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 74
4
Toward an Enhanced Air Force
Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Capability
Planning and Analysis Process
INTRODUCTION
The objective of Chapter 4 is to propose recommendations designed to guide
the Air Force toward a new intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
Capability Planning and Analysis (CP&A) process that enhances rather than re-
places the current process. Chapter 4 begins by presenting three overall recommen-
dations associated with the proposed process. The chapter then presents a set of
desired attributes for this process that are based on the strengths and shortcomings
of the current process, as well as on best practices provided by government and
industry. Lastly, the chapter describes in detail a proposed ISR CP&A process that
employs the best practices identified in Chapter 3 for overcoming the shortfalls
with the current process as described in Chapter 2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 2 describes the current process used by the Deputy Chief of Staff of
the Air Force for ISR (AF/A2) to plan for and assess ISR capabilities. It concludes
by summarizing strengths and shortfalls of the current process garnered from
interactions with various ISR and best-practice stakeholders. Chapter 3 identifies
several best practices associated with government and industry CP&A processes
74
OCR for page 75
T o wa r d an E n h a n c e d A i r F o r c e ISR C P & A P r o c e s s 75
that suggest solutions for the shortfalls identified in Chapter 2. After considering
best practices in the context of strengths and shortfalls, the committee arrived at
three major recommendations designed to guide the Air Force toward a new and
more comprehensive ISR CP&A process. This section presents and provides a ra-
tionale for each recommendation.
Recommendation 4-1. The Air Force should adopt an ISR CP&A process that
incorporates the following attributes:
· Encompasses all ISR missions;
· Addresses all ISR domains and sources, including non-traditional ISR;
· Includes all ISR assets in a sensor-to-user chain (e.g., PCPAD and
communications);
· Collaborates with ISR-related entities;
· Provides traceability from process inputs to outputs;
· Is mission/scenario-based;
· Is repeatable and enduring;
· Supports trade-off analyses;
· Is scalable in size, time, and resolution; and
· Reduces labor and cost over time.1
Rationale: The Air Force currently has a reasonable ISR CP&A process but has
indicated that this process requires improvements. The committee identified gaps
in capability in the existing Air Force process, explored best practices for CP&A in
both government and some industry organizations, and developed a set of desired
attributes from its analysis of gaps and best practices that represent a robust ISR
CP&A process. With the addition of three capabilities, the Air Force can attain
the desired attributes by enhancing rather than replacing the current process. The
three capabilities are as follows: (1) a front-end Problem Definition and Approach
(PDA) capability, (2) a robust Multi-resolution Gap Analysis (MGA) capability, and
(3) a suite of automated tools that underpin that analysis of the cost, risk, and utility
associated with investment alternatives. The full process and an explanation of how
it satisfies the desired attributes are presented later in this chapter. The committee
acknowledges that the proposed process should accommodate the use of all levels
of classified material in the analysis. Although industry presentations included
examples of tools being used to process classified information, both security and
1The committee acknowledges that any process needs to accommodate the use of all levels of clas-
sified material in the analysis. However, security and time constraints precluded the committee from
making recommendations for multi-level security analysis. Chapters 2 and 4 provide supporting
discussions.
OCR for page 76
76 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
time constraints precluded the committee from making detailed recommendations
regarding analyses involving multi-level security.
Recommendation 4-2. The Air Force should evolve its ISR CP&A process to
an integrated, overarching ISR investment process with clear organizational
responsibility identified for each subprocess.
Rationale: One of the most important actions that the Air Force can take is
to implement an integrated ISR CP&A process. As described in Chapter 2, the Air
Force has evolved into a current situation that has multiple, overlapping invest-
ment processes that appear to duplicate effort. The integrated process should have
clearly defined roles and responsibilities for participants and clear identification of
the lead for each portion of the process. Although an integrated process is recom-
mended, this really means an overarching process with multiple subprocesses. A
single organization should be responsible for each subprocess. Different subpro-
cesses may have different organizational leads. A candidate overarching process is
described in detail in the section below entitled "Proposed Air Force Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capability Planning and Analysis Process." An
example of a subprocess is the materiel Solution Analysis process led by the Air
Force Materiel Command (AFMC). Lastly, in many but not all cases the ISR CP&A
process will feed the Air Force Corporate Process, in which components of the ISR
process will be assigned to panels (e.g., ISR communications to the Communica-
tions Panel). During the Air Force Corporate Process, the impact of board and
panel decisions on the overall required ISR capability should be continuously
monitored to preclude, for example, a panel's failing to fund a key ISR capability
component that may have a low priority as far as that panel is concerned but is
vital to the fulfillment of a high-priority ISR need (e.g., a communications link).
This can best be self-monitored by establishing a set of interface or giver/receiver
relationships across the Air Force. These interfaces become part of a set of agree-
ments on what another board or element is expected and committed to perform.
Updating these agreements on a regular basis, with signature concurrence from
both sides of the interface, allows timely responses and should result in establish-
ing areas of higher risk when the risk is not the usual technical or schedule risk
but rather can be expressed in terms of the risk of an activity's being funded.
Mitigation plans for these risks may be developed in much the same manner as
for technical or schedule risk.
Recommendation 4-3. The Air Force should adopt the proposed ISR CP&A
process by incrementally building on its existing process using pilot projects.
