Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, edited by Dennis Margueratt & Allan English. [Toronto, Can.?], Canadian Forces College, 138 p.
Book call no.: 358.80971 S732 2001

Richelson, Jeffrey. The U.S. Intelligence Community. 4th ed.  Boulder, CO, Westview Press, 1999. 526 p.
AUL owns earlier editions. Chapter 8: Signal Intelligence, pp 180-214.
Book call no.: 327.120973 R528u 1999

Best, Richard A. Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR): The U-2 Aircraft and Global Hawk UAV Programs. Washington, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2000. 20 p.
Also available online at: http://fas.org/irp/crs/RL30727.pdf
Doc. call no.: M-U 42953-1 no.00-RL30727

Bush, Bichson. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Support to Urban Operations: A Monograph. Fort Leavenworth, KS, School of Advanced Military Studies, Army Command and General Staff College, 2001. 46 p.
"This monograph addresses the research question: are there unique ISR capabilities to support urban military operations? The desire to explore this research question is based on the conditions: (1) shift in demographics and economics to urban areas into 2030; (2) increase of U.S. military operations on the urban landscape since the 1990s; (3) potential use of urban areas by determined foes as an asymmetric approach; and (4) availability of literature questioning if there are adequate ISR capabilities to support urban military operations. The methodology for the research consists of a thorough literature review on the characteristics of an urban environment, especially the effects that it has on threat and friendly forces operations; ISR capabilities currently in the Army as well as part of ongoing research and development programs; and case studies of Grozny, Chechnya and Hue, Vietnam. Analysis of available literature was sufficient for making generalizations of the unique ISR capabilities required to support military operations on the urban terrain compared to the conventional, open battlefield. There is a need for innovative ISR capabilities on the modern urban battlefield. The challenge of operating on urban terrain is multi-dimensional. In contrast to open terrain, the urban landscape has limited open maneuver and observation areas with line of sight concerns because of the density of man-made structures and population, subterranean areas, and possibly natural terrain features. ISR capabilities in urban areas should include both human and technical assets, representing all the intelligence disciplines. As ISR systems are designed, there should be emphasis on as many collectors as possible to be unmanned; miniature, unobservable (stealthy); capable of transmitting what they see, hear, smell and/or sense through walls, windows, tunnels, and electrical conduits; and are part of a network centric architecture. The ongoing Army initiative to transform from a legacy force into an objective force offers an ideal window of opportunity to design and procure the ISR essential to support urban military operations."--Abstract taken from web site.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394050
Doc. call no.: M-U 42022-2 B9781i

Butler, Jeffrey T. UAVS and ISR Sensor Technology. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air Command and Staff College, 2001. 48 p.
"This paper examines the Air Force's need to aggressively pursue development of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) sensors for airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data collection. Additionally, recommendations for optimizing the employment and development of ISR UAVs and sensors are addressed."... Abstract.
Also available online at: https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay2001/acsc/01-033.pdf
Doc. call no.: M-U 43122 B9852u

Davis, Stephen L. The Space Maneuver Vehicle: Enhancing Space's Utility to the Warfighter.. Quantico, VA, Marine Corps Command and Staff College, 2002. 44 p.
"Space is a critical enabler for our military force. Current space systems, however, have significant deficiencies in the ability to provide Space Superiority (the purpose of space control) and lack operational responsiveness. The rapid response, quick turnaround, and high on-orbit maneuverability of the Space Maneuver Vehicle can correct these shortfalls; it provides space asset protection that enables U.S. forces to achieve and maintain Space Superiority. Its ability to co-orbit with friendly space assets and provide on-orbit servicing and repair will extend the service life of other satellites. The ability to deploy SMVs with a mix of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) payloads will provide an affordable, responsive and sustained presence to support diverse theaters of operation. The ability to integrate, operate, and recover and reuse the SMV with a variety of onboard or deployed payloads provides operational flexibility heretofore unattainable with traditional satellites. Finally, the SMV's operational flexibility will provide an opportunity to fundamentally change the command and control of space systems in order to push control down to the theater CINC thus allowing the true integration of space into theater operations."-- Abstract taken from web site.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA404007
Doc. call no.: M-U 41886-71 D264

