NI10-37

"Series Number"

21 March 1996

"Series Title"

Operations

BY ORDER OF CINCNORAD
NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND

"Long Title - Type In All Capital Letters"

NORAD PLANNING AND REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM

(NPRS)

This instruction implements the direction provided in NPD10-36, NORAD Planning and Requirements System (NPRS). It applies to Headquarters North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), all NORAD regions, sectors, and associated units. It also applies to Armed Forces Reserves and the Air National Guard in support of the NORAD mission. The reporting requirements in this directive are exempt from licensing in accordance with paragraph 2.11.10. of AFI37-124, The Information Collections and Reports Management Program; Controlling Internal, Public, and Interagency Air Force Information Collections.

SUMMARY OF REVISIONS
The following revisions are included in this document: Addition of the NORAD Planning and Requirements System (NORAD vision, Ops Concepts); the NORAD Mission Requirements Planning process (NORAD Requirements Review Report, IPL development); Mission Need Statement (MNS) development guidance; NORAD and binational validation procedures; CONOPS development; tracking of MNS and requirements identified by the NORAD MRP process; national acquisition processes; and clarification of responsibilities.

1. References:

1.1. Canadian Forces Publication 125, Defence Program Management System.

1.2. DoD Directive 5000.1, Defense Acquisition.

1.3. DoD Instruction 5000.2, Defense Acquisition Management Policies and Procedures.

1.4. DoD Manual 5000.2-M, Defense Acquisition Management Documentation and Reports.

1.5. JROCSM-88-034, 1 Sep 88, CINC Warfighting Requirements Processing by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

1.6. CJCS MOP 77, 17 Sep 92, Requirements Generation System Policies and Procedures.

1.7. JROCM-061-92, 11 Aug 92, Requirements Validation Authority for Commander, U.S. Element, NORAD.

1.8. JCS MCM-159-92, 16 Nov 92, Procedures for Binational Validation of NORAD Mission Need Statements.

1.9. JCS JROCM-050-92, 16 Nov 92, JROC Administrative Instruction (with revised briefing guide, JROCM-030-93, 30 Apr 93).

1.10. AFPD10-6, 19 Jan 93, Mission Needs and Operational Requirements.

1.11. AFI10-601, 31 May 94, Mission Needs and Operational Requirements Guidance and Procedures.

1.12. AFSPCR27-2, 27 Jan 94, Integration Control Process.

1.13. NUR60-101, 19 Nov 93, The NORAD/USSPACECOM Interoperability and Standardization Guidance Policy.

2. Terms Explained:

2.1. Approval. The formal sanction that the validation process is complete and the need is valid. Approval also certifies that the document has been subject to the uniform process established by DoD Directive 5000.1 concerning U.S. requirements.

2.2.Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA). An evaluation of the cost and benefits (i.e., the operational effectiveness or military utility) of alternative courses of action to meet recognized defense needs.

2.3. DoD Components. OSD, military departments, Joint Staff, unified commands, Commander U.S. Element NORAD (CDRUSELEMNORAD), defense agencies, and DoD field activities.

2.4. Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). A U.S. military council, chaired by the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, that conducts requirements analyses; determines the validity of mission needs; develops recommended joint priorities for those needs it approves; and validates performance objectives and thresholds in support of the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB).

2.5. Lead DoD Component. The U.S. Service or agency that has been formally designated as lead for a joint program by the Milestone Decision Authority. Is responsible for all common documentation, periodic reporting, and funding actions.

2.6. Mission Deficiency. The inability to accomplish an operational or support task required for the achievement of a military objective.

2.7. Mission Need Analysis (MNA). A MNA is a U.S. term that identifies and describes the mission need or deficiency. It defines the need in terms of mission, objectives, and general capabilities. It discusses the Defense Intelligence Agency validated threat to be countered as well as the projected threat environment and the shortfalls of existing capabilities or systems in meeting these threats.

2.8. Mission Need Statement (MNS). When an acquisition program may be required, the MNS describes required operational capabilities and constraints to be studied during the Concept Exploration and Definition Phase. It will be a nonsystem-specific statement of operational capability need, written in broad operational terms. It may seek to establish a new operational capability, to improve existing capability, or to exploit an opportunity to reduce cost or enhance performance. Formerly called Statement of Requirement.

2.9. Miscellaneous Requirement (MR). Category of requirement in the Canadian acquisition process whose project cost is less than $3 million, and for which the Commander of Air Command has been given spending approval authority.

