The document proposes a system-of-systems approach to achieve more discriminate and scalable weapon effects in urban warfare. It involves deploying sensor packages to detect and identify civilians, then using autonomous weapon control to safely redirect or modify weapon effects if civilians are present. A notional scenario is described where sensor packages are deployed into a building to identify enemy and civilian locations and signatures. Based on the sensor data, an autonomous weapon either redirects itself or uses tailored effects to minimize civilian harm. Technical challenges and relevant discrimination and weapon technologies are discussed. A demonstration program and advanced concept development roadmap are proposed.

1. Dr. Gabriel Pei October 14, 2014
GP&A
Delivering Scalable and Tailorable Weapon Effects (White Paper)
A dominant theme for 21st century warfare will be joint combat and coordinated fires in highly populated urban zones. The likelihood that future combat will occur in densely populated areas increases the pressure to avoid civil casualties and damage along with the concomitant difficulties of applying combat power effectively - particularly if the enemy deliberately uses the population for concealment and cover. Further, such urban combat scenarios should be considered as routine mission assignments for conventional land and air forces against both regular and irregular forces. The DoD Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO) v1.01 identifies the following top-level combat concepts for urban warfare:
• Maximize discrimination through precision, scalable actions and informed judgment, while understanding the inherent limits to discrimination in combat (JCC-24).
• Improve the capabilities to apply adequate but discriminate combat power in populated urban settings (JCC-32)
In order to achieve these goals for air-delivered strikes or supporting fires, it is essential to advance the current C4SIR and sensor capabilities to achieve highly accurate identification and discrimination information at the impact area. The accuracy should be maintained throughout the end-game phase prior to time of impact. Further, the weapon or munition should able to adaptively respond to the dynamic engagement environment. To engage non-line-of-sight (NLOS) targets positioned within urban structures, housing non-combatant populations, the following mission capabilities are required:
• Detection of civilian presence within the lethal radius of the impact area, i.e. the weapons effects zone
• Discrimination of civilian presence by age and gender to maximum extent possible
• Autonomous and remote weapon controls for aborting, rendering inert, self-destruct, and redirection
• Scalable and/or tailorable application of weapon effects, including lethal or non-lethal effects
Successful outcomes of the engagement are prioritized in the following order:
• Disengagement and redirection of weapon if unacceptable levels of collateral casualties are estimated at the impact area
• Successful application of weapon effects to enemy presence at the impact area if minimally acceptable levels of collateral casualties may be achieved
• Weapon self-destruct or self-inert of payload if above outcomes cannot be achieved
In summary, the overall concept is to maintain and refine the targeting process and kill-chain throughout the final seconds of engagement, including penetration of urban structures and up to the release of weapon effects. Battlespace resolution must be increased in order to discriminate and separate individuals, by age or gender if possible, in the impact area. This white paper proposes a CONOPS based on a systems-of-systems approach, identifies technical challenges, reviews state-of-art and applicable emerging technologies, and develops a roadmap for program implementation.
1 Capstone Concept for Joint Operations, Activity Concepts, Department of Defense, 8 Nov 2010 1

2. Dr. Gabriel Pei October 14, 2014
GP&A
CONOPS / Systems-of-Systems (SoS) Concept
For the proposed CONOPS, an operational scenario will consist of (5) five (possibly overlapping) phases:
• (Phase 1) Initial assessment of collateral casualties in the weapon effects zone
• (Phase 2) Collection of proximity sensor discrimination data
• (Phase 3) Weapon release and flyout
• (Phase 4) Autonomous weapon control
• (Phase 5) Follow-up courses-of-action (if necessary)
Scenarios can include air-delivered strikes, indirect fire support, and/or combinations of both. We discuss selected issues associated with the overall CONOPS and each operational phase. Overall mission success is critically dependent on resolving the following concerns:
• Seamless distributed command and control (C2) for asset synchronization, C2 handovers and meeting tactical decision timelines
• Precision guidance and delivery systems to achieve CEP requirements
• Interoperability and reliability of information exchanges between ISR surveillance systems, tactical intelligence data links, C2 nodes and weapon delivery systems
• Tight integration between the weapon targeting package, communications package, guidance and control, sensor payload and weapon actuators to minimize latencies
 For Phase 1, it will be assumed that ISR and intelligence assets will provide the initial targeting parameters, including detailed information on the presence, numbers, types and activities of non- combatants in the weapon impact area. ISR data will feed higher echelon collateral casualty models to provide initial collateral casualty assessments. Additionally, detailed sensor models will generate predictions of civilian activities and signatures in the vicinity of the impact area.
 During Phase 2, confirmation of civilian presence, civilian activities and signatures is performed by proximity discrimination sensor packages delivered directly to the projected impact area. The collected discrimination data is also fused with continuously ISR collected data to update collateral casualty estimates. Real-time updates of the surveillance and targeting data will be fused and forwarded to the appropriate C2 nodes, fire direction centers (FDC), strike platforms, and onboard weapon command packages.
 Assuming the weapon effects zone is judged to be sufficiently clear and/or the estimated collateral casualties are acceptable (Phase 2), a Scalable/Tailorable Effects Weapon (STEW) is released (Phase 3). Note that Phase 3 may overlap with Phase 2 provided the weapon can be countermanded or is capable of autonomous decision-making during terminal engagement stage (Phase 4).
 During the end-game (Phase 4), targeting, discrimination and weapon effects decisions will be controlled by the weapon/munition onboard processor. Examples of weapon effects decisions include mission abort, target redirection, self-destruct, self-inert or selectable application of effects.
To illustrate, consider the following hypothetical scenario or use case.
2

