Office of Force Transformation Transforming National Security “A Future Worth Creating” Vision: Broad and Sustained Competitive Advantage Strategy Capabilities

Office of Force Transformation

Transforming National Security

“A Future Worth Creating”

Vision: Broad and Sustained Competitive Advantage

•Strategy

•Capabilities

•Cost/Metrics


Dinosaurs

Source: Walking with Dinosaurs, © 1999 Courtesy: British Broadcasting Corporation


Transforming Defense

• The Role of Defense in National Security

• The Management of Defense

• The Force

As National Strategy

As Corporate Strategy

As Risk Management Strategy

Vision: Broad and Sustained Competitive Advantage


Security Environment … Four Challenges

No hard boundaries distinguishing one category from another

Lower

Lower

Higher

Higher

LIKELIHOOD

VU

LN

ER

AB

ILIT

Y

CatastrophicThose seeking to paralyze Americanleadership & power by employing WMDor WMD-like effects in unwarned attackson symbolic, critical or other high-value

targets (e.g., 9/11, terrorist use of WMD, rogue missile attack)

Likelihood: moderate and increasingVulnerability: unacceptable; single event could alter American way of life

IrregularThose seeking to erode Americaninfluence and power by employingunconventional or irregular methods(e.g., terrorism, insurgency, civil war and emerging concepts like“unrestricted warfare”)

Likelihood: very high; strategy of the weakVulnerability: moderate, if not effectively checked

DisruptiveThose seeking to usurp American powerand influence by acquiring breakthroughcapabilities(e.g., sensors, information, biotechnology, miniaturization on themolecular level, cyber-operations, space, directed-energy and otheremerging fields)

Likelihood: Low, but time works against U.S.Vulnerability: unknown; strategic surprise puts American securityat risk

? ?

?

TraditionalThose seeking to challenge American power by instigating traditional military operations with legacy and advanced military capabilities(e.g., conventional air, sea and land forces and nuclear forces of established nuclear powers)Likelihood: decreasing (absent preemption) due to historic capability-overmatch and expanding qualitative leadVulnerability: low, only if transformation is balanced


Concept Development, Planning, Programming and Budgeting Process

Service / Joint Transformation

Roadmaps

2004

TransformationPlanningGuidance

December 2004

Strategic Transformation

Appraisal

November 2004

FiscalGuidance

(in lieu of JPG)

FY2007 - FY2011

JointOperationsConcepts

November 2003

President’s Budget

FY2007

National Military Strategy

2004

Service Budget / Program Change

Proposals

FY2007 - FY2011

Joint Operating Concepts

Joint Functional Concepts

Joint Integrating Concepts

Capabilities Based Assessment

2004


Translates an Information Advantage into a decisive Warfighting Advantage

Characterized by:• Information sharing• Shared situational awareness• Knowledge of commander’s intent

Warfighting Advantage - exploits behavioral change and new doctrine to enable: • Self-synchronization• Speed of command• Increased combat power

Information Advantage - enabled by the robust networking of well informed

geographically dispersed forces

Military Response to Information Age:Network Centric Warfare

Information Sharing is a New Source of Power


High Speed at Sea


High Speed at Sea


Operationally Responsive Space …TACSAT 1

• Responsive

< 2 Yr concept to on-orbit capability

• Low CostTotal cost of experiment less than $15M including launch

• ExperimentUAV Components in SpaceSpace/Air Horizontal IntegrationDesigner PayloadsTCP/IP Based: SIPR Net AccessedNew commercial launch vehicle

• Operationally relevant capability

Integrated into Combatant Commanders Exercises/ExperimentsTime / Capability Trade Off

Falcon

A capability on orbit within the planning time constraints of a

major contingency


Project “Sheriff” …Controlling the engagement timelines

The Capabilities• “Speed-of-light Sensing• Networked• Lethal/Non-Lethal Options• Active/Passive Options• Kinetic/Non-Kinetic Options• Survivability

The Technology• Compact Active-Denial Technology• Phraselator High-Power Direction Hailer• Vector-Beam High-Power

White/IR Spot Light• Counter Improvised

Explosive Device (IED)• Active Protection• Counter Sniper• Rapid-Fire Kinetic Weapon• Multi-Spectral Sensor Suite• Armor Protection• Integrated Electronic Warfare Suite• Net-Centric Technology


• Rebalance focus from “Traditional” to “Irregular,” “Catastrophic” and “Disruptive” challenges

• Adopt cost as a strategy

• Both cost of war and program costs– Create cost-suppressing strategies

– Transform non-discretionary areas

– Address cost imposing strategies against our adversaries

• Transform management of key functions

– Realign information activities management under CIO

– Achieve demand-centered joint intelligence

– Organize joint logistics around the battlefield, not around the supplier

– Make generational S&T integral to the defense strategy

Strategic Transformation Appraisal …Recommendations


Fuel Prices

• The standard Defense Energy Supply Center fuel price in FY02 was $1.337 per gallon (average price of fuels sold)

• But the true cost of these fuels when delivered to weapons platforms is much higher

• A gallon of fuel delivered through a tanker in-flight costs $17.50

• To deliver a gallon of fuel to the front line costs about $15; to deliver a gallon of fuel far beyond the front line (e.g. to SOF positions) costs hundreds of dollars per gallon

• The delivery cost to land forces in IRAQ was $130/gal

Source: The DSB TF on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms, January 2001

These delivered fuel costs are not used in the military investment decisions; this produces a sub-optimal force


Fuel Logistics Burden

• Fuel comprises 70% of Army tonnage shipped– Armored division requires approximately 600,000 gallons per day– Air assault division requires approximately 300,000 gallons per

day• It costs the Army about 16 times as much to deliver fuel as to

purchase it– $200M per year of fuel– $3.2B per year to maintain 20,000 active duty and 40,000 reserve

personnel to move it• Required frequent fuel deliveries increase complexity of military

operations and hamper battlefield effectiveness• 55% of fuel delivered to the battlefield is for support, not combat

vehicles

Source: The DSB TF on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms, January 2001


ConclusionsRoadmap Analysis Identified an Unmet Need for …

• Horizontally integrating across federal agencies and vertically integrating federal, state and local governments & agencies• Matching strategic, operational and tactical reach of U.S. forces with the ability to sustain it with materiel and intelligence• Denying the enemy the use of sensors against our land-based or sea-based forces, and air forces when they are on the ground• Addressing defensive measures for the directed energy battlespace, where broad range of directed energy devices can be used against U.S. forces


OFT Transformation Goals

• Make force transformation an integral element of national defense strategy and DoD corporate strategy effectively supporting the four strategic pillars of national military strategy.

• Change the force and its culture from the bottom up through the use of experimentation, transformational articles (operational prototyping), and the creation and sharing of new knowledge and experiences.

• Implement Network Centric Warfare (NCW) as the theory of war for the information age and the organizing principle for national military planning and joint concepts, capabilities and systems.

• Get the decision rules and metrics right and cause them to be applied enterprise wide.

• Discover, create or cause to be created new military capabilities to broaden the capabilities base and to mitigate risk.

Documents

Office of Force Transformation Transforming National Security “A Future Worth Creating” Vision: Broad and Sustained Competitive Advantage Strategy Capabilities