Space Based Radar – the Warfighter's Perspective

1. Space Based Radar – the Warfighter's Perspective 5th International MAS Symposium June 2002 Mike Tomlinson mike.tomlinson@qr.com 256-864-8355 Distribution A: Approved for Public Release; distribution unlimited

2. Agenda • Studies and Analysis Division Background • Top Level Study Objectives and Methodology • Dominant Maneuver Force-on-Force Modeling Overview • Janus and Systems Effectiveness Analysis Simulation (SEAS) Results • Summary

3. Studies & Analysis Division SMD Battle Lab Organization SMDBL Director Deputy Director Deputy for Space BL Operations Div. Simulations Directorate Huntsville Space Directorate Colorado Springs Missile Defense Directorate Huntsville Simulations Development Division Huntsville Concepts and Initiatives Division Colorado Springs Combat Applications Division Huntsville Computer Resources Division Huntsville Experiments Division Colorado Springs Exercises & Training Division Huntsville Special Projects Division Huntsville Testbed Product Office Huntsville JNTF

4. Studies & Analysis Division - Mission - • Support experimentation through experimental • design, data collection, and post event analyses • Conduct analyses in support of materiel development • activities and requirements determination • Assess advanced concepts • Analytically support the definition of space and missile defense architectures for the future warfighter

5. Top Level Study Objectives and Methodology Study Objectives • Provide an analysis-based determination of Space Based Radar (SBR) capability to provide Persistent Global Situation Awareness • Show quantifiable utility of SBR for selected missions • Obtain Service, Joint, and Intelligence Community (IC) perspectives on SBR • Support the formal requirements, architecture, and analysis of alternatives processes • Present study results to the Milestone-A review Study Methodology • Focus on the utility of SBR to find, track, and ID moving and fixed objects to support Persistent Global Situation Awareness in 2010+ • Time-critical targeting for SEAD and Missile Defense in Major Theater War (MTW) • Precision Engagement, Dominant Maneuver Vignettes • Persistent Global IPB, I&W (Peacetime/Crisis) • Peacetime/ Crisis / Naval Situation Awareness • Used an architecture-neutral, top-down methodology for utility evaluation • in context of multi-INT ISR (Robust Baseline that included airborne MTI Providers) • Used reasonable SBR architectures • Used only to develop a range of potential SBR performance • Not sufficient to make constellation recommendations – only for insight

6. Dominant Maneuver Force-on-Force Modeling Study Purpose for Dominant Maneuver Analyze the potential military utility of Space Based Radar for dominant maneuver mission in order to support formal requirements, architecture and analysis of alternatives process. Essential Elements of Analysis for Dominant Maneuver • EEA 1. What is the value added to the Blue Force when Space Based Radar is utilized to assist in developing situational awareness in the Army deep fight? • EEA 2. How effective is a JSTARS equipped Blue force without knowledge provided by Space Based Radar compared to a case withknowledge provided by Space Based Radar? • EEA 3. How does Space Based information timeliness affect the Blue commander’s ability to conduct the deep fight in terms of force effectiveness? • EEA 4. Does the Blue Force make critical decisions based on information provided by Space Based Radar SAR based upon Space Based Radar GMTI detections? • EEA 5. How effective is the Blue Force when Space Based Radar has the ability to maintain a track on a high payoff target? 6

7. ~260 km X X X NAI I AA 3 NAI NAI GORDO UAV X AA 2 AA 4 UAV X X ~100 km IBCT AA 1 KAZAR I XX ARFOR(-) SKANDIA I MACRA MLRS I I I ATACMS Tools and Scenarios Systems Effectiveness Analysis Simulation (SEAS) Janus • Closed Form , Force-on-Force, Stochastic Model • Division/Corp Echelon • IBCT Scenario • Threat in Offensive Posture • Blue ISR Assets- • Airborne Platforms • EO/IR • GMTI • Space Platforms • SAR • GMTI • End Game Criteria- 26 hours • Man-in-the-Loop, Force-on-Force, Stochastic Model • Battalion Echelon • Deep Attack with Helicopters and ATACMS • Threat in Defensive Posture • Blue ISR Assets- • Airborne Platforms • EO/IR • GMTI • Space Platforms • SAR • GMTI • End Game Criteria- 3 hours 7

8. Helicopters Blue Artillery UAVs Fixed Wing Satellite Down Link and Comm Architecture Timeliness Communication delay for SAR is the time from satellite collection to the shooter GMTI information is broadcasted out with communication delays that are near real-time Space GMTI/SAR • Direct Downlink Assumed • Only Space information that Blue directly shoots off of is SAR • GMTI is used to cue organic sensors and SBR SAR • 10 Minutes • 20 Minutes Direct Downlink 8

9. Satellite Constellation Satellite Tool Kit (STK) Analysis : Model satellites in STK • Satellite constellation with multiple sensors modeled on each satellite • Any satellite platform/constellation with individual orbital elements can be modeled • Provides capabilities for analyzing satellite coverage over time Satellites’ access to Area of Interest

10. Satellite Constellation Define satellite sensor types SATELLITE RANGE to Area of Interest GMTI (50km x 50 km box) -- Altitude Spot SAR (4km x4km box) -- STK output provides access times to Area of Interest based on sensor parameters Satellites Time

