Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 24
2
The Current State of the Air
Force Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance
Investment Planning Process
INTRODUCTION
As discussed in Chapter 1, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
capabilities enable the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to be aware of developments related
to adversaries worldwide and to conduct a wide variety of critical missions, both
in peacetime and in conflict. An idealized picture of a global, integrated ISR sys-
tem is shown in Figure 2-1. It involves a networked system of systems operating in
space, cyberspace, air, land, and maritime domains. These systems include planning
and direction, collection, processing and exploitation, analysis and production,
and dissemination (PCPAD) capabilities linked together by a communications
architecture. As suggested in Figure 2-1, different ISR systems may be required in
permissive, contested, and highly contested environments.
Although this idealized "enterprise" picture of global, integrated ISR systems
is highly desirable, it is not yet treated as an enterprise.1 ISR systems in different
domains tend to be owned and operated by different governmental agencies for the
accomplishment of their own particular missions, and even systems operating in
the same domain often do not communicate with one another. There is no coordi-
1Enterprise" is defined as the set ofall U.S. ISR capabilities operating in multiple domains, irrespec-
tive of which U.S. agency or organization owns the capability, that are capable of informing decision
makers at all levels about the activity of an adversary or potential adversary.
24
OCR for page 25
C u r r e n t S tat e of the A i r F o r c e ISR I n v e s t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s 25
FIGURE 2-1 Global, integrated intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operational view.
NOTE: Acronyms are defined in the list in the 2-1.eps
front matter. SOURCE: Col Scot Gere, Chief, GIISR Core
Function Team. "Core Function Lead Integrator (CFLI) Construct and GIISR Capability, Planning, and
bitmap
Analysis." Presentation to the committee, January 25, 2012.
nated planning process in place among the many organizations that are stakehold-
ers in ISR systems, and consequently no true enterprise architecture for ISR exists.
This state of affairs is hardly surprising. Generally speaking, the intelligence
community (IC) controls the planning and acquisition of national space assets
and assets for collecting the various "INTs" (e.g., SIGINT [signals intelligence],
HUMINT [human intelligence], among others), while the Air Force and the other
military services focus on organizing, training, and equipping forces with ISR ca-
pabilities in space, air, and cyberspace (see Box 2-1).2 Planning and budgeting for
ISR missions among these agencies and services are generally done independently;
even within a single agency the ISR planning and acquisition programs are often
stovepiped, with the resulting systems lacking the standards and common com-
munications systems that would enable them to operate in the coordinated fashion
depicted in Figure 2-1.
2The IC is composed of 17 member organizations and includes the National Reconnaissance
Office, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency. For more information, see http://www.intelligence.gov/about-the-intelligence-
community/member-agencies/. Accessed May 24, 2012.
OCR for page 26
26 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
BOX 2-1
The Cyberspace Domain
Cyberspace, a relatively new and rapidly evolving operational domain for the Department of
Defense (DoD) and the military services, is defined as "a global domain within the information envi-
ronment consisting of the interdependent network of information technology infrastructures, includ-
ing the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and
controllers."a ISR can be substantially augmented or hindered in the cyberspace domain. ISR sensors
can be augmented by the ability of cyber information to provide geolocation information and move-
ment information on adversarial and friendly systems. This capability can allow sparse assets to be
deployed elsewhere or to obtain information more effectively, allowing rapid, minimal observations.
Cyberspace is human-made, which makes the cyber domain different from the natural domains of
air and space, although cyber capabilities can exist in all natural domains. Components, subsystems,
and systems exist in the cyber domain: these include networks, globally integrated and isolated;
physical infrastructure; electronic systems; portions of electromagnetic systems;b and industrial
control systems known as "SCADA" (supervisory control and data acquisition) systems. The latter
are computer systems that monitor and control industrial, infrastructure, or facility-based processes.
Beyond these definitions, the committee offers the view that any asset with computational capa
bility--including avionics and flight control systems, tactical communications and data links, and
command-and-control systems onboard and off-board--should be considered to be in the cyber
domain.
aDoD. 2010. "Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Joint Publication 1-02).
8 November. As amended through 15 October 2011." Available at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.
pdf. Accessed February 6, 2012.
bDoD. 2007. "Electronic Warfare." Joint Publication 3-13.1. Available at http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/
jp3-13-1.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2012.
The Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for ISR (AF/A2) and others desire
that the Air Force conduct its ISR Capability Planning and Analysis (CP&A) pro-
cess at an enterprise level rather than on a system-by-system basis.3 To produce
optimum capability, the Air Force wishes to treat ISR data and information as a
system-of-systems enterprise. Such an enterprise needs to be composed of end-to-
end solutions that include all the elements of PCPAD--planning and direction,
3On a system-by-system basis, individual ISR systems are considered in isolation from other ISR
systems. The result may be that an ISR system other than the one in question may sufficiently provide
the sought-after capability requirement, thus obviating a new acquisition need. Conversely, the system
in question may not be needed at all in view of the contribution of another system not considered.
Further, the combination of otherwise independently acting systems may together solve the capability
requirement. Conversely, in an ISR enterprise, all relevant ISR systems are considered regardless of
ownership as long as their capability contributes to understanding an adversary or potential adversary.
OCR for page 27
C u r r e n t S tat e of the A i r F o r c e ISR I n v e s t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s 27
UATION
EVA L
DISSEMINATION PLANNING
AND AND
INTEGRATION DIRECTION
MISSION
ANALYSIS
AND COLLECTION
PRODUCTION
PROCESSING
AND
EXPLOITATION
A ND K
FEEDB A C
FIGURE 2-2 The intelligence process. SOURCE: Department of Defense. 2007. Joint Intelligence.
2-2.eps
Joint Publication 2-0. Washington D.C.: Department of Defense. Available at http://www.fas.org/
irp/DoDdir/DoD/jp2_0.pdf.
collection, processing and exploitation, analysis and production, and dissemina-
tion--referred to by the Joint Staff as the intelligence process, or the Joint Intel-
ligence Cycle (see Figure 2-2).4 Deficiencies in any PCPAD element can reduce the
effectiveness of the overall intelligence cycle.5,6 For example, as the Air Force is
painfully aware, it does little good to acquire the capability to collect data from a
wide-area aerial surveillance system if those data cannot be processed and turned
into actionable information within a recognized time period of usefulness.
