1. Capabilities Based Planning
UNCLASSIFIED
Air Force CONOPS &
Capabilities Based Planning
Title: Airborne Warning and Control System Reconstitution Study
Date: Mar 2002 – Jul 2002
Sponsor: Brig. General Ben Robinson, Commander, 552 Air Control Wing
Study Lead: Maj Nathan Titus, AFSAA/SAPP
Analysts: Mr Mike Daggit, Booz-Allen Hamilton
Dr Ed Robbins, Frontier Technology, Inc.
We would like to thank everyone in the 552 ACW for their help in providing data and insights critical to this study. In particular, the following personnel helped make this study possible.
LtCol Donald Clements, 963 AACS/CD
LtCol Patricia Collins, 552 OSS
Capt Tim Woodward, 552 OSS
Lt Nate Terry, 552 OSS
Lt Col Nathan Titus
Resource Analyses Directorate
Air Force Studies & Analyses Agency
19 Mar 04
UNCLASSIFIED

2. Overview UNCLASSIFIED Capabilities Based Planning Background
Challenges to Implementation
Recent Efforts in Air Force Capabilities-Based Planning
Observations/Recommendations
UNCLASSIFIED

3. Capabilities-Based Planning Background
UNCLASSIFIED
Capabilities-Based Planning Background
“[P]lanning, under uncertainty, to provide capabilities suitable for a wide range of modern-day challenges and circumstances while working within an economic framework that necessitates choice.”
Paul K. Davis, Analytic Architecture for Capabilities-Based Planning, Mission-System Analysis, and Transformation, MR-1513-OSD
Focus on “possibilities” vs.. “specific validated threats”
Central question must be “What do I need to do to achieve desired effects?” vs.. “How many of each system do I need?”
Goal is to plan for robust, flexible forces, capable of meeting a wide variety of threats, rather than an “optimal” force for a narrow set of threats
UNCLASSIFIED

4. Challenges to Implementation
UNCLASSIFIED
Challenges to Implementation
Fundamentals:
Defining terms: Effects and Capabilities
Understanding the role of scenarios
Analytic Issues:
Proficiency vs. Sufficiency
What do we mean by “Risk”?
What does it cost?
Determining priorities
Organizational Challenges
UNCLASSIFIED

5. Fundamentals UNCLASSIFIED Defining effects and capabilities
Effects are associated with a desired Outcome or Result
Capabilities are Non-solution Specific – Describe What must be done to achieve Effects
Fix the level to create common perspective
Avoid overlaps, redundancy
Identify relationships
Role of scenario
Scenarios needed to provide context for capability assessment
Suite of scenarios/vignettes must span the range of potential conflicts in all dimensions (political, geography, intensity, etc)
In resource constrained environment, best solution is robust across all scenarios – not an optimal solution to a point scenario which may never occur
UNCLASSIFIED

6. Master Capability List
UNCLASSIFIED
Fundamentals: Defining Effects and Capabilities
Master Capability List
Effects Construct
Capability 1
Capability 2
Sub-
Capability
Effect
Sub-
Capability
Sub-
Capability
Sub-
Capability
Sub-Sub-
Capability
Sub-Sub-
Capability
Sub-Sub-
Capability
Sub-Sub-
Capability
Sub-Sub-
Capability
Sub-Sub-
Capability
Functional decomposition of capabilities
Collectively Exhaustive and Mutually Exclusive
Provides a “menu” from which all CONOPS can choose required capabilities
Builds on Master Capability List
Links capabilities to effects
Explicitly identifies crosslinks and interdependencies between capabilities
Highlights “enabler” capabilities

7. Analytic Issues: Defining Risk
UNCLASSIFIED
Analytic Issues: Defining Risk
Risk is derived from two independent assessments
Our capability to deal with events or to provide effects (y axis)
The severity of impact of the event if we fail to provide the capability (x axis)
Risk concept not strictly ORM
No attempt to determine the probability of adverse event (no validated data exists, this is left to senior leadership judgement)
Measures capability to achieve required effects C4 C3 C6 C5 C8 C7 C2 C1
Capability
Severity of Impact

