Air Force CONOPS & Capabilities Based Planning

1. UNCLASSIFIED Air Force CONOPS & Capabilities Based Planning Lt Col Nathan Titus Resource Analyses Directorate Air Force Studies & Analyses Agency 19 Mar 04 UNCLASSIFIED

2. UNCLASSIFIED Overview • Capabilities Based Planning Background • Challenges to Implementation • Recent Efforts in Air Force Capabilities-Based Planning • Observations/Recommendations UNCLASSIFIED

3. UNCLASSIFIED Capabilities-Based Planning Background • Focus on “possibilities” vs.. “specific validated threats” • Central question must be “What do I need to do to achieve desired effects?” vs.. “How many of each system do I need?” • Goal is to plan for robust, flexible forces, capable of meeting a wide variety of threats, rather than an “optimal” force for a narrow set of threats “[P]lanning, under uncertainty, to provide capabilities suitable for a wide range of modern-day challenges and circumstances while working within an economic framework that necessitates choice.” Paul K. Davis, Analytic Architecture for Capabilities-Based Planning, Mission-System Analysis, and Transformation, MR-1513-OSD UNCLASSIFIED

4. UNCLASSIFIED Challenges to Implementation • Fundamentals: • Defining terms: Effects and Capabilities • Understanding the role of scenarios • Analytic Issues: • Proficiency vs. Sufficiency • What do we mean by “Risk”? • What does it cost? • Determining priorities • Organizational Challenges UNCLASSIFIED

5. UNCLASSIFIED Fundamentals • Defining effects and capabilities • Effects are associated with a desired Outcome or Result • Capabilities are Non-solution Specific – Describe What must be done to achieve Effects • Fix the level to create common perspective • Avoid overlaps, redundancy • Identify relationships • Role of scenario • Scenarios needed to provide context for capability assessment • Suite of scenarios/vignettes must span the range of potential conflicts in all dimensions (political, geography, intensity, etc) • In resource constrained environment, best solution is robust across all scenarios – not an optimal solution to a point scenario which may never occur UNCLASSIFIED

6. UNCLASSIFIED Effect Effect Capability Capability Capability Sub- Capability Sub- Capability Sub- Capability Sub- Capability Sub- Capability Fundamentals:Defining Effects and Capabilities Master Capability List Effects Construct Capability 1 Capability 2 Sub- Capability Sub- Capability Sub- Capability Sub-Sub- Capability Sub-Sub- Capability Sub-Sub- Capability Sub-Sub- Capability Sub-Sub- Capability Sub-Sub- Capability • Functional decomposition of capabilities • Collectively Exhaustive and Mutually Exclusive • Provides a “menu” from which all CONOPS can choose required capabilities • Builds on Master Capability List • Links capabilities to effects • Explicitly identifies crosslinks and interdependencies between capabilities • Highlights “enabler” capabilities

7. UNCLASSIFIED C8 C5 C1 C6 C3 C7 C2 C4 Analytic Issues: Defining Risk • Risk is derived from two independent assessments • Our capability to deal with events or to provide effects (y axis) • The severity of impact of the event if we fail to provide the capability (x axis) • Risk concept not strictly ORM • No attempt to determine the probability of adverse event (no validated data exists, this is left to senior leadership judgement) • Measures capability to achieve required effects Capability Severity of Impact

8. UNCLASSIFIED Analytic Issues:Capability Proficiency vs. Sufficiency • Answering questions like “How much capability do we have?” or “How much capability do we need?” leads to two different looks at capability • Proficiency – “how well” • e.g., radar detection range • Sufficiency – “how many” • Force Structure • Proficiency • Key scenario elements are adversary and location • Amenable to subjective or objective analysis techniques • Sufficiency • Key scenario elements are time related – how fast to arrive and how long to sustain • Best addressed with an objective, quantitative analysis technique UNCLASSIFIED

9. UNCLASSIFIED Gen Jumper’s “Sight Picture” Concepts of Operations (CONOPS) ... will guide our planning and programming, requirements reform, and acquisition. ...make warfighting effects, and the capabilities we need to achieve them, the drivers for everything we do. ... shift from a program review to a review of how our programs contribute to warfighting capabilities and effects. …Air Staff designed a new review to replace the ‘Quarterly Acquisition Review Program’--we call this new approach a Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment (CRRA).

