SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE ARCHITECTURE-BASED, CAPABILITY-FOCUSED

Aeronautical Systems Center Rapidly delivering war-winning capability SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE ARCHITECTURE-BASED, CAPABILITY-FOCUSED PLANNING & DECISION-MAKING Defense Planning And Analysis Society (DPAAS) 14 April 2004 Lt Col Randy Kosinski ASC/RAJS DSN 785-4357 randy.kosinski@wpafb.af.mil THIS BRIEFING IS UNCLASSIFIED Overview Rapidly delivering war-winning capability • Air Force Transformation • Air Force Cryptologic Architecture • SIGINT Team • SIGINT Investment Strategy & Trade-Space Management • Summary So what? And how? Who cares? What next? A New Order! Rapidly delivering war-winning capability Guidance DODI5000.2 CJCS 3170 CONOPS Vision Data Architecture SME Inputs Financial Data Programmatic Info Roadmaps Capability Lists Architecture-based, Capabilities-focused Analysis Analysis Results Trade Space Management - Req’ts definition and trades - System acquisition D-M - Interoperability evaluations - Operational assessment Resources People - SMEs - Teams Strategic Planning - Investment decision-making - Fill gaps – New programs, adjust - Correct misalignments - Eliminate redundancies—restructure/ cancel programs, cost avoidance - Funding allocation/preservation Tools Facilities USAF Transformation Rapidly delivering war-winning capability • AF Policy on Enterprise Architecting, SECAF memo dated 6 Aug 2002 – Mission requirements; planning, programming, and budgeting; and acquisition management are currently not fully synchronized with architecture planning. – [Architectures are the] common enabling foundation that will integrate business and combat support elements with each other and with combat operations. • CSAF Testimony – Senate Armed Services Committee, 25 February 2003 – Focus acquisition and force planning on systems that enable specific, effectsbased capabilities, rather than on individual platforms. – Transition from collecting data from myriad of independent systems (RJ, AWACS, JSTARS) to Multi-sensor C2 Constellation. “We are engaged in building a culture of continual transformation, so that we are always several steps ahead of any potential adversaries.” -- CSAF Sight Picture, 17 July 2003 Air Force Capability Development and Assessment Integrated Process Rapidly delivering war-winning capability AFSAA M A J C O M S CONOPS  Develop Guidelines for Risk Assessment  Provide Analytical Methodology  Provide Analysis Synchronization CSAF 4 Validation CRRA No Go Go XP AFSP/AFPP/ APPG Guidance MAJCOMS Address Shortfalls In POM Input     AQ Community Candidate Solutions Cost & Schedule Estimates Technical Feasibility No Go Modeling & Simulation CONOPS Champions  ID Effects, Capabilities, Activities  Perform Individual CONOPS Risk Assessments (CRRA)  ID & Prioritize Shortfalls W/in CONOPS XOR - Integrated CRRA  Develop Master Effects Construct  Prioritize Shortfalls Across CONOPS • ID Gaps & Impacts • “To- Be” Capabilities Roadmap • Recommended Solutions Planning Guidance & Scenarios Go Architectures Current POM Baseline Capability Analyses Legend: Assist Product Go/No Go XI Assist MAJCOMS w/ Architecture XI  Assist Development of Integrated Architecture  Assist W/ Data Collection & Mapping XI  Ensure Program Alignment in and Across MAJCOMS to Meet Priorities  Propose Trades XP Corporate Structure  Build Integrated POM  Ensure Capability Shortfalls Addressed • Adjust TOA Modeling & Simulation Execution FEEDBACK AQ – MAJCOMS - Functionals SIGINT community postured to support USAF Corporate Process Family of Systems Collaboration Framework Rapidly delivering war-winning capability Goal Cross-Cutting C2ISR Capabilities ISR Systems Engineering and Integration (Capability & Architecture Based) Effects-Based Operations Time Sensitive Targeting Dynamic Engagement Control Horizontal & Vertical Integration Predictive Battlespace Awareness Networked On-Demand Info Global Battlespace Visualization Persistent Battlespace ISR Universal Situational Awareness Persistent Intelligence Science and Technology Intelligence Predictive Support Awareness • CONOPS focused • Scenario driven capabilities C2ISR Architecture Components Global Hawk Tanker ―Plus‖ U-2 DSP/SBIRS Predator Intel Disciplines SIGINT MASINT IMINT TECHINT OSINT HUMINT CI JSTARS WCAN AWACS ASIP ABL Rivet Joint + BMC3 Space-Based Radar Sensors DMSP TBMCS/ SBMCS/DCGS/ GCCS NTM Global Information Grid COMMSAT MILSATCOMM MC2A CDL/MP-CDL/SCDL/Link 16 GPS CIP NCCT C2ISR Architecture Non- F-22 Traditional ISR Munitions Capability “Lanes” translate between