全球智库信息集成服务系统

UTM is often used by Army forces, formally or ad hoc, based on a range of operational factors.

• Contemporary operations and operating environments present "bundles" of factors that can favor or discourage UTM employment.

UTM has tactical drawbacks.

• The tactical threat is the most difficult factor to offset, and it has routinely outweighed the potential benefits of UTM in the judgment of operational commanders.

UTM capabilities provide a demonstrated alternative to increase operational flexibility through reduction of requirements for delivering an operationally significant force.

• Other militaries, services, and individual Army units currently have appropriate and tactically beneficial methods for employing UTM.

Lacking validation, UTM requirements receive little official attention.

• While UTM demands do exist for conventional Army units, the lack of tactical unit participation in formal requirements validation processes has left UTM requirements undervalidated, underrepresented, and not fully understood.
• While individual Army units maintain ad hoc UTM capabilities, coordinated Army UTM capabilities are generally nonexistent.
• The Army can develop the basic UTM capability needed with some limited foundational investments.

More systematic Army testing and evaluation is needed to fully assess the operational impact of UTM.

• Insufficient metrics, data collection, and evaluations exist to fully assess UTM employment and operational effectiveness or to assess the impact on conducted operations from not having UTM capabilities.

The increasing size of standard service vehicles creates a gap in tactical mobility.

• The growth in size and weight of the Army's SSV has resulted in unmet tactical mobility requirements that UTM can address under some circumstances.