Questions and answers are available from the following
BMDO Forum 98 Panels.
|BMDO Strategic Planning
||Technology Master Plan|
||NMD Program Update|
|Question||Answer Captured (Paraphrased)|
|1. In several public forums, you and others on the BMDO staff, have addressed cuts in contract support at the 10% per year level; however, there are indications that cuts are far greater than that and don't adequately address workload. Can you explain/clarify exactly what's really going on?||Affordability is the issue. In briefing to the JROC, we showed them our programs - how much we spend on administrative support. The first question asked was why we can't make cuts in administration and infrastructure? We have to challenge ourselves and look at our administrative programs. We have to look at ways to reduce cost: (1) What do we have to have, (2) Should we change our processes, and (3) Are there things that the government can do that the SETA is now doing. We want to get the programs (MEADS, etc.) in place to make ballistic missile defense a reality. (Lt Gen Lyles)|
|2. Who is responsible for joint land attack cruise missile defense? Emphasis seems to be on ballistic defense. No funds are available for cruise missile defense?||JTAMDO is responsible for developing operational technology - systems integration and analysis. We need to be able to address cruise missile defense. (Lt Gen Lyles)|
|3. Your budget shows investment in missile and sensors to support those shooters, but not for integration. Isn't it inefficient to embed this requirement inside the specific programs? Shouldn't you manage it as an overarching program?||We're trying to manage by an overarching perspective. We're not comfortable with the management hookup. There is a line in the budget for a Family of Systems and that's where BMC4I is being funded. (Lt Gen Lyles)|
|4. Is MEADS dead? If not, will it be scaled back or perhaps, integrated with other launchers?||No, the requirement is extremely important. The question is affordability. How do we get it into our budget? We looked at front end analysis and a wide range of alternatives relative to what's happening to the programs. We don't want to lose the International hookup. We are examining all of the alternatives and proceeding to the design and development phase. We haven't gotten to the decision point yet. (Lt Gen Lyles)|
|5. Is the 90% confidence BMDO policy across the board? How is this stated in your acquisitions?||It is not policy. We want honesty and integrity in schedule development. We want to be risk smart. Ninety percent may not be the right number. We want to know that there is a good chance to make a schedule/milestone. Don't tell us what we want to hear. We want the "real" schedule. Presenting information that has to later be changed because it is not "realistic" undermines our credibility. We want to know what it takes to get the job done. (Lt Gen Lyles)|
|6. You mentioned a technology master plan. Is this document available and where?||Expected by May 30, FOUO; site will be password protected. Executive Summary will be available soon. BMDO/SRE is responsible for placing on the BMDO website. (Col Goodrich)|
|Question||Answer Captured (Paraphrased)|
|1. It's the year 2005. Are your theater missile defense systems interoperable, how well are they interoperable, and have BMDO and JTAMDO been helpful/useful in making this happen? If not, what things are you doing to fix them?||You'll have it by 2005. The question is do we have
the right system and is it working? We will be successful and have a capability by
2003. (RADM Kaler)
TAMD Environment: We addressed interoperability problems. Systems have been developed by different contractors leading to an integration problem. We need Services and industry to partner for a single integrated air picture (interoperability). The goal is to clean up the picture. (ADM Altwegg)
We need to be careful about how interoperability is defined.
