DOCSLIB.ORG

Transformation and Transition: DARPA's Role in Fostering an Emerging Revolution in Military Affairs Volume 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transformation and Transition: DARPA's Role in Fostering an Emerging Revolution in Military Affairs Volume 1 INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES Transformation and Transition: DARPA’s Role in Fostering an Emerging Revolution in Military Affairs Volume 1 – Overall Assessment Richard H. Van Atta, Project Leader and Michael J. Lippitz with Jasper C. Lupo Rob Mahoney Jack H. Nunn April 2003 Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. IDA Paper P-3698 Log: H 03-000693 Copy This work was conducted under contract DASW01 98 C 0067, Task DA-6-2018, for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The publication of this IDA document does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official position of that Agency. © 2003 Institute for Defense Analyses, 4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1882 • (703) 845-2000. This material may be reproduced by or for the U.S. Government pursuant to the copyright license under the clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 (Nov. 95). INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES IDA Paper P-3698 Transformation and Transition: DARPA’s Role in Fostering an Emerging Revolution in Military Affairs Volume 1 – Overall Assessment Richard H. Van Atta, Project Leader and Michael J. Lippitz with Jasper C. Lupo Rob Mahoney Jack H. Nunn PREFACE This report summarizes work performed by the Institute for Defense Analyses for the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in partial fulfillment of the task entitled “DARPA’s Role in Fostering a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA).” It highlights the roles DARPA has played since the 1970s in developing and exploiting advanced technological systems to create fundamental warfighting advantages for US military forces. The study’s results and conclusions are contained in two volumes. Volume I, Overall Assessment, provides an overview of several DARPA program areas studied as part of this task and from these draws insights and “lessons learned” for DARPA management. Volume II, Detailed Assessments, documents the DARPA program areas with greater specificity. The authors wish to thank John Jennings of DARPA; Kent Carson of IDA; and Larry Lynn, former DARPA director, for their detailed review of prior drafts. The authors also benefited from access to past DARPA and US Department of Defense (DoD) leaders, who gave generously of their time and provided insights on problems and opportunities for DoD in developing and deploying novel capabilities. We wish to thank Joe Braddock, Malcolm Currie, Robert Fossum, George Heilmeier, Steven Lukasik, Robert Moore, William Perry, Henry Rowen, James Tegnelia, and numerous others. Of course, the conclusions of this study and any errors in representation of history are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of these contributors, the formal reviewers, or current DARPA or DoD management. iii This page intentionally left blank iv CONTENTS – VOLUME I Preface................................................................................................................ iii Summary ..........................................................................................................S-1 I. Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 A. Overview of DARPA................................................................................. 1 B. What Is the Emerging RMA? ..................................................................... 4 II. Conceiving Disruptive Capabilities ................................................................. 6 A. Strategic Challenges................................................................................... 6 B. DARPA Responses.................................................................................... 8 III. Implementing Disruptive Capabilities............................................................ 11 A. Stealth Combat Aircraft ........................................................................... 11 B. Standoff Precision Strike: Air Force and Army........................................ 15 C. Naval Stealth and Standoff Precision Strike.............................................. 26 1. Sea Shadow.......................................................................................... 27 2. Arsenal Ship ......................................................................................... 29 3. DD-21 Zumwalt-Class Destroyer .......................................................... 33 D. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance......................................... 35 1. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles .................................................................... 38 2. Satellites ............................................................................................... 49 IV. Conclusions.................................................................................................. 56 A. Insights from the Reviewed DARPA Programs ........................................ 56 B. Management Lessons............................................................................... 60 1. Vision................................................................................................... 60 2. Leadership ............................................................................................ 64 C. Looking to the Future.............................................................................. 71 Volume II is published as a separate document. v APPENDIXES A. References............................................................................................................. A-1 B. Glossary ................................................................................................................ B-1 FIGURES 1. DARPA’s Linkages with Outside Organizations ....................................................... 2 2. ASSAULT BREAKER Concept of Operation........................................................ 19 3. DARPA Smart Weapons Program Concept............................................................ 23 4. A Current Conception of Standoff Precision Strike................................................. 26 5. Sea Shadow Schematic........................................................................................... 28 6. DD-21 Operations.................................................................................................. 34 7. Risk Reduction Prototyping—A Link between DARPA Development and Service Experimentation and Acquisition ......................................................... 