
December 1999 Vol. 82, No. 12
By John A. Tirpak, Senior Editor
print-friendly
Victory in Kosovo
In late May, NATO shifted gears in Operation Allied Force.
The air campaign soon saw the results of the stronger commitment.
Washington, D.C., June 10, 1999
After pursuing a desultory, two-month bombing campaign against
Yugoslavia's forces and facilities, NATO officials suddenly seemed
bent on making up for lost time. The first phase of Operation
Allied Force was tentative; air attacks were limited, objectives
vague, and results unimpressive. However, as the war headed into
summer, NATO shifted gears. Operations intensified dramatically.
By June 9--Day 78 of the war--Belgrade was beaten and folded
its cards, acceding to NATO terms.
The change stemmed from several factors. The weather had cleared,
NATO had expanded its armada, and Belgrade had inflamed the situation
in Kosovo. By late May, a change in NATO's outlook was evident.
The reluctance of many Allies to mount a committed air campaign
against Slobodan Milosevic crumbled in light of the Serb dictator's
obvious plan to ride out the assault.
Intensification had another source: Mounting calls for ground
operations, which NATO as a whole wished to avoid. Some in Congress
and a key ally, Britain, called on President Clinton to at least
prepare for ground action. However, Clinton replied that he believed
the [air] campaign was working and that NATO ought to stick with
its air-only strategy.
The war lasted just more than 11 weeks. Going into the 10th
week, NATO forces had flown more than 27,000 sorties, of which
more than 7,000 were attack sorties. The remainder were support
missions flown by airlifters, tankers, surveillance and reconnaissance
aircraft, and other specialized systems.
With those 7,000 strike sorties, most of which entailed use
of precision weapons, Allied aircraft had gone after military
and quasi-military economic targets. In both categories, the
American military had carried the greatest burden, having contributed
3,600 bombing missions (52 percent of NATO's total) and roughly
14,000 support sorties (70 percent) of the total.
The destruction was widespread and produced the desired effect.
On June 3, Belgrade agreed to a NATO peace plan. The sudden capitulation
was followed by a week of fitful talks on details of the plan.
Finally, on June 9, Yugoslavia signed the accord and began withdrawing
forces from Kosovo.
NATO had demanded that Yugoslavia (1) halt the ethnic-cleansing
campaign against ethnic Albanian Kosovars, (2) pull Serb troops
and police from Kosovo, (3) permit deployment in Kosovo of a
NATO-led peacekeeping force, (4) allow the expelled Kosovars
to return to their homes, and (5) resume participation in efforts
to reach a political solution in Kosovo.
"Kill This Army"
Lt. Gen. Michael C. Short, USAF, the operational commander
of the Allied air campaign, said in the May 24 Washington Post
that if the bombing continued "for two more months,"
or into late July, "we will either kill this army in Kosovo
or send it on the run."
Gen. John P. Jumper, commander of US Air Forces in Europe,
told reporters in the Pentagon on May 14 that air supremacy over
Yugoslavia had been achieved. "That means we can go anywhere
we want to in the country anytime we want to," he said.
Jumper said that the Alliance campaign was highly effective,
as measured against its mandate. "Airpower alone is capable
of rendering [Milosevic's] military ineffective, and that's what
our charter is, that's what our task is, and that's what we're
going to do," he asserted.
Pentagon officials said the air attack was supplemented by
cyber attacks on Serbian computers and Serbian financial holdings
outside the country. These were staged in order to make it hard
to buy fuel, but they declined any details on who was conducting
the attacks or whether any successes had been achieved.
Meanwhile, NATO nations had agreed to start assembling a KFOR,
or Kosovo Force, to guarantee safety in the province after Serbian
capitulation. Alliance approval for a force of 50,000 troops
on the borders of Kosovo was given, but NATO steadfastly refused
to call it an invasion force, even hypothetically. Serb troops,
apparently expecting an invasion, continued to dig in on the
Albania-Macedonia-Kosovo border.
Complicating the situation was the indictment of Milosevic
and a handful of key Serb leaders by the International War Crimes
Tribunal on May 27. Some predicted it would harden Milosevic's
defiance and deter him from seeking a negotiated end to the war.
Others saw it as a lever to force a settlement, in that Milosevic
likely could only avoid a war crimes trial by emerging from the
crisis still in power with a credible army to protect him.
