Making the Soldier Decisive
on Future Battlefields

Committee on Making the Soldier Decisive on Future Battlefields

Board on Army Science and Technology

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu



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



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Making the Soldier Decisive on Future Battlefields Committee on Making the Soldier Decisive on Future Battlefields Board on Army Science and Technology Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. W911-NF-11-C-0099 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Front cover photograph courtesy of U.S. Army International Standard Book Number -13: 978-0-309-28453-0 International Standard Book Number -10: 0-309-28453-8 Limited copies of this report are available from: Additional copies are available from: Board on Army Science and Technology The National Academies Press National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW 500 Fifth Street, NW, Room 940 Keck 360 Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-3118 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON MAKING THE SOLDIER DECISIVE ON FUTURE BATTLEFIELDS HENRY J. HATCH, NAE,1 LTG, U.S. Army (retired), Chair, Independent Consultant, Oakton, Virginia W. PETER CHERRY, NAE, Independent Consultant, Ann Arbor, Michigan PAUL W. GLIMCHER, New York University Center for Neural Science RANDALL W. HILL, JR., University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey ROBIN L. KEESEE, Independent Consultant, Fairfax, Virginia ELLIOT D. KIEFF, NAS/IOM, Channing Laboratory, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts JEAN MACMILLAN, Aptima, Inc., Woburn, Massachusetts WILLIAM L. MELVIN, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Smyrna RICHARD R. PAUL, Maj. Gen. U.S. Air Force (retired), Independent Consultant, Bellevue, Washington RICHARD PEW, BBN Technologies, Cambridge, Massachusetts M. FRANK ROSE, Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA, CNS Technologies, Springfield, Virginia ANN SPEED, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico JOSEPH YAKOVAC, LTG, U.S. Army (retired), JVM LLC, Hampton, Virginia Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director, Board on Army Science and Technology ROBERT LOVE, Study Director NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate, Board on Army Science and Technology DEANNA SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator, Board on Army Science and Technology JOSEPH PALMER, Senior Program/Project Assistant 1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering; IOM, Institute of Medicine; NAS, National Academy of Sciences iv

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Chair, Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut DAVID M. MADDOX, Vice Chair, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia DUANE ADAMS, Carnegie Mellon University (retired), Arlington, Virginia ILESANMI ADESIDA, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign RAJ AGGARWAL, University of Iowa, Coralville EDWARD C. BRADY, Strategic Perspectives, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida L. REGINALD BROTHERS, BAE Systems, Arlington, Virginia JAMES CARAFANO, Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. W. PETER CHERRY, NAE Independent Consultant, Ann Arbor, Michigan EARL H. DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina RONALD P. FUCHS, Independent Consultant, Seattle, Washington W. HARVEY GRAY, Independent Consultant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee CARL GUERRERI, Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc., Herndon, Virginia JOHN J. HAMMOND, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Fairfax, Virginia RANDALL W. HILL, JR., University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey MARY JANE IRWIN, Pennsylvania State University, University Park ROBIN L. KEESEE, Independent Consultant, Fairfax, Virginia ELLIOT D. KIEFF, NAS/IOM Channing Laboratory, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts LARRY LEHOWICZ, Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia WILLIAM L. MELVIN, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Smyrna ROBIN MURPHY, Texas A&M University, College Station SCOTT PARAZYNSKI, Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston, Texas RICHARD R. PAUL, Independent Consultant, Bellevue, Washington JEAN D. REED, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia LEON E. SALOMON, Independent Consultant, Gulfport, Florida JONATHAN M. SMITH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia MARK J.T. SMITH, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana MICHAEL A. STROSCIO, University of Illinois, Chicago JOSEPH YAKOVAC, LTG, U.S. Army (retired), JVM LLC, Hampton, Virginia Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate JAMES MYSKA, Senior Research Associate DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator JOSEPH PALMER, Senior Program/Project Assistant v