One of the major issues posed by the integration of new technologies into an
existing mix of ISR systems is sustainability. For example, the protracted conflict
in Southwest Asia and the demands of the kind of the counterinsurgency (COIN)
4DoD. 2007. Joint Intelligence. Joint Publication 2-0. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense.
Available at http://www.fas.org/irp/DoDdir/DoD/jp2_0.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2012.
5For additional information on the PCPAD process, see Jesse Flanigan, 2011, "Intelligence Sup-
portability Analysis for Decision Making." Available at http://spie.org/documents/Newsroom/
Imported/003661/003661_10.pdf. Accessed February 27, 2012.
6GAO. 2011. "Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance: Actions Are Needed to Increase
Integration and Efficiencies of DOD's ISR Enterprise." Available at http://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-11-465. Accessed July 28, 2011.
OCR for page 28
28 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
warfare fought there caused the combatant commander to require a large number
of quick-reaction capabilities (QRC) and new ISR capabilities. This quick-reaction,
or "Urgent Operational Need" (UON) process worked well in delivering to the
warfighter important operational capabilities, but the process is not sustainable in
the long run. Because many QRC projects result in the fielding of new technologies
and systems for which there is little experience and for which long-term sustain-
ability is an unknown, the costs and difficulties in repairing, training for, supplying,
and otherwise supporting a host of one-of-a-kind systems are large challenges for
the military services.7 With the conflict now diminishing, the Air Force needs to
determine if it should--or how it should--permanently bring these new capabili-
ties, such as non-traditional ISR (NTISR), into its ISR enterprise.8,9 The Deputy
Chief of Staff of the Air Force for ISR recently noted:
The Air Force will take "a year or two" to decide whether to keep, expand, or jettison a vari-
ety of "boutique" intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance capabilities created as ad-hoc
solutions to special needs during the past 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . These
"quick-reaction capability" programs, such as Gorgon Stare and Blue Devil, to name just
two, "need to play out" a while longer so USAF can determine if they are worth the expense
of continuing. . . . Gorgon Stare vastly increases the ISR "take" from an MQ-9 Reaper, for
instance, but the Air Force is staggering under the weight of the data the systems are gener-
ating. . . . Gorgon Stare and Blue Devil generate "53 terabytes a day" of data, equivalent to
"12 years of video". . . . Collectively, . . . USAF's high-definition video systems are generat-
ing six petabytes, or "80 years" of high-def video a day. USAF will have to invest heavily in
processing, exploitation, and distribution systems to keep up with the flow, and will need
lots of analysts skilled at synthesizing "all source" ISR. . . .10
7A report from the National Research Council (NRC) identifies the long-term sustainment of rapid
prototypes as a potential major issue. NRC. 2009. Experimentation and Rapid Prototyping in Support
of Counterterrorism. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
8"Non-traditional ISR" is defined as follows: "NTISR is the concept of employing a sensor not
normally used for ISR as part of an integrated collection plan developed at the operational level for
preplanned, on-call, ad hoc, and/or opportune collection." SOURCE: USAF. 2007. Air Force NTISR
Functional Concept.
9The Vice Commander of the Air Combat Command used another example of the need for an ISR
Capability Planning and Analysis process that can bend and adjust existing programs of record so that
they produce capabilities that take advantage of NTISR. He noted that while new fighter aircraft have
immensely powerful ISR collection capability, they lack the ability to get the ISR information into
the hands of those who can use it. "This requires changes in both material and non-material ways in
such areas as command and control, data links, processing and dissemination. The Air Force has known
this for over a decade, but the ability to describe and adjust to changes to make this NTISR capability a
reality has not developed. A faulty CP&A process could be a major factor in why this failure has occurred"
[emphasis added]. SOURCE: Lt Gen William Rew, Vice Commander, Air Combat Command. Personal
communication to the committee, January 25, 2012.
10John Tirpak. 2012. "Boutique ISR," Air Force Magazine, February 16. Available at http://www.
airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2012/February%202012/February%2016%202012/
BoutiqueISR.aspx. Accessed March 22, 2012.
OCR for page 29
C u r r e n t S tat e of the A i r F o r c e ISR I n v e s t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s 29
According to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI)
3170.01G, there are three key Department of Defense (DoD) processes--that is,
the requirements process, the acquisition process, and the planning, programming,
budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process--that need to work in concert to deliver
the capabilities required by the warfighter.11 Each process is ongoing, and keeping
all three synchronized has been problematic. The Air Force has long used a variety
of methods and tools to evaluate and inform its ISR requirements, acquisition, and
PPBE decisions. To ensure that these three key processes are more synchronous, the
Air Force has recently undertaken steps to improve its ISR CP&A process. These
efforts have gone a long way toward developing more rigor and collaboration in
the identification of operational needs and the acquisition of systems.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
ISR PLANNING PROCESS
In 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) called for the DoD to
have an integrated ISR enterprise architecture and framework for providing and
considering trade-offs among future potential investment alternatives.12 This ac-
tion has yet to be taken, although the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Intelligence) (OUSD[I]) announced in 2010 its intention to create a Defense Intel-
ligence Mission Area Enterprise Architecture. A June 2011 GAO report noted the
lack of an implementation plan and time line for this new enterprise architecture.13
Any Air Force enterprise ISR perspective and architecture would have to be con-
sistent with this Defense Intelligence Mission Area Enterprise Architecture when
it is developed. The magnitude of this challenge is depicted in Figure 2-3, which
shows the number of organizations that have some responsibility for ISR. The Air
Force is but one, albeit large, ISR capability provider to the nation. Decisions made
regarding Air Force ISR capabilities need to take into account the organizations
listed in Figure 2-3. Many of these key organizations are responsible for creating,
evaluating, and using Air Force ISR capabilities.
