Foundation Forum

Brigadier General H. Marshal Ward
Director of Requirements
Air Force Space Command
The Requirements Process
AFA Symposium
Colorado Springs, Colo.
May 24, 1996

Ladies and gentlemen, I am truly delighted to have this opportunity to speak to you during a time of extraordinary change in the business of our great nation s defense.

Not often are we faced with an opportunity to so fundamentally alter the way in which we acquire the means of defense and the way in which we operate those acquisitions to meet rapidly changing missions. We are on the brink of revolutionary advancements in technology and capabilities for our weapon systems. We need to start thinking about our concepts of operation and employment for these weapon systems with the same revolutionary spirit.

However, we are all very aware that fiscal realities dictate that our ability to match these advancements with the appropriate level of resources is limited by the challenges we face, even in light of the end of the Cold War remains significant.

The need to meet new and emerging threats with new mission capabilities will continue and likely increase while the budget, with which to do so, will likely shrink. Hence we have a compelling need to do things better, faster and cheaper.

I have been asked to talk to you about the changes that are occurring within the Air Staff and the using commands in defining, prioritizing and supporting operational requirements, and what we in the requirements business are doing with this reformation of the acquisition process.

Let me say at the outset, the acquisition reform initiatives that are underway today are absolutely on track and are providing us a new framework with which to accelerate the acquisition process to make it less expensive, more responsive and deliver more bang for the buck. Logic would dictate that the requirements process must continue to adapt to these changes as well.

You might ask, what is an acquisition process, and what is the role of requirements in that process? The answer in the purist of terms is that the acquisition process is fundamentally nothing more than a common sense approach to problem solving.

The first step in problem solving is to define the problem. That is what a requirement is supposed to do. Since the acquisition process must solve the problems stated by the requirement, if we don t state the requirement properly and if we don t ask the right questions, we may end up with a solution that is not as useful as we had hoped. Therefore, communications between the customer and the user is absolutely essential to today s business environment.

I am reminded of the story about Aaron Montomgery Ward, no relationship, who formed the first mail order catalogue company in Chicago in 1972. In small towns and on farms, the arrival of a package in the mail was an important event, especially if it came from Montgomery Ward or from Sears Roebuck and Company, which sent out its first catalogue in 1887.

At first, Sears only sold watches. But it quickly expanded into general merchandise. The story goes that a prospector named Jones in Nome, Alaska, sent Sears a prepaid order for 100 rolls of toilet paper and enclosed cash in the envelope. Sears wrote back that it couldn t accept any order that didn t come from the catalogue. Jones replied, if I had a catalogue, I wouldn t need the toilet paper. The message is communication is essential.

Let me take you on a mental journey to the Pentagon. The year is 1986. Congress has just passed the Goldwater-Nicholas Act, which among other very important things, gives the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ultimate responsibility to represent the operational requirements of the warfighting commanders in chief. The responsibility is delegated to a newly created office of the vice chairman. A Council consisting of each of the services second highest ranking four-star generals and chaired by the vice chairman was created and called the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, or JROC.

The work of this council is straight forward at first: Consider only the most critical requirements ofthe departments largest programs. The JROC appears rigid in its defense of JROC-approved requirements, despite some of the cost impacts or technological challenges that they present. It appears that the council members are reticent to challenge the programs of the sister services. Opportunities for service interoperability are often lost to cries of "Too difficult to do." The council at times feels caught between the priorities of their Service chiefs and the direction the vice chairman wants to take them.

But over the years, the council matures. Today there is banterful dialogue, insight and acumen. The council truly functions as a single team in a quest to do what is best. Opportunities for service interoperability are sought out. Teams called Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment Teams have been formed within the Joint Staff and with service participation, perform cross-service analysis of current and planned capabilities to assist the chairman and the service chiefs in their quest for the optimal balance in Defense investments.

