Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Faced with the challenge of deterring and defeating aggression by the kinds of highly capable adversaries highlighted in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) is exploring alternative weapon systems and concepts of employment that will allow it to generate combat power without being harnessed to air bases and runways that adversaries may view as high-value targets. In this report, the authors examine the logistics and sustainment aspects of an emerging operational concept for employing a family of unmanned aerial vehicles that can be launched, recovered, and sustained with minimal reliance on runways, thereby improving operational resiliency in the face of adversary targeting of runways. The authors find that this class of weapon system—called affordable runway-independent unmanned aerial vehicles (ARIUAV)—can conduct high-volume combat operations with lower resource requirements than traditional platforms. The authors identify options for reducing the logistics and support "footprint" associated with ARIUAV operations by using nontraditional support concepts and incorporating design changes that enable reduced support requirements.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In view of uncertainties about the future threat environment, trajectories of technological development, and shifting budgeting priorities, RAND Project AIR FORCE examined analytical methods that would best guide the recently established Air Force Warfighting Integration Capability in capability development planning (CDP), as well as concept development and future force design. In their review, researchers found that specific methods of decisionmaking under deep uncertainty (DMDU) can provide the most suitable means for arriving at solutions that are flexible, adaptable, and robust and guiding investment pathways and modernization efforts. The method highlighted, Robust Decisionmaking, rests on a simple concept. Rather than using models and data to assess policies under a single set of assumptions, RDM runs models over hundreds to thousands of different sets of assumptions about the problem space with the aim of understanding how plans perform under many plausible conditions. Each of the four steps of RDM — decision-framing, case generation, vulnerability assessment and scenario discovery, and trade-off analysis — feeds into the next, providing stakeholders and decisionmakers with a more informed tradespace. By exposing vulnerabilities of different options under different scenarios, RDM can enable stakeholders to engage in a rich dialogue about which risks or vulnerabilities are acceptable, as well as to review assumptions made in framing the problem and make adjustments as needed.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In many potential operating environments, the U.S. Air Force faces adversaries that are increasingly capable of limiting where and how it projects combat power. Whether the environments are called anti-access/area denial environments or contested, degraded, and operationally limited (CDO) environments, they feature adversaries with larger numbers of more-precise missiles that have further reach than before and that threaten traditional U.S. air bases like never before. To persevere in CDO environments, the Air Force and regional warfighting commanders are exploring a variety of alternative force deployment and employment concepts under an umbrella initiative called adaptive basing (AB). Upon surveying the variety of concepts categorized as part of AB, the authors found that all of them—adaptive or not—can be characterized as survival strategies. Thus, AB is less about increasing the adaptiveness of aircraft and air forces than it is about extending their survivability through strategies that are both traditional and adaptive. In this report, RAND researchers review the motivations for AB, describe a footprint model used for estimating the AB implications for Agile Combat Support (ACS), estimate the ACS requirements to perform three fundamental competencies that can enable AB concepts, consider the obstacles to supporting those requirements, and discuss the implications and recommendations for the ACS community and the Air Force at large. Ultimately, it will take a more-concerted, deliberate, and organized effort to flesh out and refine AB concepts into useable warfighting tools. Some concepts might be discarded for reasons of feasibility, cost, or effectiveness, but if the threats perceived today are credible, AB ought to be tested and found wanting rather than declared to be too difficult without sufficient investigation.