ture operational shortfalls; (2) prioritize needs; (3) realistically portray existing capabilities; (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 investment 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 development, 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.
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