In assessing our plan, we will first
reference the Vision end states identified in Chapter 2 and discuss how well the
implementation plan in Chapter 6 achieves those end states.Our assessment of the Integrated Phased Implementation Plan shows we are on track to achieve our Vision, but there are challenges ahead.
The plan described in Chapter 6 is an aggressive one. It calls for a two-fold increase in space TOA over the next 15 years, with corresponding increases in technology funding. This warrants some tough decisions about the extent of aerospace integration during this time period. To sustain current space capabilities and simultaneously fund high operations tempos for global engagements, little or no growth in future space capabilities will happen until a major change in funding strategy occurs. Senior Air Force officials recognize this need for a change in funding strategy and are beginning to advocate such a shift.
Though there are over 50 programs included in the Integrated Modernization Roadmap presented in Chapter 6, the vast majority of these programs are relatively inexpensive. Several are small payloads that would piggyback on other satellites, thereby saving significant costs in lift. Others are augmentations of existing ground site capabilities to complete current limited networks. These smaller programs offer a significant return on investment in terms of high utility for relatively low cost. This accentuates the importance of viewing the Integrated Modernization Roadmap as a package of capabilities rather than a list of independent solutions to mitigate identified needs. The same would hold true in pursuing integrated, cost-effective mixes of air and space capabilities as the results of this plan are meshed with those of other Air Force long-range plans.
This chapter provides a top-level assessment of the Integrated Phased Implementation Plan presented in Chapter 6. This assessment is made for each of the near-, mid- and far-terms. The plan is evaluated in terms of how well it supports the Vision, the AFSPC mission area needs, the CINC IPLs and the USSPACECOM LRP Operational Concepts. Due to the classified nature of the IPLs, details appear only in the AFSPC MAPs. At the conclusion of this chapter, we highlight some challenges to the implementation of this plan.
In assessing our plan, we will first
reference the Vision end states identified in Chapter 2 and discuss how well the
implementation plan in Chapter 6 achieves those end states.
Force Enhancement
Navigation (End State: Protected, high-accuracy positioning and timing). Incremental improvements to GPS occur throughout the planning horizon, meeting this desired end state in all aspects. The GPS Objective Modernization concept will be the cornerstone to complete protected positioning and timing capabilities and to provide advanced forecasts of signal performance.
SATCOM (End State: Global, protected, high-throughput communications; increased use of commercial communications). A complete new Air Force SATCOM architecture will be in place by the mid-term with follow-on improvements continuing into the far-term. These capabilities will meet secure and protected communications needs for vital military operations around the globe and provide significantly improved high-capacity communications. The augmentation and integration of that architecture with commercial capabilities to provide enhanced large capacity, high-throughput communications for non-operations use has not been fully defined and assessed. This area will be given in-depth consideration and evaluation in concert with DISA during the next 2-year IPP cycle.
Environmental Monitoring (End State: Timely, quick refresh rate EM data). The NPOESS will be deployed in the mid- and far-terms to sustain global weather coverage capabilities and provide marginally improved refresh rate information to warfighting forces. To meet combatant commander requirements for timely data and measurement refresh needs, we will continue to rely on other national and international satellite systems. We began transferring the space weather forecasting mission back to the Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) beginning in FY00. Improved space weather sensing capabilities (Solar X-ray Imager, Compact Environmental Anomaly Sensor, Space Weather Ionospheric Characterization System and Improved Solar Optical Observing Network) should assist AFWA in satisfying space forecasting requirements in the mid- and far terms.
Surveillance and Threat Warning (End State: Find, fix, track and assess surface, airborne and missile targets, including NBC & deeply-buried targets). Strong emphasis in this area will provide a significantly improved capability to meet a variety of demands in the future. The migration of some current ground and airborne capabilities to space platforms will greatly enhance the strategic view of global events, while also offering much improved support to the combatant commander for situational awareness. SBIRS High and Low will provide a robust situational awareness capability for missile detection, warning and tracking. Space-based GMTI capabilities will be deployed, providing the capability to find, fix and track surface targets. However, due to significant technological challenges and high costs, AMTI capabilities covering air threats will not be available until sometime beyond the end of the planning horizon. As instability persists in the world and the proliferation of conventional, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continues, the fielding of our projected NBC detection capabilities (HSI and Nuclear detection sensors) will be essential. An area not successfully addressed to date by currently proposed concepts is the detection of hardened and deeply buried targets, although HSI and synthetic aperture imaging from the SBR may provide some limited sub-surface target measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) capabilities.