The voice of the operator has been strengthened. The opinions of the CINCs are considered at every important junctureto ensure that today s needs are not ransacked to pay the bills for tomorrow s capabilities. They strive to keep harmony between readiness and modernization. Cost has emerged as an independent variable and has replaced the concept of a key performance parameter as an inviolate constant. Any requirement can, and should, be challenged. Trades will be encouraged where costs can be reduced while retaining reasonable military utility.

Times have changed. We are reforming the requirements process. At Air Force Space Command, we have a process in place to define, prioritize and support operational requirements. It is called a Mission Area Planning process. It begins with understanding the assigned mission and how the mission supports national military strategy. We examine our mission and the forces we have assigned and develop a concept of operations that lays out how we intend to use our forces to support the strategy. We identify the tasks that must be accomplished and line them up against the forces assigned. When there is a deficiency, a shortfall, we identify a need. This is our problem statement.

We then explore alternatives to meet that need. We may decide to reallocate some of our assigned assets. We may opt to change how we train. We may consider a change in the operations concept or as a last resort, we may request a new acquisition program.

Our programs are prioritized and funding is sought consistent with that priority. This is an iterative process. We are continually evaluating cost against military utility. Our requirements must be performance based, not solution based. We must provide insight into our needs, not oversight. We must define what needs to be done, not how to do it. More of the responsibility for the work will shift to the contractor. The contractor must have that greater freedom in meeting the needs. That means less regulation and less specifications.

Commercial, off-the-shelf products are highly desirable. We need to be postured to benefit from the leaps and bounds of technology advancement. And our requirements must be written to allow this to happen. Industry can no longer be a silent partner. We need your expertise, your wisdom and your commitment to a better, faster, cheaper product. We are ready to listen. Give us your ideas.

We need to move in a mind set that understands you don t replace things with things, you replace capabilities with capabilities. Here is where innovation and meeting requirements is highly encouraged. We are reforming the requirements process.

In the end, our goal is to put the best possible systems into the hands of the warfighter. Today, more than ever, we are thinking about future roles, missions and requirements in order to do this. Our acquisition and requirements reforms are putting us on the path to this future vision. As we develop the weapons systems for the tail-end of the current era, we must ensure that we set the stage for the front end of the next generation of systems.

The Air Force must operate as a team within a team. This is an enduring theme with our Chief today. We must be part of the service teams that organize, train and equip our nation s forces. We must be part of the service component teams that fight and win America s wars under the leadership of the Joint Warfighting Commander. We must be part of the intergovernmental, interagency team that seeksout commonalities of interest and needs, and we must be part of the team with industry to field the finest systems our nation can produce.

We do this by understanding each other s missions and vision and by integrating our requirements in an unselfish effort to gain economies of scale and ensure interoperability. This must be our goal in developing our requirements, or we will fall short of our potential.

Those of us in the profession of arms simply can t meet this challenge alone. This is why, for example, we are working closely with NASA in a parallel effort at developing the next generation space lift vehicle. NASA s Space Shuttle has served our great nation well in meeting the challenges of the past and today. We must continue to work today to prepare for the challenges of the future. NASA is postured to pursue a single-staged orbit technology demonstrator. This demonstrator will provide a window into the feasibility of a new, cost-effective reusable launch vehicle and maybe America s future conduit into space. Its success will depend heavily on intergovernmental agency cooperation in integration of national security, civil and commercial requirements.

In the near future, space travel will require the use of both expendable and reusable launch vehicles. What portends for the far future, remains to be seen. We must examine the possibilities now and have the courage to make the right decisions as opportunities avail themselves. Cooperation between DoD and NASA will get us there. It will help foster the potential for the development of a reusable launch vehicle as a military space plane. It will help us conquer space as a high ground.

I hope you now have an appreciation for the linkage of requirements to our military strategy, our mission, our forces assigned and our concept of operations. A change in any of these variables can impact our requirements for new systems.

