Content uploaded by Vadym Slyusar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vadym Slyusar on Aug 31, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Slyusar V.I., Doctor of Technical Science, Prof
Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (Central Research Institute of armament and military
equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine)
Metodology of identification of the critical requirements for armaments
and military equipment
The development of operational needs statement (ONS) for NATO is the very
difficult problem, because each country has a different defense budget and each
has varying levels of ability to conduct the engineering and acquisition process
required for a highly technical armaments and military equipment (AME). That is
why, when defining the operational requirements statement (ONS), NATO focuses
on fundamental key requirements that will be the minimum capabilities within the
next 2-19 years to help guide the modernization and development efforts of NATO
to counter the growing near-peer threat facing NATO allies.
There is a fairly varied lot of methods for justifying ONS. Among them, the
project launched by TARDEC (USA) on the identification of critical requirements
for the main battle tank (MBT) of NATO, capable of confronting threats at the
European theater of warfare, became quite original. This project based on results
of tank summit of NATO which was in 2016.
The MBT Team from Naval Postgraduate School in Monteray (CA, USA) will
apply a systems engineering process to define the problem, analyze characteristics,
develop an operational scenario, and then simulate these variables to determine the
criticality of requirements. Analysis of the results, costs, and risks will then be
used to develop recommendation that will be incorporated into an operational
needs statement.
Based on US Army's Worldwide Equipment Guide data for 2018, the
experimental MBT team selected to analyze the characteristics of the main tanks of
the 7 NATO member states (the group of "blue forces"), as well as Russia, China
and North Korea (group of "red" "). No two countries are exactly the same and in
some cases are quite different but all for the most part subscribe to certain NATO
common characteristics (being one of them their main armament (120 mm)).
For the Blue Force was used the Abrams M1A1 tank as a baseline system for
analysis and the T-72 B3 for the Red Force. In table 1 depicted the minimums and
maximums expected feasible ranges for the NATO Main Battle Tank in terms of
each of the design characteristics identified there. The minimums and maximums
will be assigned to vary the capabilities of the tank by choosing the minimums or
maximums for each individual tank from the Blue Force MBT characteristics. For
instance, in table 1 will vary the weight of the potential MBT from maybe 45 to 75
tons. Varying these values, can define in the most effective MBT characteristics
that will have to be addresses, changed or modified to make the best characteristics
for future main battle tank and that way make recommendations along these lines.
The next step is going over the operational scenario, covering the intended
theater, the tactical aspects, and the scenario itself.
The theater will resemble that of eastern Europe, primarily on the Russian-
Ukranian border. MBT Team has the scenario as close to real-world conflict as
possible. In the simulation experts will keep terrain as close to this theater as
possible.
Table 1
Main Battle Tank Characteristics
Design Requirements
Baseline
Т-72 B3/Abrams
M1A1
Minimum Maximum
Weight (Tons) 45/63 44/45 54/75
Crew (# personnel) 3/4 3 4
Armor (mm) 900/600 500 900/950
Main Armament (mm) 125/120 115/120 125
Main Arm Rounds (#) 45/40 40/37 45/50
Reloading Rate
(rounds/min) 9/10 8 12
Effective Range (meters) 3000/3500 3000/2000 5000/4000
Secondary Weapon 7,62 мм/0.5 cal 7,62 мм 7,62 мм/0.5 cal
Sec Wpn Rounds (#) 2000/900 1250/900 2000/4750
Engine Size (Hp) 1130/1500 750/1000 1500
Fuel Capacity (Gal) 320/500 320/317 423/421
Range (Miles) 310/265 240/311 500/435
MPG (Miles/Gal) 0,97/0,53 0,75/0,88 1,18/1,35
Speed (MPH) 44/45 37/34 50/45
The tactical aspect of the scenario focused on small skirmishes, rather than a
large scale invasion force like in world war 2. After referencing the Army’s Field
Manual 17-15, MBT Team decided to go with the tank platoon, the smallest
maneuver element within a tank company. The platoon has 2 sections, with four
tanks total fighting as one. The red force, based on Russian tactics, is very similar to
that of the US Army’s, except they have squads vice sections, with one tank per
squad, four tanks total in a platoon. This information is based on the Army’s Field
Manual 100-2-3.
For the scenario itself, experts want to show both the defensive and offensive
capabilities of the MBT in one operation. The scenario begins with the MBT a
located at a traffic control point, along the buffer zone between the two nations,
alert, but still vulnerable to surprise attacks due to the terrain. The control point will
consist of 2 MBTs, backed up by 10 light infantry. A small Red force armed with
Kornet-EM ATGMs will attempt an attack on Blue. Blue will attempt to repel the
attack, showing the capabilities of the MBT in a defensive posture against the latest
Russian technology.
After the attack, the tank section at the control point receives orders to join
with another sections and 10 light infantry, and attack a nearby stationary target, a
SAM site. The site will be defended by 4 Russian MBTs, and 30 light infantry
armed with ATGMs. The goal for this part of the scenario is to show the MBT
capabilities in an offensive posture while also defending itself. It will also show the
C2 capabilities as the MBTs fight together. It will also give a glimpse of the MBTs
capabilities in a tank vs tank scenario.
After the operational scenario the next important aspect of the project is the
main battle tank itself and the characteristics that make it up.
There are multiple characteristics that make up a main battle tank. The IDEF-
0 model (Integrated Computer Aided Manufacturing (ICAM) Definition, for
example in Business Studio) reduces the MBT into four primary functions of: 1)
Performing situational awareness and communicating; 2) Shoot; 3) Move; 4)
Provide Protection. The main battle tank characteristics flow to the appropriate
functions as inputs from left to right. The uncontrollable inputs or controls flow to
the functions from above. The mechanisms that enable the functions flow to the
functions from below. The output from the functions flow from the functions to the
right and these are the outputs that would analyze to see what impact the inputs
have on the functions.
The Input – Output diagram is key in analysis as it allows to identify the
elements wich will be able to modify in order to improve the performance of the
system and obtain the intended outputs.
The intended outputs are the situational awareness and communication, as the
system needs to be in contact with the external systems that enable it to better
perform; Tactical Maneuver (mobility), as the MBT system will provide military
power when and where is needed; survive attack (survivability), as it is not a
disposable system and we need it operational for a long time; and the ability to
engage enemy targets (lethality). As intended results for the situational awareness
use the number of enemy target detections and time to detect,.for the tactical
maneuverability - the number of engagements, for the survivability - the casualties,
hits, and misses. Finally, on the engaging of enemy targets will be measure the
casualties, hits, and misses as well.
Model outputs will be used to identify and define critical need statements for
NATO MBT Statement of Need Document.
The final draft of NATO's requirements for MBT's capabilities will be not for
open access, so it is not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the described
method in its entirety. At the same time, it should be noted that the idea of
modeling a tank based on the IDEF-0 methodology is new. The effectiveness of
using such a model depends on its completeness and the consideration of all
factors. In particular, the disadvantage of the IDEF model presented at the meeting
of the LCG LE group in the spring of 2018 is the lack of consideration of the
influence of situational understanding on the quality of the functioning of the
active armored defense system (the timeliness of detecting a predetermined
probability of attacking means of fire damage), as well as the impact of
interference on telecommunication capabilities. At the same time, such an
approach deserves attention also in determining the requirements for other types of
AME, therefore, it is proposed for consideration and for further use.