missiles, 76 folding-fin
anti-personnel rockets, and 1,200 rounds of 30 mm armor-piercing
ammunition. With that armament, it gained deserved
distinction by destroying more than 500 Iraqi armored
vehicles during Operation Desert Storm. Yet in Desert
Storm, the Apaches had deployed as an organic component
of two fully fielded US Army corps. In this case, the
Army was being asked by SACEUR to cobble together an
ad hoc task force designed to operate essentially on
its own, without the backstopping support of a fielded
US ground combat presence in the theater. The Army
is not configured to undertake such ad hoc deployments,
and its units do not train for them. Instead, an Apache
battalion normally deploys only as a part of a larger
Army division or corps, with all of the latter's organically
attached elements.
Apaches, and More
Accordingly, the Army was driven by its own standard
operating procedures to supplement the two Apache battalions
with a heavy additional contingent of ground forces,
air defenses, military engineers, and headquarters
overhead. As the core of this larger force complement,
now designated Task Force Hawk, the Apaches were drawn
from the Army's 11th Aviation Brigade stationed at
Illesheim, Germany. The deployment package included,
however, not only the two battalions of AH-64s but
also 26 UH-60L Black Hawk and CH-47D Chinook helicopters
from the 12th Aviation Regiment at Wiesbaden, Germany.
Additional assets whose deployment was deemed essential
for supporting the Apaches included a light infantry
company; a Multiple Launch Rocket System platoon with
three MLRS vehicles; a high-mobility multipurpose wheeled
vehicle (humvee) anti-tank company equipped with 38
armed utility vehicles; a military intelligence platoon;
a military police platoon; and a combat service support
team. The Army further determined a need for its Apaches
to be accompanied by a mechanized infantry company
equipped with 14 Bradley armored fighting vehicles;
an armor company with 15 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks;
a howitzer battery with eight 155 mm artillery pieces;
a construction engineer company; a short-range air
defense battery with eight more Bradley armored fighting
vehicles armed with Stinger infrared surface-to-air
missiles; a smoke generator platoon; a brigade headquarters
complement; and diverse other elements. In all, to
backstop the deployment of 24 attack helicopters to
Albania, Task Force Hawk ended up being accompanied
by a support train of no fewer than 5,350 Army personnel.
To be sure, there was a legitimate force-protection
rationale behind this accompanying train of equipment
and personnel. Unlike the Marines, who deployed 24
F/A-18D fighters to Hungary only a few weeks thereafter
and had them flying combat missions within days with
nothing even approaching Hawk's overhead and support
baggage, Army planners had to be concerned about the
inherent risks of deploying a comparable number of
Apaches on terrain that was not that of a NATO ally,
that lacked any semblance of a friendly ground force
presence, and that could easily have invited a VJ (for
Vojska Jugoslavskaya, the Serb army) cross-border attack
in the absence of a US ground force sufficient to render
that an unacceptable gamble for VJ commanders.
That said, it bears noting that the threat of Serbian
forces coming across the Albanian border did not appear
to be a matter of great concern to anyone in the Allied
Force command hierarchy before the arrival of Task
Force Hawk, even though there were US troops already
on the ground. The troops, who were not provided with
any comparable force protection package, were in Albania
as a part of Joint Task Force Shining Hope, the Albanian
refugee relief effort.
Baggage Problems
As one might have expected with that much additional
equipment and personnel, however, the Apache deployment
soon encountered the predictable consequences of the
Army's decision to accompany the AH-64s with such a
surfeit of arguably unnecessary extra baggage. It was
at first estimated that 200 USAF C-17 transport sorties
would be needed to airlift the assorted support elements
with which the Apaches had been burdened. (The airport
at Tirana, Albania, lacked the required taxiway and
ramp specifications to accommodate the more capacious
C-5.) In the end, it took more than 500 C-17 sorties,
moving some 22,000 short tons in all, to transfer Hawk
in its entirety. Commenting later on the deployment,
one Army officer complained that the Army is "still
organized to fight in the Fulda Gap." Even the
outgoing Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Dennis J. Reimer,
admitted in an internal memo to senior Army staff officers
once the deployment package had finally been assembled
in theater that the manifold problems encountered by
Hawk had underscored a "need for more adaptive
force packaging methodology."
In all events, 23 Apaches with their attached equipment
and personnel arrived in Albania in late April. (The
24th Apache had developed hydraulic trouble en route
and remained on the ground in Italy.) No sooner had
the Army declared all but one of the aircraft ready
for combat on April 26 when, only hours later, one
crashed at the Tirana airfield in full view of reporters
who had been authorized to televise the flight. Neither
crew member was injured, but the accident made for
an inauspicious start for the widely touted deployment.
Less than two weeks later, on May 5, a second accident
occurred, this time killing both crew members during
a night training mission some 46 miles north of Tirana.
