1

Acquiring CapabilitiesJuly 15, 2005

Dr. Glenn F. LamartinDirector, Defense SystemsOffice of the Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

2

Current SituationWhat We Need to Do Better

Requirements• Adapting to changing

conditions• Matching operational needs

with solutions• Overcoming biases of Services

and others• Moving to transform military

Acquisition• Acquiring systems-of-systems• Making system decisions in a joint, mission

context• Transitioning technology• Assessing complexity of new work and

ability to perform it• Controlling schedule and cost• Passing operational tests• Ensuring a robust industrial basePPBES

• Laying analytical foundation for budget

• Aligning budgets with acquisition decisions

Sustainment • Controlling O&S costs• Reducing logistics tails

Personnel and Readiness

• Treating people as a resource

3

A Capabilities Approach to Acquisition

• Extend focus beyond individual system acquisition• Apply a capabilities-based approach

– Make decisions on systems within a capabilities context – Engineer the relationships across the set of systems that

together satisfy the need – Synchronize the interaction among FoS/SoS to satisfy

multiple capabilities • Influence other key Department processes

- Shape strategic guidance- Inform development of joint concepts and requirements- Balance programming guidance

4

DoD End-to-End Capabilities Based Planning Process

• LRIP• FOT&E

• Refined concept

• Analysis of Alternatives

• Technology Strategy

• Systems Engineering Plan

• Affordable military-useful increment

• Technology demonstrated

• Initial KPPs

• Revise KPPs• Detailed

design• System

integration• DT&E/IOT&E

•Capabilities•Tasks•Attributes•Metrics

•Gaps•Shortfalls•Redundancies•Risk areas

• Non-materiel solutions

• Materiel solutions• S+T initiatives• Experimentation

Capabilities Definition

OSD (AT&L)

COCOMs

USMCArmy

Navy

Air Force

DIA

OSD (NII)

OSD (PA&E)

FCB

Capabilities Based AssessmentCapabilities Based Assessment

OSD (AT&L)- led Capability Roadmaps

• LRIP• IOT&E

ConceptDecision

ServicesServices

• FOT&E• Deploy-

ment • Sustain-

ment• Disposal

Full RateProd DRMS “B” MS “C”MS “A”

Technology Development

System Development Producti

onCDD

CPD

Technology Development

System Development Producti

onCDD

CPD

Analysis of Alternatives

Technology Development

System Development ProductionCDD CPD

Functional Area Analysis

Functional Needs Analysis

Functional Solutions Analysis

Capability Based Assessment

Develop Concept ICD

Acquisition and Test

OSD (AT&L, PA&E), Services and OSD (DOT&E), Joint Staff (JROC)

Concept Refinement Opns & Spt

Capability Area Reviews (CARs)

“as is” Roadmaps

SecDef

Strategic Planning Guidance

Strategy

OSD/JCSOSD/JCS

•Strategic Planning Guidance

•Defense Planning Scenarios

•Family of Concepts

•Transformation

Joint Concepts

Joint Requirements Oversight Council

COCOMCOCOM

Incremental Development

Joint Staff / OSD

O&S

5Systems EngineeringSystems Engineering

Systems and Mission IntegrationSystems and Mission Integration Systems AcquisitionSystems Acquisition

Acquisition Engagement

Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution

MS “B” MS “C”MS “A”

IncrementalDevelopment

Technology Development

System Development Productio

nCDD

CPD

Technology Development

System Development Productio

nCDD

CPD

Analysis of Alternatives

Technology Development

System Development ProductionCDD CPD

Functional Area Analysis

Functional Needs Analysis

Functional Solutions Analysis

Strategic Planning Guidance

Joint Concepts

COCOMCOCOM

ICD

ConceptDecision

OSD/JCSOSD/JCS

Capabilities Based AssessmentCapabilities Based Assessment

Capability Area Reviews (CARs)Capability Area Reviews (CARs)

OSD (AT&

L)

COCOMs

USMCArmy

Navy

Air Forc

eDIA

OSD (NII)

OSD (PA&E)

FCB

Support Capability Based Assessments

(FAA, FNA, FSA)Define Relationships with

Related Capabilities, Architectures (e.g., GIG)

Identify alternatives; Trade cost, sched, perf

Identify incremental, system specifications

Determine system performance parameters

and verification plans

Develop, Test, and AssessIncrements of Capability

Demonstrate capabilities meet user needs

Assess system performance against

capability needs

Assess portfolio performance (CAR)

Integrate SoS; Assess Cost, Sched, Perf

Integrate and Test

CapabilityBased

Acquisition

ComponentsComponents

EnterpriseEnterprise

SoSSoS

SystemSystem

OperationalOperational

Full RateProd DR

O&S

6

Key Activity: Capability Area Reviews

USD(AT&L), as DAE, leads reviews of select capability areas to:

• Provide mission area context – from a top-down perspective• Implement capability-based methodology on provider side• Link policy, capability generation, acquisition, and budget

processes• Identify joint solutions and added work to be done (across

DOTMLPF)• Reveal need for management, engineering, and testing across an

area• Help align individual program expectations • Provide basis to set metrics and gauge progress over time• Assess the cumulative effect of individual program decisions

