Operations Other Than War (OOTW): The Technological Dimension

Chapter 2: Requirements for OOTW Technologies

This section describes the current state of technology requirements analysis, identifies some common OOTW requirements, then presents functional analysis as a model for technology requirements analysis. In closing, it also suggests how requirements planning can be more closely linked with operational experience.

CURRENT SITUATION

At present there appears to be no coherent, comprehensive approach to framing OOTW technology requirements. Many agencies are developing technologies relevant to OOTW, but their efforts are not fully coordinated. For example, it became apparent during the first workshop session that agencies were not always aware of efforts similar to their own that were occurring "just down the hall." The operators attending the workshops (and, by extension, those in the field) were not well informed about developments in the technology field, nor did they have a good system for communicating OOTW requirements to the technology community.

Further, each agency has a different focus on the technology issues involved. For example, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) focuses on issues of feasibility. TJS, on the other hand, looks at requirements, but from specific perspectives developed in the Joint Required Operational Capability (JROC) process, rather than from a comprehensive viewpoint. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) maintains its traditional focus on technologies and methods, but is seeking to ensure utility to the commanders on the scene. Finally, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is developing policy options for the future, but without the benefit of an approach fully coordinated with the research and development community. Thus, requirements are formed by various offices with widely different perspectives. Coordination between these technology planners and the operational community is not apparent.

Moreover, the development time window varies extensively depending on the technology, from "off the shelf," to a thirty-year research and development process. In general, OTA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are focused on the short term and need to apply existing technology. They are obviously concerned with making technology available to forces conducting current operations. ARPA and the Department of Defense (especially the special operations/low intensity conflict [SO/LIC] community) are looking at mid-to long-term technologies. SO/LIC sets their horizon at thirty years.

Complicating the process further is the fact that technical requirements vary with location, type of operation, and the time avail able for application. Technology that works well in a desert scenario may be useless in heavy vegetation or an urban environment. In Desert Storm, for example, soldiers reported that they could spot buried mines using night vision devices. While this worked in that desert environment, it does not work in forest or jungle areas. Likewise, technologies that work in fields may not work in hills and probably won't work in urban environments.

If time is not critical, technology application may be simpler than in a time-sensitive case. The sophistication, complexity, and availability of technology are other considerations.

For purposes of this discussion, the authors used the language "low," "medium," and "high technology" to describe these factors. A "low technology" solution is one that can be applied off the shelf or with minimum modification. A "medium-technology" solution is one that exists in some functional form but requires development of a specific application. The "high-technology" solution is one that will require research and development. These factors, as well as political and legal issues, must all be considered in the requirements process.

COMMON REQUIREMENTS

The workshop was able to develop and isolate some common instances where application of technology could provide productive solutions. These technology applications are not exclusive to OOTW. Many of them can also support traditional military operations. In fact, technologies that do not fill a warfighting need are less likely to be funded or accepted by the military. "Dual-use" assumes a new meaning here (it is usually employed to indicate items that have both peaceful, civilian value and military utility), but the workshop concluded that it is important that OOTW technologies have a warfighting application if they are to be developed and used.

The first, and perhaps most important requirement is for technologies that create time and space. Peace operators need time to keep situations from escalating, to allow development of alternative courses of action. Space is a visible or invisible barrier that separates antagonists or protects one's own forces. For example, a system that can stop a vehicle could provide both time and space: time to inspect for explosives and space between the vehicle and potential targets until the inspection is completed.

Another common requirement is for systems that control or help control levels of violence. These complement the "create time and space" requirements. Included are methods for individual and crowd control, ways to separate belligerents from other belligerents and from noncombatants and to monitor the separation. Also needed are technologies that incapacitate machines and that find concealed weapons (e.g., in buildings or vehicles, on persons) or that neutralize or disarm them. Anything that can provide the force commander with more options fills a common need. Technologies that can I help fill the gap between inaction and the use of deadly force I have the potential both to enhance the chances for mission success and reduce casualties on all sides. Many non-lethal weapons (NLW) technologies might fit here and complement the commander's other options.

ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS

Workshop participants suggested various factors that influence requirements. Requirements can be generated by analyzing (1) personnel factors, (2) intelligence needs, and (3) logistics needs. The type of operation or mission context is the fourth important determinant of requirements. There may be other compelling factors, but these four can generate most requirements in a coherent and methodical way.

Personnel Factors

Technologies that are critical to improving the effectiveness of personnel include those that contribute to training, translation, and personnel protection.

  • Mission-Training Requirements. Many OOTWs are complex enough to impose mission-specific training requirements. If non-lethal weapons (NLW) are introduced, troops must not only be trained in the use of these weapons systems, but also instructed in the legal implications to their use and the related rules of engagement (ROEs). Simulation and gaming systems can help with this potentially onerous training load. Further, simulation and gaming can explore the scenarios where NLW would provide an advantage or where their use may be counterproductive. Virtual-reality systems offer promise across the full spectrum of training, from individual and unit training to mission planning and rehearsal. For example, in an urban scenario, sniper alleys and fields of fire can be plotted and tested. Finally, for some coalition partners who may have much less training than U.S. troops, virtual reality offers a quick way to raise their capability.

