An Optimization Approach to Balancing Risk and Cost in Combatant Command Capability Advocacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37266/ISER.2016v4i1.pp12-21Abstract
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
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
The copyediting stage is intended to improve the flow, clarity, grammar, wording, and formatting of the article. It represents the last chance for the author to make any substantial changes to the text because the next stage is restricted to typos and formatting corrections. The file to be copyedited is in Word or .rtf format and therefore can easily be edited as a word processing document. The set of instructions displayed here proposes two approaches to copyediting. One is based on Microsoft Word's Track Changes feature and requires that the copy editor, editor, and author have access to this program. A second system, which is software independent, has been borrowed, with permission, from the Harvard Educational Review. The journal editor is in a position to modify these instructions, so suggestions can be made to improve the process for this journal.