69 vi SUMMARY INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF DARPA AND THE RMA DARPA’s primary mission is to foster advanced technologies and systems that create “revolutionary” advantages for the US military. Consistent with this mission, DARPA is independent from the military Services and pursues generally higher-risk, higher-payoff research and development (R&D) projects. DARPA program managers are encouraged to challenge existing approaches to warfighting and to seek results rather than just explore ideas. Hence, in addition to supporting technology and component development, DARPA on occasion funds the integration of large-scale “systems of systems” in order to demonstrate “disruptive capabilities.” Disruptive capabilities are more than just new technologies; they are transformations in operations and strategy enabled by synergistic combinations of technologies. The combination of stealth, standoff precision strike, and advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) demonstrated in Operation Desert Storm is an example of a disruptive capability. It allowed the US to change the rules of conventional warfare in a manner that many consider to be the forefront of a broad “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA) in which the ability to exercise military control is shifting from forces with the best or the most individual weapons systems toward forces with better information and greater ability to quickly plan, coordinate, and accurately attack. This report describes how certain DARPA-sponsored systems and demonstrations since the 1970s contributed to the development of disruptive capabilities in the areas of stealth, standoff precision strike, and advanced ISR and hence to an emerging RMA. (It does not assess in detail DARPA’s role in supporting development of generic technologies—most notably microelectronics, computing, networking, and other information technologies—that underlie these and other emerging disruptive capabilities.) It highlights management practices that facilitated the development and exploitation of these disruptive capabilities, specifically: • Investing in basic technologies that can lead to fundamental technical advantages • Building communities of change-state advocates S-1 • Defining strategic challenges in detail across multiple scenarios • Supporting the conceptual development of integrated, disruptive capabilities • Testing promising disruptive capabilities in large-scale, proof-of-concept demonstrations • Working with leadership from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to broker Service commitment to the implementation of particular disruptive capabilities CONCEIVING DISRUPTIVE CAPABILITIES DARPA’s contributions to the emerging RMA occurred in the context of a clear imperative at the end of the Vietnam War: defense of Western Europe. Warsaw Pact offensive forces in Europe had been significantly increased and improved. Soviet-designed integrated anti-aircraft systems were very effective against US-built jets in Vietnam and in the 1973
Load more

Recommended publications
  • H. Con. Res. 122
    IV 115TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 122 Commemorating the 75th Anniversary of Lockheed Martin Skunk Works and its significant contributions to the national security of the United States. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 7, 2018 Mr. KNIGHT (for himself and Mr. COOK) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Commemorating the 75th Anniversary of Lockheed Martin Skunk Works and its significant contributions to the national security of the United States. Whereas Lockheed Martin is known for building many of the finest military aircraft in the world; Whereas the Palmdale, California, location of Lockheed Mar- tin is headquarters to the Advanced Development Pro- grams group of the company, which is widely known as the ‘‘Skunk Works’’; Whereas the name the ‘‘Skunk Works’’— (1) came from ‘‘Li’l Abner’’, a satirical comic strip by Al Capp that was immensely popular in the 1940s and 1950s; (2) in 1943, was first used in reference to the Ad- vanced Development Programs group when the Depart- VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:15 Jun 08, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC122.IH HC122 dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS 2 ment of the Navy attempted to establish a conference call connection and was mistakenly transferred to the XP–80 program of the Advanced Development Programs group, which due to classification could not be identified when the call was answered, and a member of the Advanced Development Programs group instead answered the call by saying, ‘‘Skunk Works’’, in reference to the location of the facility next to a malodorous plastics factory in Burbank, California; and (3) would later become the name that is used for the Advanced Development Programs group today, the ‘‘Skunk Works’’; Whereas the founding father of the Skunk Works was Clar- ence L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: an Assessment
    DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD Submitted to the Secretary of Defense The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: An Assessment DBB FY 20-01 An assessment of the effectiveness, responsibilities, and authorities of the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense as required by §904 of the FY20 NDAA June 1, 2020 DBB FY20-01 CMO Assessment 1 Executive Summary Tasking and Task Force: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (Public Law (Pub. L. 116-92) required the Secretary of Defense (SD) to conduct an independent assessment of the Chief Management Officer (CMO) with six specific areas to be evaluated. The Defense Business Board (DBB) was selected on February 3, 2020 to conduct the independent assessment, with Arnold Punaro and Atul Vashistha assigned to co-chair the effort. Two additional DBB board members comprised the task force: David Walker and David Van Slyke. These individuals more than meet the independence and competencies required by the NDAA. Approach: The DBB task force focused on the CMO office and the Department of Defense (DoD) business transformation activities since 2008 when the office was first established by the Congress as the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO), and in 2018 when the Congress increased its statutory authority and elevated it to Executive Level (EX) II and the third ranking official in DoD. The taskforce reviewed all previous studies of DoD management and organizations going back twenty years and completed over ninety interviews, including current and former DoD, public and private sector leaders. The assessments of CMO effectiveness since 2008 are focused on the performance of the CMO as an organizational entity, and is not an appraisal of any administration or appointee.
