JOINT WARFIGHTER S&T PLAN
CHAPTER II -- VISION AND STRATEGY

A. JOINT VISION 2010

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Joint Vision 2010 (JV 2010) (Reference 4) is the conceptual template that provides a common direction to help the military services develop their unique capabilities within a joint framework of doctrine and programs. JV 2010 builds on the enduring foundation of high-quality people and innovative leadership. The traditional concepts of maneuver, strike, protection, and logistics are leveraged with technological advances and information superiority to produce improvements that are potentially so powerful that they become, in effect, new operational concepts. As shown in Figure II-1, these operational concepts emerge as:

These new operational concepts interact to create the powerful, synergistic effect of full-spectrum dominance—the capability to dominate an adversary across the full range of military operations. Full-spectrum dominance emerges as a key characteristic of U.S. armed forces for the 21st century.

B. JOINT WARFIGHTING CAPABILITY OBJECTIVE

Achieving Joint Vision 2010 will, in large measure, depend on the ability to achieve and exploit the 10 Joint Warfighting Capability Objectives (JWCOs) described below and discussed in detail in Chapter IV. These objectives, developed by the Joint Staff in collaboration with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the service science and technology executives, represent some of the most critical capabilities for maintaining the warfighting advantage of U.S. forces. The JWCOs support the four leveraged operational concepts of full-spectrum dominance, as shown in Table II-1.

Figure II-1. The Concept of Joint Vision 2010

Table II-1. Joint Warfighting Support of Joint Vision 2010

Joint Warfighting Capability Objectives Joint Vision 2010
Operational Concepts
A. Information Superiority
B. Precision Force


C. Combat Identification


D. Joint Theater Missile Defense



E.Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT)


F. Joint Readiness and Logistics
G. Joint Countermine


H.Electronic Combat


I. Chemical/Biological Warfare Defense and Protection
J. Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction



Strong Support
Moderate Support

Information Superiority combines the capabilities of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) to acquire and assimilate information needed to dominate and neutralize adversary forces and effectively employ friendly forces. It includes the capability for near-real-time awareness of the location and activity of friendly, adversary, and neutral forces throughout the battlefield area. It also includes a seamless, robust C4 network linking all friendly forces to provide common awareness of the current situation throughout the battlefield area. Information superiority encompasses information warfare—that is, the capability to affect an adversary's information, information-based processes, information systems, and computer-based networks while defending one's own information, information-based processes, information systems, and computer-based networks.

Precision Force is the capability to destroy selected targets with precision while limiting collateral damage. It includes precision guided munitions, surveillance, targeting capabilities, and the "sensor-to-shooter" C4I capabilities necessary for responsive, timely force application.

Combat Identification is the capability to differentiate potential targets as friend, foe, or neutral in sufficient time, with high confidence, and at the requisite range to support weapon release and engagement decisions.

Joint Theater Missile Defense is the capability to use the assets of multiple services and agencies to detect, track, acquire, and destroy enemy theater ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. It includes the seamless flow of information on missile launches by specialized surveillance capabilities, through tracking by sensors from multiple services and agencies, to missile negation or destruction.

Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) is the capability to operate and conduct military operations in built-up areas and to achieve military objectives with minimum casualties and collateral damage. It includes precise weapons, surveillance, navigation, and communications effective in urban areas.

Joint Readiness and Logistics is the capability to enhance readiness and logistics for joint and combined operations. It includes capabilities for enhanced simulation for training; improved and affordable operations and maintenance (O&M) and life-cycle costs; mobility and sustainability (i.e., transportation support technologies, speed of delivery); and near-real-time visibility of people, units, equipment, and supplies that are in storage, in process, in transit, or in theater, linked with the ability to act on this information.

Joint Countermine is the capability for assured, rapid surveillance, reconnaissance, detection, and neutralization of mines to enable forced entry by expeditionary forces. It includes the capability to control the sea and to conduct amphibious and ground force operational maneuvers against hostile defensive forces employing sea, littoral, and land mines. For land forces, dominance means the ability to conduct in-stride tempo operations in the face of severe land mine threats.

Electronic Combat is the capability to disrupt or degrade an enemy's defenses throughout the area and time required to permit the deployment and employment of U.S. and allied combat systems. It includes the capabilities for deceiving, disrupting, and destroying the surveillance and command and control systems as well as the weapons of an enemy's integrated air defense network; and the capabilities for recognizing attempts by hostile systems to track or engage.