3. Dr. Gabriel Pei October 14, 2014
GP&A
A multi-story residential building in an urban zone is under surveillance. Enemy presence in the building has been detected and the building has been selected for the candidate target list. Intelligence reports and tactical data indicate high probability of civilian presence including families with children. One possibility is that the civilians are mostly confined to the lower levels and basement while the enemy conducts operations from the rooftop and upper level vantage points. Surveillance indicates temporal patterns to the enemy operations. Collateral casualty modeled estimates are judged acceptable if a strike is launched when enemy forces are concentrated at levels and rooftop. The selected mission assets include:
• (1) Airborne strike platform carrying
– Precision guided (PG)/discrimination sensor cluster (DSC) packages
– Precision strike weapon with autonomous control
• (1) Ground-based indirect fire support battery with
– Kinetic impact penetrator (KIP)/ (DSC) packages
• Supporting ISR, C2 and fire direction assets
At T=XXXX hours, airborne video indicates the beginning of enemy movement as the standing watch is relieved. A call for fire is issued and at T+x (seconds), multiple KIP/DSC arrivals penetrate the building walls and upper floors. Clusters of sensors are dispersed through the upper levels but no structural damage is caused. The KIP/DSC sensors collect acoustic and motion detection data and form an ad-hoc network. Simultaneously, a PG/DSC package is launched from the airborne asset to arrive at the target within y seconds of the initial KIP impact. The PG/DSC package deploys over the building rooftop suspended by an altitude-position controlled balloon. The PG/DSC package includes video sensors and a datalink relay to the KIP/DSC sensors. The STEW weapon is launched at T+x+y+z, with time of impact estimated at T+x+y+z+l. The STEW command processor assumes autonomous control at T+x+y+z+l-δ However prior to the estimated impact time, at T+x+y+z+s (where l-δ < s < l), the uplinked acoustic data reveals signatures correlating to an infant and a woman. The weapon command processor safes the arming circuit and redirects the weapon to a nearby secondary target. The command processor requests any available discrimination information for the secondary target but is unable to achieve a high confidence estimate of collateral casualties. The processor issues a self-destruct command.
Figure 1. Notional Operational Scenario and Timelines
T=XXXX T+xT+x+yT+x+y+zT+x+y+z+sT+x+y+z+l•ISR video•Call for fire•Estimated impact time•Weapon launch•PG/DSC package deployed •Data links established•KIP/DSC packages deployed at target location•Civilian presence confirmed•Weapon redirectedT+x+y+z+l-δ•Autonomous control
3

4. Dr. Gabriel Pei October 14, 2014
GP&A
The above scenario can be elaborated in many dimensions, depending on the available discrimination sensing technologies; the degree of weapon autonomy; and the scalability of weapon effects. Ultimately, the goal should be to refine these capabilities to selectively attack or incapacitate adversaries anywhere in the battlespace without unacceptable collateral casualties.
Technical Challenges / State-of-Art
A discussion of technical challenges and relevant technologies is presented.
Discrimination Sensor Technologies
Discrimination of civilian presences, activity patterns and signatures typically requires placing sensors in fairly close proximity to the area of interest. Line-of-sight occlusions and multipath can degrade sensor performance. The urban sensing environment is highly cluttered, generating high false alarm rates which may translate into missed tactical opportunities if a conservative decision logic is applied. Finally, as discussed earlier, compressed timelines limit data collection time windows, which also reduces discrimination performance. To ameliorate these difficulties, emphasis is focused on leveraging the proximity sensors to provide confirmation or elimination of existing discrimination hypotheses or states that are generated a priori from other data sources, e.g. ISR or intelligence reports.
As discussed in the example, acoustic signatures and voice recognition can provide good discriminatory information. Imaging sensors provide strong discrimination but may be limited by occluded fields-of- view. Multi-spectral cameras can distinguish the presence of military gear and uniforms. Body controller gaming technologies are also a relevant area of investigation. For example, Nintendo Wii and Xbox Kinect motion detection and depth sensor algorithms can be adapted to interpret body movements, gestures and other activities. Through-the-wall (TTW) technologies, using high frequency RF waveforms for 3D localization and tracking of human hand movements, can achieve an accuracy of several centimeters. 3D imaging technologies, e.g. MMW or backscatter, pose significant packaging and delivery difficulties. Biometric signatures are an unproven area, however gas/aerosol sensors that detect levels of CO2 and water vapor, and infrared body heat sensors can provide indicators of human presence and activities.
Table 1. Proximity Discrimination Signatures2
2 A Survey of Human Sensing Methods for Detecting Presence, Count, Location, Track and Identity, T. Teixeira, G. Dublon, A. Savvides, ACM Computing Surveys, 2012.
Disrimination ModalitySignature(s)ConfidenceProximitySensingCountBiophysical, thermal, chemicalHigh3 - 5 metersInfrared, bolometric, CO2, humidityLocalizationMotion, range/depthModerate3 - 5 metersRFActivitiesMotion, gesture, acoustic, vibration featuresModerate3 - 5 metersRF, Acoustic/VLFAgeVoice/speech featuresModerate3 - 5 metersAcousticGenderVoice/speech featuresModerate3 - 5 metersAcousticNon-combatant objectsImage/spectral features, range/depthModerate5 - 8 metersOptical, RFCombatant objectsImage/spectral features range/depthModerate5 - 8 metersOptical, RFNon-combatant presenceImage/spectral featuresLow5 - 8 metersOpticalCombatant presenceImage/spectral featuresLow5 - 8 metersOpticalBiometricsVery Low< 1 meterMMW, ultrasound
4

