Capability Planning and Analysis to Optimize
Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance Investments
Committee on Examination of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Capability Planning and Analysis (CP&A) Process
Air Force Studies Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This is a report of work supported by Grant FA 9550-11-1-0126 between the U.S. Air Force and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-25814-2
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-25814-6
Limited copies of this report are available from: |
Additional copies are available from: | |
Air Force Studies Board | The National Academies Press | |
National Research Council | 500 Fifth Street, NW | |
500 Fifth Street, NW | Keck 360 | |
Washington, DC 20001 | Washington, DC 20001 | |
(202) 334-3111 | (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 | |
http://www.nap.edu |
Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This page intentionally left blank.
COMMITTEE ON EXAMINATION OF THE AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR) CAPABILITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS (CP&A) PROCESS
BRIAN A. ARNOLD, Raytheon Company, Co-Chair
LAWRENCE J. DELANEY, Titan Corporation (retired), Co-Chair
COLLIN A. AGEE, U.S. Army
MELANI AUSTIN, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
THOMAS J. BURNS, Science Applications International Corporation
PAMELA A. DREW, TASC
RAND H. FISHER, The Aerospace Corporation
KEITH R. HALL, Booz Allen Hamilton
LESLIE F. KENNE, LK Associates
ROBERT H. LATIFF, R. Latiff Associates
TERRY P. LEWIS, Raytheon Company
MICHAEL A. LONGORIA, The RAND Corporation
PAUL F. McMANAMON, Exciting Technology, LLC
MATT L. MLEZIVA, Wildwood Strategic Concepts, LLC
GERALD F. PERRYMAN, JR., Independent Consultant
JONATHAN M. SMITH, University of Pennsylvania
Staff
CARTER W. FORD, Study Director
GREGORY EYRING, Senior Program Officer
SARAH M. CAPOTE, Research Associate
ZEIDA PATMON, Program Associate
AIR FORCE STUDIES BOARD
GREGORY S. MARTIN, GS Martin Consulting, Chair
PAMELA A. DREW, TASC, Vice Chair
BRIAN A. ARNOLD, Raytheon Company
CLAUDE M. BOLTON, JR., Defense Acquisition University
STEVEN R.J. BRUECK, University of New Mexico
THOMAS J. BURNS, Science Applications International Corporation
FRANK J. CAPPUCCIO, Cappuccio and Associates, LLC
DONALD C. FRASER, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (retired)
MICHAEL J. GIANELLI, The Boeing Company (retired)
DANIEL E. HASTINGS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
PAUL G. KAMINSKI, Technovation, Inc.
ROBERT H. LATIFF, R. Latiff Associates
NANCY G. LEVESON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MARK J. LEWIS, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute
LESTER L. LYLES, The Lyles Group
MATT L. MLEZIVA, Wildwood Strategic Concepts, LLC
C. KUMAR N. PATEL, Pranalytica, Inc.
GERALD F. PERRYMAN, JR., Independent Consultant
RICHARD V. REYNOLDS, The VanFleet Group, LLC
J. DANIEL STEWART, University of Tennessee
REBECCA WINSTON, Winston Strategic Management Consulting
Staff
TERRY J. JAGGERS, Director
MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Deputy Director
DIONNA C. ALI, Senior Program Assistant
JESSICA R. BROKENBURR, Financial Assistant
SARAH M. CAPOTE, Research Associate
GREGORY EYRING, Senior Program Officer
CARTER W. FORD, Program Officer
CHRIS JONES, Financial Manager
ZEIDA PATMON, Program Associate
MARGUERITE E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Coordinator
DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Program Officer
Preface
Prior to 2009 the U.S. Air Force did not have a comprehensive approach for investing in and acquiring intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. In 2009, the Air Force developed and implemented the ISR Flight Plan to focus Air Force needs on future ISR capabilities and has subsequently renamed this approach Capability Planning and Analysis (CP&A), which shares characteristics of, but does not equate to, the Air Force development planning process.1 In 2011, the Air Force requested that the National Research Council (NRC), under the auspices of the Air Force Studies Board (AFSB), undertake a study to improve this process, specifically to provide the Air Force foundational analytics to aid decision making, especially in light of overall future defense spending. In response to this request, the NRC established the Committee on Examination of the Air Force ISR CP&A Process. Biographical information for the committee members is provided in Appendix A. The terms of reference for the study are presented in Box 1-1 in Chapter 1.
The AFSB was established in 1996 as a unit of the NRC at the request of the U.S. Air Force. The AFSB brings to bear broad military, industrial, and academic scientific, engineering, and management expertise on Air Force technical challenges and other issues of importance to senior Air Force leaders. The board discusses potential studies of interest, develops and frames study tasks, ensures proper project planning, suggests potential committee members and reviewers for reports produced by fully independent ad hoc study committees, and convenes meetings to examine strategic issues. The board members were not asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they review the final draft of this report
______________
1U.S. Air Force. 2010. Development Planning Guide. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Materiel Command Directorate of Intelligence and Requirements. June.
before its release, although board members with appropriate expertise may be nominated to serve as formal members of study committees or as report reviewers.
