Weapon Systems Intelligence Integration (WSII) Handbook; June 1999
Chapter 4.
Introduction to Intelligence Infrastructure Support
This chapter describes WSIIO duties and responsibilities at the 497th Intelligence Group (IG), operating command and the implementing command levels. It explains the relationship of WSIIO tasks to the Air Force requirements and acquisition process, and to the activities of WSIIOs located across the Air Force. Much of your job rests on your ability to coordinate and communicate. Thus you need to know what information is needed, who can provide information, when it is required and where the data needs to reside. You should also pay close attention to the relationship of your tasks to specific milestones in the requirements and acquisition process and how you can best contribute to this overall effort. This chapter will help place your responsibilities within this broader context.
4.1. Weapon Systems Intelligence Integration Officer Roles, Responsibilities and Functions. Each weapon system development program designated as an ISP program should have three WSIIOs -- one at the 497 IG, one at the operating command and one at the implementing command. A brief description of the responsibilities of each is given in the next three paragraphs. A more comprehensive description of the numerous roles and responsibilities of each WSIIO is presented in the remainder of the chapter. All XOI approved ISP programs will have a dedicated WSIIO at the 497 IG. Action officers at the operating and implementing commands performing WSIIO functions may not carry duty titles of "WSIIO" since they often have other primary duties in addition to their WSIIO functions. However, in this handbook, we will still refer to them as WSIIOs for ease of understanding.
As an overview, the combined roles, responsibilities and functions of the three WSIIOs can be viewed in two phases:
Pre-milestone 0: Prior to milestone 0 the WSIIOs participate in the following activities:
- The WSIIO helps translate an operational deficiency into an Air Force need.
- The WSIIO assists in creating a formal Air Force requirement.
- The WSIIO helps translate the requirement into an acquisition program.
Post-milestone 0: Following milestone 0 the WSIIOs are responsible for integrating intelligence into the weapon system design and ensuring weapon system intelligence support requirements are supportable given the capabilities of the programmed intelligence infrastructure. This involves:
- Deriving intelligence support requirements (i.e., conduct a strategy-to-task analysis).
- Developing intelligence support requirements (i.e., developing detailed satisfaction criteria).
- Developing solution concepts (i.e., options for solving the requirement considering cost, supportability, and capability).
- Documenting requirements and solutions in the ISP.
- Overseeing ISP implementation (e.g., production requirements, product development, infrastructure modifications/enhancements, funding, etc.)
4.1.1. 497th Intelligence Group WSIIO. The 497 IG WSIIO is responsible for the overall conduct of the ISP program and the production of the ISP itself. As the lead WSIIO on a given program, the 497 IG WSIIO is responsible for brokering development of ISP solution concepts and overseeing ISP implementation. To accomplish these tasks, the 497 IG WSIIO is responsible for scheduling and conducting Intelligence Support Working Group (ISWG) meetings and associated Technical Exchange Meetings (TEMs). Both ISWGs and TEMs are discussed in detail in Chapter 9 of this handbook. The 497 IG WSIIO also serves as a program-specific interface between the National Intelligence Community and (a) functional managers (to include other WSIIOs) involved in a weapon systems development; and (b) other Air Staff and Secretariat Level Organizations.
4.1.2. Operating Command WSIIO. The primary focus of the operating command WSIIO is on the development and documentation of the operational baseline of the system and the subsequent derivation and development of intelligence infrastructure support requirements. The operating command WSIIO also serves as the interface between the intelligence community and the end user of the weapon system, the warfighter, and represents him at all ISP-related meetings, working groups and forums. The operational baseline is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7 of this handbook.
4.1.3. Implementing Command WSIIO. The primary focus of the implementing command WSIIO is on the derivation, development, and documentation of acquisition-related intelligence infrastructure support requirements. The implementing command WSIIO also serves as the interface between the intelligence community and the System Program Director (SPD) for a given weapon system and represents the SPD at all ISP-related meetings, working groups, and forums.
