Technology Horizons

A Vision for Air Force Science and Technology 

2010–30 

Key science and technology focus areas for the US Air Force 

over the next two decades that will provide technologically 

achievable capabilities enabling the Air Force to gain the 

greatest US joint force effectiveness in 2030 and beyond

Office of the US Air Force Chief Scientist

Originally released 15 May 2010 by the 

United States Air Force Chief Scientist (AF/ST) as 

Report on Technology Horizons: A Vision for Air Force 

Science & Technology during 2010–2030

Volume 1 

AF/ST-TR-10-01-PR

September 2011
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Technology horizons : a vision for Air Force science and technology 2010–30.

 p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 978-1-58566-217-3

1. Aeronautics, Military—Research—United States. 2. Astronautics, Military—Research—

United States—History. 3. Aeronautics, Military—Technological innovations—United States. 

4. Military research—United States—Planning. I. United States. Air Force. Office of the Chief 

Scientist. II. Title: Vision for Air Force science and technology 2010–30. 

UG643.T43 2011

358.4’070973—dc23

 2011037300

Disclaimer

Technology Horizons is a product of the Office of the US Air Force Chief Scientist (AF/ST). 

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the 

author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, 

the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release; 

distribution unlimited.

Air University Press 

Air Force Research Institute 

155 North Twining Street 

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026 

http://aupress.au.af.mil

AFRI

Air Force Research Institute
Contents

Chapter Page

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

FOREWORD BY THE SECRETARY OF 

THE AIR FORCE AND CHIEF OF STAFF 

OF THE AIR FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

PREFACE BY THE CHIEF SCIENTIST 

OF THE AIR FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A Vision for Air Force Science and 

Technology 2010–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Lessons Learned from Prior Air Force 

Science and Technology Visions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Organization and Conduct of Technology 

Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Organization of Results from Technology 

Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2 STRATEGIC CONTEXT FOR AIR FORCE 

S&T 2010–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Relation to National Security Objectives . . . . . . . . . 21

Technology-Derived Challenges to Air 

Force Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Strategic Implications of S&T Globalization . . . . . . 38

Federal Budget Implications for Air Force 

S&T Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3 ENDURING REALITIES FOR THE AIR 

FORCE 2010–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Ensuring Interoperability with Legacy Systems . . . . 43

Sustainment Costs for Legacy Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 43
iv │ technology Horizons

Chapter Page

Importance of Low-Observable Systems . . . . . . . . . . 44

Energy Costs and Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Growing Role of the Cyber Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Need for “Soft Power” Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Manpower Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Budget Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Effective National S&T Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Continued International S&T Cooperation . . . . . . . 46

Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4 OVERARCHING THEMES FOR AIR 

FORCE S&T 2010–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

From Platforms to Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

From Manned to Remotely Piloted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

From Fixed to Agile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

From Control to Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

From Integrated to Fractionated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

From Preplanned to Composable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

From Single Domain to Cross Domain . . . . . . . . . . . 57

From Permissive to Contested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

From Sensor to Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

From Strike to Dissuasion/Deterrence . . . . . . . . . . . 60

From Cyber Defense to Cyber Resilience . . . . . . . . . 61

From Long System Life to Faster Refresh . . . . . . . . . 62

5 TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED CAPABILITIES 

FOR THE AIR FORCE 2010–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Alignment of Capability Areas with Air 

Force Core Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Brief Descriptions of Technology-Enabled 

Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Key Potential Capability Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

From Potential Capability Areas to Key 

Technology Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

6 KEY TECHNOLOGY AREAS 2010–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Key Technology Areas Supporting Potential 

Capability Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
contents │ v

Chapter Page

Alignment of Key Technology Areas with 

Overarching Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Summary of Key Technology Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

7 GRAND CHALLENGES FOR AIR FORCE 

S&T 2010–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Challenge #1: Inherently Intrusion-Resilient 

Cyber Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Challenge #2: Trusted, Highly Autonomous 

Decision-Making Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Challenge #3: Fractionated, Composable, 

Survivable, Autonomous Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Challenge #4: Hyperprecision Aerial Delivery 

in Difficult Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

8 SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY HORIZONS

VISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Broad Range of Inputs to Technology Horizons . . . . 127

Elements of the S&T Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Essential Focus Areas for Air Force S&T 

Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

9 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Recommendation #1: Communicate Results 

from Technology Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Recommendation #2: Assess Alignment of 

S&T Portfolio with Technology Horizons . . . . . . . 138

Recommendation #3: Adjust S&T Portfolio 

Balance As Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Recommendation #4: Initiate Focused Research 

on “Grand Challenge” Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Recommendation #5: Improve Aspects of the 

Air Force S&T Management Process . . . . . . . . . . . 142
vi │ technology Horizons

Appendix Page 

 A Proposed Study for SECAF/CSAF Approval . . . . . . . . 145

B SECAF/CSAF Tasking Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

C Chief Scientist of the Air Force Transmittal Letter . . . 153

D SECAF/CSAF Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

E Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Role of the Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Composition of the Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Air Domain Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Space Domain Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Cyber Domain Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Cross-Domain Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Working Group Participant Biographies . . . . . . . . . . 169

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Studies, Reports, and Other Documents . . . . . . . . . . 193

Site Visits, Briefings, and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
Illustrations

Figure Page 

 1 Headquarters Air Force studies to produce Air 

Force S&T visions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 10+10 Technology-to-Capability process . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 Technology Horizons phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4 Major elements of vision for Air Force S&T . . . . . . . . 14

5 Supporting US joint force operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

6 F-22 supports Air Force air dominance . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

7 Russian/Indian T-50 PAK FA could pose 

challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

8 MDNA Meteor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

9 Python-5 AAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

10 SPYDER advanced SAM system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

11 B-52s and B-2s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

12 AGM-129A advanced nuclear cruise missile . . . . . . . . 31

13 Aerial refueling and airdrop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

14 Remotely piloted aircraft and directed-energy 

systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

15 World regional research and development 

expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

16 Overarching themes for Air Force S&T 2010–30 . . . . 50

17 Notional process for identifying PCAs and KTAs 

for air, space, and cyber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

18 Mapping of potential capability areas across Air 

Force service core functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
viii │ technology Horizons

Figure Page 

 19 Technologies to augment human performance 

and cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

20 Virtual and constructive technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

21 Manpower-intensive Air Force functions using 

trusted autonomous systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

22 Chip-scale atomic clocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

23 Cold-atom devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

24 Persistent near-space systems in the form of 

ultra-long-endurance airships or autonomous 

flight vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

25 High-altitude, long-endurance intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance airship . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

26 Single-stage ISR/strike vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

27 Hybrid airship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

28 Hybrid wing-body aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

29 Highly efficient embedded turbine engine . . . . . . . . . . 88

30 X-51 demonstrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

31 BrahMos supersonic cruise missile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

32 Laser directed-energy systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

33 Small satellites composed from standardized 

modular elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

34 Improved space surveillance capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

35 Superconducting artificial atom structures 

visualized via amplitude spectroscopy and 

metamaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Foreword

Technology Horizons is our vision for key Air Force science and technology investments over the next decade that will provide us with truly 

game-changing capabilities to meet our strategic and joint force responsibilities. The coming decades hold high promise for amazing new 

capabilities across the air, space, and cyber domains. Yet the Air Force 

and our nation will also be confronted with substantial strategic, technology, and budget challenges. Our greatest advances will come with a 

focused investment of resources in the most promising technologies. 

The vision in Technology Horizons provides the shared awareness of the 

challenges and opportunities that will enable us to achieve this focus.

Technology Horizons presents a clearly articulated and credible assessment of the strategic environment and enduring realities we face. It 

outlines a set of overarching themes that defines attributes our future 

Air Force systems will need to prevail. New technology-enabled capabilities are envisioned that meet key needs, including long-range strike, 

deterrence tools, cyber resilience, energy efficiency, and automation 

and enhanced human-machine interfaces, to help our most valuable 

asset—our Airmen—be even more effective than today. We believe the 

Air Force must boldly move forward to advance these technologies 

through the dedicated, creative, and focused efforts of our science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce. The future is 

ours to shape.

To implement this vision, we are concentrating a meaningful portion of our Air Force Research Laboratory effort on the identified key 

technologies. We will move forward in pursuing “grand challenges” 

that will help achieve militarily useful capabilities. We will work 

closely with our partners across the Department of Defense, government, industry, academia, and allied nations to leverage the best intellectual capital and facilities in pursuit of the most promising ideas. 

And we will sustain our focus on these science and technology efforts 

to maximize their likelihood of being transitioned into operational 

capabilities meeting Air Force needs. We firmly believe that maintaining our technical and operational superiority in this manner is 

both necessary and attainable. 
x │ technology Horizons

Therefore, we encourage all Airmen—indeed all warriors and our 

other national and international partners—to read Technology Horizons and seriously contemplate the transformative opportunities that 

technology can enable in the coming decades. We call on you as Airmen to contribute your intellectual energy to developing new frameworks and novel concepts of operations to take maximum advantage 

of these coming technologies. These are challenging times, but we 

have no doubt that America’s Airmen will overcome the challenges 

we face to provide the critical capability advances needed to ensure 

the United States Air Force remains the world’s premier air force 

through 2030 and beyond.

Michael B. Donley Norton A. Schwartz 

Secretary of the Air Force General, USAF 

Chief of Staff
Preface

The proud heritage of the United States Air Force is closely intertwined with the advancement of science and technology (S&T), beginning with the invention of mechanical flight. In 1945, two years before 

the Air Force became a separate service, the world-renowned aerodynamicist Theodore von Kármán led our very first S&T vision, “Towards New Horizons,” for Army Air Force general Henry “Hap” Arnold. 

Hap Arnold knew that “any air force which does not keep its doctrines 

ahead of its equipment, and its vision far into the future, can only delude the nation into a false sense of security.” Von Kármán noted that 

“only a constant inquisitive attitude toward science and a ceaseless and 

swift adaptation to new developments can maintain the security of this 

nation.” In “Towards New Horizons” he advocated new developments 

such as supersonic aircraft, air defense systems, and unpiloted vehicles, 

better known as the ballistic missiles that helped win the Cold War. 

Moreover, this groundbreaking work was the impetus for building the 

Air Force scientific laboratory system and test infrastructure without 

which today’s capabilities could not have been realized. Compared to 

our adversaries at the start of World War II, the Air Force was transformed from a technologically inferior force to the world’s most technologically advanced and formidable airpower within merely a decade. 

Over a half century later, during the Gulf War, the Department of 

Defense (DOD) and the Air Force experienced the benefits of continued shaping of the future through applied S&T developments. A swift 

victory for the allied force with very limited civilian and coalition casualties was made possible by precision-guided munitions (“smart bombs”) 

enabled by the satellite-based Global Positioning System (GPS), enhanced situational awareness enabled by the Joint Surveillance and 

Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), superior command and control 

enabled by the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), air 

superiority provided by F-117A Stealth aircraft, and air defense provided by Patriot missiles. 

Today, in America’s efforts to provide stability, security, and prosperity to weakened or failing states, the center of gravity has transitioned from military systems to civilian populations. Operational success 

is once again enabled by previous S&T investments and innovations. 
xii │ technology Horizons

These include remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), air/spaceborne multiintelligence sensing (radar, infrared, signals intelligence), distributed 

command, control, and intelligence (e.g., distributed common ground 

system), micromunitions, directed energy, and human terrain modeling. Collectively, these have enabled conducting persistent surveillance 

(and thus have led to tactical patience), novel sensing of improvised 

explosive devices, tracking of deceptive adversaries who hide in plain 

sight, and protecting civilian populations, crucial in the battle for hearts 

and minds. 

In spite of these breathtaking advances, change continues to accelerate. Last year alone, the Air Force added new career fields for cyber and 

RPA operators, driving new requirements for technology advances. 

What will determine success in future operational engagements remains unknown, but it will most certainly involve S&T. In the words of 

Air Force chief of staff Gen Norton A. Schwartz, “We cannot know 

what the future holds, so in order to realize my vision of a consistently 

powerful, capable Air Force, we will almost certainly need to pursue 

initiatives not yet fully imagined.” 

Today’s multipolar, fiscally constrained, and technology-filled world 

demands vigorous and properly focused S&T investments to advance 

the capabilities that the Air Force will need to fulfill its mission in an 

uncertain future. Accordingly, the secretary of the Air Force and chief 

of staff of the Air Force requested that the Office of the Chief Scientist 

craft Technology Horizons. The former chief scientist of the US Air 

Force, Dr. Werner J. A. Dahm (October 2008 to September 2010), skillfully responded by orchestrating expert insights from a wide range of 

organizations, including the Air Force Research Laboratory, MAJCOMs, 

Air Staff, operational squadrons, sister services, DOD agencies, other 

federal agencies, federally funded research and development centers, 

national laboratories, industry, and academia. 

Technology Horizons begins by characterizing the strategic context, 

noting today’s contested, congested, and competitive multipolar environment and underscoring technology-derived challenges to Air Force capabilities in air, space, and cyber, including new threats in areas such as 

electronic warfare, directed energy, and GPS denial. Several enduring realities that shape what we can do as an Air Force are then expressed. 

These include not only budgetary constraints driven by growing human, 
preface │ xiii

sustainment, and energy costs but also opportunities to build upon 

legacy systems as well as strong partnerships with our sister services, 

DOD agencies, national laboratories, industry, and international partners. Technology Horizons next presents key overarching themes to help 

guide and focus S&T efforts. These include, for example, fundamental 

shifts toward agile, fractionated, and cross-domain systems operating in 

increasingly autonomous fashion in contested environments. 

Recognizing the intimate link between capability and technology, 

Technology Horizons employed a unique methodology to chart the 

most productive technology pathways toward the highest value capabilities, including a focus on Air Force service core functions. The resulting potential capability and key technology areas allow both our 

operators and technologists to glimpse the art of the possible. Moreover, Technology Horizons provides an actionable plan to move forward 

toward that future. Technologists have in hand an expert assessment of 

those most promising areas in which to concentrate effort and a number of grand challenges that provide a context for beginning to integrate diverse technologies. Operators have a roadmap with which to 

begin considering future strategy, organization, and employment of 

these advanced capabilities and to influence the direction of technology 

development as it unfolds. For example, Technology Horizons identifies 

“disproportionately valuable” technology areas suited to the strategic, 

technological, and budget environments of 2010–30, such as flexible 

autonomy, human cognitive augmentation, cyber and spectrum resiliency, 

energy efficiency, and long-range strike. 

The Air Force is at a pivotal time in its history. The confluence of strategic change, global technological advancement, and fiscal and natural 

resource constraints causes some to wonder how we will maintain our 

technological advantage. The importance of our technological advantage 

goes well beyond national security, as noted recently by Pres. Barack 

Obama: “Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our 

health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been.” 

The Technology Horizons vision enables the Air Force to vector its S&T 

investments over the coming decade to enable technologically achievable 

capabilities that can provide it with the greatest US joint force effectiveness by 2030. As Air Force secretary Michael B. Donley observes, “Technology Horizons will shape our future Air Force research and develop-
xiv │ technology Horizons

ment priorities.” Because of its clarity and focus, Technology Horizons will 

enable the Air Force to support the current fight and be responsive to Air 

Force service core functions while at the same time advancing breakthrough S&T for tomorrow’s dominant war-fighting capabilities. 

Our potential adversaries have not missed the powerful lessons of 

technological transformation and the advantages that accrue to an air 

force that embraces this mind-set. We must remain as committed as we 

were in 1945 to pursuing the most promising technological opportunities for our times, to employing the scientific and engineering savvy to 

bring them to reality, and to having the wisdom to transition them into 

the next generation of capabilities that will allow us to maintain our 

edge. In the words of General Schwartz, “Even as we focus on winning 

today’s war, we should also keep a watchful eye on the evolving 21st 

century security environment. We must take steps today that will allow 

future generations to meet—and shape—the challenges of tomorrow. 

That will not be easy.” While we face substantial strategic, operational, 

and economic challenges in the coming decade, Technology Horizons

has laid out a perspicuous vision to guide the scientific and technological 

advancements necessary to sustain the operational superiority of our 

Air Force into the horizon and beyond. 

Dr. Mark T. Maybury 

Chief Scientist of the US Air Force 

Pentagon
Acknowledgments

Technology Horizons was a major undertaking, and many people 

made important contributions to it. It is apparent that an effort of this 

scope, involving such a large number of people from so many different 

organizations for nearly a year, can only be undertaken about once every 

decade or so. With the process now completed and the final product 

delivered, it is appropriate to call out some of the key individuals who 

made among the greatest contributions to it.

Perhaps most noteworthy among these was Col Eric Silkowski, PhD.

In addition to serving as my military assistant in AF/ST, he was a full 

participant in the fact-finding visits, briefings, and discussions involved 

in this effort. He also served as a member of all four of the Technology 

Horizons working groups and gave essential assistance with the writing 

and editing of the final report volumes. His technical background in 

engineering physics and his experience in numerous Air Force science 

and technology roles and relevant management positions were immeasurably important to this effort.

The MAJCOMs and product centers provided key inputs throughout this effort. Several individuals in those organizations made especially important contributions, particularly Gen Donald Hoffman and 

his staff in Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), Gen Robert Kehler 

and his staff in Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), Gen Raymond 

Johns and his staff in Air Mobility Command (AMC), and Lt Gen Ted 

Bowlds and his staff at the Electronic Systems Center (ESC). 

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) was an essential and 

highly active contributor. Maj Gen Curt Bedke and later Maj Gen Ellen 

Pawlikowski served as AFRL/CC during the course of the effort, and 

they made the staff in Headquarters AFRL and across the laboratory 

available to support the project in every way. Dr. Mike Kuliasha, AFRL’s 

chief technologist at the time, was on all four working groups and made 

key contributions throughout the effort. Many individuals from AFRL’s 

technical directorates served on the working groups; among these, Dr. 

Bill Baker, Dr. Alok Das, Mr. Jeff Hughes, Dr. Kamal Jabbour, Dr. Brian 

Kent, and Dr. Jim Riker must be given special mention. They and others across AFRL provided important background information and 

fact-finding materials. Technology Horizons would not have been possible without the strong contributions that AFRL made to it.
xvi │ technology Horizons

Colleagues on the Air Staff and the Air Force Secretariat provided important inputs and feedback at essential phases of the effort. Especially 

noteworthy contributions were made by Lt Gen David Deptula and his 

staff in AF/A2, Lt Gen Phil Breedlove and the AF/A3/5 staff, Lt Gen 

Chris Miller along with his staff in AF/A8, Dr. Jacqueline Henningsen 

and her staff in AF/A9, and Mr. Bruce Lemkin and his staff in SAF/IA.

Many others should also be noted for their contributions. Key among 

these are Dr. Tom Ehrhard of the Chief of Staff ’s Strategic Studies 

Group, Dr. Janet Fender in Air Combat Command, Dr. Don Erbschloe 

in AMC, Dr. Doug Beason in AFSPC, Dr. Mark Gallagher in AF/A9, 

Mr. Gary O’Connell and Ms. Betsy Witt at the National Air and Space 

Intelligence Center, Maj Gen Brad Heithold and his staff at the Air 

Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Agency, Dr. Ned 

Allen from Lockheed Martin, Dr. Richard Byrne from MITRE, and Dr. 

Richard Hallion. Lt Gen Bob Elder, USAF, retired, provided particularly important inputs on an early draft of the report. 

The four working groups listed in appendix E were essential to Technology Horizons. Members of these groups not already noted above 

also deserve special mention. They include Dr. John Bay, Mr. Doug 

Bowers, Dr. Chris Colliver, Dr. Gregory Crawford, Dr. Roberta Ewart, 

Col Robert Fredell, PhD, Mr. Jon Goding, Mr. Jonathan Gordon, Dr. 

Thomas Hamilton, Dr. David Hardy, Mr. Dewey Houck, Mr. Richard 

Mesic, Dr. Lara Schmidt, Dr. Dwight Streit, Dr. Marc Zissman, and Dr. 

John Zolper.

Ms. Penny Ellis in AF/ST provided expert administrative support 

throughout the effort. Given the number of site visits, fact-finding trips, 

working group meetings, and briefings that were involved in producing 

Technology Horizons, this was no small task, but it was one that she 

performed with her characteristic skill.

Without the collective contributions made by these and many others, 

Technology Horizons could not have been possible and would not have 

reflected the broad range of inputs needed to develop a clear vision for 

the most essential Air Force science and technology focus areas. 

Dr. Werner J. A. Dahm 

Chief Scientist of the US Air Force (2008–10) 

Pentagon
Executive Summary

From its inception, the Air Force has conducted a major effort 

roughly once every decade to articulate a vision for the science and 

technology (S&T) advancements that it should undertake to achieve 

over the following decade to enable the capabilities it will need to prevail. Six such S&T visions have been developed, beginning with Toward 

New Horizons in 1945 led by Theodore von Kármán for Gen Hap Arnold, 

through New World Vistas conducted in 1995. 

Since completion of the latter, 15 years have passed without an updated Air Force S&T vision. Technology Horizons represents the next in 

this succession of major vision efforts conducted at the Headquarters 

Air Force (HAF) level. In view of the far-reaching strategic changes, 

rapid global technological advances, and growing resource constraints 

over the next decade, this is an overdue effort that can help guide S&T 

investments to maximize their impact for maintaining Air Force technological superiority over potential adversaries. 

What Is Technology Horizons?

Technology Horizons is neither a prediction of the future nor a forecast of a set of likely future scenarios. It is a rational assessment of what 

is credibly achievable from a technical perspective to give the Air Force 

capabilities that are suited for the strategic, technology, and budget environments of 2010–30. It is visionary, but its view is informed by the 

strategic context in which these technology-derived capabilities will be 

used. It is an articulation of the “art of the possible” but is grounded in 

the knowledge that merely being possible is only a prerequisite to being 

practically useful. It considers the spectrum of technical possibilities 

but acknowledges that budget constraints will limit the set of these that 

can be pursued. 

It recognizes that increasingly more of the science and technology 

that provides the basis for future Air Force capabilities is available 

worldwide to be translated into potential adversary capabilities. It thus 

has sought to envision not only US joint and allied opportunities for 

using technologies, but also ways that adversary capabilities could be 
xviii │ technology Horizons

derived from them using entirely different concepts of operations or on 

the basis of entirely different war-fighting constructs. It acknowledges 

that capabilities enabled by new technologies and associated operating 

concepts often introduce new vulnerabilities not envisioned in the 

original capability. It thus has also considered potential vulnerabilities 

and cross-domain interdependences that may be created by secondand third-order effects of these technology-derived capabilities. 

Sources of Inputs

Technology Horizons received inputs from a wide range of organizations and sources. These included four working groups—one each in 

the air, space, and cyber domains and another that focused on crossdomain insights—that gave a broad range of subject matter expertise to 

this effort. Working group members were drawn from the Air Force 

S&T community, intelligence community, MAJCOMs, product centers, federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC), defense industry, and academia. Further inputs were obtained from site 

visits, briefings, and discussions with organizations across the Air 

Force, the Department of Defense, federal agencies, FFRDCs, national 

laboratories, and industry, including Air Staff and Air Force Secretariat 

offices. Additional use was made of perspectives in several hundred 

papers, reports, briefings, and other sources. 

Elements of the Resulting S&T Vision

The vision from Technology Horizons to help guide Air Force S&T 

over the next decade and beyond consists of the following elements:

1. Strategic Context

2. Enduring Realities

3. Overarching Themes

4. Potential Capability Areas

5. Key Technology Areas

6. Grand Challenges

7. Summary of S&T Vision

8. Implementation Plan & Recommendations
executive summary │ xix

Overarching Themes for Air Force S&T

The strategic context and enduring realities identified in Technology 

Horizons lead to a set of 12 overarching themes to vector S&T in directions that can maximize capability superiority. These shifts in research 

emphases should be applied judiciously to guide each research area.

1. From ... Platforms To ... Capabilities

2. From ... Manned To ... Remotely piloted

3. From ... Fixed To ... Agile

4. From ... Control To ... Autonomy

5. From ... Integrated To ... Fractionated

6. From ... Preplanned To ... Composable

7. From ... Single-domain To ... Cross-domain

8. From ... Permissive To ... Contested

9. From ... Sensor To ... Information

10. From ... Operations To ... Dissuasion/Deterrence

11. From ... Cyber defense To ... Cyber resilience

12. From ... Long system life To ... Faster refresh

Potential Capability Areas, Key Technology Areas, 

and Grand Challenges for Air Force S&T

Based on the strategic environment, enduring realities, and overarching themes, the remaining elements of the vision from Technology 

Horizons are presented as follows to help guide the Air Force in making 

choices about the most essential S&T efforts that must be pursued to prepare for the environment of 2010–30. It identifies potential capability 

areas (PCA) and maps these PCAs across the Air Force service core 

functions to assess the range of impact they can have. 

■ It uses this set of PCAs to identify key technology areas (KTA) 

that are most essential for the Air Force to invest in over the next 

decade to obtain capabilities aligned with the strategic, technology, 

and budget environments. 
xx │ technology Horizons

■ It additionally defines four “grand challenge” problems to advance 

KTAs and integrate them in system-level demonstrations of significant new capabilities.

■ It presents an implementation plan that enables the elements of 

this vision to be put into practice for guiding Air Force S&T efforts to maximize resulting capabilities in 2030.

Major Findings

The single greatest theme to emerge from Technology Horizons is the 

need, opportunity, and potential to dramatically advance technologies 

that can allow the Air Force to gain the capability increases, manpower 

efficiencies, and cost reductions available through far greater use of autonomous systems in essentially all aspects of Air Force operations. Increased use of autonomy—not only in the number of systems and processes to which autonomous control and reasoning can be applied but 

especially in the degree of autonomy that is reflected in these—can provide the Air Force with potentially enormous increases in its capabilities and, if implemented correctly, can do so in ways that enable manpower efficiencies and cost reductions.

Achieving these gains will depend on development of entirely new 

methods for enabling “trust in autonomy” through verification and 

validation (V&V) of the near-infinite state systems that result from 

high levels of adaptibility and autonomy. In effect, the number of possible input states that such systems can be presented with is so large 

that not only is it impossible to test all of them directly, it is not even 

feasible to test more than an insignificantly small fraction of them. 

Development of such systems is thus inherently unverifiable by today’s 

methods, and as a result their operation in all but comparatively trivial 

applications is uncertifiable.

It is possible to develop systems having high levels of autonomy, but 

it is the lack of suitable V&V methods that prevents all but relatively 

low levels of autonomy from being certified for use. Potential adversaries, however, may be willing to field systems with far higher levels of 

autonomy without any need for certifiable V&V and could gain significant capability advantages over the Air Force by doing so. Countering 
executive summary │ xxi

this asymmetric advantage will require as-yet-undeveloped methods 

for achieving certifiably reliable V&V. The Air Force, as one the greatest 

potential beneficiaries of more highly adaptive and autonomous systems, must be a leader in the development of the underlying S&T principles for V&V.

A second key finding to emerge from Technology Horizons is that 

natural human capacities are becoming increasingly mismatched to the 

enormous data volumes, processing capabilities, and decision speeds 

that technologies either offer or demand. Although humans today remain more capable than machines for many tasks, by 2030 machine 

capabilities will have increased to the point that humans will have become the weakest component in a wide array of systems and processes. 

Humans and machines will need to become far more closely coupled 

through improved human-machine interfaces and by direct augmentation of human performance.

Focused research efforts over the next decade will permit significant 

practical instantiations of augmented human performance. These may 

come from increased use of autonomous systems as noted above, from 

improved man-machine interfaces to couple humans more closely and 

more intuitively with automated systems, or from direct augmentation 

of humans themselves. The latter includes drugs or implants to improve 

memory, alertness, cognition, or visual/aural acuity, as well as screening of individuals for speciality codes based on brainwave patterns or 

genetic correlators, or even genetic modification itself. While some 

such methods may appear inherently distasteful, potential adversaries 

may be entirely willing to make use of them. 

Developing ways of using science and technology to augment human performance will become increasingly essential for gaining the 

benefits that many technologies can bring. Significant advances and 

early implementations are possible over the next decade. Such augmentation is a further means for increasing human efficiencies, allowing 

reduced manpower needs for the same capabilities or increased capabilities with given manpower.

A further key theme is the need to focus a greater fraction of S&T 

investments on research to support increased freedom of operations 

in contested or denied environments. Three main research areas are 

of particular importance: (1) cyber resilience, (2) precision naviga-
xxii │ technology Horizons

tion and timing in Global Positioning System (GPS)-denied environments, and (3) electromagnetic spectrum warfare. Additionally, the 

study identifies further key priority areas where S&T investment will 

be needed over the next decade to enable essential capabilities, including processing-enabled intelligent sensors, directed energy for 

tactical strike/defense, persistent space situational awareness, rapidly 

composable small satellites, and next-generation high-efficiency gas 

turbine engines.

Recommendations

Technology Horizons makes five major recommendations for guiding 

Air Force S&T efforts to meet the strategy, technology, and budget 

challenges over the next decade and beyond:

Recommendation #1: Communicate Results from Technology Horizons.

■ Communicate the rationale, objectives, process, and key elements 

from Technology Horizons via briefings offered to all HAF offices, 

MAJCOMs, product centers, and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). 

■ Build broad awareness, understanding, and support for the Air 

Force S&T vision from Technology Horizons.

■ Disseminate Technology Horizons across all relevant organizations 

beyond those that provided inputs to this effort.

Recommendation #2: Assess Alignment of the S&T Portfolio with 

Technology Horizons.

■ Assess alignment of AFRL’s current S&T portfolio with the broad 

research directions and technology focus areas outlined in Technology Horizons. 

■ Identify the target fraction of the total Air Force S&T portfolio to 

be aligned with the research directions and technology focus areas 

identified in Technology Horizons. 
executive summary │ xxiii

Recommendation #3: Adjust the S&T Portfolio Balance As Needed.

■ Identify research efforts in the current S&T portfolio that must be 

redirected or realigned with the research directions and technology focus areas in Technology Horizons.

■ Determine which of these efforts should be realigned, redirected, 

or terminated to accommodate new research efforts that achieve 

the needed direction and emphasis.

■ Define new research efforts that will be started to allow broad research directions and technology areas identified in Technology 

Horizons to be effectively achieved. 

■ Implement changes in the AFRL S&T portfolio to initiate new research efforts identified above and to realign, redirect, and terminate existing efforts identified above. 

Recommendation #4: Initiate Focused Research on “Grand Challenge” 

Problems.

■ Evaluate, define, and focus a set of grand-challenge problems of 

sufficient scale and scope to drive major technology development 

efforts in key areas identified here. 

■ Structure each grand challenge to drive advances in research directions identified in Technology Horizons as being essential for 

meeting Air Force needs in 2030. 

■ Define specific demonstration goals for each challenge that require sets of individual technology areas to be integrated and 

demonstrated at the whole-system level. 

■ Initiate sustained research efforts in the AFRL S&T portfolio as necessary to achieve each of the grand-challenge demonstration goals. 

Recommendation #5: Improve Aspects of the Air Force S&T Management Process.

■ Obtain HAF-level endorsement of an AFRL planning construct 

for S&T to provide the stability needed for effective mid- and 

long-range development of technologies.
xxiv │ technology Horizons

■ Define and implement a formal process for obtaining high-level 

inputs from MAJCOMs and product centers in periodic adjustments within the AFRL S&T planning construct.

■ Develop and implement an informal process to obtain more frequent inputs from MAJCOMs and product centers for lower levels 

of the AFRL S&T planning construct.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Technology Horizons was conducted over a nine-month period 

to provide a vision for science and technology (S&T) in the Air 

Force over the next decade and beyond. This chapter summarizes 

the goals, organization, and execution of this effort and describes 

how the results are presented.

The US Air Force today finds itself at an undeniably pivotal time in its history. It is without question the most effective and powerful air force in the 

world, and the only air force that can truly project global power. That position of strength was attained by organizing, training, and equipping a professional workforce for the entire range of functions essential to joint combat 

and combat support, as well as for noncombat missions that the service is 

increasingly called on to perform. Yet perhaps the single most important factor in achieving this position has been the unmatched technological advantage that the US Air Force has attained over any of its competitors.

Today, however, the confluence of strategic changes, worldwide technological advancements, and looming resource constraints cause some to 

wonder how the Air Force will maintain this position of superiority. As the 

spectrum of conflict has grown, so too have the demands for a wider range 

of capabilities across all facets of conflict. Unprecedented worldwide diffusion of technologies is giving competitors access to capabilities that may 

have the potential to offset important parts of USAF technological advantages. At the same time, indications are that defense budgets in the coming 

decade may make it increasingly difficult to achieve the pace of S&T investment that has provided the foundation for US Air Force superiority. 

A Vision for Air Force Science 

and Technology 2010–30

It is against this background that the secretary of the Air Force and 

the Air Force chief of staff called for the chief scientist of the Air Force 

to conduct the Technology Horizons study (see app. B). The study exam-
2 │ Technology Horizons

ines technologies across the air, space, and cyber domains to develop a 

forward-looking assessment, on a 20-year horizon, of possible offensive and defensive capabilities and countercapabilities of the Air Force 

and its potential future adversaries that could substantially alter future 

war-fighting environments and affect future US joint capability dominance. In doing so, Technology Horizons provides a vision for where Air 

Force S&T should be focused over the next decade to maximize the 

technology superiority of the US Air Force.

A Rational Technical Assessment, Not a Forecast or Prediction

Technology Horizons is neither a prediction of the future nor a forecast of a set of likely future scenarios. Such efforts play a useful role, but 

forecasts or predictions tend in most cases to overestimate the pace of 

progress, even when technology overall is advancing at an undeniably 

rapid pace. Equally important, efforts to forecast or predict the future 

invariably miss one or more trivial events that can have a determinative 

effect on the future that actually occurs. Chaos theory indicates that the 

particular future that will occur beyond a short time horizon is the result 

of a confluence of many events, the 

product of which can be inherently 

unpredictable with any useful certainty and can be influenced to leading 

order by seemingly incidental events.

Neither is Technology Horizons a 

fantasy from technologists describing 

a future in which technology will 

achieve seemingly boundless wonders. 

The inaccuracy of such descriptions 

has over time served more to reveal 

how difficult it in fact is to translate 

technological possibilities into practically achievable systems while satisfying numerous operational constraints that may have nothing to do with the technologies themselves. 

Rather, Technology Horizons is a rational assessment of what is credibly 

achievable from a technical perspective to give the Air Force a set of 

Our Air Force is at another inflection point in 

its history, where changes 

in the strategic environment, new technologies, 

and changes in resources 

combine to reshape our 

capabilities and to set us 

in new directions.

—The Honorable Michael B. Donley 

Secretary of the Air Force
INTRODUCTION │ 3

capabilities that is suited for the strategic environment of 2010–30. It 

identifies the key technology areas (KTA) where Air Force S&T investment is most critical for providing the service with the ability to adapt 

and prevail across the spectrum of conflict in the air, space, and cyber 

domains. It further addresses emerging cross-domain areas where entirely new threats and opportunities exist. 

While this study is visionary, its view is informed by the strategic 

context in which these technology-derived capabilities will be used. It 

is an articulation of the “art of the possible” but is grounded in the scientific and engineering knowledge that merely being possible is only a 

prerequisite to being practically useful. It not only considers the spectrum of technical possibilities but also acknowledges that budget constraints will limit the set of these that can be pursued. 

Science and Technology for Materiel and Nonmateriel Solutions

Air Force capabilities and costs are closely interdependent. The costs 

of normal operations consume resources that otherwise might be available to develop greater capabilities. Manpower costs, for example, are consuming an increasingly larger fraction of 

the overall Air Force budget. Technology solutions that can reduce manpower requirements or increase manpower efficiencies via nonmateriel means 

can thus have as much impact on future capabilities as can direct materiel 

solutions. The S&T vision articulated 

in Technology Horizons thus seeks to 

identify “disproportionately valuable” 

materiel and nonmateriel solutions over 

the 2010–30 time frame. 

Technology Horizons looks at capabilities on a 20-year time horizon but 

recognizes that it can take a decade to 

translate technologies from maturity into fielded systems. It therefore 

is based on an approach that considers technology developments over 

While we remain resolute about the issues that 

remain, we can, and we 

must, raise our sights to 

focus on the longer-term 

vision—an Airman’s vision 

of constant innovation in 

the control and exploitation of air, space, and 

cyberspace.

—Gen Norton B. Schwartz 

US Air Force Chief of Staff
4 │ Technology Horizons

the next decade that can provide the basis for technology-enabled 

capabilities over the following decade. 

This effort also recognizes that increasingly more of the S&T that 

provides the basis for future Air Force capabilities is available worldwide to be translated into potential adversary capabilities. It consequently 

has sought to envision not only US joint and allied opportunities for 

using these technologies, but also ways that adversary capabilities and 

“technology surprise” could be derived from them using entirely different concepts of operations or on the basis of entirely different warfighting constructs.

Technology Horizons further recognizes that capabilities enabled by 

new technologies and associated operating concepts often introduce 

new vulnerabilities not envisioned in the original capability. It thus has 

sought to consider potential vulnerabilities and cross-domain interdependences that may conceivably be created by second- and thirdorder effects of these technology-derived capabilities. 

