1998 Army Science and Technology Master Plan

1998 Army Science and Technology Master Plan
Army Documents

ASTMP '98 Table of Contents
Secretary of the Army / Chief of Staff Army letter

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition) / Deputy
Assistant Secretary Research and Technology letter
Foreword
Volume I
Chapter I. Strategy and Overview

Army Vision
Army Vision 2010
Army After Next
Army Science and Technology Strategy
Science and Technology Vision
Strategic Objectives
Planning Process and Oversight
Science and Technology Objectives
Resourcing the Strategy
Technology Transfer
Technology Transition
Technology Demonstrations
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations
Advanced Technology Demonstrations
Horizontal Technology Integration
Acquisition Reform—The Fast Track Program
Army Modernization Strategy
Defense Science and Technology Strategy
Guiding Principles for S&T Management
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/index.html（第 1／15 页）2006-09-10 22:36:30

Management and Oversight

Joint Chiefs of Staff Future Warfighting Capabilities Requirements
Other S&T initiatives
Advanced Concepts and Technology (ACT II)
Manufacturing Technology Objectives
Infrastructure
Facilities and Equipment—Essential Foundation for Success
People—The Key to the Future
Army S&T Laboratory Personnel Demonstration Projects
The Army Legacy
Conclusion
Chapter II. Training and Doctrine Command's Role in Science and Technology
A. Background
B. Task Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiment
C. Where Do We Go From Here?
1. Division XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiment
D. Science and Technology Integration
1. Basic Research (6.1)
2. Applied Research (6.2)
3. Advanced Development (6.3)
E. TRADOC Innovations in Science and Technology
1. Advanced Technology Demonstration Review
2. Advanced Concept and Technology Demonstration Approval by the Commanding
General, TRADOC
3. Future Operational Capabilities
4. Strategic Research Objectives
5. Army After Next Science and Technology Objectives
6. Battle Laboratory Developments
F. Science and Technology Review
G. Science and Technology Objectives Review
H. Advanced Technology Demonstration Review
I. Advanced Concepts and Technology II Program
J. Summary
K. Army After Next Linkage to the Science and Technology Community
Chapter III. Technology Transition

A. Introduction and Constraints

B. Technology Transition Strategy
1. Technology Transition
2. Manpower and Personnel Integration Program
3. Army Strategy for Systems, System Upgrades, and Advanced Concepts
4. Force Modernization Planning
5. Low–Intensity Conflict/Operations Other Than War
C. Structure
D. Aviation
1. Introduction
2. Relationship to Operational Capabilities
3. Modernization Strategy
4. Roadmap for Army Aviation
5. Relationship to Modernization Plan Annexes
E. Command, Control, Communications, and Computers
1. Introduction
3. Army C4 Modernization Strategy
4. Roadmap for C4
F. Intelligence and Electronic Warfare
1. Introduction
3. IEW Modernization Strategy
4. Roadmaps for IEW Systems
G. Mounted Forces
1. Introduction
4. Roadmap for Mounted Forces Modernization
H. Close Combat Light
1. Introduction
4. Roadmaps for Close Combat Light
I. Soldier

1. Introduction
3. Soldier Systems Modernization Strategy
4. Soldier System Modernization Roadmap
J. Combat Health Support
1. Introduction
3. Combat Health Support Modernization Strategy
4. Combat Health Support Modernization Roadmaps
K. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
1. Introduction
3. Roadmaps for CB Defenses and Smoke Obscurants
L. Air and Missile Defense
1. Introduction
4. Roadmap for Air Defense Artillery
M. Engineer and Mine Warfare
1. Introduction
4. Engineer and Mine Warfare Roadmaps
5. Relationship to Army Modernization Plan Annexes
N. Fire Support
1. Introduction
4. Fire Support Roadmap
O. Logistics
1. Introduction
3. Logistics Modernization Strategy

4. Roadmap for Army Logistics

6. Logistics Annex of the ASTMP
P. Training
1. Introduction
3. Army Modernization Strategy
4. Roadmap for Army Training
Q. Space
1. Introduction
3. Space Modernization Strategy
4. Roadmap for Space Systems
Chapter IV. Technology Development

A. Introduction
B. Strategy
C. Aerospace Propulsion and Power
1. Scope
2. Rationale
3. Technology Subareas
4. Roadmap of Technology Objectives
5. Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
D. Air Vehicles
1. Scope
2. Rationale
E. Chemical and Biological Defense
1. Scope
2. Rationale
F. Individual Survivability and Sustainability

1. Scope
2. Rationale for Investment
G. Command, Control, and Communications
1. Scope
2. Rationale
H. Computing and Software
1. Scope
2. Rationale
I. Conventional Weapons
1. Scope
2. Rationale
J. Electron Devices
1. Scope
2. Rationale
K. Electronic Warfare/Directed Energy Weapons
1. Scope
2. Rationale
L. Civil Engineering and Environmental Quality
1. Scope
2. Rationale

M Battlespace Environments
1. Scope
2. Rationale
N. Human Systems Interface
1. Scope
2. Rationale
O. Personnel Performance and Training
1. Scope
2. Rationale
P. Materials, Processes, and Structures
1. Scope
2. Rationale
Q. Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology
1. Scope
2. Rationale
R. Sensors
1. Scope
2. Rationale


S. Ground Vehicles
1. Scope
2. Rationale
T. Manufacturing Science and Technology
1. Scope
2. Rationale
U. Modeling and Simulation
1. Scope
2. Rationale
3. Management Domains
Chapter V. Basic Research

A. Introduction
1. Army Basic Research Program
2. Future Outlook
B. Initiatives
1. Centers of Excellence
2. DoD University Research Initiatives
3. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions
4. Single Investigator Programs
5. Federated Laboratories
6. In–House Laboratory Independent Research
7. Army After Next Research Areas of Emphasis
8. DoD Strategic Research Objectives
9. Other Academic Leveraging
C. Execution—Scientific Research Areas
1. Mathematical Sciences
2. Computer and Information Sciences

3. Physics
4. Chemistry
5. Materials Science
6. Electronics Research
7. Mechanical Sciences
8. Atmospheric Sciences
9. Terrestrial Sciences
10. Medical Research
11. Biological Sciences
12. Behavioral, Cognitive, and Neural Sciences
D. Summary
Chapter VI. Infrastructure

A. Federated Laboratory Initiative
B. Physical Facilities and Equipment
1. Physical Plant
2. Facility Consolidation
3. Facility Modernization
4. Strategy for Facility Upgrades
5. Shared Facilities
6. Ranges
7. Specialized Equipment
C. Distributed Interactive Simulation
1. Three Integral Components
2. Approach
D. Modeling/Software/Testbeds
1. Computer Modeling and Simulation
2. Software Technology
3. Physical Simulation
4. Hardware–in–the–Loop Simulation
5. Combined Arms Battlefield Soldier–in–the–Loop Simulation
6. Test and Evaluation Simulation
E. Information Technology/Communications
F. Personnel
Chapter VII. Technology Transfer

A. Army Technology Transfer
B. Dual–Use Technology—National Defense and Economic Competitiveness

1. Small Business Innovation Research Program

2. Small Business Technology Transfer Program
3. Army Domestic Technology Transfer Program
4. Technology Transfer in Medical Research and Development
5. Dual–Use Information
C. Technology Cooperation With Nonprofit Institutions
1. Programs With Academia
3. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers
4. Outreach Programs
D. Technology Leveraging Programs
1. Independent Research and Development Program
2. Advanced Concepts and Technology Program
3. Army Efforts With Other DoD Agencies
4. Army Efforts With Other Federal Agencies
5. Army Efforts With Industry
E. International Technology Leveraging
1. International Cooperation Policy
2. International Cooperation
3. Army International Organizations
4. Opportunities
5. Army Digitization Program
6. Future Trends
7. Summary
Abbreviations
Volume II
Annex A. Science and Technology Objectives

Technology Transition (Vol. I, Ch. III)
Aviation (Section D)
Command, Control, Communications, And Computers (Section E)
Intelligence And Electronic Warfare (Section F)
Mounted Forces (Section G)
Close Combat Light (Section H)
Soldier (Section I)
Combat Health Support (Section J)

Nuclear, Biological, And Chemical (Section K)

Air And Missile Defense (Section L)
Engineer And Mine Warfare (Section M)
Fire Support (Section N)
Logistics (Section O)
Training (Section P)
Space (Section Q)
Technology Development (Vol I, Ch. IV)
Aerospace Propulsion And Power (Section C)
Air Vehicle (Section D)
Individual Survivability And Sustainability (Section F)
Command, Control, And Communications (Section G)
Computing And Software (Section H)
Conventional Weapons (Section I)
Electron Devices (Section J)
Electronic Warfare/Directed–Energy Weapons (Section K)
Civil Engineering And Environmental Quality (Section L)
Battlespace Environments (Section M)
Human Systems Interface (Section N)
Personnel Performance And Training (Section O)
Materials, Processes, And Structures (Section P)
Medical And Biomedical Science And Technology (Section Q)
Sensors (Section R)
Ground Vehicles (Section S)
Infrastructure (Vol. I, Ch. VI)
Distributed Interactive Simulation (Section C)
Annex B. Advanced Technology Demonstrations
Annex C. Interaction with TRADOC

A. Introduction
B. Integrated Future Operational Capabilities
1. Command and Control
2. Communication
3. Information Management
4. Mobility/Countermobility
5. Sustainment
6. Lethality

7. Survivability
8. Training
C. Branch/Functional Unique Future Operational Capabilities
1. Chaplain School
2. Chemical School
3. Combat Service Support Battle Laboratory
4. Early Entry Lethality and Survivability Battle Laboratory
5. Engineer School
6. Finance
7. Medical
8. Ordnance School
9. Quartermaster School
10. Space
D. Abbreviations
Annex D. Space and Missile Defense Technologies

A. Purpose
B. Introduction
C. Requirements
1. Technology Drivers (Threat Summary)
2. Linkage of Technology to Future Operational Capabilities
3. Relationship to Joint Vision 2010
4. Relationship to Army Vision 2010
D. Technology Development Programs
1. Introduction
2. Current Level of Technology Maturity
3. Technology Programs
4. Demonstration Programs
E. Opportunities for Technology Infusion
1. Theater Missile Defense
2. National Missile Defense
F. Abbreviations
G. References
Annex E. Global Technology Capabilities and Trends

A. Strategic Overview
1. Background
2. Vision

3. Role of Annex E in International Programs

4. Country Capabilities and Trends Analysis
5. The Future
6. Technology Assessments
B. Near– and Mid–Term International Cooperative Opportunities
1. Opportunity Assessment Overview
2. Aerospace Propulsion and Power
3. Air Vehicles
4. Chemical and Biological Defense
5. Individual Survivability and Sustainability
6. Command, Control, and Communications
7. Computing and Software
8. Conventional Weapons
9. Electron Devices
10. Electronic Warfare/Directed Energy Weapons
11. Civil Engineering and Environmental Quality
12. Battlespace Environments
13. Human Systems Interface
14. Personnel Performance and Training
15. Materials, Processes, and Structures
16. Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology
17. Sensors
18. Ground Vehicles
19. Manufacturing Science and Technology
20. Modeling and Simulation
C. International Research Capabilities and Long–Term Opportunities
1. Overview
4. Physics
5. Chemistry


D. Abbreviations
Annex F. U.S. Special Operations Command Technology Overview

A. Introduction
B. Future Vision
C. Technology Program
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Detection, Classification, Neutralization, and
Protection Systems
2. Lightweight, Low–Volume Survival, Sustainment, and Personal Equipment
3. Advanced Vision Devices, Sensors, Fire Controls for SOF Weapons, and Human
Sensory Enhancement and Performance Amplification Equipment
4. Lightweight, Low–Volume Power Supply, Storage, Management, and Generation
Technologies
5. Enhanced SOF Mobility and Attack Platforms With Increased Speed and Range,
Decreased Detectability, and True All–Weather Capabilities
6. Improved Digital Transmission, Switching, Information Transfer Automation, and
Human–to–Machine Interface Communications (C4I) Technologies
7. Automated Information Warfare (IW) Systems Enhancements to Influence and Protect
Information Systems, Links and Nodes
8. Passive Shallow Water/Terrestrial Mine, Explosive, and Boobytrap Detection,
Identification, and Neutralization Technologies
9. Clandestine Target Locating, Tracking, and Marking Technologies
10. Future Force Application Weapons and Munitions, Enhanced Explosives and
Munitions, and Nonlethal Technologies
11. Advanced Learning, Training, and Mission Planning/Rehearsal Technologies
D. Leveraging the Army Technology Base
E. Abbreviations
Annex G. Logistics
A. Looking to the Future
B. Revolution in Military Logistics
C. RML Technology Enabling Areas
D. Horizontal Integration of R&D Initiatives
E. Logistics Requirements to Project and Sustain the Force
1. RML Domain—Force Projection
2. RML Domain—Force Sustainment
F. Abbreviations

SOURCE

Army Documents
FAS | Military | DOD 101 | Army |||| Index | Search |
Army Documents
● Operational Terms and Graphics FM 101-5-1/MCRP 5-2A -- 30 September 1997 -- Headquarters,
Department of the Army / U.S. Marine Corps
● Army Command PolicyArmy Regulation 600-20 Personnel-General Headquarters Department of

the Army Washington, DC 30 March 1988
● 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) Gold Book 17 March 1999 -- a "how to" guide for those serving
in the Division, those seeking to refine air assault operations in their own units, and for those needing
to become familiar with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).
● Army Command and General Staff College Student Texts

❍ ST 63-1: Division and Corps Logistics
❍ ST 63-2: Combat Service Support at Echelons Above Corps
❍ ST 100-3 Battle Book updated July 1999 - plan corps and below operations
❍ ST 100-7 OPFOR Battle Book updated 21 March, 1999
❍ ST 101-6 G1-G4 Battlebook supports core logistics instruction
● 1997 Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP) 21 March 1997
● 1998 Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP) 19 March 1998
Sources and Resources
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/index.html（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 22:36:37

Army Documents
FAS | Military | DOD 101 | Army |||| Index | Search |
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/
Maintained by Webmaster
Updated Saturday, October 16, 1999 6:55:27 AM
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/index.html（第 2／2 页）2006-09-10 22:36:37

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/letter1.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 22:36:42


Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition) / Deputy Assistant Secretary Research and Technology letter

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition) / Deputy Assistant Secretary Research and Technology letter

Foreword
FOREWORD
The DoD Science and Technology program is divided into three areas, each designed to bring technology to
a different stage of maturity. The Basic Research (6.1) program exploits and identifies technological
opportunities and provides an important interface with university and industry research. The Applied
Research (6.2) program matures technology opportunities and evaluates technical feasibility for increased
warfighting capability. The nonsystem–specific Advanced Technology Development (6.3) program
demonstrates technologies to speed the transition of matured technology into the system–specific
Demonstration/Validation (6.4) program or directly into Engineering and Manufacturing Development
(6.5).
The Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP) is the Army’s strategic plan for the science and
technology program; it consists of two volumes. Volume I has these seven chapters:
• I—Strategy and Overview

• II—Training and Doctrine Command’s Role in Science and Technology
• III—Technology Transition
• IV—Technology Development
• V—Basic Research
• VI—Infrastructure
• VII—Technology Transfer
Volume II contains annexes that, when combined with the budget, the program objective memorandum,
and the Department of the Army Research, Development and Acquisition Plan, constitute the action plan for
achieving the Volume I program.
Volume II contains the following annexes:
• Annex A—Science and Technology Objectives (STOs)

• Annex B—Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs)
• Annex C—Interaction with TRADOC
• Annex D—Space and Missile Defense Technologies
• Annex E—Global Technology Capabilities and Trends
• Annex F—U.S. Special Operations Command Technology Overview
• Annex G—The Revolution in Military Logistics
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/foreword.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 22:36:51

Foreword
The ASTMP is revised annually. Reader comments and suggested improvements are welcome. Please
forward comments to:
Assistant Secretary of the Army

Research, Development and
Acquisition
ATTN: SARD–TS (Ms. Vannucci)
2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 9013
Arlington, Virginia 22202–3911
Phone: (703) 601–1507
Fax: (703) 604-0520
E–mail: vannuccs@sarda.army.mil
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/foreword.htm（第 2／2 页）2006-09-10 22:36:51

Chapter I, Strategy and Overview
Chapter I
Strategy and Overview
History has given us the choice; science has given us the chance; love of country gives
us the duty—to reach out to the future and pull it toward us.
William S. Cohen
Secretary of Defense
The Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP), annually revised and approved by the Secretary of the
Army and the Army’s Chief of Staff, provides Department of the Army guidance to all Army Science and Technology
(S&T) organizations. As such, it is the strategic link between Department of Defense technology planning and the
plans of Army major commands, major subordinate commands, and laboratories. This plan for the Army’s S&T
program is based on the Army leadership’s vision of the future Army and available resources.
Army Vision 2010
The Army’s vision is continuously evolving and results from the combined input of two critical planning
activities—Army Vision 2010 and Army After Next (AAN). Army Vision 2010 is the blueprint for the Army’s
contributions to the operational concepts identified in Joint Vision 2010.
These activities identify the patterns of operations needed for the Army to fulfill its role in achieving full spectrum
dominance as part of joint operations (Figure I–1). These patterns are (1) protect the force, (2) gain information
dominance, (3) decisive operations, (4) shape the battlespace, (5) project the force, and (6) sustain the force. These
patterns of operation align precisely with the Joint Vision 2010 operational concepts of information dominance,
dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full dimensional protection.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1a.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 22:37:11

Figure I-1. Army Vision 2010/Joint Vision 2010
Army After Next
The Army’s long–term vision is evolving through an AAN process being managed by Training and Doctrine
Command (TRADOC) headquarters. The AAN office, under the Deputy Chief of Staff for Doctrine, is conducting
broad studies of future warfare for the period around the year 2020 for the purpose of framing the issues vital to the
development of the Army. The vision generated from these studies will be integrated into TRADOC combat
development programs. Throughout this process the S&T community is serving a vital support role to TRADOC. To
better appreciate the role of the S&T community in the emerging AAN vision, it is important to understand the four
major azimuths the AAN study is exploring and the process for integrating these study results into the evolving AAN
vision.
The first azimuth under investigation involves the identification of probable geopolitical realities for the period around
2020. The purpose of this study is to establish likely threats and missions and to link these to the Army’s future
warfighting strategies and systems to ensure that the Army will be able to fulfill its future National Command
Authorities (NCA) responsibilities. The second is a study of the future military art necessary to ensure that the Army
has unquestionable overmatch capability against the full spectrum of potential threats. The third azimuth is the
evaluation of evolving technologies and systems concepts along with the planning of the S&T investments necessary to
support the evolving military art and ensure unquestionable overmatch capabilities for the future Army. The fourth is
the exploration of approaches necessary for our forces to operate effectively at the limit of human cognitive capability.
As illustrated in Figure I–2, the AAN process incorporates input and activities from multiple sources on an annual
basis. This process begins with notional AAN operational concepts developed by TRADOC. These notional concepts
are initially evaluated in tactical and strategic wargames. Attractive notional concepts of operations emerging from the
wargames are subsequently analyzed by an Integrated Idea Team (IIT) composed of leading Army scientists and
engineers drawn primarily from Army Materiel Command (AMC) organizations, industry, and the Army Research
Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC), U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC), and other organizations for the
purpose of defining notional system concepts. The IIT develops point designs for these notional systems based upon
scientific and engineering judgments. The TRADOC Analysis Center (TRAC) and RAND parametrically evaluate
these point designs in a system–of–systems approach for the purpose of assessing their military utility and providing
guidance on how to optimize the force structure that employs them. Further, an independent feasibility and

affordability team, using expertise from industry, military laboratories, and academia, evaluates the emerging system
concepts for technical feasibility and affordability. The subsequent concepts refined by this process are sent to
TRADOC for evaluation. Those system concepts accepted by TRADOC are played in subsequent wargames. The IIT
and the feasibility and affordability teams help TRADOC identify technologies that need advancement.
Click on the image to view enlarged version.

Figure I-2. Science and Technology Support to
Army After Next Concept Development
Through the processes described above, a strong S&T investment strategy in support of AAN has begun to evolve.
Given the timeframe of AAN (2020), the 6.1 and 6.2 accounts (basic and applied research) are the most relevant.
Although practically all the ongoing 6.1 and 6.2 investment has been found to be relevant to a broad definition of
AAN, closely coordinated efforts with TRADOC are under way to realign the 6.1 and 6.2 accounts to obtain increased
focus on those technologies where progress is most needed to enable AAN concepts of operations. Specifically, the
goal of this effort is to increase the 6.1 AAN–oriented Strategic Research Objectives (SROs) investment from 15 to 30
percent and to increase that portion of the 6.2 accounts focused specifically on AAN priorities. New SROs are being
developed to synergistically focus various multidisciplinary research efforts on major research themes relevant to AAN
(see Chapter V).
As part of this effort, a new 6.2 AAN Science and Technology Objective (STO) enhancement program has been
budgeted for FY99 to encourage new 6.2 STOs to focus on AAN issues (Figure I–3). To achieve this objective, an
AAN short list of high–priority, enabling technology thrusts resulting from the wargames process has been approved
by TRADOC, distributed throughout the S&T community, and will be the basis for selection of enhanced AAN STOs
through the Army Science and Technology Working Group (ASTWG) process.


Figure I-3. Army After Next Science and Technology Objectives
Several independent assessments of S&T opportunities in support of AAN have also been initiated. Through the
National Research Council’s Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST), an Army Science and Technology
study on logistics demand has been initiated. The BAST is conducting a study to identify those 6.1 and 6.2 efforts that
would enable system concepts that greatly reduce logistics demand in the timeframe of AAN. From this evaluation, the
BAST is to propose an S&T investment plan and roadmap.
In addition, an Army Science Board (ASB) summer study has been chartered to assess S&T opportunities in support
of AAN. The ASB is to provide comments on enabling technologies that could support a broad view of Army
capabilities needed in 2020, and review and comment on the process described in Figure I–3.
Click here to go to next page of document

Science and Technology Strategy
Science and Technology Vision
Supporting current and future Army visions, the Army S&T investment ensures the following results:
- Timely demonstrations of affordable technology/weapon system concepts that enable
• Decisive overmatch with minimum casualties

• Force projection with full spectrum capability
• Requirements definition/prioritization through experimentation.
- S&T that reduces cost through
• Early retirement of risk in materiel development programs

• Support for acquisition reform.
- World–class network of Army–focused government and private S&T that
• Maintains land warfare superiority

• Leverages commercial technology
• Maintains smart buyer capability
• Enables AAN.
Figure I–4 illustrates how the S&T investment strategy supports Army modernization objectives into the next century.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1b.htm（第 1／6 页）2006-09-10 22:37:22


Figure I-4. Science and Technology Investment Strategy
Strategic Objectives
To support the S&T vision, the Army has several strategic investment objectives (Figure I–5):

Figure I-5. Strategic Investment Objectives
- Comply with and support the Defense S&T Strategy and the Army vision, Army Vision 2010, and
emerging concepts for the AAN.
- Conduct world–class relevant research.
- Strengthen the requirements process through
• System–of–systems demonstrations.
• Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs) and Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstrations (ACTDs).
• S&T synchronized with TRADOC Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWEs).
- Support the Advanced Concepts and Technology II (ACT II) program.
- Provide affordable options with a focus on system upgrades.
- Improve technology transition, while coupling S&T to development programs.

- Improve technology transfer and "spin on" by forming partnerships with academia and industry.
- Stabilize S&T priorities and funding.
- Improve program execution and oversight.
- Attract, develop, and retain quality scientists and engineers.
- Downsize the infrastructure.
Planning Process and Oversight
The Army’s Science and Technology program, as reflected in this year’s ASTMP, identifies the S&T investments
needed to achieve this vision and supporting objectives. It provides an action plan for mobilizing government,
industry, and academic resources. The ASTMP position in the overall Department of Defense strategic planning
hierarchy is shown in Figure I–6. Army leadership oversight of the Army S&T program is provided by the Army
Science and Technology Advisory Group (ASTAG), which is co–chaired by the Army Acquisition Executive and the
Vice Chief of Staff, Army (Figure I–7). The ASTWG is co–chaired by the Army Science and Technology Executive
(the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology) and the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
and Plans (Force Development). The ASTWG provides general–officer–level resolution of pressing S&T issues prior
to meetings of the ASTAG, recommends to the ASTAG revisions to the Army’s S&T vision, strategy, principles, and
priorities, and reviews and approves ATDs, STOs, and Manufacturing Technology Objectives (MTOs). The overall
planning process for the Army S&T program is shown in Figure I–8. The preparation and approval of the ASTMP is
shown in the upper part of the diagram, and its progress through the overall Army planning and budgeting process is
shown in the lower part.

Figure I-6. Hierarchy of Plans


Figure I-7. Army/Office of the Secretary of Defense
Science and Technology Oversight

Figure I-8. Army Science and Technology Planning Process

To provide guidance to the S&T community, the Army has established a set of 200 Science and Technology
Objectives. A STO states a specific, measurable, major technological advancement to be achieved by a specific fiscal
year (Figure I–9). It must be consistent with the funding available in the current year budget, the Future–Years Defense
Plan (FYDP), and the Program Objective Memorandum (POM). Not every worthwhile funded 6.2 and 6.3
technology program will be cited as a STO in part because the Army must reserve some program flexibility for the
laboratory or center director to seize opportunities within his or her organization, based upon the organization’s local
talents and resources.
Figure I-9. Anatomy of an STO
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1c.htm（第 1／6 页）2006-09-10 22:37:40

The Army uses the STOs to focus and stabilize the 6.2 and 6.3 program, practice management by objectives, and
provide feedback to our scientists and engineers regarding their productivity and customer satisfaction. STOs are
reviewed annually at a joint materiel developer/TRADOC meeting and then reviewed and approved by the ASTWG
(Figure I–10). STOs, revised as necessary to maintain currency and consistency with economic factors, ensure
TRADOC input to the planning process, and provide Army leadership guidance to S&T performing organizations.
All Army Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES) submissions, including budget
estimates and execution plans and Defense Technology Objectives (DTOs), should comply with the STO guidance.
Descriptions of current STOs are given in Volume II, Annex A, of this document and in the Army Science and
Technology Management Information System (ASTMIS).
Figure I-10. Science and Technology Objective Process
Resourcing the Strategy
Figure I–11 shows how the 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 funding categories relate to the overall acquisition process. Figure I–12
shows Army S&T recent and future funding levels.


Figure I-11. Science and Technology Related to the Aquistion Process
Figure I-12. Science and Technology Program Funding by Budget Category
The 6.1 research includes all efforts of scientific study and experimentation with a high potential to significantly
improve land warfighting capabilities. In this basic research category (6.1), the Army maintains a strong peer–reviewed
scientific base providing the foundation for technological improvements to warfighting capability through university
and in–house research. In addition to conducting in–house research, Army scientists monitor developments in

academia and industry and evaluate the many proposals received for 6.1 funds (Figure I–13). (See also Chapters V and
VII.)

Figure I-13. Army Basic Research
Applied Research (6.2) includes all efforts directed toward the solution of specific military problems, short of major
demonstrations and development projects. This applied research category includes the development of components,
models, and new concepts through in–house and industry efforts. Individual research programs often enable a variety
of new systems and support a number of identified needs. Since research programs may readily contribute to needs in
several mission areas, the Army performs horizontal integration, or "cross–mission–area analyses," to understand 6.2
funding priorities.
Advanced Technology Development (6.3) includes all efforts directed toward projects that have moved into
demonstration of hardware or software for operational feasibility. In the 6.3 category, experimental systems or
subsystems are demonstrated to prove the technical feasibility and military utility of the approach selected. Advanced
technology development (6.3) provides the path for the rapid insertion of new technologies into Army systems, be
they new systems or product improvements. The Army establishes priorities for demonstrations that are needed prior
to the development of the most critically needed systems and product improvements. The criteria for selection of 6.3
programs are:
- Reduce risks to funded 6.4 programs.

- Reduce casualties across the spectrum of conflict, including asymmetric threats.

- Breakthroughs in battlefield capabilities for reasonable investment.
- Low–cost upgrade opportunities.
Figure I–14 shows the Army S&T FY98 6.3 appropriated program and includes ATDs, ACTDs, and TDs, many of
which form system–of–systems demonstrations.
The Army policy is to maintain stable funding for Army S&T. This stability principle of our investment strategy is
consistent with the long–term nature of basic and applied research. Stability of focus and funding permits the Army’s
scientists and engineers to conduct meaningful long–range planning to ensure that the technologies required to
address future warfighting needs and obtain AAN goals will be available when needed. Figure I–15 shows the FY98
S&T appropriation by program and developing agency.
Figure I-14. FY98 6.3 Appropriated Program

Total = $657.5 Million

Figure I-15. FY98 Science and Technology

(6.1, 6.2, 6.3) Appropriated Program

Technology Transfer
Technology Transfer
Technology transfer covers all interactions with external organizations, whether transferring technology into or out of
the S&T program. It should be distinguished from technology transition, which deals with the maturing of technology
within the S&T program and transitioning it to development (6.4 or 6.5 programs). The Army continuously monitors
new commercial developments looking for military applications. This spin–on of technology is of growing importance
to the Army S&T program—not only from the domestic R&D programs but also from development overseas (see
Volume II, Annex E). Conversely, where military R&D is in the lead (e.g., rotorcraft, night vision, propulsion),
technology transfer to commercial uses is actively pursued.
Since Army S&T makes up less than 1 percent of the total national investment in R&D, the Army leverages R&D from
industry, universities, other government organizations, and foreign sources. Industry independent research and
development (IR&D) activities are planned, performed, and funded by companies in order to maintain or improve
their technical competence or to develop new or improved products. Contractors may be reimbursed up to 100
percent of their IR&D expenditures if they are part of the overhead cost to the government. Industry IR&D efforts
amount to more than $2 billion annually.
To effectively exploit the overall industrial base, the Army is also an aggressive partner in the development of dual–use
technologies. By investing in dual–use technology, the Army can exploit the efficiencies generated through the use of
common production lines for commercial and military products, reap the reduced costs resulting from larger scale
production runs, and leverage industry’s willingness to invest in commercially viable technologies. The Army targets
dual–use projects in areas such as automotive, aviation, medical, construction engineering, environmental, pollution
abatement/control, telecommunications, sensors, and individual soldier technology. Beginning in FY99, the Army will
manage the Dual–Use Applications Program (DUAP) S&T initiative devolved by Congress from DoD. This initiative
provides incentive funding to support dual–use technology projects. These funds are matched by lab/center funds,
and the total of these two is matched by the industry partner(s). DUAP projects therefore involve a mix of Army (25
percent), DUAP (25 percent), and industry (50 percent) funding, using cooperative agreements or other transactions
for their execution. The cost sharing by industry demonstrates its commitment to exploit the resulting technology for
military as well as commercial applications.
Technology transfer is also made easier by the growing DoD adoption of commercial products, practices, and
processes, and by the DoD Project Reliance.
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
It is Army policy to actively market technology that can benefit the public and private sectors and to respond quickly
to requests for technical assistance. The mechanisms for accomplishing this are Cooperative R&D Agreements
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1d.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 22:37:47

Technology Transfer
(CRDAs), the Construction Productivity Advancement Research (CPAR) program, Patent License Agreements
(PLAs), and technical outreach programs. The cumulative Army totals from FY89 to FY98 are 1,083 CRDAs,
including CPAR agreements, and 87 PLAs. The Army has more cooperative agreements than all the rest of DoD
combined (see Chapter VII).
National Automotive Center
Recognizing the many dual–use benefits to be exchanged among industry, academia, and government, the Army
established the National Automotive Center (NAC) in 1993 (Figure I–16). The NAC is located at the U.S. Army
Tank–Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, Warren, Michigan, and serves to facilitate the
transfer of dual–use automotive technologies from the commercial sector to the military and vice versa.
Figure I-16. Dual-Use Technology
National Rotorcraft Technology Center
The National Rotorcraft Technology Center (NRTC), established in 1996, is a catalyst for facilitating collaborative
rotorcraft research and development among the DoD (Army and Navy), NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), industry, and academia. It serves as the means to develop and implement cooperatively a rotorcraft
technology plan and national strategy that can effectively address both civil and military rotorcraft needs. The industry
takes a proactive role in defining and performing the technology tasks to be undertaken through the Rotorcraft
Industry Technology Association (RITA), a nonprofit corporation. The technology developed is shared among RITA

Technology Transfer
members. The RITA program, with its near–term focus, is complemented by and continuously coordinated with the
Rotorcraft Center of Excellence Program (performed by academia), which has a long–term focus.
University Research Centers
Army policy is to foster basic research objectives by leveraging research programs in academic institutions. To
accomplish this the Army sponsors research through the Army Center of Excellence Program and through the DoD
University Research Initiative. Through these programs the Army promotes active research participation with more
than 20 American universities (Chapters V and VII).
Small Business Innovation Research
The Army has revised and strengthened the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to better leverage
and support this innovative, entrepreneurial sector of our economy. The SBIR process (for companies with fewer than
500 employees) is as follows:
• Three–phase program
• Phase I—Technical feasibility (6 months, $100,000 maximum)

• Phase II—R&D effort (2 years, $750,000 maximum)
• Phase III—Commercialization (no SBIR funds used)
• Department of the Army (DA) review/selection process
• $90–$100 million/year
• Gap between Phase I and Phase II efforts reduced by SBIR evaluation board; time reduced since 1994
for Phase I—4 months versus 7–8 months; Phase II—6 months versus 8–12 months. Efforts are under
way to further reduce the gap between Phase I and Phase II.
Many Army S&T programs are conducted jointly or in coordination with the Air Force, the Navy, the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and other defense agencies assisted by Project Reliance. Other
government agencies leveraged by the Army include NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE) National
Laboratories.
Outside the United States, the Army seeks potential opportunities to increase the effectiveness of technology
development through the sharing of research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) resources with NATO and
major non–NATO allies. One example is the Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) being developed jointly by the
United States and the United Kingdom. These joint and interagency programs are discussed in Chapter VII and
Annex E.

The number of major weapon system new starts will decrease substantially the rest of this decade, while increased
reliance will be placed upon technology insertion into existing systems via such upgrading mechanisms as engineering
change proposals (ECPs), product improvement proposals (PIPs), preplanned product improvements (P3Is), and
block improvement and multistage improvement programs (MSIPs).
Technology Demonstrations
A Technology Demonstration can serve as the means to demonstrate that a STO has successfully achieved its
objectives, to highlight a new technical capability developed in the S&T community, or to assess the technical maturity
of a capability identified outside of the S&T community. These programs, whose designation is at the discretion of the
technical director, are a means to demonstrate a new technical capability that has potential application to an ATD,
ACTD, or system acquisition program. Funded in either 6.2 or 6.3, these programs differ from ATDs and ACTDs in
that they either are not conducted in an operational environment or do not involve experimentation with
technology–driven operational issues. They can serve as the means to demonstrate that a STO has successfully
achieved its objectives, to highlight a new technical capability developed in the S&T community, or to assess the
technical maturity of a capability identified outside of the S&T community.
There are two special types of TDs that greatly improve technology transition, ACTDs and ATDs.
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations provide a mechanism for intense involvement of the warfighters
while incorporation of technology into a warfighting system is still at an informal stage. This allows iterative change of
both the system construct and the user’s concept of operation without the constraints and costs that are incurred when
the discipline of formal acquisition is involved. ACTDs are user oriented, even user dominated.
The ACTD has three driving motivations: (1) to have the user gain an understanding of the military utility before
committing to large–scale acquisition, (2) to develop corresponding concepts of operation and doctrine that make the
best use of the new capability, and (3) to provide limited, initial residual operational capabilities to the forces. ACTDs
are of sufficient scope and scale to establish military utility. The operational unit is left with a residual capability for
continued use for up to 2 years. This provides a significant improvement in the ability to refine the tactics and gain
further insight into the potential utility and impact on doctrine. The ACTD process is shown in Figure I–17. All Army
ACTD proposals must now have the approval of the commander of TRADOC. In the Army, ACTDs primarily
involve system–of–systems demonstrations incorporating individual equipment developed under ATDs.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1e.htm（第 1／6 页）2006-09-10 22:38:15


Figure I-17. ACTD Process
Formal requirements for the operational forces are typically generated during the ACTD after military utility has been
demonstrated. The outcome of an ACTD is determined by the conclusions of the participating users. If the user is not
prepared to initiate acquisition, the effort will be terminated. If, on the other hand, the user determines that the
demonstrated concept should be brought into the forces, there are two possible avenues. If large numbers are required,
the system should enter the acquisition process at whatever stage good judgment dictates. If only small numbers are
required, it is preferable to modify the demonstration system appropriately and then to replicate it as needed. This
latter avenue might apply to command, control, and communications (C3), surveillance, and special operations

equipment, as well as to complex software systems where evolutionary development and upgrading is preferred.
In FY98, the Army is participating in seven S&T–funded ACTDs, five as the lead service: Line–of–Sight Antitank
(Chapter III and Figure I–18), Theater Precision Strike Operations (Figure I–19), Rapid Force Projection Initiative
(Chapter III and Figure I–20), Combat Identification (Chapter III and Figure I–21), and Rapid Terrain Visualization
(Chapter III and Figure I–22). The Army and Navy/Marine Corps jointly lead two ACTDs: Joint Countermine
(Chapter III and Figure I–23) and Military Operations in Urban Terrain (Chapter III and Figure I–24). Most of these
ACTDs are composed of one or more Army ATDs (described in Chapter III and Volume II, Annex B).
Figure I-18. Line of Sight Antitank ACTD

Figure I-19. Theater Precision Strike Operations ACTD

Figure I-20. Rapid Force Projection Initiative ACTD
Figure I-21. Combat Identification ACTD

Figure I-22. Rapid Terrain Visualization ACTD

Figure I-23. Joint Countermine ACTD


Figure I-24. Military Operations in Urban Terrain ACTD

Advanced Technology Demonstrations are technology demonstrations characterized by:
• Being relatively large scale in resources and complexity but typically focused on an individual system
or subsystem.
• Operator/user involvement from planning to final documentation.
• Testing with soldiers in a real or synthetic operational environment.
• Exit criteria approved by both the materiel developer and TRADOC.
• Finite schedule, typically 5 years or less.
• Having cost, schedule, and objective performance baselines in an Advanced Technology
Demonstration Management Plan (ATDMP) approved by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology (DAS(R&T)).
Each ATD is designed to meet or exceed exit criteria agreed upon by the warfighter and ATD manager at program
inception. These must be met before the technology in question can transition to development. The ATD approval
process is shown in Figure I–25.
Figure I-25. Army ATDMP Approval Process
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1f.htm（第 1／5 页）2006-09-10 22:38:26

ATDs seek to demonstrate the potential for enhanced military operational capability or cost effectiveness. Active
participation by a TRADOC school, as well as the materiel developer, is required throughout the demonstration. At
least one demonstration at a TRADOC battle lab, as well as an advanced simulation, are required. This helps the
TRADOC schools develop more informed requirements and the materiel developer reduce risk prior to the initiation
of full–scale system development. Table I–1 shows the crosswalk of the ongoing ATDs with the Army Modernization
Plan annexes, and STOs (see also Volume II, Annex A and Chapter III).
Table I–1. Correlation Between Ongoing Army ATDs and the

Army Modernization Plan
ATD Army Modernization Plan Annex Section ASTMP STO
Description
Section
Primary Secondary
Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate Aviation IEW III–D III.D.01
Battlefield Combat Identification C4 IEW, Combat III–E III.E.07

Maneuver, Aviation
Digital Battlefield Communications C4 III–E III.E.09
Composite Armored Vehicle Combat Maneuver III–G III.G.01
Target Acquisition Combat Maneuver III–G III.G.08
Enhanced Fiber–Optic Guided Combat Maneuver IEW III–H III.H.03

Missile
Precision–Guided Mortar Munition Combat Maneuver Fire Support III–H III.H.04
Objective Individual Combat Combat Maneuver III–I III.I.01

Weapon
Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Combat Maneuver III–N III.N.11

System
Vehicular–Mounted Mine Detector Combat Maneuver III–M III.M.08
Direct Fire Lethality Combat Maneuver III–G III.G.10
Integrated Biodetection NBC III–K III.K.03
Multispectral Countermeasures Aviation III–D III.D.13
Air/Land Enhanced Reconnaissance Aviation III–D III.D.14

and Targeting
Battlespace Command and Control C4 III–E III.E.06
Future Scout and Cavalry System Combat Maneuver III–G III.G.14

Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite Combat Maneuver III–H III.H.15
Mine Hunter/Killer Combat Maneuver III–M III.M.09
Tactical Command and Control IEW III–F III.F.09

Protect
Multimission/Common Modular IEW III–F III.F.06

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Sensors
Horizontal Technology Integration
As defined by the Army’s Horizontal Technology Integration (HTI) General Officer Working Group charter, HTI is
the application of common enabling technologies across multiple systems within a force to increase force effectiveness.
HTI allows the Army to lower R&D costs and development time and to obtain lower unit production costs by
procuring larger quantities of the same subsystem for different weapon systems. The Army also benefits from a
common logistics base for the same subsystems on multiple platforms. Key technologies under this concept include
the 2nd Generation FLIR, Battlefield Combat Identification systems, Digitization, and Survivability Suite of
Enhancement systems. Other initiatives under consideration include integrated power management, tactical lasers,
and the advanced diagnostics improvement program.
New STOs and ATDs will consider and address HTI opportunities to ensure maximum potential platform
applications. Leveraging the STOs and ATDs will facilitate the incorporation of HTI solutions in future system
developments and P3I efforts.
Acquisition Reform—The Fast Track Program
In recent years, it has become clear that significant reform in the technology acquisition procedures within DoD is
necessary to modernize land, sea, and air forces in a timely and affordable manner. A principal reform under way in
Army S&T is the Fast Track ATD policy, implemented to accelerate the Army’s acquisition of selective, high–value,
high–priority technology developed within the Army S&T program (Figure I–26). The policy has been developed
within existing Army structures and organizations and is compatible with and supports Federal Acquisition Regulation
and DoD/Army Acquisition Policy (DoD 5000.1, DoD 5000.2–R, and AR 70–1).
Specifically, the Fast Track program designates certain selected ATDs for increased management attention. To be
selected, an ATD must involve technology that is sufficiently mature that it (1) can be demonstrated during a 6.3 ATD
program with moderate risk, and (2) is a likely candidate for skipping the program definition and risk reduction
(PDRR) phase entirely and transitioning directly to EMD, which is already funded in the POM. If these "likelihoods"
are realized, a Fast Track approach can result in measurable time and cost savings.

Figure I-26. Fast Track Acquisition Program
The Fast Track process focuses on synchronizing technology demonstrations with the acquisition process to ensure a
quicker transition to EMD for high–priority programs. On average, only one Fast Track ATD candidate per year will
be recommended by the ASTWG. To establish a Fast Track ATD program, the ASTWG recommends Fast Track
candidates to the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) for approval. Fast Track designation is contingent upon
sufficient funding in the POM to advance the technology to an MS I/II decision, through EMD, and into production.
Fast Track ATD candidates must have a Mission Need Statement (MNS) and an Advanced Technology
Demonstration Management Plan (ATDMP) for Phase 0. The ATDMP does not limit itself to the plan for the

demonstration but also describes transition planning for handover to a program manager to prepare for MS I/II,
which occurs at the end of Phase 0.
Until the end of the ATD, requirements remain flexible. The ATD assists TRADOC in understanding the "art of the
possible" and provides the basis for finalizing requirements into an Operational Requirements Document (ORD)
before the end of Phase 0.
Fast Track designation is not a guarantee of funding or of entry into EMD. An approved Fast Track program loses the
Fast Track designation if program funding for EMD falls out of the POM/Extended Planning Period (EPP). At the
end of Phase 0, the MDA can approve an MS I/II decision and entry into EMD or, if the ATD was not fully successful,
approve entry into a program definition and risk reduction phaseor cancel the program. The Army is using the Fast
Track policy to try to advance the Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD directly to the EMD phase (Figure
I–27).
Figure I-27. Future Scout and Cavalry System

Joint Vision 2010 (JV 2010) describes the operational concepts envisioned to achieve new levels of effectiveness in
joint warfighting. It identifies advanced operational concepts that will result in dominance across the entire range of
military activities—full spectrum dominance. Army Vision 2010 (AV 2010) is the blueprint for the Army’s
contributions to the quality forces and operational concepts identified in JV 2010. Army elements will execute their
warfighting responsibilities through a deliberate set of Patterns of Operation. These patterns serve to focus the many
tasks that armies have always performed in war and other military operations, and they align with the JV 2010
operational concept. The relationship between JV 2010 concepts and AV 2010 patterns of operations is illustrated in
Figure I–1 (above).
The overarching reason to modernize is to maintain a greater combat capability than a potential enemy might have.
The Army must modernize to ensure that it is capable of responding to the Nation’s needs, both today and in the
future. The strategy determines which programs are necessary to modernize, to recapitalize (upgrade), or to defer until
technology advances provide leap–ahead capability improvements. If the Army transforms too quickly, it risks
acquiring capabilities that are "overkill" and not needed for the near–term strategic environment. Hasty transformation
may also result in employing technologies that are not fully matured and may not be relevant over the long term. If the
Army transforms too slowly, it risks losing its current position of combat overmatch capabilities.
Today, Army modernization investments account for just 14 percent of all DoD RDA. With these limited resources
the Army must balance near–term readiness with far–term investment. The systems that were fielded in the 1980s
continue to serve the Army well today. With some improvements and technology insertions, many of these systems
can continue to serve us into the 21st century. However, many will have reached or exceeded their useful life
expectancy.
Information dominance through digitization of the battlefield provides essential capabilities required by JV 2010 to
support the NMS; therefore, it is the Army’s top priority. The Quadrennial Defense Review validated Army
modernization objectives and increased funding for digitization and acceleration of the transformation of the U.S.
Army Reserve and Army National Guard forces to fill critical capability shortfalls in combat support and combat
service support forces. To realize AV 2010, the Army has decided upon a strategy that prioritizes investments over
time. The strategy reflects the linkage to every required pattern of operation.
The strategy’s approach encompasses near–, mid–, and far–term requirements. In the near term (98–03), priority on
achieving information dominance by 2010 will be the focus of Army efforts. The Army will continue to allocate the
necessary funding to sustain combat capability overmatch. In addition, it will fund research and development to
support AAN. The Army is inserting technology to extend the lives and capabilities of many existing systems and
older systems that are expensive to maintain and that provide minimal operational return. In the mid term (04–10),
emphasis on information dominance will continue while the Army recapitalizes through technology insertion and
replacement of aging equipment. For the far term (11–20), the Army will prioritize and focus its science and
technology resources to leverage technology advances that will help to maintain decisive battlefield dominance for
AAN. Through the far term, emphasis on Horizontal Technological Integration (HTI) will provide the warfighter with
common, efficient, and high–payoff enabling technologies across multiple systems.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1g.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 22:38:37

The five major goals of Army modernization are:
• Digitize the Army

• Maintain Combat Overmatch
• Sustain Essential Research and Development (R&D) and focus Science and Technology (S&T) on
Leap–Ahead Technology for the Army After Next
• Recapitalize the Force
• Integrate the Active Component and Reserve Component.
Insights from the Army’s Force XXI warfighting experiments and digitization efforts have demonstrated that
information technologies integrated into an information dominance capability lead to increased force effectiveness.
The Army Modernization Strategy focuses on digitization of the force while maintaining combat overmatch
capabilities by making required improvements to only those platforms necessary to regain or sustain these capabilities.
Lessons learned in Army Warfighting Experiments (AWEs) have also identified the opportunities and benefits of
technology integration that can provide advanced warfighting capabilities. Reliance upon Science and Technology to
provide the capabilities required for AAN is key to the modernization strategy. These capabilities provide a baseline
for enhancements in information dominance, product improvements required for combat overmatch capabilities, and
development of next–generation capabilities. By focusing S&T on leap–ahead technologies while sustaining essential
research and development, the Army will be able to provide future capabilities for the AAN.
While the Army develops technologies required for physically agile AAN systems in the far term, it must field
leap–ahead capability systems to bridge the gap caused by modernization deferrals. This will require lighter, faster, and
more lethal weapons platforms for AAN that have the embedded information dominance capabilities that will have
been added to Army XXI systems in the near and mid term. Figure I–28 displays synchronization of Army imperatives
in the form of a spiral development process.

Figure I-28. Development of Full Spectrum Dominance

The Army Modernization Plan (AMP) describes how the budget supports the Army’s requirements for research,
development, and acquisition (RDA). The AMP balances fiscal realities with the knowledge that today’s
modernization is tomorrow’s readiness. It consists of an overview, 15 mission area annexes, and a comprehensive
glossary. These annexes are listed in Table I–2. Each annex provides the linkage of that mission area to the AV 2010
patterns of operation and includes a section on Essential Research and Development and Leap–Ahead Technology
programs that highlight significant efforts important to the respective mission area. These descriptions directly
correlate to the sections of Chapter III in the ASTMP. Figure I–29 shows how the Army S&T supports the
modernization strategy.
Table I–2. Army Modernization Plan Annex

Army Modernizatrion Plan Annex (Chapter III Section Title) Reference
Force Structure None
Soldier III–I
Command, Control, Communications, and Computers III–E
Mounted Forces, Close Combat Light, Engineer and Mine Warfare III–G, III–H, III–M
Fire Support III–N
Air and Missile Defense III–L
Aviation III–D
Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical III–K
Command, Control, Communications, and Computers III–E
Intelligence and Electronic Warfare III–F
Tactical Wheeled Vehicles None
Logistics III–O
Combat Health Support III–J
Training III–P
Space III–Q


Figure I-29. Army S&T Supports Modernization Strategy

Technological superiority is a principal characteristic of our military advantage. It is

the objective of the Department of Defense (DoD) Science and Technology (S&T)
Program to develop options for future decisive military capabilities based on superior
technology.
Dramatic changes affect our national security. In the next century the United States
will face missions and adversaries that are unknown today, proliferation of
sophisticated weapons, and the emergence of new kinds of warfare and operations
other than war (OOTW) by nations and terrorist elements. Our armed forces will be
smaller and field fewer weapon systems than at present.
The next century will also see the results of our current consolidation, diversification,
and right–sizing of the defense industry. For an increasing number of technologies,
commercial demand, not defense demand, will drive technical progress. DoD can
both benefit from and contribute to a stronger U.S. industrial base by aligning defense
technology development to complement commercial investment where appropriate.
At the same time, we must continue to identify and support a well–defined set of
defense–unique, defense–funded capabilities.
We are not the only nation with competence in defense science and technology. To
sustain the lead which brought us victory during Desert Storm . . . recognizing that
over time other nations will develop comparable capabilities, we must . . . invest in the
next generation of defense technologies.

May 1996
Guiding Principles for S&T Management
The five guiding management principles cited in the Defense S&T Strategy have been adopted by the military
departments and defense agencies as the centerpiece of the S&T management strategy. They are designed to place in
the hands of U.S. operational forces the best mixture of capabilities possible, in the short and long term, by leveraging
the best resources in DoD and the Nation:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1h.htm（第 1／7 页）2006-09-10 22:39:04

• Transition technology to address warfighting needs

• Reduce cost
• Strengthen the industrial base
• Promote basic research
• Ensure quality.
Management and Oversight
The S&T program is planned, programmed, and conducted by the military departments and the defense agencies. The
departments are responsible for training and equipping the military forces, and they use the S&T program to provide
warfighting and system options for their components. The defense agencies are responsible for specified generic and
cross–service aspects of S&T. They also execute designated programs in support of national security objectives.
DARPA is charged with seeking breakthrough technology and with investing in technologies that are dual use, serving
as bases for both defense and commercial applications.
The Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) is responsible for the overall quality and content of the
DoD S&T program. DDR&E, aided by the Defense Science and Technology Advisory Group (DSTAG) and the
Reliance Executive Committee, ensures that the program responds to the needs of the U.S. military and to the national
goals embraced in the program’s vision. DDR&E assesses service/agency compliance with program guidance by
means of Technology Area Review and Assessment (TARA) panels. Each TARA panel, composed primarily of
outside technology experts and chaired by DDR&E technical staff, reviews the Defense Technology Area Plan
(DTAP) prepared by joint expert teams of senior service and agency technologists. The process to update the DTAP,
Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan (JWSTP), Defense Technology Objectives for the JWSTP and DTAP,
and Basic Research Plan (BRP) is managed by the Reliance Executive Staff; the TARA process is managed by DDR&E.
The relationship between the 10 defense technology areas and the 19 technology areas that are the basis for the
taxonomy of Chapter IV of ASTMP is shown in Table I–3. The DTAP–JWSTP–DTO–TARA relationship and
process instituted by the DDR&E with the DSTAG (Figures I–30 and I–31) are intended to make Defense S&T even
more responsive to the warfighter and acquisition customers, increase the relevance and efficiency of the Defense S&T
Reliance organization and process, and improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of S&T strategic planning,
programming, and assessment. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Advanced Technology) is responsible for
creation and oversight of ACTDs. Figure I–32 shows how Army and defense strategies relate to national plans and
strategies.
Table I–3. Defense Technology Areas/Chapter IV Taxonomy

Defense Technology Area Related Chapter IV Section
Air Platforms Portions of Air Vehicles
Portions of Aerospace Propulsion and Power
Chemical/Biological Defense and Nuclear Chemical and Biological Defense

Information Systems Technology Command, Control, and Communications
Computing and Software
Modeling and Simulation
Ground and Sea Vehicles Ground Vehicles
Materials/Processes Materials, Processes, and Structures
Civil Engineering and Environmental Quality
Manufacturing Science and Technology
Biomedical Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology
Sensors, Electronics, and Battlespace Environment Sensors
Electron Devices
Battlespace Environments
Space Platforms Portions of Air Vehicles
Portions of Aerospace Propulsion and Power
Human Systems Human Systems Interface
Individual Survivability and Sustainability
Personnel Performance and Training
Weapons Conventional Weapons
Electronic Warfare/Directed Energy Weapons

Figure I-30. Defense S&T Management and Reliance

Figure I-31. Strategy, Planning, and Assessment Flow Diagram


Figure I-32. Army S&T Vision Strategy
Joint Chiefs of Staff Future Warfighting Capabilities Requirements
Military needs must determine what aspects of S&T the DoD pursues, and with what priority. It is the warfighter who
enunciates those needs in this post–cold–war environment of widespread local warfare, potential for major regional
conflicts, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and peacemaking operations. The JCS have identified 10
future joint warfighting capabilities (JWCs) most needed by the U.S. combatant commands. These needs, coupled
with technological opportunity, guide S&T:
Information Superiority combines the capabilities of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and
command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) to acquire and assimilate information needed
to dominate and neutralize adversary forces and effectively employ friendly forces. It includes the capability for
near–real–time awareness of the location and activity of friendly, adversary, and neutral forces throughout the
battlefield area. It also includes a seamless, robust C4 network linking all friendly forces to provide common awareness
of the current situation throughout the battlefield area. Information superiority encompasses information
warfare—that is, the capability to affect an adversary’s information, information–based processes, information
systems, and computer–based networks while defending one’s own information, information–based processes,
information systems, and computer–based networks.
Precision Force is the capability to destroy selected targets with precision while limiting collateral damage. It includes
precision guided munitions, surveillance, targeting capabilities, and the "sensor–to–shooter" C4I capabilities necessary
for responsive, timely force application.
Combat Identification is the capability to differentiate potential targets as friend, foe, or neutral in sufficient time, with
high confidence, and at the requisite range to support weapon release and engagement decisions.
Joint Theater Missile Defense is the capability to use the assets of multiple services and agencies to detect, track,
acquire, and destroy enemy theater ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. It includes the seamless flow of information on

missile launches and cruise missiles (before and after launch) within the framework of joint counterair operations by
specialized surveillance capabilities, through tracking by sensors from multiple services and agencies, to missile
negation or destruction.
Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) is the capability to operate and conduct military operations in
built–up areas and to achieve military objectives with minimal casualties and collateral damage. It includes precise
weapons, surveillance, navigation, and communications effective in urban areas.
Joint Readiness and Logistics, and Sustainment of Strategic Systems is the capability to enhance readiness and logistics
for joint and combined operations. It includes capabilities for enhanced simulation for training; improved and
affordable operations and maintenance (O&M) and life–cycle costs; mobility and sustainability (e.g., transportation
support technologies, such as airlift, sealift and ground transportation); and near–term visibility of people, units,
equipment, and supplies that are in storage, in process, in transit, or in theater, linked with the ability to act on this
information. It also includes sustainment of strategic systems, which is the capability to sustain and upgrade existing
strategic systems and to engineer, design, and develop strategic systems, including maintaining system safety; reducing
system O&M cost; reducing reliance on existing strategic systems with advanced computing, simulation technologies,
and advanced diagnostics; and retaining the engineering core competency for retrofit and replacement of materials
unique to strategic systems.
Force Projection/Dominant Maneuver is the capability for fast deployment and timely employment and maneuver of
joint forces to rapidly dominate across the full range of military operations with minimal casualties. This capability
supports requirements to rapidly deploy and employ a decisive force with minimal use of lift resources and
forward–based requirements. It includes enhanced capabilities in operational and tactical maneuver, joint
countermine, individual and platform mobility, situation awareness, sustained logistics support, reconnaissance and
intelligence, and integration of air–, land–, and sea–based maneuver and weapon systems. Joint countermine is the
capability for assured, rapid surveillance, reconnaissance, detection, and neutralization of mines to enable forced entry
by expeditionary forces. It also includes the capability to control the sea and to conduct amphibious and ground force
operational maneuvers against hostile defensive forces employing sea, littoral, and land mines. For land forces,
dominance means the ability to conduct in–stride tempo operations in the face of severe land mine threats.
Electronic Combat is the capability to disrupt or degrade an enemy’s defenses throughout the area and time required
to permit the deployment and employment of U.S. and allied combat systems. It includes the capabilities for
deceiving, disrupting, and destroying the surveillance and command and control systems as well as the weapons of an
enemy’s integrated air defense network; and the capabilities for recognizing attempts by hostile systems to track or
engage.
Chemical/Biological Warfare Defense and Protection and Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is the
capability to detect and evaluate the existence of a manufacturing capability for WMD, and to identify and assess the
weapon capability of alert and launched WMDs on the battlefield to permit the appropriate level of counterforce and
force protection to be executed promptly. It includes counterforce against hardened WMD storage and production
facilities and the capability for standoff detection of biological agents—our single most pressing need. Capabilities in
both point and standoff detection of chemical and biological agents, combined with the ability to assess and
disseminate threat information in a timely manner, are critical to protecting fielded forces.
Combating Terrorism is the capability to oppose terrorism throughout the threat spectrum, including antiterrorism (i.

e., defensive measures to reduce vulnerability) and counterterrorism (i.e., offensive measures to prevent, deter, and
respond). This capability includes personnel protection, assault, explosive detection and disposal, investigative science
and forensics, physical security and infrastructure protection, surveillance, and collection, and enhanced support to
allied land, sea, air, and riverine forces in the form of improved detection, monitoring and tracking, intelligence and
logistics communications, training, and planning.

Other S&T Initiatives
Advanced Concepts and Technology (ACT II)
The ACT II 6.2 program competitively funds industry at the $10–$20 million per year level to participate in TRADOC
battle lab warfighting experiments. A more comprehensive explanation is presented in Chapters II and VII. ACT II
highlights are:
• Funded simulation and field tests at battle labs

• New concept evaluation by the battle labs
• Proposals from industry/academia through annual broad agency announcements (BAAs)
• Contract management through lead research, development, and engineering centers (RDECs)
supporting battle labs
• Funding (6.2)—$10–$20 million per year FY95–03.
Manufacturing Technology Objectives
A robust, well–focused S&T program is essential for the Army to achieve its goal to provide the warfighter with the
most capable, advanced weapon systems. However, particularly in the current budget–constrained environment, even
the most promising systems conceived and developed in the S&T program will never reach the field if they are too
expensive to produce. This is because the manufacturing "cost–drivers" for a system are often not addressed until the
system is ready for production. Typically, there is little or no incentive for industrial providers to implement changes
in processes or technology to effect manufacturing cost reductions, so that "affordability of production" is an issue that
rarely gets addressed early in the program cycle.
The Manufacturing Technology (MANTECH) program in budget category 7.8 offers an opportunity to address
affordability in a serious way as early in the cycle as possible. The goal of MANTECH is to provide essential
manufacturing technologies that will enable the affordable production and sustainment of future weapon systems.
Beginning in FY98, the Army is implementing a new initiative to refocus and strengthen MANTECH. Using the STO
construct as a model and the ASTWG process as a vehicle for moving the MANTECH program into the Army S&T
mainstream, the Army has devised a MANTECH strategy in which MANTECH funds will be leveraged with the
funds of multiple PMs to address a few selected cross–cutting manufacturing issues that promise maximum overall
impact, preferably supporting several existing planned development programs.
At the heart of this strategy is the creation of a small number of Manufacturing Technology Objectives (MTOs),
analogous to STOs, comprising general and specific objectives. MTOs will be managed by MTO managers and have
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1i.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 22:39:09

Other S&T Initiatives
designated PEO/PM customers. Each MTO will be planned for a 3–5–year period and funded at $1–$3 million per
year. In addition, there also will be a number of manufacturing demonstrations (MDs) funded at the $0.3–$1 million
per year level.
The Manufacturing Technology Technical Council (MTTC), which reports to the ASTWG, will review annually the
MANTECH program and approve the MTOs as required. The MTOs approved by the MTTC will be forwarded to
the ASTWG for final approval. Within the next several years, as the new MANTECH approach demonstrates that
significant cost savings can be achieved with relatively small investments in manufacturing technology early in
development, the Army leadership believes that there will be a reversal in the downward funding trend that has been
associated with MANTECH in the recent past. In the future, MTOs, in addition to the two hundred Army STOs, will
make up the centerpiece of the Army S&T program.

Infrastructure
A major element of the Army strategy is a strong, viable, high–quality in–house research capability. Laboratories and
centers are the key organizations responsible for technical leadership, scientific advancement, and support for the
acquisition process, including a smart buyer function. The Army S&T organizational structure is illustrated in Figure
I–33.

Figure I-33. Army S&T Organization
Facilities and Equipment—Essential Foundation for Success
The Army owns a multibillion dollar network of RDT&E facilities located at over 100 sites worldwide (see Chapter
VI). The technological demands in many fieldsincluding medicine, microelectronics, photonics, materials, and
manufacturing processesdictate the need for modern, excellent facilities. Consequently, the Army is consolidating
specialized facilities, eliminating aging and technologically obsolete facilities, and using the capabilities of contractors
and other military services. At the same time, Army RDT&E manpower is being drawn down. The new Walter Reed
Army Institute for Research (WRAIR) facility is an example of long overdue modernization of in–house facilities that
focuses on those unique capabilities that truly must be owned by the Army itself, consistent with Project Reliance and
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1j.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 22:39:17

Infrastructure
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) processes. The 1991 BRAC mandated organizational consolidation and
geographic collocation of ARL at two main campuses: Adelphi and Aberdeen, Maryland. Construction has been
completed on a new materials research facility at Aberdeen and new laboratory and office facilities at Adelphi to
accommodate incoming personnel and maintain mission synergy.
In the future, the Army will use more automated equipment, computer–based research support, and technological
networking of researchers to yield more work per scientist and engineer. This strategy will be very important as the
Army reduces the size and changes the composition of its civilian work force. Advanced distributed simulation is
compressing research and technology development cycle times. The use of physical simulation tools, computer
modeling, and other highly automated systems is necessary to both product and manufacturing process technologies
and is pivotal to the future of the Army R&D establishment. These issues are discussed further in Chapter VI.
People—The Key to the Future
Approximately 13,000 in–house personnel in 30 laboratories, centers, and institutes are funded by S&T. Working at a
diversified set of facilities, ranging from solid–state physics laboratories to outdoor experimental ranges, they conduct
research, technology development, "smart buyer," and product support activities for the total Army. Highly
motivated, competent, well–trained people are essential to the success of the Army S&T strategy. Keeping the
in–house work force technically competent in a rapidly changing environment is a major objective for the future. The
DoD Laboratory Quality Initiative (LQI) allows revised procurement rules and investment in facilities that will assist in
meeting the challenge.
Army S&T Laboratory Personnel Demonstration Projects
In 1994, Congress recognized the challenges facing DoD in its efforts to improve the recruitment, retention, and
utilization of laboratory personnel. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY95 (Public Law 103.337)
authorized laboratories designated by DoD as S&T reinvention laboratories to undertake personnel demonstration
projects relating to qualifications, recruitment and appointment of personnel, classification and compensation,
assignment, reassignment and promotions, discipline, incentives, hours of work, methods involving employees in
labor organizations, and methods of reducing staff and grade levels.
The Army has 19 R&D organizations designated as S&T reinvention laboratories, each with authority to develop its
own plan. Five of these organizations—ARL, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, the Corps of
Engineers’ Waterways Experiment Station, the U.S. Army Missile RDEC, and the U.S. Army Aviation RDEC—were
selected as Phase I participants. The personnel demonstrations for the U.S. Army Missile RDEC and the U.S. Army
Aviation were effective October 1, 1997. The rest of the Phase I laboratories will obtain the authority to begin
implementation of their demonstrations in early FY98. The remaining 14 S&T reinvention laboratories are in Phase II.
Their plans are currently under development, with approval of their final plans anticipated for spring 1998. More than
13,000 engineers, scientists, and administrative and technical personnel will be covered by Army S&T reinvention
laboratory personnel demonstrations.
These demonstrations are the first major steps in developing personnel systems specifically tailored to the Army’s
laboratories. The demonstrations go far in answering criticisms from the Defense Science Board and others that the
current system is too slow, puts up administrative barriers, and is impossible to change. These projects streamline some
processes and introduce new flexibilities. Broadbanding, pay for performance, and pay in excess of the GS–15 levels

Infrastructure
for critical S&T management positions provide comparability to features that have been available in the private sector
for many years.
These demonstrations are critical to strengthening the foundation needed to recruit and sustain a strong 21st century
laboratory workforce capable of solving the technical challenges facing the 21st century warfighter.
Demographic projections for college graduates indicate a declining number of engineers and scientists in the period to
2015. The Army is the DoD leader in Youth Outreach (Table I–4), Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs), and Minority Institutions (MIs) (Table I–5). Every university research center of excellence and federated
laboratory is required to have an HBCU or MI partner who performs a significant amount of the research. Army
stay–in–school and summer–intern programs have convinced many students to study science and engineering.
Table I–4. Youth Science Activities

Goals:
• Conduct, promote, and sponsor science, mathematics, and engineering education

• Promote competent and diverse technical workforce
• Implement Executive Order 12821 and 10 U.S.C. 2192 (b)
Programs:
• DoD Science and Engineering Education Panel

• Junior Science and Humanities Symposia
• Research and Engineering Apprenticeship Program (REAP)
• "Uninitiates" Introduction to Engineering (UNITE)
• Science and Engineering Apprentice Program (SEAP)
• International Mathematical Olympiad and Science and Engineering Fairs
Table I–5. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions
Centers of Excellence:
• Advanced Distributed Simulation: Grambling State University

• Advanced Materials: Tuskegee University
• Advanced Fuel Cell and Battery Manufacturing Technology: Illinois Institute of Technology
• Science, Math, and Engineering Education: Contra Costa College, Morehouse College
Single Investigator Programs:
16 investigators at 11 institutions,including:
• North Carolina A&T State University

• Alabama A&M University

Infrastructure
• University of Texas at San Antonio

• New Mexico State University
Collaborative Research Programs:
• U.S. Army High–Performance Computing Research Center Subcontractor: Howard University

The Army Legacy
The Army Science and Technology Master Plan describes the development and maturation of technologies for the
Army’s future systems and system upgrades. Indeed, it is this transition of technology into affordable systems and
capabilities that makes the S&T program a sound investment. Over the last 60 years, Army R&D has developed and
fielded a number of significant product and process technologies, some of which are highlighted in Table I–6. Figures
I–34, I–35, and I–36 highlight some of the S&T contributions to Army aviation, tanks, and howitzers. The impact of
these technologies on military operations has been significant. Army S&T products helped win the cold war,
Operation Just Cause, and Operation Desert Storm. Beginning in the 1980s, past Army investments from basic science
through subsystem components have made the United States the leader in night vision capability (Figure I–37).
Today’s investments will likewise lead to compact power for 21st century applications (Figure I–38).
Table I–6. Army R&D Accomplishments

1990s
• Hypertonic saline dexton effectively resuscitates after significant hemorrhage; poses no hazard to renal function
• CORE–LOC concrete armor unit for breakwaters
• Full–color, thin–film electroluminescent, one–million–pixel, flat–panel display
• Composite hull for armored vehicles
• Produced enzymatically active human acetylcholinesterase using recombinant DNA techniques
• Airborne standoff minefield detection system
• Second–generation FLIR
• Food and Drug Administration licensure of halofantrine
• Insects for biological control of problem aquatic plants
• Rock rubble antipenetration shielding
• Day/night, adverse–weather pilotage systems (D/NAPS)
• Gene code in drug–resistant malaria strains analogous to that in human cancer cells resistant to anticancer drugs
• Intrinsic chemical markers for food safety to validate the safety (i.e., sterility) of thermoprocessed particulate
foods
1980s
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1k.htm（第 1／6 页）2006-09-10 22:39:41

The Army Legacy
• AIDS diagnostic and staging schemes published for wide usage

• Resin–based, nontoxic skin decontamination kit fielded
• Pretreatment, improved antidote, and anticonvulsant therapy for nerve agent poisoning
• Ballistic–laser protective spectacles fielded
• High–precision missile terminal imaging
• Mefloquine, antimalarial drug fielded
• All–composite aircraft demonstrated
• Image processing
• Personnel selection, classification, and assignment for formation of volunteer Army
• Wire strike protection system fielded
1970s
• Reverse osmosis water purification fielded

• Frequency–hopping radios
• Fiber optics applications: fly–by–light, fiber–optic guided missile (FOGM), communications
• Lightweight, flexible body armor
• Meals, ready to eat (MRE)
• High–burn–rate, solid–rocket–fuel technology
• First practical hit–rotor system demonstrated
• Superlattice electronics
• First–generation thermal imager fielded
1960s
• Meningitis vaccine developed

• Individual and vehicle ceramic armor
• Inertial surveying for field artillery demonstrated
• Freeze–dried compressed foods introduced
• Fast Fourier transform developed
• Sulfamylon, an antibacterial cream, developed for treatment of burns
• First starlight scope fielded
• Laser rangefinder
• Rubella virus (German measles) isolated
• Laser semiactive guidance invented and demonstrated
1950s
• Global standard for time measurement

• Photolithographic process for printed circuit boards
• First weather/communications satellites
• Solar cells for satellites
• Redstone rocket—Army first in space
• Turbine power for helicopter fielded
• Dehydration/freeze drying of foods made practical
• Mouth–to–mouth resuscitation developed
• Image intensifier scope
• T1–6A1–4V titanium alloy for aircraft developed
1940s

The Army Legacy
• Iodine tables for individual water purification

• First specific cure for typhoid fever
• First synthetic quartz
• ENIAC, first modern electronic computer
• First supersonic wind tunnel
• Atomic bomb fielded
• Helicopter first flown
• Engine for first American jet fighter
• Whole blood preservation
• Proximity fuze

Figure I-34. Aviation - Past and Future

The Army Legacy

Figure I-35. S&T Contributions to Abrams Tank

Figure I-36. Howitzers - Past and Future

The Army Legacy

Figure I-37. Evolution of Second-Generation FLIR Technology

Figure I-38. The Future of Compact Power Technology

The Army Legacy

Conclusion
The Army Science and Technology Master Plan is approved by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the
Army. It is the S&T roadmap for achieving AV 2010 and AAN. This plan is provided to government, industry, and
academia to convey the Army’s S&T vision, objectives, priorities, and corresponding investment strategy. This
document is an explicit, resource–constrained Department of Army guide to funding priorities and the S&T program
as a whole. "Resource–constrained" means the program activities discussed in this document are funded in the FY98
Army Appropriation and the FY99 President’s Budget (FY99–03). The schedules and projected technical
accomplishments reflect this level of funding.
It should also be noted that laboratory and center directors have sufficient flexibility, resources, and authority to
initiate projects, explore promising avenues of research and development, and exploit opportunities as they are
identified, beyond those discussed in this document. Budget reductions, however, continue to erode this flexibility so
essential to technical discovery and support to the acquisition and field commanders. The Army’s S&T strategy and
plan include support to the DTAP, JCS Future Warfighting Capabilities, S&T Reliance, and cooperation with U.S.
allies to pursue common goals.
Technological superiority is essential if a smaller Army is to be able to engage successfully in a wide variety of future
conflicts with minimal casualties. With continued support, the Army S&T program will ensure affordable
technological superiority, avoid technological surprise, and provide revolutionary warfighting capabilities for the AAN
(Figure I–39 and Table I–7).
America’s Army exists to fight and win our nation’s wars. Today’s Army is ready to accomplish this and any other
task required. The Army has a vision that sustains this essence while accommodating enormous change with balance
and continuity. Today’s soldiers benefit from past commitments to a robust S&T program. Tomorrow’s soldiers
deserve no less.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec1l.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 22:39:48

Conclusion

Figure I-39. S&T - Focused on the Warfighter
Table I–7. S&T Doing More for the Warfighter

With Fewer Resources
S&T now includes:
• System–of–systems capability demonstrations

• ACTDs (large–scale field exercises and residual capabilities)
• Simulation technology to support how–to–fight demonstrations
• Concepts for battle labs (ACT II)
• Industrial partnerships (NAC and NRTC)
• Dual–use partnerships (DUAP)
• Federated labs (6.1)
• Environmental technology
• Producibility (integrated product and process design)
• Support to advanced warfighting experiments
• Technology for horizontal technology integration
• More complete technical risk reduction
• Acquisition reform via Fast Track (straight to EMD)
• Support for the Army After Next

Chapter II, A, B, C, D
Chapter II
Training and doctrine command’s Role

in Science and Technology
The Army is not static. It is vital and dynamic, and adapts to meet the future.
General Johnnie E. Wilson

Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command
A. Background
Battle laboratories were established in 1992 to experiment with changing methods of warfare in order to
ensure that future generations of soldiers have the same battlefield edge our forces had in Operation Desert
Storm and other recent operations. We have formed hypotheses concerning changing methods of operation
and then conducted experiments using soldiers and leaders in increasingly realistic live, tactically competitive
training environments. From this we are developing warfighting requirements for maintaining the edge on
the battlefield.
The six original battle laboratories were designed to test battlefield dynamics that codify the aspects of
warfighting that appear to have the greatest potential for change. They describe the need to:
• Increase lethality and survivability of early entry forces.

• Expand and dominate dismounted and mounted battlespace.
• Attack an adversary simultaneously in all dimensions throughout the battlefield.
• Command and move information in near–real time while on the move.
• Use and reuse scarce assets to sustain the force on the battlefield.
The success of the first battle labs led to the establishment of three new ones concerned with maneuver
support, air maneuver, and space.
During the last 5 years, the battle lab process has been validated through six advanced warfighting
experiments (AWEs) and a related series of How to Fight seminars and videos. The concept has been
continuously updated and the output can be seen in Force XXI.

Figure II–1 shows battle laboratories and their locations.
Click on the image to view enlarged version
B. Task Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiment
In March 1997, the Army conducted an AWE at the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin,
California. The purpose of the AWE was to test a hypothesis: If . . . information–age battle command
capabilities/connectivity exist across all battlefield operating systems (BOSs) and battlefield functional areas
(BFAs) for a brigade task force, then . . . enhancements in lethality, survivability, and operational tempo will
be achieved.
The 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 4th Infantry Division, deployed to the NTC in March 1997 with more
than 5,000 soldiers organized in eight battalions, six companies, and a separate platoon. The eight–battalion
force included a mechanized infantry battalion, a tank battalion, a light infantry battalion, two field artillery
battalions, a forward support battalion (FSB), and an aviation task force of two battalions.
The AWE involved 72 initiatives ranging from prototype and newly fielded equipment to organizational
changes and concepts. Over 900 vehicles at Fort Hood, Texas, were equipped with over 5,000 pieces of
equipment, including 1,200 appliqué computers.
Sixty new "digital" tactics, techniques, and procedures were introduced into the 1st BCT. From June until
December 1997, the BCT trained at Fort Hood, beginning with the most basic classroom and hands–on
training, progressing to platoon, company, and battalion lanes, culminating with a BCT exercise in
December 1997. During this time, soldiers and leaders gained insights into new training methods, stressed
technical updates and solutions, and experimented with concepts from the Training and Doctrine
Command (TRADOC) pamphlet (T.P.) 525–5, Force XXI Operations.

After a shakeout phase at the Fort Irwin NTC, the 1st BCT underwent a 2–week, force–on–force exercise
against a nondigitized but augmented and robust opposing force (OPFOR). The first week consisted of the
standard missions that all units who train at the NTC undergo. This was done in an effort to compare
performance data of digitized versus nondigitized units. The second week consisted of unrestricted,
continuous operations across a much expanded battlespace, designed to gain insights into Force XXI
operations. The Air Force, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Forces also participated.
One of the most powerful initiatives emerging from the task force AWE was situational awareness. Using
appliqué computers and the tactical internet, unit commanders, small unit leaders, and individual vehicles
were able to share information about both friendly and enemy forces, reducing the historical fog of war. Such
situational awareness helps answer the perennial questions:
• Where am I?
• Where is the enemy?
• Where are my buddies?
Knowing one’s specific location, that of one’s own forces, and that of the enemy’s, allows commanders to
make more informed battlefield decisions.
Many insights emerged from the task force AWE, across doctrine, training, leader development,
organizations, materiel, and soldiers (DTLOMS). These insights will lead to refined training methods,
doctrine, and organizations as the Army of Excellence transitions to Army XXI. The task force AWE also
provided insights for recommending systems for the first digitized division. These insights will enable the
senior leadership to make resource decisions for rapid acquisition of the most promising initiatives.
The AWEs completed to date and the "How to Fight" seminars have resulted in a better understanding of
Force XXI. What follows is a description of Force XXI as we understand it today. The discussion will describe
the characteristics of Force XXI and its anticipated patterns of operation.
C. Where Do We Go From Here?
1. Division XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiment
In November 1997, the Army conducted a Division AWE at Fort Hood, Texas. This was a constructive
simulation involving the 4th Infantry Division, III Corps, and many of the reserve component war trace
headquarters.
The purpose was to test the connectivity and interoperability of the Army Tactical Command and Control
System and to validate the division design using a synthetic theater of war (STOW). In addition, the scenario
developed for this experiment allowed the focus to be on leveraging technology to protect, sustain, shape,
and conduct decisive operations so as to create greater opportunities for maneuver in a nonlinear, greatly

expanded battlefield environment.
The results of the division AWE are expected to contribute to a decision about the final objective division
design in February 1998.
Task Force XXI is a step along the path, fed by NTC 94–07, and incorporating lessons learned from ‘95/96
AWEs. The operational concepts were derived from T.P. 525–5, Force XXI Operations, and Force XXI
Division Redesign. Decisions fed further experiments, the most recent is the Division XXI AWE. The
Experimental Forces (EXFOR) brigade design was refined and experimented with again as a live brigade in
Division XXI AWE, consisting of an armor battalion, mechanized battalion, engineer battalion, and an
aviation task force.
The primary objective of the division AWE was to validate the division design by using STOW capabilities,
digitizing the division headquarters, executing division–brigade digitized command, control,
communications, and intelligence (C3I) interfaces/connectivity, and validating tactics, techniques, and
procedures (TTPs). This experiment executed operations simultaneously: brigade (BDE) live, BDE virtual,
and BDE constructive to gain insights on echelons above division (EAD) and joint digitized operations. The
experiment culminated with a digitized battle command training program (BCTP) Warfighter in the first
quarter of 1998 (November 1997).
The division AWE examined:
• How to organize—combinations of combat, combat support, and combat service support

units.
• How to fight—tactics, techniques, and procedures.
• How to command—optimal processes for each battlefield function and objective (expand
battlespace, continuous operations, noncontiguous operations, and joint operations).
D. Science and Technology Integration
TRADOC’s role in the Army’s science and technology (S&T) program begins as the originator of
warfighting requirements for the Army. From there, TRADOC directly influences the spending of half the
S&T budget in Basic Research (6.1), Applied Research (6.2), and Advanced Development (6.3) through the
application of future operational capabilities (FOCs) in:
• Strategic Research Objectives (SROs) selection.

• S&T reviews.
• Science and Technology Objectives (STOs).
• Advanced Concept and Technology II (ACT II).
• Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs).
• Advanced Concepts and Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs).

1. Basic Research (6.1)
TRADOC is involved in SROs through the development of the Army After Next (AAN). The SROs look
deep into the future (2025) to develop those research areas today that are anticipated as necessary in the
future.
2. Applied Research (6.2)
TRADOC influences the 6.2 arena in three vital areas: STOs, ATDs, and ACT IIs.
TRADOC annually reviews the current 200 STOs from Army Materiel Command (AMC), Corps of
Engineers, Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC), Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), and other Army laboratories for relevance and advancement. Through
the battle labs, centers, and schools, TRADOC makes recommendations for continuation of STO efforts and
almost as importantly, for removal of or replacement of current STOs. As the list is limited to 200, to add a
new effort, one must have been completed or deleted.
The battle labs sponsor the ATDs for the Army. The objective is to evaluate technical performance against
specific exit criteria. These S&T funded experiments are conducted in operational, not laboratory,
environments over 3 to 5 years. Ideally, experimental results transition into current system improvements or
new research and development (R&D) programs.
ACT II gives industry and academia direct access to the battle labs to streamline materiel acquisition and to
help provide warfighters with overmatch capabilities. ACT II competitively funds experiments to
demonstrate advanced technologies, prototypes, and nondevelopmental items (NDIs) having the greatest
potential to fulfill warfighting requirements. Demonstrations are conducted for the battle labs in 12 months
or less and are capped at $1.5 million.
3. Advanced Development (6.3)
TRADOC’s focus continues in both ATDs and STOs in the 6.3 area. Additionally, TRADOC, through the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Combat Development (DCSCD) develops a list of potential ACTDs. These
programs, executed at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) level, are forwarded to the Army’s
headquarters by the commanding general, TRADOC, for OSD consideration. Although compiled by
TRADOC, Army sponsored ACTDs can originate from outside TRADOC—materiel developers,
commanders in chief (CINCs), or the joint staff.
Figure II–2 shows TRADOC influence on S&T spending.


Chapter II, E
E. TRADOC Innovations in Science and Technology
During the past 12 months, TRADOC has brought about several innovations to the S&T process.
TRADOC’s commitment to focusing the S&T dollars is evident by its modifying and developing new
processes. These measures are designed to increase the seniority of TRADOC officials approving S&T
endeavors. Approval levels for TRADOC S&T actions are:
• SROs/STOs/ACT II: Colonel.

• ATDs: 2–Star General.
• ACTDs: 3–Star General.
1. Advanced Technology Demonstration Review
During 1997, TRADOC for the first time evaluated ongoing and proposed ATDs. ATDs are approved by
DCSCD, TRADOC headquarters.
ATDs are a category of Technology Demonstrations (TDs). They are risk–reducing, integrated,
proof–of–principle demonstrations designed to assist near–term system developments in satisfying specific
operational capability needs. ATDs have been promoted by the Defense Science Board and the Army
Science Board as a means of accelerating the introduction of new technologies into operational systems. They
are funded principally with 6.3 funds. ATDs facilitate the integration of proposed technologies into full
system demonstration and validation (6.4) or engineering and manufacture development (6.5) prototype
systems. As such, they provide a link between the technology developer, program manager, program
executive officer, combat developer, and the Army user.
Each ATD must meet or exceed exit criteria agreed upon by the warfighter and the ATD manager at program
inception (well before the tests begin) and before the technology in question will transition to development.
The ATDs seek to demonstrate the potential for enhanced military operational capability or cost
effectiveness. Logistics supportability is a consideration during evaluation of ATDs. Active participation by
the user and combat developer, as well as by the developer of the technology, is required throughout the
demonstration. An ATD consists of multiple subdemonstrations of the item or technology at various
locations or as part of various exercises over the 3– to 5–year duration of the ATD. At least one
subdemonstration must be conducted at a TRADOC battle lab and an advanced demonstration simulation
must also be conducted. Combat developers identify measures of effectiveness/performance applicable to
ATD evaluation for applicability and sufficiency for their FOC and warfighting concepts.

Chapter II, E
Figure II–3 shows the ATD approval process.
2. Advanced Concept and Technology Demonstration Approval by the Commanding General,

TRADOC
ACTDs accelerate the application of mature technologies configured in a way that is useful to the warfighter
and is in response to a critical military operational need. ACTDs provide an evaluation of the military utility
of proposed solutions, and are jointly planned by users and technology developers to enable operational
forces to experiment in the field with new technologies in order to evaluate potential changes to doctrine,
warfighting concepts, tactics, modernization plans, and training. ACTDs are used to develop appropriate
concepts of operation, provide insights for the generation or refinement of requirements, and provide
residual operational capabilities to the sponsoring user for an extended user evaluation or a contingency
operational deployment. Other major goals of ACTDs include promotion of operational jointness,
facilitation of senior leadership acquisition decisions, and posturing of ACTD systems for accelerated
acquisition, given success and a decision to procure.
TRADOC plays a significant role in the ACTD nomination/approval process. TRADOC provides
operational managers for the Army–led ACTDs and requirements integration managers for other services/
agencies–led ACTDs. This process is described in detail in T.P. 71–9, Chapter 8–7.
Figure II–4 illustrates the ACTD nomination process.

Chapter II, E
3. Future Operational Capabilities
FOCs are statements of an operational capability required by the Army to achieve the goals articulated in the
hierarchy of concepts (T.P. 525 series) and to maintain military dominance over the operational
environment in which it will be required to operate. FOCs are employed in the TRADOC S&T and the STO
reviews as measures for assessing the warfighting merits of individual S&T efforts. FOCs guide the Army’s
S&T investment. Materiel developers and industry use FOCs as references to guide independent research and
developments and facilitate horizontal technology integration (HTI). FOCs are used within the Army
Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP) process to provide a warfighting focus to technology based
funding.
TRADOC pamphlet 525–66, Future Operational Capabilities (see Figure II–5), is the control mechanism for
requirements determination activities. It compiles and summarizes the desired future operational capabilities
described in TRADOC approved concepts. T.P. 525–66 will be the basis for conducting studies and
warfighting experiments.

Chapter II, E
4. Strategic Research Objectives
To maintain the technological dominance we expect in the future, we must determine today what
technologies we need to keep that edge. TRADOC, through the Army After Next (AAN), is attempting to
determine where we need to look in terms of technologies to explore or exploit in the near term to reach
objectives and expectations in the future. A Council of Colonels (COC) conducts a review and makes
recommendations to the TRADOC leadership (see Figure II–3, above).
5. Army After Next Science and Technology Objectives
Beginning in 1999, an additional category of STOs will be developed (Figure II–6).These STOs will relate
directly to advances in the SROs AAN has developed. Each newly nominated STO requires support from a
TRADOC director.

Chapter II, E
6. Battle Laboratory Developments
During 1997, the mission of the battle labs evolved with the implementation of TRADOC Regulation 71–9.
This regulation defines the roles and missions of the battle labs and directors of combat developments
(DCDs) at the TRADOC centers and schools.
In 1997, three new battle labs were established and one was closed. In June, the Early Entry Lethality and
Survivability (EELS) Battle Laboratory was disestablished and its functions transferred to the Combat Service
Support Battle Laboratory and Dismounted Battlespace Battle Laboratory. The three new battle laboratories
and their corresponding functions are:
• Maneuver Support Battle Laboratory, Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri:
– Examine latest concepts for organization, tactics doctrine, and technological

capabilities.
– Facilitate flow of new ideas and capabilities offered by the strategies of Force XXI.
– Integrate concepts across the width and depth of the battlefield.
• Air Maneuver Battle Laboratory, Ft. Rucker, Alabama:
– Provide direction, oversight, and horizontal integration for aviation operations.

– Improve capability of air maneuver forces to shape the battlespace.
– Enhance precision strike operations capabilities of the combined arms and joint
force.

Chapter II, E
• Space and Missile Defense Battle Laboratory (SMDBL) Colorado Springs, CO and
Huntsville, AL
– Develop warfighting concepts, focus military S&T research, and experiment to

provide space and missile defense DTLOMS capabilities to warfighters
– Focus efforts on areas beyond the core capabilities of the other battle laboratories.

Chapter II, F, G, H, I, J, K
F. Science and Technology Review
TRADOC conducts an annual (December–April) review of all Army 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 S&T work to give the
combat developer an opportunity to review and assess the relevance of the S&T work efforts to the warfighter
concepts. It also provides feedback to the materiel developers on the relative merits of each S&T effort. The
results from the S&T review will be used by the combat developer to identify potential STO candidates. The
review also provides information on perceived shortfalls and redundancies in the Army S&T work efforts
(see Figure II–7).
G. Science and Technology Objectives Review
TRADOC serves as the executive agent on behalf of the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Research and
Technology) (DAS(R&T)) for the execution of the annual STO review. The STO review provides the forum
for the user and developer communities to vote on the warfighting and technical merit of each proposed
STO. STO reviews provide the follow–on mechanism to the S&T review that further defines and aligns users’
requirements and the materiel developer’s efforts. The STO is a necessary link in the S&T cycle (see Figures
II–8 and II–9).

H. Advanced Technology Demonstration Review
The STO review provides a basis for ATDs. TRADOC participates in ATDs via battle laboratories and
DCDs. TRADOC and the materiel developer (MATDEV) jointly develop a demonstration plan with
agreed–upon exit criteria to execute the ATD. ATD management plans are briefed to and recommended by a
COC prior to approval at the Army Science and Technology Working Group (ASTWG). ATDs are
resource intensive and provide the medium to conduct troop interaction with mature technologies. ATDs
have provided significant contributions to the soldiers on the battlefield. The Battle Laboratory Integration,

Technology, and Concepts Directorate (BLITCD) serves as the primary coordinator for all ATDs.
I. Advanced Concepts and Technology II Program
The ACT II program was initiated in 1994 to give industry direct access into the battle labs to streamline
materiel acquisition and to help give warfighters overmatch capabilities. ACT II competitively funds industry
to demonstrate its advanced technologies, prototypes, and NDIs having the greatest potential to fulfill
warfighting requirements. Demonstrations are conducted for the battle laboratories in 12 months or less.
The battle labs develop topics to be solicited via a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) based on the results
of the S&T and STO review processes. These reviews identify gaps and shortfalls in current S&T efforts.
Those FOCs lacking Army S&T work are presented as ACT II topics. Those project proposals that can
potentially be addressed by industry and best meet the needs of the Army are selected for funding
(Figure II–10).
J. Summary
These concurrent evaluations of the Army’s S&T efforts provide an overlapping assurance that the materiel
developers stay focused on the warfighting requirements of the future. They provide a means by which efforts
can be validated or refocused, duplication can be eliminated, and gaps can be filled.
K. Army After Next Linkage to the Science and Technology Community
The AAN project conducts broad studies of warfare to about the year 2025 to frame issues vital to the
development of the Army after about 2010, and provides these issues to the senior Army leadership in a
format suitable for integration into TRADOC combat development programs. Studies are currently pursued

in four areas focused out to 2025: geopolitics, military art, human and organizational behavior, and
technology. The AAN project conducts its studies through an annual cycle of wargames and workshops that
culminates in an Annual Report to the Chief of Staff, Army (CSA).
AAN technology insights and issues are developed using networks of technologists from government (DoD
and non-DoD), industry, and academia. To ensure that these insights and issues are fed into the S&T
investment process and the combat developments process, the AAN project has established close
relationships with Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition),
AMC, the Army Research Laboratory, The Army Research Office, and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, as well as the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans and members of
the TRADOC combat developments community, to include BLITCD and the battle labs.
While TRADOC’s DCSCD presents the commander’s position on S&T investments, the AAN project
works in concert with the DCSCD to describe the enabling technologies assessed as crucial to the U.S. Army
in 2010 to 2025. In particular, the AAN perspective is now sought to determine S&T investments in a certain
percentage of 6.1 and early 6.2 programs. In order to carry this out, the AAN project and DCSCD work
together in an expanding set of S&T processes. These include the Triennial 6.1 Program Review, the
development of Army SROs, and the selection of AAN STOs.
This close working relationship between the AAN project and the DCSCD ensures that the task of handing
off technology insights to the combat developments community is a continuous process based on two–way
communications. In addition, the challenge of providing continuity from current forces and Army XXI
forces to forces in 2025 is met.
The AAN project will support the Army in developing unique partnerships with key members of the S&T
community to develop the critical technologies needed for future warfighting. One such player is DARPA,
which is already working with the Army to explore innovative concepts and technologies. Other areas of
focus include ways to speed up acquisition agility to keep pace with accelerating changes in technology, and
innovative business practices that can help to rapidly transform ideas into capabilities (see Figures II–11 and
II–12).


Chapter III A. Introduction and Constraints
Chapter III
We are not the only nation with competence in defense science and technology. To
sustain the lead which brought us victory during Desert Storm . . . recognizing that
over time other nations will develop comparable capabilities, we must . . . invest in the
next generation of defense technologies.
William J. Perry
Former Secretary of Defense
A. Introduction and Constraints
The ultimate goal of the Army’s science and technology (S&T) program is to provide the soldier with a
winning edge on the battlefield. The accelerating pace of technological change will continue to offer
significant opportunities to enhance the survivability, lethality, deployability, and versatility of Army forces.
High–technology research and development is, and will remain, a central feature of the Army’s
modernization strategy.
The purpose of this chapter is to show the planned transition of promising technology developments into
tomorrow’s operational capabilities. This transition is accomplished by demonstrations that evolve into the
systems and system upgrades incorporated in the Army Modernization Plan (AMP).
Because the Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP) is designed to be a funding–constrained
document, inclusion of systems/system upgrades and demonstrations in Chapter III was based on their
inclusion in the FY99–03 approved Army program objective memorandum (POM), the FY98 defense
appropriation, and the FY98 budget estimate submission (BES).
The inclusion of advanced concepts is based on the existence of funded 6.3 technology demonstrations in the
POM and in the research, development, and acquisition (RDA) plan, directed toward potential future
systems. These advanced concepts represent options that are thought to be technologically achievable and
useful on a future battlefield. There is, however, no firm commitment by either the Department of the Army
or the user community to develop or produce these specific advanced concepts.
Systems and system upgrades contained in this chapter are also included in the approved AMP.

Chapter III A. Introduction and Constraints
Most of the roadmaps contained in this chapter reflect only limited planned technology demonstration
activity beyond the year 2000, due to the ever–changing threat and the difficulty of projecting realistic
far–term funding.

Chapter III B. Technology Transition Strategy
B. Technology Transition Strategy
1. Technology Transition
The basic strategy of the Army S&T program is to change technology into operational systems to be prepared for future
conflict. Because of significant changes in the world security environment over the past several years, the Army is currently
focusing on building a smaller, power–projection Army. This "new" Army will capitalize on America’s technologies to
improve critical areas of development such as protecting the individual soldier and improving battlefield mobility and
information management.
Key to this strategy are the Technology Demonstrations (TDs), Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs), and
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs) that exploit technologies derived from applied research (6.2),
which in turn builds on new knowledge derived from basic research (6.1) programs. These TDs, ATDs, and ACTDs provide
the basis for new systems, system upgrades, or advanced concepts, which are further out in time. The critical challenge is to tie
these programs together in an efficient and effective way.
Technology demonstrations are not new. What is new are the scope and depth of the technology demonstrations, the
increased importance of their role in the acquisition process, and the increased emphasis on user involvement to permit an
early and meaningful evaluation of overall military capability. The following sections provide an explanation of TDs, ATDs,
and ACTDs, as well as systems/system upgrades/advanced concepts (S/SU/ACs).
a. Technology Demonstrations
The primary focus of TDs is to demonstrate the feasibility and practicality of a technology for solving specific military
deficiencies. They are incorporated during the various stages of the 6.2 and 6.3 development process and encourage technical
competition. They are most often conducted in a nonoperational (laboratory or field) environment. These demonstrations
provide information that reduces uncertainties and subsequent engineering costs, while simultaneously providing valuable
development and requirements data.
b. Current Advanced Technology Demonstrations
Within each Army mission area, specific ATDs are being structured to meet established goals. Detailed roadmaps to guide
their progress are being developed, as well as exit criteria to define their goals. ATDs are risk reducing, integrated,
proof–of–principle demonstrations designed to assist near–term system developments in satisfying specific operational
capability needs. The ATD approach has been promoted by the Defense Science Board (DSB) and the Army Science Board
(ASB) as a means of accelerating the introduction of new technologies into operational systems. They are principally funded
with advanced technology development (6.3) funds. ATDs facilitate the integration of proposed technologies into full system
demonstration/validation (6.4) or engineering and manufacturing development (6.5) prototype systems. As such, they
provide the link between the technology developer, program manager, program executive officer, and the Army user. The
criteria for establishing an ATD are:

• Execution at the system or major subsystem level in an operational or simulated operational rather than a
laboratory environment.
• Potential for new or enhanced military operational capability or cost effectiveness.
• Duration of 3 to 5 years.
• Transition plan in place for known or potential applications.
• Active participation by the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) battle laboratory and user
proponents (see Chapter II).
• Participation by the developer (project manager).
• Use of simulation to assess doctrinal/tactical payoffs.
• Exit criteria established with user interaction/concurrence.
• Consistency with the Army technical architecture.
The Army currently has 20 ATDs that have been approved by the Army Science and Technology Working Group
(ASTWG). These ATDs are identified in Table III–1, along with the primary Army mission area each supports. All ATDs are
discussed in the applicable Chapter III sections. More detailed information, including exit criteria for each ATD, can be
found in Volume II, Annex NO TAG. Science and Technology Objectives (STOs) for each ATD are in Volume II, Annex
NO TAG.
c. Completed Advanced Technology Demonstrations
Four ATDs were successfully completed in FY97. Table III–2 provides details on the results of these ATDs, addressing the
product, warfighting capability, and transition of the technology. Additionally, brief descriptions of these ATDs follow.
Table I–1. Correlation Between Ongoing Army ATDs and the

Army Modernization Plan
ATD Army Modernization Plan Annex Section ASTMP STO
Description
Section
Primary Secondary
Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate Aviation IEW III–D III.D.01
Battlefield Combat Identification C4 IEW, Combat III–E III.E.07

Maneuver, Aviation
Digital Battlefield Communications C4 III–E III.E.09
Composite Armored Vehicle Combat Maneuver III–G III.G.01
Target Acquisition Combat Maneuver III–G III.G.08
Enhanced Fiber–Optic Guided Missile Combat Maneuver IEW III–H III.H.03
Precision–Guided Mortar Munition Combat Maneuver Fire Support III–H III.H.04
Objective Individual Combat Weapon Combat Maneuver III–I III.I.01
Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System Combat Maneuver III–N III.N.11
Vehicular–Mounted Mine Detector Combat Maneuver III–M III.M.08
Direct Fire Lethality Combat Maneuver III–G III.G.10

Integrated Biodetection NBC III–K III.K.03
Multispectral Countermeasures Aviation III–D III.D.13
Air/Land Enhanced Reconnaissance and Targeting Aviation III–D III.D.14
Battlespace Command and Control C4 III–E III.E.06
Future Scout and Cavalry System Combat Maneuver III–G III.G.14
Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite Combat Maneuver III–H III.H.15
Mine Hunter/Killer Combat Maneuver III–M III.M.09
Tactical Command and Control Protect IEW III–F III.F.09
Multimission/Common Modular Unmanned Aerial Vehicle IEW III–F III.F.06

Sensors
Table III–2. Completed Advanced Technology Demonstrations

ATD Product Warfighting Capability Transition
Hit Modeling and simulation (M&S) (Project ATGM defeat improves vehicle and crew CDA to Program Executive Office
Avoidance Guardian) provided cost/affordability and survivability (PEO)–Ground Combat and Support System
(III.G.06) effectiveness data for hit avoidance (GCSS) (program manager ground systems
solutions integration)
Supports digitized battlefield with threat
situational awareness
Near–term active protection system The suite of survivability enhancement systems
(NTAPS) will defeat horizontal (SSES) for fielding on the M2A3 Bradley
Improves tactics, techniques, and
hit–to–kill antitank guided missile fighting vehicle
procedures of future ground vehicle
(ATGM) threat
systems
Enhance distributed interactive

CDA increases hit avoidance system
simulation (DIS) at Mounted Warfare
performance
Test Bed, Ft. Knox, to play hit avoidance
technologies
Reduces crew workload and stress
CDA universal software module will
automate hit avoidance vehicle hardware
through fusion of sensors with
countermeasures

Hunter Sensor Two complete hunter sensor suite systems Long–range target acquisition with Key hunter sensor suite technologies to future
Suite for RFPI demonstration reduced operator timelines scout and cavalry system/TRACER program
(III.H.02)
Automatic target recognition software On–the–move operational capability, Key technologies and long–range afocal
and processor acoustic 360–degree field of regard for specification for preplanned product
target cueing improvement (P3I)—Long–Range Advanced
Extended long–range optics Scout Surveillance System (LRAS3) to
C4I automated operator functions PEO–Intelligence and Electronic Warfare (IEW)
Key hunter sensor technologies for future

scout and cavalry system Precision targeting hand–off with Two hunter sensor suite systems to RFPI ACTD
significantly improved accuracy program manager
Reduced signature platform and sensor

package
Battle damage assessment capability
Intelligent Gateway (autonomously controls WAMs Better operator tactics and control Hardware/software technologies transitioned to
Minefield fires based on user remote strategy through situational awareness and longer program manager–mines, countermine
(III.M.07) selection) range targeting demolitions
IMF simulator prototype for Improved capability against difficult IMF ATD is supporting the RFPI ACTD
force–on–force modeling and engineering targets
analysis
On/off/on and WAM field status for
Advanced acoustic sensors maneuver flexibility/counterattack
Capability for commanders to restrict the

mobility of the threat, and control battle
tempo
Total Logistics anchor desk (LAD) Forms the baseline for logistics planning LAD suite of tools to the program manager
Distribution workstations complete with integrated combat service support control systems
(III.O.11) suite of logistics data management tools, (CSSCS) and Army global command and
Enhanced capability to plan, analyze,
decision support tools, and collaborative control system (AGCCS)
mobilize, deploy, sustain, and reconstitute
planning tools
material, personnel, and forces in combat
and crisis response situations Joint LAD tools transitioned to GCSS and the
Computer M&S techniques Global Command and Control System (GCCS)
Integration to satellite tracking and joint LAD network management, test, and integration
asset databases tools to DARPA and NSC
Network communications management LAD deployed to ACOM, EUCOM, and

and integration technology CENTCOM
Hit Avoidance ATD (1995–97). The ATD demonstrated through Battlefield Distributed Simulation (BDS) warfighting
experiments improved battlefield effectiveness and developed battlefield tactics for an integrated hit avoidance technology to
include sensors, countermeasures, and active defenses against both top attack and horizontal threats. This ATD developed
and demonstrated a commander’s decision aid (CDA). This is a hardware/software logic module that fuses sensors with
countermeasures for automated or aided crewman response. It is a key component of the vehicle protection architecture and
can be battlefield tailored to a specific set of threats and used horizontally across multiple combat and tactical vehicles.
Hunter Sensor Suite ATD (1994–97). This ATD has provided major advancements in performance for the Army scout and
cavalry systems community. It demonstrated the feasibility of a lightweight, deployable, and survivable hunter vehicle with an
advanced long–range sensor suite and reduced signature platform. The sensor suite combined a second–generation thermal

imager, day television, eyesafe laser range finder, embedded automatic target recognition (ATR), and image compression/
transfer technology for linkage into a C3 network. Communications data compression techniques/technologies were
integrated and demonstrated to permit transmission of imagery over the existing combat net radio systems from the Hunter
Sensor platform to the Rapid Force Projection Initiative (RFPI) "standoff killer" weapons in less than 15 seconds. Over
current capabilities, the ATD demonstrated an 80 percent reduction in detection times and a 70 percent increase in target
recognition range and will allow precision target location to within v30 meters.
Intelligent Minefield ATD (1993–97). The ATD integrated the wide area munitions (WAMs) with advanced technologies
into an autonomous, antiarmor/antivehicle system, and demonstrated improved effectiveness (w50 percent) of individual
mines through the use of advanced acoustic sensors, gateway data fusion and coordinated WAM attack. The Intelligent
Minefield (IMF) demonstrated the ability for the user to control the WAM fields remotely from the control station through
the intelligent gateway based on the sensor information displayed at the control station. Accomplishments included (1) better
operator tactics and control—providing the operator with better situational awareness, the capability to track up to seven
targets, and individual, real–time target tracks within the WAM field, (2) WAM field performance improvements, and (3) the
demonstration of advanced acoustic sensors. Elements of the ATD will also be demonstrated as part of the RFPI ACTD in
FY98.
Total Distribution ATD (1994–97). This ATD provided the commanders/logisticians at strategic, operational, and tactical
levels an enhanced capability to plan, analyze, mobilize, deploy, sustain, and reconstitute materiel, personnel, and forces in
combat or crisis–response situations while reducing logistics timelines and support costs. The ATD demonstrated automated
logistics planning tools, computer simulation and modeling techniques, interfaces to advanced microelectronics and satellite
tracking, and network communications management and integration technology to support an advanced logistics supply
capability. To its credit the ATD successfully participated in Prairie Warrior Exercises ’94–’97 and Joint Warrior
Interoperability Demonstrations in ’95–’97 and provided logistics deployment, sustainment and redeployment planning and
operational support to Operation Joint Endeavor, and is deployed to the Atlantic Command (ACOM), the European
Command (EUCOM), and Central Command (CENTCOM) as the baseline for the Joint Logistics ACTD. Additionally, the
ATD is migrating its log anchor desk (LAD) tools to the combat service support control system (CSSCS) and the Army
global command and control system (AGCCS) legacy logistics C2 systems.
d. Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations
The ACTD is an integrating effort to assemble and demonstrate a significant, new military capability, based upon maturing
advanced technology(s), in a real–time operation at a scale adequate to clearly establish operational utility and system
integrity. ACTDs are jointly sponsored and implemented by the operational user and materiel development communities,
with approval and oversight guidance from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Technology (DUSD(AT)).
The ACTD concept is a cornerstone in a procurement strategy that relies on prototyping and demonstration programs to
maintain the U.S. military technological edge in the face of declining procurement budgets. ACTDs are a more mature phase
of the ATDs. They are 2– to 4–year efforts in which new weapons and technologies are developed, prototyped, and then
tested by the soldiers in the field for up to 2 years before being procured. This 2–year residual capability is a unique attribute
of an ACTD.
ACTDs are not new programs, but tend to be a combination of previously identified ATDs, TDs, or concepts already begun.
They include high–level management and oversight to transform disparate technology development efforts conducted by the
various military services into prototype systems that can be tested and eventually fielded. The ACTD becomes the last step in
determining whether the military needs and can afford the new technology.
2. Manpower and Personnel Integration Program

The Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) program is a comprehensive management and technical program
to improve total system (soldier, equipment, and unit) performance by focusing on soldier performance and reliability. This
is achieved by the continuous integration of manpower, personnel, training, human engineering, system safety, health hazard,
and soldier survivability considerations throughout the materiel life cycle.
Throughout the design and development phases, MANPRINT ensures that an emphasis on soldier considerations is
maintained as a high priority in system design and that system operation, deployment/employment, and maintenance
requirements are matched with soldier capabilities, training, and availability. The value added of MANPRINT has been
demonstrated in programs such as Comanche and Longbow Apache, where application of MANPRINT has led to significant
cost avoidance and enhanced mission effectiveness. With MANPRINT, Army systems will become increasingly
user–centered, reliable, and maintainable, leading to significant reductions in life–cycle costs and increased mission
effectiveness.
3. Army Strategy for Systems, System Upgrades, and Advanced Concepts
a. Systems and System Upgrades
The development of the next set of systems requires prior demonstration of the feasibility of employing new technologies.
New systems are those next in line after the ones currently fielded or in production. For these systems, most technical barriers
to the new capability have been overcome. Generally, these systems can enter engineering and manufacturing development
relatively quickly as a result of the successful demonstration of enabling technologies. Based on current funding guidance, the
number of new systems is in a sharp decline. Systems included in this chapter must have a funded 6.4 or 6.5 development
program or production dollars in the POM/Army RDA plan.
In the absence of new systems, the Army is pursuing incremental improvements to existing systems to maintain its
technological edge and capabilities. For the purposes of this plan, these improvements have been designated as "system
upgrades." System upgrades are brought about through technology insertion programs, service life extension programs,
preplanned product improvement (P3I) programs, and block improvement programs. System upgrades included here must
have a 6.4/6.5 funding wedge in the POM/Army RDA plan. These upgrades are based primarily on the success of funded 6.3
ATDs/TDs. The 6.3 ATDs/TDs either are the basis for the system upgrade or have a high probability of forming the basis for
the system upgrade. Descriptions of systems and system upgrades may be found in the book Weapon Systems, United States
Army 1997.
b. Advanced Concepts
Advanced concepts are systems concepts further out in time. For these, significant technical barriers remain, and questions of
military worth, including tradeoffs within emerging doctrine and force structure limits, are less clear. Advanced concepts help
provide the focus for the earlier stages of technology development (6.1 and 6.2 programs) and outyear projected 6.3
demonstrations. In many cases they are conceptual in nature, and actual system definitions may change significantly by the
time technologies and demonstrations are more fully understood. Advanced concepts represent an option that is thought to
be technologically achievable and useful on a future battlefield, but without a prior commitment by either the Department of
the Army or the user community for development or production. Inclusion of advanced concepts in the ASTMP is based on
planned/funded 6.3 ATDs/TDs.
4. Force Modernization Planning
The purpose of an AMP is to formally state the Army’s plan for force development and modernization and to clearly
articulate specific goals. The AMP is the key planning document in providing long–term continuity within functional areas,

while assisting in program prioritization and integration of the total Army force. The AMP is constrained to available
structure and programmed resources. It provides the structure and guidance necessary to integrate functional mission area
solutions in a constrained resource environment. It is responsive to changing external factors such as emerging capabilities,
funding levels, force structure, technology breakthroughs or delays, and the national military strategy. The current functional
area annexes to the AMP are listed in the following Section NO TAG.
5. Low–Intensity Conflict/Operations Other Than War
Due to the changing world situation, low–intensity conflict (LIC) and operations other than war (OOTW) (e.g.,
humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping operations, peace enforcement) are becoming increasingly important areas that must
be addressed by the development community. This is reflected in the Combat Maneuver Annex (Close Combat Light) to the
AMP. New technology is being used to develop systems that support the LIC/OOTW mission. This usually equates in
operational terms to equipment being lighter, smaller, more mobile, and less detectable. In each section of this chapter, where
appropriate, ties to the Close Combat Light mission area are noted. Additional material is presented in Section III–H.

Chapter III C. Structure
C. Structure
This chapter presents the transition of technology into S/SU/ACs in 14 sections corresponding to the
Annexes of the FY97 AMP. Because the AMP is uniquely configured, there is not a one–to–one correlation
between the Chapter III ASTMP sections and the AMP annexes. The ASTMP sections are as follows:
• Aviation
• Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4)
• Intelligence and Electronic Warfare (IEW)
• Mounted Forces
• Close Combat Light
• Soldier
• Combat Health Support (CHS)
• Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC)
• Air and Missile Defense
• Engineer and Mine Warfare (EMW)
• Fire Support
• Logistics
• Training
• Space.
Although AMP annexes currently exist for force structure, information mission area, missile defense, and
tactical wheeled vehicles, there are no Army S&T–funded technology demonstrations planned. Therefore,
there is no corresponding section for these annexes included in Chapter III.
Each section includes a crosswalk, by system, showing the support to the applicable modernization plan
annexes. Additionally, each addresses the questions of "why?" and "how?" The "why?" part consists mainly of
the discussion of operational capabilities. The "how?" part is addressed in the demonstration descriptions and
the roadmaps. Each section is built around the framework displayed in Figure III–1 and contains the
following information:

Introduction—A quick synopsis that presents the theme and S&T efforts to be discussed in the section.
Relationship to Operational Capabilities—This section includes a table that ties S/SU/ACs to the applicable
Army modernization objectives and presents the specific new system capabilities required for each area.
Modernization Strategy—A brief synopsis of the applicable modernization strategy.
Roadmap—This is a graphical milestone representation of all the technology transition demonstrations that
are covered in the section. It shows approximate timeframes and associated systems for each demonstration.
It also captures the evolution to advanced concepts. A summary table presents the systems and
demonstrations found in each roadmap.
The roadmap is the heart of each section. The left side of the roadmap lists systems and system upgrades; the
demonstrations and tie–ins are shown in the body of the map, and the evolution to advanced concepts is on
the right side. (See the C4 modernization roadmap, Figure III–3, for example.)
Following this, a description of technology demonstrations is provided. This includes a discussion of the
technologies being demonstrated in terms of the capability to be provided. Some demonstrations have
applications to more than one modernization plan annex. In these cases, the demonstration is described in
the primary section and referenced in the other applicable section. Each demonstration description identifies
the S/SU/ACs being supported.
Relationship to Other Modernization Plan Annexes—This section presents a matrix displaying systems,
system upgrades, or advanced concepts that are supported in, or contribute to, other AMP annexes.

This chapter represents the implementation of the Army’s S&T planning process necessary to support the
warfighting concepts discussed in Chapter II. It addresses the application of technologies, including emerging
technologies, that are discussed in more detail in Chapter NO TAG. Volume II, Annex NO TAG, provides
the STOs relative to the ATDs and significant technology demonstrations. Descriptive information on the
ATDs are in Volume II, Annex NO TAG.
In summary, this chapter describes how the Army’s S&T program comes together to transfer technology into
systems that provide Army operational capabilities.

Chapter III D. Aviation
D. Aviation
Comanche is the centerpiece of the digital battlefield.
Brigadier General Orlin L. Mullen, USA (Ret.)
1. Introduction
In support of the Army’s five strategic modernization objectives, Army aviation showcases the development of the RAH–66
Comanche and AH–64D Apache Longbow helicopters. The armed reconnaissance Comanche will be the centerpiece of the digital
battlefield and the Apache Longbow will provide all–weather attack capability. Battlefield commanders will quickly realize the
advantages gained through the instantaneous transfer of digital reconnaissance data to the airborne shooters with their
three–dimensional (3D) maneuverability/agility to control the ever–changing battlefield tempo. As the threat proliferates and
increases, the probability of regional and third–world conflicts and the need for expanded aviation capabilities for deployability,
lethality, versatility, and expansibility will continue to be critical.
Consistent with the AMP, the S&T program focuses on projects vital to Army Aviation’s fulfillment of its future military role in
meeting the emerging requirements of Joint Vision 2010 and Army After Next (AAN). The Army Aviation S&T program will make
major contributions to the Army’s battle laboratory warfighting capabilities, Force XXI, the nation’s rotorcraft industry, and
NASA’s rotorcraft programs. It is postured to support the development of a joint transport rotorcraft (JTR) that has the potential to
fulfill both military and commercial needs. The JTR, as well as other concept studies under investigation, examines the feasibility of
using robotic air vehicles for cargo transport and the viability of a multirole/mission adaptable air vehicle, harmonizing joint user
requirements for next–generation rotorcraft.
Force XXI is the Army’s near–term effort to modernize and the first step toward meeting the obligations associated with Joint
Vision 2010. Force XXI focuses on gaining information dominance via digitization of the battlefield, with minimal hardware
upgrades in this initial phase of modernization. Army’s contribution to Joint Vision 2010 operational concepts is identified in
Army Vision 2010 as the "land component" of Joint Vision 2010. This focuses on the ability of the Army to "conduct prompt and
sustained operations on land throughout the entire spectrum of the crisis." It serves as the linchpin between Force XXI and the
emerging long–term vision of AAN to "ensure land force dominance across the full spectrum of military operations."
Army aviation acts as a critical element of a joint, combined, or multinational force in future operations with the ability to operate in
all dimensions of the battlespace as a dominant force multiplier. Aviation’s flexibility and agility is essential for the joint force
commander to gain situational awareness, protect the deploying force, and strike the enemy throughout the width and depth of the
battlespace.
As a member of the joint team, the Army must compete with a wide variety of programs from other services to reach the goals of
Joint Vision 2010 and AAN. The Army modernization strategy emphasizes highly leveraged R&D, leading–edge technology
enhancements, and best use of available resources. This strategy will be used to develop the Army’s linkage to Joint Vision 2010
operational concepts of project and protect the force, shape the battlespace, decisive operations, sustain the force, and gain
information dominance.

To meet the varied challenges of the 21st century, Army aviation envisions the family of S/SU/ACs listed in Table III–3. This table
presents the correlation between the S/SU/ACs and relevant TRADOC battlefield dynamics. This large, diverse group of dynamics
illustrates aviation’s ability to support a wide range of combat
Table III–3. Aviation System Capabilities

System/ Patterns of Operation System/ Advanced Concept
System Upgrade/ System Upgrade Capability
Advanced Concept Capability
Function
Project Protect Gain Decisive Shape the Sustain

the the Information Operations Battlespace the
Force Force Dominance Force
SCOUT/ATTACK Day/night and adverse Advanced propulsion

weather
Advanced maneuverability/agility
Integrated cockpit for
reduced crew
System Integrated flight/fire control
workload
All–weather nap of the earth (NOE)

Automatic target
pilotage
recognition
RAH–66
Computer–aided low–altitude flight
Comanche • Second–generation
FLIR
Advanced weapons
• EO/MMW radar
Automatic target acquisition
System Upgrade • Expert system/
processor Mission planning and rehearsal
Antiarmor capability Advanced man–machine integration
AH–64D Apache
• Laser/RF Hellfire • Situational awareness
Longbow
Air–to–air capability • Artificial intelligence (AI)/cognitive

decision aiding
• Advanced fire control
Precision navigation
Advanced Concept
• Stinger missiles
Battalion and below command and
control operational doctrine status
• High rate of fire
cannon
Enhanced Secure communications–jam resistant
AH–64D Apache
Area target capability
Multimodal command understanding
• Hydra–70 rockets
NBC sensors and overpressure
Airborne Manned/ Low–cost,

Unmanned System precision–kill, NBC/directed energy/ballistic protection
Technology 2.75–inch guided
rockets (air to ground/ Survivability/vulnerability
ground to ground)
Susceptibility–signature control
Survivability
Diagnostics/prognostics/embedded

• Signature reduction training

Modular
Unmanned
Logistics Express Advanced flight Fault–tolerant/AI processing
controls
Ground maintenance associate
• Fly by wire/light
Self–deployable
Secure NOE
communications data
Multirole Crashworthiness
transfer
Mission–Adaptable
Air Vehicle Two–level/paperless maintenance
Self deployable
Crashworthiness
Cockpit air bags
CARGO/UTILITY Range
• Advanced propulsion/ airfoils

• Self–deployable
Lift (advanced transmission)
Advanced Concepts • Maximize load carrying

• Minimum noise/vibration
Cargo handling
• Increased payload, internal/external

• All–weather/day/night, reduced time
Improved Cargo
Helicopter NOE sling load operations
• Precision navigation/hover
• Active load stabilization
Man–machine integration
• Interactive displays/AI
Joint Transport
Rotorcraft Diagnostics/prognostics/embedded
training
Reduced signatures
Forward arming and refueling
Ground maintenance associate
Provides significant capability Provides some capability
operations. Army aviation is an integral part of all battlefield dynamics. Table III–3 also shows the projected S/SU/ACs capabilities
for the aviation functional missions.
Army aviation will continue to be versatile and deployable. It will combine speed, mobility, and firepower in the attack/

reconnaissance and assault forces, while moving and sustaining combat power at decisive points on the battlefield with its cargo/
utility helicopters. With the evolution of combined arms operations, Army aviation will be even more important in the faster paced
battles of the future.
The aviation annex to the AMP provides a blueprint for equipping our aviation forces well into the next century with a modern,
cost–effective, warfighting fleet able to meet the challenges of low–, mid–, and high–intensity conflicts. The AMP calls for the
following major improvements:
• Complete procurement of AH–64D Apache Longbow, complete development and procurement of RAH–66
Comanche, and complete improved cargo helicopter (ICH).
• Support advanced concepts: JTR and Airborne Manned/Unmanned System Technology (AMUST).
Current and future threats to Army aircraft are many and varied. The range of new and emerging technologies available to our
adversaries further increases the threat. Many such technologies are intended to improve the effectiveness of air defense systems
against low–flying helicopters, while other technologies strive to strengthen the protection of ground systems against attack by air.
Undoubtedly, these technologies will become available on the international arms market, resulting in an even more robust
capability for our potential adversaries. Our own warfighting concept and modernization requirements are predicated on the need
to counter both known and emerging threats.
4. Roadmap for Army Aviation
Table III–4 presents a summary of S/SU/ACs and demonstrations in the Army Aviation S&T program that support the AMP. The
roadmap for Aviation (Figure III–2) portrays the Army’s use of TDs and ATDs to support the development of its future aviation
systems, and dual–use technology for the nation’s rotorcraft industry. The Aviation S/SU/ACs are shown at the top of the figure.
The lower part of the figure shows the substantial block of Aviation TDs that support the S/SU/ACs and provide the opportunity
for technology upgrades of fielded systems. These demonstrations are designed to establish a proof of principle (i.e., to serve as a
testbed, validate feasibility, and reduce cost and risk for entering engineering and manufacturing development (EMD)). The
roadmap shows two technology insertion windows that offer opportunities for technology application to aircraft S/SU/ACs.
Technology insertions that may occur through modification programs for fielded systems, such as AH–64D Apache, UH–60
Blackhawk, CH–47 Chinook, OH–58D Kiowa Warrior, and special operations aircraft (SOA), are not shown.
The following subsections provide descriptions of the aviation demonstrations categorized on the roadmap as mission equipment,
advanced platforms, propulsion, and logistics/maintenance.
a. Mission Equipment
Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate (RPA) ATD (1993–99). The primary thrust of the aviation S&T mission equipment area is the RPA
ATD. The objective of this program is to establish revolutionary improvements in combat helicopter mission effectiveness through
the application of artificial intelligence for cognitive decision aiding and the integration of advanced pilotage sensors, target
acquisition, armament and fire control, communications, cockpit controls and displays, navigation, survivability, and flight control
technologies. Next–generation mission equipment technologies will be integrated with high–speed data fusion processing and
cognitive decision–aiding expert systems to achieve maximum effectiveness and survivability for our combat helicopter forces.
This increased system effectiveness will enable Army aviation to be more responsive to battle commanders at all levels. RPA will
expand aviation’s freedom of operation, improve response time for quick–reaction and mission redirect events, increase the
precision strike capability for high–value/short–dwell–time targets, and increase day/night, all–weather operational capability. RPA
will contribute greatly to the pilot’s ability to see and assimilate the battlefield in all conditions; to rapidly collect, synthesize, and

disseminate battlefield information; and to take immediate and effective actions. These developments will enable the full use of the
crew’s perceptual, judgmental, and creative skills to capitalize on their own strengths and to exploit the adversary’s weaknesses.
The Defense Simulation Internet (DSI), through the Army’s Battlefield Distributed Simulation–Developmental (BDS–D) program
capabilities, will be utilized in the RPA program to perform measures of performance (MOPs)
Table III–4. Aviation Demonstration and System Summary

Advanced Technology Demonstration Technology Demonstration
Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate Mission Equipment

Advanced Helicopter Pilotage Phase I/II
Low–Cost Aviator’s Imaging Multispectral Modular Sensors
Battlefield Combat Identification (see C4)
Image Intensification/FLIR Fusion Package
Survivability/Lethality Advanced Integration in Rotorcraft
Multispectral Countermeasures Autonomous Scout Rotorcraft Testbed
Airborne Manned/Unmanned System Technology
Low–Cost Precision Kill
Air/Land Enhanced Reconnaissance and
Low–Cost Precision Kill Guided Flight
Targeting
Low–Cost Precision Kill Airborne
Rotorcraft Air Combat Enhancement
Brilliant Helicopter Advanced Weapons
Full–Spectrum Threat Protection
Covert NOE Pilotage System
Integrated Sensors and Targeting
Integrated Countermeasures
Future Missile Technology Integration
ATR for Weapons Technology
Fourth–Generation Crew Station
Subsystems Technology for IR Reductions
Advanced Platforms
Advanced Rotorcraft Aeromechanics Technologies
Rotary–Wing Structures Technology
Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission
Helicopter Active Control Technology
Third–Generation Advanced Rotors Demonstration
Aircraft Systems Self–Healing
Multirole Mission Adaptable Air Vehicle
Structural Crash Dynamics Modeling and Simulation
Propulsion
Integrated High–Performance Turbine Engine Technology Joint Turbine Advanced Gas Generator
Alternate Propulsion Sources
Logistics/Maintenance
On–Board Integrated Diagnostics Systems
Survivable, Affordable, Repairable Airframe Program
Subsystems Technology for Affordability and Supportability
System/System Upgrade/Advanced Concept

System
RAH–66 Comanche
System Upgrade
AH–64D Apache Longbow Modernization
Improved Cargo Helicopter
Advanced Concept
Survivable Armed Reconnaissance on the Digital Battlefield
Joint Transport Rotorcraft
AMUST
Modular Unmanned Logistics Express
Figure III-2. Roadmap - Aviation


validation. The RPA ATD will achieve the following quantitative MOPs relative to Comanche–like performance during 24–hour,
all–weather battlefield conditions: 30 to 60 percent reduction in mission losses, 50 to 150 percent increase in targets destroyed, and
20 to 30 percent reduction in mission timelines. Flight test experiments conducted during the RPA program will provide a measure
of simulation validation, evaluate the impact of real–world stimulus, and provide the confidence that technologies are ready to
transition into systems, system upgrades, and advanced concepts. Supports: Comanche, Apache, SOA, Army Airborne Command
and Control System (A2C2S), and dual–use potential.
Advanced Helicopter Pilotage (AHP) TD (1994–98). The AHP TD supports the RPA ATD. The AHP TD will develop and
demonstrate a night and adverse weather pilotage system to visually couple the aircrew to the terrain flight environment using
advanced thermal imaging and image intensifier sensors and a very wide field–of–view, helmet–mounted display. The AHP display
system will provide current and future Army aircraft with increased safety and situational awareness, reduced pilot cognitive
workload, increased mission launch rates, and enhanced terrain flight operations. Supports: RPA, Comanche, Apache, and SOA.
Battlefield Combat Identification (BCID) ATD (1993–98). The BCID ATD will demonstrate target ID techniques together with
situational awareness information that will minimize fratricide during ground–to–ground and air–to–ground engagements. It is
discussed in detail in Section III–E, "Command, Control, Communications, and Computers." Supports: Scout and Attack Aircraft,
ACT/JTR, and ICH.
Multispectral Countermeasures (MSCM) ATD (1997–99). The purpose of the MSCM ATD is to develop prototype hardware for
an advanced technology, low–cost coherent jammer to protect Army helicopters from imaging infrared surface–to–air missiles. The
integration of a missile detector, a high–accuracy point/track subsystem, and an IR laser with fiber optic coupling and advanced
expendables will be demonstrated. A multiline or wavelength–agile source will be used to improve its effectiveness against missiles
with counter–countermeasures and to develop a capability against IR imaging seekers. Supports: All fielded aircraft and ICH.
Integrated Sensors and Targeting (ISAT) TD (1999–02). This program will develop a leap–ahead targeting upgrade to the suite of
integrated RF countermeasures (AN/ALQ–211) and suite of integrated IR countermeasures (AN/ALQ–212). Apache Longbow
AH–64D aircraft will have precision geolocation and targeting of emitters on the battlefield. Using its integrated variable message
format (VMF) interface to on–board communications systems, Apache Longbow will be capable of providing friend or foe
classification of radar emitters on the battlefield. Supports: Upgrades to the AN/ALQ–211 and AN/ALQ–212, AH–64D Apache
Longbow, Integrated Countermeasures, and common air/ground electronic combat suite (CAGES).
Integrated Countermeasures (ICM) TD (1999–02). This program will develop and demonstrate a leap–ahead integrated RF, EO,
IR countermeasures system upgrade for theAN/ALQ–211 and AN/ALQ–212 systems for both conventional and reduced signature
aircraft with horizontal technology integration (HTI)–to–ground survivability. This program will counter such future threats as
multispectral RF, IR missile seekers, and air defense systems using integrated radar, laser, and FLIR target acquisition and tracking,
to include special reduced detection jamming nodes for reduced signature platforms. This integrated approach will permit a
multispectral countermeasures attack on enemy weapon systems during their acquisition, tracking and homing phases, to include
jamming of proximity fusing. Supports: Upgrades to the AN/ALQ–211 and AN/ALQ–212, Integrated Countermeasures, and
CAGES.
Air/Land Enhanced Reconnaissance and Targeting (ALERT) ATD (1997–00). This ATD will demonstrate automatic target
acquisition and enhanced target identification via a second–generation FLIR/multifunction laser sensor suite for rapid wide area
surveillance and targeting. ALERT will leverage ongoing Air Force and DARPA developments for search on–the–move ATR.
Second–generation FLIR and multifunction laser data will be fused to allow large search areas to be covered with high targeting
accuracy while at low depression angles and high platform motion. Range profiling of the highest priority targets will provide target
identification. Supports: Comanche and Apache Improvements.
Low–Cost Aviator’s Imaging Multispectral Modular Sensors TD (2000–02). This effort will develop and demonstrate multispectral
pilotage sensors that leverage state–of–the–art technologies for sensors and displays, including FLIR, image intensifier, obstacle
detection sensors, and wide field–of–view (40 90 degrees) optics. The program will develop a core suite of modules with

high–resolution performance and low–light–level capabilities required for pilotage sensors to achieve HTI across the aviation fleet
to include attack, reconnaissance, utility, and cargo aircraft. The approach will improve aviators’ safety–of–flight, situational
awareness, and pilotage capabilities under night battlefield, adverse weather, and military operations in urban terrain (MOUT)
conditions. Supports: Attack, Reconnaissance, Utility/Cargo Aircraft, Air Warrior, and Mounted Battlespace.
Image Intensification (I2)/FLIR Fusion Pilotage TD (2000–03). This TD will demonstrate image fusion upgrades to the baseline
Comanche dual–spectrum (I2/IR) pilotage system to increase mission effectiveness and survivability for future high–performance
rotorcraft. Knowledge–based image fusion algorithms will significantly enhance image resolution and will support concurrent
demonstration of aided NOE pilotage technology. Supports: Future Comanche/Apache Upgrades.
Future Missile Technology Integration (FMTI) TD (1994–98). The FMTI TD will demonstrate the integration on the Bradley
fighting vehicle of a lightweight, fire–and–forget, multirole missile system for air–to–air and air–to–ground engagements. It includes
the integration of command guidance, control, propulsion, airframe, and warhead technologies capable of performing in
high–clutter/obscurants, adverse–weather environments and under countermeasure conditions. Missile flight control and guidance
system technology will explore capabilities such as lock–on–before/lock–on–after launch, fire–and–forget, command guidance,
signal and image processing, and secure wideband data links. Demonstrated missile system performance (i.e., weight, range, kill
ratio, speed, and lethality) will be optimized to exceed current baseline parameters of air–to–ground Hellfire
and ground–to–ground tube–launched, optically tracked, and wire command–link guided TOW. Supports: HWMV, M2 Bradley,
Follow–On to TOW (FOTT), Hellfire III, RAH–66 Comanche, and AH–64 Enhanced Apache.
Survivability/Lethality Advanced Integration in Rotorcraft (SLAIR) TD (2000–04). The SLAIR TD will integrate, simulate, and
flight demonstrate the next–generation mission equipment technologies necessary for attack and scout helicopters to fight
effectively and survive in Force XXI. Candidate technologies under development by many research, development, and engineering
centers (RDECs) include advanced weapon technology (lethal and nonlethal), ATR/combat identification, advanced fire control,
survivability, C3, and the next generation of cognitive decision aiding beyond the RPA. The SLAIR TD will synergistically
demonstrate the capabilities of combat versatility, tailorable kill levels, reduced engagement timelines, increased survivability, and
reduced fratricide. Supports: AH–64D Apache Longbow Modernization, RAH–66 Comanche, potential improvement to Marine
AH–1W Super Cobra, and dual–use potential (nonlethal).
Low–Cost Precision Kill (LCPK) Concept TD (1996–98). This effort will demonstrate, through hardware–in–the–loop (HITL)
simulation, at least two approaches to a low–cost, standoff range, precision guidance and control retrofit package for the 2.75–inch
rocket. In current operations, large numbers of unguided 2.75–inch rockets would be required to achieve high probability of kill
against point and nonheavy targets at standoff ranges, resulting in unacceptable collateral damage and creating a significant logistics
burden. With the addition of a retrofit guidance and control package, accuracy comparable to current guided munitions can be
obtained. This greatly improved accuracy will reduce the number of rockets required to defeat nonheavy armor point targets by up
to two orders of magnitude, thereby providing a 4:1 increase in stowed kills at one third the cost compared to current guided
missiles. Supports: AH–64 Apache, OH–58D Kiowa Warrior, Hydra–70 Improvement, and Special Operations Forces (SOF).
ATR for Weapons TD (1998–01). Conventional weapon systems seek to extend their range through various technology
approaches to facilitate a more favorable loss–exchange ratio on the battlefield. Coupled with this extended range is a requirement
or a stated need for fire–and–forget conventional weapon systems. This technology demonstration will explore the missile–based
weapon systems’ autonomous target recognition through the use of passive moving target indication (MTI), rapidly retrainable
pattern recognition algorithms, and techniques for rapid downloading from the platform to the weapon. Comparison of synthetic
discriminant function (SDF) performance capability with other techniques, such as those already in use with laser radar (LADAR)
data, and the quantifying of the computing requirements for all the algorithms to determine what is most appropriate for the close
combat scenario will be demonstrated using realistic battlefield environments to include, for example, smoke and countermeasures.
ATR has the potential to provide the soldier with a weapon that has true lock–on–after–launch (LOAL) fire–and–forget capability
at extended ranges with the added benefits of reacquisition of targets after loss of lock, friendly avoidance, and optimum aimpoint
selection for increased warhead effectiveness. Supports: Hellfire III, Brilliant Antitank (BAT) P3I, Multiple Launch Rocket System
(MLRS) Smart Tactical Rocket (MSTAR), Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOGM), Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV),

and extended range fire–and–forget that demands LOAL, Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV), Avenger, FOTT P3I, Javelin,
Stinger, and Future Missile Technology Integration (FMTI).
LCPK Guided Flight TD (1999–00). This program will demonstrate, through ground–launched guided flight tests, at least two
approaches to a low–cost, standoff range, precision guidance, and control retrofit package for the 2.75–inch rocket. LCPK risk
reduction technologies and approaches, including strapdown semiactive laser (SAL) and Scatterider seekers, guidance section
decoupling from rolling rocket motor, two–axis canard controls, and small low–cost inertial devices will be evaluated. Supports:
AH–64D Apache, RAH–66 Comanche, Kiowa Warrior OH–58D, SOF, Hydra–70 Improvement Program, and potentially Navy/
Marine Corps AH–1W.
LCPK Airborne TD (1900–01). This effort will flight demonstrate the helicopter integration of the best 2.75–inch guided rocket
system obtained from the LCPK Guided Flight TD. The LCPK system will be evaluated from a helicopter system perspective to
ensure aircraft compatibility and performance effectiveness. Supports: AH–64D Apache, RAH–66 Comanche, Kiowa Warrior
OH–58D, SOF, Hydra–70 Improvement Program, and potentially Navy/Marine Corps AH–1W.
Brilliant Helicopter Advanced Weapons (BHAW) TD (1906–10). The BHAW TD will integrate and demonstrate, through
simulation and ground/flight test, future combined arms interoperable advanced aviation weapons, target acquisition and fire
control technologies, and aviation platforms and will quantify resulting increases in aviation mission effectiveness. Full spectrum
lethality will be demonstrated from "less than lethal" tailorable up to conventional lethal kill mechanisms. Technology candidates
for the BHAW TD include:
• Low–cost precision kill weapons with low collateral damage, including brilliant missile technology with immunity
to countermeasures.
• Innovative less than lethal kill mechanisms, such as directed–energy techniques, that immobilize or disrupt
personnel, vehicles, or other equipment.
• Advanced auto cannon technologies (e.g., cased–telescoped, bursting munitions, electrochemical and
electromagnetic propulsion, electrostatic proximity fuses, closed–loop fire control).
• Automatic target acquisition, recognition, and covert identification that uses multidata/sensor fusion of advanced
on– and off–board distributed target acquisition concepts.
• Intelligent fire and flight control, 360–degree aircraft aspect that provides quick reaction precision kill with
tailorable lethality level and selectable automatic engagement feature.
Supports: Comanche and Apache.
Rotorcraft Air Combat Enhancement (RACE) TD (2000–04). The probability is increasing that Army helicopters will encounter
airborne threats in future conflicts. There is a need to develop an air–to–air capability for Army aviation to defeat the threat and
protect itself and friendly forces. The RACE TD will develop, integrate, and airborne demonstrate the technologies necessary for
the Army’s existing and future helicopters to meet the need. Technology candidates include improvements to gun, rockets/missiles,
target acquisition and fire control systems, and other aircraft system technology necessary to achieve an air–to–air system solution.
Supports: AH–64D Apache Longbow Modernization and RAH–66 Comanche.
Full–Spectrum Threat Protection TD (2002–05). This TD demonstrates balanced integration of rotorcraft survivability for the most
effective combinations of active countermeasures and susceptibility reduction features for full spectrum threats (i.e., radar,
acoustics, IR, and visual). It will demonstrate survivability against advanced threat sensors and smart weapons and munitions. The
survivability codes will be validated and verified by installing equipment on aircraft with known signature and flight testing against
various threats. Enhanced survivability and system performance features for aircraft, to include S/SU/ACs and UAVs, will be
tailored for specific warfighting situations by minimizing weight and aerodynamic impact while maintaining low–observable cross
section, minimizing threat detection of active countermeasures, increasing jammer effectiveness, optimizing mission routes and
tactics, and reducing production costs. Supports: TRADOC battle labs, Force XXI, Project Reliance, and multiservice applications.

Covert Nap–of–the–Earth (NOE) Pilotage System TD (2002–05). This TD will demonstrate an advanced, effective, and highly
integrated rotorcraft pilotage system to operate covertly NOE and unobtrusively in urban areas with increased survival in hazardous
flight environments or emergency situations with reduced crew workload during day, night, and adverse weather. Reduced crew
workload, aided precision flightpath control, and increased safety will enable crew members to focus on mission–level functions
while maintaining full vehicle and flightpath control. The TD will demonstrate a comprehensive air vehicle management system for
pilotage; a large–scale integrated mission equipment suite; automated protection from obstacles, terrain, and other in–flight
hazards; an increased capability for rotorcraft operations avoiding and using obstacles, terrain, and threats for military operations;
and increased safety for military and commercial rotorcraft operating in hazardous flight environments. Supports: JTR, ICH,
Enhanced Apache, and far–term manned and unmanned rotorcraft.
Fourth–Generation Crew Station TD (2004–07). This TD will demonstrate the next generation of air vehicle crew station
architecture. The effort will develop and incorporate advanced displays for full glass cockpit/crew station; 3D display technology;
selectable touch, cyclic grip cursor, or pupil–tracked cursor information access capability; rapid pilot–reconfigurable information
layout on displays; automated AI "advisor" aiding; intelligent, adaptive interfaces; advanced selectable "windowless" cockpit
synthetic vision systems; advanced information display symbology, and advanced flight control designs. Displays, AI, and crew
station technology from Air Force, Navy, and NASA programs will be incorporated into system design. The TD will demonstrate
increased pilot performance and overall mission and reduced pilot susceptibility to injury by laser, directed energy, or other sources
in hostile electromagnetic environments. Supports: JTR, ICH, Enhanced Apache, MRMAAV, and advanced ground vehicle crew
stations.
Subsystems Technology for Infrared Reductions (STIRR) TD (1997–01). The focus of STIRR is IR technology development,
integration, and demonstration to improve the survivability of Army rotary–wing vehicles. The primary goal of increased
survivability will be addressed via aggressive efforts to reduce synergistically the thermal emissions from helicopter airframes while
developing and improving systems designed to cool plume and engine heat signatures. STIRR will achieve development of
advanced, multispectral (visual through far IR) airframe coatings that are compatible with radar absorbing materials/structures and
development of state–of–the–art, low–cost, lightweight thermal insulative materials. STIRR will support validation of advanced
computational aero/thermo modeling and simulation (M&S) tools that will be used to develop innovative engine IR suppression
techniques. Additional quantifiable payoffs of passive signature reduction are direct improvements in active countermeasures
performance through increased jamming/signal (J/S) ratios and improved decoy effectiveness. Supports: Current and future
rotary–wing system upgrades, JTR, Comanche, USAF, USN, and USMC vertical lift air vehicles, AH–64D, UH–60, RAH–66
upgrades, ICH, and other services’ fleets.
b. Advanced Platforms
Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission (ART) II TD (1997–00). The ART TD incorporates key emerging material and component
technologies for advanced rotorcraft transmissions and makes a quantum jump in the state of the art. The ART–II TD will survey
the applicable ART–I (completed in FY92) component technologies and proposed concepts and will integrate the more promising
ones into selected transmission/drive subsystem demonstrators. Advanced concepts such as split torque, split path, and single
planetary transmissions will be considered with advanced material applications/component designs to demonstrate lighter, quieter,
threat–tolerant, more durable, reliable, and efficient drivetrain subsystems. Supports: JTR, ICH, Apache, and dual–use potential.
Helicopter Active Control Technology (HACT) TD (1998–02). The HACT TD will demonstrate a second–generation
fly–by–light control system technology and integration of flight control and mission functions into a vehicle management system
(VMS). Advanced processing for fault–tolerant systems, individual blade/higher harmonic control, and smart actuation concepts
will be considered. It will demonstrate high–bandwidth active control technologies, multimode stabilization, and carefree
maneuvering and robust control law design methodologies for affordable high–performance helicopter control systems.
The HACT will provide enhanced night/adverse weather mission effectiveness during confined or terminal area operations
capability, reduced workload, and improved crew endurance. It will maximize ability of the flight crew to exploit inherent vehicle
performance, maintain safety and reliability while improving affordability and operations and support (O&S) costs, simplify
maintenance, and reduce fleet attrition. Supports: Comanche, Apache, JTR, and ICH.

Third–Generation Advanced Rotor Demonstration (3rd GARD) TD (2001–04). The 3rd GARD TD will demonstrate advanced
rotors and rotor concepts to enhance current performance ceilings through high lift airfoils/devices, tailored platforms and tip
shapes, elastic/dynamic tailoring methods, active on–blade control methods, acoustic signature reduction techniques, and
integration of advanced rotors and rotor concepts with advanced active control systems. 3rd GARD technology will provide for
increased survivability via reduced acoustic signature and increased maneuverability/agility, increased rotorcraft speed capability,
increased range and payload, and reduced O&S cost via reduced vibration and loads. Supports: Far–term advanced rotorcraft
concepts.
Aircraft System Self–Healing (ASSH) TD (2005–07). The ASSH TD will demonstrate a self–healing flight control system for
rotorcraft that automatically reconfigures remaining air vehicle lift, control, and applicable mission equipment assets to compensate
for the degradation of vehicle control when caused by battle, obstacle strike, or premature subsystem or component failure, and will
advise the crew for appropriate action. The TD will demonstrate robust fault detection and identification of critical failures through
onboard expert system diagnostics, compensation strategies for damaged aircraft subsystems, and smart flight control component
technology. ASSH technology improves the survivability of crew and aircraft by providing a return–home capability for damaged
aircraft, reduced aircraft losses, increased operational flexibility, productivity during all mission phases, and mobility of damaged
assets. Supports: Far–term advanced concepts.
Multirole Mission Adaptable Air Vehicle (MRMAAV) TD (2008–11). The MRMAAV TD will demonstrate the feasibility of using
a common airframe and powerplant(s) to conduct multiple primary mission roles with the same aircraft with minimal impact on
equipment interchanges (e.g., avionics, weapons, survivability packages). Common dynamics and aeromechanics components
would be incorporated to support development of manned and unmanned systems. The MRMAAV concept offers battlefield
commanders unprecedented mission flexibility to reconfigure aircraft in the field for various mission roles. Fewer numbers of
aircraft and crews will be required to perform multiple missions. Supports: Far–term advanced concepts.
Structural Crash Dynamics Modeling and Simulation (SCDMS) TD (1997–00). SCDMS will establish a structural crash dynamics
M&S capability from a single selected off–the–shelf computer code that can satisfy the need for a design and performance
evaluation tool to be optimized for helicopter crashworthy systems or materials, and for scenarios common to helicopter crashes. A
uniform standard approach to computer modeling of global helicopter crash dynamics will be established. SCDMS will utilize the
Army Research Laboratory (ARL), the Virtual Simulation Directorate, and NASA Langley Research Center modeling and testing
expertise in support of the four–phase effort, evaluating state–of–the–art M&S codes to determine strengths and weaknesses and to
select code with the most strengths. Supports: ICH.
Rotary–Wing Structures Technology (RWST) TD (1997–01). RWST will fabricate and demonstrate advanced lightweight,
tailorable structures, and ballistically tolerant airframe configurations that incorporate state–of–the–art computer design and
analysis techniques, improved test methods, and affordable fabrication processes. The technology objectives are to increase
structural efficiency by 15 percent, improve structural loads prediction accuracy up to 75 percent, and reduce costs by 25 percent
without adversely impacting airframe signature. Supports: Battle laboratories, JTR, ICH, UH–60 upgrades, and collaborative
technology.
Advanced Rotorcraft Aeromechanics Technologies (ARCAT) TD (1997–00). ARCAT will develop and demonstrate critical
technologies in rotorcraft aeromechanics to contribute to enhanced warfighting needs for fielded and next–generation systems.
Research and development will be conducted to achieve technical objectives by increasing maximum blade loading, increasing
rotor aerodynamic efficiency, reducing adverse forces, reducing aircraft loads and vibration loads, reducing acoustic radiation,
increasing inherent rotor lag damping, and increasing rotorcraft aeromechanics predictive effectiveness. Achievement of
aeromechanics technology objectives will contribute to rotorcraft system payoffs in range, payload, cruise speed, maneuverability/
agility, reliability, maintainability and reduced research, development, test, and engineering (RDT&E), procurement, and O&S
costs. Supports: Battle labs and Force XXI.
c. Propulsion

Integrated High–Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) Program [Joint Turbine Advanced Gas Generator
(JTAGG)] TD (1991–03). JTAGG is a tri–service effort that is structured to be compatible with the goals of the IHPTET initiative.
IHPTET is a three–phase tri–service/DARPA/NASA effort with major milestones in 1991, 1997, and 2003. The JTAGG I+ was
completed in 1994. Specific JTAGG I+ goals included a 25 percent reduction in fuel consumption and a 60 percent increase in
power–to–weight ratio. Follow–on JTAGG II and III efforts are addressing the 1997/2003 IHPTET goals. A full engine
demonstration of the improvements in gas turbine technology resulting from the JTAGG program will be conducted as required to
be compatible with S/SU/AC requirements. Results will be improvements in performance, efficiency, and power–to–weight ratio
over current production engines. The demonstration will incorporate advanced materials and materials processing, simulation and
modeling, computational fluid dynamics, and manufacturing science. Supports: JTR, ICH, Apache, all rotorcraft, and dual–use
potential.
Alternate Propulsion Sources (APS) TD (2004–10). The APS will explore advanced propulsion concepts beyond air–breathing
propulsion. This program will consist of proof–of–principle technology demonstrations for propulsion concepts with potential
application initially to a UAV with vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability. The technology focus will explore the potential
of utilizing such power sources as solar energy, high–power microwaves (HPMs), flywheel generators, and hybrids. Supports: UAV
application.
d. Logistics/Maintenance
Survivable, Affordable, Repairable Airframe Program (SARAP) TD (2005–08). SARAP will develop, integrate, and demonstrate
efforts to provide efficient and affordable airframe structures, diagnostic, and repair concepts that address tolerance to such
high–intensity combat threats as NBC, directed–energy weapons (DEWs), mines, and ballistics. The survivability, performance,
durability, sustainability, and serviceability of current and future VTOL aircraft will be improved through these efforts. Emerging
technologies in materials, smart structures, manufacturing methods, diagnostics, and tools will be used to the fullest to obtain
optimum hardening and repairability. SARAP will use integrated product and process development (IPPD), concurrent
engineering, virtual prototyping, and synergistically integrated technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Some of the overall
enhancements to be realized include a 50 percent improvement in high–intensity conflict survivability, a 30 percent reduction in
repair times, and a 60 percent increase in aircraft combat life. Supports: Far–term advanced concepts and material changes to
fielded systems.
On–Board Integrated Diagnostic Systems (OBIDS) TD (2000–04). The OBIDS is a showcase platform to demonstrate advanced
diagnostics and prognostics. Technologies to measure, track, and analyze aircraft vibrations, stresses, pressures, temperatures, and
other critical parameters necessary to assess aircraft and subsystem health and usage will be integrated into the airframe. These
improved diagnostic and prognostic capabilities will be measured for O&S cost benefits and enhanced aircraft safety. The
man–machine interfaces needed to present data and generate information leading to corrective maintenance and early failure
detection will be a principal focus. Technology demonstrations may encompass the design and integration of systems needed to
promote the health and proper functioning of structures and dynamic components. Emphasis will be placed on improvements in
maintainability and availability. Supports: All aircraft system upgrades and advanced concepts.
Subsystems Technology for Affordability and Supportability (STAS) TD (1997–00). The focus of STAS is on those subsystems
technologies directly affecting the affordability and supportability of Army Aviation. It addresses technical barriers associated with
advanced, digitized maintenance concepts, and real–time, onboard integrated diagnostics. The expected benefits from STAS are
reductions in mean time to repair (MTTR), no evidence of failure (NEOF) removals, and spare parts consumption resulting in
overall reductions in system life–cycle cost and enhanced mission effectiveness. Pursuits include onboard as well as ground–based
hardware and software concepts designed to assist the maintainer in diagnosing system faults and recording and analyzing
maintenance data and information. On–aircraft technologies will include advanced diagnostic sensors, signal processing
algorithms, high–density storage, and intelligent decision aids. Shipside diagnostic and maintenance actions will integrate laptop
and body–worn electronic aids, advanced displays, knowledge–based software systems, personal viewing devices, voice recognition
technologies, and telemaintenance networks. Supports: Battle Laboratories; AH–64D, UH–60, RAH–66 upgrades; ICH, JTR; and
other services and civil rotorcraft fleets.

The versatility and importance of Army aviation as a member of the combined arms team will play a vital role in the Army’s future
modernization plans. The linkage of aviation S/SU/ACs to other AMP annexes is shown in Table III–5.
Table III–5. Correlation Between Aviation S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
System/System Upgrade/Advanced Concept Modernization Plan Annexes
Close Close Soldier Space IEW C4 Fire Support

Combat Combat &
Heavy* Light* Missile
Defense
System RAH–66 Comanche
System Apache Longbow Modernization

Upgrade
ICH
Advanced MULE
Concept
AMUST
JTR
* See Combat Maneuver Annex.

System plays a significant role in the modernization strategy
System makes a contribution to the modernization strategy

Chapter III E. Command, Control, Communications, and Computers
E. Command, Control, Communications, and Computers
We must strive to reap the benefits of the ongoing technology explosion, and to gain greater efficiencies in warfighting.
General John Shalikashvili

Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Introduction
The Army’s command, control, communications, and computers (C4) modernization and strategic planning efforts are an integral part of
Force XXI and are critical to achieving Joint Vision 2010. C4 modernization will support Force XXI by exploiting leap–ahead information
transport, processing, and security technologies designed to provide commanders with overwhelming decision cycle superiority. The
essential elements that ensure dominance of Force XXI C4 are global, theater, and tactical area transport systems, a tactical internet and
battle command mobile platforms, and seamless, secure, adaptable information architectures.
The Army’s C4 S&T program is directed toward providing the technologies, architectures, protocols, standards, algorithms, and software
for integrating communications assets throughout the battlefield. The emphasis is placed on establishing a C4 substructure of the digitized
battlefield to provide mission planning with optimal use of resources throughout the task force. Electronic maps, resource data, intelligence
information, and operational procedures are used to achieve highly automated operational planning, rehearsal, and execution with
real–time command and control.
The synchronization of C4 modernization through Force XXI, Joint Vision 2010, and the battle laboratories/battlefield dynamics will allow
America’s Army to be the best in the world—trained and ready for victory.
Table III–6 shows detailed C4 system capabilities, noting whether they are near term (system upgrade capabilities) or far term (advanced
concept capabilities). Command and control (force level and lower echelon) and communications (mobile, local, wide, and range
extension), along with computing and software, are the pillars of C4 modernization.
3. Army C4 Modernization Strategy
Army C4 modernization efforts support all of the Army’s modernization objectives as defined in the 1996 Army Modernization Plan. The
objectives represent a combined modernization strategy that improves or enhances existing capabilities and leverages commercial
investment in information technologies.
Army modernization considers Force XXI as the Army’s corporate goal of what it must become to remain the lethal force of decision
through the early decades of the 21st century. It embraces the tenets of doctrinal flexibility; strategic mobility; tailorability and modularity;
joint, multinational, and interagency connectivity; and versatility. The warfighter information network (WIN), in conjunction with the
battlefield information transmission system (BITS) and the wireless interworking testbed (WIT), will provide the communications
infrastructure for Army C4 modernization. The goal is to provide an integrated "foxhole to sustaining base" warfighter information
network consisting of communications and information services that support Force XXI requirements well into the 21st century.
Significant emphasis is being placed on leveraging and adapting commercially available information technology.
Table III–6. C4 System Capabilities


Function

COMMAND & Integrated force and Distributed situation assessment

CONTROL execution
management
Knowledge–based information
presentation
Forecasting,
planning, and
Distributed empowerment
resource allocation
Interoperability with joint assets

Platform embedded
C2
Flexible hierarchical database for
multiresolution, multiscales
Distributed,
relational database
(large area, low Multimodal command understanding
resolution)
Intel message preparation
System Upgrade
Automatic situation
map update Expert systems
Replicated databases • Decision aids, management system
Intel order generation • Wargaming/simulation
Nodal security Distributed processing/databases
Software bridge Multimedia storage and retrieval

Force Level between different
systems
Multimedia presentation and interface
Automatic
communications Multilevel security
interface
Built–in training
Expert system battle
planning Interoperability to lower echelons
Lower Echelon • Resource allocation

C2 on the move (OTM)
• Concept of Enhanced situation awareness

operation
Fault–tolerant processing at critical

Expert system nodes
information
correlation and
fusion Synchronized battle management
Distributed database Sensor integration

with real–time
updating Distributed processing
Interface with Army Integrated position/navigation (POS/

battle command NAV)
system (ABCS)
Heads–up display
Adaptive distributed

processing
Advanced Concept Automated mission planning
Voice input/output
Battlefield planning
3D mission planning
Consistent
battlespace
understanding
Force XXI/Vision 2000
COMMUNICATIONS Systems control Distributed systems
• Cosite interference Dynamics rerouting

reduction
Intelligent switches
• Embedded
COMSEC
Controllable signatures
• Frequency
System Upgrade Wireless LAN
management
Wideband multimedia communications

Gateways between
local, wide area, and
module systems Integrated COMSEC
Multilevel security User transparent
Fiber optic LAN Cellular satellite systems

Mobile
Data/voice transport Common user/satellite trunking
EHF satellite Airborne relay (surrogate satellite)

communications
Multiband multipurpose radios
Light satellite
Wide Area
Transparent connectivity to local, wide,
Tactical multinet range external systems
gateways
Antijam EHF
RPV
communications OTM Defense Satellite
relay Communications System
Local Area
Internet controller Militarized satellite personal
communications system
Surrogate satellite
Wideband radio access point OTM
Enhanced data SATCOM
protocols
DIS–compliant architecture

Conformal antennas
Range Extension
Real–time OTM planning tools
Mobile satellite
connectivity Comprehensive warfighter information
network
Personal
communications
system
Advanced Concept
Asynchronous
transfer mode
(ATM) switching
Battlefield
information
transmission
Force XXI/Vision 2010 Universal transaction

communications and
services
Assured
communications
Provides significant capability
4. Roadmap for C4
Table III–7 is a summary of demonstrations and SU/ACs as displayed on the roadmap (Figure III–3) for C4 modernization. The evolution
of battlefield C4 into the 21st century begins with current C4 systems as a baseline. In order to preserve current investments, a step–by–step
block improvement approach to modernizing legacy systems is utilized. ATDs and ACTDs support the development of SU/ACs. The flow
of C4 modernization appears on the roadmap beginning with command and control and communications system upgrades on the far left,
followed by specific ATDs, ACTDs, and TDs leading to Force XXI and Vision 2010.
Table III–7. C4 Demonstration and System Summary

Battlefield Combat Identification Command and Control
Digital Battlefield Communications Rapid Force Projection C2

MOUT C4I
Battlespace C2
Communications
Information Operations C2 Protect and Attack
Communications Integration and Cosite Mitigation
Multiband Multimode Radio (MBMMR)
(See Section III–F, "Intelligence and Electronic
Range Extension
Warfare.")
Universal Transaction Communications/Services
Advanced Concept Integrated Photonics
Technology Demonstration SATCOM Technology
Commercial Communication Technology Testbed
Rapid Terrain Visualization
(See Volume II, Annex NO TAG, for further

information.)

System Upgrade
Command and Control—Force Level

Command and Control—Lower Echelon
Communications—Mobile
Communications—Local Area
Communications—Wide Area
Communications—Range Extension
Advanced Concept
Force XXI (Vision 2010)
a. Technology Programs Leading to Command and Control Modernization
The following ATDs and TDs represent the Army’s investment in modernizing its C2 capabilities.
Rapid Terrain Visualization ACTD (1997–01). The goal of this ACTD is to demonstrate capabilities to collect source data and generate
high–resolution digital terrain databases quickly to support crisis response and force projection operations within the timelines required by
the joint force commander. The commander will be capable of integrating terrain databases with current situation data and can, therefore,
manipulate and display the integrated databases, achieve operational objectives, and visualize a desired end state. Source data collection,
digital terrain database generation and tailoring, database dissemination, and applications software will be integrated and evaluated.
Supports: Joint Precision Strike Demonstration (JPSD)/RFPI, Force XXI, and Vision 2010.
Battlefield Combat Identification (BCID) ATD (1993–98). The goal of the BCID ATD is to solve the combat identification problem that
surfaced in Operation Desert Storm. This ATD forms the technical foundation for the Combat Identification ACTD, which will validate
the architecture for a comprehensive air–to–ground and ground–to–ground combat identification system. BCID will demonstrate
improved situational awareness and various air–to–ground concepts including direct sensing target identification, "don’t shoot me net,"
and "situational awareness through sight" approaches. Concepts for lightweight combat identification of/for the dismounted soldier will be
investigated. A laser, RF– and thermal–based solution for soldier–to–soldier and potentially vehicle–interoperable application will be
demonstrated (in both a standalone and integrated version). Supports: BCIS, Land Warrior, Protecting the Force, Battlefield Digitization,
Information Warfare, and Force XXI.

Figure III-3. Roadmap - Command, Control, Communications, and Computers

Rapid Force Projection Command and Control (RFP C2) TD (1995–98). This program will develop the command and control element
for the RFPI ACTD. It consists of a reconfigurable light tactical operation center testbed (LT2) and multiple communications interfaces.
Digitized systems will link all battlefield elements from the individual soldier through the brigade and at the same time prevent
communications systems information overload. The RFP C2 demonstration will provide real–time to near–real–time integration of ACTD
task force "hunters," "killers," and organic weapons; commanders; and battlefield functional area (BFA) battlefield operating systems
(BOS) (i.e., All–Source Analysis System (ASAS) and Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)). The LT2 will support
target analysis, weapon–target pairings, engagement control, EFOGM fire direction, organic sensor management, commander’s situation
awareness, battle damage assessment, hunter/killer mission planning, near–real–time data fusion, vertical integration of command levels,
and horizontal integration with other functional elements (i.e., intelligence, field artillery, air defense, armor, and dismounted soldier).
Supports: Force XXI.
Battlespace Command and Control (BC2) ATD (1997–01). The BC2 ATD and its associated follow–on efforts will develop and
demonstrate information– and knowledge–based technology. It will provide a common, integrated situation display with selectable detail
and resolution, providing battlefield visualization and supporting systems architectures. BC2 comprises intelligent agents for information
retrieval, filtering, and deconfliction; intelligent products to support decision making; and development of systems architecture.
Tri–service C2 sources will be partitioned and distributed automatically across an integrated network of communications and computer
media to provide real–time targeting, target handover, mission planning, route planning, and friendly and enemy pictures. A multiservice
system architecture will interoperate with multiechelon joint/allied assets to provide faster, more accurate, intuitive, and tailored battlespace

information to the mobile strike force and Force XXI. This ATD is also an integral part of the Defense Technology Objectives (DTOs) for
consistent battlespace understanding; forecasting, planning, and resource allocation, and integrated force and execution management.
Supports: Force XXI and Rapid Battlefield Visualization (RBV) ACTD.
Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) C4I TD (1996–00). The goal of this TD is to demonstrate robust, scalable C4I and
advanced sensor capabilities that provide commanders and warfighters with seamless, nonhierarchical adaptive networks for multimedia
communications in a highly dynamic MOUT environment. The objective is to evolve an integrated communications infrastructure that
leverages commercial protocols, formats, waveforms, and standards to achieve global tri–service interoperability through integration of
mobile Internet protocol (IP) tactical networks into global infrastructure. MOUT C4I will demonstrate near–real–time vertical and
horizontal C2 from the battalion down to the individual combatant. Supports: Force XXI Land Warrior.
Information Operations C2 (IOC2) Protect and Attack ATD (1998–02). This ATD will demonstrate the ability to launch effective C2
attacks against threat information systems and protect the Army’s tactical information systems from modern network attacks. See Section
III–F, "Intelligence and Electronic Warfare," for details on this program. Supports: Integrated Countermeasures, Tactical Internet (TI) C2
Components, and Networks.
b. Technology Programs Leading to Communications Modernization
Communications, specifically seamless communications, facilitates command and control. C2 would be impossible without the ability to
communicate (i.e., transmit and receive strategic, tactical, and operational information in a timely manner to and from the commander
and associated staff). Several 6.2 programs are under way to facilitate and implement Army 6.3 communications efforts, including a
personal communications system (PCS), antennas for communication across the spectrum, and advanced modeling and simulation (see
Chapter NO TAG for details on 6.2 programs). The following ATDs and TDs reflect the Army’s current strategic plan for
communications modernization.
Digital Battlefield Communications (DBC) ATD (1995–99). This ATD will exploit emerging commercial communications technologies to
support multimedia communications in a highly mobile dynamic battlefield environment, the "digitized battlefield," and split–based
operations. Commercial asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) technology will be integrated into actual tactical communications networks
to provide bandwidth on demand to support multimedia information requirements. To extend ATM services to forward tactical units, a
radio access point (RAP) will be prototyped and tested. The RAP utilizes a high–capacity, OTM trunk radio to feed a variety of mobile
subscriber services. Both manned and unmanned aerial platforms will be fitted with wideband relay packages to support OTM tactical
operations, supporting bandwidths of up to 155 megabytes per second (MBps). This ATD will conclude in FY99 with the insertion of
appropriate technology products (high–capacity digitized communications and split–based operations) in Corps XXI advanced
warfighting experiment (AWE). A parallel effort, DBC enhancements (1996–99), includes an earlier demonstration of the direct broadcast
satellite (DBS) technology (in support of Joint Warfighter Interoperability Demonstration (JWID) 96 and Task Force XXI). An effort to
exploit terrestrial PCS was added to the program at the request of the Army Digitization Office, and will be used to exploit commercial
code division multiple access (CDMA) and broadband CDMA (BCDMA) technology as a wireless private branch exchange (PBX) off a
mobile subscriber equipment (MSE) switch for command post voice and data subscribers. Multilevel security requirements for Force XXI
will be addressed by the insertion of tactical end–to–end encryption device (TEED) hardware. Wideband HF technology will be evaluated,
tested in a digital integrated laboratory environment, and inserted into Division XXI AWE. Supports: All Transport Systems, Force XXI,
and Future Digital Radio (FDR).
Universal Transaction Communications/Services TD (1996–03). Seamless connectivity and integration across communications media will
be demonstrated. The goal is to provide the commander the ability to exchange and understand information unimpeded by differences in
connectivity, processing, or systems interface characteristics. It will allow information to flow from wherever it exists, in whatever form, to
wherever it is needed, in whatever form it is needed. Attributes include automated interfaces, techniques for enhancing the commercially
available signal conditioning, provision of dynamic profiles and adaptive conditioning, and automatic, adaptive addressing to allow
connections to users completely independent of any knowledge of location. Supports: All tactical communications, a tactical internet, and
Force XXI.
Multiband Multimode Radio (MBMMR) TD (1995–99). The MBMMR is a joint service program to develop the baseline architecture and
technology for the objective MBMMR, meeting the requirements of FDR. MBMMR will demonstrate a highly flexible radio architecture,
allowing rapid waveform reprogrammability/reconfigurability to support the rapidly changing mission requirement of electronic warfare

(EW) threats, interoperability, networking, traffic load, frequency assignment, and general modes of operation. Technology insertion
includes the use of advanced digital signal processors (DSPs), programmable four–channel CYPRIS chip information security (INFOSEC)
modules, and interference cancellation (cosite) circuitry. The MBMMR will utilize an open (industry releasable) system architecture. A
highly software reprogrammable (waveform and INFOSEC) radio will provide four simultaneous MBMMR channels and networking
functions, thus minimizing the required number of antennas. Supports: FDR and Force XXI.
Communications Integration and Cosite Mitigation TD (1997–01). The objective of this demonstration is to reduce the size, weight,
power, and cosite interference problems that occur when multiple radios in either the same or dissimilar frequency bands are integrated
within a communications system. The physical space constraints of mobile platforms cause these problems to be even worse. Technology
from ongoing developments will be coupled with new efforts to address the problem within the continuous frequency band from 2 MHz to
2 GHz while also attacking the cosite interference in the HF, VHF, and UHF bands. Development efforts include VHF and UHF
multiport antenna multiplexers, ancillary cosite mitigation devices, and wideband linear power amplifiers. Additionally, a multiband
communications system will be integrated within a typical Army single integrated command post (SICP) shelter mounted on a
high–mobility, multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV), and tests will be performed to evaluate the resultant performance and
enhancements. This testbed will be exercised throughout the FY99–FY01 period for evaluation of the individually developed items.
Supports: All mobile multiband communications systems and Force XXI.
Range Extension TD (1997–99). This program directly supports the Army C4 modernization "key azimuth" of range extension through
the development and integration of a multitude of satellite communications (SATCOM) and related technologies. It will identify and
develop key technologies required for airborne applications of a suite of communications packages, design and integrate specific systems,
and conduct system tests and demonstrations of intratheater communications range extension at a variety of data rates. Major technology
areas to be addressed are airborne payload (including antennas) designs, ground terminal adaptations, interoperability/compatibility, and
simulation. These technologies will be used to supplement current (and programmed) SATCOM resources at all frequency bands.
SATCOM terminals will be augmented and enhanced to provide the capability of communicating via satellite or airborne platforms. The
utility of SATCOM terminals will be extended by improvements to reduce size and weight, increasing throughput and mobility, and
implementing emerging techniques such as demand assignment multiple access (DAMA). A super high frequency (SHF) surrogate
satellite system will be demonstrated in FY98. In FY99, a UAV–based EHF and airborne battlefield paging capability will be demonstrated.
Supports: Joint Project Office (JPO) UAV TIER II Program, Goldenhawk, and Joint Precision Strike.
Integrated Photonics TD (1995–00). This effort will develop integrated photonic subsystems for application to optical control of
single–beam phased–array antennas and fiber optic point–to–point links, local area networks, and antenna remoting systems. Subsystems
will be developed for optical control of multibeam phased–array antennas. These subsystems will reduce size, cost, and power
consumption while increasing the performance of high–speed fiber–optic systems. Demonstration of a photonically controlled,
multipanel, phased–array antenna will be conducted during FY00. Supports: SATCOM OTM.
SATCOM TD (2000–02). This technology effort will extend the applications and capabilities of SATCOM terminals by providing higher
data rates, improvements in throughput, and reduction in life–cycle costs. Throughput improvement will utilize emerging techniques and
architectures, such as DAMA, on a per–call basis. Overall improvements to systems and equipment will reduce size and increase mobility
for military and commercial SATCOM terminals. Supports: SATCOM upgrades.
Commercial Communications Technology Testbed (C2T2) TD (2000–03). C2T2 is designed to take advantage of breakthroughs in
commercial communications technology and assess their utility for military applications. The objective is successful technology insertion.
It provides a means for rapidly evaluating and characterizing commercial products. The most promising candidates are introduced to the
battle laboratories and field users for evaluation, then incorporated into warfighting experiments. The three–phase evaluation process
includes standalone evaluation, Digital Integrated Laboratory (DIL) integration, and an AWE. Supports: COTS technology insertion.
c. Computer Technology
Computer technology, the fourth "C" in C4, forms the underpinnings of most, if not all, C3 systems today and in the future. The
computing and software technology area is focused on novel computer hardware and integrated systems for Army applications. The
Army’s computing technology programs include scalable parallel systems and applications, high performance specialized systems and
applications, and networks and mobile computing. Details on these programs and more on computing and software technology may be
found in Chapter NO TAG, "Technology Development."

Table III–8 shows the correlation between C4 modernization efforts and other AMP annexes. C4 permeates throughout the other Army
mission areas (i.e., aviation, IEW, mounted/dismounted forces, soldier, air defense, theater missile defense (TMD), close combat light, fire
support, logistics, training, NBC, space, and combat health support). C4 facilitates the Army’s capability to project, sustain, and protect the
force, win the information war, conduct precision strikes, and dominate the maneuver.
The Army’s continued pursuit of emerging C4 state–of–the–art communications–electronics technologies guarantees the stability of the
United States’ defense posture and the safety of its most valuable asset, the warfighter.
Table III–8. Correlation Between C4 S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes

System/System Upgrade/Advanced Modernization Plan Annexes
Concept
Mounted/ Aviation Fire Space & Close IEW Soldier Space Logistics Training NBC Combat
Dismounted Support Missile Combat Systems Health
Forces* Defense* Light* Support
System C2—Force Level

Upgrade
C2—Lower Echelon
Communications—Mobile
Communications—Wide
Area
Communications—Local
Area
Communications—Range
Ext
Advanced Force XXI/Vision 2010

Concept


Chapter III F. Intelligence and Electronic Warfare
F. Intelligence and Electronic Warfare
Knowledge itself is power.
Francis Bacon
1. Introduction
Commanders require dynamic intelligence support tailored to their specific mission requirements. Intelligence must be timely to
enable them to make informed decisions for the simultaneous application of decisive combat power across the depth and breadth of
their areas of responsibility. The key to their ability to apply focused and synchronized combat power is a seamless intelligence
system enabling them to utilize all of the capabilities of the intelligence community, including national agencies, theater assets, and
organic capabilities to see the battlefield and target high–payoff enemy targets accurately.
Intelligence (Intel) XXI is the Army intelligence vision supporting Force XXI, created to provide intelligence support to warfighters at
all echelons, joint and ground component commanders, and coalition forces across the continuum of 21st century military
operations. This vision provides commanders with a knowledge–based, prediction–oriented, and operationally flexible intelligence
system. Intel XXI is focused on intelligence support for the force projection Army in the information age of the 21st century.
The focus of Intel XXI is on the presentation of intelligence in a way that immediately conveys an understanding of the battlespace
and the significance of the intelligence presented. Underlying the focus on presentation is an operationally flexible system executing
an expanded intelligence cycle (present, manage, collect, process, and disseminate) in a more rapid and focused way to provide the
commander what is needed, when it is needed, melded with his operational plan. The essence of intelligence is the ability to reduce
uncertainty and provide an understanding of the battlefield through effective presentation. Intel XXI will enable us to leverage
information age technology to do exactly that.
Based upon doctrinal underpinnings, the Army conducted a force design update for both the active and reserve component military
intelligence force structure. The objective was to create a seamless system of intelligence systems from national to maneuver–battalion
level. To meet the targeting challenges of the 21st century, key information and a common view of the battlespace will be sent to all
commanders immediately, emphasizing graphic rather than narrative reporting. This integrated battlefield will be visually portrayed
throughout its width, depth, and height, with sensor input sufficiently accurate to permit precision targeting.
Counterintelligence (CI) and human intelligence (HUMINT) are integral to intelligence and electronic warfare (IEW) and
contribute to the warfighters’ ability to conduct operations by denying information to enemy weapon and information–gathering
systems, deceiving the enemy regarding the battlefield situation, and developing unprecedented environmental awareness and force
protection predictability.
Meeting the warfighters’ demands for timely, accurate, and relevant targeting information requires a future intelligence architecture
built upon these key modernization concepts. Our goal is:
• One family of UAVs to fix targets.

• One airborne system to look deep.
• One division sensor system that does it all.
• One all–source analysis system that fuses it all.

• One processor to exploit national capabilities.

• One common ground station to conduct the fight.
The research, development, and fielding of this new generation of intelligence systems is a continuous process. The intelligence force
capabilities provided by our modernization program give us a more balanced and capable force. Planned S/SU/ACs will provide the
operational capabilities that will ensure our spectrum supremacy and allow us to win the information war.
In Table III–9, detailed IEW system capabilities are summarized; the S/SU capability column refers to relatively near–term
capabilities, the AC capability column presents far–term goals. Correlation between these system capabilities, the IEW S/SU/ACs,
and the Army modernization objectives is also displayed.
3. IEW Modernization Strategy
The modernization of Army intelligence and electronic warfare systems is discussed in Annex NO TAG, IEW, to the AMP. It
develops a strategy for an open systems architecture to allow for continuous modernization of the IEW mission area to provide
multimission systems on common carriers for a complementary mix of airborne, ground–based, and cross–forward line of own
troops (FLOT) sensors, processors, and jammers. The goal of IEW modernization is to provide the Army with the most capable
IEW systems in the world, while developing future systems to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
As noted in the introduction to this section, Intel XXI is the intelligence vision that supports Force XXI. Its intent is fundamentally
based on the requirement to provide intelligence support to warfighters and joint and ground component commanders across the
continuum of the 21st century military operations, with emphasis on how intelligence will support our force projection Army in the
information age. The basic requirements that the vision supports are battle command, extended battlespace dominance
(understanding the information battlefield, C2 exploit, C2 attack, and C2 protect), force projection, and operational flexibility.
Key to battle command and battlespace dominance is information presentation to the commander in the form of visual displays.
Intel XXI’s three primary objectives are to provide to the commander a virtual, near–real time, continuous picture of the battlespace,
intelligence support for targeting, and battle damage assessment. These objectives drive requirements for sensors, processors, and
communications capabilities.
To accommodate the requirements of the future, IEW must use the Army’s RDA concept and enabling strategies to guide its efforts.
Today’s technology is not sufficiently capable of fully satisfying Force XXI intelligence requirements. Efforts are under way to
consolidate and accelerate several disparate programs in order to field key capabilities in the following technology areas: displays,
computer hardware, software, visualization databases, sensors, automatic target recognition, and networks.
The capabilities described in this plan are augmented by the National Foreign Intelligence Program: general defense intelligence,
consolidated cryptologic, and foreign counterintelligence programs.
4. Roadmaps for IEW Systems
Table III–10 presents a summary of IEW TDs, ACTDs, ATDs, and S/SU/ACs as found in the IEW roadmaps. Systems and system
upgrades are the first step in fulfilling the IEW strategy. These will evolve from current systems through the use of product
improvement programs (PIPs) and P3Is. Technology demonstrations and ATDs will be utilized to facilitate the transition of
technology through block improvements to existing or new systems. The challenge is to field a family of IEW systems that use a
common module open architecture, thus improving flexibility, reducing the logistics burden, and minimizing development costs.
For the far–term, future systems planning is focused on the integration of IEW systems with command, control, and communication
systems into one C3 IEW "system–of–systems," which will

Table III–9. IEW System Capabilities

Function

CLOSE RSTA (ELINT, COMINT, Integrated system of sensors and

and electronic attack collectors
(EA) radar
System
multisensor package
Survivable
Ground–Based
Sensor to detect,
Common • All weather
track, and classify
Sensor—Heavy* • All echelons
vehicles and
personnel
Ground–Based Mobile
Common
UAV penetration
Sensor—Light
and stand–in Flexible and adaptable
reconnaissance,
Tactical UAV Intel surveillance, and
Multiplatform
Package target acquisition
(RSTA)/EW
System Upgrade modular payload • Ground based
• Airborne
Advanced QUICKFIX Manned aircraft with

multipurpose RSTA Multispectral and integration
sensor suite
Advanced Concept
• Imagery assessment
Airborne SIGINT/ • Acoustic
Integrated Intercept IMINT/radar/ • Radar
ELINT/MASINT • Laser
Integrated Sensor collection system for • COMINT
mid–range emitter • ELINT
mapping • HF–EHF
DEEP RSTA
(GROUND/
AIRBORNE) UAV modular Accurate
sensor (imagery,
meteorological,
System Upgrade • Range
NBC) with
• Location
cross–cueing/
• Percent detected
Enhanced Trackwolf processing
Modular
Advanced Concept UAV stationary
target ID sensor
classification • Common platforms
Integrated Intercept
• Common hardware and software
Integrated Sensor
Onboard preprocessing
PROCESSING & Situation Mapping propagation

FUSION development target
engagement
Single, multiple, and all–source
processing
System Upgrade Intel OTM antenna
upgrades
Intelligent information
ASAS Upgrades
Automated weather
• Correlation and fusion
decision aids
• Expert systems

• Decision aids
Integrated
• Artificial intelligence
Meteorological System
• Target identification
• Target nominations
• Situation analysis
Meteorological
Measuring Set
Information dissemination
Advanced Concept • Multiechelon

• Closed–loop target handoff
Distributed IEW Fusion

Common modules
Profiler • Hardware and software

• Built–in training
ELECTRONIC Stand–in UAV Penetration

ATTACK/
PROTECTION
HF–UHF and Implanted
beyond (threat
dependent)
Expendable
Standoff
Active/passive noncooperative IFF
System
Long range
Protection against
electronic attack
• Ground based
Tactical UAV Intel Active passive
Package cooperative target ID
• Airborne
Vehicular
self–protection • Space bases
Ground–Based
Aircraft • Radar, IR EO
Common
Sensor—Heavy self–protection/
suppression of
Onboard C2 integration
enemy air defense
(SEAD)
Laser beamrider warning/CM
Laser warning
System Upgrade
IRCM
HPM/MMW
Advanced QUICKFIX*
• Aircraft protection
Jammer family
Advanced Concept
• Communications,
noncommunications
Common Air/Ground
• Multisignal
Electronic Combat
Suite
• Multispectral
autonomous
Standoff

Provides significant capability Provides some capability * Contains communications jamming capability
Table III–10. IEW Demonstration and System Summary

Multispectral Countermeasures (see Aviation) IEW Ground–Based Collection Demonstrations
Tactical C2 Project Impulse/Wideband Electronic Support (ES)

Advanced ES Receiver
Modern Communications A/D Beamformer ES/EA
Multimission/Common Modular UAV Sensors
IEW Airborne Collection Demonstrations
Orion
SAR Target Recognition and Location System
Intelligence Processing and Fusion Demonstrations
Multiple Source Correlated Intelligence Fusion Demonstration

Owning the Weather
Tactical Intelligence Data Fusion Techniques
Information Denial Demonstrations
Advanced Digital Electronic Attack

SAR Deception Techniques
C3 Warfare Techniques
Modern C2 Warfare
Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstration
Joint Precision Strike Demonstration—Precision/

Rapid Counter MRL ACTD
(For additional information, see Volume II,

Annex B.)
System
Ground–Based Common Sensor—Heavy

Ground–Based Common Sensor—Light (Land Warrior SIGINT Division)
Tactical UAV Intelligence Package
System Upgrade
Advanced QUICKFIX (Aerial Common Sensor—Division)

ASAS Upgrades
Enhanced Trackwolf
Integrated Meteorological System
Meteorological Measuring Set

Advanced Concept
Integrated Intercept System

Integrated Sensor Sensor
Profiler
Common Air/Ground Electronic Combat Suite
carry out the presentation, management, collection, processing, dissemination, transport, and denial of battlespace information.
The following sections contain roadmaps that lay out the required program efforts in information collection (Figures III–4 and
III–5), information processing (Figure III–6), and information denial (Figure III–7). Each section contains descriptions of associated
technology demonstrations that support IEW S/SU/ACs.
Most of the demonstrations directly support the systems that form the basis of the IEW annex to the AMP. The remaining
demonstrations represent initiatives that support a variety of IEW systems, or are technology programs supporting non–MI systems
not specifically addressed in the IEW annex to the AMP.
a. Technology Programs Leading to Information Collection for IEW Ground–Based Collection Systems
Ground–based collectors for IEW ground–based collection systems are targeted against multiple echelons. They embody modular,
scalable, multisensor capabilities that combine ELINT, COMINT, and EA. The mixture of systems ranges from transportable to
manpack. Each provides surveillance, targeting, and intelligence data to be correlated with data provided by other sensors. The
roadmap for ground–based collection systems is shown in Figure III–4.
Figure III-4. Roadmap - IEW Ground-Based Information Collection Modernization

Impulse Wideband Electronic Support (ES) TD (1997–04). This demonstration will focus on developing advanced techniques to
detect, characterize, and geolocate impulse radars in the presence of conventional radars and communication signals. Impulse radars
represent a significant advance in the state of the art for battlefield radars. Since they were developed to counter detection, location,
and destruction, current countermeasures are ineffective against them. This work will involve a coordinated effort that includes
tri–service and international participation, as well as the use of the SBIR program. The objective of these programs is to develop
technology for insertion into current and future ES systems to counter the emerging impulse radar threat. Supports: Ground–Based
Common Sensor.

Advanced Electronic Support (ES) Receiver TD (2000–03). This program will demonstrate a digital reconfigurable receiver to
accommodate a variety of missions. This digital channelized receiver is intended to upgrade the intelligence and electronic warfare
countermeasures suite (IEWCS) front end to intercept very wideband signals in a single–channel mode, as well as to resolve
narrowband signals spatially in a multichannel mode. This ensures exploitation of modern communication signals and efficient
allocation of system resources. Supports: IEWCS and GBCS.
Modern Communications Analog/Digital (A/D) Beamformer Electronic Support/Electronic Attack (ES/EA) TD (2000–04). The
ability to resolve targets spatially using beamforming developments will increase the standoff ranges in which communications
collection can occur, or provide greater system sensitivity for signals at lower signal–to–noise ratios at current standoff ranges. This
program will demonstrate the effective use of this technology to address the frequency reuse or cochannel interference problem in
modern communications collection and identification to support electronic attack issues. Supports: IEWCS and GBCS.
b. Technology Programs Leading to Information Collection Modernization for IEW Airborne Collection Systems
The roadmap for airborne information collection shows a mixture of manned and unmanned platforms. The manned aircraft will
undergo preplanned product improvements that will add required capabilities on an incremental basis. Unmanned airborne vehicles
will carry a variety of IEW sensor packages. The roadmap is shown in Figure III–5.
Figure III-5. Roadmap - IEW Airborne Information Collection Modernization

JPSD Precision/Rapid Counter Multiple Rocket Launcher (MRL) ACTD (1995–98). This mature ACTD has demonstrated a
significant enhanced capability for U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) to neutralize the North Korean 240–mm MRL system. Because the
240–mm MRL is a mobile and fleeting target, it is expected to be exposed and vulnerable to counterfire for very short time periods. It
is an extremely sensitive, time–critical target (TCT), requiring nearly continuous surveillance and nearly instantaneous target
acquisition. The realities of terrain on the Korean peninsula require that a sensor be overhead and that target information be made
available to the firing unit most capable of hitting the 240–mm MRL in the least possible time. A second–generation IR line scanner
called the Reconnaissance Infrared Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RISTA II for second generation) was developed with an
Aided Target Recognizer and Processor (AiTRAP). This system provides high–resolution, wide–area coverage, and automatic target
chip presentation to a targeteer. The system was proven in FY96 at a demonstration at Fort AP Hill. The system was to be integrated

on a Hunter UAV, but reconfiguration of the DoD UAV program precluded Hunter availability. Plans are to demonstrate it at Fort
Hunter Ligget on an ALTUS Predator UAV. The sensor leave–behind for the counter multiple rocket launcher (CMRL) problem is
an Aided Target Recognizer for application to TESAR. The AiTRAP will cue the targeteer to 240 MRL targets. A preliminary
demonstration of this capability was shown in FY96 at Fort AP Hill. A demonstration of real–time SAR ATR against 240 MRL targets
will occur in 4QFY97. The first leave–behind will be a Challenger–based system for CONUS Predator systems in FY97, and the
second leave–behind will be a COTS processor in the Predator ground control station (GCS) for OCONUS deployment. Supports:
Joint Precision Strike and Joint Attack Operations.
Multimission/Common Modular UAV Sensors ATD (1997–01). This ATD will provide a low–cost, lightweight, EO/IR integrated
MTI radar/SAR payload for integration on future tactical UAVs. The radar payload will build upon successes in the current low–cost
radar development program and will likely utilize monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC). The FLIR will take advantage of
high quantum efficiency, 3–5–micron staring arrays. These sensor payloads will provide enhanced reconnaissance, surveillance,
battle damage assessment, and targeting for non–line–of–sight weapons. Demonstrations will focus on multiple mission flexibility in
support of early entry and deep attack forces. Supports: Tactical UAV Intel Package.
Impulse Wideband Electronic Support TD (1997–04). See description in the Ground–Based Collection Systems subsection above.
Orion TD (1995–98). This program will demonstrate the operational effectiveness of a wide bandwidth SIGINT ES package on a
surrogate UAV platform operating in conjunction with a ground–based IEW common sensor that receives the UAV ES–detected
signals and performs the intercept/processing task to locate high value C2 targets, thus enhancing the capabilities of the IEW
common sensor by allowing deeper penetration of the enemy’s communications space to detect even low signal levels from
directional systems such as multichannel. The system will also allow the intercept of modern low–power communications. Collection
of these signals is difficult due to low radiated power. Orion provides needed access to these signals. There are also plans to include
EA into the package to provide a unique capability to attack deep targets and assist in the execution of information warfare missions
against critical deep targets. Supports: Tactical UAV Intel Package.
Advanced ES Receiver Demonstration and Modern Communications Beamformer ES/EA Demonstration TD (2000–04). See
description in the Ground–Based Collection System subsection above.
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Target Recognition and Location System (STARLOS) TD (1994–99). This program will develop
real–time aided/ATR capabilities and demonstrate their functionality in a number of different platforms using SAR as sensor. The
ATR capabilities will be demonstrated in the ground station for the aerial platforms and will concentrate on the detection,
classification, recognition, and identification of high–value, high–payoff targets. The program will provide location of time–critical
targets in day/night and most weather conditions using wide–area coverage rates. Since multiple platforms will be addressed, the
ATR algorithms will be implemented using scalable common ATR hardware. In addition, the scalable hardware will be used to
execute algorithms for other sensors including second–generation FLIR/line scanner (LS), thus allowing more platforms (both
intelligence and combat weapon) to be considered for potential ATR insertion using the principles of HTI. Supports: Precision
Strike, Medium–Altitude Endurance UAV, and Tactical UAV Intel Package.
c. Technology Programs Leading to Intelligence Processing and Fusion Modernization
The objective of intelligence fusion and processing modernization is the development and fielding of common hardware and
software for intelligence analysis centers. The goal is to shorten timelines for supplying intelligence to the commander and to provide
real–time target information to weapon systems. The roadmap is shown in Figure III–6.

Figure III-6. Roadmap - IEW Fusion Information Processing Modernization

Tactical Intelligence Data Fusion Demonstration TD (1996–00). The objective of the program is to demonstrate automated tactical
data fusion concepts and technology and to establish the effectiveness of these tools as an intelligence force multiplier for the
commander. Enhanced military intelligence collection and asset management tools, terrain reasoning tools, enhanced information
dissemination tools and techniques, and battle damage assessment (BDA) tools and techniques will be developed and integrated into
existing IEW systems. IEW asset management and intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) tools and techniques have been
successfully demonstrated at Task Force XXI. Future plans include the demonstration of multiple source fusion using SIGINT and
MTI radar data. Simulation tools will be used to evaluate the use of information from nonconventional sources such as the airborne
survivability equipment (ASE) to enhance intelligence collection. Ultimately, advanced airborne planning algorithms and
effectiveness tools will be integrated into IEWCS multisensor tasking and reporting tools using database–to–database interfaces.
These tools will allow the commander to receive timely, correlated information allowing operations within the enemy’s decision
cycle. Supports: ASAS and IEWCS.
Multiple Source Correlated Intelligence Fusion Demonstration TD (1999–03). This effort will demonstrate a fully integrated tactical
intelligence data fusion module at corps and division levels. The module will be stimulated with diverse inputs and perform various
fusing functions to provide the commander with a comprehensive visualization of the battlefield using advanced, multimedia display
techniques to provide complete status of the situation in an easily viewed and understandable format (status at a glance). Inputs to
the module will be from the entire suite of battlefield sensors and both tactical and strategic intelligence sources. Sensors will be
queued, and remote resources queried, to synchronize the fusion effort with the supported tactical operation. Data will be correlated
using advanced fusion techniques, such as automated terrain reasoning, for location and movement analysis and amalgamated into
intelligence products. This module will support functions from the initial IPB to final BDAs and will also assist in fratricide
prevention. Supports: ASAS and IEWCS.
Owning the Weather TD (1996–03). This program consists of three interrelated TDs that will transition directly from 6.2 into the
integrated meteorological system (IMETS) and the field artillery’s meteorological measuring set (MMS), the advanced concept
profiler, Army battle command system (ABCS), battlefield automated systems (BASs), and the modeling and simulation (M&S)
community. The first TD, target area meteorology, will upgrade IMETS and MMS with a battlespace forecasting capability and add
computer–assisted artillery meteorology software to the MMS and future profiler for improved accuracy of indirect fire and precision
strike. The profiler will replace balloon–borne measuring systems and hydrogen generators on the battlefield. The second TD,
automated decision aids, will enable commanders to apply this improved knowledge of battlefield weather to compare
weather–based advantages/disadvantages of friendly and threat systems using automated decision aid client applications on ABCS
BASs served by the IMETS through a distributed computing environment. Automated weather decision aids were used effectively in
the Brigade Task Force XXI AWE 2QFY97 to demonstrate the utility of the client server architecture. The third TD extends the target
area meteorology and decision aid technology to the M&S environment so that realistic operational battlescale forecast weather and
predicted impacts on systems and operations are also useable in mission rehearsal, training, and combat simulations. Supports:

IMETS, MMS, Profiler, ABCS, and Distributed Interactive Simulation.
d. Technology Programs Leading to Denial Systems Modernization
Denial systems are categorized into three main areas: jamming systems, deception systems, and self–protection systems. The
objective of these systems is to deny the enemy vital information and to deceive and disrupt his command and control and weapon
systems. The roadmap is shown in Figure III–7.
Figure III-7. Roadmap - IEW Information Denial Modernization

Multispectral Countermeasures ATD (1997–99). The purpose of the Multispectral Countermeasures ATD is to develop prototype
imaging IR missile jamming techniques, a fiber–optic–coupled multiline laser, and a miniature tracker as a system upgrade to the AN/
ALQ–212 to protect Army helicopters from imaging surface–to–air missiles. See Section III–D "Aviation" (above) for more detailed
information. Supports: Integrated Countermeasures, Airborne Platforms, Upgrades to AN/ALQ–211 and AN/ALQ–212, and
CAGES.
Integrated Sensors and Targeting (ISAT) TD (1999–02). This program will develop a leap–ahead targeting upgrade to the suite of
integrated RF countermeasures (AN/ALQ–211) and suite of integrated IR countermeasures (AN/ALQ–212). See the section on
Aviation (above) for more detailed information. Supports: Upgrades to the AN/ALQ–211 and AN/ALQ–212, ICM, and CAGES.
Integrated Countermeasures (ICM) TD (1999–02). This program will develop and demonstrate a leap–ahead integrated RF, EO, IR
countermeasures system upgrade for the AN/ALQ–211 and AN/ALQ–212 systems for both conventional and reduced signature
aircraft with HTI–to–ground survivability. See the section on Aviation (above) for more detailed information. Supports: Upgrades
to the AN/ALQ–211 and AN/ALQ–212, ICM, and CAGES.
Tactical C2 Protect ATD (1998–02). This ATD will demonstrate the ability to launch effective C2 attack against integrated battlefield
area communications systems (IBACSs) (threat information systems). It will also demonstrate the ability to protect the Army’s
tactical information systems, components, and data from modern network attacks. The demonstration will leverage existing
technology, exploit modeling and simulation methods for concept exploration and definition, and use C2 attack capabilities against

TI information systems and components. For each C2 attack method, a counter–capability (C2 protect) will be incorporated. The
demonstration will provide the ability to control an adversary’s use of information, information–based processes, and information
systems selectively through the application of offensive capabilities that deny, disrupt, or degrade operations or capabilities. Supports:
ICM and TI C2 Components and Networks.
Advanced Digital Electronic Attack (EA) TD (1995–99). This demonstration will establish the effectiveness of exploitation and
jamming techniques based on vulnerabilities of various format modern analog and digital communications systems. A prototype
system for detecting and collecting analog and digital signals will be fabricated to allow for demonstration of proof–of–concept
countermeasures techniques. Supports: IEWCS and GBCS.
Modern C2 Warfare (2000–03). This program will demonstrate the ability to intercept, locate, and disrupt emerging high priority
threat systems utilizing advanced communications technologies. This program will also investigate the advanced digital signal
processing, encryption, and complex modulation techniques being incorporated into many of the commercial systems proliferating
throughout the world. Supports: IEWCS and GBCS.
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Deception Techniques TD (1997–02). This exploratory development project will yield components
to counter, through deception techniques, the SAR threat. These components include hardware, software, and associated
techniques, as well as ancillary equipment. The requirements to deceive and jam air defense and surveillance radar will continue to
increase as new threat radars are developed that use bistatic and other advanced techniques to avoid destruction and to counter low
observables. Supports: IEWCS.
C3 Warfare Techniques TD (1997–03). Provides the capability for the Army to win the information war on the battlefield or, more
importantly, to affect enemy information systems prior to the actual engagement of ground forces. Modern advanced threat usable
communications transmitters and receivers, both military–unique and commercial–adapted, will be technically analyzed for
capabilities and vulnerabilities. Exploitation techniques will be developed and tested to counter new complex, antijam, and
anti–intercept signals that continually emerge from sources throughout the world. This effort will allow the Army to counter, from an
IEW perspective, the frequent technology breakthroughs that can effectively negate our ability to shape enemy actions by
manipulating the flow of information and intelligence continuum of operations tasked to the force projection Army. Supports:
IEWCS.
Table III–11 shows the correlation between IEW S/SU/ACs and other AMP annexes. Note that IEW sensors provide a significant
capability in the modernization process of other mission areas.
The long–term goal is for Army C3IEW functions to evolve into an integrated battlespace information system (BIS–21), which
provides for the information collection, management, transport, and denial functions required in the 21st century. This BIS–21
concept is synchronized with the DoD "C4I for the Warrior" concept, which promotes the ability of a warfighter to "plug in" globally
and obtain required battlespace information at any time.
Table III–11. Correlation Between IEW S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
C4 Aviation Fire Space Close Mounted Engineer Space

Support & Combat Forces* & Mine
Missile Light* Warfare
Defense
System Ground–Based Common Sensor Heavy/Light
Tactical UAV Intel Package

System Upgrade Enhanced Trackwolf
Advanced QUICKFIX
ASAS Upgrades
Integrated Meteorological System
Meteorological Measuring Set
Advanced Concept Integrated Intercept System
Integrated Sensor System
Common Air/Ground Electronic Combat Suite
Profiler


Chapter III G. Mounted Forces
G. Mounted Forces
The violence unleashed during Desert Storm only foreshadows our future capabilities. Lethality also comes from the ability to generate
combat power—the combination of leadership, protection, maneuver, and firepower—in synchronization so that the effect is
devastating.
General Carl E. Vuono

Former Army Chief of Staff
1. Introduction
The greatest S&T challenge in the mounted forces mission is to make our most capable mounted forces lighter, more lethal, and
more deployable at reduced cost, so as to react to regional conflicts in the post–cold–war era better, while improving their mobility,
lethality, C4I capability, survivability, and sustainability.
Mounted forces require expanded capabilities to acquire and kill the array of threat targets in all weather, on the move, day/night, in
cluttered environments, and at long ranges with increased probability of destruction out to the extent of the commander’s
battlespace. S&T programs must focus on warfighter needs for future systems or system upgrades. Investments are being made to
apply technology horizontally across multiple combat and tactical systems.
Mounted forces SU/ACs address the progress of the Army’s desired operational capabilities, as they relate to the patterns of
operation shown in Table III–12. A direct correlation exists between the SU/ACs listed and the six patterns of operation.
Dominate the maneuver battle is one of the Army’s modernization objectives. The mounted forces section of Annex NO TAG,
"Combat Maneuver," in the 1996 Army Modernization Plan annex supports this objective by providing an assessment of the
mounted forces strengths and weaknesses. The annex also outlines a modernization program to correct deficiencies and exploit
strengths. It calls for the following major improvements to continue our modernization program: increase target acquisition,
digitize the battlefield, increase lethality, increase survivability, and improve force structure.
Six integrated concept teams (ICTs) have been formed to address solutions to user–defined requirements. For each ICT, an S&T
director has been appointed. S&T directors are technology program managers chartered to oversee and integrate those relevant
S&T activities. These ICTs, along with their primary focus, are as follows:
• Abrams ICT (current fleet modernization). S&T activities will target technology transfer to M1A2 Abrams
upgrades. The insertion of required technology will be facilitated by ongoing electronic upgrades.
• Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ICT. This ICT developed the FSCS program with a goal of equipping the
first unit in 2007. Specific attention is being given to stealth, a wide array of sensor capability, connectivity to the
digitized battlefield, and survivability.

• Future Combat System (FCS) ICT. The FCS ICT devised a program to develop and field a leap–ahead combat
program to be fielded between 2015 and 2020.
• Suite of Survivability Enhancements System (SSES) ICT. The SSES ICT will coordinate the development of a suite
of survivability enhancements for ground combat vehicles. This technology will protect the mounted force from
known enemy threats.
• Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). The FBCB2 ICT will conduct a concept review of C2
functions and will define required operational capabilities within Armor Center proponency for combined arms
command and control (CAC2) at brigade and below.
Table III–12. Mounted Forces System Capabilities

Function

System Upgrade Increased situational

awareness
• Compliant with
digital battlefield
M1A2 Abrams Soldier

Enhancement Program • Positive hostile
identification
• Threat warning
sensors
Increased target
Abrams P3I Program acquisition
Increased target
acquisition
M2A3 Bradley Increased threat

detection
Increased
survivability
Advanced Concept Leap ahead lethality
• Extended range
• Indirect and direct fire modes
• Rapid rearm
Reduced crew size
Reduced crew workload

Future Combat System Improved situational awareness
• Extended range sensors
• Digital battlefield compliant
Reduced battlefield signature

Future Scout and
Cavalry System Silent watch operation
Increased dismounted squad

transportability
Land warrior compatible
Improved situational awareness
Future Infantry Vehicle

Improved lethality
• Future Infantry Vehicle (FIV). The FIV ICT has developed a program plan to support the acquisition cycle,
investigate technologies, develop S&T programs, demonstrate technology integration, and help define operational
tactics. Results of the ICT will be used to field an FIV with an optimal mix of survivability, mobility, lethality,
training, and C4I capabilities. The FIV program will support the dismounted force with a first unit equipped in the
2012 timeframe.
4. Roadmap for Mounted Forces Modernization
Table III–13 presents a summary of demonstrations and technologies. The roadmap in Figure III–8 portrays the progression of the
Mounted Forces program to include TDs, ATDs, andSU/ACs.

Figure III-8. Roadmap - Mounted Forces

a. Lethality Technology Demonstrators
Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) TD (1996–99). This TD will develop a lightweight miniature (35–40 kg) hypervelocity
kinetic energy (KE) missile, compatible with the line–of–sight antitank (LOSAT) target acquisition and tracking system and could
be compatible with the fire control system for close combat and short–range air defense missions. It will demonstrate increased
flight maneuverability against close–in airborne targets with continuous control actuation for significantly reduced minimum range
and increased missile platform adaptability. Demonstration of this miniature hypervelocity missile concept will provide capability
for a significant increase in lethality, survivability, and mobility of a dual–role close combat and short range air defense KE weapon
system that is easily stowable on tracked combat vehicles. Supports: HMMWV, FCS, and FIV.
Direct Fire Lethality ATD (1996–01). This ATD will demonstrate promising technologies to enhance the hit and kill capabilities of
armored vehicles while reducing O&S costs. Technologies must be explored that provide a quantum leap in performance with little
or no weight/volume burden on the vehicle. Emphasis will be placed on defeat of advanced appliqué armors utilizing KE novel
penetrators and axial/radial thrusters to compensate for jump errors from the ammunition launch package after muzzle exit.
Technologies such as distributed direct (gearless) drives, optical fiber muzzle reference system, and modern digital servo control

will be incorporated into the turret and main gun to eliminate system errors and compensate for terrain and firing disturbances
experienced by ground combat vehicles during dynamic firing scenarios, thus increasing the probability of hit and kill. Supports:
Abrams, FSCS ATD, and FCS.
Table III–13. Mounted Forces Demonstration and System Summary

Direct Fire Lethality Compact Kinetic Energy Missile

Battlefield Combat Identification* Tank Extended Range Munition
Target Acquisition Fuze Technology
Battlespace Command and Control* Future Combat System Armament
Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite Advanced Light Armament for Combat Vehicles
Future Scout and Cavalry System Full–Spectrum Active Protection
Composite Armored Vehicle Intravehicle Electronics Suite
Advanced Electronics for Future Combat System
Ground Propulsion and Mobility
Propulsion Demonstration for Future Combat System
Future Combat System Integrated Demonstration
Lightweight Chassis/Turret Structures
System Upgrade
M1A2 Abrams SEP

Abrams P3I
M2A3 Bradley
Advanced Concept
Future Combat System

Future Scout and Cavalry System
* See section on C4 (above).
Tank Extended Range Munitions (TERM) TD (1998–02). This TD will demonstrate a fully integrated tube–launched 120–mm
precision munition for the Abrams tank capable of defeating high–value threats, advanced armor threats equipped with explosive
reactive armor, or active protection systems out to 8–km line of sight and non–line of sight. TERM will demonstrate the synergy at
the tactical level of targeting information available from forward observers (e.g., FSCS) through Army digitization efforts, and the
lethality capability provided to the Abrams utilizing TERM. Supports: Abrams and FCS.
Fuze Technology TD (2000–03). This TD will demonstrate promising fuze technologies for improved performance/reliability and
dramatic reduction in life–cycle cost through low unit production cost (UPC) and component applications across DoD. The TD
will demonstrate low–energy electronic safe and arm (ESA) devices in a 1–cubic–inch, $50 configuration, suitable for missiles,
smart and brilliant munitions. Develop and demonstrate appropriate fuze sensors for counter active protective system (APS)
munitions/missiles to detect correct standoff distance from threat vehicles and the launch of active protection system
countermunitions. Supports: Counteractive Projection System (CAPS) Fuzing—FOTT, Javelin, TOW upgrades, Abrams
Sustainment, FCS, ESA–PEO Tactical Missiles, Tank Extended–Range Munitions, Sense and Destroy Armor (SADARM)
upgrades, Area Denial Systems, and Remote Activation Munitions System (RAMS).
Future Combat System Armament TD (2000–04). Develop and demonstrate moderate risk armament system technologies capable
of meeting the direct and indirect fire high–probability–of–kill lethality requirements of an FCS vehicle; conduct hardstand
demonstration of components; and transition all hardware to the Tank–Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering
Center (TARDEC) FCS integrated TD for vehicle integration activities. The FCS armament TD will demonstrate gun,

ammunition, fire control, and ammunition handling technologies. Supports: All antiarmor weapon platforms—Abrams, FCS, KE/
chemical energy (CE) Missiles, FSCS ATD, FIV, and USMC amphibious assault vehicles.
Advanced Light Armament for Combat Vehicles TD (2001–03). Leverage and integrate state–of–the–art U.S. and foreign
technologies in bursting munitions, novel penetrators, and propulsion systems into mature medium–caliber ammunition
configuration for application to Bradley, FSCS, and FIV. Effectiveness goals to be demonstrated will be 75–100 percent greater than
standard point detonating rounds and 20–40 percent improvement over KE and foreign bursting rounds. Detailed ammunition
designs will be based upon results of an Armaments Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC)/ARL technology
programs. Supports: FIV, Bradley, FSCS, and Longbow Modernization.
b. Survivability Technology Demonstrations
Full–Spectrum Active Protection (FSAP) TD (2001–05). The objective is to deliver an integral configured active protection (AP)
countermeasure for engineering and manufacturing development that provides general vehicles protection against tube–launched
KE and high–explosive antitank (HEAT) munitions. FSAP will exploit, adapt, and develop/leverage technologies from tri–service,
industrial, and foreign programs. FSAP will provide protection against all threats, reducing the probability of kill to 0.2. The TD is a
single low–cost countermeasure for protection against large top attack, hit–to–kill ATGM, and especially tube–launched KE and
HEAT threats. Supports: Current Fleet, Abrams, Bradley, M113, FSCS, FIV, FCS, Crusader, and Grizzly.
c. Vehicle Electronics Technology Demonstrations
Battlefield Combat Identification ATD (1993–98). This ATD focuses on fratricide reduction and is discussed in the section on C4
(above).
Target Acquisition ATD (1995–98). This ATD will demonstrate automated wide–area search and target acquisition, prioritization,
and tracking at extended ranges. Automation of these capabilities will reduce crew workload, shorten timelines to acquire targets,
and as a result effectively direct fire. The ability to acquire and hand over targets automatically supports the design of a combat
vehicle with fewer crew members that is more lethal and more deployable with improved situational awareness through the digitized
battlefield.
The Target Acquisition ATD will be composed of a second–generation thermal imaging sensor, an MMW radar with MTI
capability, a multifunctional laser (rangefinding, laser designating, and high–density profiling mode), and a day television. The
sensors will be complemented by the inclusion of ATR algorithms and a high–density processor that will run the algorithms.
Supports: FCS, FSCS, FIV, and Abrams.
Intravehicle Electronics Suite TD (1996–00). This effort will develop crew interface and vehicle architecture technologies to enable
the soldier to take advantage of the data generated on the digitized battlefield. These technologies will increase in overall crew
efficiency while reducing crew size. System performance will increase while the cost ratio of electronics/software upgrades for
system upgrades is reduced. Significant challenges to meeting crew efficiency goals include driving a vehicle without direct vision
and using nonphysical interfaces, such as voice and audio, in a combat vehicle. Supports: FSCS ATD, Open Systems Joint Task
Force, Army C4I Technical Architecture, FCS, FIV, Abrams, Bradley, and Crusader.
Battlespace Command and Control ATD (1997–00). This ATD will demonstrate the capability to integrate, distribute, and
graphically display numerous types of digitized command and control information (e.g., terrain, position/navigation (POS/NAV),
weather, intelligence to the maneuver commander). For details see the section on C4 (above).
Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite (MFS3) ATD (1998–01). This ATD will demonstrate a modular, reconfigurable MFS3 that
integrates multiple advanced sensor components including a staring infrared imager, a multifunction laser, and acoustic arrays. The
MFS3 will provide scout/cavalry vehicles and amphibious assault vehicles with a compact, affordable sensor suite for long–range
noncooperative target identification, mortar/sniper fire location, and air defense against low signature targets. The infrared imaging

system will be configured to accommodate either visible–to–mid IR or far IR FPAs. As single focal planes capable of operating
across the full optical spectrum mature, these may be inserted into the assembly. The staring IR sensor will operate at high field rates
to allow sniper and mortar detection in addition to the conventional target acquisition functions. Integration of a multifunction,
multiwavelength laser system will incorporate ranging, range mapping, target profiling, and laser designation to support target
location, target cueing, aided target identification, and target designation. The acoustic array will provide target cueing and location
and will assist in automated targeting functions. Supports: FSCS, FIV, FCS, and USMC Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle.
Advanced Electronics for Future Combat System TD (2000–04). This effort will provide an integrated electronics package and
crewstation technologies to the FCS integrated demonstrator. The program will transition crewstation technologies and
architecture developments from Vetronics Intravehicle Electronics TD into the FCS integrated demonstration. Technologies
developed under this TD support high–power electronic devices, devices that will require such power include electromagnetic gun,
electromagnetic armor, and electric drive. Additional soldier–machine interface technologies that will be developed include
helmet–mounted displays, head trackers, panoramic displays, cognitive decision aids, load management algorithms, and
automated route planning. Testing, demonstration, and validation of the advanced architecture and crew station technologies will
be performed in a high–power electronics vehicle systems integration laboratory (VSIL) prior to integration on the FCS integrated
demonstration. Supports: FCS, FSCS, FIV, Abrams, Bradley, and Crusader.
d. Mobility Technology Demonstrations
Ground Propulsion and Mobility TD (1997–01). Ground vehicle mobility advances for the 2001 combat vehicle fleet will be
achieved through smaller and lighter systems with improved weapon stabilization, improved ride and agility, and reduced acoustic/
IR signatures. These advantages will be the result of development of several advanced component systems such as band track,
semiactive suspension with an active track tensioner, and electric drives. Band track will be developed for vehicles as heavy as 30
tons, providing weight savings and quiet operation. Semiactive suspension will be developed incorporating a track tensioning
system that will provide improved fuel economy and better track retention. Electric drive development will center on incorporation
of running gear technology such as motors and generators being developed through cooperative efforts by government agencies
(Army, DARPA, DOE, USMC) and industry. Supports: FSCS and FIV.
Propulsion Demonstration for Future Combat Systems (2002–06). This effort will define the complete FCS propulsion
configuration and will complete much of the detail design of all major components. An FCS engine will demonstrate power, fuel
economy, heat rejection, and critical temperatures within 20 percent of target values. By FY06, a fully active electromechanical
suspension for a future combat system weight (>40 ton) class vehicle will be demonstrated. By FY06, TARDEC will complete
integrated track and suspension mobility demonstration. The Electric Drive Technology Development Hardware Demonstration
Program will be funded primarily by DARPA and managed by the Army. Subsequently the DARPA program technology will
transition to the Army for integration in future vehicles. Supports: FCS, Abrams, and Crusader.
e. Systems Integration Technology Demonstrations
Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD (1998–01). The FSCS ATD will demonstrate the feasibility and operational
potential of an advanced lightweight vehicle chassis integrating scout–specific and advanced vehicle technologies developed in
other technology–based programs. The effort will be fabricated and tested in virtual and real environments to evaluate and validate
sensors/situational awareness capabilities and to develop scout tactics.
The FSCS ATD will develop and demonstrate scout–specific mobility components such as electric drive, semi–active and fully
active suspension, and band track. Other specific technologies that may be integrated into the scout platform include MFS3,
advanced lightweight structural materials and armors, advanced crew stations, advanced C2, medium–caliber weapon, and
advanced survivability systems. This effort will validate the inherent signature reduction of advanced mobility technologies. The
FSCS ATD will fast track in FY02 to the EMD phase of the FSCS program. Supports: FSCS, FIV, and FCS.
Future Combat System (FCS) Integrated TD (2000–06). This effort will demonstrate the maturity of the FCS candidate’s

revolutionary technologies in the vehicle configuration required for operation in the Army After Next. Leap–ahead lethality in
vehicles 50 percent lighter is required to employ strategic mobility throughout the AAN vision. Critical issues to be addressed are
the acceptance of two–crew–vehicle operation, leap–ahead mobility (60 mph cross country), nontraditional survivability (replacing
ballistic protection with signature management, countermeasures, and active protection), and indefensible lethality (both direct and
indirect fire). Virtual prototypes will be constructed and evaluated, and a system integration laboratory (SIL) will be implemented
with laboratory hardware to validate electronics integration. Supports: FCS, FIV, and FCS ICT.
Future Infantry Vehicle (FIV) TD (2001–06). This effort will demonstrate, in both real and virtual environments, the feasibility and
operational potential of a FIV by integrating FIV–specific technologies with complementary advanced vehicle technologies.
Requirements to be achieved in the FIV are increasing the crew capabilities through automation and crew enabling remote stations
for vision as well as armament and vehicle operation. Survivability will be increased by 33–50 percent using a combination of
improved armor protection, hit avoidance, and signature management. On–board training/battle rehearsal will increase 100
percent by eliminating technical manuals, having on–board simulators and embedded training. All systems’ advanced diagnostics/
prognostics will be demonstrated. Full dismount squad size will increase from 7 to 11. Mobility will be improved to be equal to the
FCS. Lethality will be improved through the integration of an advanced medium caliber weapon, fire–and–forget FOTT P3I missile
system and the addition of nonlethal devices. Supports: M2/M3 Bradley upgrades, FSCS EMD, FIV EMD, and the combined arms
medium class of vehicles.
f. Vehicle Chassis/Turret Structures Technology Demonstrations
Composite Armored Vehicle (CAV) ATD (1994–98). The CAV ATD will demonstrate the feasibility of producing lighter weight
ground combat vehicles manufactured from advanced composites. The CAV ATD will consist of an integrated demonstration of
advanced composites and advanced lightweight armors on a C–130 air–deployable 22–ton vehicle emphasizing manufacturability,
repairability, nondestructive testing, and structural integrity. The vehicle structure and armor will weigh at least 33 percent less than
comparable steel or aluminum. CAV’s operational advantages will improve survivability through inherent signature reduction of
composite materials on vehicle shaping, and improve agility and deployability by reducing structure and armor weight. Supports:
Crusader EMD, FSCS, FCS Demonstrations, and FIV.
Lightweight Chassis/Turret Structures TD (2000–04). This TD will develop and demonstrate a minimum weight structural designs
vehicle chassis and turret to achieve the future combat system 40–ton gross vehicle weight. Modular, removable armor for
in–country installation will be incorporated. Two hull and turret structures will be built, one for firing and one for the FCS
integrated demonstration. Supports: FCS, High Mobility Rocket System (HIMARS), Future Engineer Systems, and Army After
Next fleet.
Table III–14 exhibits the cross–fertilization that exists between SU/ACs and several AMP annexes. All of the SU/ACs, ATDs, and
TDs presented in this section support the Army Mounted Forces modernization areas, and many of them support additional
modernization areas.
Table III–14. Correlation Between Mounted Forces S/SU/ACs

and Other AMP Annexes
Fire Close IEW C4

Support Combat
Light*
System Upgrade M1A2 Abrams SEP
Abrams P3I

M2A3 Bradley
Advanced Concept Future Combat System
Future Scout and Cavalry System


Chapter III H. Close Combat Light
H. Close Combat Light
Those experimenting today will lead modernized units tomorrow.
Togo D. West, Jr.

Secretary of the Army
1. Introduction
In light of the changing threat, the Army is placing increased emphasis on developing a more flexible, combat–ready military force
that can respond quickly to any crisis situation and that is capable of deterring aggression and, should deterrence fail, defeating the
enemy throughout the operational continuum. The cornerstone of this flexible force is the Army’s light forces. The light forces
comprise combat, combat support, and combat service support units that participate in and support the close battle. Their mission
is to defeat threat forces in a low–intensity conflict, while retaining a capability for employment in mid– to high–intensity conflicts
and OOTW.
Light forces, as well as all other elements of future land combat forces, must be highly deployable, able to execute missions outside
the operational envelope of opposing forces, and survive against myriad lethal antiarmor weapons and other nontraditional,
nonlethal weapons. Light forces are the option of choice for peacetime engagement and conflict prevention. They must show the
advantage of new technologies and field equipment that is more lethal, survivable, maintainable, smaller, lighter weight, and easily
transportable.
It may be necessary for light forces to conduct military operations under a variety of conditions generated by a wide range of
threats. We must, therefore, continue to leverage technology in the following key areas to ensure our capabilities exceed those of
our current and potential threats:
• Integrate digitization.
• Provide smaller, lighter, precision firepower.
• Facilitate mobility and maneuver.
• Maximize leadership and training.
• Increase protection.
A major Army initiative, designed and geared toward achieving U.S. light forces superiority, is the RFPI ACTD. This ACTD
explores new tactics and technologies via a system–of–systems approach providing a path to an air–deployable, early entry light
force that is significantly more capable of destroying a heavy armored threat beyond traditional direct fire weapons range. The RFPI
concept includes a variety of advanced sensors (air and ground, manned and unmanned); several precision–guided,
non–line–of–sight weapons; responsive command and control mechanisms; and automated targeting. Target handover will be
facilitated by tactical digital data transfer systems now being developed as part of the U.S. ABCS program. Specifically, this ACTD
will provide the opportunity to explore the integration of new technologies with modified tactics, technologies, and procedures to
improve the survivability of our early entry forces.
The light forces are key elements of the U.S. forward–deployed, crisis–response, and reinforcing forces. Light forces provide

versatility in two ways: they are rapidly deployable and they are most suited for fighting in close terrain. These characteristics enable
light forces to be used in all of the Army’s roles and missions. Some examples of these are:
• Initial forward deployment and the timely reinforcement of forces. This has deterrent value and sends a message of
resolve in a crisis situation, yet is not perceived as escalatory.
• Contingency crisis situations, where a rapid and decisive deployment can forestall or limit hostilities. In an area
where no infrastructure exists, a forced entry and subsequent rapid build–up of force may be required.
• Nation building/military operations other than war. Nations involved in low–intensity conflicts may require
economic and social–political solutions. Light forces are ideally suited for the role of providing security and
promoting the political and social development of nations. Their inherent characteristic of low equipment density
does not create an impact on a developing country, yet it provides a widespread sense of security.
• Counterterrorism can be used both domestically and internationally. It may require special nontraditional methods.
Table III–15 represents close combat light S/SU/ACs capabilities and their relationship to the Army modernization objectives. This
table also provides highlights of capabilities provided by other Army modernization programs discussed in detail throughout this
chapter.
The Combat Maneuver annex to the AMP, of which close combat light is a part, reviews the requirements placed on the light forces
over the entire spectrum of potential future conflicts and is the Army’s strategy for modernization of its strategically flexible light
forces. The close combat light modernization strategy focuses on new materiel that increases lethality, mobility, and survivability
while correcting deficiencies and providing the necessary "tailorability" across the spectrum of conflict. Priority is given to
equipment that significantly increases flexibility and survivability.
Early entry forces will gain increased lethality and survivability against heavy forces through application of the
hunter–standoff–killer concept—use of advanced forward sensors (hunters) and standoff weapons (killers) that will be
demonstrated in a system–of–systems engaging enemy forces at ranges beyond their ability to counter.
Close combat light extracts those portions of all other modernization plans and mission areas that are applicable to light forces,
examines them from the perspective of the light forces roles and missions, and ensures that the light forces are provided adequate
resources.
This plan is the result of a thorough examination of the threat, the nature and imperatives of the future battlefield, a recognition of
the need to reduce significantly the time required to develop and field advanced technology systems, and the recognition of
time–constrained resources. The plan uses technology and systems that will make a significant contribution to the deterrent value of
light forces or provide leap–ahead capabilities. The objective is to ensure that the Army light forces meet the future battlefield
requirements of increased firepower, flexibility, mobility, survivability, and sustainability.
4. Roadmaps for Close Combat Light
Table III–16 is a summary of close combat light demonstrations and systems.
Because close combat light is primarily an integration plan, the applicable S/SU/ACs, along with the majority of appropriate ATDs
and TDs that provide capabilities to the close combat light mission, are shown on the existing roadmaps throughout the rest of
Chapter III and are not repeated here.

The RFPI, however, is unique to close combat light and is displayed in Figure III–9. It depicts the Army ATDs and technology
demonstrations that support the RFPI ACTD in the form of capabilities provided by systems or system upgrades.
In addition to the RFPI demonstrations, there are other technology demonstrations that are unique to the close combat light
mission. These are shown in the roadmap on Figure III–10.
Table III–15. Close Combat Light System Capabilities

Function

AVIATION Light attack/armed Ground maintenance associate

reconnaissance
System Increased payload

Day/night and adverse
weather
Advanced transmission
RAH–66 Comanche
Antiarmor/air to air
Man–machine interface
System Upgrade
Automatic target
Increased lethality
AH–64D Apache recognition
Longbow
All–weather NOE pilotage
Advanced survivability
Advanced Concept Multirole/versatility
Self deployability
Improved Cargo Automatic target recognition

Helicopter
Signature control
Enhanced AH–64D
Apache Advanced maneuverability/agility
Joint Transport Advanced propulsion

Rotorcraft
Integrated flight/fire control
MULE
Precision navigation
MRMAAV
NOE sling load operations
C4 Distributed processing Enhanced situation awareness

and databases
Synchronized battle management
Integrated system
System Upgrade management
Voice input/output
Gateways and multilevel

Seamless, transparent communication
security
Communications—
Wide, Local, Mobile Secure multimedia
Jam resistant capability
Automated network management

High mobility and

survivability
Advanced Concept C2 on the move
Expert system planning

Integrated sensor weapon C3
aids
Force XXI/Vision
2010 Battlefield visualization
Assured
communications
INTELLIGENCE & Manpack/vehicle for Integrated system of sensors and

ELECTRONIC surveillance/targeting collectors
WARFARE
System Penetration and standoff • Multispectral

IEW
Ground–Based • Advanced processing
Common Automated terrain
Sensor—Light* identifier
Information dissemination
UAV Tactical
ELINT, COMINT, and
Intelligence Package • Multiechelon
EA radar multisensor
System Upgrade package
• Closed–loop target handover
Integrated Automated weather
Meteorological System decision aids Intelligence analysis and assessment
Meteorological
Measuring Set Man–portable sensor to
detect, track, and classify
Advanced QUICKFIX vehicle and personnel
ASAS
Advanced Concept
Distributed IEW
Fusion
Profiler
CLOSE COMBAT Dismounted infantry Increased payload

LIGHT combat power
System Increased lethality

Increased capability of
vehicle–mounted
Objective Enhanced situation awareness
support weapons
Crew–Served Weapon
Integrated system of sensors
Objective Sniper Increased self–protection
Weapon
Improved probability of hit
System Upgrade Higher altitude
personnel parachute
opening capabilities IR/TV sensor
Advanced Precision
Airborne Delivery
System Improved glide ratio for Lightweight
personnel parachutes
Advanced Personnel
Ability to accurately deliver supplies/
Airdrop Technologies
Lower ground impact equipment from offset distances
Advanced Concept velocities for airborne
soldiers Increased delivery accuracy
Covert, day/night, and limited

visibility airdrop capability

Precision Offset High
Glide Aerial Delivery
of Munitions and
Equipment
SOLDIER Optimal food System weight reduction

mix—quality and
System amount
Minimization of system power
Objective Family of Improved soldier and

Life–cycle cost reduction
Small Arms crew protection
Improved system fightability

Land Warrior Improved accuracy,
effects, and logistics
Objective Sniper
Weapon
Battery unit/engine fuel
cells, lightweight power
System Upgrade source
Force XXI Land Thermal weapon sight to

Warrior detect man–sized targets
Army Field Feeding

Future Soldier computer
Objective Individual Increased accuracy,

Combat Weapon probability of hit, and
range
Objective
Crew–Served Weapon Lightweight system
NCB Decontamination Defeat/immobilize enemy threat

downtime reduced equipment (i.e., trucks, tanks)
System/
System Upgrade/ Detection and ID of all Close–in fire support for SOF and
Advanced Concept CB threat agents MOUT
Individual Protection
Low bulk, low–cost CB Increased first–kill capability of
protective mask hardened targets
Collective Protection
Multispectral smoke Large area defeat of enemy threat

Chemical Detectors material to defeat enemy equipment
RSTA assets
Biological Detectors
Counter–counter battery
Defeat or degrade
Smoke/Obscurants enemy armored targets
Target marking
Decontamination
Improve entry/exit
AIR DEFENSE IR counter–countermeasures
System Upgrade Improved lethality against helicopters
Patriot Advanced
Capability (PAC3) 360–degree coverage
Bradley Stinger
Fighting Vehicle
Advanced Concept
Stinger Block II

ENGINEER AND Advanced staring FPA

MINE WARFARE
Advanced sensors
System
Lightweight airborne
Lightweight Airborne standoff detection
Multispectral CM
Detector
Advanced ATR
Ground Standoff
Mine Detection Neutralized antitank
mines
System Upgrade
Detection avoidance
Mine Hunter–Killer
Counter threat thermal
Low–Cost, IR sensors
Low–Observable
Technologies Integrated, cooperative,
controllable two–way
Digital Topographic minefield
Support System/
Quick Response
Detect mines with large
Multicolor Printer
lethal radii
FIRE SUPPORT Improved range, agility, Mobile long–range capability

and RAM
System Improved targeting
Extended range kill
Crusader
Precision guidance capability
Lightweight 155–mm Increased sensor
Towed Howitzer accuracy
Lightweight, deployable, long range
System Upgrade Decision aids
Increased lethality and accuracy
Firefinder P3I
Smart weapons
Reduced fire mission duration
Multimode Airframe
Technology 155–mm range from a
Reduced logistic burden
lightweight system
Extended Range
Artillery (ERA)
Projectile—
XM982
Advanced Concept
Precision Guided
Mortar Munition
Guided Multiple
Launch Rocket System
LOGISTICS Shelf–stable ration Accurate delivery of supplies/

components equipment from offset distances
System Upgrade
Enhanced rations Increased delivery accuracy via an
Aerial Delivery performance and autonomous GPS–based guidance
flexibility and navigation system
Army Field Feeding
Future
Reduced manpower Covert day/night and limited visibility
airdrop capabilities

Improved quality of life

Rapid Deployable
Food Service for
Force Projection Improved
precision–guided
ReformD/Emergency delivery of munitions
Petroleum Quality
Electric Power Improved morale

Generation
Improved food,
Munitions nutrition, and readiness
Survivability
Advanced Concept Lower O&S costs
Precision Offset,
High–Glide Aerial
Delivery
Containerized Kitchen
TRAINING Joint services training
System Upgrade Component training

strategies
Distributed Interactive
Simulation Combined arms training
Combined Arms Battle command training

Training Strategy
Upgrade of multiple
integrated laser
Combat Training
engagement system
Centers
equipment
Nonsystem Training
Synthetic battlefield
Devices
Special operations
Range
training
Instrumentation
Targetry Devices
Contingency mission
training
Combined Arms
Tactical Trainer
Range modernization
Advanced Concept Joint mission training
Distributed Models/ Mission rehearsal

Simulation for Joint/
Theater Exercises
Mission readiness estimation
Innovative
Simulation–Based Behaviorally accurate semiautomated
Training Strategies forces
Advanced Assessment
Technologies
SPACE Real–time warning to

theater forces
System
Pager warning to troops

Joint Tactical Ground

Station
Eagle Vision II
Surveillance Targeting
and Reconnaissance
Satellite
System Upgrade DBC terminal upgrades
SATCOM paging
SCAMP Terminals
Improved situational
awareness
Tactical Exploitation
of National
Improved targeting
Capabilities
Improved pointing
accuracy
Advanced Concept SATCOM on the move
Communications High–capacity voice/data/video

Transport transmission
Advanced Image
Collection and
Processing
MOUNTED FORCES Leap–ahead lethality
System Upgrade Hypermobility
M1A2 Abrams SEP

Reduced crew size and workload
Abrams P3I
Situational awareness
M2A3 Bradley
Silent watch operation
Advanced Concept
Future Combat System Increased squad size
Future Scout and Improved lethality

Cavalry System
Future Infantry
Vehicle
COMBAT HEALTH Protection against blood Protection against malaria using a

SUPPORT and tissue stages of combined vaccine
malaria
Combined oral vaccine for protection
Protection against against diarrheal disease
Shigella
System/System
CAD, molecular fingerprinting–, and
Upgrade/Advanced
Forward diagnostic test molecular biology–based drug
Concept
kits discovery
Protective vaccines Multiagent protection with single

against vaccination
encephalomyelitis,
botulium toxin,
Medical diagnostics and

staphylococcal communications for casualty care

Infectious Diseases of
enterotoxin (SEB), enhancements
Military Importance
anthrax, plague,
Brucella, and ricin
Performance optimization
Improve blood storage

Sleep and alertness enhancement
duration
Medical Chemical and
Biological Defense
Physiological models
Localize antibiotic
administration
Enhance monitoring
Combat Casualty Care and diagnosis
far–forward
Performance–enhancing
Army Operational nutritional supplements
Medicine
Reduction and
prevention of
deployment stress
Provides significant capability Provides some capability * Contains communication jamming capability
Table III–16. Close Combat Light Demonstration and System Summary

Precision Guided Mortar Munition RFPI Demonstration
Guided MLRS (see Fire Support) Aerial Scout Sensor Integration

Integrated Acoustic System
Enhanced Fiber–Optic Guided Missile
High Mobility Rocket System
155–mm Automated Howitzer (see Fire Support)
Multimode Airframe (see Fire Support)
CCL Unique Demonstrations
Objective Crew–Served Weapon

Counter Active Projection System
Precision Offset, High Glide Aerial Delivery of Munitions and Equipment
Objective Sniper Weapon
Advanced Personnel Airdrop (see Soldier)
Advanced Cargo Airdrop (see Logistics)
ATR for Weapons (see Aviation)
Advanced Concept
Rapid Force Projection Initiative

Annex B.)

System

System Upgrade
Advanced Precision Airborne Delivery System

Advanced Personnel Airdrop Technologies
Advanced Concept
Precision Offset, High Glide Aerial Delivery of Munitions and Equipment
Figure III-9. Roadmap - Close Combat Light for Rapid Force Projection Initiative ACTD
a. RFPI Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration
RFPI ACTD (1995–00). The RFPI ACTD will demonstrate a highly lethal, survivable, and rapidly air–deployable enhancement to
the early entry task force. This enhancement will provide automated target transfer from forward sensors to an indirect–fire weapon
system with the capability to engage high–value targets beyond traditional direct–fire ranges. The ACTD provides an opportunity
for extensive user interaction with the new RFPI hunter–standoff killer concept and its emerging technologies. A selected light, air
assault, or airborne unit from forces command (FORSCOM) will demonstrate the RFPI ACTD concept, and will retain selected
equipment for at least a 2–year extended demonstration period to provide residual capabilities and allow arrangements for
long–term retention. The ACTD leverages maturing RFPI sensor technologies and an advanced command and control element.
The ACTD includes automated fire control system (FCS) for selected howitzers, EFOGM non–line–of–sight weapon system, and
HIMARS. It encourages user exploration of a variety of baseline procedures to optimize utility of the new hunter–standoff killer
concept. Supports: RFPI.

