2025 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS

A Research PaperPresented To

Air Force 2025

by

Lt Col Jack A. Jackson, Jr., PhD, AFITLt Col Brian L. Jones, PhD, AFITMaj Lee J. Lehmkuhl, DrSci, AFIT

with major contributions from

Col Gregory S. Parnell, USAF Ret., PhD, VCUCol Gerald A. Hasen, PhD, AFIT

Lt Col Gregg H. Gunsch, PhD, AFITLt Col John M. Andrew, PhD, AWCMaj Thomas A. Buter, PhD, AFIT

Maj Harry W. Conley, ACSCMaj Robert F. Mills, PhD, AFIT

June 1996

ii

Disclaimer

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine theconcepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and spaceforce in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense schoolenvironment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. Theviews expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of theUnited States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people orevents, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

Mention of various programs or technologies throughout this paper does not imply Air Force or DODendorsement of either the mission, the program, or adoption of the technology.

This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is clearedfor public release.

iii

Contents

Chapter Page

Disclaimer..........................................................................................................................................ii

Illustrations........................................................................................................................................iv

Tables.................................................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................vi

1 Challenge and Response .......................................................................................................................1

2 Meeting the Challenge...........................................................................................................................4Methodology.................................................................................................................................4Comparing Analysis Tools ...........................................................................................................5Value-Focused Thinking...............................................................................................................6

Value.......................................................................................................................................6Objectives, Functions, Tasks, and Subtasks............................................................................6Force Qualities .......................................................................................................................7Measures of Merit and Scoring Functions...............................................................................7Value Model ...........................................................................................................................7Weights...................................................................................................................................8

3 The Search for the 2025 Value Model ..................................................................................................9Developing the 2025 Value Model—Foundations 2025............................................................10

Objective ..............................................................................................................................10A Bottom-Up Approach........................................................................................................10Functions...............................................................................................................................10Force Qualities .....................................................................................................................13

Measures of Merit and Scoring Functions...................................................................................13Analytic Advances......................................................................................................................14System Identification...................................................................................................................16Alternate Futures.........................................................................................................................17

4 Weighting and Scoring ........................................................................................................................19Weighting the Foundations 2025 Value Model Across Alternate Futures..................................19Computing System Performance Using Scoring Functions..........................................................20Technology Identifying and Scoring............................................................................................20Scoring the Systems....................................................................................................................21Scoring the Technologies............................................................................................................30

5 Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................38Major Implications of the 2025 Operational Analysis................................................................38Operational Analysis Lessons Learned.......................................................................................41Study Limitations........................................................................................................................41Major Implications for the Future ...............................................................................................42

iv

Summary.....................................................................................................................................42

Appendix Page

A Foundations 2025 Value Model ..........................................................................................................43

B System Descriptions............................................................................................................................46

C Alternate Futures Weights ...................................................................................................................53

D Technology Model ..............................................................................................................................57

Bibliography.....................................................................................................................................60

Illustrations

Figure Page

1-1. 2025 Study Process ............................................................................................................................2

3-1. Complete Listing of Tasks and Subtasks...........................................................................................11

3-2. Foundations of 2025 Value Model....................................................................................................12

3-3. Operational Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................15

3-4. System Functional Hierarchy............................................................................................................16

3-5. 2025 Strategic Planning Space .........................................................................................................17

4-1. System Values for the Baseline Future..............................................................................................24

4-2. Final System Values.........................................................................................................................25

4-3. Top Eleven Systems .........................................................................................................................26

4-4. Awareness Values.............................................................................................................................27

4-5. Deploy Values - “Halfs” Future........................................................................................................28

4-6. Power Values ...................................................................................................................................29

4-7. Technology Rankings (All 43 Systems, AU Students Weights).........................................................33

4-8. Top Twelve Technology Rankings (All 43 System, AU Students Weights)......................................35

v

Figure Page

4-9. Top Twelve Technology Rankings (Top 11 System, AU Students Weights)....................................36

A-1. Value Model: Top Level ..................................................................................................................54

A-2. Value Model: Awareness .................................................................................................................55

A-3. Value Model: Reach.........................................................................................................................56

A-4. Value Model: Power ........................................................................................................................56

B-1. System Hierarchy..............................................................................................................................57

C-1. AU Team Weights - Halfs and Half Naughts Future.......................................................................66

C-2. AU Team Weights - Gulliver's Travail Future..................................................................................67

C-3. AU Team Weights - Zaibatsu Future.................................................................................................67

C-4. AU Team Weights - Digital Cacophony Future................................................................................68

C-5. AU Team Weights - King Khan Future.............................................................................................68

C-6. AU Team Weights - 2015 Crossroads Future ...................................................................................69

D-1. Technology Model - Part I................................................................................................................71

D-2. Technology Model - Part II...............................................................................................................72

Tables

Table Page

1. Technology Assessment....................................................................................................................31

2. Technology Development Leaders for High Leverage Technologies................................................32

vi

Executive Summary

In the summer of 1995 the Air Force chief of staff tasked Air University to do a year-long study, 2025,

to “generate ideas and concepts on the capabilities the United States will require to possess the dominant air

and space forces in the future [, to] detail … new or high-leverage concepts for employing air and space

power [, and to] detail … the technologies required to enable the capabilities envisioned.” To support this

goal a 2025 study team conducted an operational analysis to identify high-value system concepts and their

enabling technologies in a way that was objective, traceable, and robust. This analysis determined which of

the 2025 system concepts show the greatest potential for enhancing future air and space capabilities and

which embedded technologies have the highest leverage in making the high-value system concepts a reality.

The team developed a model, Foundations 2025, which reflected the overall values held by the 2025

participants. The purpose of the model was to quantify and compare different system concepts’ contributions

to future air and space capabilities. Foundations 2025 is distinguished by the large number of system

concepts that can be analyzed, the 30-year focus into the future, and the fact it was developed through a

bottoms-up approach. Foundations 2025 offers a potential new framework for future air and space doctrine

that can be easily modified (broken into three separate models: awareness, reach, and power) by AF

MAJCOMs for use in their mission area analysis process. Thus, the model presented is an aid to current and

future senior decision makers concerned with the employment of air and space power.

The 2025 study produced a number of excellent system concepts for employing air and space power in

the future. Analysis of the highest-value system concepts indicated that the effort to occupy the “high ground”

of the future will require air and space forces to possess increased awareness and to control the medium of

space. The five highest-value system concepts were defined as:

• Global Information Management System

• Sanctuary Base

• Global Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting System

• Global Area Strike System

• Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle

vii

The following six system concepts scored below the top five but were clearly ahead of the others:

• Space-Based High-Energy Laser

• Solar-Powered High-Energy Laser

• Reconnaissance unmanned air vehicle (UAV)

• Attack Microbots

• Piloted single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) transatmospheric vehicle (TAV)

• Uninhabited Air-Launched TAV

These conclusions regarding the rankings of the system concepts were not affected by any reasonable changes

of the weighting scheme in the Foundations 2025 value model.

The study also included an assessment of the enabling technologies on which the system concepts

depend. The analysis explicitly took into account the number of system concepts each technology supported,

the degree to which each system concept depended on it, and the importance of the system concept. Six high-

leverage technologies stood out because they are important to a large number of high-value system concepts:

• Data Fusion

• Power Systems

• Micromechanical Devices

• Advanced Materials

• High-energy Propellants

• High-performance Computing

The major surprise among these results was the importance of continued breakthroughs in the area of

power systems. Other moderate-leverage technologies were also important but contributed to only three or

four of the high-value system concepts:

• High-energy Laser Systems

• Artificial Intelligence

• Optics

• Aerospace Structures

• Image Processing

• Communications

Advances in these areas show promise to open the way to air and space systems that would dramatically

improve the effectiveness of air and space power employment to achieve the US military objectives.

1

Chapter 1

Challenge and Response

The long range planning process in our Air Force is broken. If we are going to berelevant in the future, we’ve got to somehow break free of the evolutionary nature of theplanning process.

--Gen Ronald R. Fogleman

With these few words, the chief of staff of the Air Force, Gen Ronald R. Fogleman, challenged the

participants of the 2025 study to generate ideas and concepts on the capabilities the United States will

require to dominate air and space forces in the future. When General Fogleman assigned the responsibility

for 2025 to Air University, he directed the final product be a collection of white papers detailing findings

regarding air and space capabilities required for future warfare, new or high-leverage concepts for

employing air and space power, and the technologies required to enable the required capabilities.1

In response to General Fogleman’s tasking, Air University devised a four-phase study process (Figure

1-1. ) to stimulate creativity, generate ideas, and evaluate concepts.

2

Creative Thinking/Research the Future

Identify SystemConcepts &

Technologies

Develop AlternateFutures

PrepareWhite Papers

I. Preparation Phase II. Idea Generation Phase III. Assimilation Phase

CSAFTasking

IV. Operational Analysis Phase

Assessor/AdvisorReview

Technologies

EvaluateSystem Concepts &

Technologies

High-ValueSystem Concepts

&High-Leverage

Identify Analysis Technique& Develop Model

Figure 1-1. 2025 Study Process

In the preparation phase, participants were exposed to a wide variety of creative thinking and problem

solving concepts. This phase laid the groundwork for the idea generation phase, in which the participants

developed plausible alternative futures as well as future system concepts and technologies. Inputs for the

idea generation phase were gathered from a worldwide data call that produced over 1,000 submissions.

In the assimilation phase, the participants were organized into specific writing teams based on

operational experience. Each team took a particular area to consider and on which to concentrate their

research. After postulating the required capabilities of the future Air Force, each team developed system

concepts and technologies from the idea generation phase that could satisfy these future requirements.

This phase produced a large number of system concepts that were described in varying levels of detail,

that provided widely different kinds of operational capabilities, and that depended on different levels of

advancements in different areas beyond current technology. Clearly, not all of these system concepts could

3

be developed, nor could all of the technologies be aggressively pursued. The study needed to prioritize the

relative importance of both future system concepts2 and their enabling technologies.

An operational analysis was conducted concurrently with the other three phases to aid in this

prioritization. Its purpose was to evaluate system concepts and technologies developed in the white papers;

specifically, it had three objectives:

1. Assess the potential operational utility of future air and space system concepts.

2. Identify the high-leverage technologies required by those system concepts.

3. Provide an objective, traceable, and robust analysis.

This monograph highlights the main points of this operational analysis. Comprehensive documentation is

provided in the 2025 Operational Analysis Technical Report.3

Notes

1 Message from General Fogleman to Air University. 23 December 1994.

2 From this point forward the term system will be used when referring to the system concepts. The

authors recognize that system carries the connotation of existing hardware, but it is less cumbersome and allof the systems scored here are futuristic.

3 An Operational Analysis for 2025: An Application of Value-Focused Thinking to Future Air and

Space Capabilities (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University, 1996)

4

Chapter 2

Meeting the Challenge

This section outlines the 2025 methods used to evaluate the systems and technologies. It covers the

development of the value model to score the systems, the system identification process, the system scoring

procedures, the technology identification procedures, and the technology scoring procedures, and ends with

an evaluation of which sector (public or commercial) will primarily develop the future technologies.

Methodology

A primary goal of the 2025 operational analysis (OA) was to identify the 2025 systems that offer the

greatest potential to support future air and space operations. To meet this goal, the Analysis team’s challenge

was to develop a methodology that satisfied a diverse set of criteria. First, the 2025 OA needed to be

compatible with the Air University academic calendar year. It also needed to be capable of quick

implementation after the Air Command and Staff College and Air War College students completed their white

papers, which contained conceptual descriptions of the systems.

Second, because 2025 was a study about 30-years into the future, the system descriptions in the white

papers lacked engineering detail. Therefore, the OA methodology had to rely on human judgment about

operational capability and key enabling technologies.

Third, while the values of the current senior leadership of the Air Force are well documented in

strategies, policies, and directives, it is far more difficult to predict what will be important to future leaders.

5

Fourth, to prevent one set of views or interests from unduly influencing the results, the evaluation

methodology had to be free of institutional bias. The methodology should neither unfairly favor nor penalize

any potential 2025 systems.

Fifth, the results had to be traceable since the 2025 system evaluation results would be subject to much

scrutiny. The Analysis team members would need to be able to explain for any given system or technology

how and why it was scored. The study participants and Air Force senior leadership would be far more likely

to accept the results if they could clearly understand how the systems were evaluated.

Sixth, the OA methodology had to be robust enough to apply across a wide range of potential future

environments postulated by the 2025 Alternate Futures team. Each future described a different political,

technological, and social environment (see the Alternate Futures section). The OA methodology had to be

able to capture different priorities, that were assigned to air and space functions and tasks in these alternate

futures.

Comparing Analysis Tools

Each analysis approach has particular strengths and weaknesses; therefore, the Analysis team examined

them in relation to the challenges of the 2025 study discussed previously. The team considered the following

analysis techniques:

• “Most-to-least dear” with no criteria• Qualitative comparison with criteria• Simple quantitative comparison matrix• Value-focused thinking• Analytical hierarchy process• Strategy-to-task• Futures-to-strategy-to-task• Common operational objectives of the armed forces• Cost and operational effectiveness analysis

After considering the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches, the Analysis team felt

that value-focused thinking (VFT)1 offered the best compromise for satisfying the OA requirements. VFT

was particularly suited for structuring the subjective judgments required to evaluate the systems. It also

allowed the OA to be completed in the limited time available and, because VFT was used in the

6

SPACECAST 2020 study, it was well understood and accepted by the Air University senior leadership. In

addition, once a value framework was built using VFT, it was very easy to assess systems across several

alternate futures. Finally, the VFT methodology enables the OA to be objective, traceable, and robust.

