1. Technology Security
Benefits / Risks

2. Political Military Relationship
Achieving that “Delicate Balance”
TSFD AT
DEF
Support
U.S. Industrial
Base
Country
Security
Track Record
Political Military Relationship
Protect Against
Technology
Proliferation
Regional Stability
Foreign
Availability
Precedence
Support
Cooperative
Programs
Disclosure
Considerations
Docs.
Processes

3. Lesson Objectives
Employ and validate proper international technology security
Analyze Defense Exportability (DEF) issues, problems, findings, and initiatives
Analyze Technology Security & Foreign Disclosure (TSFD) issues, problems, findings, & initiatives
Distinguish the role of anti-tamper in protecting critical program information, illustrate its importance and discuss recent initiatives
Contrast the roles of the AT EA, NDPC, LO/CLO EXCOM, and other committees with given disclosure processes

4. Defense Exportability Features (DEF) Context
Recent developments (GlobalHawk, MQ-9) demonstrate:
AT and DE design features not adequately implemented early
Failure to do so results in suboptimal protection of critical technologies & cost/schedule problems with foreign sales
Exportability design not incorporated in programs
Rarely accept the fact that systems will be exported in the future
Focus on meeting defined U.S. warfighter requirements rather than undefined Building Partnership Capacity (BPC) requirements
No clear authority to spend U.S. tax dollars for foreign requirements
Rarely are foreign funds available in early development

5. DEF Features
Conduct joint analysis with key stakeholders to assess Better Buying Power (BBP) benefits from alignment of international and domestic
Assess likelihood of foreign cooperation/sale, assess key design and development aspects, and focus on “trusted system”
Incorporate industry share of the funding (FY12 legislation)
Identify pre-MS A, pre-MS B, and high impact post-MS B MDAP programs, analyze the candidate programs, and fund 2-4 programs/FY

6. DEF Pilot Program FY11 NDAA Section 243: Established DEF Pilot Program
FY12 NDAA Section 252: Added an amendment to Section 243 requiring that vendors contribute at least 50% of the costs of developing and implementing DEF
FY14 NDAA Section 264: Extended the pilot program to October 1, 2020
Better Buying Power (BBP) 2.0 – “Increase incorporation of defense exportability features in initial designs.”
Frame international as part of the Acquisition Strategy
Plan for exportability early!

7. DEF Pilot Programs (FY13-14)
Army
Joint Ground to Air Missile (FY14) L-M pre-MS B
Armed Aerial Scout & GCV N/A N/A
Army requesting removal of both programs from DEF Pilot Program
Air Force
Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) Raytheon post-MS B
MQ-9 Reaper Genl Atomics post-MS C
Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile L-M post-MS C
Navy
Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) Source Sel post-MS A
Air & Missile Defence Radar (AMDR) Source Sel post-MS B
P-8A Poseidon Boeing post-MS C
E2D Advanced Hawkeye N-G post-FRP

8. DEF Report to Congress Done by OUSD(AT&L) & submitted in April 2013
“DEFs play a critically important role in U.S. Government/DoD efforts to build partner capacity”
“Funds support building joint and coalition environments by enabling the export of DoD systems to a wider range of partner nations, resulting in improved security and interoperability”
“DEFs allow for much earlier consideration of exportability features, such as AT capabilities”

9. DEF Desired Outcomes
Defense Exportability initiative is focusing on improving outcomes in three key areas:
Enhanced Program Protection for U.S. and foreign partners/customers
Increase availability for foreign sales and cooperation resulting in more competitive U.S. exports
Lower U.S. and foreign partner/customer cost in production and sustainment costs through economic order quantities and benefits

10. DEF Looking Forward Policy: Resources:
Pursue ATTR SSG anticipatory DoD-wide TS&FD policies for exports of key defense technologies/systems
Integrate DEF considerations into the PPP and AT reviews
Develop DEF cost estimating tools for AT/capability trades
Develop adjudication process for making optimal DEF-TS&FD design trades
Resources:
Pursue “common baseline AT” funding and implementation on all DoD systems
Identify appropriate funding sources for development and production of export variants once feasibility studies completed
Work with industry to share DEF implementation costs – enable industry to invest in DEF and recoup costs on future sales