Command and Control (End State: Air, space and missile C2 fully integrated into Joint C2). Much has been placed on the integrated C2 architecture of N/UWSS. Through the consolidation and standardization of numerous currently fragmented C2 capabilities and by cross-flowing space asset status to the air C2 net, N/UWSS and the AFSPACE AOC will provide critical links to effective, integrated aerospace operations. N/UWSS will integrate the missile warning, space control, air defense operations and the C2 of space forces.
Information Operations (End State: Full spectrum of capabilities to gain, exploit, defend or attack information and information systems). DCI objectives are addressed with a combination of a new ground segment protection concept and several space segment improvements. The Information Assurance Architecture will provide a recurring system vulnerability analysis, detection hardware/software protection for ground segments and C2 segments. These DCI capabilities provide the foundation for OCI through the development of robust computer network attack capabilities, which still need to be defined. Our proposed offensive and defensive counterspace capabilities will further augment this mission.
Space Support
Launch Operations (End State: Robust and responsive spacelift; reposition, recover and service on-orbit space assets; terrestrial point-to-terrestrial point delivery via space). Cost savings, increased operational efficiency and improvements in responsiveness relative to spacelift capabilities will occur over the planning horizon with the advent of EELV, the RSA upgrade to the SLRS and the SBLR. Leveraging of reusable technologies and capabilities with NASA will lead to a robust fleet of next generation space transportation capabilities that include SOV and SMV. The OTV will provide the ability to move space assets to different orbits and to recover disabled satellites.
Satellite Operations (End State: On-demand operations execution of any US Government on-orbit space asset to support the full spectrum of world-wide military operations). Deployment of the Next Generation Space Asset Operations capability will achieve this end state in the far-term. This new robust capability will consist of the Autonomous Ground & Satellite Operations concept and the Future Satellite Control System.
MS&A/FDE (End State: Institutionalized space MS&A capabilities; “Space range” FDE infrastructure). Implementation of the MP/AI Initiative in the near-term will provide integrated MS&A tools for assessing the military utility and cost effectiveness of space versus air capabilities for making system trades and in shaping important long-term Air Force investment decisions. Also in the mid-term, the Space Test Process and Range effort will provide a robust FDE capability specifically designed to support space asset test and evaluation, as well as strategy, doctrine and tactics exercises.
Space Control
Space Surveillance (End State: Total space situational awareness). At relatively low costs, large improvements in space surveillance will be realized during each time period. These capabilities (SBEON, HUSIR and Microsat Payload Imager) will provide future warfighting forces with a robust, global space situational awareness that will greatly enhance terrestrial operations through assured support from space and enable full exploitation of the space medium.
Counterspace (End State: Full spectrum of space protection, prevention and negation capabilities). Through various active and passive capabilities, achievement of this end state will provide an expanded array of capabilities to protect our space assets and prevent their unauthorized use (satellite Link, Bus and EO Payload Protection, STW&ARS and Satellite-as-a-Sensor) and negate adversarial space capabilities (Mobile RF Jammer, Relocatable Laser Blinder, Navigation Jammer, Downlink Mission Jammer, Orbit Flexible Counterspace Microsat and SBL).
NMD (End State: Fully-capable “system of systems” NMD architecture). By initiating the deployment of SBL along with an integrated NMD C2 link within N/UWSS and global, real-time situational awareness through SBIRS, SBR and other support systems, the US will possess an NMD capability against the limited potential strikes projected as possible threats. The technology to pursue such a capability will start to become available in the mid-term to support deployment in the far-term, if directed by the NCA.
Force Applications
Strategic Deterrence (End State: Nuclear-armed ICBMs). Improvements to the Minuteman III fleet will ensure this powerful leg of the Triad can be maintained for at least the next 20 years. The BMR initiative is critical to maintaining strategic deterrence past 2020.
Conventional Strike (End State: Rapid, global precision strike with space-based systems). In the mid- and far-terms new conventional weapon capabilities (CAV and SBL) will provide commanders and the NCA with an array of space-based options to employ in future crises.
Mission Support
Our plan calls for a significant increase in funding for Mission Support programs beginning in FY06 and for AFSPC investments in DMT capabilities. This will put us on the path to eliminating the backlogs in chronically underfunded programs, evolving the support infrastructure to meet new mission requirements and preparing our people as 21st century aerospace warriors. Significant strides will be made in STEDE capabilities, and important infrastructure improvements will be realized in Civil Engineering and Logistics. However, the planned funding increase will not support full evolution of capabilities in C&I, Security Forces and Medical.