11. Janus Results 11

12. Base Case (no SBR) With SBR SAR 20 minute delay, No HRR With SBR SAR 10 minute delay, No HRR With SBR SAR 20 minute delay, w/ HRR With SBR SAR 10 minute delay w/ HRR (12) AH-64 Apache (2) OH-58 Kiowa Warrior Aviation I I I (2) F-16 MLRS Rockets (SEAD) MLRS ATACMS Block I (6 missiles) Fixed Wing SEAD Artillery I I I Janus Scenario and Forces Modeled Run Matrix Deep Red Assets (10) Dismounted Team (2) ADA Gun (8) SAMs (1) ADA Radar ADA NAI NAI NAI UAV (3) TBM Type 1 (3) TBM Type 2 TELs UAV (34) Truck/ Re-supply Vehicles Support/ Other ~100 km BLUE Red & Blue Forces MLRS ISR Assets (5) Airborne Platforms (1) Space Constellation ATACMS 12

13. ISR Assets for Deep Attack 4 SAR Accesses in Base Case / Airborne is limited due to LOS issues Airborne Platform Accesses 17 SBR SAR Accesses in SBR cases SBR SAR SBR SAR and GMTI Access SBR GMTI Constant GMTI SBR Access in SBR cases 0 1.5 3 hours Time 13

14. Coverage Base Case Coverage Space-Based Coverage Janus Deep Attack Area 14

15. 10 Minute Delay 20 Minute Delay 5.3 Type A Losses Statistically Different from BC 2.5 Statistically Different from BC Type B Losses Statistically Different from BC 2.3 15 Janus Key Findings • Timely Space information directly improves Blue’s survivability, lethality and force effectiveness. • Blue Helicopter losses decreased by over 61% between 20 and 10 min SBR delays. • Red Losses increased over 21% between 20 and 10 minute SBR delays. • GMTI enabled Blue to cue SAR in order to quickly locate stationary Red TELs prior to shooting and engage them with ATACMS and helicopters. • Red TEL Shots decreased by over 78% when Blue had HRR capability. • In a precision deep attack, tracking capability significantly enhances Blue’s TEL hunting capability. • Red TEL Losses increased by over 128% when Blue had HRR capability.

16. SEAS Results 16

17. Red forces unexpectedly cross the national borders and attack on multiple avenues of approach when the Blue force is stretched along the north/south axis. T-55s and T-72s, BMP-2s and BRDM-2s w/AT, 2S1 SP and 152mm SP Howitzers, Towed 120mm Mortars, ADA (SA-13s) • - 3 Motorized Infantry Brigades • - Mechanized Infantry Brigade • - Armored Brigade • - Artillery Brigade (152mm SP Howitzers, 122mm MRLs) • - ISR: Organic UAVs The ARFOR commander leads the attack from the south into Kazar with the IBCT to secure the Airfield to permit forward build-up of follow-on forces. - Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) (MGS, LAV, HIMARS Battery) - Mechanized Infantry Brigade - Attack Aviation Battalion (AH-64D, OH-58D) - Artillery Brigade (MLRS Battery (ATACMS and Rkts), HIMARS Battalion (-) (Rkts only)) - Airborne Infantry Battalion w/ Towed 105mm Battery - ADA Battery (Avenger, Linebacker, Sentinel) - Fixed Wing Ground Attack Squadron (F-16s) - ISR Assets : Airborne and Space Platforms X X X AA 3 GORDO X AA 4 AA 2 X Airfield Run Matrix X IBCT Base Case (no Space) AA 1 KAZAR With Exemplar Space constellation (10 minute delay) XX ARFOR(-) SKANDIA With Perfect Space (10 minute delay) MACRA SEAS Scenario Description 17

18. MTRBDE MTRBDE TKBDE MTR BN MTRBN MTRBDE MTR BN MECH BDE MTR BN MTR BN TK BN MTR BN MTR BN IBCT Airborne Bn MECH BDE 19 -SAR SPOT (ID) HIMARS BN (-) 8 -GMTI WAS (Blip Only) MLRS Btry Airborne Platforms ARFOR (Helicopters, Fixed Wing) Airborne Platforms SEAS Scenario • Prior to Red crossing the border, Red infiltrated eight battle groups in small units during the hours of darkness • Battle lasts approximately 26 hours after the IBCT starts movement and NAIs planned based on IPB and tempo of Blue maneuver 18

19. Coverage Base Case Coverage Space-Based Radar Coverage Seas Scenario Area 19

20. Different from BC SEAS Screen Capture SEAS Key Findings • SBR enhances situational awareness and decision making in the Deep Fight which improves prosecution of targets with air and artillery before direct fire forces close to engage • 37% increase in Red losses to air and artillery from the BC to the SBR Case. • LER increased by over 35% from the BC to the SBR LEO Case. 391.4 374.4 302.4 Different from BC 20

21. Summary • Space must be an integral part of the Objective Force equation • Army Experimentation has shown that Space can quickly be normalized by commanders and staff officers • Space Assets Provide: • Worldwide Information Gathering • Ground Movement Indication • Potential Attack Capability • Communication Enhancement • Emerging Analysis indicates Force multiplier that improves maneuver, fires, future planning, and near real-time Situational Awareness.