Detailed Information on the
Air Force Combat-Related Readiness Assessment

Create better linkages among funding decisions and Air Force combat-related readiness.

Create better efficiency measures that include resource expenditures to help develop better annual budgets for the combat-related readiness program.

Provide improved performance measurements to Congress annually to help Congress make better funding decisions.

Measure: Overall U.S. Air Force readiness level to support mission requirements

Explanation:The Department of Defense (DOD) measures the readiness of military services' units to perform their missions. DOD's long term goal is to have sufficient numbers of highly trained and ready units. This is measured by assessing and recording the availability of weapon platforms, support functions and personnel to meet mission requirements. Without Air Force Combat-related Readiness programs real-time command, control, communications and intelligence information, the current U.S. Air Force mission could not be accomplished and readiness would be negatively impacted. Many of DOD's missions are long-term in nature and demand high unit readiness. DOD military and civilian leaders and Congress use these ratings to determine whether military readiness to perform these critical missions is adequate.

Measure: Percentage of Programmed Flying Hours Flown

Explanation:A high percentage of flying hours flown supports the overall readiness and efficiency of combat-related activities by ensuring aircraft and personnel are ready to meet mission requirements. A number of the U.S. Air Force's aircraft are dedicated to providing real-time command, control, communications, intelligence, weather and navigation data to the warfighter, U.S. federal agencies and designated private users. The Air Force continues to execute nearly 100% of its planned flying hours despite downward budget pressures due to the War on Terror. This demonstrates the Air Force is efficiently using its available resources to meet its missions.

Measure: Average number of hours between interruptions in the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) data stream.

Explanation:The mean time between data stream failures of the Joint Surveillance System JSS is a key output measure for providing reliable data to the war fighter and other users. The JSS is a critical component of the Air Force's Combat-Related Readiness program, as it provides real-time command, control, communications and intelligence to the Air Force warfighter, other U.S. Federal agencies and private sector users. The performance goal is no less than 4000 hours between system failures. A higher number of hours between interruptions indicates that JSS maintainers are more effective and efficient in their ability assess and repair the system.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Air Force Combat-Related Readiness program provides critical real-time command, control, communication, and intelligence information, as well as navigation and weather information, directly to the U.S. Air Force warfighter, other U.S. Federal agencies, and other users.

Evidence: Title 10 United States Code, 8062, directs the U.S. Air Force to provide prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations. This program's purpose is consistent with the objectives set out in the Department of Defense Fiscal Years 2008 - 2013 Strategic Planning Guidance, Department of Defense FY 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, and the U.S. Air Force Capabilities Review and Risk Assessments.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The United States Air Force requires real-time command, control, communication, intelligence, navigation and weather information, to carry out their its missions safely and effectively. Without Air Force Combat-Related Readiness program activities, such as the Joint Surveillance System, the current U.S. Air Force mission could not be accomplished.

Evidence: Requirements and guidance are contained in a number of policy planning and directives, including Department of Defense's Fiscal Years 2008 - 2013 Strategic Planning Guidance, Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, the U.S. Air Force Capabilities Review and Risk Assessments, and the Fiscal Year 2007 Information Technology Budget.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The U.S. Air Force is solely responsible for providing timely and accurate information for combat operations and readiness support. Federal, local, state, and private resources, as well as international partners, are utilized to provide effective support for the Air Force Combat-Related Readiness program. Additionally, the Air Force, when and where appropriate, provides this information to support Federal, local, state and private users that might benefit from these activities of the Air Force.

Evidence: Combat-Related Readiness activities supported by the U.S. Air Force have created efficiencies for other federal, state and local efforts. Several activities have inter-agency cost-sharing agreements with other government organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation, Commerce and Federal Aviation Administration that allow for shared access to critical navigation and weather data.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The Combat-Related Readiness program is free from major flaws and maintains the necessary readiness to support the U.S. Air Force's missions. There are no alternative approaches that would be more efficient since the U.S. Air Force provides a unique capability. The program's design is continually updated to incorporate efficiencies that appear beneficial to ensure critical programs receive the attention needed. For example, the ongoing War on Terror has placed an enormous workload on combat-related readiness activities to provide their capabilities to an expanding number of users in an expanding number of regions throughout the world. The program has continued to provide what the pressing mission requirements have commanded.

