C. L. EVANS

Multi-Mission Maritime Acquisition Planning: Requirements Development and Maturation

Christopher L. Evans

The Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft Program will recapitalize the Navy’s capabilities for Maritime Patrol and currently provided by the P-3 Orion fl eet. The P-3 has performed a variety of missions, including armed and reconnaissance tasking, for more than 30 years. Although onboard systems capabilities have been upgraded continually through the years, the aging P-3 fl eet will soon reach the end of its fatigue life. Faced with a limited development budget, rapidly diminishing P-3 airframe life, and the need to fi eld replacement aircraft in the 2012–2014 timeframe, the program has focused on modifi cations to existing military or commercial airframes. The systems engineering strat- egy has emphasized developing, refi ning, managing, and translating affordable, technically achievable requirements as a primary objective. Establishing systems engineering processes that seamlessly link requirements from Defense Planning Guidance to performance speci- fi cations and collaborating with industry partners to mature system requirements are hall- marks of the program philosophy.

INTRODUCTION For over 30 years, the Navy P-3 Orion has per- • Armed surveillance and reconnaissance in maritime formed a variety of missions including anti-submarine and littoral areas warfare, anti-surface warfare, mine warfare, intelli- • Collection, processing, and dissemination of envi- gence gathering, and other maritime surveillance and ronmental data and acoustic signals, imagery, com- reconnaissance tasking. Its onboard systems capabili- munications, and electronic intelligence ties have been upgraded through the years; however, • Evolution into a network-centric environment1 the P-3 fl eet is rapidly running out of operational air- frame life. To ensure that an affordable, technically achievable The goal of the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft set of system requirements was attained, the program (MMA) Program is to recapitalize the fl eet capabilities demanded an immediate focus on systems engineering of the search and attack functions currently executed by and requirements traceability throughout the develop- P-3C aircraft. Those primary requirements are to sustain ment process. APL was engaged by the MMA Program and improve Manager (PMA-290) to provide a range of analysis and

292 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 24, NUMBER 3 (2003) MMA ACQUISITION PLANNING program development activities. Requirements develop- the U.S. Air Force Common Wide Body concept based ment efforts included sessions in APL’s Warfare Anal- on the 767 or Airbus A310; an organic, carrier- ysis Laboratory with Fleet users to validate needs and based solution of both manned or unmanned options; representations within analysis scenarios, validate key and an unmanned land-based concept. Phase IIA pro- operational requirement parameters, and collaborate vided additional analysis of the candidate manned air- with industry and government partners to refi ne perfor- craft alternatives and Phase IIB, also in 2001, exam- mance specifi cation requirements for the design phase ined the role of adjunct sensors and platforms. Phase of the program. IIB analysis identifi ed a potential role for UAVs in meet- ing some of the Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance REQUIREMENTS GENESIS mission requirements. A subsequent decision by N780 The P-3 aircraft will soon begin to reach the end of required that a separate study be conducted to examine their airframe fatigue life after having undergone signifi - alternatives for satisfying the UAV role in BAMS. Study cant material degradation over their years of operation. results are expected to be completed before MMA enters In the past 10 years, the aircraft have also experienced system development and demonstration (SDD) in 2004. a steady decline in mission-capable rates (the ability to perform a particular mission, driven largely by equip- MMA ACQUISITION STRATEGY ment maintenance readiness). The MMA Program is structured on an evolutionary Recognizing the need to fi eld a follow-on system to systems replacement approach that aligns the processes the P-3, in 1998 and 1999 the Navy conducted a Mis- employed for requirements defi nition, acquisition strat- sion Area Analysis using Strategy-to-Task “Quality- egy, and system development into a dynamic and fl exible Function-Deployment” methodology and a Short-falls means to attain the strategic vision for tomorrow’s naval Analysis, respectively. A Technical and Economic Fea- forces. sibility Analysis of several potential aircraft alternatives The method used for MMA requirements defi nition was conducted as well. Referred to as the Multi-mission has capitalized on an iterative process with industry and Maritime Aircraft, this preconcept exploration work the Fleet. It promotes evolutionary growth in capabili- supported development of a Broad Area Maritime Sur- ties while providing a transformational product to the veillance (BAMS) and Littoral Armed Intelligence Sur- users. Matched with this requirements defi nition pro- veillance and Reconnaissance Mission Need Statement cess is the evolutionary acquisition strategy. For MMA, that was validated and approved by the Joint Require- this strategy focuses on delivering the fi rst increment in ments Oversight Council (JROC) on 29 February 2000, capability to the users in the earliest, most cost-effi cient enabling a Milestone 0 decision and entry into the con- manner to address the Navy’s inventory issue. Concur- cept exploration phase. (The current DODI 5000.2, rently, the program will pursue increases in system capa- issued on 12 May 2003, now defi nes Milestone A as entry bilities through a spiral development process that allows into the analogous technology development phase.) the system to keep pace with emerging technologies and the strategic requirements of both the Navy and Joint IDENTIFYING THE DESIGN forces. The spiral development process will address capa- TRADE SPACE bilities in well-defi ned blocks of functionality. In Block 1, the MMA Program will focus its resources on the The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air War- development of an innovative systems architecture that fare (N78) sponsored an analysis of alternatives (AoA) will promote system growth and fl exibility. This will be that was executed by the Center for Naval Analy- accomplished by basing the design of the mission system ses beginning in June 2000. The MMA AoA Phase I on an open systems architecture that will allow system examined a broad range of potential solutions including evolution through the spiral development process and manned and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and sat- provide increased capabilities through future incremen- ellites. Viable options identifi ed from Phase I included a tal block upgrades. The results will be the rapid delivery new-production P-3 derivative, a medium-sized commer- of a transformational system to the Fleet via the initial cial derivative based on the Boeing 737 or Airbus A320, (Block 1) capability.2 a large-sized commercial derivative based on the Boeing 757 or Airbus A321, and a military derivative based on the Nimrod MRA4. Phase I was completed in December REQUIREMENTS MATURATION 2000, concluding that a core element addressing the Mis- STRATEGY sion Need Statement should be a land-based manned air- The acquisition strategy was fi rmly rooted in a systems craft. Aircraft with the necessary characteristics included engineering philosophy embraced from the earliest days both commercial- and military-derivative platforms. of the program. Developing, refi ning, managing, and Revised AoA guidance in 2001 required the analysis translating affordable, technically achievable require- of several additional concepts in the Phase IIA study: ments was a primary objective. Instituting a framework

JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 24, NUMBER 3 (2003) 293 C. L. EVANS and process for achieving that objective depended on a Unlike some new acquisition programs, the require- number of early systems engineering philosophies and ments were already somewhat defi ned by a need to actions that have guided the program: recapitalize current capabilities, rather than to develop new warfi ghting functions. The preconcept feasibility • Ensure that mission needs and operational require- studies provided critical boundary conditions for Phase ments are linked to top-level operational Joint 0 concept exploration and structured a fi rm foundation requirements (e.g., Defense Planning Guidance) and for the Mission Needs Statement (MNS). During con- are further traceable to Navy warfi ghting require- cept exploration, the AoA and industry concept studies ments. This was implemented primarily by Design further refi ned the requirements boundaries and served Reference Mission operational and tactical situations as a basis for developing an Initial Requirements Docu- as well as Mission Area Analysis crosswalks (attrib- ment (IRD). During the component advanced develop- uting unifi ed Joint and Navy task lists to required ment (CAD) phase, the Program Offi ce and industry MMA operational capabilities). A key feature of this offerors will collaboratively refi ne the requirements and process included validation by a Fleet user team of top-level specifi cations through the IRD and Draft Per- the requirement set analyzed for MMA. formance Based Specifi cation (PBS). This collaboration • Conduct the derivation of requirements through is crucial to ensure that industry fully understands Navy analysis. Use both documented information and customer expectations and that the Navy fully appreci- leverage domain experts from the Fleet and sup- ates the cost and schedule impacts of the requirements porting organizations, both military and industry. on each specifi c industry alternative. This was implemented by the MMA Platform Per- The requirements maturation process is represented formance Assessment Tactical Situations Analyses in Fig. 1 (from a briefi ng by J. Landfi eld, PMA-290, 1 Oct Summary, which identifi ed potential key perfor- 2001). The process refl ects the continual interaction of mance parameters and potential performance issues. government and industry partners in collaboratively • Involve industry early and often in both the deriva- maturing program defi nition and exchanging infor- tion and maturation of requirements by enabling mation to enable refi nement of cost, budget, schedule, iterative participation throughout the requirements and requirements prior to entering SDD. In addition, development process. This was implemented by the process will yield analytical support for performing maturing draft requirements and specifi cation docu- CAIV trades in the initial requirements trade space. mentation in collaboration with industry. The refi ned set of needs will be refl ected in the Capabili- • Stimulate industry offerors with potential desirable ties Development Document (CDD) (previously referred capabilities, including those in the science and tech- to as an ORD; the revised DODI 5000.2 nomenclature nology roadmap, to enable cost-as-an-independent- for operational requirements needed for a Milestone B variable (CAIV) trades and planning for affordable decision is CDD) and the PBS required for entry into upgrades for future blocks. This was implemented SDD in 2004. by providing draft threshold and objective technical values to defi ne the trade space for affordable require- EFFECTIVENESS REQUIREMENTS ments. Also provided was science and technology MMA is somewhat atypical for a new development information on potentially applicable government program because potential solutions were limited early efforts to ensure that industry was aware of the full on to modifi cations of existing commercial or military range of concept possibilities. airframes. (This is very much a cost and operational • Establish an open systems architecture framework to constraint similar to the original P-3 acquisition 45 enable affordable, effi cient upgrades to capabilities to years earlier, which leveraged the commercial Lock- allow the MMA system to meet requirements over heed Electra airframe.) Since MMA is a recapitalization the expected 25–30-year life of the airframe. This effort, the mission systems capabilities (sensors, commu- was implemented by providing the MMA Avion- nications, weapons, fi re control, etc.) were baselined on ics Architecture Defi nition guide, which described the effectiveness of current systems and their respective technologies, widely accepted standards, and design development roadmaps. For example, the performance philosophies. characteristics of the P-3C Aircraft Improvement Pro- • Establish a process for capturing and managing gram and Baseline Modifi cation Upgrade Program that requirements to ensure stability and heritage with were projected to be at Technology Readiness Level 9 both parent and child requirement documenta- (actual system “fl ight proven” through successful mis- tion. Maintain records of changes, justifi cations for sion operations) in 2007 were the basis for writing per- changes, and authorizations for changes. This was formance-based specifi cations for the mission systems implemented by employing a requirements manage- for MMA. ment system to ensure traceability from top-level war- One challenge was to specify the functional perfor- fi ghting requirements to system-level specifi cations. mance of systems without being overly prescriptive and

