ABIS Task Force Report
Sensor-to-Shooter Working Group Results

Executive Summary

Definition and Scope
The Challenge

Definition and Scope The Challenge - Slide

Effectively executing combat operations in a joint force environment involving many ground, air, space, and shipboard resources entails two key challenges:

1. From within a universe of many joint force resources, individual sensors and shooters must be tasked and provided with the necessary priorities and targeting information needed to carry out multiple specific missions against multiple specific targets to achieve all of the battle manager's objectives. The development and maturation of processors to assist in decision making and optimization of finite sensor and weapons assets is the first of two key challenges. This challenge is referred to in this report as coordination of missions.

2. For each individual mission, the information linkages must be established between sensors and shooters to enable the timely execution of missions, especially time-critical missions. Because, ideally, the sensors can be time shared among many shooters (in addition to the battle manager), effective and efficient implementation of these linkages and the ability to pass information through them will inevitably require the establishment of execution controllers performing real-time or near real-time C2 operations. The development of this operational architecture is discussed subsequently in the context of the needed development timeline. In this environment, the key operational concept required is one of distributed command and control, with an execution controller for each sensor-to-shooter execution team (which is really a sensor-to-C2-to-shooter team) performing many of the same functions that the battle manager performs. However, the sensor-to-shooter team plans how the mission is to be executed, whereas the battle manager plans what will be executed. Thus, the C2 for each sensor-to-shooter team requires functional capability similar to that of the battle manager, but for an increased depth of detail spanning a reduced breadth of area of interest and having a much stronger focus on the timeliness of the information versus its completeness.

This nested loop flow model of the Sensor-to-Shooter (STS) Operational Concept will be used in subsequent discussions of STS operations. The outer loop, which represents the longer cycle of battle management operations, splits into two branches, one branch containing the inner loop of sensor-to-shooter operations as a special case. Key observations about the nature of the STS operations follow:

• Sensor-to-shooter operations include many of the same functions in battle management operations (e.g., sensor tasking and information acquisition). This is so because the sensor-to-shooter operations begin when the mission is assigned to the mission leader. At this point, the sensor-to-shooter execution team (sensors, shooters, and execution controllers) must perform the same functions in planning how the mission is to be executed that the battle managers performed in planning what will be executed. Therefore, the sensor-to-shooter team requires the same functional capability as the battle manager, but for an increased depth of detail spanning a narrower area of interest. Although it has a different emphasis on timeliness and level of detail, this functional commonality with battle management is the essence of the sensor-to-shooter challenge.

• Sensor-to-shooter operations are basically of two types, those that are executing the preplanned ATO (that is, the outer loop including the lower branch) and those that are providing assets for highly responsive and autonomous operations against fleeting targets (that is, the fast, seconds to minutes, inner loop). These are discussed in detail in subsequent sections.

• Although it is not obvious from the figure, a key element of integrated sensor-to-shooter operations is the fact that there are multiple cases of these executing elements operating simultaneously. This means the battle manager must plan the synchronized operations of several hundred missions while enabling dozens of highly responsive and autonomous missions against fleeting targets.

• None of the elements of any specific sensor-to-shooter team are necessarily dedicated to a single mission for an entire sortie. On the contrary, for maximum effectiveness in the entire battlespace, sensor sorties in particular will be time shared across many missions.

This figure presents the overall schedule for developing operational architectures. As illustrated, the precision strike architecture has been completed and is in the process of being implemented. Subsequent steps are to include ground maneuver and cooperative defense operations in the operational architecture for implementation. Also depicted are the ABIS study's integration with these efforts and the eventual use of the C4ISR Decision Support System and Joint Battle Center for follow-on technical assessments.

The future Precision Strike Architecture is a product of previous J6 Sensor-to-Shooter series of ongoing studies as shown in the preceding figure. For each mission, the information linkages, such as those recommended in this chart, must be established between sensors and shooters to enable the timely execution of missions, especially time-critical missions against combat situations (against fleeting targets such as multiple rocket launchers and Theater Ballistic Missile TELs). Ideally, national, theater, and tactical sensors can be time shared among many shooters (in addition to the battle manager). Effective and efficient implementation of these linkages and passing information through them will inevitably require the establishment of information/collection managers performing real-time or near real-time C2I operations. The development of this operational sensor-to-target pairing architecture is discussed subsequently in the context of the needed development as one of the critical technology focus areas.

