(U) COST: (Dollars in Thousands)

U) JUSTIFICATION FOR BUDGET ACTIVITY: This program is funded under RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT because it supports the

operations and installations required for general research and development use.

(U) COST: (Dollars in Thousands)

A. (U) MISSION DESCRIPTION AND BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION: The Chief of Naval Personnel has an ongoing need for direct analyses of Navy manpower and personnel (MP) policies and program planning. This project provides an essential management tool to: (a) assess the effectiveness of existing MP policies and programs, (b) identify needs for new policies and programs, (c) determine the required manpower and training mix relative to changing demographic, societal and legislative/regulatory trends, and to evolving strategic and geopolitical factors, (d) study the impact of MP programs on Navy accession, retention, and performance, and (e) develop, validate and/or refine a broad range of MP forecasting models. The program permits Navy to more effectively utilize Research and Development expertise to respond to emerging MP problems.

1. (U) FY 1996 ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

2. (U) FY 1997 PLAN:

score requirements for "A" Schools.

• (U) (-$10K) Undistributed adjustment for NWCF Surcharge and General reductions.

• (U) ($2K) Portion of program reserved for Small Business Innovation Research assessments in accordance with 15

USC 638.

3. (U) FY 1998 PLAN:

• (U) ($75K) Support efforts to redefine and establish career paths for Navy enlisted personnel similar to the Navy officer career paths.
• (U) ($75K) Continue to examine cultural diversity and the impact it will have on readiness and effectiveness.
• (U) ($54K) Continue to support study efforts to accurately determine manpower requirements at sea and ashore.
• (U) ($50K) Support efforts to improve upon Navy family issues and their impact on retention and readiness.
• (U) (-$2K) Undistributed adjustment for NWCF carryover and rates.

4. (U) FY 1999 PLAN:

• (U) ($100K) Support studies requirements generated by the Bureau of Naval Personnel’s move to Millington, TN - impact on personnel communication, and organizational issues.
• (U) ($100K) Continue to support studies directed at improving manning and manpower determination issues.
• (U) ($93K) Support Quality of Life study requirements and the impact quality of life has on retention and readiness.
• (U) (-$2K) Undistributed adjustment for NWCF carryover and rates.

B. (U) PROGRAM CHANGE SUMMARY:

(U) CHANGE SUMMARY EXPLANATION:

(U) Schedule: Not applicable.

(U) Technical: Not applicable.

C. (U) OTHER PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY: Not applicable.

(U) PE 0603707N (Manpower, Personnel, and Training Advanced Technology Development)

(U) PE 0604703N (Manpower, Personnel, Training, Simulation and Human Factors)

(U) PE 0602234N (Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology)

D. (U) SCHEDULE PROFILE: Not applicable.

(U) COST (Dollars in Thousands)

A. (U) MISSION DESCRIPTION AND BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION: This project provides validated data to identify the root causes of problems and to optimize services associated with the health care delivery to Navy and Marine Corps personnel afloat and in contingency operations. This usually requires database and model development and statistical analyses of inter-related requirements or operational variables, and their impact on performance. The analysis of these variables requires a combination of medical/technical knowledge and operational perspectives.

(U) PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PLANS:

2. (U) FY 1996 ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

• (U) ($25K) In response to an inquiry by RADM N.K. Dysart, Director of the Medical Resources, Plans and Policy Division, Officer of the Chief of Naval Operations, a study was undertaken to examine the relationship between back disorders and aircraft type flown by Navy aviators. Physical examination records of 7,675 Navy pilots and aircrew members provided by Naval Aerospace Medical Institute were analyzed. Results found that aircrew members were more likely to have diagnosed back disorders than pilots for both fixed and rotary wing aircraft and that flight was found for a relationship between aircraft type and diagnosed back problems among pilots. This report is under pre-publication review.

