Defining Critical Technologies For Special Operations

By Major Lawrence W. McLaughlin

As the military forces of the United States continue to draw down, Special Operations Forces (SOF) are playing a greater role across the entire spectrum of conflict. In order to maintain its relative advantage, SOF is using technology as a means to leverage limited resources—sometimes to the point that mission accomplishment depends critically on a technology’s availability. Adversaries will attempt to challenge our advantages. Whether Special Operations Forces are prepared to operate in a degraded environment could determine success or failure.

This thesis examines the issue of critical technologies in special operations. Critical technologies are defined according to three variables—level of dependence, degree of vulnerability, and substitutability. By examining technologies against these three variables, SOF can gain a better understanding of the impact to SOF operations if a technical capability is lost. Three technologies are examined to illustrate the model—the use of Radar in the Battle of Britain, the Global Positioning System, and UHF Satellite Communications.

By applying the model to actual cases, I hope to encourage SOF decision-makers to closely examine our growing reliance on vulnerable technologies as a force multiplier and provide recommendations to prevent undue reliance on those technologies.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Tannenberg Publishing
• Release date: Nov 6, 2015
• ISBN: 9781782899822

Major Lawrence W. McLaughlin

See Book Description

Book preview

This edition is published by PICKLE PARTNERS PUBLISHING—www.picklepartnerspublishing.com

To join our mailing list for new titles or for issues with our books – [e-mail]

Or on Facebook

Text originally published in 1999 under the same title.

© Pickle Partners Publishing 2014, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publisher’s Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Author’s original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern reader’s benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

DEFINING CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS

Lawrence W. McLaughlin

Major, United States Air Force

B.S., United States Air Force Academy, 1988

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

ABSTRACT 6

I. INTRODUCTION 7

A. BACKGROUND 7

B. RELEVENCE 7

C. PURPOSE 8

D. DEFINING CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES 8

1. Dependence 8

2. Vulnerability 9

3. Substitutability 10

E. CASE SELECTION 10

II. THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN 12

A. INTRODUCTION 12

B. BACKGROUND 12

1. The Prefight Numbers 13

2. The Chain-Home System 14

C. RADAR AS A CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY 14

1. Dependence 15

2. Vulnerability 15

3. Substitutability 16

D. SUMMARY 17

III. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 18

A. INTRODUCTION 18

B. BACKGROUND 19

1. GPS Segments 19

2. GPS Signal 20

C. GPS AS A CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY 21

1. Dependence 21

2. Vulnerability 23

3. Substitutability 27

D. SUMMARY 28

IV. SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 29

A. INTRODUCTION 29

B. BACKGROUND 30

1. Satellite Operation and Components 30

2. Frequency Bands 31

3. Orbits 31

C. SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS AS A CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY 32

1. Dependence 33

2. Vulnerability 34

3. Substitutability 35

D. SUMMARY 37

V. SUMMARY/ FINDINGS/ RECOMMENDATONS 38

A. SUMMARY 38

B. FINDINGS 39

1. Electro-magnetic Pulse 39

C. RECOMMENDATIONS 41

REQUEST FROM THE PUBLISHER 43

LIST OF REFERENCES 44

ABSTRACT

As the military forces of the United States continue to draw down, Special Operations Forces (SOF) are playing a greater role across the entire spectrum of conflict. In order to maintain its relative advantage, SOF is using technology as a means to leverage limited resources—sometimes to the point that mission accomplishment depends critically on a technology’s availability. Adversaries will attempt to challenge our advantages. Whether Special Operations Forces are prepared to operate in a degraded environment could determine success or failure.

This thesis examines the issue of critical technologies in special operations. Critical technologies are defined according to three variables—level of dependence, degree of vulnerability, and substitutability. By examining technologies against these three variables, SOF can gain a better understanding of the impact to SOF operations if a technical capability is lost. Three technologies are examined to illustrate the model—the use of Radar in the Battle of Britain, the Global Positioning System, and UHF Satellite Communications.

By applying the model to actual cases, I hope to encourage SOF decision-makers to closely examine our growing reliance on vulnerable technologies as a force multiplier and provide recommendations to prevent undue reliance on those technologies.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

Technological advancement is a critical aspect of any study of military operations. It is impossible to dissociate war from the technological means of fighting war. John H. Morse, former US Assistant Secretary of Defense, stated, It is more the march of technology than it is the political decisions which drives the nature and structure of our societies, our strategy, the nature of military forces, their structure and the doctrine they develop (Holmes, 1988, p. 7). Technology, in short, has played a central role in shaping the strategy, doctrine, and organization of military units. The longbow, repeating rifle, maxim machine gun, airplane, tank, radar, and radio have all had a major impact on how war has been conducted throughout the ages.

Although technology has played a vital role, it has significant limitations. Adversaries have been very successful in countering technological advancements and leveling the playing field. The Zulus against the British, the plains Indians against General Custer, the Vietnamese against the French and Americans, the Afghans against the Soviets-all examples of a less sophisticated foe defeating a technologically superior force.

B. RELEVENCE

"More than ever SOF will depend on leading-edge technology to provide the critical advantage and to support participation in a growing number of technologically complex and challenging missions and operations. (SOF Posture Statement, 1998, p. 40)"

"Technological superiority enables small, highly trained teams or individuals to successfully accomplish tasks that would be too costly or physically impossible for larger forces. (SOF Posture Statement, 1998, p. 11)"

Special Operations Forces (SOF) play a unique role as a strategic asset of the United States. The changing world dynamics have placed SOF in a precarious position. As the military forces of the