Figure III-10. Roadmap - Demonstrations Unique to Close Combat Light

b. RFPI Sensor Demonstrations
Aerial Scout Sensor Integration TD (1995–98). This TD will demonstrate technology to provide light forces with accurate, timely,
"over–the–hill" reconnaissance, surveillance, and battle damage assessment capability through use of aerial sensors enhanced with
ATR and smart workstation technologies. A variety of imaging sensors will be used on a surrogate aerial platform as well as a
ground–based image exploitation workstation. Candidate sensors include FLIR, IR line scanner, day TV, and MTI radar. The goal
is to demonstrate a reduction in data timelines, from tasking to output of tactical information. Supports: RFPI ACTD.
Integrated Acoustic System (IAS) TD (1996–99). This TD will demonstrate acoustic sensor technology in both hand–emplaced
and air–droppable variants. Advanced acoustic sensor efforts from the Intelligent Minefield ATD (completed in FY97; see the
section on Technology Transition Strategy (above), which will provide the hand–emplaced system. The air–deployable acoustic
sensor (ADAS) system will be developed to provide a helicopter–deployable variant. Both systems will be demonstrated during the
RFPI ACTD large–scale field experiment. Supports: RFPI ACTD.
c. RFPI Weapons Demonstrations
The RFPI large–scale field experiment includes several advanced concepts that will demonstrate the system–of–systems concept of
hunters and standoff killers. During this timeframe, the newly configured and upgraded EFOGM, HIMARS, and 155–mm
automated howitzer (with automated fire control system) will be demonstrated. Other new hunter or killer technologies will be
considered during this phase.
Enhanced Fiber–Optic Guided Missile (EFOGM) ATD (1994–99). This ATD will develop and demonstrate a remotely directed
(fiber optically guided) missile system (EFOGM), modified with an imaging IR (I2R) seeker, inertial navigational system, and other
datalink modifications. It will defeat armor out to ranges of 15 km and permit the operator, through a fiber–optic guidance link to
the missile seeker, to search for targets in the extended close battle area. The system has the unique ability to operate from defilade
and to engage targets that are also in defilade. Friendly target recognition capability and fratricide avoidance is enhanced with a
gunner operator in the loop. The EFOGM ATD will provide the advanced, non–line–of–sight weapon to be demonstrated under
the RFPI ACTD. This ACTD will integrate light force organic weapons, the EFOGM, RFPI sensors, other RFPI standoff killers, and
C2. Supports: RFPI and JPSD Precision/Rapid Counter MRL ACTDs.

155–mm Automated Howitzer TD (1994–00). The program will develop an advanced digital fire control system for towed artillery.
See Section III–N "Fire Support" for more detailed information. Supports: RFPI ACTD.
Precision–Guided Mortar Munition (PGMM) ATD (1994–01). The ATD will demonstrate, through live fire and simulation, the
ability of a guided mortar munition to defeat armored as well as high–value point targets. It will also demonstrate longer range,
more accurate and more timely response to requests for fire through the integration of a lightweight fire control system. As part of
the RFPI, the PGMM and fire control will be an advanced concept standoff killer in the RFPI ACTD. The ATD program consists
of a 120–mm PGMM capable of finding and defeating enemy armor and other high–priority targets in an autonomous role, and a
lightweight fire control to improve the accuracy and response time of fielded mortar systems. An initial test bed is being integrated
on a HMMWV, with a follow–on effort to reduce the size and weight of the components. The program will focus on the azimuth
reference unit and the software required to integrate the components completely and fire a PGMM against moving targets.
Supports: RFPI ACTD.
Guided MLRS ATD (1995–98). This ATD is discussed in detail in the section on Fire Support.
High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) TD (1995–99). The HIMARS TD will provide a lightweight, C–130
transportable version of the M–270 multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher. Mounted on a 5–ton family of medium
tactical vehicles (FMTV) truck chassis, it will fire any rocket or missile in the MLRS family of munitions. The HIMARS uses the
same command, control, and communications, as well as the same crew, as the MLRS launcher but carries only one rocket or
missile pod. It will roll on and off a C–130 transport aircraft and, when carried with a combat load, will be ready to operate within
minutes of landing. Supports: RFPI ACTD and MLRS Family of Munitions.
Future Missile Technology Integration (FMTI) TD (1994–98). This technology demonstration is discussed in detail in Section
III–D "Aviation" (above).
Multimode Airframe Technology (MAT) TD (1995–98). This technology demonstration is discussed in detail in Section III–N
"Fire Support."
d. Close Combat Light Unique Demonstrations
The Objective Crew–Served Weapon TD (1996–01). This TD is part of the objective family of Small Arms described in the section
on Soldier and is unique to the Close Combat Light section. It will support the two–man, crew–served weapon outlined in the
Army Small Arms Master Plan and the Joint Service Small Arms Master Plan. This demonstration will establish the feasibility of a
lightweight, two–man portable, crew–served weapon system with a high probability of incapacitation and suppression out to 2,000
meters against protected personnel targets. It will also have a high potential to damage light vehicles, lightly armored vehicles, water
craft, and slow moving aircraft beyond 1,000 meters. The fire control system will include a laser rangefinder, environmental sensors,
ballistic computer, day and night channel, and adjusted aimpoint to provide the full ballistic solution. The weapon will fire bursting
ammunition to provide decisively violent target effects to overmatch threat systems and will have the ability to defeat defilade or
non–line–of–sight personnel targets. The fire control system will be modular in design, eliminate the need to estimate range,
provide a full solution aimpoint, and include embedded training. This weapon would be utilized by mounted and dismounted
combat soldiers. Supports: Objective Crew–Served Weapon.
Precision Offset, High–Glide Aerial Delivery of Munitions and Equipment TD (1994–99). This TD will demonstrate revolutionary
technologies for the reliable precision–guided delivery of combat essential munitions and equipment using high glide wing
technology and incorporating a low cost, modular GPS guidance and control system. This technology will provide a 6:1 or better
glide ratio. A modular GPS guidance package was developed and a precision high–glide capability of 500–pound payload using
semirigid wing technology was demonstrated in FY96. By the end of FY99, the effort will demonstrate precision high glide of a
2,000–pound payload, with a goal of a 5,000–pound payload, using an advanced guidance package and high glide wing. An
optional glide augmentation system will also be demonstrated, providing an offset range of 75 to 300 km. High–glide wing

technology will significantly enhance the military aerial delivery capability through substantially higher glide ratios than are possible
with ram air parachutes, and will directly benefit the initial deployment of Early Entry Forces. Supports: Depth and Simultaneous
Attack (DSA), Maneuver Support Battle Laboratories, and Advanced Precision Airborne Delivery System.
Advanced Personnel Airdrop TD (1998–00). This effort will demonstrate improved performance characteristics and enhanced
safety of existing personnel parachute capabilities. Details can be found in Section III–I, "Soldier." Supports: Airborne Insertion for
Operations in Urban Terrain and the Advanced Tactical Parachute System development effort.
Advanced Cargo Airdrop TD (1998–00). Technologies to provide an improved cargo airdrop capability will be demonstrated.
Details can be found in Section III–O, "Logistics." Supports: Aerial Delivery and Mobility Requirements.
Counter Active Protection Systems (CAPS) TD (1996–99). The CAPS TD will develop and demonstrate technologies/methods
that can be applied to antitank guided weapons (ATGWs) for improving effectiveness against threat armor equipped with APSs.
Current technology development is concentrated in the following three areas:
• RF countermeasure (RFCM) technology for jamming or deceiving APS sensors used for detection, acquisition,
and tracking.
• Long standoff warheads for shooting from beyond the range of APS fragment–producing countermunitions.
• Ballistic hardening of ATGW to reduce vulnerability to fragment impact.
Supports: Close Combat Antiarmor Weapon System (CCAWS), Advanced Missile System–Heavy (AMS–H), Javelin, and BAT.
Automated Target Recognition for Weapons TD (1998–01). This technology demonstration is discussed in detail in Section III–D
"Aviation" (above).
Objective Sniper Weapon (OSW) TD (2000–02). The OSW will develop and demonstrate a single, lightweight (x20 pounds),
long–range (to 2,000 m) sniper weapon system providing very high incapacitation probabilities (Pi u0.5) and materiel destruction
against personnel protected by body armor or in fortifications and light vehicles, vessels, and high–value materiel. It will
demonstrate the ability to achieve objective sniper weapon goals through simulation and analyses, followed by experimentation of
critical component technologies. Technical, safety, and troop testing will be conducted to demonstrate operational utility and
technical maturity. Supports: Objective Sniper Weapon, U.S. Army Infantry School (USAIS), USMC, and Special Operations
Command (SOCOM).

Chapter III I. Soldier
I. Soldier
Our warfighting edge is the combined effect of quality people, trained to razor sharpness, outfitted with modern equipment, led by tough
competent leaders, structured into appropriate forces and employed according to up–to–date doctrine . . . I am certain the most important
factor is the soldier.
General Gordon Sullivan

Former Army Chief of Staff
1. Introduction
The Army soldier modernization effort is a comprehensive, multifaceted program designed to maximize the operational capabilities of
the soldier as a "battlefield system" capable of executing a full range of military operations by enhancing command and control, lethality,
survivability, sustainability, and mobility. The soldier system is generically defined as the individual soldier and everything he/she wears,
consumes, or carries for individual use in a tactical environment.
Over the past several years, the systems approach to modernizing the soldier has been implemented and demonstrated very successfully.
The current thrust is focused on optimizing the soldier’s effectiveness through (1) the synergy that results from effective integration of
technologies at the systems level; and (2) the proper integration of soldier systems across a diverse spectrum of operations. Using the
approach and the focus mentioned, the basis of the future human platform has a firm foundation, wherein the soldier is the focal point
of a revolutionary vision. In this vision, technology is driven and designed around the "human element," knowing that each soldier is
different. However, all must perform the mission or task adequately, as required by doctrine, regardless of size and gender.
To date, the soldier’s effectiveness has increased and will continue to improve at a rate that is greater than the sum of the individual
parts. Additionally, the benefits derived from developing the soldier system like other major weapon systems by applying a systems
approach will result in accelerated product development cycles, lowered acquisitions costs, and reductions in overall size, weight and
power requirements. The bottom line is that the lethality, predictability, flexibility, capability, and "smartness" of a lightweight soldier
system is critical to DoD’s future warfighting and peacekeeping capabilities. The application of this synergy and integration at the system
level are delineated in the demonstrations identified throughout this chapter.
The five major soldier system operational capabilities are command and control (C2), lethality, survivability, sustainability, and mobility.
Command and control is the soldier’s ability to direct, coordinate, and control personnel, weapons, equipment, information, and
procedures necessary to accomplish the mission. Command, control, and communications have combined–arms–compatible systems
providing total situational awareness. This is supported by the aggregated capabilities of the soldier’s radio and computer (using the
Army’s emerging architecture), integrated with digital head–mounted displays, combat identification, and navigation aids.
Improvements will focus on individual communications, computer control systems, position navigation, information fusing and
management, visual and aural enhancement (including image capture and transmission), and situational enhancement.
Lethality is the soldier’s ability to detect, recognize, and destroy the enemy targets. Lethality systems will enhance individual, crew, and
personal combat weapons with improved effectiveness. The Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) ATD is the lethality
component of the soldier system and will provide the capability to attack fortified, non–line–of–sight targets and targets that have gone
to ground. The land warrior (LW) capabilities will provide accurate, rapid, automated target handover to indirect fire support,
enhancing the lethality of the total force.

Survivability is the ability to protect oneself against weapon impacts and environmental conditions. The primary requirement for
survivability is a "capability to place accurate fire on the enemy without exposing oneself to fire," which will be accomplished through
the integration of the OICW fire control and the LW system. Survivability systems will integrate multiple threat protection against
ballistic, flame/thermal, chemical/biological, directed energy, surveillance, and environmental hazards. Combat identification
capabilities will be integrated into soldier systems to minimize fratricide. Exploitation of the digital net, coupled with inherent
enhancements, will significantly improve the survivability of the individual soldier and the entire force through increased controlled
dispersion and a common picture of the battlefield.
Sustainability is the ability to maintain the force in a tactical environment. Sustainability systems will be adaptable to all levels of
operations on the dynamic battlefield. Features include advanced quality field A–rations, nutritional tailoring to enhance physical and
mental performance, a capability to eat on the move, individual purification of all water sources, and improvements in field feeding and
field services. Sustainability also includes individual soldier power sources for low–power–draw tactical system components (e.g.,
computer/radio, helmet system, fire control).
Mobility is the ability to move about the battlefield with accompanying load to execute assigned missions. In the far term, it is
envisioned that combat load handling devices will be employed to reduce the combat load of the dismounted soldier. Future mobility
systems will allow accurate rapid air insertion for personnel, supplies, and equipment from ultra–high to very low altitudes at maximum
airspeeds. Enhancing dismounted operations in snow and ice and at night will also be addressed. Advanced mobility sensors, coupled
with the navigational aids (e.g., GPS, digital maps/overlays), greatly enhance the speed and accuracy of night maneuverability of the
individual and unit.
The Army’s soldier modernization strategy calls for the demonstration, development, and integration of a series of systems and system
upgrades. Soldier S/SUs have their greatest impact in the functional areas of dismounted battlespace, battle command, combat service
support, and early entry. New operational capabilities that will be afforded in each of these functional areas are listed in Table III–17.
3. Soldier Systems Modernization Strategy
The goal of soldier systems modernization is to develop a fully integrated modular system that will allow the Army to field multiple
configurations by tailoring software and hardware for specific unit missions and locations on the battlefield. Modularity will allow
commanders and individual soldiers to perform their missions better by carrying only the required components, consistent with
mission, enemy, troops, terrain, and time (METT–T).
To support planned materiel development programs for the soldier, the Army’s S&T community continues to explore and demonstrate
a full range of state–of–the–art technologies. This will maximize the soldier’s battlefield capabilities.
The Land Warrior system is operationally focused on the U.S. Army Infantry, the U.S. Marine Corps (infantry), and the U.S. Special
Operations Forces. This sytem will be the link into the digitized force of the future using the Army’s emerging technical architecture.
The result will be enhanced survivability, situational awareness, and lethality at both the individual and the unit level. To ensure that the
future dismounted infantry soldier is the best equipped in the world, the Force XXI Land Warrior (FXXI LW) S&T program was
established. FXXI LW S&T strategy is responsible for ensuring future battlefield dominance of all dismounted infantry. Advanced
technologies in microelectronics, weaponry, and protection will be systematically
Table III–17. Soldier System Capabilities

Function


LETHALITY Laser market, 300–m

viewing range
Interface to mini
eye–safe laser IR
System
observation set
Thermal weapon
sight, 550–m range to
Objective Family of detect man–sized
Small Arms targets
Increased accuracy,
Ph, and range
Objective Sniper
Weapon Lightweight system
Increased Ph and Pi
System Upgrade 1000–m viewing

range for aim light
Increased range and

effectiveness of
Objective Individual munitions
Combat Weapon
(OICW)
Decisive violent
target effects
High Pk
Objective Crew Served Lightweight

Weapon (OCSW) two–man weapons
Immediate
incapacitation
Force XXI Land Integrated System weight reduction

Warrior sight—FLIR
integrated with laser
Minimization of system power and
rangefinder,
energy
compass, aim light,
and daylight camera
System life–cycle cost reduction
Integrated combat
ID—interrogator Improved system fightability
with laser pointer
and training laser
Enhanced weapon
interface to reduce
weight and
complexity of LW
weapon system

COMMAND & Computer/soldier

CONTROL radio system with
GPS (5 lb)
Computer/secure
squad radio/soldier
radio system with
handheld flat panel
display and GPS (7
lb)
Monochrome HMD
GPS locator
Color overlays and

maps on palm–top
display
Automated reporting
software
Interactive
embedded training
Video capture and

System transfer (single frame)
NBC monitoring
Integrated
high–capacity tactical
computer with
extended range radio
(=23 lbs)
High–resolution
flat–panel HMD
SINCGARS
improvement
program (SIP)
gateway to higher
echelons (e.g.,
CAC2) at platoon
Land Warrior GPS plus

self–contained
navigation
Computer input by
voice or "free screen"
Color video capture

and transfer (single
frame plus modem)
Automated medical
and NBC monitoring
Immediate
incapacitation

System Upgrade Enhanced soldier

radio to increase link
margin and range
Force XXI Land

System voice control
Warrior
for voice activation
of all LW computer/
radio functionality
MOBILITY Integrated navigation

for accurate
geolocation when
GPS is unavailable
System Upgrade Voice control for

hands–free operation
Head orientation
sensor
Force XXI Land
Warrior
Higher altitude
personnel parachute
opening capabilities
Improved glide ratio

Advanced Personnel for personnel
Airdrop Technologies parachutes
Lower ground
impact velocities for
airborne soldiers
SURVIVABILITY HMD (fix weapon

without
self–exposing)
System
Body armor
Laser detector
Land Warrior
Combat ID
functionality to
System Upgrade positively ID friendly
forces both LW and
non–LW
Force XXI Land SINCGARS SIP+

Warrior capability to provide
air–to–ground
combat ID
SUSTAINABILITY Lightweight,
low–volume,
shelf–stable rations
System Upgrade Optimized

acceptance/
consumption
Improved
operational flexibility
Performance

enhances/around the
Army Field Feeding
clock
Future
applied to the individual soldier, marine, and special operators to augment their operational capabilities to achieve maximum synergy
between human and equipment performance.
4. Soldier System Modernization Roadmap
Table III–18 presents the demonstrations and systems that are part of the soldier systems modernization roadmap (see Figure III–11).
a. Command and Control Demonstrations
Force XXI Land Warrior (FXXI LW) TD (1996–99). The primary objectives of FXXI LW are to:
• Demonstrate candidate advanced technology upgrades to the LW system.
• Develop a revolutionary technology path to support future development of an ultra–lightweight, low–power,

dismounted warfighter system resulting from scientifically based operational analyses.
• Provide linkage with MOUT ACTD, small unit operations (SUO), and other warfighter technology programs.
This project addresses the critical Army need to enhance the performance, lethality, survivability, and sustainment of the individual
soldier. This project is the Land Warrior S&T program. In the near term, the FXXI LW efforts will focus on the evolutionary technology
insertions to the LW system. These technologies include an enhanced weapon and sensor interface to increase reliability, reduce
weapon weight, and increase usability; an integrated navigation component that will provide soldiers with accurate geolocation
information when GPS is not available; an enhanced soldier radio that will provide a better link margin for the soldier radio and
increased radio range; system voice control that will provide voice control of essential LW functions without the use of a
hand–controlled device; combat identification functionality that will provide positive identification of friendly LW and non–LW
combatants; low power helmet electronics that will reduce the overall power requirements of the LW helmet system; and a head
orientation sensor, which, in combination with weapon–mounted sensors, will provide a rapid target acquisition capability when
switching between the image intensifier and the weapon sight. Another FXXI LW component is the Integrated Sight TD that will
demonstrate a lighter, fully integrated
Table III–18. Soldier Demonstration and System Summary

Objective Individual Combat Weapon Force XXI Land Warrior

Integrated Sight
Advanced Personnel Airdrop
Dynamic Ration Tailoring System
Performance Enhancing Demonstrations
Objective Personal Weapon
Advanced Concept
Military Operations in Urban Terrain

System
Land Warrior (EMD)

Objective Family of Small Arms
System Upgrade
Force XXI Land Warrior

Army Field Feeding Future
Objective Individual Combat Weapon
Advanced Personnel Airdrop Technology
Figure III-11. Roadmap - Soldier System Modernization

weapon sensor (thermal, laser pointer, laser rangefinder, digital compass, daylight camera), with integrated target handover functions.
In FY99, the FXXI LW program will perform an early user test (EUT) to validate the improvement of advanced technologies for the
Land Warrior system. This EUT will demonstrate the improved individual and small–unit operational effectiveness afforded by the
modular integration of advanced components onto the LW platform. These results will be utilized to ensure that future LW
procurements are upgraded with current technology advancements. Other emerging technology base components from ongoing
(DTO, ATD, STO, and DARPA) efforts will also be considered as candidates for technology insertion onto the LW platform. FXXI LW
will also pursue a variety of future technology developments for upgrading the LW platform. This effort will chart a course for future
LW modernization with a focus on technologies available for fielding in the FY05–08 timeframe. The focus of these improvements will
be system weight reduction, minimization of system power and energy requirements, system life–cycle cost reduction, and improved
system fightability. This program will leverage the commercial microelectronics and telecommunications industries as well as other
ongoing DoD programs, such as DARPA’s SUO program, to achieve lightweight, miniaturized components.

This program will make extensive use of IPPD to ensure that all critical manufacturing processes are developed in parallel to the design
of the technical components. As such, each product will be developed in an integrated product team environment. This approach will
ensure a viable, affordable, and producible product that will perform as expected in the field.
This strategy will accelerate the fielding of technology upgrades and ensure that the United States maintains a global technology
overmatch for dismounted warrior combat systems. Supports: MOUT ACTD and SUO.
b. Lethality Demonstrations
The lethality demonstrations will focus on weapons, munitions, and target detection and acquisition.
Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) ATD (1994–99). The OICW, as defined in the Joint Service Small Arms Master Plan
(JSSAMP) and the approved mission need statement (MNS), is the next–generation individual weapon envisioned to replace some of
the current inventory of small arms weapon systems. Two OICW concepts are being developed by competing contractor teams. Both
concepts include kinetic energy (5.56 mm) and airburst (20 mm) munitions. A significant new capability afforded by OICW will be the
ability to defeat targets that are in defilade, using bursting munitions. This ATD will demonstrate the potential of the OICW to provide
an overmatch against threat infantry soldiers, as required in the JSSAMP. It will involve realistic operational assessments with troops and
key on the soldier’s ability to acquire and defeat targets. The performance potential of the OICW will be assessed against the baseline
M16A2/M203 and the modular weapon. Measures of effectiveness include probability of hit, probability of incapacitation, kills per
combat load, and cost per kill. The significant potential of the OICW in an urban environment will be demonstrated in the MOUT
ACTD. The technologies exploited to achieve the overmatch capability include high–strength, ultra lightweight materials,
high–technology miniaturized fuzes, high–explosive–air–bursting projectiles, electronic ranging, ballistic computation, reticle
displacement, video sighting, and sophisticated fire control devices. Supports: OICW and MOUT ACTD.
The Objective Crew–Served Weapon (OCSW) TD (1996–01). Part of the objective family of small arms, the OCSW demonstration
will support the two–man, crew–served weapon outlined in the JSSAMP. This demonstration will establish the feasibility of a
lightweight, two–man–portable crew–served weapon system capable of defeating personnel and light vehicle targets to 2,000 meters.
This TD is discussed in further detail in the section on Close Combat Light (above). Supports: MOUT ACTD.
Objective Sniper Weapon (OSW) TD (1997–02). The OSW is the single–sniper weapon that will achieve the required future
capabilities of the joint sniper communities, to include conventional military, special operations forces, and law enforcement. Its
increased precision and range will enable the sniper to engage targets, humans (protected or unprotected), and light materiel more
effectively out to 2,000 meters. Additionally, it will have increased accuracy and hit probability. This lightweight system will be
operational day or night, in all weather conditions, and on land, sea, or air and will weigh 10 to 15 pounds. Supports: OSW.
Integrated Sight (IS) TD (1994–98). The IS TD will develop and demonstrate optimum components and integration of a thermal
imager, laser rangefinder, electronic compass, and near IR pointer into a compact sighting system. Imagery and data will be output to
the LW HMD and soldier’s computer. These technologies will provide the soldier with extended range and automated targeting
capabilities. IS also supports advanced weapons, including the OICW and OCSW. Supports: Lightweight Laser Designator/Rangefinder
(which incorporates IS technologies or components in their fire control).
Objective Personal Weapon (OPW) TD (2004–09). The OPW is the sidearm of the future. It will provide increased accuracy and
incapacitation for close–in self–defense in last–ditch combat situations, as well as some extended offensive capability in special
operations, military police operations, and dignitary protection. The envisioned OPW will employ technically advanced, leap–ahead
concepts and technologies that span the entire electromagnetic spectrum, yielding incapacitating mechanisms of a nonconventional
nature. It will be capable of immediate incapacitation (target ceases to remain a threat) out to 50 meters against personnel with body
armor. It will have substantially increased accuracy, hit probability, and target effects. This lightweight system will not exceed 3 pounds
and will be user friendly with hands–free carry. It will provide multiple engagement capability and be operational day or night, in all
weather conditions, on land/sea/surf/air. Supports: Objective Family of Small Arms.
c. Mobility Demonstrations

Advanced Personnel Airdrop TD (1998–00). This TD will demonstrate technologies to provide improved performance characteristics
and enhanced safety of existing personnel parachute capabilities. Utilizing advanced airfoil and parachute designs, the TD will
demonstrate, by the end of FY98, a gliding personnel parachute with a 20 percent increase in maximum jump altitude and a 25 percent
increase in glide ratio, when compared to the current Army state–of–the–art MC–4 parachute. By the end of FY99, the TD will
demonstrate a nonparachute, soft–landing capability that will reduce descent rates to values below 16 feet/second, utilizing "pneumatic
muscle" technologies.
The planned gliding personnel parachute would allow for jump altitudes up to 30,000 feet, with reduced opening shock and a glide ratio
of 2.5 to 1. The current MC–4 has a maximum jump altitude of 25,000 feet and roughly a 2 to 1 glide ratio. The planned soft–landing
capability will be a nonparachute decelerator that will slow the jumper to a descent rate below 16 feet/second, moments before landing
on the drop zone. Supports: STOp–H16 (Airborne Insertion for Operations in Urban Terrain), the Advanced Tactical Parachute
System development effort, and Battle Laboratory Future Operational Capabilities (FOCs) (EELS 97–016 and IN 97–301).
d. Other Soldier Systems Demonstrations
Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) ACTD (1998–02). The MOUT ACTD is a joint (Army/Marine Corps) program that
encompasses a breadth of technologies ranging from an advanced soldier system, advanced individual precision weapons, combat
identification, counter–sniper nonlethal weapons, advanced sensors, situational awareness, and personal protection. The core capability
that will be generated via the ACTD is a linkage of a series of advanced systems/components into a MOUT system–of–systems whereby
the components are interfaced, integrated, or linked in an architecture to ensure their effective interoperability and functionality in the
challenging MOUT environment. The integrated MOUT system–of–systems will provide a robust and enhanced joint operational
capability encompassing the areas of urban C4I, engagement, and force projection. Supports: Upgrades to FXXI LW.
Dynamic Ration Tailoring System TD (1998–01). A dynamic ration module selector system will be developed and demonstrated that
tailors the calorie–providing and performance–enhancing components to the combat situation and time of the day to ensure a
dominant and lethal warfighter in any environment and for any mission. The eat–on–the–move, round–the–clock, ration selection
system continually considers the nutritional and energy requirements and specifics, as well as what and when rations are to be consumed
for optimal combat performance. Supports: Army Field Feeding Future.
Performance Enhancing Demonstrations TD (1995–98). Special supplemental components containing ingredients to enhance
performance under stressful conditions during sustained operations will be developed and demonstrated. These components will
supplement the individual combat ration to increase mental acuity and situational awareness, extend endurance, and reduce the effects
of high–altitude sickness. Supports: Army Field Feeding Future.
The Soldier systems S/SU linkages with other AMP annexes are shown in Table III–19.
Table III–19. Correlation Between Soldier Systems S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
Mounted Close Aviation C4 Fire Engineer IEW NBC Combat Training

Forces* Combat Support & Mine Health
Light* Warfare* Support
System Objective Family of Small Arms
Land Warrior (EMD)
System Upgrade Army Field Feeding Future
Objective Individual Combat Weapon

Advanced Personnel Airdrop

Technologies
Force XXI Land Warrior


Chapter III J. Combat Health Support
J. Combat Health Support
The mission of the Army Medical Department is to provide world class combat casualty care to America’s most precious resource, its sons
and daughters, in peace and war.
General Maxwell R. Thurman
1. Introduction
The major goals of the Army combat health support (CHS) S&T program are three: first, to prevent illness and injury; second, to
sustain optimum military effectiveness; and third, to treat casualties. The greatest payoff from the investment in CHS S&T comes from
the identification of medical countermeasures that eliminate health hazards. Preventive measures include biomedical technologies,
information and materiel to protect the force from infectious disease, environmental injury, health hazards of combat systems,
operational stress, and aggressor weapons (i.e., conventional, chemical, biological, and directed–energy systems).
Biomedical research provides vaccines, pretreatment drugs, and training strategies that maximize the readiness of soldiers to deploy and
fight. Biomedical research assists leaders in optimizing warfighting capabilities across the full continuum of conflict, from peacekeeping
to high–intensity combat. Biomedical research also provides the means to maximize far–forward diagnosis, treatment, and
return–to–duty of combat casualties. Medical contributions unique to the military include such items as field–deployable diagnostic
kits, vaccines and antidotes for chemical and biological warfare threat agents, resuscitative devices for field use, and enhanced medical
evacuation platforms.
Key points in developing CHS are the scenario and METT–T, as well as the medical intelligence assessment of the battlefield, which
includes threats to the health of the soldier. The probability for success of the force during operations will be greater if the force is
psychologically, physically, and nutritionally fit; protected from illness through a vigorous vaccination program; and sustained through
state–of–the–art medical care as limited by the battlefield environment. As battle and nonbattle health threats are reduced, casualties and
force requirements will be reduced correspondingly. Fulfilling the vision of the Army modernization objectives will require significant
input from the military CHS S&T community. Examples of biomedical technologies impacting Army operations are: vaccines,
pretreatments, and treatments against endemic infectious diseases and CB threat agents; nutritional strategies; medical information
products; environmental and behavioral performance models; improved capability for far–forward surgical stabilization of combat
casualties; enhanced ground and aeromedical evacuation; and medical telepresence technologies.
The capabilities of CHS S/SU/ACs supporting Army modernization objectives appear in Table III–20.
3. Combat Health Support Modernization Strategy
Modernization efforts are organized into four functional areas: infectious diseases of military importance, medical chemical and
biological defense, combat casualty care, and Army operational medicine. Efforts focus on the development of medical materiel,
through a DoD drug and vaccine program, for countering potential mission–aborting infectious diseases as well as chemical and
biological warfare agents. Such drugs and vaccines are not normally developed by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, because there is
little or no civilian market for them within the industrialized nations and they are typically unprofitable. Additional emphases of the
biomedical program include technologies supporting far–forward casualty treatment; individual sustainment (self–aid devices and
techniques) to reduce the severity of ballistic injuries; topical

Table III–20. Combat Health Support System Capabilities

Function

INFECTIOUS Protection against blood Protection against malaria using a

DISEASES OF and tissue stages of malaria combined vaccine
MILITARY
IMPORTANCE
Treatments for Combined oral vaccine for
System/System drug–resistance malaria protection against diarrheal disease
Upgrade
Protection against Shigella CAD–, molecular fingerprinting–,
Infectious Disease and molecular biology–based drug
Pharmaceuticals discovery
Protection against
Infectious Disease Campylobacter
Vaccines Forward deployed, handheld,
multiagent nucleic–acid–based
Protection against
Infectious Disease diagnostic device
enterotoxigenic E. coli
Applied Medical
System
Protection from Dengue
Advanced Concept fever
Medical Prevention
Forward diagnostic test
and Treatment of
kits for rapid detection of
Malaria
infectious disease agents
Medical Prevention
of Diarrheal Diseases
Medical Prevention
of Dengue Fever
Early and Rapid

Disease Threat
Assessment
MEDICAL Protective vaccines Multiagent protection with single

CHEMICAL AND against encephalomyelitis, vaccination
BIOLOGICAL botulinum toxin,
DEFENSE staphylococcal
Definitive, handheld, far–forward
enterotoxin, anthrax,
System/System diagnostic capabilities
plague, Brucella, and ricin
Upgrade
Advanced skin/wound
CW/BW Casualty Rapid identification and
decontamination
Management diagnosis
CW Prophylaxes and Reduced vesicant injury

Improved chemical
Treatments casualty management
Advanced anticonvulsant
BW Countermeasures
Prevention of cyanide
Advanced Concept toxicity Advanced topical ointment
protection against multiple chemical
CW/BW Casualty agents
Management System
Advanced BW treatments
Full–Spectrum
Chemical Protection

Multiagent Protective
System
COMBAT Improve blood storage Modulate immunosuppression and

CASUALTY CARE duration prevent sepsis
System/System Localize antibiotic Enhance medical diagnostics and

Upgrade administration communications for casualty care
Hemorrhage/Trauma Enhance monitoring and Induce reduction in metabolic

Intervention diagnosis far–forward requirements
Life Support/Surgical Enhance control of Preserve cell/organ function by drug

Systems hemorrhage administration
Advanced Concept
Infuse blood far–forward Provide lightweight energy generators
Advanced
Provide enhanced Use nanomaterials for noninvasive
Resuscitation
en–route care and sensors, smart systems, and treatment
far–forward anesthesia modalities
Immediate
Intervention and
Continuum of Care Provide a medical assist
algorithm for treatment/
triage
ARMY Performance—enhancing Performance optimization

OPERATIONAL nutritional supplements
MEDICINE
Sleep and alertness enhancement
System/System Reduction and
Upgrade prevention of
Physiological models
deployment stress
Performance
Sustainability Protection criteria for
military systems
Protection Criteria
Physiological Status Performance limits model

Modeling
Advanced Concept
Soldier Survival in
Continuous
Operations Without
Performance
Decrements
Biomedical and
Performance and
Damage Criteria
Real–Time Soldier
Effectiveness Models
skin protectants; and forward–deployable, transportable medical devices, and multipurpose systems for advanced resuscitation, life
support, and resuscitative surgery. The modernization strategy also addresses nutritional, biomechanical, and physiological approaches
to minimize the impact of military operational stresses that degrade the capabilities of, or render inoperable, the human component of
combat systems.
The development of enabling technologies to maximize the benefits of telemedicine is a further objective of the CHS modernization
strategy. In essence, telemedicine represents a horizontal integration of advanced medical technologies, inasmuch as efforts within each

of the four functional areas identified above have the potential to contribute to expanded telemedicine capabilities. Present CHS S&T
efforts relevant to telemedicine are concentrated in the combat casualty care and Army operational medicine functional areas.
4. Combat Health Support Modernization Roadmaps
Table III–21 presents a summary of demonstrations and S/SU/ACs listed in the combat health support modernization roadmaps
(Figures III–12 through III–15). Army CHS S&T programs support a diversity of nonmateriel advanced development TDs. Unlike
most nonmedical TDs, medical TDs must be conducted in a laboratory, rather than in the field, because of the regulatory requirements
placed on medical materiel by the Department of Health and Human Services, through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The FDA requires that medical products (e.g., vaccines, medical devices, drugs) demonstrate preclinical safety and efficacy prior to
product evaluation in man. Thus, the medical system acquisition process has led to a tailored life–cycle system management model for
medical materiel. It is in the TD phase of the medical materiel life cycle that technology candidates are fully evaluated for preclinical
(prior to human use) safety and efficacy. The best candidates are then selected for transition. Descriptions of major TDs are provided
on the following pages. Dates provided in the text reflect the timeline of the product from technology base research to development
(milestone I), or, in the case of information products, to direct fielding to the user community.
a. Infectious Diseases of Military Importance Demonstrations
Systems supported within this functional area are infectious disease vaccines, infectious disease pharmaceuticals, and infectious
disease–applied medical systems. Vaccines provide a relatively inexpensive, extended protection against infectious disease threats.
While they are the preferred mechanism of protection in most cases, and are an ultimate goal, they do not currently provide complete
protection against all infectious diseases. Until such vaccines are available, the continual emergence of new resistant strains of infectious
diseases necessitates the ongoing development of new antiparasitic drugs to replace existing products. Moreover, improved diagnostic
capabilities are needed to enable early far–forward identification and appropriate management of diseases for which there is no current
protection, and to facilitate global surveillance of emerging infectious diseases. The modernization roadmap for infectious diseases of
military importance is shown in Figure III–12. Future demonstrations, which are shown in the roadmap, are funded, follow–on efforts
to current technology demonstrations. Since the technology and direction of the future demonstrations will not be identified until
closer to the start date, they are not explained in the following narratives. Innovative diagnostic and vaccine technology development in
the infectious diseases functional area also supports and is supported by efforts in the medical, chemical, and biological defense area.
Antiparasitic Drug Program TD (1985–03). The effectiveness and safety of a variety of drugs from differing pharmacological classes will
be demonstrated to provide prophylaxis and treatment against established and emerging forms of drug–resistant falciparum and vivax
malarias and leishmaniasis. Several classes of drugs are being assessed for treatment and prophylaxis. Supports: Medical Prevention and
Treatment of Malaria.
Table III–21. Combat Health Support Demonstration and System Summary

There are currently no Army CHS ATDs. Infectious Diseases of Military Importance
Antiparasitic Drug Program

Malaria Vaccines
Combined Malaria Vaccine
Shigella Vaccines
Campylobacter Vaccine
Entertoxigenic Escherichia coli Vaccine
Oral Multidisease Antidiarrheal Vaccine
Dengue Virus Vaccine
Common Diagnostic Systems for Biological Threats and Endemic Infectious Diseases (shared
demonstration)
Medical Chemical and Biological Defense
BW Agent Confirmation Diagnostic Kit

Common Diagnostic Systems for Biological Threats and Endemic Infectious Diseases (shared
demonstration)
Advanced Anticonvulsant
Reactive Topical Skin Protectant/Decontaminant
Cyanide Pretreatment
Chemical Agent Prophylaxes
Medical Countermeasures Against Vesicant Agents
Medical Countermeasures for Yersinia pestis
Medical Countermeasures for Brucellosis
Medical Countermeasures for Encephalomyelitis Viruses
Medical Countermeasures for Filoviridae
Medical Countermeasures for Variola
Medical Countermeasures for Botulinum Toxin
Medical Countermeasures for Ricin
Recombinant Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B Vaccine
Multiagent Vaccines for Biological Threat Agents
Combat Casualty Care
Blood/Loss Resuscitation
Secondary Damage After Hemorrhage
Forward, Mobile, Digitally Instrumented Surgical Hospital
Warrior Medic
Far–Forward Medical/Surgical Devices
Army Operational Medicine
Continuous Operations Nutrition and Metabolic Requirements

Biomechanical Performance Optimization
Wake/Rest Enhancement Strategies
Deployment Stress Countermeasures
Performance Limits in Extreme Environments
Warfighter Readiness and Sustainability
Deployment Toxicology Assessment Methods
Laser Bioeffects and Treatment
Whole Body Blast Bioeffects/Blunt Trauma Models
Mechanical Stress and Helicopter Crew Protection
System/System Upgrade
Infectious Disease Pharmaceuticals

Infectious Disease Vaccines
Infectious Disease Applied Medical Systems
CW/BW Casualty Management
CW Prophylaxes and Treatments
BW Countermeasures
Hemorrhage/Trauma Intervention
Life Support/Surgical Systems
Performance Sustainability
Protection Criteria
Physiological Status Modeling
Advanced Concept
Medical Prevention and Treatment of Malaria

Medical Prevention of Diarrheal Diseases
Medical Prevention of Dengue Fever
Early and Rapid Disease Threat Assessment
CW/BW Casualty Management System
Full–Spectrum Chemical Protection
Multiagent Protective System
Advanced Resuscitation
Immediate Intervention and Continuum of Care
Soldier Survival in Continuous Operations Without Performance Decrements
Biomedical and Performance Damage Risk Criteria

Real–Time Soldier Effectiveness Models
Malaria Vaccines TD (1985–02). Candidate vaccines against falciparum and vivax malarias will be demonstrated. Innovative vaccine
technologies are being used to construct protective vaccines, including recombinant vaccines, naked DNA vaccines, and peptide
vaccines. Supports: Medical Prevention and Treatment of Malaria.
Combined Malaria Vaccine TD (2003–08). The feasibility of a combined falciparum/vivax malaria vaccine that incorporates advanced
vaccine technology, such as DNA vaccines, will be assessed. This vaccine will reduce logistical burden and simplify medical delivery.
Supports: Medical Prevention and Treatment of Malaria.
Shigella Vaccines TD (1985–03). Candidate vaccines against each of the three principal causal Shigella species of dysentery will be
demonstrated. Traditional vaccine technology using live attenuated (weakened) forms of the pathogen and a new vaccine technology,
the proteosome/lipopolysaccharide vaccine system, will be demonstrated. Supports: Medical Prevention of Diarrheal Diseases.
Campylobacter Vaccine TD (1985–01). A vaccine to protect against Campylobacter will be demonstrated, using novel immune
adjuvants. Two candidate vaccine strategies are being assessed: a killed, bacterial preparation and a live, attenuated organism. Supports:
Medical Prevention of Diarrheal Diseases.
Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) Vaccine TD (1985–01). Major protective antigens have been identified and recombinant
DNA technology is being used to produce these components and combine them with a new form of adjuvant incorporated into
biodegradable microspheres. Supports: Medical Prevention of Diarrheal Diseases.
Oral Multidisease Antidiarrheal Vaccine TD (2003–08). The feasibility of producing a more effective, combined oral vaccine to protect
against Shigella, Campylobacter, and ETEC will be assessed. Advanced vaccine technology, such as recombinant or naked DNA
technology, and advanced mucosal adjuvants will be demonstrated. This vaccine will be easily administered, thereby reducing medical
and logistical support requirements. Supports: Medical Prevention of Diarrheal Diseases.
Dengue Virus Vaccines TD (1985–99). Component vaccines against the four antigenically different forms of the virus will be combined
into one vaccine. Selection of appropriate vaccine component parts and their integration will be demonstrated. Supports: Medical
Prevention of Dengue Fever.

Figure III-12. Roadmap - Combat Health Support: Infectious Diseases of Military Importance
Common Diagnostic Systems for Biological Threats and Endemic Infectious Diseases TD (1998–02). This demonstration is shared with
the medical, chemical, and biological defense functional area. An immunologically based membrane platform will be demonstrated that
requires no special instrumentation and is capable of rapidly detecting specific host immune responses to a broad range of etiologic
agents, or detecting the antigens or products of these agents in clinical specimens. A polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–microchip
system will also be demonstrated. The latter consists of coupling methodology to detect pathogen–unique DNA with microchip
technology to produce an electronic readout. These technologies offer the potential to reduce development time and expense
associated with individual assays, decrease logistical and training burdens, and improve medical care delivery forward. Supports:
Medical Prevention and Treatment of Malaria, Medical Prevention of Diarrheal Diseases, Medical Prevention of Dengue Fever, and
Early and Rapid Disease Threat Assessment.
b. Medical Chemical and Biological Defense Demonstrations (DoD Funded)
Systems supported within this functional area are CW/BW casualty management, CW prophylaxes and treatments, and BW
countermeasures. Efforts focus on the demonstration of medical products for prevention, treatment, diagnosis, and generation of
medical knowledge for battlefield management of chemical and biological casualties. Vaccines are generally the products of choice for
countering BW agents, owing to their relative simplicity of use and the maximum protection that they provide. In contrast,
pharmaceuticals are better suited to counter CW agent threats because, as compared to BW agents, CW agents are much smaller in
molecular size. Because of their smaller size, CW agents do not bind tightly to antibodies nor do they induce a protective antibody
response.
The modernization roadmap for medical, chemical, and biological defense is shown in Figure III–13. Future demonstrations, which are
shown in the roadmap, are funded, follow–on efforts to current technology demonstrations. Since the technology and direction of the
future demonstrations will not be identified until closer to the start date, they are not explained in the following narratives. All
medical–biological defense products are transitioned to the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program Project Management Office
(JVAP–PMO) for advanced development. Diagnostic and vaccine technology development in this area also supports and is supported

by efforts in the Infectious Diseases of Military Importance area.
Figure III-13. Roadmap - Combat Health Support: Medical Chemical and Biological Defense
Biological Warfare Agent Confirmation Diagnostic Kit (BWCDK) TD (1996–00). Capability to confirm the initial field diagnosis
obtained with the forward–deployable diagnostic kit will be demonstrated. This kit will employ immunodiagnostic reagents directed
against independent biological markers, and will provide greater specificity and sensitivity. Supports: CW/BW Casualty Management
System.
Common Diagnostic Systems for Biological Threats and Endemic Infectious Diseases TD (1998–02). This demonstration is shared with
the Infectious Diseases of Military Importance functional area (see description under this functional area). Supports: CW/BW Casualty
Management System.
Advanced Anticonvulsant TD (1995–99). Safety and efficacy of an anticonvulsant component for the soldier/buddy nerve agent
antidote will be demonstrated. This advanced anticonvulsant will overcome deficiencies in the current anticonvulsant, enhance
nonrecurrence of seizures, and protect against nerve agent–induced, seizure–related brain damage. Compounds from a variety of
pharmacological classes with known anticonvulsant or other relevant neuroactive properties will be screened to identify a drug with
relatively pure anticonvulsant actions for inclusion in the existing treatment regime. Supports: Full–Spectrum Chemical Protection.

Reactive Topical Skin Protectant/Decontamination (rtsp/Decon) TD (1995–01). A reactive component for a topical skin protectant
that will provide protection against penetration of agent and will detoxify both vesicant and nerve chemical warfare agents will be
demonstrated. Efforts will explore the use of enzymes and other catalytic molecules and resorptive resins. The rtsp/Decon will enable
the soldier to fight in a chemical warfare battlefield with more complete protection and to effect decontamination procedures in a
CW–contaminated environment. Supports: Full–Spectrum Chemical Protection.
Cyanide Pretreatment TD (1994–99). A methemoglobin formula will be demonstrated as an oral pretreatment to protect soldiers
against battlefield levels of cyanide. Methemoglobin preferentially binds cyanide, removing it from the toxic active site, thereby restoring
normal cellular respiration. The lead candidate is an 8–aminoquinoline that is undergoing safety tests. Supports: Full–Spectrum
Chemical Protection.
Chemical Agent Prophylaxes TD (1995–01). A reactive/catalytic scavenger pretreatment will be demonstrated that reduces chemical
agent toxicity without significant physiological or psychological side effects. Although treatment for nerve agent intoxication exists, the
soldier is incapacitated following exposure and treatment. Development of an effective catalytic scavenger would relieve the
commander and soldier of having to rely on a multidrug approach to treatment of nerve agent exposure, thereby significantly
enhancing recovery. Current efforts focus on the use of a molecularly engineered form of butyrylcholinesterase, an enzyme found in
blood, which normally binds to nerve agents. Supports: Full–Spectrum Chemical Protection.
Medical Countermeasures Against Vesicant Agents TD (1996–02). New technologies for prophylaxis, pretreatment, and treatment will
be demonstrated that will provide significant protection against vesicant injury. This effort will yield a vesicant agent countermeasure
that will prevent or decrease the severity of injuries, and substantially reduce casualties and the subsequent medical burden. Protease
inhibitors and novel antiinflammatory drugs have shown promising results in early studies and are among the leading candidates for
transition. Supports: Full–Spectrum Chemical Protection.
Medical Countermeasures for Yersinia pestis TD (1994–98). Efficacy and safety will be demonstrated for a novel vaccine based on a
fusion protein, produced through molecular recombination and expression of the genes for two different proteins of the pathogen. This
vaccine will protect 80 percent of immunized personnel against an aerosol challenge of Yersinia pestis. Supports: Multiagent Protective
System.
Medical Countermeasures for Brucellosis TD (1994–99). This demonstration will compare two candidate vaccine technologies: a
mutant live–cell vaccine, and an acellular vaccine based on surface glycoproteins of the pathogen. Safety and efficacy sufficient to
protect 80 percent of immunized personnel against an aerosol challenge of Brucella will be shown. Supports: Multiagent Protective
System.
Medical Countermeasures for Encephalomyelitis Viruses TD (1996–00). Efficacy and safety will be demonstrated for a set of vaccines
directed against various members of the encephalomyelitis viruses, a group of viruses that cause disorientation, convulsions, paralysis,
and death. Site–directed mutagenesis—a molecular biological technique that induces specifically designed mutations in essential genes
of the pathogen—will be used to produce organisms that will elicit a protective immune response without causing disease. Supports:
Multiagent Protective System.
Medical Countermeasures for Filoviridae TD (1998–03). Safe and effective countermeasures against filoviruses, including Marburg and
Ebola viruses, will be demonstrated. Naked DNA vaccine technology is currently one of several technologies offering promise for
protection against these and other BW threat agents. This technology uses DNA fragments from pathogens of interest, which are then
injected into the cells of the outer layer of skin using gene gun technology. In the skin cells, the cell’s protein production machinery
produces proteins from the pathogen DNA, which then elicits an immune response that can later protect against the live pathogen.
Because only portions of the pathogen DNA are used in the vaccine, no live organism is produced during the vaccination process, and
the injected DNA is later eliminated as skin cells normally slough off. Supports: Multiagent Protective System.
Medical Countermeasures for Variola TD (1997–00). This demonstration will assess the use of human monoclonal antibodies to
replace vaccinia immune globulin in providing passive (short–term) immunity. Antiviral drugs for post–exposure treatment will also be
screened to identify effective countermeasures. These studies will not use variola itself, but will instead employ an appropriate orthopox
virus substitute. Supports: Multi–Agent Protective System.

Medical Countermeasures for Botulinum Toxin TD (1994–98). A vaccine will be demonstrated that will protect 80 percent of
immunized personnel against an aerosol challenge of the toxin, provide protection against all significant serotypes, and induce a
minimum reactogenicity in immunized soldiers. The vaccine to be demonstrated has been developed using recombinant DNA
technology to produce a bioengineered product that has lost its toxic properties, yet still elicits a protective immune response. This
bioengineered product is expected to be safer to produce, less reactogenic in man, and more affordable than vaccines produced with
other technologies. Supports: Multiagent Protective System.
Medical Countermeasures for Ricin TD (1998–99). This effort will demonstrate efficacy and safety of a second–generation vaccine
against ricin. The vaccine candidate is based on a modified portion of the ricin molecule. Supports: Multiagent Protective System.
Recombinant Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B (SEB) Vaccine TD (1994–00). A bioengineered vaccine will be demonstrated that will
protect 90 percent of immunized animals against a lethal and incapacitating aerosol challenge of SEB. This second–generation
recombinant product will offer potential safety and affordability advantages over the first–generation product. Supports: Multiagent
Protective System.
Multiagent Vaccines for Biological Threat Agents TD (1998–02). Vaccine candidates will be demonstrated that will concurrently
provide protective immune response against a range of biological threat agents. Combination vaccines offer an approach to
immunization that reduces the number of injections, minimizes required medical support, and lowers costs. Recombinant DNA
vaccine technology offers the possibility of combining gene products from multiple agents into a single delivery vehicle. Candidate
vaccine technologies to be assessed will include naked DNA technologies (as discussed above) and a replicon system. The latter is a
vectored system in which portions of the pathogen genes are combined with a portion of viral DNA that allows the bioengineered DNA
to be introduced into cells by the normal viral mechanisms and replicated a single time, after which it is eliminated. Supports:
Multiagent Protective System.
c. Combat Casualty Care Demonstrations
Systems supported within this functional area are hemorrhage/trauma interventions and life support/surgical systems. Hemorrhage/
trauma interventions are a family of products intended for use immediately after injury to enhance resuscitation through effective
prevention or limiting of hemorrhage, and modulation of the secondary organ damage that results from hemorrhage or other major
trauma. Life support/surgical systems are a family of medical devices, software, and associated medical knowledge that will enable the
projection of advanced life support and surgical care with the force, and will enable maintenance of critical care through evacuation to
CONUS. The modernization roadmap for combat casualty care is shown in Figure III–14.
Figure III-14. Roadmap - Combat Health Support: Combat Casualty Care

Blood Loss/Resuscitation TD (1993–04). This demonstration will provide information and transition products to development to

enhance capabilities for control of and resuscitation from hemorrhage. This will include the use of commercially available local
hemostatic agents, improved thawed or fresh blood preservatives, a field–portable fluid infusion–warming device for the battlefield, an
improved platelet preservative or platelet substitute, and a second generation plasma substitute. Supports: Advanced Resuscitation.
Secondary Damage After Hemorrhage TD (1993–04). This demonstration will reduce the complications resulting from massive blood
loss or major injuries, including measures to minimize irreversible damage during potentially prolonged evacuation. This will include a
pharmacological intervention capable of blocking the early steps in development of brain or spinal cord injury that occur secondarily to
trauma, a pharmacological intervention that will reduce ischemia/reperfusion injury, intervention that will prevent or reduce
trauma–induced immunosuppression and related sepsis, intervention that interrupts the immunological and biochemical events leading
to cell death and organ failure after hemorrhage or major trauma, and intervention for far–forward use that reduces the metabolic
demands of casualties. Supports: Advanced Resuscitation.
Forward, Mobile, Digitally Instrumented Surgical Hospital TD (1996–06). This includes the development of the advanced surgical suite
for trauma casualties (ASSTC) mobile hospital and systems for casualty management. The ASSTC will allow for surgical intervention in
far–forward areas. Supports: Immediate Intervention and Continuum of Care.
Warrior Medic TD (1997–07). This demonstration seeks to integrate various medically oriented, advanced sensor technologies with
data integration, calculation, and decision algorithms for the individual soldier, and route the communications through the computer
common to all 21st century land warriors (21 CLW). The approach is to develop medical overlays to the tactical computing/
communicating capability already under development, to assess injury prognoses, and to compare post–injury to pre–injury data.
Supports: Immediate Intervention and Continuum of Care.
Far–Forward Medical/Surgical Devices TD (1993–07). This demonstration includes the life support for trauma and transport (LSTAT),
low–temperature sterilization system, self–contained ventilator, electrochemical sterilization system, and far–forward suction apparatus.
Supports: Immediate Intervention and Continuum of Care.
d. Army Operational Medicine Demonstrations
Systems supported within this functional area are performance sustainment, physiological status modeling, and protection criteria. A
primary objective of Army operational medicine demonstrations is the transition of physiological data, models, and algorithms to
materiel developers and policy makers to enhance medical readiness and sustainability during deployments. These include technical
insertions to Land Warrior for real–time command consultation, furnishing real–time intelligence on warfighter readiness,
sustainability, and recovered capability; biomedical and performance damage risk criteria and models ensuring that soldier health and
performance are not degraded by their own equipment; and identification of nutritional, pharmacological, and training strategies
("skin–in" interventions) to sustain performance in the face of operational stressors. The modernization roadmap for Army operational
medicine is shown in Figure III–15.

Figure III-15. Roadmap - Combat Health Support: Army Operational Medicine

Continuous Operations (CONOPS) Nutrition and Metabolic Requirements TD (1992–02). This demonstration will include
identification of physiological limitations and approaches to extend these limitations during stressful and intensive continuous
operations; determination of how to prepare and restore muscle and liver energy stores and how to deliver the optimal metabolic fuels
to the soldier to prevent degradation in physical and cognitive performance (e.g., combinations of hormones, drugs, creatine, specific
amino acids, carbohydrate drinks); identification of neurotransmitter precursors (e.g., tyrosine food bar) or enhancers (e.g.,
slow–release caffeine) to sustain soldier cognitive function during stressful and demanding operations in adverse environments; and
assessment of the feasibility of enhanced physiological recycling of body water, nitrogen, and minerals to sustain performance and lean
mass in isolated adverse environments with minimal resupply. Information will transition to Soldier Systems Command ration
developers, the Army Medical Department Center and School (AMEDD C&S), and dismounted battlespace battle laboratories
(DBSBLs). Supports: Soldier Survival in CONOPS Without Performance Decrements
Optimization of Biomechanical Performance TD (1992–02). This demonstration will include: determination of soldier physical
characteristics (e.g., strength performance and distribution of muscle mass) and ideal equipment characteristics for materiel designed to
fit the soldier (e.g., load carriage systems, body armor, combat boots) to optimize physical health and performance; development of
specialized physical training programs to enhance performance capabilities and reduce injury of soldiers in specific tasks (e.g., feasibility
of neck and back strengthening to accommodate helmet–supported equipment in repetitive jolt environments); identification of factors
involved in bone and muscle remodeling during intensive new training; and development of strategies to enhance strength capabilities
and reduce stress fractures and other musculoskeletal injuries during training. Information will transition to combat developers,
TRADOC, and Soldier systems command. Supports: Soldier Survival in CONOPS Without Performance Decrements.
Wake/Rest Enhancement Strategies TD (1992–99). The efficacy of pharmacological and behavioral interventions to counteract the
effects of inadequate restorative sleep and to enhance soldier vigilance and performance during sustained and continuous operations
will be demonstrated. Efficacy of new compounds to induce sleep, enhance the restorative value of sleep (e.g., the sleep induction and
rapid reawakening system), and resynchronize body rhythms following rapid deployment across multiple time zones (e.g., melatonin)
will also be demonstrated. Specifications will be developed for new measurement devices to provide rapid, reliable, and inexpensive
means for assessing a soldier’s level of mental fatigue and alertness (e.g., actigraphy, brain wave activity). Efforts will also improve
guidance for individual, aircrew, and other unit performance as a function of sleep/wake rest cycles. Supports: Soldier Survival in
CONOPS Without Performance Decrements.
Deployment Stress Countermeasures TD (1992–02). This research will provide the means to reduce stress casualties in future

deployments by fielding information and biomedical products to counteract the effects of operational stress on military performance,
including means to predict, prevent, assess, and treat battle stress casualties. Methods will be developed to give human dimension teams
the capability to provide commanders with statistically valid information on unit stress levels within 72 hours of data collection, and give
recommendations for use in operational planning, focused command intervention, and focused intervention by combat stress control
teams. This information will transition to the AMEDD C&S and the DBSBL. Supports: Real–Time Soldier Effectiveness Models.
Performance Limits in Extreme Environments TD (1992–01). Models will be developed and validated to predict the effects of heat,
cold, high altitude, hydration, nutritional status, clothing, and individual equipment on military performance in extreme operational
environments. These models will be based on real physiological and psychological data collected during training, as well as operational
deployments and advances in the understanding of human responses to multiple stressors. The models will be integrated into command
consultation systems in conjunction with the Warfighter Readiness and Sustainability research effort to provide commanders with
models for battlefield planning enabling them to "own the environment." New performance criteria will be developed for medical
screening based on visual and auditory requirements on the battlefield. Supports: Real–Time Soldier Effectiveness Models.
Warfighter Readiness and Sustainability TD (1996–03). Specifications, physiological models, and algorithms will be developed for a
family of wear–and–forget noninvasive soldier sensors that together provide an information system for commanders on the
physiological readiness of their own soldiers (e.g., alertness, hydration status, unit integrity). Physiologic sensors connected through a
wireless body local area network will be used to establish databases and algorithms for soldier norms and to identify the edge of the
health and performance envelope in extreme operational environments. These data will be organized and reduced through a system of
knowledge engineering to refine predictive models and to identify the minimal sensor set that will be necessary and compatible with the
21 CLW and follow–on programs. Telemetric transmission of basic medical information from individual soldiers will be made available
to commanders in concise form to enhance battlefield situational awareness, and this will form a continuum that transitions to the
medic following casualty detection, with telemedicine linkages to far–forward medical assets for early triage of casualties. Supports:
Real–Time Soldier Effectiveness Models.
Deployment Toxicology Assessment Methods TD (1998–02). Simple, rapid, and integrated hazard assessment and toxicant exposure
tools will be developed, based on biosentinel species and bioassays that are durable in field use. The initial emphasis is on complex
mixtures of chemicals with neurotoxic effects that immediately threaten military performance in deployed soldiers. Near–real term
bioassays methods will transition to more advanced electronic "canaries" and a family of individual soldier bioelectronic sensors that will
provide early warning against health and performance hazards. Supports: Real–Time Soldier Effectiveness Models.
Laser Bioeffects and Treatment TD (1992–02). This research will provide a database of ocular bioeffects for harmful laser frequency/
power mixes and guide development of more effective field protection against laser systems. More effective treatments of laser eye injury
will be demonstrated, and drugs and medical equipment to assist in treatment of laser eye injury will be identified for fielding.
Information will be transitioned to the AMEDD C&S. Supports: Biomedical and Performance Damage Risk Criteria.
Whole Body Blast Bioeffects/Blunt Trauma Models TD (1992–02). A damage risk criteria model for auditory and nonauditory effects
of blast will be validated, which will provide scientifically based criteria to support safe fielding of high–powered weapons systems. A
finite elements model of blunt trauma will also be developed, which will extend the blast model to provide valid health risk probabilities
associated with kinetic nonlethal weapons (e.g., stun grenades, rubber bullets), including torso, head, and extremity injury predictions.
Supports: Biomedical and Performance Damage Risk Criteria.
Mechanical Stress and Helicopter Crew Protection TD (1992–02). New safety criteria and countermeasures to biomechanical hazards
in the man–machine interface for operational combat crews will be demonstrated, based on head injury impact models and spine
compression from vertical impacts typically encountered in helicopter crashes and in repetitive jolt in military vehicles and tanks. A jolt
and repeated impact model of neck injury will be validated to improve the safe design of helmet–mounted equipment. Supports:
Biomedical and Performance Damage Risk Criteria.
To support the Combat Health Support modernization annex of the AMP, new generations of medical systems and products will be
tested for technical feasibility and operational utility. Primary emphasis will be placed on capabilities to minimize casualties through

improved protection and prevention, as well as to reduce treatment time for soldiers incapacitated by disease or injury. The relationship
of the Combat Health Support S/SU/ACs and other AMP annexes is shown in Table III–22.
Table III–22. Correlation Between Combat Health Support S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
Combat C4 IEW Fire Tactical Logistics Aviation NBC Training Space

Maneuver Support Wheeled
Vehicles*
System/ Infectious Disease Pharmaceuticals

System
Upgrade
Infectious Disease Vaccines
Infectious Disease Applied Medical Systems
CW/BW Casualty Management
CW Prophylaxes and Treatments
BW Countermeasures
Hemorrhage/Trauma Intervention
Life Support/Surgical Systems
Performance Sustainability
Protection Criteria
Physiological Status Modeling
Advanced Medical Prevention and Treatment of

Concept Malaria
Medical Prevention of Diarrheal Diseases
Medical Prevention of Dengue Fever
Early and Rapid Disease Threat Assessment
CW/BW Casualty Management System
Full–Spectrum Chemical Protection
Multiagent Protective System
Advanced Resuscitation
Immediate Intervention and Continuum of

Care
Soldier Survival in Continuous Operations

Without Performance Decrements
Biomedical and Performance Damage Risk

Criteria
Real–Time Soldier Effectiveness Models
* See Combat Manuever Annex.



Chapter III K. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
K. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
Weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and nuclear arms will be a major concern for the U.S. forces in the foreseeable future.
General Dennis J. Reimer

Army Chief of Staff
1. Introduction
Any nation with the will can turn its legitimate medical, biotechnology, and chemical facilities to the development of a formidable offensive
biological or chemical warfare capability. With the necessary resources, a nation can develop an offensive nuclear warfare capability. The
sale of technology and loss of control over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in various world regions can greatly accelerate the
acquisition of WMD programs and weapons. The Tokyo, Japan, subway incident underscores the potential for terrorist use of nuclear,
biological, and chemical (NBC) materials. Proliferation overall increases the asymmetric threat of WMD being employed against the
United States and its allies during contingency operations.
In response to congressional interest in the readiness of U.S. NBC warfare defenses, Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act
for FY1994 (Public Law 103–160) required DoD to consolidate management and oversight of the CB warfare defense program into a single
office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and to execute oversight of the program through the Defense Acquisition Board
process. The public law designated the Army as the executive agent for coordination and integration of the program and consolidated
NBC warfare defense training activities at the U.S. Army Chemical School. Funding for all NBC defense research, development, and
acquisition is now consolidated within OSD. Individual service requirements and programs are now consolidated into a true joint,
integrated strategy.
This section of the Army Science and Technology Master Plan reflects the technology strategy from the perspective of future joint service
requirements. The strategy herein is consistent with the AMP, the Joint Service NBC Modernization Plan, the Joint Service NBC Defense
RDA Plan, and the DoD CB Defense and Nuclear Technology Area Plan. The Army program in smoke/obscurants is not a part of the
joint CB defense program but is included herein as a traditional part of the Army NBC defense mission area.
The primary function of the NBC mission area is to provide U.S. forces with the capability to detect, identify and survive in an NBC
environment, and to effectively sustain mission operations with minimal casualties and equipment degradation. In addition, the mission
area provides electro–optical obscuration technology and material to screen U.S. assets from enemy precision–guided weapons and
reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) for EO countermeasures; and to provide obscuration that allows achievement
of military objectives while ensuring force protection and survivability and conservation of combat power. The technology investment in
support of these objectives is covered below.
Table III–23 represents the link between NBC S/SU/ACs and Army modernization objectives as well as the capabilities each provides.
The NBC modernization strategy reflected in this chapter represents the emerging joint NBC defense strategy in detection, protection, and
decontamination, and the Army strategy in smoke/obscurants. The joint NBC detection modernization strategy is focused on point
detection for biological agents and remote detection and early warning both chemical and biological agents. Efforts in decontamination
and individual protection, recently at a low level, are being increased in recognition of their role in sustainment of the forces and increased
mobility. Collective protection efforts remain significantly

Table III–23. NBC System Capabilities

Function

DETECTION Chemical Chemical
Chemical early Long–range chemical imaging detector

System/System Upgrade warning for aircraft, UAVs, and high–altitude
contamination aircraft
monitoring system
that quantifies,
Chemical Detectors Biological
ranges, and maps
Generic biodetection and ID of

Miniature chemical
asymptomatic levels
Biological Detectors detector
Rapid automated biodetection

Chemical water
Advanced Concept monitor
ID of bioagents at increased sensitivities
(1 ACPLA)
Biological
Chemical Detectors
Biological early
warning up to 50 km
Biological Detector
Biological point
detection plus ID
system
PROTECTION & Integrated Residual life indicator for filters

SURVIVABILITY respiratory
protection:
Regenerable filtration (vapor and
communication,
particulate)
vision, and
compatibility with
weapon sights
Reduced
Individual Protection physiological burden
and mission
degradation
Collective Protection Increased confidence

in CB protective
equipment
Advanced Concept Improved entry/exit

of collective
protected combat
vehicles
Advanced integrated
filtration with
environmental
support systems
Regenerable filtration
system tailored to
host system

Reduced logistic
Individual Protection
support
Continuous filtration
tailored to light
vehicles
SUSTAINMENT Decontamination All agent decontamination

downtime reduced
Decon without water
System/System Upgrade Less labor intensive
Less labor intensive decon
Decontamination Rapid, self–decon coatings
Imaging detector to highlight

Advanced Concept contaminated areas and decon efficacy
Corrosivity eliminated
Decontamination
Environmentally safe
COUNTER RSTA/ Screening, Smart weapons defeat capability

DECEPTION camouflage, and
decoy capabilities in
EO marker for combat ID
System/System Upgrade visible, IR, and
MMW ranges
Smoke/Obscurants DEW defeating obscuration
Logistically
Advanced Concept acceptable
Smoke/Obscurants Environmentally safe
reduced and refocused to provide far term capabilities. A capability to identify significant improvements in decontamination is being
maintained. Smoke/obscurants technologies are being pursued to expand the regions of the electro–optic spectrum that can be selectively
obscured. A significantly smaller effort is being pursued to spin off nonlethal weapons concepts from relevant corporate technology
capabilities.
Protecting the force is paramount in the joint NBC defense strategy. Early detection and warning is key to this strategy by providing
situational awareness and the capability of U.S. forces to counter any NBC threat. Chemical and biological detection systems, fully
integrated in the digital battlefield, will enable battlefield commanders to detect NBC warfare agents at operationally significant levels and
immediately activate protective or avoidance measures. Decision aids and planning tools will assist commanders at all levels. They will be
designed to allow non–NBC staffs to evaluate NBC situations and allow for timely and effective decisions. The goal of protection is to
isolate forces and weapons systems from NBC agents using individual and collective protection systems. Personnel protection will consist
of nonmedical, respiratory, and whole body protection that will allow forces to operate at near normal levels of effectiveness while in
protective posture. Integrated environmental control and longer life NBC filtration will meet the increasing need for collective protection
for vehicle crew compartments, shelters, and command posts. When NBC contamination cannot be avoided, decontamination systems
and point detectors will be used to restore personnel and units rapidly to near normal operating capability. New decontamination
technologies and systems will reduce the hazard of decontamination operations on personnel, equipment, and the environment; minimize
the logistics burden; and decrease the restoration time. CB modeling and simulation technologies are being enhanced to assess doctrine,
training, and materiel operating in an NBC environment, to provide equipment design parameters, and to serve as a real–time decision aid
for battlefield commanders. The following goals define the NBC defense strategy:

• Provide rapid field biodetection and identification capability.

• Extend range and coverage of chemical and biological standoff and early warning detection capabilities.
• Integrate chemical and biological sensors and systems with the digitized battlefield.
• Maintain current protection capability while reducing degradation associated with individual protective equipment.
• Develop continuous, regenerable collective protection filtration systems integrated with environmental controls requiring
minimal logistics.
• Develop effective, low environmental impact decontamination systems that do not damage contaminated surfaces.
• Enhance CB modeling and simulation capabilities to allow concept evaluations, hazard assessment, and realistic training
for the CB–contaminated battlefield.
Smoke and obscurants provide a potent combat multiplier by increasing the effectiveness of certain weapons systems, countering enemy
RSTA efforts, conserving effective combat power and supporting deception operations. The thrust of the smoke/obscurant technology
strategy is:
• Enhance the capability of smoke/obscurants to defeat enemy RSTA capabilities by selectively dominating the
electromagnetic spectrum, thus allowing the maneuver commander to control the maneuver space.
• Enhance the survivability of the individual soldiers and vehicles through the development of improved multispectral
self–defense obscuration systems.
Modernization efforts will be implemented through horizontal integration of NBC capabilities into major weapon systems. NBC materiel
acquisition will be conducted via technology insertions, product improvements, and advanced concepts. Integration efforts such as these
will ensure significant gains in operational survivability and mission sustainment at modest incremental costs. The joint NBC
modernization strategy is postured to meet the challenges facing U.S. forces in the 21st century.
3. Roadmaps for CB Defenses and Smoke Obscurants
Figures III–16 and III–17 are the roadmaps for CB defense and smoke/obscurants, respectively. Table III–24 summarizes the
demonstrations and systems found in these figures. This strategy emphasizes technology demonstrations incorporated into the front end of
critical development programs. These demonstrations will significantly reduce development risk, verify the system integration of advanced
technologies, and facilitate technology insertions, where possible.
The NBC defense program emphasizes detection, protection (individual and collective), decontamination, and modeling and simulation.
The roadmap for NBC defense is shown in Figure III–16.
The detection portion of CB defense is divided into two categories: chemical detectors and biological detectors. Both remote early warning
and point detection technologies are being pursued for chemical and biological detectors. The goal of CB detection is to provide a
real–time capability to detect, identify, locate, map, and quantify the presence of all CB warfare agent threats at levels below hazardous
levels and to disseminate this information rapidly. Current emphasis is on multiagent sensors for point biological agent detection and
remote early warning chemical and biological detection. In the near term, a number of individual sensors are being developed while
detection technology matures. In particular, a miniaturized chemical vapor point detector and an automated biological point detector and
identifier will be available. Far–term objective technologies focus on the integration of chemical and biological detection into a single
sensor suite. Technology emphasis is on detection sensitivity and specificity across the entire spectrum of CB agents (programmable for
emerging threats), system size and weight, reduction of logistics support requirements and O&M costs, detection range, and signature and
false alarm rates. Integration of CB detectors into various platforms (vehicles and aircraft) and C4I networks constitutes the ultimate focus
of this technology area.
Table III–24. NBC Demonstration and System Summary


Integrated Biodetection (OSD funded) CB Defense
Joint Biological Universal Detection System

Joint Service Warning and Identification LIDAR Detector
Chemical Imaging Sensor
Joint Service Agent Water Monitor
Joint Warning and Reporting Network
Liquid Surface Detection
Joint Service General–Purpose Mask
Joint Service Aviation Mask
Joint Service Chemical Ensemble
Joint Service Collective Protection
Joint Service Sensitive Equipment
Joint Service Chemical and Biological Decon
Generic Decon
Smoke/Obscurants
Millimeter Wave Screening

Direct Fire Smoke
Vehicle Engine Exhaust Smoke
Electro–Optical System Marking Smoke
Advanced Concept
Airbase/Port Biological Detection (includes

chemical detection add–on)
Joint Biological Remote Early Warning

(proposed)
(See Volume II, Annex B, for additional

information)
System
Joint Service Warning and ID LIDAR

Joint Service Agent Water Monitor
Joint Biological Remote Early Warning System
Joint Service General Purpose Mask
Joint Service Aviation Mask
Joint Service Mini Decon
Joint Service Sensitive Equipment
Joint Service Fixed Site Decon
Direct Fire Smoke
Electro–Optical System Marking Smoke
System Upgrade
Joint Warning and Reporting Network P3I

Joint Biological Point Detection System
Joint Biological Universal Detection System
Joint Chemical Ensemble
Joint Collective Protection Improvement Program
Superior Decon Solution
Large Area Smoke System
Vehicle Engine Exhaust Smoke System
Advanced Concept
Wide Area Detector

Liquid Surface Detector

Joint Radiac System
Joint CB Universal Detector
Next–Generation General–Purpose Mask
Next–Generation Protection Assessment Test System
Joint Chemical Ensemble II
Aircraft Interior Decon
Enhanced Fixed Site Decon
Multispectral Smoke Pot
Multispectral Projects Directed–Energy Neutralization System
Multispectral Canopy Smoke
Figure III-16. Roadmap - Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Defense

The NBC protection area covers technology efforts to provide NBC protection for the individual warfighter as well as enclosures where
groups of personnel require collective protection from the contaminated environment. The goal of eye, respiratory, and percutaneous
protection technology efforts is to develop the next generation eye and respiratory protection equipment and clothing ensembles for the
21st century warfighter. This equipment will afford protection against current and future threats, minimize mission degradation and

physiological impacts, and improve system integration and compatibility. Collective protection technology is focused on developing air
purification systems for buildings, shelters, vehicles, aircraft, and ships that must operate in NBC warfare agent–contaminated battlefield
conditions. Current efforts are directed at regenerative vapor and particulate filtration technologies, deep–bed impregnated carbon,
residual filter life indicators, and novel single pass filter designs and materials to reduce overall cost, size, weight, and flow resistance to
facilitate widespread application.
The goal for decontamination technologies is to develop effective, environmentally low impact CB decontamination systems to neutralize
or break down toxic materials without damaging the contaminated surface or affecting the performance of the equipment being
decontaminated. This area includes decontamination of personnel, individual equipment, tactical combat vehicles and equipment,
sensitive electronics, cargo areas of aircraft, seagoing vessels, and critical assets in fixed sites. Due to increased user interest, funding in this
area has been enhanced. Studies will focus on the use of supercritical carbon dioxide, ozone, sorbents, solution decontamination, and
enzyme–based systems.
Modeling and simulation technologies are being investigated to provide enhanced command evaluations, to integrate sensor data, and to
permit realistic training and simulation of the CB battlefield environment. The information generated will provide decision aids to
commanders to allow tradeoffs among tactical options as well as assessment of joint services doctrine, training, leadership, organization,
materiel, and warfighter performance during and after a CB attack. Modeling and simulation technologies will be used to evaluate the
battlefield value–added potential of developmental and conceptual NBC systems and will become an integral part of every development
program and every phase of the acquisition cycle. A current thrust is to incorporate terrain, mesoscale meteorology, and objects such as
tanks, ships, or buildings into CB–effects, hazard–assessment models and to incorporate these models into new and existing combat
simulations such as ModSAF and distributed interactive simulations (DIS).
Joint Biological Remote Early Warning System (JBREWS) ACTD (Proposed) (1998–01). The objective of this ACTD is to evaluate the
utility of remote early warning for BW point attacks against U.S. forces and to develop operational procedures and doctrine associated with
that capability. The ACTD will enhance the overall biological force protection system in a theater by providing sensors significantly farther
upwind (therefore closer to the BW agent release point) in much greater density than current biological detection systems. This
demonstration will exploit the inherent power of networked sensors and revolutionize our current approach to warning and reporting of
BW attacks. The ACTD will demonstrate a BW early warning network that is organic to a CINC tactical unit and connected to a warning
and reporting system to alert forces downwind promptly of BW agents. The ACTD will leverage mature and low–risk biological detection
technologies from the DoD counterproliferation initiative and technology base community, as well as the Department of Energy’s
Chemical Biological Nonproliferation program. Extensive simulation will be conducted in parallel to evaluate the utility of the remote early
warning system during all phases of warfighting operations. Supports: JBREWS.
Integrated Biodetection ATD (1996–99). The Integrated Biodetection ATD will demonstrate point detection and remote early warning of
biological agents using two state–of–the–art technologies. In addition, multiyear 6.2 technology–based efforts are being carried out in both
areas to support and ensure the successful demonstration of the ATD technologies in FY96–99. The ATD will focus on point biosensors
that incorporate automated DNA diagnostic technology to identify biological agents with the highest known degree of specificity and
sensitivity, in addition to increasing current reliabilities, stabilities, and response times of fielded and near–term P3I biosensors. These
state–of–the–art biological identification devices are planned for incorporation into the Joint Biological Point Detection System (JBPDS) as
next–generation biosensors. A rapid, real–time biological aerosol warning system using small, micro–ultraviolet (UV) laser–based,
fluorescent particle counters will also be demonstrated. Its purpose is to provide an early warning of a biological aerosol cloud threatening
high value battlefield assets. The key to the demonstration is to show the technologies in a unified effort in a battlefield exercise providing
detection and warning of biological agents before forces are exposed, thus reducing casualties. Supports: JBPDS and JBREWS.
Airbase/Port Biological Detection ACTD (1996–00). The objective of this ACTD is to evaluate the military utility of an airbase or port
perimeter biological detection capability and to develop operational procedures associated with that capability. An additional objective is
to provide a residual capability adequate to detect, alarm/warn/dewarn, and identify against a BW attack on an airbase or port facility. The
airbase or port residual capability will consist of a perimeter biological detection capability, laboratory agent identification capability,
dewarning procedures, C4I connectivity with base NBC reporting, oronasal protection, and biological sensor decontamination procedures
and capability. This ACTD will also include a chemical add–on capability that will utilize mature and available technology (passive IR
spectrometry and ion mobility spectroscopy) to detect and identify automatically chemical threat agents in near real time (less than 30
seconds). Additionally, this chemical add–on will provide the CINCs a capability to network legacy and emerging biological and chemical
detectors, and will produce automated warnings and reportings for enhanced battlefield visualization and force protection as defined in
Joint Vision 2010. Supports: JBPDS and JBREWS.

Joint Biological Universal Detection System (JBUDS) TD (2002–03). The JBUDS will be the universal detector to the armed forces that
fully integrates both point and remote sensors into one detector. This demonstration will feature miniaturized, multitechnology–based,
fully automatic (in manned or unmanned mode), all–agent–capable (generic) detection with automatic warning and reporting linked to
the theater C4I system. This capability will provide the commander an all encompassing chemical and biological assessment of the
battlefield. Supports: JBPDS.
Joint Service Warning and Identification LIDAR Detector (JSWILD) TD (1998–00). This demonstration will emphasize joint service
operation with shipboard testing and airbase defense demonstrations. Previous work has demonstrated the feasibility of using IR light
detection and ranging (LIDAR) to detect vapors of nerve agents and also shown great promise in the detection of large droplets of nerve
agents. In addition, the detection of aerosol particles of all sizes and compositions will be demonstrated and sensitivities determined for
each application. All service interferences will be identified and introduced into the existing model for inclusion into the pattern
recognition detection algorithm during subsequent development. The goal of this demonstration is to determine capabilities and
limitations for each possible mission (ship defense and fixed site defense). Supports: Airbase Defense and Shipboard Warning, JSWILD,
and Joint Service Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Reconnaissance System (JSNBCRS).
Chemical Imaging Sensor TD (2001–03). This sensor will expand the capability of current passive interferometry and signal processing to
allow long–range chemical imaging. The sensor will be capable of detecting known chemical agents and can be programmed to detect
other militarily significant spectral data. It will also provide a visual display of the hazard area. Extended detection range capability will be
provided for use on aircraft and high–altitude reconnaissance systems. The program will use design and performance data developed in
Project Safeguard. Supports: Wide Area Detection.
Joint Service Agent Water Monitor (JSAWM) TD (1998–99). The JSAWM will demonstrate both an in–line (USAF) and a portable batch
water test capability. JSAWM will be capable of detecting chemical agents below the revised U.S. Army Surgeon General’s requirements for
chemical agents and also be able to detect a range of waterborne biological agent contamination down to parts per million. The system will
rapidly evaluate water and provide near–real–time alert if water becomes contaminated so that immediate action can be taken to prevent
ingestion by warfighters. Supports: In–Line Water Monitor (USAF) and Agent Water Monitor (U.S. Army Quartermaster).
Joint Warning and Reporting Network (JWARN) P3I TD (2003). The JWARN P3I will build from the capabilities of off–the–shelf
integration efforts of the interim JWARN program. This first step includes sensor links, a hazard prediction tool, and an automated NBC
warning and report system. The P3I version will demonstrate seamless integration into the future digitized "common picture" of the
battlefield. Included will be decision aid support modules and automation tools that provide a shared situational awareness of the hazard
and allow real–time NBC defense synchronization. Advanced call–back capabilities for split–based operations and a high–resolution
digitized mapping capability are being pursued. Supports: JBREWS, JBPDS, and Battlefield Digitization.
Liquid Surface Detection TD (2001–03). This program will demonstrate an active/passive hybrid system for detection and identification of
chemical agent liquid surface contamination. This effort will culminate in the development of a system for reconnaissance, contamination
avoidance, and decontamination effectiveness evaluation. Supports: reconnaissance (air and ground), standoff detection (vehicle and fixed
site), alarms/monitors, and warning and reporting.
Joint Service General–Purpose Mask (JSGPM) TD (1997–98). A variety of advanced respiratory protection concepts are being
investigated for application to a joint service eye/respiratory protection system for ground use and possibly for use in Army aviation
applications. The general–purpose mask will provide protection against current and future CB threats, reduced physiological and
psychological burden and resulting mission degradation associated with individual protection equipment, and improved integration with
future soldier systems (e.g., weapons sighting systems, night vision equipment, helmets, helmet–mounted displays) and joint service
requirements. Technology efforts will focus on improved filter design and filtration media, lens design and materials, agent resistant
faceblank materials, and reduced bulk/logistics burden. Advancements in protection and performance testing to support assessment to
anticipated standards are included in these efforts. Supports: Joint Service General–Purpose Mask and FXXI LW.
Joint Service Aviation Mask (JSAM) TD (1998–99). The joint services are supporting this technology effort to develop a protective mask
system for high–performance aviation and rotary–wing pilots. The effort will focus on consolidation of requirements from a series of
high–performance aviation and helicopter mask systems, and development of performance specifications sufficient to support EMD
initiation in FY00. Various mask technologies and designs will transition to the JSAM program as they become available. Supports: Joint

Service Aviation Mask and Air Warrior.
Joint Service Chemical Ensemble TD (2002–03). A variety of materials and materials technologies are being investigated to provide fully
integrated percutaneous protection against chemical and biological agents into the warrior’s battledress ensemble. Integrated CB
percutaneous protection will eliminate the need for a separate battledress overgarment. To accomplish this, protective materials must be
resistant to agents without increasing the physiological burden (e.g., heat stress, moisture buildup) normally associated with wearing
individual protection equipment/ensembles. Selectively permeable fabrics that will allow heat and moisture to escape while not allowing
agents to permeate (i.e., selective permeable membrane technology) will provide the soldier with enhanced percutaneous protection over
carbon–impregnated materials used in the current battledress overgarment. Supports: Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology
(JSLIST) P3I.
Joint Service Collective Protection TD (1998–99). Several advanced CB filtration concepts will be evaluated to prove feasibility in
implementing improved filtration technologies into various combat system applications. Technologies investigated will include regenerable
vapor and particulate filtration systems, catalytic systems, improved sorbents, improved nuclear and biological particulate filtration media,
and residual vapor filter life indicator. Advanced filtration concepts demonstrate reduced size and weight potential, improved filtration
capability, elimination of filter change out (except at scheduled maintenance periods), and integration with power and environmental
control systems. Supports: Advanced Field Artillery System (AFAS)/Future Armored Resupply Vehicle (FARV) and Comanche,
Crusader, Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), and NBC Collective Protection Systems (Advanced Deployable Collective
Protection (CP) for Fixed Sites, Advanced Lightweight Collective Protection System).
Joint Service Sensitive Equipment TD (1998–00). This demonstration addresses two requirements. The first will consist of using a
closed–loop recirculating supercritical carbon dioxide system to remove chemical and biological materials from small sensitive equipment
items and components. A second system using ozone as an oxidizing agent will be demonstrated as a means to decontaminate and detoxify
chemical and biological agents in interior spaces containing electronic components. These systems will provide additional capability to the
user. They will eliminate the need for protective status while performing maintenance operations, render contaminated individual
equipment and small electronics reusable after prior contamination, and provide the capability to decontaminate the interior spaces of
aircraft, tanks, ships, and other vehicles. Supports: Joint Service Sensitive Equipment Decontamination System and Aircraft Interior Decon
System.
Joint Service Chemical and Biological Decontaminants (JSCBD) TD (1998–99). The objective of this demonstration is to provide the joint
services with a decontaminant to reduce and eventually eliminate requirements for decontamination solution 2 (DS2). This decontaminant
should be environmentally acceptable and be useful for applications where the use of DS2 is currently forbidden. Several commercially
available CB decontamination systems have been identified and have inspired the interest of several joint service user groups as a potential
interim solution to the DS2 problem. This demonstration will evaluate the effectiveness of these potential nondevelopmental items and
provide the user community with performance data. Supports: Modular Decon System, Joint Service Mini–Decon System, Superior
Decon Solution, and Joint Service Fixed Site Decon.
Generic Decontamination Solution TD (2001–03). This demonstration will evaluate the effectiveness of a new generation of
decontamination materials that are nontoxic, material compatible, and environmentally safe. Technologies investigated will include
high–capacity surfactants, improved sorbent systems, reactive organic solutions, dry powder formulations, and enzymatic–based systems
in a variety of carrier systems. Materials should be suitable for a variety of surfaces and applications, ultimately replacing DS2 and any
interim decontaminant chosen to reduce reliance upon DS2. Supports: Superior Decon Solution, Modular Decon System, Joint Service
Mini–Decon System, and Joint Service Fixed Site Decon.
In response to the proliferation of increasingly sophisticated RSTA capabilities throughout the EM spectrum, the smoke/obscurant strategy
capitalizes on technologies capable of providing multispectral screening. These environmentally and logistically acceptable multispectral
materials will counter enemy RSTA activities in broader ranges of the EM spectrum for self–defense, large area coverage, and projected
applications. The roadmap for smoke/obscurants is shown in Figure III–17.

Figure III-17. Roadmap - Smake/Obscurants

Millimeter–Wave Screening TD (1999–00). This demonstration will determine the feasibility of an MMW obscurant generating system in
preventing threat radars from observing, acquiring, targeting, and tracking friendly targets. The module will expand the capability of the
current M56 large area smoke generator, which screens only the visual and IR bands. Aerosol technology, chemical dispersion techniques,
and dissemination mechanisms will be exploited. Supports: Smoke/Obscurants (M56 P3I).
Direct Fire Smoke TD (2001–02). This demonstration will develop the technology required to support direct fire obscurant munitions.
Low–cost, nontoxic, environmentally friendly materials, effective in all spectral regions of military interest, will be investigated with an eye
toward performance consistent with a volume–constrained application. Creative packaging will be investigated that will minimize
environmental impact. Supports: Smoke/Obscurants (Direct Fire Smoke).
Electro–Optical (EO) System Marking Smoke TD (2002–03). This demonstration will consist of a personal smoke grenade that will release
a material detectable only by a mid– or far–IR sighting device. The grenade is intended for ground force use as a signaling device to mark
landing and drop zones. It also has application for pilot rescue missions and combat identification. This demonstration will explore
cryogenics, exothermic reactive materials, and reaction control techniques. Supports: Smoke/Obscurants (EO System Marking Smoke).
Vehicle Engine Exhaust Smoke (VEES) System TD (1998). This demonstration revives the old diesel fuel–based VEES made ineffective
when the M1 Abrams went to JP8. It will be packaged as a modification kit to existing M1A1 Abrams platforms. It enhances unit
survivability by screening movement, concealing position, and defeating enemy visual and near–IR target acquisition systems such as laser
designators and laser range finders, especially in military OOTW and during peacekeeping operations. Current prototype incorporates a
swing–away mount, facilitating maintenance. Supports: Smoke/Obscurants (PM Abrams SEP).
Table III–25 shows the correlation between the NBC S/SU/ACs and the other modernization plan annexes that they support.
Table III–25. Correlation Between NBC S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
System/System Upgrade/Advanced Modernization Plan Annexes
Concept

Force Combat C4 IEW Fire Space Tactical Logistics Aviation Combat Training Space
Structure* Maneuver Support & Wheeled Health
Missile Vehicles* Support
Defense
System/ NBC Individual

System Protection
Upgrade
NBC Collective
Protection
Chemical
Detectors
Biological
Detectors
NBC
Decontamination
Smoke/Obscurants
Advanced NBC Individual

Concept Protection
Chemical
Detectors
Biological
Detectors
NBC
Decontamination
Smoke/Obscurants


Chapter III L. Air and Missile Defense
L. Air and Missile Defense
Not the cry, but the flight of the wild duck, leads the flock to fly and follow.
Chinese proverb
1. Introduction
As the 21st century approaches, air and missile defense must be ready to meet the challenge of the evolving air and missile threat
while continuing to support force projection operations in major regional contingencies, protect the United States in coordination/
cooperation with joint air defense systems, and execute military operations other than war missions. The air and missile threat is
often the single greatest risk to the successful conduct of force projection operations, particularly during early entry and decisive
operations. With many nations acquiring technologically advanced, highly lethal weapons such as ballistic missiles, our air and
missile defense force can expect to face a much more diversified threat in the future. Threat capabilities of other nations beyond the
year 2000 will require that the air and missile defense force be capable of dominating battlespace to achieve decisive victory by
winning quickly with minimal casualties.
The mission of air and missile defense is to protect the force and selected geopolitical assets from aerial attack, missile attack, and
surveillance. To meet its mission requirements and counterthreat capabilities, the air and missile defense force must be a strategically
deployable, highly mobile, and versatile force, trained and equipped to go to war anywhere in the world on short notice; it must be
highly lethal and capable of battlefield survival. The air defense mission includes national missile defense (NMD) of the continental
United States and antisatellite defense, as well as theater missile defense (TMD), which protects the force from theater missile
attacks. Both NMD and TMD are addressed in Volume II, Annex B.
Successful execution of future operations will require increased emphasis on planning and conducting joint and multinational
operations. The capabilities of many weapons and forces must be integrated to achieve the operational commander’s air defense
objectives.
To achieve the required operational capabilities, a balanced materiel development and demonstration strategy must be followed.
Multifaceted technology base efforts have been initiated across the full spectrum of tactical through strategic requirements.
Initiatives emphasize survivable target acquisition (both passive and active) and positive identification; cost–effective fusion of
multiple sensor/processor modules into automated target acquisition and fire control suites; multiple missile guidance modes
against the reactive threat; high–energy, insensitive propellants and alternate propulsion concepts; missile seeker upgrades to
integrate advanced fuzing techniques and smart focal plane arrays; hit–to–kill technology; mobile, lightweight, and increased
firepower; dispersed, distributed, survivable C2 and supporting communications, and an integrated training architecture that fully
exploits the materiel capability. Table III–26 shows the correlation between air and missile defense SU/ACs and the Army
modernization objectives, and displays in general terms the operational capabilities for air and missile defense SU/ACs.
The air and missile defense and TMD modernization plan annexes detail a disciplined approach to providing air and missile
defense support to both theater and maneuver forces. The air and missile defense modernization strategy focuses on the following

objectives:
• Achieve near leakproof TMD this decade.

• Address the full threat spectrum.
• Respond to warfighting doctrine.
• Maintain a technological advantage.
Table III–26. Air and Missile Defense System Capabilities

Function

KILL SYSTEMS Missile defense
High firepower
Expanded engagement
System Upgrade
envelope
Hit to kill
Patriot PAC3 Increased mobility/

survivability
3D surveillance and
Bradley Stinger Fighting tracking
Vehicle–Enhanced
(Linebacker) Low radar cross section
targets
Highly mobile
Target in clutter
Advanced Concept IR CCM
Improved lethality against helicopter

Stinger Block II
360–degree coverage
4. Roadmap for Air Defense Artillery
Table III–27 presents a summary of demonstrations and systems found in the air and missile defense roadmap (Figure III–18).
Modernization of air and missile defense depends upon the development of these key systems for air defense coordination.

Figure III-18. Roadmap - Air Defense Artillery

Table III–27. Air and Missile Defense Demonstration and System Summary
Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite (see Mounted Guidance Integrated Fuzing

Forces) 2.75–Inch Antiair
Ducted Rocket Engine
(See Volume II, Annex B, for additional
Compact Kinetic Energy Missile
information)
High–Mobility Ground–Launched AIM–120 Advanced Medium–Range Air–to–Air Missile
Armicide
ATR for Weapons
System Upgrade
Patriot PAC3
Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle—Enhanced (Linebacker)
Advanced Concept
Stinger Block II
a. Advanced Technology Demonstrations Leading to Modernization of Air Defense Artillery Units
Air defense artillery systems consist of a complementary mix of weapons, sensors, and command and control systems. air and
missile defense modernization focuses on SU/AC developments and their associated demonstrations. The MFS3 ATD will have a
major impact on the air defense mission. Additionally, the mission area will derive benefits from many other efforts, such as the

RFPI ACTD, the Target Acquisition ATD, and the BCID ATD.
Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite (MFS3) ATD (1998–01). The MFS3 ATD will integrate multiple advanced sensor components
including staring infrared arrays, multifunction laser, and acoustic arrays. In support of air defense, it will demonstrate the capability
for automated surface–to–surface, surface–to–air, and air–to–ground search, acquisition, and noncooperative identification. More
detailed information can be found in Section III–G, "Mounted Forces" (above). Supports: Bradley Stinger Fighting
Vehicle—Enhanced (BSFV–E) (Linebacker).
b. Technology Demonstrations Leading to Modernization of Air Defense Artillery Systems
The following are primarily focused on the air and missile defense mission area.
2.75–Inch Antiair TD (1997–99). The objective of the 2.75–Inch Antiair TD is to provide a comprehensive upgrade to the Stinger
missile system through the incorporation of an advanced imaging infrared seeker to enable the engagement of hostile helicopters in
clutter at extended ranges (two to three times current capabilities). This demonstration will go beyond the current concept
development program of a form–factored seeker with commercial breadboard–type signal processing electronics by demonstrating
the ability to package the signal processing electronics in 2.75–inch–diameter space. In addition, signal processing algorithms for
target detection, tracking, and IR CCM will be developed and demonstrated via hardware in the loop simulations, ground tests, and
captive–carry tests. This system will maintain compatibility with existing Stinger launchers and retain Stinger’s excellent capability
against fixed–wing aircraft. Supports: Forward–Area Air Defense (FAAD) StingerBlock II and all launch platforms.
Ducted Rocket Engine (DRE) TD (1996–98). This TD is discussed in detail in Section III–N, "Fire Support."
Future Missile Technology Integration (FMTI) TD (1994–98). This technology demonstration is discussed in detail in Section
III–D, "Aviation" above.
Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) TD (1996–99). This technology is discussed in detail in Section III–G, "Mounted
Forces" (above).
ATR for Weapons TD (1998–01). This technology demonstration is discussed in detail in Section III–D, "Aviation" (above).
High–Mobility Ground–Launched AIM–120 Advanced Medium–Range Air–to–Air Missile (AMRAAM) (HMGL–AMRAAM)

TD (1996–99). The primary focus for this technology demonstration will lead to a low–cost, highly mobile air and cruise missile
defense capability based on the robust capabilities of the joint Air Force/Navy/USMC AIM–120 AMRAAM. This concept will
integrate this extremely capable digital fire–and–forget missile onto a highly mobile Avenger–based heavy HMMWV ground
launch platform. Army cueing for the systems will be provided by the AN/MPQ–64 ground–based sensor (GBS) (or any other 3D
sensor), and remote fire control will be managed with the simplified handheld terminal unit. The Marine Corps will use their
continuous wave acquisition radar for cueing and the remote terminal unit for management of remote fire control operations. The
AIM–120 AMRAAM launched from an HMMWV–based system provides a medium–range, high–rate–of–fire missile with the
multiple simultaneous target engagement capabilities needed to fill the gap between Stinger and Patriot. The mix of short (Stinger)
and medium (AIM–120) range missiles will provide both the IR and the RF guidance and homing needed to counter the evolving
cruise missile and UAV threats. Supports: AIM–120 AMRAAM, RFPI ACTD, and Current and Future Missile Systems.
Guidance Integrated Fuzing TD (1995–99). The objective of this program is to develop guidance integrated fuzing techniques for
MMW, active–homing seeker systems in air defense missiles, utilizing a mix of target signature measurements, target backscatter
modeling, and endgame modeling. This effort will also provide algorithms for integrated guidance and fuzing to track high–speed
targets from the munition to achieve accuracy for warhead kills. In addition, near–far field target signatures from an MMW,
monopulse instrumentation radar will be collected. It is expected that this effort will generate high–fidelity target models to support
highly accurate guidance integrated fuzing simulations to validate robust system designs. Supports: Patriot Advanced Capability
(PAC3) and Corps Surface–to–Air Missile (Corps SAM).

Armicide TD (1997–00). The Armicide TD will demonstrate a concept designed to serve as an adjunct for antiradiation missile
(ARM) defense to the major air defense systems such as Patriot and the theater high altitude area defense (THAAD) ground–based
radar (GBR). Armicide will use the organic air defense system radars to provide the fire control to engage the ARM target. Thus, the
need for providing an expensive counterarm sensor is avoided. Armicide consists of the following main components that are
currently within the realm of engineering implementation or available with minor modifications: (1) a medium–caliber,
command–guided smart munition that does not require an expensive homing seeker; (2) two rapid fire conventional launchers,
whose design and technology are in use by all services, as well as internationally; (3) a fire control processor/transmitter; and (4) the
host radar (Patriot and GBR) that will provide target and interceptor tracking information to the fire control unit of the radar.
Supports: Patriot, THAAD GBR.
c. Benefits to Air Defense Artillery Systems
Benefits to the air defense mission area that may be derived from ATDs, STOs, and advanced concepts are as follows:
• New search and track capabilities which could be adapted into air defense’s multisensor capabilities.
• Improved integration of sensors and fire control systems providing faster slew–to–cue capabilities for air defense
weapons.
• Propellant and guidance movements that may be incorporated into air defense weapons to provide dead zone and
self–protection coverage.
• Combat identification enhancements to ensure higher accuracy of positive identification of hostile and friendly
targets, therefore reducing possibility of fratricide.
• Communication enhancements improving the vertical and horizontal sharing of critical battlefield information and
increasing the accuracy and volume of data being shared.
• Survivability enhancements that will lower the susceptibility of air defense sensors to ARMs and will decrease
existing air defense systems vulnerability to indirect fire.
• Fuzing improvements that will lead to higher probability of kills of both conventional targets and weapons of mass
destruction.
• Digitization of the battlefield.
It is important that air and missile defense modernization and related technology base program efforts exhibit a linkage with AMP
annexes in other mission areas. This linkage is important for decision makers when prioritizing all of the Army’s modernization
efforts. Table III–28 portrays the linkage of Air Defense Artillery SU/ACs and other AMP annexes.
Table III–28. Correlation Between Air and Missile Defense S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
Aviation IEW Close C4 Mounted TMD**

Combat Forces*
Light*
System Corps SAM
System Upgrade Patriot Advanced Capability
Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle—Enhanced

(Linebacker)
Advanced Concept Stinger Block II


** See Space & Missile Defense Annex.

Chapter III M. Engineer and Mine Warfare
M. Engineer and Mine Warfare
Have you ever been in a minefield? ... All there has to be is one mine and that’s intense.
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, USA (Ret.)
1. Introduction
The U.S. Army is facing a changing threat with varied degrees of sophistication as it enters the 21st century. Given this uncertain
threat, the engineer and mine warfare (EMW) mission area continues to play a key role as a critical member of the combined arms
team. Recent military operations have demonstrated the critical need for a robust EMW mission area, which is vital to the combined
arms team and combat service support elements being able to fulfill their future military role.
The EMW mission area consists of the five major battlefield functions of mobility, countermobility, survivability, sustainment
engineering, and topographic engineering. Each function is critical to conducting successful operations throughout the operational
continuum, whether fighting a major regional conflict or providing military assistance in operations other than war. Applying
technological advancements to modernize these functions enhances the combined arms commander’s ability to conduct opposed
entry, sustained land combat, and OOTW to achieve a decisive victory. This section focuses on funded EMW S&T programs that
provide systems and system upgrades in support of combat maneuver modernization. Only systems and system upgrades identified
in the Combat Maneuver annex to the AMP, of which EMW is a part, and advanced concepts with planned 6.3 technology
demonstrations of potential future systems are addressed in this section.
Table III–29 shows the relationship between the EMW S/SUs and each of the TRADOC battlefield dynamics. It also details some of
the operational capabilities provided by these S/SUs.
The Combat Maneuver annex to the AMP provides the blueprint for equipping engineer forces into the next century. It embraces
the Army’s modernization vision—land force dominance—by contributing to the five Army modernization objectives.
• Project and Sustain. The assessment and construction or reconstruction of ports, airfields, roads, and other
infrastructure to project forces rapidly and consistently and maintain logistical forces.
• Protect the Force. Construction of structures to protect critical C2, weapon systems, and logistics nodes by
camouflage, concealment, or bunkerage.
• Win the Information War. Provide engineer–related force level information, standard hard copy and digital maps,
map substitute imagery, battlefield visualization products, and other types of terrain data, giving commanders a
realistic view of the battlefield. Information and products must be readily available, rapidly updated, and quickly
manipulated or tailored. Real–time electronic distribution to all elements of the force will increase leader battlefield
awareness and allow commanders to operate inside their opponent’s decision cycle.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec3m.htm（第 1／8 页）2006-09-10 22:46:52

• Conduct Precision Strike. Utilization of accurate electronic terrain data for display and tactical exploitation to obtain
precise location data of both the target and the shooter. Engineer assessment of conventional weapons effects against
hard structural targets will ensure correct munition–to–target linkage. This will lead to improved effectiveness and
precision of weapon system fires and total dominance of the deep battle.
• Dominate the Maneuver Battle. Enhancing the tactical mobility of friendly maneuver forces and impeding the
mobility of threat forces to provide commanders both protection and maneuverability necessary to dominate
battlespace.
Table III–29. EMW System Capabilities

Function

MOBILITY Advanced image Advanced biological explosives

processing detection
Real–time data Advanced time domain EM induction

transfer
System Ultra wideband holographic radar
Detection for heavy
and light forces
Multisensors
Ground Standoff Mine

Detection System Robust sensor fusion
Advanced antitank
Computer fire
control
Mine Hunter/Killer
Combined detection
and neutralization
capability
Teleoperation
Lightweight Airborne capability
Multispectral
Countermine
Detection System Unexploded
ordnance detection
Rapid breaching and

mine unexploded
ordnance (UXO)
clearance
Lightweight airborne
standoff detection
capability
Advanced staring
FPAs

Advanced sensors
(multihyperspectral,
passive, polarization)
Advanced electronic
stabilization
advanced ATR
Advanced Concept Advanced tracking
Standoff Scatterable Advanced handoff to radar to

Mine and Munition determine range, trajectory, and
Detection location
Advanced Mine
Detection Sensor Advanced signal processing and ATR
System algorithms
SURVIVABILITY Improved visual, IR,

and radar signature
suppression
Low–cost mobile
signature suppression
System Upgrade
Improved chemical
agent resistant coating
IR suppressive
Low–Cost, coating
Low–Observable
Technologies
Integrated active/
passive signature
control in UV, visible
IR, and RF bands
Tunable
countermeasures
TOPOGRAPHIC Rapid map or map

ENGINEERING substitute products
Battlefield
System Upgrade environment effects
Real–time creation,
Digital Topographic update, and
Support System/ dissemination of
Quick–Response digital topographic
Multicolor Printer databases
Integrated decision
aids
The EMW modernization strategy relies on continuous modernization as a key concept. The acquisition approach emphasizes
investment in S&T programs leading to ATDs, targets of opportunity, battle laboratory experiments, AWEs, and the Joint CM
ACTD. Technological advances will be incorporated more often into systems via upgrades versus entirely new systems.
Of the EMW battlefield mission areas, mobility and survivability are currently receiving a new focus in S&T due to the

ever–increasing mine threat. Effective and responsible mine warfare obstructs the mobility and survivability of opposing forces and
creates conditions favorable to the mine employer without inflicting needless casualties on noncombatants. Mine warfare constitutes
a significant element in armed conflict at all levels of intensity and is critical to early entry forces who may be overmatched. The
intelligent minefield (IMF) ATD will enhance the antiarmor lethality of the early entry force, cue fires beyond line–of–sight, and
provide the potential to revolutionize maneuver. IMF can not only be turned off to provide one–way obstacles, but should be able to
augment friendly maneuver forces by performing screen and guard missions autonomously. Mines are cheap, lethal, psychologically
disruptive, and readily available, and they will be encountered on all future battlefields. The result is that relatively cheap mines
employed quickly and in quantity can immobilize a powerful force.
Inexpensive, land mines can destroy multimillion dollar weapon systems. The future outlook is even more ominous, with the
evolution of new smart mines. Microelectronics will soon take mines to new levels of lethality. The countermine shortfall is
particularly worrisome because it strikes at the heart of Army’s doctrine of rapid movement and surprise to win quick decisive
victories.
4. Engineer and Mine Warfare Roadmaps
Table III–30 presents a summary of the S/SU/ACs, TDs, ATDs, and ACTDs found on the EMW roadmap shown in Figure III–19.
Figure III-19. Roadmap - Engineer and Mine Warfare


Engineers enhance friendly freedom of maneuver by detecting, bypassing, breaching, marking, and reporting mines and other
obstacles, crossing gaps, providing combat roads and trails, and performing forward aviation combat engineering (FACE)
operations. S&T programs focus on integrating countermine capabilities through live and simulated experiments, maintaining Army
and Marine Corps enhanced mobility, survivability, situational awareness, and agility to the force commander as a result of
integrating countermine technology with C4I. The technologies include sensors, IR, microwave, multispectral, seismic and acoustic
decoys, explosive neutralization, information processing, robotics, and other emerging technologies.
Joint Countermine (CM) ACTD (1995–00). This ACTD will demonstrate a seamless amphibious and land warfare countermine
operational capability from sea to land by coordinating Army, Navy, and Marine Corps technology demonstrators, prototypes, and
fielded military equipment.
Demonstration I, successfully executed in 4QFY97, focused on near–shore capabilities of assault, reconnaissance, breaching, and
clearing with emphasis on in–stride detection and neutralization of mines and obstacles. The Army was the lead for Demonstration I.
It included joint Army–Marine Corps technology demonstrations in mine detection technology for the Army’s future close–in
man–portable mine detector, with the capability to detect both metallic and nonmetallic mines (handheld standoff mine detection
system). It also included countermeasures to side–attack mines (off–route smart mine clearance) in support of road–clearing
operations. These technologies are applicable to other military uses such as unexploded ordnance and range clearing, duds on the
battlefield, and demining.
Table III–30. EMW Demonstration and System Summary

Vehicular–Mounted Mine Detector Mobility
Mine Hunter–Killer Mobility and Survivability (Battle Command)

Lightweight, Airborne Multispectral Countermine Detection System
Survivability
Low–Cost, Low–Observable Technologies
Advanced Concept
Joint Countermine
Rapid Terrain Visualization

Annex B)
Ground Standoff Mine Detection System

Mine Hunter/Killer
Lightweight Airborne Multispectral Countermine Detection System
Digital Topographic Support System/Quick–Response Multicolor Printer
Maneuver Control System
Advanced Concept
Low–Cost, Low–Observable Technologies

Advanced Mine Detection Sensors
Standoff Scatterable Mine and Munitions Detection

Demonstration II, planned for 3QFY98, will emphasize technologies of clandestine surveillance and reconnaissance as described in
the FY94 Navy Mine Warfare Plan and will demonstrate the elements of seamless transition of countermine operations from sea to
land. The Navy is lead for Demonstration II.
Mobility and Survivability (Battle Command) TD (1995–98). This program will demonstrate decision support applications for
mobility, countermobility, and survivability force level information that supports multiple battlefield operating systems.
Physics–based algorithms, applicable to all climatic regions, that automate the engineer’s efforts to filter, assess, and manipulate data
into relevant information for the maneuver commander and staff will be incorporated into obstacle planning software and simplified
survivability assessments that will be demonstrated during Task Force XXI AWE and Division XXI exercises. The software suite to be
demonstrated will also provide the engineer commander with the ability to execute engineer domain force level command and
control. Supports: Battle Command Decision Support System (BCDSS) (Phoenix) and Maneuver Control System (MCS).
Vehicular–Mounted Mine Detector (VMMD) ATD (1996–98). The vehicular detector will demonstrate the mounted capability to
detect metallic and nonmetallic mines, conventionally or remotely emplaced. The primary operational mode of the VMMD is to
detect mines on roads and routes across full vehicular widths so that lines of transportation are kept open. There is no currently
fielded vehicular mounted system that can detect both metallic and nonmetallic mines. The ATD will demonstrate in FY98 a system
using multiple sensor suites, sensor fusion, and ATR techniques. Sensor fusion will provide for a higher mine detection rate while
keeping false alarm rates at an acceptable level. The sensors that will be demonstrated include IR, ground–penetrating radar (GPR),
and EM induction detectors. The IR sensors include both 3 to 5–∝m and 8 to 12–∝m wavelength sensors. These will be currently
available sensors with specially developed ATR algorithms. The primary purpose of the IR sensor is to provide a standoff cueing
detection capability. The GPR operates in the 13–GHz band that represents a tradeoff between the lower frequencies required for
sufficient ground penetration and the higher frequencies needed to achieve spatial resolution for specific targets. Various algorithms
are being investigated for use with the GPR approach. The EM induction detection combines traditional metallic mine detection
operating features with an innovative concept that combines the induction coils with the GPR antennas in a single search head.
Supports: Joint Countermine ACTD and Ground Standoff Mine Detection System.
Mine Hunter/Killer (MH/K) ATD (1998–00). The MH/K program will allow the Army to investigate and clear routes and roads
through terrain where conventional countermine tools are not desirable and do so at near tactical speeds. The purpose of the MH/K
program is to develop an integrated standoff mine detection and neutralization system for installation on any tactical vehicle. The
system is intended to neutralize surface laid and buried, metallic and nonmetallic, AT and large AP mines. The MH/K system will
consist of a multimode sensor array including forward–looking radar, and FLIR systems with a robust sensor fusion architecture and
advanced ATR algorithm suite, a target designation system, a set antimine weapon with computer fire control and articulation, and a
stabilized tele–operations kit. The system will detect and destroy mines and unexploded ordnance in a wide path in front of the
vehicle at moderate speeds without needing to pause or stop. Supports: MH/K and Ground Standoff Mine Detection System P3I.
Lightweight Airborne Multispectral Countermine Detection System TD (1998–01). This demonstration will utilize novel focal plane
array (FPA) and system technologies (3 to 5 ∝m staring FPAs, passive polarization, multi–hyperspectral imaging, electronic
stabilization) to develop a lightweight airborne standoff mine detection capability for limited area (point) detection, limited corridor
route reconnaissance, and detection of nuisance mines along roads. The system will detect buried nuisance mines on unpaved roads
and off–route side attack mines, as well as detect surface and buried patterned and scatterable minefields. The system will also have
applications to other intelligence–gathering programs requiring increased thermal sensitivity as well as those that would benefit from
a wider field of view than supported by a framing FLIR. Supports: Tactical UAV.
a. Countermobility
Engineers impede the enemy’s freedom of maneuver by disrupting, turning, fixing, or blocking his movement through obstacle
development and terrain enhancement. S&T programs are integrating microelectronics, signal processing, and advanced intelligence
into a controlled network of mine warfare systems. The Intelligent Minefield S&T program ended in FY97, but continues to support
technology developments through participation in the Rapid Force Projection ACTD. To use this future capability and other
engineer assets optimally requires the development of software to assist in evaluating the whole picture (environment, intelligence
data, assets, capabilities, etc.) to facilitate planning and execution of maneuver operations.

Area Denial Systems TD (1998–01). This program will demonstrate the capability of self–contained, semiautonomous, long–standoff
munitions that can defend an area by defeating, disrupting, and delaying vehicles that enter into its battlespace. This system will
enhance other weapon systems in a manner similar to that achieved by land mines today, but without the postwar civilian mine threat
and the demining problem. Support: Unmanned Terrain Domination.
b. Survivability
Engineers reduce friendly force vulnerability to enemy weapon effects through rapid fabrication of protective structures, terrain
alteration, and concealment. S&T programs are focused on upgrades to the low–cost, low–observable (LCLO) camouflage systems.
These systems provide means for detection and hit avoidance. The upgrades are designed to reduce or eliminate visual, UV, near IR,
thermal IR, and radar waveband signatures of mobile and stationary assets. The goal is to counter the highly sensitive reconnaissance,
intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition (RISTA) threat sensors, and fused sensors in all parts of the EM spectrum. Signature
control will be achieved through integration of passive, reactive, and active low–observable systems.
Field fortifications research is conducted by the Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES) for all of DoD. The focus
of these efforts is in design of protective structures to defeat advanced munitions (bunker busters) and unconventional munitions
(car bombs), to capture commercial technology, and to identify high–payoff protection techniques.
Low–Cost, Low–Observable (LCLO) System Upgrade TD (1994–06). Demonstrations are scheduled during FY94–00 for upgrades
to LCLO systems, including the multispectral camouflage system for mobile equipment, the ultra–lightweight camouflage net
system—general–purpose (ULCANS–GP), and the reactive/active standardized camouflage paint pattern (SCAPP). Currently
fielded LCLO systems do not counter threat thermal IR sensors. Supports: ULCANS–GP, Multispectral Camouflage System for
Mobile Equipment, and SCAPP.
c. Sustainment Engineering
Engineers support force sustainment by maintaining, upgrading, or constructing lines of communication and facilities; providing
construction support and materials; and performing area damage assessment. Sustainment in the form of infrastructure assessment,
generation and allocation of engineer resources required, and visualization technologies will be among the technologies critical in
wartime contingency and support and sustainment operations.
d. Topographic Engineering
Topographic engineers provide timely, accurate knowledge of the battlefield and terrain visualization to operational commanders
and staffs at all echelons throughout the operational continuum. Knowledge of the battlefield consists of information in narrative or
graphic format describing the effects of terrain and climate on military operations. The ability of the commander to visualize the
terrain in all climate conditions before the battle will help him to develop dynamic operational plans, as well as to locate, engage, and
defeat the enemy with a more agile, synchronized force. Terrain information developed by Army engineers provide the basic terrain
reference for land and air forces as well as other DoD and non–DoD agencies.
S&T programs focus on providing terrain database construction or update real–time positioning and navigation determination,
realistic physics–based terrain capabilities, geospatial database management, database value–adding for modeling and simulation,
and tactical terrain and environment decision aid support. Key to battlefield awareness and crisis response is the development of
technologies to support the capability for the rapid production and dissemination of image–based topographic products. Advances
in microelectronics, knowledge–based systems, and signal processing techniques make the topographic engineering sciences an
extremely dynamic field.
Topographic engineers are working closely with TRADOC battle labs and the user community to demonstrate, evaluate, and refine
technological developments and doctrinal topographic support concepts. The digital topographic support system—multispectral
imagery systems (DTSS–MSIP) currently fielded to all active duty topographic units provides automated topographic support and

imagery exploitation capabilities to the commander. The DTSS/Quick Response Multicolor Printer (QRMP), to begin fielding in
FY98, will provide a tactical capability to support the commander further with the latest in topographic technology. The P3I program
will provide periodic increases in functionality, maintaining topographic support at the technological leading edge in capability and
in data imagery exploitation.
Rapid Terrain Visualization (RTV) ACTD (1997–01). The RTV ACTD will demonstrate the capabilities required to provide the
warfighter level V elevation data, feature data, and imagery over a 90 90 km area in 72 hours. The focus of the RTV ACTD will be on
source collection, data generation, and transformation of digital topographic data. These data are the essential foundation for
battlefield visualization. Situation databases, integrated on current terrain databases, provide the commander a dynamic, 3D
visualization of his battlespace and enhance his mission planning, course of action analysis, and mission rehearsal capabilities. The
ACTD will leverage technologies being developed by government and industry. These technologies will be integrated in the JPSD
Integration and Evaluation Center (IEC) and analyzed to determine their effectiveness. The ACTD has provided a testbed capability
to the XVIII Airborne Corps to ensure continual feedback on the military value of capabilities. Selected capabilities, whose maturity
has been demonstrated in the IEC, will be transitioned to the user testbed for evaluation. An objective capability will be delivered to
the using unit as leave behind in the year 2000. Supports: XVIII Airborne Corps Warfighter Exercises, Force XXI, and Division ’98
AWE.
5. Relationship to Army Modernization Plan Annexes
The EMW modernization strategy and related S&T programs are linked with modernization plans in other mission areas.
Table III–31 shows the linkage between EMW S/SUs and other AMP annexes.
Table III–31. Correlation Between EMW S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
Mounted Close Space IEW Soldier C4 Aviation Fire Support

Forces* Combat & Systems
Light* Missile
Defense
System Maneuver Control System
Ground Standoff Mine Detection
Mine Hunter/Killer
System Lightweight Airborne Multispectral Countermine Detection

Upgrade System
Digital Topographic Support System/Quick–Response

Multicolor Printer
Low–Cost Low–Observable Technologies
Advanced Advanced Mine Detection Sensors

Concept
Standoff Scatterable Mine and Munition Detection


Chapter III N. Fire Support
N. Fire Support
The artillery must be prepared to concentrate a great volume of fire wherever it is needed, at any moment, so as to dominate rapidly
any part of the battlefield which might be threatened.
General Charles DeGaulle

The Army of the Future, 1941
1. Introduction
Fire support is the collective and coordinated use of indirect fire, target acquisition data, armed aircraft, and other lethal and
nonlethal means against ground targets in support of maneuver force operations. The mission of fire support is to destroy,
neutralize, or suppress the enemy with indirect fire and integrate all available means of fire support.
Fire support responsibilities focus on close support fires in support of engaging maneuver units, counterfire (the attack of enemy
indirect fire support systems), and interdiction (the attack of enemy laterally and in depth). It includes artillery, mortars, other
non–line–of–sight weapons, Army aviation, naval gun fire, close air support, and electronic countermeasures.
To achieve the required operational capabilities, the fire support S/SU/ACs will provide unique system capabilities that will enhance
the commander’s ability to meet the dynamic requirements of the battlefield. Fire support capabilities include supporting the ability
of early entry operations to deploy rapidly and secure the operational area; providing critical elements of the combat power
required to defeat an enemy throughout the depth of the battlefield; supporting the commander’s requirement to control the rate
and pace of combat activities; supporting critical aspects of the commander’s ability to effect operations against opposing forces
engaged in combat actions; and providing essential capabilities in the logistics spectrum to support, rearm, and resupply fire
support assets required to sustain the soldier on the battlefield (see Table III–32).
The Army Modernization Plan Fire Support annex provides the direction and focus of our modernization strategy. The
cornerstone for the successful implementation of this continuous modernization strategy is our science and technology programs.
These programs will focus on system upgrades, new systems, and advanced concepts that will provide quality materiel to
commanders that ensure their ability to "fight fire with fire."
4. Fire Support Roadmap
Table III–33 presents a summary of ACTDs, ATDs, and major TDs leading to systems development and upgrade. Modernization
of the fire support operating system depends upon the development of these key systems for fire support coordination, close
support, counterfire, command and control, and target acquisition, as well as munitions and rockets, and their ultimate fielding as a
fire support system–of–systems.
As shown in Figure III–20, S&T efforts focus on:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec3n.htm（第 1／8 页）2006-09-10 22:47:16

• Maximization of kill capability.

• Advanced gun/rocket propulsion.
• Automated ammunition handling.
• Integrated fire control and battle management.
• Signature reduction and increased protection.
• Classification, tracking, and identification of ground vehicles.
• Sensors (acoustic and electro–optical) and processing.
• AI and computing technologies.
• Increased battlefield operational mobility.
Table III–32. Fire Support System Capabilities

Function

RANGE Deep fire 20 to 40 km

beyond FLOT
System
54% increase in
Crusader onboard ammo (60
vs. 39 Paladin)
Lightweight 155–mm
Towed Howitzer
Decision aids
System Upgrade
155–mm range from
ERA a lightweight system
Projectile—XM982
Advanced Concept Increased range or cargo capacity
Guided MLRS
LETHALITY Increased rate of fire Mobile long–range capability

(12–16 rounds/
System second)
Reduced logistics burden
Crusader Point target accuracy

RF energy
Robotic and
Towed Howitzer IFF
automated rapid
System Upgrade ammo handling
Top attack surgical kill
Multimode Airframe Increased lethality
Technology area Increased footprint covers moving
targets
ERA
155–mm firepower
Projectile—XM982
from a lightweight Improved response time
Advanced Concept system
Increased range with self–destructive
Guided MLRS cargo
Precision–Guided Precision guidance capability

Mortar Munition

ACCURACY Deep fire 20 to 40 km

beyond FLOT
System Onboard sensors
Crusader Onboard target

acquisition
Lightweight 155–mm Increased sensor

Towed Howitzer accuracy
Increased mobility
System Upgrade
Munitions
Firefinder P3I classification
Decision aids
Multimode Airframe
Technology
Improved navigation
ERA Point target

Projectile—XM982 capability at long
ranges
Advanced Concept Improved delivery accuracy
Man–portable fire control
Precision–Guided Top attack surgical kill for U.S. infantry

Mortar Munition
GPS auto–registration or
auto–self–correcting
Guided MLRS Improved targeting
Precision guidance capability
SURVIVABILITY Autonomous
Real time on target

System meteorological data
Crusader Decision aids
155–mm range
Lightweight 155–mm firepower and area
Towed Howitzer coverage with
lightweight mobility
System Upgrade Doubles range Reduce time at firing point
250% greater Novel (nonvolatile) propellants

survivability
Improved ECCM
Smart weapon
ECCM
Rapid deployment
Improved mobility
Route planning and self–defense AI

modules
Firefinder P3I Datalink to TMD
Launch to digitized battlefield
Fire and forget
Advanced Concept
Guided MLRS
FORCE MULTIPLIER Based on increased

accuracy
Less manpower
System Commonality of
spares
Affordable
long–range
Crusader navigation
155–mm fire power

for light forces/
Lightweight 155–mm Smart weapons

Towed Howitzer
Extended range
cargo delivery
Increased lethality
System Upgrade Extended range cargo delivery (40–70

km)
AI
ERA
Projectile—XM982 IFF
RF energy
Firefinder P3I Digitized 155–mm firepower
Increased autonomous footprint
Advanced Concept
Guided MLRS
Precision–Guided
Mortar Munition
Autonomous or surgical kill for infantry

MOBILITY Composite
technology
System
Autonomous
operation
Crusader
Land, water, air
movement
Towed Howitzer
Onboard navigation
Table III–33. Fire Support Demonstration and System Summary

Precision–Guided Mortar Munition (see Close Decision Aids for Advanced Artillery and Decision Aids
Combat Light) 155–mm Automated Howitzer
Ducted Rocket Engine
Multimode Airframe
Guided MLRS
Auto–Registration
Advanced Concept
JPSD Precision/Rapid Counter MRL
Rapid Force Projection Initiative (see Close

Combat Light)

Annex NO TAG.)
System
Crusader
Lightweight 155–mm Towed Howitzer
System Upgrade
Firefinder P3I
Multimode Airframe Technology
Extended Range Artillery (ERA) Projectile—XM982
Advanced Concept
Precision–Guided Mortar Munition

Guided MLRS
Advanced Decision Aids for Artillery
155–mm Automated Howitzer
a. ATDs and Other Technology Demonstrations

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) ATD (1995–98). This ATD will demonstrate a significant improvement in the
range and accuracy of the MLRS free–flight artillery rocket. Improved accuracy results in a significant reduction in the number of
rockets required to defeat the target (as much as sixfold at extended ranges). Other benefits include an associated reduction in the
logistics burden (transportation of rockets), reduced chances of collateral damage and fratricide, reduced mission times (resulting
in increased system survivability), and increased effective range for the MLRS rocket. The ATD will design, fabricate, and flight test
a low–cost guidance and control package to be housed in the nose of the rocket, thus minimizing the changes to the current rocket.
A low–cost inertial measurement unit (IMU) coupled with a canard control system will be demonstrated in Phase I, followed by a
GPS–aided IMU solution in Phase II. The IMU package will provide a 2 to 3 mil accuracy sufficient for some MLRS warheads with
the GPS–aided package providing a 10–meter CEP accuracy for warheads that require precision accuracy. The package to be
demonstrated will result in a rocket that is more cost effective and more lethal while requiring no change to crew training
procedures or maintenance procedures (during the 15–year shelf life). The guidance and control package will be designed with
applicability to bomblet, mine, precision guided submunition, and unitary/earth penetrator warheads. An EMD program is in the
POM with an FY98 start. Supports: RFPI ACTD and Guided MLRS.
Precision Guided Mortar Munition (PGMM) ATD (1994–01). The 120–mm PGMM will demonstrate a multimission, multimode,
precision munition capable of defeating high–value point targets at extended ranges (12–15 km). Its modes of operation include
autonomous fire–and–forget and laser designation for a surgical strike capability. Accuracy improvement, such as GPS/inertial
navigation system (INS) technologies, will be developed to further improve accuracy and effectiveness at long ranges. In FY99
demonstrations included both
Figure III-20. Roadmap - Fire Support Modernization

laser–designated and autonomous fire missions. In FY01 demonstrations included comprehensive hardware–in–loop (including
GPS/INS) testing. See the section on Close Combat Light (above), for details. Supports: RFPI ACTD, 120–mm Mortars, and
PGMM.

Auto–Registration TD (1996–98). This program will develop and demonstrate an auto–registration system utilizing a digital GPS P/
Y code translator (in a NATO–standard fuze) and platform receiver to track artillery projectiles and automatically compute firing
corrections. This will provide significant accuracy improvement, at all ranges, for all projectiles on all platforms. The demonstration
will take place at Yuma Proving Ground and the Field Artillery School at Fort Sill, and will consist of a series of test firings that will
compare predicted fire to autoregistration accuracy. Supports: All existing and future 155–mm munitions/platforms.
Rapid Force Projection Initiative (RFPI) ACTD (1995–00). This ACTD will demonstrate a highly lethal, survivable, and rapidly air
deployable enhancement to the Early Entry Task Force. It includes an automated fire control system for selected howitzers, the
EFOGM non–line–of–sight weapon system, and the IAS as a deep/shallow emplaced sensor. Further details are provided in the
section on Close Combat Light (above).
155–mm Automated Howitzer (AH) TD (1994–01). This program will demonstrate an automated, digital fire control system for a
155–mm towed artillery system. The digital FCS has self–location and direction determination. The FCS performs onboard ballistic
calculations that provide the system with greater responsiveness, accuracy, lethality, and survivability. The advanced fire control
technology supports the RFPI ACTD and subsequent ACTD. Automation such as self–location and direction determination are
expected to increase efficiency, responsiveness, and accuracy. Supports: LW Howitzer 155 Program and RFPI ACTD.
Decision Aids for Advanced Artillery and Armament Decision Aids TD (1994–00). The initial demonstrations evaluate a prototype
decision–aid system for self–propelled artillery, utilizing artificial intelligence and advanced computing techniques. The system
consists of two decision aid modules: reconnaissance, selection, and occupation of position (RSOP) and self–defense. It will reduce
planning time required for movement to a new fire position, decrease response time to a new mission, and increase
self–survivability capability. The follow–on demonstration (armament decision aids) will build upon previously developed
technology and link the individual fire support platform to the digitized battlefield. This demonstration will allow individual or
groups of fire support platforms to operate, as needed, outside of the traditional fire support C2 structure and fully exploit new
plans, procedures, and tactics of the digital battlefield. Benefits will include improved situational awareness, synchronized
movement with maneuver forces, and, ideally, fratricide avoidance. Supports: Crusader.
JPSD Precision/Rapid Counter MRL ACTD (1995–98). This ACTD will demonstrate a significantly enhanced capability for U.S.
Forces Korea to neutralize the North Korean 240–mm MRL system. Because of the brief time in which this target is expected to be
exposed and vulnerable to counterfire, near–continuous surveillance and near–instantaneous target acquisition will be required, as
well as the employment of innovative target attack means. Smart munitions for the MLRS family of submunitions (MFOM) will be
demonstrated through simulations in the ACTD to include smart munitions for increased effectiveness and coverage. Project
management and funding will continue through FY98. Supports: Precision Strike.
Ducted Rocket Engine (DRE) TD (1996–98). The DRE program is a joint R&D effort with Japan to develop and demonstrate a
ducted rocket engine for a medium surface–to–air missile that will significantly increase the intercept envelope against aircraft and
cruise missiles when compared with surface–to–air missiles utilizing current solid rocket propulsion technology. It is the first
developmental program under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Defense/Japan Defense Agency Systems and Technology
Forum (S&TF). The component technology development and engine demonstration effort is focused on the design and testing of a
minimum signature, insensitive munitions–compatible booster, having supersonic air inlets, and a solid fuel gas generator
providing high–impulse, minimum signature ramburner operation. Performance data acquired from the DRE program integrated
tests may provide a basis for the design of a future, operationally deployable surface–to–air or long–range surface–to–surface missile
system. Supports: Future missile systems, Battle Command, Depth and Simultaneous Attack, Early Entry Lethality, and
Survivability Battle Labs.
Multimode Airframe Technology (MAT) TD (1995–98). This TD will provide the battlefield commander with a long–range (40+
km) precision–guided artillery weapon that will provide light forces with surgical kill capacity against heavy armor, helicopter, and
bunker targets. Further, it will provide extended–range and precision terminal homing capabilities, enhanced survivability and
lethality, jam–proof datalink, and low–signature turbojet launch using GPS/IMU for navigation. Supports: RFPI ACTD and JPSD
Precision/Rapid Counter MRL ACTD.

Integrated Sensors and Targeting TD (1999–02). This program will develop a leap–ahead targeting upgrade to the suite of
integrated RF countermeasures (AN/ALQ–211) and suite of integrated IR countermeasures (AN/ALQ–212). Apache Longbow
AH–1D aircraft will have precision geolocation and targeting of emitters on the battlefield. Using its integral variable message
format (VMF) interface to onboard communications systems, Apache Longbow will be capable of providing command posts, fire
support units, and ground vehicles with real–time coordinates with friend or foe classification of radar emitters on the battlefield.
Supports: PM–Airborne Electronic Combat’s (AEC) EMD Technology Upgrades to the AN/ALQ–211 and ALQ–212.
Advanced Sense and Destroy Armor (SADARM) Sensor TD (1998-01). This program will demonstrate the application of a
common aperature LADAR/IR transducer to enhance the current smart submunition (SADARM) sensor suite for use in gun
launch environments. The enhanced sensor suite performance will greatly reduce cost per kill for the basic SADARM. Support:
SADARM improvements.
Future Direct Support Weapon TD (1998-01). This program is to demonstrate the viability of a 5000–lb 155mm towed howitzer.
The program consists of two major phases with the first phase to demonstrate a 6750–lb towed howitzer, then a 5700–lb howitzer in
second phase. This program will leverage technologies such as electro–rheological fluid and recoil management, advanced materials
and structures to reduce system weight. Support: 155mm towed howitzer for light forces.
Table III–34 shows the correlation between the Fire Support S/SU/ACs and other AMP annexes.
Table III–34. Correlation Between Fire Support S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
Close Mounted IEW Space &

Combat Forces* Missile
Light* Defense
System Crusader
Lightweight 155–mm Towed Howitzer
System Upgrade Firefinder P3I
Multimode Airframe Technology
Extended–Range Artillery Projectile—XM982
Advanced Concept Precision–Guided Mortar Munition
Guided MLRS
Advanced Concept Advanced Decision Aids for Artillery


Chapter III O. Logistics
O. Logistics
There will not be a revolution in military affairs until there is a revolution in logistics.

Army Chief of Staff
1. Introduction
Logisticians provide the means with which the warfighters can execute their war plans, strategy, and tactics. The Joint Vision 2010
requires that our forces maintain a dominant maneuver capability. For the land component, dominant maneuver consists of two
elements: strategic and operational. Strategic maneuver equates to the Army’s requirement to project the force. This power projection
force will be lighter and more durable, with multipurpose warfighting systems that will reduce the amount of lift required as well as the
size and complexity of the logistics needed to sustain the force.
Reduce the logistics footprint on the battlefield . . . reduce logistics OPTEMPO by 30% and the logistics O&S costs by 25% . . . .

Army Chief of Staff
The DoD S&T community has identified six Strategic Research Objectives (SROs) that are the highest priority in terms of developing
advanced technologies to meet requirements. These are smart structures, biomimetics, nanoscience, broadband communications,
intelligent systems, and compact power sources. The Army’s new SRO, Research for Innovative Logistics, complements these DoD
SROs. The logistics S&T community fully supports the focused logistics capability as defined in Joint Vision 2010, Army Vision 2010,
through its Revolution in Military Logistics Campaign Plan—The Way Ahead (commonly referred to as the RML). The RML
provides categories of "enablers," one of which is advanced technologies. These advanced technology enablers complement the six
critical technologies from the DoD SROs.
The AAN mission is to conduct broad studies of warfare to about the year 2025 to frame issues vital to the Army after about 2010, and
to provide issues to the senior Army leadership for integration into TRADOC combat development programs. One goal of The AAN
is to link technological possibilities to innovative operational capabilities. To this end, the AAN Logistics Efficiencies Panel has further
broken out the requirements for advanced technology applications in the areas of power, distribution, soldier sustainment, system
sustainment, ammunition, and C4I.
Think out of the box! Find the Ah–ha’s!
Major General Robert Scales

Deputy Chief of Staff for Doctrine
The technology initiatives that the logisticians are pursuing directly support the goals of Joint Vision 2010, Army Vision 2010, the chief
of staff’s guidance, and other pertinent documents. For example, on board prognostics will not only eliminate the requirement to
deploy vast quantities of dissimilar test equipment but also provide real–time predictions of impending failure. This ability to predict
future failure will reduce collateral damage due to failed parts and reduce the time for repair for the warfighter; prognostics will alert a
combat commander to impending failure of combat vehicles prior to entering into a decisive engagement with enemy forces.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec3o.htm（第 1／10 页）2006-09-10 22:47:51

Logistics system upgrades and advanced concepts and their link to the Army modernization objectives are shown in Table III–35. This
table also displays the operational capabilities provided by each of the SU/ACs.
3. Logistics Modernization Strategy
The Logistics annex of the AMP focuses on the objective of "project and sustain the force."
Table III–35. Logistics System Capabilities

Function

PROJECT Improved
precision–guided
delivery of munitions
System Upgrade
Reduced weight and
bulk of cargo and
personnel parachutes
Aerial Delivery
Lower ground impact

velocities for cargo
Advanced Cargo
airdrop systems
Airdrop Technologies
Accurate delivery of supplies/
Lower impact forces equipment from offset distances
for cargo airdrop
Advanced Concept systems Increased delivery accuracy via an
autonomous GPS–based guidance
and navigation system
Precision Offset, High
Glide Aerial Delivery
Covert day/night and limited visibility
airdrop capability
SUSTAIN Shelf stable ration

components
Enhanced rations
System Upgrade
performance and
flexibility
Army Field Feeding Reduce rations weight

Future and volume
Less soldier labor/

fatigue
Advanced Lightweight
Portable Power/Silent
Energy Source Reduced manpower
Automated assessment
of petroleum products
Improved corrosion
protection

Rapid Deployment Improved munitions

Food Service for Force protection
Projection
Improved morale/
quality of life
Improved food,
Mobility Enhancing
nutrition, readiness
Ration Components
Lower O&S cost
Emerging Petroleum Versatile new fuel/

Quality energy source
Improved quality of
life (food, water)
Reforming Diesel to
Refuel Soldiers
Improved air
transportability
Munitions Survivability
Embedded ammo info Survivable munitions

device storage area:
• Improved
ammunition readiness
• Inventory/
expenditure rate data
for anticipatory
logistics
• Reduced rearm times
• Improved rates of fire
Future combat system • Less soldier labor/ Increased mobility, deployability,

logistics fatigue reliability, and maintainability
• Reduced manpower
• Saves lives/combat
power
• Improved munitions
accuracy
• Improved
prognostics/
diagnostics
Advanced Concept Increased mobility, deployability,

reliability, and maintainability

To project and sustain the force in support of Force XXI and the AAN, as presented in RML, the Army will need to find technology
solutions to overcome the realities of prior and projected force reductions. Many of these technologies are currently under
development through ATDs and TDs from other mission areas. In order to portray the complete picture of Army Logistics, as
influenced by these other initiatives, Table III–36 is presented. This table shows the direct and significant impact upon the efficiencies,
operational concepts, and costs of logistics functions provided by these intitiatives. It details the initiative, the mission area, the vision
supported and the benefits to Army Logistics. Their impact upon the Logistics community’s capability to project and sustain the
current and future force cannot be understated.
To project the force the logistics community needs:
• Key information technologies that rapidly and automatically identify and track assets.
• Access to and use of theater entry technologies such as battlefield visualization and situational awareness.
• Advanced thermodynamic material for unattended, tamper–proof, climatically controlled "smart" containers.
• Access to and use of theater command and control technologies.
Table III–36. Modernization Payoffs of Technologies for Logistics

Initiative Vision Supported Benefit of Initiative
Joint Army RML Army DoD

Vision Vision After Strategic
2010 2010 Next Research
Objectives
Project the Force
Perform Enhancing Enables personnel to perform at high levels of performance for

Demonstrations extended time
Rapid Deployment Food Services Provides a 50% increase in MTBF with a 50% decrease in fuel usage
Reforming Diesel to Refuel Soldiers Provide a technology to reform diesel fuel into a versatile fuel that can
be cleanly and reliably burned
Sustain the Force
Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate Provides high–speed data fusion processing and cognitive
decision–aiding expert systems
Battlespace Command and Provides EEI required for velocity management and battlefield
Control distribution
Digital Battlefield Provides "bandwidth on demand" to support

Communications multimedia information requirements
Vehicle Mounted Mine Detector Provides mounted capability to detect metallic and
nonmetallic mines—resupply
Battlefield Combat Identification Provides situational awareness to prevent fratricide—

resupply, maintenance missions
Future Scout and Cavalry System Provides advanced lightweight materials and electric drive to be
supplied and maintained
Rapid Terrain Visualization Provides battlefield situational awareness required to plan and
execute log missions
Joint Logistics Provides rapid integration log data to meet Army and joint mission
requirements
Precision Offset Aerial Delivery Provides reliable precision–guided delivery of combat essential
munitions and equipment
Helicopter Active Control Technology Enables advanced fault–tolerant systems to maintain reliability and
simplify maintenance

Aircraft System Self–Healing Compensates for premature subsystem or component failure,

changes repair concept
Munitions Survivability Provides advanced materials, barricades, and blankets for munitions
survivability
Embedded Ammo Information Device Enables anticipatory resupply and prognostics/diagnostics, improves
readiness, improves munitions accuracy
Future Combat System Logistics Provides rapid integrated seamless rearm and resupply for FCS
Mobility Enhanced Ration Provides shelf–stable, no–preparation rations compatible with

Components existing ration systems
Munitions Survivability Ensures the survivability of munitions at ports, airheads, and

munitions storage areas
Survivable, Affordable, Repairable New efficient and affordable diagnostics and repair concepts—30%
Airframe Program reduced repair times
Fourth–Generation Crew Station Provides advanced 3D display technology transferable to

telemaintenance
Integration High–Performance Turbine 25% reduction in fuel consumption and a 60% increase in
Engine power–to–weight ratio
Alternate Propulsion Sources Explores advanced propulsion concepts beyond air–breathing

propulsion
Electrical Power Generation Provides light, highly mobile power sources capable of operating on
multiple fuels
On–Board Integrated Diagnostic Reduces maintenance 15%, O&S 10%, maintenance cost/flight hour
System (OBIDS) 50%; increases reliability 45%
Ground Propulsion and Mobility Provides critical engine, electronic drive, track and suspension, and
storage devices
Advanced Electronics Future Combat Advanced concepts to resupply power and distribution systems will
System need to be developed
Future Combat System Integrated Provide high–power electric technology critical to leap–ahead
Demonstration capabilities within combat vehicle
Future Combat System Mobility Provides an electric drive and power conditioning system; an active
suspension system
Universal Transaction Comm Information to flow—wherever it exists, in any form, to wherever it is

needed in any form
Third–Generation Advanced Rotor Increases range 36% or payload 98%, reliability 45%; reduces O&S
Demonstration costs 10%
Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission II Provides 25% weight reduction, increases MTBR; significantly
reduces O&S costs
Structural Crash Dynamics (M&S) Provides design and performance evaluation tool to be optimized for
helicopter systems
Rotor–Wing Structures Technology Increases reliability 20%, maintainability 10%; reduces O&S 5% for
utility type rotorcraft
Advanced Rotorcraft Reduces MTBF; increases reliability and maintainability; and reduces
Aerodynamics O&S costs
Subsystem Technology Overcomes technical barriers associated with advanced digitized

Affordability and Supportability maintenance and real–time OBIDS
Subsystem Technology for IR Repair and maintenance of advanced multispectral coatings require
Reduction specialized maintenance training

Intravehicle Electronics Suite Validates real–time performance requirements for VEtronics open
systems architecture
Military Operations in Urban Open system architecture facilitates a large reduction in future ILS
Terrain life–cycle costs
Joint Speakeasy Flexible radio architecture, rapid waveform reprogrammability/

reconfigurability
Range Extension Technical supplement current (and programmed) SATCOM

resources, all frequency bands
Machine Visualization–Autonomous Provides capability to ensure resupply continues at the required level
Unmanned Ground Vehicle and timeliness
SATCOM Technology Provides higher data rates, improvements in throughput, and

reduced life–cycle costs
Advanced Cargo Air Drop Technology Provide improved performance characteristics and enhanced safety
of existing personal parachute capabilities
To sustain the force the logistics community needs smart combat systems that have:
• Ultra–reliability built into them during manufacture.

• Built–in self–prognostics that report future failures automatically.
• Self–healing subsystems that provide the capability to delay repairs and continue to prosecute the battle.
• Alternative propulsion systems and fuels.
• "Smart" materials that self–heal and change to the demands of the battlefield.
• Biomimetic materials that provide quantum increases in strength and are noncorrosive and nonerosive.
• Sensors and AI that will enable resupply and repair movements about the battlefield with a high degree of impunity.
• Battlefield situational awareness.
• Nanotechnology applied to battlefield manufacture of supplies as well as the maintenance and repair of combat
equipment.
4. Roadmap for Army Logistics
Table III–37 presents a summary of TDs, ACTDs and SU/ACs in the Logistics S&T program that support Logistics modernization.
The roadmap at Figure III–21 portrays the projection and evolution of these programs in support of Logistics modernization.
a. RML Domain: Force Projection
Precision Offset, High–Glide Aerial Delivery TD (1994–99). Semirigid deployable wing (SDW) technology will be used to
demonstrate precision, high–offset delivery of supplies and equipment. Details can be found in the section on Close Combat Light
(above). Supports: Aerial Delivery, Precision Offset, High–Glide Aerial Delivery, EELS, DSA, and CSS Battle Labs.
Advanced Cargo Airdrop Technologies TD (1998–00). This TD will demonstrate technologies to provide an improved cargo airdrop
capability. Utilizing novel design techniques, demonstrate a personnel size parachute (interim goal) by the
Table III–37. Logistics Demonstration and System Summary

Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration

Joint Logistics Project Demonstrations
Precision Offset, High–Glide Aerial Delivery

Advanced Cargo Airdrop
Sustain Demonstrations
Rapid Deployment Food Service for Force Projection

Mobility–Enhancing Ration Components
Field Feeding/Logistics Fuel
Electric Power Generation
Embedded Ammo Information Device
Future Combat System Logistics
Reforming Diesel to Refuel Soldiers
Emerging Petroleum Quality
System Upgrade

Aerial Delivery
Rapid Deployment Food Service for Force Projection
Advanced Lightweight Portable Power Generation/Silent Energy Source
Combat System Logistics
Mobility–Enhancing Ration Components
Advanced Concept
Precision Offset, High–Glide Aerial Delivery

end of FY97 and, by the end of FY00, a cargo–size parachute with a 20 percent reduction in weight, bulk and manufacturing costs
(compared to fielded parachutes) while providing equivalent flight performance. By the end of FY98, demonstrate a parachute
retraction system using clustered parachutes that provide a less than 10 feet/second soft landing capability. This capability will allow for
airdrop of critical items (such as robotics) too fragile for airdrop with conventional systems. By the end of FY00, demonstrate a less
than 10 g soft landing airbag system that will provide an all–weather, rapid roll–on/roll–off airdrop capability for the future Army.
Supports: FOCs QM 97–001: Aerial Delivery; IN 97–301: Mobility—Tactical Infantry Deployability; AD 97–001: Deployability.
b. RML Domain: Force Sustainment
Joint Logistics ACTD (1998–99). The Joint Logistics ACTD will develop and demonstrate an automated joint logistics awareness and
analysis capability to view the logistics battlespace, collaborate in shared information, and integrate existing strategic and operational
logistics data and tools. This will be achieved through a network of workstations connecting operational planners and logisticians
across services and echelons, and by using advanced data distribution and visualization techniques. The network provides the platform
for the rapid integration of logistics data and tools adaptable to meet Army and joint mission requirements in CINC exercises and
operational contingencies. This ACTD, which is Global Command and Control System (GCCS) compliant, will also integrate
existing logistics models with knowledge–based tools to provided decision support to the commanders. Supports: Force XXI, Vision
2010, and RML.

Figure III-21. Roadmap - Logistics Modernization

Rapid Deployment Food Service for Force Projection TD (1994–99). With renewed emphasis on fresh foods and changes in Army
policy from two hot meals per week to one a day, fundamental changes are required in field kitchens to support rapid force projection.
This program will demonstrate advances in diesel combustion, heat transfer, power generation, and food storage. The fundamental
changes in kitchen design will include centrally heated equipment, integral power, and heat–driven refrigeration. These technologies
will be developed, integrated with other improvements on a kitchen platform and demonstrated in field scenarios. The demonstrations
will show necessary increases in mobility, deployability, reliability, maintainability, and efficiency that will yield higher quality meals
faster and cheaper. Supports: Rapid Deployment Food Service for Force Projection.
Mobility Enhancing Ration Components (MERCs) TD (1996–98). By FY98, MERCs will demonstrate technologies of shelf–stable,
highly acceptable, eat–on–the–move/eat–out–of–hand components for operational rations. Ration components will be suitable for
individual or group ration systems that support highly mobile and deployed troops. MERCs will be suitable for arctic, jungle, desert,
mountain, and urban environments. The goal is to provide novel ration components (e.g., shelf–stable sandwiches) that can be
consumed on–the–go with no preparation or heating required and that are compatible with existing ration systems. Supports: Army
Field Feeding Future.
Advanced Lightweight Portable Power TD (1998–01). This TD will support the Army’s vision of the digitized battlefield by
developing light, highly mobile, signature–suppressed power sources capable of operating on multiple fuels in all hostile environments.
Designs will be based on evaluation and integration of commercially available engines and state–of–the–art alternator and power
electronic technologies. The goal is to enhance electrical generation, storage, and conditioning capabilities required to support Tactical
Operations Center (TOCs), communication/weapon systems and sensors of the 21st century battlefield. Supports: Electric Power
Generation, Force Provider Upgrades, and RML.
Silent Energy Source for Tactical Applications (1999–02). This program will demonstrate silent lightweight, liquid–fueled fuel cell
power sources in the 50–150 watt range for various soldier applications. These power sources are aimed at offering lighter more
energetic power sources than are currently available and would extend mission time, reduce weight, and decrease the logistics burden

associated with current power sources. Supports: Electric Power Generation, Force Provider Upgrades, and RML.
Emerging Petroleum Quality TD (1994–98). Advanced technology and automated devices/systems will be employed to provide rapid
on–the–spot assessment of bulk and packaged petroleum products from CONUS or host nation support. The advanced technologies
being demonstrated for petroleum quality analysis (PQA) will use automated analytical techniques and emerging methodologies in
conjunction with computer–based expert systems. The devices/systems will replace all existing petroleum laboratories, reduce testing
time from 3 hours to 10 minutes, and decrease manpower requirements by 75 percent. This emerging technology is state–of–the–art
and will serve as a foundation for follow–on industry efforts. PQA will provide commanders the combat service support equipment
required to enhance sustaining momentum, maintaining operational/tactical maneuver freedom, and optimizing the use of locally
available supplies. The capability to utilize locally available petroleum products with attendant risks will significantly reduce logistics
and enhance mobility of forward units. Supports: Logistics Survivability and all ground combat vehicles.
Reforming Diesel to Refuel Soldiers TD (1998–01). Reforming diesel fuel (and JP–8) into a versatile gaseous fuel will allow modern,
efficient gas appliances to replace gasoline and diesel fueled equipment in field kitchens. This will reduce field feeding costs while
allowing for significant improvements in the kitchen as a work environment and the cook’s ability to prepare high–quality meals. An
added benefit is the ability to dispense safely the reformed fuel into bottled cartridges to power soldier individual equipment. This
program will include technology and technical demonstration of a field kitchen with commercial gas cooking appliances powered by a
diesel–to–gas reformer. Additionally, a soldier refueling concept will be demonstrated whereby the field kitchen is a logistic supply
point that fuels individual soldiers and their equipment. Supports: Army Field Feeding Equipment 2000.
Munitions Survivability TD (1997–99). This TD will develop advanced explosive propagation technologies to ensure the survivability
of munitions at ports, airheads, and munitions storage areas. High–performance fire–blocking/–retarding materials and blast
absorbing designs will be developed to prevent fire and explosive propagation between munitions stacks. This technology will limit
ammo loss to only 1 percent from a ballistic missile direct hit and will reduce ammo storage area footprint by 60 percent. The program
provides a low–cost approach to protect decisive munitions and is critical component of force protection and force projection.
Supports: Munitions Survivability; CSS, DSA, and EELS Battle Labs, and RML.
Embedded Ammunition Information Device TD (FY00-02). This program will demonstrate extremely small, low cost
microchip–based devices that can be embedded in munitions and related packaging to provide: remote wireless tracking of
expenditure rates and logistics data in support of anticipatory resupply, monitoring of environmental data (shock, temperature,
barometric pressure, humidity, etc.) for remote quality assurance inspections, enable prognostics/diagnostics, and "reading of
temperature data by fire control systems to improve munitions accuracy." The devices will incorporate single–chip miniature radio
frequency (RF) tranceivers, micro–machined environmental sensors, and memory that can be read and written to with RF energy. A
device that functions solely from the RF energy from an associated "reader" as well as a battery–powered device will be demonstrated.
The battery–powered device will be able to accommodate a full environmental sensor suite and transmit information over greater
distances than the battery–free device. The result will be significantly improved logistics efficiency through anticipatory resupply,
improved readiness via enhanced quality assurance of the stockpile, and improved munitions accuracy resulting from knowledge of
certain environmental parameters that affect ballistics.
Future Combat System Logistics TD (FY00-04). This program will develop technologies to reduce the logistics burden and increase
battlefield survivability for the Future Combat system (FCS). After this period, efficient focused resupply of ammunition is required.
This program will demonstrate high efficiency modular packaging, a rapid theater distribution system that provides ammunition
directly to the FCS in the field, and an automated upload system that loads ammunition into the FCS autoloader , to reduce rearm
times by up to 50% over the status quo, manual, labor–intensive logistics system. The result will be an integrated, seamless system that
increases the FCS firepower by decreasing rearm downtime and helps the FCS achieve its system requirement to reduce the logistics
burden by 50%.
Table III–38 shows the correlation between the Logistics SU/ACs and other Army Modernization Plan annexes.
6. Logistics Annex of the ASTMP

The Logistics Annex of the ASTMP provides for a comprehensive presentation of what is being developed to fulfill the RML
requirements to project and sustain the force.
Table III–38. Correlation Between Logistics S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
Close Soldier Aviation C4 Combat Fire Mounted Space Tactical

Combat Systems Health Support Forces & Wheeled
Light* Support Missile Vehicles*
Defense
System Aerial Delivery

Upgrade
Rapid Deployment Food Service for Force

Projection
Advanced Lightweight Portable Power/Silent

Engine Source
Mobility Enhancing Rations
Advanced Precision Offset, High–Glide Aerial Delivery

Concept


Chapter III P. Training
P. Training
We must find the best ways to organize, train, and equip our forces to exploit our competitive advantages—quality people and advanced technology.

Army Chief of Staff
1. Introduction
The new national security strategy stresses preparation to defend against nuclear threats, threats from regional powers, threats to evolving democratization, and regional
instabilities. A force projection Army must be ready to carry out changing roles and missions at any time, anywhere in the world.
Army training can meet this challenge through the application of behavioral science and emerging technologies to individual/land warfare training, simulation–enhanced
training, battle command training, and unit training. These advances will be used to increase mission readiness for both active and reserve forces and improve the training for
new missions. Commanders will be able to provide tough, realistic, battle–focused training to provide soldiers and leaders with the ability to fight and win within a constrained
training budget.
The combined arms training strategy (CATS) is the Army’s architecture for training and educating its people and units. CATS provides the conceptual framework for
establishing training policy and resource requirements. The objective of the CATS architecture is to provide doctrine–based strategies for training warfighting tasks and skills
in institutions, units, and through self–development.
Table III–39 presents the correlation between TRADOC’s battlefield dynamics and training SU/ACs. It also shows proposed training system capabilities by battlefield
dynamics. Simulation–based training and training strategies cut across all battlefield dynamics, although special emphasis is given to combined arms operations for both large
and small units.
3. Army Modernization Strategy
America’s 21st century Army will train on a digitized battlefield consisting of a close integration of live, virtual, and constructive simulations. Training strategies,
organizational redesign, battle command training, and personnel issues will evolve into an interactive cycle of experimentation and assessment with actual units and in
support of the battle labs.
As stated in the FY96 Army Modernization Plan:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec3p.htm（第 1／7 页）2006-09-10 22:48:09

The challenge is to train and sustain the most combat ready and deployable force in the world. The Army must look to research and development initiatives to identify technology
that may offset decreasing force structure and ensure the means of providing realistic, dynamic training to our soldiers—today and tomorrow.
Current and development system concepts are focused through the following training programs:
• Distributed interactive systems (DIS).

• Combined arms tactical trainer (CATT).
• Family of simulations (FAMSIM), including warfighters’ simulation (WARSIM) 2000, tactical simulations (TACSIM), and command and control
simulations.
• Combat training centers (CTCs): National Training Center (NTC), Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), Combat Maneuver Training Center (CMTC),
and Battle Command Training Program (BCTP).
• Nonsystem training devices (NSTD).
• Range instrumentation, targetry, and devices.
Taken together, upgrades to these programs provide training aids, devices, simulators, and simulations (TADSS) that will provide the means for meeting the Army’s training
modernization objectives.
Table III–39. Training System Capabilities

Function

VIRTUAL Combined arms

SIMULATION training
System Upgrade
Battle command
training
Combined Arms
Tactical Trainer
Synthetic battlefield
Family of Simulations
Distributed Interactive
Simulation
Combined Arms
Training Strategy
Advanced Concept Joint mission training
Innovative Mission rehearsal

Simulation–Based
Training Strategies
Mission readiness estimation

Assessment Behaviorally accurate semiautomated

Technologies forces (SAFOR)
CONSTRUCTIVE Joint mission training

SIMULATION
Advanced Concept Mission rehearsal
Distributed Models/ Mission readiness estimation

Simulations for Joint/
Theater Exercises
LIVE SIMULATION Performance data

collection/analysis
(unit performance
assessment system)
System Upgrade
Contingency mission
training
Combat Training
Centers: NTC, JRTC,
CMTC, BCTP Special operations
training
Joint services training

Nonsystem Training
Devices (NSTD)
Range modernization
Upgrades of MILES
Range Instrumentation/ equipment
Targetry/Devices
Range modernization
Future training technology initiatives must have high potential payoff (i.e., reduced training time and resource consumption). Initiatives must offer solutions that offset a
decreasing force structure and ensure the means for providing realistic, dynamic training at both home station and the CTCs. CTCs must be upgraded and augmented by
training aids and devices to provide a cost–effective training environment, using warfighting equipment in conjunction with simulated environments. A DIS capability
combined with virtual reality (VR) technology will permit the development of synthetic battlefields for training that complement field training exercises at the CTCs.
4. Roadmap for Army Training
Table III–40 summarizes the training SU/ACs and relevant technology demonstrations. The roadmap at Figure III–22 details the Army’s current plans to support future
training initiatives. Limited advanced development funding for training system upgrades is available in the outyears.

Figure III-22. Roadmap - Training Modernization

CTCs represent realistic training environments using equipment on a large, instrumented maneuver area or advanced simulation programs. Standardized instrumentation
systems at all CTCs provide precise measurement of unit performance in the simulated combat environments. NSTD upgrades include improved multiple integrated laser
engagement system (MILES) air/ground engagement simulation (AGES II) for more effective integration of aviation operations into CTC exercises.
The CATS is the framework that will be used to design and execute effective unit training programs in a resource–constrained environment. Supporting technology
demonstrations that will lead to the advanced concepts, shown in Figure III–22, are described below.
a. Unit Collective Training
The purpose of this research is to develop technologies for improving the training of units to prepare for operations envisioned for Force XXI and Army After Next.
Technologies will include methods of improving skill retention and training transfer as we move from conventional to digital systems; multisite, multiservice, and

Table III–40. Training Demonstration and System Summary

Simulation in Training for Advanced Readiness Collective Training
Unit/Joint Training Readiness

Training for the Digitized Battlefield
Simulator–Enhanced Training
Combined Arms Training Strategy for Aviation
Battle Command Training
Battle Command Skills Training
System Upgrade
Distributed Interactive Simulation

Combined Arms Training Strategy
Combined Arms Tactical Trainer
Combat Training Centers
Non–System Training Devices
Range Instrumentation, Targetry, and Devices
Advanced Concept
Distributed Models/Simulation for Joint/Theater Exercises

Innovative Simulation–Based Training Strategies
Advanced Assessment and Leader Development Technologies
multiechelon training and assessment techniques, and techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of devices and simulators that can be used for collective training.
In FY98 this research is expected to produce structured training procedures for the new digital, close–combat tactical trainer, along with guidelines for applying these
procedures to areas other than armor; improved retention of digital procedural skills for the M1A2 tank; improved methods for conducting multisite, multiservice
after–action reviews (AARs), and methods of introducing cognitive modeling and situational awareness behaviors into computer–generated forces used in DIS scenarios.
b. Simulation–Enhanced Training
Today’s Army must be capable of producing swift, decisive, low–casualty victories across the spectrum of conflict anywhere in the world. Simulated environments can be
tailored to provide realistic training for these missions, and these simulators must be used to maximize training effectiveness while keeping costs low. The research in this area
includes simulation training for aviation, VEs for combat training, and new strategies for reserve component training. FY98 products include sensory requirements to train
aviation tasks using VE, fidelity requirements for networked aviation systems, methods to enhance the effectiveness of VE training for dismounted soldiers and small units,
and an evaluation of the effectiveness of time–compressed gunnery training strategies.
c. Individual//Land Warfare Training
The purpose of this research is to develop innovative and cost–effective training methods and programs that improve a combatant’s ability to employ complex
high–technology weapons and equipment and perform effectively in various operational environments. FY98 products include training techniques for increasing soldier
effectiveness in night operations, identification of the training implications of land warrior systems, and an improved computer–based foreign language tutor and authoring
system enhanced by continuous speech recognition.
d. Battle Command Training
The purpose of this research is to provide strategies and methods to develop effective battle commanders by improving cognitive thinking and problem–solving skills required
by new mission demands. This research will develop measures of battle command skills and identify those skills and characteristics needed by battle commanders in the 21st
century.
e. Technology Programs for Improving Personnel Performance
The objective of this research is to maintain and enhance the quality of the Army by providing effective recruiting, selection, and assignment strategies; improved personnel
support systems; and feedback strategies needed to foster a positive command climate. This research will produce an initial set of performance requirements for future
noncommissioned officers (NCOs), methods to improve Special Forces team performance, determination of post–mobilization effects of Operation Joint Endeavor upon
reserve component soldiers, and techniques for assessing the Army’s current command climate.
f. Other Training Modernization Programs
The Army’s personnel performance and training S&T program support these activities as well as the majority of the battle labs’ advanced warfighting experiments.
DARPA Simulation in Training for Advanced Readiness (SIMITAR) ATD. SIMITAR was initiated to address training readiness issues identified during mobilization for
Operation Desert Shield. Results led to congressional interest and funding (FY93–97) for DARPA–led research on advanced technology training for the Army National
Guard (ARNG). The effectiveness of SIMITAR training technologies will be validated in two ARNG brigades in FY97–98.
Table III–41 shows the correlation between Army Training SU/ACs and other AMP annexes.
Table III–41. Correlation Between Training S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
Mounted Close C4 Engineer & Tactical Fire Space & IEW Logistics Soldier Aviation NBC Combat Space
Forces* Combat Mine Wheeled Support Missile Systems Health
Light* Warfare* Vehicles* Defense Support

System Distributed Interactive

Upgrade Simulation
Combined Arms Training

Strategy
Combat Training Centers
Nonsystem Training Devices
Range Instrumentation/
Targetry and Devices
Combined Arms Tactical

Trainer
Advanced Distributed Models/

Concept Simulations for Joint/Theater
Exercises
Innovative Simulation–Based
Training Strategies
Advanced Assessment
Technologies


Chapter III Q. Space
Q. Space
As military planners grapple with myriad challenges in 21st Century Warfare, the importance of using space to achieve the ultimate
goal—full spectrum dominance—is becoming abundantly clear.
Lieutenant General Edward G. Anderson III
1. Introduction
Space is the fourth medium of warfare, along with land, sea, and air. Space commerce is becoming increasingly important to the global
economy. Likewise, the importance of space capabilities and space power to military operations is increasing immensely. Just as land
dominance, sea control, and air superiority have become critical elements of current military strategy, space superiority is emerging as
an essential element of battlefield success and future warfare. An agreement between U.S. Army TRADOC and U.S. Army Space and
Missile Defense Command (SMDC) established the Space and Missile Defense Battle Laboratory (SMDBL) and designated it the
specified proponent for space activities. In that regard, the SMDBL will interact with TRADOC schools and battle laboratories for
efforts and issues related to space. The control and protection of military, civil and commercial space systems will become paramount
to achieving full–spectrum dominance now and in the 21st century.
Space capabilities are critical enablers to achieving information dominance and to ensuring full–spectrum dominance across all levels
of conflict. The space science and technology challenge is to determine how to exploit, leverage, and integrate horizontally the military,
civil, and commercial space technologies and capabilities into the current force, the programmed force (Army XXI) and the potential
force (Army After Next). The program for space S&T leverages technology developments from other services as well as government
agencies, industry, and academia. Space technology will be an enabler to accelerate the attainment of essential and leap–ahead
capabilities required for full–spectrum dominance.
The Army is evolving to meet space needs that are documented in the Joint Vision 2010, Army Vision 2010, and U.S. Space
Command Vision for 2020, and insights emerging from the Army After Next process. It has a vision to provide the warfighter with
space products that will allow land force dominance in the 21st century, and provide space–based capabilities that are adaptable and
deployable to meet the Army’s force projection requirements. The Army is developing technologies in areas such as communications,
position/navigation, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, mapping, weather, and missile warning that support these visions and
support the Army’s goal of developing space products that get the right information to the warfighter at the right time.
The Army RDA focuses on relevant space capabilities and technologies to support the Army modernization strategy and investment
plans. This ensures that essential space technologies are developed and integrated into the current and programmed force to maintain
the required overmatch capabilities against potential adversaries. Additionally, guidance is provided for supporting the potential force
with leap–ahead space technologies and capabilities required for full–spectrum dominance.
Table III–42 summarizes space system capabilities. The systems and system upgrades column indicates relatively near–term
capabilities, and the advanced concepts column refers to far–term capabilities. The table also shows the correlation between the S/SU/
ACs and the Army modernization objectives.
3. Space Modernization Strategy
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec3q.htm（第 1／8 页）2006-09-10 22:48:36

The modernization of Army space systems is discussed in Annex N of the AMP. The space modernization must be capabilities based
and
Table III–42. Space System Capabilities

Function

the Force the Information Operations Battlespace the Force
Force Dominance
COMMUNICATIONS Digital battlefield SATCOM on the

communications move
System Upgrade terminal upgrades
High–capacity voice,
Single–Channel Antijam SATCOM pages data, and video
Man–Portable Terminals transmission
Communications Forward area

communications
Advanced Concept beyond line of sight
Communications
Transport
Advanced Sensor
Collection and Processing
POSITION/ Improved weapons 1–mil pointing

NAVIGATION pointing accuracy using GPS
INTELLIGENCE Improved situation Target geolocation t80

SUPPORT (Collection & awareness meters
Processing)
System Improved targeting Tactical direct

downlinks
Eagle Vision II Improved pointing
accuracy Tactical direct sensor
Surveillance Targeting and tasking
Reconnaissance Satellite
Terrain analysis
System Upgrade Data exfiltration
Precision strike
Tactical Exploitation of Hyperspectral imagery
National Capabilities processing
THEATER Satellite direct access Theater direct access

INTELLIGENCE terminals
SUPPORT
THEATER MISSILE
DEFENSE
System
Joint Tactical Ground

Station
System Upgrade Real–time warning to

theater forces
Target location
Laser boresight

TMD Weapons
Pager warning to
troops
SPACE CONTROL Antisatellite system EW, DEW, and KEW

capabilities systems
focused on enhancing current satellite systems through more effective use of equipment and on influencing new satellite designs to
provide significant value added and improved capability for the warfighter. The Army’s space modernization efforts support the
Army’s modernization objectives, as illustrated in Table III–42. As our potential adversaries continue to acquire modern technology to
enhance their capabilities, it is clear that the Army’s access to and exploitation of space capabilities must be upgraded through a
continuous modernization program. Inserting or embedding highly advanced space technologies into Army systems can ensure
maintaining combat overmatching. These long–term needs will be met by efforts that are planned and programmed today.
To facilitate effective modernization, it is important that the Army RDA process consider the incorporation of space and space–based
assets when looking for solutions to Army warfighter requirements. The Army uses these approaches in its strategy of space RDA:
• Use Army laboratories, schools, and battle labs to evaluate and understand future operational capabilities, advanced
operational concepts, and potential technological advances.
• Influence the space design of other services, government (national, civil, and DoD), and commercial space systems to
support Army patterns of operations.
• Integrate horizontal technology of space technologies and capabilities to sustain current overmatch capabilities.
• Exploit and leverage existing space technologies, capabilities and systems, government (national, civil, and DoD),
commercial, and foreign to field leap–ahead capabilities necessary for full–spectrum dominance.
The Army’s focus for technology development in modernizing its space segments is to exploit space and provide relevant space
capabilities to the warfighter. The Army’s in–house R&D primarily focuses on the ground segment of space systems and
communications systems (i.e., receive terminals, antennas, and processors). Many Army R&D institutions are able to bring technology
initiatives to the warfighter. They have ongoing programs working in the area of sensor development, algorithm development, and
processing to aid in automatic target recognition, battlefield visualization, and theater missile defense applications. The key to Army
success is proof–of–concept demonstrations that can show applications for use in an effective architecture for space.
The Army’s space–related research, development, and acquisition programs are focused on providing several capabilities to the
warfighter through:
• Sensors that are multifunctional and leverage commercial technology.

• Processors that serve to decrease the decision cycle, provide processing in–theater with rapid access to stored data,
provide automatic/aided target recognition, and also provide advanced decision aids to include AI attributes.
• Assured access to medium– and high–data rate satellite communication—commercial and national.
• Multiband and in–theater injection Earth terminals.
• Integrated seamless information exchange across strategic and tactical domains, and including dynamic bandwidth
allocation.
• Space control efforts to deny enemy information on friendly capabilities while protecting our space assets.
• Obtaining target signatures of interest during day/night operations capable of penetrating weather and concealment.
• Accurately measuring and predicting environmental conditions over areas of interest.
• Integration of space capabilities into modeling and simulation.
• Identification of friend, foe, and neutral forces.
• Providing theater missile attack warning and cueing to friendly forces and allies.
• Providing real–time, survey–quality pointing accuracy for directional systems, to include weapon systems.
• Real–time, direct downlinking of raw and onboard processed data from space–based assets to tactically deployed units

that are equipped to process and exploit data.

• POS/NAV devices to navigate accurately across highly uniform terrain areas (jungle and desert).
• Providing technical and procedural applications derived from space assets and products for effective conduct of
information operations.
• Providing warning of hostile and friendly fires from artillery and tactical missiles in near real time to effect counterfire
or evasion.
• Providing warning to TMD and air defense systems of ducting and false target ranges caused by thermal layering and
other atmospheric and stratospheric phenomena.
• Direct tasking of national systems.
• Improvement and integration of more advanced, automated, integrated precise elevation and geographic positioning
generation capabilities from national systems at the tactical level for immediate targeting support.
These capabilities support several TRADOC battle laboratory operational capability requirements and Army modernization objectives
that have been integrated into the Army XXI process. They include exploratory and advanced technology development space
applications that add value to battlefield operating systems. This technological development process provides added value to the
current Army acquisition strategy for space–related materiel developments. The acquisition strategy includes leveraging S&T from
other services and agencies, using nondevelopmental items (NDIs) and COTS equipment, prototype equipment, and commercial,
civil, and tactically oriented satellites to improve warfighting capabilities. ATDs, ACTDs, and STOs have incorporated space–based
capabilities. These include communications, position/navigation, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, missile warning, and
space control.
In the near term, part of the space modernization strategy is to leverage, buy, and exploit commercial and military systems, terminals,
and receivers for application on current satellite systems. This strategy includes defining requirements and focusing technologies to
influence future applications of planned systems, as well as the design and development of future satellite systems to satisfy Army
requirements. For example, the Army is in a cooperative effort with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) to develop and deploy
the prototype Eagle Vision II van to provide in–theater direct downlink of five commercial imaging satellites. The Army is also the
primary participant in the DARPA tactical SAR project, the Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance Satellite (STARLITE). The
Army is working with NASA and the Air Force to exploit the NASA Lewis and Clark spacecrafts for Army applications. Additionally,
the Army has participated in the development of systems requirements for at least three Air Force programs: (1) Space–Based Infrared
Systems (SBIRS), (2) Global Positioning System (GPS) III, and (3) Warfighter–1, a hyperspectral demonstration program. The
Army’s active involvement within the early phases of these programs helps to ensure that Army warfighting requirements are
addressed during the critical phases of the design of these systems.
4. Roadmap for Space Systems
A number of projects are ongoing for the application and development of technologies to exploit space to meet Army requirements.
The roadmap for space exploitation is shown in Figure III–23. Table III–43 lists the ATDs, TDs, and S/SU/ACs for space exploitation.

Figure III-23. Roadmap - Space Systems Modernization

Overhead Passive Sensor Technology for Battlefield Awareness TD (1994–02). This STO will demonstrate several technologies to be
used in the collection of multispectral and hyperspectral imagery for the exploitation of remote earth sensing imagery. It has
applications in the areas of reconnaissance, surveillance, and intelligence, as well as terrain analysis. The collection sensors will be used
to develop the database required to identify spectral signatures for future exploitation. The prototype sensor will demonstrate Army
tactical utility in ground and flight tests. Phenomenology between spectral and polarization will be investigated for detection and
identification of tactical targets. These sensors will assist in the development of Army requirements for the next generation of remote
Earth sensors. Sensor technology will transition to Army sensor packages, to UAV, or to space systems. Supports: Precision Strike,
TMD Weapons, Advanced Sensor Collection and Processing, Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battle Lab, SMDBL, and Field Artillery
Systems.
Battlefield Ordnance Awareness (BOA) TD (1996–02). This STO will demonstrate a near–real–time ordnance expenditure reporting
system using space/airborne sensors with onboard processing. This technology will enable battlefield visualization based on both
enemy and friendly ordnance expenditures as well as ballistic and cruise missile launches. The display of this information will enable
the theater commander to view the development of the battlefield from a revolutionary new perspective. It addresses the need to target
ordnance delivery for counterfire purposes, a major battlefield deficiency. The BOA capability will identify the ordnance by type and
provide position information for counterfire opportunities, as well as battle damage assessment, blue forces ordnance inventory,
information needed to dispatch logistical and medical support, and search/rescue. Advanced processor technology will be used with
state–of–the–art focal plane staring arrays to provide critical information to the commander. In FY98, near–real–time processing of
ordnance data will be demonstrated. This will be followed in FY99 with the development of a space qualifiable sensor design with
state–of–the–art, near–real–time onboard processing. In FY00, the BOA sensor and near–real–time processor will be integrated into a
suitable airborne platform with ordnance data collection occurring in FY01. Supports: TMD Weapons, Phase II upgrades for JTAGS,

Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battle Lab, SMDBL, Precision Strike, Advanced Image Processing, and Field Artillery Systems.
Laser Boresight Calibration TD (1995–98). This STO will develop a solid–state laser calibration capability that will provide a known
ground registration point for space–based sensors, resulting in improved launch point predictions and impact area for theater ballistic
missiles (TBMs). It will reduce the command and control timelines and improve the overall responsiveness of the Joint Precision Strike
and theater area defense forces by significantly reducing the search box. The improved line–of–sight target accuracy will result in
higher quality missile warning, alerting, and cueing information. This capability will potentially be integrated into the Joint Tactical
Ground Station (JTAGS) P3I. Supports: TMD–JTAGS, Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), and SMDBL.
Laser Satellite Communications TD (1995–99). This STO is communications technology that will provide a high–bandwidth data rate
(overhead and ground) sensor capability while reducing size, weight, power, and cost requirements. Being extremely difficult to jam, it
has a low probability of intercept. In FY95, a mountain–top–to–mountain–top demonstration was conducted in Hawaii, which
successfully established the acquisition and tracking of a long–range,
Table III–43. Space Demonstration and System Summary

Digital Battlefield Communications (see C4) Theater Direct Access

Overhead Passive Sensor Technology for Battlefield Awareness
Laser Satellite Communications
Battlefield Ordnance Awareness
Annex B.)
Laser Boresight Calibration
Range Extension
Blue Force Tracking (Grenadier Beyond Line–of–Sight Reporting and Tracking)
Eagle Vision II (Commercial Imagery Satellite)
STARLITE (Government Imagery Satellite)
System
Joint Tactical Ground Stations

Eagle Vision II
Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance Satellite
System Upgrade
Single–Channel Antijam Man–Portable Terminals

Communications
Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities
Theater Missile Defense Weapons
Advanced Concept
Communications Transport
Advanced Sensor Collection and Processing
Data Exfiltration for Deep Targeting
Hyperspectral Imagery Processing
duplex, high–data–rate LASERCOM link while subjected to a U–2 maneuver/vibration profile. A follow–on study, which began in
FY96, evaluated the feasibility of using LASERCOM in space–to–ground applications. It was completed in FY97 and revealed that a
layered architecture consisting of satellite–to–air (i.e., manned and unmanned) air–to–ground platforms provided high link
availability through most weather conditions, especially for those missions with larger response time requirements. An air–to–ground
proof–of–concept demonstration was initiated in FY97 using the Airborne Surveillance Testbed and existing Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) LASERCOM terminals. FY97 also saw the development of a portable ground LASERCOM terminal, which
will be part of a satellite–to–ground demonstration in FY98 using the space technology research vehicle 2 (STRV–2) satellite. The
satellite is scheduled to be launched during the 4th quarter of FY98, and will transmit data at 1.2 GBps using two LASERCOM portable

ground terminals. Future demonstrations will support the establishment of a Joint LASERCOM Internet Concept that meets the needs
of the warfighter in Force XXI. Supports: Digital Battlefield Communications ATD, Communications Transport System, and SMDBL.
Digital Battlefield Communications (DBC) ATD (1995–99). The DBC ATD will exploit emerging commercial communications
technologies to support multimedia communications in a highly mobile dynamic battlefield environment, the "digitized" battlefield,
and split–based operations. Commercial ATM technology will be integrated into actual tactical communications networks to provide
bandwidth on demand to support multimedia information requirements. It is discussed in detail in the section on Command, Control,
Communications, and Computers (above).
Range Extension TD (1994–99). The goal of this demonstration is to support Army C4I modernization by developing and
demonstrating key technologies and capabilities for flexible and affordable intra–theater long–range communications. It includes the
use of surrogate satellites, enhancements to current SATCOM equipment, and UAV cross links. Major technology areas to be
addressed are airborne payload designs, ground terminal adaptations, interoperability/compatibility, and simulation. These
technologies will be used to supplement current (and programmed) SATCOM resources at all frequency bands. SATCOM terminals
will be extended by improvements to reduce size and weight, increasing throughput and mobility and implementing emerging
techniques such as DAMA. This demonstration is referenced further in the section on Command, Control, Communications, and
Computers (above). Supports: Digital Battlefield Communications, JPO UAV TIER II Program, and Communications Transport
System.
Theater Direct Access TD (1995–98). A tactical satellite launched by DARPA will be used to conduct a proof–of–concept technology
demonstration with Army TENCAP systems to show the capability of satellite mission tasking direct from theater forces. The joint
Army/DARPA/NSA program will conduct the technology demonstration of this concept in support of early entry and battle
command doctrine. Supports: Tactical Satellite system and system upgrades to Army TENCAP.
Blue Force Tracking (Grenadier BRAT) TD (1996–98). This is the Army’s application of the National Reconnaissance Office’s
collection of broadcasts from remote assets (COBRA) activity. In the Army, Grenadier BRAT (GB) is being evaluated as a Blue Force
tracking tool for integration into the Army’s overall battlefield visualization efforts. The system uses a spread–spectrum, LPI signal
compatible with national support systems. This waveform is the carrier for the GB data and carries location data provided by an
integrated GPS receiver as part of the transmitter, a unique identifier, and selected unit status information. At preset intervals, the
information is transmitted and collected by way of national support systems. It is processed by a single rack of equipment at the ground
processing center and injected into tactical receiver equipment and related applications or tactical information broadcasting system
(TIBS) broadcasts. The data are received by any TRAP/TIBS–compatible receiver and displayed as an unidentified signal. Army
TENCAP systems have been provided software that allows the operator to display the data in graphical situation display format and
pull down the unit identification and status data. These data are then passed to the Army battlefield control system for integration as
part of the operational battlefield visualization. Supports: Army TENCAP and Data Exfiltration for Deep Targeting.
Eagle Vision II TD (Direct Downlink (DDL) and Direct Tasking of Commercial Imagery Satellites) (1998–01). Eagle Vision II
(EV–II) will provide a direct downlink of unclassified remote sensed imagery from commercial satellites to the supported commander.
It will take direct downlink from a baseline of five commercial satellite vendors. These data will be processed and provided to users in
standard image formats for command and control, mission rehearsal, intelligence, and geographic information systems. EV–II will
consist of an air– and sea–transportable 30–foot expando van containing a data acquisition segment and data integration segment and
a 5–meter X–band antenna. It provides near–real–time unclassified commercial imagery from a baseline of five commercial vendors of
multispectral and panchromatic imagery. The demonstration will pass imagery to a digital terrain support system for terrain analysis
and digital terrain elevation data level 1 and 2 data generation. It will also pass the RISTA systems such as the modernized imagery
exploitation system for intelligence exploitation. Supports: Eagle Vision II and Hyperspectral Imagery.
Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance Satellite (STARLITE) TD (DDL and Direct Tasking of Government Imagery Satellites)
(1998–00). STARLITE is a program that will provide a direct tasking control and downlinking of a small, lightweight imaging satellite
to a deployed tactical/operational commander. It will use a SAR for all–weather, day/night operations in a constellation of 24 satellites
projected for launch in 2003–2005. This will allow near–continuous coverage of the battlefield or contingency area to the depth of
800–1,000 miles, with 90 percent confidence of a 15–minute response time from request to image delivery to the commander. The
STARLITE demonstration will have two satellites downlinking to a modified Army Space Program Office (ASPO)–enhanced tactical

radar correlator (ETRAC). The ETRAC modification will consist of a clip–on kit usable in the four services’ common imagery
ground/surface systems, such as Tactical Exploitation System (TES), contingency airborne reconnaissance system (CARS), tactical
exploitation group (TEG), and Navy tactical input segment (TIS). The preliminary objectives for the demonstration are to determine
feasibility and utility of delegated collection management authority to a tactical commander, demonstrate imagery DDL using
LIGHTSAT technologies, demonstrate rapid–response changes in tasking by an Army corps, and assess the utility of corps directly
commanding the payload. Supports: STARLITE.
Table III–44 shows the relationship between the Space S/SU/ACs and AMP annexes.
Table III–44. Correlation Between Space S/SU/ACs and Other AMP Annexes
Aviation IEW Fire Close C4 Space & Logistics

Support Combat Missile
Light* Defense
System Joint Tactical Ground Station
Eagle Vision II
Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance Satellite
System Upgrade Theater Missile Defense Weapons
Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities
Single–Channel Antijam Man–Portable Terminals
Communications
Advanced Concept Communications Transport
Advanced Sensor Collection and Processing
Data Exfiltration for Deep Targeting
Hyperspectral Imagery


Chapter IV A. Technology Development Introduction
Chapter IV
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Military operations in the 21st century will be dramatically different from those in the
past. They will be characterized by technological sophistication, speed, and complexity
LTGEN John G. Coburn

Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics
A. Introduction
This chapter reflects the Army’s investment in implementing its post–cold–war science and technology
(S&T) vision and strategy, as described in Chapter I, "Strategy and Overview," and in Chapter II, "Training
and Doctrine Command’s Role in Science and Technology." It addresses the Army’s 6.2 investment strategy,
and is presented as 19 technology sections that are adapted from the subarea architecture of the Defense
Technology Area Plan (DTAP). A crosslink between the defense technology areas and the chapter sections is
provided in Table IV–1.
A new feature in this chapter is the linkage of each technology section with the Training and Doctrine
Command (TRADOC) integrated and branch/functional unique future operational capabilities (FOCs).
The FOCs were developed in 1996/97 to provide a warfighting focus for Army S&T planning and they
supersede the operational capability requirements (OCRs) that were used in prior year master plans. A listing
of the FOC linkages can be found within each technology section. A more complete description of the
TRADOC FOCs is given in Volume II, Annex NO TAG, of this plan.
The Army’s basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development work balance a strong
emphasis on technologies that could upgrade currently fielded systems. There is also a continuing assessment
of long–range insights and requirements as may be offered by future–seeking initiatives such as the Army
After
Table IV–1. Defense Technology Areas/

Chapter IV Taxonomy
Defense Technology Area Related Chapter IV
Section

Air Platforms Portions of Air Vehicles
Portions of Aerospace Propulsion

and Power
Chemical/Biological Defense and Chemical and Biological Defense

Nuclear
Information Systems Technology Command, Control, and

Communications
Computing and Software
Ground and Sea Vehicles Ground Vehicles
Materials/Processes Materials, Processes, and Structures
Civil Engineering and

Environmental Quality
Manufacturing Science and

Technology
Biomedical Medical and Biomedical Science

and Technology
Sensors, Electronics, and Sensors

Battlespace Environment
Electron Devices
Battlespace Environments
Space Platforms Portions of Air Vehicles
Portions of Aerospace Propulsion

and Power
Human Systems Human Systems Interface
Individual Survivability and

Sustainability
Personnel Performance and

Training
Weapons Conventional Weapons
Electronic Warfare/Directed
Energy Weapons

Next (AAN). This approach maintains an operational edge for the near term while simultaneously
developing technologies that will ensure future land force dominance in the mid to far term. The thrust of the
Army investment is to capitalize on technology opportunities, reduce technology barriers, and exploit
emerging technology options for essential battlefield capabilities—as defined by our warfighters.
The Army investment in technology development enables advanced concepts for land combat, and
constitutes the critical link between the Army’s basic research thrusts, as described in Chapter NO TAG and
the Army Modernization Plan (AMP) annexes and roadmaps, as presented in Chapter III.

Chapter IV B. Strategy
B. Strategy
The Army 6.2 program identifies and focuses on selected technologies that will provide the maximum
warfighting capability for every dollar invested. This demands a significant dual commitment to in–house
Army applied research and to the expansion of cooperative efforts with the other services and industry. The
Army leverages research and technology opportunities in academia, industry, and the international
community to promote efficiency and synergy at all levels. In particular, the Army Research Laboratory
(ARL) implementation of the federated laboratory concept plays a significant role in this strategy. The
technology leveraging and transfer program is discussed more fully in Chapter NO TAG.
The Army S&T oversight process, as described in Chapter I, prioritizes technology needs and opportunities
based upon their potential to provide critical battlefield capabilities. These capabilities are jointly defined by
the combat and materiel developers. The early and continuous involvement of the warfighter in the S&T
capabilities definition process allows for a balanced look at the "technology push" coming from the Army’s
S&T community and the "requirements pull" prompted by the needs of the warfighter. A mechanism that
promotes this alignment is the interplay between the combat and materiel developers that occurs during the
Army Science and Technology Objective (STO) reviews and the TRADOC S&T reviews. Both occur in the
spring, and result in an S&T program that is attuned to the warfighter’s evolving vision of the future (e.g.,
Force XXI, Army After Next).
Studies by the National Research Council’s Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST) Study on
Strategic Technologies for the Army of the 21st Century (STAR) panel, the Defense Science Board (DSB),
the Army Science Board (ASB), the Army’s in–house S&T community, and the TRADOC battle
laboratories and schools have all recommended that Army S&T focus on "critical" technologies. The Army
6.2 investment reflects this commitment to eliminate the barriers that impede technological opportunities
presented by the most promising state–of–the–art advances. While its main focus is providing capabilities for
land force dominance, the Army investment is also aligned with the Department of Defense (DoD) strategy
as summarized in Chapter I.
Each section in this chapter is structured to define the area of technology, summarize the Army’s ongoing
technological work, and provide a forecast of future capabilities. The years shown on each technical
objectives table approximate key aspects of the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system
(PPBES) process timetable. FY98–99 relates to the budget years. FY00–04 addresses the program objective
memorandum (POM) time period, and FY05–13 covers the Army research, development, and acquisition
(RDA) Plan. The Army STOs that are associated with this chapter can be found in Volume II, Annex NO

Chapter IV B. Strategy
TAG.

Chapter IV C. Aerospace Propulsion and Power
C. Aerospace Propulsion and Power
1. Scope
Advanced propulsion and power technologies provide the muscle for Army land combat systems. Toward that end, the
Army aerospace propulsion and power technology area includes aircraft propulsion systems and components that are more
compact, lighter weight, higher horsepower, more fuel efficient, and lower cost than those currently available. It also
includes compact, lighter weight, lower cost, and longer duration aircraft and space vehicle power generation and
transmission systems and their components, including primary power transmission for rotorcraft. In addition, it includes
associated advanced fuels and lubricants.
Aerospace propulsion and power excludes efforts directed toward generic materials, which are included in Section IV–P,
"Materials, Processes, and Structures." It also excludes moderate– to large–scale manufacturing process development, which
is included in Section IV–T, "Manufacturing Science and Technology." While there is similarity between gas turbines used
for rotorcraft propulsion and those used on missiles, missile propulsion encompasses more than just the gas turbine field.
Due to the larger amount of commonality between missile and conventional weapon propulsion systems, missile propulsion
is discussed in Section IV–I, "Conventional Weapons."
2. Rationale
Army aerospace propulsion and power technology programs are key enabling elements of the AMP, feeding directly into
(1) upgrading existing systems, (2) conducting development, and (3) supporting advanced concepts, as discussed in
Section III–D. In addition to their contributions to the battle laboratory warfighting capability, these technologies will enable
Army XXI to project the force, to protect the force, and to sustain the force. Longer term elements of the aerospace
propulsion and power technology program form the required foundation for large reductions in fuel dependence, which are
key to AAN planning.
Army aerospace propulsion and power technology is developed in close coordination with the Air Force, Navy, Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), NASA, and industry, thus inherently promoting dual–use technologies
and processes. Despite budgetary constraints, the joint Army, Air Force, and Navy programs, leveraging of NASA
resources, and substantial use of cooperative agreements with industry have achieved significant progress. As a result, both
the civilian industry and the military industrial base are strengthened and development is faster, more efficient, and less
costly. In–house Army laboratory expertise is needed to ensure that those technologies unique to Army applications are
addressed and to perform the high–risk, longer term technical investigations, research, and development that ensure
attainment of Army objectives and ensure that the Army continues to be a smart buyer. The overall cost to the taxpayer for
joint ventures beneficial to both military and civilian applications is therefore minimized.
a. Rotorcraft Propulsion

Goals and Timeframes
Under the integrated high performance turbine engine technology (IHPTET) program, the Army, Air Force, Navy, NASA,
DARPA, and industry are working together to reduce specific fuel consumption of gas turbines by 40 percent, to increase
the power–to–weight ratio by 120 percent, and to reduce production and maintenance costs by 35 percent for future
engines (compared with current capability) by FY03, STO IV.C.01. While this is an integrated effort of many organizations,
the requirements of small turbo– machines dictate that the Army emphasize component technology development that is
unique to Army turboshaft engines.
This enhanced propulsion capability will significantly improve Army rotorcraft range and payload characteristics starting in
the year 2000. (IHPTET technology will also be applicable for ground vehicles.) An advanced concepts (or IHPTET IV)
activity has begun with the goal of defining the path for gas turbine propulsion technologies and challenges beyond IHPTET
Phase III.
Major Technical Challenges
Challenge—Attainment of Phase III joint turbine advanced gas generator (JTAGG) goals requires a very high compressor
pressure ratio and high rotational speed. Using current practices, a robust, high–pressure ratio compression system would
require multiple stages, adding complexity and weight. In addition, the stresses resulting from the combination of
compressor exit temperature and rotational speed goals exceed the capabilities of current material.
Approach—Apply evolving compressor design tools and materials to design, fabricate, and test axial and centrifugal
compressor stages to provide a validated methodology for attaining the JTAGG III compression system goals in two stages.
Develop an active compressor stability control system to expand the usable compression system operating range.
Challenge—The future generation combustion system must accept inlet air at very high temperatures and pressures,
accomplish nearly stoichiometric combustion in a small volume with low emissions, and deliver products of combustion to
the turbine with an acceptable temperature uniformity. This is to be accomplished in a robust, affordable, lightweight
compact combustor with improved operability over a very wide operating range.
Approach—Develop advanced technologies, including three–dimensional (3D) steady and unsteady computational codes,
new materials and fabrication techniques, total thermal management, and novel combustion stabilization techniques to
enable accomplishment of JTAGG III combustion system goals for turboshaft engines.
Challenge—Critical to the attainment of Phase III JTAGG will be the development of high work, lightweight turbine
systems that operate at significantly increased turbine inlet temperatures. High performance must be delivered with minimal
or no cooling in a temperature environment more severe than in current turbines. What cooling air is available for use will
also be at higher temperature.
Approach—Apply high strength, high temperature, low–density materials that allow operation in a high temperature
environment with minimal or no cooling. Materials under consideration include monolithic ceramic or intermetallic
composites for the turbine vanes and blades. Enhance analysis tools to include 3D steady and unsteady computational codes
to provide a better understanding of the aerodynamic and heat transfer mechanism in extremely complex airfoils. Configure
turbine disks with a dual alloy or dual microstructure to tailor material characteristics with bore and rim mechanical
requirements. Develop innovative techniques to attach blades made of nontraditional materials to disks in the high
rotational stress, high temperature environment of Phase III JTAGG turbines.

Challenge—Gas turbine engine mechanical components of Phase III JTAGG engines and beyond must support the
mechanical, thermal, and rotational loads imposed by the extremely high operating temperatures, pressures, and speeds
required by the thermodynamic cycle. Bearing, seal, lubricant, and material requirements all simultaneously exceed existing
system capabilities significantly. Failure to meet technology goals for mechanical components would prohibit attainment of
IHPTET Phase III and advanced concepts goals.
Approach—Of all the phase III IHPTET goals, those for mechanical systems are the most universally applicable across
engine types. For this reason, the Army will continue to leverage the overall government–industry IHPTET mechanical
components research team’s attention to turboshaft engine needs. Extend successes in basic research to investigate
development of higher temperature lubricants and advanced bearing materials. Army, Air Force, Navy, NASA, and
industry magnetic bearing developments will be extended to higher temperatures. Magnetic bearing systems enable reduced
parasitic losses, minimization/control of tip clearances, active health monitoring for increased performance, reliability, and
maintainability. Investigate materials and design innovations for application to shaft designs with high bending stiffness and
high–strength capability in a small diameter.
b. Rotorcraft Drives
Through integration of the technological development activities of the Army, Navy, NASA, DARPA, industry, and
academia, a 25 percent increase in shaft horsepower–to–weight, a 10 decibel reduction in transmission–generated noise, a
2X baseline mean time between replacements (MTBR) and a 10 percent reduction in production cost will be demonstrated
for rotorcraft drives in FY00, STO III.D.03. Goals for 2010 and beyond will extend the power–to–weight ratio goal to 40
percent while reducing noise 15 dB from baseline, holding MTBR steady and reducing production cost 30 percent.
Challenge—The goals established for the Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission (ART) II, STO III.D.03, present conflicting
technical challenges. Standard approaches to noise reduction and life extension would yield weight increases. The
challenges, therefore, involve developing analytical tools that would enable the design of components with high strength and
low noise, allow the application of advanced lightweight materials with higher strength and increased pitting, scoring and
corrosion resistance, system designs with nearly equal load sharing, and minimized lubrication. These components must
then be shown to maintain their performance improvement when integrated into a complete drive system. Future systems
will incorporate lightweight electric power generation, transmission and drives.
Approach—Validate the performance of advanced gear materials in cooperation with industry and academia by performing
rig tests to compare the performance of new materials with benchmarked performance levels of standard gear materials.
Fabricate components using newly developed design codes and validate predicted performance improvements on rig tests.
Validate system health and usage monitoring tools and noise reduction and prediction codes using system–level tests.
Analytical tools are derived from academia and government laboratories; hardware designs are developed with industry,
and validation experiments are conducted by industry, academia, or in government laboratories. The totally integrated
program focuses resources on the common goals of the government and industry.
c. Fuels and Lubricants

In fuels and lubricants, the Army’s major thrust is in the development and demonstration of new analytical technologies for
rapid assessment of both petroleum quality and type, using spectroscopic and chromatographic methods. The technology
being developed is to be incorporated into the Army’s new petroleum quality analysis (PQA) system.
The new analytical methods will enable significant reductions in the operational requirements for petroleum testing in the
field (i.e., 50 percent less manpower, 70 percent reduced testing time, and 60 percent less test hardware). The technical
challenges encompass compressing the testing time, developing improved detection systems, reducing the size of the
associated components, correlating test results, and developing expert systems for applying corrective measures.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Aerospace Propulsion and Power is shown in Table IV–2.
The influence of this technology area on TRADOC FOCs is summarized in Table IV–3.
Table IV–2. Technical Objectives for Aerospace Propulsion and Power

Technology Subarea Near Term FY98–99 Mid Term FY00–04 Far Term FY05–13
Rotorcraft Propulsion High–efficiency, high–pressure ratio, Higher temperature inter–/ Unconventional compression, combustion,
dual–alloy centrifugal impellers nonmetallics for turbines and power producing systems, and arrangements
combustors
Characterization of start up process of Smart engine concepts demonstration
nontraditional compression system Stability enhancement/active surge
control concept demonstration
Improved aerodynamic performance small
Nonintrusive ignition components
Alternate compression system
demonstration
Turbines with high cooling Shrouded rotating components
effectiveness airfoils bonded to
pondered metal disk Metal matrix composites for
Alternate concepts for waste energy recovery
compression systems application
Flight weight magnetic bearing control
Advanced lightweight, high temperature
Wide operating range, low pattern
materials
factor combustion system
Nonmetallics for combustor and
turbine applications
Supercritical fuel injector
1000_ Fahrenheit (F) magnetic
bearing
3.5 million diameter in millimeters x
rotational speed ceramic steel roller
bearings Nontraditional seals
High stiffness/strength shaft

Rotorcraft Drives Hardened/ground face gears Hardened/ground face gears life and Nonferrous, hybrid gear, and shaft systems
manufactured and rig tested reliability data documentation
Electric power transmission feasibility
Seeded fault diagnostic/prognostic High–speed gearing thermal behavior demonstration
spiral bevel gear tests validation test
Efficient electric components rig test
High temperature, lightweight lube

system
Low noise, lightweight planetary gear

system
Fuels and Lubricants Develop field supportable, fast fuel

quality analyzer
Table IV–3. Aerospace Propulsion and Power Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
Technology Subarea Integrated and Branch/Functional Unique Future Operational Capabilities
Rotorcraft Propulsion TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted

TR 97–035 Power Source and Accessories
TR 97–036 Nonprimary Power Sources Combat Vehicles/Support Systems
TR 97–037 Combat Vehicle Propulsion
Rotorcraft Drives TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted

Fuels and Lubricants TR 97–029 Sustainment

TR 97–030 Sustainment Maintenance

Chapter IV D. Air Vehicles
D. Air Vehicles
1. Scope
DoD has assigned the Army as the lead for rotary wing science and technology in aeromechanics, flight control, structures,
and subsystems supporting development of military rotary–wing air vehicles. The aviation community is aligning all
planning documents to coincide with the DoD Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) requirement to
establish technological objectives, identify technical barriers, and establish milestones for achievement. Programs will be
tracked by Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to these detailed plans. The rotary–wing vehicle subarea is divided into
four technology efforts: aeromechanics, flight control, subsystems, and structures. The objectives for each technology effort
and the timeframes have been set in accordance with the DDR&E document, Rotary Wing Vehicle (RWV) Technology
Development Approach (TDA), and are summarized below.
2. Rationale
Rotorcraft have become critically important members of the combined arms team, bringing a degree of deployability,
mobility, lethality, and sustainability to the battlefield commander not available with other systems. With the continuing
decrease in fiscal resources, affordability and dual use have become increasingly important in shaping Army Aviation’s S&T
strategy. Technology must support solutions to real world problems, avoiding work that does not provide leap–ahead
improvements in system capabilities. This is important to sustaining current systems because fielding new systems is being
pushed further to the "outyears." From a dual–use perspective, civilian and military rotorcraft communities have a mutual
stake in all but very few areas of rotorcraft technological research, such as reducing the vulnerability of rotorcraft in
battlefield environments. Improvements in handling qualities, vibration, and sound level reductions are equally important
to civil and military rotorcraft operators. It is estimated that 95 percent of the DoD investment in rotary–wing technology
has civil application.
The air vehicle technology subareas are quantified at milestones of 2000, 2005, and 2010 and they support the systemic
improvements articulated by the Defense Technology Area Plan (DTAP). These include:
• Reduction in RWV empty weight fraction—7, 15, and 22 percent.

• Increase in cruise efficiency—4, 11, and 20 percent.
• Increase in maneuverability and agility—48, 66, and 112 percent.
• Reduction in RWV maintenance cost—18, 35, and 50 percent.
• Reduction in signature—35, 50, and 60 percent.
• Reduction in development time (2005, 2010 milestones) 15 and 25 percent.
• Reduction in RWV flyaway cost (2005, 2010 milestones) 35 and 50 percent.
a. Aeromechanics

Work in aeromechanics technology addresses efforts in multidisciplinary phenomena including acoustics, aerodynamic
performance, rotor loads, vibration, maneuverability, and aeroelastic stability. Aeromechanics S&T seeks to improve the
performance of rotorcraft while reducing the noise, vibrations, and loads inherent to helicopter operation. Efforts are
focused on refining analytical prediction methods and testing capabilities, on improving the versatility and efficiency of
modeling advanced rotorcraft, and on achieving dramatic advances through concept applications. Attaining the goal of a
"jet–smooth ride" in helicopters will greatly enhance public acceptance, along with providing quieter rotorcraft. The goals
are set at the component level and the associated milestones are provided in Table IV–4.
Table IV–4. Aeromechanics Objectives

Aeromechanics Improvement (%)
By 2000 By 2005 By 2010
Reduce vibratory loads 20.0 40.0 60.0
Reduce vehicle adverse 5.0 12.0 20.0

aerodynamic forces
Increase maximum blade loading 8.0 16.0 24.0
Increase helo/rotor aerodynamic 3.0 6.0 10.0

efficiency
Increase prop/rotor aerodynamic 1.5 3.0 4.5

efficiency
Increase rotor inherent lag 33.0 66.0 100.0

damping
Aeromechanics prediction 65.0 75.0 85.0

effectiveness
Challenge—The inability to accurately predict and control stall and compressibility characteristics of current airfoils and
their impact on unsteady loads and the resulting structural dynamic responses.
Approach—Investigate the influence of airfoil profile on development of dynamic stall in compressible flow, quantify
influence of compressibility on flow control techniques, and develop innovative ways to use smart materials for flow control
and structural response.
Challenge—The inability to accurately predict and control forces caused by viscous and interactional aerodynamics and
separated flow.
Approach—Enhance flowfield visual techniques using Doppler global velocimetry; study various models’ rotor wake and
fuselage pressure distributions using isolated rotor test system. Calculate adverse forces using validated computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) and comprehensive analyses. Develop reliable, validated engineering computational codes based on
full–potential, vortex embedding techniques to predict rotor performance and loads in all flight regimes.
Challenge—The inability to accurately predict and control stall and compressibility characteristics of current airfoils along

the span of the rotor blades and their impact on blade loading limits. The inability to markedly increase maximum outboard
blade lift coefficients.
Approach—Develop high dynamic–lift stall–free airfoils with multi–element concepts such as slat, slots, variable leading
edges, or boundary layer controls.
Challenge—The inability to predict and control the effect of the rotor wake and blade response on unsteady aeroacoustic
loads. Controlling compressibility effects on advancing–blade acoustic sources and propagation phenomena is hampered
by the interdependence of numerous parameters that influence noise radiation.
Approach—Develop verified CFD code to predict wake geometry, airloads, and performance for rotor blades, in particular
blade–vortex interaction regimes and the resulting aeroacoustics.
Challenge—Identify successful combinations of aeroelastic rotor couplings to increase damping. The constraints include
conflicting design requirements, rotary–wing operating regime diversity, and fail–safe reliability requirements.
Approach—Investigate kinematic and smart structures couplings that result in less dependency on separate damping
devices. Utilize parametric rotor testing to substantiate prediction fidelity of marginally damped rotor configurations.
Challenge—The lack of solutions to the multidisciplinary rotorcraft system phenomena. Significant difficulty in acquiring
high–quality correlation data for validation. Prediction–to–design interface inadequate for complex rotorcraft synthesis.
Approach—Prediction effectiveness attributes defined and composed against data to determine element accuracy. Metrics
for improvement shall include quantifiable subelement effectiveness and system integration value, such as in a product and
process development simulation.
b. Flight Control
Flight control technology defines the aircraft flying qualities and pilot interface to achieve desired handling qualities in
critical mission tasks, synthesizes control laws that will facilitate a particular configuration’s achieving a desired set of flying
qualities, and integrates advanced pilotage systems to the aircraft. Helicopters are inherently unstable, nonlinear, and highly
cross coupled. As with many other technologies, the revolution in the power and miniaturization of computers holds
tremendous promise in this field, permitting realization of the full potential of the rotorcraft’s performance envelope and
maintenance of mission performance in poor weather and at night. The objectives are provided in Table IV–5.
Table IV–5. Flight Control Objectives

Flight Control Improvement (%)
By 2000 By 2005 By 2010
Improvement in platform flight 50 65 80

path pointing and accuracy
(attack only)
Improve external load handling 75 185 225

qualities at night (cargo only)

Reduce the probability of 40 65 90

encountering degraded
handling qualities due to flight
control system failures
Improved handling qualities at CHPR 4* CHPR 3* CHPR 3*

night with partial actuator
authority
Increase in precision 20 35 50
maneuvering at extreme load
factors
* CHPR = Cooper Harper Pilot’s Rating
Through the integration of the vehicle’s flight control system with weapons fire control, significant improvement in pointing
accuracy will be achieved by the turn of the century and will permit increased use of low–cost, unguided rockets as precision
munitions. Further, a significant development cost driver is being assessed. Objectives have been set to: improve external
load handling qualities at night with partial actuator authority (from a Cooper Harper Pilot’s Rating (CHPR) of 4 to 3)
reduce the probability of encountering degraded handling qualities due to flight control system failures 40 percent to 90
percent, and improve the flight path and accuracy by 50 percent to 80 percent. Reduction in flight control system flight test
development time should be realized. Time span for accomplishment is from the present through year 2010, with an
intermediate milestone at year 2005.
Challenge—Lack of knowledge of optimal rotorcraft response types (rate, attitude command/attitude hold, translational
rate command) and their interactions with load suspension dynamics and load aerodynamics.
Approach—Use piloted simulation and flight test to investigate handling qualities requirements for external loads. Develop
appropriate criteria for poor weather and darkness. Extend efforts to address high speed flight and loads with significant
aerodynamic interactions.
Challenge—Lack of techniques for sensing the onset of limits, determining appropriate actions, and cueing the pilot or
generating automatic interference to permit the pilot to safely, but aggressively, fly the rotorcraft out to the limits of the flight
envelope.
Approach—Use analysis and piloted simulation to develop techniques for protecting the pilot from loss of control and
avoiding catastrophic failures or reduced fatigue life. Validate critical concepts in–flight, using a variable stability helicopter.
Challenge—Inadequate air vehicle mathematical modeling and flight control system (FCS) design, optimization, and
validation techniques. These deficiencies prevent achieving desired handling qualities for advanced configurations and
critical mission tasks, without time consuming iteration during flight test.
Approach—Improve mathematical modeling and simulation fidelity so that new aircraft actually fly as designed. Improve
techniques for updating math models and control laws to minimize time required to diagnose and eliminate deficiencies.
For advanced fly–by–wire flight control systems, develop simpler redundancy management and software verification and
validation (V&V) techniques so that time for making changes can be reduced.
Challenge—Lack of knowledge of optimal functional integration of flight controls, engine fuel control, the weapon systems,

and the pilot interface.
Approach—Develop a viable integrated fire and flight control (IFFC) system architecture, conduct manned full–mission
simulation, ground demonstration of hardware and software for airborne vehicle application, and flight test demonstration
of the IFFC concept.
c. Structures
Focusing on integrated product and process development (IPPD), rotary–wing structures S&T aims at improving aircraft
structural performance while reducing both acquisition and operating costs of the existing fleet of aircraft and future
systems. The technical feasibility of load synthesis methods (holometrics, et al.) and regime/flight condition recognition
algorithms as means to predicting the actual loads experienced in–flight has been demonstrated; further improvements to
the reliability of these methods will enhance the safety, performance, and cost effectiveness of rotorcraft. "Virtual
prototyping" of systems to optimize the structural design for efficiency and performance will remove a large portion of the
risk in exploring new concepts and rapidly move the most promising concepts to production. The objectives are provided
in Table IV–6.
Table IV–6. Structures Objectives

Structures Improvement (%)
By 2000 By 2005 By 2010
Reduction in (structural 5 15 25
component weight)/gross weight
(GW)
Reduction in structures 10 20 40
manufacturing, LH/lb
Reduction in structural — 25 40
component development time
Increased accuracy of structural — 75 85

load predictions
Increased accuracy of in–flight — 95 98

cumulative fatigue damage
predictions
Increased displacement capability — 300 500

of smart materials actuator
Reduction in dynamically loaded — 30 50

structure stress prediction
inaccuracy
Breakthroughs in these areas will effect improvements in maintenance and production costs, as well as reduce the empty
weight fraction of the airframe, while increasing durability, performance, and ride comfort of rotorcraft. In FY97, progress
was made in the definition of a structural configuration and its associated metrics for the Rotary Wing Structures
Technology Demonstration (RWSTD). This included the determination of advanced structural concepts and appropriate
exit criteria. Other accomplishments included the characterization and selection of low cost, embedded cure rheology
sensors, and the development of fuzzy logic cure control algorithms. In FY98, the initiatives will include establishing an

RWSTD system architecture to integrate distributed design disciplines, knowledge–based design tools and databases for the
rapid development of novel structural concepts, demonstrating the use of adhesives to bond and co–cure primary structures
in lieu of fasteners, developing analytical methods that will calculate the high impulse crash loads in landing gear fittings, and
demonstrating the ability of closed–loop, fuzzy logic cure process control, using in–situ rheology measurements, to adapt to
material and process variations.
Challenge—Lack of knowledge about and accurate methodologies for flight regime recognition algorithms for determining
the rotorcraft flight conditions from state parameters in a dynamic environment. Lack of knowledge about and accurate
methodologies for the synthesis of strains/loads from other measured parameters and loads in a dynamic environment.
Limited fatigue life and durability of load/strain measuring sensors in a dynamic operational environment.
Approach—Develop and refine flight regime/flight condition recognition and load synthesis algorithms based on aircraft
state parameters and other measured loads. Conduct bench and flight test evaluations on instrumented aircraft to validate
accuracy. Collect operational data over a period of 1–3 years to validate the reliability of the flight data recorder and the
algorithms.
Challenge—Lack of knowledge of accurate algorithms for determining the rotorcraft flight condition from state parameters
in a dynamic environment.
Approach—Develop and refine regime/flight condition recognition algorithms based on aircraft state parameters. Conduct
bench and flight test evaluations on instrumented aircraft to validate accuracy. Collect operational data over a period of 1–3
years to validate the reliability of the flight data recorder and regime/flight condition recognition algorithms.
Challenge—Inability to sense and measure rheological behavior of materials during cure, lack of optimization techniques to
minimize scrap, insensitivity of embedded sensors for adaptive control of cure cycle, lack of defect characterization and
impact on structural performance, lack of process simulation models, ineffective application of automated fiber placement/
ply handling methods to lean manufacturing, and inability to measure bond integrity.
Approach—Design and fabricate representative components to demonstrate advanced manufacturing technologies and
tooling techniques. Investigate manufacturing process simulation models through cure prediction, cure cycle optimization,
and structural testing to validate cure cycle optimization and structural efficiency. Demonstrate the use of embedded sensors
for adaptive control of the cure cycle through fabrication and test of representative rotorcraft components. Develop and
demonstrate the use of nondestructive inspection techniques for determining the integrity of bonded structures.
Challenge—Lack of knowledge about and understanding regarding multidisciplinary design, control of rheological
properties during curing, static and fatigue strain limits, fiber marcelling during braiding and weaving, and innovative
configurations and concepts tailored to advanced materials applications.
Approach—Develop innovative structural design configurations using advanced materials tailorable for structural
efficiency. Develop and demonstrate representative rotorcraft structures using IPPD to optimally meet multidisciplinary
design requirements, which include cost, weight, performance, and reliability. Fabricate structural components in sufficient
quantities to validate the quality, manufacturing repeatability, structural efficiency, and recurring cost. Develop and
demonstrate advanced braiding and weaving equipment and methods to minimize fiber breakage and marcelling. Fabricate
structural preforms and incorporate these preforms into tailored structural fittings and components to validate the structural
efficiency and recurring costs.

Challenge—Limited displacement capability, limited force capability, limited high cycle fatigue life, and high power
requirements of existing smart materials.
Approach—Investigate the force, displacement, and power requirements of new and emerging smart materials for advanced
rotor actuation methods, conduct tradeoff analyses, and demonstrate smart materials applications to rotor actuators
through laboratory testing in a dynamic environment.
Challenge—Inability to model and analytically predict the rotating and fixed system structural loads and the interaction of
those loads with the vehicles’ aerodynamic environment. Inability to conduct detailed stress analyses of complex
components under large deformations in a timely manner to support IPPD. Inability to accurately predict crushing loads
and behavior of airframe structures in a dynamic crash environment.
Approach—Develop and validate enhanced comprehensive methods that incorporate multidisciplinary technology based
on finite element techniques that include composite structures modeling, specifically concentrating on the rotor system
loads and aeroelastic stability analysis. Develop and validate reliable finite element analysis modeling and simulation
techniques that include large strain effects required to model the energy absorbing characteristics of crushable composite
structures.
d. Subsystems
RWV subsystems encompass a broad range of S&T topics related to the support, sustainment, and survivability of
increasingly complex aircraft systems and to the unique problems associated with the application of high performance
weapons on rotorcraft. In addition to addressing affordability issues for operation and support (O&S) costs, this area also
encompasses the extension of the useful life of weapon systems through upgrading armament and other mission equipment.
The objectives are provided in Table IV–7.
These key technological objectives have been established: reductions in radar cross sections (RCSs) and visual/
electro–optical signatures, increased hardening against ballistic and NBC threats, and the autodetection of incipient critical
Table IV–7. Subsystems Objectives

Subsystems Improvement (%)
By 2000 By 2005 By 2010
Reduction in 0.4–0.7 35 50 60
micron (mm) visual
Reduction in 3–5 mm IR signature 35 50 60
Reduction in 8–12 mm IR 35 50 60
signature
Reduction in threat protection 5 10 20

weight vs. gross weight
Reduction in total maintenance 15 30 45

Autodetection of critical 40 60 75
component
mechanical component failures. Attainment of these objectives will translate into aircraft requiring fewer maintenance hours
per flight hour, while still performing safely and effectively in a hostile environment.
Challenge—Modeling and analytical predictions for characterization of component materials and integration concepts
performance in signature suppression are needed.
Approach—Conduct computer modeling from signature prediction to battlefield simulations. Conduct laboratory and
flight testing of cost–effective attenuating materials and design concepts that will reduce IR, RCS, acoustic, visual, and EO
emissions from rotorcraft.
Challenge—Modeling and analytical predictions for characterization of component materials and integration concepts
performance in hardening are needed.
Approach—Conduct computer modeling of hardening concepts to provide reduced probability of kill across the full
spectrum of known threats, as well as crash impacts. Conduct demonstrations of components and of the integration of
lightweight armor, directed–energy weapons (DEWs), and nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) hardening that balance
cost, weight, and effectiveness.
Challenge—Lack of reliable, rugged, cost–effective, nonintrusive monitoring techniques, sensors, algorithms, and methods.
Approach—Develop a quantified database of the performance of impending component failures. Conduct laboratory and
field testing of advanced sensors and monitoring systems.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Air Vehicles is shown in Table IV–8.
Table IV–8. Technical Objectives for Air Vehicles


Aeromechanics Aeroacoustic and aeroelastic Reduce critical unsteady loads by 50% Reduce critical unsteady loads by 70%
prediction codes verified and
incorporated in comprehensive
Reduce vehicle parasite drag by 15% Reduce vehicle parasite drag by 30%
analysis
Increase in maximum blade loading Increase in maximum blade loading by 25%

Rotor/fuselage interaction
by 15%
CFD–unique experiments
Increase in rotor lift/drag by 15%
Increase in rotor lift/drag by 8%
High–lift rotor concepts evaluated
Increase in rotor figure of merit by 12%
Increase in rotor figure of merit by 7%
Low–cost, high–efficiency rotor
design methodology initiated
CFD/inflow analysis verified
Flight Control Establish cargo/slung load flight test Improve slung load handling qualities Improve slung load handling qualities to a
maneuvers; conduct simulations to to a CHPR of 4 CHPR of 3
develop criteria for hover and low
speed
70% increase in bandwidth while 80% increase in bandwidth while
maintaining gust rejection capability maintaining gust rejection capability
Complete terrain correlated
turbulence model
60% improvement in 80% improvement in weapon–platform
weapon–platform pointing accuracy pointing accuracy techniques
Develop and transition advanced techniques
control law synthesis techniques
75% reduction in envelope maneuvering
66% reduction in envelope margins
Complete comprehensive maneuvering margins
identification from frequency
responses (CIFER) UNIX upgrade
and train industry
Complete IFFC piloted ground

simulations
Develop techniques for

pilot–envelope cueing and limiting
Structures Define RWST structured 95% accuracy for loads synthesis 98% accuracy for loads synthesis
configuration and requirements
30% reduction in recurring 50% reduction in recurring production
Select critical components for production labor hours per pound for labor hours per pound for composite
development, testing, and composite structures structures
demonstration in RWST
200% increase in displacement 400% increase in displacement capability of
Complete fabrication and testing of capability of smart materials actuators smart materials actuators
resin transfer molding (RTM) trial
beam for RAH–66, thermoplastic
98% accuracy with flight regimes 35% increase in structural efficiency
(TP) horizontal stabilizer for
recognition algorithms
OH–58D, and TP tailboom section
for the RAH–66 baseline
TP horizontal stabilizer and TP

tailboom section for the RAH–66
Develop system architecture for

manufacturing and tooling expert
system (MATES) and preliminary

design concept for damage tolerant

hub fixture for RAH–66 baseline
Initiate the harmonization of civil and

military design requirements,
specifications, standards, and the
application and refinement of IPPD
principle to reduce life–cycle costs
Subsystems 100% probability of detection of 30% reduction in signatures 35% reduction in signatures
impending failures of structural
components
25% improvement in ballistic and 30% improvement in ballistic and NBC
NBC hardening techniques and hardening techniques and concepts
20% increased operational durability concepts
and repairability of reduced signature
98% probability of detection of impending
materials
95% probability of detection of component failures
impending component failures
15% reduction in infrared and visual
electro–optic vehicle signatures
10% increase in ballistic and NBC

hardening technique
Table IV–9. Air Vehicles Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities

Aeromechanics TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted

TR 97–023 Mobility—Combat Dismounted
TR 97–029 Sustainment
TR 97–040 Firepower Lethality
TR 97–043 Survivability—Materiel
Flight Control TR 97–002 Situational Awareness

TR 97–016 Information Analysis
TR 97–017 Information Display
TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted
EN 97–001 Develop Digital Terrain Data
Structures TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted

TR 97–024 Combat Support/Combat Service Support Mobility
TR 97–026 Deployability
Subsystems TR 97–002 Situational Awareness



Chapter IV E. Chemical and Biological Defense
E. Chemical and Biological Defense
1. Scope
The National Defense Act for FY94, Public Law 103–160, consolidated management and funding of both medical and
nonmedical chemical and biological defense (CBD) programs under OSD and in separate defense accounting lines. The law
designated the Army as executive agent to coordinate and integrate the CBD acquisition program. In that capacity, the
Army has elected to present the CBD program in this Science and Technology Master Plan. The nonmedical CBD
programs are discussed here in Section IV–E, while the medical CBD programs are addressed in Section IV–Q, "Medical
and Biomedical Science and Technology."
The CBD program includes those technological efforts that maximize a strong defensive posture in a biological or chemical
environment, using passive and active means as deterrents to the use of weapons of mass destruction. These technologies
include the areas of chemical and biological (CB) detection, information assessment (including identification, modeling,
and intelligence), contamination avoidance, protection of individual soldiers and equipment, and collective protection
against weapons of mass destruction.
2. Rationale
Defense against CB agents is accomplished at several levels: enhancing survivability of land combat systems and helicopters,
detecting CB agents before personnel are exposed, protecting personnel once agents are employed, decontaminating
following exposures, and providing safe and effective medical countermeasures. Related areas include modeling and
simulation (M&S) of agent characteristics and modernizing armored systems for CB survivability.
a. Detection
Standoff short–range CB detection is being pursued with lasers that can detect, identify, and map chemical vapors, aerosols,
and liquids on the ground at ranges of 3–5 kilometers (km). The longer range biological threat will be detected at ranges up
to 50 km using eye–safe lasers with enhanced imaging capability that will employ polarization and multiple wavelength
excitation to increase discrimination range against natural biological backgrounds (FY00).
Passive technologies such as surface–excited infrared thermoluminescence, being studied for their ability to detect CB agents
on the battlefield, require development of atmospheric databases, spectroscopic detection algorithms, and optical telescope
designs for airborne and space platforms (FY10). These approaches are being evaluated against the use of multiple point
sensors, either distributed throughout the battlespace or mounted on mobile platforms (FY02).

Because of the unique characteristics of CB agents, their physico–chemical properties must be carefully mapped to ensure
detection, and a theoretical basis for detecting unknown but related agents must be developed. Infrared, visible, and
ultraviolet (UV) spectroscopy, as well as mass, Raman, and laser desorption or electrospray particle trap mass spectrometry
(MS), are being applied to this problem. Finally, aerosol science is providing the basis for the development of new optical
methods for interrogating aerosol clouds from a distance for the purpose of detection.
Closer to the soldier is point detection. New fluorescent, acoustic, and optical biosensors are being designed for enhanced
sensitivity and more flexible detection capability. Recent advances in the acceleration of the polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) on a miniaturized scale now permit the exploitation of DNA probes for field detection of pathogens. A major thrust
of a Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan (JWSTP) Defense Technology Objective (DTO), J.04 "Integrated
Detection Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD)," is the development of a rapid, automated field detection device
based on the PCR. One key DTO element is the development of recombinant antibodies to serve as the recognition element
of these new biosensors (FY98). Recombinant antibodies will ultimately be designed and quickly selected from genetic
"super libraries" (FY99) to have specific detection capabilities, and novel starburst dendrimers are being studied for use on
tailored reactive surfaces. Another major approach to point detection is MS, and miniature automated pyrolysis–based
versions are being assessed for integration into existing CBD platforms (FY01). Of critical importance for biosensor and MS
approaches is bio–aerosol sampling, since characteristics (e.g., concentration of detectable units per unit volume of air) of
biological aerosols differ dramatically from chemical vapors, with resulting effects on detection efficacy (see Figure IV–1).
Figure IV-1. Bioaerosol Sampler and Detector
In the post–World War II era, detection was a simple matter of knowing what agents potential adversaries possessed and
designing analytical procedures to detect them. The proliferation of a broad spectrum of biological agents such as toxins,
viruses, and bacteria, and the potential for genetically engineered pathogens have complicated this task immeasurably. The
ideal detection system would operate continually in a standoff mode and would be capable of detecting all known—and
even unknown—agents.

• Detection of biological weapons against a high and variable background of ambient biological material.
• Miniaturization of sensor components using nanofabrication techniques.
• Design and production of biological recognition sites such as genetic probes and recombinant peptides.
• Rapid sampling of aerosols and vapors and modeling of their behavior under different meteorological
conditions.
b. Protection
The second major theme in CBD is protection, and this may be divided into individual and collective protection. The foci
of individual protection are to reduce the physiological burden of the protective mask and clothing, thereby reducing
performance degradation, to integrate the mask into future soldier systems, and to protect against future CB threat agents.
To accomplish these goals, new materials will be needed to decrease breathing resistance (FY05) and increase binocular
vision (FY05). Computer–aided design (CAD) and rapid prototyping techniques are being employed to both improve
mask performance and manufacturing processes. Supporting this, new physiological and protection tests are being
developed. For clothing, selectively permeable and smart membranes are being assessed for enhanced protection and
reduced heat stress. Selectively permeable membranes laminated to lightweight shell fabrics will provide low thermal
insulation and high vapor transmission. Incorporation of reactive materials into the membrane will reduce the need for
carbon and extend service life. Collective protection S&T efforts focus on advanced filtration and sheltering concepts for
assembled troops that promise to reduce the power, weight, and volume of systems as well as to improve protection against
NBC threats. Efforts to enhance vapor and aerosol filtration are concentrating on novel materials and processes.
Temperature swing adsorption (TSA), pressure swing adsorption (PSA), and catalytic oxidation (CATOX), as well as
improvements to existing single–pass filter systems, are under investigation to provide new systems requiring reduced
logistical support through greatly increased service life and improved reliability against an evolving CB threat (FY01).
Additionally, adsorbent materials with desirable surface characteristics and precisely controlled pore structures are under
investigation to identify improvements to the traditional activated carbon substrates (FY10). Investigations are ongoing to
assess regenerable fine particle filtration concepts with the potential of providing long–term protection against that class of
NBC threats. Also under way are investigations of the integration of regenerative filtration technologies into host weapons
systems, the ability to incorporate a surface acoustic wave sensor into a filter bed to signal impending loss of its filtration
capacity, and performance of fielded filters against nonstandard threat materials such as industrial vapors. Finally, modeling
efforts to describe filter performance based on fundamental properties and process parameters are in progress. Efforts to
improve shelter technology are concentrating on novel materials that are more affordable and provide better protection
against a broad range of NBC agents.
The major challenge will be to identify new materials offering improved protection against a broad and evolving spectrum of
NBC agents while reducing the physiological burden to the soldier. More specifically:
• Apply new adsorbent technology and materials to improve the performance of TSA and PSA processes as
well as the traditional single pass filtration systems.
• Identify new catalytic materials to efficiently destroy chemical agents while minimizing the production of
hazardous by–products.
• Develop lighter tent materials with improved protection properties.
• Identify practical regenerative particulate filtration concepts and systems.
• Expand the understanding of integrating standard and regenerable filtration technologies into host systems.

• Develop improved modeling approaches that will permit fast track maturation of new filtration processes.
c. Decontamination
The third major theme is decontamination, and this can be divided into three categories: immediate—carried out by the
individual soldier, operational—carried out by the decontamination unit, and thorough—performed by the chemical
company, usually at an equipment decontamination site. Both hydrolytic and oxidative reactions are being studied, with the
goal of formulating stable decontaminants with new reactants for rapid destruction of mustard, and V and G nerve agents.
Catalytic materials such as enzymes have been cloned and assessed for their ability to destroy chemical agents under mild,
ambient conditions, thus avoiding damage to delicate equipment and the environment. An enzyme that degrades G class
nerve agents has been scaled up and produced via biomanufacturing, and will be subjected to a NATO field test (FY98).
Enzymes that degrade V–class nerve agents are being screened for efficacy and down–selected for scale–up (FY98).
Ultimately, these new catalytic materials may be incorporated into sorbents and self–decontaminating coatings, fibers, or
paints (FY10) (see Figure IV–2).
Figure IV-2. Molecular Model of Catalytic Oxidation
The main technical objective is to design decontaminating materials with highly catalytic properties, long shelf life, and an
ability to function under a broad range of temperatures and pH.
• Using molecular modeling and site–directed mutagenesis, design catalytic enzymes with enhanced turnover
(i.e., degradative) rates, and stability under various environmental conditions.
• Design and synthesize conductive polymers and finishes that incorporate catalytic enzymes or their active
sites.
d. Modeling and Simulation

The use of M&S is an essential aspect of the current and future CBD program. Advanced computer simulation technology
will allow soldiers to be immersed in a realistic and physically accurate computer–generated combat environment that
includes CB agent cloud movement and target effects under variable weather, terrain, and foliage conditions. This capability
will allow the military user, for the first time, to experience the impact and consequences of CB weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) in operational situations and, more important, will demonstrate the potential value of CBD equipment (FY01).
Simulations of both conceptual and actual CBD equipment will result in improved and stable performance requirements to
be established early in development (FY01). The distributed interactive simulation (DIS) network will enable the user to
evaluate the "value–added" of each CBD item at every phase of development (see Figure IV–3). By means of virtual
prototyping, soldiers will contribute to the detailed design of new equipment throughout the development cycle. The
combination of constructive (wargaming) and virtual (3D) simulations will permit CBD hardware performance
characteristics to be optimized prior to production. Virtual prototyping will greatly decrease the acquisition time and
associated costs of development, including test and evaluation (T&E) elements. The mutual interaction between user and
developer, provided by M&S throughout the acquisition cycle, will result in superior CBD products within the limited
funding and resource constraints anticipated for the future.
Figure IV-3. Simulation of Intercept of Chenical or Biological Agent Munition

As the threat evolves and proliferates, it becomes increasingly important to be able to identify, synthesize, and assess the
physico–chemical and toxicological properties of new compounds. These studies are being used to develop quantitative
structure–activity–property relationships and, ultimately, to predict the behavior of new compounds in biosystems. Novel,
short–acting sedatives are being developed from these efforts as potential less–than–lethal chemicals for a variety of
applications, and candidate nontoxic simulants with reduced environmental impact are also being selected and tested.
The two main objectives for M&S are to develop models that accurately predict the effect of chemical and biological warfare
(CBW) agents on battlefield performance, as well as the protective capability of CBW defense equipment. Second, to model
structure–activity relationships to predict the threat potential of new compounds and their behavior in both bio– and
ecosystems.