Can We Even Afford to Do Any of These Things?

With factors such as manpower, sustainment, and energy costs consuming increasingly more of the Air Force budget, and the outlook for 

defense budgets suggesting little or no real growth over the next decade, some may rightly ask whether a study such as this is even useful. 

If the Air Force does not have the resources to put behind the S&T focus areas emerging from this effort, then what sense does it make to 

identify these and develop an Air Force S&T vision around them? 

At a minimum, such a view would overlook the fact that technologies themselves can help offset many of the costs noted above. 

For instance:

■ New technologies for increased cyber resilience of Air Force networks and systems can potentially free up manpower otherwise 

consumed by additional cyber specialists and their training that 

would be needed to defend these systems.

■ Technologies can provide increased trust in autonomy to enable 

reduced manpower requirements via flexibly autonomous systems, or equivalently autonomous systems can enable greater 

war-fighter capabilities for the same manpower requirements.
INTRODUCTION │ 5

■ Technologies can enable fuel cost savings by increases in turbine 

engine efficiency, advances in lightweight materials and multifunctional structures, advanced aerodynamic concepts and technologies, and adaptive control technologies. 

■ Technologies could potentially reduce manpower needs through 

augmentation of human performance via implants that improve 

memory, alertness, cognition, and visual/aural acuity; brainwavecoupled human-machine pairings; or even screening of individuals for specialty codes based on brainwave patterns or genetic correlators.

Such examples show how an Air Force S&T vision that properly accounts for the role that budget constraints will play in the strategic environment can enable materiel and nonmateriel solutions to reduce Air 

Force costs while expanding capabilities.

It should be further apparent that in a budget-constrained environment it is all the more essential to have a clear vision for where S&T 

investments should be focused. It is precisely when resources are too 

constrained to allow as broad a set of S&T investments as might be 

desirable that the Air Force needs a vision for which technology areas 

are most essential for it to invest in. While broader investment will be 

needed to provide an appropriately hedged strategy, a substantial fraction of total S&T efforts should be aligned with a vision that identifies 

technology areas for enabling among the greatest Air Force capabilities.

Technology Horizons provides a vision for where a substantial fraction of Air 

Force S&T investment should be focused to provide the greatest possible capabilities 

in the strategic environment, budget environment, and technology environment 

during 2010–30.

Lessons Learned from Prior Air Force 

Science and Technology Visions

Throughout its history, beginning shortly before it became a separate 

service, the Air Force has conducted a major study roughly once every 

10 years to develop a vision for the role that S&T would seek to fill over 

the following decade. As shown by the timeline in figure 1, six such 
6 │ Technology Horizons

studies have previously been conducted, beginning with Toward New 

Horizons in 1945 led by Theodore von Kármán for Gen Hap Arnold, 

and continuing through New World Vistas conducted in 1995 by the 

Scientific Advisory Board for secretary of the Air Force Dr. Sheila 

Widnall and Air Force chief of staff Gen Ronald Fogleman. 

Toward New

Horizons

(1945)

Project

Forecast

(1964)

New World

Vistas

(1995)

Technology

Horizons

(2010)

Woods Hole

Summer Study

(1958)

New

Horizons II

(1975)

Project

Forecast II

(1986)

High-impact studies

Low-impact studies

1

2 4 5

3 6 7

1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010+

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Figure 1. Summary of Headquarters Air Force–level studies to produce 

Air Force S&T visions. Technology Horizons is an overdue effort to produce an S&T vision appropriate for the strategic environment during 

2010–30. (Courtesy of the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Air Force.)

Since completion of the latter, over 15 years have passed without a 

major study to develop an updated S&T vision for the Air Force. Technology Horizons is the next in this succession of major S&T visions 

conducted at the Headquarters Air Force (HAF) level. Particularly in 

view of the fundamental strategic changes, rapid global technological 

advancements, and forseeable resource constraints that define the environment over the next decade, Technology Horizons is an overdue effort 

to help guide Air Force S&T investments to include areas that will have 

disproportionately valuable impacts on reducing costs and maintaining capability advantage. 

Technology Horizons seeks to help guide the S&T efforts of the Air Force over 

the next decade to maximize their impact in the substantially different environment that the Air Force is now facing.
INTRODUCTION │ 7

Previous Air Force Science and Technology Visions

Figure 1 shows the six previous Air Force S&T vision studies that 

have been conducted at the HAF level. The duration, size, composition, 

organization, output, and impact of these have varied widely. The following observations can be made:

■ These studies have been conducted over durations ranging from 

nine months to, in one case, nearly two years.

■ The numbers of participants involved has ranged from as few as 

25 to nearly 500. 

■ Contributors have ranged from academia to the military, the government, and industry.

■ Panels have in some cases been organized around technical disciplines, and in others around capability topics, as well as other 

arrangements.

■ Reports have ranged from concise summaries to more than a 

dozen volumes and total lengths in excess of 1,300 pages.

■ Impacts on technical directions, organization, and other aspects 

of Air Force S&T have ranged widely, in part depending on how 

responsive the studies were to the central issues of their time.

Michael Gorn gives detailed descriptions of the first five of these prior 

Air Force S&T vision studies in his book Harnessing the Genie: Science 

and Technology Forecasting for the Air Force 1944–1986.

Key Factors That Have Produced Successful S&T Visions

As the above summary suggests, and as detailed in the reference 

noted, there is no correlation of the impact of these studies with either 

the number of participants or the length of the reports they have produced. What correlations there are have principally to do with the types 

of participants and the way that working panels have been organized. 

Studies without representation in substantial numbers from the research community have generally not been successful, though sufficient operational inputs are essential to ground the discussions. Panels 

organized along relatively narrow system themes appear, as might be 
8 │ Technology Horizons

expected, to restrict the range of ideas for discussion, and essentially 

preclude cross-domain insights created by interdependences among 

systems. Studies with panels organized around broader themes have 

generally proven to be more successful. 

The principal factor that has determined the impact of prior S&T visions has 

been the extent to which Air Force senior leadership has embraced them as a 

means for helping to vector the direction of future Air Force research.

Organization and Conduct of Technology Horizons

Technology Horizons formally began in June 2009 and was completed 

in February 2010. Organization of the study and the working groups 

preceded the formal start of the effort.

Strategic Perspective as the Foundation 

for an Effective S&T Vision

The Air Force S&T vision from Technology Horizons is predicated in 

part on the principle that S&T can only be usefully guided in a study 

like this by placing it in context with the strategic environment in which 

the Air Force will be operating during the 2010–30 time frame it addresses. The technology areas that are recommended for Air Force S&T 

to put special emphasis on are those that meet key needs dictated by 

this strategic environment. Technology Horizons thus is not simply an 

opportunity-driven technology vision but matches the demand-side 

pull of the Air Force during 2010–30 with the opportunity-side push 

that realistically achievable technologies can enable.

Technology Horizons “10+10 Technology-to-Capability” Process

To match technology opportunities with the needs of this strategic 

environment, the study used a 10+10 Technology-to-Capability process, shown in figure 2. 

This recognizes that even if it were possible to project the state of 

technologies 20 years into the future to the 2030 horizon date of the 

study, this effort is instead designed to help the Air Force envision what 

technology-enabled capabilities it could credibly have to meet its key 
INTRODUCTION │ 9

needs in 2030. Thus, the study must determine the state to which the 

necessary supporting technologies can be brought in time to enable 

those capabilities by 2030. 

Owing to the 10 years or so that it typically takes to transition technology readiness level (TRL) 6 technologies into fielded capabilities, 

this means that the underlying date to which technologies must be projected is 2020. That, in turn, allows a 

determination of the technology investments that need to be under way 

today to enable these Air Force capabilities in 2030.

The required 10-year projection 

from today’s state of technology can be 

credibly made with acceptable uncertainties, even under the rapid pace at 

which technologies are advancing. By 

contrast, the uncertainties if a 20-year 

projection of technologies were needed 

Technology Horizons will 

help the Air Force obtain 

the greatest effectiveness 

in a budget-constrained 

environment; if we invest 

in the right technology 

areas we can have unbeatable capabilities.

STEP 1 STEP 2

STEP 4 STEP 3

10-Years-Forward

Science & Technology

Projection

10-Years-Back

Science & Technology

Investment Need

10-Years-Back

Countercapability

Technology Need

10-Years-Forward

Capabilities

Projection

Cross-Domain

Cross-Domain

Air

Air

Space

Space

Cyber

Cyber

Future US

Capabilities

Capabilities

Today

(2010)

S&T

Advances

in 10 Years

(2020)

Resulting

Capabilities

in 20 Years

(2030)

Potential

Adversary

Capabilities

US

Countercapabilites

Figure 2. Schematic of the 10+10 Technology-to-Capability process 

used in Technology Horizons. (Courtesy of the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Air Force.)
10 │ Technology Horizons

from today’s state would be far greater than twice as large. Thus, the 

2030 time horizon of Technology Horizons requires only a credible projection from 2010 to 2020 of the technologies needed to enable a set of 

capabilities that could be fielded in 2030 to meet key needs of the Air 

Force in the strategic environment.

A further foundation of this study is that potential adversaries will 

have access to much of the same S&T as the Air Force does over this 

period and thus can develop red force capabilities from these technologies that—driven by entirely different concepts of operations—may be 

entirely different from blue force capabilities developed from them. It 

thus becomes essential to envision not only credible US technologyderived capabilities in 2030, as shown on the right in figure 2, but also 

potential adversary capabilities along with appropriate US countercapabilities, as also shown on the right in the figure.

Developing the technologies needed to enable these countercapabilities then involves another pair of 10-year steps, in this case 

shown in red in figure 2. The first of these steps begins with the needed 

countercapabilities in 2030 and projects back to the required state of 

the underlying enabling technologies in 2020. The second of these then 

does a further 10-year projection back to 2010 to determine what S&T 

investments would need to be under way today to thereby enable these 

countercapabilities in 2030.

The result is the four-step 10+10 Technology-to-Capability process 

in figure 2:

■ Step 1: Beginning with the state of technologies today, a 10-year 

forward projection is made of the state to which these technologies, or ones derived from them, can be brought in 2020. 

■ Step 2: From the state to which technologies can be brought in 

2020, a further 10-year forward assessment is made of the US capabilities that could be enabled by them to meet key needs of the 

strategic environment in 2030.

■ Step 3: Potential adversary capabilities and needed US countercapabilities are envisioned in 2030, and a 10-year backward projection is made of the state to which technologies needed to enable these countercapabilities must be brought by 2020.
INTRODUCTION │ 11

■ Step 4: From the required state of technologies for US capabilities 

and countercapabilities in 2020, a further 10-year backward projection is made to identify the needed S&T activities that must be 

under way today to enable these.

In practice the precise dates must necessarily be interpreted somewhat notionally. In the cyber domain, for instance, it is essentially impossible to project technology 10 years into the future, and in that case 

the process was instead applied in a “5+5” framework. 

Similarly, while this process has formed the foundation of the study, 

its implementation has been as much qualitative as quantitative. A fully 

quantitative assessment for each of the technologies considered here 

would have been beyond the scope even of this effort. Moreover, by 

ensuring that working groups and other sources of inputs to this effort 

included subject matter experts with technical and operational knowledge, quantitative aspects of this process could be addressed in part by 

assessments of these 10-year projections based on technical and operational judgment.

Identifying technology focus areas that will be most essential over 

this period has as much to do with technical and operational judgment as with direct quantitative analysis. As with any vision, the nature of S&T forecasting prevents it from being reducible to an algorithm that might seek to obtain similar insights. An articulation of 

the S&T that will be most valuable for the Air Force over the next two 

decades is ultimately the result of a set of reasoned, technically rooted, 

and objective judgments informed by an understanding of their strategic context. 

Broad Range of Inputs to Technology Horizons

As figure 3 shows, Technology Horizons consists of five phases, including three working phases designed to obtain a broad range of subject matter expertise in the implementation of the underlying process 

summarized above. Phases 2 and 3 included working groups, one each 

in the air, space, and cyber domains, and a fourth group that focused 

on cross-domain insights. The functions of these groups, their compositions, and their participants’ backgrounds are summarized in appendix E. The working groups included representation from the
12 │ Technology Horizons

March 2009 June 2009 October 2009 December 2009 March 2010

Planning

Phase 1

Working

Phase 2

Working

Phase 3

Working

Phase 4

Implementation

Phase 4

Objectives,

Tasking, and

Organization

Air, Space, Cyber

Domain Working

Groups

Cross-Domain

Working

Group

Findings,

Conclusions, and

Recommendations

Dissemination of

Results and

Implementation

Report and Outbrief

Technology Horizons 2010+

Figure 3. Organization of Technology Horizons into planning, working, 

and implementation phases to provide an S&T vision that supports Air 

Force capability needs in the 2010–30 strategic environment. (Courtesy of the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Air Force.)

■ Air Force S&T community,

■ intelligence community,

■ MAJCOMs,

■ product centers,

■ federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC),

■ defense industry, and

■ academia.

In addition to inputs from these groups, Technology Horizons obtained a broad range of further inputs from site visits, briefings, and 

discussions involving organizations across the Air Force and elsewhere 

in the Department of Defense (DOD), federal agencies, FFRDCs, national laboratories, and industry. These included inputs from Air Staff 

and Air Force secretariat offices, MAJCOMs and product centers, direct reporting units, and field units. A list of these additional sources of 

inputs is given in the bibliography. 
INTRODUCTION │ 13

Additional operational perspectives were gained from briefings, visits, and discussions with

■ Air Combat Command (ACC),

■ Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC),

■ Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), and

■ Air Mobility Command (AMC).

The effort further made use of a wide range of perspectives in nearly 

200 reports and technical papers from the Air Force Scientific Advisory 

Board, the Defense Science Board, and other organizations. A partial 

list of these additional sources is given in the bibliography.

This exceedingly broad range of inputs to Technology Horizons has allowed 

development of a forward-looking, balanced, and effective S&T vision for the 

Air Force in 2010–30.

A Focus on Cross-Domain Insights

While the working group phases were organized along the air, space, 

and cyber domains, it was recognized that some of the most important 

results from Technology Horizons would deal with cross-domain insights. A further working group was thus formed to address crossdomain effects, defined here to include the following:

■ A technology in one domain that can produce unexpected effects 

in another domain; the effects could be beneficial or detrimental.

■ A technology in one domain that requires supporting functions in 

another domain and thus creates interdependencies between two 

or more domains.

■ A technology that falls “between” the classical domains but has 

implications in one or more of them.

Given the emphasis on cross-domain insights in this effort, the results 

from Technology Horizons are intentionally not presented along traditional domain boundaries.
14 │ Technology Horizons

The understanding and exploitation of cross-domain effects will grow in 

importance in the next decade and beyond, and the organization and 

execution of Air Force S&T will need to ensure access to such cross-domain 

insights and capabilities.

Organization of Results from 

Technology Horizons

Chapter 1: Introduction. Summarizes the Air Force vision for 

S&T, lessons learned from its 

prior S&T visions, organization 

and conduct of the study, organization of results, and caveats for 

the study.

Chapter 2: Strategic Context 

for Air Force S&T 2010–30. Summarizes the principal strategic 

factors that will drive needed Air 

Force capabilities during this 

time and factors relevant to the 

worldwide S&T arena that will 

impact the Air Force’s ability to 

maintain superior technological 

capabilities over this time frame. 

Chapter 3: Enduring Realities for the Air Force 2010–30. 

Recognizes key drivers that will 

remain largely unchanged during 

this time and that will constrain 

the Air Force’s ability to shape itself for the future using S&T in 

ways it might in an otherwise unconstrained environment. 

Strategic Context

Enduring Realities

Overarching Themes

Potential Capabilities

Key Technology

Grand Challenges

Principal Findings

Implementation Plan

Figure 4. Major elements of the 

Technology Horizons vision for Air 

Force S&T over the next decade. 

(Courtesy of the Office of the Chief 

Scientist of the Air Force.)
INTRODUCTION │ 15

Chapter 4: Overarching Themes for Air Force S&T 2010–30. Identifies specific overarching themes that will be central for meeting Air 

Force needs dictated by the above strategic context and enduring realities; these themes form the essential foundation for the most important 

Air Force S&T during 2010–30. 

Chapter 5: Technology-Enabled Capabilities for the Air Force 

2010–30. Defines a set of technologically achievable capability areas 

that are well aligned with the overarching themes identified above and 

then uses these notional capabilities to identify key enabling technologies that are most impactful across this set. 

Chapter 6: Key Technology Areas 2010–30. Determines a crosscutting set of enabling technology areas that are most determinative 

over the notional capabilities identified above and identifies them as 

being among the most important areas to emphasize in Air Force S&T 

over the next decade and beyond.

Chapter 7: Grand Challenges for Air Force S&T 2010–30. Lists a 

set of challenge problems that will help focus Air Force S&T over the 

next decade on the KTAs identified above through technology development efforts followed by systems-level integrated technology demonstrations to achieve stretch goals.

Chapter 8: Summary of Technology Horizons Vision. Describes 

the major S&T focus areas that the Air Force should emphasize during 

the next decade and beyond to enable technologically achievable capabilities that will give it the greatest joint force effectiveness by 2030. 

Chapter 9: Implementation Plan and Recommendations. Outlines 

the proposed plan for implementing the S&T vision from Technology 

Horizons, provides actionable recommendations to vector Air Force 

S&T over the next decade, and identifies corresponding primary and 

supporting organizations to implement these. 

The above chapters of Technology Horizons give the results of a rational 

approach for determining—from the enormous range of technologies that 

could benefit the Air Force—a set of guiding principles for the most important 

S&T to be conducted over the next decade.
16 │ Technology Horizons

Caveats

Value of Technologies Not Specified in Technology Horizons

No effort such as this can usefully list all S&T that is important for 

the Air Force to pursue, nor has it been an objective of Technology Horizons to do so. Instead, this effort has sought to identify some of the 

most valuable technology areas for Air Force S&T—ones that the Air 

Force must pursue to enable key capabilities that it will need to be as 

effective as possible in the strategic environment during 2010–30. The 

KTAs identified herein thus necessarily represent only the most essential 

fraction of the overall research portfolio that should be pursued by the 

Air Force.

Focus on Key Technology Areas versus Broad 

Technical Domain Areas

Technology Horizons was designed to identify KTAs that are among 

the most essential for Air Force S&T to focus on over the next decade 

and beyond. These technology areas aggregate individual narrow research topics into usefully defined focus areas that Air Force S&T 

should emphasize but avoid dictating the individual lines of research 

within these areas that might prove to be most productive. Focusing on 

such KTAs is the appropriate level of specificity for an S&T vision. 

At the other extreme, overly broad domain area descriptors such as 

“material science,” or even broad technical domains within these such 

as “nanotechnologies,” do not provide a comparable level of specificity 

needed to usefully serve as a guide for Air Force S&T. KTAs identified 

as most essential for the Air Force to pursue are sufficiently specific to 

usefully guide S&T investment choices but are not so narrow as to dictate individual research projects to be pursued.

Connection between Air Force S&T and 

the Acquisition Process

Air Force S&T is the initial phase of the process by which technologies are matured and, where appropriate, are transitioned for acquisition by the Air Force. As a consequence, often-discussed improvements 

to the defense acquisition process could potentially improve the transi-
INTRODUCTION │ 17

tion of technologies from S&T into systems for acquisition. At least 

some of the elements of the S&T vision identified in Technology Horizons could potentially achieve greater likelihood of practical impact 

from improvements to the defense acquisition process. However, attempts to suggest such improvements to the acquisition process were 

outside the scope of this effort. 

Chapter 2

Strategic Context for 

Air Force S&T 2010–30

Air Force S&T can be prudently vectored only when placed in 

the context of the strategic environment in which the Air Force 

will be operating during this period. This chapter summarizes 

key elements of this environment that will drive needed Air 

Force capabilities over the next two decades. 

The strategic environment that the Air Force faces over the next two 

decades is substantially different from that which has dominated 

throughout most of its history. Since the end of the Cold War, longstanding paradigms that had ordered thinking and policy with respect 

to conflict have been replaced by a far broader range of threats and a 

less predictable set of challenges. Potential conflict scenarios now include not only major powers and regional players, but also failed and 

failing states, radical extremists, and a range of nonstate actors that 

spans from organized militias, informal paramilitary organizations, 

warlords, and warring ethnic groups to pirates, organized criminals, 

terrorists, and even individuals who may come from around the globe 

or across the street. Potential drivers of conflict range from religious 

extremism and ethnic disputes to resurging nationalism and aspirations for regional influence, and from competition over energy and 

natural resources to the need to contain nuclear proliferation and the 

spread of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. 

Unable to compete in direct engagements with US joint forces, adversaries have learned to exploit newfound asymmetric advantages. 

Some have sought to shift the battle into the media, exploiting public 

intolerance for real or contrived collateral damage—strikes that by historical standards are being conducted with near surgical accuracy are 

now often deemed unacceptable. Others have learned to exploit US dependence on the space and cyber domains, developing ways to disrupt 

or deny these to achieve potentially far-reaching cross-domain effects. 

Some are seeking access to nuclear capabilities. The Cold War, by com-
20 │ Technology Horizons

parison, seemed remarkably simpler, and the set of capabilities that the 

Air Force needs to be effective in the foreseeable strategic landscape is 

substantially different and appears less certain than ever before. 

To aid in deterring conflict with major world powers, the United 

States must correctly understand their potential capabilities in the 2030 

time frame, many of which are derived from investments in technologies that support development of military systems. China, for example, 

has focused much of its recent military modernization on investments 

in high-end asymmetric capabilities, emphasizing electronic warfare 

(EW), cyber warfare, counterspace operations, ballistic and cruise missiles, advanced integrated air defense systems (IADS), and theater unmanned air vehicles. By combining imported technologies, reverse engineering, and indigenous development, it is seeking to rapidly narrow 

the technology and capability gap between the People’s Liberation 

Army Air Force (PLAAF) and the US Air Force. China is also using 

“military diplomacy” to expand security cooperation activities with 

Asian states and engage foreign militaries in a range of cooperative activities. Russia as well is developing and fielding new technology-derived 

military systems, including advanced fighter aircraft such as the T-50 

PAK FA and advanced IADSs such as the SA-21. Global diffusion of 

advanced military systems through arms transfers, not only by Russia 

and China but also by France, Israel, and many others, is making substantial technology-derived capabilities available around the world.

Among these, China in particular is widely regarded as having 

both the economic resources to devote to such advanced technologydevelopment programs and the national desire to achieve the resulting 

regional and global influence that such systems may bring. Its growing economy has helped pay for a massive military modernization 

program that includes not only new fighter aircraft but also naval 

vessels and missiles. 

Yet at the same time, China’s one-child policy has created serious 

demographic imbalances in gender and age distributions, which are 

requiring it to direct resources toward social programs that could potentially constrain these ambitions. As a result, carefully chosen costimposing strategies developed through appropriate US technologyenabled capabilities can provide an opportunity to slow the potential 

threat that this military buildup creates. If we understand the strategic 
strategic context │ 21

environment that the Air Force faces over the next two decades, we can 

make the right choices to obtain the mix of capabilities that will best 

meet US national security objectives. 

Relation to National Security Objectives

Military forces exist to develop and offer a range of operational and 

strategic options to the president for meeting national security objectives and to joint force commanders for meeting military objectives. 

Throughout its history, the US military’s consistent dual purpose has 

been not only to fight and win the nation’s wars but also to protect the 

nation and its global interests in ways that extend beyond direct combat operations. The latter acknowledges that military forces are as much 

an instrument employed for shaping the global environment, for deterring those who might otherwise harm the nation’s interests, and for 

providing regional stability where needed to advance the nation’s 

broader interests as they are for warfare itself. 

At the broadest level these functions include the following: 

■ Protecting and defending the homeland from external attack. 

■ Deterring conflict with major global powers and encouraging regional stability through use of Air Force global vigilance, global 

reach, and global power.

Figure 5. Supporting US joint force operations in so-called irregular or 

hybrid warfare while preparing for possible larger conflicts with a 

near-peer adversary is among the Air Force’s greatest challenges. 

(Courtesy US Air Force.)
22 │ Technology Horizons

■ Preparing to fight and win the nation’s wars as part of the joint 

force.

■ Providing military assistance to civilian authorities.

■ Enabling national and partner instruments of power to prevent or 

contain local or regional instabilities.

■ Supporting the nation’s cooperative relationships with international partners and its interactions with competitors.

In fulfilling these objectives to protect the nation and advance its 

global interests in times of peace, crisis, and combat, the Air Force is 

distinct among the joint services in its ability to use the speed, range, 

flexibility, precision, and lethality of aerospace forces to provide global 

vigilance, global reach, and global power. Its mission requires it to look 

at the world from an inherently strategic perspective as it conducts 

global, regional, and tactical operations in the domains of air, space, 

and cyberspace in concert with the other services, with other national 

instruments of power, and with US international partners. This requires capabilities for the full spectrum of nonconflict and conflict operations, ranging from emergency response and humanitarian relief to 

counterinsurgency operations, major warfare, and homeland defense.

Technology-Derived Challenges 

to Air Force Capabilities

The immense asymmetric advantage that the Air Force’s air dominance has for much of the past 50 years provided for US and partner 

forces could be potentially put at risk by worldwide development and 

proliferation of numerous advanced-technology-derived threats, including integrated air defenses, long-range ballistic missiles, and advanced air combat capabilities. There have been equally important advances in counterspace technologies, in cyber warfare technologies, 

and in understanding the cross-domain effects that these technologies 

can produce on the US ability to conduct effective air, space, and cyber 

domain operations. The combined effects of these and yet further technology advances that will occur over the next decade, and their transition into worldwide military systems, are essential elements of the stra-
strategic context │ 23

tegic context that determines the most essential Air Force S&T over 

this period.

Advanced Electronic Systems

Land-based air defenses and air combat systems in particular are 

benefitting from increasingly widespread use of advanced electronics, 

including active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar technologies to enable more capable detection and targeting capabilities. These 

have evolved to counter nontraditional threats such as remotely piloted 

aircraft (RPA) and cruise missiles. Advanced EW systems, including 

approaches based on digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) sysFigure 6. High-end systems such as the F-22 support Air Force air dominance over the near term to midterm. Technology Horizons seeks to 

define the S&T that will enable the next generation of Air Force capabilities that are suited to the needs of the 2010–30 strategic environment. (Courtesy US Air Force.)
24 │ Technology Horizons

tems, that are being developed and proliferated today have shown significant abilities even against advanced AESA radars. Further advances 

in miniaturization and speed of electronics—and the massive processing capabilities that these are enabling—are likely to yield further substantial increases in the capabilities of EW systems over the next decade and beyond.

Advanced Missile Seekers

Advances in electro-optical tracking, such as dual-band electrooptical-infrared (EO-IR) imaging arrays with wide fields of view and 

advanced digital tracking filters, can be expected to significantly increase over the next decade. Early implementations of combined 

EO-IR imaging seekers in systems such as the highly maneuverable 

beyond-visual-range Python 5 air-to-air missile (AAM) have shown 

the effectiveness of these technologies. Corresponding implementations of these advanced technologies in surface-to-air missiles (SAM), 

Figure 7. Advanced fighter development efforts, such as the fifth-generation 

Russian/Indian T-50 PAK FA, could pose a significant mid- to long-term 

challenge to US joint air dominance. (Reprinted from Wikipedia, s.v. 

“Sukhoi PAK FA,” accessed 20 June 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org 

/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA.)
strategic context │ 25

such as the SPYDER antiaircraft missile system based on the Python 5, 

are extending these technology advances to area defense systems. Such 

lethal systems are already beginning to be proliferated via international 

sales. Their capabilities will appear even more broadly over time, both 

through indigenous developments that use these technologies and 

through subsequent global sales of such systems.

High-Speed Air-Breathing Missile Propulsion 

High-speed air-breathing missile propulsion technologies have steadily 

advanced over the past two decades and are now enabling substantially 

more capable supersonic AAMs, SAMs, and cruise missiles. Such a 

ramjet-derived propulsion system is used in the MBDA-developed Meteor, a Mach 4+ AAM that is likely to enter service in 2013. A ramjetderivative propulsion system is also being used in the Russian/Indian 

BrahMos Mach 2.5+ cruise missile, brought into service in 2007, and a 

related ramjet-based air-breathing propulsion system is used in the Indian Mach 2.8+ Akash SAM, first fielded in 2009. The speed, range, and 

terminal maneuverability benefits of such air-breathing supersonic 

propulsion technologies will likely accelerate development of missile 

systems to exploit these advantages. 

Advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems 

Development and proliferation of advanced IADSs have progressed 

substantially. Longer-range mobile SAMs in the Russian S-300 family, 

such as SA-10s/20s, which have been exported widely, and corresponding Chinese-manufactured derivatives of “double-digit SAMS,” 

such as the HQ-10/15/18, represent significant challenges. These systems can potentially engage legacy fighters at ranges beyond their 

own ability to hold such targets at risk. More advanced Russian systems, such as the S-400, have advanced tracking and longer-range capabilities and could potentially be sold internationally. Modern integrated systems such as these are enabling a fundamental change in air 

defense strategy, from traditional point defense of key targets to 

broader antiaccess/area-denial (A2/AD) approaches based on offensive and defensive counterair operations.
26 │ Technology Horizons

Passive Sensors and Electronic Warfare 

Further development of passive sensor technologies such as infrared 

search and track (IRST) systems over the next decade or more will 

make air defense systems increasingly resistant to electronic suppression. Potential adversaries are also upgrading to networked air defense 

systems with advanced electronics and signal processing capabilities 

that can make jamming far more difficult. AESA radars are allowing 

active electronic beam forming and steering. EW capabilities of potential 

adversaries are increasingly shifting from jamming to sophisticated 

spoofing, made possible largely by the continuing miniaturization of 

commercial electronics. Availability of inexpensive yet massively 

capable electronic processing and storage not only allows the number 

and sophistication of such devices to grow rapidly but also to be fielded 

in relatively low-cost EW pods and decoys. Software changes allow 

these threat systems to be readily adapted to new countermeasures. 

Figure 8. Technologies such as the ramjet-derivative propulsion system 

on the MDNA Meteor are beginning to enable high-speed AAMs with 

greater range and terminal maneuverability. (Courtesy MBDA–Th Wurtz.)
strategic context │ 27

At the same time, an overlap has developed between electronic and 

cyber warfare, especially in the wireless radio-frequency (RF) domain. 

The technological sophistication, diversity, and proliferation of advanced EW systems present a substantial challenge to US air dominance. New technology-derived approaches will be needed across the 

spectrum of standoff and close-in EW capabilities, including electronic 

attack, protection, and support techniques suited to permissive, contested, and highly contested environments. 

Shoulder-Fired Surface-to-Air Missiles 

Next-generation shoulder-launched SAM systems can be expected 

to further add to the threats that advanced technologies pose. Current 

“low end” man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) are affordable enough to buy in large quantities and can be readily dispersed, 

hidden, and employed for close-in air defense. Further advances in 

miniaturization of electronics and processing are likely to produce substantially more capable systems at price points that may permit comparably widespread global diffusion.

Ballistic and Cruise Missiles 

The emergent long-range air defense capabilities of several potential 

adversaries have serious implications for US airpower. Additionally, 

ballistic and cruise missiles with growing mobility, range, maneuverability, and precision pose further threats to Air Force systems and 

their ability to deliver the power projection on which much of US 

strategy is based. This is especially the case in the western Pacific, where 

China has fielded conventional ballistic missiles and cruise missiles 

with significant reach. By 2015 China is expected to have hundreds of 

DF-15 ballistic missiles and DH-10 cruise missiles capable of reaching 

much of the western Pacific. Advanced medium-range ballistic missiles 

such as the DF-21, DF-25, and the intercontinental-range DF-31 may 

be in service in significant numbers, and a DF-41 advanced intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) may be under development. 

The threats posed to US air bases in the Pacific by ballistic missiles 

create significant technology challenges for maintaining airpower projection in this region. The long ranges required for operations in the 
28 │ Technology Horizons

Pacific entail substantial tanking requirements that put a premium on 

long-range strike capabilities and fuel-efficient propulsion systems. The 

air-sea battle concept based on synchronized Air Force and Navy operations against a potential near-peer competitor in this region may 

also require significant new capabilities.

Figure 9. Dual-mode EO-IR focal-plane array seeker technology, as on 

the Python-5 AAM, can give wide field-of-view imaging infrared capability and full-sphere beyond-visual-range engagement. (Reprinted from 

Wikipedia, s.v. “Python [missile],” accessed 20 June 2011, http://en

.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_(missile).)

Figure 10. Advanced SAM systems, such as the SPYDER that combines 

Python-5 EO-IR missiles with active radar-guided missiles, can provide 

highly capable area defense capabilities. (Reprinted from Wikipedia, s.v. 

“SPYDER,” accessed 20 June 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPYDER.)
strategic context │ 29

Advanced Fighter Aircraft 

Russian development of the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA fifth-generation 

fighter, reportedly in a joint effort with India, is an indicator that the 

United States must continue to develop its capabilities to maintain air 

dominance. The aircraft will reputedly include substantial technologyderived advances over all prior potential competitor aircraft, including 

significant low observable (LO) capability, advanced AESA radar, advanced avionics, and supercruise capability. Early flights of the PAK FA 

in January and February 2010 suggest a serious development program 

that has reached an advanced stage of engineering refinement. Reported Chinese efforts to develop one or more J-XX fifth-generation 

fighters appear not to be as far advanced, but the resources that may 

be available to devote to these efforts suggest such a capability could 

be fielded within the time horizon of this study. In general, fifthgeneration fighter systems, if deployed against the United States, 

have the potential to pose substantial challenges to our air dominance over the next decade.

Remotely Piloted Aircraft 

Growth in military use of remotely piloted vehicles has been rapid as 

forces around the world explore increasingly wider uses for them, including surveillance, strike, EW, and others. These will include fixedwing and rotary-wing systems, airships, hybrid aircraft, and other approaches. They will have increasingly autonomous capabilities allowing 

remote pilots to declare their overall mission intent but permit these 

systems to adapt autonomously in the local environment to best meet 

those objectives. Some systems may operate collaboratively in multiplecraft missions to increase survivability and deliver effects that could 

not be achieved individually. Technologies are enabling such increasingly autonomous systems to exchange data on their respective states 

in order to adjust their mission planning and adapt to their changing 

environment. Autonomous aerial refueling capability will enable longrange and long-endurance operations. While most remotely piloted 

systems will likely have limited capabilities, some will incorporate LO 

technologies, advanced EW functions, and directed energy (DE) strike 

capabilities. Price points of some systems could allow them to be ac-
30 │ Technology Horizons

quired in numbers sufficient to present significant challenges for certain types of missions.

Directed-Energy Systems 

Laser-based and high-power, microwave-based DE systems being 

developed by several nations will play an important role in the strategic 

context of 2010–30. The success of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) in tracking, targeting, and destroying a representative missile in February 2010 with an integrated, airborne, megawatt-class 

chemical laser demonstrated the potential of strategic-scale systems. 

Ground-based lasers are likely to appear for air defense and other roles, 

as will airborne microwave-based systems that can disable or defeat 

electronic systems. More recent solid-state laser technologies are enabling tactical-scale systems for potentially revolutionary airborne selfdefense and low-collateral-damage strike capabilities. Emerging fiber 

laser technologies as well as diode-pumped alkali lasers may allow later 

versions of such systems to be made even smaller for integration in a 

much wider set of platforms, including fighters. DE systems will be 

among the key “game changing” technology-enabled capabilities that 

enter service during this time frame.

Figure 11. The stand-up of Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) 

has consolidated all Air Force assets for the nuclear mission, including 

B-52s and B-2s, under a single major command. (Courtesy US Air Force.)
strategic context │ 31

Space Control 

US joint force dependence on the space domain is a further key component of the strategic context for Air Force S&T during 2010–30. Reliance on assured access to military space systems is essential to meet the 

demand for global intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and 

communications. Potential adversaries recognize our critical dependence on space assets and are developing means for disrupting our access to those assets, or even for incapacitating or destroying those assets. Jammers allow interference with satellite uplinks and downlinks, 

and cyber attacks can disrupt ground control segments. Some are developing the means to gain access to space themselves. Others are making use of increasingly capable commercial space-based imaging capabilities and space-based imagery freely available via the Internet at 

levels of resolution that not long ago were accessible only to the intelligence community.

Figure 12. Continuing to strengthen the Air Force nuclear enterprise, 

such as with the AGM-129A advanced nuclear cruise missile shown 

here, remains the top US Air Force priority. (Courtesy US Air Force.)
32 │ Technology Horizons

Global Positioning System Denial 

The broad dependence of US joint war-fighting capabilities on precision 

navigation and timing from Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites 

has made local or regional GPS denial a high priority for adversaries. 

Beyond preventing access to positioning information, inexpensive lowpower GPS jammers and spoofers can deny accurate timing information that is at least equally critical to US systems. China’s efforts to field 

its Beidou-2 (Compass) positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) satellite network and Russia’s fielding of its Global Navigation Satellite 

System (GLONASS) suggest the role that navigation warfare via GPS 

denial and spoofing may play in the strategic thinking of these and 

other nations.