Haun, Phil M. Air Power Versus a Fielded Army: A Construct for Air Operations in the 21st Century.. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air Command and Staff College, 2001. 41 p.
"Operation Desert Storm, the 1991 Gulf War, and Operation Allied Force, the 1999 Air War over Serbia, saw US and coalition Air Forces attacking enemy fielded forces at unprecedented levels. Given the real change in the nature, strategy, and conduct of air operations in the last decade, this study examines how to most efficiently employ airpower to achieve its objectives in the asymmetric attack against a fielded army. During Desert Storm, US Air Forces developed medium altitude tactics increasing survivability by over-flying the range of Iraqi AAA and MANPADS. Difficulties in attacking from medium altitude were countered with massed formations of specialized armor-killing A-10s, the development of F-16. Killer Scouts, and the F-111 and F-15E tactic of " Tank Plinking" with laser guided bombs. During Allied Force, the challenge lay not in attacking the enemy, but in locating and identifying an army interspersed with a large number of civilian refugees. A systems approach is required to most efficiently attack a fielded army by air. The key is the integration of ISR assets through an intelligence "flex targeting" cell and the use of terminal air controllers such as Forward Air Controllers Airborne (FACAs), along with trained strikers capable of precision attack. This approach requires a change in Joint and Air Force doctrine acknowledging the supported role that US Air Forces have performed against enemy fielded forces over the last decade. It calls for the adaptation of the tactics, techniques, and procedures necessary to ensure the USAF prepares for these kinds of operations in the future."--Abstract from web site.
Also available online at: https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay2001/acsc/01-054.pdf
Doc. call no.: M-U 43122 H37a

Hodge, Donald M. The Financial Feasibility and Merits of the Small Lightweight Tactical Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Satellites Compared to National Systems. Fort Leavenworth, KS, Army Command and General Staff College, 1999. 101 p.
"This study examines the financial feasibility, technological improvements, and construction procedures that are occurring in the space industry with respect to the feasibility of developing a small lightweight tactical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) satellite system dedicated to the warfighter. The current space based ISR support to the warfighter is through systems that were designed and built to support the National Command Authority (NCA) and the strategic level. The responsiveness of these national systems combined with recent and projected improvements suggests that a dedicated space based ISR system for the warfighter is recommended. This study compared the warfighters needs to the current and most likely short-term future capabilities of national systems and to a system that would be dedicated to the warfighter. All of the warfighters needs were evaluated and rated individually then rank ordered and weighted. These were then used to evaluate whether a national or tactical system would provide the best support. The conclusion of this study is that despite a marginal increase in overall cost a dedicated space based ISR satellite system for the warfighter is recommended. A tactical ISR satellite system would significantly improve the timeliness and quality of support to the warfighter. In an ever increasingly time sensitive and information-demanding environment the warfighters success will depend on these systems."--Abstract from website.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA368239
Doc. call no.: M-U 42022 H6881f

Honey, David. Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Development Plan - Summary Version. Hanscom AFB, MA, Electronics Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command, Deputy for Development Plans and Advanced Programs. 231 p.
Doc. call no.: M-U 44084 no.97-047

Liedman, Sean. Finding the Demons in Our Midst: Utilizing DOD ISR Assets to Combat Terrorist Use of CBRNE Weapons. Newport, RI, Navy War College, 2002. 22 p.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA402235
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662 L718f