|2. Where does the system architecture for advanced NMD get formulated? How does industry get involved?||We must first ask what is advanced NMD? It is an evolutionary program - a growth to a capability to meet user objectives. We have a capability to deploy to meet the threshold requirements and technology insertion efforts over time. The LSI contractor will lay this out for the most advanced capability to meet the objective threat. LSI contract is for 10 years. (BG Cosumano)|
|3. CAIV - In looking at the Joint Air Picture, Joint Acquisition, etc., has anyone applied this to CAIV? Is the payoff worth the money we're putting into it?||We must reduce inventory. I can't give a clear cut answer. It's something we need and every CINC has asked for it. (Mr. Sokol / RADM Kaler)|
|4. It appears most of BMDO's/JTAMDO's emphasis is on shooting down threat missiles in flight - that can easily be too late. How much emphasis is being placed on targeting/killing threat systems (especially mobile ones) in their launchers?||We put together the Attack Operations Working Group. We adopted the group as an Integrated Product Team (IPT) at the architecture level. It is now part of the charter as a separate IPT. As of March 1, Attack Operations is part of the JTAMDO process.|
|5. How do DARPA technology efforts fit into the BMDO's planning?||DARPA has been present at Technology Program Team (TPT) meetings and we're working closely together. We have a strategic partnership with A&Q.|
|6. Have you explored the GCCS system?||It will be a great system (We need to know in milliseconds...)
The data is not sufficient to take targets under attack. It does not contribute to the
intercept problem. (ADM Altwegg)
We have one at the JNTF. It's a tool to lay down the architecture in the theater. (Dr. Pierce)
The goal for the warfighter is to have one track up and down the line between systems. (RADM Kaler)
|7. What, if anything is being done in the area of national cruise missile defense? Will this fall under NMD or JTMD?||A study is going on right now. It falls in the middle of the
process - different users. (RADM Kahler)
You would have the same warfighter - we're still sorting that out. (BG Cosumano)
We have expertise in the theater area. Our charter says that it is national missile defense. We need to sort it out. (RADM Kahler)
|8. Why doesn't BMDO schedule and fund joint interoperability tests (flight tests) as part of the hardware acquisition phase? In the ORDs, are any of the interoperability requirements quantified; if not, why not?||It was inappropriate. We're working hard to get the
CRD approved and weapon systems requirement document. We have to make sure we test to
satisfy the requirement. We need to get an understanding of interoperability (System
integrator demos at the Kwajalein Test Range, and White Sands (Patriot)). (Mr. Sokol)
There is a challenge. Programs are on different schedules within Services. We have to wait to get computer programs together to talk to one another.
|Question||Answer Captured (Paraphrased)|
|1. What are the test targets for PAC-3, THAAD, MEADS and ARROW. Do they sufficiently challenge these missile systems to demonstrate robustness?||Yes. For the systems over a series of tests, take the toughest target and prove out the capability. We are stressing systems as we should be to show capability. (BG Montgomery)|
|2. Under previously stated objectives to reduce infrastructure costs, do you foresee standardizing your M/S capabilities on a single (perhaps HLA) set of software and hardware standards to reduce JNTF O&M?||Yes, it's a worthy goal. We're working with commercial partners to achieve that. (CAPT Abbott)|
|3. With regard to "open systems," what is the mechanism for funding the qualification of a new or improved technology even if it meets form, fit, and function requirements as a "drop-in" replacement element? Is the TAMD community considering ways to incentivize incumbent developers to consider competitive upgrades to systems? How?||We're looking to industry for help. Primes have to
be considered. We're very much interested in doing that. PEOs have their own
opinion. We are exploring in great detail. (Mr. Sokol / Panel)
Working with SMDS and the role that industry plays in that.
There's always a home for a good idea. We're still in PDRR. We're looking at technology that has been proven. Package your product well and tell your story to the user, people, and Washington, and go to the Program Offices showing you understand the technology and the requirements. Show that your product functions and that it functions well.
Opens systems brings competition.
|4. How are you addressing the recent directive to test TMD Interceptor IR seekers in KHILS?||Very carefully. We will use Cahill and ANCOM
facilities. It's not costing us to further develop. (Brig Gen Carlson)
Where capability exists in a facility, we will use it. (CAPT Baron)
|5. Discuss your perspective on technology insertion.||We could do a better job in getting technology inserted into
the MDAP. With the technology roadmap, you must identify the requirements. We have
gone a long way in developing a relationship between AQ and TO activities - synergistic.