In providing ISR capabilities, the Air Force is required to make investment
decisions that recognize that the requirements for its ISR capabilities come either
11CJCSI. 2009. "Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System." CJCSI 3170.01G.
Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives/cdata/
unlimit/3170_01.pdf. Accessed February 27, 2012.
12GAO. 2008. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance: DoD Can Better Assess and Integrate ISR
Capabilities and Oversee Development of Future ISR Requirements. Available at http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d08374.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2012.
13GAO. 2011. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance: Actions Are Needed to Increase Integra-
tion and Efficiencies of DOD's ISR Enterprise. Available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-465.
Accessed July 28, 2011.
OCR for page 30
30 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
Director of National Intelligence
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence designated as Director
of Defense Intelligence in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Community National Intelligence Community
members: members:
· Defense Intelligence Agency · Central Intelligence Agency
· National Security Agency · Department of Homeland Security
· National Reconnaissance Office · Department of Energy
· National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency · Department of the Treasury
· Military Service Intelligence Branches · Department of State
(Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps) · Federal Bureau of Investigation
· Drug Enforcement Agency
· Coast Guard
DOD ISR Enterprise
Provides capabilities in support of missions across
the defense and national intelligence communities
FIGURE 2-3 The relationship of the Department of Defense's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnais-
2-3.eps
sance (ISR) enterprise to the intelligence community. SOURCE: GAO. 2011. Intelligence, Surveillance,
And Reconnaissance: Actions Are Needed to Increase Integration and Efficiencies of DOD's ISR Enter-
prise. Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11465.pdf.
from Joint combatant commanders or from the nation's top-level decision makers.
In the DoD, capability development requirements are vetted through two principal
processes, the Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON)/Urgent Operational Need
(UON) process and the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System (JCIDS)
process, as they become formalized and validated by senior decision makers in the
DoD. The distinction, in principle, is that the JUONs and UONs are intended to be
schedule-constrained and limited in scope, size, and potential performance, with a
focus on speed to need. The normal process, JCIDS, is intended to ensure rigorous
analysis and study in defining the capability need before entering the technology
development phase of the acquisition process.
1. JUONs and UONs from the Combatant Commands (COCOMs) or service
Major Commands (MAJCOMs) are prioritized by the COCOM/MAJCOM
leaders and sent to the Joint Staff and the military services to prioritize and
provide solutions according to a "time to field" focus, with a target of less
than 12 months to field a solution.
2. In the JCIDS, or the military service-specific capabilities development
process for non-Joint requirements, Initial Capabilities Documents (ICDs)
OCR for page 31
C u r r e n t S tat e of the A i r F o r c e ISR I n v e s t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s 31
document the required capabilities needed following a Capabilities-Based
Assessment (CBA) methodology. In the Joint Staff, the J8 runs the JCIDS
process. In the Air Force, the AF/A5 runs the corporate capabilities process
through the Air Force Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC), with the
Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force (VCSAF) validating any recommenda-
tions. In both JCIDS and Air Force processes, MAJCOMs or COCOMs
sponsor the requirements into the processes.
Requirements are formally documented in ICDs and Capabilities Description
Documents (CDDs) that must be validated by either the Joint Requirements Over-
sight Council (JROC), which is chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff (VCJCS), or the VCSAF. The JROC publishes its final validation of an ICD in
a JROC Memorandum and the AFROC in an AFROC Memorandum. At this point,
the requirements are pushed back to the lead MAJCOM for funding and into the
Acquisition Systems through the Materiel Enterprise of a particular service (e.g.,
Air Force Materiel Command) for development.14 In assessing and planning for
its ISR capabilities, the Air Force has to consider the entire set of Joint capabilities
provided by the other services as well as the needs of the COCOMs.
The ISR Flight Plan
In 2009 and 2010, AF/A2 produced and used what was called the ISR Flight
Plan to articulate how Air Force ISR would meet current and future challenges
of air, space, and cyberspace operations and address all doctrine, organization,
training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy
(DOTMLPF-P) considerations.15 The ISR Flight Plan translated priorities and
guidance in the Air Force Strategic Plan to "create a vector for ISR capability de-
velopment, modernization and recapitalization." It was to be the guiding source
for the annual planning and programming guidance (APPG) and was intended,
along with the Air Force ISR Strategy, to be the Air Force Core Master Plan for
Global Integrated ISR.16 The major tool used in creating the ISR Flight Plan was
the ISR Capabilities Analysis Requirements Tool (ISR-CART), which is a database
and searchable repository of requirements and ISR programs and capabilities (see
Box 2-2).
14Lt Col Nathan Cline, ISR Plans and Integration Division, HQ AF/A2DP. Personal communication
to the committee, May 24, 2012.
15Lt Gen David Deptula (USAF, Ret.), Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Mav6. "The
Air Force ISR Flight Plan: Origin, Rational and Process." Presentation to the committee, October 6,
2011.
16USAF. 2009. "Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Flight Plan." Memorandum for
ALMAJCOM. June 18. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Staff.
OCR for page 32
32 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
BOX 2-2
The ISR Capabilities Analysis Requirements Tool (ISR-CART)
The ISR Capabilities Analysis Requirements Tool (ISR-CART) is maintained by the Air Force Intel-
ligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Agency (AFISRA) and sponsored by the AFISRA's A-5/8/9
directorate. The database contains information on many types of intelligence, including mission-related
data, from the intelligence community, the other services, the Joint Staff, and industry.
The ISR-CART, an interactive tool, is accessible to authorized users on the Secret Internet Protocol
Router Network (SIPRnet) and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS).
The SIPRnet is the Department of Defense's (DoD's) classified version of the civilian Internet; it carries
information up to and including the Secret classification. JWICS is a similar system of interconnected
computer networks primarily used by the DoD, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Department of Justice to transmit classified information at Top
Secret or higher levels.
The ISR-CART is the repository of a wealth of information, including nearly all ISR requirements,
ISR system attributes and limitations, and ISR capability needs, gaps, and solutions. a The database
allows users to access information needed to make informed capability and modernization planning
decisions and to meet future technology challenges. It provides the ability to link all areas, from stated
operational need to proposed solutions, actual research and development (R&D) to delivery of an
operational system. ISR-CART has a modularized design enabling links among multiple categories.