11. TSFD Reform
Deputy Secretary of Defense (DSD) establishes Arms Transfer and Technology Release Senior Steering Group (ATTR SSG) – August 11, 2008
DSD establishes Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure (TS&FD) Review Group – July 2010
Approves “Phase I” findings – December 20, 2010
TS&FD Office (TSFDO) organized – February 14, 2011
Approves “Phase II” findings – April 15, 2011
DSD signs Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) – January 9, 2012
Directs TS&FD process “pipes” consolidation
Formalizes roles of both ATTR SSG and TSFDO
Administratively expired and awaiting DoD Directive

12. ATTR SSG USD(Policy) and USD(AT&L) Co-Chair
Members are: USD(I), OSD(GC), VCJCS, MILDEP Secretaries, Director NSA, Director NGA, and interagency representatives as invited
Overarching DoD authority to ensure clear senior-level direction for TS&FD reviews
Serves as appeals board and mediation body when TS&FD stakeholders are unable to achieve consensus
Focus of the ATTR SSG:
Ensure compliance to U.S. commitments
Provide clear policy-level directions
Seek process improvements

13. Technology Transfer & Foreign Disclosure Processes

14. DoD Review (TS&FD) PROBLEM #3
Too Much Autonomy w/out Synchronization & Timelines
PROBLEM #4
Too Many Decision
Documents
PROBLEM #2
Too Many Entry Points/No Triage
PROBLEM #5
No Top Level DoD
Closure Process
PROBLEM #1
Reactive
Approach
LO/CLO
AT&L
Primary AT
Process
SAP
SAPCO
Specialized
DSC
AT&L + Policy
Intel
USD(I)
Data Links/WF
NII
PNT/GPS
COMSEC
NSA & NII
GEOINT
NGA
MTCR
DSCA/ Policy
NDP
Policy EW
None
No single process
NVD/INS
DTSA
Decision
MILDEP
Processes
No Integrated OSD Appeal Process
Gov’t
Industry
Decision
ATTR SSG
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
FMS
Direct Comm’l Sale
Cooperative MOUs
Other
Other
DoD Processes
Interagency process
85,000 Routine Decisions per year
High Level Decisions & ~10 Top Level Decisions per year

15. TSFDO Improve front-end TS&FD guidance
Improve TS&FD review & decision transparency
Proactively initiate TS&FD reviews, as directed by ATTR SSG
Simplify, streamline, and harmonize DoD TS&FD structures and processes
Serve as Executive Secretariat for ATTR SSG
Help guide DoD Directive through policy channels to supersede DTM

16. Jan 2012 DTM Process OSD High Level Decisions (~200/yr)
Specialized Routine Decisions (~500/yr)
DoD Component Routine Decisions (~85,000/yr)

17. Anti-Tamper (AT) Overview
What: System engineering activities (Hardware and/or software techniques) designed into the system architecture to protect CPI against:
Countermeasure development
Unwanted technology transfer
Increased foreign capability through modifications of FMS and DCS systems beyond export license limitations
Why: Deter, impede, detect , and respond to the exploitation of CPI in DoD systems resulting from combat losses or export sales
Who: Program office in collaboration with the DoD AT Executive Agent and Service leads

18. AT Policy and CPI Definition
Defining what to protect
Develop CPI identification/validation process and make AT&L co-signatory of DoDI to influence policy
Defining how to protect it
Refine definition of “one-size” AT for incorporation into DoDI regarding implementation of DE planning
Cost estimating and resourcing
Improve the AT ‘trade space’ adjudication process
Develop the procedures and guidance for incorporating DE business case analysis in contract & acquisition strategies
Education and training
Develop and implement DOTMLPF-P approach to integrating DE into requirements, acquisition & intelligence activities

19. AT Process AT Evaluation Points (EP) for Programs:
EP 1 – AT Concept – PPP Evaluation; and review CPI and AT requirements
EP 2 – Initial AT Plan – Program initiation
EP 3 – Final AT Plan – System critical design review
EP 4 – Verification Plan – Program transition and transfer
AT Plan is an annex to the Program Protection Plan (PPP)
AT Plan template and guidance are available