10. UNCLASSIFIED Using the MCLExample Data Collection Tool

11. UNCLASSIFIED Determine Environment Assess Cue(s) Determine Sensor Availability Task Sensor Collect Data Detect Target Track until Stopped Geolocate Target ID Target Update Target List Assign weapon to target Update Mission Plans Issue Execution Order Support Weapon Flyout DDD Target Deconflict target Task BDI / BHI Collect BDI / BHI Assess BDI / BHI Remove from Target List Using the MCL Example Activity Diagram (Time Sensitive Targeting)

12. UNCLASSIFIED Using Value FunctionsWhen More is Better • Elicitation - in units of the measure • Is more of this good or bad? • When can’t you do it with less? • What is good enough? • When does more not matter? More doesn’t matter Good Enough • Example – More is better • Measure: Detection range • Units of measure: NMI • Can’t do with less than 250 NMI • Good enough is 500 NMI • Over 1000 NMI doesn’t matter Can’t do it with less

13. Global Strike CONOPS Homeland Security CONOPS Global Mobility CONOPS Nuclear Response CONOPS Space & C4ISR CONOPS Air Force CONOPS ConstructFocus for Planning & Programming UNCLASSIFIED Global Vigilance Global Reach Global Power Joint Vision USAF Vision Air & Space Expeditionary Forces Global Persistent Attack CONOPS Agile Combat Support UNCLASSIFIED

14. UNCLASSIFIED Integrated CRRA Analysis Process Overview Phase 2B – Analysis (Leveraging Existing Efforts & New Focused Work) Phase 3 – Apply Professional Military Judgment Phase 1 - Foundations Define Master Capability Library Define Scenarios Pair-wise Comparisons Warm Database Mining Architecture-Based Thread Analyses Define CONOPS Activity Models Define Metrics CRRA Briefing Trail CONOPS-Specific Analyses Product: Focus Areas List Product: Prioritized Courses of Action Product: Candidate Courses of Action Product: Capability Performance Framework Assess Proficiency Phase 2C – Analysis (Characterization and Optimization of Solutions) Product: Planning and Programming Guidance to MAJCOMS (APPG) Assess Sufficiency Assess Impact Characterization of Resource Constraints Characterization of Warfighting Effects Phase 2A – Analysis (Subjective Assessment) Optimization of Alternatives

15. UNCLASSIFIED Relationship of Assessments

16. UNCLASSIFIED CONOPS MCL Connection to Joint Functional Concepts Joint Functional Concepts Battlespace Awareness Joint Cmd & Ctrl Force Application Protection Focused Logistics AF CONOPS Capabilities 1.0 Surveillance & Reconaissance 3.0 Command & Control 5.0 Force Application 7.0 Protect 6.0 Force Projection 2.0 Intelligence 4.0 Communications 8.0 Prepare & Sustain 9.0 Create the Force

17. UNCLASSIFIED Observations/Recommendations • Measuring individual capabilities is not difficult; comparing the value/worth of different capabilities is the hard part • Scenarios are still important! Maybe even more important than in threat-based planning • Difficult to measure DOTLPF solutions vs. M solutions – need techniques to help do this • Definitions are important – build consensus early! • Rigorous application of a framework is necessary but not sufficient for success UNCLASSIFIED

18. Summary UNCLASSIFIED • The USAF is moving forward to establish Capabilities Based Planning as the foundation for how we conduct business in the future • A constant communication between HQ/AF and MAJCOMs essential to understand contributions to warfighter, investment strategies to mitigate shortfalls and capability priorities • Our task: make warfighting effects, and the capabilities needed to achieve them, the drivers for everything we do UNCLASSIFIED

19. Back Up

20. Analytic Issues:Cost • Linking capabilities to cost demands a discussion of solutions – Should you even talk about costs? • Decision makers need the input, but leads to other questions: • What cost to use? NPV, LCC, Acquisition, O&M? • How are currently owned systems valued? • Will this approach stifle innovation? • Bottom line is that we need to analyze solutions and costs, but do the capability analysis up front to ensure we are solving the most important problems

21. UNCLASSIFIED C8 C5 C1 C2 0 0 0 0 0 C6 C7 C3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C4 Analytic Issues:Determining Shortfall Priorities • Determining “Importance” of capability shortfalls • How extensive is the shortfall? • What is the impact if not fixed? • How much of the Air Force is affected? • No well-defined set of tools/models exists – need objective & subjective tools as well as military judgment • Sensitivity Analysis • Multiattribute Utility Analysis Prioritized Shortfalls Combine with Risk Assessment Scores Determine Weights Shortfall priority = f(shortfall importance, risk, cost) UNCLASSIFIED

