Budget - Cloudfront.net

Transcription

Maximizing U.S. Army's Future
Contribution to Global Security using the Capability
Portfolio Analysis Tool (CPAT)
Edelman Competition Presentation
Overall Classification of the brief is: UNCLASSIFIED
DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public
release: distribution unlimited.
13-Apr-15
ARMY MISSION STATEMENT
The primary mission of the Army is to fight and
win our Nation's wars by providing prompt,
sustained land dominance across the full range of
military operations and spectrum of conflict in
support of combatant commanders.
Army Acquisition
We Design…
Build…
Sustain…
The World’s Best Ground Combat Systems
Motivation
Importance of making informed choices in Army acquisition
Ensure Security and Protection of US Soldiers
Ensure systems delivered in a timely fashion
Allocating billions of taxpayer dollars
Project Impacts
CPAT Impacts
Plans saving $5 Billion and 30% greater performance improvement per dollar spent
Provided accelerated capability via affordable and timely modernization plans
Cultural Impacts
Focused long-range analyses
Portable capability to other PEOs
Derivative analytical processes and capabilities
Project Context
Combat Vehicle Modernization
PEO GCS PORTFOLIO
~22,300 Combat Vehicles
~$2-4B Annual Budget
Protect research investment in breakthrough capabilities
(Future IFV, APS, Armor, Cannons, Light weighting)
Invest in next generation of capabilities
(AMPV to replace M113, PIM to replace M109A6)
Incremental upgrades to aging platforms
(Abrams, Bradley, and Stryker)
Enable near-term readiness
(Armored Knight, ASV, limited M113s)
Reduce Operation & Support cost
PEO Role
Bring together
diverse
arrayarray
of stakeholders
with
different
• Bring a
together
a diverse
of stakeholders with
different
priorities priorities
• Need for analytically defensible solutions
CPAT Conception
Motivation
• Previous Army investment analyses did
not effectively consider capability
performance and oversimplified budget
impacts
Theory
• Transform current ground combat
systems material development thinking
and processes
Focus
• Provide a framework that was required
to support strategic acquisition
decisions
Project Methodology
Structure Problem
Documentation Review
Data Gathering
Cost Data & Analysis
Optimization
Optimization
Modeling
COA Analysis
Capability Improvement
Program Availability
Budget Implications
System Characterization
Performance Data
Recommended COA
Project Methodology
Structure Problem
Data Gathering
Optimization
Optimization
Modeling
COA Analysis
Budget Implications
Performance Data
Recommended COA
Project Methodology
Structure Problem
Data Gathering
Optimization
Optimization
Modeling
COA Analysis
Budget Implications
Performance Data
Recommended COA
Project Methodology
Structure Problem
Data Gathering
COA Analysis
Optimization
Optimization
Modeling
Budget Implications
Performance Data
Abrams M1A1 SA
Main Battle Tank Abrams M1A2 SEP V2
Abrams ECP I
Bradley IFV A2 ODS-SA
Bradley IFV M2A3
Infantry Fighting VBradley IFV ECP I
Bradley IFV ECP II
Bradley IFV ECP III
Bradley A2
Cavalry
Bradley A3
Fire Support
Bradley ECP I
Engineering
Bradley ECP II
Support
Bradley ECP III
M113
(6 mission roles)
AMPV
M109A6 + FAASV
SPH
PIM + CAT
Stryker 8 SQ
SBCT-8
Stryker 8 ECP + IVN
4
13
4
13
4
13
4
13
4
13
4
13
4
13
4
13
4
13
4
13
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
9
2
4
2
7
4
4
2
5
6
4
2
3
8
4
2
1
10
4
1
9
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
6
4
9
1
12
13
13
13
13
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
11
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
25
25
25
24
1
6
23
2
6
22
3
6
20
5
6
13
12
5
1
5
20
5
1
6
6
6
FY35
FY34
FY33
FY32
FY31
FY30
FY29
FY28