Evidence: The programs included within Combat Related Readiness are in a state of sustainment and are effective and efficient in protecting the United States. Programs are continually assessed through Unit Compliance Inspections and Inspector General Evaluations. These evaluations focus on compliance with Department of Defense policy directives and U.S. Air Force Instructions. Evaluations place special emphasis on equipment performance and compliance with established metrics and standards. Additionally, U.S. Air Force Smart Operations - 21 lays out a plan to recapitalize legacy equipment supporting combat-related readiness, manpower and streamline equipment maintenance and support through regionalized remote maintenance centers and reduced unit overhead. Metrics and customer support are assessed at annual User Group conferences and semi-annual Product Improvement Working Groups.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Air Force Combat-Related Readiness program is well designed and ensures resources are targeted directly to the most critical areas to meet the mission and readiness requirements. The U.S. Air Force's budgeting process ensures resources are directed to the capabilities most useful and important to the warfighter, other U.S. Government agencies and private users. Combatant Commanders (COCOM) develop Integrated Priority Lists to address urgent needs to support the intended beneficiary-the warfighter and U.S. national security. There are no unintended subsidies provided by this program.

Evidence: The following documents and processes play a key role in the Department of Defense's Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution system. Annual Planning and Programming Guidance - defines the U.S. Air Force corporate position regarding readiness and sustainability, force structure, infrastructure, and modernization needs. U.S. Air Force Program Objective Memorandum (POM) - primary document used to submit U.S. Air Force programming proposals. The POM includes an analysis of missions, objectives, alternative methods to meet capability needs, and allocation of resources. Capabilities Review and Risk Assessment - process that assesses how well the U.S. Air Force is developing, fielding and maintaining needed capabilities. It provides senior U.S. Air Force leadership an operational capabilities-based focus for resource allocation decisions.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Combat-Related Readiness program's long-term measures directly support the program's purpose of providing real-time command, control, communication, intelligence, weather and navigation data to the U.S. Air Force warfighter, other U.S. federal agencies and other users. For example, if a combatant commander needs an urgent combat-related capability anywhere in the world, such as aircraft for surveillance, this program maintains the level of readiness needed to meet that request. One of the program's long-term measures assesses the program's ability to maintain this high standard of readiness. This readiness is measured and reported to Congress on a quarterly basis. The overall readiness of the Air Force Combat-Related activities is the compilation of many component capabilities measured annually. For example, the Joint Surveillance System (JSS), which provides constant data to war fighters, Federal agencies and private users, measures mean time between failures and part replacement. High performance of the JSS in the long-term demonstrates progress toward the overall program's readiness. Another long-term measure is the flying hour program which supports the Air Force's entire fleet of aircraft. The aircraft dedicated to supporting combat-related readiness have consistently executed over 98% of their flying hours meaning the aircraft are efficiently employed to support the Air Force's missions.

Evidence: The overall readiness of the U.S. Air Force is not publicly available. However, there are a number of documents that provide insight into the inputs and outputs of combat related activities, including the Department of Defense's planning, programming and budgeting system; Annual Planning and Programming Guidance, Obligation Data from Defense Financial Accounting System, and the U.S. Air Force Capabilities Risk and Review Assessment. Other measures include the Flying Hour Program, the Joint Surveillance System, and Weapons Evaluation Testing.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The target and timeframe for measuring the effectiveness of the Air Force combat-related readiness program are ambitious. The program aims to maintain a high level of readiness for the U.S. Air Force to meet its mission requirements, as defined by the Department of Defense and National Strategy. The Department of Defense has an elaborate system for measuring the overall readiness of the United States Air Force. The program maintains ambitious targets and timeframes for its critical long-term goal in many areas, such as overall readiness, the execution of flying hours for aircraft dedicated to supporting this program, the mean time between Joint Surveillance System data stream failures and part replacement, and Weapons Evaluation Testing.

Evidence: The overall readiness of the United States Air Force is not publicly available. The ambitious target is maintaining the readiness necessary to support the worldwide operations of the War on Terror, including Operations Noble Eagle protecting the United States, Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom. Additionally, there are a number of documents that set out the broad objectives of the U.S. Air Force. For example, the Annual Planning and Programming Guidance, the Fiscal Year 2008 Program Objective Memorandum; and the Weapon System Evaluation Program annually produces results based on weapons platform combinations. The performance of land and space based data system also include target operating parameters. These results are then used to develop tactics or gain efficiencies. It is ambitious to employ combat-related readiness activities in real-time while prosecuting the War on Terror. .