But…wide participation is essential

7

Key Activity: Roadmaps and Roadmapping

Roadmaps provide a framework for decision making –prompt discussion, inform decisions, and capture decisions made

• Lay out Department’s strategic plan considering:- Materiel and non-materiel solutions- Capability that only exists at Family/System-of-Systems level- What to expect from each system- Cross-cutting management, engineering, and testing- Network enablers- Affordability

• Nature of Roadmaps will vary by topic• Start with the “as is” and show where we want to go

But… must balance decisions across capability areas

8

Air Complementary Platforms:AH-64UH-60CH-47A2C2S

Ground Complementary PlatformsLand WarriorM-1 TankM-2 BradleyFire SupportStrykerFCS

Key Activity: System Decisions in Context

Replacing:OH-58D

Weapons: .50 cal/7.62 mm Guns 2.75” Rockets Hellfire

ISR: JSTARS AWACS GPS AMPS ABCS DCGS-A GCSSA

Supporting Platforms: C-17A C-130(J)

C-5

Hosting Platforms LHA/D

Net Centric Warfare: IDM BFT Have Quick SATCOM SINCGARS JTRS (Cluster 1) Link-16 (w/JTRS)

Arrow to ARH denotes receiving other program’s technology or capabilityArrow from ARH denotes technology or capability recipients from ARH

SOLID DENOTES CURRENT SYSTEMDASH DENOTES FUTURE SYSTEM

Capability Area: FORCE APPLICATIONRoadmaps: Army Aviation Modernization PlanMOSA Rating: SatisfactoryPerformance issues with interface

Current schedule and performance support fielding

Performance and schedule coordination required for future systems

OSD DAES Rating: C S P Not Rated Fielded(Service rating *)

Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter

9

System-of-Systems (SoS) Systems Acquisition Functions

• Align expectations of AT&L, the Joint Staff and the Services for joint capability to be fielded over time (requirements, etc)

• Synchronize efforts/programs across the Services to produce the desired capabilities (e.g., development activities, testing)

• Conduct systems engineering and integration across Service and joint programs to ensure interoperability

• Develop and execute properly phased and focused test and evaluation plans for SoS components and overall joint capability

• Establish mechanism for allocating resources among component programs and activities – including making needed tradeoffs

• Coordinate activities in all the DOTMLPF areas, to create the enablers associated with fielding a capability in packages (hardware, software, training, spares, etc.)

• Sustain capability over time

10

SoS Example: Integrated Air and Missile Defense Challenges

2010 Joint Engagement Zone Single Integrated Air Picture Combat ID Integrated Fire Control Automated Battle Management Aids

11

As of 1 Apr 04

FY 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Sensors:JLENSE -2AEGISMRRSE -3E -8E -10MP -RTIP

Weapons:PAC -3 (PATRIOT)MEADSSLAMRAAMF/A -18F -35ERAM/SM6CLAWSF -15F -16F/A -22AIM -120

Battle Management:AMDC2CAC2SAOC

Networks/C2:CECJTRSMIDST -SATGIG -BEDoD TeleportNCES

Critical Asset Defense

Limited Area Defense

Theater Area Defense

(AWACS 30/35 - 40/45)

(JSTARS)

(MIDS)

(Suite 5M)

(C -7)

(F/A -18)

(Block 1)

9/30 9/16

4/30

12/1

8/15 9/30

12/10 9/13

A/C #16Delivered

3/31

MS B DU#16/1

9/30

CDR2/1

9/30

1/1

4/30MC

8/30

12/15

9/30

12/1

FUE6/1

9/30

6/1

3/25 5/30

10/1

9/1

4 th

Qtr4 th

Qtr

1/19/15Cluster 2

8/1 10/3Cluster 3 & 4Cluster 2FUE

Cluster 5 FUE

12/1

10/30 10/1

9/30

9/30

1/1

MS B

MS B7/1

MS C 2/11 st a/c

10/30

AWACS 30/359/30

PDB 69/30

9/30

(40/42)

8/1

AWACS 30/35(GATORS Inc 1)

6/30MS C

9/30FUE

4/30AF

4/15USN

LegendIOC –FOC –Other Key Dates –SIAP Blk 0 Implementation –IFF Mode 5 Implementation –Development Timeline –Kill Chain Ellipse –

LegendIOC –FOC –Other Key Dates –SIAP Blk 0 Implementation –IFF Mode 5 Implementation –Development Timeline –Kill Chain Ellipse –

Notional - for Illu

strative Purposes

*Version 1

Sys

tem

sC

apab

ilitie

sSoS Example: Integrated Air and Missile Defense Roadmap

12

Current Challenges

• Plan for a budget constrained environment and impact on potential solutions – new vs. re-engineered vs. DOTMLPF

• System complexity and interdependency is increasing – Family of Systems and System of Systems interdependencies

• Balancing joint needs with cost and schedule • Demand for network centric capability drives higher levels of

program coordination• Development of capabilities that do not fit well in current

management structures• Effective application of systems engineering to streamline

acquisition process and meet performance objectives• Maintaining an expert workforce, trained for the above

challenges