Highlight from the Doctrine Advisory Control Below the Coordinating Altitude

Duration: 3:08 428 transcript words EN summary

Video summary

The rapid evolution of warfare has introduced a surge of small unmanned aircraft systems into the battlespace, operating primarily below the coordinating altitude, which is traditionally managed by land commanders. This influx creates significant congestion and increases the risk of fratricide among friendly forces while presenting new integration challenges for joint operations. From an Air Force perspective, maintaining control of the air remains fundamental because air superiority directly enables freedom of maneuver on the ground; however, achieving this in saturated environments requires seamless coordination between air and land components to manage these complex airspace dynamics effectively. To address these complexities, existing doctrine provides a robust framework centered around an airspace control authority designated by the joint force commander who manages all domains through a unified system designed for integration, deconfliction, and protection. This management relies on two primary methods: positive control utilizing electronic identification and tracking, or procedural control based on pre-planned measures such as specific routes, corridors, and restricted zones. The unique characteristics of unmanned systems—specifically their small size, low operational altitude, and limited situational awareness—complicate this picture by making them difficult to track with traditional methods, necessitating the explicit integration of these assets into daily airspace control orders through tailored coordination measures like minimum risk routes. The practical application of these doctrines is highlighted by conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, where swarms of unmanned aircraft have overwhelmed battlefield defenses, demonstrating that countering such threats requires tight collaboration between airspace control and air defense systems. In this context, integrating missile defense capabilities must account for small drones alongside boarding munitions and traditional aerial threats without causing fratricide or disrupting friendly operations. Similarly, within the United States, organizations like NORAD and the FAA share responsibilities for defending national airspace, where the proliferation of unmanned aircraft demands even stricter collaboration to ensure rapid detection, clear lines of authority, and coordinated responses to emerging risks at home as well as abroad. Ultimately, addressing these modern challenges does not require inventing entirely new doctrine but rather refining existing tactics, technologies, and procedures to handle overwhelming numbers of unmanned systems with speed, scale, and precision. Future solutions must clearly define how loitering munitions and various types of UAS fit into the broader airspace control system while clarifying authorities and delivering resilient tools for defense. Control below the coordinating altitude has transitioned from a niche issue to a critical component of modern warfare where doctrine provides the necessary architecture; the remaining task is implementing this framework effectively across all domains to maintain operational superiority in an increasingly contested environment.

Read the full video transcript

Warfare is changing fast. Small unmanned aircraft systems, friendly and hostile, are flooding the battle space. Most of them operate below the coordinating altitude, the airspace traditionally delegated to land commanders. This is creating congestion, risk of fracturide, and new challenges for joint force integration. The air force perspective is clear. Control of the air remains essential. Air superiority enables freedom of maneuver on the ground. But to achieve it, air and land forces must coordinate seamlessly, especially in the contested and saturated airspace below the coordinating altitude. Doctrine already gives us the tools. The joint force commander designates an airspace control authority who manages the airspace through the airspace control system. This system balances integration, deconliction, and protection across all domains. Two methods guide this control. Positive control, relying on electronic identification and tracking. Procedural control using pre-planned measures like routes, corridors, and restricted zones. But unmanned aircraft complicate this picture. Their small size, low altitude, and limited ability to see and avoid make them hard to track. That's why joint doctrine stresses integrating UAS into the airspace control plan and the daily airspace control order. Coordination measures like restricted operation zones or minimum risk routes help prevent conflict with manned aircraft and fires. Below the coordinating altitude control is often delegated to ground or maritime components like an army joint air ground integration center or a maritime air command and control system. Each has the authority to integrate airspace users within its area, but all remain tied back to the airspace control authority for coherence. The war in Ukraine shows what happens when swarms of unmanned aircraft overwhelm the battlefield. Countering these threats requires close coordination between airspace control and air defense. Integrating air and missile defense must account for small UAS, boarding munitions, and the traditional air threats while preventing fracturide. At home, the challenge is different. NORAD and the FAA share responsibility for defending US airspace. The rise of unmanned aircraft demands even tighter collaboration to ensure rapid detection, clear authorities, and coordinated response. The way forward isn't about inventing new doctrine. It's about applying what we already have. Refining tactics, technologies, and procedures to handle overwhelming numbers of unmanned aircraft. Future solutions must define how lording munitions and UAS fit into the airspace control system, clarify authorities, and deliver resilient tools to defend the force. Control below the coordinating altitude is no longer a niche problem. Doctrine provides the architecture. The challenge is implementing it at speed, scale, and with precision in the modern battle space. For all our Doctrine publications, visit www.docctrine.af.mill.