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The Air Force Combat-Related Readiness program's annual measures directly support achievement of the program's long-term goals. The program provides real-time command, control, communication, intelligence, weather, and navigation data to the U.S. Air Force warfighter, other U.S. Federal agencies and other users. If a combatant commander needs an urgent combat-related capability anywhere in the world, such as aircraft for surveillance, this program must ensure it consistently maintains a high the level of readiness to meet that request. Readiness is a compilation of the availability of numerous combat-related readiness activities that all have annual and long-term performance measures. The annual measures are quantifiable, measurable and discrete. For example, the execution of flying hours for the aircraft dedicated to supporting this program is an efficiency measure that indicates how well the program is maintaining and operating the aircraft. The Joint Surveillance System (JSS) provides constant data to Air Sectors and the mean time between failures is a key efficiency measure for this activity. High performance of the JSS demonstrates progress toward the overall program's readiness. Weapons Evaluation Testing measures the intensity of training involving actual releases of weapons and the employment combat-related readiness assets.The ultimate outcome of all the annual measures, defined in terms of overall readiness of the U.S. Air Force, is measured and reported to Congress on a quarterly basis.

Evidence: The annual measures that support the overall long-term of goal of the program are contained in a number of documents. Overall objectives and capabilities required are described in the U.S. Air Force Strategic Plan and the Quadrennial Defense Review. More defined objectives in constituent program elements and annual measures are identified in the U.S. Air Force Fiscal Year 2009-2013 Annual Planning and Programming Guidance, as well as in the Congressional Budget Justification materials produced annually. Successful execution of this program means additional capability to the warfighter, in either new proven hardware or tactics, or a combination of the two.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Maintaining a high degree of readiness to meet military requirements is a primary responsibility of the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense. Combatant Commanders have a comprehensive understanding of the baseline resources and assets at its disposal. For example, combatant commanders are aware of the number of command, control, communication and intelligences assets, personnel and supporting communications capabilities available to meet a mission objective. The Air Force Combat-Related Readiness program maintains ambitious targets to ensure it meets its critical long-term goals in many areas, such as the high performance of the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) data stream and the execution of flying hours for the aircraft dedicated to supporting this program.

Evidence: The program's overall objectives and capabilities are described in the U.S. Air Force Strategic Plan and the Quadrennial Defense Review. More defined objectives in constituent program elements are identified in the U.S. Air Force Fiscal Year 2009 to 2013 Annual Planning and Programming Guidance. Quarterly Program Management Reviews and Executive Management Reviews: assess short-term execution efficiency and outcomes. Annual Program Requirement Reviews: assess/evaluate mid- and long-term program performance, program requirements, and progress toward end-state goals. The Weapon System Evaluation Program annually produces results based on shots for each missile/aircraft combination. These results are then used to develop tactics or further investigate issues with weapons and support systems for combat-related readiness.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The management proponents, support organizations, and personnel commit to and work annual and long-term goals that best fill the U.S. Air Force needs within existing resources. Their use of extensive cost-benefit analysis during the programming, prioritization of activities during execution and continued emphasis of professional judgment supports these goals. Quarterly Program Management Reviews and Executive Management Reviews assess short-term execution efficiency and outcomes. The cost-sharing programs agreements with other U.S. Federal agencies involve joint execution and tracking of progress (see examples below).

