K. KOHRI

T

Developing Battlefield-Supportable Systems ThroughInteractive Seminars: A Biological Defense SystemExample

Karen Kohri

he equipment, systems, and operational procedures used by warfighters andoperators in the field must evolve to meet today’s ever-changing operationalenvironment. These changes can result from evolving doctrine or policy, but moreoften are due to new operational environments or increasing types and numbers ofthreats in those environments. To help warfighters meet the challenge, new systems arecontinually being developed and existing systems continually modified or retired.Through interactive seminars, warfighters and developers can be brought together todiscuss how technology can be used and adapted into the warfighters’ environment.(Keywords: Biological defense, Biological warfare, Interactive seminar process,JBREWS.)

INTRODUCTIONNew threats, changing policy and doctrine, and

different operational environments all pose challengesto warfighters. In each situation, they rely on availablesystems to meet these challenges. In general, these“systems” can be thought of as anything that the war-fighters use to defend, protect, communicate, transport,etc., in order to succeed. The “users” of these systemscan be defined as both those using the informationabout or from a given system and those operating thesystem. It is ultimately these users that help to establishthe changes needed to the systems to better meet thechallenges faced by the warfighters of the future. As aresult, new systems are continually being developed and

256 JO

old systems are continually being modified or retired inthe face of these changing user needs.

Generally, once new user needs have been defined,developers work to satisfy those needs by applying thelatest technology to the problem. The developer’s jobis to devise new and sometimes innovative ways to meetuser requirements. It is not uncommon for a system tobe built from the developer’s perspective of the user’sneeds, especially if the developers are working indepen-dently of the intended users. Sometimes the developersmay not be aware of all the nuances of the user’senvironment(s). They may, in the interest of buildingthe “best” system, overlook the need to fully integrate

HNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000)

DEVELOPING BATTLEFIELD-SUPPORTABLE SYSTEMS

the system into the user’s operational environment.Often the users of the new system are not involved inits development and may not see it until it is field testedor even deployed. At this point, it may be too late tochange the system. The users can then be left with asystem which for them is less than optimal. They musteither use it as is, modify it or how it is used, or, in someextreme cases, choose not to use it at all.

In the past few years—in an effort to rapidly fill gapsin the operational capabilities of warfighters and cir-cumvent the long, tedious process of traditional re-search, development, and acquisition—the AdvancedConcept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) processwas initiated. The ACTD can accelerate the traditionalprocess by applying mature, advanced, and affordabletechnologies to solve important military problems. Itprovides an interim capability whereby the user canevaluate, in the field, the ability of new concepts andtechnologies to adequately solve problems prior to along, expensive acquisition process. The final systemcomponents or “residuals” developed during the ACTDprocess are then given to the sponsoring Comman-der(s)-in-Chief (CINCs) at the end of a demonstration.The successes, failures, and lessons learned from theACTD are then applied to a follow-on process andinfluence the decision for long-term acquisition. In thisscheme, the users have input into the development ofthe final system should it be determined that it will betransitioned to an acquisition program.

One problem with the ACTD process arises whenthe system under development is perceived as the onlyavailable solution. In this case, the sponsoring CINC(s)may want to employ the residuals from the ACTD asa battlefield-supportable system. Therefore, the resid-uals must be developed not only to prove the systemconcept but also to be robust and rugged enough in itsdesign to be truly fieldable. The sponsoring CINC(s)may not be able to wait for the “final” system to beprocured through a traditional acquisition cycle.

In order to produce a battlefield-supportable system,the users’ input is critical during the development phaseof the ACTD process. Through interactive seminars,users and developers can collaborate on significantissues, i.e., the usefulness of the technology to theuser and the ways in which the technology can bestbe adapted to the user’s environment. The followingdiscussion illustrates the benefits of these seminars.

