Question

Two AH-64 attack helicopters were on an armed reconnaissance mission patrolling a vast mountainous area in Afghanistan by following the terrain at low altitude, so they would not be a visual target for any Taliban hostiles, and also utilizing the hills and forests as natural sound barriers to muffle their rotors. Randomly, one of the aircraft would “pop up” so it could visually inspect the surroundings for suspicious activities.

On this late afternoon as one “popped up” the pilot spotted activity within the range of his missiles. From his pre-mission briefing he knew there were Afghan government forces operating in the territories as well as civilians from surrounding villages going about their normal daily affairs. He knew that friendly forces in the area had no capability of controlling his aircraft for attacks, so he was responsible for ensuring the safe delivery of all aviation ordnance. Moreover, intelligence reports indicated there were possible Taliban troop movements in the area as well as the possibility of an ISIS enemy armored column moving through. The type of weapons that he would select to fire depended on the target type. For a troop convoy he would use either his 30mm main gun or anti-personnel rockets, while for an armored column he would use armor piercing hellfire missiles. If he decided that he was facing a troop convoy, he’d decide between the helicopter’s 30 mm main gun and the anti-personnel rockets depending on the size of the convoy. Obviously, if he believed that the activity was caused by friendlies (allies or civilians), he wouldn’t fire at all.

• If the pilot decided the target was an enemy troop convoy, then the military strategists would score the battle damage assessment (BDA) on the troop convoy as being “worth” 250 units.

• If he was wrong and, instead, it turned out to be an ISIS armored column, then the BDA was rated at 350 units because while the rockets could effectively immobilize the convoy, they would not achieve destruction of the targets.

• On the other hand, if a tragic mistake was made and the target turned out to be friendly combatants, the BDA would be rated as -500 units

• Yet, if they appeared to be civilian, BDA would be rated at -200. The smaller “penalty” for a strike on civilians was since oftentimes apparent civilians did turn out to be Taliban combatants.

• Likewise, if he decided that the observed activity was caused by an armored column, he would select the anti-armor missiles. If in fact, the activity was caused by an ISIS armored column, the BDA would be rated at 600 units while if it was a troop column, the BDA would be rated at 200 units because of the minimal effect on a troop column compared to rockets.

• In the unfortunate event that the activity was caused by civilians, the strike would be assessed at -100 units.

• While if he accidentally struck friendly Afghan army combatants, the BDA would be assessed at – 300 units.

The pilot was excited at the unexpected appearance of a possible target of opportunity and conducted a Collateral Damage Estimate call with a ground analyst to ensure that rules of engagement were followed before executing a strike. Then, with an adrenalin rush, he feverishly prepared for action having momentarily forgotten all the information provided to him and the other attack helicopter’s pilot during that morning’s intelligence briefing.

Q1. Determine how he would have identified the cause of the activity he spotted (civilian, Afghan army, Taliban or armored ISIS) depending on his attitude toward risk.

______________________________________________________________________________

Moments later, his years of training and experience kicked in and his professionalism took over. Based on what he was able to see combined with the intelligence briefings he received, he put the probability of the activity to be caused by friendly forces at 0.05 and by civilians at 0.15. However, he thought there was a great likelihood that the activity was caused by enemy forces and he estimated the probability of it being caused by a Taliban convoy at 0.5 and by an armored ISIS column at 0.3.

Q2. What course of action would maximize his expected MU’s?

______________________________________________________________________________

Fully aware of the negative consequences of firing on friendly forces or civilians, the Department of the Army decided to ask the Pentagon to request a special earmark, requiring Congressional approval, in next year’s budget for the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) to issue an RFP for the development of a technology to help air crews improve their ability of identifying friends from foes in battle conditions. Such an approval will require persuasive argument as well as analysis of the potential benefit that such a technology would have on improving the military utility of the attack helicopter.

Q3 How would you optimistically quantify the military utility of having such a technology developed?

______________________________________________________________________________

Having successfully argued the benefits of such a technology, the Pentagon awarded a “proof of concept” contract to a major defense contractor, to develop a sensor capability for the attack helicopters for their aircrews to enhance their targeting decisions. As part of the contract, the contractor delivered 25 prototypes that allowed the use of a battery of sensors to better “see” potential targets. The signals from these sensors, which included radar and forward looking infrared imagery consolidated to provide a composite picture.

The prototypes were put through extensive testing and eventually, to validate the test results, were deployed on helicopters. No technology is perfect, but the track record of these sensor fusion prototypes was excellent as given by the following track record:

• Of the times the sensor had indicated the presence of a threat (troops or armor), 65% of the time it correctly identified Taliban troop convoys and 90% of the time it correctly identified ISIS armored columns.

• Conversely, when the sensor indicated the presence of a threat, 1% of the time the “threat” consisted of Afghan government forces and 5% of the time civilians.

Q4 Based on this performance, should the Army issue a major procurement contract to equip all Apaches with this new technology?

______________________________________________________________________________

Although the use of the sensors is tempting, it also exposes the helicopter to counter measures and increases the probability that the hunter will become hunted. If the pilot chose to use the sensors, then the resulting benefits would have to be balanced against the risk of coming under fire.

• If the activity spotted using the sensors is actually a friendly force or civilians, then there is no risk of coming under fire.

• However, if that activity is actually a Taliban convoy, then chance of being hit is only 1%.

• On the other hand, if it is an armored ISIS column, then he will come under fire from imbedded anti-air defense artillery and his chance of being hit will be 10%.

• If he’s hit, he will not be able to act upon the sensor information.

• If he isn’t hit, he will not know that he came under fire and go through the normal protocols as though nothing had happened.

Q5 How do the sensor-use probabilities impact the decision to procure them for the Apache force?

Answer 1

Answer: 1

The Pilot need to identify/assess the actual spotted activity at the ground, so that he can plan for the action accordingly. The actions to be initiate as per the ground condition only. The tentative possible spotted activities are one of these three as below. So the Pilot can spot the assessment of ground based on below symptoms.

Civilian at the ground : The Pilot can estimate the spotted place is a civilian ground based on following point of assessments as

• If the ground looks to be open,
• General movements of people are available instead of planned movements.
• No major groups of people are available like a force groups.
• No uniform dress codes are seen on people.
• Women and children are seen in the region.
• Household leaving conditions are available.
• The view looks like a civilian environment.
• Cow, Buffalo, Got etc animals are seen.

Afghan Army at the Ground : The Pilot can estimate the spotted place is a Afghan Army at the ground based on following point of assessments as

• Uniform of people looks like the similar and could be army uniform.
• People are in groups and army troops and tools are seen
• Army like activities are heard
• Army sub stations are seen at different different locations.
• Women and children are not seen.
• Cow, Buffalo, Got etc animals are not seen.
• Household leaving conditions are not available.
• General movements of people are not available.

Taliban or Armed ISIS at the Ground: The Pilot can estimate the spotted place is a Taliban or armored ISIS at the ground based on following point of assessments as

• High/ advance technology major troop tools and guns are available with the people.
• Special killing equipments like high technology missile etc are available.
• Terrorists’ kind of environment is seen.
• People are having lots of explosive items, guns etc.
• Women and children are not seen.
• Cow, Buffalo, Got etc animals are not seen.
• Household leaving conditions are not available.
• General movements of people are not available.