Here’s an interesting discussion on an Aerospace Nation episode with David Deptula and Commander of the 16th Air Force Lt Gen Timothy Haugh. The 16th Air Force was reactivated in 2019 as the single headquarters responsible for global intelligence surveillance reconnaissance, cyber, electronic warfare, and information operations. It is a component to Cyber Command, which has a fair amount of its own acquisition authorities, but is responsible to a host of other organizations. It really made me think about how complex federal organizations are.
The following is an interesting insight into Big “A” acquisition in the Air Force:
Lt Gen Timothy Haugh: The other element was aligning what role 16th Air Force plays in relation to all the roles and missions with Air Combat Command. So Air Combat Command has taken on all of the organize, train, and equip things that we need them to do across all our roles and missions. We’re focused on warfighting, and that’s what really in the original document that SecAF and the chiefs signed out to ACC. 16th Air Force was to be the information warfare tactics lead and the operator that brings the operational art into this competitive environment, so we have really focused on that and allowed Air Combat Command to now fight budget battles and those things for what do we need for equipping…
I am not distracted by what’s happening in the Pentagon from a budget standpoint that has been General Holmes has taken that with his team and they’re we’re using all of their processes to be able to really leverage his role of how do we construct the right blend of forces with AFWIC [Air Force Warfare Integration Center]. He’s taken that on I don’t get distracted by that at all. They asked me for operational vignettes and they’ve taken that ball and they’ve been our champion. That’s powerful for us, it means we’re focused on war fighting and doing those things that we need to do.
And just to cap off his sentiment:
I’m thankful right now that that we don’t have to worry about POM [Program Objectives Memorandum]. We’re not worried about the acquisition, requirements, in that relationship, and it’s working extremely well.
Deptula swoops in and says what I was thinking:
David Deptula: As you move and become more senior don’t forget that who makes the resource decisions also has an enormous control over what happens. Air Combat Command has many other areas to consider in terms of resource allocation. So that’s something that you might want to stick in the back your cranium as information becomes more and more important as part of a conflict in the future.
Bingo. The position that Lt Gen Haugh took is really an indictment of the budget process itself. How could someone not want to have control of the money for their most critical programs? Only if it takes up so much time and effort that it leads to an unproductive culture. In effect, Haugh is trying to avoid bureaucracy. He is willing to give up a great degree of control in terms of what assets he has available in order to focus more fully on the operational missions at hand.
These arrangements might work out for some time, with leadership that entered into it able to work together. But in 5 or 10 years, it is easy to see the 16th Air Force finding itself with equipment and systems not optimized to what it needs. While Air Combat Command has a lot of staff and competency lining up requirements and budgets for execution in the Air Force Materiel Command, their daily set of experiences and problems does not match ISR, cyber, EW, and information warfare. It is doubtful ACC staff can fully internalize the needs of the 16th Air Force.
Here’s Lt Gen Haugh giving another knock to the budget process:
Where we need to be really aggressive at 16th Air Force is demanding capabilities that cut across all these roles and missions that traditionally — how we operate in our acquisition programs — is through a program element that’s very defined. In essence, that goes against everything we’re being asked to do to integrate those functions.
Exactly. So Haugh and his counterparts in ACC and elsewhere in the Air Force have been giving program element consolidation or reorganization a real thought. The intention is to get away from program stovepipes which do not interoperate. But I must warn, there is no way to organize a budget into a logical structure such there there are no conflicts or overlaps. My recommendation for PE consolidation is to consolidate around PEOs and other logical organizations like 16th Air Force potentially, and then allow their leaders to enter a forum alongside requirements and other communities where they jointly decide on program outcomes. Integration of force structure need not be mandated through the budget, but through administrative structures.
Leave a Reply