The scope of each pilot project should be compatible with available resources,
be relevant to both current and future mission scenarios, and include metrics
OCR for page 77
T o wa r d an E n h a n c e d A i r F o r c e ISR C P & A P r o c e s s 77
to measure achievement of the desired improvements (e.g., manpower reduc-
tions and increased timeliness).2
Rationale: The committee was sensitive to the investment that the Air Force has
made in its current ISR CP&A process and to the resource-constrained environ-
ment in which the Air Force currently finds itself. Hence, the committee designed
the proposed process in a manner that would allow the Air Force to expand the
capabilities of the current process incrementally over time in response to real-
world demands and resource availability. The Air Force is encouraged to develop
incrementally, as needed, a reusable information repository and associated suite
of analytical tools, models, and simulations that can be used to automate the
exploration of trade space of various ISR architectures against mission require-
ments and cost profiles. This capability would support the sharing of ISR capabil-
ity information and metrics across multiple analyses and should be retained and
evolved from one planning cycle to the next. The Air Force would thus develop an
institutional knowledge base of ISR capability and analysis that would allow more
rapid and effective decision making. The ISR Capabilities Analysis Requirements
Tool (ISR-CART) is a substantive start for this reusable information repository; the
Air Force should build on it by populating various tools, models, and simulations
that would execute using the shared information. Funding for the pilot project(s)
would most likely come from the Air Force organization responsible for the ISR
CP&A process. Lastly, a pilot project would provide insight into how challenging
the recommended process improvements would be to implement throughout the
entire ISR CP&A process.
DESIRED ATTRIBUTES OF AN ENTERPRISE-WIDE
INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE
CAPABILITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS PROCESS
As described in Chapter 2, the current Air Force ISR CP&A process has several
strengths. It is based on a concerted effort by the Air Force to organize a compre-
hensive planning approach for the ISR portfolio--a process that began with the
ISR Flight Plan, evolved into the ISR CP&A process, and broadened to include
the Global Integrated ISR (GIISR) Core Function Lead Integrator (CFLI) process.
The current processes endeavor to be inclusive and collaborative by coordinating
2The proposed process is described in this chapter in the section entitled "Proposed Air Force Intel-
ligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capability Planning and Analysis Process." Also, notional
scenarios are discussed in Chapter 1; they range from regional conflicts (Persian Gulf and Pacific
Rim) to global, non-traditional conflicts, to homeland security scenarios.
OCR for page 78
78 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
inputs across relevant CFLIs and associated Major Commands (MAJCOMs). The
process also maintains a fairly comprehensive repository of ISR needs, capabilities,
and gaps in the ISR-CART tool.
The current processes tend to focus somewhat narrowly on needs that require
"big iron" air platform solutions rather than on capability-based needs that might
be better addressed by non-airborne solutions.3 Not surprisingly, the current pro-
cess also focuses on solutions to near-term problems associated with the ongoing
counterinsurgency (COIN) conflict in Southwest Asia. In addition, the process
appears to lack a systematic methodology for ensuring that the needs, gaps, and
solutions of non-Air Force organizations--particularly those of the intelligence
community (IC)--are factored into the mix. In short, the current process does not
address all domains, all relevant operational scenarios, or all ISR customers and
providers. These and other shortfalls, summarized at the conclusion of Chapter 2,
combined with the many strengths of the current process and the best practices
of government and industry, lead the committee to articulate the following set of
attributes that it believes should serve as guiding design criteria for an enhanced
ISR CP&A process.
In order to meet the range of ISR demands described in the Chapter 1, the ISR
CP&A process should take advantage of all potential sources, including the fol-
lowing: the IC (e.g., the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO]), non-traditional
sources (e.g., non-ISR imaging satellites, F-22, F-35), the Joint community, and
coalition partners. It should also address the air, space, and cyberspace domains
to fulfill the requirements of the diverse community of users who both depend on
and contribute to Air Force ISR. It should include the operational, tactical, and
strategic levels of war to provide ISR support for the wide range of Combatant
Command (COCOM) Operation Plans and current operations. And it should
consider all assets in the sensor-to-user chain, including communications links
and the downstream planning and direction, collection, processing and exploita-
tion, analysis and production, and dissemination (PCPAD) portions of the chain.
The ISR CP&A process should be responsive and credible. A responsive process
should support a span of requests, from quick-look analyses to deliberative, longer-
term analyses that support the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). To be cred-
ible, the process should be transparent, the outcomes should include divestitures
as well as additions, and the results should be traceable and repeatable. Table 4-1
summarizes the above attributes. Following is a detailed description of a proposed
process that the committee believes will embody these attributes.
3Col Brian Johnson, Chief, ISR Plans and Integration Division (AF/A2DP), Headquarters, U.S. Air
Force. "Air Force ISR CP&A Overview." Presentation to the committee, October 6, 2011.
OCR for page 79
T o wa r d an E n h a n c e d A i r F o r c e ISR C P & A P r o c e s s 79
TABLE 4-1 Desired Attributes of a Comprehensive Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR) Capability Planning and Analysis (CP&A) Process
Desired ISR CP&A
Process Attribute Description
Encompasses all ISR While the process may be primarily driven by near-term mission needs such
missions as the current fight in Southwest Asia and by the counterinsurgency battle
doctrine, it should also be able to address future conflicts informed by new
doctrines such as Air Sea Battle. The process should look beyond theatre-
specific Air Force missions to incorporate those of Joint Forces and the IC
around the globe as well.
Addresses all ISR The Air Force should broaden the process aperture to address all domains
domains and sources (including air, space, cyberspace). The process should also address the
complete range of multi-INT data sources provided by both traditional and
non-traditional platforms.
Includes all ISR assets All end-to-end capabilities required to produce quality intelligence rapidly
in the sensor-to-user for the warfighter, including sensors, platforms, data links, and planning and
chain direction, collection, processing and exploitation, analysis and production, and
dissemination (PCPAD), are addressed holistically.