• Develop a verifiable capability to analyze CB detectors and detection systems in existing "constructive"
wargames.
• Formulate a "value–added" methodology using DIS to assess the operational benefits of CB defensive
equipment in the light–to–moderate battlefield situations.
• Enhance the display and assessment ability for tactical ballistic missile interception of CB warheads within
the "virtual environment" simulation arena.
• Create a verifiable methodology using the "VL STRACK" cloud transport and diffusion model to depict the
movement of military vehicles through/around diffusing CB clouds, and through and around heavy foliage
and wooded terrain.
• Install modules addressing CBD functions (detection, protection, decontamination, and survivability) into
joint service computer wargames to enhance comparative decision making earlier in the acquisition cycle.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Chemical and Biological Defense is shown in Table IV–10.
Table IV–10. Technical Objectives for Chemical and Biological Defense

Detection Genetically engineered antibodies Genetic super library Lightweight CB detection from unmanned
ground vehicle (UGV)/unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) platform
Flow cytometry as an immunoassay Early warning of bioagent detection at
platform for biodetection 1–5 km
Miniaturized photo–array detection/
identification of biological agents
Automated single step point detection
Standoff chemical detection at 20 km

Subsymptomatic chemical agent
interior monitor
CB water and surface contamination
monitor
Early warning of aerosol cloud at
5–50 km
Man–portable integrated CB detection
system
Small, lightweight chemical monitor
Individual 24–hour liquid protection 50% increase in binocular vision Full field of view (FOV) through
Protection transparent face piece
50% reduction in breathing resistance Expanded performance degradation
model New super dense absorbents
Develop advanced selectively
permeable membrane eliminating/ Compatibility with future soldier Smart barrier membranes
reducing the use of carbon in systems
chemical protective ensembles

Collective Protection Prototype pressure swing absorption Combined PSA/TSA/CATOX system Monolithic filtration media
(PSA) system
Engineered absorbents Membrane filtration
Laboratory scale temperature swing
absorption (TSA) system
Decontamination New polymers with agent reactive Automatic decon through conductive Self–decon coatings
sites for more efficient coatings
decontamination (decon)
Modeling and Distributed interactive simulation Upgraded wargames and virtual Virtual reality using man in the loop
Simulation capability for CB detectors prototypes of CBD equipment
Virtual/actual CBD equipment in fully
integrated constructive and virtual combat
simulations
Table IV–11. Chemical and Biological Defense Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
Detection TR 97–020 Information Collection, Dissemination, and Analysis

Individual Protection TR 97–030 Sustainment Maintenance

TR 97–038 Casualty Care, Patient Treatment, and Area Support
TR 97–044 Survivability—Personnel
Collective Protection TR 97–030 Sustainment Maintenance

Decontamination TR 97–030 Sustainment Maintenance

Modeling and Simulation TR 97–002 Situational Awareness

TR 97–052 Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations Fidelity Requirements
TR 97–054 Virtual Reality
TR 97–057 Modeling and Simulation

Chapter IV F. Individual Survivability and Sustainability
F. Individual Survivability and sustainability
The subareas of individual survivability and sustainability (ISS) are an integral part of the human systems area. ISS
corresponds to the warrior protection and sustainment subarea of the human systems technology DTAP.
1. Scope
ISS focuses on protecting and sustaining the individual warfighter—ultimately the most critical element of any weapon
system on the digitized battlefield. By providing food, drinking water, clothing, airdrop, and shelter, this technology area
ensures warfighter survivability and performance and enhances readiness and quality of life on the battlefield and in
operations other than war (OOTW).
This technology area comprises two subareas: individual survivability and sustainability. The individual survivability subarea
includes all material and combat clothing systems for protection of the individual warfighter. These efforts provide
technological advancements in individual ballistic protection, countermeasures to sensors, laser eye protection,
multifunctional materials, and warrior performance and endurance enhancements, as well as integration of capability
enhancing technologies (e.g., individual combat identification, system voice control, rapid target acquisition, self–contained
navigation and display, unexposed firing/viewing) with the protective clothing/load–bearing system.
The sustainability subarea includes scientific and technological efforts to sustain and enhance warfighter performance and
combat effectiveness. These range from nutritional performance enhancement, food preservation, food service equipment,
energy technologies, and drinking water to advanced and precision cargo/personnel airdrop and airbeam technologies for
shelters. Technologies pursued in this effort address the need to "fuel the fighter"—to deliver the right nutrients at the right
levels at the right time in the right combination, to provide versatile airdrop capabilities critical to worldwide force
projection and resupply, and to provide rapidly deployable food service equipment and shelters in forward areas.
2. Rationale for Investment
a. Relationship to Military Capabilities/Needs
Success on the battlefield relies heavily on continuous availability of warfighters and on optimizing their performance. Keys
to accomplishing this are to mitigate personnel risk and to enhance the capabilities of individual warfighters in an operating
environment. ISS technologies enable warfighters to perform their missions and survive in normal and emergency
operational environments. (Refer to individual subareas for more specific relationships to military capabilities.) Figure IV–4
depicts the four Army mission requirements supported by these subareas: integrated protective clothing and equipment,
rations and water, air delivery systems, and airbeam–supported shelters.

Figure IV-4. Army Mission Requirements in Individual Survivability and Sustainability
b. Technical Forecast
Numerous foreseeable advances in individual survivability technologies exist. They include development of next–generation
advanced materials for multiple threats, including flame protection, technology to provide fragmentation and small arms
ballistic protection at 20 to 30 percent reduced weight, and materials to prevent detection by multispectral sensor devices.
Clothing systems that provide thermal and environmental protection with minimum bulk and weight are also on the

horizon. Another priority is integrating capability–enhancing technologies into the various soldier systems, such as Land
Warrior, Mounted Warrior, and Air Warrior for unique operational environments (e.g., Military Operations in Urban
Terrain (MOUT)). Integrated soldier and small unit battlefield performance simulations that support analysis of technology
enhancements are also being developed and applied.
Foreseeable advances in sustainability technologies include targeted and modulated nutrient delivery for heightened mental
acuity and physical performance, use of intrinsic chemical markers to validate sterility of thermally processed foods, and
biosensors to monitor ration deterioration. Also being explored are the use of nonthermal processing technologies (such as
irradiation or pulse electric fields) to preserve foods, self–heating operational rations, and a 200 percent increase in kitchen
fuel efficiency and power density obtained by converting kitchens to thermal fluid heat transfer. A diesel reforming
technology could provide a versatile new fuel for kitchens and soldiers’ individual equipment, while a non–electric and
thermal storage technology could facilitate self–contained mobile refrigeration systems. In addition, cogeneration systems
that provide heat and electric power for field kitchens at nearly 100 percent of the heat value of the fuel and a new water
purification technology are being created. Also coming are prediction of parachute behavior and performance during
parachute opening, autonomous and precise guidance, navigation, and control for standoff air delivery using flexible gliding
wings, parachute design for manufacturability, soft landing technologies, and new textile manufacturing technology for
airbeams for field shelters.
c. Payoffs
Improved and integrated individual survivability capabilities, including improved ballistic protection, enhanced
load–bearing, countermeasures to sensors, flame resistance, and laser eye protection will permit the Army to engage regional
forces promptly in decisive combat while protecting the force. Many technologies will reduce casualties, increase mission
duration, and speed turnaround time, which ultimately reduce manpower costs and save lives. Although soldier systems
may be more costly on an individual basis, the systems will be more lethal and the individual more survivable. Ultimately, it
will be more cost effective by permitting a smaller standing Army. Integration efforts will lead to revolutionary
breakthroughs by providing the soldier, as a weapons system platform, more effective, efficient, and precise/accurate means
of fighting.
In the sustainability area, payoffs include ration systems that sustain and support highly mobile, forward–deployed troops
and provide enhanced performance capabilities such as improved target acquisition, enhanced cognitive skills and decision
making (particularly under stressful battlefield conditions), extended mission endurance, and increased alertness. Improved
food packaging protects and prevents ration components from physically or microbiologically deteriorating in extreme
conditions. Other improvements are enhanced food safety/stability and quality in all environments, fuel/energy efficiency,
full use of resources, technology to provide drinking water, and operational readiness and rapid deployability.
Specific payoffs in airdrop technology include the means of delivering critical equipment, personnel, and supplies with
greater accuracy, safety, and precision, resulting in greatly reduced personnel airdrop injury rates and increased survivability
of delivery aircraft. Also, reducing drop zone size requirements in supporting rapid force entry tactics can result in a faster
consolidation of force and allow for just–in–time resupply of rapidly moving forces. Reduced development, testing, and
procurement costs will result from predictive performance and design optimization modeling and virtual testing.
Pressurized airbeam technology will provide significant reductions in weight, set–up times, and packed volume of soft
shelters for rapid deployability in forward areas.
d. Transition Efforts
Emphasis is placed on moving cutting edge technologies into engineering and manufacturing development (EMD)
programs through ATDs and technology insertions.

The Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) is another effective means of getting new technology to the field quickly. There is
extensive collaboration with industry as evidenced by current active Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
(CRDAs). Although some investment is focused on military–unique applications, many of the basic clothing, food, and
portable shelter technologies are inherently dual use. (Refer to the individual subareas for more specific transitions and
dual–use opportunities.)
a. Individual Survivability
Scope
The individual survivability technology subarea addresses the full range of combat, environmental, and special purpose
protective materials and components. The program includes textile and composite–based material systems and design
concepts for individual ballistic protection, countermeasures to sensors, multifunctional materials (including environmental
and flame/thermal protection), warrior performance and endurance enhancement, laser eye protection, smart textile
materials, and integration of soldier system modular components. Supporting technologies include bioengineered materials
for protection and analytic tools with resolution to capture battlefield effects of fatigue, load, environmental exposure,
hydration, and terrain.
Potential Payoffs
Impact on Military Capability
Individual survivability technology development and integration efforts provide the fundamental protection and
operational capability enhancements that maximize the Army’s most precious resource—the soldier. By protecting the
soldier in combat and OOTW, this area supports the Joint Vision 2010 operational concept of full dimensional protection.
Protective systems will provide major and direct benefit to the future DoD/Army mission to enable full spectrum
dominance. Enhanced protective systems are critical to the survivability, lethality, and mobility of the warfighter. The weight
of protective clothing and equipment is approximately 40 pounds, or 46 percent of the total weight of the Soldier system as
presently configured. This area will make significant reductions in the weight of the equipment the individual warrior will
have to carry/wear. The potential now exists for revolutionary achievements through the emerging field of smart materials.
Development of smart materials may be the answer to the explosive pace of technology advancements in sensors,
electronics, and information technology.
Potential Benefits to the Industrial Base
Dual–use applications include high–performance fibers for ballistic/blast protection for law enforcement agencies, aircraft
cargo containers, use in aerospace, electronics, and automobile industries, and recreational sport applications. Flame and
thermal resistant fibers have strong dual uses in firefighting applications, race car driving, industrial workwear, hotel
furnishings, children’s sleepwear, and piloting. The anthropometric database/models have commercial applications in the
design and sizing of clothing systems and equipment such as boots, athletic footwear, gloves, and helmets. CRDAs with
industry and development programs with major universities are aggressively pursued. Seven active CRDAs include
biogenetically engineered spider silk (Hoechst–Celanese, Inc.), enzymatic synthesis of new polymers (Rohm and Haas),
processing and spinning silk (Agricola), protective films from milk fat (National Dairy Board), environmental protective
clothing and equipment (L. L. Bean), environmental protective technology (W. L. Gore), and body armor (Massachusetts
State Police).

Technology Development Plan
Survivability Technology Taxonomy
• Ballistic Protection—Research for protection against flechettes, small arms, and high velocity fragmentation
and blast threats from mines and bursting munitions. DARPA is contributing to the development of
ultra–lightweight–armor technologies.
• Countermeasures to Sensors—Research on textile materials for camouflage for the individual soldier.
• Multifunctional Materials—Fibers, fabrics, clothing systems, and techniques for individual protection in all
climates against high heat sources and flame, and across all terrains and environmental extremes, including
encapsulation and water immersion, whole body protection against lasers, microwaves, and nuclear/thermal
threats, and smart materials to enhance integration capabilities.
• Warrior Performance and Endurance Enhancement—Research and integrated application of

anthropometry, biomechanics, and biophysics as scientific/engineering tools. Integrated individual
protective systems and mechanisms to reduce effects of physical and environmental stresses, increase
mobility and mission duration, and optimize the human/material/equipment interface.
• Laser Eye Protection—Research into technologies affording protection from multiline and tunable lasers.
• Systems Integration—Applying systems and concurrent engineering principles to discrete Soldier system
technologies, components or processes in order to optimize performance and capabilities and to maximize
return on investment.
Major Technical Challenges/Approaches
Challenge—Develop armor material system for protection against combined fragmentation and small arms threats at a 20-
30 percent reduced areal density over current small arms protection without a significant increase in other penalties.
Approach—Conduct analyses of fiber properties, textile structure, and/or textile architecture to enhance performance, e.g.,
investigate functionally graded design/hybridization, determine appropriate configurations for advanced materials,
investigate improved textile structure through low–cost weaving technology and thermoplastic resin systems, and develop/
evaluate promising alternate material concepts for small arms protection.
Challenge—Provide passive protection against advanced sensors without degrading current visual and near–IR camouflage
protection, while maintaining desired/required textile properties (e.g., durable, launderable, flexible, nontoxic).
Countermeasures should not increase the bulk or heat stress on the soldier beyond levels imposed by existing clothing
systems.
Approach—The sensor of major importance at present is the thermal imager. Based on physics, there are two approaches to
solving this problem for the soldier: control the emissivity of the uniform or cool the soldier so that he provides a less
conspicuous target to the sensor. Since a passive (not powered), lightweight system is desired, research has concentrated on
novel materials to control the emissivity without degrading fabric protection.

Challenge—Durable combat uniforms that provide protection against multiple threats, that are cost–effective, and that do
not impose a heat stress penalty.
Approach—Define minimum levels of flame protection required in clothing systems and develop appropriate performance
test methods for flame protective materials so that requirements can be verified and developed. Explore novel fibers, fiber
blends, fabric constructions, and functional finishes that will provide protection against flame, environmental, and
electrostatic hazards while providing visual and near–IR (NIR) camouflage protection.
Challenge—Provide eye protection against lasers capable of causing retina damage (lasers that emit visible or near–IR light).
Approach—Investigate the fundamental physics underlying the phenomena and develop a means to incorporate the most
promising nonlinear optical (NLO) materials into an effective and useful configuration for eye protection.
Challenge—Modular performance–augmenting components integrated within the fighting systems.
Approach—Using biomechanical and mechanical engineering tools, develop an ergonomically efficient load–bearing
system that is compatible with other system components, is comfortable, reduces fatigue and localized injury, and increases
mobility and combat effectiveness. Develop a boot design to reduce stress–related lower extremity injuries and enhance
locomotor efficiency.
Challenge—Reduce the weight penalties associated with electronic cables used by various soldier systems, such as MOUT,
Land Warrior, Mounted Warrior, and Air Warrior.
Approach—Investigate conductive polymers/materials and develop novel ways to incorporate them into combat uniform
fabrics and/or protective uniform systems.
b. Sustainability
Scope
This subarea focuses on warfighter sustainment by providing high–quality, nutritious rations, drinking water, advanced
airdrop capabilities, and rapidly deployable food service equipment and inflatable shelters for forward areas. In the ration
area, efforts focus on the unique military combat field feeding requirements not addressed in the private sector: low volume
and weight, modularity, high nutrient density, storage stability under environmental extremes, efficient use of battlefields
fuels for equipment, and the battlefield logistics of providing hot food. S&T efforts include three main areas:
• Nutritional performance enhancement by formulating rations to provide energy and essential nutrients, and
to increase alertness and extend endurance in combat and in environmental extremes.
• Ration preservation and stabilization to prevent microbial, physical, and biochemical deterioration and to
withstand the rigors of long–term military storage and distribution worldwide.
• Field food service equipment and systems that are highly mobile, fuel efficient, and consistent with
minimizing the logistics burden.
Innovative water purification technology is being developed to provide drinking water to field troops. In the airdrop areas,
efforts focus on advanced and precision offset air delivery for cargo, personnel, and sensors/submunitions, high glide

deployable wings, the integration of guidance, navigation, and control for rapid deployment and just–in–time resupply, and
soft landing technologies for cargo and personnel. Inflatable airbeam structure technology, including 3D weaving and
braiding, and scaling and shape definition will provide airbeam shelters for rapidly deployable forces and continuous
operations of tactical rotary aircraft and combat vehicles.
Potential Payoffs
Impact on Military Capability
In the sustainability area, performance–enhancing ration components will increase the warfighter’s mental acuity, physical
performance, and ability to deal with battlefield stress. New thermal and nonthermal preservation and active packaging
technologies will result in the capability to provide high quality rations for optimizing nutrient consumption. Ongoing and
planned innovations in combustion, heat transfer, cogeneration, and refrigeration will enable a new generation of rapidly
deployable kitchens that will deliver higher quality meals faster and cheaper, and that will be able to operate in more tactical
and climatic environments to ensure that all warfighters can receive at least one hot cooked prepared meal per day.
A new water purification technology will be applicable to military water treatment equipment ranging from individual
purifiers to division and corps level units. This new technology will meet or exceed the performance of existing reverse
osmosis membranes.
Initiatives in advanced and precision airdrop technology will provide capabilities critical to both rapid worldwide insertion
of continental United States (CONUS)–based initial forces and just–in–time resupply of rapidly moving forces. Airdrop
technology also provides a low–cost, highly accurate means of delivering personnel, munitions, and batteries and of
emplacing sensors necessary for real–time knowledge and digitization of the battlefield, and for precision–guided, standoff
delivery to reduce the vulnerability of the delivery aircraft and crew.
Inflatable airbeam structures provide rapidly deployable shelters in forward areas for performing vehicle and aircraft
maintenance in adverse environments and under blackout conditions. Also, these inflatable structures will assist in quickly
establishing a presence in remote areas without adequate facilities for maintenance, storage, medical, billeting, and
command and control (C2) centers.
Potential Benefits to the Industrial Base
Significant dual–use applications exist for disaster and humanitarian relief, for sports and other recreational activities
(campers, backpackers, hunters, etc.), for forest firefighting, and for special dietary concerns (shelf–stable flexibly packaged
foods). Development of a new nonhazardous chemical ration heater while improving the safety of military packaged rations
will also be integrated into a line of commercial self–heated meals that will be marketed for commuters, school lunches, and
field occupations. Diesel reforming technology has application for residential and industrial heating. Cogeneration
technology has application for emergency power and backup for power failures. Refrigeration technology has application
for remote sites and humanitarian missions such as transporting vaccines and medical supplies. The new water purification
technology will also be applicable to municipal desalination plants.
CRDAs include meals in microwave retort pouch (My Own Meals, Inc.), radiation preservation of foods (Food
Technology Service, Inc.), shelf stable breads and bakery products (Mila’s European Bakery), shelf stable bakery products
(Sara Lee), microencapsulation of performance modifying nutrients (BioMolecular Products, Inc.), edible films (Marine
Polymer Technologies, Inc.), encapsulation systems for lipids and flavors in military rations (IGI, Inc.), individual ration
components for military/commercial use (M&M, Mars, Inc.), integration of hydrogen suppression material in flameless
ration heater (Zestotherm, Inc., and Dynatron, Inc.), intermediate moisture foods (Good Mark Foods, Inc.), antifungal/

antibacterial agent (CAREX, Inc.), and airbags as impact attenuators for airdrop soft landing (Marotta Scientific Control,
Inc.). Several additional CRDAs are under negotiation.
While industry has assumed the lead role in applying irradiation technology, supported research in coordination with
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and industry contributes directly to providing the scientific basis required
for gaining regulatory approval for the use of this technology for both military and civilian benefit. Additionally, there is
joint industrial collaborative research to exploit novel quality enhancement and quantification technologies, high pressure
processing treatment, and ohmic processing. Using novel methodologies developed by the Department of the Army, these
new processes will be validated as microbiologically safe and will lead to the production for both civilian and military
consumers of a wide variety of safe and appealing foods that would not be possible using conventional thermoprocessing.
Technology Development Plan
Specific sustainability technology efforts are defined by the following taxonomy:
• Preservation and performance enhancing technologies—Research in food science (e.g., encapsulation,

molecular inclusion), physical chemistry, behavioral sciences, chemical engineering, and packaging, as they
relate to novel food formulation, nutrition, nutritional biochemistry, neurophysiology, preservation,
stabilization, processing, protection, and other related technologies.
• Food service equipment/energy technologies—Research in combustion, thermodynamics, heat transfer,

cogeneration of electric power and heat, automatic control, material, and refrigeration technologies.
• Water purification technology for drinking water—Research to prove the feasibility of a technology with a
300 percent increase in operating/storage life, a 50 percent increase in water flux, and tolerance of 5–parts per
million (ppm) chlorine when compared with conventional reverse osmosis.
• Airdrop technology—Research in designs and concepts for parachutes/gliding wings and cargo/personnel
airdrop systems; aerodynamics and guidance, navigation and control of deceleration; theoretical/
computational prediction and experimental determination of decelerator behavior and performance; and
personnel/system interfaces to improve safety and logistics.
• Airbeam technology for shelters—Research in fibers, fabrics, fabric stress/strain properties, manufacturing
technologies, coatings and concepts for airbeam structures and textile–based shelters.
Major Technical Challenges/Approaches
Challenge—The natural complexity of food systems affects the chemical, physical, and nutritional characteristics and leads
to undesirable changes that are often further compounded by lengthy, uncontrolled storage.
Approach—Determine relationship between formulations/processes and glass transition temperature using dynamic
mechanical analysis and electron spin resonance, and correlate results with rate of change of critical physical and chemical
properties of rations. Evaluate new preservation methods that produce shelf–stable foods with the taste and appearance of
"home–cooked" meals. Investigate multifunctional packaging adjuvants (e.g., oxygen scavenging, antimicrobial, nutrient
protection, color protection).
Challenge—Methodology to provide data needed to establish links between specific nutrient intake and performance.

Approach—Investigate methodologies for assessing the bioavailability and uptake of a variety of nutrients. Develop rapid
and precise methods for determining physiological availability of nutrients in rations subjected to time–temperature stresses.
Challenge—Improve field–feeding capability by increasing fuel efficiency from the current 15–20 percent to 80 percent,
improve kitchen habitability, meal output and quality, deployability, reliability, and ability to transport and store perishable
items.
Approach—Develop diesel fuel reforming, thermal fluid heat transfer, cogeneration, and thermal storage and stabilization
technology and integrate these developments into field kitchens.
Challenge—Develop new water purification technology with a 300 percent increase in operating and storage life, a 50
percent increase in water flux, tolerance to 5 ppm chlorine, temperatures up to 165_Fahrenheit (F), and pH from 5.0 to 9.5
when compared to conventional reverse osmosis membranes.
Approach—Explore new desalting technologies that are lighter, more economical and energy efficient than current systems.
Technologies currently being investigated are polymeric microgels, which remove specific contaminants; mosaic
membranes, which may increase water production while having chlorine resistant properties; and polyphosphazene
membranes, which will incorporate biofouling resistance.
Challenge—Analysis of the transient parachute opening processes, including the complicated interaction between the
flexible and porous parachute canopy fabric and its surrounding air flow.
Approach—Numerical coupling of the air flow process and the canopy fabric requires unsteady 3D fluid/structure analysis
and modeling.
Challenge—Effectively dissipate airdrop kinetic energy to provide a soft–landing capability for cargo and personnel.
Approach—Investigate and demonstrate airbags with advanced gas injection technologies for application to heavy cargo
airdrop. Conduct predictive performance modeling, experimentation, and demonstration of gas operated parachute
retraction concepts for application to light cargo and personnel airdrop. Explore new decelerator concepts that provide
increased drag efficiency.
Challenge—Lower cost, lighter weight, reduced volume parachutes.
Approach—Develop and demonstrate advanced hybrid architecture for personnel and cargo parachute applications that
optimize performance with minimal construction, using 2D woven fabrics. Investigate and exploit 3D weaving technologies
that virtually eliminate joints and seams in constructed parachutes.
Challenge—Producible, reliable airbeam fabrication.
Approach—Small diameter, high pressure airbeams will be demonstrated by continuously braiding and weaving a high
strength, 3D fabric sleeve over an air retention bladder. Scaling parameters and airbeam structural behavior will enable
fabrication for various sizes of soft shelters.

The roadmap of technology objectives for Individual Survivability and Sustainability is shown in Table IV–12.
Table IV–12. Technical Objectives for Individual Survivability and Sustainability

Individual Demonstrate an improved system for Transfer materials technology for Demonstrate novel, highly oriented organic
Survivability protection against combined individual countermine protective fibers for ballistic protective clothing
fragmentation and small arms threats, system to provide equal protection at materials
to be measured by a 20 to 30% a 35% reduction in system weight
reduction in areal density (weight per
Develop next generation advanced
given area)
Demonstrate a tunable laser camouflage combat uniforms
eye–protective device incorporating
Develop whole body scan protocols NLO materials
Develop reactive and catalytic protective
compatible with anthropometric
clothing materials, uniform system designs,
survey (ANSUR) 2D database
Develop fully integrated soldier and production capabilities for global rapid
standards
system analytical model response and diverse missions
Provide modeling, simulation, and

Demonstrate a novel multifunctional
analytical tools to reduce risk of Force
fabric system with a 50% decrease in
XXI Land Warrior program
the cost of flame protection
Demonstrate silk–based fabric for

Integrate technology upgrades to the
ballistic protective applications
Land Warrior system
Demonstrate prototype boot that

Demonstrate combat uniform
reduces stress–related lower extremity
systems that reduce the soldier’s
injuries
signature by 50%
Demonstrate an effective, lightweight

Develop conductive fibers/materials
nonpower electrochemical
for combat clothing
microclimate cooling system
Optimize thermal signature reducing

face paints
Sustainability Identify and optimize the Develop shelf–stable solid muscle Achieve optimized calorie/nutrient
incorporation of complex foods providing A–ration–like quality consumption
carbohydrates for modulated energy using irradiation
release during period of high demand
Target nutrient delivery systems to ensure
Select/incorporate neurotransmitter maximum bio–availability of key nutrients
Develop a diesel fuel reforming precursors in ration components/
capability for producing a supplements for anti–stress benefits
Demonstrate a totally integrated
natural–gas–like fuel for field kitchens
self–contained field feeding system based on
Demonstrate a rapidly deployable advances in food, packaging, shelter, and
Demonstrate wide span inflatable field kitchen featuring advances in energy technologies
airbeam technology for the Aviation diesel combustion, heat transfer,
Maintenance Shelter integral power, and refrigeration that
Investigate powered gliding wing airdrop
can produce high quality meals
systems
quickly and economically
Fabricate a high glide airdrop system
that has a 2,000–5,000–pound
Demonstrate advanced airdrop recovery/
payload capacity Validate nonthermal preservation
stabilization technologies that reduce
techniques used to minimize nutritive
ground dispersion and personnel/
losses
Develop glass–coating technology for equipment link–up times
flexible or semirigid retortable nonfoil
packaging materials to extend shelf life Demonstrate interactive packaging
Demonstrate advanced airdrop
technology (e.g., emitters/absorbers)
performance simulation technologies, as
for shelf–stable and perishable food

Develop in–package additives to production applications virtual test proving ground enablers, that
prevent oxidation and other forms of reduce test cycle time/cost
product degradation
Transition the 2000– to 5000–lb
payload capacity high–glide airdrop
Demonstrate a parachute retraction
system using clustered parachutes that
Demonstrate less than 10 G
provide a less than 10 feet/second soft
(gravitational force) soft landing
landing capability
airbag system that provides an all
weather, rapid roll–on/roll–off
Utilizing advanced airfoil and airdrop capability for future Army
parachute designs, demonstrate a
gliding personnel parachute with a
Using novel design techniques,
20% increase in maximum jump
demonstrate a cargo size parachute
altitude and a 25% increase in glide
with a 20% reduction in weight bulk
ratio, compared to the current Army
and manufacturing cost (compared to
state–of–the–art MC-4 parachute
fielded parachutes) while providing
equivalent flight performance
Demonstrate an innovative
purification technology that will
Demonstrate a soft land capability
provide drinking water for troops in
that augments personnel parachute
the field
performance and will reduce system
descent rates to values below 16 feet/
Demonstrate a high–glide airdrop second, using "pneumatic muscle"
system that can carry a 2000– to technologies
5000–lb payload using an advanced
guidance package and a high–glide
wing
Table IV–13. Individual Survivability and Sustainability Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
Individual Survivability TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted

TR 97–027 Navigation
TR 97–045 Camouflage, Concealment, and Deception
TR 97–048 Performance Support Systems
Sustainability TR 97–001 Command and Control

TR 97–002 Situational Awareness
TR 97–003 Mission Planning and Rehearsal
TR 97–004 Tactical Operation Center Command Post
TR 97–006 Combat Identification
TR 97–007 Battlefield Information Passage
TR 97–008 Power Projection and Sustaining Base Operations
TR 97–009 Communications Transport Systems
TR 97–010 Tactical Communications
TR 97–011 Information Services
TR 97–012 Information Systems
TR 97–015 Common Terrain Portrayal
TR 97–019 Command and Control Warfare
TR 97–020 Information Collection, Dissemination, and Analysis


TR 97–025 Countermobility
TR 97–028 Unmanned Terrain Domination
TR 97–031 Sustainment Services
TR 97–032 Sustainment Logistics Support
TR 97–033 Sustainment Transportation
TR 97–034 Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee Operations
TR 97–039 Lines of Communications Maintenance and Repair
TR 97–042 Firepower Nonlethal
TR 97–045 Camouflage, Concealment and Deception
TR 97–046 Battlefield Obscuration
CSS 97–002 Containerization and Packaging
MD 97–007 Preventive Medicine
MD 97–012 Veterinary Services

Chapter IV G. Command, Control, and Communications
G. Command, Control, and Communications
1. Scope
Command, control, and communications (C3) are key elements in the AMP to change the Army from an industrial age
force to a digitized Force XXI that is prepared to fight and win the information war. C3 encompass many interrelated
technologies and specialties with emphasis in three major areas: decision making, information management and
distribution, and seamless communications.
2. Rationale
Access to and exploitation of timely information is a key element of America’s future warfighting and crisis management
capabilities, as well as of its national competitiveness. The projected force–level–multiplier advantage of information
technology stands far above that of all other technical areas. Such capability, while greatly enhancing the autonomy and
survivability of individual units, will quickly provide an advantage in any conflict, supporting early, decisive victory with
minimal cost in assets and human life.
Decision making is the heart of the command process and has the following areas of focus: consistent battlespace
understanding; forecasting, planning, and resource allocation; and integrated force management. It encompasses the
development of common, modular elements that connect joint mission planning, rehearsal, execution monitoring, and
common pictures of the battlespace.
Information management and distribution provides the information infrastructure and products needed for information
security, distributed computing, distributed multimedia databases, and visualization. This movement of information is
critical to satisfying the warfighters’ needs for the future.
Seamless communications supports split–based operations by spanning the globe and interconnecting command echelons,
services, and allies worldwide through common transport protocols and dynamic network management. Emphasis is on
mobility aspects of communication networks, network management, and heterogeneous transmission systems (e.g., wired
and wireless). By focusing on wide bandwidth capabilities linked to our narrowband tactical systems, we can provide the
correct critical information to the warrior anywhere in the world.
C3 programs will develop the technology to provide a real–time, fused, battlespace picture with integrated decision aids. The
technology will provide the processing infrastructure, intelligent/anticipatory data manipulation and distribution, and
dynamically adaptive broadband communications linkages required for both command and sensor–to–shooter
applications. Warfighters will be able to exchange information unimpeded by differences in connectivity, processing, and
interface characteristics. With these capabilities the Army will have the ability to establish distributed, virtual staffs that share
a common, consistent perception of the battlespace.
Many of these advances in information science and technology (IS&T) are being driven by commercial developments and

products. The results can be brought to bear on Army problems through cooperative efforts and participation in efforts to
set standards and establish policy. Costly Army–specific development will be avoided with the amortization of costs across
government and commercial communities. The Army strategy also includes leveraging DARPA programs (such as global
mobile information systems and small unit operations (SUO) technology programs) to the extent possible. However, there
are aspects of C3 that must be strongly influenced or directly supported by the Army. In particular, developing the capability
to reliably communicate to and among numerous, widely dispersed mobile sites operating in actively hostile environments,
identification friend and foe (IFF), achieving information security, and meeting the requirements for military–unique
processing and decision support systems will not be achieved without significant Army support.
This technology area embodies enormous dual–use potential in numerous areas vital to economic competitiveness and
other national concerns. Beside the direct application of this technology to defense sciences and engineering, it has great
potential for other significant contributions: more effective health care procedures, enhanced education and lifelong
learning, more timely and less costly procurement through electronic commerce, more efficiently managed and integrated
transportation networks, delivery of innovative information services to average citizens, and sound methods of environment
monitoring, weather prediction, and pollution control.
a. Decision Making
This subarea focuses on all elements of the decision making process, from tactical assessment through plan preparation,
deconfliction, rehearsal, and execution. The major emphasis is on acquiring and assimilating information needed to
dominate and neutralize adversary forces. A key capability is near–real–time awareness of the location and activity of
friendly, adversary, and neutral forces throughout the battlefield area, providing a common awareness of the current
situation. One of the primary objectives of information dominance is to meet the warfighters’ needs for a flexible command
structure that can be rapidly configured and dynamically adapted to optimize force effectiveness and survivability. The
subarea applies leading–edge M&S and computing and software technology to significantly improve warfighter
performance by eliminating laborious, time–consuming manual procedures and processes that pervade U.S. operational
planning and execution. Computer–aided processes and automation–synergistic procedures replace exclusively human
processes and procedures. The warfighter is provided with an intuitive view of battlespace, an enlightened perspective of
information (C2, intelligence, logistics, weather, and other critical data), and the ability to explore alternatives in
faster–than–real time (e.g., exploring 10–hour battles in several minutes).
The goal is to provide automated, real–time decision support to the warfighter. The warfighter must rapidly interpret
information received through interactive 2D and 3D presentations of the tactical situation (situational assessment cues
identifying potential problems or interest areas). The commander must view (from a situational assessment display) relevant
forecasts for weather, enemy strength over time, friendly strength, and logistics tail; conduct course of action analysis;
allocate resources; wargame (real–time simulation) to explore battlespace options; and collaboratively plan and rehearse
battles. Such a capability will result in the precise direction of a diverse, synchronized task force armed with overpowering
information superiority and decision making capability.
The challenges are to develop applications that employ intelligent agents for intelligent information retrieval, fusion, and
presentation; fuse planning information with actual information in real time; provide real–time simulation (wargaming),
planning, and rehearsal with sufficient fidelity on tactical platforms to influence battle outcomes; provide decision support in

the presence of uncertain, incomplete information, or the absence of information; develop applications for dynamic
scheduling/coordination of assets for interdependent tasks; and provide collaboration tools that permit the spectrum of
operations to be performed by remote, dispersed elements of a task force.
b. Information Management and Distribution
Information management and distribution encompasses warfighter needs and capabilities related to information warfare
(IW) and information systems. IW and information systems include information, information–based processes,
information systems, and computer–based systems individually or in combination with each other. The key to providing
this capability is a distributed information management and distribution system that forms the backbone information
infrastructure of all future command, control, communication, computer and intelligence (C4I) systems. Providing
technologies that allow automated, adaptive, and robust information resource management means we can free up the
warfighter from the mundane and tedious tasks required to review and distribute information. By incorporating a
context–based approach, information synchronization and management can be formally automated, allowing warriors
(especially those at the fighting echelons) to concentrate on mission execution rather than on complex computer operations.
Required warfighter capabilities for information management and distribution necessitate development in the constituent
areas of distributed environments, information services management, and ensured information services. These technology
efforts will provide the warfighter with the ability to:
• Access mission–critical data from any location on the globe in a location–transparent manner.
• Collaborate on mission plans at all levels and monitor execution in real time.
• Assess mission plans through rehearsal using synthetic environments.
• Assure continuation of mission critical functions and survive loss of resources by dynamically reconfiguring
where functions are executed and how information flows.
• Provide reachback from deployed forces to garrison and support units.
• Support interoperability among both joint and coalition forces.
• Support extension of the information backbone to highly mobile, deployed forces through the integration
of mobile distributed computing nodes.
• Maintain access control, authentication, integrity, and availability of classified data in a distributed
information environment accessible by users with differing clearances and needs to know.
The challenges are areas associated with the infrastructure for the distributed environments, mechanisms to support
information services management that reside within the distributed environment, and the ability to deploy ensured
information services. In the distributed environment infrastructure area the critical technical challenges are:
• Distributed data storage and query.

• Scalability to several thousand nodes and schedulability of time–critical operations that are physically
dispersed across large geographic areas.
• Varied user populations and applications.
• Multiple processor types.
• Capabilities and configurations.
• Integration of both real–time and non–real–time operating environments within the same overall system.

As always, compatibility with emerging commercial system standards and heterogeneous computing bases—while retaining
DoD’s desired operational capabilities—is vital.
Providing the necessary information services management within the distributed environment requires the development of
mechanisms for managing data both on individual hosts as well as across the distributed environment. The critical technical
challenges to be met include:
• Developing data models and storage and retrieval architectures capable of handling modalities of data in a
seamless way.
• Merging and synchronizing time–dependent and non–time–dependent data.
• Developing intelligent agents capable of autonomously navigating complex database structures and
extracting information for a user.
• Developing natural language and other nonparametric interfaces to support "intuitive" access and retrieval
of data from the database management systems (DBMSs).
• Developing adaptive information distribution techniques based upon context–based as opposed to
message–based distribution.
• Using the information context for smart distribution over low bandwidth communications in order to
selectively control the quantity of information exchanged.
• Providing capability to respond to complete information exchange failures.
• Scaling information distribution techniques to large systems of communications nodes.
The keys to developing ensured information services are:
• Adaptivity within the distributed environment to allow dynamic response to varying loads of crisis
management or system failure.
• Protection of the information within the system from attack or compromise.
The technical challenges include:
• Security mechanisms for multiclustered, real–time heterogeneous distributed environments.

• Adaptivity mechanisms that support the selective application of fault tolerance and fault avoidance
strategies.
• Reconfiguration mechanisms to support graceful degradation.
• Replication mechanisms to ensure the consistency of information.
• Intelligent resource managers to dynamically respond to crisis overloads.
• System architectures that permit the secure use of commercial off–the–shelf (COTS) computers, software,
and networks.
c. Seamless Communications
Seamless communications facilitate several of the warfighters needs for information dominance, information warfare,
real–time logistics control, and MOUT. Communications is the mechanism to achieve secure, reliable, timely, survivable,
C2, and superior battlefield knowledge. This subarea addresses technologies needed by the warfighter to obtain effective
access to and utilization of global communications services. Seamless communications connotes assured, user–transparent,
secure connectivity between globally dispersed sanctuary locations and positions in theater—down to the lowest echelon
foot soldier or Marine, and to each ship and aircraft. This connectivity will be accomplished using a combination of U.S.
government, foreign government, commercial infrastructures, and military surface– and space–based radio frequency (RF)

networks. A range of transmission media, bandwidth, standards, and protocols will be accommodated automatically by the
networks. Voice and all types of data (e.g., text, graphics, imagery, and video) will be handled within a uniform, information
transport infrastructure. These technologies will provide the commander with high capacity, flexible, tactical
communications to serve all categories of users (including mobile) and satisfy the need for high–confidence
communications regardless of system limitations throughout all phases of the battle.
The goal is an affordable, survivable, self–managing, multilevel secure (MLS) communications system that provides the
warfighter with user–transparent connectivity for voice and command, control, and intelligence (C2I) systems data over the
entire combat/garrison operational continuum. The system must fully support wide– and narrowband on–the–move
(OTM) C2I data/voice interconnections throughout a land battle zone at least 100–km deep and provide robust and
seamless connectivity among ground, air, and naval elements of the coalition combat force dispersed over distances up to
200 km. Achieving this goal will require significant enhancement of tactical communications systems; development of
automated, seamless interfaces between tactical systems and between tactical and global communications systems;
development of sophisticated new radio and antenna systems for the airborne and ground OTM portion of the warfighting
force; evolution of theater/global broadcast systems as an integral element of seamless communications; and development of
artificial intelligence tools for network planning, engineering, management, and operations.
Challenges in this area include:
• Communications mobility/wireless mobility issues (both nodes and base stations).

• Communications equipment interoperability in multivendor, multinetwork, joint/combined force, and
commercial environments.
• Infrastructure for wireless tactical asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) links.
• Protocols for high data rate subscriber loops subject to sporadic disturbances (e.g., narrowband integrated
services digital network [N–ISDN] and broadband ISDN [B–ISDN] loops supporting OTM airborne/
surface/subsurface vehicles).
• Construction of a fully Internet–compliant, tactical packet network using legacy radios such as
Single–Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS).
• Integration of data and voice over low bit–rate links.
• Heavy multipath and deep fade effects.
• Security.
• Development of network management and control protocols that can withstand the onset of federated and
nonfederated jamming attacks.
• Waveforms for low probability of interception (LPI) and low probability of detection (LPD).
• Development of conformal arrays for airborne and OTM antenna applications.
• Waveforms or software programmable radios.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Command, Control, and Communications is shown in Table IV–14.

Table IV–14. Technical Objectives for Command, Control, and Communications

Seamless Demonstrate broadband antenna for Demonstrate optical control of Demonstrate mobile wireless seamless
Communication multiband applications wideband multipanel, phased array connectivity across communication media;
antennas for OTM applications overcoming differences in connectivity,
processing, and system interfaces
Demonstrate ground mobile ATM
(Universal Transaction Services)
broadcast capabilities Demonstrate antenna positioners for
super high frequency (SHF)/extremely
high frequency (EHF) satellite Demonstrate/adapt future generation
Develop and demonstrate Internet
communications (SATCOM) OTM commercial PCS technology for tactical
Protocol (IP)–ATM hierarchical
applications environments
video routing
Demonstrate next generation PCS Develop advanced antenna technologies

Demonstrate user friendly,
technology for Land Warrior
inexpensive security services
applications
Develop advanced adaptive networking
technologies
Demonstrate tactical personal
Demonstrate structurally embedded
communication system (PCS)
reconfigurable antenna technology in
capability based on commercial
ground vehicles and airborne
technology
applications
Demonstrate dynamic network

survivability through protocol adaption
to external influences (weather, threat,
congestion, etc.)
Provide virtual, integrated

communications systems models for
division/corps
Demonstrate automated intrusion

detection, characterization response,
and damage restoral for tactical
networks
Information Distribution Distributed heterogeneous database Access to multilevel secure distributed Demonstrate extended relational and
and Management access database object–oriented DBMS system
Automated information distribution Integrated, distributed semiautomated Scalable, transparent mobile computing
software C2 at lower echelons environment
Distributed computing over low Demonstration of seamless Scalable secure distributed databases
bandwidth channels interoperable multilevel secure
computing environment Natural language interfaces for
Machine aided human translation of synchronized battle management
text for C2 interoperability Fully automated translation (voice/text)
in narrow domain C2 operations and
enhanced natural language machine
interfaces

Decision Making Terrain, environmental, and event Automated maintenance of consistent, Robust cooperation
detection decision support software timely tactical picture in distributed C3
system Software agents dynamically support
Automated flight plan guidance collaborative planning and execution
algorithms Automated situation assessment
Dynamic immersive rehearsal planning
Embedded software tools to enable Demonstrate joint distributed and execution environment
real time collaborative planning in a collaborative planning and assessment
3D virtual environment tools with 3D visualization Autonomous navigation in
well–characterized terrain
Integrated and automated position/ Automated cooperative interaction
navigation (POS/NAV) between three to four systems Adaptive tactical navigation
Robust precision POS/NAV
Table IV–15. Command, Control, and Communications Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
Seamless Communications TR 97–002 Situational Awareness

TR 97–021 Real–Time Target Acquisition, Identification, and Dissemination
TR 97–050 Joint, Combined, and Interagency Training
TR 97–056 Synthetic Environment
Information Distribution and TR 97–001 Command and Control

Management TR 97–005 Airspace Management
TR 97–013 Network Management
TR 97–049 Battle Staff Training and Support

Decision Making TR 97–003 Mission Planning and Rehearsal

TR 97–014 Hands–Free Equipment Operation
TR 97–018 Relevant Information and Intelligence

Chapter IV H. Computing and Software
H. Computing and Software
1. Scope
The Computing and Software technology area is focused on novel computer hardware, software and integrated systems for
Army applications. The Army’s computing technology programs include scalable parallel systems and applications,
high–performance specialized systems and applications, networks and mobile computing, and wearable computers. The
software technology programs include software engineering, data engineering, artificial intelligence (AI) and intelligent
agents, human–computer interface, assured computing, distributed interactive computing, and information processing
systems, computers, and communications. Our ability to rapidly adapt these technology capabilities to changing battlefield
environments is an integral part of the technology edge needed to provide decisive victory for the Army After Next.
The challenge is to identify efforts that preserve, extend, and leverage the Army’s past, present, and future investments in
software. The Army views integrated battlefield information systems and intelligent weapon systems as two of its most
important sources of combat advantage into the next century. Yet, the software to support such integrated systems
represents a challenge to conventional engineering, procurement, sustainment, and technology insertion practices.
Software technology encompasses a wide spectrum of highly technical specialties, activities, and processes, including, but
not limited to, the following:
• Develops and produces algorithms and tools for the construction, operation, and life–cycle management of
general–application software and all of its associated artifacts.
• Is concerned with all aspects of software engineering and life–cycle management.
• Includes the software engineering process and methodologies, tools, and frameworks (software
environments) and domain–specific software architectures (DSSAs) to make it easier to design, build, test,
and maintain software.
• Supplies the software building materials used to make software systems more reliable, uniform, predictable,
and suitable for reengineering and reuse efforts.
• Includes information and data engineering that provides timely access to quality coordinated technical
information.
• At its foundation, applies the general software engineering paradigms to "work smarter" (through process
technology advancements), "work faster" (through advancements in tools and environments), and "work
less" (through architectural and reuse technology advancements) to provide a technical environment for
more intelligent and efficient application specific engineering.
• Ultimately provides intelligent systems capable of integrating information, human–computer interactions
and general–application software engineering functionalities to meet the real needs of the soldier on the
battlefield (see Figure IV–5).

❍
Figure IV-5. DoD Software and Intellegent Systems Program
2. Rationale
The Army relies on technologically superior systems to counter numerically larger forces, to reduce casualties and damage
to urban infrastructure, and to enhance rapid, decisive action. Coupled with sophisticated applications software,
high–performance computing (HPC) systems and advanced communication technology enable:
• Design and optimization of smarter, more cost–effective precision weapons.

• Rapid dissemination of battlefield information to tactical forces.
• Swift, global C2 based on accurate, comprehensive knowledge of the current situation, which greatly
enhances the autonomy and survivability of individual units.
• Enhanced readiness and strategic planning capabilities through large–scale, distributed, authentic
simulations.
• Enhanced tactical planning and decision making capabilities through the use of automated decision support
tools, increased battlefield visualization capabilities, and intelligent agents.
Research in this technology area encompasses computer and software engineering, operational simulation, battlefield
environments, and science application tools.
Many Army S&T problems require computational performance rates measured in trillions of floating point operations per
second (teraflops). These include problems in chemistry and materials science, computational fluid dynamics, parametric
weight/vulnerability reduction, automatic target recognition, high–performance weapon design, and dispersion of
hazardous materials. Since no single HPC architecture will effectively handle this spectrum of problems, Army S&T
researchers require a variety of computer systems that, in aggregate, support the highest fidelity and greatest speed in
analyzing problems of ever increasing size and complexity. These diverse S&T applications also require massive, hierarchical
data storage and scientific visualization capabilities to provide meaningful results. HPC utility will fundamentally drive or
limit solutions to these critical problems.
The profound impact of modern, computer driven technology has been amply demonstrated in recent hostile operations
like Desert Storm and Joint Endeavor. Software is, and will continue to be, a force multiplier.

The Army is faced with a paradox. Systems are being extended in life and expected to achieve land force dominance with
diminished resources, in a changing world, with a reduced defense industrial base. Yet, the Army is expected to field lethal,
versatile, and rapidly deployable systems in response to the requirement to win decisively and quickly on any battlefield and
to do so with minimum casualties.
Computer resources in general and software resources in particular offer a solution to this paradox. The U.S. defense
strategy continues to be dominance based on superior technology. But changes in the world’s geopolitics combined with
current economic constraints has broadened the focus of attention on technology to include issues of flexibility and
adaptability. In today’s weapon system technology, software serves the role of providing these characteristics. Therefore,
weapon systems will become more dependent on software to achieve these requirements. According to the Chief of Staff,
Army, one of the most important lessons apparent from the Army’s performance in Operation Desert Storm was the
profound impact of modern, computer driven technology on the outcome of battle. Desert Storm demonstrated the need
to adapt and deploy the technology when and where it is needed.
The Army’s challenge is that existing hardware/software systems are being extended to achieve dominance through
increased capability, while resources for that capability continue to shrink. Much of the evolving capability is provided by
software. A change in hardware through product improvement has all the appearance of a new item while a change in the
software supporting that hardware is not viewed as a new item. This visibility mismatch furthers the gap between the
perceived and actual costs of hardware and software sustainment. The goal of the Army software S&T effort is to reduce
software development and sustainment cost and schedules by an order of magnitude in the next 10 years, while increasing
the capabilities of the software industrial base to allow more to be done with less.
Software allows for short lead times and can be deployed over satellite communications links with essentially no logistics
volume, weight, or fuel cost. State–of–the–art training technology can provide expert systems that can train soldiers to use
the new software on the battlefield. Changes to deployed systems can feasibly be made in theater through software
modifications that have been previously tested in the Army’s stateside life–cycle software engineering centers (LCSECs)
where synthetic environments, interacting with real materiel, are used to demonstrate successful performance of the changed
system.
With technology progressing at a rapid pace, the dilemma is that systems that are state of the art today become enormous
cost burdens in the near future. Some systems deployed today and still in production require dated software maintenance
and change techniques that are frozen in time and appear to be enormously expensive to sustain (e.g., interoperate, respond
to threats). Yet, the cost to make these changes in hardware, produce new hardware, refurbish materiel, and redeploy would
be even more unacceptable.
The Army recognizes that research and development (R&D) in software engineering and life–cycle management and
environments are to a large extent commercially driven. Systems currently under development and the employment of
advanced concepts and operational scenarios that have a greater reliance on synthetic environments will exacerbate the
current dilemma faced in supporting deployed software. A paradigm shift is required in the way that software is viewed,
supported, and developed. Decreased budgets will increase reliance on commercial products, and possibly increase costs. It
is imperative that we learn to leverage commercial advancements, while continuing to provide some level of support to
maintain an industrial base in the software development market.
The Army software technology investment strategy represents the distillation of extensive work performed by technical
experts from industry, academia, and government to create such a scenario. The work plan is focused on the needs of the
Army, windows of opportunity, and a realizable implementation, given limited resources.

a. Scalable Parallel Systems and Applications
This subarea is concerned with development, exploitation, and deployment of high–performance computers offering
scalable performance for a broad range of Army and DoD applications. Scalable parallel systems technology includes
parallel architectures, compilers, and programming methodologies and tools essential to facilitate their effective use, systems
software, mass storage, input/output (I/O), and visualization technologies. Application requirements drive the design of
these systems.
Early access to new systems by DoD and Army users accelerates development of specific applications as well as knowledge,
algorithms, and programming tools for solving problems. Current performance levels of 100 billion of floating point
operations per second (gigaflops) will sustain a 10–fold increase by FY98 to reach the goal of 1 teraflop.
The Army relies on the DoD HPC modernization program to provide computing capabilities essential for the conduct of
RDA and in support of the operational forces. The Army manages and operates two DoD HPC major shared resource
centers (MSRCs) and five distributed centers (DCs) within the DoD modernization program. The Army MSRCs are
located at the ARL Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) and the Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
(WES), which combine to offer full service HPC capability and high speed network access to both the DoD S&T and test
and evaluation communities and the national HPC infrastructure.
The capabilities provided at the Army MSRCs are directly aligned to the DoD following objectives:
• Increase the availability of the state–of–the–art HPC resources and supporting infrastructure for DoD R&D
scientists, engineers, and analysts.
• Provide robust interconnectivity to these resources, the user community, and non–DoD collaborating
scientists and engineers.
• Develop and adapt software tools and applications to fully exploit HPC capabilities.
• Actively engage other national HPC programs and leverage them to benefit defense R&D.
• Focus national leading–edge HPC research efforts in computing, high–performance storage, software
development, and networking to solve DoD S&T challenges.
Deployment of state–of–the–art HPCs and exploitation of evolving computational algorithms provide an environment that
allows the Army to solve critical mission problems and to tackle problems that were previously intractable. Improved HPC
capability shortens design cycles and design costs by reducing the reliance on handcrafted prototypes and destructive
testing. Robust high–speed network connectivity is essential for desktop access to remote resources and daily, interactive
collaboration with remote users.
Issues include:
• Insertion of increasingly powerful processing nodes.

• Faster interprocessor communications.
• Global management of memory and data in cooperation with the operating system.
• Scalable I/O processing to match processor speeds.
• Software and application development.

• The learning curve for Army users when programming in a massively parallel environment.
b. High–Performance Specialized Systems
The high–performance specialized systems subarea includes the development of innovative technologies such as optical
processing, embedded systems, neural networks, and systolic processing, that meet military requirements but have limited
commercial potential. Target goals for these systems include a 200–fold increase in data processing reliability, a 10–fold
system weight reduction, and a 5–time increase in digital data processing speed. The Army relies on DARPA and the other
services to provide technology for its systems applications.
The diverse deployment criteria for specialized Army systems makes hardening and repackaging essential. In addition,
image and speech recognition dictates that DoD and the services examine optical processing and neural computing.
Incorporating fuzzy logic into neural computing for Army problems requires further research into expressing expert
knowledge and combinatorial complexity in simple linguistic rules while reducing demands on computing resources.
c. Networks and Mobile Computing
Real–time access to information and data is required to realize one of the Army’s key modernization strategies of "winning
the information war."
Integral to this capability are the computing and networking capabilities required to provide a secure and seamless battlefield
computing environment. These capabilities include instant access to data, data extraction of the desired information in
near–real time, and retrieval and presentation of the information in a form that the soldier can readily use to make educated
decisions and better control the available resources. These capabilities require integrated networking of battlefield and
research–based computing systems. High–speed and high–capacity networks enable interaction with research–based
computing assets.
Networking has long been a mechanism to foster scientific collaboration, and the services were launched into this realm by
the ARPANET initiative of the 1970s. This DARPA program has grown to be integrally responsible for the Internet
explosion that serves as the catalyst and foundation for the National Information Infrastructure project. Ten gigabit (GB)
per second to 100–GB per second networking will be available by the year 2000.
As part of the DoD HPC modernization program, the Defense Research and Engineering Network (DREN) is being
designed to maintain intersite communication performance levels commensurate with I/O bandwidths of the HPC systems
to which DREN will provide access (Figure IV–6). Bandwidth requirements are projected to approach 622 megabits per
second (Mbps) within 2 to 3 years, and over 1 gigabits per second (Gbps) within 5 years to support and enable distributed
computing performance in the TFLOPS range. These requirements represent an order of magnitude (x10) increase over
currently available bandwidth within 1 year and more than two orders of magnitude (x100) increase over current
bandwidths within 5 years.

Figure IV-6. IDREN Configuration

The Army provides the technical lead in maintaining the interim DREN (IDREN) connectivity through transition to the
DREN component of the DoD HPC modernization program. Current Army mission projects in networking include, but
are not limited to:
• B–ISDN and ATM experiments over a NASA advanced communication technology satellite (ACTS)
conducted in order to develop high–bandwidth digital communications over widely separated local area
networks (LANs) to allow widespread access to expensive resources (ongoing).
• Wireless LAN for testing of COTS high–bandwidth equipment carried out to find wireless LAN best suited
for distributed simulation communication, and for fast setup/teardown of military sites (FY96).
• Video, interactive graphics, and telecommunications over a desktop workstation and personal computer
(PC), and adaptive compression schemes allowing high data rate communications between distributed users.
• Executable protocol specifications using very high speed integrated circuit (VHSIC) hardware descriptive
language (VHDL) to replace ambiguous English language specifications with an unambiguous computer
language specification to ensure that various COTS/government–off–the–shelf (GOTS) telecommunications
equipment will be interoperable (FY97).
The challenges include recognizing and identifying the most promising commercially available technologies and products
and adapting these to Army needs. Since the environment and the conditions used in the commercial and military sectors
are not the same, some adaptation may be required, especially in four areas: sensing, analysis, distribution, and assimilation.
These factors turn combat information into knowledge, described by mathematical algorithms, and distribute the
information in a hostile battlefield environment. The objective is to provide real–time, knowledge–based operations and
seamless battlefield communications and computer processed C3I electronic warfare (EW) throughout the operational
hierarchy.
Technical issues being addressed include protocols for reliable, seamless connectivity as remote hosts increase in number
and explore high–bandwidth data channels to offset the need for large–scale localized data storage. Security and data

integrity issues are also of interest as well as the configuration optimization, mobility and robustness of the computing
systems.
d. Wearable Computers
Wearable computers and their applications are starting to become feasible. They can act as intelligent assistants and may take
many forms, from small wrist devices to head–mounted displays. They have the potential to provide anywhere, anytime
information and communications. Applications such as telemedicine (augmented reality), memory aids, maintenance
assistance, distributed mobile computers in wireless networks (individual communication with soldiers on the battlefield),
and desktop applications such as word processing, scheduling, and database applications.
e. Software Engineering
The Army software technology investment strategy (ASTIS) is a targeted strategy based on a principle that capitalizes on
conditions of imperfect competition with our adversaries and rapid technological change. Stated in warfighter terms, hit
them where we are strong and they are weak, with the technology transfer equivalent of overwhelming force. The ASTIS
vision includes:
• Minimize software cost and schedule drivers in DoD systems.

• Maximize the use of commercial best practice and products.
• Evolve systems and infrastructure.
• Enable greater mission capability and interoperability to exceed expectations of the soldier in the field.
This vision is realized through the establishment of a virtual advanced software technology consortium (VASTC). Assets of
a VASTC will be a distributed matrix of an integrated government, academic, and defense industrial software and computer
resource asset base.
The word "virtual" in VASTC implies:
• An idealized machine, a technology transition engine, interconnected real assets that act like a technology
center in one physical location, and one organization—a rich matrix of diverse collaborating entities that act
as if they were one.
• An enormously flexible network, a consortium with the illusion of being an organization that can
dynamically change.
• The VASTC is designed to get the right technology to the right customer, virtually on demand.
A roadmap establishing, prototyping, demonstrating, and scaling up incremental capabilities hinging on this principle will
yield an emphasis and a paradigm shift. Each effort in the roadmap has building blocks of integration, process, product
teams, and a paradigm shift built in. The result will create a distinct techno–economic paradigm built around flexibility
rather than simple volume production.
The ASTIS strategy consists of:
• Process—transition technology for affordability
– Focus emerging software process technology

– Integrate discrete technologies

– Mature the Army’s supporting infrastructure
• Product—domain/product line management and horizontal technology integration
– Evolve common components

– Converge to domain–specific architectures
– P3I of legacy software
– Establish software exit criteria for ATDs
• People—professional development of the matrix
– Government
– Industry
– Academia
• Paradigm—the integrating concept (VASTC)
– Focused expertise and technology

– Prototype software technology incubators
– Integrated distributed incubators
– Life–cycle software engineering center of the future.
The ASTIS guides the industrial base toward key critical technology sectors. These sectors include computers and software
support for the development of capital goods such as aircraft, ground transportation vehicles and systems, flexible
manufacturing facilities, as well as telecommunication, decision support, visualization, and battlefield information systems.
These are the sectors having the greatest growth and technological potential.
Virtual Advanced Software Technology Consortium
The VASTC offers industry and academia distributed yet integrated advanced technology transfer incubation facilities in
which the emerging technologies come together to enable risk reducing proof–of–principle demonstrations conducted with
access to materiel in an operational environment. This enivronment enables evolving synthetic environments, a distributed
high–performance computing infrastructure, and advanced large–scale program management techniques. The VASTC
establishes a rapid software technology transition channel for the Army and the nation.
Figure IV–7 depicts a single software technology incubation cell. The VASTC incubators scale up immature, emerging, and
mature technologies, and integrate these technologies into existing environments. Real systems are the test articles and have
the beneficial side effect of reducing risk on the actual programs. Deployed (in–service engineering), new developments,
and advanced concept systems provide scale–up opportunities and real–world challenge problems. Yet, the artifacts from
the incubators are reusable components that are targeted to domain–specific software architectures.

Figure IV-7. Software Technology Incubator Concept

The VASTC offers the government an engine to continuously reduce risk and insert technology into existing weapon
system software. The VASTC is also a software technology training factory. People are educated and trained in the use of the
new technologies while they are analyzing and modernizing existing systems. The software training factory operates on
existing systems with new technologies. The VASTC training factory will optimize resources and reduce risk by acting as a
booster to future builds of existing systems.
Regardless of a VASTC participant’s role (e.g., academic, principal investigator, independent R&D (IR&D) explorer,
governmental staff developer), the technology will flow with the participants. The VASTC will be a national asset and an
engine of technology transfer influencing commercial practice that will be reflected in government products.
Key to realizing the vision of the VASTC will be the capability to provide integrated automation capabilities throughout the
software life cycle. Process automation is a relatively new area of research with many technical challenges. A common
underlying infrastructure that allows ease of integration and supports evolutionary development for each individual
technology being automated will be necessary. Early efforts will be directed at developing this underlying infrastructure and
providing an open interface that encourages tool vendors to build tools that support VASTC. Long–term efforts will be
directed at finding technological advances that will make a seamless automated software development paradigm a reality.
Next–Generation Life–Cycle Software Engineering Center
The amount of Army software (old, modified, new) requiring life–cycle software engineering services is increasing
exponentially along with life–cycle costs. To address this issue and bring costs under control, the Army has initiated a
conceptual shift in how future life–cycle engineering services will be accomplished. At the core of this initiative is the
next–generation life–cycle software engineering center (NGLCSEC) prototype. The goal of this new center is to reduce
weapon system software development and support costs by at least an order of magnitude. The goal will be achieved by
creating a seamless software engineering directorate within the Army Materiel Command (AMC) that shares resources,
knowledge, and best practices among its members, with a focus on the customer. The concept is being prototyped at the
Tank–Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) and scaled to an AMC–wide infrastructure capable of
supporting Force XXI and the Army After Next.

Networking systems that can support greatly increased throughput, a supportable infrastructure, and mature
domain–specific architectures must be sought out to fully achieve interoperability between geographically dispersed
member organizations. Also, new management processes will be needed that can adapt to the many systems supported by
member organizations and their organizational cultures.
Requirements Validation
All software systems are requirements driven. Software users have specific and general needs that must be fulfilled by the
software they procure. In order for these software systems to satisfy those needs, the systems must satisfy the formal
requirements outlined by users and engineered by designers. Automated systems that can analyze a software system’s formal
design to validate the requirements are needed.
Embedded software packages, like software for aircraft control, are critical in the sense that if they fail, soldiers die. Battlefield
information systems are critical because they provide critical information to the commander on the scene that facilitates
sound decision making.
Some software requirements are difficult to specify. Methods for formal specification of these requirements are needed to
enable automated validation.
Computer–Aided Prototyping
Computer–aided prototyping is an evolutionary software development paradigm that involves the end user of the software
in the requirements development process. This paradigm makes use of prototype demonstrations and user feedback to
iteratively develop a functional prototype. Prototypes are executable specifications of software systems partially generated
and partially built from atomic components retrieved from a reuse repository. Current efforts are directed at maturing and
commercializing this technology to enable practical use by the life–cycle software engineering centers in the research,
development, and engineering centers (RDECs). Our goal in FY98 is to continue the maturation of this technology and
support its commercialization and incorporation into the NGLCSEC.
Computer–aided software engineering tools are difficult to commercialize. The long–term investment required to keep
these tools viable in the software market is tremendous. Tools like computer–aided prototyping tools are important for the
realization of the ASTIS vision, but are not attractive for the software industrial base. Efforts need to be concentrated on
supporting their commercialization and influencing the industrial base to champion this technology.
Rapid Prototyping for a System Evolution Record

Future system development will require vast amounts of data to be collected and made available throughout a system’s life
cycle. A system evolution record (SER) is needed to serve as a cradle to grave repository for all artifacts and decisions made
during the evolution of a software system. An initial model of a SER is being implemented. Our goal for the next and
subsequent years is to model different pieces of the software development process to integrate with the SER.
New techniques for capturing design decisions must be developed to allow for the linking of these design decisions into the
SER. Hypergraphs (nonlinear representations of information) must also be developed that will store not only the artifacts to
be contained in the SER and the decisions already mentioned, but also dependencies between them. Additionally, new
technologies for sharing information like the World Wide Web must be exploited to enable sharing of critical life–cycle
information over extended distances.
f. Artificial Intelligence
Exploiting emerging high–performance computing, storage and retrieval, and communications systems for the Army’s
electronic battlefield (EBF) requires advanced software capabilities incorporating AI. After 2000, DIS software capabilities
are expected to include cooperating intelligent systems, coupling of symbolic and neural processing, and autonomous
synthetic agents and robots. This will provide a large synthetic computing environment in which networking and process
management are handled automatically and are transparent to the users. This includes multi–level secure data routing, loci
of computation, workload partitioning, and interconnection of government and industry/academia expert and information
centers with built–in ownership protection. By 2010, planning systems capable of complete support of military operations
and deployment with less than 24 hours notice will become available.
The Army federated laboratory is focusing basic research in five areas, each of which will need AI technologies. These areas
are advanced sensors, advanced and interactive displays, software and intelligent systems, telecommunications and data
distribution, and distributed interactive simulations. Three approved consortia will work on Army–specific basic research
over the next 5 to 8 years. The Army Artificial Intelligence Center manages the Army Artificial Intelligence Program, which
is focused on applied research and prototyping to deliver artificial intelligence solutions in support of Force XXI and AAN.
A number of expert systems have been delivered, and emerging technologies such as fuzzy logic, neural networks, and
generic algorithms are being used to build advanced technologies.
The study of AI has produced advanced technologies in three categories: mature, emerging, and immature. Expert and
rule–based systems are examples of mature technologies that are being widely used in commercial applications. The major
challenge is to develop prototypes for Force XXI and identify appropriate technology insertion in existing systems and
systems under development. Fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms, and neural networks are examples of emerging technologies.
The development of prototypes for exploratory development and risk mitigation will clarify the technical issues. Finally,
intelligent agents and machine learning are examples of immature technologies. These are the focus of the basic research
efforts in the Army federated laboratory.
g. Human Computer Interface

Human–computer interactions deal with the systematic application of scientific knowledge about humans to design the
simulated human and its behavior as well as the interface software through which real humans interact with the synthetic
environment. The Army programs addressing the physical human–machine interface and the human engineering aspects
are described in Section III–N, "Human Systems Interface." Information display and human computer communications
technologies are steadily advancing. COTS user interface management tools, standards–based approaches for product
development, style guides, and graphical information visualization are now available for commercial and military
applications. The Army programs addressing human computer interactions rely on these general tools to make computers
and associated networks easier to use as well as to build. This is a continuous process.
An important aspect is the adaptation and interface of the large number of previously developed application–specific closed
architecture codes with the COTS human–computer interaction tools. Connected speech systems with increasing natural
language interpretation and voice recognition that can be trained quickly for different voices are appearing, but they lack
robustness for military applications. Group system capabilities are needed to provide for multi–user interfaces in to software
systems, and for group decision making capabilities in battlefield planning systems.
h. Assured Computing
Safeguarding of information, loss–of–service protection, and damage prevention to programs and data through errors or
malicious actions requires multilevel security, defense against malicious software, and credible procedures for technical
evaluation, certification, and accreditation of software. The Army relies on the National Security Agency (NSA) to provide
the required assured computing technologies.
Also relevant to this category is the short–term year 2000 problem. Essential management information systems must
continue operation through January 1, 2000.
The biggest challenge facing the assured computing field is the year 2000 problem. Time has nearly run out for developing
automated tools to find a solution to this problem, or to develop new systems to replace all legacy systems that display the
problem. Manual editing methods will be necessary to solve the problem, and that means manpower. Effective means of
keeping critically short software professionals in the Army to solve this problem must be developed.
i. Distributed Interactive Computing
Instant access to information on computer systems throughout the world is now a reality. Surfing the Web has become a
national pastime for Internet users in and out of the government. The Web provides the capability for anyone with access to
the Internet to access information on every imaginable subject at any time of the day or night, and on any machine that
contains a Web server. This technology is being exploited in many ways to increase information sharing between agencies
and to further our movement toward a paperless Army. Web servers have been established at virtually every organization

that provides information or services to the Army. Publications and forms have been made available electronically and
policies should encourage the use of electronic forms and publications.
This is a relatively new area of investigation and definitive near–, mid–, and far–term goals are still in the early stages of
formulation. The tremendous rate of growth in Web technologies offers the promise of many significant advances within a
very short time. Army planning will, in part, be driven by the rapid changes in available marketplace technologies.
The most critical challenge in this area is the ability to provide secure access to sensitive information, allowing easy access to
authorized users while preventing unauthorized access. This technology is moving faster than even industry can keep up
with. Most of the development of Web applications is being done by hackers working nights and weekends with no wish for
compensation. Capabilities for increased information availability and increased interactivity have resulted in our inability to
control what information flows and where. Future research must design ways to protect critical information while providing
access to necessary information and capability.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Computing and Software is shown in Table IV–16. The Army software program
is structured to take advantage of emerging commercial software technologies and relies on the DoD software program for
most of the generic software technology, including tools and techniques for software engineering, reuse, and life–cycle
management. This program is integrated with the tri–service Reliance program and addresses only those technology areas
where DoD program investment will not satisfy Army–specific application needs.
Table IV–16. Technical Objectives for Computing and Software

High Performance Shared DoD HPC Infrastructure Scalable HPC and distributed Petaflops systems in S&T labs
Computing and Scalable heterogeneous systems transitioned to
Parallel the EBF
100 gigaflops performance EBF at 100 teraflops
Systems
Teraflops systems for S&T arena
Gigabyte random access memory
(RAM) with microsecond access
Multidisciplinary modeling on
scalable/distributed HPC

Networking DREN and gigabit networking 10 to 100 gigabit networking Ultrafast, all optical WANs
High bandwidth interconnected Optical wide area network (WAN) Smart switching
COTS/digital communications over testing
GOTS telecommunications
equipment; separated LANs
Telephony integration
Wireless LAN testing

ATM WAN interoperability
Wireless LANs
Software Initial software reuse through Full–scale reuse through domain Software commerce on demand
Engineering rudimentary stand–alone repositories specific software architectures and
evolvable legacy systems
Integrated capability to develop, field,
Massively parallel Ada evolve, and maintain software through
Fully integrated VASTC VASTC
Computer–aided rapid prototyping
System evolution record for

reengineered systems
Virtual life cycle
Center implementation
Artificial Intelligence Widespread use of AI mature Cooperating intelligent systems and Intelligent planning systems capable of
technologies in battlefield systems symbolic/neural processing included complete support of military operations and
in DIS software capabilities deployment 24 hours a day
Human Computer Graphical open interfaces for all new Single user voice recognition Multi–user voice recognition interfaces for
Interface software systems fielded interfaces for limited software systems all Army software capable of filtering out
fielded noise interference
Assured Computing Risk modeling Formal specification languages Formal reasoning systems
Security properties modeling Trusted systems High assurance software models
IW paradigms Evaluation criteria for network Certification methodology and tools for
security properties critical properties
AI–based intrusion detection
Certification of reusable components
Distributed Heterogeneous distributed operating Distributed operating system (OS) Dynamic reconfiguration for real time
Interactive systems service (limited capability) services (enhanced capability) (R–T) systems
Computing
Distributed database services over Structured query language (SQL) for Multiple database, multimedia query
homogeneous databases multimedia database queries capability optimized
T1, T3 available Macrobuilding capability Interoperable heterogeneous algorithms
Scalable application components Automated adaptive load balancing

Table IV–17. Computing and Software Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities

High Performance Computing and TR 97–001 Command and Control

Scalable Parallel Systems TR 97–007 Battlefield Information Passage
Networking TR 97–001 Command and Control

FI 97–007 Accounting
Software Engineering TR 97–001 Command and Control

EN 97–002 Common Terrain Database Management
Artificial Intelligence TR 97–003 Mission Planning and Rehearsal

Human Computer Interface TR 97–002 Situational Awareness

Assured Computing TR 97–001 Command and Control

Distributed Interactive Computing TR 97–009 Communications Transport Systems


Chapter IV I. Conventional Weapons
I. Conventional Weapons
1. Scope
The ultimate goal of all weapons systems is to destroy the target. The conventional weapons technology area develops
conventional armaments for all new and upgraded nonnuclear weapons. It includes efforts directed specifically toward
nonnuclear munitions, their components and launching systems, guns, rockets and guided missiles, projectiles, special
warfare munitions, mortars, mines, countermine systems, and their associated combat control. There are six major subareas:
(1) fuzing—safe and arm, (2) guidance and control, (3) guns, (4) mines/countermines, (5) warheads/explosives and rocket/
missile propulsion, and (6) weapon lethality/vulnerability.
2. Rationale
Conventional weapons technology strongly supports the needs of the Army in both tactical and strategic mission areas. It
responds to the Army’s operational needs for cost–effective system upgrades and next–generation systems in support of the
top joint warfighting capabilities objectives. Performance objectives focus on projecting lethal or less–than–lethal force
precisely against an enemy with minimal friendly casualties and collateral damage. Objectives address the need for the
following capabilities: affordable all–weather, day/night precision strike against critical mobile and fixed targets; defense
against aircraft, ballistic missiles, and low–observable cruise missiles; effective mine detection and neutralization to permit
movement of forces on land; gun/missile systems for advanced, lighter weight air/land combat vehicles and vehicle
self–defense systems; lightweight, high–performance gun systems for artillery applications; and precise lethal force
projection.
Conventional weapons technologies, when developed and demonstrated, have both an excellent historical record of
transition and many future transition opportunities. Examples of the latter include systems currently under development
(Crusader, Javelin, line–of–sight antitank (LOSAT), enhanced fiber–optic guided missile (EFOGM)), potential upgrades to
existing systems (Patriot fuze), and potential new systems (including intelligent minefield (IMF), precision–guided mortar
munition (PGMM), autonomous intelligent submunition (AIS), 155–mm lightweight automated howitzer (LAH), and
extended range artillery (ERA) projectile).
a. Fuzing—Safe and Arm
Fuzing—safe and arm (S&A) technologies address issues associated with advanced future threats, both air and surface.
Primary emphasis is on advanced sensors, signal processing algorithms, guidance integrated fuzing, global positioning
system (GPS), miniaturized solid–state components, countermeasure resistance, electronic safe and arm, reliability, and
affordability. Major products include an advanced GPS–based artillery registration round in FY98, demonstrations of a

standoff fuze against reactive/active armor in FY99 and miniaturized electronic fuzing for objective individual combat
weapon (OICW) bursting munitions in FY00, low energy S&A devices in FY03, and low–cost electronic S&A devices in
FY05.
The primary technical challenges for guidance integrated fuzing are in M&S, sensor and signal processing, target
characterization, and testing. The challenge for gun munitions is to develop affordable fuzes that will function at the desired
point in an adverse environment (electronic countermeasures (ECM)/electromagnetic interference (EMI), obscured
targets, cluttered battlefield).
Specific challenges are:
• Construct a guidance integrated fuze (GIF) simulation to provide a common basis for comparing
performance of different concepts under given sets of flight dynamics.
• Miniaturize GPS components.
• Integrate RF and IR hardware/software to operate in both guidance and fuze time domains spanning three
orders of magnitude (103 to 106 second).
• Sense a second launch environment for safing and arming nonspin munitions.
• Devise a small generic electronic safe and arm fuze with dual safeties for tank and mortar applications.
• Solve the helicopter–in–clutter problem by developing an electrostatic sensor fuze.
b. Guidance and Control
Guidance and control (G&C) of conventional weapons is the application of sensors, computational capability, and specific
force generation that allows a weapon to engage both fixed and moving targets with improved accuracy and lethality while
minimizing collateral damage and casualties. The major milestones are:
• By FY98, demonstrate performance gains in automatic target recognition (ATR) from multispectral sensor
fusion.
• By FY98, complete validation of algorithm for combat identification of aircraft utilizing high range
resolution radar profiles, electronic support measures, and jet engine modulation.
• By FY98, complete hardware–in–the–loop evaluation of prototype guidance sections of 2.75–inch
precision–guided rockets.
• By FY98, demonstrate high–resolution infrared imaging seeker technology through captive flight and flight
test. Demonstrate millimeter–wave (MMW) datalink technology packaged on a missile through flight test.
• By FY98, demonstrate, through simulation and both sled and flight testing, a man–in–the–loop fiber–optic
guided missile system with a 40–km range.
• By FY99, demonstrate a low–cost, ultraminiature, manufacturable fiber–optic gyro.
• By FY00, demonstrate a strapdown laser seeker and G&C of a precision–guided 2.75–inch rocket.
Some of the specific challenges include:
• Transfer ATR technology into systems.

• Integrate microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology into the thrust on precision guidance of

small diameter weapons.

• Achieve navigational grade performance with ultraminiature fiber–optic gyros.
• Achieve innovative strapdown designs for laser IR and multispectral seekers.
• Validate static and dynamic target models for combat identification of aircraft.
The three competency areas in G&C technology (guidance information and signal processing, inertial sensors and control
systems, and missile system sensors and seekers) face these major technical challenges: precision guidance of small diameter
weapons, enhanced target acquisition, including masked target detection, and operational performance measures for
multispectral missile seekers. Responding to these challenges will require the infusion of a number of emerging technologies
that are not currently in the G&C program. The G&C program is coordinated with the technical objectives in the
manufacturing technology program to achieve manufacturing and producibility goals and extensive use of simulation is
made to reduce overall R&D costs.
c. Guns—Conventional and Electric
The guns subarea develops both conventional and electric gun technologies for all new and upgraded gun systems (small
arms, mortars, air/surface combat vehicles, tanks, and artillery). It includes efforts directed toward future, advanced, generic
technologies, and system technologies for small, medium, and large calibers, including barrel/launcher, ammunition/
projectile, power supply and conditioning, weapon mechanism/ammunition feeder, propellants/ignition systems, and fire
control. Products include the OICW prototype in FY98, a demonstration of 14 megajoules (MJ) muzzle energy from a
120–millimeter (mm) M256 cannon in FY99, the integrated objective crew–served weapon (OCSW) system prototype in
FY00, the LAH demonstration in FY00, and the PGMM demonstration in FY01.
Challenges include improving hit probability and lethality on target, extending the maximum range, reducing the weight of
the total system, all–weather operation, and reduced barrel wear. Advances in composites, new propellant initiatives, and
sophisticated electronics hold promise of overcoming many of these challenges.
Specific challenges include:
• Use composite materials to reduce the weight of individual and crew–served weapons.
• Integrate fuze control for precision air burst on individual and crew–served weapons.
• Enhance ballistic aspects of tungsten materials to provide penetration performance goals with less
environmental impact than depleted uranium (DU) material.
• Exploit composites to fashion a cargo–carrying artillery round capable of delivering twice the payload of
metal projectiles at current ranges.
• Demonstrate new lethal mechanisms to defeat explosive reactive armor.
• Develop an electrothermal chemical (ETC) tank gun with 18 MJ muzzle energy and 1.9–km/second muzzle
velocity.
• Develop tactical size advanced pulse power supplies capable of supporting large caliber ETC and
electromagnetic tank guns.
• Demonstrate new propellant architectures and formulations which improve muzzle velocity by at least 25
percent.

• Demonstrate environmentally friendly propellant and process.
d. Mines and Countermines
The mines and countermine subarea includes all efforts pertaining to the development or improvement of land mines and
all efforts pertaining to detecting, marking, breaching, neutralizing, or clearing land mines. The major products include the
IMF demonstrating long–range detection/tracking and autonomous, intelligent attack of mobile targets by FY98, a two– to
four–fold improvement in individual mine detection for antipersonnel mines and neutralization capability by FY99, a
portable, standoff detector and neutralizer for buried antitank and antipersonnel nonmetallic mines at maneuver speeds in
FY00, and demonstration of high–speed reconnaissance and breaching of minefields in FY05.
Challenges include the ability of acoustic sensors to accurately identify and track targets, the maturation of sensor fusion
algorithms, and the implementation of tactical response algorithms. Mine detection, neutralization, and minefield breaching
have challenges: rapid detection of mines (most false alarms eliminated) and the requirement for 100 percent assurance of
removal, destruction, or neutralization.
• Increase mine ability to detect targets during all weather/clutter conditions.

• Extend the mine’s sensor range by a factor of four.
• Combine countermine detection and neutralization capabilities.
• Enable robotic (autonomous and semiautonomous) mine neutralization and extraction.
• Reduce false alarm rate for the detection/identification of mines.
e. Warheads/Explosives and Rocket/Missile Propulsion
The warheads/explosives and rocket/missile propulsion subarea develops conventional warheads, explosives, and rocket/
missile propellants for antiair, antisurface warfare. It includes efforts directed specifically toward advanced nonnuclear
warhead concepts, advanced kill mechanisms employing multi–option warheads, new warhead materials, material process
techniques, analytical design tools, advanced explosives, and adaptable, minimum smoke, insensitive propellants for rockets
and missiles. Products include a demonstration for a focused reactive frag warhead in FY98, a FY00 demonstration of liquid
propellants to combine the specific impulse and energy management of liquids with the field handling simplicity of solids;
demonstration of more energetic explosive formulations, and a 90 percent reduction in the emissions from explosive
processing and demilitarization by FY05.
One major challenge is to provide affordable performance optimized and matched to a broad range of targets and intercept
conditions, while maintaining or reducing the weight and size of the warhead/rocket. Promising new materials, such as
tantalum, molybdenum, and tungsten, may provide dramatic improvements in warhead lethality. The challenge is to
understand the relationship between microstructure and plastic flow of tantalum, upset forging optimization, and

parametric process variations in molybdenum and tungsten alloys. Higher performance requires more compact, higher
energy density insensitive explosive formulations.
• Design a warhead that produces multiple compact/controllable pattern fragments using detonation wave
dynamic models, which predict fragment geometry, size, and velocity.
• Improve penetration of very short/long standoff shape charge and explosively formed penetrator warheads.
• Desensitize explosives by recrystallization to eliminate defects, by coating particles to reduce friction, or by
reformulation.
• Synthesize new, more powerful explosive and propellant formulations using composites of new, less
sensitive energetic constituents that produce environmentally "clean" exhaust products.
• Design fuel–efficient, lightweight, low– cost turbine engines and inducted/air–augmented rockets.
f. Weapon Lethality/Vulnerability
Weapon lethality/vulnerability (L/V) refers to the science of understanding the mechanisms by which a warhead or other
ballistic mechanism can defeat a target. Vulnerability, a characteristic of a target, describes the effects of various damage
mechanisms to the physical components of the target and the resulting dysfunction. Lethality, normally used from the
perspective of the attacking weapon, includes the ability of the weapon to inflict the damage mechanisms upon the target, as
well as the effects of those mechanisms (target vulnerability). The L/V subarea addresses the tools, methods, databases, and
supporting technologies (e.g., solid geometric modeling tools, modern coding environments, supportive hardware
configurations) needed to assess the lethality and vulnerability of all U.S. weapon systems, including aspects of design,
effectiveness, and survivability. Products include incorporation of tri–service blast models in FY99, and a 10–fold decrease
in software preparation time in FY05.
The biggest challenge is to begin the complex task at the earliest possible stage in the weapon development or upgrade cycle,
when inexpensive changes can lead to large increases in the survivability of crew and materiel and enhanced battlefield
performance. To complicate matters, new penetrators (e.g., hypervelocity missiles, top attack systems, tactical ballistic
missiles) must be modeled against an increasing list of sophisticated targets with new materials and novel armor designs.
• Develop first–generation models to predict terminal effects on composite materials.

• Use statistical prediction methods to characterize fragment/debris clouds behind armors accounting for all
fragment parameters (e.g., mass, speed, shape, spatial distribution).
• Extrapolate current L/V data to predict effects in new encounters with different materials and systems.
• Determine sensitivity of modern electrical subsystems and other components to ballistic blast and shock.
• Predict synergistic effects of concurrent damage mechanisms (fragment/penetrator and blast/shock) on
structural components.

The roadmap of technology objectives for Conventional Weapons is shown in Table IV–18.
Table IV–18. Technical Objectives for Conventional Weapons

Fuzing—Safe and Arm Incorporated neural nets, advanced Demonstrate standoff fuze against Demonstrate GIF aimable warhead
sensors, and high–speed processors in reactive/active armor capability
GIF to increase system effectiveness
by 39%
Demonstrate miniaturized electronic Improve logistics by developing universal
fuzing for OICW bursting munitions fuze components and subsystems
Collect target signatures for
electrostatic sensors (ESS)
Guidance and Control Conduct 40–km flight test of a Demonstrate aimpoint selection via Automate G&C software generation
multimode airframe technology neural net reducing acquisition cost by u10%
missile against point targets
Demonstrate strapdown MMW Exploit multisensor target/scene simulation
Demonstrate 2,000% accuracy seeker that can acquire and track in a to reduce T&E costs by 30%
improvement of MLRS extended real–time laboratory test
range free rocket
Develop advanced hardware/software code
Develop solid–state/photonic sign techniques
components that reduce the cost of
G&C systems by a factor of 3
Guns— Using ETC propulsion, launch a Demonstrate a 30% increase in Demonstrate ETC tank gun technologies
Conventional and Electric projectile at 2.5 km/s with muzzle Abrams direct fire system accuracy providing 25–30 MJ muzzle energy and 2.5
energy of 7 megajoules (MJ) with a 300% increase in probability of km/s muzzle velocity
hit at 3 km
Demonstrate direct laser ignition of Demonstrate a 200% increase in hit
current propellant for artillery Demonstrate OCSW prototype with a probability at 4 km with 120–mm tank
application weight of t38 lbs ammunition
Demonstrate antitank guided weapon Demonstrate 17 MJ kinetic energy at

performance against active protection muzzle in a 120–mm XM291 cannon
system
Demonstrate PGMM with first round
target kill capability at 15 km
Mines/Countermine Demonstrate IMF acoustic sensor Using robotic/remote controlled Utilize high–clutter targeting algorithm and
ability to autonomously detect seven demolition devices, demonstrate high–speed processors to reconnaissance a
target vehicles at u1 km demining ability with a 2 to 4 times minefield with high rate of search (50 square
improvement in cost and speed miles per hour)
Reproduce a vehicle signature to
spoof off route mines up to 100 m Apply multispectral imaging, GPR, Demonstrate rapid clearing and 100%
away at speed up to 10 mph and chemical/nuclear sensing in a detection of mines
vehicle–mounted detector to find
buried, metallic, and nonmetallic
Ground penetrating radar (GPR) and
mines
IR detectors to find buried metallic
and nonmetallic mines

Warheads/ Demonstrate a long standoff Flight test a 35–40 kg compact kinetic Reduces emissions from explosives
Explosives and Rocket/ anti–armor weapon energy missile matching LOSAT production processing and demilling by 90%
Missile Propulsion lethality
Demonstrate a tactical air–breathing Double rocket payload/range without
missile with a three– to four–fold Demonstrate a tactical subprojectile changing weight or volume
increase in range for the KE precursor warhead that
meets aerodynamic and terminal
Extended propulsion systems shelf life to
requirements
Demonstrate low signature gel motor more than 25 years
Use recrystallization and coatings to

Double warhead performance or cut
produce higher performance, but less
warhead size in half
sensitive deformable explosives
Demonstrate warhead for active

protection system (APS) to defeat full
spectrum of threats
Weapon Lethality/ Develop first–generation models to Develop and validate methodology to Decrease software preparation time by a
Vulnerability predict and analyze penetration of predict penetration by hypervelocity factor of 5; improve fidelity by a factor of 2;
emerging composite materials (400–1,400 m/s) weapons reduce life–cycle costs of conventional
weapons by a factor of 2
Develop model for stochastic analysis Improve body–to–body impact
of fragment effects models for tactical ballistic missile Incorporate large–scale hypervelocity
targets penetration mechanics of geological and
layered structural materials
Upgrade L/V models to enhance
wargame fidelity of the DISN Demonstrate first–order shock
propagation model for Develop fire/thermal and toxic fume
high–explosive blast loading transport model
Table IV–19. Conventional Weapons Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities

Fuzing—Safe and Arm TR 97–040 Firepower Lethality

Guidance and Control TR 97–040 Firepower Lethality
Guns—Conventional and Electric TR 97–040 Firepower Lethality

Mines/Countermine TR 97–041 Operations in an Unexploded Ordnance/Mine Threat Environment
Warheads/Explosives and Rocket/ TR 97–040 Firepower Lethality

Missile Propulsion
Weapon Lethality/ TR 97–040 Firepower Lethality

Vulnerability TR 97–043 Survivability—Materiel

Chapter IV J. Electron Devices
J. Electron Devices
1. Scope
The Army program in electron devices generates the cutting–edge components essential for a vital advantage over complete
dependence on widely available commercial electronics. This technology area capitalizes on basic research in the forefront
of science (Chapter NO TAG), and advances it to the exploratory development subsystem level. It includes focused
research, development, and design of electronic materials; nanoelectronic devices (including digital, analog, microwave,
and optoelectronic sensors and circuits); electronic modules, assemblies, and subsystems; and the required portable power
sources. Electron devices technology comprises four major subareas: EO, MMW components, nanoelectronics, and
portable power sources.
2. Rationale
Supremacy in electron devices is crucial to supremacy on the digitized battlefield. A superior, versatile, innovative program
in electron device S&T is essential to the broad Army vision of (1) decisive force multiplication with a minimum number of
platforms and personnel, (2) avoidance of potentially disastrous technological surprise on the battlefield, and (3) complete
situational awareness on the battlefield. Power on the battlefield is a cornerstone to battlefield effectiveness. The technology
supports the Army’s five modernization objectives, STOs, and ATDs. Requirements of Army systems such as EW, radar,
and C4I translate into component requirements, which may include performance, weight, size, radiation hardness,
interoperability, cooling, power consumption, maintainability, and survivability. This technology area represents over 40
percent of the procurement cost of many military systems. Military purchases of semiconductor electronics have increased
annually. Semiconductor electronics were one of very few areas to experience significant growth. Fielding of weapons
systems that meet present requirements, that can be upgraded to meet future requirements, and that have affordable
life–cycle costs will demand exploitation of commercial electronics whenever possible, plus development of the special
technologies here for Army systems that need unique capabilities.
a. Electro–Optics
The objective of the EO subarea is to develop critical EO components such as lasers, focal plane arrays (FPAs), amplifiers,
detectors, photonic devices, fiber optics, and low power displays for application in Army tactical and strategic systems.
Near–term goals include support of development of high–resolution, full–color displays for land warrior head–mounted
vision systems, realization of multispectral FPAs with adjacent LADAR, fiber–optic distributed sensors, and on–chip,
optical interconnects.

Mid–term goals include development of smart multicolor staring FPAs for robust seekers and acquisition sights, integrated
optoelectronic staring laser radar (LADAR), nonlinear optical devices for sensor protection and improved phosphors and
materials for miniature flat panel displays.
Long–term goals include development of integrated multidomain (LADAR and multispectral FPA) smart sensor elements,
miniature hybrid optical image processors, real–time smart vision systems, portable high–power tunable laser sources, and
new display technologies. DARPA is currently supporting the Army’s interest in uncooled FPA technology, miniaturized,
high–resolution flat–panel displays and optical interconnects. (This support is noted by the symbol [*D] in Table IV–20.)
Technical challenges include the development of more reliable, higher efficiency, higher frequency, longer wavelength
solid–state lasers; optical signal processors; cost–effective modules for information systems and IRFPAs;
receive–architecture for optically fed phased–array radar; new low–power flat–panel display.
Specific technical challenges include:
• Monolithic integration of optoelectronic devices on silicon.

• Design and development of optical interconnects.
• Growth of novel thin film materials for uncooled detectors.
• High efficiency phosphors.
• Photolithography and/or electrical circuitry manufacturing issues for 2,000 lines/inch displays.
• Integration of smart functions onto FPAs.
• Long–lived UV laser diode operation at room temperature.
• Fusion of multispectral images.
• Large area multicolor FPAs.
• Solid–state tunable direct lasing in the UV.
• Development of portable, tunable solid–state IR lasers.
• Development of superconducting components and cryogenic antennas.
• Redesign of the I2 tube with no undue impact on tube lifetime.
• Integration of reflection modulators and FPAs.
• Processing of data from LADAR and FPA.
b. Millimeter–Wave Components
Near–term goals are to insert affordable monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMIC) into low–cost expendable
decoys, low–cost moving target indicator (MTI) radar, and smart munition seekers; to develop mature and affordable
MMW integrated circuit (IC) technology for next–generation, target acquisition systems and MMW satellite
communications.
Mid–term goals are to continue cost reduction and increase the density and functional capabilities of MMIC assemblies and
packages, extend microwave power module (MPM) technology to the MMW frequency regime, and provide common,
secure, jamproof, affordable wireless communications, and battlefield IFF.
Long–term goals are to achieve unprecedented levels of integration of diverse RF sensors into common apertures to reduce

system size and weight by an order of magnitude while meeting military cost, performance, reliability, and radiation
hardness requirements. In brief, the overall goal is to own the battlefield electromagnetic spectrum.
Among the technical challenges in millimeter–wave components are the achievement of high power, high efficiency, large
dynamic range, wide bandwidth, flexible manufacturing modeling and simulation, to enable first–pass success of
components, modules, and arrays, and process integration necessary for high–yield, low–cost multifunctional solid–state
devices and vacuum tubes. All these attributes must be provided at an affordable cost.
c. Nanoelectronics
Near–term goals include development of scalable manufacturing processes and cluster and lithography tools for flexible
fabrication of integrated compound semiconductor devices, advanced process synthesis technology, novel devices for very
high throughput digital signal processors, integration of electronic combat and combat–support functions, wide–bandgap
semiconductor devices for high–temperature electronics, pulse power electronics, nonvolatile memories, and microscale
electromechanical components.
Mid–term goals include development of lithography and fabrication capabilities for low–volume, affordable integrated
microwave, digital, and optical processors.
Long–term goals include flexible and affordable fabrication capabilities for concept demonstrations of fully integrated,
nanometer feature size, ultra–dense circuits for revolutionary warfighting sensor and information systems capabilities.
Among the technical challenges are creating new wide–bandgap semiconductor devices for high–temperature electronics
and for low–leakage, high–breakdown, highly linear power devices; high–quality, radiation–hardened devices of diverse
technologies; mixed–signal operation of nanoelectronics with on–chip millimeter–wave and EO components; very low
power circuits, and affordable custom nanoscale semiconductor processing for unique military applications–specific
circuits. An overall major challenge is the development of high–performance, low–power electronic systems for a substantial
reduction in battery requirements and associated weight and size penalties.
d. Portable Power Sources
The objectives of this program are to lighten the soldier’s burden, provide critical steady– and pulse–power components,
and reduce logistical and disposal costs. This can be done by applying chemistry, energy conversion, electronics, and
signature suppression to improve existing power systems and to enable the development of newer, more advanced batteries,
fuel cells, capacitors, and electromechanical (including engines and permanent magnet alternators) components and
systems.
The general goal is to develop small, lightweight, low–cost, environmentally compatible power sources with high power and
energy densities for communications, target acquisition, combat service support applications, miniaturized displays, and

microclimate cooling for the Future Soldier System.
Specific near–term goals are:
• Next generation, high energy (150–225 watt hour/kilogram (Wh/kg)) primary lithium (Li) batteries for
man–portable equipment.
• Lighter weight, higher energy density (80 Wh/kg) metal hydride or Li–ion rechargeables.
• Improved spin–stable reserve batteries.
• Develop low temperature (–30_C electrolyte for Li–ion batteries.
• New electrolytes for low–cost electrochemical capacitors.
• Man–portable 100 to 300 watt hydrogen–fueled fuel cells for soldier systems .
• Man–portable (40 lb/kW), signature suppressed 3,000–W–engine–driven generator set. The engine will
have a brake–specific fuel consumption (BSFC) of 0.52 and thermal efficiency of 25 percent and will be
capable of starting and operating on DF–2/JP–8 fuels.
• DARPA sponsored thermophotovoltaic (TPV) power source.
Specific mid–term goals are:
• Higher energy density (>350 Wh/kg) Li primary batteries.

• Improved energy (>100 Wh/kg) rechargeable batteries.
• Low–cost electrochemical capacitors for electric vehicles.
• Fuel cell stacks that operate on liquid fuels.
• Demonstration/validation of signature–suppressed, electronically controlled, man–portable/
man–handleable 0.5–3.0 kW–engine–driven generator sets that provide power on the move, enhance total
asset visibility and combat services support (CSS) operations and are compatible with emerging C4I and
weapons systems.
• Continue demonstration of DARPA sponsored thermovoltaic power source.
Specific long–term goals are:
• Rechargeable Li/polymer batteries with energy densities >150 Wh/kg, low cost, and improved safety.
• New pouch primary combat battery (250 Wh/kg) in flexible conformal packaging.
• Practical silent TPV power sources.
• 1 to 50 kW transportable fuel cells.
• Active batteries with very long shelf life for smart munitions.
• Batt/cap devices capable of full charge/discharge in minutes, with energy densities >200 Wh/kg.
• Portable 5,000–watt diesel–engine–driven generator set compatible with emerging C4I and weapons
systems.
• Demonstration of dual–use electromechanical (power generation, transmission, distribution, or utilization)
technologies and equipment (0.5–1100 kW) that reduce system size/weight and visual/audible IR signatures,
improve system reliability, minimize operation and support costs, and improve the deployability, tactical
mobility, and effectiveness of a CONUS–based fighting force.
Nonflammable, high–conductivity electrolytes, more energetic cathode materials, and lower–cost manufacturing methods
for Li batteries, compact hydrogen generators, improved fabrication methods for metal hydride cells, higher voltage and

more capacitive electrode materials for electrochemical capacitors, improved polymer exchange membranes and
electrocatalysts for fuel cells, spectrally matched emitters and photocells for TPV systems, and higher efficiency combustion
of and greater reliability/life for man–portable/man–handleable engine driven generator sets.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Electron Devices is shown in Table IV–20. (The symbol [*D] denotes DARPA
supported programs.)
Table IV–20. Technical Objectives for Electron Devices

Electro–Optics Order of magnitude improvement in Integrated optoelectronic staring laser Massively parallel architectures
(Photonic Devices) spatial light modulator (SLM) radar
dynamic range and speed
Miniaturized hybrid (digital–optical)
Integrated optical module for optical general purpose optical image processor
Vertical cavity surface emitting laser control of microwave phased array
(VCSEL) array integrated with antenna
Optoelectronic neural nets
Si–driver chip for optical
interconnects
Order of magnitude faster hybrid
Real–time smart vision systems
(digital–optical) image processor with
Photonic and electronic devices reduced size and power requirements
integrated on the same chip
Matured technology base in the
Image–forming light modulator in a synthesis and characterization of
hybrid (digital–optical) ATR electro–optical materials
Free–space reflection modulators & Modulation of RF signals with laser

modulator arrays diodes
Integrate loss–less splitter & phase Optoelectronic computing [*D]

shifter for optically controlled phase
array antennas Intelligent imaging systems on silicon
On–chip, optical interconnects
High–resolution adaptive system for

aberration correction
Electro–Optics Multiplexed fiber–optic sensor Distributed fiber–optic sensor with 10 Highly reliable international measurement
(Fiber Optic times as many acoustic channels unit (IMU) on–chip resonant fiber–optic
Technology) gyro
Integrated semiconductor &
polymeric optoelectronic Miniature integrated chip components
components for fiber optic gyros Demonstration of fiber–optic gyro
Highly reliable miniature (3–axis)
Environmentally stable fiber optic IFOG Demonstration of small, ultra long–range,
dispensers fiber–optic datalinks
Efficient coupling techniques for
Manufacturing process for miniature components
interferometric fiber–optic gyros
(IFOG)
Fiber–optic strain–sensing techniques
Integrated photonic subsystems

Electro–Optics Large–area staring long wave infrared Efficient laser sources in the UV for Monolithic multifunction, multispectral
(Smart Multispectral (LWIR) detectors CB detection (including LADAR) smart FPA
Detectors and Sources)
Thin–film uncooled ferroelectric IR Nonlinear optical devices for sensor Broadband, low–cost, low–loss, IR/ visible,
detector w/projected noise equivalent protection passive sensor protection
delta temperature (NEDT) <0.01oC
[*D] Portable, high–power, tunable (UV to far IR
Uncooled FPA with NEDT <0.01oC
for F/1 system [*D] (FIR)) laser source for multiple applications
Image intensification (I2) devices with
an improved signal–to–noise ratio Efficient laser source at 3–5 ∝m Long–life, UV laser diode operation at
and better resolution room temperature
Eye–safe micro solid–state lasers
Increased power/tunability of IR
sources
Smart multicolor FPA (QWIP or
MCT) demonstration
Two–color FPA demonstration of
either mercury, cadmium telluride
(MCT) or quantum well infrared Multidomain smart sensor
photodiode (QWIP) with adjacent demonstration
breadboard LADAR
Metallo–organic molecular beam
Efficient visible wavelength conversion epitaxy (MOMBE) producible smart
multicolor FPA with image
processing functions
Nonlinear optical material research
for sensor protection
Two–color uncooled camera [*D]
Large, 3–color hyperspectral array for

an overhead (space) sensor
Electro–Optics High–resolution, full–color flat–panel Miniature high–resolution displays Real–time holographic (3D) displays
(Smart High– displays for tactical environments for telepresence and virtual
Resolution Displays) environment applications [*D]
1000 line/inch miniature flat panel
displays for helmet–mounted displays 2000 line/inch miniature flat panel
(HMDs) or other applications [*D] displays for HMDs or other
applications [*D]
Reduced power HMDs
Electro–Optics Prototype superconductor antennas LWIR forward–looking infrared Advanced device technology in support of
(Millimeter–Wave, IR (FLIR) based on MCT, superlattices, Far lR goggles
Sensor Processors) and QWIPs
Integrated IR sensor and processor
2D array of superlattice longwave detectors
Fusion of multiple wideband sensors
Coupled quantum well (QW)
research of optoelectronic
components 2000 1000 quantum–well staring
arrays

Millimeter–Wave Continuous increases in single Microwave/digital ICs Full integration of MIMICs with digital and
Components radar–type function (amplifiers, optoelectronic devices in the 100 to 200
analog monolithic oscillators, mixers, switches) chips in GHz range
Microwave/optical ICs
microwave integrated the 1 to 140 gigahertz (GHz) range
circuit (MMIC) devices
Vehicular radar
Cost reduction of chips
MMW wireless communications
High–density 3D packaging
High–power vacuum devices
Millimeter–Wave Demo Ka–band power amplifier for High efficiency MMW power Extension of sources to terahertz and
Components missile seekers modules infrared spectral regions
(High Power and Sub
MMW Sources)
Broadband subMMW amps for Compact magnet structures for
advanced weapon systems subMMW sources
Millimeter–Wave Family of ultra–stable low noise Miniature atomic frequency standards Multicolor IR sensors, accelerometers
Components frequency sources
(Acoustic–Wave Devices)
Fully adaptive bandpass/bandstop Thin–film and other monolithic resonators/
High–performance frequency filters acoustic components integrated with
channelizer MMIC transceivers
CB sensors
Automated microcomputer compensation
and laser–aided fabrication error correction
Vibration–resistant oscillators
Miniaturized frequency channelizer

Miniaturized filters/resonators
Low cost ID tags
Analog/digital hybrid processors
Nonreciprocal acoustic components
Nanoelectronics Advancement of MOMBE and Development of reliable sources of Development of gallium nitride (GaN)
(Compound metallo–organic chemical vapor indium phosphide (InP) wafers materials and devices
Semiconductor deposition (MOCVD) single–wafer
Manufacturing) deposition technology
Heteroepitaxial growth of Accelerometers
device–quality gallium arsenide
Development of silicon carbide (SiC) (GaAs) on silicon (Si)
process technology for high
temperature electronics and power
Development of wide bandgap SiC
devices
devices for high temperature and high
power applications
Ferroelectric film development for
nonvolatile memory applications
Ferroelectric nonvolatile memories
for digital battlefield applications

Nanoelectronics Process for growth and Process for growth and Technology insertion of selected integrated
(Integrated Optics) characterization of EO polymers characterization of indium phosphide optics functions
Device functions in EO polymers Integrated optics device functions in High speed digital (soliton) coupling and
indium phosphide logic operation devices
Demonstrate limiting and
thresholding operations in nonlinear Selective technology insertion of
materials integrated optics functions based on
EO polymers
Nanoelectronics Micromachined structures and Miniature medical instruments for Embedded microsensors and actuators for
(Micromechanical materials for miniature sensors and surgery automated missile guidance, structural
Actuator–Sensors) actuators failure prognosis, personal navigation, and
medical diagnosis/treatment
Monolithically integrated miniature
Micro–acoustic sensors for target sensor/actuator microsystems
detection and CB sensing
Integrated sensor readout circuits for
Miniature gyroscopes and real–time information output
accelerometers for inertial guidance
Portable Power Sources Low–cost primary Li battery, >150 Primary Li batteries with energy Rechargeable batteries with energy densities
Wh/kg densities >300 Wh/kg >250 Wh/kg
Develop low temperature (–30_C) Rechargeable batteries with energy New pouch primary battery (250 Wh/kg)
electrolyte for Lithium–ion batteries densities >100 Wh/kg
Practical, thermophotovoltaic charger using
Improved energy density metal Low–cost high–energy logistic fuels
hydride or Li–ion rechargeable electrochemical capacitors for vehicles
batteries, >80 Wh/kg Advanced polymer or solid–oxide fuel cell
Liquid–fueled fuel cell stacks with up to 50 kW power
High voltage electrolyte for low–cost
electrochemical capacitor Investigate validity of TPV Batt/cap devices with charge/ discharge in
technology for battlefield use and minutes, >200 Wh/kg
Man–portable hydrogen fuel cell stack demonstrate improved efficiency
(15%) using recommended upgrades
Improved reserve batteries for GPS,
high–spin munitions
Lightweight, DF–2 fueled, 500 W

TPV power source with 8% efficiency
Electromechanical Man–portable, signature suppressed Demonstration and validation (DEM/ Man–portable, signature suppressed,
Technologies 3000 W (40 lb/kW) engine driven VAL) signature suppressed, electronically controlled 5,000 W (70 lb/
generator set capable of burning JP–8/ electronically controlled kW) engine driven generator set capable of
DF–2 man–portable/man–handleable burning JP–8/DF–2
500–3,000 W engine driven generator
sets
Dual use electromechanical technologies
and equipment (0.5 to 1.1 kW) which will
reduce system size/weight and signatures,
improve system reliability and tactical
mobility, and enhance the effectiveness of
CONUS–based forces

Table IV–21. Electron Devices Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities

Electro–Optics (Photonic Devices) TR 97–001 Command and Control

TR 97–053 Embedded Training and Soldier–Machine Interface
TR 97–055 Live, Virtual, and Constructive Simulation Technologies
Electro–Optics (Fiber Optic TR 97–006 Combat Identification

Technology) TR 97–010 Tactical Communications
Electro–Optics (Smart Multispectral TR 97–001 Command and Control

Detectors and Sources) TR 97–006 Combat Identification
Electro–Optics (Smart High TR 97–006 Combat Identification

Resolution Displays) TR 97–007 Battlefield Information Passage
Electro–Optics (Millimeter Wave, IR TR 97–019 Command and Control Warfare

Sensor Processors) TR 97–021 Real–Time Target Acquisition, Identification, and Dissemination

Millimeter–Wave Components TR 97–001 Command and Control

(Analog MIMIC Devices) TR 97–006 Combat Identification
Millimeter–Wave Components TR 97–006 Combat Identification

(High Power Terahertz Sources) TR 97–021 Real–Time Target Acquisition, Identification, and Dissemination
Millimeter–Wave Components TR 97–006 Combat Identification

(Acoustic Wave Devices) TR 97–021 Real–Time Target Acquisition, Identification, and Dissemination
Nanoelectronics (Compound TR 97–006 Combat Identification

Semiconductor Manufacturing) TR 97–010 Tactical Communications
Nanoelectronics (Integrated Optics) TR 97–006 Combat Identification

Nanoelectronics (Micromechanical TR 97–006 Combat Identification

Actuator–Sensors) TR 97–017 Information Display
Portable Power Sources TR 97–001 Command and Control

MD 97–001 Patient Evacuation
MD 97–004 Combat Heath Support in a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Environment

Electromechanical Technologies TR 97–010 Tactical Communications


Chapter IV K. Electronic Warfare/Directed Energy Weapons
K. Electronic Warfare/Directed Energy Weapons
1. Scope
Electronic warfare (EW) includes any military action involving the use of electromagnetic and directed energy to control the
electromagnetic spectrum or attack an enemy. EW comprises three major subdivisions:
• Electronic attack (EA)—Use of electromagnetic or directed energy to attack personnel, facilities, or

equipment with the intent of degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability.
• Electronic support (ES)—Actions taken by, or under direct control of, an operational commander to
search for, intercept, identify, and locate sources of radiated electromagnetic energy for immediate threat
recognition in support of EW operations and other tactical actions such as threat avoidance, homing, and
targeting.
• Electronic protection—actions taken to protect personnel, facilities, or equipment for any effects of friendly
or enemy employment of electronic warfare that degrade, neutralize, or destroy friendly combat capability.
EW and directed warfare are leading technologies for solving Army problems in scenarios where nonlethal (i.e., no
permanent injury) or less than lethal (i.e., could suffer serious injury) force is required.
Figure IV–8 illustrates directed energy weapons (DEW) and jamming applications on the battlefield. Figure IV–9 depicts
the electronic power relationships between EW jammers and RF–DEWs.

Figure IV-8. Battlefield Applications of DEW and Jamming
Figure IV-9. Comparison of EW Jammer and RF-DEW Power Relationship
2. Rationale
As the roles, missions, and capabilities of today’s Army evolve into the 21st century, so then does the role of EW.
Dominance of the electromagnetic spectrum based on the ability to use and deny its use by others at will is dependent on
industry, academia, the other services, and a robust program to sustain the Army’s unique requirements on the electronic
battlefield. As threat systems become more complex, the need to develop EW systems that can respond to changing
environments is critical to superior battlefield surveillance and survivability. Technology to collect, recognize, and process
complex wave forms and provide effective jamming are essential. Knowledge–based systems using artificial intelligence and
adaptive parallel distributed processing can provide "smart" software control to maintain an edge on a dense signal
battlefield.
a. Electronic Attack
Develop the technologies that provide the capability to intercept and bring under EA advanced communications signals
being used by adversarial C2 networks on the digital battlefield. Through EA strategies demonstrated with prototype
hardware and software, these digital communications signals will be disrupted, denied, or modified to render the
communications system ineffective and unreliable to the threat command and control function. Near–term goals are to
demonstrate electronic attack against a set of digital formats being implemented in commercial communications systems
and data transmission systems. Mid–term goals are to demonstrate the ability to disrupt other commercial communication
networks and wide bandwidth communications. Long–term goals include the ability to surgically attack specific users within
a nonobtrusive means while maintaining the overall integrity of the targeted communications network.
Development of sensor and countermeasure technologies is a complex chess game of trying to outplay your opponent,
betting that your defensive systems can outmatch his offensive capabilities. Advanced technology and tactics are the last line
of defense where a time span of 2 seconds or less can mean the difference between winning or losing. Technology goals

include development of multifunctional/multispectral IR countermeasures, radar and laser warning, and countermeasures
that can provide both self– and area–protection of air and ground platforms, as well as targeting and real–time situational
awareness at the fighting station(s). Near–term goals include demonstration of a beam coupler for the DARPA laser/
antitank infrared countermeasures (IRCM) point/tracker, the evaluation of IRCM techniques for top attack threats for
ground vehicles, and the demonstration of an RF sensor and ECM modulator with the capability to locate, deceive, and jam
monopulse and phased array radars from ultra high frequency (UHF) through millimeter wavebands. Mid–term goals
include development of countermeasures for advanced EO/IR missiles using imaging seekers, and the continued
development of advanced RF countermeasures with low–cost fingerprinting for signal sorting, jamming, targeting, and
combat identification. Long–term goals include initiatives to develop integrated RF/IR/laser sensors and countermeasures
against advanced EO/IR surface–to–air missiles and horizontal/top attack smart munitions.
The increasing use of common carrier commercial communications networks by potential adversaries presents the major
technical challenge. We must be able to separate the threat–relevant communications from the purely commercial traffic
and perform effective EW without disrupting the entire network. These targeted communication systems are characterized
as adaptive sophisticated digital networks and modulation schemes that employ various layers of protocol and user
protection.
Technology challenges also include development of uncooled, low false alarm rate detectors with <1 degree angle of attack
(AOA) accuracy, development of multicolor IR focal plane array (FPA) (Navy/Air Force program), missile detection
algorithms, and development of more efficient, low–cost, temperature stable IR/UV filters. The development of advanced
high–speed wideband digital receivers using a GaAs microscan design approach, and the development of high power
ultra–wideband digital RF memory (DRFM) jamming modulators and transmitter sources from A through M bands using
MPM, MMIC, and fiber–optic remoting of sensors and transmitters. Precision AOA for situational awareness and targeting.
b. Electronic Support
As modern communication systems evolve, the overall goal is to develop the technology required to provide an electronic
support/electronic attack ( ES/EA) capability to intercept and counter these new priority threats and to provide the
battlefield commander with the tactical intelligence products that contribute to his ability to accomplish his mission.
Near–term goals include the downsizing of existing bulky components to provide a rapidly deployable capability and the
conversion from special–purpose processors and software to a general–purpose suite. The intent is also to provide the ability
to specifically tailor and reprogram these systems quickly, locally or remotely, to meet the current and changing threat.
Mid–term goals include development of signal processing techniques that provide effective ES against common carrier,
multiple access commercial communications in order to identify, locate, and exploit threat users. Another goal is the
development of the tools required to display increasingly complex data to the soldier operators in support of the IEW
mission. The long–term goal includes the continued development of adaptive sensor technologies that can perform the ES
mission as the use of increasingly more complex communication systems continues to evolve.
The increasing use of common carrier commercial communications networks by potential adversaries presents the major
technical challenge. This implies the need for advanced front–end receiver architectures and signal processing techniques
capable of providing ES mission functions against increasingly complex signal modulation methods and structures coupled
to higher data rates and user protection schemes.

c. RF–Directed Energy Weapons
DEW includes laser, high power radio frequency (HPRF), and particle beam technologies. (HPRF technology is frequently
called high power microwave (HPM) or RF directed energy.)
Electronic equipment can be defeated or impaired by irradiation from directed energy (DE) sources. Degradation can range
from temporary "upsets" in electronics subsystems, permanent circuit deterioration, or permanent destruction due to
burnout or electrical overload. As modern systems and their components become ever more reliant on sophisticated
electronics, they also become more vulnerable to DE radiation. The Army’s DE program priority is to assess potential
vulnerability of U.S. systems to unintentional irradiation "fratricide" by our DE–capable systems as well as intentional
irradiation by enemy DE systems. DE hardening technology is being developed to mitigate both of these threats. In
addition, the Army S&T program provides sources and components to support the susceptibility assessment program,
support possible future applications, and avoid technological surprise from an adversary’s breakthrough.
Near–term goals for RF–DE weapons are (1) the development of new HPRF source concepts, such as the interference
modulation HPM source concept and frequency agile, broadband klystrons for use in susceptibility testing and in field tests,
and (2) RF–DE weapons hardening for MMIC circuits used in Army systems. A mid–term goal is the development of
high–gain, broadband antennas. Long–term goals include development of silicon carbide hardening devices and use of
chaos theory research results to achieve greater control of RF–DE weapon sources.
High power RF generators need to be smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient. Projected targets require intensive
susceptibility studies to determine the best attack methods. These technical challenges will be overcome by concentrating
technology development efforts on improving modulators, RF sources, and antennas. Improvements to reduce size, weight,
and power requirements must also be accomplished by enhancements to radiation beam control.
d. Lasers
Compact, high efficiency lasers are critical for electro–optical countermeasures (EOCM), IRCM, and DEW applications.
The maturation of diode pumped lasers, nonlinear frequency conversion techniques, and advanced laser design have made
it feasible to incorporate these devices into tactical vehicles and aircraft for self–protection and missile defense. The challenge
is to demonstrate the required power levels in a compact package for Army applications and to scale the power to higher
levels for future needs.
In FY96, a DARPA/tri–service program demonstrated compact solid–state mid–IR lasers that would meet Army ATD
requirements. That program increased available power by an order of magnitude. As a result, optically and electronically
pumped solid–state lasers for IRCM applications that will transition to EMD by FY00 should have significantly lower cost,
size, and power consumption. These lasers are being developed under a management agreement between DARPA and the
services. Other recent accomplishments include the 1996 demonstration of technology for an active tracker system used in
IRCM/EOCM applications to provide precision pointing and atmospheric compensation, the FY97 breadboard
demonstration of a DARPA/Army 10 joule/100 hertz (Hz) diode pumped laser (DAPKL) and the development of a wide

pulse IRCM laser with Lincoln Laboratories.
The major challenge to scaling the mid–infrared lasers is the development of an optical parametric oscillator (OPO) that can
handle the higher average powers without damage. Other issues include packaging lasers for use on aircraft and cost
reduction of laser diode arrays. A longer term challenge will be the scaling of compact solid–state lasers to higher powers for
standoff directed energy applications.
• Increasing the power/weight ratio by threefold for sensor countermeasure systems.

• Scaling the power output of solid–state lasers by 10X to 20X in a compact package.
• Developing direct diode laser sources with wavelengths from blue/UV to mid IR.
• Reducing the cost of laser diode arrays to less than $1/peak watt.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Electronic Warfare/Directed Energy Weapons is shown in Table IV–22.
Table IV–22. Technical Objectives for Electronic Warfare/Directed Energy Weapons

Electronic Attack (Signal 33% reduction in processing time: Increase number of signals tracked by 50% increase in processing speed and
Processing) power efficiency increase 33%, size 200% computations per second
reduction 25%
Electronic Support Improved dynamic range 20% Size reduction 50% 8:1 reduction in size and power
(Receivers)
Electronic Attack Improved broadband HF/VHF Improved efficiency u30%, size 40% improvement in HTSC material
(Antennas) passive antenna efficiency by 10% reduction 90% operating conditions
E–J band precision AOA, A–K band Integrated A–M band, laser warning, EO/IR
polarization insensitive FPA
High gain, high power ground band
antennas
Electronic Attack (Radar Jam monopulse and phased array, Phase O array and spared spectrum Impulse and bistatic radars DRFM 10–GHz
Jamming Techniques and DRFM 200 MHz BW radars DRFM 3–GHz bandwidth bandwidth
Modulators)
Electronic Attack (Fuze/ Precision DRFM, 50 picosec in Precision DRFM, 5 picosec on 1–Hz Precision DRFM, 1 picosec in sub Hz,
Smart Munition Jamming) 10–Hz steps steps 10–GHz bandwidth
Electronic Attack (Fiber Mid IR t1 db/m Mid IR, visible t1 db/m Mid–long IR, visible t0.5 db/m
Optic Cable for IRCM/
Laser Warning)

Electronic Attack (IR Mid IR CONSCAN Mid IR, visible FPA CM Mid–long IR, visible FPA CM
Missile Jamming)
Electronic Attack (Passive Horizontal ATGM Top attack smart munition Low–observable horizontal and top attack
Horizontal/Top Attack munitions
Detection)
RF–Directed Energy High power interference modulation Silicon carbide hardening devices Techniques for hardening against upset
Weapons source concept
High average power traveling wave High power wideband amplifiers
Multibeam klystron tubes (TWTs)
Advanced conventional source systems
RF–DEW modulator Advanced RF–DEW pulsers
Alternate source weapon systems
Lasers Mid IR laser source t50 lb Mid IR laser with 10X power Lightweight all–band mid IR diode lasers
Package DAPKL Compact 10X power solid–state laser Compact 100X power solid–state laser
Table IV–23. Electronic Warfare/Directed Energy Weapons Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
Electronic Attack (Signal Processing) TR 97–019 Command and Control Warfare
Electronic Support (Receivers) TR 97–02 Situational Awareness

Electronic Attack (Antennas) TR 97–019 Command and Control Warfare
Electronic Attack (Radar Jamming TR 97–019 Command and Control Warfare

Techniques and Modulators) TR 97–043 Survivability—Materiel
Electronic Attack (Fuze/Smart TR 97–019 Command and Control Warfare

Munition Jamming) TR 97–043 Survivability—Materiel
Electronic Attack (Fiber Optic Cable TR 97–019 Command and Control Warfare
for IRCM/Laser Warning) TR 97–021 Real–Time Target Acquisition, Identification, and Dissemination
Electronic Attack (IR Missile TR 97–019 Command and Control Warfare

Jamming) TR 97–043 Survivability—Materiel
Electronic Attack (Passive TR 97–021 Real–Time Target Acquisition, Identification, and Dissemination
Horizontal/Top Attack Detection) TR 97–043 Survivability—Materiel
RF Directed Energy Weapons TR 97–005 Airspace Management

Lasers TR 97–035 Power Source and Accessories


Chapter IV L. Civil Engineering and Environmental Quality
L. Civil Engineering and Environmental Quality
1. Scope
Technology efforts in this area solve critical environmental and civil engineering problems related to training, mobilizing,
deploying, and employing a force at any location at any time. These efforts will provide the Army with enhanced capabilities
for executing mobility, countermobility, survivability, and general engineering missions. They also provide the lowest
possible environmentally sustainable, life–cycle cost, military–unique infrastructure required to project and sustain U.S.
forces worldwide from CONUS or forward–presence bases.
Environmental Quality subareas include cleanup of contaminated sites, compliance with all environmental laws, pollution
prevention to minimize Army’s generation of wastes, and conservation of our natural and cultural resources. Civil
Engineering subareas include conventional facilities, airfields and pavements, survivability and protective structures, and
sustainment engineering. There is a tri–service joint engineers management panel to oversee, direct, and coordinate this
program. The joint engineers panel consist of the flag officer engineer material developer for each service and is currently
chaired by the Air Force under a 2–year rotation assignment. Technology subpanels in each major program area ensure
coordination and nonduplication of research efforts.
2. Rationale
National and international laws and treaties demand the mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from normal
operations and maintenance of Army training readiness and industrial activities. Base realignment and closure actions place
an added urgency on bringing our sites into compliance while placing more activity on remaining installations, thereby
creating greater demands on facilities and compliance requirements. Reduced budgets and increased regulatory
requirements dictate the need for new or improved technologies to reduce the costs of contaminant cleanup, treatment, and
disposal; reduce the generation of hazardous materials and pollutants; enhance compliance; and maintain natural and
cultural resources in a realistic state to support training and operations. Payoff for investments in environmental quality
technology is realized by reducing the cost of doing business while maintaining our mission readiness.
Civil engineering R&D provides the Army technologies to project and sustain U.S. Forces from CONUS and outside the
continental United States (OCONUS) in the defense of this nation. The payoff in this area is threefold:
• Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost reductions free up dollars for mission critical activities.
• Infrastructure improvements of power projection platforms increase military readiness.
• Enhanced quality of life improves Army capability through increases in retention rates for soldiers.
Unique Army civil engineering needs arise from the characteristics of the weapons and transportation systems. The
requirement to counter the effects of advanced conventional weapons and saboteur threats is not found in the private sector
and, accordingly, there is no robust civilian R&D effort. The need to rapidly establish, maintain, and upgrade or retrofit
facilities and transportation infrastructure within a theater of operation is unique; the private sector has no like requirement
and no significant R&D investment. Our aging CONUS infrastructure (the average age of Army facilities is 35 years)

requires modernization on a scale not seen elsewhere.
a. Civil Engineering
The primary thrusts in the conventional facilities area are to develop technologies to revitalize and operate DoD’s aging
infrastructure, to ensure effective strategic power projection platforms, and to maximize productivity of resources in
acquisition, revitalization, operations, and maintenance and repair (M&R) management. The Army’s $162 billion physical
plant requires $5.9 billion annually to operate, maintain, and repair its aging facilities. The annual energy bill alone topped
$1.5 billion, while the backlog of maintenance and repair (BMAR) of facilities is $2.2 billion. The goal is to achieve a 20
percent reduction in facilities acquisition and M&R costs from 1990 levels and a 30 percent reduction from 1985 levels in
energy consumption by FY05. Technologies developed are dual use and critical to DoD cost reduction goals. Delivery of
mission–enhancing, energy–efficient, and environmentally sustainable facilities with scarce resources is a major challenge.
Every dollar saved from infrastructure improvements can be a dollar earned for mission–critical activities.
In the subareas of airfields and pavements, the goal is to reduce costs by 20 percent ($72 million per year) and extend the life
(5 to 10 years) of the Army’s military–unique roads, airfields, ports, and railroads by the year 2000. Potential payoff and
transition opportunities include providing the U.S. military with a reliable launching platform to project mobile forces to
support worldwide contingency conflicts. The Army’s pavement research leads the nation. Civilian airports, 26 states, and
many municipalities use the Army’s airfield and pavement procedures.
For survivability and protective structures (S&PS), the goal is to provide reliable and affordable structural hardening and
CCD that will increase survivability of facilities, equipment, and personnel against a broad spectrum of increasingly lethal
modern weapon threats, ranging from terrorist attack through regional conflicts and up to limited nuclear warfare.
Lightweight, highly ductile, and high–strength materials with enhanced energy absorption will reduce hardening costs.
Retrofit of existing facilities will enhance survivability of large–length–to–diameter–ratio penetrators and blast and thermal
weapons.
The sustainment engineering subarea is structured to provide the civil engineering technologies required by the Army for
successful execution of strategic, operational, and tactical force projection, employment, and sustainment. Engineer troops
will be able to support a deployed force in an austere theater with faster, lighter, less voluminous, and less
manpower–intensive ways of executing mobility, countermobility, and general engineering missions. Transitions include
technical and field manuals, guide specifications, and the Army’s facility component systems.
Challenges for the conventional facilities subareas include technologies for affordable automated condition assessment,
integrated installation management tools, innovative revitalization technologies, and technologies to determine applicability
and DoD–wide prioritization of energy conservation opportunities to reduce O&M costs. Technology challenges for the
S&PS subarea include innovative uses of lightweight, high strength, high ductility materials in protective construction and
retrofit of existing structures to increase hardness at low cost and improve numerical models for accurate vulnerability
assessments. Challenges for sustainment engineering include methods to improve construction speed and reduce logistic
requirements, methods to acquire and interpret data for infrastructure assessment, and methods to predict real–time
sea–state forecasts and logistics over–the–shore throughput assessments.

Army research is currently working to overcome technological barriers in civil engineering by developing:
• Collaborative automated environment to optimize conventional facility life–cycle costs by concurrent

considerations of design, construction, operation, and maintenance.
• Breakwaters that can be rapidly installed to attenuate adverse sea–states for logistics over–the–shore
operations.
• Material, admixtures, dynamic 3D models, and viscoelastic material responses for airfields and pavements.
• Criteria and materials for constructible survivability measures and simplified survivability (facilities,
equipment, and troops) assessment capabilities for battlefield commanders.
b. Environmental Quality
The primary thrusts of site cleanup R&D are to reduce cost and expedite cleanup programs while ensuring protection of
human health and the environment. R&D is conducted in characterization/monitoring, remediation technologies, and fate
and effects of environmental contaminants in all climates. Cleanup R&D will produce innovative and cost–effective site
identification, assessment, characterization, advanced cleanup methods, and monitoring technologies. By 2001, advanced
sensors and sampling devices will expand the capabilities and precision of these systems. Subsurface conditions will then be
better understood, thus increasing the efficiency of composting, unexploded ordnance (UXO) detection, in–situ biological
treatment, passive subsurface water treatment, and improved chemical immobilization concepts and methods. Techniques
will be developed to more accurately and rapidly determine the fate, transport, and effects of key DoD contaminants in soil
and groundwater in all climatic conditions.
Compliance R&D will provide numerous technologies for advanced "end–of–the–pipe" control and treatment of
hazardous, toxic, gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes when pollution prevention is not possible. Army systems, operations, and
processes will be developed to meet existing and anticipated air, water, land, and noise regulations. R&D is focused on (1)
characterization of pollutant and waste behavior, (2) media–specific control and treatment technologies, and (3)
monitoring and assessment tools. Pollution prevention R&D will provide the Army with alternative materials, innovative
manufacturing processes, and enhancements to daily activities to enable the Army to operate current and future production
plants as well as to use its weapons systems. Overall efforts are focused on minimizing compliance requirements through
new systems and processes that prevent or minimize pollution, with attendant reduction in production and product
treatment costs.
Conservation R&D will provide sustainable support for realistic training and testing operation through improved
understanding of natural and military operations processes affecting biological, earth, and cultural resources. R&D is
focused on developing cost–effective technologies to mitigate military impacts, rehabilitate damaged resources, comply with
environmental regulations, and support sustainable ecosystem management. The goal by the year 2001 is to develop an
integrated modeling framework linking land capacity, land rehabilitation, and species/ecosystems impact models.
Challenges include:
• Site heterogeneity (soil, water, and climate).

• Complex mixtures of military–unique chemical compounds encountered at cleanup sites.
• Inherent complexity of physical, chemical, and biological phenomena.

• Density and opaqueness of earth media.

• Differences in acceptable risk.
• Need to understand and develop technologies that address the diversity and complexity of waste streams,
composition of wastes, the energetic instability of waste streams, and the destruction or conversion of wastes
and contaminants without the production of unwanted or hazardous by–products.
• The need to adapt military ranges to changes in mission, equipment, and training, and the need to
understand and manage complex ecosystems and their responses to stress.
Army research is currently working to overcome technological barriers in environmental quality by developing technologies
and applications such as:
• Supercritical water oxidation, advanced oxidation processes, catalytic decomposition, biodegradation and
"cometabolic" processes, sorption, separation, and conversion to reduce costs and increase efficacy of
treatment and disposition.
• Replacement materials for existing solvents, soluble chromium, strong acids, bases, and oxidizers used in
production and maintenance activities.
• Integrated sensors, sampling, modeling, and management technologies to maintain DoD activities while
conserving natural and cultural resources that are protected by a variety of statutory requirements.
The roadmap of technology objectives for civil engineering and environmental quality is shown in Table IV–24.
Table IV–24. Technical Objectives for Civil Engineering and Environmental Quality
Civil Engineering Addition of new building types into Reduce facilities acquisition, M&R Reduce facilities acquisition, M&R costs by
(Conventional current version of modular design costs by 15% of 1990 20% of 1990
Facilities) system (MDS) to dramatically reduce
delivery time of Army facilities
Reduce energy consumption by 20% Reduce energy consumption by 30% of
of 1985 1985 (Executive Order 12902)
Basic framework for an integrated
installation management system to
Integrated maintenance management
reduce costs of O&M for Army
prioritization analysis and
installations
coordination tool (IMPACT)

Civil Engineering New materials and design system to Fundamental understanding and Criteria for aerial port of embarkation
(Airfields and increase pavement life at reduced costs analytical capability to address all (APOE) power projection platforms
Pavements) aspects of pavement response and
behavior
Database development and interactive Criteria for airfield design and construction
design systems for pavement to support contingency operation worldwide
prediction Methods and materials for rapid
construction of operating surfaces
DoD transportation systems designed with
Fracture and durability model field confidence levels of service ability and
validation Reduced life–cycle costs and performance
increased durability of DoD’s
pavement by 10% of FY93 cost
Develop improved mixture design for 25% life–cycle cost reduction of FY93 cost
quality control and quality assurance
Civil Engineering Criteria for antipenetration systems to PC–based design manual for Vulnerability assessment model for
(Survivability defeat heavy penetrators hardened structures retrofitting critical facilities to enhance
and Protective survivability against advanced weapons
Structures)
Procedures for retrofitting roofs and Develop 5X to 6X conventional
walls of existing facilities to provide concrete strength at reduced cost for Develop criteria for survivability of
protection from vehicle bombs hardened facilities conventional facilities against entire
spectrum of terrorist weapons
Develop a family of protective Antipenetration systems to defeat very
systems using advanced materials and heavy robust penetrators Increase force survivability with 40%
design procedures that will increase reduction in logistics burden
the survivability of troops (in fighting
Lightweight, high–strength composite
positions), weapon systems, materials,
framing elements for hardening Decrease probability of detection by 50%
and equipment
structures through advanced multispectral signature
management techniques
Quantity CCD signature–reduction
Deployable protective packages for
techniques for materials used in fixed
light forces
and relocatable assets
Automated CCD design/

analysis capability
Civil Engineering Field demonstration of advanced Reduce construction time in soft soil Reduce horizontal construction time by 20%
(Sustainment materials for construction of by 35%
Engineering) operating surfaces
Reduce logistic requirements for engineer
First–generation theoretical mobility construction materials by 20%
Determine mechanical properties of model
snow and ice as construction materials
High–resolution mobility model for
Design for rapidly installed breakwater advanced vehicle platforms
Validate and document mobility data
inference routines for all of the
First logistics over–the–shore Gap/river crossing site selection procedures
world’s major climatic zones
operational simulator (LOTSOS) based on trafficability and crossability
Demonstrate obstacle planning

Automated bridge classification
software
system
Environmental Quality Plant succession model for impact Provide knowledge, approach, and 75% reduction in soil erosion on bases
(Conservation) prediction and recovery potential tools to match land use and land
capacity in selected ecoregions
Risk–based ecosystem use models
Complete guidelines for 30%
reduction in streambank erosion Models to simulate mission impacts
on key protected species

Environmental Quality Advanced oxidation treatment for Biotreatment of explosives in soils Remote multisensor UXO detection
(Cleanup) explosives in groundwater
Fate and transport risk assessment In–situ biotreatment of explosives in soil
In–situ treatment of heavy metals model
Supercritical water oxidation for destruction
Groundwater modeling system On–site assessment visualization of waste
Environmental Quality Guidance for intelligent application Treatment of advanced energetic 90% reduction in VOC emissions from
(Compliance) for advanced oxidation (ADVOX) materials used for propellants production facilities
processes for munitions production
waste
Advanced maintenance technology to
reduce the cost of operating energetic
25% reduction of volatile organic manufacturing facility pollution
compounds (VOCs) in control equipment
manufacturing energetics
Nitrocellulose fine treatment
Environmental Ozone depleting substance (ODSs) Low VOC reformulated chemical Green missile (lead elimination and no
Quality elimination for refrigerants, sealants, agent resistant coating (CARC) paints hydrocyanic acid (HCI) emission)
(Pollution and degreasing cleaners
Prevention)
Thermoplastic elastomer propellants Green barrel (elimination of hexavalent
Laser ignition to replace chemical elimination in the manufacturing chromium in waste water)
ordnance to medium and large caliber process
ammunition (avoid toxins during
Halon 1301 replacement for ground tactical
manufacture and demilitarization)
Green bullets (elimination of lead in vehicles and aircraft engine protection
primers and bullet cores) (ODS problem solved)
Improved tools/models for life–cycle
environmental analysis to assist
Alternative technologies to avoid Cleaner processes and products for
weapon designers and program
open burn/open detonation of energetics
managers
energetics (scrap/demilitarization)
Aqueous processes for ceramics and
composites
Table IV–25. Civil Engineering and Environmental Quality

Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
Civil Engineering (Conventional TR 97–007 Battlefield Information Passage

Facilities) TR 97–019 Command Control Warfare
EN 97–014 Provide, Repair, and Maintain Logistics Facilities
EN 97–015 Procurement and Production of Construction Materials
Civil Engineering (Airfields and TR 97–007 Battlefield Information Passage

Pavements) EN 97–015 Procurement and Production of Construction Materials
EN 97–028 Engineering Support to Nonmilitary Operation
Civil Engineering (Survivability and TR 97–007 Battlefield Information Passage

Protective Structures) TR 97–019 Command Control Warfare

Civil Engineering (Sustainment TR 97–007 Battlefield Information Passage

Engineering) TR 97–019 Command Control Warfare
Environmental Quality TR 97–012 Information Systems

(Conservation) EN 97–001 Develop Digital Terrain Data
Environmental Quality (Cleanup) EN 97–028 Engineering Support to Nonmilitary Operation
Environmental Quality (Compliance) TR 97–019 Command Control Warfare

Environmental Quality (Pollution TR 97–007 Battlefield Information Passage

Prevention) TR 97–019 Command Control Warfare

Chapter IV M. BAttlespace Environments
M. Battlespace Environments
1. Scope
The battlespace environments technology area encompasses the study, characterization, prediction, modeling, and
simulation of the terrestrial, ocean, lower atmosphere, and space/upper atmosphere environments. The goals are to
understand their impact on personnel, platforms, sensors, and systems; to enable the development of tactics and doctrine to
exploit that understanding; and to optimize the design of new systems.
Technology subareas for battlespace environments in the Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP) are
organized around a particular taxonomy that is specified in the sensors, electronics, and battlespace environment chapter of
the DTAP prepared for OSD DDR&E. The two technology subareas that apply to the ASTMP are terrestrial environments
and lower atmosphere environment.
2. Rationale
Commanders at all levels must know how the environment will impact their operations as well as the operations of their
adversary and use this knowledge for military advantage. Sensor and weapon system developers must also understand the
environment’s effects on system performance to optimize design effectiveness. This investment will provide the following
improvements to future warfighting capabilities:
• An order of magnitude improvement in providing digital topographic data needed by the commander for
optimized deployment, mobility, planning, and logistics support.
• High resolution weather forecasts for incisive decision making and enhanced operational capability in
adverse weather; reduced weather–related damage, and fuel costs.
• Realistic representation of dynamic environment and terrain in simulations to permit more effective
mission planning, rehearsal, and training.
• Realistic portrayal of the effects of the Battlespace Environments to reduce operational costs and reduce
casualties.
a. Terrestrial Environments
The terrestrial environments subarea consists of technology developments in the areas of cold regions engineering research
and topography. Emphasis in the terrestrial environments subarea is on the study, characterization, and modeling of the
physical phenomena, processes, interactions, and effects associated with terrain, its surface features, and the overlying

atmosphere at scales of interest to ground combat forces (see Figure IV–10).
Figure IV-10. Topography Science and Technology
Cold regions engineering research focuses on mitigating the adverse effects of snow, ice and frozen ground on both materiel
and winter operations. Topographic research is focused on better knowledge of the terrain through improved geospatial
data generation, data management, analysis, and modeling through the exploitation of multisensor data. Objectives in
terrestrial environments technology development include:
• Demonstrate an integrated dynamic IR/MMW terrestrial background scene generation capability for
synthetic environments (FY98).
• Develop image perspective transformation technology for use with imagery to rapidly evaluate
sub–10–meter resolution terrain data and position reality (FY98).
• Demonstrate VR–based battlefield environments that place the soldier in an environment with replicated
terrain and climate, creating a highly detailed realistic setting for training and mission planning/rehearsal
(FY98).
• Develop model–generated passive/active IR and background scenes of winter terrain for predicting sensor
performance and design (FY02).
• Demonstrate spatially distributed, physics–based, 3D ground state and weather effects in future distributed
interactive simulations (FY03).
• Develop multiscale/multiproduct geospatial data generation software capable of generating large integrated
terrain databases at multiple levels of detail (FY03).
• Estimate knowledge–based performance for dual and multimode sensing systems operating in IR, MMW,
and RF energy regimes over winter–impacted terrain (FY07).
• Develop battlespace fly/walkthrough and automated terrain analysis capability (FY07).
• Develop dynamic environment and terrain (DET) implementation for use with computer–generated forces
(FY07).

• Demonstrate knowledge–based systems for predicting the performance of multi–mode sensing systems (IR
and MMW) over winter–impacted terrain (FY08).
• Demonstrate automated feature extraction and attribution capability (FY08).
Cold Regions
Cold region engineering focuses on minimizing or eliminating the dramatic effects of winter weather on operations
conducted by the Army. To do this, effective decision making tools such as models, simulation, and mission planning/
rehearsal factors are required that accurately predict state of the ground, atmospheric conditions, and system performance
in complex cold region environments. The winter environment presents a severe challenge to the performance and
operability of weapon systems, target identification and acquisition sensors, equipment, and personnel. This challenge is not
confined to the effects of temperature. It also includes the detrimental effects of snow, ice, and the state of the ground,
whether frozen or thawing. Frozen and thawing soils greatly affect the projection and mobility of forces, mine clearing
operations, and earth excavation required for force protection and construction. Snow, ice, and frozen ground dramatically
alter the propagation of acoustic and seismic energy and IR with IR and MMW signatures. This greatly reduces the
effectiveness of weapon systems and sensors. Icing conditions dramatically change fixed and rotary winged aircraft
performance, impact safe operation of equipment on roads, airfields, and bases, and impact the ability to communicate.
Technical challenges in this area relate to developing and validating models of these phenomena, and finding ways to enable
operations to continue in spite of them. The cold region technology effort objectives are to:
• Develop first principle models to predict the multispectral signatures of winter terrain surfaces and features
for imaging sensor systems. Models will be structured to provide simulation capabilities for evaluating
environmental constraints early in the development cycle of sensor systems, and to provide realistic
physics–based backgrounds for training simulations.
• Determine procedures and equipment criteria enabling combat engineering operations to function
effectively in winter conditions. This includes use of snow and frozen ground for expedient fortifications,
facilities, roadways, and excavations, and operation of engineering equipment under winter conditions.
• Develop models of equipment and unit performance in winter conditions in sufficient detail to enable
realistic simulation of these effects in interactive synthetic environments.
• Acoustic energy propagation is distinctly different in winter than in summer. The technical challenge is
understanding the coupling that occurs between the complex air, snow, frozen–ground, and unfrozen–soil
interfaces.
• IR, MMW, and radar interactions with winter terrain surfaces (i.e., snow, ice, frozen soil) vary dramatically
with changing meteorological conditions. The challenge is to model and predict the response.
• The impacts of low temperatures, snow, ice, frozen ground, and ice accumulation on the performance of
materiel and equipment must be characterized to support design modifications, the formulation of alternative
techniques or procedures, and the prediction of the extent and duration of the impacts.
Development Milestones
• Distribute background energy transfer model over a variety of complex terrain and meteorological
conditions (FY98).
• Incorporate icing radiosonde data into models for predicting aircraft icing severity (FY98).
• Provide the Army Engineer Center and School with techniques, kits, and support systems to reduce low
temperature degradation of engineer materiel performance (FY98).

• Provide critical data for integrated winter operation tactical decision aids (TDAs) (FY99).
• Integrate seismic–acoustic sensor performance in a synthetic environment to optimize sensor performance
(FY00).
• Transition model of the spatial variability of atmospheric icing to support communications and aerial
operations TDAs to the U.S. Army Aviation Center and School and the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and
School (FY00).
• Integrate physics–based multiband dynamic environment models for prediction of sensor performance and
optimizing sensor design (FY01).
• Demonstrate knowledge–based systems for predicting the performance of multimode sensing systems (IR
and MMW) over winter–impacted terrain (FY03).
Topography
Knowledge of topography is essential to a common picture of the battlespace. Providing accurate and current information
to the warfighter is the focus of topographic R&D. Efforts are needed to provide technology for rapid digital terrain feature
and elevation data generation, data management, terrain visualization, terrain analysis, and realistic mission training and
rehearsal. The warfighter needs improved capabilities in all these areas to gain information dominance, shape the
battlespace, and conduct decisive operations.
Topographic science is the delineation and representation of positions and elevations of natural and manmade features.
S&T efforts are concentrated in the areas of standards, generation, analysis, representation, and management/dissemination.
Developments focus on exploitation of multisource/multiresolution sensors, validation of geospatial data and algorithms,
dynamic physics–based visualization and modeling, surveying/positioning, and the design of a smart digital map for the
soldier.
Objectives in topographic and geospatial information development include:
• Demonstration of advanced technologies in digital feature extraction and attribution, data management,
positioning technologies beyond the GPS, and the implementation of dynamic terrain into mission planning,
rehearsal, and training systems.
• Use of knowledge–based techniques to improve terrain data exploitation for detecting and identifying
geospatial changes and to predict terrain and climate effects over time in support of battlefield decision
making.
• Reduction of the time required to generate realistic environments in distributed modeling and simulation.
• Identifying terrain features/targets automatically to respond within the enemy’s decision cycle.
• Developing a total force positioning and navigational capability for the Army. Accurate fire and the ability
to locate and navigate will be key to success on the obscured future battlefield.
• Promulgating standard verified and validated software to achieve joint interoperability goals.
• Generating terrain and weather environments in near–real time for tactical operations and distributed
modeling and simulation.
• Developing a methodology to determine the effects of geospatial data and terrain based models on
battlefield decision aids and to display the results to a commander in order to minimize risk.

• Integrate multispectral imagery/hyperspectral imagery with digital terrain elevations for terrain feature
extraction (FY98).
• Devise neural network image data classification system (FY98).
• Develop new methods for portraying terrain analysis product reliability (FY98).
• Incorporate techniques for processing synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and interferometric synthetic
aperture radar (ISAR) feature data in existing software (FY98).
• Improve visualization capabilities with the addition of dual–band IR and image intensifier capability (FY98).
• Test link capability for point and line/vector geospatial data management (FY99).
• Develop standards for the representation and content of a link structure for geospatial data (FY99).
• Develop advanced tactical navigator (ATN) for combat support (CS)/CCS vehicle usage (FY99).
• Link 3D model and texture library to database generation capability (FY99).
• Incorporate automated feature extraction techniques from spectral, SAR, and EO sources into existing
digital stereo photogrammetric software (FY00).
• Extend physics based models and visualization capability to incorporate passive and active MMW (FY00).
• Develop off vehicle ATN (FY01).
• Test the link capability for complex geospatial areal data management (FY01).
• Deliver algorithms for management, dissemination, and integration of geospatial information to industry
through the Open Geographic Information System (OpenGIS) consortium (FY01).
• Test initial automated feature attribution capability based on terrain reasoning software (FY01).
• Integrate mode derived IR and MMW sensor performance overlays into 3D visualization (FY01).
• Investigate capability for automated feature attribution based on terrain reasoning (FY01).
• Demonstrate visualization and command planning tools for urban data sets (FY01).
• Improve terrain data inferencing methodologies (FY02).
• Develop a spectrally enhanced multisensor exploitation capability (FY02).
b. Lower Atmosphere Environment
The lower atmosphere environment encompasses the global surroundings where Army personnel and systems function, at
times and spaces for which commercial weather data and products are unavailable or insufficient. This subarea focuses on
joint service weather requirements and capabilities. One particular service will assume the lead in specific research and
development areas, and that work will be adapted by other services. The Army’s efforts in these areas are in accordance with
objectives laid out in the DTAP, and involve atmospheric measurements, data ingest and distribution, prediction,
simulation, and development of system–specific, and tailored weather decision aids. The following discussion breaks the
Army contributions into three technology thrusts: current battlespace weather, predicted battlespace weather, and decision
aids.
The goal of the current battlespace weather thrust is to provide the ability to determine weather information for a battle–size
area anywhere in the world. This is accomplished through direct or remote sensing of atmospheric parameters. The
predicted battlespace weather thrust concentrates on methods to predict atmospheric conditions over a battle–size area for
any time from the present up to 2 weeks in the future. These predictions use analysis of any available data, as well as
meteorological modeling. The goal of the decision aid thrust is to provide information to warfighters on the effects of the
current and predicted atmospheric conditions on friendly and threat warfighting capabilities. This involves assimilating and
disseminating weather information and threshold values for all weather sensitive systems in order to produce tailored
decision aids.
These thrusts, as detailed below, all contribute to providing knowledge of the lower atmosphere environment and its effects
to gain an advantage on the battlefield.

Current Battlespace Weather
Accurate and timely weather and atmospheric information over critical parts of the battlespace will provide future higher
resolution forecast models with the initialization data to increase their accuracy. Combining the new capabilities of remote
sensing systems operating from ground, air, and space platforms with covert, small signature, in situ sensor platforms will
result in new real–time data concerning the battlespace and target area meteorology environment. The changing role of U.S.
forces into a reactive force deployed to global small–scale conflicts requires that this information be available on extremely
short notice throughout the world. With the evolving capability of high resolution battlespace forecast models, as discussed
below, these data will provide the critical initialization information and confirm the model predictions for commander
confidence in planning decisions. Basic research focuses on the measurement of small–scale phenomena in the planetary
boundary layer, including aerosols, along with weather parameters (see Figure IV–11). Specific objectives include:
• Extract battlespace weather and atmospheric information from satellite active remote sensors. Provide data
from ground to space with four times the accuracy of current passive sensors, covering 40 percent of the
global surface in under 4 hours.
• Automate data retrieval from tactical weapon platforms. Increase battlespace data collections by a factor of
five over current sensors.
• Provide seamless data distribution between services and tactical areas. Enable common, joint data collection
and communication to allow all services to share data in real time for a consistent, accurate "nowcast"
common picture of the battlespace.
• Develop ground–based remote sensors that operate "on the run" to support future force mobility. Provide
data at much higher rates than today’s technology.
• Develop a prototype mobile atmospheric profiler system, which, when coupled with meteorological (met)
satellites and other battlefield met data sources, eliminates the requirement for logistically burdensome
artillery balloon borne sensors and hydrogen generators.
• Provide quantitative assessments of the propagation characteristics and radiative transfer effects of natural
clouds and man–made battlefield aerosols that affect illumination, boundary layer energy balance, surface
state, and visibility, through studies of MMW propagation and aerosol detection.
• Develop advanced laboratory measurement techniques and instrumentation as tools for aerosol
microphysics diagnostics and for the detection and identification of CBW agents.
• Develop aerosol and gaseous information sufficient to quantitatively model atmospheric limitations on
military systems that rely on radiation (UV, visible, IR, and MMW) for detection, imaging, and identification.
• Develop and test ground–based remote sensors for battlefield atmospheric characterization of the dynamic
and thermodynamic properties of aerosol and gases, such as temperature, density, wind fields, water vapor,
and CBW agents. Evaluate the ability of satellite remote sensors to support this same purpose.
• Develop remote sensor concepts and algorithms to provide tactical data for initializing battlefield
meteorological models, assessing performance of precision strike weapons, and general real–time situational
awareness on the battlefield.
• Develop measurement systems that resolve the microscale dynamic structures for the verification of
atmospheric models operating at these scales. Technical barriers for basic research involve the investigation
and explanation of previously unobservable atmospheric phenomena occurring at these scales, such as the
convective boundary layer, gravity waves, and shear instabilities.
• Determine the characteristics of aerosols, their dynamic properties in the atmospheric medium, and their
optical properties over all spectral bands of military interest, and develop the instrumentation that permits the
detection and analysis of aerosols.

• Complete development of a prototype atmospheric profiler as an upgrade to the Army’s meteorological

measuring set (MMS) (AN/TMQ–41) and demonstrate during 4th Infantry Division (4ID) digitized rotation
at the National Training Center (NTC) (FY98).
• Automate data retrieval from MMS to the integrated meteorological system (IMETS) using variable
message format (VMF) bit–oriented message (BOM) protocol (FY98).
• Automate data retrieval from Improved Remotely Monitored Battlefield Sensor System (IREMBASS) met
sensor (FY99).
• Complete development of neural net software for direct retrieval of wind speed and direction from met
satellite radiance data. Improve the accuracy of met satellite measured winds by 50 percent (FY99).
• Develop remote sensing analysis algorithms to provide improved initialization data for battlescale forecast
models including surface energy balance interactions, boundary layer temperatures and winds, water vapor,
and cloud liquid water data (FY00).
• Develop remote sensing analysis methods to estimate surface layer visibilities, and identify low stratus and
fog regions and their effects on local illumination and contrast (FY02).
Figure IV-11. Measurements in the Planetary Boundary Layer, Along with Weather Parameters
Predicted Battlespace Weather
Relying on the Navy and Air Force large–scale, long–term prediction models allows the Army to concentrate on resolving
the smallest battlespace scales, below 1 km in space and 1 hour in time. As advances in the regional and theater scale models
allow reliable forecasts beyond 10 days, the Army will reduce the space and time scales to 100 meters/1 minute and below to
resolve the boundary layer processes that influence the propagation of acoustic and EO energy, and the motion and dilution
of CB agents on the battlefield. Running as nested applications below the large–scale models, the battlespace model will
provide the spatial and temporal data filling in the features missed by the larger models but that are of prime importance to
the Army. Basic research focuses on transport and diffusion modeling and optical effects of the atmosphere on propagation
through turbulence (see Figure IV–12). Specific objectives include:

Figure IV-12. Lower Atmosphere Environment: Predicted Battlespace Weather

• Optimize environmental prediction models to allow operation on virtually all tactical weapon systems, from
the future soldier to artillery and missile systems. Provide more accurate and timely data for platform–specific
decision aids.
• Develop a standalone analysis system that will emphasize key weather elements and weather phenomena for
important decision making factors, which can serve all services for the purpose of improving nowcasting,
forecast guidance products, and, potentially, the analysis in the mesoscale numerical weather prediction
system.
• Increase firing accuracy of indirect fire cannon and missile systems by integrating the battlescale forecast
model (BFM) directly into the ballistic kernel operating on fire direction center and gun platform fire control
computers and use the BFM to calculate in near–real time the meteorological effects over the entire trajectory
path of a projectile, rather than just at apogee.
• Build a mesoscale numerical weather prediction system appropriate for battlescale applications, including
the boundary layer. The system should be capable of assimilating a wide range of data over complex inland
and coastal terrain and accounting for improved cloud and aerosol treatment in the model physics, improved
surface energy balance and evapotranspiration processes, and physical process oriented forecast models.
• Develop descriptions of the dynamic flow interactions with highly complex terrain, vegetation, and
structures that can run on a variety of computer systems, from battlefield workstations to supercomputers.
• Improve modeling of transport and diffusion (T&D) of gases, particulates, and pollutant plumes essential to
the DoD’s CBW R&D programs. Couple T&D models to mesoscale numerical weather models to forecast
aerosol dispersion and concentration.
• Link battlescale forecast models with gas/aerosol transport and diffusion models to provide
four–dimensional (4D) predictions of CB agent threats on the future battlefield. Increase accuracy of spatial
forecast by 50 percent and concentration forecasts by 60 percent.
• Understand and model the propagation of acoustic and short wavelength electromagnetic radiation in the
atmosphere under natural and battle induced conditions.
• Develop high spatial and time resolved effects of weather and illumination variations on EO propagation

and target background signature models.
• The computational speed and memory/storage required to resolve the mesoscale phenomena and to
represent and predict mesoscale physical processes is extraordinary. The T&D of gases and particulates
require treatments more sophisticated than traditional Gaussian plume models to represent the turbulent,
chaotic nature of atmospheric motions. Technical barriers for basic research involve the development of
probability density function (PDF) solutions in order to predict the concentration fluctuations, a critical issue
for soldier system exposure, and the development of improved nonlinear solutions for the Navier–Stokes
equations that describe the physical process of T&D.
• The flow of the atmosphere around and through vegetative canopies and through urban "canopies" plays a
critical role in the use of countermeasure aerosols and for chemical and biological defense. Models of such
flow must be available for operation on tactical systems.
• Quantify the accuracy achievable by moving the BFM from the AN/TMQ–41 MMS to indirect fire control
computers and using the BFM to correct for met effects over the entire trajectory path of a projectile (FY98).
• Develop improved capabilities to visualize forecast meteorological data and derived weather parameters in
3D on the tactical IMETS (FY98).
• Develop interfaces to allow tactical battlescale forecast data and derived propagation and illumination
parameters to be provided through the Master Environmental Library to support high level architecture
(HLA) simulations (FY99).
• Incorporate remote sensing and analysis of surface energy balance and surface state data to improve
initialization of the battlescale forecast model (FY00).
• Extend accurate high resolution weather forecast capability for the battlefield to 48 hours (FY03).
• Deliver a nonhydrostatic moisture microphysics BFM for clouds and precipitation forecasts to the IMETS.
Improve adverse weather forecasts by 40 percent while running on Army tactical computers (FY05).
Decision Aids
Mission planning and weapon selection on a future highly mobile, extremely lethal battlefield will require the commander to
have available the best possible information on the impact of the weather and atmosphere on the mission objective. Decision
cycles will shorten, forces will be more dispersed and independent, and thus future decision aids must operate on the tactical
platforms, using all the data the sensors and model provide and providing the output in the most effective assimilation
format. Weather impact decision aids will allow the commander to employ the weather as a combat multiplier (Figure
IV–13). Specific objectives include:

Figure IV-13. Lower Atmosphere Environment: Weather Decision Aids

• Develop integrated weather/atmospheric data, broad spectrum propagation models and advanced
visualization methods, to provide 3D visualized decision aids showing graphical depictions of atmospheric
impacts on mission plans and weapon use for current and future battlefields.
• Automate mission planning tools based on detailed knowledge of environmental impacts, to optimize the
commander’s planning and decision making ability. Improve the required mission output, as defined by the
commander, by 30 percent over current methods.
• Integrate atmospheric and background models with target prediction models to ensure that atmospheric
effects are included in the assessment of weapon system performance, survivability, and vulnerability.
• Develop more quantitative methods to augment current rule–based, binary decisions based on
weather–dependent critical values for subsystem, system, platform and military operations performance.
• Develop environmental decision aids for operational and tactical levels of war planning and training that
give the effects and impacts of weather and battle–induced atmospheres on U.S., allied, and threat unit
functions, systems, subsystems, sensors, and personnel.
• Develop real–time weather and environmental effects models (obscurants, illumination levels, EO, and
acoustic propagation) to provide common, unified weather effects, features, and representations leading to
improved battlescale forecasting for simulation, training, doctrine, and C3 systems that are compatible for all
services.
• Battlespace prediction models and parameterization methods for boundary layer physical processes will
depend crucially on in–theater data assimilation methods that fully exploit all sources of weather observations
from remote and in situ platforms. Development of robust and flexible procedures will be needed to adapt to
the available data options in real time.
• As the observation data from various sensors and platforms increase and the fusion and prediction are

highly synergized, quality control is essential to ensure an accurate description of the state of the atmosphere.
• The extension of weather impact decision aids from current rule–based, critical value threshold
comparisons to more complex interactions between weather, terrain and performance characteristics will
require greater use of AI, fuzzy logic, and expert system techniques that will increase computational loads.
• Provide an integrated weather effects decision aid with a dynamic rule editor capability, allowing users from
various functional areas to tailor weather impact threshold values to meet their particular mission
requirements (FY98).
• Demonstrate integrated EO/acoustic/gas/biological agent propagation with tactical weather data and 3D
visualization tools for mission planning at a division–level advanced warfighter experiment (AWE). Improve
multicomponent mission planning by 40 percent over current binary decision aid technology, improve
information assimilation by 60 percent over 2D map decision aid displays (FY98).
• Demonstrate decision aids that display 3D acoustic propagation over terrain (FY98).
• Demonstrate use of fuzzy logic and other AI methods to produce dynamic rules and weather–influenced
system performance values to augment weather impact decision aids (FY99).
• Incorporate remotely sensed weather data and derived parameters to augment decision aid overlays (FY00).
• Demonstrate satellite remote sensing of battlespace environments and tactical use of such information in
operational decision aids to the Communications–Electronics Command (CECOM) (FY01).
The roadmap of technology objectives for Battlespace Environments is shown in Table IV–26.
Table IV–26. Technical Objectives for Battlespace Environments

Cold Regions Provide physics–based dynamic winter Enhance physics–based 3D Enhance performance of smart and
effects on terrain models for inclusion representation of complex terrain and brilliant weapons and surveillance
into the synthetic battlefield weather conditions with modeling systems development to distinguish
architectures that will allow practical target signatures within complex
application within DISNs winter backgrounds
Develop seismic–based target tracking
and ranging capability for winter
environments Provide DET simulation for cold regions
Develop remote icing accumulation Develop methods to predict and alleviate

detection method to support winter the effects of ice accretion on military
operations equipment to include aviation,
communications, and sensors
Develop low temperature/thermal cycling
performance criteria for composite Validate low–temperature/thermal
materials cycling performance criteria for new
composite materials for Army
applications

Topography Incorporate techniques for Incorporate automated feature extraction Investigate emerging satellite data for
processing SAR and ISAR feature data techniques from spectral, SAR, and EO enhanced terrain feature generation
into existing software sources into existing software and direct 3D imaging
Incorporate/test initial spectral imagery Test initial automated feature attribution Investigate real–time automated
automated feature extraction capability capability based on terrain reasoning feature attribution using multisource
software data
Improve visualization capabilities with
the addition of dual–band IR and image Extend physics based models and Develop real time dynamic
intensifier capability visualization capability to incorporate atmospheric modeling
passive and active MMW
Apply physics–based models to Investigate and develop capability
simulation applications Integrate mode derived IR and MMW for fully automated real–time terrain
sensor performance visualization
overlays into 3D visualization
Test link capability for point and line/
vector geospatial data management
Test the link capability for complex areal
data management
Develop standards for the representation
and content of a link structure for
geospatial data Deliver algorithms for management,
dissemination and integration of
geospatial information to industry
Develop ATN for CS/CCS vehicle usage
through the OpenGIS consortium
Complete small screen map display study

Develop off vehicle ATN
Provide multiscale/multiproduct terrain

visualization software
Current Battlespace Downsize prototype mobile Profiler for Develop capability to determine wind Replace met balloons on battlefield
Weather mounting on top of high mobility speed and direction from satellite with Profiler
multipurpose wheeled vehicle radiance data
(HMMWV) shelter
Automate data retrieval from tactical
Provide seamless weather data weapon platforms
Demonstrate client/server architecture distribution between services
during division AWE
Develop capability to identify biowarfare
Provide automated data retrieval from the agents with portable biodetector
MMS to the IMETS
Provide automated data retrieval from

IREMBASS met sensor
Predicted Battlespace Transition 24–hr BFM as server for Extend BFM to 48 hours, with higher Provide horizontal/seamless
Weather weather effects clients on Army Battle resolution and increased accuracy integration of automatic battlescale
Command System weather forecasting throughout
Army Battle Command System
Incorporate BFM in indirect fire control
Develop computer assisted artillery computer to increase artillery accuracy
meteorology (CAAM) time space Develop 3D acoustic propagation
weighted model and BFM on MMS for model for 20 km ranges
Incorporate terrain and weather effects
increased artillery accuracy
into operational CB hazards prediction
model
Demonstrate ability to determine wind
flow over complex terrain and land use
features such as vegetative canopies and
built–up areas

Incorporate illumination, target, and

scene shadow effects into target
acquisition model
Demonstrate BFM and weather effects

integrated into the common operating
picture seamlessly overlayed on terrain
battlefield visualization products
Decision Aids Integrate realistic weather from BFM and Provide Integrated Weather Effects Meet weather requirements of
decision aids into environmental libraries Decision Aid as tri–service software advanced battlefield visualization
for HLA simulations toolkit systems and HLA simulations
Integrate weather effects decision aids Develop decision aids that display 3D
into Army Battle Command System sound propagation over complex terrain
Develop battlefield acoustic/seismic

detection weather effects simulation
Table IV–27. Battlespace Environments Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities

Cold Regions TR 97–002 Situational Awareness

TR 97–005 Airspace Management
Topography TR 97–001 Command and Control

Current Battlespace Weather TR 97–001 Command and Control

Predicted Battlespace Weather TR 97–002 Situational Awareness


Decision Aids TR 97–002 Situational Awareness


Chapter IV N. Human Systems Interface
N. Human Systems Interface
1. Scope
Army requirements on the individual combatant are increasing as never before as new technologies are being integrated into
the soldier’s role. The end of the cold war as well as societal and budgetary concerns have served to downsize our fighting
forces. At the same time, night vision technologies allow us—and force us—to "own the night"; this also requires us to "staff"
the night for round–the–clock operations. Technologies also allow us to increase the operating tempo of combat with faster,
longer range weapons and vehicles such as a 45–miles per hour (mph) tank and the electronic corollary to "faster, longer,"
the digitized battlefield. Thus, our soldiers must work faster to engage fully the benefits of these technologies, and they must
do so at more consistent and sustained peak levels, for there is no longer much time to ponder or to easily retrieve
commands. This section is allied to the Human Systems Interface program in the DTAP, but the Army deals most critically
with a variety of mission and environmental conditions not encountered by the other services or industry. The Human
Systems Interface program encompasses information display and performance enhancement (ID&PE), design integration
and supportability (DI&S), warrior protection and sustainment (WP&S), and personnel performance and training (PPT).
The ID&PE and DI&S activities are presented here, while the WP&S and PPT research are discussed in Sections IV–F and
IV–O, respectively. ID&PE and DI&S technologies seek to enhance the processing and delivery of task–critical information
to individuals and groups, aiding the functional operation and logistical support of weapon and information systems, and
the integration of crews with weapon systems for maximum mission effectiveness, survivability, and supportability.
2. Rationale
The key to force lethality, survivability, and unit efficiency is the effective use of human resources. People are the most
critical component of weapon systems. They are also the most costly component. Personnel and related costs exceed $70
billion annually. There is an additional $20–30 billion spent on training, not all of which currently hits the mark. Part of the
HSI mission is to lower this training burden while extending training effectiveness. This expenditure represents about 40
percent of the $241 billion FY97 defense budget. The Human Systems Interface S&T program directly contributes to all
Joint Staff future warfighting capabilities by optimizing the use of the DoD’s most critical resource—its people. The impacts
of these technologies include:
• Substantial increases in unit readiness through lowered training requirements via optimized task, tool, and
equipment redesign, as well as more robust training techniques where that training is most needed—while
reducing costs.
• Improved mission performance—lethality and survivability—through more effective information displays
and decision support systems.
• Casualty reduction from early warning, enhanced protection and escape systems.
• Enhanced mobility from better logistics, lowered physical requirements, and other troop sustainment
technologies.
Combat systems will be designed to capitalize on human strengths and mitigate weaknesses while simultaneously improving
sustainment and support of warfighting systems. Advances in warrior protection systems address concerns about casualties

in conflict. By providing the personal protection and life support necessary to meet current and future threats, these
technology efforts make the individual warrior more effective and achieve force multiplication. With fewer soldiers
executing the mission, we decrease the tax burden and put fewer warfighters in harm’s way while still achieving mission
objectives. Advances in human systems interface technologies are essential for the services to meet their global commitments
in combat and peacekeeping roles.
Human Systems Interface technology takes a unique, multidisciplinary approach to the human role in combat operations.
Our collective capability to draw on the physical, biological, biomedical, and behavioral sciences to support the core of
human factors engineering S&T is more critical than ever. Instead of facing a single massive threat, the warfighter is also
challenged by the potential of simultaneous, multiple, low–intensity conflicts. A force with new and larger weapon systems
with increasing speed, range, and firepower is now joined by a smaller force with fewer weapon systems but with more
functionality, fewer hands–on training hours, fewer people, less acquisition, and aging systems that must be maintained.
This change in focus places a growing demand on the human, who is in the loop of every weapon system.
To achieve this, a more affordable, yet more broadly deployed, more "ready" force, the services must increasingly emphasize
"force–multiplying" weapon systems and training and retention of qualified people and their personal protection,
sustainment, and survival during operations. For the full range of weapon systems, Human Systems Interface technology is
integral to major gains in operability, effectiveness, availability, and affordability. Over a weapon system’s life cycle, the cost
of the people to operate and maintain the system typically is significantly higher than the cost of the system’s hardware.
Through vigorous application of Human Systems Interface technologies to current and future weapon systems, we can
achieve gains such as 50 percent reductions in average crew size, 25 percent reductions in physical, perceptual, and cognitive
workloads, 15 percent or more reduction in the weight of personal equipment, 30 percent overall weight reduction in
ballistic protection while decreasing casualties, doubling critical decision making accuracy and reliability, quadrupling
overall crew member situation awareness, and achieving a 50 percent reduction in total life–cycle costs.
a. Information Display and Performance Enhancement
ID&PE aims to enhance soldier capabilities for both cognitive–perceptual and physical–physiological task demands. For the
near term, in both cases the first tactic is to lower requirements through "human friendly" design of interfaces, tasks, and
equipment. Extensive remapping of our understanding of these interactions is necessitated by the extremely rapid response
needed to take advantage of force–multiplier technologies. Further, a good deal of work is needed to extrapolate beyond
guidelines from the private sector and academia, where demands are not at militarily significant levels.
For the mid to far term, full–time, real–time situation awareness is the core challenge for cognitive S&T research.
Information technology developments are critical to making available to the soldier the information potential lurking on the
digitized battlefield of tomorrow. The primary route is through human engineering and integration of emerging sensor,
display, and processor technologies to organize, identify, manage, and present critical combat data. Next, we must enhance
mental performance via complementing human processing strengths and weaknesses, including lowering cognitive and
perceptual demands under conditions of extreme physical demands and other stressors. Night vision devices, 3D auditory
displays, and ergonomic design of tasks and tools will lead the way to enhanced performance for the 21st century soldier
(see roadmap for timelines).

Challenges include presenting information (visual, aural, haptic) to the warfighter using robust displays that remain friendly
even under combat stress conditions. Stressors range from those of jungle combat to those of rotorcraft warfare. New ways
are needed to represent and visualize information extracted from the buzz and fog of war. How to use multimodal control
and input methods such as touch, speech, eye tracking, and natural language requires a serious S&T mentality.
A second challenge is to extend the soldier’s physical, cognitive, and psychological capabilities. This involves a core human
factors task—that of merging and extending existing models of biodynamics and ergonomics with emerging models of
human cognition, decision making, and human stress. Once this is done, no time can be wasted in a transition to integration
with weapon systems models, C3I models, and realistic soldier–in–the–loop mission scenarios.
b. Design Integration and Supportability
The overarching objective here is to improve weapon system effectiveness, availability, and affordability throughout
development, fielding, and life cycle. DI&S goals include:
• Developing a national (for selected aspects, international) technology base in human performance
modeling and assessment.
• Designing tools and equipment for physical accommodation
• Devising efficient, robust methods for human error assessment, prediction, and avoidance.
• Developing tools, such as integrated manpower and personnel integration tools of integrated MANPRINT
(IMPRINT) and individual unit solder simulation (IUSS), for estimating and evaluating human performance
requirements for a given system design.
• Developing tools to both streamline and enhance the weapon system support infrastructure.
Earlier in this chapter, complexities brought about by emerging technologies was discussed. While the massive amount of
human performance data collected over the past few decades could help reduce the effects of these complexities, the data are
not always retrievable or transformable into in a form useful to efforts toward future human–system integration. A penalty is
that the soldier’s need often is addressed too late in the design and even fielding phases. Largely due to human variability,
even linking the best of these data to CAD/computer–aided engineering (CAE) tools is considerably more difficult than
when using data for physical systems.
New methods are needed to help share data among diverse disciplines and platforms, to extrapolate currently known
human performance data into the 10–15 year future system, and to use the proper metrics for measuring progress.
The roadmap of technology objectives for the Human Systems Interface is shown in Table IV–28.

Table IV–28. Technical Objectives for Human Systems Interface

Information Display and Context–sensitive intelligent interface Indicators and warnings for Multimodal interactive sensory displays
Performance dismounted soldiers
Enhancement (ID&PE)
Implement cognitive decision aiding Individual soldier simulation network
tools in simulation use Distributed interactive simulation for (SIMNET) individual soldier’s portal
the individual soldier (I–PORT)
Develop algorithms to support
commanders for on–the–move Command OTM controls and layouts 3D audio and video immersion displays
(OTM) operations
Develop information engineering 3D volumetric and immersion devices
Refinement of "audio icon" and guidelines for information rich
integration in simulation platform environments
Tri–service commonality on performance
aiding, system supportability, and design
Develop database of soldier clothing Develop flight and other symbologies integration
and equipment compatibility for enhancing helmet–mounted
information displays (HMDs)
Develop human factors design guide for
HMD
Refine assessment techniques for Aiming accuracy, recoil mitigation,
national and international (joint and indirect fire for small arms
Integrate personal performance
coalition force) soldier modernization
enhancement of hardware and weapons
programs
Strength augmentation and sensory
enhancement
Links to AI attributes, neural networks
Establish reach, vision, and strength
criteria for female crew
Ergonomic design model for reducing
Release graphic soldier model with reach,
soldier lift, carry, push, and pull loads
vision, and strength database
Develop prognostic model of
intelligence production and fusion
Performance related model of
injury–stress relationship
Develop "precursor" performance
metrics and markers for team unit
For teleoperations, develop aids to
provide textural and distance
information, and to minimize
attentional fixation
Design Integration and Human resource cost models relative Mission reconfigurable crew station Integrated real–time and predictive system
Supportability (DI&S) to IEW, C2 vehicle (C2V) supportability and operational readiness
assessment capability
Teleoperation crew station layout
Integrate models and databases for
human factors, manpower, personnel, Full, synergistic, analysis capability from
Full integration of generic algorithm
and training (HMPT) concept through prototype and from
for cockpit optimization (GASCO)
detailed interface specifications through
into the man–machine integration
force–on–force simulations
Task performance models for design and analysis system (MIDAS)
expanded mission areas (C2, tool suite
maintenance, etc.) Diagnostic links to system design, design
costs, tactics, and training
Simulation–based determination of
Evaluation of alternative system training and system support concepts,
designs at notional system stage requirements, and resources
Database matrix for soldier system

technologies for future system design
evaluation
HMPT analysis tradeoff tool for

system redesign options

Table IV–29. Human Systems Interface Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities

Information Display and TR 97–002 Situational Awareness

Performance Enhancement (ID&PE) TR 97–012 Information Systems
Design Integration and TR 97–001 Command and Control

Supportability (DI&S) TR 97–004 Tactical Operation Center Command Post

Chapter IV O. Personnel Performance and Training
O. Personnel Performance and Training
1. Scope
The DoD Personnel Performance and Training (PP&T) program seeks to maximize human military performance. Army
S&T investments in personnel performance technology address recruitment, selection, classification, and assignment of
people to military jobs. These investments seek to reduce the attrition of high quality personnel, support the development of
managers and leaders, and predict and measure the consequences of policy decisions. Army S&T investments in training
technology improve the effectiveness of individual and collective training, enhance military training systems, and provide
more cost–effective opportunities for skill practice, mission rehearsal, and enhanced performance. PP&T technologies
provide efficiencies in the operation and maintenance of both current and future systems and result in increased readiness of
our warfighting forces.
2. Rationale
The FY98 Army posture statement states:
"The Army’s ability to respond rapidly to crises worldwide requires a trained and ready Army, and that requires high–quality
people; tough, realistic, mission–focused training, and competent leaders . . . . Executing missions across the full spectrum of
military operations requires soldiers able to think on both a tactical and an operational level. They must be highly skilled and
well trained to adapt to complex, dangerous, and ever changing situations throughout the world. [Leaders] must be creative at
solving problems and capable of operating in complex, ambiguous, ever–changing environments."
Force XXI will enhance the abilities of the best soldiers in the Army’s history through the use of simulations and
simulator–based training. As they have always been, soldiers will be the most important element of Force XXI.
Intelligent selection, classification, retention, and organization of quality soldiers are necessary to maintain a stable,
disciplined, well–trained fighting force. Effective individual and unit collective training strategies must be developed to meet
the Army’s changing roles and missions in the face of decreased resources. Significant advances in distributed interactive
simulation (DIS) and virtual reality (VR) technologies permit the development of synthetic environments that can be used
to provide realistic combat training. Empirically based training strategies are required to make the most cost–effective use of
new training technologies.
a. Personnel Performance
Selection and Classification. Improved aptitude testing and assignment methods reduce training time and increase the
quality of soldier performance. Applying these technologies to the Army After Next requires knowing what tasks 21st

century noncommissioned officers (NCOs) will be performing and hence what characteristics they must possess to become
proficient and effective in these jobs. The near–term research tasks include identifying future NCO requirements (FY98),
developing prototype NCO performance measures (FY99), and linking aptitude and performance measures (FY00).
Human Resource Development. This research will use new longitudinal investigative methods to determine the effects on
soldiers and families of participation in significant Army organizational changes/events (e.g., reserve component
participation in the recent Bosnia peacekeeping mission, the Gulf War, Army downsizing, and various stability operations).
Short– and long–term lessons learned from these experiences will be provided to the Army in FY98.
• Develop ways of capturing what future NCO jobs will demand in terms of individual attributes and skills,
and develop measures that best predict which individuals should be selected for these new jobs.
• Develop techniques for DoD and Army decision makers, unit commanders, soldiers, and their families to
effectively adapt to organizational change and demands.
b. Training
Unit Collective Training. The effectiveness of synthetic and DIS environments rests in large measure on the training
strategies, performance measurement techniques, and performance feedback methods employed. Research goals are to
develop training packages and evaluation techniques to support emerging Force XXI digital capabilities; specify the required
simulation capabilities and the effective mix of live exercises with new and existing training aids, devices, simulators, and
simulations (FY98); determine training needs for mission planning and mission rehearsal tasks (FY98); and develop
measures to assess performance and provide feedback for DIS systems such as the close combat tactical trainer (FY98). In
support of the mounted battlespace battle laboratory, develop training and evaluation technologies that will prepare
operators and commanders to take maximum advantage of evolving digital C3 systems (FY01).
Simulator Enhanced Training. This research uses a simulator training research advanced testbed for aviation (STRATA) to
evaluate all significant parameters of simulator design to determine their contribution to the development and retention of
aviation skills. In FY98 the types and direction of motion needed for effective simulation–based training will be determined.
Land Warfare Training. Research goals include development of night operations training support packages for infantry
forces, a computer–based foreign language tutoring system for soldiers who need to sustain high levels of language
proficiency, and decision making tools to help reserve component (RC) commanders decide when it is more cost effective
to do live training or a given form of simulation. Expected FY98 products include training programs for improving combat
vehicle identification with IR devices, validated training materials for selected battle staff positions, continuous speech
recognition incorporated in the language tutor, and methods for training and assessing individual team member skills in
virtual environments (VEs).
Battle Command Training. Future battle scenarios place a premium on commanders who are versatile in their thinking, able
to synthesize large amounts of disparate data, and able to change their actions quickly if the situation requires it. The
research tasks include developing measures of battle command skills (FY98), validating these skill measures (FY99), and
tryout of instructional modules for teaching versatile thinking skills (FY00).

The Army needs to develop new training and performance measurement technology that will allow it to effectively train for
the full range of individual and unit tasks within budgetary constraints. Research is needed to enhance the effectiveness of
new training simulation technologies such as VE and DIS through the development of training strategies. Research has
shown that the effectiveness of new training aids, devices, simulators, and simulations (TADSS) is largely a function of their
appropriateness to the tasks that they train for, and the adequacy of performance measurement and feedback techniques.
Innovative training methods need to be developed that use these new tools to improve overall training effectiveness. Specific
challenges include:
• Develop individual and collective training strategies that provide an effective and affordable mix of live
exercises and synthetic training environments to prepare soldiers to cope with the proliferation of possible
missions.
• Assess the effectiveness of VE, DIS, and TADSS systems to support individual, unit collective, multiservice,
and joint training and use the data to maximize training value.
• Demonstrate training strategies and performance evaluation technologies to support emerging digital
technologies and the accompanying new doctrine.
• Increase knowledge of what the future battle commander’s critical thinking skills will be, and how to
improve their acquisition through instruction.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Personnel Performance and Training is shown in Table IV–30.
Table IV–30. Technical Objectives for Personnel Performance and Training

Personnel Identify Force XXI NCO job New assessment techniques for NCO Job–specific selection and assignment
Performance requirements selection, assignment, and development methods that ensure flexible and effective
personnel/job/career matching
Post–mobilization impact of Tools to evaluate soldier/family impact
peacekeeping operations on of changing military experiences Organization and job design/redesign
career development and methods that keep pace with changing
commitment missions and skill requirements
Training Prototype training methods/ Combined arms, multiservice, and joint Training techniques and strategies for
strategies to facilitate the training methods and measures of warfighters to attain mastery of critical tasks
acquisition of collective skills in a performance and skills in synthetic environments
digital environment
Aviation training strategy utilizing low Methods for developing commanders of a
Fidelity requirements for cost alternatives to resource–intensive more diversified military force to respond
networked aviation training training effectively and rapidly to future mission
systems requirements
Prototype training and evaluation
Methodologies for training and methods to support emerging digital Advanced warfighting training strategies for
assessing small dismounted unit equipment and doctrine units to attain 21st century battlefield
performance in a virtual dominance
environment (VE)
Interactive, VE–based training and
mission rehearsal techniques for soldiers Advanced, cost–effective training methods

Measures to assess battle and small units and strategies for the RC to effectively
command skill performance perform its changing and complex roles and
missions
Methods for improving the acquisition
and use of cognitive skills needed for 21st
century battle command
Table IV–31. Personnel Performance and Training Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
Personnel Performance TR 97–047 Leader and Commander Training

TR 97–051 Training Infrastructure
Training TR 97–047 Leader and Commander Training


Chapter IV P. Materials, Processes, and Structures
P. Materials, Processes, and Structures
1. Scope
The Army’s materials, processes, and structures (MP&S) program provides enabling technologies that are used to construct
every physical system or device that the Army uses. The MP&S program provides Army–unique technology solutions and
options that will increase the level of lethality and survivability performance and improve mobility, transportability and
durability while reducing the maintenance burden and life–cycle costs of all Army systems.
The materials subarea focuses on providing materials with the superior properties required for use in structural, optical,
armor, and armament, chemical and biological (CB) warfare and laser protection, biomedical, and Army infrastructure
applications. All classes of materials are included: metals, ceramics, polymers, composites of all types, coatings, energetic,
semi– and super–conductor, and electromagnetic functional materials. Meeting the performance needs of future Army
systems will require synthesis of new materials, modification of existing materials, design of property specific microstructures
and composite architectures, and development of advanced modeling and characterization techniques for specific
microstructures, properties, and both quasi–static and dynamic degradation and damage modes.
The materials processing subarea includes those technologies by which raw or precursor materials are transformed into
affordable monolithic or engineered materials and/or components with the requisite properties and reliability for Army
utilization. Included in the processing subarea are such technologies as casting, rolling, extrusion, cold and hot isostatic
pressing, hot pressing, furnace sintering of metal or ceramic powders, laser sintering of titanium, polymerization, filament
winding, composite processing and curing, joining, machining, and chemical vapor deposition. Also, lower substrate
temperature coating processes are being developed, including ion beam assisted deposition (IBAD), pulsed laser deposition
(PLD), and other surface modification technologies.
Process modeling and control and the development of new processing techniques for the manufacturing of multifunctional
material systems will simultaneously improve quality and reduce costs of future Army materiel. Under the new paradigm of
"intelligent processing," quantitative process models, AI/expert systems, embedded sensors, intentionally inhomogeneous
compositional and microstructural gradients for localized property modification, and feedback/feedforward control systems
are coupled so that processes can be adjusted in real time. Closely allied to "intelligent processing" are online nondestructive
testing and inspection technologies, which enhance quality and durability.
The structures subarea is aimed at demonstrating generic structures based on advanced materials and processes that meet
Army specific needs, such as structural elements for armored vehicles and helicopters, guns and ammunition, and missile/
smart projectiles. Particular emphasis is on the development and modification of design tools and modeling for failure,
fatigue, and life prediction analysis.
2. Rationale
All Army hardware critically depends on MP&S for its performance, affordability, and durability. To the maximum extent
possible, the Army relies on improvements of existing MP&S capabilities in industry, academia, and the other services.

However, the many unique Army requirements, such as thick–section ballistically efficient composite structures for combat
vehicles, combat helicopter structures, CB and laser protective materials, antiarmor munitions, transparent and opaque
armor materials, do not have commercial markets that support an adequate private sector R&D infrastructure. Further,
there is no commercial analogue that superimposes both the severe environments and sustained high–stress use to which
materials are subjected on the modern battlefield. Thus, a robust in–house MP&S technology generation program is
essential to sustain the Army’s current and especially its future warfighting edge. A soldier–responsive in–house R&D
combat operating environment (COE) with a critical mass of dedicated experts is essential to focus and manage the
creation, evaluation, and transition of both external and internal MP&S technology advances to address Army specific
requirements.
a. Materials
New materials with greatly improved properties and durability are being developed that enable major capability
improvements for Army systems. For example, entirely new polymer matrix composite material concepts that are being
developed for reducing armor weight by 35 to 45 percent will also dramatically improve ballistic performance and reduce
overall systems costs. This weight reduction development will have a significant impact on increasing air deployment
capability. Further opportunities arise from the multifunctional capabilities of composite material systems, whereby
structural, ballistic, and signature reduction improvements can be incorporated simultaneously into one system.
Advanced ceramics are under development for both opaque and transparent armor ceramic applications as well as for
missile guidance domes and windows. Transparent spinel ceramics, other glass–ceramics, and polymers are being developed
to demonstrate superior ballistic properties for soldier systems application in FY99 under STO IV.P.05. Also, the
characterization and evaluation of opaque ceramics under lateral and axial constraint are under investigation to improve
their capability for interface defeat of high velocity impacting projectiles (see Figure IV–14). By FY04, advanced armor
ceramics having improved penetration resistance with confinement will be demonstrated for larger scale projectiles at
velocities above 2,000 meters per second (m/s). Opaque ultra light ballistically resistant personnel armor materials are being
developed under STO IV.P.04 for FY99. Recent advances in converting highly ordered polymers into textile fibers with
outstanding strength–to–weight ratios will lead to lighter weight body armor, helmets, and shelters without reducing ballistic
protection (see Section IV–F). Computer–aided design (CAD) of the molecular structure of polymers will be utilized to
develop improved transparent armor and controlled permeability barrier materials for protection against chemical and
biological agents by FY98.
Figure IV-14. Interface Defeat of Long-Rod Projectiles by Constrained Armor Ceramics


Weldability and the evaluation of mechanical and ballistic properties of low–cost titanium alloys (with higher interstitial
content) are being pursued for appreciable weight reductions over conventional aluminum and steel alloys for ground
vehicle applications. Higher performance heavy alloys for penetrators and shaped charge warheads are essential to defeat
advanced armor systems. The goals include a full–sized tungsten penetrator with equal performance to depleted uranium by
FY03 and replacement of copper shaped charge liners by FY05. Issues related to the development of advanced warhead
materials are discussed in Section IV–I. Improved ceramic thermal barrier coatings, wear resistant coatings, and monolithic
and reinforced ceramics composites for rotorcraft and ground vehicle propulsion (see Sections IV–C and IV–S) will be
demonstrated in the FY98–02 timeframe. Wear resistant coatings and advanced composite materials with tailored
combinations of mechanical and physical properties for reducing weight and improving durability of both conventional
armaments and electric guns will be demonstrated by FY98 (see Section IV–I).
While the field of materials science and engineering has made dramatic advances in materials performance, many
formidable scientific and technological problems still exist. Of particular importance to the Army is the ability to transition
the state–of–the–art knowledge base of composition-microstructure property parameters to models that predict the
behavior of materials in such complex phenomena as ballistic penetration and defeat, detonation kinetics, environmental
degradation, and chemical agent permeation. Specific technical challenges include:
• Develop and validate models to predict the static and dynamic behavior of fiber/matrix interfaces for
improved synthesis and performance of polymer and/or inorganic matrix composite structural materials.
• Develop and validate predictive models for the environmental durability of monolithic and composite
materials. Develop and validate improved models for the interactions of gases, vapors, and liquids with
polymeric barrier materials.
• Design opaque and transparent ceramics microstructures that will provide superior ballistic performance
with improved mass and space efficiencies. Develop cost–efficient lightweight transparent armor ceramics
and polymers for personnel and sensor protection.
• Design tungsten or other heavy metal alloys/microstructures that will provide equal ballistic performance to
depleted uranium, and improvements over copper shaped charge liners.
• Develop high strength steels and titanium alloys with improved ballistic properties that also maintain
toughness, weldability, affordability, and stress corrosion cracking resistance.
• Develop improved materials for protection from agile laser threats for the individual soldier and direct view
optics. Also, improved nonlinear optical materials for sensor protection devices.
• Reduce wear and erosion in structural and functional materials for armament and vehicle components.
Model and mitigate the micromechanical failure mechanisms in elastomeric materials for tank track
application.
b. Processes
The MP&S program thrusts in processing S&T focus on those processes that are required to implement the incorporation of
advanced materials in Army systems. Thick section composite processing presents unique challenges not encountered in
traditionally thin structures. Process simulation models are being developed that couple the effects of thermochemical and
thermomechanical interactions and incorporate micromechanical models to accommodate complex fiber/fabric
architectures are required (see Figure IV–15). New technologies such as coinjection resin transfer molding provide
improved properties while reducing manufacturing costs of multifunctional integrated armor systems under development.
These will be transitioned to the Tank–Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC) during

FY98.
Figure IV-15. Process Simulation Methodology for Thick Section Composite Structures
Improved process control methodologies including neural net feedback/feedforward capabilities, will be demonstrated in
FY98–99 and will transition to the Composite Armored Vehicle (CAV) ATD and follow–on programs. Integration of the
sensor mounted as roving thread (SMART) weave process into manufacturing systems is covered in Section IV–T.
Processing thrusts to develop low–cost titanium alloys for lightweight armor and weapon systems such as howitzers, with
enhanced air mobility, will be demonstrated by FY98. Lower temperature and lower cost ceramic processing approaches are
being developed to improve the affordability and availability of advanced transparent and opaque armor ceramic materials.
Properties and tape casting process optimization for recently developed high performance barium strontium titanate
ferroelectric materials are being refined that will enable size, weight, and cost reductions for a new generation of microwave
phased shifters at 35 GHz. This technology will transition to CECOM in FY05.
Much progress has been made in modeling single processes and process steps. However, the integration of real–time,
noncontact, or online sensing (especially at the very high temperatures required in metal and ceramic processing) with
adaptive control technology for the vast array of materials processes used by the Army is a formidable challenge. Specific
challenges include:
• Develop and validate knowledge–based models for consolidation synthesis, post–consolidation thermal or
thermomechanical processing, and improved capability for joining or repair of polymers, ceramics, metals,
and organic and inorganic matrix composites.
• Develop opaque and transparent ceramic processing models for improved affordability and impact damage
tolerance performance. Develop consolidation processing techniques for nano–size ceramic and metallic
particulates.
• Develop process–specific sensors and control systems.
• Develop new materials processing or surface modification to achieve near or actual net shape components
of complex geometry and variable composition and microstructure combinations to yield significantly
improved tribological or structural performance in more affordable materials/design systems.
c. Structures

The structures portion of MP&S technology focuses on developing structures with a high level of structural integrity that are
inspectable, analyzable, and survivable in the harsh combat environment. To be cost effective, the structural design must
integrate advanced structural design concepts that are compatible with mass production manufacturing technologies. These
structures can be man–rated or unmanned air or ground vehicles and hence must be designed to specific vibration and
noise levels to maintain crew comfort and a low noise signature.
The technological efforts have led to improved methodologies for detecting and predicting the onset and growth of internal
damage in composite structures. This has resulted in lighter weight, more durable structures. In the advanced concepts area,
conceptual composite vehicle structures that integrate both ballistic protection and structural support are being evaluated
(see Figure IV–16). Such integral composite structures offer significant improvements in weight and noise reduction, as well
as the additional potential for the integration of other multifunctional attributes. Additionally, composite structures in
rotating pulsed power systems (Figure IV–17) provide distinct weight and other design advantages. The application of smart
materials to control sound transmission through a structure has been demonstrated on fuselage–like shell structures
fabricated from composite materials. Reducing interior noise levels greatly improves crew comfort and reduces occupant
fatigue levels.
Figure IV-16.
Figure IV-17
• Design structurally efficient, cost–effective, and durable composite structures for Army unique ground and

air vehicles as well as other structural applications, including troop support and ordnance.
• Develop fracture mechanics methodologies, low–cycle fatigue, and stress analyses suited to meet Army
structural needs.
• Develop nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques and affordable in–situ sensors for identification and
quantification of defects and anomalies in composite structures.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Materials, Processes, and Structures is shown in Table IV–32.
Table IV–32. Technical Objectives for Materials, Processes, and Structures

Materials Armor ceramics evaluated in interface Ceramic process/defects evaluated for Confined armor ceramics transitioned to
projectile defeat interface defeat user
Ultra–lightweight, Ceramic thermal barrier coating for High temperature polymers (u400_C)
ballistically–resistant materials Army propulsion
35 GHz materials for phased array antennas
Low cost, 20 GHz ferroelectrics 28–35 GHz materials database
Tungsten shaped charge liners
Low cost titanium alloy transitioned Tungsten–based, long–rod
to TACOM kinetic–energy (KE) penetrators
Thin film microwave materials
Multiplane damage detection of 25% cost reduction in organic

composite laminates composite structures
Processes Transparent armor prototype Transparent spinel scale up Transparent, low–cost aluminum oxynitride
(ALON)
Scaleup of Si diamond–like carbon Consolidation of metal and ceramic
(DLC) coatings nanopowders Electron beam curing of large organic
composites
Laser processed titanium plate Continuous process for insensitive
propellants Continuous process for insensitive
explosives
Co–injection RTM of multifunctional
integral armor RTM processing with embedded
sensors Affordable rapid prototyping with inorganics
Organic (polymer) matrix composite
(OMC) and carbon–carbon (C–C)
composites for the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO)

Structures Composite rotor blades Demonstrate user defined composite Composites with embedded actuators and
structure active sound cancellation.
Energy absorbing structure
Multifunctional armor for active Controls and airframe for gun launched
protection (AP), overhead, and projectiles
Constitutive behavior of rocket
mineblast
propellants at interior ballistic rates.
Lightweight rail gun structures
Pulsed power storage device
Lightweight, low–cost structural
concepts
Case–bonded gun launched rocket
motor designs
Table IV–33. Materials, Processes, and Structures Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
Materials TR 97–021 Real–Time Target Acquisition, Identification, and Dissemination

Processes TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted

Structures TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted


Chapter IV Q. Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology
Q. Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology
1. Scope
Military Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology programs are a unique national resource focused to yield
superior capabilities for medical support and services to U.S. armed forces. Unlike other national and international medical
and biomedical S&T investments, military research is concerned with preserving the combatant’s health and optimizing
mission capabilities despite extraordinary battle, nonbattle, and disease threats. It is also unlike most of the more widely
visible Army modernization programs because its technology is incorporated in service men and women rather than into
the systems they use. This technology area is vital to the human capability dimension of all joint warfighting capabilities.
Weapon system developers exploit capabilities to mitigate system hazards, improve soldier survivability, and optimize
operator–system interfaces. Because of its special and unique nature, international treaties and conventions require military
medical research to be conducted for the benefit of mankind. Additionally, many activities and products are regulated by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The Army Medical and Biomedical S&T Program is divided into four technology subareas: infectious diseases of military
importance; medical, chemical, and biological defense; Army operational medicine, and combat casualty care. Each subarea
focuses on a specific category of threat to the health and performance of soldiers. The first three technology subareas
emphasize the prevention of battle and nonbattle injury and disease while the combat casualty care research program
emphasizes far–forward treatment. All three prevention research programs provide both medical materiel (e.g., vaccines,
drugs, and applied medical systems) and biomedical information. Combat casualty care provides medical and surgical
capabilities tailored to military medical needs for resuscitation, stabilization, evacuation, and treatment of all battle and
nonbattle casualties. Each technology subarea has objectives that respond to the national military strategy.
The National Defense Act of Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160) consolidated CBD programs, including both
nonmedical and medical, under the management of OSD, with the Army serving as executive agent. The medical CBD
programs are discussed here; the nonmedical CBD programs are addressed in Section IV–E.
2. Rationale
Individual service men and women are the most important, and the most vulnerable, components of military systems and
mission capabilities. Disease and nonbattle injury typically far outweigh battle–related injury as the greatest cause of
casualties among military forces. Regional, life–threatening, or incapacitating disease epidemics both limit and constrain
military deployment alternatives. Widespread sickness and injury are mission aborting; high casualty and death rates are
warstoppers. Post–deployment health problems have an adverse impact on future capabilities and on CONUS forces. The
current force structure is confronted with an expanded potential for large–scale regional conflicts, proliferation of WMDs,
and ready availability of advanced conventional weapons, as well as more diverse and highly complex missions
characterized by continuous, high–tempo operations. These more dangerous challenges are coupled with enduring threats
of disease, harsh climates, operational stress, and injury. These realities mandate a sustained commitment to robust
investment in medical research programs (Figure IV–18).

Figure IV-18. Future Medical Technologies

a. Infectious Diseases of Military Importance
The goals of the military infectious disease research program are primarily to sustain force structure by protecting soldiers
from incapacitating infectious diseases through the development of vaccines and disease–preventing drugs, and secondarily
to develop effective drug treatments to rapidly return personnel to duty. Infectious diseases pose a significant threat to
operational effectiveness. Most Americans lack immunity to diseases that are endemic abroad. Prevention of epidemic
infections in forces deployed abroad is a force multiplier that enables maximal global operational capability. Immunization
prior to deployment is the preferable medical countermeasure to infection because it adds to the full dimensional protection
of our forces and supports focused logistics by reducing logistical requirements in the theater of operations. In lieu of
available vaccines, a strong program in chemoprophylaxis addresses ongoing needs and the potential emergence of
biological resistance to current and future protective systems. The continuing surveillance for new and emerging infectious
diseases by the infectious disease research program allows information superiority and tailored, theater–specific
interventions resulting in sustainment of the force. Of major importance to the military are the parasitic diseases malaria and
leishmaniasis; the bacterial diseases responsible for diarrhea (i.e., Shigella, enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC),
Campylobacter), and the viral disease, dengue fever. The program also develops improved materiel for control of arthropod
disease–vectors and addresses a variety of other threats to mobilizing and deployed forces, including hepatitis, meningitis,
viral encephalitis, hemorrhagic fevers and infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
A variety of new antimalarial drugs will replace drugs rendered ineffective by the development of parasite resistance for
treatment of multidrug resistant malaria and prophylaxis (transition to advanced development in FY01–03). Vaccines to
provide protection against Falciparum malaria (FY00) and Vivax malaria (FY02) are currently under development, and a
combined vaccine against both (FY08) will be assessed. Vaccines soon–to–be transitioned against Shigella sonnei, Shigella
flexneri (FY99), and Shigella dysenteriae (FY01) will provide protection against the major agents causing dysentery.
Vaccines against Campylobacter (FY99) and ETEC (FY01) will provide additional protection against the major causes of
watery diarrhea. The feasibility of a combined, oral microencapsulated vaccine for major diarrheal threats will be assessed
(FY08). A prototype tetravalent dengue vaccine is currently being developed (FY01). New forward deployable diagnostic

test (FDDT) systems are under development using current and new technologies. Technology is being developed to
transition antibody–based, "dipstick" diagnostic tests for vector–borne diseases and enteric infections (FY99). PCR
microchip systems are also being explored (FY06).
There is a constant stream of emerging diseases. It is estimated that one disease of potential military importance is identified
each year, while diseases that previously had been treated successfully develop resistance to formerly effective drugs. The
focus of market–driven pharmaceutical development is on diseases important in the industrialized world, not on infectious
diseases prominent in many strategically significant areas where U.S. military forces might often deploy. Thus, fundamental
insight into the biology of the infectious organism and human response to infection must be developed through
Army–supported research. Drug and vaccine development requires the use of animal models of human infection to validate
their efficacy. In many cases, such as malaria, the species of parasite that will infect laboratory animals is not the same as that
afflicting humans. Furthermore, the manifestations of the disease in an animal model may not reflect those seen in human
disease. Therefore, other correlates of disease such as in vitro models need to be developed and used. To obtain sufficient
quantities of a pathogen for study, methods need to be developed to expand the agent, either in vitro or in vivo.
Some specific technical challenges for diseases of prime military importance are presented below:
• Animal and laboratory models for parasitic threats are not good predictors in drug studies.
• Knowledge of parasite biology and mechanisms of drug resistance is incomplete.
• Drug discovery and design are time consuming and costly.
• The full range of antigens involved in protection from most pathogens is unknown.
• Informative animal models for malarial, diarrheal, and viral diseases are needed.
• New approaches to enhance the mucosal immune response must be developed.
• The technology to combine potentially incompatible vaccine formulations and dosing regimens into a
single, combined vaccine for diarrheal or malarial agents, or a tetravalent dengue vaccine, must be developed.
• Appropriate field sites to test vaccines for efficacy in humans need to be identified.
• The best vaccine technology for a particular threat must be identified and selected.
• Diagnostic assays have insufficient sensitivity to detect pathogens at the time of clinical presentation.
• Diversity of etiologic agents of disease makes no single diagnostic platform appropriate for all diseases.
b. Medical Chemical and Biological Defense
The primary goal of the Medical Chemical and Biological Defense Research Programs (MCBDRPs) is to ensure the
sustained effectiveness of U.S. armed forces operating in a CBW environment by the timely provision of medical
countermeasures. This goal is accomplished by the use of prophylactic medical countermeasures (e.g., vaccine and
pretreatment drugs), by enhanced therapeutic countermeasures (antisera and improved chemotherapeutics) and by
improved CB diagnostic capabilities far–forward. Improvements in these medical countermeasures will maximize return to
duty.
Goals within the medical chemical defense area are as follows:
• By FY99, develop biotechnology–based chemical agent prophylaxes that provide protection against
battlefield concentrations of chemical warfare (CW) agents without operationally significant physiological or
psychological side effects.

• By FY99, demonstrate safety and efficacy sufficient for a Milestone 0 transition of a reactive topical skin
protectant (providing protection against penetration) that will detoxify both vesicant and nerve agents.
• By FY00, demonstrate safety and efficacy of a candidate medical countermeasure against vesicant agents
sufficient for a Milestone 0 transition decision.
• By FY02, demonstrate safety and efficacy sufficient for a Milestone 0 transition decision of an advanced skin/
wound decontamination system for decontaminating chemically contaminated wounds.
Within the medical biological defense area, vaccines are being developed that will protect at least 80 percent of the
immunized personnel against an aerosol challenge and will induce minimum reactogenicity in soldiers when immunized.
Safety and efficacy in preclinical studies using animal models will be demonstrated for the following vaccines: second
generation botulinum toxin vaccine (FY98), second–generation plague vaccine (FY98), encephalomyelitis vaccines (FY98),
brucellosis vaccine (FY99), ricin vaccine (FY00), staphylococcal enterotoxin B vaccine (FY00), and multiagent vaccines for
biological threat agents (FY02). After these successful transition milestones, initial clinical trials will be conducted.
The development of new drugs and vaccines for a particular chemical or biological threat agent requires both close
examination of the threat agent to determine the toxicologic or pathogenic mechanisms of the agent or disease, and the
development of appropriate pharmacologic or vaccine strategies to counteract these mechanisms. Strategies for vaccine
development must embrace new knowledge regarding the human immune system. This includes information about
generation of immunity, the preservation of immunological memory, and the regulation or modulation of immune
functions, including enhancement and suppression. Similarly, new pharmacological products exploit new knowledge
regarding biochemical and pathophysiological mechanisms associated with toxic cell death and organ failure.
New candidate drugs and vaccines must be both safe and efficacious. These criteria are regulated by the FDA. Ethically it is
not possible to conduct tests in humans of the efficacy of chemical agent prophylaxes or treatments, nor can biological
warfare vaccines be evaluated in this manner. Extensive safety and immunogenicity studies are, however, conducted in these
development programs. Efficacy testing must be conducted in model systems. Animal models do not currently exist for
many of the CB agents. The use of existing animal models is also limited by the desire to decrease or eliminate the use of
animals for drug and vaccine development.
• Developing appropriate animal models to test the safety and efficacy of medical countermeasures predictive
of human safety and efficacy.
• Increasing genetic and biologic information applicable to medical countermeasures against threat agents.
• Developing pretreatments/antidotes with special characteristics (e.g., quick acting, long acting, easy to carry/
use).
• Exploiting the human immune system to provide protection against threat agents.
• Analyzing new vaccine delivery systems and multi–agent vaccines.
• Synthesizing reactive/catalytic decontaminants and demonstrating that decontaminants and protective
compounds are safe.
c. Army Operational Medicine
The goals of the Army operational medicine research program are to protect soldiers from environmental injury and

materiel/system hazards; shape medically sound safety and design criteria for military systems; sustain individual and unit
health and performance under operational stresses, especially continuous and sustained operations (CONOPS/SUSOPS),
and quantify performance criteria and soldier effectiveness to improve operational concepts and doctrine.
The modern warfighter will require the full range of human physical and mental capability to survive and prevail in future
military operations. Goals are:
• By FY99, establish medical criteria to optimize efficiency and ensure safety of individual soldier equipment
(combat boots, body armor, load carriage systems) for use by the equipment developers. Develop
state–of–the–art scientifically based training programs to improve performance of elite units for special
occupational requirements, and to increase opportunities of all soldiers in jobs with specific physical
standards.
• By FY98, operationally test melatonin, a hormone that acts as a master synchronizer of body rhythms and as
a natural sleep inducer for ability to prevent symptoms of jet lag and fatigue in soldiers deploying across time
zones and in night operations. Specific physical and psychological training strategies will be developed to
harden selected individuals to operate continuously without performance deficit or injury for 72 hours.
• By FY99, conduct a continuous operations simulation to demonstrate and refine the sleep–induction/rapid
re–awakening and stimulant components of the sleep management system.
• By FY99, identify a rapid, reliable, and inexpensive means for assessing a soldier’s level of mental fatigue and
alertness. Develop and demonstrate a wrist–worn sleep/activity monitor with an integrated microprocessor
system.
• By FY98, integrate real–time satellite–derived weather data into thermal strain decision aids for battlefield
commanders. The MERCURY model system of environmental hazards will predict soldier performance in
specific real–time locations.
• By FY99, connect a sensor suite of technologies such as accelerometry, ausculation, spectroscopy, electrical
impedance, and force and temperature sensing through a wireless body local area network system, with
remote passive data interrogation capabilities.
• By FY01, develop a knowledge management system to reduce information obtained and predict
performance and health risks.
Developing strategies and products to protect, sustain and enhance soldier performance requires the development and
application of scientific data and knowledge. Strategies and products must remain effective in various combinations and in
realistic operational tests. One example is sleep management. Strategies that combine the use of pharmaceutical agents,
naturally occurring hormones (such as melatonin), timing of bright lights, and feeding schedules are needed. Various
combinations of these factors must be explored to develop the best wake/rest management strategies for realistic operational
scenarios.
Specific technical challenges are:
• Understanding sleep physiology and the purpose of restorative sleep.

• Modeling physiological measures to provide commanders with health and performance (readiness status).
• Defining the operational zones of caution: operational environments in which a soldier is currently at a
minimal risk, but may become a casualty with continued exposure to the environment.
• Developing sensors and biomarkers to provide information about soldiers’ status and the operational
environment.
• Integrating physiological models and instrumentation into a set of tools that will provide rapid and

meaningful information about soldiers’ operational readiness to commanders.
d. Combat Casualty Care
The goal of this program is to save lives far forward. This goal will be achieved by improving the delivery of far–forward
resuscitative care, minimizing lost duty time from minor battle and non–battle injuries, reducing unnecessary evacuations,
and decreasing the resupply requirements of all forward echelons of care. Near–term objectives include general
improvements in currently approved treatments, techniques, solutions, etc. Specifically:
• By FY98, develop the miniSTAT, an evacuation and en route care device that allows far–forward
monitoring to assist in diagnosis and treatment.
• By FY00, introduce a microencapsulated antibiotic to allow site–specific administration of antibiotics.
• By FY99, produce a forward, mobile, digitally instrumented surgical hospital by introducing the advanced
surgical suite for trauma casualties (ASSTC).
• By FY99–00, develop treatment/triage algorithms to aid the medic in treatment.
Mid–term goals include introduction of improved blood preservatives (FY00–03), small volume resuscitation fluids
(FY00–03), local hemostatic agents (FY01), a transport for en route care (FY02), and a rapid fluid warmer and infusion
device (FY02). Far–term goals include noninvasive physiological sensors (FY02–08), the use of nanotechnology for smart
devices and sensors (FY02–10), development of lightweight energy generators for medical use (FY02–10), and the use of
hibernation induction triggers for metabolic down–regulation.
Developing effective interventions for far–forward casualty care requires both the application of new biological knowledge,
and the adaptation of existing materials, signal–detection, and signal–processing technologies to new applications in
biological systems and to the unique needs of the battlefield environment. In many cases, evaluation of candidate
technologies depends on animal models to identify those candidates with the highest potential to successfully demonstrate
both safety and efficacy. Ultimately, all medical products must be able to satisfy FDA requirements for safety and
effectiveness.
Major technical challenges include:
• Developing lightweight battery energy generation, and computing capability necessary to support the
demands of the computer–aided diagnostic sensor/computer interface system.
• Developing the biotechnology, nanotechnology, pharmacologic interventions, and miniaturized
equipment necessary to induce metabolic down–regulation far forward.
• Overcoming the problem of applying local hemostatic agents (e.g., fibrin glues) to the wet surfaces of a
hemorrhaging wound.
• Identifying early prognostic physiological indicators of shock, and developing corresponding noninvasive
or minimally invasive sensing technologies.
• Developing online/real–time human physiologic databases from prehospital trauma settings.
• Stabilizing red blood cells without destroying function while eliminating in–theater pretransfusion
processing requirements.
• Improving knowledge regarding the physiologic and cellular factors underlying the body’s response to

hemorrhage and subsequent resuscitation.

• Reversing complex detrimental inflammatory and physiological cascades initiated by reduced blood flow
and anoxia subsequent to hemorrhage.
• Learning more about the detailed mechanisms responsible for brain edema and cytotoxicity following head
injury.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology is shown in Table IV–34.
Table IV–34. Technical Objectives for Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology
Infectious Diseases of Vaccine vectors Peptide synthesis Combined oral vaccines

Military Importance
Synthesized antiparasitic drugs Countermeasures to parasitic drug Topical antiparasitic drugs
resistance
Genetically engineered vaccines Single dose vaccines
Proteosome delivery
Malaria genome sequencing
Single step field assays
Advanced adjuvants
Medical Chemical and Confirmation diagnostics Advanced anticonvulsant Catalytic scavenger for broad range of CW
Biological Defense agents
Cyanide exposure field diagnostic test Bioengineered toxin scavengers
kit Combined oral vaccine
Catalytic pretreatment for a nerve
Cyanide pretreatment agent Immunoprophylaxis for CW agents
Nerve agent exposure field diagnostic Multichambered autoinjector Medical countermeasures against vesicants
test kit
Reactive topical skin protectant Nucleic acid immunization
Topical skin protectant
Receptor targeted therapeutic agents

Army Operational Laser effects model Blunt trauma models laser injury Physiological status models
Medicine treatments
Pharmacological strategies to enhance Sleep/alertness enhancers
restorative sleep Laser injury treatments
Treatments for laser retinal injury
Training strategies to enhance upper Enhanced crew rest guidance
body strength and endurance
Memory enhancers
Training strategies to optimize
Heat stress model to predict soldier specific physiological capabilities
Nonsteroidal strength enhancers
performance decrements
Strategies to reduce heat stress
Performance–enhancing ration
components
Combat Casualty Care Microencapsulated antibiotic Improved blood preservative Hibernation drug/metabolic down
regulation
Far–forward monitoring/Ministat Small volume resuscitation fluid
Noninvasive physiological sensors
Surgical suite for trauma casualties/ Rapid fluid warmer and infusion
ASSTC device Use of nanotechnology for smart systems
Treatment/triage assist algorithm En route care transport Lightweight energy generators
Local hemostatic agents
Table IV–35. Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology

Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
Infectious Diseases of Military Import TR 97–026 Deployability

MD 97–010 Medical Laboratory Support
Medical Chemical and Biological TR 97–029 Sustainment

Defense TR 97–038 Casualty Care, Patient Treatment, and Area Support
MD 97–004 Combat Health Support in a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Environment

Army Operational Medicine TR 97–002 Situational Awareness

MD 97–009 Combat Stress Control
Combat Casualty Care TR 97–002 Situational Awareness

TR 97–035 Power Sources and Accessories
MD 97–001 Patient Evacuation
MD 97–005 Far–Forward Surgical Support
MD 97–006 Hospitalization
MD 97–008 Combat Health Logistics Systems and Blood Management

Chapter IV R. Sensors
R. SENSORS
1. Scope
By providing critically required military capabilities detailing troop positions, target locations, and battlefield conditions,
sensors and information processing technologies form an enabling array of systems on Army platforms. Flexible robust
sensor systems have significantly increased Army warfighting capabilities and become a true force multiplier. Sensor
technologies depend upon research provided by the Army Research Office (ARO), the RDECs, ARL, and federated
partners. This area develops technologies in five subareas: radar sensors; EO sensors; acoustic, magnetic, and seismic
sensors; ATR; and integrated platform electronics.
2. Rationale
Sensor technology provides the "eyes and ears" for nearly all Army tactical and strategic weapon systems as well as the
intelligence community. Sensors support effective battlefield decision making and contribute to achieving the Joint Chiefs of
Staff (JCS) top five future joint warfighting capabilities. Sensors represent a major cost factor for weapon systems, which is
addressed in this program. Costs include affordable integrated circuits, ultra–large and multicolor IRFPAs, multifunction
multiwavelength lasers, common modules, shared apertures, computer M&S, and adaptive processing. Expected payoffs
include 50 percent reduction in cost of imaging radars and IR search track sensors, and 10 to 1 improvement in thermal
sensitivity of IR sensors. Sensors are integral and fundamental to achieve situational awareness on the battlefield to win the
information war. Because of their pervasiveness, sensors have multiple transitional opportunities, including for the 21st
century soldier. Sensors are vital to the survivability of soldiers and the weapon platforms on the battlefield.
a. Radar Sensors
Radar is the sensor for all–weather detection of air, ground, and subsurface targets. This subarea includes technology
developments involving enhanced and new capabilities associated with wide area surveillance radars, tactical reconnaissance
radars, and airborne and ground fire control radars. Objectives include understanding the phenomenology and applications
of ultra–wideband (UWB) SAR to enable detection and classification of stationary targets that are subsurface or concealed
by foliage or camouflage. This technology would enable development of a foliage penetration (FOPEN) radar capable of
real–time image formation in operational scenarios. The system could be expanded to support a ground penetration
(GPEN) radar capable of collecting subsurface target data.
A primary goal is the R&D of affordable battlefield fire control radar (FCR) technology to improve detection, tracking, and
discrimination of high value stationary and moving targets for the Longbow Apache and Comanche programs as well as
vehicle–based systems such as the moving target indicator ground radar (MGR) in the Target Acquisition ATD and the
rapid target acquisition system for crew–served tube–launched, optically tracked, and wire command–linked (TOW).
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec4r.htm（第 1／6 页）2006-09-10 22:57:01

Augmenting the programs listed above are fundamental studies of the phenomenology associated with target acquisition,
including target and clutter characteristics, resolution enhancement techniques, and algorithmic studies, such as the real
aperture stationary target radar (RASTR) program. These are designed to investigate performance enhancements through
evaluation of improvements in a software environment based on high resolution data sets. Milestones are as follows:
• Begin test of GPEN crane SAR (FY97).

• Collect data and analyze ATR algorithm performance (FY99).
• Complete Ka–band polarimetric monopulse radar to support MGR studies (FY98).
• Apply direct digital synthesizer (DDS) and wideband transceiver technology development to stationary
target fire control radars (FY97–99).
• Improve stationary target algorithms to allow for autonomous adaptation to various clutter backgrounds
and strive for a probability of detection greater than 80 percent, with false alarm rates much less than 0.1/km2.
Challenges include development of instrumentation for the understanding of wave propagation in background/clutter
environments; development of high power, low frequency, wideband signals, and development of radar components and
algorithms that support high probability of detection and classification of stationary and moving targets with low false alarm
rates.
• Real beam search OTM targeting for stationary ground targets.

• Buried target detection.
• Enhanced spatial resolution for operational radar.
• MMW E–scan antennas.
• Affordability by design.
b. Electro–Optic Sensors
The goals of tactical EO sensors are to provide passive/covert and active target acquisition (detection, classification,
recognition, identification) of military targets of interest and to allow military operations under all battlefield conditions.
Platforms using EO sensors include dismounted combat personnel, ground combat and support vehicles, tactical
rotary–wing aircraft, manned/unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, and ballistic/theater missile defense. Major milestones are:
near–infrared (NIR) LADAR for reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) (FY97); thin–film, low–cost
uncooled sensors and smart dual–color sensors (FY99); multidomain smart sensors with shared aperture (FY03); and
integrated detector arrays that incorporate advanced diffractive optics post–processing circuitry (FY03).
Technical roadblocks to overcome include:
• Growth of thin film materials for uncooled detectors.

• On–chip readout circuits for analog–to–digital (A/D) conversion and neuromorphic circuits.

• Monolithic integration of detector, readout, and processing modules.

• Low light level solid–state sensors.
• Fusion algorithms for a multidomain sensor system.
• Sensor performance in naturally occurring and battlefield generated countermeasures.
• Multidomain signature databases.
• Design of diffractive optical elements (DOEs).
• Integration of DOEs, detectors, and post–processing circuitry in a single device.
• Effective, affordable laser hardening for multifunction, multiband laser sources for active sensors.
• Multifunction, multiwavelength laser sensors.
c. Acoustic, Magnetic, and Seismic Sensors
This program seeks to provide real–time tracking and target identification for a variety of battlefield ground and air targets.
Desired systems include unattended surveillance sensors and target engagement sensors. Advances in signal processing
devices and techniques have made acoustic sensors realizable and highly affordable. Both continuous signals, such as engine
noise, and impulsive signals, such as gun shots, are of interest. Enhancing hearing for individual soldiers is also important,
and efforts are under way to extend the audible range and frequency response of an individual soldier. Goals include
enhanced tracking and identification algorithms, creation of a robust target signature database and algorithm development
laboratory (FY97), and detection and tracking of large formations of battlefield targets (FY98).
Technical risks derive largely from the immature nature of battlefield acoustics technology. Advances in digital signal
processing will allow new algorithms to be implemented in affordable packages. Specific technical challenges include:
• Advanced target identification algorithms.

• Multitarget resolution.
• Detection and identification of impulsive acoustic signatures.
• Platform and wind noise reduction techniques.
• Compact array design for long range hearing.
d. Automatic Target Recognition
ATR systems will provide sensors with the capability to recognize and identify targets under real–world battlefield
conditions. ATR technologies and systems will increase the capabilities of sensors far beyond today’s capabilities. They will
provide the future Army with target recognition and identification capabilities that will maintain and increase dominance
over all adversaries.
Just as sensor systems are the "eyes" for tactical and strategic weapon systems, ATR systems will be the "brains" for these
weapon systems. ATR systems and technologies will allow weapon systems to automatically identify targets, thereby (1)
increasing lethality and survivability, (2) reducing the cost of employing advanced high priced weapons, and (3) eliminating
or at least reducing the cost and tragedy of losses from friendly fire. In addition, ATR will aid the image analyst to screen the
ever–expanding imagery derived from high resolution, wide–field–of–view SAR systems.

In the near term (FY97–98), the Army’s goals in ATR are to do ten target classes, with identification rates nearing 75 to 80
percent and significantly reduced false alarm rates. In the mid term (FY99–03), ATR systems are to handle 20 target classes
with improved detection and false alarm rates. In the far term (FY04–12), ATR systems will use rapid training on minimal
data to additionally improve performance.
Technology integral to ATR include processors, algorithms, and ATR development tools, which include M&S. Today, the
focus is on single sensor and multiple sensor ATR algorithm development. While processor development is being
successfully leveraged off the highly competitive commercial market and the importance of development tools remains high,
single and multiple sensor algorithm development programs are the key to successful development of ATR systems for the
Army. Ongoing data–driven and model–based algorithm development programs are providing results that include
detection rates approaching 100 percent, identification rates in the 80 percent range, and significant reductions in false
alarms. In the mid– and far–term, these developments will translate into fielded ATR systems that will significantly increase
soldiers’ capabilities and reduce their workload.
e. Integrated Platform Electronics
Integrated platform electronics (IPE) focus on the integration technologies, disciplines, standards, tools, and components to
physically and functionally integrate and fully exploit electronic systems for airborne (helicopters, remotely piloted vehicle
(RPV), and fixed wing), ground, and human platforms. Integrated electronics approaches typically result in systems at half
the cost and weight of conventional approaches, while providing virtually 100 percent of platform mission capability. One
milestone will be to demonstrate an optical backplane system that will provide a 40 percent increase in bandwidth (FY98).
Determine an architecture or set of architectures so robust that they can readily accept technology innovations developed in
the commercial sector. Improve reliability to reduce logistics, deployability, and support costs. Develop standardized image
compression techniques and architectures to permit transfer of images with sufficient clarity and update rates to support
digitization of the battlefield.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Sensors is shown in Table IV–36.
Table IV–36. Technical Objectives for Sensors


Radar Sensor COTS processor for target acquisition Demonstrate radar for tactical Demonstrate fully integrated wideband
unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) digital receiver for battlefield radar
Complete Ka–band database of
targets and clutter Stationary target indicator (STI) Demonstrate UWB GPEN capabilities
algorithm insertion in MGR for against distributed targets
Target Acquisition ATD
Develop Ka–band polarimetric
monopulse radar testbed Implement coherent G–band radar for fire
Demonstrate unmanned wheeled control
vehicle (UWV) FOPEN SAR—all
weather, wide area detection of targets
in foliage
Reduce antenna size requirement by

50%
Electro–Optics Sensors High resolution image intensifier NIR LADAR sensor for RSTA Multidomain smart sensor system with
system shared aperture
Advanced integrated man–portable
Dual–color sensor demonstration system (AIMS) lightweight sensor and
display modules for multiple infantry
missions
Quantum well array sensor
Thin–film, low–cost uncooled sensor

Advanced material for uncooled
sensor
Dual–color smart sensor
Acoustic, Magnetic, and Develop improved target Develop long–range artillery and Develop wind and vehicle noise reduction
Seismic Sensors identification algorithms rocket location technology techniques
Develop improved beamforming Investigate widely dispersed sensor Integrate weather models into acoustics
algorithms concepts sensors
Evaluate acoustic medical sensors Develop enhanced hearing Develop advanced acoustic imaging
technology for soldier techniques
Develop acoustic algorithm
Develop evaluation laboratory
Automatic Target Multisensor ATRs providing 80% Multisensor ATRs providing 90% Multisensor ATRs providing 95–97%
Recognition Sensors open target recognition recognition of ground targets in recognition with acceptable false alarms
mod–high clutter with acceptable
false alarms
6X search rate 1000X search rate
60X search rate

Ten target classes ATR with rapid training on minimal data
20 target classes
Integrated Platform Reduce tank crew manning 50% Improve navigation technology by Demonstrate immersion cooled SEM–E u
Electronics one order of magnitude in all 1000 watts
environments
Demonstrate super–high–density
connector on a standard electronic Demonstrate 20 GHz network for
module—format E (SEM–E) Demonstrate tank crew 50% combined digital, video, and RF
reduction using crewman’s associate
integration

Table IV–37. Sensors Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities

Radar Sensors TR 97–006 Combat Identification

TR 97–041 Operations in an Unexploded Ordnance/Mine Threat Environment
Electro–Optic Sensors TR 97–006 Combat Identification

Acoustic, Magnetic, and Seismic TR 97–006 Combat Identification

Sensors TR 97–017 Information Display
Automatic Target Recognition TR 97–006 Combat Identification

Sensors TR 97–017 Information Display
Integrated Platform Electronics TR 97–003 Mission Planning and Rehearsal


Chapter IV S. Ground Vehicles
S. Ground Vehicles
1. Scope
The Army focuses its ground vehicle technologies on those that provide our soldiers with the capabilities needed to
dominate the maneuver and win the information war. The ground vehicles technology area incorporates efforts to support
the basic Army and Marine Corps land combat functions: shoot, move, communicate, survive, and sustain. This technology
area comprises the following subareas: systems integration, vehicle chassis and turret, integrated survivability, mobility, and
intravehicular electronics suite. These subareas are illustrated in Figure IV–19.
Figure IV-19. Advanced Ground Vehicle Technologies for the Mounted Force
2. Rationale
One of the mounted forces’ most critical deficiencies in the post–cold–war era is the inability to rapidly deploy forces for
worldwide contingency missions. Current mounted forces are capable but take too long to be deployed, have a large
logistics tail, and are ill–suited to the third world infrastructure. Current combat vehicles rely on traditional materials for
construction, communications, training, passive armor protection against munitions, and conventional mobility.
A lighter "heavy" force is required that can deploy overseas in less time, with fewer ships, and reduced CSS requirements and
yet be equally lethal, survivable, and cost effective. Materiel, smart weapon, and survivability advances can lead to a fully air
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec4s.htm（第 1／8 页）2006-09-10 22:57:28

deployable armored assault force or a more deployable heavy assault force requiring 50 percent or less of current logistics
assets. Advanced ground vehicle technologies will enable selected future systems to be air deployable; this is not possible
with current systems.
Ground vehicle platforms require targeting, location, and acquisition systems capable of rapid detection, recognition,
identification, handoff, or engagement of both ground and aerial targets beyond the threat’s detection range. Systems must
perform effectively day or night in adverse weather, in cluttered background environments, and in the presence of
countermeasures that include jamming, screening, and the use of low observable and active defense systems. Ground vehicle
platforms must possess the capability to execute at an improved maneuver tempo as a result of digitizing the battlefield.
Through the integrated concept team (ICT) process, the user now has greater influence over S&T planning. The ICTs at the
U.S. Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, and the U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, have refocused near–term S&T
towards the future scout and cavalry system (FSCS) and Abrams tank modernization. Far–term S&T will be focused toward
the next generation "tank" and infantry vehicle. Detailed ICT ground vehicle activities are described in Section III–G.
a. Systems Integration
Systems integration/virtual prototyping of future vehicles uses M&S and system–level advanced technology demonstrators
to (1) develop preliminary concepts, (2) optimize design, (3) maximize ground vehicle force effectiveness, and (4) drive
technology goals. STOs IV.S.05, Virtual Prototyping Integrated Infrastructure, and IV.S.09, Combat Vehicle Concepts and
Analysis, support ground vehicle virtual prototyping. Future vehicle concepts and designs are the realization of the Army
and Marine Corps users’ requirements and the opportunities harvested from the results of previous technology subsystem
development programs.
The goal is to demonstrate the feasibility and potential of lighter, more lethal, and survivable ground combat vehicles. Four
types of modeling and simulation will be employed: engineering models, constructive simulation, distributed simulation,
and virtual–reality prototyping. The analyses conducted will span the entire vehicle combat spectrum and will be performed
physically, analytically, and interactively using simulation methodologies. Virtual concepts and designs will mirror
technology and can be readily evaluated for mobility, agility, survivability, lethality, and transportability, forming the basis
for validation, verification, and accreditation. Tradeoff studies performed under STO IV.S.09 will be used to determine
optimal technology mix. Working closely with the user, we will change those virtual systems to real–world 6.3 ATDs that
will yield maximum payoff. System–level ATDs planned in the FY98–13 time frame include:
• Future scout and cavalry system (FSCS).

• Future infantry vehicle (FIV).
• Future combat system (FCS).
By 1999, demonstrate a virtual prototyping infrastructure that will reduce system–level development time and cost by 50
percent. By 2000, complete validation of the virtual prototyping process.
The major challenge is to provide the user with systems that can attain an effective balance between increased fighting

capability, enhanced survivability, and improved deployability, while meeting or exceeding operational effectiveness, cost,
manufacturing, and reliability/maintainability goals.
b. Chassis and Turret Structures
Through the use of composite, titanium–based, and other lightweight materials, technologies are being developed that will
make future combat vehicles more lightweight and deployable (33 percent lighter in the structure and armor combined),
versatile (multiple combat and support roles), and survivable (better ballistic protection and reduced signature). These
technologies will be developed for combat vehicles to optimize and exploit the structural integrity, durability, ballistic
resistance, repairability, and signature characteristics of a vehicle chassis and turret fabricated primarily from composite or
titanium–based materials. Current vehicle chassis efforts center on the development of vehicles composed of advanced
lightweight materials to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach. STO III.G.1 supports development of a 22–ton
composite armored vehicle.
By 1998, demonstrate a 22–ton tracked vehicle with 33 percent reduced structural/armor weight. By 1999, simulation tools
for composite material design and fabrication will be developed and validated. By 2004, demonstrate minimum weight
structural designs with structural efficiencies exceeding 80 percent for a 40–ton combat vehicle (FCS).
Use of composite materials or titanium as the primary structure in the combat vehicle chassis is new. Composite issues
include durability, producibility, and repairability. Titanium has yet to be used on combat vehicles because of cost. Through
an IPPD approach, all issues relating to the successful fielding of a combat vehicle, including cost, are addressed.
c. Integrated Survivability
This technology effort’s objectives are to provide an integrated survivability solution that will protect ground combat
vehicles from a proliferation of advanced threats. With ever–changing threats and missions, the integrated survivability
approach allows for flexibility in meeting mission needs. Detection avoidance, hit avoidance, and kill avoidance
technologies will be developed and integrated to enhance overall vehicle survivability.
Detection avoidance technologies include signature management and visual perception. Signature management efforts are
focused on exploring vehicle signatures in the visual, thermal, radar, acoustic, and seismic areas and in various atmospheric
conditions. Visual signature analysis will be enhanced through the use of visual models and laboratory experimentation of
visual perception.
Hit avoidance technologies protect ground vehicles through the use of sensors and countermeasures. The sensors detect
incoming threats and the countermeasures confuse or physically disrupt incoming threats. The Army is developing
electronic countermeasure and sensing technologies to defeat current and future smart munitions. By 2002, identify best
countermeasure technology against all antiarmor threats. By 2005, demonstrate active protection against tube–launched
kinetic energy (KE) and chemical energy (CE), large top attack, threats.
Kill avoidance technologies include the development of armor, laser protection work, and the exploration of non–ozone

depleting substances to use for fire suppression. Armor plays a synergistic role with detection and hit avoidance on the
modern battlefield. It provides the last line of defense. By 2000, demonstrate armors for medium caliber KE threats with 50
percent improved space efficiency over the 1999 state of the art while remaining compatible with the FCS structure. By 2003,
demonstrate FCS armors with 25 percent frontal, 15 percent flank, and 30 percent top protection improvements over 1999
state–of–the–art technologies. Laser protection technologies are being developed to prevent blinding and eye damage of
vehicle crews due to the use of lasers on the battlefield. Laser protection for all unity vision devices (STO IV.S.07) will
provide eye safety against enemy agile wavelength laser threats. The work in this area is twofold. First, nonlinear optical
materials developed commercially and at other DoD agencies will be characterized. Second, work to design and integrate a
retrofittable optical surveillance system is being performed. Finally, in the area of advanced protection technologies, is the
exploration of nonozone depleting substances for fire suppression use. Work in this area will focus on demonstrating
environmentally and toxicological acceptable replacements for Halon 1301 in fire suppression systems in crew occupied
compartments of ground combat vehicles.
None of the aforementioned technologies alone can ensure survivability and mission flexibility. The integrated survivability
approach ensures the proper mix of these technologies so that survivability and mission flexibility may be achieved.
Cost of the currently identified technologies are prohibitive for application to all vehicles. Many of these technologies have
significant weight, volume, electrical power, and thermal loading requirements. Insertion of these technologies into fielded
systems can be costly and time consuming.
d. Mobility
The mobility technology effort focuses on the "move" function of tracked and wheeled land combat vehicles. Mobility
components for ground vehicles include the suspension, track, wheels, engine, and transmission (conventional and electric
drive).
While contributing to both the survivability and lethality of combat vehicles, mobility technology plans call for doubling the
cross–country speed of combat vehicles. Military vehicle cross–country speed is usually limited by the driver’s ability to
tolerate the vibration energy transmitted through the suspension. Electronic controls have made it possible to actively
control both the spring and damping rates of "active" suspension systems, reducing structural vibration and shock. By 2001,
semiactive suspension and band track technologies applicable to the tracked fleet will be demonstrated. By 2005, a 40
percent increase of cross country speed of a 40–50–ton combat vehicle will be demonstrated.
Hybrid electric technologies are being pursued as means to enhance mobility. Substantial reduction in fuel consumption
can potentially be achieved through advanced engine control, stored energy capabilities, and energy regeneration. In
coordination with other government agencies, including DARPA, Navy, and the Army, several electric drive technology
developments are being leveraged for Army combat vehicle application. In particular the DARPA/Army joint program
combat hybrid power system will demonstrate in a system integration laboratory an integrated combat power system in the
year 2000.
While most vehicles, except the tank and its derivatives, use commercial diesel engines, they operate at or above their
commercial power ratings. Even though their power density is relatively high, an engine that is sufficiently compact for an
FCS is not commercially available and must be developed. Early activities will focus on determining the concepts and
advancing the technologies required to allow the advanced engine to be developed. It is projected that by 2013 a complete

propulsion system will be developed that has a power density of 8–sprocket horsepower per cubic foot (versus 3.3 for the
M1 Abrams).
For a 40–50–ton electric drive combat vehicle, major challenges include the need to operate the power electronics at
elevated temperatures without overheating. A high power density low–heat rejection engine will also be a challenge.
For advanced track systems, the major challenge is to develop light weight track while maintaining track durability. Rubber
band track must be developed to move beyond lightweight applications into the medium–to–heavyweight vehicles.
e. Intravehicular Electronics Suite
The goal of this subarea is to develop a standardized framework within which to seamlessly integrate vehicle electronic
subsystems with advanced soldier–machine interfaces. This will enable current and future ground vehicles with a reduced
crew to maintain superior combat effectiveness on the digital battlefield, while reducing crew workload. By 2000,
demonstrate 25 percent crew efficiency improvement for a three–man crew. By 2008, demonstrate 50 percent crew
efficiency improvement for a two–man crew.
The intravehicular electronics suite will provide the necessary integration flexibility to support the wide–ranging battlefield
digitization functionality over the next decade. It is the first step toward creating a general purpose electronic platform for
multipurpose sensors and sensor fusion.
The flexibility inherent in this system allows for cost–effective improvements in performance and capability. This
improvement can be incremental or continuous, adding or upgrading the processors, memory, or software functionality
necessary to keep pace with the demands of the battlefield. Reliance on commercial, open standards for this electronics
suite, coupled with the ability to continuously improve the system, will delay obsolescence of the system. The Army will be
able to use state–of–the–art hardware at any time from multiple sources with minimal risk or development. By 2000,
demonstrate a 30 percent reduction in cost per line of source code. By 2002, demonstrate a ten–fold improvement in
electronics system performance.
• Maintaining situational awareness while operating from the hull and relying on indirect vision systems.
• Development and demonstration of mission rehearsal (embedded training) technologies.
• Demonstration of advanced processor/network commercial technologies that are suitable for military use.
• Real–time battlefield information distribution within a vehicle.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Ground Vehicles is shown in Table IV–38.