The modules of ISR-CART include the following: tasks/needs, gaps, solutions, R&D efforts, systems
(including parametric information), points of contact, references/bibliography (such as capability
guides, concepts of operation), and a glossary.
aUSAF. 2009. "Intel Deputy Unveils ISR Capability Planning Process." Available at http://www.af.mil/news/story.
asp?id=123143770. Accessed February 27, 2012.
Guided by both directive and Air Force instruction signed by the Secretary of
the Air Force (SECAF) and Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), the ISR Flight
Plan was put together in a collaborative, iterative process led by AF/A2, with
representation and subject-matter experts from the MAJCOMs, including the
Air Force Materiel Command's (AFMC's) Air Force Research Laboratory, the Air
Force ISR Agency (AFISRA), the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, and
the Headquarters Air Force (HAF) staff, including AF/A5, AF/A7, AF/A8 and SAF/
AQ. The ISR Flight Plan began by considering strategic guidance and then tied
in to the results of the ISR work of the capability-based planning (CBP) and the
JCIDS processes. The ISR Flight Plan process culminated with a variety of options
for HAF consideration in the creation of the Program Objective Memorandum
(POM) of the PPBE process.
OCR for page 33
C u r r e n t S tat e of the A i r F o r c e ISR I n v e s t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s 33
The ISR Flight Plan took more than a year to complete and required many
hours of work from many people in a variety of Air Force organizations. It was
well received, as it filled a need in the assessment of ISR capability. Until the ISR
Flight Plan, there had been no other attempt at a holistic, across-the-Air-Force
examination of ISR requirements, capabilities, needs, gaps, and solutions to yield
options to guide ISR planning and programming. However, its completion came
just as the Air Force leadership decided to undertake a new method of determining
programmatic needs of core Air Force functions.
The Core Function Lead Integrator Construct
In 2010, the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force de-
cided that each of the Air Force's 12 Service Core Functions would have an annual
Core Function Master Plan (CFMP) developed under the guidance of an Air Force
MAJCOM commander acting as a Core Function Lead Integrator (CFLI).17,18 For
one of these core functions--Global Integrated ISR, or GIISR--it was determined
that the CFLI would be the Air Combat Command (ACC). In 2011, each CFLI was
tasked to produce a baseline CFMP. In this work they were to align strategy, oper-
ating concepts, and capability development with requirements and programmatic
decisions about the Service Core Function over a 20-year period.
The ISR Flight Plan, delivered once, was not updated for the following year, as
resources and leadership attention of the Air Force were turned to CFMP produc-
tion for GIISR and the other CFMPs. AF/A2 staff was left to wonder what to do with
the processes of the 2009 ISR Flight Plan and what would be the relationship of
the CFLI with the HAF staff responsibilities in capability planning and assessment.
Some of the results of the ISR Flight Plan (such as gap analysis)--and some meth-
ods and tools (such as the ISR-CART)--were used in the development of the 2010
GIISR CFMP. AF/A2 renamed the ISR Flight Plan process the ISR CP&A process.
17Service Core Functions define the Air Force's key capabilities and contributions as a service.
Service Core Functions correspond to the specific primary functions of the service as described in
DoD Directive 5100.01. SOURCE: USAF. 2012. "GIISR Operations. Air Force Doctrine Document
2-0. Dated 6 January." Available at http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afdd2-0.pdf. Accessed March
22, 2012.
18Following are the names of the Air Force Service Core Functions: (1) Nuclear Deterrence Opera-
tions, (2) Air Superiority, (3) Global Precision Attack, (4) Personnel Recovery, (5) Command and
Control, (6) Global Integrated ISR, (7) Space Superiority, (8) Cyberspace Superiority, (9) Rapid
Global Mobility, (10) Special Operations, (11) Agile Combat Support, and (12) Building Partnerships.
SOURCE: Col Brian Johnson, Chief, Air Force Plans and Integration Division for the Deputy Chief
of Staff, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. "Air Force ISR
CP&A Overview." Presentation to the committee, October 6, 2011.
OCR for page 34
34 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
In summary, the Air Force employs two overlapping processes for planning
future ISR investments: the ISR CP&A process, which is derived from the earlier
ISR Flight Plan and led by the AF/A2; and the CFLI process, led by the Air Combat
Command. These processes are described below. At this writing, the two processes
have not been fully reconciled, with consequences that are discussed later in this
chapter.
THE CURRENT AIR FORCE ISR CAPABILITY
PLANNING AND ANALYSIS PROCESS
The current Air Force ISR CP&A process, as shown in Figure 2-4, is informed
and guided by strategic direction provided by the White House National Security
Council, the U.S. Congress, the DoD, the IC through the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), and others. This guidance is handed down at different times
and takes many written forms, including National Intelligence Estimates, the Five-
Year Defense Plan, Global Threat Analyses, and various global trend studies often
conducted by Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.
The Needs Analysis phase of the CP&A process attempts to ensure that all ISR
needs are gathered from across the Air Force ISR enterprise. Primary participants in
the Needs Analysis phase are AF/A2 and its direct reporting organization, AFISRA,
as well as the COCOMs, which typically express their needs through Integrated
Priority Lists, and the MAJCOMs, which represent the interests of their affiliated
COCOMs. The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and its mission partners,
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Security
Agency (NSA), which have their own capability planning and analysis processes,
appear to engage only tangentially in the Air Force process.
The Needs Analysis function produces an unconstrained, "1-to-N" list of ISR
needs. No attempt is made at this step in the current process to prioritize or filter
needs. By gathering all needs, the process seeks to prevent needs that might not be
relevant in today's mission environment from falling on the cutting-room floor.
However, gathering all needs each time through the process can be very time- and
labor-intensive and may not be necessary for situations in which investment deci-
sion makers are interested in rapid answers to focused questions.
The Gap Analysis function matches each need on the list with known ISR
capabilities. Needs that have no matching capabilities are identified as gaps. Major
participants in this phase of the process include AF/A2, AFISRA, the GIISR CFLI,
and MAJCOM representatives. As with the Needs Analysis phase, participation by
the IC appears to be more opportunistic than systematic.