OCR for page R1
Preface This study resulted from recognition by the U.S. Army that a great disparity exists between the decisive overmatch capability, relative to prospective adversaries, of major U.S. weapon systems (such as tanks, fighter aircraft, or nuclear submarines) and the relative vulnerability of dismounted soldiers when they are operating in small, detached units (squads). The increased reliance in recent Army deployments on soldiers operating in these tactical small units (TSUs), as well as the expanding responsibilities of ground forces in the future for missions that go beyond traditional combat, provided the incentive to ask what could be done to give dismounted soldiers and TSUs a credible degree of decisive overmatch in any of the anticipated future operational environments. I would like to thank the Committee on Making the Soldier Decisive on Future Battlefields for its tenacity and dedication in interviewing numerous experts (including recently deployed Army enlisted soldiers and officers), assessing the pertinent issues, and developing recommendations to address the many demands of its statement of task from the Army sponsor (see Summary of this report). The committee in turn is grateful to the many Army and Department of Defense personnel, both civilian and military, who provided much of the information on which this report is based. We particularly thank the veterans of recent combat deployments who shared with us their hopes for those who will follow them, as well as their insights, frustrations, and triumphs in the trying circumstances of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee and I also greatly appreciate the support and assistance of the National Research Council (NRC) staff, which ably assisted the committee in its fact- finding activities and in production of the report. In particular, I thank the staff of the NRC’s Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST), who successfully organized the attendance of committee members and guests at major meetings in multiple locations and maintained a secure Internet forum for the members to accumulate study information, collaborate on report inputs, share expertise, and develop the consensus for the report we present here. The study was conducted under the auspices of the BAST, a unit of the NRC’s Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, established in 1982 at the request of the United States Army. The BAST brings broad military, industrial, and academic scientific, engineering, and management expertise to bear on technical challenges of importance to senior Army leaders. The BAST is not a study committee; rather, it deliberates on study concepts and statements of task for the expert committees that are formed under rigorous NRC procedures to conduct a particular study. The BAST discusses potential study topics and tasks, ensures study project planning and execution in conformance with NRC vi

OCR for page R1
procedures, and suggests candidate experts to serve as committee members or report reviewers. Although the Board members are listed in the front pages of the report, with the exception of any members who were nominated and appointed to the study committee, they were not asked to endorse the committee’s findings or recommendations or to review final drafts of the report before its release. The findings and recommendations are those reached by unanimous consensus of the Committee on Making the Soldier Decisive on Future Battlefields. The NRC’s approval of this report likewise does not indicate a position on the substance of the findings and recommendations but rather certifies that the study was conducted in accordance with its procedures. Hank Hatch, Chair Committee on Making the Soldier Decisive on Future Battlefields vii

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Ruzena K. Bajcsy (NAE/IOM), University of California, Berkeley Nancy J. Cooke, Arizona State University Gilbert F. Decker, Consultant William P. Delaney (NAE), MIT Lincoln Laboratory Richard Dempsey, U.S. Army Charles B. Duke (NAE/NAS), Xerox Corporation (retired) Harry W. Jenkins, U.S. Marine Corps (retired) Roger L. McCarthy (NAE), McCarthy Engineering Stewart D. Personick (NAE), New Jersey Institute of Technology Dennis J. Reimer, U.S. Army (retired) Robert H. Scales, Colgen, Inc. Daniel P. Siewiorek (NAE), Carnegie Mellon University Judith L. Swain (IOM), National University of Singapore Michael R. Thompson, Scitor Corporation Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Robert A. Frosch, NAE, Harvard University. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. viii

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 15 Origin of the Study, 15 Areas of Focus, 15 Definitions, 17 Study Approach, 18 Essential Principles to Achieve TSU Overmatch, 19 Committee’s Approach to the Human Dimension, 20 Report Organization, 22 References, 24 2 CAPABILITIES 25 TSU Missions and Tasks, 27 Situational Understanding, 31 The Role of Decision-Making in Overmatch, 31 Three Levels of Situational Awareness, 32 Network Integration, 33 Military Effects, 36 Lethality, 36 Stability and Humanitarian Effects, 38 Maneuverability, 40 Sustainability, 41 Power and Energy, 41 Survivability, 43 Individual Soldier Protection, 44 TSU Protection, 45 Layers of Protection External to the TSU, 46 Current Operational Weaknesses, 46 Human Dimension Issues, 47 Deficits in TSU and Soldier Training, 51 Deficits in the Analytical Foundation for Building Decisive TSUs, 54 The Untapped Human Dimension, 55 Prospective Solution Categories, 55 References, 56 3 SETTING THE CONDITIONS TO ACHIEVE SOLDIER AND TSU 59 OVERMATCH Placing Emphasis on the Human Dimension, 60 Systems Engineering For Decisive Overmatch, 62 ix

