An Optimization Approach to Balancing Risk and Cost in Combatant Command Capability Advocacy

Authors

  • Savanna Whitaker United States Air Force Academy
  • Benjamin Goirigolzarri United States Air Force Academy
  • Summer Getty United States Air Force Academy
  • Jesse Pietz United States Air Force Academy
  • Joseph Wilck United States Air Force Academy
  • Kiel Martin United States Air Force Academy
  • Frank Mindrup United States Air Force Academy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37266/ISER.2016v4i1.pp12-21

Abstract

Unified Combatant Commands (UCCs) have broad continuing missions around the globe where they are tasked to provide functional expertise and defense of geographical areas.  Accomplishing these missions requires a robust portfolio of military capabilities (e.g., aircraft, spacecraft, command and control systems, radar systems).  UCCs routinely perform analyses to identify gaps between capabilities required to accomplish their mission and those currently at their disposal.  Each year they submit a prioritized list of required capabilities, including new systems and greater capacity with existing systems, to the Joint Staff in the costly and time-consuming Integrated Priority List (IPL) process.  This process relies on operational art and subject matter expertise, and sometimes fails to identify acquisition opportunities that achieve an optimal balance between risk and cost.  Because this IPL process affects all of the DOD’s personnel, material, systems and missions, it is arguably the most significant analytic challenge faced by the United States military.  This article presents an integer linear programming model that computes an optimal balance between operational risk and the cost of acquiring new capabilities, and allows decision makers to identify the real-world impact of their budgetary decisions.  We apply this model to the mission of providing aerospace defense of the United States and illustrate through sensitivity analysis the meaningful insights that can be gained by studying the relationship between the risk of not achieving 100 percent radar coverage and the opportunity cost of advocating for new capabilities.

References

Aftergood, S. (2000). ARSR-4 Air Route Surveillance Radar. Retrieved June 7, 2016 from http://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/arsr-4.htm

Bates, A., Bell, Z., Moutford, A., & Evangelista, P. (2015). Military Resource Allocation as a Set Covering Problem. Industrial and Systems Engineering Review, 2015; 3(1): 1-6.

Beaujon, G. J., Marin, S. P., & McDonald, G. C. (2001). Balancing and optimizing a portfolio of R&D projects. Naval Research Logistics, 2001; 48(1): 18-40.

Bertsekas, D. P., Homer, M. L., Logan, D. A., Patek, S. D., & Sandell, N. R. (2000). Missile defense and interceptor allocation by neuro-dynamic programming. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 2000; 30(1): 42-51.

Brown, G., Carlyle, M., Diehl, D., Kline, J., & Wood, K. (2005). A two-sided optimization for theater ballistic missile defense. Operations research, 2005; 53(5): 745-763.

Burk, R. C., & Parnell, G. S. (2011). Portfolio decision analysis: Lessons from military applications. In Portfolio Decision

Analysis (pp. 333-357). Springer New York.

Davis, P. K., Shaver, R. D., & Beck, J. (2008). Portfolio-analysis methods for assessing capability options (Vol. 655). Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation.

Diehl, D. D. (2004). How to optimize joint theater ballistic missile defense. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

Dou, Y., Zhang, P., Jiang, J., Yang, K., & Chen, Y. (2014). Comparisons of Hybrid Multi-Objective Programming Algorithms with Grey Target and PCA for Weapon System Portfolio Selection. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, 2014; 8(3): 1389-1399.

Greiner, M. A., Fowler, J. W., Shunk, D. L., Carlyle, W. M., & McNutt, R. T. (2003). A hybrid approach using the analytic hierarchy process and integer programming to screen weapon systems projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2003; 50(2): 192-203.

Holmes, K. R., Carafano, J. J., Brookes, P., & Spring, B. (2009). What Americans Need to Know About Missile Defense: We're Not There Yet. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/what-americans-need-to-know-about-missile-defense-were-not-there-yet

Kolakowski, W. (2004). Is the Requirements Generating System Getting the Needed Resources to the Combatant Commanders?. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA.

Lemay Center for Doctrine (2014). Dynamic Targeting and the Tasking Process. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from https://doctrine.af.mil/download.jsp?filename=3-60-D17-Target-Dynamic-Task.pdf

Lu, H., Zhang, H., Zhang, X., & Han, R. (2006). An improved genetic algorithm for target assignment, optimization of naval fleet air defense. In Intelligent Control and Automation, 2006. WCICA 2006. The Sixth World Congress on (Vol. 1, pp. 3401-3405). IEEE.

Military Periscope (2015). Weapons/Systems/Platforms. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from https://www.militaryperiscope.com/weapons_index.html

Salo, A., Keisler, J., & Morton, A. (Eds.). (2011). Portfolio decision analysis: improved methods for resource allocation (Vol. 162). Springer Science & Business Media.

Staff, J. (2013). Joint Publication 1. Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States.

U.S. Department of Defense (2015). About the Department of Defense. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from http://www.defense.gov/About-DoD

U.S. Department of Defense (2015). Missile Defense Agency. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from http://www.mda.mil/system/system.html

U.S. Government Accountability Office (2011). Defense Management: Perspectives on the Involvement of the Combatant Commands in the Development of Joint Requirements. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from

http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/97501.pdf

U.S. Northern Command (2015) About USNORTHCOM. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from http://www.northcom.mil/AboutUSNORTHCOM.aspx

Wilkening, D. A. (1999). Science & Global Security. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs08wilkening.pdf

Xing, Q. H., & Liu, F. X. (2006). Modeling on area air defense optimization deployment system. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2006; 28(5): 712-715.

Published

2016-07-15

How to Cite

Whitaker, S., Goirigolzarri, B., Getty, S., Pietz, J., Wilck, J., Martin, K., & Mindrup, F. (2016). An Optimization Approach to Balancing Risk and Cost in Combatant Command Capability Advocacy. Industrial and Systems Engineering Review, 4(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.37266/ISER.2016v4i1.pp12-21