Value-Focused Thinking

VFT begins by identifying the decision maker’s values with a hierarchy of objectives. Top-level

objectives describe aspirations that are most important to the decision maker. Objectives are decomposed

until desired force qualities can be specified and measured. Weights are assigned to signify the relative

importance of objectives at every level.

In the VFT methodology, we use several key terms—value, objectives, functions, tasks, subtasks, force

qualities, measures of merit, scoring functions, value model, and weights.

Value

The most important concept in VFT is value. Keeney says, “Values are what we care about. [Values]

should be the driving force for our decision-making.”2 The fundamental precept of VFT is that values are

principles used for evaluation.3

Objectives, Functions, Tasks, and Subtasks

In VFT, values are made explicit with objectives, and a hierarchy of objectives is constructed that

supports the decision maker’s values.4 Specific, lower-level objectives support the more general,

overarching objectives. The Analysis team used the terms objective, functions, tasks, and subtasks to

designate the tiers in the hierarchy, from highest to lowest, respectively.

7

Force Qualities

In VFT terminology, a force quality defines a desired attribute of a system to achieve a subtask. For

example, if the subtask is to “identify,” a corresponding force quality might be “accurate.” According to

Keeney, “[force qualities] should be measurable, operational, and understandable.”5

Measures of Merit and Scoring Functions

Each force quality has a measure of merit that is the metric used to gauge system performance. Each

measure of merit has a range of outcomes, from worst to best. To continue with the previous example, if the

subtask is “identify” and the force quality is “accurate,” then a measure of merit could be “percent of correct

identifications.”

VFT scoring functions provide a quantitative means for measuring the relative system performance for

each measure of merit. For example, if the measure of merit is “percent of correct identifications,” the

corresponding scoring function might convert a system performance of “83 percent correct identifications”

into a score of 92.

Value Model

A value model is the hierarchical representation of objectives, functions, tasks, subtasks, force

qualities, measures of merit, and scoring functions. Foundations 2025 was the value model developed for

2025. A value model, called a value tree by some authors, is a branching structure with the most fundamental

decision-maker objectives at the top. Keeney uses the term “fundamental objectives hierarchy,”6 and states,

“The higher-level objective is defined by the set of lower-level objectives directly under it in the

hierarchy.”7 In other words, the lower-level objectives completely specify their higher-level objective.

Clemen describes five specific characteristics of a value model:8

1. It should be complete, encompassing all important facets of the decision.

2. It should be as small as possible.

3. The force qualities should allow straightforward measurement.

8

4. Objectives should appear only once in the tree.

5. The decision maker should be able to think about and treat the branches of the tree separately.

Combining the first, fourth, and fifth criteria above yields two important properties—the objectives must be

“mutually exclusive” (appear only once and can be treated separately) and “collectively exhaustive”

(encompass all that the decision-maker values).

Weights

After the hierarchical structure of the value model is complete, the decision maker must determine the

relative importance of the functions, tasks, force qualities, and measures of merit. Numerical weights are

assigned across each tier of the value model; these weights must satisfy certain mathematical requirements.

Notes

1 Ralph L. Keeney, Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision-Making (Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992).2 Ibid., 3.

3 Ibid., 6.

4 Ibid., 33.

5 Ibid., 112.

6 Ibid, 78.

7 Ibid.

8 R. T. Clemen, Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis (Boston, Mass.: PWS-

Kent, 1991), 435–6.

9

Chapter 3

The Search for the 2025 Value Model

After the Analysis team selected a value-focused thinking approach, the next step was to either select an

existing value model or develop a new one. Identifying a current model proved to be a daunting task because

of the scope of the study and the focus on the far future. The participants ranged across all of the military

services and also included numerous allies, civilians, government officials, and industry. Any potential

model also had to satisfy Clemen’s five criteria.1

The Analysis team initially searched for a national-level strategic document that identified priorities for

future air and space forces. It investigated the following sources:

• A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement• National Military Strategy of the United States of America• Defense Planning Guidance• Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)/Joint Warfighting Capabilities Assessment

(JWCA) categories• Global Presence and Global Reach, Global Power• Common operational objectives of the armed forces• Draft Air Force Doctrine Document: Air Force Basic Doctrine (AFDD-1)• Joint Vision 2010• Cornerstones of Information Warfare

None of these models met the requirements of 2025. Each model was grounded in near- or mid-term

thinking, and none seemed to promote thinking “outside of the box” about new ways to employ air and space

forces in the far future. Furthermore, each contains traditional biases focusing on how the Air Force is

organized, while 2025 addresses the dominant employment of air and space forces in the year 2025 and

beyond. The only solution was for the Analysis team to develop a new framework to capture the visionary

thinking that took place during the study.

10

Developing the 2025 Value Model—Foundations 2025

Developing the 2025 value model was a key part of the analysis process. The work began early in

2025, and continued for the duration of the study. The final value model, Foundations 2025, was so named

because it captured the basic values associated with achieving air and space dominance.

Objective

Before making any progress toward developing a value model, the Analysis team needed a clear

statement of the objective. As stated in the introduction, General Fogleman tasked the 2025 participants to

generate ideas and concepts on the capabilities the United States will require to dominate air and space in the

future. This statement was translated into the overarching objective, “Achieve Air and Space Dominance,”

that became the top tier of Foundations 2025.

A Bottom-Up Approach

With this overarching objective defined, the Analysis team could start specifying subtasks, tasks, and

functions. Early on, the team departed from the usual approach to constructing a value model. Conventional

value models are built in a top-down fashion; each level of the model hierarchy is derived from the next

higher level. In contrast to the top-down method, a bottom-up approach makes no a priori assumptions, and

does not establish preconditions. The bottom-up approach results in less institutional bias.

Functions

Functions are the high-level, aggregated tasks that must be accomplished to attain the overarching

objective of air and space dominance. Three functions for the future Air Force emerged from the task

analysis: awareness, reach, and power. Awareness is specified by the tasks detect, understand, and direct.

To have reach requires the ability to deploy, maintain, and replenish. Power comes from the ability to

engage and survive. The Analysis team adopted the following definitions for these three functions:

11

Awareness — knowledge, understanding, or cognizance of some thing or situation throughalertness in observing, detecting, and identifying, so as to enable, direct, and communicatean informed decision.

Reach — ability to move to expand the range or scope of influence or effect, and to sustainthis influence or effect by maintaining and replenishing.

Power — ability to overtly or covertly affect, control, manipulate, deny, exploit, or destroytargets, including forces, people, equipment, and information, and the ability to survivewhile affecting targets.

These definitions are based on the tasks in the affinity diagrams upon which the functions were built

(fig. 3-1), and they suggest the critical functions of air and space forces in the future do not differ significantly

from the functions of today. Where the future begins to diverge from the present is in the detailed means (i.e.,

tasks and subtasks) by which these functions are accomplished.

EngageSurvive

Educate/Train

Communicate

ConfirmAssess

Plan

Decide

DirectIdentify

Integrate

Understand

DetectIn Air In Space

In Cyberspace

On Surface/Subsurface

Replenish

In Air In SpaceOn Surface/Subsurface

DeployIn Air In Space

On Surface/Subsurface

In Air In Space

In Cyberspace

On Surface/Subsurface

In Air In Space

In Cyberspace

On Surface/Subsurface

MaintainReadiness

Sustain

Figure 3-1. Complete Listing of Tasks and Subtasks

The requirement for a set of functions in a value model to be mutually exclusive and collectively

exhaustive results in two critical implications. First, these three 2025 functions should encompass every

12

future air and space force operational activity. Second, awareness, reach, and power are the only

operational activities that contribute to the overarching objective of air and space dominance.

Once the functions were developed, the bottom-up evolution of the subtasks, tasks, and functions in the

Foundations 2025 value model was complete. Figure 3-2 depicts the entire framework of mutually

exclusive and collectively exhaustive functions, tasks, and subtasks to be accomplished by future air and

space forces. Next, force qualities, measures of merit, and scoring functions had to be added to the

framework to link operational value to technical metrics.

Figure 3-2. Foundations of 2025 Value Model

In Air

In Space

In Cyberspace

On Surface/Subsurface

Detect

Identify

Integrate

Understand

Assess

Decide

Plan

Communicate

Confirm

Educate/Train

Direct

Awareness

To Air

To Space

To Surface

Deploy

Readiness

Sustain

Maintain

In Air

In Space

On Surface

Replenish

Reach

In Air

In Space

In Cyberspace

On Surface/Subsurface

Engage

In Air

In Space

In Cyberspace

On Surface

Survive

Power

AchieveAir and Space

Dominance

13

Force Qualities

Though the framework shown in figure 3-2 represented a major breakthrough, it was not a complete

value model. The next step for the Analysis team was to meet with each of the 2025 white paper writing

teams for a second time to determine force qualities based on the teams’ operational expertise, research, and

thoughts about the future. Force qualities are generally adjectives, since they characterize a system’s ability

to accomplish a task or subtask. In many cases, the desired force qualities of a future force did not differ

from qualities expected of today’s force. For example, the force qualities associated with the subtask

identify were accurate, timely, and traceable. The goal was to identify only the most important force

qualities for each subtask.

These force qualities and their corresponding measures of merit were continually refined during a

succession of meetings. After working with each 2025 white paper writing team, the Analysis team was able

to reduce the list of force qualities from the initial number of about 1,200 to the final number of 134. There

are about five force qualities per subtask. The largest number of subtask force qualities was nine and the

fewest was two. Appendix A contains the final force qualities for Foundations 2025 organized under the

functional categories of awareness, reach, and power.

Measures of Merit and Scoring Functions

Corresponding measures of merit were developed at the same time the Analysis team met with the 2025

writing teams to determine force qualities. Each force quality had a measure of merit to calibrate system

performance. For example, a force quality of the subtask deploy to air was range, and the corresponding

measure of merit was miles. The measures of merit became the horizontal axis for the scoring functions used

to evaluate the capabilities of future systems.

14

Analytic Advances

Foundations 2025 represents five important analytic advances. First, the collection of scoring

functions serves as an invaluable resource, even outside the 2025 study. Second, the use of verbs to specify

tasks was a useful step in the value model evolution. Third, the bottom-up approach used in developing

Foundations 2025 was significant because no a priori assumptions were made and no preconditions were

established. Building from the bottom up allowed Foundations 2025 to be free from institutional bias, an

outcome necessary to capture the visionary thinking of 2025. Fourth, Foundations 2025 is a very robust

value model. With five tiers consisting of an overarching objective, three functions, eight tasks, 29 subtasks,

and 134 force qualities (each with a corresponding measure of merit and scoring function)—and all

weighted across six alternate futures—the model can be used to evaluate very diverse systems. Finally,

Foundations 2025 is cast further into the future than any other known military value model.

Figure 3-3 shows the methodology used for the operational analysis. There were two main sets of

participants in the operational analysis, first the AU student white paper writing teams (composed of joint

and allied officers among the top 20 percent of their year groups) and second, a team of expert technologists.

The left-hand column reflects the evaluation of system concepts for operational utility (driven by the operator

teams) while the right-hand column identifies and evaluates the underlying high-leverage technologies (driven

by the technologists).

15

System Scores

Operators

Force Quality Measures of Merit

Systems

Technologists

Systems

Critical Technologies

Technology Scores

Ranked Ranked

SensitivityAnalysis

Value Model Technology Framework

In Air

In Space

In Cyberspace

On Surface/Subsurface

Detect

Identify

Integrate

Understand

Assess

Decide

Plan

Communicate

Confirm

Educate/Train

Direct

Awareness

To Air

To Space

To Surface

Deploy

Readiness

Sustain

Maintain

In Air

In Space

On Surface

Replenish

Reach

In Air

In Space

In Cyberspace

On Surface/Subsurface

Engage

In Air

In Space

In Cyberspace

On Surface

Survive

Power

Achieve Air and

Space Dominance

1.0 - MATERIALS

TECHNOLOGY

2.1 - Automation of

Indu strial Processes,

Syst ems, and

Facto ries

2.2.1 - Numer ic ally

Co ntrolled MachineToo ls

2.2.5 - Robot s,Co ntrollers, and

En d-Eff ectors

2.2 - Metal Workin g

and In dustr i a l

Product io n

2.6 - Micromechanical

De vices

2.0 - INDUST RIAL

PRODUCTION

TECHNOLOGY

4.1.1 - High PerformanceCo mput in g

4.1.2 - Dynamic

Trai ning andSimulation (VR. 1 )

4.1.3 - Sig nal

Processing

4.1.4 - Imag e

Processing ( VR. 2 )

4.1.6 - Speech

Processing Systems

4.1 - Digital Processing

4.2.4 - Hard Real-Time Systems (VR.3)

4.2.5 - Data Fusion

4.2.9 - Artif icial I ntelligence

4.2 - Software

4.3 - Hybrid Computing

4.0 - COMPUTER

TECHNOLOGY

5.1 - Transmission

5.3 - Commu nications

Ne two rk Manage ment

and Cont rol

5.4 - Command ,

Co ntrol, Co mm, and

Intellige nce Systems

5.5 - Inf ormat io n Secu rity

5.0 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TECHNOLOGY

6.1 - Air, Mar ine, Space

Plat form an d Terrestr ial

Ac oustic Sy s tems

6.2 - Optical Sensors

6.4 - Ele ctron ic

Gradiometers

6.6 - Magne tometers

and Magn etic Co mbat

(EC)

6.7 - Gravit y Met ers

and Gra vity

Gradiometers

6.8 - Radar

6.9 - Other Sensor

6.0 - SENSORS AND

EL ECTRONIC

COMBAT

TECHNOLOGY

KEY TECHNOLOGIESTO BE DEVELOPED

Figure 3-3. Operational Analysis Methodology

For the system concept evaluation, Foundations 2025 was used as the value model. For the

technology evaluation, the constructed framework was a logical structuring of technology areas that were

mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. These hierarchies provided the desired characteristics of

objectivity and traceability. The desired robustness quality was assured by performing a sensitivity analysis

at the conclusion of the system concept and technology scoring. Specifically, the sensitivity analysis was

conducted across a number of plausible alternate futures.