2.10. Need. The identification of a mission deficiency satisfied by a materiel or non-materiel solution. If a materiel solution is envisioned, it is normally documented in a MNS.

2.11. NORAD Responsible Agencies. DoD and Canadian MAJCOMs which provide the equivalent of a standard warfighting CINC's service component functions to HQ NORAD under the current binationally validated NORAD CONPLAN/OPLAN. Agents include Air Command (AIRCOM) HQ, Air Combat Command (HQ ACC), Air Force Space Command (HQ AFSPC), Pacific Air Forces (HQ PACAF), and the National Guard Bureau (NGB).

2.12. Operational Requirements Document (ORD). A U.S. document containing performance (operational effectiveness and suitability) and related operational parameters for the proposed concept or system. Describes overall mission area, the types of systems proposed, and the anticipated operational support concepts in sufficient detail for program and logistics support planning.

2.13. Requirement. An established need that justifies the timely allocation of resources to achieve a capability to accomplish approved military objectives, missions, or tasks.

2.14. Statement of Capability Deficiency (SCD). The lead document in the Canadian Defence Program Management System (DPMS) process. It identifies a present or future deficiency in Canadian Forces capabilities. It is comparable to the U.S. MNS.

2.15. System Threat Assessment Report (STAR). The primary U.S. threat document used in support of the milestone decision review and management of acquisition programs. It describes the threat to be countered as well as the projected threat environment. The threat information is based on Defense Intelligence Agency validated documents.

2.16. User Representative. Unless otherwise directed, HQ NORAD responsible agencies will be CINCNORAD or CDRUSELEMNORAD user representatives. As a user representative, the responsible agency must work closely with HQ NORAD on requirements matters to ensure that CINCNORAD/CDRUSELEMNORAD-sponsored requirements and concepts of operation are properly interpreted and fulfilled by service acquisition agents.

2.17. Validation. The review of documentation by an operational authority other than the user to confirm the need or operational requirement. As a minimum, the operational validation authority reviews the MNS, confirms that a non-material solution is not feasible, assesses the jointservice potential, and forwards a recommendation to the appropriate authority for acquisition initiation. Validation confirms that the mission need exists and cannot be satisfied by a non-material solution.

3. NORAD Planning and Requirements System [NPRS]:

3.1. General. This instruction outlines the NORAD system to address current and future Command requirements. It describes the requirements process (Figure 1) from identification of the need to fielded capability. A complete planning cycle includes development of a NORAD vision and broad operational concept; an assessment of NORAD capabilities that incorporates the NORAD vision and addresses both current and future forces; an assessment report which contains deficiencies and recommendations; preparation of requirements documents; the requirements validation process; and the continued monitoring of acquisition programs resulting in a fielded capability. Finally, this instruction describes the responsibilities and relationships of internal and external agencies involved in the process.

4. NORAD Vision. A forward looking NORAD vision is required in order to focus NORAD goals and objectives, shape future requirements, and establish priorities. This will ensure existing and future aerospace defense, aerospace control, and supporting systems meet the current and projected mission requirements of the Command.

4.1. NORAD Vision Process. To be effective, the vision process must explore alternative futures, and delve into the potential capabilities and concepts emerging in the next 20 year time period. The NORAD vision is based upon the stated and anticipated missions described in the NORAD Agreement and subsequent renewals. It is developed in concert with top level strategic planning processes in both Canada and the U.S. (Defence Policy, Defence Development Planning Guidance, National Military Strategy, DoD Joint Vision, Chairman's Policy Review), and linked to operational concepts defined in these documents. It is focused on future NORAD capabilities, operational concepts and strategic environments. The NORAD vision will be a fully coordinated effort of the NORAD Directors, and the supporting MAJCOMs and force providers. It is approved by CINCNORAD.

4.2. Operational Concepts (Ops Concepts). Operational concepts are derived from the NORAD vision which are likewise linked to the Ops Concepts defined in national strategic planning documents. They provide the framework for the Command's approach to its assigned mission areas from now into the future. As a result, Ops Concepts will likely employ emerging capabilities, and result in a system architecture which is representative of the Command's vision of how it will accomplish its current and anticipated missions within the 20 year planning period. The Ops Concept defines in general what system(s) this new capability must be compatible with, what it will be used for, and what advantages this capability will add to NORAD. Following the NMRP process, the Ops Concept is refined and forwarded for approval with the MNS.

