Adapting to Shorter Time Cycles
in the United States Air Force
PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP SERIES
Linda Casola, Rapporteur
Air Force Studies Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by Contract No. FA8650-20-F-9312 with the U.S. Air Force. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-47421-4
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-47421-3
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26148
Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2021 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Adapting to Shorter Time Cycles in the United States Air Force: Proceedings of a Workshop Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26148.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
PLANNING COMMITTEE ON ADAPTING TO SHORTER TIME CYCLES: A WORKSHOP SERIES FOR THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
DEBORAH L. WESTPHAL, Toffler Associates, Chair
TED F. BOWLDS, USAF (ret.), IAI North America
RAMA CHELLAPPA, Johns Hopkins University
JOSEPH A. ENGELBRECHT, JR., Engelbrecht Associates, LLC
BRENDAN B. GODFREY, University of Maryland
RICHARD P. HALLION, Science and Technology Policy Institute
DANIEL E. HASTINGS, NAE,1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
DAVID MARKHAM, Waywest Advisors
GREGORY S. MARTIN, USAF (ret.), GS Martin Consulting, Inc.
WILLIAM F. POWERS, NAE, Ford Motor Company (ret.)
JULIE J.C.H. RYAN, Wyndrose Technical Group
MICHAEL I. YARYMOVYCH, NAE, Sarasota Space Associates
Staff
GEORGE COYLE, Senior Program Officer, Air Force Studies Board, Study Director
ELLEN CHOU, Director, Air Force Studies Board
MARGUERITE SCHNEIDER, Administrative Coordinator
ADRIANNA HARGROVE, Finance Business Partner
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
AIR FORCE STUDIES BOARD
ELLEN M. PAWLIKOWSKI, NAE,1 USAF (ret.), Independent Consultant, Chair
KEVIN G. BOWCUTT, NAE, The Boeing Company
TED F. BOWLDS, USAF (ret.), IAI North America
CLAUDE CANIZARES, NAS,2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MARK F. COSTELLO, Georgia Institute of Technology
WESLEY L. HARRIS, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JAMES E. HUBBARD, JR., NAE, Texas A&M Hagler Institute
LESTER L. LYLES, NAE, USAF (ret.), Independent Consultant
WENDY M. MASIELLO, USAF (ret.), Independent Consultant
LESLIE A. MOMODA, HRL Laboratories, LLC
OZDEN OCHOA, Texas A&M University
F. WHITTEN PETERS, Williams and Connolly, LLP
HENDRICK RUCK, Edaptive Computing Inc.
JULIE J.C.H. RYAN, Wyndrose Technical Group
MICHAEL SCHNEIDER, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
GRANT STOKES, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory
MICHAEL I. YARYMOVYCH, NAE, Sarasota Space Associates
Staff
ELLEN CHOU, Director
GEORGE COYLE, Senior Program Officer
EVAN ELWELL, Research Assistant
ADRIANNA HARGROVE, Finance Business Partner
RYAN MURPHY, Program Officer
MARGUERITE SCHNEIDER, Administrative Coordinator
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
2 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This Proceedings of a Workshop was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published proceedings as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this proceedings:
Richard P. Hallion, Science and Technology Policy Institute,
Gregory S. Martin, USAF (ret.), GS Martin Consulting, Inc., and
David M. Van Wie, NAE,1 Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the proceedings nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this proceedings was overseen by Robert J. Elder, USAF (ret.), George Mason University. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this proceedings was carried out in accordance with standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the rapporteur and the National Academies.
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
This page intentionally left blank.
Preface
Prior to the start of the workshop series for the U.S. Air Force (USAF) on Adapting to Shorter Time Cycles, our planning committee met to discuss objectives. The following statements and questions about the context for changing perspectives on time in military operations were presented by individual planning committee members, used to stimulate further conversation during the planning of each workshop, and referenced during various workshop discussions. What follows are not meant to be interpreted as consensus conclusions or recommendations; rather, they are individual observations and opinions of concern related to time that may be useful as a source of reflection alongside the content of the subsequent chapters of this proceedings.
- There is no grand strategy for China, Russia, or others. (Note: We use China as proxy for others.)
- Therefore, the USAF is forced to prepare for only taking the fight to China.
- For example, if the grand strategy were containment, how would the USAF train, organize, and equip differently?
- As a result of Goldwater-Nichols, the act of thinking strategically about China does not exist within today’s USAF.
- Goldwater-Nichols took the USAF Chief of Staff and the Joint Chiefs of Staff out of strategy decision making or development of war plans.
- Today’s USAF is tasked to train, equip, and organize but not practice the art of thinking strategically. It is not its job.
- The current USAF lacks the “thinkers” to create a concept of operations (CONOPS) to address China.
- The result is that the way the USAF currently is thinking how to fight China is the way it previously thought of fighting Russia—through proxy wars. Yet fighting China invites attacks on both homelands.
- China and other adversaries could respond in domains such as cyber, health, and the economy, even using misinformation and deception to incite civil war.
- Current USAF thinking is operational but wider in nature, not thinking at the strategic level.
- The USAF is not thinking in terms of total war.
- For those who believe that the United States and China are in a strategic competition, most see China’s objective to be the leader of a new global order. Should that be achieved by war, it could be high stakes and multidimensional.
-
- Are we (the nation) willing to let one domain (the USAF) do this? Are we (the nation) willing to let an all-volunteer military do this?
- The current USAF has lost the art of imagination when it comes to airpower (attack and response).
- The USAF is ill-equipped to think about expected responses from air power attacks.
- For example, how does the USAF think about whether a response from China will be in a different domain?
- Current thinking is much like bringing a knife to the fight because we are going to fight against a knife (versus they may bring a gun).
- The USAF seems to be thinking that they will hit back the same way we hit them.
- The USAF is talking about multi-domain command and control, but this is a one-way street. It is not thinking about multi-domain response from air operations.
- The USAF has a reputation of experimenting with advanced technology while letting the other services adopt it before the USAF.
- Examples of this are the Global Positioning System and unmanned aerial vehicles.
- The USAF is tightly wedded to requirements and doctrine, making adoption challenging.
- The USAF may not be sufficiently considering inhibitors to adopting compressed-time command and control or CONOPS.
- Who will identify the inhibitors?
- For example, how will the USAF and others deal with data and legacy systems?
- The current USAF is not adequately thinking about new command authority structures.
- What are the levels of authorities?
- What are the thresholds that need to be considered?
- What are the consequences of crossing these thresholds?
- Who has the authority to take the next steps operationally?
- Who can escalate?
- Who can deescalate?
- Who can deceive?
- The who, what, and how long is not being thought about in parallel to developing these advanced technologies.
- The USAF is fixated on inputs (i.e., technology and platforms) not outcomes.
- As we compress time and distance with technology advancements, the USAF must think about the consequences of air power actions.
- We cannot assume that air power attacks on China will not result in some sort of response on U.S. homeland from a different domain (e.g., cyber, health system, economic, space, etc.)
- As we compress time and distance with technology advancements, the USAF must think about the consequences of air power actions.
Deborah Westphal, Chair
Planning Committee on Adapting to Shorter Time Cycles:
A Workshop Series for the United States Air Force
This page intentionally left blank.