4.2. Detailed Listing of WSIIO Duties and Responsibilities. The detailed information in this section describes the specific duties an effective WSIIO will most likely need to perform. WSIIO activities are linked to the milestones and phases of the Air Force requirements and acquisition process (see Chapter 3) as it is the context within which the WSIIO must always operate. A more detailed description of WSIIO actions will follow, focusing on activities to be accomplished by all WSIIOs. Whenever appropriate, we will include unique actions to be taken by WSIIOs in specific commands. In the summary charts, and whenever appropriate in the more detailed listings, you will see OPRs listed. The order in which they appear in the charts indicates the relative level of responsibility of each WSIIO for the given task. Please note, however, that the 497 IG, operating command, and implementing command WSIIOs should work together as a team to accomplish these tasks.
4.2.1. Pre-Milestone 0 -- Determination of Mission Need. The operating command WSIIO is most active during this period and bears the greatest responsibility for the conduct of the ISP program. Key duties of all WSIIOs are listed below.
Figure 4.1 -- Summary of Key WSIIO Activities Prior to Milestone 0
Stay in continuous contact with counterparts in the operations, requirements and acquisition staffs of your organization as well as with WSIIOs in other commands. Seek to participate in early discussions on the need for new weapon systems well before any effort is made to initiate and coordinate a Mission Needs Statement (MNS).
Participate with your operations counterparts during their initial Strategy-To-Task (STT) analysis, and during the development of the general CONOPS.
Once you have the opportunity for baseline discussions of the above topics, make every effort to enhance your operations, requirements and acquisition counterparts understanding of potential intelligence support requirements, capabilities and options.
Make a special effort to stay in close touch with appropriate requirements, operations and acquisition counterparts to keep track of activities in the Special Access Required (SAR) arena. Intelligence personnel have traditionally been late in gaining knowledge of new SAR programs, often resulting in inadequate intelligence support for these systems. Be proactive for SAR status if you need it to do your job.
Pay close attention to the proposed technical capabilities of the new weapon system. At times in the past, intelligence support options have been prematurely and unnecessarily constrained early in the requirements process by assumptions on the part of operations and acquisition personnel on what intelligence support was available. For example, final decisions on the internal databases, navigation and targeting systems and communications suites of new aircraft should be made with a full understanding of how intelligence can best support them.
Do not restrict yourself to the core system alone; pay equal attention to associated programs such as munitions, simulators, mission planning systems and database development.
Ensure that Geospatial Information and Services (GI&S) requirements for new or modified systems are identified early in the requirements process. Requirements should be derived through close coordination with the developing and operating commands, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) and 497 IG/INOT (the focal point for Air Force GI&S activities).
Work with Air Force and NIMA functional managers, DIA and the Service S&T Centers to make sure that all Production Requirements (PR) related to newly considered or proposed weapon systems are articulated and properly documented as soon as possible. Relevant information on present and future enemy capabilities and the state of technology in a given area can have a major impact on acquisition and development decisions, and such information must be collected, disseminated and considered at the earliest opportunity.
Participate early and often in discussions concerning the threat a new weapon system will face. Work with 497 IG/INOA threat managers to make sure that threat assessments are relevant to the core technical capabilities of the system and its future operating environment. While the initial threat assessment document (STAR, STA, etc.) will not be produced until after Milestone 0, early and continued collaboration will expedite the development, review and validation of threat documentation.
Establish contact with intelligence functional managers (FM) within your organization to hold early discussions on possible intelligence requirements and alternative infrastructure solutions and alternatives. It is crucial to identify deficiencies requiring long lead times and significant expenses early on so that potential solutions can be discussed and implemented.
Discuss weapon system intelligence needs informally with points of contact outside the Air Force. Seek support early within the joint arena and the National Intelligence Community.
Once coordination of the draft MNS begins, ensure it reflects the discussions on the alternative approaches considered to meeting mission requirements and how these alternatives accounted for relevant intelligence capabilities and shortfalls.
Support AF/XOI participation in CSAF review of the MNS and Air Force participation in any JROC/DAB/AFROC deliberations concerning your weapon system.
It is essential that 497 IG, operating command and implementing command WSIIOs work together to get an early start on ISP development. By using the functional area checklists and intelligence requirements correlation matrices from the outset, WSIIOs in the lead operating command will be able to make an initial assessment of intelligence needs and capabilities, and provide a solid foundation for the more detailed documentation that will follow.