8. Analytic Issues: Capability Proficiency vs. Sufficiency
UNCLASSIFIED
Analytic Issues: Capability Proficiency vs. Sufficiency
Answering questions like “How much capability do we have?” or “How much capability do we need?” leads to two different looks at capability
Proficiency – “how well”
e.g., radar detection range
Sufficiency – “how many”
Force Structure
Proficiency
Key scenario elements are adversary and location
Amenable to subjective or objective analysis techniques
Sufficiency
Key scenario elements are time related – how fast to arrive and how long to sustain
Best addressed with an objective, quantitative analysis technique
UNCLASSIFIED

9. Gen Jumper’s “Sight Picture”
UNCLASSIFIED
Gen Jumper’s “Sight Picture”
Concepts of Operations (CONOPS) ... will guide our planning and programming, requirements reform, and acquisition.
...make warfighting effects, and the capabilities we need to achieve them, the drivers for everything we do.
…Air Staff designed a new review to replace the ‘Quarterly Acquisition Review Program’--we call this new approach a Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment (CRRA).
... shift from a program review to a review of how our programs contribute to warfighting capabilities and effects.

10. Using the MCL Example Data Collection Tool
UNCLASSIFIED
Using the MCL Example Data Collection Tool

11. Using the MCL Example Activity Diagram (Time Sensitive Targeting)
UNCLASSIFIED
Using the MCL Example Activity Diagram (Time Sensitive Targeting)
Deconflict target
Assess
Cue(s)
Determine Sensor Availability
Task Sensor
Collect
Data
Detect Target
Determine
Environment
Track until Stopped
ID Target
Geolocate Target
Update
Target
List
Assign weapon to target
Update Mission Plans
Issue Execution Order
Support Weapon Flyout
DDD Target
BDI / BHI
Remove from Target List
Task

12. Using Value Functions When More is Better
UNCLASSIFIED
Using Value Functions When More is Better
More doesn’t matter
Good Enough
Example – More is better
Measure: Detection range
Units of measure: NMI
Can’t do with less than 250 NMI
Good enough is 500 NMI
Over 1000 NMI doesn’t matter
Elicitation - in units of the measure
Is more of this good or bad?
When can’t you do it with less?
What is good enough?
When does more not matter?
Can’t do it
with less

