So Near and Yet So Far: Choices and Consequences of the Stand-In and Stand-Off Approach

Abstract

The changing threat landscape has generated a debate within the United States Air Force (USAF) on the approach to basing the USAF should adopt. One aspect of this debate centers on whether the USAF should develop its force to conduct operations from bases in contested areas or if it should increase its capabilities to project power from bases outside contested areas. I refer to these two approaches as stand-in and stand-off, respectively. Given the inherent uncertainty of the future, this study asks: What factors should the USAF consider to determine the emphasis between investments in stand-in versus stand-off capabilities? How does a force-planning strategist know which approach will provide the greatest benefit or even if either approach is possible given growing adversary capability?

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jun 01, 2015
Accession Number
AD1015800

Entities

People

  • Peter C. Mastro

Organizations

  • Air University

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Air Platforms
  • Counter WMD
  • Energy and Power Technologies
  • Ground and Sea Platforms
  • Human Systems
  • Space

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Aerial Warfare
  • Air Force
  • Air Force Facilities
  • Air Power
  • Airframes
  • Combat Areas
  • Fusion Weapons
  • Geography
  • Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
  • International Relations
  • Nuclear Bombs
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Second World War
  • Strategic Bomber
  • Tanker Aircraft
  • United States
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Civilian Systems Systems Program Capability Development and Upgrade Support Activity Expense and Pay Management.
  • Maritime Combat Support and Expeditionary Logistics.
  • Strategic Security Studies