AFRL

1
AFRL Towards the Next Horizon

• Dr William U. Borger
• Director, Plans and Programs
• Air Force Research Laboratory

2
Agenda

• AFRL Who We Are
• ST Budget
• Principles and Vision
• ST Program Drivers
• Future Directions

3
Air Force Research LaboratoryTechnology
Directorates
Commander (CC)
Executive Director (CD)
Vice Commander (CV)
Chief Technologist (CT)
Staff
Plans and Programs (XP)
Propulsion Power
Information
Munitions
Air Vehicles
Space Vehicles
AFOSR
Materials Mfg
Human Effectiveness
Sensors
Directed Energy
4
AFRL People Facilities

• 10 Major RD Sites across US
• Real Property Replacement Value 1.8B
• Equipment Property Replacement Value 1.7B

• 5343 Government Employees
• 3798 Onsite Contractors

5
AFRL Major Sites
WRIGHT-PATTERSON PROPULSION (PR)AIR VEHICLES
(VA)SENSORS (SN)MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING
(ML)HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS (HE) COLLABORATIVE C2
(IF)
HQ AFRL
ROME INFORMATION (IF) SURVEILLANCE (SN)
HANSCOM BATTLE SPACE ENVIRONMENTS
(VS)ELECTROMAGNETICS (SN)
EDWARDS ROCKET PROPULSION (PR)
BALLSTON AIR FORCE OFFICE
OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (AFOSR)
MESA WARFIGHTER TRAINING RESEARCH (HE)
BROOKS BIOEFFECTS, AEROSPACE PHYSIOLOGY (HE)
KIRTLAND DIRECTED ENERGY (DE) SPACE VEHICLES (VS)
TYNDALL AIR BASE TECHNOLOGY (ML)
EGLIN MUNITIONS (MN)
6
Technology for the Air ForceConcept to Combat
6.2 Applied Research (e.g., Joined-Wing )
6.1 Basic Research (e.g., Bio Sciences )
6.3 Adv Tech Demos (e.g., Night Vision Device
Training)
7.8 Man Tech (e.g., PNVG 2nd Source
for Intensifier Tubes)
Full Spectrum Science and Technology
Acquisition Consulting (e.g., Boom Operator
Weapon System Trainer)
Quick Reaction (e.g., C-17 SKE Failure)
User Needs (e.g., Aging Wiring Integrity)
Future Concepts (e.g., Unitized/ Modular
Structures)
7
Agenda

• AFRL Who We Are
• ST Budget
• Transforming AF ST
• ST Program Drivers
• Future Directions

8
Strategic Planning Guidance Background

• SPG Direction
• (U) Components will maintain or increase ST
  investment at the levels programmed in the FY
  2005-2009 Presidents Budget FYDP for FY
  2006-2009, with the goal of achieving 3 percent
  annual real growth.

9
FY05 Presidents BudgetAF ST Budget
By Directorate/Tech Area
By Budget Activity
Directed Energy 102M (7)
Dual Use 5M (1)
Human Effectiveness 104M (7)
Propulsion 236M (18)
6.1 217M 16
Munitions 75M (5)
Space Vehicles 149M (11)
Basic Research 217M (16)
6.2 741M 53
6.3 435M 31
Information 116M (8)
Sensors 156M (11)
Materials Mfg 129M (9)
Air Vehicles 104M (9)
TOTAL 1.393 Billion
Values May Not Add Due to Rounding
10
FY05 Total AFRL Budget
By Directorate/Tech Area
By Budget Activity
BOS/MIL PAY 150M 4
Munitions 165M (5)
Information 490M (13)
Air Vehicles 192M (5)
6.1 254M 7
Directed Energy 362M (10)
6.3 657M 18
Basic Research 640M (19)
Human Effectiveness 235M (6)
Customer 1683M 46
Space Vehicles 381M (10)
6.2 904M 25
Sensors 443M (12)
Matl Manuf 362M (10)
Propulsion 378M (10)

