Weapon Systems Intelligence Integration (WSII) Handbook; June 1999

Previous Section

Chapter 9.

Intelligence Support Plans

The Intelligence Support Plan is the authoritative document for identifying, planning, and monitoring implementation of the intelligence support to a weapon system. As such, the ISP is a living document that will be reviewed and updated in accordance with AFI 14-111, Intelligence Support to the Air Force Acquisition Process. Designed as a plan to support major weapon systems while under development, the ISP facilitates and documents interactions/agreements between those responsible for the intelligence support to acquisition and operational employment. This includes all phases of testing, training, and those responsible for providing the weapon system’s extended operational support. The ISP is intended to ensure that intelligence people, systems, procedures, and products are in place when required to support the program. The plan is driven by operational requirements as detailed in Chapter 6 of this WSIIO handbook. While some of the ISP’s intelligence support requirements may yield Production Requirements (PRs), the scope of the ISP covers collection, exploitation, production, dissemination, manpower, training, and systems across all intelligence functional areas. As described in Chapter 2 of this handbook, once an ISP is written, the WSIIO’s job is just beginning. The plan must be monitored, implemented, and updated to reflect the program’s shortfalls/current status and changes in intelligence infrastructure and products.

9.1. Purpose. The purpose of the ISP is to document 1) intelligence support requirements; 2) the intelligence infrastructure (people, systems, procedures, products, etc.) needed to satisfy the requirements; 3) any gaps or shortfalls between the required infrastructure and the current/planned infrastructure; and 4) time-phased courses of action necessary to ensure these shortfalls are resolved prior to system need dates. The ISP provides decision makers with the information needed to make informed choices among the various intelligence support options available and includes an estimate of the cost associated with proposed solutions. The ISP also documents interaction among members of the ISWG. The ISP process serves the weapons development community and program managers by integrating intelligence support requirements into the overall weapon system acquisition process. It also provides additional data on weapon system supportability, and provides weapon development teams with information to help them during their design trade-off process. Information contained in the plan may in some cases be used as a discriminating factor in the contract down-select process.

9.2. Format. The ISP has four chapters, an executive summary, appendices and annexes as required. The content of these chapters is described briefly below. For further information about content and format, refer to Appendix 1, WSIIO Handbook "ISP Format Guidelines".

Title Page. The title page identifies the weapon system the ISP is supporting, overall classification of the document, the responsible operating and implementing command, and date of publication.

Executive Summary. A brief stand-alone section that should capture the major issues and shortfalls described in the ISP. It should provide a quick overview of the ISP program, the weapon system program, and the key intelligence requirements and implementation plans.

Chapter 1 -- Introduction. This section should emphasize the purpose of the ISP and describe intelligence support to the acquisition process. The following subsections should be included:

• Overview. Explains the role of the ISP in supporting a particular weapon system.
• Authority. Lists the directives that govern the ISP.
• Purpose. Explains the ISP process and what it will accomplish.
• Scope. Describes the various intelligence support areas addressed by the ISP.
• How to Use. Briefly describes how the ISP can be used, and by whom.

Structure of the ISP. A brief textual description of what’s contained in each chapter.

Chapter 2 -- Weapon System Description. Describes the weapon system in detail and illustrates how acquisition and operational considerations drive the derived intelligence support requirements. This chapter defines the operational baseline and shows how the operational baseline generates specific testing, training, acquisition, and operational intelligence requirements. Chapter 2 also contains the Strategy-to-Task Analysis.

Chapter 3 -- Intelligence Support Requirements. Details the intelligence support requirements and proposed solution concepts. This chapter provides each requirement’s functional description, reference/justification, satisfaction criteria, support plan/solution, and lists action items necessary to implement the proposed plan.