The aircraft was carrying a full load of weapons and
extra fuel. A subsequent investigation concluded that
the first accident had been caused by the pilot's having
mistakenly landed short of his intended touchdown point.
The second was attributed to an apparent failure of
the tail rotor, considering that the aircraft had been
observed to enter a rapid uncontrolled spiral during
the last moments before its impact with the ground.
Rising Costs
As of May 31, the cost of the Task Force Hawk deployment
had reached $254 million, much of that constituting
the expense for the hundreds of C-17 sorties that had
been needed to haul all the equipment from Germany
to Albania, plus the additional costs of building base
camps and port services and conducting mission rehearsals.
Yet despite SACEUR's intentions to the contrary, the
Apaches flew not a single combat mission during the
entire remainder of Operation Allied Force. The reason
given by then-JCS Chairman Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton
was that Serb air defenses in Kosovo, although noticeably
degraded by early May, remained effective enough to
warrant keeping the Apaches out of action until suppression
of enemy air defenses operations had "reduced
the risk to the very minimum."
In a final coda to the Army's plagued Task Force Hawk
experience, Shelton conceded later in a written response
to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee
that "the anticipated benefit of employing the
Apaches against dispersed forces in a high-threat environment
did not outweigh the risk to our pilots." Shelton
added that by the time the Apache deployment had reached
the point where it was ready to engage in combat, VJ
ground formations were no longer massed but had become
dispersed and well hidden. Moreover, he went on to
note, the weather had improved, enabling Air Force
A-10s and other fixed-wing aircraft to hunt down dispersed
and hidden enemy forces while incurring less risk from
enemy infrared SAMs, anti-aircraft artillery, and small-arms
fire than the Apaches would have faced.
Beyond these problems created by the Army's decision
to bring along so much additional overhead, there was
a breakdown in joint doctrine for the combat use of
the helicopters that was disturbingly evocative of
the earlier competition for ownership and control of
coalition air assets that had continually poisoned
the relationship between the Joint Force Air Component
Commander and the Army's corps commanders during Desert
Storm. The issue stemmed in this case from the fact
that the Army has traditionally regarded its attack
helicopters not as part of a larger airpower equation
with a theaterwide focus but rather as an organic maneuver
element fielded to help support the ground maneuver
needs of a division or corps. Apache crews typically
rely on their own ground units to select and designate
their targets. Yet in the case of Allied Force, with
no Army ground combat presence in-theater to speak
of, they would either have had to self-designate their
targets or else rely on Air Force forward air controllers
flying at higher altitudes to designate for them. The
idea of using Apaches as a strike asset in this manner
independently of US ground forces was simply not recognized
by prevailing Army doctrine. On the contrary, as prescribed
in Army Field Manual 1-112, Attack Helicopter Operations,
an AH-64 battalion "never fights alone. ... Attacks
may be conducted out of physical contact with other
friendly forces," but they must be "synchronized
with their scheme of maneuver." FM 1-112 expressly
characterizes deep attack missions of the sort envisaged
by Clark as "high-risk, high-payoff operations
that must be exercised with the utmost care."

Emerging Rift
In light of this, the Army's V Corps commander, Lt.
Gen. John W. Hendrix, was willing to have the Apaches
included in the European Command Air Tasking Order,
but he demurred on having them incorporated as well
in the separate NATO ATO, notwithstanding the insistence
of the NATO air commander, Lt. Gen. Michael C. Short,
that such inclusion would be essential in any situation
in which the attack helicopters were ever committed
to actual combat. Apart from that, however, Short never
sought operational control of the Apaches or attempted
to task them. He also offered to provide Task Force
Hawk as much operational support (including EA-6B Prowler
jamming support) as possible and even went so far as
to propose to subordinate himself and his Combined
Air Operations Center as a supporting (as opposed to
supported) combat element to Hendrix, who as V Corps
commander was also the ultimate commander of Hawk.
An agreement was finally reached that nominally included
the Apaches with all other ATO missions, yet which
left to Hendrix's discretion much essential detail
on mission timing and tactics. A window was provided
in the ATO such that the Apaches would be time-deconflicted
from friendly bombs falling from above and also assured
of some fixed-wing air support. However, the agreement
reached in the end was so vague that it allowed each
service to claim it maintained tactical control over
the Apaches in the event they were ever committed to
combat. For their part, Army officers insisted that
fire support for the AH-64s would come only from MLRS
and Army Tactical Missile Systems positioned on the
Albanian side of the border. That doctrinal stance
was enough all by itself to ensure that the Apaches
would never see combat, considering that the massive
MLRS and ATACMS fires envisaged for any AH-64 operations
would have rained literally multiple thousands of cluster
bomb unit submunitions all over Kosovo in an indiscriminate
attempt to suppress enemy AAA and infrared SAMs, a
tactic that was out of the question from the very start,
given NATO's determination to avoid any significant
incidence of noncombatant casualties. In contrast,
Air Force planners maintained that excluding the Apaches
from CAOC control would increase their level of risk
by depriving them of support from such key battlespace
awareness assets as Joint STARS, Rivet Joint, Compass
Call, and the EA-6B. As a USAF officer attached to
Hendrix's deep operations coordination cell wrote in
an e-mail obtained by Inside the Pentagon, "They
do not know, nor do they want to know, the detailed
integration required to get the Prowler to jam the
priority threats, provide acquisition jamming on the
correct azimuth, etc. The benefits of integrating with
platforms like Compass Call, Rivet Joint, and others
are off their radar scope."