Table IV–38. Technical Objectives for Ground Vehicles

Systems Integration Develop and analyze FIV and FSCS Demonstrate in the field a scout Demonstrate in the field an FCS (Abrams
concepts vehicle with 10% survivability replacement) with 40% increase in
increase, 500% increase in target cross–country speed, 20% increase in fuel
detection rate, and 10% mobility economy, and 33% reduced gross vehicle
Downselect FSCS lethality option
increase weight (GVW)
with probability of kill (Pkill) = 1 at
50% increased engagement range
Demonstrate FIV and FSCS concepts Demonstrate FIV (Bradley replacement)
in a virtual environment with 50% increase in survivability, 100%
increase in mobility, and 60% increase in
troop capacity
Vehicle Chassis and Turret Complete 6,000–mile Composite Develop and demonstrate a vehicle Develop vehicle chassis and turret to
Armor Vehicle ATD endurance chassis and turret to meet future support AAN advanced systems
experiment combat system 40–ton GVW
requirement
Integrated Survivability Demonstrate improved Abrams Demonstrate side ballistic panels with Demonstrate FCS armor with 25% frontal
frontal armor with 35% weight 75% reduction in detectability penetration reduction, 25% flank
reduction penetration reduction, and 35% top
penetration reduction
Demonstrate armor to defeat medium
caliber KE threats with a 50% space
efficiency improvement Apply integrated armor/active protection
system to FIV
Demonstrate armor with a 30%
weight efficiency improvement
Demonstrate active protection system

to defeat KE and high explosive
antitank threats with probability 0.8
Mobility Demonstrate semiactive suspension Demonstrate M2 Bradley track that Demonstrate fully active electromechanical
on Bradley fighting vehicle that will will reduce vehicle signature by suspension on a u40–ton tracked vehicle
yield a 30% mobility improvement 30–50% with a 23% track weight
reduction
Develop and demonstrate FCS power pack
Determine active suspension
requirement for heavy tracked vehicles Demonstrate heavy vehicle band
track with a 300% track pad life
improvement
Demonstrate high temperature silicon

carbide switches to support electric
drive
Intravehicular Electronics Develop and demonstrate FSCS Demonstrate 50% improvement in Demonstrate on a vehicle, a high power
Suite conceptual crew station simulator three–man crew efficiency electronics suite
Demonstrate off–road driving using Demonstrate 25% cost reduction in Demonstrate a 50% increase in two–man
indirect vision at 50% direct vision rate vehicle electronics upgrades crew efficiency
Demonstrate off–road driving using

indirect vision at 100% direct vision
rate

Table IV–39. Ground Vehicles Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities

Systems Integration TR 97–002 Situational Awareness

TR 97–034 Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee Operations
Vehicle Chassis and Turret TR 97–004 Tactical Operation Center Command Post
TR 97–032 Sustainment Logistics Support
TR 97–033 Sustainment Transportation
Integrated Survivability TR 97–002 Situational Awareness

Mobility TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted


Intravehicular Electronics Suite TR 97–007 Battlefield Information Passage


Chapter IV T. Manufacturing Science and Technology
T. Manufacturing Science and Technology
1. Scope
The manufacturing science and technology (MS&T) area focuses on technologies that will enable the industrial base to
produce reliable and affordable materiel for the soldier, with enhanced performance parameters, and in a reduced cycle
time. The technologies in MS&T include processing and fabrication, manufacturing engineering, production management,
design engineering, enterprise integration, IPPD, and flexible manufacturing systems capable of addressing both high and
low volume dual–use production. The interrelationships among all these technologies are illustrated in Figure IV–20.
MS&T addresses the needs of the soldier by deriving requirements from three thrusts: acquisition and sustainment driven
needs, pervasive industrial base needs, and S&T needs and opportunities. Potential projects based on these needs are
prioritized according to their relevance to TRADOC FOCs and their significance to the successful attainment of ATD and
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) objectives.
Figure IV-20. Relationships Among Integrated Product/Process Design Tools

and Flexible Manufacturing Systems
The MS&T program’s three subareas are:
• Advanced processing of metals, composites, and electronics with emphasis on the development and
validation of new manufacturing processes for defense–essential materials, components, and systems. Project
technologies include validated process models, embedded sensors and adaptive control systems for
composites and electronics manufacturing, improved composites airframe manufacturing for advanced
helicopters, improved manufacturing and testing for advanced cooled and uncooled FLIR sensors, computer
automated manufacturing for precision optics, manufacturing of advanced battery technology, flexible
manufacturing for MMW transceivers, flexible manufacturing of missile seekers and assemblies, flexible
manufacturing of munitions and munition components such as propellants, explosives, sensors, fuzing, and
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec4t.htm（第 1／7 页）2006-09-10 22:57:47

agile production control.
• Manufacturing engineering support tools that encompass manufacturing technologies such as CAD, CAE,
and computer–aided manufacturing (CAM); AI tools for a broad range of manufacturing processes; design
and analysis tools for assessing product producibility and manufacturability; rapid prototyping; control and
interface research for component modeling, and system integration and information infrastructure; industrial
base modeling and production allocation for management of coordinated supply chain and surge
production. This subarea focuses on developing tools for early involvement of the manufacturing discipline
in the requirements and design process of new technologies.
• Advanced manufacturing demonstrations for the application of worldclass best manufacturing practices
and procedures in a factory environment. These demonstrations are usually large scale, include the pertinent
aspects of the enterprise, have specific goals, and are performed over a 2– to 4–year time period.
2. Rationale
Defense acquisition strategies reflect a significant reduction in weapon system development and production programs. The
emphasis within DoD and the Army continues to be on upgrading and modifying existing systems while continuing to
support the underlying doctrine of developing technologically superior weapon systems. This environment requires new
processing and fabrication technologies and new manufacturing attributes (flexible, lean, agile) in order to economically
produce a wide variety of products in lower volumes. Army MS&T must develop and adapt the technologies required to
make weapon systems affordable both during materiel production and over the system life cycle.
a. Advanced Processing
The advanced processing subarea focuses on processing S&T that will lead to the production of affordable components with
consistent and reliable properties. Emphasis is on process maturation and the development of technologies that can be
implemented to control manufacturing processes.
The Army is focusing on the following advanced processing technology efforts:
• Develop manufacturing processes for second–generation IRFPAs/dewar/cooler assemblies (FY98) that

provide technology capability for the Air/Land Enhanced Reconnaissance and Targeting (ALERT) ATD,
Target Acquisition ATD, Hunter Sensor Suite ATD, and Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate ATD.
• Develop automated testing (FY98) and manufacturing processes for uncooled IR technologies (FY00) that
have the potential technology for insertion into the Objective Individual Combat Weapon ATD and Force
XXI Land Warrior program.
• Develop optical manufacturing processes for spherical lenses (FY05) that support a variety of ATDs that use
optical components.
• Demonstrate an adaptive process controller for the resin transfer molding process for airframe structures
(FY99).
• Fabricate thick composite parts (FY99) and in–situ sensors (Smartweave) that will impact the Composite
Armored Vehicle ATD (FY98).

• Develop improved manufacturing technology to sustain the remanufacturing and repair of DoD rotary
wing aircraft (FY01).
Other pervasive efforts include:
• Demonstrate integrated workcells for missile and munition seeker assemblies with associated process
control systems (FY99).
• High–deposition welding of low–cost titanium for tank turrets (FY99).
• Develop laser–based optical prototyping system for titanium parts (FY98).
• Develop a casting process for beryllium aluminum (FY00).
• Develop MEMSs (FY98).
• Develop processes associated with flexible continuous processing of propellants and explosives using a twin
screw mixer/extruder (FY98).
• Demonstrate advanced processing of solid thermoplastic elastomer gun propellants using in–process
rheology control (FY98).
• Develop improved machining, grinding, and inspection processes for precision gears (FY01).
• Develop processes to improve manufacturing of fiber–optic cables.
• Develop coating systems for engine components.
• Develop advanced nonmetallic rechargeable battery with current application on SINCGARS radio,
chemical mask sight, AN–PRC–104, KY–57, SAWELMILES II, Land Warrior, and potential applications to
over 50 different Army end items (FY98).
The major technical challenges for improving processing and manufacturing technologies include increasing performance
while decreasing size, weight, and life–cycle cost.
• Implement in–process controls and improved manufacturing techniques that will reduce dependence on
highly skilled labor, increase yields, and increase throughput for tri–service, second–generation, standard
advanced IRFPAs/dewars/coolers assemblies.
• Improve testing and manufacturing techniques to reduce costs and increase throughput associated with
large FPAs.
• Develop an embedded sensor system to monitor the resin flow through a composite preform during the
RTM process.
• Eliminate costly dies and molds for fabrication of prototype titanium components and reduce costs
associated with precision machining of beryllium aluminum components and precision gears.
• Develop and implement reconfigurable workcells, multimissile tooling and test stations, material handling
control, and process control techniques.
• Miniaturize electromechanical systems to reduce power requirements and weight of soldier portable
systems.
• Control of the manufacturing process to facilitate real–time correction and reduce or eliminate
post–process inspection.
• Reverse engineering of legacy electronic systems to provide form, fit, and function for older weapon systems
with today’s production technologies.
• Develop safe, cost–effective, high quality equipment and processes for manufacture of energetic
materials—propellants/explosives/pyrotechnics.

• Develop flexible manufacturing capability for prismatic cell packaging and bi–cells from commercial
spinoffs that will allow low cost manufacturing of a variety of nonmetallic rechargeable battery configurations.
• Develop coating techniques for turbine blades and shrouds to improve performance and reduce life–cycle
cost of turbine engines.
b. Manufacturing Engineering Support Tools
Manufacturing engineering support tools are essential to improve design, process analysis, prototyping, and inspection
processes for manufacturing components and systems. Current Army efforts include developing production engineering
tools that will assess product producibility and manufacturability based upon analysis of CAD drawings (FY99), integrating
a rapid prototyping system with production engineering tools to reduce product development time (FY00), and developing
advanced integrated manufacturing for missile seekers and munitions (far term).
Challenges for developing manufacturing engineering support tools include the development of design and analysis tools
for assessing product producibility and manufacturability; developing rapid prototyping tools, and advancing
manufacturing technologies such as CAD/CAM/CAE and inspection. Some specific challenges are:
• Software environments capable of automatically transferring CAD drawings to machine shops and
controlling the required equipment to produce a desired part.
• Cost estimator tools that provide economic analysis of fabricating a part based upon the output of a design
analysis tool.
• Optimization of design versus fabrication process to minimize cost and cycle time via the development of a
virtual factory capable of modeling factory floor processes.
• Quality assessment and control through computer vision inspection.
• Order release mechanism for electronic assembly systems.
c. Advanced Manufacturing Demonstrations
The advanced manufacturing demonstrations incorporate best manufacturing practices and integrated product and process
development to merge innovative concepts and manufacturing technology into a system–level approach to integrated
manufacturing. Army MS&T is currently conducting an industrial base pilot demonstration using the Longbow Apache
fire–control–mast–mounted assembly as the demonstration article (FY98). A demonstration is planned using a missile
IPPD to develop processing technology and producibility strategies during the earliest stages of production development
(FY99). This latter activity is supportive of the EFOGM ATD, and the PGMM, Rapid Force Projection Initiative (RFPI),
and Precision/Rapid Counter–Multiple Rocket Launcher (MRL) ACTDs. A planned demonstration pilot for MMW
missile seekers (FY99) will provide for affordable/flexible manufacturing and design of these missile components.
The results and observations of industrial pilots indicate that implementation of enhanced business practices combined with
technology insertion can significantly reduce cost, increase product quality, and ultimately develop the capability to

produce a product in a lot size of one. The major challenges associated with advanced industrial practices include
identifying, adapting, and implementing best manufacturing practices; identifying and implementing the appropriate tools
for IPPD, and incorporating the changes into an enterprise’s culture.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Manufacturing Science and Technology is shown in Table IV–40.
Table IV–40. Technical Objectives for Manufacturing Science and Technology

Advanced Processing Reduce the cost of tri–service Center for Electronic Manufacturing for Reduce 50% cost of aircraft transmission
second–generation standard IRFPA/ supporting current and future changes in capability to produce them from
dewar/cooler assembly by 30% and defense and commercial industrial base thermoplastic materials
implement in Army and DoD
systems
Advanced nonmetallic rechargeable Reduce the cost of propellants,
batteries explosives, and pyrotechnics by at least
Reduce 20% manufacturing cost of 25%
precision gear by improving
Smart microdevice for application on
grinding, and deburring, inspection
ultra–compact antenna technology and Develop manufacturing processes for
processes
system integration for rotorcraft and monolithic, multifunction, multispectral
helicopters advanced FPA sensor systems,
Increase manufacturing process multispectral staring FPA sensor systems,
yield 50% for fiber–optic cables and and on–chip massive optical parallel
Safe, environmentally acceptable, agile
harnesses processors
manufacturing technologies for
propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics
Reduce optical components cost that provide the flexibility to meet future Develop advanced tooling for cylindrical
u20% for spherical lenses production needs and toroidal lenses
Use resin transfer molding for Develop real–time controlled welding Demonstrate an image control/neural
advanced airframe structures process to reduce weld time by 50% for network system to facilitate automated
complex engine components inspection of electronic modules
Develop noncontact,
nondestructive test method to Develop manufacturing processes for Establish COE for biotechnology
permit 100% evaluation of detector uncooled thermal imaging processors and
elements in FPAs advanced FPAs
Develop processes for 60% Fabricate advanced optical components

reduction in machining for such as aspherical lenses at u20% cost
beryllium aluminum components reduction
Twin screw processing of energetic Eliminate manual tooling fabrication for

materials optics production
Process scales up of CBD enzymes Reduce thick composites fabrication cost

and antibodies for armored vehicles by 30% and labor by
50% using integrated process development
Reduce testing time 75% for flexible
static blade balancing technique for Develop real–time processing tool to
helicopter main rotorblades provide flow modeling database for highly
reinforced composite materials
Demonstrate bidirectional
through–wafer optical interconnects Reduce the cost of biological stimulants
for advanced missile processors

Enhance manufacturing processes for

photonics
Lower missile seeker manufacturing costs

by u30%
Develop optimal machining and heat treat

distortion processes for high performance
gear materials
Increase blade life 5% by developing

helicopter integrated manufacturing for
applying abradable shroud and abrasive
blade coating
Reduce cost of compressor impellers by

50% through improved tooling/processing
for high rate compressor manufacturing
Manufacturing Improve producibility of early Develop enterprise metadatabase that puts Develop advanced integrated
Engineering Support Tools designs using quick–turnaround cell information in a global form available to manufacturing technologies (to include
software local shells desktop tools and virtual factories) using
integrated product development for the
missile and munitions sector
Advanced Manufacturing Reduce costs with a 15% weight Affordable manufacturing of rotorcraft Battlefield Manufacturing Center (BMC)
Demonstrations reduction using integrated systems through the use of turboshaft demonstration is planned
composite manufacturing for engine and rotorcraft airframe pilots
advanced aircraft
Demonstration pilot for MMW

seekers for 40% reduction in
concept to hardware cycle time
Table IV–41. Manufacturing Science and Technology Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities
Advanced Processing TR 97–001 Command and Control


Manufacturing Engineering Support TR 97–016 Information Analysis

Tools TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted
Advanced Manufacturing TR 97–021 Real–Time Target Acquisition, Identification, and Dissemination

Demonstrations TR 97–022 Mobility—Combat Mounted

Chapter IV U. Modeling and Simulation
U. Modeling and Simulation
1. Scope
The Army modeling and simulation (M&S) technology program is focused on technology development in the three
management domains of (1) training, exercise, and military operations (TEMO), (2) advanced concepts and requirements
(ACRs) generation, and (3) RDA. The first domain addresses the Army operational requirements to support Force XXI and
beyond and other simulation applications, where interoperable, distributed simulations—live, constructive, and virtual—at
geographically separated locations are connected to form realistic synthetic environments. The other two domains are
concerned with Army institutional requirements to develop, generate, project, and sustain the force. Complex and dynamic
problems of requirements definition and analysis, S&T, acquisition and prototyping, test and evaluation, production and
logistics, training and readiness, and military operations must be simulated in the scale and resolution essential for the
battlespace.
M&S technology development is carried out throughout almost all budget activities, making a distinction of efforts by
program elements dubious. This chapter focuses on M&S technology developments customarily associated with 6.2
activities, but not necessarily carried out under 6.2 category funding.
2. Rationale
The Army Science Board (ASB) 1991 Study on Army Simulation Strategy unequivocally conveyed the reality, "Increased
automation of our forces and materiel, including its acquisition and operational utilization, provides the highest payoff
potential as a force multiplier to offset the ongoing force reduction."
To optimally exploit the opportunities offered by the emerging automation technologies, the ASB put forward the concept
of the EBF. This concept has been adopted by the Army. The long–term objective of the EBF concept is to develop and
implement a single, comprehensive system of synthetic environments for operational and technical simulation that can
support combat development, system acquisition, developmental and operational test and evaluation, logistics, training,
mission planning, and rehearsal in Army specific and joint operations.
A watershed event for DoD and Army M&S was the designation of the HLA as the standard technical architecture for all
DoD simulations. In an effort to move toward execution of this policy, each service is reviewing all of its simulation projects
and programs and establishing plans for near–term compliance.
The near–term priority—establishment of the simulation infrastructure—is being addressed by the Army Digitization Office
and the Force XXI initiative. To ensure timely M&S support, the Army has streamlined its M&S management by
establishing the Army M&S General Officers Steering Committee co–chaired by the Vice Chief of Staff, Army (VCSA) and
the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE), the Army M&S Executive Council co–chaired by the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans (DCSOPS) and the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army (Operations Research (DUSA(OR)), and
the Model and Simulation Office, which oversees all major Army M&S activities through the three management domains.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec4u.htm（第 1／11 页）2006-09-10 22:58:22

3. Management Domains
The majority of M&S technology base developments support multiple domains. To use the Army M&S management
structure but avoid repeating common technology developments at multiple places, the capability requirements to be
provided by the technology base are summarized in the individual management domains, and the S&T programs that are
needed to attain these capabilities on a timely basis are described in the M&S subareas of the DTAP information systems and
technology area.
a. Training, Exercise, and Military Operations
Army M&S technology development in support of the Force XXI combined arms training strategy (CATS) is the
responsibility of the Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM) and is discussed in Chapter NO
TAG. Technologies must be provided that will enable substantially expanded use of simulators and simulations to train the
soldier in a seamless synthetic environment as part of crew drills, routine deployment exercises, and live fire exercises.
Army M&S technology base development in support of military operations is coordinated by CECOM. The Army space
and missile defense M&S technology development and technology base development are the responsibility of the Space and
Missile Defense Command (SMDC). Technologies must be advanced that provide faster than real time interactive,
predictive, continuous running simulations in support of dynamic automated planning and execution control systems to
increase the tempo of operations of the integrated force and enable the most efficient use of all resources—mobility, power
projection, operations, and people. The following elements are key:
• A flexible, secure, and situation–dependent interaction of the users with the synthetic environment,
supported by intelligent systems that:
– Emulate human–like thought processes

– Learn and adapt to user needs
– Make optimal use of commercial operating systems, network protocols, and programming
languages.
• Multimedia knowledge sharing and management throughout the operational hierarchy, including
situational awareness and resource databases.
• An open–ended design of the dynamic planning and execution control system architecture.
b. Advanced Concept and Requirements Generation
Army S&T in this domain mainly supports brigade and below echelon aspects of the tactical force and materiel
modernization requirement analyses, while simulation technology development for strategic, operational, and upper
echelon tactical force analyses is addressed by DARPA. The Army space and missile defense ACRs are the responsibility of
the SMDC. M&S technologies must be advanced that will foster the realistic simulation of structure, employment and
tactics, dynamics, and performance of organizational and materiel unit building blocks in a combined arms environment
with the level of details and fidelity, parameter variations, and statistical accuracy specified by analysis and concept definition
requirements and within the action/response times of the interacting live simulation constituency.
c. Research, Development, and Acquisition

This domain, coordinated by Army materiel systems analysis activity (AMSAA), provides the technology base for the two
preceding domains and the acquisition of materiel. The Army space and missile defense RDA is the responsibility of the
SMDC. Technologies have to be advanced that will enable embedding the total technology development and materiel
acquisition process, from cradle to grave, in a system of networked synthetic environments that can seamlessly be linked
with each other and the other domains. This includes technology base development, concept formulation and evaluation,
ATD, DEM/VAL, EMD, production, upgrade, demilitarization, and associated processes such as T&E, operational T&E
(OT&E), logistics support assessment, cost estimation, performance and cost tradeoffs, scheduling, cost and progress
monitoring, and program management.
M&S is an information technology subarea—information is used to generate new knowledge from available knowledge via
modeling and simulating logical interrelations. This is manifested in the 1998 DoD DTAP where decision making, M&S,
information management and distribution, seamless communications, and computing and software technology make up
one technology area—information systems and technology (IST). To provide ASTMP–to–DTAP connectivity, the M&S
structure of the DTAP IST—simulation interconnection, information, representation, interface, and individual combatant
and SUOs—is maintained and interrelated to the ASTMP technology areas.
a. Simulation Interconnection
This subarea is concerned with the architectural design, protocols and standards, MLS, survivability, interoperability among
simulations at different levels of resolution, and common services (application gateways, databases, time and workload
management, servers, and translators) to conduct collaborative simulations over the information network. The Army relies
mainly on DARPA and on private enterprise for technology advancements. Army M&S S&T programs on information
network architecture and infrastructure for distributed M&S are delineated in Sections IV–G and IV–H.
The goal is to provide interoperability for on–demand synthetic environments. This includes the HLA, which governs the
synergistic formation and evolution of individual simulation infrastructures—live, constructive, virtual—and the systems
and subsystems and simulation management. The baseline HLA is defined by three interrelated elements: HLA Rules
Version 1.0 (v.1.0), HLA Interface Specification v.1.0, and HLA Object Model Template v.1.0. Evolution of the HLA will
be managed by the DoD Executive Council for Modeling and Simulation (EXCIMS) through its Architecture Management
Group (AMG). This structure provides a means for the DoD components to identify and address any remaining or
emergent issues in subsequent refinements to the HLA baseline. The architecture must enable a user friendly, intelligent,
object–oriented, graphical environment. The baseline HLA gives impetus to the development of cost–effective methods for
verification, validation, and accreditation (VV&A) and ensures military utility of the evolving HLA and the networked
synthetic environments. VV&A of DIS/HLA applications is a major Army M&S focus. We must determine whether VV&A
of an aggregated system is the sum of the VV&A of its parts. Network accessibility and portability of existing databases
across all environmental domains and automatic multilevel exchange of multimedia information should become available
by the end of this decade. Very large scale distributed simulation with adaptive, dynamic network resource allocation and
distributed multimedia knowledge sharing at all classification levels will be possible for all three domains by the end of the
next decade.
The Army, through STRICOM, has DoD responsibility for DIS standards and protocols and, thus, plays a major part in
their development. Now that HLA is the DoD standard architecture, the standards developed and lessons learned for DIS
environments will transfer from DIS applications to non–DIS and HLA applications. DIS is not a subset of HLA, but there is
considerable overlap between the two. The goal is to make this migration from DIS to HLA seamless and successful. Until

the DoD synthetic environment technical reference model becomes available, building blocks will rely on DIS–based
protocols between simulation infrastructures to supply the functional network control and management. DIS–related
programs are contained in Chapter NO TAG.
Algorithms, models, associated software, and even databases lack connectivity and real–time information processing
capability, and the run time infrastructure for HLA is still evolving. Architectural design, protocols, standards, and MLS are
required to maximize interoperability among simulations at different levels of resolution. The unavailability of mathematical
algorithms to automate the conversion of discipline–specific simulation systems and subsystems for use in synthetic
environments on a heterogeneous communications and computation network is a technical barrier.
b. Simulation Information
This subarea addresses development of common conceptual models of mission space (CMMS) using authoritative
representations to provide DoD users the ability to cost effectively develop simulations providing consistent and reliable
results with the objective of providing warfighters worldwide access to conceptual models of DoD processes.
These tasks are inherently scenario–dependent, multistep, multifaceted, hierarchical processes involving complex
evaluations at different information aggregate levels. Current planning capability is cumbersome, manpower intensive, time
consuming, and judgmental. The infrastructure to support rapid automated mission planning, simulation–embedded
mission rehearsal, and real–time simulation–aided execution management aids is evolving through the digitization of the
battlespace. Missing are the computational methods, AI algorithms, architecture, logical relations, and associated software
that are necessary for the formulation and evaluation of scenario–dependent, complex military situations in the context of
higher level command and control instructions and within the operational tempo. While DARPA is the major player in
advancing technologies for simulation–based tactical decision making, Army S&T concentrates on their application and
filling the gaps.
Goals and Timeframe
The long–term goal of this subarea is to provide the synthetic environments for automation–assisted C2 throughout the
evolving C4I infrastructure. While near–term emphasis is on information overload reduction, mid–term emphasis is on
mission and route planning for lower echelon assets and aggregation of the individual plans into integrated company and
battalion level plans. This also includes mission sustainment (e.g., logistics, maintenance and repair, soldier services).
Computer–generated forces (CGF) requires representation of human (soldier) behaviors for a realistic simulation of system
performance. Individual soldiers, groups of soldiers (units/crews), single weapon platforms, and units of platforms must be
simulated as aggregated and disaggregated entities. The goal is to represent adaptive, interactive, "intelligent" behavior of
soldiers, units, platforms and smart weapons in variable scale realistic synthetic environments. The primary development
and application of CGF for the Army is promulgated in the evolution of modular semiautomated forces (ModSAF)
through the cooperative efforts of AMC and DARPA. Currently, there are several "flavors" of semiautomated forces (SAFs):
ModSAF, ModSAF variants, and close combat tactical trainer (CCTT) SAF, as well as other CGFs such as interactive
tactical environment management system (ITEMS), Janus linked to DIS (JLINK) and joint conflict model (JCM). Future
efforts will be directed toward developing a SAF system that will meet next generation M&S requirements from all three
M&S domains; this effort is referred to as OneSAF. Ongoing Army S&T includes modeling systems and subsystems in
computer software, interaction among the models and with other components of the simulation environment, and
integration to support near– and mid–term operational requirements. SMDC missile defense simulation activities will
continue to provide extended air defense testbed (EADTB) and extended air defense simulation (EADSIM) to

authoritatively simulate the missile defense systems, architecture and battle management (BM) C4I necessary for Army
studies and training exercises.
Computation–aided operational planning requires algorithms that translate military C2 instructions into computer language
and integrate these with battlespace environment, battlespace situation awareness information, and mission specific
doctrines. Predictive, networked, simulation–based planning will be possible within the next 15 years.
Computation–aided mission rehearsal requires the same technologies and databases as mission planning, as well as virtual
reality. Within the next 15 years, technologies will support implementation of materiel embedded training, where individual
units and their aggregates are fully immersed in synthetic environments, with horizontal and vertical synchronization
throughout the operational forces in the rehearsal using in–place equipment.
In order to increase automation in operational execution control management, AI technologies are needed that speed up
and improve decision, C2, and information flow processes based on situation and resource knowledge. This includes
technologies for automated revision of mission and route plans for the fighting units as well as their support,
area–controlled, hierarchical information management over combat communications networks, and application–tailored
information display and network interface. Near–term emphasis is on providing information management technologies
tailored to the needs of the digitized battlefield infrastructure. Model and computation optimization technologies and use of
scalable massively parallel processors will enable dynamic, simulation–assisted, C4I node execution control management
within the next 10 years, followed 5 years later by adaptive management that is fully coordinated throughout the battlespace.
Advances in both hardware and software allow for higher resolution and fidelity representation of M&S synthetic force
applications. This level of detail requires a significant increase in personnel to "control" these entities within the simulation.
There is a need for synthetic forces to conduct their own C2 functions and behave in a validated manner. Modeling
cognitive human behavior is emerging as one of the most important leading edge needs for future M&S applications.
Future synthetic forces must perform course of action analysis, and mission, enemy, troops, terrain and time (METT–T)
analysis without human intervention. When fully developed, synthetic forces will be capable of generating operations orders
at multiple echelons, dependent on the orders they receive from higher echelon synthetic forces. In order to meet this
challenge, the Army must pursue work that advances the state of the art in collecting, verifying, validating, and storing
information and data that enable cognitive reasoning modeling.
Although progress has been made in some simulation areas, the technologies are not yet completely available to enable fast
and situation–adaptive operational planning with optimal use of resources throughout the hierarchical task force structure,
including support elements. Of particular challenge are operational rehearsal (and training) of force components in a virtual
environment that projects the most likely battlespace situation and operational execution, with intelligent system–aided C2
oversight. Both must be able to quickly adjust mission plans to changing situations. Algorithms must be advanced for
integrating the individual synthetic environments (e.g., for elements of the operating forces and their support) into an
aggregate system and for scaling the CGF and support from entity level through any level of hierarchical echelon, while
preserving the dynamics and behavioral aspects of aggregation and disaggregation. Also, realistic/trustworthy accounting
and forecasting of the state and ability of human resources—ours as well as the foe’s—are necessary. This includes the effect
of battlefield stress on human performance and casualty and incapacitation from battlefield hazards.
Materiel Acquisition

DoD policy requires that all new major system developments be carried out embedded in open architecture simulations,
using DoD–specific and COTS engineering, software engineering, and life–cycle management tools to reduce acquisition
time and life–cycle cost. M&S S&T in support of engineering designs and analyses are intrinsic parts of the noninformation
technology areas and described in that discussion. Development of technologies to integrate individual M&S software for
system design and manage the engineering process is mainly commerce driven, with active participation of Army RDECs
and the SMDC in their area of acquisition support responsibility.
The long–term goal is to establish a capability to produce synthetic prototypes of systems with complete electronic
documentation of the products, engineering models, and software tools used, manufacturing and assembling instructions,
and performance.
In support of ACR, M&S technologies are being developed that will provide, within the next decade, the capability to:
• Remotely access expert repositories at RDECs, battle laboratories, and other organizations, including
industry.
• Search for and retrieve operational and technical models and databases pertinent to the concept to be
evaluated.
• Integrate this information, in a synthetic environment, into candidate systems with operational performance
and technology exploitation optimized to the available acquisition resources.
Rudimental systems are already in place to integrate realistic synthetic system mockups (virtual prototypes) into operational
simulation environments via DIS.
In the materiel development, engineering, and production area, technologies are required that allow highly automated
utilization of engineering models in the design of components and their integration into a system, employing concurrent,
automated software configuration management with or without physical simulators in the loop, in support of and tailored to
the development of specific materiel or ATDs in both the tactical and the strategic arena.
Considerable progress has been made by the Army RDECs, the Air Force Manufacturing Technology Directorate, DARPA,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and other organizations in developing and demonstrating
virtual prototyping and manufacturing for application–specific problems. These technology advances are now being
exploited in various Army M&S projects to systematically formulate the process of designing and building simulation
substructures in a modular fashion with adaptable, flexible interfaces. Emphasis is on simulating the manufacturing process
of materials, their machining into components, and their assembly into virtual prototypes.
The Army S&T programs in support of this area are detailed in Sections IV–P and IV–T.
T&E of the design and performance of components, subsystems, and systems are an integral part of the materiel acquisition
process. Even though physical simulators are increasingly used for components, hardware, and software in–the–loop
testing, the current T&E methodologies are nevertheless labor, time, and cost intensive and do not support the concept of
rapid configurational prototyping through synthetic environments. The virtual proving ground, now in development by the
Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM), will (1) increase the synthetic environment capability for components
simulation, (2)shorten the human in–the–loop design, test, and fix cycle, and (3) enable networking of T&E, OT&E, and
other databases. Ongoing S&T work supports the development of a flexible open architecture that will seamlessly link
constructive, virtual, and live T&E simulations.

Apart from technologies for the synthetic operational environments, the development, engineering, and manufacturing
M&S technologies and tools used in the acquisition process are basically the same as for similar commercial products. Most
of the tools are standalone software packages lacking open architecture; hence, software and repository integration into
domain–specific synthetic environments and their embedding in an integrated, networked acquisition process and
management environment is a tedious and difficult endeavor.
The technical simulation models in use today are mainly general scientific and engineering analysis computer programs for
application–specific system components and physical processes. The majority lack rapid interconnectivity with each other
and with operational M&S and require software reengineering for efficient use on parallel processors. To replace the current
prototyping/testing approach with virtual prototyping, and thereby attain the potential large savings in cost and
development time, the evolving methodologies—first principle models, performance data prediction, and system
simulation—must first undergo a rigorous VV&A process.
c. Simulation Representation
This subarea is concerned with technologies that will enable, within the time of operational decision cycles, generation and
realistic synthetic representation of the prevailing physical environment, natural and manmade (e.g., terrain, hydrography,
atmosphere, vegetation, buildings), the materiel and humans operating in it, and their interactions with each other. The
M&S programs that constitute the prevailing physical environment and enable its display are described in Sections IV–M
and IV–N.
The synthetic physical environment must be accurate, realistic, and capable of rapid updating to provide a sense of normal
time flow during a simulation process across a wide variety of M&S systems.
The fundamental technologies necessary for integrating maps from distributed environmental databases, information on
current weather and from battlefield situation awareness, and simulation–based assessments of tactical movements put
forward by C4I node staff into an aggregate dynamic environment and presenting it into mission specific spatiotemporal 3D
scene projection have been developed for virtual sand table applications.
Interactive, high–fidelity environment and force representations will be possible within 15 years. Efforts are under way to
automate the generation of electronic environment databases and to increase their spatial resolution to digital terrain
elevation data (DTED) level II (10 meters). This database will comprise digital maps for terrain, soils, roads, drainage,
foliage, and other environment characteristics. High–fidelity, full–spectrum weather models for the evolution of the
environment and its effect on individual system performance should be realizable within the next decade (FY05). Realistic
human/group behavior representation under battlefield conditions will be possible within 10 to 15 years.
All sensors, including humans, are impacted by environmental conditions. Unavailability of valid environmental data in the
resolution required for each combat system is a major barrier to achieving realistic simulation. Multimedia knowledge
sharing of environmental information between distributed heterogeneous databases is still unresolved. The lack of
mathematical algorithms and corresponding software to represent a "real" physical environment represents a major barrier.
To overcome this barrier we need to reduce the time and cost of database development, harness computational

performance for dynamic environmental representation, and maintain consistency across models of varying resolution.
The lower echelon combat C4I nodes will be overloaded with information and, thus, may be unable to make all the logical
decisions necessary to effectively implement higher echelon C2. Intelligent systems with automated reasoning emulating the
human thought process must be advanced that provide battlefield (human) decision makers, especially in stressful
environments, with information that they need when they need it without overwhelming them.
d. Simulation Interface
This subarea addresses the development of technologies that will enable a quick and responsive interface between the
human and synthetic environments and realistic dynamic representation of systems in synthetic environments and of
synthetic forces to the human.
The goal is to provide simulation interfaces for seamless integration and composability of federations of M&S applications
with live systems, instrumented systems on test/training ranges, and humans. Algorithms and associated software that
connect the synthetic environment with the machine hardware and firmware that interfaces with the human are needed.
When developed, they will allow the soldier to interact with the machine without distracting from the task to be performed.
Human interfaces to provide the synthetic environment for soldiers and command staffs will further mature within the next
10 years; full immersion of the soldiers for rehearsal and as part of the operational execution, within 15 years.
Algorithms are needed to characterize sensory perception to support development of flexible and rapidly reconfigurable
user interface stations that serve as input and feedback devices to the simulation network. Hardware and software are
needed for high–resolution, real–time scene generation.
e. Individual Combatant and Small Unit Operation Simulations
This subarea is concerned with the development of high–level, architecture–compliant individual combatant simulation
systems across the RDA, ACR, and TEMO domains. Live, virtual, and constructive simulations relevant and sufficient to
model the individual combatant and small unit will be developed to reduce the time and cost of advanced concepts and
prototyping of new soldier systems and to reduce the cost of training individuals and small units.
The goals are (1) to refine the RDA, ACR, and TEMO M&S requirements, (2) create a multisensory, real–time networked
simulation of the battlefield that immerses the individual and small unit in 3D geographical space using virtual reality
technologies, and (3) develop modeling, simulation, and analytic tools to facilitate the design and analysis of alternatives for
the Land Warrior program. The subarea will provide a demonstrated capability to fully immerse the live combatant in the
synthetic environment, to include control of semiautonomous forces, through voice and gesture recognition. Linkage of
virtual, constructive, and instrumented live simulations to enable individuals and small units to participate in distributed
combined arms exercises and experiments will be possible within 10 years; reduction of the cost associated with the design,
testing and fielding of new soldier systems and reduced training costs will be accomplished within 15 years.

Focus will be on human representation and visualization of individuals and weapon states, human performance modeling,
human systems interfaces that are unencumbered and elicit realistic performance, networked simulations for interoperability
with dissimilar simulations, CGF that contain realistic individual and unit–level behaviors with C4I representation, synthetic
terrain with relevant resolution/fidelity to allow for operations in a tactically correct manner, and instrumentation for
high–precision engagement simulation to allow for data capture and analysis.
The roadmap of technology objectives for Modeling and Simulation is shown in Table IV–42.
Table IV–42. Technical Objectives for Modeling and Simulation

Interconnection DIS–based protocols and interfaces Tools/models with connectivity and Architecture and interface codification and
for M&S infrastructures real–time information processing validation
Prototype high–level architectures Cost–effective VV&A methodology Very large distributed simulations with
for networked synthetic environments adaptive network resource allocations and
multimedia knowledge sharing
Initial software reuse via
domain–specific architectures and Database accessibility and portability
interfaces across network with multimedia Standard, automated linked
information exchange substructure–system–subsystem
descriptions based on functional and
physical features
Open architecture software
engineering environment framework
with process support
Information Methods to reduce information Automated mission and route Predictive, networked, simulation–based
overload at C4I nodes planning for lower echelons planning and C2 management
Extensive AI planning and decision Scalable object–oriented database Adaptive, dynamic resource allocation for
support for management and information models very large scale distributed simulation
computer–generated forces
Algorithms/tools for modular design Concurrent analyses of products and
Software technology for adaptable, of M&S substructures with adaptable, processes for prototyping and
reliable systems (STARS) flexible interfaces manufacturing by distribution teams
Representation High–resolution, real–time scene High–resolution, real–time infrared/ High–fidelity, full–spectrum weather
generation multisensor scene generation evolution models
Automated generation of electronic Mission–specific, spatiotemporal Highly interactive, high–

environment databases (maps) scene projection of aggregate dynamic fidelity force and environment projection
battlespace environment
Realistic human/group behavior

Interfaces High–resolution, wide field of view 3D volumetric view with 3D audio Human–like interaction with synthetic
night vision environment
Color helmet display
Full immersion into synthetic environment
Table IV–43. Modeling and Simulation Linkages to Future Operational Capabilities

Interconnection TR 97–001 Command and Control

Information TR 97–001 Command and Control

Representation TR 97–003 Mission Planning and Rehearsal


Interfaces TR 97–003 Mission Planning and Rehearsal


Chapter V A. Basic Research - Introduction
Chapter V
Basic Research
Without strong basic research, the foundations for the development of future technologies will not be
laid.
STAR21, National Research Council
A. INTRODUCTION
The Army is the full spectrum land warfighting force of the United States. In order to maintain an overmatching capability
on which the U.S. depends, the Army invests in basic research to provide this force with technological superiority.
Fundamental research is the "seed corn" for technological discoveries and advancements. The Army’s basic research:
• Fosters progress and innovations in Army–unique areas (e.g., armor/antiarmor) or where commercial
incentive to invest is lacking due to limited markets (e.g., military medicine to develop vaccines for tropical
diseases).
• Shapes research and technological innovations concerning issues related to Army applications/
environments.
In this way, the Army can develop or adapt its technology needs for the ever–increasing variety of missions it faces. The
Army’s dependence on technology is increasing as it evolves toward smaller, lighter, more lethal forces. The investment
made in basic research today will shape the future Army by providing the technological building blocks needed to address
imperatives emerging from future warfighting concepts.
Senior Army management is committed to a sustained basic research program that supports the Army’s needs. To this end,
the Army structures a coherent basic research program and integrates extramural research that leverages the power of
academia and industry with in–house research in critical, Army–unique areas. The resulting science base provides the
foundation for follow–on applied research (6.2) and, eventually, advanced technology development (6.3) programs.
The Army research program is managed and performed by a network of Army laboratories and centers. Within the Army
Materiel Command (AMC) the Army Research Office (ARO) manages extramural programs through the University Single
Investigator program, selected centers of excellence (COEs) and the university research initiative (URI) programs. The
Army Research Laboratory (ARL) supports several Centers of Excellence, manages the federated laboratories, and conducts
in–house research. Finally, the research, development and engineering centers (RDECs) initiate research through the
In–house Laboratory Independent Research program. The Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Army Corps
of Engineers, and the Army Research Institute (ARI) for Behavioral and Social Sciences also conduct a mixture of
intramural and extramural research programs as shown in Table V–1.
Without the scientific base developed by these activities, the Army would not have in its arsenal many technologies that are
now taken for granted and that have been used effectively in

Table V–1. Basic Research Responsibilities of Department of Army Components

Army Component Basic Research Mission Research Emphases Execution Strategy
Army Materiel Conduct and sponsor basic research Lethality Partnership with Training and Doctrine
Command unique to Army requirements (that are Command to focus on future warfighting
not covered by the Army Corps of doctrine and required capabilities
Energy efficiency
Engineers, Army Medical Research and
Materiel Command, and ARI) and
Leverage industry, national laboratories, and
areas assigned to AMC through the Lighter, smaller components
academia
Department of Defense (DoD) in
support of other agencies Protection and survivability
Teams and consortia with national
organizations
Ensure that basic research supports Specific areas are:
future warfighting requirements
Participate in international organizations
• Missiles
Making technology work for soldiers
• Vehicles (tracked and wheeled)
AMC’s ARO directs most long–term
• Guns and artillery
(theoretical and feasibility) efforts
• Aviation
• Nuclear, biological, and chemical
(NBC) defense AMC’s ARL directs most short–term
• Nutrition/food sciences (prototype and demonstration) efforts
• Textiles
• Testing Move basic research successes from ARO
and ARL to AMC research, development
Sensors/electronics/communications and engineering centers for systems
application
• Simulation and training devices
• Armor (personnel, vehicle, weapon
systems)
• Multispectral camouflage
Mobility
Army Medical Exploit basic science to define potential Infectious diseases of military Perform studies and exploit civilian basic
Research and Materiel biomedical solutions to overcome importance biomedical research to define injury
Command military–unique threats to health and mechanisms of military health threats
combat health care delivery constraints,
Combat casualty care
and maximize the operational
Maintain in–house expertise, including
performance of the warfighter
uniformed military medical scientists, to
Army operational medicine
avoid technological surprise and maximize
ability to meet military needs
Medical chemical and biological (CB)
defense
Selectively invest in critical extramural
capabilities
Leverage industry and other government

agency programs, exploiting unique Army
capabilities to facilitate discovery of dual–use
technologies
Maximize efficiency through tri–service

coordination via the Armed Services
Biomedical Research Evaluation and
Management Committee

Army Corps of Conduct scientific research in Signature analysis (radar and spectral Identify and execute research efforts focused
Engineers disciplines associated with civil analysis for data generation) on future operational capabilities (FOCs)
engineering, environmental sciences, and concepts for AAN
and environmental quality that expands
Terrain analysis and reasoning
knowledge base and provides technical
Establish and maintain liaison support to
underpinning for exploratory research
primary customers
related to future operational capabilities Energy propagation in terrestrial
for: environments
Identify specific technology areas that lend
themselves to partnering with academia and
• Mapping, terrain analysis, image Pavements and airfields
industry
processing, and radar exploitation
Smart materials
Develop a resource strategy that supports
• Effects of cold regions and winter
both internal teaming and external partnering
weather on combat operations and Hardened construction materials
stability and support operations (SASO)
Transition basic research successes in a
Multispectral materials for field timely manner
• Airfields and pavements for strategic fortifications and structures
and operational mobility
Vehicle–terrain interaction
• Next generation Army mobility
models
Hazardous/toxic waste remediation
• Acquisition, operation, maintenance
and repair of installations Hazardous wastewater management
• Environmental quality Quantifying impacts of military

operations on natural and cultural
resources
Groundwater modeling
Army Research Conduct scientific research that will Training research Aim research to future–oriented/AAN issues
Institute support the development of
people–related technologies:
Personnel research Coordinate research with applied scientists
to increase chance of transitions
• Training: improve the long–term
Leadership research
retention of trained skills and the
Call upon world–class scientists for conduct
potential of skills to transfer to real life
of research
• Personnel: improve recruitment,

assignment, and Army’s ability to
address societal issues
• Leadership: improve the assessment

and development of skills
recent military operations around the world. The ultimate payoff of basic research is the translation of concepts into
technological applications. Examples of applications that have evolved from Army basic research programs include:
• The concept of inverted populations of excited quantum states translated into a laser.
• Use of fast mathematical procedures to calculate Fourier transforms for fire support.
• Advanced materials from basic principles to yield required properties and performance.
• Incorporation of small, superfast electronic devices into systems.
• Precise atomic measurements transitioned to global positioning systems (GPSs).
• Nonlinear mathematical techniques that are the basis for secure Army communications.

• Mathematical simulation techniques yielding application–specific microprocessors for Army use.
The Army must be a versatile, mobile, deployable, power projection land warfighting force. To meet this objective the Army
is increasing its dependence on technology to increase its lethality and survivability, decrease its logistics burden, maximize
its situational awareness, lighten the force, and enhance soldier performance. To become technologically superior there is a
continuous and essential emphasis on basic research in:
• Enabling breakthrough capabilities.

• Exploiting technological opportunities.
• Taking advantage of surprise technological discoveries.
• Interpreting and tailoring progress for the Army’s benefit.
1. Army Basic Research Program
The Army basic research program is a critical and integral part of the Department of Defense (DoD) Basic Research Plan
(BRP). This DoD BRP describes twelve scientific disciplines and formulates broad visions of what might be achieved in each
of these disciplines. It also presents six Strategic Research Objectives (SROs) that define rapidly expanding research fronts
with the potential for high military benefit.
The Army Basic Research Plan formulates Army–oriented programs in all but one (Ocean Sciences) of the
DoD–recognized scientific disciplines, and it recognizes and plays a lead role in all six of the SROs. These Army programs
and roles are detailed in following sections of this chapter.
The Army BRP is managed and executed to focus knowledge in areas critical to the Army. It initiates and fosters
revolutionary research that is capable of providing innovative new opportunities for the future Army and evolutionary
research responsive to identified needs. The level of investment is dependent on:
• Emerging technological opportunities.

• Future Army concepts and perceived needs.
• The ability to leverage investment for many applications and from other services/agencies.
• Commercial investments.
• Program continuity.
• Viable support for selected areas (e.g., SROs).
There is a tripartite approach to Army basic research that is based on complementary driving forces. These driving forces are:
• To exploit basic research opportunities and discoveries (revolutionary innovations).

• To pursue SROs, particularly those related to the Army After Next (AAN) doctrine (focused research).
• To maintain land warfare technical subdisciplines (evolutionary research).
The Army’s basic research program maintains a balanced intramural/extramural effort to satisfy these driving forces. Sixty
percent of monies funded are for extramural research to:
• Give leverage to the power of academia and industry.

• Focus world–class research on Army challenges.
• Allow for flexibility to capture new discoveries.
• Complement the intramural efforts.

Forty percent of the monies funded are for intramural research programs (Army in–house) that:
• Help maintain "smart buyer" capability essential to the Army.

• Give leverage to government–unique facilities.
• Support Army–unique niche efforts.
• Support world–class researchers in areas critical to the Army.
2. Future Outlook
As the Army enters the 21st century, doctrinal changes are envisioned that will exploit technological advancements. From
the beginning of the next century to the year 2010, Force XXI and Army Vision 2010 doctrines will shape the Army’s
warfighting capabilities, and technologies already unfolding will support these doctrines. Further into the future, in an effort
to project the Army toward the year 2025, the Chief of Staff of the Army has established the AAN. In planning the Army’s
basic research programs, this AAN initiative provides additional focus for the overall program. A key role for the Army
research program is to foster the fundamental research that will enable AAN initiatives. The AAN will benefit from all 6.1
basic research, including the SROs, because the discoveries of today are the enablers of tomorrow’s technologies.
It has been recognized for some time that basic research has been and will continue to be critical to the success of the
military. Comments on basic research made over 50 years ago by Dr. Vannevar Bush, 1963 National Medal of Science
Recipient, are still valid today: "Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends, but it provides a means of
answering a large number of important practical problems." William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense, also stated, "We
are not the only nation with competence in defense science and technology. To sustain the lead which brought us victory
during Desert Storm . . . recognizing that over time other nations will develop comparable capabilities, we must . . . invest in
the next generation of defense technologies." More recently, Dr. Anita K. Jones, Director of Defense Research and
Engineering (DDR&E), emphasized that basic research "provides guidance to the services and defense agencies so that their
combined research efforts may enable our primary customer—the warfighter—to gain military advantage in the future."
The wonder of research is that you never know what you might discover.
The following sections of this chapter detail the Army initiatives that scope the Army’s basic research program and the
scientific research areas that execute it.

Chapter V B, Sections 1, 2
B. INITIATIVES
The Army’s basic research program takes advantage of numerous Army and DoD initiatives. These initiatives not only
help to support and orient funding for specific research areas, such as COEs, university research centers, and historically
black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and minority institutions (MIs), but they also provide guidance for future Army
needs such as the AAN and SROs. Those initiatives having the greatest impact on research programs are described in this
section.
1. Centers of Excellence
COEs continue to be an integral part of the Army’s research investment strategy, along with single investigator programs
and Army laboratory research. Centers have proven to be effective in many application–oriented projects in areas such as
rotary wing technology and electronics. Interdisciplinary research requires the joint efforts of many scientists and engineers
and also often requires the use of expensive research instrumentation that is difficult for a single investigator to acquire.
Center programs often couple the state–of–the–art research programs with broad–based graduate education programs to
increase the supply of scientists and engineers in areas of Army importance.
The scientific research undertaken at each COE (and URI center, see below) is dynamic and continuously reviewed, using
various inputs for assessing the quality of the programs. These inputs include reviews by executive advisory boards that
represent high–level management of industrial and military organizations and by technical advisory councils that represent
technical personnel from multiservice organizations. Table V–2 illustrates the composition of a typical management and
technical panel—in this case the Center for Intelligent Resin Transfer Molding for Integral Armor Applications.
Army COEs are active in the research areas summarized in Table V–3. This table identifies each COE research program,
provides a list of participating universities, summarizes the scope of each program, and highlights future plans. Some of
these centers have had significant collaborative participation by HBCUs and MIs, a trend that the Army will be
encouraging for future COEs. In addition, industry will be encouraged to participate more in future Army COEs to
leverage and synergize the investment in these collaborative efforts. Table V–3 notes COEs funded directly by the Army
and also those managed by the Army but funded by DoD.
Table V–2. An Example of the Composition of an Executive Advisory Board

and Technical Advisory Council for a Center of Excellence
(here, the Center for Intelligent Resin Transfer Molding for Integral Armor Applications)
Executive Advisory Board Technical Advisory Council
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec5b1_2.htm（第 1／11 页）2006-09-10 22:59:16

Chairperson, Director, ARL Materials Directorate Chairperson, ARO, Materials Science Division
ARO, Director, Materials Science Division ARL, ST, Materials Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) ARL, Scientist, Weapons Technology Directorate
Langley, Director, Vehicle Structures Directorate
University of Delaware, Scientist, Composites Manufacturing Science Laboratory
MICOM, Technical Director
Edgewood Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ERDEC), Scientist
Tank–Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM),
Technical Director
Tank–Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC),
Chief, Manufacturing Technology Branch
Soldier Systems Command, Chief of Staff
McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems, Senior Group Manager—Composites
Lockheed Martin, Manager, Advanced Programs
United Defense Ground Systems, Manager Composite Structures
Table V–3. Army Centers of Excellence

Research Areas/ Scope Future Plans
Participating Universities
Army Funded
Scientific Foundations of Image Mathematical and algorithmic foundations of image Hibert Schmidt orientation bound
Analysis science
Orientation bounds for fused data
Washington University Fundamental performance limits on ATR systems
Detection and recognition bounds
Science, Engineering, and Coordinated program to increase number of Enroll 250 students over a 5–year period in science/
Mathematics (SEM) Education* underrepresented graduates in SEM mathematic programs
Contra Costa College Prescribed, sequential coursework Provide solid foundation in science and mathematics
Mentoring and study groups Facilitate transfer to institutions awarding higher degrees
Internships and summer programs Encourage careers in SEM
Includes tuition and stipend
Outreach programs

Advanced Batteries and Fuel Electrochemistry Lithium/metal oxide batteries

Cells*
Advanced material synthesis Nickel hydride batteries
Illinois Institute of Technology
Consortium
Manufacturing capability Direct oxidation methanol fuel cells
Automotive Advanced ground vehicle simulation Vehicle system optimization
University of Michigan Vehicle dynamics and structures Military vehicle technology assessments
Advanced propulsion systems Cost/performance tradeoff methodology
Human–hardware interface
Microelectronics Nanoelectronics and optoelectronics Uncooled infrared (IR) sensors
University of Maryland, College CB detection Optical interconnects

Park
Wide–bandgap electronics Individual biodetectors
Integrated terahertz devices High–speed signal processing
Johns Hopkins University Piezoelectronics and electrochemistry Microsensors
Manufacturing science New battery concepts
Microelectromechanics (MEM) New fuel cell concepts
High–resolution display technology
University of Virginia Integrated terahertz devices High–speed signal processing
Quasi–optical electronics Millimeter–wave (MMW) electronics
Howard University Wide–bandgap electronics High–temperature/high–power electronics
Electromagnetic environment (EME) protection devices
Materials Advanced materials characterization Joining of advanced materials
Johns Hopkins University Nondestructive materials evaluation Nonintrusive process monitoring
Functional metal matrix composites Nanomaterials characterization
Hydrogen interaction with materials
University of Delaware Integrated composite armor materials High strain rate behavior and impact damage mitigation in
composites
Fiber resin interphase control
Smart composite materials processing
Composite joining/adhesive bonding

Michigan Molecular Institute Dendritic polymer materials Dendritic polymer scale up and engineering properties
database
Synthetic nanoscopic materials
Fiber coatings
Synthesis, characterization, and assessment
Conducting polymers
Nanocomposites
High Performance Computing Efficient algorithms Parallel algorithms for novel architectures
Research
Large–scale scientific computing Large–scale scientific computing
University of Minnesota
Efficient utilization of high–performance architectures High–performance computing
Adaptive gridding
Mesh moving
Multidisciplinary modeling
Computational environment development
Rotorcraft Efficient low–noise rotors Near–wake definition, aeroacoustics
Georgia Institute of Technology Affordability Slotted and circulation control rotors
Low–vibration dynamic systems Aeroelastic and stability analysis; carefree flight control
Smart and composite structures Finite element analysis of composite rotors
Day/night adverse weather capability Strength and life of damaged composites
Integrated flight controls Wake–lifting surface interaction; dynamic inflow
Robust and adaptive flight controls
University of Maryland Low–vibration dynamic systems Elastomeric dampers and bearings
Smart and composite structures Vibration reduction and stability augmentation
Day/night adverse weather Concurrent design of composite rotors
Highly reliable, safe operations Low–noise fuselage panels for cabins
Wireless rotor control, sensing and anti–icing

Pennsylvania State University Efficient low–noise rotors Active control of noise, aeroacoustics
Low–vibration dynamic systems Active/passive control of damping
Advanced drive trains Vibration and loads; computational fluid dynamics
Smart and composite structures Repair composite structures; active control systems
Highly reliable, safe operations Reconfigurable flight control systems
Information Sciences Distributed databases Heterogeneous databases
Clark Atlanta* Probabilistic modeling Models for software
Multimedia software Interactive data analysis
Software reusability
Computer optimization
Hypervelocity Physics and Fundamental understanding of hypervelocity (HV) Validate superior performance of HV projectiles
Electrodynamics Research launch, flight, impact and lethality
Armatures and rail materials for robust, efficient launchers
Institute for Advanced Rail/armature and launch effect electrodynamics
Technology, University of Texas
Support to pulsed alternator development, alternative pulse
at Austin
Fundamentals of pulse power for electric armaments power approaches
Supporting educational and assessment activities
DoD Funded
Advanced Distributed Simulation Parallel and distributed computing Advanced distributed simulation
Grambling State University Heterogeneous multimedia database Student training and education program
Consortium*
Interactive graphics and visualization Enhance research infrastructure
Man–machine interface
Intelligent Resin Transfer Intelligent resin transfer molding for integral armor Smart weave and sensors in RTM
Molding for Integral Armor applications
Applications
Virtual manufacturing of RTM process
Resin transfer molding (RTM) process/manufacturing,
Tuskegee University* sensing and control
Materials and process issues for integral armor
Consortium
New developments process modeling/
Performance modeling, simulations, and testing
phenolic resins
Bonding, repair, and ballistic performance

Science, Engineering and Unifies multiple departments to enhance programs and Enhance quality of science and mathematics instruction in
Mathematics (SEM) Education increase underrepresented graduates in SEM secondary schools
Morehouse College* Summer study, field trips Increase majors in SEM
Mentoring/research programs Increase number of graduate students in SEM
Scholarship and outreach programs Encourage careers in SEM
*Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions Centers
2. DoD University Research Initiatives
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) continues to support a portfolio of programs characterized as URI. All DoD
services share the funds for this portfolio, nominating and investing in subject areas and activities best correlated with their
research and technology needs.
A series of 5–year block grant URI programs, most funded at about $400,000 per year, concluded in FY96. Over 30
university groups performed research for the Army on topics in biology, advanced propulsion, materials, high–frequency
microelectronics, electro–optics, nanotechnology, energy, manufacturing science, environmental sciences, and intelligent
control systems.
During each year since FY94, several new 5–year multidisciplinary university research initiatives (MURIs) programs have
been started, most funded at about $1 million per year. The MURIs typically engage two or more science/engineering
departments within a university (sometimes with other academic or industrial partners). Achievements not attainable
through work in a single specialty are sought. For example, new levels of intelligence in control of rotor blades requires the
collaborative expertise of investigators in mathematics and computer science as well as in the fields of aerodynamics and
aerostructures. For another example, successful experiments with extremely small turbine engines require the collaborative
expertise of investigators in propulsion as well as in manufacturing science, and perhaps other fields. Table V–4 lists the
Army MURI centers, the scope of their research programs, and future plans.
In addition to the above, the URI program supports two graduate science and engineering education programs: the
National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship Program and the Augmentation Awards for Science and
Engineering Research Training Program. These programs make up the bulk of the ongoing URI program. Other URI
activities supported in FY97 included the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, the
Infrastructure Support Program for HBCUs and MIs, the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program, the
Focused Research Initiative, and a Young Investigator Program.
In addition to the technical programs and resulting accomplishments of the URI and COE efforts, another major output
from these Army–funded academic programs is the support and graduation of technical students—many of whom go on
to work in Army laboratories or allied industries.
Table V–4. Army Multidisciplined University Research Initiative Centers

Research Areas/ Scope Future Plans
Participating Universities

Terminating in FY1999
Micro Gas Turbine Generators Develop high power, high energy density power Very compact turbo compressors
sources
Massachusetts Institute of Compact recuperator systems
Technology Develop high aspect ratio fabrication of silicon
carbide (SiC)
Microcombustors for hydrocarbons
Very small, high speed electrostatic generators
Very high speed bearing systems
Smart Composite Structures Develop advanced technologies for the control of Active materials technology
electromechanical systems
Massachusetts Institute of Active composites mechanics and manufacture
Technology Investigate solid–state actuator and sensor
technologies and structural control for critical
Distributed control technology
rotorcraft applications
Applications testbed program
Mesoscale Patterning For Smart Mesoscale (1 nanometer (nm)–1 millimeter (mm)) Microcontact printing of ferroelectric ceramics
Material Systems patterning
3D coassembly of composites
Princeton University with Harvard Laser stereolithography
University and Drexel University
Mechanical characterization of patterned structures
Self–assembled monolayers and templates
High–Performance Fuel Cells Improved anode electrocatalysts for direct oxidation Develop lower cost materials with sufficient lifetimes for
of methanol military applications
University of Minnesota
Improved membranes with low methanol Develop methodology to functionally tether
permeability homogeneous catalysts to electrode structures
Develop a model for small fuel cells Develop catalysts for direct oxidation of alkanes
Innovative Mesoscale Actuator Integration of ferroelectric actuator and silicon Determine mechanical/tribological properties of MEMS
Devices for Use in Rotorcraft (Si)–based microelectromechanical system (MEMS) structures
Systems processing technologies
Investigate high field, pulse mode operation of batteries
University of California, Los Angeles Model and understand ferroelectric actuator behavior
Simulation of unsteady aeroelastic behavior of rotorblades
Investigate active control of dynamic stall and
vibration reduction in rotorcrafts
MEMS–Based Smart Gas Turbine MEMS sensor/actuator arrays Pressure, heat flux and ice detection sensors
Engines
SiC–based MEMS structures Flow control microvalves
Case Western University
Feedback control Computer–aided design (CAD)–based design
High temperature sensors/actuators
Distributed control

Thermophotovoltaic Electric Develop robust IR emitters Develop high flux tailored spectrum emitters
Generator
Improve power density of photovoltaic cells Improve long wavelength response of gallium antimonide
University of Western Washington (GaSb) photocells
Develop filter technology required for improved
efficiency Improve burner technology for logistics
Functionally Tailored Fibers and Functionally tailored textiles and fabrics Electrospinning of high performance fibers
Fabrics Research
Advanced fibers and polymers Clothing for comfort and battlefield threat protection
North Carolina State University
with Akron University and Drexel
Multifunctional and smart materials Smart materials for camouflage, signature suppression, and
University
soldier recognition
Textile and textile–based composite manufacturing
Flexible and rigid armor composite materials design
Algorithmics of Motion Motion acquisition using computer vision Automatic target recognition
University of Pennsylvania and Motion generation with planning algorithms Reconnaissance and surveillance
Stanford University
Motion execution using control techniques Navigation and mission planning
Demining and data acquisition
Applicable and Robust Geometric computing Terrain modeling

Geometrical Computing
Development of robust algorithms CAD/computer–aided modeling (CAM)
Brown University,
Johns Hopkins University, and
Input/output (I/O) memory management Geometric libraries and visualization software
Duke University
Low Power, Low Noise Communications radio frequency (RF) components Comprehensive low power design
Electronics
Radar RF components Power amplifier circuit interfaced with modulation/signal
University of Michigan with processing algorithms
University of Colorado,
Boulder
High functionality/low power devices
University of California, Los

High functionality/efficient antennas
Angeles with University of
California, San Diego
Intelligent Turbine Engines Active control of gas turbines Combustor/compressor control
Georgia Institute of Technology Sensors/actuators MEMS sensors/actuators
Control architecture Dynamic engine models
Nonlinear controllers

Active Control of Rotorcraft Exterior (rotor) noise and vibration control Mach–scaled rotor tests
Vibration
Interior noise control Comprehensive acoustic and vibration analysis techniques
University of Maryland
Transmission noise and vibration control Innovative noise and vibration control concepts
Damage Tolerant Lightweight Novel materials and structures design concepts Layered, oriented, and gradient materials systems
Armor Materials
Processing, fabrication, and testing of materials Dynamic viscoplasticity models for anisotropic materials
Purdue University
Advanced analytical methods Solution of inverse problems
University of Dayton Research
Institute
University of California,
San Diego
Low Energy Electronics for Mobile Top–down design methodology Minimum energy information exchange
Platforms
Optimization of all systems design levels Integrated platform system design
University of Michigan
Software implementation Adaptive and minimum energy processing
High performance devices and components
Photonic Band Engineering Improved microwave/MMW devices Photonic crystals for electromagnetics
University of California, Los Angeles Efficient microlasers and smart pixels Demonstrate low threshold lasing
Low observables and identification friend or foe (IFF) Nonlinear image processing
Integrated Approach to Intelligent Design of hierarchical control architectures for Intelligence augmentation for human centered systems
Systems multiagent systems
Fully autonomous systems
University of California, Berkeley Perceptual systems
Battle management
Framework for representing and reasoning with
uncertainty
Soft computing approaches to intelligence

augmentation
Demining Mine, ordnance, and explosive detection, Mine detection and location under realistic weather and
identification, and location environmental conditions
Duke University
Sensor and information fusion Enhancement of detection probability
University of Missouri, Rolla
Neutralization Minimization of false alarm rate
Northeastern University

Rapid, Affordable Generation of Advanced photogrammetric and image Mathematical modeling for multisensor registration
Terrain and Detailed Urban Feature understanding research
Data
Automated extraction of remote sensing cues
Image understanding research for terrain analysis
Purdue University
Automated feature recognition
Unsupervised classification for hyperspectral imagery
Predictive Capabilities Based on Quantitative understanding of ATR capabilities and Analytical frameworks for classifying images
Performance Metrics for Automatic limitations
Target Recognition for Military
Algorithm–independent bounds on ATR performance
Applications
Metrics for structured clutter
Metrics to predict and measure the performance of ATR
Brown University
Metrics for scene complexity implementation
Biomimetics and Biomimetic Biomimetic processing New EO devices

Processing
Mineralization in organic substrates Chemical detectors
University of California, Santa
Barbara
Control of hierarchical structures Structural materials
New multifunctional and smart materials
Clustered Engineered Laser ablation/molecular beam cluster growth Biological agent detection
Materials
Nanosphere liftoff nanopatterning Photocatalysis for decontamination
Northwestern University
Self–assembled nanoclusters Efficient frequency conversion
Quasi–Optic Power Spatial and quasi–optical power combining Economical sources and arrays of MMW power
Combining
Hybrid power combining Reduced size, weight, phase noise
Clemson University
Array phase control Enhanced reliability, durability
California Institute of Technology
Device/electromagnetic (EM) field interaction Enhanced array functionality beam steering, modulation/
demodulation, nonlinear function
Reciprocal arrays, transmit and receive through common

aperture
Design and Control of Smart Modeling and experiments with MEMS for flow Ferrofluidic micropumps for drug delivery
Structures control over airfoils
MEM devices for flat panel displays
Harvard University with Boston Mathematical framework for modeling and
University and the University of controlling fluid motion
Controlled deformable mirrors and antennas
Maryland
Parallel array microvalves for flow control

Dendritic Polymers Property discovery using combinatorial libraries Responsive protective coatings and sensor coatings
University of Illinois Computational modeling to guide synthesis and Catalysts for chemical agent destruction
properties
Volatile organic compound (VOC) free coatings
Surface engineering and adhesion studies
Super–tough, processable elastomers
Synthesis and scale–up of polymeric materials
Lubricants for solids and liquids
Defect Engineered Nanostructures Investigate fundamental issues Integration and mass production of quantum–based
devices
Princeton University Microscopically characterize structures
Reduce size and power consumption
Elucidate influence of defects on performance
Olfactory Sensing Characterize molecular events Insight regarding olfactory processes
California Institute of Technology Model olfactory physiology Enable biomimetic approach

with Harvard University and Yale
University
Molecular recognition Design and produce engineering systems
Adaptive Optoelectronic Eye Manmade sensors that adapt and interact similar to Merge microelectronics, microoptic, and
animal vision micromechanical devices
University of Southern California
Smart and adaptive emulation of biological eye Scheme for detecting, processing, and transmitting
near–perfect optical images
Determine functionality of biological vision
Microthermal Engines Understand and produce millimeter–sized devices to Power generation or cooling
re–engineer traditional heat engines at mesoscale level
Massachusetts Institute of Replace batteries for individual soldier
Technology Investigate new refractory ceramic micromachining
Georgia Institute of Technology Develop new bonding and micromolding
Digital Communication Devices Generate digital signals by an integral nonlinear Implement mobile wireless communication
Based on Nonlinear Dynamics and element, not a circuit or an integrated circuit (IC)
Chaos
Secure digital transmissions with small, lightweight,
Investigate simple microelectronic devices for control low–power equipment
University of California, San Diego

Chapter V B. Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
The AMC has set the pace for the DoD in programs for the HBCUs and MIs that share the goal of strengthening those
institutions and enhancing their ability to participate in defense research, while preparing underrepresented minority
students for the future, highly competitive S&T–oriented marketplace. The AMC is dedicated to increasing the
participation of the HBCUs and MIs in all of its programs, particularly in the research and development (R&D) activities of
the Army laboratories and RDECs.
The ARO has supported programs for the HBCUs and MIs since 1980. In addition, the ARO manages the DoD
Infrastructure Support Program for these institutions. This special program has awarded over $97 million to them since it
began in 1992, including over $38 million in grants to HBCUs and MIs to support collaborative research, instrumentation
for research and education, COEs, and education centers for science, engineering, and mathematics (SEM). The HBCUs
and MI COEs, supported by DoD funds under ARO grants, are conducting long–term research programs in Advanced
Distributed Simulation and Intelligent Resin Transfer Molding for Integral Armor Applications (see Table V–3).
In addition to the DoD–funded centers, two other HBCUs or MIs are supported by ARO funds. These include a research
consortium for Fuel Cell Battery Research, led by the Illinois Institute of Technology, and a Center for SEM Education at
Contra Costa College.
Single investigator research programs make up a significant part of the ARO HBCU and MI program. Approximately $1
million is set aside for HBCUs and MIs in FY98 for research in several areas of interest to ARO. These areas include wireless
communications, nonlinear optics, modeling and analysis of superplastic and electromagnetic materials, free electron lasers,
and wide–bandgap semiconductors.
See Chapter VII–C.2 for additional information on support of HBCUs and MIs.
4. Single Investigator Programs
A major contributor to the Army science base is the single investigator working at a university and, to a lesser extent, in
industry. These Army–sponsored researchers act as windows into the academic world for exploration of scientific
discoveries. Individual investigators provide the Army with the ability to broadly impact the total science base, quickly
exploiting opportunities that might arise. The research areas are relevant to Army needs and subject to scientific peer review.
History has shown that the single investigator program has contributed significantly to the Army science base, with eight
Nobel prizes awarded for Army–sponsored research. The areas of research pursued by the single investigator are discussed
in the Surveys of Scientific Research (Section C) of this chapter.
5. Federated Laboratories
The AMC has a key research initiative to support the Army’s thrust to digitize the battlefield. The objective of the Army
digitization effort is to ensure the superiority of command and control (C2) systems by providing warfighters with a

horizontally and vertically integrated digital information network. This network will provide a simultaneous, consistent
picture of the battlefield from soldier to commander at each echelon, as well as across all the services and allied forces. ARL
has prime responsibility for the AMC’s intramural research program and this program has been enhanced by the
development of a federated laboratory concept.
The federated laboratory construct for conducting research is an innovative approach to integrating external research
relevant to battlefield information systems—where the private sector has a substantial technology capability—with internal
ARL research through the establishment of consortia in critical technology areas. Rather than developing or maintaining
in–house research capabilities across the entire technological spectrum, this approach leverages external expertise, facilities,
and technologies in areas where the private sector has both the lead and the incentive to invest, such as in
telecommunications technologies. To date, the Army is benefiting from $12.2 million in consortium investments, including
$5.6 million to customize laboratories to support research defined in the Annual Program Plan and $5.9 million in
independent research and development (IR&D) programs that have been redirected to support the research objectives of
the federated laboratory. The intent of the federated laboratory is to form distributed public and private–sector teams that
together conduct research, develop new technologies, and employ existing state–of–the–art concepts and infrastructure
available in industry, academia, and the Army. This approach has produced an effective synergy between government,
industry, and academia that will provide the maximum return on Army resources by:
• Adopting an integrated approach that combines the best of the public and private sectors to achieve future
land warfare capabilities.
• Utilizing Army technical personnel in defining the Annual Research Plan to be executed with the consortia,
ensuring it is focused on Army needs. The cooperative agreement managers (government leads) conduct
quarterly reviews of the programs to ensure the focus is maintained and the consortia are executing their
plans as scheduled. The federated laboratory also conducts program reviews with DDR&E Reliance Panels
and Army R&D commands.
• Ensuring that the Army and DoD research communities are aware of the research being conducted by the
federated laboratory. Each consortium conducted a symposium that drew a total of 720 people with over
1,200 copies of the symposia proceedings requested to date. In addition, in FY96 a total of 144 technical
papers were published.
• Fostering and formalizing collaboration through the exchange of researchers from government to consortia
and from consortia to government. This staff rotation is a foundation of the federated laboratory process and
the target goal is to have twenty percent of the researchers on long–term rotation at any given time.
• Employing a unique management concept in which the government and the consortia, through a
Consortium Management Committee, collaboratively develop and adjust research plans as formalized in the
consortium’ s Articles of Collaboration.
• Integrating the ARL federated research program with those at other Army and DoD components to ensure
that there will be a smooth transition of research results, and that there is no duplication of effort.
• Fostering a technical management approach that ensures that the consortia programs are integral to the
overall ARL program, and that creates an environment where academic, industry, and government
researchers can identify and collectively address key Army technology gaps.
• Providing a way to adapt commercial technologies to the unique needs of the military environment, and

allowing government research to impact the industry protocols and standards of the future.
In January 1996, the Army awarded three federated laboratory cooperative research agreements:
• Telecommunications/information distribution
– Wireless communication
– Tactical/strategic interoperability
– Information distribution
– Multimedia concepts
• Advanced and interactive displays
– Soldier centered computer interface

– Perception (sensory) based display formats
– Cognitive measures of C2 performance
• Advanced sensors
– Multidomain smart sensors

– Multisensor fusion
– Radar
– Signal processing
– Microsensors.
The selection of research areas was based on the needs of the Army’s Digitization Initiative and the priority of the research
programs to meet critical technology gaps in the Force XXI and AAN visions. The consortia participants are listed in Table
V–5. During the second year, the federated laboratory has attracted associate members and established no–cost
collaborations with key sources of technology:
• Texas A&M University: Research perspectives on presentation and decision aids.

• Carnegie Mellon University: Modeling and simulation tools for information processing.
• Micovision: Virtual retinal display technology.
• MIL3, Inc.: Modify OPNET to better simulate military communications.
6. In–House Laboratory Independent Research
In–house laboratory independent research (ILIR) is a traditional part of the Army’s basic research program. ILIR allocates
6.1 discretionary funds to the directors of selected Army research organizations to fund in–house research projects of
exceptional scientific quality that have high risk but also very high potential payoff to the Army’s science and technology
programs. ILIR funds are distributed to Army RDECs, the Corps of Engineers, the Medical Research and Materiel
Command laboratories, and ARI. ILIR is reviewed yearly by the Office of the Assistant
Table V–5. Federated Laboratory Consortia Participants

Telecommunications/ Advanced and Advanced Sensors
Information Distribution Interactive Displays

Industry Lead Lockheed Sanders Rockwell International Lockheed Sanders
HBCU/MI Partners Howard University North Carolina A&T Clark Atlanta University
Morgan State University University of New Mexico
Academic and Industry Bell Communications Research Microelectronics Center of NC Environmental Research Institute of
Partners Michigan
City College of New York Sytronics
Georgia Tech Research Institute
GTE Laboratories University of Illinois
Lockheed Missiles and Space Company
MIT
MIT
Motorola
Ohio State University Research Foundation
University of Delaware
Stanford University
Texas Instruments
Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) (OASA(RDA)), using metrics developed to assess
programmatic effectiveness. The yearly review examines the quality, relevance, productivity, and resources of the ILIR work
performed by each organization and determines its ratio of ILIR funding for the next fiscal year. This review results in only
the best performers being rewarded. Within each organization, innovative research proposals submitted by scientists and
engineers compete for ILIR funding through internal management and technical reviews of the proposals.
Successful ILIR projects, on completion, will typically define a start–up project for 6.1 or 6.2 mission funding within the
organization. In addition to providing a pathway for the development of novel and high quality research projects by
providing support for the most innovative and often speculative ideas, this program is instrumental in enhancing the
recruitment and retention of outstanding scientists and engineers. The creative atmosphere fostered in this manner is
essential to the identification of emerging operational concepts and technology thrusts for the future.
7. Army After Next Research Areas of Emphasis
The Army After Next project conducts broad studies of warfare to frame issues vital to the development of the U.S. Army to
about the year 2025, and provides these issues to the senior Army leadership in a format suitable for integration into
Training and Doctrine Command’s (TRADOC) combat development programs. The AAN project conducts its studies
through an annual cycle of wargames and workshops that culminates in an annual report to the Army Chief of Staff. Studies
are currently pursued in four areas focused out to 2025: geopolitics, military art, human and organizational behavior, and
technology. Those studies focused on technology are of prime importance to the Army’s research effort.
The first year of study by the AAN project resulted in recommendations for investments in basic research that were assessed
to have the greatest potential in producing key enabling technologies for the U.S. Army in the 2010–2025 timeframe. OASA
(RDA) has taken these recommendations and developed an approach to focus basic research investments based on defense
SROs by:

• Emphasizing specific aspects of current defense SROs.

• Developing a set of emerging Army SROs.
• Studying those areas of emphasis highlighted by the AAN project for other emerging SROs.
Note: Army efforts toward defense SROs are discussed in Section B.8 of this chapter.
Defense SROs support emerging AAN technology needs as follows:
Defense SRO AAN Emphasis for Research
Mobile Wireless Expand to include terrain– and

Communications environment–independent communications
and data management
Biomimetics Address lightweight protective materials
Intelligent Systems Address unmanned vehicles and robotics

concepts
The Army leadership is discussing the possibility of identifying specific Army SROs in addition to defense SROs, that
support the AAN. For FY98 the basic research budget dedicated to SRO topics is expected to increase from the current 15
percent to approximately 30 percent. Leading candidates for possible Army SROs emerging from AAN studies are:
• Enhanced soldier combat performance
– Physiological enhancements (nutrition/medical interventions)

– Cognitive engineering
• Signature management/control
• Full–dimensional protection for information systems
• Microminiature multifunctional sensors
The AAN project also recognizes that basic research may provide unexpected and revolutionary technologies that can
further enhance the capabilities of future Army forces or, in extreme cases, fundamentally impact the system, design, and
operational concepts upon which these forces will be based. While seeking major breakthroughs in technology, the synergy
among currently developing research and technologies must be exploited to achieve revolutionary effects for the AAN
forces. Some technology areas that have been identified as potentially enabling for the AAN force are:
• Hybrid power systems

• Fuel efficiency (reduce consumption by 75 percent)
• Human engineering/cognitive engineering
• Signature control (including counters)
• Protection schemes for land systems (including active protection)
• Advanced materials
• Alternative propellants
• Chemical and biological (CB) protection, antidotes, and vaccines
• Logistics efficiencies.

The AAN has identified systems to provide perspective to the basic research community in imagining where
basic–research–derived technologies may be applied in 2010–2025. They include:
• Future ground craft

• Advanced airframe, including heavy lift/tactical utility lift
• Autonomous and semiautonomous unmanned systems (air, ground, sensors)
• Advanced fire support system
• "Living internet"
• Active protection
• Soldier as a system.
The Army will leverage and support to the maximum requirements from the other services, academia, and commercial
industry that support AAN capabilities. The Army will direct its basic research dollars toward those Army–unique
technologies that are critical to AAN force capabilities. Examples of other service activities that have great potential for
leveraging are:
• Navy: Fast sealift—speeds in excess of 50 knots
• Air Force:
– Larger cargo lifter—1 million pound lift capacity

– Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
• Marine Corps: Nonlethal technologies.

Chapter V B. Section 8
8. DoD Strategic Research Objectives
In coordination with other DoD departments and agencies, the U.S. Army has defined six SROs that synergistically focus
multidisciplinary research themes to achieve technology enablement in 10–15 years, with a high potential payoff in
numerous Army applications. These SROs were originally envisioned to encompass about 15 percent of the Army 6.1
research budget. Accordingly, the Army has identified approximately this percentage of its 6.1 research program with the
six currently approved DoD–wide SROs: biomimetics, nanoscience, smart structures, mobile wireless communications,
intelligent systems, and compact power sources. The Army is currently expanding these DoD SROs to facilitate the
recognition of Army–specific research themes in areas such as information dominance, enhanced soldier performance,
tunable lethality, protection of information systems, advanced compact and multifunctional sensors, and science for
innovations in logistics. A more detailed description of the current six SROs follows.
a. Biomimetics
Objective
As an SRO, biomimetics aims to enable development of new structural and functional materials and technologically
innovative approaches toward sensing and information processing, with product and process lessons from nature
contributing to design principles, performance capabilities, and manufacturing possibilities.
Approach
To accomplish this goal, biomimetics seeks to benefit from the direct manipulation of a process of biological origin or
from engineered exploitation that derives a product or process design or function from a naturally occurring system. The
overall approach is one that incorporates in a wholly integrated manner the most advanced and diverse conceptual and
experimental tools of a number of scientific disciplines, including, but not limited to, biology, materials science, chemistry,
physics, math and computer sciences, and electronics. There are numerous materials occurring in biological systems that
exhibit remarkable properties. Uniquely, these materials derive their functionality from fabrication processes composed of
several levels of self–assembly involving molecular clusters organized into structures of different length scales. Some of
these materials are able to effect exceptionally efficient transfer of mass, charge and energy over a very wide range of
performance durations, or to provide unique supportive and protective structures. Biological systems also have exquisite
and highly integrated sensing capabilities that allow rapid and selective recognition and signal processing that can detect
and classify target molecules, men, or machines in noisy and cluttered environments. Sensors designed using biological
principles offer the possibility of novel classes of sensors, far more sensitive and rapid than anything available today.
Military Potential
Rapidly emerging advances in this very young area of scientific endeavor show substantial promise to affect a number of
Army applications. Contributions are expected to cover a wide range, including tough, lightweight composites for armor,
chemical detection applicable to explosives and nerve agents, novel fibers for individual soldier protection, and catalysts
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec5b8.htm（第 1／9 页）2006-09-10 23:00:07

for both synthetic and degradative purposes. Potential Army applications are noted in Figure V–1.
Figure V-1. Biometrics Research Explodes in Applications for Army After Next
b. Nanoscience
Objective
Achieve dramatic, innovative enhancements in the properties and performance of structures, materials, and devices that
have controllable features on the nanometer scale (i.e., tens of angstroms).
Approach
Army support for nanoscience research is focused on creating new theoretical and experimental results involving atomic
scale imaging methods, subangstrom measurement techniques, and fabrication methods with atomic control that will
provide reproducible material structures and novel devices. It also includes direct investigations of phenomenological
evolution that is dominated by size effects or quantum effects. These quantum effects may, in turn, be used as the basis for
fundamentally new capabilities or for enhancing the performance of existing devices. Similar control over the
electromagnetic propagation in nanostructured materials may allow for more precise control of microwave, infrared, and
visible radiation. Scientific opportunities include understanding new phenomena in low dimensional structures,
nucleation and growth, self–organizing materials, site–specific reactions, and three–dimensional (3D) nanostructural
materials.
Military Potential
The ability to fabricate structures affordably at the nanometer scale (as illustrated in Figure V–2) will enable new
approaches and processes for manufacturing novel, more reliable, lower cost, higher performance, and more flexible
electronic, magnetic, optical, and mechanical devices. Recognized applications of nanoscience include ultra small, highly
parallel and fast computers with terabit nonvolatile random access memory and teraflop speed, image information
processors, low power personal communication devices, high–density information storage devices, lasers and detectors for
weapons and countermeasures, optical (IR, visible, ultraviolet (UV)) sensors for improved surveillance and targeting,
integrated sensor suites for CB agent detection, catalysts for enhancing and controlling energetic reactions and
decontamination, synthesis of new compounds (e.g., narrow–bandgap materials and nonlinear optical materials) for

advanced electronic, magnetic, and optical sensors, quantum computation for code breaking, resource optimization and
wargaming, photonic band engineering for sensor protection, powerful radar, and low observables, and significant
life–cycle cost reductions in many systems through failure remediation. These devices exploit exciting properties of
nanoscale materials not predictable from macroscopic physical and chemical principles.
Figure V-2. Nanometer-Scale Micrograph
c. Smart Structures
Objective
Demonstrate advanced capabilities for modeling, predicting, controlling, and optimizing the dynamic response of
complex, multielement, deformable structures used in civil structures, land vehicle, weapon, and rotorcraft systems.
Approach
Smart structures offer significant potential for expanding the effective operations envelope and improving certain critical
operational characteristics for many Army systems. Key characteristics of smart structures include embedded or bonded
sensors and actuators linked to a controller responsive to external stimuli to compensate in real time or quasi–real time for
undesirable effects or to enhance overall system performance. To help realize the full potential of smart structures in
military systems, the Army’s basic research program is supporting fundamental investigations that address active/passive
structural damping techniques, advanced actuator concepts able to provide greater forces and displacements, embeddable
and nonintrusive sensors, and smart actuator materials (e.g., piezoelectric, electrostrictive, and magnetostrictive materials,
shape memory alloys, magnetorheological fluids). Important studies focused on new fabrication processes for actuators
and sensors on the micron to millimeter scale, computationally accurate and efficient constitutive models for smart
materials, advanced mathematical models for nonconservative and nonlinear structural and actuator response, robust
hierarchical control with distributed sensors and actuators, and concurrent, integrated structural design and control
methodologies are also being pursued.
Military Potential
Specific potential military applications of smart structures include shock isolation and machinery vibration, vibration
control and stability augmentation systems in rotary wing aircraft to extend structural fatigue life and reliability, barrier

structures providing improved protection against CB agents, structural damage detection and health monitoring systems,
more accurate rapid fire weapon systems, fire control and battle damage identification, assessment, and control of active,
conformal, load–bearing antenna structures, phased arrays, and broadband spiral antenna systems (see Figure V–3).
Figure V-3. Smart Composite Actuator Concept and Army Applications
d. Mobile Wireless Communications
Objective
Provide fundamental advances enabling the rapid and survivable communication on–the–move (OTM) of large quantities
of multimedia information (speech, data, graphics, and video) from point to point, broadcast, and multicast over
distributed mobile wireless networks for heterogeneous command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I)
systems.
Approach
Research on high frequency devices, sources, and waveguides and techniques such as quasi–optical power combining can
increase radio carrier frequencies beyond 20 gigahertz (GHz) where channels can have wider bandwidths and
consequently greater capacity. Research on processing for smart antennas with beamsteering, diversity combining, and
spectrum reuse and new methods of source, channel, and modulation coding enable increased capacity with lower power,
extending battery lifetime and reducing probability of interception. Protocol engineering research provides the technology
to integrate cable, satellite, and mobile wireless heterogeneous networks and to maintain connectivity, routing, and quality
of service for multimedia communications in highly dynamic battlefield conditions. Modeling and simulation (M&S)
research is performed to assess performance and network stability and to evaluate propagation phenomena in urban and
rural environments.
Military Potential

Research in this area provides the technology for establishing and maintaining mobile wireless network communications
OTM under the harsh and highly dynamic conditions of modern battlefields. Civil networks have a fixed structural
component (e.g., cellular towers) not usable in mobile military systems and the military channel is more complex and
dynamic. Timely arrival of messages is highly critical to military operations and networks can have no single points of
failure and must be self–organizing to be survivable. Research in mobile wireless communications is needed to dramatically
improve the throughput, survivability, and security of complex mobile wireless networks critical to the success of future
Force XXI and AAN highly mobile operations. Advances in mobile wireless communications will significantly increase the
capacity, reliability, and survivability of the Army’s battlefield information distribution systems (see Figure V–4).
Figure V-4. Mobile Wireless Communications.

Seamless mobile wireless communication is the underpin-ning of many of the capabilities for the Army After Next and the Joint
Warfighting Science and Technology Plan. In the 21st century, DoD must field a robust mobile wireless communication systemthat
can provide commu-nications OTM to warfighters, integrate heterogeneous network protocols, including commercial protocols
suchas ATM, integrated services digital network(ISDN), and transmissioncontrol protocol/Internet protocol (TCP/IP), and
multimedia (video, voice, and data) services. This SRO addresses these issues for spatial reuse of channels, robust compression for
wireless channels, and operation with minimumenergy to extend battery lifetime.
e. Intelligent Systems
Objective
Enable the development of advanced systems able to sense, analyze, learn, adapt, and function effectively in changing or
hostile environments until completing assigned missions or functions.
Approach
Intelligent systems offer exciting new possibilities for conducting many types of military operations, ranging from
reconnaissance and surveillance activities to a variety of specialized combat operations. Intelligent systems typically consist
of a dynamic network of agents interconnected via spatial and communications links that operate in uncertain and
dynamically changing environments using decentralized or distributed input and under localized goals that may change
over time. The agents may be people, information sources, or automated systems such as robots, software, and computing
modules (see Figure V–5).

Figure V-5. Intelligent Digital Battlefield Architecture.

Intelligent systems researchincludes activities per-tinent to the performance of hybrid systems, human intelligence augmentation, and
low-level control. Hybrid system research will lead to robust design of advanced architecture for multiagent/distributed control.
Research involving representation and learning in the presence of uncertain or incomplete information (soft computer: neural
networks, fuzzy logic, Bayesian decision theory, etc.) will provide tools for intelligence aug-mentation of human-centered decision
systems.
Military Potential
Intelligent systems must be capable of gathering relevant, available information about their environment, analyzing its
significance in terms of assigned missions/functions, and defining the most appropriate course of action consistent with
programmed decision logic. Achieving these objectives requires integration of significant scientific and technological
advances in many diverse fields: electronics, physics, mathematics, materials science, biology, computer science, cognitive
and neural sciences, control theory and mechanisms, and electrical and systems engineering. Critical areas of research
being pursued include the design of multiagent systems, representation of hierarchical perception systems, advanced
models for learning and adaptation, development of effective frameworks for representing and reasoning with uncertainty,
and new computational paradigms for accommodating imprecision in human centered systems. The numerous potential
military applications of intelligent systems include unmanned vehicles (air and ground), smart weapons, real–time C2
systems for future battlefields, and CB defense systems.
f. Compact Power Sources
Objective
Identify and exploit new concepts in portable power, especially in fueled systems, to increase the energy density and lower
the cost of subkilowatt power sources.
Approach

The energy density of typical fuels exceeds that of batteries by 10–100 times. Lightweight energy converters, using air as the
oxidizer, are the key to exploiting the high energy content of such fuels. Converter technologies under study include fuel
cells, microturbines, thermophotovoltaic systems, and alkali metal thermal–to–electric converters.
Military Potential
Small, lightweight energy converters may be used in a variety of configurations. Hydrogen/air fuel cells can now be made
small enough (50–watt fuel cell stack is a cube 6 centimeters (cm) on a side, see Figure V–6) to be put into battery cases
and used as long–lived, refuelable, direct replacements for batteries. Microturbines hold the promise of providing up to 20
times the energy storage of a battery system of similar weight. Alternatively, for applications requiring air–independent
operation, it may be desirable to use the small converters as lightweight, portable battery chargers. Many applications may
be best supported with hybrid systems consisting of high discharge rate, low energy density, rechargeable batteries that can
provide high peak powers and that are kept recharged by small (a few watts) fueled battery chargers running at low power
on a nearly continuous basis. The hybrid systems should be able to provide the ease of distribution of battery power
combined with the high energy density of fuels in long–lived systems with low life–cycle costs.
Figure V-6. Compact Power Sources
Strategic Research Objective Goals
In managing the Army’s basic research program, special attention is being given to these SROs to help ensure that their
potential can be realized through subsequent technology and system development efforts. Identification of additional areas
and objectives will be sought in continuing reviews of basic research activities. Representative specific research goals
associated with the SROs described above are provided in Table V–6.
Table V–6. Representative Specific Army Basic Research Goals

Associated with DoD Strategic Research Objectives
2005 2010 Army XXI 2025 Army After Next

Biomimetics
Characterize enzymatic breakdown of chemical Foundation for mimicking active site Robust biomimetic catalytic system developed for
threat agents at molecular level mechanism of catalysis chemical agent decontamination
Define role of biomolecular recognition based Predictive rules and methods for biomimetic Manipulation of macromolecular properties to
interactions in superstructure formation hierarchical nanomaterials fabrication achieve optimal performance
Novel optical processing materials Novel process for ceramic composite manufacture
Nanoscience
Efficient microwave radar Hybrid CB sensors Rapid CB decontamination
Broadband optical limiting IR low observables Atom interferometer gyroscope
High bandwidth communication Terabit, teraflop computers Quantum computing
Smart Structures
Demonstrate up to 60–decibel (dB) vibration Demonstrate a low–cost, self–tuning structural Demonstrate smart, conformal, load bearing
reduction using shaped actuators and adaptive vibration damping treatment with integrated multifunctional antenna structures for rotorcraft
control algorithms power sources and signal processing capability and land vehicles
Achieve MEMS wireless communications in a Demonstrate addressable optical fiber sensor Realize active material based rotor blade control for
rotorcraft flight structure arrays to measure temperature and strain for stealthy, long–range, and highly maneuverable
damage detection in composite structures rotorcraft
Demonstrate new impact energy absorbing
active materials Achieve high force/high displacement actuators Achieve high precision controlled pointing and
fabricated from improved active materials tracking techniques for accurate weapon systems
for rotorcraft and land vehicles
Mobile Wireless Communications
Communicate OTM networks Conformal antennas for vehicles Adaptive, self–organizing networks
Multimedia services over wireless networks Multifunction antennas for communications Living internet
Aerial relay to maintain connectivity Video for mobile wireless networks Smart antennas for portable transceivers
High RF power efficient systems design Seamless, ubiquitous communications Extremely low probability of intercept signals
Personal communication devices
Intelligent Systems (IS)
Establish fundamental roles played by Establish a framework for integrating high and Achieve new understanding of learning styles in the
hierarchical organization, compositionality, and low level aspects of intelligent systems human brain relevant to the design of intelligent
learning in IS design systems
Exploit framework in devising next–generation
Define/characterize simulated battlefield control algorithms and designing prototype Demonstrate useful performance characteristics of
environments for testing IS methodologies systems (e.g., that have integrated vision/control fully autonomous intelligent systems
systems)
Demonstrate intelligence augmentation of Demonstrate advanced sensor/control capabilities
human centered systems, with emphasis on Define/characterize integration of intelligent of fully autonomous intelligent systems
cognitive issues systems into larger network of systems (e.g., C3I)
Compact Power Sources

Demonstrate compact direct methanol fuel cells Demonstrate 300–W compact fuel cell that Low–cost, highly reliable fielded power systems
via low crossover membranes and methanol operates on logistics fuels at moderate made possible by better materials design and
tolerant catalysts (performance = hydrogen) temperatures improved manufacturing processes
Demonstrate liquid–fueled microturbine Demo liquid–fueled microturbine generator Use biotechnology to produce useful quantities of
generator with efficient power electronics (u10 with efficient power electronics (u100 W/ cm3) fuel from renewable resources
W/ cm3)
Demo high efficiency (u25%) logistic fueled
Demonstrate quiet liquid–fueled alkali metal thermal–electric converter
thermophotovoltaic power sources (250 W/kg) (AMTEC) power system

9. Other Academic Leveraging
During times of seriously diminishing budgets, increased leveraging becomes more desirable and necessary to
help mitigate the impact of funding cutbacks on R&D programs. In addition to the preceding academic
programs, the Army is significantly leveraging several other major academic institutions and consortia.
The Center for Advanced Food Technology (CAFT) at Rutgers University is funded by industrial member
fees, State of New Jersey funding, Rutgers University funding, and government grants. The Army’s basic
membership fee is leveraged by a factor of 60 in relation to the overall CAFT operating budget. Members,
including the Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center (NRDEC), have an active role in
selecting research projects for funding and monitoring their progress. Research reports are provided to
members and active collaboration with CAFT investigators is ongoing for NRDEC. CAFT work
complements in–house Army R&D.
The Oregon State University Consortium for High Pressure Food Preservation is another example of the
Army’s receiving a greater return on a relatively small investment. Similarly, the Ohio State University Center
for Non–Thermal Processing is being leveraged in its effort to move pulse electric field processing to
commercialization, which will benefit the Army as well as the private sector.
The Army also participates in the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) Center for Research in Polymers,
where new polymers and polymeric materials are explored. NRDEC has recently initiated a student research
experience program with the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth (UMD), whereby students from the
Textile Science Department will work on Army projects for college credit. This program is expected to
expand to other UMD departments. UMD is being further leveraged due to its recent research involvement
with the National Textile Center.
The airdrop program at NRDEC has been leveraged by work at the Universities of Minnesota and
Connecticut and more recently at the South Dakota Bureau of Mines and Technology and Parks College of
Saint Louis University. These efforts are focused on airdrop system modeling and computer designs of
complex fluid structure interactions and have minimized the need to build and test multiple prototypes.
Teaming with experienced universities has significantly reduced the time required to achieve desired goals.
NRDEC and ARL hold a joint membership in the Northeastern University Center for Electromagnetics
Research, which conducts research in the area of electromagnetic waves and their interactions with materials.
As a voting member of the center, NRDEC can impact the direction of ongoing and future research efforts to

support the needs of the Army, which benefits significantly from this leveraging.
The effective leveraging of quality academic institutions, centers, and programs has greatly assisted numerous
significant Army efforts, which are experiencing resource reductions.

Chapter V C. Sections 1, 2
C. EXECUTION—SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AREAS
The Army has established a vigorous research program covering a wide range of disciplines to capture and
exploit the new opportunities presented by research advances and discoveries. This program is executed
primarily by university contractors and in–house laboratory and RDEC personnel, and maximizes the use of
the initiatives noted in Section V–B above.
Within a wide spectrum of research, several primary areas emerge that are of particular importance to
tomorrow’s Army. These efforts in the following research areas are described in the sections that follow:
1. Mathematical sciences
2. Computer and informational sciences
3. Physics
4. Chemistry
5. Materials science
6. Electronics research
7. Mechanical sciences
8. Atmospheric sciences
9. Terrestrial sciences
10. Medical sciences
11. Biological sciences
12. Behavioral, cognitive, and neural sciences.
a. Strategy
Mathematics plays an essential role in modeling, analysis, and control of complex phenomena and systems of
critical interest to the Army. Mathematical modeling is increasingly being identified as critical for progress in
many areas of Army interest. The mathematical and scientific tasks in these areas of interest are frequently of
significant complexity. As a result, researchers from two or more areas of mathematics must often collaborate
together and with experts from other areas of science and engineering to achieve Army goals. Some examples
of cross–cutting areas of research include the breakup of liquid droplets in high–speed air flow (for
determination of the dispersion of chemical or biological agents spilled from intercepted theater–range
missiles), computational methods for penetration mechanics, and automatic target recognition. For example,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec5c1_2.htm（第 1／7 页）2006-09-10 23:00:24

promising approaches to computer vision for automatic target recognition require research in a wide range of
areas including constructive geometry, numerical methods, stochastic analysis, Bayesian statistics,
probabilistic algorithms, and distributed parallel computing. To achieve Army goals, research in several areas
is important:
• Applied analysis
• Computational mathematics
• Probability and statistics
• Systems and control
• Discrete mathematics.
An investment strategy meeting with participants from ARO, ARL, RDECs, Corps of Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station (WES), Concepts Analysis Agency (CAA), Deputy Under Secretary of the Army
(Operations Research) (DUSA(OR)), and academia identified several exciting research areas that will have
significant impact on future Army technologies. Based on these recommendations, research priorities inside
these areas are listed below.
b. Major Research Areas
Applied Analysis
Physical modeling and mathematical analysis for nonlinear ordinary and partial differential, difference, and
integral equations for:
• Advanced materials, including smart materials and structure and advanced composites.
• Fluid flow, including flow around rotors, missiles, and parachutes, combustion, detonation
and explosion, two–phase flow, and granular flow.
• Nonlinear dynamics for optics, dielectrics, electromechanics, and other nonlinear systems,
and physics–based mathematical models of human dynamics.
Computational Mathematics
• Rigorous numerical methods for fluid dynamics, solid mechanics, material behavior, and
simulation of large mechanical systems (see Figure V–7).

Figure V-7. Modeling the Fluid Flow Within the Muzzle Break of a Gun
• Optimization: large–scale integer programming, mixed–integer programming, and

nonlinear optimization.
Probability and Statistics
• Stochastic analysis and applied probability: stochastic differential equations and processes,
interacting particle systems, probabilistic algorithms, stochastic control, large deviations,
simulation methodology, and image analysis.
• Statistics: analysis for very large data sets or very small amounts of data from nonstandard
distributions, point processes, Bayesian methods, integration of statistical procedures with
scientific and engineering information, Markov random fields, and cluster analysis.
Systems and Control
• Mathematical system theory and control theory: control in the presence of uncertainties,
robust and adaptive control for multivariable and nonlinear systems, system identification and
its relation to adaptive control, hybrid control, hybrid–infinity control, and nonholonomic
control.
• Foundations of intelligent control systems: discrete event dynamical systems, hybrid systems,

learning and adaptation, distributed communication and control, and intelligent control
systems.
Discrete Mathematics
• Computational geometry, logic, network flows, graph theory, and combinatorics.

• Symbolic methods: computational algebraic geometry for polynomial systems, discrete
methods for combinatorial optimization, symbolic methods for differential equations, mixed
symbolic–numerical methods, parallel symbolic sparse matrix methods, and algorithmic
methods in symbolic mathematics.
c. Potential Military Benefits
With the change from a predictable large threat to numerous and often unpredictable regional threats, the
need for more flexibility in Army systems and more rapid development of these systems increases. As the cost
of physical experimentation increases, the role of mathematical modeling becomes more important.
Mathematical modeling is a major factor in ensuring that a system is well designed and that it will work once
built. In all of the following areas, mathematics is a fundamental tool required by the Army of the present and
the future:
• Design of advanced materials and novel manufacturing processes.

• Behavior of materials under high loads, failure mechanics.
• Structures, including flexible and adaptable structures.
• Fluid flow, including reactive flow.
• Power and directed energy.
• Microelectronics and photonics.
• Sensors.
• Automatic target recognition.
• Soldier and aggregates of soldiers as systems: behavioral modeling, performance, mobility,
hear–stress reduction, camouflage (visible, IR), chemical and ballistic protection.
a. Strategy
The computer and information sciences address fundamental issues in understanding, formalizing,
acquiring, representing, manipulating, and using information. The advanced systems, including the software
engineering environments and new computational architectures facilitated by this research will often be
interactive, adaptive, sometimes distributed and/or autonomous, and frequently characterized as intelligent.
Computer–based systems that process information and transfer data and analysis among various Army
commanders and units are essential for military success.

The computer science and software issues that arise in this context often require input from a number of
subdisciplines of computer science, as well as from other disciplines. Multisensor fusion, multi–image fusion,
image understanding, language processing, distributed interactive simulation, multivariable and
multiresolution methods for terrain modeling, scalable parallel algorithms and algorithms for processing
large–scale data are but a few of these areas. In these areas, computer and information sciences research is
organized in a cross–cutting fashion to provide the expertise needed to accomplish the Army goal (rather
than remain within traditional disciplinary boundaries). Based on the recommendations from an investment
strategy meeting among senior scientists from ARO, ARL, RDECs, TRADOC, DUSA(OR), CAA, COE,
and academia, research in the following areas was determined to be important to the Army:
• Theoretical computer science

• Formal methods for software engineering
• Software prototyping, development, and evolution
• Knowledge base/database systems
• Natural language processing
• Intelligent systems.
Theoretical Computer Science
• Formal models underlying computing technology, optimization of input/output (I/O)

communication, new computing architectures, multiprocessing, parallel systems, and
advanced architectures.
• Graph theoretic methods applied to parallel and distributed computation, models, and
algorithms for the control of heterogeneous concurrent computing.
Formal Methods for Software Engineering
• Software engineering architectures: environments, tools, integrated tool sets.

• Graphical interfaces: multilevel displays for requirements elicitation, simulation, logic
visualization.
• Software generation: invocation of formal methods, software reuse.
• Software evolution: change, merging, documentation.
• Software reliability: validation, verification.
Knowledge Base/Database Sciences
• Heterogeneous data structures: mediators, complex reasoning.

• Machine learning: methodologies for uncertainty, incompleteness, information recognition
and content–based retrieval.
• Multimodal information: synthesis of knowledge from multimodal resources.

• Query/interrogation languages: domain–specific languages.
Natural Language Processing
• Text: content–based retrieval and understanding.

• Speech: translation, understanding, and generation with dialogue.
The contributions of the computer and information sciences to a well–equipped strategic force capable of
decisive victory in conflicts in the Information Age are important in the following areas:
• Digitized battlefield
• Distributed C2
• Information processing
• Distributed interactive simulation (DIS) (see Figure V–8)
Figure V-8. High-Performance Concurrent Simulations.

High-performance concurrent simulation provides enabling technology and prototype
framework for seamless, portable, secure, scalable, and fault-tolerant concurrent computing
on heterogeneous networked computers for collaborative applications.
• Design and validation of software and of large software systems

• Adaptive, anticipative systems
• Intelligent systems
• Human/machine interface
• Intelligence augmentation of human–centered systems

• Battlefield management.

3. Physics
a. Strategy
Physics provides the fundamental underpinnings for all other sciences and technologies. For this reason,
emphasis is placed upon establishment of limits of technologies. A strategy for investment is developed by the
Physics Coordinating Group with representatives from participating RDECs, ARO, ARL directorates, and
the Topographic Engineering Center. This group has developed a 3–year plan for a broad–based research
program that is organized into five subject areas:
• Nanoscience
• Photonics
• Integrated sensory science
• Nonlinear optics
• Image analysis.
These programs support advanced technology development to provide increased signal processing and
display, sensor protection and countermeasures, and target acquisition.
Nanotechnology
The objective of nanotechnology is to develop the capability to manipulate atoms and molecules
individually, to assemble small numbers of them into nanometer size devices, and to exploit the unique
physical mechanisms that operate in these devices. The program emphasizes self assembly for the rapid,
low–cost construction of these nanosystems.
Electrochemical polishing is a recently discovered technique for the production of quasi–periodic quantum
dot arrays. Figure V–9 shows an aluminum film that has been electropolished to produce a dot pattern with a
period of 100 nm and a peak to valley height of 50 nm. Other areas of emphasis in this program are ultra fast
phenomena, near–field microscopy, nanoscale manipulation, photonic band engineering, quantum
processes for noise reduction, and new radiation sources.

Figure V-9. Magnified Atomic Force Micrograph.

An egg-carton pattern on the surface of an electropolished aluminum surface. The pattern was produced
after polishing for 30 seconds using techniques routinely used by the anodizing industry.
Photonics
Photonics seeks to develop optical subsystems for military applications such as information storage, displays,
optical switching, signal processing, and optical interconnections of microelectronic systems. Research
opportunities exist in diffractive optics, hybrid signal processing, and unconventional imaging.
Integrated Sensory Science
Integrated sensory science seeks to provide the Army the ability to operate on the ground over relatively
short ranges in conditions of poor visibility. Novel and improved radiation sources and detectors will
continue to provide new capabilities for the Army, especially with the utilization of coherent optical and
atomic systems and of multispectral imaging. Control of physical signatures is now within our capability with
the discovery of new materials and of enhanced backscattering.
Nonlinear Optics
The use of optical sensors and sources is analogous to the use of radio frequency detectors and sources. In the
future, optical warfare should become as important as electronic warfare. Nonlinear optical processes,
tunable sources, materials with special reflective, absorptive, and polarization properties and the ability to
perform remote sensing of CB agents are research themes of current and future interest.
Image Analysis
Target acquisition has been a key military capability but the speed and complexity of modern warfare has led
to the need for automatic target recognition. The successes that have been obtained are limited to automatic

target recognition (ATR), with a human making the final decision. These systems have been developed using
heuristic and ad hoc techniques. The development of the theoretical underpinnings of automatic target
recognition is needed. The objectives are to develop: (1) a set of scientific metrics that quantify image
content, complexity, and structured clutter; (2) a set of metrics to describe the performance of image
recognition and classification techniques; and (3) a set of performance models that can predict performance
and allow optimization of system design.
Other Research Areas
Humans use a variety of sensor modalities to gather information about their world. The Army needs to
develop a science for the integration of a variety of sensors such as conventional imaging systems, sound,
chemical, etc., that will allow improved target recognition and discrimination.
These programs support advanced technology development to provide increased signal processing, signal
display, sensor protection, and target acquisition. Novel and improved radiation sources and detectors will
continue to provide new capabilities for the Army. In addition, atom optics are expected to provide new ultra
sensitive detectors and clocks with applications that include global positioning systems and inertial navigation.
4. Chemistry
a. Strategy
Army basic research across all the chemical sciences is planned and coordinated annually by the Army
Chemistry Coordinating Group. The Army Research Laboratory Weapons and Materials Research
Directorate hosted the 1997 meeting in January at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Research briefings were
presented by Army chemists from ARL Directorates for Weapons and Materials Research and for Sensors
and Electron Devices, the Army research, development, and engineering (RD&E) centers at Picatinny
Arsenal, Edgewood, and Natick, the Communications and Electronics Command, the U.S. Army Chemical
Demilitarization and Remediation Activity, the Army Corps of Engineers WES, the U.S. Military Academy,
and ARO. The ARO triennial in–depth long range strategy planning meeting for chemistry was last held in
January 1995. The Army Chemistry Basic Research Program was briefed to Army leadership at the SARD/
TRADOC Review and to DoD leadership at the Technology Area Review and Assessment (TARA) Review
during March 1997. Army chemists performed joint planning with the Navy and Air Force at the annual
Tri–Service Reliance Meeting in September 1996.
Following the Army chemistry long–range strategy, research in chemistry continues to focus on programs for
which the Army has lead responsibility: CB defense, advanced materials, combustion, including explosives
and propellants, power sources, obsolete weapon demilitarization, installation restoration, and pollution

prevention.
Under Tri–Service Reliance, chemistry is divided into the subareas chemical synthesis and properties, and
chemical processes.
Under chemical synthesis and properties, the Army has the lead for catalysts, reactive polymers, and
dendrimers; the Army shares with the Navy and Air Force responsibility for functional polymers, energetic
materials, power sources, nanostructures, sensors, lubricants, and elastomers.
Under processes, the Army has the lead for energetic materials ignition and combustion, CB
decontamination and demilitarization, and diffusion in polymers. The Army shares responsibility for
dynamics, corrosion, power sources, and sensors.
Army basic research on CB defense is carried out by ERDEC, NRDEC, and ARO and supports the Army
CBDCOM development programs on sensors, protection, and decontamination. Recent ERDEC
accomplishments include synthesis of polymers with highly active surfaces for molecular recognition of
threat agents and decontaminants for the nerve agent VX. NRDEC has synthesized new polymer barriers
against chemical agents. ARO investigators have developed powerful new catalysts for destruction of nerve
and mustard agents.
Research on advanced materials is carried out by NRDEC, ARL, and ARO. Recent NRDEC
accomplishments include flame and chemical resistant textiles with integration of advanced manufacturing
techniques, and new biodegradable and nonpolluting polymers for functional composite materials. NRDEC
materials are being evaluated by ARO investigators for laser eye protection. ARL scientists are studying use of
dendritic molecules to improve fiber properties and adhesives. ARO and ARL are cooperating on a Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) project for coatings to protect vehicles on the battlefield and on
molecular–level design of new materials with chemical agent resistance and improved strength. ARO
investigators are studying chemical diffusion in polymers for chemical defense, designing solvent resistant
elastomers with flexibility at low temperatures, and developing nanomaterials from molecules that
self–organize into structured coatings. ARO and ARL held a joint workshop on dentritic molecules in
October 1996 at Michigan Molecular Institute.
Research on power sources is performed by ARL and ARO and supports

development at Communications–Electronics Command (CECOM). ARL has made major improvements
in lithium battery electrolytes, higher power density capacitors, and portable fuel cells. CECOM has
established a Power Sources COE. ARO investigators have developed new fuel cell catalysts and membranes,
designed and built microturbines for compact power (see Figure V–10), and developed new
thermophotovoltaic materials. ARO manages the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Army–relevant programs in alkali metal thermal–electric converters (AMTECs). ARO has briefed the
Compact Power program to SARD, AMC Headquarters, Dismounted Battlespace battle laboratory, Army
After Next, and TRADOC Triennial Review and has held workshops seeking improved sources of hydrogen
for hydrogen/air fuel cells. An ARO/CECOM/DARPA workshop on human generation of power will be

held in the near future.
Figure V-10. Model Microturbine.

Fabricated at MIT by ion-etching silicon. Diameter is approximately 2 mm. Research is part of the ARO
program to power the Army After Next soldier.
Research on explosives and propellants is performed by ARL, ARO, and the Armaments Research,
Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC) and supports development at Picatinny Arsenal and
MICOM. Propellant burning rate models based on combustion data from ARO and ARL research are being
transitioned into interior ballistic models for munitions design. Recent ARL accomplishments include new
laser probes for propellant flames and theoretical calculations for propellant molecular dynamics. Related
ARL research provides new options for fire suppression in military vehicles. ARO investigators are clarifying
the pathways for decomposition of energetic materials. An ARL report (ARL–TR–1411) has been published
on an ARO/ARL/ARDEC workshop to guide research for input into the Army Next Generation Interior
Ballistics Model being developed at ARL.
Research on demilitarization, environmental remediation, pollution prevention, and chemical detection is

performed by WES, ARL, ARO, and ERDEC and supports development by the Corps of Engineers, AMC,
and the Army Demilitarization Activity. Recent accomplishments at WES include advanced prototype
explosive sensors employing laser–induced breakdown and infrared spectroscopy for the Army site
characterization and analysis penetrometer system (SCAPS). ARL accomplishments include plasma reactor
design for nonpolluting paint removal and laser–based methods for detecting trace explosives and

combustion products. ARL is also exploring supercritical fluid solvation to recycle propellants and
nonpolluting coatings to retard corrosion. ARO investigators are developing improvements for ion mobility
spectrometry—the current Army method for chemical weapon detection.
New materials will enhance soldier protection against ballistic and CB threats and provide stronger, lighter
structures for vehicles. Compact electric power will support the soldier for longer missions with less to carry.
New explosives and propellants will enhance effectiveness and reliability and reduce vulnerability. Work at
ARL supports exploratory development at ARL and ARDEC and the ARL STO for Laser Igniter for Artillery
Munitions and ARDEC STO for Energetic Materials/Warheads. New sensors will protect the soldier from
explosive and CB threats. Weapons demilitarization and base clean–up research will reduce costs to manage
Army inventory and remediate the environment. Research at WES supports the current STO on Explosives/
Organics Treatment Technologies and planned STOs on Site Monitoring Systems and Advanced Explosives/
Organics Treatment. CB defense research at Edgewood RD&E center is supported directly by DoD. That
work supports Defense Technology Objectives (DTOs) in Advanced Lightweight Chemical Protection,
Advanced Adsorption for Protection Applications, and Enhanced Respirator Filtration Technology.

Chapter V C. Sections 5, 6, 7
a. Strategy
The overall objective of the materials science program is the elucidation of the fundamental
relationships that link the composition, microstructure, defect structure, processing, and properties of
materials. The work, although basic in nature, is focussed on those materials, material processes, and
properties that improve the performance, increase the reliability, or reduce the cost of Army systems.
Research priorities are defined in the Material Science Investment Strategy Plan, which is prepared by
the Army Materials Coordinating Group. This group is composed of scientists from ARO,
participating RDECs, ARL directorates, and TRADOC. The plan outlines a strong multidisciplinary
program in materials science that emphasizes research in five broad areas: manufacturing and
processing of structural materials for Army vehicles and armaments, materials for armor and
antiarmor, processing of functional (electronic, magnetic, and optical) materials, engineering of
material surfaces, and nondestructive characterization of components for in service life assessment.
Major themes are reflected in the discussions presented below.
The materials field is highly interdisciplinary, encompassing such diverse specialties as physical
metallurgy, solid–state physics, chemistry, biology, penetration mechanics, surface science, and
materials analysis. On the submicroscopic level, research is concerned with the manipulation of atoms
and molecules and with the interactive forces that bind them. There is a strong emphasis on such
topics as electronic and atomic structure, bonding character, and the many interactions of radiation
and particles with condensed matter. At the microscopic level, the field is concerned with the effects
of chemistry, microstructure, and phase transitions on the structural and functional properties of
materials. At the macroscopic level, research is concerned with the continuum behavior of materials
and composites. There are expanding opportunities for advancing the science of materials through
continued integration and understanding of the interrelationships between the microscopic and
macroscopic domains. This is reflected by the increasing integration of material modeling and
numerical simulation into materials science.
New generations of materials with vastly improved properties are currently under development.
Technology has now progressed to the point where it is possible to observe and manipulate materials

at the atomic scale. This affords the opportunity to begin introducing much greater robustness into
the design of materials and new possibilities for enhancing their performance. A growing interest of
the Army is the design and fabrication of materials at submicron dimensions. New approaches to
material synthesis based on self assembly of surfactants on surfaces, microcontact printing and
micromolding, and flexible manufacturing approaches are under development. Examples of materials
prepared by the microprinting process are shown in Figure V–11. This research is laying the
foundations for the development of new generations of materials that will bear scant resemblance to
the rudimentary materials technology that the Army depends on today. For example, a new class of
"smart" materials is under development that will be able to sense its environment and significantly alter
its properties to adapt to changing conditions. Likewise, molecular recognition and self–assembly
techniques, which mimic natural processes, are being investigated as a synthesis route to new classes of
multifunctional supramolecular systems.
Figure V-11. Microprinting Process

Microprinting techniques have been developed for preparing patterned structures with submicron
feature sizes.
Materials science research supports the entire Army materiel acquisition effort by ensuring that
materials will exist that fully satisfy future mission requirements for improved firepower, mobility,
armaments, communications, personnel protection, and logistics support. The emphasis is on
developing new materials and processes that will significantly enhance materiel performance and
reliability and reduce overall system costs. Major areas of impact include Army needs for individual

soldier protection, armor/antiarmor, air and ground vehicles, bridging, shelters, communications,
target acquisition, data processing, and power generation.
a. Strategy
Electronics is an enabling technology for all future Army systems for the digitized battlefield of Force XXI and
AAN. In particular, electronics research provides the seminal knowledge to explore new systems and
enhanced capabilities for radar and radiometry, communications, C2, fire control, electronic warfare,
navigation, weapon guidance and seekers, and night vision devices. Army electronics research focuses on the
generation of technology that will enable systems to function within the constraints imposed by the need for
operation on small platforms such as the soldier, truck, armored vehicle, and helicopter used in highly
mobile land warfare. This research provides the flow of ideas, concepts, and technology to the Army’s
developers to ensure the full integration of state–of–the–art electronics capabilities into advanced new
systems in a timely and affordable manner. To achieve this goal and to maintain technological superiority,
emphasis is placed on the investigation of a spectrum of near–term to far–term technologies. The research is
reviewed, shared, transitioned and transferred through the Reliance Electronics Planning Group process, the
technology area plans, TARA, and the Electronics Coordinating Group (ECOG) activities.
To satisfy the projected requirements, Army electronics research emphasize three broad needs:
• Solid–state and optical electronics with emphasis on ultrafast (terahertz switching speeds),
ultradense electronics, and optoelectronic components.
• Information electronics with focus on systems for operation in adverse environments,

designed to lighten, simplify, and reduce power consumption (low power electronics);
communication and radar systems operating at millimeter–wave (MMW) through terahertz
spectral region, and communications systems and networks and information processing for
the digital battlefield.
• Electromagnetics with emphasis placed on conformal antennas, MMW systems, and systems
exploiting optical MMW interactions.
Solid–State and Optical Electronics
Solid–state and optical electronics research in the near term includes advanced semiconductor devices
supporting AAN applications, quasi–optical techniques for advanced millimeter and subMMW systems,
low–power electronics, advanced IR sensor concepts, short wavelength lasers, and related materials issues. In
the long term, electronics research must provide for novel, robust, reliable multifunctional ultrafast/

ultradense electronics, and optoelectronic components and architectures. By designing devices based on new
physical principles of operation, expanded functionality, greater packing density and higher speed can be
achieved. High–resolution, high–sensitivity, multicolor IR imaging arrays are required for target acquisition,
recognition, and identification. Research thrusts include advanced materials, novel device structures, and
appropriate system architectures. Ultrafast signal processing computing will require advances in light
emitters. New system architectures are needed for increased data storage and efficient optical processing. As
shown in Figure V–12, a key element in solid–state and optical electronics research is atomic–level feature
control to provide devices that will meet the Army’s future technology needs in device integration and
information capacity.
Figure V-12. Electronics Research
Information Electronics
Information electronics research is driven by the profound growth of battlefield information sources and the
complexity and need to process and communicate that information in near real time for the digital battlefield
concepts. Force XXI and AAN operational concepts call for a highly mobile force whose success is
dependent on reliable voice, data, and video communications on the move and information with the
minimum latency and varying quality of service requirements to ensure quick decisions and synchronous
operations. Research is conducted in network management, network protocols and architectures, message
routing including flow and congestion control, forwarding algorithms, advanced switching technology and
interfacing, and integration of heterogeneous networks. Methods for the design of large, distributed, mobile
spread–spectrum packet radio network architectures, protocols, routing, and control are investigated. The
use of adaptive array antennas in networks to provide spatial reuse of limited spectrum, to increase network
throughput capability, to increase interference and jamming resistance, and to lower transmit power
requirements is investigated. Information fusion includes both sensor and data fusion techniques. It
encompasses a number of scientific disciplines including signal, image, and speech processing; decision
theory; distributed heterogeneous databases; and intelligent systems. It allows the improvement of accuracy

and reliability of information, reduces the quantity and confusion of data, and provides real–time tactical
command and control information assessment capability.
Electromagnetics
Electromagnetics research focuses on issues unique to Army needs such as circuit integration, antennas, and
propagation that will enable Army exploitation of the terahertz, MMW, and high–frequency microwave
portion of the spectrum for communications and radar and seeker systems for the digitized battlefield.
Power–combining techniques such as quasi–optics are critical in enabling moderate or high power MMW
systems with the advantages of solid–state electronics. Optical control of microwave and millimeter circuits
provides the opportunity for low weight, low–cost control of antenna arrays. Novel concepts for high
efficiency, low–loss antennas and antenna arrays are of importance, including active antennas.
A key element in electronics research is atomic–level feature control to provide devices that will meet the
Army’s future technology needs in device integration and information capacity. Enhanced performance and
functionality of future electronics will lead to faster, more portable, and more reliable systems for target
identification; intelligent systems for better command and control of fire support missions; miniaturized
computers and displays with improved processing capability; data fusion of multidomain, compact, smart
sensor suites; enhanced timing and location systems for autonomous weapons; optimized man–machine
interface; ultrafast information processing in extremely small, massively parallel processors; high–data rate
photonic communications; and ultra–small integrated multifunctional sensors for the soldier. Real–time
signal processing is critical to communications, adaptive array antennas, and signal intercept as well as image
analysis, target acquisition, and information fusion. Signal and information processing are used in the
implementation of image, radar, speech, antenna, and communication processing systems for applications in
target detection, identification and tracking; guidance and control; fire control; and communication.
Research in fast, high–resolution, null– and beam–steering and compact adaptive antennas will provide
low–signature communications and improved signal intercept capability.
a. Strategy
The Army’s reliance on mobile systems to perform its mission requires a major research effort in the
mechanical sciences to provide the technology base that will enable the development of vehicles and their
armaments with significantly advanced capabilities to meet the requirements of the AAN. The Army
Mechanics Coordinating Group (MECOG) has developed a strategy for focusing the Army’s future research
programs in the mechanical sciences on the most opportune and important areas. The strategy takes
advantage of the reliance process with the Navy and Air Force and is peer reviewed at the annual DDR&E
TARA.

The MECOG developed the appropriate research thrusts and assigned priorities, while regularly
coordinating in–house and extramural research efforts in the four major fields of the mechanical sciences that
are critical to Army interests:
• Structures and dynamics

• Solid mechanics
• Fluid dynamics
• Combustion and propulsion.
Structures and Dynamics
In the area of structures and dynamics, the research topic areas are structural dynamics and simulation and
air vehicle dynamics. The higher priority research thrusts in structural dynamics and simulation are ground
vehicle and multibody dynamics, structural damping, and smart structures and active controls. For air vehicle
dynamics, the higher priority research thrusts are integrated aeromechanics analysis, rotorcraft numerical
analysis, helicopter blade loads and dynamics, and projectile aeroelasticity. Multidisciplinary research on
advanced active control of coupled rotorcraft vibration and aeroacoustics offers a significant potential
reduction in rotorcraft vibration and acoustic radiation for the AAN (see Figure V–13).
Figure V-13. Passive/Active Damping Control for for Rotorcraft Systems

Solid Mechanics
In the area of solid mechanics, the research topic areas are the mechanical behavior of materials, the integrity
and reliability of structures, and tribology. The classes of materials of interest are functional gradient materials
and heterogeneous materials. In mechanical behavior, the higher priority research thrusts are material
responses in the state of nonequilibrium or transient states as in impact and penetration mechanics and
damage initiation/propagation. Within this thrust is a special basic research program on smart resilient
structures involving novel material concepts, material behavior, responsive mechanisms, and analytical tools
that provide the fundamental underpinnings for a technology–to–engineering development program for
responsive armor concepts needed for AAN (see illustration). Additionally, the mechanical response under
coupled effects of electric, magnetic, and thermal fields is of great interest. The research in the area of integrity
and reliability of structures focuses on damage tolerance, damage control, and life prediction. In the area of
tribology, dynamic friction, lubrication, and surface topology in low heat rejection environments are
emphasized.
Fluid Dynamics
For fluid dynamics, the research areas are unsteady aerodynamics, aeroacoustics, and vortex dominated
flows. The higher priority research thrusts in unsteady aerodynamics are dynamic stall/unsteady separation,
maneuvering missiles/projectiles, and rotating stall and surge in turbomachinery. In aeroacoustics, the
research thrusts are on helicopter blade noise generation, propagation, and control; and in vortex dominated
flows, they are on rotorcraft wakes and interactional aerodynamics.
Combustion and Propulsion
For combustion and propulsion, the research topic areas are small gas turbine engine propulsion technology,
reciprocating engine technology, solid gun propulsion, liquid gun propulsion, and novel gun propulsion.
The higher priority research thrusts in small gas turbine engine propulsion are in critical combustion
processes, enhanced optimization, and integration of miniature sensors and active controls. For reciprocating
engine technology, the higher priority research thrusts are in ultra–low heat rejection environments,
enhanced air utilization, and cold start phenomena. For solid gun propulsion, the major thrusts are in
ignition and combustion dynamics and high performance solid propellant charge concepts. For liquid gun
propulsion, they are in atomization and spray combustion, ignition, and combustion mechanics and
instability, hazards, and vulnerability. The higher priority thrusts in novel gun propulsion are
electrothermal–chemical (ETC) propulsion, active control mechanisms, and novel ignition mechanisms.
Research supported in the mechanical sciences provides the necessary tools to enable prediction, design,
simulation, and assessment of future Army air/ground vehicles, their power plants, and armament systems,
which results in increased performance, reliability, sustainment, and mobility. In particular, advanced, higher
performance rotorcraft and vehicle gas turbine engines, stable weapon system platforms, accurate supply and

weapon–on–target delivery capabilities, resilient structures for heavy/light fighting vehicles, vehicle structural
reliability and survivability, more energetic and reliable gun propellants, advanced electromagnetic gun
propulsion systems, high power density diesel engines, weapon failure analysis/prediction, and multibody
vehicle simulation capabilities, for example, can be expected from the Army research program. Mechanical
sciences have a significant impact on five technology areas (Chapter IV): aerospace propulsion and power,
air and space vehicles, individual survivability and sustainability, conventional weapons, and ground vehicles.

a. Strategy
The atmospheric environment impacts every aspect of Army operations. Fog, rain, snow, and aerosols and
smokes from battlefield sources are a few obvious factors influencing Army strategy, mobility, logistics, and
weapons delivery. Prior, quantitative knowledge of present and future environmental conditions,
consequences, and limitations is essential for intelligence preparation of the battlefield, for developing
improved weapon systems, for using weather conditions as a force multiplier, and for enhancing the Army’s
"all–weather" capability.
Under Project Reliance, the Army has the primary responsibility for scientific issues concerning the
atmospheric boundary layer over the land. Furthermore, the Army has the responsibility for providing
environmental data for its own needs at battlefield and smaller scales. Better capabilities for predicting and
using weather effects as force multipliers require basic understanding of the physical processes of the
atmosphere on scales ranging from continental to the engagement scales and the ability to communicate
them effectively in oral, visual, or electronic media for a variety of practical, user purposes. The Army’s
Atmospheric Sciences Coordinating Group, with representatives from ARO, ARL directorates, Test and
Evaluation Command (TECOM), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), academia,
and industry, developed a strategic plan for focusing future research by identifying and assigning priorities to
promising basic research thrusts.
Present and future research focuses principally on the atmospheric boundary layer—where the Army
operates—at higher time and space resolution than ever before. Basic research in the atmospheric sciences is
multidisciplinary, using understanding of electromagnetic and acoustic propagation in the atmosphere, fluid
dynamics and turbulence, radiative energy transfer, and thermodynamics of mixed phases of water to assess
the natural and induced environments over the land.
Development of a capability for remote sensing of the atmospheric boundary layer for high resolution of
wind velocity, temperature, and moisture in four dimensions will continue as a major research interest. The
sensed data should provide quantitative information on the inhomogeneity of the atmosphere as a
propagation (electromagnetic and acoustic) medium and as a dispersing medium for natural and induced
aerosols. The instruments for remotely measuring atmospheric boundary layer properties at time and space

scales affecting Army interests increase the time and space resolution of atmospheric effects and properties
(Figure V–14).
Figure V-14. Sensing Atmospheric Properties
Propagation research concentrates on developing physically based models of atmospheric propagation in a

variety of real environments. The models address electromagnetic frequencies from the ultraviolet through
MMW and acoustic frequencies from 1 to 1,000 hertz (Hz). Developing reliable imaging models for
predicting atmospheric effects on sensors or system imaging performance, especially in inhomogeneous
conditions, will improve evaluations of systems before going to field tests or deployment. The models will
also be used to examine atmospheric effects on digital communications and ATR performance, and to
improve ATR algorithm development. Also, the application of spectroscopy to earth sensing is developing a
major library of reflectance and radiance data to support the modeling and rapid detection of natural and
manmade features, including camouflage.
Research efforts in understanding the detection, identification, and quantification of chemical and biological
aerosols will continue. Research thrusts in this area are expected in the development of laboratory capabilities
that are later transferred to field applications or techniques.
Boundary layer meteorology research serves all services through improved characterization
(parameterizations) of boundary layer processes over land in weather prediction models. It specifically
supports multiple functions of the Army’s Integrated Meteorological System (IMETS) in intelligence
preparation of the battlefield. Research in turbulent dispersion of aerosols leads to a significantly improved
dispersion model applicable to open detonation/open burning of munitions; for improved prediction of

transport and diffusion of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) materials on short time and space scales,
over varied terrain shapes and ground covers, and all times of day; and for modeling effectiveness of smoke
and other obscurants in realistic scenarios.
Remote sensing of wind fields will also enable detection of hazardous winds in aircraft landing zones, in
paradrop zones, above urban areas, and in accidental release of hazardous gases or aerosols. Active and
passive remote sensing research is essential to detection of objects in snow or on the ground, modeling, and
rapid detection of natural and manmade features, including camouflage.
a. Strategy
Army doctrine has long dictated that commanders know the terrain. Coupled with weather, the resulting
variety and dynamics of the terrain surface impact all aspects of the Army mission. The broad range of
features and conditions found in cold region, mountain, temperate, desert, and tropical climates of the world
can be either a formidable barrier or significant advantage for our forces. The key determinants are, first, a
knowledge of terrain characteristics and processes and, second, the ability to incorporate that knowledge into
our planning, operations, system development, training, and doctrine. The topographic, geological,
climatological, and hydrological character of the are critical to mobility/countermobility, logistics,
communications, survivability, and troop and weapons effectiveness. The digital battlefield requires detailed
and sophisticated information about topography as well as terrain features and conditions. Environmental
information and models need to be integrated with systems models to develop the ability to simulate and
forecast system and unit performance. These capabilities are fundamental to the development of materiel that
can perform effectively in worldwide environments, as well as doctrine that is appropriate for the wide range
of conditions that might confront a force projection Army.
Within the context of a force projection Army, terrain conditions are of paramount importance to mission
planning, field mobility and logistics, systems performance, and unit effectiveness. The force–projection,
precision–strike Army of the 21st century will be able to use and control terrain more effectively than an
opponent. In this context, the Army will have two superior capabilities. The first will be full situational
awareness through an integrated capability to acquire, automatically process, analyze, and display terrain
data—derived from a variety of different space, airborne, and ground–deployed remote sensing
platforms—in real time that can be distributed to at all levels of command, both in–theater and the
continental United States (CONUS), at the level of resolution required. The second will be a capability for
realistic, dynamic terrain for interactive training and mission planning and rehearsal. Three types of 3D digital
terrain information will be available: topography, natural features and manmade objects, and short–term
battlefield conditions and dynamics. These force–multiplying capabilities will enhance a commander’s ability
to visualize a battlefield at multiple resolutions and execute combat operations using an efficient
decision–making cycle much more rapidly and effectively than an adversary. They will also improve a
planner’s capability to manipulate and evaluate information about terrain and provide a trainer the
functionality to correctly incorporate realistic terrain into distributed, interactive simulation. Dynamic, 3D

terrain models will be the enabling foundation for interservice, intelligent autonomous weapon systems.
Additionally, the Army of the 21st century will have a capability for rapid deployment to perform military
and humanitarian operations worldwide. These forces will rely on enhanced battlefield awareness and timing
to conduct pulsed, well–coordinated massing of forces to quickly overwhelm enemy forces with minimal loss
of manpower and material. An essential component for operational success is superior mobility of deployed
military forces. Ground forces will be smaller, lighter, and more capable of precision maneuvers at high
tempo with reduced logistics encumbrance. A capability to effectively model and predict vehicular mobility
in real time under current environmental and battlefield conditions is critical to this objective.
Terrestrial sciences research within the Army, which is directed toward meeting the above–stated objectives,
is highly multidisciplinary in nature. The vision, long–term strategy, and research priorities for the terrestrial
sciences are defined in the Environmental Sciences Strategy Plan, which is prepared by the Environmental
Sciences Coordinating Group. This Group is composed of scientists from ARO, the Corps of Engineers
laboratories (Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL), Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), Topographic Engineering Center (TEC), and WES), academia, and
industry. This plan outlines a strong multidisciplinary research program in the terrestrial sciences that
emphasizes research in three broad areas:
• Terrain Characterization and Analysis (topography and terrain).

• Hydrodynamics and Surficial Processes (hydrometeorology, surface and subsurface
hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology; and coastal processes).
• Geotechnical Engineering (snow, ice and frozen ground, geophysical site characterization,
vehicle–terrain interaction, geotechnical engineering).
Major themes of the plan are reflected in the following paragraphs.
Terrain Characterization and Analysis
Characterization of the surface geometry and terrain features of remote or inaccessible areas is needed to
enhance planning and tactical decision making, as well as tailoring equipment to the challenges of the natural
environment. Fundamental data on the distribution and character of natural and manmade features, together
with information about the dynamic condition of the terrain, are required for rapid mapping and such
information must be coupled to models that quantify dominant physical processes to allow temporal
forecasts of the conditions to be faced by soldiers and materiel. Enhanced remote sensing data acquisition
capabilities (Figure V–15), system–organization and neural network theory, and advanced numerical
methods are used to synthesize topography and terrain database information. The earth’s surface features
and materials interact dramatically with the boundary layer and weather systems, producing a highly
sophisticated background within which targets are embedded. A knowledge of the many energy exchanges as
a function of terrain character and climate, as well as their impact on the appearance of terrain scenes to
sensing devices used for reconnaissance and target acquisition, is critical to both the development and

deployment of these systems. Modeling of the physical processes operating on the Earth’s surface is essential
for the design of autonomous systems and the ability to realistically consider dynamic environmental effects
in system performance and training simulations and in wargames. No single factor has more influence on the
performance or the ability to accomplish future missions with emerging autonomous or aided smart systems.
Figure V-15. Terrestrial Sciences Thrusts
Hydrodynamics and Surficial Processes
Research in hydrodynamics and surficial processes addresses two thematic areas. The first relates to the
hydrologic cycle and focuses on hydrometeorology, rainfall–runoff dynamics, surface and groundwater
hydrology, and fluvial hydraulics. This area includes research that seeks to understand the fundamental
nature of subsurface flow and mass transport, numerically model this complex process, and describe the
interaction of surface water and ground water systems. The second relates to the geomorphological character
of the surficial environment and focuses primarily on physical processes operating in arid/semi–arid, tropical,
and coastal environments. A knowledge of the topography and physical character of landscape leads to the
ability to estimate hydrologic/physical response and, therefore, an ability to accomplish specific activities
within the range of environmental conditions that might occur in different localities, seasons, and weather.
Hydrometeorological conditions and the surface hydrologic regime are determining factors in mobility/
countermobility, thus impacting surface strength, creating barriers to movement, and/or at times allowing
movement over normally inaccessible terrain.
Geotechnical Engineering

Geotechnical engineering research focuses on the strength and behavior of natural materials at a variety of
scales. Soil is the dominant surficial material of terrain and a highly heterogeneous material that usually is
distributed both horizontally and vertically in a nonuniform manner. Its strength and deformation properties
are highly variable due to both the intrinsic heterogeneity of soil formation processes and moisture content
over small spatial scales. Because nearly all Army operations take place on the Earth’s surface, a thorough
understanding of the physical character of soil and its behavior under different environmental conditions,
and the development of appropriate constitutive models, is required. Operational mobility and successful
geotechnical engineering rely on a knowledge of the type and distribution of soils at a small scale, as well as an
understanding of the physical properties and behavior of different soil types under different environmental
conditions. Research on soil dynamics and structural mechanics is focused on the nonlinear response of
deformable soils to transient loadings by vehicles, constitutive behavior of geological/structural materials to
weapons effects, a determination of the response of granular materials to loading, and the failure mechanisms
of pavement systems. Physics–based principles and quantitative approaches are needed to provide predictive
estimates of soil behavior and to model the process of vehicle–terrain interaction. There is a special emphasis
on the cold/alpine regions, where research is directed toward the physics, mechanics, and dynamics of snow,
ice, and frozen ground in the context of the impacts of winter conditions on most equipment and soldier
activities.
In the context of the Army’s mission of environmental stewardship there is a need for basic research related
to environmental quality. Concern about environmental damage that has resulted from military activities
requires improved technological capabilities for the characterization, analysis, and remediation of
contaminated sites. Important in this context is research that addresses the response of the landscape to
modification, research which seeks to understand the fundamental nature of subsurface flow and mass
transport, and research into improved technologies for site characterization that would provide insight into
the character of the near subsurface environment without recourse to conventional drilling. (See
Hydrodynamics and Surficial Processes and Geotechnical Engineering topics above.)
Terrestrial sciences research is directly supporting current Army Science and Technology Objectives (STOs)
in Vehicle–Terrain Interaction, Digital Terrain Data Generation and Update Capability, and Conservation.
The complexity of the terrestrial environment can be a positive factor that the warfighter can leverage to
operational/tactical advantage, when the features and physical processes occurring therein are understood at
a fundamental level. Improved topographic and terrain information and an improved understanding of the
physical nature and dynamic behavior of the surface environment—particularly regarding possible impacts
on the simulating, planning and execution of military operations—can be a dramatic force multiplier.
Knowledge about the detailed character of a terrain and a capability to estimate when and where specific
physical events or conditions will occur can be a great tactical advantage, in terms of both operational
capability and preparedness. For example, an understanding of vehicle–terrain interactions is necessary for
mobility modeling, an ability to remotely estimate precipitation and/or snowmelt infiltration and runoff is
necessary to forecast hydrologic stage for river crossing operations, and an ability to predict sea–state
conditions and nearshore morphology is essential to successful logistics–over–the–shore operations.

Research in support of the environmental stewardship mission will lead to the Army conducting its activities
in concordance with federal statutes, the cleanup of contaminated sites on military installations,
well–managed and sustainable training lands natural and the preservation of cultural resources on military
installations.

a. Strategy
Military biomedical research is concerned with sustaining warfighter capabilities in the face of extraordinary
battle and nonbattle threats through the preservation of combatants’ health and optimal mission capabilities.
Basic biomedical research focuses on health threats of military importance, supporting the DoD mission to
provide health support and services to U.S. armed forces. The Army mission differs from that of other large
national and international medical research programs, as well as that of the private sector. The National
Institutes of Health, for example, focus primarily on diseases affecting the U.S. civilian population. Similarly,
private industry is driven by civilian disease demographics and profit incentives. In contrast, military research
is oriented to the unique health threats posed by weapons of mass destruction, and by the unusual
geographic, environmental, and operational environments in which the Army must function. Recognizing
the large investment in basic biomedical sciences within the civilian sector, the Army positions its biomedical
basic research programs to exploit, rather than sustain, the medical technology base. A variety of cooperative
agreements with industry and other government agencies play an integral role in this strategy (Chapter VII).
Efforts are intensively managed to push technologies toward transition. Joint coordination and cooperation
within and among various functional areas prevent duplication of effort and are accomplished through the
Armed Services Biomedical Research Evaluation and Management (ASBREM) Committee and its
subordinate joint technology coordinating groups.
Medical basic research programs ensure that cutting–edge scientific advances are fully and effectively
integrated into resolution of military–unique challenges with the four functional areas of medical capability
most critical to maintaining effective medical technological superiority: (1) infectious diseases of military
importance; (2) combat casualty care; (3) Army operational medicine; and (4) medical CB defense. This
functionally aligned research investment ensures against technological surprises, manmade or evolutionary,
that could overwhelm medical countermeasures to threats to the health and performance of our armed forces.
Basic research in infectious diseases of military importance concentrates on prevention, diagnosis, control,
and treatment of infectious diseases affecting readiness or deployment. Molecular biology will facilitate
rational design and discovery of vaccines and prophylactic drugs to prevent illness, new vaccine delivery
systems, and rapid diagnostic tests based on genetic probes. Special emphasis will be placed on sequencing
the genomes of disease–causing organisms, characterizing interactions between pathogenic organisms and
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec5c10.htm（第 1／9 页）2006-09-10 23:01:22

their hosts, and on DNA–based vaccine strategies that offer potential for addressing multiple threat agents.
Basic research in combat casualty care focuses on the biological responses to traumatic conditions, especially
such conditions as low blood flow and poor oxygen delivery that occur following heavy blood loss. These
studies identify potential diagnostic and prognostic indicators and sites for medical intervention and
contribute to the development of suitable models of injury that can be used to evaluate drugs, biologicals,
devices, and medical techniques that may be beneficial in immediate treatment, resuscitative surgery, or
critical care during sustained evacuation. Emphasis is also placed on developing signal–processing techniques
and models of physiological response that can be integrated into intelligent life–support systems.
Basic research within the Army operational medicine functional area provides an understanding of the
pathophysiology of environmental and occupational threats affecting soldier health and performance. These
threats include extreme climatic or terrestrial environments, the rigors of military operations themselves (e.g.,
continuous operations, deployment stress), and system–associated health hazards (e.g., electromagnetic or
nonionizing radiation, noise, vibration, blasts, and toxic chemical byproducts). Most products in this
functional area are informational and serve as guidelines for materiel and combat developers (e.g., exposure
standards for noise or vibration, work–rest cycles), but advances in neurosciences and molecular biology
may lead to medical products that reduce susceptibility to fatigue or injury. Basic research must keep pace
with the hazards of future weapons systems and doctrinal solutions as they are developed. Research will
include the analysis of changes in visual performance in response to operational stressors to improve the
design of displays and operator selection criteria, investigation of biomarkers that can indicate exposure to
hazardous (nonthreat) chemicals, and identification of nutritional and pharmacological strategies that may
reduce the incidence and severity of altitude–related injuries.
Medical CB defense focuses on military threat agents of biological or chemical origin. Medical biological
defense basic research focuses on biochemical, immunological, or microbiological characterization of
biological warfare threat agents and toxins; understanding of disease processes caused by them; identification
of the mechanisms of protective immunity; and discovery and characterization of suitable model systems.
Basic research in medical chemical defense provides an understanding of the pathophysiology of threat
agents and elucidates threat agent mechanisms of toxicity so that rational countermeasure strategies directed
against those threats can be designed. Research is ongoing to identify methods of stimulating host
immunologic protection against a broad spectrum of biological warfare agents, rather than protection against
specific agents. Also under investigation are medical diagnostics based on DNA analysis, bioengineered
vaccines with multiple immunogenic properties, and approaches to block the actions of biological threat
agents on target receptor sites. Reduction of incapacitating effects caused by chemical warfare agents remains
a high priority research area, drawing on advances in molecular biology to develop more effective and less
debilitating medical countermeasures. Although present approaches are showing promise for prevention of
nerve agent toxicity, molecular biological approaches may also provide safe and effective prophylaxes and
treatments for the effects of blister agents.

These basic research programs provide the foundation for medical technological superiority in support of the
National Military Strategy. Figure V–16 illustrates the impact that biomedical research can have on
warfighting capability. In peace, medical technological superiority is a critical element of deterrence, bolsters
confidence of our coalition partners, and is the foundation of soldier readiness. In crisis, medical
technological superiority ensures that threats to the health of the force are not a limiting factor on military
options normally available to the National Command Authority. Military health care delivery also enables
superior performance in a variety of operations other than war, providing humanitarian assistance, disaster
relief, and nation building, which contributes to national and regional stability. In war, it amplifies individual
combat effectiveness, minimizes casualties, and diminishes death and disability rates among those who
become casualties.
Figure V-16. Basic Research in Military Medicine

a. Strategy
Basic research in the biosciences greatly increases our ability to understand and manipulate those aspects of
the biological world that impact soldier sustainment and survival, and to identify and characterize biological
materials and processes for future exploitation in materiel systems. In order to plan and execute high quality
research relevant to Army needs in the biological sciences, an ARO Life Sciences Program Coordination and
Planning Group including scientists from ARO, ARL, Army RDECs, Medical Research and Materiel
Command (MRMC), and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) was established. Functioning as an advanced
planning process team, this group developed a strategy for focusing research program activity in the
biosciences to emphasize an appropriate balance between (1) capture of breakthrough scientific
opportunities from the biological sciences research community, and (2) alignment with Army and DoD
science and technology objectives, and support of Army current and future demonstrations and fielded items
where applicable. While aimed at enabling novel capabilities, program efforts focus on providing the means

to increase economic and environmental affordability in Army materiel production, on lessening the logistics
burden, and on preventing the deleterious effects of chemical, biological, and physical agents from interfering
with Army operations. Implementation of this strategy involves support of basic research in a number of
subdisciplines including, but not limited to biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology and genetics, cell
biology, microbiology, physiology and pharmacology, encompassing studies at the molecular, cellular, and
systems level.
Basic Research in Biotechnology
Basic research in biotechnology is directed toward fundamental studies that have as their goal the generation
of new knowledge relevant to application of cell derived tools to biological production processes. These
studies seek to expand our understanding of biological macromolecular interactions. They provide
information on gene expression and its regulation, on enzyme mechanisms and on the general nature of
biological catalysis and metabolic pathways, and on other forms of subcellular chemical processing.
Optimization of Physical Principles
Optimization of physical principles in biological systems has as its main objective the discovery and
description of novel theoretical principles and mechanisms, or materials with extraordinary properties, from
biological sources (i.e., lessons from nature). The aim is to identify and characterize, as completely as
possible, those biological processes and structures that might be used directly in, or provide conceptual
models for, development of engineered systems with potential for military application.
Physiology and Performance
Physiology and performance provides for basic research on biological response and adaptation to
environmental signals, and strategies that organisms use to survive adversity. Research efforts seek to uncover
strategies for limiting performance degradation during military operations, some of which place
unprecedented physiological demands on the soldier. Research issues concerning improvements in soldier
sustainment are addressed here as well, including those dealing with innovative technology for rations.
Biodegradation
Biodegradation addresses the identification and characterization of cells and cell systems capable of breaking
down materials relevant to Army activities. It includes attempts at better understanding the mechanisms
underlying biodegradative processes in normal, extreme, and engineered environments, and the properties of
materials that make them susceptible or resistant to biological attack. Knowledge gained applies to
bioremediation of toxic wastes at military sites as well as to protection of military materiel from
biodeterioration.

Defense Against Chemical and Biological Agents
Defense against chemical and biological agents focuses on basic biosciences research on (1) mechanisms of
enzymatic or enzyme–mimetic catalysis for detoxification of threat agents, (2) the modes of action of
potential agents on physiological targets, with implications both for biologically based concepts for detection
of threat agents and for protection based on a better understanding of agent–target interaction, and (3) rapid
identification of biologicals using novel analytical techniques.
The potential for use of cellular genetic and biochemical manipulation in biotechnology for economically
favorable and environmentally benign manufacturing processes and for bioremediative strategies is great.
Biosciences research will enable metabolic engineering and bioprocessing to make significant contributions
to Army and DoD missions and to the commercial sector for products and processes for off the shelf use by
the military.
Research on biomolecular materials and processes enables the discovery of novel theoretical principles and of
products with extraordinary properties. These provide insight into the foundations of such phenomena as
self–assembly, molecular recognition, catalysis, and energy transfer. Understanding will lead to unique
military, industrial, and consumer applications in such areas as sensors, smart materials, robotics,
low–observable technology, and biomimetic processing for composites. Likewise, the biological world offers
many examples of exquisitely integrated signal transduction and multimodal information processing.
Fundamental knowledge pertaining to how biological systems accomplish this will continue to have
substantial impact on the design of engineered information systems.
Attempts to better understand the genetic and biochemical mechanisms in diverse strategies of adaptation
that organisms use to survive harsh environments or adverse conditions offer the hope of providing the
soldier a means for coping with physiological stresses. Studies in food science provide the means to better
understand nutrient conversion for cellular energy and neurotransmitter function, and to enable control of
microbial growth and stabilization of structural integrity during food processing, contributing not only to
improved soldier satisfaction and enhanced long–term acceptability of combat rations but also to improved
soldier performance and endurance.
In general, these and other studies show great promise in terms of building a foundation for a number of
emerging technologies (see Figure V–17).

Figure V-17. Technologies Emerging from Biological Sciences
a. Strategy
The Army behavioral, cognitive, and neural sciences (BCNS) program centers on soldiers in units, and seeks
a scientific understanding of the factors that can enhance or diminish human performance. The research
program is executed by two agencies, the ARI for the Behavioral and Social Sciences and the Human
Research and Engineering Directorate (HRED) of the ARL. Duplication of research is prevented through
frequent meeting of the two agencies. Interservice coordination is effected through Reliance agreements. The
research program is evaluated in the TARA review.
Basic BCNS research addresses the following major topic areas:
• Training research (e.g., learning, memory, skill transfer, simulation, mental models)
• Personnel research (e.g., recruitment, classification, assignment, societal issues)
• Leadership research (e.g., development, skills, social structures)
• Visual processes
• Auditory processes
• Stress and cognitive processes (e.g., stress, psychophysiology, endurance)
• Soldier interface research (e.g., human computer interaction).
The training research program provides data, models, and theories to better understand how individuals
learn and process information. An understanding of cognitive processes is essential to the optimal design of
training programs and, ultimately, the human–systems interface. Several controllable factors influence the
speed at which an individual learns. Other factors can influence the rate at which trained skills are forgotten.

Yet another set of factors significantly influence the ability of the individual to transfer skills learned under
one set of conditions, such as in a simulator, to slightly different conditions, such as in using real equipment.
Results from this research are used to develop effective technologies for training soldiers. Effective training is
defined by its cost, the permanence of the training, and its ability to transfer to real equipment under realistic
job conditions.
The goal of the personnel research program is to provide an understanding of the principles that underlie
successful applied personnel research. The formation and maintenance of attitudes underlie recruitment,
family opinion of the Army, and personal opinions and behavior relevant to diversity issues. Aptitudes
underlie issues related to selection and assignment of personnel. Results from this research are used for
additional applied research and often have direct implications for policy.
Research in the elements of leadership provides knowledge both on the essentials of successful leadership
performance and the ability to develop effective training of leadership skills. The history of warfare has many
examples of how seemingly less effective forces have prevailed in battle as a result of more effective leadership.
Effective leadership includes the ability to manage others, coordinate activities, inspire a group, train
individuals and teams, and make decisions.
The goal of the research program in visual processes is to better understand visual and related processes such
as divided attention, particularly as they impact on the use of head–mounted displays. There are several
unique Army issues related to the use of head–mounted displays caused by the demands of task conditions
and performance. This research will also support the Army’s increasing emphasis on night operations,
teleoperations, and the training and battlefield control systems afforded by advances in distributed interactive
simulation. A better understanding of visual processes is needed if the Army is to effectively exploit advances
in optics and infrared technologies.
Research in the auditory processes provides the knowledge to protect, support, and extend soldiers’ auditory
capability on the battlefield. The battlefield provides a unique challenge for audition. High noise levels and
impulse noise that threaten auditory sensitivity compete with low level sound signals that provide important
information to the soldier. Well–designed human–equipment interfaces must consider the characteristics of
the auditory system for effective individual utilization of new technologies. The mathematical model of the
ear, being considered as an international standard, allows more complete and timely exploration of these
interactions (see Figure V–18).

Figure V-18. Mathematical Model of the Ear

The stress and cognitive processes research program addresses the issue of how various types of stress affect
individual functions. Stress can result from high rates of physical or mental effort, physical exhaustion, or
emotional response to threat. Although stress is a common response category for different causes, the actual
stress responses and consequences are different in each case. Research is designed to address each type of
stress and its relation to aspects of cognitive and other soldier performance, with the eventual goal of
developing effective remediation strategies (e.g., staffing, training, unit design changes) to offset the often
negative consequences of stress on behavior.
The goal of the research program on soldier interfaces is to better understand the principles that enable the
soldier and teams to manage the vast quantities of data that will flow across the digitized battlefield. This
program, accomplished jointly with industry and universities as part of the federated laboratory project, will
provide the Army with the ability to optimize the human component of battle management and utilize the
information advantage provided by advanced sensors and improved communication.
The overall goal of this research is the optimization of human performance and the human–system interface.
The research is guided by the requirements of the Army about 25 years from now as envisioned by the AAN,
which envisions small teams working relatively independently on a dispersed battlefield. In this environment,
a premium will be placed on soldier competency, initiative, and leadership. The combat effectiveness of the
teams will be enhanced through an effective understanding of the battlefield and the ability to coordinate
precision fire. The AAN vision can be realized through the improved personnel assignment and more
effective training utilizing advanced simulation capabilities. Soldiers will operate equipment more effectively
because of improved interfaces that consider their abilities and expectations. Finally, the confusion and stress

of the battlefield will be controlled through more effective leadership and an improved understanding of the
causes and effects of stress. The link between ARI and HRED research helps ensure that fielded systems are
not just operable but cost effective.

Chapter V D. Summary
D. SUMMARY
The Army basic research program is an integrated in–house and extramural research program. The in–house laboratory programs are driven by
mission needs; the extramural program is chartered to provide a balance between long–term extramural research foci–pursued through
Army–funded academic COEs and industry–led federated laboratories—and unanticipated, more forward–looking research windows of
scientific opportunity—pursued through the single investigator program. ARO and the management at the Army’s laboratories and RD&E
organizations deliberate and coordinate in partnership to establish, implement, and meet overall Army research objectives. Despite receiving
only a small portion of DoD’s basic research budget, the Army derives the maximum return on investment from its research program through its
high degree of integration. Table V–7 summarizes how the scientific research areas described in this chapter support the six SROs defined to date;
Table V–8 depicts how these scientific research areas support the ten technology areas described in Chapter IV.
The research areas described in the preceding sections of this chapter are dynamic and continuously updated. Programs are reviewed by
multiservice organizations, by Army battle laboratory personnel, by peer reviews, and by coordinating groups established for each of the
scientific areas. To illustrate the dynamic nature of the scientific areas, Table V–9 summarizes how certain research areas are receiving new or
increasing emphasis and highlights recent accomplishments.
Much of the research supported by the U.S. Army is undertaken by distinguished scientists and engineers at American colleges and universities,
as detailed in previous sections of this chapter. Not only does the Army benefit from the accomplishments of these people but they themselves
receive honors bestowed on them by their peers. Table V–10 summarizes some of the awards received during the past year by the individuals
shown for their research sponsored by the U.S. Army.
The Army’s science base is an essential foundation for the technology on which the Army’s ability to meet future threats depends. Research for
the Army is performed by a blend of university and in–house components that are uniquely suited to the Army’s special requirements. Because
of the fundamental role of the science base in shaping the Army’s technological future, the Army is committed to strongly support basic research.
Table V–7. Where Scientific Research Areas Support

Strategic Research Objectives
Scientific Research Area Strategic Research Objectives
Biomimetics Nanoscience Smart Mobile Wireless Intelligent Compact

Materials Communications Systems Power
Sources
1.Mathematical
Sciences
2. Computer and
Information Sciences
3. Physics
4. Chemistry
5. Materials Sciences
6. Electronics
Research

7. Mechanical
Sciences
8.Atmospheric
Sciences
11. Biological
Sciences
12. Behavioral,
Cognitive, and
Neural Sciences
Significant impact Some impact
Table V–8. Impact of Basic Research Areas on the Chapter IV Technology Areas
Chapter IV (6.2) Chapter V (6.1) Research Areas
Technology Area
Mathematical Computer Physics Chemistry Materials Electronics Mechanical Atmospheric Terrestrial Medical Biological Behavioral,
Sciences and Science Research Sciences Sciences Sciences Research Sciences Cognitive,
Information and
Sciences Neural
Science
Aerospace
Propulsion and
Power
Air Vehicles
Chemical and
Biological
Defense
Individual
Survivability and
Sustainability
Command,
Control, and
Communications
Computing and
Software
Conventional
Weapons
Electronic
Devices
Electronic
Warfare/
Directed Energy
Weapons
Civil Engineering
and
Environmental
Quality

Battlespace
Environments
Human Systems
Interfaces
Personnel,
Performance,
and Training
Materials,
Processes, and
Structures
Medical and
Biomedical
Science and
Technology
Sensors
Ground Vehicles
Manufacturing
Science and
Technology
Modeling and
Simulation
Significant impact Some impact
Table V–9. Illustrations of the Dynamic Nature of Research Programs

Research Areas New Emphasis Increasing Emphasis Accomplishments
Mathematics and Mathematics of biological/ Hybrid systems Graph partitioner 10 times faster than
Computer Science natural systems state–of–the–art spectral methods
Image analysis
Geometric modeling, dynamic display, and
fast rendering techniques
Numerical methods for stocastic
differential equations
Controllers for dynamic simulations of
human/soldier systems
Physics Image analysis Nanotechnology Conduction via single quantum eigenstates

in coulomb–blockaded quantum dots
Quantum computing
Performance bounds for ATR
Elimination of optical self–focusing by

population trapping
3D wire mesh photonic crystals
Chemistry Dendritic macromolecules Diffusion and permeability in Environmentally friendly solvent/chemical

polymers agent resistant elastomers
Microturbines and
thermophotovoltaics Chemical process modeling Mechanisms of carbon hydrogen bond
oxidation in homogeneous catalysis
Direct oxidation fuel cells
High aspect ratio etching of microturbine
wheels
CB detection
Enhanced chemical agent reactivity of

layered nanoscale metal oxides
Complete hydrodechlorination of 1, 1, 1
trichloroethane and reduction of half
mustard

Materials Science Electroluminescent porous silicon High performance fibers In situ liquid crystal polymer (LCP)/
thermoplastic microcomposites
Molecular–based nanostructures Nonequilibrium processing
Flux–trapped superconducting magnets
Dendrimer polymers (modeling/ Biomimetic processing
simulation) Diffusion–enhanced adhesion
Modulated diamond–like carbon films
High strength, tough microlayered polymer

composites
Electronics Demining Optical control of array antennas Multicarrier direct sequence code division
multiaccess with lower bit error rate
Low energy electronics design for Image analysis and terahertz
mobile platforms electronics First principles simulation using full band
Monte Carlo
Low power electronics with RF
emphasis Field–controlled piezo–tuning of
microdevices
Mechanics Aerothermophysics for theater missile Advanced active control—rotorcraft Fast Floquet theory for computational
defense (TMD) missiles vibration and aeroacoustic coupling determination of a helicopter’s stability in
forward flight
Sensing, actuation, control for High pressure hydrocarbon
advanced engines combustion First planar laser–induced fluorescence
(PLIF) images of shock–initiated
Real–time simulation of multibody combustion in supersonic gas mixtures
Composites in high strain rates
dynamics
Extension of shear band studies into 2D
Damage mechanics
velocity and rate of energy dissipation in
Novel structural damping concepts
moving adiabatic shear bands
Reliability of structures/
First detailed mean and turbulence
materials
measurements in supersonic base flows with
base bleed
Atmospheric and Terrain analysis and visualization Stable boundary layer Theory for turbulent scattering of acoustic
Terrestrial Sciences waves in intermittent turbulence
Landscape process dynamics Acoustic signal variability in turbulent
atmosphere Theory of dynamic drag law for
high–resolution atmospheric boundary
condition
Terrain–vehicle interaction
Development of CB aerosol detector

Ice adhesion and mechanics
(macroscale)
First generation, mathematically rigorous
contact mechanics model for soil tire
interaction
Prototype cone penetrometer system for

in–situ measurements of hydraulic
conductivity
Medical Receptor–targeted drugs and Genetic engineering Oral treatment (arteether) for drug–resistant
antibodies malaria
Microencapsulation of vaccines and
Oxygen free radical scavengers drugs Topical treatment (paramomycin) for
cutaneous leishmaniasis
Malaria Genone Project Performance–enhancing nutrients
Diagnostic skin test for leishmaniasis

Biological Sciences Plant biotechnology Biodegradative microbiology New detection signature for pathogenic
bacteria
Response and adaptation to Biodetection
environmental signals Isolation of genes required for establishing
and maintaining hibernation
Nanoscale biomechanics
Enzymatic functions at extreme
temperatures Crystal structures of gene repressor and its
Biocatalysis
complexes
Incorporation of nonnatural amino acids

into artificial proteins
Behavioral, Cognitive, Perceptual processes Night vision Depth perception cue isolation and
and Neural Sciences enhancement
Attention fixation Long term skill retention
Determined role of commitment to
performance
Multimodal interfaces
Table V–10. Some of the Awards Received During the Past Year by Scientists and Engineers
for Research Sponsored by the U.S. Army
Individual Affiliation Award Received
Acton, Prof. S. T. Oklahoma State University Eta Kappa Nu Young Electrical Engineer Award
Aggarwal, Prof. J. Washington University IEEE Computer Society Technical Achievement Award
Bajcsy, Prof. R. University of Pennsylvania National Academy of Engineering
Bancroft, COL W. H. U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command AMSUS Gorgas Medal
Bierman, Prof. P. University of Vermont Geological Society of America Donath Medal
Burke, COL D. S. Walter Reed Army Institute of Research President, American Society of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene
Chlamtac, Prof. I. University of Texas Assoc of Computing Machinery Fellow
Chopra, Prof. I. University of Maryland American Helicopter Society Fellow
Chu, Prof. B. State University of New York, Stony Brook Society of Polymer Science Award, Japan
Cover, Prof. T. M. Stanford University IEEE Richard W. Hamming Medal for 1997
Curl, Prof. R. Rice University Nobel Prize in Chemistry (shared)
Cushman, Prof. J. H. Purdue University American Geophysical Union Fellow
Dunn, Prof. B. University of California, Los Angeles Allied Sponsored Research Award; Fellow, American
Ceramics Society
Fiedler, Prof. F. University of Washington Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award from the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Fields, Prof. L. City University of New York Fellow, American Psychological Association
Fridovich, Prof. I. Duke University Franklin Institute Elliot Cresson Medal
Friedman, Prof. P. University of California, Los Angeles 1996 AIAA Structures Structural Dynamics and Materials
Award
Gessow, Prof. A. University of Maryland American Helicopter Society Lifetime Accomplishment Award
Grenander, Prof. U. Brown University National Academy of Science
Hall, Prof. H. University of Arizona American Chemical Society Cooperative Research Award in
Polymer Science and Engineering
Happer, Prof. W. Princeton University American Physical Society H.P. Broida Prize

Ho, Prof. C. M. University of California, Los Angeles National Academy of Engineering
Honig, Prof. M. Northwestern University IEEE Fellow
Kolb, Dr. C. E. Aerodyne Research Inc. 1997 American Chemical Society Award for Creative
Advances in Environmental Science and Technology
Lakshminaryana, Prof. B. Pennsylvania State University ASME 1996 Fluid Dynamics Award
McIntosh, Prof. R. E. University of Massachusetts National Academy of Engineering
MacKnight, Prof. W. University of Massachusetts 1997 American Chemical Society Polymer Research Award
Montgomery, Prof. W. W. Western Michigan University Geological Society of America Award for Outstanding Student
Research
Pandolf, Dr. K. U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental President–Elect, International Society for Adaptive Medicine
Medicine
Perepezko, Prof. J. University of Wisconsin Minerals, Metals and Materials Society Bruce Chalmers Award
Pope, Prof. G. University of Texas, Austin Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Achievement
Award
Popovic, Prof. University of Colorado, Boulder International Union of Radio Science Koga Award
Rebeiz, Prof G. University of Michigan IEEE Fellow
Rogers, Prof. C. Virginia Polytechnic Institute ASME Fellow
Russell, Prof. T. University of Colorado, Denver Campus Researcher of the Year Award for 1996
Rutledge, Prof. D. California Institute of Technology 1997 IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques Society
Distinguished Educator Award
Schmaljohn, Dr. C. S. U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Dalyrmple–Young Award, American Society of Tropical
Diseases Medicine and Hygiene
Segal, Prof. D. University of Maryland Presidential appointee to the Board of Visitors, United States
Military Academy (USMA)
Sirignano, Prof. W. Univ of California, Irvine Combustion Institute Egarton Gold Medal
Smalley, Prof. R. Rice University Nobel Prize in Chemistry (shared)
Smith, Prof. J. A. Princeton University University Engineering Council Teaching Award for 1996
Tsvankin, Prof. I. Colorado School of Mines Society of Exploration Geophysicists Virgil Kaufman Gold
Medal

Chapter VI
Infrastructure
A major element of the Army strategy for military technology is a strong, viable in–house research capability.
Laboratories and research, development, and engineering centers (RDECs) are the key organizations
responsible for technical leadership, scientific advancement, and support for the acquisition process. The
organizational structure of the current Army science and technology (S&T) program is illustrated in
Figure VI–1, the funding breakdown by organization is shown in Figure VI–2, and the geographical locations
of research sites are shown in Figure VI–3.
Figure VI-1. Army Science and Technology Organization
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec6.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 23:05:05

Figure VI-2. Army Science and Technology Funding Distribution, FY98

Figure VI-3. Army Research and Development Resources involved in Science and Technology
The Army is committed to maintaining world–class research, development, and testing facilities. We equip
these facilities with modern equipment and hire and retain personnel capable of utilizing the tools provided.
This infrastructure is committed to meeting the developmental needs of the land combat force and providing
for the effective transfer of developing technologies to the civil as well as military sectors.
The Army continues a multifaceted approach to support and maintain its infrastructure. Appropriated funds
are used to construct, purchase, and maintain unique equipment and facilities. As appropriate, equipment
items or facilities that are developed during a specific program are retained and modified to meet additional
R&D needs. The Army continues to expand modeling and simulation (M&S) capacities to reduce costs of
materiel development, improve safety, and shorten developmental schedules. Finally, the Army leverages the
facility investments of external organizations by sharing or otherwise using those facilities that contribute to
Army objectives.
The Army’s supporting R&D infrastructure consists of (1) the federated laboratory initiative, (2) physical
facilities and equipment, (3) distributed simulation, (4) modeling/software/testbeds, (5) information
technology/communications, and (6) personnel.
This chapter addresses these capabilities at Army installations and those available to the Army through
working relationships with other organizations. Examples of successful operations and descriptions of how
the Army has benefited are presented. Also highlighted are Army plans to enhance and improve existing
capabilities through investment and leveraging.

Chapters III through V outline what the Army plans to accomplish in terms of science, technology, and
development to meet the Army’s future warfighting needs. How well this is accomplished depends largely on
the ability of management to apply state–of–the–art scientific tools, equipment and facilities, and personnel
resources in meeting the stated goals.
Keeping the infrastructure up to date demands a monetary investment that is consistent with the needs of the
materiel, combat, operational and training development communities. It also involves internal investment in
S&T to provide added technology to meet Army modernization objectives. The Science and Technology
Objectives (STOs) in Volume II enhance our ability to support materiel development and support advances
in gaming and modeling battlefield operations and doctrine.

Chapter VI. Sections A, B
A. Federated Laboratory Initiative
The Army Research Laboratory (ARL) instituted the federated laboratory concept in FY95. The federated
laboratory initiative is a unique combination of the best features of the government and private sectors.
Chapters V and VII provide more detail on federated laboratories.
B. Physical Facilities and Equipment
1. Physical Plant
The Army has invested in special facilities that range from small, uniquely designed, state–of–the–art
laboratories such as the Corps of Engineers’ Ice Engineering Laboratory to large–scale facilities using
sophisticated instrumentation required to measure and support the evaluation of myriad system prototypes
and weapon systems under development, such as those at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG).
The Army Research Office (ARO), a part of the Army Materiel Command (AMC), but located in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, is dedicated to promoting basic research. Its proximity to Duke University,
North Carolina state University, and the University of North Carolina facilitates its mission.
Many facilities have been developed in partnership or under a leveraging agreement with other services,
government organizations, industry, or academia.
The Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM) is collocated with the Naval Air
Warfare Training Systems Division. STRICOM, the Navy command, the University of Central Florida’s
Institute for Simulation and Training, and many local defense contractors make Orlando, Florida, a center of
the Department of Defense simulation activities.
ARL is continuing to upgrade facilities to accommodate consolidations and incoming R&D activities that are
relocating under the 1991 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission decision. Construction at
Aldephi Laboratory Center will accommodate the mandated BRAC91 relocation of functions from White
Sands Missile Range, New Mexico; Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; and Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
The total construction program will add approximately 320,000 square feet to the installation at a cost of $77
million. The $60 million physical sciences building will house the sensor and electronic device personnel
relocating from Fort Monmouth, the Sensors Directorate relocating from Fort Belvoir, and the advanced
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec6a_b.htm（第 1／8 页）2006-09-10 23:07:06

simulation and high–performance computing (ASHPC) directorate.
The R&D computer center will allow the ASHPC directorate to connect with the high–performance and
simulation computers located at APG. Completion of the physical sciences building is scheduled for July
1998. The recently completed, high–bay facility accommodates the Information Science and Technology
Directorate’s research in atmospheric science. It provides loading, transfer, and testing capabilities of special
meteorological field research equipment.
Construction at APG includes a materials research facility, out–of–laboratory facility, and the target assembly
and storage facility. The recently completed Materials Research Facility (MRF) supports a wide range of basic
material research as well as research by other defense, government, and private agency customers.
The out–of–laboratory facility provides for electromagnetic pulse survivability and vulnerability analysis and
testing capabilities for all of DoD. Vulnerabilities are found through exposure to low–level fields and then
verified with current injection devices.
The Target Assembly and Storage Facility at APG accommodates the assembly and storage of classified
targets and also provides the specialized capability to work with heavy–metal armor such as depleted
uranium.
The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) operates or funds several support capabilities
that enhance Army S&T with data and information derived from assessments, analyses, experiments, and
tests of both strategic and tactical systems. The Space and Missile Defense Battle Laboratory (SMDBL) has a
high–performance computing distribution center consisting of the Advanced Research Center (ARC) and
the Simulation Center (SC), both in Huntsville, Alabama. These centers are contractor–operated facilities
that consist of government–owned, general–purpose application development processors that provide a
wide range of architectures. These resources can be configured to support a variety of experiments and
developmental activities. Over 600 scientists and engineers perform computationally intensive tasks such as
investigating nuclear optical and radar system effects, optical signature codes, and computational fluid
dynamics codes.
The Edgewood Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ERDEC) maintains surety agent research
facilities to support the Army’s chemical and biological defense (CBD) programs. The ERDEC laboratories,
equipped with security measures, fume hoods, and exhaust filtration units, perform research and product
acceptance work with highly toxic materials. Analogous facilities for investigating medical countermeasures
are found at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense (USAMRICD). The Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Laboratory is the only U.S. facility certified to work with chemical surety materials. It
identifies agents, degradation products, and impurities. The collocation of these facilities reduces duplication
of effort and administrative costs generated by the particularly sensitive nature of the stored and handled
products.
At the Communications–Electronics Command (CECOM), the RDEC has a dynamic facility that can be

rapidly reconfigured to replicate existing and evolving tactical command, control, communications, and
intelligence/electronic warfare (C3I/EW) battlefield environments. The Digital Integrated Laboratory (DIL)/
testbed enables comprehensive evaluations of prototypes, evolutionary system developments, new
technologies, commercial products, and systems interoperability. It interfaces with the battle laboratories
supporting Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs) and advanced warfighting experiments (AWEs),
field sites, contractor testbeds, and simulations staffed with technical engineering experts. The DIL is a
fundamental component for systems engineering and integration that focuses on battlefield intelligence,
surveillance, situational awareness, combat identification, targeting, and battle damage assessment. External
sites connected to the DIL include:
• Battle command battle laboratories at Fort Gordon, Georgia, and Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
• Army battle command systems (ABCS) laboratory, Fort Monmouth.
• Joint Interoperability Test and Technology Integration Center, Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
The virtual prototyping infrastructure at the U.S. Army Tank–Automotive Research, Development, and
Engineering Center (TARDEC) is revolutionizing the military ground vehicle development process. The
facility demonstrates distributed virtual prototyping activities to integrate and interface advanced concepts in
mobility, survivability, electronics, lethality, command and control, design, and manufacturing into any
phase of a system. These activities support numerous ATDs and AWEs. The virtual prototyping facility
includes :
• VEtronics simulation and integration laboratories

• Survivability Technology Laboratory
• Virtual Mockup Facility
• Software Engineering Laboratory
• Signature Laboratory
• Applied Engineering Laboratory
• Physical Simulation Laboratory
• Armor Integration Laboratory.
2. Facility Consolidation
Major S&T elements in ARL and RDEC activities are also consolidated for efficiency and to accommodate
BRAC decisions. Pursuant to BRAC93, five areas of the disestablished Belvoir RDEC have been reassigned to
TARDEC. About half have been relocated to Warren, Michigan. New laboratories for water purification
opened in 1997.
3. Facility Modernization
Changes in technology and its application to solving Army problems make it necessary to upgrade S&T
facilities.

Phase I of construction has been completed on a facility that will enable the Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research (WRAIR) to vacate the substandard converted classroom building it has occupied since 1923.
WRAIR will be located in a state–of–the–art facility for medical research and development missions of
WRAIR and the Naval Medical Research Institute (NMRI). Planned for a staff of 850 and costing $147.3
million, the new facility will be in the Forest Glen section of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Silver
Spring, Maryland. Locating the laboratory there allows it to be about 20 percent smaller than if it were built
elsewhere.
The new building (Figure VI–4) will have a below–ground, self–contained animal facility; three floors above
ground for laboratories, offices, and research activities; and a fully filtered, nonrecirculating air system.
Laboratories and scientists’ offices, combined with a between–floors utility distribution system, provide
maximum flexibility to accommodate current and future military medical research and development.
Figure VI-4. Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Facility Planned for 1999
The new laboratory’s total area will be nearly 10 percent less than is currently available but that will be offset
by an improved floorplan. The space per occupant and construction cost per unit area are below national
norms. With the opening of this facility, planned for 1999, military medicine will finally have a
state–of–the–art facility. It will allow WRAIR and NMRI to respond to emerging biomedical threats
throughout the 21st century.
Biological containment facilities at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases
(USAMRIID) have been renovated. USAMRIID’s biosafety level 4 (BL4) laboratory is one of two maximum
containment facilities in the United States. The laboratories incorporate the highest level of engineering to
protect workers and prevent environmental release of extremely hazardous infectious organisms. The
USAMRIID laboratories are a critical national asset and are frequently called on to support U.S. and
international civilian health authorities in characterizing unknown diseases, such as Hanta virus in the
southwestern United States and the Ebola virus in Africa.
A human biomechanics laboratory has been established as a joint effort between the Natick Research,
Development, and Engineering Center (NRDEC) and the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental

Medicine (USARIEM). This facility allows for world–class research concerning soldiers’ strength,
endurance, and load–carrying capabilities.
The trichamber altitude facility at USARIEM permits studying human performance at extremely high
terrestrial altitudes. This facility has been enhanced to a fully computerized, environmentally controlled
chamber, man–rated at 35,000 feet, that is capable of supporting long–term, live–in studies with complete
metabolic monitoring.
Joint Precision Strike (JPS) and the Integration and Evaluation Center (IEC) at the Topographic Engineering
Center (TEC) uses wideband and tactical communications links during live and simulated exercises to
support Army precision strike training, contingency planning, and survivable armed reconnaissance
experimentation. The IEC provides control, data collection, environment and system simulation, and
presentation/visualization support for JPS and acts as the central hub of the demonstration network. As a
result of a major demonstration in the IEC, the Rapid Terrain Visualization (RTV) Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstration (ACTD) for rapid mapping and terrain visualization was developed.
4. Strategy for Facility Upgrades
Upgrading S&T facilities requires a judicious mix of renovation and new construction to ensure that the best
use is made of facilities funds. As yearly plans are prepared, existing facilities are examined to determine if
extensive modifications are required to carry out future plans. An early decision must be made between
renovation, which takes a portion of the existing plant out of operation for a period of time, and new
construction.
The review process involves a number of agencies to ensure that all factors are taken into consideration:
• Can the activity be relocated to other space available at a lower cost than new construction?
• Can the task be passed to another S&T organization that has manpower skills and space to
perform the work under a cooperative memorandum of understanding?
• Can government elements outside DoD perform the work in lieu of expanding an Army
facility?
• Would the effort be better performed outside the government in a federally funded research
and development center (FFRDC) or industry?
The final decision within the Army rests with the laboratory director, the supporting major command, the
Department of the Army staff, and, ultimately, the Secretary of the Army. There are outside reviews by DoD,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress.
5. Shared Facilities
The Army makes extensive use of facilities controlled by other government organizations. Following are a few
examples.

Facilities Shared With NASA. The Army has collaborated with NASA for 20 years in crash damage
simulation, testing, and evaluation. Flight dynamics, handling qualities, and crew station design human
factors are studied by NASA and Army scientists at the Ames Research Center.. The CECOM RDEC
Command and Control Systems Integration Directorate and NASA have formed a Joint Research Project
Office at NASA Langley, Virginia. The Army and NASA are working on controls and displays, primarily for
aviation, but with applications to all platforms.
Army Collaboration With Academia. The Armaments Research, Development, and Engineering Center
(ARDEC) has developed an in–house electric gun facility, the Electric Armaments Research Center (EARC)
(Figure VI–5). The Institute for Advanced Technology was established at the University of Texas with a
research capability in electromechanics and hypervelocity physics. The center has collaborated with facilities
at the University of Texas–Austin, the EARC, and the Defense Special Weapons Agency’s (DSWA) Green
Farm Test Facility. After laboratory tests and development, the electric gun will be range tested at the new
electric gun test facility at Yuma Proving Ground (YPG).
Figure VI-5. Electric Gun Concepts are Evaluated Using Unique Armament Test Facilities
ARL provides overall technical and contractual oversight for the Army High–Performance Computing
Research Center (AHPCRC) at the University of Minnesota, with assistance from Purdue, Howard, and
Jackson State universities.
The High–Energy Laser System Test Facility, managed by SMDC, is a tri–service facility with the Navy and
Air Force. The sea lite beam director (SLBD) is the only one capable of transmitting a high–energy laser
beam, and provides extremely high pointing and tracking accuracies for near–Earth–orbit object tracking.
6. Ranges

As environmental issues become more prominent, M&S consumes a larger portion of the S&T budget. Some
range testing must precede development. One S&T range is the large blast thermal simulator being built by
DSWA at White Sands Missile Range for testing combined thermal radiation and airblast nuclear weapons
effects (Figure VI–6). This facility is the result of a cooperative program between the Army and the Defense
Nuclear Agency (DNA). ARL recently completed a test range facility for advanced aerospace vulnerability. It
is an aircraft and missile vulnerability/lethality test facility. It is particularly well suited for congressionally
mandated live–fire tests of Army aircraft, missiles, and antiair weapons.
Figure VI-6. Large Blast/Thermal Simulator
Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR), Marshall Islands, Pacific, is a major range and test facility base managed by
SMDC for DoD. KMR supports strategic and theater missile defense research and technology validation
programs for the Army and the Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO), as well as strategic offensive
weapons system development and operational testing conducted by the Air Force and Navy. KMR assists in
tracking and monitoring NASA space missions and provides deep–space tracking for the U.S. Space
Command.
The Army Missile Optical Range at the Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) supports laser and laser
radar measurements of selected material targets.
7. Specialized Equipment
The Army has invested substantially in sophisticated special–purpose items, such as those described below.
Several Army laboratories and centers have molecular beam epitaxy equipment to grow new semiconductor
device structures with atomic dimensions. This technology applies to electro–optical sensor materials with
higher resolution and greater sensitivity and signal processing devices with higher speed and greater
throughput capability.
ARL’s ion implantation facility (Figure VI–7) provides a state–of–the–art capability for developing and
demonstrating ion surface treatments and coating techniques for Army materiel such as machine tools and

parts that are subject to corrosive or high–wear environments.
Figure VI-7. Ion Implantation Facility
ERDEC has a scanner and a laser alignment system to generate a three–dimensional (3D), digitized surface
contour of a human head. Data can be transferred to a numerical control cutting machine to generate a
model of a head. This is used for anthropomorphic assessments related to developing CB respirators.

Chapter VI. Section C
C. Distributed Interactive Simulation
DoD S&T strategy places strong emphasis on "synthetic environments." The distributed interactive
simulation (DIS) initiative provides the lead for coordinating and integrating triservice, Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) activities
toward an underlying open architecture, standards, databases, and general–purpose designs necessary to
achieve seamless synthetic environments. Through the DARPA–established defense simulation internet
(DSI), a wide array of M&S capabilities at multiple facilities can be linked to form synthetic environments
ranging in scale and resolution for a variety of uses (Figure VI–8).
Figure VI-8. Defense Siluation Internet (September 1995)

Synthetic environments bring developers, scientists, engineers, manufacturers, testers, analysts, and
warfighters together to address and solve their most pressing problems. Near–term efforts are using and
expanding current capabilities to support S&T demonstrations and initial capabilities for Army Training and
Doctrine Command (TRADOC) battle laboratories. Experience gained from these activities evolve into new
methodologies for evaluation and evolution of concepts and requirements in a joint task force and combined
arms battlefield context with soldiers in the loop. Advances in capabilities for creating common synthetic
environments are coordinated through STRICOM.

Seamless synthetic environments are achieved through the integration of simulation and modeling
techniques, technology, capabilities, and processes.
Through the design and analysis of concepts in controlled synthetic environments, distributed interactive
simulation offers increased savings in time and money by reducing the need for expensive mockups and field
testing. Synthetic environments enhance the possibility for exploring various design options in full battlefield
context, allowing workers to design and assess concepts that could not be explored using traditional
approaches because of safety, environmental, and cost considerations. Distributed interactive simulation can
be used Army wide to accelerate research and to permit advances in technology to be brought to the field in a
timely fashion, helping to assure technological superiority on the battlefield.
1. Three Integral Components
The Defense Science Board (DSB) task force on simulation, readiness, and prototyping defines simulation as
"everything except combat," with three integral components (1) live operations with real equipment in the
field, (2) constructive wargames, models, analytical tools, and (3) virtual systems and troops in simulators
fighting on synthetic battlefields. While the first two components are technically mature, the virtual
component is evolving. Virtual capability is improving through technology advances in high–performance
computing, communication, artificial intelligence, and synthetic environment realization.
The Army has adopted an electronic battlefield (EBF). The long–term objective of the EBF concept is to
develop and implement a single, comprehensive environment for operational and technical simulation. The
EBF is designed to support combat development, system acquisition, test and evaluation, operational test and
evaluation, training, mission planning, and rehearsal in Army specific and joint operations (Figure VI–9).
Figure VI-9. Synthetic Environment for Distributed Interactive Simulation
2. Approach

A near–term priority is the advanced distributed simulation (ADS) infrastructure to improve training and
force readiness. It includes:
• High–performance computing.
• Real–time, large–scale networking.
• Data and application software methodologies for interoperability, scalability, and realism.
• Multilevel secure, hierarchical, open architecture standards, interfaces, and products.
To implement these, the Army established the TRADOC battle laboratories, the Army Model and
Simulation General Officer Steering Committee (AMSGOSC) and its collateral organizations, STRICOM,
Force XXI, and the Information Sciences and Technology Directorate (ISTD) within ARL.
TRADOC is the Army’s DIS functional manager and is responsible for the Army–wide integration of DIS
requirements, the DIS master plan, proponency for DIS verification and validation, and prioritization of the
scheduling of DIS facilities.
STRICOM is the Army’s technical agent for DIS technology development and network management.
STRICOM activities include research, development, procurement, and support of simulators, simulations,
and training devices. It also has the DoD lead responsibility for DIS–related standards and protocols and
coordination with industry.
ISTD was formed to put the major battlefield information sciences and technologies under one
organizational umbrella and to focus its work on the Army’s operational information needs for Force XXI
and beyond. This includes all M&S activities in support of the EBF.
The Army established AMSGOSC to oversee DIS and other M&S–related activities from a corporate
perspective. It is cochaired by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Research, Development, and Acquisition), who also cochair the Army Science and Technology Advisory
Group. An expanded Army Modeling and Simulation Executive Committee, cochaired by the Deputy
Under Secretary of the Army (Operations Research) and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans,
provides overall management and has established three groups—the Advanced Simulations Working Group,
the Requirements Generation Working Group, and the AMS Management Plan Working Group. The
working groups are chaired by the AMS Office, which is charged with developing an integrated investment
strategy across the three domains encompassed by the EBF: (1) advanced concepts and requirements
(ACRs), (2) RDA, and (3) training, exercises, and military operations (TEMO) (Figure VI–10). Each has a
domain manager at the Department of the Army Headquarters level, and a domain agent at the major
command level (TRADOC for ACR and TEMO, AMC for RDA). Management and investment plans are
prepared for each domain.

Figure VI-10. DIS Synthetic Environment.

A time and space coherent representation of a battlefield environment measured in terms of human
perception and behavior of those interacting in the environment.
The DIS master plan describes the program currently in place, the envisioned future capabilities, and the plan
to achieve these objectives. The Army established a two–pronged investment strategy for DIS to support
Army training and acquisition (Figure VI–11). The combined arms tactical trainer (CATT) (Figure VI–12)
and the battlefield distributed simulation–developmental (BDS–D) (Figure VI–13) are directed to provide
real–time, man–in–the–loop, synthetic environment simulation capabilities as follows:
Figure VI-11. DIS Electronic Battlefield


Figure VI-12. Close Combat Tactical Trainer
Figure VI-13. BDS-D Program

• Link combat systems, wargame simulations, and manned simulators into a hybrid real/virtual
battlefield environment.
• Provide an open–ended hierarchical architecture with DoD common standards and
protocols.
• Provide a realistic behavioral representation of the battlefield at each echelon.
• Orchestrate a large–scale distributed networking of resources.
The CATT focuses on integrating existing systems, tactics, and doctrine into a combined arms training

environment from vehicle crew through battalion task force. BDS–D is directed toward future systems and
concepts and encompasses all phases of materiel, combat and training developments, and testing. Initial
operational capability for CATT is planned for 1999.
The BDS–D program is developing a distributed simulation capability linking government, university, and
industry sites into an accredited, real–time, warfighter–in–the–loop simulation of the joint and combined
battlefield. Manned simulators on the network embody the operational characteristics of the systems they
represent. The BDS–D includes an evolutionary process and strategy to systematically develop, maintain, and
use technologies and associated hardware and software to achieve the long–term objective of EBF (Figure
VI–13). This program continually exploits the advances from our national ADS S&T developments. The
Army ADS S&T program is focused on technology development for:
• Army–specific requirements to ensure their timely availability to be placed in the BDS–D

process and other simulation applications.
• The electronic battlefield of tomorrow, where advanced, interoperable, distributed
simulations—live, constructive, virtual—at geographically separated locations are connected
to cooperatively form highly realistic synthetic environments.
The DSI (Figure VI–8 above) will be the connecting linkage and provide the high–level connectivity
necessary to accomplish R&D and training goals.

Chapter VI D. Sections D1, D2, D3
D. Modeling/Software/Testbeds
Advances in computer technology have allowed Army engineers and scientists to make increasing use of
models and simulations and save money. When hardware procurement is eliminated because the needed
information can be obtained through simulation, both time and money are saved. In addition,
environmental impacts such as noise and pollutants generated during physical trial and error evaluation are
eliminated. The following sections discuss computer M&S, software technology, physical simulation,
hardware–in–the–loop simulation, combined arms battlefield soldier–in–the–loop simulation, and T&E
simulation.
1. Computer Modeling and Simulation
Computer M&S can generate images of complex data and evaluate experimental conditions and approaches.
Visualization techniques used with complex modeling permit scientists and engineers to exploit new
concepts without the development of costly prototypes. Computer M&S is applicable to a wide range of
technical disciplines as illustrated below.
Human Factors Modeling. ARL’s human performance model program uses JACK, a 3D model developed
by the University of Pennsylvania (Figure VI–14). JACK is used in the Aviation RDEC’s A31 (Army–NASA
Aircrew/Aircraft Integration) program aimed at producing software tools and methods to improve the
human engineering design process for advanced technology crew stations. This approach allows variations of
mission procedures and cockpit equipment to be explored rapidly prior to committing a design to an
expensive hardware simulator.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec6d1_3.htm（第 1／6 页）2006-09-10 23:07:34

Figure VI-14. JACK

JACK, a 3D computer-aided design human figure model, is used to evaluate soldier interactions with weapon
system design concepts.
Armor and Projectile Modeling. High–speed, large memory supercomputers have greatly enhanced our
capabilities in modeling new armor concepts and advanced projectile technology. Recent large–scale
simulations have provided insight into the potential benefits of advanced high–velocity projectiles. Figure
VI–15 illustrates one penetrator concept. The penetrator is composed of a train of segments supported in a
carrier tube. The train–of–segments model is a laboratory version of a segmented projectile that may have
merit for use in future armor systems.

Figure VI-15. Computer Simulations.

Computer simulations of device design and operation can be used instead of costly prototyping and field
tests. The comparison shows the accuracy with which computer simulations can reflect the physical world.
Environmental Modeling. Army tactical operations must take into account their environments. Digital
terrain information and atmospheric information are used in wargames and simulations to determine the
outcome of tactics changes and new equipment introductions. Climate databases provide realism by
projecting different weather conditions into a simulated theater of operations. Weapon systems are evaluated
for effectiveness, taking into consideration target detection probabilities based on climate and terrain masking.
Weapons and Fire Control Modeling. ARDEC at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, has established a DIS node
to determine and show how technology, weapons, and weapon mixes can be used to maximize the
effectiveness of the soldier.
2. Software Technology
DARPA is the sponsor of the Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems (STARS) program to
increase software productivity, reliability, and quality through the adoption of a new software engineering
paradigm called megaprogramming.
STARS is sponsoring megaprogramming demonstration projects on DoD systems within each of the
services. These demonstration projects help quantify the benefits of the megaprogramming paradigm and the

issues involved in transitioning to this new paradigm.
The Communications–Electronics Research, Development, and Engineering Center (CERDEC) has

developed the STARS Laboratory to support the development of domain models and architectures and
reusable assets. The software engineering environment is also used to reengineer C4I weapon system software
to include the integration of domain architectures and assets in the application software.
3. Physical Simulation
Physical simulations are used today in Army research to emulate real–time physical motions of active systems
in the field. In many situations, computer–generated models and simulation systems can interact with
physical simulations to greatly reduce the need for costly and time–consuming field tests of prototypes.
Following are examples of advanced physical simulation facilities operated with computer–generated models
or simulation systems.
The crew station/turret motion base simulator (CS/TMBS) is a full six–degrees–of–freedom (DOF)
laboratory simulator with high–performance capabilities. It can impart a maximum of 6 g acceleration to a
heavy combat vehicle turret weighing up to 25 tons and replicate, via computer control, motions/vibrations
that would be encountered while traveling over rough cross–country terrain. This simulator at TARDEC is
man–rated and approved for occupancy by a crew. The CS/TMBS plays an important role in turret system
development, characterization, and virtual prototyping activities in a variety of combat vehicle programs. The
operation of different azimuth drive motors in a Bradley fighting vehicle turret is shown in Figure VI–16.
Figure VI-16. CrewStation/Turret MotionBaseSimulation.

TheCS/TMBS allows new vehicle turret designs to experience real-world operational environments in a
controlled laboratory setting.
Among the advantages of man–in–the–loop tests in the laboratory are close control of parameters and exact

repeatability of tests for comparing the effect of different components.
The Aviation RDEC Crew–Station Research and Development Facility (CSRDF) supports the evaluation of
new concepts for human–system interactions for advanced rotorcraft. Effects of malfunctions, automation
alternatives, and mission equipment tradeoffs can be conducted in this synthetic environment of 3D visuals,
sounds, and tactile stimuli (Figure VI–17). The degree of realism achieved in such systems can best be
appreciated by seeing a pilot emerge from a laboratory "flight" showing perspiration and other signs of stress.
The CSRDF is used extensively to support the Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate ATD and is one of the primary
simulators used to validate DIS protocols and the BDS–D program. The aviation testbed at Fort Rucker and
the CSRDF have been linked to support Force XXI objectives and are being extended to include
Tank–Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM), line–of–sight antitank (LOSAT), and Sikorsky
Comanche simulators.
Figure VI-17. Rotorcraft Simulator Facility.

Innovative rotorcraft technologies are evaluated for operational compatibility in the rotorcraft simulator
facility.
Another example is the simulator training advanced testbed for aviation (STRATA). Through a cooperative
agreement with the Government of Canada, the Army Research Institute (ARI) developed the STRATA
research simulator to examine the full range of training device and flight simulator training strategies and
tradeoffs and design requirements for future low–cost simulators. STRATA is a dedicated research facility at
ARI’s Fort Rucker field unit for aviation training research. STRATA permits rapid reconfiguration to

emulate training devices with different visual displays, cockpit configurations, aerodynamic models, etc.
STRATA will enable the Army to empirically determine the most effective training strategies using an
affordable mix of live exercises and existing training aids, devices, simulations, and simulators for initial flight
skills.
CECOM’s Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate has developed a facility to support the
development and testing of integrated aircraft and ground vehicle sensors and countermeasures. The
multispectral environmental generator and chamber (MSEG&C) provides 360–degree radar frequency, laser,
infrared, and ultraviolet simulation of air defense radars, surface–to–air missiles (SAMs), top–attack/smart
munitions, and laser threats. Varied individual and integrated protection equipment is used to simulate
ground vehicle and aircraft attitudes. The equipment is instrumented and placed on a computer–controlled
table in the center of an anechoic chamber (Figure VI–18).
Figure VI-18. Multispectral Environmental Generator and Chamber

4. Hardware–in–the–Loop Simulation
Hardware–in–the–loop simulations test types of systems using real hardware and computer simulations,
providing a significant return on investment for the Army.
One example of hardware–in–the–loop simulation is ARDEC’s Ware Simulation Center located at Rock
Island Arsenal, Illinois (Figure VI–19). This simulator provides a realistic emulation of the field environment
that an armament system will encounter. The facility can test weapons using up to 30–mm live or 40–mm
inert ammunition. In addition, the facility’s 6–DOF simulator is a large mount capable of holding weapons,
gun turrets, and vehicle sections weighing up to 10,000 pounds. Programmed vibrations as well as pitch and
yaw motions may be applied to the attached loads while the weapons are test fired in the indoor range.
Figure VI-19. ARDEC’ s Ware Simulation Center.

The center’ s 6-DOF mount allows conceptual and fielded weapons to be
fired in realistic mounting environments to isolate design deficiencies in controlled laboratory conditions.
The AMCOM open–loop tracking complex (OLTC), a computer–automated electro–optical

countermeasure (EOCM) simulation facility, provides electronic warfare analysts the tools for evaluating the
performance and effectiveness of EO air defense missile systems and guidance assembly hardware in the

presence of countermeasures.
CECOM has implemented the Army Interoperability Network (AIN), a nationwide suite of distributed
communications capabilities and services to support interoperability and software development for Army
C4I systems throughout their life cycle. The AIN provides the Army infrastructure for C4I systems to achieve
the objectives of the Army Enterprise Strategy (i.e., battlefield digitization and C4I for the warrior). The AIN
provides rapid engineering support solutions that replicate battlefield configurations by networking dispersed
fielded C4I systems. Current AIN major operational equipment includes the AIN Central Control Facility,
Protocol Assessment Facility, four sites at Fort Monmouth, and remote sites at Fort Leavenworth, Fort Sill,
and Fort Huachuca. A remote site is planned for PEO Armored Systems Modernization at General
Dynamics Land Systems, Warren, Michigan. A transportable AIN node is available to provide
quick–reaction AIN access in situations requiring rapid test support. The AIN is the Army’s infrastructure
for linking the battle laboratories with the RDECs.
5. Combined Arms Battlefield Soldier–in–the–Loop Simulation
Enhanced design architectures and improved battlefield simulation techniques are rapidly growing areas of
Army simulation and modeling capability. The Army leadership has a vision of how the totality of battlefield
simulation technology and techniques can be used throughout the research and acquisition process (Figure
VI–20).
Figure VI-20. Potential Use of Battlefield Simulations Throughout the Research and Acquisition Process
The cornerstone is the BDS–D program, designed to create and maintain a distributed, state–of–the–art
network capability linking government, university, and industry sites into a simulation of the combined and
joint arms battlefield. The BDS–D program is shown in Figure VI–11 above.

Using current and emerging long–haul data communication capabilities to create wide area networks
(WANs), simulation capabilities will be resident at geographically separate sites and linked together to form
much larger synchronized simulation environments. Thus simulation environment can be "packaged" in
sizes and places corresponding to the size and location of actual units for evaluating weapon system, force
development, and training concepts (Figures VI–21 and VI–22).
Figure VI-21. BDS-D Referees.

WithBDS-D, wargame exercise referees can observe training operations
from any vantage point on the battlefield while remaining transparent to the players.
Figure VI-22. BDS-D Training.

BDS-D will give weapon system operators the ability to more
realistically train with non-line-of-sight missile technologies.
Armored Systems Modernization (ASM) is similarly being analyzed under the BDS–D concept. ASM

mobility, weapon station stability, and ride quality, as well as the survivability of all the ASM variants, will be
evaluated in a true combined arms simulation. Anticipated ASM capabilities are being simulated and
evaluated via the BDS–D test bed resources; crew controls and displays for the LOSAT variant of the ASM
family have been prototyped within the BDS–D resources and successfully used to describe valuable human
factors modifications.
6. Test and Evaluation Simulation
Technological progress must be complemented by test and instrumentation facilities, including T&E
simulation, that can measure the technological progress being achieved. Environmental and safety concerns
increasingly impose constraints on T&E facilities. The ability to simulate the physical conditions of the
battlefield for T&E reduces the time to obtain data and cost. Bringing the test environment under laboratory
control provides high–quality, reproducible data that can be recorded and analyzed during the test process.

F. Abbreviations
F. Abbreviations
3D three dimensional
3rd GARD third–generation advanced rotor demonstration
AAN Army After Next

ABCS Army battle command system
AEC airborne electronic combat
AEFCS advanced electronics for future combat system
AI artificial intelligence
ARCAT advanced rotorcraft aeromechanics technologies
ASLP Army Strategic Logistics Plan
ASTMIS Army Science and Technology Management Information
System
ATD advanced technology demonstration
BCID battlefield combat identification
C2 command and control

C3I command, control, communication, and intelligence
C3IEW command, control, communications, intelligence, and
electronic warfare
C4I command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence
CONUS continental United States
CSS close combat support
DBC digital battlefield communications

DoD Department of Defense
EEI essential elements of information
FCS future scout and cavalry system

FCSM future combat system mobility
FDR future digital radio
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/gf.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:07:50

F. Abbreviations
GPS global positioning system
HCI hydrocyanic acid
ICH improved cargo helicopter

IFF identification friend or foe
IHPTET integrated high–performance turbine engine technology
ILS integrated logistics support
IVES intravehicle electronic suite
JTAGG joint turbine advanced gas generator

JTR joint transport rotocraft
JV 2010 Joint Vision 2010
MBMMR multiband multimode radio

MOUT military operations in urban terrain
MTBF mean time between failures
MTBR mean time between replacements
MTTR mean time to repair
MVAUGV machine vision for autonomous unmanned ground vehicle
OCONUS outside continental United States

O&S operation and support
OBID on–board integrated diagnostic system
PEO Program Executive Office

PN precision navigation
POS/NAV position/navigation
R&D research and development

RTV rapid terrain visualization
RDT&E research, development, test and evaluation
RE range extension
RMA Revolution in Military Affairs
RML Revolution in Military Logistics
RPA rotorcraft pilot’s aircraft
RWST rotor–wing structures technology
S&T science and technology

SATCOM satellite communications
SRO strategic research objectives

F. Abbreviations
STAS subsystem technology for affordability and supportability
TMDE test measurement diagnostic equipment

TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command
UGV unmanned ground vehicle

UV ultraviolet

Chapter VI. Sections E, F
E. Information Technology/
Communications
To speed information transfer within the S&T community, substantial improvements have been made in the
supporting communications infrastructure. The explosive growth of microcomputers, software applications,
and networking has permitted more effective use of information in the management of S&T. Reengineering
of workflows will occur as information is shared concurrently among organizations so that products are
speedily delivered with higher quality.
F. Personnel
Approximately 22,000 in–house personnel support the Army R&D mission. Working with a diversified set of
physical resources that range from solid–state physics laboratories to outdoor experimental ranges, these
personnel conduct research, technology, and product support activities for the total Army in medicine, the
life sciences, psychology, physics, engineering, and numerous other fields of science. Microelectronics,
fluidics, and digital computing are only three major examples of technologies in which major advances have
sprung from Army in–house organizations.
To enhance management of the acquisition fruits of the S&T process, an Army Acquisition Corps has been
established, composed of career professionals. Persons committed to this specialized career field are offered
significant educational opportunities to enhance their professionalism.
Demographic projections for college graduates indicate a declining number of engineers and scientists. To
address this national issue, the Army is developing a comprehensive set of policies and plans to recruit, train,
and retain scientists and engineers. These policies include the selective use of demonstration programs to
enhance recruitment, the proper use of long–term fellowships for graduate degrees, and the placement of
individuals in laboratories for hands–on work assignments. Retention is a major issue since technical
personnel often leave for the higher salaries paid by industry and academia. The experimental use of wider
pay bands, special pay, and other OSD and Army initiatives are being studied to remedy this problem.
In response to the April 1994 findings of the DSB Task Force on Laboratory Management, five Army
laboratories were selected for Phase I implementation of an Army S&T personnel demonstration. Five
separate proposals have been approved by the Army, OSD for Civilian Personnel Management, and the
Office of Personnel Management. Organizations involved in the demonstration include ARL, Missile
Command Research and Development Center, the Aviation Command Research and Development Center,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec6e_f.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 23:07:54

Chapter VI. Sections E, F
the Medical Research and Material Command, and the Waterways Experiment Station. Implementation of
the demonstrations began in October 1997. Nearly 9,000 people are involved in the five pilot projects.
These demonstrations are the first major changes to improve the personnel systems specifically tailored to the
Army laboratories. Waivers were submitted to Title V law in hiring flexibility, broadbanding and
classification, pay for performance, automated job classification, and expanded developmental opportunities.
These changes to Title V as well as to DoD and Department of the Army personnel policies will allow the
Army laboratories greater flexibility and authorities to manage and improve staffs. The demonstrations go far
in answering criticisms from the DSB and others that he current system is too slow, puts up administrative
barriers, and is impossible to change.
***
As illustrated in this chapter, the Army is investing in its supporting infrastructure to maintain world–class
S&T capabilities that will meet future Army needs. The Army will continue to use leveraging strategies
wherever possible to interface effectively with other governmental bodies, industry, and academia.
Simulation investments discussed in previous editions of this plan are emerging at just the right time to
support the needs of planners and operators faced with a base–deployed, downsized Army. This investment
is meeting the needs of the TRADOC battle laboratories for planning the Army of the future and providing
the materiel developers with the tools to demonstrate new technologies and operating capabilities in a more
cost–effective way than has heretofore been available.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec6e_f.htm（第 2／2 页）2006-09-10 23:07:54

Chapter VII. Sections A. B
Chapter VII
Technology Transfer
Today’s modernization is tomorrow’s readiness: without it, we risk sending soldiers

into the next war without the technological edge required to obtain decisive victory
with minimum casualties.

Army Chief of Staff
A. ARMY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
The Army technology transfer program seeks to promote the transfer of technology to enhance both the
economic competitiveness of our country and our military capabilities. Army laboratories and centers have a
wealth of technology, advanced facilities, and expertise that can be used for more than national defense. The
Army technology transfer program works in synergy with our national industrial infrastructure to strengthen
both military and economic security. This military–commercial synergy has always been important, but as
military resources decrease with the end of the cold war and as commercial competition replaces military
competition, it becomes critical.
Once the Army sustained a technology and production base that was focused on military needs and isolated
by culture and rules from the civilian commercial world. The Army is no longer able to afford this luxury. In
fact, ending this isolation in some technical areas will enable the Army to exploit commercial technology that
is more advanced than its military counterpart. The Army continuously monitors new developments in the
commercial sector, looking for potential military applications.
In the 1980s, formal technology transfer programs were initiated to apply spin–off from military technology
to benefit the civilian economy. But with the decline of defense funding, changes in the nature of the military
threat, and an increase in the rate of change of commercial technology development, DoD’s emphasis has
evolved to include dual–use and spin–on technology. Dual–use technologies have both defense and
nondefense applications. Spin–on technologies are developed outside the Army, but have military
applications. The potential to bolster civil and military strength through a common production base is being
recognized in DoD and technology transfer is now recognized as essential to DoD’s mission.

This chapter describes various components of the Army technology transfer program, which uses an
exceptionally wide range of management approaches, legal mechanisms, and types of partners.
B. DUAL–USE TECHNOLOGY—
NATIONAL DEFENSE AND ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS
As defense spending declines, we must merge military and civilian technology and production bases
wherever possible. Because dual–use technologies have both defense and nondefense applications, our
military capability gains from the large investment in civilian R&D and production capacity; conversely, our
economic capability gains from military investment (usually in leading–edge technology). Similarly, medical
and environmental capabilities developed for the military have civilian application, and vice versa. Therefore
significant effort is devoted to tailoring our R&D programs so we do not reinvent the wheel in areas where
civilian capability leads, but effectively hand off our advances where they have value to the civilian economy.
This section highlights several programs that are designed to encourage development of dual–use capabilities,
and to hand off those aspects of predominantly military capabilities (technologies, know–how, and facilities)
that have civilian application.
1. Small Business Innovation Research Program
The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program allows the Army to access the innovative
technologies of small, high–technology firms. Using a competitive selection process, the Army SBIR program
supports small high–technology businesses in conducting high quality research on innovative concepts. Of
particular interest are R&D efforts leading to solutions of Army defense–related scientific or engineering
problems that permit the small businesses to commercialize their developed technologies in the private sector.
As mandated by public law, the SBIR program is intended to (1) stimulate technological innovation, (2)
increase small business participation in federal R&D, (3) increase private sector commercialization of
technology developed through federal R&D, and (4) foster and encourage participation in federal R&D by
women–owned and socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses. Firms participating in SBIR
must employ fewer than 500 employees, as defined by the Small Business Administration and must be U.
S.–based, for–profit businesses.
Congressional mandate requires that all federal agencies having an annual extramural R&D budget exceeding
$1 billion must participate in the SBIR program. The SBIR budget is computed according to a certain
percentage of the participant’s extramural R&D budget. For FY97 and thereafter, this percentage is 2.5
percent. The Army SBIR budget for FY97 was $93.7 million and is expected to remain at that level for FY98.
Each year, in cooperation with other DoD components, the Army generates and publishes a set of
high–priority topics in the SBIR solicitation and invites small businesses to submit proposals dealing with
these topics. The SBIR solicitation lists the topic opportunities, defines proposal formats, and states the
proposal evaluation and selection criteria.

The SBIR program is a three–phase program as depicted in Figure VII–1. Phase I determines the scientific or
technical merit and feasibility of proposed concepts and typically takes up to 6 months to complete.
Approximately 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 Phase I proposals are selected for award. Those Phase I performers showing
the best promise may be invited by the Army to submit Phase II proposals. Phase II is a 2–year effort covering
the main R&D work. Approximately one–third to one–half of the invited Phase II proposals are selected for
award. Phase II projects develop well–defined products or services that have relevance to the Army/DoD and
the private sector.
Figure VII-1. Small Business Innovation Research Program Flow Process
Phase III is the last step in the SBIR process. In Phase III the small business is expected to market and sell the
products or services outside the SBIR program that were developed during Phase I and Phase II. No SBIR
funding is provided in Phase III; however, the firm is free to pursue non–SBIR government follow–on
contracts (sole–source or otherwise), or a leveraged combination of non–SBIR government and private
sector funding.
Since 1982, the Army SBIR program has funded thousands of small businesses working to provide innovative
dual–use technologies. The program has been successful in meeting or augmenting Army technology needs
while strengthening the nation’s small businesses by moving their technologies to the marketplace. This
process was greatly enhanced, beginning in FY96 and continuing through FY97, by the Army’s
implementation of the SBIR 2–year pilot fast–track program. This program was designed to accelerate into
Phase III those small businesses that are able to identify third–party matching funds for Phases I and II. The
Army also implemented acquisition streamlining procedures during calendar year 1996 in its Phase I and II
selection and award processes. These streamlining procedures have shortened FY97 Phase I and Phase II
selection/award times to an average of 4 months and 6 months, respectively.
The Army promotes the commercialization goal of SBIR by conducting an annual Phase II Quality Awards
Program that recognizes stellar Army Phase II projects for their technical achievement, contribution to the
Army mission, and commercialization potential. A panel of Army and industry experts selects five projects
each year to receive this award. The winning companies and their sponsoring laboratories or centers are
presented with the awards at an annual awards banquet. Throughout the year, the winners and their

accomplishments are showcased at several Army conferences and symposia.
During 1996, an operating and support cost reduction (OSCR) initiative was implemented to target a
segment of SBIR efforts at this critical high–payoff area. Initially, the goal was to have at least 15 percent of the
1996 SBIR solicitation topics directed at OSCR issues. Due to the responses of the laboratories, centers, and
small business community, this goal was surpassed for topics (20 percent) and at each subsequent stage of the
SBIR process. Of the Phase I awards, 20 percent were to OSCR projects. These OSCR Phase I projects will
compete for Phase II funding in FY 1998.
Information about the Army SBIR program is available via the Internet at the following Website address:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/sadbu/sbir
2. Small Business Technology Transfer Program
The Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program began in FY94 as a 3–year pilot program
established by Congress in P.L. 102–564, the Small Business Research and Development Act. The STTR
program was reauthorized for FY97 and reauthorization for the period FY98–00 is under consideration by
Congress. The STTR program is a competitive program that urges small businesses to partner with
researchers at universities, nonprofit research institutions, or federally funded R&D centers (FFRDCs) to
speed commercialization of emerging technologies and discoveries of interest to the Army and the private
sector. The small business must perform a minimum of 40 percent of the R&D work in STTR contracts and
must subcontract with a research institution for a minimum of 30 percent of the proposed work.
Army STTR topics are based on critical technologies that reflect the Army mission and emphasize potential
commercialization and dual–use applications. The Army had 12 topics in the FY97 DoD STTR solicitation,
which closed on 2 April 1997. The FY97 Army STTR budget is derived from a set–aside of 0.15 percent of the
total FY97 Army extramural R&D budget.
Similar to the SBIR program, the STTR program consists of three phases. Phases I and II are funded with
Army STTR funds. Phase I, the proof–of–principle phase, is limited to $100,000 and 1 year. Upon
satisfactory performance during Phase I, selected small businesses are invited to submit Phase II proposals.
Phase II awards are limited to $500,000 over a 2–year period. Phase III is the commercialization phase,
wherein the small businesses transfer the matured product or technology to the market. The small businesses
receive no STTR program funding for Phase III.
The first "graduates" of the STTR program will complete Phase II this year and enter Phase III. Some firms
have already received commercial contracts for their STTR–developed products. Successful Phase III
transition of these firms to the commercial marketplace will be highlighted in future Army publications.
Extensive STTR program information is available via the Internet at the Web address listed above.

3. Army Domestic Technology Transfer Program
The Army Domestic Technology Transfer (ADTT) program seeks to create an environment that fosters and
facilitates the transfer of technology between military and civilian applications, thereby contributing to
military needs and economic competitiveness. There is a long history of technology transfer from in–house
Army R&D to commercial application. For example, Army technologies form the basis for both the alkaline
battery industry and the flexible–packaging industry for food preservation. These in turn provide strong
production bases for military needs.
The initial formal requirement for technology transfer from federal laboratories was the Stevenson–Wydler
Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.). Its intent was to maximize the benefit of taxpayer investment in federal
R&D. The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99–502) provided specific requirements,
incentives, and authorizations for federal laboratories to engage in technology transfer. It gave the director of
each federal laboratory the authority to enter into cooperative R&D agreements (CRDAs) and to negotiate
patent license agreements (PLAs) for inventions made at their laboratories.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (P.L. 104–113) amends these laws to
provide additional incentives, encouraging technology commercialization for both industry partners and
federal laboratory inventors. This law seeks to promote industry’s prompt deployment of inventions created
under CRDAs by guaranteeing the industry partner sufficient intellectual property rights to the invention and
by providing increased incentives and rewards to laboratory personnel who create new inventions.
A CRDA is probably the most powerful tool used for technology transfer. The CRDA is an agreement to
cooperate and share intellectual property resulting from joint R&D efforts. It makes the technology, facilities,
and people of Army laboratories available to commercial partners at an early stage of development, directly
benefits the Army’s mission from the partner’s effort, and encourages direct interpersonal communication
between scientists and engineers of the two sectors. Since a CRDA is not a procurement device (the
government does not provide funding for services or products), military procurement procedures are not
required.
PLAs are also important for commercializing inventions developed in Army laboratories. Each laboratory
maintains a collection of patents developed by its scientists and engineers and markets those with potential
commercial application. When licensed and commercialized, these inventions benefit consumers with new
or improved products. Royalties are shared by the inventors (who receive the first $2,000 and thereafter 20
percent of royalties received) and the laboratory (which keeps most of the remainder). The ADTT program
is initiating more aggressive patent marketing strategies to increase the level of Army patent licensing.
The construction productivity advancement research (CPAR) program was a cost–shared, collaborative
R&D partnership between the U.S. construction industry and the Corps of Engineers designed to enhance
construction industry productivity and innovation and benefit both industry and government. The Corps
was authorized to use the capabilities and facilities of its R&D laboratories to pursue joint R&D,
demonstration, and commercialization/technology transfer projects with industry partners. The projects

were based on ideas from the construction industry, and the Corps could provide up to one–half the cost of a
project. Through FY95, 72 projects were selected, with the industry providing $42 million and the Corps $27
million. CPAR products increased productivity and reduced costs. CPAR funding for FY96 and FY97 was
deleted by Congress, and the program is currently inactive, except for completion of ongoing projects.
The Army has been a leader in technology transfer efforts from federal laboratories to the public and private
domestic sectors for many years. Each Army laboratory and research, development, and engineering center
(RDEC) has an Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA) to seek technology transfer
opportunities and to serve as a point of contact for potential users of its technology. ORTAs assess laboratory
technology that might have commercial applications, assist state/local governments, and develop CRDAs
and PLAs in conjunction with private sector and laboratory technical and legal staffs. The ADTT program is
intended to work through the decentralized but coordinated activities of the ORTA at each of the Army’s
laboratories and centers.
During FY97, 188 CRDAs and 14 PLAs were approved, for a total of 202 new agreements. Since most of the
agreements negotiated from the inception of the program are still active, we track the cumulative totals, which
were: 1,083 CRDAs, including CPAR CRDAs, and 87 PLAs for a total of 1,170 agreements (Figure VII–2).
Total patent royalty income since inception of the program was $1.18 million, of which $0.255 million was
received in FY97.
Figure VII-2. Army Accepted Cooperative Research and Development Agreements

and Patent License Agreements
Recent cooperative effort examples include:

• The Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has teamed with a commercial partner to test and
evaluate technology for locating and mapping nonmetallic buried pipe and shallow tunnels.
The ability to locate nonmetallic pipe (e.g., polyvinyl chloride (PVC)) would be extremely
useful to the utility industry). Military applications of this dual–use technology could include
detection of buried plastic mines and the ability to locate and map enemy tunnels.
• The Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES) has awarded multiple patent
licenses for its patented CORE–LOC technology. CORE–LOC is a new concrete armor unit
used to protect navigation and coastal shore structures (e.g., breakwaters). Unlike most other
types of concrete armor units, CORE–LOC is placed in a single layer. With its low packing
density, CORE–LOC significantly reduces on–slope concrete volume and can save project
owners over 50 percent of the cost associated with other concrete armor units.
• The life support for trauma and transport (LSTAT) is a transportable, stretcher–based
mini–intensive care unit that was jointly developed through a cooperative agreement involving
industry and investigators at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. The LSTAT
incorporates state–of–the–art resuscitative and life–sustaining capabilities in a universally
adaptive platform for trauma management, unattended patient support, and transport of
medically unstable patients. The system has broad dual–use applications in military and civil
settings.
• The Tank–Automotive RDEC (TARDEC) has two CRDAs with the private sector for R&D
on blind spot monitoring systems for vehicles to help avoid collisions. The blind spots around
vehicles are serious hazards when drivers change lanes or merge with moving traffic. Results of
these efforts could be applied to private and commercial vehicles, large and small, to help
avoid many injuries each year.
In the future, the Army will continue to support ADTT through support of active ORTAs. Army CRDAs
should be established to develop technology that contributes to the national competitive position or the
public good in health, education, or environmental areas. Additionally, CRDAs should be sought in
technology areas important to the laboratory or center.
The Army is also seeking to coordinate and increase its marketing efforts for technology transfer and patent
licensing. Individual laboratories and centers are encouraged to aggressively market the expertise and unique
capabilities and facilities of their organizations as well as their technologies. Attendance at technology transfer
shows and conferences is also an important outreach effort. The Army is expanding its marketing efforts in
conjunction with the Federal Laboratory Consortium, a formal government–wide network of all ORTAs,
which supports extensive outreach and referral efforts. Additionally, we are targeting relationships with
high–technology small businesses.
4. Technology Transfer in Medical Research and Development

The primary purposes of military medical R&D are preventing injury and illness in the field and sustaining
life and health. However, there is probably no other DoD program whose research results are so directly
applicable to the worldwide civilian community. Advances in antimalarial drugs, vaccines for many diseases,
blood and tissue substitutes, and the treatment of trauma are all of direct benefit to people. The benefits are
not limited to the United States; for example, DoD research teams deployed in Egypt, Taiwan, Indonesia,
Thailand, Malaysia, Brazil, and Peru have worked directly on civilian health problems that not only are
threats to possible future deployment of American troops, but also are presently infecting local populations.
Medical R&D also contributes to establishing national and international standards for nutritional
requirements of special populations and exposure to occupational health hazards, as well as developing and
demonstrating modeling technologies for predicting the effects of exposure to health hazards. For example,
the Department of Transportation has used the Army’s blast overpressure injury model to predict injuries
from driver and passenger air bags.
The Army’s first collaborative efforts in medical R&D were basic screening and testing agreements, under
which a company or university would submit compounds for testing for a specific property, such as
antimalarial activity. These early agreements quickly evolved into more extensive collaborative efforts where
each partner would expend resources toward the development of a product and share the results of its efforts
to meet the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory process. The development of mefloquine is a classic
example of an early cooperative effort between the Army and industry that predates the Federal Technology
Transfer Act. Each party funded its own preclinical and clinical studies with its own unique resources and
shared and consolidated the data. The Army medical R&D program over the past decades has fostered
thousands of cooperative relationships with academia and industry.
The Army has numerous compounds, some with commercial value and some with military value. For
example, the Army is developing several compounds that appear to be active against malaria, leishmania (a
problem for some Operation Desert Storm veterans), and pneumocistis , which kills many AIDS patients. A
collaborative effort on such compounds allows industry and the Army to leverage each other’s resources.
The Army also has several products or technologies useful to the research and commercial communities,
from vaccine production tools to qualitative and quantitative assays.
The Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC) is initiating an intellectual property and
transactional management project to identify established and emerging intellectual property practices in
industry and adopt those practices where possible. Initial practices will include routine review of the Official
Gazette and targeting marketing strategies for identified technologies.
The MRMC encourages research in relevant fields at colleges and universities, and cooperates with research
efforts of the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and other government
agencies. These research programs complement and exploit civilian science and technology efforts over the
full research and development spectrum. The commercial sector is encouraged to address problems of
military interest through the SBIR program. The Federal Technology Transfer Act is the authority for
numerous MRMC CRDAs, primarily with pharmaceutical, chemical, and biotechnology firms. Medical
R&D is an international program of broad and effective current and potential opportunities in developing
and developed nations. The MRMC participates in information and data exchange programs, cooperative

developments, NATO comparative tests, foreign weapon evaluations, and symposia and meetings.
5. Dual–Use Information
As defined by public law, dual–use technology has both military and civilian applications. Most dual–use
technology is generated through spin–off (commercialization of military technology for civilian applications;
e.g., IR sensors) or spin–on (military adaptation/application of commercial technology; e.g., state–of–the–art
computer hardware/software).
The Army is an aggressive partner in dual–use R&D, with the primary motivation of leveraging commercial
technology for military applications. The Army uses more CRDAs than the other two services combined to
leverage the R&D investment by industry. The Army also uses the Advanced Concepts and Technology II
(ACT II) program to support Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) battle laboratories and their
Army laboratory/R&D center partners in evaluating commercial concepts and technology with high
potential military utility (Section D).
The Army targets dual–use projects in combat vehicles and automotive technologies, aviation, medical
research and technology, construction engineering, environmental research, pollution abatement/control,
telecommunications, sensors, and individual soldier technology. Examples include:
• ARL’s federated laboratories heavily leverage industrial and academic basic research
infrastructure and expertise through cooperative research agreements in areas where
commercial industry has the technical lead and incentive to invest (Chapter V).
• The National Automotive Center (NAC) serves as a focal point for dual–use technologies
and application to military ground vehicles. An umbrella CRDA with General Motors, Ford,
and Chrysler provides the basis for significant technology transfer (Section D).
• The National Rotorcraft Technology Center (NRTC) established a government/ industry

partnership that combines the resources of the government, the rotorcraft industry, and
academia, and identifies and develops dual–use rotorcraft technologies (Section D).
The Army is also a participant in the DoD Dual–Use Applications Program (DUAP) S&T initiative. This
initiative provides incentive funding to the services to support dual–use technology development projects.
These funds are matched by service funds, and the total of these two is matched by the industry partner(s).
DUAP projects therefore involve a mix of Army (25 percent), DUAP (25 percent), and industry (50
percent) funding, using cooperative agreements or other transactions for their execution. The cost–sharing
by industry is a concrete demonstration of its commitment to exploit the resulting technology for
commercial as well as military applications.
In FY 97, the Army gained DUAP support for 38 projects under the S&T initiative, resulting in over $21
million in DUAP funding for Army S&T projects. Additional DUAP funding will be available in FY98 for

matching by Army and industry, increasing the overall Army investment in dual–use technology and
leveraging on the industry’s share in the development of these technologies.

Chapter VII. Section C
C. TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION WITH NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS
Universities provide advanced scientific and engineering education, critical to both military security and
economic strength. Universities have traditionally performed a major part of the nation’s long–term basic
research. Since the 1940s, the Army has supported academic work in areas of potential military interest. In
response to evolving social, economic, and budget realities, Army support to universities has emphasized
Army problems and efforts to apply research results to commercial or dual–use products. It also has
emphasized support to people and institutions traditionally underrepresented in national scientific and
engineering efforts. The Army is increasing its efforts to support interest in science and engineering careers in
colleges and universities, high schools, and elementary schools.
The Army cooperates with nonprofit institutions (including universities) by means of CRDAs and PLAs, and
the Army STTR program uses small businesses to commercialize technology developed in these institutions.
The Army is the government sponsor for two FFRDCs and, as appropriate, uses the unique capabilities of
FFRDCs sponsored by others.
1. Programs With Academia
The Army’s 6.1 program, approximately half of which supports basic research at universities, is a key
leveraging mechanism. These research investments will produce results that impact the Army’s future
capabilities through the emerging technology areas and through breakthroughs. This program is described in
more detail in Chapter V. The Army also maintains a European Research Office and supports a small
amount of research at universities in Europe and Japan, in order to gain access to unique foreign capabilities
(Section E).
a. University Research Initiative and Centers of Excellence
In addition to providing support to individual researchers, the Army sponsors research through two
university–centered programs: the Army centers of excellence (COEs) and the series of DoD projects known
as the university research initiative (URI). Both address specific Army needs (Figure VII–3). The URI’s
science and engineering education programs also address this country’s need to increase its pool of advanced
scientists and engineers by supporting nearly 400 science and engineering graduate students annually.

Figure VII-3. Funding for University Research Efforts Includes the

Army Centers of Excellence and the University Research Initiative Centers
University COEs provide Army support to graduate–level research and education. The Army’s investment
in these centers is highly leveraged, for the centers have attracted additional sources of support. Through the
COEs and URI centers, the Army participates with more than 30 American universities. Both COE and URI
are described in more detail in Chapter V.
b. Interactions With the National Science Foundation
Through a memorandum of understanding, the Army and NSF formed a consortium that includes eight
universities to attack critical problems in high–speed microelectronics, millimeter waves (MMWs), and
communications research. NSF provides grants, and the Army provides access to what is considered DoD’s
best microelectronics fabrication facility. While there, students and their mentors conduct research that
benefits academia and the government. Also, ARL is an industrial board member of the Software Engineering
Research Center sponsored by NSF.
Recognizing that historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and minority institutions (MIs) are
national resources with high enrollments of underrepresented minorities, DoD has encouraged its agencies to
develop programs that enable these institutions to increase the number of minority graduates in the physical
sciences, mathematics, and engineering.
It is Army policy that:
• At least 5 percent of research, development, and acquisition (RDA) funds going to higher
education institutions are to be awarded to HBCUs or MIs.

• Each RDEC/laboratory is to foster a linkage agreement with an appropriate HBCU or MI.

• The Army Research Office (ARO) facilitates research collaborations between HBCU and MI
COEs.
• All new Army COEs are to have an HBCU or MI member.
• Information sciences and training research COEs are headed by HBCUs.
• Each Army COE is to have a proponent laboratory/RDEC, which provides the COE
Executive Advisory Board Chairman.
The Army Materiel Command (AMC) has made progress in achieving these goals:
• Federated Laboratory Consortia established by ARL have HBCU or MI members.