Evidence: The Combat-Related Readiness program has numerous partnerships with other government agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a Department of Commerce entity) where they use the National Doppler Weather Radar program. The joint use of this data involves close coordination in meeting overall program goals. Several combat-related activities have interagency cost-sharing agreements with other government organizations such as the Department of Transportation and Commerce that allow for access to critical data such as weather. Also, there is a partnership with The National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the tracking of satellites that provide advanced notification of solar flares which disrupt communication equipment on earth and in space, and can have severe impacts on high-altitude aviation operations such as airborne surveillance platforms or the international space station. Additionally, there are numerous memorandums of understanding and agreement that document the working relationship between government partners and cost-sharing partners such as the Missile Defense Agency and US Strategic Command.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Combat-Related Readiness program is comprised of many of discrete, but related activities that support the program's purpose. Since the overall readiness ratings of the Air Force are classified, evaluations tend to focus on the most critical activities supporting the program's mission. By focusing evaluations on these key activities, they are a sufficient scope to determine the efficacy of the program. The audit agencies are highly independent and have a high level of expertise in evaluating Department of Defense programs Audit reports are normally accomplished by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Air Force Audit Agency. The Air Force Audit Agency, in particular, completes dozens of evaluations every month on key activities throughout the Air Force. The GAO, for example, has reviewed the use of unmanned aerial vehicles and recommended that the Air Force develop a better plan to optimize the value of this platform in carrying out combat-related missions.

Evidence: GAO Rpt. GAO-06-610T, April 6, 2006 -- assessment of unmanned aerial vehicles. There are a number of independent evaluations. The Air Force Audit Agency has reviewed key combat-related activities such as "Selected Aspects of Theater Deployable Communications" that directly support combat, intelligence and surveillance information (Audit Report, F2007-0002-FB400, 2 February 2007) and "Reliability, Maintainability Support System for Electronic Combat Pod System Controls (Audit Report, F2007-0004-FB2000, May, 25, 2007). Also, the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) System Certification is responsible for the integrated system evaluations between the radars and the end using organizations such as USSTRATCOM and Missile Defense Agency. USSTRATCOM directives/instructions govern the system certification process.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The Combat-Related Readiness program's budget is tied to accomplishing overarching measures and their respective annual and long-term targets. The measures are monitored and used to focus on areas to indicate what is important and to make resource decisions. The long-term goals and overarching performance measures are addressed in the President's Budget Submission justification material. This justification material effectively ties the performance measures to resources. This material is presented to the Office of Management and Budget as well as Congress and is also publicly available on the web page of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Comptroller. In this way, the material is presented in a clear and transparent manner while reflecting all direct and indirect costs. The program reports all direct and indirect costs through the Air Force corporate structure through the budgeting process and resources are directed to the critical activities supporting overall Air Force readiness.

Evidence: Requirements from Air Force Major Commands are submitted during the Program Objective Memorandum cycle of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System. Many documents link budget request to long-term performance goals, including the Department of Defense Fiscal Years 2008 - 2013 Strategic Planning Guidance, Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, and the U.S. Air Force Capabilities Review and Risk Assessments.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Air Force Combat-Related Readiness program supports the warfighter around the world, as well as civilian and other government agencies. This global support necessitates constant improvement of strategic planning to meet the growing operational needs to support the warfighter, as well as civilian and other government agencies, around the world. The program is currently undergoing mission upgrades that require significant hardware and software modifications in support of deficiencies recognized through the various strategic planning processes. In the process of resourcing funds for these programs, the long-term program measures and requirements are being reviewed and evaluated to ensure resources are being used efficiently.

Evidence: The Department of Defense and the Air Force have an extensive strategic planning process. Overall objectives and capabilities required are described in the Air Force Strategic Plan and Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review. More defined objectives in constituent program elements are identified in the Air Force Fiscal Year 2009-2013 Annual Planning and Programming Guidance. Requirement strategy reviews are ongoing to ensure strategic plans adequately detail program needs over the near future.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The program regularly collects credible performance information on a regular basis to feed into the readiness ratings of the Air Force, as well as the Combatant Commander's Integrated Priority List, which identifies immediate needs to adjust program resource allocation and improve program performance. The Air Force Corporate Structure also oversees program performance as well through the Planning, Program, Budgeting and Execution system. The cost-sharing and collaborative efforts with the Departments of Homeland Security, Commerce, Transportation, as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, all involve the sharing of information with program partners, to include efforts to improve performance.