Space Launch Capabilities 

Altogether, 11 nations today have orbital launch capability, and 

roughly 50 possess orbiting satellites. In 2009, with the launch of its 

Omid telecommunications satellite, Iran became the ninth country to 

have developed the capability to place indigenously developed satellites 

into low Earth orbit (LEO) using indigenously developed launch systems. This was achieved with its Safir-2 space launch vehicle, a derivative of the Iranian-developed Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile 

(MRBM) that itself is believed to trace to the North Korean Nodong-1 

MRBM. A subsequent Iranian launch in February 2010 showed the capability of its Kavoshgar-3 rocket.

Iran further claims to be developing a larger Simorgh orbital 

launcher, and North Korea too is seeking to develop a satellite launch 

capability. Countries with these sophisticated capabilities could potentially develop ICBM systems. Moreover, private corporations now 

operate 19 launch sites throughout the world, providing launch options for nations seeking to gain access to space. In 2009 the first orbital launch using a commercially developed liquid-fueled rocket occurred when Space-X put a Malaysian satellite into LEO using its 

Falcon-1 launcher, and its evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV)-

class Falcon-9 rocket had its first launch in 2010. 
strategic context │ 33

Satellite Technologies 

Technologies are also enabling a range of “small sats” with masses below about 200 kilograms (kg), some of which can already today provide 

significant military capabilities. They include microsatellites with masses 

between 10 and100 kg, nanosatellites with masses between 1 and 10 kg, 

and picosatellites with masses below 1 kg. The latter include “CubeSats” 

measuring just 10 centimeters on a side, which meet published design 

standards that allow their deployment by common low-cost mechanisms. 

Figure 13. Air mobility operations, including aerial refueling and airdrop, will remain both challenging and increasingly critical for supporting Air Force and US joint force operations. (Courtesy US Air Force.)

Combined materiel and launch costs for such systems are as low as 

$100K. They are drawing extensive interest from universities, companies, and others around the world, and numerous such systems have 

been launched. Efforts are under way to develop low-cost, standardized, on-demand orbital imaging systems for such small satellites. They 

represent a further aspect of the increasing low-cost access to space 

that is available to numerous potential adversaries.

Direct-Ascent Antisatellite Capabilities 

Offensive counterspace capabilities are also growing, most notably 

in antisatellite (ASAT) warfare capabilities. In 2007 China became the 

third known country with a proven ASAT capability when it conducted 

an unannounced launch of a modified DF-21 intermediate-range bal-
34 │ Technology Horizons

listic missile, designated the KT-1 space-launch vehicle, to destroy its 

own defunct Feng Yun-1C meteorology satellite. Essentially any nation 

with a space launch capability could potentially field a rudimentary 

ASAT program. The dual use of civilian and military rockets being developed by several countries, including Iran, North Korea, India, and 

Israel, could lead to rapid growth in the number of players with the 

technical capability to develop ASAT systems.

Directed-Energy ASAT Technologies 

China’s demonstrated direct-ascent ASAT capability comes in addition to open-source reports of Chinese and Russian efforts to develop 

directed-energy ASAT capabilities, primarily in the form of groundbased lasers. Even relatively low-power lasers can temporarily blind or 

dazzle EO and IR sensors in ISR satellites. At somewhat higher power 

levels, they can permanently disable these detector arrays or can degrade 

the effectiveness of solar panels and other components to render a satellite inoperable. At sufficiently high power, they can induce thermal overloads in satellites or even destroy them directly. The rapid time scales on 

which these effects can be achieved make satellite self-protection extremely challenging. In principle such ground-based laser ASAT systems can be made mobile and widely dispersed, further complicating 

satellite protection at the terrestrial end.

Co-orbital ASAT Systems 

Beyond direct-ascent kinetic-kill ASAT capabilities and groundbased lasers for directed-energy ASAT capability, co-orbital satellites 

represent a further emerging ASAT concern. Such systems might be 

relatively small satellites designed to provide an on-demand kinetic-kill 

capability or might have laser-based or microwave-based DE capabilities 

to degrade or destroy satellites. Co-orbiting satellites could also provide 

an adversary counterspace options beyond ASAT capability by, for instance, interfering at relatively close ranges with satellite uplink and 

downlink transmissions. Such small, maneuvering, co-orbiting satellites 

also offer many other options for lethal and nonlethal “proximity operations” in support of counterspace efforts. 
strategic context │ 35

High-Altitude Nuclear Detonation Effects on Space Systems 

Beyond the well-known prompt electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effect 

of a high-altitude nuclear detonation that affects terrestrial and airborne electronics, a further long-term effect can specifically disable 

space systems. Such a nuclear detonation would act to populate Earth’s 

Van Allen radiation belts with large numbers of energetic electrons 

produced from beta decay of fission fragments. These high-energy 

electrons would remain trapped for years by Earth’s magnetic field. Satellites in LEOs or highly elliptical orbits (HEO) would be disabled from 

effects of the ionizing electrons on critical satellite parts over months or 

years as they pass through the resulting enhanced radiation belts. This 

could occur as a side effect of a regional nuclear war or as a deliberate 

effort by a rogue nuclear adversary seeking to cause massive economic 

damage to the industrial world.

Figure 14. Increasingly capable RPA systems (left) are being used 

worldwide, while DE systems (right) may achieve tracking, targeting, 

and destruction of such systems. (Courtesy US Navy [left] and US Air 

Force [right].)

Orbital Debris 

Increasing amounts of orbital debris also pose serious threats to 

space assets, as demonstrated by the February 2009 collision between a 

functioning Iridium-33 satellite and a defunct Russian Kosmos-2251 

satellite. The collision itself produced nearly 400 new pieces of orbital 

debris. By comparison the 2007 Chinese kinetic-kill ASAT demonstration produced between 20,000 and 40,000 debris pieces. There are in 
36 │ Technology Horizons

fact some 1,600 conjunctions predicted every day within the accuracy 

of current analyses. Just two weeks prior to the Iridium-Kosmos collision, a discarded 4-ton Chinese upper-stage rocket body passed within 

48 meters of the 8-ton European Envisat Earth-observation satellite, 

producing a one-in-70 chance of a collision that by itself would have 

doubled the entire catalog of human-made objects in orbit.

Cross-Domain Vulnerabilities of Air, Space, and Cyber Systems 

Space has long been recognized as an operational domain with capabilities far beyond the original supporting functions that it provided for 

the air domain. The cyber domain as well has come to be recognized as a 

domain of its own beyond the supporting functions that it originally provided for the air and space domains. Yet Air Force systems and operations in the air, space, and cyber domains are highly interdependent. Resulting cross-domain effects associated with this interdependence have 

only recently begun to be understood. They include opportunities for 

gaining synergies through properly orchestrated combined operations in 

all three domains to achieve more than the sum of individual operations. 

However, they also include far-reaching cross-domain threats that arise 

from these interdependences, many of which are only recently being 

widely recognized. Potential adversaries will increasingly seek to exploit 

these cross-domain influences. The challenge is to continue gaining the 

synergistic cross-domain benefits of these interdependences while minimizing the potential vulnerabilities that they can create.

Cyber Domain Challenges 

While the cyber domain was originally envisioned mainly in the context 

of computer software, hardware, and networks, it is now recognized as encompassing the entire system that couples information flow and decision 

processes across the air and space domains. It thus comprises traditional 

wired and fiber-optic computer networks based on electromagnetic (EM) 

waveguides, but also free-space wireless transmissions of voice, data, and 

video at radio frequencies, optical wavelengths, and other parts of the EM 

spectrum, in addition to the hardware and software associated with such 

systems. Viewed in this way, the enormous cross-domain opportunities 

and threats presented by the cyber domain become more clearly apparent. 
strategic context │ 37

Coupling of Cyber, EW, and ISR Vulnerabilities

Cyber domain opportunities and vulnerabilities apply not only to 

traditional network warfare and information warfare but also extend to 

all aspects of EM spectrum warfare. The latter encompasses certain aspects of EW, some of which in turn have close synergies with ISR and 

other operations in both the air and space domains. This strong coupling of all three Air Force operational domains through the EM spectrum reveals how essential freedom of operation and control of the 

spectrum will be both for protecting against cross-domain vulnerabilities and enabling the potentially enormous benefits that can come from 

cross-domain synergies. 

Potential adversaries have recognized these cross-domain vulnerabilities and the resultant opportunities that could be presented to them. 

Because US joint force operations have evolved to become highly dependent on the cyber domain, the strong integration and interdependence 

of all three Air Force operational domains provide most potential adversaries with an inherently asymmetric advantage. They have found 

that attacks through cyberspace allow them to create tactical, operational, and strategic effects at low cost and with relative impunity. Most 

see the cyber domain as a relatively inexpensive venue within which 

they can potentially offset many of the Air Force’s current overwhelming advantages in the air and space domains. 

For instance, as China undertakes its force modernization, it does so 

at a time when cyber threats and opportunities are being understood. 

It thus has an asymmetric advantage in being able to build a military 

cyber infrastructure that could potentially be less vulnerable than that 

which had been put in place much earlier by US joint forces. Developing the ability to make Air Force operations resilient to cyber attacks—

as distinct from the current emphasis on protecting adversary access to 

cyber systems—will become increasingly important.

Cyber Operations in Untrusted Environments

Other countries are increasingly becoming the majority providers of 

equipment and infrastructure for cyber systems. Particularly in cyber 

networking technologies, markets have judged foreign-based sources 

to be comparably capable and less costly than US providers. This situa-
38 │ Technology Horizons

tion is causing critical mission traffic to pass over enterprise architectures that involve significant foreign control and that therefore cannot 

be fully verified with regard to trust/integrity. This includes foreign 

suppliers of both hardware and software, creating risks to critical missions that must operate in inherently untrusted cyber environments. 

Although these cyberspace systems can greatly enhance mission effectiveness, a clear understanding of the resulting vulnerabilities they create in key mission areas is typically lost in the rush to gain the benefits 

of cyber-enabled systems. As Air Force capabilities across the air, space, 

and cyber domains become increasingly reliant on such systems, a key 

challenge will be to effectively manage the risks associated with having 

to operate in environments that are inherently untrusted. 

Strategic Implications of S&T Globalization

Further aspects of the strategic context affecting Air Force S&T during this time originate from changes that are occurring due to globalization of science and technology. Over the next two decades, the 

United States will not dominate science and technology—or the world 

economy—the way it has over the past 50 years. Already today, the substantial S&T gap that once existed between the United States and much 

of the rest of the world is closing rapidly. Some say this is the result of 

US inability to continue educating and advancing a competitive workforce in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. 

Yet regardless of how well the United States addresses that challenge, it 

is at the other end of the “gap” that most of the change is occurring.

The rest of the world has recognized science and technology as central 

to national economies that can compete effectively in the knowledgebased global marketplace. They have sent their best and brightest to be 

educated, often at US universities, and many have returned home to 

build education systems that, over time, have allowed development of 

substantial indigenous science and engineering workforces. Some of 

these countries have also used internal resources to develop the industrial capacity needed to translate science and engineering knowledge 

into technology-derived products and capabilities. The effect of these 

investments is that the worldwide S&T gap will continue to close 
strategic context │ 39

regardless of what the United States may do. The United States and 

DOD will be competing on an S&T playing field that is substantially 

different than it was a decade or two ago.

In parallel with this, knowledge and information have become readily 

available worldwide. Just a decade ago, gaining access to the technical 

papers needed to understand the results of prior development efforts 

on any given topic around the world, and thereby identify the most 

productive avenues for further work, was a significant challenge and a 

substantial barrier to entry in most technical fields. Today the Internet 

puts literally thousands of technical papers published every day at 

nearly anyone’s fingertips. The literature search needed to understand 

the status of any given field and determine the best ways to advance it 

may be only a few mouse clicks away. The net effect is a rapid and massive global diffusion of science and engineering knowledge that has 

fundamentally changed how technology advancements made on one 

side of the world can be translated into militarily relevant systems on 

the other. 

At the same time there has been a growing convergence of the key 

technologies involved in worldwide consumer products with the technologies needed for enabling many advanced military systems. This 

trend has been driven primarily by the role that advanced electronics 

technologies—once largely the domain of high-end military hardware—have come to play in the consumer products market. Today, the 

technical level of the electronics, processing, and software in many ordinary consumer devices may differ only marginally from those in 

many high-end military systems, and in some cases exceeds these. 

The effect has been to create a global science and engineering workforce having technical skills that can be readily converted from developing consumer products to developing substantial military capabilities. 

Similarly, enormous investments being made worldwide in legitimate life 

sciences and biotechnology research are providing the knowledge and 

workforce that can enable others to develop closely related biological 

weapons capabilities in a relatively short time. In short, the advancing 

globalization of S&T is bringing knowledge, technology, and industrial 

capacity developed for the consumer market within reach of a far wider 

range of players who can readily transform these into militarily capable 
40 │ Technology Horizons

A further effect of the globalization of S&T and the resulting rapid 

pace at which technical advances are being made is that the lifetime of 

many such advances is becoming remarkably shorter. In part due to the 

sheer number of scientists and engineers now working worldwide in 

technical fields, the pace of both technical innovation and obsolescence 

has increased sharply. In the consumer products market, it is the innovation cycle that receives the most attention, but in the military systems market it may be the obsolescence cycle that is more important. 

As a result, the lifetime of at least some technology-derived military 

systems may not be nearly as long as it has been in past decades. This 

can be expected to impact defense acquisition choices as well as the 

S&T investment decisions needed to support these. 

Figure 15. Regional research and development (R&D) expenditures in 

billions of dollars and percentage of world total, showing North America, 

Europe, and Asia as roughly equal in R&D investment. (Adapted from 

National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 [Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2010].) 

North America

$393 (35.5%)

Europe (Western,

Central, Eastern)

$313 (28.2%)

Asia (East

South, West)

$343 (31.0%)

Latin America

and Caribbean

$26 (2.4%)

Africa and Middle East

$15 (1.3%)

Pacic

$18 (1.6%)

World Total = $1,107

systems. Others will find easy access to the resulting technology-derived 

military systems in international arms markets. 
strategic context │ 41

Federal Budget Implications for 

Air Force S&T Strategy

A final essential aspect of the strategic context that will guide Air 

Force S&T during 2010–30 is the influence that federal budget pressures will have. Combined impacts of the federal debt, the aging population, and federal entitlement promises made through Social Security, 

Medicare, and Medicaid have begun what will become over the next 

several decades an unprecedented drain on the federal budget that will 

increase rapidly in coming years. The first of 77 million retiring baby 

boomers born between 1946 and 1964 became eligible for Social Security benefits in January 2008. Their numbers will grow at a rate of four 

million per year through 2026, and they will continue to draw entitlement benefits through 2050. 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has calculated that the 

cost of these benefits will grow from 8.4 percent of the gross domestic 

product (GDP) today to 14.5 percent by 2030, and 18.6 percent by 

2050. By comparison, the entire federal budget today is just 20 percent of the GDP. At current rates, the CBO has estimated that by 2049 

these entitlements would consume every other federal program except interest on the federal debt. Even with potential changes in 

entitlement benefits, the looming federal budget pressures will be immense and will necessarily impact the range of S&T and other Air 

Force efforts that can be pursued.

Chapter 3

Enduring Realities for the Air Force 

2010–30

This chapter notes several enduring factors that will continue to 

influence Air Force S&T needs and the environment in which 

Air Force S&T will be conducted over the next two decades. 

Beyond elements of the strategic environment in the previous 

chapter, additional key factors represent enduring needs of the 

Air Force in 2010–30 and form essential background for an 

S&T vision to guide investment choices over this period.

Ensuring Interoperability with Legacy Systems

In 2030 many manned, RPA, and other systems that the Air Force 

operates today will continue to be needed and remain in use. Ensuring 

interoperability with these systems, especially as the technologies in 

newer systems advance rapidly, will become an increasing challenge. 

Technologies that can be cost-effectively integrated in these systems to 

upgrade their capabilities, or that otherwise enable these legacy systems to interoperate effectively with newer systems, will become even 

more important than they are today.

Sustainment Costs for Legacy Systems

Sustainment is essential to the Air Force mission. As legacy air platforms and other systems continue to be used throughout this period 

and as new platforms and systems are introduced during this time, 

technologies to support improved sustainability or to reduce costs associated with sustainment will continue to be essential. 
44 │ Technology Horizons

Importance of Low-Observable Systems

LO technologies and the systems that employ them for long-range 

penetrating and persistent strike are among the most distinguishing 

elements of the Air Force. While advanced IADSs may over time 

create an increasingly challenging environment for these critical 

systems, LO systems will remain essential for the ability they give to 

penetrate defended airspace, for the sensitivities they demand in 

the air-defense systems of potential adversaries, and for the potential 

secondary benefits that this can create for other technology-based 

capabilities. Technologies to extend affordable LO capabilities will 

remain essential.

Energy Costs and Availability

Reducing Air Force energy costs, especially the costs associated with 

aviation fuel usage, and increasing the assured availability of energy, 

including fuels and base energy, will continue to be growing challenges 

during 2010–30. As with other Air Force costs, fuel and energy outlays 

will reduce the availability of resources that could otherwise be used to 

provide increased capability dominance. The need for advances in a 

broad range of technology areas to reduce fuel use—including propulsion, structures, aerodynamics, and controls, as well as technologies to 

allow increasing use of alternative fuels—will remain important, as will 

technologies to enable air base operations with increasingly greater independence from the electricity grid. 

Growing Role of the Cyber Domain

During the past decade, no other technology domain has grown in 

importance as rapidly as the cyber domain. Understanding of potential 

vulnerabilities that cyber systems create has grown from defending 

computer networks to include network-enabled RF systems and other 

parts of the EM domain, as well as hardware and software supply-chain 

vulnerabilities. This domain has become centrally important for maintaining Air Force mission assurance and for enabling entirely new mis-
enduring realities │ 45

sion capabilities. While the defensive aspects of cyber warfare may improve somewhat as systems developed in the “precyber” age are retired, 

cyber warfare at various levels will continue to grow rapidly in importance in the 2010–30 environment. 

Need for “Soft Power” Capabilities

Air Force missions have always included many types of other-thanconflict operations, including emergency response, humanitarian relief, 

peacekeeping missions, and contingency operations as well as joint exercises 

and other cooperative activities with international partners. The role of these 

missions has grown in recent decades and will likely continue to expand over 

the next two decades. There will be an enduring need for technologies that 

can enable a wide range of Air Force capabilities that support these types of 

missions, including better multilevel security solutions to facilitate sharing 

of information, systems, and training with international partners.

Manpower Costs

Manpower costs associated with pay and benefits are consuming a 

significantly growing fraction of the total Air Force budget, pressuring 

resources for all other functions that support Air Force missions. Technologies that can enable the same or greater mission effectiveness with 

reduced manpower requirements can free up resources to permit 

greater overall Air Force capability. For example, these may include 

technologies for increasingly autonomous systems and methods to increase trust in them; for augmentation of human performance; for improved processing, exploitation, and dissemination (PED) of ISR data; 

and for reducing maintenance and sustainment costs. The need to focus S&T efforts on these and other technologies to reduce manpower 

costs will continue to become increasingly important.

Budget Constraints

Air Force budgets throughout this period will likely remain constrained. As noted in chapter 2, combined impacts of the federal debt, 
46 │ Technology Horizons

the aging population, and federal entitlement promises made through 

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have begun an unprecedented 

drain on the federal budget that by 2030 will consume nearly threequarters of the entire budget. Even if reductions in entitlement promises are enacted and federal taxes as a percentage of the GDP are raised 

substantially over today’s rates, the effect of these factors will be to place 

increasingly severe limits on Air Force budgets over this period. 

Effective National S&T Partnerships

The Air Force has consistently maintained working partnerships that 

include coordination of science and technology programs as well as collaborations on joint S&T efforts with its sister services, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects 

Activity (IARPA), and other organizations. The importance of such effective partnerships will continue—and is likely to grow—as budget 

pressures necessitate even greater efficiencies and as the scale and scope 

of many ambitious efforts exceed the reach of any one organization alone. 

These benefits of such effective partnerships extend as well to FFRDCs 

and to industry involved in S&T-related efforts.

Continued International S&T Cooperation

International collaboration in S&T has grown significantly over the 

past decade, providing access to capabilities that complement those domestically available. Building and expanding international S&T-related 

partnerships have been achieved, for example, through efforts such as 

the Engineer and Scientist Exchange and the Windows on Science Programs; the Air Force Office of Scientific Research’s (AFOSR) European 

(EOARD), Asian (AOARD), and Southern (SOARD) Offices of Aerospace Research and Development; and the deputy under secretary of 

the Air Force for international affairs (SAF/IA) air armaments cooperation program. In addition to leveraging the limited resources available for advancing the US technological base, these international cooperations help build partner capacity and can help in efforts to avoid 
enduring realities │ 47

capability surprise. Such international S&T cooperation programs will 

play an increasingly important role in the 2010–30 environment. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics Workforce

Air Force capabilities are dependent on a workforce that has the 

needed STEM backgrounds to provide the S&T advances on which 

these capabilities will be based. Development and maintenance of 

such a workforce will be essential for achieving the S&T vision laid 

out in Technology Horizons. This applies to the workforce needed 

within the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) as well as within 

the broader industrial base. The Air Force already makes important 

contributions to successful STEM programs focused at the K-12 and 

college/university levels through open-house efforts in AFRL and via 

direct mentoring relationships. Support of the Air Force’s “Bright Horizons” plan for a coordinated STEM workforce development effort 

will need to be sustained to provide the workforce needed over the 

next decade and beyond.

Chapter 4

Overarching Themes for 

Air Force S&T 2010–30

This chapter identifies a number of broad themes that will 

guide Air Force S&T in ways that can accelerate the delivery 

of technology-derived capabilities able to respond to the strategic environment, budget environment, and technology environment during this period.

The strategic and budget environments outlined in earlier chapters, 

together with the state to which key technologies can be brought during the next decade to meet the demands of those environments, lead 

to a set of broad technology themes that will be of overarching importance during this time. These themes provide guidance and direction 

for identifying S&T efforts that will be among the most essential in 

terms of their impact on Air Force capabilities. 

These overarching themes are presented in figure 16. Each row represents a significant shift in research emphasis within a given area, 

namely a decrease in emphasis on one area toward an increased emphasis on a different focus area. Both the reduced emphases in the left 

column and the increased emphases in the right column combine to 

ensure an S&T portfolio that is well suited to enabling key capabilities 

the Air Force will need during 2010–30. 

The trends in figure 16 are fundamental shifts in research focus areas 

to guide Air Force S&T in directions that will provide it with the technologies needed to enable capabilities that are matched to the environment over the next decade and beyond. The identified shifts in research 

balance should not be interpreted as a call for ending all research in the 

technical areas identified on the left, since this would create a substantially unbalanced S&T portfolio. Instead, greater attention must be 

given to those areas on the right.

Beyond the impact on S&T efforts, the shifting emphases in figure 16 

point to a need for systems engineers in product centers to become familiar with the resulting technologies and to develop approaches and 
50 │ Technology Horizons

tools for integrating them in Air Force systems. Design protocols, subsystem interactions, and other aspects of system development all will 

be impacted by these changing characteristics of future Air Force systems. 

From Platforms to Capabilities

Since the end of the Cold War and its single major nation-state threat 

scenario, emphasis has been increasingly shifting from “platforms” exquisitely designed to overcome a single threat toward “capabilities” able 

to meet a far wider range of threats. For instance, potential adversary 

A2/AD capabilities and long-range AAMs are increasing emphasis on 

standoff strike and beyond-visual-range engagements that rely less on 

Figure 16. Overarching themes that will guide Air Force S&T during 

2010–30 to accelerate delivery of technologies appropriate to the 

changing spectrum of threats. Emphasis should decrease—but not 

end—in research supporting the areas on the left to accommodate increased emphasis in those on the right. These trends represent shifts in 

research emphases, not necessarily in near-term acquisition priorities. 

(Courtesy Office of the Chief Scientist of the Air Force.)

1. From . . . Platforms To . . . Capabilities

2. From . . . Manned To . . . Remotely piloted

3. From . . . Fixed To . . . Agile

4. From . . . Control To . . . Autonomy

5. From . . . Integrated To . . . Fractionated

6. From . . . Preplanned To . . . Composable

7. From . . . Single domain To . . . Cross domain

8. From . . . Permissive To . . . Contested

9. From . . . Sensor To . . . Information

10. From . . . Strike To . . . Dissuasion

11. From . . . Cyber defense To . . . Cyber resilience

12. From . . . Long system life To . . . Faster refresh

From decreased emphasis on this . . . To increased emphasis on this . . .
overarching themes │ 51

platform-specific functions, such as thrust vectoring for combat maneuverability, and more on capabilities derived from the platform contents, such as ISR and EW functions. This trend is likely to continue, 

and it suggests that core technologies associated with platforms, such 

as aerodynamics and flight control, will continue to be needed but that 

greater emphasis will shift toward other technology areas that deal 

more directly with capability-providing functions. 

Although platforms will remain significant drivers of capability, the challenges 

the Air Force faces require S&T to place increasing emphasis on capabilitybased efforts over platform-centric efforts.

From Manned to Remotely Piloted

The growth in Air Force and other DOD use of remotely piloted 

vehicles has been rapid, as their utility for operations far beyond surveillance has come to be understood. Such systems are also being 

used for an increasingly wider range of nonairborne applications. Although some types of emerging systems will still benefit from having 

one or more crew members on board, for many applications the 

weight, volume, and endurance limitations associated with such crew, 

as well as the cockpit environmental control systems needed to support crew operations, extract an unacceptable performance penalty. 

Manned systems also present risks to crew that can be avoided in remotely piloted systems.

For these reasons, an increasing shift to remotely piloted systems is 

inevitable over the next decade, and technologies will be needed to permit the potentially greater functionality of such systems to be exploited 

for entirely new missions. Such systems are likely to involve varying 

degrees of autonomy, require endurance far beyond what is possible 

today, and include large high-altitude airships with massive ISR capabilities, all requiring new supporting technologies.

Technologies to enable an increasingly wider array of remotely piloted systems, many of which will bear little resemblance to today’s systems, will become increasingly important over the next decade and beyond.
52 │ Technology Horizons

From Fixed to Agile

The Air Force is likely to face a broad spectrum of conflict and nonconflict operations in this period. This will demand a shift from systems designed for fixed purposes or limited missions to ones that are 

inherently agile in their ability to be readily and usefully repurposed 

across a range of scenarios. In many cases, this is likely to entail less 

than optimal performance for a primary purpose in exchange for acceptable utility and performance across these broader uses. 

This extends also to the range of operating environments in which 

such systems will be used. Frequency agility, for example, is virtually 

certain to become an essential attribute as further portions of federal or 

shared spectrum worldwide are transferred to primary commercial 

use. Similarly, frequency agility may enable approaches such as pulseto-pulse waveform diversity that can assist in offsetting the threats 

posed by DRFM and other electronic countermeasures. A further example of agility is represented by systems in which sensitive functional 

components can be more easily removed to allow them to be readily 

shared with international partners or to assist in overcoming multilevel 

security issues. 

Technologies and enabling design principles will be needed to permit such increasingly agile systems to retain the greatest functionality 

in their primary role(s) while allowing the greatest range of intended 

secondary roles and, to the greatest extent possible, adequate functionality even under unanticipatable scenarios. To a degree far exceeding what is possible today, Air Force systems will need to become 

increasingly multirole-capable. The benefits of agility reach well beyond the scenarios identified above and will allow many systems to 

swing from high-end general-purpose applications to lower-end irregular warfare applications. 

For reasons both of cost savings and flexibility of use, it will become increasingly 

necessary to develop technologies specifically intended to enable substantially 

greater agility in systems.
overarching themes │ 53

From Control to Autonomy

Airborne remotely piloted systems and many nonairborne systems 

have significant autonomous capability. However, increasing levels of 

flexible autonomy will be needed for a wider range of Air Force functions during 2010–30 and beyond. These will include fully unattended 

systems with reliable levels of autonomous functionality far greater 

than is possible today, as well as systems that can reliably make wideranging autonomous decisions at cyber speeds to allow reactions in 

time-critical roles far exceeding what humans can possibly achieve. 

Key attributes of such autonomy include the ability for complex decision making, including autonomous mission planning, and the ability 

to self-adapt as the environment in which the system is operating 

changes. Flexible autonomy refers to systems in which a user can specify 

the degree of autonomous control that the system is allowed to take on 

and in which this degree of autonomy can be varied from essentially 

none to near or complete autonomy. 

Limited autonomy is already being widely used in Air Force systems, 

but their autonomous functionality is far below what could be achieved 

over the next decade. From a purely technical perspective, methods 

already exist to extend autonomy to far higher levels than are being 

used today. Even this level of autonomy will be enabled only when 

automated methods for verification and validation (V&V) of complex, 

adaptive, highly nonlinear systems are developed. In the near term to 

midterm, developing methods for establishing certifiable trust in autonomous systems is the single greatest technical barrier that must be 

overcome to obtain the capability advantages that are achievable by increasing use of autonomous systems.

Although humans will retain control over strike decisions for the 

foreseeable future, far greater levels of autonomy will become possible 

by advanced technologies. These, in turn, can be confidently exploited 

as appropriate V&V methods are developed along with technical standards to allow their use in certifying such highly autonomous systems. 

This area is at the interface between complex nonlinear systems theory 

and the massive computational analytics enabled by the availability of 

near-infinite processing and storage capacity at near-zero unit cost. 
54 │ Technology Horizons

It is thus reasonable to expect that with increasing S&T emphasis in 

this area, technologies will be developed over the next decade that can 

enable reliable V&V and certification methods to provide trust in even 

highly adaptable autonomous systems. These, in turn, can open up entirely new avenues for reducing manpower needs and entirely new missions and capabilities for Air Force systems. Such trusted highly autonomous systems will be essential for dominance in the cyber domain, 

where operation at the speeds that autonomy offers will be combined 

with levels of autonomous control far beyond what is possible today. 

Note that potential adversaries may be willing to field highly autonomous systems without any demand for prior certifiable V&V. In so doing they may gain potential capability advantages that we deny ourselves by requiring a high level of V&V. One of the main conclusions of 

this study is that such highly autonomous systems can generally provide enormous capabilities. 

Emphasis on developing methods to achieve V&V of complex, highly adaptive, 

autonomous systems will be essential to enabling the capabilities they can 

provide.

From Integrated to Fractionated

To date, in most system architectures the various functions needed 

for the system to operate have been physically integrated via subsystems 

in the overall system. Thus, for example, most aircraft integrate communications, EW, ISR, strike, and other mission functions together 

into a single platform. The resulting systems become relatively large 

and heavy, with associated performance penalties that translate into 

limits on range and other factors and with relatively high unit production costs and operating costs. Moreover, in such system architectures 

the loss of any one subsystem can lead to mission failure or even loss of 

the entire system. From a mission survivability perspective, such architectures demonstrate poor survivability.

Yet, it is becoming increasingly possible to fractionate systems into a 

relatively small set of functional subsystems, each operating spatially 

separated from the others but maintaining local communication with 

them to allow overall system functionality to be preserved. The system 
overarching themes │ 55

is, in effect, separated into fractional elements and physically dispersed. 

If the fractionation is done correctly, then the short-range communication bandwidth between elements can be made low enough that burst 

mode transmission, frequency agility, laser links, and other methods 

can be used to achieve low probability of detection and maintain jamresistant local link integrity. 

Fractionation provides a dispersed architecture that, even by itself, 

can create cost and risk advantages over traditional integrated systems. 

It is distinct from modularity in that the latter is designed to more 

readily allow subsystem replacement but still aggregates subsystems 

into an integrated architecture. Most importantly, when a fractionated architecture is augmented by even low levels of redundancy 

among the dispersed elements, survivability can increase dramatically. Combining fractionation with redundancy in a system-level architecture produces survivability that far exceeds what is possible by 

traditional redundancy alone.

For a system architecture with m different types of functional elements and n copies of each, the number N of shots each having individual probability-of-kill Pk

 that are needed to cause mission-loss probability PL can be readily shown to be given by

Any fractionated architecture corresponds to particular m and n values, and the traditional integrated system architecture corresponds to 

the trivial case where m = n = 1. Using the above equation it can be 

readily shown that, for reasonable Pk

 values, the number of shots N

needed to cause any mission-loss probability PL increases rapidly with 

the degree of fractionation and redundancy. The combination of fractionation and redundancy produces a multiplicative benefit beyond 

what is possible in a traditional architecture.

Such highly survivable fractionated system architectures are only recently becoming possible through technologies that enable jam-resistant 

secure local communications and collaborative control to permit the 

spatially dispersed functional elements to operate as a single coherent 
56 │ Technology Horizons

system. Fractionated architectures are a key to the development of lowcost autonomous systems that can survive in A2/AD environments. 

Such architectures and the key technologies that enable them have been 

relatively unexplored to date.

Fractionated systems represent a relatively new technology-enabled architecture for achieving increased system-level survivability with low-cost autonomous system elements.

From Preplanned to Composable

Composability refers to the ability to rapidly assemble an as-needed 

mission-specific capability from an available set of standard and relatively low-cost elements. It raises the concept of agility from the level of 

a single system to the entire set of systems needed for mission-level 

capability. By composing a mission-level capability from a standard set 

of common elements, a broader range of missions can be effectively 

addressed at lower cost than is possible with a more traditional aggregated system designed for a specialized or narrow range of missions. 

For example, the same fractionated mission elements noted above 

could be used to compose a relatively simple EO surveillance mission 

in uncontested airspace using just one element having imaging capability. 

The same set of elements could be used to compose a hunter-killer mission package by adding the strike variant. At the other extreme, for 

heavily defended airspace a large number of EO, EW, strike, and other 

variants could be composed into a package suitable for that mission. 

The key point is that for a wide range of mission types, it may be possible to compose a “good enough” mission package from the appropriate mix of a set of common-core, flexibly autonomous elements that 

differ primarily in their function-specific payloads. 

The underlying concept of composability can be applied broadly. In 

cyberspace, for example, by storing elements from a common set of 

functional cyber-mission components in a network in advance of a cyber attack, these elements can be very rapidly composed into a goodenough mission package to respond to the attack. The point is that 

composing a mission package from an already available set of common 
overarching themes │ 57

elements can allow for a faster response at lower cost that is “good 

enough” to deal with a much wider range of missions. 

In the cyber domain, the fundamental inability to anticipate every 

possible attack and preplan an ideally tailored response to each is readily 

apparent. However, the same idea of a mission package composed as 

needed from preexisting low-cost elements is central to the previous 

example as well. Similarly, plug-and-play modularity to enable rapid 

custom satellite composition is a further embodiment of composability, 

and the approach can even be extended to as-needed composition of 

good-enough small satellite constellations for operationally responsive 

space missions. 

Gaining the cost advantages and mission flexibility that are available through 

composability will require developing technologies to enable composable 

mission capabilities in all domains.

From Single Domain to Cross Domain

Air Force systems are broadly thought of as belonging in the air, 

space, and cyber domains, yet it is being increasingly recognized that 

key vulnerabilities can arise in these systems as a result of cross-domain 

influences and interdependences. It is possible to exploit cross-domain 

effects in adversary systems as well or even to derive beneficial effects 

from cross-domain influences. Here, cross-domain effects are defined 

to include a technology in one domain that can produce unexpected 

beneficial or detrimental effects in another domain, or a technology in 

one domain that requires supporting functions in another domain and 

as a result creates interdependences between two or more domains, or 

even a technology that falls between classical domains but has implications in one or more of them.

In general, the awareness of these cross-domain effects is only beginning to be understood, in part as a result of recent rapid growth in 

vulnerabilities of cyber and space systems. Cross-domain effects apply, 

however, in all three domains. Over the next decade, efforts to develop 

new technologies will need to increasingly take into account possible 

unintended cross-domain effects. At the same time, technologies to 
58 │ Technology Horizons

minimize existing cross-domain vulnerabilities and to exploit similar 

vulnerabilities in adversary systems will be increasingly needed. 

Emphasis will increase on technologies to understand, anticipate, and, where 

appropriate, avoid cross-domain effects in Air Force systems and to exploit 

them in adversary systems.

From Permissive to Contested

With only a few exceptions, Air Force operations over the past two 

decades have been conducted under largely permissive conditions in 

relatively poorly defended airspace. This risks the development of an 

underappreciation for the impact that possible future operations in A2/

AD environments could have on some missions and functions, including those in the cyber domain. Greater emphasis should be placed on 

technologies that can operate effectively in moderate or heavily contested domains. 

This will require developing technologies specifically designed to 

enable resilience of key Air Force mission functions in contested domains. In developing technology solutions for any specific problem, it 

will be essential to ensure that these have the needed resilience to 

operate effectively even in significantly contested domains. Examples 

include the need for EW technologies that can be effective in situations where control of the EM domain is not assured. Similarly, technologies will be needed that can not only permit RPAs to communicate and operate under threats in defended airspace but also permit 

other weapon systems to achieve greater range and deep penetration 

ability. In the increasingly contested space domain, technologies will 

be needed to ensure resilience of space assets and space operations to 

various forms of threats. 

