News 1998 Army Science and Technology Master Plan




Chapter I
Strategy and Overview

History has given us the choice; science has given us the chance; love of country gives us the duty—to reach out to the future and pull it toward us.

William S. Cohen
Secretary of Defense

The Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP), annually revised and approved by the Secretary of the Army and the Army’s Chief of Staff, provides Department of the Army guidance to all Army Science and Technology (S&T) organizations. As such, it is the strategic link between Department of Defense technology planning and the plans of Army major commands, major subordinate commands, and laboratories. This plan for the Army’s S&T program is based on the Army leadership’s vision of the future Army and available resources.

Army Vision

Army Vision 2010

The Army’s vision is continuously evolving and results from the combined input of two critical planning activities—Army Vision 2010 and Army After Next (AAN). Army Vision 2010 is the blueprint for the Army’s contributions to the operational concepts identified in Joint Vision 2010.

These activities identify the patterns of operations needed for the Army to fulfill its role in achieving full spectrum dominance as part of joint operations (Figure I–1). These patterns are (1) protect the force, (2) gain information dominance, (3) decisive operations, (4) shape the battlespace, (5) project the force, and (6) sustain the force. These patterns of operation align precisely with the Joint Vision 2010 operational concepts of information dominance, dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full dimensional protection.

Figure I-1. Army Vision 2010/Joint Vision 2010
Figure I-1. Army Vision 2010/Joint Vision 2010

Army After Next

The Army’s long–term vision is evolving through an AAN process being managed by Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) headquarters. The AAN office, under the Deputy Chief of Staff for Doctrine, is conducting broad studies of future warfare for the period around the year 2020 for the purpose of framing the issues vital to the development of the Army. The vision generated from these studies will be integrated into TRADOC combat development programs. Throughout this process the S&T community is serving a vital support role to TRADOC. To better appreciate the role of the S&T community in the emerging AAN vision, it is important to understand the four major azimuths the AAN study is exploring and the process for integrating these study results into the evolving AAN vision.

The first azimuth under investigation involves the identification of probable geopolitical realities for the period around 2020. The purpose of this study is to establish likely threats and missions and to link these to the Army’s future warfighting strategies and systems to ensure that the Army will be able to fulfill its future National Command Authorities (NCA) responsibilities. The second is a study of the future military art necessary to ensure that the Army has unquestionable overmatch capability against the full spectrum of potential threats. The third azimuth is the evaluation of evolving technologies and systems concepts along with the planning of the S&T investments necessary to support the evolving military art and ensure unquestionable overmatch capabilities for the future Army. The fourth is the exploration of approaches necessary for our forces to operate effectively at the limit of human cognitive capability.

As illustrated in Figure I–2, the AAN process incorporates input and activities from multiple sources on an annual basis. This process begins with notional AAN operational concepts developed by TRADOC. These notional concepts are initially evaluated in tactical and strategic wargames. Attractive notional concepts of operations emerging from the wargames are subsequently analyzed by an Integrated Idea Team (IIT) composed of leading Army scientists and engineers drawn primarily from Army Materiel Command (AMC) organizations, industry, and the Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC), and other organizations for the purpose of defining notional system concepts. The IIT develops point designs for these notional systems based upon scientific and engineering judgments. The TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC) and RAND parametrically evaluate these point designs in a system–of–systems approach for the purpose of assessing their military utility and providing guidance on how to optimize the force structure that employs them. Further, an independent feasibility and affordability team, using expertise from industry, military laboratories, and academia, evaluates the emerging system concepts for technical feasibility and affordability. The subsequent concepts refined by this process are sent to TRADOC for evaluation. Those system concepts accepted by TRADOC are played in subsequent wargames. The IIT and the feasibility and affordability teams help TRADOC identify technologies that need advancement.

Figure I-2.  Science and Technology Support to Army After Next Concept Development
Click on the image to view enlarged version.
Figure I-2.  Science and Technology Support to
Army After Next Concept Development

Through the processes described above, a strong S&T investment strategy in support of AAN has begun to evolve. Given the timeframe of AAN (2020), the 6.1 and 6.2 accounts (basic and applied research) are the most relevant. Although practically all the ongoing 6.1 and 6.2 investment has been found to be relevant to a broad definition of AAN, closely coordinated efforts with TRADOC are under way to realign the 6.1 and 6.2 accounts to obtain increased focus on those technologies where progress is most needed to enable AAN concepts of operations. Specifically, the goal of this effort is to increase the 6.1 AAN–oriented Strategic Research Objectives (SROs) investment from 15 to 30 percent and to increase that portion of the 6.2 accounts focused specifically on AAN priorities. New SROs are being developed to synergistically focus various multidisciplinary research efforts on major research themes relevant to AAN (see Chapter V).

As part of this effort, a new 6.2 AAN Science and Technology Objective (STO) enhancement program has been budgeted for FY99 to encourage new 6.2 STOs to focus on AAN issues (Figure I–3). To achieve this objective, an AAN short list of high–priority, enabling technology thrusts resulting from the wargames process has been approved by TRADOC, distributed throughout the S&T community, and will be the basis for selection of enhanced AAN STOs through the Army Science and Technology Working Group (ASTWG) process.

Figure I-3. Army After Next Science and Technology Objectives
Click on the image to view enlarged version.
Figure I-3. Army After Next Science and Technology Objectives

Several independent assessments of S&T opportunities in support of AAN have also been initiated. Through the National Research Council’s Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST), an Army Science and Technology study on logistics demand has been initiated. The BAST is conducting a study to identify those 6.1 and 6.2 efforts that would enable system concepts that greatly reduce logistics demand in the timeframe of AAN. From this evaluation, the BAST is to propose an S&T investment plan and roadmap.

In addition, an Army Science Board (ASB) summer study has been chartered to assess S&T opportunities in support of AAN. The ASB is to provide comments on enabling technologies that could support a broad view of Army capabilities needed in 2020, and review and comment on the process described in Figure I–3.

Click here to go to next page of document