By Ann Roosevelt
FT. LAUDERDALE, Fla.–The science and technology (S&T) community that focuses on research should keep in mind the Army needs affordable solutions and capabilities that allow the force to be more efficient and effective, according to a top general.
“It’s OK to do the research…but we want you to achieve the outcomes we lay out: We want you to be focused on outcomes,” said Lt. Gen. Michael Vane, deputy commanding general- Future and director of the Army Training and Doctrine Command’s Capabilities Integration Center.
Over the past two years, the Army has taken a fairly studied approach to the future, he said. However, if the entire focus is on what might be, “the mere fact that you focused on that will probably induce that future not to occur.”
There must also be a recognition that there are destructive technologies out there that must be planned for.
The Army needs to be continuously built by receiving a versatile set of capabilities it can use. This also means keeping in mind that land power in a holistic sense includes the Army, Marines, special operating forces, intergovernmental agencies, multi-national partners, and can’t be done without the Air Force and Navy.
The characteristics of land power must be agility and versatility and not become focused on any particular part of the full spectrum of operations. The strategic environment is likely to be one of persistent conflict, unfolding in different ways.
Vane said analysis has come up with five top warfighter “outcomes” for S&T:
- Battle command network;
- Counter IED;
- Power and Energy;
- Human dimension; and
- Training.
The Army keeps revisiting the analysis, looking for gaps and working with the S&T community and developing objectives, Vane said at the Association of the United States Army Winter Symposium here yesterday.
Thus, if the top five war fighting outcomes linked to gaps could be solved in the next three to five years, it would have the biggest impact on the battlefield for the service.
For example, the service needs a single common operating picture, he said. Individuals still are not connected to a network, nor are logistics, and the Army would like to have that bigger picture while on the move.
In the counter-IED area, “we’ve got to get to a stand-off capability and we’ve got to improve training,” Vane said. There is a lot of partnering, support and direction from the Joint IED-Defeat Office.
The Army wants to get away from dragging generators around and slaving them together in command posts, in the power and energy area, he said. With exposed, long logistics tails, the services would like to put much more power on the back of a truck.
“The individual soldier must possess twice the available power and half the tactical weight,” he said.
In the human dimension, systems must be designed to make soldiers more effective and more efficient. Assessing soldiers needs to change, as well, he said. Seven out of 10 don’t make it through the Army entrance requirements. “Huge strides are already being made to understand better how a person thinks and learns and how we can tap into that,” he said.
Training needs to move more to home station, and how best to mix live, constructive and virtual training to get to higher readiness.
Separately, the Army is thinking a lot about robotics, which are already in support of the big five integrated S&T outcomes.
“Robotics must be linked to a return on investment, not done just because we can,” Vane said.
To examine what robotics the service needs the Army is publishing a paper in the next 10 days or so.
For the effort, the Army collaborated with the Tank-Automotive Research and Development Engineering Command. Once the paper is published, the service wants comments from industry.
“There’s tremendous possibility, potential, to make ourselves more efficient…through the use of robotics,” he said.
Robotic development to date has concerned capabilities gaps and joint urgent needs from theater, he said. A new paradigm may be required on where to invest in emerging technology. However, he said, “It must be unambiguous…[and] resource informed,” he said.
Modeling and simulation must be leveraged for a comprehensive impact on the Army’s doctrine, organization, training, leader development, materiel, personnel and facilities.
The approach taken to robotics must also use a system of systems approach to measure effectiveness.
Robotics must be reliable and adaptable so it can move with changing technology.
While there’s no simple solution, the human being must always be able to exert full control to adapt to the environment.
Thinking beyond 2020, the Army is looking at a different kind of unit, an autonomous brigade combat team.
“Autonomous brigade combat team deploys with organic assets anywhere in the world to conduct operations across the spectrum for up to 30 days without external sustainment requirements,” one of Vane’s slides said.
This could potentially be more effective and efficient, leveraging the Future Combat Systems baseline, robotics, joint enablers, and directed energy, or electromagnetic capabilities.
Such a brigade could offer a smaller footprint to move quickly into potential scenarios such as major regional war, irregular warfare, humanitarian work such as after an earthquake or for refugee evacuation.
New power capability could run new weapons, potentially removing powder and energetics from platforms, he said. More power could be used off board to power small cities or refugee camps.
Efficiencies could mean fewer vehicles, more soldiers, reduced lifecycle costs, more stowed weaponry, and multiple lethality capabilities on single platforms, better reliability, availability and maintenance. The Army’s main needs–fuel, water and ammunition–could also be reduced.
“Innovation and integration” are key, Vane said. An accelerated development effort means “leading from the edge.”