Leadership Insight: Major General WIlliam N. McCasland

Space Acquisition Leader:
Directing the Development and Purchasing
on Space and Missile Programs



Major General William N. McCasland
Director, Space Acquisition
Office of the Undersecretary of the Air Force

Major General William N. McCasland is Director, Space Acquisition, Office of the Under Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, D.C. He directs development and purchasing on space and missile programs to Air Force major commands, product centers and laboratories dealing with acquisition programs. His responsibilities include crafting program strategies and options for representing Air Force positions to Headquarters U.S. Air Force, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Congress and the White House. General McCasland was commissioned in 1979 after graduating from the U.S. Air Force Academy with a Bachelor of Science in astronautical engineering. He also holds a Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy in the same discipline from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He has served in a wide variety of space research, acquisition and operations roles within the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office. He served as vice commander of the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and commanded the Phillips site of Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland AFB, N.M. Prior to his current assignment, he was the vice commander, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, Calif.

Q: Thank you for taking time to update MSMF readers about your programs and leading issues. Briefly explain your office’s mission and tell us the Air Force headquarters staff official to whom you directly report.

A: SAF/USA is a directorate within the Air Force Secretariat charged with oversight for the Air Force’s acquisition of space systems. We assure the delivery of world-class technology as part of integrated space systems and services for the widest spectrum of Joint warfighters. SAF/USA directly reports to the under secretary of the Air Force.

Q: What’s the outlook through the budget out-years for the service’s missile and unclassified space acquisition programs?

A: Space funding across the Future Years Defense Program [FYDP] remains relatively steady averaging between $10 billion and $11 billion per year. This level of funding is necessary to assure mission continuity and modernization in several key space capabilities such as strategic communications; missile warning; launch; and positioning, navigation and timing [through the Global Positioning System], while pursuing increased space protection.

Additionally, beginning with the Wideband Global SATCOM [WGS] launch in October 2007, we are postured to deliver five “first of’” satellites over the next few years. In addition to WGS, these include Advanced Extremely High Frequency [AEHF]; Space Based Space Surveillance [SBSS]; Global Positioning System [GPS] IIF; and Space Based Infrared System [SBIRS] geosynchronous earth orbit [GEO] satellites.

Q: What are Air Force’s three top unclassified space and missile investment programs, in dollar value, through the budget out-years?

A: The three largest programs in the SAF/USA portfolio are Transformational Satellite Communications System [TSAT], GPS and Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle [EELV] with FYDP funding [$9.2 billion, $8.6 billion and $8.3 billion, respectively]. Q: In the recent past, DoD space programs have been thrust into the negative spotlight for many reasons. Describe the Air Force’s efforts to ensure space systems are delivered on-cost and on-time?

A: We call our approach “Back-to-Basics,” reinforcing commitment to a few time-honored principals including clear and achievable requirements; disciplined systems engineering; effective management [planning]; and resources consistent with the work to be accomplished.

Through disciplined systems engineering and effective management approaches, we are developing and planning strategies for space acquisition. Ensuring future space systems are delivered within promised cost and schedule requires a sharp focus on affordable and executable acquisition strategies, cost estimates substantiated in detail, stable requirements and funding, and sound systems engineering practices. Implementing policies that ensure continuity of program leadership, coupled with thorough upfront program planning, underpin creation of a balance between cost, schedule and performance that can be sustained throughout a program’s life cycle.

Q: Discuss the balance among procurement, operations and maintenance [O&M], and research, development, test and evaluation [RDT&E] accounts for your service’s space and missile programs.

A: The preponderance of the costs for modern military space systems accrues in technology/systems development, not sustainment [O&M]. We will typically program RDT&E funds for the first two spacecraft in a block and procurement funds for subsequent production. With the obvious exception of our satellite ground support architecture and missile programs, we usually don’t have an opportunity to perform maintenance on our space systems once they are operational. As a consequence, a certain minimum acquisition investment flow is necessary to replace spacecraft and to sustain critical military capabilities. The separation between acquisition and sustainment decisionmaking and programming is less sharp than other major weapons systems.

Q: Describe the Air Force acquisition community’s ability to lead and manage space acquisition processes.