Chapter 4 -- Estimated Intelligence Costs. Provides cost estimates of the solutions that were previously identified to satisfy the requirements listed in Chapter 3. The cost estimate separately addresses equipment/systems, manpower, training, and facilities. To ensure easier budgeting, cost estimates should be broken out by fiscal year. The ISP will make a distinction between the SPO-specific cost and the related cost, which will be absorbed by other DoD and/or intelligence organizations. For example, a new weapon system may require information, which resides in national intelligence databases. The SPO will have a cost associated for ensuring that hardware/software will be in place so the weapon system will have access to those databases. The cost associated in collecting and maintaining information in those databases will be listed as a related cost. Although chapter 4 will not provide a dollar figure for the cost of standard intelligence products required by the new weapon system, it will identify organizations chartered to provide those products/services. For example, cost of Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED) would be categorized as related cost -- NIMA funded. The cost data for these standard intelligence products/services is not readily available. To accurately state a cost of a given product/service consider initial research and development, salaries of the people currently involved, hardware in place and its maintenance, distribution, etc. HQ USAF could, in some cases, task intelligence organizations to derive/estimate the cost of those products/services, however, this would be costly, time consuming effort. Note: in early stages of weapon development, for example in Phase 0, a solution to an identified ISR in chapter 3 may not be available. In that case, the cost of satisfying that ISR will be listed as unknown.

Appendices/Annexes. Appendices include a Requirements Status Matrix, a glossary of acronyms and terms and other information, as required. Some programs may require an SCI or SAR annex to address requirements, which would follow the format of Chapters 2, 3, and 4 above.

9.3 Development Timeline. ISP development activities vary according to the weapon systems’ needs. A notional development timeline is depicted in Figure 9.1.

9.4. Staffing and Approval. The ISP is staffed and approved according to AFI 14-111 (formerly 14-208). The ISP is written and reviewed by members of the ISWG team.

9.4.1 Approving the ISP. The HQ 497 IG WSIIO submits the draft ISP (via shotgun electronic coordination) for comment to the appropriate operating command, implementing command, and AF staff elements. The final document, after incorporation of comments, is re-staffed for review and approval. Initial Coordination. Operating command WSIIOs submit the draft ISP for comment to the *Director of Intelligence (DI) or equivalent, Director of Operations (DO) or equivalent, Director of Requirements (DR) or equivalent and staffs at their command. *Implementing command WSIIOs submit the draft ISP for comment to the System Program Director (SPD) or equivalent and Director of Intelligence (DI) or equivalent Staffs at the implementing command. HQ 497 IG WSIIOs submit the draft ISP for comment to the AF/XOI, AF/XOR, AF/XOC and appropriate SAF/AQ Program Executive Officer (PEO) Staffs (for example SAF/AQP or SAF/AQI). Note: during this stage of coordination the draft ISP is handled only by action officers; do not submit the draft document for director/SPD review. Final Coordination. After resolution of any comments, the operating command WSIIO will submit the final ISP to their *DI, DO and DR for review/coordination. At the same time, the implementing command WSIIO will obtain SPD review/coordination. Once the ISP is reviewed/coordinated by the operating and implementing commands, the HQ 497 IG WSIIO obtains AF/XOR, AF/XOC and SAF/AQ PEO coordination and AF/XOI approval.

Note: Due to the recent restructuring of ACC and the differences in duty titles among the commands, these titles may not reflect the current organization.

9.4.2 Periodic review. Once an ISP is approved and signed by AF/XOI, the document will be reviewed/updated at least annually by the operating command DI staffs, implementing command DI staffs (or IN equivalent), and 497 IG/INOX. For example, Air Force Mission Support System ISP (approved by AF/XOI in Aug 98) will be reviewed/updated in Aug 99 by ACC/DIFT, ESC/IN and 497 IG/INOX. If the intelligence infrastructure requirements already approved by AF/XOI ISP change significantly, WSIIOs will decide whether the document should be re-staffed through the original approving process culminating with a new AF/XOI approval/signature. It is also important to remember that obtaining AF/XOI signature is only the beginning of your efforts as a WSIIO. It is at that point that you actively begin to resolve all ISR shortfalls identified in your ISP. This is the most challenging aspect of your job but also the most rewarding.

figure 9.1 -- Development Timeline

Next Section