system engineering planning for the ballistic missile defense system 06-060.pdf

8/22/2019 System Engineering Planning for the Ballistic Missile Defense System 06-060.pdf

1/61

March2,2006

Systems Engineering Planning forthe Ballistic Missile Defense SystemD-2006-060)

Departmento fDefenseOffice ofInspectorGeneralQuality Integrity Accountability


2/61

AB L Airbo rne LaserB M D Bal l i s t ic Miss i le DefenseBM DS Bal l i s t ic Miss i le Defense SystemCJC S Chai rm an Joint Chie f s of S ta ffJCS Joint Chie fs of StaffM DA Miss i le Defense Age ncyN R - K PP N e t - Re a dy , K e y Pe r f o rma nc e Pa r a me te rSE M P Sys t e ms E ng ine e r ing M a na ge me nt P l a nSSA A System Secur i ty and Auth or iza t ion Agre eme ntTH AA D Termina l High Al t i tude Are a Defense

A c r o n y m s

O D I G - A U D ( A T T N : A FT S A udi t Sugge s ti ons )Depar tment of Defense Inspec tor Genera l400 A r my N a vy D r ive ( Room 801)A r l i ng ton , V A 22202- 4704

S u gges t i on s for Fu tu re Au d i t sTo suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact Audit Fo llow up an dTechnica l Suppor t a t (703) 604-8940 (DSN 664-8940) or f ax (703) 604-8932.Ideas and reques ts can a lso be m ai led to:

Ad d i t i on a l Cop i esTo obta in addi t iona l copies o f th is repor t , contac t the Secondary Repo r tsDis t r ibut ion Uni t , Audi t Fol lowup and Technica l Suppor t a t (703) 604-8937 (DSN664-8937) or f ax (703) 604-8932.


3/61

Table of ContentsExecutive Summ ary iBackground I

Objec t ives 3Ma nag ers ' In te rna l Cont rol Program 3

FindingsA. System s Engineer ing Planning for the Ba l l i s t ic Miss i leDefense System 4B . Sy stems Engin eer ing for the Aeg is Ba l l i s t ic Miss i le Defense E lem ent 9C. System s Engin eer ing for the Term ina l High Al t i tude AreaDefense E lemen t 17D . System s Eng ineer ing for the Airborne Laser E lem ent 21E. Aud i tor Access to Do cum ents a t the Miss i le Defense Agen cy 29

AppendixesA. Scope and Meth odo logy 33Pr ior Cov erage 34B . Miss i le Defense Ag enc y Systems Eng ineer ing Process 35C. System s Engineer ing Pol icy and Guid ance 36D . A udi t Re sponse t o M is s i l e D e f e nse A ge nc y Com me nt s 39E. Repor t Dis t r ibut ion, 41

Management CommentsMissi le Defense Agen cy 43


4/61

I N S P E C T O R G E N E R A LD E P A R T M E N T O F D E F E N S E4 0 0 A R M Y N A V Y D R I V EA R L I N G T O N , V I R G I N IA 2 2 2 0 2 - 4 7 0 4

March 2, 2006M E M O R A N D U M F O R D I R E C T O R , M I S S I L E D E F E N S E A G E N C YSUB JEC T: Repo r t on Systems Engineer ing Plan ning for the Ba l l i s t ic Miss i le D efenseSystem (Repor t No. D-2006-060)

We are providing this r epor t for r eview and com ment . We consideredmanagement comments on a draf t of this report when preparing the f inal report .DoD Direc t ive 7650.3 requi res tha t a l l r ecommendat ions be resolved prompt ly .The Miss i le Defense Agency comments were par t ia l ly responsive . We reques t addi t iona lcomments f rom the Direc tor , Miss i le Defense Agency on Recommendat ions A . 1 . , A.3. ,B.1.a . , C.1. and C.2.; f rom the Element Manager , Aegis Ball ist ic Missi le Defense on

Recommendat ion B.2. ; f rom the E lement Manager , Termina l High Al t i tude Area Defenseon Recommendat ion C.2.b . ; and f rom the E lement Manager , Airborne Laser onReco mm endat io ns D. l and D.4. As a resul t of man agem ent comm ents , we redi rec tedRecommendat ion B. l .b . to the Direc tor , Miss i le Defense Agency, we revisedReco mm endat io n D.3 . , and we de le ted Recomm endat io ns A.4. , C.2.b . , and C .2.c.Therefore , w e reques t tha t the Direc tor , Miss i le Defense Ag ency a lso provide com men tson the redi rec ted Recommendat ion B. l .b . , and tha t the E lement Manager , Airborne Laserprovide comments on revised Recommendat ion D.3. P lease provide responses byA pr i l 3 ,2006 .I f poss ib le , p lease send manage men t com men ts in e lec t ronic format (AdobeAcrobat f i le only) to A u d A C M @ d o d i g . m i l . Cop ie s o f t he ma na ge m e nt c omme nt s mus tcontain the actual signature of the autho rizing off icial. We canno t accept the / Signed /symbol in place of the actual signature. I f you arrange to send classif ied commentse lec t ronica l ly , they mu st be sent over the SE CR ET Inte rne t Protocol Route r N etwork( S I PRN E T ) .W e apprec ia te the cour tes ies extended to thestaff. Quest ions should be di rec tedto Mr . Harold C. James a t (703) 604-9088 ( DS N 664-90 88) . See App endix E for thereport distr ibu tion. The team mem ber s are listed inside the back cover .

By d i rec t ion of the Deputy Inspec tor Genera l for A udi t ing:

R i c h ar d B .Jollif feAssis tant Inspec tor G enera lAcquis i t ion and Contrac t Management
http://audacmfsjdodig.mil/http://audacmfsjdodig.mil/http://audacmfsjdodig.mil/


5/61

D e p a r t m e n t of D e f e n s e O ff ic e of I n s p e c t o r G e n e r a lR e p o r t N o . D - 2 00 6 - 06 0 M a r c h 2 , 2 0 0 6

( P r o je c t N o . D 2 0 0 5 - D 0 0 0 A E - 0 1 3 4 . 0 0 0 )

Systems Engineering Planning for theBallistic M issile Defense SystemExecutive Summary

W ho Sho u ld Re a d T h i s Re po r t a nd W hy ? D oD a cqu i s it i on o f fi ci al s w ho a r eresponsible for planning and implement ing sys tems engineer ing for programs should beinterested in this report because i t discusses the cr i t ical planning needed to supportsys tems eng ineer ing for the Ba l l i s t ic Miss i le Defense System.Ba ck gr ou nd . On January 2 , 200 2, the Secre ta ry of Defense expanded the Miss i leDefense Agency ' s ( former ly the Ba l l i s t ic Miss i le Defense Organiza t ion) responsibi l i tyand authori ty by directing the Missi le Defense Agency to develop and f ield a singleintegrated ball ist ic missi le defense system to protect the United States, i ts deployedforces, f r iends, and al l ies against ball ist ic missi les of al l ranges in al l phases of f l ight .Addit ionally, the Secretary of Defense emphasized the need to f ield Missi le DefenseAge ncy e lements* or key co mpo nents o f e lemen t capabi l i ties as soon as prac t icable andto des ign incrementa l up grades to in tegra te these comp onents over t ime . The Miss i leDefense Ag enc y budge t for FY 200 5 was $ 8.8 bi l lion in research, deve lop men t , tes t , andevaluation Hinds.Re sul t s . The Miss i le Defense Agen cy had not com ple ted a sys tems engineer ing plan orplanned fully for system sustainm ent. The refore, the Missi le Defen se Agen cy is at r iskof not successfully developing an integrated ball ist ic missi le defense system (f inding A).In addi t ion, Miss i le Defense Agency Ins t ruc t ion 7600.01 did not comply wi th therequi rements of Do D Ins t ruc t ion 7050 .3. Therefore , the Miss i le Defense Ag ency n eedsto revise the Miss i le Defense Agency Ins t ruc t ion to comply wi th DoD guidance(f inding E) .The Missi le Defense Agency did not have adequate information to evaluate the plannedsystems engineer ing for the Aegis Ba l l i s t ic Miss i le Defense E lem ent . Unt i l the A egisBal l i s t ic Miss i le Defense e lement manager obta ins approva l of the sys tems engineer ingmanagement plan, implements informat ion assurance requi rements , and coordina tes ane t - ready, key per formance parameter and an informat ion sup por t p lan, the M iss i leDefense Ag ency cannot be assured the Aegis Ba l l i s tic Miss i le Defense informat ionsystems are secure and will be interoperable ( f inding B).

* W hen the Miss i le Defense A genc y was c rea ted , the Secre ta ry o f Defen se p laced a num ber o f ind iv idua lServ ice acqu is i t ion p rogra ms tha t beca me comp onen ts o f the Ba l l i s t ic Miss i le Defen se Sys tem underM i s s i l e D e f e n s e A g e n c y c o n t r o l . T h e s e f o r m e r l y i n d e p e n d e n t p r o g r a m s , w h i c h r e c e i v e t h ei r f u n d i n gd i r e ct l y fr o m t h e M i s s i l e D e f e n s e A g e n c y , b e c a m e k n o w n a s M i s s i l e D e f e n s e A g e n c y e l e m e n t s . I nFebruary 2002 , the Under Sec re ta ry o f Defense fo r Acqu is i t ion , Techno logy , and Log is t ic s des igna tedthe Ba l l i s t ic Miss i le Defense Sys tem as one majo r DoD acqu is i t ion p rogram.