To meet the needs of Air Force operations during this period, it will be essential 

for S&T emphasis to increase on technologies that can remain effective even 

in contested domains.
overarching themes │ 59

From Sensor to Information

As a result of rapid advances made in electronics and in imaging 

technologies in particular, there has been an enormous surge in the 

amount of sensor data available across many portions of the EM spectrum. Current EO-IR sensors, for example, generate huge amounts of 

raw imaging data, and similar increases in raw data streams are occurring from other sensing modalities, including hyperspectral imaging, 

light detection and ranging (LIDAR) imaging, electronic signals intelligence, and other RF-based ISR sensing modes. The volume of sensor 

data from current-generation sensors that must be processed, exploited, and disseminated has become overwhelming, as manpower 

requirements to deal with these data have placed an enormous burden 

on the Air Force.

It appears clear that the focus on developing ever more capable sensor technologies of the present type is far outstripping the ability to 

deal efficiently with the resulting raw data. Such current-generation 

sensors can be characterized as “dumb” insofar as they are designed 

solely to generate raw sensed data, rather than to generate interpreted 

information from these raw data. Over the next decade, development 

focused solely on higher-output sensor technologies will need to be 

deemphasized to accommodate increased emphasis on developing 

technologies for “intelligent” sensors. These will, for example, provide 

cueing-level processing of raw data on the sensor itself and then transmit only those data segments containing cues to the ground.

Technologies that make use of continuing advances in miniaturization of electronics and the availability of massive processing and storage in extremely small volumes can, in principle, allow limited processing of raw sensor data to be done behind the sensor itself. This offers 

potential to transform sensor output from raw data to real information. 

Processing done on the sensor need not be as detailed as that currently 

done on the ground and might be used only to cue burst transmissions 

of raw data to the ground for subsequent detailed processing. Resulting 

substantial decreases in the amount of raw data being transmitted 

would alleviate bandwidth requirements as well as ground-based PED 

manpower requirements.
60 │ Technology Horizons

Beyond development of such intelligent sensors that provide information rather than data, other technologies may assist with increasingly autonomous data processing on the ground to reduce current 

PED manpower requirements. As with intelligent on-sensor processing, such autonomous off-sensor processing may not need to be as detailed as current manual processing since it might only be used to cue 

raw data segments for subsequent manual processing. The combined 

impacts of intelligent sensors to reduce raw data streams and autonomous ground processing to assist in current PED functions can potentially be enormous.

In general, Air Force S&T emphasis in the next decade will need to 

shift focus from advancing current dumb sensor technologies to advancing the ability to extract useful information from the sensor data 

stream. The utility of ever-greater situational awareness created by expanded ISR systems will make this an exceptionally high priority for 

the S&T community.

A significant shift in Air Force S&T emphasis is needed toward developing 

technologies that can increasingly assist in converting raw sensor data into 

useful information.

From Strike to Dissuasion/Deterrence

Dissuasion and deterrence have played a role in the Air Force mission since its inception as a distinct service. However, the nature of the 

broader deterrence mission that applies in today’s environment, and 

that is likely to become increasingly important during 2010–30, is substantially different. Future strategy will include nuclear and conventional components and must address state and nonstate actors as well 

as other entities that are not dissuaded or deterred by traditional means 

based solely on threats of retaliation or punishment. The corresponding tools needed to deal effectively with that environment are also different. In addition to technologies needed for active conflict operations, there will be a need during this period to enable appropriate 

dissuasion and deterrence tools for that environment.

As noted in chapter 2, deterrence in the context of 2010–30 involves 

not only effectively deterring nations that are pursuing nuclear-weapons 
overarching themes │ 61

capabilities, such as North Korea and Iran, but also deterrence in the 

conventional warfare sense, as well as in the cyber domain and even 

deterrence of chemical and biological warfare arenas. The broad spectrum of the Air Force role in these missions and the wide range of actors involved create a need for significantly different and more effective 

tools that can support these deterrence roles.

In many cases, to be effective these tools will require nonkinetic 

means to exert influence on potential adversaries. The cyber domain 

offers significant capabilities for exerting a deterrent influence on some 

such actors. Deterrence in the context of what is often termed irregular 

warfare and hybrid warfare brings special difficulties that may require 

new approaches. Actors other than nation-states may be less susceptible 

to such influence, and other tools will be needed to deal with them. 

In general, S&T will need to play an expanded role in developing 

technologies that can support the Air Force role in providing effective 

dissuasion and deterrence capabilities across the spectrum of conflict 

and nonconflict scenarios. These efforts may benefit from coordination 

with the other services, with DARPA and IARPA, and with our international partners.

Over the next decade, technologies will be needed that can enable effective 

deterrence capabilities across a far broader spectrum of threats than has 

historically been the case.

From Cyber Defense to Cyber Resilience

Since the earliest awareness of the vulnerabilities of cyber systems 

and the far-reaching implications of them, efforts to control these have 

been based largely on cyber defense. This refers to the many traditional 

approaches intended to prevent adversaries from entering computer 

networks and other cyber-accessible systems. Yet despite extensive efforts to block adversaries from entering these systems, they can and 

routinely do access them. Today the efforts that must be expended to 

protect cyber systems in this manner far exceed those that adversaries 

expend to penetrate them. There is essentially no evidence to suggest 

that this will change significantly as long as the focus remains largely on 

cyber defense.
62 │ Technology Horizons

Entirely new approaches to assuring continued mission effectiveness 

of cyber systems will be needed, allowing us to better fight through 

cyber attacks. A key step is to begin a fundamental philosophical shift 

from emphasizing cyber protection to emphasizing mission assurance. 

This subtle but important change opens vastly different ways to approach the cyber challenge. For example, mission assurance can be 

dramatically increased by technologies that can inherently make cyber 

systems more resilient to the presence of adversaries within them. S&T 

efforts to develop technologies for increased cyber resilience will be a 

key theme in the coming decade and one of the cornerstones for achieving mission assurance. 

For instance, as described in chapter 5, massive virtualization coupled with rapid network recomposability can make cyber systems inherently far less vulnerable to direct network attacks. This technology 

represents a fundamental shift in the approach to network defense, replacing current efforts to keep adversaries out with a new paradigm 

that makes it nearly useless for an adversary to gain entry. The resulting 

network thereby becomes inherently resilient to attack.

Such inherent cyber resilience via massive virtualization and rapid 

network recomposability can also cause cyber adversaries to leave behind far greater forensic evidence for attribution, regardless of whether 

they entered via the network layer, backdoor implants in hardware, or 

the application layer. The technology can provide inherent resilience in 

the sense that its benefits do not require any explicit awareness of the 

adversary’s presence in the system or explicit action by the defender to 

gain the benefit. 

The fundamental shift in focus from cyber defense to cyber resilience 

represents one of the most far-reaching themes for Air Force S&T in the 

coming decade.

From Long System Life to Faster Refresh

It is a reality that many of the air platforms and other systems that 

the Air Force employs will continue to be needed and will remain in 

use long after they are first introduced into operation. Yet such longlife systems often make integrating new technology-derived updates 
overarching themes │ 63

into them inherently difficult and costly. This is particularly true 

when systems are not developed with architectures specifically designed to accommodate such future upgrades. At the same time, technologies continue to advance at an increasingly faster pace, and 

worldwide access to the resulting military systems developed from 

them is also increasing rapidly. 

The result is that the global technology refresh rate is now far faster 

than just a decade or two ago. Air Force capabilities based on systems 

designed for long-life use will remain appropriate for some applications. However, adversary capabilities obtained with less exquisite systems may have increasing access to faster technology refresh cycles. For 

many types of systems, it will become increasingly difficult for the Air 

Force to maintain sufficient technology advantage without itself having 

access to substantially faster technology refresh rates.

Technologies need to be developed to allow subsystems, if not entire 

systems, to be inherently expendable by design in the sense that they 

are designed and integrated with the specific intent to replace them 

with newer technology after far shorter usage than is the case today. In 

part, this requires new technologies that can enable key system functions to be implemented at much lower cost. It also requires advances 

in technologies for “open architectures” that are secure but can enable 

ready integration of successive generations of newer subsystems.

Development of technologies to support such innately expendable 

systems also supports other overarching themes identified in Technology 

Horizons, including agility and composability, as well as the shift toward 

fractionated system architectures. All of these are essential elements for 

maximizing US joint capabilities while supporting the need for the Air 

Force and DOD to move from exquisite systems to more flexible, agile, 

and broadly effective capabilities that can meet the needs of a wider and 

increasingly less predictable set of future operational scenarios.

New approaches that can enable far faster technology refresh rates in Air 

Force systems and subsystems are key to achieving the far greater flexibility 

that will be needed to respond to the range of future threats.

Chapter 5

Technology-Enabled Capabilities for the 

Air Force 2010–30

Potential technology-enabled capability areas are identified 

that are aligned with key needs of the strategic environment, 

enduring realities, and overarching themes that the Air Force 

faces and that can be achieved with realistically attainable 

technology advancements over the next 10 years. 

The notional process used in Technology Horizons for identifying 

“potential capability areas” (PCA) is shown in figure 17. For each of the 

air, space, and cyber domains, it identifies key functions associated 

with the domain and uses these to envision PCAs that could provide 

these domain functions. For each candidate PCA, it considers the technology areas that would be needed to enable that capability and the 

state to which each technology area would need to be brought in order 

to provide the potential capability being envisioned. 

If a technology area could not be credibly advanced from its current 

2010 state to the needed state by the 2020 target in the 10+10 Technologyto-Capability process (see chap. 1, fig. 2), then an alternate technology 

for enabling that PCA had to be identified, or the capability was rejected. Similarly, if an adversary using the same state of technologies 

could readily counter a potential capability, or if a capability would create 

unacceptable vulnerabilities—either by itself or through crossdomain influences it would produce—then it was also discarded. In so 

doing, Technology Horizons envisioned PCAs that would be of value in 

the 2030 strategic environment and that could be credibly achieved if 

the needed S&T investments are made. 

Note this does not mean that the technologies needed to develop 

these capabilities are already sufficiently mature or that the Air Force 

should necessarily acquire these capabilities. Instead, these notional capabilities are identified because they are well matched to needs of the 

Air Force within the time horizon of the study. This set of PCAs is then 

used as a mechanism for identifying the KTAs that would be needed to 
66 │ Technology Horizons

enable them. In chapter 6, mapping the KTAs across the PCAs allows 

identification of the most valuable technology areas that Air Force S&T 

should be pursuing now.

This process allowed Technology Horizons to maintain its focus on 

assessing the most valuable technology areas for the Air Force, without 

specifying what future capabilities the Air Force should be acquiring. 

Note that the PCAs used in this process should not be interpreted as an 

alternative to “flagship capability concepts” or “focused long-term challenges” that the AFRL may use as constructs for communicating, planning, and managing its S&T efforts. Instead, the PCAs are a complementary means used here for understanding the relative impacts of 

various KTAs. They allow identifying the KTAs that have the greatest 

crosscutting value in enabling capability areas that are aligned with the 

strategic context and enduring realities of 2010–30. Tech 1 Tech 2 Tech 3 Tech 4 Tech 5 Tech 6 Tech 7 Tech 8 Tech 9 Tech 10 Tech 11 Tech 12 Tech 13 Tech 14 Tech 15 Tech 14 Tech 15 Tech 16 Tech 17 Tech 18 Tech 19 Tech 20 Tech 21 Tech 22 Tech 23 Tech 24 Tech 25 Tech 26 Tech 27 Tech 28 Tech 29 Tech 30

Tech 7946Tech 7947Tech 7948Tech 7949Tech 7950Tech 7951Tech 7952Tech 7953Tech 7954

Air, Space, and Cyber Domains

Domain

Function 1

Domain

Function 2

Domain

Function 3

Domain

Function N

Potential

Capability

Area 1

Potential

Capability

Area 2

Potential

Capability

Area 3

Potential

Capability

Area 4

Technology

Area 1

Technology

Area 2

Technology

Area 3

Technology

Area 4

Technology

Area 5

Individual Research Eorts

Figure 17. Notional process used in Technology Horizons for identifying PCAs and KTAs for the air, space, and cyber domains. (Courtesy of 

the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Air Force.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 67

Alignment of Capability Areas with 

Air Force Core Functions

The process described above is predicated on the set of PCAs being 

sufficiently broad to address most of the key functions the Air Force 

needs to perform its mission. This ensures that the KTAs determined 

by this process are the most valuable for Air Force S&T to pursue and 

can support a sufficient range of the functions needed to meet likely Air 

Force needs. To assess if this is the case, researchers mapped the final 

set of PCAs into the Air Force service core functions (SCF) to determine the range of these that the underlying KTAs will support.

Air Force Service Core Functions 

The Air Force has defined the following set of 12 SCFs that encompass the combat and support functions it needs to accomplish its range 

of missions. 

■ SCF1: Nuclear Deterrence Operations

■ SCF2: Air Superiority

■ SCF3: Space Superiority

■ SCF4: Cyberspace Superiority

■ SCF5: Global Precision Strike

■ SCF6: Rapid Global Mobility

■ SCF7: Special Operations

■ SCF8: Global Integrated ISR

■ SCF9: Command and Control

■ SCF10: Personnel Recovery

■ SCF11: Building Partnerships

■ SCF12: Agile Combat Support

The final set of 30 PCAs used in Technology Horizons is listed in the 

next section. Figure 18 maps these PCAs across the above SCFs to assess the range of these functions that each area supports.

Mapping the PCAs across the SCFs ensures that Technology Horizons considered a sufficiently wide range of technologies to support the full set of Air 

Force missions.
68 │ Technology Horizons

Technology-Enabled Potential Capability Areas 

A set of 30 PCAs was identified as being credibly achievable within 

the time horizon this study addresses and as meeting key needs defined 

by the strategic environment, enduring realities, and overarching 

themes that apply to 2010–30. Each of these PCAs is listed below, and 

all are summarized in a following section.

■ PCA1: Inherently Intrusion-Resilient Cyber Systems

■ PCA2: Automated Cyber Vulnerability Assessments and Reactions

■ PCA3: Decision-Quality Prediction of Behavior

■ PCA4: Augmentation of Human Performance

■ PCA5: Advanced Constructive Discovery and Training Environments 

■ PCA6: Trusted, Adaptive, Flexibly Autonomous Systems 

■ PCA7: Frequency-Agile Spectrum Utilization 

■ PCA8: Dominant Spectrum Warfare Operations 

■ PCA9: Precision Navigation/Timing in GPS-Denied Environments

■ PCA10: Next-Generation High-Bandwidth Secure Communications

■ PCA11: Persistent Near-Space Communications Relays

■ PCA12: Processing-Enabled Intelligent ISR Sensors

■ PCA13: High-Altitude, Long-Endurance (HALE) ISR Airships

■ PCA14: Prompt Theater-Range ISR/Strike Systems 

■ PCA15: Fractionated, Survivable, Remotely Piloted Systems

■ PCA16: Direct Forward Air Delivery and Resupply 

■ PCA17: Energy-Efficient, Partially Buoyant Cargo Airlifters 

■ PCA18: Fuel-Efficient Hybrid Wing-Body Aircraft 

■ PCA19: Next-Generation High-Efficiency Turbine Engines 

■ PCA20: Embedded Diagnostic/Prognostic Subsystems

■ PCA21: Penetrating, Persistent Long-Range Strike

■ PCA22: High-Speed Penetrating Cruise Missile

■ PCA23: Hyperprecision Low-Collateral-Damage Munitions

■ PCA24: DE for Tactical Strike/Defense

■ PCA25: Enhanced Underground Strike with Conventional Munitions 

■ PCA26: Reusable Air-Breathing Access-to-Space Launch 
technology-enabled capabilities │ 69

■ PCA27: Rapidly Composable Small Satellites

■ PCA28: Fractionated/Distributed Space Systems 

■ PCA29: Persistent Space Situational Awareness (SSA)

■ PCA30: Improved Orbital Conjunction Prediction 

A much larger set of PCAs was considered; however, this list gives 

the 30 PCAs that were assessed as being most valuable for meeting Air 

Force needs. The list is not prioritized in any way since it was not the 

objective of the study to define capabilities the Air Force should acquire 

but to prioritize the most essential technology areas that are needed to 

enable capabilities such as these. These are PCAs in the sense that most 

represent systems or functions that enable what would be regarded as 

future capabilities. These capability areas also serve as example embodiments of the broader overarching themes identified in chapter 4.

Alignment of Potential Capability Areas with 

Service Core Functions 

Figure 18 shows the mapping of each of the above PCAs into each of 

the 12 Air Force SCFs previously listed. In each case, a check mark indicates that the PCA could significantly assist in the performance of at 

least one or more aspects of the corresponding SCFs. Where there is no 

check mark, there may still be connections with that capability area, 

but these do not rise to as comparably meaningful a level as those that 

are marked in the figure. 

Brief Descriptions of 

Technology-Enabled Capabilities

Each PCA is briefly described below at a level sufficient to understand the basic capabilities being proposed, the technologies that can 

enable them, and the benefits they would provide for the Air Force. For 

each of these PCAs, there is technical support for the claim that the 

underlying technologies that can be brought to the needed level of 

readiness by the 2020 technology horizon date in the 10+10 Technologyto-Capability process. 
70 │ Technology Horizons

Figure 18. Mapping of PCAs across Air Force SCFs. (Courtesy of the 

Office of the Chief Scientist of the Air Force.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 71

Inherently Intrusion-Resilient Cyber Systems

This represents a fundamental shift in emphasis from “cyber protection” to “maintaining mission effectiveness” in the presence of cyber 

threats, using technologies such as Internet protocol (IP) hopping, network polymorphism, massive virtualization, and rapid network recomposition that can make cyber systems inherently resilient to intrusions 

entering through the network layer. These convert the currently static 

network layer into a highly dynamic one in which the hypervisor mapping between the hardware and functional layers changes constantly in 

a pseudorandom way, perhaps hundreds of times every second. A cyber 

adversary who finds vulnerabilities in the physical layer thus has virtually no time to use them for mapping the network before its topology 

has changed. Current manpower-intensive cyber protection efforts to 

block attacks at the network surface could be augmented or replaced by 

these new methods, which introduce “rapid maneuver” to cyber warfare to make a network inherently resilient to attack. Since adversaries 

entering or passing through the network layer may have only a few milliseconds to operate, not weeks or months, they leave greater forensic 

evidence for attribution. Intrusion-resilient methods would initially be 

applied to computer networks but are extendable to other cyber systems.

Commercial development of massive virtualization and hypervisor technologies to enable cloud computing can provide much of the technology needed 

for such inherently intrusion-resilient Air Force cyber systems. 

Automated Cyber Vulnerability Assessments and Reactions

Assuring continued mission effectiveness in the cyber environment begins with identifying mission essential functions across the 

Air Force enterprise and prioritizing these in terms of individual and 

interdependent mission impacts. Mapping the dependence of each 

function over the cyber domain gives insights into critical hidden 

interdependences that enable autonomic generation of appropriate 

reactions to attacks at the “speed of cyber” and thereby maximizes 

mission effectiveness under any threat. This is beginning to be done 

today via a slow manual process for limited and specific threats; entirely new automated approaches can allow scale-up across the entire 
72 │ Technology Horizons

Air Force cyber enterprise and automatic development of optimal 

courses of action for any momentary threat set across the enterprise 

to maintain maximum mission effectiveness. Software tools to autonomously probe and map complex interdependences across the cyber 

enterprise are still in relative infancy, and tools needed to visualize 

and understand the resulting cyber vulnerabilities are primitive. Autonomous decision support tools will also be needed to allow reactions at speeds needed to limit the effects of cyber attacks. Such automated mapping of cyber vulnerabilities and corresponding attack 

responses represents one way of implementing the overarching theme 

of “resilience” in Air Force cyber systems. 

Cyber defense must shift emphasis from network protection to maintaining 

enterprise-wide mission effectiveness; automated methods for continuous 

assessment of interdependences among cyber elements and generation of 

autonomic reactions to threats will be key. 

Decision-Quality Prediction of Behavior

Advances in human and cultural behavior modeling, social network modeling, cognitive modeling, and autonomous reasoning 

can enable decision support tools for anticipating and predicting 

adversary and own-force behaviors. Fusion and understanding of 

information from disparate sources, including classical intelligence 

data as well as large data sets of open source information routinely 

collected from global cyber networks, provide essential inputs. 

Massive analytics made possible by the availability of near-infinite 

processing and storage capacities during this time can provide software tools that aid in decision making, course-of-action development, and related tasks involving prediction of individual/collective 

behaviors over a range of conditions, along with statistical uncertainty bounds to quantify decision confidence levels and inform alternative courses of action.

Massive storage and processing power during this time will enable wider use 

of open source and other information and advanced statistical models of 

individual or collective behaviors. 
technology-enabled capabilities │ 73

Augmentation of Human Performance

Human performance augmentation will be essential for effectively 

using the overwhelming amounts of data that will be routinely available during this time. As suggested in figure 19, this may include implants, drugs, or other augmentation approaches to improve memory, 

alertness, cognition, and visual/aural acuity. It may even extend to limited direct brainwave coupling between humans and machines and to 

screening of individual capacities for key specialty codes via brainwave 

patterns and genetic correlators. Adversaries may use genetic modification to enhance specific characteristics or abilities. ISR operators, commanders, and personnel in the cockpit and on the flight line will routinely use performance augmentation applications. Data may be fused 

and delivered to humans in ways that exploit synthetically augmented 

intuition to achieve needed decision speeds and enhance decision quality. 

Human senses, reasoning, and physical performance will be augmented 

using sensors, biotechnology, robotics, and computing power.

Figure 19. Technologies to augment human performance and cognition 

have significant potential for reducing Air Force manpower needs or 

increasing effectiveness in specialized roles. Left, electronics for a thirdgeneration artificial retina that could restore sight to millions; right, augmentation of human performance through brainwave technology. (Courtesy LLNL, Public Affairs Release NR-10-02-03, “Lab Plays Key Role in 

Department of Energy’s Artificial Retina Project,” 4 February 2010 [left], 

and US Air Force [right].)
74 │ Technology Horizons

As natural human capacities become increasingly mismatched to data 

volumes, processing capabilities, and decision speeds, augmenting human 

performance will become essential for gaining the benefits that other technology advances can offer. 

Advanced Constructive Discovery and Training Environments

Constructive environments being used for training today are simple 

by the standards of commercial massively multiplayer online games 

(MMOG), many of which have hundreds of thousands of users around 

the world playing at any given moment in thousands of simultaneous 

multiplayer games; CounterStrike alone has over 4.5 billion manminutes of game play worldwide every month. Advances in such highly 

constructive environments—compared with virtual systems that are in 

Air Force use today—enabled by continued processing and storage capacities can provide sufficient fidelity to allow useful mining of the 

enormous statistical information contained in such global game play. 

This can enable entirely new methods for discovering cultural insights 

as well as innovative blue- and red-force concepts of employment long 

before they are evident by ordinary experience or in the far smaller 

statistical samples available by formal methods. Highly constructive 

environments also enable further improved training at reduced cost 

and will be used for high-fidelity mission rehearsal, course-of-action 

development, and other uses (fig. 20). 

Figure 20. Virtual and constructive technologies can be advanced to 

allow high-fidelity, constructive, massively multiplayer environments 

for discovery, including online environments where game play statistics are mined to discern cultural insights and identify potential concepts of employment. (Courtesy US Air Force.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 75

The fidelity of constructive environments will benefit from commercial advances in processing, storage, and advanced authoring tools developed for 

online game markets; expanding the use of such environments offers substantial new capabilities as well as cost savings. 

Trusted, Adaptive, Flexibly Autonomous Systems

Inexpensive processing power, data storage, and powerful autonomous reasoning algorithms will enable systems capable of far higher 

levels of autonomy and extension of autonomous systems to entirely 

new functions. Such advanced autonomous systems will be powerful force multipliers (as suggested in fig. 21) and will enable operations at timescales far faster than possible with human-in-the-loop 

control. Establishing trust in autonomy will thus become the central 

factor in gaining access to the potentially enormous capabilities 

that such systems can offer. Human control will be preserved with 

legally reviewed rules of engagement and appropriate human-inthe-loop decision points. However, adversaries are unlikely to be 

constrained by such limits and may be able to field systems that can 

take advantage of far greater levels of autonomy. Entirely new approaches will be needed to enable V&V for the near-infinite-state 

control systems created by high levels of adaptability and autonomy. 

Developing such methods will be essential for gaining certifiable 

trust and legal freedom to field autonomous systems that can match 

or exceed potential adversary capabilities. 

Methods to enable trust in highly adaptive autonomous systems are a gamechanging technology needed to reap the enormous capability and cost benefits that such systems can offer and to avoid the asymmetric advantage that 

adversaries could otherwise have with such systems. 

Frequency-Agile Spectrum Utilization

Future Air Force systems will need substantially frequency-agile capabilities to ensure access to available spectrum bands in worldwide 

operations. Spectral agility will also be needed for jam resistance, low 

probability of detection/intercept, and cyber resilience in the increasingly congested spectrum environment and increasingly contested EW 

environment. Yet even software-defined spectral agility has been diffi-
76 │ Technology Horizons

cult to implement and certify. New methods such as dynamic spectrum 

access and associated policy engines will require compatibility with Air 

Force–specific aspects of spectrum use, including fast movers, large 

fields of regard, compatibility with below-noise signals such as radars, 

and resistance to malevolent interferers. Frequency agility can also be 

extended to spectral mutability, in which a wider range of spectral parameters may be adjustable. 

Frequency agility will be essential for ensuring that Air Force systems can 

operate under rapidly changing spectrum regulations worldwide and can 

provide needed functionality in contested environments where electronic and 

cyber warfare could create cross-domain vulnerabilities. 

Figure 21. Manpower-intensive Air Force functions performed using 

trusted autonomous systems can enable substantial manpower efficiencies and provide time-domain operational advantages over adversaries limited to human planning and decision processes. (Courtesy US 

Air Force.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 77

Dominant Spectrum Warfare Operations

Today the Air Force relies on US joint force partners for EW support, yet it will become an essential resident capability for many types 

of systems. Growing overlaps in electronic and cyber warfare extend 

this need to full-spectrum dominance, including electronic attack, 

defense and support, and corresponding functions for optical freespace and wave-guided EM systems. In modern IADS environments, 

jamming may have to overcome sophisticated electronic countercountermeasures in radars and SAM seekers via methods such as 

cognitive EW. Increasing use of track fusion methods may give adversary systems improved jam resistance, and increased standoff ranges 

imposed by long-range SAM systems further complicate spectrum 

warfare. As potential adversaries increasingly move to AESA radars 

and make use of DRFM-based systems for RF spoofing, Air Force 

freedom of operation in the air-to-air EM domain is also being significantly challenged. New spectrum warfare methods should be developed to support Air Force dominance in attack, self-defense, and 

support across the EM spectrum. 

Rapidly advancing EW capabilities of some potential adversary systems may 

create significant challenges to traditional Air Force spectrum dominance; a 

new generation of spectrum warfare methods is needed to ensure acceptable 

freedom of operations. 

Precision Navigation/Timing in GPS-Denied Environments

Widespread dependence of critical Air Force and other DOD systems on GPS for precision navigation and timing functions has caused 

potential adversaries to exploit GPS jamming as an asymmetric advantage. Key systems will thus need GPS independence or augmentation 

to allow their use in such environments. Chip-scale atomic clocks as 

shown in figure 22 and inertial measurement units (IMU) based on 

cold-atom principles or other technologies as shown in figure 23 can 

provide low-drift PNT in the event of GPS loss. These approaches 

maintain GPS-like position and timing uncertainties over relatively 

long periods after GPS signal loss. Netting to systems outside the 

jammed environment will allow relaying intermittent reference posi-
78 │ Technology Horizons

tion and timing information for limited updates to correct drift during 

long-duration jamming events. Technologies can enable miniaturization of such systems and supporting system-level network functions to 

negate the asymmetric adversary advantage that GPS jamming could 

otherwise provide.

Developing miniaturized cold-atom IMUs and clocks as well as other 

approaches for chip-scale PNT will be essential to ensure access to PNT in 

GPS-denied areas. 

Figure 22. Chip-scale atomic clocks can provide low-drift timing independent of active GPS links, allowing a backup timing source to permit 

a wide range of critical Air Force systems to continue operating even 

under GPS-denied conditions. (Reprinted from National Institute of 

Standards and Technology [NIST], “NIST Unveils Chip-Scale Atomic 

Clock,” 27 August 2004, accessed 20 June 2011, http://www.nist.gov/

public_affairs/releases/miniclock.cfm.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 79

Next-Generation High-Bandwidth Secure Communications

Laser communication technology allows extremely high-bandwidth 

communications over moderate ranges in clear weather conditions for 

atmospheric propagation, and over very long ranges when used for 

cross-links in space. The extremely low side lobes produced in transmissions at optical wavelengths also allow for potentially secure communications. When coupled with quantum key distribution (QKD), 

laser communication can provide verifiably secure encrypted transmissions. These characteristics make lasers attractive for linking critical 

Figure 23. Cold-atom devices enable low-drift IMUs and clocks for PNT 

in GPS-denied environments. Intersecting lasers trap/cool ytterbium, 

strontium, or other atoms to slow their motion, forming a Bose-Einstein 

condensate that can serve as a highly precise matter-wave interferometer. (Reprinted from NIST, “Experimental Atomic Clock Uses Ytterbium ‘Pancakes,’ ” NIST Tech Beat, 6 Mar 2006, accessed 21 June 2011, 

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tb2006_0306.htm.)
80 │ Technology Horizons

Air Force satellite, air, and ground network nodes and can help shift the 

rapidly growing demand for bandwidth to frequencies where spectrum 

management is far simpler. Developing precision pointing and other 

technologies to enable and integrate laser communications in key Air 

Force systems will be a high priority.

Technologies to enable laser-based communication links with QKD methods 

can provide large increases in bandwidth and security needed in some types 

of Air Force uses. 

Persistent Near-Space Communications Relays

Flight vehicles and lighter-than-air systems as in figure 24 can serve 

as pseudosatellites capable of operating at near-space altitudes as communication relays in the event of satellite loss. Netting several such relays can provide theater-level coverage and full connectivity to the continental United States, with system-level concept of operations 

providing needed platform protection. These systems hold significant 

platform challenges as well as electronics, power, and thermal management challenges but may be key to assured communications under the 

increasingly contested space environment. Systems designed to remain 

airborne for extremely long durations can allow launch and ascent to 

be timed when winds are sufficiently weak, enabling structural masses 

substantially below those of traditional airships designed for loweraltitude use. Significant technical challenges must be overcome in highaltitude materials, lightweight solar cells and energy storage, and 

thermal management to enable such systems.

Near-space communications relays can provide essential backup for satellite 

communications in the increasingly contested space domain but represent 

substantial technical challenges. 

Processing-Enabled Intelligent ISR Sensors

ISR sensors equipped with backplane processing for data synthesis 

and fusion can permit certain PED functions to be performed on the 

sensor itself, reducing bandwidth otherwise consumed in transferring 

large amounts of raw data to the ground. Functions such as coherent 
technology-enabled capabilities │ 81

change detection may be suited to on-sensor processing, with raw data 

being transmitted only when cued by processed results from the sensor. On-sensor processing is enabled by the massive processing and 

storage capacity that can be routinely integrated into modern electronic 

systems. Processing done on the sensor does not need to be as detailed 

as can be done on the ground, since its role is only to provide initial 

cueing that triggers raw data transmission for the ground processing. 

Beyond substantial reductions in bandwidth consumed by transmission of raw sensor data, intelligent sensors can greatly reduce the manpower needs of current ground-based PED of sensor data. 

On-sensor processing of raw data to cue transmission and detailed off-board 

processing can greatly reduce bandwidth consumed by ISR platforms and reduce PED manpower needs. 

High-Altitude, Long-Endurance ISR Airships

Theater-level ISR aircraft operating for long durations in fixed orbits 

require forward flight to generate aerodynamic lift, imposing fuel and 

Figure 24. Persistent near-space systems, potentially in the form of ultralong-endurance airships or autonomous flight vehicles, can ensure 

theater-level communications relay functions in the event of loss or 

degradation of corresponding space systems. (Courtesy Lockheed Martin 

[left] and “DARPA’s Vulture: What Goes Up, Needn’t Come Down,” Defense Industry Daily, 16 September 2010, http://www.defenseindustry

daily.com/DARPAs-Vulture-What-Goes-Up-Neednt-Come-Down 

-04852 [right].)
82 │ Technology Horizons

maintenance costs in addition to engine and aircraft structural masses 

that cause sensor payload fractions to below those of airships. HALE 

airships designed for extremely long endurance can achieve payload 

mass fractions even higher than those of traditional airships, since their 

ascent through the atmosphere can be timed when winds aloft are low. 

The size of HALE airships, as shown in figure 25, accommodates massive sensor apertures far larger than any other aircraft could carry, enabling extreme RF sensitivities that may be essential in the emerging 

strategic environment. Their high operating altitude provides a large 

field of regard, allowing such systems to also serve as theater-level nearspace communication relays. Technical challenges that must be overcome include advancement of high-altitude, long-life materials; lightweight solar cells and energy storage; and lightweight multifunctional 

sensor structures.

HALE airships can provide theater-level ISR capabilities with massive sensors 

and offer inherently low operating costs compared with traditional aircraftbased systems. 

Figure 25. HALE ISR airships can remain aloft for years so that launch/

ascent is decoupled from immediate demand and thus can be timed 

when winds are low. This allows exceptionally lightweight structures 

that can enable extreme functionality to be used. (Courtesy Lockheed 

Martin, reprinted from Wikipedia, s.v. “High-Altitude Airship,” accessed 

20 June 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_airship [left], 

and DARPA [right].) 
technology-enabled capabilities │ 83

Prompt Theater-Range ISR/Strike Systems

Air-breathing hypersonic systems designed for Mach 6 or below 

avoid most of the extreme temperatures traditionally associated with 

hypersonic flight, yet can provide rapid ISR or strike capability to engage high-value, time-critical targets from standoff distances. Such systems can hold targets at risk that might otherwise be immune, potentially altering the calculus of strategic deterrence. The system in figure 

26, for example, uses combined-cycle propulsion with internal rocket 

boost, ram/scramjet acceleration, and scramjet cruise. Inward turning 

inlets and a dual-flow path design allow high volumetric efficiency, and 

high cruise speed provides significantly increased survivability. Vertical 

takeoff using a rocket-based combined cycle gives substantially greater 

range and payload while imposing few real limitations on launch sites 

relative to turbine-based horizontal takeoff systems.

High-speed theater-range ISR/strike systems can provide time-critical mission 

capabilities in a reusable system suited to ranges and operating conditions of 

key strategic missions. 

Fractionated, Survivable, Remotely Piloted Systems

A standardized, low-cost, small- to medium-sized, remotely piloted 

airframe able to carry mission-specific payloads can enable a fractionated and survivable approach for meeting key needs of missions spanning the spectrum from low-end to high-end operations. An as-needed 

mission package can be composed from such standard elements carrying different payloads, ranging from single or paired elements for uncontested environments to a dozen or more elements in A2/AD environments. The underlying airframe that enables such an architecture 

would use small, efficient turbojet propulsion; be capable of fully autonomous takeoff, flight, landing, and collaborative control among elements of the mission package; and would carry standard-sized modular payloads such as ISR, EW, strike, communications, and other 

functions among the individual elements to compose the mission capability. Elements cooperate autonomously to form a coherent system using secure, burst-mode, frequency-agile RF or laser communication. 

Beyond making use of affordable LO technologies, mission survivability 
84 │ Technology Horizons

Figure 26. Single-stage ISR/strike vehicles such as this early-stage concept design, which uses internal rocket boost to Mach 3.5 and rocketbased combined-cycle acceleration to scramjet cruise at Mach 6, can 

enable time-responsive missions at long ranges with substantial payloads and runway landings. (Courtesy Astrox Corporation.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 85

in A2/AD environments would come from the multiplicative benefits 

of redundancy among the low-cost expendable elements in the fractionated system architecture, which can overwhelm adversary IADSs 

via fundamentally asymmetric cost-imposing strategy.

Fractionated autonomous systems provide a low-cost means for as-needed 

composable mission capabilities, from individual or paired systems for simple 

EO-IR imaging or hunter-killer missions to large mission packages with redundancy for A2/AD environments. 

Direct Forward Air Delivery and Resupply

Small-unit operations in difficult environments are likely to require 

improved means for resupply beyond current joint precision airdrop 

system (JPADS) capabilities and related near-term systems. Such a capability will typically need substantial autonomy and aerodynamic 

control authority to overcome high winds in mountainous terrain 

while maintaining precise drop-point accuracy, requiring substantially 

different aerodynamic and control concepts than traditional autonomous systems. Demand for a wide range of weight classes and the ability 

to deliver from existing mobility platforms make this a substantially 

challenging system.

The likelihood of a continuing mid- to long-term need to provide precision 

forward air delivery in difficult terrain makes this an important challenge for 

advancing autonomous system capabilities within significant limits on cost 

and other factors. 