With the development of Foundations 2025 complete, the next step in the 2025 operational analysis

was to use the model to evaluate systems. The 2025 white papers provided the key information for

identification and definition of the systems.

16

System Identification

Following a thorough review of the 2025 white papers, the Analysis team identified 43 unique high-

leverage systems. For this operational analysis, a system was defined to be “a functionally related group of

elements that performs a mission or task.” Although some of the identified systems were extracted from a

single white paper, many systems, particularly those involving the collection and management of information,

were composites drawn from capabilities detailed in several of the papers.

The 43 systems are listed in appendix B, categorized by the major functional areas depicted in figure 3-

4. The full descriptions of these systems are found in the 2025 Operational Analysis Technical Report.

1.0 AIR ONLY(Piloted)

2.0 AIR ONLY(Uninhabited)

3.0 SPACEONLY

4.0 AIR &SPACE

VEHICLES

5.0 AIR ANDGROUND-BASED

6.0 SPACE-BASED

WEAPONS

7.0 INDIVIDUAL

8.0 GLOBAL

INFORMATIONSYSTEMS

9.0 OTHER

MISCELLANEOUSSYSTEMS

2025 SYSTEMS

Figure 3-4. System Functional Hierarchy

17

Alternate Futures

The 2025 Alternate Futures team generated and then analyzed over 100 candidate drivers deemed to be

forces acting on the future. That team then synthesized and consolidated these candidates into the three most

important drivers to define a strategic planning space in which alternate futures could be cast (fig. 3-5).

Functional definitions for each of these three drivers are provided below.

(Domestic)

(Global)AmericanWorldview

World Power Grid (Dispersed)TeK

Gulliver's Travails

King Khan

Zaibatsu

2015 Crossroads

Halfs andHalf-Naughts

Digital Cacophony

(Constrained)

(Exponentialn)

(Concentrated)

Figure 3-5. 2025 Alternate Futures Strategic Planning Space

American Worldview. — This driver is the US perspective of the world which determinesthe nation’s willingness and capability to interact with the rest of the world. AmericanWorldview captures the dominant US focus regarding international affairs. The US can beprimarily internally focused, perhaps even isolationist, or the US can be actively engagedin activities around the world. The poles of American Worldview are domestic and global.

∆ ∆ TeK. — This driver is the differential in the growth rate, proliferation, leverage, andvitality of scientific knowledge and technical applications and their consequences. ∆ TeKdescribes the rate of change in both the proliferation and advancement of technology. Thetwo poles of ∆ TeK are Constrained and Exponential. Constrained ∆ TeK implies that

18

technology is advancing at an evolutionary rate and that its availability is limited to arelatively small number of actors. Exponential ∆ TeK occurs when there are revolutionarybreakthroughs in technology that are rapidly proliferated throughout the world.

World Power Grid . — This driver describes the generation, transmission, distribution,and control of power throughout the world. This power is a combination of economic,political, and information sources of power as well as military strength. The two poles ofthis driver are Concentrated and Dispersed. A concentrated world power grid exists whenfew actors have the means or will to influence others. When a myriad of groups orindividuals can change the future, the world power grid is dispersed.

Six alternate futures were chosen from this planning space to provide a diverse set of future conditions

against which to evaluate the proposed air and space systems. Four futures are extremes: Gulliver’s

Travails, Zaibatsu, Digital Cacophony, and King Khan. The world of Halfs and Half-Naughts was chosen

for its centrality. Finally, the 2015 Crossroads future provides a conservative bridge between today and

2025.

In Gulliver’s Travails, the US is overwhelmed with worldwide commitments, counterterrorism and

counterproliferation efforts, humanitarian operations, and peacekeeping operations. In Zaibatsu,

multinational corporations dominate international affairs, loosely cooperating to create a relatively benign

world. Digital Cacophony is the most technologically advanced world resulting in great power and

independence for the individual, but also creating a world of social isolation, fear, and anxiety. King Khan

is a world where US dominance has waned due to domestic problems, an economic depression, and

overshadowing by a rising Asian colossus. The world of Halfs and Half-Naughts is dominated by conflict

between the “haves” and “have-nots” and by dynamically changing social structures and security conditions.

2015 Crossroads uses programmed forces from 1996–2001 to fight a major conflict; it presents the US with a

strategic challenge in 2015 that could lead to any of other alternate futures by 2025.

These six alternate futures provided the fulcrum against which the 2025 Operational Analysis was

applied to determine which of the many systems proposed by the study participants had merit and, hence,

should be pursued by the United States Air Force to ensure air and space dominance in the future.

Notes

1 R. T. Clemen, Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis (Boston, Mass.: PWS-

Kent, 1991), 435–6.

19

Chapter 4

Weighting and Scoring

This chapter describes how Foundations 2025 was used to evaluate future air and space systems. The

process had two steps: first, assign weights to the model hierarchy; second, compute performance scores

using scoring functions.

Weighting the Foundations 2025 Value Model Across Alternate Futures

The first step in using the 2025 value model is for the decision maker to determine the relative

importance of the functions, tasks, subtasks, and force qualities. As described in the previous chapter, the

decision maker weights functions, tasks, subtasks, and force qualities. Because different futures dictate a

different set of required air and space capabilities, the Analysis team obtained value model weights from the

2025 participants for the range of potential future worlds postulated by the 2025 Alternate Futures team. For

each alternate future, the Analysis team used two sets of weights. The first, termed “AU Team weights,” is an

average of the weights assigned by all student members of the 2025 white paper writing teams. The second,

denoted “Alt Futures weights,” is the weights provided solely by the Alternate Futures team. In general, the

Alt Futures weights exhibited greater variation across futures than did the AU Team weights. Weights were

held constant for the force qualities and measures of merit because they were not expected to vary much

across possible futures. The AU Team weights for each future were considered the baseline weights and are

contained in appendix C. The Alternate Futures team weights can be found in the 2025 Operational Analysis

Technical Report.

20

Computing System Performance Using Scoring Functions

The Analysis team worked with the Air University student teams to develop a scoring function for each

measure of merit. The development process was iterative: the analysts presented a variety of functional

forms on graph paper to the student teams, modifying as necessary to achieve a consensus on the scoring

function shape. Computer software allowed the analysts to duplicate these curves within the computer-based

value model, and automate the system scoring.

Each system was scored against every metric for each force quality. The system scores for each metric

were weighted at each level of the hierarchy by the value weights. As this process is continued—working

upwards to the top of the value framework—a weighted average of the system’s scores across the entire

value framework is developed. This overall weighted average is the overall system value.

Technology Identifying and Scoring

Once the 43 unique systems contained in the white papers were identified, the Analysis team

qualitatively analyzed each system to identify which technology areas would be key to achieving the stated

system capabilities. Only those technology areas needing development were considered. For example, if a

specific technology area was critical to a given system’s capability but no new advances were needed in this

area for the system to achieve its full capability, then this technology area was not identified as “high

leverage” for this particular system.

The team felt it highly desirable to identify and group technologies according to a well-known “gold-

standard.” Thus, the DOD document entitled The Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL)1 was used

as the basis for identifying key technology in each system. Across the 43 evaluated systems, 43 key

technology areas were identified (this number is a coincidence); they are shown in appendix D.

To eventually rank technologies by their impact on future air and space capabilities, the team assigned a

relative weight to each technology embedded in a particular system. The weights selected add up to 100 for

each system, and so can be thought of as percentages of the system’s dependence on each technology needing

21

development. For example, the five piloted single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) transatmospheric vehicle (TAV)

technologies were weighted as follows:

Technology Area Weight

Aerospace Structures and Systems 25

High-energy Propellants 25

Ramjet, Scramjet, Combined Cycle Engines 20

Advanced Materials 20

High-performance Computing 10

In this case, since the primary mission of the piloted SSTO TAV is to travel between the surface and

low-earth orbit, the highest-leverage technology areas were those of the vehicle’s primary propulsion and

structural subsystems. Each of these areas were evaluated to be essentially equal in importance. The fifth

technology area, high-performance computing, was added not necessarily because of vehicle requirements,

but rather because the design process for this type of vehicle will take some advances in computing power.

Without advances in high-performance computing, the design process for a TAV with this capability would

be impaired. Using this methodology, each of the systems could be scored.

Once the system-versus-technology matrix is developed, the procedure for scoring the technologies is

straightforward. For each technology, its contribution to each system is multiplied by the system value, and

the resulting products are summed across all systems. The result is a set of technology scores (normalized to

a maximum score of 100) that takes into account both the technologies’ degree of contribution to future air

and space systems and the importance of those systems to air and space operations. This scoring was then

repeated for each alternate future since the system values changed with each future.

Scoring the Systems

A team of technical and operational experts scored all 43 systems against each metric in Foundations

2025. The team followed a consensus-seeking approach to obtain each score. The team was not permitted to

know the shape of the scoring function and was tasked to determine a score for each metric.

The results of the system scoring are summarized in figure 4-1 and figure 4-2. The vertical axis is the

value from the system evaluation on a scale of 0 to 100, where a system value of 0 equates to no score on any

22

of the 134 scoring functions. The horizontal axis is a rank ordering of the systems according to the Analysis

team’s assessment of the relative amount of technical challenge to develop each system. Figure 4-1 shows

the system values for the baseline future. Figure 4-2 shows system values for all six of the alternate futures.

Each system’s values for the various futures are plotted and connected with a line to show the variation of

that system’s value across the alternate futures. The spread of values for each system is the result for the

corners of the 2025 Strategic Planning Space (fig. 3-5). A system’s value for any conceivable alternate

future can be said with high confidence to lie within the range of the points shown.

The curved dashed line provides a further reference for comparing systems. In the Analysis team’s

estimation, systems above the line may have sufficient value to offset the technical challenge of producing

such a system. Thus, systems to the left of the charts need less value to be attractive options than systems to

the right of the chart, because the difficulty of achieving the capability is much less. The location of the line

is somewhat arbitrary. It was drawn fairly low so as not to prematurely eliminate any potentially promising

systems from consideration.

The highest-value systems evaluated in this study are the Global Information Management System

(GIMS), Sanctuary Base, Global Area Strike System (GLASS), Global Surveillance And Reconnaissance

System (GSRT), and uninhabited combat air vehicle (UCAV). GIMS has the highest value but high technical

challenge; GSRT performs some of the functions of GIMS, but with less technical challenge. Because of this,

GSRT could be considered a “stepping stone” to GIMS. Both GLASS and UCAV score well because of a

strong Awareness component to complement their Power contributions, and UCAV is the most feasible of all

the high-value systems in the near term. The Sanctuary Base has high value but also the highest technical

challenge, and may remain infeasible even beyond 2025. The 2025 Operational Analysis Technical Report

contains tables of each system’s value for each future and weight set. Figure 4-3 provides a closer look at

the top 25 percent (11 systems) for the AU Team weights.

It is interesting to note the relationship between the Awareness, Reach, and Power contributions to a

system’s value and the variation between alternate futures. Systems that score similarly in Awareness,

Reach, and Power (e.g., GLASS in Figure 4-2) tend to have the least variation; that is, the line connecting

their values for each future is short. This is because the weighted average of Awareness, Reach, and Power

23

(the overall value) is insensitive to changes in the weights when the Awareness, Reach, and Power values

are of the same magnitude.

The scoring results highlight the fact that a complex system (a system of systems) outperforms any of its

components. This is because of the additive nature of the scoring functions. The complex system scores

more broadly since it contains the capabilities of all of its components. Conversely, since component

systems are unlikely to score in mutually exclusive areas of the value model, the complex system will

generally score less than the simple sum of the component system scores.

Finally, Figure 4-4, Figure 4-5, and Figure 4-6 contain graphs similar to that of Figure 4-2, but for the

Awareness function, the Deploy task of Reach, and the Power function, respectively, using the AU Team

weights. These figures allow the reader to note the systems that score well for a particular function. For

example, Figure 4-4 highlights the best systems in terms of the Awareness function. Such a level of detail

may prove useful when conducting mission area analysis to determine required improvements for specific

functional areas. In fact, the software used in this analysis can display the system values at any level of the

value model.