Progress has been made. We're doing much better than in the past. (BG Montgomery)
Have the ORD in hand to meet the requirement. We will have to increase lethality. The enemy will try to hamper deployment. We're working adjunct missions and demanding new technologies. (Brig Gen Carlson)
It must be balanced. (CAPT Barron)
We are not an MDAP; we examine new technology to see if it makes sense. (CAPT Abbott)
|6. There appears to be an expansion of the number of Test Centers / Concept Labs / Battle labs / and related facilities. Is there a plan of consolidation to support the budget reductions of the future?||Joint Staff has decided to move Joint Battle Labs to hospices of ACOM. (Mr. Sokol)|
|7. Will we have sufficient combat ID to be able to commit CMD interceptors to engage at ranges compatible with planned airborne surveillance and F/C systems?||Tactical, techniques and policy. We can discriminate whether
or not it can be a manned aircraft. You have release authority to kill it. We need
authority to kill an aircraft if you don't know whether it's manned or not
manned. (BG Montgomery)
Do we, no. We try to get ID. Let those who write the requirements, write the solution. We need to write the requirements regarding combat ID. We need to understand the requirement. (Brig Gen Carlson)
It's very complex now and the right group is off working that issue - all three Services. We're testing target recognition ID. (CAPT Barron)
It is important. If we can't do it, our hands are tied. (COL Greenawald)
|Question||Answer Captured (In Part)|
|1. What methods besides the conventional IHPRPT, BAAs, etc. does the technology initiative plan to use to evaluate candidate technologies for development / insertion to future systems? Or will the selection process be more collaborative?||We're looking for participation in Technology Product Teams (TPTs). We haven't had good documentation of the needs. We need to prioritize and satisfy. Talk to the Services, DARPA, NRO, NASA. Look at their programs, see what we can leverage and give funding to go along with those requirements. Look at technology out in industry. Have technology integrated programs, looking at cruise missile defense and attack operations based on needs in existing programs. (Col Goodrich)|
|2. The previous panel left the impression that BMC4I and interoperability had poorly defined requirements and were "too hard to do" in programs as they are now structured. Do you envision a technology investment to resolve this problem?||The main idea of the team was to start looking at needs. Link programs and technologies. We have to get our arms around the program first, and find out what we need to invest in. More work will be done in this arena. What are the technology solutions? (Col Goodrich)|
|3. How does the BMDO Master Plan fit into the DoD Master Plan? DoD coordinates through the JDL (Joint Director of Labs). Do you have the JDL as a partner?||The people who developed the plan participated in the DoD
Master plan activities - so they have a common thread. (Mr. Barth)
The Joint Vision 2010 / Army is consistent with the DoD Master Plan in the Army. (Mr. Reeves)
Members participated in joint warfighter activity. It's integrated because 95% of technology is integrated through the Services. We're looking for communications technology, software reusability, and computer security. (Dr. Duston)
|4. How does BDMO plan to consolidate the duplication of effort in the technology development arena between government labs and contractors (NAWC, APL, PL, Redstone, etc.)? There is much redundancy in capability and effort and all compete for a limited number of dollars.||Most people who participate in technology planning teams
have discussions to alter what they're doing to fix this. (Dr. Pierce)
National Labs has offered to help look at ways of looking at test and evaluation, lethality, etc. for NMD.