6/61

The Miss i le Defense Agency could not ful ly eva lua te sys tems engineer ing for theTermina l High Al t i tude Area Defense E lement . Unt i l the necessary docum enta t ion i scomple ted and approved, the Miss i le Defense Agency cannot be assured tha t theTermina l High Al t i tude Area Defense informat ion sys tems a re secure ( f inding C) .The Miss i le Defense Agency could not ful ly eva lua te sys tems engineer ing for theAirborne Laser E lement . Unt i l the Airbo rne Laser e lement manager upda tes the s ingleacquis i tion plan and the sy s tems eng ineer ing plan, r equi res the cont rac tor to comply wi ththe sof tware development plan, fully establishes earned value report ing, and implementssecur i ty requi rements for weapon sys tems, the e lement manager ' s abi l i ty to adequa te lyoversee e lement deve lopment and sys tem secur i ty wi l l r emain l imi ted ( f inding D) .On a pos i t ive note , the Termina l High Al t i tude Area Defense e lement manager hadaggress ive ly deve loped a capabi l i t ies produc t ion document , wi th a ne t - ready, keyper formance param eter and an informat ion suppor t p lan, 2 years ahead of the sch eduledt rans i tion to the A rm y.M a n a g e m e n t Com m e n t s ar i d A u di t Re spo nse . T he E xe c u t ive D i r e c to r r e sponde d fo rthe Director , Missi le Defense Agency, and for the managers of the Aegis Ball ist icMiss i le Defense , the Termina l High Al t i tude Area Defense , and the Airborne Lasere lements . The Execut ive Direc tor concur red tha t the Miss i le Defense Age ncy w i l les tabli sh a comprehen sive sys tem s engineer ing plan tha t wi l l focus on achieving thetechnical objectives for the Ball ist ic Missi le Defense System, updating logist ic supportplan nin g to effectively sustain future mis si le defense capabil i ty, and revising age ncypolicy so that auditors f rom the DoD Office of the Inspector General receive expedit iousand unres t r ic ted access to docum ents in future audi t s . The Execut ive Direc tor a l soconcurred with, or proposed actions that meet the intent of , the recommendations forproviding improved planning for sys tems engineer ing and sys tems secur i ty for the AegisBal l i s tic Miss i le Defense , the Termina l H igh A l t i tude Area Defense , and the A irborneLaser e lements . The Execut ive Direc tor nonconcur red wi th providing addi t iona l sys temsengineer ing guidance to e lement managers , p lanning for t r ans i t ioning the Aegis Ba l l i s t icMiss i le Defense E lement to the Navy, r equi r ing Miss i le Defense Agency approva l of theconf igura t ion management plan for the Termina l High Al t i tude Area Defense E lement ,for improving the sof tware deve lopment plan, and for expanding earned va luema nag em ent report in g for the f irst Airbo rne Laser aircraft . As a result of the E xecu tiveDirec to r ' s com men ts , we redi rec ted Recom men dat io n B .1.b . for t r ans i tion planning o nthe Aeg is Ba l l i s t ic Miss i le Defense E leme nt to the Direc tor , Miss i le Defense Ag ency .Addi t iona l ly , r ecogniz ing the work a l ready comple ted on the f i r s t Ai rborne Lasera i rc ra ft , we revised our recomm endat ion s for sof tware deve lopm ent and earned va luemana gemen t repor t ing to apply only to the second and subsequent Airb orne Lasera i rc raf t . Fur ther , we de leted Re com men dat ion s A.4. , C.2.b ., and C.2 .C . See the Findingssec t ion of the repor t for a discuss ion of management comments and the ManagementComments sec t ion of the repor t for the comple te text of the comments .We reques t tha t the Direc tor , Miss i le Defen se Ag ency , and the e lement m anagers forAegis Ba l l i s t ic Miss i le Defense and the Airborne L aser com men t on the final r epor t byA pr i l 3 ,2006 .

ii


7/61

BackgroundNa t io na l Miss i le Defense Pol icy. On July 22, 1999, the Pres ident s igned theNat iona l M iss i le Defense Act of 1999 (Publ ic Law 106-38) , which requi res theUnited S tates to deplo y an effective sy stem cap able of defend ing the Un itedStates against l imited ball ist ic missi le at tacks. The President provided fur therdi rec t ion in Nat iona l Secur i ty Pres ident ia l Direc t ive 23, "Nat iona l Pol icy onBal l i s t ic Miss i le Defen se ," Dece mb er 16, 2002, r equi r ing the Secre ta ry ofDefen se to deploy an init ia l set of missi le defense capab il i t ies in 20 04 .Pres ident ia l Direc t ive 23 a lso s ta tes tha t the Secre ta ry of Defens e i s to deve lo pand deploy a Ba l l i s t ic Miss i le Defense System (BMDS) wi th the bes ttechnologies ava i lable .Mis s i le Defen se Ag enc y. On January 2 , 200 2, the Secre ta ry of Defen seexpanded the Miss i le Defense Agency ' s (MDA) ( former ly the Ba l l i s t ic Miss i leDefen se Orga nizatio n) respon sibil i ty and authori ty by directing i t to dev elop andfield a single integrated BMDS to protect the United States, i ts deployed forces,f r iends, and al l ies against ball ist ic missi les of al l ranges in al l phases of f l ight .Addi t iona l ly , the Secre ta ry of Defens e emphasized the need to f ie ld M DA1e lem ents or key com pone nts of e lement capabi l it ies as soon as prac t icable and toimprove the BMDS wi th incrementa l b lock upgrades . MDA e lements a re AegisBal l i s t ic Miss i le Defense (BMD); Termina l High Al t i tude Area Defense( T H A A D ) ; A i r bor ne L a se r ( A BL ) ; Comm a nd a nd Con t r o l , Ba t t l e M a na ge me nt ,a nd Comm unic a t i ons ; G r ound- Ba se d M idc our se D e f ense ; K ine t i c E ne r gyInte rceptor ; Pa t r iot Adv anced Capa bi l i ty-3; BM DS S ensors ; and Space Trackingand Surve i l lance System.To accompl ish the Secre ta ry ' s d i rec t ions , MDA implemented a capabi l i t ies-basedacquisi t ion strategy using a developmental test bed and a ser ies of biennialdeve lopm enta l b locks . Each block permi ts M DA e lem ents to inser t newlydeve loped component capabi l i t ies . The f i r s t b iennia l deve lopment block, Block2004, occur red dur ing 2004 and 2005. As of September 2005, MDA had def ineddeve lopm enta l capabi l i t ies for biennia l deve lopmen t out to Blo ck 201 4, whichwill occur during 2014 and 2015. Each block will build on the capabil i t iesdeve loped dur ing previous blocks , and each success ive block wi l l provideincreasing levels of capabil i ty to counter ball ist ic missi les of al l ranges andcomplexi ty . The MDA budge t for FY 2005 was $8.8 bi l l ion in research,development, test , and evaluation funds.

1

1 W hen the Miss i le Defense Ag enc y was c rea ted , the Secre ta ry o f Def ense p lace d a num ber o f ind iv idua lS e r v i c e a c q u i si t i o n p r o g r a m s t h a t b e c a m e c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e B a l l is t i c M i s s i l e D e f e n s e S y s t e m u n d e rM i s s i l e D e f e n s e A g e n c y c o n t r o l . T h e s e f o r m e r l y i n d e p e n d e n t p r o g r a m s , w h i c h r e c e i v e t h e i r f u n d i n g( resea rch , deve lopment , te s t and eva lua t ion) d i rec t ly f rom the Miss i le Defense Agency , became known asM i s s i l e D e f e n s e A g e n c y e l e m e n t s . I n F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 2 , t h e U n d e r S e c r e t a r y o f D e f e n s e f o r A c q u i s i t i o n ,T e c h n o l o g y , a n d L o g i st i c s d e s ig n a t e d t h e B M D S a s o n e m a j o r D o D a c q u i s i t i o n p r o g r a m .


8/61

Sy stem s Eng ine er i ng . Sys tem s engineer ing i s the overa rchin g process tha t anacquis i t ion progra m team em plo ys to transit ion a syste m from a stated cap abil i tyneed to an opera tionally effective and suitable system . Sy stem s eng inee r ing: emp loys mul t iple disc ipl ines to s imul taneou sly des ign and deve lopsystem products and processes to sat isfy the needs of the warf ighter ; applies cer tain proc esses adap ted to each phase of the acquisi t ion l ifecycle to foster balanced so lutio ns; and pro vid es the capab il i t ies that the warf igh ters need , wh ile rem ainingwi thin des ign const ra ints and technology, budge t , and schedulelimitat ions.

Programs should apply sys tems engineer ing processes ea r ly in the conceptdef init ion phase, and then throughout the total l i fe cycle. The goal of systemseng ineer in g is to prov ide the warf ighter with a total system solu tion that wil l :

wi ths tand chang ing technica l , produc t ion, and opera t ing envi ron men ts ; adapt to the need s of the user ; and ba lance des ign considera t ions , des ign const ra ints , and programbudgets among mul t iple requi rements .

The MDA was s t i l l deve loping sys tems engineer ing processes for the BMDS toprovide an integra ted and layered BMDS archi tec ture and deve lop e lementrequi rements and schedu les . Apply ing sys tems engineer ing i s ext remely di ff icult ,pa r t icula r ly a t MD A, because i t i s work ing w i th a num ber o f programs tha t a re indifferent and dist inct stages of development, while at tempting to f ield a test bedcapabi li ty tha t can be used in the BM D S. Ap pen dix B provides an overview o fthe MDA planned sys tems engineer ing process .DoD acquis i t ion managers must comply wi th many regula tory and guidancedocuments when they a re planning and implement ing sys tems engineer ing.Among the most s igni f icant documents a re pol icy memorandums i ssued by theUnder S ecre tary of Defense for Acquis i t ion, Techn ology , and Logis t ics tha treestablish the requ irem ent for syste ms eng ineer in g. Specif ically, the sememorandums, which a re planned for inc lus ion in upda tes to the DoD 5000ser ies, act as an acquisi t ion m an ag er 's internal contro l by directing prog ram s todocumen t the ir use of sys tem s engineer ing. Also , D oD Direc t ive 51 34.9,"Miss i le Defense Agency," October 9 , 2004, which supplemented the January2002 Secre ta ry of Defense di rec t ion, r equi res MDA acquis i t ion managers tomanage the BMDS consis tent wi th the pr inc iples of DoD Direc t ive 5 0 0 0 . 1 , "TheDefense Acquis i t ion Sys tem," Ma y 1 2,2 00 3, and Do D Ins t ruc t ion 5000.2,"Opera t ion of the Defense Acquis i t ion System ," Ma y 12,2 0 0 3 . A ppe nd ix Cdiscusses regula tory and guidance documents and how they re la te to the sys temsengineer ing process .