Collaborates with Key stakeholders and/or representatives in ISR mission and/or scenarios need
ISR-related entities to be involved in the analysis process in order to take advantage of synergies
and to ensure that Joint ISR mission needs are met.
Provides traceability The underlying data, assumptions, and models used to generate outputs at
from process inputs each stage of the analysis process are revealed.
to outputs
Is mission/ Mission needs and operational constructs are explicitly factored in to the gap
scenario-based analysis and prioritization.
Is repeatable and The process is sufficiently simple and transparent to ensure that the Air Force
enduring can repeat it on both short and long timescales. The process endures through
inevitable changes in Air Force leadership, organization, strategy, and budgets.
Supports trade-off The decision maker is allowed to rigorously trade off the costs, risks, and
analyses utility of alternative ISR force mixes.
Is scalable in size, A "multi-resolution" ability is provided in order to quickly answer investment
time, and resolution questions at a coarse level of resolution, or more deliberately analyze answers
at finer resolution. "What-if" analyses are supported for a quick response to
focused, specific investment questions as well as large-scale scenario-based
investment questions for budget deliberations.
Reduces labor and Automated tools are leveraged to produce faster, more accurate results with
cost over time fewer resources.
OCR for page 80
80 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
PROPOSED AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND
RECONNAISSANCE CAPABILITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS PROCESS
This section presents and describes major elements of a recommended,
enterprise-wide ISR CP&A process. Suggested methodologies and time lines for
reviewing and assessing information are briefly discussed for each function. Tools
that may help automate and accelerate the process are offered. As a reminder, the
proposed process will provide actionable ways to improve the ISR CP&A process
to yield an effective end-to-end investment approach for the integrated mix of ISR
capabilities across all domains.4
A graphical representation of these vectors in a proposed process diagram is
provided in Figure 4-1. Additions to the current process are shaded in red. The
two "big vector" changes recommended to the current process are these: (1) the
inclusion of a Problem Definition and Approach function that sets up the plan-
ning and analysis process, and a (2) Multi-resolution Gap Analysis function that
provides the ability to rigorously trade off the costs, risks, and utility of alternative
ISR force mixes in an end-to-end system context. The major functions depicted in
Figure 4-1 are described in more detail in the following sections.
Problem Definition and Approach
As described in Chapter 2, the current ISR CP&A process is designed to con-
sider all needs and gaps on a periodic basis. It is not designed to rapidly answer
"what if " questions posed by decision makers faced with urgent issues. A good
example of the need for "quick-turnaround" analysis capabilities recently oc-
curred when the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, in a letter
to the Secretary of Defense, expressed the committee's concern that the proposal
of the Department of Defense (DoD) to stop purchasing Global Block 30 aircraft
was "entirely budget driven with no underlying ISR analysis to support the U-2's
ability to fill the gap."5 The current process, which is designed to consider all needs
and gaps on a periodic basis, does not have the "machinery" to address individual
questions rapidly.
In order to provide the ability to address specific issues, the committee recom-
mends initiating the process with a PDA step--shown in Figure 4-2. The primary
4It would be counterproductive to attempt to recommend a highly detailed ISR CP&A process
here. The committee does not possess the in-depth knowledge that would be needed regarding all
the required process attributes for it to be able to offer effective, actionable suggestions for detailed
elements of a comprehensive process. Instead, the committee offers a high-level view that describes
"big vectors" that any effective, enterprise-wide ISR CP&A process should possess.
5Letter from the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee to the Secretary of Defense,
May 11, 2012.
OCR for page 81
T o wa r d an E n h a n c e d A i r F o r c e ISR C P & A P r o c e s s 81
"What-if" questions
Strategic guidance
Chief's Initiatives
IPLs, JUONs
threats
Problem
Iterate Multi-Resolution
Definition As Needed
& Approach Gap Analysis
Mission
Analytical Perspective
Framework
Collection Integrated
Perspective Perspective
Needs Focused
Analysis Needs
AF Corp
Infotecture Comms Process
Perspective Perspective
Utility, Cost, Risk Trade Space
Iterate Prioritized Proposed
As Needed Gaps Solutions
Solution ___M___ DOT_LPF
Analysis (AFMC) (AFISRA)
FIGURE 4-1 A high-level diagram showing the major elements of the committee's proposed Air Force
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance Capability Planning and Analysis process. NOTE: Boxes
and ovals shaded in red represent additions or 4-1.eps
modifications to the current process, depicted in blue.
The table (lower left) indicates anticipated time lines for executing the process. The process is not
intended to be strictly sequential in nature. Iterations may occur between various process functions
as the analysis evolves. Acronyms are defined in the list in the front matter.
product of the PDA step is an analytical framework designed to guide and focus
subsequent steps of the proposed process, shown in Figure 4-1. This framework
is carefully crafted through knowledge-elicitation sessions with key stakeholders
to drive the ISR CP&A process toward answers that enable and justify investment
and divestment decisions. The analytical framework captures, among other things,
decision makers' questions, relevant documents, metrics, scenarios, models, and
analysis tools needed to configure and support the downstream Needs Analysis and
MGA steps in the ISR CP&A process.
In the proposed PDA step, investment questions would be carefully developed
and documented through literature research and knowledge-elicitation sessions
with decision makers and relevant stakeholders. Literature research includes an
analysis of relevant strategic guidance, such as National Intelligence Estimates,
the FYDP, Air Force Chief of Staff Initiatives, and Global Threat Analyses. The
resulting set of focused questions would guide collaboration among analysts and
various domain experts, such as financial analysts, engineers, operators, and intel-
OCR for page 82
82 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
"What-if" questions
Strategic guidance
Chief's Initiatives
IPLs, JUONs
threats
Problem
Definition
& Approach
Analytical
Framework
FIGURE 4-2 The Problem Definition and Approach step in the proposed Capability Planning and
Analysis process. (See the high-level view of the process in Figure 4-1.)