Theater Air Defense has designated Dalgren as the system development engineer so that they have defined roles. The pool of professionals is being diminished. Within government we want to make sure we have smart buyers. The master plan will allow us to see redundancies through coordination. Technology dollars are short - we need industry's ideas. (Mr. Marker)
A database has been developed to see what is available. Army and Navy have combined efforts to look at the same products, therefore reducing cost. (Col Goodrich)
|5. MDAP Program Managers (PMs) are in a catch 22. The systems they are developing already meet the threat-based requirements so they don't need new technology. If they say they need new technology, they are either told to pay for it or to slow down their program to wait for the technology. How would you help the PMs with this problem?||We are engaging with the PMs as well as working with them
through implementation. We are getting more buy-in because we are not asking for
payment. (Col Goodrich)
We are working closely with MDAP through BMDO in an oversight role. We need to identify needs (component) and prioritize funding. (Mr. Reeves)
We debated in an IPT and decided not to use the word requirements - instead used "MDAP needs." They can then prioritize accordingly. What's missing - security and time issues. (Mr. Marker)
Work technology and MDAP divisions. Commercialize to bring the price down. Government has to help the developers on devices and components. (Forum to bring in smaller companies / cultural change) If we want new technology, and we want to reduce lag time, we have to show the primes and industry that this is something we will evaluate proposals on. (compliance / affordability) (Dr. Duston)
The Air Force has a Technology Planning IPT (warfighter/user). It was established to identify long term needs (missionary plan, technology needs analysis and solution analysis). They must form a single voice if the funding for technology is to be maintained. The Air Force mechanism does work and we are trying to apply it to BMDO. (Mr. Barth)
If we get the cycle time down, we can get around that. What's the incentive to build a component that saves on cost? We must share that with the contracting team. (Dr. Pierce)
|Question||Answer Captured (In Part)|
|1. When will the compliance review team meet? (Selection for the booster for the GBI)||Not later than 90 days after contract award (minuteman or COT). (BG Cosumano)|
|2. Are you incorporating threat analysis and responses (sea-based threats / responses)? Why not open it up to all analysis? Are you looking at sea-based NMD?||We're going to deploy a ground-based system. We're looking at sea-based as an adjunct. We're also looking at space-based as well as other possibilities. (BG Cosumano)|
|3. With the concern over the robustness of test programs, is it still planned to downselect the EKV based on a single flight test? Or will the Government attempt to influence a team approach between the competing contractors? How is the downselection going to be made (i.e., what is the criteria)?||Both of the competitors have as part of their proposal their
approach. I cannot comment any further on that.
We did not restrict LSI contractors. We will look at their architectural approach and that will give us the most cost-effective approach. We will take the answer that the LSI contractor gives us. (BG Cosumano)
|4. What are the treaty implications if the GBI is deployed to a site other than Grand Forks?||The current treaty does not allow you to go outside of Grand Forks. We need to look at all elements of the system. (BG Cosumano)|
|5. Please discuss BMDO views on the "Weldon" NMD Bill now pending in Congress.||I'm not familiar with the Weldon Bill. I can't comment - it's a TMD bill. The Concoran Bill says we will deploy as soon as technologically possible. It's a supported bill. (BG Cosumano)|
|6. In light of today's "real world" missile threats, how do we continue to try and justify the illogic behind the 3+3 concept? Which is better: Deploy a less than perfect NMD system a year too early, or deploy a "perfect" NMD system a year too late?||Something is better than nothing if we have to deploy. (BG Cosumano)|
|7. Are the two planned Air Force tests out of Kodiak Island now being coordinated with the Joint Program Office?||It's not an approved Island. Kwajalein is the approved site. We will use any data that comes out of the Kodiak Island testing. (BG Cosumano)|
|8. How will the LSI be held accountable for the cost, schedule, and technical performance of the NMD architecture? (i.e., How do we know we are getting our money's worth?)||We have a good metrics process. I will be providing management and oversight to the contract. We have a process and management trust and will have a partnership in the effort. (BG Cosumano)|
Discuss your initial thoughts on where we are and the challenges, relationships with industry:
Ms McGuire, TRW Space and Laser Programs Division - The partnership is doing well with regard to leadership. There are issues surrounding the environment. Planning and execution are critical to get the alignment required. We need realism in planning and constancy in purpose around the criticality of missile defense. Focus on technology readiness, systems perspective and working the affordability aspect. We need a disciplined process that retires risk and builds to meaningful test. Focus also on communication in the execution phase so that there are no surprises.