NATO spokesman Jamie Shea said that nothing had changed with
respect either to NATO's demands or to the way it intended to
prosecute the air campaign as a result of the indictments. "President
Milosevic must accept [NATO's] five conditions," he said.
"Indicted war criminals must be brought to trial."
Shea's military counterpart, Maj. Gen. Walter Jertz, noted
that intelligence reports indicated "strong evidence"
that in central Kosovo ethnic-cleansing operations were still
being conducted in late May.
Threefold Increase
On June 3, NATO aircraft committed to the air campaign numbered
1,045-or more than double the number with which it began the
attacks March 24. Of the total aircraft, some 720 were contributed
by US armed services and 325 or so by European Allies or Canada.
NATO was still building toward an objective of 1,259 aircraft-including
982 US airplanes--established May 13 by US Army Gen. Wesley K.
Clark, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, but had already exceeded
the goal of 277 non-US Allied airplanes.
With the larger fleet, NATO commanders began to hit Serb assets
with strikes from virtually all sides. Attacks originated in
Italy and the Aegean Sea to the west and south, Germany and Hungary
to the north, and Turkey to the east. USAF heavy bombers continued
long-range attacks from bases in Britain and Missouri. Though
not yet deployed in battle, the US Army's AH-64 Apache helicopters
in Albania posed a threat from the south.
"NATO is encircling Yugoslavia and attacking from all
directions," Defense Secretary William S. Cohen told reporters.
He added that the deployment of more strike aircraft to new bases
in the area "will make it possible to attack more targets
more often and more effectively."
NATO officials said the strategy aimed to force a damaged
and diminished Serbian air defense system to try to cover a much
greater area, rendering it less effective. Previously, the Serb
air defense system could focus on a set-piece air assault chiefly
from the westward approaches to the Balkans.
Jumper also noted that the broader range of "ingress
and egress routes" made NATO strikes and tactics "as
unpredictable as possible," while also making it easier
to "deconflict" the enormous amount of air traffic
over the area.
By the end of May, the Alliance every day was averaging roughly
1,000 sorties of all types, with about 700 of these being combat
missions, strike as well as support. According to Shea, NATO's
spokesman, the bombing to that point had claimed more than 550
"major" pieces of Yugoslavian military equipment and
more than 100 Yugoslavian aircraft.
And Now, "Reachback"
Jumper told reporters that frontline NATO forces were capitalizing
on "reachback"-that is, using highly sophisticated
in-theater communications equipment to acquire vital data from
analysts based in the US. For example, forward forces were able
to gain near-instantaneous access to imagery from U-2 reconnaissance
airplanes and pilotless drones. Imagery collected by such platforms
was being relayed back to Beale AFB, Calif., and other sites
for interpretation; targets were then selected and passed forward
to combat airplanes in the vicinity.
As a result, NATO was able to "get ordnance on the target
within minutes ... of location time."
"Between first detection imagery and bombs on target, we
try to get that process down to minutes so we can root out these
guys ... who are actually organizing and carrying out the killing"
of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, Jumper asserted. "These things
are processes that have been perfected-and in many cases invented-during
the course of this battle."
On May 27, Rear Adm. Thomas R. Wilson, director of intelligence
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cataloged the target destruction.
In a session with reporters, Wilson described Serb forces in
Kosovo as having been reduced about 25 percent. He described
the forces as being more vulnerable to attack, both because of
better suppression of Serb air defenses-permitting lower Allied
flights and more accurate targeting of individual vehicles-and
their reduced mobility, brought on by widespread damage to Serb
petroleum stocks and other means of supporting fielded armored
forces.
More than half of Yugoslavia's petroleum, oil, and lubricant
storage for the military had now been destroyed, Wilson asserted,
and Serbia's entire refining capability had been wiped out. Nearly
half of the nation's joint military-civilian fuel storage sites
had been struck.
Interdiction of import facilities on the Danube River, an
oil embargo, and other means of drying up the gas supply had
driven the price of gasoline to $20 a gallon in some parts of
Serbia, he said.
Maj. Gen. Charles F. Wald, the Pentagon's principal military
briefer on the operation, noted that recent gun-camera footage
of NATO attacks on Serb fuel tanks showed fewer secondaries,
indicating that the tanks had been emptied.
According to Wilson, the campaign destroyed about 79 percent
of Yugoslavia's MiG-29s, more than 30 percent of its MiG-21s,
two-thirds of its SA-2 SAMs, and almost 80 percent of the SA-3s.