4-2.eps
ligence analysts during Multi-resolution Gap Analysis. If the questions are properly
designed up-front, the downstream process should yield quantitative answers that
enable decisions in short or long time intervals, with less or more confidence de-
pending on the selected resolution of the analysis.
For example, it is likely that Air Force ISR decision makers have received
strategic guidance causing them to consider investment decisions about the ISR
capabilities needed to support jungle operations in areas that prohibit overflight. In
preparation for assessing the ISR capabilities needed in such contexts, the Problem
Definition and Approach team might review various mission needs documents
indicating that high-priority jungle operations monitor the movements and actions
of guerilla warfare factions under triple-canopy foliage in order to understand their
methods and procedures.6 The team would then work with various stakeholders
to elicit specific questions that guide the analysis process toward answers needed
to support investment decisions. In the simple example above, one might imagine
framing questions such as this: Do we have a standoff sensor in the inventory that
can penetrate jungle foliage and detect vehicles? Assuming that there is such a
standoff sensor in the inventory, these questions might follow: Do we have com-
munication and data links of sufficient bandwidth in place to support command-
6National Research Council. 2009. Sensing and Supporting Communications Capabilities for Special
Operations Forces. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
OCR for page 83
T o wa r d an E n h a n c e d A i r F o r c e ISR C P & A P r o c e s s 83
and-control and data exfiltration needs? Do we have a PCPAD capability for the
foliage-penetrating sensor data? How well do these solutions work? What are the
costs and risks associated with acquiring and/or re-deploying known platform,
sensor, communications, and PCPAD solutions?
Once a set of specific questions is developed, the PDA team would construct
an analytical framework to focus subsequent steps in the process on answers to
these questions. The framework would embody the mission needs in an operational
scenario built from studying documents like existing operations plans and foliage
maps for the area of interest. The analytical framework would describe the desired
performance factors, such as payload standoff distances, sensor resolutions, and
communications and data link bandwidth and latencies. The framework would
also likely include a set of engineering models configured for the desired opera-
tional scenario. The model set might include physical models for propagation at
various frequencies; communications models for communications alternatives,
such as mobile ad hoc network, remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), and satellite
communications; and foliage-penetrating (or poking) Moving Target Indicator
(MTI) capabilities for tracking vehicles and dismounts and vehicles under dense
foliage. In as many cases as possible, models would be chosen for their ability to
scale, to support both coarse-resolution, quick-look analyses and finer-resolution,
deliberate-look analyses.
Performance measures and automated tools are also included in the analytical
framework. Performance measures (e.g., "average track length" for an MTI sensor)
are chosen to help assess the cost, risk, and utility of payload, sensing, communica-
tions, and PCPAD alternatives. Automated or semi-automated tools are chosen for
their ability to use the models, operational scenario, and performance measures.
One example of such a tool is the physics-based Monte Carlo simulation tool used
by RadiantBlue to assess the efficacy of alternative platforms, sensing modalities,
and communications solutions.7
The initial set of models available to support "multi-resolution" may be some-
what small compared to the broad range of investment questions that decision
makers might ask. Initially, models might need to be supplanted with subject-mat-
ter experts. Over time, it is envisioned that there would be built a library of reusable
models that can be stored in an ISR Analytic Information Repository from which
they can be easily retrieved and reconfigured to support a wide range of analyses.
With the above example in mind, the Problem Definition and Approach phase
can be completed in few days for well-understood issues or for quick-look analyses
in which coarse answers are needed quickly to support, for example, an urgent
planning, programming, or budgeting question. Alternatively, a deliberate deci-
7Larry Shand, President, RadiantBlue, Inc. "RadiantBlue Modeling and Simulation Capability."
Presentation to the committee, January 5, 2012.
OCR for page 84
84 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
sion analysis phase can take weeks filled with workshops designed to interactively
elicit information and decision needs from government stakeholders or staffs.
For either quick-look or deliberate decision analysis approaches, this phase of
the process should allow time for the performance of a limited trade-off analysis
based on existing information and input from available subject-matter experts in
order to produce coarse, initial answers to questions that might be sufficient for
decision makers' needs, and to develop a more informative analytical framework
for subsequent phases of the process.8
The PDA step should be led by experts with experience eliciting actionable
questions and related information from stakeholders in a form suitable for down-
stream analysis. The size and composition of the expert team will likely vary over
time in response to changing investment decision needs. The team will likely consist
of a small number of permanent members who have access to government, indus-
try, and academic experts available on call to provide assistance on an as-needed
basis. The organization responsibility for maintaining the team, funding require-
ments, and other team characteristics should be considered during the pilot project
phase of the process implementation.
Needs Analysis
The primary purpose of the Needs Analysis step, shown in Figure 4-3, is to
transform the set of investment questions contained in the analytic framework
into focused needs that can be rigorously analyzed during Multi-resolution Gap
Analysis. Unlike the Needs Analysis step in the current ISR CP&A process, which
produces an unconstrained list of needs, the committee's proposed Needs Analysis
step would produce a constrained list of capability needs designed to focus the
process on answers to specific questions.