2


9/61

ObjectivesThe overa l l audi t objec t ive was to eva lua te the MDA systems engineer ingplanning needed to suppor t the BM D S. Spec i f ica l ly , the audi t de te rminedwhether the MDA was adequa te ly planning sys tems engineer ing to deve lop f ie ldelements or key components of element capabil i t ies into an effective and suitableB M D S . We a lso reviewed the man age rs ' in te rna l cont rol program as i t r e la tes tothe overall objectiv e. See Ap pen dix A for a discussio n of the scope andme thodo logy .

Managers Internal Control ProgramD o D D i r e c t i ve 5010 .38 , "M a na g e me nt Con t r o l P r ogr a m," A ugus t 26 , 1996 , a ndD oD I ns t r uc ti on 5010 .40 , "M a na ge me nt C on t r o l P r ogr a m Pr oc e dur e s , "August 28, 1996, r equi re DoD organiza t ions to implement a comprehensivesys tem of management cont rols tha t provides reasonable assurance tha t programsare opera t ing as in tended and to eva lua te the adequacy o f the con t rols .S c o p e o f t h e R e v i e w of t h e M a n a g e m e n t C o n t r o l E l e m e n t . I n a c c o rd a n c e w i thD o D D i r e c ti ve 5 0 0 0 . 1 , acquis i t ion m anag ers a re to use program cost , schedu le ,and per formance parameter s as cont rol objec t ives to implement the requi rementsof Do D Direc t ive 5010.38 . Accordin gly, we reviewed manag emen t cont rols tha twere di rec t ly re la ted to sys tems engineer ing planning for the BMDS and theM D A e l e me nt s .A d e q ua c y o f M a n a g e m e n t Co n t r o l s . We ide n ti fi ed ma te r ia l ma na ge me ntcont rol weaknesses a t MDA, as def ined by DoD Ins t ruc t ion 5010.40, r e la t ing tosys tems engineer ing planning. MDA management cont rols for sys temsengineer ing planning were not adequ a te to man age BM DS and MD A e lementsaccording to the pr inc iples of the Do D 5 000 se r ies , inc luding prod uc ing requi reddocumenta t ion for sys tems engineer ing planning. The recommendat ions inf indings A, B, C, and D, if imp leme nted, wil l correct the identif ied we akn ess esand resul t in comp l iance wi th Do D sys tem s engineer ing pr inc iples . A cop y of thef inal report wil l be provided to the senior off icial responsible for managementcont rols a t MDA.A d e q ua c y o f M a n a g e m e n t ' s Se l f - E va lua t i on . M D A of fi ci a ls did no t i den t if ysystems engineer ing as an assessable unit and therefore did not identify systemsengineer ing as a management cont rol weakness .

3


10/61

A. System s En ginee ring Plann ing for theBallistic Missile Defense SystemM D A had not comp le ted c ri t ical p lann ing docum ents to suppo r t B M DSsystem s enginee r ing. Spec i f ica lly , the M DA had not comple ted a sys tem seng ineer in g plan and had not plan ned fully for system sustainm ent. Th esecondi t ions occur red because MDA did not consis tent ly fol low the DoDpol icy tha t r equi res the Direc tor , Miss i le Defense Agency to manage theBMDS consis tent wi th the pr inc iples of acquis i t ion pol icy in the DoD5000 se r ies . Another cause was tha t MDA was tasked wi th des igning asingle integrated system from a group of preexist ing acquisi t ion programsand f ie lding a miss i le defense capabi l i ty quickly. As a resul t , the B M DSabi l i ty to deve lop and integra te the e lements in to a sys tem tha t mee ts U .S.requirements is at r isk.

Policies and ProceduresAcquis i t ion managers must fol low a number of DoD pol ic ies and proceduresre lat ing to plann ing and execut ing s ys tem s engineer ing for the BM DS (seeA ppe nd ix C) . H ow e ve r , D oD D i r e c t i ve 5134 .9 , "M is si l e D e f e nse A ge nc y , "October 9 ,2004, provides the Direc tor , Miss i le Defense Agency wi th s igni f icantf lexibi li ty in manag ing B MD S e lem ents unt i l the e lements t ransfe r to theServices . Spec i f ica l ly , DoD Direc t iv e 5134.9 permi ts the Und er Secre ta ry ofDefense for Acquis i t ion, Technology, and Logis t ics , in col labora t ion wi th theDirec tor , Miss i le Defense A gency , to de te rmine the appl icabi li ty of the DoD 5000ser ies in the deve lopment of the BMDS. Addi t iona l ly , DoD Direc t ive 5134.9tasks the Direc tor , Miss i le Defense Agency wi th mainta ining a s ingledeve lopment program for a l l work needed to des ign, deve lop, and tes t anintegra ted BMDS.The MDA Systems Engineer ing and Integra t ion Counc i l ass i s t s the MDASystems Engineer ing and Integra t ion Direc tora te ( the Systems Engineer ingDirec tora te ) in managing sys tems engineer ing by providing a forum to engineerand integra te BMDS blocks . The Systems Engineer ing Integra t ion Counc i l a l soass is ts in planning and execut ing sy s tems engine er ing and integra t ion andoversee ing e lement engineer ing.

Systems Engineering Planning for the BMDSMDA had not comple ted c r i t ica l p lanning to suppor t sys tems engineer ing for theB M D S . Spec i f ica l ly , MD A had not formula ted a sys tems engineer ing plan ordeveloped a complete integrated logist ics support plan.F o r m u l a t i n g a S y s t e m s E n g i n e e r i n g P l a n f o r t h e B M D S . T h e U n d e r S e c r et a ryof Defense for Acquis i t ion, Techn ology , and Logis t ics mem orand um , "Pol icy forSystems Engineer ing in DoD," February 20, 2004, r equi res program managers to

4


11/61

deve lop a sys tems eng ineer ing plan for the mi les tone dec is ion auth or i ty ' sapprova l tha t descr ibes the prog ram 's overa ll t echnical approach and inc ludesprocesses , r esources , met r ics , and appl icable per formance incent ives requi red toachieve objectives. To follow the pr inciples stated in the Under Secretary ofDefense for Acquis i t ion, Technology, and Logis t ics pol icy memorandum, theMDA should es tabl i sh a sys tems engineer ing plan (or s imi la r document) tha tprovides a comprehensive descr ipt ion of the MDA technica l approach andstrategy to achiev e i ts obje ctives. In Ma rch 200 5, staff f rom the Sy stem sEngineer ing Direc tora te s ta ted tha t MDA had not prepared the sys temsengineer ing plan for the BM DS . Since then, the Systems Engineer ing Direc tora tetook s teps to address th is dif ficul t r equi reme nt and planned to comp le te a sys tem sengineer ing p lan for the BM D S tha t wi l l inc lude the sys tems eng ineer ing processtha t the Systems Engineer ing Direc tora te br ie fed to the e lements in August 2005.P l a nn ing f o r Sys t e m Su s t a in me nt . D o D Ins t ruc t ion 5000 .2 s t a te s t ha t t heef fec t ive sus ta inm ent of weap on sy s tems begins wi th the des ign and deve lop men tof re l iable and mainta inable sys tems through the cont inuous appl ica t ion of as t rong sys tems engineer ing me thodo logy. The Ins t ruc tion a lso s ta tes tha t aweapon sys tem requi res a suppor t program tha t mee ts opera t iona l suppor tper formance requi rem ents and sus ta ins the sys tem in the most cos t -e ffec t ivema nne r .Th e Direc tor , Miss i le Defense Ag ency mem orand um , "Miss i le Defense Agen cy 'Integra ted Logis t ics Suppor t Pol icy," August 4 , 2003 ( the MDA Suppor t Pol icy) ,implements the pr inc iples of DoD Ins t ruc t ion 5000.2 on sys tem sus ta inment byident ifying logis t ics suppor t ac t ions tha t MD A m anagers must accom pl ish to fullysus ta in the BM DS . Unde r the M DA Suppor t Pol icy, the Systems Engin eer ingDirec tora te and the MDA Deputy for Force St ruc ture Integra t ion and Deployment( the Force Structure and Deployment Directorate) each has responsibil i t ies forplanning logis t ics suppor t . The Sy stems Engineer ing D irec tora te is r equi red toassess the engineer ing o f BM DS e lements inc luding the i r p roducabi l i ty ,re l iabi l i ty , ava i labi l i ty , and mainta inabi l i ty . The Force St ruc ture and De ploy me ntDirectorate is required to:

dev elop a plan for logist ics supp ortabil i ty and guid ance for al l M D Astaff off ices and elements and review all e lements ' integrated supportplans, integrate the elem ent s ' plan s into a single logist ics supp ort annexwi thin the MDA Block Act iva t ion Plan, deve lop an overarching concept for BM DS logis t ics suppor t , identi fy way s to man age com mo n logis t ics ac ross e lements , and propo se meth ods for achieving economies and e f f ic ienc ies of sca le aswar ranted.

