March–April 2012 Volume 26, No. 2 AFRP 10-1 Senior Leader Perspective Energy Horizons ❙ 3 A Science and Technology Vision for Air Force Energy Dr. Mark T. Maybury International Feature The Australian Factor in the United States’ Western Pacific Strategy ❙ 31 Liao Kai Features Building Global Partnerships ❙ 50 112 Gripes about the French Revisited Col Jim Drape, USAF The Combined Bomber Offensive’s Destruction of Germany’s Refined-Fuels Industry ❙ 72 Lt Col Woody W. Parramore, USAF, Retired Departments 90 ❙ Views Common Sense at the Crossroads for Our Air Force . 90 Col Russell J. Smith, USAF, Retired The Downfall of Adaptive Planning: Finding a New Approach after a Failed Revolution . 118 Lt Col John F. Price, Jr., USAF 132 ❙ Historical Highlights Development of Air Doctrine: 1917–41 James L. Cate Editorial Advisory Board Gen John A. Shaud, PhD, USAF, Retired, Air Force Research Institute Lt Gen Bradley C. Hosmer, USAF, Retired Dr. J. Douglas Beason (Senior Executive Service and Colonel, USAF, Retired), Air Force Space Command Dr. Alexander S. Cochran, Office of the Chief of Staff, US Army Prof. Thomas B. Grassey, US Naval Academy Lt Col Dave Mets, PhD, USAF, Retired, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (professor emeritus) Board of Reviewers Lt Col Eric Braganca, USAF Col Merrick E. Krause, USAF, Retired Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland Department of Homeland Security Dr. Kendall K. Brown Col Chris J. Krisinger, USAF, Retired NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Burke, Virginia Dr. Clayton K. S. Chun Dr. Benjamin S. Lambeth US Army War College RAND Dr. Mark Clodfelter Mr. Douglas E. Lee National War College Air Force Space Command Dr. Conrad Crane Dr. Richard I. Lester Director, US Army Military History Institute Eaker Center for Professional Development Col Dennis M. Drew, USAF, Retired Mr. Brent Marley USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Redstone Arsenal, Alabama (professor emeritus) Mr. Rémy M. Mauduit Maj Gen Charles J. Dunlap Jr., USAF, Retired Air Force Research Institute Duke University Col Phillip S. Meilinger, USAF, Retired Dr. Stephen Fought West Chicago, Illinois USAF Air War College (professor emeritus) Dr. Daniel Mortensen Col Richard L. Fullerton, USAF Air Force Research Institute USAF Academy Dr. Richard R. Muller Lt Col Derrill T. Goldizen, PhD, USAF, Retired USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Westport Point, Massachusetts Dr. Bruce T. Murphy Col Mike Guillot, USAF, Retired Air University Editor, Strategic Studies Quarterly Col Robert Owen, USAF, Retired Air Force Research Institute Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Dr. John F. Guilmartin Jr. Lt Col Brian S. Pinkston, USAF, MC, SFS Ohio State University The Pentagon Dr. Amit Gupta Col Bob Potter, USAF, Retired USAF Air War College Pensacola, Florida Dr. Grant T. Hammond Dr. Steve Rothstein USAF Center for Strategy and Technology Colorado Springs Science Center Project Dr. Dale L. Hayden Lt Col Reagan E. Schaupp, USAF Air Force Research Institute Naval War College Mr. James Hoffman Dr. Barry Schneider Rome Research Corporation Director, USAF Counterproliferation Center Milton, Florida Professor, USAF Air War College Dr. Thomas Hughes Col Richard Szafranski, USAF, Retired USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Toffler Associates Lt Col Jeffrey Hukill, USAF, Retired Lt Col Edward B. Tomme, PhD, USAF, Retired Air Force Research Institute CyberSpace Operations Consulting Lt Col J. P. Hunerwadel, USAF, Retired Dr. Christopher H. Toner LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education University of St. Thomas Col Mark P. Jelonek, USAF Lt Col David A. Umphress, PhD, USAFR, Retired Air Force Space Command Auburn University Col John Jogerst, USAF, Retired Col Mark E. Ware Navarre, Florida Twenty-Fourth Air Force Mr. Charles Tustin Kamps Dr. Harold R. Winton USAF Air Command and Staff College USAF School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Dr. Tom Keaney Johns Hopkins University March–April 2012 Air & Space Power Journal | 2 Senior Leader Perspective Energy Horizons A Science and Technology Vision for Air Force Energy Dr. Mark T. Maybury Introduction and Vision The Air Force faces daunting energy challenges that promise only to increase in severity, given the increased global demand for energy, di- minishing global energy supplies, and demands for enhanced environ- mental stewardship. The service spends over $9 billion a year in aviation fuels and over $100 million annually in energy for ground operations associated with space, and tens of millions of dollars in cyber energy to support command and intelligence centers. (Figure 1 shows the pro- portional share of operational energy.) Adversaries increasingly target energy as a center of gravity. To date, more than 3,000 American Sol- diers and contractors have been killed or wounded protecting supply convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan (approximately one life per 30 con- voys), 80 percent of which transported primarily water and fuel. March–April 2012 Air & Space Power Journal | 3 Senior Leader Perspective Aviation 84% Facilities 12% Vehicles and Equipment 4% Figure 1. Cost breakdown of Air Force energy, fiscal year (FY) 2010. (Adapted from Headquarters US Air Force, Air Force Energy Plan 2010 [Washington, DC: Head- quarters US Air Force, 2010], 4, http://www.dm.