5. Dr. Gabriel Pei October 14, 2014
GP&A
All discrimination signatures will be geo-referenced with a common time base through an ad-hoc self- organizing network. The key engineering focus will be on survivability and cost. The sensor packages will be designed to be expendable and to function for a limited duration.
Penetration and dispersal of the sensor clusters throughout an urban structure will be a key requirement. Several types of kinetic impact penetrators (metal alloy or liquid metal) are available but must be customized for sensor payloads and delivery systems. Two variants will be considered – light structural penetrators/single DSC package; and multi-stage/multi-DSC package delivery systems.
Autonomous Weapon Behaviors
The CONOPS will be significantly shaped by the weapon intelligence and decision making capabilities. A major mission consideration is that tactical opportunities may be fleeting, i.e. a strike with acceptable collateral casualties may only be available for a few minutes. Ideally the weapon behaviors can extend the battlespace and timelines by deferring actions or dynamically adapting to discrimination information. Some novel operational concepts are:
• Terminal tracking and impact adjustment – assuming precise navigation, guidance and control the weapon impact point may be adjusted in the terminal phase based on discrimination data
• Delayed action fuzing – weapon effects are delayed after impact, and triggered when discrimination information indicates effects zone is sufficiently clear of civilians
• Coordinated attacks – two (or more) weapons are launched, separated in time. The second (follower) weapon performs battle damage assessment (BDA) on the results from the first (leader) weapon to determine its subsequent course of action (COA).
• Weapon effects control – scalable or focused weapon effects (see section below)
Scalable and Tailorable Weapon Effects
This technology area includes lethal and non-lethal effects. A partial list of potentially relevant technologies is provided. Newer technologies will require customization and integration with the STEW effects controller, triggering and detonation mechanisms.
• Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) – shaping and timing of multi-phase explosives
• Dense Inert Metal Explosives (DIME) – tuned focused energy release
• MAgneto Hydrodynamic Explosive Munition (MAHEM) – controlled and timed explosive jets
• Reactive Material Structures (RMS) – release of blast energy from high-strength materials on demand
• Controllable anti-personnel dispersal patterns
• Incapacitating agents –temporary immobilization of targets, allows extended discrimination times for follow-up attack
• Neuromuscular blocking paralytics via atomized inhalant/gas or skin absorption, e.g.
- Vercuronium (Norcuron) - 60 seconds to onset, 30-40 minutes duration
- Succinylcholine (Suxamethonium) - 30 seconds onset, 5-10 minutes duration,
- Kolokol-1 (Moscow 2002 theater siege, opioid-based agent containing carfentanil) - few seconds onset, several hours duration
5

6. Dr. Gabriel Pei October 14, 2014
GP&A
Program Roadmap
A notional program roadmap is provided.
 Phase 1 – Demonstration Program
1) Objectives
 Define CONOPS
 Define system concepts and requirements
 Design / Integrate / Test prototype technologies
• Discrimination Technologies
• Structure Penetration Systems
• Scalable and Tailorable Effects Weapon (STEW)
 Demonstration of Prototypes
2) Outcomes
 Assess measures of effectiveness (MOEs)
 Down-select/prioritize technologies for further development
 Finalize CONOPS and SoS architecture
 Build DoD partnering relationships
 Phase 2 – Advanced Concept Development
1) Objectives
 Complete (2) or more system concepts
 Operational testing of system concepts at DoD facility
 Finalize DoD MOU/MOA for further development and operational testing
2) Outcomes
 Validate operational effectiveness and suitability of system concepts
 Transition system concepts and technologies to DoD partners
6