The committee thanks the many people who provided it with information for the study, including the guest speakers shown in Appendix B, their organizations, and supporting staff members; and others, including the study sponsors Dr. Steven Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering, and Lt Gen Larry James, Deputy Chief of Staff for ISR, and their staff members.
Brian A. Arnold, Co-Chair
Lawrence J. Delaney, Co-Chair
Committee on Examination of the Air Force
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(ISR) Capability Planning and Analysis (CP&A) Process
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
William P. Delaney, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory,
Ronald P. Fuchs, Independent Consultant,
Richard L. Garwin, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center,
Mark Lewis, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute,
Anthony Metoyer, The Boeing Company,
Thomas E. Romesser, Northrop Grumman Corporation (retired),
Peter B. Teets, U.S. Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office (retired), and
Alan R. Washburn, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review
of this report was overseen by Julia M. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, and Robert J. Hermann, U.S. Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office (retired). Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Contents
1 INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE CHALLENGES FACING THE AIR FORCE
Committee Formation and Terms of Reference
Scenarios That May Guide Air Force ISR Force-Planning Processes
Regionally Specific (Traditional) Scenarios
Global (Non-Traditional) Scenarios
Homeland Security-Based Scenarios
Historical Development of the Air Force ISR Planning Process
The Core Function Lead Integrator Construct
The Current Air Force ISR Capability Planning and Analysis Process
The Core Function Lead Integrator Process
Space Superiority and Cyberspace Superiority Core Function Master Plans
Integration of Air Force Core Function Master Plans
Linkages Between the Air Force and the Intelligence Community
Examples of Government Processes for Providing Capability Planning and Analysis
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Examples of Industry Processes for Providing Capability Planning and Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
Acronyms
A2/AD |
anti-access/area denial |
ACC |
Air Combat Command |
ACL |
Achievable Capabilities List |
AF |
Air Force |
AF/A2 |
Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for ISR |
AFCS |
Air Force Corporate Structure |
AFI |
Air Force Instruction |
AFISRA |
Air Force ISR Agency |
AFMC |
Air Force Materiel Command |
AFROC |
Air Force Requirements Oversight Council |
AFSPC |
Air Force Space Command |
AOA |
analysis of alternatives |
AOC |
Air Operations Center |
APPG |
annual planning and programming guidance |
ARFORGEN |
Army Force Generation |
|
|
BA |
Battlespace Awareness |
BA CIB |
Battlespace Awareness Capabilities Integration Board |
BAH |
Booz Allen Hamilton |
BAPA |
Battlespace Awareness and Portfolio Assessment |
BCT |
Brigade Combat Teams |
BES |
Budget Estimate Submission |
BMDS |
Ballistic Missile Defense System |
|
C2 |
command and control |
C4I |
command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence |
CA&P |
capability assessment and planning |
CADD |
Capability Area Deep Dive |
CAPE |
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation |
CART |
Capabilities Analysis Requirements Tool |
CASA |
Communications Architecture Systems Assessor |
CBA |
Capabilities-Based Assessment |
CBP |
capability-based planning |
CBPfM |
Capabilities-Based Portfolio Management |
CDD |
Capability Description Document |
CDRUSSTRATCOM |
Commander, U.S. Strategic Command |
CET |
Capabilities Effectiveness Tool |
CFLI |
Core Function Lead Integrator |
CFMP |
Core Function Master Plan |
CJCS |
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff |
CJCSI |
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction |
CNO |
Chief of Naval Operations |
COCOM |
Combatant Command |
COIN |
counterinsurgency |
COMINT |
communications intelligence |
CONOPS |
concept of operations |
CoP |
community of practice |
COTS |
commercial off-the-shelf |
CP&A |
Capability Planning and Analysis |
CPM |
Capability Portfolio Manager |
CRD |
Capabilities Requirements Document |
CRRA |
Capability Review and Risk Assessment |
CSA |
Coalition Situational Awareness |
CSAF |
Chief of Staff of the Air Force |
DAWG |
Deputy’s Advisory Working Group |
DCGS |
Distributed Common Ground Station |
DCR |
DOTMLPF Change Recommendation |
DMZ |
Demilitarized Zone |
DNI |
Director of National Intelligence |
DoD |
Department of Defense |
DOTMLPF |
Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel and Facilities |
DOTMLPF-P |
Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy |
DOT_LPF |
non-material analysis |
DPRK |
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea |
DRU |
Direct Reporting Unit |
|
|
E/CCA |
Element/Component Characterizations for Analysis |
