A detailed presentation on NCW takes you in depth of technology

1. Wait, did I forget my network?
Analyzing the Role of Weapons in
the Precision Engagement Pillar
of Network Centric Warfare
J. Bryan Lail, 520-794-2727
jblail@raytheon.com
Raytheon Missile Systems

2. What is Network Centric Warfare?
An information superiority-enabled concept of
operations that generates increased combat
power by networking sensors, decision makers,
and shooters to achieve shared awareness,
increased speed of command, higher tempo of
operations, greater lethality, increased
survivability, and a degree of self-synchronization
• C4ISR Cooperative Research Program, Sep 02
NCW translates information superiority into
“effects-based” combat power by effectively
linking knowledgeable entities in the battlespace
and enabling a new way of fighting wars
Whither Weapons?

3. Precision Engagement is a
component of achieving NCW,
requiring thorough tradeoffs
& study across the kill chain
A Concept of Operations is how the whole
warfighting kill chain can viably work, where
analysis can help determine the best CONOPS
Definitions
Network Centric Warfare is a method for performing
the whole kill chain with a completely new C2
doctrine, resulting in staying inside the enemy’s
OODA loop and therefore more efficient warfighting
Effects-Based Warfare focuses on military applications for shaping
behavior (friend and foe), where network centric warfare (the means)
combined with technology (the enabler) can provide incredible new
ways to provide that shaping quickly and overwhelmingly.

4. Time-Sensitive Targeting Process*
* JP 3-60 Joint Doctrine for Targeting, 17 Jan 02 Ŧ i.e. Army Company size
DETECT
DECIDE
STRIKE IDENTIFY
LOCATE
TARGET
RESTRIKE
ASSESS
Allocation to lower C2 units with shared battlespace awareness
• Perform manned/unmanned strike missions more like ground unitsŦ,
with authority to prosecute a battlespace within doctrinal/ROE limits
• A critical component of achieving self-synchronization

5. Toolset for Warfighter-focused Capability
• Assist in configuring/implementing joint battlespace
• Provide a tactics development/experiment capability
– Provide operator-in-the-loop by linking platform, BM/C2,
communications, mission planning, and weapon centers
– Represent varying levels of ROE, decision nodes and
timelines, sensor fusion, and effects of synchronization
• Demonstrate and test how Doctrine, Organization, and
Training (DOT) changes are enabled by new weapon
system concepts
DOT = Tech ?
DOT ≥ Tech ?

6. What are the roles of weapons in NCW?
• Destroy/Disable critical enemy information age capabilities
– Enemy’s ability to coordinate between nodes and/or hit us
asymmetrically through attacking our networks/comms
• Contribute to knowledge on the warfighter network*
- “L5”
– Long range (anti-access), Loitering (persistence), Linked (data from
weapon), Looking (searching seeker), Labeling (identification)
• Respond to improvements in the warfighter network
– Agile design and employment capability (retargeting weapon)
– Enable tactics improvements by warfighter through flexibility
• Provide cost effective inventory that mitigates the concerns
about “overlap” with shared battlespace awareness
– Given greatly reduced fratricide, assess trade between “wasted
weapons” vs. “better target prosecution” and IOC date
• Weapon Data Terminals (WDT), Searching Seekers, and such
technologies are the infostructure “entry fee” for weapon
systems to enter into the Information Age, not the final effect!
* Further enabled by “S3” – Speed, Survivability, and Sensor-linked cueing

7. What functionality/tools do we need?
• Finding the “right” C2 solution is very challenging
– Represent the varying functionality and effect of future
solutions, allowing the insertion of high fidelity C2 sims
– Assess Command and “Coordination” instead of “Control”
• Tools must be capable of assessing tactics changes
– Network-enabled tactics changes are the real effects boost
– Operator-in-the-loop tactics development
• Tools for future weapon concept representation
– Weapon systems as contributors to PBA
– L5, Speed, and Smaller weapons to “carry more”
– Impact of varying SA on weapon effectiveness
– Operator-in-the-loop for C2 and other MITL functions
Smart Autonomous w/2-way WDT, Searching Seeker,
Provide RT SA during Loiter, Decide to Attack, BDI
Dumb Weapon with
forward link terminal
Trade
Space

8. Modeling Requirements
Priority #1 – Analyst-friendly requirements analysis tool
• Parameterize sensor/launcher placement, timelines, connectivity
• Provide visual interface to alter parameters, automated results
SAG
CAP
SAG
CAP
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Range from CAP (nm)
Percent
of
Targets
TBM
CM
SAM
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total Delay (min)
Percent
Targets
Engagable
2000ft/s
3000ft/s
4000ft/s
5000ft/s

9. Constructive Modeling
Priority #2 – Campaign model improvements for NCW
• Requires a model that can be easily modified/upgraded
• Scenario development fed from requirements analysis tool
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
Weapon Battle Aircraft TBMD
Campaign
Cost
($B)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
Weapon Battle Aircraft TBMD
Campaign
Cost
($B)
Architecture Analysis
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
Attack Mobiles
Attack Relocatables
Increase
In
Weapon
Cost
$Million
Decrease
in
Battle
and
Aircraft
Cost
$Million
BLU-97
Seeker
BLU-97
BAT
BLU-108
NRT Update
Seeker-
BLU-108
BLU-108
CAIV Analysis
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Shared Battlespace Awareness
Loiter
Persistence
(hrs)

10. Simulation Interoperability Tool Kit
HLA / DIS
Exercise
Management
System
Visualization
Global
Hi - Res 3D
Scenario
Development
Data Collection
Reduction
Generic
Missile Server
External Links
- to anywhere
required, given
compatible
protocols
Force on Force Models
Engineering Models (6 Dof)
Hardware in the Loop
Test Beds
Strike Test Bed
Air-to-Air Test Bed
Land Combat Test Bed
BMD/SNADS Test Bed
Distributed Testbeds
Live Test Events

11. • Distributed testbeds are a method to simulate the
breadth of the strike kill chain with each “piece”
coming from anywhere and in any compatible form
(Live test event, HITL, Engineering Simulation)
• Distributed testbed applications include:
– CONOPS Demonstration and Development
– Kill Chain Analysis at any level of fidelity required
– Simulation-Based Acquisition (Warfighter/ITL Testing)
– Training the warfighter to help them develop requirements
• Same core capability is used for demonstration,
experimentation, concept proof, and DT/OT
– System Analysis/Experiment, OFP Testing/Deployment
• A distributed testbed is not a campaign tool or a
replacement for specialized constructive models
Distributed Testbeds

12. See Interactive Visualization from Distributed Simulation Run (Strike_Testbed_Mar03.mov)
Testbed Performance Prediction

13. Movie Demo – Future of Testbeds
See Unmanned Airborne Weapon System Movie Demonstration (Strike_Testbed_Future.mov)

14. Are you SURE the target is
20ft below sea level?
• Most of the right basic tools exist
− They aren’t yet being used efficiently and directed for
growth towards supporting the warfighter in experimenting
and defining requirements for netcentric operations
• The future of net-centric toolsets is in distributed
testbeds linked to models with capability to assess
NCW “means” to effects-based warfare “ends”
• Weapon systems will play a larger role in enabling
net-centric operations than has been acknowledged