Needs Analysis for a deliberative, long-term capability-planning exercise might
employ subject-matter experts to assess likely scenarios provided by the analytical
framework and make recommendations about needs for these scenarios. In the case
of the earlier "triple canopy" example, needs might focus on the reconnaissance
of a group of guerilla fighters, or on the exfiltration of unattended ground-sensor
(UGS) data. More specifically, the Needs Analysis step might express the previous
question--Do we have a standoff sensor in the inventory that can penetrate jungle
foliage and detect vehicles?--in the form of the specific, analyzable need: We need
the ability to detect 5-meter-square objects under triple-canopy jungle foliage at
a range of 20 km. Although specificity is helpful, the Needs Analysis team should
8Doug Owens, Manager, Enterprise Analysis, Defense Business Unit, TASC. "An Enterprise Ap-
proach to Capability-Based Analysis: Best Practices, Tools, and Results." Presentation to the com-
mittee, January 5, 2012.
OCR for page 85
T o wa r d an E n h a n c e d A i r F o r c e ISR C P & A P r o c e s s 85
Analytical
Framework
Needs Focused
Analysis Needs
FIGURE 4-3 The Needs Analysis step in the proposed Capability Planning and Analysis process. (See
the high-level view of the process in Figure 4-1.)
4-3.eps
avoid the temptation to express the need as a solution. For example, it would not
be appropriate to express the same need exemplified above as: The Air Force needs
a gimbal-mounted Geiger-mode LIDAR mounted on a Predator remotely piloted
aircraft that can detect 5-meter-square objects under double-canopy jungle foliage
at a range of 20 km. Disguising solutions as needs would minimize the value of the
trade-space machinery used in the next step of the ISR CP&A process.
A focused needs list reduces process time and cost and provides the ability to
answer specific questions rapidly. That said, the process should also periodically
assess a wider set of needs so as to prevent the Air Force from myopically focusing
on the mission of the day. The Air Force should consider reviewing all needs on
a 3-year cycle, with no attempt to prioritize or filter needs during these broader
looks.9 By avoiding the temptation to eliminate seemingly extraneous or unimport-
ant needs during the process, the Air Force would retain an inventory of stated
needs that might become relevant under a different set of strategic assumptions
or operational scenario conditions. This would also help maintain a holistic view,
which ensures that the perspectives of non-Air Force organizations do not wind
up "on the cutting-room floor."
The primary participants in the Needs Analysis function are the COCOMs,
which typically express their needs by means of Integrated Priority Lists; the MA-
JCOMs, which represent the interests of their affiliated COCOMs; and the national
IC. Because the IC, rather than the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center,
provides the majority of space-based ISR capabilities, it is imperative that the Air
Force ISR Agency (AFISRA) reach out to the IC so that the ISR needs of their re-
spective stakeholders can be shared in a disciplined, systematic way. Accordingly,
the Air Force should actively work with the IC to formally link the ISR CP&A
9A similar approach is used by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).
OCR for page 86
86 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
Multi-Resolution
Gap Analysis
Mission
Perspective
Collection Integrated
Perspective Perspective
Focused
Needs
Infotecture Comms
Perspective Perspective
Utility, Cost, Risk Trade Space
Prioritized
Gaps
FIGURE 4-4 The Multi-resolution Gap Analysis in the proposed Capability Planning and Analysis pro-
4-4.eps
cess. (See the high-level view of the process in Figure 4-1.)
process with the processes of IC partners, particularly the National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency (NGA), the NRO, and the National Security Agency.
Needs should be documented in writing using structured fields that can be
stored and easily searched using a database-management system. At a minimum,
needs records should include a unique identifier, description, and measures of
effectiveness and/or measures of performance that allow the Air Force to quanti-
tatively assess progress toward meeting the desired end state. Finally, as is the case
today, the Air Force should continue to capture all needs in the ISR-CART data-
base. Although the process of accurately and completely documenting, gathering,
reviewing, and updating needs records is potentially tedious and time-consuming,
once the initial set of needs is entered into the ISR-CART database, future Needs
Analysis activities might be shortened considerably through the updating of the
initial set on a change-only basis.
Multi-resolution Gap Analysis
The primary objective of the Multi-resolution Gap Analysis step, shown in
Figure 4-4, is to rigorously compare focused needs with existing capabilities and to
OCR for page 87
T o wa r d an E n h a n c e d A i r F o r c e ISR C P & A P r o c e s s 87
produce a list of prioritized gaps in a trade space that assesses mission utility, cost,
and risk from multiple perspectives and at multiple levels of fidelity. The MGA step
is a highly collaborative process among analysts, domain experts, and related stake-
holders whose shared perspectives span a broad ISR capabilities trade space. MGA
is a modeling and simulation-based approach to problem analysis that allows the
Air Force to examine complex problems systematically by quantitatively analyzing
the problem from different perspectives and at different resolutions. The approach
uses a wide variety of different models and tools tailored for each perspective. It
integrates different capability perspectives in a manner that provides traceability
between causes and effects across the ISR enterprise.10
Exploring the problem from multiple domain perspectives is valuable because
different domains often describe the problem with different representations and
semantics, making it difficult to "understand the elephant" when described by
just one of its many domain parts. Exploring the problem at multiple resolutions
provides the ability to rapidly develop answers to questions using coarse, low-
resolution models, or to deliberately produce accurate answers over longer time
intervals using fine, high-resolution models. For example, it is possible to obtain a
coarse estimate of the volume of water in a lake by multiplying the lake's maximum
depth, width, and length. Or, a much more accurate estimate can be produced us-
ing a high-resolution model that sums small volumes estimated at each point on
a grid laid across the lake floor.