Chemical/Biological Warfare Defense and Protection is the capability for standoff detection of biological agents—our single most pressing need. Capabilities in both point and standoff detection of chemical and biological agents, combined with the ability to assess and disseminate threat information in a timely manner, are critical to protecting fielded forces.

Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is the capability to detect and evaluate the existence of a manufacturing capability for WMD, and to identify and assess the weapon capability of alert and launched WMDs on the battlefield to permit the appropriate level of counterforce to be exerted promptly. It includes counterforce against hardened WMD storage and production facilities.

C. JOINT WARFIGHTING CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS

The Joint Warfighting Capabilities Assessment (JWCA) process—supported by the unified commanders-in-chief, services, and defense agencies—identifies opportunities for improving warfighting effectiveness. The JWCA must also take into consideration finding affordable S&T solutions to joint warfighting needs. This continuous process provides insights into issues involving joint warfighting requirements, readiness, plans for recapitalization, and support for joint requirements and resource recommendations. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), composed of the Vice Chiefs of Staff of the four services and chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, oversees the JWCA process.

The relationship between the 10 JWCA areas and the 10 JWCOs is shown in Table II-2.

D. S&T STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

Oversight. The Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), is responsible for the overall direction, quality, and content of the DoD S&T Program. The DDR&E has established an integrated S&T strategic planning process to effectively discharge these responsibilities. This process is accomplished and coordinated through Defense Science and Technology Reliance. Development of the BRP, DTAP, JWSTP, and supporting DTOs is the responsibility of the Defense S&T Reliance Executive Committee (EXCOM). Membership of the EXCOM is shown below:

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Deputy DDR&E, Chairman

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research and Technology)

Chief of Naval Research

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Science, Technology, and Engineering)

Deputy Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Assistant Deputy Director for Technology, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization Deputy Director, Defense Special Weapons Agency

Table II-2. Relationship Between Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment Areas
and Joint Warfighting Capability Objectives

Joint Warfighting Capability Objectives JWCA Areas
A. Information Superiority
B. Precision Force





C. Combat Identification






D. Joint Theater Missile Defense






E. Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT)








F. Joint Readiness and Logistics





G. Joint Countermine




H.Electronic Combat







I. Chemical/Biological Warfare Defense and Protection









J. Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction






Strong Support
Moderate Support

When significant actions are undertaken, an Expanded EXCOM is convened to ensure the widest possible coordination within the DoD research and development community. The membership of the Expanded EXCOM is shown below:

EXPANDED EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

EXCOM Chair and Members

Deputy for Chemical/Biological Matters, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs)

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (Clinical Services)

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Technology

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space

Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition, Army Materiel Command

Director of Navy Test and Evaluation and Technology Requirements, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

Deputy for Science and Technology, Air Force Materiel Command

Chairperson, Joint Engineers

Chairperson, Training and Personnel Systems Science and Technology Evaluation Management Committee (TAPSTEM)

The preparation of the JWSTP is also guided by the Joint Warfighting Panel (JWP). The JWP consists of the following members:

JOINT WARFIGHTING PANEL

EXCOM Chair and Members

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Advanced Technology)

Director, Force Structure, Resources and Assessment (J-8), Joint Chiefs of Staff

The EXCOM oversees the work of the Defense Committee on Research (DCOR), which is responsible for preparation of the BRP; the 10 technology area panels responsible for preparation of the DTAP; and the 10 JWCO panels responsible for preparation of the JWSTP. These plans build on—but do not duplicate—the service/agency S&T plans. They also consider recent technology forecasts such as OSD's Revolution in Military Affairs, the Air Force's New World Vistas, the Army's Force XXI and Army After Next, the Navy's Navy After Next, and the Marine Corps' Sea Dragon efforts.

To ensure that the integrated S&T planning is responsive to the strategy, the Defense S&T Reliance network has developed the following goals to guide the effort:

Defense Technology Objectives. The focus of the S&T investment is enhanced and guided through Defense Technology Objectives (DTOs). Each DTO identifies a specific technology advancement that will be developed or demonstrated, the anticipated date of technology availability, the specific benefits resulting from the technology advance, and the funding planned to achieve the new capability. These benefits not only include increased military operational capabilities but also address other important areas, including affordability and dual-use applications, that have received special emphasis in the Defense Science and Technology Strategy. JWSTP DTOs are limited to Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs) and Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs). A key responsibility of the EXCOM is to review and approve DTOs. The total of approximately 300 DTOs represents 65 percent of the total 6.2 and 6.3 FY98 funding.

