this space was left blank on purpose
Chapter 3: Requirements into Capabilities

Navy Department Acquisition

The warfighting requirements that shape the Navy-Marine Corps Team's acquisition and investment strategies originate with the operating forces. The execution of these strategies—to develop, acquire, and support a modern, technologically superior, ready force structure—is the responsibility of the Navy's Systems Commands, Program Executive Officers (PEOs), and Direct-Reporting Program Managers (DRPMs). The following organizations work with industry on behalf of the operating forces to develop, test, acquire, and deliver operationally superior and affordable ships and aircraft, combat systems, related equipment, life-cycle support, and supplies to the Fleet:

U.S. Navy Systems Commands, Direct-Reporting Program Managers,
and Program Executive Officers, January 2000
  • Naval Air Systems Command
  • Naval Facilities Engineering Command
  • Naval Sea Systems Command
  • Naval Supply Systems Command
  • Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
  • DRPM Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle
  • DRPM Strategic Systems Programs
  • DRPM Advanced Technology
  • PEO Air Anti-Submarine Warfare, Assault, and Special Mission Programs
  • PEO Aircraft Carriers
  • PEO Cruise Missiles and Joint Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
  • PEO Expeditionary Warfare
  • PEO Information Technology
  • PEO Joint Strike Fighter
  • PEO Mine Warfare
  • PEO Submarines
  • PEO Surface Strike
  • PEO Tactical Aircraft Program
  • PEO Theater Surface Combatants
  • PEO Undersea Warfare

workers assembling ordnance

As the stewards of the Navy's acquisition and life-cycle support processes, Systems Commands, DRPMs, and PEOs are responsible for furnishing high-quality systems and support matched to the requirements and priorities of the operating forces, as well as for providing the necessary high return for America's taxpayer investment. The Navy continues to effect fundamental changes to the way these organizations operate in order to support most effectively and efficiently the Navy's operating forces. Given the expected environment of constrained resources, the ability to be both smart buyers and smart supporters of the Navy's hardware will be a key element in keeping America's naval forces capable and ready to meet all challenges of the 21st century.

Department of Defense Acquisition

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics—USD (AT&L)—has established a defense acquisition policy directing the Service Secretaries and Defense Department Component Heads to execute a single, standardized, Defense Department-wide acquisition system. The Under Secretary chairs the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), the senior decision forum for major acquisition programs. Program costs determine Acquisition Categories (ACAT I-IV), with ACAT I having the most significant resource needs.

Five milestones and phases—from early mission need determination through production, deployment, operations, and support categories—apply to all ACAT programs. Milestones 0 through IV mark key approval and decision points before the program moves to the next phase of the acquisition process. References to these Milestones and to common acronyms used to describe program phases are made in the program summaries of this chapter. Brief definitions of these Milestones (in chronological order) and common acronyms are shown below.

DoD Acquisition Milestones and Acquisition Acronyms
Milestones
Pre-Milestone
0
Requirement or Agency Need
Milestone 0 Concept Studies Approval
Phase 0 Concept Exploration and Definition
Milestone I Command Project Acceptance
Phase I Program Definition and Risk Reduction
Milestone II Development Approval
Phase II Engineering and Manufacturing Development
Milestone III Production Approval
Phase III Production, Fielding/Deployment, and Operational Support

Acronyms
ADM Acquisition Decision Memorandum
AoA Analysis of Alternatives
CDR Critical Design Review
COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf
EMD Engineering and Manufacturing Development
FY Fiscal Year
FYDP Future Years Defense Plan
GOTS Government Off-The-Shelf
IOC Initial Operational Capability
LRIP Low-Rate Initial Production
NDI Non-Developmental Item
OPEVAL Operational Evaluation
ORD Operational Requirements Document
PD&RR Program Definition and Risk Reduction
P3I Pre-Planned Product Improvement
QDR Quadrennial Defense Review
R&D Research and Development
RDT&E Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
TECHEVAL Technical (Developmental) Evaluation

man reading

The remainder of this chapter provides program summaries of key elements of the Navy's investments in capabilities to meet national needs and to continue its transformation for the future. The major program summary sections are as follows:

Manpower and Personnel

sea cadets at table

Since early 1999, Battle Force manpower requirements (i.e., the personnel needed to man deploying ships, submarines, and aircraft) have grown significantly. Factors contributing to this growth include the establishment of environmental workcenters on board selected ships, the revision of scheduled decommissionings and new-construction units, and changes to unit manpower requirements. In 1997, the Quadrennial Defense Review mandated a Navy Department endstrength ceiling that forced hard choices between sea and shore manpower placements and required the Navy to leave some jobs unfilled and "gapping" more billets than otherwise would be prudent. The result has been an increased workload on the remaining members of the unit and, in some cases, lower unit morale and reduced readiness. The Navy continues to consider numerous initiatives to address this situation, including reassessing the manpower requirements during the next QDR, scheduled for 2001. However, in the meantime, the Fleet's management and application of the strategic sourcing initiative—an ongoing plan to study billets for competitive-sourcing and functional assessment—has greatly assisted this effort. This will allow planned Battle Force endstrength to increase from 90 percent in FY 2001 to 91.5 percent by FY 2005, thereby helping to reduce the burden of work on our Sailors. Additionally, significant savings and efficiencies are anticipated from the Navy's Training Reengineering Program, which is an effort to reduce the overhead associated with student training.

officer homecoming

The increased requirements that are being seen in the Battle Force are accompanied by a change in the composition of requirements. During the 1990s, the Navy used a combination of lower accessions and lower retention to achieve necessary endstrength reductions. This resulted in a less than optimal distribution of personnel across paygrade and time-in-service categories, and created shortages in some critical enlisted and officer manpower areas. These problems were masked by the ongoing force structure drawdown, inasmuch as the force structure requirements were being reduced faster than the personnel inventory. However, as the Navy completes the post-Cold War drawdown and approaches the first steady-state environment since the advent of the all-volunteer force, the difficulty of declining retention and a more challenging recruiting market makes it a daunting challenge to get the number of new accessions equal to the number of personnel losses. Additionally, the gains and losses must be managed to support the more technical, and more specialized personnel requirements for its new recruits and retained personnel. In today's Navy, it is increasingly important that the Manpower, Personnel, and Training programs put the right person in the right place, at the right time, with the right training and skills. We are addressing these needs in both retention and recruiting activities.

personnel working on avaiation system

In addition, survey data continue to confirm that Morale, Welfare and Recreation programs remain a critical factor in Navy and Marine Corps efforts to retain a ready force. For example, a comprehensive Navy-wide MWR customer survey conducted in 1999 by the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center found that 72 percent of the enlisted respondents and 79 percent of the officer respondents indicated MWR improves their quality of life. This supports the anecdotal information heard in focus groups with Fleet Sailors and Marines and reaffirms the value of MWR to our Sailors and the Navy.

The following discussion illustrates the steps we are taking in the critical areas of retention and recruiting. It also provides information about two personnel systems that we are putting in place to ensure our business practices remain at the leading edge of 21st-century information technology.

Retention

Description: Retention is a significant cause of gapped billets in the fleet, especially at the mid-grade, sea-intensive ratings and pay grades. In a steady-state profile, the cost of losing Sailors, either due to attrition or decisions not to reenlist, includes gapped billets, an increase in the recruiting mission by a factor of roughly 1.2 recruits per loss (accounts for training attrition), and increased overhead as new Sailors are pushed through the training pipelines enroute to the Fleet. The cost to the Fleet in terms of lost experience and technical knowledge are extensive, but are essentially immeasurable.

flight deck signal officer

Program Status: Enlisted retention has shown steady decline throughout the 1990s, a reflection of the drawdown, low civilian unemployment, and a relatively strong economy. Significant initiatives were put into place in FY 1999 that successfully arrested this free-fall. Among these included passage of the "compensation triad" (pay increase, REDUX reform, enlistment Bonus maximum award levels. Preliminary assessment of FY 1999 retention statistics suggests these measures are having a positive impact. Additional measures planned to improve Sailor quality of life include initiatives such as the CNO's and CinCs' ongoing Inter-Deployment Training Cycle (IDTC) improvements, Navy's "Smart Ship" and "Smart Work" initiatives, and renewed efforts by the Fleet and training establishments to curtail attrition, meaning more Sailors to share the workload.