Energy-Efficient, Partially Buoyant Cargo Airlifters

Partially buoyant cargo airlifters as shown in figure 27 derive most 

of their lift from buoyancy and the remainder aerodynamically from 

forward flight. They typically differ from dirigibles in that they have a 

rigid semimonocoque hull structure fabricated from a lightweight 

but strong composite that provides significant structural mass efficiencies. Moderate-size prototypes of such craft have been built and 

operated, and fully autonomous systems are possible. Large systems 

of this type can transport enormous amounts of cargo far more energy efficiently than winged aircraft and more quickly than traditional 
86 │ Technology Horizons

seagoing cargo ships, and can land in relatively unprepared sites to 

deliver cargo closer to the point of use. Enabling such capabilities requires advancing several of the underlying technologies in system design and integration for differing weight classes and operating capabilities, as well as in technologies to address weather effects, ballast 

control, and cargo handling.

Partially buoyant cargo airlifters could provide substantially reduced fuel 

costs for certain types of air mobility missions and increased ability to deliver 

large-scale cargo into relatively unprepared sites in a potentially autonomous 

system. 

Fuel-Efficient Hybrid Wing-Body Aircraft

Subsonic hybrid wing-body aircraft provide significantly increased 

fuel efficiency and are adaptable for multiple mission roles. Configurations such as in figure 28 are enabled in part by advanced lightweight 

Figure 27. Hybrid airships that achieve part of their lift from buoyancy 

and part aerodynamically from forward flight can serve as highly efficient 

large-scale cargo airlifters for long-haul routes and in uncontested areas 

with unprepared landing sites. (Courtesy Lockheed Martin.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 87

stitched-composite fabrication methods that allow out-of-autoclave 

forming of large, complex-shaped panels. Hybrid wing-body designs 

have a wide internal bay suitable for cargo hauling and personnel transport or for use as aerial-refueling tankers. A single common airframe of 

this type could be reconfigured during its service life to any of these 

mission sets to meet changing Air Force mission needs. These designs 

are suitable to be developed into a family of related aircraft with common wing and other components that can potentially enable reduced 

production and maintenance costs.

Hybrid wing-body aircraft fabrication is enabled by PRSEUS technology that 

can substantially reduce airframe weight and cost. 

Figure 28. Hybrid wing-body aircraft have higher fuel efficiency than 

traditional tube-and-wing designs for tankers and transports. Advances 

in integrated stitched-composite manufacturing technologies such as 

PRSEUS (pultruded, rod-stitched efficient unitized structure) have enabled large, lightweight, high-stiffness panels at low cost. (Courtesy 

NASA/Dryden.)
88 │ Technology Horizons

Next-Generation High-Efficiency Turbine Engines

Demands for reducing fuel costs and increasing range and endurance call for substantially increased efficiency of embedded turbine engines. Continuing advances in component-level and system-level 

methods to achieve lower fuel consumption will be needed beyond efforts currently under way, as in figure 29. These are driving overall 

pressure ratios (OPR) well above today’s state of the art for increased 

Brayton cycle efficiencies, in turn requiring new advances in materials and 

thermal management technologies. At the same time, emerging “thirdstream engine architectures” can enable constant-mass-flow engines 

that can provide further reductions in fuel consumption. A wide range 

of technology advances can enable substantial collective improvements 

in turbine engine fuel efficiency.

The Air Force’s need for high-efficiency embedded turbine engines in many of 

its platforms calls for substantially different approaches from those accessible to 

commercial high-bypass engines. 

Embedded Diagnostic/Prognostic Subsystems

An embedded system of diagnostic and prognostic sensors emplaced 

within high-value Air Force assets such as air vehicles and DE systems 

will provide warning and prediction of structural or subsystem failure. 

Figure 29. Advancing and integrating technologies that enable a generation of highly efficient embedded turbine engines at a range of scales 

will be key for meeting numerous Air Force needs, from fuel cost savings 

to long-endurance ISR and long-range strike. (Courtesy US Air Force.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 89

These systems will ensure that preventive maintenance is performed 

when actually necessary rather than by antiquated time-based maintenance schedules. Data will be autonomously tracked by individual tail/

system number and part by part. The system can alert maintenance 

personnel of suspect parts and queue the supply system to ensure replacement prior to failure. These subsystems can also allow maintenance personnel to impose operational flight-envelope restrictions on 

individual tail numbers as needed, rather than imposing these across 

the entire fleet. Such embedded subsystems can increase overall operational readiness while decreasing maintenance costs.

Embedded sensors and processors to determine system health and maintenance requirements can extend service life of many systems and reduce 

maintenance and sustainability costs. 

Penetrating, Persistent Long-Range Strike

The need to penetrate substantially defended adversary airspace and 

persist to achieve desired effects is likely to remain an enduring requirement. This will demand a range of technologies that can achieve 

deep penetration capability, long loiter, and secure egress. Such systems 

would likely need LO across multiple bands, secure communications, 

and advanced active and passive spectrum warfare capabilities to allow 

deep penetration into adversary territory. Technologies to support efficient engines, bleedless inlets, and serpentine nozzles will be needed 

for improved propulsion integration to enable long range and loiter. 

Maintaining LO capabilities is likely to remain essential for key Air Force missions, as will a wide range of supporting technologies needed to enable long 

range and persistence. 

High-Speed Penetrating Cruise Missile

A high-speed cruise missile as suggested in figures 30 and 31 can 

provide an effective standoff component in a long-range strike system. 

It achieves penetration into A2/AD environments by using speed to 

obtain substantially increased survivability against modern air defenses. 

Such an air-breathing penetrating cruise missile might operate in the 
90 │ Technology Horizons

Figure 31. India and Russia have developed and fielded the BrahMos 

supersonic cruise missile, reportedly capable of Mach 2.5 flight over 

ranges in excess of 250 kilometers. Su-30 fighters are reportedly being 

modified to provide an air-launch capability, primarily for antiship and 

land attack roles. (Reprinted from Wikipedia, s.v. “BrahMos,” accessed 

20 July 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Brahmos.)

Figure 30. Advances made over the past decade in scramjet propulsion 

technologies embodied in the X-51 demonstrator can allow development 

of high-speed cruise missiles and other capabilities to support long-range 

strike on critical targets in A2/AD environments. (Courtesy US Air Force.)

high supersonic or low hypersonic regime to provide a balance between flight time, range, and survivability. Advances in dual-mode 

ram/scramjet propulsion can enable systems up to around Mach 6, 

while high Mach turbine engine advances would be used for systems 

operating closer to Mach 3+. Such a system might be air-launched 

and employ multiple redundant systems for navigation and target ac-
technology-enabled capabilities │ 91

quisition including GPS, chip-scale cold-atom PNT systems, optical 

terrain recognition, EO and IR sensors, passive RF sensing, and active EW. Variants could include a hard target penetrator or dispenser 

for submunitions.

Speed provides an alternative to low observability that can permit timecritical strikes in A2/AD environments. 

Hyperprecision Low-Collateral-Damage Munitions

The development of focused lethality munitions, precision guidance 

via cold-atom PNT systems, and increased ISR information allows the 

manufacture of intelligent, cooperative, small munitions with nearzero circular error probable (CEP) capable of identifying and coordinating an attack through simultaneous engagements of a target to 

achieve a mission-defined level of effect. Multiple munitions could be 

launched or dropped from one or several air vehicles to cooperatively 

engage targets. Operating autonomously or with a continuous stream 

of ISR data, the munitions would do final target acquisition and cooperatively plan a simultaneous attack to achieve the desired effect. Munitions not used would engage other approved targets or self-destruct 

with minimal collateral damage. 

Advances in precision guidance for GPS-denied areas and focused-lethality 

munitions can enable a generation of hyperprecise, low-collateral-damage 

munitions. 

Directed Energy for Tactical Strike/Defense

Laser and high-power microwave systems can be developed with 

sufficient power and beam control for active air base defense, air vehicle 

defense, and tactical strike applications, as suggested in figure 32. Prior 

chemical lasers as used in the advanced tactical laser will be replaced by 

solid-state laser systems, most likely derived from the High-Energy 

Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) technology and subsequently will be replaced by even more efficient fiber laser systems. The 

reduced size, weight, power, and thermal management requirements 

will allow closer integration of such systems in advanced fighters and 
92 │ Technology Horizons

other tactical platforms. Highly autonomous, self-contained systems can 

be utilized for self-defense to neutralize credible GPS receiver application 

module (GRAM) and AAM missile threats. Airborne tactical strike systems can be used against targets in complex environments such as urban 

areas with near-zero collateral damage. Such systems can incorporate intelligent beam control to avoid collateral damage to blue forces and noncombatants. Advances in power and thermal management can permit 

ground-based air base defensive systems to have near-infinite magazines, 

while airborne systems will have magazines limited by onboard power 

generation and storage and by thermal management capabilities.

Technologies for laser-based DE systems enabling near-zero-collateral-damage 

tactical strikes and airborne self-defense are advancing rapidly and in the 

midterm to long term may allow such systems to expand into new airborne 

and ground-based roles. 

Enhanced Underground Strike with Conventional Munitions

Hyperprecision navigation, timing, and autonomous/cooperative 

guidance will enable two or more conventional munitions to strike 

high-value underground targets using extremely short and precisely 

Figure 32. Laser DE systems will use advanced solid state and fiber laser technologies that enable lightweight, efficient airborne self-defense 

and low-collateral-damage tactical strike. (Courtesy US Air Force.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 93

spaced time separations to provide maximal penetration. Using the unsteady dynamics of the compression and expansion wave system produced in a granular earth medium by the downward impulse from a 

preceding munition allows a following time-phased munition to penetrate through the locally weakened depth-time region produced by the 

overexpansion wave in the resulting wave system. In effect, the second 

munition “wave rides” through the subsurface wave system created by 

the first munition, taking advantage of the degraded material properties of the granular medium that result from partial dislocation of the 

otherwise interlocking granular constituents. This partial fluidization 

of the granular medium allows for dramatically reduced drag on the 

second munition as well as increased penetration depth and stability.

Relatively soft underground targets can be struck without ground-penetrating 

munitions by using precisely time-phased impacts that allow subsurface 

wave dynamics to be exploited for achieving substantially deeper impact 

than would otherwise be possible. 

Reusable Air-Breathing Access-to-Space Launch

The cost of placing satellites in orbit with current EELV launchers is 

high. Next-generation two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) launch systems currently under consideration are focused on reusable rocket approaches 

that can provide modest reductions in launch costs, depending on launch 

rates. However, reusable air-breathing TSTO systems based on combinedcycle propulsion have potential to create large reductions in launch 

costs since such systems utilize oxygen in the atmosphere and thus do 

not need to loft the enormous oxidizer weight needed by rocket systems. Vertical takeoff space launch vehicles such as this will use a reusable rocket in the first stage with a reusable rocket-based, combinedcycle air-breathing scramjet in the second stage. Advanced materials, 

automation, and onboard diagnostic and prognostic systems will allow 

rapid turnaround for reuse as well as life cycle cost savings as compared 

to conventional rockets.

Air-breathing, combined-cycle TSTO launch systems have the ability to provide substantial reductions in space launch costs. 
94 │ Technology Horizons

Rapidly Composable Small Satellites

Small satellites, as in figure 33, can be assembled, tested, launched, and 

functioning on orbit within days of operational requirement generation. These satellites are based on a plug-and-play/open-architecture 

approach using standards for self-describing components within a discoverable and autoconfiguring system. Satellite control can be accomplished with standardized ground stations. These architectures can be 

sufficiently flexible to allow spiral upgrade of individual components, 

Figure 33. Small satellites composed from standardized modular elements can provide rapid on-orbit capabilities with “good enough” 

functionality. Fractionated or distributed space systems composed 

from such small satellites can significantly increase their functionality 

and survivability. (Courtesy NASA.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 95

cooperative control with other satellites, and the potential for on-orbit 

self-assembly. Subassemblies can include propulsion for attitude control, orbital maintenance and maneuver, laser and/or traditional communications, ISR, SSA, self-defense, and other missions. Such plugand-play architectures are based on a cross-domain-enabling concept 

since air and cyber systems can also be built from preexisting modular 

components using similar “open architecture” approaches.

Plug-and-play modular components allow lower-cost small satellites with 

“good enough” capabilities to be rapidly designed and assembled for operationally responsive space missions. 

Fractionated/Distributed Space Systems

Constellations of smaller satellites operating cooperatively to perform a given mission set can provide greater survivability and greater 

ease of systematic upgrade. Architectures based on fractionation involve several functionally different satellite elements that cooperate to 

act as a single system, while distributed architectures involve many 

copies of identical elements that operate coherently to produce greater 

capability than each element could individually. The individual satellite 

elements make use of onboard data processing to minimize interconstellation communications to achieve a highly secure and jam-resistant 

architecture. Such systems may utilize plug-and-play/open architectures and allow seamless upgrade of the constellation’s overall capability 

by adding or substituting new individual, small satellites. 

Fractionated or distributed space systems can potentially provide greater onorbit capability at lower cost than is achievable with traditional approaches, 

while allowing rapid reconstitution in the event that elements in the constellation are lost. 

Persistent Space Situational Awareness 

Current ground-based radars and telescopes and space-based space 

surveillance (SBSS) assets that comprise the space surveillance network 

can be augmented to provide birth-to-death detection, tracking, and 

characterization of every object in orbit, from traditional large satellites 

to picosatellites and orbital debris at LEO, medium Earth orbit (MEO), 
96 │ Technology Horizons

and geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) altitudes. As suggested in figure 34, this can be done through a combination of new ground-based 

and space-based assets with appropriate fusion of data from other satellites, Aegis ships, and other sources into an integrated database. Current plans are to augment the radars and optical telescopes in the current space surveillance network with a 3.5-millimeter space surveillance 

telescope (SST), the SBSS system, and the S-band Space Fence system. 

These will address detection and tracking, but determining the contents of a satellite or its potential capabilities and intent will be extremely difficult. Bringing together data from active and passive RF 

and EO-IR sources can provide a true “SSA network” with capabilities 

far beyond those of its individual elements. In principle, all satellites in 

orbit can provide information that, when fused and analyzed, provides 

a far more complete picture, including space weather effects to allow 

discrimination of hostile actions from natural causes. 

A substantially greater SSA capability will be essential to protecting space 

assets and allowing continued effective use of space. 

Figure 34. Improved space surveillance capability will consist of 

ground-based and space-based assets that can provide birth-to-death 

tracking and characterization of all spaceborne systems. Effective data 

fusion from multiple sources provides significant leverage over singlesource observations. (Courtesy US Air Force.)
technology-enabled capabilities │ 97

Improved Orbital Conjunction Prediction

Development of a physics-based, near-real-time predictive model of 

near-Earth space environment interactions with spacecraft will allow 

highly accurate, actionable predictions of space object conjunctions. 

This model would utilize space weather data from ground- and spacebased space environment sensors, SSA sensor data of object locations/

trajectories, and substantially improved astrodynamic calculations using improved satellite drag models. The model will provide confidence 

levels in conjunction predictions sufficient to justify orbital maneuvers 

to reduce risks of collisions. 

Development of such an improved conjunction prediction capability will be 

essential for protecting space assets from collisions and from resulting increases 

in orbital debris that would endanger critical Air Force space assets. 

Key Potential Capability Areas

The set of 30 PCAs is within reach as new Air Force capabilities by 

the 2030 target date of Technology Horizons and is matched to key needs 

of the strategic environment of this period. Among these PCAs, the 

following 12 were determined to be of highest priority:

■ PCA1: Inherently Intrusion-Resilient Cyber Systems

■ PCA2: Automated Cyber Vulnerability Assessments and Reactions

■ PCA4: Augmentation of Human Performance

■ PCA6: Trusted, Adaptive, Flexibly Autonomous Systems

■ PCA8: Dominant Spectrum Warfare Operations 

■ PCA9: Precision Navigation/Timing in GPS-Denied Environments 

■ PCA12: Processing-Enabled Intelligent ISR Sensors

■ PCA15: Fractionated, Survivable, Remotely Piloted Systems

■ PCA19: Next-Generation High-Efficiency Turbine Engines

■ PCA24: DE for Tactical Strike/Defense

■ PCA27: Rapidly Composable Small Satellites

■ PCA29: Persistent SSA
98 │ Technology Horizons

From Potential Capability Areas to 

Key Technology Areas

The next section lists the KTAs that can enable each of the 30 PCAs 

that have been identified. In so doing, it identifies the S&T that must be 

pursued over the next decade to allow these new Air Force capabilities 

to be developed. Correlating the resulting lists of KTAs across all 30 

PCAs, and particularly across the top 12 PCAs, makes it possible to 

determine the S&T investments that can make the greatest contributions to Air Force capabilities for the 2010–30 strategic environment.
Chapter 6

Key Technology Areas 2010–30

This chapter identifies a set of KTAs—among the most essential Air Force S&T to be pursued over the next decade—that 

will enable technology-derived capabilities that can respond to 

the strategic, budget, and technology environments.

Each of the PCAs noted in the previous chapter is predicated on a set 

of underlying technologies that enable materiel or nonmateriel means 

for achieving capabilities within that area. As indicated in the previous 

chapter (see fig. 17), the set of individual technology research efforts 

associated with these capabilities may be quite large; however, these 

individual technologies can be sensibly aggregated into broader technology areas. 

Individual research efforts within any given technology area may be 

exploring different ways of achieving the same technology objective or 

may be exploring different technology objectives that are needed to enable complementary aspects of a given technology. It is not the objective of Technology Horizons to dictate which of these individual lines of 

research within a given technology area will likely prove to be the most 

productive. Rather, this effort is appropriately focused on identifying 

which technology areas are most essential for Air Force S&T to pursue 

to enable PCAs, such as those in chapter 5, that are aligned with the 

strategic environment, enduring realities, and overarching themes 

identified in chapters 2–4.

Focusing on such KTAs and not on individual lines of research is the 

appropriate level of specificity for an S&T vision. Identifying KTAs 

provides useful guidance in making difficult choices among the limited 

set of S&T investments that can be pursued in the likely budget environment over the next two decades, yet it gives AFRL leadership the 

freedom to evaluate and select the specific individual lines of research 

that should be pursued.
100 │ Technology Horizons

Key Technology Areas Supporting 

Potential Capability Areas

For each of the PCAs identified in chapter 5, a large number of supporting 

technologies are needed to allow systems of that type to be developed or to 

contribute to the increased effectiveness of such systems. It has not been an 

objective of Technology Horizons to produce an exhaustive list of all such supporting technologies. Indeed, by being comprehensive, such a list would be 

of little or no use in providing guidance for Air Force S&T decisions. 

Instead, this effort has sought to identify the more limited set of KTAs 

that not only support these PCAs but also are broadly essential for enabling 

the overarching themes previously noted (chap. 4, fig. 16). The resulting 

KTAs identified below for each of the PCAs should be understood in that 

way. They do not define the entirety of S&T that the Air Force needs, but 

they are among the most essential components of the S&T that the Air 

Force will need for the strategic environment, enduring realities, and overarching themes that define the 2010–30 time frame and beyond.

A set of 110 individual technology areas is identified here as being among the 

most essential S&T for the Air Force to pursue over the next decade. Each of 

these KTAs is mapped into the PCAs from chapter 5 and the overarching 

themes from chapter 4.

Figure 35. Basic research is providing the foundation on which a wide 

range of future capabilities can be based, such as (left) superconducting artificial atom structures visualized via (right) amplitude spectroscopy and metamaterials with negative refractive index that bend EM 

waves backwards. (Courtesy US Air Force [left] and NASA [right].)
key technology areas │ 101

PCA1: Inherently Intrusion-Resilient Cyber Systems

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Agile hypervisors

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Agile networks

■ Pseudorandom network recomposition

■ Laser communications

■ Secure RF links

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ QKD

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous reasoning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Decision support tools

■ Automated software generation

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Sensor data fusion

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Cyber offense

■ Cyber defense

■ Cyber resilience

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

■ Automated reasoning and learning

PCA2: Automated Cyber Vulnerability Assessments and Reactions

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Agile networks

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ QKD

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Autonomous systems 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Decision support tools

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber defense

■ Cyber resilience

■ Human behavior modeling

■ Cultural behavior modeling

■ Social network modeling

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

■ Human-machine interfaces

PCA3: Decision-Quality Prediction of Behavior

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Autonomous systems 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Decision support tools

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Biological signatures

■ Human behavior modeling

■ Cultural behavior modeling

■ Social network modeling

■ Behavior prediction and anticipation

■ Influence measures

■ Cognitive modeling

■ Human-machine interfaces
102 │ Technology Horizons

PCA4: Augmentation of Human Performance

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Agile networks

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Decision support tools

■ Automated software generation

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Sensor-based processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Biological signatures

■ Human behavior modeling

■ Cultural behavior modeling

■ Social network modeling

■ Behavior prediction and anticipation

■ Influence measures

■ Cognitive modeling

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

■ Cognitive performance augmentation

■ Physical performance augmentation

■ Human-machine interfaces

PCA6: Trusted, Adaptive, Flexibly Autonomous Systems 

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Cold-atom inertial navigation systems 

(INS) 

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Agile networks

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

PCA5: Advanced Constructive Discovery and Training Environments

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Agile networks

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Decision support tools

■ Automated software generation

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber resilience

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Human behavior modeling

■ Cultural behavior modeling

■ Social network modeling

■ Behavior prediction and anticipation

■ Influence measures

■ Cognitive modeling

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

■ Human-machine interfaces
key technology areas │ 103

PCA8: Dominant Spectrum Warfare Operations

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Agile networks

■ Pseudorandom network recomposition

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Modular small-sat components

■ Distributed small-sat architectures

■ Fractionated small-sat architectures

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ QKD

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

PCA7: Frequency-Agile Spectrum Utilization

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Agile networks

■ Pseudorandom network recomposition

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ QKD

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Autonomous systems 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Decision support tools

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber resilience

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

■ Human-machine interfaces

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Decision support tools

■ Automated software generation

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Sensor-based processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber defense

■ Cyber resilience

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Human behavior modeling

■ Cultural behavior modeling

■ Social network modeling

■ Behavior prediction and anticipation

■ Massive analytics

■ Human-machine interfaces
104 │ Technology Horizons

PCA11: Persistent Near-Space Communications Relays

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic test and evaluation (T&E)

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Agile networks

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ DE protection

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural modeling and simulation (M&S) 

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

PCA10: Next-Generation High-Bandwidth Secure Communications

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ QKD

■ Solid-state lasers

■ Fiber lasers

■ Semiconductor lasers

■ EO-IR sensing

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

PCA9: Precision Navigation/Timing in GPS-Denied Environments

■ Cold-atom INSs chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Agile networks

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ QKD

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Autonomous systems 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ High-power microwaves

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Autonomous systems 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Decision support tools

■ Passive radar

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ EO-IR sensing

■ IR signature suppression

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Sensor-based processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber offense

■ Cyber defense

■ Cyber resilience

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Nanomaterials
key technology areas │ 105

PCA13: High-Altitude, Long-Endurance ISR Airships

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ DE protection

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ High-altitude airship

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ EO-IR sensing

■ High-altitude materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Metamaterials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Material-specific manufacturing

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

■ Radiation hardened electronics

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

PCA12: Processing-Enabled Intelligent ISR Sensors

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Quantum computing

■ Decision support tools

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ EO-IR sensing

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Sensor-based processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber offense

■ Cyber defense

■ Cyber resilience

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Biological signatures

■ Massive analytics 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Nanomaterials

■ High-temperature electronics

■ Radiation hardened electronics

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ High-altitude airship

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ Cyber defense

■ Cyber resilience

■ High-altitude materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Material-specific manufacturing

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

■ Radiation hardened electronics

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ High-OPR compressors
106 │ Technology Horizons

PCA15: Fractionated, Survivable, Remotely Piloted Systems

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Cold-atom INSs 

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

■ High-power microwaves

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ EO-IR sensing

■ IR signature suppression

■ Cyber resilience

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Material-specific manufacturing

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ Three-stream engine architectures

■ High-OPR compressors

■ Advanced/interturbine burners

■ Efficient bleedless inlets

■ Serpentine nozzles

PCA14: Prompt Theater-Range ISR/Strike Systems

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Advanced thermal protection system 

(TPS) materials

■ Scramjet propulsion systems

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ DE protection

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ EO-IR sensing

■ IR signature suppression

■ High-temperature materials

■ High-altitude materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Material-specific manufacturing

■ Hydrocarbon boost engine

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ High-temperature fuel technologies

■ Efficient bleedless inlets
key technology areas │ 107

PCA18: Fuel-Efficient Hybrid Wing-Body Aircraft

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ IR signature suppression

■ High-temperature materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Material-specific manufacturing

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ Three-stream engine architectures

PCA17: Energy-Efficient, Partially Buoyant Cargo Airlifters

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Material-specific manufacturing

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

PCA16: Direct Forward Air Delivery and Resupply

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Cold-atom INSs 

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Decision support tools

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Material-specific manufacturing
108 │ Technology Horizons

PCA21: Penetrating, Persistent Long-Range Strike

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication 

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

PCA20: Embedded Diagnostic/Prognostic Subsystems

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Fiber lasers

■ Semiconductor lasers

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Decision support tools

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber resilience

■ High-temperature materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Nondestructive evaluation

■ Material-specific manufacturing 

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

PCA19: Next-Generation High-Efficiency Turbine Engines

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ High-temperature materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Nondestructive evaluation

■ Material-specific manufacturing 

■ High-temperature electronics

■ Alternate fuels

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ Three-stream engine architectures

■ High-temperature fuel technologies

■ High-OPR compressors

■ Engine component testing

■ Advanced/interturbine burners

■ Serpentine nozzles
key technology areas │ 109

PCA22: High-Speed Penetrating Cruise Missile

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Advanced TPS materials

■ Scramjet propulsion systems

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ DE protection

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication 

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber resilience

■ High-temperature materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Material-specific manufacturing 

■ High-temperature electronics

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ Engine component testing

■ High-speed turbines

■ Efficient bleedless inlets

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems 

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Decision support tools

■ Passive radar

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ EO-IR sensing

■ IR signature suppression

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber offense

■ Cyber resilience

■ High-temperature materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Material-specific manufacturing 

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ Three-stream engine architectures

■ High-OPR compressors

■ Advanced/interturbine burners

■ Efficient bleedless inlets

■ Serpentine nozzles
110 │ Technology Horizons

PCA26: Reusable Air-breathing Access-to-Space Launch

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Advanced TPS materials

■ Scramjet propulsion systems

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

PCA25: Enhanced Underground Strike with Conventional Munitions

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

PCA24: Directed Energy for Tactical Strike/Defense

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Solid-state lasers

■ Fiber lasers

■ Semiconductor lasers

■ Beam control

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

■ High-power microwaves

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ High-temperature materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ Three-stream engine architectures

PCA23: Hyperprecision Low-Collateral-Damage Munitions

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ EO-IR sensing

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Cyber resilience

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Nanomaterials

■ Material-specific manufacturing
key technology areas │ 111

PCA28: Fractionated/Distributed Space Systems

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Agile networks

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Modular small-sat components

■ Distributed small-sat architectures

■ Fractionated small-sat architectures

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

PCA27: Rapidly Composable Small Satellites

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Modular small-sat components

■ Fractionated small-sat architectures

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

■ Space weather

■ Orbital environment characterization

■ Satellite drag modeling

■ SSA

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ EO-IR sensing

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Cyber resilience

■ High-altitude materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Material-specific manufacturing 

■ Hydrocarbon boost engine

■ Spacecraft propulsion

■ Electric propulsion

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

■ Radiation hardened electronics

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ Cyber resilience

■ High-temperature materials

■ High-altitude materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Material-specific manufacturing 

■ Hydrocarbon boost engine

■ High-temperature electronics

■ Radiation hardened electronics

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ Efficient bleedless inlets
112 │ Technology Horizons

PCA30: Improved Orbital Conjunction Prediction

■ Space weather

■ Orbital environment characterization

■ Satellite drag modeling

■ SSA

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Decision support tools

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

PCA29: Persistent Space Situational Awareness

■ Distributed small-sat architectures

■ Fractionated small-sat architectures

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Decision support tools

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ EO-IR sensing

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber resilience

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ High-power microwaves

■ Space weather

■ Orbital environment characterization

■ Satellite drag modeling

■ SSA

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ EO-IR sensing

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Cyber resilience

■ High-temperature materials

■ High-altitude materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Hydrocarbon boost engine

■ Spacecraft propulsion

■ Electric propulsion

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

■ Radiation hardened electronics

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components
key technology areas │ 113

Not every KTA listed under each PCA is necessarily relevant to every 

line of research that might support development of materiel or nonmateriel means for achieving capabilities within that area. However, all 

are potentially relevant to at least some key aspects of approaches that 

might be pursued under that capability area.

Alignment of Key Technology Areas 

with Overarching Themes

Chapter 4 identifies a set of 12 broad overarching themes that helps 

to define the most essential research efforts that Air Force S&T should 

pursue to prepare for the strategic environment and enduring realities 

of the 2010–30 time frame. These overarching themes are aggregated 

into logical clusters below, and the KTAs identified above are mapped 

into these to clarify how these themes can be used to guide S&T investment choices.

FROM . . . Platforms, Integrated, Preplanned, Long System Life 

TO . . . Capabilities, Fractionated, Composable, Expendable

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Agile hypervisors

■ Agile networks

■ Pseudorandom network recomposition

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Modular small-sat components

■ Distributed small-sat architectures

■ Fractionated small-sat architectures

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ QKD

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Solid-state lasers

■ Fiber lasers

■ Semiconductor lasers

■ Beam control

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

■ High-power microwaves

■ Quantum computing

■ Space weather

■ Orbital environment characterization

■ Satellite drag modeling

■ SSA

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems
114 │ Technology Horizons

FROM . . . Cyber Defense, Permissive, Operations, Single Domain 

TO . . . Cyber Resilience, Contested, Dissuasion, Cross Domain

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Agile hypervisors

■ Agile networks

■ Pseudorandom network recomposition

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Modular small-sat components

■ Distributed small-sat architectures

■ Fractionated small-sat architectures

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ QKD

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

■ High-power microwaves

■ Quantum computing

■ Space weather

■ Orbital environment characterization

■ Satellite drag modeling

■ SSA

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous reasoning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Autonomous reasoning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Decision support tools

■ Automated software generation

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ EO-IR sensing

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Sensor-based processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber resilience

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Human behavior modeling

■ Cultural behavior modeling

■ Social network modeling

■ Behavior prediction and anticipation

■ Influence measures

■ Cognitive modeling

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

■ Automated reasoning and learning

■ Cognitive performance augmentation

■ Physical performance augmentation

■ Human-machine interfaces

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Nondestructive evaluation

■ Material-specific manufacturing 

■ Spacecraft propulsion

■ Electric propulsion

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

■ Radiation hardened electronics

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components
key technology areas │ 115

FROM . . . Sensors, Control, Single Domain 

TO . . . Information, Autonomy, Cross Domain

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Agile hypervisors

■ Agile networks

■ Pseudorandom network recomposition

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Modular small-sat components

■ Distributed small-sat architectures

■ Fractionated small-sat architectures

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ QKD

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ DE protection

■ High-power microwaves

■ Quantum computing

■ Space weather

■ Orbital environment characterization

■ Satellite drag modeling

■ SSA

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous reasoning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Decision support tools

■ Automated software generation

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Decision support tools

■ Automated software generation

■ Passive radar

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ EO-IR sensing

■ IR signature suppression

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Sensor-based processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber offense

■ Cyber resilience

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Biological signatures

■ Human behavior modeling

■ Cultural behavior modeling

■ Social network modeling

■ Behavior prediction and anticipation

■ Influence measures

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

■ Automated reasoning and learning

■ Cognitive performance augmentation

■ Physical performance augmentation

■ Human-machine interfaces

■ High-altitude materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Spacecraft propulsion

■ Electric propulsion

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

■ Radiation hardened electronics

■ Alternate fuels

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components
116 │ Technology Horizons

FROM ... . . . Manned, Control, Long System Life 

TO . . . Remotely Piloted, Autonomy, Expendable

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Agile hypervisors

■ Agile networks

■ Pseudorandom network recomposition

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Modular small-sat components

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Semiconductor lasers

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

■ High-power microwaves

■ Quantum computing

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Advanced composite fabrication 

■ Structural M&S

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous reasoning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Decision support tools

■ Automated software generation

■ High-altitude airship

■ Passive radar

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ EO-IR sensing

■ IR signature suppression

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Sensor-based processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber resilience

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Human behavior modeling

■ Cultural behavior modeling

■ Social network modeling

■ Behavior prediction and anticipation

■ Cognitive modeling

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Sensor-based processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber resilience

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Biological signatures

■ Human behavior modeling

■ Cultural behavior modeling

■ Social network modeling

■ Behavior prediction and anticipation

■ Influence measures

■ Cognitive modeling

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

■ Automated reasoning and learning

■ Cognitive performance augmentation

■ Human-machine interfaces

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

■ Radiation hardened electronics
key technology areas │ 117

FROM . . . Fixed, Single Domain, Permissive 

TO . . . Agile, Cross Domain, Contested

■ Advanced aerodynamic configurations

■ Aerodynamic T&E

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Virtual machine architectures

■ Agile hypervisors

■ Agile networks

■ Pseudorandom network recomposition

■ Complex adaptive distributed networks

■ Distributed small-sat architectures

■ Fractionated small-sat architectures

■ Laser communications

■ Short-range secure RF communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ QKD

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ Complex system dynamics

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Solid-state lasers

■ Fiber lasers

■ Semiconductor lasers

■ Beam control

■ DE effects

■ DE protection

■ High-power microwaves

■ Quantum computing

■ Space weather

■ Orbital environment characterization

■ Satellite drag modeling

■ SSA

■ Lightweight multifunctional structures

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Validation support to simulations

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Health monitoring and prognosis

■ Decision support tools

■ Passive radar

■ Advanced RF apertures

■ Secure RF links

■ RF EW

■ EO-IR sensing

■ IR signature suppression

■ Distributed sensing networks

■ Integrated sensing and processing

■ Sensor-based processing

■ Signal identification and recognition

■ Information fusion and understanding

■ Cyber offense

■ Cyber defense

■ Cyber resilience

■ Advanced computing architectures

■ Human behavior modeling

■ Massive analytics

■ Automated reasoning and learning

■ Human-machine interfaces

■ High-altitude materials

■ Lightweight materials

■ Advanced composites

■ Composites sustainment

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Nondestructive evaluation

■ Material-specific manufacturing

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ High-OPR compressors

■ Engine component testing

■ Advanced/interturbine burners

■ Efficient bleedless inlets

■ Serpentine nozzles

■ High-speed turbines
118 │ Technology Horizons

Summary of Key Technology Areas

Among the 110 technology areas listed above, a smaller subset is 

common to many of these PCAs and overarching themes. This subset 

is especially important for enabling the shorter list of 12 top PCAs 

identified in the previous chapter. This set represents KTAs that are the 

most critical to advance over the next decade to enable Air Force capabilities that are matched to the 2030 environment.

■ Cultural behavior modeling

■ Social network modeling

■ Behavior prediction and anticipation

■ Influence measures

■ Cognitive modeling

■ Complex environment visualization

■ Massive analytics

■ Automated reasoning and learning

■ Cognitive performance augmentation

■ Physical performance augmentation

■ Human-machine interfaces

■ Lightweight materials

■ Optical and infrared materials

■ RF and electronic materials

■ Metamaterials

■ Self-healing materials

■ Nanomaterials

■ Nondestructive evaluation

■ Material-specific manufacturing

■ Power generation and energy storage

■ High-temperature electronics

■ System-level thermal management M&S

■ Thermal management components

■ Autonomous systems

■ Autonomous reasoning and learning

■ Resilient autonomy

■ Complex adaptive systems

■ V&V for complex adaptive systems

■ Collaborative/cooperative control

■ Autonomous mission planning

■ Cold-atom INSs

■ Chip-scale atomic clocks

■ Ad hoc networks

■ Polymorphic networks

■ Agile networks

■ Laser communications

■ Frequency-agile RF systems

■ Spectral mutability

■ Dynamic spectrum access

■ QKD

■ Multiscale simulation technologies

■ Coupled multiphysics simulations

■ Embedded diagnostics

■ Decision support tools

■ Automated software generation

■ Sensor-based processing

■ Behavior prediction and anticipation

■ Cognitive modeling

■ Cognitive performance augmentation

■ Human-machine interfaces

The KTAs identified above represent only a fraction of the research 

efforts that the AFRL is currently pursuing. However, they are identified here as being among the most essential S&T that must be explored 

to enable Air Force capabilities that are matched to the 2010–30 environment. Other supporting research efforts beyond these will also be 
key technology areas │ 119

needed to obtain a properly balanced and hedged portfolio, but these 

areas will be essential. These KTAs will be needed to enable Air Force 

capabilities based on game-changing approaches such as flexible 

autonomy and human performance augmentation, which have been 

identified in Technology Horizons as central for maintaining Air Force 

technology superiority.

If we are to achieve results never before accomplished, we must expect to employ methods never 

before attempted.

