HomeOffice of Sponsored ProgramsResearchArticle Display


JADO Command Philosophy, Distributed Headquarters, and Mission-Type Orders

  • Published
  • By PACAF/CC


As the Joint Force transitions to Joint All-Domain Operations (JADO) to prevail against pacing competitors, the traditional model of centralized control and decentralized execution faces unprecedented strain. In a highly contested, communications-denied environment, how does the USAF transition from legacy command structures toward a resilient model of decentralized execution that empowers tactical initiative at the lowest level?

  • Alzahrani, Lt. Col. Khalil, "Cyber Defense and the Protection of Airpower Networks: Lessons from Airpower History and Theory for the 21st Century," ACSC AO 2025.
    • Alzahrani addresses this question by applying the traditional airpower doctrine of centralized planning and decentralized execution directly to cyber defense. He argues that while the Air Force must lead overall cybersecurity policy and centrally coordinate network defense strategies, it is impractical to rely on top-down approvals during a cyber incident because cyber threats can execute globally in a matter of milliseconds. To effectively push authority down to the lowest level, he recommends establishing clear parameters that grant local units the pre-delegated authority to unilaterally execute rapid, real-time responses to emergent cyber threats, similar to how an aircraft commander makes immediate tactical decisions while operating under a broader strategic directive.
  • Bellavia, CDR Andrea R., "Extending the Reach: How the Carrier Can Integrate the MQ-25A to Complement Distributed Maritime Operations," AFGC thesis, 2026.
    • Answered by Bellavia’s exploration of how the Carrier Strike Group can operationalize decentralized mission command in communication-denied environments through the Maritime Operations Center (MOC). Specifically, the Pacific Fleet MOC acts as a distributed command node that processes data into actionable intelligence, enabling commanders to execute command at lower echelons. To support this decentralized command philosophy, Bellavia suggests a flexible C2 architecture where operational control of unmanned assets like the MQ-25 Stingray can seamlessly transfer between the carrier's on-board control system (UMCS/MD-5) and the MOC. This allows the carrier to launch a strike package, transfer control of the drone to the MOC to land at another location, and maneuver dynamically to avoid detection and maintain operational agility without requiring constant, high-bandwidth reachback.
  • Cassidy, Capt. Christopher, "Enabling Decentralized Execution in JADC2: Unit Level Intelligence Case Study," SOS AUAR, 2020, 11 pgs.
  • Corrado, Maj. Salvatore A., "Communicating in a Degraded Environment: Command and Control during Contested Operations," AFGC thesis, 2025, 49 pgs.
    • Corrado emphasizes that Joint All-Domain Operations (JADO) fundamentally require decentralized execution so the joint force can converge effects across domains at a speed and scale that outpaces an adversary's decision cycle. To push authority down, he argues the Air Force must update its current doctrine, which was heavily shaped by uncontested counterterrorism operations and currently restricts the delegation of authority. To move away from centralized micromanagement, commanders must fully embrace the framework of "Mission Command"—building mutual trust, publishing clear intent, and accepting prudent risk—so tactical-level commanders are empowered to exercise disciplined initiative when communications are degraded by near-peer countermeasures.
  • Cumming, Maj. Evan A., "Unleashing Air Force Offensive Ground Operators in Ace against Near=Peer Adversaries," AFGC thesis, 2025.
    • Cumming tackles this by critiquing the current Theater Air-Ground System (TACS), arguing that it relies on impractical top-down approvals that are too slow and fragile for the heavily jammed and contested communication environments expected in conflicts with near-peer adversaries. To push authority to the lowest operational echelons, Cumming asserts that the Air Force must restore true decentralized decision-making by culturally and doctrinally empowering small, dispersed AFSPECWAR units operating within the Agile Combat Employment (ACE) framework. He concludes that local ground teams must be entrusted with the delegated authority to unilaterally exploit fleeting opportunities and engage high-value targets without waiting for hierarchical approval, thereby allowing U.S. forces to outpace the slower, centralized decision cycles of the enemy.
  • Evers, Capt. Braden, "How Should the USAF Defend against sUAS for Dispersed Agile Air Defense in Future Conflicts," SOS AUAR 2026.
