Foundation Forum

Lieutenant General Patrick P. Caruana
Vice Commander
Air Force Space Command
An Operational Perspective
AFA Symposium
Colorado Springs, Colo.
May 24, 1996

Thank you very much. I am delighted to be here and speak with you as we discuss a very important subject the process of acquisition and acquisition reform.

Our message from Air Force Space Command is fairly simple: The DoD acquisition process needs to create an effective military capability for us to use and then put that capability into the hands of the operator in a quick and affordable manner. That s "motherhood and apple pie," but that is really what it is all about. That s the essence of acquisition and acquisition reform.

This responsibility begins in Air Force Space Command. It is incumbent upon us, as good customers and players in the acquisition community, to do the front end of this process correctly the requirements process. Everything we do in the military is tied to a mission of providing mission support to the warfighters. Secondly, we have to properly identify what is required to fulfill that particular mission need or deficiency.

So, the requirements process, we believe, is extremely important and, unless we do this process correctly, then we are not providing the foundation for the acquisition process to produce the capability that we have asked for.

Acquisition reform is built around simplifying and improving all aspects of this process and encouraging innovation. As you will hear today from the speakers that follow me, acquisition reform spans a wide variety of disciplines which must be properly integrated to achieve the synergistic effect necessary to attain the key goals of reform.

The warfighters and those who provide warfighting capability rely upon "DoD to maintain its technological superiority and strong, globally competitive national industrial base." Today I am speaking as a user from Air Force Space Command and will address the front end of this process, "requirements development."

It is our job in Air Force Space Command, through our two components, 14th Air Force and 20th Air Force, to provide the warfighting capability for NORAD, USCINCSPACE and also USCINCSTRAT. We do this through the forces that we organize, train and equip. NORAD s mission is to defend North America against air, missile and space attack. U.S. Space Command directly supports that NORAD mission. But its missions also include Space Control or superiority, Space Forces Support, Force Application and Force Enhancement and are assigned via the unified command plan. As such, the NORAD and USSPACECOM missions are fairly well defined. In Air Force Space Command, this is the basis for our daily mission, and it is also the basis upon which we build our requirements process.

The first key steps in the process are centered clearly around identifying what it is we need to acquire.

USSPACECOM uses the mission requirements process to develop the CINCs Integrated Priority List [IPL], which is simply a list of those top priorities to support their mission. This Integrated Priority List, in concert with the operational warfighting plans [OPLANs] that are developed, form the basis for acquiring systems. In Air Force Space Command, it s called our Mission Area Plans [MAP] process. As one of the three major component commands that supports USCINCSPACE, this MAP process allows us to translate the warfighting needs of the CINCs, as they have been documented in their IPLs, into long-range plans for Air Force Space Command.

Our MAPs integrate inputs from industry through the product centers and through the labs to coordinate this effort. When we have identified a military requirement, we are able to push that back through the acquisition system to have the labs work the technology that is directly related to the needs that we have identified. It is important that we stay true to that process and have an audit trail, traceability, so we are not spending money frivolously or asking the acquisition structure to look into areas that will not be productive.

That doesn t mean we are not in the business of looking for creative things on the margins. However, we have tried to put discipline into this requirement structure reaching all the way through the process. We ask for some potential payoff in both the long and short-term in meeting mission requirements.

The long-range vision is a merger of the warfighting requirements, key emerging technologies with a view for cost and schedule performance and budget considerations. Each of these factors, initially treated in the MAP, are then refined throughout this acquisition process in an iterative manner.

The development and implementation of MAPs enables us to identify the current deficiencies that we have and the development of Mission Needs Statements [MNS]. These Mission Need Statements proceed through coordination and are either validated at the Air Force senior level [AF Requirements Oversight Council] or, in the case of Joint-use programs, they go through the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the JROC, for final review and approval. Successful validation of these mission needs by either the Air Force and/or the JROC begins this formal process within the acquisition structure

A good example of what I am talking about is the Space-Based Infrared System or the SBIRS program. USSPACECOM and NORAD have a long-standing mission to accomplish tactical warning and attack assessment against North America. This key mission need requires a system which meets certain operational requirements for successful execution. These mission-level requirements are documented in a Capstone Requirements Document for the SBIRS program.

