IAMD 2020 Article 3: Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Challenges
(This is the final in a series of three articles on shifts shaping Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) in 2020, a significant area of opportunity and growth. Rapid threat development in 2019, including advances in mid-sized Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) by Iranian proxies demonstrated during the 14 September Saudi Aramco attack, is driving significant investment in IAMD and command and control (C2) architectures around the world. This three-part series addresses IAMD growth, partner requirements, and opportunities.)
The 14 September coordinated attack by over 19 air vehicles against Aramco’s Abqaiq oil processing facility temporarily destroyed 5% of the world’s oil production and drove immediate changes in regional political dynamics. Defense against the types of mid-sized Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) used in the attack and other advanced air and missile threats demands that partners adopt a comprehensive approach that includes layered active defense, passive defensive measures to complicate enemy targeting and increase resilience, effective C2 based on a common operating picture, attack operations against enemy IAMD threats. To meet our partner requirements for these advanced IAMD capabilities that are interoperable with U.S. systems and U.S.-led coalitions, partners will depend on U.S. defense industry through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). This article describes the challenges that integration, case complexity, and limited work force pose to partner acquisition of IAMD capabilities through U.S. FMS.
Challenge 1: Integration. The first and biggest challenge to implementing IAMD cases through FMS is the technical integration of active defense and Command and Control (C2) systems. Around the world, partners have built their existing IAMD architectures through long-term acquisition of surveillance systems like long-range radars, and active defense capabilities like Patriot. However, they’ve integrated these systems into C2 architectures that operate on separate networks, under different data and network-security standards, and without fully integrating them into a common display or “Common Operating Picture” (COP) among their own forces. To provide effective defense, national and regional IAMD systems must be linked together to in a common network and under common data architecture to provide a COP and improve C2 of regional forces forces. Requirements for this integration are described in IAMD 2020 Article 2.
To fully integrate active defenses and C2, “integration” needs to be specifically designed as a requirement into U.S. FMS cases. This means discussing integration outcomes with the partner during Letter of Request (LOR) development and pre-LOR activities, and specifying integration outcomes in the FMS Letter of Agreement. Adding “integration” as a driving factor into FMS case design will focus implementation agency attention on the elements of networks, data, COP, and C2 needed to achieve integrated outcomes. Implementing agencies are the U.S. military departments or defense agencies that deliver the materials or services as specified in signed FMS Letters of Agreement (LOAs). Implementing agencies for IAMD cases include Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force for International Affairs (SAF/IA), Navy International Programs Office (IPO), U.S. Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC), Missile Defense Agency (MDA), and the National Security Agency (NSA). These implementation agencies need to work closely together, share understanding, and collaborate to break barriers to deliver IAMD capabilities.
“Integration” also needs to be designed into the inter-agency and implementation agency oversight of the FMS cases to provide integrated outcomes. While each implementing agency can leverage specialist skills in niche areas, few implementing agencies have the skills and experience needed to oversee implementation of broad and complex IAMD cases. To leverage all the skills needed to bring together IAMD networks, data, systems, and C2, IAMD FMS cases need effective inter-agency coordination mechanisms. Examples of effective coordination mechanisms include the Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s (DSCA) inter-agency IAMD Working Group, or specific DSCA-designated IAMD inter-agency committees with a designated lead implementation agency. These inter-agency coordination bodies can identify and resolve problems early, share understanding of the issues, quickly access senior leaders for issue resolution, and speed overall implementation of FMS cases for the capabilities partners need.
Additionally, during FMS case development, implementing agencies should be selected with the skills and experience needed to provide integrated outcomes. When selecting an implementing agency, the agency’s experience in integrating systems and C2, rather than which service owns current C2 work within the country, should be the driving factor for selection. Together, the inter-agency coordination mechanism and selection of the implementing agency will be primary determinants of IAMD case timelines and outcomes, and need to be carefully considered as during case design.
Finally, data-design must be built into FMS cases to provide the national and regional “integration” our partners need. Effective IAMD depends on effective data sharing between systems and partners, and we need to build our allies and partners into our future network and data structure. While partners can be integrated via “built-in” or “bolted-on” data infrastructures, the high levels of data exchange needed for advanced AI tools will be limited in “bolt-on” structures. To fully leverage available data needed for defense, we need to build allies and partners into our future JADC2 network and data infrastructure from the outset to maximize interoperability. Rapid IAMD developments in the Middle East and Europe offer significant opportunities to define the future network and data architectures that integrate allies and partners with the highest level of interoperability.
Challenge 2: Case complexity. Case complexity slows case development and case implementation, and investing time in pre-LOR activities to clearly define IAMD problems and limit case complexity will speed deliveries and strengthen outcomes. Factors such as hybrid cases which mix capabilities delivered by Direct Commercial Sale (DCS) and FMS within cases, requirements to develop new technologies and systems, complex offset requirements for in-country production, and shared-funding mechanisms that pool resources between multiple countries all increase case complexity. Reducing these factors and reducing case complexity will speed case development and delivery of the IAMD capabilities our partners need.
Challenge 3: Limited workforce. Both within the military and in the commercial sector, there are a limited number of workers with the technical skills and operational experience needed to connect systems and integrate air and missile defenses. Meanwhile, military organizations and contractors compete for the same limited talent when attempting to implement complex cases. Essential skills include Joint Interface Control Officers (JICO) who can bring together multiple tactical data links in a common interface, IAMD defense-design skills, radar expertise, data science, and operational experience in air defense and air intercept. Similarly, there are few generalists with solid understandings of IAMD specialties that can effectively integrate overall FMS cases. Deliberate cultivation and management of expert and generalist IAMD skills will be important to deliver successful IAMD FMS case outcomes our partners need.
U.S. FMS and DCS cases will be essential to delivering and integrating the capable IAMD systems and C2 that our partners need for their defense. Delivering capable systems that are interoperable with U.S. systems and U.S.-led coalitions strengthens regional security, reduces demand for deploying U.S. forces, and increases force protection for U.S. forces called to the region. Taken together in a comprehensive approach, partner investments in IAMD active defense systems, passive defensive measures, C2, and attack operations in 2020 will provide the best protection of partner critical assets against attack, and provide the best conditions for security and prosperity in their regions.
(This was the final in a series of three articles on shifts shaping Integrated Air and Missile Defense.)