—Sir Francis Bacon

Chapter 7

Grand Challenges for Air Force S&T 

2010–30

This chapter presents four focused technology challenges to help 

guide S&T efforts and drive innovative solutions in ways that 

support the enduring realities, overarching themes, and KTAs 

identified in Technology Horizons. Each leads to a demonstration of a substantial Air Force capability that requires significant S&T advances and integration across multiple technology areas.

The following “grand challenges” are presented to provide a set of 

identifiable focus problems that can help guide Air Force S&T over the 

next decade in the directions outlined by Technology Horizons. These 

are candidate problems designed to promote integration of S&T efforts 

across traditional technical domains in ways that can trigger creative 

means to solve them. Each is intended to lead to a major systems-level 

integrated technology demonstration. The problem statements are 

written to be sufficiently descriptive of a major technology-enabled 

“stretch capability” without prescribing the approaches by which the 

challenge may be met. 

These are not meant to be competitions in the way that some DODrelated grand challenges have been. They are focus areas within which 

sets of individual KTAs can be advanced and integrated at the wholesystem level. The goal of each is to guide Air Force S&T in directions 

consistent with the enduring realities, overarching themes, and technology areas identified in Technology Horizons, as well as facilitate dramatic advances over current capabilities in areas that will be essential 

for the Air Force over the next two decades and beyond. 

By design, the scale and scope of these challenges vary significantly. 

While the AFRL may be able to entirely solve some issues, others may 

require it to partner with other organizations. Each is intended to 

stress the solution space and drive innovative development of key technologies. Beyond advancing the underlying technologies and their 
122 │ Technology Horizons

integration via these focused efforts, the demonstrations will help 

broaden Air Force–wide awareness of S&T advances in ways that could 

potentially lead to accelerated development of fieldable capabilities derived from them.

Challenge #1: 

Inherently Intrusion-Resilient Cyber Networks

The first challenge is to explore, develop, and demonstrate autonomous and scalable technologies that enable large, nonsecure networks 

to be made inherently and substantially more resilient to attacks entering through network or application layers and to attacks that pass 

through these layers. Emphasis is on advancing technologies that enable network-intrusion tolerance rather than traditional network defense, with the goal to achieve continued mission effectiveness under 

large-scale, diverse network attacks. Technologies may include, but are 

not limited to, virtualization, recomposability, IP hopping, pseudorandom 

switching, server self-cleansing, and other methods that provide substantial increases in resilience or tolerance to intrusions, are scalable to 

arbitrarily large networks, and do not require explicit network operator 

interventions. These technologies apply the overarching themes of agility, 

autonomy, composability, and resilience in cyber networks. 

A representative synthesized, large-scale, open network should be 

used to demonstrate the individual or combined benefits of resulting 

technologies. This will include an extended period during which unrestricted parties worldwide are invited to achieve one or more of a set 

of defined goals that may include installation of malware or other implants, metatag alteration, data corruption, data exfiltration, distributed denial of service, and other representative predetermined objectives, in addition to provable accomplishment of any unspecified 

modifications in the network or interruptions of network functions.

Target date for demonstration: no later than 2015.

This challenge applies the overarching themes of agility, autonomy, composability, and resilience to cyber systems and will result in methods for achieving 

substantially improved intrusion resistance and intrusion tolerance in Air 

Force cyber systems.
grand challenges │ 123

Challenge #2: 

Trusted, Highly Autonomous 

Decision-Making Systems

The second challenge is to explore, develop, and demonstrate technologies that enable current human-intensive functions to be replaced, 

in whole or in part, by more highly autonomous decision-making systems and technologies that permit reliable V&V to establish the needed 

trust in them. Emphasis is on decision-making systems requiring limited or no human intervention for current applications where substantial reductions in specialized manpower may be possible and for future 

applications involving inherent decision time scales far exceeding human capacity. 

Technologies may include, but are not limited to, information fusion, cognitive architectures, robust statistical learning, search and optimization, automated reasoning, neural networks, complex system 

dynamics, and other approaches that will enable increasingly autonomous decision making. In parallel, generalized V&V methods should 

also be developed for highly autonomous, adaptive, near-infinite state 

systems that can provide asymptotic inferential assessments of confidence levels for such systems over their state space. Emphasis in both 

areas should be on identifying broadly applicable principles, supporting theoretical constructs, practical methods and their algorithmic embodiments, and measures of effectiveness, rather than focusing primarily on individual application-specific instantiations. 

The effectiveness of the resulting technologies should be demonstrated in a representative synthesized, large-scale combined air operations center environment using recorded operational or operationally 

realistic data streams, with total or partial autonomous decision making for functions such as battle management, deployment planning, 

and logistics management. The resilience of decision-making systems 

should be verified under extremely high data-stream capacities and exceptional events, including corrupted data or information. Autonomous or semiautonomous decision quality should be quantified and 

compared with human operator decision-making results. Levels of 
124 │ Technology Horizons

trust in decision-making systems involved should also be quantified 

and compared with demonstration results. 

Target date for demonstration: 2017.

Focused effort on this challenge will enable technologies that can support substantial manpower cost reductions and extend robust improved decisionmaking capabilities to highly stressing future applications that may involve 

decision time scales beyond human capacity.

Challenge #3: 

Fractionated, Composable, Survivable, 

Autonomous Systems

The third challenge is to explore, develop, and demonstrate technologies that can enable future autonomous aircraft or spacecraft systems 

achieving greater multirole capability across a broader range of missions at moderate cost, including increased survivability in contested 

environments. Emphasis is on composability via system architectures 

based on fractionation and redundancy. This involves advancing methods for collaborative control and adaptive autonomous mission planning, as well as V&V of highly adaptable, autonomous control systems. 

This also includes technology advances to enable autonomous coordinated flight operation of fractional elements using short-range, lowbandwidth, jam-resistant, secure communication links. This effort may 

include RF agility, burst transmissions, laser links, and other methods 

to achieve low probability of detection and maintain needed levels of 

link integrity. System-level optimization will determine the degree of 

fractionation and define functionality of each type of fractional element.

The demonstration should highlight underlying technologies in a 

fully integrated ground-based hardware-in-the-loop simulation of a 

complete fractionated system operating over a range of missions and 

denial environments. It should also incorporate representative fractional elements and level of redundancy needed for A2/AD operations. 

Active links between all system elements for data exchange and command and control communications should be featured. The demonstration should verify maintenance of link integrity over a range of 
grand challenges │ 125

jamming levels and broader EW attacks, as well as show resilience of 

system functionality to various types and degrees of degradation in 

fractional element capabilities. Finally, it should exhibit mission resilience 

to cyber attacks and to loss of multiple fractional elements. 

Target date for demonstration: no later than 2018.

This challenge helps focus development of technologies to enable composable 

systems of RPAs from sets of common, relatively low-cost, fractional elements 

that cooperate as a single system to provide flexible capabilities across a 

broader range of missions.

Challenge #4: 

Hyperprecision Aerial Delivery 

in Difficult Environments

The fourth challenge is to explore, develop, and demonstrate technologies that enable single-pass, extremely precise, autonomously 

guided aerial delivery of equipment and supplies under GPS-denied 

conditions from altitudes representative of operations in mountainous 

and contested environments and winds representative of steep, mountainous terrain. Emphasis is on low-cost, autonomous flight systems 

with control authority capable of reaching target point within specified 

impact limits under effects of large stochastic disturbances. Guidance 

technologies could include independent IMUs, back-referencing to delivery aircraft, or other methods. Technologies should address the full 

range needed to enable a complete air delivery system, including flight 

vehicle, guidance, terminal impact control, system health monitoring, 

and interfaces to airborne platform and ground units. 

Resulting technologies should be demonstrated by their capability to 

consistently deliver payloads in excess of 2,000 pounds from a 25,000-

foot altitude to within 25 meters of a designated point in steep terrain 

under wind conditions representative of mountainous areas. An integrated demonstration system should be deployable from current and 

future airlift systems, including remotely piloted platforms, in a single 

pass over the drop point. Impact metrics must meet standards for survivable delivery of equipment and supplies. The system should be 
126 │ Technology Horizons

linked to the Global Information Grid to report position, manifest, and 

system health information but remain resilient to cyber attacks. It must 

also be recoverable and, if possible, self-recoverable.

Target date for demonstration: 2018.

This challenge advances and integrates technologies in several key areas to 

demonstrate the potential of autonomous systems to meet the extreme 

requirements of a key Air Force mission.
Chapter 8

Summary of Technology Horizons Vision 

This chapter presents a summary of the S&T vision from Technology Horizons and identifies the most critical focus areas for 

S&T investment during the next decade. Sustained research in 

these areas will provide the basis for Air Force capability dominance during 2010–30 and beyond.

Technology Horizons has developed a realistically implementable vision 

of the most essential Air Force S&T that will be needed to meet the 

strategic, technological, and budget demands of 2010–30. The following recaps the range of inputs that went into developing this vision and 

its key elements and then describes the major insights from this effort.

Broad Range of Inputs to Technology Horizons

The most important S&T efforts that the Air Force will pursue over 

the next decade and beyond, as identified in this report, are the result 

of an exceptionally broad range of inputs that reflect 

■ inputs from working groups composed of individuals from the 

Air Force S&T and intelligence communities, MAJCOMs, product centers, FFRDCs, defense industry, and academia; 

■ broad S&T-related perspectives from visits, discussions, and briefings with organizations across the Air Force, including Air Staff 

and Air Force secretariat offices, MAJCOMs, product centers, direct reporting units, and field units; 

■ feedback obtained from visits, discussions, and briefings with organizations representing the DOD, federal agencies, FFRDCs, national laboratories, and industry;

■ operational perspectives from briefings, visits, and discussions 

with ACC, AFSOC, AFSPC, and AMC; and
128 │ Technology Horizons

■ technological, operational, and strategic perspectives in reports 

from the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Defense Science 

Board, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and numerous other organizations.

Collectively, the broad range of perspectives that was considered in 

Technology Horizons ensures that the resulting S&T vision reflects key 

Air Force needs during 2010–30 as well as the principal technologyenabled opportunities where properly focused S&T investments can 

best meet those needs.

Elements of the S&T Vision 

The role of any S&T vision is to help guide the right choices that 

must be made among a very large set of possible technology development efforts that could be pursued if resources were available. In the 

likely budget-constrained environment that the Air Force faces, such a 

guiding vision is essential for making these difficult choices. Technology 

Horizons thus provides an Air Force S&T vision for 2010–30 that consists of the following elements:

■ Strategic Context: Principal strategic factors that will drive needed 

Air Force capabilities during this time and factors relevant to the 

worldwide S&T arena that will impact the Air Force’s ability to 

maintain superior technological capabilities. 

■ Enduring Realities: Key drivers that will remain largely unchanged and that will act to constrain the ability of the Air Force 

to shape itself through S&T investments as it might otherwise be 

able to do in an unconstrained environment. 

■ Overarching Themes: Specific dominant themes that will be central 

for meeting Air Force needs resulting from the strategic context 

and enduring realities and that will form the essential foundation 

for the most important Air Force S&T during 2010–30. 

■ Potential Capability Areas: A set of technologically achievable 

capability areas that is well aligned with the overarching themes 

described above and that identifies key enabling technologies 
summary │ 129

projected to be among the highest-value S&T investments during this time. 

■ Key Technology Areas: Cross-cutting technology areas that will 

be among the most essential for enabling key potential capabilities such as those above and that will be among the most important areas to emphasize in Air Force S&T over the next decade 

and beyond. 

■ Grand Challenges: A set of challenge problems to focus Air Force 

S&T over the next decade on many of the key enabling technology 

areas identified above, and to drive innovative approaches for 

solving the most important technical issues in these areas. 

■ Implementation Plan and Recommendations: The proposed plan 

for implementing the S&T vision from Technology Horizons, including actionable recommendations to vector Air Force S&T 

over the next decade, together with corresponding primary and 

supporting organizations to implement them. 

Essential Focus Areas for Air Force S&T Investment

A major insight to emerge from Technology Horizons is that Air 

Force S&T over the next decade will need to focus as much on advancing technologies that enable reduced Air Force operating costs as on 

technologies that support more traditional development of new systems or capabilities. This includes technologies to reduce manpower, 

energy, and sustainment costs. Of these, manpower costs are by far the 

largest. Yet research specifically directed at increasing manpower efficiencies or reducing manpower needs has to date received substantially 

less attention as an identifiable Air Force S&T focus area. 

While research into increased energy efficiency, improved energy 

storage, and alternative energy sources must continue, as must research 

to enable reduced sustainment costs, a significant new focus must be 

placed on technologies to achieve reduced manpower needs and greater 

manpower efficiencies. Regarding the latter, Technology Horizons has 

identified several areas in which substantial advances will be possible 

in the next decade through properly focused Air Force S&T invest-
130 │ Technology Horizons

ments: (1) autonomy and autonomous systems, (2) human performance augmentation, (3) freedom of operations in contested environments, and (4) intelligent sensors, laser and high-power microwave 

systems, persistent SSA, satellite systems, and gas turbine systems. All 

offer enormous potential for achieving capability increases and operating cost savings via improved manpower efficiencies and reduced manpower needs.

Increasing the Use of Autonomy and Autonomous Systems

A key finding is the need, opportunity, and potential to dramatically 

advance technologies that can allow the Air Force to gain capability 

increases, manpower efficiencies, and cost reductions through far 

greater use of autonomous systems in essentially all aspects of Air Force 

operations. Flexibly autonomous systems can be applied far beyond the 

current RPAs, operational flight programs, and other implementations 

in use today. Dramatically increased use of autonomy—not only in the 

number of systems and processes to which autonomous control and 

reasoning can be applied but especially in the degree of autonomy that 

is reflected in them—can offer the Air Force potentially enormous increases in its capabilities and, if implemented correctly, can do so in 

ways that enable manpower efficiencies and cost reductions.

Beyond the efficiency increases and associated manpower cost reductions that are achievable through such greater use of highly adaptible and flexibly autonomous systems and processes, significant timedomain operational advantages can be gained over adversaries who are 

limited to human planning and decision speeds. The increased ops 

tempo that is possible through greater use of autonomous systems itself 

represents a significant capability advantage.

Achieving these gains from greater use of autonomous systems will 

require development of entirely new methods for enabling “trust in autonomy” through V&V of the near-infinite state systems that result from 

high levels of adaptibility and autonomy. In effect, the number of possible 

input states that such systems can be presented with is so large that not 

only is it impossible to test all of them directly, but also it is not even possible to test more than an insignificantly small fraction of them. Proper 

development of such highly adaptive autonomous systems is thus inher-
summary │ 131

ently unverifiable by today’s methods; as a result, their operation in all 

but comparatively trivial applications is uncertifiable.

Already today it is technically possible to imagine and build systems 

having immense levels of autonomy. But it is the lack of suitable V&V 

methods that prevents errors in the development of such systems from 

being detected, thereby keeping all but relatively low levels of autonomy from being certified for use. Potential adversaries, however, 

may be entirely willing to field systems that benefit from far higher 

levels of autonomy without imposing any need for certifiable V&V and 

could gain potentially significant capability advantages over the Air 

Force by doing so. The ease with which such highly autonomous systems can be designed and built in comparison with the substantial burden required to develop V&V methods for certifying them creates an 

inherent asymmetry that favors adversaries. Countering this asymmetric advantage will require access to as-yet-undeveloped methods for 

achieving certifiably reliable V&V.

Developing certifiable V&V methods for highly adaptive autonomous systems is one of the major challenges facing the entire field of 

control science and one that may require the larger part of a decade or 

more to develop a fundamental understanding of the underlying theoretical principles and various ways that they could be applied. The Air 

Force, as one the greatest potential beneficiaries of more highly adaptive and autonomous systems, must be a leader in the development of 

the underlying S&T principles for V&V.

Broadening the Augmentation of Human Performance

A second key finding to emerge from Technology Horizons is that 

natural human capacities are becoming increasingly mismatched to the 

enormous data volumes, processing capabilities, and decision speeds 

that technologies either offer or demand. Although humans today remain more capable than machines for many tasks, by 2030 machine 

capabilities will have increased to the point that humans will have become the weakest component in a wide array of systems and processes. 

Humans and machines will need to become far more closely coupled 

through improved human-machine interfaces and by direct augmentation of human performance.
132 │ Technology Horizons

 The field of human performance augmentation has made considerable advances over the past two decades and—with appropriate focused 

research efforts over the next decade—will permit significant practical 

instantiations of augmented human performance. Such augmentation 

may come from increased use of autonomous systems as noted above, 

from improved man-machine interfaces to couple humans more closely 

and intuitively with automated systems, and even from direct augmentation of humans themselves. The latter includes neuropharmaceuticals 

or implants to improve memory, alertness, cognition, or visual/aural 

acuity, as well as screening of individuals for speciality codes based on 

brainwave patterns or genetic correlators, or even genetic modification 

itself. While such methods may be inherently distasteful to some, potential adversaries may be entirely willing to make use of them. 

Developing acceptable ways of using S&T to augment human performance will become increasingly essential for gaining the benefits 

that many technologies can bring. The current technical maturity of 

various approaches in this area varies widely, but significant steps to 

advance and develop early implementations are possible over the next 

decade. Performance augmentation provides a further means to increase human efficiencies, allowing reduced manpower needs for the 

same capabilities or increased capabilities with given manpower. 

Advancing Freedom of Operations in Contested Environments

A further key theme from Technology Horizons is the need to focus a 

greater fraction of Air Force S&T investments on research to support 

increased freedom of operations in contested or denied environments. 

Three main research areas are found to be of particular importance in 

this connection: 

Cyber Resilience. Research into technologies for increased cyber resilience differs in subtle but important ways from the current emphasis 

being placed on cyber defense. While defense is focused on preventing 

adversaries from entering cyber systems, resilience refers to technologies 

that inherently make cyber systems far more difficult for an adversary 

to exploit once entry is gained, or that allow cyber systems to operate 

more effectively even when under overt cyber attack. Cyber resilience 
summary │ 133

thus supports “fighting through” approaches that seek to maintain mission assurance across the entire spectrum of cyber threat levels.

Technologies such as massive virtualization, agile hypervisors, and 

inherent polymorphism can enable cyber systems that are fundamentally more resilient to intrusions. They greatly complicate a cyber adversary’s ability to plan and coordinate effective cyber attacks by reducing the time over which our networks remain essentially static. In so 

doing they may also cause a cyber intruder to leave behind greater forensic evidence for attribution. It is likely that potential adversaries will 

also recognize the value of resilience in their own cyber networks, 

though our current greater dependence on cyber systems makes our 

development of such technologies more imperative.

The role of cyber operations will continue to grow as one of the foundational components of conflict escalation control and warfare. Beyond the defensive benefits of inherently resilient cyber environments, 

such technologies can also provide new means for expressing changes 

in defensive posture and signaling levels of escalation during periods of 

tension. For instance, progressively increasing the rate of network polymorphism as tensions increase permits the trading off of greater network performance to gain increased network resilience in a way that is 

readily detectable by an adversary and that allows signaling an increased state of preparedness to survive cyber attacks. 

Precision Positioning, Navigation, and Timing in GPS-Denied 

Environments. The second focus area needed to enable increased freedom of operations is research on technologies to augment or supplant 

current precision PNT in GPS-denied environments. These include 

chip-scale IMUs and atomic clocks, as well as currently less mature 

“cold atom” INSs and timing systems based on compact matter-wave 

interferometry approaches. 

The latter make use of various phenomena associated with BoseEinstein condensates that can be realized with magneto-optical traps 

and other approaches currently being explored. The resulting ultraprecise position and timing capabilities may allow GPS-like accuracies 

relative to an initial reference to be maintained for sufficiently long 

periods to offset much of the benefit to an adversary of local GPS denial. In addition to such ultraprecise PNT augmentation, there is a 
134 │ Technology Horizons

need for research into improved terrain matching and other less accurate but robust approaches that can provide position information under broader GPS denial. The dependence of current Air Force systems 

on availability of PNT information makes research efforts to develop 

GPS surrogate technologies essential.

Electromagnetic Spectrum Warfare. The third research area to 

support freedom of operations in contested environments is in technologies for dominant EM spectrum warfare capabilities. These include 

various approaches for enabling greater spectral mutability to increase 

waveform diversity, including methods for pulse-to-pulse radar waveform encoding that can increase resilience to spoofing and resistance to 

signal injection. Dynamic spectrum access methods may also provide 

greater resilience to jamming and other modes of electronic attack and 

can give resilience to lost spectrum as bands are transferred to commercial uses. New methods for electronic attack are also needed to offset increasing adversary use of advanced integrated air defenses. Research on ultrawideband RF aperture technologies will be needed to 

allow spectrum warfare capabilities to be cost-effectively integrated 

into platforms. 

Focusing on Additional High-Priority Technology Areas 

Technology Horizons has further identified the following as being 

among key priority areas where S&T investment will be needed over 

the next decade to enable essential capabilities: 

■ Processing-Enabled Intelligent Sensors: ISR sensors with backplane 

processing for data synthesis and fusion to permit cueing-level PED 

functions to be performed on the sensor itself, reducing bandwidth 

otherwise consumed in transferring large amounts of raw data to 

the ground and manpower consumed for cueing-level processing.

■ Directed Energy for Tactical Strike/Defense: Laser and high-power 

microwave systems with sufficient power and beam control for tactical strike, air vehicle defense, and active air base defense applications.

■ Persistent Space Situational Awareness: Birth-to-death detection, tracking, and characterization of objects in orbit from traditional large satellites to picosatellites and orbital debris at LEO, 
summary │ 135

MEO, and GEO altitudes using ground- and space-based assets 

with data fusion from other sources into an integrated database.

■ Rapidly Composable Small Satellite Systems: Satellites that can 

be assembled, tested, and launched within days of operational requirement, based on a plug-and-play/open-architecture approach 

using standards for self-describing components within a discoverable and autoconfiguring system.

■ Next-Generation High-Efficiency Gas Turbine Systems: A wide 

range of technology advances that collectively can enable substantial improvements in turbine engine fuel efficiency needed for 

long-range strike and long-endurance ISR systems.

Several further key themes can be identified in the results from Technology Horizons. These include technology-derived means for achieving substantial fuel cost savings, in part through nontraditional flight 

vehicles such as hybrid wing-body aircraft, HALE airships, and partially buoyant cargo airlifters. While some such systems may not be 

fielded by the 2030 horizon date of this study, research to advance these 

technologies is appropriate to provide options when fuel prices become 

incompatible with the fuel efficiencies achievable by more conventional 

flight vehicles.

The future is here. It is just not widely distributed yet.

—William Gibson 

Science fiction author who coined

the term “cyberspace” in 1984

Chapter 9

Implementation Plan and Recommendations

An implementation plan is presented with specific actionable recommendations for vectoring S&T in directions consistent with 

findings from Technology Horizons to maximize the technology 

advantage of the US Air Force over the next decade and beyond.

Recommendation #1: 

Communicate Results from Technology Horizons

The first step involves communicating the rationale, objectives, and 

process for this study and the key elements of the resulting S&T vision 

across the Air Force in order to build broad awareness, understanding, 

and support for its implementation. 

Brief Technology Horizons to Key Air Force Organizations 

Technology Horizons should be offered as a brief to all HAF offices, 

MAJCOMs, and product centers, as well as to the AFRL and elsewhere, 

as appropriate, as a further means for disseminating its findings and 

seeking additional inputs. 

Disseminate Technology Horizons Report

This report should be disseminated widely across key Air Force organizations beyond the HAF offices, MAJCOM and product center 

leadership, and Air Force S&T leadership that have provided inputs to 

the study. This effort should include operational and supporting components as a way of developing broad awareness, understanding, and 

support for Air Force S&T goals over the next decade. 

Technology Horizons should also be disseminated across the DOD, 

including the director of defense research and engineering and DARPA; 

the other services, including the Office of Naval Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Army Research Office, and US Special Operations 
138 │ Technology Horizons

Command; NASA and other federal agencies; as well as FFRDCs, academia, and industry organizations. 

This may include briefings made to these organizations, industry 

groups, and others outlining the goals and S&T focus areas identified 

in Technology Horizons. These organizations will want to coordinate 

their S&T efforts with those of the Air Force and are likely to be partners in implementing some aspects of the Air Force S&T vision.

■ Communicate Technology Horizons rationale, objectives, process, 

and key elements via briefings offered to all HAF offices, MAJCOMs, 

and product centers, as well as to the AFRL. 

■ Build broad awareness, understanding, and support for the Air 

Force S&T vision from Technology Horizons. 

■ Disseminate Technology Horizons across all relevant organizations 

beyond those that provided inputs to this effort.

Effectively communicating the Air Force S&T vision from Technology Horizons

is the first step in developing broad awareness, understanding, support, and 

embracement of its objectives in order to enable its subsequent implementation steps.

Recommendation #2: 

Assess Alignment of S&T Portfolio 

with Technology Horizons

The second implementation step is for the AFRL to assess the alignment of its current S&T portfolio with the broad research directions 

and technology focus areas outlined in this report. This analysis would 

determine the extent to which the current portfolio is aligned and the 

fraction of the portfolio that should be aligned with these goals.

Determine Alignment of Current S&T Portfolio 

with Technology Horizons

Many of the technology focus areas where Air Force S&T should be 

focused to meet emerging Air Force needs are already being empha­
implementation plan and recommendations │ 139

sized to various degrees in research that the AFRL is currently accomplishing. In other areas, insufficient or no work is being done on the 

S&T needed to enable these PCAs. Alignment of the current Air Force 

S&T portfolio with Technology Horizons should be assessed. 

Identify Fraction of Portfolio to be Aligned 

with Technology Horizons

As noted throughout this report, no effort such as Technology Horizons can usefully list all S&T that is important for the Air Force to pursue. It must therefore be recognized that the KTAs identified here represent only a fraction of the overall research portfolio that the AFRL 

should pursue. In addition to assessing the alignment of its current 

S&T efforts with Technology Horizons, the Air Force should identify the 

fraction of its total S&T portfolio that it believes should be aligned with 

the focus areas identified here.

■ Assess alignment of the AFRL’s current S&T portfolio with the 

broad research directions and technology focus areas outlined in 

Technology Horizons. 

■ Identify the target fraction of the total Air Force S&T portfolio to 

be aligned with the research directions and technology focus areas 

identified in Technology Horizons. 

An appropriate fraction of Air Force S&T efforts should be consistent with key 

areas identified in Technology Horizons as being essential to meet Air Force 

needs for 2010–30 and beyond.

Recommendation #3: 

Adjust S&T Portfolio Balance As Needed

The third step is for the AFRL to highlight research efforts in its current S&T portfolio that require redirection or realignment with the vision in Technology Horizons, as well as new research that must be 

started to support these goals. These changes will redirect focus and 

emphasis in key areas.
140 │ Technology Horizons

Identify Current Efforts Requiring Realignment or Redirection

For the portion of its research portfolio that should be aligned with 

Technology Horizons, the AFRL will use its existing corporate process 

to identify current research efforts that are not well aligned with this 

vision. Furthermore, it will determine if an area can be redirected or 

realigned appropriately, or if it should be terminated to accommodate 

a more constructively formulated effort that achieves the needed direction and emphasis.

Determine New S&T Efforts That Must Be Started

Also using the existing corporate process, the AFRL will define new 

research efforts that enable the key goals identified in Technology Horizons to be effectively pursued. The resources needed to equip these pursuits may come from either the areas identified for realignment, redirection, or termination or from new resources dedicated specifically 

to enabling the vision in Technology Horizons. 

■ Identify research efforts in the current S&T portfolio that must be 

redirected or realigned with the research directions and technology 

focus areas in Technology Horizons.

■ Determine which of these efforts should be realigned, redirected, 

or terminated to accommodate new research efforts that achieve 

the needed direction and emphasis.

■ Define new research efforts that will be started to allow broad research directions and technology areas identified in Technology 

Horizons to be effectively achieved. 

■ Implement changes in the AFRL S&T portfolio to initiate new research efforts identified above, and to realign, redirect, and terminate existing efforts identified above. 

A mix of “buy, hold, and sell” positions will be needed among research efforts in the current Air Force S&T portfolio to achieve the S&T vision in Technology Horizons. 
implementation plan and recommendations │ 141

Recommendation #4: 

Initiate Focused Research on 

“Grand Challenge” Problems

As the next step after adjusting the current S&T portfolio, the 

AFRL should evaluate and refine a set of “grand challenge” problems similar to those identified here and use these to focus major 

technology development efforts in key areas identified in Technology 

Horizons. The specific challenge problems to be undertaken will be 

defined by the AFRL corporate process. However, they should be of 

a comparable scale and scope as those identified here, be structured 

to drive advances in key areas identified here as being essential for 

meeting emerging Air Force needs, and emphasize demonstrations 

that require sets of individual technology areas to be integrated at 

the whole-system level.

■ Evaluate, define, and focus a set of grand-challenge problems of 

sufficient scale and scope to drive major technology development 

efforts in key areas identified here. 

■ Structure each grand challenge to drive advances in research directions identified in Technology Horizons as being essential for 

meeting Air Force needs in 2030. 

■ Define specific demonstration goals for each challenge that require sets of individual technology areas to be integrated and 

demonstrated at the whole-system level. 

■ Initiate sustained research efforts in the AFRL S&T portfolio 

as necessary to achieve each of the grand-challenge demonstration goals.

Properly choosing and sustaining a set of grand challenges is a key step in 

implementing the S&T vision identified in Technology Horizons and for 

advancing a range of technologies that will be essential for meeting Air 

Force needs. 
142 │ Technology Horizons

Recommendation #5: 

Improve Aspects of the Air Force 

S&T Management Process

The final step involves improvements in two key aspects of the processes that the Air Force uses for planning and managing its S&T efforts. 

Obtain HAF-Level Endorsement of a Stable 

S&T Planning Construct 

The “focused long-term challenges” process that the AFRL uses to 

manage its S&T portfolio was developed to enable effective near-, mid-, 

and long-range planning of research efforts. Some have suggested that 

a process organized around SCFs should replace this to better allow 

coordinating S&T efforts with broader Air Force objectives. Since transition to any new planning construct will entail substantial effort that 

will not directly contribute to research progress, such change should be 

done with deliberation and lead to HAF-level endorsement of the resulting planning construct. Air Force S&T will benefit significantly 

from the stability that such endorsement of an AFRL planning construct can bring, since this can provide the continuity of mid- and longrange planning needed to develop technologies that will be essential a 

decade or more from now.

Increase MAJCOM and Product Center Inputs 

in the AFRL Planning Process

Although the planning construct used by the AFRL over the past five 

years involves regular inputs from all MAJCOMs and product centers, 

the level of involvement in providing such inputs has varied widely. For 

any AFRL planning construct to be effective in directing S&T to meet 

Air Force needs, it is essential that processes be established and consistently followed for obtaining such inputs. Regardless of the particular 

planning construct, this will require a formal process for obtaining periodic inputs from MAJCOMs and product centers to make adjustments at higher levels of S&T planning and programming, as well as a 

more frequent and less formal process at lower levels. The method for 

providing such inputs should be designed to ensure an appropriate 
implementation plan and recommendations │ 143

balance between nearer-term responsiveness to the needs of MAJCOMs 

and product centers and longer-term responsiveness to S&T opportunities envisioned by the AFRL for meeting Air Force needs.

■ Obtain HAF-level endorsement of an AFRL planning construct 

for S&T to provide the stability needed for effective mid- and 

long-range development of technologies.

■ Define and implement a formal process for obtaining high-level 

inputs from MAJCOMs and product centers in periodic adjustments within the AFRL S&T planning construct. 

■ Develop and implement an informal process to obtain more frequent inputs from MAJCOMs and product centers for lower levels 

of the AFRL S&T planning construct.

These improvements to the S&T management process will ensure that 

research efforts over the next decade and beyond will properly account for 

MAJCOM and product center needs to maximize the technology advantage 

of the US Air Force.

Appendix A

Proposed Study for SECAF/CSAF Approval

appendix a │ 147

USAF Chief Scientist Office

Proposed Study 

Technology Horizons and Capability 

Implications for the Air Force 

Background

The rapid “flattening” of the world from a technology perspective is 

allowing science and technology advances made anywhere to be exploited globally for developing militarily significant new capabilities. 

Many countries already have, or soon will have, the ability to translate 

worldwide technology advances into new offensive and defensive capabilities in the air, space, and cyber domains, and across domain boundaries. International markets in military systems will diffuse these capabilities rapidly and broadly. As a result, over the next two decades the 

U.S. will face a growing number of nations having near-peer or peer 

capabilities, and may find it increasingly difficult to maintain the technology superiority over potential adversaries that it has had in the past. 

Correctly anticipating those science and technology advances that will 

have greatest potential military significance—and the capabilities and 

counter-capabilities that may be derived from them—can help avoid 

technology surprise and ensure U.S. capability dominance.

This study will seek to identify key advances in science and technology that are likely to occur over the next 10 years that could in the 

following 10 years be developed into significant military capabilities. 

The use of this “10+10 technology-to-capability” forecasting process 

distinguishes this study from others in the Air Force and elsewhere that 

aim to understand various aspects of the opportunities and threats that 

emerging technologies present. Using this process, the study will develop 

a forward-looking yet realistic assessment on a 20-year horizon of potential offensive and defensive capabilities and counter-capabilities of 

the Air Force and its possible future adversaries.
148 │ Technology Horizons

Study Products

Briefing to SAF/OS & AF/CC in December 2009. Publish report in 

February 2010. 

Charter

The study will:

■ Conduct a “next-decade” (2020) assessment of technology advances 

that will be key to future air, space, and cyber domain capabilities, 

and to potential cross-domain capabilities.

■ Provide a “following-decade” (2030) assessment of U.S. and adversary capabilities that could be developed from these technology advances, focusing on potential “leapfrog” and “game-changing” capabilities that may substantially alter future warfighting environments.

■ Determine counter-capabilities that the Air Force will need in 2030 

to be effective against these potential new adversary capabilities.

■ Identify the underlying technologies that the Air Force will need in 

2020 in order to develop the counter-capabilities it needs in 2030.

■ Identify the science and technology research efforts that the Air 

Force must start today to develop the technologies it needs in 

2020 to obtain the counter-capabilities it needs in 2030.
Appendix B

SECAF/CSAF Tasking Letter



Appendix C

Chief Scientist of the Air Force 

Transmittal Letter

Office of the 

USAF Chief Scientist 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON DC

 15 May 2010 

The Honorable Michael B. Donley 

Secretary of the Air Force 

Air Force Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20330 

General Norton A. Schwartz 

Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force 

Air Force Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20330 

Re: “Technology Horizons”: A Vision for Air Force Science & Technology 

Secretary Donley, General Schwartz: 

I am pleased to present the “Technology Horizons” final report for your consideration. This 

culminates a very substantial effort undertaken by the office of the Air Force Chief Scientist 

in accordance with your memorandum of 18 June 2009. “Technology Horizons” presents our 

vision of the key areas of science and technology that the Air Force must focus on over the 

next two decades to enable technologically achievable capabilities that can provide it with the 

greatest U.S. Joint force effectiveness by 2030. 

The Air Force is at an undeniably pivotal time in its history, as the confluence of strategic 

changes, worldwide technological advancements, and looming resource constraints cause some 

to wonder how we will maintain our technological advantage. The “Technology Horizons” 

vision was crafted to help the Air Force vector its science and technology investments over the 

coming decade to focus more closely on addressing the complex strategic, technological, and 

budget challenges of 2010-2030. 

The most essential insights from “Technology Horizons” regarding specific research focus areas 

may be summarized in approximate order of priority as follows: 

1. During the coming decade, Air Force science and technology efforts will need to be focused 

as much on advancing technologies that can enable reduced Air Force operating costs as on 

technologies supporting more traditional development of new systems or capabilities. 

2. These include technologies to reduce manpower, energy, and sustainment costs; of these, 

manpower costs are the largest, yet research specifically directed at increasing manpower 

efficiencies or reducing manpower needs has to date received substantially less attention as 

an identifiable Air Force focus area. 

3. Two key areas in which significant advances are possible in the next decade with properly 

focused Air Force investment are: (i) increased use of autonomy and autonomous systems, 

and (ii) augmentation of human performance; both can achieve capability increases and cost 

savings via increased manpower efficiencies and reduced manpower needs. 

4. Flexibly autonomous systems can be applied far beyond remotely-piloted aircraft, 

operational flight programs, and other implementations in use today; dramatically increased 
156 │ Technology Horizons

use of autonomy -- not only in the number of systems and processes to which autonomous 

control and reasoning can be applied but especially in the degree of autonomy reflected in 

these -- offers potentially enormous increases in capabilities, and if implemented correctly 

can do so in ways that enable manpower efficiencies and cost reductions. 

5. Greater use of highly adaptible and flexibly autonomous systems and processes can provide 

significant time-domain operational advantages over adversaries who are limited to human 

planning and decision speeds; the increased operational tempo that can be gained through 

greater use of autonomous systems itself represents a significant capability advantage. 

6. Achieving these gains from use of autonomous systems will require developing new methods 

to establish “certifiable trust in autonomy” through verification and validation (V&V) of the 

near-infinite state systems that result from high levels of adaptibility; the lack of suitable V&V 

methods today prevents all but relatively low levels of autonomy from being certified for use. 