22. Methodology • Build Master Capability Library for all CONOPS • Each CONOPS describes desired effects and capabilities required to achieve these effects • Capabilities drawn from MCL to facilitate later integration • Interdependencies and linkages between capabilities are explicitly defined in each CONOPS • From CONOPS descriptions (above), effects construct built to aid subjective determination of “effects drivers”: • Effects linked to capabilities, sub-capabilities • Weights associated with the contribution of a capability or sub-capability determined by SME or from quick-turn analysis tools • Weights are developed in the context of an overarching scenario • Risk Assessment Charts – Depicts capability assessment vs.. severity of impact for capability in the context of an overarching scenario • Integration is straightforward extension when common capability definitions and overarching scenarios are used – Required additional assumption is that all CONOPS Effects are of equal value

23. Master Capability List (1 of 2) 1.0 Data Collection 2.0 Intelligence 3.0 Command & Control 4.0 Communications 1.1 Surveillance (Un-Cued Continuous Collection) 2.1 Process and Exploit Intel 3.1 Planning 4.1 Exchange Information 1.2 Reconnaissance (Cued Search, Focused Coll.) 2.2 Provide Intel Assessments 3.2 Execution Management 4.2 Provide for Data Storage and Retrieval 1.3 Collect Weather Related Information 3.3 Provide Positioning, Navigation, Timing Information 4.3 Provide Network Damage Assessment & Reconstitution

24. Master Capability List (2 of 2) 5.0 Force Application 6.0 Full Spectrum Threat Response 7.0 Combat Support 8.0 Mobility 5.1 Countermeasures 6.1 Protect the Force 7.1 Establish Operating Locations 8.1 Airlift 5.2 Neutralize Air Threats/Targets 6.2 Provide Support for Civil Authorities 7.2 Generate the Mission 8.2 Air Refueling 5.3 Neutralize Space Threats/Targets 6.3 Defensive Information Operations 7.3 Support Mission and Forces 8.3 Space Lift 5.4 Neutralize Surface Threats/Targets 7.4 Posture Responsive Forces 5.5 Neutralize Sub-Surface Threats/Targets 7.5 Sustain Mission and Forces 5.6 Offensive Information Operations 7.6 Public Affairs 5.7 Combat Search and Rescue

25. Global Mobility CONOPS:Notional Example (1 of 2) 1.0 Data Collection 2.0 Intelligence 3.0 Command & Control 4.0 Communications 1.1 Surveillance (Un-Cued Continuous Collection) 2.1 Process and Exploit Intel 3.1 Planning 4.1 Exchange Information 1.2 Reconnaissance (Cued Search, Focused Coll.) 2.2 Provide Intel Assessments 3.2 Execution Management 4.2 Provide for Data Storage and Retrieval 1.3 Collect Weather Related Information 3.3 Provide Positioning, Navigation, Timing Information 4.3 Provide Network Damage Assessment & Reconstitution

26. Global Mobility CONOPS:Notional Example (2 of 2) 5.0 Force Application 6.0 Full Spectrum Threat Response 7.0 Combat Support 8.0 Mobility 5.1 Countermeasures 6.1 Protect the Force 7.1 Establish Operating Locations 8.1 Airlift 5.2 Neutralize Air Threats/Targets 6.2 Provide Support for Civil Authorities 7.2 Generate the Mission 8.2 Air Refueling 5.3 Neutralize Space Threats/Targets 6.3 Defensive Information Operations 7.3 Support Mission and Forces 8.3 Space Lift 5.4 Neutralize Surface Threats/Targets 7.4 Posture Responsive Forces 5.5 Neutralize Sub-Surface Threats/Targets 7.5 Sustain Mission and Forces 5.6 Offensive Information Operations 7.6 Public Affairs 5.7 Combat Search and Rescue

27. Global Mobility Effects Construct Rapid Projection of Joint Power 0.4 0.6 7.0 Combat Support 8.0 Mobility 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 Data Collection 3.0 Command & Control 4.0 Comm 6.0 FSTR 8.1 Air Lift 8.2 Air Refueling 8.3 Space Lift 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.3 Collect Weather Info 3.1 Planning 3.3 Nav, Pos, & Timing 7.1 Establish Operating Location 7.2 Generate the Mission 4.1 Exchange Information 4.2 Data Storage 4.3 Network Damage Assess 5.1 Defensive Countermeasures 3.2 Execution Management 7.3 Support the Mission 6.1 Protect the Force 7.4 Posture the Force

28. Crosscutting Analysis:Using the Effects Construct • Determination of contribution weights for each node can be done by separate pairwise comparisons or by M&S • Contributions to each node sum to one to keep scale consistent Effect A Effect B Effect C Effect D 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 Capability 6 Capability 1 Capability 2 Capability 3 Capability 4 Capability 5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.2 Sub-Capability 1.1 Sub-Capability 2.1 Sub-Capability 2.2 Sub-Capability 3.1 Sub-Capability 4.1 Sub-Capability 4.2 Sub-Capability 6.1