Military Intelligence

## Intelligence Support To Capability Development

                     Headquarters
                     Department of the Army
                     Washington, DC
                     26 January 2007
UNCLASSIFIED

## Summary Of Change Ar 38111 Intelligence Support To Capability Development

This major revision, dated 26 January 2007--

o Changes the title to "Intelligence Support to Capability Development." o Eliminates procedures relating to obtaining intelligence. o Implements changes directed by updates in Department of Defense Directive
5000.1, Department of Defense Instruction 5000.2, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01E, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3170.01B throughout.
o Revises organizational responsibilities and designations within
Headquarters Department of the Army, Army Service Component Commands, Direct Reporting Units, and heads of other Army elements (chap 2).
o Replaces Threat Coordinating Group with the Threat Steering Group (para 3-
11).
o Implements changes regarding the new Defense Intelligence Agency Directive
5000.200 and Defense Intelligence Agency Instruction 5000.002 and System Threat Assessment Report processing procedures (paras 3-11, 4-2).
o Creates the Army Regional Structure Validation Working Group, headed by Army
Research Laboratory (Survivability, Lethality, and Analysis Directorate), supported by the National Ground Intelligence Center and the Standard Military Operations in Urban Terrain Target and Testing Board to create a standardized, validated, set of detailed structural descriptions to be used consistently in test and evaluation. (para 3-13)
o Adds guidance on intelligence support to program protection (para 3-19).
o Adds guidance on intelligence support to contractors (para 3-20). o Eliminates the requirement for an acquisition category III program system
threat assessment report in most cases (para 4-2).
o Adds guidance on the program protection plan (para 4-5). o Revises format for the System Threat Assessment Report (app B). o Revises the format for a test threat support package (app C). o Implements management controls mandated by AR 11-2 (app D). o Makes administrative changes throughout.

## Military Intelligence Intelligence Support To Capability Development

m a t e r i e l  d e v e l o p m e n t ,  t r a i n i n g  d e v e l o p - m e n t ,  t e c h n o l o g y  i n s e r t i o n ,  a n d  r a p i d fielding.

Applicability. This regulation applies to t h e  A c t i v e  A r m y ,  t h e  A r m y  N a t i o n a l Guard/Army National Guard of the United States, and the U.S. Army Reserve, unless otherwise stated. It also applies to personnel conducting research, development, or acquisition of materiel items or those conducting analysis using the full range of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities.

H i s t o r y .  T h i s  p u b l i c a t i o n  i s  a  m a j o r revision.

Proponent and exception authority.

The proponent for this regulation is the Deputy Chief of Staff, G2. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G2 has the authority to approve exceptions or waivers to this regulation that are consistent with controlling law and regulations. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G2 may delegate this approval aut h o r i t y ,  i n  w r i t i n g ,  t o  a  d i v i s i o n  c h i e f within the proponent agency or its direct reporting unit or field operating agency, in the grade of colonel or the civilian equivalent. Activities may request a waiver to this regulation by providing justification that includes a full analysis of the expected benefits and must include formal review by the activity's senior legal officer. All waiver requests will be endorsed by the commander or senior leader of the requesting activity and forwarded through S u m m a r y .  T h i s  r e g u l a t i o n  o n  i n t e l l i -
gence support to capability development, using guidance from Department of Def e n s e  D i r e c t i v e  5 0 0 0 . 1 ,  D e p a r t m e n t  o f D e f e n s e  I n s t r u c t i o n  5 0 0 0 . 2 ,  a n d  C h a i r - man, Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3170. 01 provides policies, responsibilities, and procedures to ensure that threat considerations are incorporated into the Defense acq u i s i t i o n  p r o c e s s  a n d  t h e  J o i n t Capabilities Integration and Development System where the Army is the lead or supporting agency. It contains procedures for requesting intelligence threat support for various applications in the Army to include: analyses, automated information systems, life-cycle management, technology, studies, simulations, simulators, comp u t e r  m o d e l s ,  b a t t l e  l a b s ,  c o m b a t  a n d

## Contents (Listed By Paragraph And Page Number)

Chapter 1 Introduction, page 1
Purpose - 11, page 1 References - 12, page 1 Explanation of abbreviations and terms - 13, page 1
Responsibilities - 14, page 1
higher headquarters to the policy propon e n t .  R e f e r  t o  A R  2 5 - 3 0  f o r  s p e c i f i c guidance.

Army management control process.

This regulation contains management cont r o l  p r o v i s i o n s  i n  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  A R
112R (Management Control Evaluation Certification Statement) and identifies key management controls that must be evaluated (see appendix D).

S u p p l e m e n t a t i o n .  S u p p l e m e n t a t i o n  o f this regulation and establishment of command and local forms are prohibited without prior approval from the Deputy Chief of Staff, G2, ATTN: DAMIFIT, 1000 A r m y  P e n t a g o n ,  W a s h i n g t o n ,  D C 203101000.

Suggested improvements. Users are invited to send comments and suggested improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recomm e n d e d  C h a n g e s  t o  P u b l i c a t i o n s  a n d Blank Forms) directly to the Deputy Chief of Staff, G2, ATTN: DAMIFIT, 1000 A r m y  P e n t a g o n ,  W a s h i n g t o n ,  D C 203101000.

Distribution. This publication is available in electronic media only and is intended for command level D of the Active A r m y ,  t h e  A r m y  N a t i o n a l  G u a r d / A r m y National Guard of the United States, and the U.S. Army Reserve.

## ContentsContinued

Policy - 15, page 1

## Chapter 2 Responsibilities, Page 3

Section I
Headquarters, Department of the Army, page 3
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, & Technology) - 21, page 3
The Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G2 - 22, page 3 The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, G3 - 23, page 3
The Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs & Analysis, G8 - 24, page 4
The Chief Information Officer, G6 - 25, page 4 Director, Test and Evaluation Management Agency - 26, page 4 Other Army Staff - 27, page 4
Section II
Army Commands, Army Service Component Commands, and Direct Reporting Units, page 4
Commanders, Army Commands, Army Service Component Commands, and Direct Reporting Units - 28, page 4
The Commanding General, Training and Doctrine Command - 29, page 4 The Commanding General, Army Materiel Command - 210, page 5 The Commanding General, Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command - 211, page 5 The Commanding General, Intelligence and Security Command - 212, page 6 The Commanding General, Army Test and Evaluation Command - 213, page 6
Section III Other Army Elements, page 6
Program executive officers, program/project managers, Training and Doctrine Command capability managers - 214, page 6
Commander, National Ground Intelligence Center - 215, page 7
Program Executive Officer for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation - 216, page 8
The Director, U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity - 217, page 8

## Chapter 3 Intelligence Threat Support, Page 8

Section I General, page 8
Purpose - 31, page 8
Guidance for threat preparation - 32, page 9
Section II Intelligence Threat Support Structure, page 9
Threat integration staff officer and threat analyst - 33, page 9
Training and Doctrine Command Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence - 34, page 9
Army Materiel Command, G2 and Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command intelligence officers - 35, page 10
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command - 36, page 10
Section III Intelligence Threat Baseline, page 10
Intelligence threat baseline products - 37, page 10 Capstone threat assessment - 38, page 11 Initial threat warning assessment - 39, page 11 Defense planning scenarios multiservice force deployment, joint country force assessment, and Training and Doctrine Command standard scenarios - 310, page 11

## ContentsContinued

Section IV Intelligence Threat Support Process, page 11
Threat steering group - 311, page 11 Threat accreditation working group - 312, page 12 Army threat representation validation working group - 313, page 12 Other intelligence support to test and evaluation - 314, page 13
Intelligence support to Army modeling and simulation - 315, page 13
Intelligence support to Army scenario development - 316, page 14 Intelligence support to Army studies and analysis - 317, page 14
Intelligence support to information assurance certification and accreditation - 318, page 16
Intelligence support to program protection - 319, page 16
Intelligence support to contractors - 320, page 16
Chapter 4 Intelligence Threat Support Products, page 16
Initial threat support - 41, page 16
System threat assessment report - 42, page 17
Test and evaluation master plan - 43, page 18 Threat test support package - 44, page 18 Program protection plan - 45, page 19

## Appendixes

A.
References, page 20
B.
System Threat Assessment Report Format, page 22
C.
Threat Test Support Package Formats, page 24
D.
Management Control Evaluation Checklist, page 25

## Glossary

11. Purpose This regulation prescribes Army policy and procedures and assigns responsibilities for
a. Integrating intelligence support into the capability development process. b. Providing multidisciplined intelligence (MDI) support to (1) The doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF)
capability development process.

(2) Responsibilities and procedures for intelligence support to (a) Research and development to include rapid fielding initiatives and international agreement programs. (b) Modeling and simulation (M&S). (c) Threat representation development for test and evaluation (T&E) events. (d) Nondevelopmental item. (e) Commercial off the shelf. (f) Technology-based programs to include the advanced technology demonstration (ATD), advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD), Army technology objective (ATO), cooperative research and development agreements, small business independent research, cooperative technology agreements, and horizontal technology integration efforts.

(g) Risk management in support of information technology security certification and accreditation (see Army Regulation (AR) 252).

c. Ensuring that MDI support guides the Army's warfighting capability development process through the 21st century.

## 12. References Required And Related Publications And Prescribed And Referenced Forms Are Listed In Appendix A. 13. Explanation Of Abbreviations And Terms Abbreviations And Special Terms Used In This Regulation Are Explained In The Glossary. 14. Responsibilities Responsibilities Are Listed In Chapter 2.

15. Policy a. Intelligence. The product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of available information concerning foreign countries or areas. Intelligence information applied to capability development is referred to as "threat." Quality intelligence is
(1) Timely, providing intelligence products to the combat and materiel developers in an expeditious manner and continually look for ways to streamline the validation and accreditation process.

(2) Tailored, focussing on intelligence products on the needs of the combat and materiel developers and reduce extraneous information.

(3) Digestible. Intelligence products must be easily read and understood. Formats must convey the main points clearly and ensure that the message is easily understood.

(4) Clear regarding the known and unknown. Intelligence provides what is known, what is unknown, and the analysis which fills the gaps. Clearly identify the degree of confidence in assessments and facilitate the update of critical information requirements.

b. Intelligence threat support. Intelligence threat support consists of consideration and evaluation of intelligence information in order to conduct a threat assessment of an enemy or potential enemy's current or projected capability to limit, neutralize, or destroy the effectiveness of any aspect of DOTMLPF. Threat support is a continuous process beginning with concept development or rapid fielding and continuing through DOTMLPF life cycles in a collaborative environment and reassessed between multidisciplinary proponents.

c. Incorporating intelligence.

(1) Army customers will incorporate MDI in support of the capability development process in accordance with security restrictions specified in AR 701, AR 3805, AR 380381, and AR 38110.

(2) Commanders will obtain intelligence from organic and supporting organizations to the maximum extent possible before requesting dissemination or production of intelligence products in accordance with this regulation.

(3) Requests for dissemination and submission of production requirements (PRs) will be expedited through command channels.

d. Intelligence integration into capability development.

(1) Intelligence threat support consists of consideration and evaluation of intelligence information in order to asses an enemy's or potential enemy's current or projected capability to limit, neutralize, or destroy the effectiveness of any aspect of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF). Intelligence threat support is a continuous process that includes research and development, concept development, or rapid fielding and continuing through DOTMLPF life cycles in a collaborative environment with reassessment among multidisciplinary proponents.

(2) Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 5000.1 states that intelligence and understanding threat capabilities are integral to system development and directs the program/project manager (PM) to keep threat capabilities integrated into program documents throughout the acquisition process.

(3) DOD Instruction (DODI) 5000.2 outlines the statutory and regulatory information requirements of which the System Threat Assessment Report (STAR) and Program Protection Plan (PPP) are regulatory information requirements for milestones (MS) B and C. The instruction outlines various acquisition documents.

(4) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Directive (DIAD) 5000.200 and DIA Instruction (DIAI) 5000.002 contain guidance on threat support to acquisition category (ACAT) ID programs and other programs on the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) T&E oversight lists for systems acquisition. It refers to procedures for ACAT II and III programs. DIAI 5000.002 outlines the standard STAR format.

(5) Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01E and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual
(CJCSM 3170.01B) outline the Joint Capability Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the process to produce capability proposals that consider the full range of DOTMLPF and where to incorporate threat information in capabilities documents.

(6) DOD Memorandum, dated 6 July 2006, from the Chief Information Officer, subject: Interim DOD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process Guidance, supersedes DODI 5200.40 and requires the identification of threat as part of the definition phase of the DOD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP).

(7) DODI 8260.2 prescribes the analytic baseline for defense planning scenarios (DPS). It implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for generating, collecting, developing, maintaining, and disseminating data on current and future U.S. and non-U.S. forces in support of strategic analyses conducted by the DOD.

(8) Intelligence Community Directive Number 301 establishes policy and specific responsibilities for the oversight, management, and implementation of intelligence community open source activities.

(9) Policies for threat support to capability development as they pertain to the Army are listed below: (a) Intelligence and threat are command responsibilities. Army commanders, combat developers (to include Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) capability managers (TCMs)), materiel developers (to include Program Executive Officers (PEOs) and PMs), designated accreditation authorities or capability developers (to include the training, testing, experimentation, and modeling and simulation communities), study directors, and Research Development and Engineering Centers (RDECs) and research laboratories at all levels will ensure that MDI is applied, integrated, funded, and properly staffed in the capability development process and the information technology (IT) security certification and accreditation process.

(b) MDI, which includes scientific and technical intelligence characteristics, capabilities and limitations of foreign equipment, and general military intelligence (GMI) (organization, doctrine, force structure, and tactics of threat forces), will primarily be derived from data sources with production responsibility as outlined in the Defense Intelligence Analysis Program (DIAP). If other sources are used, such as unclassified open source publications or electronic online resources, their use will be noted in the program or system-specific threat bibliography. Analysis of MDI data to meet threat requirements is the responsibility of the supporting intelligence element.