• Cooperative research programs have been established between major universities and
HBCUs and MIs. For example, the Army High Performance Computing Research Center,
established by ARO and managed by ARL, brings together the University of Minnesota and
four HBCU partners, Howard University, Jackson State University, Alabama A&M
University, and Clark Atlanta University. The multimillion dollar program provides funds for
research, equipment, and infrastructure support.
• The HBCU and MI COE program was established by ARO in 1992. The first two centers
were located at Clark Atlanta University and Morris Brown College. Both centers had 5–year
programs totalling approximately $3.75 million each. The Clark Atlanta program specialized
in information sciences research, while the Morris Brown program focused on training
research to determine how future soldiers can maintain peak proficiency during combat
operations.
The ARO periodically publishes brochures highlighting accomplishments of the AMC HBCU and MI
program. Chapter V contains additional information about ARO’s COEs.
AMC’s research programs and other opportunities for HBCUs and MIs are the most innovative of the entire
defense department. Through the "one–source" approach, the command has collected and focused its efforts
into a model program.
3. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers
FFRDCs, which perform, analyze, integrate, support, or manage basic or applied R&D, receive at least 70
percent of their financial support from the federal government. FFRDCs have greater access to government
and supplier data, employees, and facilities than is common in a normal contractual relationship. (A master
list of these activities is maintained by the NSF.) The Army is the government sponsor for two FFRDCs: the
Arroyo Center, a research division of RAND, Santa Monica, California; and the Mitre Corporation’s
command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) operating division in Washington, DC.
Staff at the Arroyo Center perform studies and analyses for the Army. This FFRDC mission is to provide
objective and independent analytical research on major Army policy, management, and technology

concerns, with an emphasis on mid– to long–term problems. Efforts include policy and strategy analyses,
research within the framework of the Army’s future force needs and employment concepts, analyses and
testing of alternative policies for manning, training, and structuring the Army of the future, analysis of issues
associated with future readiness and sustainability, and studies in applied technology.
These analyses identify and assess the ways in which technological advances can enhance the future Army’s
capabilities. Examples include an assessment of advanced light armored vehicles, terrorists and biological
weapons in the 1990s, and the Army’s role in space.
The Mitre C3I FFRDC has two divisions, the Mitre Bedford Division sponsored by the Air Force and the
Mitre Washington Division sponsored by the Army (the "primary sponsor" is in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense). The mission of this FFRDC is to conduct studies and analyses, provide systems engineering
support, and conduct laboratory experimentation based on sponsors’ requirements. Mitre conducts its own
in–house R&D, tailoring the programs to sponsors’ missions. An important link between the Air Force and
the Army, Mitre provides an objective, technical basis for the conception, analysis, selection, design, and
evaluation of information and communications systems.
4. Outreach Programs
Studies by NSF and the National Academy of Sciences have indicated that in order to meet the scientific and
economic challenges expected in the year 2000, the nation will need to attract and retain more students in
degree completion in science, mathematics, and engineering. Approximately 70 percent of the adults
entering the work force between now and the 21st century will be women and minorities. Yet, women and
minorities are two groups historically underrepresented and underutilized in science and engineering. To
counteract this trend, DoD task force studies have urged the creation of intervention programs designed to
increase the availability of scientific, engineering, and technical skills in the DoD work force. The Army’s
outreach efforts are described below.
a. Women in Science and Engineering
Women are significantly underrepresented in engineering and the physical sciences, compared with their
participation in the general work force. Despite significant increases during the last generation, only about 9
percent of all working engineers are women, and in recent years the proportion of new women engineering
graduates has remained constant at about 16 percent. Absent significant intervention or major social change,
the proportion of women in engineering is therefore likely to increase only gradually and then level off.
Perhaps because of their scarcity or because only the best survive, women engineering graduates receive 103
percent of the starting salary of men.
The Army has outreach activities whereby it employs women students from local universities, studying
engineering and the sciences, in a cooperative education program that alternates school and work cycles.
High school and college summer employment opportunities are also available (Figure VII–4). In addition
there are employment programs for women instructors in high school and higher education who are

interested in keeping current in their areas of technical expertise.
Figure VII-4. Army Outreach Programs Include

Attracting Women Scientists and Engineers
b. Youth Science Activities
Increasing the scientific and technical human resources available to both the government and private sectors
is necessary to maintain future U.S. competitive advantage. To accomplish this, education, especially in
science, mathematics, and technology, is critical.
Many Army laboratories have outreach programs that actively support innovative ways to improve S&T
education. There are adopt–a–school, education partnerships, and student/faculty employment programs.
Services provided by hundreds of Army scientists and engineers have helped to improve science,
mathematics, and technology education through technical lectures, career education, science fair judging,
field trips, mentoring student research projects, library and computer support, loaning/donating surplus
equipment, and teaching classes or assisting in the development of courses and materials.
The Army also sponsors specific youth programs at the high school level to promote participation in science
and engineering activities. For example:
• The Junior Science and Humanities Symposium (JSHS) was initiated by the Army in 1958
and joined by the Office of Naval Research and U.S. Air Force after 1995. Its activities
promote research and experimentation at the high school level, identify and recognize talented
youth and teachers, and increase the country’s pool of young adults interested in pursuing
careers in the sciences. JSHS reaches over 10,000 students and 250 teachers annually.

• The Uninitiates Introduction to Engineering (UNITE) program provides socially and

economically disadvantaged secondary school students with tutorial assistance, primarily in
mathematics. Through their participation, these students can acquire the prerequisites for
beginning science and engineering careers in college. The program began in 1980 and more
than 3,500 students participated during its first 17 years. Of these, 40 percent have graduated
from college through 1997, with 50 percent in technical fields, 45 percent in engineering, and 5
percent in the humanities.
• The Research and Engineering Apprenticeship Program (REAP) is a cooperative

work–study program that gives high school students hands–on experience in R&D activities
through interactions with mentors. Drawn from socially and economically disadvantaged
groups, as defined in P.L. 95–507, these students are selected on the basis of their potential to
pursue careers in science and engineering. The program began in 1980. At least 1,700 students
have participated through 1996. Of these, 90 percent entered college, with 86 percent of these
undertaking engineering or science studies.
• The International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) was started by eastern European countries
following World War II as a means to encourage young mathematicians. The United States
began participating in 1976 with the selection of an American team under the auspices of the
Mathematical Association of America. Along with the Navy, the Army contributes to this
effort by providing funds. Annually six American students (from over 400,000 that compete)
and three coaches travel to the site of the Olympiad for approximately 10 days of individual
competition. American students often achieve first place honors at the IMO, which is one of
the most prestigious competitions in mathematics at this level. In 1994, each U.S. team
member scored a perfect score for the first time in the history of the program.
• Since 1960, the Army has sponsored special awards in the nationwide science and
engineering fairs to stimulate and encourage the future technical development of our nation’s
youth. Army personnel participate as judges in regional, state, and international fair
competitions and present awards on behalf of the Secretary of the Army. The International
Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) brings together two students from each of approximately
400 regional and state science fair competitions that involve over 100,000 high school students.
Each winner in 14 scientific and engineering categories is awarded a certificate of achievement,
a $3,000 prize, and a gold medallion. In addition, one student is selected to attend the London
International Youth Science Forum at the University of London, where students from over 35
nations participate in a 2–week program of scientific lectures and cultural tours. Two students
are selected to visit Tokyo as part of an exchange program between the United States and
Japan, where the two Army winners are recognized at the Japan Student Science Awards
Ceremony. The three trip winners each receive a certificate of achievement, a medallion, a
$3,000 prize and $150 from the Association of the United States Army.

Chapter VII. Section D
D. TECHNOLOGY LEVERAGING PROGRAMS
Army S&T makes up less than 1 percent of the total national investment in R&D so the Army leverages
external R&D activity to meet its warfighting needs. This R&D comes from other federal government
organizations, universities and nonprofit organizations, U.S. industry, and foreign sources.
The Army technology transfer program systematically leverages each of these sources of technology.
The Army’s goal is to form cooperative programs with these sources, sometimes involving cost–sharing. In
other cases, the Army seeks to influence the direction of development, or maintain a "smart buyer" capability
within the Army.
This section describes the Army’s approach to technology leveraging with the major external sources of
technology available within the United States. Section E describes the Army’s approach toward leveraging
foreign sources of technology.
1. Independent Research and Development Program
Independent research and development (IR&D) activities are planned, performed, and funded by
companies in order to maintain or improve their technical competence or to develop new or improved
products. Industry IR&D efforts amount to more than $2 billion annually. A significant portion of a
company’s annual IR&D expenditures and its companion bid and proposal (B&P) costs can be recovered
later in the overhead portion of its contracts with commercial concerns and with DoD. The FY92 Defense
Authorization Bill simplified the procedure used to reimburse companies for relevant IR&D work. Beginning
in FY96, contractors have been reimbursed for up to 100 percent of their IR&D expenditures that meet
"potential interest to DoD" criteria.
Prior to FY93, company IR&D programs were assigned to a lead service for technical review and
cost–recovery negotiations. The current law eliminates these assignments and focuses on utilization of
industry’s significant IR&D technology resources through technical interchange meetings. IR&D technical
interchange meetings are arranged by mutual agreement between the company and the government to
discuss technology or product development projects. These meetings promote face–to–face technical
interaction between contractors and the government, provide feedback to companies so that IR&D activities
are aligned with future government needs, and permit government participants to visit the contractors’
facilities and view operations. Many of the service and company assignments established prior to FY93 have

been mutually beneficial and will be continued. Company and government personnel are free to continue
frequent informal dialogue and technical information exchange even though they no longer maintain a
formal relationship. There is no required frequency of meeting, but many contractors express a desire to meet
at least annually.
The projected downward trend of DoD expenditures affects the future of industry IR&D activities. Rigorous
cost competition in the defense industry has caused pressure to reduce overhead (including IR&D), and
decreasing sales have reduced the base against which IR&D costs can be charged. The likely result—erosion
of industry’s IR&D technology base—led to the present cost–recovery process and a broadened set of
cost–recovery criteria as means to limit this loss of U.S. technical strength and to encourage interest in
defense conversion and in dual–use technology. The current criteria for reimbursement for IR&D include:
• Enabling superior performance of future weapon systems and components.

• Reducing acquisition costs and life–cycle costs of military systems.
• Strengthening the U.S. defense industrial and technology base.
• Enhancing U.S. industrial competitiveness.
• Promoting the development of critical technologies (as identified by DoD).
• Increasing the development of technologies useful in both the public and the private sectors.
• Developing efficient and effective technologies for achieving environmental benefits.
Improved communications between industry and government on IR&D is at the heart of successful
leveraging of IR&D, and continues to be emphasized through frequent interaction of Army leadership and
industry IR&D representatives. Recent improvements to the IR&D reporting and review processes will
significantly enhance the Army’s ability to strategically leverage IR&D developments. These improvements
include compact disk–read only memory (CD–ROM) technology applied to the IR&D database at the
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), a new DoD instruction on IR&D that will ensure more
complete reporting of IR&D to government, and more complete review of appropriate IR&D by the Army.
An IR&D Website on the Internet is maintained by the Air Force IR&D manager:
http://www.afmc.af.mil/STBBS
This service will provide contractors access to DoD planning information to focus their IR&D expenditures
on relevant DoD technology needs. The Air Force Internet site will also contain a schedule of IR&D
information exchange meetings to encourage government personnel participation in these information
exchanges.
Further improvement to the IR&D process has been attained through the establishment of a joint
senior–level Technical Coordination Group (TCG) to oversee and manage DoD’s IR&D program. This
TCG for IR&D is chaired by the Deputy Director, Defense Research and Engineering (Office of Laboratory
Management/Technology Transition) with membership by senior civilians from each of the services. The
primary purpose of the TCG is to manage DoD communications with industry concerning defense
technology planning and requirements.

The Army receives the IR&D database from DTIC. The IR&D database on CD–ROM, issued by DTIC
beginning in FY94, has significantly enhanced the Army’s ability to leverage IR&D. The CD–ROM contains
the entire database of current industry IR&D technology developments, and permits every Army activity to
maintain the complete IR&D database of industry’s IR&D expenditure on a personal computer. Once full
industry IR&D reporting to DTIC is achieved, as emphasized in the recently revised DoD Instruction on
IR&D, the CD–ROM will become a reliable and comprehensive source of industry technology.
Through use of the IR&D database on CD–ROM, local Army IR&D managers should be able to better target
IR&D projects of interest, vector project write–ups to local scientists and engineers, and follow up positive
in–house responses by establishing technical information exchange meetings. These meetings could be a
vehicle whereby the Army communicates technology needs to industry, and industry communicates IR&D
progress and plans to Army scientists and engineers.
2. Advanced Concepts and Technology Program
TRADOC’s battle laboratories have been chartered to experiment with changing methods of warfare,
beginning with the battlefield dynamics and with soldiers and leaders as the center of focus. While the battle
laboratories were started as a means to focus internal TRADOC activities, AMC has established a partnership
with the battle laboratories in support of this experimentation. The Advanced Concepts and Technology
(ACT II) program provides a unique environment for combining the warfighting expertise of the battle
laboratories with the technical expertise of AMC’s RDECs and the Army laboratories. This partnership
forms the basis for ACT II projects that facilitate experimentation in seeking solutions across the spectrum of
doctrine, training, leader development, organization, materiel, and soldier (DTLOMS) systems.
Since its inception in 1994, ACT II has been directed to provide direct support to the TRADOC battle
laboratories and to the Army Chief of Staff for the Louisiana Maneuvers Task Force. With the user more
actively involved, ACT II allows better evaluation of new capabilities enabled by ACT II technologies, and
provides accelerated support from the S&T community. Today, ACT II is sponsored by the Army Chief of
Staff and ASA(RDA) and managed by the ARO–W. TRADOC, AMC, and ARO–W collaborate to build
ACT II partnerships between the Army, industry, and the academic community.
ACT II supports battle laboratory experiments through competitive funding of industry’s most advanced
technologies, prototypes, and nondevelopmental items. The program provides funding to demonstrate the
technical feasibility of such technologies that, if successful, may:
• Shape TRADOC requirements.

• Be integrated into existing Army R&D programs.
• Be selected for the Army Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP).
• Transition directly to an existing end item.
ACT II does not fund established technology base programs, but seeks unconventional approaches to

address Army needs. Direct access to the commercial market is intended to improve the definition of user
requirements, shorten the acquisition cycle, and reduce development costs. By comparison, under the
conventional acquisition process, long lead times are often required for research ideas to reach the soldier.
Because of its small size (ACT II funds a maximum of $1.5 million per project) the program generally
supports highly leveraged efforts that appear likely to have important impacts on the Army if successful. ACT
II projects are frequently cost–shared or leveraged efforts, partly supported by others.
ACT II projects are centrally solicited using a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) prepared by ARO–W.
The BAA requests that prospective offerors initially submit a two–page concept paper highlighting the
technical and warfighting merits of their concept. Those submitting concept papers found to be technically
feasible and most desirable in terms of warfighting merit are invited to prepare full proposals (limited to 25
pages plus a separate cost estimate). Highly rated proposals are similarly evaluated and ranked according to
warfighting merit, and centrally approved for negotiation and award by the ACT II Technical Evaluation
Board. The resulting contracts are awarded through various Army procurement offices and are jointly
managed by battle laboratory project officers and technical experts in appropriate Army laboratories and
RDECs.
Since 1994, its inaugural year, ACT II has funded and completed a total of 107 projects (28 projects in 1994,
35 projects in 1995, 25 projects in 1996, and 19 in 1997). To date, 27 projects from 1994 and 1995 have been
identified as meeting the program objectives for technology transition and integration. These projects are (1)
being developed further through Concept Exploration Program funding, (2) integrated into existing
acquisition programs as product improvements, or (3) included among projects funded through WRAP.
ACT II funding was $10 million in FY94, $40 million in FY95, $13 million in FY96, $12 million in FY97, and
approximately $11 million in FY98.
ACT II is an ongoing program within the Army. An industry–focused preproposal conference for the FY98
ACT II cycle was held in April 1997. The BAA for the FY99 cycle will be released in May 1998, with concept
papers due in June 1998. Full proposals will be invited in July 1998 and responses evaluated during
August–September. Contracts for the FY99 program should be signed during December 1998.
ARO–W maintains a Website for ACT II. In addition to providing current ACT II information and
descriptive project summaries from previous years, offerors can download the current solicitation and
necessary forms for preparation of concept papers or full proposals. The Website address is:
http://www.aro.ncren.net/arowash/rt/actii.htm
3. Army Efforts With Other DoD Agencies
Many Army S&T activities are coupled with programs of the other services and with other DoD agencies.
The major agencies with which the Army interacts are the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), the Defense Special Weapons Agency (DSWA), the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO), and the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Working relationships between Army

and agency technical staffs have included coordinated program planning, parallel funding, and, in some
cases, joint agency–Army program management by Army S&T organizations.
a. Defense S&T Reliance
In November 1991, all three service acquisition executives directed full implementation of Project Reliance in
their respective services. In November 1995, the Defense S&T Reliance Executive Committee was formed to
strengthen Reliance’s role in the DoD strategic planning process and to continue to improve service/agency
S&T coordination. Implementation of Defense S&T Reliance also responds to and provides input to a
number of management functions and planning processes, including the budget planning process and the
development of technology investment plans through the Defense Technology Area Plan, the Joint
Warfighting Science and Technology Plan, the Basic Research Plan, and updates of the Defense Science and
Technology Strategy.
The goals and objectives of Defense S&T Reliance reflect the enduring challenges that face the defense S&T
community. They are to:
• Enhance the quality of defense S&T.

• Ensure the existence of a critical mass of resources that will develop world–class products.
• Reduce redundant S&T capabilities and eliminate unwarranted duplication.
• Gain productivity and efficiency through collocation and consolidation of in–house S&T
work, where appropriate.
• Preserve the service’s vital mission–essential capabilities
Reliance agreements involve joint planning, collocated in–house work, related contract work, and lead
service/agency assignment. The leveraging is based on the fact that no service’s individual S&T accounts can
fund all the R&D activities that that one service needs.
b. Defense Special Weapons Agency and Treaty Verification
The Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty includes a provision for compliance monitoring via on–site
inspection. DSWA is the DoD executive agent for research, development, test, and engineering (RDT&E)
programs related to treaty verification and compliance, while the Army is the DoD executive agent for
chemical and biological defense. Accordingly, the Army and DSWA have created a working environment via
a memorandum of agreement (MOA), in which the Army is the lead performer for sampling methodology
and audit trails, chemical agent sensor assessments, sampling and protective devices and equipment, and field
demonstrations of available technology. The U.S. Army Edgewood RDEC is coordinating Army technology
efforts in this area. The program is funded by DSWA. The MOA was signed in FY90, and detailed technical
planning and implementation continues.
c. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DARPA was founded in 1958 to foster innovative military R&D. It has a long history of close cooperation
with the Army in pursuit of advanced technology for future battlefields. DARPA works closely with the Army
and other service users to ensure that it prioritizes emerging technologies that will be most important in
meeting the nation’s security needs. DARPA provides the services with access to the nation’s research
capabilities in industry, academia, and government research centers and laboratories for the solution of
emerging military requirements. Army efforts in conjunction with DARPA to meet warfighting needs include:
• Hybrid electric power.

• Advanced seeker technology.
• IR focal plane arrays.
• Missile defense.
• Counter sniper.
• Advanced sensors such as synthetic aperture radar.
• Small arms protection for the individual soldier.
• Communications.
• Helmet–mounted displays.
d. Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, chartered in 1984 to manage DoD’s efforts in ballistic missile
defense, is now the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), which reports to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology. While BMDO is the focal point for policy and program
formulation, the operational aspects of ballistic missile defense (BMD) work are performed through the
BMD executive agents and their research facilities, service commands, and other installations at various
locations throughout the United States.
Volume II, Annex NO TAG, contains a detailed description of the Space and Missile Defense Command
(SMDC) roles, responsibilities, and contributions with respect to BMD, SMDC, and the Army S&T program.
e. U.S. Special Operations Command
SOCOM, established in 1987, unifies all continental–based special operations forces under a single
commander. Its unique responsibilities include the following missions: unconventional warfare, direct
actions, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, counterterrorism, psychological operations, civil
affairs, counterproliferation, and information warfare. For these missions, SOCOM was granted the authority
to develop and acquire special operations–peculiar equipment, materiel, supplies, and services. In 1992,
Congress recognized that SOCOM R&D funding was inadequate to support the command’s technology
needs and directed thatSOCOM compete for other agencies’ technology base development needs.
SOCOM’s S&T budget is principally for technology demonstration (80 percent), with lower funding in
technology development (20 percent).
An assessment by SOCOM, to include the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, indicates that many of

the Special Operation Forces (SOF) technology needs are being or can be addressed in Army laboratories
and centers, and that the SOF community can maximize its return on investment by coupling with current
and planned Army technology efforts. One example is the 21st Century Land Warrior program. SOCOM
has also participated in intercommand seminars, exercises, and equipment expositions as well as in AMC’s
Technology–Based Seminar War Games. The SOF play a role in TRADOC’s development of the soldier,
participate in the Army’s Future Soldier System Tech Base Executive Steering Committee, and formally
review the Army’s work packages and identify the projects of most value for resolving materiel needs.
Volume II Annex F discusses SOCOM’s current technology objectives, strategy, and programs for
improving its operational capabilities, and the integral part that technology plays in the command’s recently
published version of its future vision into the 21st Century, entitled SOF VISION 2020.
f. Scientific Services Program
ARO monitors this competitively awarded program: short–term analysis service (STAS); laboratory research
cooperative program; conferences, workshops, and symposia; the Summer Faculty Research and
Engineering Program (SFREP); the Summer Associateship Program for High School Science and
Mathematics Faculty, and the Postlaboratory Research Cooperative Program/Postsummer Faculty Research
and Engineering Program.
The STAS program, the largest, processes between 200 and 300 projects annually, originating from all three
services and other government agencies. The STAS objective is to competitively award short–term projects to
academic or small business scientists who complement government expertise. Awards are usually less than
$100,000 each (although special requests up to $250,000 are considered), are less than a year’s duration, and
the award is usually made within 30 days of receipt of the work order. Under the SFREP, about 150 faculty
are placed at Army laboratories or centers each year. The total scientific service program annually awards
about $10–$15 million.
4. Army Efforts With Other Federal Agencies
Because of its scarce resources, the Army needs to work with other government agencies to fully leverage its
R&D efforts. The Army cooperates with many other federal agencies to accomplish missions of mutual
interest, obtain access to unique capabilities, and provide other agencies access to unique Army capabilities.
A major effort with NASA allows the Army to leverage NASA’s capabilities that are closely related to Army
needs.
a. Activities With NASA
In 1965, AMC and NASA signed an agreement for joint participation in aeronautical technology related to
Army aviation. This agreement, issued to what is now the Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM),
permitted the Army to use NASA’s 7– by 10–foot subsonic wind tunnel at NASA’s Ames Research Center.
The agreement now includes the ARL Vehicle Technology Center at NASA Langley and Lewis Research
Centers (LaRC and LeRC, respectively) and two Joint Research Program Offices at LaRC. The agreement

also includes elements of ARL, AMCOM, and the Communications–Electronics Command (CECOM) as
illustrated in Figure VII–5. This cooperative arrangement allows Army engineers direct access to NASA’s
worldclass research facilities. For example, while the Army has access to facilities at the Ames Research Center
alone worth more than $1 billion (with an annual operating cost of more than $60 million), the Army directly
incurs less than one percent of the annual cost.
Figure VII-5. Army-NASA Joint Aeronautical Research Locations

Army scientific and engineering personnel may be assigned within the NASA organization but they work on
programs of Army interest as negotiated by the Army director with their NASA division or branch chiefs.
This ensures that Army resources are focused on Army priorities and permits both the Army and NASA to
accomplish more with less.
Thirty years of Army–NASA cooperation has let the Army leverage NASA resources and programs and
contributed to advancement of an integrated civil and military technology base.
b. Cooperation with Drug and Law Enforcement Agencies
In December 1990, the ASA(RDA) Deputy for Combat Service Support was designated to represent ASA
(RDA) with all non–DoD agencies and all DoD offices, agencies, and departments involved in counterdrug
(CD) activities. This established the Army’s Counterdrug RDA Office.
The Army currently provides management oversight on 17 CD programs in a variety of technological areas,
from nonintrusive inspection to automated systems.
Diminishing resources and an escalating threat from drug traffickers resulted in the development of the
Army’s Counterdrug Technology Information Network (CTIN), which is based on the premise that
information about available technologies can help bridge the gap between threat and resources. CTIN also
capitalizes on technology as a force multiplier and allows the CD community to achieve economies of scale

via cooperative acquisitions. CTIN contains descriptions and points of contact for several hundred systems
and techniques that may help counter the illegal narcotics threat.
The first part of CTIN is a Website that may be viewed by anyone and permits sharing information of interest
to the CD community. It provides links to other CD sites and offers a mailing list.
The second, main, part of CTIN is a bulletin–board–like system (BBS), hidden from the public. The BBS
provides access to special information and provides a question–and–answer forum. The BBS can be accessed
via modem or through the Internet, using either a Macintosh– or Windows–based personal computer. The
U.S. Army Counterdrug RDA Office must approve access to the BBS.
The CTIN supports the DoD and the Department of Justice (DOJ) memorandum of understanding (MOU)
and identifies existing DoD equipment, ongoing technology development programs that can be shared, and
new military technology projects that solve problems common to the military and law enforcement
communities. As part of that MOU, a Joint Program Steering Group was formed at DARPA. The DoD/DOJ
relationship is based on common interest derived from emphasis on a traditional military mission called
operations other than war (OOTW). In general, law enforcement applications require technology and
systems that are affordable, safe to use on or around people with varying medical conditions, acceptable to
the public, and consistent with the constitutional rights of all involved. Specific areas of interest include:
• Concealed weapons detection.

• Less–than–lethal technology.
• Tracking, tagging, and status monitoring.
• Interactive simulation and training.
• Explosives detection, neutralization, and disposal.
• Small mobile sensor technology.
• Urban mapping and three–dimensional scene generation.
• Advanced sensor integration.
• Safe gun technology.
• Information technology.
• Biomedical.
• Portable power.
• Antisniper.
• Advanced body armor.
c. Cooperation With Other Agencies
A dozen years of joint research on robotics with the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) have led to success in the application of flexible computer architectures to
DoD unmanned ground vehicle testbeds for hazardous military missions such as reconnaissance. This
experience has allowed the Army and NIST to collaborate on civil programs, such as the Department of
Transportation’s Intelligent Vehicle Highway System. There are efforts to find additional areas for potential

cooperation with NIST.
As part of the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), joint research is being
conducted with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) on a
multitude of environmental topics. For example, a national environmental technology test site program,
managed jointly by the Army, Navy, and Air Force, has been developed to demonstrate, evaluate, and
transfer innovative cleanup technologies from R&D to full–scale use. Another example is the partnering
between the Army, other services, DOE, and EPA for the development and fielding of a site characterization
and analysis penetrometer system, a system used for site characterization in the DoD’s cleanup program.
Each organization has a defined area of responsibility, thereby maximizing use of limited funds for addressing
common DoD cleanup problems. A joint program under SERDP has also been initiated with EPA and DOE
in development of a groundwater modeling system for contaminated site cleanup.
The Army, as lead agency for DoD, is working with EPA on biodiversity research through a Biodiversity
Research Consortium. Results of this cooperative effort will allow DoD to optimize its biodiversity research,
thereby enhancing its capability to manage biodiversity on DoD sites in a bioregional and national context.
The Army cooperates on a smaller scale with other U.S. government agencies to accomplish a mutual goal or
to share a unique capability. These agencies include the Departments of Health and Human Services, Energy,
Labor, and Education, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
5. Army Efforts With Industry
Army technology can help produce a stronger civilian economy in partnership with U.S. industry, bringing
new products and processes to the marketplace.
a. National Automotive Center
Recognizing the many dual–use benefits available in cooperation with industry, academia, and government,
the Army established NAC in 1993. The NAC, located at the U.S. Army TARDEC, Warren, Michigan,
serves to accelerate the development of dual–use automotive technologies. Through BAAs, the NAC
leverages commercial R&D projects that have potential military applications. The NAC also interfaces with
the United States Council for Automotive Research and automotive vendors, suppliers, and small businesses
to identify areas of potential collaboration with the automotive industry.
b. National Rotorcraft Technology Center
The NRTC, established in 1996, is a catalyst for facilitating collaborative rotorcraft research and development
among the DoD (Army and Navy), NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, industry, and academia. It
serves as the means to cooperatively develop and implement a rotorcraft technology plan and national
strategy that can effectively address both civil and military rotorcraft needs.

The NRTC includes industry and academia as partners in the Rotorcraft Industry Technology Association
(RITA), a nonprofit corporation that focuses on developing rotorcraft design, engineering and
manufacturing technologies, and shares technology among its members.

Chapter VII. Section E
E. International Technology Leveraging
In the light of the shrinking defense budgets in the post–cold–war era and the coalition approach to resolving international conflicts,
participation in international cooperative R&D in key technology areas is becoming increasingly important. These efforts offer high–payoff
opportunities for leveraging U.S. investments in technology development with those of our international partners and for helping to build the
political relationships required for coalition operations. Such leverage will help maintain U.S. technological advantage, stimulate battlefield
interoperability, and, through subsequent codevelopment of advanced dual–use technology products, sustain our economic competitiveness.
Cooperative R&D offers the U.S. Army a means of remaining oriented to future and next–generation needs and of continuing to learn about
new ideas and new approaches.
1. International Cooperation Policy
Secretary of Defense Cohen, in his memorandum of 23 March 1997, called for maximum utilization of International Armaments Cooperation:
International Armaments Cooperation is a key component of the Department of Defense bridge to the 21st Century. In the evolving environment of
coalition warfare, limited resources, and a global industrial and technology base, it is DoD policy that we utilize International Armaments
Cooperation to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with sound business practice and with the overall political, economic, technological and
national security goals of the United States.
The Deputy Undersecretary of the Army (International Affairs) (DUSA(IA)) is responsible for formulating all international programs and policy
consistent with national security objectives and policies established by the President or the Secretary of Defense. The DUSA(IA) has identified
the Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP) and specifically Volume II, Annex NO TAG, as the normative guidance for
determining the existence of an acceptable quid pro quo for international technology–based cooperation. AMC has the responsibility for
executing international agreements to implement technology leveraging as it applies to AMC business areas.
Annex NO TAG provides policy guidance for determining appropriate areas for the initiation of discussions for possible new cooperative
agreements in identified technology areas. The proponent organization must make the final determination that an appropriate quid pro quo
exists for concluding cooperative agreements. Annex NO TAG is a snapshot in time, and new and rapidly emerging developments may not be
reflected therein. As this document is suitable for public release, sensitive or classified information is not included.
The mechanisms for international cooperation, specific technology leveraging opportunities, and future trends are discussed below. The
leveraging opportunities identified in Annex NO TAG and summarized here correspond with those in Chapter IV for implementation in the
near to mid term (2 to 6 years) with Chapter V for areas offering longer term promise. As part of the 1998 ASTMP update process, we evaluated
how research capabilities are evolving to support a potential for international cooperation in the ASTMP technology areas. The trends found,
summarized in Figure VII–6, are clear. Over the next decade we will see increased opportunities for cooperation with a growing number of
countries in areas of direct interest to the U.S. Army.

Figure VII-6. Trends in Opportunities for International Technology Leveraging

2. International Cooperation
The Army’s strategic goal in international cooperation is to promote technology leveraging—activities that multiply the effects of U.S.
investment in technology by taking advantage of the investments and capabilities of others.
Programs can range from cooperation in basic S&T, through codevelopment and foreign weapons T&E, to coproduction, foreign sales, and
downstream logistics support. Most international programs are focused on exploratory development and the earliest stages of advanced
development. We also support small research "seed" contracts with world–class researchers and maintain research offices in London and Tokyo.
Our strategy encourages partnering with our allies to ensure that our programs incorporate the best available technology worldwide. Leveraging
the technology investments that we make with those made by our allies eliminates duplication of effort and ensures the best technology at the
lowest cost to the Army. We use a combination of techniques and methods that are shown as the building blocks of international cooperation in
Figure VII–7.
Figure VII-7. Building Blocks of International Cooperation
The foundations of international cooperation are the exchange of information, loans of materiel, and the exchange of defense professionals,
primarily scientists and engineers. This fundamental level of cooperation is the base of the triangle. Information and data are exchanged under
the Defense Data Exchange Program, in which the Army participates in information exchanges with more than 25 countries in more than 250
technologies. The Army also exchanges defense professionals with allies to work onsite on common technical problems and opportunities. These
exchanges occur through the International Professional Exchange Program and the short–term Abbreviated Professional Exchange Program,
and, informally, through visits and interactions at technical symposia, conferences, and meetings.

At the next level, international cooperation is facilitated by S&T forums (bilateral and multilateral) that foster and coordinate international
cooperative activities. Two such forums are bilateral Technology Working Groups with Israel and France, which provide for senior management
oversight of cooperative R&D activities. Other activities at this level include the multilateral forums of The Technology Cooperation Program,
whose members include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States; and the NATO Research Technology
Organization and Standardization Groups. Such forums provide management oversight and direction to individual technical experts
participating in international exchange programs.
International cooperation at a level beyond information exchange (such as exchanges of equipment and laboratory samples, or codevelopment
of hardware and software) generally takes place through cooperative R&D programs executed under an MOA that spells out terms, conditions,
and commitments of the United States and the partner country in pursuing agreed–to R&D objectives. A recently implemented variation of a
traditional focused MOU is the Technology Research and Development Program, also known as an umbrella MOA. This type of MOA, which
has been implemented with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Israel, and South Korea, allows for project annexes in specific areas
of R&D cooperation and reduces the need and time required for renegotiating common elements of all MOAs (e.g., intellectual property rights)
with a given ally.
In an effort to leverage all domestic and international resources, the Army has joined with other government agencies to pool talents and
resources on high–payoff cooperative R&D projects where there are common interests and requirements. One such program is the U.S. India
Fund run by the Department of State. This program is designed to promote basic research with Indian universities and government facilities.
Another program, the NATO Cooperative R&D program, has been expanded to include the non–NATO allies of Korea, Japan, Israel, Egypt,
and Australia. This program is also known as the Nunn program after the original amendment to the FY86 DoD Authorization Act, sponsored
by then Senator Sam Nunn.
Proposed Nunn–funded projects address key Army technologies (both conventional Army defense and dual use) that respond to areas of
significant interest to our allies and where a joint approach (with our allies) is deemed critical. Funding for these projects remains dependent on
the DoD–wide approval and agreement process.
The Foreign Comparative Test Program provides funding to determine whether foreign systems satisfy U.S. Army requirements. Our strategy for
international cooperation also includes coproduction and procurement of systems, with the ultimate goal of standardization and interoperability
of equipment.
3. Army International Organizations
a. Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for International Affairs
To streamline Army international cooperative programs, DUSA(IA) was formed in 1996. All policy functions from the Secretary of the Army
(Research, Development, and Acquisition (SA(RDA)), the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (DCSOPS), the Deputy Chief of Staff
for Logistics (DCSLOG), and AMC were brought together and provided the Army with a more unified coordinated international policy and
approach for international activities. General Order 10 (12 August 1997) delineates the specific authorities and responsibilities of DUSA(IA).
DUSA(IA) develops and promulgates policy, and AMC and TRADOC execute that policy. AMC continues to oversee development and
execution of international agreements (IAs) for materiel development to leverage global technology and to feed multinational force compatibility
(MFC). Major subordinate commands (MSCs) support bilateral forums such as technology working groups and multilateral forums such as the
NATO Research Technology Organization. TRADOC manages the development of coalition doctrine through such forums as Army–to–Army
Staff Talks, along with participation in NATO forums designed to promote MFC and lay the foundation that will enable the Army to fight
effectively with our allies.
b. U.S. Army Materiel Command, International Cooperative Programs Activity
The AMC International Cooperative Programs Activity (ICPA) is chartered to develop and execute IAs for AMC–managed technology. This
includes the full range of international agreements as described earlier. The ICPA also acts as the Army’s Office of Record for all implemented
IAs. Each AMC MSC has an international office that acts as the local advocate for the initiation, execution, and management of IAs.
Recognizing the need to increase leverage of global technology, the ICPA has initiated an IA improvement program to streamline the IA
approval process to better utilize shrinking resources. This uses integrated product teams to reduce redundant staffing and the international
agreements tracking systems (IATS), which provides a centralized electronic database. The IATS gives the Army total visibility on all proposed

and existing international agreements. With the Army’s new "single voice approach" through the DUSA(IA) and AMC’s IA improvement
program, the staffing and disposition of international agreements will be greatly streamlined.
4. Opportunities
The Army assesses international opportunities across a broad spectrum of areas on a continuing basis. Subjects addressed recently include
artificial intelligence, antiarmor technology, autonomous guidance, microelectronics, computing and simulation, aerospace propulsion,
biotechnology, virtual reality, photonics, robotic sensors, materials and structures, and military power sources. Leveraging opportunities are
continually identified through individual scientists’ and engineers’ recommendations, based on their direct interactions with foreign
counterparts.
Table VII–1 highlights the breadth of leveraging opportunities discussed in greater depth in Annex NO TAG. This table also provides a
crosswalk between the basic research topics (Chapter V) and technologies (Chapter IV). The arrows indicate a rough qualitative assessment of
those areas where the individual tables contained in Annex NO TAG identify a critical mass of foreign basic and applied research capabilities. As
noted previously, the numerous overlaps evident in the crosswalk are indicative of a growing depth of infrastructure combining where both basic
and applied efforts offer potential for long–term, sustained cooperation. Finally, the arrows give a qualitative feel for the quality of the research
capability and key trends as shown in the legend to the table.
Accessing foreign technology in compliance with legal and security requirements through cooperative programs requires international
agreements. These legal vehicles allow the bench scientists and engineers access to foreign technology covered by the scope of such agreements to
address R&D requirements. Annex NO TAG further describes technology leveraging opportunities while providing Army points of contact
through which further details can be obtained. Figure VII–8 illustrates how these technology leveraging opportunities could impact major Army
systems.
5. Army Digitization Program
Digitization of the battlefield has emerged as a major thrust of U.S. national military planning. The Army Digitization Master Plan calls for the
development of systems to achieve a tactical C3I system that will significantly enhance situation awareness, force integration, combat
identification and target hand–off, database distribution, and communications. The international digitization strategy provides the framework for
international cooperation to enhance interoperability and technology leveraging. In the mid and far terms, international cooperative programs
will enhance capabilities with reduced technical risk by ensuring the Army access to advanced technologies and alternative approaches.
Worldwide technology trends and specific C4I technology leveraging opportunities have been identified in the Army Digitization Master Plan
and the international digitization strategy. Opportunities include:
• Advanced displays and interactive displays, particularly enhanced human interfaces to support improved operator effectiveness.
• Software and intelligent systems, particularly in language understanding/ translation, and intelligent agents; sensed and stored
data and seamless interaction with human operators, and autonomous systems.
• Telecommunications and information distribution with emphasis on wireless digital data limits to provide secure, robust,
real–time interchange of data between dispersed and highly mobile force elements.
• Advanced distributed simulation of synthetic environments and automated forces and operations to allow distributed modeling
and rehearsal to support mission planning and force optimization.
Table VII–1. International Opportunities Summary

Technology Basic Research Areas
Areas
Mathematical Computer Physics Chemistry Materials Electronics Mechanical Atmospheric Terrestrial Medical Biological Behavioral,
Sciences and Science Research Sciences Sciences Sciences Research Sciences Cognitive,
Information and
Systems Neural
Sciences

Aerospace
Propulsion and
Power
Air Platforms
Nuclear,
Biological, and
Chemical
Defense
Individual
Survivability and
Sustainability
Command,
Control, and
Communications
Computing and
Software
Conventional
Weapons
Electronic
Devices
Electronic
Warfare/
Directed–Energy
Weapons
Civil Engineering
and
Environmental
Quality
Battlespace
Environments
Human Systems
Interfaces
Manpower,
Personnel, and
Structures
Materials,
Processes, and
Structures
Medical and
Biomedical
Science and
Technology

Sensors
Ground Vehicles
Manufacturing
Science and
Technology
Modeling and
Simulation
Figure VII-8. Impact of Leveraging on Army Systems

• Advanced sensors, particularly multidomain smart sensors for continuous, rapid, and precise discrimination and targeting of all
threats under all anticipated battlefield conditions.
ARL’s federated laboratory provides new dynamic avenues for government–to–government relationships with enhanced opportunities for
technology leveraging through industry–to–industry and academia–to–academia teaming arrangements.
6. Future Trends
Technology is a valuable global commodity. As discussed earlier, access to technology to support Army programs is complementary to the mid–
and far–term ASTMP milestones. There are world–class capabilities in virtually all the ASTMP research and technology areas (Chapters IV
and V) outside U.S. borders. The European community will continue to provide a significant capability in most of the Army’s research and

technology areas of interest. Similar trends are shown for Japan and to a lesser degree for Canada, Israel, and Sweden. A more limited
contribution is indicated for other allies and the Former Soviet Union. Many countries have niches of excellence in specific areas of technology
or basic research. Annex NO TAG identifies 37 countries with scientific or technological capabilities of interest to the U.S. Army.
7. Summary
The benefits of international cooperation are well known and documented. Some are highly concrete (e.g., significant savings in time and cost).
Others—improved interoperability, acquisition of information helpful to U.S. programs, and greater opportunity for contacts with researchers
with new ideas and approaches to problems—are less quantifiable but no less valuable. By taking the following steps, the Army will enhance its
ability to leverage global technology:
• Identifying critical information and communications technology opportunities through worldwide technology assessments.
• Encouraging industry–to–industry/academia teaming arrangements that allow the leveraging of allied commercial research and
technology.
• Utilizing existing agreements and forums when possible to exchange research and technology information and to develop
specific new initiatives.
• Developing new and innovative ways to leverage perishable global technology in a timely fashion.
With the formation of the DUSA(IA) for policy development and the empowering of AMC to execute international agreements, the Army has
taken major strides toward unifying and simplifying working with our allies. Given our shrinking resources, it is more important than ever to
leverage research and technology if we are to maintain our qualitative edge over potential adversaries in the future.

ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations
21 CLW 21st century Land Warrior

2D two dimensional
3rd GARD third–generation advanced rotor demonstration
4D four dimensional
4thID 4th Infantry Division
A/D analog to digital

A2C2S Army airborne command and control system
AAAV advanced amphibious assault vehicle
AAE Army Acquisition Executive
AAN Army After Next
AAR after–action review
ABCS Army battle command system
ACAT acquisition category
ACE Army Corps of Engineers
ACOM Atlantic Command
ACPLA agent containing particles per liter of air
ACR advanced concept and requirements
ACT II Advanced Concepts and Technology II
ACTD Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration
ACTS advanced communication technology satellite
ADAS air–deployable acoustic sensor
ADCSOPS(FD) Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations (Force Development)
ADS advanced distributed simulation
ADTP Army Technology Demonstration Plan
ADTT Army Domestic Technology Transfer
ADVOX advanced oxidation
AEC airborne electronic combat
AFAS Advanced Field Artillery System
AFATDS Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System
AGCCS Army global command and control systems
AGES air/ground engagement simulation
AH automated howitzer
AHP advanced helicopter pilotage
AHPCRC Army High–Performance Computing Research Center
AI artificial intelligence
AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
AIMS advanced integrated manportable system
AIN Army interoperability network
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/abbr.htm（第 1／19 页）2006-09-10 23:09:50

ABBREVIATIONS
AIS autonomous intelligent submunition

AiTRAP aided target recognizer and processor
ALERT air/land enhanced reconnaissance and targeting
AllWx all weather
ALON aluminum oxynitride
ALTUS unmanned aerial vehicle
AMBL Air Maneuver Battle Laboratory
AMC Army Material Command
AMCOM Aviation and Missile Command
AMEDD C&S Army Medical Department Center and School
AMG Architecture Management Group
AMP Army Modernization Plan
AMRAAM advanced medium–range air–to–air missile
AMSAA Army Materiel Systems Analysis Agency
AMSEC Army Modeling and Simulation Executive Committee
AMSGOSC Army Model and Simulation General Officer Steering Committee
AMS–H advanced missile system—heavy
AMSO Army Modeling and Simulation Office
AMSUS Association of Military Surgeons of the United States
AMTEC alkali metal thermal–electric converter
AMUST airborne manned/unmanned system technology
ANSUR anthropometric survey
AOA angle of attack
AP active protection
APG Aberdeen Proving Ground
APOE aerial port of embarkation
APS active protective system
ARC Advanced Research Center; Ames Research Center; advanced rotor concepts
ARCAT advanced rotorcraft aeromechanics technologies
ARDEC Armaments Research, Development, and Engineering Center
ARI Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
ARL Army Research Laboratory
ARM antiradiation missile
ARNG Army National Guard
ARO Army Research Office
ART advanced rotorcraft transmission
ASA(RDA) Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition)
ASAS all–source analysis system
ASB Army Science Board
ASBREM Armed Services Biomedical Research Evaluation and Management
ASE airborne survivability equipment
ASHPC advanced simulation and high–performance computing
ASM armored systems modernization
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASPO Army Space Program Office
ASRT autonomous scout rotorcraft testbed
ASSH aircraft system self–healing
ASSTC advanced surgical suite for trauma casualties
ASTAG Army Science and Technology Advisory Group
ASTIS Army Software Technology Investment Strategy
ASTMIS Army Science and Technology Management Information System
ASTMP Army Science and Technology Master Plan
ASTWG Army Science and Technology Working Group
ATA Army Technical Architecture
ATACMS Army tactical missile system
ATD Advanced Technology Demonstration

ABBREVIATIONS
ATDMP Advanced Technology Demonstration Management Plan

ATG air to ground
ATGM antitank guided missile
ATGW antitank guided weapon
ATM asynchronous transfer mode; asynchronous transmission mode
ATN advanced tactical navigator
ATR automatic target recognition
AWE advanced warfighting experiment
B2C2 battalion and below command and control

B&P bid and proposal
BAA Broad Agency Announcement
BAS battlefield automated system
BAST Board on Army Science and Technology (National Research Council)
BAT brilliant antitank
BAWS biological aerosol warning system
BBS bulletin board service
BC2 battlespace command and control
BCDMA broadband code division multiple access
BCDSS battle command decision support system
BCID battlefield combat identification
BCIS battlefield combat identification system
BCNS behavioral, cognitive, and neural sciences
BCT brigade combat team
BCTP battle command training program
BDA battle damage assessment
BDE brigade
BDS battlefield distributed simulation
BDS–D battlefield distributed simulation—developmental
BES Budget Estimate Submission
BFA battlefield function area
BFM battlescale forecast model
BHAW brilliant helicopter advanced weapons
BIS battlespace information system
B–ISDN broadband integrated services digital network
BITS battlefield information transmission system
BL4 biosafety level 4
BLITCD Battle Laboratory Integration, Technology, and Concepts Directorate
BM battle management
BMAR backlog of maintenance and repair
BMC Battlefield Manufacturing Center
BMC4I battle management command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence
BMD ballistic missile defense
BMDO Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
BOA battlefield ordnance awareness
BOD board of directors
BOM bit oriented message
BOS battlefield operating system
BRAC base realignment and closure
BRAT beyond line–of–sight reporting and tracking
BRDF bidirectional reflectance distribution function
BRP Basic Research Plan
BSFC brake specific fuel consumption

ABBREVIATIONS
BSFV–E Bradley Stinger fighting vehicle—enhanced

BW biological warfare; bandwidth
BWCDK biological warfare agent confirmation diagnostic kit
C Centigrade
C2I command, control, and intelligence
C2TL commercial communications technology testbed
C2V command and control vehicle
C2W command and control warfare
C3 command, control, and communications
C3I command, control, communications, and intelligence
C3IEW command, control, communications, intelligence, and electronic warfare
C4 command, control, communications, and computers
cm centimeter
CAA Concepts Analysis Agency
CAAM computer–assisted artillery meteorological
CAC2 combined arms command and control
CAD computer–aided design
CAE computer–aided engineering
CAFT Center for Advanced Food Technology
CAGES common air/ground electronic combat suite
CAM computer–aided manufacturing; computer–aided modeling
CAPS counteractive projection system
CARC chemical agent resistant coating
CARS contingency airborne reconnaissance system
CATOX catalytic oxidation
CATS combined arms training strategy
CATT combined arms tactical trainer
CAV composite armored vehicle
CB chemical and biological
CBD chemical and biological defense
CBDCOM Chemical and Biological Defense Command
CBTDEV combat development
CBW chemical and biological warfare
CCAWS close combat antiarmor weapon system
CCD camouflage, concealment, and deception
CCS close combat support
CCTT close combat tactical trainer
CD counterdrug
CD–ROM compact disk—read–only memory
CDA commanders decision aid
CDMA code division multiple access
CE chemical energy
CECOM Communications–Electronics Command
CENTCOM Central Command
CEP circular error probable
CERDEC Communications–Electronics Research, Development, and Engineering Center
CERL Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
CFD computational fluid dynamics
CG commanding general

ABBREVIATIONS
CGF computer–generated forces

CHLS combat health logistics system
CHPR Cooper Harper Pilot’s Rating
CHS combat health support
CI counterintelligence
CIFER comprehensive identification from frequency responses
CINC commander in chief
CKEM compact kinetic–energy missile
CM countermine; countermeasures
CMC/CC ceramic matrix composites/carbon composites
CMMS conceptual models of mission space
CMOS complementary metal oxide semi–conductor
CMRL counter multiple rocket launcher
CMTC Combat Maneuver Training Center
CNI communications, navigation, identification
CNR combat net radio
COA course of action
COBRA collection of broadcasts from remote assets
COC Council of Colonels
COE center of excellence; combat operating environment
COMINT communications intelligence
COMSEC communications security
CONOPS continuous operations
CONSCAN conical scan
COTS commercial off the shelf
CP collective protection; command post
CPAR construction productivity advancement research
CRDA cooperative research and development agreement
CRREL Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
CS combat support
CS/TMBS crew station/turret motion base simulator
CSA Chief of Staff, Army
CSC combat stress control
CSRDF Crew–Station Research and Development Facility
CSS combat services support
CSSCS combat service support control systems
CTC combat training center
CTIN Counterdrug Technology Information Network
CW chemical warfare
CWAR continuous wave acquisition radar
D/NAPS day/night, adverse–weather pilotage system

dB decibel
decon decontamination
DA Department of the Army
DAMA demand assignment multiple access
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DAPKL diode–array pumped kilowatt laser
DAS(R&T) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
DAS data acquisition segment
DB database
DBC digital battlefield communications

ABBREVIATIONS
DBMS database management system

DBS direct broadcast satellite
DBSBL dismounted battlespace battle laboratories
DC distributed center
DCD director of combat developments
DCSCD Deputy Chief of Staff for Combat Developments
DCSLOG Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics
DCSRDA Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition
DCSOPS Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans
DDL direct downlink
DDR&E Director, Defense Research and Engineering
DDS direct digital synthesizer
DE directed energy
DEA Drug Enforcement Agency
DEC Digital Equipment Corporation
DEM/VAL demonstration and validation
DENS directed–energy neutralization system
DET dynamic environment and terrain
DEW directed–energy weapon
DF direction finder
DI&S design integration and supportability
DIL Digital Integrated Laboratory
DIS distributed interactive simulation, data integration segment
DISN distributed interactive simulation network
DLC diamond–like carbon
DMSO Defense Modeling and Simulation Office
DNA Defense Nuclear Agency
DNA deoxyribonucleic acid
DoE Department of Energy
DOE diffractive optical element
DOF degrees of freedom
DOJ Department of Justice
DRE ducted rocket engine
DREN Defense Research and Engineering Network
DS2 decontamination solution 2
DSA depth and simultaneous attack
DSB Defense Science Board
DSCS Defense Satellite Communications System
DSI defense simulation internet
DSP digital signal processor
DSSA domain–specific software architecture
DSTAG Defense Science and Technology Advisory Group
DSWA Defense Special Weapons Agency
DTAP Defense Technology Area Plan
DTED digital terrain elevation data
DTIC Defense Technical Information Center
DTLOMS doctrine, training, leader development, organization, materiel, and soldier
DTO Defense Technology Objective
DTSS digital topographic support system
DU depleted uranium
DUAP Dual–Use Applications Program
DUSA(IA) Deputy Under Secretary of the Army (International Affairs)
DUSA(OR) Deputy Under Secretary of the Army (Operations Research)
DUSD(AT) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Technology

ABBREVIATIONS
EA electronic attack
EAD echelons above division
EADSIM extended air defense simulation
EADTB extended air defense testbed
EARC Electric Armaments Research Center
EBF electronic battlefield
ECCM electronic counter–countermeasures
ECM electronic countermeasures
ECOG Electronics Coordinating Group
ECP engineering change proposal
EEI essential elements of information
EELS early entry, lethality, and survivability
E–FOG enhanced fiber optic guided
EFOGM enhanced fiber optic guided missile
EFP explosively formed projectile
EHF extremely high frequency
ELINT electronic intelligence
EM electromagnetic
EMD engineering and manufacturing development
EME electromagnetic environment
EMI electromagnetic interference
EMW engineer and mine warfare
EO electro–optic; electro–optical
EOCM electro–optical countermeasures
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPP extended planning period
EPW enemy prisoner of war
ERA extended range artillery
ERDEC Edgewood Research, Development, and Engineering Center
ES electronic support
ESA electronic safe and arm
ESS electrostatic sensor
ET embedded training
ETC electrothermal–chemical
ETEC enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli
ETRAC enhanced tactical radar correlator
EUCOM European Command
EUT early user test
EV–II Eagle Vision II
EW electronic warfare
EXCIMS Executive Council for Modeling and Simulation
EXFOR experimental force
F Fahrenheit
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAAD forward area air defense
FACE forward aviation combat engineering
FAMSIM family of simulations
FARV future armored resupply vehicle
FBCB2 Force XXI battle command brigade and below

ABBREVIATIONS
FCR fire control radar

FCS flight control system; future combat system; fire control system
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FDDT forward deployable diagnostic test
FDR future digital radio
FFRDC federally funded research and development center
FI/LTL flame incendiary/less than lethal
FIR far infrared
FIV future infantry vehicle
FLIR forward–looking infrared
FLOT forward line of troops
FMTI future missile technology integration
FMTV family of medium tactical vehicles
FOC future operational capability
FOGM fiber optic guided missile
FOPEN foliage penetration
FORSCOM forces command
FOTT follow–on to TOW
FOV field of view
FPA focal plane array
FSAP full spectrum active protection
FSB forward support battalion
FSCS future scout and cavalry system
FTX field training exercise
FUE first unit equipped
FXXI LW Force XXI Land Warrior
FY fiscal year
FYDP Future–Years Defense Plan
g acceleration of gravity
gflops 109 floating point operations per second
G gravitational constant
G&C guidance and control
GaAs gallium arsenide
GaN gallium nitride
GaSb gallium antimony
GASCO generic algorithm for cockpit optimization
Gb gigabyte
GB Grenadier BRAT
GBCS ground–based common sensor
GBps gigabytes per second
GBR ground–based radar
GBS ground–based sensor
GCCS Global Command and Control System
GCS ground control station
GCSS Global Combat Support System
GHz gigahertz
GIF guidance integrated fuze
GIS geographic information system
GOTS government off the shelf
GPEN ground penetration
GPR ground penetrating radar

ABBREVIATIONS
GSD graphical situation display

GTG ground to ground
GVW gross vehicle weight
GW gross weight
Hz hertz
HACT helicopter active control technology
HBCU historically black colleges and universities
HCI hydrocynamic acid
HCTR high capacity trunk radio
HEAT high explosive antitank
HF high frequency
HIMARS high mobility rocket system
HITL hardware in the loop
HIV human immunodeficiency virus
HLA high level architecture
HMD helmet–mounted display
HMGL high mobility ground launched
HMMWV high mobility, multipurpose wheeled vehicle
HMPT human factors, manpower, personnel, and training
HPC high–performance computing
HPM high power microwave
HPRF high power radio frequency
HRED Human Research and Engineering Directorate
HTI horizontal technology integration
HUMINT human intelligence
HV hypervelocity
I/O input/output
I2 image intensification
I2R imaging infrared
InP indium phosphide
Intel intelligence
IA international agreement
IAS integrated acoustic system
IATS international agreements tracking system
IBACS integrated battlefield area communications system
IBAD ion beam assisted deposition
IBM International Business Machines
IC integrated circuit
ICH improved cargo helicopter
ICM integrated countermeasures
ICPA International Cooperative Program Activity
ICT integrated concepts team
ID identification
ID&PE information display and performance enhancement
IDREN Interim Defense Research and Engineering Network
IEC Integration and Evaluation Center
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

ABBREVIATIONS
IEW intelligence and electronic warfare

IEWCS intelligence and electronic warfare countermeasures suite
IFFC integrated fire and flight control
IFOG interferometric fiber–optic gyroscopes
IHPTET integration high performance turbine engine technology
IIT integrated idea team
ILIR in–house laboratory independent research
ILS integrated logistics support
IMETS integrated meteorological system
IMF intelligent minefield
IMINT imagery intelligence
IMO International Mathematical Olympiad
IMPACT integrated maintenance management prioritization analysis and coordination tool
IMPRINT integrated MANPRINT tools
IMU inertial measurement unit
INFOSEC information security
INS inertial navigation system
IOC2 information operations command and control
IP Internet protocol
IPB intelligence preparation of the battlefield
IPE integrated platform electronics
I–PORT individual soldier portable
IPPD integrated product and process development
IPT integrated product team
IR infrared
IR&D independent research and development
IRCM infrared countermeasures
IREMBASS Improved Remotely Monitored Battlefield Sensor System
IRFPA infrared focal plane array
IS intelligent system
IS&T information science and technology
ISAR interferometric synthetic aperture radar
ISAT integrated sensors and targeting
ISDN integrated services digital network
ISEF International Science and Engineering Fair
ISR intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
ISS individual survivability and sustainability
IST information systems and technology
ISTD Information Sciences and Technology Directorate
ITEMS interactive tactical environment management system
IUSS integrated undersea surveillance system; individual unit soldier simulation
IW information warfare
J/S jamming/signal
JBPDS joint biological point detection system
JBREWS joint biological remote early warning system
JBUDS joint biological universal detection system
JCM joint conflict model
JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff
JFLCC Joint Force Land Component Commander
JLINK Janus linked to DIS
JPMO Joint Program Management Office

ABBREVIATIONS
JPO Joint Project Office

JPS joint precision strike
JPSD Joint Precision Strike Demonstration
JRTC Joint Readiness Training Center
JSAM joint service aviation mask
JSAWM joint service agent water monitor
JSCBD joint service chemical and biological decontaminants
JSGPM joint service general purpose mask
JSHS Junior Science and Humanities Symposium
JSLIST joint service lightweight integrated suit technology
JSNBCRS joint service nuclear, biological, and chemical reconnaissance system
JSSAMP Joint Service Small Arms Master Plan
JSWILD joint service warning and identification LIDAR detector
JTAGG joint turbine advanced gas generator
JTAGS joint tactical ground station
JTR joint transport rotorcraft
JVAP Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program
JWARN joint warning and reporting network
JWC joint warfighting capabilities
JWID Joint Warfighter Interoperability Demonstration
JWSTP Joint Warfighter Science and Technology Plan
kg kilogram
kj kilojoule
km kilometer
km/s kilometer per second
kw kilowatt
KE kinetic energy
KEW kinetic energy weapons
KMR Kwajalein Missile Range
L/V lethality/vulnerability
lb pound
Li lithium
LAD logistics anchor desk
LADAR laser radar
LAH lightweight automated howitzer
LAN local area network
LaRC Langley Research Center
LASERCOM laser communications
LCLO low cost, low observable
LCP liquid crystal polymer
LCPK low–cost precision kill
LCSEC life–cycle software engineering center
LeRC Lewis Research Center
LH light helicopter
LIC low–intensity conflict
LIDAR light detection and ranging
LIGHTSAT small lightweight satellite
LOAL lock on after launch

ABBREVIATIONS
LOC line of communications

LOSAT line–of–sight antitank
LOTSOS logistics over–the–shore operational simulator
LPD low probability of detection
LPI low probability of interception
LQI Laboratory Quality Initiative
LRAS3 long–range advanced scout surveillance system
LRIP low rate initial production
LS line scanner
LSTAT life support for trauma and transport
LT2 light tactical operation center testbed
LW Land Warrior
LWIR long wave infrared
m/s meter per second

m meter
met meteorological
mm millimeter
M&R maintenance and repair
M&S modeling and simulation
MANPRINT manpower and personnel integration
MANTECH manufacturing technology
MASINT measurement and signal intelligence
MAT multimode airframe technology
MATDEV materiel developer
MATES manufacturing and tooling expert system
MBMMR multiband multimode radio
MBps million bytes per second
MCBDRP Medical Chemical and Biological Defense Research Program
MCS maneuver control system
MCT MOS controlled thyrister; mercury cadmium telluride
MD manufacturing demonstration
MDA Milestone Decision Authority
MDS modular design system
MECOG Mechanics Coordinating Group
MELIOS mini eye–safe laser infrared observation set
MEM microelectromechanics
MEMS microelectrochemical system
MEP mission equipment package
MERC mobility enhancing ration component
MERCURY (a model system of environmental hazards)
METT–T mission, enemy, troops, terrain, and time
MFC multinational force compatibility
MFOM MLRS family of submunitions
MFS3 multifunction staring sensor suite
MGR moving target indicator ground radar
MH/K mine hunter–killer
MHz megahertz
MI minority institution
MICOM Missile Command
MIDAS man–manchine integration design and analysis system
MILES multiple integrated laser engagement system
MJ megajoules

ABBREVIATIONS
MLRS multiple launch rocket system

MLS multilevel security
MMIC monolithic microwave integrated circuit
MMS meteorological measuring set
MMW millimeter wave
MNS mission need statement
MOA memorandum of agreement
MOCVD metallo–organic chemical vapor deposition
ModSAF modular semiautomated forces
MOMBE metallo–organic molecular beam epitaxy
MOP measure of performance
MOS metal oxide semiconductor
MOU memorandum of understanding
MOUT military operations in urban terrain
MP&S materials, processes, and structures
MPM microwave power module
MRE meals, ready to eat
MRF Materials Research Facility
MRL multiple rocket launcher
MRMAAV multirole mission adaptable air vehicle
MRMC Medical Research & Materiel Command
MS mass spectrometry; milestone
MS&T manufacturing science and technology
MSBL Maneuver Support Battle Laboratory
MSC major subordinate command
MSCM multispectral countermeasures
MSE mobile subscriber equipment
MSEG&C multispectral environmental generator and chamber
MSIP multispectral imagery [system]; multistage improvement program
MSRC major shared resource center
MSTAR MLRS smart tactical rocket
MTBF mean time between failures
MTBR mean time between replacements
MTI moving target indicator
MTO Manufacturing Technology Objective
MTTC MANTECH Technical Council
MTTR mean time to repair
MULE modular unammned logistics express
MURI Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
nm nanometer
NA nerve agent
NAC National Automotive Center
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical
NCA National Command Authority
NCO noncommissioned officer
NDE nondestructive evaluation
NDI nondevelopmental item
NEDT noise–equivalent delta temperature
NEOF no evidence of failure
NGLCSEC next–generation life–cycle software engineering center

ABBREVIATIONS
NIR near infrared

N–ISDN narrowband integrated services digital network
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NLO nonlinear optical
NMD national missile defense
NMRI Naval Medical Research Institute
NMRL Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Laboratory
NMS National Military Strategy
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOE nap of the earth
NRDEC Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center
NRO National Reconnaissance Office
NRT near real time
NRTC National Rotorcraft Technology Center
NSA National Security Agency
NSC National Security Council
NSF National Science Foundation
NSTD nonsystem training device
NTAPS near–term active protection system
NTC National Training Center
O&M operation and maintenance

O&S operation and support
OASA(RDA) Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition)
OBIDS on–board integrated diagnostic systems
OCONUS outside the continental United States
OCR operational capability requirement
OCSW objective crew–served weapon
ODCSOPS Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans
ODS ozone depleting substance
OICW objective individual combat weapon
OLTC open–loop tracking complex
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OOTW operations other than war
OPFOR opposing force
OPO optical parametric oscillator
OPTEC Operational Test and Evaluation Command
OPW objective personal weapon
ORD operational requirements document
ORTA Office of Research and Technology Applications
OS operating system
OSCR operating and support cost reduction
OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense
OSW objective sniper weapon
OT&E operational test and evaluation
OTM on the move
pH a value to express acidity and alkalinity

Ph probability of hit

ABBREVIATIONS
Pi probability of incapacitation
Pkill probability of kill
ppm parts per million
P3I preplanned product improvement
PAC3 Patriot advanced capability
PATS protection assessment test system
PBX private branch exchange
PC personal computer
PCR polymerase chain reaction
PCS personal communication system
PDF probability density function
PDRR program definition and risk reduction
PEM programmable electronic module; proton exchange membrane
PEO Program Executive Office
petaflops 1015 floating point operations per second
PGMM precision–guided mortar munition
PIP product improvement program; product improvement proposal
P.L. Public Law
PLA patent license agreement
PLD pulsed laser deposition
PLIF planar laser–induced fluorescence
PM program manager
POM program objective memorandum
POS/NAV position/navigation
PPBES planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system
PPSB power projection and sustaining base
PP&T personnel performance and training
PQA petroleum quality analysis
PSA pressure swing adsorption
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QRMP quick–response multicolor printer

QW quantum well
QWIP quantum well infrared photodiode

RACE rotorcraft air combat enhancement
RAM random access memory
RAMS remote activation munitions system
RAP radio access point
RASTR real aperture stationary target radar
RC Reserve component
RCS radar cross section
RD&E research, development, and engineering
RDA research, development, and acquisition
RDEC research, development, and engineering center
RDT&E research, development, test, and engineering
REAP Research and Engineering Apprenticeship Program
RF radio frequency

ABBREVIATIONS
RFCM radio frequency countermeasure

RFP C2 rapid force projection command and control
RFPI rapid force projection initiative
RISTA reconnaissance infrared surveillance and target acquisition
RITA Rotorcraft Industry Technology Association
RML Revolution in Military Logistics
RPA rotorcraft pilot’s aircraft
RPV remotely piloted vehicle
RSOP reconnaissance, selection, and occupation of position
RSTA reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition
R–T real time
RTM resin transfer molding; requirements translation model
RTSP reactive topical skin protectant
RTU remote terminal unit
RWST rotary wing structures technology
RWSTD Rotary Wing Structures Technology Demonstration
RWV rotary wing vehicle
S&A safe and arm

S&PS survivability and protective structure
S&TF systems and technology forum
S/SU/AC system/system upgrade/advanced concept
Si silicon
SiC silicon carbide
SADARM sense and destroy armor
SAF semiautomated force
SAFOR semiautomated forces
SAL semiactive laser
SAM surface–to–air missile
SAR synthetic aperture radar
SARAP survivable, affordable, repairable airframe program
SARD Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition)
SASO stability and support operations
SATCOM satellite communications
SBIR Small Business Innovation Research
SBIRS space–based infrared system
SC Simulation Center
SCAMP single–channel antijam man–portable
SCAPP standardized camouflage paint pattern
SCAPS site characterization and analysis penetrometer system
SCDMS structural crash dynamics modeling and simulation
SDF synthetic discriminant function
SEAD suppression of enemy air defense
SEAP Science and Engineering Apprentice Program
SEB staphylococcal enterotoxin
SEM science, engineering, and mathematics
SEM–E standard electronic module—format E
SEP soldier enhancement program
SER system evolution record
SERDP Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
SFREP Summer Faculty Research and Engineering Program

ABBREVIATIONS
SGI Silicon Graphics Incorporated

SHF super high frequency
SHTU simplified handheld terminal unit
SICP single integrated command post
SIGINT signals intelligence
SIL system integration laboratory
SIMITAR simulation in training for advanced readiness
SIMNET simulation network
SINCGARS single–channel ground and airborne radio system
SIP system improvement program
SLAIR survivability/lethality advanced integration in rotorcraft
SLBD Sea Lite Beam Director
SLM spatial light modulator
SMART sensor mounted as roving thread
SMDBL Space and Missile Defense Battle Laboratory
SMDC Space and Missile Defense Command
SOA special operations aircraft
SOCOM Special Operations Command
SOF Special Operations Forces
SOL structured query language
SPG Scientific Planning Group
SQL structured query language
SRO Strategic Research Objective
SSES suite of survivability enhancement systems
STAR Strategic Technologies for the Army of the 21st Century
STARLITE surveillance targeting and reconnaissance satellite
STARLOS SAR Target Recognition and Location System
STARS software technology for adaptable, reliable systems
STAS subsystems technology for affordability and supportability; short–term analysis service
STI stationary target indicator
STIRR subsystems technology for infrared reductions
STO Science and Technology Objective
STOW synthetic theater of war
STRATA simulator training research advanced testbed for aviation
STRICOM Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command
STRV–2 space technology research vehicle
STTR Small Business Technology Transfer
SUO small unit operations
SUSOPS sustained operations
teraflops 1012 floating point operations per second

ti titanium
T&D transport and diffusion
T&E test and evaluation
TACOM Tank–Automotive and Armaments Command
TACSIM tactical simulations
TAD theater area defense
TADSS training aids, devices, simulators, and simulations
TARA Technology Area Review and Assessment
TARDEC Tank–Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center
TBM theater ballistic missile
TCG Technical Coordiation Group
TCP/IP transmission control protocol/Internet protocol

ABBREVIATIONS
TD Technology Demonstration
TDA technology development approach
TEC Topographic Engineering Center
TECOM Test and Evaluation Command
TEED tactical end–to–end encryption device
TEG tactical exploitation group
TEMO training, exercise, and military operations
TENCAP tactical exploitation of national capabilities
TERM tank extended range munitions
TES tactical exploitation system
TESAR tactical synthetic array radar
THAAD theater high altitude area defense
TI tactical internet
TIBS tactical information broadcasting system
TIER unmanned aerial vehicle TIER II
TIS tactical input segment
TMD theater missile defense
TOC Tactical Operations Center
TOW tube–launched, optically tracked, and wire command–link guided [missile]
T.P. TRADOC pamphlet
TP thermoplastic
TPSO theater precision strike operations
TPV thermophotovoltaic
TRAC TRADOC Analysis Center
TRE tactical receiver equipment
TSA temperture swing adsorption
TTP tactics, techniques, and procedures
TUAV tactical unmanned aerial vehicle
TWS thermal weapon sight
TWT traveling wave tube
UAV unmanned aerial vehicle

UGV unmanned ground vehicle
UHF ultra high frequency
ULCANS–GP ultra–lightweight camouflage net system—general purpose
UMD University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth
UNITE Uninitiaties Introduction to Engineering
UPAS unit performance assessment system
UPC unit production code
URI university research initiative
U.S. United States
USAAIC United States Army Artificial Intelligence Center
USAF United States Air Force
USAIS United States Army Infantry School
USAMRICD United States Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense
USAMRIID United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases
USARIEM United States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine
USASMDC United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command
U.S.C. United States Code (publication)
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFK U.S. Forces Korea
USMA United States Military Academy

ABBREVIATIONS
USMC United States Marine Corps

USN United States Navy
UV ultraviolet
UWB ultra wideband
UWV unmanned wheeled vehicle
UXO unexploded ordnance
V&V verification and validation

VASTC Virtual Advanced Software Technology Consortium
VCSA Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
VCSEL vertical/cavity surface emitting laser
VE virtual environment
VEES vehicle engine exhaust smoke
VHDL VHSIC hardware descriptive language
VHF very high frequency
VHSIC very high speed integrated circuit
VMF variable message format
VMMD vehicular–mounted mine detector
VMS vehicle management system
VOC volatile organic compound
VR virtual reality
VSD virtual simulation directorate
VSIL vehicle systems integration laboratory
VTOL vertical take–off and landing
VV&A verification, validation, and accreditation
VX [chemical agent] VX
W watt
WAM wide area munition
WAN wide area network
WARSIM warfighter simulations
Web World Wide Web
WES Waterways Experiment Station
Wh watt hour
WIN warfighter information network
WIT wireless interworking testbed
WMD weapon of mass destruction
WP&S warrior protection and sustainment
WRAIR Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
WRAP Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program
YPG Yuma Proving Ground

Technology Transition (Vol I, Ch III), Section D. Aviation
TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
(Vol. I, Ch. III)
AVIATION (Section D)
III.D.01—Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate (RPA) ATD. By FY99, develop and demonstrate through simulation and flight
test a cooperative man–machine system that synergistically integrates revolutionary mission equipment package
technologies, high–speed data fusion processing, cognitive decision aiding knowledge–based systems, and an advanced
pilotage sensor and display to achieve maximum mission effectiveness and survivability of our combat helicopter forces.
The product will contribute greatly to the pilot’s ability to "see and comprehend the battlefield" in all conditions;
rapidly collect, synthesize, and disseminate battlefield information; and take immediate and effective actions. Measures
of performance beyond a Comanche–like baseline during day/night, clear, and adverse weather battlefield conditions
include reduction in mission losses by 30–60 percent, increased targets destroyed by 50–150 percent, and a reduction in
mission timelines by 20–30 percent. Milestones include system preliminary design 3Q95, software build #1 4Q95,
simulation evaluation 2Q97, and flight test 3Q98.
Supports: RAH–66 Comanche, AH–64 Enhanced Apache, and system upgrades; Quiet Night; Early Entry Lethality
and Survivability (EELS), Depth and Simultaneous Attack (D&SA), Mounted Battlespace (MBS), DBS, Battle
Command (BC), and Combat Service Support (CSS) Battle Labs; and dual–use potential for general and commercial
aviation, law enforcement, mass transit, etc.
STO Manager TSO TRADOC POC

LTC George Dimitrov John Yuhas Ted Hundley
AATD SARD–TT U.S. Army Aviation Center and
(757) 878–2770 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: 927–2770 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.03—Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission II (ART II). Demonstrate a "quantum leap" in transmission system
technology through the integration of emerging technologies in materials, structures, mechanical components,
dynamics, acoustics, lubrication, and manufacturing processes. ART II will use advanced component technologies such
as split–torque transmission design, improved gear tooth geometry, low–volume lube systems, and corrosion resistant
housing materials, which have been developed under ART I, industry independent research and development (IR&D),
or research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) 6.2 programs, and integrate them into a full–scale
demonstration of critical transmission subsystems. Candidate subsystems include lube system and accessory drives,
input module, tail rotor drive system, or main gear box. Technologies will be demonstrated through detail design (by
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1d.htm（第 1／14 页）2006-09-10 23:10:26

FY98), fabrication (by FY99), and subsystem performance, endurance, and noise testing (by FY00). The specific
technology objectives to be demonstrated under ART II by FY00 will be 25 percent weight reduction, 10–decibel (dB)
noise reduction, increase in mean time between repairs to 12,000 hours, and improved producibility. In terms of
warfighting capabilities and payoffs, ART II technology will provide 15 percent increase in range or 25 percent increase
in payload from an AH–64 baseline, significantly improved readiness, and improvements in maneuverability and agility
and operations and support (O&S) cost reduction.
Supports: Joint Transport Rotorcraft (JTR); AH–64 Enhanced Apache; RAH–66 Comanche; system upgrades for
naval aircraft (common light vertical system replacement); EELS, D&SA, MBS, and CSS Battle Labs; and dual–use
potential for both general and commercial aviation.

Hank Morrow John Yuhas Ted Hundley
ATCOM/AATD SARD–TT U.S. Army Aviation Center and
(804) 878–4130 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: 927–4130 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.04—Helicopter Active Control Technology (HACT). By FY02, demonstrate a 50 percent reduction in the
probability of degraded handling qualities due to flight control system failures, a 60 percent improvement in weapons
pointing accuracy, a 50 percent increase in agility and maneuverability, and a 30 percent reduction in flight control
system flight test development time. HACT will demonstrate integrated, state–of–the–art rotorcraft flight control
technologies with exploitation of advanced fixed–wing hardware components and architectures. The objective is to
demonstrate through simulation and flight test second–generation rotorcraft digital fly–by–wire/light control systems
with fault–tolerant architectures, including carefree maneuvering, task–compliant control laws, and integrated fire/fuel/
flight control capabilities, designed with robust control law design methods. The program will overcome technical
barriers such as the lack of knowledge of optimal rotorcraft response types; inadequate techniques for sensing the onset
of envelope limits, cueing the pilot, or limiting pilot inputs; inadequate air vehicle math modeling for high–bandwidth
flight control; inadequate flight control system design, optimization, and validation techniques; and lack of knowledge
in the optimum functional integration of flight control, weapon systems, and pilot interface. Program milestones are:
FY99—complete hardware and software preliminary design; FY00—fabricate hardware and perform software
validation and verification and hardware–in–the–loop (HITL) simulation; and FY02—integrate flight control system
with flight test vehicle. Payoffs of the HACT program will include capability improvements in all–weather/night mission
performance, flight safety, and development time/cost that contribute to a 4 percent reduction in RDT&E costs, a 65
percent increase in maneuverability and agility, and a 20 percent reduction in major accident rate.
Supports: JTR, RAH–66 Comanche, AH–64 Apache, and DoD rotorcraft system upgrades.

Wayne Mantay John Yuhas Ted Hundley

ATCOM/AFDD SARD–TT U.S. Army Aviation Center and
(804) 864–3953 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.09—Future Missile Technology Integration (FMTI). By FY98, demonstrate lightweight, fire–and–forget,

air–to–air, multirole missile technology in support of GTG missions. Missile system must include the integration of
common guidance and control (G&C), propulsion, airframe and warhead technologies capable of performing in high
clutter/obscurants, day/night adverse weather environments, and under countermeasure (CM) conditions. Missile
system performance (i.e., range, speed, lethality) must exceed current baseline systems.
Supports: Bradley, Follow–On–To–TOW(FOTT), Hellfire III, HWMMV, RAH–66 Comanche, and AH–64
Enhanced Apache.

James Bradas Irena Szkrybalo Ted Hundley
MICOM SARD–TT U.S. Army Aviation Center and
(205) 876–5935 (703) 697–8432 School
DSN: 746–5935 DSN: 227–8432 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.12—Advanced Helicopter Pilotage Phase I/II. Develop and demonstrate advanced night vision pilotage
technology and revolutionary helmet–mounted display (HMDs) technology for night/adverse weather helicopter
pilotage. By FY95, develop image intensified (I2) sensor and fast (60 hertz (Hz)) focal plane array (FPA) for wide
filed–of–view (FOV) forward–looking infrared (FLIR). By FY96, conduct flight demonstration and evaluation of
sensor technology for wide FOV FLIR and I2. By FY98, demonstrate ultra–wide FOV (40–80 degrees) night pilotage
system—HMDs and dual–spectrum (IR and I2) sensors in a single turret—to provide a significant reduction in pilot
cognitive and physical work load.
Supports: MBS, D&SA, BC, and EELS Battle Labs; RAH–66 Comanche; Enhanced Apache; Special Operations
Aircraft; and RPA ATD.

Phil Perconti Rob Saunders Ted Hundley
CERDEC/NVESD SARD–TT U.S. Army Aviation Center and
(703) 704–1369 (703) 697–8432 School
DSN: 654–1369 DSN: 227–8432 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571

III.D.13—Multispectral Countermeasures (MSCM) ATD. This project will demonstrate advances in laser technology,
energy transmission, and jamming techniques for an all laser solution to infrared countermeasures (IRCM) and as a
preplanned product improvement (P3I) to the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM) System/
Common Missile Warning System (CMWS). These improvements will provide the capability to counter both present
and future multicolor imaging FPA and nonimaging missile seekers. A tunable multiline laser with a fiber–optic
transmission line and advanced detection and jamming algorithms will be live–fire tested using the ATIRCM testbed.
The goal is a 4x reduction in laser jam head volume, 35 pounds in weight reduction, greater than 2x reduction in
ATIRCM/CMWS power consumption, and a 6x improvement in jam–to–signal ratio. By FY97, complete module
testing and evaluation of competitive solid state mid–IR laser technologies, initiate jamming algorithm enhancements,
and fiber–optic coupling design. By FY98, integrate laser, fiber–optic coupler, tracker, and advanced jammer
algorithms, and conduct distributed interactive simulation (DIS) using the Communications–Electronics Command
(CECOM) Survivability Integration Laboratory (SIL) and the Fort Rucker cockpit testbed. By FY99, conduct live–fire
cable car test and captive seeker tests to demonstrate a CM capability against advanced imaging IR missiles and other
secondary threats to rotary–wing aircraft. Demonstrate antitank guided missile (ATGM) HTI to ground vehicles.
Supports: Air Maneuver, MBS, D&SA, and BC Battle Labs; PM–AEC Tri–Service ATIRCM/CMWS; PM–GSI
Ground Combat Vehicle Multispectral Imagery (MSI) Warning and IRCM; and the proposed Integrated Situational
Awareness and Countermeasures (ISACM) ATD.

Ted Doepel Rob Saunders Ted Hundley
(703) 704–1216 (703) 697–8432 School
DSN: 654–1216 DSN: 227–8432 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.14—Air/Land Enhanced Reconnaissance and Targeting (ALERT) ATD. ALERT will demonstrate on–the–move
(OTM), automatic aided target acquisition and enhanced identification via the use of a second–generation FLIR/
multifunction laser sensor suite for application to future aviation assets, which do not have radar, and secondarily to
ground assets. ALERT will leverage ongoing Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Proejcts Agency (DARPA)
developments for search OTM automatic target recognition (ATR), including the use of temporal FLIR processing for
moving target indicator (MTI). This approach will also enable application of the ATR capability to all weapons systems
with integrated FLIR/laser sensors. The demonstration will be a real–time, fully operational flying testbed emulation of
all modes of the basic RAH–66 target acquisition system. By FY98, collect OTM data for use in constructive and virtual
simulation. By FY99, demonstrate baseline OTM performance using second–generation FLIR and standard
rangefinding mode. By FY00, integrate laser range mapping capability to demonstrate OTM aided target acquisition
with acceptable false alarms as a lower cost alternative to FLIR/radar fusion. By FY01, integrate laser profiling capability
to demonstrate automatic acquisition and identification.
Supports: MBS, D&SA, BC, and EELS Battle Labs; RAH–66 Comanche; and AH–64C/D Apache.


Rich Wright Rob Saunders Ted Hundley
(703) 704–1918 (703) 697–8432 School
DSN: 654–1918 DSN: 227–8432 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.15—Low–Cost Precision Kill (LCPK) 2.75–Inch Guided Rocket. By the end of FY98, develop and demonstrate
through HWIL simulation and captive field test using best available seeker/sensors, inertial instrumentation, controller
characterizations, and launch platform integration technologies a low–cost, accurate (1–meter (m) Concept
Experimentation Program (CEP)) G&C package concept for the 2.75–inch rocket that provides a standoff range,
surgical strike capability against specified nontank point targets. This capability will provide for a high, single–shot
probability of hit against long–range targets, exceeding the current unguided 2.75–inch rocket baseline by 1 or 2 orders
of magnitude, thereby reducing the cost/kill, minimizing collateral damage, and greatly increasing the number of
stowed kills. Fratricide will be reduced to a minimum by use of guidance techniques allowing postlaunch adjustment of
the rocket’s point of impact. Low cost will be achieved by the combination of proven techniques with innovative sensor
and control mechanizations and manufacturing processes to support a two–thirds reduction in manufacturing costs
compared to current guided missiles.
Supports: EELS, D&SA, and CSS Battle Labs; Hydra–70 Improvement; Apache; Kiowa Warrior; Avenger; Bradley;
SOF; and Rapid Force Projection Initiative (RFPI) ACTD.

Charles L. Lewis Irena Szkrybalo COL Jesse Danielson
MICOM SARD–TT ATZD–CD
(205) 876–7663 (703) 697–8432 (334) 255–3203
DSN: 746–7663 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 558–3203
III.D.16—Rotary–Wing Structures Technology (RWST). By FY01, fabricate and demonstrate advanced lightweight,
tailorable structures and ballistically tolerant airframe configurations that incorporate state of the art computer design/
analysis techniques, improved test methods, and affordable fabrication processes. The technology objectives are to
increase structural efficiency by 15%, improve structural loads prediction accuracy to 75% and reduce costs by 25%
without adversely impacting airframe signature. By FY98, develop and demonstrate manufacturing process feedback
algorithms to actively control the cure state of composite resins to reduce problems with porosity, degree of cure, and
fiber volume fraction. By FY99, demonstrate fully composite primary structural joints to reduce the manufacturing
labor for large composite components and increase the structural efficiency, and provide validated strength and fatigue
life methodologies for rotorcraft composite structures. By FY00, demonstrate adaptive, out–of–autoclave tooling with
preferential heating to optimize the cure cycle of cocured composite elements of highly variable thickness. Exploit

emerging technologies in nondestructive inspection , miniature sensors for manufacturing process control, and
modeling/virtual prototyping for reducing development time and cost.
Demonstrate by FY01, advanced airframe sections which are tailored for structural efficiency, affordable producibility,
and field supportability. These goals support the systems payoffs of 55% increase in range or 36% increase in payload,
20% increase in reliability, 10% improvement in maintainability, 6% reduction in RDT&E costs, 15% reduction in
procurement costs, and 5% reduction in O&S costs for utility type rotorcraft.
Supports: Primary emphasis provides technology options to the UH–60, AH–64, Improved Cargo Helicopter (ICH),
RAH–66 & SOA upgrades, future air vehicles (Joint Transport Rotorcraft (JTR)), collaborative technology; and the
Battle Lab FOCs (EEL, CSS, DSA, DBS and MTD). Contributes to RWV TDA objectives, goals, and payoffs.

Graydon Ellicott John Yuhas Ted Hundley
(804) 878–5921 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: 927–5921 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.17—Advanced Rotorcraft Aeromechanics Technologies (ARCAT). By FY00, conduct research and

development to achieve technical objectives by increasing maximum blade loading 8%, increasing rotor aerodynamic
efficiency 3%, reducing aerodynamic adverse forces by 5%, reducing aircraft loads and vibration loads by 20%,
reducing acoustic radiation by 4db, increasing inherent rotor lag damping 33%, and increasing rotorcraft
aeromechanics predictive effectiveness to 65%. Results will be achieved by addressing technical barriers of airfoil stall,
high unsteady airloads, blade–vortex interaction, highly interacting aerodynamics phenomena, complex aeroelastic and
structural dynamics characteristics, and limited analytical prediction methods and design tools. Concepts include
application of on–blade active control to increase rotor performance and aerodynamic efficiency, reduce BVI noise,
blade loads and vehicle vibration at the source; optimizing the configuration geometry of the rotor blade and
introducing advanced airfoil concepts to increase aerodynamic efficiency, and maximum blade loading; and vigorously
integrating and validating advanced analytical tools such as CFD, finite element structural models, and advanced
computational solution techniques to effectively advance rotorcraft aeromechanics technology. By FY97, exploit
concepts for smart materials active on–blade aerodynamic controls. By FY98, simulate high–lift, low–energy,
periodic–blowing airfoil design; evaluate practical Navier–Stokes CFD solver for rotorcraft interaction aerodynamics;
and demonstrate model–scale, on–blade active control rotor concepts for reduced vibration and noise. By FY99,
demonstrate integrated CFD/finite–element structures rotorcraft modeling. By FY00, demonstrate concepts towards
elimination of conventional rotor lag dampers through the application of smart structures. Achievement of
aeromechanics technology objectives will contribute to rotorcraft system payoffs in range, payload, cruise speed,
maneuverability/agility, reliability, maintainability, and reduced RDT&E, procurement, and O&S costs.
Supports: RAH–66, AH–64, and Fielded System Upgrades, Next Generation Cargo Vehicles (Joint Transport
Rotorcraft), collaborative technologies, and Battle Lab FOCs for EELS, CSS, D&SA, DBS and MTD Battle Labs.
Contributes to RWV TDA objectives, goals, and payoffs.


Wayne Mantay John Yuhas Ted Hundley
ATCOM/AFDD SARD–TT U.S. Army Aviation Center and
(804) 864–3953 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.18—Subsystem Technology for Affordability and Supportability (STAS). Demonstrate subsystems technologies
directly affecting the affordability and supportability of Army Aviation. Addresses technical barriers associated with
advanced, digitized maintenance concepts, and real–time, on–board integrated diagnostics. The effort supports the
advanced maintenance concept of "Digitized Aviation Logistics" to automate maintenance and move toward an
integrated, digitized, maintenance information network. The expected benefits from this STO are reductions in Mean
Time to Repair (MTTR), No Evidence of Failure (NEOF) removals, and spare parts consumption, resulting in overall
reductions in system life cycle cost and enhanced mission effectiveness. Pursuits include on–board as well as
ground–based hardware and software concepts designed to assist the maintainer in diagnosing system faults and
recording and analyzing maintenance data and information. On–aircraft technologies will include advanced diagnostic
sensors, signal processing algorithms, high–density storage, and intelligent decision aids. Ship–side diagnostic and
maintenance actions will integrate laptop and body–worn electronic aids, advanced displays, knowledge–based
software systems, personal viewing devices, voice recognition technologies, and telemaintenance network. By FY98,
demonstrate seeded fault validation testing. By FY99, demonstrate Fuzzy Logic Fault Isolation technique aid. By FY00,
demonstrate dynamic component fault detectors and virtual maintenance tool. Supports reduced MTTR across all
systems by 15%, contributing directly to the rotary wing vehicle TDA goal of 25% reduction in maintenance costs per
flight hour and payoffs of 10% improvement in maintainability, 20% increase in reliability, and 5% reduction in O&S
costs.
Supports: AH–64, UH–60, RAH–66 upgrades; ICH and JTR developments; other service and civil rotorcraft fleet.

Gene Birocco John Yuhas Ted Hundley
(804) 878–3008 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: 927–3008 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.19—Subsystem Technology for Infrared Reduction (STIRR). The focus of this STO is on the development,
integration, and demonstration of improved Rotary Wing Vehicle (RWV) survivability through total aircraft thermal
signature management. Technology objectives aimed at selectively reducing and balancing both the thermal emissions
and engine /plume contributors to total aircraft IR signature are key components of this STO. Advances in infrared
technologies that include the development of partial and full imaging capabilities on near–term threat missile systems,
coupled with the proliferation of older yet still lethal surface–to–air missile systems have resulted in the need for a better

equipped, lower IR signature aircraft. Concurrent with the increasingly lethal battlefield, today’s fleet aircraft are
assuming additional responsibilities that often result in additional on–board "heat–producing" equipment and greater
engine power requirements.
Several technology initiatives have been identified as priorities based on current and expected future infrared
advancements. By FY99, achieve development and measurement of advanced, multispectral (visual–through–far–IR)
airframe coatings that are compatible with radar absorbing materials/structures, develop state–of–the–art, low–cost,
lightweight thermal insulating materials,and conduct efforts to cool helicopter engine/plume. By FY00, advanced
engine suppression concepts will be fabricated and demonstrated on both a subscale and full–scale level. Balanced
thermal signature reduction will be achieved and demonstrated on an RWV by FY01. A goal of 35% reduction in
aircraft IR signature is attainable and anticipated, which will support an RWV payoff of 40% increase in the probability
of survival.
Supports: AH–64, UH–60, RAH–66 upgrades, ICH and JTR developments as well as other service aircraft.

(804) 878–3008 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: 927–3008 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.20p—Third–Generation Advanced Rotor Demonstration (3rd GARD). By FY04, develop and demonstrate the
next generation rotor system to exploit the full potential of advanced blade configurations and active control systems.
3rd GARD will advance rotor concepts beyond current performance limits through high lift airfoils/devices, tailored
planforms and tip shapes, elastic/dynamic tailoring, active on–blade control methods, and signature reduction
techniques. These efforts will achieve technical objectives of increasing maximum blade loading 16%, increasing rotor
aerodynamic efficiency 6%, reducing aircraft loads and vibration loads by 40%, and reducing acoustic radiation by 7db.
By FY01, conduct advanced active control rotor design. By FY02, initiate test article fabrication. By FY03, complete test
article structural tests, and initiate wind tunnel testing. By FY04, complete ground testing, and initiate flight test
evaluation of technology. These goals contribute to the RWV TDA system level payoffs of 91% increase in range or
66% increase in payload, 6% increase in cruise speed, 65% increase in maneuverability/agility, 20% increase in
reliability, and 21% reduction in O&S costs for attack rotorcraft.
Supports: RAH–66, AH–64, and Fielded System Upgrades, Next Generation Cargo Vehicles (Joint Transport
Rotorcraft), collaborative technologies, and Battle Lab FOCs for EELS, CSS, D&SA, DBS and MTD Battle Labs.
Contributes to RWV TDA objective, goals and payoffs.

Clark D. Mikkelsen John Yuhas Ted Hundley

(205) 876–3370 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: 746–3370 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.21p—Full–Spectrum Threat Protection (FSTP). By FY05, demonstrate on a fielded AH–64 Apache helicopter
the synergistic benefits that can be obtained by integrating state–of–the–art technologies related to advanced active
electronic warfare and decoy CM, advanced passive signature reduction technology and advanced air crew situational
awareness and tactics. FSTP will capitalize on existing and in–process technical developments while identifying and
pursuing advanced technologies necessary to support areas where advanced threat development is expected to surpass
current capabilities. The primary challenge of this STO is to integrate active and passive CM that can produce a mission
effective, survivable rotary wing vehicle that is both supportable and affordable. By FY02, select state–of–the art active/
passive CM, aircrew situational awareness concepts and develop preliminary system design. By FY03, perform
hardware fabrication and initial software development. By FY04, perform hot bench integration and subsystem flight
test. By FY05, perform system flight test and simulation validation demo. FSTP will integrate passive features such as
radar absorbing airframe and rotor structures, advance canopy and sensor window treatments, innovative IR
suppressors, multispectral paints and coatings, lightweight insulative materials, and low glint canopy coatings along with
the Advanced Threat Radar Jammer (ATRJ) and the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM) systems.
These technologies will support achievement of the rotary wing 2005 TDA technology goals of a 40% reduction in radar
cross section signature, a 50% reduction in infrared signature, and a 55% reduction in the visual/electro–optical
signature. In turn, these will contribute to the system payoff of 60% increase in probability of survival. A 50% increase in
active aircraft survivability equipment effectivenesss will also be achieved.
Supports: UH–60, AH–64, Improved Cargo Helicopter, and future Comanche upgrades and future systems, e.g., Joint
Transport Rotorcraft (JTR). Supports MTD, DSA, EEL, CSS, and BC Battle Labs, and contributes to the RWV TDA
objectives, goals and payoffs.

(804) 878–3008 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: 927–3008 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.22p—On–Board Integrated Diagnostic System (OBIDS). By FY04, demonstrate advanced diagnostics and
prognostics on an operational helicopter with a high level of on–board systems integration to interface with the
maintenance infrastructure. This program will highlight cost benefits and safety improvements. Systems assessments will
include operational issues, training requirements and return on investment as well as expected maintainability and
availability improvements. By FY00, initiate development contract. By FY01, complete preliminary and critical design
reviews. By FY02, conduct aircraft modifications. By FY03, conduct safety of flight reviews, flight tests, and extended

user operations. By FY04, reconfigure aircraft and issue final report. Key technologies will include failure detection, fault
isolation and trending, performance and life use monitoring, condition based maintenance and prognostic methods.
Related DoD initiatives include AI software, acoustic sensing, electronic devices and human–system interface. The
improved diagnostics will affect No Evidence of Failure (NEOF) removals, false removals, flight mission aborts, flight
safety, maintenance downtime, and availability. Logistics will be affected through spare management, engine R&R rates,
soft Time Between Overhaul (TBO)/part life extension, and early corrosion and fatigue detection. A combination of
DoD S&T, IR&D and commercial (NDI) technologies and products will be integrated for this technology
demonstration.
Supports reduced maintenance logistics requirements by 15% or greater, contributing directly to Rotary Wing Vehicle
TDA goal of 50% reduction in maintenance costs/flight–hour and payoffs of 20% improvements in maintainability,
45% increase in reliability, and 10% reduction in O&S costs.
Supports: AH–64, UH–60, RAH–66 upgrades; ICH and JTR developments; other service and civil rotorcraft fleet.

Jack Tansey John Yuhas Ted Hundley
(804) 878–4108 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: 927–4108 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.23p—Hellfire III. By FY01 demonstrate an improved Hellfire missile, that remains compatible with current and
future hellfire launchers, at a possible reduction in weight or cost. The Hellfire III missile must maintain laser–like
precision strike capability while combining millimeter wave–like fire and forget capability at 8 km and in adverse
weather/obscurants. The technology demonstration will utilize enhancements in propulsion, warhead, and
aerodynamic technologies to allow missions to be performed at extended ranges (12 km), at reduced times of flight, and
on a greater variety of target sets. These improvements to the Hellfire missile system will not adversely affect the
operational effectiveness of the transit platform.
Supports: Hellfire III.

James Bradas Irena Szkrybalo Ted Hundley
(205) 876–5935 (703) 697–8432 School
DSN: 746–5935 DSN: 227–8432 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.24p—Low–Cost Precision Kill (LCPK). By 2001 develop and demonstrate innovative strapdown

(nongimballed) seekers, miniature inertial devices, control systems, microprocessor and integration technologies to
produce a low cost, accurate (1m CEP) G&C retrofit package for the 2.75 inch Hydra–70 rocket. This will provide a
standoff range (>6 km) capability against specified nontank targets. In addition, a high single shot probability of hit
(Phit >0.7) against the long range target will be achieved, exceeding the current unguided 2.75 inch rocket baseline by 1
to 2 orders of magnitude, and providing a 4 to 1 increase in stowed kills at 1/3 the cost per kill compared to current
guided missiles. This will be accomplished through a set of 6.2 funded programs and 6.3 funded demonstrations to
overcome barriers such as providing a low cost, produceable strapdown mechanism for precision guidance;
considerations for guidance package retrofit to current 2.75 inch Hydra–70 rockets; and standoff range target
acquisition and engagement techniques to address current free–rocket launch and flight dispersions.
Supports: Army Aviation, Apache AH–64.

Charles L. Lewis Irena Szkrybalo COL Jesse Danielson
MICOM SARD–TT ATZD–CD
(205) 876–7663 (703) 697–8432 (334) 255–3203
DSN: 746–7663 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 558–3203
III.D.25—Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) for Weapons. Conventional weapon systems are looking to extend
their range through various technology approaches to facilitate a more favorable loss—exchange ratio on the battlefield.
The ATR for weapons effort will provide for effective weapon engagement against a widely dispersed threat within the
context of the digital battlefield and demonstrate extended range capabilities for LOAL which will play a crucial role in
future soldier/weapon platform survivability. ATR has the potential to provide the soldier with a weapon that has true
LOAL fire and forget capability at extended ranges with the added benefits of reacquisition of targets after loss of lock,
friendly avoidance, and optimum aim point selection for increased warhead effectiveness. Effort includes Tri–service
and industry assessments to determine the optimum approach for the Army. By FY98, define concept approach and
collect data on various sensors under consideration. By FY99, exchange and assess Army, Air Force and Navy
approaches, develop additional hardware and algorithms as required. By FY00, tower test and captive carry
demonstrations of hardware/algorithms in realistic battlefield environments to include smoke and countermeasures. By
FY01, use collected data in flight simulations and performance assessments for applicability to relevant weapon systems.
Supports: Hellfire III, BAT P3I, MSTAR, EFOG–M, UAV, and extended range fire and forget which demands LOAL,
UGV, Avenger, FOTT P3I, Javelin, Stinger, FMTI.

Richard Sims Irena Szkrybalo Warren Morimoto
MICOM RDEC SARD–TT DCD
(205) 876–1648 (703) 697–8432
DSN: 746–1648 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–4268

III.D.26—Airborne Manned/Unmanned System Technology (AMUST). Program Description: AMUST will evaluate
the cooperative teaming of a manned helicopter with an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and the resulting gains in
operational payoffs available to the Maneuver Commander in support of Vision XXI and the Army After Next
Concepts. The effort completes the Air Maneuver Battlelab’s Concept Experimentation Program for Manned and
Unmanned Aerial Platform Operations on the Digitized Battlefield and will investigate a range of cost effective options
for both ground and airborne control of the UAV, as well as sensor information availability as a function of mission
scenarios and areas of operation (deep, close, urban), timelines, flight path G&C, airspace management, information
fusion (onboard/offboard sensor data), spectrum management, and automation needs. AMUST will determine
technical barriers associated with control of the UAV and sensors in the high workload environment of a manned
helicopter and define the critical technologies for optimum manned/unmanned systems integration. AMUST will
provide a 50% increase in survivability of the manned system, a 50% increase in aircraft lethality, and a real–time
hunter–to–shooter capability. By FY98, determine AMUST scenario requirements, identify AMUST critical
technologies and perform constructive simulations in an interactive environment. By FY99, continue technology
investigations/optimizations and virtual simulations in an interactive environment. AMUST technology will have
applications to the teaming of ground manned systems and Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) as well as ground
manned systems with UAVs.
Supports: AH–64, RAH–66 upgrades; UAV Joint Program Office (JPO) developments; Air Maneuver Battle Lab
Concept Experimentation Program (CEP); Depth and Simultaneous Attack (DSA), Mounted Maneuver Battlespace,
Early Entry Lethality and Survivability, and Maneuver Support Battle Labs and other Services.

Kristopher Kuck John Yuhas Ted Hundley
(757) 878–5734 (703) 697–8434 School
DSN: 927–5734 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.27p—Low–Cost Aviator’s Imaging Multispectral Modular Sensors. By FY02, develop and demonstrate
multispectral pilotage sensors that leverage state–of–the–art technologies for sensors and displays, including FLIR,
Image Intensifier, Obstacle Detection sensors, and wide field–of–view (40° x 90°) optics. The program will develop a
core suite of modules with high resolution performance and low–light level capabilities required for pilotage sensors to
achieve HTI across the aviation fleet to include Attack, Reconnaissance, utility, and cargo aircraft. The approach will
improve aviators Safety–of–Flight, situational awareness, and pilotage capabilities under night battlefield, adverse
weather, and MOUT conditions.
Supports: Attack, Reconnaissance, Utility/Cargo aircraft, Air Warrior, Mounted Battlespace.

Brian Gillespie Rob Saunders Ted Hundley

(703) 704–1214 (703) 697–8432 School
DSN: 654–1214 DSN: 227–8432 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.28—Integrated Sensors and Targeting. Integrated Sensors and Targeting will demonstrate enhanced hostile
situation awareness, target acquisition, precision threat geolocation, and combat ID assist using information derived
from Army aircraft and ground vehicle radio frequency (RF), missile, and laser warning sensors. To accomplish this
objective, the AN/ALQ–211, AN/ALQ–212, and AVR–2A threat warning sensors will be upgraded to provide a 10X
improvement in target acquisition and geolocation to an accuracy of 100 meters at 10 kilometers. Fusion of preflight
and real time C3I links with onboard emitter fingerprinting will provide enhanced combat ID assist for weapons release
at maximum ranges. Real time bidirectional C3I feeds to the digitized battlefield will provide ground commanders and
vehicles with targeting feeds from Longbow Apache equipped with the AN/ALQ–211. Off axis laser detection will
provide ability to locate and destroy laser designators. By FY99, demonstrate integration of digital and
hardware–in–the–loop (HITL) models into the CECOM Survivability Integration Lab (SIL)/Digital Integration
Laboratory (DIL). FY00, conduct real time DIS experiments with Fort Rucker’s Cockpit simulator, Ft. Knox’s
Mounted Test Bed, and Ft. Sill’s Targeting Test Bed that focus in on real time adjustments for operations OTM. FY01
conduct real time interactive Air/Ground cockpit digital modeling and simulation, hardware in the loop SIL testing.
FY02 flight and ground vehicle testing, final report, transition to PM–AEC’s Future Technology Program plus
Common Air/Ground Electronic Combat Suite Demo. Note: This program has been staffed, with the support of the
PM–AEC, by OSD as part of a cooperative EW Project Arrangement with the government of Australia.
Supports: PM–AECs Future Technologies Upgrade program for the AN/ALQ–211, AN/ALQ–212 and AVR–2A,
PEO–IEW family of Shortstop, Common Air/Ground Electronic Combat Suite Demo. Air Maneuver Battle Lab,
Dismounted Battlespace, Mounted Battlespace, Depth & Simultaneous Attack, Battle Command, Full Spectrum
Protection ATD, PM–GSI GVC and ADS programs.

Ray Irwin Rob Saunders Ted Hundley
(908) 427–4589 (703) 697–8432 School
DSN: 987–4589 DSN: 227–8432 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
III.D.29—Integrated Countermeasures. Integrated CM will demonstrate new multispectral radio frequency (RF),
infrared (IR) and electro–optics (EO) CM techniques and device upgrades that will provide Army aviation and ground
vehicles with full dimensional protection to enable dominate maneuver on the battlefield. The AN/ALQ–211 and AN/
ALQ–212 PM–AEC systems will be upgraded with advanced jamming modulators and algorithms to provide a family
of configurable air and ground vehicle CM modules. This program will provide CM that provide greater than a 99%

probability of survival per mission to multisensor IR/EO/RF and laser homing missiles, ATGMs and top attack smart
munitions. This program will demonstrate a 50% reduction in installed sensor and A–kit weight and a 200% increase in
MTBF, a fiber optic remoted low cross section RF antennas/transmitters. By FY99, demonstrate integration of digital
and hardware–in–the–loop (HITL) jamming effectivity models of advanced imaging IR SAMs and double digit RF
SAM system, under development by MSIC, into the CECOM Survivability Integration Lab (SIL)/Digital Integration
Laboratory (DIL). FY00, DSI integration of AATD’s signature models into both CECOM’s, Fort Rucker’s Cockpit
simulator, and Ft. Knox’s Mounted Test Bed. FY01 conduct real time interactive Air/Ground cockpit digital modeling
and simulation, hardware in the loop SIL testing. FY02 flight and ground vehicle testing, final report, transition to
PM–AEC’s AN/ALQ–211 and AN/ALQ–212 EMD update program plus Common Air/Ground Electronic Combat
Suite Demo.
Supports: PM–AEC’s Future Technologies Upgrade program for the AN/ALQ–211, AN/ALQ–212, and AVR–2A,
PEO–IEW family of Shortstop, Common Air/Ground Electronic Combat Suite Demo. Air Maneuver Battle Lab,
Dismounted Battlespace, Mounted Battlespace, Depth & Simultaneous Attack, Battle Command, Full Spectrum
Protection TD, PM–GSI GVC and ADS programs.

(908) 427–4589 (703) 697–8432 School
DSN: 987–4589 DSN: 227–8432 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571

Section E. Command, Control, Communications, and Computers
COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, AND COMPUTERS (Section E)
III.E.01—Joint Speakeasy—Multiband Multimode Radio (MBMMR). Joint Service R&D program to develop the
architecture and technology for the objective MBMMR of the future, meeting the requirements of the Army MNS for
the Future Digital Radio (FDR). The Phase I SPEAKeasy Advanced Development Models (ADM’s) proved the
feasibility of a programmable MBMMR. Phase 2 of the SPEAKeasy program, initiated in June 1995, will develop the
final MBMMR "open system architecture" and ADM’s providing a software re–reprogrammable, simultaneous
4–channel, multiband, multiwaveform capability. The reprogrammability will allow rapid change–over of waveforms,
frequency bands (2–2000 MHz), internetworking protocols (cross–channel), voice/data modes, and INFOSEC
algorithms (4–channel). In FY97, two Model–1 ADMs will be fabricated and demonstrated during the Task Force XXI
AWE. In FY98, three Model–2 ADMs will be fabricated and integrated into an Army Command and Control Vehicle
(C2V) for participation in a C2V communications field demonstration. Six full capability ADMs will be delivered in
FY99 for demonstration in the DBC/RAP ATD. Waveforms to be implemented include SINCGARS SIP, EPLRS
VHSIC, UHF SATCOM DAMA, Packet Data Waveform, HaveQuick I/II, LPI, T1, GPS, cellular phone, and HF SSB,
AME, ALE, serial modem, and hopping antijam. The Near Term Digital Radio (NTDR) waveform will be
implemented when available. 4–channel internetworking will also provide compatibility with TMG and INC. The
"open system architecture" will be industry releasable, modular by function, and facilitate a large reduction in future ILS
life cycle costs. In order to facilitate easy insertion of the SPEAKeasy MBMMR into current communications, the
Model–2 and Model–3 ADM physical form–factors shall conform to the present vehicular SINCGARS SIP volume
and mounting footprint. Results of this effort will transition to PEO–C3S in the FY99/00 time frame.
Supports: All emerging C3 architectures for "Digitizing the Battlefield," DBC/RAP ATD, Future Digital Radio.

Donald Upmal Rob Saunders Tom Mims
CERDEC/S&TCD SARD–TT BC–BL
(908) 532–0440 (703) 697–8432 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 992–0440 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 780–2800
III.E.06—Battlespace Command and Control (BC2) ATD. The STO objectives are to demonstrate, through
simulation and experimentation with the user, a Command and Control & Battlefield Visualization (BV) Commander/
Staff Workstation to support Consistent Battlespace Understanding; Forecasting, Planning and Resource Allocation;
and Integrated Force Management for the Commander and Staff. The BC2–ATD will develop and model the
architectural basis for information transfer to/from higher/lower echelons including interfaces to Joint and Coalition
forces to support worldwide, split–based military operations. BC2 ATD will utilize the concepts and results of Staff XXI
simulations (Prairie Warrior, etc.) to establish and refine systems requirements for C2 and information visualization and
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1e.htm（第 1／6 页）2006-09-10 23:10:49

its supporting systems architecture. Alternative technology based solutions will be evaluated through modeling and
simulation. BC2 uses knowledge based technologies (advanced decision aids, 3D visualization, distributed and shared
databases, etc.) to provide faster, more accurate, and more tailorable battlespace information for commanders to assess
combat situations. The objectives are to provide software applications on ABCS Systems (MCS/FBCB2), and Systems/
Operational Architectures which will reduce reaction/decision times, reduce the time from mission to order
preparation, and increase the number of combat options evaluated. Demonstrations focus on multiechelon (Battalion
through Division) Commander’s and Staff’s C2/BV needs within a command post environment (BCV, C2V, TOCs,
etc.) as defined by Battlelabs (BCBL, MMBL, and DBBL). BC2 will conduct prototype demonstrations, integrated into
the system architecture of the various host experiments. By FY98, BC2 will demonstrate an initial C2/BV product
containing database and decision aids. In addition, BC2 will provide C2/BV applications to the Rapid Terrain
Visualization ACTD. In FY99, BC2 will demonstrate prototype Commander’s/Staff’s visualization, planning and
rehearsal aids within a command post environment. In FY00, BC2 will demonstrate an enhanced version of the
Commander’s/Staff’s C2/BV Software Tool Set resident on COTS hardware, which will utilize advanced decision aids,
battlefield visualization products, and advanced database technologies showing interoperability with allied assets.
Supports: Digitized Battlefield, ABCS, Force XXI, Intel XXI, Battlefield Visualization, Div XXI, Staff XXI, BCV/C2V,
Rapid Terrain Visualization ACTD, Battlefield Awareness Data Dissemination ACTD.

Allen Ponsini Rob Saunders Tom Mims
CERDEC/C2SID SARD–TT BC–BL
(908) 427–3689 (703) 697–8432 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 987–3689 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 780–2800
III.E.07—Battlefield Combat Identification (BCID) ATD. This ATD is aimed at solving the combat identification (ID)
problem underscored by the lessons learned from Operation Desert Storm. The effort will build upon the Battlefield
Combat Identification System (BCIS), which is a millimeter wave question and answer, target ID system developed for
ground vehicle platforms. This ATD forms the technical foundation for the FY96 start Combat Identification ACTD,
which will demonstrate an integrated ground–to–ground and air–to–ground combat ID capability. An enhanced
version of BCIS with digital datalink for improved situational awareness and various air–to–ground concepts including
direct sensing Target ID, Don’t Shoot Me Net and Situational Awareness Through Sight approaches will be investigated
and selected concepts will be demonstrated in the Force XXI Brigade exercise in FY97 and in other field exercises to
support a milestone decision in FY98. Probability of correct ID of 99% to 1.5X the effective range of the weapon, and
position location accuracy of 100 meters or better will be demonstrated. In FY98, the ATD will demonstrate through
sight concepts that integrate enhanced friendly and hostile ID. Additionally, concepts for lightweight combat
identification of and for the dismounted soldier will be investigated for different mission areas in BLWEs during
FY95–98. Laser ,radio frequency and thermal based solutions for the soldier–to–soldier and potentially vehicle
interoperable application will be demonstrated in both a standalone version and as an integrated function in the Land
Warrior equipment suite to support a milestone decision in FY97.
Supports: BCIS, Land Warrior, Protecting the Force, Digitizing the Battlefield, Winning the Information War.


Gerardo J. Melendez Rob Saunders Col Tom Page
SFAE–IEW–CI SARD–TT TRADOC
(980) 427–5970 (703) 697–8432 (804) 727–2588
DSN: 996–5970 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 680–2588
III.E.08—Aviation Integration Into the Digitized Battlefield. Develop pilotage algorithms and platform integration
concepts for application onboard Army aircraft to enable avionics integration into the digitized battlefield. Develop a
software algorithm that derives flight path guidance information from digitized topographic and threat data, precision
navigation data, near field sensed obstacle and wire data, and aircraft survivability equipment data. Provide highly
accurate robust worldwide positioning through GPS enhancements, advanced navigation sensors, and digital databases
using advanced algorithms and integration concepts. Stringent performance levels are required to support precision
navigation for advanced flight path guidance and situation awareness. Maximum utility of current GPS systems while
conducting nap–of–the–earth flight and precision approach/landing will be investigated. Precision Navigation,
integrated with a high integrity digital terrain database, provides the capability required to navigate in the digitized
battlefield. By FY96, demonstrate flight path guidance based on digitized C2 information and realtime updates from
onboard sensors. By FY97, demonstrate improved GPS vulnerability reduction methods such as satellite selection
algorithms for NOE and Low Level operations, robust integrated navigation concepts, and improved signal acquisition
technology. By FY98, demonstrate platform positioning accurate to 1–3 meters to enhance situation awareness, in all
environments (ECM, NOE). These errors include registration errors between the mapping database and GPS
positioning.
Supports: Digitization of the Battlefield, Battlespace C2, NAV WARFARE ACTD, Precision Strike, RPA, Comanche,
PEO Aviation, PEO CCS PEO IEW, PM AEC, PM GPS, PM ATC, Advanced Capabilities and System Upgrades for
Soldier, Ground and Air Vehicles, Comanche.

Paul M. Olson Rob Saunders Charles Campbell
CERDEC/C2SID SARD–TT MBS BL
(908) 427–3912 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 987–3912 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–1963
III.E.09—Digital Battlefield Communications ATD. This ATD will exploit emerging commercial communications
technologies to support multimedia communications in a highly mobile dynamic battlefield environment. It will
supplement and in some cases replace, "legacy" military communications systems, which are unable to keep pace with
the rapidly increasing demand for communications bandwidth and global coverage in support of Digitized Battlefield
and split–based operations. It will evolve an integrated communication infrastructure that utilizes commercial protocols
and standards to achieve global interoperability. In FY95 NDI wideband data radios were evaluated and procured for
testing in TFXXI. In FY96 commercial ATM technology was integrated into tactical communications networks to
provide "bandwidth on demand" to support multimedia information requirements. BCBL(G) will be supported in the

DBC ATM experimentation through DS–3 connection to other service labs from FY96–99. In FY96 and 97 this
program demonstrated Direct Broadcast Satellite technology in support of JWID 96 and TFXXI AWE FY97. In FY97
Multi–Level Security requirements were addressed by the insertion of TEED hardware into TFXXI. Wideband HF
technology will be evaluated, tested in the CECOM DIL and inserted into the tactical internet. Leveraging from
supporting 6.2 technology base programs, low profile SATCOM antenna technology products for both military (UHF,
SHF) and commercial (C, Ku, X) SATCOM OTM from tactical vehicles, will be demonstrated in FY96 and 97. By
FY99, an integrated phased array antenna will be demonstrated for the RAP. Work will continue on a full sized phased
array antenna to address multibeam satellite and terrestrial high data rate communications OTM throughout FY99.
Commercial terrestrial PCS will be demonstrated in FY97 and 98, respectively, to exploit commercial CDMA
technology for WIN POC access. In order to extend ATM services to forward tactical units, a Radio Access Point
(RAP) will be prototyped and tested in FY98. The RAP utilizes a high capacity OTM trunk radio to feed a variety of
mobile subscriber services. By FY98, both manned and unmanned aerial platforms will be fitted with wideband relay
packages to support OTM tactical operations, supporting bandwidths of up to 15 Mbps. This effort will be coordinated
with, and executed in conjunction with DARO. Applicable products found to be acceptable through our commercial
communications technology laboratory (C2TL) program, and evaluated jointly with TRADOC battle labs, will be
inserted into the DBC program. This ATD will conclude in FY99 with the insertion of appropriate technology products
in JWID 99 in support of high capacity digitized communications and split–based operations.
Supports: PM JTACS Tactical Multinet Gateway, ISYSCON, Task Force XXI, Future Digital Radio (FDR), CGS ATD
(Advanced Antenna Technology), PROTEUS, JADE, JWID 94, DIV XXI, Corps XXI0.

Paul Sass Rob Saunders Tom Mims
(908) 427–2419 (703) 697–8432 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 987–2419 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 780–2800
III.E.10—Range Extension. The primary objective is to develop a Super High Frequency (SHF) tactical, UAV based
surrogate satellite capability by integrating several technologies in a range extension testbed and leveraging the UAV
airborne communications relay digitital battlefield communications ATD development. It will identify and develop key
technologies required for airborne applications of a suite of communications packages, designing and integrating
specific systems, and conducting system tests and demonstrations. This will be used to demonstrate intra–theatre
communications range extension up to 400 miles (Range heavily dependent on terrain factors and look angle) at a
variety of data rates. Major technology areas to be addressed are: airborne payload (including antennas) designs,
ground terminal adaptations, interoperability/compatibility and simulation. These technologies will be used to
supplement current (and programmed) SATCOM resources providing the flexibility to support a broad range of
general and mission specific applications. SATCOM terminals will be augmented and enhanced to provide the
capability of communicating via satellite and/or airborne platforms. Additionally, the utility of SATCOM terminals will
be extended by improvements to reduce size and weight, increasing throughput and mobility and implementing
emerging techniques such as DAMA. System design will be supported by enhancing CECOM’s in–house satellite link
analysis (SATLAB) capability and a Communications Range Extension Testbed will be developed to provide an
adaptable testing environment. Major milestones include development of the Range Extension Test Bed in FY96,
demonstration of the SHF Airborne Relay UAV based Surrogate Satellite System in FY97, development of an on–board

switching capability and implementation of an airborne battlefield paging system by FY99.
Supports: Army C4 Modernization, Digital Battlefield Communications, JPO UAV TIER II Program, DARPA ACN
Program, Joint Precision Strike (JPS).

MAJ Frank Pinkney Rob Saunders Tom Mims
(908) 427–3135 (703) 697–8432 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 987–3135 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 780–2800
III.E.11—Army Communications Integration and Cosite Mitigation. The objective of this STO is to reduce the size,
weight, and cosite interference problems that occur when multiple radios in either the same or dissimilar frequency
bands are integrated within a mobile communications command post platform. Solutions derived from this STO will be
applicable to Army platforms within the Rapid Force Projection Initiative Light Digital Tactical Operations Center
(RFPI LD TOC) and other Army platforms including the Command and Control Vehicle (C2V), the Battle Command
Vehicle (BCV), the Common Ground Station (CGS), and future systems utilizing the multiband/waveform Future
Digital Radio (FDR). Technology from the current SPEAKeasy Multiband Multimode Radio (MBMMR) development
effort and Antennas Across the Communications Spectrum (A2CS) STO will be coupled with new CICM STO efforts
to address the size/weight problem of multiple radio systems within the continuous frequency band from 2 MHz to 2
GHz, and the cosite interference problem in the VHF and UHF bands. New CICM STO efforts include the
development of a VHF/UHF 6–port multiplexer utilizing cosite mitigation technology, a wideband (2 MHz to 2 GHz)
linear power amplifier and enhancements internal to the Future Digital Radio (FDR) MBMMR to improve cosite
performance. An initial demonstration will be conducted with SPEAKeasy ADM and the VHF/UHF 6–port
multiplexer as part of the LD TOC exercise beginning July FY98. Wideband and multiband antennas developed under
the A2CS STO will also be utilized within the exercise. Development of the wideband power amplifier and MBMMR
cosite enhancements will be completed in FY00. Additionally, a multiband communications system will be integrated
within a typical Army SICPS shelter mounted on a HMMWV and tests will be performed to evaluate the resultant
performance and enhancements. This testbed shall be exercised throughout the FY99–FY01 period, for evaluation of
the individually developed items. A final field demonstration and evaluation of all the developed items, plus the
MBMMR/FDR and A2CS STO, will be performed in late FY01 Products will also be integrated into the Battlespace
Command Platform for complete platform integration. These efforts are considered a natural extension of the size
reduction and waveform reconfigurability goals of the Joint SPEAKeasy Multiband Multimode Radio (MBMMR)
program.
Supports: All mobile multiband communications systems, e.g., C2V, BCV, CGS, RAP, FDR, LD TOC, etc., and feeds
the new Battlespace Command Platforms STO.

Steve Goodall Rob Saunders Tom Mims

(908) 532–0445 (703) 697–8432 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 992–0445 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 780–2800
III.E.12p—Universal Transaction Services. The goal is to provide seamless connectivity and integration across
communications media resulting in the commander having the ability to exchange and understand information
unimpeded by differences in connectivity, processing, or systems interface characteristics. Provides the ability to move
information from wherever it exists, in whatever form it exists to wherever it is needed in whatever form it is needed. In
particular, the following attributes should be able to be developed and demonstrated. (1) Automated interfaces for
determining the necessary translations that need to be applied at network nodes where interfaces occur between systems
of differing characteristics. (2) Techniques for enhancing the commercially available signal conditioning and for
introducing automated brokering of user preferences (profiles) and network characteristics to determine the
appropriate type of conditioning. (3) Provision of dynamic profiles and adaptive conditioning in gateways to the
tactical extension networks. (4) Automatic, adaptive addressing to allow connections to be made to users completely
independent of any knowledge of his location. In FY00, initiate development of automated interfaces and translators. In
FY01, develop techniques for enhancing commercial signal conditioning. In FY02, demonstrate adaptive conditioning
in gateways to the tactical extension networks. In FY03, demonstrate adaptive addressing to allow connections to users
completely independent of knowledge of his location.
Supports: All tactical communications and the tactical internet.

Paul Sass Rob Saunders Tom Mims
(908) 427–2419 (703) 697–8432 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 987–2419 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 780–2800

Section F. Intelligence and Electronic Warfare
INTELLIGENCE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (Section F)
III.F.04—Orion. By FY98, demonstrate the operational effectiveness of a wide bandwidth SIGINT Electronic Support
(ES) package on a Short–range UAV platform operating in conjunction with a ground–based IEW Common Sensor
(IEWCS) that receives the UAV ES detected signals and performs the intercept/processing tasks to locate high value
targets. Thus by virtue of the UAV platform, the IEWCS capabilities are vastly increased by allowing penetration of the
enemy’s communications space to detect even low signal levels from directional systems such as multichannel and
down–hill comms. Line–of–sight restrictions, mobility restrictions, sensor placement problems and interference
problems from our own close–in relatively high power signals are eliminated and by being in the threat’s
communications space the CEP for target location improves significantly with advanced algorithms.
Supports: UAV–Short Range, UAV–JPO, IEWCS, CGS, GRCS, BCBL(H), BCBL(G), EELS BL, D&SA, MBS BL.

Dave Helm Rob Saunders James Hendley
CERDEC/IEWD SARD–TT U.S. Army Air and Missile Defense
(703) 349–7299 (703) 697–8432 School
DSN: 229–7299 DSN: 227–8432 (915) 568–7611
III.F.05—Tactical Intelligence Data Fusion. Develop and integrate enhanced MI collection and asset management
tools, terrain reasoning tools, multiple source correlation and fusion tools, enhanced information dissemination tools
and techniques, and Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) tools and techniques. Use simulation to evaluate using non
conventional sources to gather intelligence. Demonstrate by FY96 enhanced multimedia database interface/sharing
techniques to support information dissemination. Demonstrate by FY97 enhanced IEW asset management and
Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) tools and techniques. Demonstrate by FY98 multiple source fusion
using terrain reasoning tool and techniques, and Moving Target Indicator (MTI) automatic tracking. Demonstrate in
FY99 advanced airborne planning algorithms and effectiveness tools utilizing IEWCS and integrate in IEWCS
multisensor tasking and reporting tools using database to database interfaces. Evaluate the use of information from
Airborne Survivability Equipment to enhance intelligence. In FY00, integrate SIGINT/MTI sensor cross–cueing and
situation displays with previously developed FY98 techniques into IEWCS and ASAS.
Supports: ASAS, IEWCS, CGS, BCBL(H), DSABL.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1f.htm（第 1／5 页）2006-09-10 23:11:01

Vincent Simpson Rob Saunders Bob Bolling

CERDEC/IEWD SARD–TT USA TRADOC BC–BL
(908) 427–5294 (703) 697–8432 (602) 538–7500
DSN: 987–5294 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 879–7500
III.F.06—Multimission/Common Module Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Sensors. Multimission/common modular sensor

suite for UAV applications will demonstrate an affordable family of rapidly interchangeable EO/IR multispectral and
lightweight MTI Radar/ SAR payloads for future tactical or short range UAVs. These common modular payloads will
be form/fit/interface compatible and share common electronics, datalink, and data compression. The radar payload will
build upon successes in the current low–cost radar development program. The EO payload will leverage results of the
ASSI program. The sensors will connect to Army TOCs via DARO’s Low Cost Common Datalink (LCCDL). The
LCCDL is currently used to deliver IMINT that is processed by DARPA’s Semiautomated Image Processing (SAIP)
capability. These advanced sensor payloads will provide enhanced reconnaissance, surveillance, battle damage
assessment, and targeting for non–line–of–sight weapons. By FY97, mission requirements, payload constraints and
common modular interfaces will be determined. By FY98, candidate sensors and signal processor selected and
development initiated. By FY99, complete sensor development and payload integration, and initiate captive flight tests.
By FY00, complete performance testing and operational demonstration in support of early entry, deep attack, mine
detection and non–line–of–sight masked targeting mission scenarios.
Supports: , Tactical UAV, UAV JPO, DARO, DARPA.

John Cervini Rob Saunders Bob Bolling
CERDEC/NVESD SARD–TT USA TRADOC BC–BL
(908) 427–4228 (703) 697–8432 (602) 538–7500
DSN: 987–4228 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 879–7500
III.F.07—Digital Communications Electronic Attack (Classified). Provide the capability to intercept and bring under
electronic attack advanced communications signals being used by adversarial command and control networks on the
digital battlefield. Through electronic attack strategies demonstrated with prototype hardware and software, these digital
communication signals will be disrupted, denied, and/or modified to render the communications system ineffective
and unreliable to the threat command and control function. By FY97, demonstrate electronic attack against the digital
formats being implemented in commercial communications systems, data transmission systems implemented by a
variety of modern technologies, and wide bandwidth communications. In FY99, demonstrate the ability to disrupt
other commercial communication networks. These communications systems in use today are being further
technologically developed and are recognized as threat capabilities that will have to be faced in future conflicts. These
Electronic Attack capabilities developed in parallel with advanced receiver technology upgrades for the IEWCS will
provide the commander the ability to dominate the control the modern digital communications spectrum. It will enable
the force to wage aggressive offensive information warfare. These efforts will be coupled with Battle Lab experiments
and AWE opportunities.

Supports: IEWCS, ORION, ACS, BCBL(H), BCBL(G), BCBL(L), EELS BL.

Vince Rosati Rob Saunders Bob Bolling
CERDEC/IEWD SARD–TT USA TRADOC BC–BL
(908) 427–6552 (703) 697–8432 (602) 538–7500
DSN: 987–6552 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 879–7500
III.F.08—Rapid Terrain Visualization (RTV) ACTD. The objective of the Rapid Terrain Visualization (RTV)
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) is to integrate and demonstrate capabilities to rapidly collect
and process: 1) high resolution digital terrain elevation data needed to accurately represent the 3D battlefield; 2) basic
feature data such as roads, rivers and vegetation required for military planning and analysis; and 3) corresponding high
resolution imagery for photo–realism. These products provide the foundation to support a wide range of Army
operations, including rapid response and force projection. The Army Training and Doctrine Command has identified
an operational requirement to generate and deliver these digital terrain products more rapidly: data coverage for a
20x20 km–square area within 18 hours, 90x90 km–square area within 72 hours, and 300x300 km–square area within 12
days. The Department of Defense (DoD) does not currently have the ability to rapidly collect and exploit these critical
digital topographic products. The RTV ACTD will demonstrate an infrastructure to collect, develop, and provide
digital topographic data more rapidly to support military operations anywhere in the world; specifically, the ACTD will
demonstrate these capabilities for a 90 km x 90 km area within 72 hours. An operational testbed will be established with
the XVIII Corps at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, to demonstrate these capabilities in Army Advanced Warfighting
Exercises. Specific capabilities with significant military value to other Army and Joint units can be provided to those
units for additional evaluations. Leave–behind capabilities will be provided to the XVIII Corps beginning in FY 99 and
supported through FY01.

Christian Moscoso Sue Prescott MAJ Thomas Nothstein
JPSD–RTV (703) 697–8434 ARDEC
(703) 704–1966 DSN: 224–8434 (201)724–7131
DSN: DSN: 880–7131
III.F.09—Tactical Command and Control (C2) Protect ATD. The Tactical C2 Protect ATD will demonstrate the ability
to protect the Army’s tactical information systems, components and data from modern network attacks. This ATD will
leverage existing commercial off the shelf, and Department of Defense programs that target network security
technology. The approach will be to develop tactical network protection and assessment capabilities, then use the
assessment techniques against the protection mechanisms to determine the effectiveness of both. The knowledge gained
developing assessment capabilities will also provide effective C2 attack techniques against threat Integrated Battlefield
Area Communications Systems (IBACS). The seamless security architecture developed will be an integrated solution
which provides advanced network access control, intrusion detection, and response mechanisms within tactical
communications networks. Advanced RF and wire based C2 Attack techniques will be employed to demonstrate the

effectiveness of protective mechanisms implemented as part of the ATD. By FY98, a security architecture for the
Army’s TI will be developed as a recommendation for the 1st Digitized Division. The initial assessment capabilities will
be developed and evaluated in the DIL. By FY99, the existing security architecture will be evaluated using the assessment
capability developed. By FY00, the security architecture will be extended to include MSE. A field test/demonstration
will be conducted for RF attack against threat information systems. By FY01, the improved protect and assessment
capabilities will be evaluated against each other. By FY02, the security architecture will be revised and extended down to
include SUO. An integrated capability for launching RF and wire based attacks of threat tactical systems will be
demonstrated, and tactics, techniques and procedures shall be developed for field IEW systems.
Supports: PROTECT: Tactical Internet, MSE, BCBL(L), BCBL(G), PEO C3S.
ATTACK: Intercept, location, and electronic attack of modern digital C2 systems, BCBL(L), BCBL(H), PEO IEW.

Stephen Makrinos Rob Saunders (TBD)
CERDEC/IEWD/IO SPO SARD–TT
(908) 427–5545 (703) 697–8432
DSN: 987–5545 DSN: 227–8432
III.F.10p—Modern Command and Control (C2) Attack. By FY03, provide the Joint Warfighter with the capability to
selectively influence an adversary’s use of, or confidence in, information, processes, and systems through the use of
offensive deceptive IW to manipulate the information or information sources which support them. By FY04, provide
the capability to selectively destroy an adversary’s information, information processes, and systems through the
application of offensive weapons that destroy the information or the capability to use, transport, collect or access it.
Supports: IEWCS, BCBL(H), BCBL(L), BCBL(G), EELS BL, D&SA, MBS BL.

Vince Rosati Rob Saunders (None)
CERDEC/IEWD SARD–TT
(908) 427–6552 (703) 697–8432
DSN: 987–6552 DSN: 227–8432 DSN:
III.F.11—Theater Precision Strike Operations (TPSO) ACTD. The TPSO ACTD will develop and demonstrate a
significantly improved capability to synchronize, coordinate, deconflict, and employ the deep strike assets of the Joint
Force Land Component Commander (JFLCC) with joint and coalition assets between the Forward Line of Own
Troops (FLOT) and the Forward Boundary (FB). This effort will develop a theater Enhanced Deep Operations
Coordination Center (EDOCC) with enhanced C4I and strike planning processes to include Army Tactical Command
and Control System (ATCCS) systems enhancements, Global Command and Control System (GCCS) integration,
visualization tools, and connectivity with coalition forces. Using the capabilities within his DOCC, the JFLCC will be

able to better use existing systems such as Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), Army Tactical Missile System
(TACMS), Predator, and Close Air Support and advanced systems such as Guided MLRS, MLRS Smart Tactical
Rocket, Navy TACMS and powered submunitions. The ACTD will culminate in a FY01 OCONUS exercise in a
Korean scenario that explores the transition from an unreinforced to a reinforced battle. New concepts demonstrated
should allow the JFLCC to defeat 50% more threat targets in the first 24 hours than the current capability. Candidate
residuals that will permit this improvement include networking US and ROK Firefinders, acoustic sensors, GCCS
integration, ATCCS enhancements, and planning software.
Supports: CINCUNC/CFC, Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battle Lab.

LTC Rob Pope Irena Szkrybalo COL Sam Coffman
JPSD Project Office SARD–TT Depth and Simultaneous Attack
(703) 704–1962 (703) 697–8432 Battle Lab
DSN: DSN: 227–8432 (405) 442–3706
DSN:

Section G. Mounted Forces
MOUNTED FORCES (Section G)
III.G.01—Composite Armored Vehicle (CAV) ATD. By FY98, demonstrate the feasibility of a composite structure
and advanced armor solution for a 17–22 ton air–transportable vehicle weighing at least 33 percent less than an
aluminum based structure and armor of equal protection level. In addition, demonstrate manufacturability,
repairability, durability, and large section cutouts/joining of composites as well as integration of signature management.
Assess affordability of composite structures for ground combat vehicle applications. By FY96, complete designs of an
advanced composite structure with integrated signature management and advanced armor for application to all future
lightweight ground combat vehicles. Complete fabrication and assembly of CAV composite hull structure in FY97.
Full–up automotive subsystems to be outfitted, and CAV ATD delivered Feb 97. Durability/User evaluations
4Q97–4Q98.
Supports: FCS, FIV, FSV, Crusader, FSCS ATD.

Jamie Florence John Appel MAJ Steve Walker
TARDEC SARDA–TT Armor Center, DFD
(810) 574–5473 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–8802
DSN: 786–5473 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–8802
III.G.08—Target Acquisition ATD. Develop and demonstrate an extended range, multisensor target acquisition suite
for combat and tactical vehicles. The multisensor suite will consist of a second generation thermal imaging sight with
automated search and aided target recognition, a low cost MTI radar (growth to STI), and a multifunction laser. These
enhanced target acquisition capabilities will be coupled with combat identification technologies to significantly improve
the light armored combat vehicles’ lethality and survivability. By FY97, demonstrate "target finder"
capability—multifunction laser and auto target cuer—as a potential fast track acquisition upgrade for Abrams/Bradley
and extended range cueing with a millimeter wave ground radar. These capabilities will extend identification range from
2100m to 3500m for exposed targets and from 1200m to 3000m for partially obscured targets. By FY98, demonstrate
gimbal scan and automation to reduce search timelines by 60%–80% over manual search and streamline crew workload
for future main battle tanks.
Supports: Abrams M1A2 SEP , Bradley upgrades, Advanced Tank Technologies ATD, AGS Upgrades, RFPI, FMBT,
Future Scout Vehicle.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1g.htm（第 1／9 页）2006-09-10 23:11:23

Tim Watts Rob Saunders Charles Campbell

CERDEC/NVESD SARD–TT MBS BL
(703) 704–1356 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 654–1356 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–1963
III.G.10—Direct Fire Lethality ATD. This STO focuses on enhancing the hit and kill capability of the Abrams Tank
against explosive reactive armor protected threats in both stationary and moving firing conditions. The STO consists of
two major elements: an Advanced Kinetic Energy Cartridge, and Advanced Drives and Weapon Stabilization. In FY97,
demonstrate 120mm KE novel penetrator to defeat the 2005 Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) projected threat with an
increase of 40% in lethality over the M829A2, and conclude and transition STAFF dual–liner design/test data to
follow–on antiarmor programs; In FY98, demonstrate axial thruster function and feasibility to compensate a kinetic
energy penetrator aerodynamic jump error, and conduct a hardstand dynamic demonstration of an Electric Direct
Turret Azimuth Drive (gearless) technology. In FY99, complete design and initiate fabrication of the gun elevation
drive and the optical fiber muzzle reference sensor. In FY00, demonstrate novel penetrator lethality up to 70% greater
than the M829A2. In FY01, demonstrate radial thruster capability to correct for multiple jump errors in achieving
30–70% increase in system accuracy; conduct hardstand demonstration of gearless gun elevation drive and optical fiber
muzzle reference sensor capability to continuously measure muzzle position. Also in FY01, conduct an integrated
120mm KE cartridge to defeat the 2005 ERA protected threat with up to 70% increase in lethality over the M829A2 and
30–70% increase in system accuracy under stationary conditions over the M829A2/M1A2, and demonstrate up to a
300% increase (at 3 km) in probability of hit over the M1A2 under dynamic scenarios using Gearless Turret/Gun
Direct Drives, Modern Digital Servo Control, and optical fiber muzzle reference sensor. (Note: The Advanced KE
Cartridge Program is a joint effort with PM–TMAS. The PM will provide $1.0M in FY98, $3.0M in FY99, and $2.0M in
FY00 and FY01 to support novel penetrator development.)
Supports: All antiarmor weapon systems and weapon platforms: 120mm tank munitions (KE, CE), M1A1, M1A2,
M1A2 SEP+, Future Combat System, etc. USAARMC & Mounted BL.

Anthony Sebasto John Appel A. Winkenhofer
ARDEC SARDA–TT USAARMC
(201) 724–6192 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–8064
DSN: 880–6192 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–8064
III.G.11—Ground Propulsion and Mobility. By FY01, demonstrate the combined enhancements of semiactive
suspension, band track, and electric drive on a Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) weight class vehicle.
Semiactive suspension will reduce the overall vehicle weight, decrease the "under armor" volume, and improve mobility
by 30% over the M2. Band track will reduce acoustic and IR signatures (30–50%), decrease track weight 23% compared
to M2, and increase soft–soil mobility. The electric drive program will drastically reduce acoustic and IR signatures and
provide the power management scheme for other future electric devices (e.g., electric armament, sensors, active
suspension). By FY98, demonstrate semiactive suspension on a Bradley weight class vehicle. By FY99, demonstrate
band track on a 28 ton vehicle. This STO leverages DARPA‘s Electric Vehicle Power programs, and the Army will

continue to contribute $1M per year in FY 98 and 99 to the DARPA programs.
Supports: FSCS, FIV, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, M113 FOV.

Dan Herrera John Appel MAJ Paul Begeman
(810) 574–6411 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–8994
DSN: 786–6411 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–8994
III.G.12—Intravehicle Electronics Suite TD. By FY00, develop the crew interface and vehicle architecture for the
Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD. This STO will demonstrate a 25% increase in overall crew efficiency, a
25% reduction in crew size, 25% increase in system performance, and reduce the cost ratio of electronics and software
upgrades for system upgrades by 30%. Significant challenges to meeting crew efficiency goals include driving a vehicle
without direct vision and using nonphysical interfaces, such as voice and audio in a combat vehicle. This program will
demonstrate an open systems approach. By FY97, transition Crewman’s Associate ATD (III.G.3) principles and
interfaces to scout mission and simulate a conceptual FSCS crew station. By FY98, demonstrate and deliver FSCS
conceptual crew station simulator to Ft. Knox, integrate voice recognition and 3D audio into FSCS crew stations,
develop indirect vision and mobile crew station test bed, and demonstrate embedded map server, operating services
application program interface (API) and the lethality software module. By FY99, demonstrate voice recognition and 3D
audio working in mobile crew station test bed, and demonstrate off–road driving using indirect vision at 50% direct
vision rate. By FY00, demonstrate off–road driving using indirect vision at direct vision rates, and demonstrate
embedded training Vetronics System Integration Laboratory.
Supports: Army C4I Technical Architecture, FSCS, Crusader, M1A2 and M2A3 upgrades, FCS, Open Systems Joint
Task Force, Task Force XXI.

Chris Ostrowski John Appel MAJ Paul Begeman
(810) 574–6910 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–8994
DSN: 786–6910 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–8994
III.G.13—Compact Kinetic–Energy Missile (CKEM) Technology. By FY99, develop and demonstrate technology for
an insensitive, lightweight, miniature hypervelocity kinetic energy missile (35–40 kg), that is compatible with the
LOSAT target acquisition and tracking system and could be compatible with the fire control system, for close combat
and short range air defense missions. Demonstrate the missile KE Penetrator achieving M829A2 equivalent kinetic
energy at 175 m and maintaining the energy to beyond 5 km, and achieving greater than 3 time the M829A2 penetrator
energy at 450 m and maintaining it to 3.5 km. Demonstrate the missile delivering in excess of 30 MJ to the target at a
range of less than 500 meters, as well as a range out to 4 km, and 25 MJ at 5 km. Leverage miniaturized G&C actuation

technology, high–fidelity visual digital simulation, advanced composite motor and structure technology, fire control,
insensitive nondetonable propulsion technology, and enhanced lethality characteristics from the LOSAT missile
program and the Hypervelocity Missile Guidance STO. Demonstrate increased maneuverability against airborne targets
at minimum range with continuous control actuation. Significantly increase missile platform adaptability to include
future main battle tanks, helicopters, and multiple lightweight platforms that are strategically deployable. Demonstrate
motor and propulsion concept by FY98, and conduct a flight test in FY98. Demonstration of this miniature
hypervelocity missile concept will provide capability for a significant increase in lethality, survivability, and mobility of a
dual role close combat and short range air defense hypervelocity guided KE weapon system.

George Snyder Irena Szkrybalo COL Arnold J. Canada
MRDEC SARD–TT Dismounted Battle Lab
(205) 876–3048 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–2310
DSN: 746–3048 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–2310
III.G.14—Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD. By FY02, demonstrate the operational potential of a
lightweight scout vehicle integrating scout specific technologies with complementary advanced vehicle technologies.
This effort will be a Fast Track, cooperative program with the United Kingdom. Using the Bradley M3A3 as a baseline,
the FSCS ATD will increase vehicle and crew survivability by 20%, increase target detection rate by 600%, increase
target recognition range by 35%, increase mobility by 15%, increase crew efficiency by 25%, reduce vehicle silhouette
by 30%, and achieve transportability of 3 FSCS on a C–17 aircraft. By FY98, design advanced crew station(s). By FY99,
build crew station simulators and initiate a vehicle–level Systems Integration Laboratory, and transfer program
management to PEO GCSS. By FY00, develop detailed design and initiate subsystem fabrication. By FY01, complete
subsystem fabrication and perform demonstrator fabrication and integration. By FY02, complete user experiments and
validate improved battlefield performance. This integration effort potentially leverages technologies from the following
STOs: Ground Propulsion and Mobility, Target Acquisition ATD, Multifunctional Sensor Suite ATD, Hunter Sensor
Suite ATD, Combined Arms Command & Control ATD, Digital Battlefield Communications ATD, Hit Avoidance
ATD, Crewman’s Associate ATD, Intravehicle Electronics Suite TD, Composite Armored Vehicle ATD.

John Torvinen John Appel MAJ Paul Begeman
(810) 574–5090 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–8994
DSN: 786–5090 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–8994
III.G.15p—Full–Spectrum Active Protection (FSAP). By FY04, demonstrate a universal combat vehicle defensive
system that can destroy or degrade chemical energy and kinetic energy antiarmor munitions prior to vehicle impact,
thereby reducing the need for heavy ballistic armor. This system will defeat large top attack, hit to kill (Antitank Guided
Missile), and tube launched KE/HEAT munitions. It will reduce the probability of kill to 0.2 with a system cost of no
more than $185k per unit in production quantities. The FSAP program will exploit, adapt and develop technologies

from SLID, NTAPS, Drozd, Arena, KEAPS, and other tri–service, industrial and foreign programs. FSAP will be
integrated into the enhanced Commander’s Decision Aid (CDA) for optimal utility. By FY01, evaluate and test
Multiple EFP–CM and other counter–KE capable CM technology options. By FY02, determine optimal CM
technology and sensor suite. By FY03, complete integration design and perform subsystem prototyping/testing. By
FY04, complete testing and validate system performance.
Supports: Abrams, Bradley, FSCS, FIV, FCS, Crusader, Grizzly.

Jim Soltesz John Appel COL John Kalb
(810) 574–5653 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–5050
DSN: 786–5653 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–5050
III.G.16p—Mobility Demonstration for Future Combat System (FCS). This STO will demonstrate the technologies
required to meet FCS mobility and power requirements. Emphasis is on developing and demonstrating an advanced
propulsion system consisting of a high power density, low heat rejection, fuel efficient engine and a compact, high
efficiency drive train. A fully active suspension and high speed track are also included in this STO. This effort is
necessary because a new propulsion system with greater power density than is now achievable will be needed for FCS,
regardless of the armament choice, to provide required power in a system that is substantially lighter, more agile and
more fuel efficient than the Abrams tank. By FY04, the FCS high power density multicylinder diesel engine will be
designed and fabricated.
Enough development testing and resultant improvements will have been made to demonstrate 80% full power, fuel
consumption within 15% of target values, fluid temperatures within 40°F of target values, and heat rejection within 20%
of target values. By FY05, a fully active electro–mechanical suspension system will be demonstrated on an FCS weight
class vehicle. By FY06, an advanced high speed track meeting an FCS weight class vehicle will be demonstrated. Also by
FY06, this STO will define the FCS propulsion system configuration and will be midway into the total FCS propulsion
detailed design.
Supports: FCS, Crusader Upgrades, FIV.

Dan Herrera John Appel MAJ Monroe Harden
TARDEC SARDA–TT Armor Center DFD
(810) 574–6411 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–4412
DSN: 786–6411 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–4412
III.G.17p—Future Combat System (FCS) Integrated Demonstration. By FY06, demonstrate technical feasibility and
operational potential of a lethal, survivable, deployable, multimission Abrams replacement vehicle. Using the M1A2

Abrams as a baseline, it will demonstrate 50% reduced crew workload, 40% reduced GVW, 20% increase in fuel
economy, and a 40% increase in cross–country speed, and leap ahead lethality. Critical issues to be addressed are the
acceptance of two crew vehicle operation, leap ahead mobility, non traditional survivability (replacing ballistic
protection with signature management, CM, and active protection), and indefensible lethality (both direct and indirect
fire). By FY03, complete studies and analyses, construct and evaluate virtual prototypes to support the demonstration
and to validate user and technology requirements. By FY04, complete system design, and implement a System
Integration Lab (SIL) test to validate electronics integration. Concurrently, demonstrate the vehicle and crew
configuration in field experiments with surrogate technologies when necessary. By FY04, in the SIL, demonstrate power
and energy management techniques and suspension control. By FY05, in the SIL, validate electrical and electronics
integration of Full Scale Active Protection STO, FCS Mobility STO, FCS Advanced Electronics STO, and FCS
Armament STO, and demonstrate 50% reduced crew workload. By FY06, integrate the technologies validated in the
SIL in a Lightweight Chassis/Turret Structure STO test bed and demonstrate baseline. In FY07, technologies and
designs evaluated in this TD will transition to the "FCS Integrated Demo II," a technology based program to integrate
the actual technology products into a demonstrator vehicle.
Supports: FCS.

Andy Lijoi John Appel MAJ Monroe Harden
(810) 574–6932 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–4412
DSN: 786–6932 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–4412
III.G.18p—Advanced Electronics for Future Combat System (FCS). By FY04, develop an integrated ultra high power
electronics package and crew station technologies for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) Integrated Technology
Demonstrator (III.G.17p). Demonstrate a 50% increase in overall crew efficiency and a 50% reduction in crew size, a
30% reduction per source line of code, a 10x increase in FCS system performance per module and a 50% reduced cost
ratio of electronics. This program will leverage crew station technologies, architecture developments and lessons learned
from the Crewman’s Associate ATD and Intravehicle Electronics Suite STOs (III.G.3 and III.G.12, respectively).
Specific technologies to be integrated include: helmet–mounted displays, head trackers, panoramic displays, cognitive
decision aids, load management algorithms, automated route planning, power management system (for electric drive,
electric armament, etc.), an object oriented software backplane, a combat vehicle graphics tool kit able, and advanced
electronics packaging. By FY01, initiate integration of advanced electronics plans for the FCS TD, and define software
backplane architecture and graphics objects. By FY02, develop panoramic display and integrate it into mobile crew
station test bed, conduct an FCS electronic power consumption analysis, upgrade VSIL to integrate high power
components and thermal analysis and modeling tools, complete tradeoff investigation of electronics packaging
technologies, and finalize approach. By FY03, demonstrate workload reductions using cognitive decision aids and load
management algorithms, demonstrate SW backplane architecture and graphics objects in Vetronics Systems
Integration Lab (VSIL). By FY04, develop automated route planning as a driver/commander aid and test in mobile
crew station test bed, validate FCS electronic integration via warfighter experiments, and demonstrate electronics
packaging technologies and final power management approach in VSIL.
Supports: Army C4I Technical Architecture, FCS.


Chris Ostrowski John Appel MAJ Monroe Harden
(810) 574–6910 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–4412
DSN: 786–6910 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–4412
III.G.19p—Future Infantry Vehicle (FIV) TD. By FY06, demonstrate Bradley replacement vehicle with increased
survivability, lethality, strategic and tactical mobility, and effectiveness. Increase survivability by 33–50% using a
combination of improved armor protection, CM, full spectrum active protection, and signature management. Increase
onboard training and battle rehearsal by 100%. Accommodate full squad of 9 soldiers versus 7 in Bradley (with full
Land Warrior gear). Improve mobility by 50%. Improve lethality through the integration of an advanced medium
caliber weapon, fire and forget FOTT (P3I) missile system and the addition of nonlethal devices. By FY01, begin
preliminary designs based on the Virtual Prototyping results. By FY02, the contractor, in conjunction with TARDEC,
will initiate a vehicle–level Systems Integration Lab (SIL) to integrate key FIV technologies. By FY03, complete
fabrication and perform demonstration of hardware and software Soldier–Machine Interface, and perform subsystem
demonstration of Hardware and Software in the SIL. By FY06, perform technology demonstrations and User
Experiments.
Supports: FIV.

Nance Halle John Appel LTC W. Smith
TARDEC SARDA–TT Infantry Center, DCD
(810) 574–5365 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–1915
DSN: 786–5365 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–1915
III.G.20—Extended–Range Munition. By FY02, this STO will demonstrate a 120mm Abrams tank main armament
precision munition and associated fire control, including target handoff from a remote sensor to defeat targets at ranges
in excess of 8 Km. The munition will defeat point targets at extended ranges (up to 3x range increase over M829A2).
ERM will expand the Abram’s Tank battlespace by engaging high value targets in both line–of–sight (LOS) and
non–LOS (NLOS) modes. In FY98, a performance specification will be completed and baseline designs will be
initiated. In FY99, the design will be finalized and component hardware fabrication will be initiated. In FY00, under
simulated and live–fire conditions, subsystem demonstrations of critical components will be conducted, the concept
design will be refined, and fire control system definition/design will be initiated. In FY01, from a hardstand, the
capability of hitting stationary and moving targets at medium ranges will be demostrated, defeat of advanced threat
armors and active protection systems in simulated and/or subsystem live–fire conditions will be demonstrated, and
modification of an Abrams tank fire control system will be completed. In FY02, full–range capability to hit stationary
and moving targets in live–fire demonstrations with a modified Abrams Tank will be demonstrated.
Supports: Abrams Tank, FCS.


Philip Donadio John Appel A. Winkenhofer
(201) 724–6186 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–8064
DSN: 880–6186 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–8064
III.G.21p—Lightweight Chassis/Turret Structures. This STO will demonstrate minimum weight structural designs with
structural efficiencies exceeding 80% to achieve the FCS 40 ton GVW, which is required so that two FCS can be
transported by C–5 aircraft. It will also feature modular (removable) armor for +/– 15 ton deployable weight and to
facilitate armor upgrades. The technical approach is to apply advanced materials to maximize structural performance,
and to optimize different vehicle zones for unique design conditions. The goal for FY00 is to establish the number and
boundary of vehicle zones, define their unique design conditions, establish "as–deployed" and "maximum mission"
protection levels. By FY01, evaluate alternative armor integration approaches and basic design concept alternatives for
integrity and durability for each zone. By FY02, complete zone designs and the hybrid integrated vehicle design and
perform component level structural tests. By FY03, complete panel ballistic tests. By FY04, provide "User preferred" hull
and turret to FCS for the ATD and one ballistic structure for firing.
Supports: FCS, FIV.

Jamie Florence John Appel Martin Bosemer
(810) 574–5473 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–2045
DSN: 786–5473 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–2045
III.G.22p—Future Combat System (FCS) Armament TD. By FY04, demonstrate an integrated armament system for
FCS with over 100% increase in lethality (over the M829A2), 100% increase in stationary accuracy compared to
M829A2/M1A2 at 3km (stationary), and over 500% increase in accuracy under moving conditions. The FCS
Armament will meet the lethality requirements needed by the FCS. In FY00, investigate armament components
including gun, ammunition, fire control, and ammunition handling technologies to develop a lightweight and low
impulse gun armament system; develop system concept design using Pro–Engineering CAD. In FY01, finalize concept
design and fabricate components including advanced gun, fire control, autoloader, and ammunitions with novel
warheads. In FY02, conduct gun/ammunition functionality tests via simulations and actual firings. In FY03,
demonstrate compact autoloader functionality tests in a simulated dynamic vehicle condition and initiate integration of
the autoloader–to–gun system. In FY04, conduct an integrated gun/ammunition/autoloader/fire control FCS
Armament system demonstration via simulations in a systems integration laboratory (SIL) and on a surrogate platform;
and transition all hardware to TARDEC FCS integrated TD.
Supports: Future Combat System, USAARMC.


(201) 724–6192 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–8064
DSN: 880–6192 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–8064
III.G.24p—Advanced Light Armaments for Combat Vehicles (ALACV). By FY03, this STO will demonstrate
25/35mm ammunition with 75% or greater improvement in lethality compared to conventional point detonating
munitions and 20–40% improvement compared to existing KE & bursting munitions. The ALACV will develop two
types of munitions (antipersonnel and antiarmor) to meet the Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) and the Future
Infantry Vehicle (FIV) lethality requirements. In FY01, investigate novel lethal mechanisms, novel penetrators,
advanced fuzes and advanced propellants; finalize optimized munition warhead designs. Conventional and cased
telescoped munition configurations are candidates. In FY02, fabricate ammunition components and conduct
components tests; conduct performance simulation based on demonstrated hardware performance. In FY03, conduct
live fire testing of both types of munitions, and transition designs to FSCS EMD and/or FIV ATD.
Supports: Bradley, Future Scout and Cavalry System and the Future Infantry Vehicle.

Mike Madden John Appel LTC Smith
ARDEC SARDA–TT USAIC
(201) 724–6986 (703) 697–8432
DSN: 880–6986 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–4658

Section H. Close Combat Light
CLOSE COMBAT LIGHT (Section H)
III.H.03—Enhanced Fiber–Optic Guided Missile (EFOGM) ATD. By FY00, demonstrate, through a virtual
prototype, flight test, and integrated demonstration, an Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOGM) as the
primary "Killer" within the "Hunter–Standoff Killer" concept of the Rapid Force Projection Initiative (RFPI)
demonstration. The EFOG–M system is a multipurpose, precision kill weapon system. The primary mission of the
EFOG–M is to enable a gunner in defilade to engage and defeat threat armored combat vehicles, other high value
ground targets, and hovering or moving rotary wing aircraft that may be masked from line–of–sight direct fire weapon
systems. EFOG–M is a day, night, and adverse weather capable system that allows the maneuver commander to extend
his battle space beyond his line–of–sight to ranges up to 15 kilometers. The EFOG–M program will produce a total of
300 missiles and 16 ground stations for use in demonstrations and as residual hardware for extended user evaluation.
The program will emphasize missile unit cost/affordability and the integrated process and product development
process.
Supports: RFPI, ACTD/AWE.

COL Roy D. Millar Irena Szkrybalo Chris Kearns
PM NLOS SARD–TT DBL
(205) 876–7725 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 746–7725 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
III.H.04—Precision–Guided Mortar Munition (PGMM) ATD. In FY99, this STO will demonstrate a capability to
defeat a point target, autonomously or in a laser designated mode, in excess of 12 km, with a 120mm mortar munition.
In FY01, this STO will demonstrate the viability of a GPS/INS sensor/seeker guidance package incorporated into the
PGMM to achieve accuracy requirements. In FY98, conduct a seeker CFT with a tactical processor and an extended
range firing test to verify 12 km range capability. Also in FY98, initiate laser designated firing tests and demonstrate an
integrated man portable fire control system. In FY99, complete laser designated firing test, demonstrate PGMM firing
tests and investigate GPS/INS technologies for improved performance at extended ranges in MOUT operations. In
FY00, develop an integrated GPS/INS PGMM and conduct a MOUT operational experiment. In FY01, perform a
comprehensive Hardware–in–the–loop (HWIL) test and simulations to validate hardware performance.
Supports: Rapid Force Projection Initiative ACTD. 120mm Battalion Mortar System ROC approved on 2 Mar 96.
Dismounted BLs.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1h.htm（第 1／7 页）2006-09-10 23:11:41


Dave Panhorst John Appel LTC Bourgine
ARDEC SARDA–TT DBS–BL
(201) 724–5525 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–7000
DSN: 880–5525 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–7000
III.H.05—Rapid Force Projection Initiative (RFPI) Command and Control (C2). RFPI C2 integrates technologies into
a demonstration of capabilities required for a light insertion force that is air–deployable and first–to–fight in a forward
or remote area. Increased lethality in a light force is supported by information distribution, that is optimized for speed
and robustness, with non–line–of–sight weapon platforms. Firing loop performance from target acquisition to weapons
firing is a critical item. Early threat warning, decisions, assessment, and resource management are critical C2 related
functions to be demonstrated for timely control and sustainment of light force capabilities. A limited TOC capability
provides central focus for these functions. A robust network, with a high degree of connectivity, allows the commander
to adapt the task force structure to concentrate sensors and firepower quickly as needed. RFPI C2 will be consistent with
the Army’s technical C2 architecture. Several demonstrations are planned for FY96–97. Final demonstration (RFPI
ACTD) is 2QFY98.
Supports: RFPI ACTD and CAC2 ATD.

Ed Nell Rob Saunders Chris Kearns
CERDEC/C2SID SARD–TT DBL
(908) 427–5108 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 987–5108 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
III.H.08—Aerial Scout Sensors Integration (ASSI). By FY98, evaluate and demonstrate sensor technology applicable to
the family of UAVs with particular emphasis on the Light Force early entry mission. The program will demonstrate and
recommend the proper mix of sensor technology for the RFPI application and for potential upgrades to the Tactical
UAV. ASSI will demonstrate accurate, timely, and easily–usable "see over the hill" reconnaissance, surveillance, target
acquisition, and battle damage assessment information from airborne scout platforms to augment the capabilities of
ground–based scouts. A variety of sensors (FLIR, TV, Wide–Area Sensors, MTI Radar) will be demonstrated on one or
more manned surrogate airframes. As appropriate to the individual sensor under demonstration, real–time digital
datalinks, advanced data compression techniques, and workstation techniques will be explored or demonstrated.
Supports: Mounted Battlespace, Depth & Simultaneous Attack, Battle Command, Early Lethality & Survivability, RFPI
Umbrella Program, Tactical/Maneuver/Pointer UAVs, and Precision Strike Korea.

Jim Matheny Rob Saunders Charles Campbell

(703) 704–1256 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 654–1256 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–1963
III.H.11—155–mm Automated Howitzer. By FY98, this STO will demonstrate an automated, digital, fire control
system for a 155mm towed artillery system for the Light Forces. The goal of the 155 AH prototype will be to
demonstrate advanced fire control, gun emplacement and lay automation (25% faster compare to current M198 fire
mission). In FY97, fabricate advanced fire control for M198 howitzer. In FY98, participate in and provide equipment (8
systems plus 2 spares) for RFPI ACTD, and provide technical support for residual hardware in the field in FY99 & FY00.
Supports: Rapid Force Projection Initiative ACTD, Army/USMC Lightweight Howitzer program, Depth and
Simultaneous Attack (D&SA) battle lab.

MAJ Thomas Nothstein John Appel MAJ Don Huntley
ARDEC SARDA–TT Depth and Simultaneous Attack
(201) 724–7131 (703) 697–8432 (405) 442–2927
DSN: 880–7131 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 639–2928
III.H.12—Precision Offset, High–Glide Aerial Delivery of Munitions and Equipment. Demonstrate revolutionary
technologies for the reliable precision guided delivery of combat essential munitions/sensors and equipment using high
glide wing technology and incorporating a low cost, modular GPS G&C system. This technology will provide a 6:1 or
better glide ratio. By the end of FY96, develop a modular GPS guidance package and demonstrate precision high glide
capability of a 500 pound payload using semirigid wing technology. By the end of FY99, demonstrate precision high
glide of a 2,000 pound. payload, with a goal of a 5,000 pound payload, using an advanced guidance package and high
glide wing. An optional glide augmentation system will also be demonstrated. High glide technology will significantly
enhance the military aerial delivery capability through substantially higher glide ratios than are possible with ram air
parachutes and will directly benefit the initial deployment of Early Entry Forces.
Supports: Advanced Development–RA02/63804/D266–Airdrop; Engineering Development–RA02/64804/

D279–Airdrop; MS Battle Lab, Quartermaster and Infantry Schools.

Sean Wellman Bill Brower COL William McCoy
NRDEC SARDA–TT U.S. Army Engineer School
(508) 233–4082 (703) 697–8432 (573) 563–4086
DSN: 256–4082 DSN: 227–8432

III.H.13—Rapid Force Projection Initiative (RFPI) ACTD. The RFPI Program will demonstrate the combat worth of a
new Army operational concept pairing forward sensors ("hunters") with an array of standoff weapons ("killers"). The
RFPI Technology Program will provide unique items to facilitate integration of systems that are not currently in
production, by utilizing commercial–off–the–shelf items. By FY98, provide simulation analysis activities to support
developmental requirements as well as changes and upgrades of tactics, techniques, and procedures and demonstrate in
a large scale field experiment. By FY99, through the use of the thirteen participating Advanced Technology
Demonstrations/Technology Demonstrations, address the optimum operational capability requirements of the Early
Entry Forces.
Supports: Battle Command, Depth and Simultaneous Attack, Dismounted Battle Space, Early Entry Lethality, and

Emily H. Vandiver Irena Szkrybalo John Parmentola
MICOM SARD–TT SARDA–TT
(205) 876–4857 (703) 697–8432 (703) 697–3558
DSN: 746–4857 DSN: 227–8432
III.H.14—Counteractive Protection Systems (CAPS). Overall objective: Develop and demonstrate technologies that
can be applied to antitank guided weapons (ATGW) for improving their effectiveness against threat armor equipped
with active protection systems (APS). Current technology development is concentrated in the following three areas: a.
RF Countermeasure (RFCM) technology for Jamming or deceiving APS sensors used for detection, acquisition, and
tracking; b. long standoff warheads for shooting from beyond the range of APS fragment producing countermunitions;
c. ballistic hardening of ATGW to reduce vulnerability to fragment impact. RFCMs: MICOM RDEC is developing
concepts for deceiving and jamming APS sensors. By end of FY97, a digital model of an APS radar will be completed,
passive and active RFCM breadboards will be designed and fabricated, and a test radar will be designed and fabricated.
By FY98, bench test and evaluate RFCM breadboards. By FY99, demonstrate prototypes of selected RFCM concepts.
Warhead CM: MICOM RDEC, ARDEC, and ARL–WTD are currently working together in developing CAPS LSW
technology for ATGW. The ultimate objective of these efforts is to demonstrate the target defeat of Turret Front armor
with LSW fired from outside the range of threat APS. In FY96, MICOM will complete an investigation of jet particle
dispersion at 10m standoff. In FY97, MICOM will test and evaluate current LSW at 6 & 10 m. In FY96, ARL will refine
a current Mo Steady–State–Jet design, test it, and design a 2 stage warhead. In FY97, build and test 2–stage warhead to
investigate sequenced jets and design multistage warhead. In FY98, build and test multistage warhead and evaluate
alternative liner material. In FY96, ARDEC will demonstrate an LSW at 30 CD. In FY97, 45 CD. In FY98, 60 CD.
Supports: Dismounted Battle Space, Early Entry Lethality and Survivability Battle Labs; PEO Tactical Missiles, CCAWS
AMS–H, Javelin, BAT.

Donald E. Lovelace Irena Szkrybalo Chris Kearns

MICOM SARD–TT DBL
(205) 876–8609 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 746–8609 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
III.H.15—Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite (MFS3) ATD. Demonstrate a modular, reconfigurable Multifunction
Staring Sensor Suite (MFS3) that integrates multiple advanced sensor components, including staring infrared arrays,
multifunction laser, and acoustic arrays. The MFS3 will provide ground vehicles, amphibious assault vehicles, and
surface ships with a compact, affordable sensor suite for low signature ground vehicle detection, long range
noncooperative target recognition , mortar/sniper fire location, and air defense against low signature UAVs and long
range helicopters. By FY98, conduct an early demonstration and evaluation of a miId wave infrared (MWIR) sensor
with ultra narrow field of view to provide baseline performance data for the future scout and cavalry, complete sensor
component risk reduction, and develop reconfigurable sensor backplane that fully integrates aperture, power, and
signal processing requirements for multiple platform applications. By FY99, complete design of medium format staring
array capable of being reconfigured for either visible through 5 micron or 8–12 micron operation. By FY00, integrate
staring FLIR, multifunction laser, and acoustic cueing components and processing with common backplane, and
demonstrate the capability for automated surface–to–surface, surface–to–air, and air–to–ground search, acquisition,
and noncooperative identification. By FY01, integrate weapons/fire location processing and demonstrate capability to
detect and accurately locate hostile mortar/sniper fire.
Supports: Future Scout Vehicle, Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle–Enhanced, Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle.

Paul Laster Rob Saunders Chris Kearns
CERDEC/NVESD SARD–TT DBL
(703) 704–3492 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 654–3492 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
III.H.16p—Airborne Insertion for Operations in Urban Terrain. Develop and demonstrate advanced airborne
insertion technologies providing ultra–high altitude insertion of individuals and small units with the ability to accurately
reach drop zones from increased standoff distances during night and limited visibility conditions. These technologies
will enhance the covert mobility of early entry forces in urban terrain areas and greatly improve lethality and
survivability. Technology breakthroughs will include personnel parachutes with high glide capabilities based on 3D
nonlinear modeling, personnel miniaturized GPS/INS airborne navigation capabilities, improved high altitude life
support technologies, and the application of innovative materials for enhanced reliability, maintainability and safety. By
FY02, define accurate characterizations of decelerator aero–coefficients/performance and demonstrate 50% increase in
airborne insertion offset distance. By the end of FY04, demonstrate enhanced integrated high altitude life support and
airborne personnel navigation capabilities.
Supports: Advanced Development RA02/63804/D266, Airdrop; Engineering Development RA02/64804/D279;

Airdrop; DBS Battle Lab, Quartermaster School.

Edward Doucette Bill Brower Chris Kearns
NRDEC SARDA–TT DBL
(508) 233–4636 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 256–4636 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
III.H.17—120–mm Extended–Range Mortar Cartridge. The STO will develop an extended range DPICM mortar
cartridge having 50% greater range and 80% greater effectiveness than the current M934/120mm mortar system. Range
extension is provided by a high performance, lightweight composite rocket motor. In FY98, establish a baseline design
configuration; complete interior and exterior ballistic analyses and complete design of heavy weight test rocket motor
and test fixtures. In FY99, fabricate light weight composite rocket motor test hardware/test fixtures; and initiate interior
ballistic testing. In FY00, complete rocket motor static testing; update interior and exterior ballistic models. In FY01,
conduct a full–up flight test demonstration.
Supports: Family of all 120mm Mortar Munitions, Dismounted Space BL.

Frank Brody John Appel Dave Hancock
ARDEC SARDA–TT Infantry School
(201) 724–3728 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–4918
DSN: 880–3728 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–4918
III.H.18—Line–of–Sight Antitank (LOSAT) ACTD. The LOSAT ACTD will demonstrate increased lethality against
current and future threat armor and active protection systems and hardened high value targets, including bunkers and
reinforced urban structures. The ACTD will assess survivability of the HMMWV based system and develop a concept
of operations (CONOPS) for survivability through deception. The ACTD will also demonstrate enhanced
deployability/mobility with the ability to fire upon landing. LOSAT operates as a kinetic kill mechanism and will
demonstrate operation in day/night and adverse weather conditions. By FY98, provide simulation analysis activities to
support developmental requirements. By FY02, provide system test results and participate in Battle Lab Warfare
Experiments that will demonstrate deployability, survivability, and lethality. By FY03, hardware residuals will include as
deliverables 13 Fire Units and 178 missiles.
Supports: Battle Command, Depth and Simultaneous Attack, Dismounted Battle Space, Early Entry Lethality, and

Rich Paladino Irena Szkrybalo Tim Bosse

RDEC SARD–TT DBBL
(205) 842–0851 (703) 697–8432
DSN: 788–0851 DSN: 227–8432

Section I. Soldier
SOLDIER (Section I)
III.I.01—Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) ATD. Demonstrate technologies for a revolutionary new
small arms weapon system with dual lethality modes (5.56mm Kinetic Energy and 20mm Air Bursting Munition)
yielding dramatically improved hit probability and terminal effects. Specific goals include demonstration of brassboard
exhibiting hit probability greater than 0.5 out to 500 meters and 0.3 to 0.5 out to 1,000 meters in 1996. Effectiveness
against personnel and light armor targets, given a hit, will be greater than those of the M433 High explosive Dual
Purpose cartridge fire from the M203 Grenade Launcher and the M855 cartridge fire from the M16A2 rifle. By FY98,
hardware build for six complete weapon systems and associated ammunition. By FY99, demonstrate a 0.5 probability of
incapacitation to 300 meters (point target) and a 0.2 probability of incapacitation to 300 meters (defilade target).
Supports: Joint Service Small Arms Master Plan (JSSAMP), Land Warrior, MOUT ACTD. Replacement for selected
M16A2, MWS, M4 and M203. Transitions to PM Small Arms in FY00.

Matthew Zimmerman John Appel Chris Kearns
ARDEC SARDA–TT DBL
(201) 724–7993 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 880–7993 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
III.I.03—Rapid Deployment Food Service for Force Projection. By the end of FY96, demonstrate equipment
components of a modular field food service system based on advances in diesel combustion and heat transfer
technologies. By the end of FY98, demonstrate integral power generation, advanced insulative materials, and non/low
powered regenerative refrigeration. By the end of FY99, fully integrate these technologies for the demonstration of a
highly mobile, rapidly deployable, field feeding system that is more reliable (50% increase in MTBF), more efficient
(50% decrease in fuel), that can be operational in minutes instead of hours, and that expands the range of tactical
situations (by 40 percent) in which hot meals can be prepared and delivered.
Supports: Joint Service Food Program; Advanced Development–RJS2/63747/D610–FoodAdv. Dev.; Engineering

Development–RJS2/64713/D548–Military Subsistence Systems; Army Field Feeding Equipment 2000 (MNS),
Quartermaster School and Medical Department.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1i.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 23:11:48

Section I. Soldier
Don Pickard Bill Brower LTC William Loven

NRDEC SARDA–TT Quartermaster School
(508) 233–5036 (703) 697–8432 (804) 734–0555
DSN: 256–5036 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 687–0555
III.I.04—Force XXI Land Warrior (FXXILW). By FY99, perform an Early User Test (EUT) to validate the
improvements of advanced component technologies for the Land Warrior (LW) system with a squad’s worth of
upgraded LW systems. The FXXILW will demonstrate the improved individual and small unit operational effectiveness
afforded by the modular integration of advanced components onto the Land Warrior platform. Technologies will be
developed and demonstrated to include the development of a technology transition plan for each of the following:
lighter weight helmet materials and designs (0.5 pound weight reduction), modeling and simulation, enhanced weapon
and sensor interfaces (100% improvement in reliability), Integrated Sight (4 pound weight savings and 25% cost
reduction compared to existing LW components), enhanced navigation, packet relay protocols for soldier radios,
system voice control, combat ID functions, low power helmet mounted display upgrades (1 watt power savings), and
head orientation sensor (decrease target acquisition time by 50%). In addition to these technologies, other technologies
from the MOUT ACTD or Small Unit Operations programs, as coordinated with those programs, will be integrated
onto the LW platform to support FY99 demonstrations. By FY00 a revolutionary technology path leading to a future
warrior system architecture keyed toward four key systems drivers: weight reduction, power minimization, life cycle
cost reduction, and system fightability.
Supports: Land Warrior, PM–Soldier, U.S. Marine Corps, DARPA and SOCOM, Engineering Development:
RJS1/64713/D667–Enhanced Land Warrior, DBS and BC Battle Labs.

Patrick Snow Bill Brower Michael Tryon
NRDEC SARDA–TT TSM–Soldier
(508) 233–5436 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–1020
DSN: 256–5436 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–1020
III.I.06—Batteries for the Individual Soldier. Reduce the physical burden on the soldier and reduce O&S costs by using
lighter weight primary (30 percent more energy, 1996) and rechargeable (50 Percent more energy, 1998) batteries. The
deliverable will be achieved through a combination of new primary–battery chemistries (sulfuryl chloride or zinc–air),
improved rechargeable–battery chemistries (nickel metal hydride or lithium–ion). The primary "pouch" batteries
delivered in 1996 will be used in the FY96 21CLW Soldier System demo, and will be the pilot model of batteries
required for the FY98 field demo.
Supports: CECOM, PEO–COMM, SORDAC, PM–SINCGARS, PM–SOLDIER, and NRDEC. 21st Century Land
Warrior, Intelligent Minefield, and Remote Entry ATDs, Dismounted Battlespace Battle Lab, CSS Battle Lab.

Section I. Soldier
Robert Hamlen Rob Saunders Chris Kearns

CERDEC SARD–TT DBL
(908) 427–2084 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 987–2084 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
III.I.08—Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) ACTD. By the end of FY00, demonstrate a full spectrum,
robust MOUT operational capability for small units that seamlessly integrates and aggregates the technologies of
participating ATDs, TDs and other technology developments in the areas of MOUT C4I, Survivability, Engagement,
and Modeling & Simulation (M&S). Robust communications for MOUT will be pursued through contract options
with DARPA’s Small Unit Operations Program. Joint field exercises will be conducted with participation by
dismounted soldiers, Special Operations Forces, and the Marine Corps. Demonstrations will include tactically realistic
scenarios that will test individual and small unit performance in stressful MOUT environments to assess the operational
interoperability of the MOUT system–of–systems. M&S will be used to facilitate mission planning and rehearsal, and
augment quantification of performance enhancements. Minimum goals include: 50% increase in situational awareness
at all levels and 20% increase in force survivability. Through FY01 and FY02, provide follow–on technical support to
MOUT ACTD residuals. This STO is an integrated component of the MOUT ACTD.
Supports: Upgrades to Land Warrior; DBS Battle Lab, Infantry School and Battle Command (Leavenworth) Battle Lab.

Carol Fitzgerald Bill Brower Chris Kearns
SSCOM/NRDEC SARDA–TT DBL
(703) 704–1427 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 654–1427 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
III.I.09p—Future Warrior Technologies. By the end of FY05, demonstrate the integration of and supportability of
technology insertions into the Land Warrior, Air Warrior, and Mounted Warrior systems. The technology insertions
will further enhance the various platforms in the areas of improved miniaturization, improved power management,
improved C4I integration, low observables, improved mobility and improved vision systems. Another focus of this
demonstration will be the applicability of current technologies to various systems in order to reduce unit costs and
increase producibility. The target goal of 20% reduction in unit production cost, while providing the increased
capabilities, will be assessed during this demonstration. The concept of cost as an independent variable will be used to
meet this objective. By the end of FY03, the highest payoff technologies will be validated through modeling and
simulation and virtual prototyping. Early designs for the various warrior systems will be produced using virtual
prototyping techniques. All systems will be designed for maximum commonality to reduce the overall logistics burden
and unit costs. The program will exploit emerging commercial technology trends to ensure the final products, the
upgraded warrior systems, are technologically superior to that of any potential adversary.
Supports: Upgrades to Land Warrior.

Section I. Soldier

Patrick Snow Bill Brower Chris Kearns
(508) 233–5436 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 256–5436 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391

Section J. Combat Health Support
COMBAT HEALTH SUPPORT (Section J)
III.J.01—Shigella Vaccines. By FY96, determine molecular features required for protective immunity against Shigella
species. By FY97, select the best methodology for vaccine development. By FY97, transition to advanced development a
candidate Shigella sonnei vaccine to protect 80 percent of immunized troops from dysentery caused by Shigella sonnei.
By FY99, transition to advanced development a candidate Shigella flexneri vaccine to protect 80 percent of immunized
troops from dysentery caused by Shegilla flexneri in deployed forces worldwide.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan, Medical Annex O—Project, Sustain and Protect the Force. The Medical Threat
Facing a Force Projection Army (1994). Food and Drug Administration regulatory requirements.

COL W. H. Bancroft LTC Bill Pratt Herbert Russakoff
MRMC SARD–TM CSS Battle Lab
(301) 619–7567 (703) 695–8443 (804) 734–0599
DSN: 343–7567 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 687–0599
III.J.02—Vaccines for the Prevention of Malaria. By FY00, transition to advanced development a vaccine process to
prevent P. falciparum infection in 80 percent of immunized personnel. By FY02, transition to advanced development a
vaccine to prevent P. vivax infection in 80 percent of immunized personnel. By FY96, transition to advanced
development a candidate blood stage Plasmodium falciparum vaccine to reduce incidence of severe clinical malaria by
70 percent. By FY97, transition a vaccine to prevent P. falciparum infection in 70 percent of immunized troops. By
FY98, transition to advanced development a candidate blood stage Plasmodium vivax vaccine to protect 70 percent of
immunized troops from vivax malaria.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan, Medical Annex O–Project, Sustain and Protect the Force. The Medical Threat

(301) 619–7567 (703) 695–8443 (804) 734–0599
DSN: 343–7567 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 687–0599
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1j.htm（第 1／11 页）2006-09-10 23:12:09

III.J.04—Antiparasitic Drug Program. By FY98, transition to advanced development antiparasitic drugs capable of
preventing or treating malaria or leishmaniasis. Candidates include arteether (parenteral treatment of severe drug
resistant malaria), FY96; topical paromomycin/gentamicin (cutaneous leishmaniasis treatment), FY96; Floxacrine
analog (malaria treatment), FY98; antovoquone–proquanil (malaria prophylaxis), FY97; artelinic acid (malaria
prophylaxis), FY01.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan, Medical Annex O—Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force. The Medical Threat

(301) 619–7567 (703) 695–8443 (804) 734–0599
DSN: 343–7567 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 687–0599
III.J.05—Dengue Virus Vaccines. By FY99, select the best methodology for vaccine development. By FY 1, transition
to advanced development a candidate polyvalent dengue virus vaccine to protect 8 percent of immunized troops from
dengue fever caused by dengue virus types 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan, Medical Annex O—Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force. The Medical Threat

(301) 619–7567 (703) 695–8443 (804) 734–0599
DSN: 343–7567 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 687–0599
III.J.07—Minimizing Blood Loss and Optimizing Fluid Resuscitation. Provide information and transition to
development products to enhance capabilities for control of and resuscitation from hemorrhage. By FY96, complete
evaluation of commercially available local hemostatic agents to assess potential for field use in controlling bleeding;
determine whether nondevelopmental item investment strategy is appropriate or if additional research and
development are needed. By FY96, transition to development a field intraosseous infusion device. By FY96, transition
to development an improved thawed or fresh blood preservative. By FY97, transition to development a field–portable
fluid infusion–warming device suitable for battlefield use. By FY98, define mechanisms of toxicity of blood substitutes
and complete evaluation of status of commercial blood substitute development to define future research and
development needs. By FY00, define optimum perfusion pressures for hemorrhaging individuals.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan, Medical Annex O—Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force—Far Forward

Surgical Care. Products include an advanced resuscitation solution, oxygen–carrying blood substitute, advanced
physiologic sensors, more wound dressings, advanced physiologic sensors, novel wound dressings, and intraosseous
infusion device. Food and Drug Administration regulatory requirements.

MAJ Steve Brutigg LTC Bill Pratt Herbert Russakoff
(301) 619–7591 (703) 695–8443 (804) 734–0599
DSN: 343–7591 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 687–0599
III.J.08—Treatments to Prevent Secondary Damage After Hemmorhage or Major Injury. Transition to development or
operational use the materiel and information required to reduce complications and death resulting from massive blood
loss or major injuries, including measures to minimize irreversible damage during potentially prolonged evacuation. By
FY96, transition a pharmacologic intervention capable of blocking the early steps in development of brain and/or spinal
cord injury that occur secondarily to trauma, reducing irreversible damage by at least 20 percent. By FY98, transition a
pharmacologic intervention that will reduce ischemia/reperfusion injury by 20 percent under conditions in which
definitive treatment is delayed by up to 24 hours. By FY00, transition an intervention that will prevent or reduce by 35
percent trauma induced immunosuppression and related sepsis.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan, Medical Annex O—Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force–Far Forward Surgical
Care. Products include a therapeutic antibody for the treatment of sepsis and a recombinant delta opioid (DADLE) for
use in the delay or prevention of multiple organ failure. Food and Drug Administration regulatory requirements.

(301) 619–7591 (703) 695–8443 (804) 734–0599
DSN: 343–7591 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 687–0599
III.J.14—Nutritional Strategies. Identify and demonstrate nutritional strategies to maintain health and enhance soldier
performance. Assess efficacy of selected nutrients, food components, and feeding strategies in enhancing physical and
mental performance and promoting nutritional health of soldiers during sustained and continuous operations at all
climatic extremes. By FY95, determine efficacy of modified garrison dining facility menus and nutritional health and
fitness education materials in promoting the consumption of a healthy diet. By FY97, complete animal and human
laboratory studies of selected performance–enhancing nutrients and food components (i.e., carbohydrate beverages,
caffeine, tyrosine). By FY98, in collaboration with the Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center, conduct
an initial field demonstration of performance–enhancing ration components.
Supports: Guidelines for development of performance optimizing rations; Army Modernization Plan, Medical Annex
O–Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force—prevent environmental injury and degradation of soldier performance;

DoD Executive Agent for Nutrition.

Dr. Fred Hegge LTC Bill Pratt LTC Dunham
MRMC SARD–TM CSS–BL
(301) 619–7301 (703) 695–8443 (405) 442–5647
DSN: 343–7301 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 639–5647
III.J.18—Medical Countermeasures for Yersinia pestis. Develop medical CM against the biological threat of Yersinia
pestis, the causative agent of plague. By FY95, complete an assessment of the efficacy of the Cutter vaccine against an
aerosol challenge of Yersinia pestis. By FY98, transition to development a vaccine that will protect 80 percent of
immunized personnel against an aerosol challenge of Yersinia pestis and will induce minimum reactogenicity in soldiers
when immunized.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan, Medical Annex O—Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force by Development of
NBC Agent Preventive Measures. Provides for the exploration, demonstration, and validation of biological defense
vaccines as outlined by the DEPSECDEF (26 Aug 91) and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (31 Aug 92).

COL Gerald Parker LTC Bill Pratt CPT Ensor
(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994
III.J.19—Medical Countermeasures for Encephalitis Viruses. Develop medical CM against the biological warfare threat
of the encephalitis viruses, a group of viruses that cause disorientation, convulsions, paralysis, and death. Vaccines will
protect 80 percent of the immunized population against an aerosol exposure of the virus and will induce minimum
reactogenicity in soldiers when immunized. By FY96, transition to development an improved vaccine effective against
Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (VEE) virus stereotypes 1 A/B/C. By FY98, construct analogous vaccines for
Eastern equine encephalitis (EEE) and Western equine encephalitis (WEE). By FY00, develop a multivalent VEE
vaccine that includes serotypes 1E and III.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan Objectives, Medical Annex O—Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force by
Development of NBC Agent Preventive Measures. Provides for the exploration, demonstration, and validation of
biological defense vaccines as outlined by the DEPSECDEF (26 Aug 91) and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
(31 Aug 92).


(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994
III.J.20—Medical Countermeasures for Brucellosis. Develop medical countermeasures against the biological warfare
threat of Brucella, the causative agent of brucellosis, a systemic bacterial disease characterized by fever, weakness,
depression, and generalized aching. By FY97, demonstrate the feasibility of producing a vaccine against brucellosis
using one species as the model approach (milestone 0). By FY99, transition to advanced development a vaccine that will
protect 80 percent of immunized personnel against an aerosol challenge of any species of Brucella and will induce
minimum reactogenicity in soldiers when immunized (milestone 1).

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994
III.J.23—Medical Countermeasures for Ricin. Develop medical CM against the biological warfare threat of ricin toxin.
By FY97, conduct a Milestone 0 transition of a second generation vaccine. By FY99, transition to advanced
development a second generation vaccine that will protect 90 percent of the immunized population against an aerosol
challenge and will induce minimum reactogenicity in soldiers when immunized (Milestone 1).

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994

III.J.24—Medical Countermeasures for Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B (SEB). Develop medical CM against the
biological warfare threat of SEB toxin. By FY96, transition to advanced development a vaccine that will prevent 80
percent of the immunized animals from death against a lethal aerosol challenge of SEB (milestone 1 transition). By
FY96, demonstrate the feasibility of producing a secondary generation vaccine that will protect 90 percent of the
immunized animals against both a lethal and incapacitating aerosol challenge of SEB (Milestone 0 transition). By FY00,
transition to advanced development the second generation vaccine (Milestone 1 transition).

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994
III.J.25—Medical Countermeasures for Botulinum Toxin. Develop medical CM against the biological warfare threat of
botulinum toxin. By FY97 transition to advanced development a recombinant vaccine that will protect 80 percent of
immunized personnel against an aerosol challenge, provide protection against all serotypes, and induce minimum
reactogenecity in immunized soldiers (milestone 1).

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994
III.J.26—Reactive Topical Skin Protectant/Decontaminant. By FY95, demonstrate proof of principle of the reactive
topical skin protectant concept. By FY97, demonstrate efficacy of a reactive topical skin protectant. Demonstrate by
FY99, safety and efficacy sufficient for a Milestone O transition of a reactive component for a topical skin protectant
that will provide protection against penetration and will detoxify both vesicant and nerve chemical warfare agents.
Supports: Development of Food and Drug Administration–licensed reactive skin protectant; Program
Manager–Soldier; Draft MNS (11 Sep 92); Operational and Organizational Plans (Feb 95, Aug 85, Dec 86, May 87,
Aug 90); Joint Service Agreement (14 Dec 93) – Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force by Development of NBC Agent

Preventive Measures.

COL Gerald Parker LTC Bill Pratt Charles Campbell
MRMC SARD–TM MBS BL
(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 464–1963
III.J.27—Medical Countermeasures Against Vesicant Agents. By FY96, exploit pathophysiology database and new
technologies for prophylaxis, pretreatment, and antidote strategies that will provide significant protection against
vesicant injury. By FY97, demonstrate efficacy of a vesicant CM. Demonstrate by FY00, safety and efficacy of a
candidate medical CM sufficient for a Milestone 0 transition.
Supports: Development of Food and Drug Administration–licensed protectants, pretreatments, and therapies for
vesicant agents; Program Manager–Soldier; Operational and Organizational Plans (Mar 87); Draft MNS (11 Sep 92);
Joint Service Agreement (14 Dec 93) – Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force by Development of NBC Agent
Preventive Measures.

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 464–1963
III.J.29—Advanced Anticonvulsant. By FY97, demonstrate safety and efficacy sufficient for a Milestone 0 transition of
an advanced anticonvulsant adjunct or component for the soldier/buddy–use nerve agent antidote. Advanced
anticonvulsant will overcome deficiencies of current anticonvulsant, Convulsant Antidote for Nerve Agent (CANA), i.
e., will be more effective in stopping ongoing convulsive seizures, preventing their recurrence, and protecting against
nerve–agent–induced, seizure–related brain damage. It will also demonstrate less abuse potential than CANA. Achieve
Milestone 1 transition by FY99.
Supports: Development of Food and Drug Administration–licensed anticonvulsant for nerve agent therapy; Program
Manager–Soldier; Operational and Organizational Plans (Mar 87); Draft MNS (11 Sep 92); Joint Service Agreement
(14 Dec 93) – Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force by Development of NBC Agent Preventive Measures.


(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 464–1963
III.J.30—Chemical Agent Prophylaxes. By FY97, demonstrate the feasibility of a reactive/catalytic scavenger

pretreatment effective against chemical agents. By FY99, demonstrate safety and efficacy sufficient for a Milestone 0
transition of a reactive/catalytic scavenger pretreatment that reduces chemical agent toxicity without operationally
significant physiological or psychological side effects.
Supports: Development of Food and Drug Administration–licensed reactive/catalytic protectants for nerve agents;
Program Manager–Soldier; Operational and Organizational Plans (Nov 86); Draft MNS (11 Sep 92); Joint Service
Agreement (14 Dec 93) – Protect, Sustain, and Protect the Force by Development of NBC Agent Preventive Measures.

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 464–1963
III.J.31—Computer–Aided Diagnosis and Treatment. This concept seeks to integrate all of the various individual
soldier medically oriented advanced technology and route the data gathering, calculation, decision making and
communication through the Soldier Individual Computer common to all 21st Century Land Warriors. This STO
supports development of communication–enabled advanced technologies (both sensor and microprocessing) to
support triage, diagnosis, treatment, casualty monitoring, and patient status awareness during enroute care. This
research and development provides a seamless connection between local casualty assessment and treatment and
telemedicine efforts to build an electronic medical record or mentor deployed health care providers. The approach is to
develop medical overlays to tactical computing/communicating capability already under development, in order to
assess performance without injury, and to compare data postinjury to preinjury "control" data for individualized injury
severity assessment. Research efforts will develop a variety of noninvasive vital sign sensor (most utilizing infrared or
near infrared technologies to determine deep tissue microvascular blood flow, tissue oxygenation, lactate and CO2
build–up and tissue. Additional efforts will develop interfaces and controllers between these sensors and the Soldier
Individual Computer. Finally, R&D efforts will focus on the development of medical decision assist algorithms that will
aid the combat medic in diagnosing and selecting appropriate treatments. Such algorithms will be capable of updating
every minute to provide assessment of treatment effectiveness or continued medical threat. By FY98, transition to
advanced validation studies of noninvasive vital sign sensors for combat trauma diagnostics and monitoring; by FY 00
transition vital sign sensor interface to Soldier Individual Computer (21CLW); by FY00, transition to advanced
development a candidate medical decision assist algorithm;
Supports: Early Entry, Dismounted, Mounted, Battle Command and Combat Service Support Battle Labs. Supports
Army Modernization Plan objectives "Project and Sustain the Force."


(301) 619–7591 (703) 695–8443 804–734–0599
DSN: 343–7591 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 687–0599
III.J.32—Biological Warfare Agent Confirmation Diagnostic Kit. Develop the capability to confirm the initial field
diagnosis obtained with the forward deployable diagnostic kit. These tests will differ from forward deployed tests by
being more specific and more sensitive and by using independent biological markers. By FY98, transition to
development confirmation techniques for all biological warfare (BW) agents in the theater of operations.
Supports: DEPSECDEF guidance (26 Aug 91); Joint Requirements Oversight Council guidance (31 Aug 92); Combat
Service Support and Dismounted Battle Labs.

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994
III.J.33—Filoviridae. Develop medical CM against the biological warfare (BW) threat of Filoviridae, which includes
Marburg virus and Ebola virus. By FY 01, transition to advanced development a bivalent vaccine effective against
Marburg and Ebola viruses.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan Objectives, Medical Annex O, Project, Sustain, and Protect the force by
biological defense vaccines as outlined by the DEPSECDEF (26 Aug 91) and the Joint Requirements Oversight council
(31 Aug 92).

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994
III.J.34—Medical Countermeasures for Variola. Develop medical CM against the biological warfare threat of variola,

the causative agent of smallpox. By FY97, confirm the use of an animal model for the purpose of demonstrating the
efficacy of the current licensed vaccine against aerosol–delivered variola. By FY98, perform relevant preclinical testing
of new cell culture–derived vaccinia vaccine directed towards variola. By FY99, develop rapid and highly specific
diagnostic devices for clinical specimens. By FY00, explore the feasibility of using human monoclonal antibodies to
replace vaccinia immune globulin (VIG). By FY01, screen and identify effective antiviral drugs for post–exposure
treatment. Note: None of the studies conducted at USAMRIID will utilize variola itself, instead the studies will employ
the use of an appropriate orthopox virus substitute.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan Objectives, Medical Annex O—Project, Sustain, and Protect the force by
biological defense vaccines as outlined by the DEPSECDEF (26 Aug 91) and the Joint Requirements Oversight council
(31 Aug 92).

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994
III.J.35—Multiagent Vaccines for Biological Threat Agents. Description: Develop vaccine candidates that will
concurrently provide protective immune response against a range of biological threat agents. Identify technologies that
would permit multiple immunogens or nucleic acid based vaccine candidates to be combined in a single preparation
with the endpoint of simultaneously immunizing recipients against multiple biological warfare threats. Demonstrate by
FY 00 the feasibility of these approaches in appropriate animal models. Transition to advanced development (Milestone
1), by FY 02, a vaccine that protects 90 percent or more of immunized animals from death or incapacitation by specific
agents, as appropriate, following exposure to aerosol delivery of agents at equivalent doses to those anticipated under
operational settings.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan Objectives, Medical Annex O—Project, Sustain, and Protect the Force by
Development of NBC Agent Preventive Measures. Provides for the exporation, demonstration, and validation of
biological defense vaccines as outlined by the DEPSECDEF (26 Aug 91) and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
(31 Aug 92).

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994
III.J.36—Common Diagnostic Systems for Biological Threats and Endemic Infectious Disease. Develop diagnostic

assays and reagents that will provide rapid laboratory diagnosis for a broad array of biological threats and infectious
diseases, using common diagnostic technologies. Identify technologies that allow for forward and confirmatory
laboratory diagnosis regardless of the etiological agent. By FY98, demonstrate the feasibility of common diagnostic
systems for biological threats and infectious diseases. Identify genetic and immunological targets for emerging
diagnostic systems technology for biological threats and infectious diseases. By FY02, transition to advanced
development common diagnostic systems for biological threats and infectious diseases.
Supports: DEPSECDEF guidance (26 Aug 91); Joint Requirements Oversight Council guidance (31 Aug 92); Combat
Service Support and Dismounted Battle Labs.

(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7439 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994
III.J.37p—Novel Antiparasitic Drug Development. Provide development of novel compounds and transition to
advanced development drugs capable of preventing or treating emerging drug resistant strains of parasitic diseases
including malaria and leishmaniasis. This will result in sustained readiness by reducing loss of manpower due to illness
caused by malaria and other diseases. Technical barriers include a continuing effort to keep up with multi–drug resistant
malaria, determining mechanisms of drug–resistance and development of new animal and in vitro models. By FY03,
identify new classes of compounds for the prevention and treatment of malaria. This will include testing to determine
whether 80% of a population will be protected by pyridine methanol.
Supports: Army Modernization Plan, Medical Annex O—Project, Sustain and Protect the Force. The Medical Threat

Col. Charles Hoke LTC Bill Pratt CPT Ensor
(301) 619–7439 (703) 695–8443 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 343–7567 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 835–5994

Section K. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (Section K)
III.K.03—Integrated Biodetection ATD. This ATD will demonstrate two technologies. The first will provide a
pre–exposure warning for a biological attack. The second technology will provide an order–of–magnitude increased
sensitivity to agents while adding a first time virus identification capability that significantly reduced logistics. These
logistical improvements include automated versus manual operation, 5x size/weight reduction, reduced storage
requirements, and reduced consumables. By FY97, demonstrate a remote biological aerosol warning capability using
micro ultraviolet laser based particle counting technology. This technology will provide pre–exposure versus
post–exposure warning of biological agent attacks for protection of personnel and high value battlespace assets. Also by
FY98, demonstrate a point bio sensor capability that will incorporate an automated DNA diagnostic technology that
identifies biological agents with the highest known degree of relability and sensitivity. By FY99, products will be
demonstrated separately and as an integrated force protection suite in a future Battle Lab Warfighting Experiment.
Supports: Joint Biological Point Detection System (JBPDS) and Joint Biological Remote Early Warning Systems.

Richard Smardzewski Denise Hansen Curt Gladden
ERDEC OSD U.S. Army Chemical School
(410) 671–1832 (703) 693–9410
DSN: 584–1832 DSN: 227–9410 DSN: 865–6572
III.K.04—Millimeter–Wave (MMW) Screening. By FY98, demonstrate the capability of obscurant materials to block
or defeat enemy RSTA assets in the millimeter wave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Exit criteria will include
defeat of actual or simulated threat radar, reduction of logistics burden via RAM improvements and reduction of
environmental impact due to degradability of the materials.
Supports: This technology supports the Multispectral Expendable Obscurant Generating System and the XM56 MMW
Module P3I.

Jeff Hale Denise Hansen Curt Gladden
(410) 671–2607 (703) 693–9410
DSN: 584–2607 DSN: 227–9410 DSN: 865–6572
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1k.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 23:12:14

Section K. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
III.K.07—Millimeter–Wave (MMW) Material and Dissemination Technology. The thrust of this STO is to use novel
material technology to reduce the cost and logistics of the millimeter wave (MMW) obscurant smoke by evaluating
both the dissemination and the obscurant material. By FY98, evaluate, design and fabricate a new cutter for
dissemination of MMW obscurant smoke that could increase the mission turnover time from once every 30 minutes to
once every 300 minutes. This novel dissemination would decrease manintenance and cost by at least 80% while
maintaining battle tempo. By FY99, evaluate and select an MMW obscurant that will reduce cost by one order of
magnitude while meeting current performance and environmental requirements. Also by FY99, evaluate the feasibility
of eliminating the cutter, based on the new MMW obscurant material. By FY00, downselect and demonstrate the
approach (new MMW material—new cutter versus new MMW material—no cutter) with a reduction in cost and
logistics impact of 90% over present systems.
Supports: M56 Large Area Smoke Generator–Motorized and M58 Large Area Smoke Generator–Mechanized.

Jeff Hale Denise Hansen CPT Pedro Molina
(410) 671–2607 (703) 693–9410
DSN: 584–2607 DSN: 227–9410 DSN: 865–4250

Section L. Air and Missile Defense
Air and Missile Defense (Section L)
III.L.01—Guidance Integrated Fuzing. The potential exists for the use of Guidance Integrated Fuzing to increase the
probability of kill for missile and air defense systems. By FY97, collect non–far–field target signatures from millimeter
wave, monopulse instrumentation radar. Generate high fidelity target models to support highly accurate seeker based
fuzing simulations to validate robust fuzing algorithms. By FY99, demonstrate algorithms that can use guidance
information from RF and imaging IR seekers, autopilots, and/or auto pilot instruments to direct and fuze aimable
warheads to maximize damage to ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned air vehicles, and aircraft targets. Guidance
Integrated Fuzing could double missile system lethality and decrease costs over conventional fuzing configurations by
25%–50%.
Supports: PEO–MD, PAC–3, Corps SAM, and FAADS PM/STINGER.

Donald E. Lovelace Irena Szkrybalo James Hendley
MICOM SARD–TT U.S. Army Air and Missile Defense
(205) 876–8609 (703) 697–8432 School
DSN: 746–8609 DSN: 227–8432 (915) 568–7611
III.L.05—2.75–Inch Antiair TD. Develop and demonstrate adapting an imaging IR seeker for a
small–diameter–missile airframe. By the end of FY97 conduct captive carry testing of form factored seekers with
breadboard electronics. By the end of FY99, develop form factored electronics packages, conduct ground test, develop
signal processing algorithms with IR counter–countermeasures (CCM), and develop hardware–in–the–loop
simulations.
Supports: EELS, Mounted and Dismounted Battlespace Battle Labs, GRAM and ATAM Project Offices.

Ted Peacher Irena Szkrybalo Chris Kearns
MICOM SARD–TT DBL
(205) 876–3484 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 746–3484 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1l.htm2006-09-10 23:12:19
Section M. Engineer and Mine Warfare
Engineer and Mine Warfare (Section M)
III.M.08—Vehicular–Mounted Mine Detector ATD. By FY98, demonstrate down and forward looking sensor
technologies, including ground penetrating radar and infrared for use on a vehicle mounted system to detect metallic
and nonmetallic AT mines. Detection performance improvement of 100 percent is expected when compared to the
current metallic mine detector. Additionally, detection speed enhancements of up to 2500 percent (5 mph vs 0.2 mph).
Standoff detection distances of 30 to 75 feet, an automatic mine recognition/marking system, and teleoperation will be
demonstrated.
Supports: Mounted Battlespace, Early Entry Lethality and Survivability, Combat Service Support, Dismounted
Battlespace, Ground Standoff Mine Detection System.

Tom Broach Rob Saunders Charles Campbell
(703) 704–1035 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 654–1035 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–1963
III.M.09—Mine Hunter/Killer (MH/K) ATD. Mine Hunter/Killer will demonstrate an integrated system concept for
autonomous detection and destruction of mines at maneuver speeds. By FY96, demonstrate an infrared detection
scheme on a combat vehicle and transition to Vehicle Mounted Mine Detector ATD. By FY97, test and evaluate
explosive neutralization technologies and select a baseline concept for Mine Hunter/Killer demonstration. By FY98,
complete design of explosive neutralizer. By FY99, complete enhancements to detection sensors and integrate these
pieces into a single system for static testing. By FY00 integrate Mine Hunter/Killer system onto a surrogate tactical
platform and demonstrate the ability to detect and kill mines at a standoff range. This integration can provide a 10–fold
increase in neutralization range (5 meters to 50 meters) and a two–fold increase in breaching speed (5 mph to 10 mph).
This system will be capable of detecting unexploded ordnance (UXO’s) as well as mines.
Supports: Joint Countermine ACTD, Hit Avoidance, FCS.

James Dillon Rob Saunders Charles Campbell
(703) 704–1046 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 654–1046 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–1963
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1m.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 23:12:29

III.M.10—Advanced Mine Detection Sensors. By FY97, evaluate underpinning enhancements to forward looking
radar and integrate this technology fusion into a single system for static testing against antitank and antipersonnel mines
with a 98% probability of detection and with a false alarm rate of less than <0.2 per meter of forward progress. By FY98,
demonstrate potential payoffs for increased standoff detection in all weather conditions using advanced FLIR and SLR
technologies. By FY99, investigate acoustic and seismic technologies as additional means of enhancing the performance
of ground based detection systems. BY FY00, demonstrate multisensor ability to detect mines remotely at speeds of
5–20 km/hr. By FY01, integrate these technologies onto a surrogate ground–based platformand conduct advanced
mine detection demonstration.
Supports: Early Entry/Lethality and Survivability, Mounted and Dismounted Battlespace Battle Labs Combat Service
Support.

Robert Barnard Rob Saunders Charles Campbell
(703) 704–1066 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 654–1066 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–1963
III.M.11—Lightweight, Airborne Multispectral Countermine Detection System. Lightweight, Airborne Multispectral

Minefield Detection Sensors will develop innovative concepts and technology to provide tactical and short range UAVs
with the capability for standoff minefield and limited nuisance mine detection. This effort will investigate a variety of
new component and focal plane array technologies such as 3–5um staring FPA’s, multi/hyperspectral techniques,
passive polarization, active sources and electronic stabilization. By FY99, complete study efforts and initiate critical
component development. By FY00, complete development of sensors, mine detection algorithm and processor
modifications. By FY01, complete integration on a tactical UAV and conduct a demonstration of the system.
Supports: Mounted and Dismounted Battlespace.

Hugh Carr Rob Saunders Charles Campbell
(703) 704–2926 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 654–2926 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–1963
III.M.12p—Standoff Scatterable Minefield Detection. This technology will provide BDE and below maneuver units an
indigenous, rapidly transportable, sensor suite to provide real–time impact and launch locations of scattermine,
chemical agent, and other artillery, rocket, and mortar delivered munitions. This technology will be capable of

responding to cues from other sensors and handoff hostile weapons location data for counter battery missions. This
research will explore the capability of the future Scout Multispectral Staring Sensor Suite (MFS3) and the mm wave
ground radar (MGR). The operational concept is to use the MFS3 to scan the horizon continuously to acquire
projectile tracks from volley fire events. Following initial detection, the MSF3 will hand off tracking to the mm wave
radar to determine range, trajectory and predict impact location and/or firing battery location. By FY00, collect live fire
data and initiate investigation of sensors to validate detection and tracking capability. By FY01, initiate signal processing
and ATR algorithms to predict munitions impact areas and battery position. By FY02, evaluate the detection and
impact area prediction capabilities.
Supports: Mounted Battlespace Battlelab, Dismounted Battlespace Battlelab.

Hugh Carr Rob Saunders (TBD)
CERDEC/NVESD SARD–TT
(703) 704–2926 (703) 697–8432
DSN: 654–2926 DSN: 227–8432
III.M.14—Area Denial Systems (ADS). By FY01, this STO will demonstrate the capability of self–contained,
semiautonomous, long standoff munitions that can defend an area by defeating, disrupting, and delaying vehicles that
enter its battlespace. The ADS concept expands on the capabilities demonstrated under the Intelligent Minefield STO
(III.M.07), which concluded in FY97, by extending the effective range from 100 meters to 1000 meters (100x increase in
area coverage), and enhancing the operational utility through improved system employment and recovery. ADS will
enhance other weapon systems in a manner similar to that achieved by land mines today, but without the post war
civilian mine threat and the demining problem. In FY98, available sensor and communication technologies will be
evaluated, tradeoffs including CM resistance will be defined, and a baseline design for hand–emplaced ADS will be
developed. In FY99, alternative deterrent concepts will be evaluated. In FY00, prototype deterrent modules will be built
and tested, and robotic platforms and alternative delivery and recovery methods will be investigated. In FY01, an
integrated demonstration of hand emplaced sensors and deterrent modules will be conducted.
Supports: Replacement for conventional mines.

George E. Lutz John Appel COL William McCoy
AMSTA–AR–FS SARDA–TT US Army Engineer School
(201) 724–7848 (703) 697–8432 (573) 563–4086
DSN: 880–7848 DSN: 227–8432
III.M.15—Logistics–Over–the–Shore (LOTS). The two primary objectives of this effort are to demonstrate 1) a
full–scale prototype version of the Rapidly Installed Breakwater system for application in Logistics Over the Shore
(LOTS) and Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS) operations and 2) construction materials and techniques to

provide roadway linkages to the inland infrastructure from LOTS/JLOTS sites. Present LOTS operations are limited to
wave conditions in the mid–range of seastate 2. Based on consideration of global wave climates, CINCs require that
LOTS operations be able to continue through seastate 3. There is also a significant need to minimize construction time
and materials in moving personnel and equipment from the beach to the inland transportation infrastructure. The
objective of this technology demonstration is to demonstrate at full scale the technology for enhanced LOTS
operations, including (1) seastate 3 operability to greatly increase LOTS throughput and (2) significant reduction in
time and materials required to link the beach to the inland transportation network. By the end of FY00, complete
engineering design for full–scale breakwater(s) based on detailed engineering analyses, laboratory and 1/4–scale field
tests, and acquisition of the capability to rapidly stabilize beach sands with minimum logistic burdens and reduced
engineer equipment. By the end of FY02: demonstrate rapidly installed breakwaters for reduction of wave conditions in
sea states up to the lower end of sea state 4 by 50%, and demonstrate improved techniques to rapidly stabilize soft soils
for roads and material storage areas associated with LOTS operations.

Dr. Donald Resio Donald Artis Bill Adams
USA Engineer Waterways SARD–TR
Experiment Station (703)697–3558
(601) 634–2018 DSN: 227–3558
DSN:

Section N. Fire Support
FIRE SUPPORT (Section N)
III.N.11—Guided Multiple Launch Rocket (MLRS) System ATD. By the end of FY98, demonstrate a low cost G&C
package for the MLRS rocket. At extended ranges, large quantities of baseline rockets are required to defeat the target.
With the addition of a guidance system, an improved delivery accuracy will be achieved. The number of rockets
required to defeat the target will be reduced to one–sixth the current quantity at maximum ranges. The goal of the
program is to conduct test flights in FY97–FY98. Technologies that will be integrated include a low cost inertial
measurement unit, GPS receivers and antennas, and a canard or ring thruster control package, all of which must be
housed in the forward section of the MLRS rocket.
Supports: MLRS Family of Munitions and RFPI ACTD, technology options for Joint Directed Attack Munition,
Precision Strike—Korea.

Alan Gamble Irena Szkrybalo LTC Dunham
MICOM SARD–TT CSS–BL
(205) 876–2511 (703) 697–8432 (405) 442–5647
DSN: 746–2511 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 639–5647
III.N.15—Multimode Airframe Technology (MAT):LONGFOG. By the end of FY97, demonstrate through sled
testing a functioning multimode airframe that includes an integrated turbine engine, GPS/INS, ground station
computer, and fiber optic datalink. By the end of FY98, demonstrate technologies through modeling, simulation, and
flight testing, that will provide a 40 km day/night, multiple and high value time sensitive point target strike capability
while inflicting minimum collateral damage. The technologies will provide a flexible airframe and subsystems to support
missile systems that can select priority targets after launch, conduct limited man–in–the–loop BDA, and provide target
area reconnaissance in addition to target attack by means of variable cruise velocity over areas of interest. These
capabilities will be achieved by means of integrated GPS and inertial navigation, variable throttle air–breathing
propulsion, composite material airframe providing low IR signature and low RCS, variable geometry wings for multiple
speed regimes, imaging IR seeker, and other appropriate technologies.
Supports: RFPI, JPSD Precision/Rapid Counter MRL ACTDs.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1n.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 23:12:37

George Landingham Irena Szkrybalo LTC Dunham

(205) 876–5216 (703) 697–8432 (405) 442–5647
DSN: 746–5216 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 639–5647
III.N.17—Ducted Rocket Engine. By FY98, develop and demonstrate a ducted rocket engine for a medium
surface–to–air missile to significantly increase the intercept envelope against aircraft, cruise missiles, and tactical ballistic
missiles when compared to surface–to–air missiles using current solid rocket propulsion technology. Component
technology development will focus on the design and testing of a minimum signature, insensitive munitions,
compatible booster, supersonic air inlets, and solid fuel gas generator that provides for high impulse, minimum
signature ramburner operation. In FY96, complete heavyweight integration and initiate flightweight propulsion system
development. In FY97, complete flightweight development and conduct ground testing. In FY98, complete ground
testing and data reduction.
Supports: Battle Command, Depth and Simultaneous Attack, and Early Entry Lethality, and Survivability Battle Labs.

Michael Schexnayder Irena Szkrybalo LTC Dunham
(205) 876–3483 (703) 697–8432 (405) 442–5647
DSN: 746–3483 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 639–5647
III.N.18—Auto–Registration System. By FY98, this STO will demonstrate an 155mm Auto–Registration System (ARS)
Projectile with a 140 CEP accuracy goal at 35 km. In FY97, fabrication and testing of subsystems for a P/Y Code GPS
ARS. In FY98, conduct system demonstration including Standard Fuze GPS Translators and a Real Time Ground
Receiver integrated with the ARL automated fire control system for towed howitzers. The demonstration will take place
at YPG and Ft. Sill where a comparison between predicted fire accuracy and auto–registration correction accuracy will
be shown. Auto–registration will utilize technology leverage from the Navy competent munitions program. Also, in
FY98 complete engineering study to adapt a low cost GPS/INS guidance package (currently being developed by Navy
with $26M leverage) for PGMM application.
Supports: PGMM ATD, Indirect Precision Fire Warfighting Experiment; Cost effective, enhanced accuracy for the
entire stockpile of artillery ammunition, ORD currently in draft, Depth & Simultaneous Attack Battle Lab.

R. Sicignano John Appel MAJ Don Huntley
ARDEC SARDA–TT Depth and Simultaneous Attack
(201) 724–3194 (703) 697–8432 (405) 442–2927
DSN: 880–3194 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 639–2928

III.N.19—Advanced SADARM Sensor. By FY01, this STO will demonstrate the application of a common aperature
LADAR/IR transducer to enhance the current smart submunition (SADARM) sensor suite for use in gun launch
environments. The sensor suite will improve CM performance and provide target classification capability with specific
performance goals to include probability of detection (Pd) >.90, probability of classification (Pc) >.75, and 20 times
increase in footprint compared to basic SADARM. The enhanced sensor suite performance will greatly reduce cost per
kill for basic SADARM. In FY98, conduct analysis of SADARM BLOCK II sensor requirements in extended range
155mm and MSTAR, and fabricate LADAR/IR prototype hardware for preliminary sensor suite evaluation. In FY99,
fabricate test hardware for sensor CFT data gathering and for G–hardening experiments; perform CFT data gathering.
In FY00, conduct system tradeoff studies on alternate Block II sensor designs, perform sensor suite packaging analyses,
finalize sensor detailed design, and begin fabication of sensor hardware. In FY01, conduct tactical sensor CFT, conduct
sensor components G–hardening testing.
Supports: SADARM Munitions, MSTAR, Sensor Fuze Munitions.

Anthony Pezzano John Appel MAJSteve Walker
ARDEC SARDA–TT Armor Center, DFD
(201) 724–4829 (703) 697–8432 (502) 624–8802
DSN: 880–4829 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 464–8802
III.N.21—Future Direct Support Weapon. The objective of this STO is to demonstrate the viability of a 5,000 pound
towed howitzer. The first phase of the program will involve a demonstration of a 6,750 pound towed howitzer. The
second phase will involve a demonstration of a 5,700 pound towed howitzer, with a decision to go forward with the
program to develop a 5,000 pound towed howitzer to begin in FY02. This effort will leverage the technology from
current congressionally funded Electro–Rheological (ER) fluid research, which includes fluid characterization, software
control methodology, materials and structures modeling, power supply design, 155mm soft recoil test bed fabrication,
subscale laboratory test apparatus, and accuracy and effectiveness studies of 155mm vs. 105mm. In FY98, perform
direct support (DS) weapon interior ballistics modeling, initiate virtual prototype and modeling of soft recoil testbed
(6,750 pound), perform materials investigations, and develop an Army–wide database of ER fluids. In FY99, conduct a
live fire of an existing (hard stand) soft recoil mechanism, design/fabricate a DS weapon cannon, modify a 155mm soft
recoil testbed for DS, and develop concepts for a 5,700 pound ER fluid controlled soft recoil weapon. In FY00, initiate
firing program for 6,750 pound testbed, verify modeling and simulation of 6,750 pound testbed, and initiate virtual
prototype and modeling of 5,700 pound testbed. In FY01, execute limited user evaluation of 6,750 pound testbed,
fabricate 5,700 pound testbed, and execute live fire evaluation; and validate virtual simulations.
Supports: 155mm towed howitzer for the light forces.

Stephen G. Floroff John Appel (None)

ARDEC SARDA–TT
(201) 724–2902 (703) 697–8432
DSN: 880–2902 DSN: 227–8432
III.N.22—Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Smart Tactical Rocket (MSTAR). MLRS Smart Tactical Rocket
(MSTAR) will demonstrate the feasibility of deploying smart submunitions from one MLRS rocket. This technology
will provide the ability to deliver smart submunitions to the target area while being a transparent MLRS Family of
Munitions (MFOM) user. Logistic support, resupply, maintenance, required number of firing platforms (launchers),
and other support equipment will be reduced by the relationship of the number of submunitions expected to be housed
and dispensed by the rocket. Stowed kills will be increased due to the ability of the submunitions to attack multiple
targets. Proof of an integrated design concept will be demonstrated through subsystem engineering hardware testing
and verified by system level simulations. Results must ensure a relatively benign dispensing environment with a high
probability of placing the submunitions in a posture to counter the posed threat and account for the required search
characteristics of the various smart submunition candidates. Studies will be accomplished utilizing 6–degrees of
freedom (DOF) simulations to evaluate aerodynamic characteristics, dispersion patterns, and dispersion accuracy, and
to provide inputs into the submunition flight and terminal phase simulations
Supports: Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS).

Gary Jimmerson Irena Szkrybalo T. J. Johnstone
MICOM RDEC SARD–TT TSM
(205) 876–3759 (703) 697–8432
DSN: 746–3759 DSN: 227–8432

Section O. Logistics
LOGISTICS (Section O)
III.O.05—Reforming Diesel to Refuel Soldiers (ReformD). Develop technology to catalytically reform diesel fuel into a
versatile gaseous fuel that can be cleanly and reliably burned in high efficiency gas fired kitchen equipment and that can
be safely dispensed in cartridges (bottled) to power soldier individual equipment for heating, cooling, illumination, and
electric power generation devices. Specifically, by the end of FY98, demonstrate a diesel fuel reformer with an ability to
convert diesel fuel into gaseous fuels (H2 and C1 to C4) at a rate of 3 gallons per hour, and a yield of 70% High Heat
Value. By the end of FY99, demonstrate a yield of 90%. By the end of FY01, integrate the reformer in a field kitchen
with gas appliances that will enable the preparation of high quality meals and that will provide a convenient source for
refilling gas cartridges. Demonstrate a soldier refueling concept whereby the field kitchen is a logistical supply point that
fuels both individual soldiers and their equipment.
Supports: Joint Service Food Program; Advanced Development– RJS2/63747/D610– Food Advanced Development;
Engineering Development RJS2/64713/D548–Military Subsistence Systems; Army Field Feeding Equipment 2000
(MNS); Quartermaster School.

Don Pickard Bill Brower LTC William Loven
NRDEC SARD–TT Quartermaster School
(508) 233–5036 (703) 697–8432 (804) 734–0555
DSN: 256–5036 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 687–0555
III.O.09—Lines of Communication (LOC) Construction Materials and Methods. Provide the capability for rapid
construction and repair of the in–theater transportation and facilities infrastructure to sustain a deployed force with
limited engineer resources. By the end of FY95, develop methods for rapid stabilization of loose dry soils in arid regions
to provide operating surfaces (paved or unpaved) for contingency military operations. By the end of FY97, provide the
technologies required to reduce current equipment and materials to construct operating surfaces in soft soils and
environments by 25 percent and construction time by 35 percent. By the end of FY98, develop models, methods and
technology required to construct and maintain operating surfaces in cold and transitional environments using limited
material and equipment resources.
Supports: Design criteria, materials specifications, and construction guidance for the criteria update cycle of TM
5–430–001/2 "Planning and Design of Roads, Airfields, and Heliports in the Theater of Operations," and TM
5–402–001/2 "Army Facilities Component System."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1o.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 23:12:43


William Marcuson Donald Artis Herbert Russakoff
WES SARD–TR CSS Battle Lab
(601) 634–2234 (703) 697–3558 (804) 734–0599
DSN: DSN: 227–3558 DSN: 687–0599
III.O.14p—5–Kilowatt Advanced Lightweight Portable Power System (ALPPS). Demonstrate an efficient, portable
engine–driven generator set operable on multiple fuels for tactically mobile use. The design shall be based on the
integration of commercially available engines and state of the art alternator and power electronic technologies. The goal
is to enhance electrical generation, storage, and conditioning capabilities required to support TOCs, communication/
weapons systems, and sensors of the 21st Century Battlefield. By FY01, demonstrate a signature–suppressed, multifuel
burning, electronically controlled/conditioned generator set that is capable of producing 5000 watts of continuous
power at 60 Hz in all extreme, hostile environments. The target weight for this system is 350 pounds (dry weight). The
basic design of this lightweight power system shall support implementation of and increase the Army’s ability to achieve
its power OTM and RFPIs.
Supports: 5 kW, 60 Hz Power Requirements for Signal Corps, Tactical Force Support, Battlefield Training Support.

Selma J. Nawrocki Rob Saunders Herbert Russakoff
CERDEC/C2SID SARD–TT CSS Battle Lab
(703) 704–3377 (703) 697–8432 (804) 734–0599
DSN: 654–3377 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 687–0599
III.O.15p—Silent Energy Source for Tactical Applications (SIESTA). Demonstrate silent, lightweight liquid fueled fuel
cell power sources in the 50–150 watt range for various soldier applications. These power sources will offer lighter, more
energetic power sources than are currently available and would extend mission time, reduce weight and decrease the
logistic burden associated with batteries. This effort is essential to leverage the efforts at DARPA, ARL and JPL. By
FY00, using the best available methanol/air Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell Technology demonstrate a
fuel cell power source providing 2000 watt–hours per Kg of fuel. By FY02, using the best available liquid fueled PEM
technology demonstrate a 150 watt/5000 watt–hour fuel cell power source weighing less than 5 Kg.
Supports: Power Requirements for DBBL, SOF, CSS, Marine Corps/NSA, Soldier System, Sensors, Battery Charging.

Richard Jacobs Rob Saunders Maj Stephen Canerossi
CERDEC/C2SID SARD–TT CCS BL
(703) 704–2637 (703) 697–8432 (804) 734–1972
DSN: 654–2637 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 687–1972

III.O.19—Munitions Survivability. This STO develops explosive propagation mitigation technologies to ensure the
survivability of munitions at ports, air heads, and munitions storage areas. In FY97, investigate the use of
microencapsulated fire retardant materials, thermal coated weaves, and low thermal conducting materials to protect
vulnerable munition stacks from fire threats. Investigate microstructural shock absorbing materials, structural foams,
gel–forming polymers, and kevlar spiral weaves as lightweight high performance materials to mitigate explosive
propagation. Initiate laboratory testing of materials. Initiate development of heat transport computer codes and
hydrocode models for treating shocks, rapid compression, and penetration in porous materials. In FY98, perform
scaled experiments to calibrate computational models and define geometries necessary to prevent fire propagation and
achieve optimum shock attenuating performance. In FY99, complete development of sympathetic detonation
computational models. Conduct full scale experiments to verify models and demonstrate lightweight, high performance
materials and designs optimized to prevent fire propagation and mitigate explosive propagation. These technologies will
limit ammo loss to only 1% from a Scud missile direct hit. Ammo storage area footprint will be reduced by 60% while
providing a 50% weight and construction time/labor decrease compared to current geosynthetic reinforced systems.
Supports: CSS and EELS Battle Labs.

Gerald Goble John Appel Maj Tim Raney
AMMOLOG Activity SARD–TT USA CASCOM
(201) 724–2021 (703) 697–8432
DSN: 880–2021 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 687–0486
III.O.20—Advanced Parachute and Soft Landing Technologies. Demonstrate technologies to provide an improved
cargo airdrop capability. Utilizing novel design techniques, by the end of FY97, demonstrate a small (personnel size)
parachute and by the end of FY00, a full size cargo parachute that achieves a 20% reduction in weight, bulk and
manufacturing costs (compared to fielded parachutes) while providing equivalent flight performance. By the end of
FY98, demonstrate a parachute retraction system using clustered parachutes that provides a less than 10 ft/sec soft
landing capability. This capability will allow for airdrop of critical items (such as robotics) too fragile for airdrop with
conventional systems. By the end of FY00, demonstrate a less than 10 G (gravitational force) soft landing airbag system
that provides an all weather, rapid roll–on/roll–off airdrop capability for the future Army.
Supports: Advanced Development–RA02/63804/D266–Airdrop; Engineering Development–RA02/64804/

D279–Airdrop; Quartermaster and Engineer Schools and Maneuver Support Battle Lab.

Calvin Lee Bill Brower COL William McCoy
NRDEC SARDA–TT US Army Engineer School
(508) 233–4267 (703) 697–8432 (573) 563–4086
DSN: 256–4267 DSN: 227–8432


Section P. Training
TRAINING (Section P)
III.P.03—Joint Training Readiness. By FY01, develop and demonstrate, in support of ground combat, new training
and performance assessment methods that use synthetic distributed environments most effectively for Army,
multiservice, and joint units. Included are metrics for how well forces communicate, coordinate, and synchronize
resources and firepower. Leveraging other service and OSD funding, methods will be developed for units to achieve
training readiness in 30% less time, more precisely measure readiness, and show a 50% increase in the number of
warfighting tasks performed effectively during exercises. Demonstrations will use the Fire Support mission (air, ground,
sea and C41). In FY97, provide distributed training methods for planning and executing the fire support mission from
Brigade through Corps JTF. In FY98 define alternative methods for measuring complex organizational performance;
develop and test metrics to represent Joint Mission Essential Tasks (JMET). In FY99, develop and test methods for
planning and conducting systematic, vertical (multisite, multiservice, multichelon) After–Action Reviews. In FY00,
provide methods for linking performance of brigade and above units to estimates of training effectiveness and readiness.
Supports: III Corps; TRADOC; CAC; Joint Warfighting Center; OUSD(R).

Robert Seidel Beverly Harris BG Daniel Zinini
ARI ARI, SARD–TR Chief of Staff, III Corps
(703) 617–8838 (703) 697–8599 (817) 287–7509
DSN: 767–8838 DSN: 227–8599
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1p.htm2006-09-10 23:12:46
Section Q. Space
SPACE (Section Q)
III.Q.02—Theater Laser Communications. Develop and demonstrate critical technologies required for a theater laser
communications network. This activity will transition technologies developed under BMDO, OGAs, and industry to
meet tactical Army applications. Technologies provide a high bandwidth data rate (overhead and ground) sensor
capability while reducing size, weight, power, and cost. Potential applications are directed to airborne reconnaissance
missions using a layered architecture involving satellites, manned and unmanned aircraft, aerostatic vehicles, and
portable/fixed ground terminals. In FY96, a study was conducted to assess the viability of laser communication
technology for space–to–ground applications. The study revealed that a layered architecture consisting of
satellite–to–air–to–ground platforms provided high link availability through most weather conditions, especially for
those missions with increased response time requirements. In FY97; 1) conduct an air–to–ground proof of concept
demonstration using the Airborne Surveillance Testbed and existing BMDO lasercom terminals to transmit high
bandwidth data (1.2 gbps), and 2) design and obtain necessary hardware to begin development of a portable
demonstration ground terminal. In FY98, demonstrate the space–to–ground link using BMDO satellite (STRV–2)
platform and a portable ground terminal. In FY99,demonstrate a joint satellite–to–air–to–ground technology and
transition to Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below Tactical Internet; integrate into Space and Missile Defense
Battle Lab and Battle Command Battle Lab for evaluation and requirement generation.
Supports: Battle Command Battle Lab and Space and Missile Defense Battle Lab.

Major Mary Hinkson Ron Norris Tom Mims
SMDC SARD–TS BC–BL
(205) 955–1758 (703) 695–0434 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 645–1758 DSN: 227–0434 DSN: 780–2800
III.Q.03—Laser Boresight Calibration. The laser calibrator will provide a known ground registration point for space
based sensors resulting in an improved impact area and launch point prediction for Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBM). It
will reduce command and control time lines and improve the overall responsiveness of Joint Precision Strike and
Theater Missile Defense forces. This capability will be integrated into the Joint Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS) P31.
By FY97 demonstrate improved near real time determination of TBM launch point and trajectory parameters by using a
compact, in–theater, tunable laser calibration system for space based Defense Support Program satellite sensors. The
improved line–of–sight target accuracy will result in higher quality missile warning, alerting, and cueing information.
The theater ballistic missile search box to detect launch systems is significantly reduced. This capability will be
extensively field tested with the theater warfighter in FY96–97 and will be transitioned to JTAGS P31 in FY98.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a1q.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:12:56

Section Q. Space
Supports: Joint Precision Strike ATD, Theater Missile Defense AWE, Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battlelab,
Dismounted Battle Space Battlelab, Mounted Battlespace Battlelab, PM–JTAGS, PM–Army Tactical Missiles,
CINCSPACE.

Leon Riley Ron Norris LTC Dunham
SMDC SARD–TS CSS–BL
(205) 955–4712 (703) 695–0434 (405) 442–5647
DSN: 645–4712 DSN: 227–0434 DSN: 639–5647
III.Q.04—Battlefield Ordnance Awareness (BOA). Battlefield Ordnance Awareness (BOA). Objective is to

demonstrate a near real time ordnance reporting system using on board processing with space sensors. This technology
will provide near real time battlefield visualization of friendly and enemy ordnance fires, and cruise missile launches. It
addresses the need to target ordnance delivery for counterfire purposes, a major battlefield deficiency. While systems
exist to locate and tract vehicle traffic and radio frequency transmitters for intelligence preparation of the battlefield, no
system currently exists that reports type, time and sightings of either red or blue ordnance. The BOA capability will
identify the ordnance by type and provide position information for counter fire opportunities, as well as Battle Damage
Assessment, blue forces ordnance inventory, information for dispatch of logistical and medical support, and search and
rescue. It also has the potential to type classify launch systems using the time domain intensity information in specific
spectral bands. Advanced processor technology will be used with state of the art staring focal plane arrays to provide
critical information to battlefield commanders. By FY97, acquire ordnance data by type and develop algorithms for
near real time processing. By FY98, demonstrate near real–time processing of the ordnance data. In FY99, develop a
space qualifiable BOA sensor design with state of the art near real time, onboard processing. Integrate BOA sensor and
NRT processor by FY00. In FY01, qualify the BOA sensor and demonstrate airborne ordnance collection. Demonstrate
NRT Airborne ordnance reporting by the end of FY02. Transition to the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office
(DARO) and Army PEO–Field Artillery Systems.
Supports: USCENTCOM, USEUCOM, Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battle Lab, Intel Center, and PEO Field
Artillery Systems.

Kaye Blankenship Ron Norris Maj. Mo Minchew
USASMDC SARD–TS DSA BL
(205) 955–3525 (703) 695–0434 (405) 442–2928
DSN: 645–3525 DSN: 227–0434 DSN: 639–2928
III.Q.05—Overhead Sensor Technology for Battlefield Characterization. Develop and demonstrate advanced
overhead sensor technologies for wide area battlefield force detection, discrimination, and target identification in near
real time and reduce platform data communications downlink and ground processing Army requirements.
Technologies focus on passive optical sensor using spectral, polarimetric, and on focal plane array (FPA) requirements.