The primary tool used to match capabilities with needs is the ISR-CART data-
base. (See Box 2-2.) ISR-CART, which is maintained by AFISRA, provides a com-
prehensive, searchable store of needs, capabilities, and gap information, indexed
by a variety of metadata types. Although the physical process of matching needs
OCR for page 36
36 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
of defining the roles and responsibilities.21 Following this summary of the current
process is a more in-depth look at both how this process came to be and what it is.
THE CORE FUNCTION LEAD INTEGRATOR PROCESS
As noted above, in 2010 the Air Force undertook a new service-wide
capabilities-based planning method as part of a revised strategic planning process.
At the heart of this process are annually iterated CFMPs developed by Air Force
MAJCOM commanders who act as CFLIs for specific Service Core Functions. The
CFLI is the authoritative source for detailed planning within each Service Core
Function. As stated above, the CFLI for the GIISR core function is the commander
of the Air Combat Command.
There are three aspects of the Service Core Function construct that are note-
worthy. First, CFMPs for two Service Core Functions--GIISR and Command and
Control--are unique among CFMPs because they are enablers for all other Service
Core Functions. Second, the Space Superiority and Cyber Superiority Service Core
Functions, both of which have strong connections to the ISR enterprise, are led by a
different CFLI (Air Force Space Command [AFSPC]) than the CFLI that leads the
Service Core Functions for GIISR and Command and Control. Third, the manage-
ment of those items that would constitute NTISR is fragmented among other ACC
CFMPs. The potential exists for ISR capabilities to be undervalued, underfunded,
or completely missed by a given CFMP. If the Air Force wishes to integrate NTISR
collection capability from platforms, such as its newest fighters, the CFMP or ISR
CP&A processes may have to point to the budgetary choices among several non-
ISR programs in order to pay for such capability. For example, the Air Force will
have to ensure that the platforms have necessary data links and that the command-
and-control structure is capable of tasking the platforms in both near real time and
real time, and a capability will be needed to turn the data collected into actionable
information in order to support PCPAD. The elements of this example are each in
separate CFMPs. It seems that none of the CFMPs has the priority to make NTISR
a reality; none has lead responsibility in this fragmented structure.
As the basis for its work in producing the 2011 GIISR CFMP, the Air Combat
Command started with the Gap Analysis and the 19 ISR Gap Focus Areas that had
resulted from the 2009 ISR Flight Plan. Its next step was to conduct an assessment
of risks involving these gaps as applied to three representative scenarios found in
operational plans, each of which require Air Force GIISR support. This analysis was
constrained both by external guidance and by the number and type of ISR capabili-
21Col Scot Gere, GIISR CFT Chief, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base. "Core Function
Lead Integrator (CFLI) Construct and GIISR Capability, Planning, and Analysis." Presentation to the
committee, January 25, 2012.
OCR for page 37
C u r r e n t S tat e of the A i r F o r c e ISR I n v e s t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s 37
ties considered likely to be available for each scenario examined. This analysis was
followed by a determination of trade-space priorities done iteratively with AFMC
and other stakeholders to determine the types of forces needed and how best to
sustain, replace, and improve these capabilities, along with the associated costs.
This yielded a list of prioritized capability gaps and science and technology efforts
that was itself refined and adjusted by a council of knowledgeable colonels from
across the Air Force. The work was then passed between the council of colonels and
a solutions working group for pre-acquisition capability planning and analysis or
on to developmental planning to produce relevant materiel and/or non-materiel
solutions.22
Figure 2-5 shows the GIISR CFLI's view of the ISR process for developing
planning, programming, and requirements outputs and depicts the relationships
of various major processes and the products that flow from or into these processes.
The ring of activities in the middle of the chart shows the relationship of Gap Anal-
ysis, non-Air Force POM analysis, GIISR CFMP development, and the solutions
vector. In Gap Analysis, ISR gaps are collected and reviewed by all ISR stakeholders
and consolidated into the ISR-CART database maintained by AFISRA. In the non-
Air Force POM analysis, AF/A2 acts as the service interface with the IC and others
outside the Air Force and has the preferred vantage point for understanding gaps
in and outside the Air Force. AF/A2 is also required to influence and interpret the
Quadrennial Defense Review and the Defense Planning Guidance and to produce
its own guidance as the ISR Capability Portfolio Manager.
Informed by external guidance and the current annual planning and program-
ming guidance (APPG), the GIISR CFLI applies a scenario-based assessment to
link gaps to operational and force management risk and then prioritizes areas for
solution work. The CFMP also creates GIISR planning force proposals that facilitate
Air Force integration for a balanced POM submission. Courses of action developed
from previous solution work are inserted into programmatic action while at the
same time requirements are developed and updated. In the solutions vector, the
council of colonels from stakeholder organizations reviews the prioritized areas
from the CFMP, considers the national inputs from AF/A2, and provides a vector
for capability working groups. These groups collect possible materiel and non-
materiel solutions and present their findings in the form of courses of action. The
working group may also recommend JCIDS actions to drive developmental plan-
ning requests that can be undertaken. Note the outer concentric rings in Figure 2-5
22A "council of colonels" is a term not officially defined; however, it is understood to mean a council
of persons of that rank who represent the interests and perspectives of their various organizations
in a discussion or a decision-making forum about what that group believes about a certain issue or
matter. Their views are then forwarded to those in higher authority for either information or further
deliberation.
OCR for page 38
38 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
FIGURE 2-5 Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) planning, programming, and require-
ments outputs. NOTE: Acronyms are defined in the list in the front matter. SOURCE: Col Scot Gere,
2-5.eps
Chief, GIISR Core Function Team. "Core Function Lead Integrator (CFLI) Construct and GIISR Capabil-
ity, Planning, and Analysis." Presentation tobitmap
the committee, January 25, 2012.
indicating the relationship of these processes with planning, programming, and
requirements processes.