5. Identification of Mission Needs. While NPRS is the overall process which is used to guide NORAD requirements planning, the task and need analysis within NPRS is performed via the NORAD Mission Requirements Planning (NMRP) process. The result of this analysis is the NORAD Requirements Review Report (NRRR), a foundation document which serves as the basis for follow-on action aimed at satisfying identified deficiencies. This review further serves as the basis for development of the NORAD Integrated Priority List (IPL) and other key programming and budgeting documents.

5.1. NORAD Mission Requirements Planning Process (NMRP):

5.1.1. Under the NMRP process, the NORAD staff evaluatesHQ NORAD and NORAD force provider resources to define Command deficiencies and make recommendations which, if implemented, will enhance NORAD operations and warfighting capability. The NMRP process uses a series of working teams and groups to collect, review, consolidate, and initiate all NORAD mission needs. The teams will assess current and programmed systems' capabilities to fulfill identified mission needs in the context of the threat, over a spectrum varying from peacetime to war. They also evaluate HQ NORAD, Region, Sector, and Resource Provider resources to define Command deficiencies, ascertain resource shortfalls, and make recommendations. Systems considered include those available in current (present) year, and programmed (contained within the 6-year Future-Years Defense Program [FYDP] period, or having equivalent funding status within the Canadian Defence Services Program [DSP]) years.

5.1.2. Force Capability Working Teams (FCWT), consisting of subject matter expert OPRs from the appropriate functional areas, assess each of the NORAD force capability areas and produce a report relevant to their assessment of their associated force capability area. A Force Capability Working Group (FCWG), consisting of select O-6s and chaired by NJ5, fuses individual FCWT results. A General Officer Steering Group (GOSG), comprised of NORAD Directors and chaired by DCINCNORAD, provides top level guidance and review. The NMRP Secretariat, NJ5R, is responsible to the FCWG, and supports the NMRP process.

5.1.3. The NMRP is a continuous process that provides NORAD planners an opportunity to exchange NORAD programming information, and better coordinate programming activities. It also allows NORAD to respond to a dynamic threat, budgetary, and technological environment. Through continuous review, the NMRP process serves as a basis for the development of new (or revised) requirements documents.

5.2. NORAD Requirements Review Report (NRRR):

5.2.1. One product of NMRP is the NRRR, which serves as the basis for follow-on action to implement individual recommendations aimed at satisfying identified deficiencies. The NRRR is a synthesis of FCWT reports and FCWG/GOSG inputs, resulting in a comprehensive, bottom-up assessment of NORAD requirements.

5.2.2. Once approved by DCINCNORAD, the NRRR forms the basis for consistent position statements and policy decisions; MNS and IPL development; support of CINCNORAD in preparing for congressional testimony; support of Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) activities; and support of the Canadian Force Development process.

5.3. Integrated Priority List (IPL):

5.3.1. The results of the NMRP are used to help develop the NORAD IPL. It provides a list of CINCNORAD's highest priority requirements, prioritized across Service and functional lines, defining shortfalls in key programs that, in the judgment of the CINC, adversely affect the capability of NORAD assigned forces to accomplish the NORAD mission. The IPL is the principal requirements document supported by the NRRR.

5.3.2. The supporting MAJCOMs and force providers will be asked to review the IPL and provide feedback. Specifically, they will be asked to verify if their planned programs and funding profiles support NORAD's prioritized IPL. Other DoD and national agencies will be asked to support the IPL. This feedback will be used as input to the subsequent NMRP cycle.

5.4. Non-MNS Deficiencies:

5.4.1. Many deficiencies identified in the course of the NMRP process will not result in the production of a Mission Need Statement, either because they are minor in nature from a NORAD perspective, or they involve a non-material resolution. Such deficiencies will continue to be an object of the follow-on effort by the staff, aimed at identifying and pursuing deficiencies which are candidates for corrective action.

5.4.2. These non-MNS deficiencies will often require the recognition and participation of NORAD responsible agencies to arrive at resolution. They may also result in national initiatives in both Canada and the U.S., initiatives which will not be the result of a binationally validated MNS, but which will be reflective of at least a portion of a national requirement which may require national programming action.

6. Mission Need Statements (MNS). Deficiencies and corresponding recommendations identified in the NRRR may create a requirement for new or revised NORAD MNSs as a means of addressing the deficiency.