This new document, the CRD, was one of the innovative, pioneering steps in the requirements program that fed directly into the SBIRS. It became the engine which drove the requirement process and has provided a solid, definable, understandable, measurable and, I might add, affordable set of requirements to those who will test, acquire and produce these systems.

After the CRD was validated by the JROC in the summer of 1995, this document and the process allowed us to bring together a three-star level, warfighting council that represented all of the CINCs who had an interest in what the SBIRS program could provide for them in terms of warfighting capability. Through this vehicle, we were able to review the requirements in concert with the acquisition community and the industrial base that was supporting this program. Through an iterative process, we refined the requirements and allowed us to go back to the JROC for final validation. We now have a set of requirements that all of the CINCs and the services have agreed to and, by the way, industry has provided inputs so that we can determine whether they are affordable, achievable and testable.

That may not sound terribly revolutionary, but when you think of how we have done it in the past, I think this is a real success story. And again, I go into this detail simply to point out how important it is if we are to be good customers and good stewards as the process proceeds through succeeding steps.

We had early buy-in through this coordinated process at all levels, and included our partners in industry to make this a success.

Another recent example where we ve seen this same success is the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, EELV. We began with validated requirements, which were done in less than 60 pages, written and approved within 24 months and became the basis for a $2 billion program. Believe it or not, we actually left the details of engineering design tradeoffs to the folks most qualified to decide with industry. These key decision documents for these examples have really unshackled the best and the brightest in DoD and industry, and the results have exceeded all expectations.

Requirements that are clearly defined, affordable and understandable and that are established early on can have a strong positive impact. The entire acquisition community starts on the same sheet of music with the same goals and objectives in mind and a good understanding of what is expected and required. These strides made in requirements are, therefore, followed by tremendous strides in the acquisition process. We really take this requirements process very seriously.

If we don t measure up to the process that I have defined, then we are being deficient in our responsibilities to provide a good requirements statement that can remain stable, that is only revised as a result of the iterative process and that provides a better flow of ideas from our partners in industry.

These reforms also come at a key time in our history. As the so-called "revolution in military affairs" continues, our decision times are getting shortened. Our success in combat will increasingly depend on our ability to react to the needs of the battlefield with more flexible, responsive processes that will be able to take full advantage of what technology provides, in a cost-effective manner, and get this into the hands of the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who are responsible for preserving the peace.

If we do a good job at the front end as I have described, through the requirements, through good CONOPS [Concept of Operations], and working hand in hand with each of you, we can create this warfighting capability faster, cheaper and smoother.

We have had good success in our day-to-day activities. We have been working with Air Force Materiel Command in the launch area. We most recently concluded a MOA [Memorandum of Agreement] with Air Force Materiel Command that better defines, categorizes and provides a match up of responsibility and authority at our launch wings.

We have been working aggressively with NASA to look at requirements cost flow and the Reusable Launch Vehicle as well as the EELV program. Our relationship with the NRO [National Reconnaissance Office] has never been as active, but we have been able to cross flow requirements and have a much better understanding of their activities and how we can provide better support together.

What does the future hold? That s for all of us in this room to answer. But let me offer you a couple of thoughts. Technology developments and doctrinal evolution are impacting the future of the way we do business, particularly from space. Some of this isn t too far away. The traditional mission areas, such as Force Enhancement, will become even more powerful force multipliers through new systems such as Wide-Area Surveillance, Enhanced GPS Constellations, better communications for GBS [Global Broadcast System] and Advanced EHF. Space Control is evolving into Space Superiority to ensure the safe and free use of space by our forces and our allies.

New mission areas such as Planetary Defense will leverage technologies to develop, and to support our legacy missions. Force Application may involve the use of lasers from space or through space planes that will be able to transit the globe in a matter of minutes and deliver fire power, if necessary, anywhere and anytime.

