Requirements

JOPs are “a challenge across the joint force in achieving an assigned military objective based on current doctrine, emerging threats, or future concepts.” JOPs are the most pressing challenges to the current and future Joint Force, which, if left unaddressed, create significant risk to the Joint Force. Stated another way, JOPs describe a condition or situation that resists, obstructs, or prevents the Joint Force's ability to achieve an assigned objective or task. JOPs articulate current and future warfighter problems the Joint Force needs to be solved from an integrated joint perspective. JOPs do not specify solutions.

The JROC identifies and prioritizes JOPs annually, in alignment with the budgetary cycle, in order to:

• Focus the DoW's analytical effort to ensure capability development is explicitly linked to overcoming the most pressing Joint Force operational challenges.
• Communicate the Joint Force's most urgent problems and integrate with parallel acquisition and resourcing processes.
• Enable Joint Force design activities across a common mission, time horizon, and threat.
• Align capability development and requirements management activities with resourcing decisions.

Purpose

The JROC prioritizes JOPs to:

1. Enable JFDD activities-including development of joint warfighting concepts (JWCs), joint supporting concepts, and CRCs, as well as integration of Service force designs-across a common mission, time horizon, and threat.
2. Design and assess variations of future operational missions, capabilities and concepts, and force structure against JOPs.
3. Focus analytical efforts to explicitly link capability development to overcoming the most pressing Joint Force operational challenges.
4. Align capability development and requirements management activities, including CPM and CCMD requirements prioritization.
5. Communicate the Joint Force's most pressing problems and integrate with parallel acquisition and resourcing functions and forums, including MEIA and RRAB.
6. Ensure JFRP alignment to strategic guidance and direction. It is the responsibility of the JROC to ensure JOPs are aligned to National Defense Strategy (NDS)-directed Key Operational Problems (KOPs).

Identification.

The JROC-inclusive of the Combatant Commanders (CCDRs) in their role as ad hoc JROC members-identifies and prioritizes the top JOPs based on strategic guidance, including NDS KOPs, JWC KOPs, CCMD Integrated Priority Lists (IPLs), and threat analysis, as well as ongoing Joint Force design activities. The OPRs for JOP identification and prioritization are the Joint Staff J-7 Joint Experimentation and Concept Implementation/Force Development and Design Execution Division and Joint Staff J-8 Joint Capabilities Division (JCD), assisted by the CCMDs, Services, and OSW.

Prioritization

The JROC prioritizes JOPs annually to drive JFDD, industry engagements through the MEIA, and resourcing decisions through the RRAB. The JROC evaluates and prioritizes joint operational problems based on:

1. Strategic guidance.
2. CCMD requirements.
3. Intelligence Community (IC) assessments.
4. Joint Force design and concepts.
5. CPM assessments and recommendations.
6. Readiness Assessments.

Additional JOP Elements

The JFRP will use a standard set of elements to articulate each JOP. These elements provide a common framework to support the JFRP, RRAB, MEIA, CPM, and other DoW-wide efforts.

1. Mission Definition. The strategic objective, as well as the operational mission and measure of success the Joint Force must achieve. Includes scenarios/ vignettes that describe the geographical or operational environment.
2. Time Epoch. The timeframe to which the JOP applies. The epoch links the problem to strategic guidance, future concepts, and capabilities.
3. Threat. A description of the adversary planned operations and capabilities for the JOP.
4. Classification Level. JOPs will be disseminated at the most appropriate classification level, as identified by the Original Classification Authority (OCA); at minimum, a SECRET-level description will be provided to enable MEIA to engage effectively with industry partners.

Sources: CJCSI 5123.01J, Jan 2026 and CJCSM 5123.01, Jan 2026

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), in coordination with the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE), will establish the RRAB, which will be the Department's single decision forum for aligning fiscal resources to the Joint Force's most pressing joint operational problems, presented as a ranked list of Key Operational Problems (KOPs), synchronized with the annual Program and Budget Review process. The DCAPE and the Director, Joint Staff Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate (J-8), will serve as the executive co-secretaries of the RRAB, convene meetings, and prepare integrated recommendations.

Responsibilities of the RRAB Executive Co-Secretaries (DCAPE and Director, J-8):

1. Within 120 days, deliver to the RRAB co-chairs a charter and governance plan that defines membership, advisors, analytic support, decision protocols, and a meeting rhythm synchronized to the Program and Budget Review schedule. For each RRAB session, the executive co-secretaries will select an advisory group suited to the agenda, drawing as appropriate from the statutory JROC advisors and any additional officials whose expertise is relevant to the topic under consideration. The governance plan shall detail how the Capability Portfolio Management process and the integrated and cross-functional contributions of the Military Departments, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)), and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) will contribute to the analysis, decomposition, and consideration of each considered KOP when informing recommendations.
2. Each Program and Budget Review cycle, present recommendations on the highest ranked KOPs, plus any topic the co-chairs separately nominate and approve, to the Deputy Secretary and VCJCS for decision. Recommendations may include program starts, realignments, terminations, other program changes, and proposed Joint Acceleration Reserve allocations.
3. Present all recommendations to the RRAB co-chairs for decision. Unless otherwise directed by the Deputy Secretary, joint decisions will transition directly into the budget build without additional review layers. Nothing in this document alters or supersedes the Deputy Secretary's statutory authority over resourcing.