MGA approaches are particularly useful when the high- or low-resolution
models or their input data are infused with uncertainty. These circumstances are
common in planning for capabilities associated with military applications for
which models of complex combat operations do not exist--and even if they did,
would likely suffer from highly uncertain inputs associated with the fog of war.11
Theoretically sound, well-constructed models are consistent across resolution lev-
els. And a well-designed Multi-resolution Gap Analysis approach scales in order
to address large, complex problems, albeit often with less detailed and accurate
solutions.
MGA is not a model or methodology within a model, but a methodology for
the application of multiple models. The capabilities within the MRA methodology
would not include models in which resolution could be dialed for applications.
Mixing levels of resolution within models is not a desired practice. MGA's driving
concept is that high-resolution models can generate metrics that are rolled into
10Doug Owens, Manager, Enterprise Analysis, Defense Business Unit, TASC. "An Enterprise Ap-
proach to Capability-Based Analysis: Best Practices, Tools, and Results." Presentation to the commit-
tee, January 5, 2012.
11James H. Bigelow and Paul K. Davis. 2003. "Implications for Model Validation of Multiresolution,
Multiperspective Modeling (MRMPM) and Exploratory Analysis." Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND. Avail-
able at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1750.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2012.
OCR for page 88
88 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
lower-resolution models. The various levels of resolution come into play in terms
of the layering of models that employ more and more aggregation to meet decision
needs sufficiently and responsively. Analysis can be conducted at lower levels of
resolution for aggregate levels of trade-offs if such information is sufficient to aid
decisions at those levels, as long as those aggregate-level effects maintain traceability
to higher-resolution performance factors.
The MGA construct may consist of numerous models and tools to flesh out
trade-offs sufficiently to support decisions. For example, a series of tools may be
appropriate to assessing cyberthreat impacts to missions and determining options
for mitigation of high-order effects. Technical, high-resolution nodal analysis of
a physical network could determine the pervasiveness of a specified cyber attack.
That analysis could produce metrics on estimated network downtime and degree of
degradation to specific segments of the network architecture. Rather than carrying
the high-resolution effects of the cyber virus to the next level of analysis, only the
effects-based metrics would be carried forward. These could then serve as planning
factors in a process flow model to determine data-throughput impacts of critical
information delayed by the cyber effects on segments of the architecture. Those
throughput-metric results could then serve as uncertainty bands in a simulation
of the affected missions, such as communications support to joint operations in
a specified scenario.
The MGA box in Figure 4-4 shows four domain perspectives and one inte-
grated perspective, all interconnected to emphasize that the MGA process requires
joint and several interactions among all perspectives. The four independent per-
spectives initially suggested when analyzing the utility, cost, and risk trade-off space
are the Mission Perspective, which focuses on operational plans, force structure,
and the command-and-control of operational assets; the Collection Perspective,
which primarily includes ISR sensors and platforms; the Infotecture Perspective,
which focuses on PCPAD activities in support of operations; and the Comms
Perspective, which includes cyber, network, and communications capabilities that
enable command and control and sensor data exfiltration. Additional perspectives
undoubtedly exist and bear consideration when circumstances require.
More importantly, MGA uses an Integrated Perspective that allows trade-offs
in utility, cost, and risk among the other perspectives. Tailored and scaled to the
needs of the decision maker, the iterative, integrated process provides quick-look
assessments through streamlined analysis processes early in the analysis cycle. And
it increasingly adds layers of fidelity that allow broader and deeper analyses of the
ISR capability trade space. Integrating different domain perspectives at different
resolution levels then provides an enterprise view of needs associated with exist-
ing or missing capabilities. Examples of methods used to integrate operations and
cost perspectives include multi-attribute utility analysis, which integrates multiple
metrics into a set of value metrics, and inference analysis, which maps capability
OCR for page 89
T o wa r d an E n h a n c e d A i r F o r c e ISR C P & A P r o c e s s 89
performance metrics into a spider web mosaic for diagnostic assessments of po-
tential impacts of variations in each metric.12
Many of these methods employ hierarchical structures, in which each layer has
its own elements, properties, relations, and metrics that characterize the important
behavior or operations within that layer. Elements of the layer may depend on
other layers in the hierarchy, such as the interdependencies between communica-
tions and ISR. The attributes or metrics of these elements can be mapped through
transformations that translate those attribute dependencies onto the next layer's
elements or behaviors. The result is a layering of capabilities and metrics that
begin at the top in a more aggregated, higher level of abstraction, flowing down
to lower (higher-resolution) layers, enabling trade-offs that are still rooted in the
detailed physics levels but understood and assessed at higher decision levels. By this
transformation layering, attributes from one layer to another can be decoupled and
re-characterized to enable analysis at higher levels that, though rooted in the high-
resolution physics of technologies and systems, are not strictly linked to specific
parameters of individual systems or concepts. As long as the transformations that
enable mapping from one layer to another can be constructed, the relations can be
preserved and tracked through the entire enterprise.
MGA brings all perspectives to bear in order to find a viable solution, with
viability conditioned by utility, cost, and risk assessments. These assessments pro-
vide separate, quantitative insights using interactive, model-based analyses driven
by capability metrics assigned to PCPAD information and data flows; command,
control, communications, and computer network trade-offs; sensors and platforms;
operational concepts of operation; and cyber/information operation impacts. They
also map capability metrics to cost estimating and risk-analysis trade-offs, and
project costs over planning horizons. Cost-benefit analyses can be developed for
individual domain perspectives as well as for combined families of systems, archi-
tectures, or the entire enterprise. Initially coarse, cost-benefit assessments are refined
during later stages of the Multi-resolution Analysis, and subsequent Solution Analy-
sis. A good example of a multi-resolution financial analysis capability is provided
by TASC's Financial and Business Analytics tool, which maps capability metrics to
cost estimating and risk-analysis trade-offs, plus cost projections over planning ho-
rizons (Analysis of Alternatives, Program Objective Memorandum [POM] inputs).