Both the CFMP and the ISR CP&A processes have positive attributes as well
as areas for improvement. On the positive side, they are generally inclusive, make
a strong effort to use data to inform discussions, and do the best that one could do
with an approach that is nearly all manual and labor-intensive. However, the CFMP
process, like the ISR Flight Plan before it, is cumbersome and slow and cannot
rapidly respond to changes in guidance, urgent warfighter needs, or commanders'
needs for quick answers to specific questions. As with the ISR Flight Plan, the GIISR
CFLI work took months, consumed many hours of work by subject-matter experts,
and utilized no tools other than parametric analysis and the ISR-CART. Further,
it was necessary to cross-check with the CFLI staffs developing the CFMPs for
Space Superiority and Cyberspace Superiority to eliminate underlap and overlap
with the ISR needs of those core functions, and it is not clear to the committee
OCR for page 39
C u r r e n t S tat e of the A i r F o r c e ISR I n v e s t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s 39
whether or not the underlap/overlap analysis was adequate and correct given the
time constraints of the CLFI process.
Space Superiority and Cyberspace Superiority Core Function Master Plans
The Air Force Space Command is the CFLI for the Space Superiority and
Cyberspace Superiority Service Core Functions, both of which have ISR content.
Space Superiority
In conducting its work as the Space Superiority and Cyberspace Superiority
CFLI, the AFSPC conducts its own CP&A process, which parallels the ISR CP&A
process. The AFSPC did participate in the ISR CP&A needs and gap analysis process
in 2010. However, there existed some confusion over roles--for example, budget
authority--and whether AF/A2 had the clear enterprise role to lead the definitive
plan for the Air Force ISR portfolio. The AFPSC believed that AF/A2 had budget
authority in the ISR CP&A planning process in the first round of the CFLI process,
showing confusion over roles and responsibilities. It seems that more clarifica-
tion and communication are required among those CFLIs whose responsibilities
overlap in ISR capabilities, specifically Space Superiority, Cyberspace Superiority,
and GIISR.
Cyberspace Superiority
Owing to the emerging nature of cyberspace operations, the committee offers
additional analysis on the concept of Air Force cyberspace operations, the role of
the Air Force in the context of the overall DoD/IC cyberspace enterprise, and the
relationship of the Air Force to the ISR CP&A and CFLI planning processes. There
is a multidimensional relationship between the ISR and cyber missions and capa-
bilities. There are three missions from a cyberspace perspective: support, defense,
and force application. ISR is a crosscutting capability that can be applied holistically
with other core functions to enable cyberspace missions. Conversely, Cyberspace
Superiority supports and is supported by all of the other Air Force core functions.
In the case of the GIISR core function, these relationships could be characterized
as "Cyber for ISR" and "ISR from Cyber."
The "Cyber for ISR" relationship is illustrated by the mission assurance re-
quirement for the cyber domain in support of an ISR mission. Cyberspace mission
assurance ensures the availability and defense of a secured network to support
a military operation. If the military operation is an ISR mission, the PCPAD
component is reliant on a secured cyberspace infrastructure for communication
and dissemination. This dependency should define requirements from the GIISR
OCR for page 40
40 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
core function to the Cyberspace Superiority core function. For example, the Air
Force currently uses commercial communications segments in some portion of
nearly all missions. Short of reconfiguring all communications infrastructure to
government-off-the-shelf (GOTS) technology for Air Force missions, this would
suggest that requirements for mission resiliency across a hybrid commercial-off-
the-shelf (COTS)/GOTS cyber infrastructure in support of ISR missions should be
included in a "Cyber for ISR" portfolio planning process--that is, a GIISR CFLI to
Cyberspace Superiority CFLI interaction.
Conversely, the "ISR from Cyber" relationship is illustrated by considering how
ISR can be executed during cyberspace operations, particularly during cyberspace
force application (exploitation). This can be characterized as situational awareness
during and in support of cyberspace operations. AFISRA provides all-source cyber-
focused ISR including digital network analysis to the 24th Air Force through the
659th ISR Group to enable 24th Air Force operations.23 AFISR's support includes
the following:
1. Current intelligence and reporting,
2. Indications and warning,
3. Threat attribution and characterization,
4. Intelligence preparation of the operational environment, and
5. Computer network exploitation.
Cyberspace ISR requirements are addressed by the Cyberspace Superiority
CFLI that, in turn, generates the Cyberspace CFMP. This is another case of ISR
requirements being spread across multiple CFLIs. These same ISR requirements
could be included in the GIISR CFLI. Cyberspace ISR portfolio planning is part of
the 24th Air Force/A2 mission. Although much progress has been made in a rela-
tively short period of time, the 24th Air Force/A2 is still lacking an institutionalized
approach to planning and equipping. It is also clear that the required response time
for cyberspace ISR capabilities needs to be more rapid than the standard 2-year
planning cycle. Moreover, standards and key performance parameters have yet to
be identified.24
23USAF. 2010. "Cyberspace Operations. Air Force Doctrine Document 3-12." Available at http://
www.fas.org/irp/DoDdir/usaf/afdd3-12.pdf. Accessed February 27, 2012.
24Col Tom French, Chief of ISR Strategy, Plans and Operations (A2X/O), Headquarters AFSPC.
"Evolving Cyberspace ISR Corporate Planning." Presentation to the committee, December 8, 2011.
OCR for page 41
C u r r e n t S tat e of the A i r F o r c e ISR I n v e s t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s 41
Integration of Air Force Core Function Master Plans
From August to October annually, the Air Staff conducts the integration of all
12 CFMPs. In so doing, it produces cross-service core function/portfolio trades as
recommendations on current and future capability needs and investments. CFMP
integration (also) identifies Program Force Extended (PFE) program candidates
for support or adjustment, as it merges individual CFMP planning force proposals
into a unified, fiscally constrained planning force that establishes a 20-year major
investment plan. The planning force is then published in the APPG.
