There are many impressive potential new land-attack weapons on the horizon not just ships, weapons, and aircraft.
At the high end of the fight, the Navy of the 21st century needs the capability to deliver thousands of precision rounds per hour, with the staying power to sustain or finish the engagement. Supporting systems will be required to provide on-line, on-demand digital targeting that presents the information in a single, merged operational picture tailored to the individual while simultaneously assisting in thousands of decisions. Organic sensors and a seemingly self-aware network will be needed to pursue and provide these data. To achieve this overwhelming firepower the Navy will need automated data acquisition, management, and distribution. These technological advances—all realistic and, in some cases, conservative—will enable a needed change in the command organization and are the keystones for the capabilities to attack any target, anywhere.
The capabilities that will be needed by a future naval force can be divided into three general groups:
- Fires, or the tools of force application
- Information management, or control, collection, and conversion of data into situational awareness
- Command, or the ability to use the modern tools most effectively
Fires
Underlying the fires concepts are two interrelated yet distinct concepts: physical separation of the seeker from the weapon and in-flight target updates. Together these techniques provide speed, simplicity of weapon design, lower system cost, and the ability to redirect a weapon after launch.
Separation of the seeker from the weapon makes the seeker reusable, and without a seeker, weapon design is simpler. The seeker function itself is retained through inflight target updates. Essentially, a sensor or network of sensors determines a target's location and then transmits that location to the weapon(s). Target location accuracy will be absolute and is based on predicted accuracy gains.
Sensors can be placed on a variety of platforms, including manned and unmanned aircraft, satellites, ships, people, and automobiles, or they can be self-contained and unattended. Through a network, sensors may be shared temporally and spatially, with their data available to all forces. Sensors as a system are more complex, but a composite system of sensors provides target information to any weapon (gun projectiles, missiles, and submunitions) anywhere. Command and control will be from the commander in parallel to the firing platform and sensor and thereafter from the sensor to the weapon. The result is that the sensor-to-shooter concept is changed to sensor-to-weapon. In this manner, off-board sensors and in-flight targeting updates become elements of "network-centric" warfare combat capability.
Four new weapon technologies will help achieve the firepower needed:
The electromagnetic gun—a maritime version of the U.S. Army's electromagnetic (EM) gun project—promises an accurate, affordable, long-range projectile fired from a 15-meter barrel on cruiser-destroyer sized ships (nominally 11,000 tons or larger). The characteristics of a notional naval EM gun system are as follows:
- Firing rate per barrel of six rounds per minute
- Muzzle velocity about Mach 9 with an impact speed over Mach 1.5
- Rounds travel exo-atmospheric on a ballistic trajectory out to 400 nautical miles in less than eight minutes
- Direct fire and ship-defense capability
- Hit-to-kill kinetic-kill mechanism
- Projectiles either remain as a solid unit or disperse into a large number of armor-piercing flechettes
- Projectiles mostly inert and weigh up to 150 pounds
- Projectile cost of approximately $5,000 per shot, including the navigation system
The electromagnetic gun potentially will provide tremendous lethality per round, with hundreds or even thousands of rounds per hour originating from a today's battle groupsized force. The projectile will use in-flight targeting updates and a microminiaturized system similar to the global positioning system/inertial navigation system to navigate to and hit the target. Because each round is inert, almost all explosive manufacturing, storage, supply, and handling considerations are eliminated. The EM gun relies on electrical power, indicating both a need for an integrated power supply and a desire for an electric-drive ship.
Hypersonic missiles will travel at speeds in excess of Mach 5 and eventually may reach speeds of Mach 8. Launch platforms will be aircraft, ships, and submarines. Hypersonic missiles can be used for defense, but their strength is in destroying pop-up and moving targets.
Future technologies will make the missiles faster, lighter, and smaller. Engines will upgrade from rockets to scramjets. Movable fin flight controls will be replaced by mesospoilers or tiny bumps based on micro-electromagnetic systems (MEMs) technology. Mach 8 speeds and the accuracy of an in-flight targeting update/sensor network for guidance will enable the removal of the explosive warhead in favor of a cheaper, more effective kinetic hit-to-kill mechanism. Modular missile design will allow automated at-sea selection of either a solid warhead for use against bunkers or heavy armor or perhaps a controllable flechetting warhead for use as an area weapon against troops or fast-moving ground targets.
These missiles will have a range of 100 miles for aircraft delivery and, with the chemically fired booster replaced by an electromagnetic missile launcher, will extend to 1,000 miles when launched from a ship. This capability follows naturally once an EM gun is fielded and electrical power is readily available.
