Over the past several years, operational requirements for rated officers (operators) have outpaced the Air Force’s legacy operator development construct. Originally, the operator construct was based solely on pilots. Over time, this shifted to a rated construct. More recently, the rated construct has evolved to the term aircrew. This gradual shift in terminology and construct—coupled with a shift in operations, a reduction of force, continued shortages of rated staff and experience, reductions in rated/aircrew production, and emerging career fields (remotely piloted aircraft and cyberspace)—have created significant force development challenges in the Air Force. Further-more, Air Force operators and...

Over 270 active duty (officer and enlisted) personnel and Department of the Air Force civilians, representing all three domains from 17 different organizations, participated in the symposium (figs. 1 and 2). In addition, 14 general officers participated as attendees, guest speakers, or panel members (fig. 3). The ranks of the participants ranged from staff sergeant to general.

The symposium consisted of 14 working groups/seminars made up of from 16 to 18 participants from each of the domains (air: manned and unmanned; space: missiles and space systems; cyber: network operations and communications; combat systems officer; special operations; air battle manager; and...

The first challenge for the symposium attendees was to determine a definition of a future operator. Of the 14 workshops, 13 provided recommendations (annex A). Although each workshop functioned independently, several of them shared commonalities of an operator definition. Specifically, the workshops believed a definition of an operator should include the following five key elements (fig. 4). An operator should be able to

Operate or Control a Weapon System

Effectively employ a weapon system

Operate in networks

Interact with other operations

Remain focused

Possess ability to interface

Delegate authority

Possess ability to employ a weapon system

Be governed by the...

Following the development of a definition of an operator, the workshops discussed operator competencies. In the context of the “Future Operator Symposium,” competencies are demonstrated knowledge, skills, and abilities (developed through education, training, and experience) needed to successfully perform particular tasks. At the tactical level, competency development is usually focused on technical proficiency and the mastery of a particular weapon system. The obtained expertise provides the foundation for future cross-domain operator development.

Each workshop independently determined the essential cross-domain competencies that an operator must have for success in a joint environment. An abundance of data resulted. However, synthesizing the inputs...

Cross-domain operator development should be a deliberate process that is supported by a balance of training, education, and assignments. Furthermore, this developmental process should not diminish or marginalize an individual’s foundational technical and tactical development. Individuals should remain focused on mastering their weapon system in whatever domain(s) the system operates. Therefore, the transition point from a specific weapon system to the cross-domain environment should occur after the mastery is complete which is approximately at the 10-year point. This coincidently equates to the time an individual attends an intermediate developmental education school such as Air Command and Staff College (ACSC).

Once...

Three major philosophies were offered to construct a force development model. The first recommendation is that the cross-domain operator development model be based on five pillars: offensive, defensive, domain and battlespace awareness, culture, and leadership. Development would include education, training, and experience in each of the five major areas.

Another primary focus is actually a combination of the following considerations:

1. Don’t lessen the primary expertise.

2. Develop professional education and exchanges with other branches, domains, government organizations, and foreign militaries.

3. Include elements of cross-domain awareness into such PME schools as Airman Leadership School, Noncommissioned Officer Academy, Senior Noncommissioned officer Academy, Squadron...

Patch wearers are the pinnacle of today’s operators; the operator is the Weapons School graduate. However, badges do not define the future operator. Future operators can be either rated or nonrated, officer, or enlisted. There needs to be a shift from current thinking of who is an operator.

To fully integrate the notion of a cross-domain operator, the culture of the Air Force must change. The Air Force will move towards a more representative leadership structure. It must value and reward the cross-domain operator and have a paradigm shift away from having all senior leaders being just specialists or just...

The cross-domain force development construct should become imbedded in the Air Force culture as a deliberately managed, valued, and rewarded career progression. However, it should not be implemented to detract from an operator’s technical/tactical development. It is imperative that an operator specialize in his or her own weapon system before going in to the cross-domain operator certification program.

The cross-domain training, education, and experiential developmental program should build on the operator’s primary domain. The force development path for the future cross-domain operator should not be limited to education. Developers should implement a path through application, experience, and information with multiple...