3. (U) FY 1997 PLAN:

• (U) ($103K) Establish a database from multiple sources and examine the relationship between alcohol use/abuse and accidents, emphasizing the cost incurred and man days lost.

• (U) ($119K) Examine the relationships between chemical, radiological and biological occupational exposures such as lead and organic solvent use and reproductive health among Navy and Marine Corps active-duty women.

B. (U) PROGRAM CHANGE SUMMARY:

(U) CHANGE SUMMARY EXPLANATION:

(U) Schedule: Not applicable.

(U) Technical: Not applicable.

C. (U) OTHER PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY: Not applicable.

(U) RELATED RDT&E: Not applicable.

D. (U) SCHEDULE PROFILE: Not applicable.

(U) COST: (Dollars in Thousands)

A. (U) MISSION DESCRIPTION AND BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION: This project provides analytical support to the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy in evaluation of overall balance within total Navy programs. This includes such tasks as: (a) evaluation of force capabilities and requirements; (b) analysis of effectiveness of systems under development; (c) Secretary of Defense directed independent cost and effectiveness analyses of major Navy programs; and (d) items of Congressional interest as they relate to Navy programs. Deliverables consist of formal, structured documents containing or leading to conclusions and/or recommendations as well as the development and maintenance of databases and models. The use of databases and models is driven by the need to objectively and continually assess the impact of reduced funding and/or force drawdown upon Navy programs. They provide Navy planners and decision makers with objective, empirical data with which to make determinations regarding program planning and evaluation of issues. The models funded by this account are the primary tools used to formulate program balance in the assessment process (particularly the Readiness, Support and Infrastructure Assessment and the Investment Balance Review). The analyses based on these models form the heart of the Investment Balance Review, allowing the Navy to formulate and cost-out alternative force structure, manpower, infrastructure and readiness programs.

(U) PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PLANS:

1. (U) FY 1996 ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

• (U) ($1,400) Provided Navy’s share of costs for development of an electronic desk reference set for the exchange of information to support the entire acquisition community. Components included an information reference application, a catalog of software tools, and an acquisition management forum.

2. (U) FY 1997 PLAN:

• (U) ($26) Continue to conduct studies and analyses to support the Navy’s Assessment process.

3. (U) FY 1998 PLAN:

• (U) ($213) Maintain the Aviation Readiness model and the Ships Resource-to-Readiness model.
• (U) ($49) Continue to conduct studies and analyses to support the Navy’s Assessment process.

4. (U) FY 1999 PLAN:

• (U) ($218) Maintain the Aviation Readiness model and the Ships Resource-to-Readiness model.
• (U) ($90) Continue to conduct studies and analyses to support the Navy’s Assessment process.

B. (U) PROGRAM CHANGE SUMMARY:

(U) CHANGE SUMMARY EXPLANATION:

(U) Schedule: Not applicable.

(U) Technical: Not applicable.

C. (U) OTHER PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY: Not applicable.

(U) PE 0605154N (Center for Naval Analysis)

(U) PE 0605873M (Marine Corps Program Wide Support)

D. (U) SCHEDULE PROFILE: Not applicable.

(U) COST: (Dollars in Thousands)

A. (U) MISSION DESCRIPTION AND BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION: This project supports the core program for the Naval Studies Board. As agreed upon between the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and the President of the National Academy of Sciences and with appropriate attention to the influence of the domestic economy, national objectives, social imperatives and anticipated military requirement, the Naval Studies Board will conduct and report upon surveys, investigations, and analyses in the field of scientific research and development applicable to the operation and function of the Navy. Reports consist of a briefing to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research Development and Acquisition) (ASN (RD&A)) and the CNO and staff, and written technical reports.

(U) PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PLANS:

1. (U) FY 1996 ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

2. (U) FY 1997 PLAN:

• (U) ($56) Portion of entramural program reserved for Small Business Innovation Research assessment in accordance

with 15 U.S.C. 638.