warfighting capabilities and integrated solutions SIGINT Requirements Vetting Process Today: SME-Based Decision-Making Rapidly delivering war-winning capability Do we use the ORD, the MAP, the RED, or what? Just send the money to RJ. We already know what the requirements are… Who has the technology available? “We must get out of the mode of thinking only in terms of platform rather than in terms of capabilities.” -- CSAF Sight Picture, 17 July 2003 Architecting: An Essential Part of System-of-Systems Engineering Rapidly delivering war-winning capability ―Architecting‖ is… …a systematic, rigorous, reproducible methodology… …for capturing, organizing and communicating data… …about complex systems…. ….to support analysis. “We need to manage uncertainty and complexity and cope with continuous change.” - Dr. Alexander H. Levis, Chief Scientist, USAF Air Force Cryptologic Architecture (AFCA) Rapidly delivering war-winning capability AF CONOPS UCS CONOPS ICDs, CDDs, & CPDs UCAO Technology Forecast High-level Operational Concept Definition OV-1 OV -2 OV -3 ALL VIEWS OV -4 OV VIEWS -6A OV OPERATIONAL-5 SV-5 AV -2 OV -6B System Technology Forecast OV - SV-1 SV-2 System Interface SV -4 SV -3 Description SV -6 SYSTEMS VIEWS Operational Activity/ System Function Traceability Matrix -10C SV-10A SV-10B SV SV -11 SV-9 TV-1 SV-7 System Performance Parameters Matrix SV-8 System Evolution Description CRRA ISR MAT ISR SDIPT AFSCWG TV-2 AF POM SUBMISSION Capability-Focused Investment Strategy To AF NAIC Threat CONOPS Assessment CCP POM Submission 9 The AFCA is Blueprint & Cornerstone of SIGINT Planning Process, Investment Strategy Development, Architecture-based Decision-Making AFCA Data must be Aligned with other Architectures Rapidly delivering war-winning capability S&C4ISR CONOPS Architecture Space & C4ISR CONOPS C2 Constellation Architecture - Air & Space Expeditionary - Global Strike - Homeland Security - Global Mobility - Space & C4ISR - Nuclear Response - Global Response ISR Mission Area Architecture Air Force Cryptologic Architecture AFCA to Support Architecture-based Decision-making at all Levels in the Enterprise Many SIGINT Stakeholders Rapidly delivering war-winning capability NSA • Modernize national cryptologic systems AFMC WR-ALC/LX • Platform Integration • Sustainment ESC/SR • Ground station and processing SPACE • CONOPs • Requirements NRO AOIO ACC • CONOPs • Reqts guidance • POM strategies AF/XO AF/XI AFC2ISRC HAF ARMY OSD Pentagon NAVY SAF Execute Integrate AIA • SCE guidance • Reqts input • AFCA develop • Capability needs documents AFRL Reconnaissance SPO Train & Equip SAF/AQ • AF acquisition policy • PMD • ID/develop key tech • Build Tech Invest Strategy & Roadmaps • Supp resultant tech • Provide tech transfer Success of SIGINT enterprise is a function of all elements being integrated AF SIGINT Capabilities Working Group (SCWG) Rapidly delivering war-winning capability DoD Roadmap Capabilities Investment Strategy - Concept of Operations - Investment Focus - Operational Architecture REQUIREMENTS AF/XOIR (Co-chair) AIA (Chair) ACC AFC2ISRC NSA NRO AOIO AMC AFSOC USAFE PACAF ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE ELEMENT SIGINT Capabilities Investment Plan SAF/AQIJ (Co-chair) Analyses IAW Air Force Cryptologic Requirements Acquisition Architecture Process Process (AFCA) ANALYTICAL/TECHNICAL ELEMENT AFMC ASC/RA ASC/RG ESC/SR WR-ALC/LX AFRL … RJ GH U-2 DCGS RO RO RO RO - Execute IAW Investment Plan (Capability, Schedule, funds) - Execute to program baselines - Support Capability Planning - Flag Issues (Investment Plan Deviations) RJ PM CE GH PM CE U-2 PM CE DCGS PM CE … ―Empowered “High Powered Teams” of requirements and acquisition professionals to create spiral development plans to deliver initial capability to warfighters more quickly, and add capability increments in future spirals.‖ CSAF Testimony - SASC, 25 Feb 03 Program Management Direction for SCWG to use the AFCA Rapidly delivering war-winning capability PMD 04-001 (1) PE# 0304260F Program Management Directive for the Airborne SIGINT Enterprise (ASE) I. Executive Summary: This Capstone PMD establishes/provides direction for the Airborne SIGINT Enterprise (ASE). ASE is the SIGINT modernization framework for all USAF airborne SIGINT collection platforms and their appropriate interfaces with the AF DCGS. This enterprise will use the Air Force Cryptologic Architecture for planning and decision-making and, in turn, employ the Joint Airborne SIGINT Architecture (JASA) open architectures to allow maximum ease of future upgrades and system interoperability. The primary goal