Evidence: The collection of performance information varies by the constituent program elements of the Combat Related Readiness Program. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service measures actual obligation of funds against planned performance targets. This information is then used to determine resource allocation throughout the budget formulation cycle. The Air Force also has Quarterly Program Management Reviews and Executive Management Reviews to assess short-term execution efficiency and outcomes. Several combat-related activities have inter-agency cost-sharing agreements with other government organizations such as the Department of Transportation and Commerce that allow for access to critical data such as weather. Joint work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a Department of Commerce entity) involves sharing the use of the National Doppler Weather Radar program. Also, there is a partnership with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the tracking of satellites that provide advanced notification of solar flares which disrupt communication equipment on earth and in space, and can have severe impacts on high-altitude aviation operations such as airborne surveillance platforms or the international space station.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Performance and contractors are held accountable through their performance evaluations and work schedules. Specifically, Major Command commanders, wing commanders and unit commanders are held accountable for executing the approved Combat Related Readiness schedules and performance results. In addition, these organizations are also held accountable for properly using funding and other resources allocated to achieving these goals.

Evidence: The program is in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 7045.14 that specifies that the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) must rely on centralized planning and oversight but decentralized execution to achieve maximum efficiency.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Achieving the program's purpose of providing real-time command, control, communication, intelligence and weather data to the warfighter, U.S. Federal Agencies and private users involves spending funds efficiently and reporting program activities into a readiness measure that indicate whether the program can meet Air Force mission requirements. Actual obligations are tracked monthly by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. The Department of Defense (DoD) carefully monitors obligations and expenditures for each Component and program/project. Each Component is expected to obligate and expend funds on a timely schedule (the Department-wide standard for these types of programs is obligations above 90% of appropriated funds in the first year of availability and expenditures above 50% in the first year and 80% in the second year). If not, the project is likely to have funds taken away at the Component or Department level. These reviews take place during subsequent Budget formulation and at mid-year of each execution year as funds are reallocated from lagging programs to immediate needs. Contract and grant awards are reported promptly and accurately to the financial tracking systems. In order to reach the 50% and 80% expenditure rates, partners (contractors) must file claims for expenses on a reasonably timely basis. For example, the Air Force participates in a cost-sharing agreement in operating the Long-Range Radars with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA is the executive agent for this effort and tracks quarterly the obligations of all partners' funds to ensure the radar network continues operating.

Evidence: The Air Force closely monitors the spending of its resources, ensuring those funds appropriated are obligated. For Fiscal Year 2006, a year with increased operational tempo, the Air Force obligated 100 percent of the funds appropriated in the Operations and Maintenance, appropriation. Over the past five years (Fiscal Year 00-04), Air Force Operations and Maintenance, which contains all Combat-Related Readiness activities, has executed an average of over 99.9 percent of the funds appropriated. Memorandums of agreements establish the funding amounts for cost-sharing agreements and the executive agent tracks the obligation and execution of the funds of all parties to meet the performance goals.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Air Force is continuously evaluating the status of funding and reviews program relevance in an increasingly changing environment. The Air Force does not currently have efficiency measures that are directly linked to resources. Still, the Air Force does conduct quarterly funding execution reviews which allow the Air Force to focus on Major Command's efficiency and effectiveness. The program is currently undergoing mission upgrades that require significant hardware and software modifications in support of deficiencies recognized through the various strategic planning processes. In the process of resourcing funds for these programs, performance and requirements are being reviewed and evaluated to ensure resources are being used efficiently. Two of the programs efficiency measures, mean time between the Joint Surveillance System data stream interruptions and mean time between JSS part replacement, are integral to ensure the Air Force Combat-Readiness program managers are effective and efficient in their ability to assess and repair the system. Competitive sourcing and appropriate incentives are used in a manner consistent with Air Force best practices and directives.

Evidence: Results of the quarterly reviews reallocates resources throughout the Air Force to achieve operational and management goals. The Air Force measures the efficiency of their combat related readiness programs by tracking the amount of funds spent on readiness compared to the level of readiness that units achieve. The JSS peformance far exceeds its performance in terms of maximizing the time between interruptions. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 63-124 Performance-Based Services Acquisition (dated 1 August 2005 outlines procedures for developing requirements, acquiring services, and managing service acquisitions within the Air Force. This AFI includes guidance for implementation of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 Performance of Commercial Activities.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Air Force Combat-Related Readiness program has successful cost-sharing agreements and memorandum of understanding with multiple agencies, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Transportation, Commerce, as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, to name a few. The Air Force works closely in achieving interoperability with the other military services through the Combatant Commanders responsibilities in the War on Terror .