13. Air Force CONOPS Construct Focus for Planning & Programming
UNCLASSIFIED
Global Power
Global Reach
Global Vigilance
Joint Vision
USAF Vision
Talking Points:
- Three key pillars of the USAF vision are: Global Power, Global Reach and Global Vigilance.
- The key construct is the Air and Space Expeditionary Force construct and the ten air expeditionary forces.
- Air Force concepts of operations build on these pillars and construct.
- Consequently, the Air and Space Expeditionary Forces CONOPS and its six supporting task forces will redefine who and what we will become.
The AEF CONOPS is the overarching CONOPS that describes how the Air Force presents combat-ready forces to combatant commanders, while the six TF CONOPS describe the capabilities needed to solve problems that combatant commanders are likely to face in the future.
Brief Descriptions of each Task Force CONOPS:
Air and Space Expeditionary Forces (AEF): Meets the Air Force requirement to provide Joint Force Commanders (JFCs) with ready and complete air and space force packages that can be tailored to meet the spectrum of contingencies
Global Strike Task Force (GSTF): Rapidly responds to areas where an enemy could attempt to deny access. It combines Stealth, Standoff, Precision, Space and Information with the other services to create the conditions for access.
Global Response Task Force (GRTF): Combines with special operations forces and other services to rapidly respond to incidents of Global Terrorism. Using actionable intelligence for fleeting targets, it combines alert strike platforms based in selected locations with the ability to launch and receive updates en-route to enable rapid response.
Homeland Security Task Force (HLSTF): Orchestrates specific Air Force capabilities as a stand alone force or for use in joint and interagency efforts to effectively prevent, protect against, and respond to a variety of threats to the US homeland
Global Mobility Task Force (GMTF): Organizes the capabilities necessary to provide rapid and effective air mobility support to theater combatant commanders during contingencies. GMTF partners with all the other Task Force CONOPS to cover the full spectrum of operations, from global strike, to Humanitarian Relief Operations/Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations (HUMRO/NEO).
Nuclear Response Task Force (NRTF): Acts as AEF topcover; providing safe, reliable and proficient nuclear forces—the deterrent umbrella under which conventional forces operate—and, if deterrence fails, will execute a variety of nuclear attack options
Space and Command, Control, Computers and Communications Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Task Force (S&C4ISRTF): Provides fully integrated manned, unmanned and space forces to focus on a particular area of interest using traditional methods of collection or seamlessly transition to Time Sensitive Targeting in the F2T2EA cycle. It does so by harnessing Air Force capabilities to achieve the horizontal integration of manned, unmanned, air, surface, information and space systems, to provide executable decision-quality knowledge to the commander in near real-time from anywhere.
Air & Space Expeditionary Forces
Global Strike
CONOPS
Homeland Security
CONOPS
Global
Mobility
CONOPS
Global
Persistent
Attack
CONOPS
Nuclear Response
CONOPS
Space
& C4ISR
CONOPS
Agile Combat Support
UNCLASSIFIED

14. Integrated CRRA Analysis Process Overview
UNCLASSIFIED
Integrated CRRA Analysis Process Overview
Phase 2B – Analysis (Leveraging Existing Efforts & New Focused Work)
Phase 3 – Apply Professional Military Judgment
Phase 1 - Foundations
Define Master Capability Library
Define Scenarios
Pair-wise Comparisons
Warm Database Mining
Architecture-Based Thread Analyses
Define CONOPS Activity Models
Define Metrics
CRRA Briefing Trail
Product: Focus Areas List
CONOPS-Specific Analyses
Product: Prioritized Courses of Action
Product: Candidate Courses of Action
Product: Capability Performance Framework
Assess Proficiency
Phase 2C – Analysis (Characterization and Optimization of Solutions)
Product:
Planning and Programming Guidance to MAJCOMS
(APPG)
Assess Sufficiency
Assess Impact
Characterization of Resource Constraints
Characterization of Warfighting Effects
Phase 2A – Analysis (Subjective Assessment)
Optimization of Alternatives

15. Relationship of Assessments
UNCLASSIFIED
Relationship of Assessments
RAT Teams
RAT View
Global Strike
Global Persistent Attack
Space & C4ISR
Nuclear Response
Homeland Security
Global Mobility
Air Force View
Surveillance & Reconnaissance
Intelligence
Command & Control
Communications
Force Application
Force Projection
Protect
Prepare & Sustain
Create the Force
CONOPS View

16. CONOPS MCL Connection to Joint Functional Concepts
UNCLASSIFIED
CONOPS MCL Connection to Joint Functional Concepts
Joint Functional Concepts
Battlespace Awareness
Joint Cmd & Ctrl
Force Application
Protection
Focused Logistics
AF CONOPS Capabilities
1.0 Surveillance &
Reconaissance
3.0 Command &
Control
5.0 Force Application
7.0 Protect
6.0 Force Projection
2.0 Intelligence
4.0 Communications
8.0 Prepare &
Sustain
9.0 Create the Force

17. Observations/ Recommendations
UNCLASSIFIED
Observations/ Recommendations
Measuring individual capabilities is not difficult; comparing the value/worth of different capabilities is the hard part
Scenarios are still important! Maybe even more important than in threat-based planning
Difficult to measure DOTLPF solutions vs. M solutions – need techniques to help do this
Definitions are important – build consensus early!
Rigorous application of a framework is necessary but not sufficient for success
UNCLASSIFIED