of ASE is to produce an architecture-based, capability-focused SIGINT investment strategy for the USAF. ASE will be a single RDT&E PE but b. Initial PMD and Date: a. Identify c. This PMD Supercedes will be broken Name: Program into several BPACs based on the(1) 04-001 planned USAF SIGINT force structure. or Cancels PMD#: N/A Airborne SIGINT II. Program Information: Enterprise f. Phase: System d e. g. MDA or Decision Development & Authority: ASC/CC . AC Demonstration AT / P Oth M er: D Joint Program: No h. Var Identify Lead Service / Agency: Air Force iou T Permanent Modification: s i. Identify Lead Service / Agency: AFMC Yes y (De p pen j. k. Deviations an l. Foreign Military Sales: e Arms Control Treaty ds Verification: No Waivers: No No : on n. Special spe o. Intelligence Threat: Access I System Survivability: cifi m. Yes: Air Intelligence Required: No n c No Agency will provide (Annexes may be i pro threat data SAR) t Resourcegra p. Priority Rating: 2-06 q. Clinger-Cohen Act Compliance: No m) i (FAD II) a l Implementing Command: AFMC r. s. Participating Command: ACC t. Operating Command: ACC u. OT&E Test Agency: AFOTEC v. C4ISP: Yes, the Platforms that the modern SIGINT sensors go on will provide the required C4ISPs w. ADM: x. Requirements Documents: ICD/CDD/CPD/C-CDD/C-CPD: MNS Electronic Security Command SON 002-88m, 1989; Advanced Airborne Collection, Process, and Reporting System, 1993; Joint SIGINT Avionics Family CRD, 1997 ORD RC-135 ORD, 1999; Advanced Reconnaissance Sensor ORD, 1999; Global Hawk ORD, 2002; AF DCGS ORD, 2001; MQ-1/9 Predator/B CDDs (Draft), 2004 I. Executive Summary: This Capstone PMD establishes/provides direction for the Airborne SIGINT Enterprise (ASE). This enterprise will use the Air Force Cryptologic Architecture for planning and decision-making. The primary goal of ASE is to produce an architecturebased, capability-focused SIGINT investment strategy for the USAF. Airborne SIGINT Enterprise PMD E. SIGINT Capabilities Working Group will: 1. Plan for the future of the ASE by way of building a SIGINT investment plan and recommend implementation of ASE programs IAW the AFCA and the ASE investment plan. 2. Establish the priorities of all airborne SIGINT development efforts to satisfy the operational requirements. 3. Support ACC POM build with analysis and recommendations. CHARTER Air Force Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) Capabilities Working Group February 2004 PURPOSE: Provides a forum for requirements and acquisition professionals to create spiral development plans for delivering initial capabilities to warfighters more quickly and for providing additional capabilities in future spirals. GOAL: To provide Air Force planners an architecture-based investment strategy for developing POM inputs that evolve SIGINT capabilities based upon the AF, Joint, and National CONOPs. STRUCTURE: The Air Force SIGINT Capabilities Working Group (AFSCWG) consists of an Executive Element and an Analytical/Technical Element. SCOPE: USAF funded systems and components identified in Air Force Cryptologic Architecture (AFCA). PRODUCTS: Prioritized capability needs, an architecture-based investment strategy, and a spiral development path. EXECUTIVE ELEMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Senior level representatives (O6 /Civilian Equivalent) from SAF/AQIJ, USAF/XOIR, ACC/DRR/INY, AIA/XP, AFC2ISRC/IN, ASC/RA, ESC/SR, and WR-ALC/LX shall: 1) review the SIGINT investment strategy to verify it corrects current deficiencies, and 2) provide an achievable migration path towards required future capabilities. The Executive Element provides oversight and guidance to the Analytical/Technical Element; resolves issues forwarded from the Analytical/Technical Element, and develops the prioritization criteria for identified SIGINT capability gaps. Specific responsibilities are: USAF/XOIR Co-Chairs the Executive Element of the AFSCWG. Provides AF policy and guidance for fiscal planning for SIGINT systems. Provides Air Force policy and guidance on Joint Service SIGINT operations and acquisition planning that will affect Air Force SIGINT capabilities. Advocates AF SIGINT capabilities within the AF corporate process through IPT chiefs/panels. Coordinates AFSCWG products/results with agencies external to the USAF (UCAO, NTIO, JSWG, OASD/C3I, etc.). Provides program management direction and guidance. SAF/AQIJ  Co-Chairs the Executive Element of the AFSCWG.  Provides AF policy and guidance for SIGINT systems acquisition.  Advocates AF SIGINT capabilities within the AF acquisition process.  