The key attributes of the proposed sensor-to-shooter system concept are that they are parallel, fast, and dynamic, versus the current characterization as serial, slow, and nonresponsive. These capabilities will be enabled largely by key elements of the Grid concept, providing battlespace awareness, that is, simultaneous access to battlespace information by shooters and execution controllers as well as by battle managers. With the black arrows indicating command and the other arrows indicating information flow, the figure shows that future operations will separate the information flow from the command cycle. This is necessary to achieve the desired responsiveness. Furthermore, this characteristic is also a major driver in the need for dynamic planning capabilities and parallel operations.

In the proposed system concept, the sensors will continuously input new information into battlespace awareness databases while both executing elements (shooters and controllers) and battle managers will simultaneously be able to retrieve information or have it automatically retrieved and formatted into the appropriate applications/displays. In this manner, today's conflict of competing sensor tasking will be resolved using integrated sensor management techniques. Although the battle manager is seeking battlefield information throughout the entire battlespace, the shooters are seeking targeting information. This means that the shooter needs target location and identification, situation awareness in the target area, and clearance to shoot. Primarily, current shooters do not have adequate situation awareness in the target area. The connectivity and access achieved through implementation of the Grid will provide situational awareness, thus enabling shooters to execute the sensor-to-shooter operations successfully.

By considering system concepts like those shown in the figure, the 38-member ABIS Sensor-to-Shooter Working Group developed a crosswalk of required operational capabilities for precision strike operations, coordinated air defense operations, and ground maneuver operations. In this process, six detailed vignettes of operational capabilities were developed and assessed to ensure the identification of technologies needed to execute critical operational capabilities. Each of these vignettes represents a situation that will be replicated many times in an operational environment; a number of these vignettes are discussed in this report.

Integrating these required operational capabilities for the three mission areas yielded two critical operational capabilities for execution of sensor-to-shooter operations: the ability to coordinate multiple simultaneous missions (including preplanned execution of the ATO/ITO and the highly responsive, autonomous missions against time-critical targets), and the ability to execute time-critical operations. In both cases, the need for parallel, fast, and dynamic operations remains a key consideration. Both of these operational capabilities are specifically addressed in subsequent figures, but first the mapping process using four key technology demonstrations is illustrated.

The four key technology demonstrations form key cross-service and cross-mission themes of technologies needed to solve operational limitations. As depicted in the figure, these demonstrations will enhance the shooter's effectiveness by giving the execution controller the tools and capabilities needed to enable time-critical, shooter-focused decisions and to execute these decisions in a joint environment.

These demonstrations take several forms. Some will be new demonstrations proposed for consideration with other proposed FY 97 ACTDs. Others will leverage existing proposed demonstrations with endorsements and, in selected instances, expansion of scope to include both multiple services and expanded mission areas.

The key characteristics of the proposed demonstrations are that they allow tactical warfighters to address targets in parallel, and employ dynamic and fast breaking tactical situations that will be typical of local regional conflicts, major regional conflicts and contingency operations of the future.

In the proposed demonstrations, sensors will continuously input new information into battlespace awareness databases that both executing elements (shooters and controllers) and battle managers will be able to access.

The following figures expand each of these areas into a technology roadmap that provides a candidate initial plan of action (defining each phase with target class, weapons systems, and key junctures along the critical path). These roadmaps are not unique -- any of several approaches could achieve the same ends. However, to fulfill the goal of the ABIS study, at least one approach to achieve the desired ends is presented for each case.

The first recommended demonstration is Weapon-to-Target Pairing. This capability will enable the execution controller to quickly select and allocate joint force weapons that are available, can reach the target in both range and in timeliness, and have adequate lethality to achieve the commander's intent. Because the execution controller must execute several sensor-to-shooter missions essentially simultaneously, the capability to execute against multiple target sets is necessary.

It is recommended that the demonstration have three phases:
• Phase 1-Single weapon versus a single ground target set
• Phase 2-Multiple weapons versus multiple ground target sets
• Phase 3-Multiple weapons versus multiple ground and air target sets.

