ARMY LETHALITY CHIEF PREDICTS FUTURE OF MILITARY ROBOTICS

FROM:  U.S. ARMY

WASHINGTON (April 10, 2015) -- Doctrine drives training and modernization, and new doctrine to be released in January 2016, will provide impetus for growth in the rapidly-evolving field of robotics, Lt. Col. Matt Dooley predicted.

Dooley, chief of the lethality branch at the Army Capabilities Integration Center, discussed the future of robotics in the Army during the National Defense Industrial Association-sponsored Ground Robotics Capabilities Conference and Exhibition, here, April 8.

Dooley said the new doctrine, "U.S. Army Robotics and Autonomous Systems Strategy," will drive science and technology investments, inform acquisition decisions, further the integration of robots throughout the force and codify the path forward.

Currently, there are references to manned-unmanned teaming and science and technology investments in Army Training and Doctrine Command, or TRADOC, Pamphlet 525-3-1, also called the "Army Operating Concept." But those references are in the appendix of that document. Right now, there is no single Army doctrinal manual devoted wholly to robotics.

Robotics consists of both ground and air vehicles, but Dooley's focus at the panel discussion was the ground aspects.

While the sky is full of unmanned air vehicles, Dooley said, squads have yet to see a similar number of systems in use on the ground, although there are some being used for explosive ordnance disposal and improvised explosive device, or IED, clearing operations.

Systems that a squad might find useful, he said, are those that can carry supplies, locate targets, and carry out surveillance and reconnaissance operations.

Dooley stressed, however, that no work is being done to give unmanned ground systems autonomous authority to engage targets.

War is essentially a human endeavor, he said, and the trigger-puller will be the Soldier. Besides that, Department of Defense, or DoD, Directive 3000.09 prohibits robots from using lethal force. The directive reads, in part: "Human-supervised autonomous weapon systems may be used to select and engage targets, with the exception of selecting humans as targets."

That restriction does not negate the tremendous capabilities robots bring to the battlefield, Dooley said.

ROBOTIC ANTI-ARMOR SYSTEM PREVIEW

Dooley was carrying a draft of the doctrine, which is being reviewed by various stakeholders - so he could not go into any detail about what is in it. But he did provide overall themes.

Robotic Anti-Armor System, or RAS, will tie robotics in with future expeditionary maneuver capabilities that will enable mutual support and mission command across extended distances, where forces are widely dispersed, he said.

Robotics will help Soldiers make contact with the enemy under conditions favorable to Soldiers, while presenting multiple dilemmas to the enemy. The human will always be in the loop when deciding to use lethal force, he said.

The new doctrinal manual will also cover the value of robots in force protection, he said, which brings up a critical question. What cost will the Army and the United States be willing to pay to develop robotics systems that can demonstrably save lives? It is "a morale and ethical decision" that will have to be made, he said.

Dooley explained that very expensive widgets can be added to robotics that would increase force protection, but a cost and a capabilities curve will need to be drawn to determine just how much Soldier protection the nation is willing to pay for.

Safeguards will also need to be built into such systems, he said, citing the DoD guidance which reads: "Semi-autonomous weapon systems that are onboard or integrated with unmanned platforms must be designed such that, in the event of degraded or lost communications, the system does not autonomously select and engage individual targets or specific target groups that have not been previously selected by an authorized human operator."

PRICKLY QUESTION

With the floor open for questions, a representative from industry asked why the Army would consider spending limited resources to develop robotics capabilities that will likely end up "flawed." Additionally, he said, the Army has already been successful using contractors to drive supply convoys, so there is not likely a need for autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles.

"The Army will need to articulate what levels [of protection] we get from our investments," Dooley said, and demonstrate that such autonomous robotics systems are not "pie-in-the-sky" investments.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Joe Bell, also on the panel, said "there's an urgent need to reduce risk [to Soldiers] today," not 10 years hence. "That's our No. 1 motivator."

Bell, now involved in the commercial defense industry, laid out a business model for robotics, saying it can cost $200,000 to armor some vehicles, not including storing and maintaining the armor kits. That would have to be factored into the cost-benefit analysis of using an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle.