6.1. MNS Development Criteria:

6.1.1. A MNS must state an operational requirement that supports Canadian and U.S. forces in achievement of the NORAD mission. Often the requirement is identified and generated through the NPRS process.

6.1.2. A MNS can be proposed by responsible agencies, Regional Operations Control Centers (ROCC), Sector Operations Control Centers (SOCC), HQ NORAD directorates, or associated units. The MNS proposal will be submitted to the NORAD Planning Staff for drafting and processing.

6.1.2.1. The MNS processing normally starts with a mission need analysis. This is a review of assigned missions, threats, capabilities, policy, doctrine, and other factors to determine specific tasks.

6.1.2.2. The second step is to conduct a mission analysis. The objective is to evaluate the Command's ability to accomplish the identified tasks/missions using current and programmed future systems/forces.

6.1.3. When operational deficiencies are identified in the course of the NMRP process, a determination is made whether non-materiel alternatives will solve the deficiency. A subsequent recommendation might be technical (equipment), involve changes in policy/doctrine, operational procedures, tactics, organization, training, or a legal agreement. Such potential non-materiel alternatives will be addressed in a specific paragraph of the draft MNS with an explanation of whether or not they are considered adequate to completely satisfy the need. If these can fully meet the deficiency, a MNS is not required and processingwill cease. A MNS will be pursued when the deficiency involves a material solution, often involving acquisition/funding imperatives.

6.1.4. If required, the MNS identifies needs or opportunities to correct deficiencies which result from threat advancements, changes in national policies, expanded missions, or outdated equipment.Opportunities may result from improvements in technology which may make possible increased operational effectiveness, lower operational costs, and/or new abilities to exploit enemy weaknesses.

6.2. MNS Format:

6.2.1. The MNS will be a non-system specific statement of operational capability need. It should not exceed five pages and should identify any supporting documentation. The MNS format is found in DoD Manual 5000.2.

6.3.1. A MNS is not a system-specific statement of operational need, rather a document written in broad operational terms.

6.3.2. The author of the MNS should attempt to establish a clear link between the mission, the mission need, desired objectives, and desired system capabilities. This will provide a logical flow of thought and more clearly describe the need to approval and validation authorities.

6.4. MNS Validation. HQ NORAD/J5R submits CINCNORAD drafts of MNS to the US/Canadian Military Cooperation Committee (MCC) for binational validation. "U.S. only" MNS are submitted by CDRUSELEMNORAD to the JCS/JROC Secretariat for distribution within the relevant acquisition channels.

6.4.1. U.S. Only" MNS Validation. CDRUSELEMNORAD has MNS validation authority for programs not designated as acquisition Category 1. CDRUSELEMNORAD forwards MNSs he elects not to validate, and potential acquisition Category 1 programs, to the JROC for validation. Once validated by the JROC the MNS is assigned a lead service and enters the U.S. acquisition process.

6.4.2. Procedures for Binational Validation of a NORAD MNS. As NORAD is a binational, combined command, mutual approval of NORAD military requirements by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), United States, and the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Canada, is required in accordance with the CINCNORAD Terms of Reference (TOR). The following procedures outline the agreed steps for binational validation of NORAD military requirements as identified in a NORAD MNS (Figure 2).

6.4.2.1. Implications of Binational Validation. Validation of a MNS is a binational agreement that the military requirement is consistent with the CINCNORAD TOR. It does not constitute programmatic validation; nor does binational validation imply commitment of resources by either nation. Research, development, funding, acquisition, fielding of technical solutions and cost/responsibility-sharing negotiation will be pursued through national channels in accordance with national regulations, directives, or procedures. Appropriate international agreements or supplemental arrangements to existing agreements may be entered into, as required, with respect to technical solutions to the binationally validated military requirement. Such agreements and arrangements will be negotiated and concluded in accordance with national policy and regulations.

6.4.2.2. Military Cooperation Committee (MCC). Acts as a clearinghouse for binational validation of NORAD military requirements using a process similar to that used for binational approval of CANUS OPLANs. The MCC forwards the NORAD request for validation to NDHQ/CDS (through Air Command/Chief of Staff Operations [COS OPS]), and the Joint Staff (JROC) for staffing and validation in accordance with national procedures. A 150-day suspense to staff and validate the MNS is effected by MCC.

