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
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering and Medicine
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.
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
____________________
1NAE, National Academy of Engineering; IOM, Institute of Medicine; NAS, National Academy of Sciences
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
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
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
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.
Contents
Essential Principles to Achieve TSU Overmatch
Committee’s Approach to the Human Dimension
The Role of Decision-Making in Overmatch
Three Levels of Situational Awareness
Stability and Humanitarian Effects
Layers of Protection External to the TSU
Current Operational Weaknesses
Deficits in TSU and Soldier Training
Deficits in the Analytical Foundation for Building Decisive TSUs
Prospective Solution Categories
3 SETTING THE CONDITIONS TO ACHIEVE SOLDIER AND TSU OVERMATCH
Metrics for the Dismounted TSU and Soldier
Streamlining Acquisition of Solutions to Achieve TSU Overmatch Capabilities
Findings and Recommendations on TSU Training
Integrating the TSU into Army Networks
Definition of Network Integration
Network Integration Priorities
Balancing TSU Maneuverability, Military Effects, and Survivability
Soldiers Carry Too Much to Move Quickly, Act Effectively, and Avoid Injury
Selected DOTMLPF Opportunities for Balancing Maneuverability, Military Effects, and Survivability
Findings and Recommendations for Achieving TSU Balance
Leveraging Advances in Portable Power
Battery and Fueled Energy Storage Systems
A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
C Army Terminology and Doctrine Relevant to Dismounted Soldier Missions
D History and Status of Design for the Soldier as a System
E Measures of Performance and Measures of Effectiveness
F Simulation Technologies and Devices
G Technology Solutions for TSU Sensor Missions
H Prospective Robotics Technologies
Tables, Figures, and Boxes
TABLES
FIGURES
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |