Rapid Acquisition

1. Rapid Acquisition OSD CAPE Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation

2. Purpose How to not make the SD the PM for rapid acquisition items • Current process requires senior leader involvement • How to balance urgent needs against the risk the system is willing to take • How fast is it required, how much is the department willing to pay, and how much oversight is required

3. Current Acquisition Model Complexity & Risk Difficult with Risk Easy with No Risk Year of Execution Re-Programming Programming POM MRAP 5000 CAT I To shorten time requires more srldr involvement SD Total Program Costs Senior Leader Involvement OCO Using Existing Auths and Contracts DSD ATR MDA S&T at Government Labs SAE BTR MC-12 Liberty SM-6 SDB/C-130 Laser JDAM JIEDDO GH PO Integration Theater Local Cmd Theater Funding COTS/GOTS Days Weeks Months Quarters Year Years Need to Delivery Time

4. Rapid Acquisition Requirements Process Capability Requirement Validation Pick a Solution Identify Validate Prioritize Develop Demonstrate Procure Demonstrate Procure OR Then Integrate to a Service or Agency Procure Sustain & Transfer OR OR Sustain & Transition

5. How Can a Program Get an EZ-Pass? • High priority JUON that must be tracked • Requires funding • Initial (break another program, colorless?) • O&S costs must be signed up for • Requires Service support or buy-in • Requires breaking thru the risk adverse nature of the system it is being procured from • Government must take on a large integration role • Established relationships with contractors • Team in place

6. Rapid Acquisition Future Developments • Standing up a DoD-wide program office • Current organizations are commodity specific • Ad-hoc from current program offices • Streamlining how the requirements come in • JCIDS is not nimble enough • How to create a more open process • Appropriating colorless multi-year funding • Keeping Congress informed • Transition/transfer to services or agencies

7. Laser JDAM Sep 2006 CENTAF Urgent Need for Engaging Fast Moving Targets • CSAF directed QRC--Weapons to GWOT in 15 month • Requirements: • CSAF go-ahead Mar 07; Requirements signed Apr 07 • Requirements did not change even with addition of Navy • Technology: • Boeing initial investment, development and demonstration • Funding: • Initial R&D funding ($6M) from Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Program in 1 month • Initial production funds ($20M) reprogrammed in 2 months • Follow-on funding kept pace with need • $6M R&D in 4 months; Navy funding in 8 months • Team: • Existing JDAM program office used for LJDAM • Supported tailored processes • Enablers • Rapid receipt of initial funding • Agile support from testers • Accelerated decision process

8. Precision Lethality MK-82 • 2009 JUON for Very Low Collateral Damage Weapon • Requirements: RAC directed QRC for USCENTCOM • Direction from JRAC Mar 10, R&D started May 10. Requirements finalized Aug 10, 4 months into effort. • Penetration and forward fuzing not critical to low collateral damage. Added 4 months to development effort. • Technology: • Composite technology integrated on a fielded system, JDAM • Funding: Unconventional funding sources • SPR leads to reprogramming of $11M SAF/AQ funds for tech maturation through an AFRL ongoing effort • $29.5M RDT&E OCO money provided Aug 10 • $20M RDT&E & $31M production provided by JRAC Oct 10 • Team: AAC & AFRL Lab partnership key to success • AFRL led tech maturation effort w/transition to AAC • New AAC program office stood up. Fulfills Sys Integrator role • Organic system level design and system logistics support • Enablers • Early Funding – Available for effort • People – Committed to Warfighter • Flexibility • Rapid decision making ability • Adapt to change daily • Agile support from testers

9. Back Up Slides

10. 50 Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) FY06 FY08 FY07 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr AFRL Technology Development Program (25 Arena, Sled & Howitzer Tests) 450 FLMs Technology Transition MS C JCTD Breakfast Club JCTD Integration/Test Program Residuals Sustainment Original Fielding Schedule (50) FLM’s DD-250’d Contract Award Weaponeer Workshops 3 Phase Military Utility Assessment Static Live Fire Tests Guided Test Vehicle Flights Live Flight Test

