News 1998 Army Science and Technology Master Plan

Annex C
Interaction With TRADOC

A. Introduction

Battle laboratories were created in response to the factors and implications of a changing world, strategy, budgetary reality, and a need for a new way of doing business. Battle laboratories have quickly demonstrated their values as places where new concepts and technologies can be investigated for their implications on the battlefield in the areas where warfighting appears to be changing most dramatically.

Following are the future operational capabilities (FOCs) developed by the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) combat developers. The combat development community included participants from all TRADOC schools, battle laboratories, the Army Materiel Command, Army Corps of Engineers, and the TRADOC Deputy Chief of Staff, Training and Space Operations. Identified in this annex are the TRADOC integrated FOCs, branch FOCs, and branch–specific FOCs.

This annex describes the FOC requirements generated by the Army’s combat developers and their identifiers.

FOCs are statements of operational capabilities required by the Army to develop the warfighting concepts (TRADOC Pamphlet (T.P.) 525 series) approved by commander, TRADOC. FOCs address specific warfighting capabilities not functions or operations. They describe those capabilities in operational terms and what must be done—not how to do it. The FOCs provide a standalone description of the capability. FOCs are enduring, they apply to tomorrow’s Army, but may be equally relevant to today’s or yesterday’s Army.

FOCs do not describe a deficiency or shortcoming. They do not provide or identify a system specification, specific technology, organization, or timeframe and they do not encompass an entire branch or functional concept. FOCs do not use relational or comparative words or phrases.

Applications include:

FOCs articulate required and desired capabilities that form the basis for determining warfighting requirements in doctrine, training, leader development, organizations, materiel, and soldier support systems. FOCs will form the basis for conducting experimentation to define and refine requirements. FOCs state desired capabilities across the full dimension of operations.

FOCs are used to focus organizational and functional structure changes through the force design update process as the Army changes its organization to meet national military strategy guidance.

FOCs are employed in the TRADOC science and technology (S&T) reviews as the yardstick for assessing the relevance of individual science and technology efforts. FOCs guide the Army’s S&T investment.

Materiel developers and industry use FOCs as a reference to guide independent research and development (R&D) and to facilitate horizontal technology integration.

Perceptions of shortfalls derived from S&T reviews generate dialogue with the materiel developers to confirm or resolve the perceived shortfalls. Confirmed shortfalls are to be considered in budgetary, planning, and programming reviews by the materiel developer. Shortfalls that exceed Army resource capabilities can be identified to industry to permit discretionary industry investments in needed areas.

FOCs are used within the Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP) process to provide a warfighting focus to technology–based funding.

FOCs are employed in the Army Science and Technology Objectives (STOs) process as the measure of warfighting merit. Candidate efforts selected as Army STOs within this process are published in the ASTMP as the most important S&T objectives for the Army R&D community. The STO review provides the basis for the construct of Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs). Army STOs receive senior Army leadership oversight and have priority for resourcing.

ATDs address selected high priority FOCs and demonstrate a capability that does not currently exist. ATDs are resource intensive and provide the medium to conduct troop interaction with mature technologies. The ATD demonstration plan is jointly developed between TRADOC and the materiel developer with exit criteria established to execute the ATD. ATD management plans are briefed to a council of colonels and approved at the Army Science and Technology Workgroup.

FOCs are used as a yardstick to assess the relevance of Advanced Concepts and Technology II (ACT II) broad agency announcement (BAA) topics and industry proposals to address these topics. The government determines which proposals will be funded. The government determines whether the technology offers a useful capability and, if so, how best to exploit it.

All warfighting requirements must have linkage through an FOC to an approved branch, operational, or functional concept supporting the overarching concept and the TRADOC commander’s vision.

FOCs may be updated at anytime given identification of new needs or opportunities for new capabilities.

At a minimum, T.P. 525–66 will be reviewed, updated, and published annually.

The elements to be reviewed and considered for updating the FOCs include:

– TRADOC approved concepts

– Operational lessons learned, including Center for Army Lessons Learned documents

– Commander in Chief integrated priority lists

– Opportunities from technology. TRADOC proponents will accrue awareness of opportunities from interaction with the S&T community throughout the year. The intent of TRADOC proponents’ interaction with technology should focus on understanding the potential battlefield capability benefits. In many cases, it will be the TRADOC proponent personnel’s operational knowledge of warfighting that may see applications otherwise unforeseen by the materiel developers.

– It is incumbent upon both the combat developer and materiel developer personnel to generate ideas of potential capability from the nexus of technology opportunity and warfighting operational concepts.

The following annual FOC review cycle is recommended:

Year Round—Combat developers accumulate inputs for FOC updates from sources listed above.

Summer/Fall—Conduct internal FOC review.

November—Combat developers publish draft update of FOCs and submit to Battle Laboratory Integration, Technology, and Concepts Directorate (BLITCD). BLITCD will disseminate draft FOCs to the other combat and materiel developers to solicit comments and additional information. Combat developers will review the draft FOC submissions for validity, overlap, duplication, omission, and potential for integration.

December—Combat developers publish revised updated FOCs, incorporating appropriate field input.

December—Headquarters (HQ) TRADOC, BLITCD conduct FOC integration workshop to exchange information and consolidate similar FOCs as may be appropriate.

January—HQ TRADOC task TRADOC schools and battle laboratories to review FOCs for commandant concurrence/comments.

February—HQ TRADOC BLITCD consolidate input from the combat developers.

March—HQ TRADOC submit final draft FOCs to the commanding general of TRADOC for approval.

May—Approved T.P. 525–66, FOCs published, distributed, and submitted as input to ASTMP.

January–May—Application of FOCs to TRADOC S&T review, Army STO review process, ACT II BAAs, concept experimentation program, and battle laboratories interactions with industry.

The combat developers will prepare FOCs for submission and inclusion in T.P. 525–66. FOCs will be formatted as outlined below. The four components of an FOC are identifier, title, description, and reference:

Identifier—All FOCs will use an identifier that will consist of the combat developer’s designator, a two–digit year of development and the three–digit sequential numeric capability designator, (i.e. Battle Command (Gordon)—BCG 97–001).

Title—The title of the FOC will describe a prevailing capability (e.g., missile warning, medical evacuation, logistics survivability) required to implement the warfighting concept from which it was derived.

Description—The description will state a required capability in operational terms (capability to . . .). The FOC will state what capability is needed, why the capability is needed, and the benefits expected from achieving this capability. The FOC will be a prevailing operational capability. Prevailing operational capabilities are those relevant capabilities that have endured over time and will still be relevant in the foreseeable future (e.g., logistics support battlefield visualization, direct/indirect fires, battlefield communications). The FOC will not identify a solution to the desired capability.

Reference—The combat developer will reference the concept document (525 series) from which the FOC is derived. This will identify the linkage between the FOC and the specific concept or draft concept (for initial FOC preparation) it was written to support.

Click here to go to next page of document