McNeeley, Michael T. The Limits of Spacepower. Newport, RI, Naval War College, 2001. 21 p.
"The United States military has become highly dependent on space-based assets in the critical areas of communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), and precision navigation. This dependence, coupled with the lack of redundant capabilities, leaves the U.S. particularly vulnerable in these areas, as we risk having this capability neutralized or destroyed. The CINC or JTF commander's staff must be knowledgeable of these vulnerabilities when planning a campaign or major operation, and should build alternatives, backup capabilities and redundancies into its plans and functions, in the event these critical assets are no longer available. One alternative to space-based communications and ISR capabilities is the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). These platforms offer a variety of similar capabilities, including wide-band communications and a variety of intelligence-collecting sensors. Other technologies are in development to offer an alternative to the Global Positioning System (GPS). Space power, like air power before it, holds tremendous promise for conducting future military operations. We are still tapping its potential and exploring the unique ways it brings synergy to the battle. We must not be so enamored by its possibilities that we pass up sensible cost-efficient alternatives, thereby placing our warfighters at risk on the battlefields of the future."--Abstract taken from website.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA395090
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662 M1695L

Norman, James O. The Rise of Surveillance. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University, 2001. 58 p.
"A number of recent congressional commissions have reviewed the Intelligence Community's agencies involved with space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). In the past, recommendations for some form of merger involving the National Security Agency (NSA), National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) have been proposed as a way to potentially improve space-based ISR performance. The Joint Staff has also recently asked whether this option should be pursued. Based on historical research and a survey of the general topic literature, this paper argues that a merger between these three agencies will not improve the current- space-based ISR performance because its problems aren't related to structure. Instead, the root problems are due to a missing space-based surveillance tool and a changing information process. This paper recommends following the guidance from the latest four congressional commissions from the November 2000 through January 2001 timeframe that recommend merging the NRO with the Air Force space efforts and concentrating on developing and deploying a space based surveillance system as the most effective way to improve space-based ISR performance."--Abstract from web site.
Also available online at: https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay2001/affellows/norman.pdf
Doc. call no.: M-U 42252-91 N842r

Stanley, Robert W. II. Spacelift: The Achilles' Heel of American Space Power. Newport, RI, Naval War College, 2002. [23] p.
"During Desert Storm, U.S. forces relied heavily on space-based assets to defeat an enemy. For the first time, space assets played a key role, and America has since grown even more dependent on these capabilities. Warfighting Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) now routinely plan exercises and employ forces under the assumption that they will have unimpeded access to navigation and communications satellites as well as meteorological and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. But if one or more of these fragile capabilities are diminished as the result of enemy action, or simply because of natural phenomenon, how quickly can we replace the neutralized satellites? The answer is not comforting, and revolves around the limited capability of the U.S. spacelift program. Attention has been especially focused on this program during periods following major failures. In addition to the loss of life, launch failures have cost our nation billions of dollars, significantly reduced our access to space for lengthy periods, and resulted in delayed deployment of next-generation national ISR assets. While many measures taken after these disasters were effective in getting America back in space, much work remains. Our launch programs must become more responsive to the warfighting CINC. It simply takes too long to get a working satellite ready for operations. Secondly, the government needs to work more efficiently with industry. National security depends on the ability of American launch service providers to compete well with thriving foreign counterparts. Finally, U.S. launch programs must become robust and less reliant on single-points of failure."--Abstract taken from web site.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA401126
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662 S788s

Bingham, Price T. Theater Warfare, Movement, and Airpower. Airpower Journal 12:15-26 Summer 1998.
"Discusses the surveillance and battle management technologies of the United States that are used in land warfare;...Advantages from joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) in interdiction against mobile ground forces" From Abstract.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj98/sum98/bingham.pdf

Castellon, David. AWACS: Nonstop Patrolling. Army Times 62:10 January 7, 2002.

Cook, Nick. Predator Closes Sensor-to-Shooter Gap for USAF. Jane's Defence Weekly 37:28-29 February 13, 2002.

Dandy, John IV. River Joint: Recon Ready. Airman 44:2-6 May 2000.
Also available online at: http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0500/rc.htm


Ewing, Lee. AWACS: An Eye in the Saudi Sky. Air Force Times 51:14-15+ October 15, 1990.