EEI |
essential elements of information |
EFDS |
Expeditionary Force Development System |
ELINT |
electronics intelligence |
EMD |
Engineering and Manufacturing Development |
EO |
electro-optical (imaging) |
ESA |
electronically scanned array |
|
|
FCB |
Functional Capabilities Board |
FOA |
Field Operating Agency |
FY |
Fiscal Year |
FYDP |
Future Years Defense Program |
|
|
GAO |
Government Accountability Office |
GIISR |
Global Integrated ISR |
GMTI |
ground moving target indicator |
GOTS |
government off-the-shelf |
|
|
HAF |
Headquarters (U.S.) Air Force |
HLS |
Homeland Security |
HIS |
hyperspectral imaging |
HUMINT |
human intelligence |
|
|
IC |
intelligence community |
ICD |
Initial Capabilities Document |
IED |
improvised explosive device |
IPL |
integrated priority list |
IR |
infrared |
IROC |
Intelligence Readiness Operations Capability |
ISAR |
Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar |
ISCA |
Integrated Sensor Coverage Area |
ISR |
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance |
ISR-CART |
ISR Capabilities Analysis Requirements Tool |
ITW |
integrated tactical warning |
|
JBA |
Joint Battlespace Awareness |
JCA |
Joint Capability Area |
JCIDS |
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System |
JFC |
Joint Functional Concept |
JFCC |
Joint Functional Component Command |
JOC |
Joint Operations Center; Joint Operating Concept |
JROC |
Joint Requirements Oversight Council |
JTF |
Joint Task Force |
JUON |
Joint Urgent Operational Need |
JWICS |
Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System |
|
|
M&S |
modeling and simulation |
MAJCOM |
Major Command |
MCO |
Major Combat Operations |
MDA |
Milestone Decision Authority; Missile Defense Agency |
MGA |
Multi-resolution Gap Analysis |
MI |
Military Intelligence |
MIP |
Military Intelligence Program |
MO |
Mission Overwatch |
MOE |
measures of effectiveness |
MOP |
measures of performance |
MOU |
measures of utility |
MRA |
Multi-Resolution Analysis |
MSA |
modeling, simulation, and analysis |
MSI |
multispectral imager |
MTI |
Moving Target Indicator |
|
|
NCDP |
Naval Capabilities Development Process |
NGA |
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency |
NGC |
Northrop Grumman Corporation |
NIIRS |
National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scale |
NIP |
National Intelligence Program |
NMS |
National Military Strategy |
NRC |
National Research Council |
NRO |
National Reconnaissance Office |
NSA |
National Security Agency |
NTISR |
non-traditional ISR |
|
|
OCO |
Overseas Contingency Operation(s) |
ORS |
Operationally Responsive Space |
OSD |
Office of the Secretary of Defense |
OUSD(AT&L) |
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics |
OUSD(I) |
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence |
|
|
PAA |
Persistent Area Assessment |
PCL |
Prioritized Capability List |
PCPAD |
planning and direction, collection, processing and exploitation, analysis and production, and dissemination |
PDA |
Problem Definition and Approach |
PED |
processing, exploitation, and dissemination |
Pk |
probability of kill |
PLA |
People’s Liberation Army |
POC |
point of contact |
POM |
Program Objective Memorandum |
PoR |
Program of Record |
PP&R |
Portfolios, Programs, and Resources |
PPBES |
planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system |
|
|
QDR |
Quadrennial Defense Review |
QRC |
Quick Reaction Capabilities |
|
|
R&D |
research and development |
RCS |
radar cross section |
RMD |
resource management decision |
ROK |
Republic of Korea |
RPA |
remotely piloted aircraft |
|
|
SAR |
synthetic aperture radar |
SCADA |
supervisory control and data acquisition |
SCF |
Service Core Function |
SEA |
Strategic Environmental Assessment |
SEAS |
System Effectiveness Analysis Simulation |
SECAF |
Secretary of the Air Force |
SECDEF |
Secretary of Defense |
SETA |
Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance |
SID |
Situation Development |
SIGINT |
signals intelligence |
SIPRnet |
Secret Internet Protocol Router Network |
SLRG |
Senior Level Review Group |
SMC/XR |
Space and Missile Systems Center, Directorate of Development Planning |
SME |
subject matter expert |
SOAP |
Satellite Orbit Analysis Program |
SSDR |
security system dynamically reconfigurable |
STK |
Satellite Tool Kit® |
SYSSIM |
System Simulation |
|
|
TASC |
The Analytical Sciences Corporation |
TCPED |
Tasking, Collection, Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination |
TOA |
Total Obligation Authority |
TOR |
terms of reference |
TPED |
tasking, processing, exploitation, and dissemination |
|
|
UGS |
unattended ground sensor |
UON |
urgent operational need |
USAF |
United States Air Force |
USCYBERCOM |
U.S. Cyber Command |
USN |
United States Navy |
USSTRATCOM |
U.S. Strategic Command |
|
|
VCJCS |
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff |
VCSAF |
Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force |
|
|
WIP |
Warfighter Involvement Process |
WMD |
weapons of mass destruction |
Wx |
weather |