(c) Combat and materiel development commands or activities and system development organizations will integrate required intelligence documentation. This includes threat assessments to support specific combat, materiel, automated information systems, and training development activities for which those commands are responsible.

(10) Members of the intelligence production community will provide intelligence support in response to PRs as specified under the DIAP.

(11) The threat support activity of each command and activity involved in the force, combat, and materiel development process will participate in a collaborative process to develop, review, and approve threat assessments written in support of command missions.

## Section I Headquarters, Department Of The Army

21. Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, & Technology)
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, & Technology) (ASA(ALT)) will
a. Obtain and fund MDI support for research, development, and acquisition requirements, including special task forces (STFs), special study groups (SSGs), study advisory groups (SAGs), study directives, analyses, technology efforts and direction and guidance documents for which the ASA(ALT) is responsible from earliest concept stages.

b. Request threat statements for Modified Integrated Program Summaries and in-process reviews for ACAT I and II
systems from the Deputy Chief of Staff, G2 (DCS, G2) and ensure that the summaries prepared to support milestone decision reviews for ACAT I and II systems contain or reference HQDA-approved threat assessments or have received a waiver from the designated milestone decision authority to the effect that there is no system-specific threat to the program.

c. Ensure that intelligence assets are programmed to support long-range planning initiatives and that plans reflect consideration of the threat.

d. Ensure threat information contained in program documents being submitted for Defense Acquisition Board
(DAB) review have been reviewed by the DCS, G2.

e. Identify and submit command threat support requirements and request intelligence reports through the DCS, G2. f. Obtain MDI support and guidance to technology base programs, to include ATD, ACTD, and international agreement programs. Ensure integration of approved MDI to support a developmental test (DT).

g. Provide coordination and approval for end user certificates as required for open commercial purchases of foreign manufactured military materiel desired by program managers in support of research, development, and acquisition (RDA).

22. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G2
a. The DCS, G2 has Department of the Army (DA) and Army Staff (ARSTAF) responsibility for determining intelligence priorities, managing intelligence production by the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) and the Army Counterintelligence Center (ACIC), and establishing MDI and program protection support policy, guidance, and funding for the Army. DCS, G2 exercises this responsibility through the Foreign Intelligence Directorate (DAMIFI), Counterintelligence (CI)/Human Intelligence Directorate (DAMICD), and the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM).

b. The DCS, G2 will (1) Serve on the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC). (2) Serve on the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC). (3) Serve as the ARSTAF proponent for intelligence and threat M&S efforts. (4) Designate appropriate representatives to serve on STFs, SSGs, SAGs, general officer steering committees, and other intelligence efforts.

(5) Manage the Army intelligence support to capability development process.

(6) Convene study groups, working groups, TSGs, and so on as required to develop and review M&S and ensure that intelligence data on threat doctrine, projections, developments, issues, and force employment used in these products are logical and consistent.

(7) Convene and chair quarterly meetings of the Army Technology Protection Working Group (ATWG). The ATWG will consist of representatives from INSCOM, ASA(ALT), Army Materiel Command (AMC), and the Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC). The mission of the ATWG will be to ensure intelligence sharing and coordinate ongoing intelligence support to ASA(ALT) and AMC program and technology priorities.

(8) Integrate and synchronize security, intelligence, counterintelligence, foreign disclosure, and security countermeasures support to research and technology protection activities Armywide.

(9) Assign threat integration staff officers (TISO) and threat analysts (TA) to support capabilities development.

23. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, G3
The Deputy Chief of Staff, G3 (DCS, G3) has DA and general staff responsibility for determining Army priorities for intelligence. This responsibility is executed through the activities of the Army Priorities Intelligence Needs Coordinating Group. The Army intelligence priorities are determined annually and are based on The Army Plan. The a p p r o v e d  A r m y  i n t e l l i g e n c e  p r i o r i t i e s  a r e  a v a i l a b l e  b y  c o n t a c t i n g  t h e  D C S ,  G - 3  ( D A M O - S S P )  o r  D C S ,  G - 2 (DAMIPOB). The DCS, G3 will
a. Coordinate with the DCS, G2 on requirements and funding for MDI support to STFs, SSGs, study directives, analyses, and guidance documents.

b. Participate in DA-level TSGs for coordination of MDI as appropriate. c. Coordinate with the DCS, G2 on appropriate MDI guidance and policy. d. Coordinate with the DCS, G2 for training support requirements, including threat guidance and foreign materiel for training.

24. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs & Analysis, G8
The Deputy Chief of Staff, G8 (DCS, G8) will
a. Coordinate with the DCS, G2 on appropriate MDI guidance and policy and coordinate with the DCS, G2 on requirements and funding for MDI support to programs, requirement study directives, analyses, and program guidance documents.

b. Participate in DA-level TSGs for coordination of MDI as appropriate. c. Ensure the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) has the current program schedule information for all program milestone decision reviews (MDRs), DABs, ASARCs, and other program decision points that may require a STAR and/or threat test support package (TTSP) update.

25. The Chief Information Officer, G6
The Chief Information Officer, G6 (CIO/G6) will
a. Coordinate with the DCS, G2 on methodologies to include MDI support to emerging information systems and networks developed under the aegis of the PEO, Enterprise Information Systems.

b. Coordinate with the DCS, G2 to develop methodologies to provide MDI support to procurement of information systems that fall below DODD 5000.1 thresholds and technology insertions that are not considered procurements.

26. Director, Test and Evaluation Management Agency The Director, Test and Evaluation Management Agency (TEMA) will
a. Establish Army validation and accreditation policy for threat representations. b. Charter and chair validation working groups for threat representations. c. Coordinate with the DCS, G2 on requirements for MDI support to threat targets (excluding range targets), simulators, and simulations that fall under the auspices of the Threat System Working Group Program, STFs, and other guidance documents.

d. Ensure that Army threat representations are validated and accredited in accordance with AR 731 and DA Pam
731.

27. Other Army Staff The ARSTAF will submit requirements for MDI support to the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT), in accordance with this regulation.

## Section Ii Army Commands, Army Service Component Commands, And Direct Reporting Units

28. Commanders, Army Commands, Army Service Component Commands, and Direct Reporting Units Commanders, Army Commands, Army Service Component Commands, and Direct Reporting Units (DRU) will:
a. Ensure each subordinate element registers intelligence product needs with the Army dissemination PM. b. Prepare, review, and transmit open source information and commercial content needs to the Army Open Source Requirements Manager.

c. Review annually all submitted intelligence PRs and registered statements of intelligence Interest and cancel, revise, or reinstate.

d. Provide periodic assessments of how well intelligence production has addressed requirements relevant to the command's mission.

e. Ensure appropriate threat documentation is prepared and approved for nonstandard systems, developmental systems, nondevelopmental items, and commercial off-the-shelf technology or obtain a waiver from the appropriate authority.

29. The Commanding General, Training and Doctrine Command The Commanding General (CG), TRADOC will
a. Determine intelligence threat support requirements for capability development under TRADOC purview and provide requisite threat support in collaboration with other threat support activities and DCS, G2. Also serve as liaison to the DCS, G2 and AMC G2.

b. Assign threat managers (TMs) to support combat development activities at the proponent schools or centers of excellence.

c. Provide intelligence threat support to training development, concept development, and JCIDs documentation. d. Develop initial STARs for all ACAT I/II programs prior to MS B unless designated otherwise by the Threat Steering Group (TSG) and update in accordance with guidelines in paragraph 42.

e. Prepare and validate initial STARs for ACAT III programs prior to MS B if required by the TSG (refer to paragraph 42).

f. Prepare TTSPs to support an operational test (OT) or combined DT and OT for all Army programs. g. Provide threat input for the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP). h. Develop threat and foreign portions of scenarios and force templates to support capability development. i. Participate in onsite approval and validation of OT threat portrayals in coordination with ATEC and operational assessments occurring in DT.

j. Chair or participate in TSGs as appropriate. Participate in T&E Working Integrated product team (WIPT) and threat accreditation working groups (TAWGs).

k. Provide or review and approve threat and foreign intelligence used in TRADOC-sponsored or conducted studies
(for example, analysis of alternatives (AoAs)), models, scenarios, data bases, simulations, and systems.

l. Prepare, review and approve operational environment (OE), threat, and opposing forces products and depictions for Armywide training.

m. Identify and submit command threat support requirements in accordance with DIAP.

210. The Commanding General, Army Materiel Command The CG, AMC will
a. Determine intelligence threat support requirements for capability development under AMC purview and provide requisite threat support in collaboration with other threat support activities and the DCS, G2. Also serve as liaison to the DCS, G2 and TRADOC Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (DCSINT).

b. Provide Foreign Intelligence Officers (FIOs) at the appropriate LCMC, Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM), RDECs, and laboratories to serve as the primary source of MDI support to PEO/PMs and technical and laboratory directors.

c. Chair or participate in TSGs as appropriate and participate in T&E WIPTs, validation working groups (VWGs), and TAWGs.

d. Revise STARs for all ACAT I/II programs after MS B unless designated otherwise by the TSG. Update in accordance with guidelines in paragraph 42.

e. Prepare and validate STARs for ACAT III programs after MS B if required by the TSG (refer to paragraph 42). f. Ensure integration of approved MDI in DT. Prepare TTSPs for DTs that support MDRs and ensure realistic MDI
portrayals.

g. Coordinate with PMs/PEOs and the DCS, G2 to ensure appropriate funding is provided for MDI support of Army RDA programs.

h. Serve as the Army point of contact responsible for coordination of input to the Military Critical Technology List. i. Determine intelligence documentation requirements for programs under AMC purview. j. Provide MDI support and guidance to technology base programs, to include ATD, ACTD, and ATO programs. k. Provide threat input to program management documents (for example, TEMP and DT plans).

l. Where intelligence gaps exist, prepare and submit requirements for new intelligence through the DIAP system. m. Provide technology assessments in support of international cooperative programs, foreign comparative testing, technology protection and export control activities.

n. Identify and submit command threat support requirements in accordance with DIAP.

211. The Commanding General, Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command The CG, SMDC/Army Strategic Command (ARSTRAT) will
a. Identify and submit threat support and documentation requirements for space and missile defense programs under SMDC/ARSTRAT purview to national intelligence production centers and DCS, G2.

b. Support TRADOC in the development of initial STARs, STAR updates, and TTSPs for T&E as appropriate. c. Participate in appropriate TSGs, TAWGs, and VWGs as required. d. Submit to the DCS, G2 a listing of proposed targets and munitions to be used in live-fire tests for approval. e. Be responsible for engineering, development, acquisition, fielding, and capability accounting for threat representations and major range instrumentation necessary for T&E of space and missile programs (which are not under the purview of the Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEOSTRI). Develop threat representations for foreign materiel as necessary.

f. Identify surrogates or develop simulators or simulations instead of foreign materiel as required for those requirements not under the purview of PEOSTRI.

g. Support NGIC in developing program-specific threat and T&E documentation for development programs under SMDC purview.

h. Provide FIOs to designated PEO/PMs to serve as their primary source of MDI support to development programs and as their liaison to DCS, G2, TRADOC, and the national intelligence community.

i. Coordinate, prepare, and review with TRADOC elements and then forward to DCS, G2 all threat statements developed for issues related to the integration of space programs and strategic and national missile defense programs.

j. Provide intelligence support to the SMDC/ARSTRAT Future Warfare Center and its Force Development Integration Center as required.

k. Assist the DCS, G2 with the integration of capabilities development by serving as a liaison to the Missile Defense Agency.

l. Prepare and update existing STARs for space and missile defense programs that are or will fall under SMDC/
ARSTRAT purview.

212. The Commanding General, Intelligence and Security Command The CG, INSCOM will
a. Manage the Army dissemination and information sharing program in accordance with DOD and intelligence community directives.

b. Manage all Army open source requirements and act as the primary coordinator with National Open Source Enterprise members to ensure Army open source information needs are satisfied.

c. Perform the functions of the Army Dissemination Program Manager and Open Source Requirements Manager. d. Provide training to Army organizations on processes for obtaining and disseminating intelligence products as required.

213. The Commanding General, Army Test and Evaluation Command The CG, Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) will
a. Coordinate test planning with TRADOC and AMC to ensure that a validated threat will be used in planning all Operational Test Command and Developmental Test Command managed activities.

b. Participate in TSGs to ensure that MDI requirements to support testing are identified as early as possible after program initiation.

c. Review and monitor all ATEC-managed testing activities and coordinate with the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT), AMC, and TRADOC to ensure that the threat represented in testing conforms to the approved threat to the maximum extent feasible and that all shortfalls and their impacts are documented.

d. Coordinate with the DCS, G2, NGIC, AMC, and TRADOC to ensure that best available intelligence is used to determine threat system technical parameters and threat force doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures. The ATEC threat coordinator will ensure that appropriate intelligence data and approved threat assessments are integrated into DT and OT. Also participate in DA-level TSGs, as appropriate.

e. Participate in TEMA-chaired VWGs in accordance with DA Pam 731. f. Employ Army-validated threat representations in Army testing in accordance with the TTSP. Ensure that threat representations to be used for DT (including contractor tests) and OT (including limited user tests) are validated and accredited.

g. Accredit threat models and simulations used for specific DT (including contractor tests) and OT(including limited user tests).

h. Chair TAWGs in support of OT and combined DT/OT to obtain approval of the threat representation accreditation report.

i. Coordinate with the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT), AMC, and TRADOC for threat input for TEMPs.