In his memoirs, Clark later scored the press article
that reported this material. He criticized its author
for "personally attacking Jay Hendrix and claiming,
among other accusations, that he would not allow the
Apache sorties to appear on Short's Air Tasking Order." Clark
made no attempt to refute that accusation, however,
but merely dismissed it as the complaint of a "disgruntled
Air Force officer."
After Allied Force ended, USAF Maj. Gen. John R. Dallager,
the assistant chief of staff for operations and logistics
at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, touched
the heart of the overriding interests and equities
at stake here when he stated, during a briefing at
a NATO Reaction Force Air Staff conference on JFACC
issues: "Clearly the JFACC's authority must not
infringe upon operational C2 [Command and Control]
relationships within and between national or service
commands and other functional commands. But to ensure
deconfliction of simultaneous missions and to minimize
the risk of fratricide, all air operations within the
[joint operating arena] must be closely coordinated
by the JFACC through the ATO ... process. This last
point may be difficult to swallow for land and maritime
commanders, but if air history teaches us anything,
it is that air, the truly joint activity, needs to
be coordinated centrally if we are to make efficient
use of scarce resources and if we are to avoid blue-on-blue."
The Headquarters View
Interestingly, the Army leadership in the Pentagon
seemed far more disposed than Hendrix, at least in
principle, to assign operational control of the Apaches
to the CAOC. According to Inside the Army, the incoming
Army vice chief of staff, Lt. Gen. John M. Keane, frankly
commented at an Army aviation symposium in May 1999
that "it boggles my mind, but we still have senior
leaders, people who wear stars, ... who don't recognize
that if you are going to fly Apaches at a distance
and range, it's got to be on the Air Tasking Order." Keane
added that the Apaches had to be under the operational
control of the JFACC in the Army's "self-interest" because
that arrangement offered a more effective way of employing
them in this particular instance: "The JFACC should
determine what the Apache targets are as a result of
the entire responsibility he has in conducting that
air campaign." He further noted that the JFACC
had the comparative advantage of being able to retask
combat assets based on real-time intelligence, something
the Army could take advantage of as well if it could
get itself out of "this business of being myopic
about ground operations." In closing, he acknowledged
that in the Army, "we've got this nagging fear
that somehow, if we turn over our organization to somebody
in another uniform, that that organization is going
to suffer as a result of that. And I just fundamentally
disagree with that."
In yet further testimony to the ill-fated character
of the Army's Task Force Hawk experience, it was acknowledged
in an internal Army memorandum after Allied Force ended
that the aircrews that had been sent with the Apaches
had been both undertrained and underequipped for their
intended mission. In the memo--obtained by Legi-Slate
News Service--to the incoming Chief of Staff, Gen.
Eric K. Shinseki, Brig. Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's
director of operations, resources, and mobilization,
warned that because of those shortcomings, "we
are placing them and their unit at risk when we have
to ramp up for a real-world crisis." Cody, who
earlier had planned and executed the Army's highly
successful Apache operations during the 1991 Gulf War,
noted that more than 65 percent of the assigned aviators
in Task Force Hawk had less than 500 hours of flight
experience in the Apache and that none were qualified
to fly missions requiring night vision goggles. He
further noted that the radios in the deployed Apaches
had insufficient range for conducting deep operations
and that the crews were, in the absence of night vision
goggles, dependent solely on their Forward-Looking
Infrared sensors. Given the rugged terrain, unpredictable
weather, and poorly marked power lines that crisscrossed
Kosovo, relying on FLIR alone, he suggested, "was
not a good option." Moreover, he added, in order
for the Apaches to have flown the required distances
and crossed the high mountains of Kosovo, Hellfire
missiles would have had to be removed from one of their
two wing mounts to free up a station for auxiliary
fuel tanks. As for the man-portable air defense system
threat, Cody remarked that "the current suite
of ASE [Aircraft Survivability Equipment] is not reliable
enough and sometimes ineffective."