A: At the macro level, our people and our Air Force institutions are our greatest asset in the leadership and management of these amazingly complex developments. The Air Force has [and grows] a highly-trained pool of acquisition professionals whose daily focus are these critical programs. At the implementation level, several key features of National Security Space [NSS] Acquisition Policy 03-01 provide the best matched organization, processes and decision-making structures for Space Acquisitions to succeed. Key Decision Points [KDPs] follow each major program design review and are scheduled approximately every one to two years. For example, the Transformational Satellite Communications Systems program, which is approaching KDP-B, successfully completed its system design review [SDR] in April 2007. The purpose of SDR is to validate that a mature technical baseline and preliminary design approach have been established prior to the program advancing to Phase B. The NSS 03-01 acquisition process also mandates an independent program assessment [IPA] and an independent cost assessment/ estimate prior to each KDP. The information provided by these reviews enables the Milestone Decision Authority [MDA] to assess all aspects of a program’s readiness to proceed forward including technical maturity and affordability and creates a framework of checks and balances for decision-making. The component-level technology for space systems must be mature, and we require a technology readiness level of six or higher for all system critical technologies prior to KDP-B. This standard is consistent with the back-to-basics philosophy and implements the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, which mandated the MDA certify that technologies be demonstrated “in a relevant environment” by KDP-B. Furthermore, the use of an incremental delivery strategy or “block approach” simultaneously investing in a robust S&T program to support later blocks or alternatives while apportioning risk more appropriately across a program’s acquisition life cycle and establishing a foundation for a successful acquisition.

Q: How does your service integrate the innovation that is alive and well in small U.S. businesses into the space and missile acquisition process?

A: In 2000, Congress reauthorized the Small Business Innovation Research program to stimulate research and development activity among small businesses and provide the government with solutions to technical and scientific problems. The Air Force funds early-stage research and development projects at small technology companies. Several of these projects are space-based or related technologies. Opportunities for these companies to participate in this program run from core, enabling technologies [such as solar panel development] to communications packages and even payload components on operational vehicles. These innovations are vital to successful development of Air Force space systems.

Q: Describe opportunities for international partnership within U.S. space acquisition.

A: Working with international partners during the acquisition phase of our space programs is a high-leverage way to enhance interoperability during combined operations. Allied partners have been key contributors on various space missions including missile warning cooperation and military satellite communications. For years, the United States and the United Kingdom have shared capacity on the U.K. SKYNET and the U.S. Defense Satellite Communications System [DSCS] programs. In 2007, we reached an agreement with Australia to procure and deploy a sixth WGS satellite, which will greatly benefit warfighters with increased high-bandwidth global communications. Additionally, we are participating with the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands on development and fielding of the AEHF protected communication system.

In the mission area of positioning, navigation and timing, GPS continues to be recognized as the world standard. To foster further collaboration on this essential capability, we have integrated officers from Australia, Canada, Germany and France into the GPS Program Office. Interoperability and coalition warfighter support remain top priorities in the areas of GPS equipment and Concept of Operations [CONOPS] development.

Regarding space situational awareness, we have longstanding relationships with several of our key allies and are building the foundations with other partners to cooperate and integrate resources in this expanding mission area.

Looking forward, we welcome continued engagement with our current partners and, guided by U.S. policy, are encouraged by the potential for new partnerships in support of U.S. security needs.

Q: What future challenges will the Air Force space acquisition community face?

A: Our most immediate and pressing challenge is success in and support to the war on terrorism, and, to date, I think our space systems and our people have supported our combat forces with continuity of existing mission capabilities and new capabilities to enhance warfighting success. Today’s space systems provide an unparalleled and asymmetric advantage to joint forces. The Air Force has a track record of operational success with 58 straight successful National Security Space launches and the healthiest missile warning, navigation and communications constellations in recent memory. Recent successes include the successful launch and transition to operations of the 29th and 30th GPS satellites and the new Wideband Global SATCOM [WGS] SV-1 satellite, which will provide more bandwidth capacity than the entire legacy Defense Satellite Communications System constellation.

Our primary acquisition challenge is the need to maintain credibility in the execution of space acquisition programs— delivering on what we promise when we promise it for what we promised it to cost. This is a continuing challenge for both the government and industry team. We are making good progress applying the back-to-basics approach, but we must remain vigilant. A second challenge is our need to support the health of our space industrial base—to include assuring access to space: “Do we have the necessary industrial base capabilities to execute the space programs we want?” and “Is the systems engineering expertise available?” We have a Space Industrial Base forum established to identify policies and processes that can shape the space industrial base to deliver future capabilities.

A third challenge is offering affordable, executable solutions responsive to rapidly growing joint requirements. We are working to start the Transformational Satellite Communications System program while continuing to upgrade GPS and maintain our other constellations. It’s a mark of success that space capabilities are in such demand, but it’s a daunting program management challenge to deliver solutions for what the department can afford.

As I commented earlier, a continuing special leadership challenge is developing the skills and experience of our space acquisition work force. Space is a particularly unforgiving environment and operating there only allows one time to get it right. We stress for our work force critical technical thinking skills, business processes, an expert’s understanding of the space industry and technology, and a commitment to mission success. In the end, that’s what they pay us for!