4.2.2. Phase 0 -- Concept Exploration. The 497 IG WSIIO begins to assume the lead WSIIO role during this period and, as such, assumes the greatest responsibility for the conduct of the ISP program. Key duties include:
Figure 4.2 -- Summary of Key WSIIO Activities in Phase 0
WSIIOs, especially those at the lead operating command, must be fully aware of discussions and decisions relating to the continued development of the operational baseline of the weapon system. They should ensure that the Intelligence Community provides inputs, whenever appropriate, to help operational and acquisition counterparts make proper decisions on technology, CONOPS and threat issues.
Carefully review the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) to ensure all references to intelligence products or capabilities are clearly stated and clarified. Many ORDs assume the intelligence community will be able to provide all required support.
Work with the SPO to provide industry representatives information about the existing and planned intelligence architecture. This will assist the developer to design within the infrastructure where feasible.
As user (operational, acquisition, test) requirements are established, work with appropriate intelligence functional managers to make sure that specific intelligence requirements are fully defined. Use the functional area checklists as an aid to accomplish this task.
Help the 497 IG construct, coordinate and publish the initial draft of the ISP. Seek the support of OSD, Joint and Intelligence Community organizations in providing the intelligence support required. Discuss with supervisors whether to brief these issues at key forums such as the Military Intelligence Board (MIB). Publish the ISP at the lowest classification level possible to ensure the widest dissemination. Use separate SCI and SAR annexes, as required.
Ensure adequate intelligence participation in the construction and coordination of the documents listed below:
- Program Management Directive (PMD)
- Operational Requirements Document (ORD)
- Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)
- Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)
- Single Acquisition Management Plan (SAMP)
- Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)
- Integrated Program Summary (IPS)
- System Maturity Matrix (SMM) (Component of Risk Management Plan)
The ORD and Analysis of Alternative (AOA) processes and documentation are of particular importance to the WSIIO and should receive priority attention.
When tasking to develop an ISP is received, WSIIOs should put together a budget proposal to ensure adequate funding for TDYs, contractor support, ISWGs, etc. If the ISP for a particular weapon system is to be developed with contractor support, begin early to identify the contractor and to establish associated requirements, costs and procedures.
Support AF/XOI participation in the AFROC and the CSAF Summit process, and help the USAF prepare for JROC and DAB deliberations.
4.2.3. Phase I -- Program Definition and Risk Reduction. Key WSIIO duties include:
Figure 4.3 -- Summary of Key WSIIO Activities in Phases I and II
Continue to identify and modify intelligence infrastructure requirements and shortfalls as system design proceeds. Look at the needs of similar systems and seek common solutions to the fullest extent possible.
Pay particular attention to important technical issues (such as concurrent database development) to ensure that there are no unpleasant surprises as the weapon moves from concept to actual prototype.
Visit operational units, whenever possible, that will operate the system to get a "reality check" on ISP assumptions and planning.
Provide required intelligence support to Phase I efforts related to the weapon system.
Work with Air Staff, AETC and others to identify intelligence manpower and training needs and ensure actions to meet these requirements are on track. If non-Air Force organizations such as NIMA or DIA will provide critical intelligence support to the weapon system, stay abreast of their efforts to develop the trained manpower to fulfill their commitments.
Work closely with AFOTEC to provide required intelligence support to weapon system operational test and evaluation (OT&E).
Stay in close contact with 497 IG, operating command, and DIA threat analysts to ensure the threat is properly articulated and modeled in relevant documents and simulations. Pay particular attention to the collection and production of intelligence relating to the critical intelligence categories (CICs) identified in the threat assessment process.
Work closely with other WSIIOs and with intelligence functional managers to define and articulate how intelligence support will add value to weapon system performance. Develop standards that meet the needs and terms of reference of the operators, users and maintainers to convince them of resource requirements.
Develop the appropriate tools to track progress toward established intelligence support goals for a particular weapon system. These tools should be based on the operational imperatives for the weapon system, which are defined through the STT process discussed in Chapter 8 of this handbook. Use the functional area checklists, also found in chapter 8, to ensure that the tools are sufficiently detailed, accurate, and comprehensive, and that they are linked directly to all appropriate intelligence infrastructure tasks and capabilities.
Work with other program WSIIOs to identify common requirements and seek opportunities to share resource costs across a number of programs with common needs.
4.2.4. Phase II -- Engineering and Manufacturing Development. Key WSIIO duties include:
Continue to monitor closely the engineering and manufacturing of key weapon system components that will impact intelligence support.