6.4.2.3. NDHQ/CDS group and the Joint Staff (JS) exchange comments concerning the MNS through the MCC secretaries. If either country does not approve the MNS or has substantive comments, the comments and concerns are sent to HQ NORAD J5 to make the necessary modifications to resolve the concerns. If HQ NORAD staff cannot resolve the concerns, the MCC Secretaries of Canada and the U.S. convene a meeting of key individuals to serve as a mediating body to resolve remaining issues.

6.4.2.4. Once binationally validated, the MCC notifiesCINCNORAD, CDS, and the CJCS. The validated MNS is then forwarded to national operational requirements OPRs for action as required within their respective programming systems.

6.4.2.5. The MCC Secretaries of Canada and the U.S. monitor validated MNS and record their status in the MCC minutes until the operational need has been satisfied or withdrawn. They will take action to ensure that validated MNS receive the appropriate amount of emphasis at the national level until the requirements are resolved.

6.4.3. National OPRs. Once a MNS has received binational validation, each nation's OPR for operational requirements (JROC for the U.S. or Air Command/ Chief of Staff Operations [AIRCOM/COS OPS] for Canada) designates a lead Service in the U.S. and a lead agency in Canada to ensure the transition of the requirement into budgeting, acquisition, and implementation cycles. HQ NORAD/J5R maintains close liaison with the lead agency or Service to monitor the MNS progress through the separate national acquisition channels.

6.4.4. Lead Service or Agency. The lead service or agency will take the following action:

6.4.4.1. Designate a single POC for each MNS. The POC's name and duty telephone number will be furnished to AIRCOM, the Joint Staff, and HQ NORAD/J5R.

6.4.4.2. Take actions to identify and validate potential solutions for CINCNORAD's binationally validated needs. Note: CINCNORAD's TORs and established national or Service procedures apply.

6.4.4.3. When a potential solution is identified, develop the necessary programmatic documents and initiate cost and responsibility-sharing negotiations at the appropriate time during the acquisition process.

6.5. MNS Tracking:

6.5.1. Each calendar quarter, HQ NORAD, Chief of Requirements and Programs Division (NJ5R) publishes a status report of all MNS.

6.5.2. A MNS is retained on the status report until it fails to receive approval/validation, reaches Initial Operational Capability (IOC), or is superseded or withdrawn.

7. Concept of Operations (CONOPS):

7.1. A system solution to the need defined in the MNS must be supported by one or more CONOPS that provides NORAD's approach to the deployment, employment, and operation of the new or upgraded system. NORAD CONOPS drafts should be prepared in accordance with CINCNORAD/Joint Secretary guidance. Since a mission need may be satisfied by a system or multiple systems, each independent solution may be addressed with a CONOPS as appropriate. This is particularly true of a general topic MNS (such as Air Surveillance), where the need may be met by ground, air, or space based systems.

7.2. The CONOPS supports the development of the Capstone Requirement Document (CRD) or Operational Requirements Document (ORD). CONOPS are prepared by the NORAD staff in coordination with MAJCOMs/force providers, and are approved by CINCNORAD. The CONOPS should provide the basis for understanding how a system will be used as well as associated system interoperability, commonality, and standardization issues. The CONOPS should identify the relationship, dependencies and desired interfaces envisioned between the new or upgraded system and other existing or planned systems. As a minimum the CONOPS should address mission overview, situation, scenarios, responsibilities, forces and capabilities, command relations, concept of operations, rules of engagement, integrated logistics support concept, and battle management, command, control and communications.

8. National Programming Action. Action taken within the respective Canadian and U.S. programming systems in order to satisfy a CINCNORAD (binationally validated) or a "U.S. only" MNS will be in accordance with respective national policy, practices, and procedures. Depending on the particular deficiency being addressed, programming may result in a U.S. only, Canadian only, or joint acquisition program. The respective national processes are summarized below.

8.1.U.S. Process:

8.1.1. Once a MNS is validated through the U.S. only or binational process, it enters the U.S. programming and budgeting processes of the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS).