18. Summary
UNCLASSIFIED
The USAF is moving forward to establish Capabilities Based Planning as the foundation for how we conduct business in the future
A constant communication between HQ/AF and MAJCOMs essential to understand contributions to warfighter, investment strategies to mitigate shortfalls and capability priorities
Our task: make warfighting effects, and the capabilities needed to achieve them, the drivers for everything we do
UNCLASSIFIED

19. Back Up

20. Analytic Issues: Cost
Linking capabilities to cost demands a discussion of solutions – Should you even talk about costs?
Decision makers need the input, but leads to other questions:
What cost to use? NPV, LCC, Acquisition, O&M?
How are currently owned systems valued?
Will this approach stifle innovation?
Bottom line is that we need to analyze solutions and costs, but do the capability analysis up front to ensure we are solving the most important problems

21. Analytic Issues: Determining Shortfall Priorities
UNCLASSIFIED
Analytic Issues: Determining Shortfall Priorities
Determining “Importance” of capability shortfalls
How extensive is the shortfall?
What is the impact if not fixed?
How much of the Air Force is affected?
No well-defined set of tools/models exists – need objective & subjective tools as well as military judgment
Sensitivity Analysis
Multiattribute Utility Analysis
Prioritized Shortfalls C4 C3 C6 C2 C1 C5 C8 C7
Determine Weights
Combine with Risk Assessment Scores
Shortfall priority = f(shortfall importance, risk, cost)
UNCLASSIFIED

22. Methodology Build Master Capability Library for all CONOPS
Each CONOPS describes desired effects and capabilities required to achieve these effects
Capabilities drawn from MCL to facilitate later integration
Interdependencies and linkages between capabilities are explicitly defined in each CONOPS
From CONOPS descriptions (above), effects construct built to aid subjective determination of “effects drivers”:
Effects linked to capabilities, sub-capabilities
Weights associated with the contribution of a capability or sub-capability determined by SME or from quick-turn analysis tools
Weights are developed in the context of an overarching scenario
Risk Assessment Charts – Depicts capability assessment vs.. severity of impact for capability in the context of an overarching scenario
Integration is straightforward extension when common capability definitions and overarching scenarios are used – Required additional assumption is that all CONOPS Effects are of equal value

23. Master Capability List (1 of 2)
1.0 Data Collection
2.0 Intelligence
3.0 Command &
Control
4.0 Communications
1.1 Surveillance
(Un-Cued Continuous
Collection)
2.1 Process and
Exploit Intel
3.1 Planning
4.1 Exchange
Information
1.2 Reconnaissance
(Cued Search,
Focused Coll.)
2.2 Provide Intel
Assessments
3.2 Execution
Management
4.2 Provide for Data
Storage and Retrieval
1.3 Collect Weather
Related Information
3.3 Provide Positioning,
Navigation, Timing
Information
4.3 Provide Network
Damage Assessment
& Reconstitution

24. Master Capability List (2 of 2)
5.0 Force Application
6.0 Full Spectrum
Threat Response
7.0 Combat Support
8.0 Mobility
5.1 Countermeasures
6.1 Protect the Force
7.1 Establish
Operating Locations
8.1 Airlift
5.2 Neutralize Air
Threats/Targets
6.2 Provide Support
for Civil Authorities
7.2 Generate
the Mission
8.2 Air Refueling
5.3 Neutralize Space
Threats/Targets
6.3 Defensive
Information Operations
7.3 Support
Mission and Forces
8.3 Space Lift
5.4 Neutralize Surface
Threats/Targets
7.4 Posture
Responsive Forces
5.5 Neutralize
Sub-Surface
Threats/Targets
7.5 Sustain
Mission and Forces
5.6 Offensive
Information Operations
7.6 Public Affairs
5.7 Combat Search
and Rescue

