Download - In This Issue - USAASCAs the squad leader checks the wounded soldier’s status,the threat ratchets up yet again.Sensors detect an armor/infantry platoon-sized force approaching in

Headquarters Department of the Army

PB-70-02-2

Headquarters Department of the Army

PB-70-02-2

MARCH–APRIL 2002MARCH–APRIL 2002

In This Issue:

• Acquisition Logistics

Planning

• The Army SmarTruck

• Army MANTECH

Achievements

Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimited

In This Issue:

• Acquisition Logistics

Planning

• The Army SmarTruck

• Army MANTECH

Achievements

Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimited

FROM THE ARMYACQUISITION

EXECUTIVEObjective Force Warrior

The recent attacks on our homeland and the operations that followedconfirm our earlier decision to accelerate the Army’s transformation to theObjective Force and provide new urgency to our work. The Army is com-mitted to fielding the Objective Force in this decade. Army science andtechnology (S&T) is clearly focused on a new generation of land-combatsystems, the Future Combat Systems (FCS). FCS is envisioned as a net-worked “system-of-systems,” including manned and unmanned platformsthat will be capable of conducting direct and indirect fires, air defense,reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition, and battle commandand communications—all at operational tempos that will surpass even thewar-winning capabilities in today’s force.

The Army leadership recognized at the start of FCS that the ObjectiveForce also needed a special focus on technology for the soldier who mustwalk the enemy’s ground before any battle is finished decisively. This visionhas now crystallized into an S&T program that we call the Objective ForceWarrior, a new leap forward that extends the advances of the Army’s cur-rent Land Warrior acquisition program for the light forces infantryman.Land Warrior will bring revolutionary information dominance, situationalawareness, and weapon systems to the individual soldier. For example,every soldier will see on his display where his comrades are, will knowinstantly about the location of enemies, and will have a “911” capability tolet people know if he is in trouble.

Still, our imaginations permit us to define even more revolutionarycapabilities. Imagine, if you will, a squad of Objective Force Warriors onduty in a foreign land sometime in the period 2010-2015. They weredeployed in one day, just a few hours before. They are already prepared toengage in the full spectrum of operations, from peacekeeping to high-intensity combat, because their embedded training systems and individualaccess to all-source worldwide intelligence allow them to start training fortheir missions in detail the minute they receive the deployment order inthe states. On the ground, assuming their basic peacekeeping mission toseparate warring local factions, they distribute miniature sensor systems tosupplement national assets and unmanned air vehicle reconnaissance sys-tems, confer with local leaders using automatic voice translation systems,and develop a thoroughly detailed knowledge of the area and its dangers.

Early in the mission, the situation gets ugly. Citizens of one side areincited to riot against the Americans, bearing pipes and pitchforks againstthe peacekeepers. But advanced sensors give ample warning of the unrulycrowd’s approach, allowing the Americans to take strong positions, increasetheir protective posture with automatic face shield deployment, filter sys-tem activation, and an exoskeleton force enhancement system. Issuingwarnings to the crowd in the local language through their automatic trans-lation systems, the Americans bear up for minutes with restraint under ahail of rocks, bottles, and sticks, then decide to deploy tear gas to dispersethe crowd.

As the crowd runs for air, the soldiers’ advanced sensors detect a new,much more dangerous threat—snipers taking aim at them from a hill sev-eral hundred yards away. Instantly, the soldiers’ chameleon-like uniforms

allow them to “cloak” into near invisibility,assuming the colors and patterns of thenearby terrain. Quickly checking their rules ofengagement, the soldiers direct precision,high-explosive projectiles at the snipers fromtheir personal weapons, killing them, but notbefore one of the Americans is hit by a riflebullet. His protective suit stops the bullet,reducing what would otherwise have been akilling penetration to a blunt trauma injury.Then the suit’s medical status sensors and

self-medicating systems go to work, responding automatically to hiswounds, reporting the impact to the chain of command, and applying pres-sure to affected areas.

As the squad leader checks the wounded soldier’s status, the threatratchets up yet again. Sensors detect an armor/infantry platoon-sized forceapproaching in battle formation. The squad deploys its organic, unmannedhovering air vehicle, takes the measure of the attack, and launches loiteringattack missiles to destroy the threat, all in a matter of minutes. But oneenemy vehicle survives. As the squad calls up its robotic follower missilelauncher, the enemy vehicle scores a lucky hit, putting the launcher out ofaction. In a do-or-die play, this last vehicle is destroyed by the woundedsoldier who, sustained by his protective suit, is able to fire the remainingprecision-fire missile lying near him. As the day closes, the squad leaderspeaks to the wounded soldier’s mother thousands of miles away, assuringher that he is fine and will be home soon.