To ensure our plan does not forsake present combatant commander needs in exchange for visionary capabilities alone, we will next discuss how well the implementation plan in Chapter 6 meets the specific mission area Needs listed in Chapter 3. These Needs appear again in Figures 7-1 through 7-5 for each mission area, along with an assessment of how well the plan solves each of these Needs over time. The “stoplight” charts in Figures 7–1 through 7–5 depict the level or degree of satisfaction of the Needs. Post-IIA quantitative evaluations were created and were then adjusted to account for minor changes in acquisition timing and system-of-systems synergies not captured in the quantitative evaluation. “Red” indicates our plan provides less than 30% of a capability to satisfy AFSPC Needs. “Yellow” means the plan partially satisfies the Need from 30% to 69% and “Green” means the plan satisfies most or all of the Need, e.g., 70%-100%. Initial percentage scores were generated based on analysis of the combined system performance against tasks associated with each Need. Final scores were determined by mission area experts. Included within each entry in the stoplight charts is a list of the systems that become operational during the period of interest and contribute to satisfying the Need being assessed.
Force Enhancement
As shown in Figure 7-1, Force Enhancement Needs are reasonably satisfied by the far-term. The Navigation Needs are addressed by the end of the planning horizon with the evolution of GPS II A/R through IIF to the GPS Objective Modernization. Satellite Communication systems evolve and keep pace with the time-phased increase in requirements for SATCOM services for each period in the planning horizon.
EM Needs were assessed as remaining partially satisfied. NPOESS will sustain and make some improvements to terrestrial weather deficiencies. However, a key performance factor, remotely measuring winds, remained unsatisfied due to the plan’s limited budget. Several non-key measurements remained unsatisfied, despite the plan’s strong leveraging of other national and international capabilities. The space weather forecasting mission will complete transition to the Air Force Weather Agency in the near-term. Future space forecasting Needs will be satisfied with the addition of several ground and space-based sensors and systems.
The S&TW arena is the only sub-mission area with needs which remain unsatisfied by the end of the planning time frame. For this planning cycle, the team “opened the aperture” to evaluate tasks across the ISR missions. As a result, several new and more rigorously defined Needs evolved after IIA. Two Needs remain unsatisfied. The S&TW team had several SBR concepts for meeting the AMTI objectives; however, none were affordable before year 2025. Some AMTI credit was given to SBIRS Low against this need, but the contribution was assessed as meeting less than 20 % of the overall objectives. SBIRS High and Low satisfy the Needs associated with Theater and Ballistic Missiles while the SBR concept meets core needs for a GMTI capability. The SAR capabilities in the SBR, coupled with a new HSI satellite system, start to address the more challenging ISR target sets: fixed targets, camouflaged targets and chemical targets. However, sub-surface and biological target-related Needs remain unsatisfied. A new Need, Gain and Exploit Information in the Infosphere is not addressed by any AFSPC-unique capabilities, but is addressed through other national capabilities. (See the new Classified Annex to this plan.)
N/UWSS meets the C2 Needs by the mid- and far term. IO is formally addressed for the first time in this cycle. Our DCI Need is satisfied by the end of the planning horizon; however, our plan for developing OCI capabilities is incomplete. While proposed OCS systems will provide some OCI capability, they do not satisfy this Need.
Figure 7-1: Force Enhancement prioritized Needs with assessments over time
Space Support
All Space Support Needs are partially or fully satisfied over the next 25 years. The RSA upgrade to the SLRS, EELV, EELV-TI and SOV will contribute to significant launch capacity improvements. Reduced lift costs and substantial improvements in responsiveness will be gained through reusable platforms like SOV. Further range improvements will occur with the development of the SBLR. Satellite Operations Needs will be met via a transition from the current AFSCN to the Future Satellite Control System along with Autonomous Ground and Satellite Operations. Needs to reposition, recover and service on-orbit assets will be met through OTV, SMV and Modular On-orbit Servicing concepts. Range and satellite control facility protection Needs will be met through Mission Support enhancements to Security Forces.