A semi-autonomous system used in a leader-follower configuration would also save lives, because if the vehicle hit a mine or took enemy fire, no one would be killed.

Bell said if current technology were applied to a leader-follower system, as few as two Soldiers could convoy four to eight trucks.

Although there would be fewer Soldiers for the enemy to target, that also brings up the problem of less firepower. This issue could be addressed, he said, through mission command, meaning the commander would need to closely monitor the situation and have backup tactics, techniques and procedures in place to handle the unexpected.

Jim Parker, another panelist, argued against the notion that robotics is too expensive or not ready for development.

He said the Army is already making robotics work. At Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, for instance, autonomous vehicles are being tested to shuttle visitors and personnel around the installations.

Parker said that such incremental improvements will serve as building blocks toward the ultimate goal of off-road, difficult-weather and terrain negotiation. Parker is the associate director for Ground Vehicle Robotics, Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center.

DOD SAYS MILITARY SALES PROMOTES COOPERATION

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Foreign Military Sales Promote Security Cooperation
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 18, 2013 - Though 2012 was a banner fiscal year with $69.1 billion in foreign military sales, that program and others like it are not in the business of selling equipment, but rather are promoting military-to-military relationships with international partners, a Defense Security Cooperation Agency official said here yesterday.

Speaking at a ground robotics symposium hosted by the National Defense Industrial Association, Derek Gilman, DSCA's general counsel, said his agency promotes relationships by facilitating the purchase of defense equipment and services, financing, defense education and training and more.

"The idea," Gilman said, "is if partners have U.S. equipment and U.S. training and are following U.S. doctrine, our interoperability is greater with them."

Interoperability also can be leveraged through international acquisition and cross-servicing agreements for sharing such things as ammunition and spare parts, he added.

"That can lead, if you're sharing joint doctrine, to joint exercises and other types of military-to-military cooperation and ... to decades-long relationships -- core relationships -- with partners around the world," Gilman said.

The Foreign Military Sales program is a form of security assistance authorized by the Arms Export Control Act through which the United States may sell defense articles and services to foreign countries and international organizations. Under the program, the U.S. government and a foreign government enter into a sales agreement called a letter of offer and acceptance. The State Department determines which countries will have programs, and the Defense Department executes the program.

DSCA is the central agency that synchronizes global security cooperation programs, funding and efforts across the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the State Department, the combatant commands, the services and U.S. industry. The agency is responsible for the policy, processes, training and financial management needed to execute security cooperation within DOD.

The agency's mission areas cover a lot of ground, ranging from foreign military sales and foreign military financing to humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and mine action. DSCA also has programs for international military education and training and partnership capacity building.

DSCA has 12,881 active foreign military sales cases valued at $394 billion, 443 humanitarian projects worldwide, 768 security cooperation officers in 148 countries, 7,344 international students from 141 countries, and 7,090 participants in five regional centers around the world. DSCA does business with 227 countries and international organizations.

Foreign military sales represent the largest percentage of DSCA funds, with $69.1 billion in fiscal 2012, Gilman said, "but $29 billion of that is from the sale of 84 F-15s to Saudi Arabia, along with weapons and training and basing." He said that going forward, the agency expects about $30 billion a year, with about $25 billion in 2013 sales.

"But that's a significant increase over what we've had historically," he added.

Before fiscal 2006, DSCA foreign military sales hovered between $10 billion and $13 billion, Gilman said, adding that the agency has been doing more than twice that amount each year and expects that trend to continue because of an increased emphasis on foreign sales, interoperability and fighting in a coalition environment.

Other DSCA programs include:

-- Foreign Military Financing, $1.1 billion in fiscal 2012-2013: The bulk of this funding goes to Israel and Egypt, with the rest divided among several other countries. Funding amounts go out in grant letters so it is considered a conditional grant to the foreign country. "The money, however, does not go to the foreign country," Gilman said. "It stays in the FMF trust fund in the account for those countries and becomes new-year money. It's obligated upon apportionment, so it continues to be available for the purposes set forth in the current-year congressional budget justification."