But there is one more variable that can pose significant influence on how we conduct the business of defense and in what new capabilities we must invest. I am speaking of doctrine. Military doctrine presents fundamental principles that guide the employment of forces. Doctrine is authoritative. It provides the distilled insights and wisdom gained from our collected experience with warfare. In a recent speech at Maxwell Air Force Base, General Caruana [Lt. Gen. Patrick P. Caruana, AFSPC/CV] asked the important question of whether or not our existing Air Force doctrine is sufficient to guide current and future air and space operations. Our nation has weathered many a storm in winning wars, battles and the conflicts spanning the globe over the past 220 years to ensure the fundamental principles of democracy, liberty and freedom remain intact.

But the key question to address is whether our current doctrine will be adequate to deal with the uncertainties of the future. Do we have a vision for our future capabilities and challenges that will enable us to develop a doctrine which fully serves us in the future? Clearly, given the phenomenal pace of technology advancement, the challenges we face in the future will be significantly different than those we face today.

The capabilities we need to meet these emerging challenges will define our future doctrine, but it is clear even today that two of Air Force Space Command s current mission areas will be key to tomorrow's doctrinal development: Space Force Application and Space Control. These two mission areas are ripe for doctrinal chnge because they are both currently in their infancy. We have not yet explored their full capabilities, potential and importance to future warfare.

In order to exploit capabilities, military technology must be able to respond to diverse and rapidly shifting situations. Space gives us a medium through which and from which to respond to these emerging situations, allowing us through space force application and space control to provide global and prompt response. This all fits well with a necessity to maintain the strength of our core competencies of Air Superiority, Space Superiority, Information Dominance, Global Mobility and Precision Employment.

But how are we going to get there? We currently assume the friendly use of space, but what if this changes? What if, for example, leased space assets are cut out from under us. Will our new doctrine and associated mission capabilities enable us to respond effectively? The answer can be "Yes" if we continue to develop and exploit emerging technologies and if we have the national resolve. We spokeearlier of how this is a time of revolutionary change. As a revolution gains momentum, we should be aggressively pursuing those technologies which would give us the capabilities to meet the missions of the future under the guidance of tomorrow s doctrine.

Space Force Application and Space Control.

There are countless examples of what some of these future technologies will be. Let me spark your imagination with a brief discussion of some of the more interesting ones. In John Peterson s book, The Road to 2015, he envisions some phenomenal advances in technology. For example, by 2015, we can expect the amount of information in the world to double every 18 months. Silicon-based transistors will be so small that 100 million to a billion transistors will fit onto a single, finger-nail sized chip. Microprocessor advancements will lead to the development of artificial intelligence where we will be able to program computers to think for themselves.

What will this sort of technology explosion lead to? According to Peterson, it will lead to systems like SymNet, a virtual reality predecessor to the Advanced Distributed Simulation System in which participants around the globe can simultaneous visit the same virtual battlefield in whatever type of plane, tank or other equipment they use. Ships in the Pacific can have real-time radar displays that look at the battlefield located in North Carolina. Army tankers and trainers at Fort Knox, Kentucky, look out from their sites and see the same location, only from each of their individual perspectives. Air Force pilots in California can fly a mission in support of the other participants from their trainers at the same time. In short, SymNet allows the joint team to fight the fight before the actual battle begins.

The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board s New World Vistas envision a future need for a Transatmospheric Vehicle that can operate like a manned or unmanned military aircraft. Such a vehicle will have capabilities such as on-demand take off, and the ability to overfly any world-wide location in approximately one hour then returning to his home base and landing within two hours. It could be used to transport troops and supplies or to attack hostile targets.

Similar to the Trans-atmospheric Vehicles are Uninhabited Combat Air ehicles that will allow us to exceed the current limitations imposed on air operations by the need for aircraft to accommodate a human body in an ejection seat. Uninhabited aircraft could maneuver beyond the physical limits of human endurance. According to the Vistas study, the radar cross-section, when compared to that of stealthy manned aircraft, could reduce the effective range of enemy aircraft by a factor of two and area covered by a factor of four. There is the possibility of extending Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle performance into the hypersonic range to enable strikes from the continental United States on high-value targets in minutes.

