Skip to content
Fiscal Receipts

Requirements Analysis and Maturation

Air ForceRDT&EReconciledPE0606017F
What it is
Requirements Analysis and Maturation (0606017F) is an Air Force research & development line funded in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force account. Its J-book detail breaks the line into 2 projects.
What changed
-$3.29M FY25→26 R-1 TOA · PB2026
Who gets it
No company is linked to this line. Award records do not carry the program element, so the crosswalk is silent here — why.

Budget figures

FY24 Actuals
$114.6MR-1 TOA · PB2026
FY25 Total
$31.4MR-1 TOA · PB2026
FY26 Request
$28.2MR-1 TOA · PB2026
FY25→26 Change
-$3.29MR-1 TOA · PB2026
Data coverage

FY2026 award data is a partial year — USAspending reports awards on a rolling basis, and this corpus runs through 2026-09-04. why partial FY2026 data? →

Budget trajectory

The program's 3 summary figures for FY24 to FY26, plotted in fiscal-year order: this line ends lower than it starts. The points are the summary cards above, not a separate derivation; the table beside the chart carries each figure with its own citation.
The program's 3 summary figures for FY24 to FY26, plotted in fiscal-year order: this line ends lower than it starts. The points are the summary cards above, not a separate derivation; the table beside the chart carries each figure with its own citation.FY24: $114.6MFY25: $31.4MFY26: $28.2MFY24FY25FY26
Budget trajectory: one row per fiscal year, carrying the summary figure the sparkline plots. Every figure opens its own citation.
Fiscal yearAmount
FY24$114.6M
FY25$31.4M
FY26$28.2M

All series figures: R-1 TOA · PB2026

Decade view

P-1/R-1 workbook TOA basis, shown compact in $B/$M (the workbook records USD thousands); each figure cites its own President's Budget edition

12 fiscal years of this program as published (FY2015–FY2026): a line through the actuals (filled dots), with the enacted (hollow circles) and request (diamonds) markers each edition reported. Read it for direction, not for precision — this program's actuals line rises across the span. The grid below is the same data as text, one cited figure per cell.
12 fiscal years of this program as published (FY2015–FY2026): a line through the actuals (filled dots), with the enacted (hollow circles) and request (diamonds) markers each edition reported. Read it for direction, not for precision — this program's actuals line rises across the span. The grid below is the same data as text, one cited figure per cell.FY2015 actuals — PB2017 editionFY2016 actuals — PB2018 editionFY2017 actuals — PB2019 editionFY2018 actuals — PB2020 editionFY2019 actuals — PB2021 editionFY2020 actuals — PB2022 editionFY2021 actuals — PB2023 editionFY2022 actuals — PB2024 editionFY2023 actuals — PB2025 editionFY2024 actuals — PB2026 editionFY2016 enacted — PB2017 editionFY2017 enacted — PB2018 editionFY2018 enacted — PB2019 editionFY2019 enacted — PB2020 editionFY2020 enacted — PB2021 editionFY2021 enacted — PB2022 editionFY2022 enacted — PB2023 editionFY2023 enacted — PB2024 editionFY2024 enacted — PB2025 editionFY2025 enacted — PB2026 editionFY2017 request — PB2017 editionFY2018 request — PB2018 editionFY2019 request — PB2019 editionFY2020 request — PB2020 editionFY2021 request — PB2021 editionFY2022 request — PB2022 editionFY2023 request — PB2023 editionFY2024 request — PB2024 editionFY2025 request — PB2025 editionFY2026 request — PB2026 editionFY15FY18FY20FY22FY24FY26

The vertical scale does not start at zero: the baseline sits just below this program’s smallest year, so a low point on this line is not a small amount. Read the shape for direction and the grid below for the figures.

● actuals (line)  ·  ○ enacted  ·  ◇ request — gaps are editions the program is absent from, never interpolated.

Decade series values by fiscal year and President's Budget edition: one row per series (actuals, enacted, request), one column per fiscal year. Every figure opens its own citation.
SeriesFY15FY16FY17FY18FY19FY20FY21FY22FY23FY24FY25FY26
Actuals$18.7M$21.9M$45.1M$106.6M$46.1M$81.7M$66.2M$88.3M$106.5M$114.6M
Enacted$22.5M$129.1M$35.5M$48.1M$86.7M$68.3M$90.8M$109.5M$90.0M$31.4M
Request$29.1M$35.5M$35.3M$62.7M$63.4M$85.8M$101.8M$90.0M$41.5M$28.2M

blank = series not published for this year; – = absent from that edition.