-- International Military Education and Training program, $105.8 million in fiscal 2012: "IMET is a significant program whereby we provide education and training to folks from foreign militaries," Gilman said. "It has been a significant aid to the United States over the last 30 years in terms of helping build relationships with those who later go on to be senior members of partner militaries."

-- Special Defense Acquisition: "[This program] allows us to anticipate what the sales are going to be to foreign partners to buy defense articles in advance of those sales of high-demand sorts of items," Gilman explained, "and then to provide those items to our partners."

-- Excess Defense Articles: A major effort is going on now in this longstanding program with regard to Afghanistan, Gilman said, "and how we provide what we anticipate will be a large number of defense articles [there] to our foreign partners. It's a way to make sure we reduce the possibility of waste in terms of demilitarization on the ground in Afghanistan."

Looking ahead for DSCA, Gilman said building interoperability and sustainability and staying ahead of the competition are among the agency's key opportunities and challenges.

DSCA differs from what a customer might see in a direct commercial sale, such as in the Foreign Military Sales program, because the agency provides what Gilman described as a total-package approach. A partner in a direct commercial sale would have to go to several commercial vendors to determine its own commercial requirements, he explained.

"But DSCA will work with partners to say, 'This is the equipment you want to meet a certain need, these are the weapons you'll need to go with that equipment, this is the training you will need [and] these are the requirements you will need on your base,'" Gilman said. "And we can provide all that through letters of offer and acceptance as to an estimate of how much it will cost."

The agency also offers the advantage of the U.S. contracting process, he added, "so we can leverage our ability, especially if they're contracting for something that's already in the U.S. system, because we have an existing contract."

DSCA can leverage the fact that the agency is buying the item to keep the price down for the customer, Gilman said.

"Some customers have a less-than-transparent acquisition system [at home], and they like the transparency the U.S. acquisition system offers them, so there are a number of benefits," he added.

Other countries have had experience with foreign military sales, he said, and they prefer the DSCA approach.

"At the end of the day, we don't care whether they use FMS or DSCA, but what we do care about is that they buy U.S. products in whatever way is most effective for them," he said.

The agency also is seeing more pressure from traditional competitors such as the United Kingdom, France and Russia, and emerging competitors in China, India, Brazil, the European Union and elsewhere, Gilman said.

"China is becoming more and more of a player in the international armaments sales arena, and South Korea is becoming a significant competitor in the international armaments sales arena," he said. "The United States wants to maintain its role as the preeminent competitor for the reasons of building relationships with our partners."

COUNTERTERRORISM AND THE 'SMALL-FOOTPRINT' APPROACH

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

'Small-footprint' Operations Effective, Official Says

By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2013 - Counterterrorism operations in Somalia and Yemen demonstrate the value of "small-footprint" approaches and building partner capacity, the Pentagon's special operations chief said yesterday.

Michael A. Sheehan, assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, spoke here about the threat of terror in those and other countries during remarks at the National Defense Industrial Association's 24th Annual Special Operations and Low-intensity Conflict Symposium, which ended yesterday.

Sheehan pointed out the defense strategy released in January 2012 called for "innovative, low-cost approaches" in widely distributed counterterrorism efforts. In the year since that guidance was issued, such approaches have brought good results, he added.

"A year ago in Yemen, al-Qaida had taken over vast swaths of territory ... and was really threatening the state in Yemen, and also threatening to re-establish some capabilities that were very problematic," he said. "Over the past year, we've made great progress in Yemen."

With the support of U.S. special operations forces, he said, counterterror efforts there have "turned the corner."

Somalia also shows progress over the past year, he said, with al-Shabaab, a terrorist group that controlled large parts of the country, pushed out of the major cities.

"They haven't gone away," he added. "They're a persistent group. ... [But] you can see in our strategies, our policies and programs in Yemen and Somalia, some of the components of how our strategy might look in the months and years ahead."

Sheehan said while terror groups are known to spread and metastasize, the three traditional areas where al-Qaida is an entrenched threat are the mountainous area between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Yemen, and in East Africa.