ISR Capability Planning and Analysis and Core Function Master Plan
Link with Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
The next consideration in this discussion is how the ISR CP&A and the CFMP
link with PPBE. This should begin with a discussion of how the Air Force organizes
itself to produce a balanced, annual input to the DoD budget, which is submit-
ted to the Congress for review, adjustment, approval, and funding. Although the
SECAF and CSAF make final decisions about the annual POM submission, they
rely on something called the Air Force Corporate Structure (AFCS) to do the work
of balancing competing demands and managing resource limitations to produce
the right PPBE decisions.
The AFCS has several echelons. At the top is the Air Force Council, which is
chaired by the Vice CSAF and consists of three-star Deputy Chiefs of Staff. Below
that is the Air Force Board of two-star Air Staff generals, and finally the Air Force
Group of one-star generals and colonels. These flag officer bodies are themselves
supported in issue formulation by a number of mission and mission-support panels.
The flow of POM issues to the CFLI process and the AFCS processes begins
with calls for issues by the MAJCOMs and AFISRA (see Figure 2-6). Such issues
and requirements are received from throughout the AF and HAF and are collected
and represented by Capability Advocates, who review the issues and ensure that
they are ready to be brought into decision processes of the MAJCOM or AFISRA.
The issues are reviewed and validated with a recommended course of action and
then prioritized. The panel's recommendations are then reviewed and validated
or modified and then approved by the MAJCOM or AFISRA. The list of approved
issues is parsed into investment issues (destined for the CFLI process) and organi-
zation and management (O&M) issues (destined for the HAF process).
When the MAJCOM process is complete, the investment issues are forwarded
to the appropriate CFLI. The CFLI then takes briefings from knowledgeable staff
officers--program element monitors who keep daily track of issues and of available
funding for their programs. Issues, with a prioritization and developed course of
action, then are to be reviewed by the MAJCOM or AFISRA. Issues and offsets are
OCR for page 42
42 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
FIGURE 2-6 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) issue routing to the Air Force Corporate Struc-
ture. NOTE: Acronyms are defined in the list 2-6.eps
in the front matter. SOURCE: U.S. Air Force.
bitmap
both considered, as the CFLI has to present a balanced submission to the Air Staff 's
AFCS panel responsible for that particular portfolio. The issues are then approved
by the CFLI. Once the list is approved, it goes directly to the appropriate Air Staff
panel for the beginning of deliberations in the AFCS. Issues are prioritized by AF/
A2 and submitted to Headquarters Air Force Resource Management (HAF/RM).
HAF/RM presents a resource balanced portfolio to the Air Staff leadership. It does
not necessarily present a portfolio having optimized ISR capabilities. This lack of
optimization is generally the result of the need for the Air Force to take from one
element, such as an ISR need, in order to pay for a more pressing non-ISR need.
Linkages Between the Air Force and the Intelligence Community
AF/A2 is the focal point for Air Force interaction with the IC. Although the
DoD has a rigorous and well-defined process for requirements development, the
IC is not monolithic, and its process is by necessity considerably less procedural
than that of the DoD. It should also be remembered that although the capabilities
developed by the two communities may be similar, their uses and the funding used
to procure them are different. Specifically, DoD intelligence systems are funded
through the Military Intelligence Program (MIP), whereas national intelligence sys-
tems are funded through the National Intelligence Program (NIP). In some cases,
MIP funding is transferred to individual intelligence agencies to acquire specific
OCR for page 43
C u r r e n t S tat e of the A i r F o r c e ISR I n v e s t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s 43
capabilities. AF/A2 interactions are, therefore, often point-to-point with individual
intelligence agencies. Separate offices within intelligence agencies will work with
military users, but each agency has a centralized office with responsibility for sup-
porting combatant commanders and military users. The NRO, for instance, has a
Directorate for Mission Support that coordinates support and provides deployable
teams to various military commands. AF/A2 coordinates individually to determine
where there may be synergy and overlap in Air Force and agency investments in ISR
capabilities or where data sharing and collaboration may mitigate further service
or agency investments.
The Air Force plays an important role in the IC that lies under the purview
of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The role of the Air Force in the
IC includes the following: (1) weapons systems analysis, particularly air- and
air-defense-related all-source analysis, provided by the National Air and Space
Intelligence Center; (2) participation in the NSA's cryptologic activities as a Ser-
vice Cryptologic Element, accomplished as part of the mission of the Air Force
ISR Agency; (3) the acquisition and operation of a variety of national-level ISR
capabilities, including Cobra Judy and Cobra Dane, as part of the DNI's General
Defense Intelligence Program; and (4) the articulation by AF/A2 of the value and
importance of IC collection against particular potential threats that has led to IC
acquisition of the new and successful systems. Moreover, a variety of Air Force
reconnaissance platforms, such as U2s, Rivet Joint aircraft, and overhead persistent
infrared space-based capabilities, are regularly used to address DNI requirements.
Together, these activities involve a significant amount of the Air Force budget and
thousands of Air Force personnel, both military and civilian.
Finally, as noted earlier, AF/A2 is the primary interface between the Air Force
and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for planning and funding
those ISR capabilities that are part of the NIP. However, NIP-funded programs have
been excluded from Air Force Total Obligation Authority (TOA) review. Thus, the
Air Force needs increased awareness of what capabilities it provides, along with the
IC and other services, to the Joint fight to reduce duplication of effort and funds
expended. Given the large amount of resources included in Air Force TOA for
national intelligence activities, there should be considerably more attention given
to this issue in the Corporate Air Force process beyond AF/A2.
FINDINGS
Developing an enterprise approach to ISR investment planning is a difficult
and complex challenge, and the Air Force processes that have been put in place to
wrestle with this challenge are relatively new and still evolving. As expected with
new processes aimed at complex problems, there are deficiencies that need to be
addressed.
OCR for page 44
44 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
Finding 2-1. The responsibility for evaluating and informing decisions about
Air Force ISR capabilities is diffuse, overly personnel-intensive, and divided
among many organizations, resulting in an excessively lengthy process. Spe-
cifically, the respective roles and responsibilities of the AF/A2 and the GIISR
CFLI are not well defined or well understood, and appear disconnected. Both
the ISR CP&A and the CFLI processes have positive aspects, but the processes
are immature and insufficiently integrated.