The USD(R&E) will establish the MEIA and will serve as the single Principal Staff Assistant for the MEJA. The USD(A&S) will provide integration and interoperability expertise and support for the MEIA through the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Integration and Interoperability (DASD(AI2)) and other offices as necessary. The USD(R&E) will provide mission engineering and experimentation expertise and support through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Mission Capabilities (ASD(MC)) and other offices as necessary.

1. Within 90 days, the USD(R&E) and the USD(A&S) shall provide an integrated charter, implementation plan, and industry engagement plan for the MEIA to the Deputy Secretary and VCJCS. The ASD(MC) shall provide the mission engineering and experimentation facilitation aspects of MEIA. The DASD(Al2) shall provide system-of-systems integration and interoperability functions for the MEIA activity. The impIem0entation plan will identify the resourcing strategy for the MEIA and how requested funds shall support all necessary activities.
2. The MEIA shall consider the top KOPs as ranked by the re-oriented JROC, and other matters assigned by the RRAB. For each such KOP, the MEIA shall conduct mission engineering activities to refine problem understanding and solution suitability, providing this analysis to the RRAB. The MEJA may draw upon external analysis as appropriate to inform its efforts.
3. The MEIA shall develop an industry engagement plan to facilitate active industry engagement by clearly communicating a suitable version of each KOP to industry, promoting continuous dialog, ideation, concept development, technology experimentation, and rapid prototyping efforts explicitly aligned with solving these joint operational problems. The MEIA shall coordinate with relevant government stakeholders including Service laboratories to gather additional inputs, and together with the Joint Staff, organize government participation in industry engagements. The MEIA industry engagement plan shall ensure that such engagements are in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and outline an approach to facilitate the award of an appropriate contract or agreement for the use of industry capabilities if needed.
4. The MEIA, leveraging its integration function and other resources, shall identify relevant Military Service capabilities and identify and implement relevant integrations that advance technical interoperability of the joint force.
5. The MEIA shall organize experimentation campaigns for considered KOPs, to include consideration of insertion of relevant capabilities from Military Services, Defense Agencies and Field Activities, and industry, and for exploration of new concepts. Such experimentation shall consider and involve stakeholders for the KOP of interest as well as members of the Joint Staff and shall account for command-and-control and interoperability considerations. Use of industry capabilities in an experimentation campaign shall be effectuated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, to include those relating to procurement and federal ethics requirements.
6. Brief MEIA results to the RRAB and recommend solution components for JAR funding allocation.

DCAPE, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (USD(C)), will implement a JAR beginning with the FY27 Budget cycle. The DCAPE will:

1. Propose a portion of top line Fiscal Guidance to be withheld to create the JAR each cycle.
2. Allocate JAR funding during the Program and Budget Review cycle based on RRAB decisions.
3. Ensure all other elements of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) system shall continue. JAR actions shall integrate with, not delay, those established timelines.

The JROC is a statutory council under Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 181. It supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), the Secretary of War (SecWar), and the President. Under the JFRP, its central task is ranking Joint Operational Problems (JOPs) rather than validating individual Service requirements documents.

Core responsibilities. The JROC:

• Evaluates global trends, emerging threats, and adversary capabilities to shape joint force design.
• Compiles, refines, and prioritizes joint operational problems with Combatant Commanders.
• Continuously reviews and assesses joint military capabilities across the Department.
• Identifies and prioritizes capability gaps and recommends how to close them.
• Identifies technology advances, commercial solutions, and operational concepts that could improve the Joint Force's advantage.
• Recommends joint capability requirements that describe the problem, propose nonprescriptive solutions, and preserve interoperability.
• Evaluates Service force design initiatives and recommends acceptance, mitigation, or alternatives.
• Maintains a repository of joint operational problems and related capabilities.

Through these authorities, the JROC supports the CJCS as principal military advisor to the President and SecWar. It feeds several recurring products: the National Military Strategy, Chairman's Risk Assessment, Chairman's Program Recommendation, Joint Intelligence Program Recommendation, and Annual Report on Combatant Command Requirements.

Principal members

• Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), Chair
• Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
• Vice Chief of Naval Operations
• Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force
• Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
• Vice Chief of Space Operations
• Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau

Combatant Commanders are not permanent members. The JROC Chair may invite them as ad hoc members on topics that directly affect their commands.