Section Q. Space
Initial sensor is baselined for UAV testing and applications. Final sensor configuration will be integrated onto the USAF
Mighty–Sat platform to be manifested in DoD Tri–Service Space Test Program. This provides opportunities for the
Army to define operational and technical requirements for next generation optical space sensors and associated ground
processing capabilities in support of the Army warfighting goals. Sensor bands in the 0.4–2.5, 3–5, and 8–12 micron
regions with hyperspectral output will be investigated. Specific technologies exploited include approaches to improve
area coverage, on FPA signal processing techniques to exploit spectral/polarimetric signatures to achieve high
performance autocueing, hyperspectral, spatial and temporal signature processing, and wide field of view imagery.
These sensor technologies will provide wide area coverage of the battlefield, robust detection and targeting data while
remaining within current Army C4I data rates. By FY99 baseline sensor packaging and configuration for UAV and
space application and initial demonstration of on–FPA processing of spectral data. By FY00 demonstrate a
hyperspectral sensor with smart focal plane processing in the 1–2.5, 3–5, and 8–12 micron wavebands, and improved
cueing and clutter rejection via polarization and on FPA processing using ground test. Analyze and incorporate
appropriate Warfighter hyperspectral technologies. By FY01 demonstrate on chip neomorphic processing,
hyperspectral spatial and temporal signature processing with sensor using airborne testing. By FY02 field test an
integrated sensor on a high altitude UAV and measure performance against stated objectives. In FY03 begin integration
of advanced space sensor technologies into USAF Mighty–Sat platform for subsequent launch and demonstration in
the DoD Tri–Service Space Test Program.
Supports: USASMDC/NVESD/USAF Phillips Lab Project, Force XXI, Army After Next, Space and Missile Defense
Battle Lab, Battle Command Battle Lab, Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battle Lab, CCAWS

Ben Kerstiens Ron Norris (TBD)
SMDC SARD–TS
(205) 955–1769 (703) 695–0434
DSN: 645–1769 DSN: 227–0434

Technology Development (Vol I, Ch IV) Section C. Aerospace Propulsion and Power
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
(Vol. I, Ch. IV)
AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER (Section C)
IV.C.01—Integrated High–Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET). IHPTET is a three–phased

tri–Service/DARPA/NASA effort to double U.S. turbine engine performance capability by 2003. Develop a tri–Service
Joint Turbine Advanced Gas Generator (JTAGG) program to demonstrate performance goals consistent with the
IHPTET initiative for the turboshaft/turboprop class of engines. Demonstrate, by FY94, a 25 percent reduction in
specific fuel consumption (SFC) and 60 percent increase in power–to–weight ratio over current modern production
engines via Joint Turbine Advanced Gas Generator—I (JTAGG–1) demonstration. By FY98, demonstrate JTAGG II
improvements of 30 percent reduction in SFC and 80 percent increase in power–to–weight ratio, and 20 percent
reduction in production and maintenance costs. Develop for future demonstration gas turbine engine technology to
effectively double the propulsion system capability for turboshaft engines through a 40 percent reduction of SFC, 120
percent increase in power–to–weight ratio, and 35 percent reduction in production and maintenance costs.
Demonstrate emerging technologies related to IHPTET goals in areas of structures, controls, aerodynamics, advanced
materials, and accessories which provide reduced vulnerability, improved reliability and maintainability, and high levels
of readiness and mission success.
Supports: Precision Strike, Advanced Land Combat, Technology for Affordability, RAH–66 Comanche, AH–64
Apache Improvement, Joint Transport Rotorcraft (JTR), and system upgrades, AM, MS, EELS, D&SA, MBS, and CSS
Battle Labs. Dual use potential.

Hank Morrow John Yuhas Charles Campbell
ATCOM/AATD SARD-TT MBS BL
(804) 878–4130 (703) 697-8434 (502) 624–1963
DSN: 927–4130 DSN: 224–8434 DSN: 464–1963
IV.C.05—Integrated High–Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) Joint Turbine. Program Description:
IHPTET is a three–phased tri–Service/DARPA/NASA effort to double U.S. turbine engine performance capability by
2003. Develop a tri–Service Joint Turbine Advanced Gas Generator (JTAGG) to demonstrate performance goals
consistent with the IHPTET initiative for the turboshaft/turboprop class of engines. Initiate the third phase of the
JTAGG program. By FY00 complete testing of JTAGG III technologies. By FY03 effectively double the propulsion
system capability through demonstration of a 40% reduction in specific fuel consumption, a 120% increase in SHP/wt
ratio, and a 35% reduction in production & maintenance costs. Demonstrate emerging technologies related to IHPTET
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a2c.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 23:12:59

Technology Development (Vol I, Ch IV) Section C. Aerospace Propulsion and Power
goals in the areas of structures, controls, aerodynamics, advanced materials and accessories which provide reduced
vulnerability, improved reliability and maintainability, and high levels of readiness and mission success.
Supports: Precision Strike, Advanced Land Combat, Technology for Affordability, RAH–66 Comanche; AH–64
Apache improvement, JTR, and system upgrades, AM, MS, EELS, D&SA, MBS, and CSS Battle Labs. Dual–use
potential.

Hank Morrow John Yuhas Ted Hundley
ATCOM/AATD SARD-TT U.S. Army Aviation Center and
(804) 878–4130 (703) 697-8434 School
DSN 927–4130 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN 558–2571
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a2c.htm（第 2／2 页）2006-09-10 23:12:59

Section D. Air Vehicle
AIR VEHICLE (Section D)
IV.D.03—Structural Crash Dynamics Modeling and Simulation. Develop modeling and simulation tools that will
enhance the potential for credibly developing and demonstrating compliance of aircraft systems with required
crashworthiness design criteria. Additionally, the modeling and simulation codes will also be used in assessing crash
impact conditions for Class A mishaps of current fielded aircraft through damage assessment. By FY98, develop
modeling and simulation family of codes that can be used to optimize design for rotorcraft crashworthiness from system
concept exploration/preliminary design stage through the air vehicle’s life cycle. The effort will include accurate
modeling of the performance of composite structures and energy absorption components such as landing gear, seat
attenuators, and cockpit airbags during the dynamics of a crash. By FY99, the prediction codes will be demonstrated
and validated through laboratory component and full–scale testing.
Supports: RAH–66 Comanche, Joint Transport Rotorcraft (JTR), System Upgrades, future advanced concepts, dual
use potential, EELS, CSS, and MTD Battle Labs.

ATCOM/AATD SARD-TT U.S. Army Aviation Center and
(804) 878–3008 (703) 697-8434 School
DSN: 927–3008 DSN: 224–8434 (334) 255–2571
DSN: 558–2571
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a2d.htm2006-09-10 23:13:01
Section F. Individual Survivability and Sustainability
INDIVIDUAL SURVIVABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY (Section F)
IV.F.01—Small Arms Protection for the Individual Combatant. Develop armor material system to minimize penalties
associated with small arms protective body armor (e.g., excess weight, thickness, and cost; rigidity of materials;
manufacturing methodology). By the end of FY96, determine viability of "flexible" ballistic protective vest for small arms
protection. By the end of FY98, demonstrate advanced material system for protection against combined fragmentation and
small arms threats (known ball threats up to and including 0.30 caliber), to be measured by a 20–30 percent reduction in
areal density (weight for given area) over current small arms protection without significantly increasing other penalties.
Supports: Force XXI Land Warrior, Military Operations in Urban Terrain ACTD, Department of Justice, Advanced
Development–RJS1/63747/D669–Clothing and Equipment, Engineering Development–RJS1/64713/DL40–Clothing and
Equipment. DBS Battle Lab, Infantry and Transportation Corps Schools.

Wesley Goodwin Bill Brower Chris Kearns
(508) 233–4538 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 256–4538 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
IV.F.02—Thermal Signature Reduction for the Individual Combatant. By the end of FY97, demonstrate textile materials
that reduce the contrast between the soldier’s thermal signature and the background by 30 percent, without significant
degradation of the current level of visible or near–infrared camouflage protection. By the end of FY99, demonstrate combat
uniform systems that reduce the soldier’s thermal signature by 50% from background levels, providing multispectral
camouflage protection to the Dismounted Land Warrior. The technical challenge entails integrating signature reducing
materials/ technologies into a textile substrate while maintaining basic fabric characteristics (durability, flexibility,
breathability, etc.) and other soldier’s operational capabilities.
Supports: Force XXI Land Warrior, Military Operations in Urban Terrain ACTD, Advanced Development–RJS1/63747/
D669–Clothing and Equipment, Engineering Development–RJS1/64713/DL40–Clothing and Equipment; DBS Battle Lab
and Infantry School.

Thomas Pease Bill Brower Chris Kearns
(508) 233–5546 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 256–5546 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391

IV.F.03—Agent Impermeable Membranes for Lightweight Chemical Protection. By the end of FY96, demonstrate the
technical feasibility of eliminating/reducing carbon in the chemical protective ensemble through the use of advanced
semipermeable membrane technology. The resulting advanced material system will be 20 percent lighter in weight than the
standard FY96 battledress overgarment material system, allow selective permeation of moisture while preventing passage of
common vesicant agent, provide protection against penetration by toxic agents in aerosolized form, and provide at least the
current level of protection against other toxic vapors and liquids. By the end of FY98, demonstrate via Dismounted
Battlespace Battle Lab warfighting experiment and JSLIST P3I, the efficacy and durability of novel, lightweight chemical
protective garments and clothing systems utilizing these agent impermeable membranes.
Supports: Force XXI Land Warrior, Advanced Development–RJS1/63747/D669–Clothing and Equipment, Engineering
Development–RJS1/64713/DL40–Clothing and Equipment; DBS Battle Lab.
STO ManagerTSO TRADOC POC

Eugene Wilusz Bill Brower CPT Ensor
NRDEC SARDA–TT CSS–BL
(508) 233–5486 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–5994
DSN: 256–5486 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–5994
IV.F.05—Improved Water Purification. By the end of FY96, investigate emerging technologies such as aerogels, reverse
osmosis membranes made from polyimides (as opposed to polyamide) and polyphosphazenes, and polyphosphazene
coatings. Compare to other technologies such as mosaic membranes and polymeric microgels, and select those for further
investigation. By the end of FY97, optimize the properties of the selected technologies to meet or exceed the performance of
existing reverse osmosis membranes. Ultimately, the goal is to prove the feasibility of a new technology with a 300% increase
in operating and storage life, a 50% increase in water flux, and tolerance to 5 ppm of chlorine, temperatures up to 165
degrees F, and pH from 5.0 to 9.5 when compared to conventional reverse osmosis membranes. The new technology will be
applicable to military water treatment equipment ranging from individual purifiers to division and corps level units, and to
municipal desalting plants. By the end of FY98, demonstrate an innovative water purification technology for providing
drinking water to troops in the field.
Supports: Future and advanced water purification systems, and possibly wastewater treatment systems, commercial water
treatment systems (dual–use, technology transfer), and Combat Service Support Battle Lab.

Thomas Bagwell John Appel Herbert Russakoff
TARDEC SARDA–TT CSS Battle Lab
(703) 704–3346 (703) 697–8432 (804) 734–0599
DSN: 654–3346 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 687–0599
IV.F.06—Multifunctional Fabric System. The objective of this effort is to enhance the flame and thermal protection levels
of combat uniforms without compromising other protective characteristics. The technical challenge entails the integration

of low–cost flame/thermal protection into other multiple threat systems to include capabilities such as electrostatic,
environmental, chemical, and signature reduction. Potential technologies for use in the system are polyphenolic material
coatings, microencapsulation of flame suppressants and electrospun fibers. By the end of FY99, demonstrate combined
protection with a new or improved material such as a modified aramid, flame retardant fiber blends and novel experimental
fibers. By the end of FY01, demonstrate combined protection using novel fibers and fabric treatments resulting in a fabric
system, with a 50% decrease in the cost of existing flame protective systems, that will provide an increase in overall soldier
survivability.
Supports: Upgrades to Land Warrior, Air Warrior, Mounted Warrior and MOUT; Transportation Corps, Quartermaster
and Engineering Schools.

Thomas Pease Bill Brower Chris Kearns
(508) 233–5546 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 256–5546 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
IV.F.07—Biomimetic Materials for Soldier Protection. By the end of FY98, demonstrate a ten–fold increase in expression
level of spider–silk–like polymer (100 mg/liter as compared to current 10 mg/liter levels). At that time a production partner
from industry will have been engaged and a database of the ballistic protective performance of silk yarns and fibers will have
been established. By the end of FY99, incorporate second generation spider–silk–based fibers with improved ballistic
protective properties and producibility into fabrics providing a 20% reduction in weight in comparison with present
materials of equal ballistic strength. The significant technical barriers include expression of the proteins at high levels and
defining the proper genetic modifications to simultaneously improve mechanical properties and processability.
Supports: Joint service program with the Air Force, Wright Patterson AFB; Ballistic Protective Armor and Equipment; DBS
Battle Lab and Transportation Corps School.

Jean Herbert Bill Brower Chris Kearns
(508) 233–4405 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 256–4405 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
IV.F.10—Advanced Personnel Airdrop Technologies. Demonstrate technologies to provide improved performance

characteristics and enhanced safety of existing personnel parachute capabilities. Utilizing advanced airfoil and parachute
designs, by the end of FY98, demonstrate a gliding personnel parachute with a 20% increase in maximum jump altitude and
a 25% increase in glide ratio, when compared to the current Army state–of–the–art MC–4 parachute. By the end of FY00,
demonstrate a soft landing capability that augments personnel parachute performance and will reduce system descent rates
to values below 16 ft/sec, utilizing "pneumatic muscle" technologies.
Supports: Advanced Development–RAO2/63804/D266–Airdrop; Engineering Development RAO2/64804/D279–Airdrop;

DBS Battle Lab.

Edward Doucette Bill Brower Chris Kearns
(508) 233–4636 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 256–4636 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391
IV.F.11—Ballistic Protection for Improved Individual Survivability. Develop and insert advances in materials technology
that will increase the protection and performance of armor systems for the individual warfighter. Specifically, by the end of
FY99, integrate and transition improved technologies (at least 20% reduced weight for small arms protection) to
development and/or as technology insertions to modify existing individual protective systems. By the end of FY00,
demonstrate/insert protective materials technology that will provide a reduction in casualties at 35% less system weight than
the 1996 individual countermine protective systems. By the end of FY01, develop enhanced assessment criteria, to include
behind armor effects, for ballistic impact on personnel armor systems. By the end of FY03, demonstrate an improved
material system prototype (over FY99 insertions) for second generation multiple ballistic threat protection with a 25%
decrease in weight (or an increase in protection or a combination, depending on user input). Technologies with potential to
satisfy this STO include advances in polymeric materials through modification of existing fibers (copolymerization of
aramid, PBO), bioengineered protein–based fibers, and the synthesis of new polymers. Improved rigid materials are
anticipated through DARPA, and Army programs. These could include low cost, high performance boron carbide, new
metal alloys, metal matrix composites and potentially other new ceramics/composites.
Supports: Transportation Corps, Military Police and Engineer Schools; DBS Battle Lab, Department of Justice, Advanced
Development RJS1/63747/D669–Clothing and Equipment, Engineering Development RJS1/64713/DL40–Clothing and
Equipment.

Wesley Goodwin Bill Brower Chris Kearns
(508) 233-4538 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545–6391
DSN: 256-4538 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835–6391

Section G. Command, Control, and Communications
COMMAND, CONTROL, AND COMMUNICATIONS (Section G)
IV.G.01—Integrated Photonic Subsystems. Integrated Photonic subsystems will be developed by FY97 for application
to optical control of single beam phased array antennas and fiber optic point–to–point links, local area networks, and
antenna remoting systems. By FY99, subsystems will be developed for optical control of multibeam phased array
antennas. These subsystems will reduce size, cost and power consumption while increasing the performance of high
speed fiber optic systems. Fiber optic phased array control systems, which can be scaleable to any desired frequency,
will enable communications OTM by utilizing multiple beams with acquisition and tracking capability. Demonstration
of the photonically controlled single panel phased array antenna will be conducted during FY99. Demonstration of a
photonically controlled multi panel phased array antenna will be conducted during FY00.
Supports: Local Area Communications, Mobile Communications, Satellite Communications, Radio Access Point
Antenna.

Louis Coryell Rob Saunders Tom Mims
(908) 427–3640 (703) 697–8432 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 987–3640 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 780–2800
IV.G.02—Protocol Specifications for Digital Communication on the Battlefield. Through research in executable
protocol specifications, create methods for implementing specifications in the IEEE/ANSI/DoD/FIPS approved
hardware description language, known as VHSIC Hardware Description Language (VHDL). Research and test various
narrow band (e.g., Mobile Subscriber Equipment) and broadband ISDN (e.g., Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM))
switches. The implementation will be an unambiguous, validatable, and simulation capable description of the interface,
which can be tested as software. Once described in the hardware description language, the specification can be used to
automatically generate hardware using commercially available CAD tools. The resulting hardware is guaranteed to
comply with the original specifications because it was derived from the description language. The procedure will be
verified using existing military and commercial standards. By FY95 complete a model to describe the All Digital
Tactical–to–Strategic Gateway, MIL–STD–188–105. By FY96 further demonstrate the hardware description model by
testing the newly emerging ATM standard in conjunction with DISA. By FY97 demonstrate the capability of VHDL to
generate hardware by creating hardware implementation. By FY98 demonstrate interoperability of dissimilar COTS/
GOTS ATM equipment on the battlefield.
Supports: CAC2 ATD, Digitization of the Battlefield.


John Gowens Catherine Kominos Tom Mims
ARL–IST SARD–TP BC–BL
(404) 894–3136 (703) 697–3558 (706) 791–2800
DSN: DSN: 227–3558 DSN: 780–2800
IV.G.05—Networking and Protocols. Program will integrate and evaluate emerging commercial high speed network
technology and protocols (e.g., Sonet, ATM) for performance and for achieving seamless communications with tactical
and commercial systems. Commercial network management products will be analyzed and enhanced to ensure
compatibility with military–specific requirements and Army legacy communications systems. Will participate in various
commercial/academic forums to influence emerging protocols/products for dual use capabilities. Tactical multinet
gateways will be evolved by modification and enhancement of commercial–off–the–shelf (COTS) router products to
allow ATM and Non–ATM based networks to communicate. Hierarchical video routing to allow the network to
automatically route a limited picture of the battlefield (i.e., still frame, slow scan) to users with limited bandwidth while
at the same time allowing users with higher available bandwidth to receive a higher class of service (i.e., real–time
video). Long term focus will address dynamic and fault tolerant protocol functionality to provide enhanced network
survivability and greater capability for communication OTM. Dynamic network reconfiguration without user
intervention will be demonstrated. By FY96, establish prototype broadcast ATM capability and monitoring and control
functions for mobile networks. By FY97, demonstrate hierarchical video routing between ATM and IP multicast
networks, and integrate broadcast protocol with the radio access point. By FY98, demonstrate protocol enhancements
for large networks, across services and across media. For FY00, demonstrate dynamic network survivability through
protocol adaptation to external environment (e.g. weather, threat, network congestion) and evolve protocols to
accommodate next–generation communications architecture.
Supports: Winning the Information War, Digitizing the Battlefield, Battlespace Command & Control, Digital Battlefield
Communications, JTF Communications Planning & Management System (JCPMS), ISYSCON.

John Strange Rob Saunders Tom Mims
(908) 427–2873 (703) 697–8432 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 987–2873 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 780–2800
IV.G.06—Battle Planning. The Battle Planning effort will develop, integrate and demonstrate emerging technologies to
significantly enhance battlespace visualization and enable collaborative planning, rehearsal, execution and monitoring
(including real–time intelligence/operations) on the digital battlefield. The focus is on the commander’s interface to the
battlespace and the embedded software "tools" that will allow the commander and his staff to collaborate electronically
in a rapid and effective manner. This STO is leveraging basic research being performed at Army Research Laboratories
(ARL) in the area of real time three dimensional (3D) graphical representations, and advanced techniques for image
utilization and management (to include zoom in/out, perspective from any viewpoint, and overlays of actual imagery,

modeled objects or symbols). Expert systems and natural speech recognition algorithms will aid the commander and
staff in rapidly generating and evaluating courses of action. These integrated capabilities will enable the commander to
quickly grasp the situation and react to the dynamically changing battlespace. By FY97 demonstrate real–time
collaborative planning between the commander and his intelligence and operations staff elements. By FY98,
demonstrate capability to perform planning and real time rehearsal, demonstrate speaker independent, continuous
speech recognition and exploit direct broadcast satellite (DBS) imagery and terrain data distribution. By FY00,
demonstrate a fully integrated capability to allow the commander and staff to perform "end–to–end" collaboration to
include: split based operations, course of action evaluation aids, "hands–off" user interface using "natural language"
speech input and real–time 3D depiction of the battlefield.
Supports: Battle Command & Mounted Battlespace Battle Labs, Force XXI and follow–on Division and Corps AWE’s,
XVIII Airborne Corps AWEs, Battlespace Command & Control ATD , Rapid Terrain Visualization ACTD, Consistent
Battlespace Understanding (IST IS.01), Forecasting, Planning & Resource Allocation (IST IS.02), and Integrated Force
Management (IST IS.01)

Lakshmi Rebbapragada Rob Saunders COL Jones
CERDEC/C2SID SARD–TT TPIO
(908) 427–4029 (703) 697–8432
DSN: 987–4029 DSN: 227–8432
IV.G.07—Antennas for Communications Across the Spectrum. The objective of this STO is to develop, leverage and
apply emerging antenna technology to reduce the number of antennas, reduce the visual signature (conformal), reduce
the cosite and control problems and increase efficiencies and radiation patterns in the ranges of 2MHz to 2GHz. A
second goal is to provide OTM SATCOM antenna capabilities in the Triband (e, x, Ku) and EHF bands. Five
technologies will be explored to address different applications. For SPEAKeasy applications wideband technology will
be exploited. For air and ground vehicles Structurally Embedded Reconfigurable Antenna Technology (SERAT) and
structure tuned antenna techniques will be used. SHF and EHF low profile, self steering, OTM antenna technology will
be applied to the SATCOM applications. The initial thrust will be to address the broadband requirements for
SPEAKeasy. Following this, the effort will be expanded to pursue the remaining efforts concurrently. By FY98, a
wideband SPEAKeasy antenna will be demonstrated. A UHF Conformal antenna (SERAT) will also be demonstrated
in FY98 on a Blackhawk, followed by a demonstration on a selected ground platform in FY99. A structured tuned VHF
antenna will be fabricated and demonstrated in FY99 on a ground vehicle. A Triband (c, x, Ku) OTM self steering
SATCOM antenna capability will be demonstrated in FY00. In FY01, an OTM self steering EHF SATCOM antenna
capability will be demonstrated.
Supports: SPEAKeasy, Future Digital Radio, Tactical Airborne and Ground vehicles, Direct Broadcast Satellite, DSCS,
and MILSTAR.

Joe Onufer Rob Saunders Tom Mims

(908) 532–0462 (703) 697–8432 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 992–0462 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 780–2800
IV.G.08—Advanced Command, Control, and Communications (C3) Modeling and Simulation. Objective is to
provide modeling and simulation (M&S) that accurately represent dissemination, processing and transmission of
information generated and collected on the battlefield. Approach includes developing systems performance models
(SPMs) to support the introduction of evolving battlefield visualization, command and control (C2) and high–speed
information transport technologies, including asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) switching, personal
communications systems (PCS), High–Capacity Trunk Radio (HCTR), and Radio Access Point (RAP); supporting
the development of integrated secure, survivable and adaptive C3 networks using Distributed Interactive Simulations
and comply with the High Level Architecture (HLA) by developing a Common Modeling Environment (CME)
capable of supporting all M&S domains. By FY98, provide integrated division/corps SPM, which includes all Army
Battle Command System (ABCS) and Battlefield Information Transmission System (BITS) elements. By FY99, provide
virtual communications systems models and DIS/HLA interfaces for ABCS to support man–in–the–loop evaluation
and training for Force XXI. By FY00, transition existing virtual and systems performance models to CME to facilitate
model enhancements for Force XXI acquisition/fielding and to realize cost/benefit ratio improvements in use of M&S.
By FY01, complete transition to CME and demonstrate next–generation simulation aids for initialization, management
and data reduction that will reduce time required to set up, execute and analyze results of simulations and
user–interface technology that supports use by the Warfighter for mission planning/training. S&TCD Funded, C2SID
Executed.
Supports: Digital Battlefield Communications (DBC) and Battlespace Command and Control (BC2) ATD programs,
Battlefield Information Transmission System (BITS), and the Warfighters Information Network (WIN).

Chandu Sheth Rob Saunders Tom Mims
CERDEC/C2SID SARD–TT BC–BL
(908) 427–3588 (703) 697–8432 (706) 791–2800
DSN: 987–3588 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 780–2800
IV.G.09—Personal Communications System for the Soldier. The objective of this STO is to develop the next
generation Land Warrior Radio Technology by adapting commercial cellular PCS (CDMA and WB–CDMA)
technology to support the needs of the dismounted soldier. A second goal is to satisfy the Joint Service requirements for
dismounted Warfighter communications. The technical objectives will be executed in close cooperation with the
DARPA Small Unit Operations (SUO) and Global Mobile Information Systems (GloMo) Programs. This technology
offers significant advantages in Multipath performance (MOUT application) and Anti Jam/Low Probability of
Detection protection. This effort will emphasize the elimination of fixed cellular infrastructure requirements on which
the other PCS initiatives are based. This STO will build on technical and operational experience acquired with CDMA

and W–CDMA technology in various frequency bands acquired during our activities in support of the DARPA
Commercial Communications Technology Testbed (C2T2) and GloMo programs, Digital Battlefield Communications
ATD, and the USMC Hunter Warrior and Sea Dragon exercises. This STO will develop peer–to–peer and multihop
packet relaying protocols on portable computer host, leading to a demonstration of a noncellular PCS handset
exploiting commercial chipsets and ASICS used in CDMA and W–CDMA systems. In FY97, the RF multipath
environment for dismounted soldiers moving in urban terrain and or other constrained terrains will be characterized.
By FY98, host computer interface will be defined to enable rapid protocol development for implementation on portable
(handheld) computer environments (e.g., PDA). In FY99 and FY00, peer–to–peer and multihop packet relaying will be
demonstrated with commercial CDMA and W–CDMA handsets adapted for use without reliance on cellular land
network infrastructure.. In FY99 and FY00, Fortezza COMSEC developed under the CONDOR and MISSI programs
will be demonstrated in the DARPA SUO Program and MOUT ACTD. The final year’s demo in FY01 will
demonstrate a technology upgrade for the Land Warrior soldier platform. Benefits of CDMA and W–CDMA
technology for tactical applications will be evaluated and demonstrated throughout the program.
Supports: Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT), ARPA Small Unit Operation, Land Warrior Soldier
Program, USMC Urban Warrior.

Perry Hugo Rob Saunders MAJ Kevin Hackney
CERDEC/S&TCD SARD–TT DBBL
(908) 427-2295 (703) 697–8432 (706) 545-5207
DSN: 987-2295 DSN: 227–8432 DSN: 835-5207
IV.G.10—Advanced Battlefield Processing Technology. The objective of this effort is to develop an extensible, scaleable
and adaptable software infrastructure to enhance the command and control decision making. This research effort
focuses on significantly improving the information access and operator focus of attention so that significant battlefield
events are rapidly perceived and readily understood by the commanders and staff with minimal interaction. By FY98,
demonstrate software subsystems to enhance battlefield visualization fidelity/responsiveness. By FY99, demonstrate
software subsystems to integrate battlefield environment models with high resolution terrain. By FY00, demonstrate
software subsystems to enhance synchronized operations through focus of attention and seamless information access.
By FY01, demonstrate software subsystems to evaluate hands–free multimodal human computer interaction (natural
language, eye–tracking and gestures). This suite of tools will enhance battlefield visualization capabilities of C2 systems
by improving scalability from the TOC to the Platform level and extensibility across the maneuver and Intel BFA’s.
Supports: Rapid Terrain Visualization ACTD, Battle Command and Control (BC2) ATD, CERDEC

Larry Tokarcik Catherine Kominos COL R. Jones
ARL-IST SARD-TP BCBL
(301) 394-5614 (703) 697-3558 (918) 684-4533
DSN: 290-5614 DSN: 227-3558


Section H. Computing and Software
COMPUTING AND SOFTWARE (Section H)
IV.H.01—Rapid Prototyping for a System Evolution Record. The objective of this STO is to develop a System
Evolution Record (SER), using the Computer–Aided Prototyping System (CAPS) Rapid Prototyping Environment,
which will provide a "cradle to grave" repository for all artifacts and information produced during software evolution.
The SER will be modeled using CAPS, then each part of the software development process will be modeled in the same
way to allow integration over the SER. In FY96, the modeling of the System Evolution Record will be completed, and
the first attempts will be made to integrate the Evolvable Legacy Systems process developed at the MICOM Life Cycle
Software Engineering Center (LCSEC). In FY97, the Cleanroom Software Engineering Process from the
TACOM–Picatinny LCSEC will be integrated into the SER, and graphical analysis techniques will be analyzed to
accelerate air worthiness reviews of flight control software. In FY98, a Requirements Validation tool being developed at
ATCOM’s LCSEC will be integrated into the SER. In FY99, the Domain Analysis and Software Reuse process develop
at CECOM’s LCSEC will be integrated into the SER. This project will improve the way we evolve Army software
systems, providing the commander with the enhanced ability to see, hear, know, communicate, kill the enemy, and
protect his/her own soldiers.
Supports: AMC Life Cycle Software Engineering Centers (ATCOM, MICOM, CECOM, TACOM, and VASTC
ATD), DISC 4, Battle Command Battle Lab, CSS Battle Lab, DSA Battle Lab.

Maj. D. A. Dampier Catherine Kominos MAJ Hobbs
ARL-AS SARD-TP HQ TRADOC
(404) 894-1809 (703) 697-3558 (804) 728-5987
DSN: DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 680-5987
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a2h.htm2006-09-10 23:13:24
Section I. Conventional Weapons
CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS (Section I)
IV.I.03—Insensitive Munitions (IM) Minimum Smoke Propellants. Develop propulsion systems composed of
energetic materials and inert components for current and future Army tactical missile systems that meet the policy of
the Joint Services Requirement for Insensitive Munitions (JSRIM). By the end of FY96, load IM motor cases with
minimum signature solid propellant and complete IM testing. By FY97, identify MS formulations with and survivable
inert case concepts. By FY99, demonstrate the integration of an MS propellant and response–mitigating inert
components in a tactical scale motor.
Supports: Mounted Battlespace Battle Lab, Dismounted Battlespace Battle Lab, Hellfire, JAVELIN and LOSAT, system
upgrades and advanced concepts.

W. Stephens Irena Szkrybalo Chris Kearns
MICOM SARD-TT DBL
(205) 876-3732 (703) 697-8432 (706) 545-6391
DSN: 746-3732 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 835-6391
IV.I.05—Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW). Develop and demonstrate an ultralight, two–man portable, crew
served weapon system yielding improved suppression and incapacitation probabilities out to 2,000 meters against
protected personnel, and having a high potential to damage light and lightly armored vehicles, water craft, and slow
moving aircraft out to 2,000 meters. In FY97, demonstrate penetration capability of 2–inch (51mm) Rolled
Homogeneous Armor (RHA) (threshold), or 2–inch (51mm) High Hardness Armor (HHA) (goal). In FY98,
demonstrate high probability of suppression and incapacitation out to 2,000 meters against protected personnel targets
with the following threshold/goals: Weapon < 38/25 lb; Ground Mount < 12/9 lb; Ammunition < 0.40/0.30 lb; Fire
Control < 7/4 lb (est.). In FY99, integrate OICW variant fire control system into OCSW system (leverage OICW ATD;
STO III.I.1). In FY00, conduct technical, safety and troop tests to demonstrate operational utility and technological
maturity.
Supports: Replacement for selected 40mm MK19 GMG and Cal. .50, M2 HMG; primary/secondary armament for
vehicle applications (i.e. CRUSADER, FSCS, FIV); Transitions to PM–Small Arms funded 6.4 program.

Vern Shisler John Appel Chris Kearns

ARDEC/JSSAP SARDA-TT DBL
(201) 724-6009 (703) 697-8432 (706) 545-6391
DSN: 880-6009 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 835-6391
IV.I.07—Flexible Sustainer for Multimission Weapons. This flexible sustainer will demonstrate two approaches, one a
low thrust, controllable, bipropellant gel propulsion system, and a pintle controlled solid propulsion, both tightly
integrated with the weapon system guidance and sensor to achieve dramatic gains in system performance. Approaches
are dependent upon determination of optimum velocity required for range and target. By FY98, design the layout for
the workhorse component demonstration. Select the baseline propellant. By FY99, demonstrate propulsion system
performance in workhorse hardware, and develop advanced propellant. By FY00, downselect to a single approach,
complete characterization of advanced propellant, and finalize design of flightweight component hardware. By FY01,
complete flightweight component development and demonstrate high performance in a sustain engine. This flexible
sustain technology will provide short time–to–target for close range, a doubling of the maximum range within the
existing missile package, and high engagement velocities for improving terminal performance, particularly at the long
ranges.
Supports: Follow–On–To–TOW (FOTT), Hellfire III, Stinger Block II.

Jerrold Arszman Irena Szkrybalo Ted Hundley
MICOM RDEC SARD-TT U.S. Army Aviation Center and
(205) 876-1288 (703) 697-8432 School
DSN: 746-1288 DSN: 227-8432 (334) 255-2571
DSN: 558-2571
IV.I.08—Seeker Dome for Hypervelocity Air And Missile Defense. The Operational Requirements Document for the
STINGER Guided Missile System, dated 17, Jan 1996, establishes a requirement to counter/engage a new generation
threat that may be hypervelocity. This effort will develop a seeker dome for a 2.75 inch diameter missile that is capable
of operating in and withstanding hypervelocity flight conditions. The concept is the P3I growth of the existing
STINGER system through the adaption of the planned Block II seeker to a hypervelocity motor. Development of a
dome for this seeker is one of the critical technologies that must be addressed before this seeker can be implemented in
a functional system. For this proposed effort, current state of the art seeker dome technologies will be identified and
applied to development of a dome for the STINGER system. Current IR dome materials such as Sapphire and Spinel
provide the thermal and thermal shock resistance required to perform in low altitude hypervelocity environments. In
this program, the best dome design (i.e., material and configuration) will be developed and tested. The development of
a dome attachment scheme to the missile airframe (which is a critical aspect of the design) will be included in this effort
as well as system simulation studies to assess extended range capabilities. These simulation studies will include
evaluating dome shapes as well as alternate motor designs. Testing of the dome will consist of subjecting the seeker
system (dome along with an IR sensor) to a hyperthermal environment to assess its survival and operation. At the end
of FY98 trade studies and preliminary concept will be complete. By the end of FY99, preliminary design, design

evaluation, and laboratory testing will be complete. This STO will culminate in FY00 with the completion of the final
design, fabrication of seeker domes and the testing of these domes in a hypervelocity environment to assess
performance.
Supports: STINGER Weapons System, Cruise Missile Defense, AVENGER Weapon System, Bradley Linebacker.

Bill Nourse Irena Szkrybalo McDavid
MICOM RDEC SARD-TT TSM Air Defense
(205) 876-7384 (703) 697-8432
DSN: 746-7384 DSN: 227-8432
IV.I.09—Warheads for Armor Defeat. By FY98, this STO will demonstrate a single multimode warhead to defeat both
lightly and heavily armored targets. In FY96, develop and demonstrate a wide area shaped charge penetrator warhead to
provide a 400% increase in lethal area against lightly armored target. In FY97, conduct evaluation of more lethal main
charge warhead for heavy armor defeat utilizing more powerful explosive and advanced liner material. In FY98,
demonstrate warhead design that has selective mode to defeat either a heavy armored target (15–20% increase in
performance compared to Javelin) or a lightly armored target (400% increase in lethal area compared to standard
Shaped Charge).
Supports: Javelin, Hellfire, BAT, etc. Dismounted Battlespace BL.

J. Orosz John Appel MAJ Harold Webb
ARDEC SARDA-TT DBS-BL
(201) 724-2360 (703) 697-8432 (706) 545-7000
DSN: 880-2360 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 835-7000
IV.I.10—Polynitrocubane Explosives. By FY99, this STO will demonstrate a more powerful explosive using
polynitrocubane to increase energy performance by up to 25% compared to current fielded explosives. In FY96, initiate
the synthesis of a more powerful polynitrocubane explosive. In FY97, scale up the polynitrocubane explosive to pound
level. In FY98, scale up the polynitrocubane explosive to pilot plant quantity and initiate formulation study for
antiarmor warhead (Shaped Charge or Explosively Formed Penetrator) loading. In FY99, conduct static warhead test
using the polynitrocubane explosive to show increase in energy performance by up to 25% and with comparable
sensitivity to LX–14.
Supports: BAT, AIS, Mounted & Dismounted Battlespace Battle Labs.

S. Iyer John Appel Charles Campbell

ARDEC SARDA-TT MBS BL
(201) 724-3135 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 880-3135 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-1963
IV.I.11—High–Energy/High–Performance Propellant Formulations for Tank Guns. By FY98, this STO will
demonstrate a high performance propellant with a 10–20% increase in impetus values over JA2 propellants yielding a
5–10% increase in muzzle velocities over the M829A2. In FY96, initiate small scale evaluation of the high energy gun
propellant composition. In FY97, scale up pilot plant processing technology and perform preliminary gun firings. In
FY98, conduct final evaluation and demonstrate high performance propellant in live firing to increase impetus values by
10–20% over JA2 and muzzle velocities by 5–10% over M829A2 to enhance lethality.
Supports: All Tank Munitions, Mounted Battlespace battle lab.

B. Strauss John Appel Charles Campbell
ARDEC SARDA-TT MBS BL
(201) 724-3317 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 880-3317 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-1963
IV.I.13—Electrothermal–Chemical (ETC) and Electromagnetic (EM) Armaments for Direct Fire. Demonstrate leap
ahead technology to defeat future threat targets such as explosive reactive armor and active protection systems using
EM (2015) and ETC (nom. 2002) armaments in mobile, armored vehicles. EM gun technology is high risk, but has
potential for tunable lethality for defeating a spectrum of future threats. ETC technology offers potential for achieving
demonstrated 140–mm performance from a 120–mm cannon. ETC is high risk as an M1A2 SEP candidate, but is a risk
mitigator for FCS, since power requirements are much lower than for EM. Crucial to the success of EM armaments is
the development of compact pulsed power rotating machinery (compulsators, CPAs) and integrated launch packages
(ILPs). Structural mechanics analysis methods for compact CPAs and ILPs will be developed. The understanding of
EM launch package accuracy and rail interaction will be advanced. ETC combustion control will be modeled and
tested. By FY97, complete and test the subscale pulsed power compulsator (CPA), perform structural mechanics
analysis of ILP candidate, and develop ETC concepts for feasibility tests. By FY98, test subscale compulsator at full
design limits, fire base–pushed novel penetrator ILP, and demonstrate 14 MJ ETC launch from 120mm, M256 cannon.
By FY99, demonstrate 3 J/g in a pulsed power CPA system mated to an EM gun, ILPs at 7MJ:2.5 km/s, launch energy
velocity, with less than 50% parasitic mass and no accuracy barriers, and from a 120–mm XM291 ETC gun system,
obtain 16–17MJ, i.e., equivalent performance to that demoed in a 140–mm conventional gun. EM offers potential for
hypervelocity launch with increased and flexible lethality, increased hit probability, reduced firing signature, propellant
elimination, and synergism with an all–electric vehicle system. Benefits of ETC propulsion include significant muzzle
energy increases at an order of magnitude less pulsed power than for EM guns by enabling advanced charge designs,
and improved combustion control with potential for increased accuracy.
Supports: TRADOC, PM–TMAS, ARDEC, TARDEC, PEO–ASM.


Edward M. Schmidt Catherine Kominos Martin Bosemer
ARL-WMRD SARD-TP Mounted Battlespace BL
(410) 278-3786 (703) 697-3558 (502) 624-2045
DSN: 298-3786 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 464-2045
IV.I.14—Target Destruct TD. The Target Destruct TD will demonstrate, via modeling and both surrogate and actual
threat target testing the most promising advanced lethal mechanisms launched at ordnance and "super ordnance"
velocities at extended range with up to 100% increase in lethality over the current equivalent caliber of ammunitions.
The results will lead to a more efficient defeat of threat target arrays for the Future Combat System (FCS), Abrams tank,
Future Scouts and Cavalry System (FSCS), Bradley, and Future Infantry Vehicle (FIV), Lethal mechanisms considered
include a variety of novel penetrators (including hypervelocity–type), novel warheads, and "blunt trauma" projectiles.
In FY98, novel penetrator warhead concepts capable of defeating threat target arrays (frontal top attack and counter
APS) associated with the FCS. Abrams Tank will be defined, simulation completed to determine best technical
approaches, and fabrication of demonstration hardware initiated. In FY99, initiate demonstrations of novel penetrator
defeat FCS and Abrams threat targets, demonstrate and characterize, in live–fire testing, "blunt trauma" projectile lethal
effects, and complete novel penetrator concept design and selection of the best technical approaches for defeat of the
Bradley, FSCS, and FIV threat target arrays. In FY00, complete demonstrations of heavy threat target defeat,
demonstrate novel penetrator defeat of heavy and light armored threat, and conduct overall assessment of all lethal
mechanisms against future target arrays.
Supports: All antiarmor weapon systems and weapon platforms: 120mm Tank Ammunition (KE, CE, Smart
Munitions, M1A1, M1A2, M1A2 SEP, M1A2 SEP–, Future Combat System, KE/CE Missiles, Bradley Future Scout
and Cavalry System, Future Infantry Vehicle, Advanced Assault Amphibian, USAARMC, USAIS, USMC.

ARDEC SARDA-TT USAARMC
(201) 724-6192 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-8064
DSN: 880-6192 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-8064
IV.I.15—Advanced Solid Propulsion Technology. Demonstrate advanced solid propellant technology to increase
muzzle energy by 25%. The increased muzzle energy and lethality resulting from this advanced propellant technology
will provide a same number of stowed kills in a smaller volume. By FY99, investigate RDX based advanced propellants.
By FY00, manufacture and test CL20–based advanced propellants. By FY01, demonstrate propulsion performance
increase of 25% in scaled and large–caliber guns. This STO is being conducted with ARDEC.
Supports: PM–Crusader, PM–Paladin, PM–TMAS, PM–Bradley, Future Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Future Scout
Vehicle, Future Combat System.


T.C. Minor Catherine Kominos Charles Campbell
ARL-WMRD SARD-TP MBS BL
(410) 278-6189 (703) 697-3558 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 298-61989 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 464-1963
IV.I.16—High Quantities Antimaterial Submunition (HI–QUAMS). The High Quantities Antimaterial Submunition
(HI–QUAMS) effort is in support of a TRADOC Futures Division identified need for a 5–10x improvement in stowed
kills for MLRS/ATACMS when attacking lightly armored, highly–valued targets. To improve stowed kills, more
submunitions need to be dispensed and must be more effective. To store more submunitions in the MLRS the
submunitions must be smaller and to be more effective they require accurate identification of targets in and out of
clutter. HI QUAMS will demonstrate ladar seeker miniaturization technology necessary for future Army powered
submunitions. The submunitions performance requirements dictate the need for ladar seekers and constrain the seeker
diameter to about 3 ½ inches. Current sister service ladar technology programs are addressing size reduction (5–6
inches in diameter) efforts for current technologies to bombs and cruise missile applications. Advanced state of art fiber
optic lasers, no moving parts scanners, and integrated detector electronics are expected to provide a miniaturization
pathway supporting Army requirements. At the conclusion of FY98, two phase–one SBIRs (‘A high speed, precise, "no
moving parts," scanner for use in a compact eye safe ladar and Multiple Channel GHz Sample Rate Pulse Capture
Module Development with Integrated InGaAs Detector Array) will be completed that support the final seeker design
concept, simulation to verify seeker performance characteristics will be completed, and the detailed seeker design will
begin. At the conclusion of FY99, the detailed design of the seeker will be completed and integration and testing will
start. At the conclusion of FY00, the final integration and testing of the seeker will be completed and a functional ladar
brassboard incorporating the components necessary to fit into a 3–inch diameter will be demonstrated.
Supports: Force XX1, US Army Field Artillery and School (USAFACS), and D&SA Battle Lab, MLRS, ATACMS.

Joseph Grobmyer Irena Szkrybalo Randy Shorr
MICOM RDEC SARD-TT D&SA Battle Lab
(205) 876-1094 (703) 697-8432
DSN: 746-1094 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 639-2936
IV.I.17—Armament Decision Aids. By FY00, this STO will demonstrate decision aids software for an advanced
self–propelled howitzer to reduce fire mission response time by 50% compared to current methods while operating
with a maneuver force. In FY97, investigate armament decision aids using techniques that may include rule–based
reasoning, fuzzy logic, Bayesian networks, artificial neural nets, or a combination of the four, and interface requirements
for fire support elements in a maneuver environment. In FY98, conduct object oriented analysis of advanced reasoning
and artificial intelligent techniques implemented in a set of software components for use by fire support elements
capable of operating with a maneuver force. In FY99, integrate software components with existing platform vetronics.
The components will be designed with the ability to be configured in a distributed (internetted) as well as a standalone

environment. In FY00, demonstrate software components that reason based on digital terrain data, with a 50%
reduction in time required to respond, emplace, fire, and conduct survivability moves while operating with a maneuver
force, as compared to current methods.
Supports: STO III.G.12 Crusader, Paladin P3I.

Victor Yarosh John Appel (TBD)
ARDEC SARDA–TT
(201) 724-3524 (703) 697-8432
DSN: 880-3524 DSN: 227-8432

Section J. Electron Devices
ELECTRON DEVICES (Section J)
IV.J.03—Army Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) Evaluation. This program provides the baseline technical/
operational evaluation of algorithms developed by industry/academia/government against established datasets to
ensure the functional performance of ATRs meets established requirements in accordance with previously established
evaluation technology and associated metrics. By FY96, 1) establish a beta site for RASSP and initiate architectural
assessments of ATRs operating in tanks and ground stations, and 2) define open system processing architecture based
on commercial and MIL–STD practices, and assess 2nd Gen FLIR algorithms to cue operators to targets. By FY97,
extend algorithm assessment to millimeter wave radar and demonstrate rapid prototyping of processor modules
utilizing computer–aided design techniques and commercial/DARPA developed tool sets to reduce the development
time by 30% and reduce module cost by a factor of 10. By FY98, implement critical target acquisition algorithms at the
module level. By FY99, extend algorithm assessment to multisensor fusion and integrate and demonstrate advanced
ATR algorithms integrated with a multimodule processor and smart focal plane array.
Supports: Dismounted Battlespace, Mounted Battlespace, Depth and Simultaneous Attack, Battle Command, Early
Entry Lethality & Survivability, Target Acquisition ATD, Aerial Scout Sensors Integration TD.

Lynda Graceffo Rob Saunders Charles Campbell
CERDEC/NVESD SARD-TT MBS BL
(703) 704-1745 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 654-1745 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-1963
IV.J.04—Soldier Individual Power Source. By FY96, using the best available hydrogen–air Proton Exchange
Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell technology: (1) Demonstrate a fuel cell powered battery charger that can provide 1200
watt–hour of charging per Kg of fuel. (2) Evaluate pressurized hydrogen/oxygen PEM fuel cell systems and determine
whether further development of such systems will be advantageous over the more near–term hydrogen/air systems.
Demonstrate a 50 watt/200 watt–hour fuel cell power supply weighing 2 Kg and characterize a unit capable of 500
watt–hours. By FY98, using best available hydrogen/air, hydrogen/oxygen or liquid fueled PEM fuel cell technology,
demonstrate a 50 watt/200 watt–hour fuel cell power supply that weighs less than 1 Kg and 150 watt/600 watt–hour unit
weighing less than 2.5 Kg.
Supports: Generation II Soldier, 21 CLW, DBBL, SOF.

Richard Jacobs Rob Saunders Chris Kearns

CERDEC/C2&SID SARD-TT DBL
(703) 704-2637 (703) 697-8432 (706) 545-6391
DSN: 654-2637 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 835-6391
IV.J.06—Ferroelectric Phase Shifter Materials. The cost of phased array antenna is predominantly dependent on the
cost of its microwave phase shifter. This STO will develop the processing methodology to produce a microwave phase
shifter from a low–cost, low–power dissipation, voltage driven ferroelectric composite ceramic and thereby reduce the
cost of a phase shifter element from $5000 to $200. By FY96, demonstrate thick–film low–low phase shifter material for
use at 15GHz. By FY97, demonstrate a thick film phase shifter material for use at 25GHz. By FY98, demonstrate a thick
film, low cost phase shifter material in phased array antenna operating at 35GHz. The product of this STO will be a
prototype replacement for the "ferrite phase shifter element" designed in mid to higher communication frequencies for
the "geodesic cone antenna component" in the following systems: Ground Based Common Sensor; Air Reconnaissance
Low, Aerial Common Sensor, Advanced Quickfix; Guardrail.
Supports: Technology for Affordability, PEO–IEW, Battle Command Battle Lab.

Louise Sengupta Catherine Kominos Bob Bolling
ARL-WMRD SARD-TP USA TRADOC BC-BL
(410) 306-0754 (703) 697-3558 (602) 538-7500
DSN: 458-0754 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 879-7500
IV.J.07—High–Energy, Cost–Effective Primary and Rechargeable Batteries. Modify cost–effective commercial

technologies so that they can be used for both training and combat. By FY99 produce a low–cost, pseudo–rechargeable,
environmentally benign battery (less than $0.05/Wh) for use in training and low–rate applications, with the possibility
of recharging these for limited numbers of cycles before discarding. By FY00, provide prototypes for field trials of long
cycle life rechargeable batteries, used for both training and Special Operations missions, having an energy content 20%
greater than the existing nickel–metal hydride battery. The goals will be to reduce manufacturing cost, while
maximizing performance and safety. By FY01, demonstrate proof–of–principle prototypes of the most cost effective,
safe high performance primary battery with greater than 300 Wh/kg.
Supports: PEO–C3S, SOCOM, PM–TRCS, PM–SOLDIER, SSCOM, Land Warrior, Air Warrior, Dismounted
Battlespace Battle Lab, Task Force XXI.

Robert Hamlen Rob Saunders Herbert Russakoff

CERDEC SARD-TT CSS Battle Lab
(908) 427-2084 (703) 697-8432 (804) 734-0599
DSN: 987-2084 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 687-0599

Section K. Electronic Warfare/Directed-Energy Weapons
ELECTRONIC WARFARE/DIRECTED–ENERGY WEAPONS (Section K)
IV.K.02—Noncommunications Electronic Support Measures(ESM)/Electronic Countermeasures (ECM)

Techniques. Development of the advanced techniques to intercept, identify and geolocate modern, low
probability–of–intercept signals. These developments will allow for the location and subsequent deception/jamming/
spoofing of threat emitters and electronic surveillance equipment on the battlefield. By FY95, demonstrate an advanced
ESM receiver with increased sensitivity and multiple IF receivers to provide more accurate pulse descriptions. By FY96,
develop coordinated roadmap for navigational/radar/ELINT deception. By FY98, demonstrate advanced radar system
simulator to support PM battlefield deception. By FY99, demonstrate ESM capability against impulse radars.
Supports: IEWCS, AQF, BCBL(H), BCBL(L), BCBL(G), EELS BL.

Jim McDonald Rob Saunders Bob Bolling
CERDEC/IEWD SARD-TT USA TRADOC BC-BL
(908) 427-5638 (703) 697-8432 (602) 538-7500
DSN: 987-5638 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 879-7500
IV.K.05—Advanced Electro–Optic/Infrared Countermeasures. Advanced EO/IR CM will develop multifunction CM

to protect Army aircraft and ground vehicles from advanced EO/IR surface to air missiles (SAMs), Antitank Guided
Missiles (ATGMs) and smart munitions. Technology development will focus on key components and missile
algorithms, jamming sources, optics, pointing/tracking devices, missile plume and laser sensors and include advanced
jamming techniques against passive homing, command to line of sight and beamrider SAM and ATGM missiles.
Particular emphasis will be on horizontal technology integration of ATIRCM architecture infused with low cost and
adapted NDI components for ground vehicle protection. By FY96, demonstrate beam coupler for multiband ATIRCM
laser and advanced jamming techniques for transition to the MSCM demonstration. By FY97, define optical breaklock
criteria for short pulse laser based jamming techniques for use on MSCM/ATIRCM. By FY98, develop and test
detection and CM against advanced imaging missiles directed at low flying aircraft and ground vehicles; and assess/
develop EO/IR ATCM detection algorithms for transition to PM–GSI’s Ground Vehicle missile warning program.
Supports: TRI–Service ATIRCM/CMWS, Suite of Integrated ASE, Hit Avoidance ATD, Armored Systems
Modernization, Ground Combat Vehicle Missile Warning and IRCM, Air Maneuver Battle Lab, Mounted Battlespace,
Depth and Simultaneous Attack, Battle Command, Upgrades to FSV.

Joseph O’Connell Rob Saunders Ted Hundley

CERDEC/NVESD SARD-TT U.S. Army Aviation Center and
(908) 427-4870 (703) 697-8432 School
DSN: 987-4870 DSN: 227-8432 (334) 255-2571
DSN: 558-2571
IV.K.06—Advanced Radio Frequency Countermeasures. By FY95, demonstrate jamming techniques against

multispectral top attack smart munitions. By FY96, demonstrate an ECM modulator with the capability to jam
monopulse millimeter wave. By FY97, demonstrate a fully interactive survivability simulation between CECOM SIL/
DIL, Fort Rucker Aviation Test Bed, and the CECOM mobile ASE Test Bed over DSI for CM and Situational
Awareness (SA) to provide over a 200% increase in survivability. Initiate bi–service exploitation and development of
phased array model for digital ECM modeling. Integrate advanced fuze simulator into the SIL and conduct jamming
simulations. Conduct ECM trials vs an I Ban SAM tracking radar. FY98, integration of Longbow simulator into SIL
over DSI to demonstrate multifunctional of advanced EW sensors to provide over 200% increase in targeting and
combat ID assist with links to ground vehicles. Demonstrate high accuracy LO RF direction finding, targeting assist for
Comanche and over 200% increase in CM effectiveness against monopulse phased array SAM radar through the use of
digital models. By FY99, SIL/DIL demo 200% increase in SA, CM and CID assist for Longbow and ground vehicles, a
40% A–kit weight reduction using fiber remoting of antennas, a 200% increase in emitter geolocation for SA and
targeting and initiate advanced CM vs bistatic, impulse and low probability of intercept radars.
Supports: Dismounted Battlespace, Mounted Battlespace, Depth & Simultaneous Attack, Battle Command, Early Entry
Lethality & Survivability, RPA ATD, Hit Avoidance ATD, Proposed Integrated Situational Awareness and
Countermeasures ATD, PM–AEC Suite of Integrated RF Countermeasures, AN/ALQ–211, PEO–211, PEO–IEW
VLQ–9,10,10 & PLQ–7.

(908) 427-4589 (703) 697-8432 School
DSN: 987-4589 DSN: 227-8432 (334) 255-2571
DSN: 558-2571
IV.K.07—Low–Cost Electro–Optic/Infrared Countermeasures. Low Cost EO/IR CM will develop active/passive

devices to protect aircraft and ground vehicles with conventional and suppressed signatures from EO/IR guided threats.
Countermeasures to IR missiles is the number one DoD EW priority. IR Imaging missiles plus multispectral IR/EO/RF
seekers that are being fielded must be countered. Technology development will focus on key components such as,
sources, optics, pointing/tracking devices, missile plume and laser sensors and advanced jamming techniques against
passive homing, command to line of sight, beamrider missiles and missile detection algorithms. Emphasis will be on
horizontal technology integration of EW architecture infused with low cost and adapted NDI technologies for air and
ground vehicle protection. By FY00, demo advanced on board laser based jamming techniques used in conjunction
with offboard devices against advanced and imaging EO/IR SAM and ATGM threats. By FY00, demo advanced on

board laser based jamming techniques used in conjunction with offboard devices against advanced and imaging EO/IR
SAM and ATGM threats. By FY01, demo jamming techniques vs. advanced laser beam rider threats. By FY02, develop
nonmechanical multiband beam steering for laser based jamming sources. Demo jamming effects against advanced
multiband IR/EO missiles capable of attacking suppressed signature air and ground platforms. By FY03, demonstrate
jamming source capable of defeating multispectral IR/EO/UV missile seekers.
Supports: Common Air/Ground Electronic Combat Suite Demo, Air Maneuver Battle Lab, Mounted Battlespace,
Depth & Simultaneous Attack, Battle Command, Tri–Service ATIRCM/Common Missile Warning System AN/
ALQ–212, FSV updates and the proposed Full Spectrum Threat Protection ATD.

Joseph O’Connell Rob Saunders Ted Hundley
(908) 427-4870 (703) 697-8432 School
DSN: 987-4870 DSN: 227-8432 (334) 255-2571
DSN: 558-2571
IV.K.08—Three–Dimensional Dynamic Multispectral Synthetic Scene Visualization. This effort will build upon two
previous STO accomplishments by demonstrating dynamic 3D multispectral (IR plus passive and active MMW)
terrestrial backgrounds for synthetic environments by merging weather, modeled multispectral sensor performance,
and terrain data. By FY98, develop and improve visualization capabilities with the addition of dual–band IR and image
intensifier capability, including the effects of meteorological conditions. By FY99, apply physics–based models to
simulation applications, including visualization capabilities in support of weapon selection. By FY00, Extend
physics–based models and visualization capability to passive and active MMW. By FY01, integrate mode derived IR
and MMW sensor performance overlays into 3D visualization. By FY02, implement 3D dynamic multispectral
synthetic scene visualization into force–on–force simulation.

Thomas Jorgensen Donald Artis Dave Loental
USATEC SARD-TR ATSE-CD-SIM
(703) 428-6838 (703) 697-3558 (573) 563-6186
DSN: 328-6838 DSN: 227-3558
IV.K.09—Advanced Electronic Warfare Sensors. This project will develop multispectral missile, laser and radar
warning sensors with precision angle of arrival, primarily to control and direct CM, but with added capability for
enhanced situational awareness, target cueing, and combat ID assist. The multispectral sensor in a single head will
reduce weight, maintenance, and spare logistics. Emphasis will be on horizontal technology integration of EW sensors
infused with low cost and adapted NDI technologies for air and ground vehicle threat detection. The developed sensor
technology, which will be P3I for the AN/ALQ–211 & ALQ–212, will provide expanded capability against multispectral
and updated RF, IR, EO and laser air defense and ground threat weapons. FY99, initiate development of multioctave

antennas for multispectral SAMs, top attack munitions and antiaircraft mines. FY00 conduct field testing of antennas
and ECM, transition to ISAT, and initiate development of common air/ground vehicle sensor and CM modules. FY01,
continue development of common air/ground sensors/CM against phased–array and UWB radars with advanced
ECCM modes. FY02, field test common air/ground sensors/CM against phased array and UWB radars and transition
to Common Air Ground Electronic Combat Suite (CAGES) demonstration program. FY03, conduct tests of CM to
multispectral SAMs, antiair mines, UWB radars and advanced multispectral top attack munitions.
Supports: Proposed Integrated Situational Awareness and Countermeasures (ISACM) ATD,PM–AEC Suite of
Integrated RF Countermeasures, AN/ALQ–211, PEO–IEW family of Shortstop VLQ–9, VLQ–10, VLQ–11, and
PLQ–7. Dismounted Battlespace, Mounted Battlespace, Depth & Simultaneous Attack, Battle Command, Early Entry
Lethality & Survivability, and the proposed Full Spectrum Protection ATD.

(908) 427-4589 (703) 697-8432 School
DSN: 987-4589 DSN: 227-8432 (334) 255-2571
DSN: 558-2571

Section L. Civil Engineering and Environmental Quality
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (Section L)
IV.L.01—Installation Restoration. Provide cheaper and more effective technologies for cleanup of soil, sediment,
groundwater, and surface water contaminated with hazardous and toxic wastes from past military activities. Provide
technologies to reduce explosives–contaminated site remediation costs by 50% using biological degradation as an
alternative to incineration by the end of FY95. By the end of FY96, provide technologies to reduce the costs of
decontaminating organics–contaminated soil and ground water by 30% using innovative chemical, biological, and
physical processes. By the end of FY97, provide technologies to reduce the cost of remediating heavy
metals–contaminated soils by enhanced physical separation processes. By the end of FY98, develop concept guidance
on the implementation of in situ biological processes for remediation of explosives contaminated soils.
Supports: Tri–Service Environmental Quality Strategic Action Plan.

Dr. J. Keeley Donald Artis Bill Adams
USAEWES SARD-TR
(601) 634-3477 (703) 697-3558
DSN: 227-3558
IV.L.04—Sustainable Military Use and Stewardship of Army Lands. The goal is to improve military access to and
stewardship of training/testing lands through improved knowledge bases and predictive tools that integrate multiple
landscape factors into decision aids for military land use planning and management. By the end of FY00, develop
measures to match land use with environmental conditions affecting land capacity. By FY01, provide simulation tools
for erosion management and land rehabilitation options to restore/maintain lands for sustained use. By the end of
FY01, provide better understanding of cause–effect relationships and models to simulate mission impacts on key
protected species. By the end of FY02, provide a military land management decision support capability integrating
erosion, land use and rehabilitation, and species impact models with land capacity.
Benefits include improved training realism and safety, reduced maintenance costs for equipment and land, increased
flexibility in land use, up to 50% reduced constraints on access to land (at present, approximately 2 million acres are
constrained), and reduced fines due to environmental compliance.
Supports: National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act,
Clean Air Act, and FOC EN97–027
This proposed STO has been endorsed by Larry Chenkin, ATSC, (757) 878–3090.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a2l.htm（第 1／5 页）2006-09-10 23:14:00


William Goran Donald Artis Larry Chenkin
CERL SARD-TR ATSC
(217) 373-6735 (703) 697-3558 (757) 878-3090
DSN: 227-3558
IV.L.05—Munitions Production Compliance Technology. The goal is to develop industrial installation compliance
technologies to enable the Army industrial facilities to maintain production capability while achieving a 20% to 30%
reduction in compliance costs under existing and projected effluent limitations. By the end of FY99, complete bench
scale studies of energetic degradation under sulfate reducing conditions.
By FY00, reductive electrochemical processes for treating energetic (propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics) waste
streams contaminated with nitro–aromatics, nitramine or nitrate esters that will meet discharge permit limits with a
lower cost and greater operational flexibility than conventional technology. By the end of FY01, sequential bioreactor
technology for treatment of energetic contaminated industrial facility waste to substantially reduce the capital and
operating costs of Army industrial facilities. Current treatment/disposal costs range from $200 to $300 per ton, the goal
is a 20% reduction in treatment costs. One installation, alone, can generate in excess of 4,500 tons of energetic
contaminated waste per year.
The benefit of this technology is compliance with existing and evolving environmental regulations allowing production
unencumbered by environmental concerns.
Supports: AMC manufacture of ammunition for Tri–Services and FOC – EN97–027
This proposed STO has been endorsed by the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management. ACSIM POC is
Kathleen O’Halloran (703–693–0549)

Gary Schanche Donald Artis Bill Adams
CERL SARD-TR
(217) 373-3478 (703) 697-3558
DSN: DSN: 227-3558
IV.L.07p—Environmental Cleanup. Provide cheaper and more effective technologies for site assessment and treatment
of soils and groundwater contaminated with explosives and energetics (TNT, HMX, and RDX) and heavy metals
(lead). By end of FY99, construct explosives/energetics exposure and effects models for use during site environmental
risk assessments, reducing cleanup design costs by 20% by cutting risk analysis time in half (reduce from years to
months). By the end of FY01, develop in–situ heavy metals extraction for lead, allowing reduced treatment costs from
the previous $100–300/ton of soil to $50–150/ton and allowing treatment below existing structures, which is currently

not possible. Also by the end of FY01, develop in–situ biotreatment processes for TNT, reducing costs from $100–500/
cu.yd. in FY98 to $25–75/cu.yd. By the end of FY01, develop fate and transport risk assessment models and simulations
for explosives and energetics that provide rapid contaminant fate predictions, improved risk assessment, and reduced
design costs, allowing all risk assessment to be completed onsite. By end of FY02, develop advanced groundwater
remediation technologies for TNT, providing increased treatment efficacy and flexibility with overall cost reduction
from $1–5/kgal in FY95 to $0.10–2.00/kgal. By end of FY02, develop advanced visualization supporting onsite
assessment during all cleanup phases, providing a 50% reduction in time (reduce from months to weeks) for data
analysis and treatment selection.
Supports: DoD Reliance Defense Technology Area Plan and the Tri–Service Environmental Quality Strategic Action
Plan.
This is a STO (Proposed). This Proposed STO has been endorsed by the Army Chief of Staff for Installation
Management (ACSIM POC is Kathleen O’Halloran 703–693–0549).

Dr. J. Keeley Donald Artis Bill Adams
USAEWES SARD-TR
(601) 634-3477 (703) 697-3558
DSN: 227-3558
IV.L.08—Airfields and Pavements to Support Force Protection. The objective is to, by the end of FY02, provide
improved pavement criteria for design/repair/material systems that will result in reduced DoD pavement construction
costs (approximately $72M/yr in FY95 dollars), increased pavement reliability (approximately 20 percent) and reduced
pavement construction effort (approximately 1 0 percent) in the Theater of Operation (TO). The criteria will consist of
material specifications, construction practices, and pavement system design and evaluation models. This is a critical
requirement for force strategic deployment from the Continental United States (CONUS) and operational
employment in the TO. By the end of FY98, provide criteria for reliable airfields and pavements to support current
generation military aircraft and vehicles through the use of local materials (which may be of inferior quality) and
pavement binder modifications. This will extend the functional life of a pavement by one year ($250,000 life–cycle
savings based on a 10,000 ft long runway). This objective will require new technologies for nonlinear visco–elastic and
visco–plastic materials behavior affecting airfield and pavement performance. By the end of FY99, provide criteria for
construction/design/repair systems to decrease construction effort by 10 percent for expedient surfaces in TO for
military aircraft and vehicles. By the end of FY02, provide criteria for reliable airfields and pavements to support
multiple passes of proposed future generation aircraft and military vehicles. Design, construction, and rehabilitation of
Army and Air Force airfields is an Army Corps of Engineers responsibility under Project Reliance. This effort supports
DTO MP.17.11.

Dr. Larry Lynch Donald Artis Bill Adams

USA Engineer Waterways SARD-TR
Experiment Station (703) 697-3558
(601) 634-4274 DSN: 227-3558
IV.L.09—Force Protection on the Battlefield. By the end of FY02, provide ballistic and low–signature protection for
base clusters in tactical assembly areas by reducing target acquisition distances and increasing survivability from
battlefield weapon threats by 3 0 percent. The objective is to develop concepts and criteria for protecting and concealing
deploying forces from conventional weapons threats using indigenous or predesigned state–of–the–art materials.
Provides a) integrated multispectral camouflage with lightweight construction materials for protective systems, b)
validated protective concepts and structural safety assessment procedures, and c) rapid measures to protect critical
assets in forward supply points and tactical assembly areas. Force protection will be provided against conventional
munitions in operations short of war to high–level conflicts through development of capabilities that do not presently
exist. By the end of FY99, provide sprayable multispectral tonedown agents for large area signature reduction. By the
end of FY01, provide expedient protective concepts for key assets in forward logistics supply points, develop assessment
procedures for the evaluation of the structural safety and protection provided by bunkers and fighting emplacements,
and provide designs for fixed/long–dwell facility decoys.

W. Huff Donald Artis Bill Adams
WES SARD-TR
(601) 634-2755 (703) 697-3558
DSN: 227-3558
IV.L.10—Lines of Communication (LOC) Assessment and Repair. The objective is to develop, by the end of FY02,
the technologies required for: assessment of in–theater road networks; assessment, classification, and rehabilitation of
in–theater bridges; use of low quality or local materials for in–theater construction to increase road construction
productivity per engineer battalion by 15 0 man–hours per day. The capabilities provided by these technologies are
critical to successful execution of the strategic, operational, and tactical engineering mobility missions required to
support Force XXI force projection. By the end of FY99, develop an analytical system for automated load classification
of bridges (onsite and remote) reducing assessment time from 3 hrs to 0.5 hr per bridge. By the end of FY00, provide
materials and techniques to maintain and repair in–theater operating surfaces while increasing productivity by 150
man–hours per battalion per day.

Dr. William Willoughby Donald Artis Bill Adams
(601) 634-2474 DSN: 227-3558

IV.L.11—Force Protection Against Terrorist Threats. By the end of FY02, develop procedures to assess the
vulnerability of structures that house military forces and methods to mitigate terrorist weapon effects and retrofit
vulnerable building components to reduce required blast standoff distances by 40%. The goal is to provide the
technology for assessing the risk and protecting the force from the effects of terrorist weapons, including small arms,
rockets, mortars, and vehicle bombs. Included will be: (a) analytic software for calculating blast loads on structures,
incorporating shielding effects of blast walls and other buildings; (b) methods for predicting damage to structures and
building components and the associated hazard to personnel; and (c) effective techniques for retrofitting windows,
doors, walls, and roofs. By the end of FY99, develop methods to use high–performance materials to increase the
penetration resistance of structural components. By the end of FY01, develop techniques for retrofitting existing
structures and mitigating the effects of terrorist impact/fragmentation weapons and vehicle bombs.

David Coltharp Donald Artis Bill Adams
(601) 634-2629 DSN: 227-3558

Section M. Battlespace Environments
BATTLESPACE ENVIRONMENTS (Section M)
IV.M.01—Target Area Meteorology. Exploit data from all available sources on the battlefield to include meteorological
satellites, and through mesoscale modeling, fuse these data with digital terrain data to produce 4D weather forecast
information at temporal and spatial resolutions adequate to characterize target area meteorology. By FY95, develop an
automated 12–hour forecasting capability to support Joint and Combined Operations and generation of target area
decision aids. By FY96, exploit satellite and ground–based remote sensors such as wind radars, lidars, and radiometers
to characterize the atmosphere and analyze available upper air met data to produce a "best met" for any user within the
battlefield area. Leverage advances in tactical observing, computer architecture, artificial intelligence, and numerical
methods to extend forecast capability to 24 hours by FY97, and 48 hours by FY99. Develop met software for automatic
fire control procedures by FY98 and integrate with the ballistic module in the artillery fire control center by FY99.
Supports: PM EW/RSTA, PM AF, CERDEC development of Target Area Meteorological Sensor System (TAMSS),
PEO CCS—Project Director (PD) IMETS, Joint Precision Strike ATD.

James Harris Catherine Kominos MAJ Morris Minchew
ARL-IST SARD-TP Depth & Simultaneous Attack Battle
(505) 678-1225 (703) 697-3558 Lab
DSN: 258-1225 DSN: 227-3558 (405) 422-2928
DSN: 639-2928
IV.M.04—Weather Effects and Battlescale Forecasts for Combat Simulation and Training. Integrate improved
battlescale forecasting, real–time weather and environmental effects models to provide common, unified weather
effects, features and representations for: Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWE); the Intelligence
Electronic Warfare (IEW) Technology Investment Strategy; TRADOC combat models and Distributed Simulations
such as the Synthetic Theater of War (STOW) Campaign Plan, and for Brigade Task Force XXI mission rehearsal. In
FY97, within the IEW Common Operating Environment (COE) extend the Battlescale Forecast Model to provide
weather forecast data for Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS). By FY98, implement advanced algorithms for
acoustic–propagation, illumination and visibility, terrain–coupled transport/diffusion and EO propagation effects at
multiple levels of fidelity for environmental representations, Integrated Weather Effects Decision Aids (IWEDA) and
battlefield visualization tools to support simulations and Division XXI mission planning. By FY99, incorporate an
Improved Battlescale Forecast Model for forecast representations of clouds, fog, severe weather (rain) and improved
battlefield aerosol diffusion at tactical scales. By FY00, assess improvements provided by shared battlescale weather
forecasts, distributed weather processing for M&S and physics–based atmospheric feature and effects models. By FY01
demonstrate interoperability of verified/validated Unified Battlescale Weather and Battlescale Atmospheric Effects

Models as a real–time Own the Weather capability for FORCE XXI situation awareness, mission planning and training.
Supports: Brigade XXI and Division XXI AWE’s, IEW Technology Investment Strategy, and Synthetic Theater of War
(STOW) Campaign Plan.

Don Hoock Catherine Kominos Lee Garrison
ARL-IST SARD-TP Battle Command Battle Lab (Ft.
(505) 678-5430 (703) 697-3558 Leavenworth)
DSN: 258-5430 DSN: 227-3558 (913) 684-2366
DSN: 522-2366
IV.M.05—Weather Impacts and Decision Aids (WIDA) for Mission Rehearsal, Training, and Battle. Improve
battlefield Weather Impacts and Decision Aids (WIDA) so that current forecast weather and predicted impacts on
systems and operations produced by the fielded IMETS are also usable in mission rehearsal, training and combat
simulations and so that we "train as we fight." Quantify weather impacts to improve current qualitative
"red–yellow–green" stoplight outputs from integrated Weather Effects Decision Aids (IWEDA), developed under STO
IV.M.3 for the fielded Integrated Meteorological System (IMETS) and the Army Battle Command System (ABCS)
Battlefield Automated Systems (BAS). Weather effects decision aids are included under the Defense Technology Area
Plan (DTAP) SE35, Combat Weather Support. In FY98, extend IWEDA rule–based warnings and qualitative weather
impacts by upgrading its artificial intelligence techniques to incorporate quantitative atmospheric effects and system
performance. By FY99, incorporate quantified impacts of acoustics, illumination, propagation, smoke obscuration,
terrain–coupled wind transport, and weather forecasts. By FY00, extend weather–impact models and decision aids to
produce quantitative, four–dimensional (4D) weather impacts incorporating improved battlescale forecasts and
atmospheric effects on weapons systems and operations. By FY01, upgrade models for characteristics and weather
impacts on threat platforms and weapons. By FY02, integrate improvements back into IMETS to upgrade tactical Army
Battle Command System weather–impact and decision aids.
Demonstrate during Division Task Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiment (AWE) in FY98, Corps Task Force
XXI and follow–on AWE’s, incorporating Battlescale Weather forecasts and effects for consistent play of real–time
Own the Weather capability for Force XXI situation awareness, mission planning, and combat training.
Supports: PEO C3S, ABCS, TFXXI, IEW Technology Investment Strategy, Synthetic Theater of War (STOW)
Campaign Plan.

Don Hoock Catherine Kominos Lee Garrison
ARL-IST SARD-TP Battle Command Battle Lab (Ft.
(505) 678-5430 (703) 697-3558 Leavenworth)
DSN: 258-5430 DSN: 227-3558 (913) 684-2366
DSN: 522-2366

IV.M.06—Advanced Geospatial Management for Information Integration and Dissemination (AGMIID). AGMIID
will develop and demonstrate an automated capability for geospatial data management, based upon feature/attribute
linking, supporting the dissemination and integration of geospatial data and information at distributed user locations.
AGMIID will demonstrate management technology of increasingly complex (point, line and area) features and
functionality over the period of the program. FY98 will initiate the standards process defining link structure for all
feature types and complete development of point datalinking. FY99 will see the completion of the standards and
definition process, initiate linear feature management development and demonstrate the management, dissemination,
and integration of point data and information. FY00 will see the initiation of areal feature management, completion of
the linear feature management and development effort and demonstrate the management, dissemination and
integration of point/linear data and information. In FY01, demonstrate and test the management, dissemination and
integration of point, linear and areal data and information.

Mike Power Donald Artis Mark Adams
USA TEC SARD-TR TRADOC
(703) 428-7804 (703) 697-3558 (573) 563-4077
DSN: 328-7804 DSN: 227-3558
IV.M.07—Rapid Mapping Technology. Develop software and integrate into an automated terrain information system
the capability to rapidly extract and properly attribute geospatial information of importance to Army and DoD
customers from multisources with various resolutions, densities, and formats. By FY98, incorporate/test techniques for
processing Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)/Inferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (IFSAR) feature data into the
Digital Stereo Photogrammetric Workstation (DSPW). By FY99, incorporate/test initial spectral imagery and SAR
automated feature extraction capabilities. By FY00, incorporate automated feature extraction techniques from spectral,
SAR and electro–optical sources into the DSPW software. By FY01, incorporate/test initial automated feature
attribution capability based on terrain reasoning software and demonstrate the ability to manage, disseminate and
integrate point, line and aerial data under operational conditions. By FY02, incorporate initial terrain reasoning
capability and demonstrate initial automated feature extraction and attribution capability on the DSPW.

William Clark Donald Artis Mark Adams
USA TEC SARD-TR TRADOC
(703) 428-6802 (703) 697-3558 (573) 563-4077
DSN: 328-6803 DSN: 227-3558

Section N. Human Systems Interface
HUMAN SYSTEMS INTERFACE (Section N)
IV.N.04—Performance–Based Metrics for the Digitized Battlefield. This STO develops standardized, field–operational
measurement scales for use by the Battle Labs, Army Digitization Office, and Army Research & Engineering Centers
(RDECs) in defining and evaluating integrated soldier–information system performance on the digitized battlefield. These
measurement scales will directly support the U.S. Army’s Rolling Baseline assessment of digital information system
technology during Advanced Technology Demonstrations, Advanced Warfighting Experiments, and related Force XXI
field activities. The resulting metrics will provide both technology developers and field users with a common, standard
framework for specifying performance requirements and assessing the contribution of digital information system
technology across a variety of battlefield settings (e.g., brigade TOC staff, tank crew, individual dismounted soldier). To
achieve this goal, the behavior–based measurement scales will (1) reflect important dimensions of the information
processing and decision making tasks performed by soldiers, crews, and staffs; (2) correlate with success in satisfying
TRADOC Operational Capability Requirements (OCRs) related to the soldier–information interface; (3) be sensitive to the
introduction of new technology, doctrine, procedures, organization, and training; and (4) be observable and measurable in
a field setting. Develop and test an initial set of behavioral performance markers addressing tank crew and Command and
Control Vehicle (C2V) operator performance as well as digital communications initiatives for dismounted operations in
Warrior Focus (Nov. 95). These behavioral performance markers will be refined and further tested during FY96 in Warrior
Focus, Army Logistics ACTD, or other major AWE. A draft Army–standard set of soldier–information system performance
metrics for common use by ARL will be developed and refined during FY97, and demonstrated in the context of Prairie
Warrior 97 and Division 97. Standards for Army Materiel Acquisition will be developed in FY98.
Supports: Warrior Focus, Army Logistics ACTD, ADO, Battle Command Battle Lab, Mounted Battlespace Battle Lab,
Dismounted Battlespace Battle Lab.

Dennis K. Leedom Catherine Kominos MAJ Harry Hamilton
ARL-HRE SARD-TP BC-BL
(410) 278-5919 (703) 697-3558
DSN: 298-5919 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 552-8041
IV.N.05—Cognitive Engineering of the Digital Battlefield. Battle command operations at Bde and above are increasingly
being characterized by component capabilities that focus on the cognitive aspects of a distributed decision making process.
The STO effort responds through a focused research program aimed at better understanding these cognitive processes as
they are shaped by time, stress, team structure, level of staff training and experience, and the introduction of digitization
technology. Through experimentation and constructive exercises, the STO develops a set of predictive models and
performance metrics for assessing TOC design tradeoffs among information display and decision support technology, team
structure, skill and experience level, and cognitive workload (FY99–00). The models focus on commander’s intent and
maintenance of a relevant common picture, addressing battle staff performance from both a data–driven perspective and a

Section N. Human Systems Interface
concept–driven perspective. The models and metrics are refined to address both changing Op Tempo and asymmetric
engagements (FY01–02). Research findings are used to refine a series of battle staff training approaches that address a broad
range of staff officer cognitive skills and functions (FY99–02). Finally, research findings are integrated into a cognitive
architecture for the battlefield—a functional roadmap for guiding R&D investments in information technology and staff
officer training, Battle Lab experiment planning, and force development planning under Army After Next (FY01–02). The
STO provides a formal mechanism for linking cognitive research activities in USARL and USARI and coordinating these
programs with related activities in USASC, CGSC, USAARL, BCBL, and AMBL.
Note: A requested plus–up of $1.8M/year would provide contractor cognitive–decision making research personnel onsite at
several battlelabs for C2 experimentation design and data collection and analysis.
Supports: AAN, Division XXI AWE, Battlespace Command and Control ATD, Rapid Terrain Visualization ACTD,
CERDEC
STO ManagerTSO TRADOC POC

Dennis Leedom Catherine Kominos Dick Brown
ARL-HRED SARD-TP TPIO ABCS
(410) 278-5919 (703) 697-3558 (913) 684-3137
DSN: 298-5919 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 552-3137

Section O. Personnel Performance and Training
PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE AND TRAINING (Section O)
IV.O.02—Combined Arms Training Strategy for Aviation. By FY98, develop training technologies based upon
empirical data that support the development of a combined arms training strategy for aviation. A methodology will be
developed and demonstrated that makes the most effective use of simulators, training devices, and live exercises for
initial flight skills through unit combat tasks. In FY97, develop and demonstrate a methodology for rapid evaluation
and thorough assessment of on–hand and proposed devices for unit training. Minimum fidelity requirements will be
established for critical aircrew skills training and for utilization of, and upgrades to, existing simulators. In FY98, a
rationale will be determined for the expanded use of simulators in IERW (Initial Entry Rotary Wing) training to achieve
an effective mix of simulator and aircraft training.
Supports: U.S. Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC); STRICOM; PM CATT (AVCATT); TSMS for Longbow,
Comanche, Kiowa Warrior.

Charles Gainer Beverly Harris COL William Powell
ARI ARI, SARD-TR USAAVNC
(334) 255-2834 (703) 697-8599 (334) 255-3320
DSN: 558-2834 DSN: 227-8599 DSN: 558-3320
IV.O.06—Force XXI Training Strategies. By FY01 develop and demonstrate new training and evaluation technologies
that prepare operators and commanders to take maximum advantage of evolving digitized C3 systems. This training
research will incorporate the use of virtual, constructive, and live simulations to demonstrate and evaluate selected
prototype training techniques. By FY98 evaluate prototype staff training packages that use advanced digital technology.
By FY99 evaluate training and performance assessment tools developed for the digitized battlefield. The training
techniques and strategies will be demonstrated and evaluated in Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWEs).
Supports: TRADOC, USAARMC&S, MBBL, III Corps.

Barbara Black Beverly Harris MG George Harmeyer
ARI ARI, SARD-TR Director, U.S. Army Armor School
(502) 624-3450 (703) 697-8599 (502) 624-7555
DSN: 464-3450 DSN: 227-8599 DSN: 464-7555

Section O. Personnel Performance and Training

Section P. Materials, Processes, and Structures
MATERIALS, PROCESSES, AND STRUCTURES (Section P)
IV.P.03—Cannon Wear and Erosion. The STO consists of two objectives. In FY98, the STO will develop an advanced
rotating band and obturator for extended range 52+ caliber artillery munitions. Then in FY01, the STO will
demonstrate the viability of wear & erosion resistant coatings that are applicable to both medium and large caliber gun
barrels to improve gun barrel life by 10 fold compared to current equivalent gun barrels when used with advanced/
higher energy propellants/munitions. In FY98, establish new rotating band design and improved obturator for XM982
& future extended range munitions that will meet the future muzzle velocity requirements (>1000mps); initiate
development of tank gun barrel coating and coating process. In FY99, determine coatings candidates and fabricate
coating coupons for testing. In FY00, conduct and evaluate coating coupon testing. In FY01, apply and test coating on
subcaliber barrel.
Supports: 25mm, 120mm & 155mm Ammunition and Cannon Systems.

Michael Audino John Appel A. Winkenhofer
ARDEC SARDA-TT USAARMC
(518) 266-5740 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-8064
DSN: 974-5740 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-8064
IV.P.04—Ultra–Light Ballistically–Resistant Materials. Demonstrate ultra lightweight ballistically resistant materials that
could be incorporated into small arms protective gear and have aerial densities of less than 5 pounds per square foot.
The understanding of the materials dynamic properties, chemistry, and microstructure and their interrelationships will
be advanced and implemented into the development/design of new materials weighing 40% less than current materials.
Both quantitative and qualitative ballistic performance of candidate armor materials and select combinations will be
studied. By FY96, determine the baseline dynamic response of lightweight ceramic and polymeric composite materials.
By FY97, correlate the relevant materials dynamic properties and response to improvements in ballistic resistance. By
FY98, provide guidelines through modeling and simulation codes for enhancing material performance. By FY99,
demonstrate ballistic performance and dynamic response of optimal ultra lightweight armor materials. Analysis and
data will be transitioned to the Soldier System Command (NRDEC) for applications into personnel armor for soldier
protection.
Supports: Personnel protection for infantry and Special Operations forces, Protect the Force, Force XXI Land Warrior
ATD–Follow on Program, Dismounted Battlespace Battle Lab.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a2p.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:14:24

Shun-Chin Chou Catherine Kominos Chris Kearns

ARL-WMR SARD-TP DBL
(410) 306-0778 (703) 697-3558 (706) 545-6391
DSN: 458-0778 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 835-6391
IV.P.05—Transparent Ceramics for Armor Applications. Develop and demonstrate transparent armor that meets or
exceeds the ballistic performance of existing glass/polymer, with a 30% reduction in weight and thickness, while
increasing the in–line transmission in the visible and near IR regions. It will also exhibit superior abrasion resistance,
strength, and high temperature properties. By FY97 a ballistic database will be generated for candidate materials for
threat levels ranging from fragment threats through 12.7mm Armor Piercing (AP). By FY98 optimized test transparent
armor will be developed using the data generated during FY97. By FY99 a prototype component will be designed and
fabricated for installation in an existing end item.
Supports: Personnel protection for infantry and Special Operations Forces, Protect the Force, Armored Vehicles, Force
XXI Land Warrior Follow on Program, NRDEC, Soldier System Command, TACOM, and Dual Use (Law
Enforcement), Dismounted Battlespace Battlelab.

Jay Connors Catherine Kominos Chris Kearns
ARL-WMRD SARD-TP DBL
(410) 306-0779 (703) 697-3558 (706) 545-6391
DSN: 458-0779 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 835-6391
IV.P.06p—Advanced Materials for Lightweight Combat System Protection. Develop lightweight armor materials for
combat systems protection with a resulting 30% reduction in weight by the year 2004. Knowledge gained from STO IV.
P.04 of dynamic materials properties, microstructural and physical–chemical changes under impact, and penetration
mechanics of ultra–lightweight armor materials will be applied to four classes of materials supporting new armor: (1)
functional gradient materials, (2) high modules polymer fibers, (3) improved sintering processed B C/SiC, and (4)
ultra–fine grain ceramic matrix composite materials. By FY00, complete feasibility study of fabrication technologies for
four classes of materials. By FY01, develop fabrication procedures for four classes of materials. By FY02, initiate
fabrication and characterization of selected materials including ballistic performance of the four classes of materials. By
FY03, complete characterization of materials and develop guidelines for optimizing fabrication processes. By FY04,
scale up fabrication processes for production and determine optimal applications.
Supports: Protect the Force, Dominate Maneuver, Future Armored Combat Vehicles.

Shun-Chin Chou Catherine Kominos Charles Campbell

ARL-WMR SARD-TP MBS BL
(410) 306-0778 (703) 697-3558 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 458-0778 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 464-1963

Section Q. Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology
MEDICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (Section Q)
IV.Q.02—Field Wake/Rest Discipline in Sustained and Continuous Operations. The physical and cognitive demands
of operational missions interact with limited and fragmented opportunities for rest and sleep. The concept of water
discipline emerged from an understanding that there is no alternative to adequate water intake for optimal performance;
the same concept holds true for sleep discipline. Systematic sleep and rest, consistent with the demands of the
OPTEMPO, must be provided to maintain performance quality and sustainability. This research will develop and
demonstrate effective means for counteracting the effects of inadequate restorative sleep and rest on military
performance. By FY98, develop and validate animal and human laboratory models and test methods to identify and
screen the safety and efficacy of sleep and vigilance enhancing compounds in a military setting. By FY98, incorporate
human laboratory database derived models of the effects of sleep deprivation on performance in Louisiana Maneuvers
Continuous Operations simulations. By FY99, develop a continuous operations simulation to demonstrate and refine
the Sleep–Induction/Rapid Reawakening and stimulant components of the Sleep Management System (SMS). By
FY99, develop and demonstrate a rapid, reliable, and inexpensive means for assessing a soldier’s level of mental fatigue
and alertness, transitioning to development the wrist–worn sleep/activity monitor with integrated microprocessor
system.

(301) 619–7301 (703) 695–8443 (405) 442–5647
DSN: 343–7301 DSN: 225–8443 DSN: 639–5647
IV.Q.03—Performance Limits Models. Warfighting thermal performance status is characterized in this STO using
multidimensional advances employing USARIEM’s state–of–the–art thermal models and mannequin systems, which
make available quantitative assessment of heat and vapor transfer properties of clothing and individual protective
systems. The information offered by such efforts generate a complete set of tools for implementing physiological
thermal predictive control strategies useful over wide thermal and high terrestrial environments. The specific goals are
to: (1) biophysically quantify, on both healthy and physically stressed soldiers, the impact of protective clothing and
other systems such as handwear, footwear, and high technology fiber material needed for operations in harsh
environments; (2) develop and validate operational and thermoregulatory models to predict performance using
integrated schemes employing new concepts and materials such as microclimate cooling, enhanced chemical protective
clothing and cold weather clothing systems; and (3) exploit the broad spatial coverage of weather satellite data resources
to provide environmental inputs to thermal strain prediction models and incorporate recent advances in satellite data
collection and image processing technologies needed for the Warfighter. By FY96, develop and validate a microclimate
cooling model for concept support of the 21st Century Land Warrior, and develop and validate models to predict

performance degradation and injury due to cold–air exposure. By FY97, develop a statistical model of rifle
marksmanship as affected by environmental (heat and cold) and operational stressors (fatigue and food/water
deprivation). By FY 98, complete the integration of real–time satellite–derived weather data into thermal strain decision
aids for battlefield commanders.

MRMC SARD-TM CSS-BL
(301) 619-7301 (703) 695-8443 (405) 442-5647
DSN: 343-7301 DSN: 225-8443 DSN: 639-5647
IV.Q.09—Biomechanics for Improved Footwear. By the end of FY97, develop a prototype combat boot embodying
materials, design, construction fabrication techniques, and other features to enhance the biomechanical efficiency of the
wearer. By the end of FY99, demonstrate a 10–15 percent reduction in the probability of occurrence of stress–related,
lower extremity disorders among ground troops wearing the new combat boots.
Supports: U.S. Marine Corps, Advanced Development–RJS1/63747/D669–Clothing and Equipment, Engineering

Development–RJS1/64713/DL40–Clothing and Equipment; DBS Battle Lab.

Carolyn Bensel Bill Brower Chris Kearns
NRDEC SARDA-TT DBL
(508) 233-4780 (703) 697-8432 (706) 545-6391
DSN: 256-4780 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 835-6391
IV.Q.11—Helicopter Crewmember Sustainment and Performance. By FY97, reduce performance decrements by 25

percent in aircrews following deployment across time zones and during night operations by demonstrating the efficacy
of melatonin in operational units and by developing a software package to optimize crew rest strategies. By FY98,
identify CM to optimize aircrew endurance and protection during sustained rotary–wing flight operations, including
criteria for better helmet design to prevent fatigue from head–supported mass, hearing augmentation to overcome
cockpit noise, criteria for the Aircrew Uniform Integrated Battlefield (AUIB) to prevent dehydration and heat stress,
and determination of criteria for seats that prevent back pain and are crashworthy in vertical descents. By FY98,
complete implementation of findings from the Aviator Epidemiological Data Registry (AEDR) to optimize medical
screening and retention criteria for Army aviators. FY99, reduce low visibility accidents by as much as 50 percent with
CM to Army–unique spatial disorientation problems encountered during night and reduced visibility flight.
Supports: Medical CM to aviator fatigue performance degradation; Program Apache, Program Manager Comanche,
Program Manager Aviation Life Support Equipment, Aviation Center and School; Conduct Precision Strikes: enhance
soldier imaging capabilities without spatial disorientation.


MRMC SARD-TM CSS-BL
(301) 619-7301 (703) 695-8443 (405) 442-5647
DSN: 343-7301 DSN: 225-8443 DSN: 639-5647
IV.Q.12—Warfighter Readiness and Sustainability Assessment. Warfighter Physiological Status Monitoring.

Commanders are concerned with detailed intelligence on enemy forces and are usually well informed of the status of
their own materiel; however, they lack tools to access basic information on the physiological readiness of their own
soldiers. In the fog of war, it is especially difficult to rapidly assess available human assets. A family of physiological
sensors will be developed into a research tool kit needed to gather useful data on soldier status. These data, organized
and reduced through a system of knowledge management, will be used to iteratively refine predictive models, and to
guide the development of a wear–and–forget, soldier–acceptable Warfighter Status Monitor (WSM). Information
commanders want to have about predicted and current status of soldiers will be provided. The communication and
computation platform for the WSM will be the DARPA–developed Personnel Status Monitor (PSM), or its equivalent.
All systems will be coordinated with soldier systems command to assure compatibility with 21st Century Land Warrior
and follow–on programs. By FY98, a miniaturized accelerometry system will provide a personal assessment of
cumulative sleep deficit and predicted level of psychophysiological performance. By FY 98, the MERCURY model
system of environmental hazards will be complete, predicting soldier performance in specific real–time locations. By
FY99, a sensor suite consisting of technologies such as accelerometry, ausculation, spectroscopy, electrical impedance,
and force and temperature sensing technologies will be connected through a wireless body local area network (LAN)
system, with remote passive data interrogation capabilities. By FY01, a knowledge management system will be
developed to reduce information obtained through the WSM system and predictive performance and health risk
models to provide essential information that commanders want to have. By FY03, enabling technologies will provided
additional sensors for special environments, such as bioelectronic toxic hazard sensors, to detect imminent
physiological threats in the immediate environment, as well as minute embedded sensors that will bring automation and
reliability to physiological sensing.

Dr. Fred Hegge LTC Bill Pratt Chris Kearns
MRMC SARD-TM DBL
(301) 619-7301 (703) 695-8443 (706) 545-6391
DSN: 343-7301 DSN: 225-8443 DSN: 835-6391
IV.Q.13—Prevention of Heat Injuries. Assurance of U.S. Army capability to operate in hot environments lies at the
heart of the Force Projection concept now guiding strategic planning. This program establishes the scientific foundation
for Army doctrinal development governing operations in thermal extremes and identifies and refines effective strategies
to sustain health and performance following rapid deployment to environmentally challenging operational settings.
This research will demonstrate the efficacy of strategies to sustain and enhance performance and to prevent and treat
thermal illnesses. By FY98, develop and implement new cellular, organ, and animal models to assess mechanisms of
thermal injury. By FY98, determine if antilipopolysaccharide is a key protective factor that explains the lower

susceptibility of female, compared to male, Marine recruits to exertional heat illness. By FY99, develop acclimatization
strategies using heat shock protein–70 as a biomarker of heat tolerance to improve immediate heat tolerance and
accelerate heat acclimation. Determine effect of estrogen supplementation on heat acclimatization in servicewomen. By
FY00, develop strategies for 21CLW ATD to modify skim blood flow to maximize the effectiveness of microclimate
cooling and heating. By FY01, determine the feasibility of immunoprophylaxis in preventing thermal injury.
Supports: Supports medical CM to environmental threats, PM soldier, and AR 40–10. Supports the Army
Modernization Plan objectives to Project, Sustain and Protect the Force – prevent and minimize environmental injury.

MRMC SARD-TM CSS-BL
(301) 619-7301 (703) 695-8443 (405) 442-5647
DSN: 343-7301 DSN: 225-8443 DSN: 639-5647
IV.Q.14—Optimization of Physical Performance. This research will lead to the optimization of training programs to
reduce injury of physically mismatched individuals to military tasks and to maximize physical readiness through
nonmateriel ("skin–in") solution. By FY98, establish a database of energy requirements and activity patterns for men
and women in a variety of military jobs to predict and plan for voluntary energy requirements. Demonstrate a reduction
in training injuries through improved physical training programs during basic training.. Develop physical training
strategies and alternatives to prevent stress fractures in susceptible individuals. By FY99, establish medical criteria to
optimize efficiency and ensure safety of individual soldier equipment (combat boots, body armor, load carriage
systems) for use by the equipment developers. Develop state–of–the–art scientifically based training programs to
improve performance of elite units, for special occupational requirements, and to increase opportunities for all soldiers
in jobs with specific physical standards. By FY00, identify biochemical mechanisms and functional consequences of the
effects of sudden increases in physical training volume and prolonged physical exertion (overtraining) for soldiers.
Identify high–risk–for– injury groups using existing outcome data. By FY01 develop strategies involving antioxidants,
ergogenic aids, and physical training techniques to counter reductions in physical capacity produced by overtraining.
By FY02, develop strategies including training and other fitness and nutrition habits to optimize bone mineral accretion
in young women to reduce stress fracture, and later osteoporosis.

MRMC SARD-TM CSS-BL
(301) 619-7301 (703) 695-8443 (405) 442-5647
DSN: 343-7301 DSN: 225-8443 DSN: 639-5647
IV.Q.15—Laser Bioeffects and Treatment. No single factor is more certain to compromise soldier effectiveness than
the knowledge of battlefield threats against which there are no proven medical CM. No organ is more vulnerable to the
directed energy of laser than the unprotected eye, and blindness, temporary or permanent, can occur in an instant and

without warning. Medical research has demonstrated that not all forms of laser energy are equally harmful to the eye;
thus, system developers can be guided away from harmful frequency/power mixes by medical exposure standards based
on new research, which do not needlessly deny developers options to raise power levels or exploit frequencies that pose
less threat. Understanding of the bioeffects must be translated into effective field treatment interventions. By FY97,
demonstrate efficacy of early phase antiinflammatory therapy in nonhuman primate model for treatment of laser retinal
trauma, and identify other early phase treatment candidates. By FY97, determine hazards of fast optical switch for tank
sights and establish analytical methods for prediction of the degree of ocular protection. By FY97, refine eye tracker
model to simulate laser injury and correlate performance with human laser accident case results. By FY98, resolve
discrepancies in bioeffects database for subnanosecond exposures and update hazards assessment and exposure limits
based on operational performance criteria. By FY98, determine bioeffects of broadband diodes used in advanced
military display systems. By FY98, develop high resolution ophthalmoscopic imaging technology for use in telemedical
assessment of laser eye injuries, and provide laser injury database for inclusion in smart far–forward medical
information systems. By FY98, establish performance–based models characterizing levels of visual impairment pertinent
to battlefield laser injury. By FY99, develop and test field therapy kits for laser retinal injury. By FY99, develop in vivo
photoreceptor imaging in primate models to enhance assessment of laser retinal injury and repair mechanisms. By
FY00, refine operational exposure limits. By FY02, refine methodologies to assess and treat laser retinal injuries. By
FY02, convolve high resolution retinal imaging technology with photoreceptor transplant technology to evaluate
autologous photoreceptor transplant methodology. By FY02, begin evaluation of electronic retinal implants for
treatment of laser scotoma.

MRMC SARD-TM CSS-BL
(301) 619-7301 (703) 695-8443 (405) 442-5647
DSN: 343-7301 DSN: 225-8443 DSN: 639-5647
IV.Q.16p—Deployable Exposure Assessment System for Environmental Contaminants. This research is being
conducted to protect soldiers deploying into environments contaminated with industrial and agricultural chemical
wastes that pose either short–term threats to military performance or long–term threats to health such as may have been
encountered from chemical mixture exposures during the Persian Gulf War. By FY98, demonstrate application of
alternate toxicity test system (nonmammalian bioassay) to rapidly screen water supplies for toxicants such as
disinfectant byproducts. By FY99, demonstrate the feasibility of near–real–time biological sentinel technologies for
onsite assessment of health hazards from environmental contaminants, including heavy metals, industrial solvents,
arsenicals, and cyanide. Validate a comprehensive neurobehavioral toxicity test battery that will be used to identify
molecular endpoints associated with performance deficits and neurological pathology from exposure to complex
chemical mixtures. By FY00, develop protocols and procedures for simple, nonmechanical exposure and hazard
assessment of selected environmental contaminants in air, water, and soil. Identify key bimolecular markers of
neurobehavioral toxicity and develop prototype physiologically based model (pharmacodynamic) of bimolecular
events leading to performance deficits. By FY02, develop prototype neuromolecular toxicity assessment system that
models (pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic) outcomes of environmental toxicants on the central nervous system.
Supports: 21st Century Land Warrior; Warfighter Personal Status Monitoring technologies and ensembles; Chemical/
Biological threat agent detection systems.


MRMC SARD-TM CSS-BL
(301) 619-7301 (703) 695-8443 (405) 442-5647
DSN: 343-7301 DSN: 225-8443 DSN: 639-5647

Section R. Sensors
SENSORS (Section R)
IV.R.02—Photonic Signal Processing Technology. By FY96, demonstrate broad bandwidth, wide dynamic range
(20–30 dB) two–dimensional (2D) devices and processors with appropriate algorithms for detection and identification
of signals. By FY98 demonstrate a photonic processor with appropriate algorithms for detection and identification of
signals. By FY99, demonstrate a 2D optical processor capable of running real time signal and image processing
algorithms on data from imaging sensors such as Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) or Electro–optical (EO) images that
requires significantly less power than conventional digital processors.
Supports: ATR and SAR applications; Electronic Support Measures testbed.

Dr. Z.G. Sztankay Catherine Kominos Tom Mims
ARL-SED SARD-TP BC-BL
(301) 394-3131 (703) 697-3558 (706) 791-2800
DSN: 290-3131 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 780-2800
IV.R.06—Real Aperture Target Discrimination. Develop innovative technologies to detect, discriminate and classify
stationary targets with a real beam radar. In FY95, completed conversion of primary clutter database to match Longbow
resolution. In FY96, completed real beam radar algorithm training in geographically and seasonally diverse
environments. By FY98, develop and demonstrate target/clutter discrimination techniques and algorithms that increase
probability of target detection in these diverse environments. Provide quantitative assessment using a Longbow
equivalent dataset as to the improvement of the existing capability. The algorithm suite will be capable of autonomous
adaptation to various clutter backgrounds. Performance capabilities will be demonstrated using a Longbow equivalent
dataset. By FY99, develop more effective classification of tactical vehicles using a two–fold approach: (1) Improve
underlying fidelity of target signatures using super–resolution techniques and (2) apply data compression technique
such as a wavelet–based approach to vehicle template storage for efficiently cataloging additional signatures.
Supports: Apache Longbow, Comanche, Mounted Battle Space Battle Lab, Target Acquisition ATD.

Jeffrey Sichina Catherine Kominos Charles Campbell
ARL-SED SARD-TP MBS BL
(301) 394-2530 (703) 697-3558 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 290-2530 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 464-1963
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a2r.htm（第 1／8 页）2006-09-10 23:14:51

Section R. Sensors
IV.R.07—Acoustic Tracking and Identification on the Battlefield. Demonstrate the ability to detect, track, and identify
targets from their acoustic signatures in the battlefield environment. This program will develop basic tools for acoustic
algorithm development and evaluation and demonstrate real time tracking and identification of vehicles. In FY95, a
testbed will be delivered to evaluate algorithms and a consolidated database of acoustic signatures will be created. In
FY97, a laboratory capability to quickly analyze acoustic data and facilitate generation of acoustic algorithms will be
delivered and real time tracking and identification of targets will be demonstrated. In FY98, the real time tracking and
identification will be expanded to include a broader base of targets. In FY99, the capability to track large numbers of
targets as a group will be demonstrated.
Supports: RFPI, including Remote Sentry, Intelligent Minefield, Scout Sensor Suite; DIA, including Unattended
Measurement And Signature INTelligent (MASINT) sensors.

John Eicke Catherine Kominos Charles Campbell
ARL-SED SARD-TP MBS BL
(301) 394-2620 (703) 697-3558 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 290-2620 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 464-1963
IV.R.08—Battlefield Acoustic Sensors. By FY00, this STO will demonstrate an environmental sensor to be used as a
decision tool to optimize the deployment of acoustic sensors in various propagation conditions. In FY97, initiate the
development of acoustic sensor modeling tools to be used to simulate and predict acoustic sensor performance in
various propagation environments, engagement scenarios, and translate user requirements to acoustic sensor design
parameters. In FY98, verify performance of acoustic sensor model against target acoustic signatures in specific
propagation environments, and initiate development of sensor emplacement algorithms based on environmental sensor
measurement data. In FY99, develop prototype environmental characterization, propagation prediction, and artificial
intelligence rule–based sensor deployment algorithms, and initiate integration of environmental sensors (e.g.
temperature and wind) with an acoustic sensor package. In FY00 demonstrate capability of environmental sensors
integrated with an acoustic sensor as a decision tool to assist battlefield commanders for optimal deployment of acoustic
sensor systems in various propagation conditions and engagement scenarios.
Supports: WAM PIP, IMF, RFPI ACTD, Hunter Sensor ATD, Transitions to WAM PIP and IMF.

Jeffrey R. Heberley John Appel CPT Scott O’Neil
ARDEC SARDA-TT Ft. Benning, Dismounted BL
(201) 724-6255 (703) 697-8432 (706) 545-6382
DSN: 880-6255 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 835-6392

Section R. Sensors
IV.R.12—Monolithic Integrated Devices for Multidomain Sensors. The Scientific and Technology Objective is to
develop an enabling technology for future infrared sensor upgrades beyond 2nd generation FLIR. These upgrades
include active/passive interrogation, multispectral detection, and increased local processing in a single FLIR unit. The
enabling technology will be demonstrated by the growth of electro–optic devices directly on silicon. The specific
objectives are: In FY96, demonstrate a significant reduction in defect density for growth of CdZnTe and GaAs on
silicon (to around 105/cm2) utilizing a recently developed molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) growth technique already
demonstrated for CdTe on GaAs. In FY97, demonstrate bulk quality CdZnTe grown on silicon and fabricate a test
HgCdTe array on silicon in FY98. In FY99, demonstrate high quality electro–optic devices monolithically integrated
with silicon electronic devices.
Supports: Future battlespace visualization involving Army thermal imaging systems in tanks, helicopters, missiles, and
autonomous scout vehicles, Mounted Battlespace Battle Lab.

William Clark III Catherine Kominos Charles Campbell
ARL-SD SARD-TP MBS BL
(703) 704-2039 (703) 697-3558 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 654-2039 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 464-1963
IV.R.13—Advanced Focal Plane Array (FPA) Technology. This STO builds on the Smart FPA STO IV.R.01 to
develop and mature components for a more advanced generation of IR imaging sensors that take advantage of
advanced large staring focal plane arrays that allow smart temporal and multispectral signal processing. Technology will
be developed to provide affordable TV quality imagers in the 3–5mm and 8–12mm bands, including practical
nonuniformity correction. By FY97, provide an evaluation of the practicality and affordability of large single spectrum
staring/scanning arrays along with validated staring array performance models and complete evaluations and tradeoffs
between the 3–5 and 8–12 micron spectral bands to support design of the Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite. By FY99,
demonstrate multispectral sensing and partition smart functions between on– and off–focal plane processing. By FY00,
integrate multispectral smart sensing with staring FPAs for enhanced soldier vision. By FY01, demonstrate large focal
plane, hyperspectral smart sensing with feedback control from weapon system processor to optimize automated target
acquisition. These objectives are obtained by integrating multispectral/hyperspectral FPAs with smart
read–out–integrated–circuits (ROICs), innovative micro–optics and adaptive micro/nano electronics into tactical
dewars.
Supports: Mounted Battlespace, Dismounted Battlespace, Depth & Simultaneous Attack, Early Entry Lethality, Battle
Command, Force XXI.

Stuart Horn Rob Saunders Charles Campbell
CERDEC NVESD SARD-TT MBS BL
(703) 704-2025 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 654-2025 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-1963

Section R. Sensors
IV.R.14—Multiwavelength, Multifunction Laser. Develop and demonstrate high efficiency, compact, laser diode
pumped, wavelength diverse laser source in the 0.26–12 micron spectral region for multifunctional applications. By
FY96, develop moderate (up to 1 KHz) repetition rate laser module with multiple mode operation. By FY97,
demonstrate modules in lab with multiple wavelength outputs from 0.26–12 microns for CM ( mid IR, far IR), obstacle
avoidance, biological agent detection, rangefinding, enhanced target recognition, and laser radar for integration with
vehicle target acquisition sensors. By FY99, complete development of multiwavelength multifunction modules and
demonstrate commonality approach to multifunction and multiapplication laser source.
Supports: Dismounted Battlespace, Mounted Battlespace, Depth & Simultaneous Attack, Battle Command, Early Entry
Lethality & Survivability

Ward Trussel Rob Saunders Tom Mims
CERDEC/NVESD SARD-TT BC-BL
(703) 704-1355 (703) 697-8432 (706) 791-2800
DSN: 654-1355 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 780-2800
IV.R.15—Solid–State Near–Infrared Sensors. Develop a low cost, lightweight, low light level, exclusively solid state
sensor with smart readout chip to provide a digital output and become an integral part of the future Digital Battlefield.
This technology will rovide affordable, high resolution sensors for reflected light in the 0.4–1.8 micron wavelength
region for systems supporting airborne, combat vehicle, and light infantry missions. This sensor technology will be
immune to bright light "flashouts" and require no vacuum tube technology. These sensors will have high resolution and
sensitivity to detect sniper fire, detect targets through conventional camouflage, detect laser rangefinders/designators,
and detect stressed vegetation. By FY99, develop a low cost solid state near IR camera that demonstrates comparable
sensitivity to present 12 tubes and can be transitioned as an HTI for all future vision devices. By FY00, develop a large
format near IR solid state focal plane array that can be used for sniper scope applications and pick out targets in
camouflage at long ranges. By FY01, demonstrate a near IR sensor for lightweight goggle applications.
Supports: Objective Sniper Weapon, OICW/OCSW Upgrades, Future Multispectral Goggles, Future Driving Devices,
Special Operations

Phil Perconti Rob Saunders Chris Kearns
CERDEC/NVESD SARD-TT DBL
(703) 704-1369 (703) 697-8432 (706) 545-6391
DSN: 654-1369 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 835-6391
IV.R.16—Advanced Signature Management and Deception. Demonstrate technologies that enable development of

Section R. Sensors
signature management (SMS) and deception systems that deny acquisition of friendly force assets from threat sensors.
Demonstrations will be supported by signature characterization, modeling and simulation conducted under the
Integrated Sensor Modeling and Simulation effort. These SMS/deception systems provide mobile and semimobile
assets with low cost, low operational burden survivability upgrades addressing detection avoidance in global battlefield
conditions. By FY99, develop reactive IR suppressive coatings/appliqu閟/structures to reduce vehicle and solar loading
signatures over an extended period of a diurnal cycle and in varying backgrounds. Complete feasibility study for
battlefield deception technologies. By FY00, develop a hybrid SMS to reduce the detection range of tactical, mine
warfare, and fire support vehicles by 50% and an ULCANS screen that significantly reduces the signature of general
purpose platforms in a desert/urban environment. By FY01, demonstrate synergistic coupling of physical and virtual
decoys with passive and active signature management to improve survivability of combat and combat support units. By
FY02, develop a multispectral SMS and deception system, operating in the radar, infrared, and visual spectrums, for
tactical, mine warfare, fire support, and combat vehicles.
Supports: ULCANS P3I, Multispectral Camouflage System, Light/Medium Tactical Vehicles, LRAS3, Abrams, Bradley,
Crusader, Ground Based Sensor, THAAD, Aviation Systems, BIDS, SICIPS.

Grayson Walker Rob Saunders Charles Campbell
(703) 704-2594 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 654-2594 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-1963
IV.R.17—Integrated Sensor Modeling and Simulation. Advance the state–of–the–art in synergistic modeling and
prototyping capabilities to permit end–to–end predictive modeling and hardware tradeoffs for performance evaluation
of new technologies in a virtual environment. Implementation will be supported by development of high resolution,
3–dimensional target, background, and clutter object databases that scale from dismounted infantry to airborne
applications. Features will also include realistic portrayal of advanced sensors such as 3rd generation FLIRs, acoustics
and radars, aided, automatic and fused sensor usage, low observable signature management techniques, and mine
targets. Linked or inserted into operational simulations, this technology will allow warfighters to test new capabilities,
develop tactics and techniques, evaluate operational effectiveness, plan missions and train in parallel with the hardware
development process. By FY99, develop real–time multispectral (0.4 to 14 microns) capability for insertion into
wargame simulations. By FY00, develop and integrate SAR and MMW capability for insertion into wargame
simulations. By FY01, validate multispectral portrayal for search and target acquisition simulations and implementation
for driving and pilotage simulations.
Supports: Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite, Masked Targeting, Mine Hunter/Killer, Battlefield Visualization ACTD,
MOUT ACTD, CATT, COFT, AGTS, FMBT, FIV, FSV.

Section R. Sensors
Luanne Obert Rob Saunders Charles Campbell

(703) 704-1754 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-1963
DSN: 654-1754 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-1963
IV.R.18—Micro–Eyesafe Solid–State Laser Sources. Low cost, lightweight lasers will benefit the warfighter for multiple
applications, including micro rangefinders, combat ID systems, training, and target pointers for individual soldiers as
well as compact devices for IRCM and munitions. The development of "micro," low cost laser devices will complement
the larger multifunction lasers (STO IV.R.14) under development for mounted applications. Recent improvements in
nonlinear materials and laser diodes have made it feasible to develop microlaser devices that can produce wavelengths
from the UV to the far infrared to meet the requirements for precision weapons, lightweight mid IR/far IR sources for
IRCM, and Laser Radar for munitions. Examples of lasers to be developed are high peak power, eyesafe, laser diodes;
micro diode pumped lasers shifted with PPLN OPOs and far IR semiconductor laser sources. By FY00, demonstrate
candidate low cost laser devices and characterize performance. By FY01, develop candidate devices in ultra compact
form for applications. By FY02, demonstrate sensors and systems based on the laser devices and evaluate performance.
Supports: Dismounted Battlespace, Mounted Battlespace, PM–AEC, PM–EW/RSTA.

Ward Trussel Rob Saunders (TBD)
CERDEC/NVESD SARD-TT
(703) 704-1355 (703) 697-8432
DSN: 654-1355 DSN: 227-8432
IV.R.19—Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) for Multiple Electro–Optic/Infrared Sensors (MEIRS). The goal of
this effort is to design a multisensor target recognition capability that will increase the operational performance of
existing passive electro–optic/infrared (EO/IR) target acquisition systems by combining imagery from multiple EO/IR
sensors. Work will be completed in conjunction with Multiple Domain Smart Sensor (MDSS) program to perform
sensor tradeoff studies to predict ATR system performance. Specific performance goals include enhanced probability of
detection and identification (Pd = 90%; PI =90% on a 6 target class), reduced false alarm rates ( 0.2 FA per square
degree), greater target standoff range (>4 km) and extend battlefield conditions (Concealment, Camouflage, and
Deception, heavy clutter, obscuration). By FY98 complete FLIR single band and LADAR single sensor tradeoff study
and initiate multisensor ATR algorithm design. By FY99 complete multisensor algorithm design and multisensor
algorithm implementation. By FY00, complete, test, and evaluate ATR algorithms for delivery to NVESD. This effort
will benefit the Army by providing predictions of ATR performance as a function of sensor parameters, thereby
fostering better design of systems.
Supports: Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite ATD, MRDEC, NVESD

Section R. Sensors
Teresa Kipp Catherine Kominos MAJ Morris Minchew

AMSRL-SED SARD-TP Depth & Simultaneous Attack Battle
(301) 394-0804 (703) 697-3558 Lab
DSN: 290-0804 DSN: 227-3558 (405) 422-2928
DSN: 639-2928
IV.R.20—Low–Cost Electronically Scanned Antennas (ESAs). The goal of this effort is to develop and demonstrate a
set of cost effective technologies for ESAs that can be used for multiple Army platforms and applications. An advantage
of ESA technology in a cost effective package is the ability to control an aperture beam quickly. This will enable
multimode operations where radar surveillance, target acquisition, fire control, combat identification, ELINT, and
communications are performed within one integrated system. By FY98 demonstrate a Ku band Rotman lens with
Vivaldi notch aperture and single beam switching matrix for technical performance. By FY99, characterize Ka band
Rotman lens with a 34 element linear horn array for <3 degree azimuth beam width. By FY00, evaluate and select a
switch technology for multibeam generation capability. A crossbar switch will be built. By FY01 demonstrate low cost,
crossbar beam switching architectures (e.g., Microelectromechanical Switches (MEMs)) for multibeam demonstration
with Ku band Rotman lens. The uniqueness for this development effort is to have Simultaneous Multimode and
enhanced radar system performance with increased lethality and survivability of Army assets.
Supports: MTI Ground Radar (MGR), UAV Radar, LONGBOW, CERDEC.

Edward Burke Catherine Kominos MAJ Morris Minchew
ARL-SED SARD-TP Depth & Simultaneous Attack Battle
(301) 394-4375 (703) 697-3558 Lab
DSN: 290-4375 DSN: 227-3558 (405) 422-2928
DSN: 639-2928
IV.R.21—Hybrid Optical Processing for Imagery Analysis. This effort will explore technologies for enhancing onboard
processing capabilities of missiles and UAVs, allowing improvements in precision and range without operator
intervention. The Hybrid Optical Processor demonstration will focus on the implementation of a near–real–time
processor for both Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and Multispectral/Hyperspectral Imagery (MSI/HSI). By FY99,
modify existing hardware and software for operation in both spectral and spatial modes. By FY00, evaluate and select
"smart" filter methodologies and identify the issues in both real and synthetic imagery utilized in filter calculations.
Incorporate enhancements into an optical processor system for testing. By FY01, test and demonstrate the ability to
process SAR with 1–20% improvement in target detection and false alarm rates while improving MSI/HIS processing
rates an order of magnitude.
Supports: Enhanced Tactical Radar Correlator (ETRAC), UAV.

Section R. Sensors
Wayne Davenport Irena Szkrybalo (None)

MICOM RDEC SARD-TT
(205) 876-8183 (703) 697-8432
DSN: 746-8183 DSN: 227-8432

Section S. Ground Vehicles
GROUND VEHICLES (Section S)
IV.S.01—Advanced Protection and Protection Design Technology. In FY94, completed and documented the
Protection Areal density design methodology for hard–faced armors to achieve 25 percent reduction in amount of
testing required to define a minimum weight armor design. [TACOM] In FY94, conducted a feasibility demonstration
of an armor technology achieving weight savings by using electromagnetic defeat mechanisms. [TACOM funded, ARL
(WTD) execution] In FY95, demonstrated an armor for medium weight combat vehicles that defeats the medium
caliber KE threat. In FY96, enhanced this armor to include CE threats. In FY96, demonstrated an armor to defeat future
top attack threats. In FY97, select technology options for future frontal armor demonstration, and develop framework
for armor virtual prototyping system. In FY98, demonstrate sensor configurations for smart frontal armor components,
and implement fracture mechanics models in armor development codes. By FY99, demonstrate armor penetration
modeling capability including 3D effects, material strength, and fracture mechanics that will provide 25 percent
reduction in test costs for design of armors against CE jets, and heavy metal KE penetrators. [TACOM funded, ARL
(WTD) execution, DARPA technology contribution]. By FY99, demonstrate a frontal armor system capable of
defeating all tank gun launched threats at 65 percent of the weight of current Abrams armor. [TACOM funded, ARL
(WTD, MD) technology execution, TACOM integration analysis]
Supports: Crusader, FCS, Abrams and Bradley Upgrades.

James Thompson John Appel MAJ Steve Walker
TARDEC SARDA-TT Armor Center, DFD
(810) 574-5780 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-8802
DSN: 786-5780 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-8802
IV.S.04—Inertial Reticle Technology (IRT). By FY98, demonstrate an inertial reticle fire control system (IRT) that can
be used for the control of weapon systems on a variety of platforms: HMMWV, AGS, BFV, helicopters and unmanned
ground vehicles. The primary focus will be the development of a semiautomated weapon station including (IRT) fire
control system and operator control unit integrated with a semiautomatic weapon on a simple pan and tilt platform.
This program uses sensor technology to create a virtually stabilized weapon platform that permits automatic tracking of
targets, improves weapon control and reduces crew exposure to hostile environments. Intermediate developmental
steps include incorporation of the (IRT) into a semiautonomous weapons station on a manned platform during FY96,
subsequent integration of target tracking, image stabilization and target cueing in FY97, and culminating in integration
and demonstration on a variety of platforms in FY98. Application of the (IRT) fire control system to direct fire weapons
will improve their accuracy when fired OTM to the level of that while stationary. The (IRT) fire control system will
improve Army warfighting capabilities through increased weapons lethality and improved crew survivability.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a2s.htm（第 1／5 页）2006-09-10 23:15:03

Supports: ARDEC, TARDEC, CERDEC, Dismounted Battlespace Battle Lab, Mounted Battlespace Battle Lab.

B. T. Haug Catherine Kominos Chris Kearns
ARL-WMRD SARD-TP DBL
(410) 278-6518 (703) 697-3558 (706) 545-6391
DSN: 298-6518 DSN: 227-3558 DSN: 835-6391
IV.S.05—Virtual Prototyping Integrated Infrastructure. By FY99, demonstrate a reduction of the time and cost of
combat vehicle development versus traditional physical development methods by a minimum of 30%. Integrate
mobility survivability, electronics, command & control, lethality and manufacturing models and simulations into a
seamless architecture. Provide for user and designer virtual interaction with vehicle designs and representations. By
FY96, design the information kernel and functional area. By FY97, incorporate detailed design and implementation of
the information kernel and selected functional interfaces. By FY99, complete evaluation of the time and cost, testing,
and major design efficiency improvements.
Supports: FSCS, FCS, FIV, Crusader, Abrams & Bradley upgrades and tactical vehicle fleet improvements, TRADOC
ICTs.

Arthur Adlam John Appel A. Winkenhofer
TARDEC SARDA-TT USAARMC
(810) 574-8882 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-8064
DSN: 786-8882 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-8064
IV.S.06—Detection Avoidance for Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD. By FY00, demonstrate integrated
survivability components with reduced signature for the Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD. Ballistic,
electronic warfare, and active protection components will be signature managed utilizing technologies from current
vehicle and material development programs. Original protection levels will be maintained or improved by exploiting
synergistic design techniques. By FY97, complete an initial study to determine the optimized suite for FSCS ATD and
demonstrate signature suppressed grills with a goal of 50% signature reduction. By FY98, optimize warning receiver
components to reduce signature by 25% and improve ballistic performance by 25%. By FY99 demonstrate side ballistic
panels with a goal of 50% reduction in detectability that would be applicable to the FSCS ATD. By FY00 demonstrate
side ballistic panels with a goal of 75% in detectability and 25% reduction in aerial density that would be applicable to
the FSCS ATD.
Supports: FSCS, FIV.

David Thomas John Appel MAJ Paul Begeman

TARDEC SARDA-TT Armor Center, DFD
(810) 574-8911 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-8994
DSN: 786-8911 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-8994
IV.S.07—Laser Protection for Ground Vehicle Vision Systems. By mid FY99 demonstrate retrofittable wide angle
optical viewing system design that can incorporate limiting of dispersive materials. These new optical systems could
replace the current vision blocks and periscopes found in ground vehicles and allow the soldier to view the battlefield
while protected from eye damaging laser energy, including frequency agile laser weapons.
Supports: Abrams, M113, and Bradley Upgrades, Crusader, FCS, FIV, FSCS ATD, Land Warrior.

Templeton Pease John Appel Martin Bosemer
TARDEC/NRDEC SARDA-TT Armor Center, DFD
(810) 574-5325 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-2045
DSN: 786-5325/256-5546 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-2045
IV.S.08—Tank Mobility Technology. By FY03, demonstrate critical track and suspension technologies for a lighter,
more agile main battle tank or tank replacement. Track improvements will include nitrile rubber pads and an actively
controlled track tension system. Nitrile rubber will increase track pad life from 1000 to 3,000 miles and increase fuel
economy and track bushing life. These mobility advances will enhance system survivability, reliability, and operational
effectiveness. This effort also includes the early technology development of an FCS propulsion system. In addition to
conceptual analysis, work will focus on high power density, low heat rejection single cylinder diesel engine technology.
This STO will also support electric drive development for an FCS size vehicle through the development by Army
Research Laboratory (ARL) of high temperature SiC gate drivers and power devices. By FY01, demonstrate SiC based
inverters operating at 400_C using existing engine oil (200_C) as a cooling fluid. This technology is critical to achieving
acceptable power densities in electric drives. By FY98, determine active suspension requirements. By FY99 demonstrate
track tensioner. By FY00, demonstrate nitrile track. By FY01, complete single unit active suspension lab testing.
Supports: FCS.

Dan Herrera John Appel MAJ Monroe Harden
TARDEC SARDA-TT Armor Center DFD
(810)574-6411 (703) 697-8432 (502)624-4412
DSN: 786-6411 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-4412

IV.S.09—Combat Vehicle Concepts and Analysis. By FY02, develop vehicle concepts for the Army’s next generation
of combat and combat support vehicles. Refine User requirements through the Integrated Concept Team (ICT)
process. Develop the vehicle alternatives for the formal Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) for Milestone I decisions.
Provide technologists with vehicle based technology and component guidance for weight, volume, and electrical
interfaces. By FY98, develop Future Scout & Combat System (FSCS) vehicle concepts with 25% increased crew
efficiency, 20% reduced vehicle silhouette, 10% increase in mobility, 20% increase in vehicle and crew survivability, and
500% increase in target detection rate. By FY99, determine optimal Future Combat System (FCS) lethality option that
will increase range by 50% with Pk/s of 1 and 80% increased loss exchange ratio. By FY99, develop Future Infantry
Vehicle (FIV) concepts that will: increase capacity to carry squad (from 7 to 9 soldiers, with full Land Warrior Gear),
decrease vehicle crew size by 33%, increase survivability by 33%, and improve mobility by 50%. By FY00, transfer FIV
designs and analyses to the FIV AOA and FIV virtual prototypes. By FY01, develop Future Combat System
requirements with 33% reduced gross vehicle weight and 25% reduced crew workload. By FY02, establish and address
emerging vehicle requirements and the needs of future ICTs for the Army After Next.
Supports: Integrated Concept Teams (ICTs), AOAs (formerly COEA), Mission Need Statements (MNS) and
Operational Requirements Documents (ORD) for future combat vehicles (FSCS, FIV, FCS, Scorpion, FC2V) and
upgrades (Bradley and Abrams).

Roger Halle John Appel Winkenhofer Smith
TARDEC SARDA-TT Armor Center/Infantry Center, DCD
(810) 574-5287 (703) 697-8432 (502) 624-8064
DSN: 786-5287 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-8064/835-1915
IV.S.10—Future Light Vehicle Ballistic Protection Technology. Demonstrate new armor systems designed to provide
vehicles in the 18–40 ton range protection against the future medium caliber cannon threat and also against light and
medium shaped charge threats, top attack weapons, and mines. The armor systems will be compatible with advanced
structural technology likely to be used in future light vehicles, will utilize advanced defeat mechanisms such as
electrodynamics, and will be designed to avoid adverse impacts on mission equipment and other survivability measures,
such as signature suppression. The technology will also apply to nonfrontal protection of future heavy systems, and
provide collateral benefits to protection of tactical vehicles. The demonstration will include base structure protection
and add–on appliqu閟 for additional protection. By the FY98, assess technology approaches (i.e., passive, reactive, and
electromagnetic). By the FY99, identify most promising concepts for electrodynamic defeat of the light vehicle threat.
By the FY 00, demonstrate armors for medium caliber KE threats with 50% greater space efficiency than the FY96 state
of the art. By the FY01, demonstrate armor systems with 30% improvement in weight efficiency over the FY96 state of
the art.
Supports: Future Scout and Cavalry System; Future Infantry Vehicle; Future Combat System; P3I for M113, M2/M3,
Crusader, Grizzly.

Thompson Morrison John Appel Bosemer LTC Smith

TARDEC/ARL-WMRD SARDA-TT Armor Center/Infantry Center (502)
(810)574-5780 (703) 697-8432 624-2045
DSN: 786-5780/298-6800 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 464-2045/835-1915

Infrastructure (Vol I, Ch VI), Section C. Distributed Interactive Simulation
INFRASTRUCTURE
(Vol. I, Ch. VI)
DISTRIBUTED INTERACTIVE SIMULATION (Section C)
VI.C.16—Soldier System Modeling (SSM). Develop an automated environment to enhance analytic capabilities and
promote rigorous soldier system cost/benefit analyses to quantify and evaluate equipment, operational policy, and
training within a system context. By FY95, SSM will integrate models and data into a framework to facilitate multiple
analytic functions with completion of the first generation system software for use in 21 CLW analyses. By FY96, provide
modeling, simulation and analysis supporting 21CLW field demonstration to quantify and maximize the viability/
capability of proposed systems. By FY97, integrate into the Computer Man Wound Ballistic Vulnerability Model the
methodologies to assess vulnerability across the full range of MOSs. Conduct analyses to define optimal survivability,
mobility and lethality concepts. By FY99, provide a distributed interactive simulation (DIS) compliant methodology to
assess the results of the soldier system demonstrations and to provide a basis for future COEAs.
Supports: Force XXI Land Warrior; DBS Battle Lab and Infantry School.

John O’Keefe Bill Brower Chris Kearns
NRDEC SARDA-TT DBL
(508) 233-4881 (703) 697-8432 (706) 545-6391
DSN: 256-4881 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 835-6391
VI.C.19—Individual Combat Simulation in the Synthetic Environment. This program provides and demonstrates
technologies for creating multisensory, real–time simulation that immerses the individual and allows for interaction in
three–dimensional geographical space. A multisite, distributed laboratory will be established that incorporates concepts
and principles consistent with the evolving DoD M&S High Level Architecture (HLA). The cost effectiveness of
networked virtual reality devices to immerse the individual into the synthetic environment will be determined. By FY96,
the requirements for a mobility platform for an individual combatant simulator will be established, based upon
empirical research using the Individual Soldier Mobility Simulator (ISMS). Software to interface the ISMS to synthetic
environments will be developed. Studies will be conducted and guidelines will be published for use by metabolic
platform developers. By FY97, the program will demonstrate an initial capability to provide individual combatant
mobility and interaction in the synthetic environment. By FY98, the program will provide a demonstrated capability to
fully immerse the live combatant in the synthetic environment, to include control of semiautomated forces through
voice and gesture recognition.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/a3.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:15:08

Supports: Force XXI Land Warrior Program, STOW, Combined Arms Tactical Trainers (CATT) Program, MOUT
ACTD, Small Unit Operations (SUO).

Gene Wiehagen Robert Rohde Diane Schuetze
STRICOM SARD-TR Battle Lab Integration and
(407) 384-3930 (703) 697-8432 Technology Directorate
DSN: 970-3930 DSN: 227-8432 (804) 727-3712
DSN: 680-3712
VI.C.20—Computer Generated Forces (CGF). Demonstrate intelligent computer generated force simulation
technologies for battalion, division, corps, echelon above corps and joint level forces. Determine the critical behaviors
and essential characteristics that must be exhibited for each force level. Define the methodology and computational
approach for full level force representation, with the capability to be reconfigurable to varying battlefield behavior. In
FY97, improve tools for ModSAF (ground), continue ModSAF/CGF VV&A, and improve behavioral algorithms. In
FY98, develop and demonstrate Intelligent Interactive Adversary, deliver improved DI Saf Baseline, and deliver
ModSAF CGF Voice I/O. In FY99, deliver ModSAF/CGF 3D interface, improve C4 simulation for varying echelons,
develop and demonstrate realistic intelligence simulation. FY00 and FY01, improve intelligence models; improve CGF
Voice I/O, improve behavioral algorithms.
Supports: ModSAF, PM DIS, PM CATT, Force XXI, STOW, Battlespace Command and Control ATD.

Gene Wiehagen Robert Rohde Diane Schuetze
STRICOM SARD-TR Battle Lab Integration and
(407) 384-3930 (703) 697-8432 Technology Directorate
DSN: 970-3930 DSN: 227-8432 (804) 727-3712
DSN: 680-3712
VI.C.21—Intervehicle Embedded Simulation Technology. By FY00, develop and demonstrate in–vehicle Advanced
Distributed Simulation (ADS) capability employing common reusable simulation components, interfaces, tutoring
systems, take home packages, and scenarios. This effort will determine the specific Embedded Training (ET)
architecture and common hardware and software components required for individuals and crews to maintain system
proficiency while in–vehicle and on–station. It will enable units to conduct collective training, exercises, or mission
rehearsals autonomously or when networked with other "live" or "virtual" simulations. The effort will also assess which
tasks and skills are appropriate and affordable candidates for embedding and how this capability may augment the
simulations systems in the existing training device simulation/simulator (TDSS) hierarchy. A standard ET simulation
architecture using common components will permit development of a consistent synthetic battlefield representation for
use in all ET systems and improve interoperability and affordability among future systems.

By FY97, establish ET testbed that uses existing virtual simulations and live systems (BFV) to prototype and assess ET
architecture and common components. With TRADOC, initiate studies and analysis to determine hierarchy of
embedded training capability. With TARDEC, assess databus loading, timing, sizing, RAM, and related impacts of ET
to Intravehicle Electronics Suite. Initiate experiments and assess approaches to enable "direct–fire" or "line–of–sight"
interactions between live and virtual systems. Assess commercial image generator technology to determine feasibility of
displaying virtual targets on vehicle systems. With CECOM continue development of live to virtual linkage of C4I
systems. By 98, develop and prototype ET modular hardware and software common components. Prototype
Virtual–Live interactive system. Link STRICOM ET Test bed with TACOM VETRONICS Systems Integration
Laboratory (VSIL) and CECOM Digital Integrated Lab (DIL). By FY99, tailor and integrate standard ET common
components to Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD program. With TRADOC initiate development of
prototype training scenarios and databases. By FY00, support TARDEC with in–vehicle DIS experiments using
Intravehicle Electronics Suite.
Supports: Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD, Future Combat System (FSC), M1A2 and M2A3 Upgrades,
CRUSADER, Digitization of the Battlefield, TASK Force XXT, Open Systems Task Force, and Army Technical
Architecture.

Gene Wiehagen Robert Rohde MAJ Sean Mahan
STRICOM SARD-TR BCTD
(407) 384-3930 (703) 697-8432 (913) 684-7838
DSN: 970-3930 DSN: 227-8432 DSN: 552-7838

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/b-fm.htm
Annex B
Battlefield Combat Identification (BCID) ATD
Battlefield Combat Identification (BCID) ATD Exit Criteria
Rotorcraft Pilot's Associate ATD
Rotorcraft Pilot's Associate ATD Exit Criteria
Composite Armored Vehicle (CAV) ATD
Composite Armored Vehicle (CAV) ATD Exit Criteria
Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOGM) ATD #1
Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOGM) ATD #2
EFOGM ATD Exit Criteria #1
Precision-Guided Mortar Munition ATD
Precision-Guided Mortar Munition ATD Exit Criteria
Digital Battlefield Communications (DBC) ATD
Digital Battlefield Communications (DBC) ATD Exit Criteria #1
Guided MLRS ATD
Guided MLRS ATD Exit Criteria
GMLRS ATD Exit Criteria
Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) ATD
OICW ATD Exit Criteria
Target Acquisition ATD
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/b-fm.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 23:15:11

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/b-fm.htm
Target Acquisition ATD Exit Criteria

Direct Fire Lethality ATD
Direct Fire Lethality ATD Exit Criteria
Intergrated Biodetection ATD
Intergrated Biodetection ATD Exit Criteria
Vehicular Mounted Mine Detector ATD
Vehicular Mounted Mine Detector ATD Exit Criteria
Multispectral Countermeasures ATD
Multispectral Countermeasures ATD Exit Criteria
Air/Land Enhanced Reconnaissance and Targeting ATD
Air/Land Enhanced Reconnaissance and Targeting ATD Exit Criteria
Battlespace Command and Control ATD
Battlespace Command and Control ATD Exit Criteria
Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD
Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD Exit Criteria
Mine Hunter/Killer ATD
Mine Hunter/Killer ATD Exit Criteria
Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite ATD
Multifunction Staring Sensor Suite ATD Exit Criteria
Tactical Command and Control Protect ATD
Tactical Command and Control Protect ATD Exit Criteria #1
Tactical Command and Control Protect ATD Exit Criteria #2
Multimission/Common Module UAV Sensors ATD
Multimission/Common Module UAV Sensors ATD Exit Criteria #1
Multimission/Common Module UAV Sensors ATD Exit Criteria #2
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/b-fm.htm（第 2／2 页）2006-09-10 23:15:11

Annex C, Section A. Interaction with TRADOC - Introduction
Annex C
Interaction With TRADOC
A. Introduction
Battle laboratories were created in response to the factors and implications of a changing world, strategy,
budgetary reality, and a need for a new way of doing business. Battle laboratories have quickly demonstrated
their values as places where new concepts and technologies can be investigated for their implications on the
battlefield in the areas where warfighting appears to be changing most dramatically.
Following are the future operational capabilities (FOCs) developed by the Training and Doctrine Command
(TRADOC) combat developers. The combat development community included participants from all
TRADOC schools, battle laboratories, the Army Materiel Command, Army Corps of Engineers, and the
TRADOC Deputy Chief of Staff, Training and Space Operations. Identified in this annex are the TRADOC
integrated FOCs, branch FOCs, and branch–specific FOCs.
This annex describes the FOC requirements generated by the Army’s combat developers and their identifiers.
FOCs are statements of operational capabilities required by the Army to develop the warfighting concepts
(TRADOC Pamphlet (T.P.) 525 series) approved by commander, TRADOC. FOCs address specific
warfighting capabilities not functions or operations. They describe those capabilities in operational terms and
what must be done—not how to do it. The FOCs provide a standalone description of the capability. FOCs
are enduring, they apply to tomorrow’s Army, but may be equally relevant to today’s or yesterday’s Army.
FOCs do not describe a deficiency or shortcoming. They do not provide or identify a system specification,
specific technology, organization, or timeframe and they do not encompass an entire branch or functional
concept. FOCs do not use relational or comparative words or phrases.
Applications include:
• FOCs articulate required and desired capabilities that form the basis for determining
warfighting requirements in doctrine, training, leader development, organizations, materiel,
and soldier support systems. FOCs will form the basis for conducting experimentation to
define and refine requirements. FOCs state desired capabilities across the full dimension of
operations.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/ca.htm（第 1／5 页）2006-09-10 23:15:17

• FOCs are used to focus organizational and functional structure changes through the force
design update process as the Army changes its organization to meet national military strategy
guidance.
• FOCs are employed in the TRADOC science and technology (S&T) reviews as the yardstick
for assessing the relevance of individual science and technology efforts. FOCs guide the
Army’s S&T investment.
• Materiel developers and industry use FOCs as a reference to guide independent research and
development (R&D) and to facilitate horizontal technology integration.
• Perceptions of shortfalls derived from S&T reviews generate dialogue with the materiel
developers to confirm or resolve the perceived shortfalls. Confirmed shortfalls are to be
considered in budgetary, planning, and programming reviews by the materiel developer.
Shortfalls that exceed Army resource capabilities can be identified to industry to permit
discretionary industry investments in needed areas.
• FOCs are used within the Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP) process to
provide a warfighting focus to technology–based funding.
• FOCs are employed in the Army Science and Technology Objectives (STOs) process as the
measure of warfighting merit. Candidate efforts selected as Army STOs within this process are
published in the ASTMP as the most important S&T objectives for the Army R&D
community. The STO review provides the basis for the construct of Advanced Technology
Demonstrations (ATDs). Army STOs receive senior Army leadership oversight and have
priority for resourcing.
• ATDs address selected high priority FOCs and demonstrate a capability that does not
currently exist. ATDs are resource intensive and provide the medium to conduct troop
interaction with mature technologies. The ATD demonstration plan is jointly developed
between TRADOC and the materiel developer with exit criteria established to execute the
ATD. ATD management plans are briefed to a council of colonels and approved at the Army
Science and Technology Workgroup.
• FOCs are used as a yardstick to assess the relevance of Advanced Concepts and Technology
II (ACT II) broad agency announcement (BAA) topics and industry proposals to address
these topics. The government determines which proposals will be funded. The government
determines whether the technology offers a useful capability and, if so, how best to exploit it.
• All warfighting requirements must have linkage through an FOC to an approved branch,
operational, or functional concept supporting the overarching concept and the TRADOC

commander’s vision.
• FOCs may be updated at anytime given identification of new needs or opportunities for new
capabilities.
• At a minimum, T.P. 525–66 will be reviewed, updated, and published annually.
• The elements to be reviewed and considered for updating the FOCs include:
– TRADOC approved concepts
– Operational lessons learned, including Center for Army Lessons Learned documents
– Commander in Chief integrated priority lists
– Opportunities from technology. TRADOC proponents will accrue awareness of

opportunities from interaction with the S&T community throughout the year. The
intent of TRADOC proponents’ interaction with technology should focus on
understanding the potential battlefield capability benefits. In many cases, it will be the
TRADOC proponent personnel’s operational knowledge of warfighting that may see
applications otherwise unforeseen by the materiel developers.
– It is incumbent upon both the combat developer and materiel developer personnel
to generate ideas of potential capability from the nexus of technology opportunity and
warfighting operational concepts.
The following annual FOC review cycle is recommended:
• Year Round—Combat developers accumulate inputs for FOC updates from sources listed
above.
• Summer/Fall—Conduct internal FOC review.
• November—Combat developers publish draft update of FOCs and submit to Battle

Laboratory Integration, Technology, and Concepts Directorate (BLITCD). BLITCD will
disseminate draft FOCs to the other combat and materiel developers to solicit comments and
additional information. Combat developers will review the draft FOC submissions for validity,
overlap, duplication, omission, and potential for integration.
• December—Combat developers publish revised updated FOCs, incorporating appropriate

field input.

• December—Headquarters (HQ) TRADOC, BLITCD conduct FOC integration workshop

to exchange information and consolidate similar FOCs as may be appropriate.
• January—HQ TRADOC task TRADOC schools and battle laboratories to review FOCs for
commandant concurrence/comments.
• February—HQ TRADOC BLITCD consolidate input from the combat developers.
• March—HQ TRADOC submit final draft FOCs to the commanding general of TRADOC
for approval.
• May—Approved T.P. 525–66, FOCs published, distributed, and submitted as input to

ASTMP.
• January–May—Application of FOCs to TRADOC S&T review, Army STO review process,

ACT II BAAs, concept experimentation program, and battle laboratories interactions with
industry.
The combat developers will prepare FOCs for submission and inclusion in T.P. 525–66. FOCs will be
formatted as outlined below. The four components of an FOC are identifier, title, description, and reference:
• Identifier—All FOCs will use an identifier that will consist of the combat developer’s
designator, a two–digit year of development and the three–digit sequential numeric capability
designator, (i.e. Battle Command (Gordon)—BCG 97–001).
• Title—The title of the FOC will describe a prevailing capability (e.g., missile warning,
medical evacuation, logistics survivability) required to implement the warfighting concept
from which it was derived.
• Description—The description will state a required capability in operational terms (capability

to . . .). The FOC will state what capability is needed, why the capability is needed, and the
benefits expected from achieving this capability. The FOC will be a prevailing operational
capability. Prevailing operational capabilities are those relevant capabilities that have endured
over time and will still be relevant in the foreseeable future (e.g., logistics support battlefield
visualization, direct/indirect fires, battlefield communications). The FOC will not identify a
solution to the desired capability.
• Reference—The combat developer will reference the concept document (525 series) from
which the FOC is derived. This will identify the linkage between the FOC and the specific
concept or draft concept (for initial FOC preparation) it was written to support.


Section B - 1, 2, 3, 4. Integrated Future Operational Capabilities
B. Integrated Future Operational Capabilities
The TRADOC integrated FOC are those FOCs that apply to more than one TRADOC proponent. They are
integrated to provide the materiel developer with a sense of what common capabilities are needed across the
force as a whole. The FOCs will be reviewed and updated annually.
1. Command and Control
TR 97–001, Command and Control (C2). Capability for commanders to have the freedom of moving
around the battlespace to locations where they can best influence the battle at the critical time and place.
Capability to link all battlespace elements from the individual soldier through the national command
authority in real time. Capability to electronically partition data and hand off relevant data to the appropriate
user. Capability to continuously plan, communicate intent, issue orders, monitor, and coordinate
operations, including joint and coalition operations. Capability must support battle command functions
wherever the commander is located. Capability must be small, lightweight, transportable, multimedia
capable, and facilitate rapid movement and emplacement. Capability must be mobile and transportable yet
ensure that designs and human engineering are adequate to house and support battle command personnel
and systems for continuous operations (i.e., adequate space, power, internal communications).
Branch FOCs: AD 97–004; AR 97–006, AR 97–007, AR 97–014; AV 97–011, AV 97–012; BCL 97–002, BCL
97–004, BCL 97–005, BCL 97–006, BCL 97–008; CM 97–001, CM 97–004, CM 97–008; EEL 97–024 EEL
97–025; EN 97–005, EN 97–006; FA 97–006, FA 97–009, FA 97–010, FA 97–013, FA 97–015, FA 97–024, FA
97–035, FA 97–036; DSA 97–007, DSA 97–016, DSA 97–017, DSA 97–022, DSA 97–025, DSA 97–027; IN
97–500, IN 97–510, IN 97–520, IN 97–530; MD 97–002; MI 97–005; MMB 97–017; MSB 97–003; MP
97–003; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–004, SP 97–006, SP 97–007, SP 97–009, SP 97–010, SP
97–011, SP 97–013, SP 97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–019, SP 97–020.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–70; T.P. 525–75; TRADOC Black Book No. 4.
TR 97–002, Situational Awareness. Capability to create an accurate and high–fidelity, all–weather, common
collaborative real–time picture of the battlespace to include weather, terrain, environment, and friendly/
enemy/neutral/noncombatant situational and status information. The common picture must be continuous
and selectable from the common air, stationary, or on–the–move (OTM) ground platforms, air defense,
naval, space, and wargaming sources depending on the needs of the viewer. The common picture provides
understanding of available information in terms of the battlespace—width, depth, height, position, time,
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/cb1_4.htm（第 1／16 页）2006-09-10 23:15:59

terrain, materiel, weather, obstacles and barriers, early warning of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC)/
theater ballistic missile hazards, electromagnetic, and human. The relevant common picture must be
scaleable to appropriate levels of command, tailorable by function and personal preference, and based on
variable user defined parameters. To effectively use the common picture at various echelons, there must be a
capability to electronically partition data and to hand off relevant data to the appropriate user. The common
picture must be based on standardized decision–oriented graphics. These standardized graphics must be
shared with and include joint and coalition forces, and must be portrayed over a common, relevant, tailored,
and accurate terrain picture. Achievement of this capability is key to battlefield visualization by conveying to
the warfighter an immediate understanding of the operational impact of the current and projected situation
and provide predictive information, impacting enhanced survivability, facilitating synchronization of fires,
maneuver, and logistics/personnel supportability and accountability in order to achieve maneuver
dominance and influence battle tempo.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–004; AR 97–006; AV 97–002, AV 97–004, AV 97–011, AV 97–012; BCL 97–004; CH
97–008; CM 97–001, CM 97–002, CM 97–008, CM 97–009; DBS 97–065; DSA 97–004, DSA 97–005, DSA
97–006, DSA 97–007, DSA 97–008, DSA 97–009, DSA 97–010, DSA 97–011, DSA 97–012, DSA 97–013,
DSA 97–014, DSA 97–015, DSA 97–016, DSA 97–020, DSA 97–021, DSA 97–022, DSA 97–025; EN 97–003,
EN 97–004, EN 97–006, EN 97–007, EN 97–009, EN 97–011; EEL 97–011; FA 97–005, FA 97–006, FA
97–007, FA 97–008, FA 97–009, FA 97–010, FA 97–013, FA 97–020, FA 97–022, FA 97–023, FA 97–024, FA
97–035, FA 97–036; IS 97–001, IS 97–002, IS 97–003; MD 97–001, MD 97–002, MD 97–005; MMB 97–018,
MMB 97–019; BCL 97–001; MI 97–005, 6; MMB 97–012, MMB 97–017; MSB 97–003, MSB 97–004, MSB
97–007; MP 97–006, MP 97–007; MSB 97–012, MSB 97–014; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–004,
SP 97–006, SP 97–007, SP 97–009, SP 97–011, SP 97–012, SP 97–013, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP
97–020.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–70; T.P. 525–71: T.P. 525–75; TRADOC Black Book No. 4.
TR 97–003, Mission Planning and Rehearsal. Capability of the warfighter to conduct rapid mission planning,
preparation, and execution. Decision making and operations planning requires knowledge based capabilities
and decision aids to improve quality and reduce decision making time. Decision making must take
advantage of real–time information available on seamless information networks to plan and rehearse
operations. Embedded training and simulation tools must be incorporated into decision support software for
training, mission rehearsal, and other tasks that are critical either because of the complexity of the task or the
time sensitivity of the results. Capability must operate OTM and under all conditions. Decision aids are
required to facilitate in–depth, timely analysis of information, forecasting, and support "wargaming" efforts.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–005; AR 97–013; AV 97–003; BCL 97–001, BCL 97–003, BCL 97–010, BCL 97–016,
BCL 97–017, BCL 97–019, BCL 97–020; CH 97–011; CM 97–001, CM 97–008; DSA 97–001, DSA 97–002,
DSA 97–007, DSA 97–013, DSA 97–014, DSA 97–022, DSA 97–027; EEL 97–021, EEL 97–022; EN 97–003,
EN 97–004, EN 97–005, EN 97–006, EN 97–007, EN 97–008, EN 97–009, EN 97–010, EN 97–011, EN
97–016, EN 97–017, EN 97–018, EN 97–030; FA 97–007, FA 97–008, FA 97–009, FA 97–015, FA 97–023,
FA 97–035, FA 97–036; IN 97–520, IN 97–700; MSB 97–003, MSB 97–007, MSB 97–012, MSB 97–014; MI

97–001, MI 97–002; MP 97–003, OD 97–003; MMB 97–018, MMB 97–20; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP
97–003, SP 97–004, SP 97–005, SP 97–007, SP 97–010, SP 97–011, SP 97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP
97–017, SP 97–020; TRD 96–002, TRD 96–004, TRD 96–005, TRD 96–006, TRD 96–012.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–60; T.P. 525–70, T.P. 525–75; TRADOC Black Book No. 4.
TR 97–004, Tactical Operation Center (TOC) Command Post (CP). TOC and CP facilitate the commander
and his staffs with capabilities to maintain situational awareness and to control/dominate the battlespace/
mission tempo. Provides deployable, transportable, modular, reconfigurable, highly survivable, and highly
mobile CPs that function equally well when stationary, en route, or OTM, in all environments to include
battlefield clutter. Must support simultaneous operation of diverse information systems and be quickly
reconfigurable to support various combinations of automated systems and staff functions, to include mission
planning, rehearsal, and execution, ensuring maximized signature reduction. Facilitates real–time, robust,
long–range, seamless connectivity to all space, air, ground, surface, and submersible information systems and
subsystems as applicable to mission requirements. Provides commander and staff with the ability to perform
C2 from remote sites.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–006; AR 97–007; AV 97–011; BCL 97–010, BCG 97–001, BCG 97–004, BCG 97–005;
CM 97–001; CM 97–004, CM 97–008; DBS 97–050, DBS 97–053; DSA 97–015, DSA 97–019, DSA 97–027;
EEL 97–017, EEL 97–021, EEL 97–022, EEL 97–024; FA 97–009, FA 97–012, FA 97–014, FA 97–022, FA
97–025, FA 97–036; MI 97–005, MI 97–006, MI 97–007, MI 97–008; MMB 97–017; SP 97–001, SP 97–002,
97–020.
Reference: T.P. 525–75.
TR 97–005, Airspace Management. Capability to effectively manage, in real time, multiple users of airspace
thus minimizing conflicts and maximizing the overall successful mission accomplishment rate. This requires
close integration between C2, Army Airspace C2, Army aviation, air defense, artillery, military intelligence,
aeromedical support, special operations, airborne and infantry operations, mounted ground operations,
sister service and coalition members operations, and possibly civilian airspace management agencies. Also
requires communication and automation capability that is compatible with these organizations and that is
compliant with the Army Battle Command System/Common Operating Environment equipment and with
required standards. The system must be capable of rapid deployment, must be operational while mobile, and
must maintain flexibility in response to an ever–changing operational situation. The system must have a
real–time air picture and real–time communications with all airspace–user elements. The system must be able
to electronically translate raw airspace data into a useable three–dimensional (3D) fused real–time airspace
picture and direct two–way interface into the Contingency Theater Automated Planning System for Army
airspace users requiring near–real–time deconfliction or situational awareness of air assets. In addition to
analog and digital communication, the system should support an automated capability to collect, display,
and disseminate airspace control measures to all airspace users. Data communication must interface with and
facilitate sensor to shooter linkage systems for air defense and field artillery platforms. The airspace

management system must comply with Federal Aviation Administration requirements for peacetime United
States operations, and be compatible with all other airspace C2 systems, including existing joint, multinational
and host nation airspace management requirements during joint or coalition exercises outside the United
States.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–004, AD 97–006; AV 97–001, AV 97–003, AV 97–012; DSA 97–015; FA 97–010; MD
97–001.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–72; TRADOC Black Book No. 4.
TR 97–006, Combat Identification. Capability to detect, discriminate, identify through active,

noncooperative methods, and prioritize both ground and aerial platforms at ranges in excess of the threat’s
detection and weapon systems effective ranges and inside the threat’s detection and response time. The
capability must be effective day or night in adverse weather, in cluttered background environments, and in
the presence of threat countermeasures. The capability must provide real time, accurate target location
information.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–006; AR 97–004, AR 97–010; AV 97–005; DSA 97–005, DSA 97–010, DSA 97–011,
DSA 97–021, DSA 97–024, DSA 97–025, DSA 97–028; FA 97–004, FA 97–013; MI 97–003; MP 97–006;
MMB 97–015; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–009, SP 97–010, SP 97–011, SP 97–014, SP 97–015,
SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–020.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–75.
2. Communication
TR 97–007, Battlefield Information Passage. Capability for a highly employable seamless, secure, global
information architecture that is dynamic, self–organizing, self–healing, which is modular, and is
reconfigurable for use by airborne, light, and heavy forces. This architecture will provide a capability for total,
uninterrupted, interoperable data networking of secure and nonsecure data, voice, imagery, and video
transfer in real time, near–real time, and non–real time between government, nongovernment, and military
health services systems assets agencies; combined arms; tactical and strategic forces; and joint, combined, and
coalition forces throughout the battlespace from the National Command Authority to operator level.
Included are information transfer over all phases (alert to redeploy), ranges (contingency operations to high
intensity conflict), and levels (tactical, operational, and strategic) of operations with acceptable levels of
throughput, capacity, information quality, grade of service, security, and precedence in austere environments
with minimum sustainment requirements. Also included is the ability to track data lineage, and synchronize
data updates from multiple sources. The architecture will be compatible with the joint technical architecture
and common operating environment.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–004, AD 97–006, AD 97–011; AR 97–001, AR 97–003, AR 97–004, AR 97–006, AR

97–007, AR 97–010, AR 97–012; AV 97–001, AV 97–003, AV 97–011, AV 97–012; BCG 97–001,

BCG 97–002, BCG 97–003, BCG 97–005, BCG 97–006, BCG 97–007; BCL 97–002, BCL 97–004,
BCL 97–005, BCL 97–007; CH 97–001, CH 97–002, CH 97–004, CH 97–005, CH 97–008, CH 97–011;
CS 97–004; CM 97–001, CM 97–002, CM 97–008, CM 97–009; DSA 97–07, DSA 97–008, DSA 97–012,
DSA 97–014, DSA 97–016, DSA 97–017, DSA 97–021, DSA 97–025; EEL 97–011, EEL 97–017, EEL 97–024
EEL 97–025; EN 97–002, EN 97–005, EN 97–007, EN 97–011, EN 97–018; FA 97–005, FA 97–006,
FA 97–007, FA 97–008, FA 97–009, FA 97–010, FA 97–011, FA 97–012, FA 97–013, FA 97–015, FA 97–019,
FA 97–036; FI 97–001, FI 97–002, FI 97–003, FI 97–004, FI 97–005, FI 97–006, FI 97–007, FI 97–008;
IS 97–001, IS 97–002, IS 97–004, IS 97–005; MD 97–001, MD 97–002, MD 97–003, MD 97–005,
MD 97–006, MD 97–008; MI 97–005; MMB 97–017, MMB 97–018, MMB 97–019; MP 97–003, MP 97–004;
MSB 97–003; SP 97–001.
References: T.P. 525–71; T.P. 525–75.
TR 97–008, Power Projection and Sustaining Base Operations. Capability to support future operations with
selected elements that have not deployed from homestation, or operate strictly out of a rear base or sanctuary
areas. Capability to support split–based/force projection operations that must be deployable, robust, assured,
and provide a seamless state–of–the–art command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence
(C4I) across the operational continuum (including joint and combined forces) on a continuous basis.
Capability to transfer information within the architecture without requiring specific knowledge of the
mechanism or platform characteristics that make up the automatic systems and communications. For
example, the warfighter will have the capability to use the same telephone and computer in garrison and in
any tactical environment. Capability to provide standardized access for deployed forces to strategic
infrastructure services such as the distributed interactive simulation network, NIPRNET, and SIPRNET.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–004; BCG 97–001, BCG 97–006; BCL 97–009; CH 97–011; CM 97–004; CS 97–004;
DSA 97–008, DSA 97–016; EEL 97–014, EEL 97–017; EN 97–002, EN 97–005; FA 97–011, FA 97–019, FA
97–021, FA 97–025, FA 97–026; FI 97–001, FI 97–002, FI 97–007, FI 97–008; IS 97–001, IS 97–002, IS
97–003, IS 97–004, IS 97–005; MD 97–002; MP 97–004; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–005, SP
97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–018, SP 97–019.
Reference: Terrain Visualization Master Plan.
TR 97–009, Communications Transport Systems. Capability for a combination of communications transport

systems that provide high capacity and throughput to efficiently and effectively support simultaneous
real–time voice, data, imagery, video transfer, video conference, and personal communication services at all
levels of security. These systems must be integrated into the global, seamless communications architecture.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–004, AR 97–006, AR 97–007, AR 97–012, AR 97–013, AR 97–014; AV 97–001,

AV 97–011, AV 97–012; BCG 97–001, BCG 97–002, BCG 97–005, BCG 97–007; CH 97–001, CH 97–003,
CH 97–008; CM 97–001, CM 97–002, CM 97–008, CM 97–009; CS 97–004; DSA 97–007, DSA 97–008,

DSA 97–012, DSA 97–014, DSA 97–016, DSA 97–017, DSA 97–021, DSA 97–025; EEL 97–024,
EEL 97–025; EN 97–002, EN 97– 005; FA 97–023, FA 97–024, FA 97–029, FA 97–030, FA 97–036;
FI 97–001, FI 97–002, FI 97–004, FI 97–007, FI 97–008; IS 97–001, IS 97–002, IS 97–003, IS 97–004,
IS 97–005; MD 97–001, MD 97–002, MD 97–003, MD 97–005, MD 97–006, MD 97–008; MI 97–005;
MMB 97–017; MI 97–015; MP 97–004; SP 97–001, SP 97–005, SP 97–006, SP 97–007, SP 97–009, SP 97–010,
SP 97–012, SP 97–017, SP 97–019.
References: FM 100–6; T.P. 525–75, paragraphs 3–3d and 4–5d.
TR 97–010, Tactical Communications. Capability to extend simultaneous data, voice, image, and video
transfer systems to the soldier/platform with acceptable levels of throughput, range, capacity, information
quality, grade of service, security, and precedence in real or near real time. These systems will be
multichanneled and will be interoperable with joint, combined, and coalition forces and provide a broad
array and distribution in austere environments. Also required is a capability to provide uninterruptible,
continual, real time sensor to shooter communication.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–004, AD 97–006; AR 97–001, AR 97–002, AR 97–003, AR 97–004, AR 97–006, AR

97–07, AR 97–012, AR 97–013, AR 97–014; AV 97–001, AV 97–011, AV 97–012; BCG 97–001,
BCG 97–002, BCG 97–005, BCG 97–007; BCL 97–002, BCL 97–007; CH 97–008; CM 97–001, CM 97–002,
CM 97–008, CM 97–009; CS 97–004; DSA 97–007, DSA 97–008, DSA 97–012, DSA 97–014, DSA 97–016,
DSA 97–017, DSA 97–021, DSA 97–025; EEL 97–023, EEL 97–024, EEL 97–025; EN 97–002, EN 97–005;
FA 97–019, FA 97–022, FA 97–023, FA 97–024, FA 97–025, FA 97–035, FA 97–036; FI 97–001, FI 97–002,
FI 97–008; IS97–001, IS 97–002, IS 97–003, IS 97–004, IS 97–005; MD 97–002; MI 97–005; MMB 97–017;
MP 97–004; MSB 97–003; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–004, SP 97–005, SP 97–006, SP 97–007,
SP 97–008, SP 97–009, SP 97–010, SP 97–011, SP 97–012, SP 97–013, SP 97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016,
SP 97–017, SP 97–018.
References: FM 100–6, T.P. 525–75.
TR 97–011, Information Services. Capability for seamless global information services that include data
warehousing, televideoconferencing, multilevel security, and seamless messaging. Capability to verify data
integrity, verify/authenticate the originator of a transaction, provide proof of participation of both sender and
receiver of a transaction, ensure the availability of services to authorized users, and provide an optional data
encryption capability.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–002, AR 97–003, AR 97–007; AV 97–001, AV 97–011, AV 97–012; BCG 97–001; BCL
97–013; CH 97–002, CH 97–005; CM 97–001, CM 97–002, CM 97–008, CM 97–009; CS 97–004;
DSA 97–007, DSA 97–008, DSA 97–012, DSA 97–014; EN 97–002, EN 97–005; FA 97–005, FA 97–022,
FA 97–023, FA 97–024, FA 97–036; FI 97–004, FI 97–008; IS 97–001, IS 97–002, IS 97–003, IS 97–004,
IS 97–005; MD 97–002; MI 97–004, MI 97–005; MP 97–003; SP 97–006, SP 97–008, SP 97–009.

TR 97–012, Information Systems. Capability to supply the warfighter with key decision making information
in a time sensitive manner, real– or near–real time. This capability involves acquiring, integrating, and
synchronizing information from vertical and horizontal C2 systems; sensor systems; and battlefield functional
area systems. This encompasses strategic, operational, tactical, and joint operations. The resulting
"system–of–systems" provides the warfighter with a force multiplier in battle command, common picture,
target acquisition, lethality/survivability, logistics, operations planning, and joint interoperability. The
information systems must be scaleable, and the platforms capable of hosting multiple information system
applications. The information systems must be compatible with the Defense Information Infrastructure
Common Operating Environment.

97–007, AR 97–012, AR 97–013, AR 97–014; AV 97–001, AV 97–011, AV 97–012; BCL 97–001,
BCL 97–002, BCL 97–005; CH 97–001, CH 97–002, CH 97–004; CM 97–001, CM 97–002, CM 97–008,
CM 97–009; CS 97–004; DSA 97–007, DSA 97–008, DSA 97–012, DSA 97–014, DSA 97–016, DSA 97–017,
DSA 97–021, DSA 97–025; EEL 97–023, EEL 97–024, EEL 97–025; EN 97–002, EN 97–003, EN 97–005,
EN 97–006, EN 97–007, EN 97–008, EN 97–010, EN 97–011, EN 97–018, EN 97–030; FA 97–005,
FA 97–022, FA 97–023, FA 97–024, FA 97–036; FI 97–001, FI 97–002, FI 97–004, FI 97–008; IS 97–001,
IS 97–002, IS 97–003, IS 97–004, IS 97–005; MD 97–002; MI 97–005; MP 97–004; MSB 97–014; SP 97–001,
SP 97–012, SP 97–013, SP 97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017.
TR 97–013, Network Management. Capability to maximize the availability of communication networks and
data distribution systems to all echelons. This includes the following management functions: (1) network
planning and engineering, which includes the automated and interactive placement of network resources
against subscriber requirements, terrain conditions, tactical restrictions, and communications security
requirements; (2) battlefield spectrum management, which includes the ability to perform frequency
assignments that eliminate adverse collateral effects of cosite and adjacent frequency, and maximizes spectral
efficiency and the effective utilization and allocation of bandwidth including bandwidth on demand when
appropriate; (3) wide area network management, which is a capability to monitor and maintain
communication services including fault, performance, and near real time reconfiguration management; and
(4) communications security.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–001, AR 97–002, AR 97–003, AR 97–004, AR 97–006, AR 97–007, AR 97–012, AR

97–013, AR 97–014; AV 97–001, AV 97–011, AV 97–012; BCG 97–003; CS 97–004; DSA 97–008,
DSA 97–012, DSA 97–016, DSA 97–017; FA 97–006, FA 97–013, FA 97–025, FA 97–036; FI 97–001,
FI 97–002, FI 97–005, FI 97–006, FI 97–007; IS 97–001, IS 97–002, IS 97–003, IS 97–004, IS 97–005;
MD 97–002; MI 97–005; MP 97–003, MP 97–004; SP 97–005, SP 97–006, SP 97–007, SP 97–008, SP 97–012,
SP 97–017, SP 97–018, SP 97–019.

TR 97–014, Hands–Free Equipment Operation. Capability to operate and control equipment hands–free
while stationary or OTM. This capability must exist in noisy, unstable, and stressful conditions. These
capabilities are required to facilitate operation by minimizing operator interface requirements.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–005; AV 97–002, AV 97–004, AV 97–009, AV 97–011; BCG 97–04; BCL 97–003; CH
97–001; DSA 97–022; EEL 97–024; EN 97–009, EN 97–018; FA 97–012.
3. Information Management
TR 97–015, Common Terrain Portrayal. Capability allowing commanders to rapidly and accurately visualize
friendly and enemy battlespace conditions and situations, command directives, and other essential
information in continuous real– or near–real–time displays, and provide a common background for
simulations, training, mission planning, rehearsals, and commander’s decision aids. The capability includes
the ability to conduct rapid assessments of accessible terrain, line of sight relationships, trafficability, and
obstacle planning. The capability provides information as scaleable integrated digital projections, or tactical
decision aid products. This capability, when integrated with weather, position location, environmental and
situational updates, provides a common portrayal of the physical characteristics of the battlespace. This
capability is an essential element of battlefield visualization and the portrayal of synthetic scenes and dynamic
environmental effects in simulations.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–006; AR 97–002, AR 97–013, AR 97–014; AV 97–011; CM 97–001, CM 97–002, CM

97–008, CM 97–009; DBS 97–033; DSA 97–006, DSA 97–020; EEL 97–021, EEL 97–022; EN 97–03,
EN 97–030; FA 97–005, FA 97–006, FA 97–023; MI 97–006; MP 97–007; MMB 97–018; MSB 97–007;
SP 97–017.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–41; T.P. 525–75; Joint Vision 2010.
TR 97–016, Information Analysis. The Army requires the capability for common systems at all echelons to
provide rapid analysis, processing, collaboration, understanding, and throughput of information from all
sources (air, ground, sea, space) within compressed decision timelines. Fusion and aggregation must occur
between bottom–up and top–down feeds. Information must be rapidly retrievable or accessible in an
internet, nonhierarchical environment at all echelons by appropriate users requesting the data. High capacity
data storage and data retrieval are required to facilitate seamless, real–time information exchange across joint,
national, coalition forces, and intra–/intervehicular/platform exchange. Require means to tailor information
(mission, enemy, troops, terrain, and time) to meet individual needs. Ability to process OTM is required
thus mandating reduced processor size and weight. Processing capability must be accurate, timely, and
enhance operator efficiency. Capability to work at various classification levels (multilevel security) is
required. Achieving this capability will permit the processing environment to rapidly and dynamically

assimilate information to satisfy multiple battlefield functions.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–004; AR 97–001, AR 97–003, AR 97–004, AR 97–006, AR 97–007, AR 97–010, AR

97–011, AR 97–014; AV 97–004, AV 97–012; BCG 97–008; BCL 97–003, BCL 97–004, BCL 97–010;
CM 97–001, CM 97–004, CM 97–007, CM 97–008; DSA 97–013, DSA 97–014, DSA 97–020, DSA 97–007,
DSA 97–008, DSA 97–012, DSA 97–016, DSA 97–022, DSA 97–025; EN 97–004, EN 97–006, EN 97–007,
EN 97–008, EN 97–010, EN 97–018; FA 97–006, FA 97–007, FA 97–009, FA 97–010, FA 97–013, FA
97–022, FA 97–023, FA 97–035, FA 97–036; MI 97–002, MI 97–004; OD 97–003, OD 97–014;
MMB 97–002, MMB 97–017, MMB 97–018, MMB 97–019; MSB 97–007, MSB 97–012; MP 97–004; SP
97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–020; TRD 96–003.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–41; T.P. 525–63; T.P. 525–70, p. 5; T.P. 525–72; T.P. 525–75; T.
P. 525–200–5; TRADOC Black Book No. 4; Joint Vision 2010, p.13; Joint Concept for NBC Defense, A1
paragraph A6; Ordnance Corps Vision, paragraphs 3–2f, 3–2d, and 3–2e.
TR 97–017, Information Display. The Army requires a family of displays to access information easily from
any location in the battlespace. Display requirements include an integrated family of displays that covers
various needs from large screen displays in a homestation, rear area, or CP environment; mobile displays that
can be accessed en route or in moving ground and aerial vehicles; and personal displays used by the
individual soldier such as a heads up capability. Each of these display applications must be adapted to specific
information needs and resolution requirements. All displays must be capable of realistic 3D portrayal and
evolve to incorporation of holograms and full sensory virtual reality presentation. Displays must be fully
reconfigurable to suit situational needs and personal preferences without disrupting the underlying
information sources. Interactive tools must be incorporated in the display capability. The display hardware
and software must be user friendly and minimize operator training requirements. Because the systems will be
employed in stressful physical and mental environments, multiple layers of menus should be avoided.
Achieving this capability facilitates access to tailored battlefield information from any location either static or
OTM.

97–007, AR 97–010, AR 97–011, AR 97–013, AR 97–014; AV 97–002, AV 97–011, AV 97–012; CH 97–003;
CM 97–001, CM 97–008; EN 97–003, EN 97–005, EN 97–006, EN 97–007, EN 97–030; MI 97–001, MI
97–005, MI 97–007; MP 97–003; SC 97–006; SP 97–011; BCL 97–001, BCL 97–003, BCL 97–005, BCL
97–008; DSA 97–006, DSA 97–007, DSA 97–008, DSA 97–012, DSA 97–013, DSA 97–014, DSA 97–015,
DSA 97–016, DSA 97–020, DSA 97–022, DSA 97–025, DSA 97–027, DSA 97–028; MMB 97–018, MMB
97–019; MSB 97–007; TRD 97–003, TRD 97–008; FA 97–005, FA 97–006, FA 97–007, FA 97–008, FA
97–012, FA 97–013, FA 97–015, FA 97–022, FA 97–023, FA 97–024, FA 97–031, FA 97–035, FA 97–036.
References: FM 100–13; T.P. 525–3; T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–41; T.P. 525–60; T.P. 525–63; T.P. 525–70; T.
P. 525–72; T.P. 525–75; T.P. 525–200–5; TRADOC Black Book No. 4; Joint Vision 2010.

TR 97–018, Relevant Information and Intelligence. Establish linked processes to collect, process, and provide
critical information and intelligence, that supports battlefield visualization, decision making and information
operations—both offensive and defensive. Identify commanders critical information and priority intelligence
requirements to support decisions. Develop essential elements of friendly information and requirements for
non–military information. Assess friendly IO/C4I/C2 warfare (C2W) capabilities and vulnerabilities. Assess
adversary IO/C4I/C2W capabilities and vulnerabilities.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–004; AR 97–001, AR 97–003, AR 97–004, AR 97–006, AR 97–007, AR 97–014; AV

97–004, AV 97–012; CM 97–001, CM 97–008; EN 97–007, EN 97–008; FA 97–006, FA 97–007, FA 97–010,
FA 97–013, FA 97–022, FA 97–023, FA 97–035, FA 97–036; MI 97–002, MI 97–004; OD 97–003, OD
97–014; BCG 97–008; BCL 97–003, BCL 97–004, BCL 97–010; DSA 97–007, DSA 97–008, DSA 97–012,
DSA 97–016, DSA 97–022, DSA 97–025; MMB 97–002, MMB 97–017, MMB 97–018; MSB 97–012;
TRD 96–003.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–7; T.P. 525–20; T.P. 525–21(R); T.P. 525–41; T.P. 525–55; T.P. 525–60; T.
P. 525–69; T.P. 525–70; T.P. 525–71; T.P. 525–72; T.P. 525–75; T.P. 525–100–1; T.P. 525–200–1.
TR 97–019, Command and Control Warfare. The Army requires the ability to conduct combined, joint, and
coalition operations that enhance and protect the commanders decision cycle and execution while negatively
impacting an opponent’s ability to operate and make decisions. Information dominance must be achieved
through the effective use of intelligence, C2, C2W operations, and supported by available friendly
information systems. Information operations must be conducted across the full range of military operations
in all battlespace conditions. Information operations encompass the need to protect information, attack
information nodes, and exploit information sources.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–006, AD 97–008; AR 97–003, AR 97–006, AR 97–007; BCL 97–012, BCL 97–013,
BCL 97–014, BCL 97–015; BCG 97–008; CM 97–007; DSA 97–030; EEL 97–007, EEL 97–009, EEL 97–010;
EN 97–010, EN 97–011, EN 97–012, EN 97–013, EN 97–014, EN 97–026; FA 97–027; MI 97–003 MI
97–008, MI 97–009; MSB 97–002, MSB 97–005, MSB 97–008, MSB 97–009, MSB 97–014; MD 97–002; MP
97–003, MP 97–004; SP 97–001, SP 97–003, SP 97–004, SP 97–007, SP 97–009, SP 97–010, SP 97–012, SP
97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–018, SP 97–020.
Information Protection—Information protection requires the capability to reduce the adversary’s ability to
attack friendly information systems and reduce friendly vulnerability to counter information gathering
operations. C4I systems must survive to operate in all weather conditions, on dirty battlefields, and despite
enemy disruption efforts. The protection capability must provide warning of unauthorized penetration and
monitoring; facilities protection; a capability to recover from loss of processing capability or loss of data;
computer virus detection, protection, and source identification; and multilevel security and controls to
disguise active signatures and prevent pattern detection. Decoys must simulate sight, sound, thermal, image,
and electronic signatures of friendly high–payoff C2 nodes. The capabilities supporting the protection of C2
and decision making information will also be available to protect non–C2 information systems.

Information Attack—Information attack requires the capability to destroy, disrupt, deny, deceive, degrade,
target, destroy, or neutralize adversary information networks and C2 systems. Options may vary from
surgical jamming of the frequency spectrum to intrusion into C2 systems to manipulate data. To effectively
conduct information attack, a thorough understanding of the adversary’s decision making and C2 process is
required. Information attack systems must be multifunction and modular and capable of defeating optics,
electro–optics and night vision devices; jamming the entire frequency spectrum; electronic intrusion and data
manipulation without alerting operators of computer compromise; electronic deception; computer attack;
and the use of precision munitions to seek out and destroy high–payoff information systems engaged in
collection, processing, dissemination, or display of information. Information attack impedes the adversary’s
decision making process and potentially lengthens friendly decision making timelines and windows of
opportunity.
Information Exploitation—Information exploitation requires integrated ground, airborne, and space–based

multidiscipline collection systems that support situation development. Capability requires the collection of
information from an adversary’s information age systems such as digital and LPI communications. Tools
must exist to allow for analysis of an adversary’s C2 system. Distributed all–source analysis and dissemination
systems are required to facilitate seamless access to intelligence information at all echelons.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–75.
TR 97–020, Information Collection, Dissemination, and Analysis. The Army requires collection capability
that enables warfighters to see and understand the 360–degree, 3D battlespace with the timeliness necessary to
shape the battlespace. The collection capability must be an integrated effort between ground, airborne,
spacebased, manned or unmanned, organic, nonmilitary intelligence, joint, national, or multinational assets.
Sensors must be able to detect, identify, and locate and confirm active and passive targets that are
underground, above ground, waterborne, airborne, or in space to support targeting, situation awareness, or
force protection requirements. To support targeting requirements sensors must be capable of collecting air
and missile threats, supporting counter–drug activity, supporting the employment of smart munitions,
detecting enemy emitters, detecting missile launchers, detecting chemical and biological (CB) facilities,
detecting ICBMs/SLBMs, detecting logistics forces, and discerning and attacking targets through the
employment of a smart/brilliant munitions. To support situation awareness requirements sensors must be
capable of detecting "modern" communications signals and nontraditional electromagnetic signals, friendly
and enemy data, terrain data, weather data, soil conditions, climatic information, NBC contamination
(including physical state and density data), toxic industrial chemicals, natural and manmade obstacles,
obscurants (including wavelength and density), battle damage assessment and the presence of mines;
collecting information from adversarial data stores and map adversarial C2 nodes; providing reconnaissance,
surveillance, early warning, and indications and warning; and supporting counter–drug activities, police
intelligence operations, identification friend or foe (IFF), and drop–zone intelligence.
To support force protection requirements sensors must be capable of detecting intrusions in support of area
security, supporting airspace deconfliction and IFF, and supporting survivability through the detection of
laser employment, muzzle flash, use of millimeter–wave or acoustics and radar warning. Information must be

collected for all levels of operations regardless of natural or manmade environmental conditions (weather,
terrain, obscurants, electronic warfare, cluttered conditions, day/night, etc.). Collection systems must be
modular and tailorable with multifunction capabilities and extended ranges. Collectors must be full
spectrum, capable of covering wide areas, multidimensional, and extremely accurate to enable precision
operations and strike. Sensors must operate autonomously in semiautomatic and manual modes, function
within short detection timelines, be capable of remote operation, operate in a real–time/seamless
environment, perform dedicated long–dwell missions, discriminate between conventional and weapons of
mass destruction munitions, handle mass attacks, automatically identify targets, employ sensor–to–shooter
linkages, operate in both point and area modes, be easily reprogrammable and employ modular plug–in
capabilities. Capability is needed to enable a critical, timely, and near–instantaneous dissemination with
associated mixed, netted, distributed, and nondedicated systems from foxhole to national command
authority to ensure relevant information is passed to the en route commander.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–004, AD 97–006, AD 97–007, AD 97–011; AR 97–002, AR 97–003, AR 97–004, AR

97–009, AR 97–010, AR 97–011; AV 97–005, AV 97–007; BCG 97–005, BCG 97–007, BCG 97–008;
BCL 97–006, BCL 97–007; CH 97–011; CM 97–002, CM 97–009; DBS 97–013, DBS 97–014; DSA 97–002,
DSA 97–003, DSA 97–005, DSA 97–008, DSA 97–009, DSA 97–010, DSA 97–011, DSA 97–012,
DSA 97–013, DSA 97–014, DSA 97–017, DSA 97–018, DSA 97–021, DSA 97–025, DSA 97–028; EN 97–004,
EN 97–005, EN 97–006, EN 97–007, EN 97–009, EN 97–011, EN 97–021; EEL 97–005, EEL 97–007, EEL
97–012, EEL 97–013, EEL 97–015; FA 97–002, FA 97–003, FA 97–007, FA 97–008, FA 97–010, FA 97–013,
FA 97–022, FA 97–024, FA 97–029; IN 97–600, IN 97–620, IN 97–621, IN 97–622, IN 97–630, IN 97–640,
IN 97–650, IN 97–670; MI 97–003, MI 97–008; MMB 97–001, MMB 97–002, MMB 97–007, MMB 97–008,
MMB 97–009, MMB 97–010, MMB 97–011, MMB 97–012, MMB 97–013, MMB 97–015, MMB 97–019,
MMB 97–020; MSB 97–003, MSB 97–007, MSB 97–012, MSB 97–014; MP 97–010, MP 97–011; SP 97–001,
97–016, SP 97–020.
References: T.P. 525–3; T.P. 525–5, p. 2–7, paragraphs 2–2.h.1 and 2–2.h.2, p. 2–9, paragraph 2–3b(2), p.
3–2.b.(7), p. 3–2.b.(7)(c), p. 3–2.d.(6), p. 3–6, paragraph 3–2.a.(4), p. 6, paragraph 3–2, p. 3–7, paragraph
3–2.a.(10), p. 3–8, paragraphs 3–2.b.(2), 3–3b(1), 3–3b(6), 3–2.b(7)(a), 3–2.b(7)(c), 3–2.d(6), and 4–1e(2)
(f), p. 3–9, paragraph 3–2.b, p. 3–10, paragraphs 3–2.b.(7) and 3–2(c), p. 3–11, paragraph 3–2.c.2, p. 3–20,
paragraphs 2–3.b.1, 3–3.c.4, and 4–1.b.3, p. 4–7, paragraph 4–1.e.(2), p. 4–8, paragraphs 4–1c and 4–1e; T.P.
525–60; T.P. 525–63; T.P. 525–70, p. 4, paragraph 3–3.a, p. 5, paragraphs 3–3 and 3.3.b.3, p. 5–6, paragraphs
3–3.a.4 and 3–3.b; T.P. 525–75, paragraphs 3–3b, 3–3f, 4–5b, and 4–5f; T.P. 525–200–2 p. 5, paragraph 3–3.
b, p. 6, paragraph A–5.a.(6), p. 5, paragraph 3–3.b, p. 6, paragraph A–5.a.(4), p. 7, paragraphs A–5.a.(11)
and A–5.c; T.P. 525–200–3, T.P. 525–200–5, p. 6, paragraphs 3–7b and 3–7a, p. 8, paragraph 4–4d;
TRADOC Black Book No. 4.
TR 97–021, Real–Time Target Acquisition, Identification, and Dissemination. The Army requires the
capability to conduct continuous, responsive, proactive, real–time ground, air and space–based target
acquisition from a moving or stationary platform. Capability to detect, locate, track, identify and classify
active and passive targets in all weather, all terrain and all environments at extended ranges throughout the

extended, 360–degree, 3D battlespace. Capability to defeat emerging threat protective systems. Capability to
precisely conduct automatic target recognition, battle damage assessment, and moving target indication with
zero target location error. Capability to disseminate targeting information throughout the force with a netted,
distributed, nondedicated, integrated, seamless communications network. Capability must be compatible
with fratricide prevention measures, operated beyond threat’s ability to detect and inside threat’s detection
and response times.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–006; AR 97–004; AV 97–005; DSA 97–009, DSA 97–010, DSA 97–011, DSA 97–014,
DSA 97–016, DSA 97–017, DSA 97–021, DSA 97–025, DSA 97–028, DSA 97–030; EEL 97–005, EEL
97–012; FA 97–001, FA 97–002, FA 97–007, FA 97–008, FA 97–013, FA 97–020, FA 97–024, FA 97–029, FA
97–035, FA 97–036; IN 97–660.
References: T.P. 525–5; TRADOC Black Book No. 4.
4. Mobility/Countermobility
TR–022, Mobility—Combat Mounted. Capability of combat forces to dominate maneuver and use position
advantage to deliver fires in order to destroy the enemy’s will to fight. This includes speed, acceleration,
in–stride obstacle mitigation, firing OTM, gaining position advantage against the threat, real time
dissemination of battlefield information and situational awareness, and NBC detection and mitigation on a
stabilized platform in all battlespace environments to include battlefield clutter. Must be capable of extended
operations with decreased logistics and must provide commonality and equality in both speed and
maneuverability for all ground and aerial maneuver vehicles supporting the force. Must be capable of
meeting load bearing requirements for mission accomplishment.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–002; AV 97–002, AV 97–008, AV 97–009; AR 97–002, AR 97–012; BCL 97–001; CM
97–001, CM 97–002, CM 97–004, CM 97–005, CM 97–008, CM 97–009; DSA 97–007, DSA 97–008, DSA
97–015, DSA 97–019, DSA 97–020, DSA 97–021, DSA 97–025, DSA 97–027; EN 97–003, EN 97–007, EN
97–008, EN 97–009, EN 97–018; FA 97–011, FA 97–021, FA 97–025, FA 97–026; IN 97–300; MMB 97–003,
MMB 97–004; MSB 97–001, MSB 97–005, MSB 97–006; MP 97–001, MP 97–005, MP 97–007, MP 97–008,
MP 97–013; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–004, SP 97–007, SP 97–009, SP 97–010, SP 97–011, SP
97–013, SP 97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–020.
Reference: Operational Concept for Maneuver Engineering.
TR 97–023, Mobility—Combat Dismounted. Forces operating in dismounted battlespace require the

capability for rapid, agile maneuver in close terrain, vehicular restrictive terrain, and during airborne, air
assault, and waterborne operations. Human capability enhancements of load bearing capabilities and
nutritional/medical enhancements of human performance will make dismounted soldiers capable of
extended activity in all physical environments and climates, to include night and obscured environments.
Branch FOCs: CM 97–003; DBS 97–030, DBS 97–031, DBS 97–033, DBS 97–034; EEL 97–017; EN 97–007,

EN 97–008, EN 97–009, EN 97–018; IN 97–310, IN 97–320, IN 97–321, IN 97–330; MD 97–003; MSB

97–001, MSB 97–006, MSB 97–008; MP 97–005, MP 97–013.
References: T.P. 525–200–3; Operational Concept for Maneuver Engineering.
TR 97–024, Combat Support/Combat Service Support Mobility. Capability to effectively and efficiently
move resources in a timely manner and keep pace with the supported force. Will provide maneuverability
and agility, survivability, flexibility, timeliness, and safety in daylight, darkness, collision avoidance, and
obscured vision conditions during all phases of movement.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–002; AV 97–008, AV 97–009, AV 97–010; CM 97–013, CM 97–016; DSA 97–019; EN
97–09, EN 97–15, EN 97–16, EN 97–17, EN 97–18, EN 97–19, EN 97–20; FA 97–011, FA 97–O21,
FA 97–030; MD 97–003, MD 97–005, MD 97–006; MP 97–005; MSB 97–008; SP 97–001, SP 97–002,
SP 97–016, SP 97–020; TC 97–003.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–200–3; T.P. 525–70; T.P. 525–75; T.P. 525–78; T.P. 525–200–2; TRADOC
Black Book No. 4; Joint Vision 2010.
TR 97–025, Countermobility. Capability for commanders to restrict the mobility of the threat, to control
battle tempo, and to seize and maintain maneuver dominance. Capabilities include area denial, disrupting,
turning, fixing or blocking enemy movement at the appropriate times and places of need. The capability also
covers rapid, effective accurate delivery and emplacement of battlefield obstacles through use of direct/
indirect, air/ground operations. Obstacles may consist of lethal or nonlethal means of delaying and
neutralizing enemy formations before they can be brought to bear. Other capabilities include planning,
creating, and emplacing manmade obstacles and exploiting natural obstacles while simultaneously assuring
our own freedom to maneuver.
Branch FOCs: BCL 97–003; CM 97–007, CM 97–010, CM 97–011; EN 97–010, EN 97–011; FA 97–028, FA
97–033; IN 97–180; MMB 97–007; MSB 97–013, MSB 97–014; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–006,
SP 97–007, SP 97–009, SP 97–010, SP 97–011, SP 97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–020.
References: T.P. 525–5; TRADOC Black Book No. 4; Joint Vision 2010; Mission Need Statement for
Tactical Liquid Explosives.
TR 97–026, Deployability. Capability to rapidly deploy, employ, and redeploy while keeping pace with
future technological advances in air, land, sea, and space delivery capabilities in support of strategic
operational and tactical power projection and prepositioned operations. Capability to be deployable with
minimal preparation, operate in and from unimproved areas (at sea this includes operating in seastate 3), and
conduct en route operations. Capability to be rapidly operational with minimal support upon arrival with
emphasis on reception, staging, onward movement, and integration to the tactical assembly area.

Branch FOCs: AD 97–001; AR 97–002; AV 97–008; BCL 97–001; CH 97–009; CM 97–012; CS 97–002, CS
97–004; DSA 97–018; EEL 97–002, EEL 97–003, EEL 97–018; EN 97–004, EN 97–006, EN 97–007,
EN 97–009, EN 97–014, EN 97–016, EN 97–017, EN 97–018, EN 97–020, EN 97–021, EN 97–029;
FA 97–014, FA 97–016, FA 97–021, FA 97–026; IN 97–301; MD 97–002, MD 97–006, MD 97–008;
MP 97–016; FI 97–001, FI 97–004, FI 97–005, FI 97–006, FI 97–008; MSB 97–001; QM 97–001, QM 97–002,
QM 97–003, QM 97–004, QM 97–005, QM 97–006, QM 97–009, QM 97–011; SP 97–001, SP 97–002,
SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–019, SP 97–020.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–60; T.P. 525–100–1; T.P. 525–200–2; T.P. 525–200–5; T.P. 525–200–6;
TRADOC Black Book; CASCOM Pub—Vision of Combined Arms Support.
TR 97–027, Navigation. Forces require navigation capabilities that produce automated and on–demand,
real–time, on–board, all–weather position location that locates terrain features and elements of friendly units,
while they are stationary and OTM. Capability will provide an autonavigation feature linked to terrain
products and operational plans. Navigation information will be an integrated part of situational awareness.
Capability includes aerial, ground, and water surface navigation and movement masked by terrain.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–004; AR 97–002, AR 97–003, AR 97–004, AR 97–006, AR 97–007; AV 97–002; CM

97–014; DBS 97–032; DSA 97–006; EEL 97–002; EN 97–004, EN 97–007, EN 97–011; FA 97–005,
FA 97–012; IN 97–320; MMB 97–003; MSB 97–014; MP 97–006; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–006,
SP 97–007, SP 97–009, SP 97–010, SP 97–012, SP 97–014, SP 97–017.
References: FM 100–13; T.P. 525–5; TRADOC Black Book No. 4.
TR 97–028, Unmanned Terrain Domination. Capability of land forces to dominate an area of operations
through the effects of mass (the necessary concentration of combat power at the decisive time and place)
without the need to fully commit troops. Includes the autonomous unmanned capability to achieve total
situational awareness (on the ground or in the air), evaluate data received, develop courses of action
consistent with the commander’s intent, and employ combat power (lethal and nonlethal "smart" munitions)
to achieve the commander’s objectives. This "economy of force" means will control terrain, reduce the risk to
soldiers in certain areas, and complement and maintain maneuver dominance at the strategic, operational,
and tactical levels. Additionally, this capability will substantially enhance peacemaking and peacekeeping
operations.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–002, AD 97–007, AD 97–009; AV 97–002; DSA 97–001, DSA 97–002, DSA 97–006,
DSA 97–007, DSA 97–009, DSA 97–010, DSA 97–011, DSA 97–012, DSA 97–013, DSA 97–014, DSA
97–015, DSA 97–017, DSA 97–021, DSA 97–024, DSA 97–025; EEL 97–01, EEL 97–04, EEL 97–05, EEL
97–06, EEL 97–07, EEL 97–13; EN 97–04, EN 97–10, EN 97–11; FA 97–001, FA 97–013; MI 97–001, MI
97–003, MI 97–008; MMB 97–001, MMB 97–002, MMB 97–012; MSB 97–002, MSB 97–014.
References: T.P. 525–5, paragraphs 3–2b and 4–9; T.P. 525–75; TRADOC Black Book No. 4, p. 16, 23, 24;

Joint Vision 2010 (p. 13, 18); Mission Need Statement for Teleoperated Munitions; Mission Need Statement
for Nonlethal Mines and Munitions; Mission Need Statement for Unmanned Terrain Domination
Capabilities.

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
5. Sustainment
TR 97–029, Sustainment. Capability to provide flexible, tailorable, modular, seamless, anticipatory systems,
processes, and services to deliver combat and combat service support in all operations. Capability for early
entry and follow–on forces to plan for and exploit host nation/or nearby nation support. Capability to
provision and provide other support required to maintain personnel and equipment during prolong
operations or combat until successful accomplishment or revision of the mission.
97–009; CS 97–001; CH 97–002, CH 97–006, CH 97–007; CM 97–005, CM 97–013; CS 97–003, CS 97–004;
DSA 97–018; EEL 97–016; EN 97–014, EN 97–015, EN 97–019, EN 97–020, EN 97–023; FA 97–016, FA
97–030, FA 97–031; FI 97–003, FI 97–004, FI 97–005, FI 97–006, FI 97–008; IS 97–001; MD 97–001, MD
97–002, MD 97–003, MD 97–004, MD 97–005, MD 97–006, MD 97–007, MD 97–008, MD 97–009, MD
97–010, MD 97–011, MD 97–012; MP 97–015, MP 97–016; MSB 97–004; OD 97–001, OD 97–003, OD
97–004, OD 97–005, OD 97–006, OD 97–007, OD 97–008, OD 97–014, OD 97–016, OD 97–017; QM
97–001, QM 97–002, QM 97–003, QM 97–004, QM 97–005, QM 97–006, QM 97–007, QM 97–008, QM
97–009, QM 97–011; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–004, SP 97–005, SP 97–006, SP 97–007, SP
97–019, SP 97–020; TC 97–001, TC 97–002.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–60; T.P. 525–63; T.P. 525–200–2; T.P. 525–200–5; T.P. 525–200–6;
TRADOC Black Book No. 3; TRADOC Black Book No. 4; Joint Vision 2010; Mission Need Statement for
ICS3; U.S. Army Transportation Corps Strategic Vision; Ordnance Corps Vision; Battery Modernization
Strategy; Army Strategic Logistics Plan. CASCOM Pub—Vision of Combined Arms Support.
TR 97–030, Sustainment Maintenance. Capability to support the combat readiness and effectiveness of the
Army in the field. Will provide anticipatory, real–time, and remote diagnostics and prognostics to provide
efficient battle damage assessment and repair. The following areas of maintenance concern will employ and
be dependent on developed capabilities in this area: maintenance aids, contact maintenance, recovery
maintenance data, tools, operator maintenance, operator decontamination, host–nation support, and
operations in all environments (NBC) during all operations.
97–009; CM 97–004, CM 97–005; CS 97–001, CS 97–003, CS 97–004; DSA 97–018; EN 97–014, EN 97–015,
EN 97–019, EN 97–020, EN 97–30; FA 97–016, FA 97–030, FA 97–031; FI 97–003, FI 97–004, FI 97–005, FI

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
97–006, FI 97–008; IS 97–001; MD 97–001, MD 97–002, MD 97–003, MD 97–004, MD 97–005, MD

97–006, MD 97–007, MD 97–008, MD 97–009, MD 97–010, MD 97–011, MD 97–012; MP 97–015, MP
97–016; OD 97–001, OD 97–003, OD 97–004, OD 97–005, OD 97–006, OD 97–007, OD 97–008, OD
97–014, OD 97–016, OD 97–017; QM 97–001, QM 97–002, QM 97–003, QM 97–004, QM 97–005, QM
97–006, QM 97–007, QM 97–008, QM 97–009, QM 97–011; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–004,
97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–019, SP 97–020; TC 97–001, TC 97–002.
Strategy; Army Strategic Logistics Plan; CASCOM Pub—Vision of Combined Arms Support.
TR 97–031, Sustainment Services. Capability to execute and manage all personnel–related matters and
contribute to the morale and welfare of the soldier in the field by providing the most benefit to the maximum
number of personnel. Will provide near real time strength accounting, replacement operations, religious
support/pastoral care operations, medical support operations, casualty reporting, finance services, postal
services, morale support activities, and legal services. These services share equal importance with the
requirement for availability of materiel on the battlefield.
97–009; CH 97–011; CM 97–005; CS 97–001, CS 97–003, CS 97–004; DSA 97–018; EN 97–014, EN 97–015,
EN 97–019, EN 97–020; FA 97–016, FA 97–030, FA 97–031; FI 97–003, FI 97–004, FI 97–005, FI 97–006, FI
97–008; IS 97–001; MD 97–001, MD 97–003, MD 97–004, MD 97–005, MD 97–006, MD 97–007, MD
97–008, MD 97–009, MD 97–010, MD 97–011, MD 97–012; MP 97–015, MP 97–016; OD 97–001, OD
97–003, OD 97–004, OD 97–005, OD 97–006, OD 97–007, OD 97–008, OD 97–014, OD 97–016, OD
97–017; QM 97–001, QM 97–002, QM 97–003, QM 97–004, QM 97–005, QM 97–006, QM 97–007, QM
97–008, QM 97–009, QM 97–011; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–004, SP 97–005, SP 97–006, SP
97–017, SP 97019, SP 97–020; TC 97–001, TC 97–002.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–60; . T.P. 525–63; T.P. 525–200–2; T.P. 525–200–5; T.P. 525–200–6;
TR 97–032, Sustainment Logistics Support. Capability to provide responsive, flexible, and precise field
services support to soldiers during any environmental or tactical situation. Will be able to perform graves
registration, airdrop, fuel dispensing, water production and delivery, food preparation, clothing exchange
and bath, laundry, light textile and clothing renovation, unit reconstitution, decontamination, and salvage.
Will provide less continuous support with a smaller logistics footprint, decreasing the vulnerability of the
Army’s logistics lines of communication.

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
97–009; CH 97–003; CM 97–004, CM 97–005; CS 97–001, CS 97–003, CS 97–004; DSA 97–018;
EEL 97–016; EN 97–004, EN 97–008, EN 97–010, EN 97–018, EN 97–014, EN 97–015, EN 97–019,
EN 97–020; FA 97–016, FA 97–030, FA 97–031; FI 97–003, FI 97–004, FI 97–005, FI 97–006, FI 97–008;
IS 97–001; MD 97–001, MD 97–003, MD 97–004, MD 97–005, MD 97–006, MD 97–007, MD 97–008,
MD 97–009, MD 97–010, MD 97–011, MD 97–012; MP 97–015, MP 97–016; MSB 97–012; OD 97–001,
OD 97–003, OD 97–004, OD 97–005, OD 97–006, OD 97–007, OD 97–008, OD 97–014, OD 97–016,
OD 97–017; QM 97–001, QM 97–002, QM 97–003, QM 97–004, QM 97–005, QM 97–006, QM 97–007,
QM 97–008, QM 97–009, QM 97–011; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–004, SP 97–005, SP 97–006,
SP 97–017, SP 97019, SP 97–020; TC 97–001, TC 97–002.
TR 97–033, Sustainment Transportation. Capability to move personnel, equipment, materiel, and supplies to
sustain operations and move the forces which execute those operations. Will provide for all elements of
moving forces and their logistics requirements to the locations required by operations. Will encompass the
load–carrying capacity of mode operators, terminal operations, and movement control. Materiel must be
transferred from one mode of transportation to another at sea ports of debarkation, rail and air–heads, inland
waterways, and truck terminals. Air and sea ports of debarkation must be cleared expeditiously to make way
for follow–on cargo. Sustaining supplies and replacement personnel will flow over the same routes required
by maneuver units and will compete for limited main supply routes in the theater.
97–009; CH 97–009; CM 97–004, CM 97–005; CS 97–001, CS 97–003, CS 97–004; DSA 97–018;
EEL 97–016; EN 97–014, EN 97–015, EN 97–019, EN 97–020; FA 97–014, FA 97–016, FA 97–021,
FA 97–026, FA 97–030, FA 97–031; FI 97–003, FI 97–004, FI 97–005, FI 97–006, FI 97–008; IS 97–001;
MD 97–001, MD 97–002, MD 97–003, MD 97–004, MD 97–005, 97–006, MD 97–007, MD 97–008,
MD 97–009, MD 97–010, MD 97–011, MD 97–012; MP 97–015, MP 97–016; OD 97–001, OD 97–003,
OD 97–004, OD 97–005, OD 97–006, OD 97–007, OD 97–008, OD 97–014, OD 97–016, OD 97–017;
QM 97–001, QM 97–002, QM 97–003, QM 97–004, QM 97–005, QM 97–006, QM 97–007, QM 97–008,
QM 97–009, QM 97–011; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–004, SP 97–005, SP 97–006, SP 97–007,
SP 97019, SP 97–020; TC 97–001, TC 97–002.

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
TR 97–034, Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) Operations. Capability to conduct EPW
and CI evacuation, medical support, accountability, and sustainability operations. EPW accountability is
mandated by the Geneva Convention Agreements and by International Committee of the Red Cross rules.
Military police units conducting internment or resettlement operations require the capability to rapidly recall
and forward personnel data to facilitate accountability. This capability should be compatible with emerging
information exchange and processing systems and would capture and report costs associated with EPW and
CI pay. Capability to translate (to and from) is required to expedite the information gathering process,
including human intelligence collection, translation, and document exploitation and interrogation capability.
The capability for quick access to EPW/CI information enables the timely availability of comprehensive
information and identification of EPW/CI within compounds, during transit, turnover to a third party, and
during repatriation. Military Police require the capability to execute the expeditious evacuation of EPW/CI
to retain freedom of maneuver for combat forces and control of personnel within compounds. This can only
be attained through early planning and prioritization of sustainment resources on the battlefield.
Branch FOCs: CH 97–004; CS 97–004; FI 97–003; IS 97–001, IS 97–002, IS 97–003, IS 97–004, IS 97–005;
MD 97–001, MD 97–002, MD 97–003, MD 97–004, MD 97–005, MD 97–006, MD 97–010, MD 97–011;
MI 97–003; MP 97–009; MSB 97–0010.
TR 97–035, Power Source and Accessories. Capability to provide a small, lightweight, long–lasting,
high–energy density, maintenance–free, low–signature, high–quality power source for electronics
communications, weapons, individual soldiers, vehicles, air and water craft, and medical equipment, which
will be cost effective, operate in any environment, and will be environmentally safe. For the individual soldier
the objective capability will be a universal power source that provides simultaneous power to any/all soldier
carried systems/subsystems without degradation.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–007, AR 97–008; CH 97–006; CS 97–001; MI 97–010; MMB 97–006; SP 97–012, SP
97–017, SP 97–019.
Reference: Battery Modernization Strategy.
TR 97–036, Nonprimary Power Sources Combat Vehicles/Support Systems. Capability to provide a small,
lightweight, and low–signature nonprimary power sources for combat vehicles or support systems. This will
allow the operation of combat vehicle electro–optics communications, weapons, life support, and protection
or survivability devices or accessories while the primary vehicle power source is shut down.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–008; CH 97–007; FA 97–018; MMB 97–006.

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
TR 97–037, Combat Vehicle Propulsion. Capability to provide high power and fuel efficient propulsion for
combat vehicles. Capability must be small, lightweight, reliable, maintainable, safe, low signature, multifuel
capable and environmentally safe. Capability to provide energy on demand for propulsion, life support and
weapon system functions.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–005; AV 97–009; FA 97–017; DSA 97–019; MMB 97–004.
TR 97–038, Casualty Care, Patient Treatment, and Area Support. The Army requires the capability for level I
and II medical treatment and area support. Rapid casualty location and application of improved treatment
modules will provide focus toward reducing the historically recalcitrant killed–in–action (KIA) rate. The
capability requires improved methods of physiological resuscitation, improved diagnostic and treatment
capabilities at both unit– and area–level treatment facilities. All health care providers will require advance
trauma management training and sustainment training and organizations must provide communications
between providers and mentors to optimize reductions in the KIA rate. Medical personnel require the ability
to treat patients under all conditions and require night vision capability. Combat health support providers
require the ability to initiate and continue casualty treatment under NBC conditions. The combat medic will
require improved ability to function while in individual protective gear. All forward deployed medical
modules will require collective medical protection to ensure continued patient care under NBC conditions.
NBC casualties will require improved methods of rapid decontamination and emergency treatment followed
by protection and continued medical management to ensure survival. Digitized patient records, beginning
prior to deployment and continuing throughout casualty management are required to ensure seamless
medical treatment. Automated read/write devices and database software for medical status, patient tracking,
and reconstitution are required for use before, during, and after operations to ensure soldier readiness for
combat and to allow timely transmission of location and status to health providers, commanders, and family
members. Capability to track casualty emergency ministrations and pastoral care information to data
collection points for use by casualty assistance offices and notification of next of kin. Capability would
provide notification officers and accompanying chaplains with vital battlefield pastoral care information.
Branch FOCs: CH 97–002; CM 97–004, CM 97–006; MD 97–003.
Reference: T.P. 525–50; T.P. 525–78, paragraph 3–3c; T.P. 525–200–5.
TR 97–039, Lines of Communications (LOCs) Maintenance and Repair. Capability to assess, repair, and
maintain LOCs in a vast spectrum of environments. Includes repair, refurbishment, or construction of ports,
airfields, roads, bridges, and other transportation conduits. This includes preparation and installation
activities for logistics over the shore (LOTS) operations.
Branch FOCs: EN 97–004, EN 97–005, EN 97–006, EN 97–007, EN 97–008, EN 97–009, EN 97–012,

EN 97–015, EN 97–016, EN 97–017, EN 97–018, EN 97–019, EN 97–020, EN 97–021, EN 97–022.

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
References: T.P. 525–5; TRADOC Black Book No. 4.
6. Lethality
TR 97–040, Firepower Lethality. Capability to provide responsive overmatching lethal combat power against
current and future threats throughout the battlespace. Capability should be impervious to countermeasures
and all environmental conditions to include battlefield clutter. Capability should include overmatching
range, probability of hit and kill, and accuracy that minimize resources expended, maximize effects, and
minimize collateral damage.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–003, AD 97–009, AD 97–012; AR 97–001; AV 97–006; DBS 97–10, DBS 97–011, DBS
97–012, DBS 97–013, DBS 97–014, DBS 97–015, DBS 97–016, DBS 97–017, DBS 97–018, DBS 97–61; DSA
97–001, DSA 97–002, DSA 97–003, DSA 97–014, DSA 97–023, DSA 97–024, DSA 97–026, DSA 97–028;
EEL 97–001, EEL 97–004; EN 97–010, EN 97–011; FA 97–001, FA 97–002, FA 97–017, FA 97–020, FA
97–021, FA 97–026, FA 97–029, FA 97–032; IN 97–100, IN 97–110, IN 97–111, IN 97–112, IN 97–119, IN
97–120, IN 97–130, IN 97–140, IN 97–150, IN 97–160; MI 97–008; MMB 97–001; MP 97–002; MSB 97–002,
MSB 97–014; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–006, SP 97–007, SP 97–009, SP 97–010, SP 97–011,
SP 97–012, SP 97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–020; TC 97–001.
Reference: T.P. 525–200–5.
TR 97–041, Operations in an Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)/Mine Threat Environment. Capability of land

forces to safely conduct in–stride breaching and assure tempo of operations when facing mines and UXO
threats. The capability must support rapid and accurate remote standoff surveillance, reconnaissance,
detection and location of mines, UXO components, materials, and neutralize or destroy identified devices.
Capability must limit munitions and submunitions dud rates to eliminate UXO hazards. Capability must
relay tactical data through strategic systems during employment of contingency forces. Capability must meet
joint countermine and Army criteria and must support battlefield dominance while minimizing any decrease
of operational tempo.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–009; DSA 97–006; EEL 97–007; EN 97–002; FA 97–034; OD 97–009, OD 97–013;
MMB 97–005; MSB 97–006.
References: T.P. 525–5, p. 3–9; Joint Vision 2010 p.13, 20–21, 22–24, 25.
TR 97–042, Firepower Nonlethal. Capability to safely engage or control personnel and degrade or
immobilize equipment using nonlethal means throughout the battlespace during combat or stability and
support operations.
Branch FOCs: CM 97–007, CM 97–011; IN 97–400, IN 97–410, IN 97–420, IN 97–430; MP 97–014;

FA 97–033; EN 97–010, EN 97–011; SP 97–012, SP 97–020; EEL 97–006; DBS 97–040, DBS 97–041,

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
DBS 97–042, DBS 97–043; MMB 97–005, MMB 97–016; MSB 97–013, MSB 97–014; SP 97–001, SP 97–002,
SP 97–016, SP 97–020.
7. Survivability
TR 97–043, Survivability—Materiel. Capability to survive against the full spectrum of battlespace threats
(directed–energy weapons, NBC weapons, thermal and ballistic weapons, corrosives, environmental effects).
Integration of an optimized suite of detection, warning, hit, penetration, and kill avoidance measures is
necessary to achieve this. Capability of surviving against threats attacking at any aspect around, above, or
below the system. Sensor, information systems, and countermeasure combinations providing this capability
must be able to operate autonomously, while retaining semiautomatic and manual modes. Optimization of
the suite requires the proper combination of signature management, sensors, countermeasures, such as
smoke/active protection/obscurants, and armors, all developed and integrated as part of the system’s basic
design, to reduce cost, maximize effectiveness, and minimize system–level burdens. Capability required to
protect facilities, information systems, and equipment by minimizing risks associated with acts of terrorism
and sabotage, including sympathetic detonations of ammunition stores, terrorist attacks, or direct and
indirect fires. This includes the capability to rapidly construct and repair fortifications, protective shelters/
positions, forward operating bases, landing strips and pads, and combat roads and trails. Capability to
enhance aircraft and aircrew survival. Capability to survive through the use of active and passive defense
measures.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–008, AD 97–009; AR 97–003, AR 97–015; AV 97–007; CM 97–004, CM 97–007; DSA
97–003, DSA 97–004, DSA 97–028, DSA 97–030; EEL 97–007, EEL 97–008, EEL 97–009, EEL 97–010; EN
97–005, EN 97–006, EN 97–009, EN 97–012, EN 97–013; FA 97–003, FA 97–004, FA 97–011, FA 97–034; FI
97–008; IN 97–230; MI 97–003, MI 97–004, MI 97–007; MMB 97–008, MMB 97–013, MMB 97–014; MP
97–001, MP 97–010; OD 97–017; MSB 97–003, MSB 97–004, MSB 97–006, MSB 97–008; SP 97–001, SP
97–012, SP 97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–019, SP 97–020.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–60; T.P. 525–63; T.P. 525–75, paragraphs 3–3b, 3–3c, 4–5c, 3–3e, and 4–5e;
T.P. 525–200–2; T.P. 525–200–5; TRADOC Black Book No. 4; Joint Vision 2010; Ordnance Corps Vision;
Maneuver Support Enduring Battlefield Function.
TR 97–044, Survivability—Personnel. Army forces operating throughout the battlefield will be highly
survivable. This survivability will be achieved through the integration of overmatching lethality, situational
awareness, state–of–the–art sensors and countermeasures, a full complement of directed energy, ballistic,
NBC, endemic disease, thermal, and environmental protections. Army forces will derive their survivability
from the amalgamation of the individual soldier and combat vehicle survivability (including
crash–worthiness to protect crew members and passengers from injury during accidents), its redundant force

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
structure and the density of distribution of its combat power within the battlespace. Personnel survivability is
comprised of both active and passive survivability capabilities.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–008; AR 97–012; AV 97–007; CM 97–003, CM 97–004, CM 97–006, CM 97–007;

EEL 97–008; EN 97–009, EN 97–012, EN 97–013; FA 97–003; FI 97–008; IN 97–200, IN 97–210, IN 97–220;
MD 97–001, MD 97–003, MD 97–004, MD 97–005, MD 97–006, MD 97–007, MD 97–008, MD 97–009,
MD 97–010, MD 97–011, MD 97–012,; MP 97–001, MP 97–010; MMB 97–014; MSB 97–003; MSB 97–004,
MSB 97–006, MSB 97–008; SP 97–001, SP 97–002, SP 97–003, SP 97–004, SP 97–009, SP 97–010, SP 97–011,
SP 97–012, SP 97–014, SP 97–015, SP 97–016, SP 97–017, SP 97–020.
Active Capabilities—Army forces will have active capabilities to ensure overmatching survivability, including
soldier–to–soldier/vehicle–to–vehicle/soldier–to–vehicle combat identification, combat life saving, battle
injury treatment and prevention, nonbattle casualty prevention and treatment, physiological monitoring and
battle stress, and selected nonbattle injuries prediction. Vehicle capabilities will include maneuverability, low
observability, and active protection. When forces are operating independently, in war or sustainment and
support operations, it will be augmented with veterinary services.
Passive Capabilities—Soldiers require passive capabilities to ensure overmatching survivability, including

timely intelligence, and low observability, lightweight protection from ballistic, directed–energy (to include
agile vision protection throughout the electromagnetic spectrum), tactical and industrial chemicals, and
environmental stresses, and medical protection from disease.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–63.
TR 97–045, Camouflage, Concealment, and Deception. Capability to reduce the probability of being
detected, acquired, ranged, engaged, and hit by the threat. This capability is needed to protect the force and
reduce or eliminate visual, electromagnetic, acoustic, infrared, and radar signatures. Capability to mask
friendly intentions, protect forces, shape the battlespace, and conduct decisive operations by reducing or
eliminating operational signatures and employing decoys.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–008; AR 97–002, AR 97–003; AV 97–007; CM 97–007; DBS 97–024; DSA 97–030,
DSA 97–004; EEL 97–009; EN 97–13; FA 97–003, FA 97–018, FA 97–029; MI 97–009; MP 97–001,
MSB 97–008, MSB 97–009; MMB 97–009; SP 97–012; IN 97–210, IN 97–240.
References: T.P. 525–200–3; T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–75; paragraphs 3–3g and 4–5g; T.P. 525–200–2; Black
Book No. 4; CAC&FLW Pam 525–05; Mission Need Statements for Multispectral Camouflage.
TR 97–046, Battlefield Obscuration. Capability to selectively deny enemy observation, target acquisition,
sensing, and signaling capability through the use of visible and invisible obscurants.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–002, AR 97–003; CM 97–007; EEL 97–010; FA 97–003, MMB 97–010, MMB 97–011;
MP 97–001; MSB 97–005.

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
References: T.P. 525–5, T.P. 525–3.
8. Training
TR 97–047, Leader and Commander Training. Capability to train leaders and commanders to be versatile
and adaptive to varied mission requirements. Future commanders and their staffs will face a technologically
advanced, information–rich, operationally diverse, and fast paced battle staff environment. Trainers must
fully understand the impacts of this environment on leaders and commanders. Training systems must
provide capabilities needed to:
• Develop and exercise cognitive skills and knowledge to enable them to handle the ambiguity
of combat with confidence, and adjust and adapt in real time to quickly changing task
demands, operational situations, and conditions.
• Train leaders and commanders to make optimal use of battle staffs as problem solving
resources through improved teamwork and collaboration. Commanders must have training
and team building strategies at their disposal to use in team integration. Training developers
need a thorough understanding of the factors influencing effective teams in order to design
training and training support products that promote effective teamwork. Both must
understand the factors influencing high and low performing teams and how these factors may
vary with different missions and mission conditions. Commanders must also be able to choose
soldiers for units, task forces, special team assignments, and duty assignments based on a
soldier’s proven performance and training on mission–relevant skills and tasks.
• Provide leaders and commanders ample opportunities, both at homestation and during
deployment, to gain essential experience in battle command decision making through
training. This must occur through training/mission rehearsal in simulators (e.g., individual
battle staff trainers, incorporation of battle staff decision processes into battle simulations) or
other training media that are reconfigurable to match training scenarios to battlefield function
or operational mission.
• Train leaders and commanders in the interpersonal skills needed to work effectively with
diverse groups of people. Future leaders must be able to shape units into cohesive teams, work
effectively with joint, coalition and interagency personnel, and nongovernmental
organizations and private volunteer organizations and the media, and serve as effective
intermediaries between the Army and U.S. and foreign civilians.
• Train leaders and commanders to comprehend the organization, structure, capabilities, and
limitations of Force XXI C4I architectures (organic and split–based).
• Train leaders and commanders to either exploit or react to the influence of the media on

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
operations. Commanders need to be schooled on the capabilities of the media in all its
forms—electronic, written, and audio. Commanders must be constantly aware of the
changing global information environment, its effect on the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs held
by the American public, political leaders, soldiers and their families, allies, adversaries; and
other important audiences, and the impact of these opinions, attitudes, and beliefs on the
Army and its operations.
• Train leaders and commanders to serve as the Army’s basic environmental stewards and to
take a professional and personal responsibility for understanding and supporting the Army’s
environmental program. In order to develop effective training for commanders and leaders,
training developers need information that describes the situations leaders will encounter
during specific types of operations and while rapidly transitioning from one type of operation
to another. Essentially, the Army needs the capability to model leadership requirements in
future operations. Once trainers identify the most essential leadership capabilities for the
future, they must be able to determine the best mix of training strategies and tools to train and
assess competencies throughout leaders’ careers.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–013; BCL 97–016, BCL 97–017, BCL 97–020; CH 97–011; DSA 97–029; EN 97–006,
EN 97–027; FI 97–007; MI 97–011; MMB 97–020; MP 97–012; SP 97–005, SP 97–18; TRD 97–002, TRD 97–
005; TRD 97–017.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–75.
TR 97–048, Performance Support Systems. Capability to provide soldiers enhanced performance support on
the job to enable them to adapt effectively to quickly changing missions and equipment technologies, and
adapt to a wider array of tasks and responsibilities. Advanced performance support capabilities will blur the
lines between training and operational tools. Many performance support technologies will be deployed
during conflict to help soldiers sustain their skills and do their jobs on the battlefield. The following types of
capabilities are needed:
• Learning/job–aid environments that, for example, put the digitized expertise of senior
officers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) on a soldier’s desktop.
• Smart tutors and embedded diagnostics systems that assist soldiers in diagnosis and repairs,
as well as other types of problem solving and decision making.
• Guided, goal–oriented simulations that enable soldiers to interact with and get advice from
computerized experts while working through situations they encounter on the job.
• Decision aids that support mission planning, preparation, and execution. Soldiers will need
the capability to move around freely to perform their duties while interacting with
performance support systems via visual and auditory or other hands–free, user–friendly

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
interfaces. Systems will need to be embedded within equipment or organic TOE assets.
Selected systems will need to be man portable. Training and materiel developers need the
capability to identify those tasks and conditions where development of performance support
systems will have the most payoff for the Army. Information regarding the perceived
performance support needs of soldiers and officers in TOE units is needed to assist training
developers in identifying requirements.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–005; AV 97–003, AV 97–014; BCL 97–003; EN 97–006, EN 97–011; FA 97–015;
IS 97–003; MI 97–011; MMB 97–020; MP 97–012; SP 97–005, SP 97–18; TRD 97–003.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–60, paragraph 3.2.e.2; T.P. 525–70; T.P. 525–75; T.P. 525–200–4; T.P.
525–200–5.
TR 97–049, Battle Staff Training and Support. Capability of battle command support teams (BCST) to
support the commander in controlling current operations and adjusting plans for future operations. The staff
must be an extension of the commander. The staff must provide the critical information necessary for the
commander to make informed, timely decisions to best effect the action/mission requirements. Skilled staffs
work within the commander’s intent to direct and control units and allocate the means to support that intent.
They assist the commander in anticipating the outcome of the current operation and developing the concept
for the follow–on mission. They understand, and can apply, a common doctrine. The battle staff must also
understand what information the commander deems important for making decisions and provide it in an
accurate and timely manner. It is the product of staff work that serves the needs of the commander. Battle
staffs must be organized to ensure the command process is sustained during any absence of the commander.
Underlying this capability is the requirement to recruit, develop, and retain quality people. Recruiting
programs must be developed and employed to determine early the capabilities and potential of commanders
and staffs. Training programs must be developed and harness new technologies to improve the
comprehension and retention of key leadership and staff skills. BCSTs are desirable to reduce strategic lift
requirements, present smaller targets enhance mobility, and reduce sustainment requirements. In order that
BCSTs be reduced in size, but still perform the same functions, technologies must be applied that will reduce
the workload on soldiers. Enabling technologies include decision support software and planning aids,
user–friendly systems that optimize work performance, systems that automate staff functions, allow workload
sharing, and predict high workload periods and miniaturized hardware. Deployed BCSTs may also be made
smaller through the use of virtual staffs. Using advanced command, control, and communications (C3)
systems, small BCSTs could be linked to larger staffs in the rear, in a sanctuary, or even the continental
United States (CONUS). Using a shared, relevant common picture, rearward staffs could provide timely and
accurate planning, operational, and administrative support to the forward located BCST. Other actions
required to make BCSTs smaller are more efficient and effective man–machine information interface,
reorganization of staff structure around information flows that reduce fragments, stovepipes, and handoffs.
Staffs should be internetted, and at least partially nonhierarchical, to conduct cross–BOS processes.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–013; BCL 97–010, BCL 97–016; CM 97–001, CM 97–008; FA 97–015; FI 97–009; SP
97–005, SP 97–018, SP 97–020; TRD 97–004.

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
TR 97–050, Joint, Combined, and Interagency Training. Capability to conduct training and mission
rehearsals for joint, combined, or interagency operations. Army units need the capability to reconfigure
virtual, constructive, and live simulations to train/mission rehearse joint, combined, and interagency
operations. Commanders and individual battle staff members must be able to practice problem solving and
decision making skills in mission relevant, joint, combined, and interagency scenarios prior to their
participation in exercises or use on the battlefield. They must understand the differences in the Army’s
tactical decision making process and the joint deliberate and crisis action planning process. Soldiers need the
ability to train–up rapidly on a variety of potential topics, including foreign cultures and foreign language
skills, and the doctrine and standing operating procedures or terminology used by other services, coalition
forces, or agencies. Units need the capability to link up via distance learning technologies with joint,
combined, and interagency personnel for common training/mission rehearsal. Other services resources must
be integrated into battalion– and brigade–level simulations to train other service’s combat capabilities on a
regular basis. Commanders also need capability to bring together Army units, including Reserve
Components, with joint, combined, and interagency forces for training/mission rehearsal through linkage of
synthetic distributed environments, including common, datalinked terrain databases.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–013; BCL 97–018; CH 97–011; EEL 97–021, EEL 97–022; EN 97–003, EN 97–005, EN
97–006, EN 97–009, EN 97–030; FA 97–024; FI 97–009; MI 97–011; MP 97–015; SP 97–005, SP 97–018, SP
97–020; TRD 97–007.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–75.
TR 97–051, Training Infrastructure. Capability to deliver required training, throughout a soldier’s career,
how, when, and where it will be most training and cost effective. Soldiers must be able to learn and practice
the basic job–oriented physical and mental skills and gain required knowledge at their primary duty station,
receive advanced individual training at homestation distributed training centers, and learn and practice
hands–on skills on the job. Only the most difficult hands–on skills and selected courses taught using small
group instruction will require training onsite at the school. To achieve maximum effectiveness and efficiency,
training must be self–paced and individualized to a soldier’s needs. Soldiers must have easy access to
individualized sustainment training and Army training doctrine at homestation and post–mobilization. The
training infrastructure must be designed to fully support this evolution to phased–in, individualized,
distributed "soldier–oriented" training. Training developers at the schools must be linked to unit
commanders in order for them to do integrated and coordinated training development, delivery, and testing.
Training developer–unit linkages, as well as training developer–unit–combat training center (CTC) linkages,
will also enable school and unit training developers to receive timely feedback on new and emerging training
requirements as well as feedback on soldier performance. Training developers at both unit and school sites
must have ready access to easy–to–use training authoring tools and training doctrine. Authoring tools must
be capable of quickly building training programs with minimal input from a unit or school developer.
Linkages between the services’ training developers and training development systems will support
identification of tasks for which common training can be developed. Linkages between the services’

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
televideotraining and Internet–based training systems will support joint training delivery. Training
infrastructure must also be capable of:
• Developing and delivering training/mission rehearsals, on demand, to meet contingency

mission requirements. Training developers need capability to develop new or reconfigure
existing training for a variety of media on short notice. Units must be capable of rapid
planning, desktop/online development, and delivery of training /mission rehearsals for
contingency missions. Training developers and units must also be able to rapidly develop
performance evaluation tools tailored to present level of unit performance and requirements
of the immediate mission.
• Providing commanders knowledge and decision aids necessary to select best mix of training
and performance support option from the suite of available alternatives (e.g., live, virtual, and
constructive simulations or a combination thereof, individual and collective training support
packages, paper–based training/job aids, training devices and simulations, distance learning
products, field exercises, electronic performance support systems, embedded training).
Commanders must have capability to factor need for multiservice, multinational, and
interagency training into equation for determining best training mix. Commanders also must
be able to select from a suite of individual and collective performance evaluations to build an
overall evaluation strategy that provides them essential feedback on unit readiness for the
immediate mission.
• Providing training developers/unit commanders ability to employ valid performance

enhancing techniques appropriately to optimize soldier performance.
• Providing soldiers the means to identify training and skill requirements for various unit and
duty assignments. Soldiers also must be able to assess their status relative to these skill
requirements and to other soldiers, for purposes of self–development.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–013; DBS 97–070; FA 97–037; IN 97–990; MI 97–011; MP 97–012; SP 97–005,
SP 97–018, SP 97–020; TRD 97–001, TRD 97–006, TRD 97–011, TRD 97–010, TRD 97–018.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–75, paragraph 4–2(a–f); T.P. 525–200–3.
TR 97–052, Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations (TADSS) Fidelity Requirements. Capability
to employ the minimum essential level of fidelity in TADSS to support attaining and sustaining individual
and collective warfighting skills. Commanders need capability to conduct and assess training and rehearsals,
using a variety of tools, appropriate for the training audience and the commander’s training objectives. The
Army and joint forces must determine how much fidelity is required for a given simulation, how to maximize
training transfer from the simulated to real world, and how best to balance TADSS fidelity requirements with
fiscal constraints (i.e., increased fidelity = increased program costs). The Army must develop and
institutionalize design principles, protocols, and common operating environments for TADSS.

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
Branch FOCs: AR 97–013; AV 97–014; BCL 97–003; EN 97–003, EN 97–030; SP 97–005, SP 97–018,
SP 97–020; TRD 97–012.
TR 97–053, Embedded Training and Soldier–Machine Interface. Capability to design training systems into or
add training systems to operational systems to enable soldiers to train using organic equipment while in the
field or at homestation. The objective embedded training system(s) will provide the cues necessary to train
individual and collective skills; allow the system to participate in force–on–force exercises through embedded
tactical engagement simulation and instrumentation; and interoperate with Army Battle Command System
(ABCS) platforms and CTC instrumentation systems. Near–term requirements include integrating
embedded training functions within current warfighting systems. Capability to provide soldiers with new
equipment systems designed to optimize human performance. Soldiers must be able to use new equipment
systems quickly, easily, and effectively with only the minimum essential new equipment training, sustainment
training, experience using the equipment, or performance support systems. Capability must extend to
operation of equipment under high workload and high stress conditions (i.e., noise, motion, sustained
operations), when performance problems often occur. Training and performance support systems must also
be human–engineered for ease of use by soldiers.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–005; AR 97–013, AR 97–016; AV 97–015; CM 97–001, CM 97–008; DBS 97–099; EN
97–003, EN 97–006, EN 97–030; FA 97–015; SP 97–005, SP 97–018, SP 97–020; TRD 97–013, TRD 97–008.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–60; T.P. 525–70.
TR 97–054, Virtual Reality. Capability to use advanced simulation as a means of providing cost–effective,
safe, realistic, versatile, and accessible training to achieve proficiency in critical combat skills. Numerous
factors influence the requirement for this capability, including:
• Environmental constraints on training.
• Reduced range and exercise areas.
• Training safety concerns, pressure to trim OPTEMPO and ammunition budgets.
• The need to rehearse missions on the terrain and under the conditions that simulate the next
deployment as closely as possible.
• The need for training to be versatile enough to change in response to quickly changing
individual and collective task performance requirements.
When highly realistic training is needed to produce adequate training transfer, but field training or

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
on–the–job training is not feasible, trainers need the capability to provide training with the required level of
realism through other means. Similarly, when field training or on–the–job training can not adequately
replicate the operational environment/situation soldiers are facing, trainers must have a viable alternative for
provision of truly realistic training/mission rehearsal. Realistic, advanced simulation capabilities are also
critical to train/mission rehearse tasks that require multiple repetitions to achieve proficiency when
repetitions would not otherwise be possible. The capability to provide highly realistic training through means
other than on–the–job or field training is needed in numerous areas of individual and collective skills
training, including training for dismounted soldiers, maintenance training, training of equipment operation,
battle staff, and small group leader training. Trainers must be capable of easily reconfiguring advanced
simulations to meet training/mission rehearsal requirements of the immediate contingency. Capability to
train/mission rehearse tasks realistically within advanced simulation also requires realistically simulated
friendly and opposing forces.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–013, AR 97–016; AV 97–016; CH 97–003, CH 97–010; CM 97–001, CM 97–008; DSA
97–029; EN 97–003, EN 97–030; FA 97–015, FA 97–037; MI 97–011; MMB 97–020; SP 97–005, SP 97–018,
SP 97–020; TRD 97–014.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–75, paragraph 4–2 (a–f).
TR 97–055, Live, Virtual, and Constructive Simulation Technologies. Capability to provide commanders
homestation and deployable training systems providing targetry, tactical engagement simulation, and
training, analysis, and feedback capabilities, similar to those provided at the Army’s CTCs. These systems
must interoperate with CTC instrumentation systems, virtual and constructive simulation systems, and ABCS
systems. Tactical engagement simulation and future CTC instrumentation systems must leverage current
capabilities provided by Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES), SAWE–RF, and MILES II;
and incorporate current and future systems that must be represented in the live simulation environment (i.e.,
embedded training systems, electronic warfare systems, future weapons systems, and future munitions).
Branch FOCs: AR 97–013, AR 97–016; AV 97–017; CH 97–010; DSA 97–029; EN 97–003, EN 97–030; FA
97–015; MMB 97–020; SP 97–005, SP 97–018, SP 97–020; TRD 97–015.
Reference: T.P. 525–5; TRADOC Black Book No. 4, pp. 9–24.
TR 97–056, Synthetic Environment. Capability to provide training, at different levels (i.e., platoon through
brigade) at different geographic locations using different simulation systems on an interactive basis. Future
simulation systems, instrumentation systems, and ABCS platforms must be developed that operate (and
interoperate) using common terrain, weather, and object databases; accurately represent atmospheric effects;
and provide visual displays that are consistent with user requirements at all levels.
Branch FOCs: AR 97–013, AR 97–016; AV 97–018; DSA 97–029; EN 97–003, EN 97–030; MI 97–011;
MMB 97–020; SP 97–005, SP 97–018, SP 97–020; TRD 97–016.

Section B - 5, 6, 7, 8
References: T.P. 525–5; 525–70; T.P. 525–75, paragraph 4–2(a–f); Black Book No. 4.
TR 97–057, Modeling and Simulation. Capability to model/simulate existing and future Army and joint
forces organizations, doctrinal concepts, training systems and approaches, weapons systems, and other
entities for use in training, training development, mission planning and rehearsal, combat development,
materiel development, and experiments.
Branch FOCs: AD 97–013; AR 97–013, AR 97–016; AV 97–013; CM 97–001, CM 97–008; EEL 97–021; EN
97–003, EN 97–030; FA 97–015, MMB 97–018, MMB 97–020; SP 97–005, SP 97–018, SP 97–020;
TRD 97–015, TRD 97–019.
References: T.P. 525–5; T.P. 525–60; T.P. 525–70; T.P. 525–200–2; TRADOC Black Book No. 4.

