A2AD AND THE NAVAL ENTERPRISE CONSIDERATIONS FOR NAWCAD 2.0 Anti-Access Area-Denial (A2AD) is a counter-measure to the U.S. imperative A2AD of access and maneuverability in the commons. In context, A2AD responses A2AD can be adopted and adapted in many AND THE ways by rising nation states wishing AND THE to support and defend their national interest. A2AD capabilities are now NAVAL ENTERPRISE visible in the Pacific with the advent of unmanned systems, hypersonics, NAVAL ENTERPRISE stealth aircraft and submarines, smart mines, and long-range missile systems. These technologies underscore the need for robust and resilient plans – for the U.S. Navy and its supporting institutions. This study was commissioned by the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) to help shape a strategy for NAWCAD 2.0 using the general context of A2AD. Insights were developed by examining military scenarios and economic comparisons, 2.0 FOR NAWCAD CONSIDERATIONS with due regard to history, technology and the Naval enterprise itself. In turn, several recommendations were made for NAWCAD and other similar institutions, to increase the responsiveness of their decision support environments and hone their ability to adapt quickly to any eventuality. CONSIDERATIONS FOR NAWCAD 2.0 A2AD and the Naval Enterprise Considerations for NAWCAD 2.0 A2AD and the Naval Enterprise Considerations for NAWCAD 2.0 Mr. Keith Gordon Mr. Bob Kavetsky Dr. Elan Moritz Dr. Marcus Jones Mr. Billy Clark An Energetics Technology Center Publication This work was conducted under contract W911NF-07-2-0062, for the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division. This book contains information from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted and credit is given where appropriate. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the authors and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use. The views of this book are solely the views of the authors. No opinions, statements of fact, or conclusions contained in this document can be properly attributed to the Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, military services, or contracting agencies. The data from primary research interviews were provided under the conditions of anonymity and non-attribution, and are de-identified to provide content and character of thought versus identity of authors. Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the Energetics Technology Center (ETC). ETC consent does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from the ETC for such copying. Direct all inquiries to: Energetics Technology Center 10400 O’Donnell Place, Suite 202 St. Charles, MD. 20603 Tel: 301-645-6637 Printed in April 2015 DEDICATED TO The men and women of NAVAIR (the U.S. Navy’s Air Systems Command), including those serving the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, MD. May the accumulation of information and insights in this publication serve to inspire you to advance your thinking and engage leadership with your thoughts and considerations on national security affairs. Your ideas and voice are needed. In addition this publication is dedicated to the men and women of the Armed Services, and in particular the U.S. Navy, who remain vigilant and forward, ever present, ever ready to serve as required. i Abstract One of the most valuable methods of strategic thinking for the 21st century comes from strategic scenario planning. The emergence of insights from game-play is one of the most novel methods of developing foresight - including feasible and pragmatic options that navigate volatile, uncertain, and complex times. In fact, insights gained from scenario planning are the basis of vital preparations for the agile and adaptive organization of the future – where the art of examining the set of “adjacent possibilities” may orient decision makers in a way that no other method can approach. This method is examined for use by U.S. Naval institutions looking to form intelligent strategies and positions for the future. One would be hard pressed to find a more volatile, uncertain, complex and adaptive (VUCA) scenario than that which is presented to our nation and specifically the Department of Defense (DoD) by Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD). In simple terms, A2AD is clearly a counter-measure to the U.S. operational imperative of access. A2AD represents a framework for thinking about avenues of U.S. national security response when any would-be adversary sets geographic and situational conditions that offset U.S. freedom of action in the global commons. An A2AD construct presents a context that highlights viable and antagonistic counter- intervention strategies that an adversary might use in pursuit of their national will, which may be in direct conflict with U.S. interests or U.S. armed forces operating forward. The U.S. Navy has a clear national security mandate and operates at the vigilant forefront of any A2AD response. The U.S. Navy must grapple with the intricacies of such scenarios in advance, should they be called to action to preserve freedom of action and operations in the face of any A2AD plan. Strategic and operational change can have a tail-whip effect on the institutions that support the U.S. Navy, especially considering priorities often emerge in the moment of national need that find the institution unprepared to support with haste. Therefore, A2AD scenarios have certain implications for the Naval Enterprise, and can be used as a significant planning tool for such institutions as the Naval Air enterprise, which is a key component and a vital enabler of any forward DoD strategy. ii The Department of Defense considers modeling and simulation, war- games, table-top scenarios and a multitude of scenario responses when devising operational concepts and plans. One goal is to ensure relevance of current doctrine and its application to operational scales. The Naval Aviation enterprise can leverage this same strategic thinking to develop similar responses and adequately prepare the institution to support a multitude of national security endeavors with a comprehensive and flexible risk management approach to operations, investments, infrastructure, research and development, and of course, acquisitions. This study was conducted for the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, where the Energetics Technology Center completed research that exposed not only the context, history and possibilities with respect to A2AD planning, but current attitudes, perceptions and beliefs of key strategic stakeholders of the enterprise itself. It included novel insights from the examination of the microeconomics of A2AD vis-à-vis China, and the impact of macroeconomics on A2AD strategies, and the confluence of technology and military application. The study provides technological preparation recommendations, and a perspective on how future modeling and simulation endeavors can enhance understanding for future decision making. This report highlights how exploration of high- risk scenarios can yield strategic insights and foresight for future planning - for the Naval enterprise, for U.S. Naval aviation and for our nation. iii Preface An adversary’s capacity to limit or disrupt the U.S. military’s ability to locate and operate within foreign theaters is vital to understand. In this regard, Anti-Access Area-Denial (A2AD) scenarios have U.S. strategists concerned over an array of threatening possibilities. While the U.S. military possesses the wherewithal and position to conquer opposing military conventional force-on-force measures today, it is clear based on many writings on the subject of A2AD that the U.S. would be extremely challenged by many of these scenarios in the future. Adding to the dilemma is the fact that U.S. expeditionary forces have come to rely and depend on the ability to safely gain access and maneuver in theater at operational scales, largely due to unfettered access at-scale for over 70 years since the days of the World War II and the relative ease of maneuvering in foreign waters hence. In this sense, A2AD counter- measures represent a heightened threat to U.S. national security. While the United States continues to have a purposeful “forward presence” abroad, it is largely backed by the U.S. Navy that has operated abroad since its inception. There are subtle indicators that the risk calculus of encountering A2AD applications is changing in terms of likelihood and severity, especially for the U.S. Navy who along with the Air Force, would be “on the point” in the majority of initial and subsequent A2AD circumstances. These risks can be examined systematically. In fact, risk can be unraveled systematically AND contextually at many levels beyond grand-strategic or even warfare planning levels. Risk is of course examined by strategic military planners; however it should also be examined by the U.S. naval enterprise. Institutions that have to support war-fighting, such as the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and one of its organizations, the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), stand to gain considerable advantage from such an examination. Research, game-play and analyses can all be accomplished prior to the manifestation of contingencies, and should be developed more fully for the naval enterprise if a nation is to be prepared and poised with A2AD-related counter-strategies and adaptations for their enterprises, should A2AD scenarios be encountered in an uncertain future. When completed in a comprehensive manner, the institutions of the U.S. Navy stand to gain a considerable perspective on positioning, aiding and iv supporting U.S.