The first phase is essentially the same demonstration capability planned by the Army's Precision-Rapid Counter MRL ACTD against 240 mm multiple rocket launchers. Therefore, the primary purpose of this recommendation is to initiate early planning for logical extensions of the ACTD into joint force capabilities against multiple arrays of ground targets, followed by an extension enabling an integrated force versus both ground and air targets.

The second demonstration is similar to the first, but focuses on the problem of competition for sensors, that is, a Sensor-to-Target Pairing demonstration. This capability will enable the execution controller to select and allocate time slots of sensor capabilities and dedicate them, for a specific period of time, to individual missions in which shooters need current situation awareness. However, while the shooter support must be achieved in a timely manner, the impact of dynamic sensor retasking must be minimized so that the overall surveillance coverage of the target area is still achieved, thereby achieving the battle manager's information requirements.

This demonstration is inherently a joint demonstration because all key theater sensors are joint service sensors. Therefore, three phases are suggested:

• Phase 1-Single sensor (imagery) and single platform (UAV)
• Phase 2-Single sensor type (imagery) and multiple platforms (UAVs, U-2s, and overhead assets)
• Phase 3-Multiple sensor types (imagery, SIGINT, MTI, etc.) and multiple platforms.

Phases 1 and 2 include elements similar to several proposed ACTDs. These are strongly endorsed. However, several dimensions must be added to address all of the relevant issues: for example, sensor pointing only versus redirecting flight paths, multiple orbit and multiple day optimization of target information.

The Integrated Fusion/Target Tracking demonstration focuses on developing birth-to-death tracks of hostile targets. This capability entails correlation of tracks from different sensors of the same type and different types of sensors tracking the entire spectrum of target behaviors. A key capability is the development and maintenance of a single, unique-track ID. Through the CEC program, the Navy is already developing these capabilities for air targets. Consequently, these track management methods should be extended to ground targets and eventually integrated into a complete air-ground display of the battlespace by mission areas.

As illustrated in the accompanying figure, it is proposed that the demonstration have three phases:

• Phase 1-Air targets
• Phase 2-Ground targets
• Phase 3-Integrated air-ground targets.

The Automated Target Recognition demonstration focuses on the problem of rapid detection and recognition of target behaviors in multispectral signature regimes. Key MOEs are the time to detect and recognize relevant targets with high probabilities of success and low false alarm probabilities. An integrated measurements and target behavior characterization program is also a requirement for building a meaningful library of target signatures that can be used at any of several nodes in the end-to-end sensor-to-shooter "kill chain." The recommended demonstration program is focused primarily on the technology itself, not on the implementation architecture. Thus, this capability can be resident onboard sensors, at intelligence/fusion nodes, and at C2 nodes as well as with the execution controller. Depending on the theater architecture chosen for implementation, this overall capability may be distributed or centralized, parallel or serial, or any of several other alternatives. These implementation issues are not specifically recommended to be addressed in this demonstration. However, when the architecture has been selected, the technology implementation can be partitioned as appropriate.

The demonstration is suggested in three phases, based on complexity of target behaviors and the diversity of spectral signatures and sensors available:

• Phase 1-Temporarily stationary targets, imaging signatures
• Phase 2-Moving and stationary targets, imaging signatures
• Phase 3-Moving and stationary targets, imaging and other signatures.

After assessing precision strike, coordinated defense, and ground maneuver operations, the Sensor-to-Shooter Working Group determined that the primary problem hampering sensor-to-shooter operations is the competition for sensors between battle managers and shooters. Historically, the battle manager wins, leaving the shooter with inadequate information to carry out the mission effectively.

As a result, many proposals are under consideration to provide the shooter with real-time imagery. However, the findings of this working group indicate that another answer, that is, enabling a distributed command and control approach, will provide the shooter with the targeting information that is really needed, thereby making the shooter more effective than can be accomplished through inundation with additional information. This solution entails two elements: the development of revised processes (and the tools to support them), and the identification and development of architectures and links providing the needed connectivity. Because a parallel, complementary effort is being conducted under J6I sponsorship, the efforts of the ABIS STS Working Group were focused on the technologies necessary to implement the revised processes.