Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka behovet av indirekt eld och Close Air Support i militäraoperationer i bergsterräng och belysa vilka aspekter som påverkar nyttjandet av försvarsmaktensenheter och verkanssystem vid insatser i bergsmiljö. För att svara på syftet med uppsatsen har följande studiefråga ställts: Hur använde USA den grundläggande förmågan verkan för att påverka motståndaren under Operation Anaconda? Fallstudie och textanalys har använts som vetenskaplig metod och teknik för denna uppsats. Inledningsvis studerades texter om operation Anaconda och hur operationen genomfördes. Därefter studerades svenska doktriner och reglementen avseende teorier om grundläggande förmågor och hur verkan uppnås i striden. Slutligen analyserades hur USA använde den grundläggande förmåganverkan under operation Anaconda med tyngdpunkt på indirekt eld och close air support. De viktigaste slutsatserna är att striden genomförs i tre dimensioner med indirekt eld, direktriktadeld och minor. Alla är väsentliga för att effekt med verkan skall uppnås i striden. Försvinner en dimension bör de andra dimensionerna öka med fler element. / This paper aims to examine the need for indirect fire and Close Air Support of military operations in mountainous terrain, highlighting the aspects that affect the use of Swedish armed forces units and their technical systems in the mountain environment. To answer the purpose of this paper the following question was asked: How did U.S. forces use the basic capacity of effect to the opponent during Operation Anaconda? A case study and text analysis has been used as a scientific method and technique for this thesis. Initially texts about Operation Anaconda were studied on how the operation was carried out. Then Swedish doctrines and regulations relating to theories of basic abilities and the effect achieved in the battle were studied. Finally, the writer analyzed how the U.S. used the basic capacity of effect during Operation Anaconda, with an emphasis on indirect fire and close air support. The main conclusions are that the battle is carried out in three dimensions with indirect fire, direct fire and mines. All are essential to achieved effect in the battle. If one dimension diminishes the other dimensions should increase by more elements.

Thesis--School of Advanced Airpower Studies, 1996. / Shipping list no.: 1998-0921-M. "August 1997." Includes bibliographical references. Also available via Internet from the Air University Press web site. Address as of 10/28/03: http://aupress.au.af.mil/SAAS%5FTheses/Lewis/lewis.pdf; current access is available via PURL.

Within days of a major failed strike by attack helicopters during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) analysts were questioning the value of such platforms on the modern battlefield. As OIF moved from combat to stability operations, helicopter losses from enemy action actually increased seemingly strengthening the argument of those who see the helicopter as unsuitable to some combat operations. Attack helicopter operations have diverged into two distinct categories, interdiction and close air support (CAS), since their inception. This thesis argues that attack helicopters are most suited to perform CAS while their employment in interdiction is problematic at best. Doctrine, tactics, and threat are studied as they applied in the Soviet-Afghan War, Desert Storm, and OIF in order to examine the issue across a range of time and types of warfare.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited / During the Gulf War, millions of people around the globe, courtesy of CNN, witnessed the seemingly massive use of precision-guided weapons against Iraqi targets in the largest air campaign since World War II. Most of the missions were flown against Iraqi targets with no friendly forces on the ground. This type of air campaign is known as Deep Air Support, or 'DAS'. Equally as important, but receiving less spectacular news coverage, is Close Air support, or 'CAS'. When conducting CAS missions, the chance for 'Friendly Fire' incidents, injuring or killing your own troops on the ground, increases dramatically as compared to DAS missions. This may seem to be an obvious deduction since there are no friendly troops on the ground during a DAS mission but when small, specialized units, such as SEALS, Special Operations Forces (SOF), or reconnaissance forces find themselves in the deep battlespace, operating in a low intensity conflict (LIC) environment, these simple doctrinal distinctions can sometimes lead to confusion, or worse, friendly fire fatalities on the battlefield. It could be argued that there is a disconnect between joint doctrine and joint training which creates an environment on the LIC battlefield, as well as in training, that can lead to faulty execution of CAS missions, and potentially disastrous results, jeopardizing the safety of the very same ground personnel we are trying to support. / Major, United States Marine Corps

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2003. / Thesis advisor(s): James A. Russell, Gregory K. Mislick. Includes bibliographical references (p. 67-69). Also available online.

Thesis (M.S. in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy)--Joint Forces Staff College, Joint Advanced Warfighting School, 2006. / Vita. "14 April, 2006." "National Defense Univ Norfolk VA"--DTIC cover. Includes bibliographical references (p. 87-90). Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (M.S.)--School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, 2008. / "June 2008." Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 58-63). Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (M.S. in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy)--Joint Forces Staff College, Joint Advanced Warfighting School, 2007. / Title from title page of PDF document (viewed on: Aug 15, 2008). "17 May 2007." Includes bibliographical references (p. 162-177).

Thesis (M.M.A.S.)--School of Advanced Airpower Studies, 1995. / Subject: Command and control and responsiveness of close air support. Cover page date: June 1995. Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.M.A.S.) -- U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1985. / "85-3245." Includes bibliographical references (p. 148-155). Available electronically via the Combined Arms Research Digital Library.