FY27
FY26
FY25
FY24
FY23
FY22
FY21
FY20
FY19
FY18
FY17
FY16
FY15
System
FY14
Recommended COA
Mission
4
11
2
4
1
4
9
4
4
4
7
6
4
4
5
8
4
4
3
10
4
4
1
12
3
3
1
14
3
16
3
17
1
17
17
17
12
13
13
11
2
4
9
4
2
8
6
2
6
8
2
4
10
2
2
14
2
1
16
17
17
10
3
9
6
6
9
3
12
13
4
9
8
5
12
1
16
25
4
2
25
3
3
25
2
4
25
1
5
15
15
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Input Data
• Cost: Program Level Assessments
– Research and Development
– Procurement
– Operations & Sustainment
• Schedule:
– Program availability
– Production constraints
– Replacement planning
• Budget:
– Near and Far term budget projections
• Performance: Multi-Objective Decision Analysis
– Measures: Requirement Documents
– Value Functions: USER Community & Science
and Tech Experts
– Prioritization of Measures: USER Community
– Quantitative System Level Analysis
Input Data
– Procurement
• Schedule:
• Budget:
and Tech Experts
Input Data
– Procurement
• Schedule:
• Budget:
and Tech Experts
Input Data
– Procurement
• Schedule:
• Budget:
and Tech Experts
Input Data
– Procurement
• Schedule:
• Budget:
and Tech Experts
Sandia National Laboratories
Performance
Modeling Approach
Performance of the fleet is the sum
across all mission roles
The
optimization
a modernization
Multiple
possiblechooses
modernization
paths exist
path
foraeach
within
givenmission
missionrole
rolein each brigade
Value model aggregates performance for a
system type within a mission role, across
multiple requirements areas
The optimization objective
is to maximize this area
Time
As brigades of old systems are
phased out and replaced by new
systems, performance increases
Modeling Approach
• More than 40 unique business rules
governing the PEO GCS portfolio were
captured and formulated
•
– 70,000 constraints
– 8,000 integer variables
– 2,000 binary variables
– 2,000 continuous variables
• Model complexity runtime impacts
were mitigated via rigorous testing,
innovative modeling constructs,
variable / constraint reformulations,
and extensive tuning
Formulation
Primary objective is to increase performance
Fleet Performance
Formulation
… but a single performance optimization is not sufficient.
CPAT is used both to determine optimal schedules, and to assess existing/proposed
plans. Such plans can be encoded in constraints (e.g., retire all M113s by 2025)
Tier 1
Schedule Violations
Budget Violations
Fleet Performance
Fleet Cost
The first two phases check whether these constraints are (1) feasible and (2)
affordable within budget; the last phase removes any cost inefficiencies.
Each phase solves over the same variables and is subjected to the same constraints.
The optima from previous phases become additional constraints upon later phases.
Formulation
TierBudget
1 &
Leftover
Production
Budget Violations
Some proposals
may
requireCapacity
that some missions never
Schedule Violations
Fleet Performance
modernize at the expense of higher-priority missions.
Fleet Cost
Tier 2
Assessing these courses of action requires priority tiers.
Schedule Violations
Budget Violations
Fleet Performance
Fleet Cost
Leftover Budget &
the remaining
budget
and
Production
Capacity
Each tier modernizes with
production capacity from the previous tier(s)
Arbitrarily many tiers can be defined
Software
OPL/CPLEX
Optimization
Input/
control
Results
GUI acts as front end
for database where
input &
CPAT GUI
results
stored
CPATS GUI
Database
Database
Database
Database
Key Results
4
13
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
11
4
2
9
2
4
2
7
4
4
2
5
6
4
2
3
8
4
2
1
10
9
8
O&S
FY35
FY34
FY33
FY32
FY31
FY30
FY29
FY28
FY27
FY26
11
2
4
1
14
3
16
3
17
1
17
17
17
4
2
6
2
6
8
2
4
10
2
2
14
2
1
16
17
17
10
3
9
6
6
9
3
12
15
15
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
