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

10

11

BACKUP SLIDES

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.