1 of 25

Forecasting the World in 2030

Matt Caffrey

2 of 25

Disclaimer

The following views are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the the Air Force Research Lab, USAF, or the US Government.

3 of 25

Why listen to me?

  • Led Wargaming AFRL – previous positions:
    • Professor of Wargaming, Air Comd & Staff Col
    • Research Associate for wargaming, School for Advanced Airpower Studies
  • Col USAFR (ret.) - USAFR Assignments:
    • Senior Reservist, AFRL, Info Directorate
    • Chief Wargaming, AF/XOOC (Checkmate)
  • Author/Speaker:
    • Co-author Gulf War Fact Book
    • Many articles, chapters, hundreds of talks

4 of 25

Why Should I Listen To You

  • Scenario In Second Draft – Lots of Time to Modify
  • This group is much more knowledgeable then you give yourself credit for, informal (and formal) scholars and in some cases makers of military history.
  • This group is much more intuitive then you give yourself credit for, having fought many, many wars, campaigns and battles.

​

5 of 25

To Begin

As form follows function you need to know a little about our function before you can offer suggestions on the form.

6 of 25

What is the AFRL Wargame?

It is decision support wargame that serves three sets of leaders:

  • HQ US Air Force
  • HQ AF Research Laboratory
  • Concept Leads

7 of 25

The Challenge

Each group of leaders make decisions about different things:

  • HQ USAF: Organize, Train and Equip
  • HQ AFRL: Science and Technology Resource Prioritization
  • Concept Leads: Creating / Optimizing technology enabled capability Concepts

8 of 25

The Challenge

Hence each group of leaders need different things from the wargame:

  • HQ USAF: military utility, adjudication, uses and counters
  • HQ AFRL: military utility
  • Concept Leads: military utility, uses and counters, attribute priorities, feedback on descriptions

9 of 25

Influences on WG Design/Scenario

  • Objectives for HAF Title 10 wargames:
    • Unified Engagement 10
    • Futures Game 11
  • Guidance from past AFRL/CC – QDR threat scope:
    • Irregular
    • Catastrophic
    • Disruptive
    • Traditional
  • Guidance from Concept Leadership – provide context relevant to all depicted concepts
  • Restraints and Constraints
  • There will be war

​

10 of 25

Restraints and Constraints

  • Venue: AFWI 14 – 18 June 2010
  • Budget: about the same as 09
    • Era: 2030
  • Feedback from 09: more granularity, same depth, slightly less breadth
  • Feedback from test: tie scenario closely to concepts
  • Other: Do NOT use a defense planning scenario

​

11 of 25

Design Parameters

Granularity

Depth

Scope

Depth

Scope

Ambush

Engagements

Economics

Sniper

Battles

Campaigns

Wars

Human Factors

Diplomacy

Infrastructure

Logistics

Attrition

Individual (Aircraft, ships, tanks)

Sub-Systems

Squadrons

Components

Joint Task Forces

Sib-Components

Corps

Systems

Parameter

Tradeoffs

For a set amount of time the sum of Scope, Depth and Granularity will remain constant.

12 of 25

Scenario Overview

  • Read ahead: Context – World in year 2028, “example” nations
  • Theater Brief: Theater – problems & opportunities
  • Crisis Brief: Road to crisis in year 2030
    • crisis action planning
  • Move 1: Deterrence
  • Move 2: Defense
  • Move 3: Decisive Engagement
  • Move 4: Counter Offensive
  • Move 5: Stability and Reconstruction

13 of 25

The Road To 2028

  • 2008-2010 The Great Recession
  • The 2010s - The Rise of the Rest
    • Globalization raises living standards – unevenly
    • As # of US patents rise % of world total drops
    • Inflation, mostly worrisome climate changes
    • Impact on example nations
  • The 2020s – “Rise” & Climate Change accelerates
    • Boom in the Arctic
    • Sea level & temperature rise, rain patterns shift
    • Impact on example nations

​

​

13

14 of 25

World in 2028�The Rise of the Rest

  • Demographics: + 2 Billion, but slowing
    • More gray, more urban
  • Climate Change: Temp + 1, Sea level +.3 M
  • Economics: +1/3 standard of living, but uneven
  • Technology: Diffusion and Acceleration
    • Civilian: Cyber Boom, +6 Life Span, Energy
    • Military: Evolution, New High End
  • Political
    • Transparency/International Interest
    • Oppression/E-Democracy

14

15 of 25

Focus Down to one Combatant Command (COCOM)

16 of 25

Theater Brief Phase

  • Inputs (Blue & Red):
    • Brief on Command & Theater
    • Years 2026-2028 “On The Shelf” Plan
    • Concept Descriptions
  • Outputs:
    • Revised/New plan the years 2028-2030
    • S&T IPL List

17 of 25

Crisis Briefing

  • Inputs
    • Road to Crisis
    • Intelligence Briefing
    • Warning Order
    • S&T IPL requests fulfilled
  • Output: Move 1
    • Outline Campaign Plan
    • Detailed Deterrence Phase Plan
    • Preliminary Defense Plan

18 of 25

Defense Phase

  • Inputs:
    • Intelligence Briefing
    • National Command Guidance
  • Output: Move 2
    • Updated to Outline Campaign Plan (if any)
    • Detailed Defense Phase Plan

19 of 25

Decisive Engagement Phase

  • Inputs
    • Intelligence Briefing
    • National Command Guidance
  • Output: Move 3
    • Updated to Outline Campaign Plan (if any)
    • Detailed Decisive Engagement Phase Plan

20 of 25

Counter Offensive Phase

  • Inputs
    • Intelligence Briefing
    • National Command Guidance
  • Output: Move 4
    • Updated to Outline Campaign Plan (if any)
    • Detailed Counter Offensive Phase Plan

21 of 25

Stability & Reconstruction Phase

  • Inputs
    • Intelligence Briefing
    • National Command Guidance
  • Output: Move 5
    • Updated to Outline Campaign Plan (if any)
    • Detailed Stability & Reconstruction Phase Plan

22 of 25

Analysis/Data Capture

  • Lead appointed for Analysis/Data Capture
  • Establish insights needed by each set of leaders
    • Design Analysis Plan to provide insights,
    • Design Data Collection to feed analysis
  • Data Elements to include:
    • Ranking by individuals:
      • Before Event begins
      • If you would refight scenario
      • If you would build force structure for 2022
    • Records of adjudication – especially game truth
    • Team out briefs and record of open discussion
    • Capture Logs & Forms – redesigned and on line
    • Synthetic Histories

22

23 of 25

Hot Wash Prep

  • Final Intel Brief
  • Overview Brief

24 of 25

Feedback to Decision Makers

  • 3 Synthetic Histories
  • 1 to N Rankings of concepts
    • Before, after theater, after global
    • By sets of participants
  • Logs of concept use
  • Reports on each concept

25 of 25

Conclusion

  • Scenario was crafted to serve three sets of decision makers
  • Scenario reflects guidance, goals, restraints and constraints
  • Scenario depicts types of challenges US is likely to face
  • The scenario is a means to an end and can still be shaped to better serve the needs of decision makers