FCS and PfM

A quick geeky post about portfolio management [1] thinking. I guess this is my version of a casual Friday?

Last night on CNN’s Situation Room (transcript), we get this summary of the Future Combat System’s (FCS) non-line-of-sight cannon (NLOS-C):

I get it that this is the best damn howitzer money can buy. But $10 million, is it worth it when look at all the other things you have to buy?

In other words, given the cost constrains we face, is this the best way to spend your limited resources. Mathematically, it’s equivalent to the knapsack problem (a more light-hearted explaination). Strategically, it’s about aligning your resources with your ends. In both cases, the tricky part is defining your ends (in a decision analysis framework to support PfM, this equates to the challenge of defining your objective function).

MG Charlie Cartwright replies:

Well I guess I would ask you when I only put two soldiers in harm’s way and double survivability versus five soldiers in harm’s way, that’s a pretty good option for the American public.

In operations research speak, he means that we ought to include the percent of soldiers placed at risk in the analysis’ measure of effectiveness (MoE).

Jamie McIntyre:

But the question is, are this better, cheaper technologies to hit over-the-horizon targets than a 27-ton tracked vehicle the size of a tank? Why not more unmanned attack planes. They put no one at risk and are several million dollars cheaper.

Given the above framework, UAVs would seem to dominate NLOS-C. But now we get an additional criteria for the objective function:

MG Cartwright:

What [NLOS-C] gives them is the organic piece to that squad and platoon that’s down there in the fight.

So now organic fires are part of the objective function. Of course, this flies in face of the capabilities-based assessment philosophy that values solution-agnostic acquisitions. If one wanted to keep playing the game, he would ask what other solutions organic to the squad or platoon can deliver non-line-of-sight precision strikes.

[1] Portfolio managment (PfM) was one of those fads that hit DoD during Rumsfeld’s tenure. The movement created a string of directives, most prominently DoD 8115.01.

More SECDEF Discussions

LA Times: McCain and Obama camps are open to Gates.

Could just be the campaigns looking to draft behind Gates’ popularity. But when one combines the possibity of an extended term with Gates’ track record on accountability, this starts to get really interesting.

Yes, yes, I know that the cynics say this changes nothing. But possibilities abound, especially when we consider how this momentum could be used to influence the selection of the successor to Gates.