Continuing with the previous jungle operations example, an RPA solution
might be preferred on a cost and accuracy basis, but it might present a risk by
indicating Air Force presence and interest unless flown at high altitudes to avoid
detection. Risks might lie in the trade space between standoff distance, detectabil-
12TASC has developed an example of a methodology and associated tool--called Integrated Deci-
sion Analysis--that enables decision trade-offs among risks, sensitivities, and programmatic consid-
erations across multiple perspectives.
OCR for page 90
90 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
ity by the adversary, and the wait for the development of a less-observable RPA
capability. The mission perspective would influence the trade space in multiple
ways. For example, high-resolution video (part of the collection perspective) would
require "boots-on-the-ground" (meaning that the collection perspective affects
the integrated perspective, since a Joint capability, e.g., a UGS, may be needed).
Exfiltration of the video would require taking the communication perspective into
account--for example, a data network consisting of ground elements connected
to airborne and space relays to get the data into the hands of analysts and decision
makers. This information flow from the theater to the users reflects the analysis
and dissemination represented by the infotecture perspective and also illustrates
the end-to-end analysis designed into the process. This process can be (and likely
will be) iterated--for example, the use of robotic UGSs may reduce risks to hu-
man operators but may demand the development of new Air Force air deployment
capabilities and communications architectures.13
MGA is executed as an interactive collaborative process among analysts,
subject-matter experts, and various process stakeholders. The key to achieving a
flexible, robust analytic capability is founded on the application of quantitative,
model-based methods that allow an examination of the entire enterprise from
different capability perspectives, integrated for a complete view of total capability.
The use of model-based analytics within an integrated, interactive process allows
one to determine at various times and complexity scales whether the capabilities
exist to satisfy the stated needs, or, if gaps exist, what their order of priority is for
subsequent consideration in the solutions analysis phase of the process.
An MGA process is envisioned that is jointly funded by and distributed among
AF/A2, AFISRA, and Air Combat Command (ACC), and is at various times led by
either the AF/A2 or the GIISR CFLI. For example, AF/A2 may choose to lead the
process when responding to a "short-fuse request," from the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or the Congress, to
develop and justify a budget position. And the CFLI may be better suited to lead
periodic, deliberate analyses of a broader set of needs and gaps on a POM planning
cycle. The distributed components of the MGA process include the ISR-CART da-
tabase, a repository of reusable models that can be accessed by means of metadata
stored in the ISR-CART, and the addition of a variety of modeling and simulation
and other tools needed for assessing the utility, cost, and risk of ISR capabilities
within and across domain perspectives that could become the substrate of an
ISR CP&A Analytics Repository. Because the ISR-CART is currently maintained
13J.M. Smith, M. Olivieri, A. Lackpour, and N. Hinnerschitz. 2009. "RF-mobility Gain: Concept,
Measurement Campaign, and Exploitation." IEEE Wireless Communications 16(1):38-44. Available
at http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1435&context=cis_papers. Accessed
March 22, 2012.
OCR for page 91
T o wa r d an E n h a n c e d A i r F o r c e ISR C P & A P r o c e s s 91
by AFISRA, it might be easiest in the near term to build and maintain an initial
repository and tool set at AFISRA. Over time, however, a distributed, networked
capability is envisioned that can be readily accessed through the Internet by all
MGA participants and their designated contractors. For example, one might envi-
sion a distributed, physics-based modeling-and-simulation capability that might
use communications models maintained by a group in Los Angeles, infotecture
models from a group located in San Antonio, Texas, and platform and sensor
models maintained by a group in Dayton, Ohio.
The core MGA team would consist of "on-call" subject-matter experts in each
of the perspective domains, and an "integrator" with the breadth of skills and
experience in Multi-resolution Analysis required to lead and manage the process.
Because of the potentially large degree of iterative interactions between the PDA
and Needs Analysis steps, it may be beneficial to have the integrator also serve as
the PDA lead. Doing so might shorten the lines of communication so as to speed
the process, reduce confusion, and manage costs efficiently. The domain experts
would most likely not be co-located. And networked elements of the integration
team might also collaborate from multiple locations, such as Washington, D.C.;
Langley, Virginia; and San Antonio, Texas.
With the many variables associated with implementing an MGA process, it is
unclear how much to suggest that the Air Force annually budget in order to fund
the MGA team or the purchase and maintenance of models, tools, and so on. It
might be best to begin with a small "calibration" project, co-funded by AF/A2 and
the GIISR CFLI, that would help them gain an understanding of the major cost
drivers and use lessons learned to refine future MGA requirements. Working to-
gether, the two organizations would develop a plan and budget for expanding and
improving the process over time.
Solution Analysis
The primary purpose of the Solution Analysis step of the ISR CP&A process,
shown in Figure 4-5, is to analyze and recommend materiel and non-materiel solu-
tions that fill prioritized gaps provided by the MGA phase. As shown in Figure 4-5,
the Air Force Materiel Command is generally responsible for developing materiel
solutions, whereas AFISRA develops non-materiel solutions. Recommended solu-
tions are forwarded to decision makers who work within the Air Force Corporate
process to prioritize and seek funds to implement them.