Mr. Paster, Boeing - The relationship between BMDO and industry is good. We have the same vision and we are marching down the same path. With regard to interconnectivity and dollars, we have an opportunity to look at a Family of Systems. Back off on requirements. I am very pleased with the technology roadmaps. We need to get industry involved sooner rather than later sharing information.
LTG O'Neill, USA (Ret.), Mission Success and Operations - The sooner the data gets on the website, we can exploit the information and work will be better coordinated. The captain of the team needs information to make decisions. The team needs to support the captain. Industry is honest - they want to please the customer. We have to understand that these programs are tough, but there's no reason why they can't be successful. We have to focus our efforts.
Mr. Tullis, Litton Systems, Inc. - BMDO/JTAMDO perspective - Don't constrain people...
Mr. Barry Abrahams, Raytheon Systems Company - Communication is critical. You have the right to expect a higher level of performance and design. We need a good emphasis on test and realistic schedules. We want awards to go to the best capability. We also want 80% probability of success. The credibility of BMDO is undermined when we can't do what we say we will do. Credibility of BMDO must be maintained. We make conscious decisions about our investments in different programs.
Communication - This annual meeting is not enough, what's the best way to stimulate communication.
Mr. O'Neill - Through the Strategic Plan, GOESAG, JTB, and DA Oversight Forums - discuss status of core programs. Take them to fruition.
|Question||Answer Captured (In Part)|
|1. What programs are needed to support the warfighter?||We need all of the systems on the books based on the analysis (Family of Systems). How do we make trades among systems. We don't want one system to have 100% of the capability. We need to ensure that all systems get developed from a budget standpoint. It is the call from the leadership and the user, not BMDO. (Lt Gen Lyles)|
|2. Comment on the Welch Report, specifically, the rush to failure articles.||The report was right on. The issue is the urgency of programs. We have to make the tough decisions, and we're going in with our eyes open. The reports was a wake up call. Our lesson learned - we will react more quickly to failure in testing. (Lt Gen Lyles)|
|3. Prime - 5% technology development? (Did not capture complete question)||The establishment of the JTB was because of one of the
problems we have in leveraging or adding to dollars. Don't duplicate efforts.
We have done that on THAAD and BMC3. We have to do that because technology is moving so fast. (Unknown)
As long as the funding is there, challenge the prime - internal competition is helpful. (Mr. Tullis)
|4. With regard to IPTs/WIPTs and downsizing, will we be required to do less with less?||I agree, there are too many events to participate in all.
I like teams but they have proliferated. We are trying to consolidate them and have
become conscious of it and working it. You have to let us know when we have gotten you
in that situation. (Lt Gen Lyles)
Have meetings electronically with all primes by hitting a button. (LTG O'Neill, USA(Ret))
|5. ICBM - Threat||People have to be convinced that there is a threat. It became real with Desert Storm.|
|6. Users are focused on near term ($). How do we ensure a balance for near term vs. long term?||Innovative technology is a separate pot. It gets assaulted
because of other things. We want to build to 10-12% of TOA. (Lt Gen Lyles)
We make investment decisions on a day-to-day basis to carve out resources for the future. (Unknown)
|7. Revolution of Business/Government-Military - How do we do better?||Don't tell us how, don't give specifications, let us
come back and show you how to use commercial technology. (Mr. Tullis)
Leverage from commercial products. (LTG O'Neill, USA(Ret))
|8. Do you see a problem with competition for engineers that want to go into a commercial field?||We have major problems getting people to work defense.
The investment is in commercial. It will be a strategic issue - must attend to social
responsibility. (Ms. McGuire)
Graduates are not there in numbers. We need to work on that. (LTG O'Neill, USA(Ret))
|9. Do we talk about threat within companies?||No. We need to talk with the community. (LTG O'Neill, USA(Ret))|
|10. How do you introduce the General into your culture?||Communication is a two way street. We have extended the invitation to talk about threat and programs. Classification could be a problem. (Lt Gen Lyles)|