## Section Iii Other Army Elements

214. Program executive officers, program/project managers, Training and Doctrine Command capability managers The PEO, PM, and TCM will
a. Incorporate MDI data at the earliest opportunity and throughout the acquisition life cycle of a program. Combat and materiel developers must acquire, use, and remain cognizant of changes to the threat that could have significant impact on their programs. Specific planning will be included for obtaining, updating, and using intelligence support throughout the life cycle of the program.

b. Coordinate and fund MDI support through the appropriate TRADOC TM (combat developers) or AMC FIO
(PEO/PM and other materiel developers).

c. Ensure the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) has current program schedule information for all program MDRs, DABs, ASARCs, ASRs, AROCs, and other program decision points that may require intelligence support.

d. Incorporate threat statements into the various JCIDS documents as outlined in DODD 5000.1, CJCSI 3170.01E, AR 701, and AR 731.

e. Provide system description to supporting intelligence activities. Accurate and thorough system descriptions drive development of a program's STAR and ensure quality analysis. Review system descriptions during the STAR update process.

f. Develop and approve Critical Intelligence Parameters (CIPs) for each program, in coordination with supporting TM/FIO.

g. Identify critical program information (CPI) necessary to ensure appropriate program protection planning. If CPI is present in the system, ensure a PPP supported by a multidiscipline counterintelligence threat assessment (MDCITA) is completed prior to MS B and revalidated throughout the life cycle.

h. Coordinate M&S planning with the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) to ensure appropriate intelligence threat representation on the M&S IPT.

i. Coordinate test plans requiring threat input with the supporting TRADOC or AMC intelligence organization. j. Address threat risk management in presentations to the ASARC, alternate systems review, and DAB. k. Participate in TSGs and TAWGs as appropriate. l. Notify the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT and DAMICD) of the technical capabilities, limitations, and quantities of systems developed under Army auspices that become codevelopment programs with a foreign government or are identified for foreign military sales.

m. Notify PEOSTRI of any threat representations needed to support test events (see DA Pam 731). n. Ensure only validated and accredited threat representations are used in test events supporting an MDR. Refer to DA Pamphlet 731.

o. Coordinate all instances of DD Form 254 (Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification), indicating a requirement for intelligence with the supporting TRADOC TM, AMC LCMC FIO, or RDECOM FIO in accordance with local procedures.

215. Commander, National Ground Intelligence Center DIA has delegated to NGIC the analysis and production responsibilities as a national Scientific and Technical Intelligence Center under DIAP for land systems. NGIC also has collection management, analysis, and production responsibilities for the Army under the direction of the DCS, G2. The Commander, NGIC will
a. Develop threat documentation, including assigned capstone threat assessments (CTAs), in coordination with DIA
and the DCS, G2.

b. Provide threat data as required to the DCS, G2 TSG for capability development programs, ACTDs, ATDs, and other efforts such as Army warfighting experiments.

(1) Support intelligence activities in developing and updating STARs. (2) Support TSGs, T&E WIPTs, VWGs, and TAWGs under T&E WIPT auspices as requested. Coordinate with the appropriate TISO to support.

(3) Notify the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT and DAMICDC) in the event that information is acquired indicating a potential significant vulnerability of a major component of the operational force structure or a major acquisition program.

(4) Provide intelligence threat support to special access programs (SAPs) in coordination with the DCS, G2
(DAMICD). Coordinate with the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) on the presentation of annual threat briefings at working and Vice Chief of Staff Special Access Program Oversight Committee meetings.

c. Represent the Army at intelligence community briefings to maintain currency on evolving threats to Army forces and systems.

d. Ensure intelligence support to acquisition programs, including the satisfaction of PRs and CIPs, the production of S&TI, the management of both foreign materiel acquisition and exploitation activities, and necessary threat capability and parametric data bases, is developed and maintained.

e. Perform intelligence studies and threat documentation supporting M&S and T&E in support of the Army acquisition decision process.

(1) Provide representatives to DA, PEO/PM, and Army commands to support VWGs and TAWGs for threat representations.

(2) Function as the authority for all threat data surrogate system data usage in support of Army T&E and analytical modeling efforts in coordination with the DCS, G2 and the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA).

(3) Provide foreign weapon systems data to the Army Research Laboratory and AMSAA for the production of weapon system performance information for use in Army T&E and analytical efforts.

(4) Review and approve the foreign weapon system performance information produced by AMSAA.

(5) Provide foreign weapons systems data to PEO STRI for production of threat representations that support T&E
and training.

(6) Support TRADOC and the DCS, G2 (DAMISR), as required, in reviewing models and simulations to ensure that threat representation is in consonance with validated intelligence documentation and threat data accurately reflects system capabilities.

f. Produce and disseminate GMI and S&TI as an integrated MDI product from multiple intelligence collection disciplines and function as either a primary or a collaborative production center in accordance with the DIAP.

g. Produce intelligence to satisfy Army responsibilities under Title 10. h. Participate as directed in the DIAP. As a primary production center, prepare a production center response to every PR assigned by a validation office.

i. Assist in the development of MDI and its application in selected combat and materiel developers' acquisition programs, studies, DT, OT, combat training center opposing forces portrayal, and models and simulations.

j. In coordination with TRADOC, assist and focus on model sensitivity, decision logic performance, data input, scenario use, tactics, and doctrine.

k. Develop threat analysis and forecasting methodologies. l. In coordination with the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) and INSCOM, support intelligence-related foreign materiel acquisition and exploitation.

m. Serve as the focal point for Army Staff studies and coordinate DCS, G2 representation to STFs, SSGs, SAGs, general officer steering committees, and other study efforts requiring S&TI support.

n. Provide analytical support to PMs during Critical Program Information Assessments.

216. Program Executive Officer for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation The Program Executive Officer for the PEOSTRI will
a. Oversee engineering, development, acquisition, fielding, life-cycle management, and capability accounting for Army threat representations, threat training simulators/simulations and major range instrumentation, other than those provided by SMDC. Develop threat representations in lieu of foreign materiel as necessary.

b. Identify candidate threat representations and submit for accreditation when validated threat representations are unavailable. Determine the functional equivalent for threat systems in lieu of vulnerability, effectiveness and performance estimates for specific threat systems and munitions, where the required information for the specific threat is not yet available.

c. Coordinate with the DCS, G2 on requirements for MDI support for development, updating, and validation/
accreditation of threat representations.

217. The Director, U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity The Director, AMSAA will coordinate with the DCS, G2 to ensure provision of appropriate MDI support to DA- sponsored force development studies.

## Chapter 3 Intelligence Threat Support Section I General

31. Purpose The purpose of threat support is to ensure that force, concepts, doctrine, training, organization, technology, and materiel systems the Army is developing provide the capabilities needed to carry out the Army's missions in the networkcentric warfare environment. To achieve this purpose, threat support must be timely, consistent, and continuous.

a. Timeliness ensures threat considerations are provided to combat and materiel developers and risk managers throughout all phases of the development cycle in order to properly influence the requirement for and development of force, concepts, doctrine, training, organization, technology, and materiel systems.

b. Consistency requires that all users work from a standard, approved intelligence baseline. c. Continuous threat support ensures that the threat is considered from concept development and continues throughout the life cycle of a materiel system (to include automated information systems) from identification of a deficiency, through and including postdevelopment product improvements and horizontal technology integration. It ensures organizational and doctrinal developments are supported throughout their conceptual phases and after implementation.

32. Guidance for threat preparation a. Intelligence support will be initiated early in the operational needs or capability development process. Early intelligence support ensures that the impact of the threat is considered during the entire capability development process. An intelligence support program consists of the following:
(1) *Intelligence threat support structure.* The collaborative process begins with the TISO, TRADOC DCSINT, and AMC, G2. It can include the DCS, G2 (DAMICD), ACIC, SMDC/ARSTRAT G2 and support from the intelligence service centers.

(2) *Intelligence baseline.* The intelligence baseline comprises appropriate DOD, national intelligence community, and Army intelligence products (documents, databases, models, simulations, concepts, and scenarios).

(3) *Intelligence support process.* These are procedures used to apply intelligence data to capability development and to receive updates that impact a program.

b. The sponsor will identify intelligence support requirements in coordination with the DCS, G2. The intelligence support activity at each command level is responsible for coordinating and providing support to combat and materiel developers for the application of threat in support of programs and studies conducted within the command.

c. The basis or start point for developing the threat in support of a specific program, system, or study is intelligence community data sources, to include a variety of DOD threat databases maintained as part of the DIAP. Because the relationship between a US concept, capability, system or program and the OE/threat is dynamic and reflects changes in tactics, doctrine, technological advancements, and developing intelligence, intelligence support activities of proponent commands must keep abreast of these developments and ensure they are accounted for in evolving documentation.

## Section Ii Intelligence Threat Support Structure

33. Threat integration staff officer and threat analyst TISO/TA roles for threat integration for programs and studies include but are not limited to
a. Representing the DCS, G2 and serve as primary HQDA staff point of contact for intelligence support. b. Coordinating implementation of Army policy relating to intelligence support. c. Coordinate with DOD, DIA, and other service intelligence agencies on all aspects of intelligence support to Army-specific or joint service acquisition programs.

d. Establishing a TSG for each program (paragraph 311). e. Attending other service intelligence coordination meetings and serving as the DCS, G2 representative for Army approval of threat in other service STARs.

f. ACAT ID, coordinating STAR validation with DIA and its participation in the TSG. g. ACAT ICII, establishing and chairing TSG and coordinating validation of STAR by the DCS, G2 after collaborative development.

h. Representng the DCS, G2 on all ACAT I, II, and selected OSD/congressional oversight system T&E WIPTs and TAWGs to ensure timely intelligence support, and supporting the T&E WIPT chairman as the threat integrator in order to assist in generating and articulating requirements for intelligence support.

i. Providing intelligence threat support for ACTDs, ATDs, and selected ATOs j. Providing S&TI information to the ARSTAF. k. Reviewing CIPs that impact on the effectiveness, survivability, or security of U.S. systems.

l. Reviewing PRs that support CIPs and monitor responsiveness to requirements generated as a result of STAR
development to support the acquisition life cycle of major automated information systems.

m. Coordinate review of threat statements and assessments contained in JCIDS documents supporting Army programs and analysis.

n. Representing the Army at intelligence community briefings to maintain currency on evolving threats to Army forces and systems.

34. Training and Doctrine Command Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence The TRADOC DCSINT will
a. Providesdirection, management, oversight and support to TRADOC and intelligence activities in support of TRADOC mission commanders at the Centers of Excellence and Schools for OE support to training and capability developments; and review and validate TM produced intelligence products for training and developments to insure consistency across TRADOC and full integration of all aspects of the OE.

b. Study, design, produce, coordinate, maintain, and apply current and future OEs and validates OE replication and design for Army and joint services wargames and experiments, requirements definition, concept development, models, and simulations and acquisition.

c. Act as the responsible official for the Army Opposing Forces Program. d. Provide threat T&E management for the command; provide T&E support, including all related document preparation, for HQ TRADOC and Combined Arms Center associated test activities; oversee/assist the provision of threat support to other operational (and DT/OT combined) tests as directed; and coordinate with DIA, the DCS, G2, ATEC, AMC, and SMDC/ARSTRAT as appropriate.

e. Develop and coordinate (in accordance with JCIDS requirements) OE and threat products that serve as the benchmarks for all systems or capability development.

f. Participate in TSGs (or other deliberative bodies) and chair them as required. g. Where appropriate to support the TRADOC capability manager, assign a TM whose duties will include but are not limited to
(1) Serving as the TCMs primary source of MDI support throughout the capability development process. (2) Participating in TSGs for coordination of MDI support to the force, combat, and materiel development process as appropriate.

(3) Supporting TRADOC ADCSINTThreats in producing initial TTSP and updates. (4) Researching and providing information on emerging threats. (5) Participating in integrated product teams (IPTs), including the T&E WIPT in preparation for OT and combined DT/OT.

(6) Preparing and updating STARs for all acquisition programs prior to MS B at the direction of the TSG.

35. Army Materiel Command, G2 and Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command intelligence officers a. The AMC, G2 supports capability development throughout the entire life cycle of Army RDA programs from basic research through acquisition until the decommissioning of the program.

b. AMC G2 supports the structure within AMC major subordinate commands, RDECs, and laboratories within RDECOM. The FIOs provide MDI and threat support to PEOs, RDECs labs, and contractors. The SMDC/ARSTRAT DCSINT provides similar support to a number of intelligence officers within SMDC/ARSTRAT elements. FIO and SMDC/ARSTRAT intelligence officer duties include but are not limited to
(1) Serving as the primary source of MDI support for the PEOs/PMs, RDECs, and labs throughout the research phases of research and development projects and the entire life cycle of assigned materiel development programs.

(2) Participating in program IPTs including the T&E WIPT. (3) Participating in TSGs for coordination of MDI support to the force, combat, and materiel development process as appropriate.

(4) Integrating appropriate intelligence data and approved threat assessments in DT and supporting TRADOC
DCSINT and the ATEC threat coordinator in the integration of appropriate intelligence data and approved threat assessments in OT.

(5) Providing threat statements and appropriate threat guidance in acquisition documents. (6) Documenting and submitting PRs that support CIPs and other intelligence requirements identified by PEO/PMs, RDECS and labs, and monitoring PRs, reviewing them annually, and disseminating any information resulting from a PR.

(7) Preparing TTSPs for DT test events that employ threat. (8) Preparing/updating STARs for all acquisition programs that have passed MS B, at the direction of the TSG. (9) Assisting in the threat input and systems lay down for M&S. (10) Researching, analyzing, and providing intelligence-derived information on current and future threat capabilities.

(11) Coordinating through intelligence channels for acquisition of foreign materiel and technologies in support of RDA.

(12) Serving as liaison between the intelligence community and PEOs/PMs, RDECs, and labs. (13) Coordinating MDI support to technology and program protection activities. (14) Coordinating GMI, current intelligence, and intelligence support on force protection and counterterrorism to the LCMC and RDEC commanders.

(15) Serving as the single point of contact for the local foreign military intelligence collection activities.

