Directed Energy Weapons: Training Today-for Tomorrow's Battlefield

Changes in equipment, organization, and doctrine typically drive training development in the Army. For example, the fielding of anew vehicle sets into motion a systematic process whereby the Army develops training manuals, revises programs of instruction, and designs training devices. Training development will always lag behind technology and doctrine, but we must keep the distance between them as short as possible. Failure to do this could result in training gaps that reduce combat effectiveness in the field. A case in point is directed energy weapon technology. A Present, Not Future, Threat The term "directed energy weapon" (DEW) usually con.iures up images of Captain Kirk firing his hand-held phaser on "Star Trek." Certainly, the futuristic ray gun is a type of DEW - but that is tomorrow's technology. What few people realize is that the technology to field other types of DEWs is here today. A low-energy enemy laser, such as a rangerder/designator, can pose a serious hazard to personnel and equipment. Other DEWs, like radio frequency weapons, and particle beam transmitters, arc in the prototype stage, but their potential impact is frightening. What are we doing now to prepare soldiers who might encounter DEWS on the battlefield? Very little, unfortunately. Two problems have posed significant obstacles toward the development and integration of DEW training. The Classification Problem First, the amount of classified material on the subject has restricted the flow of information. With a few exceptions, such as an unclassified report published by Fort Benning's ARI Field Unit in 1984, accessible idormation on DEWS has been rare until recently. As a result, training and doctrine developcrs have lacked an adequate knowledge base. This has created a second problem - the relative absence of DEWs in doctrine, task analyses, and concept studies. Without doctrinal references, training developers are hesitant to include DEWs information in training literature and courses. Yet, due to their limited knowledge of DEWs, doctrine ARMOR - March-April 7 writers hesitate to address DEWs in their manuals. It's a "Catch-22". Near-Term Solutions Due to several parallel initiatives, the situation has improved over the last two years. In February 1986, the Combined Arms Training Activity (CATA), mandated that all service schools integrate some form of DEW awareness training into their institutional courses by February

1987. To meet CATA's requirement, the Armor School produced a seven-minute unclassified videotape called "Directed Energy Awareness Training," which has been incorporated into existing blocks of instruction. On the other hand, the Logistics Center developcd a separate 60-minute lesson plan on DEWs. The purpose of both presentations was to raise the level of awareness by defining what DEWs are, describing how they affect soldiers and equipment, and providing simple countermeasures against them. Currently, CATA is seeking to integrate instruction on DEWs into the common core for ofticer basic and advanced courses. An exportable training package is also in development. The CATA initiatives are a step in the right direction, but they are only thc first step. It is imperative to address DEWs in doctrine lor until DEWs are elevated to a doctrinal level, they will never be taken seriously. A videotape can raise awareness, but its impact will fade quickly unless reinforced by doctrine that reaches the field. Currently, the only Armorflnfantry doctrinal manuals that address DEWs are FM 7-20, 77ze Infarrtg' Batfalion (IftJanoy, Airbonze, and Air Assaulf) (Dec 84); FM 17-95, Cavalqp Operatioris (Feb 86); and FC 17-15, 77ie Division 86 Tank PIatoorz (Oct 86). These manuals contain appcndixes that provide general overviews on current and future directed energy hazards. Another manual, which has the potential to have a greater impact, is the Comhincd Arms Center's forthcoming TRADOC Pam 525-57, Directed Eiiergl Operational Concept This classified manual could provide a sound base for future doctrine/training development. Armed with current doctrine and with guidance on classification issues, training developers can begin to revise task analyses to reflect the presence of DEWs on the bat-tleficld. The amount of revision may be slight, perhaps involving only a minor change in a task standard. But the importance of including DEWs in task analyses cannot be overemphasizcd. Once incorporated into analysis data, information on DEWs can start to impact systematically on the design/development of Soldier Training Publications, ARTEP Mission Training Plans, programs of instruction, and training devices. In an effort to dispel some of the myths surrounding DEWs, the following unclassified handout complements the Armor School's videotape. Although brief on technical data, it provides a general overview on DEWs, their effects, and limitations. What is a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW)? A DEW is a "soft kill" weapon system that concentrates relatively small quantities of energy on critical areas of targets, causing them to jam, malfunction, or burn out. They are called "soft kill" because they destroy or damage the electrical systems necessary to operate a vehicle, instead of blowing it up with conventional explosives. There are three types of DEWs: lasers, radio frequency, and particle beam. Lasers exist now on the modern battlefield in the form of laser rangefinders or designators. Radio frequency weapons emit radio waves and high-powered microwaves, which can jam communications and upset or burn out electrical systems. The technology to field radio frequency weapons is here totlay; they may become a major conccrn on the battlcfield. The last type of DEW is the particle beam transmitter, which - when developed - will melt or fracture vehicles and equipment. Engineering problems have hampered the development of the particle beam transmitter. It is not here now, but could change our concepts of tactical warfare in the future. ARMOR - 39

