joint warfighter on product support - sae international · joint warfighter perspective on ......
TRANSCRIPT
1
Col Mark D. LaViolette, USMCCapabilities and Acquisition Division (CAD)
Joint Staff, J‐8
Joint Warfighter Perspective on
Product Support
2009 DoD Maintenance Symposium -Next Generation Life Cycle
Product Support Strategies Panel
2
Agenda
• Strategic Context • Joint Warfighting Perspective
• Governance • Balancing Priorities / Focusing on Sustainment Up‐Front
• Operations & Support Costs• Challenges ahead in the Fiscal Environment
• Concluding Remarks
3
The Globalized World—Complex and Uncertain
A complex blend of partners, competitors, and interests
•WMD Proliferation
• Natural Disasters / Pandemics
• Regional Instability / Piracy
• Powerful States
• Resource Competition
• Transnational Terrorism
• Space / Cyber Competition & Vulnerability
4
• The Joint Force must be prepared for the full spectrum of conflict – Counter‐Insurgency to Near‐Peer
•Because of our conventional dominance, asymmetric warfare will have an increasing influence on the modern battlefield
•Global commons are increasingly harder to defend
• Improving interagency capability, capacity, and expeditionary ability is essential
• Expanded regional security arrangements are required
Joint Warfighter Perspective
We need a Joint Force that is sized, shaped and postured globally to preserve our Nation’s vital interests and freedom of action
5
Governance Forums Balance Priorities
Role of Governance: Assist in Delivering the Right Mix of Joint Capabilities at the Right Price
RESOURCE
ALLOCATION
REQUIREMENTS
DETERMINATIONACQUISITION
AT&L – OIPT/DAB
Def Acq Sys
“Deliver the required
Capabilities”
Joint Staff – JCB/JROC
JCIDS
“Planning, studies,
analysis, assessments”
OSD (Comptroller) / OSD (CAPE) ‐ 3 Star Programmers / DAWG
PPBES
“Programming/Budgeting”
6
GovernanceImproving Sustainment Focus Across the Life Cycle
Key Tasks1. Strengthen current guidance and policy to
determine whether sustainment is sufficiently addressed and governed at key life cycle management decision points(MDD, milestones, etc.)
2. Issue DoD policy to require the Components to conduct an independent logistics assessment (ILA) prior to Milestone B, Milestone C, and FRP, and to provide the report to ADUSD (MR) XX days before the milestone decision
3. Create a “post-IOC review,” led by DUSD (L&MR) and Service sustainment lead. Review life cycle product support execution, identify issues, and recommend/direct solutions
Shifts critical information collection and product support decision
making to earlier in life cycle and clearly delineates portion of life
cycle that is sustainment
7
Defense Budget Trends(TY $ in B)
302 328375 377 403 421 438 480 513 534 542 551 561 575 589
69 66103
116164
187 141 13050 50 50 50 50
1714
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Fiscal Year
TY $
in B
Base OCO
Downward Pressure on Defense Topline
319342
444 443
506537
602
667 654 664
601 611 625 639592
Projection
FY09 does not include the DoD portion of the American Reinvestment & Recovery Act ($7B)
8
O&S Cost Management
Key Tasks1. Establish an O&S
affordability requirement, including linking O&S budgets to readiness
2. Develop and implement processes and procedures with key communities, engaging them in the affordability process
3. Increase visibility of O&S costs and their driversacross the supply chain
Requires life cycle management personnel to establish realistic estimates and manage total
O&S cost
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
019841980 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024
Operation and Support,Military Construction, and Family Housing
Investment
December 2007Projection
2008 SupplementalAppropriations
Actual FYDP CBO Projection
With TotalUnbudgeted Costs
With ContingencyUnbudgeted Costs
Billions of 2009 Dollars
Source: Congressional Budget Office
9
• Sustainability should be considered up‐front in investment decisions
• Life‐cycle affordability will become more important as the Fiscal Environment pressurizes Defense Top‐line
• Balancing priorities is critical
Conclusion
RESOURCE
ALLOCATION
REQUIREMENTS
DETERMINATIONACQUISITION
12
• FY09 OCO ‐ $142B– Average force level of 185K: Iraq (140K); Afghanistan (45K)– Incorporated new OMB Guidance
• OEF/OIF Only• Limited Reconstitution ($23.1B)• Excluded enduring capabilities that should be funded in Base
• FY10 OCO ‐ $130B– Average force level of 168K: Iraq (100K); Afghanistan (68K)
• Includes $18.1B for Reconstitution• Fully funds Coalition Operations
• FY11 OCO and Beyond ‐ ?