24

2.5

U

AV

Mo

the

rsh

ip

6.2

S

pa

ce

-Ba

se

dK

ine

tic

En

erg

y W

ea

po

n

9.2

W

ea

the

r A

na

lys

is a

nd

Mo

dif

ica

tio

n S

ys

tem

8.4

M

ult

iba

nd

La

se

r S

en

so

r

5.1

A

dju

sta

ble

Yie

ld M

un

itio

n7

.1

Sp

ok

en

La

ng

ua

ge

Tra

ns

lato

r

7.2

P

ers

on

al

Dig

ita

l A

ss

ista

nt

6.3

S

pa

ce

-Ba

se

dH

PM

We

ap

on

3.1

O

rbit

al

Ma

ne

uv

eri

ng

Ve

hic

le

5.4

S

tan

do

ffH

yp

ers

on

icM

iss

ile

3.2

O

rbit

al

Co

mb

at

Ve

hic

le3

.3

Sa

telli

te B

od

yg

ua

rds

1.3

Co

nta

ine

rA

irc

raft

6.1

G

lob

al

Are

a S

trik

e S

ys

tem

7.3

H

olo

gra

ph

ic W

ar

Ro

om

2.2

R

ec

on

na

iss

an

ce

UA

V

2.3

U

nin

ha

bit

ed

Co

mb

at

Air

Ve

hic

le

5.3

A

irb

orn

eH

PM

We

ap

on

5.2

A

dv

an

ce

dA

ir-t

o-A

ir M

iss

ile

6.6

S

ola

r E

ne

rgy

Op

tic

al

We

ap

on

6.5

S

ola

r-P

ow

ere

d H

igh

-E

ne

rgy

La

se

r S

ys

tem

1.1

H

yp

ers

on

icA

tta

ck

Air

cra

ft

6.4

S

pa

ce

-Ba

se

dH

igh

En

erg

y L

as

er

8.5

A

ste

roid

De

tec

tio

n S

ys

tem

1.4

L

igh

ter-

tha

n-A

ir A

irlif

ter

2.4

P

rec

isio

n D

eliv

ery

Sy

ste

m2

.1 S

trik

e U

AV

8.2

G

lob

al

Su

rve

illa

nc

e,

Re

co

nn

ais

sa

nc

e,

an

dT

arg

eti

ng

Sy

ste

m

8.1

G

lob

al

Info

rma

tio

nM

an

ag

em

en

t S

ys

tem

4.1

P

ilote

dS

ST

O T

AV

4.2

U

nin

ha

bit

ed

Air

-La

un

ch

ed

TA

V

5.5

A

tta

ck

Mic

rob

ots

1.2

F

oto

fig

hte

r

8.3

S

en

so

rM

icro

bo

ts

9.1

M

ob

ile A

ss

et

Re

pa

ir S

tati

on

1.6

S

tea

lth

Air

lifte

r

1.5

S

up

ers

on

icA

irlif

ter

2.6

E

xfi

ltra

tio

nR

oc

ke

t5

.6

Air

bo

rne

Ho

log

rap

hic

Pro

jec

tor

6.7

A

ste

roid

Mit

iga

tio

nS

ys

tem

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Te

ch

no

log

y C

ha

llen

ge

V a l u e

Ac

hie

ve

Air

an

d S

pa

ce

Do

min

an

ce

“Ha

lfs

” F

utu

re,

AU

Te

am

We

igh

tsS

ys

tem

s O

rde

red

by

Te

ch

no

log

y C

ha

lle

ng

e

Fig

ure

4-1.

Sys

tem

Val

ues

for

the

Bas

elin

e F

utur

e

25

2.1

S

trik

e U

AV

2.4

P

reci

sion

Del

ive

ry S

yste

m

1.4

L

igh

ter-

tha

n-A

irA

irlif

ter

8.5

A

ste

roid

Det

ect

ion

Sys

tem

1.2

5.5

A

ttack

Mic

rob

ots

6.5

S

ola

r-P

ow

ere

dH

igh

-En

ergy

Las

er

4.1

P

ilote

dS

ST

O T

AV

3.2

O

rbita

lC

omb

atV

ehi

cle

7.3

V

irtu

alIn

tera

ctio

n C

en

ter

6.4

S

pace

-Ba

sed

Hig

h-E

ner

gy L

ase

r

6.1

G

lob

al A

rea

Str

ike

Sys

tem

9.3

Sa

nct

ua

ryB

ase

8.1

G

lob

al I

nfo

rma

tion

Ma

na

ge

me

nt S

yste

m

2.2

R

eco

nn

UA

V

2.3

U

nin

hab

ited

Com

bat

Air

Veh

icle

8.2

G

lob

al S

urv

eill

an

ce,

Re

conn

ais

san

ce,

and

Ta

rge

ting

Sys

tem

4.2

U

nin

hab

ited

Air

-La

unch

ed

TA

V

8.3

3.3

1.1

5.7

7.2

6.3

5.1

6.2

2.5

9.2

8.4

7.1

5.4

5.6

6.7

3.1

5.25

.31

.3

1.5

1.6

9.1

6.6

2.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Te

chn

olo

gy

Ch

alle

ng

e

V a l u e

Gu

lliv

er'

s

Za

iba

tsu

Kh

an

Dig

ital

20

15

Ha

lfs

1.7

Glo

ba

l Tra

nsp

ort

A

ircr

aft

Ac

hie

ve

Air

an

d S

pa

ce

Su

pe

rio

rity

AU

We

igh

ts,

Ord

ere

d b

y T

ec

hn

olo

gy

Ch

alle

ng

e

Fig

ure

4-2.

Fin

al S

yste

m V

alue

s

264.2

U

nin

ha

bit

ed

Air

-La

un

che

d T

AV

4.1

P

ilote

dS

ST

O T

AV

6.4

S

pa

ce

-Ba

se

dH

igh

-En

erg

y L

ase

r

5.5

A

tta

ck

Mic

rob

ots

6.5

S

ola

r-P

ow

ere

dH

igh

-En

erg

y L

ase

r

6.1

G

lob

al A

rea

Str

ike

Sys

tem

2.3

U

nin

ha

bit

ed

Co

mb

at

Air

Ve

hic

le

2.2

R

eco

nn

UA

V

8.2

G

lob

al

Su

rve

illa

nc

e,

Re

co

nn

ais

sa

nc

e,

an

d T

arg

eti

ng

S

yst

em

8.1

G

lob

al

Info

rma

tion

M

an

ag

em

en

t S

yst

em

9.3

Sa

nc

tua

ryB

as

e

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Te

ch

no

log

y C

ha

llen

ge

V a l u e

Gu

lliv

er'

s

Za

iba

tsu

Kh

an

Dig

ital

20

15

Ha

lfs

To

p E

lev

en

Sy

ste

ms

, A

U T

ea

m W

eig

hts

Ord

ere

d b

y T

ec

hn

olo

gy

Ch

all

en

ge

Fig

ure

4-3.

Top

Ele

ven

Sys

tem

s

27

2.1

2.41

.4 L

igh

ter-

tha

n-a

irA

irli

fte

r

8.5

A

ste

roid

De

tec

tio

nS

ys

tem

1.2

Fo

tofi

gh

ter

5.5

6.5

S

ola

r-P

ow

ere

dH

igh

-En

erg

y L

as

er

4.1

P

ilo

ted

SS

TO

TA

V

3.2

Orb

ita

l C

om

ba

tV

eh

icle

7.3

V

irtu

al

Inte

rac

tio

n C

en

ter

6.4

S

pa

ce

-Ba

se

dH

igh

-En

erg

y L

as

er

6.1

G

lob

al

Are

aS

trik

e S

ys

tem

9.3

Sa

nc

tua

ryB

as

e

8.1

G

lob

al

Info

rma

tio

nM

an

ag

em

en

t S

ys

tem

2.2

R

ec

on

nU

AV

2.3

U

nin

ha

bit

ed

Co

mb

at

Air

Ve

hic

le

8.2

G

lob

al

Su

rve

illa

nc

e,

Re

co

nn

ais

sa

nc

e,

an

dT

arg

eti

ng

Sy

ste

m

4.2

U

nin

ha

bit

ed

Air

-La

un

ch

ed

TA

V

8.3

3.3

Sa

telli

teB

od

yg

ua

rds

1.1

Hy

pe

rso

nic

Att

ac

k A

irc

raft

5.7

7.2

Pe

rso

na

lD

igit

al

As

sis

tan

t

6.3

5.1

6.2

2.5

9.2

8.4

7.1

5.4

5.6

6.7

3.1

5.2

5.3

1.3

1.5

1.6

9.1

6.6

2.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10

0

Te

ch

no

log

y C

ha

llen

ge

V a l u e

Gu

lliv

er'

s

Za

iba

tsu

Kh

an

Dig

ita

l

20

15

Ha

lfs

1.7

Aw

are

ne

ss

AU

We

igh

ts,

Ord

ere

d b

y T

ec

hn

olo

gy

Ch

all

en

ge

Fig

ure

4-4.

Aw

aren

ess V

alue

s

28

De

plo

y(O

nly

th

os

e w

ith

va

lue

gre

ate

r th

an

0 a

re s

ho

wn

)A

U W

eig

hts

(“H

alf

s")

Sy

ste

ms

Ord

ere

d b

y T

ec

hn

olo

gy

Ch

alle

ng

e1

.4

Lig

hte

r-th

an

-Air

Air

lifte

r

2.4

P

reci

sio

nD

eliv

ery

Sy

ste

m

1.5

S

up

ers

on

icA

irlif

ter

1.7

Glo

ba

lT

ran

sp

ort

Air

cra

ft

1.6

S

tea

lth

Air

lifte

r

2.6

E

xfi

ltra

tion

Ro

cke

t

1.3

Co

nta

ine

rA

irc

raft

3.1

O

rbita

lM

an

eu

veri

ng

Ve

hic

le

3.2

O

rbita

lC

om

ba

tV

eh

icle

4.1

P

ilote

dS

ST

O T

AV

4.2

U

nin

ha

bite

dA

ir-L

au

nch

ed

TA

V

1.1

H

ype

rso

nic

Att

ac

k A

irc

raft

6.1

G

lob

al

Are

aS

trik

e S

yste

m

2.5

U

AV

Mo

the

rsh

ip

10

20

30

40

50

Te

ch

no

log

y C

ha

llen

ge

V a l u e

Fig

ure

4-5.

Dep

loy

Val

ues

- “H

alfs

” F

utur

e

29

1.2

F

oto

fig

hte

r

8.1

G

lob

al I

nfo

rma

tio

nM

an

ag

em

en

t S

yste

m

9.3

Sa

nct

ua

ryB

ase

6.5

S

ola

r-P

ow

ere

dH

igh

-En

erg

y L

ase

r

6.3

S

pa

ce-B

ase

d H

igh

Po

we

r

Mic

row

ave

We

ap

on

6.4

S

pa

ce-B

ase

d

Hig

h-E

ne

rgy

La

ser

5.7

Hyb

rid

Hig

h-

En

erg

y L

as

er

5.3

A

irb

orn

e H

igh

Po

we

r M

icro

wa

ve W

ea

po

n

2.3

U

nin

ha

bite

dC

om

ba

t A

ir V

eh

icle

2.1

S

trik

e U

AV

6.6

S

ola

r E

ne

rgy

Op

tica

l We

ap

on 5.2

5.6

5.4

3.2

8.2

4.1

4.2

3.3

5.1

9.2

1.6

1.3

6.7

2.2

7.3

2.6

2.4

8.5

1.4

1.7

1.5

9.1

3.1

7.2

7.1

2.5

8

.4

6.2

S

pa

ce-B

ase

dK

ine

tic E

ne

rgy

We

ap

on

6.1

G

lob

al A

rea

Str

ike

Sys

tem

8.3

S

en

sor

Mic

rob

ots

1.1

H

ype

rso

nic

Att

ack

Air

cra

ft

5.5

A

tta

ckM

icro

bo

ts

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Te

ch

no

log

y C

ha

llen

ge

V a l u e

Gu

lliv

er'

s

Za

iba

tsu

Kh

an

Dig

ita

l

20

15

Ha

lfs

Po

we

rA

U W

eig

hts

, O

rde

red

by

Te

ch

no

log

y C

ha

llen

ge

Fig

ure

4-6.

Pow

er V

alue

s

30

Scoring the Technologies

The baseline technology assessment is summarized in figure 4-7 for each of the alternate futures. This

assessment considers all 43 systems scored, and the Value Model was weighted by all AU white paper

writing teams. The score for each technology area was calculated by multiplying the percentage dependence

of each of the systems on that development technology by the score that system received in the Value Model.

The scores were then summed across all systems with the final result being normalized to a maximum score

of 100. These scores are measures of the potential of each enabling technology to improve operational

effectiveness in air and space.

In the “Halfs and Half-Naughts” alternate future, which is placed in the center of the strategic planning

space for this study, the technology areas clearly divide into three groupings: the top seven technologies

(high leverage), the next five technologies (moderate leverage), and the bottom 31 technologies (less

leverage). Figure 4-8 shows an expanded view of the top two technology groupings for each alternate future.

As a verification of these results, the Analysis team decided to examine the analysis of the technologies

by considering their interaction with only the 11 top-scoring systems. These results are shown in Figure 4-9:

the three technology groups generally remained, although the top two groupings contain six technology areas

each rather than seven and five, respectively, as in the previous case. The six high-leverage technologies all

appeared in the previous high-leverage grouping. Further, 11 of the top 12 technologies remained the same.