• Values May Not Add Due to Rounding
• Includes SBIR

TOTAL 3.648 Billion
As of 29 Nov 04
11
AF ST AS OF AF BLUE TOAFY62 THROUGH FY09
SE Asia Space Race
Reagan Buildup AF in Production
Desert Storm Contingency OPs
GWOT
U-2 Sensors Cruise Mx, ICBMs
F-15
PGMs F22, JSF, Global Hawk Predator ABL
Space Imagery
F-16
JSTARS
B-2
GPS
SE Asia Support
Long Range Strike
F-117
LGB, Maverick
UAVs
B-1
Attack Radar Fly by Wire Turbofan EW
Precision Targeting ISR, COMM
Stealth Digital Flight
Hypersonics NGB, SBR, HSI Directed Energy
1st solid state Integrated Circuit
1st Laser LO Materials
Info Fusion Computational Science
Nano, Bio, Info
Performance
Stealth
Affordability
Multi-Functional
AF BLUE TOA excludes National Foreign
Intelligence Program (NFIP), Defense Health
Program (DHP), and Special Operations Command
(SOCOM)
12
Operating Tenets

• Outsource majority of research/tech development
  to industry and academia
• Perform focused in-house research to maintain
  core expertise and be a smart outsourcer
• Balance near term transfer and far term research
• Collaborate/coordinate with others
• DoD Army, Navy, DARPA, DTRA, MDA, NRO
• Other federal agencies NASA, DOE, others
• Private sector
• International

13
Agenda

• AFRL Who We Are
• ST Budget
• Transforming AF ST
• ST Program Drivers
• Future Directions

14
Many Changes in Global RealitiesSince the
Creation of AFRL
The speed of modern technology and the creativity
of our elusive and opportunistic adversaries
makes what we dont know highly dangerous
Technology
Threat
What we dont know we dont know
What we dont know we know
(missed opportunities)
(most dangerous)
What we know we know
What we know we dont know
Speed Agility
Global Situational Awareness
Post 9/11 National Security New Challenges
One out of a Million Threat Environment
Lean Defense Budgets
Cyber / Info Ops Gap
The World Has Changed
15
In An Environment of Change AFRL Must Have a
Clear Site Picture of What Our Customers Need
Who are Our Customers and What Do They Want?

• Three discrete
• Customers
• Timelines
• Outputs
• Relationships

• AF Senior Leadership
• Technology ideas that shape future concepts
• Tech push to show operators whats possible
• Program Managers (Capability Developers)
• Transitionable technology options
• Core ST connected to operational AF needs via
  CRRA requirements pull
• Capability Users and Decision Makers
• Responsive technology solutions
• Unprecedented innovation to meet urgent needs

Todays Lab has one work structure to serve all
customers
16
Attributes of the Envisioned Future
oneAFRL

• Consistently anticipate and proactively adapt to
  an uncertain future
• A valued AF team member leading innovative,
  integrated, and multidisciplinary
• Long-term research, driven by an audacious
  technology goal shape the future Air Force
• Development of technology options that meet the
  needs of capability developers deliver on our
  commitments
• Technology response to urgent needs provide
  rapid, come-as-you-are solutions
• Grow technology leaders for the AF
• Access and exploit all of mankinds ST knowledge
• Establish and fully leverage strategic
  partnerships
• Operate with sound enterprise business principles

17
Agenda

• AFRL Who We Are
• ST Budget
• Transforming AF ST
• ST Program Drivers
• Future Directions

18
Gen Jumpers Sight Picture(Air Force Chief of
Staff)
Concepts of Operations (CONOPS) ... will guide
our planning and programming, requirements
reform, and acquisition.
...make warfighting effects, and the capabilities
we need to achieve them, the drivers for
everything we do.
... shift from a program review to a review of
how our programs contribute to warfighting
capabilities and effects.
Air Staff designed a new review to replace the
Quarterly Acquisition Review Program--we call
this new (process) approach a Capabilities Review
and Risk Assessment (CRRA).
19
AF CapabilitiesBased Planning
National Strategies
SECDEF Planning Guidance
Joint Concepts
Joint Integrated Capability is the absolute
requirement. To be effective, you must be able to
plug and play
Programming Budgeting Execution
Planning
20
ST Investment Development
CSAF SecAF
I-CRRA Capability Shortfalls
AFMC/CC
SAF/AQ
AFSPC/CC
MAJCOMs
DDRE
SAF/US
DSB/SAB
Wargaming
DARPA
System Program Offices
Congress
Capability-based Planning and Programming
21
Focused Long Term Challenge (FLTC) Problem
Strategy
Capability Vision Fueled by Technology
6.3 Mid Term Demos
Tech Challenges
Capability
6.1
6.3 Near Term Demos
6.2
AFRL FY08 13 POM
AFRL FY13 18 POM
AFRL FY18 25 POM
Time
22
Sector FocusTechnology to Capability to CONOPS
Warfighter Technology Areas

