Kerry Pavek

1
Mission Need Statement for Unmanned Systems 7
November 2001
Headquarters Training and Doctrine Command
Kerry Pavek Unmanned Systems Team Directorate of
Force Development
6/1/98
2
Situation

• Currently no overarching requirement document
  approved for Unmanned Systems
• Some existing Documents e.g.
• USMC MNS 10 NOV 93
• USAIC ORD 31 AUG 95
• USMC TUGV ORD 7 MAY 95
• SOCOM POMRAV MNS 22 SEP 97
• MANSCEN Numerous ORDs (RCSS, LERS, GSTAMIDS)
• Unmanned systems key enabler for Objective Force
  Capabilities
• Robotics synonymous with FCS
• TRADOC USLW ICT final report in staffing
• Key recommendations Establish TPIO (working
  group until established), Develop CRD to support
  and focus robotics efforts (UGV, UAV, UM, US),
  stand up follow-on ICTs to write ORDs

Loads of other work going on!
3
Unmanned Systems (UMS) Capabilities/Payoffs
Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV)
Increase Effectiveness
Improve Survivability
Responsive Deployable Agile Versatile Lethal Survi
vable Sustainable
Reduce Risk Less Expensive Expanded Protection
Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV)
Less Sustainment burden
Unattended Munitions (UM)
Reduced Footprint Logistics Demand
Rapid Strategic Deployability
Unattended Sensor (US)
Attack on Latency Global and Local Situation
Awareness Operational Overmatch Urban/Complex
Terrain Exposure Control
4
UNMANNED SYSTEMS FORCE INTEGRATION CHALLENGE
Future Experimentation
Organizational Design

• Battle Lab LOE
• AWE
• ACTD
• Joint

Doctrine Tactics, Techniques Procedures
Technology
Notional Systems Enablers

• Virtual Constructive Live
• Institutional Units Distance Learning
• Unmanned Systems Learning Military
• Behavior Supervision
• Mission Planning Execution
• Trust
• Man-Unmanned System Interface
• System of System, Solider still the focus

Training
Plus.
Leader Development
Soldier
5
MNS Logic

• Key to acquisition program initiation
• Capstone MNS will suffice for a large number of
  programs
• Objective Force technology focused
• Applicability for Legacy and Interim force
  integration
• Key to risk reduction
• Facilitate cultural acceptance
• Facilitate DTLOS refinements
• Unify warfighter community efforts
• User community was not speaking with one voice
• Supports CSA intent
• Timing synchronized with USLW ICT report
• TRADOC proponent, crafted by working group

6
Rationale for Capstone Approach

• Common Architectures
• Common control solutions (stations, computers,
  handheld devices)
• Common communications modules including data
  links
• Common displays and symbology
• Common electronic and communication protocols
• Easy cross cuing
• Common Reference
• Common navigation functions
• Feeds the development of a Capstone Requirement
  Document
• Provides the framework to guide the discussion
• Prioritization, affordability and sustainability
  demand common platforms and combined requirements
• Ensures coordination and interoperability with
  all objective force UMS applications including
  FCS

7
UNMANNED SYSTEMS FORCE CAPABILITIES CONTRIBUTIONS

• MOBILITY
• On / Off Road-AirGround
• Tele-Operation--Autonomous
• High Risk Areas
• 24 Hours, Continuous Ops
• Impossible Missions by Man

• RSTA
• Precise, LOS/BLOS Targets
• Target Tracking
• Engagement
• BDA
• Expanded Battlespace
• High SA Fidelity (Red/Grey)

UMS Complement Enable Manned Systems In a
Teamed Effort

• SURVIVABILITY
• Reduced Manned System Exposure
• High Risk - High Payoff Missions
• Mask / Unit Signatures
• NBC Detection / Protection
• Standoff

• COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT
• Distributed Logistics
• Precision Delivery
• Security - Convoy Support
• Reduced Footprint

