8.2. Signature and other Intelligence Mission Data Support
The first step for managers involved with acquisition efforts and programs is to identify any requirement for intelligence analysis related to enabling mission capability. The data derived from this analysis and needed by acquisition programs is commonly referred to as signatures and other IMD. See definitions at Section 8.0.3. Applicability.
Further, Services have liaisons with expertise in both intelligence and acquisitions. These professionals know how to interface with the DoD IC and are typically part of the acquisition team (or are accessible to the team).
DoD Directive 5250.01, Management of Signature Support Within the Department of Defense, establishes the Signatures Support Program (SSP) (previously known as the National Signatures Program (NSP)) to manage and execute the DoD Signature Support Mission (SSM). Signatures are essential for building target models, developing algorithms, optimizing sensor design, and validating sensor functionality. The PM should account for signatures during system and sensor acquisition.
The PM documents detailed signature requirements in a Life-cycle Signature Support Plan (LSSP) (per DoD Directive 5250.01) and defines overall signature support requirements and compliance with signature standards in the Capability Development Document and Capability Production Document (per CJCS Instruction 3312.01, "Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification"). Under CJCS Instruction 3312.01, the SSP uses the LSSP to assess the ability of the signatures community to support a program's signature requirements.
8.2.1. Signature and other Intelligence Mission Data support in the Technology Development Strategy (TDS)
DoD Directive 5250.01 requires that signature support requirements and funding be incorporated into a program's acquisition strategy. Per PDUSD AT&L Memo, 20 APR 2011 Document Streamlining – Program Strategies and Systems Engineering Plan, the TDS should provide a table that indicates the program life-cylce signature support requirements. Life-cycle signature support funding requirements will be reflected in the TDS program funding summary. [Technology Development Strategy Memo] If required signatures are not already available in the distributed national signatures pool, the program will need to plan and budget for development of these signatures. Stating in the TDS that a program is signature dependent and will identify requirements in a Life-cycle Signature Support Plan ensures that the Program Office has considered signature development resource needs in the program planning and budgeting process.
8.2.2. Distributed DoD Signatures and other Intelligence Mission Data Pool and Standards
DoD Directive 5250.01 requires that all signatures provided for the DoD be made available through a distributed DoD signature pool and adhere to established standards. Whether developed by a government signature center or by a contractor, if the signatures and other IMD are made available through a distributed pool, they can be shared to prevent duplication of work and cost across the DoD.
An essential element to make this possible is the use of standards to ensure common meta-data tags and processing methods are used. This in turn ensures the signatures will be discoverable in the distributed pool and that the signatures will be usable for multiple customers including acquisition programs and operational systems.
The Signatures Support Program provides single access point connectivity to the distributed pool through web-pages on JWICS (http://ssp.dodiis.ic.gov/), SIPRNet (http://dt.dia.smil.mil/ssp), and NIPRNet (site under development). (NOTE: These sites cannot be accessed via the Internet or Non-secured Internet Protocol Router Network.) Current signature standards are also available at these web-sites.
8.2.3. Intelligence Mission Data (IMD) Support
DoD Directive 5250.01, “Management of Signature Support Within the Department of Defense”, requires all signature-dependent technology and acquisition programs and efforts to submit a Life-cycle Signature Support Plan (LSSP) throughout their respective lifecycle. An LSSP is intended to facilitate collaboration and agreement between the acquisition, requirements and intelligence communities regarding signatures, also known as Intelligence Mission Data (IMD), which is DoD intelligence used for programming platform mission systems in development, testing, operations, and sustainment including, but not limited to the following functional areas: Intelligence Signatures, Electronic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming (EWIR), Order of Battle (OOB), Characteristics and Performance (C&P), and Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT).
Technology initiatives and weapons systems design, development, test, evaluation, operation and sustainment increasingly rely on signatures and other Intelligence Mission Data to meet expected capability. The identification of required data type, conditions, fidelity, precision, etc., often evolves as the technology and systems mature. Additionally, the intelligence community must constantly respond to these requirements in an ever changing environment as threats, targets, and systems evolve over time. For these reasons developing an LSSP must be initiated early in a program’s lifecycle to establish an effective and efficient flow of communication and actions to ensure timely support for IMD requirements.
