Page 22 - Williams Foundation Integrated Force Design Seminar

Designing the Integrated Force: How to Define and Meet the Challenge?

integrated force to address some of the concerns raised by RADM Dalton. In this presentation, Phillips
contrasted the traditional project approach with what he referred to as a new engagement model to allow
for more flexibility in development but ways to constrain cost and shape realistic outcomes.

Put bluntly, without organizational change it would not be possible to achieve effective ways to shape
integrated design cost effectively and in light of the dynamics of software development.

To achieve a joint design outcome, it would be necessary to shape an engagement model in which industry
was a full partner. It was crucial as well to feed learning back into requirements generation as well.

Budgeting changes were required as well. “We don’t do enough funded work with industry to get a realistic
assessment of the domain of the feasible nor with regard to how to price evolving options and capabilities.
How do you price the evolution within the force of options and opportunities when you manage with fixed
priced contracts? You don’t.”

The industrial presentations made during the seminar highlights various aspects of the challenge in shaping a
new working relationship with industry.

The core importance of shaping software approaches to provide for the kinds of transient advantage
necessary to deal with a constantly evolving threat was discussed by Stephen Froelich, Director, Operational
Command and Control, Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems. In his presentation, Froelich highlighted
the importance of open systems architecture, and agile development through software evolution to gain
transient advantage. He argued for the importance of a business model that supports an open, agile and
spiral development approach. This requires the simultaneous management of current capability, hardware
and fielded capability.

Lockheed is involved in the new submarine program as the combat systems designer and clearly will be
involved along with a number of companies teamed with it in providing Navy with the kind of transient
advantage necessary for the maritime arm of the ADF.

When I interviewed Chief of Navy prior to the seminar we discussed the new submarine as a case study of the
continuous shipbuilding approach which is essential not just to the Navy but to joint force enablement.

Question: One aspect of change clearly is building 21st century defense structure.

I have just returned from the UK and witnessed their significant efforts at Lossiemouth, Waddington, Marham and
at Lakenheath to have a new infrastructure built.

And certainly have seen that at RAAF Williamtown with the F-35 and at RAAF Edinburgh with the P-8/Triton.

How important in your view is building a new infrastructure to support a 21st century combat force?

Vice Admiral Tim Barrett: Crucial.

And that is in part what I am referring to as an industrial and national set of commitments to shaping a
21st century combat fleet.

We spoke last time about the Ship Zero concept.

This is how we are focusing upon shaping a 21st century support structure for the combat fleet.

I want the Systems Program Office, the Group that manages the ship, as well as the contracted services to work
together on site.
Second Line of Defense

Page 21