The DTOs that support achievement of specific functional and operational capabilities within each JWCO are listed in Chapter IV for each of the 10 JWCOs. Collectively, the JWCOs and the supporting DTOs from the DTAP will receive 28 percent of the 6.2 and 6.3 budgets in FY98. Figures II-2 and II-3 show the funding allocation to the DTOs cited in this JWSTP, those cited in the DTAP, and the remainder of the 6.2- and 6.3-funded program. Not every needed technology program is captured in a DTO. If the entire DoD S&T program were to be defined by DTOs in the Defense Science and Technology Strategy and its supporting plans, the services and agencies would lack the flexibility to seize local opportunities. A balanced, innovative program requires that flexibility be retained at the service, agency, and local laboratory levels.

Figure II-2. Joint Warfighting Capability Objectives Funding, Fiscal Year 1998

Figure II-2. DTO Share of Defense 6.2 and 6.3 Investment

The full texts of the DTAP and JWSTP DTOs are contained in a separate volume of these plans. The DTOs are presented in two parts—one for the DTAP and one for this JWSTP. The DTAP DTO number consists of a two-letter prefix corresponding to the names of the 10 technology areas addressed in that document, a two-digit number that represents the DTO sequence, and a second two-digit number that is an undefined field. The letter prefix for the JWSTP DTO number corresponds to the 10 sections (A through J) of Chapter IV of this document, followed by a two-digit sequence number. Thus, DTO numbers easily distinguish JWSTP from DTAP DTOs. The DTO sequence numbers do not connote priorities.

JWSTP Development. The 10 JWCO panel chairpersons are responsible for preparing their respective JWSTP sections. JWCO panel membership consists of service representatives, appropriate defense agency technical specialists, and representatives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Most panels are chaired by a senior OSD or defense agency S&T manager. The 10 JWCO panel chairs are shown below:

JWCO PANEL CHAIRS
Information Superiority Panel Mr. Edward Brady, ODDR&E
Precision Force Panel Mr. Harold Bertrand, IDA
Mr. Bernard Paiewonsky, IDA
Combat Identification Panel Mr. John Buchheister, OASD(C3I)
Joint Theater Missile Defense Panel Col John O'Pray, ODDR&E
Military Operations in Urban Terrain Panel Col James Wojtasek, ODDR&E
Joint Readiness and Logistics Panel Mr. Brian Sharkey, DARPA
Mr. Gary Yerace, DMSO
Joint Countermine Panel Dr. David Heberlein, Army
Electronic Combat Panel Mr. Anthony Grieco,
OUSD(A&T)/S&TS/EW
Chemical/Biological Warfare Defense
and Protection Panel
Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar, ODDR&E/ELS
Dr. Salvatore Bosco, OATSD(CBM)
Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction Panel Dr. George Ullrich, DSWA

Review and Assessment. After publication of the planning documents, Technology Area Reviews and Assessments (TARAs) are held for each of the 10 DTAP technology areas, the basic research program, and the manufacturing technology program. These reviews are conducted by TARA teams, with at least two-thirds of their membership from outside DoD. Most TARA team members are recognized experts from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, the Defense Science Board, the scientific advisory boards of the military departments, industry, and academia. The TARA team is chaired by a senior executive appointed by the DDR&E. The appropriate representatives from the Defense S&T Reliance Technical Panel brief the DoD program as compared to the planning guidance. Special S&T issues identified by the DDR&E and applicable JWSTP ACTDs are also reviewed.

Figure II-4. Technology Area Review and Assessment Process

Following the review, the TARA chair briefs the findings and recommendations to the DDR&E-chaired Defense Science and Technology Advisory Group (DSTAG). Included in this briefing are the TARA chair's program recommendations for termination, adjustment, and enhancement to better align the S&T program to comply with the guidance. Based on recommendations and decisions of the DSTAG, the DDR&E briefs the issues to the Program Review Group (PRG), and program decision memorandums (PDMs) are issued as needed. The TARA process is shown in Figure II-4.