Needs associated with MS&A will be addressed to a greater degree as we transition from the current Campaign and Mission Analytic Modeling Baseline to the MP/AI Initiative. This planned initiative consists of several efforts to include the following: Model Interfacing and Technology Integration, AFSPC Analysis Center and Air Force Space Engagement Modeling. The MP/AI Initiative will allow AFSPC to perform many levels of analysis ranging from AoAs to operational level analyses. Likewise, the FDE Need will be satisfied to a greater degree as we transition from today’s Mission Unique Analysis Toolbox to a Space Test Process and Range. Figure 7-2 summarizes our Space Support assessment.
Figure 7-2: Space Support prioritized Needs with assessments over time
Space Control
Significant improvements are made throughout the planning horizon for meeting the Space Control Needs. The AFSPC Implementation Strategy, referenced in Figure 5-1, was followed closely and resulted in substantial improvements to the Space Surveillance Needs by the mid-term. Protection of forces was the next focus, followed by a diverse capability for neutralizing adversary space forces. Both DCS and OCS Needs are well satisfied by the end of the planning period.
Space surveillance capabilities culminate with a robust ground and space sensing network capable of addressing growing space track and space object identification Needs. The data from the improved network is fused in IDASS and integrated with N/UWSS to improve space order of battle information for the integrated Aerospace Forces.
In the mid-term, the emphasis moves to protection of on orbit assets. Defensive Needs are addressed by the Link, Bus and Payload Protection concept. These Space Control Needs are satisfied by the far-term with the addition of Downlink Mission Jammer and Counterspace Microsats.
As the capability to defend on orbit assets grows, a phased approach to Adversary Neutralization is initiated. The result is high need satisfaction for both OCS and DCS by the far-term. While there will be significant capability to jam or destroy space-based systems, the other D5 options are limited. Since SBL does not reach FOC within the planning horizon, “Engagement forces to defend North America against ballistic missile attack" is only partially satisfied in the far-term. However, that partial constellation of SBL contributes to a formidable Counterspace capability.
Our only Space Control Need which is not on a clear path to resolution is "Reduce high cost of operations and maintenance of aging missile and surveillance sites.” Figure 7-3 summarizes this assessment.
Figure 7-3: Space Control prioritized Needs with assessments over time
Force Applications
As shown in Figure 7-4, current programs are on track to maintain the Minuteman III forces as an effective leg of the Triad through 2020. BMR provides a capability to satisfy strategic deterrence Needs beyond the planning horizon. New conventional strike capabilities will provide non-nuclear options against multiple target classes and contribute to satisfying many needs. The IOC of SBL provides a new Force Application solution to air and cruise missile target neutralization Needs. Security Force enhancements, coupled with Helicopter Sustainment and training initiatives, solve multiple Force Applications Needs.
Figure 7-4: Force Applications prioritized Needs with assessments over time
As indicated in Figure
6-1, our planned funding for Mission Support grows from its current level
of about one billion per year to just over three billion by the end of the
planning horizon. Although substantial, this increase is about 60% of what is
required to fully address all Needs by the end of the planning horizon as
illustrated in Figure 7-5.
Significant improvements will be realized in the Civil Engineering and Logistics areas in the mid- and far-terms. The planned funding increases will permit elimination, over time, of outstanding requirements in Environmental Security Compliance, RPMA and Housing and Dormitory Modernization.
A reliable general purpose vehicle fleet will be achieved by the mid-term with the establishment of GSA leasing for all vehicles. For the STEDE area, recent changes in AETC’s training programs will reduce AFSPC unit qualification training to fewer than 20 days. The Space Training Initiative study and acquisition of DMT systems will dramatically improve readiness training and exercises and space education by the end of the near-term.
Needs in the C&I and Security Forces areas are expected to remain only partially satisfied (i.e., Yellow) over the planning horizon at the planned funding level. C&I sustainment will continue to be under-funded as new downward-directed programs come on line. Moreover, new command missions such as IO and NMD will create increasing requirements for flexible networks, bandwidth, information assurance and protection, and professional training. AT/FP will remain a challenge at the planned funding level as current vulnerabilities are mitigated, new vulnerabilities are identified and the expected threat continues to grow.
Finally, the various health care related issues in the Medical area are expected to remain partially satisfied assuming no significant increase in annual DHP funding.
Figure 7-5: Mission Support prioritized Needs with assessments over time
AFSPC Needs incorporate the requirements and priorities identified in USSPACECOM, NORAD and USSTRATCOM IPLs. The priority order of the AFSPC Needs closely correlates to each IPL, with the constraint that the single AFSPC list must simultaneously address three separate sets of CINC priorities. Specific details of respective CINC IPLs are classified. This section provides an unclassified, summary assessment of our Integrated Phased Implementation Plan against these requirements.
