Changing the Defense Acquisition Game

The CSBA, or Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, has released a study (download HERE) in conjunction with the Quadrennial Defense Review in which they propose a new defense acquisition strategy for the Pentagon. The introductory quote reads facetiously,

We are running out of money. We have to start to think.

I'm sure they started thinking a long time ago....right?

The report compares the investment strategy of the post-war decades when we knew who the adversary was and we knew how he thinks and moves. Our old (and pretty much current) strategy also assumed that technology would evolve continuously and incrementally, and military dominance depended on advancing the current state of technology. Acquisition time was a non-issue.
Realizing current failures to acquire key contracts and keep costs low (F-22, F-35, KC-X Tanker, Presidential Helicopter,) as well as recognizing a more dynamic, unpredictable threat, the CSBA has exposed what they think are the next set of challenges facing our defense investing strategy:

• Time—a resource, cost and weapon. An interesting trichotomy.
• Hedging against risk. I know what you're thinking. "Duh!" But the devil's in characterizing that which is referred to as "risk."
• Identifying opportunities for cost-imposing strategies. This is similar to making the adversary spend money guessing how to compete with us.
• Employing black programs as a strategic weapon. This is similar to cost-imposing, but more of an innovation wormhole rather than an increment.

Notice how cost management isn't in the strategy. Well, since time=money and the focus is on controlling time, we'll just let the contractors work the cost accounting.

I must remark, I was really impressed with this presentation. The new strategy would revolutionize the industry. The possibilities are exciting:

• A shift from focusing on cost-based to time-based metrics,
• increased resistance to requirements changes from government and industry,
• simplicity and straightforward consequences; after the date, no more money,
• technology obsolescence is less of a threat,
• responding more quickly to a unpredictable threat landscape, and best of all,
• limit changes in congressional seats from threatening budget/requirements.

One of our more recent acquisitions which would have benefited from this is the Joint Strike Fighter. The US ended up trying to fold every possible past, present and future requirement for every branch of service for nine countries. We at Lockheed are still trying to incorporate requests for cutting edge technology like directed energy and unmanned operation even though the requirements were written almost a decade ago. Costs per aircraft have doubled, and there is a fear that the "F-22 death spiral" could befall the F-35.

You want an unmanned drone seemingly out of nowhere? 18 months. You want a cutting edge unmanned drone with the latest technology which goes through the media, congress, proposal award, protest, re-compete, re-award? We'll have a better idea in 18 months. :)