The very definition and concepts of force projection, mobility, and awareness have to be reconsidered. These developments will be possible due to considered and logical evolutionary, and in some cases revolutionary, growth in our systems which are currently being developed. These developments will only be possible if the process from mission identification and development to the requirements definition all the way to approval and to the actual procurement, testing and fielding of these new systems is continuously streamlined and enhanced to keep us inside the decision and procurement cycle of potential adversaries.

I believe we have successfully started down that road. The partnership we hav formed here is a testimony of your commitment to this process. We feel very strongly that we are committed, and I have outlined to you today what we believe is our prime and principle responsibility in this area. We are on the right track, even though we have a long way to go in getting this process smoothed out.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to outline a few of these thoughts to you. I thank you and AFA for conducting this forum. I would be happy to take any questions. Thank you very much.

MS. LANTZY: Sir, NASA is developing a Reusable Launch Vehicle that has potential military application. What is the status of Air Force Space Command s requirements process for a military space plane?

LT. GEN. CARUANA: In this MAP process that we call the plan, we have designated a requirement for a transatmospheric, potentially manned, vehicle in our long-range plan. Under the auspices of an integrated product team, we are at least looking at the requirements for the military applications of the reusable vehicle and the space plane concept with what NASA is developing. I believe we are probably at the first step in looking at what NASA is doing and looking at merging this with our military requirements.

MS. LANTZY: How does the Army and Navy play in the requirement, development here at U.S. Space Command?

LT. GEN. CARUANA: I have spoken with you principally as a member of Air Force Space Command because that is what I am qualified to do. When the Capstone Requirements Document is established through USCINCSPACE, the requirements that could flow to the Navy and the Army are handled similarly through their systems. It depends upon which service ends up being the executive agent for the development of that system. For example, there are elements of SBIRS which are being done by the U.S. Air Force. In that regard, Air Force Space Command would provide either a CONOPS and/or an ORD [Operational Requirements Document] that covers that part of the system. In the area of GBS, for example, the Army is doing a major portion of the requirements process. Just as I have described the responsibility that Air Force Space Command has, either as a lead service or as an operational entity required to produce the warfighting capability or an OPLAN for that, similarly Naval Space Command and Army Space Command do very similar efforts to provide capability under the umbrella of a requirement that comes from USCINCSPACE.

MS. LANTZY: What is new in your interaction with the NRO?

LT. GEN. CARUANA: We are talking to each other and we are listening to each other. I know that sounds like a flippant answer, but Mr. Hall just spent two days here at Space Command. I think that is a strong signal about what we at Air Force Space Command and U.S. Space Command have initiated with NRO. We have quarterly meetings to interact with our counterparts at the general officer and colonel level to look at everything from how they do business and how we do business to how we can take advantage of our respective capabilities. We are looking at how we can cross-flow people with people from the NRO serving tours in Air Force Space Command, in Air Force Materiel Command or in the PEO [Program Executive Office] structure. This is a real fundamental interaction.

At the requirements level, we are always looking at ways to better use our capability. One last example I ll give is the TENCAP program. We are able to leverage the capabilities that come from NRO systems and apply them directly through, in our case at Air Force Space Command, the Space Warfare Center, and bring to bear capability that would only be as a result of being able to take what the NRO does, bring it into a system and provide it to the warfighter. All the other interactions are good and they help us to build on this. The bottom-line is, if we can talk together and provide some added capability to the people out on the ship, in an airplane or on the ground, our strides with the NRO have been very positive.

MS. LANTZY: What kind of acquisition reform efforts will we see as SBIRS enters the EMD [Engineering and Manufacturing Design]phase?

LT. GEN. CARUANA: We think the efforts put into the front end of SBIRS will provide a stable environment for EMD. We will benefit from the initiatives embedded in the Lightning Bolts and a better process.

As we go through the JROC and the final validation in the requirements process, I don t think we will see any major changes in the acquisition approach to this process. But from our perspective, we see good things out there. We see tremendous support, and we see a structure that is sensitive across the board to not only our aspects, but to our understanding the tradeoffs that have to take place to make sure we field this system in a cost effective and very timely manner.

Thank you, I appreciate being with you today.

Return to the Colorado Springs '96 Foundation Forum