Phillips Lab is researching airborne laser technology to counter the proliferation of theater mobile ballistic missiles threats. This technology provides existing capability in the effort to protect the United States and its allies from ballistic missile attack. Indeed, the idea enjoys support from our Chief, General Fogleman, when he says this capability will confront an adversary with the prospect of his own missile debris from warheads falling back on his own territory, posing a strong disincentive to attacking U.S. forces with ballistic missiles, particularly those armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Other emerging technologies, such as directed-energy weapons and advancements in space lift and vehicle propulsion systems, will enable similar quantum leaps in mission capability. Some of these new mission capabilities are themselves as exciting as technology itself.

I'll offer you three intriguing examples. As more and more of the world s nations place larger numbers of assets in space, the need for maintaining law and order increases. The United States can be on the cutting edge of maintaining this law and order with a force of global space cops. This will fit quite well with our desire to provide the core competency of Space Superiority.

Similarly, as more assets, both man-made and those of natural origin, such as large asteroids, create traffic jams on the future space freeways, the need for planetary defense becomes acute. The ability to deflect space debris from impacting the earth and the assets of the United States and its allies in space will serve us well and will be a tremendous test of our ability to exercise Precision Employment.

Finally, as access to and use of space becomes increasingly important, the capability to defend ourspace systems against attacking forces becomes increasingly necessary. This is space superiority.

Giulio Douhet is credited with saying, "Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur." With an appreciation of the vision for new technologies and new missions in mind, here is a possibility of what we will face in the future.

Let me describe a potential scenario. The year is 2016. The world is hauntingly Orwellian. The United States becomes involved in a major regional conflict centered in Oceania. With a current and highly unpopular political leadership crumbling, Oceania looks for a means to divert attention from its internal problems. Two and a half million Oceanic troops cross the border to Eurasia. They establish a series of command and control centers within the borders of Eurasia. Before United Federation forces led by the United States can put ground troops in theater, we determne we need to destroy the Oceanic command and control capability, secure air superiority and seal off the borders.

The first step would be to destroy the command and control capability using GPS-guided munitions, but Oceania has just launched a laser-armed satellite to take out our GPS constellation. The speed and accuracy of our response are critical. We are able to immediately launch our Military Space Plane, which evolved from wise investments in our expendable and reusable launch vehicle programs. The plane could be equipped with an articulating arm on which we position a precision, high-energy, electro-magnetic emitter. The emitter targets the Oceania killer satellite, disabling the electrical controls and rendering the satellite inoperative. To avoid fouling space with debris capable of damaging our satellite constellations, we disable and capture the Oceania satellite rather than simply destroy it. The space plane crew maneuvers the articulating arm to snag the errant satellite, putting it into the cargo bay and ultimately the satellite is brought back to earth and delivered to the World Federation Court as evidence to prosecute the offending nation.

Another potential scenario might have a rogue nation develop a live vaccine to protect its own forces and citizens. As the nation tests the biological virus on animals in a neighboring region, thousands die mysteriously. The rogue nation then places capsules in orbit for blackmail and demands, massive investment and trade concessions from wealthy neighbors. The United States is left with the task of responding. Can you imagine the responses available to us in light of our previous discussion on emerging technologies, capabilities and missions? Let me leave the rest up to your imagination.

What will get us to this point of being able to effectively address these contingencies? It will be a visionary outlook on the revolution in technology and capabilities and the consequent revolution in acquisition and requirements processes. It will be the ability to incorporate the tenets of acquisition reform into our programs. It will be our willingness to incorporate both military, civil and commercial requirements into new programs which are destined to benefit us all. It will be recognition that working with programs developed for commercial purposes that have potential military uses can lower overall acquisition cost and reduce the burden on the Defense budget. It will be the realization that future programs will require synergy and development and funding between civil, commercial and military interests.