OCR for page R1
Metrics for the Dismounted TSU and Soldier, 66 Streamlining Acquisition of Solutions to Achieve TSU Overmatch Capabilities, 69 References, 73 4 ACHIEVING OVERMATCH 75 Designing the TSU, 76 TSU Design Considerations, 77 Soldier Performance, 78 Soldier Selection, 82 Focusing on TSU Training, 85 The TSU Training Imperative, 85 Findings and Recommendations on TSU Training, 91 Integrating the TSU into Army Networks, 92 Definition of Network Integration, 93 Potential Benefits, 94 DOTMLPF Considerations, 96 Network Integration Priorities, 100 Balancing TSU Maneuverability, Military Effects, and Survivability, 105 Soldiers Carry Too Much to Move Quickly, Act Effectively, and Avoid Injury, 106 Potential Benefits of Optimizing TSU and Soldier Systems for Maneuverability, Military Effects, and Survivability, 108 Selected DOTMLPF Opportunities for Balancing Maneuverability, Military Effects, and Survivability, 112 Findings and Recommendations for Achieving TSU Balance, 118 Leveraging Advances in Portable Power, 121 DOTMLPF Considerations, 121 Battery and Fueled Energy Storage Systems, 122 Energy Harvesting, 125 References, 127 APPENDIXES A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 131 B Committee Meetings 139 C Army Terminology and Doctrine Relevant to Dismounted Soldier Missions 143 D History and Status of Design for the Soldier as a System 157 E Measures of Performance and Measures of Effectiveness 165 F Simulation Technologies and Devices 171 G Technology Solutions for TSU Sensor Missions 175 H Prospective Robotics Technologies 197 I Energy Technologies and Applications for the Soldier 207 J Lethal and Nonlethal Weapons 227 x

OCR for page R1
Tables, Figures, and Boxes TABLES 2-1 Energy Formats and Amounts of Energy Required for a 72-Hour Mission, 43 G-1 Squad-Level Sensor Considerations, 179 G-2 Squad-Level Sensor Missions, 182 G-3 Situational Awareness Sensor Technology Gap Assessment, 188 G-4 Force Protection Sensor Technology Gap Assessment, 191 G-5 Precision Targeting Gap Assessment, 194 I-1 State of the Art for Technologies Most Relevant to the Dismounted Soldier, 208 I-2 Fuel-cell State of the Art, 212 I-3 Near-term State of the Art for Relevant Combustion Technologies, 216 I-4 Energy and Weight of Biomechanical Prototype, 223 I-5 State of the Art in Hybrid Systems, 224 FIGURES 2-1 Decreasing size of fighting unit with critical influence and increasing area of operation for a tactical small unit, 29 2-2 Generic U.S. Army rifle squad, 38 2-3 The modern warrior with combat load during dismounted operation in Afghanistan, 42 4-1 Notional information requirements for TSU with offensive mission, 97 4-2 Soldier power solutions, 123 4-3 Comparison of energy options for the dismounted Soldier, 124 C-1 The elements of combat power, 151 D-1 Soldier with combat load, 160 H-1 Protection Ensemble Test Mannequin (PETMAN) robot without external shell, 199 H-2 BigDog, 201 H-3 LS3, Legged Squad Support System, 202 I-1 Selected energy densities, 207 I-2 Deployable portable solar array, 219 I-3 Harvest of biomechanical energy, 221 I-4 Soldier Power Regeneration Kit, 222 xi

OCR for page R1
J-1 Major improvements to individual and crew served weapons over the last 10 years, 229 J-2 Current and future crew served weapons, 230 J-3 Enhanced sniper technologies, 231 J-4 Sensors and lasers functions, 232 J-5 Distribution of mortars in Army units, 234 J-6 Examples M224A1 Lt Wt 60mm mortars, 235 J-7 MI50/M151 MFCS dismount, 236 J-8 Accelerated precision mortar, 237 BOXES SUM-1 Statement of Task, 2 1-1 Statement of Task, 16 3-1 Military Implementation of Human-Systems Integration, 65 xii