The USSPACECOM IPL identified ten priorities to resolve specific shortfalls in warfighting capability. Our plan identifies solutions for each of these shortfalls which either partially or completely satisfy USCINCSPACE priority needs in the near- and mid-terms.
The NORAD IPL identified eight priority requirements. Our plan includes solutions which address the seven of these priorities which are specifically space-related.
The USSTRATCOM IPL included ten warfighting requirements, of which nine are space-related. Our plan identifies solutions addressing each of these nine priorities.
We have also assessed our Integrated Phased Implementation Plan for space and missile capabilities against IPLs of the other warfighting CINCs -- CINCEUR (European Command), Joint Forces Command, CINCPAC (Pacific Command), CINCCENT (Central Command), CINCSOUTH (Southern Command), CINCSOC (Special Operations Command) and CINCTRANS (Transportation Command). These CINC IPLs address a wide variety of priorities, a number of which are space-related. Common to each CINC IPL are the following space-related warfighting priority requirements: TMD, C2, ISR and IO. Our plan identifies solutions to fully or partially address these needs across the planning horizon.
Figure 7-6 provides our assessment of how the Integrated Phased Implementation Plan satisfies USSPACECOM LRP requirements and actions we assumed would be allocated to AFSPC. “Red” indicates our plan provides little to no capability to satisfy LRP requirements and actions. “Yellow” means the plan provides some capability. “Green” means the plan provides most or all of the required capability.
All objectives for the Control of Space Operational Concept are met by our Integrated Phased Implementation Plan by 2025. Assured Access capabilities are satisfied by the end of the planning horizon. Responsive, cost-effective space asset transportation, servicing and recovery are met with EELV and supplemented with reusable technologies that ultimately provide SOV, SMV, OTV and Modular On-orbit Servicing capabilities. Surveillance of Space objectives are achieved with significant near-term sustainment and modernization to existing ground systems followed by a space-based capability (SBEON) in the mid-term and microsat imagers in the far-term.
The objectives for the Global Engagement Operational Concept are not fully met by our Integrated Phased Implementation Plan. Integrated Focused Surveillance is not fully satisfied. Our evolution of SBIRS High and Low combined with a GMTI-capable SBR and HSI nearly meet the USSPACECOM objectives. The lack of available TOA to fund an AMTI capability for air-breathing threat detection by 2025, limits the overall assessment to Yellow in the far-term. Missile Defense is partly achieved in the far-term with the first deployment of SBL satellites. FOC is not achieved until after 2025. N/UWSS will have a cornerstone role in meeting NMD C2 objectives. Force Application objectives are addressed in the mid-term with CAV and improved in the far-term with SBL and the cadre of flexible, non-lethal negation capabilities (ground-based jammers, laser blinders and downlink jammers).
Three of the objectives under the Full Force Integration Operational Concept are fully met within the mid-term. Key Policy changes have been identified in the Policy and Treaty Roadmap with sufficient time to allow the planned fielding of AFSPC space negation systems. People-related objectives are significantly addressed in the AFSPC Mission Support initiatives, especially in training (e.g., Space Training Initiative and DMT). Information objectives should be satisfied with the maturing of N/UWSS through the mid-term. Organization objectives are partially addressed by the AFSPC/NASA/NRO Partnership Council; leveraging of NASA, NOAA and international assets for EM; and Space Surveillance cooperative efforts with Army, Navy and international agencies. However, no significant organizational or mission changes are proposed in this SMP.
Global Partnerships objectives remain partially satisfied. Military Core objectives are sustained. International, commercial and civil partnering objectives will be partially satisfied. EM leads the way in leveraging non-DoD systems to satisfy DoD unified CINC needs. Commercial partnering has been initiated with the CSOS study; however, results and recommendations of this study were not available for the formulation of solution options in this IPP cycle. The CSOS study results will be considered in the next planning cycle as potential new options for outsourcing, privatization and commercialization.
Figure 7-6: We are on track to support USSPACECOM LRP Operational Concepts
In summary, our Integrated Phased Implementation Plan projects substantial AFSPC capabilities crucial to the successful execution of the USSPACECOM LRP Operational Concepts. Our planned capabilities to fully exploit space will continue to evolve as the Air Force transitions to a fully integrated Aerospace Force.