Lastly, seven of the total 43 technology areas were not applicable when the systems considered were

narrowed to the top 11 scorers.

Within technology groupings, the rank changed when going from considering all 43 systems to

considering only the 11 top-scoring systems. However, with only three exceptions, technology areas did not

change their respective groupings. These exceptions were Aerospace Structures (9.5.4) and Vehicle Flight

Control (7.3), which both dropped to a lower-technology grouping—from high and moderate leverage to

moderate and less leverage, respectively—and Communications (5.1), which jumped to a higher technology

grouping, from lesser leverage to moderate leverage. The results of these two assessments are summarized in

31

table 1 for the high and moderate leverage technologies. The numbers in parentheses indicate the appropriate

MCTL category that further defines the technology area.

A common trend among the higher-leverage technologies was they had wide applicability over the

systems. When all 43 systems were considered, the high-leverage technologies scored in at least 13 different

systems; the maximum number of systems where any technology area scored was 27. Moderate-leverage

technologies scored in eight to 12 different systems. When the systems considered were reduced to the 11

top-scoring ones, the high-leverage technologies scored in at least five systems; the maximum number of

systems where any technology area scored was nine. Moderate leverage technologies scored in either three

or four different systems. In both assessments, high-performance computing (4.1.1) was the technology area

with the broadest coverage over the systems considered.

After each technology area had been scored, AFIT’s Graduate School of Engineering assembled a

committee from its senior staff to determine the key technology driver, the DOD or the commercial sector, for

that particular area. They further ascertained the direction of each developmental effort, whether from the

DOD to the commercial sector, from the commercial sector to the DOD, or remaining constant. Table 2

summarizes the key technology development leaders for the high leverage technologies. The 2025

Operational Analysis Technical Report provides this data for all 43 technologies.

Table 1

Technology Assessment

ALL 43 SYSTEMS TOP 11 SYSTEMSPower Systems (10.3) Data Fusion (4.2.5)Advanced Materials (1.0) Power Systems (10.3)

HIGH LEVERAGE Aerospace Structures (9.5.4) Micromechanical Devices (2.6)TECHNOLOGIES High Performance Computing (4.1.1) Advanced Materials (1.0)

Micromechanical Devices (2.6) High-Energy Propellants (12.7)High-Energy Propellants (12.7) High-Performance Computing (4.1.1)Data Fusion (4.2.5)

High-Energy Laser Systems (11.1)Artificial Intelligence (4.2.9) Artificial Intelligence (4.2.9)

MODERATE LEVERAGE High-Energy Laser Systems (11.1) Optics (10.2)TECHNOLOGIES Vehicle Flight Control (7.3) Image Processing (4.1.4)

Image Processing (4.1.4) Aerospace Structures (9.5.4)Optics (10.2) Communications (5.1)

32

Table 2

Technology Development Leaders for High Leverage Technologies

KEY TECHNOLOGY DOD LEADBOTHDOD &COMM

COMM LEAD

4.2.5 Data Fusion X--->10.3 Power Systems X2.6 Micromechanical Devices X--->1.0 Advanced Materials X12.7 High-energy Propellants X4.1.1 High-performance Computing X

33

0123456789

10

10.3

1.0

9.5.4

4.1.1

2.6

12.7

4.2.5

4.2.9

11.1

7.3

4.1.4

10.2

2.2.5

5.1

11.2

9.2

4.1.2

4.1.3

6.2

9.5.1

4.2.4

6.8

5.4

5.5

10.1

9.5.2

9.1

5.3

6.9

11.4.4

11.4.2

9.8

2.1

6.4

12.1

4.3

6.1

4.1.6

13.3

6.6

6.7

2.2.1

9.4

Mili

tary

Cri

tical

Tec

hnol

ogy

Lis

t T

echn

olo

gy C

ateg

orie

s

V a l u e

GU

LL

IVE

R'S

ZA

IBA

TS

U

KH

AN

DIG

ITA

L

20

15

HA

LF

SH

igh

Leve

rag

e

Mo

der

ate

Lev

erag

e

Les

s Le

vera

ge

Fig

ure

4-7.

Tec

hnol

ogy

Ran

king

s (A

ll 43

Sys

tem

s, A

U S

tude

nts

Wei

ghts

)

34

35

Po

we

r S

yste

ms

Ad

va

nce

d M

ate

ria

ls

Ae

rosp

ace

Str

uc

ture

s

Hig

h-P

erf

orm

an

ce C

om

pu

ting

ME

MS

Hig

h-E

ne

rgy

Pro

pe

llan

ts

Da

ta F

usi

on

Art

ifici

al I

nte

llig

en

ceH

igh

-En

erg

yL

ase

r S

yste

ms

Ve

hic

le F

ligh

tC

on

tro

lIm

ag

eP

roce

ssin

gOp

tics

2345678910

V a l u e

GU

LL

IVE

R'S

ZA

IBA

TS

UK

HA

ND

IGIT

AL

20

15

HA

LF

SH

igh

Le

vera

ge

Mo

de

rate

Le

vera

ge Le

ss L

eve

rag

e

Fig

ure

4-8.

Top

Tw

elve

Tec

hnol

ogy

Ran

king

s (A

ll 43

Sys

tem

s, A

U S

tude

nts

Wei

ghts

)

36

Da

ta F

us

ion

Po

we

r S

ys

tem

s

ME

MS

Ad

va

nc

ed

Ma

teri

als

Hig

h-E

ne

rgy

Pro

pe

llan

tsH

igh

-Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e C

om

pu

tin

g

Hig

h-E

ne

rgy

La

se

r S

ys

tem

sA

rtif

icia

lIn

telli

ge

nc

e

Op

tic

s Ima

ge

Pro

ce

ss

ingA

ero

sp

ac

eS

tru

ctu

res

Co

mm

un

ica

tio

ns

23456789

10

V a l u e

GU

LL

IVE

R'S

ZA

IBA

TS

UK

HA

ND

IGIT

AL

20

15

HA

LF

S

Hig

h L

ev

era

ge

Mo

de

rate

Le

ve

rag

e

Le

ss

Le

ve

rag

e

Fig

ure

4-9.

Top

Tw

elve

Tec

hnol

ogy

Ran

king

s (T

op 1

1 S

yste

ms,

AU

Stu

dent

s W

eigh

ts)

37

Notes

1 The Military Critical Technologies List (Washington, D. C.: Office of the Undersecretary of Defense

for Acquisition, October 1992).

38

Chapter 5

Conclusions

The 2025 Operational Analysis (OA) was a key milestone in the 2025 process and provided a number

of unique contributions. Most importantly, it met its fundamental purpose—the OA identified future air and

space systems required to support air and space dominance and the key technologies that will make those

systems possible. Further contributions are covered in the following order:

• the major implications of the study results,

• the lessons learned during the 2025 OA process,

• the limitations of the study, and

• the major implications of the 2025 OA for the future.

Major Implications of the 2025 Operational Analysis

This analysis strongly suggests that the high ground of improved awareness offers significant potential

for achieving future air and space dominance. Typically, top-scoring systems possessed higher degrees of

awareness and/or were predominantly space systems:

• Global Information Management System (GIMS)

• Sanctuary Base (SB)

• Global Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting System (GSRT)

• Global Area Strike System (GLASS)

• Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV)

• Space-Based High-Energy Laser (Space HEL)

39

• Solar High-Energy Laser (Solar HEL)

• Reconnaissance Unmanned Air Vehicle (Recon UAV)

• Attack Microbots

• Piloted Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) Transatmospheric Vehicle (TAV)

• Uninhabited Air-Launched TAV

Seven of the top eight systems emphasized the awareness function. GSRT can be thought of as a first

generation GIMS; it obtains most of the value of GIMS with much less technological challenge. Both systems

scored high because the management of information tasks was assigned high weights by the 2025 white paper

writing teams. Such systems go beyond data fusion to knowledge fusion; they provide a global view that

could revolutionize military operations. Improved awareness is critically important because it enables

virtually all other air and space force capabilities.

This analysis also suggests control of the high ground of space will be very important. Of the top 11

systems, only three do not operate in space or use major space-based components. Space-based weapons are

significant contributors to the operational effectiveness of future air and space operations. They provide key

capabilities in space defense, ballistic missile defense, defense of terrestrial forces, and terrestrial power

projection. Of the weapon systems evaluated, the Space HEL laser seems to hold the most promise, largely

because its optical system could also be used for surveillance and imaging missions (an awareness function).

Other systems that scored well were the Solar HEL, the Space-Based Kinetic Energy Weapon, and the

Space-Based High-Powered Microwave. Spacelift is another essential contributor to future space

operations (i.e., reusable transatmospheric vehicles provide critical lift capability to improve virtually all

space force capabilities).

This analysis also suggests that improved power will be best accomplished through improved speed,

precision, and on-station time. The 2025 white paper writing teams viewed the reduction of the OODA

(observe, orient, decide, act) loop to an OODA “point” as critical to future operations. All of the “shooter”

systems that emphasized awareness scored high by reducing the time to identify, target, and kill threats.

Among these systems are the GLASS, the Space HEL, and the Solar HEL. The envisioned systems

emphasized the increased need for precision over mass, especially with respect to avoiding excess collateral

damage

40

The constant quick response requirement of future combat meant many of the systems either were global

or used uninhabited air vehicles (UAVs). It is important to note that while the UAVs are uninhabited, none

are envisioned as operating autonomously without a human in the loop. Such an improved on-station power

capability is important because it provides a constant deterrent to enemy forces.

Key to this analysis was the use of several possible alternate futures as the basis for the sensitivity

analysis. Because the analysis was conducted across a number of alternate futures and the resulting

conclusions remain basically the same across those futures for any reasonable set of weights a future decision

maker might apply, this is an excellent initial set of systems to consider for future employment of air and

space power.

The technology assessment portion of the study identified six high-leverage technologies that are

important to a large number of high-scoring systems:

• Data Fusion

• Power Systems

• Micromechanical Devices

• Advanced Materials

• High-Energy Propellants

• High-Performance Computing

Advances in these areas show promise to substantially improve a wide range of air and space

operations. Other technologies were also important, but contributed to only three or four of the high-value

systems. Among the top-scoring medium-leverage technologies were:

• High-Energy Laser Systems

• Artificial Intelligence

• Optics

• Aerospace Structures

• Image Processing

• Communications

Some of the high-leverage technologies enabling 2025 systems, such as high-performance computing,

are being pursued aggressively in the commercial sector. Others, such as power systems, have lower

commercial interest. An expanded analysis of the 2025 systems and their embedded technologies can help

develop the most effective DOD investment strategy.

41

Operational Analysis Lessons Learned

Foremost among the 2025 OA lessons learned was that the value-focused thinking approach worked

very well. The Foundations 2025 value model has been used to evaluate systems that span the full range of

future air and space combat operations. These systems are conceptual system ideas that will require

significant research and development to design and evaluate. The OA provided a structure to incorporate the

subjective judgments of operational and technical experts to produce objective, traceable, and robust results.

The focus of the value model, Foundations 2025, was on the employment of air and space forces. This

model does not consider the USAF functional areas required to organize, train, and equip. As it became

apparent that none of the current doctrinal frameworks were free of these functional views, the value model

was developed from the bottom up. In taking this approach, the Analysis team reduced the institutional biases

associated with the numerous stovepipes in the current USAF organizational structure.

Study Limitations

It is important to remember that the analysis did not take into account the cost or risk of developing any

of the system concepts. It looked only briefly at the technological challenge of each system concept. While

this study indicates some systems and technologies that show promise for dramatically improving the

effectiveness of air and space operations, there are other important factors that need to be considered before

making an investment decision.

A consequence of most value models is that a complex system (or system of systems) that performs

many tasks generally outscores a similar system that performs only a few of the tasks. Also, for Foundations

2025, a system’s sphere of influence is primarily measured by its range, which is only one force quality. For

example, the Sanctuary Base scores high because it has awareness, reach, and power capabilities. Yet, it has

a 500-mile range limitation on most of those capabilities. Foundations 2025 would show only a small

difference between the Sanctuary Base and a similar system with global range.

42

Major Implications for the Future

A number of senior decision makers have viewed the model and commented that the best use of

Foundations 2025 may be an analysis of systems within the distinct spheres of awareness, reach, and

power. They envision separating and developing each function of the model further (refining the tasks,

subtasks, force qualities, measures of merit, and scoring functions) and studying which awareness (or reach

or power) systems are most promising. These three separate models could be effective mission area analysis

tools for the major commands.

The completed Foundations 2025 value model is the starting point for Value Focused Thinking with

the Department of Defense. For any function, task, or subtask, the model can be used to evaluate current and

projected systems. Next, the acquisition community can focus on how new concepts can be developed to

significantly increase value. Many individual and various creativity techniques can be used to develop these

new concepts.

Another opportunity to capitalize on the Foundations 2025 model is to use it as a framework for future

air and space doctrine. Because it identifies fundamental functions, tasks, and subtasks, it could be the

foundation for joint doctrine for future air and space warriors. The 2025 analysis techniques could be used

to develop an entirely new joint military doctrine free from current institutional bias.

Summary

The 2025 operational analysis is an important point for further discussion and analysis. It completed

the 2025 process by identifying the most promising systems and enabling technologies required to provide

dominant air and space power for Air Force of the twenty-first century.

