Members of the 6th Special Operations Squadron, perform a training exercise showcasing the capabilities of the Advanced Battle Management System December 2019.
UPDATED TO ADD AIR FORCE CLARIFICATION ON 2020 FUNDING. WASHINGTON: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has slammed the Air Force’s high priority Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS), designed to underpin all-domain operations, as lacking either an articulated acquisition plan, or a clear business case proving its worth to the warfighter and its affordability.
“While the Air Force has taken some steps to establish an ABMS management structure, the authorities of Air Force offices to plan and execute ABMS efforts are not fully defined. Unless addressed, the unclear decision-making authorities will hinder the Air Force’s ability to effectively execute and assess ABMS development across multiple organizations,” GAO found, in a report released yesterday.
The report’s title pretty much says it all: “Action Is Needed to Provide Clarity and Mitigate Risks of the Air Force’s Planned Advanced Battle Management System.”
The report was mandated by Congress in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Further, both sides of Capitol Hill in 2020 expressed skepticism about ABMS, with appropriators in the 2020 DoD spending bill knocking funds for effort down from the requested $186 million to $144 million.
In addition, the 2020 NDAA mandated that the Air Force by June report on: “a list of activities, programs, and projects related to ABMS, the final analysis of alternatives for ABMS, and an analysis of the requirements and development schedule for the networked architecture necessary for multidomain command and control and battle management as part of the ABMS family of systems.”
UPDATE BEGINS. An Air Force spokesperson clarified on April 20 that the apparent cut to ABMS by Congress in the 2020 defense spending bill was actually a reprogramming — done at the Air Force’s request — of some $40 million from operational testing to research and development. (DoD’s 2021 budget request further notes that past funds were broken into two separate funding lines and then consolidated, making tracking the total amount even more complicated.) UPDATE ENDS.
As Breaking D readers know, ABMS is the Air Force-led program for enabling the DoD-wide Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) designed to allow military commanders to link all sensors to all shooters across all five domains of warfare — air, land, sea, space and cyber.
“ABMS is a family of systems intended to replace the command and control capabilities of aging legacy programs and develop a network of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sensors,” according to the GAO report. GAO notes that the initial germ of the concept was the need to replace the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar (JSTARS) aircraft.
GAO adds that the Air Force has said it is taking a “nontraditional approach” to development that will result in requirements rapidly changing over time. As Air Force acquisition head Will Roper has explained on numerous occasions, the idea is to mimic Silicon Valley practices so that ABMS capabilities can be upgraded every four months in a spiral-development fashion.
GAO adds that this approach includes establishing a nontraditional acquisition management structure under a “chief architect” rather than an acquisition program manager to reflect the need to work across Program Executive Offices.
Preston Dunlap is the Air Force Chief Architect charged with ABMS, working closely with Brig. Gen. David “Kumo” Kumashiro, deputy chief of staff for planning, integration and requirements. I interviewed both in January on the effort, which they explained is building out seven main categories of capability: digital architecture standards; sensor integration; data; secure processing; connectivity; apps; and effects integration.
In its response to the GAO, the Air Force send GAO a “draft tailored acquisition plan” that “includes some elements of a traditional acquisition strategy such as contract and test strategies.” However, GAO lamented, that draft leaves out critical information, such a description of “overall planned capabilities,” and an “estimated cost and schedule for ABMS.”
Color GAO, to say the least, unimpressed:
“The Air Force has not established a plan or business case for ABMS that identifies its requirements, a plan to attain mature technologies when needed, a cost estimate, and an affordability analysis. As a result of recent ABMS management and scope changes, the Air Force remains early in the planning process and has not yet determined how to meet the capabilities or identify systems that will comprise ABMS. In December 2019, Air Force officials stated an overall plan for ABMS did not exist and would be difficult for the Air Force to develop in the near term due to the unclear scope of ABMS requirements. To date, the Air Force has not identified a development schedule for ABMS, and it has not formally documented requirements.”
In other words, GAO finds that the Air Force has not established a clear “business case” for ABMS that demonstrates “the warfighter’s needs are valid and that they can best be met with the chosen concept;” or that it “can be developed and produced within existing resources.” Such a business case requires, GAO elaborates, four elements that the Air Force has yet to definitively provide to Congress:
- “firm requirements to inform the technological, software, engineering, and production capabilities needed;
- a plan to attain mature technologies when needed to track development and ensure that technologies work as intended;
- a cost estimate to inform budget requests and determine whether development efforts are cost effective; and,
- an affordability analysis to ensure sufficient funding is available.”
Accordingly, GAO recommends that Roper direct Preston to provide quarterly updates to Congress on: a plan to mature technologies for each ABMS development area; a cost estimate that reflects tech upgrades; and, an updated affordability analysis.
In addition, it calls upon Roper to “formalize and document acquisition authority and decision-making responsibilities of the Air Force offices involved in the planning and execution of ABMS, to include the Chief Architect.” This should be included as part of the upcoming June report to Congress, the GAO adds.
The Air Force has concurred with GAO’s recommendations. The Air Force public affairs office did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
