The operation and support phase of a major weapon system is one of the most costly phases in the life cycle of a program. During this phase, the key stakeholders must build a long-term sustainment strategy to make sure the program is affordable, and that the weapon system is reliable and maintainable. The ultimate objective in this effort is to ensure all support providers, either organic or contractor, have mission readiness, translated into warfighter capability, as their long-term overarching priority. To this end, the business community (financial management and contracting) must develop a strategy that complements and satisfies the warfighters objective(s). The purpose of this research project was to examine critical sustainment program characteristics from a business community perspective for applicability in future weapon system sustainment efforts. The characteristics were identified to fall within three broad categories: (1) Reporting Mechanisms (developing and controlling the requirement); (2) Financial Management Perspective (understanding the funding process); and Contracting Perspective (arranging for the requirement). Using the Sustainment Business Model, the research team conducted a comparative analysis of two programs: The F-16 Falcon and C-17 Globemaster. The research concluded with the identification of good practices and suggested recommendations.

According to the Government Accountability Office, sustainment of weapon systems accounts for approximately 70 percent of the total life-cycle costs. When sustainment is not considered early in the development process or as an integral part of the systems engineering design, it can negatively affect the ability of the Air Force to maintain and improve the weapon system once it enters service. At the request of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Weapons Systems Sustainment Planning Early in the Development Life Cycle identifies at what point or phase of the development of a weapons system sustainment planning should be integrated into the program; examines and provides recommendations regarding how sustainment planning should be evaluated throughout the development process; investigates and describes the current challenges with sustainment planning and determines what changes have occurred throughout the acquisition process that may have eroded sustainment planning; and identifies opportunities for acquisitions offices to gain greater access to sustainment expertise.

The Defense System Acquisition Review Council (DSARC) was established to review a military program's status and make a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense on the program's readiness to transition from one phase into the succeeding phase of the weapons acquisition process. The Air Force is using the Production Readiness Review (PRR) as a technique to prepare for the DSARC III review held prior to the production phase of the weapons acquisition process. This study analyzes 3 major Air Force weapon system programs to compare their PRR program procedures. Responses were analyzed from System Program Offices and AF Plant Representative Offices to determine if differences did exist. Additionally, 10 AF Systems Command production management experts were interviewed to determine if a standard approach is feasible for conducting future PRR programs. The study indicated that the 3 major programs analyzed did apply different procedures in conducting their respective PRR programs. The authors concludes that a standard PRR approach is feasible and the PRR tasks can be grouped into areas of importance.

The readiness and sustainability of weapon systems is a key factor in defense. The Weapon System Support Program prioritizes system parts, but performance is lacking. RAND examines program effectiveness and gives recommendations for the future.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) contracted with the Naval Studies Board (NSB) of the National Research Council (NRC) to establish a committee to review ONR's Air and Surface Weapons Technology (ASWT) program. The committee convened on May 14 and 15, 2002, and reviewed more than 20 science and technology (S&T) efforts that were presented as constituting the ASWT program. The committee then met separately on May 16, 2002, to formulate its findings and recommendations. This report represents the consensus views of the committee and is based on the information presented prior to and at the review, as well as on the committee members' accumulated experience and expertise in military operations, systems, and technologies.

Since the mid-1940s, when Vannevar Bush and Theodore von Karman wrote Science, the Endless Frontier and Toward New Horizons, respectively, there has been a consensus that strong Department of Defense support of science and technology (S&T) is important to the security of the United States. During the Cold War, as it faced technologically capable adversaries whose forces potentially outnumbered U.S. forces, the United States relied on a strong defense S&T program to support the development of technologically superior weapons and systems that would enable it to prevail in the event of conflict. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has relied on its technological superiority to maintain a military advantage while at the same time reducing the size of its forces. Over the past half-century, creating and maintaining a technologically superior military capability have become fundamental to U.S. national security strategy, and investment in S&T has become a basic component of the defense budget. In late 1998, Congress asked the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study, in cooperation with the National Research Council (NRC), on the S&T base of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Congress was particularly concerned about areas of the S&T program related to air systems, space systems, and supporting information systems. Its concern was based on the Air Force's reduction of its S&T program from the largest of the three military service programs to the smallest. Congress also wanted to ensure that the Air Force maintained an appropriately sized S&T workforce. In late 1999, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology asked the NRC to conduct a study to explore these issues.

Book Purpose: The Weapons Systems Book is an authoritative source of descriptions, characteristics and essential programmatic information for the programs managed by the Program Executive Office Missiles and Space (PEO MS). The PEO's project offices have direct responsibility and oversight for the development, production, fielding and sustainment of these systems. This book is organized by project office. To facilitate the user's ability to gather system data, each system is treated as stand-alone. This results in some information being repeated in a number of system write-ups.--page i.