The Air Force must continually refine the objectives and tasks of its mission areas and support functions to reflect changes in national military strategy, global political-military threats, and fiscal constraints. This policy directive establishes the Modernization Planning process to identify and correct deficiencies in mission and functional areas.

1. The Air Force uses the products of Modernization Planning as major guides for changing doctrine, tactics, training, and procedures and investing scarce dollars to modernize its forces. These products also guide technologies critical to mission areas, acquiring new or modified systems, directing national and Air Force laboratory efforts, and focusing independent research and development programs (IR&D).
1.1. Modernization Planning is based on Defense Planning Guidance, Air Force guidance, pricing guidance provided by Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command (HQ AFMC), and the known limitations of science and technology.
1.2. Modernization Planning follows the timing in attachment 2 to price, prioritize and integrate the products to influence the Air Force Program Objective Memorandum (POM) before POM submission. This biennial process allows the major commands (MAJCOM) to perform reviews in the out of cycle year.
1.3. Modernization Planning includes all major investment accounts (3010/3020/3600 appropriations). However, major warfighting initiatives with 3080 appropriations should be included.

2. The following shown in overview format in attachment 3 comprise the Modernization Planning process:
2.1. Mission Area Assessment (MAA) refines strategies-to-tasks. MAJCOMs review Defense, Joint and Air Force guidance, the missions assigned them under the concepts of operations (CONOPS) of various regional plans and the theater commander's list of prioritized tasks to accomplish those missions. HQ USAF/XOX provides a Strategies-to-Tasks baseline upon which MAJCOMs can build for MAA.
2.2. Mission Needs Analysis (MNA) refines task to need. MAJCOMs analyze the force structure, geo-political environments, projected advances in technology, interoperability concerns, and expected threats affecting their current and programmed capabilities to accomplish a task. From this analysis they identify deficiencies in current and future capabilities and develop a Mission Needs Statement (MNS) to document specific materiel deficiencies.
2.2.1. MAJCOMs first attempt to solve these deficiencies by adjusting doctrine, tactics, and training (non-materiel solutions); then, they explore materiel solutions if non-materiel ones fail to work.
2.3. A Mission Area Plan (MAP) is the primary product of this process. MAPs cover periods of 25 years and use the products of the MAA, and MNA studies/analyses to document the most cost effective corrections of task deficiencies from among non-materiel solutions, changes in force structure, systems modifications, science and technology applications, and new acquisitions. Mission area teams representing Air Force "User" Commands, AFMC, when required National Laboratories, and the independent research and development efforts of academic institutions and industry write the MAPs.
2.3.1. A MAP comprises individual Weapon's System/Capability Roadmaps outlining a modernization plan and descriptions of Critical Enabling Technologies that are the contribution of science and technology programs to correct task deficiencies. Additionally, each MAP must include functional area deficiencies and investments that directly contribute to the success of its operations and are unique to that particular mission area.
2.4. An Air Force functional area (such as Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4), security police, intelligence, or civil engineering) may develop its own plan called a Functional Area Plan (FAP) similar to a Mission Area Plan. This occurs when a functional area must invest in systems or leverage technologies managed across multiple MAJCOMs, Services or Joint, Defense, and National Agencies. FAPs will not duplicate that which should be in a MAP, i.e. the functional would not place a requirement for hardware in their FAP if it was already listed as a requirement in the MAJCOM MAP. Include in the FAP functional deficiencies and investments directly tied to successful implementation of each FAP. To assist the integration process, FAPs will meet the same development timeline used in MAPs.
2.5. MAJCOMs integrate MAPs and FAPs to provide the fiscal prioritization across each MAJCOM. These integrations must be sufficiently detailed to support Air Force modernization planning through the Biennial Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS). The chart at attachment 4 displays the integration of MAPs and FAPs and the crosslinks to the Resource Allocation Teams at HQ USAF during Modernization Planning. MAJCOMs coordinate with supported CINCs to prioritize Research, Development, and Acquisition (RD&A) programs to support the MAPs.
2.6. A committee of senior Air Force leaders reviews the MAJCOM program lists and any associated funding disconnects with fiscal limits which MAJCOMs cannot resolve. The committee reprioritizes programs if necessary and recommends for the Chief of Staff's approval corrections of task deficiencies that meet fiscal constraints.