Franks, Frederick M. Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System in Operations. NATO's Sixteen Nations 39:sup.10-11+ 1994.

Fulghum, David A. Electronic Recon Sparks Battlefield Dominance. Aviation Week & Space Technology 144:53-54 June 24, 1996.
Includes performance in Desert Storm.

Fulghum, David A. Infowar to Invade Air Defense Networks. Aviation Week & Space Technology 157:30 November 4, 2002.
Also available online at: http://search.ebscohost.com/direct.asp?an=8612858&db=aph&tg=AN

Fulghum, David A. Iraqi Invasion Threat Reassessed by Military. Aviation Week & Space Technology 141:18-20 November 14, 1994.
Rivet Joint capabilities monitor Iraqi army mobilization.

Fulghum, David A. Rivet Joint Carves Out New Combat Roles. Aviation Week & Space Technology 144:52-53 June 24, 1996.
Mission, crew and capabilities.

Fulghum, David A. Search Widens for New Radars. Aviation Week & Space Technology 149:22-23 July 6, 1998.

Fulghum, David A. Storied Rivet Joint Adds New Missions. Aviation Week & Space Technology 157:54-55 November 25, 2002.
"Transition from strategic reconnaissance to real-time battlefield mission."
Also available online at: http://search.ebscohost.com/direct.asp?an=8839873&db=aph&tg=AN

Fulghum, David A. Upgraded Rivet Joints Prepared to Deploy. Aviation Week & Space Technology 157:56-58 November 25, 2002.
Also available online at: http://search.ebscohost.com/direct.asp?an=8839876&db=aph&tg=AN


Fulghum, David A. Upgrades to Make AWACS Less Vulnerable. Air Force Times 49:26+ February 20, 1989.

Goodman, Glenn W. Jr. Low Density/High Demand: USAF's Limited Numbers of ISR Aircraft Remain Overstretched. Armed Forces Journal International 139:20-21 October 2001.

Goodman, Glenn W. Jr. Relying on Drones: Predator Shows the Way for Three Other New US Military UAVs. Armed Forces Journal International 134:30+ May 1997.

Grier, Peter. A Quarter Century of AWACS. Air Force Magazine 62:42-47 March 2002.
Recommended survey article on past and future of AWACS.
Also available online at: http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2002/0302awacs.asp

Grub, Michael C. Utilizing Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System Support for Special Operations Forces Helicopter Missions. USAF Weapons Review 50:34-40 Summer 2002.

Haystead, John. JSTARS--Real Time Warning and Control for Surface Warfare. Defense Electronics 22:31+ July 1990.

Hebert, Adam J. Why the Allies Can't Keep Up. Air Force Magazine 84:54-59 March 2001.
Europe leads the US in AWACs technology, fielding technology the US will not complete until 2006.
Also available online at: http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2001/0301allies.asp

Kaufman, Gail. Air Force to Upgrade its Rivet Joint Fleet. Air Force Times 63:34 November 11, 2002.

Koven, Alexander L. Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System Direct Support of Army/Air Force Close Air Support Operations. USAF Weapons Review 48:24-25 Winter 2000.

McMichael, William H. Watch on the Desert. Air Force Magazine 82:63-67 March 1999.
No-fly zone operations.

Messer, William. Getting Space-Based ISR Data to Warfighters. Military Review 81:42-45 November-December 2001.

Myers, Richard B. The New American Way of War. Military Technology 27, no.6:64-73 2003.
The CSAF's post-Iraqi Freedom view of how technology has changed fighting wars.

Newman, Richard J. The Little Predator that Could. Air Force Magazine 85:48-53 March 2002.
Predator in Afghanistan.
Also available online at: http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2002/0302predator.asp

Pander, M. Supportability of NATO AWACS. NATO's Nations and Partners for Peace Special Issue 2001  p. 82 2001.