8.1.2. The Joint Staff, Services, and Defense agencies examine each MNS for joint component applicability prior to Milestone 0 approval. This process entails a 45-day suspense to other CINCs and Services for review, followed by a 14-day Flag-level review. Once these reviews are complete and issues are resolved, the JROC conducts a review and makes a recommendation on the joint potential of the mission need. Following the JROC assessment, the MNS is sent to the appropriate Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) committee and from there to a DAB for a Milestone 0 review. Upon successful Milestone 0 review by the DAB, an Acquisition Decision Memorandum is issued, authorizing entry into Concept Exploration and Definition. The DAB functions as the gatekeeper of the defense procurement process and reviews the program status and acquisition documentation, including the ORD at key decision points through the acquisition process.

8.1.3. A CRD is required if the solution requires multiple systems in need of an overarching systems integration document. This document will provide guidance on architecture to the various systems and programs that will be drawn together to meet the larger requirement. A system requiring a CRD will generally have multiple ORDs which will incorporate CRD architecture guidelines.

8.1.4. An ORD describes the overall mission area, the type of system proposed, and the anticipated operational and support concepts in sufficient detail for program and logistics support planning. The ORD will be developed in accordance with DoD 5000 series guidance.

8.2. Canadian Process. As the CINCNORAD executive agent in Canada, the Commander of Air Command (Comd AIRCOM) and his staff are the point of entry for NORAD requirements into the Canadian programming process. Comd AIRCOM is the NORAD capability advocate in the Canadian Defence Planning and Force Development Process, and the sponsoring group principal for NORAD initiatives requiring insertion into the Defence Services Program (DSP) and linked processes.

8.2.1. AIRCOM requirements staff (DCOS P&R) evaluate the MNS in terms of the current Defence Development Planning Guidance (DDPG), AIRCOM policy and doctrine, the IPL, and other Canadian only requirements, to determine compatibility and whether Canadian participation or programming action is required (i.e., does the MNS result in a Canadian Air Force or Canadian Joint deficiency). The deficiency is then prioritized within the Comd AIRCOM's other priorities. For initiatives costing less than $3M, AIRCOM has spending authority to fund the project as a miscellaneous requirement (MR).

8.2.2. For projects exceeding $3M in cost, the MNS is used as the basis for a Statement of Capability Deficiency (SCD), which is sponsored by the Comd AIRCOM through the Defence Program Management System (DPMS) supporting committee structure into the DSP. Once incorporated into the DSP, the initiative proceeds as any other Canadian DSP project through the milestone type DPMS. This includes project identification, development, definition and implementation phases, each characterized by one or more decision documents and approval levels.

8.3. Acquisition Programs. Distinctly U.S. or Canadian acquisition programs are managed within their respective systems. Programs requiring joint participation (i.e., a combined Canadian/U.S. effort), will still be developed on the basis of national planning and programming processes, with subsequent negotiations, Memorandums of Understanding (MOU), and Supplementary Arrangements (SA) leading to possible joint responsibility and cost sharing arrangements.

9. Responsibilities. All NORAD directorates, divisions and components will participate in the NPRS as prescribed in relevant Command Policy Directives, instructions and amplifying material. This will include participation in various working teams and groups, as well as reviewing, commenting and coordinating on reports, assessments, and other products prepared through the NPRS.

9.1. Commander in Chief NORAD (CINCNORAD):

9.1.1. As CDRUSELEMNORAD, may approve/validate headquarters generated MNS that are "U.S. only" requirements.

9.1.2. Submits U.S. only MNS to the JROC Secretariat for approval/validation.

9.1.3. Submits CINCNORAD MNS to the MCC for binational validation action.

9.2. HQ NORAD Director of Plans (NJ5):

9.2.1. Directorate of Plans will implement the NPRS by providing the focal point for administration of the NPRS within NORAD, and the OPR for preparation and review of this instruction.

9.2.2. Conducts internal HQ NORAD MNS, ORD, COEA, STAR, and other program documentation reviews.

9.2.3. Conducts internal HQ NORAD coordination of the draft MNS/ORD approval process.

9.2.4. Reviews both HQ NORAD prepared and sponsored MNS/ORDs to ensure the requirements contained in them properly reflects HQ NORAD policies, architectures, and mission concepts.

9.2.5. Approves draft MNS for submission to CINCNORAD for external coordination and binational validation.

9.2.6. Approves HQ NORAD's Quarterly Status Report for distribution.

9.3. HQ NORAD, Chief, Requirements and Programs Division (NJ5R):

9.3.1. Manages the overall MNS staffing process, including all administrative actions, internal HQ NORAD coordination, tracking of external agency coordination, and monitoring the status of all NORAD related MNS. This includes designating a MNS Process Monitor from within the NJ5R organization. NJ5R is the focal point for administration of the NPRS within NORAD, and the OPR for preparation and review of this instruction.