Our assessment shows we are on the right
path for achieving our Vision. However, achievement of the desired end states
will not be easy. There are many challenges that lay ahead, each embedded in
various integration initiatives. These include aerospace integration efforts,
partnerships with other organizations such as the NRO and NASA, and leveraging
of commercial capabilities into our projected architectures. (More information
about each of these appears in Appendix B.) Policy and treaty
considerations also present challenges. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4, for a
discussion of the policy and treaty limitations and prohibitions on certain
planned Space Control and Force Applications activities. Our implementation
challenges encompass the four supporting pillars of People, Partners,
Funding and Technology, shown in Figure 7-7 that provide the structure necessary to achieve
the Vision.
Full evolution to a true Aerospace Force begins with two fundamental shifts in how we organize and train our people; a cultural change through training and education; and a force mix change in how we execute our missions via active duty, reserve, guard, civil service, or contracted manpower. Both air and space advocates must support the effort and work together to effect a cultural change. Training and education are crucial components. As space forces become equal partners with air, land and sea forces, theater CINCs must be confident and competent users of space capabilities and products. They must understand how space functions affect other warfighting functions. However, this is not a one-way street. Our space people must also better understand air, land and sea operations. We must continue to integrate space into the core curricula of PME both inside and outside the Air Force. The education and training of our space personnel must be constantly couched in the context of overall military operations. We must train all personnel to be “force protectors.” Terrorist acts can be detected and defeated by every airman and civilian command-wide with proper vigilance and training. We must also advocate for and help develop revised Mission Essential Tasks Lists that include detailed space tasks and are commonly used by all joint warfighting forces for unit training and exercises.
7-7: People, partners, funding and technology are the pillars that provide the foundation to implement the AFSPC Vision
The need for space systems is growing well beyond what one organization or service can afford. Numerous independent efforts over the years have led to technological developments and capabilities that are redundant. To maximize utility to national needs while minimizing the total cost to any one organization, a more open flow of ideas and cross-link of capabilities would be prudent. Our Vision is only possible if organizations work together with a unified goal. Key partnerships with NASA, NRO, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, ARC, industry, other Services and applicable international agencies must be either established or maintained. Further integration of effort for planning, fielding and accessing space capabilities is needed.
Funding is our biggest challenge. Although budgets are tight, the Air Force must be committed to allocating a larger portion of its budget to space forces and devote more S&T dollars to key space-based mission-enabling technologies. This is not to say that portions of our Air Force’s capabilities should be down-scoped or eliminated. Rather the emphasis should be on an open willingness for all Services to perform trade-offs to determine the best mix of ground, air, sea and space forces. Trade-off results should then be used to evaluate budget decisions from an integrated capabilities perspective rather than traditional “fenced” perspectives. The focus must be on finding the most cost-effective mix of aerospace capabilities. We believe that pursuing greater space capabilities will open options to divert funds from some of our traditional “air” missions to other areas, such that the combined effect is a more robust, effective, efficient Aerospace Force. Similar assessments of space missions presently performed by ground-based systems also warrant such evaluations. Furthermore, as we pursue building this aerospace trade-space, we must continue to seek every opportunity to leverage the efforts of our various partnerships and aggressively assess potential civil and commercial capabilities to meet portions or all of some of our missions.
Finally, a hard look at divestiture options is needed. Though much of the exploitation of space involves the growth of new capabilities and missions, as our Vision shows, some of our existing capabilities may be better supplied through “competitively-sourced” avenues. These divestiture assessments must be linked with the force mix options to be evaluated under our “people” pillar.
Development of the capabilities needed for the mid- and far-terms will be paced by maturing technology. Most of the future concepts and solutions included in this plan depend on the maturation of new technologies. The Air Force, however, will not be able to develop all the needed technologies by itself. With the recent proliferation of high technology suppliers and the commercial availability of many technologies, it is imperative that we exploit advancements in all sectors. We must limit our focus to military-specific research while fully leveraging commercial efforts and funding.
As we discussed in Chapter 6, the key to achieving our Vision is ensuring consistency of effort across the entire space community. We must be tightly engaged in feedback between AFSPC, the Product Centers and AFRL in performing trade-offs and adjustments between available S&T resources, technology availability, and TOA for acquisition and operations, to time-phase mission capabilities in line with available resources. As is the case with funding for programs, S&T funding must also be evaluated from an integrated aerospace perspective. Evolution towards the Air Force Vision in which space capabilities play a greater role dictates a greater emphasis of funding for space technologies. Major strides in this direction occurred in recent years. This trend must continue.
Executive Summary Table Of Contents
Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 8 Chapter 9
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G