A SEMINAR EXAMPLESystems used today to detect biological warfare

agents were designed to detect specific threats in spe-cific types of scenarios, i.e., coverage of large and gen-eral support areas, tactical warning for naval forcesafloat, and warning for established high-value, fixed-site assets. However, a more affordable, easily deployed

JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2

early biological detection and warning capability isneeded that is organic to the unit. In particular, asystem is required that is designed specifically for troopconcentrations in temporary positions that are vulner-able to biological warfare attack. Troop and equipmentconcentrations such as assembly areas, logistics sites,headquarters, and immature air bases/ports are partic-ularly vulnerable to such attacks during an initial build-up of forces (Fig. 1). The protection of troops againstbiological warfare agents, specifically the early detec-tion of these agents to warn and hence protect thesetroop concentrations, is the subject of the Joint Biolog-ical Remote Early Warning System (JBREWS) ACTD.

The JBREWS ACTD has three basic components:point sensors, a short-range biological standoff detector,and a sensor network command post (SNCP) and as-sociated communications links. Each point sensor col-lects and concentrates circulating air particles into asolution and tests the sample for the presence of specificbiological warfare agents (Fig. 2a). The short-rangebiological standoff detector is a combined infrared andultraviolet laser system that can “interrogate” suspectbiological warfare clouds at a distance for the presenceof biological material (Fig. 2b). The SNCP is a laptopcomputer that controls the point sensors and standoffdetector within its area of responsibility. It also providesthe output displays used to run and monitor the sensors(Fig. 2c). The JBREWS components were designed tooperate together as a single system, thereby providingearly detection and warning of a biological attack ontroops in an assembly area.

The CINC of the U.S. European Command (CINC-EUR) is the sponsor and operational manager of theJBREWS ACTD. The Joint Program Manager for Bi-ological Defense (JPM BD) is the demonstration man-ager and is responsible for developing the system. TheseACTD managers recognized from the outset of thisdemonstration that, because of the urgent need forsuch a system, the residuals would have to be battle-field supportable immediately. Hence, user input wascritical during the development of the system and itsconcept of operations (CONOPS). To facilitate thedevelopment of the CONOPS and provide a forumwhereby users could influence the design of the system,CINCEUR sponsored a series of seminars and wargames designated Silent Breeze.

Seminar ApproachThe Silent Breeze I seminar, conducted in April

1998, was specifically designed to encourage discussionamong attendees at a level of detail that would enablethe users to affect the design and development of boththe system itself and the CONOPS. The following toolsand documentation were used in the conduct and sup-port of this seminar:

000) 257

K. KOHRI

Figure 1. Scenario involving a biological warfare agent attack on Joint Force staging areas.

Landing area

Large support area

Fixed site

Enemy launchers

• Briefing charts provided a basic structure forthe seminar and were used to present thesystem design and background information.

• Computer graphics provided illustrations ofscenarios that helped attendees explore keyissues for those situations.

• A local network of laptop computers—theElectronic Seminar Support System—al-lowed participants to record their ideasanonymously, look at ideas suggested byother participants, and communicatewith other participants (in addition to nor-mal conversation).

• A reference notebook provided backup ma-terial on biological warfare, detection sys-tems, threats, and initial JBREWS ACTDdevelopment plans.

• Early prototypes and poster displays of theJBREWS ACTD system provided visual andhands-on knowledge to participants.

• A “strawman” CONOPS document pro-vided data to be used as the starting point fordeveloping the system CONOPS.

Since most of the attendees were notfamiliar with the JBREWS ACTD and biolog-ical warfare itself, the first half day of the3-day seminar was devoted to giving them

258

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 2. The JBREWS ACTD comprises (a) a point sensor (shown here infield setup), (b) a short-range biological detector mounted on a HUMMWV,and (c) a SNCP (sensor control screen shown here).

JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000)

background information on the threat, existing biolog-ical defense systems, and the JBREWS ACTD. The restof the seminar was devoted to evaluating and assessingthe design of the JBREWS ACTD components anddeveloping the CONOPS.

To focus the discussion at the required level of detail,the issues were divided into four discussion sections.The sections were not presented in operational se-quence because it was important to obtain user under-standing of the utility of the system prior to discussingthe issues associated with its predeployment and sus-tainment. JBREWS interfaces with users as well asother systems were also explored.

Employment

Issues dealing with the deployment, setup, connec-tivity, early warning reporting, operation, and trans-portability of the JBREWS ACTD components werediscussed in the context of U.S. forces flowing intolarge general-support areas in a host nation’s territory.Details such as the preferred power source(s), vehiclemount versus ground placement, and weight and sizeof JBREWS components were reviewed in this sec-tion. In addition, the placement of the individualsensor components and the command post was dis-cussed in much detail.