It is important to note that both the AFMC and the AFISRA rely on established
processes for assessing and developing solutions. For example, AFMC's Develop-
ment Planning community has an established capability planning and assessment
process that analyzes solutions, with capability management teams consisting of
stakeholders across the science and technology, acquisition, and operational com-
OCR for page 92
92 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
AF Corp
Process
Prioritized Proposed
Gaps Solutions
Solution ___M___ DOT_LPF
Analysis (AFMC) (AFISRA)
FIGURE 4-5 The Solution Analysis step in the proposed Capability Planning and Analysis process. (See
the high-level view of the process in Figure 4-1.)
4-5.eps
munities. Rather than calling for a reinvention of the process wheel, the committee
recommends that the Air Force continue to rely on established AFMC and AFISRA
processes to assess and develop solutions for capability gaps. That said, there is a
need for a decision-making organization to determine initially whether a particular
gap requires a materiel or a non-materiel solution. In addition, such an organiza-
tion should assign MAJCOM owners to gaps and analysis solutions, serve as an
interface and advocate with Air Staff and other stakeholders when required, and
generally oversee the analysis of the various materiel and non-materiel solution
processes. Because AF/A2 would primarily invoke the ISR CP&A process to seek
rapid answers to "what if " questions that do not require deep solutions analyses,
the GIISR CFLI might be the best organization to oversee what can sometimes be
protracted materiel and non-materiel solution analyses in support of the develop-
ment of new and significant capabilities.
OCR for page 93
T o wa r d an E n h a n c e d A i r F o r c e ISR C P & A P r o c e s s 93
TABLE 4-2 The Proposed Process Satisfies the Desired Attributes of an Enterprise-wide ISR
Capability, Planning and Analysis (CP&A) Process
Desired Process Attribute Proposed Process Capability
Encompasses All ISR Domains and Entities
Encompasses all ISR missions · The Problem Definition and Approach (PDA) step brings
the right players to the table to ensure that the process is
configured to address all relevant investment questions.
Addresses all ISR domains · The Multi-resolution Gap Analysis (MGA) framework explicitly
and sources incorporates and integrates the perspectives of all relevant
domains, sources of ISR needs and capabilities.
Includes all ISR assets in
· Sensor-to-user assets, including platforms, communications
sensor-to-user chain
and command-and-control links, and PCPAD capabilities are
Collaborates with ISR-related entities modeled and analyzed by means of simulations to answer
investment questions in a performance versus cost versus
risk trade space.
Produces Credible Outcomes
Provides traceability from process · The multi-resolution framework ties the analysis process
inputs to outputs to authoritative data sources and the analysis guidance
established during the PDA step. It is executed as an
Is mission/scenario-based interactive, collaborative process among various analysis
elements and players to provide a more complete cost, risk,
and utility trade-space analysis.
· Complex domains of capability are analyzed from different
perspectives with tailored models and tools appropriate
Is repeatable and enduring for each perspective, but with the various segments of the
analysis integrated to provide traceability of cause and effect
for combined total impact.
· High-fidelity technical performance measures on sensor/
system effects are mapped against specific mission scenarios
Supports trade-off analyses
to assess operational impacts and prioritize gaps.
Efficiently Uses Limited Resources
Is scalable in size, time, · The multi-resolution framework provides quick-look
and resolution assessments of capability and cost and/or affordability
through streamlined applications of cost, risk, and utility
trade-space analyses. The framework adds more and
more layers of fidelity where needed to refine quick-look
assessments over time.
· Automated analysis tools, such as modeling and simulation,
Reduces labor and cost over time
reduce the number of people and amount of time required to
conduct trade-space analyses. Models are refined, stored, and
reused to the greatest extent possible to minimize duplication
of modeling effort.
NOTE: Acronyms are defined in the list in the front matter.
OCR for page 94
94 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
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The recommended process described in this chapter is intended to enhance,
not to replace, the current ISR CP&A process in a manner that achieves the desired
attributes listed in Table 4-1. In particular, the addition of a PDA step would allow
decision makers to focus the process on specific investment questions while also
supporting the periodic need to assess all ISR needs and gaps. Also, the current
gap analysis step would be expanded to integrate explicitly the perspectives and
resources of multiple domains in a mission context. The proposed gap analysis
approach incorporates a multi-resolution framework that allows the process to
scale in a consistent manner, from quick-look assessments designed to address
urgent questions rapidly, albeit with less fidelity, to deliberate-look assessments
that produce higher-fidelity answers at the cost of additional time and resources.
Table 4-2 summarizes the proposed process enhancements that satisfy the desired
attributes, summarized in Table 4-1, in a robust, comprehensive Air Force intel-
ligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance Capability Planning and Analysis process.
Despite the attempt to design a process that enhances rather than replaces
the current process, the addition of the PDA and MGA functions would require
careful planning prior to their implementation. Further, the Air Force may wish to
implement the process changes in a staged fashion designed to minimize disrup-
tions to the ongoing process. The Air Force is urged to roll out the recommended
process enhancements by way of a pilot project, or a series of pilot projects, to lay
the foundation of a future process that the Air Force can thoughtfully build on
over time to achieve the desired end state.
In summary, the value inherent in achieving this end state derives from its abil-
ity to effect the following: (1) enhance the quality, transparency, repeatability, and
credibility of proposed investments; (2) provide greater insight into cost, risk, and
mission utility assessments; (3) scale from quick-look through long-term analy-
ses; (4) expand consideration and analysis of Joint and interagency capabilities;
(5) more fully address all ISR domains (air, space, land, maritime, cyberspace);
(6) encompass complete "sensor-to-user" chain including PCPAD; and (7) reduce
the time and labor required to answer investment questions.