Addi t iona l ly , the Systems Engineer ing Direc tora te and the Force St ruc ture andDep loym ent D irec tora te jo int ly ch a i r an integra ted logis t ics suppor t team to sh areda ta planning among the MDA e lements throughout the logis t ics l i f e cyc le .5


12/61

MDA had not ful ly implemented management ac t ions to suppor t the integra tedlogis t ics out lined in the M DA Bloc k Act iva t ion Plan and in the M D A Suppo r tPol icy for sus ta ining the B M D S. For examp le , a lthough the dra ft Blo ckAct iva t ion Plan for Block 04 s ta tes tha t M D A wo uld hav e a sys tem- leve l ,in tegra ted logis t ics suppor t p lan approved by November 2 0 0 3 , the Force Structureand Deployment Direc tora te had not prepared an overa l l BMDS Integra tedLogis t ics Suppor t P lan. How ever , whe n MD A did out l ine a logis t ics suppo r t p lanin Logis t ic Suppor t Document 2005 ( the Logis t ics Suppor t Document) , i tprovided only genera l informat ion. For mo re de ta i l, the Logis t ics S uppo r tDocument re fe r red to the individua l e lement ' s in tegra ted logis t ics suppor t p lansand states that each element is responsible for planning the following eightlogis t icssuppor t - re la ted a reas : supply; equipment ; packing, handl ing, s tor ing,and t ranspor ta t ion; f ac i l i t ies ; compu ter r esou rces ; technica l da ta ; m aintenan ceplanning; and manpower and personne l .Addi t iona l ly , the Logis t ics Suppor t Do cum ent s ta tes tha t the Force St ruc ture andDeplo yme nt Direc tora te wi l l t r ansmi t and dis t r ibute sus ta inment informat ionbe tween the user communi ty and the e lements , but i t does not expla in how theForce St ruc ture and Deplo ym ent Direc tora te should per form this func t ion.Further , a l though the integrated logist ics support plans of the elements, includingthose for Aegis BMD, THAAD, and ABL, provide informat ion on logis t icssuppor t , they do not expla in how the e lements should work wi th MDA and othere lements . I f M DA is to deve lop and f ield an integra ted BM DS , the Log is t icsSuppor t Document and the e lements ' in tegra ted logis t ics suppor t p lans shouldinc lude provis ions to a l low the Force St ruc ture and Deployment Direc tora te tobetter identify and manage logist ics functions that are common to elements, sotha t they ma y achiev e econom ies and e f f ic ienc ies of sca le as di rec ted in the M DASuppor t Pol icy.MDA was a lso dra f t ing MDA Direc t ive 5010.AA, "Bal l i s t ic Miss i le DefenseSusta inm ent ," to es tabl ish pol ic ies and proce dures for deve loping a sus ta inableB M D S . Th e draft MD A Directive identif ies the functions of the Integ ratedLogis t ics Suppor t Team, which dissemina tes logis t ics informat ion among theeleme nts. I t a lso lists sustain men t-related ev ents that elem ents should co ndu ctdur ing each phase of the deve lop men t process to suppor t future sys temsusta inment . M D A planned to provide addi t iona l pol icy and guidance to c lar ifythe content and sched ule for sustainm ent-relate d even ts in the draf t M D ADirective.

Factors Affecting Systems EngineeringBecause of the way in which the BMDS acquis i t ion evolved, MDA was unable tocomple te c r it ica l p lann ing to suppor t sys tems engin eer ing in com pl iance w i th therequi rements in Do D Direc t ive 5134.9 for man aging the acquis i tion of the B M DSelements in a way tha t wa s consis tent wi th the pr inc iples of Do D Direc t ive 5000.1and Do D Ins t ruc t ion 5000.2. Spec i f ica l ly , MD A had to plan and des ign anintegra ted sys tem f rom a group o f pre -exis t ing acquis i t ion program s (now theMD A e lem ents) , a s wel l as mee t the requi remen t of Pres ident ia l Direc t ive 23 tof ield an ini t ia l BMDS capabil i ty in 2004. As a result , staff f rom the Systems

6


13/61

Engineer ing Direc tora te s ta ted tha t MDA had not prepared a sys tems engineer ingplan ear l ie r for the BM DS because i t was s t i ll deve loping a sys tem s engineer ingprocess . Prepar ing the sys tems engineer ing plan was very di f f icul t because MDAwa s not able to ini t ia l ly design the BM DS from the top down ; instead, they f irsthad to des ign a way to integra te the exis ting e lements in to the overa l l BM DS .Af te r planning the ini t ia l BMDS capabi l i ty , MDA deve loped sys tems engineer ingprocesses tha t involve both bot tom-up and top-down processes . In the bot tom-upprocess , MDA used the exis t ing capabi l i t ies of the BMDS e lements , a long wi thmatur ing technologies , to lower sys tem deve lopment r i sk and improve thetimeliness for f ielding the ball ist ic missi le defense capabil i ty. In the top-downprocess , MD A used the capabi l i t ies def ined in the Technica l Objec t ives and G oalsdocument to upda te capabi l i ty deve lopment documents of the cur rent , next , andfuture BMDS blocks .The Systems Engineer ing Direc tora te s ta f f r ecognized tha t they need to deve lopan MDA-leve l sys tems engineer ing plan. Addi t iona l ly , because MDA wasrush ing to f ield an ini t ia l B M D S capab il i ty, i t had not fully plan ned for systemsusta inment . E lem ent manag ers may re fe r to the i r e lement sys tem engineer ingplan as the sys tems engineer ing management plan (SEMP) .

ConclusionWithout improving sys tems engineer ing processes and documenta t ion, MDAfaces increased r isk in successfully integrating the individual elements into asingle system that wil l me et U.S . requ irem ents for ball ist ic mis si le defense. Anef fec t ive sys tems engineer ing process must provide key documents , inc luding thesys tem s engineer ing plan and an integra ted logis t ics suppor t p lan. Sys tem sengin eer ing p roce sses are nece ssary to transit ion the individ ual eleme nts from astated capabil i ty need to an operationally effective and suitable BMDS.MDA staff stated in response to a discussion draf t of this report that they were:

deve lop ing a com prehen sive sys tems engineer ing plan tha t descr ibesapproaches and s t ra tegies for achieving BMDS technica l objec t ives , upda t ing the Logis t ics Suppo r t Do cum ent ; d i rec t ing e lement man agers to upda te e lem ents ' in tegra ted logis t icssuppor t p lans ; and

Recomm endat ions, Managem ent Com ments , and AuditResponse

D e le t e d Re c om m e n da t io n . A s a r e sul t o f ma na ge m e nt c omme nt s , w e del e te d asection of f inding A in the draf t report that discussed guidance for the individuale lements on sys tems engineer ing ac t ivi t ies and de le ted the cor respondingRecommendat ion A.4. In his r esponse , the Execut ive Direc tor , MDA provided7


14/61

s ufficien t evidenc e t o dem onstrat e tha t MD A ha d provide d guidanc e t o th e

individua l element s o n thei r system s en gineerin g act ivi ties . Furthe r detai l s ar e

dis cusse d i n Appendi x D .

W e reco mmen d tha t th e Director , Missi l e Defens e Agency :

1 . Estab li s h a com prehens iv e sys tem s eng in eerin g pla n tha t des cribe s

th e Missi l e Defens e Agency' s app roach e s an d st rateg y t o achiev e it s t ech nica l

objectives , i n co mpl ian c e wit h th e Do D Di rect iv e 5134 .9 , "Miss il e Defens e

Ag en cy , " Octob e r 9 , 200 4 , req ui remen t t o manag e th e Bal li sti c Mis sil e

Defens e Syste m consi sten t wit h th e princip le s o f th e Do D 500 0 series .

Man agemen t Comm ents . Th e Execut iv e Director , res pondin g fo r th e Director ,

Missi l e Defens e Agency , concurred , statin g tha t MD A wa s coordinat in g a draf t

SEM P tha t woul d b e di stribute d t o th e enti r e agenc y afte r i t i s approved .

Audi t Resp ons e . In respons e t o th e fina l report , w e reques t tha t th e Di rector ,

Missi l e Defens e Agenc y provid e a n est imate d dat e fo r approvin g an d di stribut in g

th e draf t SEMP .

2 . Up dat e th e Logis ti c s Supp or t Docum en t 200 5 t o clarif y ho w th e

Mis sil e Defens e Agency' s Fo rc e St ruc tu r e Integrat io n an d Deploym en t

Di rectorat e sh oul d co ordinat e wit h elemen t office s t o pla n logist ic s

sus tainm en t fo r th e Bal li sti c Miss il e Defens e Sy stem .

Man agem en t Co mm ents . Th e Ex ecutiv e Directo r concurred , statin g tha t MD A

wa s updatin g th e Logisti c s Suppor t Do cumen t 200 5 t o creat e Logisti c s Suppor t

Documen t 2006 . Th e Logis tic s Suppor t Docu men t 200 6 wi l l defin e coordinatio n

procedure s fo r th e M D A Forc e St ructur e an d Deploymen t Directo rat e an d th e

elemen t office s t o us e i n logist i c sustain men t plann in g fo r th e BMDS . Th e

Executiv e Directo r anti cipate d tha t th e completio n dat e fo r th e Logisti c s Suppor t

Documen t 2 00 6 woul d occu r durin g th e thir d quarte r o f F Y 2006 .

3 . Is su e polic y t o Missi l e Defens e Ag en c y elemen t m anager s t o upd at e

elements ' integrate d logi st ic s s up po r t plan s wit h pro ced ure s fo r in teractin g

wit h th e Mis si l e Defens e Agenc y For c e Str uctur e Integrat io n an d

Deploym en t Directorat e an d oth e r elemen t office s t o mo r e effectivel y p la n

fo r logi sti c s s up por t o f missil e defen se .

M an agem en t Co mm ents . Th e Execut iv e Directo r concurred , st at in g tha t th e

MD A Forc e St ructur e an d Dep loymen t Directorat e wa s developin g th e BMD S

Integrate d Sustainmen t Suppor t Pla n tha t wil l l in k th e procedure s fo r interactio n

amon g th e BMD S an d elemen t office s t o mor e effectivel y pla n integrate d

logist ic s s upport .

Audi t Respon se . I n respon s e t o th e final report , w e reques t tha t th e Director ,

Missil e Defens e Agen c y provid e a n estimate d dat e fo r th e approva l o f th e BMD S

Integrate d Sus tainmen t Suppor t Plan .

8


15/61

9

B . System s Engineerin g fo r th e A egi s

Ballisti c Missil e Defens e Elemen t

Althoug h th e Aegi s BM D elemen t manage r (th e elemen t manager )

fol lowe d man y o f th e sys tem s eng ineerin g process e s describe d i n th e

Defens e Acquisit io n Guideb ook , sh e ha d no t complete d severa l sys tem s

engineerin g d ocumen t s an d p rocesse s tha t ar e importan t t o transitio n th e

Aegi s BM D Elemen t (th e element ) capabili tie s fo r B loc k 0 4 t o th e Nav y .