Though the figures had not changed much since estimates given
weeks before, Wilson said they included only verifiable Serb
losses and that actual damage was likely higher. For example,
the count of destroyed equipment didn't include those airplanes
that might have been hidden in bombed aircraft shelters.
In any event, Serb fighter challenges to NATO aircraft became
almost nonexistent by the 10th week of the air campaign, probably
because all known primary and reserve airfields were being bombed
regularly, with on-site fuel destroyed and runways badly cratered
and taking longer to repair, Wilson noted.
Forced to Choose
Yugoslav broadcast capabilities--television and AM and FM
radio--were down 35 percent, Wilson asserted, and countrywide
power generation, which had been attacked with "soft kill"
weapons earlier in the conflict, were being destroyed. Power
was turned off in as much as 80 percent of Serbia at a time.
The tactic forced Milosevic to choose between providing fuel
and generators to his military or to vital civilian services
such as hospitals and water supplies.
Half of the ammunition facilities in Serbia had been attacked
and damaged, Wilson said, and the ability to build man-portable
air defense systems had been severely damaged. The MANPADS, as
they are known, were impossible to detect and destroy individually.
"[They] probably always will be a threat [to Allied aircraft],"
Wilson noted.
The air war had put out of commission about half of the roads
between Serbia and Kosovo. All bridges spanning the Danube River
in Kosovo had been dropped, and rail lines were 100 percent out
of action.
Correction: The previous sentence should state,
"All bridges spanning the Danube River in Yugoslavia, excluding
Belgrade, had been dropped, ... ."
|
Moreover, in addition to military-specific command-and-control
headquarters, at least two of Milosevic's five homes had been
struck as C2 sites.
Jumper said that Serb forces had fired more than 600 Surface-to-Air
Missiles at NATO airplanes by mid-May and that they had been
fired at night in search of high-value assets such as the B-2
or F-117 stealth aircraft. During the daytime, the SAMs were
hidden. That was to change, however. By the end of May, Serb
tactics had shifted to mass, volley-style firings in daylight,
using only optical guidance.
Wilson said Serbia, as of May 27, still had "about one-half
of their strategic SAMs remaining," NATO having destroyed
about 11 out of 14 SA-3 sites and some SA-6s.
Serbian forces--whether out of fear of Allied HARM anti-radar
missiles or mechanical difficulty--were "unable to achieve
a complete transition to an engagement sequence," Wilson
said. Large volleys of SAMs were being fired at Allied strike
packages in late May, but Wald noted that they were optically
guided and hadn't brought down any NATO airplanes. He pointed
out that the large salvos corresponded to larger NATO strike
packages in raids on Serb forces.
Two Down--Only
On May 26, 33 SAMs were fired at NATO strike aircraft, and
although one came close enough for the pilot to be shaken by
the blast, no airplanes were lost. After 65 days of operations,
NATO had lost to enemy fire only two aircraft--an F-117 and an
F-16--with no casualties.
Wald noted that Serbia possessed about 2,200 SAMs at the start
of Operation Allied Force. He reported, however, that there was
no way to know precisely how many had been destroyed in storage
beyond those fired without effect.
Jumper also noted that Serb forces were using both shoulder-fired
missiles and anti-aircraft artillery against individual munitions
as they approached targets.
Kosovar anti-Serb military and paramilitary units were also
gaining strength even as the Serbs were bogging down, Wilson
said, and the airstrikes had helped in that "the playing
field is somewhat more level."
Wilson added, "There's still plenty of targets left [for
NATO airplanes to strike]," particularly among ground forces.
At the 10-week point, Serb armored vehicles and artillery pieces
were being destroyed at a rate of a half-dozen a day, but Wilson
could not quantify Serb casualties.
"The Serbs have been very careful in protecting information
about casualties, ... although we have received some reports
... [that] the casualties are far higher than they expected,"
he said.
The air campaign by June had settled into a two-track approach:
destruction of Serb forces and enabling installations in Kosovo
and attack of strategic targets within Serbia itself, which attacks
were intended to diminish the will to resist of both Milosevic
and the Serb population.