• LETHALITY
• Remote Engagements
• Beyond Line of Sight
• Increased OPTEMPO
• Non-Lethal Effects Option
• Dispersed Flexible Effects

• C4ISR
• Networked Sensors / Comms
• Full Spectrum Exploitation
• Assured BLOS Comms / Relay
• Widely Dispersed, Fused Sensors

8
Draft Mission Needs Statement

• Capstone Document which addresses
• All Unmanned Systems across the UMS domains
  (UAV/UGV/UM/US) for the Force
• Near and Mid-term deficiencies across a wide span
  of functional areas
• Broad applicability
• Incorporates Language from the Objective Force
  OO
• Ensures interim applications compliment ongoing
  Obj Force capabilities development
• Provide the requirements document to cover the
  far term as well
• Sent out for World Wide Staffing in July
• Well received
• Comments coordinated with working group (vote)
• Submitted to TRADOC 17 Oct 01

9
Potential Unmanned System Applications
COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT
COMBAT SUPPORT
COMBAT
Communications Relay Line Charge Employment UXO
Neutralization Obstacle Reduction Breaching
Charge Emplacement Mines - Employ/Detect/Remove NB
C Detection Tunnel/Sewer Reconnaissance Physical
Security
Medical Extraction Logistics/Re-supply Rucksack
Carrier Physical Inventory General Construction
Decoy Surveillance Reconnaissance Indirect
Fire Lethal Direct Fire Non-lethal Direct
Fire Electronic Deception Target
Acquisition Target Location Target
Designation Obscurant Dispenser
Enablers for the Expanded Battlespace
10
Whats Next?

• Get MNS approved and up the chain
• Anticipate decision at Hqs TRADOC end of NOV
• Sets stage for Dec/Jan AROC and Jan/Feb JROC
• Yes, thats aggressive and optimistic but
  achievable
• Linkage to FCS work will help move the action
• Have a Strawman CRD ready for staffing release
• Pending JROC approval and direction to develop
• Working group has already initiated the work
• Full team from CD, MAT Dev and Test communities

11
SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS of the USLW ICT
The cumulative results of Force XXI, formation of
the IBCTs , the Future Combat System program, and
the Objective Force rightfully constitute a
Revolution in Military Affairs for the
Army. Unmanned Systems will play a key role in
this process.

• TRADOC Schools are ready for Unmanned
  Systems
• Interest levels
• Operational Concepts
• Mission Definition
• Technology is maturing rapidly
• Platforms
• Payloads
• Enablers on critical path but require a
  total force solution
• Horizontal Coordination is necessary for
  efficiency
• Requirements
• Technology
• Acquisition

Army Science Board Summer Study 2000 Placing
robotics ground vehicles in the hands of troops
is highly desirable.
12
Questions?
13
Ready to Field Questions

• Sendem my way!

Kerry W. Pavek 502-624-8783 DSN
464-8783 kerry.pavek_at_knox.army.mil
14
Backup Slides
15
Paragraph 1.Defense Planning Guidance Element

• DPG FY2001-2005 references to dominant maneuver
• Full spectrum force
• Control of battlespace through dominant maneuver
• Sec Army and CSA vision
• Soldiers still the center piece of our army
• Transform Army
• Strategic responsiveness - Full spectrum dominant
• Broad range of tasks/missions (engagement, crisis
  response, warfighting)
• Changing geo-strategic environment
• Wider range of threats
• Increased unpredictability
• Complex range of operating environments

16
Paragraph 1.Defense Planning Guidance
Elementcontd

• Asymmetric nature of future threats
• Increasing ability of threat to achieve high tech
  capability (cheap)
• Expands the diversity and danger of future
  challenges
• Transformation will require introduction of
  leap-ahead technologies
• Unmanned systems one of the key technologies
• Provide smaller organizations ability to control
  larger non-linear battlespace
• Profound impact on agility, versatility,
  lethality, sustainability and survivability
• Objective force orientation, but near/mid-term
  applicability