3. (U) FY 1998 PLAN:

• (U) ($621) Continue research efforts and investigations in areas of interest to the Navy. Continue to support annual Navy authorized activities of importance, such as the Annual Classified Military Space Symposium and the Weinblum Memorial Lecture Series.
• (U) ($1,755) Produce investigations of significant importance to the Navy concerning technology of the future, selected from proposals received from CNO and ASN (RD&A).

4. (U) FY 1999 PLAN:

• (U) ($637) Continue research efforts and investigations in areas of interest to the Navy. Continue to support annual Navy authorized activities of importance, such as the Annual Classified Military Space Symposium and the Weinblum Memorial Lecture Series.
• (U) ($1,760) Produce investigations of significant importance to the Navy concerning technology of the future, selected from proposals received from CNO and ASN (RD&A)

B. (U) PROGRAM CHANGE SUMMARY:

(U) CHANGE SUMMARY EXPLANATION:

(U) Schedule: Not applicable.

(U) Technical: Not applicable.

C. (U) OTHER PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY: Not applicable.

D. (U) SCHEDULE PROFILE: Not applicable.

(U) COST: (Dollars in Thousands)

A. (U) MISSION DESCRIPTION AND BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION: This project provides the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy direct analyses of Navy policy, strategy acquisition, and program planning in meeting the following objectives: (a) producing study results impacting upon important programs/issues; (b) identifying and evaluating policy and strategy alternatives and doctrine; and (c) evaluating the capabilities of programmed forces to accomplish missions assigned to the Navy. Deliverables consist of formal, structured documents containing or leading to conclusions and/or recommendations as well as the development and maintenance of databases and models. This project directly supports and is critical for conducting the Navy's joint mission assessments.

(U) PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PLANS:

1. (U) FY 1996 PLAN:

2. (U) FY 1997 PLAN:

• (U) ($14) Portion of extramural program reserved for Small Business Innovation Research assessment in accordance

with 15 U.S.C. 638.

3. (U) FY 1998 PLAN:

• (U) ($345) Conduct reviews of the CAPRAD database and perform econometric/statistical analyses on the impact of changes resulting from downsizing and programmatic changes. Also update and revalidate the IPAS and other models in order to run these programs using revised allocation displays.
• (U) ($58) Conduct studies and provide enhancements to ITEM, the primary tool for campaign analysis for Assessments.

4. (U) FY 1999 PLAN:

• (U) ($353) Conduct reviews of the CAPRAD database and perform econometric/statistical analyses on the impact of changes resulting from downsizing and programmatic changes. Also update and revalidate the IPAS and other models in order to run these programs using revised allocation displays.
• (U) ($118) Conduct studies and provide enhancements to ITEM, the primary tool for campaign analysis for Assessments.

B. (U) PROGRAM CHANGE SUMMARY:

(U) CHANGE SUMMARY EXPLANATION:

(U) Schedule: Not applicable.

(U) Technical: Not applicable.

C. (U) OTHER PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY: Not applicable.

(U) PE 0605154N (Center for Naval Analyses)

(U) PE 0605873M (Marine Corps Program Wide Support)

D. (U) SCHEDULE PROFILE: Not applicable.

(U) COST: (Dollars in Thousands)

A. (U) MISSION DESCRIPTION AND BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION: This project provides for analysis of the warfighting capability of Naval forces by examining specific selected numbers and mixes of surface combatants and other forces that are subjected to representative operational situations in a joint littoral environment. The U.S. strategic emphasis has shifted from global containment and warfighting to a global stability strategy with regional focus. As part of an overall effort at addressing future Naval force levels and capabilities, the Navy must assess the warfighting effectiveness of different mixes of surface combatants in battle groups operating in a littoral warfare environment and develop an investment strategy that supports the capabilities required. Required Operational Capabilities/Projected Operational Environment (ROC/POE) must be updated every two years or created for new ship classes. These ROC/POE's are vitally important in that mission requirements for ships drive equipment configurations, manning levels and associated shipboard accommodations, tailor ship and staff missions, capabilities, manning to new strategies, tactics, operational environments, and policies.