Three unmanned aerial vehicles with hypersonic missiles spaced in a 200-mile grid could hold at risk 90,000 square miles, an area equivalent to the former Yugoslavia. A hypersonic missile with a 100-mile range and flying at Mach 8 could achieve a warning-to-impact time of under one minute at maximum missile range. Thus, hypersonic missiles provide a powerful answer to the Scud or surface-to-air missile hunting problems of the future. The same unmanned aerial vehicles also could be outfitted with sensor packages and contribute to the composite sensor grid.
Mission-responsive ordnance refers to weapons that change their blast and fragmentation pattern depending on the target. Computer-controlled, microminiaturized detonators integrated into the explosive material can control its timing, magnitude, shape, and lethal area. The mission-responsive ordnance concept makes a single, relatively small warhead capable of attacking a very wide range of targets, such as a fuse box in an office building, a tank on a city street, or an entire section of a building. The flexibility of mission-responsive ordnance allows explosives to be tailored for constrained environments and may mean fewer weapons in inventory.
The Air Force's Low-Cost Autonomous Attack Seeker (LOCAAS) is a small loitering weapon that illustrates mission-responsive ordnance.1 LOCAAS can be air launched singly or in a self-synchronizing swarm that will deconflict targets so only one LOCAAS pursues each target. Its warhead can explode into fragments, a long rod penetrator, or a large slug, depending on the type of target it detects. Mission-responsive ordnance is an important step in using advanced precision to avoid collateral damage.
Unmanned aircraft offer an opportunity to make the benefits of satellites and other strategic high-cost assets tactically available and responsive to the battlefield commander. Unmanned aircraft augment fixed sensors and manned aircraft by providing relocatable sensors, just-in-time communications relay, and high-risk payload delivery. Three tiers of unmanned aircraft—upper, middle, and lower—grouped with manned aircraft, will cover the battlespace for all contingencies.
- The upper tier consists of space-based assets and highflying (above 80,000 feet), long-endurance (weeks to months) unmanned aircraft. The unmanned aircraft could be launched from an aircraft carrier or from a shore facility. High-flying unmanned aircraft will be similar to today's Global Hawk, essentially a near geostationary low-earth-orbit platform containing numerous sensors and communications equipment. Upper-tier aircraft will carry equipment to connect the battle space: weapons, sensors, and communications. They address all the limitations of satellites, some of which are cost, ease of upgrade/modification, responsiveness, time on station, and replaceability. Onboard defensive weapons and inexpensive manufacturing techniques are key elements in an effective upper-tier loitering aircraft.
- Both manned and unmanned aircraft will fly in the middle tier. These aircraft must be based at sea on aircraft carriers and surface combatants to maximize time on station and rapid response. Middle-tier aircraft will be distributed across the surface fleet, significantly increasing its survivability and strength. They will bring most of the airborne weapons into theater and will provide the most accurate sensing capabilities and augment the communications network. Because some middle-tier platforms will be manned, human decision-making capability will remain present in the battlefield. Unmanned aircraft in this tier will be flyable to 50,000 feet and will measure about 35 feet at the wingspan and 30 feet in length. Each surface combatant will carry a dozen unmanned aircraft of this size, using a fully automated handling system. Payload (approximately 1,000 pounds) will be determined by the tactical situation and could consist of weapons, sensors, communications equipment, or any combination. They will support the full gambit of tactical missions, whether working in conjunction with a manned strike package, directed by Marines on the ground for close-air support, or on an autonomous search-and-destroy mission. The U.S. Air Force is building a prototype.
- Lower-tier aircraft will be primarily ship launched and will consist of small, nimble, and possibly locally manufactured unmanned vehicles. These aircraft will support the close-in sensing requirement for target identification and geopositioning (especially for moving targets). Inexpensive enough to be attritable, these aircraft are similar in size to today's Predator but will have much more capability, range, and endurance as a result of improvements in small engines and MEMs-based flight controls.
The future battlespace will be comprised of hundreds, if not thousands of sensors, complex target types, complex data fusion challenges, and large bandwidth requirements. Sensors must be responsive to the tactical situation, available in significant numbers, and networked to share data with all elements of the force. In addition, their cost must parallel their benefit—using a Cadillac only when a Cadillac is needed.