    [Show full text]
  • The History and Politics of Defense Reviews
    C O R P O R A T I O N The History and Politics of Defense Reviews Raphael S. Cohen For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2278 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9973-0 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The 1993 Bottom-Up Review starts with this challenge: “Now that the Cold War is over, the questions we face in the Department of Defense are: How do we structure the armed forces of the United States for the future? How much defense is enough in the post–Cold War era?”1 Finding a satisfactory answer to these deceptively simple questions not only motivated the Bottom-Up Review but has arguably animated defense strategy for the past quarter century.
    [Show full text]
  • DARPA and Data: a Portfolio Overview
    DARPA and Data: A Portfolio Overview William C. Regli Special Assistant to the Director Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Brian Pierce Director Information Innovation Office Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Fall 2017 Distribution Statement “A” (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited) 1 DARPA Dreams of Data • Investments over the past decade span multiple DARPA Offices and PMs • Information Innovation (I2O): Software Systems, AI, Data Analytics • Defense Sciences (DSO): Domain-driven problems (chemistry, social science, materials science, engineering design) • Microsystems Technology (MTO): New hardware to support these processes (neuromorphic processor, graph processor, learning systems) • Products include DARPA Program testbeds, data and software • The DARPA Open Catalog • Testbeds include those in big data, cyber-defense, engineering design, synthetic bio, machine reading, among others • Multiple layers and qualities of data are important • Important for reproducibility; important as fuel for future DARPA programs • Beyond public data to include “raw” data, process/workflow data • Data does not need to be organized to be useful or valuable • Software tools are getting better eXponentially, ”raw” data can be processed • Changing the economics (Forensic Data Curation) • Its about optimizing allocation of attention in human-machine teams Distribution Statement “A” (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited) 2 Working toward Wisdom Wisdom: sound judgment - governance Abstraction Wisdom (also Understanding:
    [Show full text]
  • 8900 Michael's Chapters.Indd
    2004 PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION S E R I E S FROM Becoming an Effective Political Executive: 7 Lessons from Experienced Appointees Judith E. Michaels Essays on Working in Washington by: John H. Trattner, Council for Excellence in Government Dana Michael Harsell, Hartwick College Mark A. Abramson, IBM Center for The Business of Government Paul R. Lawrence, IBM Business Consulting Services Second Edition January 2005 Part II Essays on Working in Washington Working with the Congress By John H. Trattner Working with the Media By John H. Trattner Working with Career Executives to Manage for Results By Dana Michael Harsell Working to Transform Your Organization By Mark A. Abramson and Paul R. Lawrence 20 IBM Center for The Business of Government BECOMING AN EFFECTIVE POLITICAL EXECUTIVE Working to Transform Your Organization By Mark A. Abramson, IBM Center for The Business of Government and Paul R. Lawrence, IBM Business Consulting Services (Adapted from Transforming Organizations) Transforming organizations is hard work. It is not • Department of Defense (DoD) under Deputy From these case studies of the four organizations, for the fainthearted or thin-skinned. A leader is Secretary (and then Secretary) William Perry. eight common lessons emerged about how lead- not going to win many new friends or popularity The DoD case study focuses on procure- ers successfully undertake large-scale transforma- contests by undertaking major transformation ini- ment reform within the Department of tion initiatives. tiatives. In spite of the difficulty, we expect trans- Defense, including key roles played by formation to continue as 20th century bureaucracies Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Lesson 1: Select the Right Person are streamlined into high-performing 21st century and Technology Paul Kaminski, Deputy organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • “Keep the Dream Alive”