11. Laser JDAM 15 Month Timeline FY09 FY07 FY08 J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M M Milestones Direction Navy FY08 Funds AF 1st 50 Requirement DON 1st 50 Requirement AF 400th Requirement AF Prod $ Final AF $ 1st Operational Engagement Contract Actions - UCA - Definitization Qualification - Design - Logistics - Software (Blk 7) - AF Testing - Navy Testing Operational Unit Production Fielding AF R&D $ Navy Rqmt FDR1/PRR1/FAAT 1 – SDD+ Configuration FDR2/PRR2/FAAT 2 – LRIP Configuration FDR1 PRR2 (Elbit) FCA PRR2 (ESA) PRR1 FDR2 Producibility Enhancements FAAT 2 Stationary Target Eval FAAT 1/ OUE Obj A/C Integration and Moving/Maneuvering Target Eval 50 100 200 300 400 AF Units Long-Lead Procurement Navy Units 200 50 100

12. BLU-129/B QRC Schedule Time Now 4.5-month RR 8-month IOC Transition from QRC 5-month post-IOC FY2011 FY2012 FY2010 A A S M M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J O N D J F M DIRECTION RQMNTS FUNDING CONTRACTS DoN Rqmt’s AF Rqmt’s AFRL $ RDT&E/Prod Reprog $ RDT&E OCO $ AF RAA JRAC Direction Capability Transition Review RR CA RDT&E CA Prod CA Lethality Evaluation Point RISK REDUCTION AND QRC RDT&E CFP - Captive Flt Profile CTV - Controlled Test Vehicle DVT - Design Verification Testing EGTV - Environmental Guided Test Vehicle IM – Insensitive Munitions PHST – Packaging, Handling, Storage, Transportation RAA – Required Assets Available TDP – Technical Data Package TRL Readiness Review Risk Reduction Arena Sled Post-IOC TRR Final TDP TRR SRR PDR CDR Initial TDP Case DVTs Margin DVTs Structural Data Package • Ground Rules/Assumptions • No key requirements changes • BLU-129 ~ legacy MK82 (except roll inertia) • No JDAM OFP change allowed • Receive IM waiver for initial fielding • Receive high priority on test range • JDAM / LJDAM kits and fuzes are GFE • Warhead characterization, design margin and objective testing post-IOC • Paveway II certification dates TBD Qual Navy safe Sep/Cats & Traps E3/HERO USN Exp Quals NNMSB Approval Environmental /Safety IM/Haz Class Tests Test Clear (T) Navy Fleet Clearance AFSEO Flt Clear(O) USN Flt Test Sled Design Margin Sleds JTCG/ME Weaponeering Design Margin Lethality Arenas A/C Flt Certification EGTVs Fit Checks CTV OUE Rpt Objective Live Flights CFP DT/OT Fielding Recommendation Tech Orders Warhead Aging Study EOD Eval Warhead Surveillance Plan PHST WARHEAD MANUFACTURING McAlester Qual 50 RAA PRR FAI/PCA Closeout

13. Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) • 2006 Urgent Need for Low Collateral Damage Weapon • SECAF directed JCTD--Weapons to GWOT in 18 mos • Requirements: Well defined from JCTD process • Limited blast zone and focused lethality • Requirements were fluid. Penetration requirement reduced • Technology: • Composite technology integrated on a fielded system, SDB • Funding: Out of cycle JCTD • SAF/AQ found $10M. Initial $6M went directly to AFRL, $3.6M managed by AAC for AFRL. • Follow on funding from misc sources including $10M BTR from SDB I and SDB II. • Team: AAC & AFRL Lab partnership key to success • AFRL led tech maturation effort w/transition to AAC • SDB program office supplemented for FLM effort • Partnered w/National Labs for composite design expertise • Enablers • Accelerated Funding • People & Teamwork • Leadership • Vision, Strategy, Focus • Accepting failure and taking risk • Mature Technologies • Clear and Valid Requirement • Agile support from testers