Section C. Branch/Functional Unique Future Operational Capabilities
C. Branch/Functional Unique Future Operational Capabilities
Branch/functional unique FOCs are those FOC submissions that offer unique capabilities for a particular
TRADOC proponent. The TRADOC proponent is responsible for ensuring the FOC is reviewed and
updated annually.
1. Chaplain School
CH 97–011, Religious Support Projection. Capability to project religious support (e.g., rites, sacraments,
emergency ministrations, worship, counseling, education) to soldiers positioned outside physical contact
with religious support elements on a dispersed battlefield. This capability is critical to religious support for
independent company–size (or smaller) units conducting split–based operations, or attached to
multinational forces devoid of religious support.
2. Chemical School
CM 97–010, Advanced Flame and Incendiaries. The capability to employ target degrading, obscuring, and
defeating advanced incendiary materials/effects throughout the battlefield. Must provide electro–optical
(multispectral) obscuration and cause dissipation or attenuate other battlefield obscurants. Must be
accurately deployable in a soldier—carried, mounted, dismounted, projectable or space–based
configuration. Must be safely transportable and employable by a minimum of nonspecialized soldiers. Must
provide training munitions or simulations techniques.
References: T.P. 525–3, p. 16, paragraph 4g(4), p. 20, paragraph 4h(2)(h)(4); T.P. 525–5, p. 3–12, paragraph
3–2d; p. 3–18, paragraphs 3–3b(1)(a) and 3–3b(1)(c).
3. Combat Service Support Battle Laboratory
CSS 97–002, Containerization and Packaging. Capability to optimize package and container load
configurations to cover the spectrum of distribution platforms in CONUS and in theater. Will provide cargo
adaptable packaging that is recoverable, recyclable, light weight, needing little to no dunnage, and capable of
being decontaminated, electronically tracked during employment and monitored for integrity and effects of
adverse environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, moisture, shock).
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/cc.htm（第 1／9 页）2006-09-10 23:16:50

Reference: T.P. 525–100–1, p. 11, paragraph XX.
4. Early Entry Lethality and Survivability Battle Laboratory
EEL 97–018, Rapid Insertion of Army Equipment and Aviation. Capability to self–deploy or preposition
army aviation assets for rapid insertion during force projection operations.
References: T.P. 525–66; T.P. 525–200–2.
5. Engineer School
EN 97–001, Develop Digital Terrain Data. Capability to acquire, analyze, develop, update, and validate
digital terrain data that provides a basic foundation for the common knowledge of the battlespace, which is
scaleable, tailorable, timely, and relevant to the situation. This capability includes the ability to enrich terrain
data with higher resolution feature and elevation data, from information collected throughout the battlespace
by a wide variety of sensors and units.
References: T.P. 525–41, paragraphs 1–3b and 2–5; TRADOC Black Book No. 4, p. 20–25; Joint Vision
2010, p. 13.
EN 97–002, Common Terrain Database Management. Capability to collect, catalog, warehouse, transform,
update, and distribute in real– or near–real time large quantities of digital terrain data to provide the most
up–to–date information to all users. This should include procedures for tracking data lineage, synchronizing
data updates from various sources, and verifying the accuracy of data updates. It also includes the ability to
share data horizontally and vertically on the battlefield, and exchange data updates between terrain data
producers in CONUS or the theater and the terrain data managers/users.
References: T.P. 525–41, paragraphs 1–3b, 2–4, and 2–5; TRADOC Black Book No. 4, p. 20–25; Joint Vision
2010, p. 13.
EN 97–014, Provide, Repair, and Maintain Logistics Facilities. Capability to procure, construct, repair, and
maintain logistics facilities for supply, maintenance, and ammunition storage. This capability includes repair
of damages by hostile fire and damage remediation.
References: FM 5–104, p. 78–84; TRADOC Black Book No. 4, p. 25; Joint Vision 2010, p. 24.
EN 97–015, Procurement and Production of Construction Materials. Capability to rapidly obtain a supply of
suitable construction materials as a basis for constructing, maintaining, or repairing facilities in the theater of
operations. This capability includes obtaining materiel through the standard military supply system,
procurement from local manufacturers or producers, and extracting local natural resources or local military

processing. Local extraction requires the ability to excavate, load, and transport natural raw materials from
borrow pits; establish quarries to recover rock by drilling and blasting; or conduct logging operations. Local
processing of materials requires the ability to crush, screen, and wash rock to specific size and gradation
needed for asphalt and concrete; mix and transport asphalt; and produce, mix, and transport concrete.
References: FM 5–104, p. 7–14; Joint Vision 2010, p. 24.
EN 97–026, Fire Protection. Capability to provide rapid firefighting and emergency rescue to high–risk
supply facilities, forward area rearm and refuel points, and Army aviation facilities, and provide knowledge
and expertise in fire prevention.
EN 97–028, Engineering Support to Nonmilitary Operation. Capability to provide engineering services to

humanitarian operations, relief to natural or manmade disasters, and support to civil authorities. Includes
counter–drug operations and post–conflict remediation.
References: TRADOC Black Book No. 4, p. 16; Joint Pub. 4–04.
6. Finance
FI 97–001, Military Pay. Capability to quickly establish a client/server automation system in finance units at
echelons detachment and above. System will need to provide the capability to locally produce leave and
earning statements, and query and update military pay records for all services. It will also be compatible with
automated identification technology (MARC and others). The future system will be integrated with Adjutant
General School (personnel) databases. It will allow for split–based operations (Split Operations) resulting in
the smallest possible PSS footprint on the battlefield.
Reference: T.P. 525–200–6, p. 6 paragraph 3–3c.(2), p.7, paragraph 3–3c.(3).
FI 97–002, Civilian Pay. Capability to quickly establish a client/server automation system in finance units at
echelons detachment and above. System will need to provide the capability to query and update DoD civilian
employee pay records. The future system will be compatible with automated identification technology and
will support all future Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) developed software. This system
promotes split operations by limiting the need to deploy DFAS assets.
Reference: T.P. 525–200–6, p. 6, paragraph 3–3a.
FI 97–005, Travel Support. Capability to quickly establish an automation system capable of standalone or
client/server operations at echelons battalion and above. The system will allow deployed personnel to
provide travel support to service members and civilians. It must have the capability to process travel advances
made during noncombatant evacuation operations. This includes instances when the State Department issues
noncombatant evacuation orders for U.S. citizens in the host nation or target country. The system must be
capable of recording all travel settlements, and advances and travel. The future system must also capture all

cost associated with authorized travel and update appropriate resource management and pay databases via
digital communications.
FI 97–006, Disbursing. Capability to quickly establish an automation system capable of standalone or client/
server operations at echelons detachment and above. The system would track all disbursements (cash, check,
foreign currency, or EFT) and collections. The future system must be compatible with automated
identification technology and be fully integrated with pay and RM systems.
FI 97–007, Accounting. Capability to quickly establish a network of accounting computers using wireless
communications technologies at echelons above battalion. The system will capture the use of all appropriated
and nonappropriated funds. The timely accurate accounting data provided by this system will help
commanders meet their responsibility for stewardship of public resources. This data will help ensure rapid
and accurate reimbursement of OMA funds used to finance deployments. This system will be fully integrated
with DFAS and supports split operations.
7. Medical
MD 97–001, Patient Evacuation. Required capability of the Army Medical Department (AMMED) is to
provide a seamless air and ground medical evacuation system throughout the operational spectrum. The
system must have the capability to provide continuous support in all environmental conditions,
communicate with supporting and supported units, maintain situational awareness on the future digitized
battlefield, be modular in design, and possess the capability to provide state–of–the–art medical care
compatible with the medical structure on the battlefield. Medical evacuation provides a means of reducing
morbidity and mortality through timely movement of casualties under continuous medical supervision and
care. Furthermore, the system must allow for coordination, integration, and be compatible with joint and
combined forces. Medical evacuation must be capable of operating in an NBC contaminated environment.
Aeromedical Evacuation—The changing nature of modern warfare demands that medical evacuation
platforms have communication, navigation, and situational awareness capabilities compatible with the forces
they support. It also demands the medical capability to provide treatment and sustain casualties during
evacuation over greater distances. Future aeromedical evacuation platforms must have the capability to
visually acquire patients at night or during periods of degraded visibility, and positively identify casualty and
casualty pickup points, as well as maintain threat avoidance. As future options force the Army to leave large
hospitals in the rear and push resuscitative surgery forward, aeromedical evacuation aircraft must be capable
of providing enhanced en route medical care and monitoring capabilities. Medical evacuation aircraft must
possess the capability to effectively operate on the future digitized battlefield.
Ground Evacuation—Capabilities required in the future ground medical evacuation platforms include
expansion of treatment space for the medical attendant to provide en route care, ability to keep pace with the
supported force, accessible storage of medical equipment, and improved medical capabilities of the vehicle.
Those capabilities include an on board oxygen production unit, a medical suction system, improved litter
configuration, and provisions for a medical mentoring system. Capabilities required in the treatment role

include providing adequate space and equipment configuration for a trauma treatment team to provide care
to combat casualties inside of the vehicle under the protection of armor.
References: T.P. 525–50, paragraphs 2–3d(1), 3–1, and 3–3b.
MD 97–004, Combat Health Support in a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Environment. Capability
required to perform medical support operations in NBC environments. Medical doctrine needs to
incorporate the full range of NBC threat, from peacetime regulatory limits to all out war. NBC environments
seriously degrade the ability to triage, diagnose, and treat casualties while in protective posture. Each NBC
hazard presents unique, well–documented injuries, but when used in combination or combined with
conventional insults or disease nonbattle injuries, the injuring effects are not fully understood.
References: FM 3–5, Chapter 9; FM 8–10–7; T.P. 525–50, paragraph 2–2d; Medical Readiness Strategic
Plan–2001, Chapter 12.
MD 97–005, Far–Forward Surgical Support. Capability to provide forward deployed emergency resuscitative
surgery across the range of military operations, to include NBC environments. Capability to project surgery
forward increases as a result of the extended battlefield. Capability to provide urgent resuscitative surgery for
casualties who require surgical stabilization prior to further evacuation. Capability to provide improved
shelter systems that allow for both tactical and strategic deployability, quick set–up, and a rapid–response
surgical capability under environmentally controlled conditions.
Reference: T.P. 525–50, paragraph 3–3c.
MD 97–006, Hospitalization. Capability to provide full hospital care across the range of military operations,
to include NBC environments. Hospital personnel must provide definitive care for return to duty or
stabilizing care for evacuation out of theater to an increasingly diverse population of deployed personnel
from all the uniformed and government services. In addition, combat hospitals must care for refugees and
displaced civilians as the result of combat, civil strife, or natural disasters. Required capabilities include
inpatient care, outpatient care, and consultant services in the medical, surgical, obstetrical, gynecological,
pediatric, geriatric, and NBC arenas. Combat hospitals must organize as effectively augmented, fully
functional modules to rapidly deploy and operate forward, independently of the main hospital unit.
Clinical systems such as cardiac resuscitation, ventilation management, intravenous fluid administration and
surgery, and anesthesia equipment must all possess the capability to keep pace with deployability
requirements as well as the ever increasing disease and injury spectrums found in the area of operation.
Integral to clinical systems are the skills of the hospital staff themselves. Senior medical leadership must
possess the capability of staffing combat hospitals with personnel who demonstrate the unique skills needed
for the particular type of mission. Future capabilities of all hospital personnel must include keeping pace with
changing mission requirements, functioning in an NBC environment, and caring for decontaminated NBC
casualties.

Reference: T.P. 525–50, paragraph 3–3c.
MD 97–007, Preventive Medicine. Capability to improve soldier sustainability through the prevention of
endemic diseases; injury from radiation environmental, occupational, and CB warfare agent hazards; or from
combat stresses. It must be capable of deploying a modular support package to provide comprehensive
support, adaptable to a full range of military operations. Will provide rapid and comprehensive
environmental and occupational monitoring to assess acute and chronic health risks encountered during
military operations. Will provide versatile, mobile, and enhanced disease vector control support to reduce
vector–borne diseases in a theater of operations. Must be capable of integrating disease surveillance from the
forward line of troops to CONUS.
References: T.P. 525–5, paragraph 2–1a(8); T.P. 525–50, paragraph 2–2d.
MD 97–008, Combat Health Logistics Systems (CHLS) and Blood Management. Capability to support force
projection Army in multiple locations through split–based operations. The CHLS must be modular in design
and anticipatory to provide the necessary flexibility and mobility. Division–level class VIII support includes
receipt, storage, processing, disposal, and distribution of medical materiel; unit–level medical maintenance;
receipt of type O red blood cells; and single optical fabrication and repair. Corps and echelons above corps
support includes receipt, storage, processing, contracting, disposal, and distribution of medical materiel, unit
and direct support/general support level medical maintenance; blood distribution and the limited capability
to collect blood; single and multivision optical fabrication and repair; medical gas distribution; and the
building of medical assemblages/resupply packages. The CHLS must centrally manage critical class VIII
items, patient movement items, blood products, medical maintenance, and class VIII contracting. It must be
capable of coordinating logistics and transportation support with nonmedical logistics organizations for all
medical logistics activities within an area of operations. It must be able to support reception operations for
prepositioned afloat medical materiel at ports of debarkation. The CHLS must employ state–of–the–art
standardized medical logistics information management and communication systems to facilitate total asset
and in–transit visibility, automated transmission of optical fabrication requests, management of blood and
blood products, management of medical equipment readiness, and management of captured enemy medical
materiel and equipment. These systems must be compatible with and connected to all services to accomplish
the single integrated medical logistics management mission of the AMMED.
Reference: T.P. 525–50, paragraph 3–3d(1–3).
MD 97–009, Combat Stress Control (CSC). Capability to deploy small stress control (mental health) teams
routinely to all battalion and company–sized units, at all echelons, across the continuum of operations from
combat to unit field training, garrison, and unit family support. Corps–level CSC units’ teams will augment
officer/NCO teams organic to forward support and area support medical companies. All these teams provide
ongoing command consultation, education, stress monitoring, unit surveys, critical event debriefings,
reconstitution support, DoD–mandated medical and stress surveillance, and other unit–level interventions.
They will help the command sustain operation performance of crucial weapons and logistics systems, and
prevent stress–induced error, disability, and misconduct (primary prevention). Stress control teams will be

linked with a Human Dimension Team (organic to Corps Medical Command) to magnify preventive
capability. The same stress control teams have the capability for task organization to provide restoration
treatment near stress casualties’ units for quick return to duty (second prevention), and echelon
reconditioning treatment to maximize return to duty and prevent chronic disability (tertiary prevention).
References: T.P. 525–50, paragraph 3–3h and Annex I.
MD 97–010, Medical Laboratory Support. Medical laboratories must be modular in design to provide the
necessary flexibility and tailorability to support split–based operations and deployment as functional
emulative increments. The medical laboratory system must provide a seamless continuum of functional
capability across the entire range of military operations with the level of capabilities and sophistication
increasing with each successively higher echelon of care. Far–forward medical laboratory support at the
division requires limited, rapid laboratory procedures to support patient stabilization, resuscitation, and
advanced trauma management of combat casualties. Additional blood gas and chemistry capabilities are
needed to augment basic manual laboratory procedures currently performed by laboratory personnel
assigned to divisional/nondivisional medical companies. Equipment and rapid diagnostic tests are needed to
provide point–of–care laboratory support for blood gas, basic hematology, and limited urinalysis testing at
division–level forward surgical teams. These laboratory procedures will be performed by nonlaboratory
personnel assigned to the forward surgical team and will require remote monitoring by qualified laboratory
personnel. Additional anatomic pathology and clinical reference laboratory capabilities can be added to a
corps or echelons above corps hospital with the attachment of a theater level pathology augmentation team.
Medical equipment sets for the pathology augmentation team must be developed to support the additional
capabilities for anatomic pathology and more definitive chemistry and microbiology procedures.
Independent of the corps and echelons above corps hospital laboratories, the Area Medical Laboratory is a
theater–level unit that will focus on the assessment and field confirmation of health threats to forces in the
area of operation posed by endemic diseases, occupational and environmental health hazards, radiation
hazards, and CB warfare agents. It must have equipment that is state of the art and readily upgradeable to
keep abreast of new and emerging technologies that arise in the R&D community. A specialized
biocontainment shelter system must be developed for the Area Medical Laboratory to provide a safe,
environmentally–controlled working environment for the handling and analysis of highly infectious
pathogens and hazardous materials.
Reference: T.P. 525–50, paragraph 3–3j.
MD 97–011, Dental Service. Capability to provide emergency, preventive, general, and specialty dental care
throughout the full range of military operations. Capability to insure the highest level of soldier oral health
prior to deployment. This requires the ability to provide dental care on a sustained basis for all of America’s
Army. America’s Army is composed of the Active Army, the National Guard, and the Reserve Component.
Capability of providing far forward dental services to small and forward deployed troop concentrations. This
far forward care will result in the early treatment of dental emergencies, the immediate return of the soldier to
duty, and minimal evacuations of dental emergencies to the rear. These teams will augment and reconstitute
division dental assets as necessary. Capability to amplify and augment medical assets during combat and mass

casualty situations. This includes, but is not limited to, Advanced Trauma Management, augmentation of
anesthesia teams, wound closure, and first aid. This alternative wartime capability will reduce battlefield
morbidity and mortality.
References: T.P. 525–5, paragraphs 1–2a(2), 1–2b(3)(b), 1–2d, 1–2e, 1–3, 1–3a, 1–3b, 2–6, 2–3b(2), 3–1a,
3–1a(2), 3–1a(3)(5), 3–1b, 3–2a(1), 3–2a(5), 3–2e, 4–1c, 4–1d, and Figures 1–2 and 2–4,line 1; T.P. 525–50,
paragraphs 2–3a, 2–3d(2), 2–3e, 3–1, 3–2c, 3–2e, and 3–3a(2).
MD 97–012, Veterinary Services. Capability to deploy personnel/teams to provide theater–level veterinary

services and support. Support includes health and treatment of government animals; food hygiene, safety,
and quality assurance for subsistence at the point of origin and for DoD operational rations; inspections of
commercial food, water, and ice establishments; and surveillance for NBC contaminated subsistence. These
teams must have the capability to task organize and deploy modules for short duration in support of civil
operations.
References: T.P. 525–5, paragraphs 1–3, 1–3b, 3–2a(5), and 4–4; T.P. 525–50, paragraph 2–3c(1)(2).
8. Ordnance School
OD 97–016, Tool Improvement. Capability to repair Army equipment using fewer, improved, multipurpose
hand tools, and portable test equipment. Will provide test equipment and tools that are multicapable,
portable, multisystem, possess an open architecture to facilitate upgrades, and incorporation of new
technology.
Reference: T.P. 525–200–6.
9. Quartermaster School
QM 97–010, Mortuary Affairs. Capability to provide rapid identification and evacuation of human remains.
Will provide rapid automated identification, location, and evacuation of human remains.
Reference: T.P. 525–200–6, paragraph 4–6a.
10. Space
SP 97–021, Space Control. An offensive and defensive capability is required to allow U.S. forces to gain and
maintain control of activities conducted in space. This capability is designed to prevent an enemy force from
gaining an advantage from space systems and space capabilities, and protect U.S. forces’ ability to conduct
military operations. Capabilities to conduct surveillance and protect U.S. space systems are required.
Measures to deceive, disrupt, degrade, or destroy threat space systems, segments, or infrastructure are
required to support force projection operations. Depending on operational considerations, nonlethal means

of denying threat satellites may be required for certain orbits or portions of orbits, and to minimize
generation of space debris. The ability to achieve and maintain space control is required from both terrestrial
and space locations. A U.S. infrastructure providing support for space control operations is a required
capability.
Reference: T.P. 525–60, Chapter 3.

Section D. Abbreviations
D. Abbreviations
ABCS Army Battle Command System

ACT II Advanced Concepts and Technology II
AD Air Defense School
AMMED Army Medical Department
AR Armor School
AV Aviation School
BAA broad agency announcement

BCG Battle Command (Gordon) Battle Laboratory
BCL Battle Command (Leavenworth) Battle Laboratory
BCST battle command support team
BLITCD Battle Laboratory Integration, Technology, and Concepts Directorate

C2W command and control warfare
CH Chaplain School
CHLS Combat Health Logistics Systems
CI Civilian Internee
CM Chemical School
CP Command Post
CSC Combat Stress Control
CTC combat training center
DBS Dismounted Battlespace Battle Laboratory

DFAS Defense Finance and Accounting Service
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/cd.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:16:52

DSA Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battle Laboratory
EELS Early Entry, Lethality, and Survivability Battle Laboratory

EN Engineer School
EPW Enemy Prisoner of War
ET Embedded Training
FA Field Artillery School

FI Finance School
FOC Future Operational Capability
HQ Headquarters

IN Infantry School
KIA killed–in–action
LOC lines of communication
MD Medical Department
MI Military Intelligence School
MILES Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System
MMB Mounted Maneuver Battle Laboratory
MP Military Police School
MSB Maneuver Support Battle Laboratory

NCO noncommissioned officer
OD Ordnance Corps School

OTM on the move
QM Quartermaster School

SC Signal Corps School
SP Space Operations

TADSS training aids, devices, simulators, and simulations

TC Transportation Corps School
TOC Tactical Operation Center
T.P. TRADOC pamphlet
TR TRADOC
TRD training research and development
UXO unexploded ordnance

Annex D - Space and Missile Defense Technologies, Sections A and B
Annex D
Space and Missile Defense Technologies
A. Purpose
This annex describes space and missile technology developments that support the needs that are documented
in Joint Vision 2010, Army Vision 2010, U.S. Space Command Vision for 2020, and insights emerging from
the Army After Next (AAN) process. It provides a technology development roadmap to meet the evolving
needs for joint operations of the warfighter out to 2015. It also provides an overview of the Program
Executive Office—Air Missile Defense (PEO–AMD) system elements and the associated technology
programs that address the needs of the system elements. The objective is to provide the Army position for
missile defense and space technology, needs, and requirements.
The near–term technologies support ongoing programs that typically provide a risk mitigation alternative to
the program managers and cover up to 5 years. Mid–term technologies addressing preplanned product
improvement (P3I) and next–generation efforts to counter known threats are also included under the
near–term technologies. Far–term technologies are initiatives that typically address future operational
capabilities (FOCs) and projected/evolving threats and focus on the efforts with payoffs 5 years and beyond.
B. Introduction
On October 1, 1997, the Army Space and Strategic Defense Command (SSDC) was reorganized to become
the Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC). The reorganization recognizes the command’s
expanding role in Army space and missile defense areas and better postures the Army to meet space and
missile defense needs for Joint Vision 2010, Army Vision 2010, and U.S. Space Command Vision 2020, as
well as insights emerging from the Army After Next process. A memorandum of agreement (MOA) between
the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and SMDC was signed in February 1997. This
MOA established SMDC as the Army’s specified proponent for space and national missile defense (NMD)
issues and the lead for integration of TRADOC theater missile defense (TMD) issues; identified SMDC as the
Army lead for the generation and definition of space and national defense requirements, and authorized
SMDC to establish a space and missile defense battle laboratory to develop warfighting concepts, focus
military science and technology (S&T) research, and conduct warfighting experiments. The SMDC has a
unique role as technology developer and integrator, combat developer, materiel developer, tester, evaluator,
and operational commander.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/da_b.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 23:17:00

In response to the expanded role of the command, SMDC has outlined four goals of the reorganized
command. These goals encompass the major themes for Army space and missile defense modernization.
Progress towards the goals will enable the joint and army visions of warfighting in the 21st century. The goals
are:
• Robust space integration into full–spectrum land force operations

• Global, multielement missile defense
• Progressive space and missile defense technology for land forces
• Anticipatory space partnerships.
Missile Defense and Space Technology Center (MDSTC), Huntsville, Alabama. The MDSTC is the nation’s
hub of Army missile defense technology excellence. In addition to advancing missile defense technologies in
support of organizations such as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), it places renewed
emphasis on space technology development. The MDSTC enables FOCs in space and missile defense and
will continue to develop opportunities for international cooperation as well as partnerships with academia,
industry, and other government organizations.
Space and Missile Defense Battle Laboratory (SMDBL), Huntsville, Alabama. The SMDBL will conduct
warfighting experiments, develop and use space missile defense modeling and simulation (M&S) tools,
support Army and other major exercise and training activities, and conduct studies and analyses on issues
relevant to the battle laboratory. This effort is the heart of the Army space and missile defense requirements
determination process. Progressive and iterative mixtures of constructive, virtual, and live simulations will be
used, incorporating soldiers and units. The warfighting insights developed from this process will serve as way
points to plot the Army’s future space and missile defense course.
The SMDBL synthetic battlefield environment (SBE) will support space and missile defense
live–virtual–constructive experiments in the domains of advanced concepts and requirements (ACRs);
training, exercises, and military operations (TEMO); and research, development, and acquisition (RDA).
The SBE architecture will be holistic, allowing operators, combat and materiel developers, technology
developers, and testers to examine doctrine, training, leader development, organization, materiel, and
soldiers (DTLOMS) requirements in a virtual environment.
The SMDBL will work in close coordination with the TRADOC Analysis Center, Operational Test and
Evaluation Command (OPTEC), the S&T community, the joint test community, TRADOC battle
laboratories, and battle laboratories of other services.
Army Space Command (ARSPACE), Colorado Springs, Colorado. The ARSPACE will conduct space and
missile defense operations supporting U.S. Space Command and other joint forces and commands.
ARSPACE will represent the Army in the space planning and requirements system process. In addition,
ARSPACE will coordinate plans for Army national missile defense, including plans for fielding and operating
a national missile defense battalion. ARSPACE will maintain contact with other joint space and missile
defense users to determine needs and demonstrate capabilities such as the joint in–theater injection (JITI)

capability. Army space support teams will remain the Army’s primary interface with the warfighter in the
field. These teams will be enhanced with increasingly capable space applications developed through the
SMDBL and the Space Technology Directorate (STD).
Army Space Program Office (ASPO), Fairfax, Virginia. The ASPO will provide national intelligence to the
warfighter. In addition to the well–established tactical exploitation of national capabilities (TENCAP)
program, SMDC will apply ASPO’s TENCAP to other operational capabilities involving space and missile
defense. ASPO, working in coordination with SMDBL, STD, and ARSPACE, will place emphasis on
integrating space capabilities, evolving into the overall space materiel developer for the command. Initiatives
such as Eagle Vision II will leverage commercial space applications for commanders in the field.
Force Development and Integration Center (FDIC), Arlington, Virginia. The FDIC’s mission is to develop,
coordinate, and prioritize Army actions associated with space and missile defense combat and materiel
development. The FDIC will integrate and synchronize space and missile defense DTLOMS solutions across
the Army and, as appropriate, among joint warfighters. The FDIC will determine requirements to integrate
solutions horizontally and vertically. To coordinate externally, SMDC will exchange liaison officers with
appropriate organizations. In some cases, this liaison is already in place (TRADOC and U.S. Space
Command, for example). Identifying additional liaison requirements is a priority.
Space Technology Directorate (STD), Huntsville, Alabama. The STD, organized within MDSTC, will
identify space technologies and applications developed by the Army and other agencies. The STD will
develop a long–range space research and development program. This program will focus Army space
technology on space future warfighting concepts and space operational capabilities. It will review space
technology initiatives in cooperation with the SMDBL experimentation program. The STD will emphasize
horizontal technology integration and search for opportunities to leverage the technology developed outside
of the Army in organizations such as BMDO, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), other
services, and other military and commercial technology developers.
Space and Missile Defense Acquisition Center, Huntsville, Alabama. The Space and Missile Defense
Acquisition Center centralizes materiel development, testing, and evaluation. The center will develop, field,
and sustain low–density space and missile defense systems for the warfighter. Initially, the center will include
the National Missile Defense (Ground) Project Office, ASPO, Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense
Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) Project Office, and Targets Program Office, in addition to U.S.
Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) and High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF). The center will
develop working relationships with organizations such as the Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM),
OPTEC, and Communications–Electronics Command (CECOM).
U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) and Kwajalein Missile Range (KMR), Republic of the Marshall Islands.
The USAKA/KMR is a world–class space surveillance and missile defense test facility that provides a vital role
in the research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) of America’s defense and space programs. The
Kiernan Reentry Measurement System (KREMS) radar complex will continue to support U.S. Space
Command operations, and USAKA/KMR will proactively develop additional test support initiatives. In

supporting the U.S. Space Command and the Army space mission, KMR will conduct space–object
identification and provide orbital information on new foreign launches.
High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF), White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico. The
HELSTF operates the nation’s most powerful laser (mid–infrared (IR) advanced chemical laser) in support
of Army and DoD laser RDT&E. It also provides test support to DoD NASA, industry, universities, and
foreign governments under appropriate user agreements. The HELSTF will be a major contributor to the
command’s international and commercial partnership initiatives. HELSTF’s capabilities will support active
defense against aerospace targets, as well as initiatives such as space control and applying force into and from
space.

C. Requirements
C. Requirements
1. Technology Drivers (Threat Summary)
This section briefly describes the missile– and space–based threats to the United States and its allies projected for the periods 1998–03 and 2004–15. Theater ballistic missiles (TBMs) are discussed first, followed by the strategic threat to the United
States, cruise missiles, and, finally, space systems. Each of these sections addresses threat trends that will likely drive U.S. technology development.
a. Overview
Proliferation. There continues to be a trend away from manned weapon platforms toward unmanned weapon systems (TBMs, cruise missiles, etc.) with longer range standoff capabilities. Factors motivating this trend include economics, availability,
regional power struggles, and lessons from the Gulf War. (Reference 1)
Technology Trends. As a result of the increase in "dual–use" computer, electronics, and materials technologies, we anticipate technological improvements in virtually every type of weapon system. The use of global positioning systems (GPSs) for
cruise missile accuracy improvements is a good example of the employment of dual–use technology to improve an existing weapon system. (References 22, 23)
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). At least 20 countries have, or may be developing, nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons and the ballistic missile systems needed to deliver them. Ten countries are reportedly pursuing biological
weapons research, and at least as many are reported to be interested in developing nuclear weapons. The incorporation of these WMD munitions on various weapon platforms presents enormous challenges to defensive weapon systems designers.
(References 2–4)
b. Theater Ballistic Missile Threat Overview
TBMs include ballistic missiles with ranges of less than 5,500 kilometers (km). They are surface launched, fly a ballistic trajectory that may include aimpoint corrections, and can carry conventional or WMD warheads. TBMs are typically transported
and launched from a transporter–erector launcher (TEL), which provides both mobility and concealment. The threat from TBMs is real and growing. The proliferation of ballistic missile–delivered WMD is an issue directly confronting the strategic
interests of the U.S. and its traditional allies. Long–range artillery rockets are included with TBMs since their size, trajectory, warheads, and target set are similar. TBM performance trends are summarized in Figure D–1. (References 1, 6)
c. Strategic Threat Overview
The strategic threats to the U.S. include intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine–launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and long–range cruise missiles armed with WMD. The only current ICBM and SLBM threats to the U.S. are Russia
and China. Russia possesses over 6,500 warheads mounted on 1,300 ICBMs and SLBMs. Under the provisions of the START I treaty, they must draw down inventories to less than 4,900 warheads by the year 2002, and they appear to be on schedule.
If START II is ratified by the Duma, a further reduction to 3,500 warheads should occur. While China is both improving performance and the quantity of the weapons in its strategic force, Russia is the only current strategic–range cruise missile
threat. The strategic threat performance summary is shown in Figure D–2. (References 1–3, 5, 7)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/dc.htm（第 1／9 页）2006-09-10 23:17:18

C. Requirements
d. Cruise Missile Threat Overview
Cruise missiles are receiving increased attention as a weapon that U.S. and allied forces are likely to encounter in various situations around the world. Cruise missiles are not a new threat. They were used extensively in World War II (the German
V–1), the Falklands War EXOCET, and most recently by the U.S. in the Persian Gulf War. While the majority of the current threat is designed for the antiship mission, this trend is expected to change to an emphasis on land attack cruise missiles
(LACMs) in the near future. A further complication is their similarity to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which are being used more and more primarily for nonlethal missions around the world. Systems that possess antiradiation homing (ARH)
capabilities are a particular concern to defensive systems. LACM and UAV performance trends are shown in Figure D–3. (References 1, 4, 5, 9–16, 20)
e. Space System Threat Overview
Virtually all countries now have some degree of access to space system resources, either by developing their own space system resources, or by purchasing, leasing, renting, or timesharing available space system assets from one of the space developer
nations or consortiums. Space systems are primarily utilized for two major purposes: observation and communications, with research coming up a distant third. The two primary functions serve as major force multipliers when considered in a
military perspective. The space threat to the U.S. involves any trends that increase a foreign capability to perform these functions or to impair the U.S. capability, resulting in a reduction in the degree of our information superiority. The importance of
this superiority was illustrated by the fact that the denial of access to space–based information by Iraq was considered a major factor in the overall campaign success of Operation Desert Storm. Threat trends involving employment of space systems
and antisatellite (ASAT) threats to U.S. space assets are summarized below in Figure D–4. (References 1, 5, 8, 17–19, 21)

C. Requirements
2. Linkage of Technology to Future Operational Capabilities
FOCs provide fundamental guidance for S&T work based on warfighting requirements. Throughout this document every opportunity will be made to link technology to the fundamental needs of the warfighter as expressed in the FOCs. It is
important to understand what constitutes warfighting requirements: it is a change to any of the current DTLOMS systems needed to achieve a desired future operational capability. Consulting a number of different areas—including concept
development, S&T research, warfighting experimentation, and the existence of urgent and immediate operational needs—will now derive the new requirements. The requirements are determined throughout the Army but documented and defended
primarily at TRADOC schools and Battle Labs. A crosswalk of FOCs to SMDC technologies is provided in Table D–1.
Table D–1. FOC/Technology Crosswalk
Technology Area Future Operational Capabilities (May 1997)
Kinetic Energy Weapon Technology
Hit–to–Kill Miniature TR97–040 Firepower Lethality

Interceptor AD97–003 Munitions
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–028 Missile Defense of the U.S.
Exoatmospheric Interceptor TR97–040 Firepower Lethality

Technology
Pilot Line Experiment AR97–001 Mounted Firepower

Technology AV97–006 Weapons Suite
DSA97–003 TMD
Focal Plane Array AR97–001 Mounted Firepower

Technology AV97–006 Weapons Suite
DSA 97–002 Smart & Brilliant Munitions for Deep Attack
DSA97–003 TMD
Advanced Discriminating AR97–001 Mounted Firepower

LADAR AV97–006 Weapons Suite
DSA97–003 TMD
Signal/Data Processor AD97–006 Classification, Discrim, ID, & Correlation of Information

AR97–001 Mounted Firepower
AR97–004 Mounted Target Acquisition & ID
AV97–006 Weapons Suite
DSA97–003 TMD

C. Requirements
Algorithm Development AD97–006 Classification, Discrimination, ID, & Correlation of Information

DSA97–003 TMD
Inertial Measurement Unit DSA97–003 TMD

Control System AD97–002 Mobility
Booster Development AD97–002 Mobility

AD97–012 Counter Aerial & Space–Based RISTA
DSA97–001 Extended Ranges of Deep Attack Systems
DSA97–003 TMD
Power Development DSA97–003 TMD

Warhead Development AD97–002 Mobility

AD97–003 Munitions
DSA97–003 TMD
Endoatmospheric AD97–012 Counter Aerial & Space–Based RISTA Platforms

Interceptor Technology DSA97–003 TMD
Millimeter–Wave AV97–006 Weapons Suite

Component DSA97–003 TMD
Window Technology DSA97–003 TMD

Development DSA97–028 Missile Defense of the U.S.
Composite Airframe & AD97–002 Mobility

Structure AD97–003 Munitions
AD97–012 Counter Aerial & Space–Based RISTA Platforms
DSA97–019 Enhanced Mobility for TMD & Precision Strike Attack Systems
DSA97–003 TMD
Poly Acrylonitrile Fiber DSA97–003 TMD

SHORAD With Optimized TR97–040 Firepower Lethality

Radar Distribution AD97–002 Mobility
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–018 Rapidly Deployable Attack Systems

C. Requirements
Sensors Technology
CO2 LADAR Development TR97–002 Situational Awareness

Programs AR97–004 Mounted Target Acquisition & ID
AR97–009 Mtd Standoff Minefield
AV97–007 Survivability
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–021 Sensors
DSA97–024 Sensor to Shooter Linkages
EEL97–026 Space–Based Early Warning
Advanced Radar Technology TR97–002 Situational Awareness

Program TR97–006 Combat ID
AV97–011 Aviation Battle Command
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–004 Survivability of Deep Attack Systems
DSA97–010 Day/Night, All–Weather Sensors
DSA97–011 Rapid ID & Location of Passive Targets
DSA97–021 Sensors
Focal Plan Array Processing AR97–001 Mounted Firepower

& Packaging Development AR97–004 Mounted Target Acquisition & ID
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–021 Sensors
EEL 97–026 Space–Based Early Warning
Multimission Sensor Suite TR97–002 Situational Awareness

TR97–006 Combat ID
TR97–020 Information Collection, Dissemination, & Analysis
TR97–021 Real–Time Target Acquisition, ID, & Dissemination
AD97–006 Classification, Discrimination, ID, & Correlation of Information
AD97–007 Sensors
AR97–006 Situational Awareness
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–021 Sensors
EEL 97–026 Space–Based Early Warning
Phenomenology
Phenomenology Analysis & AD97–006 Classification, Discrimination, ID, & Correlation of Information
Algorithm Development DSA97–003 TMD
Program DSA97–004 Survivability of Deep Attack Systems
Phenomenology AD97–006 Classification, Discrimination, ID, & Correlation of Information

Experiments Program DSA97–003 TMD
BM/C4I

C. Requirements
Integrated Operational TR97–001 Command & Control

Airspace Management TR97–002 Situational Awareness
System (IOAMS) TR97–005 Airspace Management
AD97–002 Mobility
AR97–007 C&C On the Move
BCG97–001 Battlefield Information Passage
BCL97–013 Information Protection
DSA97–017 Terrain Independent Communications & Information Distribution
Free Space Laser TR97–007 Battlefield Info Passage

Communications SP97–001 Space Sensors Linked with Terrestrial Systems
SP97–102 Survivable Systems with Low Probability of Intercept/Detection
SP97–011 Real–Time Dissemination Systems
SP97–012 Survivable Systems with Low Probability of Intercept/Detection
AD97–004 Fused & Correlated Situational Awareness
BCG97–008 Information Protection
BM/C3I Technology TR97–XX Command & Control (ALL)

TR97–XX Information Management (ALL)
AD97–005 Decision Support Software & Tactical Planning Aids
SP97–001 Space Sensors Linked with Terrestrial Systems
SP97–003 NBC Threats & TM Attack Warning
SP97–020 Missile Defense
BCG98–001 Battlefield Information Passage
BCL97–003 Decision Planning Support
AD97–005 Decision Support Software & Tactical Planning Aids
AR97–007 C&C On the Move
AV97–003 Mission Planning & Rehearsal
AV97–012 Airspace Management
Survivability and Lethality
Survivability TR97–043 Survivability—Materiel

AD97–008 Air Defense Systems Survivability
AV97–007 Survivability
DSA97–003 Theater Missile Defense
DSA97–004 Survivability Of Deep Attack Systems
Lethality TR97–040 Firepower Lethality

BCL97–012 Information Attack
DSA97–003 TMD
Modeling & Simulation TR97–003 Mission Planning & Rehearsal

TR97–047 Leader & Commander
TR97–054 Virtual
TR97–055 Live, Virtual, & Constructive Simulation Technologies
TR97–057 Modeling & Simulation
AD97–013 Live Virtual Battlefield Description
AV97–013 Systematic Upgrade of Constructive Combat Development Models
AV97–016 Virtual Reality; Interactive Training Capabilities in Synthetic Environment Systems
Targets, Test, and Evaluation

C. Requirements
Future Test Target TR97–040 Firepower Lethality

Requirements AD97–002 Mobility
Directed–Energy Weapons Technology
Solid–State Laser Technology TR97–040 Firepower Lethality

SP97–021 Space Control
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–026 Alternative Attack Systems
Hydrogen Fluoride Overtone AR97–004 Mounted Target Acquisition & ID

Technology BCL97–012 Information Attack
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–030 Counter RISTA
Materials and Components Technology
Microelectronics/Optics SP97–006 Robust Architecture to Overcome Degradation Factors

Program SP97–020 Missile Defense
AD97–013 Live Virtual Battlefield Description
DSA97–002 Smart & Brilliant Munitions for Deep Attack
DSA97–003 TMD
Innovative Radar TR97–002 Situation Awareness

Components Research TR97–005 Airspace Management
AD97–007 Sensors
AD97–011 Early Warning
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–021 Sensors
DP97–002 Sensors to Detect Passive & Active Targets
Operations Research and Systems Analysis
TEL Hunter/Killer TR97–040 Firepower Lethality

AD97–002 Mobility
DSA97–002 Smart & Brilliant Munitions for Deep Attack
DSA97–010 Day/Night, All–Weather, All Terrain Sensors

C. Requirements
JLENS Program TR97–002 Situation Awareness

TR97–020 Information Collection, Dissemination, & Analysis
AD97–007 Sensors
AR97–006 Situation Awareness
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–011 Rapid Location & ID of Passive Targets
DSA97–021 Sensors
DSA97–024 Beyond the Visual Range ID
Kinetic Energy Antisatellite TR97–040 Firepower Lethality

Program AD97–008 Air Defense Systems Survivability
Tactical High Energy Laser TR97–040 Firepower Lethality

(THEL) AD97–002 Mobility
DSA97–018 Rapidly Deployable Attack Systems
DSA97–019 Enhanced Mobility for TMD & Precision Strike Attack Systems
Laser Communications TR97–001 Command & Control

TR97–007 Battlefield Information
AD97–007 Sensors
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–010 Day/Night, All–Weather
SP97–001 Space Sensors Linked with Terrestrial Systems
Laser Boresight TR97–002 Situational Awareness

(LLYNX–EYE) TR97–006 Combat ID
TR97–020 Information Collection
AR97–006 MF Situation Awareness
DSA97–008 Real–Time Seamless National Targeting Dissemination
DSA97–010 Day/Night, All–Weather, All–Terrain Sensors
DSA97–014 Information Fusion Technology Supporting Precision Strikes

C. Requirements
Battlefield Ordnance TR97–002 Situational Awareness

Awareness TR97–006 Combat ID
TR97–020 Information Collection
AD97–007 Sensors
AR97–009 Mtd Standoff Minefield Detection & Neutralization
DSA97–023 Low–Altitude, Low–Observable Threat
DSA97–024 Beyond the Visual Range ID
Overhead Passive Sensor TR97–002 Situational Awareness

Technology for Battlefield TR97–006 Combat ID
Awareness TR97–020 Information Collection, Dissemination, & Analysis
AD97–007 Sensors
AR97–006 Situational Awareness
DSA97–003 TMD
DSA97–021 Sensors
SP97–002 Sensors to Detect Passive & Active Targets
3. Relationship to Joint Vision 2010
The technology under development and for future development by SMDC and MDSTC must support the Joint Vision 2010. Joint Vision 2010 applies new operational concepts as a mechanism to achieve military success across a range of
operations. It recognizes that changes in how information is used and disseminated, as well as changes in technology, potential adversaries, and capabilities, will dramatically impact how well armed forces can perform their duties in 2010. This annex
focuses on contributions to Joint Vision 2010 and the vision’s four key operational concepts, as described briefly below.
Dominate maneuver concerns the application of information, engagement, and mobility capabilities to position and employ widely dispersed joint air, land, sea, and space forces to accomplish assigned operational tasks (supporting technology
efforts include battle management/command control, communications, and intelligence (BM/C3I), IOAMS, laser satellite communications, etc.).
Precision engagement concerns enhanced joint operations that ensure greater commonality between service precision engagement capabilities and provide future joint force commanders with a wide array of accurate and flexible response options.
Technology programs supporting precision engagement include Advanced Radar Technology Program, multimission sensor suite (MMSS), forward acoustical sensor and digital relay (FASDR), CO2 laser detection and ranging (LADAR),
LLYNX–EYE, BM/C3I, hit–to–kill (HTK) miniature interceptor, tactical high–energy laser (THEL), free electron laser (FEL), algorithm development, etc.
Full–dimensional protection concerns control of the battlespace to ensure forces can maintain freedom of action during deployment, maneuver, and engagement, while providing multilayered defenses (Exoatmospheric/Endoatmospheric
Interceptor Technology Programs, THEL, short–range air defense (SHORAD) with optimized radar distribution (SWORD), etc.) for forces and facilities.
Focused logistics concerns the fusion of information, logistics, and transportation technologies to provide rapid crisis response; track and shift assets even while en route; and deliver tailored logistics packages and sustainment directly at the strategic,
operational, and tactical level. BM/C3I, laser satellite communications, free space laser communications (LASERCOM), etc., are technology programs and will support focused logistics.
4. Relationship to Army Vision 2010
Missile and space defense capabilities are an important part of Army Vision 2010. They enable a full spectrum of operations by contributing to force projection and force sustainment. They will also assist in providing information dominance and
shaping of the battlespace through contributions of advanced technology and rapid prototyping of systems available to the soldier in near–real time such as was demonstrated during Desert Storm. Army missile and space defense contributions to
Army Vision 2010 include sensor fusion, NMD, situational understanding, total asset visibility, assured space access, precision navigation, precision targeting, global missile warning, near–real–time weather, global communications,
sensor–to–shooter links, and multielement joint TMD.

D. Technology Development Programs, 1. Introduction
D. Technology Development Programs
1. Introduction
The section addresses the technology to support the requirements of the Army, BMDO, and PEO–AMD, in order to meet future
potential threats and to avoid technological surprise. Table D–2 provides a summary of potential missile and space defense
technology applications for the PEO–AMD.
Table D–2. PEO–AMD/SMDC Technology Matrix

Far–Term Technology Area/ Near–Term THAAD PATRIOT CORPS JTAGS NMD ARROW
Program Title Technology Title SAM/
MEADS
Kinetic Energy Weapons Tech
Low–Cost Cruise Missile A A A A

Interceptor
HTK Miniature Interceptor Miniature Interceptor P A

Technology
Exoatmospheric Interceptor
Technology
Pilot Line Experiment Technology Pilot Line Experiment A A P

Technology
FPA Technology A A A
Advanced Discriminating LADAR A A A
Signal/Data Processor A A A
Algorithm Development A A A
Inertial Measurement Unit Interferometric Fiber P A P A

Optic Gyroscope
Resonant Fiber Optic P P

Gyroscope
Control System A A
Booster Development Gel Propulsion A A A P
Divert and Attitude Control Maneuvering System A A A P

System
Power Development Improved Therm A P A P A

Batteries for Missile
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/dd1.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 23:17:26

Warhead Development
Other Interceptor Effort
Endoatmospheric Interceptor Jet Inter/Reaction P

Technology Control
Millimeter–Wave Component A A A
Radome A A A
Antenna A A A A
Transmitter
Window Technology A A A
Development
Composite Airframe and Structure A A A
Poly Acrylonitrile Fiber A A
SHORAD With Optimized Radar

Distribution
Sensors Technology
CO2 LADAR Development

Programs
Advanced Radar Technology Advanced Radar P A A P

Program Comp Technology
Range Doppler Imager P A A
Innovative Radar P A A
Component Res
Significant Increase in P A
Transmitter Duty Cycle
Semiactive Antenna P A
A/D Converter and P A

Corresponding Signal
Processor Throughput
Solid–State Transmitter P A
Radar Signature System P A
FPA Processing and Packaging Mosaic Array Data A A P

Development Compression and
Processing Module
Multimission Sensor Suite A
Forward Acoustical Sensor and A A

Digital Relay
Space Technology
Kill Assessment P A P
Technology

Optical Data Analysis P A P
Optical Signatures P A P
Code
Phenomenology Experiments S S S
Program
BM/C4I
Integrated Operational Airspace

Management System
Free Space Laser Communications
Satellite A P A
Communication on
the Battlefield
Satellite Transmission A P A
of Recorded Battlefield
Data
BM/C3I S S S S
Survivability and Lethality
Survivability S S S S
TMD Survivability P A A
Program
Counter antiradiation P A
missile
Lethality S S S S
Advanced Research Center S S S S
Simulation Center S S S S
Simulation and Modeling Testbed S S S S
Targets, Test, and Evaluation
Future Test Requirements S S S S
Directed–Energy Weapons
Solid–State Laser Technology

Program
Hydrogen Fluoride Overtone

Technology
Materials and Components
Microelectronics/Optics Hardened Ada Signal A A P

Processor
Innovative Radar Components Innovative Radar A A P

Research Comp Research
Operations Res and Systems Analysis

Transporter, Erector, Launcher

Hunter/Killer
Cruise Missile Defense Expert S S S S

System
JLENS Program
Missile Alert Broadcast System S S S S S
Kinetic Energy Antisatellite

Program
Tactical High Energy Laser
Laser Satellite Communications
LLYNX–EYE A
Battlefield Ordnance Awareness
Overhead Passive Sensor

Technology for Battlefield
Awareness
P = Planned for Insertion A = Applicable Technology S = Supporting Technology

a. Transitioning and Maturing Technologies
The need for integrated technology development, experiment and demonstration to meet future needs, along
with the M&S needed to underpin technology development and provide user interface, is a must for maturing
and transitioning technology. An approach that provides for the development of potential technology
capabilities that can be "bundled" and transitioned through Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs)
and Advanced Concepts Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs) is depicted in Figure D–5.
Five "bundled" technology programs with high payoff potential that address expected needs in the near and
mid term are discussed below. Most are applicable to both the TMD and NMD mission areas. They leverage

existing service core competencies and expertise and will require a minimum learning curve or infrastructure
investment. When these five technology areas are developed concurrently, capability demonstrations will yield
multiple options that can be integrated into existing weapon programs to enable them to meet evolving threats,
or rapidly develop and field complementary systems. The five technology areas also offer excellent capability
transition across the services by addressing the need for protection against early release of submunitions and
low cross–section missiles and by reducing the size, weight, and cost components while increasing
performance and efficiency. These five technology areas are summarized as follows:
• Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT). This program focuses on advanced lightweight

technologies for hypersonic HTK intercept and advanced propulsion systems and propellants
for higher velocity and safe storage and handling.
• Counter Early–Release Submunitions Technology (CET). This program focuses on

technology for miniature, lightweight HTK warheads, reactive materials for warheads and other
advanced kill mechanisms, and lethality technology focused on defeating early–release chemical
and biological (CB) submunitions.
• Exoatmospheric Interceptor Technology (EIT). This program focuses on fire–and–forget

smart interceptor technology for exoatmospheric interceptors with onboard discrimination
capability, radiation–hardened advanced electronics, high–performance boosters, and sensor
fusion algorithms. This program supports NMD and Navy upper tier programs with follow–on
technology insertion for future needs.
• Advanced Radar Technology (ART). This program focuses on technology for higher power
and efficiency X– band solid–state transmit/receive (T/R) modules, more stable and efficient
power conditioning, multifunction waveform processing, and dual–band technology for future
radar applications. Effort will provide warfighter with improved target detection,
discrimination, kill assessment, and data for precision tracking and engagement with flexible
reengagement capabilities.
• Information Processing/Communications Technology (IPCT). This program focuses on

technology for advanced satellite to interceptor communications for over–the–horizon (OTH)
cueing of interceptors in flight, advanced image processing for the Space and Missile Tracking
System (SMTS), and sensor data fusion for advanced BM/C3.

3. Technology Programs; a. Kinetic Energy Weapons Technology
3. Technology Programs
A technology taxonomy has been developed to define the core technology capabilities in SMDC. Part of the command’s
missions and goals is tied directly to the development of advanced technology, as well as the support of the FOCs of the
warfighter and the demonstration of "bundled" technology capabilities to defeat the projected threats discussed in subsection
C. These technologies have been broken into eleven technology areas and subareas, which are discussed below.
a. Kinetic Energy Weapons Technology
Hit–to–Kill (HTK) Miniature Interceptor. The advanced submunitions (AS) threat has received significant attention recently
in the defense community as a potentially effective countermeasure to those TMD systems currently in development, such as
theater high–altitude area defense (THAAD) and Navy upper tier. The AS countermeasure appears to be easy to implement
(BMDO SM–2 experiment) and could be a validated threat by the year 2002. The submunitions could be either
conventional, chemical, or biological. The HTK miniature interceptor is a multiple–kill vehicle concept intended to counter
this threat. It is based on advanced component technologies under development with BMDO funding, which are integrated
into extremely small kill vehicles, thereby allowing many to be carried aboard a single interceptor. The HTK miniature
interceptor concept would be designed to be compatible with the baseline TMD concept of operation using the same radar,
booster, launcher, and BM/C3. However, the conventional kill–payload would be replaced with a cluster of HTK miniature
interceptors. A small fraction of the conventional interceptors in each fire unit would be replaced with interceptors filled with
HTK miniature interceptor kill vehicles. The threat would be detected and tracked as in the conventional TMD scenarios.
The TMD radar would determine the composition of the threat payload and, when needed, an interceptor with a cluster of
HTK miniature interceptor projectiles would engage the submunitions in an exoatmospheric environment.
The current state of the technology and the technical innovations needed by the year 2002 and year 2015 is shown in Table
D–3.
Table D–3. Hit–to–Kill Miniature Interceptor Technology Plan

System Element Current By 2002 By 2015 Innovations Needed
Propulsion & Steering Impulsive diverters >5 g >40g More maneuverable, responsive, and robust divert
under development systems, miniature, low cost
Sensor Single color passive Single color Multicolor, Miniature, low cost, high resolution, low loss
sensor under multimode IR and RF optics, shock resistant
development with decoy resistance
Tracking Star tracking Passive Active/passive High power laser diode, small and low cost
experiment planned
Terminal Guidance Reticle based guidance Reticle/proportional FPA/advanced Higher accuracy guidance algorithms and high
under development guidance data rate processors.
(endoatmospheric)
Integrated Kill Vehicle/ No work to date Transition to materiel System fielded Lightweight, spin rate control, dispenser induced
Dispenser developer pointing error
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/dd3a.htm（第 1／4 页）2006-09-10 23:17:43

Exoatmospheric Interceptor Technology (EIT). The EIT program will provide the only exoatmospheric interceptor
technology testbed program for the development of fire–and–forget smart interceptors. This program will develop and
integrate active and passive sensors, data fusion, lightweight avionics, high–sensitivity low background focal plane arrays
(FPAs) with high–speed hardened electronics, high acceleration and divert propulsion, and sophisticated onboard target
track and discrimination capability. The testbed will serve to demonstrate the technology goals without development of new
interceptor kill vehicles (KVs).
The EIT program includes coordinating and maintaining a complementary interceptor technology base for relevant
components and subsystems, correlating its core technologies to ongoing ATDs, ACTDs, and acquisition programs. It also
includes working through BMDO to coordinate the users and acquisition programs to identify, develop, and mature the
technologies further.
Fire–and–forget smart interceptors directly support the Joint Vision 2010 of precision engagement, dominant maneuver, and
full–dimensional protection. The testbed demonstrations of fire–and–forget exointerceptor target kills will be performed
against responsive threat complexes. A series of end–to–end, 6–degree–of–freedom (DOF), hardware–in–the–loop (HWIL)
simulations, ground, and flight tests will be performed with the integrated KVs. After successful demonstration of the
integrated KV capability, the technology will be available for transitioning to the appropriate interceptor ACTD or
acquisition programs. [POC: Robert Franklin, (205) 955–5817, e–mail: franklinb@smdc.army.mil]
These technologies will enhance existing interceptor capabilities and add new ones such as advanced inertial measurement
units (IMUs) and batteries enabling longer flyout times. Advanced LADARs, FPAs, algorithms, and signal/data (S/D)
processors will enable longer acquisition ranges and better discrimination. Advanced divert and attitude control system
(DACS) will enable a much greater divert capability. The current technology capabilities, projected capabilities for 2009 and
2015, and innovations needed to achieve these capabilities are listed in Table D–4.
Endoatmospheric Interceptor Technologies. The objective of AIT is to develop and demonstrate advanced lightweight
technologies for hypersonic HTK intercept of threat missiles within the atmosphere and integrate these technologies into a
small (130 cm3), lightweight (50 kg) KV. High velocity intercepts are essential to maintain sufficient battle space, lethality, and
coverage/footprint performance. However, such conditions provide severe aero–optic, aerodynamic, aerothermal, and
structural requirements. Jet interaction (JI) testing is providing insights into JI sensitivities to design
Table D–4. Exoatmospheric Interceptor Technology Plan

Component Today 2009 2015 Innovations Needed
IMU 0.4–kg IFOG with 4–deg/ 0.5–kg RFOG with 0.01 0.4 kg RFOG with 0.001 Low loss optical connectors, low loss fibers,
hr bias stability, 10–mg deg/hr bias stability, deg/hr bias stability, improved laser source, solid–state
acceleration sensitivity 100–mG acceleration 50–mG acceleration accelerometers, improved power management
sensitivity sensitivity technology
LADAR No interceptor LADAR 5–kg, 300–km range, 4–kg, 500–km range, Improved laser transmitters and receivers
available solid state solid state improved power management technology
FPA 2562 MCT, non–rad hard 5122 , rad hard, 10242 , rad hard, tunable Improved materials and processing techniques
on FPA readout multiwave band on FPA waveband, high improved manufacturing techniques
electronics processing electronics temperature on FPA
processing electronics
Algorithms Basic discrimination Onboard active/passive Algorithms promoting Improved S/D processors
algorithms discrimination, control autonomous
system algorithms for launch–and–forget
maneuvering threats operation

S/D Processors Level–2 hardened, 1012 Level–2 hardened, 1014 Improved power management technology;
IPS, 1012 OPS IPS, 1014 OPS improved chipset design and parallel processing
technologies
DACS Army LEAP DACS 200–km divert capability, 400–km divert capability, Higher Isp propellants, faster response, high
subsystem solid propellant, start/ solid propellant, start/ temperature hot gas valves, high temperature
stop capability stop capability nozzles
Boosters Not available Booster with composite Advanced composite Higher Isp propellants, faster response, high
motorcase, thrust vector integrated stage booster, temperature injector valves, higher strength fibers
control thrust vector control
Warheads Conventional warhead, Explosive reactant, Directed energy warhead CERS and directed–energy design and
directionally fragmented counter early–release development
submunitions (CERS)
warhead
Control Systems Not available Advanced actuator Adaptive learning control Fast response controllers; innovative learning
control system system for maneuvering algorithms
threats
Structures THAAD Composite airframe with Composite advanced Advanced materials; improved manufacturing
integrated plumbing, materials airframe with techniques
wiring, and DACS integrated plumbing,
wiring, and DACS
Power PAC–3/THAAD/ ASAT Long life (60 min), high Long life (120 min), high Improved materials, packaging, thermal
batteries current density, current density, management
lightweight lightweight
parameters, data to develop engineering models, and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) validation data. AIT provides
significant technology advancements in the seeker, cooled window/forebody, and high performance solid DACS. AIT has a
variety of multiservice applications of risk reduction opportunities and performance enhancements (P3I). [POC: Mike
Cantrell, (205) 955–5968, e–mail: cantrellm@smdc.army.mil]
The current technology capabilities, projected capabilities for 2009 and 1015, and innovations needed to achieve these
capabilities are listed in Table D–5.
Table D–5. Endoatmospheric Interceptor Technology Plan

Component Today 2009 2015 Innovations Needed
Polyacrylonitrile Conventional Japanese Advanced composite Advanced composite Research, improved materials development
(PAN) Fiber fibers, 55 msi modulus, fiber, 90 msi modulus, fiber, 100 msi modulus,
650 ksi tensile strength 800 ksi tensile strength 1000 ksi tensile strength
Control Systems None available Advanced actuator Adaptive learning control Fast response controllers; innovative learning
control system system for maneuvering algorithms
threats
Structures THAAD Composite airframe with Composite advanced Advanced materials; improved manufacturing
integrated plumbing, materials airframe with techniques
wiring, and DACS integrated plumbing,
wiring, and DACS
MMW Radomes PAC–3 Dual mode RF/IR Dual mode RF/IR, Advanced materials development; improved
radome actively cooled, high manufacturing and characterization techniques
strength/erosion
resistance

MMW PAC–3/THAAD 200–300 W average, 4.5 200–300 W average, 3.5 Improved components, power generation and
Transmitters kg, 150 inch2 kg, 125 inch2 management techniques
MMW Antennas PAC–3/THAAD Active conformal array Active conformal array, Improved manufacturing
dual–mode antenna/
aperture
Algorithms Basic discrimination Onboard active/passive Algorithms promoting Improved S/D processors
algorithms discrimination, control autonomous launch and
system algorithms for forget operation
maneuvering threats
IMUS Army LEAP IMU, 0.5–kg RFOG with Chip gyroscopes and Low loss fibers; low loss optical connectors
0.4–kg IFOG with 4–deg/ 0.01–deg/hr bias stability, accelerometers 0.01–deg/
hr bias stability, 10–mG 100–mG acceleration hr bias stability, 100–mG
Improved laser source; improved
acceleration sensitivity sensitivity, high acceleration sensitivity,
micromechanical fabrication techniques
bandwidth (5x existing) high bandwidth (5x
existing)
Solid–state accelerometers
Improved power management technology
Power PAC–3/THAAD High current density, High current density, Improved materials, packaging, thermal
lightweight lightweight management
Short–Range Air Defense (SHORAD) With Optimized Radar Distribution (SWORD). The SWORD advanced technology
program will provide the Army with mobile, all–weather, close–in defense against cruise missiles and short–range ballistic
missiles (SRBMs). Also, this system has capability against short–range rockets, air–to–ground missiles, and UAVs. This
program will leverage an interferometric radar and gigahertz (GHz) signal/data fusion technologies, utilize existing
infrastructure, and achieve point and area defense performance exceeding existing fielded capabilities.
The SWORD concept was conceived from a BMDO initiative for NMD point defense. An interferometric fire control radar
capable of command guiding an HTK interceptor to impact a strategic ballistic missile warhead out to a range of 25 km was
initiated in early 1991. A 10–meter (m) baseline X–band interferometric fire control radar and radio frequency (RF)
transceiver was developed and demonstrated to perform this mission. This technology has demonstrated eight microradian
angular accuracy at a 25–km range. A tactical version of this system can be deployed on wheeled or tracked vehicles operating
with a 2–3–m baseline interferometric fire control radar. Specific advantages of SWORD include radar classification of hostile
targets at ranges to perform intercepts at 10 km with optimized fusing, aimpoint, flight path, and divert firing techniques;
providing 360–degree search/track, on–the–move (OTM) capability at 20 km; tracking 80 simultaneous targets; and
controlling up to 5 intercepts every second. The estimated production cost goal of the missile is less than $15,000 and $8
million for the interferometric fire control radar. [POC: Ron Smith, (205) 955–1182, e–mail: smithr@smdc.army.mil]

D.4. Demonstration Programs
4. Demonstration Programs
a. Science and Technology Objectives
The following technology programs are Science and Technology Objectives managed by the SMDC MDSTC that support
the space technology arena.
Laser Communications. LASERCOM is an LOS, high data rate, antijam, low–probability–of–intercept, lightweight,
communications technology being developed and demonstrated for use between satellites and among TMD and NMD
communications networks both on the ground and in the air. As the Army’s designated manager for this STO, the STD in
coordination with DoD and other government agencies continues to evaluate the potential of this high–data–rate wireless
communication system to meet Force XXI warfighter requirements. The current program focus is on the ability to use a
layered architecture consisting of a network of satellite–to–air–to–ground sensor platforms. The technology uses laser
diodes for transmission, tracking, and alignment; low noise avalanche photodiodes for collecting data transmissions; and
CCD arrays for tracking and alignment. Future advanced technology development will address high bandwidth potential
(w10 Gbps) and other issues such as improving laser output power and maximizing link availability.
LASERCOM is particularly suited for those situations that require secure, high traffic, long range applications. Those
applications include space–to–space, space–to–air, space–to–ground, air–to–air, air–to–ground, and ground–to–ground
communications. Shorter range, low traffic links would rely on the use of RF communications.
LASERCOM’s advantages over RF can be primarily attributed to its capability to produce a highly focused beam of energy,
enabling more signals to reach the receiver for a given amount of transmitted power. Current and projected performance of
LASERCOM systems for different types of links, along with innovations needed to obtain projected performance, are
described in Table D–21.
Table D–21. Laser Communications Technology Plan

System Element Current By 1999 Innovation Needed
Satellite–Satellite Max range: 2,500 km Max range: 2,500 km Increased miniaturization of electronics
Ultra–stable laser sources weight, power, & cost
Increased single mode laser power
Max data rate: 1.2 Gbps Max data rate: 12.0 Gbps size,
High bandwidth, high current laser drivers
weight, power, cost
Wide FOV acquisition & tracking
Altitude: exoatmospheric weight, Novel beam steering
power, cost High bandwidth receiver
Increased detector sensitivity
Spatially incoherent transmitter arrays

Satellite–Ground Range: 800–1,800 km Software/hardware for atmospheric scintillation mitigation
Data rate: 155 Mbps to 1.2 Gbps Extremely high rated (10 Gbps) direct modulation detector
systems
Altitude: LEO
Eye safety
Aircraft–Aircraft Range: 50–500 km

Max data rate: 1.2 Gbps
Altitude: 40,000 feet
Aircraft–Ground Range: 11–14 miles

Data Rate: 1.2 Gbps
Altitude: 30,000 feet
Ground–Ground Stationary/Fixed Portable ground terminal
• Range: 150 km • Range: 25 km

• Data rate: 1.2 Gbps • Data rate: 1.2 Gbps
Binocular
• Max range: 5 km
• Max data rate: 100Kbps
Eye Safe
LLYNX–EYE (Laser Boresight). LLYNX–EYE is a laser system that is being designed to reduce the TLE of Defense Satellite
Program (DSP) satellites and other defense satellites. LLYNX–EYE will operate in conjunction with JTAGS or with satellite
control network stations. The LLYNX–EYE consists of an erbium yttrium aluminum garnet (Er: YAG) solid–state laser and
automated laser pointing and alignment controls to permit remote use by JTAGS or satellite control operator personnel. It
will provide a laser beacon to the DSP from a known location so that any error in DSP pointing accuracy may be reduced or
removed. LLYNX–EYE must operate in a near autonomous mode to minimize impacts on operator personnel strength.
This laser calibrator can support DSP, space–based infrared system (SBIRS), and other satellite programs. Improved GPS/
IMU may be used in aircraft, UAVs, and missile systems. Improvements in pumping and cooling of Er: YAG solid–state
laser has broad application to government and civilian user market.
Existing DSP satellites do not provide LPEs with sufficient accuracy for optimal TMD. LLYNX–EYE can improve the
sensor pointing accuracy of existing DSP assets by improving satellite calibration. The technology developments needed to
achieve performance goals by the year 2000 are presented in Table D–22.
Table D–22. LLYNX–EYE Technology Plan

System Element By 2000 Innovations Needed
Er:YAG Solid–State Develop software/hardware to compensate for scintillation observed as random noise by Atmospheric scintillation
Laser satellite operators which limits DSP satellite accuracy compensation
Improve power output by 25% Improved laser pumping & cooling
Reduce laser weight by 75%

Develop gimbaled mirror system to enable single laser to point to & calibrate multiple Laser optics & pointing
satellites to reduce hardware fielding requirements by 75%
Automated Satellite Reduce existing GPS/IMU size, weight & power needs to enable fielding of suitcase sized Compact GPS/IMU that performs
Location LLYNX–EYE hardware with the ground location and celestial pointing accuracy’s required as well as existing units onboard
by LLYNX–EYE aircraft
Use current state of the art hardware & software to develop controller to interface JTAGs LLYNX–EYE controller
with LLYNX–EYE to allow automated calibration of satellites
Develop LLYNX–JTAGs intercommunications using standard telephone or radio LLYNX–JTAGs

communication links intercommunications
Battlefield Ordnance Awareness (BOA). The BOA program focuses on providing the warfighter near–real–time
identification and location of battlefield ordnance events. These events include artillery fire, rocket launches, and explosions.
The BOA will utilize a multitiered sensor system to achieve the sensitivity, accuracy, and area coverage objectives.
Space–based sensors will provide broad area coverage, while airborne elements will provide accurate position information
and will be more sensitive to lower signature events (see Figure D–8).
BOA will increase the control of battlefield information by providing the warfighter with near–real–time reporting of
ordnance events (within t30 seconds), identifying both location (within <100m) and type of ordnance. Shooters will have
targeting data on enemy artillery and missile launch sites within 10 seconds with a direct link and with a position error of less

than 50 meters using UAV stationed sensors. Early warning of enemy missile launches (within 30 seconds of burnout) and
impact point predictions accurate to within 3kilometers will be provided by space–based sensors. BOA will also provide
battle damage assessment to the battlefield commander.
While systems exist to locate and track vehicle traffic and radio frequency transmitters for intelligence preparation of the
battlefield, no system currently exists that reports type, time, and sightings of either red or blue ordnance. The BOA
capability will identify the ordnances by type and provide position information for counterfire opportunities, as well as
battle damage assessment, blue forces ordnance inventory, information for dispatch of logistical and medical support, and
search and rescue. It also has the potential to type and classify launch systems using time domain intensity information in
specific spectral bands. Advanced processor technology will be used with state–of–the–art staring focal plane arrays to
provide this critical information to battlefield commanders (see Table D–23).
Overhead Passive Sensor Technology for Battlefield Awareness. This program is developing a passive optical sensor for
overhead platforms that uses hyperspectral, polarimetric, and on–FPA processing to support battlefield awareness with wide
area, near–real–time target detection, discrimination, identification, and location. This sensor will be able to detect
camouflaged and concealed threats, such as tactical vehicles and aircraft, with target location accuracies that are comparable
to those obtained from airborne synthetic aperture radar. The program will use sensor and processing technologies to
reduce requirements on communication links and ground processing while providing near–real–time targeting data to
support the warfighter.
Table D–23. Battlefield Ordnance Awareness Technology Plan

Sensor Laboratory sensor Ruggedized sensor Improved sensitivity and processing rate with
on–FPA processing
Poor geolocation Few meter geolocation
Added GPS and star tracker
Processor Ground processing in minutes Near–real–time onboard processing Fast algorithms for reduced processing time
Ordnance Data Some ordnance data (intensity/time) Complete red/blue ordnance database No technology innovations.
Targets of opportunity required
This sensor provides a significant advancement over current sensors in detecting, discriminating, identifying, and locating
masked or concealed targets as well as low signature targets such as cruise missiles. By providing this new battlefield
information in near–real–time, this program responds to the need for better situation awareness, while at the same time
significantly reducing the communication bandwidth requirements with on–focal plane processing.
The timely information provided by this sensor system will support a wide range of programs such as TMD, ATACMS,
forward area air defense system, combat close assault weapon system, and line–of–sight antitank and the battle laboratories
including Early Entry Lethality and Survivability, Depth and Simultaneous Attack, Maneuver Support, Dismounted
Battlespace, Space and Missile Defense, and Battle Command. The sensor and processing capabilities being developed
under this program will have utility for many other programs that need fast, wide area detection of hard–to–locate targets
such as reconnaissance, intelligence, and terrain analysis. These markets include military, government, and civilian areas.
Specific technologies that will be exploited include approaches to improve passive spatial resolution; signal processing
techniques to exploit temporal signatures; polarimetry to achieve high performance autocueing; hyperspectral, spatial, and
temporal signature processing; on–chip FPA motion detection; wide FOV, high resolution imagery; and opponent color

vision analog focal plane processing. These sensor technologies will provide wide area coverage of the battlefield, robust
detection, and targeting data while remaining within current Army C4I data rates. Current and projected performance of the
overhead sensor technology, along with innovations needed to obtain projected performance, are described in Table D–24.
Table D–24. Overhead Sensor Technology Plan

Adaptive Spectral Mechanical selection of spectral content Extend AOTF technology to MWIR Tuneable filter for discrete waveband
(2.6–3.5 m m) selection
Polarimetry Cannot detect zero targets Detection of zero targets Near–real–time algorithm development
and processing
On–FPA Processing Typical transmission rates without Typical transmission rates with on–FPA FPAs with integrated processing
on–FPA processing = 1,000 Mbps processing = 100 Mbps electronics
b. Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations
Tactical High–Energy Laser (THEL). The THEL weapon system concept is a mobile, high–energy laser weapon that uses
proven laser beam generation technologies, proven beam pointing technologies, and existing sensors and communications
networks to provide a bold new active defense capability in counterair missions against current threats that are proliferating
throughout the world. The THEL can be integrated into the short– to medium–range air defense architecture to provide an
innovative solution not offered by other systems or technologies for the acquisition and close–in engagement problems
associated with these types of threats, thereby significantly enhancing the defense coverage to combat forces and
theater–level assets (see Figure D–9). The THEL low–cost–per–kill (a few thousand dollars or less per kill) will also provide
a very cost–effective defense against low cost air threats.

Approximately 21 months is required to design and build the system, followed by 12–18 months of field testing at the
HELSTF and in Israel. This program will deliver a THEL demonstrator with limited operational capability to defend against
short–range rockets. [POC: Dick Bradshaw, (205) 955–3643, e–mail: bradshawd@smdc.army.mil]
THEL protects the force theater level assets against multiple, low signature, maneuvering, low–cost threats. It also provides
low–cost–per–kill, rapid–fire engagement on late detection threats, compact and transportable, common C3I utilization,
and multimission capability.
c. Other Demonstrations
Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) Program. The Army tasked the SMDC to
set up a joint service project office to develop DoD’s first priority element for defense against land attack cruise missiles. The
JLENS Project Management Office for Cruise Missile Defense was set up in February 1996 by SMDC MDSTC to develop a
JLENS that could provide both surveillance and fire control for defense systems such as the Army’s PAC–3 and the Navy’s
SM–2 missile that can shoot down cruise missiles. Its mission is to provide OTH surveillance and precision tracking data to
enhance battlespace against land attack cruise missiles, and to provide battlefield visualization of both air and ground targets
in support of the battlefield.
JLENS is a large, unpowered elevated sensor moored to the ground by a long cable (see Figure D–10). From its position
above the battlefield, the elevated sensors will allow incoming cruise missiles to be detected, tracked, and engaged by
surface–based air defense systems even before the targets can be seen by the systems. The elevated sensors have several
characteristics, which may make them especially suited to CMD. They are less expensive to buy and operate than
comparable fixed–wing aircraft. This makes them the most affordable alternative for achieving a near–term CMD. The
elevated sensors can stay aloft up to 30 days at a time providing 24–hour per day coverage over extended areas.
The internal pressure of JLENS is about the same as the exterior pressure. This makes them extremely difficult to shoot
down. These elevated sensors can absorb lots of punctures before they lose altitude. When they do, they come down so
slowly that they can be reeled in, repaired easily, and sent right back up. In the long term, JLENS would complement
fixed–wing aircraft performing a similar mission, and this will provide the U.S. more robust and flexible CMDs. Mooring
systems for large JLENSs covering major portions of a theater of operations would probably be relatively permanent. For

short or medium range surveillance and fire control, JLENSs would be smaller and the mooring systems could be
transportable or ground–mobile. Currently, the program plans to issue multiple concept definition contracts and then
downselect to a single contractor for development. In parallel to the concept studies, an Army JLENS testbed has been
established at Fort Bliss, Texas, using off–the–shelf equipment.
Kinetic Energy Antisatellite (ASAT) Program. The most important application of a U.S. ASAT capability would be to
ensure that hostile satellites are not used against U.S. and allied forces to provide an enemy important information derived
from space–based surveillance and targeting. A secondary application would be to deny an adversary the use of low
earth–orbit satellites for any purpose including battlefield communications, terrain mapping, weather data collection, and
any other purpose that may have military application.
The U.S. Army’s kinetic energy antisatellite (KE ASAT) program will provide the United States with the capability to
interdict hostile satellites, preventing enemy space–based surveillance and targeting of U.S. battlefield assets. The KE ASAT
consists of missile and weapon control subsystems. The major components of the missile subsystem are the booster, kill
vehicle, shroud, and launch support system. The weapon control subsystem is composed of a battery control center and a
mission controls element, which performs readiness and engagement planning, command, and control.
To date, two KE ASAT prototype KVs have been integrated—one has been test fired, and two prototype weapon control
systems (WCSs) have been built and successfully tested. Booster specifications have been developed and completed. All
DEM/VAL phase exit criteria, as approved by the Defense Acquisition Board, have been met and demonstrated.
The plan is to complete demonstration testing of the KV by conducting a full–up, free flight hover test of the integrated
vehicle. During the test, the KV vehicle will use its onboard seeker to acquire and track a simulated target while hovering
using its onboard propulsion system. This test will demonstrate the closed loop capability of the kill vehicle to acquire, track,
and guide on targets. Also, preparations for continued demonstration testing of the system will be initiated for two flight
tests of the KV. The WCS will be updated and placed at ARSPACE for interface and testing in the existing Command in
Chief, Space architecture.
Army Space Exploitation Demonstration Program (ASEDP). The Army’s use of space–based capabilities and products
continues to increase their value added to the warfighter. This has been proven again and again in actual conflict, peace
related operations, and field exercises. The Army ASEDP was established in 1986 and became an SMDBL function in 1997
when the battle laboratory was activated. Through ASEDP, the SMDBL is working to keep the Army in the forefront of
technology design and development to maintain a preeminent position in tactical space support to the warfighter. It
supports continued technology advancements, documents requirements, and subsequent materiel developments.
Past ASEDP successes include use of the small lightweight global positioning receiver in Operations Desert Shield and
Desert Storm; the Gun Laying and Positioning System, which uses GPS to increase field artillery pointing accuracy; and the
Tracking Command, Control, and Communications demonstration using GPS and commercial satellite communications
to enhance logistics tracking capabilities.
Initiatives for FY98 include:
• Army Battle Command Systems enhancements

• Low–Earth Orbit Mobile Data Communications
• Global Broadcast Systems
• Meteorological Automated Sensor and Transceiver
• Direct Broadcast Communications
• Joint In–Theater Injection

• Deployable Weather Satellite Workstation

• Battlefield Ordnance Awareness
• Camouflage, Concealment, and Deception (CCD)
• Tactical Data Relay Systems
• Force Warning Systems
• Orbital Mapping Software
• GPS Mapping
• Eagle Vision II
• Bronco
• Project Antenna
• Multiple Path Beyond Line of Sight
• Clark and Lewis
• Hyperspectral Imagery.
Space support to the warfighter continues to be the ASEDP’s driving force. As the Army space policy states: "Army access to
space capabilities and products is essential to successful operations."

E. OPPORTUNITIES FOR TECHNOLOGY INFUSION
With the active participation of the SMDC, PEO–AMD is pursuing the identification and infusion of
technologies that meet requirements of their core acquisition programs. Given their mission to develop,
integrate, acquire, and field quality air and missile defense systems, the PEO–AMD is currently developing
and testing core acquisition programs for TMD and NMD systems. The FY97 infusion efforts focused on the
PATRIOT and THAAD programs; FY98 efforts are extended to include NMD. As other AMD programs
proceed further in their life cycles, the technology infusion effort will be directed to them. Some of the
specific technologies that are applicable to ARROW, PATRIOT, THAAD, and NMD may also be applicable
to the other core acquisition programs such as CORPS surface–to–air missile (SAM)/Medium Extended Air
Defense System (MEADS) and JTAGS.
The PEO–AMD also has the responsibility to carry out a coordinated program for the infusion of key
technologies that are being developed under the guidance of BMDO. The development of technologies to
support TMD and NMD systems is an ongoing and evolutionary process. This section is based on the core
acquisition program requirements for the period FY99 through FY05 and provides a framework within
which the technology developers and the PEO–AMD program/project/product offices can identify optimal
decision points for infusing new technologies into the core acquisition programs and, when necessary, make
program adjustments to maximize the effectiveness of limited funds.
1. Theater Missile Defense
a. PATRIOT Advanced Capability 3 (PAC–3)
PATRIOT is a long–range, mobile, field army and corps air defense system that uses guided missiles to
engage and destroy multiple targets simultaneously at varying ranges. The design objective of the PATRIOT
system was to provide a baseline system capable of modification to cope with the evolving threat. The
PATRIOT missile system is modular in nature, characterized by high technology and intensive software
enhancements. This approach minimizes technological risks and provides a means of enhancing system
capability through planned upgrades of deployed systems. The PAC–3 growth program consists of radar and
communication enhancements, software upgrades, and ground support improvements. The program
upgrades are blocked into configuration groupings and procured with independent acquisition decision.
The PAC–3 missile provides essential increases in battlespace, accuracy, and kill potential required to counter
the most stressing tactical missile and fixed wing threats of the future. The PAC–3 missile improves
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/de.htm（第 1／16 页）2006-09-10 23:18:33

PATRIOT’s capability to counter advanced high–speed TBM threats, and provides a design capability
against low RCS (LRCS) air breathing threat (ABT) targets in all operational environments. The PAC–3
missile engages TBMs at higher altitude, thereby increasing the defended battlespace. The lethality
enhancements for the PAC–3 missile accommodate the most stressful conditions specified in the Operational
Requirements Document (ORD) and Systems Threat Assessment Report; specifically, high–speed TMBs and
LRCS targets in clutter.
Improved Thermal Batteries for Missile Interceptors. The applicable ORD requirements addressed by an
improved lithium thermal battery technology program are range at target intercept, interceptor missile shelf
life, and capability of a thermal battery interchangeable with the shape, size, voltage/power, and weight
constraints of current PAC–3 thermal batteries. Improvements will enhance mission performance for any
missile interceptor utilizing thermal batteries.
The PAC–3 missile uses thermal batteries for its power requirements prior to and after launch. The goal of
this program is to improve significantly the thermal batteries used by PAC–3, and any other missile
interceptor requiring thermal batteries. This program will specifically focus on increasing the relatively short
discharge life of thermal batteries, particularly for high voltage and high discharge applications. An additional
objective is to achieve an increase in the discharge life by a factor of 4–5 while maintaining both an adequate
cell voltage and a large discharge current density. This technology program for improved lithium batteries for
the PAC–3 missile (and any other missile desiring this upgrade) will result in longer battery power duration.
This longer thermal battery lifetime implies increased range that can be greater or equal to the missile
kinematic capabilities. Technology insertion can be accomplished at any time during missile production or
even afterwards. [POC: Alan Pope, PATRIOT, (205) 955–1990]
Interferometric Fiber Optic Gyroscope. The TMD missiles must provide navigation accuracy consistent with
the seeker FOV, divert capabilities, target uncertainties, and in–flight guidance updates within the
engagement battle space. In order for PAC–3, THAAD, and CORPS SAM/MEADS to meet individual
operational requirements, a low–cost, lightweight, high reliability, small, high–performance gyroscope must
be developed. The interferometric fiber optic gyroscope (IFOG) is one of the gyro developments with the
potential to meet the requirements.
IFOG represents an improvement over the current ring laser gyroscope (RLG) in the following technical
areas: (1) the IFOG provides increased accuracy over the RLG, (2) the IFOG is all solid state, and (3) the
IFOG is smaller and lighter, occupying about one third the volume and requiring less power for guiding the
rotating PAC–3 missile as it closes on the target. For the IFOG, light from an external solid–state laser device
is split into two waves traveling clockwise and counterclockwise, each of which propagates around many
turns of a fiber coil before being interfered. The output, based on the Sagnac effect, appears as a well–known
two–beam interference pattern. The path length difference due to rotation results in an optical phase shift
between two waves. The most probable infusion period for the technology would be 3QFY00. [POC: Jim
Putman, PATRIOT, (205) 955–1997]
Miniaturized Seeker Receiver Circuitry (MMIC, HYBRID). There is an operational requirement to increase

the seeker dynamic range and reduce its size, weight, and cost. There is a need for a technology development
program that will produce seeker receiver circuitry that provide all of the receiving functions for a Ka–band
radar seeker in a miniaturized package that minimizes size, weight, and volume, with increased performance
and reliability. The combination of reduced packaging size coupled with increased reliability would result in
lower life cycle costs for these seeker receiver circuits.
The proposed technology is the miniaturized seeker circuitry (monolithic microwave integrated circuit
(MMIC) modules that provide all of the receiving functions for a Ka–band radar seeker. The program to
develop these MMIC or HYBRID modules will require direct interaction between the seeker contractor and
the module developers. The use of this technology would result in lower manufacturing costs, lower
life–cycle costs, and higher reliability. The earliest possible infusion point would be 4QFY99. The most
probable and latest possible infusion points would occur in 1QFY00. [POC: Jim Putman, PATRIOT,
(205) 955–1997]
Uplink Downlink Antenna System. The PATRIOT ORD has requirements for positive control, electronic
countermeasures (ECM), and range among other system features. There is a specific need for an improved
uplink/downlink antenna system.
The need for an improved antenna design is driven by the solid–state power amplifier that the PAC–3 missile
uses to maintain a lightweight design. A series of design studies were performed to determine the antenna
gain required to provide sufficient effective radiated power for transmission of the downlink signal at long
ranges in ECM environments. Various missile flyout trajectories were considered during these studies. As a
result of the above indicated studies, a need exists for an antenna system with the following characteristics:
• C–band operation
• Low development and manufacturing complexity
• Low production cost
• High gain (long ranges in ECM environments)
• Wide FOV (0_ to 132_ in pitch; " 45_ yaw per quadrant)
• Missile skin conformance
• Low complexity beam directivity implementation
• Lightweight
• Small size
• Capability of being integrated into a baseline radio frequency datalink (RFDL).
The RFDL antenna system will transmit downlink and receive uplink digital serial messages to and from the
ground based PATRIOT radar throughout the flight of the missile. The RFDL system provides alignment
uplinks for aligning the missile IMU with the PATRIOT radar coordinate frame, missile status downlinks to
the PATRIOT system, target data uplinks (i.e., position, velocity, acceleration), and engagement data
downlinks (i.e., target information transmitted to ground radar during endgame). The technology infusion
period ranges from 4QFY99 to 1QFY00. [POC: Jim Putman, PATRIOT, (205) 955–1997]

Miniaturized Uplink/Downlink Transceiver Circuitry (MMIC, HYBRID). The PATRIOT ORD requires
positive control, operation in ECM, and long range communications. There is a need for replacement of the
current RFDL components in the PAC–3 missile midsection assembly with a lightweight compact RFDL
with improved producibility and reduced unit production costs.
The value–added by this technology is better producibility, lower cost, smaller size, lower weight, and greater
flexibility of design during development. There should also be reductions in the operations and support costs
from the above improvements. The RFDL in the PAC–3 missile midsection assembly provides two–way
C–band communications between the PATRIOT ground radar and the PAC–3 missile. It is a solid–state
device composed of two main parts: the target data uplink receiver and the missile downlink transmitter. The
technology infusion period ranges from 4QFY99 to 1QFY00. [POC: Jim Putman, PATRIOT, (205)
955–1997]
Radio Frequency Target Discrimination and Recognition. The Patriot ORD states a requirement for onboard
target acquisition, tracking, recognition, discrimination, and homing. Key technology issues related to
targets, measurements, and algorithms for TBM defense include threat complex assessment, discrimination,
interceptor guidance, and aimpoint selection.
This programs provides support to the PAC–3 Project Office in meeting these critical technology
requirements. This program provides unique abilities in the areas of radar data analysis, real–time algorithm
evaluation, real–time architecture evaluation, and real–time LDS testing using real and simulated radar data.
This program and the LDS testbed will provide a source of real–time radar algorithms and architectures for
handling diverse TBM threats. The technology infusion period ranges from 1QFY99 to 1QFY01. [POC:
Doug Deaton, PATRIOT, (205) 955–1923]
Improvement to Target Identification and Discrimination Technology. The Patriot ORD states a
requirements for the discrimination of TBMs from debris and penaids, the discrimination of TBMs from
non–TBM targets, the classification of TBMs and non–TBM targets, and the identification and classification
of ABT targets for friend versus foe.
The PATRIOT Program Office is currently involved in development of a Classification, Discrimination, and
Identification Phase III (CDI–3) capability to be integrated into the PAC–3 system. The CDI–3 subsystem
will provide the discrimination of TBM reentry vehicles (RVs) from debris and penaids. It will also allow for
the growth of the CDI–3 capability to encompass the classification and identification of non–TBM targets
and ABTs. The subsystem is centered around a wideband waveform generation, receiver, and signal
processor subsystem. This technology effort involves the analysis and modeling of candidate TMD system
characteristics, surveyance of pertinent target data set to be measured and modeled, measurement of aspect
dependent target RCS/range profiles, and participation in the XPATCH Code Consortium chaired by the U.
S. Air Force Wright Laboratories for the development of a detailed target range profile simulation. The
technology infusion period ranges from 3QFY97 to 4QFY98. [POC: Mike Eison, PATRIOT, (205)
955–4120]

Analog–to–Digital Converter Technology and Corresponding Signal Processor Throughput and Dynamic
Range. For the PATRIOT radar, advanced signal process technology is required to support dynamic ranges
while maintaining the throughput, size, weight, and prime power requirements. Applicable advanced signal
processing techniques, such as maximum entropy method (MEM), are required for incorporation into
PATRIOT, along with a concept for their utilization, signal processor hardware concepts, and an assessment
of their performance improvement over pulse Doppler for various environments.
The PAC–3 radar signal processors currently use 12–bit A/D converters for narrow band actions. For radar
performance in clutter, more dynamic range is needed—up to 14–16 bits for wide band. system/transmitter
intermediate frequency (S/T–IF) receiver subsystem changes would require the incorporation of 16 bit A/D
converters into the PATRIOT S/T–IF receive subsystem, along with the incorporation of the advanced signal
processor hardware and processor resident software. Included in the proposed architecture and design is the
removal or disabling of the current digital signal processor and the replacement of their functions in the
advanced signal processor. The CDI–3 receiver subsystem was designed for later incorporation of 12 bit A/D
converters when available. The incorporation of the 14–bit converter will require some redesign of the
receiver. The value added for PATRIOT is improved fire unit search, track, and CDI capabilities in low
altitude, high clutter or extensive antitactical missile debris environments. The technology infusion period is
from 1QFY02 to 4QFY03. [POC: Rodney Sams, PATRIOT, (205) 955–3166]
Satellite Communications on the Battlefield. The PAC–3 ORD states that PATRIOT must be capable of
using organic or nonorganic single–channel and multichannel tactical satellite systems for extended range
data and voice communications. Additionally, PAC–3 must accept and process told–in intelligence data and
declare identification at sufficient ranges. Also, the PAC–3 Information Coordination Central (ICC) and the
engagement control station (ECS)/fire unit (FU) must be capable of interfacing with and processing (in
combination as external data transmission mediums) the Improved Army Tactical Area Communications
System (IATACS), the Army Common User System (ACUS), the Army Data Distribution System (ADDS),
the High Frequency Combat Net Radios (HFCNR), Army troposcatter transmission system, satellite
communications, and commercial–leased communications circuits.
PATRIOT uses the Tactical Information Broadcast System to support this requirement. No other satellite
programs exist as part of the PAC–3 program. Currently there is a Commanders Tactical Terminal–Hybrid
Receiver (CTT–HR) installed in the Battalion Tactical Operations Center (BTOC). The CTT–HR is a
satellite receiver that received told–in intelligence data from a theater intelligence system. This information is
sent to the BTOC communications processor where it is translated into PATRIOT’s data protocol, and then
transferred from the BTOC to the ICC. Once in ICC, it is fused in the expanded weapons control computer
with data provided by the battalion’s internal radars to provide enhanced classification and identification of
potential targets. The information is then displayed to the operators in both the ICC and BTOC. A key goal
of this technology program is to be able to extend PATRIOT’s defended area by extending PATRIOT’s
communications range. Satellite technology could allow a PATRIOT battalion to be deployed over a larger
area and provide coverage to more assets on the theater commander’s priority list. The technology infusion
period is from 2QFY00 to 4QFY03. [POC: Gerald Skidmore, PATRIOT, (205) 955–3869]

Solid–State Transmitter. There is an operational need to improve missile seeker acquisition and tracking in a
cluttered environment, reduce power and size, and improve its overall reliability. Performance improvements
such as in solid–state transmitter will provide increased capabilities to PAC–3 and CORPS SAM/MEADS.
Solid–state transmitters offer a number of potential advantages for active radar seekers. The more significant
advantages include low voltage operation, graceful degradation due to failures, and lower phase noise floor,
approximately 15 decibel (dB) lower than current traveling wave tube transmitters. It also offers reduced
phase noise and graceful degradation as components fail in millimeter wave radar seekers. These benefits
should result in more reliable transmitter operation as well as improved seeker acquisition and track
performance in severe clutter environments. Reliability has cost savings implications for the operations and
support phase, and the improved performance has possible cost savings in reduction of requirements on
other components or maybe even reduced deployment quantities. The technology infusion period is from
2QFY99 to 1QFY00. [POC: Jim Putman, PATRIOT, (205) 955–1997]
Radar Signature (Target Signature System). There is a need to optimize PATRIOT missile system’s
engagement capability by providing positive target identification. Other technology is required to provide
protection for friendly fixed wing aircraft, identify non–TBMs by specific platform, and provide ARM
countermeasure support via ARM carrier identification.
Aircraft, TBMs, and cruise missiles become more difficult to detect and track with conventional radar
because of the reduced RCS. Improvements or other adjunct technologies are needed to supplement radar
tracking of these targets in more stressing environments. The proposed technology effort should identify
available technologies, such as electronic support measure or IR, that are applicable to this problem for the
PATRIOT system. For example, IR technology may be available but may not support the longer ranges
required. Concepts for implementing the selected technologies into PATRIOT should be developed,
considering the need to minimize impact on force structure, and to quantify detection, tracking, and
identification performance. This is a P3I effort with an opportunity for insertion beyond PAC–3. [POC:
Mike Eison, PATRIOT, (205) 955–4120]
Satellite Transmission of Recorded Battlefield Data. The PAC–3 ORD states a requirement for an in–theater
capability of copying and validating software tapes, disks, or other such electronic or photonic storage media
at each battalion. The originating source must be capable of copying data recording media and archiving
selected portions in a master database and should have over–the–air transferring capability to other using
locations. PATRIOT must be capable of using organic or nonorganic single channel and multichannel
tactical satellite systems for extended range data and voice communications. The PAC–3 ICC and ECS–FU
must be capable of interfacing with and processing in combination with the following external data
transmission mediums: IATACS modified, ACUS, ADDS, HFCNR, Army troposcatter transmission system,
satellite communications, and commercial–leased communication circuits.
PATRIOT needs a small organic satellite terminal such as the Lightweight Satellite Transceiver satellite
terminal or the AN/USC–39 satellite terminal that would be dedicated to satellite communications. The
terminal could be installed in the BTOC, which already receives the full tactical data stream from the ICC

Expanded Weapons Control Computer and has the capability to record all data. This effort could reduce
data transfer time during deployments to remote locations such as Southwest Asia or Korea. It could also
translate into few interceptors required and significant cost savings. The technology infusion period is from
1QFY00 to 1QFY01. [POC: Gerald Skidmore, PATRIOT, (205) 955–3869]
b. Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)/Ground Based Radar (GBR)
THAAD comprises the upper tier of the Army’s planned two–tiered BMD architecture. Its long–range
intercept capability will make possible the protection of wide areas, dispersed assets, and population centers
against TBM attacks. THAAD’s high altitude intercepts will effectively defend against maneuvering RVs and
greatly reduce the probability that debris and chemical or biological agents from a TBM warhead will reach
the ground. Its HTK technology will provide high lethality against a broader range of threat missiles. The
combination of higher altitude and longer range capability will provide multiple engagement
(shoot–look–shoot) opportunities to kill incoming threat missiles. THAAD will be interoperable with both
existing and future air defense systems and other external data sources. The THAAD missile, combined with
the radar element, forms the THAAD system.
TMD Survivability Program. Technology Requirements Document (TRD) and ORD requirements state that
TMD Systems, including THAAD, PATRIOT, and CORPS SAM/MEADS, are high–value assets and are
required to have a high probability of survival on all TMD battlefield environments, including nuclear. The
TMD systems are required to minimize the multispectral signatures and reduce the susceptibility to
detection, recognition, and acquisition by RSTA systems.
The TMD Survivability (TMDS) program consists of eight interrelated tasks for TMD objective systems that
require research and susceptibility assessment, exploitability evaluation, vulnerability assessment, solution
development, and technology insertion. Those eight tasks are:
• Top/down survivability and demonstrations

• CCD technology engineering
• Nuclear and natural propagation effects analysis and countermeasures development
• E3
• Antiradiation and cruise missile countermeasure evaluator (ACE) upgrades
• ARM and smart weapons countermeasures analysis
• Nuclear, natural, kinetic debris model development
• Conventional munitions countermeasures and tests.
This program will provide enhanced battlefield survivability of the TMD systems. The emphasis is on
providing solutions that are low–cost, easy to integrate into the system, and available in the near term. The
technology infusion period is from 1QFY98 to 4QFY02. [POC: Bob Balla, (205) 895–3308]
Optical Data Analysis. The THAAD requirements document requires target characterization for seeker
onboard optical discrimination to identify, track and kill the target accurately. Optical data analysis (ODA)

will provide the analysis, algorithm development and evaluation, and the tools and models necessary for
development of seeker discrimination.
The ODA program is managed by the Sensors Analysis Division of the SMDC. The ODA program’s focus is
on data analysis, algorithm development and evaluation, defense sensor functional evaluation, and models
and tools development. The key risk reduction goals for the ODA program are to provide ancillary sensor
data analysis input to assist DEM/VAL test planning/evaluation, implement and evaluate algorithms as
necessary to provide assessments of DEM/VAL success/issues, provide assessments of expected DEM/VAL
target performance to assist pretest planning and post–test evaluation, and assist in the characterization of the
THAAD system for user operational evaluation system capability and objective system requirements. The
technology infusion period is from 1QFY98 to 4QFY99. [POC: Delois Ragland, THAAD, (205) 895–4058]
Kill Assessment Technology Program. The THAAD TRD places stringent discrimination, false alarm, and
kill assessment performance requirements on the THAAD radar system. Critical kill assessment technology
requirements include near–real–time algorithms for both unitary and separated warheads that can determine
to what degree the target has been rendered nonlethal. Also required are near–real–time advanced algorithms
to identify warhead and missile types. All of these technology products require thorough verification and
validation testing on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Lincoln Laboratory LDS facilities.
A critical function required of the THAAD radar as part of the THAAD system is to perform near–real–time
kill assessment of intercepts made during tactical ballistic missile engagements. The kill assessment
technology is essential for implementing shoot–look–shoot capability for THAAD, as well as for supporting
upper tier/lower tier proper cueing by BM/C3I. Critical technology development requirements for THAAD
radar kill assessment include near–real time algorithms for both attached (unitary) and separated warheads of
threat missile systems. First, these algorithms must determine and quantify effectiveness (i.e., whether and to
what degree an interceptor has rendered the target nonlethal), thus ensuring accurate further response cues.
Second, they must accomplish near–real time identification of warhead types (i.e., high explosive, chemical,
biological, nuclear).
This technology effort will pursue extensive data/measurements collection from major flight demonstrations
plus ground based tests for a comprehensive database and a broad–based development, test, verification, and
validation activity towards advanced kill assessment algorithms and architectures. Additionally, the kill
assessment program will support DEM/VAL flight testing through timely post mission intercept assessment,
radar data reduction and analysis, and algorithm evaluation, which should demonstrate an operational kill
assessment capability for key TMD elements such as THAAD. The technology infusion period is from
1QFY98 to 2QFY06. [POC: Joe Roberts, THAAD, (205) 895–3211]
Real–Time Discrimination Technology (RTDT). The ORD and TRD impose stringent discrimination and
false alarm requirements on the THAAD radar system demanding separation of RVs from tankage, RV
associated objects, closely spaced objects, and decoys.
To support successful engagements of TBMs, critical technology requirements and issues for the THAAD

radar include missile system typing, discrimination, wideband tracking, target object map handover to
THAAD, support for THAAD seeker aimpoint selection, and support for upper tier handover to the lower
tier.
These requirements are supported by the RTDT program, including the LDS real–time testbed. The program
supports the development of missile system typing, discrimination, and tracking algorithms through field
data reduction and analysis in conjunction with real time algorithm design, testing, and validation. The
capabilities of LDS allow for detailed testing of multi sensor system functions (i.e., radar to interceptor
handover and upper tier/lower tier handover and fusion) using both field measurements and simulated data
as required. This program also supports PAC–3 requirements for onboard target acquisition, recognition,
discrimination, and homing. The technology infusion period is from 1QFY98 through 1QFY05. [POC: Joe
Roberts, THAAD, (205) 895–3211]
Advanced Radar Component Technology. THAAD has stringent discrimination and engagement
assessment requirements that necessitate wide bandwidth and improved range and Doppler resolution. The
system also has traffic handling and simultaneous attack requirements demanding high processing speeds and
a large processing capacity. The radar system must be able to operate in a severe ECM environment, must not
have interference by other friendly radar systems, must be able to survive ARM attacks, and must be off–road
and cross–country mobile and C–141 transportable.
An increase in performance combined with a decrease in size/weight of advanced radar components

developed by the proposed program contribute to electronic counter–countermeasures (ECCM),
discrimination, kill assessment, and mobility/transportability requirements. The initial effort of this program
is the development of a concept for utilizing components from the current waveform generator to provide
real–time simulated digital beamforming at the subarray level for X–band radars. In addition, an advanced
waveform generator will be built that is capable of both analog and digital beamforming at twice the
instantaneous bandwidth of the current waveform generator in one–half volume. This combination
addresses ECCM, discrimination, kill assessment, and mobility/transportability requirements. The wideband
waveform generator will be a major contribution to the down range simulator used in HWIL testbed, where
the capability to test signal processing of wideband arbitrary waveforms exists. The acousto–optic processor
may be inserted as and adjunct to the THAAD signal processor to perform wideband arbitrary signal
processing. [POC: Bob Balla, (205) 895–3308]
Miniature Interceptor Technology. There is a requirement for interceptors to meet future threats using
significantly less onboard power consumption, reduced size and weight, and improved control during divert
maneuvering. The miniature interceptors are small and light, require less power, and provide increased
guidance, control, stability, and kill effectiveness. Defending against the advanced submunitions threat is one
example of future threat requirements.
Research goals in this area encompass the development of miniature interceptor components that will reduce
size and weight, improve control, reduce onboard power consumption, increase accuracy of guidance and
control, increase divert capability and increase reliability and ruggedness. The technology program will

demonstrate a non–IMU spin stabilized homing projectile; will build a polarization sensitive sensor and
measure polarization from strategic materials; and will fabricate and test a 9–centimeter path length ring laser
gyroscope IMU (250 grams, 3.5 cubic inches). The goals include the concept that consists of simultaneous
targeting and engagement of multiple objects (which would be encountered in an advanced submunitions
threat) by spin–stabilized homing projectiles. Specific capabilities to be obtained from this technology effort
include polarization technology that will provide discrimination capability, eliminate aim point ambiguity,
identify and discriminate hard body from plume, and determine target orientation; a propulsion system that
will provide 25 percent higher Isp (specific impulse) than the current THAAD propulsion system; IMUs that
will be developed with milliwatt power consumption while reducing cost and size, and increasing accuracy;
and HTK miniature interceptor properties that will be developed to enhance the THAAD kill mechanism.
The technology infusion period is from 1QFY99 to 4QFY02. [POC: Peter Wright, THAAD, (205) 895–3720]
Optical Signatures Code (OSC). The THAAD TRD places a stringent requirement on optical
discrimination. OSC provides a validated capability for simulation of infrared, visible, and ultraviolet (UV)
signatures of missile targets applicable to both strategic and tactical missile defense scenarios. OSC is an
analysis tool supporting mission planning, sensor and seeker design, data analysis, and threat missile
signatures. A key goal of OSC is to provide credible optical signatures as required by BMDO programs. The
OSC is considered the industry standard, a high fidelity signature simulation code to be used in ballistic
missile scenarios. Current enhancements to the code capabilities include theater and cruise missile
applications. Specifically, OSC contains improvements that allow it to provide accurate estimates of the
aerothermal ascent and reentry heating of tactical and test targets. For the proposed effort, additional
upgrades to the code are currently being designed to predict the behavior of a variety of threats more
accurately.
Signature predictions from the OSC will be used by THAAD to predict target intensities. As the OSC is
further refined to predict intensities of the full range of DEM/VAL, engineering manufacturing development
(EMD) and objective system targets for the THAAD system, it will allow THAAD designers to tighten their
requirements on seeker acquisition, resolution, optical discrimination, and endgame imaging performance.
The code has been upgraded, both to predict behavior of targets with nonaxisymmetric shapes more
accurately, and to provide capabilities for theater and cruise missile simulations. Other upgrades are needed
to model complex targets with four conical sections, improve wake and debris models, and complete
development of graphical user interfaces for PC Windows and workstations. The technology infusion period
is from 1QFY98 through 1QFY05. [POC: Mike Butler, THAAD, (205) 895–4059]
Range Doppler Imager (RDI). The THAAD ORD requires that the radar design incorporate survivability
features to permit operation in a severe ECM environment. The radar has stringent discrimination and
engagement assessment requirements that necessitate wide bandwidth and improved range and Doppler
resolution. The radar also has traffic handling and simultaneous attack requirements demanding high
processing speeds and a large processing capacity. As the ECM environment becomes more severe, an
advanced signal processor utilizing technology from the RDI may need to be incorporated into the THAAD
radar.
The objective of the RDI development effort is to design, fabricate, test, and evaluate an advanced optical

signal processing architecture. The proposed technology program provides instantaneous or real–time
processing of wideband arbitrary waveforms. The technology developed in this program can be utilized in
advanced acousto–optic signal processing hardware capable of real–time wideband signal processing of
arbitrary signal modulations in dense target environments. Pseudorandom noise waveforms, which are
difficult for ARMs to acquire and track, allow for a robust ECCM waveform suite to be developed for the
THAAD radar. This additional waveform diversity capability enables the successful wideband tracking and
accurate discrimination of targets in a severe ECM environment. The most probable technology infusion
point is 3QFY99. A P3I insertion is possible after 2QFY02. [POC: Bob Balla, (205) 895–3308]
Resonant Fiber Optic Gyroscope (RFOG). The TMD missiles must provide navigation accuracy consistent
with the missile seeker FOV, missile divert capability, target state uncertainties, and in–flight guidance
updates within the engagement battle space. In order for THAAD, PAC–3, and CORPS SAM to meet their
individual operational requirements, a low–cost, lightweight, high reliability, small, high performance
gyroscope must be developed. The RFOG is one of the gyroscope developments with the potential to meet
all the requirements.
RFOG represents an improvement over both the current RLG and IFOG. The resonance approach yields
more sharply defined resonance peaks providing increased accuracy compared to the IFOG and the RLG.
The resonance technique also requires many less turns of fiber providing one half the volume requirement
compared to the IFOG and one third the volume of the RLG. This accuracy is required for guiding the
THAAD missile as it closes on the target. In addition, an all solid–state RFOG has no moving parts, requires
low voltage and power, and can be packaged in smaller volumes than either the RLG or the IFOG. The
RFOG–driven IMU is being developed to provide enhanced THAAD terminal guidance accuracy. It is a fit,
form, and enhanced function replacement for the RLG–driven IMU but requires less weight, space, and
input power. The technology infusion period is from 3QFY00 through 4QFY02. [POC: Ray Noblitt,
THAAD, (205) 955–1857]
Jet Interaction/Jet Reaction (JI/JR) Phenomenology. The expanded high–speed, high–altitude engagement
requirements in which current and planned interceptors such as THAAD are employed necessitate the
understanding of JI/JR phenomena. The unexpected flow of Attitude Control System (ACS) reaction
products during interceptor maneuvers has the potential of affecting the IR transmission capabilities of the
optical sensor window that, in THAAD, is in close proximity to the ACS. Testing and analysis of the JI/JR
processes throughout the battlespace cannot only help understand and mitigate potential engagement and
detection limitations, but also aid in product improvements and future design efforts on new weapon systems.
The knowledge and insight gained through a comprehensive test program, coupled with CFD code and
model development, would not only significantly reduce the design and performance risks associated with
new weapons systems, but also add to the basic understanding of the physical interactions of active control
systems in high–speed, high–altitude atmospheric conditions. This knowledge will impact both the
capabilities of DACS and the efficient design of optical sensors located near the ACS. In addition, the test
program will examine new material developments and other technologies needed to develop low cost, high
performance solid DACS for use in future programs. The successful performance of this risk reduction

program requires access to advanced test facilities and state of the art CFD codes and models. The ability to
use test data collected both at modeled and actual flight conditions to normalize and validate computational
techniques and models will support extending the ability to optimize missile design and capabilities. This
program will lead to the understanding required to maximize the capabilities of modern interceptors while
reducing the design, development, and test risks associated with the programs. The most probable
technology infusion point is 2QFY03, with a possible P3I insertion anytime afterwards. [POC: Dr. Don
McClure, (205) 955–1952]
c. CORPS Surface–to–Air Missile/Medium Extended Air Defense System
The CORPS SAM will be a highly mobile, low–to–medium altitude air defense system, and will be a key
element of the TMD in the PEO–AMD architecture. It will protect the maneuver forces with area and point
defense capabilities against tactical ballistic missiles, air–to–surface missiles and ARMs; fixed and rotary wing
aircraft; cruise missiles; and UAVs. CORPS SAM will be the implementation of the MEADS in the DoD
infrastructure.
The system will consist of sensors, launcher, missile and Tactical Operations Center, and will be capable of
standalone operational capability. However, as part of the PEO–AMD architecture, the system will be
compatible/interoperable with other Army air defense systems (i.e., THAAD, PATRIOT, FAAD) and will
interface with joint and allied sensors and BM/C3I networks.
The MEADS is a trilateral U.S.–Germany–Italy cooperative development program, now entering the project
definition–validation phase and continuing through FY98. Two international contractor teams will compete
during this phase, with the ultimate selection of a single winner for the design and development phase
occurring in early FY99. Because MEADS is in this competitive phase, technology infusion is not appropriate.
Furthermore, because the MEADS is an international cooperative program, all PEO–AMD communications
concerning U.S. technology capabilities and MEADS technology requirements are to be directed to the
CORPS SAM National Product Office (NPO). The CORPS SAM NPO point of contact (POC) will
monitor technology developments for consideration by CORPS SAM/MEADS for further technology
infusion opportunities.
d. ARROW
The ARROW Continuation Experiments is a follow–on to the ARROW Experiment Program. ARROW is a
joint United States–Israel program to assist the Government of Israel to attain critical performance objectives
and obtain the test information to enable a decision to enter into production and deployment of the
ARROW–centered Israeli Missile Defense System. The U.S. benefits from test and technology products of
the program. FY93 efforts focused on conducting lethality flight tests using the ARROW I missile and
completing the subsystem critical design reviews for the ARROW II tests, and the ARROW II system CDR.
The initial ARROW II missile flight test was completed during the summer of 1995. The ARROW program
will have five ARROW II system tests in FY98–99.

The ARROW Project Office has identified the technology programs suitable for application to ARROW II
and possible for infusion within the current technology export restrictions. The ARROW Project Office will
monitor future technology developments for consideration by ARROW for further technology infusion
opportunities.
e. Joint Tactical Ground Station
The JTAGS is a transportable information processing system that can receive and process in–theater, direct
downlinked data from DSP sensors and disseminate warning, alerting, and cueing information on TBMs and
other tactical events of interest. JTAGS, an Acquisition Category III, nondevelopmental item program, is in
the production phase. Five units were produced and fielded in 1997.
The current JTAGS P3I program includes the following system enhancements:
• Phase I (FY97–99)
• Joint Tactical Information Distribution System Integration
• Sensor fusion
• Sensor calibration (beacon)
• Phase II (FY98–03)
• Four SBIRS integration.
A tri–service MOA signed by all service executives in September 1996 agreed to pursue use of the Army
JTAGS as the SBIRS common mobile ground processor. While no technology programs have been identified
for potential infusion into JTAGS, the JTAGS Program management Office POC will monitor future
technology developments and changes to the JTAGS mission for further technology infusion opportunities.
2. National Missile Defense
NMD is a strategic endeavor of all U.S. armed services to provide protection for national assets against an
attack by various third world countries with an emerging delivery means for WMDs. NMD has entered the
first year of a 3–year development period that will culminate in a decision to deploy. With an affirmative
decision in FY99, NMD will enter a 3–year development period. The NMD program will continue to DEM/
VAL technologies for possible development and production, should the threat worsen.
a. Ground–Based Interceptor/Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle
Pilotline Experiment Program. The NMD ground–based interceptor (GBI) ORD and segment specifications
are now under revision. However, there will likely be tractability to the GBI–X TRD. According to the
GBI–X TRD, the GBI element KV seeker will be capable of target selection by performing onboard
discrimination in accordance with known target optical characteristics and exoatmospheric nonnuclear,
HTK intercepts. The TRD has an implied requirement to incorporate margin in the operational seeker for

any final threat variations, handover shortfalls, or more stressing environments.
The Pilotline Experiment Technology Program is an ongoing FPA technology program addressing a number
of issues, including high–speed, on–chip readout electronics, radiation hardening, and on–chip hybrid FPA
producibility, thereby demonstrating repeatable, reliable, and predictable performance with end–product
deliveries. This program is developing critical component technology emphasizing NMD and TMD system
applications, including CMD. Refer to subsection D.3a for more information. The most probable technology
infusion point is 1QFY98, with the possibility of a P3I insertion afterwards. [POC: Janet Fuqua, NMD–GBI,
(205) 722–1965]
Improved Thermal Batteries for Missile Interceptors. The applicable ORD requirements to be addressed by
an improved lithium thermal battery technology program are range at target intercept, interceptor missile
shelf life, and similarity of the shape, size, voltage/power, and weight constraints of the NMD–GBI design.
Improvements to thermal batteries will enhance mission performance for any missile interceptor utilizing
thermal batteries. See subsection E.1a for more information on the program. The earliest and most probable
technology infusion points are 4QFY99 and 3QFY00 respectively. There is a possibility for a P3I insertion
afterwards. [POC: Rick Bowen, NMD–GBI, (205) 722–1216]
Interferometric Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (IFOGs). The NMD–GBI must provide navigation accuracy
consistent with the seeker FOV, divert capabilities, target uncertainties, and in–flight guidance updates within
the engagement battle space. In order to meet operational requirements, a low–cost, lightweight,
high–reliability, small, high–performance gyroscope must be developed. The IFOG is one of the gyroscope
developments with the potential to meet the requirements. Refer to subsection E.1a for a description of the
program. The earliest and most probable technology infusion points are 4QFY99 and 3QFY00 respectively.
There is a possibility for a P3I insertion afterwards. [POC: Rick Bowen, NMD–GBI, (205) 722–1216]
Resonant Fiber Optic Gyroscopes (RFOGs). Refer to subsection E.1b for a description of the program. The
earliest and most probable technology infusion points are 4QFY99 and 3QFY00, respectively. There is a
possibility for a P3I insertion afterwards. [POC: Rick Bowen, NMD–GBI, (205) 722–1216]
Gel Propulsion. Gel propulsion technology is based on taking highly energetic, highly reactive, highly
hazardous liquid hypergolic propellants and adding a gelling agent. This produces a gelled liquid propellant
that retains its high energy characteristics but is much less hazardous. The total impulse of the gel propulsion
unit meets or exceeds the solid rocket motor capabilities. The gel booster offers the option of improved
performance in the same booster envelope. If preferred, the booster performance can be held equivalent to
the baseline system, and the propulsion weight and volume can be reduced. The gel booster offers complete
energy management flexibility and has an on–demand, on–off–on, adaptive thrust capability. The basic gel
propulsion technology has been demonstrated in the THAAD gel DACS program. This program will
package the components to NMD–GBI system requirements. The NMD–GBI design documents will be
used to ensure that the gel booster is a form–fit–and–function equivalent of the baseline system. The gel
booster development schedule will be tied directly to the NMD–GBI schedule. Environmental and system
level tests will be conducted and a technical data package will be developed. The most probable technology

infusion point is 3QFY00. [POC: Gene Lenning, (205) 722–1216]
b. Ground–Based Radar/Radar Technology Validation
Mosaic Array Data Compression and Processing (MADCAP) Module. There is a need for addition of
transient filtering to improve the sensitivity of the GBI focal plane in a nuclear environment. The MADCAP
technology will support this need. Refer to subsection D.3b for a description of the program. [POC: Dr.
Virginia Kobler, NMD–PO, (205) 895–3836]
Discriminating Interceptor Technology Program (DITP). The DITP has the prime objective of
demonstrating potential TMD and NMD interceptor seeker upgrades with a sensor data fusion capability. It
will demonstrate, for the first time, data fusion from miniaturized, colocated, dissimilar sensors on an
interceptor platform. During scheduled test flights, DIPT will demonstrate interceptor–based discrimination
against simulated targets. The key technologies being developed in this program are the discrimination
algorithms, and the intelligent processing algorithms and methodology for fusing the data from the various
sensors.
The schedule for DIPT calls for flight tests to begin near the end of FY 00. To support this schedule, the
discrimination algorithms and intelligent processing algorithms will be delivered in initial form near the end
of FY98. This will include the algorithms configured to run on a massively parallel computer similar to that
which would fly on an interceptor and a fused sensor discrimination tool to test and evaluate the algorithms
against threat scenarios using real and simulated data. These algorithms and the testbed for evaluation and
testing will be updated throughout the life of the program. The technology infusion period is from 4QFY98
through 4QFY04. [POC: Earl Deason, NMD–PO, (205) 895–1425]
Optical Signatures Code (OSC). OSC is utilized in this effort to predict signature intensities for ballistic
missiles, targets, decoys, penaids, and missile fragments. Refer to subsection E.1b for a description of the
program. The technology infusion period is from 1QFY98 through 4QFY05. [POC: Dave Lacy, NMD–PO,
(205) 895–3208]
Optical Data Analysis. The GBI Office requires target characterization for its integrated flight test (IFT) and
the accurate evaluation of performance as well as the evaluation of sensor/seeker algorithms to identify, track
and kill its target accurately.
The ODA program will provide the tools and models necessary for the characterization of target signatures
and the accurate evaluation of algorithm performance. The ODA Program’s focus is on data analysis, target
modeling and signature generation, algorithm development and evaluation, defense sensor functional
evaluation, and models and tools development.
The GBI Office’s expectation is that work by the ODA program will mitigate risk to GBI during the flight test
phase, result in the delivery of better algorithms for insertion during the GBI development process, result in a
better understanding of performance characteristics, and provide the basis for better algorithms for

technology insertion in the EMD phase of development. Refer to subsection E.1b for more information on
the program. The technology infusion period is from 1QFY98 through 1QFY99. [POC: Dave Lacy,
NMD–PO, (205) 895–3208]
Innovative Radar Components Research. The NMD GBR has stringent requirements that require high
overall sensitivity. The active radiator will provide a sensitivity enhancement of up to 6 decibels at potentially
less cost per element than a T/R module architecture.
An active radiator proof of principle will be demonstrated in FY98 using the FY98 proof of principle
demonstration results as a foundation. The proposed FY98/99 tasks will (1) extend the level of active radiator
component integration; (2) perform tradeoffs and develop and test signaling element control methodology;
(3) perform tradeoffs and develop and test a power distribution network; and (4) perform a pilot build of
about 64 elements. This program will provide invaluable technology that will improve overall system
performance and requirements for subarray cooling, power delivery, beam steering control, etc. Refer to
subsection D.3i for more information on the program. The earliest and most probable technology infusion
points are 1QFY00 and 3QFY00 respectively. P3I insertions are possible through 2010. [POC: Bill Dionne,
(205) 722–1830]

F. Abbreviations
F. Abbreviations
4D four–dimensional
AAN Army After Next
ABT air breathing threat
ACE antiradiation missile countermeasure evaluation
ACTD Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration
ACS attitude control system
ACUS Army Common User System
A/D analog–to–digital
ADBF adaptable beamforning
ADDS Army Data Distribution System
AIT atmospheric interceptor technology
ARC/SC advanced research center/simulation center
ARH antiradiation homing
ARM antiradiation missile
ARSPACE Army Space Command
AS advanced submunition
ASAR airborne synthetic aperture radar
ADEDP Army Space Exploitatin Demonstration Program
ASAT antisatellite
ASPO Army Space Program Office
AST airborne sensor testbed
ATACMS Army Tactical Missile System
AWS Arrow Weapon System
BAT battlefield adaptation technology

BM/C3I battle management/command, control, communications, and
intelligence
BM/C4 battle management/command, control, communications, and
computers
BM/C4I battle management/command, control, communications, computers,
and intelligence
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/df.htm（第 1／10 页）2006-09-10 23:18:46

F. Abbreviations

BMDO Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
BOA battlefield ordnance awareness
BPI boost phase intercept
BTOC Battalion Tactical Operations Center
BTW bit per wavelength
C2 command control
CAD chemically augmented device
CCD charged–coupled device; camouflage, concealment, and deception
CDC Center for Combat Development
CDI classification, discrimination, and identification
CDI–3 Classification, Discrimination, and Identification Phase III
CDR critical design review
CEP circular error probable
CERS counter early release submunitions
CET counter early–release submunition technology
CINC commander–in–chief
CM cruise missile
CMD cruise missile defense
CMDES Cruise Missile Defense Expert System
CORPS SAM Corps Surface–to–Air Missile
CSO closely spaced object
CTBW chemical toxin biological warfare
CTPP Consolidated Target Program Plan
CTT–HR Commanders Tactical Terminal–Hybrid Receiver
CW chemical warfare
D&D design and development

DAB Defense Acquisition Board
DACS Divert and Attitude Control System
DARO Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office
DART data analysis reporting team
dB decibel
DE directed energy
DEM/VAL demonstration/validation

F. Abbreviations

DIA Defense Intelligence Agency
DIS distributed interactive simulation
DITP Discriminating Interceptor Technology Program
DMTB digital messages transfer device
DNA Defense Nuclear Agency
DOAMS Distant Objective Attitude Measurement System
DOF degree of freedom
DREN Defense Research and Engineering Network
DS desert ship
DSI defense simulation internet
DSP defense support program; defense satellite program
DSWA Defense Special Weapons Agency
DTLOMS Doctrine, Training, Leader Development, Organization, Materiel,
and Soldier
E3 electromagnetic environmental effect

EAC echelons above corps
EADSIM extended air defense simulation
EADTB extended air defense testbed
ECCM electronic counter–countermeasures
ECS engagement control station
EEU electronics equipment unit
EIT exoatmospheric interceptor technology
EKV exoatmospheric kill vehicle
EMC electromagnetic compatibility
EMD engineering manufacturing development
EMI electromagnetic interference
EMP electromagnetic pulse
EPLARS Enhanced Position Location Reporting System
ERIS exoatmospheric reentry vehicle interceptor subsystem
ES expert system
ESD electrostatic discharge
EST expert system technology
FAAD forward area air defense

FASDR forward acoustical sensor and digital relay
FASP fly along sensor package
FEL free electron laser
FL field LADAR
FLAGE flexible lightweight agile guided experiment

F. Abbreviations
FLTSAT fleet satellite

FMA foreign materiel acquisition
FME foreign materiel exploitation
FOC future operational capability
FOCPAT fiber–optic controlled phased array technology
FOG fiber–optic gyroscope
FOV field of view
FSC fire solution computer
FTS flight termination system
GAO Government Accounting Office

GBI ground–based interceptor
GBR ground–based radar
GBRTF Ground–Based Radar Test Facility
GHz gigahertz
GOI Government of Israel
HALO high–altitude observatory

HALO/IRIS high–altitude observatory/infrared imaging system
HEDI high endoatmospheric defense interceptor
HELSTF High Energy laser Systems Test Facility
HERA high explosive rocket assisted
HFCNR High Frequency Combat Net Radios
HGV hot gas valves
HMMWV high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle
HOE homing overlay experiment
HPC high performance computing
HPCMO High Performance Computing Management Office
HPM high power microwave
HRR high range resolution
HTI horizontal technology integration
HTK hit–to–kill
HVPS high voltage power supply
HWIL hardware in the loop
Hz hertz
IATACS Improved Army Tactical Area Communications System

ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile
ICC information coordination central
IFFN identification friend, foe, or neutral
IFOG interferometer fiber optic gyroscope

F. Abbreviations
IFTU in–flight target update

IHFR improved high frequency radio
IMU inertial measurement unit
IOAMS Integrated Operational Airspace Management System
IOC initial operational capability
IPB intelligence preparation of the battlefield
IPCT information processing/communications technology
IR infrared
IRBM intermediate range ballistic missile
IRIS Infrared Instrumentation System
IRST infrared search and track
ISO/OSI International Standards Organization/Open Systems Interconnect
ITU/TSS International Telegraphic Union Telecommunications Standard
Sector
IV&V independent verification and validation
JI jet interdiction
JI/JR jet interactional/jet reaction
JLENS Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System
JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory
JRE JTIDS range extension
JTAGS Joint Tactical Ground Station
JTB Joint Technology Board
KAT kill assessment technology

KE ASAT kinetic energy antisatellite
KEW kinetic energy weapon
km kilometers
KMR Kwajalein Missile Range
KREMS Kiernan Reentry Measurement System
KV kill vehicle
KW kilowatt
LACM land attack cruise missile

LADAR laser detection and ranging
LASERCOM laser communications
LATS longwave infrared advanced technology seeker
LDS Lexington Discrimination Testbed
LEAP lightweight exoatmospheric projection
LEO low earth orbit
LFT&E live fire test and evaluation

F. Abbreviations
LOS line of sight

LPE launch point estimate; launch point error
LRCS low radar cross section
LWIR long wave infrared
m meter
MADCAP mosaic array data compression and processing
MB megabyte
MBTC measurement–based threat characterization
MCS Maneuver Control System
MD missile defense
MDBIC Missile Defense Battle Integration Center
MDSTC Missile Defense and Space Technology Center
MDTP Missile Defense Technology Plan
MEADS Medium Extended Air Defense System
METT–T mission, enemy, troops, terrain, weather, and time available
MFL multiple folded laser
MIRV multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle
MIT LL Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Lincoln Laboratory
MMSS multimission sensor suite
MMW millimeter wave
MNS mission needs statement
MOA memorandum of agreement
MOTR multiple object tracking radar
MS milestone
MSE mobile subscriber equipment
MSRT mobile subscriber radio terminal
MTCR missile technology control regime

NC node center
NDI nondevelopmental item
NIE national intelligence estimate
NMD national missile defense
NPO National Product Office
NT near term
NTBN National Testbed Network
NWE nuclear weapons effect
ODA optical data analysis; optical discrimination analysis

OGA other government agency

F. Abbreviations
OPTEC Operational Test and Evaluation Command

ORD operational requirements document
ORSA operations research systems analysis
OSC optical signatures code
OTH over–the–horizon
OT&E operational test and evaluation
P3I preplanned product improvement

PAC–3 PATRIOT Advanced Capability 3
PAN polyacrylonitrile
PAT process action team
PATRIOT phased array track to intercept of target
PDR preliminary design review
PEELS parametric endoatmospheric/exoatmospheric lethality simulation
PEGEM post engagement ground effects model
PEO–AMD Program Executive Office—Air Missile Defense
PET pilotline experiment technology
PM program manager
PMA program management agreement
PO project office
POC point of contact
POM program objectives memorandum
PORTS Portable Optical Radiation Testbed for Sensors
RAM radar absorbing materials

RDA research, development, and acquisition
RDI range doppler imager
RDAOSP range Doppler acousto–optic signal processor
RDEC research, development, and engineering center
RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation
RF radio frequency
RFI radio frequency interference
RFOG resonance fiber–optic gyroscope
RLG ring laser gyroscope
RMDM ring matrix diverter module
ROE rules of engagement
ROW rest of world
RRTD radar and real–time discrimination
RSTA reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition
RTD real–time discrimination
RTDT real–time discrimination technology
RV reentry vehicle

F. Abbreviations
SA systems analysis
SAM surface–to–air missile
SBE synthetic battlefield environment
SBIR space–based infrared system
SBIR spaced–based infrared
SC simulation center
S/D signal/data
SDCC San Diego Convention Center
SDIO Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
SEN small extension node
SEO survivability enhancement option
SGI Silicon Graphics Incorporated
SHORAD short–range air defense
SINGGARS Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System
SLBD sealite beam director
SLBM submarine–launched ballistic missile
SLV space launch vehicle
SMDC Space and Missile Defense Command
SMTS Space and Missile Tracking System
SRBM short range ballistic missile
SSL solid–state laser
S/T–IF system/transmitter intermediate frequency
STD Space Technology Directorate
STORM target for HERA
SWARM target for miniature interceptor technology demonstration
SWIR short wave infrared
SWORD SHORAD with optimized radar distribution
T/R transmit/receive
TACSAT tactical satellite
TADIL tactical digital information link
TBM tactical ballistic missile; theater ballistic missile
TCMP Theater Missile Defense Critical Measurements Program
TDMA time difference of mean arrival; time division multiple access
TDS top/down survivability
TECOM Test and Evaluation Command
TEL transporter–erector launcher
TEMO training, exercise, and military operations
TENCAP tactical exploitation of national capabilities program
teraflops trillions of floating point operations per second
TFLOPS trillions of floating point operations per second

F. Abbreviations
TG terminal guidance
THAAD theater high–altitude area defense
THEL tactical high–energy laser
THK TEL Hunter/Killer
TID technology infusion database
TIP technology infusion plan
TLE target location error
TLM telemetry
TMDS theater missile defense survivability
TMD–SE theater missile defense—system exerciser
TMP technology master plan
TNSAT TSD near–term technology infusion product team subtier
TPO THAAD Project Office
TRD technology requirements document
TSD tactical surveillance demonstration
TSDE tactical surveillance demonstration enhancement
TT&E targets, test, and evaluation
TVC thrust vector control
TVVS THAAD Verification and Validation System
UAH University of Alabama in Huntsville

USADASCH U.S. Army Air and Missile Defense School
USAKA U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll
USAMICOM U.S. Army Missile Command
USASMDC U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command
UV ultraviolet
V&V verification and validation

Vbo burnout velocity
VLSIC very large scale integrated circuit
WAN wide area network

WCS weapon control subsystem
WFS waveform simulator
WMD weapons of mass destruction
WSMR White Sands Missile Range
YAG yttrium aluminum garnet

F. Abbreviations

G. References
G. References
1. Headquarters, U.S. Army Air and Missile Defense School, Air and Missile Defense Master Plan, 30
September 96.
2. Deutch, John. Statement for the Record, "Worldwide Threat Assessment." Briefing to the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, 22 February 1996.
3. Star 21 Strategic Technologies for the Army of the Twenty–First Century, National Research
Council (U.S.) Board on Army Science and Technology, National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC, 20418, 1992.
4. Institute for Public Policy, Proliferation, Potential TMD Roles, Demarcation and ABM Treaty
Compatibility, September 1994.
5. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction:

Assessing the Risks, August 1993.
6. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Proliferation: Threat and Response, April 1996.
7. O’Neill, LTG Malcolm, The Role of Theater Missile Defense in Counterproliferation, Remarks
prepared for the Council on Foreign Relations, 17 November 1994.
8. Cooper, Richard N., Statement for the Record, Hearings Before the House National Security
Committee, 28 February 1996.
9. Department of the U.S. Army. United States Army Modernization Plan. Update (FY95–99). May
1994.
10. "Cruise Missile Threat Grows," Defense News, 6 October 1996.
11. Ballisic Missile Defense Threat Specification, System Specific Threat, Unmanned Aerodynamic
Vehicle Compendium–Foreign, Volume 1, Part 18A, NAIC–2660F–894–94, 30 December 1993.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/dg.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 23:18:50

G. References
12. Rest of World Tactical Missile Compendium, 30 October 1992.
13. Kaminski, Dr. Paul G., "Ballistic Missile Defense," Briefing to Congress, Office of the
Undersecretary of Defense of Acquisition and Technology, 1996.
14. Forecast Aerodynamic Missile Threats to Air Defenses, NAIC–1336–672–95, March 1995.
15. Cruise Missiles, GAO/NSIAD–95–116, 20 April 1995.
16. Defense Advanced Projects Agency, "Low Cost Cruise Missile Defense," Sol BAA 96–34.8, July
1996.
17. Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition, Army
Science Board 1993 Summer Study: Missile Defense Programs, December 1993.
18. U.S. Air Force Space Warfare Center, "Eyes in Space," 1995. Videocassette.
19. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Soviet Military Power 1986, 5th ed, March 1986.
20. Office of the Secretary of Defense, "Prospects for Change," Soviet Military Power 1989, September
1989.
21. Lennox, Duncan, Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems 1996, London: Jane’s Information Group,
1996.
22. Covault, Craig, "IAF Highlights New Israeli Booster," Aviation Week and Space Technology, 17
October 1994.
23. "Spanish Ground Attack Missile Design Advances," Aviation Week and Space Technology, 21
November 1994.
24. "CIA Chief Paints Bleak Picture," Aviation Week and Space Technology, 1 March 1993.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/dg.htm（第 2／2 页）2006-09-10 23:18:50

Annex E. Global Technology Capabilities and Trends
Annex E
Global Technology Capabilities and Trends
This annex to the Army Science and Technology Master Plan contains the International Armaments
Strategy. The strategy is significantly expanded in this revision. In addition to an update of the opportunities
identified for technologies identified in Volume I, Chapter IV of the ASTMP, this annex also addresses
long–term trends in basic research areas (Chapter V).
The Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for International Affairs has identified this annex as one of the key
guidance documents for planning and initiating international cooperative programs. This revision represents
the next step in evolving to meet this requirement and reflects many of the changes suggested by the
international points of contact whose names and organizations are cited throughout this annex. Their
contributions, both to this revision and to long–range planning for future directions, are gratefully
acknowledged.
This annex was prepared under the Army Research Laboratory contract to Orion Enterprises, Incorporated,
which was responsible for integrating and presenting information gathered from various Army organizations
involved. Special recognition is appropriate for the work of the Institute for Defense Analyses for its analysis
and preparation of the new Section C, "International Research Capabilities and Long–Term Opportunities,"
covering basic research, to Mr. Larry Beck (Army Materiel Command) and Mr. Stephen Cohn (Army
Research Laboratory).
Questions and comments regarding international programs or this annex may be addressed to:
Mr. Stephen Cohn

Army Research Laboratory
AMSRL–TT–IP
2800 Powder Mill Road
Adelphi, MD 20783–1197
e–mail: scohn@arl.army.mil
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/e.htm2006-09-10 23:18:53
Section A. Strategic Overview
A. STRATEGIC OVERVIEW
1. Background
The Department of Defense (DoD) must operate and plan for a future characterized by rapid proliferation of technological
threats, uncertainty in the world order, and strong domestic pressures for significant reductions in defense spending. Deep cuts in
defense spending will almost certainly continue, not only for the United States, but for our allies also. The Army faces the daunting
challenge of maintaining and modernizing forces that will ensure the dominance and security of U.S. ground forces in this
environment. We will rely more heavily on cooperative action with our allies to meet this challenge. International armaments
cooperation—consistent with the Army’s technology leveraging strategy as described in Volume I, Chapter VII, "Technology
Transfer"—has become an increasingly important part of our national strategy.
2. Vision
International military–industrial partnerships contribute to the warfighting capabilities of our soldiers and our allies by
maintaining truly world–class technology and industrial bases built on a global–minded workforce and the best available industrial
capabilities and services. As shown in Figure E–1, our International Armaments Cooperative Strategy (IACS) is a comprehensive
effort to focus our diverse goals to:
• Maintain a global awareness of the best technological developments and to develop leveraging strategies while
considering the potential contributions of industry, universities, other government agencies, and international
sources.
• Arrange data and personnel exchanges and participate in international forums to optimize the benefit to the U.S.
Army.
• Develop and represent in the Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP), senior–level guidance based
on well–thought out leveraging strategies.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/ea.htm（第 1／14 页）2006-09-10 23:19:21

3. Role of Annex E in International Programs
Effective international cooperation demands both the development of sound long–term partnerships and the ability to respond
opportunistically when the occasion arises. Annex E is designed to accomplish both these objectives. First, this annex provides
insights into the broad capabilities of other countries that can be used to allocate resources to develop and cultivate cooperative
programs with partners that are most likely to provide reliable long–term benefits. At the same time, identification of specific
niches of excellence provides a basis for responding quickly to targets of opportunity.
As discussed in Volume I, Chapter VII, identification of an opportunity for partnering in this annex to the ASTMP establishes the
existence of an acceptable technological quid pro quo. Within the guidelines of identified subtechnologies and countries, this
annex provides an authoritative basis for initiation of international agreements, as shown in Figure E–2. However, the proponent
organization must make the final determination that appropriate quid pro quo exists for concluding cooperative agreements. This
annex offers a snapshot in time, and new and rapidly emerging development may not be reflected. As this document is publicly
released, sensitive or classified information is not included. However, the annex includes global technology leveraging
opportunities that are updated annually.
The Army Plan is the Army’s capstone strategy planning document. This annex plays a supporting role in several of the Army
Plan’s mission areas. As a planning and reference tool, this annex provides senior Army management with a roadmap for

initiating discussions with partnering countries on technology cooperation.
4. Country Capabilities and Trends Analysis
Understanding trends is key to an effective strategy, but technology is advancing rapidly, and some opportunities may be time
sensitive. This annex contains a broad–based global technology and trends analysis by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)
and from within the Army’s technology base. The criteria for determining county capabilities and associated trends were as
follows:
• Comparative demonstrated technical performance—Countries were examined for materials, components, or

systems produced indigenously, relative to best U.S. practice.
• Indicators of recognized quality—Does the country have significant market share in products based on this
technology area and is it cited by others as authoritative?
• Strength and balance of supporting infrastructure—The number of research and development (R&D)
organizations, diversity of participation (industry, academia, government) and the level of investment were
considered.
• Expert consensus—U.S. Army subject matter experts made the final call in their areas of expertise.
Leadership in applied technology with identified military relevance is shared among relatively few countries—the United States
and its NATO allies France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (U.K.); Japan, and to a lesser extent, the former Soviet Union
(FSU) states of Russia and the Ukraine. Two other countries (Israel and Canada) are identified as having significant capabilities.
As noted in Volume I, Chapter VII, the trend is toward the development of more advanced capabilities in a growing number of
countries.
We can obtain a rough measure of how widespread technological capability is by looking at the number of countries identified as
having a significant capability in the subareas of technology and research (identified in Volume I, Chapters IV and V). As a point
of reference, the technology and research areas listed in Tables E–1 and E–2 have been cross–referenced to the areas in the
Defense Technology Area Plan (DTAP) and the Basic Research Plan (BRP), respectively.
Table E–1. Summary of Technology Leveraging Opportunities

ASTMP TECHNOLOGY AREAS Number of Subareas With Subareas With Subareas With DTAP TECHNOLOGY AREAS
Subareas One or More One or More Three or
Countries on Countries at More
Par Leading Edge Countries at
Leading Edge
Aerospace Power & Propulsion 3 3 2 0 Air Platforms
Air Vehicles 4 4 2 1
Chemical and Biological Defense 7 7 3 1 Chemical/Biological Defense & Nuclear
Individual Survivability & Sustainability 2 2 2 1 Human Systems
Command, Control, & 3 3 3 3 Information Systems Technology

Communications
Computing & Software 5 5 1 0
Conventional Weapons 6 6 1 0 Weapons

Electron Devices 4 4 4 3 Sensors, Electronics & Battlespace Environment
Electronic Warfare/Directed Energy 2 2 0 0 Weapons

Weapons
Civil Engineering & Environmental 2 2 2 1 Materials/Processes

Quality
Battlespace Environments 5 5 2 0 Sensors, Electronics & Battlespace Environment
Human Systems Interface 4 4 4 2 Human Systems
Personnel Performance & Training 2 2 2 1
Materials, Processes, & Structures 3 3 2 0 Materials/Processes
Medical & Biomedical Science & 4 4 2 0 Biomedical

Technology
Sensors 5 5 2 0 Sensors, Electronics & Battlespace Environment
Ground Vehicles 5 5 4 1 Ground & Sea Vehicles
Manufacturing Science & Technology 2 2 2 0 Materials/Processes
Modeling & Simulation 4 4 4 4 Information Systems Technology
Table E–2. Summary of Basic Research Opportunities

ASTMP TECHNOLOGY AREAS Number of Subareas With Subareas With Subareas With BRP TECHNOLOGY AREAS
Subareas One or More One or More Three or
Countries on Countries at More
Par Leading Edge Countries at
Leading Edge
Mathematical Sciences 5 4 3 1 Mathematics
Computer & Information Sciences 5 5 2 1 Computer Science
Physics 5 4 4 2 Physics
Chemistry 10 10 6 3 Chemistry
Materials Science 5 5 5 5 Materials Science
Electronics Research 5 5 4 2 Electronics
Mechanical Sciences 3 3 3 3 Mechanics
Atmospheric Sciences 2 2 1 0 Terrestrial Sciences; Atmospheric & Space

Sciences
Terrestrial Sciences 2 2 1 0 Atmospheric & Space Sciences; Terrestrial

Sciences
Medical Research 4 4 4 4 Biological Sciences
Biological Sciences 5 5 5 5
Behavioral, Cognitive, & Neural Sciences 4 4 4 3 Cognitive & Neural Science
Table E–1 provides a summary of the number of technology subareas of interest where other countries are assessed to be on a par
with the U.S. or at the leading edge of technology and capable of offering technology leveraging opportunities. At least one

country was found to be on a par with the U.S. in all 72 subareas of technology identified in the Chapter IV roadmaps. Of these
there were 44 subareas in which other countries were working at a level that could be considered as driving the state of the art, and
18 in which such capabilities are shared by three or more countries.
Table E–2 provides a similar summary for the subareas of basic research identified in Chapter V. The capabilities in basic research
are indicators of future technological capabilities, and point to areas where the Army might seek to develop long–term
cooperative relationships. There was at least one country assessed to be on a par with the U.S. in all but two of the 53 basic
research subareas—discrete mathematics (such as computational fluid dynamics) where the U.S. has a lead based on a
combination of historical access to superior computing capabilities, and in the area of image enhancement and analysis in physics.
Even in these subareas, a number of countries are identified as having niche capabilities and having the potential to drive the state
of the art in the future. Of the 53 subareas, there were 42 in which at least one country was assessed to be at the state of the art, and
29 subareas where three or more share a leading role.
The number and geographic distribution of countries having significant scientific and technological capabilities is large and can be
expected to increase. In the global economy, reliable sources of electronics, computers, many types of sensors, and new materials
are becoming more widely available as advances spread rapidly throughout global markets. Computers and electronics are simply
commodities, basic tools for studying the scientific areas that these countries have chosen—the life sciences, biology, chemistry,
and behavioral and medical sciences.
Tables E–3 and E–4, provide more detailed breakouts of specific technology and basic research areas wherein other countries are
identified as having particularly strong capabilities. The capabilities highlighted correlate generally to the areas where countries are
shown in the individual subsection tables as having world–class capabilities, and a level of activity that is expected to enhance or at
least maintain their relative position.
5. The Future
While scientific and technological capabilities are important determiners of future capabilities, there are global economic forces at
work that will also play an important role. These forces will inevitably change the distribution of wealth, and with that shift, the
future potential for technological and scientific leadership. The dominance of the United States as the largest economy and market
in the world is changing. There is an evolution towards at least three major economies and markets—Europe, Asia–Pacific, and
North America. Each of these will have its leaders and as each market develops, other countries will emerge with increasing
economic and technological strength.
Europe is currently dominated by the Western European nations, but Eastern Europe will play an increasingly important
economic role. In the Asian–Pacific arena, Japan, and to a lesser extent, Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia,
currently hold sway, but already India and China are showing signs of great growth potential and no one doubts that they will
soon be major players. In North and South America, the United States and to some extent Canada have been dominant. This
situation is not likely to change soon, but eventually Mexico and Brazil will probably become more important players. These
future shifts will have dramatic consequences that will help influence the future technological leadership of the world.
Table E–3. Highlighted Near/Mid–Term Opportunities

Technology United Kingdom France Germany Japan Asia/Pacific FSU Other Countries
Rim

Aerospace Gas turbine engine High–temperature High–temperature

Propulsion & structures & gas turbines &
Power lubricants lubricants
High–performance
transmission
Rotorcraft Rotorcraft
propulsion propulsion
Bearingless rotor Bearingless rotor

hub hub
Composite &
high–strength
alloy shafting
Air Vehicles Rotorcraft design Rotorcraft CFD Rotorcraft Ceramics Russia
Active harmonic Adaptive controls Control theory Composite Rotorcraft

control materials & structures
structures
Fly–by–light Smart structures
Composites Titanium
alloy & steel
Crash survivability Fatigue
structures
Smart structures
C–C matrix Advanced cockpit
FADEC ceramic systems
Rotor systems Smart structures
Subsystems
Chemical and Propagation & Propagation & Propagation & Detection Russia Canada
Biological EMP effects EMP effects EMP effects systems
Defense
EMP effects Detection systems
All aspects Blast & thermal Radiation, blast, & Collective
thermal protection protection
EME Israel
Chemical agent CBW agent sensors survivability
point sensors Detection systems Decon
Individual & collective
Individual BW protection
Individual protection Individual & detection
protection collective sensors
protection
Vehicle systems
Vehicle systems Individual &
Decon collective
Electronic decon
protection
DIS
DIS
Individual Soldier systems Soldier systems Soldier systems Electric power AU Canada
Survivability & (physiological & (ballistic for
Sustainability psychological) protection) man–portable
Soldier Soldier systems
systems
systems
(microclimate
control)

Command, Battlefield Battlefield Communication Fuzzy logic Netherlands

Control, & interoperability interoperability networks
Communications
High–speed Natural language
Natural language Distributed Battlefield & communications processing
processing real–time international
communications interoperability
High–speed Knowledge base &
Intelligent systems switching & database science
Switching systems Machine networks
translation
Mission planning
Machine
translation Natural language
processing
C2 simulation
Mission planning
Computing & MPP Optical processing MPP ANNs Canada

Software
Optical switching Tactical ANNs Optical switching Optical switching &
fiber–optic systems & networks networks
Visually–coupled Fiber–optic
systems Visually–coupled systems Visually–coupled Visually–coupled
systems interfaces systems
MPP & neural
network software Large dataset
representation
AI
Visually–coupled
systems
Conventional Overall strength Overall strength Overall strength Russia Israel

Weapons
ETC gun ETC gun Overall ETC gun
strength
Vehicle integration BMD missile
Italy
Mines/countermines
Electron Devices IR FPAs MMIC All aspects Russia

components
MMIC MMIC Molecular
components Compound electronics
semiconductors
Acoustic wave
Compound devices Power
semiconductors Small engines switching
Compound
Batteries semiconductors Rechargeable
batteries

Electronic LELs Laser materials Laser materials HELs & LELs Russia,
Warfare/ Ukraine
Directed Energy
Weapons
HPMs
Russia
HELs
Civil Engineering Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental Nordic Group

& Environmental protection protection protection protection
Quality
Environmental
Bioremediation Bioremediation Bioremediation Bioremediation protection
Regulatory Demil of energetic Response of Bioremediation

compliance materials hardened
structures to
conventional
Lightweight High–performance
weapons
bridging construction
materials
Response of
conventional Survivable
structures to blast structures
Battlespace Overall capability Overall capability Overall capability Remote sensing Russia Israel
Environments
Remote sensors Robotics Weather Atmospheric effects
prediction
IR FPAs Canada
3D data display
Atmospheric
dispersion
Human Systems VRIs Displays Soldier–system Displays Canada

Interface interface
Soldier–system Soldier–system VR VR displays
interface interface HPM
Robotics
HPM Ergonomics Performance
models
Performance Performance
models models
Personnel Good overall Good overall Good overall Australia, Canada

Performance & capabilities capabilities capabilities New Zealand
Training
Simulation & displays
Dynamic training Dynamic training Participate in
& simulation & simulation TTCP
Belgium
Computer–based
selection tests

Materials, Metal alloys Metal alloys Metal alloys Ceramics

Processes, &
Structures
Composites Composites Composites Composites
Welding & joining C–C ceramic part Functional Polymer

fabrication gradient coatings processing
Lightweight
engineering Smart structures Engineering Lightweight
structures structures structures
Energy–absorbing
Smart structures structures Smart structures
Medical & Infectious diseases Infectious diseases Infectious diseases Medical imaging Singapore,
Biomedical China
Science &
CBD CBD CBD Infectious
Technology
diseases Infectious
diseases
Operational Operational Operational
medicine medicine medicine
Combat casualty Combat casualty Combat casualty

care care care
Sensors Seismic sensors IR FPAs Combat ID Electronic Israel

components
Acoustic sensors Laser sensors Signal processing Acoustic sensors
Photonic devices
Signal processing Multidomain Vehicle integration Target recognition
sensors Laser applications
Vehicle integration Signal processing
Signal processing
Combat ID
Multisensor
integration
Combat ID
Ground Vehicles Good overall Good overall Good overall Ceramic engines Russia Israel
capabilities capabilities capabilities
Electric drive Electric drive RPVs
Gas turbines Secondary batteries Structural design
Batteries Teleoperation
Multisensor Vehicle
integration survivability
Switches Austria
Autonomous
Diesel engines
control
Switzerland
Diesel engines
Armored vehicles
Integrated
electronics
Italy, Sweden,
Switzerland
Vehicle chassis & turret

Manufacturing Bioprocess Bioprocess Bioprocess Fuzzy logic Israel,

Science & engineering engineering engineering Nordic Group,
Technology Netherlands
Bioprocess
CASE tools CASE tools CASE tools engineering
Bioprocess engineering
Industrial robotics Industrial robotics Industrial robotics Industrial
robotics
Modeling & DIS DIS DIS VR Australia, Canada

Simulation New Zealand
Dynamic training Dynamic training Battle M&S Distributed VR 3D visualization
simulation simulation industrial DIS
enterprises
M&S
M&S M&S
Simulation
VR VRI interfaces
Note: The lack of an entry does not necessarily indicate the absence of cooperative opportunities. In some cases, work by a single researcher in a foreign
university may prove important.
Table E–4. Highlighted Long–Term Opportunities

Technology United France Germany Japan Asia/Pacific FSU Other Countries
Kingdom Rim
Mathematical Fluid dynamics Levy processes Finite elements General China Russia Canada
Sciences capabilities
Linear algebra Dynamic systems Interactive General Numerical Analytic geometry
methods Capabilities methods
Boltzman’s Israel
equations India
Computational physics
Control theory Computational
Mathematics
Statistics
Computer vision
Finite elements
Nonsmooth
optimization
Computer & Database Natural language Natural Software Netherlands,

Information sciences processing language prototyping Sweden
Sciences processing
Natural
language
processing

Physics Optical Optical switching Submicron Submicron Russia Canada, Sweden, Israel
switching research research
Sensors Glonass
Sensors Optical Optical switching
switching
Signature Optical sensors
Signature reduction Sensors
reduction Sensors
NLOs
Lasers Fiber–optic gyros
Lasers
Lasers
Chemistry Polymer CBD Polymer Polymer South Korea Israel, Sweden,

composites composites composites China Netherlands,
Finland
Soldier power
Surface Surface Surface Surface
resistance to resistance to resistance to resistance CBD
wear & wear & wear & corrosion
corrosion corrosion
Israel, Sweden, Canada
Explosives/
CBD CBD propellants
Explosives/propellants
Soldier power Soldier power CBD
Demil, Explosives/
restoration, & propellants
pollution
prevention
Materials Welding & CMCs Ceramics Composites South Korea Russia Israel
Science joining
Armor Coatings Superconductors Tungsten alloy Armor/ Armor
Armor/ penetrators antiarmor
antiarmor
Coatings Personnel armor
Superalloys
Coatings
Diamond deposition
Ukraine
Ion implant
Welding &
joining
Electronics JESSI/MEDEA JESSI/MEDEA JESSI/MEDEA Solid–state

Research research research research devices
C3 Battlefield Networking Networking

communications
Networking Switching Switching
Switching MMIC
Low–power
devices

Mechanical Smart/active Smart/active Smart/active Smart/active Russia, Ukraine Italy

Sciences structures structures structures structures
Naval gun Smart/active structures
Fluid dynamics Fluid dynamics Reciprocating Fluid dynamics propulsion
engines
Canada
Gas turbine Gas turbine Reciprocating Experimental/
engines engines Solid gun engines theoretical fluid
Fluid dynamics
dynamics
Solid/liquid gun Solid gun
Solid gun
Gas turbines
Atmospheric Atmospheric Atmospheric Atmospheric Ionosphere & Russia Canada

Sciences backscatter electricity–aircraft environmental troposphere
interactions prediction interactions
Solar flare Ice flow & weather
Global & prediction prediction
regional IR physics of the Low–level Tropical cyclones
weather atmosphere weather
Atmosphere Atmospheric dispersion
prediction prediction
Urban pollution spectral
Low–level transmissivity
Denmark
Cold weather weather
prediction prediction
Low–level
Polar cap & aerial
weather
ionosphere interactions
Low–level prediction
weather
prediction Netherlands
IR celestial background
Brazil
Weather & ionosphere

experiments
Israel
LIDAR measurements
Terrestrial Retrofit Geotechnical Structural Basic research Israel

Sciences material systems materials response
Stochastic hydrology
Hydrology Hydrology
Canada
Hydrolgeology
Australia
Basic research

Medical Infectious Infectious diseases Infectious Infectious China Russia Switzerland, Israel,
Research diseases diseases diseases Sweden, Netherlands
Combat casualty Infectious Combat
Combat care Combat Combat casualty diseases casualty care Infectious diseases
casualty care casualty care care
Operational Combat Biological Combat casualty care
Operational medicine Operational Operational casualty care defense
medicine medicine medicine
Operational medicine
Biological defense
Biological Biological Biological
Biological defense
defense defense defense
Biological Combinatorial Genome project Combinatorial Genome project Australia Israel,

Sciences chemistry chemistry Netherlands, Switzerland
Receptor Receptor Wide range of
Genome project characterization Genome project characterization entries Wide range of entries
Receptor Nutrient additives Nutrient NMR

characterization additives
Bioremediation Visual sensing
NMR Bioremediation
Stress resistance Metabolic
Microbial Protein products
products for stabilizers
Protein stabilizers
nutrition
Bioremediation
Energy
Energy
Bioremediation transduction
transduction Protein stabilizers
Nutritional Biomaterials for

Biomaterials for Biomaterials for
additives tensile strength
tensile strength tensile strength
Protein
stabilizers
PHB plasticizer
Energy
transduction
Biomaterials for
tensile strength
Behavioral, Cognitive/ Cognitive/ Cognitive/ Cognitive/ Netherlands

Cognitive, & noncognitive noncognitive noncognitive noncognitive
Neural Sciences
Perceptual processes
Perceptual Perceptual Perceptual
processes processes processes
Israel, Sweden
Cognitive/noncognitive
Perceptual processes
Leadership
Note: The lack of an entry does not necessarily indicate the absence of cooperative opportunities. In some cases, work by a single researcher in a foreign
university may prove important.

For the near term, the U.S. and our traditional allies will probably maintain a commanding dominance in the physical sciences
and in electronics and computers (as we currently know them), and will perpetuate a worldwide abundance of devices, systems,
and instruments, including sophisticated weapons. In other areas, however, an increasing number of countries will have
world–class capabilities. In areas that do not require a large infrastructure investment, or a high level of education, many other
countries can contribute effectively in the global market. Software, for instance, is an area in which good mathematical skills and
education are the primary ingredients, especially since inexpensive, powerful computers are becoming so widely available. The life
sciences, biology, chemistry, medicine, and behavioral science are other areas in which many countries have the requisite skills to
compete effectively.
This document provides the necessary basis for building a strategic approach to international technological cooperation. With the
growing emphasis on coalition warfare, it is important not only to leverage global technology, but to keep the channels of
communication open and viable. Given the widespread and increasing opportunities for technology leveraging, coupled with the
decreasing resources, it is important that the Army’s approach to cooperation be both focused and productive.
6. Technology Assessments
Sections B and C contain specific technology assessments based on previously mentioned criteria. The numbers in the summary
charts in this sections reflect a general assessment of country capabilities and their rate of advance relative to the field at large, as
follows:
The country is considered to have world–class capabilities in one or more key aspects of the subtechnology identified.
Based on current and projected levels of research and expenditures, the level is likely to continue to define or remain near the
global state of the art.
The country is considered to have world–class capabilities in one or more key aspects of the subtechnology identified.
Based on current and projected levels of research and expenditures, the level will no longer define the state of the art,
although it should remain near world–class capabilities.
The country presently has world–class capabilities; however, current research activities are unlikely to keep them at this
level.
The country is not yet considered to have world–class capability in this field. However, the country has promising
capabilities or an accelerated, coordinated R&D effort under way in selected areas of technology that could contribute to
making it among the world leaders or enable it to help define the global state of the art in the future.
The country has capabilities in selected areas that are not considered world–class, nor is the country likely to achieve that
level in the near future. The capabilities still could contribute beneficially to U.S. Army R&D activities.
The country has capabilities that could contribute in the short term to U.S. Army R&D requirements, but are likely to be
overcome or rendered irrelevant by future advances elsewhere.
To implement our international cooperative strategy effectively, we must be prepared to take advantage of existing capabilities and
exchange mechanisms to access cutting–edge research and technology in other countries. At the same time, we need to improve
our awareness of new opportunities and significant global technology trends. With the spread of the Internet and other modern
communications links, there is unprecedented access to global data. The continuing evolution of new tools needed to collect,
evaluate, and synthesize these data will continue to enhance the dynamic nature of global technology assessments.

Section B. Near- and Mid-Term International Cooperative Opportunities; 1. Opportunity Assessment Overview
B. NEAR– AND MID–TERM INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE OPPORTUNITIES
1. Opportunity Assessment Overview
This annex represents the latest step in an evolutionary process to identify, refine, and focus efforts to
implement our international cooperative strategy. The process brings together a variety of technology and
intelligence assessments to identify broad areas where the capabilities and trends in the state of the art among
potential partners offer significant promise for contributing to U.S. Army objectives. Within these broad
areas, there are designated technology area points of contact (POCs) for Volume I, Chapter IV, and
highlighted specific needs to consider in the process of identifying existing or near–term pending agreements.
The results of the process have been refined through several iterations of the ASTMP and this annex. The
resulting collection of capabilities and mid–term opportunities described in the following subsections and
summarized in Volume I, Chapter IV, illustrate the breadth and diversity of international cooperative
opportunities for deployable advances within the next 2–6 years.
Our European allies, notably the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, are technologically advanced and
we have longstanding exchange programs with them in most areas of military technology. There are niches of
particular excellence and strong European community cooperative programs in information systems
technology, semiconductor manufacture, materials, and manufacturing science and technology (S&T) that
should increase the capabilities of our allies. Except for specific niches of excellence, these capabilities are
more likely to parallel those of the United States and provide complementary opportunities as opposed to
revolutionary breakthroughs. However, cooperation has other objectives and benefits in terms of effective
cost and risk sharing and improved interoperability. Cooperative programs with countries having current
excellence and an upward trend in development offer sound prospects for contributing to these objectives.
Future interoperability objectives for coalition forces stress the ability to exchange information across allied
forces seamlessly to support preemptive planning and mission rehearsal, integrated force management, and
effective employment of precision forces. This, in turn, will provide an impetus for international
development of standards and models to support battlespace digitization and Army Digitization Office
objectives.
In a few instances, most notably within the FSU, the opportunities identified may prove somewhat perishable
as technologies advance and economic conditions erode the base of support for research. Such
time–sensitive opportunities may be found in piezoelectric crystal growth, certain aspects of gas turbine
engines and ramjet propulsion, and pulsed power. Other areas of strong capability, less time–sensitive, may
be found in mathematical science where Russia and the other countries of the FSU have been traditionally
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/eb1.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 23:19:27

Section B. Near- and Mid-Term International Cooperative Opportunities; 1. Opportunity Assessment Overview
strong.
Japan offers the widest range of technological capabilities. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry
(MITI) oversees and coordinates a wide range of R&D in electronics, structural materials including ceramics,
and manufacturing S&T. Applications of these technologies to military uses are not widely advertised, but
there is clear evidence of growing capability and activity in this direction. The Army has initiated several
programs with Japan, for example, in ramjet propulsion and in applications of fuzzy logic to helicopter flight
control. The Japanese technological capabilities offer numerous other opportunities. However, indications
are that patience and a concerted long–term commitment are necessary prerequisites to successful
negotiation of cooperative agreements with Japan.
Those countries that we think of as traditionally strong in technology are rapidly being joined by other
countries as global dissemination and internationalization of high–technology industries increases. Countries
such as Israel and Korea have growing capabilities in a wide range of military–industrial technologies,
including microelectronics and electronic systems, aerospace, ground vehicles, and sensors (primarily Israel)
that already offer selected cooperative opportunities. India has a broad base of expertise for software
development capable of supporting advances in a number of technology areas. Singapore, under the auspices
of the National University, has launched a strong and diversified world–class program in biotechnology.
Malaysia and Indonesia (in large part based on technology transfer from European aerospace firms), are
developing a helicopter and small air transport design and manufacturing base. In the future, other niches of
capability, backed by solid basic industrial infrastructures, are likely to develop in these and other countries,
particularly in biotechnology and environmental sciences, which are becoming pervasive worldwide areas of
R&D.
The following subsections provide a brief overview of the international state–of–the–art and key
technological capabilities that have the potential to contribute to objectives and milestones identified in each
of the 19 areas of technology addressed in Volume I, Chapter IV. Within each technology, we also identify
one or more near–term opportunities to address specific needs. Each specific opportunity includes a brief
description and justification highlighting potential benefits of the international effort envisioned. Benefits are
defined in terms of the potential to address specific ASTMP or DoD technology milestones and objectives.
Appropriate Army Material Command (AMC) and international POCs or project officers for each of the
technologies and agreements cited are also provided.

Aerospace propulsion and power focuses on technologies that will result in aircraft and missile propulsion systems and
components, including prime power transmission, that are more compact, lighter weight, higher horsepower, more fuel efficient,
and lower cost than those currently available. Advances in this area are needed to support Army objectives for improved
rotorcraft and transport performance, and for other services, attack and fighter aircraft and unmanned air vehicles (UAVs).
Technology subareas include rotorcraft propulsion (encompassing small gas turbine engines and rotorcraft drive systems) and
fuels and lubricants. Table E–5 and the following paragraphs summarize key capabilities and trends in each technology subarea.
Table E–5. International Research Capabilities—Aerospace Propulsion and Power

Rim
Small Ceramics Russia Israel, Canada

Turbine High–temperature High–temperature
Engines structures gas turbines;
rotorcraft Wind Small gas turbines
propulsion tunnel test
· Rotorcraft facilities
propulsion
Rotorcraft Bearingless Bearingless

Power High–performance rotor hub rotor hub;
Transfer transmission composite &
Systems high–strength
allow shafting
Fuels &
Lubricants High–temperature High–temperature
lubricants lubricants
Note: See Annex E, Section A.6 for explanation of key numerals.
a. Small Turbine Engines
The Army, other services, NASA, DARPA, and industry are working together to reduce specific fuel consumption by 40 percent
and increase the power–to–weight ratio by 20 percent in engines by FY03. This will significantly improve Army rotorcraft range
and payload characteristics. This technology will also be applicable to ground vehicles. Technical challenges in gas turbine engine
technology include:
• High–temperature, lightweight materials, including metal matrix composites (MMCs) and ceramic matrix
composites (CMCs)
• Efficient, highly loaded, wide–range compressors and turbines
• High–temperature, high–speed, high–pressure engine mechanical parts (e.g., bearings, seals, gears)
• Computationally efficient, experimentally validated advanced design codes.

The importance of gas turbine propulsion in civilian aircraft markets has led to the development of worldwide capabilities, with
over 40 producers in 11 countries listed as suppliers in recent global surveys. Many other countries have technologies for repair
and overhaul. Market figures indicate that the United States has continued to capture a growing share in a declining market,
largely through exports. A growing number of companies look to international joint ventures as a strategy for remaining
competitive in this market. International cooperative R&D in gas turbine technology may, in addition to providing access to
state–of–the–art technology, provide access to an increasingly competitive international market.
France, Germany, and the U.K. are at or nearly at a par with the U.S. in many aspects. Key areas of capability with leveraging
potential include materials and coatings, and related structures and aerodynamic design and modeling. Russia, Canada, Israel,
and Japan have substantial infrastructures and niches of excellence (e.g., Japan, ceramics; Canada, small gas turboprops).
One area offering special opportunities relates to the French expertise in ceramic materials for gas turbine engines. Ceramic
material technologies can provide significant enhancements over currently fielded systems. In particular, they offer lightweight,
fuel efficient engines with greatly increased power–to–weight ratios, and are capable of operation at high temperatures. While the
U.S., Germany, and Japan also are world leaders in ceramic technologies, France is a recognized leader in ceramic/carbon
composites, which are most applicable to gas turbine engines. Existing agreements with France provide a potential vehicle for
establishing a cooperative agreement in this area.
b. Rotorcraft Power Transfer Systems
Drive train and power transfer research is required to lower weight, volume, noise, and increase durability. Technical challenges in
rotorcraft drive technology include:
• Lightweight, high–strength, tribologically robust gear materials

• Accurate dynamic noise and life prediction codes
• Minimum lubricant weight designs
• Efficient, lightweight, high–power density electric drive components.
The U.K. has strong capabilities in high–performance power transmission technologies. France has expertise in bearingless rotor
hubs, as does Germany. Germany also has noteworthy capabilities in composite materials and high–strength alloy shafting.
c. Fuels and Lubricants
The Army’s main interest in the fuels and lubricants subarea is the development and validation of new analytical technologies. Of
particular interest are techniques for rapid assessment of petroleum quality using spectroscopic and chromatographic methods.
New analytical methods will enable a significant reduction in operational requirements for petroleum testing in the field. This
includes less manpower, reduced test time, and less test hardware. Technical challenges relate to compressing testing time,
developing improved detection systems, correlating testing results, and developing computer–based expert systems.
In this subarea, France and Germany are the only countries noted as having special capabilities, both in the area of
high–temperature lubricants.
AMC POC: Dr. Rodney Smith

Army Materiel Command
AMXIP–OB
5001 Eisenhower Blvd.
Alexandria, VA 22333–0001
e–mail: icpa@hqamc.army.mil
IPOC: Mr. Dennis Earley

U.S. Army AMCOM

St. Louis, MO 63120–1798
e–mail: earleyd@avrdec.army.mil

3. Air Vehicles
3. Air Vehicles
Rotorcraft are of particular interest to the Army. They are, and will remain, essential for a variety of critical scout, transport, and
combat missions. The operational flexibility afforded by vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capabilities has created growing civil
and military markets, particularly in third world nations. As a result, the helicopter industry has become highly internationalized
and interdependent. In addition to the capabilities in the U.S.–Canadian industrial base, Germany, France, the United Kingdom,
Russia, and Italy are all capable of designing and producing state–of–the–art military rotorcraft. Japan, Malaysia, India, and South
Africa all have substantial capabilities for rotorcraft production. India and South Africa have indigenous military helicopter
development programs. Other countries, notably Malaysia and China, have acquired modest capabilities (principally through
licensing arrangements with other countries) in rotorcraft manufacturing to meet local market needs. These countries are not
currently at a level that would contribute to significant advances in technology, but could develop niche capabilities in the future.
Competition for international military sales is intense and marketing rights and export prospects have affected a number of
development decisions, particularly in international programs. Such market forces continue to push worldwide developments.
Foreign capabilities may offer opportunities to reduce the cost of improving each of the key technology subareas: aeromechanics,
flight control, structures (including survivability and as a major consideration signature reduction), and subsystems. Table E–6
and the following paragraphs summarize potential prospects.
Table E–6. International Research Capabilities—Air Vehicles

Technology United France Germany Japan Asia/Pacific Rim FSU Other Countries
Kingdom
Aeromechanics Rotorcraft Rotorcraft; Rotorcraft CFD; Russia Italy, Israel, Sweden

design CFD hypervelocity
Wind Aeromechanical design
tunnel test
facilities
Flight Control Active Adaptive Control Sweden

harmonic controls; theory
control fly–by–light
Adaptive controls
Structures Composites Crash Smart Ceramics; Malaysia, China Russia Canada

survivability; structures; composite
C–C matrix fatigue materials &
Smart Rotorcraft Rotorcraft Fracture/
ceramic structures
structures structures; Ti & fatigue analysis
steel alloy
Smart structures
Italy
structures
Rotorcraft structures
Subsystems FADEC; Advanced Avionics Israel

rotor systems cockpit systems cockpit system
Advanced cockpit
systems

3. Air Vehicles
a. Aeromechanics
Aeromechanics technology includes multidisciplinary efforts in acoustics, aerodynamics, rotor loads, vibration, maneuverability,
and aeroelastic stability. The goal is to improve the performance of rotorcraft while reducing noise, vibration, and stress loads
inherent in helicopter operation. Major efforts involve refining analytical prediction methods and testing capabilities, and
improving the versatility and efficiency of modeling advanced concepts. Another area of interest is attaining a smoother and
quieter ride, which will improve performance and also enhance public acceptance. Technical challenges include the inability to
accurately predict and control a number of factors:
• Stall and compressibility characteristics of airfoils

• Viscous and interactive aerodynamics and separated flow forces
• Rotor blade forces and loading limits
• Effects of rotor wake and blade response
• Aeroelastic rotor couplings to increase damping.
The proliferation of low–cost, high–performance computing (HPC) systems has lead to a growing worldwide interest in
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to address many of these issues.
Use of CFD for design of rotors and blades can enhance helicopter speed, maneuverability, and lift capabilities, while reducing
acoustic signatures and structural vibration. While the United States is the world leader in CFD and related techniques, France,
Germany, and Israel have complementary world–leading efforts to improve and develop analytical techniques and generate
experimental databases that may contribute to ASTMP goals in this area. The U.K. has strong capabilities in rotor and overall
rotorcraft design, and Italy and Sweden have noteworthy capabilities in aeromechanical design. In addition, Japan has special
skills in CFD especially related to hypervelocity vehicles, and finally, Russia has special strengths in wind tunnel test facilities.
Russia has also fielded some of the most capable military rotorcraft in terms of aerodynamic performance (speed and lift
capability).
b. Flight Control
Flight control technology defines the aircraft’s flying qualities and the pilot interface. Helicopters are inherently unstable,
nonlinear, and highly cross–coupled. Advances in smaller, more powerful computers hold tremendous promise in this field, to
allow realization of the full potential of the rotorcraft’s performance envelope and maintenance of performance even in poor
weather and at night. Integrating flight control with weapons control is of great interest, to permit improved pointing accuracy
and the use of lower–cost unguided rockets as precision munitions. Other goals include improved external load handling at night,
and increased exploitable agility and maneuverability. Technical challenges in flight control include:
• Knowledge of rotorcraft response and interactions with load suspension dynamics

• Sensing the onset of limits and cuing the pilot to fly safely at or near the envelope limits
• Air vehicle mathematical modeling for control system design, optimization, and validation
• Knowledge of optimum functional integration of flight controls, engine fuel control, weapons systems, and the
pilot interface.
Foreign countries leading in flight control technology include the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The U.K. has special
capabilities in harmonic control for noise reduction. France has strong capabilities in adaptive controls and in fly–by–light
technology. Germany has strengths in several areas that are of interest. One of the most important relates to ground–based and

3. Air Vehicles
in–flight simulation studies on handling qualities. Specific areas of concern are the investigation of cross–coupling requirements,
gust rejection for rate response systems, and the response time delay limits for high bandwidth response systems. Continuing
work using Germany’s in–flight simulator and correlated U.S. ground–based simulators has produced a viable database to build
on, which could not be accomplished using U.S. assets alone. In the area of stability and control analysis, the U.S. predominantly
uses a frequency domain method, whereas the Germans predominantly use a time–domain approach. Each technique has
inherent advantages and disadvantages. A coordinated approach combining the strengths of both techniques yields the most
promising path to success in detailing complete and accurate portrayal of flight control system design and performance
parameters. This technology provides a critical link bridging theoretical design, prediction, simulation, and test analysis. In
addition, Sweden has some ongoing efforts in adaptive controls that are of interest.
c. Structures
Science and technology related to structures aims at improving aircraft structural performance while reducing both acquisition
and operating costs. Virtual prototyping to optimize structural design for efficiency and performance is of particular interest to
remove a large portion of the risk involved in exploring new concepts and moving rapidly from concept to production. An
integrated product and process development approach will be used. The reduction in dynamically loaded structural stress
prediction inaccuracy is another area of great interest, as is reducing the production labor hours per pound for composite
structures. Breakthroughs in these and other areas will lead to improvements in maintenance and production costs, as well as
reducing the empty weight fraction of the airframe, while increasing durability, performance, and ride comfort. Technical
challenges in structures include:
• Accurate methodologies for flight regime recognition algorithms

• Accurate algorithms for determining rotorcraft flight condition from state parameters in a dynamic environment
• Sensing and measuring rheological behavior of materials during cure
• Multidisciplinary design and production techniques to meet cost, weight, reliability, and performance
requirements
• Advances in smart materials
• Modeling and analysis of rotating and fixed system structural loads and their interactions with the vehicle’s
aerodynamic environment.
Advanced composite structures and fly–by–wire/light are becoming common in international aircraft. Technologies for military
systems reside primarily in the few countries that produce military helicopters. Predominant among these are France, Germany,
the United Kingdom, and Italy. The United Kingdom has strong capabilities in composites and in smart structures. Crash
survivability is an area of special interest. France has expertise and in general is on a par with the United States in this area.
Survivability depends on a number of factors including equipment performance, which may be enhanced by more efficient design
and testing of aircraft structures. Of particular interest is the testing of advanced structural concepts and manufacturing processes
for composite and thermoplastic materials for primary helicopter airframe structures. In addition to the above countries, Canada
has strong capabilities in fracture/fatigue analysis, and Russia in titanium and steel alloy structures. Finally, Japan has world–class
expertise in ceramics and composite materials.
d. Subsystems
Rotary–wing vehicle subsystems encompass a broad range of S&T topics related to support, sustainment, and survivability of
aircraft systems and their associated weaponry. Five key technology areas are of interest:
• Reduction of radar cross section (RCS)

• Reduction of infrared (IR) signature
• Reduction of visual and electro–optic (EO) signature
• Increased hardening to threats
• Increased probability of detecting incipient mechanical component failures.

3. Air Vehicles
Technical challenges relate to modeling and analytical predictions for components and materials used in signature reduction and
hardening against threat, and developing rugged, cost–effective, nonintrusive monitoring techniques, sensors, algorithms, and
methods.
Several countries have capabilities of interest in subsystems for rotorcraft. Germany, Japan, and Israel all have strong capabilities in
advanced cockpit systems, but the German work on cockpit integration is of special interest. Germany is a recognized world
leader in cognitive decision–aiding, knowledge–based systems and in high–speed data fusion. It is actively pursuing integration of
these capabilities in vehicle driving systems that could be of significant value. The United Kingdom is doing significant work on
full authority digital engine control (FADEC). In addition, Japan has strong capabilities in avionics, based upon its world–class
electronics capability.

AMXIP–OB

U.S. Army AMCOM
St. Louis, MO 63120–1798

Contamination avoidance is the highest priority of the DoD chemical and biological (CB) defense program. The program also
includes force protection (individual and collective), medical, and decontamination. The past 2 years have been marked by
growing interest and rapid advances in and proliferation of biosensing technology for environmental, industrial, and medical
applications. For example, in recent years, Singapore has made a significant national investment in a world–class facility and may
offer future capabilities in sensors and materials for personnel protection and decontamination.
While these technologies are dual use in nature, the growing threat of CB weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has focused
continued attention on development of operational sensors to meet military requirements. Table E–7 indicates areas of capability
and trends. The U.K., France, Germany, and Japan
Table E–7. International Research Capabilities—Chemical and Biological Defense

Kingdom Rim
Electromagnetic Russia Israel

Environment Propagation & Propagation & Propagation &
Survivability EMP effects EMP effects EMP effects
EMP effects Propagation
Canada, India
High altitude
electromagnetic pulse
India
Propagation
Radiation, Blast, All aspects Blast & All aspects Transient Russia Israel
& Thermal thermal radiation effects
Protection on electronics
All Aspects
Detection Chemical CBW agent Detection Singapore Russia Canada

agent point point & remote systems
sensors sensing
BW Detection systems
detection
sensors
Israel, Sweden, Netherlands,
Switzerland, Czech
Republic, Poland
Detection sensors

Individual Russia Israel

Protection
Collective Vehicle Vehicle Russia Israel

Protection systems systems
Decontamination Electronics Canada

decon
Modeling & Local China Canada, Israel

Simulation meteorology Meteorology
transport effects
DIS DIS
Meteorology
Denmark
Atmospheric transport
effects
all have strong capabilities in sensors, with France having particular strengths in remote sensing. Germany and Israel have
strengths in individual and collective protection, with Germany identified as particularly capable in collective protection for
military vehicles.
Modeling and simulation (M&S) capabilities relate to and are parallel to capabilities in meteorology and prediction of
atmospheric transport effects and sensor performance modeling. Remote and real–time point detection of CB agents are
prominently identified in the Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan (JWSTP), as are models and simulations to support
processing and dissemination of real–time warning and reporting data. The ASTMP Volume I, Chapter IV includes milestones
for these and identifies additional requirements for individual and collective protection and decontamination. Table E–7
summarizes potential prospects.
Following are highlights in specific areas that offer potential opportunities for cooperative efforts to advance.
a. Electromagnetic Environment (EME) Survivability
Even civilian electronics are exposed to a wide range of electromagnetic (EM) interference and naturally occurring
electromagnetic propulsion (EMP) effects. In addition, the phenomenology of propagation is fundamental to design of sensors
and communications. Thus, capabilities and potential cooperative opportunities are indicated in countries that are traditional
producers of military communications equipment. With regard to techniques for protecting military systems against EMP, the
existing nuclear powers—the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Russia—have the most practical experience.
b. Radiation, Blast, and Thermal Protection
Most countries involved in development of military hardware require some capabilities for analysis and design of systems and
structures to protect against radiation, blast, and thermal effects. In addition, civilian nuclear power systems and space systems
must be designed and built to withstand a variety of radiation effects. With regard to techniques for protecting military systems
against nuclear weapon effects, the existing nuclear powers—the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Russia—have the
most practical experience.

c. Detection
Reliable detection of biological warfare (BW) agents is particularly difficult, due to the high background and diversity of naturally
occurring organisms. Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States participated in joint exercises (completed in 1995),
that identified promising technologies. Other countries, including Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and Russia, have
ongoing work in various methods of biodetection.
One method of point detection and identification of CB agents now under active investigation is mass spectrometry. The goal is
to develop technologies that result in significant improvements to the CB agent detection/identification capability of fieldable
mass spectrometers. This includes technological means to increase the sensitivity, speed of response, selectivity, and specificity.
There is an existing agreement with Germany in this technology area that could potentially expedite implementation of a specific
program agreement to leverage Germany’s past developmental experience with the development, integration, and testing of mass
spectrometers in such systems as the Fuchs NBCRS.
A 6.2 exploratory development program for a biological detector (BD) has been completed successfully in cooperation with the
United Kingdom and Canada. A follow–on 6.3b development has been conducted with the U.K. and Canada. The focus of
cooperative development has shifted from hardware elements to antibodies and reagents, with increased emphasis on joint test
and evaluation (T&E). The results of this cooperative project are contributing to the upgrade of the interim U.S. Biological
Integrated Detection System (BIDS). The Czech Republic has a capability in nerve agent detection and is in the process of
developing a promising new detector. The Chemical and Biological Defense Command (CBDCOM) is discussing possible
cooperation with it. Poland has developed a new protocol for detecting spores, using current BIDS equipment. This procedure is
being integrated into U.S. doctrine.
The BD will be a component of the BIDS, providing an automatic detection and identification capability. The objective is to
develop and field an automated antibody–based BD that will be incorporated into the detector suite of the BIDS. Cooperative
efforts are focused on development of the agents at target concentrations, as well as the T&E of these antibodies in various
prototype detection systems. There are existing agreements in this technology area with the United Kingdom and Canada that
could potentially expedite implementation of a specific program agreement to address this opportunity.
Systems using remote detection offer obvious advantages over point source detectors, which must be in local contact with the
CBW agent. The United States and France (with whom there is an existing agreement for work in this area) are world leaders in
laser technology and in CBW–related technologies, and have exchanged much information in CBW research and testing. French
R&D may contribute to development of standoff biological agent detection and identification capability using laser light scattering
techniques.
d. Individual Protection
Virtually any country advanced enough to have concerns for medical isolation, personal protection, and industrial safety in
hazardous CB environments will have some expertise in personal protection. However only a few countries—notably the United
States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and Israel—have extensive capabilities in meeting the requirements
demanded for operational military use. (Military requirements are primarily distinguished by the need to sustain a level of
operational effectiveness over an extended (many–hour) time period.) This places particular demands on support services and
primary power for same. The United States and Canada have jointly developed a new vapor systems test for identifying leaks in
the seals of individual protection equipment. Germany has a major mask effort under way, as does France. Israel has developed a
number of "civilian" masks.
e. Collective Protection
Collective protection encompasses the need to protect both fixed and mobile assets from nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC)
weapons effects. Current collective protection filters for combat vehicles impose a significant logistic burden in their requirement

for replacement after a finite number of attacks or after extended attack–free service. Technologies are under investigation to
create filters that have a nearly indefinite service life and offer exceedingly broad spectrum protection. The primary candidate at
the moment is pressure swing absorption technology.
The U.K. has been developing temperature swing adsorption for collective protection, which will likely go into the
next–generation scout vehicle and may be part of a joint U.S.–U.K. program. The United States has pursued a research and
exploratory development program to model the performance of such systems and to do some confirmatory testing. Germany
initiated a companion program last year and had planned to begin to obtain test data but experienced nontechnical difficulties in
the laboratory. Technical experts on both sides have met and data collection is scheduled to begin later in the year.
With regard to specific opportunities for cooperation, the U.S. has extensive experience with prototype systems that could reduce
German development costs very significantly while still providing an extensive prototype database. German R&D may contribute
additional experimental data for validation of the U.S. computational models, thereby reducing U.S. development costs while
increasing reliability. There are existing agreements in this technology area with Germany that could potentially expedite
implementation of a specific program agreement to address this opportunity.
f. Decontamination
In addition to operational battlefield decontamination, specific ASTMP NBC warfare (NBCW) objectives include the effective
remediation of contaminated waste sites and the destruction (using environmentally safe practices) of chemical agents and
energetic materials. Bioprocesses have the potential to meet these requirements.
Existing decontaminating liquids are caustic and logistically difficult to handle. Enzymes are being investigated for use as catalytic
agents to neutralize chemical agents. While personnel protection is of primary importance, there is also a requirement to protect
and decontaminate mission critical equipment. At present, there are no methods available for the decontamination of sensitive
equipment such as avionics, electronics, detectors, computers, and communication equipment. In the late 1980s and early 1990s,
the United States was pursuing the development of a system to satisfy this requirement. Germany (with whom there are existing
agreements that could potentially expedite implementation of a specific program agreement to address this requirement) also was
beginning a companion study. Both efforts were terminated because the technology used an ozone–depleting substance. Steeply
declining defense budgets over the next few years and higher priorities forced the United States to all but abandon the search for a
technical solution. Germany, however, continued to pursue the issue as part of the Haupt Entgiftungs Platz–90 (HEP–90)
development and has exploratory development studies underway. Canada is also strong in the subarea of decontamination,
having developed, in time for the Gulf War, the most effective universal Soman (nerve agent) antitoxin.
The CBD program is now managed as a fully integrated joint service program; this has resulted in the resurfacing of this
requirement and work on decontamination needs is currently scheduled to begin again, albeit at modest levels, in FY97. This is
reflected in the Defense Technology Objective (DTO) CB.09.12.D, "Decontamination for Global Reach." Ongoing German
R&D may contribute to the development of equipment capable of decontaminating sensitive pieces of military hardware without
damaging them irreversibly. Of the concepts currently being explored, one using new aqueous surfactant and decontaminant
formulations appears to be the most promising.
Biotechnology also (specifically biodegradation/bioremediation) provides methods for decontamination of waste sites and the
demilitarization of energetic materials. These processes are accomplished through the use of biological organisms including fungi,
bacteria, and algae. Japan, the U.K., Germany (with whom there is an existing agreement that could potentially expedite
implementation of a specific program agreement to address this opportunity), France, Israel, and the Nordic group (Norway,
Sweden, and Denmark) have significant capabilities in segments of this area. France is particularly strong in developing
bioprocessing techniques for disposing of energetic materials (explosives and propellants). Biotechnology is highly
internationalized and strongly centralized within the European Community (EC). Because of the open nature of exchange in this
area, agreements with one nation may serve as a vehicle for accessing EC technology at large.

g. Modeling and Simulation
Much of the capability needed for M&S of CB transport and dispersion modeling is common to civil weather forecasting and
environmental pollution modeling. The U.K., France, Germany, Canada, and Israel all have or have had active programs that
provide a potential basis for cooperation in M&S of atmospheric effects on agent dispersion. Other countries that have evidenced
strong interest in fine–grain meteorological prediction include Japan, China, and Russia. Denmark has also typically had an effort,
although it has not invested heavily in staying up to date.
Distributed interactive simulation (DIS) is one effort underway to develop training and materiel development simulation systems
interconnected via a high–level architecture (HLA). Current efforts include the inclusion of chemical, biological, and smoke
effects into the HLA, both for training in a CB environment and for materiel acquisition support. DIS has the potential to account
for environmental and equipment effects; can operate in virtual, constructive, or live modes, and will use high–fidelity
phenomenology and component models. Further, this will provide a value–added process for systems and materiel evaluations.
Japan has placed particular emphasis on the use of dynamic distributed simulations of large, complex, geographically dispersed
industrial enterprises like electrical power systems. Similar technologies are being developed and implemented in Canada.
The United States has extensive expertise in the development of DIS networks. The (other) Technical Cooperation Program
(TTCP) member countries could take advantage of this network and tie in at a much reduced cost. Further, by initiating HLA
nodes reflecting their equipment, it would be possible to develop doctrine and training better suited to coalition forces. An
existing agreement in this technological area with the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand could potentially
expedite implementation of a specific program agreement to address this.

AMXIP–OB
IPOC: Dr. George R. Famini/Ms. Juanita M. Keesee

U.S. Army Edgewood RD&E Center
ATTN: SCBRD–ASI
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010–5423
e–mail: grfamini@cbdcom.apgea.army.mil
e–mail: jmkeesee@cbdcom.apgea.army.mil
For individual collective protection:
IPOC: Dr. Richard Strecker/Ms. Jan Lanza

U.S. Army Soldier Systems Command
U.S. Army Natick RDE Center
ATTN: SSCNC–AN
Natick, MA 01760–5015
e–mail: jlanza@natick–amed02.army.mil
e–mail: rstrecke@natick–amed02.army.mil

Survivability and sustainability of individual soldiers and small operational groups for the future battlefield and for operations
other than war (OOTW) will require advances across a wide spectrum of capabilities. These include ballistic protection, CBW
protection, signature reduction, as well as enhanced capabilities for delivering provisions and electrical power for the soldier
system. The suite of underlying technologies is also diverse, ranging from textiles (a special case is biotechnologically derived
materials such as spider silk or bioceramics for body armor) to advanced fuel cells and batteries. Requirements for electrical power
for individual soldier equipment vary with primary (disposable) cells being of interest for battle, and rechargeable (such as
nickel–metal hydride) having a key role in training, currently a major consumer of batteries.
Table E–8 summarizes key capabilities and trends in individual survivability and sustainability. The following paragraphs provide
additional information for each technology subarea.
Table E–8. International Research Capabilities—Individual Survivability and Sustainability

Kingdom
Individual Soldier Soldier Soldier Australia Canada

Survivability systems systems (ballistic systems
(physiological & protection)
psychological) Soldier Soldier systems
systems
(microclimate
control)
Sustainability Batteries for Fossil Electrical Russia Canada

man–portable fuel–driven power for
systems electrical power man–portable
systems Batteries for Electrical power
man–portable
systems
a. Individual Survivability
Individual survivability includes all material and combat clothing systems for protection of the individual warfighter. Areas of
particular interest are individual ballistic protection, countermeasures to sensors, laser eye protection, multifunction materials,
and warrior performance and endurance enhancements. A number of technological advances address these concerns:
• Textile and composite materials for ballistic protection

• Percutaneous CB protection (e.g., selectively permeable membranes)
• Multifunction materials (environmental and flame/thermal protection)
• Laser eye protection materials and systems

• Microclimate conditioning for warrior performance enhancement

• Integration of soldier system modular components.
Cooperative opportunities in individual survivability relate primarily to improved soldier systems. The soldier system focuses on
enhancing soldier capabilities in the five areas of lethality, command and control (C2), survivability, sustainability, and mobility.
This encompasses everything the soldier wears, carries, and consumes in a tactical environment. France has special expertise in
ballistic protection for individual soldiers. The United Kingdom has strong capabilities in the physiological and psychological
aspects of soldier systems. Germany and Canada both have strong capabilities in materials and soldier system integration. In
addition, a niche capability in individual microclimate control has been identified in Australia.
b. Sustainability
Sustainability includes scientific and technological efforts to sustain and enhance warfighter performance and combat
effectiveness. These range from nutritional performance enhancement, food preservation, food service equipment, energy
technologies, and drinking water to precision cargo/personnel airdrop and airbeam technologies for lightweight, rapid–setup
shelters.
A key area for sustainability will continue to be man–portable electrical power. As the soldier relies increasingly on sophisticated
electronic sensors, computers, and communications, there is a corresponding need for more efficient sources of portable electrical
power. Japan is a world leader in secondary (rechargeable) batteries, fuel cells, and small gasoline engines. France and Russia also
have significant capabilities in selected aspects of secondary batteries. Advanced lithium and nickel–metal–hydride batteries and
fuel cells offer exceptional energy densities and longer operating life, which are key factors in man–portable weapons and sensors.
Canada also has recognized strengths in the subarea of sustainability as demonstrated by the FY96 approved foreign comparative
testing (FCT) of a Canadian less–than–3–kilowatt generator, and Canadian multifuel burner. In addition, Canadian research in
hydroxide fuel cells is strong. A Canadian firm is currently fielding a test fleet of hydrogen–oxide powered buses at Disneyland;
the only waste product is water. Canadian companies are also working in other fuel cell concepts such as aluminum–oxide. A
small Canadian company has, with the Special Operations Command (SOCM), further developed this cell for military use.
Ongoing efforts with France offer special opportunities to accelerate the development of low–cost, long–life power sources based
on these technologies. In addition, there is a great need for small, portable, high–efficiency power generation. Germany has
world–leading capabilities in the specific area of miniature fossil fuel engines for portable electrical power.

AMXIP–OB
IPOC: Dr. Richard Strecker/Ms. Jan Lanza

U.S. Army Soldier Systems Command
U.S. Army Natick RDE Center
ATTN: SSCNC–AN
Natick, MA 01760–5015
e–mail: jlanza@natick–amed02.army.mil
e–mail: rstrecke@natick–amed02.army.mil
For sustainability:
IPOC: Bob Both

U.S. Army CECOM

ATTN: AMSEL–RD–AS–TI
Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703
e–mail: both@doim6.monmouth.army.mil

Command, control, and communications (C3) technology encompasses the capability to acquire, process, and disseminate
information across force elements (including international coalition forces). The capability must be reliable, provide secure
multilevel access, and be protected from enemy attacks. This will require advances not only in computing hardware and software
but in the interconnecting fabric of communications. As delineated in the JWSTP, the goal is seamless and effective integration of
capabilities for planning and preemption, integrated force management, and effective employment of sensor–to–shooter
system–of–systems. Table E–9 summarizes trends in capabilities to meet milestones in seamless communications, information
distribution and management, and decision making addressed in Volume I, Chapter IV.
Table E–9. International Research Capabilities—Command, Control, and Communications

Kingdom Rim
Seamless Battlefield Battlefield Fuzzy logic; Korea Canada

Communications interoperability interoperability Communications high–speed
networks; communications
battlefield System Tactical
interoperability; interoperability interoperability
international
interoperability
Information Natural Real–time Machine High–speed Korea Canada

Management & language distributed translation; switching &
Distribution processing communications; natural language networks
Data fusion Advanced data display
switching processing
systems; machine
translation; C2 Netherlands
simulation
Natural language
processing; knowledge
base/database science
Decision Making Intelligent Mission Fuzzy logic Israel

systems; planning
mission º Battle management
planning
As reflected in the Army command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) technical architecture and the
interoperability objectives of the Army Digitization Office, digitization of the battlefield is expected to rely largely on the effective
use of commercial–off–the–shelf (COTS) equipment. While this may provide many of the building blocks, integration and
demonstration of the technology in the field remains a significant challenge. Widespread mass market availability of low–cost
computers of unprecedented power and global connectivity over the Internet has led to rapid expansion and proliferation of
information system technologies. Key areas where international developments are likely to provide continuing opportunities for
cooperation include:

• High–speed digital switching and networking techniques supporting seamless communications and robust
interoperable systems
• Machine translation software products and intelligent agents for data acquisition and retrieval
• Intelligent systems technologies for real–time decision support.
The following paragraphs describe opportunities that support DTOs for achieving information superiority and operational
dominance in the battlespace of the future. The breadth, diversity, and number of the areas highlighted reflect the nature of the
global information infrastructure. Areas where existing or near–term pending agreements offer significant opportunities for
cooperation are noted.
a. Seamless Communication
Seamless communication means robust, survivable, multilevel secure communication systems that provide the warfighter access
to mission–essential information over the entire operational continuum without requiring user intervention to achieve
connectivity across heterogeneous networks.
Seamless communication includes the technologies associated with networks, network management, and advanced radio
communication systems. The technical challenge is to provide local area networks and ground mobile radio networks that will
survive the hostile and demanding environment of the modern battle and that are capable of being interfaced to fixed–backbone
or space–based wide area networks.
France, Germany, and the U.K. are major players in all aspects of communication networks and in battlefield interoperability.
Canada also has significant capabilities in tactical interoperability. The following programs are of particular interest for
cooperative opportunities:
• Battlespace Command and Control (BC2)—Seamless information transfer in C2 to include collaborative

planning, intelligence, logistics, and weather. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom all have significant
capabilities and ongoing cooperative relationships with the United States to develop joint C2 capabilities. There is a
need to address and expand this effort to the Korean Peninsula to effect force compatibility with the Republic of
Korea (ROK) forces where the U.S. Army has a large ongoing commitment.
• Command Post Communications—Broadband communication networks for corps, division, and brigade
command posts. Germany is developing a wideband, wireless command post communication network that will be
capable of providing voice, digital data, and video connectivity among the elements of a dispersed command post.
This system is similar to that being investigated in the U.S. Army’s Survivable Adaptive System (SAS) ATD. There
is potential for data exchanges and an interoperability effort between these two programs. A key German
technology includes ultrafast (40 gigahertz (GHz)) optical switching developed by the Heinrich Hertz Institute.
• Battlefield Interoperability—Implement, evaluate, and validate improved interoperability between the tactical
(regiments, battalions, and companies) C2 systems of different allied nations. One area of interest involves
developing an intelligent translation gateway box that will receive variable message formats (VMFs) from a
command post in English and convert them in real time to French common AdatP3 message format and vice
versa. A similar effort with Germany is ongoing as a follow–on to a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
related to the combat vehicle C2 system.
• International C2 Systems Interoperability—Part of the Army’s strategy for international digitization is to establish
a joint testbed facility to conduct R&D to demonstrate and evaluate interoperability and implement new

procedures and functions required for a digitized battlefield. Initial efforts involve Germany but it is envisioned that
this testbed will accommodate joint testing between U.S. and other multinational forces.
• Tactical Level Allied/Coalition Force C2 Simulation—Providing a tactical level C2 exercise for a U.S.–French
allied task force utilizing DIS protocols in a Janus environment. This effort will begin to evolve a plausible doctrine,
tactics, and training procedure with the concomitant military language, symbology, and rank structure, and
provide the architecture for integration of military equipment and systems in order to form a unified C2 structure
where this is politically acceptable.
In addition to our traditional NATO allies, Japan also offers significant capabilities in networking and high–speed
communications. Of particular interest is its world–class work on fuzzy logic. This area of technology is expected to play an
important role in future automated and autonomous systems.
b. Information Management and Distribution
Information management and distribution provide the backbone infrastructure to allow near–perfect, real–time knowledge of the
enemy and the ability to automatically disseminate that information to dispersed forces and command centers.
Technical challenges relate to heterogeneous distributed computing environments, distributed database management, multilevel
information security, advanced human–computer interfaces (HCIs), and automated information distribution.
France, Germany, and the U.K. have significant capabilities in information management and distribution. In addition, Canada
has strong capabilities in advanced data display. Another NATO country with noteworthy capabilities is the Netherlands, which
has particular strengths in natural language processing as well as knowledge base and database science. South Korea and Canada
have significant efforts ongoing relative to data fusion and the underlying technology applied to military intelligence. Cooperative
efforts with these countries would be beneficial in applying state–of–the–art technologies to address the data fusion problem. The
following are examples of potential cooperative opportunities:
Real–Time Distributed Artificial Intelligence (AI)–Based Data Fusion—Applications of distributed intelligent systems to
real–time data fusion and combat battle management. The objective is to incorporate AI into large synthetic computing
environments to handle networking and process management automatically and transparently for the network user. France has
extensive experience and a sound information technology infrastructure combined with strong capabilities in battlefield
communications.
Next–Generation Tactical Switches—To increase information flow to and from the land forces (Army) commander. Advanced
asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) switching promises many advantages to the next–generation information infrastructure for
commercial as well as military tactical and strategic applications. France has significant capabilities in this area of technology.
Machine Translation—For information exchange between U.S. and allied forces in combined operation. Military
communications offer a promising area for implementation of machine translation because of the relatively limited and
specialized military lexicon. Two areas are of special interest, one with Germany and one with France. The German Army has
developed a prototype translation system consisting of a 16–channel recorder, a server, two workstations, and an electronic
military lexicon. They are interested in further development of this capability in the areas of language and speaker identification.
World–class research in machine translation is being done in Germany at Siemens and the University of Karlsruhe. A
French–English interlingual–based machine translation system, capable of high–quality translation of complex sentences in the
domain of military free text messages, is being developed under a 4–year effort between France and the United States. Using
corpus material from the Communications–Electronics Command (CECOM) and STSIE DGA (formerly Research Institute for
High–Energy Physics, Finland (SEFT)), the system will contain semantic lexicons of both French and English each having
1,000–3,000 root word form entries, graphical user interface tools, and wide coverage grammar parsers and generators. Finally,
Japan offers world–class capabilities in high–speed switching and networks that could be a valuable contribution to this area.

c. Decision Making
Decision making or battle command remains a combination of art and science. The nonhierarchical dissemination of intelligence,
targeting, and other data, facilitated by seamless communications and effective information management and distribution, will
replace the current hierarchical command structure. Units, key decision makers, and commanders will be more independent and
dispersed. Information will be voluminous, nonsynchronous, ambiguous, partial, and at times erroneous. To support this
revolution in battle command, dispersed command units must be able to share a common, accurate picture of the battlespace. To
take advantage of this information, a multilayered reasoning environment is required to aid the warfighter and commanders in
making battlefield decisions.
Technical challenges include developing an environmental and force structure database and reasoning mechanisms that are
scalable, dynamic, extensible, and robust. In addition, the system must be affordable and offer real–time response. The decision
making and planning aspects require improved machine learning and reasoning paradigms coupled with intelligent agents or aids.
France and the United Kingdom have special capabilities in the area of fuzzy logic technology that offer opportunities for
potential cooperative efforts.
Fuzzy Logic in Mission Planning and Decision Making—The French are doing world–class research on automated mission
planning and decision making. Automated mission planning systems require evaluation of potential paths based on a perception
of the current true situation. In virtually every case this is based on vague or uncertain data (e.g., data on enemy positions, weapon
ranges, reaction time, efficiency). Conventional rule–based approaches do not work well with this type of data. Fuzzy logic
approaches for data collection, aggregation, and potentially deaggregation are being integrated into an automated system to allow
manipulation of vague data to increase realism of simulation and, ultimately, of decision making.
Intelligent Command Aids—The U.K. is investigating the potential payoff from incorporating fuzzy logic techniques into a
large–scale battlefield decision making simulation. Intelligent command aids could be extremely important in simulation and
computer–generated forces (CGFs). A common problem is the fact that it is far too expensive to have human controllers
"command" the CGFs. Rather than using large rule–based systems to construct "command agents" that attempt to model
individual decision making entities, fuzzy logic and fuzzy inference engines are an approach that can enhance current intelligent
command aids and provide more realistic and effective simulations. The GeKnoFlexE system developed by the United Kingdom
(Ft. Halstead) will be the testbed system. The current rule–based inference structure will be "fuzzified" by augmenting or replacing
it with fuzzy rules and fuzzy inference mechanisms. Since the current system is nonfuzzy, direct comparisons of complexity,
behavior, and other performance parameters will be possible.
Israel also has strong capabilities in automated battle management that could offer an important contribution to this effort.
In addition to the above, Japan has world–class capabilities in fuzzy logic. Most Japanese work is related to control of industrial
processes or consumer products, however, it is also applicable to military decision making and mission planning.

AMXIP–OB
For seamless communications and information management and distribution:
IPOC: Bob Both

U.S. Army CECOM

For information management and distribution:
IPOC: Mr. Stephen Cohn

AMSTL–TT–IP

While military applications will increasingly rely on COTS, there remain unique requirements for which technological advances
in basic computing hardware and software will be required. These fall into the realm of so–called "grand challenge," which will
require trillions of floating point operations per second (teraflops). Several approaches are being considered, each of which, if
ultimately realized, is likely to offer certain inherent advantages for different applications. HPC and scalable parallel systems are of
particular importance. Optical processing techniques combine elements of both and are being pursued as a means of increasing
inherent parallelism and computational throughput. Software advances are seen as a way to allow aggregation of very large
numbers of computing elements. Both of these approaches lend themselves to solutions to complex deterministic problems (i.e.,
problems for which a sequence of calculations to reach a specific solution can be defined). By contrast, neural networks provide a
better way of attacking less determinate problems.
Table E–10 highlights significant capabilities and trends in key areas of computing and software. HPC is an area of international
R&D. In addition to France, which is recognized as a world leader in photonics, Japan and Russia have had strong programs in
optical computing. Germany has a growing interest and has strong capabilities in production of photodynamically active
bacteriorhodopsin films that may be an enabling technology for future optical/molecular computers. Israel has a small but sound
and growing EO infrastructure as well. The growth of the Internet and multimedia are producing growing demand for
development and global implementation of very high–speed digital networks. Development of these is an international activity,
with cooperation among major telecommunications firms. One example is the Japanese Real–World Computing (RWC)
program, which includes a number of other countries as participants.
a. High–Performance Computing and Scalable Parallel Systems
The United States has dominated and is projected to continue to drive the state–of–the art in HPC; Japan has strong capabilities.
However, Japan has dominated in areas of "traditional" supercomputing high–cost mainframes and vector processors
Table E–10. International Research Capabilities—Computing and Software

Rim
High–Performance MPP Optical MPP; ANNs ANNs

Computing & processing
Scalable Parallel
Systems
Networking Optical Tactical fiber Fiber optic Optical Canada

switching optic systems systems switching &
networks
Optical switching &
networks
China, Israel
Fiber optics

Software MPP & India, Israel

Engineering ANN software
CASE & applications
Artificial Russia Many

Intelligence
Human–Computer Canada
Interface Visually–coupled Visually–coupled Visually–coupled Visually–coupled
systems systems systems interfaces
Visually–coupled
systems; large dataset
representation
Italy
Haptic/tactile
sensors
Israel
Heads up display
The United States has pioneered a variety of technologies for scalable distributed processing based on U.S. microprocessor
designs whose computational power continues to double approximately every 18 months. These configurations now dominate
the market. Availability of affordable HPC capability has also led to a growing level of international interest and work in intelligent
systems and human–composite interfaces.
Massively parallel processing (MPP) and neural network programming could be applied to numerous applications covered by
ASTMP milestones and objectives. M&S are examples of applications requiring the computing speed and power offered by MPP
techniques, while neural network programming may be more useful in the development of decision aids. Only a few countries
have the supporting infrastructure necessary for major R&D in these technologies. World leaders include the United States, Japan,
Germany (with whom an active Data Exchange Agreement (DEA) exists), and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom and France.
MPP and neural network programming are important aspects of the Army’s electronic battlefield (EBF) concept. MPP will
contribute significantly to simulation and virtual reality (VR) components of the EBF.
Military requirements for processing real–time signals and imagery data severely challenge existing computing capabilities. Optical
processing offers potential advantages for these applications and is an important area of technology development where other
nations have world–leading capabilities.
ASTMP goals include demonstration of a two–dimensional (2D) optical processor capable of running real–time automatic target
recognition (ATR) and signal processing algorithms on data from imaging sensors such as the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) or
EO systems. Near–term ASTMP milestones include the development of optical interconnections for computers; photonic and
electronic devices integrated on the same chip; image–forming light modulators, and an order of magnitude improvement in
spatial light modulation dynamic range.
Optical processing techniques are well suited for analysis of data generated by these high–volume throughput applications. The
development of photonic devices necessary for optical computing are of significant interest to the U.S. Army and have numerous

military applications. World leaders in photonics/EO include the United States and Japan, followed by France, the U.K., and
Germany.
b. Networking
The network throughput demands of international telecommunications firms are primary drivers of the state of the art in most
networking areas, including fiber optic communications and optical switching (including wave division multiplexing techniques).
All of the major telecommunications–producing nations—the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany, and
Canada, followed closely by China and Israel, have good capabilities in fiber optic networks. The implementation of the 5–10
gigabits per second (Gbps) fiber optic cable that will link Europe and intermediate points in Africa and Asia with Japan will almost
certainly speed proliferation of this technology. While Japan and selected regions of Europe may lead in deployment of high
speed fiber–optic cables, implementation in other areas is limited primarily by economic considerations rather than technology.
In the critical area of switching the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom have the strongest technological positions,
followed very closely by Germany and France.
c. Software Engineering
International software developments are enabled by widespread availability of very powerful microprocessor–based symmetrical
multiprocessing systems. A number of countries, including Israel, India, and Russia, are actively engaged in commercial
cooperative software developments.
In software one key to achieving our goals for M&S is the implementation of advanced algorithms, specifically for MPP.
Currently only a few countries possess the supporting infrastructure necessary for major R&D in this area. World leaders include
the United States, Japan, Germany (with whom there is an active agreement), the United Kingdom, and France.
d. Artificial Intelligence
AI (or machine intelligence or intelligent systems) is an area of worldwide research interest. One area that is particularly promising
for international collaboration is artificial neural networks (ANNs); for example, the optical ANNs being pursued by Japan as part
of the RWC initiative. Another area is the application of AI to so–called intelligent agents for collecting information and
managing operations in a distributed battlefield command, control, communication computers, intelligence, and information
system. For example, Australia has a particularly strong presence and activity on the Internet World Wide Web. Much of the
work is theoretical in nature, and many of the problems are tractable with modest computing power, widely available in the
commercial market. This active and effective research in AI can be found in most developed or developing countries. Much of
this work is being driven by the Internet or by requirements for managing and administering extremely large, complex
telecommunications systems. In addition to work in the United States, which is the world leader in this area, Japan’s RWC
initiative has a strong component of AI. Strong capabilities in intelligent agents also reside in the U.K. and Germany, followed
closely by France. AI capabilities are found in many other countries.
e. Human–Computer Interface
One of the effects of increased computer hardware performance and communications bandwidth has been to spur rapid interest
and growth in VR. While the U.S. holds or shares a lead in most areas of HCI research, the U.K. (which has an existing
cooperative effort in helmet–mounted displays (HMDs) with the Air Force and NASA Ames), France (visually–coupled displays
and digital scene generation), Canada (head–mounted stereo displays and large data set visualization), Germany (applications to
robotics and teleoperations), and Japan (visually–coupled systems) have world–leading development efforts. Other countries
have niches of capability, two notable examples being the strong capability in haptic devices at the University of Pisa in Italy, and
Israel’s work in heads–up displays.


AMXIP–OB
IPOC: Bob Both

U.S. Army CECOM
ARL IPOC: Mr. Stephen Cohn

AMSTL–TT–IP

The ASTMP Chapter IV includes milestones for extending the range and lethality of conventional artillery and antiarmor rounds.
Conventional weapons objectives are directed towards a variety of technologies for increasing the lethality and mission
effectiveness of guided and unguided weapons and mines. Russia, France, Germany, and the U.K. are major developers of
conventional weapons, followed closely in capability by Italy, Sweden, and Israel. Japan, which is prohibited by its national
legislation from exporting weapons, has significant indigenous capabilities as well as strong capabilities in certain lay component
technologies such as gallium arsenide (GaAs) microwave components and neural net and fuzzy logic pattern recognition, and
hypervelocity propulsion.
Armor and antiarmor technologies represent a special subset of operational capabilities toward which many of the subtechnology
developments discussed below will be directed. Technologies of interest will include improved lethal mechanisms, advanced
sensing techniques for optional delivery of the lethal mechanisms, and better methods of M&S of weapons effects and system
vulnerabilities. Army objectives for improvements in tungsten alloy penetrators may be furthered by cooperation with other
countries, including the U.K. and France. France has strong capabilities in explosives and propulsion systems, including
air–breathing hypervelocity propulsion systems. Japan has also taken steps to improve its technological capabilities in aerospace
materials and aerodynamic design for hypersonic propulsion systems. Both of these could contribute to development of
long–range hypervelocity systems for the Army.
Opportunities are to be found in a variety of subareas identified in the ASTMP Volume I, Chapter IV, as illustrated in the Table
E–11.
Table E–11. International Research Capabilities—Conventional Weapons

Kingdom Rim
Fuzing, Safing, & Overall Overall Overall Italy

Arming Components
Guidance & Control Overall Overall Overall Israel, Sweden

Components
Guns—Conventional ETC gun Overall ETC gun Australia, ROK Russia Israel
& Electric
Rail guns Overall ETC gun
Mines & Overall Overall Overall Russia Italy, Canada

Countermines
Overall

Warheads, Overall Overall Vehicle Russia Israel

Explosives, & Rocket/ integration Hypervelocity
Missile Propulsion propulsion
Overall BMD missile
Hypervelocity
propulsion Sweden, Switzerland
Weapon Lethality &

Vulnerability
The following examples illustrate international cooperative programs that might contribute to meeting Army objectives.
a. Safing, Arming, Fuzing, and Firing
Any country with an armaments industry can produce simple contact, time, and proximity sensing fuzes. Capabilities to
contribute to advanced fuzing for programmable/smart ordnance and aimable warheads and look–down/shoot–down antiarmor
weapons, are primarily in the United Kingdom and France, with possible niche capabilities residing in Germany, Italy, and
Sweden.
As noted previously, while Japan is generally prohibited by its constitution from export sales of weapons, there are a number of
specific areas where Japanese technology might enhance U.S. Army safing, arming, fuzing, and firing (SAFF) capabilities. These
include optical and IR lasers and detectors, millimeter–wave (MMW) components, and ANN and fuzzy logic for use in target
detection and aimpoint selection logic.
b. Guidance and Control
Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, have leading capabilities in terminal guidance and control. Germany was involved in
the design of a MMW seeker for the advanced precision–guided munition (APGM) prior to that program’s cancellation. Sweden
(e.g., the Bofors BILL) and Israel (Arrow) both have demonstrated capabilities in terminal guidance and control.
c. Guns—Conventional and Electric
Advanced gun technology is an important component of the Army’s R&D program. Weapons able to deliver effective payloads
from longer range and with greater accuracy give a well–trained soldier a decisive advantage on the modern battlefield. Current
propulsion technology is focused in three areas: advanced solid propellants, EMP (rail gun) and electrothermal chemical (ETC)
propulsion.
The United States currently has an active EM launch technology development program in cooperation with a strong program in
the United Kingdom. The United States leads in the difficult challenge of developing an electric power generation unit capable of
producing the required pulsed power within the confinements of a vehicle. The Netherlands and Germany have small–scale
research in this area. Korea is starting a development effort in this area but has yet to develop a significant capability. Several
countries are working toward integrating electric power units into vehicles.
d. Mines and Countermines
Humanitarian concerns have led to increasing international pressures to outlaw land mines. At the same time, mines are seen by
military forces worldwide as meeting critical mission needs. The growing global concern about increased proliferation of mines

and countermine capabilities point to the need for international development and adoption of new design standards and mine
clearing capabilities.
The technological solution—more intelligent mines and minefields—is of global interest. Opportunities for cooperation in
intelligent mine/minefield technologies will be found in countries that couple historical capabilities in state–of–the–art land mines
with strong capabilities in advanced sensors and electronics, such as the U.K. and France, followed closely by Italy and Germany.
Canada is doing substantial work in the subarea of mines and countermines. There is currently an MOU between CECOM and
its Canadian defense laboratories counterpart in staffing to expand cooperation. Russia has been a major operational user of land
mines and should have substantial empirical experience from which to draw.
e. Warheads, Explosives, and Rocket/Missile Propulsion
A number of countries (including certain developing countries) have some capability of producing standard explosives such as
TNT, RDX, nitroglycerin, ammonium perchlorate, metal fuels, hydrazine, and related compounds for military use. The U.S.,
France, the U.K., and Japan are the world leaders in formulation and production of advanced explosives and propellants.
Advances in hypersonic/hypervelocity (Mach 6–8), shortening engagement cycle times, and increasing system lethality threat
handling capabilities will enhance close combat and short–range air defense missions. The development of hypervelocity vehicles
depends greatly on advanced rocket propulsion techniques, as well as advances in airframe design and guidance and control.
Advances in propulsion technology (specifically air–breathing propulsion) are necessary to support near–term objectives of U.S.
Army missile development programs.
Japan, Germany, and France, followed closely by the U.K. and Russia, have significant experience in the design, manufacture, and
testing of air–breathing rocket motors and components. Japan has initiated a broad–based initiative to develop materials and
structural/aerodynamic design techniques for hypervelocity transport, the results of which could contribute to this effort. The
focus of efforts is towards a multimission kinetic energy missile capable of being launched from multiple light platforms and
hitting a target with 3–5 times the kinetic energy of tank cannons.
f. Weapon Lethality and Vulnerability
Two overarching security concerns effect cooperation in this area. The first is the potential compromise of U.S. intelligence
collection sources and methods in programs dealing with lethality against specific foreign weapons. The second is operational
security of information relating to vulnerabilities of U.S. weapons that might be exploited by a potential adversary to defeat or
degrade U.S. systems. Within the limits imposed by these concerns, however, there may be opportunities for cooperative
programs. In some cases, foreign participation may fill gaps in U.S. program capabilities. The U.K., France, and Germany all have
strong programs in M&S of weapons effects as well as extensive empirical databases. These countries have capabilities in armored
systems, with France having a particular niche capability in helicopter structural survivability.
For conventional weapons:

AMXIP–OB
For hypervelocity propulsion:
IPOC: Mr. Thomas K. Lambert

Scty. Asst. Mgt. Dir

U.S. Army Missile Command
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898–5210
e–mail: tlambert@redstone.army.mil
For ETC:

AMSTL–TT–IP

9. Electron Devices
9. Electron Devices
Electronics plays a crucial role in battlefield supremacy, enabling or affecting virtually every aspect of warfighting. Electronic
devices comprise four major subareas of technology: EO, MMW components, nanoelectronics, and portable power sources.
These are the cutting–edge technologies that constitute the nerves and brains of the digitized battlefield. A superior and innovative
program in electron device S&T is essential to the broad Army vision of decisive force multiplication with a minimum number of
platforms and personnel, and avoidance of potentially disastrous technological surprise on the battlefield. Weapon systems that
meet present and projected future requirements and that have affordable life–cycle costs will require exploitation of commercial
electronics whenever possible, plus development of special technologies for Army systems having unique requirements or
capabilities.
Table E–12 summarizes key foreign capabilities in each technology subarea, and the following paragraphs provide additional
information on specific opportunities and strengths.
Table E–12. International Research Capabilities—Electron Devices

Kingdom
Electro–Optics Photonics IR FPA Photonics All aspects Israel, Italy

signal signal
processing processing
Millimeter– MMIC; MMIC; MMIC; MMIC; Israel

Wave GaAs compound compound acoustic wave
Components semiconductors semiconductors devices;
compound
semiconductors
Nanoelectronics Molecular Submicron All aspects Russia

Microscopy; chemistry; devices
biotechnology biotechnology
Molecular
electronics
Portable Diesel Batteries Small All aspects Russia Switzerland, Israel

Electrical Power Engines engines
Batteries
Rechargeable
batteries; power
Austria, Italy
switching
Diesel engines

9. Electron Devices
a. Electro–Optics
EO includes critical military components such as lasers, focal plane arrays (FPAs), detectors, and displays. These represent the
technologies that enable smart and precise weapons to function so effectively. Areas of particular interest to the Army include
high–resolution, full–color, HMDs, affordable multispectral FPAs, fiber optic distributed sensors, light detection and ranging
(LIDARs), and optical countermeasures. Technical challenges relate to optical and EO materials science, optoelectronic
integrated circuits (OEICs), and monolithic or hybrid integration of electronic and photonic devices.
The United States and Japan generally share a commanding world lead in most aspects of electronic and EO devices and
packaging. Japan is particularly strong in displays, laser diodes, and low–power lasers, with outstanding capabilities in commercial
applications of photonic technology.
France has a strong capability in photonics, especially in the areas of optical switching and IR FPAs. Of particular interest is the
design, fabrication, and packaging of smart FPAs into a single (monolithic) structure, for which France has the requisite expertise
and supporting infrastructure. French scientists are working with the Army at Fort Belvoir on the technical challenge of growing
cadmium zinc telluride (CdZnTe) and mercury cadmium telluride (HgCdTe) on silicon (Si). This work could overcome a major
barrier to implementing a monolithic smart FPA, and could lead to a whole new generation of high–density, 2D sensor arrays.
Germany and the U.K. also have significant capabilities in photonics, and especially photonic processing of signals and images. In
addition, Israel and Italy have niche capabilities that could be important. Israel, in particular, has an extensive EO S&T
infrastructure including academic and industrial centers of excellence (COEs).
b. Millimeter–Wave Components
MMW components operate in the spectral range between microwaves and IR but share many properties of microwave radio
frequency (RF) devices and signals. Having a shorter wavelength than microwaves, MMW devices require smaller size antennas
and other components and offer greater resolution than microwaves. They are finding increasing applications in sensors and
communications where relatively short range and high definition are required. They are especially useful for short range
high–definition mapping radar and target surveillance. MMW phased–array radar is of particular interest. Another key
application is for secure, jamproof, affordable wireless communications that might be used for instance in combat identification
systems. While some of the technologies developed for microwave components can be applied to MMW, there still remain
challenges to designing affordable components especially for the higher frequency MMW regions (40 GHz and above).
The key technology involves monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMICs) and the challenge is to design and develop more
affordable, higher power, and more efficient MMW components. Future electronic systems demand increasingly smaller, faster,
and cheaper microelectronic devices. Devices based on silicon technology have reached a point at which components cannot be
manufactured in significantly smaller sizes. To meet these requirements, compound semiconductors, especially GaAs are
necessary.
France, Germany, Japan, and the U.K. all have significant capabilities in MMIC technology and the compound semiconductor
technology on which they are based. Israel also has niche capabilities in GaAs devices. Of particular interest, however, Germany
has developed a specific niche in indium phosphide as an alternative to GaAs. The promise of indium compounds has yet to be
realized in production devices and a breakthrough in this area would be significant. Another noteworthy area is Japan’s expertise
in acoustic wave devices, which are important components in many signal processing systems.
c. Nanoelectronics
Nanoelectronics or nanotechnology refers to devices having feature sizes in the nanometer range. In order to achieve the requisite
packaging density for future microprocessors and other integrated circuits, the technology must advance well beyond the current
submicron feature size limits into the nanometer range. Smaller, faster, cheaper electronic devices of the future require this

9. Electron Devices
technological breakthrough. In addition, microscale or nanoscale electromechanical components depend on this technology.
Technological goals include developing lithography and fabrication capabilities to produce integrated, nanometer feature size,
ultradense circuits for revolutionary warfighting sensors and information systems capabilities. An overall major challenge is
developing high–performance, very low–power electronic systems to substantially reduce battery requirements and the associated
weight and size penalties. A major technical challenge is creating new widebandgap semiconductor devices for high–temperature
electronics and for low–leakage, high–breakdown, highly linear power devices. Another challenge is achieving mixed–signal
performance of nanoelectronics with on–chip MMW and EO components.
Japan has strong capabilities in all aspects of nanotechnology and Germany has noteworthy expertise in submicron device
technology. Devices in the nanoworld are approaching the feature size scale of molecular chemistry and biotechnology. It is
widely believed that true breakthroughs in nanotechnology are most likely to come from advances in these fields. France has
strong capabilities in molecular chemistry that may be applied to nanoelectronics. Likewise, Russia has a strong background in
molecular electronics. Germany has interesting capabilities in bio–optical thin–film materials that may be useful in many
applications. In addition, due to advances in atomic force microscopy, the tools necessary to do world–class research are
becoming more readily available. France and the U.K. have special capabilities in advanced microscopy and biotechnology that
could prove important to nanoelectronics. An interesting twist in using biotechnology and molecular electronics is the possibility
of self–assembling nanostructures that could greatly simplify the challenges to fabricating devices of this size. Since the areas of
molecular electronics and biotechnology do not demand the enormous infrastructure investments that are required to do
world–class electronics R&D, this is an area where a number of smaller countries could play a key role. Unlike the field of
advanced electronics, where the United States and Japan basically dominate, nanotechnology may open up the playing field to
many more players.
d. Portable Electrical Power
One of the most pressing Army needs is for small lightweight electrical power for the individual soldier. As the era of the digital
battlefield unfolds, there is an increasing need for smarter and more self–reliant individual soldiers and weapons. This places an
increasing demand on the computing, communicating, and sensing capabilities of the individual soldier, who requires more
compact yet more powerful electrical power sources. Some of the foreseeable power requirements include enhanced hearing,
night vision devices, computers, voice/data communications, helmet displays, individual navigation, weapon rangefinders, and
possibly individual climate control. All of these require electrical power. The most promising near–term technology is advanced
batteries offering lighter weight, higher power, and longer life. Lithium primary and secondary batteries seem to offer the best
hope for low–cost, lightweight batteries with sufficient energy density for soldier power.
Japan is a world leader in virtually all aspects of portable electrical power with strength in batteries, fuel cells, power control
devices, and switching components. France has significant capabilities in lithium–ion, lithium polymer, nickel–metal–hydride
batteries, and in small–lot production of high–reliability batteries. Russia has strong capabilities in very high energy density
silver–zinc batteries and Israel has niche capabilities in lithium thionyl chloride batteries.
Another area of major interest in portable power is the need for primary and auxiliary power for vehicle–borne systems, remote
facilities (manned and unmanned), and for various remote sensors. Technologies of interest include batteries, fuel cells, and
rotating machines. High energy density is an important requirement, as is fuel selection to simplify logistics requirements. In many
cases, low observability (acoustic, thermal, and EM) is a critical factor.
Germany and Japan both have exceptional capabilities in small fossil–fueled rotating engines for power generation. A German
company (Deutz) has developed a very small one–cylinder diesel engine with potential for auxiliary power in tanks and other
applications. Austria, Italy, and the U.K. also have good capabilities in high–power middle distillate (diesel) engines.


9. Electron Devices
AMXIP–OB
For EO:
CECOM IPOC: Mr. Richard Pei

U.S. Army CECOM
e–mail: peir@doim6.monmouth.army.mil
ARL IPOC: Mr. Stephen Cohn

AMSTL–TT–IP
For MMW components:
IPOC: Bob Both

U.S. Army CECOM

Electronic warfare (EW) includes any military action involving the use of EM and directed–energy (DE) to control the EM
spectrum or attack an enemy. There are three major categories of EW: electronic attack, electronic support, and electronic
protection. Directed–energy weapons (DEWs) can be considered a special type of electronic attack that are handled as a separate
category to distinguish them from more traditional EW techniques. Laser weapons, RF weapons, and particle beam weapons are
the three main categories of DEW. As a practical matter, only lasers and RF weapons have advanced sufficiently to be of military
value.
The major technology areas of Army interest are shown in Table E–13. As indicated in the table, design of EW and DEW systems
often demands detailed support intelligence regarding the characteristics of the system being attacked. To the extent that this
requires disclosure of threat intelligence, international cooperation is impeded. This is especially important in the traditional EW
areas of jamming, electronic support, and electronic protection. There are, however, several areas of technology of
Table E–13. International Research Capabilities—Electronic Warfare and Directed Energy Weapons
Kingdom Rim
Electronic Attack
Electronic
Support Research in these areas may require sharing of sensitive threat information & is handled on a case–by–case basis.
Electronic
Protection
Radio Frequency HPM HPM Russia, Ukraine

Directed–Energy
Weapons
HPM
Lasers LELs Laser Laser HELs; LELs Russia

Directed–Energy materials materials
Weapons
· HELs
LELs
a more general dual–use nature, including high–power microwave (HPM) tubes and lasers in which there are significant foreign
capabilities and opportunities. The following paragraphs provide additional information for each technology subarea.
a. Electronic Attack
Electronic attack involves the use of EM or DE to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of degrading,
neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability. Areas of interest include suppression of enemy air defense, fusion and data
integration algorithms, communications countermeasures for UAVs, jamming of mobile and digital radio systems, and deception

against advanced surveillance, acquisition, and fire control radars. Technical challenges include development of wide area
distributed databases, advanced antennas, precision targeting in the low GHz range, and signal recognition, demodulation, and
electronic countermeasures (ECM) waveforms against commercial grade high capacity cellular and satellite transceivers.
Research in this area may require sharing of sensitive threat information. Exchange of data on system characteristics,
vulnerabilities, and weapon effectiveness are generally needed to develop effective requirements and system specifications for this
type of EW. For this reason, all cooperative efforts involving electronic attack must be carefully handled on a case–by–case basis,
and no technological areas of special interest are identified in this summary.
b. Electronic Support
Electronic support includes actions taken to search, intercept, identify, and locate sources of radiated EM energy for threat
recognition in support of EW operations and other tactical actions, such as threat avoidance, homing, and targeting.
Technologies to intercept, direction–find, and locate current and emerging hostile emitters are critical for targeting and tactical
situation awareness. Next–generation electronic support measures (ESM) processors must offer improved emitter identification,
deinterleaving techniques, direction–finding/geolocation algorithms, multipath suppression techniques, and increased capabilities
in the super high frequency region. Continued development of correlation and templating, automated tracking, cross–queuing,
and situation display tools are also important. Technical challenges include the integration of ceramic phase shifters into
phased–array antennas, application specific integrated circuits for fast Fourier transform processing, and tools and techniques for
tasking and reporting from multi–intelligence sensor platforms.
This too is an area that may require sharing of sensitive threat information, system characteristics, and vulnerabilities. All
cooperative efforts involving electronic support must be handled on a case–by–case basis, and no technological areas of special
interest are identified in this summary.
c. Electronic Protection
Electronic protection includes actions taken to protect personnel, facilities, or equipment against EW that might degrade,
neutralize, or destroy combat capability. Sensor and countermeasure technologies are essential elements in the complex battle that
pits defensive EW systems against the enemy’s offensive systems. On the modern battlefield, this is an encounter in which a
timespan of 1 or 2 seconds can mean the difference between winning or losing. Advanced technology is critical in providing the
winning edge in performance. Technical goals include development of multifunction and multispectral IR countermeasures
(IRCM), radar and laser warning, and real–time situational awareness. Technology challenges include development of uncooled,
low false alarm rate detectors, multicolor IR FPAs, missile detection algorithms, and more efficient, low–cost, and
temperature–stable IR/ultraviolet (UV) filters. Development of high–speed wideband digital receivers based on GaAs
technologies will also play a key role in electronic protection, as will development of high–power ultra–wideband (UWB)
jamming modulators and transmitters.
Again, this is an area that may require sharing of sensitive threat information, system characteristics, and vulnerabilities. All
cooperative efforts involving electronic support must be handled on a case–by–case basis, and no technological areas of special
interest are identified in this summary.
d. Radio Frequency Directed–Energy Weapons
High–power radio frequency (HPRF) DE systems can be categorized by frequency bandwidth or power level. Narrowband
systems are commonly referred to as HPM, while the wideband are referred to as wideband or UWB. As DEWs, RF systems are
intended to defeat, degrade, or destroy electronic equipment. The effects can range from temporary upsets in performance to
permanent circuit deterioration to burnout or destruction. As modern weapons systems become more dependent on
sophisticated electronics, they also become more vulnerable to DE RF radiation. One of the highest Army priorities is to assess
potential vulnerabilities of U.S. systems to unintentional fratricide by our own emissions, as well as intentional irradiation by

enemy systems. Hardening technology is being developed to protect against both of these threats. Particular areas of improvement
include developing and testing HPM sources and interference modulation, hardening MMIC circuits against RF, and developing
broadband, high–gain antennas. One promising technology is the use of silicon carbide for hardening devices. Technical
challenges primarily relate to making the RF generators smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient. In addition, modulators and
antennas must also be improved.
Some of the required developments in RF weapons involve very sensitive areas as mentioned in the above sections. Certain areas,
however, involve technology of a more general dual–use nature, which offer potential for cooperative development. France is a
leading producer of HPM tubes. Significant RF source development efforts also exist in the United Kingdom. Several other
countries have limited research efforts in this area: Germany, Switzerland, China, Japan, and to a lesser extent, Sweden, Israel, and
Australia.
In addition, Russia and Ukraine both have significant capabilities in RF weapons. The FSU was considered the world leader in
HPM at the time of its disintegration. The Russians have concentrated on development of HPRF generators such as various types
of gyrotrons and klystron amplifiers.
e. Laser Directed–Energy Weapons
Compact, high–efficiency lasers are critical for EO countermeasures, IRCM, and DEW applications. As diode–pumped lasers,
nonlinear frequency conversion, and laser designs have matured, it has become feasible to incorporate these devices into tactical
vehicles and aircraft for self–protection and missile defense. The main challenge is to demonstrate the required power levels in a
compact package and to develop the ability to scale the power level up to higher levels to meet future needs. Lightweight,
wavelength–diverse diode pumped lasers for the mid–IR are currently being developed, as are sophisticated active tracker systems
to provide precision pointing and atmospheric compensation. Remaining technical challenges relate to packaging of higher
power devices and cost reduction of laser diode arrays. Compact solid–state lasers with sufficient power for standoff DEW
applications represent a longer term challenge.
Semiconductor laser diodes are expected to have a major impact on future battlefield laser systems because of their compact size,
ruggedness, and efficiency. Japan is the leading producer of laser diodes, especially low–to–medium power devices and diode
arrays, which are beginning to appear in a number of industrial and medical lasers. The U.K., France, and Russia also have
significant capabilities in most areas of laser technology. Russia has special capabilities in free electron laser (FEL) and other
high–energy lasers (HELs).
Diode–pumped solid–state lasers operating directly at visible wavelengths offer significant potential in optical countermeasure
systems for the visible spectral region. They offer much higher efficiency than can be achieved by frequency shifting from existing
lasers. The technical challenge is to develop improved materials (gain media). Two foreign groups are among the world leaders in
the development of such materials: a research group at the Université de Lyon in France and a group at Universitat Hamburg in
Germany. Both groups have the expertise and infrastructure to make valuable progress in the identification and development of
the needed materials. Existing agreements with both countries offer potential vehicles to pursue cooperative efforts.

