Capability Area Review Land Attack Weapons Capability Area

Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons Capability Area Review Land Attack Weapons October 12, 2004 Clay Davis Staff Specialist, OUSD(AT&L) Defense Systems, Air Warfare 1 rev 18 May 0900

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

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

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

Focus of this Presentation Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons • 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 5

Land Attack Weapon Portfolio. GPS & Comm 01 011 1 1 110 001 100 10 010 101 001 000 011 10 10 01 00 11 00 00 11 10 00 00 Capability Area Review – Land Attack 00 Weapons 0101 ISR 0 011 1110 1 1001010 01 01 101110 01 01 01 10 0 01 01 0 10 110 00 WCMD 01 10 11 10 01 01 01 11 00 10 00 1 111 10 10 0 01 00 10 00 0 1 010 01 0 101 01 010 10 0 010 101 00 10 10 SLAM-ER 11 10 LGB 10 0 00 11 01 001 10 1011000101010 11 1 10 1010 JASSM 0101010 011 00 1 0111 1110 1011 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 JSOW 01 00 1 0 0001 1010 101 0 0101 1101 010 01 1100 110 • • • 01 1001 01 010 01 1 0 01010 1001 10001 111 010110 111000 01 1 0001101100 1001101 Tomahawk Hellfire JCM JDAM SDB Maverick 6 ATACMS

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

Products of the Review Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons • 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 8

Capability Concerns Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons • 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? 9

Capability Assessments Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons 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 Loadout Employment Means Collateral Damage Maximum Effective Range Guidance Responsiveness Networked • Apply weighting to each metric, MOE and attribute Operational Flexibility Environment – Allows context to highlight “value to warfighter” Countermeasures Flight Out Profile Moving – Produces a database of capability strengths Soft Small Semi-hard Armored Targets Boats Targets 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 first order comparisons Weapon A Weapon B Weapon C Weapon D Weapon E Weapon F Weapon G Weapon H Weapon I Weapon J Weapon K Weapon L Weapon M Weapon N Weapon O Weapon P Weapon Q Weapon R Weapon S Weapon T Weapon U Weapon V Weapon W Weapon X Weapon Y Weapon Z Weapon AA 44 19 17 20 20 20 21 23 36 49 44 31 68 71 37 36 36 65 67 62 63 59 55 55 51 50 88 89 46 25 22 22 24 26 40 50 50 37 68 71 42 48 52 61 63 60 61 59 59 59 65 65 88 88 55 55 29 30 26 26 25 28 45 54 56 52 68 71 53 59 58 57 59 58 59 59 63 63 88 87 48 48 12 15 18 18 19 21 47 33 32 28 49 43 34 67 68 69 71 63 65 62 65 65 75 71 89 93 10

Decision Opportunity: Capability Concerns Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons • 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), if affordable, 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 11

Products of the Review Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons • 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 12

Cross-Weapon Programmatic Issues Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons – 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 13

Products of the Review Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons • 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 14

Framework for Jointness and Commonality Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons • 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 15

Way Ahead for Capability Area Reviews Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons • 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 16

USD(AT&L) Imperatives Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons • “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. ” 17

What We Need to Do Better? Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons 0 1 110 0101 01 111 10 10 00 10 0 01 00 1 10 10 00 0 1 010 01 0 101 01 010 10 0 010 101 00 10 10 11 10 10 011 00 1 0111 1110 1011 001 10 101 0 1 0 0001 101 01 1 0 010 1101 010 1001 01 0101 10111 010110 Acquisition Requirements 01010 0 1 111000 1 0 0 1 1100101 01 0101110 01 0 10 • Adapting to changing conditions • Acquiring systems-of-systems 10 10 1 • Matching operational needs with 011 • 000 Making system decisions in a 10 10 WCMD 10 systems solutions joint, mission context 00 01 10 11 • Overcoming biases/stovepipes • Transitioning technology 10 11 • Moving to transform military • Assessing 001 complexity of new 00 JSOW 01 01 to perform it work and ability 01 11 • Controlling schedule and cost Budget/Resources • Laying analytical foundation for • Passing operational tests • Ensuring a robust industrial base budget LGB SLAM-ER • Aligning budgets with acquisition decisions Sustainment Maverick JDAM • Controlling Operations & SDB Support costs JASSM Personnel and Readiness Hellfire • Reducing logistics tails 0101010 JCM 0 00 11 01 1100 110 101 1100010101000 0110110010 • People as a 10 resource 01101 Tomahawk 18 ATACMS

Back-up Charts Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons 19

IPT Members Capability Area Review – Land Attack Weapons • Currently ninety two members • Represent all Services, including acquisition, requirements, and users • Associate lead is Joint Staff (J 8), support from other J codes • D, OT&E and NGA representation • All Service laboratories • USD/ASD offices, including NII, I, P, AT&L 20