Specifical ly , th e elemen t manage r di d n ot :

obtai n MD A approva l fo r th e element' s draf t SEMP ;

es tabl is h a pla n t o develo p an d implemen t informatio n

assuranc e requirement s i n th e softwar e developmen t pla n o r

implemen t th e Do D Informat io n Techn olog y Securit y

Certificatio n an d Accredi tatio n Proces s (th e Securit y

Cert ificatio n a n d A ccreditat io n P rocess ) fo r con duct in g

informatio n t echnolog y certificat io n an d accredi tation ; an d

establis h a net -ready , ke y perform anc e paramete r (NR-KPP ) i n

co ordinat io n wi t h th e Join t Staf f an d th e Deput y Chie f o f

Nava l Operat ion s (Res ources , Warfar e Requi rements , an d

Assessments ) an d a n informat io n s uppor t pla n t o transit io n

Bloc k 0 4 capabi lit ie s effect ivel y ont o 1 8 act iv e dut y Nav y

ships .

Thes e condition s occurre d becaus e MD A di d no t provid e explici t

guidanc e fo r coordinat in g SEMP s wit h th e elemen t s an d becaus e th e

elemen t manage r beli eve d t ha t th e elemen t capabili t y s peci ficatio n

identifie d t h e necessar y i nformatio n a s suranc e requi rements .

Additional ly , th e MD A di d no t giv e th e elemen t manage r sufficien t

guidanc e o n system s engineerin g activiti e s neede d t o suppor t th e

t ransi tionin g o f elemen t capabili ti e s t o operationa l use . A s a res ult , MD A

wa s no t abl e t o e valuat e th e adequac y o f th e planne d sys tem s engineerin g

fo r th e Aegi s BM D Element . Further , MD A ha d n o ass uranc e tha t th e

informatio n an d informat io n system s wer e secur e an d tha t th e elemen t

capabi lit y woul d b e full y interoperabl e wit h othe r Do D ass et s .

A egi s Balli sti c Miss il e Defens e Elemen t

I n 1996 , th e Nav y bega n develo pin g a rapidl y deployabl e an d mobil e bal lis ti c

m issi l e defens e capabi lit y a s th e Nav y Theate r Wid e Program . I n Januar y 200 2 ,

th e Nav y Theate r Wid e Progra m becam e th e Aegi s BM D Elemen t o f th e MDA .

Th e Aeg i s BM D Elemen t i s bas e d a t se a an d i s t as ke d wit h destroyin g balli sti c

mis sil e s i n th e m id-cou rs e phase . A s par t o f th e M D A Bloc k 04 , th e Aegi s BM D

Elemen t wil l provid e th e BMD S wi t h increase d capabil it ie s thro ug h thre e planne d

incrementa l developments .

9


16/61

The f irst increment,BM D 3.0E, wasdeployed in Se p t e mbe r 2004and provided along- range surve i l lance and t r acking capabi l i ty on an Aegis des t royer des igna tedas par t of theM DAtestbed. I nc r e me ntB MD 3.0Ea l so provided surve i l lanceand t rackingfor the G r ound- Ba se d M iss i l e D e f e nse E l e me nt . The secondincrement ,B MD 3.0,w hic h hasbeen ava i lable s inceMay2005 , a dde d a missi leengagement capabi l i ty us ing th eNa vy S tandard Miss i le -3on theAe gis c ruise rtest bed. Thethi rd increm ent ,BMD 3.6,wil l integratean anti-air warfare, self-defense capabi l i ty . A ccord ing to the"S ing l e A c qu is i ti on M a na ge m e nt P l a n , "N ove m be r 18 , 2003 (theSingle Acquis i t ion Man agem ent P lan) ,theN a v y p l a nstode p loy B loc k04 onto 18opera tional A egis ships . Aeg is staff stated that Blo ck04expec tsto be functional inA u g u s t 2 0 0 6 . TheA e g i s BMDE lem ent planstoprovide logist ical support for these ships unt il som et ime in FY 08,af ter wh ich theNavy will provide logist ical support .

Implementing Systems Engineering Documentationand Processes

T heDoD and theDirec tor , Miss i le Defense A gency i ssue pol icy andgu ida nc e fore lementsto use inplanning sys tem s-engineer ing- re la ted ac t ions , suchasformula t ing anda ppr ov ing th eSE M P, es tabl ishing informat ion assuran ceandSecurity Cert if ication and Accredi ta t ion Process requi rements ,and coordina t ingthe t r ans i t ion of BMDS capabi l i t ies wi th the Joint Chiefsof Staff (JCS)and theDepu ty Chie f of Nav a l Opera t ions (Resou rces , War fa re Requi rem ents ,andA sse ssme nt s ) . H ow e ve r , the e l eme nt ma n a ge rhad notcomp le ted severa ld o c u m e n t sand processes tha t were impor tantto t rans i t ion Bloc k 04 capabil i t iestotheNav y. Spec i f ica lly , the e l e me nt ma na ge rdid notsubmi tthedra ft S EM P forM D A r e v i e w andapprov a l ; es tabl i sh informat ion assurance provis ion sin thesof tware deve lopment plan;a nd establish a System Secur i ty Author iza t ionA gr e e me nt ( SSA A ) ,anN R - K P P , and an information s uppo rt plan.A p p r o v i n g theD r a f t S E M P . The MDAA ssur a nc e P r ov i s ions , " J a nua r y9,2004, r equi res e lementsto submi ta S E M Pto MDA forapprov a l . Ins tead, thee lement manager coordina ted theS E M P for approva l wi thinth ee l e me nt staff.A l though the e le me nt ma na g e rdid not comply wi th requi rements of theMDAA ssur a nc e P r ov i s ions for forwarding theS E M Pto MDA fora ppr ova l ,t he MD AAssurance Provis ionsdid not provide expl ic i t guidanceto thee lements regardingwho wi thinthe MDAwould review anda ppr ove theSE MP . Spec i f ica l ly , theM D A A ssur a nc e P r ov i s ionsdid not state which MDAoff ice sh ould rec eivetheS E M Pordef ine thecoordina t ion process tha t suppor ted thea ppr ova l . A c c or d ingtothe miss ion s ta tem ent , the Systems Engineer ing Direc tora te has responsibi l i tyfor planning and execut ing sys tems engineer ing,aswel lasoversee ing e lementengineer ing; there fore , the MD A Assurance Provis ions should have ident i f ied theSystems Engineer ing Direc tora teas the off ice responsible for reviewingandapproving the S E M P .E s t a b li s h i n g R e q u i r e m e n t s for I n f o r m a t i o n A s s u r a n c e and S e c u r i t yCe r t i f i c a t i on andA c c r e d i t at i o n . DoDDirec t ivesand Ins t ruc t ions requ i reDefense agenc iesto inc lude informat ion on how tode ve lopand imple m e nt

10


17/61

information assurance requireme nts in the software develo pment plan and how toimplement the Security Certification and Accreditation Process for informationtechnology certification and accreditation.

The element manager did not include the information on developing andimplementing information assurance requirements in the software developmentplan as required by DoD Directive 8500.1, "Information Assurance," October 24,2002, and DoD Instruction 8580.1, "Information Assurance in the DefenseAcquisition System," July, 9,2004, or implementing the Security Certificationand Accreditation Process for conducting information technology certificationand accreditation process in accordance with DoD Instruction 5200.40, "DoDInformation Technology Security Certification and Accreditation Process,"December 20, 1997.

The element manager did not include a plan to develop and implementinformation assurance requirements in the software development plan because shebelieved that the information assurance requirements were identified in theelement capability specification of the development contract. Howev er, theelement capability specification references information assurance requirements,but it does not include information on how to develop and implement them. TheTechnical Directorate staff acknowledged that the software development plan

lacked the information assurance provisions and they developed an informationassurance section for the next updated version of the software development plan.

The element manager did not implement the Security Certification andAccreditation Process because she did not comply with the requirements in DoDInstruction 5200.40. The information assurance manager recognized that theelement was not certified and accredited and began to complete the requirementsfor the Security Certification and Accreditation Process phase 1, which includesdevelop ing and completi ng the SSAA by December 2005 . The phase 1 SSAAdocuments that the program manager, the designated approval authority, and thecertification authority agreed on the method to implement security requirements.The SSAA also describes system mission and security and data access policies.

Coor dina ting with the JC S and the Dep uty Chief of Naval Ope rat ion s(Resources, Warfare Requirements, and Assessments) to Support Transition.

DoD Directive 5134.9 requires that the Director, Missile Defense Agency workclosely with the warfighter and the JCS to develop and integrate requirements intocontrol syst ems. Additional ly, the Secretary of Defense memorandu m, "Missi leDefense Program Direction," January 2, 2002 (the Secretary of DefenseMemorandum), requires the elements to enter the formal acquisition process atMilestone C, Production and Deployment, as described in DoDInstruction 5000.2, when they transition to the Services. Upon transition, theelements must satisfy the requirements of DoD Directives and Instructions towork together with JCS to establish an NR-KPP and an information support plan.To establish an NR-KPP, the Military Depart ment s must assess informationneeds, information timeliness, information assurance, and net-ready attributesrequired to exchange technical information and determine the effectiveness of the

exchange from the originator to the final recipient. The Military Departme nts u sethe information support plan to manage, evaluate, and report on implementinginteroperability requirements.

11


18/61

The element manager did not coordinate with the JCS and the Deputy Chief ofStaff for Naval Operations (Resources, Warfare Requirements, and Asses sments),as required, to establish an NR-KPP and develop an information support plan.Initially, the Secretary of Defense Memorandum exempted MDA from therequirements of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) Instruction 3170 seriesand the associated regulations that it references, including DoD Directive 4630.5,

"Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology and NationalSecurity Systems," May 5, 2004; DoD Instruction 4830.8, "Procedures forInteroperability and Supportability of Information Technology and NationalSecurity Systems," June 30, 2004; and the CJCS Instruction 6212,01 series beforefielding element capabil ities. Howeve r, the Secretary of Defense M emo ran dumalso requires BMDS elements that are transitioning to the Services to enter theacquisition process at Miles tone C: Producti on and Deployment . Therefore, whenthe Aegis BMD Element moves beyond the test bed ship and transitions theBlock 04 capability to 18 Navy ships, the Secretary of Defense Memorandum willno longer exempt the element from the CJCS and DoD requirements.Specifically, when fielding the Aegis BMD Element capability to the Navy, theelement manager will be subject to the requirements of Milestone C, whichinclude establi shing an NR- KPP and an information support plan. Additiona lly,MDA and the element manager did not follow DoD Directive 5134.9, which

requires that the MDA coordinate with the JCS on integrating command andcontrol capabilities to enable the JCS to advise the BMDS on supportabilityfeatures.