## 36. U.S. Army Intelligence And Security Command Refer To Ar 1087, Chapter 23, For The Roles And Responsibilities Of Inscom. Section Iii Intelligence Threat Baseline

37. Intelligence threat baseline products a. Intelligence products are publications, automated databases, reports, measurements and signatures files, models and simulations, and electronic media that address foreign force capabilities in the near term (0 to 5 years), midterm (5
to 10 years) and long term (10 to 20 years or greater). Timelines for intelligence products that support DIACAP
activities are near term (0 to 12 months), midterm (12 to 18 months), and long term (over 18 months).

b. Products from the DIAP production elements will be used in developing threat assessments for satisfying systemspecific threat support requirements. To ensure consistency throughout Army intelligence and capability development communities, the TISO will maintain a listing of suggested baseline intelligence products that should be included in the STAR bibliography for each battlefield operating system. The bibliography is not intended to be all-inclusive. In the absence of DIAP products, users are not restricted from examination of other sources that may answer threat support requirements for specific programs or systems but must document their use.

c. Baseline products are essential for sustaining consistent threat throughout the capability development process and represent the start point for assessments developed prior to initiating specific requests for support.

d. Programs requiring CI threat products will submit the appropriate request through their local FIO. Only programs with a CPI validated by the DCS, G2 (DAMICD/Army Research Technology Protection Center (ARTPC)) are authorized to request MDCITA from the ACIC.

38. Capstone threat assessment a. A CTA is the DOD intelligence community's official assessment of the principal threat systems and capabilities within a category of warfare that a potential adversary might reasonably bring to bear in an attempt to defeat or degrade US systems and capabilities.

b. CTAs cover the following major topic areas: land warfare; air warfare; chemical, biological, and radiological defense; maritime warfare; missile defense; space warfare; and information operations.

c. CTAs are a primary source of intelligence threat for preparation of an initial threat warning assessment (ITWA), threat portions of JCIDS documents, and STARs. Data in CTAs are considered validated for use in the capability development process upon CTA publication (see DIAI 5000.002).

d. CTAs are NOT meant to replace STARs, which are system specific. They are a starting point for evaluating the impact of baseline intelligence on development of a specific capability.

39. Initial threat warning assessment The initial threat warning assessment (ITWA) is a DIA-validated assessment of the projected OE and adversarial capabilities that could specifically affect a potential capability. The ITWA will constitute the baseline threat assessment for all JCIDS threat documentation and ongoing analysis. They are written in response to a functional area analysis as input for the functional needs assessment.

310. Defense planning scenarios multiservice force deployment, joint country force assessment, and Training and Doctrine Command standard scenarios a. DODD 8260.1 and DODI 8260.2 direct DOD components to prepare analytic baselines in support of strategic analysis. These analytic baselines take the form of the DPS, detailed descriptions of the conditions for conflict, road to war, and the political/military rules of engagement for a given country or region, together with underlying data sets. While service components are encouraged to use DPS whenever possible, this does not prohibit using other scenarios. When the threat or OE described in a validated STAR are not represented in an available DPS, TRADOC may develop scenarios that are not linked to DPS.

b. Multiservice force deployment (MSFD) products are DOD-approved theater campaign sets of ally and threat scenario data describing the full spectrum of conflict for future postulated scenarios outlined in the DPS. The MSFD
provides the red and blue concept of operations and D-day/H-hour force lay downs.

c. Joint country force assessment (JCOFA) provides the database of force structure and equipment that populates the MSFD and DPS.

d. TRADOC standard scenarios are developed by the TRADOC Analysis Center. A TRADOC standard scenario normally uses the documentation provided in an analytic baseline, in most cases a DPS and a MSFD data base, to document reasonable and feasible combat operations in a joint context derived from the analytic baseline. These operations are framed at the tactical and operational level and provide a basis for analyzing force development and materiel options available. Excursions to the base case are routinely developed to determine cost and risk boundaries as well as to insure that threat cases described in the STAR are examined.

## Section Iv Intelligence Threat Support Process

311. Threat steering group a. General. The TSG is the primary deliberative and working body to coordinate and validate intelligence threat support. It assigns threat support tasks and responsibilities and provides intelligence support to combat and materiel development programs. It is composed of representatives from the Army's combat and materiel development activities, T&E organizations, and the intelligence community to coordinate the provision of timely, consistent, and approved intelligence support for capability development initiatives. There may be a variety of types of TSG, with the systemspecific TSG being the most common.

b. System-specific TSG.

(1) *Purpose.* To coordinate threat support requirements for specific programs.

(2) *Authority.* ACAT ID is DIA; ACAT IC/II is the DCS, G2; ACAT III is TRADOC or AMC (depending on the milestone).

(3) *Members.* DIA (ACAT ID), TISO/TA, TRADOC DCSINT, AMC G2, SMDC/ARSTRAT G2 (if required), TM, FIO, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), service intelligence center analysts, other S&TI centers (as needed), ATEC, and combat and materiel developers. Other programs of particular DA interest may require an HQDA-level TSG chaired by the appropriate TISO.

(4) *Frequency.* After MS A and as needed.

(5) *Charter.* The TSG establishes the forum in which intelligence input for STARS, TTSPs, TEMPs and other related intelligence support documents are developed. Staffing of intelligence products is done in a collaborative environment and conducted virtually or via video/teleconferences when possible.

c. TSG I.

(1) *Purpose.* To begin STAR production or update and provide a means for intelligence and threat support input from the intelligence community for a specific program.

(2) *Product.* Draft STAR for staffing.

d. TSG II.

(1) *Purpose.* To finalize STAR, adjudicate comments, and resolve discrepancies. (2) *Product.* Final STAR. Final draft copy provided to validation authority along with comment resolution matrix. If there are no outstanding threat issues, appropriate authority issues validation memorandum.

e. Other TSG actions. The TSG chair will (1) Coordinate the review and validation of threat assessments for use in JCIDS documents. (2) Coordinate review of M&S databases, scenarios, and analyses for correct application and interpretation of threat with the support of DCS, G2 (DAMIFIA and DAMISR).

(3) Review TEMP for threat requirements. (4) Coordinate development of TTSP to support testing.

312. Threat accreditation working group a. The TAWG is established under the auspices of the T&E WIPT and conducted IAW AR 731 and DA Pam 731
to accredit threat representations for use in T&E. The ATEC threat coordinator or evaluator chairs the TAWG. The DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) coordinates threat support.

b. Membership includes ATEC HQ (Threats), PM, Supporting TM and FIO, Tester, AEC, the DCS, G2, Threat Simulator Management Office (TSMO)/Targets Management Office (TMO), and threat representation developer (if different from TMSO/TMO).

c. Threat systems used to support T&E are subject to an accreditation process that identifies, analyzes, and documents the differences between the threat representation and the HQDA- or DIA-validated intelligence assessment of the actual threat system. Differences between threat representations and DIA-validated intelligence threat are documented and analyzed in threat representation accreditation reports issued by the TAWG. All differences affecting test issues are noted as potential test limitations.

d. The TISO/TA ensures the actual threat system data parameters are clearly laid out in the threat representation accreditation report. The TISO/TA assists in defining differences between the actual threat and the threat representation parameters and in defining the impacts of those differences on the test.

313. Army threat representation validation working group a. Threat representation VWGs are conducted in accordance with AR 731 and DA Pam 731 to support development of accurate threat representation for T&E of Army capabilities. Army threat representation VWGs (with the exception of structures) are chaired by TEMA with an associated planning committee chaired by TSMO.

b. Structures should be standardized, characterized, and validated by region as being representative of that region to ensure consistency when measuring a munition's lethality during T&E events. The Army Regional Structural Validation Working Group will be chaired by the Army Research LaboratorySurvivability Lethality Analysis Directorate (ARL/SLAD) with support from NGIC and the Standard military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) Target and Testing Board. The structural working group will coordinate with the Army VWG (see AR 731 and DA Pam 731).

c. Membership as necessary will be from TEMA; the DCS, G2; ATEC; PEO/PM as appropriate; NGIC (or appropriate intelligence production center); PMInstrumentation, Targets and Threat Simulators; AMC; DIA, ARL/ SLAD (for structures) and DOT&E (Test and Evaluation Threat Resource Activity).

d. DOD VWGs are chaired by the DOT&E Test and Evaluation Threat Resource Activity. Validation of threat representations is required to support triservice testing.

314. Other intelligence support to test and evaluation a. Development and acquisition of threat representations.

(1) Passive or destructive testing will be coordinated with TMO. (2) Other threat representations will be coordinated with TSMO if unclassified acquisition of threat targets are required that are not available from the TMO. The TSMO will also provide information on threat representations available in the Army inventory and can build to specifications when funded by the PM. Threat representations must be validated and accredited in accordance with AR 731 and DA Pam 731 before use in OT, DT (when data supports a milestone decision review), or combined OT/DT.

b. Foreign materiel acquisition. Acquisition of foreign produced military materiel in support of RDA may be accomplished by specific subordinate elements of AMC, TSMO, or SMDC/ARSTRAT if the acquisition is open commercial purchase and coordinated with NGIC as the Army foreign materiel acquisition requirements manager. Open commercial purchase is the acquisition of military related materiel from a foreign manufacturer or government when the seller agrees to the stipulation that the final customer is the U.S. Government. Requirements for foreign materiel acquisition for the Army are established through the servicing FIO and must be coordinated with the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT). The acquisition will be completed in accordance with U.S. Code, all applicable Federal acquisition regulations, and International Traffic in Arms Regulations as contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Required end user certificates will be signed by the Army Acquisition Executive as directed by DODD 2040.3.

315. Intelligence support to Army modeling and simulation a. General. The Army M&S Master Plan establishes three M&S domains: training, exercises, and military operations; advanced concepts and requirements; and RDA. Multidiscipline Intelligence support iis required for M&S in each of these domains. Support will be consistent with AR 511; the Simulation and Modeling for Acquisition, Requirements, and Training Execution Plan; the DCS, G2 Threat Data and Model Development and Validation Concept of Operation; the Army intelligence M&S strategy; and the DCS, G2 M&S action plan. TRADOC DCSINT, in coordination with the DCS, G2, is responsible for examining M&S in all domains to ensure that threat and OE representation are adequate to the M&S use case. For the training, exercises, and military operations domain, the TRADOC DCSINT is the lead agency.

b. Threat M&S requirements. Each domain has its own requirements for threat S&TI data, GMI data, and M&S.

Early identification of threat M&S requirements is essential to ensure timely and effective intelligence threat support. Beginning in the Army requirements determination process, senior intelligence officers and FIOs/TMs at all levels will assist integrated concept teams, combat, training, materiel developers, managers of ATOs, experiments and demonstrations (ATD, ACTD) to identify threat M&S requirements. Specific guidance concerning the submission and review of new M&S requirements is contained in TRADOC guidance.

c. Threat M&S reuse. Threat M&S reuse is essential to reduce duplication of M&S development efforts, reduce development time and costs, and improve consistency of threat representations within and across M&S domains. Threat community representatives (intelligence production center analyst, senior intelligence officer, FIO, TM) will assist combat, training, and materiel developers, testers, and their M&S developers to reuse threat data and M&S to the maximum extent possible. The Defense Intelligence Modeling and Simulation Resource Repository and related databases are key to accomplishing this. Army threat community representatives will obtain assistance from the NGIC
M&S Office as the point of entry to the DIAP community's M&S and intelligence production resources. Specifically, senior intelligence officers, FIOs, and TMs will assist combat, training, and materiel developers, testers, and their M&S developers in
(1) Preventing unwarranted duplication of threat M&S and maximizing reuse. (2) Ensuring intelligence data products are available to support M&S development. ( 3 )  P o s t i n g  t o  t h e  D e f e n s e  I n t e l l i g e n c e  M & S  R e s o u r c e  R e p o s i t o r y  ( D I M S R R )  ( h t t p s : / / u m s r r . d m s o . m i l  o r www.msrr.dmso.mil) information on threat products under development.

(4) Updating DIMSRR with validated threat M&S products. (5) Identifying threat M&S products that may have cross-domain application. (6) Participating in threat product verification and validation. d. Verification, validation, and accreditation (VV&A). VV&A of threat M&S will be conducted in accordance with AR 511 and DODI 5000.61. For threat models used in T&E, consult AR 731, DA Pam 731, and applicable DOD guidance. Whenever data or models of foreign systems, entities, phenomena, processes, behaviors or forces are used in M&S to support acquisition decisions, regardless of the scope or level of the application, the threat community representative must participate in the validation process to ensure that threat information is DIA-validated and its use produces the intended results.

(1) The threat community will participate in the cooperative development, coordination, and approval of VV&A
plans for any M&S that includes threat representation, in validation activities as specified in the plan, and in the accreditation of the M&S as appropriate, regardless of domain.

(2) Threat model validation will be carried out in parallel with threat model development. The threat community representative, as part of the VWG, will collaborate with the developer, the independent VV&A organization or activity, and appropriate customers to ensure that the product reflects the threat with fidelity appropriate to its intended use. The threat community representative will participate in validation activities defined in the VV&A Plan. The threat community representative plays a coordinating role in development and publication of the validation report. At the conclusion of the validation process, the threat community representative will formally concur or nonconcur for the record on the validation report prior to the document's submission for formal approval. Nonconcurrences will be supported with substantial written rationale that will be included in a reserved section of any report that is submitted.

(3) After the threat model has been developed and validated, product description and administrative data are provided to DIMSRR. The developer stores the model in the appropriate online repository.

(4) The threat community will assist the ATEC M&S accreditation action officer as part of the ATEC M&S
accreditation process to ensure that threat data; performance characteristics; and tactics, techniques, and procedures emulated within the M&S are accurate and current intelligence community holdings.

316. Intelligence support to Army scenario development a. Army analytic, training, testing, and research agencies require basic guidelines regarding precursory events, timelines, and threat employment concepts, in addition to data on threat force structure and weapon systems characteristics. This family of threat scenarios contains current DPS as well as other threat scenarios based on TRADOC input.

b. To achieve accuracy, commonality, and consistency of the threat in scenarios, the following guidelines apply to the development of threat force scenarios:
(1) DPS provides services with a plan for development of necessary military capabilities to maintain the nation's security. DPS contains planning scenarios intended to provide a general illustrative sequence of events on which to base force development planning for a 20-year time frame, assess risk to programmed forces, and a common set of US friendly force assumptions for use in computing readiness, sustainability, mobility, and modernization of resources. While DPS compliant scenarios are desirable for analyzing contributions of materiel systems to combat, in some cases, they do not capture the threats outlined in the STAR. When the DPS threat is insufficient to provide a robust, capabilities-based threat needed to stress the system under test, then excursions or alternate scenarios may be developed which are based on the threat contained in the validated STAR for that program. In those cases, TRADOC will ensure that scenario excursions from the base case(s) are developed to capture threats enumerated in the STAR. Excursions should be clearly labeled and a full description of the amended order of battle or OE will be included as apart of the scenario excursion documentation. As a part of the TTSP review (paragraph 44), the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) will coordinate a review to ensure that the threat used in the TTSP directed scenario, trials and vignettes are representative of the STAR.

