0309258146_0069_002.jpg

FIGURE 3-2 The Army’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) requirements and information density generation in past and in present and future threat environments. SOURCE: LTG Richard Zahner, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2, Headquarters, U.S. Army. “Military Intelligence Rebalance.” Presentation to the committee, November 9, 2011.

tional capabilities. Looking to the future, the MI rebalance is intended to determine which capabilities are enduring, using a Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF) assessment.4

Figure 3-2 identifies the Army’s ISR requirements and information density generation for past threat environments compared with those for present and future threat environments. Cold War requirements were hierarchical and focused on the operational level, whereas contemporary requirements are networked, with a tactical focus. Additionally, for the most part, the Army has recently faced a benign air threat, as coalition forces enjoyed air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan. This led the Army to focus ISR support more toward tactical units, which are at present and can be expected in the future to prosecute much of the fight.

In support of these decentralized and networked operations, Army Intelligence devised the Integrated Sensor Coverage Area (ISCA) construct, featuring three distinct ISR mission sets, shown in Figure 3-3: (1) Persistent Area Assessment (PAA), (2) Mission Overwatch (MO), and (3) Situation Development (SID).

_______

4 Ibid.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement