DOD manages the acquisition of weapon systems through the Defense Acquisition System, which is an event-based process. Acquisition programs proceed through a series of milestone reviews and other decision points that may authorize entry into the next program phase (see figure 1). Based upon DOD’s acquisition-related guidance, for major defense acquisition programs that begin during the materiel solution analysis phase, intelligence inputs into the acquisition process are expected to be provided prior to the Milestone A review, the point at which approval is sought to proceed to the next phase in the process. Further, most of the intelligence inputs are to be verified or updated at points prior to the Milestone B decision and again prior to the Milestone C decision, the point at which approval is sought in order to progress to the production and deployment phase. We describe the intelligence inputs and key DOD guidance for providing intelligence support to acquisition programs in appendix III. The USD(AT&L) is responsible for acquisition policy and oversight, and as the Defense Acquisition Executive has responsibility for supervising the Defense Acquisition System. The milestone decision authority is the designated individual with overall responsibility for a program and has the authority to approve its progression to the next phase of the acquisition process. The milestone decision authority is accountable for cost, schedule, and performance reporting. The service acquisition communities are led by Service Acquisition Executives who are assistant secretaries within their respective military departments. For example, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology) serves as the Army acquisition executive, while the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, & Acquisition) serves as the Navy acquisition executive. The program manager is the designated individual with responsibility for individual acquisition programs who has the authority to accomplish that program’s development, production, and sustainment objectives to meet the user’s operational needs, and is accountable for cost, schedule, and performance reporting to the milestone decision authority. At the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff level, the J-8 Directorate provides support to the Joint Staff for evaluating and developing force structure requirements, and its director serves as Secretary of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and as Chairman of the Joint Capabilities Board. In these capacities, the director orchestrates Joint Staff support of the capabilities development process through the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System. One of the J-8 Directorate’s objectives is to provide early capability development guidance to the services. The services have different organizational structures that define their respective requirements communities. For example, according to the Air Force, via its Major Commands, the Air Force has personnel responsible for 12 capability portfolios such as Air Superiority and Global Precision Attack that manage Air Force capability requirements. According to DOD, the speed of technical innovation and the complexity of advanced weapon systems, such as the F-35, are creating an increasing demand for specialized intelligence mission data to provide information for sensors and automated processes supporting the warfighter. There are several types of intelligence mission data, each used by weapon systems in different ways, including signatures, electronic warfare integrated reprogramming data, characteristics and performance, order of battle, and geospatial intelligence (see figure 2). Signatures are distinct, repeating characteristics, such as radio frequencies or acoustic characteristics, which are associated with a particular type of equipment, materiel, activity, individual, or event. For example, a weapon system may associate a specific signature with an enemy system, and identify it as such. Electronic warfare integrated reprogramming data also describe radio frequencies, and are typically used to attack or control other electronic systems—for example, jamming enemy radar capabilities. Characteristics and performance data describe the abilities of a particular foreign military system, while order of battle describes the strength and structure of armed forces. These can assist a weapon system and its operator to prioritize and determine appropriate actions against the enemy. The title, specific duties, and organizational structure for the personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs vary by service (see table 1). Personnel who provide intelligence support to acquisition programs may also coordinate, and in some cases create, the completion of key intelligence products that accompany the acquisition process through documented processes such as Threat Steering Groups, which assemble intelligence and acquisition representatives with knowledge of systems that are specific to the acquisition program. In the Army, during the acquisition lifecycle, the threat integration staff officers assigned to Army Intelligence coordinate intelligence support to acquisition programs through the Threat Steering Group, in which Training and Doctrine Command threat managers and Army Materiel Command foreign intelligence officers participate. Threat assessments before Milestone B are generally managed by Training and Doctrine Command threat managers. Threat assessments from Milestone B and beyond are typically managed by Army Materiel Command foreign intelligence officers. In the Navy, intelligence support to acquisition programs is provided by intelligence personnel in the Office of Naval Intelligence, which is responsible for the production and validation of intelligence inputs to Navy acquisition programs. The acquisition programs are supported by scientific and technical intelligence liaison officers who are hired and funded by the Navy entities responsible for management of assigned acquisition programs, called system commands, and are responsible for coordinating between the system command and the intelligence community. For example, the scientific and technical