The eleme nt manager did not prepa re an NR- KPP and an information supportplan because the MDA did not provide clear guidance on the documentation andprocesses needed to complete and to meet the requirements of DoD policies fortransitioning capabili ties to operational use. Specifically, the Director, Mis sileDefense Agency did not provide the elements with an alternative acquisitionprocess to replace the process defined in DoD Instruction 5000.2 and theguidance in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook.

Conclusion

The MDA was not fully informed to evaluate the adequacy of the plannedsystems engineeri ng for the element . Als o, MD A had no assurance that theelement information and information systems were secure and would beinteroperable with other DoD assets when transitioned.

To effectively evaluate the adequacy of the planned systems engineering, theelement manager needs to coordinate the SEMP for approval with the appropriateMDA organizat ions. After MDA approves the SEMP , the documen t will providea baseline for further systems engineering planning requirements for the element.

The element manager needs to implement information assurance requirements toensure the availability, integrity, authenticity, confidentiality, and nonrepudiationof the element's information and information systems. Not developing andimplementing information assurance requirements in the software developmentplan for the element puts the system, and those connected to it, at risk of being

12


19/61

compromise d. The element manager also needs to prepare and obtain approval of

an SSAA to enter phase 2 of the Security Certification and Accreditation Process.

To ensure that the element is interoperable with other DoD assets, the elementmanager needs to coordinate with the JCS and the Deputy Chief of NavalOperations (Resources, Warfare Requirements, and Assessments) to fully define

and obtain certification for an NR-KPP, as required by CJCSInstruction 6212.01C. The NR- KPP will provide the measur able, testable, andcalculable characteristics and performance metrics required for the timely,accurate, and comple te exch ange and use of information. MD A staff response toa discussion draft of this report stated that they recognized that an NR-KPP andan information support plan were required to support transitioning the AegisBMD capability to the Navy, and that they would work towards theirdevelopment.

By coordinating an interoperability NR-KPP with the JCS, the element managerwill be developing and submitting an information support plan, as required, todocument information technology and national security system needs,dependencies, and interface requirements, and providing assurance that theelement will be interoperable within the BMDS and with other Navy ships.

Recommendations, Management Comments, and Audit

Response

Redir ecte d and Revised Recomm enda tio ns. As a result of managementcomments, we redirected draft Recommendation B.2.d. to the Director, MissileDefense Agency to recognize that MDA, as the operator of the BMDS, shouldcoordinate with JCS and renumbered it as Recommendation B.l.b.

1. We rec ommen d tha t the Dire ctor, Missile Defense Agency:

a. Revise the "Missile Defense Agency Ass uran ce P rovis ions, "Ja nu ar y 9, 2004, to designat e the appro pri ate Missile Defense Agenc yorganization to be responsible for coordinating and approving systemsengineering management plans for the Missile Defense Agency elements.

Ma na ge me nt C om me nt s. The Executive Director, responding for the Director,Missile Defense Agency, concurred, stating that the MDA Safety, Quality, andMission Assurance Directorate will update the MDA Assurance Provisions todesignate the appropriate MDA organization responsible for coordinating andapproving element SEMPs.

Au di t Respon se . In respo nse to the final report, we request that the Director,

Missile Defense Agency provide an estimated completion date for updating the

MDA Assurance Provisions for the coordination and approval of element SEMPs.

13


20/61

b. Coor din ate with Joi nt Chiefs of Staff Dir ect or for C om ma nd ,Control, Communications, and Computer Systems Directorate and theDeputy Chief of Naval Operations (Resources, Warfare Requirements, andAssessments) to establish a net-ready, key performance parameter and aninformation sup por t plan to comply with requi rem ent s of the Secret ary ofDefense Memorandum, "Missile Defense Program Direction,"January 2, 2002, for transitioning the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense

Element.

Man age me nt C omme nts . The Executive Director noncon cured , stating thatMDA, as the operator of the BMD S, should coordinate with JCS . He stated thatcoordination with the JCS should occur at the MDA, rather than at the elementlevel, because DoD Directive 5134.9 requires the MDA Director to work closelywith the warfighter community and JCS to develop and integrate BMDScommand and control architect ure. The Executive Director also stated that MDAdoes not use an NR-KPP, but the Aegis BMD element manager was coordinatingwith the Navy in the development of its command and control architecture.Further, in his general comments on the draft report, he stated that providing theNavy with some capabilities for Block 04 does not constitute transitioningproduction to the Navy and therefore does not activate Milestone C requirementsto establish an information support plan with an NR- KPP . Specifically, the 2002

Secretary of Defense Memorandum states that the MDA elements will enter theformal DoD acquisition cycle at Milestone C, concurrent with transferringprocurement responsibility to a Service.

Audit Re spo nse . We recognize that MD A should coordinate with JCS andredirected the reco mmenda tion. Although we also recognize that MD A does notuse a NR-KPP, we disagree that the Aegis BMD Block 04 is not currentlytransitioning to the Nav y. The Execu tive Direc tor' s commen t is based on theNavy's not procuring the Aegis BMD Block 04 capability and, therefore,according to the requirements of the 2002 Secretary of Defense Memorandum, isnot activating acquisition Milestone C requirements . Milestone C requirementsinclude develop ing an NR -K PP and information support plan. In fact, MD A andthe Navy are planning to move beyond Milestone C and into the operations and

support phase of the acquisition process for the Block 04 capabil ity. Specifically,the Aegis BMD Single Acquisition Management Plan, November 18,2003, statesthat the Navy plans to deploy the Aegis BMD capability onto 18 operationalAegis ships. Additiona lly, MD A and the Nav y plan for the Navy to beginproviding operations and support for the Block 04 capability on these shipssometime in FY 2008. DoD Instruction 5000.2 defines Milestone C asauthorizing entry into low-rate initial production for major acquisition systems.The DoD Instruction defines low-rate initial production as completingmanufacturing development to produce the minimum quantity necessary toprovide for successful completion of operational testing, establish an initialproduction base, and permit an orderly increase in the production rate leading tofull-rate production. By fielding and maintaining the Aegis BMD capability on18 operational Navy ships, MDA met the intent of the DoD Instruction 5000.2definition of low-rate initial production and the attainment of an initial

operational capability when the Navy begins providing operations and support forthe Block 04 capability in FY 2008.

14


21/61

A draft MDA memorandum recognizes that MDA and the Navy need to startplanning for the transition of the Aegis BMD Block 04 capability, which, ifimplemented, would meet the intent of the recommendation. Specifically, thedraft MDA memorandum, "Transition of Aegis BMD Block 04 System" (theTransition Memorandum), states that the transition of Aegis BMD Block 04 to theNavy will consist of transit ioning operations and support responsibilities . Thedraft Transition Memorandum further states that the transition will occur whenthe Aegis BM D is installed on all 18 planned Nav y ships and successfully

completes planned test events that support the transfer of operational and supportresponsibi lities to the Navy . MD A projects that the transition of Aegi s BM DBlock 04 operations and support to the Nav y will occur during FY 200 8. Tosupport the operational and support transition, the draft Transition Memorandumstates that MDA will provide a number of documents, including the informationsupport plan. CJCS Instruction 6212. 01C requires that the information supportplan include a NR- KPP . Therefore, we request that the Director, Missile De fenseAgency reconsider his position on the draft recommendation and respond to theredirected recommendation in the final report.

2. We recommend that the element manager for the Aegis Ballistic MissileDefense Element:

a. Coor dina te with the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dir ect or and obtainapproval of the draft Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Systems EngineeringManagement Plan from the Missile Defense Agency.

Ma na ge me nt C om me nt s. The Executive Director, responding for the AegisBMD element manager, concurred, stating that the Aegis BMD SEMP should becoordinated with the BMDS System Engineer to integrate the element systemsengineering process into the BM DS . The Executive Director further stated thatMDA keeps informed of the element systems engineering status through variousreviews.

Au di t Res po ns e. In response to the final report, we request that the Aegis BM Delement manager provide an estimated completion date for coordinating andobtaining approval of the Aegis BMD SEMP.

b. Develop and include information assurance requirements in theSoftware Development Plan that meet the requirements of DoDDirective 8500.1, "Informa tion Ass ura nce ," October 24, 2004, to includeinformation assurance requirements in the design and acquisition of allinformation systems.

Ma na ge me nt C omm en ts . The Executive Director concurred, stating that theAegis BMD element manager will address information assurance requirements inthe software deve lopmen t plan as well as in the element capability specificationfor Block 06. The Executive Director further stated that the Aegis BMD elementmanager, the MDA System Engineering Directorate, and the prime contractor willwork on delineating information assurance requirements.

15


22/61

Au di t Re sp on se . In resp onse to the final report, we request that the Aegi s BM Delement mana ger provid e an estimated completion date for including informationassurance requirements in the Block 06 software development plan.

c. Compl ete the DoD Infor mati on Technology Security Certifi cationand Accreditation Process, including producing a System SecurityAuthorization Agreement for the element to become certified and accredited

in acc orda nce with DoD Inst ruct ion 5200.40, "DoD Informa tion Technol ogySecurity Certification and Accreditation Process," December 20, 1997.

Ma na ge me nt C omm en ts . The Executive Director concurred, stating that theAegis BMD SSA A is in final coordina tion. He commented that the Aeg is B MDinformation assurance requirements are managed consistent with the DoD 8500series of directives, and that element SSAAs will be combined into a singleBMD S SSAA. The Executive Director stated that the DoD 8500 serie s ofdirectives and instructions was an improvement over the DoD 5200 series ofdirectives and instructions because the new series provided specific informationassurance controls for Mission Assurance Category I systems that MDA uses forcompliance tracking and risk mana gement. He stated that MDA uses a tailoredSecurity Certification and Accreditation Process that is based on requirements inDoD Manual 8580.1-M, "DoD Information Technology Security Certification

and Accreditation Process Application Manua l," July 31 , 2000.