43

Appendix A

Foundations 2025 Value Model

This appendix shows the Foundations 2025 Value Model (fig. A-1 through fig. A-4). The full set of

scoring functions can be found in the 2025 Operational Analysis Technical Report.

In A ir

In Spa ce

In Cybe rsp ac e

On Surface /Sub surface

Dete ct

I dent ify

I nte gra te

Unders tand

Ass es s

Dec ide

P lan

Communic ate

Confirm

E duca te /Tr ain

D ire ct

Aw a r e ne s s

To Ai r

To Spa ce

To Surfac e

Deplo y

Rea dines s

Sus tain

Ma intai n

In A ir

In S pac e

On S urfac e

Re ple ni sh

Re a c h

In A ir

In Sp ac e

In Cybe rs pac e

On S urfac e/Subsurface

E ngage

In A ir

In Spa ce

In Cybe rsp ac e

On Surfa ce

S ur viv e

P o w e r

Achieve Air and SpaceD om in anc e

Figure A-1. Value Model: Top Level

44

Co ve rag e

Tim ely

A ccu ra te

S co pe

Re so lu tio n

S en so r V arie t y

Un ob t rus ive

In Air

Co ve ra ge

Tim el y

A ccu ra te

S co pe

Re so lu tio n

S en so r V ari et y

Un o bt ru sive

Ra n ge

In Space

Tim ely

A ccu ra te

S en so r V arie t y

Un ob t rus ive

In Cyberspace

Co ve ra ge

Tim el y

A ccu ra te

S en so r V ari et y

Un o bt ru sive

Re so lu tio n

S co pe

On Surface/Subsurface

Detect

A c cu rat e

T im e ly

T ra ce ab le

Ident ify

B a t tle sp a ce V ie w

T im e ly

C o rrela t io n

Integrate

Understand

Do ct r in e

T ec h/ O ps K n o w le d ge

T ec h/ O ps S k ills

C ri tica l/C rea tive T hin king

Educate/Train

O wn S ta t us

O t he rs S ta t us

E n viro n m e nt

Assess

E f fe ct ive

E f fic ien t

Plan

D ec isio n B a sis

Q u al ity

Decide

S e cu re

C ap a cit y

I n te ro pe ra bl e

T a ilo red

H um an In t era ct io n

Communicate

B D A

F e ed b ac k

Confirm

D irect

A w are ne s s

Figure A-2. Value Model: Awareness

45

P ay loa d W eigh t

P ay loa d Volu m e

R a nge

R e sp ons ive

M u lti role

T o Air

P ay loa d W eigh t

P ay loa d Volu m e

R e sp ons ive

R e usable

S pec if ic Im pl use

P erform a nce A

P erform a nce B

T o Space

P ay loa d W eigh t

P ay loa d Volu m e

R a nge

F o rw ard Ba s ing R eqm ts

R e sp ons ive

M u lti role

T o Surface

D ep loy

A vailab le

S upp ortabl e

R ead iness

F o otprint

P ipe line

S usta in

M ain ta in

T im e ly

A ccu rate

T ra ns fe r

M u lti co m m odity

T ra ns fe r Ra te

In A ir

T im e ly

A ccu rate

T ra ns fe r

R e usable

T ra ns fe r Ra te

In Sp ace

T im e ly

A ccu rate

T ra ns fe r

O n Su rface

R ep lenish

Reach

Figure A-3. Value Model: Reach

P recisio n

T im ely

R a n g e

D e sired Le th al i ty

R e u sab le Plat fo rm

W e ap o n C ap ac ity

M u lti ro le

U n o b tru sive

S co p e

In A ir

T im ely

R a n g e

D e sired Le th al i ty

R e u sab le Plat fo rm

W e ap o n C ap ac ity

M u lti ro le

U n o b tru sive

S co p e

In Sp ace

P recisio n

T im ely

D e sired Le th al i ty

M u lti ro le

U n o b tru sive

In C yb erspace

P recisio n

T im ely

E n g ag em en t En v elo pe

D e sired Le th al i ty

R e u sab le Plat fo rm

W e ap o n C ap ac ity

M u lti ro le

U n o b tru sive

S co p e

O n Sur face/Su b sur face

En ga ge

D e tec tab le

C o u n te rm ea su res

V u lne ra b le

R e co ve rab le

In A ir

D e tec tab le

C o u n te rm ea su res

V u lne ra b le

R e co ve rab le

In Sp ace

D e tec tab le

C o u n te rm ea su res

V u lne ra b le

R e co ve rab le

In C yb erspace

D e tec tab le

C o u n te rm ea su res

V u lne ra b le

R e co ve rab le

O n Sur face

Su rv ive

P ow er

Figure A-4. Value Model: Power

46

Appendix B

System Descriptions

This appendix provides a short description of each of the 43 systems identified in the AF 2025 study.

Figure B-1 shows the system hierarchy, categorized by functional area. Each system description contains a

brief narrative; a more complete description that includes a list of capabilities, a list of enabling

technologies, and a list of the 2025 white papers relating to the system can be found in the 2025 Operational

Analysis Technical Report.

1.1 HypersonicAttack Aircraft

1.2 Fotofighter

1.3 ContainerAircraft

1.4 Lighter-than-AirAirlifter

1.5 SupersonicAirlifter

1.6 StealthAirlifter

1.7 GlobalTransport Aircraft

1.0 AIR ONLY(Piloted)

2.1 Strike UAV

2.2 Recon UAV

2.3 UninhabitedCombat Air Vehicle

2.4 PrecisionDelivery System

2.5 UAVMothership

2.6 ExfiltrationRocket

2.0 AIR ONLY(Uninhabited)

3.1 OrbitalManeuvering Veh

3.2 OrbitalCombat Vehicle

3.3 SatelliteBodyguards

3.0 SPACEONLY

4.1 Piloted SSTOTAV

4.2 UninhabitedAir-Launched TAV

4.0 AIR &SPACE

VEHICLES

5.1 AdjustableYield Munition

5.2 AdvancedAir-to-Air Missile

5.3 AirborneHPM Weapon

5.4 StandoffHypersonic Missile

5.5 AttackMicrobots

5.6 AirborneHolographic Proj

5.7 Hybrid High-Energy Laser

5.0 AIR ANDGROUND-BASED

6.1 Global AreaStrike System

6.2 Space-BasedKE Weapon

6.3 Space-BasedHPM Weapon

6.4 Space-BasedHigh-Energy Laser

6.5 Solar-PoweredHigh-Energy Laser

6.6 Solar EnergyOptical Weapon

6.7 AsteroidMitigation System

6.0 SPACE-BASED

WEAPONS

7.1 Spoken LangTranslator

7.2 Personal DigitalAssistant

7.3 VirtualInteraction Center

7.0 INDIVIDUAL

8.1 Global InformMgmt System

8.2 Global Surveil,Recon, & Tgt Sys

8.3 SensorMicrobots

8.4 MultibandLaser Sensor Sys

8.5 AsteroidDetection System

8.0 GLOBAL

INFORMATIONSYSTEMS

9.1 Mobile AssetRepair Station

9.2 Wx Analysis &Mod System

9.3 SanctuaryBase

9.0 OTHER

MISCELLANEOUSSYSTEMS

2025 SYSTEMS

Figure B-1. System Hierarchy

1.1 Hypersonic Attack Aircraft A high-speed strike vehicle capable of projecting lethal force anywhere inthe world in less than four hours. Operating at Mach 12 and a cruise altitude of 100,000 ft, this vehicle is areusable two-stage system comprised of an unmanned boost vehicle and a manned hypersonic strike aircraft.The gas turbine-engined boost vehicle requires a conventional runway and accelerates the strike vehicle toMach 3.5 and 65,000 ft. The strike vehicle then separates and uses a ramjet/scramjet engine to reach itscruise condition. The total system range is 10,000 nautical miles (NM); the hypersonic strike vehicle has an

47

unrefueled range of 5,000 NM. It is capable of launching precision-guided munitions, including thehypersonic air-to-ground missile described in system 5.4, at a standoff distance of 1,450 NM. Alternatively,the platform may be used to transport an uninhabited unmanned air vehicle described in system 4.2.

1.2 FotoFighter A highly maneuverable, stealthy, inhabited advanced fighter aircraft whose skin is fittedwith an array of diode lasers and sensors. Efficient electronic control of the laser arrays allows this fighterto engage multiple targets simultaneously with varying degrees of lethality. At low powers, the arrays canfunction as transmitters and receivers for low probability of interception (LPI) communications. Threatdetection, target illumination, and tracking are also possible.

1.3 Container Aircraft An aircraft consisting of an airlifter in which standard shipping containers formintegral structures of the fuselage. The aircraft consists of three baseline sections: the cockpit, the wingbox,and the empennage. In its simplest form, the “short” version—the aircraft is capable of flight by joining thecockpit, wingbox, and empennage directly together. With standard shipping containers installed between thecockpit and wingbox and between the wingbox and the empennage, the aircraft can be configured to carrycargo (“stretch” version). The first wave of container aircraft to arrive in a theater of operations“disassembled.” The cockpit then forms a command and control facility, the aircraft engines generate thebase power, the wings provide fuel storage, and the containers themselves (when empty) provide shelter fortroops, supplies, and equipment. This concept provides a mobile base.

1.4 Lighter-than-Air Airlifter A very large capacity, rigid-frame lighter-than-air vehicle that provides onemillion pound airlift capability with a unrefueled range of 1,2500 NM. This vehicle also has the ability todeploy and recover powered UAVs while stationary or in-transit. Vehicle is able to house support materiel,personnel, and MEDVAC modules depending upon mission requirements.

1.5 Supersonic Airlifter A Mach 2.4 supersonic airlifter that provides 50,000 pound airlift capability witha unrefueled range of 5,000 NM. This vehicle provides the capability to deliver military personnel (roughly150), advanced precision weapons, and appropriate resupply anywhere in the world within hours.

1.6 Stealth Airlifter (SA) An all-weather, low-observable aircraft capable of low supersonic cruise anddedicated to special operations forces (SOF). With an unrefueled range up to 4,000 NM, it can be used toinsert and extract SOF teams, as well as to extract high value assets (HVA) and weapons of mass destruction.The SA connected to a global information management system (say, GIMS System 8.1) for all sourceintelligence, weather, navigation, and communications.

1.7 Global Transport Aircraft (GTA) A global reach transport airplane of less than one million poundstake off gross weight, capable of carrying 150,000-250,000 pounds 12,000 to 10,000 NM respectively. Thisvehicle also can deploy powered UAVs and parafoils. The GTA house support materiel, personnel, andMEDVAC modules, depending upon mission requirements. This aircraft also be modified for use as a tanker.

2.1 Strike UAV A low-observable, uninhabited air vehicle that loiters subsonically over the region ofinterest for long periods of time (24+ hours) until directed to strike. Its primary mission is to engage groundtargets with standoff precision munitions; however, it also has a limited air-to-air capability. It relies on off-board sensors to supply reconnaissance and targeting information as well as command and control, althoughit has sufficient on-board sensor capability to allow it to perform preprogrammed missions.

2.2 Reconnaissance UAV An uninhabited reconnaissance aerial vehicle (URAV) that can be employedeither as an independent system or in conjunction with other airborne, ground-based, and spaceborne systems.The URAV is fitted with a variety of multispectral sensors, such as infrared, optical, radar, and laser, andcollects images, signals intelligence (SIGINT), electronic intelligence (ELINT), and other information. Itloiters subsonically at very high altitudes over the region of interest for extended periods of time withoutrefueling. The URAV also can be used as part of a bistatic configuration, in which it illuminates the region ofinterest while different sensors receive and process the information.

48

2.3 Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) A vehicle that can be employed either as an independentsystem or in conjunction with other airborne, ground-based, and space-based systems. It carries a suite ofmultispectral sensors (optical, infrared, radar, laser, etc.) supplies information to its suite of standoffprecision guided munitions. UCAV loiters at high altitude over the region of interest for long periods of time(24+ hours) until called upon to strike a target. While in its subsonic loiter mode, it can perform asurveillance and reconnaissance mission for the Global Information Management System (System 8.1). Itcould be used as part of a bistatic configuration in which it illuminates a region of interest while a differentsensor receives and processes the information. As a secondary mission, it can perform electroniccountermeasures (ECM) and electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) roles.

2.4 Precision Delivery System A suite of powered and parafoil UAVs capable of autonomous flight for thepurpose of all-weather precision (within 1 meter) airdrop. High altitude (40,000 ft) precision airdrops canbe achieved using GPS or INS-guided parafoil delivery systems. This technique allows equipment/suppliesto be delivered to forward-deployed forces while transport aircraft remain hundreds of miles from the dropzone. Positions can be determined using light detection and ranging (LIDAR) or a GPS instrumented radiodrop sound. Powered UAVs and deliver smaller, high value packages from greater standoff ranges.

2.5 UAV Mothership A large capacity, long-loiter-time, uninhabited subsonic air vehicle used to deployand recover smaller combat UAVs. It also can replenish them with weapons and propellant. This air vehiclehas the ability to collect, convert and store solar energy, and then transfer energy through physical means orvia beaming to other airborne vehicles such as the FotoFighter (System 1.2).