OCR for page R1
Acronyms and Abbreviations AAR after action review AIT advanced individual training ACEP Army Center for Enhanced Performance APFT Army Physical Fitness Test APS active protection systems AO area of operation ARDEC Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center ARFORGEN Army Force Generation ARI Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences ARL Army Research Laboratory ARL-HRED Army Research Laboratory-Human Research and Engineering Directorate ARTEMIS All-Terrain Radar for Tactical Exploitation of MTI and Imaging Surveillance ASA(ALT) Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) ASB Army Science Board ASIMO Advanced Step in Innovative Mobility ASVAB Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery BAST Board on Army Science and Technology BCT brigade combat team BT basic training C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance CALL Center for Army Lessons Learned CASCOM U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command CBA cost benefit analysis CBRN chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear CCD capabilities development document CERDEC Communications-Electronics Research, Development, and Engineering Center CIED Counter-improvised explosive device CIST company intelligence support team CONOPS concept of operations CRAM Counterrocket, artillery, and mortar DA Department of the Army DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DIME diplomatic, information, military, and economic DMFC direct methanol fuel cell DoD Department of Defense xiii

OCR for page R1
DOTMLPF Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel and Facilities DoS U.S. Department of State DSTS Dismounted Soldier Training System EEA essential element of analysis FCS future combat systems FOB forward operating base FORESTER FOliage PENetration Reconnaissance, Surveillance, Tracking and Engagement Radar FITE Future Immersive Training Environment FMV full motion video G1 Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel GMAV gas micro air vehicle GPS global positioning system GSM global system for mobile communication HAL Hybrid Assistive Limb HHC headquarters and headquarters company HSI Human-Systems Integration HSI/MSI hyperspectral imaging/multispectral imaging HULC human universal load carrier ICD initial capabilities document IED improvised explosive device IIT Infantry Immersion Trainer IMPRINT Improved Performance Research Integration Tool IPE individual protective equipment IR infrared IRST infra-red search and track IRT independent review team ISR intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance JIEDDO Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System JCTD Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstration JP jet propellant LADAR LAser Detection And Ranging L-V-C Live - Virtual - Constructive MANPRINT MANpower, PeRsonnel, INTegration MCoE Maneuver Center of Excellence MEPS Military Entrance Processing Stations xiv

OCR for page R1
METT-TC Mission, Enemy, Terrain and weather, Troops and support available—Time available, Civilians MMOG massively multiplayer online game mmw millimeter wave MOE measure of effectiveness MOP measures of performance MOS military occupational specialty MOUT military operations on urban terrain MRMC U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command NCO non-commissioned officer NGO nongovernmental organization NPC non-player characters NRC National Research Council NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center OEF Operation Enduring Freedom OE/OD organizational effectiveness/organizational development OIF Operation Iraqi Freedom OPTEMPO operations tempo ORSA operations research and system analyst OSA open system architecture OSUT one-station unit training OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEO Soldier Program Executive Office-Soldier PEO STRI Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation PETMAN protection ensemble test mannequin POI program of instruction PMESI political, military, economic, social, infrastructure PSM physiological status monitor R&D research and development RDEC U.S. Army Research, Development & Engineering Center RMFC reformed methanol fuel cell ROEs rules of engagement RoL Rule-of-Law SA situational awareness SALTI DARPA Synthetic Aperture Ladar for Tactical Imaging SAR search and rescue SIGINT signals intelligence SIPRNet Secure Internet Protocol Network SOFC solid oxide fuel cell SOS system-of-systems xv

OCR for page R1
SOT Statement of Task SSIM strategic social interaction module S&T science and technology STRICOM Simulation Training and Instrumentation Command SWAP size, weight, and power SWAP-C size, weight, power, and cost TAPAS Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System TCPED tasking, collection, processing, exploitation and dissemination TiGRNET Tactical Ground Reporting Network TOPS Tier One Performance Screen TRL technology readiness level TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command TSU tactical small unit TTHS trainees, transients, holdees, and students TTP tactics, techniques and procedures TUS U.S. Navy Transparent Urban Structures UAS unmanned aerial system UAV unmanned aerial vehicle UGV unmanned ground vehicle USAREC United States Army Recruiting Command USARIEM U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine VBS2 Virtual Battle Space 2 VHF very high frequency WAMI wide area motion imagery WAS wide area security WLR weapons location radar xvi