Evidence: There is ample evidence of effective coordination. The program works with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Homeland Security and Canada to use radar data to provide protection of North American air sovereignty. Another example is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a Department of Commerce entity) where the Air Force jointly uses the National Doppler Weather Radar program. The joint use of this data involves close coordination in meeting overall program goals. Additionally, the Department of Defense owns 26 of the 100+ radars in national network, but all data is fed into a centralized database to share with partners. Collaboration with these agencies is important since one of the biggest focus areas of the radar program is on aviation assets (civil and military aviation communities share airspace).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Defense Department's financial management weaknesses are well-documented. However, the Air Force uses strong financial management practices that are well-documented. The Air Force continues to use the audit and inspector general agencies to assist in improving the Department. Nonetheless, the Air Force is in the forefront of the Department of Defense, as it anticipates achieving a clean audit statement in 2007.

Evidence: Numerous audits document the Department's financial management such as D-2771 FD-0145 Internal controls for Air Force General Ledger funds cash and other monetary assets and D-2006B-0204 Reannouncement of the audit of the Defense Financial Accounting Service Corporate Warehouse Compliance with the Defense Business Transformation Certification Criteria.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Air Force Combat-Related Readiness programs are undertaking a number of ambitious initiatives to improve the integration of combat-related readiness across the Air Force and enhance program processes. For example, the program reconfigured the databases at all of its weather sites to ensure the warfighters know the equipment available at each site. Another instance of enhanced management of the program is the use of remote maintenance at the Arctic Circle. In-person maintenance at the Arctic Circle is expensive and puts personnel at risk. Remote maintenance, where possible, saves time and money and does not unnecessarily put personnel at risk.

Evidence: Quarterly Program Management Reviews and Executive Management Reviews assess short-term execution efficiency and outcomes within the program. A major tool for addressing readiness deficiencies is Combatant Commanders' (COCOM) Integrated Priority Lists. This list idenitifies COMCOM's high priority needs for filling shortfalls in key capabilities and programs.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Air Force Combat-Related Readiness program's long-term measures directly support its purpose of providing real-time command, control, communication, intelligence, weather, and navigation data to the U.S. Air Force warfighter, other U.S. federal agencies and other users. The program has consistently maintained a high level of readiness so it can provide an urgent combat-related capability anywhere in the world, such as aircraft for surveillance. The details of this program's achievements of this measure are classified for national security purposes. For example, the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) provides constant data to Air Sectors and the mean time between failures is a key output measure for this activity. The program has exceeded its goal by over 300-percent since FY 2003 in its ability to maintain no less than 1,020 hours, on average, between JSS data failures. The Air Force is also executing a high percentage of its programmed flying hours in maintaining high readiness of its aircraft supporting combat-related operations. In sum, the various measures continue to support high readiness and, therefore, the program is achieving its performance goals.

Evidence: Classified quarterly assessments of the program's readiness are conducted by the Department of Defense and submitted to Congress. Both the long-term performance of the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) and the flying hour programs have met targets to a large extent. Quarterly Program Management Reviews and Executive Management Reviews assess short-term execution efficiency and outcomes within the program. For some activities recommendations are made and implemented based on test results. This results in a better system given to the warfighter. Additionally, certification records are available for programs.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Combat-Related Readiness program is comprised of many discrete, but related activities that support the readiness goals of the Air Force. These discrete activities are each measured annually but limited resources sometimes result in the subordination of annual targets in certain activities to the outcome annual goal of maintaining high readiness. For example, if the Flying Hours Program falls below its target, this is because emphasis was placed on another program to meet in immediate need by the Combatant Commanders. Despite the constant need for combat-related readiness activities, the program has continues to achieve its annual measures, including its overall readiness. The details of this program's achievements of this measure are classified for national security purposes. Program partners and the Air Force regularly review cost-sharing and collaborative efforts to ensure annual performance measures are satisfied. For example, the Air Force participates in a cost-sharing agreement in operating the Long-Range Radars with the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA is the executive agent for this effort and tracks quarterly the obligations of all partners' funds to ensure the radar network continues operating and performing efficiently.

