Reconnaissance Strategist
RECONNAISSANCE STRATEGIST
Interview with
Scott Large, Director
National Reconnaissance Office
Interview with
Scott Large, Director
National Reconnaissance Office
Scott F. Large became the director of 16th NRO director, and was also appointed assistant to the secretary of the Air Force (intelligence space technology) in October 2007. He was appointed by the secretary of defense with the concurrence of the director of national intelligence.
Large joined the CIA in 1986 as a project management engineer in the Office of Development and Engineering, developing advanced spacecraft payloads at NRO. He held various senior development and systems engineering positions within the NRO’s Imagery Systems Acquisition and Operations Directorate through 1996. Also during this time, he served one year as the executive assistant to the director of NRO. In 1997, he became deputy director of the Future Imagery Architecture program.
In 1998, Large was appointed the deputy chief for programs within the CIA Directorate of Operations’ Technical Management Office. In this position, he helped administer a joint national program while assisting in the development of the program’s strategic plan and program management process. In 2000, he was selected as director of the Clandestine Signals Intelligence Operations Group in the Office of Technical Collection within the CIA’s Directorate of Science and Technology. While there, he led the development and execution of critical collection operations for the intelligence community. In September 2000, he became the deputy director of the Office of Technical Collection.
Large’s last CIA assignment was as associate deputy director for science and technology, beginning in September 2001. He returned to NRO to serve as director, Imagery Systems Acquisition and Operations Directorate, from July 2003 to November 2006. He was director, Source Operations and Management Directorate at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency until April 2007, when he again returned to the NRO to assume the position of principal deputy director.
Large received a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering in 1979 from the University of Central Florida, majoring in electrooptics and semiconductor devices. Before joining the government, he spent seven years in industry, during which time he was granted three patents in fiber optics technology.
Large was interviewed by MGT Editor Harrison Donnelly.
Q: Now that you have been director of NRO for about six months, what are some of your priorities and goals for the organization?
A: NRO has a straightforward mission to develop, acquire, launch and operate space-based reconnaissance and surveillance systems for the DoD and the intelligence community. About two years ago, we developed an NRO strategic framework that established our organizational vision and goals. There are two goals: to be the foundation for global situational awareness for the nation, both the military and the intelligence community, and to provide intelligence information on timelines responsive to users’ needs. This strategic framework laid the foundation for the transformation, which includes a number of efforts.
One area of emphasis is to focus on how to add value to the data and information that we collect and provide to the end user. That’s critically important to us for a number of reasons. Today, we collect a huge volume of signals intelligence and imagery data. There’s information imbedded in the volume of data we collect today that we are not accessing. There’s a lot of information that we can leverage as we provide data to the military, the IC and our mission partners, such as NSA and NGA. We are focusing on ways to improve the content—the data and information. This includes everything from the raw data itself to the metadata about the data. When we do this we’re providing enriched content for an analyst.
We’re working closely with NSA and NGA to define how we improve the value of the information by correlating all of that for them. We don’t analyze it here; that’s the job of our mission partners. Our real focus is on how we can improve the content and access to the data. In other words, how we can make the data more readily available to our mission partners and end users, and improve their ability to reach in and get it. That includes efforts to augment the tasking that we receive from both NGA and NSA, as well as making collected data easily accessible through Webbased and IT technologies, which are becoming a cornerstone of where we are headed.
NRO is an acquisition organization. We build and operate overhead reconnaissance systems. We are also focusing on improving our acquisition excellence, in terms of cost, schedule and performance—ensuring that when we commit to developing a space or ground capability for the nation, we deliver it on time and within cost, and it works the way we intend it to work. That has been a challenge for us, as it has been for the rest of the national security space industry. On the government side, we are recovering from the acquisition reforms of the mid- to late- 1990s, and some of the approaches that were taken in acquiring space systems. Our focus now is to get NRO’s credibility back to where we believe it should be, and perform the way we know we can. Frankly, we have a lot of successes in areas I can’t go into. We have acquisition successes and operational successes that we wish we could talk about more. We need to ensure that those successful processes and techniques are consistently applied across all of our programs. That’s very important.
Q: NRO is currently going through a reorganization/enterprise transformation. What are your goals for this process, and when do you anticipate completing it?
A: The reorganization and enterprise transformation are very much aligned with our two strategic framework objectives. We’re now moving into a strategic implementation phase, which is to truly deliver on what the framework calls for. We have gone through the largest reorganization in NRO in the last 20 years. This is a significant change to the way we’re organized, and more importantly to the way in which we have been operating for the last 10 years. We’ve aligned our organization to meet the challenges, in terms of content and access, and in doing so we are focusing as much on ground systems as on spacecraft systems. The near-term payoff in content is really associated with the ground processing of data—manipulating and correlating data.
We need to position ourselves so that we can rapidly develop ground capabilities and insert them into operations on a much shorter timeline. We want to take lessons from the commercial IT world, because the cycle time for new capabilities is very quick. New products are turned out every nine months. Historically, it’s taken us many years. We need to improve that cycle time for us to be able to deliver new capabilities, and the best place to do that is on the ground. We have reorganized all of our ground development activities into a single organization, the Ground Enterprise Directorate. This allows us to take our imagery and signals intelligence ground systems, and as we develop them, ensure that we’re operating them on a common structure, so that as we develop mission-specific applications, imagery and SIGINT elements can do a better job of integrating operations of our satellites. It’s very important to us that we have a common, integrated ground architecture.
We’ve also consolidated all of our operations—signals intelligence and imagery—into a single operations organization, with the same objective of allowing us to do a better job of managing and fostering that integration between the two different disciplines, in order to provide better content value to our end customers, and be more responsive to their needs.
Another thing we’ve done that represents a major change within NRO is to create a chief operating officer, who is responsible for day-to-day acquisition and operations. We’re trying to put a finer point on accountability here, so I have written instructions to each of the senior managers about what I expect from them and what they have to deliver. I’ve delegated authorities to the chief operating officer to make budgetary, manpower and programmatic decisions on my behalf, with my oversight.
The other thing that we’ve done is to raise the systems engineering function at NRO to the corporate level. When you look at the types of systems that we build and operate, acquisitionquality systems engineering is the cornerstone of the success we’ve had in the past. It is something that we got away from through acquisition reform and other efforts in the late-1990s, but we are putting a very strong emphasis now on getting back to basics in the way we do systems engineering for satellite and ground system acquisition. The systems engineering organization reports directly to the chief operating officer. Their job is to not only develop the system requirements for what we build, but also to provide checks and balances for that process to ensure that when we sign up to deliver a capability we are following our processes and meeting those expectations. That’s why systems engineering historically has proven to be something that is essential in large, complex system acquisitions.
The transformation begins now, the new way of doing business begins now, and over the next 12 months you’re going to see us getting into the rhythm of the new organization—transforming actual work and the way we do it, and working with our mission partners in doing so. I believe it’s the only way that NRO is going to regain the acquisition excellence we’ve demonstrated in the past, and, more importantly, deliver the value-added capability that our users are demanding of us.
Q: How is NRO furthering integrating its mission partners into its operations?
A: That’s a huge success story, but not a new initiative. NRO has worked side by side with our mission partners in an integrated way for many years. We have a large number of NGA and NSA professionals in this organization, fully integrated and embedded in our structure. In fact, our chief operating officer has two associate chief operating officers, one a senior official from NSA and the other a senior official from NGA. They are integrated to the extent that when the chief operating officer is unavailable, they are running the ship, and helping us manage this organization. If you look down into NRO, you will find other NGA and NSA seniors in other key positions, and at the line level, engineers, scientists and others from those organizations helping us do our jobs. This much more than having a representative here to do liaison work—they are fully integrated and operational within our organization. We also have NSA and NGA people at our operational facilities. I can’t go into a lot of detail about that, but our operational side is fully integrated as well.