"... You should avoid using magnifying optics, such as binoculars, in an area where a laser is operating. A laser that is harmless at one kilometer becomes a sight hazard when binoculars magnify its intensity...." Can Lasers Vaporize1' People or Equipment? Contrary to what most science fiction movies would have us believe, lasers can't zap people into ashes. Nevertheless, they are a serious personnel hazard. If directed toward a person's eyes, lasers can cause temporary or permanent blindness. They can damage electro-optics, too. A laser of the appropriate wavelength can burn out an electro-optic's detectors. A high-powered laser can also burn skin and clothing at distances of several kilometers. How Will I Know When I'm Under a Laser Attack? Since most lasers are not visible to the human eye, it's sometimes difficult to recognize a "laser attack." The most obvious indicator of an enemy laser is the sighting of a bright flash or light. This flash may be so intcnse that if you look at it without protective lenses, you may suffer immediate blindness, a gradual loss of vision, or a temporary "whiting out" of your field of view. This latter effect is called flashblindness. Although your vision returns to normal after a few minutes, flashblindness can be psychologically frightening and dangerous, especially if you're operating a vehicle or weapon sfs-tem. Another indicator of a laser attack is when the screen of an electro-optic device "washes out" suddenly. However, it is often difficult to determine the difference between a laser attack and normal system degradation. Therefore, it is imperative to report all system errors prompt I y. How Can I Protect Myself From Lasers? Whenever possible, use electro-op tics as your primary means of tactical observation. The reason is simple: If "lased" by the enemy, the electro-optic may burn out first, keeping the laser light from reaching your eyes. When electro-optics are not available, wear laser protective goggles. Although current goggles will not protect you against all wavelengths, they decrease the risk of laser injury. You should avoid using magnifying optics, such as binoculars, in an area where a laser is operating. A laser that is harmless at one kilometer becomes a sight haiard when binoculars magnify its intcn-sity. And, finally, be cautious of reflective surfaces, which can unintentionally aim a friendly laser in the wrong direction. What Tactical Countermeasures Can I Take Against a Laser Attack? Treat a lascr like any other dircct-fire weapon: use cover and conccal-ment, employ smoke, and sup-presddestroy the laser source. Since laser beams can travel only in a straight line, use terrain IO obstruct their path. Smoke is an effective countermeasure for two reasons. It makes target acquisition for tht enemy dificult and it may also diffuse the power of the laser beam lessening its eflectiveness. Still, tht most effective countermeasurt against any weapon is to destroy it. For additional information 01 Directed Energy Weapons, consul the Following references: Training Intplicatiorts of Directel Eitcrgy Weapons for tlte U. S. 111, janln,: A Preliininaq, Repon' Oct 85 Unclassified, ARI Field Unit, U. S Army Infantry School. Laser Swvivabilify Manual, Pbl. I Soldier's Guide, Sep 85, Unclas sificd, Army Materiel System: Analysis Activity. Directed Eiterg\p Awareness Train irtg (Videotape AOS25-87-0006), Oc 86, Unclassified (Distribution Cod{ B), U. S. Army Armor School. Richard B. Armstrong Is an education specialist at the U. S. Army Armor School, Ft. Knox, KY. He holds a master's degree in Instructional Systems Technology from Indiana University. He wrote and produced the videotape, "Directed Energy Awareness," and is currently developing an automated collective task analysis database to aid training evaluators in the production of timely training literature. 40 ARMOR - March-April1988