Permanent advisors

• Combatant Commanders
• Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment
• Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering
• Under Secretary of War for Intelligence and Security
• Under Secretary of War for Policy
• Under Secretary of War (Comptroller)
• Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)
• Director, Operational Test and Evaluation
• Department of War Chief Information Officer

Ad hoc advisors (invited as the topic requires)

• Assistant Secretary of War for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict
• Assistant Secretary of War for Cyber Policy
• Executive Director, Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell (JRAC)
• Direct Report Program Managers
• Portfolio Acquisition Executives
• Director, Defense Intelligence Agency
• Director, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
• Director, National Security Agency
• Director, National Reconnaissance Office
• Director, Missile Defense Agency
• Director, Defense Logistics Agency
• Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency
• Director, Defense Security Cooperation Agency
• Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
• Director, Defense Information Systems Agency
• Under Secretary of War for Personnel and Readiness

The JROC Chair may invite additional organizations as ad hoc advisors as needed.

Analytic support. The SecWar, CJCS, Combatant Commands, and Service Chiefs staff the JROC through analytic organizations across the Department, including Joint Staff J-8, Joint Staff J-7, the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering, and Military Service studies and analysis offices. These organizations supply operations research, modeling and simulation, mission engineering, systems analysis, and cost estimation.

The JCB sits one level below the JROC and adjudicates lower-level issues before they reach JROC review. FCBs sit one level below the JCB, organized by capability portfolio, and run the detailed cross-Department analysis (CPM reviews) that feeds JROC and JCB decisions.

The RRAB is new under the JFRP. Co-chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Deputy Secretary of War, it is the Department's single decision forum for lining up funding against the JROC's ranked JOPs. RRAB recommendations, once decided by the co-chairs, move directly into the budget build.

The MEIA, led by the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering with support from the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment, runs the industry-facing side of the process: mission engineering analysis, structured experimentation campaigns, and integration work against the JROC's top-ranked JOPs. MEIA findings feed both the RRAB's funding decisions and the JROC's ongoing prioritization.

Purpose. The purpose of an ICD is to document joint military capability requirements and associated capability gaps in cases where the Sponsor deems the operational risk of unmitigated capability gaps to be unacceptable.

• The ICD provides traceability to the operational context, threats, and other relevant factors that determine the joint military capability requirements.
• The ICD quantifies capability gaps associated with the requirements, operational risks across the joint force, and proposes materiel and/or non-materiel approaches to closing or mitigating some or all of the identified capability gaps.

Applicability. This appendix applies to the Joint Staff, Services, CCMDs, and other DoD Agencies.

• For joint military capability requirements with a JSD of JROC or JCB Interest, Sponsors must strictly follow the format specified in this appendix, unless the Joint Staff Gatekeeper has granted a waiver in writing.
• For service specific military capability requirements with a JSD of Joint Information, Sponsors should follow the format specified in this appendix.

The IS-ICD is a variant of the regular ICD, implementing the “IT Box” construct outlined in this section. IS-ICDs streamline the requirements process by delegating oversight and formats for subsequent documents as identified in the IS-ICD. This provides IS programs greater flexibility to incorporate evolving technologies and achieve faster acquisition.

Purpose. The purpose of an IS-ICD is to facilitate efficient and timely software development efforts; IS-ICDs are not appropriate for hardware development efforts or capturing capability requirements that span a broad scope of hardware, software, and/or DOTmLPF-P efforts. The IS-ICD serves as the basis for validation by the validation authority identified in Enclosure A of this manual. Any streamlining of acquisition processes is at the discretion of the MDA IAW References [5] and [9].

Applicability.
IS-ICDs are appropriate for:

• When it is clear from the CBA that an IS solution is the only viable approach to be considered.
• The procurement or modification of GOTS/COTS IS products is from domestic or international sources, or the development of dual-use technologies.
• The additional production or modification of developed DoD, allied, partner-nation, or other U.S. Government agency IS products.
• Development, integration, and acquisition of customized application software, including commercial IS capability solutions with integrated, DoDspecific performance characteristics/standards.
• All hardware associated with an IS-ICD must be COTS/GOTS. Hardware modifications are restricted to those necessary for integration, enhancements to meet requirements specified in the IS-ICD, or hardware refresh due to obsolescence.
• The development of both offensive and defensive cyber capability that meet the remaining criteria for an IS-ICD and require the flexibility that the IT process provides.
• Approaches where the capability solution involves research, development, and/or acquisition of applications systems software, and the projected lifecycle costs exceed $15 million. IS-ICDs with lifecycle costs less than $15 million may be submitted for review and validation if validated requirements are needed to support budgetary requests or other purposes.