7. The relative ease with which autonomous systems can be developed, in contrast to the burden 

of developing certifiable V&V methods, creates an asymmetric advantage to adversaries who 

may field such systems without any requirement for certifiability; countering this asymmetry 

will require access to as-yet undeveloped methods for establishing certifiably reliable V&V. 

8. Developing V&V methods for highly adaptive autonomous systems is a major challenge 

facing the field of control science that may require a decade or more to solve; the Air Force, 

as one the greatest potential beneficiaries of such systems, must be a leader in developing the 

underlying science and technology principles for V&V. 

9. Although humans today remain more capable than machines for many tasks, natural human 

capacities are becoming increasingly mismatched to the enormous data volumes, processing 

capabilities, and decision speeds that technologies offer or demand; closer human-machine 

coupling and augmentation of human performance will become possible and essential. 

10. Augmentation may come from increased use of autonomous systems, interfaces for more 

intuitive and close coupling of humans and automated systems, and direct augmentation of 

humans via drugs or implants to improve memory, alertness, cognition, or visual/aural acuity, 

as well as screening for speciality codes based on brainwave patterns or genetic correlators. 

11. Further key emphasis must be placed on research to support increased freedom of operations 

in contested or denied environments; three main research areas are found to be of particular 

importance in this connection: (i) cyber resilience, (ii) PNT in GPS-denied environments, and 

(iii) electromagnetic spectrum warfare. 

12. While cyber defense seeks to prevent adversaries from entering cyber systems, resilience 

involves technologies that make cyber systems more difficult to exploit once entry is gained; 

cyber resilience supports “fighting through” to maintain mission assurance across the entire 

spectrum of cyber threat levels, including large-scale overt attacks. 

13. Massive virtualization, agile hypervisors, and inherent polymorphism are technologies that 

can enable cyber systems to be fundamentally more resilient to intrusions; they complicate an 

adversary’s ability to plan and coordinate attacks by reducing the time over which networks 

remain static, and cause an intruder to leave behind greater forensic evidence for attribution. 
appendix C │ 157

14. Beyond defensive benefits of inherently resilient cyber systems, the underlying technologies 

can also enable entirely new means in the cyber domain for expressing changes in defensive 

posture in ways that are intentionally detectable by an adversary to signal levels of escalation; 

such technologies offer new tools for cyber escalation control during periods of tension. 

15. Research is needed on technologies to augment or supplant current precision navigation and 

timing (PNT) in GPS-denied environments; these include chip-scale inertial measurement 

units and atomic clocks, as well as currently less mature “cold atom” inertial navigation 

systems and timing systems based on compact matter-wave interferometry approaches. 

16. Research is also needed into improved terrain matching and other less accurate but robust 

approaches that can provide position information under broader GPS denial; the dependence 

of current Air Force systems on availability of PNT information makes efforts to develop 

such GPS surrogate technologies essential. 

17. Technologies to support dominant electromagnetic spectrum capabilities should include 

focus on methods for enabling greater spectral mutability to increase waveform diversity; 

critical among these are technologies for pulse-to-pulse radar waveform encoding that can 

increase resilience to spoofing and resistance to signal injection. 

18. Development of dynamic spectrum access technologies in ways compatible with Air Force 

systems can give resilience to jamming and other modes of electronic attack, and provide 

flexibility needed when spectrum bands are lost to commercial uses; wideband RF aperture 

technologies will be needed to allow spectral mutability to be cost-effectively integrated. 

19. Additional high-priority technology areas include: (i) processing-enabled intelligent sensors, 

(ii) directed energy for tactical strike/defense, (iii) persistent space situational awareness, 

(iv) rapidly composable small satellite systems, and (v) next-generation high-efficiency gas 

turbine engines; further technology areas to support fuel cost savings include hybrid wingbody aircraft, high-altitude long-endurance airships, and partially-buoyant cargo airlifters. 

Beyond identifying these focus areas, “Technology Horizons” articulates a vision for Air Force 

science and technology that provides sufficient context and breadth to be a guiding document 

for the next decade and beyond. That vision consists of the following elements: 

1. Strategic Context 

2. Enduring Realities 

3. Overarching Themes 

4. Potential Capability Areas 

5. Key Technology Areas 

6. Grand Challenges 

7. Vision Summary 

8. Implementation Plan and Recommendations 

While a properly hedged investment strategy is clearly called for, I believe that this vision will 

guide Air Force science and technology in areas that address the greatest challenges being faced 

during 2010-2030, and will help build broad awareness, understanding, and support throughout 

the Air Force for the increased technology focus that is needed to address these challenges. 
158 │ Technology Horizons

Many individuals from a wide range of organizations provided inputs to “Technology Horizons.” 

These spanned from MAJCOM and Air Staff level to operational squadron level, and included 

our sister Services, Department of Defense agencies, other Federal agencies, FFRDCs, national 

laboratories, industry and academia. This wealth of information and perspectives was distilled to 

identify the “disproportionately valuable” technology areas suited to the strategic, technological, 

and budget environments of 2010-2030. The results are presented in three volumes. Volume 1 

presents the vision for Air Force S&T; two further volumes and an appendix provide additional 

supporting information. 

In his 1945 “Towards New Horizons” report, Theodore von Kármán told General Hap Arnold 

that “only a constant inquisitive attitude toward science and a ceaseless and swift adaptation to 

new developments can maintain the security of this nation”. That commitment to technological 

superiority has served the United States Air Force well over the intervening decades. Today, a 

vigorous and properly focused science and technology program remains absolutely essential to 

advancing the capabilities that the Air Force will need to fulfill its mission. 

We must remain as committed as we were in 1945 to pursuing the most promising technological 

opportunities for our times, to having the scientific and engineering savvy to bring them to 

reality, and to having the wisdom to transition them into the next generation of capabilities that 

will allow us to maintain our edge. While we face substantial challenges in the coming decade, 

“Technology Horizons” has laid out a clear vision for the science and technology efforts that will 

be most essential for the Air Force. There is no greater organization than the United States Air 

Force to carry out this vision. 

Very respectfully, 

Werner J.A. Dahm 

Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force (AF/ST) 

Air Force Pentagon 

 

Attachments: 

As stated 

cc: 

The Honorable E.C. Conaton (Under Secretary of the Air Force) 

General C.H. Chandler (Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force) 

LtGen W.C. Shelton (Assistant Vice Chief of Staff; U.S. Air Force) 
Appendix D

SECAF/CSAF Cover Letter



Appendix E

Working Groups

appendix E │ 165

Appendix E 

Working Groups

One source of inputs to Technology Horizons was a set of working 

groups specifically formed to provide a broad range of information, 

ideas, and viewpoints toward this effort. 

Role of the Working Groups

Informal working groups were assembled for each of the air, space, 

and cyber domains, and an additional working group was assembled to 

address cross-domain topics. Each group served as a forum in which 

technical opinions of experts were provided to the Air Force chief scientist (AF/ST) and were discussed for possible further consideration in 

later phases of the effort, along with data and inputs from other sources.

Based on guidance from the Air Force general counsel (SAF/GC) to 

permit the free exchange of ideas and viewpoints that was essential to 

developing Technology Horizons while remaining consistent with federal rules that would otherwise apply to formal advisory committees, 

all working groups were formed on an ad hoc basis and were managed 

in a way that allowed sharing of individual opinions while specifically 

avoiding all efforts to reach any formal consensus among the group 

participants. Participants were involved in a strictly individual capacity; 

the opinions they expressed were their own views and did not necessarily represent the views of their organization. In addition, participants were specifically instructed not to discuss any proprietary 

contractor information. Discussions were of a broad, crosscutting nature, and no current contracts or specific Air Force requirements were 

discussed. There was no access to source selection information, contractor bid information, or proposal information. Operating the working groups in this manner gave the benefits of a broad range of views 

among the inputs to Technology Horizons without the rigid requirement of formal consensus that would have applied to formal advisory 

committees, which would have risked limiting the insights from these 

groups to largely predictable views.
166 │ Technology Horizons

Composition of the Working Groups

Participants for the working groups were selected in part for the 

combination of their scientific and technical background and knowledge, direct experience and knowledge of Air Force science and technology and Air Force operations, and ability to contribute effectively in 

a fast-paced, idea-intensive group environment. Participants were also 

selected to achieve reasonable coverage of the technical areas relevant 

to each domain. Each group was limited to roughly a dozen participants to allow for exchange of ideas and opinions. Working group participants were selected from the 

■ Air Force science and technology community,

■ intelligence community,

■ major commands,

■ product centers,

■ federally funded research and development centers,

■ defense industry, and

■ academia.

Since all participants strictly represented their own opinions and not 

their organizations’ views, no attempt was made to achieve any specific 

target balance among types of organizations or to seek comprehensive 

representation of all organizations within any of these sectors. 

The following describes the functions of each of the working groups 

and lists their contributors. 

Air Domain Working Group

This working group considered technologies, concepts, and systems 

relevant to air domain functions, such as remotely piloted aircraft; fractionated strike system architectures; electronic warfare; bandwidth; 

GPS-denied environments; air domain threat systems; low-observable/

counter-low-observable technologies; sensors; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems; low collateral damage munitions; 
appendix E │ 167

air mobility; lighter-than-air and hybrid airships; base defense and 

force projection; power and thermal management; air-breathing hypersonic systems; near-space systems; and numerous other topics relevant 

to the air domain.

■ Dr. Werner J. A. Dahm, Chair

■ Col Eric Silkowski, PhD, Vice Chair

■ Dr. Edward H. “Ned” Allen

■ Douglas L. Bowers 

■ Dr. Gregory K. Crawford

■ Dr. Donald R. Erbschloe

■ Dr. Janet S. Fender

■ Col Robert S. Fredell, PhD

■ Dr. Mark A. Gallagher

■ Dr. Thomas T. Hamilton

■ Dr. Brian M. Kent

■ Dr. Michael A. Kuliasha

■ Betsy S. Witt

■ Dr. John C. Zolper

Space Domain Working Group

This working group examined technologies and systems for space 

launch; communications; space system architectures; precision navigation and timing; space situational awareness; space protection; orbit 

transfer and maneuver; space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; space radar; missile warning and intercept; space 

weather; space debris; small satellites; responsive space; laser communications; and other topics relevant to space domain functions.

■ Dr. Werner J. A. Dahm, Chair

■ Col Eric Silkowski, PhD, Vice Chair

■ Dr. William L. Baker

■ Dr. Alok Das

■ Dr. Roberta Ewart

■ Dr. Jonathan Gordon

■ Dr. David A. Hardy

■ Dr. Daniel Hastings

■ Dr. Michael A. Kuliasha
168 │ Technology Horizons

■ Gary A. O’Connell

■ Dr. Jim F. Riker

■ Dr. Lara S. Schmidt

■ Dr. Dwight C. Streit

Cyber Domain Working Group

This working group examined offensive and defensive technologies 

and concepts relevant to the cyber domain, such as cyber situational 

awareness, cyber forensics and attribution, data protection, polymorphic networks, mobile ad hoc networks, information assurance, supervisory control and data acquisition systems, honeypots, deterrence, 

continuity of operations, mission assurance, cyber agility, attack containment, recovery, fight-through approaches, encryption, quantum 

key distribution, quantum computing, and other considerations relevant to the cyber domain.

■ Dr. Werner J. A. Dahm, Chair

■ Col Eric Silkowski, PhD, Vice Chair

■ Dr. John S. Bay

■ Richard J. Byrne

■ Dr. Chris Colliver

■ Jon Goding

■ Dewey Houck

■ Jeff A. Hughes

■ Dr. Kamal T. Jabbour

■ Dr. Michael A. Kuliasha

■ Richard Mesic

■ Dr. Marc Zissman

Cross-Domain Working Group

This working group considered technologies and systems that (1) have 

expected effects spanning across two or more of the air, space, and cyber domains, (2) have unexpected effects in a domain other than that 

in which expected effects occur, (3) may require key supporting functions from another domain, or (4) fall between these classical domains 

but have implications in one or more of these.
appendix E │ 169

■ Dr. Werner J. A. Dahm, Chair

■ Col Eric Silkowski, PhD, Vice Chair

■ Dr. Edward H. “Ned” Allen

■ Dr. William L. Baker

■ Richard J. Byrne

■ Dr. Alok Das

■ Dr. Richard P. Hallion

■ Jeff A. Hughes

■ Dr. Brian M. Kent

■ Dr. Michael A. Kuliasha

■ Dr. Jim F. Riker

Working Group Participant Biographies

The biographical summaries of the working group participants below give an overview of their respective expertise and background. 

Dr. Edward H. “Ned” Allen

Dr. Allen is chief scientist of the Skunk Works at Lockheed Martin 

Aeronautics Company’s Advanced Development Programs in Palmdale, CA, where he is also a corporate senior fellow. In his role as chief 

scientist, he represents the Skunk Works in various forums and serves 

as senior advisor for science and technology across the corporation. He 

is the principal inventor on more than two dozen patents and currently 

conducts research in areas that include energy, quantum information, 

hypersonic systems, hybrid airships, and micro air vehicles. After a decade on the tenured faculty of Utah State University and two years as a 

Rockefeller Foundation Fellow, he founded and ran his own commuter 

airline, now called Horizon Air, and then founded Daedalus Research 

Inc., an aeronautical research and development firm. In 1998 he brought 

his firm’s key assets into Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works. He has degrees in physics from Stanford University, in mathematics and literature from Swarthmore College, and in applied mathematics and international relations from the University of Pennsylvania. 
170 │ Technology Horizons

Dr. William L. Baker

Dr. Baker was chief scientist of the Directed Energy Directorate in 

the Air Force Research Laboratory, where as an internationally recognized leader in the entire spectrum of directed-energy technologies he 

has led research and development on high-energy laser weapons technology and the application of advanced optics to space situational 

awareness. He served as an Air Force nuclear research officer prior to 

becoming a civilian scientist at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory. He 

initially performed and led research on high-energy plasmas and pulse 

power systems for simulating nuclear weapon effects and then began 

work on high-energy particle beams for directed-energy weapon technologies. He led a joint effort to develop a unique accelerator that demonstrated stable beam propagation in open air. He then created and led 

the Air Force high-power microwave weapon technology program, 

which became the center of excellence for the nation and has demonstrated multiple military applications. He is a fellow of the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers and president of the Directed Energy Professional Society. He has received the DOD Distinguished Civilian Service Award and the Distinguished Presidential Rank Award. 

He has BS and MS degrees in physics from Ohio State University and a 

PhD in nuclear physics from Ohio State University. 

Dr. John S. Bay

Dr. Bay served as chief scientist of the Information Directorate in the 

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), directing the planning and 

technical execution of information systems science and technology 

and its transition to air, space, and cyberspace systems. Prior to joining 

AFRL he was a program manager in the Information Exploitation Office (IXO) at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an engineering fellow at Raytheon Company, and a professor of electrical and 

computer engineering at Virginia Tech. His research focus is on control 

systems, robotics, biomechanics, machine learning, and embedded 

systems. He is an author of more than 65 publications, a fellow of the 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and a winner 

of the 2009 IEEE Computer Society Technical Achievement Award for 

his work in embedded systems. He is a former IEEE Computer Society 
appendix E │ 171

Distinguished Visitor and is a 2005 recipient of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional Public Service. He holds a BS 

degree in electrical engineering from Virginia Tech and MS and PhD 

degrees from Ohio State University.

Douglas L. Bowers

Mr. Bowers is director of the Propulsion Directorate in the Air Force 

Research Laboratory (AFRL), where he oversees the Air Force’s science 

and technology program in propulsion and power for space, missile, 

and aircraft applications. He previously was associate director for air 

platforms in AFRL’s Air Vehicles Directorate, responsible for fixedwing and rotary-wing technologies, hypersonics, turbine engines, and 

power. He has served in a variety of senior technical positions within 

the Air Force, leading the development and fielding of advanced highly 

survivable engine inlets and exhaust nozzles. He was a technical consultant on the C-17, F-15E, F-16, and B-1 development programs. He 

has served as a member of and as US national coordinator for the NATO 

Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development’s fluid dynamics panel. As the sole Air Force staff member for the Commission 

on the Future of the US Aerospace Industry, he developed recommendations for aerospace industry health and national security. He has a BS 

degree in aerospace engineering from Purdue University, an MS degree 

in aerospace engineering from Ohio State University, and an MS degree in engineering management from the University of Dayton.

Richard J. Byrne

Mr. Byrne is a vice president at the MITRE Corporation with nearly 

30 years of experience developing computing, communications, networks, information technologies, and systems engineering products 

and prototypes. His responsibilities include technical centers, research 

programs, and other engineering activities in the command and control center, as well as exploring solutions to national security problems 

with emphasis on improved information interoperability, systems integration, and cyber assurance, including net-centric strategies, complex 

systems engineering, and information technologies. He has held various positions at MITRE supporting the Air Force and DOD, including 
172 │ Technology Horizons

vice president for all Air Force programs and, previously, technical director for the Air Force Electronic Systems Center and executive director of innovation. He was a founder and engineering manager at a 

semiconductor startup, leading design and production release of more 

than 150 products over five years. He was technical manager of verylarge-scale integration design methods for telecommunication at ITT’s 

Advanced Technology Center. He has a BS in electrical engineering 

and an MS in electrical engineering and computer science from the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Chris Colliver

Dr. Colliver is the technical advisor for command, control, communications, and computer systems/information operations (C4/IO) 

analysis at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), 

where he leads intelligence analysis and production of foreign C4 intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and cyberspace capabilities 

to support joint operations, acquisition, and policy making. He has 

worked in a number of analytic, advisory, and supervisory positions 

responsible for foreign space and counterspace systems analysis. He established a Counterspace Analysis Division and expanded NASIC’s defense intelligence space order of battle to help lead the transformation 

of NASIC into a more space-centric organization. He served as the 

space topic manager for the National Intelligence Priorities Framework 

from 2004–8 and was named an exceptional intelligence analyst by the 

director of Central Intelligence. He has experience in analog and digital 

communications via high frequency, microwave, and satellite, as well as 

in network operations. He holds BS, MS, and PhD degrees, all in electrical engineering from the University of Dayton.

Dr. Gregory K. Crawford

Dr. Crawford is the director for integration of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) at MITRE, focused on ISR sensing, 

sensor data and signal processing, exploitation algorithm development 

and prototyping, and enterprise systems engineering. He also leads 

work on integrated sensing, processing, and exploitation as part of the 

MITRE corporate challenge, in which he guides 30 research and devel-
appendix E │ 173

opment (R&D) projects focused on operationally motivated capabilities directed at difficult problems within this domain. He has led multiple projects, with contributions ranging from basic R&D to system 

design and end-to-end systems engineering. Recently, he served as 

project leader and chief engineer for space radar battle management 

command and control, addressing a wide variety of ISR exploitation 

and enterprise-level systems engineering issues seeking to develop 

“dual-use” (tactical-national) capabilities. He is an author of more than 

20 papers on a broad array of geophysical topics in leading journals and 

has written numerous technical papers on applied topics. He has a BS 

in physics and BA in chemistry from California State University, Fresno, 

an MS in geophysics and space physics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and a PhD in space plasma physics from 

UCLA.

Dr. Werner J. A. Dahm

Dr. Dahm is the chief scientist of the US Air Force. He is the principal 

advisor for science and technology to the Air Force chief of staff and 

the secretary of the Air Force. He is on leave from the University of 

Michigan, where for the past 25 years he has served as a professor of 

aerospace engineering. His work has principally been in areas related 

to aerodynamics and propulsion. He is an author of over 180 journal 

articles, conference papers, and technical publications; a holder of several patents; and a prolific lecturer who has given over 120 invited, plenary, and keynote presentations worldwide on aerospace engineering 

topics. He has been a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory 

Board and has served on numerous task forces for the Defense Science 

Board and as a member of the Defense Science Study Group. He is a 

fellow of both the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and a recipient of the William F. 

Ballhaus Aeronautics Prize from Caltech, as well as major research 

awards from the University of Michigan. He has served extensively in 

advisory and organizational roles in his field and as a consultant for 

industry. He has BS and MS degrees in mechanical engineering from 

the University of Alabama and University of Tennessee Space Institute 

and a PhD degree in aeronautics from Caltech.
174 │ Technology Horizons

Dr. Alok Das

Dr. Das is senior scientist for design innovation at the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). As chief innovation officer at AFRL, he is 

the principal advisor for technology and process innovation strategies 

and leads the rapid reaction team that utilizes innovation and collaboration to develop near-term solutions to urgent war-fighter needs. He 

previously was chief scientist in AFRL’s Space Vehicles Directorate, focusing on revolutionary space mission architectures, satellite designs, 

and technologies to reduce cost and increase capability and operating 

flexibility of space systems. He first was an engineer in the Indian Space 

Research Organization and then joined the Air Force Rocket Propulsion Laboratory to become technical lead for large space structures. He 

was instrumental in developing and transitioning smart structures 

technology from conceptual demonstrations to applications in space 

systems, giving satellite designers an array of space-proven technologies. He is a fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and an author of more than 60 technical articles on space technologies. He has a BS degree in electronics and communications 

engineering, an MS in aeronautical engineering from the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, and a PhD in aerospace engineering from 

Virginia Tech.

Dr. Donald R. Erbschloe

Dr. Erbschloe is the chief scientist for Air Mobility Command 

(AMC), where he advises the AMC commander and key leadership on 

scientific issues and technological enhancements of AMC capabilities. 

He has had a 28-year military career in the Air Force balanced among 

three primary thrusts: operations, academia, and scientific and technical management. He was a command pilot with 3,900 flying hours in 

the C-141, the TG-7A, and the UV-18. He has served as an associate 

professor of physics at the US Air Force Academy, chief scientist of the 

European Office of Aerospace Research and Development in the Air 

Force Office of Scientific Research, and director of faculty research at 

the Air Force Academy. He later served as military assistant to the chief 

scientist of the Air Force, and most recently he was acting chief operations officer for the Office of Science in the Department of Energy, 
appendix E │ 175

which manages 10 world-class laboratories and is the single largest 

supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States. 

He has a BA degree in physics and mathematics from the University of 

Virginia, an MS degree in physics from the Air Force Institute of Technology, and a PhD degree in physical electronics from Oxford University in England.

Dr. Roberta M. Ewart

Dr. Ewart is the chief scientist for the Air Force Space and Missile 

Systems Center in El Segundo, California. Her responsibilities include 

the identification, maturation, and transition of key technologies for 

national security space missions. Her career experience spans space 

flight operations with NASA and the USAF, as well as research, development, and acquisitions positions. Her research focus areas include 

solid-state lasers, photonics, laser communication, and dynamic radiation response modeling of spacecraft. She was named the 2008 Air 

Force Space Command senior civilian manager of the year. She holds a 

BS degree in physics from the United States Air Force Academy, degrees in theoretical physics and philosophy from Oxford University, 

and a degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University. 

Dr. Janet S. Fender

Dr. Fender is the chief scientist in Air Combat Command (ACC), 

serving as scientific adviser to the commander and providing scientific 

expertise and technical guidance throughout ACC. She serves as the 

primary interface for ACC to the scientific community to identify technologies and catalyze enhancements to ACC’s war-fighting capabilities.  Her career in science and technology includes basic laboratory 

research, fielding new capabilities, key technical positions in major 

programs, and support to operations. Recently she led Air Force studies on “Day without Space” and the “Value of Stealth.” She previously 

was chief scientist for the Space Vehicles Directorate in the Air Force 

Research Laboratory and senior scientist for directed energy and advanced imaging. She has authored over 100 technical papers, is a fellow 

of the Optical Society of America and the International Society of Optical Engineers, and serves on the executive committee of the board of 
176 │ Technology Horizons

directors of the American Institute of Physics. She has a BS degree in 

physics and astronomy from the University of Oklahoma and MS and 

PhD degrees in optical sciences from the University of Arizona.

Col Robert S. Fredell, PhD

Colonel Fredell is chief scientist and director of research at the US 

Air Force Academy, where he directs 13 scientific and engineering research centers and two institutes in the largest undergraduate university research program in the United States. He has performed basic and 

applied research in aircraft structural fatigue and composite structural 

repair and has taught engineering mechanics at the academy. He has 

expertise in advanced metallic and composite materials, with particular focus on fiber metal laminates and their application to new and aging aircraft. He previously served as the military assistant to the Air 

Force chief scientist in the Pentagon, deputy director of engineering at 

the Warner Robbins Air Logistics Center, director of faculty research at 

the US Air Force Academy, and technical director of the European Office of Aerospace Research and Development of the Air Force Office of 

Scientific Research. He has BS and MS degrees in mechanical engineering from Oklahoma State University and a PhD degree in aerospace 

engineering from Delft University in the Netherlands.

Dr. Mark A. Gallagher

Dr. Gallagher is technical director in Studies and Analyses, Assessments, and Lessons Learned (AF/A9) in Headquarters Air Force. In 

this role he supports analyses across the spectrum of Air Force missions and develops and applies modeling and simulation to support Air 

Force war-fighting and force structure capability and sufficiency assessments. He previously was a member of the full-time faculty at the Air 

Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), where he continues to serve as 

an adjunct associate professor. He has had prior assignments in the 

Cost Analysis Improvement Group of Program, Analysis, and Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as chief of the Missile 

Defense and Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction Capabilities 

Division at US Strategic Command. He founded the Information Operations Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual, which he also chaired for 
appendix E │ 177

four years. He is serving a second term on the Military Operations Research Society board of directors as vice president of society services. 

He holds BS degrees in operations research and computer science from 

the US Air Force Academy and MS and PhD degrees in operations research from AFIT.

Jon Goding

Mr. Goding is a principal engineering fellow with Raytheon’s Network Centric Systems business. He presently serves as chief engineer 

for Raytheon’s cyber initiative, where he is responsible for coordinating 

research and development in computer network operations technology 

across the company. In 23 years at Raytheon, he has designed computing and network systems for many DOD and federal government customers and was the architect for information assurance on the Navy / 

Marine Corps Internet from pre-award through initial operations. At 

the time it went operational, this was the largest integrated secure network in use. When Raytheon formed a new Secure Networks product 

line in 2003, he was named its technology director. During recent years, 

he has participated in many government and industry working groups 

and sponsored and advised numerous university research projects. He 

has a BS degree in electrical engineering from the University of Florida 

and an MS degree in electrical engineering from the University of 

South Florida.

Jonathan D. Gordon

Mr. Gordon is a program area chief engineer for the Advanced Concepts and Technology group at Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems 

(SAS), with engineering oversight for all the company’s radio-frequency 

(RF) technology development programs and internal research and development efforts in this business area. He is also responsible for the 

development of long-range and “white space” technology roadmaps 

that guide internal investment and program pursuits. He has 30 years 

of technical and programmatic leadership at Raytheon and Hughes 

Aircraft Company. His primary expertise is active array subsystem design, integration, and test for both space and airborne applications. 

Prior to his chief engineer assignment, he was the manager of advanced 
178 │ Technology Horizons

RF space programs in SAS, where he was involved in numerous space 

RF programs, including the European Space Agency front-end processor technology development program (space-based radar), innovative 

space-based radar antenna technology, Technical Satellite of the 21st 

Century (TechSAT 21), and Discoverer II, and has served as a technical 

and integrated product team lead for several active array subsystem 

engineering efforts. He has BS degrees in physics and in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California (USC) and an MS 

degree in electrical engineering from USC.

Dr. Richard P. Hallion

Dr. Hallion is an internationally recognized aerospace historian and 

founder of Hallion Associates, which evaluates emerging technologies 

and assesses their potential for application to meet civil and military 

aerospace needs. He retired from the United States Air Force in 2006 as 

senior advisor for air and space issues, served also as the Air Force historian for over a decade, and held the Harold Keith Johnson Visiting 

Chair in Military History at the US Army Military History Institute, 

Army War College. He was a founding curator of the National Air and 

Space Museum and subsequently held the Charles A. Lindbergh Chair 

in Aerospace History and an Alfred Verville Fellowship in aeronautics. 

He has written over a dozen works on the history of flight and military 

and civil aviation, teaches and lectures widely, and is a fellow of the 

Earth Shine Institute and a fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He holds a BA degree and a PhD degree, both 

from the University of Maryland.

Dr. Thomas T. Hamilton

Dr. Hamilton is senior physical scientist in national security at the 

RAND Corporation, where since 1996 he has worked on a variety of 

issues for the DOD, with a focus on unmanned aircraft, airport security, aircraft test facilities, and force modernization. In particular, his 

work has addressed the future of USAF technology, aircraft survivability issues, unmanned aircraft system procurement and operations, 

USAF tanker modernization, force modernization and employment, 

aircraft test facilities, and airport security. Prior to joining RAND, from 
appendix E │ 179

1986 to 1996 he was a research astrophysicist at Harvard University, 

Columbia University, and the California Institute of Technology, and 

from 1981 to 1983, he developed satellite guidance software at Martin 

Marietta Corporation. He also served on the faculty in the Department 

of Astronomy at Caltech. He has an AB degree in physics from Harvard 

University and a PhD in physics from Columbia University. 

Dr. David A. Hardy

Dr. Hardy is associate director for space technology in the Space Vehicles Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). He is 

responsible for oversight of space science and technology investments 

and for the senior civilian management of the Space Vehicles Directorate’s science and technology portfolio. He leads AFRL’s efforts across 

the full range of existing and emerging space technologies needed to 

support present and future space systems for the Air Force and DOD, 

including science and technology related to sensors, materials, information technology, space vehicles, directed energy, propulsion, and 

human effectiveness. He also serves as an adviser on space science and 

technology to Air Force Space Command, the Space and Missile Systems Center, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and 

other organizations and develops and maintains coordination in the 

growth and execution of space science and technology by national and 

international governmental agencies and academia. He has a BS degree 

in physics from Duke University and MS and PhD degrees in space 

physics and astronomy from Rice University.

Dr. Daniel Hastings

Dr. Hastings is a professor of aeronautics and astronautics at the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and serves as MIT’s dean 

for undergraduate education. He has taught courses in plasma physics, 

rocket propulsion, space power and propulsion, aerospace policy, and 

space systems engineering. He was the chief scientist of the US Air 

Force from 1997 to 1999, serving as the chief scientific adviser to the 

Air Force chief of staff and secretary of the Air Force. He led several 

influential studies on where the Air Force should invest in space, global 

energy projection, and options for a science and technology workforce 
180 │ Technology Horizons

for the twenty-first century. His research is on space systems and space 

policy and has also focused on issues related to spacecraft environmental 

interactions, space propulsion, space systems engineering, and space 

policy. He is a fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, a fellow of the International Council on Systems Engineering, a member of the International Academy of Astronautics, a past 

member of the National Science Board, and a former chair of the Air 

Force Scientific Advisory Board. He has a BA in mathematics from Oxford University in England and SM and PhD degrees in aeronautics 

and astronautics from MIT.

Dewey R. Houck II

Mr. Houck is a senior technical fellow working in Boeing’s Integrated 

Defense Systems for the Mission Systems organization and, since July 

2008, has been the director of the Mission Systems organization. He 

previously served as the chief technical officer for Mission Systems 

with primary responsibilities in the areas of technology strategy development, research planning, and integration of Mission Systems intellectual property into other Boeing programs. Mission Systems is the 

Boeing business unit that serves intelligence community customers including the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and director of National Intelligence, with its focus on developing and deploying information management systems to facilitate tasking, collection, sharing, and analysis 

of intelligence. He previously served on the senior management team 

of Autometric, Inc. as vice president for technology development, 

where he administered all research and product development activities, 

including several geospatial, photogrammetric, and visualization initiatives. He has BS and MS degrees in civil engineering with specialization in photogrammetry and geodesy from Virginia Tech.

Jeff A. Hughes

Mr. Hughes is chief of the Autonomic Trusted Sensing for Persistent 

Intelligence (ATSPI) Technology Office in the Sensors Directorate of 

the Air Force Research Laboratory, where he leads research on complex 

system decomposition, vulnerability, and risk analysis to develop 
appendix E │ 181

trusted systems. He was selected to establish the ATSPI Technology Office to support the Office of the Secretary of Defense software protection initiative to prevent unauthorized distribution and exploitation of 

application software and associated data critical to national security. 

ATSPI is the field office for the DOD Anti-Tamper Executive Agent, 

with the mission to deter the reverse engineering and exploitation of 

the US military’s critical technologies. His prior work has included developing and deploying combat identification capabilities and low observable / counter-low observable radio-frequency and electronic warfare technology to Air Force weapons systems. He has served on 

numerous NATO and US government interagency committees and 

DOD working groups and has received numerous awards for his work. 

He has BS and MS degrees in electrical engineering from Ohio State 

University and has completed work toward his PhD at the Air Force 

Institute of Technology.

Dr. Kamal T. Jabbour

Dr. Jabbour is senior scientist for information assurance in the Information Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), 

where he serves as principal scientific advisor for information assurance, including defensive and offensive information warfare and technology. He plans and advocates major research and development activities, guides the quality of scientific and technical resources, and 

provides expert technical consultation to organizations across the Air 

Force, the DOD, government agencies, universities, and industry. He is 

program director of the Advanced Course in Engineering Cyber Security Boot Camp for developing future Air Force cyber warfare officers 

and leaders. He began his professional career on the computer engineering faculty at Syracuse University, where he taught and conducted 

research for two decades, including a three-year term as department 

chairman. In 1999 he joined the Cyber Operations Branch at AFRL 

through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act and transitioned gradually from academia to his current position. He has a BS degree in electrical engineering from the American University of Beirut in Lebanon 

and a PhD degree in electrical engineering from the University of Salford in England.
182 │ Technology Horizons

Dr. Brian M. Kent

Dr. Kent is chief scientist of the Sensors Directorate in the Air Force 

Research Laboratory, where he serves as principal scientific and technical adviser with primary authority for the technical content of the sensors research portfolio, identifying gaps and analyzing advancements 

in a variety of scientific fields. From 1985 to 1992 he conducted classified research that made pioneering contributions to signature measurement technology and established international standards for radar signature testing. He previously worked in the Passive Observables Branch 

of the Avionics Laboratory and later in the Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory Signature Technology Office. He is an author of more 

than 85 archival articles and technical reports and has written key sections of classified textbooks and design manuals. He has delivered more 

than 200 lectures and developed a DOD Low Observables Short Course 

that has been taught to more than 2,000 scientists and engineers since 

1989. He has served as a technical consultant to a wide range of federal 

agencies, as an international technical adviser for the DOD, and as a 

guide for basic research methods to leading academic institutions. He 

has a BS degree in electrical engineering from Michigan State University and MS and PhD degrees in electrical engineering from Ohio State 

University.

Dr. Michael A. Kuliasha

Dr. Kuliasha is the chief technologist at the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), where he is the principal technical adviser to the AFRL 

commander on the Air Force’s $2 billion science and technology program and the additional $2 billion customer-funded research and development conducted at AFRL. As chief technologist, he also provides 

technical guidance for the AFRL workforce of approximately 10,000 

people. Prior to his current role, he had more than 30 years of experience in the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

where he held a variety of leadership positions including director of the 

Computational Physics and Engineering Division, director for homeland security, and acting associate laboratory director for computing, 

robotics, and education, among others. He has technical expertise in 

a broad range of scientific disciplines including nuclear science and 
appendix E │ 183

technology, high-performance computing, modeling and simulation, 

knowledge discovery, and energy technologies. He holds a BS degree in 

mathematics and MS and PhD degrees in nuclear engineering from the 

University of New Mexico. 

Richard Mesic

Mr. Mesic is a senior policy analyst at RAND Corporation with over 

39 years of professional experience in requirements definition, system 

and operational concept development, and quantitative evaluation. His 

recent work has focused on cyber security; irregular warfare; counterterrorism; and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR)/space system studies, 

including information operations and assurance, national intelligence 

systems, critical infrastructure protection, counter–improvised explosive devices, and special operations. He has studied Air Force operations in all recent conflicts and was principal investigator on the Project 

Air Force study in support of the Air Force Cyber Command initiative. 

He continues to colead a multiyear study for the Navy on advanced 

C4ISR systems for littoral counterterrorism operations. His prior work 

includes strategic nuclear deterrence and systems, concepts to counter 

weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missile defense, arms control 

and arms control verification requirements and capabilities, strategic 

and tactical C4ISR, national-level intelligence issues, space, information operations, and counterproliferation policy. He has a BA degree in 

mathematics from Knox College and an MS degree in mathematics 

from Michigan State University.

Gary A. O’Connell

Mr. O’Connell is chief scientist in the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), the Air Force and DOD center of excellence 

for all-source air and space intelligence. He has over 30 years of experience in aerospace and intelligence fields ranging from electronic countermeasures and tactics development to drafting national intelligence 

estimates for national policy makers. As chief scientist at NASIC, he is 

senior advisor to the commander and oversees analytic efforts to support Air Force and joint operational, acquisition, and policy-making 
184 │ Technology Horizons

customers in the national intelligence community and serves on numerous panels and committees in the national intelligence and scientific communities. He began his career as an air-to-air missile analyst 

in the Foreign Technology Division and held various management 

positions until being appointed chief scientist for global threat in 

1997. He served as the Air Force representative on the Weapon and 

Space Systems Intelligence Committee’s Aerodynamic Missile Systems Subcommittee and as the Air Force representative on the Scientific and Technical Intelligence Committee from 2001 to 2004. He has 

a BS degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Cincinnati and an MS degree in national resource strategy from the National Defense University.

