The Air Force Studies Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine hosted a three-part workshop series to examine the risks associated with the technical, programmatic, organizational, and governance challenges facing the Department of the Air Force (DAF) in its pursuit of enterprise-wide digital transformation strategies. Senior representatives from government, military, industry, and academia considered the DAF's strategic-level decision-making process as well as how it could achieve unity of effort across all of its digital agencies. Workshop participants discussed organizational and management gaps and weaknesses, as well as technical shortfalls associated with the DAF's digital transformation strategies - for example, the issue of cybersecurity within the context of the DAF's proposed digital strategies. Organizational and management practices from both the public and private sectors were also discussed in light of their potential for adaptation and adoption within the DAF. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense, the three 2-day workshops of the series were held virtually on September 1-2, 2021, September 8-9, 2021, and September 23-24. Panelists at the first workshop explained and discussed the DAF's digital transformation strategy - in particular, the proposed digital architectures and the systems, programs, organizations, and missions to be supported. The second workshop featured panels of information systems experts and managers from industry and other government agencies who discussed their experiences with digital transformations and shared their views of best practices. The third workshop focused on the potential applicability of these lessons learned to the DAF's digital transformation strategy and architecture. This proceedings is a factual summary of what occurred during the workshop series. Table of Contents Front Matter Introduction 1 Workshop One, Part One 2 Workshop One, Part Two 3 Workshop Two, Part One 4 Workshop Two, Part Two 5 Workshop Three, Part One 6 Workshop Three, Part Two Appendixes Appendix A: Statement of Task Appendix B: Workshop Agendas Appendix C: Biographical Information for Planning Committee Members Appendix D: Chief of Staff of the Air Force Strategic Studies Group Project and Study Ideas Appendix E: Workshop Series Recap Meeting

The Air Force Studies Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine hosted a three-part workshop series to investigate the changing paradigm of time and knowledge in modern-day warfare. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense, three 2-day workshops were held virtually on September 16-17, 2020, September 23-24, 2020, and October 1-2, 2020. The objective of the first workshop was to explore the ways in which the U.S. Air Force (USAF) has adjusted its capabilities in response to past shifts in operational timing. In consideration of these past shifts, the second workshop aimed to consider when there could be an advantage to synchronize or desynchronize rates of change with adversaries. Participants had the opportunity to discuss lessons learned and possible changes for USAF Doctrine and future operations. The goal of the third workshop was to examine the implications to doctrine, concepts of operations, and command and control from the recent acceleration of battlespace operations, arising from wide-scale digitization, large-scale sensing, and faster technologies. In all three workshops, speakers explored the broader issues surrounding changing environments, and participants discussed ways to adapt to fundamental changes in the time constants of conflict. This proceedings is a factual summary of what occurred during the workshop series. Table of Contents Front Matter Introduction 1 Workshop One, Part One 2 Workshop One, Part Two 3 Workshop Two, Part One 4 Workshop Two, Part Two 5 Workshop Three, Part One 6 Workshop Three, Part Two Appendixes Appendix A: Statement of Task Appendix B: Workshop Agendas Appendix C: Biographical Information for Planning Committee Members Appendix D: Uncertainty, Stability, Instability, Military Affairs, and Time: Some Thoughts and Conjectures Appendix E: Thoughts and Reactions to Planning Committee Discussions Appendix F: E-Mail Commentary on Workshops One and Two Appendix G: Workshop Series Recap Meeting

The Department of Defense (DOD) spends over $300 billion each year to develop, produce, field and sustain weapons systems (the U.S. Air Force over $100 billion per year). DOD and Air Force acquisitions programs often experience large cost overruns and schedule delays leading to a loss in confidence in the defense acquisition system and the people who work in it. Part of the DOD and Air Force response to these problems has been to increase the number of program and technical reviews that acquisition programs must undergo. This book looks specifically at the reviews that U.S. Air Force acquisition programs are required to undergo and poses a key question: Can changes in the number, content, or sequence of reviews help Air Force program managers more successfully execute their programs? This book concludes that, unless they do it better than they are now, Air Force and DOD attempts to address poor acquisition program performance with additional reviews will fail. This book makes five recommendations that together form a gold standard for conduct of reviews and if implemented and rigorously managed by Air Force and DOD acquisition executives can increase review effectiveness and efficiency. The bottom line is to help program managers successfully execute their programs. Table of Contents Front Matter Summary 1 Introduction 2 Findings and Conclusions 3 Recommendations Appendixes Appendix A: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members Appendix B: Meetings and Speakers Appendix C: Related Studies Appendix D: Survey Appendix E: Types of Reviews

A key technical issue for future Air Force systems is to improve their ability to survive. Increased use of stealth technology is proposed by many to be the major element in efforts to enhance survivability for future systems. Others, however, suggest that the high cost and maintenance required of stealth technology make increased speed potentially more productive. To help address this issue, the Air Force asked the NRC to investigate combinations of speed and stealth that would provide U.S. aircraft with a high survival capability in the 2018 period, and to identify changes in R&D plans to enable such aircraft. This report presents: a review of stealth technology development; a discussion of possible future missions and threats; an analysis of the technical feasibility for achieving various levels of stealth and different speeds by 2018 and of relevant near-term R&D needs and priorities; and, observations about the utility of speed and stealth trade-offs against evolving threats.