Sustainment

This section covered issues relat-ed to maintenance and the logisticsassociated with deploying and oper-ating the system as forces remainedwithin the support areas or flowedinto or out of those areas. The crit-ical issues in these discussions werethe frequency and type of mainte-nance that would have to be per-formed on the system. In addition,responsibility for the system had tobe established as troops moved intoand out of the support area.

Predeployment

Here, issues related to the logis-tics unique to predeployment aswell as personnel training for set-ting up and operating the system intheater were examined. Critical tothese discussions were establishingownership of the system, providingfor its storage location, determin-ing its state of readiness prior todeployment, and resolving itsmeans of transportation to thestaging area.

JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2

DEVELOPING BATTLEFIELD-SUPPORTABLE SYSTEMS

Other Issues

Information flow, system displays, planning tools,and archive procedures were also covered in the lastpart of the seminar. The chain-of-custody proceduresfor positive agent identification samples was discussed.Addition points in question were also examined, e.g.,what information should be passed between the SNCPoperating JBREWS and higher headquarters.

The users were also able to give input to the devel-opers on the design of displays for the command postand function indicator lights for system components.They commented on the types of planning tools desiredand schemes for automatically archiving the informa-tion as well.

Seminar ImpactInput from the users at the first seminar had a sig-

nificant impact on the design of the system and itsCONOPS, e.g.,

• Command and control should be retained at theBattalion headquarters, with information forwardedto the Brigade headquarters as required. This differedfrom the original plan, which was to direct the com-mand and control from Brigade headquarters (Fig. 3).

• None of the components would be vehicle mounted.• Certain components would only need simple indica-

tor lights to allow the user (i.e., the soldier settingthem up) to verify proper functioning.

Brigadecommand

post

Battalion command post(sensor command and control)

Standoffdetector

Point sensor

Communicationlinks

Figure 3. Brigade-sized staging area showing the JBREWS command and controlhierarchy.

000) 259

K. KOHRI

• Warning lights and horns would be located on se-lected components, and these could be disabled iftheir location and the operational situation war-ranted it.

• Some circumstances require that a sensor operateindependently from the rest of the system, includingthe command post.

• Computer displays that included sensor locations andtheir operational status overlaid on terrain data weredesirable.

• Planning tools that aided the Commander in theinitial layout of the components were also desirable.

• All data would be archived on CDs.

SUMMARYThe preceding list is only a small example of how

the first seminar alone impacted the design of the sys-tem and the development of the CONOPS. Changes

260 JO

made as a result of this initial interactive seminar werepresented to the users in the context of a war game atSilent Breeze II, held in September 1998. Further re-finements were made to both the system and theCONOPS as a result of this war game. A final seminarwill be held after the system has undergone several fieldtests. The objectives of this last seminar will be topresent the final JBREWS ACTD design configurationand validate the CONOPS.

Although the example presented in this articledemonstrates how the seminar process facilitates opendialogue between future users of an ACTD system andits developers, it can also be applied to the developmentof systems in a standard acquisition process. Such di-alogue results in user “buy in” to the system whileemphasizing, to the developer, what is really importantto those who will eventually operate and depend on thesystem. The ultimate result is a warfighter-accepted andbattlefield-supportable system.

THE AUTHOR

KAREN KOHRI received a B.S. in physics from Drexel University in 1982. Sheis a member of the APL Senior Professional Staff in JWAD and a ProgramManager for Theater Air and Missile Defense Warfare Analysis Programs forBMDO. Ms. Kohri joined APL in 1982. Her technical expertise includes Air andMissile Defense, Chemical and Biological Defense, and Strategic Ballistic MissileWeapon System analysis. She has many years of experience moderating andfacilitating technical meetings, including briefing high-level senior officials fromboth the United States and allied countries, leading technical teams inpreparation for WALEXs, and evaluating future military systems concepts andarchitectures. Ms. Kohri was appointed to the Counterproliferation BusinessCouncil in 1999. Her e-mail address is karen.kohri@jhuapl.edu.

HNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 21, NUMBER 2 (2000)