Much public attention was focused on NATO's mistakes: the
striking of civilians in columns believed to be Serb convoys,
in hospitals, and, most notably, the bombing of the Chinese Embassy
in Belgrade on May 7. In the latter event, B-2 bombers dropped
at least three Joint Direct Attack Munitions that scored direct
hits on the compound. The incident, chalked up to a series of
errors by the CIA and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
apparently resulted from the embassy's new location not being
updated in databases or on maps being used by NATO fliers, the
Pentagon explained. The strike was followed by a two-week halt
in bombing Belgrade, as maps and databases were checked and targeting
procedures tightened.
|
Fig. 1 Cumulative Sorties, as of May 27
|
| Contributor
|
Strike
|
%
|
Support
|
%
|
Total
|
%
|
|
US services
|
3,600
|
52
|
14,150
|
70
|
17,750
|
65
|
| Other NATO
|
3,350
|
48
|
6,150
|
30
|
9,500
|
35
|
|
Total
|
6,950
|
-
|
20,300
|
-
|
27,250
|
-
|
|
DoD reported June 9 that total sorties
had topped 34,000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 2 NATO Aircraft Force, as of June 2
|
|
Type
|
|
US
|
|
Non-US
|
|
Total
|
|
Fighter, bomber
|
|
311
|
|
239
|
|
550
|
|
Support aircraft
|
|
270
|
|
63
|
|
333
|
|
Reconnaissance
|
|
34
|
|
23
|
|
57
|
| Helicopters
|
|
105
|
|
0
|
|
105
|
|
Total
|
|
720
|
|
325
|
|
1,045
|
|
Twelve European Allies and Canada provided forces.
|
NATO pointed out that the Serbs had adopted a tactic of holding
Kosovar hostages near targets of military significance, both
in plain view and hidden. Those in plain view were intended to
ward off attacks; those hidden were, if killed, to be displayed
later as an example of NATO's reckless bombing of civilians.
Both human-shield tactics were cited as violations of international
norms by the International War Crimes Tribunal.
Most Accurate in History
Despite the accidents, Jertz said May 27 that Allied Force
remains "the most accurate air campaign in history."
Jumper noted that pilots in cockpits had to guide their munitions
while watching the target on a four-inch-wide cockpit TV screen,
not the 20-inch monitor on which gun-camera footage is later
reviewed. The munitions had to be guided while the pilots flew
their airplanes, avoiding ground fire, often with only seconds
to spare after breaking out under the clouds.
A number of newspapers reported that NATO's Clark had issued
an unprecedented order at the outset of the conflict that there
be no Allied casualties in the conflict-and that commanders were
to avoid losses at all costs. Short denied that Clark had given
him any such order. However, he acknowledged that zero losses
was a major goal.
As civilians were hit more frequently, however, Short relaxed
initial rules of engagement which required pilots to stay above
15,000 feet. Lower altitudes-NATO would not say how low pilots
were allowed to go-made for more accurate target identification
and the use of shorter-range munitions and also increased the
effectiveness of some 40 A-10 attack and forward air control
airplanes employed over Kosovo. The A-10s are equipped as tank
killers, mounting a 30 mm cannon designed to cheaply rip up armored
vehicles at close range.
"We are going lower than 15,000 feet," Jumper said,
"and we're doing it in a calculated and prudent way."
He said commanders were relying on aircrew judgment in dropping
to within range of enemy weapons.
"They know how to deal with these situations," he
said. "We are not up there at some ridiculous altitude trying
to parse the difference between a good guy and a bad guy."
The Pentagon also acknowledged in mid-May that it had been
using AC-130 gunships almost from the outset of the war, chiefly
against revetments and dug-in artillery, but hadn't mentioned
them previously because of their vulnerability to anti-aircraft
fire.
"[The AC-130] will be used against the right target ...
in the right environment. ... It doesn't move that fast,"
Wald said, commenting on its vulnerability. The gunships' firepower
proved useful against Serb forces on the borders of Kosovo.
On the home front, the conflict in Kosovo had spotlighted
the level of US war preparedness and the Clinton Administration's
defense policies that had shaped the force in the Balkans.
On May 27, the Senate adopted a provision requiring the President,
through the Department of Defense, to justify the many open-ended
commitments the US has made in the 1990s, with regard to no-fly
zones, peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian operations.
The measure would require the President to list the commitments
in order of priority to make clear which forces would be shifted
in the event of a more pressing emergency.