• AIR FORCE CONOPS
• Global Strike
• Global Persistent Attack
• Global Mobility
• Space C4ISR
• Nuclear Response
• Homeland Security
• Agile Combat Support

Aeronautical Sector
Expeditionary Readiness Support Responsive Air
Ops Survivability F2T2 on Air Combat Systems
Space Sector
Space Force Projection Counterspace
C2ISR Sector
Global ISR Command Control Global Information
Enterprise
Weapons Sector
Target Effects Integrated Defense
Munitions (MN)
Air Vehicles (VA)
Information (IF)
Space Vehicles (VS)
Directed Energy (DE)
Propulsion (PR)
Materials Manuf. (ML)
Human Effectiveness (HE)
Sensors (SN)
AFOSR
23
Changing the Plot

• For decades the Pentagons war plans focused on
  countering conventional military threats.
• New planning scenarios focus on preparing for a
  wider range of contingencies
• To migrate from Traditional to other areas
  requires Revolutionary Technology Enablers

24
USAF Coverage Current View
Catastrophic
Irregular
More likely
Higher vulnerability
Lower vulnerability
Less likely
Disruptive
Traditional
25
Future USAF Coverage Perception 1
Catastrophic
Irregular
More likely
Higher vulnerability
Lower vulnerability
Pro Move Resources to Address Future
Threats Con Assumption of Infinite Air
Superiority Invalid
Less likely
Disruptive
Traditional
26
Future USAF Coverage Perception 2
Catastrophic
Irregular
More likely
Pro Needs/Opportunity Everywhere Con Fiscal
Reality Demands Focus
Higher vulnerability
Lower vulnerability
Less likely
Disruptive
Traditional
27
Future USAF Coverage Perception 3
Catastrophic
Irregular
More likely
Give Your Enemy No Sanctuary
Leverage Joint Expertise
Higher vulnerability
Lower vulnerability
Get There First Field Innovative Concepts
Less likely
Disruptive
Traditional
28
Technology Enablers
Catastrophic
Irregular
More likely
Single Stage to Orbit
Space Based Laser
Net Centricity Advanced Info Ops
High Power Microwaves
Long Loiter SensorCraft
Higher vulnerability
Lower vulnerability
Self-Healing Materials
Nano ChemBio Sensors
Long Range Strike (Hypersonics)
Multi Mission Mobility
Less likely
Disruptive
Traditional
Quantum/Bio Computing Advanced PsyOps
29
Agenda

• AFRL Who We Are
• ST Budget
• Transforming AF ST
• ST Program Drivers
• Future Directions

30
30 Years of Air Force ST investments in beam
control and high energy lasers have made an ABL
Possible
Increase Multi-Disciplinary Solutions
Airborne Laser Laboratory
Adaptive Optics
Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser
1.5m Telescope
Atmospheric Compensation
3.5m Telescope
Atmospheric Measurements
31
On the HorizonST for Special Operations
REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY
32
Summary

• Special Partnerships exists between AFRL and
  industry
• Industry is a supplier and a customer
• AFRL driven by Capability Based Planning
• I-CRRA defines tech pull
• AFRL defines tech push
• Industry needs to speak the same language
• Changing nature of warfare is driving future
• Irregular/catastrophic/traditional/disruptive
• AFRL is changing investments in response
• New DoD directions will impact Industry   

33
QUESTIONS?
Defending America by unleashing the power of
innovative science and technology