As we look to development and definition of future capabilities, we rely on NGA and NSA to help us define requirements. They are the functional managers for their respective field—NGA for GEOINT and NSA for signals intelligence. We rely on their inputs and guidance as to exactly what users need overhead systems to provide. That forms the basis of our requirements, which we turn into specifications. We work with NSA and NGA to make sure we understand exactly what users are saying when they need a certain type of performance. They are our storefront that we work with. I have great relationships with Admiral Murrett and General Alexander, and sit with them on a regular basis to discuss what’s happening and what we need to focus on. It’s a very collaborative process, and I like to say there’s no daylight between the organizations. We work very closely together.
Q: What are you doing with the Air Force?
A: In the past, the director of NRO was either the under secretary of the Air Force, or had a senior position in the Air Force. That is no longer the case—I am a direct report to the secretary of defense and the director of national intelligence. This position is considered a DoD position. But what people may not fully appreciate is that of the 3,300 or so people here at NRO, fully half are Air Force, the rest are CIA, Navy, Army and Marine Corps personnel. So we are already integrated with the Air Force. But that’s just a piece of it.
There are five areas that are definitive examples of how we’re integrated with the Air Force. First, we do joint programs, and have a very strong relationship with Space and Missile Systems Center [SMC] at Los Angeles AFB, Calif., under Lieutenant General Mike Hamel. We already have an integration process on the programmatic side. Operationally, NRO serves as the backup to the Joint Space Operations Center. Under an agreement that only has come into fruition in the last year and a half, we provide backup capabilities and full integration with the Joint Space Operations Center. My director for mission support, Army Brigadier General Jeff Horne, is also the deputy commander of the Joint Forces Command Center for Space. He is dual-hatted as my deputy here for mission support, but also as the deputy commander for JFCC-Space.
We also worry about our industrial base. If you look across Air Force, NRO and other government space programs, we’re very concerned about our industrial base. I co-chair, along with the secretary of the Air Force, the Space Industrial Base Council made up of the Air Force, NRO, NASA, the departments of Commerce, State and Homeland Security and other government organizations, and some industry elements. This is a focal point for Secretary of the Air Force Wynne and myself, as well as NASA Director Mike Griffin. It is affecting all of us.
Another area is space protection. Without going into a lot of detail, because of security constraints, I can tell you that the commander of Air Force Space Command, General Bob Kehler, and I have created a joint space protection program where our job is to develop space protection strategies and worry about potential threats to U.S. national security space systems—how to respond to these threats and engineer the right systems. It’s a joint program between NRO and the Air Force, and we take into account all other space activities in the federal government. NRO has been identified as the IC lead for space protection, while Space Command has been identified as DoD lead. Collaboratively, we’re working to define what we need to do.
The last piece, and probably the most important because it has the longest-term effect, is development of space professionals and a space professional cadre. Within the Air Force, we are a partner with Space Command and SMC in defining and developing the requirements and standards for the professionalization of Air Force officers. Not only that, but also we are the co-chair with the Air Force on the assignment board, which decides where officers should go. Should they come here for specific skills? What do they need to develop? What are the requirements to become a space professional in the Air Force— how do you define it, and what are the standards?
The five areas are program development, operations, industrial base, space protection and professional cadre development. When people say we’re not integrated, I have to ask what we missed. So I’m pleased with where we’re heading.
Q: How does NRO fit into the reorganized national intelligence system?
A: We are one of the 16 IC elements that are managed by the DNI. NRO is in a somewhat unique position, because we support both the DoD and the intelligence community. We have a seat at the DNI’s Executive Committee, the EXCOM, along with the other principal IC elements. Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence James Clapper is also the DNI’s director of defense intelligence and also sits at that table with the DNI. We’re part of the decision-making process. I’m very comfortable with our ability to raise issues, have them debated and get decisions made by the seniors. NRO is right in the middle of the mix.
Q: In general, what are some of the areas of scientific and technological research that NRO is interested in?