It appears that there are conflicting views held by AF/A2 and the GIISR CFLI
regarding roles and responsibilities. The Air Combat Command stressed that the
CFLI is charged with producing an annual CFMP and that AF/A2 should only pro-
vide Gap Analysis into the CFLI process, which then carries out Solution Analysis.
However, the absence of guidance about the relationship between these two orga-
nizations has created counterproductive uncertainty. Further, this is exacerbated
by frequent changes in process, roles and responsibility, and key personnel.
Finding 2-2. The Air Force ISR planning process lacks adequate process defini-
tion and formal interaction between the Space Superiority, Cyberspace Superi-
ority, and GIISR CFLIs. It also does not rigorously integrate ISR contributions
from other military services, the IC, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Consequently, the Air Force process does not yield ISR investment priorities
across domains and security constructs. The Air Force needs increased aware-
ness of what capabilities it provides, along with the IC and other services, to
the Joint fight to reduce duplication of effort and funds expended.
Finding 2-3. Air Force platforms do not appear to be included in Air Force
cyberspace-related planning processes, even though cyberspace vulnerabilities
do exist onboard platforms and in the connectivity between them. Moreover,
cyberspace functions can play a very positive role in support of ISR, and ISR
systems can help support cyberspace functions. Additionally, the complexity of
the multi-organizational relationships involved in current DoD and IC interac-
tions leads to confusion in both execution and planning processes, particularly
for cyber operations.
Finding 2-4. The Air Force lacks integrated modeling and simulation and
analysis tools that provide traceability from requirements to capability and that
conduct operationally relevant ISR trade-space analysis across the DOTMLPF-
P framework and within and across air, space, and cyberspace domains.
The committee heard about parametric analysis carried out by subject-matter
experts. However, the Air Force lacks integrated tools that (1) collaboratively cap-
OCR for page 45
C u r r e n t S tat e of the A i r F o r c e ISR I n v e s t m e n t P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s 45
ture operational shortfalls; (2) prioritize needs; (3) realistically portray existing ca-
pabilities; (4) identify funding requirements and potential investment trade-space
areas; (5) provide the ability to conduct CFLI-focused and ISR corporate-level
"what if/if then" drills to assess operational impact and critical-path CFLI invest-
ment areas and flow; and (6) provide the ability to determine and recommend the
most suitable course of action to maximize ISR capability (across DOTMLPF-P)
for and across each Air Force warfighting domain.
Finding 2-5. The Air Force corporate process "disassembles" the ISR portfolio
planning analysis, classifies the elements into isolated, or stovepipe, function
components, and then makes trade-offs and/or decisions without the ISR
trade-space underpinnings.
Finding 2-6. The ISR CP&A process lacks the ability to respond in a timely way
with appropriate fidelity to meet the increasing speed of technology develop-
ment, operational requirements, and the required decrease in planning-cycle
time, particularly in the cyberspace domain.
Finding 2-7. PCPAD is not adequately considered and prioritized by the ISR
CP&A process.
Finding 2-8. The ISR CP&A process does not adequately consider affordability
in capability trade-space analysis.
Table 2-1 summarizes a set of shortfalls that the committee identified in the
Air Force ISR CP&A process, aligned with the findings presented in Chapter 2. The
Air Force has made great strides in developing the earlier ISR planning processes
(ISR Flight Plan, ISR CP&A, and CFLI/CFMP processes). It is the committee's view,
however, that improvements can be made to achieve greater efficiency in resource
utilization, greater effectiveness in the quality of capability solution determination,
and more responsiveness in terms of timeliness and in delivering tailored analysis
for the mission solution sought.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Over the past few years, the Air Force has made a significant, concerted effort
to organize a comprehensive planning process for the Air Force ISR portfolio.
The evolution of this planning process began with the ISR Flight Plan, which was
rapidly overtaken by the CFLI/CFMP process. The current processes strive to be
very inclusive and collaborative, utilizing cross-ISR community subject-matter
experts. These processes also include some coordination across relevant CFLIs and
OCR for page 46
46 C a pa b i l i t y P l a n n i n g and A na ly s i s to O p t i m i z e A i r F o r c e ISR
TABLE 2-1 Air Force ISR Capability Planning and Analysis (CP&A) Process Shortfalls and
Corresponding Findings
ISR CP&A Process Shortfalls Finding
Current process does not adequately address all ISR missions, domains of Findings 2-2 and 2-3
air, space, and cyberspace managed by the Space Superiority, Cyberspace
Superiority, and Global Integrated ISR CFLIs, as well as contributions from other
military services, the IC, and OSD, and NTISR capabilities.
Current process does not provide the ability to analyze investment decisions Finding 2-6
at different resolutions and timescales.
Current process does not support "what if" analyses in well-defined trade Findings 2-4 and 2-5
spaces.
Current process is too air platform-centric and has insufficient focus on PCPAD. Finding 2-7
Current process does not adequately address affordability, including acquisition Finding 2-8
and life cycle, as part of capability
trade-space analysis.
Current process does not provide traceability from requirements to capabilities. Finding 2-4
Current process is manual and very labor-intensive, resulting in inefficient use Finding 2-8
of limited resources.
Current process is vulnerable to the inevitable changes in Air Force leadership, Finding 2-1
organization, strategy, and budgets.
NOTE: Acronyms are defined in the list in the front matter.
associated MAJCOMs. And, as a side product of this effort, a very comprehensive
repository of ISR needs, capabilities, and gaps has been developed and is now stored
in ISR-CART. Still, a number of improvements can be made to the process itself,
the analytical tools, models and simulations that can be applied to the process, the
emphasis and inclusion of capabilities from across all domains and architectural
elements in the process, and the inclusion of other key decision parameters such
as affordability. Such improvements would result in a more efficient and effective
process and higher-quality outcomes.
The following chapters examine (1) the corresponding processes used in the
other services, the IC, and private-sector organizations, with a view to identifying
best practices that could be applied to improve the Air Force ISR CP&A process
(Chapter 3); and (2) recommendations for improvements to the Air Force process
and a proposed future planning process that addresses the shortfalls identified
above (Chapter 4).
