Evaluation of U.S. Air Force Preacquisition Technology Development (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 The Recommended Path Forward
4 The Recommended Path Forward
Pages 89-102
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 89... ...
, can allow the Air Force to improve its ability to specify, develop, test, and insert new technology into its systems. This framework calls for clear, realistic, stable, trade-off-tolerant, and universally understood requirements; the resources needed to accomplish the job (including funding, together with policy and processes tailored for rapid technology insertion)
|
From page 90... ...
s . a i r f o rc e P r e ac q u i s i t i o n t e c h n o lo g y d ev e lo P m e n t s 90 of TABLE 4-1 Committee Recommendations Associated with the Seven Key Issues Identified in This Report Statement of Task Criteria Key Issue Workforce Organization Policies Processes Resources Legislation Requirements 1.
|
From page 91... ...
, and a recommendation associated with that issue. The chapter contains 17 of the study's findings and the 7 recommendations of the study.1 KEY ISSUE 1 Freezing Requirements Too Early or Too Late in the Technology Development Phase Can Lead to a Mismatch Between Technology Enabled Capabilities and Requirement Expectations That Significantly Reduces the Probability of Successful Technology Transitions Imposing a large and rigid set of requirements at the outset of the technology development phase can create false expectations among stakeholders, who may assume that technology "miracles" will occur, enabling the desired capabilities.
|
From page 92... ...
RECOMMENDATION 4-1 To ensure that technologies and operational requirements are well matched, the Air Force should create an environment that allows stakeholders -- warfighters, laboratories, acquisition centers, and industry -- to trade off technologies with operational requirements prior to Milestone B KEY ISSUE 2 The Lack of an Air Force-Level Science and Technology Strategy Leads to AFRL Efforts That May Not Support Desired Strategic Air Force Capabilities, and to the Fragmented Prioritization and Allocation of 6.4 Technology Transition Funds If Air Force and industry efforts are to be focused on critical technology needs, then a process must exist at the corporate Air Force level to prepare and promul gate an Air Force science and technology (S&T)
|
From page 93... ...
FINDING (2-9) Although the Air Force Chief Scientist has developed an "art of the possible" science and technology strategic plan for the 2010 to 2030 time frame, there exists no Air Force-level unifying strategy, inextricably linked to operational re quirements, to guide decision making for science and technology investments.
|
From page 94... ...
ad dresses this potential and is tailored to Air Force missions and organization. In addition, the Air Force should consider allocating funding for technology development, including funding for 6.4, or advanced component development and prototypes, to the Air Force Materiel Command and Air Force Space Com mand, unless precluded by law from doing so.
|
From page 95... ...
t h e r e c o m m e n d e d P at h f o r wa r d 95 Science and Technology Board Vice Chief of Staff and SAF/AQ Air Force Headquarters key staff, Major Command Vice Commanders, and Product Center Commanders Develops a science and technology investment strategy and allocates funding for execution Applied Technology Council A3/5, SAF/AQ MD, DSAF/Space Air Force Headquarters key staff, Major Command A5/8s, and Product Center CV/XRs Prioritizes 12 S&T IPT efforts and makes recommendations to the Board Supports the Board's strategy and executes objectives S&T IPTs Nuclear Air Global Rapid Special Global Deterrence Superiority Precision Global Operations Integrated Operations Attack Mobility ISR Command Space Cyberspace Personnel Building Agile and Superiority Superiority Recovery Partnerships Combat Control Support FIGURE 4-1 Notional science and technology governance. S-1 and 4-1.eps R01861 AF PTD -- CS4 final.indd 95 2/18/11 2:26 PM
|
From page 96... ...
Instruction 5000.02 specifically states that processes, reviews, and milestones should be tailored for different program cir cumstances.5 However, the committee learned from numerous presenters that the acquisition community often treats DoD Instruction 5000.02 pre-Milestone B guidance as rigid, leading to long and sometimes costly technology insertion campaigns. For example, current policy requires Preliminary Design Reviews prior to Milestone B, even though in some cases (e.g., competitive pre-Milestone B contracts)
|
From page 97... ...
, the responsibility of conducting independent TRL assessments for selected Major Defense Acquisition Programs. In addition to concerns over the availability of DDR&E resources to accomplish this tasking, the ability to conduct independent TRL assessments needs to be vested in the Air Force acquisition system, initially to support non-Major Defense Acquisition Programs, and eventually to support all programs with DDR&E and congressional approval.
|
From page 98... ...
s . a i r f o rc e P r e ac q u i s i t i o n t e c h n o lo g y d ev e lo P m e n t s 98 of KEY ISSUE 5 Developing Technologies and Weapon Systems in Parallel Almost Inevitably Causes Cost Overruns, Schedule Slippage, and/or the Eventual Reduction in Planned Capabilities The committee heard examples from numerous government and industry presenters about the pitfalls of entering the weapons system development phase while continuing to mature underdeveloped technologies.
|
From page 99... ...
Collaborative government-industry fo rums, such as those sponsored by the Space and Missile Systems Center Develop ment Planning organization, the Ground Robotics Consortium, and the National Small Arms Center, also serve to educate government decision makers about in dustry R&D plans and to motivate industry researchers to focus on technologies required to achieve desired future capabilities. Workforce training and incentives may be needed to establish such forums.
|
From page 100... ...
One approach is to establish collaboration forums similar to the Ground Robotics Consortium and the Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineer ing Center's National Small Arms Center. KEY ISSUE 7 A Much Reduced and Inexperienced Development Planning Workforce Has Weakened the Technology Transition Bridge Between Laboratories, Product Centers, and Major Commands Historically, much of the Air Force responsibility for technology development and maturation rested with the Product Center Development Planning Organiza tions.
|
From page 101... ...
The recom mendations in this chapter are intended to support and enhance that reconstitution effort and to help restore the Air Force's qualitative technical edge. It is crucial to recognize, however, that restoring that technological edge will require a reversal of the lost trust discussed earlier in this report.
|
From page 102... ...
R01861 AF PTD -- CS4 final.indd 102 2/18/11 2:26 PM
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.