20. AT Success Factors
PM should be personally involved in AT – has cost & schedule implications, impacts future FMS options, and involves resource sponsors and the MDA
Identify CPI and clarify export expectations early (Pre-MS A) – ensures appropriate technologies and/or countermeasures are inserted properly
Contact DoD AT EA or Service AT Lead early for technical AT discussions
Set up AT security early per the AT Security Classification Guide – AT is a U.S.-only activity
Leverage the AT community resources to ensure AT success and proper AT implementation

21. National Disclosure Policy (NDP-1)
Interagency document that implements NSDM-119 within the Executive Branch
Issued by Secretary of Defense with concurrence of other Departments and Agencies
Sets forth specific criteria & conditions that must be satisfied before a decision is made to disclose CMI
Delegates to the Executive Branch authority to release CMI to eligible governments and intl organizations
Disclosure authority delegated to Heads of Departments and Agencies with jurisdiction over the information
Disclosure decided on a case-by-case basis and approval of the originator required

22. NDPC Membership General Members Department of State
Department of Defense
U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
U.S. Air Force
CJCS
Special Members
Director, National Intelligence
Director, Central Intelligence
Department of Energy
Department of Defense
OUSD(P)
OUSD(I)
OUSD(AT&L)
OASD(NII)
OATSD (NCB)
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Security Agency
Missile Defense Agency

23. LO/CLO EXCOM Process
Adjudicates requests and proposals to export LO/CLO technologies, capabilities, and information to foreign entities (also addresses defensive systems)
Information required to support LO/CLO review is detailed descriptions of system performance and capabilities, technology protection measures, and rationale supporting export
COCOM support required on controversial capabilities
OSD-led Tri-Service Committee first level review
Charters Red Teams
Refers issues to the LO/CLO EXCOM
USD(AT&L) chairs LO/CLO EXCOM
Includes J8, Service SAEs, and USD(P)
Cases may take several months to resolve

24. LO/CLO Process EXCOM Minutes DoD Component (or CTR) proposal
AT&L (SP) staff reviews proposal and assigns priority
Weekly Tri-Service
Committee meeting
AT&L (SP) MILDEPs
DTSA AT&L/IC (as
Industry (?) invited)
DoD Component
(or CTR) proposal
“Red Team” (?)
Technology experts meet as needed to resolve issues
LO-CLO EXCOM
AT&L USD(P) SAEs
JCS USD(I) MDA
DARPA T&E
LO-CLO EXCOM
(Paper)
2 – 4
weeks
AT&L
Decision
EXCOM Minutes
4 – 6 months

25. JCIDS Process Overview
CBA
ICD
Technology
Development
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
MDD
CPD
CDD
PDR
CDR A C B
FRP DR
Production and Deployment
O&S
Documents capability gap based upon CBA and recommends a material or non-material solution to filling that gap as part of the JCIDs process.
Capabilities-
Based
Assessment
(CBA)
New CJCSI* requires international assessment
Initial
Capabilities
Document
(ICD)
“Do International”
Analysis of Material and Non-Material Approaches
Ideas for Non-Material Approaches
Ideas for Material Approaches
Recommended Approach 3
Approval authority designated by the Joint Staff, usually the Joint Requirements Oversight Council for Major Defense Acquisition Projects.
Recommended Approach 2
Recommended Approach 1
MDD
Analytic process that identifies capability gaps, identifies and recommends potential solutions
Executed and approved at discretion of the DoD Component
* Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction

26. Proposed Changes to DoDI 5000.02
CBA
ICD
Technology
Development
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
MDD
CPD
CDD
PDR
CDR A C B
FRP DR
Production and Deployment
O&S
AoA
Study
International Assessment
Preliminary International Assessment
MDD
Acquisition
Decision
Memorandum
(ADM)
“Assume international”
“Analyze options” A
AoA
Study Guidance
Key Acquisition Documents*
(TDS, PPP, SEP, TES)
* Technology Development Strategy (TDS), Program Protection Plan (PPP), Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), and Testing and Evaluation Strategy (TES)