intelligence liaison officer is responsible for requesting the production and validation of intelligence inputs such as threat assessments, which are used to obtain the threat intelligence required to inform acquisition cost, schedule, and performance decision making by program managers. For programs that are managed by the Marine Corps acquisition agencies (Marine Corps System Command and Program Executive Officer Land Systems), intelligence support is provided by military and civilian intelligence analysts at Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, the service intelligence center. Marine Corps System Command’s intelligence support is coordinated by a scientific and technical intelligence liaison officer. Marine Corps-funded programs at other Navy system commands follow the intelligence support processes for the hosting organization. For example, the Marine Corps version of the F-35 or helicopter acquisitions would both follow processes for intelligence support to acquisition programs used by Naval Air Systems Command. The Air Force materiel commands (Air Force Space Command and Air Force Materiel Command) use acquisition intelligence specialists to support acquisition programs identified as intelligence sensitive. These specialists, along with intelligence analysts at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, provide intelligence products and input based on their individual levels of experience and training. DOD has processes and procedures for the certification of both intelligence and acquisition personnel, but it has not established certifications for personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs. Though DOD has not developed certifications specific to personnel who provide intelligence support to acquisition programs, the Air Force and the Army have each developed certifications for these personnel. In the absence of department-wide certifications, the services have developed varying levels of training for personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs, and this training may not be specific to providing intelligence support to acquisition programs. Neither USD(I) certifications for the defense intelligence workforce nor USD(AT&L) certifications for the defense acquisition workforce include a certification specific to those personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs. The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act generally requires DOD to establish policies and procedures for the management of DOD’s acquisition workforce, including education, training, and career development. USD(AT&L) subsequently organized certain acquisition-related positions into 14 career fields and established a certification process by which DOD components determine that employees have met standard requirements for education, training, and experience for each field. However, personnel who provide intelligence support to acquisition programs are not included in the 14 career fields with established certifications. According to service officials, acquisition certifications for personnel who provide intelligence support to acquisition programs have not been developed because there is no career field for intelligence support to acquisition. As a result, personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs are not required to obtain certification for any of the acquisition-related career fields. Officials from the Air Force stated that the lack of certification has resulted in critical skill gaps for personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs. Similarly, USD(I) is responsible for establishing a department-level certification program for the defense intelligence workforce. As a result, certifications for 15 different intelligence disciplines have been developed, such as geospatial intelligence and collection management, and several other certifications are currently being developed for disciplines such as all-source analysis—an intelligence activity that involves the integration, evaluation, and interpretation of information from all available data sources and types. Intelligence officials stated that personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs may become eligible for fundamental intelligence certifications, such as all-source analysis certification. However, these officials stated that the certification is designed to certify fundamental competencies for all intelligence analysts, and is not specific to providing intelligence support to acquisition programs. Though DOD has not developed certifications specific to personnel who provide intelligence support to acquisition programs, the Air Force and the Army have each developed certifications for these personnel. The Air Force has established a certification for personnel who provide intelligence support to acquisition programs via both service-wide guidance and guidance from organizations involved in acquisition, such as Air Force Materiel Command. The Air Force requires that, for initial certification, personnel assigned to positions providing intelligence support to acquisition programs must complete certain training, including Air Force and Defense Acquisition University classes, and have 1 year of experience in a designated “acquisition intelligence” position. Additionally, individual acquisition organizations, such as the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, require additional training and also require that intelligence managers certify that personnel providing intelligence support to acquisition programs have completed the required training, met the experience requirements, and can complete a list of unique tasks specific to the performance of their individual job. The Army developed an optional certification for civilian personnel in intelligence positions, including intelligence support to acquisition programs. A 2001 training plan describes a process for individuals to document competency in different specialty areas based on the job duties and seniority of the position. The plan shows that the intelligence support to acquisition specialty requires competency in areas such as threat intelligence and technical knowledge of acquisition organizations.