From a platform perspective, one platform does not need to carry all types of sensors. Sensors with different fields of view and perspectives from different locations collecting various phenomenologies—including thermal dynamics, video, radar returns, acoustics, and electromagnetic emissions—can be fused to achieve the level of target classification or identification needed. Using several different types of sensors almost everything in the battlefield can be identified. For example, if it moves like a truck (radar), sounds like a truck (acoustic), has a heat signature like a truck (infrared), and looks like a truck (optical), then it probably is a truck. A loitering unmanned aircraft may carry a ground-moving target indicator radar; an unattended ground sensor can detect acoustic signatures; an infrared sensor on an aircraft could provide the heat signature of the targeted area; a soldier could identify something that looked like a truck—and a potentially unique signature arises that allows an otherwise indistinguishable object to be identified and tracked. Improvements in sensor specificity and geographical accuracy along with an automated sensor management system able to task assets and pursue the information it needs will enable sensor fusion in the future.
Commensurate with the firepower and knowledge gain is a responsibility to use each more effectively. In the future, assessment and targeting will focus on a fundamentally new approach, buttressed by several new concepts and processes to shock, confuse, and disable an enemy. It is called "smart targeting," and its foundation is in knowledge and modeling of adversaries. Targeting is based on a analysis of the adversary and the military strategy being pursued. By combining four components-operational net assessment, an enhanced strike planning process, multiple targeting schemes, and a maritime warfare targeting analysis system—the future force will know when, when, where, and how to apply force.
Operational net assessment goes beyond nodal analysis in that it assesses a country's economy, political infrastructure, culture, industrial dynamics, etc. More important than the characteristics and elements of a country are the interaction between the elements and how the elements affect the enemy's warfighting decision makers. With this knowledge will come the ability to model a country, or relevant segments, to determine cause and effect of future events considerably more accurate than today. This assessment process will allow the future force to identify and translate future key adversary analysis into targets. Added to the team of military operators and intelligence officers in today's targeting schemes will be country-specific experts and even non-DoD experts as needed.
An enhanced strike planning process characterized by powerful human-computer interfaces, operational net assessment, and considerable automation will allow the battlefield commander to prioritize and pair weapons to targets. This process integrates currently fragmented strike planning operations and will likely employ a wide range of virtual collaboration tools to ensure all-aspect, integrated attacks combining lethal fires, nonlethal effects, and information warfare attack. Key to this concept is the ability to encode warfighting guidance combined with a human-controlled, artificially intelligent computing capability to perform the required asset management in a highly dynamic, fast-tempo environment.
Multiple targeting schemes add great flexibility to the overall process by providing a full range of targeting effects. Taking advantage of massing the effects of precise lethal and nonlethal attack simultaneously across the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war, this will allow the force commander to concentrate on single or multiple target sets. Commanders also will be able to attack using complex-based targeting schemes to rapidly and completely overwhelm the adversary.
The Integrated Marine Multi-Agent Command and Control System is tailorable for the individual operating at any level of war and "plugged" into a larger global targeting system. This targeting analysis system will provide the commander with air-, land-, and sea-based targeting data gathered from global, theater, and tactical sources. Force commanders and support personnel will collaborate in real time—reducing or even eliminating ambiguities—and will receive real-time updates, informed opinions, and perspective from experts throughout the system.
Information Management
The key to knowledge is having a management system that knows where all the assets are, can task them, and is able to quickly refocus them from one area to the next without hampering other missions. There are many advantages to this type of system. First, a single platform does not have to carry multiple sensors, which allows dedicated onboard sensors to be eliminated. For example, manned aircraft would be able to forego many of the absolute requirements of today's tactical radars because the sensor network would provide the coherent picture to the cockpit for situational awareness. Because the aircraft radar will not be needed for targeting, it can be optimized to support the overall sensor grid or be removed. Second, sensors can be used for multiple functions concurrently. The aircraft radar can provide information for its aircraft and also for other data collectors, shooters, and weapons. Third, sensors can be automatically redirected as needed. If an unmanned aircraft is poorly positioned, it can be redirected to a better location.
Inherent to the sensor-to-weapon concept is a strong network providing near instantaneous computing and communications for the elements within the force. In addition, the network needs to know what data are needed, where they are needed, when, and how to get the data to the user.
The future network will be able to use idle processing ability from different platforms to augment capability and work large problems. The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence project, for example, uses spare processing capabilities of personal computers connected to the Internet to process sensor data collected from outer space.6 Each computer examines the apportioned search data and reports the findings. Similarly, loitering unmanned aircraft, working as a dispersed computer systems, can use onboard processors, perhaps augmented with additional processors for the mission, to correlate and fuse the output from several sensors. Data needed but not available, like previously encoded digitized terrain composition, would be mined from databanks on board ships or ashore. The fused data giving a composite location or track become resident in a shared, global, and dynamic database for all to use. The information management system controls tasking of processing and communications pathways to processors throughout the network.
