rev 18 May 0900

1. Capability Area ReviewLand Attack WeaponsOctober 12, 2004Clay DavisStaff Specialist, OUSD(AT&L) Defense Systems, Air Warfare rev 18 May 0900

2. Capability Area Reviews • Capability Area Reviews – new process • Provide Department leadership an overall context and understanding of a mission area • Acquisition and management of net centric, systems-of-systems, and interdependent systems • Aligns with the capability focus implemented in the requirements process • Critical link to roadmaps • Shape the Department’s acquisition vision

3. Capability Area Reviews • So far, in 2004 • Integrated Air & Missile Defense • Land Attack Weapons Review • Joint Battle Management, Command and Control • In the works • Electronic Warfare • Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

4. DOD End-to-End Requirements, Acquisition, and Test Process Technology Development System Development Technology Development System Development Production CPD CPD Production CDD CDD • Refined concept • Analysis of Alternatives • Technology Development Strategy • Affordable military-useful increment • Technology demonstrated • Initial KPPs • DT&E • Revise KPPs • Detailed design • System integration • IOT&E • Strategic Planning Guidance • Defense Planning Scenarios • Family of Concepts • Transformation Capabilities Based Assessment • LRIP • FOT&E • Non-materiel solutions • Materiel solutions • S+T initiatives • Experimentation • Capabilities • Tasks • Attributes • Metrics • Gaps • Shortfalls • Redundancies • Risk areas MS “A” MS “B” MS “C” activity Functional Area Analysis Functional Needs Analysis Functional Solutions Analysis Select a Joint Integrating Concept Develop Concept Analysis of Alternatives Technology Development System Development ICD Production CPD CDD Capability Based Assessment Evolutionary or Spiral Development OSD (AT&L)-Led Roadmaps Army Navy USMC FCB COCOMs Air Force OSD (AT&L) DIA OSD (NII) OSD (PA&E) COCOMs, Services oversight SecDef OSD (AT&L, PA&E), Services and OSD (DOT&E) -- Joint Staff (JROC) Joint Chiefs of Staff & Joint Requirements Oversight Council JS/OSD/Services Joint Staff (OSD) Acquisition and Test Concept Refinement Requirements Policy * Per DoDI 5000 and CJCSI 3170

5. Focus of this Presentation • Land Attack Weapons Review • Laying foundation for Conventional Engagement Capabilities Roadmap • Exploring the land attack weapons portfolio to adequately address where we are, where do we want to be, what do we need to get there • IPT members include Services, OSD Offices, Joint Staff, Defense Agencies, COCOM Reps

6. Land Attack Weapon Portfolio GPS & Comm 10100100110000111011000 010111011000010100010101000011110001110101101101001001011000 ISR • Large Portfolio • Army, Navy, and Air Force • Air-, ground-, and sea-launched • Precision capability (INS/GPS, seekers, etc) • Direct attack to long range standoff • Prosecute fixed, relocateable, and moving targets 010100011001010101110 01011011100011001010101110 11001010101110 WCMD 010101010101010110001010100001101110110010001010111 JSOW 01010100010101001010101010001010100001101110110010 0101010110101010101010101000011011011001010111111001111001101010101 0101010010101010100010101000011011101100001 LGB SLAM-ER Maverick JDAM SDB JASSM Hellfire JCM 010101010101010110001010100001101110110010011011101 ATACMS Tomahawk

7. IDA Attributes/Metrics Conventional Engagement Capability Roadmap Munitions Database J-8 Analysis Tool Land Attack Weapon Review Process Flow Service Weapon System Roadmaps IIPT Continue to Review Capability Concerns (key weapons, gaps, and redundancies) and Cross-Weapon Programmatic Issues OIPT DAB Service Capability Roadmaps Force Application Functional Capabilities Board Working Group 1st order functional needs assessment and recommendations Functional Capabilities Board Joint Capabilities Board Joint Requirements Oversight Council Precision Engagement Architecture ADM Tasking Resource Allocation Decisions Strategic Programming Guidance Mid-level Review (as required) PPBES Requirements Acquisition Budget

8. Products of the Review • Highlighted capability concerns • Force Application Working Group/Functional Capability Board assessed selected aspects of the portfolio for gaps and redundancies • Explored cross-weapon programmatic issues • Issues common across the weapon portfolio, both current and projected • Offered framework for future commonality and jointness

9. Capability Concerns • Dealing with limited budgets • What is the best use of taxpayer dollar? • Weapons design/performance are not the primary issue • What gaps or overages exist in capability? • First order assessment of gaps/redundancies • Do we have sufficient capability against moving/flexible targets? • Do we have sufficient capability against area targets?