Asked vs spent: the PB2018 book requested $35.5M for FY2018; the PB2020 book reported $106.6M as actual total obligation authority — $71.2M above the request. 106.646 − 35.453 = 71.193 USD millions — the compact figures above are rounded for reading.

Program lineage

No predecessor/successor lineage was recorded for this program element — no FY-to-FY transfer into or out of this line was stated in the ingested J-books, and none was inferred from the program structure.

Description

Mission — Requirements Analysis and Maturation

Capability development provides the analytic, technical, and programmatic rigor necessary to address capability gaps and opportunities to refine and mature future programs of record, prioritizing and accelerating transition of capabilities in collaboration with operational stakeholders. The Capability Development Enterprise is focused on maturing and transitioning high-impact warfighting capabilities aligned to Air Force Future Force Design through robust capability development. The Requirements Analysis and Maturation (RAM) program element funds Modeling, Simulation and Analysis, USAF Science and Technology (S&T) attribute refinement, and trade space studies in support of the Capability Development Enterprise to achieve the force design. Mission Engineering (ME) is the cornerstone for documenting Air Force Future Force Design and prioritizing capability development activities and recommendations. These efforts focus on Development Planning of operationally relevant capabilities, emerging technologies, and disruptive capability applications. Modern integrated digital environments are used in rendering problem decomposition, technology-focused requirements analysis, capability decomposition, trade space characterization, technology-enabled concept development, architecture design for technology integration, cost implications and assessments, model validation, analytical tool development, and focused technology risk characterization. Studies by Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) and University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) may augment this analysis when specific knowledge areas or technical understanding is required. Engagements with industry and academia may involve contracted analysis or requests for information at appropriate security levels. Outcomes of RAM are capability development characterization data that is used for acquisition planning of technically feasible and operationally relevant system to realize the Air Force Future Force Design. This requirement supports performance of a full financial audit as required by title 10 U.S.C. Chapter 9A, Sec 240-D. This program element may include necessary civilian pay expenses required to manage, execute, and deliver RAM capability. The use of such program funds would be in addition to the civilian pay expenses budgeted in program element 0605829F, 0605831F, 0605833F, 0605898F, 0606398F. This program is in Budget Activity 6, RDT&E Management Support because this budget activity includes research, development, test and evaluation efforts and funds to sustain and/or modernize the installations or operations required for general research, development, test and evaluation.

Mission — Development Planning

Development Planning (DP) funds activities to analyze the Force Design in support of the Capability Development Enterprise. DP conducts coordinated Mission Engineering and Analysis to identify and refine key capability trades, technology needs, and cost and schedule implications. Emphasis is placed on developing options that address force design gaps by analyzing multi-domain capabilities and evaluating Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities-Planning (DOTMLPF-P) concepts. This analysis informs trade space of candidate concepts, ensuring required attributes are met. The outcome of this effort will be tradespace attributes and mission engineering artifacts which will underpin Capability Development decisions. These funds may be used for program management support costs, but not limited to hardware, software, travel, contractor support, civilian pay, supplies, facilities, and infrastructure. This program element may include necessary civilian pay expenses required to manage, execute, and deliver RAM capability. The use of such program funds would be in addition to the civilian pay expenses budgeted in program element 0605829F, 0605831F, 0605833F, 0605898F, 0606398F. Projected civilian pay expenses are anticipated to be 5.833 million in FY2025 and 6.416 million in FY2026 for this program element.

Mission — INTEGRATED SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS

The Integrated Simulation and Analysis project funds activities that develop and support integrated analysis and digital engineering tools for the Capability Development Enterprise. In addition, the project develops tools and methodologies to support required analysis and studies; this produces system performance representations/models, environments, architectures, digital artifacts, data, and tools that underpin variable fidelity, stand-alone, interactive, and distributed simulations. The project incorporates Mission Engineering and Digital Engineering enterprise tools and methods (i.e. Model-Based Systems Engineering [MBSE], Modeling Simulation and Analysis [MS&A] ecosystem) as the technical and digital underpinning for the simulation models/ behaviors; it develops and maintains digital records for future analytical needs and serves as a template to identify, road map, and enable the Modeling and Simulation- centric portions of the acquisition life cycle and of operational missions. The project may fund IT and licenses to execute modern Mission Engineering and Digital Engineering. The project initiates and leverages studies performed by industry, academia, FFRDCs and UARCs that may be required to develop and create technology representative models and data.