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD -101202-066.pdf.) The Air Force report titled Energy Horizons: A Science and Technology Vi- sion for Air Force Energy, 2011–2026 is informed by the Department of De- fense’s (DOD) Energy for the Warfighter: Operational Energy Strategy; the Air Force Energy Plan 2010; and the National Aeronautics Research and Develop- ment Plan.1 The Air Force’s energy vision seeks to “make energy a consider- ation in all we do,” including understanding “how energy impacts the Air Force’s critical capabilities: Global Vigilance, Global Reach, and Global Power.”2 Furthermore, the Energy Horizons report offers a vision of “assured energy advantage across air, space, cyberspace and infrastructure.”3 Air Energy The Air Force is the single largest energy user in the DOD. The service uses more than 2 billion gallons of aviation fuel every year, making it the predominant form (84 percent) of energy consumed and creating one of the Air Force’s largest operational expenses. Operational improvements to new platforms such as the C-17 and F-35 come with burn rates 50 percent to 125 percent more than those of legacy platforms such as the C-141 and F-16.4 Figure 2, representing mobility air forces, combat air forces, and spe- cial air forces, depicts the projected fuel burn of the Air Force through 2040. March–April 2012 Air & Space Power Journal | 4 Senior Leader Perspective 3,500 2003–2010 Fuel Reduction Result of Fighter Drawdown 3,000 LARGEST CONSUMERS: Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Baseline: 2.54 Billion Gallons C-17 and F-35 2,500 KC-Y KC-46A KC-135R s 2,000 n 10% from FY 2006 Baseline: 2.29 Billion Gallons o l l a KC-10A G n o i l l i M 1,500 C-17A C-X 1,000 F-16 F-35A F-X 500 F-15E 0 B-1B 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Year Figure 2. Air Force fuel-burn projections. (From Dr. Jackie Henningsen, AF/A9, di- rector, Studies and Analyses, Assessments and Lessons Learned.) In the air domain, the Breguet range equation provides a unifying method for simultaneously measuring the progress of energy effi- ciency, related energy use, and aircraft capabilities:5 Range = In this equation, one can measure improvements to airframe efficiency via increases to the lift-to-drag (L/D) coefficient and reductions in weight of the aircraft (Wpayload + Waircraft). Further, one can measure efficiency gains in propulsion via the specific fuel consumption (SFC) relative to the speed (V). Linking energy to range across these factors establishes a relationship between war-fighter capability and energy-efficiency attributes. Science and technology (S&T) investments in the air domain seek to optimize one or more pertinent elements of the Breguet equation (table 1). These in- clude advancements in aerodynamics, propulsion and power, materials and structures, aviation operations, energy harvesting, and game-changing concepts. Table 1 articulates where the Air Force needs to lead (L); where it should follow (F) by rapidly adopting, adapting, or augmenting the in- vestments of others; and where it should watch (W) investments (other than core mission functions) that it depends upon. March–April 2012 Air & Space Power Journal | 5 Senior Leader Perspective Table 1. Air-energy science and technology Near (FY 11–15) Mid (FY 16–20) Far (FY 21–25) Laminar Flow Fairings (L) Conformal Antennas (F) (Combat Fleet) (L) Laminar Flow Center of Gravity Control (L) (Mobility Fleet) (F) Systems Integration (F) Lift Distribution Control (L) (Mobility Fleet) Winglets, Finlets, Strakes (F) Systems Integration (F) (Combat Fleet) Raked Wings (F) Blended Wing Body (F) Aerodynamics Microvanes (F) X-Wing (F) Lifting Bodies (W) Plasma-Enhanced Drag Reduction (W) Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology Highly Efficient Embedded Turbine Engine Advanced and Nutating (L) (L) Cycles (L) Turbofan Compounding Efficient Small-Scale Propulsion (L) Engine-Specific Improvements (L) (W) Heavy Fuel (F) Subsystem Integration (L) Ultrahigh Bypass (W) Power on Demand (F) Geared Turbofan (F) (Mobility