25. Global Mobility CONOPS: Notional Example (1 of 2)
1.0 Data Collection
2.0 Intelligence
3.0 Command &
Control
4.0 Communications
1.1 Surveillance
(Un-Cued Continuous
Collection)
2.1 Process and
Exploit Intel
3.1 Planning
4.1 Exchange
Information
1.2 Reconnaissance
(Cued Search,
Focused Coll.)
2.2 Provide Intel
Assessments
3.2 Execution
Management
4.2 Provide for Data
Storage and Retrieval
1.3 Collect Weather
Related Information
3.3 Provide Positioning,
Navigation, Timing
Information
4.3 Provide Network
Damage Assessment
& Reconstitution

26. Global Mobility CONOPS: Notional Example (2 of 2)
5.0 Force Application
6.0 Full Spectrum
Threat Response
7.0 Combat Support
8.0 Mobility
5.1 Countermeasures
6.1 Protect the Force
7.1 Establish
Operating Locations
8.1 Airlift
5.2 Neutralize Air
Threats/Targets
6.2 Provide Support
for Civil Authorities
7.2 Generate
the Mission
8.2 Air Refueling
5.3 Neutralize Space
Threats/Targets
6.3 Defensive
Information Operations
7.3 Support
Mission and Forces
8.3 Space Lift
5.4 Neutralize Surface
Threats/Targets
7.4 Posture
Responsive Forces
5.5 Neutralize
Sub-Surface
Threats/Targets
7.5 Sustain
Mission and Forces
5.6 Offensive
Information Operations
7.6 Public Affairs
5.7 Combat Search
and Rescue

27. Global Mobility Effects Construct
Rapid Projection
of Joint Power
0.4
0.6
7.0 Combat
Support
8.0 Mobility
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
1.0 Data
Collection
3.0 Command &
Control
4.0 Comm
6.0 FSTR
8.1 Air Lift
8.2 Air Refueling
8.3 Space Lift
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.0
The weights indicate the relative contribution of each of the necessary capabilities towards a given effect (or contribution of effects to CONOPS).
The weights are determined by a series of independent assessments. This means that the weighting process can be broken into distinct pieces done at different levels and by different groups of SMEs without affecting the value of the input. However, Each group should be given the same set of scenarios to consider when making the decisions.
The weights are normalized to sum to one in order to keep a consistent scale as scores are rolled up.
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
1.3 Collect
Weather Info
3.1 Planning
3.3 Nav, Pos, &
Timing
7.1 Establish
Operating Location
7.2 Generate the
Mission
4.1 Exchange
Information
4.2 Data
Storage
4.3 Network
Damage Assess
5.1 Defensive
Countermeasures
3.2 Execution
Management
7.3 Support the
Mission
7.4 Posture the
Force
6.1 Protect the
Force

28. Crosscutting Analysis: Using the Effects Construct
Determination of contribution weights for each node can be done by separate pairwise comparisons or by M&S
Contributions to each node sum to one to keep scale consistent
Effect A
Effect B
Effect C
Effect D
0.1
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.4
Capability 1
Capability 2
Capability 3
Capability 4
Capability 5
Capability 6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.0
The weights indicate the relative contribution of each of the necessary capabilities towards a given effect (or contribution of effects to CONOPS).
The weights are determined by a series of independent assessments. This means that the weighting process can be broken into distinct pieces done at different levels and by different groups of SMEs without affecting the value of the input. However, Each group should be given the same set of scenarios to consider when making the decisions.
The weights are normalized to sum to one in order to keep a consistent scale as scores are rolled up.
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
Sub-Capability
1.1
Sub-Capability
2.1
Sub-Capability
2.2
Sub-Capability
3.1
Sub-Capability
4.1
Sub-Capability
4.2
Sub-Capability
6.1