    February 28, 2015 The 60th Annual Honors and Awards Banquet “Keep the Dream Alive” February 28, 2015 th 60 Honors & Awards Banquet Diamond Anniversary 1 The 60th Annual Honors and Awards Banquet February 28, 2015 National Engineers Week Committees ~ BANQUET COMMITTEE ~ Kenneth Davis, Sonja Domazet, Stephen Guine, William Johnson, Sharlene Katz, Paul Landry, Robert Tarn, Thomas R. Tarn, Charles Volk ~ HONORS & AWARDS COMMITTEE ~ Marek Barylak, Kenneth Davis, Stephen Guine, Sharlene Katz, Paul Landry, Charles Olsefsky, R. Freeman Straub, Robert B. Tarn ~ AWARDS ASSEMBLY ~ Ken Davis, Sonja Domazet, James Flynn, Bill Johnson, Sharlene Katz, Charles Olsefsky ~ HOST / HOSTESSES ~ Olivia Landry, Maria Tarn ~ SOUVENIR PROGRAM GRAPHICS & DESIGN ~ Paul Landry ~ AWARD GRAPHICS ~ Mike Matte ~ AUDIO / VIDEO ~ Swank Audio Visuals, Carlos Guerra ~ BANQUET SETUP / AWARDS DISTRIBUTION ~ Marissa Bayless, Margo Guerra ~ MATH COUNTS ~ Jerry Kraim, Eli Stiny Engineers’ Council Past Presidents 1970 William B. Johnson 1992 Robert Budica 2005 Robert B. Tarn 1980 Clifford B. Shiepe, PE 1993 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2006 Paul F. Landry 1981 Clifford B. Shiepe, PE 1994 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2007 Paul F. Landry 1982 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 1995 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2008 Patrick Berbon 1983 William F. Hassel, PE, FIAE 1996 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2009 Dr. Charles H. Volk 1984 Clifford Terry 1997 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2010 Dr. Charles H. Volk 1985 Roland V. Roggero 1998 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2011 Kenneth G. Davis 1986 James P. Ritchey 1999 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2012 Kenneth G. Davis 1987 James P. Ritchey 2000 Lloyd W. Higginbotham, FIAE 2013 Sonja Domazet 1988 Harlan L. Russ 2001 Lloyd W.
    [Show full text]
  • Space and Defense Issue
    SPACE and DEFENSE Volume Nine Number One Spring 2016 Attack on the Brain: Neurowars and Neurowarfare Armin Krishnan Volume Five Number One Brazil Space: SGDC Satellite Sum Gills Vilar Lopes mer 2011 Mexico Aerospace: The Querétaro Cluster Mónica Casalet REVIEW: Crowded Orbits Coalitions in Space:Deron Jackson Where Networks are PowerPublisher’s Corner: Space Policy’s SALT Moment Ambassadorby James Roger G. ClayHarrison Moltz The 2010 National Space Policy: Down to Earth? by Joan Johnson-Freese Space & Defense Journal of the United States Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Publisher Ambassador Roger Harrison, [email protected] Inaugural Director and Co-founder, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Editor Dr. Damon Coletta U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Associate Editors Mr. Deron Jackson Dr. Peter Hays Director, Eisenhower Center George Washington University, USA U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Ms. Jonty Kasku-Jackson National Security Space Institute, USA Dr. Schuyler Foerster U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Thank You to Our Reviewers Andrew Aldrin Joanne Gabrynowicz United Launch Alliance, USA University of Mississippi, USA James Armor Jason Healey ATK, USA Atlantic Council, USA William Barry Theresa Hitchens NASA Headquarters, USA United Nations, Switzerland Daniel Blinder Wade Huntley UNSAM-CONICET, Argentina Independent Researcher, USA Dean Cheng Ram Jakhu Heritage Foundation, USA McGill University, Canada, USA Robert Callahan Dana Johnson NORAD-NORTHCOM, USA Department of State, USA Robert Carriedo Roger Launius U.S. Air Force Academy, USA National Air and Space Museum Frans von der Dunk John Logsdon University of Nebraska, USA George Washington University, USA Paul Eckart Agnieszka Lukaszczyk Boeing, USA Secure World Foundation, Belgium Andrew Erickson Molly Macauley Naval War College, USA Resources for the Future, USA Laura Delgado Lopez Dimitrios Stroikos Secure World Foundation, USA London School of Economics, United Kingdom Adam Lowther Brent Talbot SANDS, Kirtland AFB, USA U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Report Advisory Committee Human Radiation Lxperzments