3. This directive establishes the following responsibilities:
3.1. Working with the Directorate of Programs and Evaluation (HQ USAF/PE), the Directorate of Forces (HQ USAF/XOF) provides projected fiscal guidance to assist MAJCOMs in applying fiscal constraints to each MAP. The limitations include an average annual estimate of available funding for the MAP period. XOF gives a consolidated figure to the MAJCOMs responsible for more than one MAP. MAJCOMs then allocate the fiscal constraints to each MAP.
3.2. The Directorate of Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis (HQ USAF/XOM) will provide modeling, simulation, MAA, and MNA policy, and analysis support to the MAJCOMs and functionals as appropriate (see also 3.5.).
3.3. The Directorate of Plans (HQ USAF/XOX) will provide strategic environmental assessment to guide the planning outlook to the future. HQ USAF/IN will support this assessment by providing DoD-validated threat estimates. Provide both items 45 days prior to the MAA completion.
3.4. Each MAJCOM identifies and plans all mission areas for which it is responsible. MAJCOMs use AFMAN 1-1 as a guide to avoid proliferating mission areas and to ensure they properly classify command activities. MAJCOMs may request Theater CINC/Component Commander inputs prior to MAA completion. MAJCOMs will include functional area (e.g., intelligence) and mission support area (e.g., C4I, human systems) considerations in their MAPs.
3.5. HQ AFMC supports the preparation of MAAs, MNAs, and MAPs/FAPs through Technical Planning Integrated Product Teams (TPIPT). In addition to coordinating AFMC support, the TPIPTs coordinate national laboratories, industry, and academia input to the MAA, MNA, and MAP process. TPIPTs also support the planning process with modeling, simulation, analyses, concept development, technology need identification, and pricing from commencement through the capability phase of the process.

4. Address requests for waivers to AFPD 10-14 and AFI 10-1401 to HQ USAF/XOM.

5. See attachment 1 for measures of compliance with this policy.

6. See attachment 5 for a listing of related publications.

DCS/Plans and Operations
1. Measuring Compliance With Policy
2. Modernization Planning Cycle
3. Modernization Planning Flow
4. MAP and FAP Integration With Resource Allocation Teams
5. Related Publications


A1.1. The measure of success for Mission Area Plans is how well they improve the performance of Air Force systems in the modernization process while still remaining fiscally responsible. While nonmateriel items are the preferred alternative in the modernization process, the items used in the PPBS allow the best track of performance versus investment. The correction of deficiencies within fiscal constraints and technological means illustrates this. The change over time should show an upward indication as improvements continue and the original deficiency no longer exists. Each year MAP Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR) will report to HQ USAF/XOME the number of mission area deficiencies corrected versus the total number of deficiencies contained in the MAP. Reporting is done through the RCS: HAF-XOF(A)9470, Material Mission Area Deficiencies Assessment Report, via AUTODIN to HQ USAF/XOME not later than the first duty day of December. This report is designated emergency status code C3. Continue reporting during emergency conditions, delayed precedence. Submit data requirements as prescribed, but they may be delayed to allow the submission of higher precedence reports. Submit by nonelectric means, if possible. Discontinue electronic reporting during MINIMIZE. HQ USAF/XOME reports the percentages as figure A1.1 shows.

Figure A1.1. Sample Metric of MAP Effictiveness.


Figure A2.1. Sample Metric of Modernization Planning Cycle (POM Year).

Figure A2.2. Sample Metric of Modernization Planning Cycle (Out of Cycle Year).


Figure A3.1. Modernization Planning Flow.



Figure A4.1. MAP and FAP Integration With Resource Allocation Teams.


Publication Number and Title

DoD Directive 5000.1, Defense Acquisition
DoD Directive 5000.2, Defense Acquisition Management Policies and Procedures
DoD Manual 5000.2-M, Defense Acquisition Management Documentation and Reports

CJCS MOP 7. Joint Strategic Planning System
CJCS MOP 77, Requirements Generation System Policies and Procedures

AFPD 10-6, Mission Needs and Operational Requirements
AFPD 10-5, Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System
AFPD 16-10, Modeling and Simulation Management
AFI 10-1401, Modernization Planning Documentation