Research for COP

The purpose of this paper is to document the chronological account of the air operation, Operation Deliberate Force, for the historical record. This was NATO's first extended air operation. From August 30 until September 19, 1995, allied forces flew a total of 3,515 sorties by nine countries, with losses of only one aircraft and no crew. This chronological account demonstrates the process required to shift from a UN military peacekeeping operation to a NATO peace-enforcement operation and offers a lesson for the future.

In 1991, the Department of Defense revised its instructions governing defense acquisition management. The role of Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analyses (COEAs) was spelled out at length. COEAs must be completed and presented to the acquisition decision executives at key decision milestones. For major acquisition programs, the analyses undergo extensive review within the military departments and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Thus, COEAs are primary--although not the only--means by which the decision authorities become informed about a program's advantages and disadvantages. Since 1991, CNA has provided leadership and staffing for a number of COEAs for the Navy and Marine Corps. Moreover, CNA has conducted COEA-like studies for various components of the Department of the Navy for many years. This paper, which draws from the collective experience of that work as well as from longer-standing principles of defense systems analysis, identifies and discusses certain issues that appear to be common to all COEAs. Each issue relates in some way to the use or misuse of cost information in the analysis. We begin with an overview of the role of COEAs in the acquisition process and a general discussion of the objectives of these studies and how they are put together. We then focus on the following issues: system versus decision alternatives; integrating cost and effectiveness results; wartime costs; discounting; risk and uncertainty analysis; and affordability.

At the core of decision-making about U.S. military forces lies the question of what roles and function are assigned to each component of the national defense structure. In theory, resources are then distributed to reflect mission requirements. Today, the nation is in the midst of a review of mission requirements and resource allocations to national defense. This paper provides a backdrop to today's debate by examining the historical debate over 'who will do what with what.' This examination briefly reviews the debates over the U.S. military services' roles, functions, and missions. In addition to a chronological discussion, the paper highlights factors that drive roles and missions debates and relates these factors to today's debate. The discussion emphasizes the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps perspective. The intent is to provide a sense of how the U.S. military structure arrived at where it is today, thus laying a framework for examining potential alternative future structures and assignments of roles, functions, and missions.