Strategy According to Hamre
The move was sparked by testimony of Deputy Secretary of Defense
John J. Hamre, the Pentagon's No. 2 official, who said most of
the country and Congress misunderstand the nation's strategy
of being able to fight two "nearly simultaneous" Major
Theater Wars.
"We have never said [US forces] can fight two wars simultaneously,"
Hamre told the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 27, but
rather that the US military was configured to win one war while
holding off an aggressor in another theater long enough to be
able to get forces there. He acknowledged that the level of effort
being employed in the Balkans, for the US, is equivalent to an
MTW's worth of air assets.
Defense officials have said that the deliberations for the
size of the force didn't take into account the many Smaller-Scale
Contingencies with which the post-Cold War military would have
to contend. With several SSCs under way, the Air Force was strapped
to provide airpower for Allied Force and still have adequate
reserves for a second MTW.
"We have a smaller force and we have more missions, and
so we are, in fact, ... wearing out systems, [and] we're wearing
out people," Cohen told the Senate Appropriations Defense
Subcommittee on May 11.
Of the pattern of multiple SSCs with no later disengagement,
Cohen said, "We're either going to have to have fewer missions
or more people, but we cannot continue the kind of pace that
we have. ... We've got to find a way to either increase the size
of our forces or decrease the number of our missions."
|
Fig. 3 Serbian Air Defense |
| System |
Missiles Fired |
|
Radar-guided SA-6 |
266 |
| Radar-guided SA-3 |
175 |
|
IR man-portable |
106 |
| Unidentified |
126 |
|
Total |
673 |
| On June 2, DoD said observed firings
totaled nearly 700. |
As if to underline the point, the Air Force acknowledged that
it would have to re-tool its Expeditionary Aerospace Force concept,
which was intended to streamline deployments to Smaller-Scale
Contingencies and give more warning of deployments to service
members. Acting Air Force Secretary F. Whitten Peters admitted
that individual Air Expeditionary Forces would need more airplanes
than expected and that, in any event, there would need to be
time to re-group the Air Force after the Balkans conflict before
changing over to the EAF structure.
USAF officials said they had expected an SSC to require an
Air Expeditionary Force of about 150 aircraft, but the conflict
in Yugoslavia had already pulled in more than 700 airplanes.
Such a force was equivalent to five AEFs, and the Air Force had
only planned to establish a total of 10.
Because of the Balkan War, the Air Force might have to forgo
plans to stand up the EAF structure in October, one EAF planner
said.
Another hint of how stretched the situation had become was
found in Iraq, where Operation Northern Watch was virtually shut
down during April. Jumper acknowledged that airplanes were drawn
from Northern Watch units to beef up Allied Force in a hurry,
and Incirlik AB, Turkey, "was the easiest place to get them."
"When it was appropriate, we replaced them," he
said, "and [they] are back [at] work. We don't see any great
enemy advantage from that break in the action."
Air Staff officials said that, with the conflict over, USAF
would need a recovery period in which to rest exhausted crews,
catch up on depot maintenance, restock spare parts and munitions,
and, likely, buy new airplanes to replace those being worn out
at a much faster rate than anticipated due to the Yugoslavian
conflict.
For example, F-16s, which usually fly training sorties lasting
under two hours, were routinely flying five-hour-plus combat
missions in the Balkans.
The shortage of Air Force personnel across the board was highlighted
by USAF's invocation of a Stop-Loss order, which prevented service
members in certain specialties from being discharged while the
conflict was under way. The order, from Peters, affected 40 percent
of USAF skill specialties, or over 120,000 persons, but specifically
applied to about 6,000 persons who had requested retirement or
separation since December 1998 and had planned to leave after
June 15.
The Stop-Loss order was to stay in effect "as long as
the Presidential reserve call-up is in effect," Bacon told
reporters at the Pentagon. The covered specialties included most
pilots, navigators, air battle and air traffic controllers, intelligence
analysts, weather forecasters, aircraft maintenance and munitions
specialists, logisticians, communications officers, and others,
Bacon reported.
Bacon added, "People have said many times--General Wald
and I have said, Secretary Cohen has said--that this is a Major
Theater War for the Air Force. Probably more than a third of
the Air Force frontline fighters are involved in this right now
... [and] a large number of airplanes and a large number of support
airplanes as well. So, the burden has fallen primarily on the
Air Force, and they're the service that will have to call up
the most reservists."
Copyright by Air Force Association.
All rights reserved
|