(U) PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PLANS:

1. (U) FY 1996 ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

• (U) Obligations began in November 1995 and will complete June 1997.

2. (U) FY 1997 PLAN:

• (U) ($34) Portion of extramural program reserved for Small Business Innovation Research assessment in

accordance with 15 U.S.C. 638.

• (U) Obligations will initiate in October 1996 and will complete September 1997.

3. (U) FY 1998 PLAN:

• (U) ($1,951) Continue analyses to identify battle force capabilities considering various force mixes. These studies will address the warfighting and national security policy and strategy requirements for effective, flexible and cost-efficient Naval Surface Warfare Forces, including the numbers and mixes of surface combatants and other forces that are subjected to representative operational situations in a joint littoral environment. Measures of Effectiveness will be used in characterizing Naval Surface Warfare capabilities for battle space dominance and for power projection. The results will be applied to campaign scenarios and operational situations to scope, focus and interpret the analyses. The results of these analyses will be applied to strategic planning and investment strategies for future Joint Littoral Warfare Naval Forces. Obligations will initiate in October 1997 and will complete September 1998.

4. (U) FY 1999 PLAN:

• (U) ($2,185) Continue analyses to identify battle force capabilities considering various force mixes. These studies will address the warfighting and national security policy and strategy requirements for effective, flexible and cost-efficient Naval Surface Warfare Forces, including the numbers and mixes of surface combatants and other forces that are subjected to representative operational situations in a joint littoral environment. Measures of Effectiveness will be used in characterizing Naval Surface Warfare capabilities for battle space dominance and for power projection. The results will be applied to campaign scenarios and operational situations to scope, focus and interpret the analyses. The results of these analyses will be applied to strategic planning and investment strategies for future Joint Littoral Warfare Naval Forces. Revise ROC/POE instructions. Obligations will initiate October 1998 and complete Septmber 1999.

B. (U) PROGRAM CHANGE SUMMARY:

(U) CHANGE SUMMARY EXPLANATION:

(U) Schedule: Not applicable.

(U) Technical: Not applicable.

C. (U) OTHER PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY: Not applicable.

A. (U) PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN: ($ in thousands)

Project Cost Categories FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999

a. Capabilities Analysis 1,737 1,607 1,951 2,185

Total 1,737 1,607 1,951 2,185

B. (U) BUDGET ACQUISITION HISTORY AND PLANNING INFORMATION ($ in thousands)

PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS

Contractor/ Contract

Government Method/ Award/ Perform Project

Performing Fund Type Oblig Activity Office FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 To Total

Activity Vehicle Date EAC EAC & Prior Budget Budget Program Budget Complete Program

Product Development

Various WR Various 830 350 180 385 433

Various RCP Various 258 685 736 667 749

Various Competitve Various 862 702 691 899 1,003 CONT. CONT.

Support and Management

Test and Evaluation

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY Not Applicable.

FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 To Total

& Prior Budget Budget Budget Budget Complete Program

Subtotal Product Development 1,950 1,737 1,607 1,951 2,185 CONT. CONT.

Subtotal Support and Management

Subtotal Test and Evaluation

Total Project 1,950 1,737 1,607 1,951 2,185 CONT. CONT.

(U) COST (Dollars in Thousands)

A. (U) MISSION DESCRIPTION AND BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION: This project supports studies over a wide range of naval aviation issues that support the ongoing Joint Strike Assessment (JSA) guidelines. Results provide a basis for recommendations to the Chief of Naval Operations concerning major policy, planning, and acquisition program decisions. This effort is a management initiative which will allow allocation of study resources in a timely manner according to priorities. This ongoing program will continue to leverage more detailed program specific analysis in order to gain insight in acquisition of various weapon systems and their impact on force structure, manning levels, operational readiness and Carrier Air Wing effectiveness. This program will also support various Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) Studies.