Monitor the status of development of new intelligence systems required to fully support your weapon system. Ensure interoperability with related systems to the greatest extent possible. Consider raising key interoperability issues at the MIB, with AC2ISRC, and with the Intelligence Programs Review Group in ASD/C3I.
Work with Air Staff, operating command intelligence training specialists and AETC to make sure new/enhanced intelligence training will be conducted on time. Also ensure any manuals needed to use the weapon system (e.g., JMEM Weaponeering Data Manuals) will be available at the time the weapon system is fielded.
Finalize OT&E support with AFOTEC. Intelligence support needs and validated requirements should figure prominently in the functional OT&E of the system. The OT&E should be a true representation of the operational system ready for employment.
Seek formal agreement among ISWG members on the identified intelligence infrastructure. Base this assessment on intelligence functional area checklists and the operational imperatives for your weapon system.
Support AF/XOI participation in the AFROC and CSAF Summit, and help Air Staff prepare for JROC and DAB meetings at Milestone III.
4.2.5. Phase III -- Production, Fielding/Deployment and Operational Support. Key WSIIO duties include:
Figure 4.4 -- Summary of Key WSIIO Activities in Phase III
Work with operational counterparts and other WSIIOs to help develop/validate operational scenarios for the new weapon system.
Stay in touch with those involved in pre-deployment planning to keep abreast of any modifications to the weapon system CONOP that might necessitate adjustment of the ISP.
Work with AFOTEC to ensure adequate intelligence support to weapon system OT&E.
Stay in close touch with intelligence counterparts involved in actual support of the new weapon system at its first and subsequent deployment locations to see whether previously made plans and decisions still reflect reality.
Ensure adequate intelligence training for weapon system operators.
Continue to monitor development of the required intelligence infrastructure through use of the tools established earlier.
Ensure that new intelligence products and applications meet operational needs. Return to an operational unit for a "reality check."
Pay close attention to the latest inspection results to determine how intelligence infrastructure support needs to be improved.
Monitor adequacy of intelligence training in formal courses of instruction and at unit level.
If your weapon system is involved in actual combat, pay close attention to the results and to post-hostilities reviews. Once sufficient data is available, convene an ISWG to review the ISP and make modifications as necessary.
Maintain awareness of any proposals involving foreign military sales of your weapon system. Convene an ISWG if required to review key intelligence-related issues.
Pay attention to the deliberations of key Air Force forums such as the Theater Battle Management General Officer Steering Group (TBM GOSG). This group sets policy on warfighting operations and has a major influence on setting priorities for requirements. It is also a major player in seeking solutions for interoperability issues.
Keep close tabs on "inside the beltway" studies designed to assess where investments in new intelligence capabilities should be made. Be sure to provide the study author(s) with future systems intelligence support requirements data on which they can base their study.
4.2.6. Summary. As a WSIIO, you play a mayor role in ensuring weapon systems have the intelligence support they require for successful employment. You can play a major part in constructing the overall Air Force intelligence architecture as well as the National Intelligence architecture by alerting the Air Force and national intelligence communities to intelligence support requirements for future weapons and actively implementing solutions to any deficiencies. Additionally, your efforts can lead to changes in weapon system design, aid program decisions and influence decisions on funding for systems and their associated intelligence infrastructure requirements. Work with other WSIIOs to consolidate your inputs concerning these issues. In addition, seek opportunities to share resource costs across a number of programs with common needs. This will be done formally through Cross-ISP (cross program) analysis. Cross-ISP analysis is discussed briefly in Chapter 11.
4.3. Threat Support to Acquisition. Threat support to the Air Force weapon systems requirements and acquisition process is managed by 497 IG/INOA. In fulfilling this responsibility, 497 IG/INOA works closely with counterparts in the MAJCOM/IN staffs and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). As a WSIIO, you will not be directly responsible for the creation and coordination of threat assessments, but you must be fully aware of the specific issues and processes involved. An important WSIIO responsibility is to ensure that appropriate threat assessments are available throughout the life cycle of the weapon system. You may want to refer to DIA Regulation 55-3, the authoritative DoD reference on the subject, which defines "the threat" as:
"The sum of the potential strengths, capabilities and strategic objectives of any adversary which can limit or negate U.S. mission accomplishment or reduce force, system or equipment effectiveness."