(2) The DCS, G2 (DAMIFI) will review DPS assumptions for impact on threat and provide input to the DOD
scenario development process. TISO/TAs will coordinate inputs, including those from DCS, G2 (DAMIFIA) and other non-Army staff agencies, on scenario areas of concern affecting the programs for which they are responsible.

(3) Use TRADOC standard scenarios (high and low resolution) in studies and analyses to identify Army force m o d e r n i z a t i o n  n e e d s  e n c o m p a s s i n g  d o c t r i n e ,  o r g a n i z a t i o n ,  t r a i n i n g ,  l e a d e r s h i p ,  a n d  m a t e r i e l .  T h r e a t  s c e n a r i o s developed by TRADOC and reviewed by the DCS, G2 through the TSG process will serve as the base for Army combat and materiel development studies, unless otherwise directed by DA. TRADOC will use the DPS baseline scenarios, threat operational concepts developed by NGIC, and threat data derived from DIAP sources to develop standard scenarios. In cases where NGIC has not produced operational concepts or tactical doctrine is unavailable, TRADOC may use the opposing forces doctrine prescribed in the approved Field Manual (FM) 7100 series. This generalized doctrine is representative of worldwide adversary's tactical operations and provides a base to insure consistency when real world threat doctrine is not available. NGIC will review the FM 7100 series periodically to insure that opposing forces tactical doctrine is generally suitable. Army schools, centers and activities involved in force and materiel development will use these approved scenarios for analyses. If threat excursions are employed, highlight them clearly in study reports.

(4) DCS, G2 guidance to the Concepts Analysis Agency on global force employment scenarios will be based on specific study and model requirements. Generally, NGIC-developed threat operational concepts will serve as the start point for scenario development to provide a common threat basis for annual planning and programming studies conducted for the ARSTAF. The DCS, G2 will convene TSGs as needed to review results of analyses and to ensure that intelligence data on threat doctrine and force employment are logical and consistent.

317. Intelligence support to Army studies and analysis a. General. Army studies conducted in accordance with AR 55 will include a process to identify requirements for threat and intelligence support. This process will apply to each of the eight categories of studies: Manpower and personnel; concepts and plans; operations and force structure; installations and logistics; science, technology, systems, and equipment; management; intelligence; and international security.

(1) Study directives and plans prepared by HQDA elements in accordance with AR 55, whose goal is to provide policy guidance or implementation, will be coordinated in draft with the DCS, G2 (DAMIFI), to ensure that threat ramifications have been considered during the development process. Each study directive or plan will include, as a minimum, a section outlining potential threats to the process or system to be developed. The threat section will include a description of the threat that could reasonably be expected, and conditions or situations where the threats would likely manifest themselves.

(2) The study sponsor (ARSTAF element, field operating agency, or major command) may form a SAG consisting of representatives from Army elements having a clear functional interest in the study topic or use of the results. All SAGs with identified threat and intelligence requirements will have an intelligence representative. The DCS, G2 will provide a representative to SAGs formed for DA-directed studies. The SAG chairperson or study director will submit PRs for production support through the intelligence staff of the sponsoring agency. If the sponsoring agency has no intelligence staff, the PR will be submitted to the DCS, G2 (DAMIFI). The SAG chairperson will identify intelligence requirements and provide a copy of the minutes of each meeting to the DCS, G2 (DAMIFI).

b. AoA. The AoA is a critical document in the acquisition cycle that relies upon the use of modeling and simulation.

It is normally incorporated in the program's capability development document as an appendix.

(1) *Threat related sections.* Threat-related sections of the AoA will be prepared and updated as required to meet the milestone decision review process. Threat-related sections will be limited to SECRET or below. Higher level supplements may be added as needed. Threat-related section structure and format are dependent on the AoA scope and coordinated with the TSG.

(2) *Content and sources.* The threat assessment will be based on the STAR or other DIAP threat data sources and in sufficient detail to identify, with a reasonable degree of assurance, conditions that might exist when employing the new U.S. system. As a minimum, the threat-related section should include broad considerations (such as nature and size of opposing forces or low- versus high-intensity conflicts), as well as detailed inputs (strength of kinetic energy projectile attacks, precision munitions employed, information warfare, precision munitions countermeasures employed, and so forth). Underlying assumptions concerning threat should not conflict with DPS assumptions.

(3) *Scenarios.* An AoA is used to determine the efficacy of changes in force design and equipping across a range of military operations. In most cases, a range of scenarios must be used to determine risk and cost boundaries. The commander performing the AoA will determine the scenario(s) to be used. The SAG associated with the AoA will review scenario selection. Scenarios used in an AoA will be DPS-based and use the associated JCOFA and MSFD. The commander will request a waiver through DCS, G2 in cases where existing DPS is inadequate to address STAR threats that will require development of a noncompliant scenario.

(4) *Approval and validation.* If the AoA was conducted using a DPS-based scenario and validated intelligence, no further approval is necessary. A copy of all threat-related AoA documentation will be provided to the DCS, G2 for the record. If a non-DPS scenario is used, DCS, G2 must review and coordinate DIA approval of all AoA threat related sections.

c. Plans and strategy documents. Other Army plans and strategy documents (e.g. The Army Enterprise Strategy and the Command and Control Protect Program Management Plan) will include a process to identify requirements for threat and intelligence support.

d. Other studies.

(1) The science and technology program covers a wide range of areas required for defense applications. The basic research and exploratory development stage provides the foundation on which all else is built for development and exploitation of technological opportunities. In response to military needs, or in development of new military capabilities, technology is matured and applications are examined in the advanced development stage in order to establish the feasibility and military utility before acquisition decisions are made. Threat considerations must be included early in the development and throughout the life cycle of ACTD, ATD, and other technology efforts.

(2) ACTDs are test or demonstrations of mature technologies for potential rapid acquisition. ACTDs are an integral part of requirements definition and driven primarily by user requirements rather than by technologies. During ACTD planning, all factors which are essential to a major acquisition program will be considered. If the user is not prepared to acquire the system, ACTDs may be terminated and placed "on the shelf" for later use. If the user does want to acquire the system, the ACTD demonstrator may be modified so as to be made suitable for operational use and transitioned to the formal acquisition process at MS A, B, or C as appropriate.

(3) ATDs are undertaken to apply technology to military problems. ATDs assess the maturity of technologies and their potential for transition of new concepts into the formal acquisition process. ATD technologies may be applied across several systems.

(4) Other technology efforts not formally established as either ACTDs or ATDs may have potential application to military systems and may require threat input as appropriate.

(5) The DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT and DAMICDC) will work closely with the Army Science Board and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition to ensure threat is considered in all demonstrations and other technology efforts as appropriate.

(6) The AMC G2, through RDECOM and other subordinate FIOs, will ensure threat is integrated throughout the entire RDA process.

(7) ACIC is responsible for all Army counterintelligence analytical production worldwide related to technology protection. Army organizations requiring analytical support for technology protection issues should task the ACIC for support using procedures outlined in DIAP.

e. Battle labs. TRADOC established Army battle labs as a means to develop capabilities for a force projection Army that begins where battle appears to be changing and that encourages experimentation via simulations and prototypes using real Soldiers and real units to determine technology insertion or new requirements. The TRADOC DCSINT is the lead for providing threat support for the battle labs in coordination with TMs on site and ensuring their threat portrayal is consistent with the threat portrayal for materiel development. The DCS, G2, NGIC, and AMC provide support through TRADOC DCSINT or TMs as requested.

318. Intelligence support to information assurance certification and accreditation a. DOD Memorandum, dated 6 Jul 06, supersedes DODI 5200.40 and applies to the acquisition, operation, and sustainment of DOD information assurance and information system life cycle. This memorandum requires the identification of threat in both Phase 1 (Definition) and Phase 4 (Post Accreditation) of the certification and accreditation process.

b. During Phase 1, the threat assessment permits the establishment and selection of the information assurance policy objectives that will counter the threat. An identification of threat is required to determine acceptable levels of residual risk by basing the relationship of threat and information processed to the information system's mission, environment, and architecture; and the security confidentiality, integrity, availability, authenticity, and nonrepudiation objectives. During Phase 4, the threat assessment supports the compliance validation task and forms a component of the environmental description within the system security authorization agreement.

319. Intelligence support to program protection a. The DCS, G2 (DAMICD/ARTPC) coordinates technology protection engineers to assist the PM in identification of the CPI. If CPI is present, a PPP is required. The program is responsible through the local FIO to request MDCITA support from the ACIC. The ACIC will be responsible for the production of all counterintelligence related threat products to Army research, technology, acquisition programs.

b. The ACIC is responsible for production of the MDCITA for all Army acquisition programs with CPI. ACIC will produce MDCITA only upon the request of the program via a validated PR. The ACIC will manage production of counterintelligence threat analysis which supports ATDs, ACTDs, ATOs, and accelerated fielding initiatives identified by the DCS, G2 (DAMICD/ARTPC).

c. The ACIC will task appropriate intelligence centers for foreign S&TI data to support the MDCITA process. The ACIC will task appropriate national and service level CI agencies for supporting data for input to the MDCITA.

d. The ACIC will establish and maintain the Army's all-source database of foreign intelligence service threat activity directed at the U.S. army, its personnel, programs, technologies, activities, and installations or facilities worldwide. The ACIC will provide all Army commands with counterintelligence analytical support for their technology protection programs. Analysis will be based on information which resides in the ACIC database.

e. The ACIC will produce a counterintelligence baseline analytical threat document. The foreign intelligence and security services threat assessment will document foreign intelligence service threat to deployed against US Army forces and equipment worldwide. These assessments will document the various foreign services, their historical backgrounds and methods, and activities both inside the specific countries or regionally.

320. Intelligence support to contractors Intelligence organizations supporting government contractors will establish procedure(s) to ensure that intelligence provided is current, approved, fulfills contract requirements, and is disseminated in accordance with DOD and DA security policies (see AR 3805)

## Chapter 4 Intelligence Threat Support Products

41. Initial threat support a. Threat support or assessment is accomplished at the earliest opportunity in the capability development process.

This will normally be accomplished using the ITWA, which is prepared after the initial JCIDS analysis, the functional area analysis. Initial threat assessments are used as the baseline threat for the initial capability document (ICD) and will provide a broad focus for the initial STAR. Other initial threat assessments are required for rapid technology demonstrations (ATD/ACTD), prototyping and equipping, and spiraling actions. These threat assessments provide a summary of current and projected OE, threat, targets, and missions of proposed systems emphasizing the interrelationships between the blue system and threat.

b. Threat input required for program documentation prior to production of a STAR will be coordinated with the TSG and provided by the organization's supporting intelligence activity.

c. When drafting threat assessments, the supporting intelligence office will ensure it is consistent with relevant ITWAs and CTAs. Initial threat assessments for rapid equipping will incorporate current intelligence assessments.

d. Threat assessments will be written at the lowest possible classification consistent with user needs and protection of national security and intelligence information, methods and sources, but no higher than SECRET. More highly classified supplements will be developed if necessary for program decisions. If a threat assessment must be released to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a specific country, or group of countries, it will be prepared in coordination with the DCS, G2 (DAMICDD) and DIA. The DCS, G2 (DAMICD) will coordinate this effort.

42. System threat assessment report a. General. The STAR is a statutory requirement to support policy makers and decisionmakers in Congress, OSD, and service RDA and T&E communities throughout a program's life cycle. It builds on the initial threat support to offer detailed information and analysis applying to a particular program, system, or family of systems. The STAR summarizes the approved threat for combat and materiel developers, developmental and operational testers, and evaluators for all systems. It provides an assessment of the capabilities of potential adversaries to neutralize or degrade a specific US system, or system concept. It is the primary threat reference used in preparation of threat portions of JCIDS documents, TEMPs, or TTSPs.

b. Format. A standard format for STARs is in appendix B. It is important that the format of the STAR meet the ultimate needs of the user community. The TSG will determine the final format and individual organizational responsibility in writing the STAR during its initial meeting. STAR classification will be limited to SECRET and contain an unclassified annex suitable for use as a threat statement in unclassified program documents. More highly classified supplements will be developed if necessary for program decisions.

c. Requirement. Army ACAT ID program STARs require DIA validation. Army ACAT I/II programs and those on the OSD oversight list require a DCS, G2 validated STAR. ACAT III programs generally do not require a STAR because of the broad nature of the threat unless directed by the TSG. ACAT III threat assessments will rely on appropriate CTAs or other appropriate assessments as coordinated by the TSG.

d. Timing. Initial STAR produced within 180 days following MS A and updated every 2 years or as directed by the TSG.

e. Submissions.

(1) *Initial submission.* The appropriate threat support activity as designated by the TSG, develops the initial STAR. (2) *Updates.* The appropriate threat support activity as designated by the TSG develops STAR updates after MS B.

(3) Review and validation. (a) ACAT ID. Collaborative review via TSG. Validation authority is DIA. The DCS, G2 will forward the final draft STAR to DIA along with comment resolution information.

(b) ACAT IC/II. Collaborative review via TSG. Validation authority is the DCS, G2. DIA receives information copy via distribution.

(c) ACAT III (when applicable). Collaborative review via TSG. Validation authority is TRADOC or AMC (depending on milestone). The DCS, G2 receives information copy via distribution.

(4) *Out-of-cycle changes.* The STAR sponsor will publish out-of-cycle changes when there is a significant change in threat to the system or targets to be engaged by the system. All changes will be coordinated for review and validation as required for initial STARs, as outlined in 42e. Breaches in CIPs are flash traffic to the TSG and PM. The TSG will notify DIA of CIP breaches for ACAT ID programs.

