The first and most important criterion was the availability of the system, in keeping with the requirement in the Statement of Task that the committee identify technologies that would be available by 2006. Although 2006 was the critical milestone, many emerging technologies that most likely would not be available until after that date showed considerable promise. Ultimately, the committee divided the potential alternatives into three groups: systems available now (see Appendix C and Chapter 5 for detailed descriptions); systems currently under development that have a reasonable likelihood of being available by 2006 ( Chapter 6); and technologies unlikely to be available until after 2006 ( Chapter 7).
The second criterion was whether the alternative system could fulfill DOD's requirements (i.e., be militarily effective). The committee's choice of the criterion was neither arbitrary nor capricious. After several attempts to design military criteria for landmines, the committee determined that the capabilities described in the mission need statements1 were the most complete description available.
A mission need statement is one of the first documents to describe the requirement for a new piece of military equipment. The mission need statements used in this study were validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, a high-level element of the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and were considered adequate by DOD for industry to use as a basis for designing alternatives. Therefore, the committee considered them to be an accurate reflection of military service requirements. Although the performance standards in these documents are at a higher level than the requirements for technologies described in the study's Statement of Task (i.e., they would perform better than current APL, not similarly), they provide the most complete description of the requirements for mine alternatives known to the committee; an approved operational requirements document was not available. The standards can be read in their entirety in Appendix G.
The numbering of each criterion coincides with the numbers on the score sheets. A score of zero shows that the alternative performed at the same level as the baseline system. A positive number indicates that the alternative performed better than the baseline system. A negative number shows that the alternative did not perform as well as the baseline system.
The Mixed Landmine System Alternatives mission need statement describes requirements for a mixed system for use against a mounted threat (see Appendix G). The committee used the Volcano (M87) as the baseline system against which alternatives were judged.
A1 Enhance effects of close and deep friendly fires
0 = same as Volcano
1 = greater coverage than Volcano and/or technological improvements
2 = man-in-the-loop or improved sensors
3 = sensors with battlefield awareness
−1 = nonlethal component or easily detectable
−2 = longer sensor-to-shooter cycle
−3 = longer sensor-to-shooter cycle and a small footprint
−4 = longer shooter-to-sensor cycle, a small footprint, and may require a cease fire from other weapons to protect the delivery platform
A2 Has multiple methods of delivery
0 = at least two methods of delivery (as many or more than Volcano)
−1 = only one method of delivery
A3 Provides a range of effects that inhibit mounted and dismounted maneuvers
0 = similar to Volcano, has both AT and APL components
1 = sensor that enables use of something other than an APL mine to counter dismounted targets
2 = multiple sensors/highly sophisticated sensors
−1 = inhibits only personnel or only tanks; nonlethal against personnel
−2 = nothing in place on ground to stop or slow enemy movement
A4 Resists full spectrum of enemy breach methods, including dismounted methods
0 = has AP and AT components
1 = has man-in-the-loop to react to visual observation of breach
2 = unbreachable without great risk to troops; very difficult to breach
3 = multiple sensors, allowing other weapons to be brought to bear; larger area covered; automatically counters breach attempts
−1 = nonlethal AP components; some AT components have antihandling devices
−2 = has only AT or only AP
N/A=no minefield to be breached
A5 Provides early warning of ground attack
0 = might provide early warning within normal observation range
1 = will provide early warning because of man-in-the-loop (observes ground attack)
1 The two current mission need statements that relate to APL are Battlefield Shaping and Force Protection against Personnel Threats (alternatives to APL when used alone) and Mixed Landmine Systems Alternatives (alternatives for current mixed systems, combining both APL and AT mines) (see Appendix G for full text).