9.3.2. Publishes a quarterly MNS status report.

9.3.3. Responsible (OPR) for coordinating and monitoring each individual NORAD generated MNS/ORD as well as monitoring the MNS process and administratively maintaining individual MNS.

9.3.4. Reviews proposed NORAD generated MNS/ORDs as well as non-NORAD MNS/ORDs before submitting them to HQ NORAD, Director of Plans, for HQ NORAD-wide coordination, external coordination, and binational validation (as appropriate).

9.3.5. Reviews COEAs and COEA revisions to ensure consistency with HQ NORAD policies, architectures, mission concepts, and operational threat scenarios. Assists in development of COEA evaluation criteria and operational threat scenarios for systems which will be operated by forces that are, or will be, under the command of CINCNORAD/CDRUSELEMNORAD.

9.3.6. Reviews STARs and program threat documentation to ensure the threat used in the acquisition is consistent with the operational threat that drives HQ NORAD war plans.

9.3.7. Through the functional OPRs, works with the responsible agencies to establish the precise level of documentation (ORDs, STARs, COEAs, MNSs, SCDs, MRs, program specific threat documents, specifications, system level test plans/procedures, system level interface control documentation, service-level approved Acquisition Program Baseline documents, etc) required for review by HQ NORAD. Functional OPRs will ensure NORAD Responsible Agencies provide all relevant program documentation to HQ NORAD/J5 for review and/or administrative staffing. Functional OPRs interface with NORAD responsible agencies to ensure their participation in the NPRS through the review, comment and coordination as necessary on reports, assessments, and other products prepared through the NPRS.

9.3.8. Tracks associated programs that support the validated requirements in the U.S. PPBS and the Canadian DSP. Ensures the operational user is involved throughout the process, from start to finish (capability or need identification; draft MNS preparation; coordination phase; validation phase; program initiation; change management; implementation and acceptance of the system).

9.4. HQ NORAD MNS Process Monitor:

9.4.1. Reviews MNS and ORDs for correct format, HQ NORAD applicability, and/or joint potential, and ensures all ongoing administrative actions regarding individual MNS processing are completed.

9.4.2. Assigns numerical designator to new MNS in sequence according to calendar year (for example, 001-95, 002-95, etc.) when the internal coordination process is started.

9.4.3. Tracks the status of MNS on an on-going basis.

9.4.4. Prepares a quarterly MNS status report for HQ NORAD, Director of Plans.

9.4.5. If a document is classified, and is intended to be released to Canada, obtains foreign disclosure approval through International Affairs Division, Foreign Disclosure Branch, (HQ AFSPC/XPIF).

10. Acquiring Quality Products. Effective acquisition planning and involvement by the user in NPRS is essential for success. The operational user should appropriately participate with generation and verification of operational requirements, change requirements, proposed solutions, schedules, change approval and implementation, design, and operational acceptance of the system.

JAMES I. MATHERS, Brig Gen, USAF
Director of Plans

DISTRIBUTION: X
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) Secretariat, The Pentagon, Washington DC,
20318-8000............................................................................................................................................1
US Secretariat, Canada/US Military Cooperation Committee/MCC, 1111 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Suite 5111, Arlington VA 22202-5000.....................................................................................................1
Canadian Secretariat, Canada/US Military Cooperation Committee/MCC, J3 Plans (Air) 4, National Defence Headquarters, MGen George R. Pearkes Building, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K2....................1
Director General Aerospace Development, National Defence Headquarters, MGen George R. Pearkes Building, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0K2.......................................................................................................1
Director Aerospace Planning Coordination, National Defence Headquarters, MGen George R. Pearkes
Building, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0k2.......................................................................................................1
Director Aerospace Requirements Fighter/Transport, National Defence Headquarters, MGen George R.
Pearkes Building, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0K2.........................................................................................1
Deputy Chief of Staff Plans and Requirements, Air Command Headquarters, Westwin, Manitoba,
Canada, R3J 0T0...................................................................................................................................1
Director, ARPA Special Projects (ARPA/SPO), 3701 N. Fairfax Dr, Arlington VA 22203-1714..................1
Director, Joint Counter Low Observable Office, 1215 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Suite 1208, Arlington
VA 22202...............................................................................................................................................1