In the end, it will be the ability to assure continued easy access to and exploitation of space at an affordable cost, and to develop the tools and doctrine for conducting the missions of the future. The United States can stand no less of a noble effort.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for the opportunity to speak to you today and for your tolerance and patience you ve afforded me. I ll take any questions you have.

MS. LANTZY: How do the Air Force Space Command requirements process drive the acquisition of GBS [Global Broadcast Service]?

BRIG. GEN. WARD: There are two ways that drive the process. There is recognizing operational needs, and defining a requirement that would be satisfied by industry who would develop the technology. Another way is to have a technology opportunity become available. Once recognized, it gives us the opportuity now to go back and change our concept of operations. Once we change our concept ofoperations, we go through the whole thought process described earlier. Given this new concept of operations, what capabilities would we have today, what are our needs, and what are our deficiencies? The Global Broadcast Service capability developed from a direct television capability. It is a technology opportunity. It was not driven by our requirements, but allows us now to go back and reevaluate our concept of operations.

Having done so, we are now creating a concept of operations which U.S. Space Command has already drafted and is presenting to the JROC for validation. It allows us to do an assessment of the requirements we ll need for the future.

We are participating in that effort. Air Force Space Command has been the collector of the requirements for the Air Force, and we have forwarded the requirements that take advantage of this technology opportunity to the Army for incorporation into the Joint ORD [Operational Requirements Document]. That is where it stands today.

MS. LANTZY: You asked for our input. If our input is given to our local program manager or contracting director and they don t want to hear what we have to say, what is industry s recourse?

BRIG. GEN. WARD: If it was my program, I d say, "Call me." I recognize we still have iron majors, bottlenecks and people who don t believe in the new process.

When I say industry should not be a silent partner, I am very sincere about this. I will entertain any idea. If you have to call me at night or on weekends, I ll do that also. But we need to listen and have innovative thought and innovative actions in making things happen quickly. If you find yourself in a bottleneck somewhere at the lower levels, elevate it or give me a call.

MS. LANTZY: As we move the acquisition processes toward more insight and less oversight, are the requirement writers prepared to participate with the acquisition staffs and contractors on IPTs [Integrated Product Teams]?

BRIG. GEN. WARD: Absolutely and we are doing that now. I just participated in a Dr. Kaminski-sponsored forum [Honorable Paul G. Kaminski, USD for Acquisition & Technology] on acquisition reform and for the first time, they had a requirements panel there. I was the Air Force representative on that panel. There was a flag officer from each of the services. One of the things not well appreciated throughout the Service today is that if you don t understand acquisition, you can t write a very good requirement because you don t know what you are doing to the people who have to deal with your requirements. It is my intent to pursue some course of action that will provide better training for our requirements writers. We train people at Air Force Space Command in the basics of acquisition.

But we must go beyond this and take the next step. At the Air Staff, probably in late August, we are going to conduct an off-site with the Air Staff and the Secretary s staff and all the directors of requirements at the MAJCOMS. We ll look at the acquisition process and reform and see what more we can do to bring the requirements more in line with it.

Clearly, in all the IPTs, including Space Command with our IPT Concept Action Group, we have acquisition people, we have requirements folks, logisticians, and the whole ball of wax. That is the wave of the future.

MS. LANTZY: The need for heavy lift is being questioned for EELV. Do you believe this requirement will be dropped from EELV?

BRIG. GEN. WARD: The community that has the heavy lift requirement is the National Reconnaissance Office. I ll have to defer the question to them.

Clearly, if there is no requirement, we ll have to look at what we are doing. If there is a requirement, we ll have to press on. I heard some discussion that there may be some reduction in the need for heavy lift. There will be a meeting occurring in Washington sometime in the middle of June. I will participate in that, and by then I will have more insights into what is happening.

MS. LANTZY: That is all the questions we have for General Ward. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Return to the Colorado Springs '96 Foundation Forum