The GEO satellite constellation provides midlatitude coverage  and the hosted HEO sensors provide polar coverage for missile warning  and defense and other missions. Air Force Assessed the Feasibility of GEO Satellites 5 and 6 Technology Insertion, but Earlier Assessment and Investment in Technology Development and Planning Could Have Improved the Effort

The Air Force assessed the feasibility and cost of incorporating a newer  infrared focal plane into the SBIRS GEO satellites 5 and 6 and found that  inserting a new focal plane would incur significant cost and schedule  increases. The assessment came too late to be useful to GEO satellites 5  and 6, but that might not have been the case if the Air Force had invested  in technology development and insertion planning earlier in the program  to provide more options for consideration. The Air Force Met Congressional Requirements to Assess New Focal Plane Technology for GEO Satellites 5 and 6

As directed in the Senate report, the Air Force assessed the feasibility  and costs of inserting newer infrared focal plane technologies—sensors  that can detect heat from missile launches, for example—into GEO  satellites 5 and 6. It identified two  plausible options for insertion, and though technically feasible, neither  was deemed affordable or deliverable within the replenishment need  dates of 2020 and 2021. Limited Prior Investment in Technology Development and Planning Efforts Reduced Technology Insertion Options

Because of limited prior investment in research and development and  technology insertion planning leading up to the acquisition of GEO  satellites 5 and 6, there was only one viable alternative focal plane to be  considered. As a result, the Air Force was limited in the number of  feasible options for adding new technology to GEO satellites 5 and 6. DOD  policy and guidance indicate that planning for technology insertion and  refresh is also important throughout a system’s life cycle. In addition, DOD’s Defense Acquisition Guidebook advises the  use of trade studies to inform system modifications, such as technology  insertion or refresh, and the development and implementation of  technology refresh schedules. Beyond assessing the two options—of replacing the current analog focal  plane with a more modern digital focal plane, either with or without  changes to the electronic interfaces—the Air Force was not in a position  to incorporate changes and still maintain the efficiencies planned by  buying GEO satellites 5 and 6 together. Limited Planning May Hinder the Air Force’s Ability to Fully Address Technology Insertion Risks in Future Systems

The current approach to technology insertion for SBIRS is not consistent  with the best practice of establishing a plan prior to the start of a program  that identifies specific technologies to be developed and inserted to  achieve a desired end state. While the Air Force is working to develop a technology road  map for the next system, the effort is still hampered by the lack of a clear  vision for the path forward, requiring the Air Force to plan for multiple  potential systems. In its  Systems Engineering Guide, the MITRE Corporation—a not-for-profit  research and development company—highlights the importance of  technology planning to provide guidance for evolving and maturing  technologies to address future mission needs. As mentioned above, we  have also found that leading commercial companies conduct strategic  planning before technology development and plan for technology  insertion before a program begins. Currently, technology insertion for SBIRS is largely driven by the need to  replace obsolescent parts, that is, parts that are no longer available and  need to be rebuilt or redesigned and qualified for the space environment. One of the areas under the SMI  plan, Evolved SBIRS, focuses on reducing cost and technical risk for  replenishments of the current SBIRS satellites and future SBIRS systems,  including addressing obsolescence. Although  Air Force Space Command’s (AFSPC) annual integrated planning  process identifies technology concepts that could be a part of a future  system, it is the program’s responsibility to decide which concepts to   Program managers generally  pursue further, according to officials.initiate technology development ideas and propose them to AFSPC as  they arise, at which point they develop into science and technology  projects. Given the short history of SMI, which started  in fiscal year 2013, the SBIRS program has had limited time to develop  and demonstrate new technologies that could be inserted into a follow-on. It is too early to determine how successful the road map will be in  providing a timely plan for inserting technology into the next system. Recommendation for Executive Action

To improve technology planning and ensure planning efforts are clearly  aligned with the SBIRS follow-on, we recommend that the Secretary of  the Air Force establish a technology insertion plan as part of the SBIRS  follow-on acquisition strategy that identifies obsolescence needs as well  as specific potential technologies and insertion points.
Why GAO Did This Study

SBIRS is a key part of DOD's missile warning and defense systems. To replace the first two satellites currently on orbit, the Air Force plans to build two more with the same design as previous satellites. The basic SBIRS design is years old and some of its technology has become obsolete. To address obsolescence issues in the next satellites, the program must replace old technologies with new ones, a process that may be referred to as technology insertion or refresh. A Senate Armed Services Committee report included a provision for GAO to review an Air Force assessment of the feasibility of inserting newer technologies into the planned replacement satellites, SBIRS GEO satellites 5 and 6, and how it intends to address technology insertion issues for future satellite systems.
This report examines (1) the extent to which the Air Force assessed the feasibility of inserting newer technologies into SBIRS GEO satellites 5 and 6 and (2) plans to address obsolescence issues and risk associated with technology insertion for future satellites or systems. GAO identified technology insertion planning guidance and practices, reviewed the Air Force's assessment and plans, and met with DOD and contractor offices.

What GAO Found

The Air Force assessed options for replacing older technologies with newer ones—called technology insertion—in the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) satellites 5 and 6. However, the assessment was limited in the number of options it could practically consider because of timing and minimal early investment in technology planning. The Air Force assessed the feasibility and cost of inserting new digital infrared focal plane technology—used to provide surveillance, tracking, and targeting information for national missile defense and other missions—in place of the current analog focal plane, either with or without changing the related electronics. While technically feasible, neither option was deemed affordable or deliverable when needed. The Air Force estimated that inserting new focal plane technology would result in cost increases and schedule delays ranging from $424 million and 23 months to $859 million and 44 months. The assessment came too late to be useful for SBIRS GEO satellites 5 and 6. It occurred after the Air Force had approved the acquisition strategy and while negotiations were ongoing to procure production of the two satellites. According to the Air Force, implementing changes at that stage would require contract modifications and renegotiations and incur additional cost and schedule growth. Limited prior investment in technology development and planning for insertion also limited the number of feasible options for adding new technology into SBIRS GEO satellites 5 and 6. Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition policy and guidance indicate that such planning is important throughout a system's life cycle, and GAO has reported on leading commercial companies' practice of planning for technology insertion prior to the start of a program. Air Force officials said early technology insertion planning was hampered in part by development challenges, test failures, and technical issues with the satellites, which took priority over research and development efforts.
The current approach to technology insertion for the system or satellites after SBIRS GEO satellites 5 and 6 could leave the program with similar challenges in the future. GAO's work on best practices has found that leading companies conduct strategic planning before technology development begins to help identify needs and technologies. Similarly, the MITRE Corporation—a not-for-profit research and development organization—has highlighted the importance of technology planning to provide guidance for evolving and maturing technologies to address future mission needs. Technology insertion decisions for the future system or satellites are not guided by such planning. Instead, decisions are largely driven by the need to replace obsolete parts as issues arise. Current efforts—such as individual science and technology projects, including those in the Space Modernization Initiative—are limited by lack of direction, focusing on isolated technologies, and therefore are not set up to identify specific insertion points for a desired future system. In addition, the SBIRS program has had little time to develop and demonstrate new technologies that could be inserted into a SBIRS follow-on system. The Air Force is working to develop a technology road map for the next system, according to officials. Given the lack of a clear vision for the path forward and the road map's early development status, it is too soon to determine whether it will be able to identify specific technology and obsolescence needs and insertion points in time for the next system.

What GAO Recommends

To improve technology planning, GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Air Force establish a plan as part of the SBIRS follow-on acquisition strategy that identifies obsolescence needs, specific potential technologies, and insertion points. DOD concurred with the recommendation.