(U) PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PLANS:

1. (U) FY 1996 ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

2. (U) FY 1997 PLAN:

• (U) ($31) Portion of Program reserved for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) assessment in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 638.

• (U) ($702) Continue analyses of TACAIR and weapons effectiveness, including tradeoffs of development and acquisition alternatives utilizing the WEPTAC M&S facility. Perform sensitivity analyses utilizing additional M&S tools as required.

• (U) ($505) Expand TBMD Attack Operations analyses to include Cruise Missile Defensive tactics and Operations.

• (U) ($505) Continue studies to support JSA issues for the current and follow-on cycle.

• (U)(1,468) Conduct the first phase of a two year effort to determine the mission requirements for a Large Land

Based Aircraft (LLBA) as a potentially common follow-on to the E-6, EP-3, P-3, C-130 and C-9 aircraft. This study will lead to a Milestone O decision.

• U) ($216) Initiate a low level, multi-year effort to develop a consistent methodology to quantify current and estimate future vertical lift mission effectiveness.

• (U) ($12) Provide support for general aviation related COEAs and studies with NAVAIR and OPNAV.

4. (U) FY 1999 PLAN:

• (U) ($603) Continue analyses of TACAIR and weapons effectiveness including tradeoffs of development and acquisition alternatives utilizing the WEPTAC M&S facility. Perform sensitivity analyses utilizing additional M&S tools as required.

• (U) ($603) Expand TBMD Attack Operations analyses to include Cruise Missile Defensive tactics and operations.

• (U) ($501) Continue studies to support JSA issues for the current and follow-on cycle.

• (U) ($1,458) Conduct the second phase of a two year effort to determine the mission requirements for a LLBA as a potentially common follow-on to the E-6, EP-3, P-3, C130 and C-9 aircraft. This study will lead to a Milestone 0 decision.

• (U) ($221) Initiate a low level, multi-year effort to develop a consistent methodology to quantify current and estimate future vertical lift mission effectiveness.

• (U) ($107) Provide support for general aviation related COEAs and studies within NAVAIR and OPNAV.

B. (U) PROGRAM CHANGE SUMMARY:

(U) CHANGE SUMMARY EXPLANATION:

(U) Schedule: Not applicable.

(U) Technical: Not applicable.

C. (U) OTHER PROGRAM FUNDING SUMMARY: Not applicable.

(U) RELATED RDT&E: Not applicable.

D. (U) SCHEDULE PROFILE: Not applicable.

A. (U) PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN: ($ in thousands)

Project Cost Categories FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999

a. Systems Engineering 1,748 1,733 2,931 3,004

b. Government Engineering Support 195 231 457 469

c. Travel 55 20 20 20

d. SBIR 0 31 0 0

Total 1,998 2,015 3,408 3,493

B. (U) BUDGET ACQUISITION HISTORY AND PLANNING INFORMATION ($ in thousands)

PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS

Contractor/ Contract

Government Method/ Award/ Perform Project Total

Performing Fund Type Oblig Activity Office FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 To Total

Activity Vehicle Date EAC EAC & Prior Actual Budget Budget Budget Complete Program

Product Development

All efforts totalling less than $2M (aggregate 1611 1934 1995 3,388 3,473 CONT. CONT.

total) MISC

Support and Management

Travel 25 55 20 20 20 CONT. CONT.

Test and Evaluation: Not applicable.

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY Not Applicable.

FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 To Total

& Prior Budget Budget Budget Budget Complete Program

Subtotal Product Development 1,611 1,943 1,964 3,388 3,473 CONT. CONT.

Subtotal Support and Management 25 55 20 20 20 CONT. CONT.

Subtotal Test and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SBIR Assessment 0 0 31 0 0 0 31

Total Project 1,636 1,998 2,015 3,408 3,493 CONT. CONT.