6
4
9
1
12
13
13
13
13
13
4
9
8
5
12
1
16
25
4
2
25
3
3
25
2
4
25
1
5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
9
1
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
17
17
17
17
17
17
25
25
25
6
6
6
24
1
6
23
2
6
22
3
6
20
5
6
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
5
20
5
1
1
8
3
6
3
3
13
12
5
1
3
6
5
4
1
2
7
Procurement
2
9
9
9
8
1
3
3
3
2
1
5
4
6
3
1
2
FY24
FY23
15
20
% Reduction in FY15-FY18 budget
25
30
35
FY35
17
FY32
17
FY22
FY25
13
3
4
1
9
3
17
10
13
4
1
12
3
FY31
4
2
11
12
4
3
10
4
FY30
4
2
11
4
5
8
4
FY29
4
2
11
4
7
6
4
FY28
4
2
11
4
9
4
4
FY27
4
2
11
4
11
2
4
1
FY34
4
13
FY33
4
13
FY26
4
13
FY25
4
13
FY24
FY23
FY22
FY21
FY20
FY19
4
13
FY19
FY17
FY16
FY18
4
13
$0.0
FY15
FY17
4
13
5
FY14
FY16
4
13
FY21
0
Acquisition Budget
4
13
FY20
Cost
Fleet(Billions)
Performance
Abrams M1A1 SA
Main Battle Tank Abrams M1A2 SEP V2
Abrams ECP I
$3.0 Bradley IFV A2 ODS-SA
Bradley IFV M2A3
Infantry
Bradley IFV ECP I
Bradley IFV ECP II
$2.5 Bradley IFV ECP III
Bradley A2
Cavalry
Bradley A3
Fire Support
Bradley ECP I
Engineering$2.0 Bradley ECP II
Bradley ECP III
M113
(6 mission roles)
AMPV
M109A6 + FAASV
$1.5
SPH
PIM + CAT
Stryker 8 SQ
SBCT-8
Stryker 8 ECP + IVN
$1.0 NBCRV SQ
SBCT-NBCRV
NBCRV DVH ECP + IVN
MGSRDT&E
SQ
SBCT-MGS
MGS DVH ECP + IVN
Stryker DVH SQ
SBCT-DVH$0.5
Stryker DVH ECP + IVN
FY15
$3.5
System
FY18
Mission
FY14
$4.0
Analysis Insights
Initial Fleet
Army Plan
Optimal
25% Cut (Army) 25% Cut (Opt.)
Key Impacts
Insight/Recommendation
Prioritize Stryker modernization
Prioritize/accelerate AMPV modernization
Commit to timely interim modernization such as Bradley ECP II
If FY15-FY18 budgets cut more than 20%, discontinue GCV
•
•
$5 billion cost avoidance
30% greater performance improvement per dollar
Implemented
Cultural Impacts
• Direct Impacts
– Informed the Combat Vehicle Modernization
Strategy for the Army
– Unified the Army’s stakeholders
– Provide PEO GCS with the analytical
underpinnings to support key initiatives
• Indirect Impacts
– The Army has adopted a 30 year Long Range
Investment Requirements Analysis (LIRA)
process that leverages CPATs outputs
OR Legacy
In response to CPAT demonstrations, the Honorable Heidi Shyu (Army Acquisition
Executive) directed all of her portfolios to develop 30 year modernization strategies
CPAT’s methodology was leveraged to develop a component level trade analysis
optimization model − the Whole System Trades Analysis Tool (WSTAT)
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements / Q&A
Study Sponsor: Mr. Scott Davis
•
PEO GCS
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
BG David Bassett
Shatiel Edwards
Brett Haas
Clifton Wells
Mike DiNunzio
Gerald Teper
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Sandia National Labs
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Craig Lawton
Matt Hoffman
Stephen Henry
Frank Muldoon
Liliana Shelton
Darryl Melander
Gio Kao
Amanda Wachtel
Jess Kerper
Roy E. Rice
(Teledyne Brown
Engineering)
Army Materiel Systems
Analysis Activity
•
Mike McCarthy
Scott Johnson
Alan Dinsmore
Dominic Chan
Marcus Mazza
Greg Dogum
Christina Shapiro
Suzanne Singleton
Booz Allen Hamilton
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Dave Young
Brian Alford
Emily McCathran
Jason Waller
Brandon Trevino
Brad Monhaut
Mike Coville
Ernie Boehner
Daniel Brassard
Julia Vollmers
Contributing Agencies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maneuver Center of Excellence
Fires Center of Excellence
Army Medical Department
Combined Arms Support
Command
Tank Automotive Research
Development and Engineering
Center
Program Offices within PEO GCS

Budget - Cloudfront.net

Transcription

Similar documents

Ultraschall - Eine Einführung