"Those three traditional areas ... have been and will continue to be areas of al-Qaida persistence," he said. "Fortunately for us, we've been able to batter them in all of those three areas over the last 10 or 11 years with a great deal of success."

The measure of success against terror groups is their inability to mount strategic attacks, Sheehan said. He credits constant pressure on al-Qaida with diminishing that organization's ability to train and equip terrorists.

"Some people say we've been a little bit lucky, with the underwear bomber and other incidents that haven't quite gone right for al-Qaida, but I'd say it's more than luck," he said. "Because we put more pressure on them around the world, because it's more difficult for them to train and deploy operatives, they make more mistakes."

Sheehan said the failed May 1 bombing in New York's Times Square demonstrated his point. Faizal Shazad, an American citizen later sentenced to life in prison for the bombing attempt, failed, Sheehan said, because "he was trained by the Pakistan Taliban. He couldn't get to al-Qaida."

The bomb Shazad created didn't work, and he had no network to support him, Sheehan said. "He also wasn't a suicide bomber," the special operations chief noted. "Why? Because he wasn't in those camps long enough to be indoctrinated."

The factors that caused the attack to fail weren't just luck, Sheehan said, but "the result of enormous pressure put on the organization, that prevents them from planning, training and launching skilled operatives."

Maintaining that pressure against al-Qaida and similar groups is a task U.S. special operations forces and partner militaries are focused on around the world, he said. If such groups find sanctuary and a place where they can act with impunity, he warned, they can rebuild their strategic capability.

New and evolving terrorist threats are emerging in Syria and North Africa, Sheehan noted.

In Syria, where Bashar Assad's government forces and the people have battled for two years, Sheehan said, the al-Nusra Front is "very closely associated with al-Qaida ... and we believe they are trying to hijack [the] struggles of the Syrian people ... and perhaps put their own agenda on a post-Assad Syria."

In Africa, the Maghreb region along the Mediterranean Sea and the Saharan area of the Sahel "are of major concern to us," he said.

Libya, he added, is "awash with weapons," while Mali was the scene of a Tuareg tribal rebellion that was hijacked by al-Qaida and other affiliates, who gained control of an area about the size of Texas in the country's north.

The French have had great initial success in pushing back al-Qaida advances in Mali, Sheehan noted, but the whole northern part of the continent is seeing increased terrorist presence and involvement.

"All these groups share a similar al-Qaida narrative. ... In many ways, al-Qaida is seeking to rebrand itself and diversify into Africa, because they're able to find, in those ungoverned spaces, the sanctuary they need ... to become strategic," he said.

Northern Africa has the four elements al-Qaida needs to do just that, Sheehan said: ungoverned space, terrorist groups, weapons and funding. Countering al-Qaida requires both direct action and security force assistance, Sheehan said.

"In the long term, we recognize that we can't solely rely on precision strikes to defeat enemy networks and foster the kind of stability we need in these regions," he said. Such stability can best be established by aiding friends, partners and allies, he added.

Special operations forces play a major role in security force assistance as well as in direct action, Sheehan noted. Security force assistance takes two approaches, he explained: training local forces to control border areas and deny space and sanctuary to terrorists, and training specialized counterterror forces.

U.S. special operations forces have, throughout their history, focused largely on training host-nation militaries, Sheehan said.

In Somalia, he noted, "the African Union and a multinational force led by the Ugandans ... did a darn good job, and we helped them. Their job was to control space ... and push al-Shabaab off." Meanwhile, he added, other units focused on high-value targets and other leaders of the organization.

"Coupled together, we had a strategy that worked," Sheehan said.

Sheehan acknowledged that a partnered strategy holds risks. Other countries may embarrass the United States, or U.S. forces could get pulled into other conflicts, he said. But the risk of inaction is greater, he added, as it holds the danger of al-Qaida or other groups developing a strategic attack capability.

Special operations troops understand those risks and have the experience and maturity to manage them, Sheehan said. He noted security force assistance is a "classic" role for special operations forces.

They can deploy to far-flung places in small numbers to protect U.S. national interests and to work with partners "to continue to crush al-Qaida," he said.