Some of these scenarios were explored in an innovative video presen-tation created recently by the Army’s Institute for Creative Technologiesunder the direction of Dr. A. Michael Andrews II, Deputy Assistant Secre-tary of the Army for Research and Technology and the Army’s Chief Scien-tist. This whole will be much more than the sum of its parts. These tech-nologies in turn will further enable us to implement change across ourDoctrine, Training, Leader Development, Organization, Materiel and Sol-diers (DTLOMS). DTLOMS will accept these new capabilities to bringanother revolution in the way we fight. And not just the way Americansfight. In Afghanistan and other operations, we see the tremendous advan-tages of fighting as part of an international coalition. Clearly, sharing tech-nology with our allies will enhance our overall effectiveness. Conversely, wewill take special care with industrial security, anti-access systems, andother technologies to ensure that our adversaries do not gain access to thisor comparable technology.

Like many products of Army S&T in the past, the technologies we’vediscussed will find application here at home among those who have chal-lenging, dangerous professions including police, fire, medical responders,and emergency service workers. The sensors, protective systems, and lethaland nonlethal weapons advanced under the Objective Force Warrior Pro-gram will help firemen find children in burning homes, protect police onthe streets, provide unimagined lifesaving information to paramedicsresponding to accident scenes, and more.

Most important, the Objective Force Warrior is not a fixed objective.Rather, it will be an evolutionary process, evolving and improving for yearsand decades into the future, incorporating advancements that we can’tforesee even today.

That’s our vision for the light forces soldier of the future—the Objec-tive Force Warrior. I’m glad to report to you that the S&T community isorganized, empowered, and motivated to take us there.

Claude M. Bolton Jr.

March-April 2002; PB 70-02-2

CLAUDE M. BOLTON JR.Assistant Secretary of the Army

for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology

EDITORIAL BOARDLTG JOHN S. CALDWELL JR.Director, Army Acquisition Corps

LTG PETER M. CUVIELLODirector of Information Systems for Command,

Control, Communications, and ComputersLTG ROY E. BEAUCHAMP

Deputy Commanding General, AMCMG GENE M. LACOSTE

Assistant DCSPERMG JOHN S. PARKER

Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Medical Research

and Materiel CommandDR. KENNETH J. OSCAR

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy andProcurement, Office of the ASAALT

WIMPY PYBUSDeputy Assistant Secretary for ILS

Office of the ASAALTDR. A. MICHAEL ANDREWS II

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Research and Technology

Office of the ASAALTDR. LEWIS E. LINK JR.

Director of R&DU.S. Army Corps of EngineersDONALD DAMSTETTER

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Plans, Programs and Resources

Office of the ASAALTHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Executive Secretary, Editorial Board

EDITORIAL STAFFHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Editor-In-ChiefDEBBIE FISCHER-BELOUS

Executive EditorCYNTHIA D. HERMES

Managing EditorSANDRA R. MARKS

A. JOSEPH STRIBLINGContract Support

To contact the Editorial Office call (703) 805-1034/35/36/38 orDSN 655-1034/35/36/38. Articles should be submitted to:DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900 BELVOIR RD, SUITE101, FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567. Our fax number is (703) 805-4218. E-mail: [email protected].

A Vision For The Objective Force WarriorDr. A. Michael Andrews II, Dr. Pamela Beatrice,Philip Brandler, and Roy Cooper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Developing The Soldier Systems ArchitectureCOL Theodore Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Objective Force Warrior: New Ways To TrainDr. Scott E. Graham and Dr. Jean L. Dyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Lifesaving Advances In Combat Casualty CareMAJ Robert M. Wildzunas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Land Warrior: Managing A Military ProgramLike A Commercial Company

COL Theodore Johnson and LTC Scott H. Crizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Institute For Soldier Nanotechnologies

William M. Mullins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Future Lethality For The Dismounted Soldier

Vernon E. Shisler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Institute For Creative Technologies Genesis

Dr. Michael R. Macedonia, Richard D. Lindheim,and Dr. William R. Swartout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Power For The Dismounted SoldierDr. Richard J. Paur and Dr. Thomas L. Doligalski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Army MANTECH Community Recognized At DefenseManufacturing Conference 2001

Joseph E. Flesch and Dr. Robert S. Rohde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Get Smart In Acquisition Logistics Planning

Bernard C. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27The Army’s SmarTruck: A True Technology Demonstrator

GerMaine P. Fuller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Joint Distributed Virtual Combat Range

MAJ Raymond D. Pickering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33The Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal Facility

Robert J. Cavallo and G. Thomas Howard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36NAC’s Ground Vehicle Occupant Protection Guide

Michael L. Gedeon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Chem Demil Facility Has Accident-Free Decade

Kenneth W. Findley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Acquisition

Logistics

Technology

Professional Publication of the AL&T Communityhttp://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil/

FEATURES

COVER

DEPARTMENTS

Army AL&T (ISSN 0892-8657) is published bimonthly by theOASAALT. Articles reflect views of the authors and not necessar-ily official opinion of the Department of the Army. The purposeis to instruct members of the Army acquisition workforce rela-tive to AL&T processes, procedures, techniques, and manage-ment philosophy and to disseminate other information perti-nent to their professional development. Private subscriptionsand rates are available from the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 or (202)512-1800. Periodicals official postage paid at Fort Belvoir, VA,and additional post offices. POSTMASTER: Send addresschanges to DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900BELVOIR RD, SUITE 101, FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567. Articlesmay be reprinted if credit is given to Army AL&T and the author.Unless specifically requested, photo credits are not given.Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

This medium is approved for official dissemination of materialdesigned to keep individuals within the Army knowledgeable of cur-rent and emerging developments within their areas of expertise forthe purpose of enhancing their professional development.