  • Translation Capabilities and Language Substitutes. Language difficulties impose barriers between coalition partners as well as between OOTW operators and local populations. The operators at the workshop showed strong interest in acquiring systems that could lower or eliminate these barriers. Communication was clearly one of the most important dimensions for them. One low-technology solution identified was the Defense Language Institute 800 number. The number provides access to a bank of translators who can be patched into phone calls. The operators present were not aware of this capability. Medium-technology solutions include development of "language-free" equipment, such as radios that use icons rather than words for functions and laptop computer programs that turn text into cartoons. Auto-translation technologies are at the high technology end and may not become available for some time. A very limited (250 words) Hangul/English system is presently under development for use in Korea.

  • Protection and Life-Saving Technologies. These include warning and identification technologies, ways to find concealed weapons, body armor, and other personal protection devices. These have considerable potential to reduce casualties in OOTW environments and are of considerable interest to operators.

    Intelligence Needs

    The need for improved intelligence is critical in nearly every OOTW scenario. The force commander requires accurate intelligence to protect his troops, to control the situation, and to avoid taking sides. Further he needs ways to disseminate the intelligence to the coalition members and sometimes even to belligerents. Technologies that can help fall into three broad categories:

  • Sensors range from humans with enhanced capability (night vision, etc.) to micro-sensors that monitor and report on the operational and tactical situations. Unmanned or remote sensors can substitute for humans and thereby limit troop exposure in dangerous areas.

  • Displays incorporating translation capability or easily understood symbols can present intelligence to a wider range of OOTW partners.

  • Dissemination Methods/Devices can be shared with coalitions/private volunteer organizations (PVO) or non-governmental organizations (NGO). This goes beyond displays, to address the issues of protecting intelligence sources and methods.

    Logistic's Needs

    OOTW logistics are most often characterized by low technology and a non-standard environment. Contractor logistics is the norm for most general support, such as transportation, food, and housing. But better technology can be applied here with potentially dramatic impact. The workshop concluded that systems are needed to address three key issues:

  • Transportation and Tracking Applications: Technologies that are used by the USAF to perform on-time tracking of airlifts could be adapted to the less complex but critical OOTW logistics support. These movements, more often than not, will be made up of smaller and perhaps more numerous segments than a military load. State-of-the-art asset visibility and "just-in-time" inventory tools would be helpful. A three-dimension planning tool could help with the load planning, and provide accurate, current location information.

  • Standardized Contracting Modules: Since most of the OOTW logistics support is commercial, such tools could be used to expedite contract awards and to monitor performance.

  • Adaptation of Applicable Commercial Technologies/Methods: The technologies employed by commercial companies, such as DHL and Federal Express, are available and do not require development; they merely need to be adapted and adopted.

    Mission Context

    The type of operation and the potential for mission change over time (e.g., mission creep) together create a set of constraints within which the force commander must operate. Earlier workshops identified the basic types of peace operations and observed that the type of operation has profound implications on command and control structures. Figure 4 shows how four important dependent variables can change, given change in the nature of the peace operator's role.

    Figure 04.

    Particularly difficult are those operations that fall near the region labeled the "Great Divide," where mission creep tends to migrate. Understanding the boundaries between operations types is essential for mission success. Some of the factors to be considered include:

  • The Type of Operation and Its Charter: UN Chapter Six peacekeeping operations, Chapter "Six and a Half" (the Great Divide reached through mission creep), Chapter Seven peace enforcement and peace imposition, and other OOTW that include counter-narcotics, humanitarian, etc.

  • The Kind of Participation: How is the U.S. going into the operation? Will it be unilateral, coalition, interagency? Will it include NGO, PVO? What will be the command structure?

  • The Mission Environment: Urban, jungle, desert, etc.; the nature of the threat(s); political, social, and cultural contexts. The relationship between the OOTW forces and the general population is a crucial driver when selecting and applying technologies.

    LINKING TECHNOLOGY, OPERATIONAL, AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

    As part of the process to develop MCP concepts and subsequently technical requirements, a link must be established between operational experience and potential technology solutions. Many technologies are being developed for many purposes, but these technical "solutions" often appear out of step with operational priorities. The workshop suggested a number of ways to improve the linkage between operators and technology/research planners.

    A key part of this process involves educating operators about what is available and feasible. This workshop was a small step in this direction. To begin to make a dent in this area, a much more structured approach is necessary to develop an institutional process that bridges the present gaps between technology, policy, and operations.

    Once technology requirements are identified, they must be subjected to selection criteria like those listed in Figure 5. The criteria are listed in descending order of importance; however, all are interrelated to a greater or lesser degree. With agreed selection criteria, an overall cost/benefit analysis can then prioritize those technologies. The most promising can be developed as resources and benefits dictate. The present situation appears uncoordinated and there is some duplication of effort. Also, the present process does not address the embedded problems that relate to training, doctrine, ROE, and so on. Policy issues must be addressed up front and at the appropriate level to prevent costly starts and stops.

    Figure 05.

    NEXT CHAPTER | Table of Contents |