Aud it Res po ns e. In response to the final report, we request that the Aegi s B MD

element manager provide estimated dates for completing the SSAA and the

Security Certification and Accreditation Process.

16


23/61

C. System s En gineering for the Term inalHigh Altitude Area Defense ElementThe TH AA D e lemen t mana ger followed man y of the sys tem engineer ingprocesses prescr ibed in the Defense Acquis i t ion Gu ideboo k. Of spec ia lnote , the TH AA D e lement mana ger aggress ive ly deve loped thecapabi l i t ies produc t ion document wi th the NR-KPP for Block 06 and theinformation support plan 2 years before the scheduled transit ion of theTH AA D to the Arm y. How ever , the e lement man ager did not comple te asys tems eng ineer ing process tha t i s impor tant to sys tem plannin g anddeve lop men t . Spec i f ica l ly , the e lement manager did not com ple te phase Iof the Securi ty Cert if ication and Accreditat ion Pro cess in a t imely ma nne r .Addi t iona l ly , MDA pol icy was unc lear concerning the requi red leve l ofapprova l for the TH A AD conf igurat ion managem ent plan. Thes econdi t ions o ccur red because the e lement mana ger had not a l loca tedfunding to comply with established policies for information assurance andsystem secur i ty . Mo reover , MD A did not give the e lement man agerssuff icient guidance on procedures for approving configurationman agem ent plan to M DA for approva l . As a resul t, the M D A had noassurance tha t the THAAD informat ion and informat ion sys tems weresecure and was not able to fully evaluate the adequacy of the plannedengineer ing for the element.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense ElementThe THAAD system deve lopment s ta r ted in 1992 wi th the award of the cont rac tfor the Program Definit ion and Risk Reduction phase of the acquisi t ion process,which includes activi t ies now performed in the ear ly par t of the technologydeve lop men t phase as def ined in DoD Ins t ruc t ion 5000.2 . These ac t ivi t iesinc lude ear ly opera t iona l assessme nts as necessary to reduce tech nology ,manufac tur ing, and suppor t r i sks before the next dec ision point . The TH AA DElem ent is a groun d-base d m issi le defense system that is bein g developed toprotect forward-deployed mili tary forces, population centers, and civil ian assetsfrom short- and medium-range ba l l i s t ic miss i le a t tacks .TH A AD consis t s of s ix pr inc ipa l com pon ents : miss i le round, launcher , comm andand cont rol /ba t t le management and communica t ions , r adar , pecul ia r suppor tequipment , and non-embedded t ra ining devices . The THAAD miss i le provides anon-nuclear , hi t- to-kil l , missi le intercept capabil i ty for engaging and destroyingtheater ball ist ic missi les in and above the ear th's atmosphere.The THAAD deve lopment i s d ivided into blocks (Block 2004, Block 2006, andBlock 2008) . The deve lopment of each block incrementa l ly increases thee l e me n t ' s c a pa b il i ty . T he T H A A D B loc k 04 p r ov ide s a T H A A D E le me ntcapable of defense aga ins t shor t

- and medium-range ba l l i s t ic miss i les andprovides homelan d defense aga ins t d if ferent threa ts . Block 06 bui lds on T HA ADBlock 04, expandin g the capabi l i t ies of the THA AD Elemen t aga ins t increas inglycom plex ta rge ts wi th a tac tica l miss i le conf igura t ion. Block 08 inc ludes two

17


24/61

1 8

System s Engineerin g Documentatio n a n d P rocesse s

developmen t as pects . First , flight-tes tin g wil l determin e th e capabili t y o f th e

THAA D Elemen t agains t th e ful l spectru m o f short - an d medium-rang e

adversaria l capabi li ties . Second , THAA D capabi lit y growt h wi l l enhanc e

survivabi lit y an d deploy men t o f th e weapo n system .

A s discusse d i n findin g B , th e element s follo w CJ C S an d MD A pol ic y an d

guidanc e fo r plannin g an d execut in g systems-engineering-relate d act ion s i n

suppor t o f t ransi tionin g c apabili ti e s t o t h e Services . Altho ug h t h e elemen t

manage r ha d develope d do cument s definin g capabi li tie s an d informatio n suppor t

requi rement s fo r transi tio n t o th e Army , h e ha d no t complete d ph as e 1 o f th e

Securit y Certifi catio n an d Accreditat io n Proces s i n a timel y m anner .

Additional ly , MD A polic y wa s unclea r concernin g th e requi re d leve l o f approva l

fo r th e THAA D configuratio n managemen t plan .

Definin g Capabi li t ie s an d Inf ormat io n Su pp or t Requ i rements . A s di scus se d

i n finding B , Do D pol ic y require s tha t th e element s ente r th e forma l acquisitio n

proces s a t Mileston e C , Productio n an d Deploym ent , whe n the y transit io n t o th e

Services . Upo n trans ition , th e elemen t s mus t sati sf y th e requi rement s o f th e Do D

Directive s an d Instruction s tha t requi r e Mil it ar y Department s an d Do D agencie s

t o coordinat e wi t h th e JC S t o establis h a capabil it y productio n documen t wit h a n

NR-KP P a n d a n informatio n suppor t plan .

Capabi l it y Prod uct io n Docu ments . Th e elemen t manager , i n

partnershi p wit h th e Arm y Ai r Defens e Artil ler y School , develope d th e

capabil it ie s docu men t t o formall y stat e th e require d capabili ti es .

I nform atio n Su ppo r t Plan . Th e elemen t m anage r develope d th e

THAA D Elemen t Informatio n Suppor t Pla n t o provid e th e Army , th e J CS , an d th e

Offic e o f th e Secretar y o f Defens e planner s wit h a descript io n o f th e THAA D

Elemen t an d informatio n technolog y needs , objectives , an d interfac e

requirements .

Comp let in g Phas e 1 Securi t y Cert ifi cat io n an d Accred itatio n Requi rem ents .

A s di scuss e d i n findin g B , Do D Inst ructio n 5200.4 0 define s th e proces s fo r

conductin g informatio n techno log y certificat io n an d accredi tation . Th e Do D

Instruct io n require s tha t phas e I , Defini tion , o f th e Securi t y Cert ificatio n an d

Accredi tatio n Proces s i s complete d b efor e beginnin g s yste m development .

Phas e 1 cons ist s o f documentin g th e syste m mission , envi ronment , an d

archi tectur e t o i denti f y s ecurit y r equi rement s an d l evel s o f effor t necess ar y t o

achiev e securit y certificatio n an d accredi tation .

Al thoug h th e THAA D progra m bega n i n 1992 , th e elemen t manage r ha d onl y a

draf t SSA A tha t wa s no t complete d o r certifie d b y eithe r th e designate d approvin g

authori t y (MDA ) o r th e cert ifyin g authorit y (Deput y fo r Security , Intel ligence ,

an d Specia l Programs) . Althoug h th e draf t SSAA , addresse d Securit y

Certificatio n an d Accreditatio n Proces s areas , suc h a s Syste m Capabil it ies ,

Syste m Cri tical ity , an d Lif e Cy cl e o f th e System , i t wa s no t complet e becaus e th e

1 8


25/61

elemen t manage r di d no t al locat e fund s t o implemen t Securi t y Certi fi catio n a n d

Accredi tatio n Proces s requirements .

Configurat io n Manag emen t Plan . Th e M D A Assuranc e Provis ion s establ ishe d

informat io n assuranc e requi rement s fo r dev elopin g an d maintainin g a

configuratio n managemen t plan . Th e pla n shoul d describ e ho w configurat io n

manag emen t i s accomplis he d an d ho w consi stenc y amon g produc t definit ion ,

produc t configuration , an d configurat io n managemen t record s i s achieve d an d

maintaine d throughou t appl icabl e phase s o f th e produ ct ' s life . Al thoug h th e

elemen t manage r ha d develope d an d maintaine d a configurat io n man agemen t

plan , "THAA D D evelopmen t Progra m Configuratio n Managemen t Plan, "

Januar y 27 , 2003 , wh ic h addresse d essent ia l configuratio n man agemen t areas , th e

MD A As suranc e Provisio n s wer e unclea r concernin g th e appropriat e leve l o f

approva l fo r th e plan . Specifically , th e MD A Ass uranc e Provision s requir e tha t

th e cognizan t MD A 2-let te r manage r approv e th e elemen t configurat io n

managemen t plans . MD A ha s 2-Iette r manager s a t bot h th e MD A an d th e

elemen t levels . Bas e d o n th e element -specifi c natur e o f th e configurat io n

managem en t plan , th e MD A Ass uranc e Provis ion s shoul d specif y tha t th e elemen t

manage r i s th e final approva l authori t y fo r elemen t configuratio n m anagemen t

p lans .

Conclusio n

MD A wa s un abl e t o full y evaluat e th e adequac y o f th e planne d syste m

engineerin g fo r th e THAA D Element . Th e lac k o f a certifie d SSA A an d approve d

Securit y C erti ficatio n a n d A ccreditatio n P roces s expose s th e syste m t o

unnecess ar y r is k a n d d elay s i n d efinin g s yste m securi t y r equirem ents . Also , a n

approve d SSA A i s neces sar y t o sh o w tha t th e Di rector , Miss il e Defens e Agenc y

an d th e elemen t m anage r hav e agree d o n criti ca l schedule , budget , security ,

functionality , an d p erformanc e object ives . Further , th e absenc e o f clea r pol ic y f o r

approva l o f th e elemen t configurat io n managemen t pla n weaken s MD A elemen t

oversight , coordinat ion , integration , an d cont rol .

Recommendations , Managemen t Comments , an d Audi t

Respons e

Delete d Recomm end at ion s . A s a resul t o f m anagemen t comm ent s an d

additiona l review , w e delete d draf t Recommendation s C.2.b . an d C.2.c . which ,

respect ively , reco mmen de d tha t th e THAA D elemen t manage r coordinat e an d

obtai n MD A approva l o f th e draf t configuratio n managemen t pla n an d revis e th e

softwar e d evelopm en t pla n fo r THAA D t o includ e veri fi catio n o f contracto r

process es , procedures , staffing , an d t rainin g r elatin g t o s oftwar e d evelopment .

W e delete d Recommendat io n C.2.b . becaus e w e agree d wi t h th e Execut iv e

Director' s comment s o n Recommendat io n C. l . tha t th e THAA D elemen t manage r

wa s th e appropriat e final approva l authorit y fo r th e configurat io n managemen t

plan . O n Recommendat io n C. 2.c , w e agree d wit h th e Execut iv e Directo r tha t th e

s ection s i n th e s oftwar e developmen t pla n o n softwar e qualit y assurance ,

1 9


26/61

corrective actions, and process training planning, when combined with theprovisions of the THAAD contract DASG60-00-C-0072, which require thecontractor to report software metrics, did adequately address the THAAD elementmanager's responsibilities for verifying contractor processes, procedures, staffing,and training relat ing to software d evelo pment .

1. We recommend that the Director, Missile Defense Agency revise the"Missile Defense Agency Assurance Provisions," January 9, 2004, todesignate the appropriate organization within the Missile Defense Agency tocoordinate and approve configuration management plans for the MissileDefense Agency elements.

Ma na ge me nt C om me nt . The Executive Director, responding for the Director,Missile Defense Agency nonconcurred, stating that the MDA AssuranceProvisions require that the element's configuration management plan be approvedby the cognizant MDA 2-Ietter manager . The Executive Direc tor stated that theTHAAD element manager was the cognizant 2-letter manager, and that theelement manager's approval met MDA requirements.

Audit Res pons e. The Executive Direc tor's comments were not responsive.

While we agree that the THAAD element manager is the appropriate authority toapprove the configuration management plan, the Director, Missile DefenseAgency needs to revise the "Missile Defense Agency Assur ance Provisions,"January 9, 200 4, to clearly define that approval authority. MDA 2-lettermanagers exist at MDA and at the elemen ts. If the element mana ger is theappropriate 2-letter manager for appro ving element configuration manag emen tplans, the Missile Defense Agency's Assurance Provisions should clearly definethis responsibi lity. We request that the Director, Missi le Defense Agencyreconsider his position and provide comments in response to the final report.

2. We recommend that the element manager for the Terminal High AltitudeArea Defense Ele ment c omplete pha se 1 of the Defense Infor mati onTechnology Security Certification and Accreditation Process to include an

approved System Security and Authorization Agreement.

Ma na ge me nt Com me nt s. The Executive Director concurred, stating that, inNovember 2005, the THAAD element manager submitted a draft SSAA to theMDA designated approving authority and certification authority for coordination.The element SSAA for THAAD will be approved before the end of FY 2006.

20


27/61

D . System s Engineerin g fo r th e Airborn e

Lase r Elemen t

Althoug h th e AB L e lemen t manage r (th e elemen t manager ) fol lowe d

man y o f th e system s engineerin g processe s describe d i n th e Defens e

Acquisi tio n Guidebook , h e di d no t com plet e severa l document s an d

proces se s tha t ar e importan t t o syste m plannin g an d development .

Speci fi cally , th e elemen t manage r di d n ot :

updat e th e 199 6 Singl e Acquis itio n Managemen t Pla n an d th e

199 7 SEM P t o reflec t th e change s tha t ha d occurre d i n th e

AB L Element' s (th e element ) overal l technica l approach ,

system s engineerin g process es , an d task s s inc e th e elemen t

becam e par t o f MD A i n Januar y 2002 ;

establ is h a requiremen t fo r th e contracto r t o follo w th e

softwar e developmen t pla n i n th e curren t developm en t

contract ;

us e earne d valu e man agemen t t o repor t o n th e cos t an d

s chedul e statu s fo r softwar e developmen t i n f ou r o f th e five

AB L s ubsystems ; an d

includ e th e securit y requirement s fo r weapon s system s i n th e

SSAA .

Thes e condit ion s occurre d becaus e th e elem en t manag e r di d no t compl y

wi t h establishe d MD A guidanc e fo r preparin g an d coordinatin g SEMP s

an d di d no t promptl y reac t t o change s i n th e program , consi sten t wi t h th e

principle s o f th e Do D 5 00 0 series . Further , MD A provide d les s oversigh t

an d di rectio n becaus e th e progra m wa s no t schedule d t o delive r th e BMD S

capabil it y a s par t o f BMD S Block s 0 4 o r 06 . A s a result , wi thou t a n

update d s ingl e acquisit io n man agemen t pla n an d SE MP , th e AB L e lemen t

manage r an d th e Director , Miss il e Defens e Agenc y di d no t hav e a n

agreed-upo n acquisi tio n strateg y t o suppor t th e element' s progressio n

throug h th e acquisi tio n proces s an d t o full y evaluat e th e adequac y o f th e

planne d syste m engineering . Further , b y no t requi rin g th e prim e

cont racto r t o adher e t o th e softwar e developmen t plan , t o establis h earne d

valu e managemen t reportin g fo r th e softwar e i n al l five subsystems , an d t o

implemen t weapo n s yste m s ecuri t y requi rements , th e elemen t manage r

wa s limi te d i n hi s abi lit y t o adequatel y overs e e elemen t developmen t an d

syste m security .

Airborn e Lase r Elemen t

Th e Ai r Forc e bega n developin g th e AB L i n 199 2 a s a separat e acquisit io n

program . I n Januar y 20 02 , th e AB L P rogra m becam e a n elemen t o f th e MD A an d

th e BMDS . Withi n th e BMDS , th e primar y mis sio n o f th e AB L Elemen t i s t o kil l

2 1


28/61

o r disabl e balli sti c missi le s usin g a lase r connecte d t o a n aircraft . Th e element' s

secondar y m ission s includ e locatin g b all isti c miss il e l aunc h s i tes , providin g e arl y

warning s o f ball ist i c mis sil e launches , providin g cuein g informatio n t o othe r

BMD S element s tha t ma y nee d t o eng ag e l aunche d bal list i c missi les , an d

predict in g m issi l e impac t points . Th e elemen t consi st s o f five majo r subs ystems :

th e bea m cont rol /fir e control , batt l e management , th e laser , th e Boein g 747-400 F

aircraft , an d g roun d s uppor t equipment . Al l su bsystem s includ e mission-cri tica l

softwar e an d hardware .

Th e exi stin g AB L c ontrac t fo r aircraf t 1 , F2 9601-97-C-0 001 , include s activi tie s

performe d i n th e earl y par t o f th e Technolog y Develo pmen t phas e a s define d i n

Do D Inst ructio n 5000. 2 . Activit ie s i n th e Technolo g y Developmen t phas e

includ e earl y operationa l assessments , a s necessary , t o reduc e technology ,

manufacturing , an d suppor t risk s befor e th e nex t decisio n point . AB L P rogra m

staf f state d tha t a cont rac t fo r th e nex t acquisit io n phas e fo r a secon d an d late r

ai rcraf t wil l b e signe d afte r th e planne d miss il e s hoo t dow n usin g th e AB L

technology , wh ic h wil l occu r i n 2008 .

Th e M D A Decisio n Memorandu m No . 0 1 , "Plannin g Di rectio n fo r BMD S Tes t

Be d Capabi lity, " Februar y 18 , 20 05 , classifie d th e AB L E lemen t a t Leve l 3 o f

developmen t maturity . Th e MD A define s Leve l 3 a s futur e block s who s e

activit ie s ar e generall y associate d wi t h integrat io n concept s includin g compon en t

developmen t an d demons tratio n . T o complet e Leve l 3 activiti es , th e elemen t

m anage r mu s t demons trat e tha t th e laser s ca n shoo t dow n a bal list i c miss ile .

AB L staf f indicate d tha t th e AB L Elemen t coul d del ive r capabil it y a s par t o f

BMD S Bloc k 0 8 o r B loc k 10 , dependin g o n M D A prioriti e s an d whe n tes t resul t s

d emonst rat e tha t th e AB L c a n destro y o r di sabl e a balli sti c missil e .

em s Engineerin g Document s an d Proces s

Althoug h th e elemen t manage r di d follo w man y o f th e traditiona l system s

engineerin g processe s describe d i n th e Defens e Acquis itio n Guidebook , h e di d

no t complet e document s an d processe s tha t ar e importan t t o syste m plannin g an d

development . Specifical ly , th e elem en t m anage r di d no t updat e th e s ingl e

acquisitio n man agemen t pla n an d th e SEMP , establ is h a requi remen t fo r th e

contracto r t o follo w th e s oftwar e develo pmen t plan , establis h earne d valu e

managemen t reportin g o n softwar e developmen t fo r al l five subs ystems , an d cit e

securit y requi rement s fo r weapo n sys tem s i n th e SSAA .

Updat in g Plannin g Docum ents . Th e elemen t manage r di d no t updat e th e 199 6

singl e acquisi tio n managemen t pla n an d 199 7 SEM P t o recogniz e th e change s

tha t ha d occurre d i n th e overal l technica l approach , system s engineerin g

processes , an d t as k s s inc e th e elemen t b ecam e par t o f MDA . Th e element ' s mos t

significan t chang e wa s mov in g fro m a s ingle , st an d-alon e s yste m t o bein g par t o f

a n overal l integrate d sy ste m tha t mus t communicat e wit h th e othe r MD A

element s withi n th e BMDS , suc h a s th e Aegi s BMD , th e THAAD , an d th e

Pat riot-3 . Anothe r signi fi can t chang e wa s tha t th e element , a s par t o f MDA , wa s

requi re d t o star t followin g acquis itio n procedure s tha t mee t th e principle s o f th e

Do D 500 0 serie s o f direct ives .

2 2


29/61

Sing l e A c qu i s i t i on M a na ge m e n t P l a n . D o D I ns tr uc ti on 5000 .2 r e qu i re sprogram man agers to prepare and obta in approva l of an acquis i t ion s t ra tegy a tprogram init ia t ion and to update their acquisi t ion strategy at subsequent majordec is ions , program reviews, and whenever a change occurs in the program'sapproved acquis i t ion s t ra tegy. The e lement manager , under Air Forc emanagement , i ssued the s ingle acquis i t ion management plan on November 26,1996, to suppor t the Mi les tone I (now Miles ton e A)

system engineering planning for the ballistic missile defense system 06-060.pdf

Documents