4.3.1. Types of Threat Assessments. The System Threat Assessment Report (STAR) is the threat authoritative document for major acquisition programs (ACAT 1C and 1D). The System Threat Assessment (STA) is the authoritative threat document for threat data supporting ACAT II and III programs and is formatted like a STAR. STAs for ACAT II programs are stand-alone documents of about 25 pages. STAs for ACAT III programs are contained in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and are normally two to five pages. When no ORD exists for ACAT III programs, the appropriate Threat Environment Description (TED) suffices.
Figure 4.5 -- Threat Assessment Categories and Characteristics
4.3.1.1. Elements of a STAR/STA. The initial STAR or stand-alone STA is produced during Phase 0. They provide an assessment of enemy capabilities to neutralize or degrade a specific U.S. system throughout its life cycle. The italicized terms below are defined in Figure 4.6. The principal elements of the documents are:
Executive summary
Description of the system being developed
Description of the projected future operational (regional) threat environment
Analysis of actual capabilities and signatures of projected enemy targets and the concept of target employment. If applicable
System-specific threat
Reactive and technologically feasible threat that could affect program decisions
Program-developed critical intelligence categories (CICs)
Figure 4.6 -- Threat Definition
4.3.1.2 Critical Intelligence Categories. WSIIOs should pay special attention to the development of critical intelligence categories. CICs are established through the collaborative efforts of the intelligence, requirements generation and acquisition communities. Together they develop intelligence production requirements in support of the acquisition program. CICs contain the thresholds at which a potential adversarys quantity, type, force mix and system capabilities could influence the effective operation of a deployed system. Once identified, CICs are used to focus threat assessments and become the basis for development of a Production Requirement (PR). It is mandatory that Program Requirements (PRs) supporting the CICs be identified early in the program. CICs are identified in the applicable STAR or stand-alone STA.
4.3.2 Threat Assessment Development. Recognition of the need for a new weapon system is often based on threat information derived from current intelligence and validated by data in baseline threat documents. As the weapon system/program moves through the milestone development process, the threat assessment evolves and becomes more specific.
4.3.3. Threat Steering Groups (TSGs) .497 IG/INO convenes TSGs to address threat issues. The TSG is made up of 497 IG, NAIC, the SPO, the SPOs local intelligence representatives, the operating commands intelligence staff, AFOTEC/IN (for testing issues), DIA, Army and Navy (for Joint programs) and others as required. Since an important product of the TSG is the STAR (or STA), almost all ACAT I programs have TSGs; some less-costly programs also have TSGs. The performance of a developmental system (including cost and schedule) is uniquely depended on the projected threat. Managers and decision-makers at all levels need to be aware of the projected threat so they can make informed decisions. As a WSIIO you should recognize that TA information is an important management tool.
4.4. Frequently Asked Questions.
4.4.1. What is an operating command? The operating command (usually a MAJCOM) is responsible for representing the operational user of the weapon system. In most ISP programs, HQ ACC is the operating command. For the purposes of establishing and fielding operational requirements, HQ ACC represents the Combat Air Forces at large. HQ ACC also represents USAFE and PACAF in matters concerning new weapon system development.
4.4.2. What is an implementing command? The implementing command is responsible for developing, producing and fielding a materiel solution to meet the operational need. In most cases, the implementing command is Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC). The implementing command WSIIOs can be found either in the weapon systems System Program Office (SPO) or in the Product Centers Directorate of Intelligence (DI) office.
4.4.3. What do I do if I dont have an operating and/or implementing command counterpart? Establish good points of contact (networks) in both the developmental community and the operational community associated with your weapon system. Functions that would normally be done by your counterparts in these organizations will have to be accomplished by you.
4.4.4. Does the 497 IG write all ISPs? No. For some programs the 497 IG serves in an advisory role. In these cases, a MAJCOM or other organization either authors an ISP or hires contractor support to write the ISP. The 497 IG provides assistance with the process, particularly with final coordination and staffing.
4.4.5. Who determines which programs have 497 IG led Intelligence Support Plans? Each year, XOI solicits ISP proposals from MAJCOMS, Air Staff and other organizations involved in modernization planning. XOI, with the advice of 497 IG, selects programs based on a number of criteria, to include acquisition category and magnitude of potential intelligence infrastructure issues.