IS-ICDs are not appropriate for:

• Software embedded in a capability solution developed under other validated capability requirements documents. In this case, the software requirements are validated as part of the overall capability solution.
• Software requiring a host platform, such as a manned or unmanned vehicle, which does not yet have validated capability requirements documents. In this case, the software requirements can be included in the capability requirements of the host platform or as a separate IS-ICD.
• Increases in quantities of fielded IS without modification, not developed by an “IT Box” should be addressed by a DCR.
• Requirements for DBS capabilities defined and acquired IAW References [36] and [37].
• In cases where the potential for use of the “IT Box” construct is unclear or in dispute, the Joint Staff Gatekeeper, in consultation with the validation authority as needed, will determine whether an ICD or IS-ICD will be used.
• Joint command and control (C2) requirements that have a validated ISICD will be identified, documented, validated, prioritized, managed, and monitored IAW [11].

Annual/Biennial FCB Review of IS Systems. Annual/Biennial FCB Review for IS programs.

For all IS programs with a valid IS-ICD, the Sponsor shall provide the Lead FCB an update a year following the validation and then biennially after. For an IS-CDD, the Sponsor shall provide the Lead FCB an update every second year following the validation. The Lead FCB will determine if the JROC or JCB should review the following items and will make appropriate recommendations for action.

• Progress in delivering capability solutions within the required timeframe and available funding.
• Compliance with applicable EA and data standards.
• Other items as identified by the IS-ICD validation

The CDD provides traceability to predecessor documents and validated capability requirements, provides supporting data for certifications and endorsements, identifies related DOTmLPF-P impacts of the proposed capability solution, and outlines projected lifecycle costs that are expected to result from pursuing the capability solution.

Purpose.

The purpose of a CDD is to propose development of a materiel capability solution intended to wholly or partially satisfy approved capability requirements in order to close or mitigate associated capability gaps for which the DoD does not want to accept operational risk.

• The CDD provides performance attributes (KPPs, KSAs, and APAs) to guide the development and production of one or more increments of a system. Each increment described by a CDD must provide a safe, operationally effective, suitable, and useful capability solution in the intended environment, commensurate with the investment.
• The original CDD, including the performance attributes and other related sections, may remain valid through production requiring no additional staffing or coordination, unless there is a significant change that would require an update to the original validated CDD. In this case, a CDD Update will be required and validated by the same validation authority of the original document. Deliberate staffing and review will be used for CDD Updates in the same manner as CDDs with the exception that the only sections for review and validation will be the updated sections of the document. Sponsors may request expedited staffing for CDD Updates. Reference the CDD Update section under Appendix A of Enclosure A of this manual for more information on the staffing of CDD Update documents.
• The CDD serves as the basis for validation by the appropriate validation authority identified in Enclosure A of this manual.

Beginning with the FY27 budget cycle, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation withholds a portion of topline fiscal guidance to create the Joint Acceleration Reserve (JAR). The RRAB allocates JAR funding to the highest-priority JOPs and validated MEIA solutions during the Program Budget Review. The JAR is meant to fix the "valley of death" between a validated need and a funded program line, and it runs alongside, not instead of, the standard PPBE cycle.

Beginning with the FY27 budget cycle, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation withholds a portion of topline fiscal guidance to create the Joint Acceleration Reserve (JAR). The RRAB allocates JAR funding to the highest-priority JOPs and validated MEIA solutions during the Program Budget Review. The JAR is meant to fix the "valley of death" between a validated need and a funded program line, and it runs alongside, not instead of, the standard PPBE cycle.

Source: CJCSM 5123.01A enclosure D

JCAs provide a common capabilities language for use across the DoW. JCAs provide portfolio structure to organize CRs and capability gaps into subportfolios and to align those sub-portfolios to the FCBs. This enables the FCBs to apply their respective functional expertise to conduct analysis of capability solutions.

CAs are defined as “collections of [DoW] capabilities functionally grouped to support capability analysis, strategy development, investment decision making, CPM, and capabilities-based force development and operational planning.” IAW reference (x), there are seven Tier 1 JCAs:

1. Force Development and Design.
2. Battlespace Awareness.
3. Force Application.
4. Logistics and Sustainment.
5. Command and Control.
6. Joint Information.
7. Protection.

Each Tier 1 JCA has supporting Tier 2, Tier 3, and, in some cases, Tier 4 JCAs, which provide greater fidelity into capability areas.

• JCIDS is disestablished. The JFRP, governed by CJCSI 5123.01J CH1 and CJCSM 5123.01A, is the current process.
• The JROC now ranks Joint Operational Problems instead of validating Service-level documents.
• Four new or restructured elements drive execution: CPM analysis, MEIA experimentation, RRAB funding decisions, and the JAR.
• JICRs replace JUONs and JEONs for urgent Combatant Command needs.
• Services formally own their own requirements processes, though many are still transitioning off legacy JCIDS practice.