Evaluation of U.S. Air Force Preacquisition Technology Development
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This is a report of work supported by Grant FA9550-09-1-0653 between the U.S. Air Force and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-16275-3
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-16275-0
Limited copies of this report are available from:
Air Force Studies Board
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-3111
Additional copies are available from:
The National Academies Press
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON EVALUATION OF U.S. AIR FORCE PREACQUISITION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
RICHARD V. REYNOLDS,
The VanFleet Group, LLC,
Chair
DONALD C. FRASER,
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (retired),
Vice Chair
CHARLES E. ADOLPH,
Albuquerque, New Mexico
BRIAN A. ARNOLD,
Raytheon Company
FRANCIS J. BAKER,
Wright State University
THOMAS W. BLAKELY,
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
CLAUDE M. BOLTON,
Defense Acquisition University
THOMAS J. BURNS,
SET Corporation
LLEWELLYN S. DOUGHERTY,
Raytheon Company
RICHARD B.H. LEWIS,
Lockheed Martin Corporation
ELLEN M. LORD,
AAI Corporation
CHRISTOPHER E. MANUEL,
Sierra Nevada Corporation
MATT L. MLEZIVA,
Wildwood Strategic Concepts
RONALD E. MUTZELBURG,
Alexandria, Virginia
RICHARD L. RUMPF,
Rumpf Associates International, Inc.
Staff
CARTER W. FORD, Program Officer and Study Director
SARAH M. CAPOTE, Research Associate
ZEIDA PATMON, Program Associate
AIR FORCE STUDIES BOARD
GREGORY S. MARTIN,
GS Martin Consulting,
Chair
PAMELA A. DREW,
TASC, Inc.,
Vice Chair
MARSHA J. BERGER,
New York University
THOMAS J. BURNS,
SET Corporation
THOMAS DARCY,
EADS North America Defense Company
KENNETH E. EICKMANN,
U.S. Air Force (retired)
JOHN V. FARR,
Stevens Institute of Technology
RAND H. FISHER,
Aerospace Corporation
MICHAEL J. GIANELLI,
Boeing Company (retired)
JACQUELINE GISH,
Northrop Grumman Corporation
LESLIE GREENGARD,
New York University
KENNETH C. HALL,
Duke University
WESLEY L. HARRIS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
PAUL G. KAMINSKI,
Technovation, Inc.
LESLIE KENNE,
LK Associates
LESTER L. LYLES,
The Lyles Group
DEBASIS MITRA,
Bell Laboratories
MATT L. MLEZIVA,
Wildwood Strategic Concepts
GERALD F. PERRYMAN, JR.,
Raytheon Company
GENE W. RAY,
GMT Ventures
MARVIN R. SAMBUR,
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force (retired)
J. DANIEL STEWART,
University of Tennessee
Staff
MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Director
JESSICA R. BROKENBURR, Financial Assistant
KAMARA E. BROWN, Research Associate
SARAH M. CAPOTE, Research Associate
GREGORY EYRING, Senior Program Officer
CARTER W. FORD, Program Officer
CHRIS JONES, Financial Manager
ZEIDA PATMON, Program Associate
MARGUERITE E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Coordinator
DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Program Officer
SHANNON C. THOMAS, Program Associate
Preface
The enactment of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) and the recent revision of Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02 have served to highlight the complexity of the Department of Defense acquisition process.1 This report serves as a follow-on study to the 2008 National Research Council (NRC) report Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase Systems Engineering: A Retrospective Review and Benefits for Future Air Force Systems Acquisition, which emphasized the role of systems engineering in the acquisition life cycle.2 This complementary report focuses specifically on the role of maturing technologies and inserting them at the appropriate time in the acquisition cycle.
Leaders in the Air Force responsible for science and technology and acquisition are trying to determine the optimal way to utilize existing policies, processes, and resources to properly document and execute pre-program of record technology development efforts, including opportunities to facilitate the rapid acquisition of revolutionary capabilities and the more deliberate acquisition of evolutionary capabilities.
The Committee on Evaluation of U.S. Air Force Preacquisition Technology Development (see Appendix A for biographical sketches), appointed by the NRC to conduct this study, acknowledges and appreciates the contribution of the mem-
1 |
For additional information, see http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500002p.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2011. |
2 |
NRC. 2008. Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase Systems Engineering: A Retrospective Review and Benefits for Future Air Force Systems Acquisition. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. |
bers of the Air Force Studies Board (AFSB) of the NRC in developing the study’s statement of task (see Box 1-1 in Chapter 1) in concert with the Air Force sponsor.