294 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 24, NUMBER 3 (2003) MMA ACQUISITION PLANNING

Jan 98 Mar 00 Jan 04 Analysis of alternatives A B Technical and economic Concept Component advanced development System development feasibility exploration Phase 1 Phase 2 and demonstration

Draft ORD Notional perf. spec - May 99 Joint Requirements IRD 0 - Feb 00 Oversight Council • Aero performance • Aero performance • Payload capacity IRD 1 - Oct 01 coordination • Payload capacity • Integrated aircraft • Affordability goals IRD 2 - Feb 02 • Interoperability • CONOPS definition • Readiness • Threats and targets IRD 3 - • System analyses Sep 02 Approved Initiate Develop ORD - Jun 03 system cost designs estimates Evolve Refine system cost designs estimates Evolve Refine system cost designs estimates

Cost/performance trade studies

Figure 1. The MMA requirements maturation process refl ects industry/government collaboration to refi ne cost, budget, scheduling, and requirements issues. driving industry to specifi c existing/planned hardware subsequent changes that may be required in other docu- implementations. Alternative systems or components ments that have been linked in the DOORS database. that would meet the performance requirements but The Requirements Management System also allows rapid might offer cost savings or other desirable attributes notifi cation of the range of impacts that might occur as a (e.g., open systems features) were thus included in the result of a change requirement. trade space. The MMA Mission Systems Team success- Because all requirements are linked in a common fully characterized the functional performance of the database containing all pertinent documents, orphan baselined systems and included both performance attri- requirements or gaps in requirements fl ow-down are read- butes and supporting analysis in information provided ily identifi ed by gap analysis. And since related objects are to the CAD phase offerors.3 linked in the database, changes that occur in one docu- ment may readily be attributed to another. This is partic- REQUIREMENTS TRACEABILITY ularly important when requirements language is common To maintain a seamless track of the lineage of require- or similar across many documents (e.g., CDD, PBS, Test ments from top-level warfi ghting guidance through the and Evaluation Master Plan, etc.). In addition, the system weapons system specifi cations to ModulesObjects Attributes Comments industry, APL chose a Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements MNS Need 1 Classification Program management Text Created by… information is uniquely System (DOORS)–based Require- identified to the smallest Need 2 Derived from… • area of understanding ments Management System from Text • (object) subcontractor Holmes-Tucker Inter- • national. Used successfully in the analogous phase of the Joint Strike Rqmt. 1… Rationale Information is linked by Fighter Program, the Requirements ORD logical dependencies, Rqmt. 2… Last modified Management System employs a • not document format Text • • DOORS database of requirements Capability 2 Threshold Information objects are objects that enables linking of Linked to… populated with attributes • and links • requirements objects in various • documents. Figure 2 describes the traceability of requirements between PBS Function I… documents. The database is used Function II… Related to… Links are traceable to record decisions, actors in the Configuration I Related to… through multiple • references and levels Configuration II • decision process, supporting docu- • mentation or analysis, changes to Figure 2. Requirements Management System traceability enables a seamless track of requirements objects, and pointers to lineage requirements from top-level warfi ghting guidance to industry specifi cations.

JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 24, NUMBER 3 (2003) 295 C. L. EVANS offers signifi cant confi guration control qualities across tion block of MMA. (SIGINT functionality will now be many engineering and acquisition documents. addressed in a separate APL-led study examining alter- natives for recapitalizing the EP-3E capability.) Because MATURING THE MMA all of the requirements for both original aircraft variants REQUIREMENTS were captured as linked objects in the DOORS data- base, the transition to both requirements and specifi ca- As previously mentioned, potential industry offerors tion documentation for a search and attack-only version were involved in concept studies from the beginning to was realized with relatively little additional effort. In help bound the technical and affordability dimensions addition, because all specifi cation objects were linked to for the MMA Program. In 2002, the Navy conducted parent requirements in the IRD, changes were rapidly a competition to select industry partners for the CAD accomplished, enabling minimum turnaround of both phase. As a result, and Boeing were the IRD and Draft PBS to industry offerors for CAD awarded contracts to further develop MMA concepts. Phase II analysis. CAD Phase II will precede downselect Both offerors were given draft requirements and perfor- to a single industry partner for SDD in 2004. mance-based specifi cations to conduct baseline analysis for their respective concepts; to comment on the cost, SUMMARY schedule, and technical features of the requirements set; and to offer proposed changes to the requirements which The MMA acquisition program employed an early provided lower cost or less risk for achieving a compliant focus on analytically supportable, affordable require- design. Since both offerors selected for CAD also employed ments and provided a process to ensure traceability of DOORS for their respective systems engineering require- those requirements from Defense Planning Guidance to ments tracking systems, a common set of objects was used system-level hardware and software specifi cations. The to communicate the requirements to both. Requirements Management System’s ability to involve industry in the derivation of affordable, technically achievable requirements has been crucial to program EFFECTING REQUIREMENTS progress. CHANGES The benefi t of employing a rigorous requirements REFERENCES management philosophy was realized early in the acqui- 1Broad Area Maritime and Littoral Armed Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Mission Needs Statement, Joint Requirements Over- sition program. Shortly after the award for CAD Phase sight Council, Washington, DC (2000). I contracts, the Navy deleted the requirement for a Sig- 2Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft Acquisition Strategy, Maritime Surveil- nals Intelligence (SIGINT) variant of MMA (i.e., EP- lance Aircraft Program Offi ce, Patuxent River, MD (2001). 3Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft Performance Based Specifi cation, 3E replacement), choosing to focus on the search and Maritime Surveillance Aircraft Program Offi ce, Patuxent River, MD attack (i.e., P-3C) variant only for the initial produc- (2001).

THE AUTHOR

CHRISTOPHER L. EVANS is a member of APL’s Senior Professional Staff in the Power Projection Systems Department. He holds a B.S.E.E. degree from the Uni- versity of New Mexico and an M.S. degree from Central Michigan University. Mr. Evans served in the Navy as a Naval Flight Offi cer in P-3C Aircraft and an Aero- space Engineering Duty Offi cer in a variety of Navy development efforts includ- ing Joint , F/A-18 E/F, and Advanced Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) programs. He retired from the Navy as a captain in 2001. Since joining APL, he has served primarily as the APL Systems Engineering Task Lead for the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft and Broad Area Maritime Surveillance programs. His present assignment is Program Manager for Airborne Surveillance Programs in the Power Projection Systems Department. His e-mail address is [email protected].

296 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 24, NUMBER 3 (2003)