Technical intelligence

Technical intelligence (TECHINT) is the discipline of exploiting intact (or largely intact) equipment, supplies, etc. from an actual or potential opponent. It is often, but by no means exclusively, the set of techniques for gaining information from captured materiel. The essence of TECHINT is that it deals with things that are as close to usable as possible.

Comparing the TECHINT approach with those of several complementary intelligence disciplines will put it into perspective. Assume that it has been learned that an enemy has a new artillery rocket. TECHINT staffs, called a Captured Material Exploitation Center (CMEC) in a U.S. joint command, or an appropriate office in the Defense Intelligence Agency, will prepare guidance called "templating" on where the rocket might be found, how it can be recognized, and all that is known about safely handling it.

Assume that a rocket is safely in hand. The TECHINT analysts will examine the rocket, its launcher, and any equipment found with it. They might disassemble it, nondestructively testing the components. As a final step, they could reassemble it, and fire it on an intensively instrumented test range. They want to discover tactically relevant things about it: its range, warhead characteristics, accuracy, susceptibility to electronic warfare, and its characteristic signatures that can be recognized by radar and other field sensors.

During that test firing, measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) analysts will be using a wide range of techniques to characterize the signature of the rocket's use: its radar reflection; its exhaust plume temperature and composition (i.e., using spectroscopic MASINT); exhaust products at the launch site and captured in midair (i.e., materials MASINT), and many other parameters that come during and after the use of the intact rocket.

On a strategic level, the scientific and technical intelligence (S&TI) community would look less to the operating characteristics of the rocket, and more into what it tells them about the research, development, and manufacturing capabilities of the enemy. If the rocket casing appears to exploit new aerodynamic or stealth characteristics, what does that say about their simulation and computation capabilities? If the casing is made of exotic composite materials, the mere "fact of" their use tells things about their chemical and fabrication technology.

Acquiring the materiel

Goals in obtaining the materiel, or closely associated information in such things as operation & maintenance manuals, are to get things that are as close to new condition as possible, and in a way that subjects one's own forces to the least risk. If the equipment can be legally or illegally bought, that is likely to provide better information than equipment captured by a planned raid on a field facility, and that is likely to provide a better product than one in a position overrun during battle.

==Viktor Belenko and the [[MiG-25]

Raids

If equipment of interest can be located, especially in an area where it is isolated from combat forces, a raid, by special operations forces, can be mounted to physically remove as much as possible, then measure, photograph, and destroy what cannot be taken.

Operation BITING: German WWII Würzburg radar

The better the understanding of the target, the more productive a "kick down the door" raid can be. British scientific intelligence, under R.V. Jones, had learned, through electronic intelligence and human source intelligence, the principles of a radar known as Freya. Given that information, they looked, in imagery intelligence photographs, for equipment consistent with the their understanding of its electronics, and sent out photographic aircraft to get more detailed pictures, as well as to look for a complementary piece of radar equipment. They knew, from communications intelligence, that the other device was called Würzburg.

As the locations became known, electronic intelligence receivers were directed at them, to learn as much as possible from the signals. At the time, there was a British policy, not long after Dunkirk, to harass the Germans with raids. On balance, the Germans knowing that the British had captured a radar and would know its details were counterbalanced by the fact that the radar was widely deployed and could not easily be changed.

Since the radar itself was too large for raiders to take with them, it was decided that someone with technical knowledge had to be in the raiding party, to remove components that could be removed, and make measurements and photographs of the key components that could not be taken. The most knowledgeable British scientific intelligence officers were not permitted to be put into situations where they could be captured, so a combined approach was developed. As the raid, called Operation Biting, was readied to go against the German installation at Bruneval, France, it was decided to make it a combined paratroop and amphibious operation. A scientist with less detailed knowledge than Jones' immediate staff, D.H. Priest, was allowed to be on one of the naval vessels, and go ashore only if security permitted. For the first wave, a radar technician, C.W.H. Cox, volunteered to go in by parachute, and did the actual disassembly.

Battlefield discovery

Field units, in the course of their operations, may encounter unusual equipment, which may be on the template provided to intelligence personnel, or be a total surprise. Especially in a fluid battle situation, where one's own forces may not be able to hold the position, an immediate report should be sent to the intelligence channels. If photographs can be taken, serial numbers written down, exact (GPS) location noted, etc., by the field unit or front-line intelligence personnel, these may be valuable if the equipment cannot be taken back for analysis.

Assuming no immediate enemy threat, the troops that discovered the materiel should secure the area around it, but should not touch it or approach it closely until explosive ordnance disposal specialists have declared it safe to handle. When the UN teams searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War showed shells, rockets, etc., to news teams, it was not coincidental that their explosives and boobytrap specialist, Jack McGeorge, was holding the item or was the closest to it.

One of the reasons that combat capture may be the worst way to acquire equipment is that the enemy that possessed it may have followed orders to remove or destroy critical components, or set controls to misleading value. On a battlefield, the enemy has ready access to explosives or weapons fire for destroying it, or very straightforward means such as driving over it with a tank. They may have specific procedures for destroying the components in order of criticality.