Technology Security Benefits / Risks

1. Technology Security Benefits / Risks

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

3. 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 Lesson Objectives

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 areforeign 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/AN/A • Army requesting removal of both programs from DEF Pilot Program • Air Force • Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) Raytheonpost-MS B • MQ-9 Reaper Genl Atomics post-MS C • Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile L-Mpost-MS C • Navy • Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) Source Selpost-MS A • Air & Missile Defence Radar (AMDR) Source Selpost-MS B • P-8A Poseidon Boeing post-MS C • E2D Advanced Hawkeye N-Gpost-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: • 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) 11-053 – 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. NDP DoD Review (TS&FD) LO/CLO AT COMSEC SAP DSC Primary PROBLEM #3 Too Much Autonomy w/out Synchronization & Timelines PROBLEM #4 Too Many Decision Documents Policy MTCR Primary AT&L PROBLEM #2 Too Many Entry Points/No Triage NVD/INS Process PROBLEM #5 No Top Level DoD Closure Process AT&L Intel Primary NSA & NII Data Links/WF Specialized SAPCO PNT/GPS Specialized PROBLEM #1 Reactive Approach AT&L + Policy GEOINT Specialized DSCA/ Policy EW Specialized DTSA Specialized Decision USD(I) Decision Specialized No Integrated OSD Appeal Process NII Decision Specialized Decision NII Specialized NGA No single process None Gov’t Industry Decision ATTR SSG Decision Decision Decision Decision • FMS • Direct Comm’l Sale • Cooperative MOUs • Other MILDEP Processes Interagency process Other DoD Processes 85,000 Routine Decisions per year 100-200 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 11-053

16. Jan 2012 DTM Process

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 5200.39 to influence policy • Defining how to protect it • Refine definition of “one-size” AT for incorporation into DoDI 5000.02 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 • 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 • General Members • Department of State • Department of Defense • U.S. Army • U.S. Navy • U.S. Air Force • CJCS

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 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 Production and Deployment B C A O&S Engineering and Manufacturing Development CBA ICD MDD Materiel Solution Analysis CDD CPD Technology Development Documents capability gap based upon CBA and recommends a material or non-material solution to filling that gap as part of the JCIDs process. PDR Capabilities- Based Assessment (CBA) New CJCSI* 3170.01 requires international assessment CDR FRPDR 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 Production and Deployment B C A O&S Engineering and Manufacturing Development CBA ICD MDD Materiel Solution Analysis CDD CPD Technology Development PDR CDR FRPDR AoA Study Preliminary International Assessment MDD Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) “Assume international” “Analyze options” International Assessment 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)