Leader Development: LEADER SKILLS FOR THE FUTURE

Benjamin Benson, Greg Brady, Allan Cameron, Bianca DeForest, Freeman Hyzer, Preston Radford, Andrew Rusinko, Michael Sattes, Leo Schoonover, & Uliya Sparks
Montgomery, AL: Air University (18 April 2018).

This paper proposes educational solutions to shift the culture of the United States Air Force. Instead of focusing on individual domain capabilities, the Air Force can utilize, educate, and enhance Multi-Domain operations through the two proposed courses of action, developing knowledge at the Captain level inculcating a total force Multi-Domain mindset. To mitigate risk with limited resources, the paper proposes changes occur at a small scale and rapid pace so that initiatives can succeed or fail quickly and scale up as necessary. The paper's recommended COA is a starting point; an experimental course at the start of SOS that extends existing resources. The desired end state aims to empower Air Force leaders who effectively wield air, space, and cyberspace capabilities across the range of military operations.

Karen Currie, John Conway, Scott Johnson, Brian Landry, & Adam Lowther
Montgomery, AL: Air University, Air Force Research Institute (February 2012).

This study is designed to improve the current Air Force process of leader development. While today’s processes have been successful, changes will be required in the future. In conducting this study, the research team identified desired leadership characteristics and analyzed them against the projected future environment. The next generation of Air Force leaders must expect to deal with a strategic environment characterized by increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA). Spiraling civil unrest, humanitarian crises, and the impact of instant communications and networking tools will combine to create unpredictable, volatile circumstances. The AFRI research team predicts that in many future cases the US government will need the Air Force to provide strategic solutions to problems currently unknown. Air Force leaders using “off the shelf” solutions will have difficulty succeeding in this more intense environment.

(Washington, DC: U.S. Army, Training and Doctrine Command, Dec 2018)

Peter Stamatopoulos
Navy Supply Corps Newsletter (3 Oct 2018)

Kris Osborn
Fox News (20 November 2018)

This Guide established the occupation structure of the Air Force officer force and implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-21, "Utilization and Classification of Air Force Military Personnel." The occupational structure is flexible to permit officer personnel to broadly specialize as necessary to meet changing mission requirements. (30 April 2018).

Jones, Lawrence O. (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press, 2018).

Jen Judson
Defense News (9 October 2018).

Chance Saltzman
PowerPoint Presentation

Aaron Kiser, Jacob Hess, El Mostafa Bouhafa, & Shawn Williams
Montgomery, AL: Air University (1 March 2017).

In March of 2016, the Air Force released an operating concept for the Combat Cloud, defined as "...an overarching meshed network for data distribution and information sharing within a battlespace, where each authorized user, platform, or node transparently contributes and receives essential information and is able to utilize it across the full range of military operations." The Combat Cloud represents the intellectual construct necessary to unify Air Force and Department of Defense efforts in pursuit of decision superiority and Multi-Domain Command and Control (MDC2). To attain this however, the Combat Cloud and associated network must exhibit critical attributes such as the ability to be self-forming, self-healing, gracefully degradable and redundant. Under this construct, the ability to collect data and integrate it in an open, adaptive information system will significantly enhance C2 and operational agility for the U.S. and its allies across the range of military operations (ROMO). To illustrate this, specific mission concepts across the ROMO can be seen as enhanced by the Combat Cloud. These areas include the clouds ability to improve joint fires through improved use of fire support coordination measures, its potential to enhance the close air support and personnel recovery missions, interagency coordination considerations, and considerations for employment in coalition warfighting. While the inherent advantages of the Combat Cloud are many, the challenges that surround its successful development and incorporation into modern warfare are equally numerous, including interoperability and security issues, and ensuring decentralized execution at the tactical and operational levels. Despite these challenges, the ubiquitous nature of data will not allow arbitrary lines to be drawn between domains in the future and C2 must no longer be confined by such terms.

The Joint Operating Environment 2035 (JOE 2035) is designed to encourage the purposeful preparation of the Joint Force to effectively protect the United States, its interests, and its allies in 2035. For the Joint Force, thinking through the most important conditions in a changing world can mean the difference between victory and defeat, success and failure, and the needless expenditure of human lives and national treasure versus the judicious and prudent application of both to defend our vital interests. This document describes the future security environment and projects the implications of change for the Joint Force so it can anticipate and prepare for potential conflicts. To do this, Section 1 describes the circumstances that are likely to alter the security environment. Next, Section 2 explores how the intersection and interaction of these changes might impact the character of war in the future. Finally, Section 3 provides a framework to think about the full range of Joint Force missions and how they may evolve over time (14 July 2016).

Samuel, Sigal.
Vox (August 30, 2019).

Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei.
Axios Interview (25 November 2018).

Solon, Olivia.
The Guardian (15 February 2017).

Scharre, Paul, and Lauren Fish.
(Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security, 2018).

Matthew Santaspirt, Luke Shabro, and Ian Sullivan.
Washington, DC: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Georgetown University, Center for Security Studies (25-26 July 2017).

Herr, Andrew.
Joint Force Quarterly 77, no. 2 (2nd Quarter, 2015): 76-83.

Hunter, Andrew P., et al. (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2018).

Zachary Kallenborn
West Point, NY: U.S. Military Academy, Modern War Institute Blog: (25 October 2018).

Darrell M. West and John R. Allen
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, Report: (24 April 2018).

IBM Website

IEEE Transmitter

South China Morning Post (November 8, 2018)

Benedict, John R. Jr.
Joint Force Quarterly 83, no. 4 (4th Quarter, 2016).

United Kingdom: Ministry of Defence, Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre, 6th Edition, 2018.

Kott, Alexander.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Technical Report: (11 July 2018, 3 August 2018).

Army Times (January 10, 2019).

Spencer, John, Lionel Beehner, and Brandon Thomas.
Military Review 98, no. 2 (March 2018).

Conn, Ariel.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (May 9, 2019).