2.6 Exfiltration Rocket (ER) A system designed to quickly extract special operations forces (SOF) teamsfrom the mission area. This system would be brought in during the SOF insertion and assembled at theexfiltration launch site. After mission completion, the SOF team members load themselves and any otheritems, such as a high value asset (HVA) or weapon of mass destruction (WMD), into the ER and then take off.The payload and passengers are recovered via an air-retrievable payload system or through a “soft” landingin a friendly area.

3.1 Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) An uninhabited orbital propulsion and docking system used totake payloads from an earth-to-orbit lift vehicle and place them in their final orbital plane, or used to fetchand return orbiting payloads to a central repair and recovery location. The system is be capable of carryingline replaceable units (LRU) to a damaged/degraded satellite and accomplishing on-site repair orreplacement. It is designed to allow refueling of civil, commercial, and military satellites as well as therearming of military space weapons platforms.

3.2 Orbital Combat Vehicle (OCV) An uninhabited orbital propulsion and docking system used to takepayloads from an earth-to-orbit lift vehicle and place them in their final orbital plane, or used to fetch andreturn orbiting payloads to a central repair and recovery location. The system can also carry line replaceableunits to a damaged/degraded satellite and accomplish on-site repair or replacement. It is designed to allowrefueling of civil, commercial, and military satellites as well as the rearming of military space weaponsplatforms. The OCV is fitted with a medium power high-energy laser system for limited defense andcounterspace missions.

3.3 Satellite Bodyguards A small constellation of defensive satellites (approximately five)placed in closeproximity to the protected asset. “Hunter-killers” actively seek out threats and incapacitate them withdirected energy weapons. Detection of threats from the surface or air is done by an off-board sensor suite(say, systems 8.1 or 8.2) and supplied to the “hunter-killer” satellites. Detection of space-based threats isdone by the “hunter-killer” satellites themselves. Decoy satellites appear identical (both electromagnetic andvisual) to the protected assets to confuse an aggressor; when approached, the decoy can impact and disablethe enemy craft.

4.1 Piloted SSTO Transatmospheric Vehicle A system that provides space support and global reach fromthe earth’s surface to low-earth orbit (LEO) using a combination of rocket and hypersonic air-breathingtechnology. The transatmospheric vehicle (TAV) takes off vertically, is refuelable in either air or space, andcan land on a conventional runway. It has a variable payload capacity (up to 10,000 pounds) and performs as

49

both a sensor and weapons platform. Alternate missions include satellite deployment and retrieval from LEOand deployment of an anti-ASAT weapon.

4.2 Uninhabited Air-Launched Transatmospheric Vehicle A multirole transatmospheric vehicle (TAV).Launched from an airborne platform (such as System 1.1), it is capable of rapid deployment (or retrieval) ofsatellites providing communication links, intelligence information, and so forth. It carries a suite ofmultispectral sensors (optical, infrared, radar, laser, etc.) for surveillance and reconnaissance missions.This TAV is a rocket-powered vehicle approximately the size of an F-15, capable of carrying several smallsatellites (6 ft x 6 ft x 6 ft, 1000 lbs each) to low earth orbit. Further, it could perform an antisatellite(ASAT) role. This TAV can land on a conventional runway.

5.1 Adjustable Yield Munition (AYM) An approach to achieve precise matching of the weapon’s effect tothe target’s characteristics. By manipulating the explosive yield of a weapon (i.e., “dial-a-yield”), togethercan greatly reduce collateral damage. This is particularly advantageous when flexibility and precision areboth required: a platform on patrol, awaiting targets of opportunity, can utilize the same weapon for a hardkill with a large yield or for a surgical, mission-only kill with a tailored yield. One approach to controllingthe yield is to change the material composition of the explosive at the molecular level.

5.2 Advanced Air-to-Air Missile A long range air-to-air missile that receives real-time target informationfrom off-board sensors and utilizes reactive jets and an on-board computer to acquire, pursue and destroyenemy air assets, including cruise missiles. Terminal tracking and guidance may employ a combination ofLIDAR, Infrared (IR), radio frequency (RF), magnetic anomaly detection (MAD), Jet engine modulation(JEM), photographic, and acoustic sensors.

5.3 Airborne High-Power Microwave Weapon A pulsed power airborne high power microwave (HPM)system. This medium range weapons system constitutes the primary payload of the host escort defenseaircraft. The system generates variable magnitude HPM fields that disrupt or destroy electrical componentsin the target region. It can engage both air and ground targets.

5.4 Standoff Hypersonic Missile An hypersonic air-to-ground missile launched from a hypersonic strikevehicle (System 1.1). It utilizes a scramjet to propel itself at Mach 8 toward the intended high-value target,then glides to target at Mach 4; its flight trajectory is altered as needed via off-board control. Its high-speedair-launched range is 1,450 NM.

5.5 Attack Microbots A term that describes a class of highly miniaturized (1 millimeter scale)electromechanical systems being deployable en masse and performing individual or collective target attack.Various deployment approaches are possible, including dispersal as an aerosol, transportation by a largerplatform, and full flying/crawling autonomy. Attack is accomplished by a variety of robotic effectors,electromagnetic measures, or energetic materials. Some “sensor microbot” capabilities are required fortarget acquisition and analysis.

5.6 Airborne Holographic Projector A projector system that displays a three-dimensional visual image ina desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychologicaloperations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking,providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.

5.7 Hybrid High-energy Laser System (HHELS) A system consisting of several ground-based,multimegawatt high-energy chemical lasers and a constellation of space-based mirrors. HHELS can be usedin several modes of operation. In its weapons mode with the laser at high power, it engages air, space, andground targets by reflecting a laser beam off one or more of the mirrors to the intended target. It can also beused for target tracking, limited space debris removal (1-10 centimeter objects), and replenishment ofsatellites.

6.1 Global Area Strike System (GLASS) A system incorporating of a high-energy laser (HEL) system, akinetic energy weapon (KEW) system, and a transatmospheric vehicle (TAV). The HEL system consists of

50

ground-based lasers and space-based mirrors which direct energy to the intended target. The KEW system(System 6.2) consists of terminally guided projectiles, with and without explosive enhancers. The TAV(System 4.1) is a flexible platform capable of supporting maintenance and replenishment of the HEL andKEW space assets, and can also be used for rapid deployment of special operations forces. Target definitionand sequencing is managed externally (e. g., using GIMS (System 8.1)).

6.2 Space-Based Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) A general class of low earth orbit (LEO) basedweapons that include a variety of warhead types from flechettes and pellets to large and small high densityrods. The KEW may be directed at air, space, and ground targets; it achieves its destructive effect bypenetrating the target at hypervelocity. Sensor information is provided to the KEW by a main sensor suiteoff-board of the vehicle (such as GSRT [System 8.2] or GIMS [System 8.1]). However, each armament has aminimal sensor capability (e. g., GPS receiver) and a simple flight control system for maneuver.

6.3 Space-Based High Power Microwave Weapon (HPM) A weapon system capable of engaging ground,air, and space targets with a varying degree of lethality. It consists of a constellation of satellites deployed inlow-earth orbit (LEO) (approx. 500 NM) that can direct an ultrawideband (UWB) of microwave energy atground, air, and space targets. Its effect is to generate high electric fields over a target area tens to hundredsof meters in size, thereby disrupting or destroying any electronic components present.

6.4 Space-Based High-energy Laser (HEL) System A multimegawatt high-energy chemical laserconstellation that can be used in several modes of operation. In its weapons mode with the laser at highpower, it can attack ground, air, and space targets. In its surveillance mode, it can operate using the laser atlow power levels for active illumination imaging or with the laser inoperative for passive imaging.

6.5 Solar-Powered High-energy Laser System A space-based, multimegawatt, high-energy solar-powered laser constellation that can be used in several modes of operation. In its weapons mode with thelaser at high power, it can attack ground, air, and space targets. In its surveillance mode, it can operate usingthe laser at low power levels for active illumination imaging, or with the laser inoperative for passiveimaging.

6.6 Solar Energy Optical Weapon (SEOW) A constellation of space-based mirrors which allow solarradiation to be focused on specific ground, air, or space targets. The lethality of this system is limited, due tooptical diffusion; however, it may prove useful for disruption or perhaps weather control.

6.7 Asteroid Mitigation System A system that protects the Earth/Moon system from Earth-crossing objects(ECOs) by either deflecting or fragmenting ECOs such that they no longer pose a threat. Deflection could beaccomplished using nuclear explosive devices.

7.1 Spoken Language Translator A hand-held or worn device that translates oral communications in nearreal-time. It enhances multinational operational effectiveness in all areas, including training, diplomacy,special operations, and conventional ground operations. It is capable of one-for-one word substitution in awide variety of languages, and it provides two-way communications between the owner and another person.The system has a limited ability to compensate for differences in sentence syntactic structures, cultures,dialects, and idioms/slang, and a limited ability to select words according to context. Careful placement ofboth microphones and both speakers is required for deconfliction (not having to hear both languagessimultaneously), limiting the scope of its operation; the system is best suited for controlled two-waycommunications such as by telephone, radio, or computer. The system also is useful for written texttranslation.

7.2 Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) An individual's connection to the information systems of 2025. Thisassistant is a hand-held or wristwatch size unit. Input modes include both touch and voice. The PDA is thewarrior's secure, high-capacity connection to the distributed C4I system. The PDA maintains the owner'spersonal data such as medical and training records. It learns and remembers the owner's preferences andneeds so that requests for information are properly tailored. It is self-securing: it recognizes the ownerthrough a number of biometrics which ensures that it cannot be commandeered. In short, the PDA is a single

51

device replaces the cellular telephone, radio, personal computer, identification and banking cards, and anyother personal information-management device of the nineties.

7.3 Virtual Interaction Center A virtual reality environment in which commanders can immersethemselves in a three-dimensional representation of the battlespace. Information from a global informationsystem, such as GIMS (System 8.1) is displayed in a virtual reality environment, giving the commandersituational awareness. The center also has the capability to replay battles and engagements and to simulate“what if” scenarios.

8.1 Global Information Management System (GIMS) A pervasive network of intelligent informationgathering, processing, analysis, and advisory nodes. It collects, stores, analyzes, fuses, and managesinformation from ground/air/space sensors and all source intelligence. All types of sensors (i.e., acoustic,optical, radio frequency, olfactory, etc.) are used. However, the true power of this system is its use of neuralprocessing to provide the right type of information based on the user’s personal requirements.

8.2 Global Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting System (GSRT) A space-based omnisensorialcollection, processing, and dissemination system to provide a real-time information database. This databaseis used to create a virtual-reality image of the area of interest. This image can be used at all levels ofcommand to provide situational awareness, technical and intelligence information, and two-way commandand control.

8.3 Sensor Microbots A class of highly miniaturized (millimeter sized) electromechanical air and groundsystems capable of being deployed en masse to collect data, perform individual and collective data fusion,and communicate that data for further processing and distribution. Various deployment approaches arepossible, including dispersal as an aerosol, transportation by a larger platform, and full flying/crawlingautonomy. Data collection is accomplished through miniaturized onboard sensors, typically restricted to oneor two sensors per unit due to size and power limitations. Communications are possible by transmissionthrough relay stations (“relaybots”) or physical collection of the microbots. Some applications of sensormicrobots are security net to guard own assets, surveillance and reconnaissance, and intelligence gatheringon adversary assets.

8.4 Multiband Laser Sensor System A suite of laser devices that inspects and models target components.Different frequencies of electromagnetic energy vary in their ability to penetrate materials. For a particularmaterial, one frequency will reflect off the surface, another will penetrate. By employing a suite of laserdevices over a wide frequency range, planners can accomplish complete internal and external inspection of astructure and develop a full three-dimensional model. This tool can be used for nondestructive inspection ofcomponents, target vulnerability analysis, target identification and decoy rejection, and reconnaissance. Thissuite of laser devices can be carried on an airborne platform, but it clearly has ground-based applicationsalso.

8.5 Asteroid Detection System A network of ground and space sensors which search for, track, andcharacterize space objects that are large enough and in an orbit to threaten the earth-moon system. Thesystem also includes a centralized processing center that fuses data from all of the available sensors, catalogsthe known objects, and distributes information to the known authorities.

9.1 Mobile Asset Repair Station (MARS) A mobile facility near the battlefront where parts can berepaired or manufactured . In wartime, replacement parts are repaired or manufactured in the theater ofoperations for a variety of deployed weapon systems through MARS. The mobile facility can be land-basedor water-based in the theater of operations, but out of harm’s way. The facility features a set of fully-integrated flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) and robotic systems that are linked to the commercialmanufacturers. These manufacturers supply the specifications to the FMS which then produces the part orcomponent. Many of the required materials necessary for MARS to manufacture the components obtainedfrom local countries.

9.2 Weather Analysis and Modification System A diverse set of weather prediction and modificationtools that allows manipulation of small-to-medium-scale weather phenomena to enhance friendly-force

52

capabilities and degrade those of the adversary. Many of the sensors required for this system are assumed tobe external e. g., part of the global information management system (GIMS), discussed in System 8.1.

9.3 Sanctuary Base A secure, low observable, all-weather forward-operating base that reduces the numberof assets requiring protection from attack. The runway, power systems, ordnance storage, aircraftmaintenance assets, and C4I systems are self-maintaining and self-repairing. Base security is highlyautomated. Chemical/biological hazards are cleaned up by nanobots and biotechnology. Robots performrefueling, weapons loading, maintenance, security, and explosive ordnance destruction.

