By Mr. Jason B. Cutshaw (USASMDC/ARSTRAT)July 28, 2011
REDSTONE ARSENAL, Ala. - One U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command directorate is studying ways to provide missile defense for American forces on current and future battlefields.
In July 2010, the command’s Future Warfare Center was contacted by Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense and asked to investigate what amount of constructive analysis support could be provided to support the Ballistic Missile Defense Planning Order to protect deployed troops.
“The primary purpose of the study was to determine how to go ahead on what level of readiness an area of operations would need to be in, in terms of missile defense,” said. Dr. Steve F. Pierce, director of the FWC, Decision Support Directorate. “(The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James E. Cartwright) tasked JFCC-IMD to lay out the architect on how to do that and specifically look at what type of a decision tool would be best for determining that.”
The DSD’s Studies and Analysis Division took a proactive role and provided a draft study plan on July 23, 2010 that included the measures of effectiveness as well as the requirements to conduct constructive analysis.
“Part of SMDC’s mission is missile defense and we are responsible for determining, especially with the Army in charge of the ground warfighters, what the missile defense requirements are out there,” Pierce said. “Most of the analysis we do really looks at combat development and acquisition. This is probably the third study we have conducted that really supported combatant commanders so it is very important and very ‘real world.’ We are talking about current operations and near-current operations requirements.”
The tool used in the analysis was Extended Air Defense Simulation, a Missile Defense Agency-approved threat trajectory generation simulation.
“EADSIM is our primary tool for all of the missile defense studies we do. It is the premier air and missile defense tool for studies and analysis. It is not an easy tool to use, but it is the best tool that is available,” said Martin Goodman, S&AD;. “To attest to its success, we have more than 300 users in the Department of Defense and they are all very pleased with the outcome.”
The S&AD;team was asked to look at three scenarios: one each for U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Central Command and U.S. European Command.
The analysis questions for each were: What is the duration of the missile defense systems against a limited strike? What is the duration of the missile defense systems given additional inventory? What is the effect on the duration, given an additional surge missile defense force? And, what is the effect given additional forces and inventory?
“Protecting our Soldiers is very important,” Pierce said. “One of the important products that came out of this was looking at how we need to realign our air and missile defense systems and forces to protect the troops.
“This is very important because every one of the combatant commanders are going to say they need more of all of these assets,” he added. “And what this study did was give the Joint Chiefs of Staff a better way of determining how much we need of all the different systems in different regions.”
On Aug. 30, Cartwright was briefed by Lt. Gen. Kevin T. Campbell, former SMDC commanding general, on the status of the BMD PLANORD. After the meeting and follow-on meetings between JFCC-IMD and FWC, the level of support the S&AD;provided was modified and increased and a new case matrix for constructive analysis was built.
“I was able to attend the meeting and was very impressed with how General Cartwright and General Campbell, in their discussions, were very cognizant of what the requirements are out there globally, not just in terms of missile defense but how that related to all of the other conditions,” Pierce said. “One of the questions General Cartwright threw out to all of the combatant commanders in that meeting was, ‘how do we relate all of these things with each other.’ His starting point was looking at ballistic missile defense and how do we determine what readiness level we need to be in at every one of the regional combatant commands.”
The new case matrixes included scenarios for EUCOM, CENTCOM and PACOM. For all scenarios, the base case was: steady-state BMD forces against 100 percent of the threat. The first alternative case was: steady-state BMD forces against 25 percent of the threat, and the second alternative was: steady-state BMD forces plus surge BMD forces against 100 percent of the threat.
“After the analysis was done and the combatant commanders saw the product, every one of the commanders from EUCOM, PACOM and CENTCOM came back and said we would like SMDC’s Decision Support Directorate, Studies and Analysis Division, to support us in some other analysis efforts that we have,” Pierce said. “It was an honor, and also attests to the professionalism and how good our guys are that we have the combatant commanders directly requesting analysis support from them. That is not a small thing.”
On Nov. 24, Campbell and JFCC-IMD met with Cartwright to present the study findings. Cartwright agreed with the analysis; however he directed more reference during the duration of active defense against a limited missile strike during beginning operations.
For future studies, there will be organizing to support additional analysis, an establishment of an on-site support team to address any future quick-turn constructive analysis support requirements as well as providing reach back support from home bases.
“It was an honor to support the warfighter,” Goodman said. “Usually we mostly focus all of our analysis on combat development and future system acquisitions. But supporting current-day operations and the warfighter today is always priority one for us.”