Coordinates AFSCWG products/results with agencies external to the USAF.  Provides program management direction an SIGINT Capabilities Working Group PURPOSE: Provides a forum for requirements and acquisition professionals to create spiral development plans for delivering initial capabilities to warfighters more quickly and for providing additional capabilities in future spirals. GOAL: To provide Air Force planners an architecture-based investment strategy for developing POM inputs that evolve SIGINT capabilities based upon the AF, Joint, and National CONOPs. SIGINT Community Playing Lead Role in Architecture-based Planning Architecture: Necessary, but Not Sufficient Rapidly delivering war-winning capability • The intended purpose may be to support: – Trade Space Management • • • • Requirements Identification System acquisition D-M Interoperability evaluation/D-M Operational assessment – Strategic Planning • Investment decision-making • Funding allocation/preservation • Fill gaps – new programs, adjust • Eliminate redundancies – cancel & restructure programs • Architecture facilitates and enables these purposes BUT does not itself provide any conclusions or answers • Human and automated analysis must be applied • DoDAF does not attempt to dictate how this analysis should be performed The ability to compare, analyze, and integrate C4ISR architectures…provides a crossfunctional perspective that is critical to achieving the Air Force mission and objectives. - AF/XI C4ISR Alignment & Assessment Guide “To-Be” Investment Strategy (notional) Rapidly delivering war-winning capability Program Sensor1 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 DL1 Ground1 TPED1 Sensor1.5 Spiral1 Platform1 Ground2 Mod1 Upgrade1 Developing “The Right” SIGINT Investment Strategy Rapidly delivering war-winning capability Modeling CRRAs Critical Capability Recommendation : Necessary Duplications A S A S N E A S &L S Y M S E E N S T KEEP Duplications Unnecessary Duplications Critical Critical Capability Recommendation : CUT SIGINT Investment Strategy Gaps Recommendations (New Systems, Upgrades & Non -Material Solutions) FY08 POM The SCWG will use the AFCA to Influence POM Decisions “Should-Be” Investment Strategy (notional) Rapidly delivering war-winning capability Program Sensor1 DL1 Ground1 TPED1 Sensor1.5 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Cancelled (cost avoidance) Spiral 1 accel Platform1 Platform 2 Mod1 Upgrade1 New Starts Upgrade1.5 Technology Restructured AFCA Performance Models and Analysis will Support Acquisition capability “What-if” Drills Rapidly delivering war-winning Concept & Technology Development • • • • • • • • • Excursions Scenario Evaluation LCCE KPP Sensitivity Technology Breakthrough New Threat Thrust/CONOPS Change New Requirement SAMP/AMP/AP Devel. • • • • • System Development & Demonstration Budget Drill LCCE Test and Eval. Opportunity Logistics Trades Acquisition Decisions • • • • Production & Deployment Budget Drill Recall Schedule Slip Requirements Change • • • • • • • • • Operations & Support Scenario Evaluation KPP Sensitivity Change in Intelligence Test & Eval Opportunity New Threat New Vulnerability Thrust/CONOPS Change Budget Drill AF/Joint CONOPS Change Analysis Tasks Baseline Threat  / New Threat Architecture Tool Ops Rqmts Architecture Definition  / New Capability • • • • • Outputs Architecture Definition Performance Reqts Technology Constraints OV/SV/TVs Threat Definition Perf. Model Scenario & Environment Definition Outputs • Candidate Architecture Definition • MOEs/MOPs • Constraint/Special Conditions Value Model Delivering Airborne SIGINT Capabilities Tomorrow: Architecture-based Decision-Making High-Powered Team of Requirements and Acquisition Professionals… Rapidly delivering war-winning capability …providing AF Planners an Architecture-Based Investment Strategy… …to Create Spiral Development Plans for Delivering Initial Capabilities to Operators Quickly and to Provide Additional Capabilities in Future Spirals. Architecture-Based, Capability-Focused Planning and Decision-Making Summary Rapidly delivering war-winning capability • Transforming to architecture-based, capability-focus planning & decision-making process • TEAMing across the community to integrate SIGINT activities • Using the Air Force Cryptologic Architecture • Producing a coherent SIGINT investment strategy • Postured to support smart trade-space management “We need to invest our dollars in the most efficient and effective manner to sustain our forces and enhance our capabilities for tomorrow.” -- SECAF, July 2003 Rapidly delivering war-winning capability