The AFSB was established in 1996 as a unit of the NRC at the request of the United States Air Force. The AFSB brings to bear broad military, industrial, and academic scientific, engineering, and management expertise on Air Force technical challenges and other issues of importance to senior Air Force leaders. The board discusses potential studies of interest, develops and frames study tasks, ensures proper project planning, suggests potential committee members and reviewers for reports produced by fully independent ad hoc study committees, and convenes meetings to examine strategic issues. The board members were not asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they review the final draft of this report before its release, although board members with appropriate expertise may be nominated to serve as formal members of study committees or as report reviewers.
The committee thanks the many people who provided information to the committee, including the guest speakers shown in Appendix B, their organizations, and supporting staff members; and others, including the study sponsor Dr. Steven Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, and his staff members. The committee is also grateful to the NRC staff members who provided their dedicated support throughout the study.
Richard V. Reynolds, Chair
Donald C. Fraser, Vice Chair
Committee on Evaluation of U.S. Air Force Preacquisition Technology Development
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Vinton G. Cerf, Google, Inc.,
Pamela A. Drew, TASC, Inc.,
Charles B. Duke, Xerox Corporation (retired),
Annette J. Krygiel, Great Falls, Virginia,
Paul E. Nielsen, Maj Gen, USAF (retired), Carnegie Mellon University,
Robert E. Schafrik, GE Aircraft Engines, and
Larry D. Welch, Gen, USAF (retired), Institute for Defense Analyses.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lawrence T. Papay, PQR, LLC, and Lawrence J. Delaney, Titan Corporation (retired). Appointed by the National Research Council, they were
responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Acronyms
A&AS advisory and assistance services
ACC adaptive cruise control
ACD&P Advanced Component Development and Prototypes
AEO Adaptive Execution Office
AFI Air Force Instruction
AFMC Air Force Materiel Command
AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory
AFSB Air Force Studies Board
AFSC Air Force Systems Command
AFSPC Air Force Space Command
AIP Acquisition Improvement Plan
AoA Analysis of Alternatives
ARDEC Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center
ATC Applied Technology Council
ATO Army Technology Office
CDRT Capabilities Development for Rapid Transition
CJCS (J8) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate)
COCOM (United States) Combatant Command
CP competitive prototyping
CPM Critical Path Method
CSAF Chief of Staff of the Air Force
C/SCSC Cost/Schedule Control System Criteria
CTE critical technology element
DAG Defense Acquisition Guidebook
DAPA Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DDR&E Director, Defense Research and Engineering
DMEA Defense Microelectronics Activity
DoD Department of Defense
DP Development Planning
EFP explosively formed penetrator
EMD Engineering and Manufacturing Development (phase)
EPP “Enhanced” Planning Process
EUREKA European Research Cooperation Agency
EVM Earned Value Management
FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation
FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center
FNC Future Naval Capabilities
GAO Government Accountability Office
GPS Global Positioning System
ICD Initial Capabilities Document
IED improvised explosive device
IPT Integrated Product Team
IR&D independent research and development
ISET Industry System Engineering Team
JCA Joint Capability Area
JCAAMP Joint IED Defeat Capability Approval and Acquisition Management Process
JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
JGRE Joint Ground Robotics Enterprise
JHU/APL Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory
JIEDD Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
JIEDDO Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization
JIPT JIEDDO Integrated Process Team
JPG Joint Programming Guidance
JR2AB JlEDDO Requirements, Resources, and Acquisition Board
JRAC Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell
JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Council
JSF Joint Strike Fighter
JUONS Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statement
LCC life-cycle cost
MAJCOM Major Command
MDA Milestone Decision Authority
MDAP Major Defense Acquisition Program
MDD Material Development Decision
MRL Manufacturing Readiness Level
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NDAA National Defense Authorization Act
NLOS-LS Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System
NRC National Research Council
NRL Naval Research Laboratory
NSAC National Small Arms Center
O&S operations and support
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ONR Office of Naval Research
OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense
OTA Other Transactions Agreement
OUSD (AT&L) Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)
OUSD (C) Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
PDR Preliminary Design Review
PE Program Element
PERT Program Evaluation Review Technique
POM Program Objective Memorandum
PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
PPBES Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System
R&D research and development
RAM Requirements Analysis and Maturation
RDT&E Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
ROVER Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver
RRTO Rapid Reaction Technology Office
S&T science and technology
SAF Secretary of the Air Force
SAF/AQ Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition)
SAF/AQX Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition Integration)
SMC Space and Missile Systems Center
SNC Sierra Nevada Corporation
SOTVS Special Operations Tactical Video System
SPG Strategic Planning Guidance
SPO System Program Office
SRR System Requirements Review
TARDEC Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center
TDS Technology Development Strategy
TIG technology interest group
TRA Technology Readiness Assessment
TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command
TRL Technology Readiness Level
TSPR Total System Performance Responsibility
USAF United States Air Force
USN United States Navy
VADER Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar
WSARA Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
XR Product Centers’ Development Planning Organization