A: I can tell you about the areas, in terms of potential applications and utility, without getting into specific technologies. We continue to be focused on improving our collection capabilities, and we look at that in terms of the attributes of the architecture. We’re very interested in improving our ability to provide persistent collection and persistent overhead monitoring and reconnaissance. What that does is to allow us to add the temporal aspect to our capabilities—in other words, time. We look at a number of different technologies and architectures— spacecraft technologies, specific sensor technologies and architectures, how many satellites in a constellation, for example. All of those go into the formula that defines the attribute called “persistence.”
We are looking at how to improve our ability to communicate, and to move information around the world, to get the data we’ve collected and processed to users. That kind of communications technology is always of great interest to us—to continue to push the ability to rapidly move large amounts of data. We are looking at sensor technologies to ensure we understand techniques that people may be using to deny and deceive overhead collection.
I mentioned space protection. Obviously we’re very interested in technologies that would improve our ability to protect our assets. With an emphasis now on the ground as well as on spacecraft, we really are focusing on ground technologies—data processing, data dissemination and new ways of generating enhanced information that don’t require a new type of spacewww. craft, but through additional processing techniques. That kind of technology is very exciting, because the IT, computer and Webbased worlds are pushing out more capabilities than you can imagine. Leveraging that kind of technology, I believe we will see an explosion in the value of what’s coming out of our system.
Q: How do you respond to a recent Government Accountability Office report charging a lack of communication between DoD and the intelligence agencies in developing a national space strategy?
A: NRO is working closely with the intelligence community and DoD along with civil space agencies to update the existing national space strategy. The National Security Space Office is coordinating this effort. As a member of the Space Partnership Council, along with Secretary of the Air Force Wynne, STRATCOM Commander General Kevin Chilton, AF Space Command Commander General Bob Kehler, NASA Administrator Dr. Mike Griffin and others, I am committed to ensuring that we are addressing those issues that tie together warfighter support, intelligence collection and affected civil programs. The national space strategy must not only cover operations and future architecture definition and development, but also must include aspects of space system protection. Collectively we have reenergized this effort, and I believe are putting the proper focus on the full scope of strategy elements.
Q: Some press reports have indicated that NRO has been stripped of its authority to make key decisions on a planned imaging satellite procurement. Are these reports correct, and what is the significance if true?
A: The DNI and secretary of defense have milestone decision authority for acquisitions. They delegate that authority, normally to the execution organizations of either the IC or DoD. Within the DNI, the deputy director of national intelligence for acquisition, and within DoD, the under secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics [AT&L], define and decide whether delegation of those authorities should be made.
The case you’re talking about has to do with a pending potential acquisition. A delegation of authority was never made. NRO was identified early on to be the acquisition agent. The designation was made by AT&L on the DoD side. But as more planning and review of the acquisition approach was conducted, AT&L made the determination that it had been premature to identify us as the acquisition agent. It was decided to reserve that delegation until a final determination of the acquisition approach was made. I was notified that the delegation had been premature.
Every year, the DNI and SecDef make a determination whether to continue to delegate the milestone decision authority for a particular program or to pull it back if things have not been going well. That’s a yearly process we go through, so the reports out there were not accurate. The program may come to us or it may go to someone else. We’ll see how that turns out.
Q: An NRO payload was recently launched by a United Launch Alliance [ULA] rocket. How would you assess the performance of this joint venture during its first two years?
A: We’ve had some great successes with the four launches we’ve had on ULA so far. We’re pleased with the results we’ve gotten—mission assurance is absolutely critical in the launch business. It is important to note that we work very closely with Air Force SMC on acquiring launch services. It’s actually SMC that acquires those services for us. NRO’s Office of Space Launch works with SMC in acquiring and certifying our rides. We get involved in ensuring that our payloads are ready and that we are ready to integrate with the booster. The launch process is joint between ourselves and the Air Force. I’m very pleased with where we’re heading with the EELV program, and with how ULA is performing. They’ve provided us great service so far, and we’re looking forward to that continued level of service. I can’t say enough good words about SMC’s support.
Q: How would you assess NRO’s performance in response to the recent falling spy satellite, which was destroyed by a Navy missile?
