全球智库信息集成服务系统

• The USAF's vision for its future must inform any alternative roles and mission courses of action that it seeks to pursue.
• It remains unclear whether future DAF, USAF, and USSF visions, narratives, and concepts will be fully integrated or simply aligned.
• In spite of Joint All-Domain Operations and Joint All-Domain Command and Control, the USAF lacks a narrative that clearly explains how it will generate airpower in a contested anti-access/area denial environment.
• There is no single trigger for RMF disputes, but interservice tensions are most commonly associated with ownership of new capabilities or control of a major function.
• Major DoD reorganization and RMF reform efforts have failed more often than not.
• Defense agencies are not traditionally considered part of the RMF debates but compete with the services for equities and resources.

The formal decisions, documents, and events that established the roles, missions, and functions (RMF) of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the military services in the early postwar years are over 70 years old. Although the foundational documents and agreements have been modified, the original division of labor among the services remains largely unchanged, and a fundamental reassessment of RMF may be in order. At least two services—the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the U.S. Army—envision themselves as the principal integrator of All-Domain Operations. Additionally, the creation of the U.S. Space Force (USSF) raises RMF issues both within the Department of the Air Force (DAF) and across the services.

In this report, the authors identify RMF disputes that have endured as problems for the USAF, some factors associated with major RMF events, and reasons why reform efforts have often failed. The authors have crafted a framework for analyzing the RMF implications of strategic-level guidance, such as the 2018 National Defense Strategy, emerging operational concepts, and the creation of the USSF. The key question for USAF leaders is whether the existing framework is fundamentally sound (requiring only modest adjustments), whether it should be replaced by another agreement that would recast RMF assignments, or whether narrowly defined responsibilities are a hindrance to agility and innovation and should be scrapped entirely. The authors present their findings and recommendations, considering how the vision that USAF leaders choose for the service's future will influence the relative attractiveness of possible courses of action.

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  Overview of Roles, Missions, and Functions in the Department of Defense

• Chapter Three

  Implications for Roles and Missions of the National Defense Strategy and Emerging Warfighting Concepts

• Chapter Four

  Roles and Missions Implications of Alternative USAF Visions

• Chapter Five

  Findings and Recommendations

• Appendix A

  History of Major Department of Defense Roles and Missions Events

• Appendix B

  Overview of Enduring USAF–U.S. Army RMF Disputes

• Appendix C

  U.S. Marine Corps Force Design 2030: Process Lessons for USAF Planners

• Appendix D

  Title 10 Service Responsibilities and Department of Defense Functions Identified in Department of Defense Directive 5100.01