    Interim Report of the Advisory Committee . on Human Radiation Lxperzments October 21,1994 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied. or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name. trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, ram- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS LINUMITm , . _. -.-,..- DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. ADVISORYCOMMITTEE ON HUMANRADIATION EXPERIMENTS 1726 M STREET,N.W., SUITE 600 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20036 WMORANDUM TO: Members of the Interagency Working Group Secretary Hazel O'Leary, Department of Energy Secretary William Perry, Department of Defense Attorney General Janet Reno, Department of Justice Secretary Donna Shalala. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Jesse Brown, Department of VeteransAflairs Director Alice Rivlin, Ofice of Management and Budget Director James Woolsey, Central Intelligence Agency Administrator Daniel Goldin, National Aeronautics and Space Administration FROM: The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments DATE: October 21,1994 RE: Interim Report The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments is pleased to transmit its Interim Report to the Interagency Working Group.
    [Show full text]
  • National Reconnaissance Office Review and Redaction Guide
    NRO Approved for Release 16 Dec 2010 —Tep-nm.T7ymqtmthitmemf- (u) National Reconnaissance Office Review and Redaction Guide For Automatic Declassification Of 25-Year-Old Information Version 1.0 2008 Edition Approved: Scott F. Large Director DECL ON: 25x1, 20590201 DRV FROM: NRO Classification Guide 6.0, 20 May 2005 NRO Approved for Release 16 Dec 2010 (U) Table of Contents (U) Preface (U) Background 1 (U) General Methodology 2 (U) File Series Exemptions 4 (U) Continued Exemption from Declassification 4 1. (U) Reveal Information that Involves the Application of Intelligence Sources and Methods (25X1) 6 1.1 (U) Document Administration 7 1.2 (U) About the National Reconnaissance Program (NRP) 10 1.2.1 (U) Fact of Satellite Reconnaissance 10 1.2.2 (U) National Reconnaissance Program Information 12 1.2.3 (U) Organizational Relationships 16 1.2.3.1. (U) SAF/SS 16 1.2.3.2. (U) SAF/SP (Program A) 18 1.2.3.3. (U) CIA (Program B) 18 1.2.3.4. (U) Navy (Program C) 19 1.2.3.5. (U) CIA/Air Force (Program D) 19 1.2.3.6. (U) Defense Recon Support Program (DRSP/DSRP) 19 1.3 (U) Satellite Imagery (IMINT) Systems 21 1.3.1 (U) Imagery System Information 21 1.3.2 (U) Non-Operational IMINT Systems 25 1.3.3 (U) Current and Future IMINT Operational Systems 32 1.3.4 (U) Meteorological Forecasting 33 1.3.5 (U) IMINT System Ground Operations 34 1.4 (U) Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) Systems 36 1.4.1 (U) Signals Intelligence System Information 36 1.4.2 (U) Non-Operational SIGINT Systems 38 1.4.3 (U) Current and Future SIGINT Operational Systems 40 1.4.4 (U) SIGINT
    [Show full text]
  • Goatsucker: Toward a Spatial Theory of State Secrecy
    Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2010, volume 28, pages 759 ^ 771 doi:10.1068/d5308 Goatsucker: toward a spatial theory of state secrecy Trevor Paglen Department of Geography, University of California at Berkeley, 507 McCone Hall #4740, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA; e-mail: [email protected] Received 1 May 2008; in revised form 6 April 2010 Abstract. While the question of state secrecy has become a topic of much political debate, relatively little attention has been paid to the topic in academic literature. Most of the literature adopts one of several frameworks. In the legal literature, state secrecy has been examined as a historical and constitutional question. Social scientists have tended to follow Weber in examining secrecy as a question of regulation and bureaucracy or have focused on the cultural play of visibility and invisi- bility that is often characteristic of state secrecy. This paper, by way of contrast, uses the development of the F-117A `stealth fighter' as a case study to give a spatial account of secrecy. I show how state secrecy gives rise to numerous spatial, political, juridical, and even ecological contradictions and propose that a spatial understanding of state secrecy foregrounding these contradictions provides a fruitful basis for a deeper understanding of state secrecy. Late one night during the summer of 1984, two fighter pilots saw a ghost in the sky above Las Vegas. A single two-seat F-16 `Viper' fighter was on a routine flight over the city that night, its pilots alternating between watching instruments, checking in with ground controllers, and scanning the skies above.