    • Evers answers this within the context of air defense, arguing that relying on heavy, centralized joint air defense assets is incompatible with the rapidly changing priorities of ACE operations. He states that surviving saturated sUAS attacks—like those utilized by Russia and Ukraine—requires the DAF to prioritize Decentralized Command and Control frameworks. By redefining the defense zone for C-sUAS operations and establishing a "lower delegation of authority," the Air Force can empower local, dispersed units to execute flexible, independent point defense without waiting for centralized approval.
  • Fogarty, Maj. Trennart M. Barillas, "Tilted ACE: Optimizing Mission-Ready Airmen for CV-22," AFGC thesis, 2025.
    • Fogarty tackles the challenge of decentralized execution within Joint All-Domain Operations (JADO) by emphasizing that the ACE environment inherently necessitates a shift away from rigid, centralized control toward a robust model of mission command. To push authority to the lowest level, he argues that CV-22 formation and aircraft commanders must be explicitly trained and trusted to accept calculated risks and make rapid tactical decisions based on the commander's intent to exploit fleeting windows of opportunity. To enable this decentralized execution while isolated from larger command structures, Fogarty recommends equipping tactical elements with sophisticated, mobile communication kits managed by MRAs, which will provide the resilient connectivity and real-time data access needed for autonomous, integrated decision-making.
  • Hancock, Maj. Nicholas, "Marines: Maintaining the Modernization Momentum," AFGC thesis, 2025, 54 pgs. 
    • Hancock addresses this by contrasting the Marine Corps' tendency to hold authorities for new domains (like cyber, space, and information) at the general officer level with the Air Force's philosophical shift toward a modernized mission command. He explains that the Air Force pushes authority down to the lowest possible level through "centralized command, distributed control, and decentralized execution," explicitly utilizing mission-type orders to empower tactical subordinates to exploit fleeting opportunities. Hancock recommends the Marine Corps adopt this decentralized model rather than keeping capabilities heavily centralized, which will increase operational tempo and flexibility in communication-constrained, joint all-domain environments.
  • Jensen, James R., "Disciplined Initiatives in Air Operations: Training Approaches for Managing Wartime Complexity," SAASS thesis, 2025.
    • Answered by Jensen's proposal that the USAF must transition away from centralized legacy command structures by prioritizing the human development of expertise, adaptability, and resilience through modern, decentralized training. He explains that legacy training methods tracking single-item maneuvers are incompatible with decentralized operations because they ignore the situational context needed for real-time decisions. In communications-denied environments, commanders must learn to give and receive succinct mission-type orders (MTOs) and take independent tactical actions. Jensen highlights that the JADO "mission command contract" requires subordinates to make their actions serve the superior's intent while staying within the maximum acceptable level of risk to the force. Furthermore, because highly complex future command systems like JADC2 risk breaking unpredictably, the Joint Force must prioritize training individual human minds to execute disciplined initiative rather than excessively relying on technology to solve future C2 challenges.
  • Smith, Chance A., "From Neglect to Necessity: George McDonald and American Air Intelligence," SAASS thesis, 2025.
    • Smith tackles the tension between centralization and decentralization by analyzing the evolution of McDonald's intellectual framework for managing air intelligence. During the war in North Africa and Europe, McDonald rigidly centralized intelligence collection, analysis, and production at the highest headquarters level to overcome slow communications and to ensure intelligence directly drove Carl Spaatz’s strategic bombing campaigns, despite severe criticism from tactical units who felt starved of support. However, Smith explains that once the war ended and the Air Force gained independence, McDonald deliberately shifted to a decentralized model of execution; realizing that a global, peacetime intelligence mission was too vast to be centrally managed, he pushed operational intelligence production down to the wing, group, and squadron levels, establishing the federated structure that still serves as the foundation for the modern Air Force intelligence enterprise.
  • Weekes, Maj. Mycheal R., "Multi-Capable Airmen in a Contested Environment: Soft Skills for Agile Combat Employment in the 21st Century," AFGC 2025.