The Task Force Hawk experience underscored how little
the US Army, by its own leadership's candid
admission, had done since Desert Storm to increase
its capacity to get to an emergent theater of operations
rapidly and with sufficient forces to offer a credible
combat presence. Shortly after the Gulf War, the Army's
leadership for a time entertained the thought of reorganizing
the service so it might become more agile by abandoning
its structure of 10 combat divisions and opting instead
for 25 "mobile combat groups" of around 5,000
troops each. Ultimately, however, the Army backed away
from that proposed reform, doing itself out of any
ability to deploy a strong armored force rapidly and
retaining the unpalatable alternatives of either airlifting
several thousand lightly armed infantrymen to a threatened
theater within days or shipping a contingent of 70-ton
M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks over the course of several
months.
Poorly Prepared

On his second day in office
as the Army's new Chief of Staff, Shinseki acknowledged
that the Army had been poorly prepared to move its
Apaches and support overhead to Albania. Part of the
problem, he noted fairly, was that the only available
deployment site that made any operational sense had
poor rail connections, a shallow port, and a limited
airfield capacity that could not accommodate the Air
Force's C-5 heavy airlifter. However, he admitted that
the Army all the same was overdue to develop and act
on a plan to make its heavy forces more mobile and
its lighter forces more lethal. In what presaged a
major shift in Army force development policy for the
years ahead, he declared: "Our heavy forces are
too heavy and our light forces lack staying power.
Heavy forces must be more strategically deployable
and more agile with a smaller logistical footprint,
and light forces must be more lethal, survivable, and
tactically mobile. Achieving this paradigm will require
innovative thinking about structure, modernization
efforts, and spending."
One positive role played by Task Force Hawk once the
counteroffensive by the paramilitary Kosovo Liberation
Army began registering effects in late May was the
service provided by the former's counterbattery radars
in helping NATO fixed-wing pilots pinpoint and deliver
munitions against enemy artillery positions. Its TPQ-36
and TPQ-37 firefinder radars were positioned atop the
hills adjacent to Tirana to spot Serb artillery fire
and backtrack the airborne shells to their point of
origin. Army EH-60 helicopters and RC-12 Guardrail
electronic intelligence aircraft were further able
to establish the location of VJ command posts whenever
the latter transmitted. Although Hawk's Apaches and
other combat assets never saw action, its intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance assets exerted a significant
influence on the air effort at one of its most crucial
moments. The KLA's counteroffensive had forced the
VJ to mass their forces and maneuver, to communicate
by radio, and to fire artillery and mortars to protect
themselves. In response, the sensors of Task Force
Hawk, operating in conjunction with the Army's Hunter
unmanned aerial vehicles, spotted VJ targets and passed
that information on to those in the command loop who
could bring air-delivered ordnance to bear in a timely
manner. "The result," wrote Theodore G. Stroup
Jr., a retired Army three-star general, "was that
NATO airpower was finally able to target precisely
and hit the Serb army in the field. The Kosovars acted
as the anvil and TF Hawk as the eyes and ears of the
blacksmith so that the hammer of airpower could be
effective." Echoing this conclusion, then- US
Air Forces in Europe commander, Gen. John P. Jumper,
confirmed that the counterbattery radars of Task Force
Hawk had played "a very big part" in allied
targeting during the final stages of Allied Force.
Another bright spot in the otherwise troubled Hawk
experience was the USAF air mobility system's outstanding
performance in opening up the Rinas Air Base in Albania
and flowing forces and relief supplies into it. The
combined efforts of USAFE's Air Mobility Operations
Command Center, the Allied Force Air Mobility Division,
USAFE's 86th Contingency Response Group at Ramstein
AB, Germany, and multiple supporting Air Mobility Command
entities resulted in a standout success amid the generally
dismal story of Hawk's immobility and the Army's persistent
go-it-alone approach when it came to command relations
and putting the Apaches into the ATO. Simply put, the
C-17 made the Task Force Hawk movement possible. No
other aircraft could have done the job, yet another
testimonial to the direct-delivery concept that shaped
the aircraft's design and got it through one of the
most hard-fought acquisition battles in USAF's history.
Thanks to the ultimate success of the C-17 acquisition,
Hawk got in and many thousand Albanian refugees survived,
two signal accomplishments of what the commander of
the US Army Europe, Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, later
called one of the most successful airlift operations
in history.
Benjamin S. Lambeth is a senior staff member at Rand.
He received the Air Force Association's Gill Robb Wilson
Award in arts and letters for 2001 for his book The Transformation
of American Air Power (Cornell University Press, 2000).
This article is derived from his study, NATO's Air War
for Kosovo: A Strategic and Operational Assessment (Rand,
2001), written as a contribution to a larger Rand Project
Air Force series on Operation Allied Force for the United
States Air Force. Lambeth's most recent article for Air
Force Magazine was "Profiles in Russian Airpower" in
the March 1997 issue.
Copyright Air Force Association. All rightsreserved.
|