(5) *Procedures for staffing and posting.* The STAR sponsor will utilize the DAMIFIT Knowledge Collaboration Center on Army Knowledge Online (SIPRNET) for staffing and posting of final validated STARs amd will coordinate with the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) for posting and access. The DAMIFIT Knowledge Collaboration Center is accessible on SIPRNET.

f. Family of systems STAR.

(1) *Purpose.* In light of increasing emphasis on integration, it is increasingly common for Army systems to operate largely or entirely as part of a system of systems or a family of systems. Individual STARs may not adequately capture the integrated nature of these systems or impacts of various threats that may not affect the system itself, but may affect the system or family of systems in which it operates. The DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) will consider requests to develop family of systems STARs to provide a comprehensive threat assessment for all systems in a given system of systems or family of systems that face a common operational threat environment, targets to be countered, and partially or entirely similar system-specific threats and emergent technologies.

(2) *Content.* The structure of a family of systems STAR is generally the same as that of a regular STAR with specific chapter formats decided by the TSG.

g. SAPs. SAP programs may require a STAR or SAP annex to an existing STAR. Threat support for SAPs and sensitive activities will be under provisions of AR 380381. The DCS, G2 is responsible for recommending to the SAP Oversight Committee whether a program or activity warrants protection as a SAP.

h. Waivers. In the event that a program or system is not affected by a threat or is substantially similar to another system, the combat or materiel developer may submit a STAR waiver request. The waiver will specifically state reasons why the particular system does not require a STAR based upon its functionality and concept of employment. The waiver may be permanent until revoked based upon new intelligence or a change in ACAT level or it may be valid only until the next MDR. STAR waivers for ACAT ID will be submitted to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition via the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) and the Army Acquisition Executive. STAR waivers for ACAT IC or ACAT II programs will be submitted to the Army Acquisition Executive via the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT). The official with statutory authority for a program must approve the waiver.

43. Test and evaluation master plan a. Purpose. The TEMP is the initial document where the intelligence community has input into the resourcing phase for T&E activities for a program. It is imperative that intelligence be involved in TEMP development from the start to ensure adequate threat portrayal and resources to support test events.

b. Requirement. Representatives from the DCS, G2, TRADOC, AMC, PEOSTRI, ATEC System Team chair, and the program office in the form of a TSG will establish threat representation requirements for each T&E event in a program's life cycle.

c. Preparation. The TSG develops threat input into the TEMP as outlined in AR 731 and DA Pam 731. The threat portrayed in the TEMP is based on the latest validated STAR, but focuses on the particular purpose of a test event such as a DT seeking to verify certain specifications have been met or an OT to verify that certain key performance parameters have been met.

(1) Threat for testing included in the TEMP must provide sufficient detailed intelligence information, including appropriate scenario information, to enable the PM to adequately resource the threat projected to exist at a postinitial operational capability (IOC) date and support the evaluator's analysis of results.

(2) Determination of threat year and scenario selection will be made by the T&E WIPT based on recommendations of the system proponent and the TSG.

d. Approval. Approval is a review process that confirms all changes and comments required by the validating authority have been incorporated in the final TEMP document. Final approval of a TEMP is completed once the TEMP has OSD approval.

44. Threat test support package a. Purpose. The TTSP is the baseline threat document for a specific test to describe the threat to be portrayed, specific guidance on threat targets and countermeasures, and how threat fits into the overall T&E requirements.

b. Requirement. When there is an identified Army-approved or DIA-validated threat to a program, that threat must be portrayed during the program's T&E process and a TTSP prepared if data from the test supports a MDR.

(1) If a DIA-validated threat portrayal is required for the test (ACAT ID), the appropriate command and or agencies must review, validate, and approve the TTSP following the same pattern as for the STAR (para 42).

(2) A TTSP is not required for a DT or OT that does not require replication of a specific threat. Determination of the requirement for an operationally realistic threat portrayal will be made by the T&E WIPT based on the recommendation of the evaluation organization and the TSG. If the T&E WIPT determines that a TTSP is not required for a specific program, TRADOC (for OT or combined DT/OT) or AMC (for DT) will prepare a memorandum for record to that effect with copy furnished to the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT). Specific testing requirements will be determined by the T&E WIPT.

c. Preparation. TRADOC is responsible for production of the TTSP to support OT (or combined DT/OT) events to include live fire T&E in an OE. AMC will produce a TTSP for DT events. The TSG will coordinate development of the TTSP to insure that DT and OT threat support is synchronized and that wherever possible the U.S. Army can test once and use the data repeatedly. Threat portrayed in the TTSP is based on the latest validated STAR, but focuses on the particular purpose of the test (such as a DT seeking to verify certain specifications have been met or OT to verify that certain key performance parameters have been met).

(1) A TTSP must provide sufficient detailed intelligence information, including appropriate scenario information, to enable the tester to accurately portray the threat projected to exist at a post-IOC date and support the evaluator's analysis of the results.

(2) If intelligence other than that which is contained in the STAR is needed for the TTSP, other validated sources can be used to supplement the STAR or a PR submitted.

(3) Determination of threat year and scenario will be made by the T&EIPT based on recommendations of the system proponent and the TSG.

(4) Limit TTSP classification to SECRET or below. Higher level supplements may be added as needed. d. Timing. Initial TTSP development will follow TEMP timelines developed during the initial T&E WIPT meeting based upon guidance from TRADOC and the TSG. The TTSP must be approved through the TSG prior to each DT or OT requiring threat portrayal and provided to ATEC System team chair. Continuous coordination between the threat proponent, evaluator, and tester is strongly recommended.

e. Approval. Approval is a review process that confirms all changes and comments required by the validating authority have been incorporated in the final document. Approval of a TTSP does not automatically mean that the threat representations being planned for use have been accredited for use in that test. Threat representation validation and accreditation follow separate T&E community procedures (see DA Pam 731).

(1) The DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT) approves all DT/OT TTSPs for Army ACAT I and OSD T&E oversight systems after intelligence community validation.

(2) TRADOC or AMC validates and approves TTSPs supporting ACAT II/III programs with copy furnished to the DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT).

45. Program protection plan a. Purpose. The purpose of PPP is to identify CPI and the most effective means to protect CPI following a risk management approach.

b. General.

(1) The PPP identifies CPI for protection from foreign collection activity and develops protection measures necessary to ensure a combat system's effectiveness throughout its lifecycle. The PPP addresses CI threat or, more specifically, the foreign intelligence services targeting and collection directed at technology research and development programs.

(2) The PPP will contain an ACIC-produced or validated MDCITA that supports protecting CPI. The MDCITA
describes those foreign governments, entities, or other foreign interests that have an interest, requirement, and capability to collect information about technology programs and associated critical technologies during the acquisition cycle. The assessment evaluates historical, initial and finished intelligence reports of subversion and espionage directed against the Army; foreign intelligence service data, and extensive reviews of open source information. The assessment includes an analysis of foreign intelligence service technical collection capabilities which could be directed at RDA including production facilities and activities related to U.S. Army technology production. This assessment highlights potential countries and foreign companies which have the interest and collection capability to go after US technology programs and their associated critical information. The PPP will contain a technology assessment control plan and a system security engineering approach. A delegation of disclosure authority letter is required if the system will be sold to foreign governments.

(3) Tailored and executable guidance is developed by the program protection IPT and disseminated and maintained for record at the program office.

c. Requirement. A program must have a validated DCS, G2 (DAMICD/ARTPC) CPI. A PR must be submitted following DIAP procedures. A valid PR for the ACIC to produce an MDCITA must contain the answers to the ACIC 30-question MDCI questionnaire.

d. Preparation. The PPP is prepared by the PM with onsite assistance of the DCS, G2 (DAMICD/ARTPC). All MDCITA request are for one-time production. All dissemination is via posting to the ACIC Web site on the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communication System. For additional information on PPP, refer to DA Pam 703.

e. Timing. The PPP is required at MS B and reviewed by the MDA. The ACIC requires 180 working days to transact a MDCITA once they have received all required data from the program and have accepted the PR with a production center response. The product production date will be based on coordination between the requester and ACIC.

f. Approval. Approval is a review process to confirm that all changes and comments required by the validating authority have been incorporated in the final document. The DCS, G2 (DAMICD/ARTPC) approves all MDCITAs prior to MS B.

## Appendix A References Section I Required Publications

AR 511
Management of Army Models and Simulations. (Cited in para 315.)
AR 1087
Major Army Commands in the Continental United States. (Cited in para 36.)
AR 731
Test and Evaluation Policy. (Cited in paras 26, 214, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 43.)
AR 380381
Special Access Programs (SAPS) and Sensitive Activities. (Cited in paras 15, 42.)
DA PAM 731
Test and Evaluation in Support of Systems Acquisition. (Cited in paras 213, 214, 313, 314, 315, 44.)

## Section Ii Related Publications A Related Publication Is Merely A Source Of Additional Information. The User Does Not Have To Read It To Understand This Regulation. Dod Publications Are Available At Www.Dtic.Mil/Whs/Directives.

AR 11
Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System AR 55
Army Studies and Analyses AR 112
Management Control AR 251
Army Knowledge Management and Information Technology AR 252
Information Assurance AR 2530
The Army Publishing Program AR 701
Army Acquisition Policy AR 719
Materiel Requirements AR 3805
Department of the Army Information Security Program AR 38010
Foreign Disclosure and Contacts with Foreign Representatives AR 38067
The Department of the Army Personnel Security Program AR 38110
U.S. Army Intelligence Activities AR 38120
The Army Counterintelligence Program AR 52520
Command and Control Countermeasures (C2CM)
DA Pam 511
Verification, Validation, and Accreditation of Army Models and Simulations DA Pam 512
Simulation Support Planning and Plans DA Pam 703
Army Acquisition Procedures FM 30
Operations FM 7100
Opposing Force Doctrinal Framework and Strategy FM 7100.1
Opposing Force Operations Department of the Army Guidance Planning Guidelines for Simulation and Modeling for Acquisition, Requirements and Training. (Available at www.amso.army.mil/smart.)
CJCSI 3170.01E
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System. (Available from www.dtic.mil/doctrine/s_index.html.)
CJCSM 3170.01B
Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System. (Available from www.dtic.mil/doctrine/ s_index.html.)
DIAD 5000.200
Intelligence Threat Support for Major Defense Acquisition Programs. (Available on AKO at https://www.us.army.mil/ suite/doc/6807773.)
DIAI 5000.002
Intelligence Threat Support for Major Defense Acquisition Programs. (Available on AKO at https://www.us.army.mil/ suite/doc/6807774.)
DODD 2040.3
End User Certificates DODD 5000.1
The Defense Acquisition System.

DODD 5000.59
DOD Modeling and Simulation Management DODD 5200.1R
DOD Information Security Program DODD 5200.39
Security, Intelligence, and Counterintelligence Support to Acquisition Program Protection DODD 8250.1
Data Collection, Development, and Management DODI 5000.2
Operation of the Defense Acquisition System DODI 5000.61
DOD Modeling and Simulation Verification, Validation, and Accreditation DODI 5200.40
DOD Information technology Security Certification and Accreditation Process DODI O5205.11
Management, Administration, Oversight of DOD Special Access Programs (SAPs)
DODI 8260.2
Implementation of Data Collection, Development, and Management for Strategic Analyses DODI 8580.1
Information Assurance in the Defense Acquisition System

## Intelligence Community Directive Number 301 National Open Source Enterprise. (Available At Www.Dni.Gov/Electronic_Reading_Room/Electronic_Reading_Room.Htm.) Defense Modeling And Simulation Office Vv&A Recommended Practices Guide. (Available At Http://Vva.Dmso.Mil.)

DOD Memorandum From the Chief Information Officer, 6 July 2006, subject: Interim DOD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process Guidance. (Available at http://iase.disa.mil/index2.html.)

## Section Iii Prescribed Forms This Section Contains No Entries. Section Iv Referenced Forms The Following Forms Are Available On The Apd Web Site (Www.Apd.Army.Mil) Unless Otherwise Stated. Department Of Defense Forms Are At Www.Dtic.Mil/Whs/Directives/Infomgt/Forms/Formsprogram.Htm. Da Form 112R Management Control Evaluation Certification Statement. Dd Form 254 Department Of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification Appendix B System Threat Assessment Report Format

B1. Purpose The format prescribed is required for all STARs prepared or sponsored by DOD components and submitted to DIA for validation. The mandatory minimum elements are included in this format, along with supplementary guidance for use by DOD components, as appropriate. This format may be modified subsequently by letter change from DIA. Any letter change will be provided to departmental and service acquisition, testing, and intelligence commands, agencies, and staffs.

B2. General a. STARs are typically produced at the collateral SECRET level in order to promote the widest possible dissemination within the acquisition and testing communities. At the SECRET level, significant threats appearing in the more highly classified capstone documents may not be properly addressed. The STAR format allows for a more highly classified annex to reflect a truly comprehensive assessment of the foreign threat.

b. Minimum STAR elements include (1) Key intelligence judgments and significant changes in the threat environment, highlighting the most likely and most stressing threats to the US weapon system. Indicate degree of confidence in assessments where appropriate.

(2) Operational threat environment, target attributes, the system-specific threat, and emergent technologies; these will form the central body of the assessment. Include confidence levels.

(3) Critical intelligence parameters; PRs supporting these categories or employment of systems shall be identified early and be included in program plans and cost estimates.

c. The STAR is intended to serve as the basic threat document supporting the acquisition decision process and the system development process. Additional intelligence support is to be consistent with, or derived from, the applicable analytic baselines, CTAs, and/or STARs. The initial STAR will be based on the description of the acquisition program alternatives under consideration at that point of the milestone. The US system description and concept of operation will become better defined and understood as the program moves from identification of mission need through program definition to full-scale production. There should be a corresponding refinement of the threat in the STAR as the program matures and passes through the DAB milestones. The STAR shall be maintained in a current and approved or validated status throughout the acquisition process.

d. The STAR TSG will set the date beyond which the STAR may not be used for acquisition purposes without consultation with the producing intelligence center; this date must be included on the cover page of the document. STARs for developmental systems must address program threats from the system's IOC through at least 10 years beyond. STAR updates for fielded systems must address threats from the current year through 10 years into the future. STARs supporting more than one threat system should address threats from the earliest IOC through at least 10 years beyond the latest IOC of the supported systems.