The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest consumer of energy in the federal government. In turn, the U.S. Air Force is the largest consumer of energy in the DoD, with a total annual energy expenditure of around $10 billion. Approximately 84 percent of Air Force energy use involves liquid fuel consumed in aviation whereas approximately 12 percent is energy (primarily electricity) used in facilities on the ground. This workshop was concerned primarily with opportunities to reduce energy consumption within Air Force facilities that employ energy intensive industrial processes-for example, assembly/disassembly, painting, metal working, and operation of radar facilities-such as those that occur in the maintenance depots and testing facilities. Air Force efforts to reduce energy consumption are driven largely by external goals and mandates derived from Congressional legislation and executive orders. To date, these goals and mandates have targeted the energy used at the building or facility level rather than in specific industrial processes. In response to a request from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering, the National Research Council, under the auspices of the Air Force Studies Board, formed the Committee on Energy Reduction at U.S. Air Force Facilities Using Industrial Processes: A Workshop. The terms of reference called for a committee to plan and convene one 3 day public workshop to discuss: (1) what are the current industrial processes that are least efficient and most cost ineffective? (2) what are best practices in comparable facilities for comparable processes to achieve energy efficiency? (3) what are the potential applications for the best practices to be found in comparable facilities for comparable processes to achieve energy efficiency? (4) what are constraints and considerations that might limit applicability to Air Force facilities and processes over the next ten year implementation time frame? (5) what are the costs and paybacks from implementation of the best practices? (6) what will be a proposed resulting scheme of priorities for study and implementation of the identified best practices? (7) what does a holistic representation of energy and water consumption look like within operations and maintenance? Table of Contents Front Matter Overview 1 Introduction 2 Presentations and Comments 3 Wrap Up Discussion Appendix A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members Appendix B Workshop Agenda Appendix C Workshop Participants Appendix D Presentation Abstracts Appendix E Energy Management Checklist

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities have expanded situation awareness for U.S. forces, provided for more precise combat effects, and enabled better decision making both during conflicts and in peacetime, and reliance on ISR capabilities is expected to increase in the future. ISR capabilities are critical to 3 of the 12 Service Core Functions of the U.S. Air Force: namely, Global Integrated ISR (GIISR) and the ISR components of Cyberspace Superiority and Space Superiority, and contribute to all others. In response to a request from the Air Force for ISR and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering, the National Research Council formed the Committee on Examination of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Capability Planning and Analysis (CP&A) Process. In this report, the committee reviews the current approach to the Air Force corporate planning and programming process for ISR capability generation; examines carious analytical methods, processes, and models for large-scale, complex domains like ISR; and identifies the best practices for the Air Force. In Capability Planning and Analysis to Optimize Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Investments, the current approach is analyzed and the best practices for the Air Force corporate planning and programming processed for ISR are recommended. This report also recommends improvements and changes to existing analytical tools, methods, roles and responsibilities, and organization and management that would be required to ensure the Air Force corporate planning and programming process for ISR is successful in addressing all Joint, National, and Coalition partner's needs. Table of Contents Front Matter Summary 1 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Challenges Facing the Air Force 2 The Current State of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Investment Planning Process 3 Examples of Processes Employed by Government and Industry for Providing Capability Planning and Analysis 4 Toward an Enhanced Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capability Planning and Analysis Process Appendixes Appendix A: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members Appendix B: List of Committee Meetings, Presenters, and Participating Organizations Appendix C: Supplement to Chapter 3: Descriptions of Additional Organizational CP&A Processes and Tools

Overall Air Force weapon system sustainment (WSS) costs are growing at more than 4 percent per year, while budgets have remained essentially flat. The cost growth is due partly to aging of the aircraft fleet, and partly to the cost of supporting higher-performance aircraft and new capabilities provided by more complex and sophisticated systems, such as the latest intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. Furthermore, the expectation for the foreseeable future is that sustainment budgets are likely to decrease, so that the gap between budgets and sustainment needs will likely continue to grow wider. Most observers accept that the Air Force will have to adopt new approaches to WSS if it is going to address this problem and remain capable of carrying out its missions. In this context, the original intent of this 3-day workshop was to focus on ways that science and technology (S&T) could help the Air Force reduce sustainment costs. However, as the workshop evolved, the discussions focused more and more on Air Force leadership, management authority, and culture as the more critical factors that need to change in order to solve sustainment problems. Many participants felt that while S&T investments could certainly help-particularly if applied in the early stages ("to the left") of the product life cycle-adopting a transformational management approach that defines the user-driven goals of the enterprise, empowers people to achieve them, and holds them accountable, down to the shop level. Several workshop participants urged Air Force leaders to start the process now, even though it will take years to percolate down through the entire organization. These sustainment concerns are not new and have been studied extensively, including recent reports from the National Research Council's Air Force Studies Board and the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. Table of Contents Front Matter Overview 1 Introduction 2 Presentations and Comments 3 Wrap-Up Discussion Appendix A: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members Appendix B: Workshop Agenda Appendix C: Workshop Participants Appendix D: Presentation Abstracts