The LSSP defines specific technology and program IMD requirements. The DAU LSSP webpage provides an LSSP template, instructions for LSSP completion, an LSSP Signature Requirements Table template, and an example Contract Data Requirements List form for procuring signature data. The LSSP Template provides an outline and guidance that standardizes communication between the technology or program offices and the intelligence community. The LSSP should contain as much detail as possible to inform intelligence community production and collection decisions. Therefore, increasing detail should be provided in each update and submission of the LSSP. Content considerations for an LSSP by phase and milestone can be found below.
8.2.3.1. Materiel Solution Analysis Phase to Milestone A
In accordance with DAG Chapter 2, a program’s strategy document (Technology Development Strategy (TDS)) should identify the (a) systems and subsystems of the program that require intelligence mission data necessary to deliver the intended capabilities; and (b) IMD funding requirements as appropriate. The TDS should refer to the program’s LSSP for a listing of the actual IMD requirements and additional detail.
Since final material solutions are yet to be approved prior to Milestone A, specific system configuration and detailed signature requirements are generally not known. However, based on the intended operational mission, the program should identify the IMD type(s) (e.g. Radar, Thermal, Acoustic, EWIR, GEOINT etc.) the domain (e.g. Space, Air, Land, Naval, Missile Defense, etc.), data fidelity (e.g. queuing quality), and possibly sub-categories within a domain (e.g. for Air: Fighter Aircraft) for each subsystem that requires the data. To the level that specific requirements are known, they should be stated.
IMD requirements and related implications to design, performance, and test & evaluation, will be accounted for and considered throughout the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase. Relevant questions to consider and actions to take during this phase include:
Questions:
- Has the program been identified for Foreign Military Sales (FMS)? If yes, then how will this effect design, development, testing, disclosure and releasability of IMD-dependent components?
- For each proposed material solution identified during the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) process, will the solution require the detection and identification of an activity, event, person, material, or equipment? If yes, then for each proposed detection or identification method (radar, EO/IR, acoustic, chemical, etc.), assess the technical feasibility of acquiring IMD within cost and schedule constraints. Consider the quality of available IMD, the IC’s capability to deliver IMD and whether the IMD needs to be collected, processed and/or developed.
Actions:
- During development of the preliminary system specification, identify which system functions will likely drive the need for IMD, either directly or through derived requirements.
- During development of mission and functional threads, identify potential IMD requirements for inclusion in the LSSP.
- During development of Test and Evaluation strategies and plans, identify IMD requirements based on the need to verify and validate detection and identification functionality. Characterize associated technical risk in the Test and Evaluation Strategy. Estimate IMD delivery requirements to meet projected test schedules.
8.2.3.2. Technology Development Phase to Milestone B
As a program approaches Milestone B (MS B), the LSSP must include mission or capability specific details and IMD requirements to support program development. For example, as the design matures, additional details should emerge about the design of the sensors and the algorithms. The LSSP should also identify any IMD-based models and intelligence production requirements (PRs) already submitted to a Service Intelligence Production Center (NASIC, NGIC, ONI, MSIC, etc.), other IMD production efforts (e.g. lab, warfare research center, or other agency, organization, etc.), and planned IMD collection events that the program will conduct.
Based on initial IMD requirements defined for Milestone A, refine and add details for the MS B LSSP during development of the Systems Performance Specification and the Allocated Baseline. Relative questions to consider and actions to take during this phase include:
Questions:
- Has the program been identified for Foreign Military Sales (FMS)? If yes, then how will this effect design, development, testing, disclosure and releasability of IMD-dependent components?
- For each proposed detection/identification method (radar, Electro Optical/Infra Red (EO/IR), acoustic, chemical, etc.), does the required IMD (signature, EWIR, GEOINT, OOB, C&P) already exist (at the estimated quality needed) or will it need to be processed, produced, or collected?
- Is the required detection/identification technology sufficiently mature (Technology Readiness Level 6 or higher) to proceed into end-item design or Milestone B?
- Which IMD-dependent performance requirements need to be verified through test and evaluation?
- Does the program have IMD requirements derived from Modeling and Simulation activities?
- Can the estimated IMD processing, production, collection be completed within required cost and schedule?
- Do the detection/identification algorithms or processes need to be designed to accommodate IMD updates?
- Is there potential for the detection/identification hardware and software to perform IMD collection and provide updates to IMD databases? If yes, has a design study been conducted to assess feasibility and cost/benefit analysis?