Recruiting

Description: The Navy's active-duty recruiting effort is defined by more than the raw number of accessions. The demand is not just for the right quantity of recruits, but also recruits of the right quality, right phasing, and right skills. Major components of the recruiting program include field recruiters and support, local and national advertising, and enlistment incentives.

watchstanders on bridge

Program Status: Despite improvement in some aspects of the Navy's program, the low unemployment and strong domestic economy continue to challenge the Navy's recruiting efforts. In FY 1999, Navy was able to leverage gains associated with an increased recruiter force and increased recruitment incentives to achieve the right quantity and with improved quality of recruits. Some revisions to recruit shipping goals and skill requirements were sacrificed in an effort to achieve the endstrength floor, resulting in increased training requirements and overhead (e.g., attrition, delays). In FY 2000, steps are being taken to ensure that recruiting focuses not only on the right number but also on the right skill mix of accessions. The Navy's current recruiting force of more than 5,000 is the highest since establishment of the all-volunteer military. To ensure optimal individual recruiter productivity, the Secretary of the Navy has challenged the recruiters to introduce "Smart Recruiter" initiatives (similar to the "Smart Ship" and "Smart Work" initiatives) to achieve the goal of improved recruiter productivity. Many "Smart Recruiter" initiatives are being considered to achieve a balanced recruiting program, working smarter and more efficiently to achieve the right number, quality, phasing, and skill mix of accessions that are demanded by today's Battle Force.

DPRIS-EMPRS

Defense Personnel Record Imaging System-Electronic Military Personnel Record System

Description: EMPRS is the Navy module of the Department Of Defense (DoD) initiative to interface each DoD element's record management system through standardized record management technology. EMPRS is the Navy's only digital record image system supporting military personnel records management within BUPERS. It houses the official personnel record images of all Navy officer and enlisted personnel within the Active and Reserve components. EMPRS supports various Navy, DoD, and other Federal, State, and local government operating agencies by providing automated support to the selection board, assignment, casualty assistance, mobilization, and personnel management processes. EMPRS will improve the personnel record management process when it delivers the interface to the Electronic Field Service Record (EFSR), automated fitness reports and evaluations, and WEB based technology.

Program Status: EMPRS achieved Milestone II in August 1995 and continues to be implemented throughout the Navy Department.

Developer/Manufacturer: ACS, Dallas, Texas; CACI, Arlington, Virginia.

NSIPS

Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System

manning the rail

Description: The Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System is a major automated information system designed to integrate Active, Reserve, and Retired military personnel systems within the Navy. It will improve the military personnel tracking process, consolidate processes and systems within all areas of military personnel, and replace the functionality of four legacy source data-collection systems. NSIPS will deliver field-level pay and personnel data to update corporate databases in peacetime as well as during recalls, and during both partial and full mobilization. Most importantly, NSIPS will collect, pass, and report timely, accurate data on Active, Reserve and Retired Navy members in the continental United States, overseas and aboard ships. NSIPS will have the capacity and flexibility to satisfy customer and user needs at all levels. In addition, it will have the capability to support current and future business processes.

Program Status: NSIPS achieved Milestone I on 16 May 1997 and Milestone II on 6 January 1998. Current program management schedules estimate IOC in FY 2000.

Developer/Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin, Falls Church, Virginia; PeopleSoft, Bethesda, Maryland; Template, Arlington, Virginia; and CDSI, New Orleans, Louisiana.


next back contents page Return to the Table of Contents