B3. Structure and content a. Executive summary. Provide a complete, standalone threat overview, highlighting, in particular, the major threats to the U.S. system. Explicitly state the most likely and most stressing threats and identify significant intelligence gaps (if any) that can have significant impact on the program. The summary will also contain confidence levels of "key assessments." If intelligence gaps are identified, include a brief discussion of what the intelligence community is doing to address those gaps. The summary will be specific and sharply focused to provide key intelligence judgments, especially those applicable to the CIPs. It will specifically identify significant threat changes that have been noted since the last STAR was validated. These threat changes may be related to events that resulted in a breached CIP threshold, that have emerged as new CIPs, or that otherwise would be significant enough to note. This section will generally be no more than five pages.

b. Section I, Introduction. Provide a brief opening statement, to include the mission need for the US system.

c. Section II, System Description. Describe the U.S. system in sufficient detail to ascertain what threats may have a capability against the proposed system.

d. Section III, Operational Threat Environment. Portray a generalized but complete overview of the operational, physical, and technological environment in which the system will have to function. Developments and trends that can be expected to affect mission capability during the US system's lifetime should be projected out 10 years beyond IOC. Areas covered should include enemy doctrine, strategy, and tactics affecting system mission(s) and operations. Threat content will vary from program to program. STAR TSGs may vary the operational threat environment in order to best serve the needs of the program. Projected forces must be consistent with those portrayed in DOD-level authoritative scenarios and planning guidance.

e. Section IV, Target Attributes. Include an analysis of the full range of targets or of the most likely and most stressing target sets-their capabilities, characteristics, signatures, and/or tactics, techniques, and procedures against which the system is to be employed. Indicate confidence levels where appropriate. This section may also consider organic countermeasures of the target sets, denial and deception capabilities, and any other target capability that would result in mission degradation.

f. Section V, System-Specific Threat. Organize by the US system capabilities and focus on threats to those capabilities that are directly relevant to the mission and performance of the US system throughout its operational lifetime, including possible adversary responses to its development or deployment (previously known as reactive threats) and asymmetric/unconventional threats. The assessment of the threat capabilities will include the projected threat, an assessment of the threat, and threat trends, including future enabling technologies, likely follow-on systems, and the intent/employment of threat systems. Of particular interest will be the most likely and most stressing system-specific threats and their proliferation. Indicate confidence levels where appropriate.

g. Section VI, Emergent Technologies. Address technologies that are not yet projected to be weaponized but which have the potential to negatively impact the US system and are the subject of significant research outside the United States. The section must also address implications of those technologies for the U.S. system. Indicate confidence levels where appropriate.

h. Appendix A, Critical Intelligence Parameters. Develop from collaborative discussions among the intelligence, requirements generation, and acquisition management communities and draw from deficiencies and requirements contained in the ICD, capability development document, capability production document, and program concepts and characteristics that may flow from the AoA or other, similar sources. CIPs are categories of threat information dealing with platforms, weapons, systems, doctrine, or operational employment that, if developed, procured, or implemented by potential adversaries, could significantly influence effective operation of the developing or deployed system. CIPs should include the technical characteristics or performance thresholds of weapon systems or technologies of particular concern to the US program. The CIP level of details should be sufficient to stand alone, without reference to other parts of the document. CIPs are used as a basis for developing PRs in support of the acquisition program.

i. Bibliography. Include a reference list that contains the sources used in the preparation of the document. These documents will be current.

j. Annexes.

(1) Annex A will include an unclassified threat summary suitable for publishing in JCIDS documents. (2) Additional annexes may be utilized to include intelligence supporting the program. If required, the annex may be classified higher or more restrictively to address specific threats to the program. SAP data and secret compartmentalized information may also be included in annexes, if necessary.

## Appendix C Threat Test Support Package Formats

C1. Developmental threat test support package a. Threat employed in formal government DTs and live-fire tests, contractor tests, and combined Government/
contractor tests will be documented in a developmental TTSP prepared by the PM's supporting intelligence organization, coordinated with the TSG, and approved by the DCS, G2 (ACAT I/II) or AMC, G2 (ACAT III).

b. At minimum, the developmental TTSP will (1) Identify the system, test plan, test organization, Government/contractor point of contact, location, and date. (2) Describe the threat (scenarios, weapon systems, targets, surrogates, simulators, computer models/ simulations) to be employed in the test and rationale.

(3) Describe significant differences, if any, between actual threat and test threat and assess the impact on test threat realism.

(4) Identify the system threat assessment report, intelligence source documents, and validation/accreditation reports pertaining to test threats.

C2. Operational threat test support package
a. Part I, Threat Test Requirements. Part I provides the threat definition and expected threat to be portrayed during
test to the TCM/PM and ATEC. It will be approved by the TRADOC assistant DCSINTThreats (ATINLE), with copy furnished to the DCS, G2 for DIA validation (ACAT ID programs), and will contain the following information:
(1) Section 1, Introduction. (2) Section 2, Test and evaluation criteria. (3) Section 3, Threat.
(a) Threat to system under test.
(b) Threat to be countered (targets). (c) Threat applied countermeasures.
b. Part II, Threat Test Planning and Documentation. Part II is the foundation for the Threat-Operational Test
Readiness Statement. It will be approved by the TRADOC assistant DCSINTThreats (ATINLE), with copy furnished to the DCS, G2 for DIA validation (ACAT ID programs), and will contain the following information under Section 4:
(1) Threat test scenario. (2) Threat test concept. (3) Limitations: (a) Threat.
(b) Test. (4) Requirements for frequency clearance. (5) Target-firer matrix and critical pairs. (6) Accreditation of threat representation and targets. (7) Threat description of test trials and vignettes. (8) Threat minimum start and end trial criteria. (9) Threat training plan.
(10) Threat operational live-fire trials.
c. Part III, Threat Test Execution and Reporting. Completion of Part III occurs during and after the test. The
majority of information to be included in the executive summary will be derived from Part II. Threat portrayal during test will be approved by the TRADOC assistant DCSINTThreats and will contain the following information:
(1) Annex A, Record of threat portrayal conducted in test trials and vignettes. (2) Annex B, Record of threat portrayal conducted in live-fire trials. (3) Annex C, Status of threat approval and validation for threat test portrayal and test data. (4) Annex D, Threat insights from test observation and review of data. (5) Annex E, Remaining threat test requirements for program (from the TEMP). (6) Annex F, Threat assessment from test portrayal (given test results, how should threat for next test to be
portrayed).
(7) Annex G, Threat milestones and dates. (8) Annex H, Threat test documentation (memorandums). (9) Annex I, Figures, tables, and graphs. (10) Annex J, Bibliography. (11) Annex K, Distribution list.

## Appendix D Management Control Evaluation Checklist

D1. Function The function covered by this checklist is the administration of intelligence threat support to capability development and includes key controls for intelligence threat support management, records management, and publishing.

D2. Purpose The purpose of this checklist is to assist senior intelligence officers in evaluating key intelligence threat support management controls. It is not intended to cover all controls.

D3. Instructions Answers must be based on the actual testing of key management controls (such as document analysis, direct observation, and sampling). Answers that indicate deficiencies must be explained and corrective action indicated in supporting documentation. These key management controls must be evaluated at least once every 5 years. Certification that this evaluation has been conducted must be accomplished on DA Form 112R (Management Control Evaluation Certification Statement).

D4. Test questions a. Responsibilities (chap 2). Have MDI requirements been coordinated with the appropriate threat intelligence agency (all)?

b. Intelligence threat support activities (chap 3).

(1) Has the organization assigned a TISO to support all ACAT programs within a functional area (HQDA)? (2) Has the organization identified the supporting threat intelligence agency (TCM, PEO, PM)? (3) Have threat intelligence requirements to support a program been outlined (TCM, PEO, PM)? (4) Has the organization identified the threat integrator and notified them of upcoming IPTs (PEO, PM)? (5) Has the organization conducted a TSG for all ACAT programs (HQDA, TRADOC, AMC)?

c. Intelligence threat support products (chap 4).

(1) Do ACAT I/II programs have a valid STAR published within 2 years (TCM, PEO, PM)? (2) Has initial threat support been completed for ACAT III programs and appropriate intelligence baseline resources identified (TCM, PEO, PM)?

(3) Have developmental and operational tests requiring threat representations coordinated development of a TTSP
(TCM, PEO, PM)?

## D5. Supersession No Previous Checklists Exist For This Program. D6. Comments Help Make This A Better Tool For Evaluating Management Controls. Submit Comments To The Dcs, G2 (DamiFit). Glossary Section I Abbreviations Acat Acquisition Category Acic Army Counterintelligence Center

ACTD
advanced concept technology demonstration AMC
Army Materiel Command AMSAA
Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity AoA
analysis of alternatives AR
Army regulation ARL/SLAD
Army Research LaboratorySurvivability Lethality Analysis Directorate

## Aroc Army Requirements Oversight Council Arstaf Army Staff Arstrat Army Strategic Command

ASA(ALT)
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
ASARC
Army Systems Acquisition Review Council ASA(RDA)
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition)
ATD
advanced technology demonstration ATEC
Army Test and Evaluation Command ATO
advanced technology objective ATWG
Army Technology Protection Working Group CG
commanding general CI
counterintelligence CIP
critical intelligence parameter CJCSI
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff instruction CJCSM
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff manual CPI
critical program information CTA
capstone threat assessment DA
Department of the Army DAB
Defense Acquisition Board DCS, G2
Deputy Chief of Staff, G2
DCS, G3
Deputy Chief of Staff, G3
DCS, G8
Deputy Chief of Staff, G8
DCSINT
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence DIA
Defense Intelligence Agency DIACAP
DOD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process DIAP
Defense Intelligence Analysis Program DIMSRR
Defense Intelligence Modeling and Simulation Resource Repository DOD
Department of Defense DODD
DOD directive DODI
DOD instruction DOT&E
director of operational test and evaluation

## Dotmlpf Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership And Education, Personnel, And Facilities Dps Defense Planning Scenario Dru Direct Reporting Unit

DT
developmental test

## Fio Foreign Intelligence Officer (Amc Or Smdc/Arstrat Intelligence Officer) Gmi General Military Intelligence Hqda Headquarters, Department Of The Army Icd Initial Capability Document Inscom Intelligence And Security Command Ioc Initial Operational Capability Ipt Integrated Product Team It Information Technology Itwa Initial Threat Warning Assessment Jcids Joint Capability Integration And Development System Jcofa Joint Country Force Assessment Lcmc Life-Cycle Management Command M&S Modeling And Simulation Mdcita Multidiscipline Counterintelligence Threat Assessment Mdi Multi-Disciplined Intelligence Mdr Milestone Decision Review Mout Military Operations In Urban Terrain

MS
milestone M&S
modeling and simulation MSFD
multiservice force deployment NGIC
National Ground Intelligence Center OE
operational environment OSD
Office of the Secretary of Defense OT
operational test PEO
program executive officer PEOSTRI
Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation PM
program, project, or product manager

## Ppp Program Protection Plan

PR
production requirement RDA
research, development, and acquisition

## Rdec Research, Development And Engineering Center Rdecom Research, Development And Engineering Command

SAG
study advisory group SAP
special access program SCATR
security certificate and threat report

## Siprnet Secret Internet Protocol Router Network Smdc Space And Missile Defense Command Ssg Special Study Group Star System Threat Assessment Report Stf Special Task Force Ta Threat Analyst T&E Test And Evaluation Tawg Threat Accreditation Working Group Tcm Tradoc Capability Manager Tema Test And Evaluation Management Agency Temp Test And Evaluation Master Plan Tiso Threat Integration Staff Officer Tm Threat Manager Tmo Targets Management Office Tradoc Training And Doctrine Command Tsg Threat Steering Group Tsmo Threat Simulator Management Office Ttsp Threat Test Support Package Vv&A Verification, Validation, And Accreditation Vwg Validation Working Group Wipt Working Integrated Process Team Section Ii Terms

Accreditation Process of determining the extent to which a validated threat entity supports the requirements of the specific test or evaluation.

Acquisition category (ACAT)
Categories established to facilitate decentralized decisionmaking and execution, and compliance with statutorily imposed requirements. The categories determine the level of review, decision authority and applicable procedures. See DODI 5000.2 for specific definition for each acquisition category.

Approve Within the context of this regulation, the term "approve" signifies that the changes required by the validating authority for a threat document have been incorporated by the originator and that the document is now approved for use (see validate).

Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC)
Top-level DA corporate body for systems acquisition that provides advice and assistance to the Secretary of the Army and the Army Acquisition Executive.

Army Research and Technology Protection Center (ARTPC)
Integration and synchronization of security, intelligence, counterintelligence, foreign disclosure, and security countermeasures support to research and technology protection activities Army-wide.

Automated Information System Subset of an information system and represents the use of general-purpose computer equipment. It does not include embedded computer resources designed into materiel systems by the materiel developer. The system normally consists of a combination of information, hardware (computer), components (monitor, keyboard, modem, printer, display, and so on), software, and telecommunications resources that collect, record, process, store, communicate, retrieve, and display information, such as personnel systems, financial systems, and inventory control systems.

Battle lab Means to develop capabilities for a force projection Army that begins where battle appears to be changing. Tied to our evolving battlefield dynamic concepts and warfighting doctrine in FM 30, battle labs use the battlefield as a reference. By encouraging experimentation via simulations or prototypes, they determine requirements in the areas of doctrine, training, leader development, organizational structure, materiel, and Soldier support. Since resources realities will curtail most new starts, materiel requirements will be primarily in the form of technology insertions. By focusing on horizontal integration of technology across the force, battle labs will further conserve resources.