- Have significant IMD-dependent functions been included in the proposed exit criteria for the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase?
- Has the program’s spectrum requirements taken into account bandwidth needed for IMD updates during system operations and sustainment?
- Should any IMD data sets be considered as GFE for the EMD Contract?
Actions:
- During the functional allocation process, conduct sensitivity analyses on IMD level of quality (e.g. resolution, frequency range, etc.) to assess quality of available data versus required quality to meet performance KPPs/KPAs.
- Define system level functional and performance requirements derived from items such as: Concept of Operations, system-level performance metrics, mission threads/use cases, and usage environment. Document results and requirements in the System Requirements Document (SRD), LSSP, and Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) as appropriate.
- Assess IMD requirements and schedule relative to DOT&E needs. Document results in the LSSP and by reference in the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP).
8.2.3.3. Engineering & Manufacturing Phase to Milestone C
This LSSP will be an update to the previous LSSP. The purpose is to add any new IMD requirements resulting from design maturity or changes in the Concept of Operations (CONOP). It should identify the expected IMD production support and concept necessary for system employment in an operational environment. The LSSP should include information on IMD data existing within the program (modeling and simulation or measured physical parameters) for sensor or algorithm development or for testing purposes, and; information on the existence of any “blue” IMD collected to support the program. Additionally, the IMD production concept must be defined and coordinated with the intelligence community. At a minimum this should include the identification of organizations for the production of IMD, addressing responsible entities for adversary commercial systems, and US systems (blue). This information is required to ensure that this form of IMD is available through the DoD data sources.
Based on IMD requirements defined in the Milestone B LSSP, refine and add details for the MS C LSSP during development of the System Functional Spec and the Initial Product Baseline. Relevant questions to consider and actions to take during this phase include:
Questions:
- Has the program been identified for Foreign Military Sales (FMS)? If yes, then how will this effect design, development, testing, disclosure and releasability of IMD-dependent components?
- For each proposed detection/identification method (radar, EO/IR, acoustic, chemical, etc.), has IMD (signature, EWIR, GEOINT, OOB, C&P) required for system operations and sustainment been accounted for in the LSSP and Acquisition Plan, at the level of quality needed?
- Which IMD requirements need to be verified in Follow-on test and evaluation (FOT&E)?
Actions:
- Determine IMD-related schedule events (need date from Intelligence Production Center, algorithm or sensor critical test-related dates, etc.) for inclusion in the System Technical Schedule within the SEP.
- Assess IMD-related functions for inclusion in Risk Management assessments in the SEP.
- Assess IMD requirements and schedule relative to FOT&E needs. Document results in the LSSP and by reference in the updated TEMP.
8.2.3.4. Low-Rate Initial Production to Full-rate Production/Full Deployment Decision Review (FRP-DR) to Disposal
In preparation for IOC, an LSSP update is required to ensure congruence with the Final Production Baseline and to fully account for required operational signatures based on the latest threat assessments and CONOPS for the system. This LSSP also needs to fully account for IMD sustainment plans including identification of processes and data sources which are essential for system operations, such as: IMD production processes; IMD databases; IMD verification and validation for operational use; processes and systems which support development and dissemination of IMD data loads for operational missions.
This LSSP requires COCOM coordination and identification of COCOM processes for updating and fulfilling IMD requirements during operation and sustainment of the system. Relevant questions to consider and actions to take during this phase include:
Questions
- For FMS versions of the system, have IMD-dependent components been verified for release and approved by the Designated Disclosure Authority?
- Have IMD support requirements been included in the Life-cycle Sustainment Plan and the Product Support Package?
- Does the current CONOPS for the system drive new or updated IMD requirements? Have these new/updated IMD requirements been handed off to the COCOM requirements prioritization process?
- If the operational system has an IMD reprogramming process, is the reprogramming system and organization ready for operations?
Actions
- Coordinate the LSSP with the system’s COCOM.
- Confirm operations of the IMD reprogramming process.
8.2.4. Life-cycle Signature Support Plan (LSSP) Assessment
Each LSSP is assessed to identify existing signature holdings, requirements, standards, collection events, technologies and associated cost estimates relative to the program. As a result, a custom assessment is provided to the PM to use in planning signature collection, development, and processing to ensure signatures and other IMD are available in time to meet system design and delivery schedules.
DAG Tutorial 