Evidence: The overall readiness of the Air Force Combat-Related activities is the compilation of many component capabilities measured annually. For example, aircraft dedicated to support combat-related readiness activities continue to execute nearly 100 percent or more of its programmed flying hours. This is a critical activity for supporting overall readiness. Another example is the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) provides constant data to Air Sectors and the mean time between failures and part replacement are key output measures for this activity. The program has exceeded its goal by over 300-percent since fiscal year 2003 in its ability to maintain no less than 1,020 hours, on average, between JSS data failures. The Department of Defense Operation and Maintenance Overview Congressional Budget Justification Book for the Presidents Budget request provides annual performance measure as well as funding execution data in the form of actual year data. Expenditure/obligations are annually met.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program does not have efficiency measures that are concretely linked to resource expenditures. The program demonstrates efficiencies regularly to maintain its readiness while supporting the War on Terror. This program is comprised of dozens of discrete but related activities. Thus, the extent to which improved efficiencies are identified is measured in terms of the overall readiness of the Air Force, which is not publicly available. In cases where the performance measures of constituent elements are not met, this is due to a risk-based assessment by the Air Force that focuses resources on the most critical activities to maintaining overall Air Force readiness. For example, the program is continually looking to improve cost effectiveness by combining its tests into one mission where possible.

Evidence: The Department of Defense and the Air Force have an extensive process to improve efficiencies and cost effectiveness. These include the Combatant Commander's Integrated Priority Lists that identify critical shortfalls on a regular basis. Quarterly Program Management Reviews and Executive Management Reviews assess mid and long-term program performance, requirementss and progress. Overall objectives and capabilities required by the Air Force Mission are described in the Air Force Strategic Plan and Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review. More defined objectives in constituent program elements are identified in the Air Force Fiscal Years 2009-2013 Annual Planning and Programming Guidance. Requirements reviews are ongoing to ensure strategic plans adequately detail program needs over the near future. Specific examples of constituent activities meeting performance measuresinclude the Ballistic Missile Early Warning Systems and the Space-Launched Ballistic Missile radar system that continue to meet short and long-term performance goals. There are examples where performance measures are not being met. First, the replacement time of parts on the Joint Surveillance System is partially due to the fact that the system rarely experience interruptions because of its high performance and reliability. Second, risk has also been accepted in Weapons Evaluation because of the high level training and competency of warfighters

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The Air Force's combat-related readiness activities support the Air Force, other military services and civilian users. It does so because there is no comparable public or private sector provider of these capabilities. The Marine Corp, Army, and Navy utilize the command, control, communications and intelligence data, as well as the navigation and weather data, provided by the Air Force. Combatant Commanders ensure there is no duplication of effort among the services. The performance of the Air Force in meeting requirements of the ongoing War on Terror, as well as adequate readiness for future mssions, is strong evidence that the program is providing its unique capabilities in a manner that is consistent with high performance.

Evidence: The program's performance has driven high demand by the other military services, U.S. federal agencies and civilian users as demonstrated by the high operations tempo of combat-related assets, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, radar information to support homeland security and unique command, control, communication, intelligence that only the U.S. Air Force can provide.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The Combat-Related Readiness program is comprised of many of discrete, but related activities that support the program's purpose. Since the overall readiness ratings of the Air Force are classified, evaluations tend to focus on the most critical activities supporting the program's mission. The evaluations are high-quality, of sufficient-scope, independent and conducted on a regular basis--e.g. quarterly, semi-annually, annually and as needed. The Department of Defense routinely certifies Air Force assessments of how well their training, equipment, and personnel can meet the requirements of real-world military missions. This assessment of Air Force readiness is reported to Congress in classified form on a quarterly basis. Ongoing combat operations and these reports show that Air Force units are ready to meet their real-world combat missions.

Evidence: Evidence is the classified assessment conducted by the Department of Defense and provided to Congress on a quarterly basis. Various evaluations have reviewed key combat-related activities. See GAO Rpt. GAO-06-610T, April 6, 2006 -- assessment of unmanned aerial vehicles. The Air Force Audit Agency has reviewed key combat-related activities such as "Selected Aspects of Theater Deployable Communications" that directly support combat, intelligence and surveillance information (Audit Report, F2007-0002-FB400, 2 February 2007) and "Reliability, Maintainability Support System for Electronic Combat Pod System Controls (Audit Report, F2007-0004-FB2000, May, 25, 2007). Also, the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) System Certification is responsible for the integrated system evaluations between the radars and the end using organizations such as USSTRATCOM and Missile Defense Agency. USSTRATCOM directives/instructions govern the system certification process.