Justification

Accomplishments & Planned Programs (5)

Future Capability Analyses

Builds Capability Development Roadmaps via integrated Mission Threads tied to Air Force Future Force Design and Theory of Victory. Modern digital engineering tools and methodologies (mission engineering and mission integration) are used to provide potential solution sets for further investigation, risk reduction, or more detailed analysis. The entire span of DOTMLPF-P is examined to codify the need for a materiel solution. Conducts gap and solution analyses prioritized by Integrated Capabilities Command (ICC) to understand programs of record and refine attributes of candidate concept capabilities in a multi-level security environment that spans multiple domains. Delivers prioritized demand signal to technology developers and industry stakeholders to align modernization initiatives and guide capability alternative trade space based on mission decomposition and corresponding engagement, mission and campaign analyses. These activities are in alignment with Digital Materiel Management (DMM) strategic guidance and performed in an Integrated Digital Environment where available.

Concept Evaluation

Refine and codify candidate concepts anchored on desired force design attributes, analysis data, available technologies and key assumptions. This includes documentation of military utility with envisioned CONOPS and CONEMPs. Validation of materiel and non-materiel capability attributes through rigorous problem decomposition, engagement with ICC, industry, FFRDC, UARC, industry and non-traditional vendors is captured. The "ilities” of a candidate concept (i.e. lethality, suitability, reliability, maintainability, survivability, sufficiency, capacity and other life cycle management attributes) are captured and used to create the cost basis, cost estimates and identify critical dependencies and interactions among capability concept elements and distinguish developmental capability concept elements from materiel and non-materiel elements currently available. Draft technical performance measures and other metrics to define progress and success of development activities would be created linked to an attribute correlation table, mapping attributes to solution sets. A comprehensive search is conducted across a broad technology base, encompassing commercial industry, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and other partner Services and Agencies, to identify existing and emerging technologies that can be applied to candidate system concepts.

Modeling, Simulation, Analysis, and Experimentation Ecosystem

Develop enterprise capable, cross-domain system-of-systems modeling, simulation, and analysis capabilities to support development planning, capabilities assessment, and acquisition decisions.

Joint Simulation Environment (JSE)

Develops a government-owned and operated modeling and simulation capability that enables multi-platform, multi-domain integration and interoperability. This capability is required to support developmental and operational testing, tactics development, and advanced training for 5th-generation platforms and other future capabilities that are critical for force development.

Simulation and Analysis Facility Support

Develops high-fidelity, live-virtual-constructive modeling, simulation, and analysis capability to evaluate warfighting capabilities, strategies, concepts of operation, tactics, emerging technologies, and human system interfaces to support and enable acquisition, test, and training.

Budget line items(workbook-cited)

P-1/R-1 workbook Total Obligation Authority basis (USD thousands) · PB2026.

Exhibit R-1

AccountOrgTypeAmount
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air ForceFFY24 Actuals$114.6M
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air ForceFFY25 Enacted$31.4M
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air ForceFFY25 Total$31.4M
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air ForceFFY26 Disc. Request$28.2M
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air ForceFFY26 Total$28.2M

Budget Details(R-2/P-40 facts)

J-book detail basis (R-2/P-40, USD millions) · PB2026 — a different accounting basis from the P-1/R-1 workbook TOA above; where the two disagree, the reconciliation strip under Budget figures shows both.

Wider than this screen — swipe the table sideways for the remaining fiscal-year columns.

ProjectAll Prior YearsFY24 ActualsFY25 TotalFY26 BaseFY26 Request
Program Element$0$114.6M$31.4M$28.2M$28.2M
666157: Development Planning$0$35.6M$14.4M$11.1M$11.1M
666158: INTEGRATED SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS$0$79.1M$17.0M$17.1M$17.1M

Follow the dollar

No follow-the-dollar view — this program's awards haven't been crosswalked at high confidence (flows cover 312 of 1,938 programs). why coverage is partial? →

Awards

No awards are linked to this program element at high or medium confidence — the budget→award crosswalk only asserts links it can defend, and this line has none yet.

Lobbying mentions

No Senate LDA lobbying filing in the tracked data mentions this program element by code or alias.

Oversight

Department-level designation (not specific to this program)

GAO lists 5 high-risk areas for DOD as a whole. That designation covers the department, not Requirements Analysis and Maturation. No program-specific GAO finding for this line is in the ingested data. See the DOD oversight record.

Program dossier

No research dossier for this program — dossiers cover 50 of 1,938 programs, the largest fully J-book-detailed lines by FY2026 requested dollars. why no dossier here? →

Primary sources

Open any budget figure for its exact receipt. Verified line items lead with the highlighted government PDF; original spreadsheets download with their budget edition and exhibit in the filename.

Budget totals · TOA sources

Detailed budget justification

The related TOA spreadsheets above use a different accounting basis from R-2/P-40 detail. Their amounts are not assumed to match these detailed sources.