Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

4 Navy Participation in Capabilities-Based Planning Processes of the OSD and OJCS
Pages 59-72

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 59...
... In that regard, it is important for the Navy to assume a strong role both in shaping the details of the DOD process as it evolves and in structuring Navy program proposals in ways that are responsive to guidance from the Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately, the information provided to this committee indicates that the Navy is not well represented in the DOD joint CBP processes.
From page 60...
... However, current OSD efforts to refine the DOD's emerging capabilitiesbased planning process focus more on the planning and programming of future forces than on fine-tuning the capabilities of current forces. Future force/program planning is the process by which the DOD builds its biennial budget proposals for the funding of future capabilities.
From page 61...
... 2004. Joint Defense Capabilities Study: Improving DoD Strategic Planning, Resourcing, and Execution to Satisfy Joint Requirements, Final Report, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., January, p.
From page 62...
... The analytic heart of this process is the Enhanced Planning Process and its associated Analytic Agenda, which is designed to identify and assess specific elements of DOD's future capabilities for early decision by the Secretary and promulgation in the Joint Programming Guidance, before the Services build their POMs. An additional aspect of the new process worth highlighting is the increased role of the combatant commanders, who are now participating much earlier in the planning cycle than was previously the case.
From page 63...
... formally changing the Joint Staff requirements process by establishing the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)
From page 64...
... Despite extensive rewriting of procedural documents and some improvement in the department's ability to acquire commercial products, the sound systems-engineering practices recommended by the Packard Commission almost two decades ago remain in place: Fly-before-Buy, do milestone reviews, and do careful cost-performance tracking of progress.2 Furthermore, many of the perceived impediments to the use of speedier procurement practices more like those in the commerical world are rooted in congressional requirements for full and open competition, detailed reporting of costs, frequent outside audits, and other steps designed to protect the integrity of the use of taxpayer funds. These considerations, which are firmly embedded in the culture of the DOD acquisition community, have tended to stymie many aspects of proposed acquisition reforms.
From page 65...
... 2004. Joint Defense Capabilities Study: Improving DoD Strategic Planning, Resourcing, and Execution to Satisfy Joint Requirements, Final Report, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., January, p.
From page 66...
... (AT&L) Capability and COCOMs requirements, Requirements Capabilities Analysis Capabilities Tasks Attributes Metrics Functional Joint · · · · Area & , Staff Technology, end-to-end of The COCOMs Services Develop Chiefs Concept 4.3 F of F Joint A T S NI FO Joint OT J FS (Acquisition, I E a H C Strategy Strategic Planning Guidance Defense Planning Scenarios Family Concepts Transformation Concept · · · · Integrating activity Select oversight SecDef FIGURE study
From page 67...
... As a result, there continues to be an extensive follow-on staff effort involving OSD, the Joint Staff, and all Services and agencies led by J8/USD (P) /PA&E (Director for Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment/Under Secretary of Defense for Policy/ 5Joint Defense Capabilities Study Team.
From page 68...
... Supporting Analysis The Navy has a long history of conducting detailed quantitative analysis at several levels of aggregation, in support of both Navy program planning and the operational planning of naval component commanders. The committee was briefed in general on several of the Navy's ongoing analytic efforts, including major campaign analyses of potential future conflicts.
From page 69...
... executive and decision-making process. NOTES: NOC, Naval Operating Concept; SP 21, Sea Power 21; CEB, CNO Executive Board; BOD, Board of Directors; MCP WG, Mission Capability Planning Work Group; JROC, Joint Requirements Oversight Council; JCB, Joint Capabilities Board; FCB, Force Capabilities Board; JWCA, Joint Warfighting Capabilities Assessment.
From page 70...
... More generally, the Navy's force planning analytic activities were not shown to the committee to be linked in any meaningful way with the Aldridge Study's Enhanced Planning Process and its associated Analytic Agenda, endorsed by the Secretary of Defense in October 2003. An Example: Homeland Defense Homeland defense -- that is, the direct defense of the United States against external attack -- is described as the DOD's highest priority.
From page 71...
... This program could be a model for future use as the need to jointly plan future sea basing with the Army and Air Force evolves. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 5: The Chief of Naval Operations should direct that Navy force planning consistently include use of the baseline scenarios (including concepts of operations, threat assessments, and so on)
From page 72...
... In the short term, to make the best possible utilization of resources, a possible solution would be to designate one individual (e.g., the director of the Navy staff) to be responsible for resolving any capabilities-based planning coordination problems within the OPNAV staff.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.