10. Moving Moving Moving Moving Armored Semi-hard Soft Small Targets Targets Targets Boats 44 44 46 46 55 55 48 48 44 46 55 48 Weapon A 19 19 25 25 55 55 48 48 19 25 55 48 Weapon B 17 17 22 22 29 29 12 12 17 22 29 12 Weapon C 20 20 20 25 25 25 30 30 30 15 15 15 Weapon D 20 22 26 18 20 20 22 22 26 26 18 18 Weapon E 20 20 22 22 26 26 18 18 20 22 26 18 Weapon F 21 21 24 24 25 25 19 19 21 24 25 19 Weapon G 23 23 23 26 26 26 28 28 28 21 21 21 Weapon H 36 40 45 47 36 40 45 47 36 40 45 47 Weapon I 49 49 50 50 54 54 33 33 49 50 54 33 Weapon J 44 44 50 50 56 56 32 32 44 50 56 32 Weapon K 31 37 52 28 31 37 52 28 31 37 52 28 Weapon L 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 49 49 49 Weapon M 71 71 71 71 71 71 43 43 71 71 71 43 Weapon N 37 37 37 42 42 42 53 53 53 34 34 34 Weapon O 36 36 36 48 48 48 59 59 59 67 67 67 Weapon P 36 36 52 52 58 58 68 68 36 52 58 68 Weapon Q 65 61 57 69 65 65 61 61 57 57 69 69 Weapon R 67 63 59 71 67 67 63 63 59 59 71 71 Weapon S 62 62 60 60 58 58 63 63 62 60 58 63 Weapon T 63 63 63 61 61 61 59 59 59 65 65 65 Weapon U 59 59 59 59 58 58 62 62 59 59 58 62 Weapon V 55 55 59 59 59 59 65 65 55 59 59 65 Weapon W 55 55 55 59 59 59 59 59 59 65 65 65 Weapon X 51 51 51 65 65 65 63 63 63 75 75 75 Weapon Y 50 65 63 71 50 50 65 65 63 63 71 71 Weapon Z 88 88 88 89 88 88 88 88 88 88 89 89 Weapon AA 89 89 88 88 87 87 93 93 89 88 87 93 Capability Assessments SSpk Internal carriage • Subject Matter Experts from each Service assign Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) performance values to each weapon • Metrics defined –quantitative or qualitative • Produces a context-less understanding of weapon capabilities • Apply weighting to each metric, MOE and attribute • Allows context to highlight “value to warfighter” • Produces a database of capability strengths and weaknesses • Results are captured in “spider charts” and tables • “Spiders” reveal capability comparisons • Table provides rolled up weapon “Scores” • By target • Numeric value is subjective, but indicates firstorder comparisons Loadout Employment Means Collateral Damage Maximum Effective Range Guidance Responsiveness Networked Environment Operational Flexibility Countermeasures Flight Out Profile

11. Decision Opportunity: Capability Concerns • Assessment results for moving target weapon development • Current inventory is not ideal for movers • New development programs (Joint Common Missile & Small Diameter Bomb Increment II), ifaffordable, are wise investments • Assessment results for area submunition weapons • Large inventory; primarily direct attack • Continued concern with unexploded ordnance • Can we accept risk without standoff capability? • Services asked to make case for future standoff area weapons production

12. Products of the Review • Highlighted capability concerns • Force Application Working Group/Functional Capability Board assessed selected aspects of the portfolio for gaps and redundancies • Explored cross-weapon programmatic issues • Issues common across the weapon portfolio, both current and projected • Offered framework for future commonality and jointness

13. Cross-Weapon Programmatic Issues • GPS upgrades • Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) • Fuzes • Anti-tamper • Sustainment and logistics; identification tags • Thermal batteries • Insensitive Munitions (IM) • Variable warhead/energetics • Battlespace awareness • Munitions Requirements Process • Unexploded ordnance • Weapons datalinks • Targeting; Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) • Weapons Operational Test assessments • Universal Armament Interface (UAI) • Test and training ranges • Industrial base/production strategies

14. Products of the Review • Highlighted capability concerns • Force Application Working Group/Functional Capability Board assessed selected aspects of the portfolio for gaps and redundancies • Explored cross-weapon programmatic issues • Issues common across the weapon portfolio, both current and projected • Offered framework for future commonality and jointness

15. Framework for Jointness and Commonality • Conventional Engagement Capability Roadmap and the shared munitions database • Must be kept current • Provides framework for planning; prompts, informs, and reflects decisions • Service initiatives • Joint-Service Air Armaments Summit • Potential for joint weapon capability office(s) • Co-location or virtual • Land Attack Weapons Review IIPT continues • Using JCIDS in parallel to assess capability areas

16. Way Ahead for Capability Area Reviews • Continue to refine process for Capability Area Reviews • Look to on-going area-wide reviews as pathfinders • Apply the process to other capability areas • Traditional • Non-traditional

17. USD(AT&L) Imperatives • “Provide a context within which I can make decisions about individual programs.” • “Achieve credibility and effectiveness in the acquisition and logistics support processes.” • “Help drive good systems engineering practice back into the way we do business.”

18. 010100011001010101110 01011011100011001010101110 11001010101110 WCMD 010101010101010110001010100001101110110010001010111 JSOW 01010100010101001010101010001010100001101110110010 0101010110101010101010101000011011011001010111111001111001101010101 0101010010101010100010101000011011101100001 LGB SLAM-ER Maverick JDAM SDB JASSM Hellfire JCM 010101010101010110001010100001101110110010011011101 ATACMS Tomahawk What We Need to Do Better? Requirements • Adapting to changing conditions • Matching operational needs with systems solutions • Overcoming biases/stovepipes • 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 base Budget/Resources • Laying analytical foundation for budget • Aligning budgets with acquisition decisions Sustainment • Controlling Operations & Support costs • Reducing logistics tails Personnel and Readiness • People as a resource

19. Back-up Charts

20. IPT Members • Currently ninety two members • Represent all Services, including acquisition, requirements, and users • Associate lead is Joint Staff (J8), support from other J codes • D,OT&E and NGA representation • All Service laboratories • USD/ASD offices, including NII, I, P, AT&L