Predator B for Reconnaissance and Surveillance: Interview with John Porter. Military Technology 26, no 2:39-41 2002.

Pustam, Anil R. Just-In-Time Targeting. Journal of Electronic Defense 26:51-56 April 2003.
Real-time reconnaissance.

Pustam, Anil R. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Trends and Prospects. Military Technology 26, no.11:44-55 2002.

Puttre, Michael. A Little Payload Goes a Long Way: Is There Room for Tactical UAVs in the Shadow of Global Hawk? Journal of Electronic Defense 24:37-38+ July 2001.

Rawles, James W. JSTARS: The Ground Stations, Pt. 2. Defense Electronics 22:41-43+ August 1990.

Ripley, Tim. Upgraded Predator UAVs Support Balkans Mission. Jane's Defence Weekly 35:30 April 25, 2001.

Rivers, Brendan P. The Future of ISR. Journal of Electronic Defense 22:37-41 December 1999.

Rivers, Brendan P. The Robot's Got Your Back. Journal of Electronic Defense 26:50-53 January 2003.
Challenges of integrating manned and unmanned air operations.

Roflsen, Bruce. Command Looks to Use Predator for Ground Targets. Air Force Times 60:20 July 24, 2000.

Rolfsen, Bruce. AWACS Squadrons to Reach Full Strength, Join AEF. Air Force Times 61:23 February 5, 2001.

Rolfsen, Bruce. Delays Push Global Hawk Cost Up 50 Percent. Air Force Times 60:18 May 22, 2000.

Rolfsen, Bruce. First Global Hawk Squadron to Be in Place by 2003: Beale First Choice to House New Reconnaissance Jet. Air Force Times 61:30 March 19, 2001.

Rolfsen, Bruce. Jets May Replace AWACS, Joint STARS. Air Force Times 61:30 April 9, 2001.

Rolfsen, Bruce. A Little Plane's Big Splash: Remote-Controlled Predator Draws Interest During JFEX.  Air Force Times 61:9 October 2, 2000.


Sweetman, Bill. Global hawk Leads Surveillance UAV Charge. Interavia 55:55-60 October 2000.

Tirpak, John A. Seeking a Triple-Threat Sensor. Air Force Magazine 85:38-43 November 2002.
Reports on the planned MC2A system. Integration of E-3 AWACS, E-8 Joint STARS and RC-135 Rivet Joint. Role, function and problems of system.
Also available online at: http://www.afa.org/magazine/nov2002/1102threat.asp

Towell, Pat. Weapons Systems Highlighted in the Quadrennial Review. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report  55:1202-1203 May 24, 1997.
Brief mention of funding weapon systems funding issues, including JSTARS. The review calls for buying 13 rather than 19, with a possible 6 being sold to NATO.

U.S. Air Force AWACS Crews to Train in Modern Simulator. National Defense 87:79 November 2002.
Also available online at: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=976

USAF Touts Global Hawk Performance, Lays Out Future Development. Journal of Electronic Defense 26:38 March 2003.

Wall, Robert. Signit Upgrades Nearing Deployment. Aviation Week & Space Technology 151:98-99 November 15, 1999.
Rivet Joints major signals intelligence upgrade.


Warrick, Joby. AWACS Proves to Be Gulf "Trump Card". Air Force Times 51:11+ April 15, 1991. 

Weapons Systems Highlighted in Quadrennial Review. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report  55:1202-1203  May 24, 1997.
Also available online at: http://search.ebscohost.com/direct.asp?an=9706065871&db=aph&tg=AN

Wilson, George C. Leaders Heed the AWACS Lesson: Ways Are Sought to Avoid an Exodus of Overtaxed Crews. Air Force Times 58:7 January 26, 1998.

Bibliographer's Note

Return to AUL ACSC Research Seminars Page
Return to the Main ACSC Section
Return to AUL Bibliography List
 Return to the AUL Homepage