Capabilities development document A document that captures the information necessary to develop a proposed program(S) normally using an evolutionary acquisition strategy. It outlines an affordable increment of militarily useful, logistically supportable and technically mature capability.

## Capabilities Production Document A Document That Addresses The Production Elements Specific To A Single Increment Of An Acquisition Program.

Capstone threat assessment (CTA)
A document that provides the bedrock analytical foundation for intelligence threat support to the defense acquisition process. CTAs, covering major warfare areas, present the DOD intelligence community position with respect to those warfare areas and will constitute the primary source of threat intelligence for the preparation of ITWAs, STARs, and threat portions of documents supporting the JCIDS process. Assessments in CTAs are considered validated for use in the defense system acquisition process upon CTA publication.

Combat developer Command or agency that formulates doctrine, concepts, organization, materiel requirements, and objectives. Represents user community in materiel acquisition process.

Confidence level Degree of probability that a given item of intelligence is true based on the quality of supporting intelligence information.

Constructive Mathematical models used as a tool to support collective training (battalion commanders and staffs through Army TheaterCorps Battle Simulation, Combat Service Support Training Simulation System, Battalion Brigade Simulation and in individual training. May be used with or without human interaction. Sometimes referred to as war game models.

Critical intelligence parameter (CIP)
Formerly known as critical intelligence categories (CICs), CIPs are categories of threat information dealing with platforms, weapons, systems, doctrine, or operational employment that, if developed, procured, or implemented by potential adversaries, could significantly influence the effective operation of the developing/deployed system. CIPs may include weapon system type and sub-type, mission and employment considerations, and weapon-related technology. They should include the technical characteristics or performance thresholds of weapon systems or technologies of particular concern to the US program. The status of threat programs, technologies, and research efforts relative to the CIPs will be included, along with the potential for breaching CIP thresholds. The level of detail portrayed in the CIP should be sufficient to stand alone, without reference to other parts of the document. CIPs are used as a basis for developing production requirements in support of the acquisition program.

Critical program information (CPI)
CPI is information that, if compromised, would degrade combat effectiveness, shorten the expected combat-effective life of the system, or significantly alter program direction.

## Defense Acquisition Board (Dab) Senior Dod Acquisition Review Board, Chaired By Under Secretary Of Defense (Acquisition).

Force development Integration of allocated and projected Army resources into time-phased program to develop force properly organized, equipped, trained, and supported to carry out Army missions and functions worldwide. Includes force planning, programming, analysis, structuring, and com-bat and training developments.

Information system Organized assembly of resources and procedures designed to provide information needed to execute or accomplish a specific task or function. It applies to those systems that evolve, are acquired, or are developed that employ information technology. Information system equipment consists of components (for example, hardware, software, firm-ware, products, or other items) used to create, record, produce, store, retrieve, transmit, disseminate, present, or display data or information.

Initial capabilities document (ICD)
Replaces the mission needs statement. Documents the need for a materiel approach to a specific capability gap derived from an initial analysis of materiel approaches executed by the operational user and, as required, an independent analysis of materiel alternatives. It defines the capability gap in terms of the functional area, the relevant range of military operations, desired effects and time. The ICD summarizes the results of the DOTMLPF analysis and describes why nonmaterial changes alone have been judged inadequate in fully providing the capability.

Initial operational capability (IOC)
First attainment of the capability to employ effectively a weapon, item of equipment, or system of approved specific characteristics, and which is manned or operated by an adequately trained, equipped, and sup-ported military unit or force.

Instrumentation The use of electronic or electromagnetic systems to sense and record events performed by real weapons systems, communications systems and personnel. Instrumentation includes detection, measurement, recording, telemetry, and data processing.

Integrated program summary (IPS)
DOD component documents prepared and submitted to MDR authority in support of milestones. Succinctly highlights status of a program and its readiness to proceed into the next phase of the acquisition cycle.

Intelligence community The intelligence community includes the service production centers (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps), CIA, DIA, Department of Homeland Security, Drug Enforcement Administration, Energy Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, State Department, Treasury Department, and United States Coast Guard.

Initial threat warning assessment (ITWA)
ITWAs that are written in response to a functional area analysis as input for the functional needs assessment. They provide threat support early in the intelligence cycle and are written to identify projected threat capabilities in a functional area. They are not system specific but can be used to identify new requirements with respect to threats.

Joint program Defense acquisition system, subsystem, component, or technology that involves formal management or funding by more than one DOD Component during any phase of the system's life cycle.

Materiel developer Command or agency responsible for research, development, and production of system in response to approved requirements.

## Materiel System Item, System, Or All Systems Of Materiel; Includes All Required System Support Elements. Milestone (Ms) Major Decision Points That Separate The Phases Of An Acquisition Program.

Model and simulation (M&S)
A model is a physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of a system, entity, phenomenon, or process. A simulation is the operation or exercise of the model overtime. Also, a technique for testing, analysis, or training in which real-world systems are used, or where real-world and conceptual systems are reproduced by a model.

Multidiscipline intelligence (MDI)
All source Intelligence, derived from all intelligence disciplines (including those falling under the classic counterintelligence discipline), that could present a threat to a system or systems development process, technology based effort, or nondevelopmental item/COT procurement.

Multidiscipline counterintelligence threat assessment (MDCITA)
Multi-disciplined threat product that focuses on the foreign intelligence collection threat to the CPI of a specific US Army technology program that will be used in a risk assessment for the allocation of resources to protect the CPI and the program during the acquisition cycle.

Program protection plan (PPP)
Identifies CPI and the most effective means to protect them following a risk management approach. Required at MS B.

Updated on a regular basis, but at a minimum when a major milestone is pending or when new CPI are identified, new threat information is obtained, an annex to the PPP is developed/modified, or a compromise of CPI is identified.

Production requirement (PR)
A PR states an intelligence production need for a general or specific subject, or to support a program, system, or weapon. PRs should be initiated by a DOD component whenever there is a perceived information gap. PRs should be supported by appropriate collection requirements.

## Senior Intelligence Officer An Office Or Designated Individual Responsible For Obtaining Intelligence Required By The Command.

Simulation To feign, to obtain the essence of, without the reality of warfare. In the distributed interactive simulation domains, everything short of actual combat is a simulation. Three categories are live, virtual and constructive.

Special Access Program (SAP)
Highly sensitive, classified acquisition program that complies with policies and procedures specified in DOD Instruction 5000.2 for acquisition category of programs with equivalent dollar value. Specific deviations to these policies and procedures must have concurrence of milestone decision authority, which may waive milestone documentation requirements. STARs and other threat-related documents prepared for highly sensitive classified programs are handled administratively in the same manner as other programs, unless special security arrangements are necessary. Special access clearances for these programs will be kept to a minimum.

System threat assessment report (STAR)
Threat assessment tailored to and focused on a particular ACAT system. Contains integrated assessment of projected enemy capabilities (doctrine, tactics, hardware, organization, and forces) to limit, neutralize, or destroy system. Will serve as basic threat document supporting system development and will reference DIA-validated threat data sources. A dynamic document that will be continually updated and refined as a program develops. Will be approved and validated in support of ASARC/DAB review. Description and format in DIAI 5000.002.

Target array An aggregation of target components that represents one or more essential aspects of the threat for an exercise, test, or simulation. Targets may range from mockups that resemble the actual threat visually from a distance or they may emit certain signatures that mimic the threat (e.g., infrared, electromagnetic, or acoustic emissions, etc.). A target array is composed of expendable resources that may be used once and destroyed in the exercise or simulation.

Technologically feasible threat Potential threat that may be assessed as unlikely but for which capability exists and which could impact on U.S. system under development.

Test and evaluation master plan (TEMP)
Overall planning document used to depict structure and objectives of test program. Provides framework within which to generate detailed test and evaluation plans and to determine schedule and resource implications associated with test and evaluation program.

Threat The sum of the potential strengths, capabilities, and strategic objectives of any adversary that can limit or negate U.S. mission accomplishment or reduce force, system, or equipment effectiveness. It does not include natural/environmental factors affecting the ability of the system to function or mission accomplishment; mechanical/component failure affecting mission accomplishment; or program issues related to budgeting, restructuring, or cancellation of the program.

Threat array An aggregation of threat components that represents the essential aspects of the threat for an exercise, test, or simulation. For example, an integrated air defense node component of simulated (hardware and software simulations/ simulators) radar vehicles, C3 vehicles, surface-to-air missile systems and affiliated support vehicles could be a threat array for a practical exercise, test, or simulation.

Threat analyst (TA)
Army civilian intelligence specialists (0132) (or support contractors as necessary) designated as the HQDA threat integrator interchangeable with a TISO and assigned along Battlefield Operating System lines based upon their training and experience.

Threat assessment Evaluation of enemy's or potential enemy's current or projected capability to limit, neutralize, or destroy the effectiveness of a mission, organization, or item of equipment. Involves application of threat analysis to specific mission, organization, or item of equipment within context of a military operation.

Threat data Threat data includes technical information on threat systems as well as information on the formations and capabilities of potential adversaries. Threat data includes raw and processed information. The intelligence community must validate threat data for formal program usage.

Threat representation Models, simulators, stimulators, simulations, data, targets, actual threat systems, emulators, surrogates, foreign materiel, or systems that replicate foreign military weapon systems or civilian devices used in an adversarial military role. Validation and accreditation is required for threat representations that support formal program analysis, assessment, or test and evaluation. Procedures for V&A are established in DA Pam 511 (for M&S) and DA Pam 731 (for T&E).

Threat simulator A threat simulator is a DOD-developed system that exhibits one or more operational characteristics/physical signatures of an actual threat system for use in testing and evaluation and in training. Threat simulators provide physical representations of threat systems for use in developmental testing, operational testing and training. Threat simulators used in testing that supports an MDR must be validated and accredited.

Threat Steering Group (TSG)
Executive level group formed to manage intelligence support requirements to support the combat and materiel development process throughout entire life cycle of systems or processes.

Test & evaluation working integrated process team (T&E WIPT)
Acquisition program working group chaired by PM and convened at PM's discretion, responsible for establishing and defining test conditions and applicable scenarios (year, region, targets, and arrays) in support of program testing. Representation typically consists of representatives from US System PM, HQDA DCS, G2, Threat Support Activities, Operational Test and Evaluation Command, Combined Arms Center Threats Directorate, and AMSAA. Principal threat integrators for T&E WIPT are the supporting AMC FIO for Developmental Tests and the TRADOC Threat Manager for Operational Tests. PM ITTS and NGIC are represented on T&E WIPT when discussions and test planning warrant their participation.

Threat integration staff officer (TISO)
An Army officer designated as the HQDA threat integrator for designated mission areas, programs and/or materiel systems. Usually assigned along Battlefield Operating System lines, based upon their Branch and operational experience. Complements the ASA(ALT) staff officer, G3 requirements staff officer, G8 synchronization staff officer, and the PEO/PM or a representative. Encourages close coordination for threat support by the intelligence community with Army commands, PEOs, and ARSTAF RDA and T&E agencies to ensure the timely integration of threat into technology programs and the materiel development and acquisition process. Supplements existing management activities but does not relieve ARSTAF agencies, PEO/PMs and Army commanders of established responsibilities. DCS, G2 is the approving authority for either establishing or ending TISO monitoring of systems. Generally, a TISO will be assigned to all programs designated as ACAT I or II, or that appear on the OSD or Congressional program oversight lists. Other systems and programs will be assigned TISO monitoring on an "as required" basis with DCS, G2 approval.

Threat support activity Provides threat support to a combat, materiel, or systems developer (such as Threat Managers (TMs) in TRADOC; Foreign Intelligence Officers (FIOs) in AMC; and DCSINT for SMDC; and the DCS, G2 for HQDA.

Threat test support package (TTSP)
A test specific document that provides a comprehensive description of threat to US systems being tested and targets the system will engage.

Validation (threat documentation)
Within the context of this regulation, the term "validation" signifies formal or official certification of a STAR or other product for threat support to acquisition. Validation certifies the assessment or product has been properly prepared and coordinated based upon appropriate primary threat documentation and best available data. STARs for all ACAT ID programs must be validated by DIA. STARs for ACAT IC, ACAT II, and OSD oversight programs must be validated by DCS, G2 (DAMIFIT). STARs for non-oversight ACAT III programs must be validated by TRADOC DCSINT or AMC G2 depending on the agency responsible for revision.

Validation (regional structures)
The process of certifying that a structure is constructed in an appropriate manner to ensure consistent, accurate data can be determined from the T&E event for a wide variety of munitions. This is critical to ensure that weapons and munitions' effectiveness (lethality) can be compared across the board to a set of quantifiable standards. A thorough knowledge of structures and weapons effects is essential to ensure the correct system is employed. This cannot be done without validation of regional structures.

Validation (requirements)
The process of certifying that a customer's requirements are consistent with and necessary for the accomplishment of the customer's mission.

## Validation (T&E, M&S) The Process Used To Identify, Document, And Analyze The Critical Technical And Performance Differences Between A Threat

entity and the associated threat system. Validation is the process used to determine whether a threat entity provides a sufficiently realistic representation of the corresponding threat system for use in T&E.

Validation office (VO)
A small office or a self contained intelligence organization that has been established for each service, each Unified Command and the National Military Intelligence Production Center.

Validation working group (VWG)
Group formed to determine whether threat simulator or target provides sufficiently realistic representation of corresponding threat system and justifies the start or continuation of its development, acceptance, or modification. Chartered by TEMA.

Validation and accreditation plan for threat simulators and targets Plan that defines and prescribes concepts, processes, policies, and procedures employed in validation and accreditation of threat simulators, targets, and target arrays.

## Section Iii Special Abbreviations And Terms This Section Contains No Entries.

# Usapd Electronic Publishing System Onecol Formatter Win32 Version 236

PIN:
               004110000
DATE:
               01-25-07
TIME:
               11:16:58
PAGES SET:
               40

DATA FILE:
             C:\wincomp\r381-11.fil
DOCUMENT:
             AR 38111

SECURITY:
UNCLASSIFIED
DOC STATUS: REVISION