Support the Troops in the Field
13
Industry Centric Platform Strategy
Blended DoD-Industry Platform Strategy
DoD Centric Platform Strategy
Industry Centric Sub System Strategy
Blended DoD-Subsystem Industry Strategy
DoD Centric Sub System Strategy
Industry Centric Component Strategy
Blended DoD-Industry Component Strategy
DoD Centric Component Strategy
Com
pone
nt S
ubsy
stem
Pl
atfo
rm
Industry Capabilities Partnerships Organic CapabilitiesProduct Support Approach
MetricAntecedent
Goal Antecedent
ActualOriginal Goal Current Goal
Current Estimate/ Actual*
Materiel Availability 75% 76% 80% 77% 74%
Materiel Reliability 40.5 hrs 37 hrs 50 hrs 50.5 hrs 44 hrs
Ownership Cost235.1B 245.6B 385.5B 395.1B 395.1B
Mean Down Time15 hrs 12 hrs 20 hrs 18 hrs 15 hrs
Metric Data
•Test or fielding event data derived from
Notes:
Sustainment
Current• Contract Type• Outcome• Functions Served
Future• Contract Type• Outcome• Functions Served
Integration
O&S DataCost Element Antecedent † Current System
Unit Level Manpower 3.952 5.260Unit Operations 6.052 6.852
Maintenance 0.739 0.688Sustaining Support 2.298 2.401
Continuing System Improvements 0.159 0.035Indirect Support 1.846 1.956
Total 15.046 17.192
Total O&S Costs F-XX F-YY
Base Year $M 102995.2 184011.9
Then Year $M 245665.3 395147.2
† Data from Dec 07 SARSustainment ScheduleMS B MS C IOC FRP FOC Sustainment
BCA
LCSP
CLS Start
Depot Standup
LRIP Contract Award
Blended Partnership Startup
PBL Recompete
PBL Recompete
PBL Recompete
14
JCIDS and Acquisition
MS BMS AMDD
MSA TechnologyDevelopment
CBAICD
CDD
MS C
EMD
CPD
Prod &Deployment
DCRDOTMLPFAnalysis
= Sponsor Activity = JCIDS Document = Acquisition decision
CBA = Capabilities Based AssessmentMDD = Materiel Development DecisionMSA = Materiel Solutions AnalysisEMD = Engineering & Manufacturing Development
15
The JROC Capability-Based Assessment Process
Capabilities-Based Assessment
Resourcing &TOR
Development
Experimentation Inputs/Recs
Campaign-level
Analysis– Determine Non-materiel
alternatives– Identify desired materiel
approachEvolutionaryTransformationalInformation System
Concept Development• Tasks• Capabilities
• Attributes• Metrics
• Concurrent Development of DPS-based vignette
– Capabilities– Tasks– Attributes– Metrics
– Gaps– Shortfalls– Redundancies– Risk Areas
COCOMor
Service
Joint Integrating Concept Development &
Mission Analysis or CONOPS
OSD (AT&L)
COCOMs
USMCArmy
Navy
Air Force
DIAOSD (NII)
OSD (CAPE)
FCBs
16
Baseline
Baseline
No established IOC in CDD
Baseline
Top Cost Drivers
1. Force Structure 26.9%2. KPP BA SIGINT 9.0%3. Electronic Protection 6.0%4. KPP BA Optical 4.8%5. C3 1.9%
Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)Dec baseline
Cost- PAUC
- APUC
Schedule- IOC
- IOT&E
Performance (KPPs & select KSAs)KPP 1, Endurance
KPP 2, World-wide
KPP 3, Dynamic Crl
KPP 4, Net Ready
KPP 5, BA
N T O
Tech Readiness Assessment
+10%Critical Technologies To Date Estimate @ IOT&E
Endurance TRL 6 TRL 8
World-wide operations TRL 6 TRL 6
Dynamic Control TRL 6 TRL 8
Net Ready TRL 5 TRL 6
Battlespace Awareness EO TRL 6 TRL 8
Battlespace Awareness IR TRL 6 TRL 8
Battlespace Awareness Radar TRL 6 TRL 8
Battlespace Awareness SIGINT TRL 4 TRL 8
Battlespace Awareness MTI TRL 6 TRL 8
Cost drivers, Tech Readiness, and Performance
45%
24 mos
+6 mos +9 mos
+15%
57%
17
Required KPPs/KSAsJCIDS Manual, Feb 2009
• Sustainment (three factors)1) Availability KPP. Mandatory for ACAT I; sponsor decision for ACAT II/III.
Two components: • Materiel Availability: measure of percentage of total inventory of a system ready for mission tasking. Developed by PM.
• Operational Availability: percentage of time a system or group of systems within a unit are capable of performing assigned mission. Developed by Requirements Manager
2) Reliability KSA. Mandatory – probability that system will perform without failure over a specified interval. Developed by Requirements Manager
3) Ownership Cost KSA. Mandatory – unit operations, energy (POL, fuel – fully burdened cost, maintenance, sustaining support). Developed by PM
18
Selectively Applied KPPsJCIDS Manual Feb 2009
• System Training KPP – system training addressed in the AoA and subsequent acquisition phases; training requirements and costs are addressed across the program life cycle
• Energy Efficiency KPP – Include fuel efficiency considerations in systems consistent with future force plans and approved planning scenarios. Set targets and thresholds for the fuel efficiency of materiel solutions.
Sponsor analysis will determine whether to adopt these parameters as KPPs. If not adopted, summary of justification for not adopting must be provided in the CDD.
19
WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISITION REFORM ACT OF 2009SEC. 101. COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION
(e) REPORT ON MONITORING OF OPERATING AND SUPPORT COSTSFOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.—
(1) REPORT TO SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation under section 139c of title 10 United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall review existing systems and methods of the Department of Defense for tracking and assessing operating and support costs on major defense acquisition programs and submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on the finding and recommendations of the Director as a result of the review, including an assessment by the Director of the feasibility and advisability of establishing baselines for operating and support costs under section 2435 of title 10, United States Code.
(2) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after receiving the report required by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit the report to the congressional defense committees, together with any comments on the report the Secretary considers appropriate.
20
SEC. 304. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORTSON COSTS AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING
MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) REVIEW OF OPERATING AND SUPPORT COSTS OF MAJORWEAPON SYSTEMS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on growth in operating and support costs for major weapon systems.
(2) ELEMENTS.—In preparing the report required by paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall, at a minimum—
(A) identify the original estimates for operating and support costs for major weapon systems selected by the Comptroller General for purposes of the report;
(B) assess the actual operating and support costs for such major weapon systems;(C) analyze the rate of growth for operating and support costs for such major weapon systems;(D) for such major weapon systems that have experienced the highest rate of growth in operating and
support costs, assess the factors contributing to such growth;(E) assess measures taken by the Department of Defense to reduce operating and support costs for
major weapon systems; and(F) make such recommendations as the Comptroller General considers appropriate.