53

Appendix C

Alternate Futures Weights

This appendix presents the value model weights (fig. C-1 through fig. C-6) given by the student

members of the 2025 writing teams (AU team weights) for each of the six alternate futures. The

corresponding weights provided by the Alternate Futures team can be found in the 2025 Operational Analysis

Technical Report.

In Ai r.27

In Spa ce.23

In Cybers pac e.22

On Sur fac e/Subsur fac e.28

DE TE CT. 34

Ident ify.51

Inte grate.49

UNDERSTAND. 34

As se ss.1 8

Pl an.1 5

Dec ide.1 7

Comm unic ate.2 0

Confirm.1 3

Educa te /Tra in.1 7

D IRE CT. 32

AWARENESS.38

To Air.3 2

To Spa ce.2 6

To Surfac e.4 2

DE PLO Y.40

Rea dines s.5 0

Sus ta in.5 0

MAINTAIN.30

In A ir.3 5

In S pac e.2 4

O n Surfac e.4 1

REPLE NISH.3 0

REACH.34

In Air.2 7

In Spac e.1 9

In Cybe rs pa ce.1 9

O n S urface /Subs urface.3 5

ENG AGE.5 4

I n Air. 28

I n Spac e. 20

I n Cy be rs pa ce. 20

O n Surfac e. 32

SURVI VE.4 6

POWER.28

AC HIEVE AIR & SPAC E D OMIN ANCE

Figure C-1. AU Team Weights - Halfs and Half Naughts Future

54

I n Air. 27

I n Spac e. 23

I n Cy be rspa ce. 22

O n S urface /Subsurface. 28

DETE CT.3 4

Ident ify.51

Inte grate.49

UNDERSTAND.34

Asse ss.1 9

P lan.1 5

Dec ide.1 7

Communic ate.2 0

Confirm.1 3

E duc ate/Tra in.1 6

D IRECT.3 2

AW AR E NE S S.3 8

To A ir. 32

To S pa ce. 26

To S ur fa ce. 42

DEP LOY. 40

Rea di ne ss.5 0

Sus ta in.5 0

MAINTAIN.30

In A ir.3 5

In S pac e.2 4

O n Surfac e.4 1

REP LE NISH.3 0

RE A CH.3 4

In Air.27

In Spa ce.19

In Cybers pa ce.19

On Surface /Subsurface.35

E NGAG E. 54

In A ir.2 8

In S pa ce.2 0

In Cyber spac e.2 0

On S urfa ce.3 3

SURVIV E.46

P O W E R. 2 8

ACH IEVE AIR & SPAC E D OMINANC E

Figure C-2. AU Team Weights - Gulliver's Travail Future

I n Air. 19

I n Spac e. 28

I n Cy be rs pa ce. 35

O n Surface /Subs urface. 18

DETE CT.3 6

Ide nt ify.5 3

Integra te.4 8

UNDE RS TAND.3 6

As se ss.18

Pla n.15

De ci de.16

Communic ate.20

Confirm.13

Educa te /Trai n.19

D IRE CT. 28

AW AR E N E S S.4 7

To A ir. 31

To S pa ce. 39

To S ur fa ce. 30

DEP LO Y.3 7

Rea di ne ss.5 0

Sus ta in.5 0

MAINTAIN.33

I n Air. 31

I n Spac e. 35

O n Surfac e. 34

REP LENIS H.3 0

RE A C H.2 6

In A ir.1 9

In S pac e.2 6

In Cybe rspa ce.3 4

O n Surface/ Subsurfa ce.2 1

ENGAGE.4 9

In Ai r.20

In Spa ce.27

In Cybers pac e.33

On S ur fa ce.20

S URV IV E. 51

P O W E R.2 7

ACH IEVE AIR & SPAC E D OMINAN CE

Figure C-3. AU Team Weights - Zaibatsu Future

55

In Ai r.18

In Spa ce.26

In Cybers pac e.38

On Sur fac e/S ubsurfa ce.18

DE TE CT. 36

Ident ify.4 9

Inte gra te.5 1

UNDERS TAND. 34

Ass es s.1 9

P lan.1 3

Dec ide.1 4

Communica te.2 1

Confir m.1 5

E duc ate/ Tr ain.1 8

D IRECT.30

AWARENESS.45

To A ir. 31

To S pac e. 43

To S urfa ce. 26

DEP LOY.3 5

Re adine ss.50

Sustai n.50

M AI NTAIN.3 3

In A ir.3 2

In S pa ce.3 8

On S urfa ce.3 0

RE PLENIS H. 32

REACH.26

In A ir.1 7

In S pac e.2 5

In Cybe rspa ce.4 1

On Surface/ Subsurface.1 7

ENGAGE.51

In Air.1 8

In Spac e.2 6

In Cy be rs pa ce.3 9

O n Surfac e.1 7

SURVI VE.4 9

POWER.29

ACH IEVE AIR & SPACE DOM INAN CE

Figure C-4. AU Team Weights - Digital Cacophony Future

In Ai r.27

In Spa ce.23

In Cyber spac e.22

On Surfa ce/S ubsurfa ce.28

DE TE CT. 34

Ide nt ify.5 1

Integra te.4 9

UNDE RS TAND.34

Ass es s. 19

P la n. 15

De cide. 17

Communic ate. 20

Confi rm. 13

E duc a te /Trai n. 16

D IRECT.3 1

AWARENESS.38

To Air.32

To Spac e.26

To Surfac e.42

DE PLOY. 40

Rea dines s.5 0

S us ta in.5 0

MAINTAI N.30

I n Air. 35

I n Spa ce. 24

O n Surfa ce. 41

REP LENIS H.3 0

REACH.33

In A ir.2 7

In S pa ce.1 9

In Cyber spa ce.1 9

On Surfa ce/ Subsurface.3 5

E NGAGE. 54

In A ir.2 8

In S pac e.2 0

In Cybe rs pa ce.2 0

O n Surfac e.3 2

SURVI VE.46

POWER.29

AC HIEVE AIR & SPAC E D OMIN ANC E

Figure C-5. AU Team Weights - King Khan Future

56

In A ir.2 7

In S pac e.2 6

In Cybe rs pa c e.2 2

On Surface /Subsur fa ce.2 5

DE TECT. 36

Ide nti fy.5 2

Integr ate.4 8

UNDE RS TAND.32

Ass es s. 19

P la n. 15

De ci de. 16

Communic ate. 19

Confirm. 14

E duca te /Tra in. 17

D IRECT.3 2

AWARENESS.35

To Air.33

To Spac e.30

To Surfac e.37

DEP LOY.3 5

Rea dines s.5 0

Sus ta in.5 0

M AINTAIN.3 3

In A ir.3 4

In S pac e.2 8

On Surfac e.3 8

RE PLE NISH. 32

REACH.30

In Air.2 8

In Spa ce.2 3

In Cy bers pac e.2 2

O n S urfac e/S ubsurface.2 7

ENGAG E.51

I n Ai r. 28

I n Spa ce. 24

I n Cyber spac e. 23

O n S ur fa ce. 27

SURV IVE.4 9

POWER.35

AC HIEVE AIR & SPACE D OMIN ANC E

Figure C-6. AU Team Weights - 2015 Crossroads Future

57

Appendix D

Technology Model

This appendix contains the technology model depicting the leveraging technologies identified during the

course of system analysis. The technology names, numbering convention, and descriptions contained in the

Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL) served as the basis for the 2025 Technology Model.

Descriptions of these technology areas can be found in the 2025 Operational Analysis Technical Report.

58

1.0

- M

AT

ER

IAL

ST

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

2.1

- A

uto

ma

tion

of I

ndu

stri

al

Pro

cess

es,

Sys

tem

s,

and

Fa

cto

ries

2.2

.1 -

Nu

me

rica

lly C

ontr

olle

dM

ach

ine

To

ols

2.2

.5 -

Ro

bots

, C

ont

rolle

rs,

an

d E

nd-E

ffe

ctor

s

2.2

- M

eta

l Wor

kin

g a

nd

Ind

ustr

ial P

rodu

ctio

n

2.6

- M

icro

me

cha

nic

al

De

vice

s

2.0

- I

ND

US

TR

IAL

PR

OD

UC

TIO

NT

EC

HN

OLO

GY

4.1

.1 -

Hig

h P

erfo

rma

nce

Co

mp

utin

g

4.1

.2 -

Dyn

amic

Tra

inin

ga

nd S

imu

latio

n (

VR

.1)

4.1

.3 -

Sig

nal

Pro

cess

ing

4.1

.4 -

Im

ag

eP

roce

ssi

ng (

VR

.2)

4.1

.6 -

Sp

eec

hP

roce

ssi

ng S

yst

ems

4.1

- D

igita

l Pro

cess

ing

4.2

.4 -

Har

d R

eal-

Tim

eS

yste

ms

(VR

.3)

4.2

.5 -

Dat

a F

usio

n

4.2

.9 -

Art

ifici

al

Int

ellig

enc

e

4.2

- S

oft

war

e

4.3

- H

ybri

d C

omp

utin

g

4.0

- C

OM

PU

TE

RT

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

5.1

-

Tra

nsm

issi

on

5.3

- C

om

mun

ica

tions

Ne

twor

kM

an

age

me

nt

and

Con

trol

5.4

- C

om

man

d,

Con

trol

, C

om

m,

and

Inte

llige

nce

Sys

tem

s

5.5

- In

form

atio

n S

ecu

rity

5.0

- T

EL

EC

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

ST

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

6.1

- A

ir,

Ma

rine,

Sp

ace

Pla

tform

and

Ter

rest

ria

l Aco

ust

ic S

yst

ems

6.2

- O

ptic

al S

ens

ors

6.4

- E

lect

ron

icC

om

bat

(EC

)

6.6

- M

ag

neto

met

ers

and

Mag

net

icG

rad

iom

ete

rs

6.7

- G

ravi

ty M

ete

rs a

nd

Gra

vity

Gra

dio

me

ters

6.8

- R

ad

ar

6.9

- O

ther

Se

nso

r

6.0

- S

EN

SO

RS

AN

D E

LE

CT

RO

NIC

CO

MB

AT

TE

CH

NO

LOG

Y

7.3

- V

ehic

le a

nd F

ligh

t C

ont

rol

7.0

- N

AV

IGA

TIO

N,

GU

IDA

NC

E,

and

VE

HIC

LE C

ON

TR

OL

TE

CH

NO

LOG

Y

KE

Y T

EC

HN

OLO

GIE

ST

O B

E D

EV

EL

OP

ED

Fig

ure

D-1

. T

echn

olog

y M

odel

- P

art I

59

9.1

- Gas

Tur

bine

Prop

ulsio

n Sy

stem

s

9.2

- Ram

jet,

Scr

amje

t, an

dC

ombin

ed C

ycle

Eng

ines

9.4

- Roc

kets

9.5.

1 - S

pace

craf

t S

truct

ures

9.5.

2 - N

on-C

hem

ical,

High

Spec

ific Im

pulse

Pro

puls

ion

9.5.

4 - A

ircra

ft H

igh

Perfo

rman

ce S

truct

ures

9.5

- Aer

ospa

ce S

truct

ures

and

Sys

tem

s

9.8

- Oth

er P

ropu

lsion

9.0

- PRO

PULS

ION

AN

D V

EHIC

ULA

RS

YSTE

MS

TEC

HN

OLO

GY

10.1

- La

sers

10.2

- O

ptics

10.3

- Po

wer

Sys

tem

s

10.0

- LA

SER

, OPT

ICS,

and

PO

WE

R S

YSTE

MS

TEC

HN

OLO

GY

11.1

- H

igh

Ener

gy L

aser

(HE

L) S

yste

ms

11.2

- H

igh

Pow

er R

adio

Freq

uenc

y (R

F) S

yste

ms

11.4

.2 -

Kine

tic E

nerg

yP

roje

ctile

s

11.4

.4 -

Kine

tic E

nerg

yP

latfo

rm M

anag

emen

t

11.4

- Ki

netic

Ene

rgy

(KE

) Sys

tem

s

11.0

- D

IREC

TED

EN

ERG

Y an

d K

INET

ICEN

ERG

Y SY

STEM

S TE

CH

NO

LOG

Y

12.1

- W

arhe

ads,

Am

mun

ition

and

Paylo

ads

12.7

- M

ilitar

y E

xplo

sives

(Ene

rget

ic M

ater

ials

)

12.0

- M

UN

ITIO

NS

DEV

ICES

and

EN

ERG

ETI

CM

ATER

IALS

TE

CH

NOLO

GY

13.3

- C

hem

ical/B

iolo

gica

lW

arfa

re D

efen

sive

Sys

tem

s

13.0

- C

HEM

ICA

L AN

D B

IOLO

GIC

AL

SYS

TEM

S T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y

KEY

TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

STO

BE

DEVE

LOPE

D

Fig

ure

D-2

. T

echn

olog

y M

odel

- P

art I

I

60

Bibliography

An Operational Analysis for 2025: An Application of Value-Focused Thinking to Future Air and SpaceCapabilities. Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University, 1996. (2025 Operational Analysis TechnicalReport)

Clemen, R.T. Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis. Boston, Mass.: PWS-Kent,1991.

Keeney, Ralph L. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press, 1992.

The Militarily Critical Technologies List. Washington, D. C.: Office of the Undersecretary of Defense forAcquisition, October 1992.