The network also will determine how best to manage its own assets, schedule replacements, and redirect information and in many cases will pursue research to fill in gaps of information needed to pursue military operations. It will in fact be an information system.
The future requires an information system to be holistically focused in its hardware architecture, software design, and management. The hardware architecture is an information grid tying all elements of the force together with great speed and computational power. A tiered communications architecture provides the greatest versatility, as do distributed computational assets. This integrated network must include the ability to prioritize information based on source and destination, user capabilities, environment, and situation so it can provide every element with the information vital to their missions. Integrated warfare software or "groupware for warfare" will provide the versatility and adaptability of data for each individual user.
Information management enables situational awareness, connecting the sensors, weapons, and decision makers. To fulfill the information requirements for the future, the information system must consist of significantly advanced computer and communication subsystems working as an aggregate system within the aggregate force. These subsystems will be designed to optimize the employment of task force assets through a hierarchical management plan; to minimize the delay while maximizing the transmission quality of information to task force elements; and to provide for a self-aware system that reconfigures itself to enhance performance, security, and message accuracy.
Command
A strong network provides the ability to shift organizational control laterally for two primary reasons. First, information flow through the organization creates a common situational awareness. Second, virtual consolidation of physically dispersed supporting departments concentrates control of a particular functional area.
Commercial corporations such as Wal-Mart and Federal Express use human-computer partnership as well as networking to consolidate their organizational structure, thereby increasing productivity and profitability. This same concept can be used to align warfare principles with warfare capabilities. Command in the Information Age uses the power of the network to integrate distributed warfare capabilities into four functional areas—signals, intelligence, assets, and engagements—creating a new command organizational concept. Organizing by function enables commanders to focus attention on engagements and objectives while leaving the supporting details and mathematics to focused specialists and coordinators. The commander can maintain his situational awareness and shape the battlespace through the delivery of combat power at the appropriate levels of war simultaneously.
Situational awareness is essential to good decision making, and for a person in command, the key is how the information is presented and the type of information that is available. Uncertainties and unknowns always will exist, but computerized knowledge management will identify what is missing, provide indications of the value of the missing information, and present alternative outcomes for assumptions made for the missing information. The resulting situational awareness in turn will allow a change in our command structure to achieve command decision efficiency through rapid response, focus of effort, and synchronized behavior. One should expect the tools of the information age to alter command structures along functional lines such as engagements, battlespace knowledge, signal management, and asset allocation.
A Systems Engineering Approach
Rather than permitting sharp discontinuities in capability as the result of a fitful transition to something fundamentally new, it is more prudent and affordable to gradually introduce next-generation weapons into a force structure where proven systems still have a place. A systems engineering approach that designs not just ships, weapons, and aircraft but entire battle forces, functions, and command structures is essential to getting it right. It is paramount that we systematically apply computer- and communication-age technologies across the force structure—and to its underlying logistics base—rather than reserving them for the one or two "gee whiz" weapons of tomorrow.
Communication Hardware
To support a fully netted force, a radio system with legacy and future equipment interoperability, frequency agility, self-awareness, and system robustness must be developed. The first step to a more potent communication system is the software-configured radio.
For the U.S. Navy, the Digital Modular Radio and the follow-on Joint Tactical Radio System are the principal programs that will lead to fielding a fully functional software-driven communication apparatus that facilitates interservice communications. With such a diversely compatible system, the transparent connectivity to all users is achieved through a network topology that can be manipulated to support on-demand user needs. Radio room operations are simplified through computer-controlled configurations that will contribute to a reduced manning requirement while allowing for automated communication planning and real-time topology control. This management capability maximizes network configuration to provide required information delivery despite component failures (i.e., graceful degradation). And by using system-on-a-chip techniques, the software-configured radio can be miniaturized to operate on all naval platforms, including unmanned aerial relays and weapons.
Captain Dimaggio (Fleet Support Officer on the Joint Staff), Colonel Freniere (Future Concept Development Division in Strategic Planning Directorate HQ, U.S. Air Force), Commander Landers (Cryptologist at Central Command), Commander Mysinger (EA-6B Electronics Countermeasures Officer on the Joint Staff), Lieutenant Commander McVety (F/A-18 Pilot on Joint Staff), and Lieutenant Commander Becker (Prospective Commanding Officer of USS Heron [MHC-52]) studied the need for future U.S. Navy land-attack capability as associate fellows of the Chief of Naval Operation’s Strategic Study Group.