17
Paragraph 1.Defense Planning Guidance
Elementcontd

• Early introduction of unmanned systems has added
  benefits
• Allows for the refinement of Obj Force OO
  parameters
• Reduces risk
• Tech insertion
• DTLOS functions

AND helps overcome Cultural inertia!
18
Paragraph 2.Mission and Threat Analysis

• Mission Need
• Need exists to enhance the force
• Variety of potential unmanned systems can be
  combat multiplier
• Mission performance
• Increase survivability and force protection
  (reduced soldier exposure)
• Great potential to reduce manning and logistic
  support requirements
• UMS applications will vary in function and
  control measures
• Tele-operated, semi-autonomous, leader/follower,
  and fully autonomous

19
Paragraph 2.Mission and Threat AnalysisContd

• Mission Need contd
• UMS ideally suited to extending situational
  understanding through situational awareness
• Develop situation out of contact
• Execute precision attack
• Networked UMS provide valuable tool for intel
  gathering
• Augment and supplement GIG intel assets
• Reducing soldiers risk factors

20
Paragraph 2.Mission and Threat AnalysisContd

• Threat
• Threat changing
• Global proliferation of technology
• Increased sophistication of asymmetrical
  techniques
• MTW still there, but appears to be least likely
  scenario
• Local and regional conflicts will have the
  greatest impact on the Force
• Threat Environment
• Smaller, better trained and equipped threat
  forces
• Advanced systems available
• Limited selective applications
• Use of asymmetric and complex terrain to offset
  U.S. technologic superiority

21
Paragraph 2.Mission and Threat AnalysisContd

• Shortfalls of existing systems
• Armys platforms not optimized for new
  environment/strategic responsiveness
• Several immediate applications needed for interim
  and legacy forces
• Reduce exposure (risk) for soldiers in asymmetric
  environment
• Enable smaller organizations to control/influence
  a greatly enlarged battlespace (BLOS recon)
• Goal to measurably reduce foot print in theater
• UAVs cant do it alone need teamed effort
• Current family of static sensors requires high
  risk employment procedures

22
Paragraph 3.Non-Materiel Alternatives

• Summarizes Mission Need Analysis
• No DTLOS changes in of themselves will achieve
  the capabilities required
• Unmanned systems key to improving deployability,
  mobility, lethality, survivability and
  battlefield agility
• Reduced footprint
• Control of an greatly expanded battlespace
• Greatly enhanced Situational Awareness/understandi
  ng
• Changes in DTLOS functions will be required to
  match advances in technology to dynamics of the
  force

23
Paragraph 4.Potential Material Alternatives

• As capstone document, does not try to list all
  potential alternatives
• For a majority of potential applications, there
  are none
• AoA to be accomplished in each case
• Several unmanned systems exist or are under
  development (ST) that could meet some of the
  initial requirements
• Currently fielded UMS generally tele-operated,
  single use (or narrow function) assets
• High manpower burden
• Do not fulfill the need

24
Paragraph 5.Constraints

• Infrastructure support
• Goal is lower than current mechanized systems
• Supportable by existing (or projected) support
  assets
• Transportability on existing platforms
• Air, ground and sea
• Manpower and personnel
• Goal is to reduce the number of operators,
  maintainers, repairers and supporters compared to
  current forces
• Training
• Training support package must be available
• Training devices and methods embedded as much as
  possible

25
Paragraph 5.ConstraintsContd

• Environmental
• Comply with U.S. environmental regulations (and
  as possible with European)
• Command, Control, Communications, and
  Intelligence (C3I)
• Compatibility and interoperability with existing
  and planned C3I systems
• NATO, allied and Joint interfaces
• Standardization/Interoperability
• Appropriate levels with other services, allies
  and coalition partners
• Applicable JTA standards will be applied
• Operational environments
• Must work in all environs (hot, basic and cold)
• Conditions include NBC, EM, and toxic industrial
  chem.

26
Paragraph 6.Joint Potential Designator
Reality Will most likely be Joint from the
outset

• Joint Interest