    [Show full text]
  • Air & Space Power Journal
    AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL, Winter 2018 AIR & SPACE WINTER 2018 Volume 32, No. 4 A Model of Air Force Squadron Vitality Maj Gen Stephen L. Davis, USAF Dr. William W. Casey Wars of Cognition How Clausewitz and Neuroscience Influence Future War-Fighter Readiness Maj Michael J. Cheatham, USAF Seize the Highest Hill A Call to Action for Space-Based Air Surveillance Lt Col Troy McLain, USAF Lt Col Gerrit Dalman, USAF The Long-Range Standoff Cruise Missile A Key Component of the Triad Dr. Dennis Evans Dr. Jonathan Schwalbe Science and Technology Enablers of Live Virtual Constructive Training in the Air Domain Dr. Christopher Best, Defence Science and Technology Group FLTLT Benjamin Rice, Royal Australian Air Force WINTER 2018 Volume 32, No. 4 AFRP 10-1 Senior Leader Perspective A Model of Air Force Squadron Vitality ❙ 4 Maj Gen Stephen L. Davis, USAF Dr. William W. Casey Features Wars of Cognition: How Clausewitz and Neuroscience Influence Future War-Fighter Readiness ❙ 16 Maj Michael J. Cheatham, USAF Seize the Highest Hill: A Call to Action for Space-Based Air Surveillance ❙ 31 Lt Col Troy McLain, USAF Lt Col Gerrit Dalman, USAF The Long-Range Standoff Cruise Missile: A Key Component of the Triad ❙ 47 Dr. Dennis Evans Dr. Jonathan Schwalbe Science and Technology Enablers of Live Virtual Constructive Training in the Air Domain ❙ 59 Dr. Christopher Best, Defence Science and Technology Group FLTLT Benjamin Rice, Royal Australian Air Force Departments 74 ❙ Views Operation Vengeance: Still Offering Lessons after 75 Years ❙ 74 Lt Col Scott C. Martin, USAF Three Competing Options for Acquiring Innovation ❙ 85 Lt Col Daniel E.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashton B. Carter, William J. Perry (1999). Preventive Defense
    list’ contains the most dangerous threats to the existence of the USA and Western world. The former Soviet Union had the Ashton B. Carter, William J. Perry capability to destroy Western values and (1999). Preventive Defense: A Western order, but such an enemy to the New Security Strategy for West no longer exists. The major part of US America. defense planning is now directed towards maintaining the capability to wage two Washington: Brookings Institution major theater wars. Such regional contin- Press. pp. 243. gencies might endanger American interests ISBN 0-8157-1308-8 and security, but would not question the existence of the United States. Therefore, wars of this type can be categorized in belonging to the ’B-list’ of threats. Public The United States of America is found- interest seems to be oriented mostly ing its national security and military strate- towards the activities that deal with the ’C- gies on three groups of activities, called list’ of threats, like those in Bosnia- preparing, shaping and responding. Herzegovina or Kosovo. However, the ’A- Responding capability refers to current list’ may not remain clear forever. One of readiness of the armed forces to engage the most important goals of the American and successfully annihilate open threats to security system is to keep the ’A-list’ clear national security. That readiness was as long as possible. Dr Perry and Dr Carter assessed during the nineties according to argue that this is the essential element of the military capability in successfully waging the preventive defense strategy, which they and winning two almost simultaneous major theoretically developed at Harvard and theater wars, like the one in Korea and in Stanford universities and practically The Gulf.
    [Show full text]