A: That was a very bittersweet situation. I can’t tell you how grateful I am that the Missile Defense Agency [MDA] and the Navy were as effective as they were. When I realized that we had a problem with that payload, with what I considered a real risk to people and property on the ground, we contacted MDA and asked for help. MDA, Strategic Command and a host of other agencies looked at the feasibility of the request, and ultimately were incredibly successful. This is probably one of the best examples of a number of diverse government agencies coming together in a short period of time to execute a complex technical operation very successfully. A tremendous amount of information was shared seamlessly.
Q: What do you see as the role of commercial remote sensing companies in the work of NRO and other agencies?
A: NGA has the lead for the U.S. government for the acquisition of commercial remote sensing products, GEOINT products in particular. I look at the commercial industry as an effective augmentation of the national technical means data that we provide, and other capabilities provided by the Air Force. When we look at the future of commercial imagery, I see a long-term role for them in providing that foundation data that NGA uses to generate maps and other geospatial information. But it’s complementary, and not a replacement for what we do at NRO. We are truly a national security space organization, developing and operating high-end capabilities for the nation, and I think the commercial industry, in its various roles and models, can continue to provide the appropriate level of support demanded by both the intelligence community and the military.
Q: Do you think the director of NRO should be subject to Senate confirmation?
A: You’re referring to HR 2082, which was the bill passed by Congress and vetoed by the president, specifically calling out the provisions for confirmation of the directors of both NRO and NSA. The director of the NRO is a technical job at an organization that is focused on executing technical acquisition and operations. We are not an intelligence analysis organization. Right now, the secretary of defense selects the director of NRO with concurrence of the DNI. Our mission here is clear, and for this position to go through a confirmation process is not germane to what we do here. I worry that it tends to politicize these positions when you have to go through the process, which is not quick. Generally, when you’re trying to replace someone who is running a hands-on organization doing critical acquisitions and operations, you can’t afford the delays that that often occur in the process.
Q: Is there anything else you would like to add?
A: I would particularly emphasize the Air Force relationship. General Kehler and I are working very hard on this, and it’s an evolving process. We have two deputies here at NRO: a principal deputy who is a CIA civilian, and an Air Force deputy, who is a major general and is also in charge of the Air Force element— the 1,500 or so Air Force employees who work at NRO. I see this as a direct indicator of the seriousness of our relationship with the Air Force. We continue to look to make sure we are expanding and improving the level of responsibility that all people here have, whether they’re Air Force or civilian, and putting them in critical positions.
I worry a lot about maintaining that balance. This is not an IC organization, and not a DoD organization; it is actually both. We spend time ensuring that when asked to do something, one of the first questions we ask is are we adequately supporting both DoD and the IC, whether it’s building a satellite or a ground system. Ultimately, does it support both communities, because we can’t afford to build two separate space constellations. The interaction with the Air Force is critical in that area.
The reorganization and transformation is really essential to us. Rebuilding NRO’s credibility is number two on my list right behind operations. We are making a constructive engagement effort to communicate with both our constituent customers and our overseers in the IC, DoD, and on the Hill. NRO’s going to do its work based on facts and analysis to back up those facts. That’s critical. I ask everyone to expect it of the NRO and to call me if they don’t get it. I also ask them to hold the same level of expectation for anyone else they talk to in the business of overhead reconnaissance—facts and the analysis to back it up. That’s the watchword around here.
Some people think that NRO is a “nine to five” organization that builds satellites, and that we don’t have a sense of mission urgency. There’s a picture on my wall of a young man, the nephew of a senior officer here, who was killed recently in Iraq. It hit the whole organization here very hard. Our systems support the warfighter’s mission on a daily basis. They save lives, provide critical intelligence, and are in the fight. The young man’s mother wrote to us thanking NRO for its response to his death, and urging us to never forget the mission. To us, that is the bottom line of NRO. We’re not technically a combat support agency, but we do support combat operations and the intelligence community. Every time we lose a young man or woman, it says to me that we need to do more. That’s the focus for this organization. ♦