AMXIP–OB
IPOC: Bob Both

U.S. Army CECOM



This technology area focuses on critical environmental and civil engineering problems related to training, mobilizing, deploying,
and employing a force at any location at any time. The goal is to provide an environmentally sustainable, military–unique
infrastructure at the lowest possible life–cycle cost.
The problems of meeting national and international environmental standards and of engineering affordable and sustainable
facilities and infrastructures in a climate of reduced funding are common to all of our potential partners. Remediation of
environmental pollution and maintenance of infrastructure are areas of considerable importance to the civil sector as well, and
most industrialized nations have active programs in techniques, materials, and in M&S to support requirements analysis and
design.
Table E–14 and the following paragraphs summarize the significant environmental and civil engineering capabilities and
opportunities.
Table E–14. International Research Capabilities—Civil Engineering and Environmental Quality

Kingdom Rim
Environmental Nordic Group, Israel

Quality Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental
protection; protection; protection; protection;
bioremediation; bioremediation; bioremediation bioremediation Environmental
regulatory demil of energetic protection; bioremediation
compliance materials
Civil Survivable Response

Engineering Lightweight structures; of hardened
bridging; high–performance structures to
response of construction conventional
conventional materials weapons
structures to
blast
a. Environmental Quality
Environmental quality subareas include cleanup of contaminated sites, compliance with all environmental laws, pollution
prevention to minimize Army use and generation of wastes and to minimize adverse affects on the environment, and
conservation of our natural and cultural resources. Technical challenges include a host of issues related to these areas. Items of
current focus include developing technologies and applications such as:
• Supercritical water oxidation, cold plasma reaction, catalytic decomposition, biodegradation, sorption/
concentration, separation, and conversion to reduce costs and increase efficacy of treatment and disposition

• Replacement materials for existing solvents, acids, bases, and oxidizers with more environmentally acceptable
alternatives
• New sensors for contaminated site characterization, integration of site characterization, ground water modeling,
rate and effects predictions, and management techniques.
Among notable highlights, the United Kingdom has been a leading force in the development of international standards for
environmental management systems. Many of the current draft International Standardization Organization (ISO) standards are
patterned after existing British standards. Japan, the U.K., Germany, France, Israel, and the Nordic Group all have significant
efforts in bioremediation (the use of biological organisms or their products (enzymes) to breakdown or neutralize a wide range of
contaminants). The French in particular have had a longstanding interest and strong effort in biodegradation and demilitarization
of energetic materials. Internationally there is growing concern for clean up of organophosphate insecticide contaminated sites.
An effective enzymatic treatment for this purpose might also be adopted for decontamination of nerve agents. We can anticipate
that growing awareness of environmental effects as regional and global issues, and the emergence of international standards for
their effective management will lead to opportunities for increased cooperation to improve pollution prevention, environmental
protection, techniques for monitoring and compliance, and remediation, particularly with EC countries and Japan, which are
moving rapidly towards adoption of the ISO 14000 standard.
b. Civil Engineering
Civil engineering subareas include conventional facilities, airfields and pavements, survivability and protective structures, and
sustainment engineering. The primary thrust of technologies for conventional facilities is to revitalize and operate DoD’s aging
infrastructure at an affordable cost. In airfields and pavements, the major effort is to reduce life–cycle costs. Survivability and
protective structures address reliable, affordable structural hardening, retrofit hardening, and camouflage, concealment, and
deception (CC&D), to increase survivability and force protection from the foxhole to the deeply buried command structure
against threats from conventional munitions, terrorist threats, and advanced precision penetrators. Sustainment engineering
provides the civil engineering technologies required for successful execution of strategic, operational, and tactical force projection,
employment, and sustainment.
Technical challenges in civil engineering cover a wide range of technologies and need. Developments of current interest include:
• Collaborative automated environment to optimize facility life–cycle costs
• Automated monitoring of facility components
• Rapidly installed breakwaters for logistics–over–the–shore operations
• Concrete admixtures, dynamic 3D models and viscoelastic material responses for airfields and pavements
• Construction during winter and thawing conditions
• Criteria, materials, and assessment techniques for constructible, survivability measures against a broad spectrum
of increasingly lethal weapons and threats.
Foreign capabilities of most interest are in the areas of high performance construction materials (France), material systems and
response of conventional structures to blasts (United Kingdom), and response of hardened structures to conventional weapons
(Germany).
USACE POC: Mr. Jerry Lundien

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CERD–M
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314–1000
e–mail: jerry.lundien@inet.hq.usace.army.mil

The battlespace environment technology area encompasses the study, characterization, prediction, and M&S of the terrestrial,
ocean, lower atmosphere, and space/upper atmosphere environments to understand their impact on personnel, platforms,
sensors, and systems. This will enable tactics and doctrine to exploit that understanding and to optimize new system designs. The
technologies and capabilities addressed in this section are critical to realizing the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s (JCS) long–term strategy
for information superiority and dominant battlespace knowledge.
An understanding of battlefield environments and effects are essential in all aspects of a military system’s life cycle, from M&S for
design, through mission planning and rehearsal, to actual configuration and programming of sensors and weapons in execution.
Here cooperative international programs are needed to ensure that coalition forces can interoperate effectively with a common
and consistent understanding of the battlespace, and with an ability to receive and process environmental information required to
execute the battle.
Table E–15 and the following paragraphs highlight capabilities and opportunities in this area. Five technology subareas of
battlespace environment are highlighted: cold regions, topography, combat environment, battlescale meteorology, and
atmospheric effects.
a. Cold Regions
Cold regions engineering focuses on minimizing or eliminating the dramatic effects of winter weather on operations conducted by
the U.S. Army. To do this, effective decision–making tools, models, simulations, and mission planning/rehearsal factors are
required that accurately predict the state of the ground, atmospheric conditions, and system performance in complex cold regions
environments. The winter environment presents a severe challenge to the performance and operability of weapon systems, target
identification and acquisition sensors, equipment, and personnel. This challenge is not confined only to the effects of temperature.
It also included the detrimental effects of snow, ice, and the state of the ground whether frozen or thawing. Frozen and thawing
soils greatly affect the projection and mobility of forces, mine clearing operations, and earth excavation required for force
Table E–15. International Research Capabilities—Battlespace Environments

Technology United Kingdom France Germany Japan Asia/Pacific Rim FSU Other Countries
Cold Regions Russia Norway
Topography
Combat Remote Remote

Environment sensing; IR FPA sensing;
robotics

Battlescale EC nations & Canada share overall capability in Russia EC nations & Canada
Meteorology weather prediction share overall capability in
weather prediction
Weather
prediction
Atmospheric EC nations have capabilities in various areas Israel

Effects
Atmospheric effects
Canada
3D data display;
atmospheric dispersion
projection and construction. Snow, ice, and frozen ground dramatically alter the propagation of acoustic and seismic energy and
interfere with IR and MMW signatures. This greatly reduces the effectiveness of weapon systems and sensors. Icing conditions
dramatically change fixed and rotary–winged aircraft performance, impact safe operation of equipment on roads, airfields, and
bases, and impact the ability to communicate. Technical challenges relate to developing and validating models of these
phenomena, and finding ways to enable operations to continue in spite of them. Norway and Russia provide significant foreign
capabilities in cold regions technology.
b. Topography
Topographic research focuses on better understanding the terrain through improved data generation, analysis, and representation
especially those exploiting sensor data. Efforts are needed to provide technology for rapid digital terrain data generation, terrain
visualization, terrain analysis, data management, and realistic mission rehearsal and training.
• Identifying terrain features automatically

• Developing a total force positioning and navigational capability
• 3D dynamic multispectral scene visualization
• Generating terrain and weather environments in near–real time.
The ability of global satellite data, coupled with more powerful low–cost information systems to manage large quantities of data,
has fostered growing international dissemination and standardization of topographical data. Technology for application of the
data to military uses (real–time generation and prediction of terrain signatures from stored or measured geographic/topographic
data; mission planning and targeting; etc.) will be found predominately in the U.K., France, and Germany. However, there is
growing interest in development and use of geographic information systems for a wide range of civil and military applications.
Significant niche capabilities may be found in Japan and elsewhere.
c. Combat Environment
This subarea provides high spatial and time resolution descriptions of the immediate environment of the combat warfighter,
including both the measurement and modeling/prediction of that environment. Spatial scales range from several meters to several
hundred meters and time scales from seconds to several hours.
Technical challenges relate to transport and diffusion of gases and particulate, atmospheric flow, measurement systems that resolve

microscale dynamical structures, dynamic and optical characteristics of aerosols and instrumentation for their detection and
analysis, and remote sensor concepts and software.
The above comments related to global satellite data apply equally here. Remote sensing capabilities of interest include the French
expertise on advanced IR FPAs, and the Japanese strength in CC&Ds and IR sensors. Japan also has strengths in robotics that
could be important.
d. Battlescale Meteorology
The objective of battlescale meteorology is to generate the best possible description of current or future states of the battle
environment for military planning, tactical decision making, and training.
Technical challenges relate to developing better prediction models and parameterization methods for the physical processes and
phenomena involved, assuring accurate state descriptions and data quality from various sensors and platforms, and developing
the computational speed and memory capacity to resolve the mesoscale phenomena.
Most of our European allies and Canada have strong capabilities in weather monitoring and prediction. In addition, Russia has
developed special expertise in weather prediction.
e. Atmospheric Effects
The objective of atmospheric effects is to provide both real–time assessments to operational forces and a simulation capability for
planning and training. The weather always has a significant effect on battlefield operations, and accurate weather prediction is a
major tactical advantage. Atmospheric modeling can forecast long–term weather, acoustic and EM propagation, smoke and
obscurant effects, and CB agent dispersal.
Developing and validating models of various related phenomena is a major technical issue. Modeling EM, acoustic, and seismic
effects; target detection and prediction effects as a function of atmospheric effects; developing environmental decision aids; and
effects of obscurants on performance and prediction are all important technical challenges.
We observe growing international exchanges in weather prediction and in research related to predication of long–term
environmental and climatic conditions. Specific expertise in short–term, high–resolution battlescale weather predictions, and in
real–time prediction of atmospheric effects on battlefield sensors is primarily limited to the EC nations (notably Germany and the
U.K.) and Canada. Israel also has specific capabilities that are of interest. In addition, within the U.S.–Canadian infrastructure,
Canada has notable capabilities in weather prediction, and in techniques for visualization and presentation of large three
dimensional data sets.

AMXIP–OB
USACE POC: Mr. Jerry Lundien

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CERD–M
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20314–1000
e–mail: jerry.lundien@inet.hq.usace.army.mil


AMSTL–TT–IP

Human systems interface (HSI) technologies leverage and extend the capabilities of warfighters and maintainers to ensure that
fielded systems will exploit the fullest potential of the warfighting team. The primary goal is to maximize information throughput
from sensors, processors and displays to warfighters. HSI technologies are organized into four subareas: information management
and display (IMD), performance aiding, system supportability, and design integration.
Most developed nations have significant research efforts in HSI. Interest in this area is driven by multiple requirements, including
the need for improved presentation of information to match human cognition and improved representation of human
performance to improve realism and fidelity of CGFs and "actors" in both simulations and operational systems. Important trends
in foreign technology are summarized in Table E–16, and additional information on each technology subarea are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Table E–16. International Research Capabilities—Human Systems Interface

Kingdom
Information VRIs; Display; Displays; Israel

Management soldier–system soldier–system Soldier–system VR; robotics
& Display interface interface interface
HMD
Canada
VR display
Performance HPM HPM Israel, Sweden, Netherlands

Aiding Ergonomics;
performance
modeling Human performance
measures
System Ergonomics
Supportability
Design Automated
Integration Performance Performance Performance industry/
modeling modeling modeling enterprise design
a. Information Management and Display
IMD develops methods and media to process and deliver task–critical information to individuals, teams, and organizations.
Maximizing the flow of information depends on developing time–sensitive, supportable information handling and display

components that serve as visual and auditory HSI for both weapons and support systems. Developing simulation interfaces is
another area of keen interest. Simulations must be of sufficient fidelity to enhance mission planning and to permit diagnostic
examination of emerging technologies and concepts. Model development is an important aspect of this work.
The major problem is that vast amounts of information, ranging from low to high degrees of certainty and veracity, threaten to
overwhelm the human capacity to monitor, query, and act upon. Technical challenges include:
• Improve alerting, warning, situational awareness, and identification of friend or foe (IFF)
• Improve techniques for data fusion data using visual, auditory, and tactile displays
• Develop individual VR displays
• Improve voice recognition for computer control in the battlefield environment
• Improve communications links for teleoperation, communications, and display.
A number of foreign countries have significant capabilities in HSI technologies. The United States has ongoing efforts with France
and Germany in soldier–system interfaces, especially related to teleoperations. The U.K. has noteworthy capabilities in
soldier–system interfaces, and VR interfaces (VRIs), and Canada in VR and HMDs. Israel also has unique expertise in HMDs.
Japan is a leader in displays, VR, and robotics, all of which are needed for teleoperations.
b. Performance Aiding
The goals of performance aiding technologies are to enable soldiers to operate well beyond normal mental, physical, and
perceptual capabilities, and to enhance performance in stressful, hazardous, time–constrained, inhospitable, and remote
environments. Areas of particular interest include computer–aided crisis management decision support, unmanned robotic
vehicles, and mobile manipulator platform control. In addition, concepts for battlefield synchronization, on–the–move
collaborative techniques, real–time decision making, and visualization for distributed problem solving are becoming increasingly
important.
Technical challenges related to decision aiding and collaborative aiding include better understanding of the mechanisms of
complex decision making and team collaboration, devising reliable diagnostic and performance measures, and developing models
and methods to understand the internal and external motivating factors. Key elements are workload, uncertainty, coordination
strategies, and real–time structural reconfiguration needs. Real–time, on–the–move C2 is an essential element.
Physical and perceptual aiding, including teleoperations, faces difficult challenges in computer–assisted map storage, retrieval, and
reading, as well as developing practical–sized designs for powered exoskeletal machines to be worn by soldiers and controlled by
kinematic sensors. This would allow significantly increased capabilities for lifting, carrying, and mobility. Another important area
related to teleoperation is providing stabilized systems that can operate in mixed–terrain without losing their balance. To aid in
perception, technologies that provide textural, shape, color, and stereo effects for information presentation are needed.
The overall challenge in HSI is integrating the various aids into working systems and platforms.
Human performance modeling is a critical factor in meeting future Army requirements. Such modeling contributes to enhanced
soldier–system battlefield performance through low–risk, quick–turnaround simulation, permitting rapid assessment of proposed
systems concepts. Human performance modeling ranges from anthropometric models of impulse and acoustic detection by the
human ear, through cognitive and physical workload assessment, up to decision making under stress. France is recognized as a
key international source for cooperative research in these aspects of HSI. Negotiations are underway with France on auditory

research and ergonomics issues. The U.K. and Germany also have very strong capabilities in human performance modleing, and
to a lesser but still significant extent, Israel, Netherlands and Sweden all have capabilities.
c. System Supportability
System supportability includes improving affordability, availability, operability, maintainability, and logistical supply to reduce
life–cycle support costs. The Army must be able to provide early estimates of manpower, personnel, and training (MPT) as well as
associated human performance requirements and costs for HSI, so they can be fed into the acquisition and design process. The set
of manpower and personnel integration (MANPRINT) methods and tools are key elements in this effort. The goal is to have
validated techniques that are robust enough to permit quantitative tradeoff analyses among various MPT variables and design
options. This will allow decision makers to examine variations in systems performance as a function of MPT investment.
The increasing complexity of weapon systems makes it increasingly difficult to support those systems with personnel who can
effectively operate and maintain them. Research is needed to determine the limits of attention saturation, mental workload, and
manpower utilization in order to balance soldier resources and requirements with emerging technologies. This is essential to
maintaining full military readiness, availability, sustainability, and effectiveness.
No specific foreign capabilities have been identified in support of this subarea, however, the cooperative effort with France
mentioned above, related to ergonomics is directly related. The French are sharing modern ergonomic performance measuring
instrumentation and techniques while the U.S. is sharing its MANPRINT suite of soldier–system performance enhancement tools.
d. Design Integration
Developing and producing a fully integrated crew weapon or information system demands effective design tools, HSI models and
databases, and performance metrics. Human–system performance and cost variables must be part of the design process.
Technology capabilities are required in human performance assessment and modeling, tools for enhancing physical
accommodation, methods for human error and reliability assessment, and tools for crew station design and testing. Major
technical challenges include:
• Managing the magnitude of existing and emerging anthropometric and human–system accommodation
databases
• Modeling and predicting complex human behavior
• Simulating and quantifying battlefield effects on human mobility, sustainability, and performance
• Integrating the diverse and fragmented technical disciplines required
• The lack of industry or government standards and methodologies for HSI and crew system integration
• Integrating human performance algorithms into semiautomated and fully automated forces simulation.
The MANPRINT efforts will play an important role in the design integration subarea. Foreign capabilities are similar to the IMD
subarea described above. The U.K., France, and Germany offer the most capabilities in terms of performance modeling. Some of
the world–class work that Japan is doing in automating industry and enterprise design may be applicable to the challenging
aspects of integrating system–of–systems.


AMXIP–OB
IPOC: Dr. Stephen L. Goldberg

Chief, Army Research Institute’s Simulation Systems Research Unit
12350 Research Parkway
Orlando, FL 32826–3276
e–mail: goldbers@stricom.army.mil

PPT efforts seek to maximize human military performance. There are two main subareas: (1) manpower and personnel, and (2)
training. Investments in manpower and personnel address recruitment, selection, classification, and assignment of people to
military jobs. The goal is to reduce attrition of high–quality personnel and support the development of managers and leaders.
Investments in training technology improve the effectiveness of individual and collective training, enhance military training
systems, and provide more cost–effective opportunities for skill practice and mission rehearsal. The overall objective is to develop
soldiers and support personnel who are intelligent, physically fit, educated, highly motivated, and well trained.
Significant advances are being made in DIS and VR technologies that can have a major impact on this area of technology,
especially in training. Table E–17 and the following paragraphs summarize foreign capabilities and opportunities in each
technology subarea.
Table E–17. International Research Capabilities—Personnel Performance and Training

Manpower & These nations have capabilities & are involved in Australia, New Belgium
Personnel cooperative programs Zealand
Participate
in TTCP in this
area
Training Dynamic Dynamic Canada

training & training & Distributed
simulation simulation training &
simulation of Simulators & displays
complex
enterprises
a. Manpower and Personnel
Manpower and personnel technologies address three important topics:
• Selection and Classification. Dealing with aptitude testing and sophisticated assignment systems that reduce
training time and increase quality of performance. Research areas include simulations of new selection and
classification systems, methods to measure performance–related aptitudes, improved prediction of leadership and
performance under stress, and improved temperament and psychomotor/spatial tests.
• Human Resources Development. Providing products and methods to improve leadership in complex and
ambiguous situations, support efficient career development, and improve support for soldiers and their families.

Research areas include leadership characteristics, unit cohesion, motivation, and career commitment. In addition,
the current and long–term effects of combat, organizational and mission changes, and issues such as gender
integration on career commitment and development are of keen interest.
• Leader Development. Focusing on understanding, evaluating, and determining the behaviors required for
effective leadership. This is accomplished by collecting and analyzing descriptive, experiential, and empirical data
tracking the careers of officer candidates and officers.
Major technical challenges in manpower and personnel include:
• Developing new selection techniques that cover a wider range of human abilities
• Relating aptitude test to performance on a simulated battlefield
• Developing techniques to more effectively adapt to organizational change
• Identifying characteristics of the most effective leaders
• Developing methods for assessing, developing, and retaining quality leaders.
Manpower and personnel issues are of concern to all countries wishing to field and maintain an effective military capability.
International cooperation in manpower and personnel is taking place through a variety of mechanisms. The U.S., U.K., Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand pursue collaborative research and actively exchange information of defense R&D projects through
the Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP). Examples of collaborative manpower and personnel research include selection tests
for tank gunners and effects of workload levels and stress on decision making. Collaborative research also occurs through the
Defense Research Group (Panel 8, Human and Biomedical Sciences) of the NATO Armaments and Research Organization. For
example, the U.S. is gaining valuable information regarding the fielding of computer–based selection tests in Germany and
Belgium and on use of distance learning technologies in European countries.
b. Training
The requirement to execute increasingly complex dynamic mission objectives as part of a multinational coalition force is pushing
us to devise new and innovative ways to train, perform mission planning, conduct rehearsals, and maintain critical skill levels
while at home station, deployed for extended periods, and if feasible, en route to an operation. Our major allies are limited, as we
are, by budgetary constraints, reduced access to training areas, environmental and safety concerns, and cost of munitions. This
reality is pushing us toward an increased reliance on more robust, flexible simulation systems. While the current emphasis in
training is in VR and synthetic environments, an effective training strategy should employ a complimentary mix of devices and
simulation including: individual, crew, ranges and targets, maneuver, command and control, force–on–force engagement
systems, and where feasible embedded training systems.
Live force–on–force tactical engagement simulation remains a key element of the training strategy for both us and our major allies,
but the increased lethality and longer ranges of our weapon systems and improved C4I systems are pushing the limits of our
current laser engagement training systems and their corollary T&E instrumentation systems.
The information systems technologies used to improve our tactical situational awareness could be augmented with embedded
simulation hardware and software to provide viable training anywhere, anytime. The Training and Doctrine Command’s
(TRADOC) stated, preferred method of training for the future is embedded training.
Soldiers need the ability to train up rapidly on the doctrine and standing operating procedures used by other services, coalition
forces or agencies. Units need the capability to link up via distance learning technologies with joint, combined, and interagency
personnel for common training/mission rehearsal. Commanders and staff must be able to practice and refine problem solving and
decisionmaking skills in mission relevant, joint, combined, and interagency scenarios.
This training strategy provides a considerable technical challenge at a time of shrinking budgets and will require coordination and

cooperation among our system program managers, simulation developers, laboratories, R&D centers, TRADOC, and
cooperative R&D programs with other nations should be strongly encouraged.
Technical challenges involve new training and performance measurement technologies that will allow more effective training
within tight budgetary constraints. New training strategies are needed that are specifically developed for DIS to take maximum
advantage of its capabilities, recognize its limitations, and assess its effectiveness. Developing training strategies that provide an
effective and affordable mix of live exercises and synthetic training is another challenging area. Finally, an emerging topic of
importance is developing training strategies and performance evaluation to support the emerging digital battlefield technologies
and the accompanying doctrinal changes.
A number of foreign countries have significant capabilities in training and simulation technology. Canada, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, and the U.K. all have made valuable contributions and each represents considerable leveraging opportunities.
Australia has hosted several international simulation conferences and symposia to expand their knowledge, increase their
capability, and broaden their use of simulation. The U.K. has established an industrial advisory board to monitor simulation
activities in the U.S. and advise on military use in their nation. The Germans are experimenting with injecting virtual targets into
live sights that will be a key challenge for embedded training and live–to–virtual linkages. Canada’s advanced displays systems
would be useful for all types of simulations, and the U.K. and France’s ability in human performance modeling and VR
technology could enhance battlefield representations. The Netherlands has assumed a prominent role in Europe as a technical
expert in the use of training simulation technology and have orchestrated several major demonstrations of advanced distributed
simulation (ADS) technology in support of NATO vision and goals. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.S., and the U.K.
have established working groups in VR and distributed simulation under TTCP’s Training Technology Panel HUM–2. NATO
Army Armaments Land Group 8 is identifying standard agreements (STANAGs) for training interoperability among member
nations, and NATO Research and Technology Panel Number 8 is investigating human factors issues in the use of VR for military
purposes.

AMXIP–OB
IPOC: Mr. Gene B. Wiehagen

U.S. Army Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command
e–mail: wiehageg@ns1.stricom.army.mil
IPOC: Dr. Stephen L. Goldberg

Chief, Army Research Institute’s Simulation Systems Research Unit
e–mail: goldbers@stricom.army.mil

The Army’s materials, processes, and structures program provides enabling technologies that are used to construct every physical
system or device used by the Army. This program provides unique solutions and options that increase the level of performance
and durability, and reduce the maintenance burden and life–cycle costs of all Army systems.
Advances in basic materials, materials processing, and structures are integral objectives of a number of opportunities discussed
throughout the ASTMP and this annex, including materials for aeropropulsion, characterization of structures for rotorcraft,
ballistic protection for soldier systems, materials and structures for hypervelocity missiles; and structures for ground vehicles.
Table E–18 and the following paragraphs provide a summary of key capabilities and trends for each technology subarea.
Table E–18. International Research Capabilities—Materials, Processes, and Structures

Kingdom
Materials Metal Metal Metal Ceramics; China Ti alloy Israel

alloys; alloys; alloys; composites;
composites; composites; composites; polymers;
Refractory Metal alloys; organic
polymers ceramics ceramics ferrous allows
& rare–earth matrix composite
materials &
alloys
Processes Welding & C–C Functional Polymer ROK Austria

joining ceramic part gradient coatings processing
fabrication
Tungsten Refracting metals
processing
Australia
Composites
Structures Lightweight Energy– Engineering Structures; Ti;

engineering absorbing structures; smart engineering structures;
structures; smart structures; smart structures structures welding;
structures structures ion–beam
coating
a. Materials
The materials subarea focuses on materials with superior properties required for use in structural, optical, armor and antiarmor,
CB and laser protection, biomedical, and Army infrastructure applications. All classes of materials are included—metals,
ceramics, polymers, composites, coatings, energetic, semiconductors, superconductors, and electromagnetically functional

materials.
Technical challenges focus on extending the state–of–the–art knowledge of composition–microstructure–property relationships

to allow modeling and prediction of material behavior involving very complex phenomena (e.g., ballistic penetration, long–term
environmental exposure, chemical agent permeation). Specific areas of interest include:
• Models to predict static and dynamic behavior of fiber/matrix interphases

• Predictive models of environmental durability for monolithic and composite materials
• Models for the interactions of gases, vapors, and liquids with polymeric barriers
• Cost–efficient, lightweight transparent armors for personnel and sensor protection
• Tungsten and other heavy metal alloys/microstructures that will provide equal ballistic performance as depleted
uranium
• Steels with high–strength, toughness, and ballistic properties that also are weldable and resistant to stress
corrosion cracking
• Modeling/mitigation of micromechanical failure mechanisms in elastomeric materials
• Improved nonlinear and other optical materials for protection of soldier’s vision, direct view optics, and sensors.
As the table illustrates, a number of countries have strong capabilities in advanced materials. The U.K., France, and Germany all
have expertise in metal alloys and composite materials. Noteworthy here is the special capabilities that France is developing in
carbon–carbon (C–C) and other ceramics and in the design of crash survivable structures as noted elsewhere in this annex. Japan
is a world leader in "fine ceramics." Fine ceramics refers to high–purity ceramics with specific performance characteristics, as
opposed to bulk ceramics as might be employed for ballistic protection. Russia has strong capabilities in bulk ceramics as well as in
titanium and steel alloys. In addition, Israel has niche capabilities in metal alloys and in organic matrix composites.
b. Processes
Materials processing includes all technologies by which raw or precursor materials are transformed into useful materials or
components with the requisite properties and at an acceptable cost for Army applications. This includes such technologies as
casting, rolling, forging, sintering, polymerization, composite lay–up and curing, machining, and chemical vapor deposition.
Coating processes are of special interest because they affect so many devices and components. Ion–beam–assisted deposition and
pulsed laser deposition are two areas of keen interest. Improved process control techniques are also sought, especially related to
resin transfer molded composites and Smartweave armor materials.
A major technical challenge involves integrating noncontact, real–time online sensing (especially at very high temperatures) with
adaptive control technology. Specific challenges include:
• Knowledge–based models for thermal and thermomechanical processing

• Improved joining and repair of polymers, ceramics, and organic and inorganic matrix composites
• Development of process specific sensors and control systems
• Techniques to achieve near or actual net shape components of complex geometry and variable composition in
more affordable materials/design systems.
Several foreign capabilities are of interest in the materials processing subarea. The United Kingdom has strengths in welding and
joining. Germany has unique capabilities in explosively formed projectile (EFP) and other warhead metallurgy and processes for
deposition of functionally gradient materials. Japan has been and is expected to continue to be a major developer and producer of
fibers and matrix feedstock for advanced polymer composites that are essential for many advanced materials. Austria has also
been identified as having tungsten processing research of interest and Australia as having research in composites.
France has special skills in high–density tungsten carbide ceramics that has potential for armor technologies. Russian capabilities
in welding and ion–beam coating may also be of interest. The Army Research Laboratory (ARL) recently initiated development

of a new class of high–density ceramics (defined as any ceramic whose density is greater than steel (7.85 gm/cc). While
conventional ballistic ceramics offer excellent protection against conventional small arms threats, these low–density materials
suffer damage accumulation effects and reduced effectiveness as the impact threat increases, particularly against modern,
high–density eroding rod penetrators. High–density ceramics inherently offer greater space effectiveness (2–3 times more efficient
than steel). Current efforts are trying to optimize these high–density ceramics for ballistic application.
Korea has a noteworthy program in tungsten penetrator technology that could be beneficial to the U.S. Advanced materials
technology offers enhanced ballistics, increased range, and lethality for penetrators. Specific heat treatment processes for tungsten
alloys have been developed by South Korea that offer the potential to enhance impact strength for penetrators. A near–term goal
of the ASTMP is to increase the ballistic performance of tungsten to equal that of depleted uranium (as measured in depth of
penetration). Korea’s heat treatment process could increase the impact strength of tungsten to meet ASTMP milestones.
Finally, readers should refer to the discussion of biological sciences that addresses the rapidly growing field of bioprocessing,
where researchers are looking to biomimetic materials (such as spider silk) to meet critical long–term requirements. In addition,
worldwide interest is growing in the potential for bioprocessing to replace more costly or environmentally threatening chemical
processes.
c. Structures
This subarea focuses on developing structural elements with a high level of structural integrity that are inspectable, analyzable, and
can survive the harsh combat environment. To be cost effective the design must integrate advanced structural concepts that are
compatible with mass production manufacturing technologies. The structures must also be designed to specific vibration and
noise levels to maintain crew comfort and a low noise signature. Particular emphasis is on design tools, modeling, failure and
fatigue, and life prediction analysis. In addition, developing nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques for identification and
quantification of defects and anomalies in composite structures is very important.
A growing area of worldwide research interest is smart structures—instrumented structural designs that adapt to external
conditions and stimuli to optimize performance. Closely related to this is the use of embedded sensors (usually based on fiber
optics) for monitoring performance and structural conditions. The U.K., France, and Germany all have significant capabilities in
this area and offer potential opportunities for cooperation.
The U.K. and Germany develop and market military systems for lightweight bridging and other civil engineering applications,
and have sound capabilities in alloys and structural design for such systems. As mentioned earlier, France has special expertise in
developing crash–survivable and energy–absorbing materials. Japan has a significant capability in structural design, and in
practical engineering of crash–survivable vehicles and structures. Finally, Russia’s expertise in titanium alloys may be applicable to
some Army structural needs.

AMXIP–OB

AMSTL–TT–IP


Military medical and biomedical research is concerned with preserving and optimizing combatant’s health and capabilities
despite extraordinary battle, nonbattle, and disease threats. Individual service men and women are the most important and the
most vulnerable components of military systems and mission capabilities. Disease and nonbattle injury typically far outweigh
battle–related injuries as the greatest cause of military casualties. The current force structure is confronted with an expanded
potential for large–scale regional conflicts, proliferation of WMD, and ready availability of advanced conventional weapons.
These dangerous challenges are coupled with enduring threats of disease, harsh climates, and operational stress, often in
third–world nations lacking any medical infrastructure.
There are five subareas of technology: infectious diseases, medical biological defense, medical chemical defense, Army operational
medicine, and combat casualty care. Table E–19 and the following paragraphs summarize foreign capabilities and opportunities
for each technical subarea.
For humanitarian reasons, much of the research and technology related to this area are shared widely. No one country has a
commanding lead. However, virtually all developed countries (including U.K., France, and Germany) will have significant
national research programs capable of contributing to U.S. Army requirements. The spread of AIDS and other virulent diseases
such as Ebola and other filoviruses, and the emergence of a variety of antibiotic–resistant bacterial strains have spurred worldwide
medical and biomedical research efforts. Many countries involved in medical and biomedical research are not specifically
interested in military applications or biomedical defense per se, however, any breakthroughs in prevention and treatment of the
more virulent diseases would be of great interest. Here opportunities for cooperation are driven by a variety of factors, including
the geographical location of the occurrence of certain diseases (e.g., Kenya, Thailand), or COEs in specific research areas (e.g.,
virology in France).
Table E–19. International Research Capabilities—Medical and Biomedical Science and Technology
Infectious Infectious Infectious Infectious Singapore, China Infectious Israel, Kenya, Thailand,
Diseases of diseases diseases diseases diseases Switzerland, Sweden, Italy,
Military Netherlands
Importance Infectious
diseases
Infectious diseases
Medical CBD CBD CBD Many countries involved in applicable biomedical Canada, Austria
Biological defense research
Defense/
Medical CBD
Chemical
Defense
Israel, Sweden,
Switzerland,
Netherlands, Brazil,
Poland, Australia
Chemical

Army Broad cooperation sought in all aspects of military Broad cooperation

Operational medicine & casualty care Medical sought in all aspects of
Medicine imaging military medicine & casualty
care
Combat
Casualty Care Medical
imaging
In addition to work directly on medical and biomedical areas, the growth and dissemination of basic biotechnology tools has led
to rapid advances in capabilities in a number of foreign countries. These are discussed elsewhere in this annex.
Another area of medicine that is growing rapidly worldwide is the use of internetworking and high quality video to create
geographically dispersed medical teams for diagnosis and treatment (including surgery). The underlying technologies are
discussed elsewhere in this annex.
a. Infectious Diseases of Military Importance
This technology area seeks to protect soldiers from incapacitating infectious diseases by the development of vaccines and disease
preventing drugs, and to return soldiers to duty by the discovery of effective drug treatments. Infectious diseases pose a significant
threat to operational effectiveness and most Americans lack natural immunity to diseases that are endemic abroad.
Many diseases that were feared killers only a few years ago have been subdued largely through vaccination and public health
advances. The focus of market–driven pharmaceutical development has been primarily on diseases important in the industrial
world. Unfortunately, infections prominent in many strategically significant areas of the world do not receive attention
comparable to the extent of the populations affected. This puts our soldiers at greater risk.
Technical challenges of current interest include:
• Develop rodent blood and tissue systems for growth of human malaria parasites
• Develop animal models for dysentery
• Detect and identify neutralizing antibodies produced in minuscule amounts
• Formulate vaccines to maximize the immune response
• Design drugs that will evade parasite defenses
• Grow hepatitis E virus and vivax malaria parasites in cell culture
• Develop vaccines effective against geographic variants of disease.
These and a number of other technical challenges in medical and biomedical science require the commitment of major research
resources from around the world. This is a natural area in which to encourage international cooperation. In addition to the
obvious cooperative work with our European allies, the infectious disease research program has international agreements for
cooperative research to develop vaccines for the prevention of dysentery, malaria, and dengue fever.
Dysentery is caused by Shigella and leads to severe diarrhea. During Operation Desert Shield/Storm, diarrheal disease became a
major threat to U.S. forces—57 percent of troops had at least one episode and 20 percent reported they were temporarily
incapacitated. The leading cause of lost duty time during Operation Rescue Hope was acute diarrhea.
Malaria has long been a serious problem for military forces, especially during combat. Malaria is the world’s most common
insect–borne parasitic disease. During Operation Desert Shield/Storm, troops in Southern Iraq became infected with vivax
malaria. More recently, troops were infected with vivax or falciparum malaria while serving in Somalia for Operation Restore
Hope. Treatment of this deadly disease is complicated by the increasing incidence of drug–resistant strains.

Dengue fever is the world’s most common mosquito–borne viral disease. It was encountered during the Vietnam War, and more
recently in Somalia. It poses a serious problem whenever military forces are deployed to the tropics.
Countries having significant capabilities and offering special opportunities to address infectious diseases not commonly found in
the industrialized world include Israel, Kenya, Thailand, Singapore, and China.
b. Medical Biological Defense
The primary goal of medical biological defense is to ensure the sustained effectiveness of U.S. armed forces operating in a BW
environment. Specifically, to prevent casualties by the use of medical countermeasures, to diagnose exposure to BW agents, to use
chemotherapeutics and immunotherapeutics to prevent lethality, and maximize return to duty.
Major technical challenges relate to better understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms of a disease in hopes of developing new
vaccines. Much of the testing must be done in model systems. Animal models do not currently exist for many of the BW agents.
• Developing appropriate animal models to test safety and efficacy

• Increase genetic and biological information for medical countermeasures against threat agents
• Exploit the human immune system to provide protection against threat agents
• Analyze new vaccine delivery systems and multiagent vaccines.
The Medical Biological Defense Research program includes an international agreement for cooperative research for the
development of an improved vaccine for the prevention of botulinum poisoning and for the development of effective treatment
drugs. Botulinum toxin, a recognized biological threat agent, is one of the deadliest neurotoxins known to man. The toxin
prevents the release of acetylcholine and produces nerve cell dysfunction. The cause of death is usually respiratory paralysis, due
to the blockage of transmitter release from the phrenic nerve to the diaphragm muscles. The Imperial College of Science and
Technology, United Kingdom, is an international leader in the area of functional and structural analysis of botulinum toxin
binding to cholinergic nerves.
c. Medical Chemical Defense
The mission of this program is to preserve combat effectiveness by timely provision of medical countermeasures in response to
joint service chemical warfare (CW) defense requirements. The challenges are to maintain technological capability to meet
present requirements and counter future threats, to provide individual level prevention and protection, and to provide medical
management of chemical casualties.
A major technical challenge is developing pretreatment, protectant, or antidote that is both effective against CW agents and safe
for human use. Specific challenges relate to developing models of efficacy and effects, developing pretreatment/antidotes with
special characteristics (e.g., quick acting, long acting), generating immune response to small molecules, and developing various
reactive/catalytic decontaminant and protectant compounds.
The Medical Chemical Defense Research Program involves cooperative efforts between the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel,
Germany, and other nations in developing methods to protect the soldier from CW agents. These nations are using the latest
medical information and techniques for these developments. Current efforts include research into pretreatments, antidotes, and
medical therapies. X–ray crystallographic analytical techniques have been employed to elucidate the structure of
acetylcholinesterase. This achievement supports mechanistic studies in understanding the actions of nerve agents as well as
development of molecular approaches to a countermeasure. In addition, molecular biochemical techniques are being used to
mutate genes to produce variants of human acetylcholinesterase and butylcholinesterase. This will improve understanding of
nerve agent mechanisms of action and identification of prophylaxes for nerve agents.

d. Army Operational Medicine
The goals of this effort are to protect soldiers from environmental injury and materiel/system hazards, shape medically sound
safety and design criteria for military systems, sustain individual and unit health under operational stress, especially sustained and
continuous operations, and to quantify performance criteria and soldier effectiveness.
Technical challenges cover a wide range of effects and issues. These include sleep management, display design criteria, physical
and psychological training strategies, tyrosine and caffeine interactions for increased alertness, and a variety of related phenomena.
This is an area in which broad cooperation is sought in all aspects of military medicine. The only technology specifically identified
for potential cooperative efforts involves Japan’s strong capability in medical imaging.
e. Combat Casualty Care
This program aims at saving lives far–forward in the combat arena. Major areas where improvement is needed include delivery of
far–forward resuscitation, minimizing lost duty time from minor injuries, reducing unnecessary evacuations, and decreasing
resupply requirements of all forward echelons of care.
Technical challenges include understanding and overcoming the toxicity of oxygen–carrying hemoglobin solutions, development
of battery power and computing capability to allow computer–aided diagnostics, overcoming the problem of applying local
hemostatic agents to the wet surfaces of a hemorrhaging wound, and miniaturizing all equipment necessary to induce suspended
animation far–forward.
As indicated in the table, this also is an area in which broad cooperation is sought in all aspects of combat casualty care. The only
technology specifically identified for potential cooperative efforts involves Japan’s strong capability in medical imaging.

AMXIP–OB

17. Sensors
17. Sensors
The topic of sensors encompasses a wide range of diverse physical phenomena and technology, including seismic/acoustic
ground sensors and EM sensors in all regions of the spectrum from extremely low frequency magnetic anomaly detection to
space–based UV and even shorter wave optical devices. As defined in the ASTMP, sensor technologies also include associated
capabilities for acquiring and processing sensor data to derive useful information regarding operating environment and the
location and identity and activities of friendly and adversary forces. Table E–20 below summarizes capabilities in areas of sensor
technology identified in Volume I, Chapter IV of the ASTMP.
Table E–20. International Research Capabilities—Sensors

Kingdom
Radar Sensors Optical Electronic

switching of components
microwave
power
Electro–Optic Optical IR FPA; Photonic Netherlands

Sensors processing laser sensors; devices; laser
multidomain applications
sensors
Acoustic, Acoustic Seismic Israel

Magnetic, & sensors
Seismic
Sensors Acoustic sensors
Seismic
Automatic Signal Signal Combat ID; Signal & Israel

Target processing; processing; signal processing image
Recognition combat ID combat ID processing
Sensors Target recognition;
signal processing
Integrated Vehicle Multisensor Vehicle

Platform integration integration integration
Electronics
a. Radar Sensors
Radar is the primary sensor for all–weather detection of air, ground, and subsurface targets. It includes wide area surveillance
radars, tactical reconnaissance radars, and airborne and ground fire control radars. Areas of special interest involve the
phenomenology of UWB SAR to enable detection and classification of stationary targets that are subsurface or concealed by
foliage or camouflage. Foliage penetration and ground penetration systems are the major goal. Major technical challenges include

17. Sensors
understanding wave propagation in background/clutter environments, development of high–power, low–frequency, and

wideband system capability, and development of components and algorithms to support high–probability detection and
classification with low false alarm rates. Specific technical issues relate to:
• Real beam search on–the–move targeting against stationary ground targets

• Buried target detection
• Enhanced spatial resolution
• MMW antennas and scanning.
Affordability is a major issue for all sensors because they are so prevalent on the battlefield.
The United States has traditionally enjoyed a strong lead in military radar systems, particularly in the area of electronically
steerable phased array radars. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany, and to a lesser extent, Japan and Israel all have
significant capabilities and niches of excellence. Noteworthy highlights include France’s expertise in optical distribution and
switching of microwave energy, and Japan’s world leadership position in electronic components. MMIC components are
especially important for MMW radars and the U.K., France, Germany, and Japan all have strong capabilities in this area of
technology.
b. Electro–Optic Sensors
EO sensors provide passive/covert and active target acquisition (detection, classification, recognition, identification) of military
targets and also allow military operations under all battlefield conditions. Platforms include combat personnel, ground combat
and support vehicles, tactical rotary–wing aircraft, manned/unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, and ballistic missile defense
(BMD)/theater missile defense.
• Growth and processing of thin–film materials for uncooled detectors

• Monolithic integration of detector, readout, and processing modules
• Material growth and processing for multicolor FPAs
• Fusion algorithms for multidomain sensors
• Performance against countermeasures
• Multidomain signature databases
• Diffractive optical element (DOE) design
• Integration of DOEs, detectors, and post–processing circuitry
• Affordable and effective laser hardening against multifunction, multiband lasers.
EO sensors are playing an increasingly important role in weapons systems of all kinds. The U.S. is certainly a leader in most areas,
however, other countries have significant capabilities that could be beneficial.
France is recognized as a world leader in state–of–the–art IR FPAs. Their work on HgCdTe large–area staring arrays could be
important for future multidomain smart sensors. ARL and scientists from LETI (Grenoble, France) are cooperating to develop
techniques to grow buffer layers on Si that would allow integration of the HgCdTe detectors and Si readout in much larger arrays.
A new technique is being investigated that promises far lower defects for much larger arrays. France also has special capabilities in
short wavelength (visible and UV) lasers that are very important for some optical countermeasures and standoff biological agent
detection. Appropriate laser media are required to take full advantage of advances in laser diodes and diode pumping
technologies. The Université de Lyon has special expertise in highly efficient laser emission and extensive knowledge of
UV–emitting materials.
Japan is a world leader in all aspects of photonics and is strongly positioned in laser applications. Their CC&D technology

17. Sensors
dominates consumer electronics and may provide leveraging opportunities in the future for military applications. Germany has
made significant progress in processing IR images and in multisensor integration. At the Fraunkofer Institute in Freiburg,
considerable research efforts are conducted in quantum well and superlattice materials for detectors spanning the spectral region
from UV to long–wave IR.
The U.K. has special expertise in optical processing, optical components, and optoelectronics. Photonic processors using this
technology offer inherently high bandwidth, compactness, power efficiency, and immunity to EM interference. The
noninterfering nature of light and its propagation characteristics lend themselves to future massively parallel, high–speed
information processing. Finally, the Netherlands has special capabilities in third–generation image intensification that could be of
value.
c. Acoustic, Magnetic, and Seismic Sensors
Acoustic, magnetic, and seismic sensors provide real–time tracking and target identification for a variety of battlefield ground and
air targets. Advances in digital signal processing devices and algorithms have lead to significant improvements in acoustic sensors
making them more feasible and affordable. Attended and unattended systems are of interest and find application against both
continuous signals (such as engine noise) and impulsive signals (such as gun shots). Acoustic sensors involve the use of
microphone arrays to detect, locate, track, and identify air and ground targets at tactical ranges. Target information from multiple
acoustic sensor arrays is digitally transmitted to a remote central location for real–time battlefield monitoring. Enhanced hearing
for individual soldiers is another important area and techniques to extend the soldier’s long–range hearing and frequency
response are being developed.
Technical challenges include:
• Advanced target identification algorithms

• Multitarget resolution
• Detection
• Platform and wind noise reduction techniques
• Compact array design for long–range hearing.
Most modern armies have some ongoing work in battlefield acoustic sensors, with no one country having a dominant capability.
The U.K. and France offer strong capabilities related to seismic sensors and Israel provides unique opportunities in acoustic
sensors. Current efforts in acoustics include adaptive beamforming algorithms, sound cancellation techniques, and neural
network algorithms for target identification. Israel has been developing advanced helicopter detection, sniper, and mortar
location systems based on acoustic sensing. The United States has been conducting joint exercises with the Israeli Army and
future cooperation will provide potential solutions to acoustic propagation problems, long–range target detection algorithms, and
detection in the presence of wind and platform noise.
d. Automatic Target Recognition Sensors
The goal of ATR is to provide sensors with the capability to recognize and identify targets under real–world battlefield conditions.
ATR systems will allow weapons systems to automatically identify targets (and friendly forces), which will increase lethality,
reduce the number of costly weapons used, and eliminate or reduce the cost and tragedy of losses from friendly fire. The technical
challenge is to provide high identification rates with very few false alarms for a large number of target classes. Supporting
technologies include processors, algorithms, and development tools, including M&S. Current efforts focus on single and multiple
sensor ATR algorithm development.
Most countries have active development programs aimed at enhancing ATR capabilities. Underlying feature extraction and
pattern recognition algorithms are common topics of academic research. Adaptation of these algorithms for effective military use
demands access to specific target and threat characteristics, information that is closely held by all nations to protect sensitive

17. Sensors
collection methods and sources. Several areas are of special interest for possible cooperative efforts. Japan has done extensive
work in visual systems for industrial robots and in Kanji character recognition. While not directed to military ends, the underlying
techniques may be of interest. The U.K., France, and Germany all have strong capabilities in signal processing for ATR and
combat ID, and are close enough allies to share some sensitive target/threat information. Germany has particular expertise in
combat identification of friendly troops that is very important for reducing fratricide and improving situational awareness. The
laser technology being pursued by Germany is of special interest. France has special expertise in ATR algorithms for use in
multisensor (forward–looking IR, MMW, and possibly laser radar) systems that could be helpful in developing real–time
multisensor techniques. In addition, Israel has strong capabilities in target characterization that could be applicable to a number of
efforts, including signature measurements in radar/MMW, signature rendering in the visual and IR, and target acquisition
modeling for imaging IR sensors. The United States has held a cooperative Signature Work Shop with Israel that covered a
number of areas associated with ATR. This included topics on characterization of target/clutter, synthetic scene generation
modeling, as well as target acquisition model enhancement, dynamic measurements using super high–resolution MMW, and
model validation.
e. Integrated Platform Electronics
Integrated platform electronics (IPE) focuses on the integration technologies, disciplines, standards, tools, and components to
physically and functionally integrate and fully exploit electronic systems on airborne, (helicopters, remotely piloted vehicle
(RPV), and fixed wing), ground, and human platforms. IPE can result in dramatic cost and weight savings while providing full
mission capability. The major technical challenge lies in determining an architecture that is sufficiently robust to readily accept
technology commercial innovations. Improving reliability is always an important challenge that can lead to reduced logistics and
deployment burdens while containing support costs. In addition, standardized image compression techniques and architectures
are of current interest to permit transfer of images with sufficient clarity and update rates to support digitization of the battlefield.
Cooperation in this area leads not only to enhanced performance but also contributes to standardization and interoperability of
coalition forces. As one would expect, those countries most advanced in development and production of advanced military
vehicles offer the best potential for cooperative efforts. The U.K. and Germany have special capabilities in vehicle integration that
is of interest and France has special expertise in multisensor integration that is relevant to IPE.

AMXIP–OB

AMSTL–TT–IP
For ATR sensors:
IPOC: Mr. Richard Pei

U.S. Army CECOM
Ft. Monmouth, NJ 07703
e–mail: peir@doim6.monmouth.army.mil

17. Sensors
For rotorcraft integrated electronics (IPE):

U.S. Army AMCOM
St. Louis, MO 63120–1798

18. Ground Vehicles
18. Ground Vehicles
Ground vehicle technologies support the basic Army and Marine Corps land combat functions: shoot, move, communicate,
survive, and sustain. This technology area is comprised of the following subareas: systems integration, vehicle chassis and turret,
integrated survivability, mobility, and intravehicular electronics suite. Rapid deployment, manageable logistics, and compatibility
with third–world infrastructures are current topics of major interest. Specific objectives include advances in diesel and gas turbine
propulsion, better track and suspension to increase cross–country mobility, and improvements in survivability through improved
ballistic protection and reduced observables (including use of active armor). Table E–21 and the following paragraphs summarize
capabilities and opportunities in each technology subarea.
a. Systems Integration
Each ground vehicle consists of several subsystems (e.g., power and drive train, electronics, weapons, sensors), which must be
integrated into a full–up, system–level technology demonstration. The primary process to evolve future vehicles is virtual
prototyping. M&S will develop preliminary concepts, optimize design, reduce cost, and schedule maximize force effectiveness for
ground vehicles. The goal is to develop lighter, more lethal, and survivable ground vehicles. Virtual concepts can be readily
evaluated for mobility, agility, survivability, lethality and transportability, forming the basis for validation, verification, and
accreditation. The major technical challenge is to provide the user with systems that can attain an effective balance between
increased fighting capability, enhanced survivability, and improved deployability while meeting cost, manufacturing, and
reliability/maintainability goals. Specific challenges relate to developing verifiable models in a usable time frame.
Table E–21. International Research Capabilities—Ground Vehicles

Kingdom
Systems EC nations have capabilities in EC Israel

Integration various areas nations have
capabilities in
various areas RPVs; teleoperation
Switzerland
Armored vehicles
Vehicle Structure China, ROK Israel, Sweden, Switzerland,

Chassis & & design Italy
Turret
Integrated Modular Vehicle Russia Israel, Sweden, South Africa

Survivability armor survivability
Bulk
ceramics; active
protection

18. Ground Vehicles
Mobility Gas turbine Secondary Ceramic Russia Austria

batteries Autonomous engine; electric
control; diesel drive
engines electric Electric Diesel engines
drive drive
components;
batteries;
switches
Intravehicular Multisensor Integrated

Electronics integration electronics &
Suite optronics
The major players in ground vehicle systems integration and design are the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, Japan, and Russia, all
of whom have a long history of developing and manufacturing military armored systems including main battle tanks. Switzerland
also has a capability in armored vehicles that may be of interest and Israel has unique experience in the use of RPVs and UAVs
that may contribute to advances in teleoperation of ground vehicles.
b. Vehicle Chassis and Turret
The use of composite and titanium–based materials will make future combat vehicles lighter, more easily deployed, versatile, and
survivable. These technologies are key to optimizing and exploiting structural integrity, durability, ballistic protection,
repairability, and signature reduction. Future vehicle chassis and turrets will be fabricated to integrate advanced designs using a
combination of lightweight structures and modular armor packages.
Using composite materials or titanium as the primary structure in a combat vehicle is new and there are significant technical
challenges. Issues related to composite materials include durability, producibility, and repairability. The primary issue for titanium
is its high cost, which has so far kept it from being used on any U.S. combat vehicles.
The same countries mentioned under systems integration also have strong capabilities in vehicle chassis and turret technologies.
Of these, Germany continues to be one of the few world leaders in combat vehicle R&D in all weight classes. They develop and
field wheeled combat vehicles that meet or exceed tracked vehicle capabilities. Mercedes design and prototyping has provided the
basis for a German–French cooperative effort in medium–weight armored vehicles GTK), and their main battle tank
development and prototyping continues beyond Leopard 2 block improvements. In addition, the EGS heavy combat vehicle
technology demonstrator, developed by Krauss Maffei with firms such as Pietsch, Diehl, MTU, and a host of others incorporates
state–of–the–art construction and materials fabrication technology with a focus on signature management.
c. Integrated Survivability
The goal of integrated survivability is to protect ground vehicles from a proliferation of advanced threats. Hit avoidance, detection
avoidance, penetration avoidance, and damage reduction technologies are critical to achieving overall vehicle survivability. Hit
avoidance technologies confuse or physically affect incoming threats. ECM and improved sensors are the key elements. Detection
avoidance revolves around management of visual, thermal, radar, acoustic, seismic, and dust signatures. Armor is the major
element in penetration avoidance, and damage reduction deals with firefighting agents and compartmentalization of ammunition
and fuel. Advances in penetration avoidance center on producing efficient armors with reduced weight, space, and cost. The U.S.
is currently the world leader, but other nations are improving rapidly. TTCP nations have strong armor programs. Sweden has a
vigorous program following unusual research not found in NATO countries. Israel has strong capabilities, as evidenced by a
indigenous development in the Merkava aimed at survivability. South Africa’s Rooicat wheeled armored fighting vehicle
incorporates a number of indigenously developed and integrated survivability features, including ballistic protection, obscurants,
and collective CB protection.

18. Ground Vehicles
The major technical challenge relates to the cost of the technologies required for survivability. In addition, many of the
technologies have significant weight, volume, electrical power, and thermal loading requirements that make their insertion into
fielded systems both costly and time consuming.
The U.S. is the world leader in most aspects of integrated survivability, but niche capabilities may be found in countries that
develop and manufacture armored systems. Several German capabilities deserve special mention. These include strong
capabilities in integrated CBD, and in the areas of indirect protection (detection and hit avoidance). The firm of Buck has
conducted extensive research in multispectral obscurants. In direct protection, the German firm of Deisenroth continues to be a
leader in composite armor for light, medium, and heavy vehicles, both as integrated and modular add–on packages. The German
firm of Condat specializes in analytic and predictive modeling for armored systems vulnerability assessments. The FSU has been a
world leader in active protection for the past 20 years. Finally, Russian developments in bulk ceramics have potential for ballistic
protection.
d. Mobility
Mobility focuses on the "move" function of tracked and wheeled land combat vehicles. Mobility components include suspension,
tracks, wheels, engine, transmission, and fuels and lubricants. Technologies of interest include active noise and vibration control
to increase cross–country performance; quiet, lightweight band track; and advanced high–output diesel, turbine engines, and
electric drives. Another major area of interest is providing increased electrical power in smaller, lighter packages. Electrical power
is shared among propulsion, survivability, lethality, and auxiliary systems. Energy management is an important factor. Electric and
hybrid drive systems are also being developed. Finally, to reduce operation and support costs, the number and types of fuels and
lubricants must be reduced.
Technical challenges for electric drive include power, reducing cooling system size, and total volume. For advanced track systems,
the major challenge is to extend the lightweight conventional track durability while reducing operational and support costs. For
fuels and lubricants, the challenge is to define performance tradeoffs for a single engine/powertrain lubricant.
In addition to the U.S., Japan and Germany are the world leaders in automotive propulsion, both having significant capabilities in
functionally gradient coatings, monolithic ceramics, and in engines and high–power sensor diesel engines. Germany is a world
leader in air–cooled diesel engines. Much of this expertise is applicable to military vehicles.
Primary interest in electric drive is found in the major automobile producing and exporting countries (the U.S., Japan, and
Germany) driven primarily by growing restrictions on exhaust emissions. Japan is the world leader in some aspects of electric
drive technology. France has special capabilities in secondary batteries, such as lithium polymer, which are of great interest for
military applications, due to their high energy and power density, long life cycle, and rapid charge/discharge abilities. They also
are lightweight, compact, vibration resistant, and have no EM signature. Military applications include electric vehicle propulsion
(15 kilowatt or more of power) and silent watch. The U.K., Japan, and Russia also have strong capabilities in lithium battery
technology. Another foreign capability of great interest is Germany’s experience in hybrid electric vehicles. The German firm of
Magnet Motors has been working in this area for over 10 years and has attained the state of the art in multiple electric permanent
magnet (MED) motors and generators, as well as magnet dynamic storage (MDS). Other German firms—Siemens, ABB, AEG,
and Max Planck—are world leaders in microsystem technology as characterized by a combination of power semiconductors,
which will make electric drives smaller, more robust, and more responsive. These technologies could play an important role in
Tank–Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center’s tank mobility technology. Also related to electric drive,
Russia has special expertise in certain types of very high energy batteries and some silicon carbide switching devices.
Another technology area of interest for mobility in that of autonomous navigation and control of vehicles. Germany and the U.S.
have a collaborative program entitled Next–Generation Autonomous Navigation System (AUTOVON). Participating research
laboratories and their technological contributions to the project are as follows:
• Universitat der Bundeswehr Munchen (UBM), Germany—UBM will produce an advanced autonomous road

18. Ground Vehicles
navigation system with cost–effective collision avoidance technology. For a number of years, UBM has been a
leader in the European Prometheus program oriented towards the development of commercial highway
automation. As part of the Prometheus program, UBM has been developing a sophisticated highway lane
following system using only normal video for sensor input.
• Dornier GmbH, Germany—Dornier will provide advanced off–road obstacle detection and avoidance
capabilities using laser radar technology.
• David Sarnoff Research Center (DSRC), Princeton, New Jersey—DSRC will perform as technical lead in obstacle
detection and recognition. DSRC’s obstacle detection approach is entered on high definition, area–based
recognition technology, which, together with UBM’s research orientation on feature–based recognition, shows
promise of complementary research products that, when combined, will offer significant obstacle detection
potential. DSRC contributions will include a faster, low–cost, processing capability allowing faster autonomous
speeds of operation.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland—This institute will develop a common
computer architecture base. The common computer architecture thrust could lead to a standard vehicle controller
system supporting technology transfers in a wide range of future developments. ARL will support the institute with
a sensor platform stabilization system and global positioning system (GPS)/inertial navigation system integration to
enhance navigation system sensor performance.
The AUTOVON effort will accelerate progress in existing Army/DoD unmanned ground vehicle programs since German
researchers hold the lead in the development and implementation of some of the key technologies.
e. Intravehicular Electronics Suite
The goal of this subarea is to develop a standardized framework within which to integrate digital technologies for embedded
vehicular weapons systems. This is important for enabling current and future ground vehicles to maintain superior combat
effectiveness in the digital battlefield. There are two aspects to this area: integration of the electronics into the vehicle, and natural
and seamless interconnection of the crew with the electronics.
Technical challenges in intravehicular electronics suites include:
• Electronic integration techniques that are scalable to many platforms

• Advanced crew station design
• Real–time distribution of battlefield information within a vehicle
• Reduction of system development time and cost
• Reduction of system integration time and cost.
The only foreign work of note in this area is that done by the German firm Pietsch, which has conducted extensive future crew
compartment studies, focusing on crew size reduction, human factors such as man–machine interface, endurance, and multiple
taskings. Integration of technologies such as sensor suites, optronics, and robotics have been demonstrated and continue to be
pursued. Existing U.S.–German agreements are ongoing in support of efforts in this area. Future studies are being planned/
discussed on the following topics:
• Day and night observation equipment

• Sighting and fire control, including stabilized gun control systems
• Data processing equipment, sensors, and modes logic
• Radio and navigation equipment
• Test, display, and operating equipment

18. Ground Vehicles
• Laser applications for battle tank fire control

• Laser application for artillery fire control.

AMXIP–OB
For mobility:

AMSTL–TT–IP
For intravehicular electronics suite, mobility, integrated survivability, and vehicle chassis and turret:
MSC IPOC: Mr. William Lowe

U.S. Army Tank–Automotive and Armaments Command
AMSTA–TR–D/273
Warren, MI 48397–5000
e–mail: lowee@cc.tacom.army.mil
IPOC: Bob Both

U.S. Army CECOM

Manufacturing S&T focuses on technologies that will enable the industrial base to produce reliable and affordable materials and
products. It requires integration of all aspects of manufacturing from raw materials through design and integration of
components, subsystems, and systems. Table E–22 summarizes capabilities in key technical subareas.
Table E–22. International Research Capabilities—Manufacturing Science and Technology

Advanced Bioprocess Bioprocess Bioprocess Fuzzy Canada, Israel, Netherlands,

Processing engineering engineering engineering logic for Nordic Group
process
control
Bioprocess engineering
Bioprocess
engineering
Manufacturing Cooperative efforts—CASE tools; industrial robotics

Engineering Industrial
Support Tools robotics
Advanced
Manufacturing
Demonstrations
Advanced manufacturing demonstrations program–specific
No specific opportunities are identified for this technology area; however, biotechnology applications can contribute to U.S.
Army efforts. Large–scale production of biomaterials and products is necessary to capitalize on emerging biotechnology
developments. The techniques for providing these large quantities of biomaterials (bioprocess engineering) are of significant
interest to the U.S. Army, and include production of the material (including cell culture and fermentation), downstream product
processing, and packaging. The United States is an overall world leader in this area, with several nations having significant
capabilities including the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands, and the Nordic Group.
In the future, international developments are likely to drive greater standardization in manufacturing engineering support tools,
including CASE, virtual prototyping, and enterprise integration and control technologies. Already we are seeing rapid growth in
technologies for distributed design and management of very complex enterprises in highly industrialized countries, notably Japan,
the U.K., France, Germany, and throughout the EC. This trend will be further supported and enabled by the growth of the
Internet and its underlying telecommunications infrastructure. Ultimately we can expect to see a seamless integration of
distributed M&S with enterprise operation, which will further speed the international exchange of advanced manufacturing
capabilities.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/eb19.htm2006-09-10 23:22:07
M&S objectives, as defined for this technology area, include development of a common technical framework for M&S; timely and
authoritative representations of the natural environment, friendly and threat systems, and human behavior; and development of
an M&S infrastructure to meet developer and end–user needs. These are critical for achieving the JCS vision for seamless
integration of mission planning and rehearsal and effective execution required for dominant maneuver and the application of
precision multinational coalition forces to overwhelming effect.
The Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) is leading a DoD wide effort to establish a common technical framework
to facilitate the interoperability of all types of models and simulations among themselves and with C4I systems. This common
technical framework includes the HLA, and represents the highest priority effort within the DoD modeling and simulation
community. HLA was approved as the standard technical architecture for all DoD simulations in September 1996.
The primary mission of HLA is to define a consistent and common picture of the battlespace and will be crucial to effective
employment and interoperability of multinational coalition forces. HLA will define an infrastructure for linking simulations of
various types at multiple locations to create realistic, "virtual worlds" for the simulation of highly complex interactive events. These
exercises are intended to support a mixture of virtual, live, and constructive simulation. HLA will identify the interface standards,
information structures, information exchange mechanisms, and other data required to transform heterogeneous simulations into
a cohesive seamless synthetic environment. These synthetic environments will support design and prototyping, education and
training, T&E, emergency preparedness and contingency response, and readiness and warfighting. Further international
cooperation will be essential.
M&S has four technology subareas: simulation interconnection, simulation information, simulation representation, and
simulation interfaces. Table E–23 and the following paragraphs summarize capabilities and potential opportunities for each
technical subarea.
a. Simulation Interconnection
This subarea is concerned with the development and instantiation throughout the international community of the overarching
HLA. This requires the development of an advanced runtime infrastructure (time, data distribution, and large–scale federation
management); development of automated tools to support federation development, including automation of the end–to–end
process of identifying candidate simulations; development and test of prototype object model development software;
investigation of innovative techniques for supporting scaleable executing systems using HLA; and development of an automated
HLA compliance testing capability.
Table E–23. International Research Capabilities—Modeling and Simulation

Kingdom
Simulation NATO countries active in standardization of DIS Australia, New NATO countries active
Interconnection Distributed Zealand in standardization of DIS
industrial
enterprises
DIS

Simulation Dynamic Dynamic Battle M&S VR Canada, Netherlands

Information training training
simulation simulation
Battle M&S
Simulation M&S M&S M&S Netherlands

Representation Distributed
enterprises
M&S
Simulation VR VR VR Canada
Interfaces
VR 3D visualization
Technical challenges include establishing the architectural design, protocols and standards, and security mechanisms to facilitate
the interoperability of simulations; developing the supporting infrastructure software to apply the architecture to simulation
applications with the needed levels of performance; and extension of the architecture to provide time management, data
distribution, and federation management services.
In addition to Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand—all of whom participate with the U.S. in
TTCP—France, Germany, and the Netherlands have strong capabilities in M&S, and in the underlying information systems
technologies required to distribute and process the information. Japan has had an extensive program aimed at M&S and
management of large, complex, distributed enterprises. Other capabilities, including those of Israel may also contribute.
b. Simulation Information
This subarea addresses modeling of mission space, mission tasks, strategy, tactics, intelligent systems emulating human decision
making processes, and optimal resource utilization. To achieve this ability, it is necessary to develop simulations that provide
consistent and reliable results through the development of common conceptual models of the mission space (CMMS) using
authoritative representations. Common syntax and semantics must be developed to specify the warfighter mission (the entities,
their actions and interactions) to the simulation developer, and to formulate and define standard data structures, dictionaries, and
enumeration of complex M&S data (e.g., highly derived data, command hierarchies, artifacts of legacy systems). Areas of interest
include the development of an M&S resource repository; and verification, validation, and accreditation/certification standards
and guidelines.
Several factors are fostering rapid growth and internationalization of simulation information and representation. Coalition
operations is a major theme in the use of military force. The threat to these forces, geographically dispersed and increasingly
capable technologically, demands more effective transnational mission planning and rehearsal. The same requirements and
capabilities are, to only a slightly lesser extent, reflected in the operations of large multinational companies. Worldwide availability
of low–cost powerful information management systems are allowing exchange of data and promoting standardization of data and
models for terrain, weather, and environmental effects. The resulting advances will contribute directly to improved
interoperability of coalition forces.
The challenge to developing coherent, complete, and consistent CMMS is an extensive task. The span of military M&S covers a
wide range of missions, from conventional to other–than–war missions and M&S applications, and from systems acquisition
activities to mission planning and rehearsal. The distributed and interactive nature of advanced M&S capability and security
concerns makes the standardization and ready availability of standardized data an extremely complex technical issue.
c. Simulation Representation

This subarea is concerned with technologies that will enable, within the time of operational decision cycles, the generation of
realistic and high–fidelity synthetic representation of the prevailing physical environment, natural and manmade, the natural and
humans operating in it, and their interactions with each other. These technologies will enable developers and users of M&S
applications to represent the natural environment, the performance and capabilities of warfighting systems, and human behaviors
(individual and group) in a manner that promotes cost effectiveness, ready access, interoperability, reuse, and confidence. This
will enhance the realism of models and simulations used in military training, acquisition, and analysis by providing authoritative
representation for (1) static and dynamic, natural and manmade environments, and related effects on human and system
performance; (2) the performance and capabilities of warfighting systems and their effects on natural and manmade
environments; and (3) human behavior (individual and group).
Technical challenges include rapid database generation and near–real–time interaction of consistent and correlated
representations. The representation of human behavior must reflect the effects of the capabilities, limitations, and conditions that
influence human behavior (e.g., morale, stress, fatigue). Another significant challenge will be to provide variable human behavior
for friendly, enemy, and non–hostile forces—to include CGFs that exhibit platform–based behavioral modeling and command
forces models through division level.
d. Simulation Interfaces
This subarea addresses interfaces required for seamless integration of models and simulations with "live" systems, which may
consist of instrumented individuals or platforms used for training, testing, or other synthetic environment applications.
Interactions with C4I systems and simulations are a priority. Common operational planning and simulation tools and the
development of a modular reconfigurable C4I interface will focus on these interfaces. This critical capability will facilitate the use
of M&S in providing mission rehearsal capability and could augment existing operational planning processes and systems.
Technical challenges include:
• Modular interfaces that are responsive and easily reconfigurable for multiple similar but heterogeneous systems
and compliant with Joint Technical Architecture (JTA) and the M&S common technical framework
• Accurate representation of live systems and individuals in a simulation
• Realistic representation of synthetic forces on tactical systems.
In the area of simulator interfaces, leading technologies are found primarily in those countries that have been traditionally strong
in dynamic training and simulation—Canada (which is also developing significant capabilities in data visualization), the United
Kingdom, France, and Germany, and in Japan, which is actively pursuing the development of VR for industrial applications,
including visualization of complex systems and enterprises.

AMXIP–OB
IPOC: Mr. Gene B. Wiehagen

U.S. Army Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command
e–mail: wiehageg@ns1.stricom.army.mil


C. INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CAPABILITIES AND LONG-TERM OPPORTUNITIES, 1. Overview
C. INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CAPABILITIES AND LONG–TERM OPPORTUNITIES
1. Overview
Access to international capabilities in basic research offers a potential vehicle for both near– and long–term
return on investment. Within the overall Army S&T strategy, one key objective is to emphasize high leverage
opportunities, fostering partnerships where we anticipate the best prospects for sustained excellence in
technology development. This includes cooperation with both foreign government and industries, in order
to access niches of technical excellence that can best be coupled to existing and future Army technology
goals. The following pages provide a snapshot of international basic research capabilities and trends having
potential to address one or more of the long–term research goals identified in Volume I, Chapter V of the
ASTMP. Many of these areas overlap opportunities highlighted in the previous section, and indicate
prospects for long–term partnerships and further cooperative advances. Others indicate areas where future
opportunities may develop, either under an existing exchange or a new initiative.
The following discussion and trends charts portray very clearly the international scope of S&T. As might be
expected, opportunities for cooperation in basic research are far more pervasive and widely dispersed than
those for applied research in technology discussed in the previous section. Increased global accessibility of
scientific information is such that no researcher is out of touch with his or her field. Collaborative research
across international boundaries is commonplace.
Taken as a whole, the trends charts indicate a high and growing level of scientific research capabilities abroad
in virtually every aspect identified as of importance to the U.S. Army. This suggests the importance of an
international cooperative strategy that can effectively encompass both immediate opportunities and
long–range cooperative partnerships.
The POC for requests for further information regarding international cooperative opportunities described in
this section is:
Mr. Stephen Cohn

AMSTL–TT–IP
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/ec1.htm（第 1／2 页）2006-09-10 23:22:19

C. INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CAPABILITIES AND LONG-TERM OPPORTUNITIES, 1. Overview
Parties with interests in specific cooperative programs and wishing to determine contacts in other countries
should contact the appropriate Army regional offices, as follows:
Dr. Iqbal Ahmad

AMXRO–RT–IP
Director ARO International Programs
and ARO–Pan American
POB 12211, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
e–mail: <ahmad@aro–emh1.army.mil>
Dr. Julian Wu
Director ARO–Far East
Akasaka Press Center
7–23–17 Roppongi, Minato–ku
Tokyo 106, Japan
e–mail: <arofe–01@zama–emh1.army.mil>
Dr. Karl Steinbach

Director European Research Office
USRDSG–U.K.
223 Old Marylebone Road
London NW1 5TH
e–mail: <ksteinbach@army.ehis.navy.mil>
These offices are tasked with keeping abreast with important developments in S&T in their respective areas.

Table E–24 summarizes international research capabilities for the major subareas of mathematical science.
Basic research in applied analysis and physical mathematics directly contributes to the modeling, analysis, and control of complex
phenomena and systems active within the Army. Applied mathematicians define practical boundaries, set the framework of
analysis, and act as collaborators for scientists and engineers on many development projects. It is often the case that seemingly
unrelated research will have effects on the development of critical technologies (e.g., the influence of advances in control theory
on the development of nonskid brakes).
Many nations show significant capability in a number of areas identified as having potential impact on future Army technologies.
This is consistent with the fact that many advanced applied mathematics research efforts involve only a small number of
researchers and have minimal hardware requirements. Thus even nations without an extremely powerful industrial or research
base can have a few specific points of excellence in mathematics.
Germany, France, and the United Kingdom are all considered to be on a par with the United States in a number of these areas of
mathematics research. All of these countries are noted for developing partnerships between academic and industrial groups
working on mathematical problems directly related to modeling and manufacturing issues. In general, Canada and Japan are also
considered to be working at or near this high level. Both China and India exhibit strong potential research efforts, which are
constantly improving and conceivably, will soon be world leading. The countries of the FSU show a declining capability, largely
due to a lack of resources. For example, though many important numerical methods for modeling physical phenomena were
developed in the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s, current research is no longer considered world leading. Additionally,
Ukraine is noted for a traditional weakness in more basic research and tends to be stronger in development areas. Many
Table E–24. International Research Capabilities—Mathematical Sciences

Kingdom
Applied Fluid Bolzman’s China Russia Hungary

Analysis & dynamics equations;
Physical dynamic
Mathematics systems; Numerical Real variables
computer vision methods;
mechanics
Canada
Analytic geometry; fluid

dynamics
Israel
Symplectic geometry;
fluid dynamics

Computational Linear Finite Finite India Russia Israel

Mathematics algebra elements; elements;
nonsmooth interactive
optimization methods Computational physics
China
Discrete Computer China Russia Canada

Mathematics algebra
Hungary
Czech Republic
Computational geometry
Systems & Control China Russia Canada

Control theory
Probability & Levy Fuzzy logic India Russia Canada

Statistics processes
China Austria
Fuzzy logic
other small countries have very strong mathematical talent—Holland, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Romania, Greece,
Sweden, and Norway—and all could be considered for potential cooperative efforts in specific areas. In addition, there are also
significant efforts under way in Asia and the Pacific Rim (especially Singapore and Malaysia) to develop mathematical research
enterprises, but these are not yet of world–class stature.
a. Applied Analysis and Physical Mathematics
Research in applied analysis and physical mathematics contributes to the modeling of physical processes critical to the
development of new technologies in a variety of fields including smart materials, flow control, electromechanics, and optics. For
example, CFD studies in the U.K., Canada, and Israel can contribute significantly to missile, rotor, and explosive design.
b. Computational Mathematics and Discrete Mathematics
There are many examples of specific areas of computational mathematics and discrete mathematics that hold promise for military
applications. Research in numerical methods and optimization is the basis for many advances in fluid dynamics, material
behavior, and simulation of large mechanical and computational systems. Advanced work in finite element analysis in France and
Germany can be applied to the problems of the design and function of complex mechanical structures. Also of interest are

international research efforts in linear algebra (France) and computational geometry (Czechoslovakia) that are applicable to the
development of new computer network hardware and software platforms.
c. Systems and Control
Systems and control theory work has also been used as the basis for the development of computer systems as well as applications
in robotics. Research areas include work in control in the presence of uncertainties, robust and adaptive control for multivariable
and nonlinear systems, and distributed communication and control. France is considered a world leader in control theory
research. The United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Canada, China, and Russia have significant capabilities in this area as well.
d. Probability and Statistics
Research in probability and statistics, especially stochastic analysis and statistical methods, is integral in the development of
simulation methodologies, data analysis systems, and complex image analysis technology, including new approaches to computer
vision for ATR. Fuzzy logic research in Japan is an example of international research that can significantly contribute to Army
goals in these areas.
The following highlight a few selected examples of specific research facilities engaged in work in the mathematical sciences:
United Kingdom—The Basic Research Institute in the Mathematical Sciences (BRIMS), Bristol. BRIMS was set up by
Hewlett–Packard in 1994 as part of an initiative to widen the corporate research base. BRIMS is an experiment in fostering basic
research in an industrial setting. All scientific work undertaken at BRIMS is in the public domain. Main areas of research are
dynamical systems, solitons, quantum chaology, quantum computation, probability, and information theory. Research into
topological phase effects explores the nature of quantum eigenstates and geometric phase, and applications in a wide range of
disciplines throughout physics, including atomic and molecular physics, condensed matter physics, optics, and classical
dynamics. BRIMS shares a close relationship with the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge, England.
Germany—The Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis (WIAS). WIAS performs mathematical research projects in various
fields of the applied sciences. These research projects include modeling in cooperation with researchers from the applied sciences,
mathematical analysis of properties of these models, development of numerical algorithms and of software, and numerical
simulation of processes in economy, and S&T. One program in control theory is concerned with the behavior of nonlinear
dynamic systems. General approaches are developed for analysis and control of the longtime behavior of dynamical systems.
These methods are applied to simulations and control of processes in chemical engineering, optoelectronics/nonlinear optics
(NLOs), and problems in geophysics.
France—French National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Control (INRIA). INRIA is made up of five research
units spread in various French regions and one service unit. The main activities of this government institute consist of basic
research and realization of experimental systems in computer science, mathematics, and automatic control. INRIA has adopted
five major strategic directions in its research activities. They are the control of distributed computer information, programming of
parallel machines, development and maintenance of safe and reliable software, construction of systems integrating images and
new forms of data, analysis, simulation, and control and optimization of systems.
Austria—Department of Medical Computer Science, University of Vienna. Research here focuses on the applications of fuzzy
logic in the field of expert systems for internal medicine. Work has centered on the CADIAG project, which has already produced
a number of advanced systems assisting the differential process of diagnostics through indicating all possible diseases, that might
be the cause of a patient’s pathological finding (with special emphasis on rare diseases), by offering further useful examination to
confirm or to exclude gained diagnostic hypothesis, and by indicating patients’ pathological findings not yet accounted for by
expert system’s proposed diagnoses. The system has a database of profiles and rules for diseases that can be easily integrated with
an expert’s definition and judgmental knowledge from experience to assist in medical care.

Russia—St. Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation, Russian Academy of Sciences (SPIIRAS). SPIIRAS conducts
basic and applied research in the fields of computer science, computer systems, and automation of scientific research and
manufacturing. One research thrust studies the automation and quality testing of models, algorithms, and programs. Problem of
models qualimetry are formulated, and some results for solving a problem of adequacy of mathematical models, applied to
problems of forecasting and optimization are developed. Technology, methods and tools for automation of complex systems
modeling based on their representation visualization using language of algorithmic networks and cognitive graphics are
developed. Algorithms for numerical solution of ordinary differential equations in a network structure are used to increase
modeling accuracy. This work can be applied to the analysis and evaluation of complex systems, including computer networks,
information processing systems, and telecommunication systems.

Computers and information systems are pervasive in virtually all military systems and operations and are essential to maintaining
the present leading position of U.S. military capabilities. Table E–25 summarizes international research capabilities for each major
subarea.
Table E–25. International Research Capabilities—Computer and Information Sciences

Kingdom
Theoretical India Russia Sweden, Netherlands

Computer
Science
Formal India Russia Sweden, Finland,

Methods for Netherlands
Software
Engineering
Software India Russia Sweden, Hungary,

Prototyping, Netherlands
Development,
& Evolution
Knowledge Russia Netherlands

base &
Database
Sciences
Natural · Russia Netherlands, Sweden,

Language Hungary
Processing
The computer and information sciences research area addresses fundamental issues in understanding, formalizing, acquiring,
representing, manipulating, and using information. The advanced systems, including the software engineering environments and
new computational architectures, facilitated by this research will often be interactive, adaptive, sometimes distributed or
autonomous, and frequently characterized as intelligent.
a. Theoretical Computer Science
Theoretical computer science is directed at extending the state of the art of HPCs, an enabling technology for modern tactical and
strategic warfare. Research in this area includes development of formal models underlying computing technology, optimization of
input/output communication, and design of new computing architectures and parallel systems. Though the United States is the

world leader in most aspects of theoretical computer science, many other nations show strong capabilities, including the U.K.,
Germany, Japan, Netherlands, France, Russia, and Sweden. India is beginning to develop a strong research base in these fields.
b. Software Engineering and Database Sciences
Formal methods of software engineering and knowledge–based database science are the software parallels to improving the
computer hardware addressed in computer studies. U.S. software development has been a driving force in enhancing the overall
tactical and strategic capabilities of the U.S. armed forces. The United States has been the world leader in computer science and
most areas of software development. However, a number of countries have world–class capabilities in various aspects of the
overall science. The U.K. is a leader in most areas, with extensive capabilities in knowledge–based database science. Japan has
world–class capabilities in software prototyping, as well as being very active in most other areas. India is becoming strong in
software prototyping, development, and evolution by virtue of knowledge transfer by U.S. companies employing Indian
subsidiaries for software development. Other countries have niche capabilities (e.g., Sweden and Finland). Russia’s previously
strong capabilities in all areas of computer and information sciences are gradually declining due to budget constraints and aging
hardware.
c. Natural Language Processing
Natural language processing has taken on an increased importance with the use of multinational/multilanguage forces in the field.
The need for rapid communication between such forces is essential to the efficient and safe military cooperation between various
national forces. Germany has numerous universities engaged in natural language processing, making it the most active country in
the world outside the United States involved in this particular field. The U.K. also is a leader in most areas of natural language
processing, with many universities having advanced research programs. Various universities in Sweden, in addition to the Royal
Institute of Technology, have programs relating to natural language translation. France, Hungary, and the Netherlands are also
quite advanced and have active programs in language processing.
The following highlights a few selected examples of specific facilities engaged in computer and information sciences research:
Germany–Hungary—Darmstadt University of Technology and Technical University of Budapest. This joint collaborative project
combines the dialogue modeling paradigm with natural language generation and speech synthesis in an information retrieval
system. This is implemented in SPEAK!, a prototype system that combines a knowledge–based dialogue manager with text
generation and speech synthesis components in an integrated framework. It uses a speech synthesizer developed by the Speech
Research Technology Laboratory of the Technical University of Budapest.
United Kingdom—Center for Speech Technology Research (CSTR), University of Edinburgh. CSTR does research in the areas
of linguistics, speech synthesis, speaker verification, speech technology, speech signal processing, speech recognition, and
phonetics. It has worked in areas such as speech synthesis, speech recognition, speaker identification and the characterization of
vocal pathologies. Work in automatic speech recognition is concerned with building systems that can convert speech into words.
Typically this involves performing signal processing on digitized speech and using sophisticated pattern analysis techniques to
match the speech with previously trained models of sounds or words. Speech synthesis research is concerned with producing
speech by machines. Often this takes the form of a text–to–speech system, whereby unrestricted text is transformed into speech.
Sweden—Department of Numerical Analysis and Computing Science (NADA), Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). NADA is
responsible for the research at KTH and Stockholm University in computer science and numerical analysis. Research in computer
science has been established in a number of groups. The Interaction and Presentation Laboratory was established as an
interdisciplinary group of researchers and research students in computing science, linguistics, psychology, sociology, and design,
with common interest in human–computer interaction. Another group focuses on studies of artificial neural systems. The scope
of its research ranges from the design and evaluation of ANN algorithms to realistic modeling of biological neuronal networks.
Hungary—Technical University of Budapest. Computer science and engineering research is diffused over several departments

including the Department of Automation where work is done in operating systems, databases, and computer architecture. Most
of the research in this department is concentrated in areas related to control and computer engineering. Research in the
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science is concentrated on the mathematical and statistical aspects of computation,
including information theory and statistical image processing. In addition, the Department of Telecommunications has programs
in performance modeling.
United Kingdom—Computer Laboratory, Cambridge University. Research in Great Britain in computer and network security is
very broad, including cryptography, network protocols, computer artifact fingerprinting, communications reliability, computer
fraud detection, computer security management, and computer privacy policy. The laboratory has a relatively large group
exploring various issues associated with network and computer security. They have developed considerable insight into how to
engineer secure computing systems, especially security protocols. The computer security group is currently working on
techniques for altering smart cards used for electronic transactions. The laboratory’s long–term research in network security
protocols, cryptographic algorithms, and digital signatures contributes to the maturing of good engineering practices in the
development of secure computing systems.

4. Physics
4. Physics
Basic research in physics broadly supports advanced technology developments by providing insight into the nature and
interaction of energy and matter and contributing to technologies with a wide range of civil and military applications. Areas of
interest to the Army include nanotechnology, photonics, and processes and technology related to obscured visibility, novel
sensing, optical warfare and image analysis enhancement. For example, this research enables ongoing advancement in
microminiaturization and optical subsystems. This also improves sensor capability and continues development of image analysis
and target recognition systems. Table E–26 shows a wide range of countries possess capabilities in the subareas of physics.
Table E–26. International Research Capabilities—Physics

Rim
Nanotechnology Microscopy Molecular Submicron

chemistry research
Photonics Optical Optical Russia Belgium, Canada, Sweden

Optoelectronics; Optoelectronics; switching; switching,
signal processing signal optoelectronics; optoelectronics;
processing; Optical Optical switching
signal signal
optical processing processing; sensors ; optical
Optical computing optical computing
switching computing
Optical
switching
Obscured Sensors; Signature Sensors; Fiber–optic Korea Russia Israel

Visibility/ signature reduction; lasers gyroscopes;
Novel Sensing reduction; lasers lasers; IR FPAs sensors; lasers
IR FPAs Glonass; Signature reduction; IR
signature FPAs
IR FPAs Sensors IR FPAs reduction;
lasers; IR FPAs
Optical Warfare HELs; HELs; Sensing of NLOs Russia Israel, Canada

sensing of CB sensing of CB CB agents
agents agents
NLOs; Sensing of CB agents
HELs HELs; sensing
of CB agents

4. Physics
Image Analysis Signal Signal Signal Signal Canada

Enhancement processing; processing; processing; processing;
Technology software & software & software & software &
modeling modeling modeling modeling Signal processing;
software & modeling
Turkey
Tomographic imaging
Sweden
Software & modeling
a. Nanotechnology
The objective of nanotechnology programs is to develop the capability to manipulate atoms and molecules individually, to
assemble small numbers of them into nanometer size devices, and to exploit the unique physical mechanisms that operate in these
devices. Japanese and German research in submicron imaging and overall capabilities in nanotechnology offer great potential in
producing smaller, faster, devices designed to consume less power.
b. Photonics
Photonics research seeks to develop optical subsystems for military applications such as information storage, displays, optical
switching, signal processing, and optical interconnections of microelectronic systems. The U.K., France, Germany, and Japan
have ongoing research in the various areas of photonics. Russia has a strong but declining capability in photonics research.
Research in obscured visibility and novel sensing seeks to provide the Army the ability to operate on the ground in conditions of
poor visibility, as well as providing significant control of physical signatures. The U.K., France, and Japan have significant
capabilities in the related technology areas. Germany, Israel, Sweden, Canada, and Belgium have capabilities that also merit
consideration.
c. Obscured Visibility/Novel Sensing and Optical Warfare
The Army’s ability to operate under conditions of poor visibility is enhanced by improved sensing capabilities. Optical warfare
research studies and develops optical sensors and sources, NLO processes, tunable sources, and materials with special reflective,
absorptive, and polarization properties to perform specialized remote sensing missions. Japan has world–class capabilities in novel
sensing. The U.K. and France also have capabilities and obscured visibility and novel sensing techniques. Both of these countries
have advanced programs in the development of novel semiconductor materials and devices for use in IR FPAs, as do Japan and
Israel. Russia has considerable capabilities in obscured visibility and novel sensing; however, funding difficulties point to a
decreasing capability.
d. Image Analysis Enhancement Technology
The objectives of image analysis research are to develop the fundamental limits and theoretical underpinnings of object
recognition and image analysis. These areas are of increasing importance, because of the increasing speed of modern weapons and
the need for faster and more accurate IFF. It also applies to the development of novel technologies for mine detection, medical
imaging, and geophysics. This is an area where a number of countries are developing broad capabilities, including the U.K.,
France, Germany, and Japan. Israel, Canada, Turkey, and Sweden have important niche capabilities.

4. Physics
The following highlight a few selected examples of specific facilities engaged in physics research:
United Kingdom—Next–Generation Laser Diodes Programme British Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC). EPSRC has established the program to study six main areas of diode research. The areas are laser sources with
enhanced functionality, new high–power technologies, beam quality and control, new wavelength ranges, high–speed and
high–frequency laser diodes, and reduced threshold currents. This program is intended to bring industry and academia together
in cooperative research. Participants represent the largest research organizations in the U.K., including the Optical Research
Centre at Southampton University and the Scottish Collaborative Initiative in Optoelectronics Sciences.
Germany—Photonic Optical Interconnection Technology Project, Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Solid–State Physics. This
project is focused on research related to the connection of optics to electronics. The project consists of five universities, four
research institutions, and three cooperate partners. The project has been split into four groups: systems theory, passive optical
components, detectors, and laser diodes. The goal is to incorporate optics into the interconnection of circuitry, rather than the
more difficult "optical computer," which uses light solely.
Sweden—Department of Electronics, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). Research in the Laboratory of Photonics and
Microwave Engineering at KTH is aimed at fabricating a monolithic optical receiver and transmitter, including a PIN–diode and a
front–end amplifier, and a laser diode or an external modulator with a driver, respectively. The electronics are based on
heterojunction bipolar transistors (HBT). PIN–diodes with good sensitivity have been fabricated, using some layers of an
HBT–structure. Other research efforts are attempting to improve these materials and structures to improve device performance
and reliability.
Japan—Department of Physics, Kyoto University. The Quantum Optics Group engages in research that is leading to the
development of working atom lasers. This work focuses on Bose–Einstein condensates of alkaline atoms and the study of its many
body and optical properties. Additional work is being done into laser–matter interactions, including laser cooling and trapping of
atoms and the nonlinear interaction between trapped cold atoms and short intense light pulses.
Europe—The European Industrial GaN Program. The European Commission has established an R&D program on Ga–Al–In–N
for multicolor sources under the acronym RAINBOW. Two key products are being developed: (1) a high–brightness outdoor
lighting as used in large outdoor displays, traffic signals, automobile lighting, etc., and (2) a high–density optical disk storage as
used in multimedia environments. A consortium of European firms and universities (including Thomson CSF, Philips, University
of Erlagen, and AIXTRON) is working to develop a complete Al–Ga–In–N materials base, leading to production technology of
ultra–high–brightness light emitting diodes in various colors, and in the fabrication of nitride–based blue laser devices.
Turkey—Radio Physics and Antenna Laboratory, Space Technologies Department, Marmara Research Center. The laboratory
conducts radio physics research in the microwave, millimeter, and quasi–optical regimes. Projects include studies of microwave
imaging and devices, microwave applications of superconductivity, and SAR image compression. Advanced research is being
done to develop a tomographic imaging system at the 8–millimeter waveband. This work will lead to the development of
algorithms and devices used for the detection of buried objects, biomedical imaging, and the NDE of materials and structures.

5. Chemistry
5. Chemistry
This area includes research on CBD and on a number of advanced materials. Advanced materials provide the Army with
capabilities for new and improved systems and devices. Performance, life–cycle cost, sustainability, maintainability, costs,
availability, etc., are all strongly influenced by advances in materials. The Army is especially interested in NLO materials for laser
protection, smart materials, structural polymer composites, ballistic protection polymer composites, fire retardants for vehicles,
and surface resistance to corrosion and wear, among other topics. These are areas where special Army requirements place
stringent demands on materials, and especially on materials chemistry. Table E–27 summarizes international research capabilities
for each major program. The advanced materials research program has been listed by subarea.
a. Chemical and Biological Defense
A number of countries are active in materials R&D for CBD. The U.K. and Canada have world–class capability and have ongoing
efforts to provide better defense against CB agents. They have been at the forefront of CBD for years and can be expected to
continue to devote resources in this area. Israel, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, China, the
Netherlands, and Japan also have some capabilities. For the most part, efforts are more concentrated in the biological area where
the need is greatest. Australia, Russia, and Ukraine also have significant programs in this area.
b. Advanced Materials Research
The processing of NLO materials area is of importance to the Army because they are required for wavelength conversion in some
laser systems and in personnel eye protection. The materials must be very uniform, of very high purity, and the selection of useful
materials currently is limited. The U.K., France, and Russia have strong efforts in preparation and characterization of NLO
materials, and Japan and Israel have credible capabilities. Hungary and China are also working extensively in this area.
Smart materials are ones that can sustain sensory capabilities, actuator activity, and information processing as part of their basic
microstructure. Design, synthesis, and processing of such materials is a chemical challenge, as it is done at the atomic/molecular
level. Applications such as damage detection and control, vibration damping, and precision manipulation and control motivate
the field. At the microstructural level, challenging areas of interest include phase transitions (e.g., shape memory
Table E–27. International Research Capabilities—Chemistry

Kingdom

5. Chemistry
Chemical & Detection; Detection; Detection; Detection; China Russia, Ukraine Canada
Biological protection; protection; protection; protection;
Defense decon decon decon decon
Detection; Detection; CD/BD
protection; protection;
decon decon
Poland, Sweden, Czech
Republic, Finland
Australia
CD/BD
Netherlands
BD
Israel
CD
NLO Materials Russia Israel, Hungary

for Laser
Protection
Smart Materials South Korea Russia Israel, Netherlands,

Switzerland
Polymer South Korea, Russia Canada

Composites China
(Structural)
Israel, Spain
India
Sweden, Finland
Polymer Russia Israel

Composites
(Ballistic
Protection)
Fire Retardants Israel

for Vehicles

5. Chemistry
Surface South Korea, Russia, Ukraine Switzerland, Sweden

Resistance to China, India
Wear &
Corrosion
Canada, Italy, Netherlands,

Israel
Explosives & Singapore, Sweden, Israel, Canada

Propellants South Korea
Soldier Power Russia Israel, Canada
Demilitarization,
Installation
Restoration, &
Pollution
Prevention
alloys), layer–by–layer design of materials, materials with defect structures that can sustain sensing and responses, biocomposites,
piezoelectric ceramics, multifunctional macromolecules, and others. This area offers large payoffs in areas such as delamination
control of composite helicopter blades and increased battlefield survivability of materials via active damage control. World activity
in smart materials continues to grow rapidly. Japan is a clear leader in some aspects. France, Germany, and South Korea have
growing programs.
Thick–sectioned glass reinforced composites are of interest to the Army because they offer weight savings while providing other
systems–useful, stringent characteristics with controlled costs. Thick–sectioned composites of this kind offer the Army much in
structural integrity. Most overseas work in this area is now done in the commercial sector and is focused on manufacturing and
processing issues. Major foreign capabilities in this area are rather widespread, including significant work in the U.K., France,
Germany, and Japan.
Polymer matrix composites (PMCs) offer much to the Army for ballistic protection for personnel, equipment, emplacements,
and vehicles. The challenges are to learn how to make very high quality material at a controlled, low cost and to understand and
improve upon dynamic response for these materials. The U.K., France, Canada, Germany, and Japan all have broad capabilities
and research in PMCs. Israel, Spain, and South Korea have important and growing capabilities.
Fire retarding materials for vehicles are of significance to the Army to protect personnel from conflagrations and to allow Army
assets to return to operation as rapidly as possible. These materials are essential in order to enable Army systems to perform under
battlefield conditions. This capability allows for sustainability of vehicles involved in force projection and advanced land combat.
In addition to fire retardancy, these materials must be easily applied to vehicles and also not produce toxic products when
experiencing high temperatures. The countries with strong capabilities in these areas are the U.K., France, and Israel.
Wear and corrosion cost the Army several billion dollars each year due to premature failures, excessive wear of systems and
components, application and removal of protective coatings and paints, and the need to have high spares inventories to meet all
of these challenges. Corrosion control and avoidance is a challenging scientific area, as is tribology (the study of surfaces in
contact). Elements of materials science, chemistry, and mechanics enter into understanding these systems–defined problem areas.

5. Chemistry
These areas are exceptionally important for maintainability and affordability, in terms of life–cycle costs for Army systems. Nearly
all industrialized nations have programs of some extent in wear and corrosion. The strongest are in the U.K., Germany, Japan,
France, Sweden, and Switzerland with niche capabilities existing elsewhere.
c. Explosives and Propellants
Basic research is often undertaken to solve problems of explosive and propellant effectiveness or to compile properties sufficient
to improve detection or identification. Army applications include the basic outgassing chemistry for detection of mines and
charges. Chemistry used to mimic vehicle IR signatures is applicable to decoy flares. Chemistry of propellant bonding provides
insight into the life–cycle projections for Army missile systems. Germany, with a world–class tradition of expertise in chemistry,
leads in most of these areas. Traditional leadership in the U.K. across broad chemistry areas is fertile for international interest.
Japan’s space interest promote expertise in missile propellants. Long–term military requirements underscore ongoing basic
research in Israel, Singapore, and Korea. Research in the FSU suffers from lack of operating capital.
d. Soldier Power
Soldier power embraces a menu of appliances that provide the 21st century warrior with power sources and devices to enable
advanced sensors, communications, and other man–portable weapons and devices. This suite of tools will enhance the soldier’s
situational awareness and provide a selection of force applications tailored to varying situations. Power sources of importance
include electrolytes for fuel cells and batteries of advanced and environmentally friendly types. The U.K., Germany, and France
are leaders in these technologies with Japan close behind. All of these countries have significant programs in the development of
nickel metal hydride (Ni–M–H) and Li batteries. Russia, Canada, and Israel have significant capabilities as well.
e. Demilitarization, Installation Restoration, and Pollution Prevention
The U.S. has a strong lead in research related to demilitarization, installation restoration, and pollution prevention. Sensing
pollution and destroying pollutants, and practices that prevent pollution, all lead to more efficient or more effective military
operation. Of foreign countries, the U.K. has the strongest potential. France and Germany follow, but their potential for military
applications is weaker due to budgetary constraints.
The following highlight a few selected examples of specific facilities engaged in chemistry research:
Finland—Technical Research Center of Finland (VTT) Chemical Technology. VTT is the largest institute of its type in Finland. It
is headquartered in Helsinki, with a number of branch laboratories spread throughout the nation. VTT works with both industry
and government, and focuses research in nine areas, including chemical technology, energy, and nuclear safety. VTT also is
working with several American companies as well as NASA and the Department of Energy. VTT Chemical Technology has active
programs in nonpolluting processes and waste reduction, polymer and fiber technology, catalyst research, atmospheric emission
monitoring, and flywheels for automotive applications.
Germany—German Aerospace Research Institute (DLR). DLR is among the leaders of the worldclass German efforts in the
development of new fuel cell systems. Significant work is being done in development of synthesis and processing techniques for
electrode structures in polymer electrolyte fuel cell (PEFC) systems. These cells can provide compact and efficient power systems
for vehicles with low–toxic emission levels. Other projects include studies of new catalysis materials for the PEFC systems and
oxide high–temperature fuel cells. DLR also participates extensively in cooperative R&D projects with German and international
industry and government, including programs on PEFCs with Siemens; thermal plasma chemical vapor deposition with the
University of Minnesota; and the study of electrochemical energy conversion and materials in fuel cells with the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory.
Switzerland—Smartec. Smartec is developing smart composite structures with embedded fiber optic sensors for quality control
and health monitoring. Sensors can be used to detect failures, changes in length, and structural stability caused by temperature

5. Chemistry
variation or during mission performance. Smartec has developed a fiber sensor system using mirrored fiber ends or reflector pairs
for inline multiplexing. The technology is being used in laboratory optical tables, bridges, and tunnels. The firm is an outgrowth of
work performed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology as part of the French Surveillance d’Ouverages par Fibres Optiques
project.
Hungary—TTKL Research Laboratory for Crystal Physics. This laboratory specializes in the development of material
preparation, purification, and crystal growth of optical single crystals. The laboratory grows crystals of LiNbO3 and various
borates for NLO applications, Li2B4O7 for surface acoustic wave applications, and photorefractive bismuth oxides. Research also
includes studies on the growth, structure, and physical properties of the crystals. The laboratory helps organize the Oxide Crystal
Network, which fosters the exchange of information, research samples, and expertise among academic and commercial centers in
30 institutions located in 20 European countries. One of these activities is the preparation of crystals, including choosing the
composition, dopants, crystal growth methods, and thermal treatments. Another principal activity is the development of standard
experimental characterization and less standard theoretical modeling methods.

Materials science provide the enabling technologies for fabrication of all physical devices and systems used by the Army.
Advances in materials science, engineering, and technology make possible the solutions, options, and improvements for
performance, durability, and life–cycle costs of all these systems. Table E–28 summarizes international research capabilities in
each major subarea of materials science.
All industrialized and rapidly developing countries have materials–related activities and capabilities. Many nations now can
produce materials for specific military usage, including materials engineered to defeat enemy threats and those which preserve the
capability of high–performance systems in the field. Thus, Army capabilities can face challenges internationally. Also of
importance for materials science and materials technology is that all industrialized nations continue to do advanced work across
these fields, and rapidly developing nations are building strengths in materials fields as well.
Materials science provides the bases for materials with desired, high–level properties needed by the Army in structural armor,
antiarmor, CB agent protection, laser protection, infrastructure applications, propulsion, and biomedical applications. All
materials classes are included—metals, ceramics, polymers, composites, coatings, energetic solids, semiconductors,
superconductors, magnetic, and other functional materials. Army research in materials includes vital areas such as synthesis of
new materials, modifications of existing materials, and design of microstructures and composite architectures to meet
property–specific performance needs. Also included are advanced characterization concepts and methods to specify and control
microstructure, properties, and degradation events.
a. Manufacturing and Processing of Structural Materials
Processing of materials is a key part of this program. It spans the flow of precursor materials on through microstructural
developments into useful materials or components at acceptable costs. Materials processing includes topics such as
polymerization, composite layup, physical and chemical vapor deposition, and surface modifications, among others.
Many nations have significant capability in the manufacturing and processing of advanced materials of interest to the Army. The
U.K., France, Germany, and Japan are all at or near the forefront of research into the processing of steels, titanium, aluminum,
PMCs, MMCs, superalloys, intermetallics, and C–C composites. Expertise in these areas also resides in the FSU, particularly in
Russia. Niche capabilities can be found in many countries, for example in Austria, Sweden, Canada, and South Africa for
advanced steel research; and Israel and Italy for C–C composites, among others. Growing capabilities are developing in Asia and
the Pacific Rim, particularly in China, India, and South Korea.
Table E–28. International Research Capabilities—Materials Science

Kingdom Rim

Manufacturing Welding & CMC Ceramics Steel; China, South Russia Austria, Sweden, Israel,
& Processing of joining MMC; PMC; Korea Canada, South Africa
Structural C–C; CMC
Materials Steel; AI; Ti; Steel; AI; AI; Ti
Steel; AI; PMC; Ti; PMC; Steel
Ti; PMC; superalloys; superalloys AI, Ti;
superalloys; intermetallics; superalloys; Steel;
India Canada, Sweden, Spain,
intermetallics; C–C intermetallics superalloys
Israel
C–C MMC;
C–C Steel
MMC PMC
PMC
MMC
China, India
Ukraine
Sweden
AI, Ti
Welding &
Superalloys
joining
China, India
Sweden, Canada
C–C
Intermetallics
Israel, Italy
C–C
Norway
Materials for Personnel Personnel Armor Armor, China Russia, Ukraine Israel
Armor & armor armor; antiarmor
Antiarmor tungsten–carbine
Antiarmor Armor; Armor; Personnel
armor
Armor; Ceramic antiarmor antiarmor
antiarmor armor Israel, Sweden
Heavy South Korea
armor; antiarmor
Antiarmor
Tungsten
alloy
Israel
penetrators;
armor
Armor
Slovakia
Armor

Processing of Electronic Optical & Electronic Electronic Taiwan, South Russia Netherlands, Israel, Italy
Functional & electrical optoelectronic & electrical & electrical; Korea
Materials optical &
optoelectronic; Electronic Optical &
Optical & Electronic & Optical & magnetic; Electronic & electrical optoelectronic
optoelectronic; electrical optoelectronic; superconductors & electrical
magnetic magnetic Netherlands
Magnetic
Magnetic
Optical & Electronic & electrical;
optoelectronic; magnetic
superconductors
Slovakia, Italy
Electronic & electrical
Engineering of Coatings; Ion Coatings Coatings; South Korea Russia, Ukraine Switzerland, Sweden
Material Surfaces ion implantation; machining,
implantation machining, finishing, &
finishing, & Ion polishing Coatings Coatings
polishing implantation; Machining,
machining, finishing, &
Canada Italy, Netherlands
Machining, finishing, & Ion polishing; Machining,
finishing, & Coatings polishing implantation coatings finishing, &
polishing polishing Coatings
China
Diamond Sweden, Italy
deposition
Machining,
finishing, & Machining, finishing,
polishing; & polishing
coatings
Netherlands, Switzerland
Machining, finishing,
& polishing
South Africa, Israel
Diamond deposition
Nondestructive Metrology; Metrology Automat. South Korea Russia Sweden, Switzerland

Characterization NDE systems Metrology ;
of Components NDE systems
NDE Metrology; Metrology; NDE Metrology
systems NDE systems NDE systems systems
Sweden, Italy, Switzerland
China
NDE systems
Metrology;
NDE systems
b. Materials for Armor and Antiarmor

There are many unique Army requirements that make stringent demands on materials. As a prime example, armor/antiarmor
clearly is a high–priority area for the Army. Armor materials include those specifically designed to protect equipment and
personnel from enemy threats. Antiarmor materials are used in the projectiles, penetrators, shaped–charge liners, etc., designed to
defeat enemy armor. For armor, the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Russia are overall world leaders, along with the United
States. For antiarmor projectile materials, the U.K., France, Israel, Sweden, and Russia have very significant and relevant dense
alloy capabilities.
c. Processing of Functional Materials
Processing of functional materials is key to providing military advantage to materials that fulfill optical, magnetic, electrical, and
electronic needs. Although many commercial applications exist for such materials, these are often at lower performance levels
than those of the Army. Thus, understanding of the processing of functional materials allows their use in military systems with
performance at the upper limits of their capabilities. These functional materials must be of the highest quality also because of their
influence on sustainability and for operations of all types of Army platforms, vehicles, weapons systems, etc. Optical materials of
interest include waveguides, lenses, mirrors, laser hosts, and sensor covers. For magnetic materials, the Army is concerned with
data recording media, signature control, power supplies, and motor applications. Electrical materials needs focus on solenoids,
minesweeping, and high field magnets. Since electronic materials are the key foundations of the Army’s electronic systems, they
are of interest for functions including logic, amplification, memory, display, delay, signal generation, sensing, and switching.
For processing of functional materials, the United States generally has the lead overall, but others (France, the United Kingdom,
Germany, Japan, other European nations, and Russia) have strong capabilities that rival those of the United States. Japan is more
advanced than the United States in some areas of electronic materials. The United Kingdom, Russia, Japan, Israel, Germany, and
China are very active across several areas of optical materials. For magnetic materials, the United States is the leader overall,
though Japan has some capabilities in all areas of magnetic materials as well. The United Kingdom is capable in high–permeability
magnetic alloys. For magnetorestrictive alloys, Sweden and the United Kingdom have technologies comparable to that of the
United States. Many other nations are active in selected areas of magnetic materials. For electrical materials, the United States has
the lead in superconducting wire. Japan, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom have capabilities in wire processing as well.
High–temperature superconducting materials work goes on all over the world, with the United States in the lead with prototype
wire processing.
d. Engineering of Material Surfaces
Precise control, fabrication, and modification of materials’ surfaces are areas with great impact on Army systems. The surface is
the region where the component meets its operating environment, be it chemical, mechanical, thermal, EM, etc., in nature. It is
the region within which failure usually originates during system performance or storage. Control, modification, tailoring, and
precise definition (e.g., of dimensions, geometry, optical figure, flaw content) contribute very strongly to the costs and value
added of Army materials. Thus, activity on machining, ion implantation, chemical vapor deposition and sputtering for coatings,
and adhesion of protective layers, are fertile topics in engineering of surfaces for Army use.
Materials surface engineering capabilities are widely held across the world. For precision machining and polishing, Japan,
Germany, France, and the U.K. are very strong, as are Switzerland and Sweden. For coatings of many types, France, Germany, the
U.K., and Russia are among the leaders. Areas of strength exist abroad in ion implantation and thin–film diamond deposition.
e. Nondestructive Characterization of Components
NDE of components divides into a few focus areas. For quality of materials produced, France, Germany, the U.K., other
European countries, and Japan have increased capabilities with NDE systems. In all aspects of metrology, Japan is excellent, as are
the U.K., France, and Germany. Switzerland and Sweden also excel in selected areas. All of these nations are paying growing
attention to automation in the use and interpretation of NDE both for product quality and process control.

The following highlight a few examples of specific research facilities engaged in work in materials science.
South Africa—Materials Science and Technology Division (MATTEK), CSIR. A government supported facility, the CSIR is
Africa’s largest scientific and technological R&D organization. CSIR’s MATTEK has one of the broadest ranges of materials
research activities in South Africa, including some programs with state–of–the–art facilities and world–class research. Selected
programs in MATTEK include piezoelectric composites for underwater acoustics, medical diagnostics, and ultrasonic
instrumentation, rapid prototyping, thermal spray coating, and polymer additives for a variety of applications, including
corrosion resistance, antifogging agents, and lubricants.
Norway—The Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research (SINTEF), Materials Technology Institute. SINTEF is
Scandinavia’s largest independent research organization. The institute has 200 staff members in two sites, in Oslo and Trondheim.
Research areas include process metallurgy and ceramics, casting and metal forming, fracture mechanics and materials testing, and
corrosion and surface technology. Significant research projects include studies into new technologies for rapid prototyping and
ceramic materials for stronger porcelains, membranes for sensors and liquid–gas separation, and abrasion resistant tools and
equipment. World–class work is being done in the area of silicon microelectromechanical system (MEMS) accelerometers by a
spinoff company, SensoNor, a world leading supplier of MEMS technology to the automotive industry.
China—Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). CAS is one member of a collaborative group of research institutes that is working
in the area of functional polymers. Other collaborating institutions include Tsinghua University, City University of Hong Kong,
and the Institute of Photographic Chemistry of the CAS. These groups are actively working to develop organic materials for a
variety of photonic and electronic applications. Though the level of work has yet to achieve world–class stature, the research
equipment and funding are improving, and the scientists are of very high quality and training. Specific programs include
development of polymer materials for nonlinear refractive indices, EO effects, and characterization of structural properties of
novel polymer materials.
Japan—International Superconductivity Technology Center (ISTEC). ISTEC is a nonprofit foundation formed in 1988 to
develop and exploit superconductivity technologies in government and industry. The foundation has over 100 industrial and
government supporting member organizations and runs the Superconductivity Research Laboratory and its affiliated centers.
ISTEC supported R&D of high–temperature superconductivity has given Japan a lead in the development of the basic science and
applications of these materials and devices. ISTEC supported work has led to significant improvements in the growth of
multilayer thin–film growth of high–temperature superconductors for electronic device applications, as well as the development
of a number of thin–film devices (e.g., a Josephson Junction mixer for radio astronomy antenna).

Basic research in electronics supports advanced technology development with many applications. Important examples include
continued advancement in solid–state devices, telecommunications, microwave and MMW circuit integration, image analysis,
and low–power electronics. Table E–29 shows that many countries host capabilities in these various areas that support military
applications and a wide range of civil applications.
Table E–29. International Research Capabilities—Electronics Research

Technology United Kingdom France Germany Japan Asia/ FSU Other Countries
Pacific
Rim
Solid–State JESSI/MEDEA JESSI/ JESSI/MEDEA All phases of Europe

Devices & research MEDEA research; photonics solid–state devices
Components research
JESSI/MEDEA
research
Photonics
Mobile, Wireless World Canada, Belgium,

Tactical Telecommunications leader in Telecommunications Telecommunications Sweden, Italy
Communications battlefield
Systems & communications
Networks
Telecommunications
Electromagnetics JESSI/MEDEA JESSI/ Antennas; MMIC; acoustic Canada

& Microwave/ programs; MEDEA MMIC wave devices;
Millimeter–Wave microwave tubes; programs; microwave tubes
Circuit antennas microwave Microwave
Integration tubes; antennas JESSI/MEDEA tubes; antennas
programs;
microwave tubes
Image Analysis & Image analysis; Target Sensors Sensors Russia Sweden
Information target recognition; recognition;
Fusion sensors sensors
Image analysis; Image analysis Airborne radar
target recognition 3rd–generation
Image image
intensifier tubes Italy
analysis Target
recognition
Sensors; target
recognition; image
analysis
Israel
Sensors; target
recognition; image
analysis

Minimum JESSI/MEDEA JESSI/ JESSI/MEDEA MMIC; NLOs; Russia Europe

Energy, programs; NLOs; MEDEA programs; antennas; low–power devices
Low–Power antennas; programs; low–power devices
Electronics, & NLOs JESSI/MEDEA
low–power devices NLOs; antennas;
Signal Processing low–power research
devices
a. Solid–State Devices and Components
Research in solid–state devices concentrates on the development of novel, robust, reliable multifunctional ultrafast/ultradense
electronic, photonic, and optoelectronic components and architectures. This includes the design of nanoscale and microscale
devices based on new physical principles of operation leading to expanded functionality, greater packing density, and devices
capable of operation at terahertz speeds. Basic research continues in an effort to develop new families of devices that operate at
high speeds and at extremely low power levels. Japan and a number of European countries, through their JESSI/MEDEA
program, are active in this area.
b. Mobile, Wireless Tactical Communications Systems and Networks
Battlefield communications continues to be an application of great interest, as the need for real–time battlefield information
becomes more critical. A number of countries have developed extensive research capabilities in niche areas ranging from C3 to
networking, switching, and transmission. The United Kingdom, France, Japan, and Germany are world leaders in this area.
Canada, Belgium, Sweden, and Italy have significant niche capabilities.
c. Electromagnetics and Microwave/Millimeter–Wave Circuit Integration
Microwave/MMW circuit integration helps to satisfy the need for improved communications, radar, and seeker systems. Other
direct applications, including novel antenna arrays and optical control of circuits, support the "digitized" battlefield. Japan, with its
research in MMIC devices and acoustic wave devices, is a leader in applicable areas. Again, European countries are involved
through the JESSI/MEDEA consortium. Canada and Italy have significant niche capabilities.
d. Image Analysis and Information Fusion
Image analysis and target recognition are critical to maintaining superior U.S. forces. This involves the full energy spectrum: IR,
visible, and radar. Research also addresses the fusion of the vast quantities of information on the digital battlefield generated by
sensors that may be IR, visible, or radar. The United Kingdom, Japan, France, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Italy, and Israel are
active in these areas.
e. Minimum Energy, Low–Power Electronics, and Signal Processing
Low–power electronics are critical for the lightweight prime power sources and man–portable systems of the near future. For
these systems, it is necessary to develop a new generation of design rules for electronics that operate with minimum energy
requirements and dissipate very low direct current power. This research will address highly efficient and low direct current power
consumption digital and RF circuits and solid–state devices. Japan has extensive experience in this area and is considered a world
leader. Several countries in Europe, including the U.K., France, and Germany, have developing capabilities.
The following highlight a few selected examples of specific facilities engaged in electronics research:

France—French–Japanese Integrated Micromecatronic Systems Laboratory. LIMMS was formed in 1995 by the (French)
National Scientific Research Center and Tokyo University’s Institute for Industrial Sciences. Researchers there have successfully
combined silicon micromachining, integrated circuits, and microrobotic technologies, resulting in the completion of novel silicon
microactuators. Further work has been done in pivoting–mirrors and evanescent–wave optical switchers, actuators that permit
control of linear displacement in two dimensions, and pivot–mounted "patch" antennas. The overall goal of the laboratory is to
advance current technology toward full autonomous microsystem capabilities.
England—The Terahertz Integrated Technology Initiative (TinTin). TinTin is a consortium of Bath, Nottingham, and Reading
universities in the U.K., British Aerospace (BAe), the Max Plank Institute in Stuttgart, Germany, and IBM in Zurich. Its research
is focused on developing micromachined integrated terahertz systems, imaging array development, and the characterization of
satellite components for various space organizations, including NASA. The overall task is directed at the development of terahertz
(THz) waveguides and devices for operation in the 600 GHz to 1.6 THz range.
Switzerland—Swiss Electronics and Microelectronics Center (CSEM). CSEM specializes in developing low–consumption
dedicated circuits. Recently, it has developed a high–speed, 8–bit reduced instruction set computer (RISC) microprocessor core.
This new technology can perform 5,000 million instructions per second per watt (MIPS/W), or 40 times higher than current 8–bit
complex instruction set computer processors. These cores, called CoolRISC, are as small as 0.4 mm2 in 1–micron complementary
metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS), so they are well suited for space limited, very–low–power consumption circuits. The
CoolRISC has already led to development of an 8–bit microcontroller with 5,000 MIPS/W computing power at 10 hertz and
under 3 volt.
Japan—Atmospheric Electromagnetic Wave Research Center, Kyoto University. This joint research team with Nissan Motor
Corporation has been investigating the transmission of electric power by microwave. They have successfully lit a lamp using this
technology. Additionally, Kyoto University and the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science were successful in flying a model
airplane using microwave. Research is now under way into the possibility of recharging an electric car while in motion.
Norway—SensoNor. SensoNor is world leader in the development of silicon MEMS devices, including pressure transducers and
accelerometers, for automotive, medical, and industrial applications. These devices have already been implemented in a number
of systems, including automotive crash sensors for airbag deployment. Current research is aimed at improving the reliability and
sensitivity of the sensors, and integrating multiple devices in a single MEMS system.

Table E–30 summarizes international research capabilities in each major subarea of mechanical sciences.
a. Structures and Dynamics
The area of structures and dynamics consists of structural dynamics and simulation and air vehicle dynamics. Within structural
dynamics, priority research applies to ground vehicle and multibody dynamics, structural damping, and smart structures. The
goal of significant vibration reduction in Army vehicles offers substantial increases in weapons platform stability, weapons system
reliability, weapons lethality, and crew performance. Within air vehicle dynamics, priority research applies to integrated
aeromechanics analysis, rotorcraft numerical analysis, helicopter blade loads and dynamics, and projectile elasticity. In solid
mechanics, research areas are the mechanical behavior of materials, integrity and reliability of structures, and tribology. These
contribute to damage tolerance, damage control, and life prediction, while tribology contributes to lubrication, dynamic friction,
and low–heat rejection.
In the field of structures and dynamics, the U.K., Germany, Italy, France, and Japan all demonstrate world–class capabilities in
smart/active structures and M&S development. India, South Korea, China, Brazil, Israel, South Africa, Poland, Russia, and
Ukraine all demonstrate potential future capabilities in the same area. However, the potential of Russia and Ukraine appears to be
dwindling because of lack of resources. The U.K. also demonstrates a world–class capability in structural acoustic research and
development.
Table E–30. International Research Capabilities—Mechanical Sciences

Kingdom
Structures & Smart/ Smart/ Smart/ Smart/ India, China, Russia, Ukraine Italy
Dynamics active active active active South Korea
structures; structures; M&S structures; M&S structures; M&S
structural Smart/ Smart/active structures;
acoustics; M&S Smart/ active M&S
active structures; M&S
structures; M&S
Brazil, Israel, South Africa,
Poland
Smart/active structures;
M&S
Fluid CFD; CFD; CFD; Russia, Ukraine Canada

Dynamics theoretical theoretical Experimental theoretical
CFD CFD
CFD;
Experimental Experimental theoretical Experimental Australia
Experimental;
theoretical
Experimental; theoretical

Combustion Small GT; Small GT; South Korea Russia Canada, Australia
& Propulsion reciprocating solid gun Reciprocating Reciprocating
engines; solid/ engines; solid engines
liquid gun gun Solid gun; Novel gun Solid gun; reciprocating
reciprocating propulsion engines; small GT
Reciprocating Solid/liquid engine
engines Small GT gun; small GT
Small GT;
South Korea,
reciprocating
India
engine
Solid gun
b. Fluid Dynamics
Basic research in fluid dynamics can directly contribute to advances in predicting the capabilities of maneuvering projectiles.
Future advances would enhance the ability to predict the capabilities of smart munitions, integrated propulsion systems, flight
dynamics, guidance and control, and structural dynamics within the Army. Fluid dynamics research priority areas are unsteady
aerodynamics, aeroacoustics, and vortex dominated flows. Complementary research on CFD of multibody aerodynamics would
provide a capability to predict and define submunition dispensing systems. Multidisciplinary research in this area will lead to
hypervelocity launch technology as well as low speed military delivery systems.
A balanced world–class capability in the theoretical, experimental and CFD elements of fluid dynamics research is not resident in
any single foreign country. There are a number of examples of world–class capability in specific areas of research that hold
promise for military applications. CFD studies in the U.K., France, and Japan can contribute significantly to missile, rotor, and
explosive design. France and Japan also excel in theoretical ability and Japan also exhibits excellent experimental ability. The U.K.,
France, and Germany are maintaining a mature experimental capability. Both Russia and Ukraine have had mature experimental
and theoretical ability; however, they show a declining capability, largely due to a lack of resources.
c. Combustion and Propulsion
Combustion and propulsion research supports advanced technology development providing continued advancement in small
gas turbine engine propulsion, reciprocating engine propulsion, and solid, liquid, and novel gun propulsion technology. The
development of high–performance small gas turbine engines requires basic research in turbomachinery stall and surge, as well as
advances in CFD simulation. These basic research areas directly contribute to highly loaded, efficient turbomachinery
components. This type of research is necessary to meet the integrated high–performance turbine engine technology goals of a 120
percent increase in turboshaft power–to–weight ratio. Reciprocating engine technology research tends to move forward at a more
evolutionary pace with advances in ultra–low heat rejection, enhanced air utilization, and cold start phenomena as priority areas.
Solid gun propulsion technology requires research priority to be placed on ignition and combustion dynamics and high
performance solid propellant charge concepts. Liquid gun propulsion requires priority research in atomization and spray
combustion, ignition and combustion mechanisms, and combustion instability, hazards and vulnerability. Novel gun propulsion
depends on ECT propulsion, active control mechanisms, and novel ignition mechanisms.
In the combustion and propulsion area, the U.K. and France both demonstrate world–class capabilities in small gas turbine
engine development. Canada, Germany, and Japan approach this level of capability in limited areas, but show good potential over
the next decade to make significant contributions to small gas turbine power–to–weight ratio improvement. Germany leads in
reciprocating engine development technology with Japan also demonstrating world–class capability. Both countries particularly
excel in the application of ceramic materials to low heat rejection technology. The U.K. also demonstrates excellent reciprocating

engine development capability, with France, Canada, Australia, and South Korea exhibiting good future potential. Russia and
Ukraine both have demonstrated mature capability in the past, however, limited resources reflect a declining future potential.
Novel gun propulsion technology leadership is still maintained by Russia, however, its future growth potential may be muted.
Liquid gun propulsion development technology is led by the U.K., with Japan showing significant potential. Solid gun propulsion
development technology is resident in a number of countries, including the U.K., France, Germany, Canada, and Australia. Japan
and South Africa both demonstrate significant future potential.
The following highlight a few selected examples of specific facilities engaged in mechanical sciences research:
Europe—Optical Sensing Technologies for Intelligent Composites (OSTIC). The European community organized the OSTIC
project to explore the developing field of "smart technologies." The participants include Strathclyde University and AEA Harwell
Co. in England, Italy’s CIS and Allenia Corp., EDF in France, and Germany’s MBB Corp. This research is focused on health
monitoring by fiber optical embedding in composites, airplane maintenance surveillance systems, signal processing, and neural
network processing and device technologies.
Germany—German Aerospace Research Establishment (DLR). The DLR constitutes seven research centers and 26 institutes. Its
mission is to develop new technologies, perform scientific investigations, and test materials and equipment s in cooperation with
numerous national and international industries and universities. Specific institutes include the Institute of Fluid Mechanics, the
Institute of Structural Mechanics, and the Institute for Structures and Design. Its basic research focus is on aviation, space flight,
and energy technology. Current research includes studies in structural control in relation to vibrational control for space
structures, fixed–wing planes, and helicopters.
France—Aerospatiale Space and Defense. Aerospatiale has expertise in the field of computational fluid mechanics. In particular, it
excels at numerical modeling of rarefied gases, modeling of moving bodies, and modeling of viscous reactive flows for complex
geometries not in chemical or vibrational equilibrium. Aerospatiale is responsible for proposing and carrying out design analysis
on such systems as launchers, missiles, satellites, and space capsules. Research projects are multidisciplinary and are typically
about 10 years in duration.
Japan—Engineering Research Association for a Supersonic/Hypersonic Transport Propulsion System Project. The Japanese
government’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization established a project which has the goal of
developing the technologies needed for the production of a supersonic commercial jetliner that has a low–noise propulsion
system, good fuel consumption, low levels of exhaust emissions, and has the ability to reach speeds of Mach 5. Its research is
focused on ramjets, high–performance turbojets, measurement and control systems, and ultra–high–temperature generators.
United Kingdom—Aerophysics, Defense Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). Aerophysics is a part of the DERA Weapon
Systems Sector. It executes a coordinated program of R&D in the areas of aerophysics and hypersonic flows. Within the section,
an integrated group of experimental and computational scientists and engineers, with a wide variety of technical expertise and
backgrounds, work closely together. Notable ongoing research is in the field of plasma aerodynamics. A joint U.K. DERA/
Ministry of Defense (MoD) research initiative to examine FSU claims of significant drag reduction with applications to aircraft
and missiles is currently under way.

Much present and future basic research in the atmospheric sciences focuses on the atmospheric boundary layer where the Army
operates at high time and spatial resolution. The proliferation of sensing satellites, ground weather collection sites, and advances in
M&S have brought about a significant capability to predict local and regional weather. Much remains to be done to provide the
needed lower atmospheric data to support the rapid increase of smart and brilliant weapons whose operation can be affected by
weather phenomena. Work in propagation, remote sensing, and boundary layer meteorology will contribute significantly to
understanding lower atmospheric phenomenology. Table E–31 shows most of the industrialized countries have capabilities in
certain niches of these research areas.
a. Propagation and Remote Sensing
These research thrusts stress fundamental understanding of the atmospheric boundary layer and the processes of its interaction
with the natural ground surface. These issues have direct bearing on CBD, atmospheric effects on weapon systems and operations,
and predictability of atmospheric conditions. Remote sensing of wind fields enables detection of hazardous winds in aircraft
landing zones, paradrop zones, and accidental release of hazardous gases or aerosols. Active and passive remote sensing research
is essential to detection of objects in snow or on the ground, modeling and rapid detection of natural and manmade features,
including camouflage, and MMW propagation at low grazing angles over and through a variety of vegetation.
The United States and Russia have been sharing space solar flare radiation data, which has aided in better prediction of
communication and GPS navigation variances due to atmospheric scintillation in the equatorial and polar regions of the world.
The flow of both weather data and research information to all members of the World Meteorological Organization is well
established and for the foreseeable future this collaboration will continue. The U.K. and Germany have advanced programs in
global and regional weather prediction. Japan has advanced work ongoing in ionosphere and troposphere interactions and
predictions. France and Russia have wide technology coverage as well, with significant programs in atmospheric phenomenology.
Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Brazil, Israel, and China have narrower coverage, but can still make substantial contributions
in niche areas.
Table E–31. International Research Capabilities—Atmospheric Sciences

Kingdom
Propagation Atmospheric Ionosphere China Russia Canada

& Remote Atmospheric electricity–aircraft Atmospheric & troposphere
Sensing backscatter; interactions; IR environmental interactions &
global & prediction Upper Solar flare Ice flow & weather
physics of the predictions
regional atmosphere atmosphere prediction; prediction; tracer technology
weather testing atmospheric for atmospheric dispersion
prediction spectral
transmissivity
Netherlands
IR celestial background
Denmark

Polar/cap & aerial

ionosphere interactions
Brazil
Weather & ionosphere

experiments
Israel
LIDAR measurements
Boundary Low–level Low–level Tropical Russia Canada

Layer weather weather cyclone; urban
Meteorology prediction prediction pollution
Low–level Atmospheric dispersion
weather technology
prediction
Israel
Low–level weather
prediction
Denmark
Atmospheric turbulence
Italy, Poland
Atmospheric physics
b. Boundary Layer Meteorology
Boundary layer meteorology research improves characterization of boundary layer processes over land in weather prediction
models. It also supports multiple functions of the Army’s integrated meteorological system in intelligence preparation of the
battlefield. Research in turbulent dispersion of aerosols and gases leads to a significantly improved dispersion model applicable to
open detonation/open burning of munitions; improved prediction of transport and diffusion of NBC materials on short time and
space scales, over varied terrain shapes and ground covers, and all times of day; and modeling effectiveness of smoke and other
obscurants in realistic scenarios.
Many countries have focused their weather development programs on regional issues, such as Japan in pollution monitoring of
tropical cyclones. Results of these efforts will have multiple applications across the full spectrum of weather modeling and
prediction. The U.K., France, Israel, Germany, Japan, and Russia have strong technology coverage in low–level weather
prediction. Canada has significant capability in the development of atmospheric dispersion technology, while Italy, Poland, and
Denmark have niche capabilities in areas of atmospheric physics.
The following highlight a few selected examples of specific research facilities engaged in work in the atmospheric sciences:

United Kingdom—Center for Marine and Atmospheric Science (CMAS), University of Sunderland. CMAS is the U.K.’s newest
center entirely focused on meteorological studies. Research is primarily done in the areas of cloud and aerosol physics. The center
originated in the atmospheric physics program at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology and
continues to maintain close contact. It is composed of a rather small group of tightly focused researchers whose main focus is on
the formation and evolution of marine aerosols. Additional research is done on aerosol impact on boundary layer optical
propagation and climate.
United Kingdom—Department of Meteorology, University of Reading. The university houses the United Kingdom’s largest
academic meteorology program. The research program has two main thrusts, global scale atmospheric dynamics and synoptic
and mesoscale meteorology, with smaller thrusts in radar meteorology, radiative transfer, tropical satellite data applications,
atmospheric chemistry, and oceanography. Research in boundary layers and micrometeorology includes work on flow over hills
and the development of new instruments that apply acoustic thermographic techniques to measure humidity. Other programs
include atmospheric modeling, studies into the behavior of tropical cyclones, and cloud and precipitation research.
Italy—Institute of the Physics of the Atmosphere. The institute is CNR, Italy’s largest institute devoted to atmospheric research.
Work here is primarily involved in atmospheric research, with thrust areas including remote sensing, polar stratus, and
atmospheric dynamics. Remote sensing studies include the use a spectrum of sensors from the visible through the RFs, including
LIDAR and Italy’s SODAR, to study the atmosphere, as well as satellite–based precipitation work. Work in atmospheric
dynamics concentrates largely on modeling to study mesoscale regional dynamics.
Poland—Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Engineering Systems, Meteorology and Air Pollution
Division. Research focuses on boundary layer meteorology, numerical modeling of atmospheric processes, environmental aspects
of energy production, and air pollution. Past projects include the development of a mesoscale dispersion modeling system for
pollution and radioactive wastes, and the development of a short–range air pollution predicting system for small geographical
areas. Current work includes developing techniques for wind energy assessment in regions of complex topography, work on an
operational mesoscale weather prediction system, and tropospheric chemistry modeling.

Basic research in terrestrial sciences studies terrain characteristics and processes, including topography, climatology, and
hydrology. These critically affect all aspects of mission planning, logistics, unit effectiveness, and system performance. Knowledge
of the topographic, geological, climatological, and hydrological character of the landscape are critical to mobility/
countermobility, logistics, communications, survivability, and troop and weapons effectiveness. The digital battlefield also
requires detailed and sophisticated information about topography as well as terrain and environmental features and conditions.
Terrestrial sciences research in two broad areas is of particular importance to Army goals: solid earth sciences, and
hydrodynamics and surficial processes. Table E–32 highlights international research capabilities in terrestrial sciences.
Table E–32. International Research Capabilities—Terrestrial Sciences

Kingdom
Solid Earth Retrofit Structural China, India Australia

Sciences materials Geotechnical response
systems materials
Geosciences
Sweden
Soil remediation
Canada
Italy
Hydrodynamics Hydrology · Hydrology India Russia Israel

& Surficial
Processes
Stochastic hydrology
China Canada
Hydrogeology
Australia
Netherlands

a. Solid Earth Sciences
This field contributes to the characterization of the surface geometry and terrain features needed for enhanced planning and
tactical decision making, as well as for designing equipment to the challenges of the natural environment. Research in topography
and terrain seeks to develop new remote sensing data acquisition capabilities, data synthesis, and analysis techniques to develop
topography and terrain database information. This work is supported by studies of the dynamic physical processes involved in the
interactions between surface features and materials and the atmospheric boundary layer and weather systems, in order to produce
highly sophisticated models of dynamic environmental effects on mission performance. Geotechnical engineering research
focuses on the strength and behavior of natural materials under a variety of external forces, both natural and manmade. This
includes studies of the properties of snow, ice, and frozen ground, as well as soil dynamics and structural mechanics.
International capabilities in areas related to Army goals include research on retrofit material systems in the U.K., geotechnical
materials research in France, and precision experiments in structural response in Germany. Many other countries have significant
capabilities in niche areas of solid earth sciences, including Australia, Japan, India, Canada, Italy, Sweden, and China.
b. Hydrodynamics and Surficial Processes
Basic research in hydrodynamics relates to the hydrologic cycle and focuses on hydrometeorology, rainfall/runoff dynamics, and
fluvial hydraulics as well as the relationship between surface and groundwater hydrology. Research in surficial processes relates to
the geomorphological character of the surficial environment, primarily the physical processes operating in arid/semiarid, tropical,
and coastal environments. This work contributes to the ability to estimate hydrologic and physical response and, therefore, to the
ability to accomplish specific activities within a range of expected environmental conditions. International capabilities in areas of
research related to Army goals include studies of hydrogeology in Israel and Canada, and magnetohydrodynamics and hydrology
work in France and the United Kingdom. Other countries with active basic research programs in this area include Japan,
Australia, India, China, Russia, and the Netherlands.
The following highlight a few selected examples of specific facilities engaged in terrestrial sciences research:
United Kingdom—Department of Engineering Science, Oxford University. Research includes work in reinforced soil design
aimed at calculations and design methods for practical application. These methods stem from the understanding of behavior
developed through laboratory research and instrumented field experiments. These studies can contribute to selection of design
safety parameters for reinforced soil, including the use of polymer reinforcement materials. Work has recently been focused on
the use of reinforcement over poor ground for the construction of embankments and unpaved roads. New analyses have been
developed for both cases, using plasticity theory for the embankment and a limit equilibrium analysis for unpaved roads.
Sweden—Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Royal Institute of Technology. Research in electrokinetic
remediation attempts to develop new technologies for soil remediation. This process applies a low–level direct current to the
polluted soil by electrodes placed in the ground to remove inorganic and organic contaminants from the soil by dissociation. This
low–cost process can be used in a variety of soil types and is applicable equally to coarse– and fine–grained soils. The specific goal
of the research effort is to study the transport and chemistry in the electrokinetic process and to improve the electrokinetic
remediation technology.
Israel—Department of Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer, Tel Aviv University. Research includes work in theory of flow
through porous media and groundwater hydrology. Other activities involve the modeling of water flow and contaminant

transport in the upper soil layer and in aquifers. Subjects of environmental concern such as transport of radioactive waste in highly
heterogeneous formations, motion of chemically reactive contaminants, and modeling of multiphase flows at field scale are
planned for investigation in the coming years, as well as research on the impact of uncertainty on hydrological prediction.
Canada—National Hydrology Research Institute. Hydrologic model development and applications research concentrates on the
hydrology of northern regions in both the arctic and subarctic regions of Canada. Current distributed hydrologic models are used
to estimate components of the hydrologic cycle in two specific test regions. This approach utilizes detailed, satellite–derived
land–cover information, along with physiographic and climate data. To advance this research, new modeling techniques that can
be applied in distributed hydrologic models are being developed. Other research efforts include work to incorporate permafrost
components in these models and characterization of snow cover distribution.
Russia—Hydrometeorological Centre of Russia. The main directions of research include studies of regional and mesoscale
hydrometeorological processes; modeling of ocean processes, the study of ocean–atmosphere interaction and the interaction of
atmosphere with hydrological processes over the land, and development of new methods for hydrometeorological forecasting
within different time scales. One specific program involves mathematical modeling to develop systems of long–range forecasts of
hydrological regime of large chains of reservoirs and methods of forecasting hazardous events on mountain rivers. This approach
rationalizes calculations and long–range forecasts of freezing and break–up of rivers and reservoirs and discharge hydrographs of
mountain rivers using precipitation and temperature data.

Basic research efforts in the medical sciences related to military missions address four areas: infectious diseases of military
significance, combat casualty care, Army operational medicine, and medical CBD. The first relates to protection/prophylaxis of
personnel deployed to a mission area from indigenous organisms or to biological agents; the second to care of personnel
following acute injury; the third to enhancers/sustainers of performance in the field; the fourth to treatment and care of persons
following exposure to biological agents. These areas of investigation are dual use and impact general health care delivery, although
the military aspects often differ from civilian concerns in several critical instances. For example, deployed military personnel may
be more susceptible than indigenous populations to infectious agents because of a lack of prior exposure. Also, developing novel
means useful in delaying onset of clinical disease in the face of the physically and mentally demanding nature of combat is of
critical importance, as incapacitating military forces for short periods may have profound effects on the outcome of operations.
Table E–33 summarizes international capabilities in medical research.
a. Infectious Diseases of Military Significance
Basic research in infectious diseases of military significance concentrates on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious
diseases affecting readiness and deployment.
The Human Genome project has identified those gene profiles that render specific populations more susceptible to disease than
other populations. This project is a multinational effort spearheaded by the United States, EC, and Japan; the information is freely
available on the Internet. Novel combinatorial chemistry strategies have allowed the synthesis of nonpeptide molecules that bind
gene fragments, receptors, or cell proteins and thereby offer the potential of protection against threat agents. These same materials
also may provide utility in multiarray sensors used for the detection of biological agents. Combinatorial chemistry strategies are
being pursued in many developed nations through the pharmaceutical sector. Switzerland, Sweden, and Israel have expertise in
these areas, as do the above–mentioned nations.
b. Combat Casualty Care
The critical areas of care for combat casualties in the next decade include treatment for fluid loss and accompanying shock,
management of impact injury on the nervous system including the spinal cord, increased susceptibility to infection at points of
projectile entry because of stress related events, and prevention of biological agent dissemination by friendly forces exposed to
agents. Biocompatible materials that bind oxygen and have utility as blood expanding agents are in development in the U.S., EC,
and Japan. Cellular growth factors acting on neural tissues have been found to stimulate the repair of transected spinal cord and
other central nervous system regions. Macromolecular growth factors, acting on tissues other than the nervous system, have been
shown to enhance the rate of wound healing and to increase resistance to disease. This research is actively explored in the the
United States, Canada, Germany, the U.K., France, Japan, Israel, Italy, and Sweden.
Table E–33. International Research Capabilities—Medical Research

Rim

Infectious Human genome & disease susceptibility Human China Human Switzerland
Diseases of genome & genome &
Military disease disease
Significance Nonpeptic antivirals susceptibility susceptibility Human genome & disease
Nonpeptic susceptibility; vaccines
antivirals
Rapid diagnosis Nonpeptic Switzerland, Sweden, Israel, Italy,
antivirals Nonpeptic Netherlands
Rapid antivirals
Vaccines diagnosis
Rapid Nonpeptic antivirals
diagnosis Rapid
Delivery of vaccines post exposure diagnosis
Switzerland, Sweden, Israel, Italy,
Delivery of Netherlands
vaccines post
exposure
Rapid diagnosis
Switzerland, Sweden, Israel,

Netherlands
Delivery of vaccines post

exposure
Combat Manage acute trauma shock (blood loss, CNS Manage China Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Israel
Casualty change, & perfusion) acute trauma
Care shock (blood
loss, CNS Manage Manage acute trauma shock
Pharmacology of wound healing & CNS injury repair change, & acute trauma (blood loss, CNS change, &
perfusion) shock (blood perfusion)
loss, CNS
Containment of personnel & equipment after change, &
Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Israel
exposure (containment pods & telemedicare) perfusion)
Pharmacology
of wound Pharmacology of wound
healing & CNS healing & CNS injury repair
injury repair Pharmacology
of wound
healing & Italy, Sweden, Israel
CNS injury
repair
¶ Containment of personnel &
equipment after exposure
(containment pods &
telemedicare)
Army Biomarkers Biomarkers Biomarkers Israel, Sweden

Operational for toxicant for toxicant for toxicant Countermeasure
Medicine exposure (GST, exposure (GST, exposure (GST, to intense noise
P450, acute P450, acute P450, acute Biomarkers for toxicant
phase proteins) phase proteins) phase proteins) exposure (GST, P450, acute
phase proteins)
Nutrient Nutrient Sweden

additives Countermeasure additives
to intense noise
Nutrient additives
Countermeasure Countermeasure
to intense noise to intense noise Israel, Sweden
Countermeasure to intense
noise

Medical Immune response enhancers (interferor, interlukin) Taiwan Immune Sweden, Israel, Switzerland,
Chemical response Netherlands
and enhancers
Biological Intracellular transport molecules (M proteint) Enhance (interferor,
Defense uptake of interlukin) Immune response enhancers
drups to cells (interferor, interlukin)
Block viral docking & replication (Botox)
Enhance
uptake of Intracellular transport
China drups to cells
Enhance uptake of drups to cells (Botox) molecules (M proteint)
(Botox)
Immune
Block viral docking &
response
replication
enhancers
(interferor,
interlukin) Enhance uptake of drups to
cells (Botox)
c. Army Operational Medicine
Basic research within the Army operational medicine research area provides a basic understanding of the pathophysiology of
environmental and occupational threats affecting soldier health and performance. In addition to the risks to health and
performance from operations in extreme climatic environments, and the rigors imposed by military operations in and of
themselves (e.g., sleep deprivation, jet lag, stress), operation of Army systems may present additional health hazards (e.g., EM
radiation, noise, vibration, blast, and toxic chemical by–products).
Biomarkers for toxicant exposure in humans and animals have been identified as materials that are body catalysts and enzymes
that serve to detoxify chemicals. The absence of some of these normally occurring enzymes in specific persons has been shown to
increase susceptibility to disease. It is now possible to screen blood and urine samples and determine the concentration of these
biomarkers in selected persons. It is likely that biomarker profiles will have utility in selection of persons resistant to toxicants (for
special operations) and for reviewing fitness for duty. The Human Genome project is likely to increase the number of
biomolecules that can serve as biomarkers for exposure. The United States, Canada, EC, and Japan have expertise in this area.
d. Medical, Chemical and Biological Defense
Foreign efforts in medical chemical defense closely parallel those in medical biological defense. For the most part, countries that
are engaged in one are also active in the other. The one exception for countries listed is the Netherlands. The Dutch effort in
medical chemical defense is not as extensive as in medical biological defense. All countries listed have world leading capabilities
and none is expected to pull ahead of the others.
Normally occurring biomolecules have now been identified that enhance or degrade the immune response of persons to
infectious material or to toxins. These materials are called biological response modifiers (BRMs). Treatment with novel BRMs, of
military forces who may have been exposed to pathogenic agents as a consequence of deployment or through biological agent
attack, may enhance the survival or sustain the performance of the affected personnel. In the past few years, it has been shown that
transport of infectious materials across cell membranes is a critical element in viral replication and maturation. Chemical
treatment that interferes with the ability of a virus to bind to a target cell or with intracellular transport can impede viral
multiplication and infectivity; such treatments may sustain performance of affected personnel for long periods after exposure to
such agents. The United States, Japan, France, the U.K., Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands are leaders in this area.

The following highlight a few selected examples of specific facilities engaged in medical research:
Russia—State Scientific and Technical Program. Organized through the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, the program has
developed of number of R&D projects unified in six thrust areas. These include development of medicinal substances to regulate
immune processes, development of agents affecting hemostasis processes, computer designing of new medicinal substances, and
pharmacokinetic and biopharmaceutical principles of improvement in medicinal preparations. The program oversees the
collaboration of over 3,500 specialists and 75 organizations, including the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of
Medical Sciences, the Russian Federation (RF) Ministry of Health Care, and the medical industry. Recent research results include
the development of a number of medicinal substances that regulate immune responses, including antitumoral agents,
immunomodulating agents, and antiarrythmic preparations.
Japan—Chemical Research Center. The Cytoprotein Network project involves the codification of human proteins through the
synthesis of full–length cDNA rather than fragments. This technique produces proteins both in vitro and in vivo directly from
full–length cDNA clones and is thus able to rapidly identify a large number of proteins as well as the genes that are coded for
them. The functions of some of these 10,000–20,000 intracellular proteins (cytoproteins) are known. Many of them have a
maintenance function, whereas others are specific to certain cells. Research to better understand them, their movements (by
tagging the proteins with fluorescent markers) and functions is concentrated into three areas. These include the cloning of
full–length cDNAs, a search for novel sorting signal sequences, and in vitro translation of cDNAs to find receptors and their
ligands.
France—National Health and Medical Research Institute (INSERM). INSERM was founded in 1964 as France’s central agency
for health research. It performs basic and applied research, technical development, and medical surveys. The primary objective of
INSERM is to participate actively in biomedical research in order to increase knowledge of human health and thereby improve
the diagnosis, therapy, and prevention of illness. Its supplementary missions include applications development, information
exchange, research training, and international relations. INSERM participates in a number of European Science Foundation
programs, including projects on environmental and health, the European Neuroscience Programme, molecular neurobiology of
mental illness, and toxicology programs.
United Kingdom—Department of Medical Microbiology, University of London. Research in this department within St.
Bartholomew’s and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry has thrusts in microbial pathogenicity, antibiotics, and
molecular epidemiology. The microbial pathogenicity research group studies the molecular and genetic basis of microbial
infection and attempts to apply this knowledge to clinical problems. Specific research focuses on the fundamental pathogenic
properties of enteric pathogens. Within this area, individual projects focus on the genetic regulation of virulence, bacterial host
cell interactions and the development of vaccines and vaccine delivery systems. Future goals include the exploitation of available
genome sequence data from several bacterial pathogens with a view to the development of improved vaccines, diagnostic,
epidemiological and therapeutic agents.
Japan—National Cancer Center. Located in Tokyo, Japan, this center is developing applications of VR technology in medicine. It
specializes in medical imaging and development of enhanced VR tools for image–guided surgery. Research goals include
improving patient amenity with VR and the development of new diagnosis methods for medical imaging using VR technology.
These VR systems have several advantages for surgical applications, including ease of repetition of medical procedures,
application of surgical experiences to develop models from individual patients’ medical images, self–training on surgical
procedure in real time, and objective evaluation by remote supervisors.

Basic research in the biological sciences contributes directly to a knowledge of food production in deployed areas, production of
potable water, protection of military personnel from infectious agents in a deployed region, production of sensors for CB agents,
reduction of signatures to increase stealth, and the production of materials useful in communications, sensing, and self–assembly.
Biomaterials have the ability to self–assemble (phospholipids), transduce light and pressure to electrical signals, and encode large
amounts of information in very small areas or volumes (the entire genetic information for a human resides in each cell nucleus
that has a diameter of 5 micrometers or less).
Table E–34 summarizes international research capabilities in the technical areas of biological sciences. These include
biochemistry, biophysics, and molecular biology, microbiology, physiology, and pharmacology, biodegradative processes, food
science, and bioscience. Biochemistry, biophysics, and molecular biology examine the structural and functional properties of
biopolymers (such as DNA and RNA) involved in information storage, the catalytic properties of proteins that function as
enzymes, and the recognition properties of proteins that function as antibodies and receptors. Microbiology, physiology, and
pharmacology areas concern the role of intact cells, cell membranes, and ion fluxes
Table E–34. International Research Capabilities—Biological Sciences

Kingdom
Biochemistry, Genome Genome Russia Netherlands

Biophysics, & Combinatorial project; Combinatorial project;
Molecular chemistry; receptor chemistry; receptor
Biology Genome characterization Genome characterization; Transducer Transducer molecules;
project; project; NMR molecules; NMR
receptor receptor receptor
characterization; characterization characterization
Israel
NMR
Receptor
characterization
Australia, Israel
Combinatorial chemistry
China
Surface characterization
Korea, Brazil

Microbiology, Microbial Nutrient Sensing Visual Russia PRC

Physiology, & products for additives mechanisms; sensing;
Pharmacology nutrition; stress nutrient metabolic
resistance additives products All areas Nutrient additives;
biological response modifiers
Biodegradative Russia Israel

Process Bioremediation Bioremediation Bioremediation; Bioremediation
water
purification All areas Bioremediation; water
purification
Food Sciences Nutritional Nutritional Protein Protein Russia Netherlands, Switzerland

additives from additives from stabilizers; stabilizers
microbiological microbiological encapsulation;
products; products; shelf life; IR All areas Protein stabilizers;
protein protein irradiation encapsulation; sugar
stabilizers stabilizers modification
Biosciences PHB Energy Energy Russia Israel, Australia, Netherlands

plasticizer; transduction; transduction; Biomaterials for
energy biomaterials for biomaterials for tensile strength
transduction; tensile strength tensile strength All areas Energy transduction;
biomaterials for Biomaterials for tensile
tensile strength strength
across membranes in the operation of the intact organism. The biodegradative processes area addresses remediation of soil and
water to produce a potable end product, and reduce signatures. Food science investigates mechanisms to increase shelf life of food
and the nutritional quality of food. The bioscience area is concerned with the use of biopolymers as structural
materials—ceramics, silks, signal transducers, etc.
a. Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Molecular Biology
The Human Genome project utilizes biochemistry (combinatorial chemistry), biophysics, and molecular biology to explore
questions of intrinsic disease susceptibility in humans and crops. These technologies also reveal the nature of molecules that allow
viruses to infect cells and allow cells to communicate with each other (i.e., receptors). Since the effect of toxins on cells is a result
of their action on specific cell receptors, these technologies reveal how we can neutralize toxins. The Russians had developed
expertise in the use of biological toxins to deliver molecules to specific cells. The Russian capability has decreased in many of these
areas during the past 5 years, but still remains strong in targeted delivery (associated with MOD laboratories). The U.K., Canada,
Japan, EC, Taiwan, Russia, Sweden, China, Korea, Brazil, and Israel have capabilities in these areas. A number of nations have
strong programs in the characterization of biomolecules, for example surface characterization work in China, and nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) studies in Japan, the Netherlands, and the U.K.
b. Microbiology, Physiology, and Pharmacology
Microbiology, physiology, and pharmacology are essential sciences in the production of fermented and processed foods (bread,
yogurt, beer, and wine), of pharmaceuticals and human hormones (the latter using genetic engineering), and in evaluating human
performance (neural function and vital signs). The U.K., Japan, Germany, France, and Russia have a long tradition of expertise in
these areas. Hungary has an established capability in production of fermenters. China has a developing capability in nutrient
additives and biological response modifiers.
c. Biodegradative Process
Remediation of soils and water using biological organisms to metabolize contaminants has been an area of extensive research in

the past decade. The U.K., France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Russia, and Israel have expertise in this area,
with the U.K. and Israel particularly active in water purification.
d. Food Sciences
The preparation of nutritious, palatable foods with long shelf life and biodegradable containers is the focus of the fourth set of
technologies. This includes research in nutrient additives, protein stabilizers, and sugar modification, as well as the synthesis of
biopolymers for use as elastomers in food containers. Encapsulation and irradiation technologies have been used to increase shelf
life and encapsulation also increases palatability. Most EC nations and Japan have advanced food technology programs. Strong
capability in the use of biopolymers as packaging is primarily resides in the EC.
e. Biosciences
The use of biomaterials as structural elements or as models to construct nonbiological materials that function as biomimetics has
grown along with the demand for miniaturization. Polyhydroxybutyrate and silks are two examples of biomaterials with good
tensile properties. The U.K., France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, and Australia are developing advanced biomaterials for
energy transduction applications. New materials emerging from nanotube technology, ceramics based on marine shell structures,
and isolated bacterial rhodopsin (bR) have applications in signature reduction and information storage. Russia, in collaboration
with the former Former East Germany (FDR), utilized bR to construct a read/write device called biochrome. The reduction in
financial resources in the FSU has caused a decline in this capability. A biochrome material is currently available from Germany.
The U.K., Japan, France, the Netherlands, and Israel also have strong capabilities in this area.
The following highlight a few selected examples of specific facilities engaged in biological sciences research:
United Kingdom—Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). BBSRC supports basic and applied
research into the exploitation of biological systems and technologies for use in agriculture, bioprocessing, chemical, food, health
care, pharmaceutical, and other biotechnology industries. It supports a number of international collaborative efforts, including
the International Scientific Exchange Scheme for personal level collaboration, as well as broader memoranda of understanding
with most western European nations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. BBSRC also runs a number of world–class research
institutes. Among these is the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, which recently announced the cloning of a sheep, as well as the
Oxford University Centre for Molecular Sciences, a leader in research in protein molecules.
Belgium—Flanders Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology (VIB). VIB is a consortium of nine university research centers
aimed at stimulating research and promoting implementation of its results. The initial program has been funded for 5 years at
approximately 5 billion Belgian francs. A number of projects are also linked to industry (e.g., companies such as Plant Genetic
Systems, Innogenetics, and Antwerp Bionic Systems). Areas of research interest include molecular biology, gene therapy,
immunology, and neurogenetics.
Japan—Tsukuba Research Center. Located near Tokyo, Japan, the center is noted for expertise in NMR spectroscopy and
molecular surface structure studies. One institute within the center, the National Institute of Bioscience and Human Technology,
conducts leading and innovative research in the fields of bioscience and human technology. The institute now concentrates not
only on basic researches on biological chemistry, physics, biophysics, biotechnology, human engineering, and surface chemistry,
but also on development of advanced new technologies relating to energy, environmental, and medical applications.
Israel—Weizmann Institute. Located in Rehovet, Israel, the institute has expertise in sensor biopolymer components, thin films,
and self–assembly of biomaterials. A major area of activity concerns the crystallography of macromolecules and macromolecular
assemblies, including proteins, DNA, ribosomal particles, and their complexes. Dynamical aspects of protein structures and
interactions in solutions are studied by NMR in peptides, small proteins, and antibody/antigen complexes. The molecular
biological approach to structural biology is represented by research antibody/antigen interaction and chaperone activity. The
adaptation of organisms to extreme environment and the mechanism of muscular contraction are being investigated by

biophysical techniques.
Australia—Ship Structures and Materials Division (SSMD), Defence Science and Technology Organization. SSMD conducts
research into the defensive and disarmament aspects of CW agents, including detection of chemical agents, protective clothing,
respiratory protection, decontamination of personnel and equipment, and prophylaxis and therapy of poisoning. SSMD develops
methods to detect trace levels of relevant chemical residues and conducts research on rapid screening methods required for the
monitoring of chemical industry. SSMD’s program in food science focuses on the determination of the energy and nutritional
requirements of active military personnel, together with assessments of the nutritional values of feeding systems, and the effects of
long–term storage on flavor, texture, and nutrients of food.
China—University of Science and Technology (USTC). USTC, located in Hefei, Anhui Province, is a leading center for
biological research in Asia. The facility has world–class capabilities in synchrotron and laser chemistry programs for thin film
studies of biological materials. Academician Zhu heads the laser program. There is also a very good research program in the
analysis of protein structure by NMR.

Table E–35 summarizes international research capabilities in the four areas recognized by the Army behavioral, cognitive, and neural
sciences program: cognitive skills and abilities, perceptual processes, noncognitive skills and abilities, and leadership. Basic research in
these areas contributes directly to the ability of a soldier to analyze and act on information presented on a video display terminal
(multimodal display systems and iconography), training in virtual and constructed realities, and determining fitness for duty as well as
when training goals have been achieved.
Table E–35. International Research Capabilities—Behavioral, Cognitive, and Neural Sciences

Cognitive Distributed Distributed Distributed Iconograph Taiwan, Malaysia Distributed Israel,Sweden,

Skills & simulation & simulation & simulation & compatibility with simulation & Netherlands,
Abilities constructed reality constructed reality constructed reality human user constructed Canada
(U.S. ADS system) (U.S. ADS system) (U.S. ADS system) Distributed reality (U.S.
simulation & ADS system)
constructed reality Distributed
Iconograph Iconograph Iconograph (U.S. ADS system) simulation &
compatibility with compatibility with compatibility with constructed reality
human user human user human user (U.S. ADS system)
South Korea, China
Vital sign Vital sign Iconograph

Iconograph
remote remote compatibility with
compatibility with
human user
human user
Perceptual Multimodal data presentation (couple visual presentation on display panel with South Korea, China Multimodal Netherlands,
Processes auditory display) data Canada, Israel
presentation
Iconographic (couple visual
Iconographic compatibility with human user compatibility with presentation on Multimodal
human user display panel data presentation
with auditory (couple visual
display) presentation on
display panel with
auditory display)
Iconographic
compatibility
with human user
Noncognitive South Korea, Israel, Sweden,

Skills & Neurophysiological Neurophysiological Neurophysiological Neurophysiological China, Taiwan Pharmacological Netherlands,
Abilities measures of human measures of human measures of human measures of human performance Canada
performance performance performance performance sustainers
Neurophysiological
measures of human Stress Neurophysiological
Pharmacological Pharmacological Pharmacological Pharmacological performance reduction measures of human
performance performance performance performance performance
sustainers sustainers sustainers sustainers
Pharmacological
Stress reduction Stress reduction performance Pharmacological
Neuropsychological Neuropsychological sustainers performance
profile profile sustainers

Neuropsychological Neuropsychological
profile profile
Leadership Multinational Canada

force integration
a. Cognitive Skills and Abilities
The current era in C2 systems is characterized by acquisition of such large amounts of data simultaneously that processing of the
information is limited by perceptual processes of the human mind. To manage this reality, C3 systems have made progress in
iconographic representations and in multimodal data presentation by using auditory input to complement visual display systems.
Color–coded icons can be used to present complex data in a relatively simple manner. Auditory cues improve the operator’s
attentiveness and response to changing incoming data. Nonetheless, as our ability to sense battlefield conditions improves through the
use of multiarray sensors, the amount of information to be processed will increase dramatically. The task then is to present the large
volume of data in a compressed and comprehensible manner.
Research in cognitive skills and abilities concerns data, models, and theories relating to how individuals acquire, process, store, and use
information. Wide–ranging programs of basic research on skill acquisition, retention, and transfer are supported by most major
universities and research institutions in northern Europe and Canada. In addition, other countries provide opportunities for
collaboration on more narrowly defined topics within this area. An example is research in Israel concerning the identification and
transfer of basic cognitive skills to military flight training. Another is research on learning and using information from prose text, being
carried out in the Netherlands. Iconographic systems are under development in Canada, the EC, and Japan. The Netherlands, Israel,
and some Pacific Rim nations also have efforts in this area. The advent of computer–generated auditory and visual data presentation
modes led to advanced distributed simulation (ADS) techniques and programs. This allows multiforce operations to be imaged from
distributed sites. Such technology facilitates training activities and integration of activities across the services. The software and hardware
used in model systems are developed in Japan and the EC.
b. Perceptual Processes
Perceptual processes concern the reception and processing of sensory information. As true in the first research area, basic research on
human perception is supported by most major universities and research institutions in northern Europe and Canada. Again, other
countries also support perceptual processes on more specific topics within this area. Of particular interest to the Army is research in
Israel on methods and technologies for enhancing human perception and attention in complex situations.
c. Noncognitive Skills and Abilities
Researchers in this area examine the debilitating effects of stress on human performance. The effects of physical and psychological
fatigue on human performance have been examined in Canada and the U.K.. Another classic topic studied in Canada and northern
Europe is the vigilance of attention and performance. Other related subjects include the effects of age on driving performance (the
Netherlands) and the information processing in a space environment (Germany).
Unobtrusive measures of vital signs require miniaturized sensors (of blood pressure, respiration, electrical conductivity) and compact,
lightweight relay systems. The United States, Japan, the EC (including the Netherlands), and Asia and the Pacific Rim (including
Taiwan, South Korea, and Malaysia) have increasing capability in this area. Pharmacological performance sustainers (e.g., melatonin)
are being explored for efficacy. Nations with extensive programs in the pharmaceutical area or in processed foods have capabilities here.
These include the U.K., Japan, France, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany.

d. Leadership
Research in this area has not been as active as in previous decades. More than any of the other three areas, cultural differences among
countries may limit collaborative research efforts to those countries that share our basic concepts. For instance, the highly individualistic
and aggressive leadership style admired in the United States and other English–speaking countries may not be as relevant to other
countries that do not share the same cultural background. An exception, however, is leadership research in Japan, which dates back to
just after the end of World War II. For example, Japanese researchers have advanced the concept of performance–maintenance
leadership, which has had a substantial impact on U.S. research.
The following highlight a few selected examples of specific research facilities engaged in work in the behavioral, cognitive, and neural
sciences:
Israel—Department of Psychology, Hebrew University. The main areas of research include biopsychology, psychophysiology, cognitive
psychology, and social psychology. Psychophysiology research includes work on orientation reactions and habituation processes,
psychophysiological detection of information, and electrophysiological correlates of cognitive processes. Other work includes efforts to
understand and develop methods and technologies for enhancing human perception in complex situations. An example is the research
being done on attention and effort.
Canada—Human Performance Laboratory, York University. The laboratory is one of the seven research laboratories in the Institute for
Space and Terrestrial Science. Research in the laboratory is concerned with the human visual, auditory, vestibular, and somatosensory
systems, as well as with visual–vestibular relationships and sensory motor coordination. Empirical and computational research is
conducted at a fundamental level and in relation to human performance in aviation and space. Research includes work on the effects of
physical and psychological fatigue on human performance.
Netherlands—The Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research–Human Factors Research Institute (TNO–HFRI).
TNO–HFRI is a subdivision of TNO Defense Research specializing in knowledge on human factors and its application in the design of
human work and of adequate technical aids. The primary mission is to develop and apply human factors research in a high–technology
military environment and to promote efficient deployment of personnel and materials. Research thrusts include perception, information
processing, skilled behavior, and the work environment. Specific work of interest includes studies on the effects of age on driving
performance.
Japan—Department of Human Sciences, Kyushu University. Japanese research in leadership has a strong tradition, dating back to
World War II. This work helps to identify the essentials of successful leadership performance and to develop effective training
techniques for leadership skills. At Kyushu University, Misumi and his colleagues have developed a concept of
performance–maintenance leadership, which has had a substantial impact on worldwide research in the field.
Germany—Unit of Applied Cognitive Research, University of Dresden. This department has active research programs on problems of
information processing, including human–computer interaction, attention fixation, visualization of subjective attitudes toward complex
scenery and pictures, level–of–processing effects in memory tasks, neuroinformatics, and joint attention effect in communication. The
unit employs many experimental techniques, including measurement of eye movements with high–speed and head–free eyetrackers,
gaze–dependent image processing and online control of experiments, and analysis of data using ANNs.

D. Abbreviations
2D two dimensional
AI artifical intelligence
AMC Army Materiel Command
ANN artificial neural network
APGM advanced precision–guided munition
ATM asynchronous transfer mode
ATR automatic target recognition
AUTOVON Next–Generation Autonomous Navigation System
BC2 battlespace command and control

BD biological detector
BIDS Biological Integrated Detection System
BRP Basic Research Plan
BW biological warfare

C4I2 command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, and
information
CASE computer–aided software enginerering
CBD chemical and biological defense
CBDCOM Chemical and Biological Defense Command
C–C carbon–carbon
CC&D camouflage, concealment, and deception
CdZnTe cadmium zine telluride
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/ed.htm（第 1／5 页）2006-09-10 23:24:33


CGF computer–generated forces
CMC ceramic matrix composite
CMMS conceptual model of the mission space
COE center of excellence
CW chemical warfare

DE directed energy
DEA Data Exchange Agreement
decon decontamination
demil demilitarization
DIS distributed interactive simulation
DMSO Defense Modeling and Simulation Office
DOE diffractive optical element
DSRC David Sarnoff Research Center
DTAP Defense Technology Area Plan
DTO Defense Technology Objective
EBF electronic battlefield

EFP explosively–formed projectile
EM electromagnetic
EME electromagnetic environment
EMP electromagnetic propulsion
EO electro–optic, electro–optical, electro–optics
ESM electronic support measure
ETC electrothermal chemical
FADEC full authority digital engine control

FCT foreign comparative testing
FEL free electron laser
FLIR forward–looking infrared
FSU former Soviet Union
FY fiscal year

GaAs gallium arsenide

GBps gigabit per second
GHz gigahertz
HCI human–computer interface

HEP–90 Haupt Entgiftungs Platz–90
HgCdTe mercury cadmium telluride
HLA high–level architecture
HMD helmet–mounted display
HPC high–performance computing
HPM high–power microwave
HPRF high–power radio frequency
HSI human–system interfare
IACS International Armaments Cooperative Strategy

IDA Institute for Defense Analyses
IF infrared
IMD information management and display
INS inertial navigation system
IPE integrated platform electronics
IR infrared
IRCM infrared countermeasures
ISO International Standardization Organization
JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff

JTA Joint Technical Architecture
JWSTP Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan
kW kilowatt

M&S modeling and simulation

MANPRINT manpower and personnel integration
MDS magnet dynamic storage
MED multiple electric permanent magnet
MEMS microelectromechanical systems
MITI Ministry of International Trade and Industry
MMC metal matrix composite


MMW millimeter–wave
MOU memorandum of understanding
MPP massively parallel processing

NBCRS Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Reconnaissance Systems
NBCW nuclear, biological, and chemicl warfare
NDE nondestructive evaluation
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NLO nonlinear optics, nonlinear optical
NMR nuclear molecular resonance
Nordic Group Norway, Sweden, and Denmark
OEIC optoelectronic integrated circuit

PMC polymer matrix composite

POC point of contact
PPT personnel performance and training

RF radio frequency
ROK Republic of Korea
RPV remotely piloted vehicle
RWC real–world computing

SAFF safing, arming, fuzing, and firing
SAR synthetic aperture radar
SAS Survivable Adaptive System
SEFT Research Institute for High–Energy Physics, Finland
Si silicon
SMART sensor mounted as moving threat
SOCM Special Operations Command
STANAG standard agreement
T&E test and evaluation

tera 1015

teraflops trillions of floating point operations per second (1015)

Ti titanium
TTCP The Technical Cooperation Program

UBM Universitat der Bundeswehr Muchen, Germany
U.K. United Kingdom
UV ultraviolet
UWB ultra wideband
U.S. United States
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
VMF variable message format

VR virtual reality
VRI virtual reality interface
VTOL vertical takeoff and landing

Annex F, U.S. Special Operations Command Technology Overview, A. Introduction, B. Future Vision
Annex F
U.S. Special Operations Command Technology Overview
A. Introduction
The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) was formally stood up as a unified command
on 16 April 1987. It is one of nine unified commands reporting to the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF)
through the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). The primary mission of SOCOM is to provide
combat–ready Special Operations Forces (SOF) in peacetime and in war for the theater combatant
commanders, American ambassadors and their country’s teams, and other government agencies. The
Commander in Chief, United States Special Operations Command (USCINCSOC) carries out that primary
responsibility by performing several supporting functions, which include developing and acquiring
SOF–unique equipment, materiel, supplies, and services. Within SOCOM, the Special Operations
Acquisition Executive (SOAE) is directly responsible for the Research, Development, and Acquisition
(RD&A) of systems peculiar to Special Operations (SO). The SOAE manages this responsibility in two ways:
(1) program execution within SOCOM for systems unique to SOF; or (2) working cooperatively with the
services and Department of Defense (DoD) agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), with other government agencies such as the Department of Energy (DOE) and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and with industry as well as academia.
In 1986, Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 167, was signed, which provided SOCOM the responsibility to
develop and acquire SO–peculiar equipment, materiel, supplies, and services. In 1988, the SECDEF granted
SOCOM the opportunity to establish a contracting activity. In 1989, the actingSECDEF assigned Major
Force Program 11 (MFP 11) Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and budget authority to SOCOM;
and, in 1992, SOCOM appointed the SOAE to execute the command’s acquisition objectives and strategies.
However, because of the limited funding in MFP 11, congressional committees on appropriations directed
that SOCOM work with all research activities to ensure that SO technology needs are considered in the
development of their technology base programs. To this end, Congress reiterated that the unique missions of
SOF require its capabilities be based on the leading edge of technology, and, therefore, expects these activities
"to expend an appropriate amount of the technology base effort identifying and developing technologies that
have Special Operations potential." While SOCOM has a Service–like responsibility for research,
development, and acquisition, the command is a user rather than a developer of technology, and does not
have a dedicated laboratory structure as do the military departments. SOCOM’s technology strategy is to
monitor emerging technology relevant to SOF needs, participate in selected programs that relate to SOF
technology development objectives, and execute selected high–priority projects to exploit emerging
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/fa_b.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:24:41

technology for near–term SOF application. A key thrust of this strategy is to proceed urgently with the
prevailing objective to "increase the capability of assigned forces through the fielding of SO–peculiar materiel
meeting user requirements in the shortest possible time, i.e., aggressive use of prototyping." Thisstrategy is
summarized below in Figure F–1.
A key part of SOCOM’s Technology Program strategy is the flexibility it uses in tailoring its programs to both
accelerate the delivery of capabilities to the field and to reduce programmatic delays. This tailoring concept,
portrayed with the standard DoD development sequence, is shown in the following schematic (Figure F–2).
SOCOM works in and around this core process, appropriately tailoring approaches for each unique
situation. The result is a flexible process that can greatly accelerate the schedule and reduce the cost of
development. The innovative use of tools, such as demonstrations and operational assessments in
conjunction with direct jumps to fielding of prototypes and insertions into ongoing system productions, as
well as the use of fewer decision levels in the acquisition process, provides great flexibility in the
implementation of tailored technology development/transitionprograms.

B. FUTURE VISION
To prepare SOF properly and ensure relevancy in a volatile and changing global environment, the
USCINCSOC in 1997 established SOF’s future vision in SOF VISION 2020. This vision outlines three
parallel paths—professional development of its people, technological innovation, and proactive
acquisition—to ensure that SOF continues to be the world’s premier special operations force, already there
or first to deploy, in the uncertain world of the future.
With regard to technological innovation, SOCOM will look to emerging, leading edge technologies in such
areas as sensing and identification, biotechnology, miniaturization, signature reduction, secure
communications, sensor/C3 disruption, information protection, advanced weapons/munitions, stealth,
human enhancements, microrobotics, computerized speech recognition, and interactive simulation, to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its people and platforms. The command will continue to identify
and pursue key technologies that have the potential to satisfy future SOF requirements, maintain its core
competencies, and meet emerging SOF missions. SOCOM will continue to be a testbed for new
technologies. SOF will expand its initiative of leveraging relevant technology projects within the DoD
agencies, services, national laboratories, and industry, as well as develop closer working relationships with the
key organizations that will drive technologies most relevant to SOFinterests.

To execute the MFP 11 responsibilities for technology development, SOCOM has developed a Technology
Development Program that comprises the following efforts, as well as the leveraging and influencing of
technology thrusts ongoing in defense–related research programs. These efforts are entitled: Special
Operations Technology Development (SOTD), which concentrates on exploratory development and
technology studies; Special Operations Special Technology (SOST), which concentrates on advanced
engineering development and rapid prototyping; SOF Biomedical Research and Development (BIOMED),
which performs studies on basic exploratory medical technologies centering on physiologic, psychologic,
and ergonomic factors to enhance the ability of SOF operators to better perform their missions; Small
Business Innovative Research (SBIR); and Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP), which
explores the tactical use and interface with national systems/architectures.
The principal driver of SOCOM’s Technology Development Program evolves around a list of prioritized
Technology Development Objectives (TDOs). This prioritization reflects the SOF’s command and field
perspective of its operational deficiencies and future capability needs, which typically requires either a new
technology application or an advanced technology demonstration. The TDOs are required by DoD
Instruction 5000.2. They are developed jointly by the SOCOM staff and its four components, reviewed,
and—if necessary—updated every two years in conjunction with the POM process, prior to official approval
by USCINCSOC. These TDOs provide focus to the command—as well as to technologists, engineers, and
industry representatives—on areas of technology that potentially can address SOF operational deficiencies
and meet future requirements or operational capability objectives for SOCOM. They are used as the
foundation for selecting SOCOM technology projects and to influence service/agency technology efforts.
They also assist with resource allocation decisions to support technology–based projects and studies. In an
abbreviated form these TDOs are denoted as follows:
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction

2. Individual Survivability
3. Sensors
4. Power Sources
5. Mobility Platforms
6. C4I
7. Information Warfare
8. Countermine and Demining
9. Targeting and Tracking
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/fc.htm（第 1／8 页）2006-09-10 23:25:01

10. Weapons and Munitions

11. Simulation and Training.
A wide and diverse set of concepts or systems is required to satisfy the deficiencies within each TDO.
However, the following general characteristics, which are particularly important to SOF operators, pervade
across multiple concept/system requirements: lightweight, small, rugged, minimalsignature, lethal, survivable,
maintainable, and affordable.
The following is a more complete description of each of the SOCOM TDOs, along with a narrative of the
types of technologies that are important in reducing the SOF shortcomings in these combat and noncombat
functional areas.
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Detection, Classification, Neutralization, and Protection

Systems
Technologies that should have the potential to provide capabilities for rapidly detecting, precisely locating,
and accurately classifying fixed and mobile WMD threats from standoff distances in both semi– and
nonpermissive environments. Proposed technologies should demonstrate potential for use as either a
man–portable or a SOF mobility platform (ground, air, maritime) mounted system useable in underground
facilities. Technology must be compatible with SOF mission scenarios and be suitable for SOF tactical or
clandestine environments. Technologies are needed to detect deep underground structures; and also to assist
SOF in disabling or defeating systems in such facilities. Technologies should be able to detect U.S., foreign,
and improvised Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) agents currently available or projected for use on
the battlefield or in an Operations Other Than War (OOTW) scenario. Technologies are desired to assess
and analyze NBC weapons in order to cause yield reductions; to assist in disassembly; to perform advanced
diagnosis; and to help neutralize, render safe, or otherwise destroy the weapon in a semi– or nonpermissive
environment. Technologies are also desired to perform initial chemical agent analysis and identification in a
remote and austere environment. Most individual and unit NBC detection and protection technologies are
more service–like items and, although desired and utilized by SOF forces, they usually are not suitable for
SOF–only missions. For example, SOF requires very lightweight, one–time–use but low–volume NBC
protection.
2. Lightweight, Low–Volume Survival, Sustainment, and Personal Equipment
Technologies that, in both favorable and adverse environment and mission conditions, should have the
potential to provide enhanced performance, sustainment, and protection of SOF personnel; and that will
include endurance/fatigue reduction, mobility, active and passive camouflage, signature reduction, lethality,
alertness, protection against ballistic, DEW, etc. Proposed technologies should be applicable to the full range
of individual SOF equipment and systems, to include: C4I equipment, rations, protective clothing,
camouflage, signature reduction, laser and direct energy protection, body armor, sensors, maritime and
diving equipment, individual water purification, etc. Camouflage/deception concepts should show
adaptability to a variety of topographical and climatic backgrounds. Development of technologies and

follow–on systems must not reduce durability, performance, or usability due to size and weight reduction; or
adversely affect the individual’s physical strength, flexibility, endurance, etc. Robotic technologies for ground
and air platform applications will be of interest to reduce the burden of noncombat essential equipment. Such
technologies should demonstrate improvements in operational capabilities utilizing current and future
advances in miniaturization and weight reduction, fatigue reduction, biochemistry, nutrition, electronics,
fabrics, textiles, hybrid materials, metallurgy, or the life sciences. Medical technologies to enhance the
treatment and prevention of battle injuries and nonbattle casualties will also be of interest.
3. Advanced Vision Devices, Sensors, Fire Controls for SOF Weapons, and Human Sensory
Enhancement and Performance Amplification Equipment
Technologies that should have the potential to enable the SOF operators, drivers, pilots, or crew members to
significantly improve their ability to detect threats and avoid obstacles in both favorable and inclement
weather and environment conditions. Technologies should improve the ability to detect, identify, track, and
maintain surveillance of threats (weapons systems, personnel, installations, sensors, emitters, targets, etc.).
Technology should be capable of multispectral detection (radar, thermal, infrared, acoustic, visual) and be
adaptable to both man–portable and mobility platform uses. The technology should not detrimentally
interfere with normal sensory functions of hearing, smell, or sight. Sensor technology should provide
enhanced sensory capabilities in night, fog, precipitation, smoke, dust, etc. Technologies should also improve
range, magnification, field of view, and resolution during periods of both good and limited visibility.
Technologies should encourage the ability to increase information and intelligence awareness. Any such
technology should demonstrate potential for integration into all applicable planned system acquisitions.
Proposed technologies should significantly increase the capability, speed, and accuracy of SOF operators to
acquire and engage targets—in all environmental and visibility conditions—using current and proposed SOF
individual, crew–served, and platform–mounted weapon systems. Technologies should demonstrate
adaptability to man–portable systems with all–weather capabilities, reliability, sustainability, and
maintainability in field conditions. Technologies must possess the ability to process a full ballistic solution in
near–real–time; have variable power optic/sensors; and provide day, night, and limited visibility capabilities.
4. Lightweight, Low–Volume Power Supply, Storage, Management, and Generation Technologies
Technologies that should have the potential to provide SOF with improved power sources, power storage,
power generation, or power management capabilities for C4I systems, weapons, mobility platforms, and SOF
equipment. Technologies should demonstrate significant improvements in power density, transportability
(land, sea, and air), rechargeability, disposability, reliability, commonality, and size and weight
characteristics. Substantially improved electrical generation storage and conditioning capabilities are required
to enhance vehicle propulsion and support current and futureweapons systems/concepts.
5. Enhanced SOF Mobility and Attack Platforms With Increased Speed and Range, Decreased
Detectability, and True All–Weather Capabilities

Technologies that should have the potential to significantly reduce mobility mission area deficiencies that
include: improving performance; lowering the probability of detection; improving the supportability of SOF
air, land, and maritime mobility platforms; and reducing the logistics signatures of SOF mobility platforms.
Technologies should address reductions in multispectral (radar, thermal, infrared, acoustic, visible)
signatures while providing mobility platforms with increased maneuverability, speed, range, all–weather
capability, threat avoidance, survivability and protection, transportability, reliability, maintainability, and
durability. Technologies must show potential for application to future SOF mobility platforms or upgrades to
current systems.
Resupply technologies should have the potential to enhance the capability to provide accurate and timely
resupply to SOF operators in an unmarked, denied, tactical environment without causing undue loss or
damage to items being resupplied. Enhanced resupply systems must have increased accuracy in all weather,
have significant standoff range, and have a Low Probability of Detection (LPD). Systems may include
unattended resupply vehicles, low platforms, and rigging gear. Proposed technologies should show
significant improvements over current systems capabilities.
6. Improved Digital Transmission, Switching, Information Transfer Automation, and

Human–to–Machine Interface Communications (C4I) Technologies
Technologies that should have the potential to provide improvements in weight reduction, size, LPI/LPD,
power consumption/management, over–the–horizon capabilities, transmission rates, processor throughput,
programmability, modularity, multiband operations, simultaneous transmission/reception capabilities,
real–time information, imagery/system/sensor fusion, spectral utilization, compatibility, seamless GPS
integration, and miniaturized Automated Data Processing (ADP). Technologies must be suitable for
application in extreme environments and be compatible with standardized open architectures and
complementary technologies, such as integrated navigation, direction finding, security, Identification, Friend
or Foe (IFF), automatic encryption/authentication, etc. New systems must comply with SOCOM’s
architectural tenets, which specify that systems must be seamless, robust, automated, use the full spectrum,
and be standards compliant.
7. Automated Information Warfare (IW) Systems Enhancements To Influence and Protect

Information Systems, Links and Nodes
Technologies that should have the potential to provide SOF advanced capabilities for deception, Electronic
Warfare (EW), Psychological Operations (PSYOP), and speech technologies.
Technologies for deception and EW should enhance capabilities to disable, jam, spoof, or otherwise confuse
enemy sensor and detection systems, including radars; thermal imageries and other optical–electronic
systems; acoustic detectors; and seismic sensors and systems. Other areas for enhanced tactical deception
include disruption, disablement, or reducing the efficiency of communication and command and control
systems, which may have Radio Frequency (RF), laser, hard–wire, fiber–optic, or other links.

Advanced PSYOP technologies are also required to develop, produce and disseminate PSYOP products,
including: radio (AM/FM/SW); television broadcasts; and printed material. Technology must support
production, distribution, and dissemination of PSYOP products to, from, and within forward and remote
locations. It also should include the integrated utilization of broadcasts or products using broadcast range
extenders, aerial pamphlet disseminators, loudspeakers, high–capacity print facilities, translators, etc.
Technologies should enable the development of new and advanced means of disseminating or projecting
PSYOP messages to a target audience. Such technologies might include direct satellite broadcasting, UAV
payloads, digital signal processing, voice synthesizing, laser video, acoustic generators, holograms, artificial
intelligence applications, and attitudinal/behavior agents. Applicable speech technologies should provide
automated recognition and translation both from English to the target language and from the target language
to English. Technology must have the potential to achieve real–time, voice–to–voice translation; speaker
identification; be a small, lightweight package; interface with C4I systems; and transcribe and translate text at a
near–real–time rate.
8. Passive Shallow Water/Terrestrial Mine, Explosive, and Boobytrap Detection, Identification, and
Neutralization Technologies
Technologies that should have the potential to provide passive, accurate, tactical detection and classification
of surf zone, shallow water, and terrestrial mines, explosives, and boobytraps. Demonstrate or identify
technologies that enhance the ability to destroy or disable mines and boobytraps on land and in shallow
water without posing a threat to the individual operator. Technologies should be applicable to all ground and
sea–bottom soil types, lead to increased detection capabilities, longer ranges, lower false alarm rates, and
autonomous or standoff capabilities. Technologies should apply to magnetic, acoustic,
command–detonated, and pressure mines, as well as to future mine and fusing/detonation systems and must
be transferable to man–portable, modular packages. Technologies should be applicable for land and water
applications and be compatible with either timers, command detonation, or smart activation. Technologies
and systems must apply to both SOF submissions: antimining and demining. Antimining is a combat mission
where SOF identifies, marks, or neutralizes mines and boobytraps during, or just prior to, combat operations.
Demining is a humanitarian assistance mission where SOF either trains the trainers in demining activities, or
SOF trains and assists indigenous personnel to detect, mark, avoid, and neutralize mines and boobytraps in a
permissive environment.
Attaching systems should demonstrate or identify technologies that provide SOF the capability to accomplish
positive nonmagnetic adhesion in fresh and salt water; and on dirty, uneven, nonmetallic, and
petroleum–coated surfaces. The adhesive needs to have comparable holding/bonding properties as current
adhesives are used to bond explosives to dry, smooth, nonmetallic surfaces. The system must be
user–friendly underwater. It must retain its holding abilities in the surf zone and on an ocean/lake/river floor
for an extended period of time and in extreme temperature ranges.
9. Clandestine Target Locating, Tracking, and Marking Technologies
Technologies that should have the potential to provide SOF an improved passive or semiactive method to

mark both fixed and mobile targets for identification, tracking, targeting, and precision munitions guidance
to include GPS integration. Marking methods must be undetectable by the enemy, but positively identified
by both SOF and conventional airborne, waterborne, and ground/vehicular sensors and targeting systems, to
include the AC–130 gunship. Technologies for IFF and Combat Identification (CID) must seamlessly
interface and integrate with Service systems, plus allow SOF IFF to deep strike fire–and–forget conventional
weapons. Marking methods should include a removalcapability without special equipment.
10. Future Force Application Weapons and Munitions, Enhanced Explosives and Munitions, and
Nonlethal Technologies
Technologies that should have the potential to provide the basis for advanced offensive and defensive
weapons and weapons–related systems that demonstrate significant improvements in responsiveness, range,
accuracy, reliability, and target effects. Systems are desired for fixed and rotary wing aircraft, small boats, and
HMMWV–size vehicles. Defensive weapons are desired to counter IR, laser, TV, and other smart or
seeker–head guided munitions. Demonstrate or identify technologies that provide miniature guided or
precision projectiles with long–range, non–line–of–sight destructive capabilities. Technologies must destroy,
disable, or render unusable fuel tanks, light armored vehicles, fortified positions, other soft military vehicles,
and SO-critical military and industrial target nodes and systems. Technology should allow the operator to
conduct firing operations with an LPD and from within enclosed areas.
Applicable technologies should have the potential to provide SOF operators a man–portable, reliable,
long–range, accurate, signature–less, sustained rate of fire, day and night capable, tunable, or nonlethal
weapons system. In the nonlethal role, the system should be man–portable and must be able to stun an
opponent or temporarily incapacitate multiple targets in close proximity to the operator. Nonlethal
technologies are needed for area applications (crowd control), for point applications (selected individuals in
close proximity to noncombatants, prisoners, etc.), and for antimaterial applications.
In the lethal role, the weapon system must be able to be used in a medium–range (250 to 600 meters) sniper
role to defeat key personnel and to disable soft targets, such as radars, C2 vans, aircraft, sensors, POL
containers, weapons systems, etc. An effective range up to 2,000 meters is the eventual goal. Demonstrate or
identify technologies that provide increased lethality, enhanced flexibility, reduced weight and volume,
increased accuracy and controllability, and improved safety of explosive charges and munitions.
Technologies should demonstrate antimaterial capabilities for a wide range of target types for small and
medium caliber SOF weapons systems—both handheld and platform mounted. Multipurpose,
low–detectable munitions and explosives are preferred. Items must be certifiable as safe for use and
transportability (land, sea, and air) by all Service or SOCOM safety review and certification boards.
11. Advanced Learning, Training, and Mission Planning/Rehearsal Technologies
Technologies that should have the potential to provide for fusion of diverse and multispectral data,
application of artificial intelligence, effective use of constructive, virtual, and live simulations as the basis for
future systems for enhanced Mission Planning, Analysis, Rehearsal, and Execution (MPARE); or provide

integrated, insertable upgrades to current systems. Technologies should address the potential for networking
and include realistic sight, sound, olfactory, and motion sensations. Technologies must have application to as
many SOF mission areas, skills, environments, and component-unique requirements as is feasible. Improving
rapid learning and retention techniques forforeign languages are also of interest.
This completes the description of the TDOs.
SOCOM’s technology development programs are separate and independent from our specific acquisition
programs and they provide a valuable process that links SO–peculiar requirements to new warfighting
systems through emerging technology development. New capabilities enabled under the technology
development programs can be transitioned to SOF operators through rapid or normal acquisition programs
or inserted into existing systems through system upgrades or in conjunction with Preplanned Product
Improvements (P3Is). Table F–1 below summarizes the distribution of the SOCOM’s FY98 Technology
Development Program funding, which is managed by the Advanced Concepts and Engineering Division
(SOAC–DT) of SOAC. This program, which totals approximately $16.4M, covers four of the five
Technology Development Program efforts mentioned earlier in this annex; the fifth effort, TENCAP, is
managed by the Program Executive Office for C4I within SOAC.
Table F–1. SOCOM’s Technology Development Program Funding Structure

Program Element Line No. Project Title % Program Funding
1160401BB S100 Special Operations Technology Development 25.3
1160402BB S200 Special Operations Special Technology 48.8
1160407BB S275 SOF Biomedical Research and Development 12.4
1160279BB S050 Small Business Innovation Research 13.5
Note: Of SOCOM’s total RDT&E budget for FY98, the above is the distribution of just the technology development funds, with the
exception of TENCAP.
Some of the specific individual projects under the FY97 SOTD program are:
• Active Noise Cancellation

• Audio Deception Emitter
• Color Night Vision Fusion
• Enhanced Thermal Protection
• Head-Mounted Thermal Vision
• Maximum Efficiency Language Trainer
• Thermal Imaging Device
• Underwater Tactical Display.
Some of the specific individual projects under the FY97 SOST program are:

• Advanced Sniper Weapon Fire Control

• Aircraft Off/Onload System
• Clandestine Lighting System
• Communications Helmet
• Hasty Hide Shelter
• Intrusion Sensor System
• Low Observables, Covert Obstacle Avoidance Navigation System
• Nonlethal Submunition
• Quick Erect Antenna/Mast
• Remote Miniature Weather Station
• Sensor Hardening
• SOF Enhanced Weapons
• Very Slender Vessel
• Weapons Control System

D. LEVERAGING THE ARMY TECHNOLOGY BASE
As part of its overall technology program strategy, SOCOM has initiated an effort to institutionalize a process that will strengthen the cooperation between the command and the Army
R&D community in the pursuit of technologies of mutual value to both users. In 1997, this process was implemented by an assessment team made up of representatives from the
SOCOM staff and its components. SOCOM’s goal for the first year of execution is to review the technology projects (i.e., the Work Packages (WPs)) of four of the technology
Directorates of the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) and one of the Army’s Research, Development, and Engineering Centers (RDEC), and identify the WPs that are of
high–to–considerable value to SOF in resolving materiel shortcomings. The Army Science Advisor to SOCOM has developed this process and the related assessment methodology,
serves as the team leader for this effort, and has briefed the assessment results to the Army organization’s senior staff for establishing future cooperative endeavors. The Army
organizations whose WPs were reviewed and who received briefings on SOF’s assessment of their value for improving future capabilities, are (in review order for this year):
• Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate (S&EDD), ARL

• Weapons and Materials Research Directorate (W&MRD), ARL
• Information Science and Technology Directorate (IS&TD), ARL
• Human Research and Engineering Directorate (HR&ED), ARL
• Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center (NRDEC), Soldier System Command (SSCOM).
During 1998, SOCOM will expand this effort to several of the other Army Materiel Command’s RDECs, as well as to the Army Research Institute.
In addition to presenting a prioritization of the WPs relevant to SOF needs in four categories ranging from Critical (Technologies to SOF) to Of Interest (to SOF), the briefings
included: 1) a description of the methodology used in establishing the prioritization; 2) an identification of the Technology Development Objective(s) to which a majority of an
organization’s WPs were aligned; 3) the specific SOF capability that each of the higher–rated WPs will improve; and 4) technology projects that are currently not in the organization’s
technology base program but are in their area of technical expertise and are rated as being very important in resolving a SOF need. The Army WPs (identified in Table F–2) have been
judged to be very important potentially for improving SOF future capabilities .
As a leveraging initiative, the SOF community will begin monitoring the progress of these technology developments; will suggest revisions to the technology project (in coordination
with the responsible Army research organization) if necessary, to ensure it will directly resolve a SOF need; will consider a future possible transition to a SOF development program if the
technology successfully reaches maturity; and may possibly commit manpower/equipment assets to operationally assess its capability when the technology successfully matures to the
prototype stage. In these cases SOCOM will be identified as a proponent for these WPs. Therefore, SOCOM anticipates that the above technologies will remain as viable Army research
projects, or at least as long as they continue to demonstrate expected progress.
Table F–2. Most Important Army Technologies for Resolving SOF Needs
Work Package Title/Number Responsible R&D
Organization
RF Imaging Technology/16MRM04 S&EDD (ARL)
Airdrop Systems Technology/AA NRDEC
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/fd.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:25:12

Biosensor Devices to Detect Biological/Chemical Warfare Agents/94MDB01 S&EDD (ARL)
Inertial Reticle Technology/WCD2035* W&MRD (ARL)
Weapons Technology for the Light Forces/WCD 211 W&MRD (ARL)
Protocol Specs for Digital Commo on the Battlefield/ISTDY1001* IS&TD (ARL)
VR Research–Virtual Interface Technology/4221, 422INS HR&ED (ARL)
Intelligent User Interfaces/4213NS, 4213* HR&ED (ARL)
Countermeasures to Battlefield Sensors/AB NRDEC
Ballistic Protection for Soldier Survivability/CC NRDEC
Laser Eye Protection and Integrated Headgear/CA NRDEC
Warrior Performance and Endurance Enhancement/AA NRDEC
Future Warrior Technologies/STOp19* NRDEC
Force XXI Land Warrior (S&T)/A* NRDEC
*These WPs are part of a Science and Technology Objective (STO) Program.
NOTE: This assessment is based on a review of only five Army organization’s technology projects.
Approximately 35 additional Army WPs were assessed to be of interest to the SOF community, and they have been passed on to the senior staff of the five Army organizations identified
earlier. The SOF community judged these technologies to have potential impact on reducing conventional Army materiel shortcomings, which could also benefit SOF for
Army–common developments and acquisition. In these cases, SOCOM will be identified as a supporter for these WPs.
The correlation of these projects assessed to be of most value to SOF, along with the Army research organizations responsible for their execution, the SOCOM technology requirements
to which these technologies can potentially solve SOF shortcomings, and the Army Battle Lab whose future operational capabilities are most closely aligned to each of the
SOF–proponent WPs, are depicted in Table F–3. This alignment should identify to each of the five Battle Labs (Battle Command (BC), CombatService Support (CSS), Depth and
Simultaneous Attack (D&SA). Dismounted Battle Space (DBS), and Mounted Battle Space (MBS)), the Army WPs most important to SOF. As a result, during the Battle Lab’s annual
review of the Army Materiel Command’s (AMC’s) technology projects in early 1998, they will be aware of these CINC–supported WPs and can factor this SOF input into their user
assessment of AMC’s Tech Base program.
Table F–3. Correlation of Select Army Technologies with SOCOM Requirements

Army Work Responsible Army R&D Organizations Relevant SOCOM Technology Army
Packages Development Objectives Battle
Important to SOF Labs
HR&ED IS&TD S&EDD W&MRD NRDEC WMD Ind. Sensors Power Mobility C4I IW Countermine Target/ Weapons Simulation BC CSS D&SA DBS MBS
Surv. Track and
Training
RF Imaging

Airdrop Systems
Technology
Biosensor Devices
for CBW Agents
Inertial Reticle
Technology
Weapons
Technology for
Light Forces
Protocol Specs for

Digital Comm.
VR
Research—Virtual
Interface
Intelligent User
Interfaces
Countermeasures
to Battlefield
Sensors
Ballistic
Protection for
Soldier
Survivability
Laser Eye
Protection &
Integrated
Headgear
Warrior
Performance &
Endurance
Enhancement
Future Warrior
Technology
Force XXI Land

Warrior (S&T)
- Most relevant TDO to the WP

- Other TDOs benefiting by the WP

E. Abbreviations
E. ABBREVIATIONS
ADP automated data processing

AMC Army Materiel Command
BC battle command (a battle lab)

BIOMED biomedical research and development

CID combat identification
CJCS Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
CSS Combat Service Support (a battle lab)

DBS Dismounted Battle Space (a battle lab)
DEW directed energy weapon
DOE Department of Energy
D&SA Depth and Simultaneous Attack (a battle lab)
HMMWV high–mobility, multi–purpose, wheeled vehicle

HR&ED Human Research and Engineering Directorate
IFF identification, friend or foe
IR infrared
IS&TD Information Science and Technology Directorate
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/fe.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:25:16

E. Abbreviations
IW information warfare
LPD low probability of detection
MFP 11 Major Force Program 11

MPARE mission planning, analysis, rehearsal, and execution
MBS Mounted Battle Space (a battle lab)

NRDEC Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center
P3Is preplanned product improvements

POM program objective memorandum
PSYOP psychological operations
RD&A research, development, and acquisition

RDEC Research, Development, and Engineering Center
RF radio frequency
SBIR small business innovative research

SECDEF Secretary of Defense
S&EDD Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate
SO special operations
SOAC Special Operations Acquisition Center
SOAE Special Operations Acquisition Executive
SOCOM United States Special Operations Command
SOF Special Operations Forces
SOST special operations special technology
SOTD special operations technology development
SSCOM Soldier System Command
TENCAP tactical exploitation of national capabilities

TDOs technology development objectives

USC United States Code
USCINCSOC United States Commander in Chief, Special Operations
Command

E. Abbreviations
VR virtual reality

W&MRD Weapons and Materials Research Directorate
WPs work packages

Annex G - Logistics, A. Looking To The Future
Annex G
Logistics
A. Looking To The Future
The mobility, deployability, and sustainability essential to the Army of 2010, as well as the Army After Next
(AAN) cannot be achieved without a revolutionary change in support concepts. The Army’s Revolution in
Military Logistics (RML) will be an integral part of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). It is the
document to transform logistics into a global, distribution–based logistics system that substitutes logistics
velocity for logistics mass, taking maximum advantage of technological breakthroughs. The Army Strategic
Logistics Plan (ASLP) is the Army’s roadmap to achieve the RML vision. Technology will be leveraged to
fuse new organizational constructs, concepts, transportation, information, and logistics systems,
fundamentally reshaping the way forces are projected and sustained. Investment in technologies will reduce
logistics’ operational encumberments that directly impede the capability to support the warfighters’
prosecution of the battle.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/ga.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:25:22

Figure G-1
Click here to view enlarged version of image
The revolution in logistics requires one to view logistics requirements in a new perspective. Gone are the days
when brute force and the sheer mass of materiel and numbers of soldiers can be counted on to overcome any
mobilization, deployment, sustainment, or maintenance situation. Not only has the U.S. Army undergone a
36 percent reduction in uniformed personnel and expects a 42 percent reduction by FY03 in civilian
personnel, but other services have also undergone similar downsizing. These reductions have had a
correspondingly direct impact on the numbers and types of combat equipment that can be used to mobilize,
deploy, sustain, and maintain the Army. While the number and types of global missions that the Army is
being tasked to support have grown by 300 percent, the basing of the Army’s assets within the continental
United States has grown from 58 percent to 75 percent. If we are to obtain an AAN that is a viable fighting
force on the battlefield of the future, we must also obtain a commensurate logistics capability. With the
realities of reduced personnel and other assets we must focus our logistics support.

Figure G-2

B. Revolution in Military Logistics, C. RML Technology Enabling Areas
B. Revolution in Military Logistics
The RML requires logistics to acquire a number of capabilities that it currently does not have. To achieve
these capabilities requires research and development (R&D) of advanced technologies. Underlying a
distribution based system, real–time situational understanding, anticipatory and precision logistics, seamless
logistics system, and streamlined acquisition are a wide array of advanced technologies that must be
researched, developed, applied, and acquired for there to be an RML and thus the attainment of Army XXI
and the AAN.
Figure G-3
C. RML Technology Enabling Areas
Technology areas that are key to making the vision of the RML a reality for Army XXI and the AAN include:
• Sensors
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/gb_c.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:25:30

• Diagnostics/prognostics
• Source data automation
• Sentinel systems
• Intelligent networks
• Natural language processors
• Voice activated automation
• Advanced materials
• Robotics
• Smart/brilliant munitions
• Artificial intelligence
• Satellite communications
• Advanced manufacturing
• Space operations
• Biomimetics
• Nanotechnology
• Microminiaturization
• Fuels.
Figure G-4
As evidenced by the current Army Science and Technology Management Information System (ASTMIS),
the combat weapon systems that the logisticians sustain and maintain have been and will continue to be more
and more technologically sophisticated. The warfighters are developing technologies for their combat

equipment that will allow them to move about the battlefields of the future with near impunity; day, night, all
weather, all terrain, against virtually any threat. For the logistician to be capable of sustaining and maintaining
this combat force there must be similar battlefield mobility and situational awareness built into logistic’s
equipment and command and control systems. In the past this would have dictated increased numbers and
types of test measurement diagnostic equipment (TMDE) to be developed, maintained, and deployed to
support the weapon systems. The Army no longer has the logistics personnel available to conduct business as
usual. A Glimpse of the Future tells us that logisticians must have mobility and agility on the battlefield equal
to that of the warfighter. Technologies must provide predictive capability to the logistician. This is the only
way to relieve the reactive burden currently imposed upon the logistician.
There are technologies available and being developed that will allow the logisticians to change their business
practices/processes to meet these current and warfighters’ requirements for logistics support. The ability of
the logistician to project and sustain the force is governed by the capability of the Army R&D community to
research, develop, and apply advanced technologies to logistics’ functions. The key criterion is to make the
logistics functions seamlessly connected, anticipatory, and distribution based with an agile acquisition
strategy. Battle forces are almost logistically self–reliant for 48–120 hours.
Figure G-5

There are advanced technologies that provide significant value added when applied to logistics’ functions. The Army’s largeset
career field, Logistics, Quartermaster, Transportation, Medical, and Ordnance, are dependent upon other functional areas for
the funding of R&D initiatives that have application to logistics. Horizontal integration of these research initiatives and their
resulting advanced technologies are essential to the modernization of logistics to fulfill the operational requirements of Army
XXI and the AAN.
Logistics’ Initiatives and their link to the DoD and Army visions are shown in Table G–1. This table also summarizes the
operational capabilities/benefits for each of the initiatives. If we are to reduce demands upon the logistics system, an integrated
effort is needed.
Table G–1. Technology Initiatives Supporting the Future Vision of Army Logistics
Initiative Vision Supported Benefit of Initiative
Joint Army RML Army DoD

Vision Vision After Strategic
2010 2010 Next Research
Objectives
Project the Force
Precision Offset Aerial Delivery Provides reliable precision–guided delivery of combat essential
munitions and equipment
Rapid Deployment Food Services Provides a 50% increase in MTBF with a 50% decrease in fuel usage
Advanced Cargo Airdrop Provides a 20% reduction in cost
Sustain the Force
Joint Logistics Provides rapid integration log data to meet Army and joint mission
requirements
Mobility Enhancement Ration Provides shelf stable, no–preparation rations compatible with
Components existing ration systems
Electrical Power Generation Provides light, highly mobile power sources capable of operating
on multiple fuels
Munitions Survivability Ensures the survivability of munitions at ports, airheads, and

munitions storage areas
Reforming Diesel Fuel Reduces field feeding costs
Improved Multipurpose Fluids Reduce component failures by 25%
Emerging Petroleum Quality Decrease manpower by 75% for petroleum laboratories
Other Initiatives
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/gd.htm（第 1／3 页）2006-09-10 23:25:36

Battlespace Command and Control Provides EEI required for velocity management and battlefield
distribution
Perform Enhancing Demonstrations Enables personnel to perform at high levels of performance for
extended time
Helicopter Active Control Technology Enables advanced fault–tolerant systems to maintain reliability and
simplify maintenance
Digital Battlefield Communications Provides bandwidth on demand to support multimedia

information requirements
Battlefield Combat Identification Provides situational awareness to prevent fratricide—aids resupply

and maintenance
Integrated High Performance Turbine 25% reduction in fuel consumption and 60 percent increase in
Engine power–to–weight ratio
Future Scout and Cavalry System Provides advanced lightweight materials and electric drive
Ground Propulsion and Mobility Provides critical engine, electronic drive, track and suspension, and
storage devices
Advanced Electronics Future Combat Advanced concepts to resupply power and distribution systems to
System be developed
Future Combat System Mobility Provides an electric drive and power conditioning system; an active
suspension system
Universal Transaction Communications Information to flow—wherever it exists, in any form, to wherever it

is needed in any form
Third–Generation Advanced Rotor Increases range 36% or payload 98%, reliability 45% and reduce
Demonstration O&S costs 10%
Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission II Provides 25% weight reduction, increases MTBR, significantly
reduces O&S costs
Rotor Wing Structures Technology Increases reliability 20%, maintainability 10%, reduces O&S 5%
(utility rotorcraft)
Advanced Rotorcraft Aerodynamics Reduces MTBF, increases reliability and maintainability, and
reduces O&S costs
Subsystem Technology Affordability and Overcomes technical barriers associated with advanced digitized
Support maintenance and real–time OBIDs
Intravehicle Electronics Suite Validates real–time performance requirements Vetronics open

systems architecture
Military Operations in Urban Terrain "Open system" architecture facilitates large reduction in future ILS
life–cycle costs
Joint Speakeasy Flexible radio architecture, rapid waveform reprogrammability/

reconfigurability
Range Extension Technology supplement current (and programmed) SATCOM

resources, all frequency bands
Machine Vis–Autonomous UGV Provides capability to ensure resupply continues at the required
level and timeliness
SATCOM Technology Provides higher data rates, improvements in throughput, and

reduced life–cycle costs
Rapid Terrain Visualization Provides battlefield situational awareness required to plan and
execute log missions


The following force projection and force sustainment domains of the RML articulate capabilities required to project and
sustain the force of the future. There may be specific, ongoing R&D initiatives relevant to logistics’ requirements, but where no
stated or apparent linkage to logistics has been identified in the areas listed below, "none" is listed. This does not mean that
there is no requirement for R&D efforts needed to fulfill the stated capability. Quite the contrary—these are areas where there is
a need for R&D to support required logistics capabilities. In those cases where there is already ongoing research in the relevant
technologies but logistics has not been previously been identified as a requirer of the technology, this connection needs to be
formally established. Situational awareness is a specific example of an area that has ongoing research and development but
logistics has not been identified previously as an eventual user of the technology.
1. RML Domain—Force Projection
To project the force the logistics community needs:
• Key information technologies that rapidly and automatically identify and track assets.
• Access to and use of theater entry technologies such as battlefield visualization and situational awareness.
• Advanced thermo–reactive material for climatically controlled, unattended, tamper proof, "smart containers."
• Advanced materiel handling equipment
• Access to and use of theater command and control technologies.
• "Smart" delivery resupply systems for early entry and emergency resupply.
• Early entry soldier sustenance.
a. Key Information Technologies That Rapidly and Automatically Identify and Track Assets
None. While a movement tracking system has been partially acquired there remains a definite need for advanced identifying
and tracking technologies.
b. Theater Entry Technologies
None. Virtually every other functional area in the Army has identified the requirement for battlefield visualization and
situational awareness. It is at the core of logistics’ requirements to enable us to provide the support capabilities required for
Army XXI and AAN.
c. Advanced Thermoreactive Material for "Smart Containers"
None. Advanced thermoreactive material that adjusts its insulating properties based upon ambient climatic conditions, and
smart systems technologies need to be integrated to provide shipping, storage, and distribution containers that dramatically
unencumber the soldier.
d. Advanced Materiel Handling Equipment
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/ge.htm（第 1／10 页）2006-09-10 23:25:57

None. With the force structure reductions, the Army no longer can manually handle materiel shipments. Advanced materiel
handling equipment incorporating advanced sensors, AI, and robotics must be developed and acquired if Army XXI and the
AAN are to be supplied and resupplied in a timely manner.
e. Theater Command and Control Technologies
None. There are a host of R&D initiatives ongoing in this area but few if any incorporate the needs of logistics. This is one of
the reasons that the log community "survives" on what is appropriately referred to as the "sneaker net."
f. Smart Delivery Resupply Systems
See Volume I, Chapter III, Section O.
g. Early Entry Soldier Sustenance
See Volume I, Chapter III, Section O.
2. RML Domain—Force Sustainment
To sustain the force, the logistics community needs smart combat systems that have:
• Ultra–reliability built into them during manufacture.

• Built–in self–prognostics that predict potential failures automatically.
• Self–healing subsystems that provide the capability to delay repairs and continue to prosecute the battle.
• Smart materials that self–heal and change according to the demands of the battlefield.
• Alternative propulsion systems and fuels; significantly greater fuel efficiency.
• Biomimetic materials that provide order of magnitude increases in strength and are noncorrosive and
nonerosive.
• Sensors and AI that will enable resupply and repair movements about the battlefield with a high degree of
impunity.
• Battlefield situational awareness.
• Nanotechnology applied to battlefield manufacture of supplies as well as the maintenance and repair of combat
equipment.
• Basic command and control capabilities.
• Information technologies that rapidly and automatically identify and track assets.
• Access to and use of theater command, control (C2) and assessment/decision making technologies.
• Logistics survivability on the battlefield.
a. Ultra–Reliability Built In During Manufacture
Helicopter Active Control Technology (HACT) TD (98–02). The HACT TD will demonstrate advanced processing for
fault–tolerant systems to maintain reliability while improving affordability and O&S costs and simplifying maintenance. It is
discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section D, "Aviation." Supports: Comanche, Apache, JTR, ICH, and the RML.
Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission (ART II) TD (97–00). The ART TD will provide increased MTBF drivetrain subsystems,
and significantly improve readiness and O&S cost reduction. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section D,
"Aviation." Supports: JTR, ICH, Apache, dual–use potential, and the RML.

Rotor–Wing Structures Technology (RWST) TD (97–01). RWST will fabricate and demonstrate advanced airframe sections
by FY01 that are tailored for field supportability. System payoffs of 20 percent increase in reliability, 10 percent improvement in
maintainability, and 5 percent reduction in O&S for utility type rotorcraft. The technology objectives include a 25 percent cost
reduction. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section D, "Aviation." Supports: Battle Labs, JTR, ICH, UH–60
upgrades, collaborative technology, and the RML.
Advanced Rotorcraft Aeromechanics Technologies (ARCAT) (97–00). Reduced MTBFs will be the result of R&D conducted
to achieve reduced aircraft loads and vibration loads. Achievement of aerodynamics technology objectives will contribute to
rotorcraft system payoffs, reliability, maintainability, and reduced O&S costs. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III,
Section D, "Aviation." Supports: Battle Labs, Force XXI, and the RML.
Subsystems Technology for Affordability and Supportability (STAS) TD (97–00). This focuses on those subsystem
technologies directly affecting the supportability of Army aviation. It addresses technical barriers associated with advanced,
digitized maintenance concepts, and real–time, on–board integrated diagnostics. The expected benefits are reductions in
MTTR, no evidence of failure removals, and spare parts consumption resulting in overall reductions in system life cycle cost
and enhanced mission effectiveness. Supports reduced MTTR across all systems by 15 percent, 25 percent reduction in
maintenance costs per flight hour and payoffs of 10 percent improvement in maintainability, 20 percent increase in reliability,
and 5 percent reduction in O&S costs. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section D, "Aviation." Supports: Battle
Labs, AH–64, UH–60, RAH–66 upgrades, ICH, JTR, other services, civil rotorcraft fleets, advanced prognostics,
telemaintenance, and the RML.
Third–Generation Advanced Rotor Demonstration (3rd GARD) TD (01–04). This is to provide for system–level payoffs of a
45 percent increase in reliability and a 10 percent reduction in O&S costs for attack rotorcraft. It is discussed in detail in
Volume I, Chapter III, Section D, "Aviation." Supports:Far–term Advanced Rotorcraft Concepts and the RML.
Advanced Electronics for Future Combat System (AEFCS) (00–04). This effort will upgrade the VOSA developed under
Intravehicle Electronics Suite ATD to support high–power electronic devices. This technology, when applied, will dramatically
change logistics sustainment policy, doctrine, and operations. Advanced concepts for resupply of power and distribution
systems will be needed to support these high–power electronic devices on the battlefield of the future. It is discussed in detail in
Volume I, Chapter III, Section G, "Mounted Forces." Supports: FCS, Abrams, CSS Battle Lab, and the RML.
Intravehicle Electronics Suite (IVES) TD (96–00). This TD will develop and demonstrate a ground vehicle integrated
electronic architecture. These technologies, when applied, will change logistics sustainment policy, doctrine and concept of
operations It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section G, "Mounted Forces." Supports: FSCS ATD, Open
Systems Joint Task Force, Army C4I Technical Architecture, FCS, FIV, Abrams, Bradley, Crusader, and the RML.
b. Alternative Propulsion Systems and Fuels
Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) ATD (98–01). This will fabricate and test a multifunction staring sensor suite,
advanced lightweight structural materials and armors, electric drive, lightweight track, semiactive and fully active suspension,
advanced crew stations, advanced C2, and advanced survivability systems, all of which significantly impact logistics operations,
training, and support concepts, policy and doctrine. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section G, "Mounted
Forces." Supports: FSCS, FIV, FCS, alternative propulsion systems, and the RML.
Integrated High–Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) Program [Joint Turbine Advanced Gas Generator
(JTAGG)] Demonstration (91–03). Specific goals include a 25 percent reduction in fuel consumption. It is discussed in detail
in Volume I, Chapter III, Section D, "Aviation."Supports: The RML, JTR, ICH, Apache, all rotorcraft, and dual–use potential.
Ground Propulsion and Mobility (97–01). This effort will demonstrate advanced electronic drive, track and suspension

technologies. These technologies, when applied, will dramatically change logistics sustainment policy, doctrine and concept of
operations. This is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section G, "Mounted Forces." Supports: FSCS ATD, FCS, FIV,
Future Electrically Driven Vehicles, Future Medium Weight Combat Vehicles, Tactical Wheeled Vehicles, and the RML.
Future Combat System Mobility (FCSM) (02–06). This effort will demonstrate an advanced propulsion system that consists of
a high power density, low heat rejection, engine (diesel or turbine); an electric drive and power conditioning system; an active
suspension system; an automatic track tensioning system; and an advanced track. These technologies, when applied, will
dramatically change logistics sustainment policy, doctrine and concept of operations It is discussed in detail in Volume I,
Chapter III, Section G, "Mounted Forces." Supports: FCS, Abrams, Crusader, and the RML.
c. Biomimetic Materials
None. The Army laboratories have research ongoing in biomimetics. Spider silk research is one specific R&D initiative that is
being funded. Outside the Army laboratories, but still within the federal system of laboratories, there is considerable
biomimetic research ongoing. A recently opened molecular science laboratory dedicated to molecular nanoscience offers
considerable confidence that the logisticians will be capable of molecular battlefield manufacturing and repair in support of the
AAN.
d. Sensors and Artificial Intelligence
None. R&D is ongoing and extensive for the warfighters in this area. It is also needed for logistics’ vehicles.
e. Battlefield Situational Awareness
None. R&D is ongoing and extensive for the warfighters in this area. It is also needed for logistics’ functions.
f. Nanotechnology
None. The Army labs have research ongoing in nanotechnology. Outside the Army labs but still within the federal system of
laboratories there is considerable nanotechnology research ongoing. A recently opened molecular science laboratory that is
dedicated to molecular nanoscience offers considerable confidence that the logisticians will be capable of molecular battlefield
manufacturing and repair in support of the AAN.
g. Information Technologies To Automatically Identify and Track Assets
Universal Transaction Communications/Services TD (96–03). This TD will allow information to flow in any form to wherever
it is needed in whatever form it is needed, thus permitting unrestrained information flow between otherwise incompatible
systems. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section E, "Command, Control, Communications, and Computers."
Supports: All tacticalcommunications and the tactical internet, Force XXI, and the RML.
h. Theater Command, Control and Assessment/Decision Making Technologies
Battlespace Command and Control (BC2) ATD (97–03). This ATD will develop and demonstrate advanced decision aids, 3D
visualization, distributed and shared databases, all capabilities required to ensure that logistics can meet the demands imposed
by combat operations. The tri–service C2 sources will provide essential elements of information required for the timely and
survivable distribution of supplies, repair parts, and technicians to perform battlefield maintenance and repair. It is discussed in
detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section E, "Command, Control, Communications, and Computers." Supports: Force XXI,
RTV ACTD, Velocity Management, Battlefield Distribution, and the RML.

Digital Battlefield Communications (DBC) ATD (95–99). This ATD will support digitized battlefield and split–based
operations. It will provide bandwidth on demand to support multimedia information requirements. Digitized communications
directly supports the rapid processing of logistics data critical to supporting battlefield commanders. It is discussed in detail in
Volume I, Chapter III, Section E, "Command, Control, Communications, and Computers." Supports: All Transport Systems,
Force XXI, Future Digital Radio (FDR), and the RML.
Rapid Terrain Visualization (RTV) ACTD (97–01). The goal of this ACTD is to demonstrate capabilities to collect source data
and generate high resolution digital terrain databases quickly to support crisis response and force projection operations within
the timelines required by the Joint Force Commander. Rapid knowledge of terrain characteristics helps logistics commanders
provide battlefield support under all conditions. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section E, "Command,
Control, Communications, and Computers" and Section F, "Intelligence and Electronic Warfare." Supports: JSPD/RFPI,
Force XXI, Vision 2010, Army Battle Command System (ABCS), Intel XXI, Division ’98 AWE, the RML, Telemaintenance
and Logistics C2.
Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) C4I TD (96–00). The "open system" architecture will facilitate a large
reduction in future Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) life cycle costs. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section
E, "Command, Control, Communications, andComputers." Supports: Force XXI Land Warrior and the RML.
Joint Speakeasy/Multiband Multimode Radio (MBMMR) TD (95–99). MBMMR will demonstrate a highly flexible radio
architecture to support maintenance, interoperability, networking, traffic load, frequency assignment, and general modes of
operation. The number of antennas required will be minimized. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section E,
"Command, Control, Communications, and Computers." Supports: Future Digital Radio, Force XXI, and the RML.
Range Extension (RE) TD (97–99). This program will identify and develop key technologies required for airborne applications
of a suite of communications packages, design and integrate specific systems, and conduct system tests and demonstrations of
intratheater communications range extension at a variety of data rates. When applied these technologies will overcome current
restrictions on maintenance communications requirements. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section E,
"Command, Control, Communications, and Computers." Supports: JPO UAV TIER II Program, Goldenhawk, Joint
Precision Strike, Automated Self–Prognosis Decision System, Telemaintenance, and the RML.
SATCOM TD (00–02). This technology effort will extend the applications and capabilities of SATCOM terminals by
providing higher data rates, improvements in throughput, and reduced life–cycle costs. Overall improvements to systems and
equipment will reduce size and increase mobility. When applied these technologies will overcome current restrictions on
maintenance communications requirements It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section E, "Command, Control,
Communications, and Computers." Supports: SATCOM upgrades and the RML.
i. Logistics Survivability on the Battlefield
Battlefield Combat Identification (BCID) ATD (93–98). The BCID addresses the mission need to develop effective and
survivable ground–to–ground and air–to–ground combat identification capabilities to avoid engagement of friendly forces and
noncombatants. This ATD will demonstrate target identification techniques together with situational awareness information,
which will prevent fratricide during resupply and maintenance missions. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III,
Section F, " Intelligence and Electronic Warfare." Supports: Armored Vehicles, the Integrated C3IEW System–of–Systems,
Land Warrior, Battlespace C2, Aviation platform upgrades, JPSD/RFPI, Force XXI, Logistics Survivability, and the RML.
Precision Navigation (PN) (94–98). This program provides accurate, robust, worldwide positioning that will allow resupply
and maintenance/repair missions on the battlefield of the future. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section E,
"Command, Control, Communications, and Computers." Supports: Digitization of the Battlefield, Navigation Warfare,

Battlespace C2, Precision Strike, RPA, Comanche, PEO Aviation, PEO C3S, PEO IEW, PM AEC, PM GPS, PM ATC, systems
upgrades Soldier System, Ground and Air Vehicles, and the RML.
Machine Vision for Autonomous Unmanned Ground Vehicle (MVAUGV) TD (96–99). Through this technology
demonstration an autonomous navigation capability will be developed and demonstrated on a UGV that allows operation on
or off roads, that can detect and circumnavigate obstacles, and that can autonomously replan its route. Resupply of the Army is
essential to sustaining combat operations. This technology provides the capability to ensure that resupply operations continue
at the required level and timeliness even with continued troop strength reductions. It is discussed in detail in Volume I,
Chapter III, Section F, " Intelligence and Electronic Warfare." Supports: Joint UGV Project Office, Rapid Force Projection
Initiative ACTD, Early Entry Lethality and Survivability, Dismounted Battlespace, Combat Service Support, and Depth and
Simultaneous Attack Battle Labs, and the RML.
j. Soldier Sustainment
Performance Enhancing Demonstrations (95–98). Special supplemental components will supplement the Individual Combat
Ration to heighten alertness, extend endurance, and reduce the effects of high altitude sickness. Sustaining our soldiers in all
combat conditions is a key logistics mission. It is discussed in detail in Volume I, Chapter III, Section I, "Soldier." Supports:
Army Field Feeding Future and the RML.
In March 1997, TRADOC hosted an AAN Technology Workshop with six panels, one of which focused on logistics
efficiencies. The AAN Logistics Efficiencies Panel identified applications of advanced technology in power, distribution, soldier
sustainment, system sustainment, ammunition, and C4I. Its mission was to conduct broad studies of warfare to about the year
2025 to frame issues vital to the Army after about 2010 and to provide issues to the senior Army leadership for integration into
TRADOC combat development programs. The objectives were to expand the AAN network of technologists across multiple
disciplines and organizations, link technological possibilities to innovative operational capabilities, introduce the Integrated
Idea Team Concept, identify enabling technologies that provide needed capabilities, integrate human and organizational
issues, and answer these questions:
• How can the AAN project influence the science and technology process?
• How can science and technology influence AAN?
Technological issues identified by the AAN Logistics Efficiencies Panel include:
• Power and energy
– Fossil fuel energy conversion is nearing the upper limits

– AAN platforms, even at 15 tons, exceed current energy conversion capabilities for a ten–day
operational mission
– Significant RDT&E is required to obtain better energy conversion with new techniques, and reduce the
weight of the AAN platform
– Tactical energy distribution requires development
– Alternate energy options (e.g., hydrogen, natural gas, methanol)
• System sustainment
– "Ultra–reliability" as a major design priority: systems that never "break"

– Predictive maintenance—systems that report on their condition: system health monitors, embedded

sensors—nanoscience, and advanced prognostics

– Self–repair—systems that fix themselves: smart structures—biomimetics (natural processes) and
microengineered machines
– Ease of repair—parts within 24 hours: telemaintenance and global distribution, design for
discard—100 percent recoverability, and embedded training
• Command, control, communication, and automation
– Fully automated, integrated operations/logistics C2 capability: intelligent agents, and equally capable as
combat platform and fielded concurrently
– Automated logistics planning: interactive, predictive, and collaborative; and "sentinels"
– Zero staging: AI–based and embedded simulation
– Rapid supply: data mining, automatic requisition, automated contract negotiation, and EDI
– Real–time situational awareness: object–based visualization, HCI, modeling, and simulation; real–time
day/night, all–weather, all–terrain, all–threat knowledge; and real–time comprehensive knowledge of (1)
location and combat status of friendly forces, (2) location, type, and timing of degrading and degraded
("broken") friendly assets, (3) disposition of threat forces ion relationship to degraded and degrading
friendly assets, (4) location of natural and manmade obstacles to resupply/repair routes, (5) location and
availability of supply/resupply assets to include repair parts, (6) location and availability transportation
assets, and (7) current and predicted weather conditions
• Distribution
– Information–based distribution, based on anticipated demand: embedded sensors and real–time total
situational awareness (logistics, operations, supply chain)
– Strategic maneuverability: "pipes" project logistics support fluidity, advanced airlift and fast sealift,
single mobility platform (combat and combat support), and tactical sorter hub
– 24–hour global delivery with 100 percent accuracy: precision (next generation) GPS air delivery
• Soldier sustainment
– Agility, 90 percent lighter weight for combat load, uniform: advanced materials, multispectral
protective fabrics; and combat power from external sources
– Every soldier a "combat center": personal communications and POSNAV, heads–up displays with IFF,
wearable computers/intelligent assistants, and "infallible" communications and support
– Long term (2–4 weeks) self–sustainability: medical and nutrient patches, vehicles for medical
evacuation owned by the medics, mission tailorable/sensory enhancing rations, physiological and mental
status sensors, and next–generation water purification (e.g., polymers, UV)
– Advanced soldier power sources (microturbines, fuel cells/batteries)
• Ammunition
– Single round, single fuze: GPS—guided munitions, variable thrust, and lethality; and electronic fuze
with built in IFF
– "Safe" ammunition/environmentally green: insensitive munitions and energetic materials
– Single propellant—run on what you shoot: hybrid electric weapons and energetic materials—liquid
propellant hydrogen (multipurpose)
– "Smart" lightweight packaging: embedded condition sensors and composites and plastics
– "Soft kill" of equipment.

The AAN Logistics Efficiencies Panel has provided this framework of issues/requirements that need to be addressed in the S&T
community for the Army to realize its Logistics capabilities required for Army XXI and the AAN.
The DoD S&T community has identified six Strategic Research Objectives (SROs) where the long–term potential exists for
developing advanced technologies to meet requirements: nanotechnology, smart structures, intelligent systems, biomimetics,
broadband communications, and compact power sources. These SROs are described below.
Nanotechnology. Achieve dramatic, innovative enhancements in the properties and performance of structures, materials, and
devices on the nanometer scale (i.e., tens of angstroms). Fabrication of structures at the nanometer scale will enable
manufacturing of more reliable, lower cost, higher performance and more flexible electronic, magnetic, optical, and
mechanical devices. The potential exists for "battlefield manufacture" of materials required to prosecute a conflict.
Smart Structures. Demonstrate advanced capabilities for modeling, predicting, controlling, and optimizing the dynamic
response of complex, multielement, deformable structures used in land, sea, and air vehicles and systems. Smart structures offer
significant potential for expanding the effective operations envelope and improving critical operational characteristics for
weapon systems. Logistics applications include a "self–healing" area for structural damage detection and mitigation systems.
Intelligent Systems. Enable the deployment of advanced systems able to sense, analyze, learn, adapt, and function effectively in
changing or hostile environments. Intelligent systems typically consist of a dynamic network of agents interconnected via
spatial and communications links that operate in uncertain and dynamically changing environments using decentralized or
distributed input and under localized goals that may change over time. Intelligent systems must be capable of gathering relevant
information about their environment, analyzing its significance in terms of assigned functions, and defining the most
appropriate course of action consistent with programmed decision logic. Built–in, real–time, self–reporting prognostics for
weapon systems is an application of this technology that will dramatically reduce logistic burdens, associated costs, and
significantly improve the MTTR.
Biomimetics. Enable the development of novel synthetic materials, processes, and sensors through advanced understanding
and exploitation of design principles found in nature. Materials and structures of intricate complexity that exhibit remarkable
properties are found throughout the biological world. Many of these biological systems derive their functionality from
fabrication through several levels of self–assembly involving molecular clusters organized into structures of different length
scales. The result is an optimized architecture tailored for specific applications through molecular, nanoscale, microscale, and
macroscale levels that is unobtainable through conventional, equilibrium–based, synthetic fabrication methods. The superior
strengths and other properties such as noncorrosiveness and light weight of biomimetic materials lend themselves to solving
and reducing numerous logisticsburdens.
Broadband Communications. Provide fundamental advances enabling the rapid and secure transmission of large quantities of
multimedia information (speech, data, graphics, and video) from point–to–point, broadcast, and multicast over distributed
networks for heterogeneous C3I systems. Research is needed to dramatically improve the throughput, survivability, and
security of communication networks critical to logistics viability and the success of future Force XXI military operations.
Compact Power Sources. Achieve significant improvements in the performance (power and energy density, operating
temperature, reliability, and safety) of compact power sources through fundamental advances relevant to current technologies
(e.g., batteries and fuel cells) and the identification and exploitation of new concepts. Efficient, long–life, durable, and quiet
compact power sources are a critical requirement for electronics, communications, heating and cooling, weapons, and
propulsion systems.
Table G–2 portrays the value added for logistics from the application of the technologies represented in the six DoD SROs.

Table G–2. Logistics’ Applications of DoD SRO Technologies

Nanotechnology Smart Structures Intelligent Biomimetics Broadband Compact
Systems Communications Power Sources
Changes concept of Vibration damping Execution of logistics Medical applications Provide field users Reduce fuel and power storage
manufacturing—do and reduction via system tasks without to include immediate with flexible, mobile, and distribution requirements
anywhere embedded sensors human intervention repair of broken/ and easily deployable significantly
except when desired crushed bones and communications
combat injuries conduits
Synthesis from local Reduced maintenance Unmanned ground/ Repairs to combat Untether logistics Increased operational capability
materials requirement air vehicles decrease damaged equipment processes from fixed of the soldier as a system
force structure and wire sites
improve system
response time
Sophisticated, Reduced resupply and Robots to handle Designer vaccines and Increased data pass Handle power requirement of
extremely lightweight transportation materiel that is drugs for quick return capability dismounted soldier: heating
material requirements dangerous, heavy, or to healthy status and cooling; computer use;
sensitive communications transmissions
Quantum computing Improved storage Decision support Lightweight structures Reduce frequency of Reduced dependence on fossil
at very high speed with ambient system "brains" to and system data reporting fuels
temperature control monitor individual components with
weapon systems and ultra–reliability and
prevent failure virtually frictionless
Prophylactics and Secure system Reduced logistics Impact resistant Integrate weapon Reduced resupply requirement
cures for chem/bio containers for critical distribution material that can be system sensors for power sources
agents resources requirements by grown in combat area reporting prognostic
accurately assessing information on a
potential component broad scale
failures and using
collective knowledge
of entire weapon
system
Ultra–strong fibers Reduced damage to Improved logistics Lightweight Evaluate the "health" Reduce environmental issues
material by adjusting planning via armor—reduced of entire groups of associated with battery disposal
containers and multisensory logistics footprint common weapon
structures for various perception across the board systems individually
shock and impact development and independently
conditions
Programmed Structures respond to Improved High resolution Improve timeliness of Required to develop containers
ultra–reliability external stimuli and exoskeletons to reduce sensors to detect the logistics with micro heat pumps and
adapt accordingly force structure for imperfections and for communications long term power capability for
materials handling troubleshooting support structure independent operations
equipment—increased
lift capability
Reduced logistics Retain history of Reduced hazardous Development of

demand access and denials/ exposure during superconductor
automatic inventory critical item material could lead to
operations or repair propulsion without
motors or gears as we
know them
Environmentally Reduce logistics Noncorrosive and

enhancing requirements for nonerosive
chem/bio defense

Immediate battle
damage assessment
and failure reporting
Improve fuel storage

capability
Biomedical
applications including
"in vivo" sensing and
control
Rapid nondestructive
testing responses (less
out of service time)
This annex shows R&D initiatives that are ongoing in the Army laboratories that directly and significantly benefit Army
logistics in its quest to fulfill its obligations to support Army XXI and AAN.

1998 Army Science and Technology Master Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1998 Army Science and Technology Master Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1998 Army Science and Technology Master Plan