Dr. Jim F. Riker

Dr. Riker is the chief scientist of the Space Vehicles Directorate in the 

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), where he directs technical research in space situational awareness; defensive and offensive space control; responsive space; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; 

satellite communications; and satellite control. He has also served in a 

variety of research roles in optical surveillance and space-based laser 

system program offices. He is internationally recognized for contributions in the areas of laser beam control, atmospheric propagation, atmospheric compensation, active and passive tracking, and imaging and is 

an author of more than 50 scientific and professional publications. He 

previously was technical director for the Optics Division of the Directed 

Energy Directorate in AFRL and led the Active Track program that produced numerous first-ever technology demonstrations for the Missile 

Defense Agency’s missile defense system. He is a fellow of the Society for 

Photo-Optical and Instrumentation Engineering and the 2007 winner 

of the Air Force’s Harold M. Brown Award. He has a BS in physics and 

mathematics from the New Mexico Institute of Technology and an MS 

and PhD in physics from the University of New Mexico.

Dr. Lara S. Schmidt

Dr. Schmidt is a senior statistician and defense analyst at RAND, 

where her research focus is military space systems, the Global Positioning 
appendix E │ 185

System (GPS), precise time and frequency systems, atomic timekeeping, 

and risk assessment. Her recent work includes assessments of DOD 

space systems in hostile environments; space control capabilities; space 

vulnerability and dependence; weapon system use of space systems; 

operational level command and control; military positioning, navigation, and timing systems; Air Force special operations; irregular warfare; counterspace threats; and risk to war fighters from attacks on 

space systems. She is the RAND liaison to Air Force Space Command, 

is on the advisory board for the DOD precise timing organization, 

serves as a referee for several technical journals, and has held leadership positions in the American Statistical Association, including chair 

of the section on defense and national security. Prior to joining RAND, 

she spent eight years as a government civilian working with GPS and 

atomic timekeeping. She holds a BS in mathematics from Shepherd 

College, an MS in mathematics from West Virginia University, and a 

PhD in mathematics from American University. 

Col Eric Silkowski, PhD

Colonel Silkowski is the military assistant to the chief scientist of the 

US Air Force in the Pentagon. He supports the chief scientist in providing independent, objective, and timely scientific and technical advice 

to the Air Force chief of staff and the secretary of the Air Force and in 

evaluating technical issues of relevance to the Air Force mission. He 

also supports the chief scientist in his contributions to supporting and 

maintaining the technical quality of the research being conducted 

across the Air Force. Previously, he led the Air Force Technical Applications Center’s Applied Physics Laboratory and ran worldwide operations for nuclear event detection and global atmospheric monitoring. 

Other technical assignments include high-explosive testing, ballistic 

reentry vehicle acquisition, and conceptual design of directed-energy 

weapons systems. He has also served as executive officer to the J8 for 

NATO Allied Command Operations at Supreme Headquarters Allied 

Powers, Europe. He has a BA degree in physics from the University of 

Chicago and has MS and PhD degrees in engineering physics from the 

Air Force Institute of Technology.
186 │ Technology Horizons

Dr. Dwight C. Streit

Dr. Streit is the vice president for electronics and sensors at Northrop 

Grumman Aerospace Systems. In this role he is responsible for all technology development required for advanced semiconductors, microelectronics, radars, communication systems and satellite payload electronics, and sensors and electronic systems for airborne and space-based 

platforms. Prior to joining Northrop Grumman via its acquisition of 

TRW, he was president of the TRW company that manufactured highperformance chips for fiber-optic and wireless communication systems. He has contributed more than 300 technical publications and 

conference presentations and has some 30 patents issued or pending. 

He was made a member of the National Academy of Engineering for 

his contributions to the development and production of heterojunction 

transistors and circuits. He is a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers, a member of the NASA Space Foundation Technology Hall of Fame, and a fellow of the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science. In 2003 he was named the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Engineering Alumnus of the Year. He has 

BS degrees in engineering and chemistry from California State University and MS and PhD degrees in electrical engineering from UCLA. 

Betsy S. Witt

Ms. Witt is technical director of the Air and Cyberspace Analysis 

Group of the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, the Air Force 

and DOD center of excellence for all-source air and space intelligence 

to support USAF and joint operations, acquisition, and policy-making 

customers in the national intelligence community. The Air and Cyberspace Analysis Group is the intelligence community focal point for 

analyses of foreign air and air defense systems and for analyses of cyber 

intrusions into Air Force computer networks. In her capacity as technical director, she provides technical oversight of analysis on foreign 

fixed-wing fighters and air armaments, remotely piloted vehicles, aircraft avionics, ground-based early warning radars, command and control, integrated air defense systems, and foreign computer network attack. She began her career in the Foreign Technology Division and has 

over 31 years’ experience in intelligence community assignments with 
appendix E │ 187

the Air Force. She has BS and MS degrees in mathematics from Wright 

State University, as well as extensive undergraduate and graduate-level 

courses in engineering.

Dr. Marc A. Zissman

Dr. Zissman is the assistant head of the Communications and Information Technology Division at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Lincoln Laboratory. He leads the laboratory’s cyber protection activities and shares responsibility for research, development, 

evaluation, and technology transfer in the areas of advanced military 

communications, wideband tactical networking on the move, and language processing. He joined the laboratory in 1983, with his early research focused on digital speech processing, including parallel computing for speech coding and recognition, co-channel talker interference 

suppression, language and dialect identification, and cochlear-implant 

processing. After his subsequent research interests expanded to include 

information assurance technologies, he served for four years as a US 

technical specialist to the NATO task group that studies military applications of speech technology and for four years on the Speech Processing Technical Committee of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Signal Processing Society. He also served four years 

on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Information Science and Technology Study Group. He holds SB, SM, and PhD degrees 

in electrical engineering from MIT.

Dr. John C. Zolper

Dr. Zolper is vice president, corporate research and development, 

and deputy for corporate technology and research for Raytheon Company. In this role he is responsible for strategic technology planning 

and technology innovation across the enterprise, through which he has 

been involved in development and execution of an integrated enterprisewide technology and research vision and strategy. Before joining 

Raytheon he was the director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Microsystems Technology Office, where he 

was responsible for the strategic planning and execution of research 

programs covering all areas of advanced component technology, in-
188 │ Technology Horizons

cluding electronics, photonics, microelectromechanical systems, algorithms, and component architecture. Prior to joining DARPA he was a 

program officer at the Office of Naval Research, where he managed a 

portfolio of basic and applied research in advanced electronics, was a 

senior member of technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories, and 

was a postdoctoral fellow conducting research on high-efficiency silicon solar cells at the University of New South Wales in Australia. He is 

a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He has a BA in 

physics from Gettysburg College and MEE and PhD degrees in electrical 

engineering from the University of Delaware.
Abbreviations

AAM air-to-air missile

ACC Air Combat Command

AESA active electronically scanned array

AFGSC Air Force Global Strike Command

AFOSR Air Force Office of Scientific Research

AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory

AFSOC Air Force Special Operations Command

AFSPC Air Force Space Command

AMC Air Mobility Command

AOARD Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development

ASAT antisatellite

CBO Congressional Budget Office

CEP circular error probable

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DE directed energy

DOD Department of Defense

DRFM digital radio frequency memory

EELV evolved expendable launch vehicle

EM electromagnetic

EMP electromagnetic pulse

EOARD European Office of Aerospace Research and Development

EO-IR electro-optical-infrared

EW electronic warfare

FFRDC federally funded research and development center

GDP gross domestic product

GEO geosynchronous Earth orbit

GLONASS Global Navigation Satellite System

GPS Global Positioning System

GRAM GPS receiver application module

HAF Headquarters Air Force

HALE high-altitude long-endurance

HELLADS High-Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System
190 │ Technology Horizons

HEO highly elliptical orbit

IADS integrated air defense system

IARPA Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency

ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile 

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IMU inertial measurement unit

INS inertial navigation system

IP Internet protocol

IRST infrared search and track

ISR intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

JPADS joint precision airdrop system

kg kilogram

KTA key technology area 

LEO low Earth orbit

LIDAR light detection and ranging

LO low observable

M&S modeling and simulation

MANPADS man-portable air defense system

MDA MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates

MEO medium Earth orbit

MMOG massively multiplayer online game

MRBM medium-range ballistic missile

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

OPR overall pressure ratio

PCA potential capability area

PED processing, exploitation, and dissemination

PLAAF People’s Liberation Army Air Force

PNT positioning, navigation, and timing

PRSEUS pultruded, rod-stitched efficient unitized structure

QKD quantum key distribution

R&D research and development

RF radio frequency
abbreviations │ 191

RPA remotely piloted aircraft

S&T science and technology

SAM surface-to-air missile

SBSS space-based space surveillance 

SCF service core function

SOARD Southern Office of Aerospace Research and Development

SSA space situational awareness

SST space surveillance telescope

STEM science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

T&E test and evaluation

TPS thermal protection system

TRL technology readiness level

TSTO two stage to orbit

V&V verification and validation

Bibliography

Studies, Reports, and Other Documents

Aeronautics Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) 

Infrastructure Interagency Working Group. “National Aeronautics 

RDT&E Infrastructure Plan: Final IIWG Draft.” Aeronautics 

RDT&E Infrastructure Interagency Working Group, 2009.

Air University. Air Force 2025. A future study conducted 1995–96 for 

the Air Force chief of staff. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air Education and 

Training Command, 1996.

———. Spacecast 2020: Air University into the Future. A future study 

conducted 1993–94 for the Air Force chief of staff. Maxwell AFB, 

AL: Air Education and Training Command, 1994.

Air University Center for Strategy and Technology. Blue Horizons 2007: 

“Horizon 21” Project Report. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University 

Center for Strategy and Technology, 2007.

Alexander, Keith B. “Warfighting in Cyberspace.” Joint Force Quarterly

46 (2007): 58–61.

Amouzegar, Mahyar A., Ronald G. McGarvey, Robert S. Tripp, Louis 

Luangkesorn, Thomas Lang, and Charles Robert Roll, Jr. Evaluation of Options for Overseas Combat Support Basing. RAND Project 

Air Force. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2006.

Andrews, Amy E., and Mark E. Segal. “An Overview of Cloud Computing.” The Next Wave: The National Security Agency’s Review of 

Emerging Technology 17, no. 4 (2009): 6–18.

Arthur, David. Options for Strategic Military Transportation Systems. 

Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, 2005.

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment, and 

Logistics. Air Force Energy Plan 2010. Washington, DC: Office of 

the Secretary of the Air Force, Headquarters Air Force, 2010.

Association for Computing Machinery. Proceedings of the 1st Augmented 

Human International Conference. Megève, France, 2–3 April 2010. 

New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2010. 
194 │ Technology Horizons

Australian Department of Defence. Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030. Defence White Paper. Canberra, Australia: 

Department of Defence, 2009.

Beason, Doug. DOD Science and Technology: Strategy for the Post–Cold 

War Era. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1997.

———. The E-Bomb: How America’s New Directed Energy Weapons Will 

Change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought. Cambridge, MA: Da 

Capo Press, 2005.

Bell, Gordon, Jim Gray, and Alex Szalay, Microsoft Research and Johns 

Hopkins University. “Petascale Computational Systems: Balanced 

Cyber Infrastructure in a Data-Centric World.” Computer 39, no. 

1 (January 2006): 110–12. 

Bilar, Daniel, Department of Computer Science, University of New Orleans. “On nth Order Attacks.” Proceedings of the Conference on Cyber Warfare 2009. Fairfax, VA: IOS Press, 2009.

Blank, Stephen. Rethinking Asymmetric Threats. Carlisle Barracks, PA: 

Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2003.

Bowie, Christopher. The Anti-Access Threat and Theater Air Bases. 

Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2002.

Brockman, John, ed. The Next Fifty Years: Science in the First Half of the 

Twenty-First Century. New York: Vintage Press, 2002.

Brown, Col Lex, and Lt Col Anthony P. Tvaryanas. “Human Performance Enhancement: Űberhumans or Ethical Morass?” Air and 

Space Power Journal 22, no. 4 (Winter 2008): 39–43.

Bush, George W. The National Security Strategy of the United States of 

America. Washington, DC: The White House, 2006.

Calandrino, Joseph A., Ariel J. Feldman, Jacob Appelbaum, and Edward 

W. Felten. “Lest We Remember: Cold Boot Attacks on Encryption 

Keys.” Proceedings 2008 USENIX Security Symposium. Berkeley, 

CA: USENIX Association, 2008.

Cameron, Rebecca, and Barbara Wittig, eds. Golden Legacy, Boundless 

Future: Essays on the United States Air Force and the Rise of Aerospace Power: Proceedings of a Symposium Held on May 28–29, 

1997, at the Double Tree Hotel, Crystal City, Virginia. Washington, 

DC: Air Force History and Museums Program, 2000.
bibliography │ 195

Carin, Lawrence, George Cybenko, and Jeff Hughes. “Cybersecurity 

Strategies: The QuERIES Methodology.” Computer 41, no. 8 (August 2008): 20.

Catlett, Charlie, ed. A Scientific Research and Development Approach to 

Cyber Security. Report submitted to the Department of Energy on 

behalf of the Research and Development Community. Argonne, 

IL: Argonne National Laboratory, 2008.

Center for Strategy and Technology (CSAT). “Operational Impact of 

Exponential Technological Change on the Air Force.” Slide presentation in support of CSAT’s Blue Horizons 2007 report. Maxwell 

AFB, AL: Center for Strategy and Technology, Air University, 2008.

Clodfelter, Mark. “Back from the Future: The Impact of Change on Airpower in the Decades Ahead.” Strategic Studies Quarterly 3, no. 3 

(Fall 2009): 104–22.

Cloud Security Alliance. “Security Guidance for Critical Areas of Focus 

in Cloud Computing.” Version 2.1. Cloud Security Alliance, December 2009. Accessed 18 July 2011. https://cloudsecurityalliance 

.org/csaguide.pdf.

Commandant of the Marine Corps, Chief of Naval Operations, and 

Commandant of the Coast Guard. A Cooperative Strategy for 21st 

Century Seapower. Washington, DC: US Marine Corps, US Dept. 

of the Navy, US Coast Guard, 2007.

Congressional Budget Office. Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch 

Capabilities. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, 2006.

———. Alternatives for Long-Range Ground-Attack Systems. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, 2006.

———. The Long-Term Implications of Current Plans for Investment in 

Major Unclassified Military Space Programs. Washington, DC: 

Congressional Budget Office, 2005.

Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United 

States. America’s Strategic Posture: The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. 

Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2009.

Council on Competitiveness. Dialogue 1: The Changing Global Landscape for Technology Leadership. Washington, DC: Council on 

Competitiveness, 2009.
196 │ Technology Horizons

Cragin, Kim, and Scott Gerwehr. Dissuading Terror: Strategic Influence 

and the Struggle against Terrorism. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2005.

Daso, Dik A. Architects of American Air Supremacy: Gen Hap Arnold 

and Dr. Theodore von Kármán. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University 

Press, 1997.

Day, Dwayne A. Lightning Rod: A History of the Air Force Chief Scientist’s 

Office. Washington, DC: Chief Scientist’s Office, US Air Force, 2000.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. “Cold Atom Inertial 

Navigation Technology.” Defense Science Office, 2010.

Defense Science Board. Challenges to Military Operations in Support of 

U.S. Interests. Vol. 1, Executive Summary. Vol. 2, Main Report. 

Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 2008.

———. Creating an Assured Joint DOD and Interagency Interoperable 

Net-Centric Enterprise. Washington, DC: Defense Science Board, 2009.

———. Future Need for VTOL [Vertical Take-Off and Landing]/ STOL 

[Short Take-Off and Landing] Aircraft. Washington, DC: Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics: Defense Science Board, 2007.

———. The Militarily Critical Technologies List. Report no. ASDR-169. 

Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 2010. 

———. Operations Research Applications for Intelligence Surveillance 

and Reconnaissance (ISR). Washington, DC: Defense Science 

Board, 2009.

———. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 2008.

———. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Time Critical 

Conventional Strike for Strategic Standoff. Washington, DC: Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics, 2009.

———. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Understanding 

Human Dynamics. Washington, DC: Defense Science Board, 2009.

———. Report of the Defense Science Board 2008 Summer Study on Capability Surprise. 2 vols. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 2009–10.
bibliography │ 197

———. 21st Century Strategic Technology Vectors. Vol. 1, Main Report. 

Vol. 2, Critical Capabilities and Enabling Technologies. Vol. 3, Strategic Technology Planning. Vol. 4, Accelerating the Transition of 

Technologies into U.S. Capabilities. Washington, DC: Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 2007.

———. Wideband Radio Frequency Modulation: Dynamic Access to Mobile Information Networks. Washington, DC: Defense Science 

Board, 2003.

Department of the Air Force. Air Force Roadmap 2006–2025. Washington, DC: US Air Force, 2006.

———. Global Reach—Global Power: The Evolving Air Force Contribution to National Security. White paper. Report no. DTIC 19970610 

059. Washington, DC: Aerospace Education Foundation, 1992. 

———. Lead Turning the Future: The 2008 Strategy for United States Air 

Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. Washington, 

DC: Headquarters, United States Air Force, 2008.

Department of the Army. Army Energy Security Implementation 

Strategy. Washington, DC: Army Senior Energy Council and Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and 

Partnerships, 2009.

Dinda, Peter. “Addressing the Trust Asymmetry Problem in Grid Computing with Encrypted Computation.” Proceedings of the Seventh 

Workshop of Languages, Compilers and Run-Time Support for Scalable Systems (LCR 2004). New York: Association for Computing 

Machinery, Inc., 2004.

Drew, Dennis M., and Donald M. Snow. Making Twenty-First-Century 

Strategy: An Introduction to Modern National Security Processes 

and Problems. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 2006.

Echevarria, Antulio. Fourth-Generation War and Other Myths. Carlisle 

Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2005.

Ehrhard, Thomas. An Air Force Strategy for the Long Haul. Strategy for 

the Long Haul Series. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and 

Budgetary Assessments, 2009.

Ewart, Roberta, chief scientist, Space and Missile Systems Center. 

“Technologies of Choice for Future Space Investment.” Briefing 

slides, 13 March 2009.
198 │ Technology Horizons

Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology 

Council. National Plan for Aeronautics Research and Development 

and Related Infrastructure. Washington, DC: National Science and 

Technology Council, 2007.

Friedman, George. The Future of War: Power, Technology, and American World Dominance in the 21st Century. New York: St. Martin’s 

Griffin, 1998.

———. The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century. New York: 

Doubleday, 2009.

Friedman, Thomas. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the TwentyFirst Century. New York: Picador, 2007.

Gates, Robert M. Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Washington, 

DC: Department of Defense, 2010.

Gorn, Michael H. Harnessing the Genie: Science and Technology Forecasting for the Air Force, 1944–1986. Washington, DC: Office of 

Air Force History, 1988.

———. Prophecy Fulfilled: “Toward New Horizons” and Its Legacy. Bolling 

AFB, DC: Air Force History and Museums Program, 1994.

Gouré, Daniel, and Christopher M. Szara, eds. Air and Space Power in 

the New Millennium. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and 

International Studies, 1997.

Grant, Rebecca. Return of the Bomber: The Future of Long-Range Strike. 

Arlington, VA: Air Force Association, 2007.

Gray, Colin S. Modern Strategy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

———. Transformation and Strategic Surprise. Carlisle Barracks, PA: 

Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2005.

Grimmett, Richard. Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations: 2001-2008. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2009.

Hazell, J. Eric. From Reform to Reduction: Reports on the Management 

of Navy and Department of Defense Laboratories in the Post–Cold 

War Era. Washington, DC: National Defense University and Naval Historical Center, 2008.

Headquarters Air Force. U.S. Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance (ISR) Flight Plan: The Key Guidance for Planning 

the Current and Future ISR Force. Washington, DC: Deputy Chief 

of Staff ISR (AF/A2), 2009.
bibliography │ 199

Higham, Robin D. S., and Stephen John Harris, eds. Why Air Forces 

Fail: The Anatomy of Defeat. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 2006.

Holland, O. Thomas. “Taxonomy for the Modeling and Simulation of 

Emergent Behavior Systems.” SpringSim ’07: Proceedings of the 

2007 Spring Simulation Multiconference. Vol. 2. San Diego, CA: 

Society for Computer Simulation International, 2007. 

Hull, George. “Security and Complexity: Are We on the Wrong Road?” 

In CSIIRW 2009 Proceedings of the 5th Annual Workshop on Cyber 

Security and Information Intelligence Research: Cyber Security and 

Information Intelligence Challenges and Strategies. New York: 

ACM, 2009.

IBM. Seeding the Clouds: Key Infrastructure Elements for Cloud Computing. Somers, NY: IBM, 2009.

Jacobs, Jody. Technologies and Tactics for Improved Air-Ground Effectiveness. Report no. MG-573-AF. RAND Project Air Force. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND, 2008.

Johns, Lt Gen Ray, Headquarters Air Force. “Air Force Strategy to Resources.” Briefing slides, 9 December 2008.

———. US Air Force Futures Capabilities Game 2007: Unclassified Report Summary. Washington, DC: Directorate of Strategic Planning, 2008.

Johnson, Stephen. The United States Air Force and the Culture of Innovation: 1945–1965. Washington, DC: Air Force History and Museums Program, 2002.

Karagozian, Ann, Werner Dahm, Ed Glasgow, Roger Howe, Ilan Kroo, 

Richard Murray, and Heidi Shyu. Technology Options for Improved 

Air Vehicle Fuel Efficiency: Executive Summary and Annotated 

Brief. Report no. SAB-TR-06-04. Washington, DC: USAF Scientific Advisory Board, 2006.

Kelly, Henry, Ivan Oelrich, Steven Aftergood, and Benn H. Tannenbaum. 

Flying Blind: The Rise, Fall, and Possible Resurrection of Science 

Policy Advice in the United States. Occasional paper no. 2. Washington, DC: Federation of American Scientists, 2004.

Kent, Glenn, David Ochmanek, Michael Spirtas, and Bruce Pirnie. 

Thinking about America’s Defense: An Analytical Memoir. RAND 

Project Air Force. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2008.
200 │ Technology Horizons

Kilcullen, David. The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the 

Midst of a Big One. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Kitching, John. Chip-Scale Atomic Devices: Precision Instruments Based 

on Lasers, Atoms and MEMS. Boulder, CO: National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, 2009.

Kopp, Carlo. “China’s Air Defence Missile Systems.” Defence Today, 

March/April 2008, 22–24.

———. “Post Cold War Air-to-Air Missile Evolution.” Defence Today, 

March 2009, 56–59.

Kosiak, Steven M. Matching Resources with Requirements: Options for 

Modernizing the US Air Force. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2004.

———. Military Compensation: Requirements, Trends and Options. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2005.

———. Spending on US Strategic Nuclear Forces: Plans and Options for 

the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2006.

Krekel, Bryan. Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct 

Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation. McClean, VA: 

Information Systems, Northrop Grumman, 2009.

Krepinevich, Andrew. Seven Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21st Century. New York: Bantum Books, 2009.

Krepinevich, Andrew, Barry Watts, and Robert Work. Meeting the AntiAccess and Area-Denial Challenge. Washington, DC: Center for 

Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2003.

Krepinevich, Andrew, Robert Martinage, and Robert Work. The Challenges to US National Security. Strategy for the Long Haul Series. 

Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2008.

Larson, Eric. Assuring Access in Key Strategic Regions: Toward a LongTerm Strategy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2004.

Li, V., and A. Velicki. “Advanced PRSEUS Structural Concept Design 

and Optimization.” Presentation. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, British Columbia, Canada, September 2008. 

Libicki, Martin C. Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar. RAND Project Air 

Force. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2009.
bibliography │ 201

Lin, Patrick, George Bekey, and Keith Abney. Autonomous Military Robotics: Risk, Ethics, and Design. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research, 2008.

Long, Austin. On “Other War”: Lessons from Five Decades of RAND 

Counterinsurgency Research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006.

MacDonald, Bruce. China, Space Weapons, and US Security. New York: 

Council on Foreign Relations, September 2008.

Mackey, Lt Col J. “Recent US and Chinese Antisatellite Activities.” Air 

and Space Power Journal 23, no. 9 (2009): 82–93.

Mahnken, Thomas. The Cruise Missile Challenge. Washington, DC: 

Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2005.

Martino, Maj J. “Forecasting the Progress of Technology.” Air University 

Review 20, no. 3 (March–April 1969): 11–20.

Marvin, Dean C., Aerospace Corporation. “Game Changer Concepts.” 

Briefing slides, May 2007.

Mendel, William, and Murl Munger. Strategic Planning and the Drug 

Threat. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army 

War College, 1997.

Mesic, Richard, David E. Thaler, David Ochmanek, and Leon Goodson. 

Courses of Action for Enhancing U.S. Air Force “Irregular Warfare” 

Capabilities: A Functional Solutions Analysis. RAND Project Air 

Force. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2010. 

Metz, Steven, and Raymond Millen. Insurgency and Counterinsurgency 

in the 21st Century: Reconceptualizing Threat and Response. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2004.

Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom. Defence Technology Strategy for 

the Demands of the 21st Century. UK: Ministry of Defence, 2006.

———. Strategic Trends Programme: Future Character of Conflict. UK: 

Ministry of Defence, 2010.

Moseley, Gen T. Michael. The Nation’s Guardians: America’s 21st Century 

Air Force. Chief of Staff of the Air Force White Paper. Washington, 

DC: Dept. of the Air Force, Office of the Chief of Staff, 2008.

Murray, Williamson, ed. Strategic Challenges for Counterinsurgency and 

the Global War on Terrorism. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies 

Institute, US Army War College, 2006.
202 │ Technology Horizons

National Intelligence Council (NIC). Global Trends 2025: A Transformed 

World. Washington, DC: NIC, 2008.

———. Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence 

Council’s 2020 Project. Washington, DC: NIC, 2004.

National Research Council. Avoiding Surprise in an Era of Global Technology Advances/Committee on Defense Intelligence Agency Technology Forecasts and Review, Division on Engineering and Physical 

Sciences, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press, 2005.

———. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program 

Changes/Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes; Air Force Science and Technology Board; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, 

DC: National Academies Press, 2003.

———. Future Air Force Needs for Survivability /Committee on Future 

Air Force Needs for Survivability, Air Force Studies Board, Division 

on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of 

the National Academies. Washington, DC: National Academies 

Press, 2006.

———. A Review of United States Air Force and Department of Defense 

Aerospace Propulsion Needs/Committee on Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs, Air Force Studies 

Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.

National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. 2 vols. 

Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2008. 

———. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2010.

Neufeld, Jacob, ed. Guideposts for the United States Military in the 

Twenty-First Century: Symposium Proceedings, September 16-17, 

1999, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C./Co-Sponsored by 

the Air Force Historical Foundation and the Office of the Air Force 

Historian, with the Support of the McCormick Tribune Foundation. 

Washington, DC: Air Force History and Museums Program, 2000.
bibliography │ 203

Nguyen, Clark, and John Kitching. “Towards Chip-Scale Atomic 

Clocks.” Research paper. Arlington, VA: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Microsystems Technology Office, 2005.

Ochmanek, David. Military Operations against Terrorist Groups Abroad: 

Implications for the United States Air Force. RAND Project Air 

Force. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2003.

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Strategic Studies Group 

XXVIII. The Unmanned Imperative. Newport, RI: CNO Strategic 

Studies Group, 2009.

Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, and Department of Defense. Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan. Washington, DC: DOD, 2008.

Orrell, David. The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. New 

York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2007.

Post, Joseph, and Michael Bennett. Alternatives for Military Space Radar. 

Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, 2007.

Pu, Calton. “Infosphere: Smart Delivery of Fresh Information.” Presentation slides. Georgia Tech, 2000. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects 

/infosphere/SBBDkeynote/ppframe.htm

Pumphrey, Carolyn, ed. Transnational Threats: Blending Law Enforcement and Military Strategies. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2000.

Rees, Dr. William S., Jr., Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Laboratories and Basic Sciences). “Why Should DoD Invest in Basic Research?” Presentation. 33d Annual Government Microcircuit Applications and Critical Technology Conference (GOMAC), Las 

Vegas, NV, March 2008. 

Roco, Mihail C., and Williams Sims Bainbridge, eds. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Arlington, 

VA: National Science Foundation & Department of Commerce, 2002.

Scales, Maj Gen Robert, Jr., ed. Future Warfare Anthology. Rev. ed. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 2000.

Schneider, William, Jr. Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed 

Energy Weapons. Washington, DC: Defense Science Board, 2007.
204 │ Technology Horizons

Schwartz, Gen Norton A., and Lt Col Timothy R. Kirk. “Policy and 

Purpose: The Economy of Deterrence.” Strategic Studies Quarterly 

3, no. 1 (Spring 2009): 11–30.

Shlapak, David. Shaping the Future Air Force. RAND Project Air Force. 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2006.

Silberglitt, Richard, Philip Anton, David Howell, Anny Wong, Natalie 

Gassman, Brian Jackson, Eric Landree, Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, 

Elaine Newton, and Felicia Wu. The Global Technology Revolution 

2020, In-Depth Analyses: Bio/Nano/Materials/Information Trends, 

Drivers, Barriers, and Social Implications. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND, 2006.

Singer, Peter. Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 

21st Century. New York: Penguin Press, 2009.

Smith, Maj Ron, and Scott Knight. “Applying Electronic Warfare Solutions to Network Security.” Canadian Military Journal 6 (Autumn 

2005): 49–58.

Stillion, John, and Scott Perdue. Air Combat Past, Present and Future. 

RAND Project Air Force. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2008.

Stytz, Martin, and Jeff Hughes, AFRL, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. 

“Software Protection Initiative: Software Application Security.” 

Presentation slides, 30 June 2003.

Thomas, Timothy L. “Chinese and American Network Warfare.” Joint 

Force Quarterly 38 (2005): 76–83.

USAF Scientific Advisory Board. Air Defense against Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicles. Vol. 1, Executive Summary and Annotated Brief. Vol. 2, 

Final Report. Report no. SAB-TR-06-01. Washington, DC: USAF 

Scientific Advisory Board, 2006.

———. Implications of Cyber Warfare. Vol. 1, Executive Summary and 

Annotated Brief. Vol. 2, Main Report. Washington, DC: USAF Scientific Advisory Board, 2007.

———. Implications of Spectrum Management for the Air Force. Report 

no. SAB-TR-08-03. Washington, DC: USAF Scientific Advisory 

Board, 2008.

———. New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century. 13 

vols. Washington, DC: USAF Scientific Advisory Board, 1995.
bibliography │ 205

———. System-Level Experimentation: Executive Summary and Annotated Brief. Report no. SAB-TR-06-02. Washington, DC: USAF 

Scientific Advisory Board, 2006.

———. Thermal Management Technology Solutions. Report no. SABTR-07-05. Washington, DC: USAF Scientific Advisory Board, 2007.

———. Use and Sustainment of Composites in Aircraft. USAF Scientific 

Advisory Board, SAB-TR-07-04, 2007.

US Air Force Futures Group. To the chief of staff of the Air Force. 

Memorandum. “Strategic Concerns That Deserve CSAF Attention,” 2007.

US Joint Forces Command. The JOE, Joint Operating Environment, 

2010. Norfolk, VA: US Joint Forces Command, 2010.

Velicki, Alex, and Patrick Thrash. “Advanced Structural Concept Development Using Stitched Composites.” Presentation AIAA 2008-

2329. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Conference, Schaumburg, IL, 7–10 April 2008.

Vick, Alan J., Adam Grissom, William Rosenau, Beth Grill, and Karl P. 

Mueller. Air Power in the New Counterinsurgency Era: The Strategic Importance of USAF Advisory and Assistance Missions. RAND 

Project Air Force. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2006.

Vick, Alan J., Richard M. Moore, Bruce R. Pirnie, and John Stillion. 

Aerospace Operations against Elusive Ground Targets. Report no. 

MR-1398-AF. RAND Project Air Force. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation, 2001.

Vickers, Michael, and Robert Martinage. Future Warfare 20XX 

Wargame Series: Lessons Learned Report. Washington, DC: Center 

for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2001.

———. The Revolution in War. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic 

and Budgetary Assessments, 2004.

Von Kármán, Theodore, ed. Toward New Horizons: A Report to the 

General of the Army H. H. Arnold, Submitted on Behalf of the Army 

Air Forces Scientific Advisory Group. Wright Field, OH: Air Materiel Command Publications Branch, Intelligence, T-2, 1945.

Waters, Gary, Desmond Ball, and Ian Dudgeon. Australia and CyberWarfare. Canberra, Australia: ANU E Press, 2008.

Watts, Barry. The Military Use of Space: A Diagnostic Assessment. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2001.
206 │ Technology Horizons

Williams, E., et al. Human Performance. JASON Report JSR-07-625. 

McLean, VA: MITRE Corporation, 2008.

Zhang, Xiaoming, and Col Sean D. McClung. “The Art of Military Discovery: Chinese Air and Space Power Implications for the USAF.” 

Strategic Studies Quarterly 4, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 36–62.

Site Visits, Briefings, and Discussions

Technology Horizons also made use of a broad range of inputs gained 

from numerous site visits, briefings, and discussions involving organizations within the Air Force and elsewhere in the Department of Defense, as well as other federal agencies, federally funded research and 

development centers, national laboratories, and companies. A partial 

list of these organizations is given below. 

Air Staff, Headquarters Air Force (HAF)

■ Manpower and Personnel (AF/A1)

■ Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (AF/A2)

■ Operations, Plans, and Requirements (AF/A3/5)

■ Logistics, Installations, and Mission Support (AF/A4/7)

■ Strategic Plans and Programs (AF/A8)

■ Studies, Assessments, and Lessons Learned (AF/A9)

■ Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration (AF/A10)

■ Air Force Historian (AF/HO)

■ Air Force Reserve (AF/RE)

■ Air Force Safety (AF/SE)

■ Air Force Chief Scientist (AF/ST)

■ Air Force Surgeon General (AF/SG)

■ Air Force Test and Evaluation (AF/TE)

■ Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (AF/SB)

■ CSAF Strategic Studies Group

Air Force Secretariat, HAF

■ Administrative Assistant (SAF/AA)

■ Acquisition (SAF/AQ)

■ Small Business Programs (SAF/SB)

■ General Counsel (SAF/GC)
bibliography │ 207

■ Installations, Environment, and Logistics (SAF/IE)

■ Public Affairs (SAF/PA)

■ Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer (SAF/XC)

Air Force Major Commands (MAJCOM)

■ Air Combat Command (ACC)

■ Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)

■ Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)

■ Air Education and Training Command (AETC)

■ Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC)

■ Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC)

■ Air Mobility Command (AMC)

■ Air National Guard (ANG)

■ Pacific Air Forces (PACAF)

Air Force Product Centers

■ Air Armament Center (AAC)

■ Electronic Systems Center (ESC)

■ Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC)

Direct Reporting Units (DRU)

■ US Air Force Academy (USAFA)

Field Operating Agencies (FOA)

■ Air Force ISR Agency (AFISRA)

■ Air Force Medical Support Agency (AFMSA) 

Other Air Force Agencies

■ Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC)

■ Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC)

■ Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)

■ Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)

■ Air Force Unmanned Systems ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) Innovations (AF/A2U)

■ Air Force Warfare Center (USAFWC)

■ Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC)

■ Air Force A8 Futures Game 2009
208 │ Technology Horizons

■ Distributed Mission Operations Center (DMOC)

■ Space Innovation and Development Center (SIDC)

■ National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC)

■ Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC–ALC)

■ Eighth Air Force (8AF)

■ 505th Command and Control Wing (505CCW)

■ 688th Information Operations Wing (688IOW)

■ 67th Network Warfare Wing (67NWW)

■ 46th Test Wing (46TW)

Federal Agencies

■ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

■ Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)

■ National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

■ Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) 

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC)

■ RAND Corporation

■ Lincoln Laboratory

National Laboratories

■ Argonne National Laboratory

■ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

■ Sandia National Laboratories

Companies

■ Aernnova

■ Aerojet 

■ Astrox

■ Blue Origin

■ Boeing Integrated Defense Systems

■ General Atomics Aeronautical Company

■ General Atomics Photonics Division

■ Honeywell Aerospace

■ Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

■ Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems

■ Pratt & Whitney

■ Raytheon Company
bibliography │ 209

■ Rolls Royce Liberty Works

■ VMware

Other

■ Air Force Red Team

■ Air Force Studies Board (AFSB)

■ Office of Net Assessment (ONA)

■ Office of Naval Research (ONR)

■ Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)

Technology Horizons

A Vision for Air Force Science and Technology 

2010–30

Air University Press Team

Chief Editor

Jeanne K. Shamburger

Copy Editor

Sherry Terrell

Cover Art and Book Design 

and Illustrations

Daniel Armstrong

Composition and 

Prepress Production

Ann Bailey

Print Preparation and Distribution

Diane Clark