By order of the Secretary of the ArmyERIC K. SHINSEKI

General, United States ArmyChief of Staff

Official:

JOEL B. HUDSONAdministrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army��

The Objective Force Warrior initiative is expected to provide revolutionary capa-bilities for the future dismounted warfighter. (Graphic art for the cover provided bySteve Smith, Natick Soldier Center.)

Career Development Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48News Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Acquisition Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51ATTENTION ARMY AL&T AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2 Army AL&T March-April 2002

IntroductionToday’s fully equipped warrior is

too “heavy,” and his lethality, power,survivability, mobility, and situa-tional awareness are too limited toensure overmatching capability inthe warfighting environments antici-pated during the next 20 years. Toensure that the Army remains “per-suasive in peace and invincible inwar,” we must do more for our dis-mounted warrior. The ObjectiveForce Warrior (OFW) is the answer.

The Objective Force Warrior is abold initiative to provide arevolutionary capability for thedismounted warrior of the future.The impetus for this initiative ismultifaceted:

• “Light forces must be morelethal, survivable and tacticallymobile”—Chief of Staff of the Armyintent statement of June 1999;

• “Soldiers—not equipment—arethe centerpiece of our formation”—The Army vision;

• Mounted-enabled by dis-mounted and dismounted-enabledby mounted—Unit of Action opera-tions described in the Mission NeedStatement for Future Combat Systems(FCS);

• “Provide enhancement toenable soldiers to conduct dis-mounted maneuver with load bear-ing equipment and load not toexceed 40 pounds”—Statement ofRequired Capabilities, FCS; and

• Operations in Afghanistandemonstrate the importance of thewarfighter on the ground.

The dismounted warrior is a pri-mary element in the Army’s non-negotiable contract with the Ameri-can people to protect our Nation’sinterests. These interests may rangefrom peacekeeping, to support andstability operations, to full-scale war.Therefore, the equipment and sup-plies worn, carried, or consumed bythe dismounted warrior are a keyArmy priority.

A View Of The OFW The future OFW will fight as a

team with unparalleled capabilities.To achieve overwhelming overmatch,the OFW must apply a new fightingparadigm—see first, understand first,act first, and finish decisively.

• See First. The OFW must firstsee the enemy by detecting, identify-ing, and tracking him.

• Understand First. With a com-mon operating picture of the battle-field enabled by seeing first, the OFWwill have an unprecedented capabil-ity to understand what the enemy isdoing and better anticipate hisactions.

• Act First. Seeing and under-standing first will give the OFW thesituational dominance necessary toact first—to engage at times, places,and with methods of his own choos-

ing. This will allow informed deci-sionmaking at the lowest levels,yielding an operational tempo able tooperate inside the opponent’s deci-sion cycle.

• Finish Decisively. Enabled bythe ability to see first, understandfirst, and act first, the OFW will applyenhanced agility and overwhelminglethality to destroy the enemy’s abil-ity to fight.

The OFW vision requires a“system-of-systems” approach inte-grating lethality; command, control,communications, computers, intelli-gence, surveillance, and reconnais-sance (C4ISR); survivability; agility;and sustainment. The OFW mustemploy state-of-the-art solutions rig-orously integrated through sophisti-cated system architecture. Aggressiveapplication of analysis and modelingand simulation will be required tosupport the system-of-systems tradesnecessary to ensure optimal OFWperformance at minimal weight, cost,and delay. Additionally, the OFW willuse open system architecture toallow continuous incorporation ofnew technologies. This approach willensure our dismounted warriorshave the latest capabilities integratedinto their systems and are not wait-ing on the integration of multipleimprovements via a block upgrade.

Our future OFW will not fightwith yesterday’s technologies againstan enemy capable of applying the

A VISIONFOR THE OBJECTIVE FORCE

WARRIORDr. A. Michael Andrews II, Dr. Pamela Beatrice,

Philip Brandler, and Roy Cooper

March-April 2002 Army AL&T 3

latestcommer-cial capa-bilities. TheOFW will havecollaborative access toorganic and joint-netted firesproviding line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight fires on the move. TheOFW will have access to a commonoperating picture of the battlefieldthrough a combined sensor androbust communication system thatalso provides collaborative planningand rehearsal capabilities. The OFWwill be capable of operating for 72hours without resupply with connec-tivity to FCS. The OFW will also enjoyunprecedented survivability, enablednot only by better situational under-standing, but also by an integratedcombat suit that provides full-spectrum protection.

Technology OptionsThe leap-ahead capabilities

anticipated for the OFW will beenabled through technology devel-opments in five primary focus areas:lethality, survivability, knowledge,agility, and sustainment. Examples oftechnology opportunities in theseareas follow.

Lethality. The OFW must provideindividuals the capability to detect,identify, and kill targets throughoutthe full spectrum of military opera-tions under all operational environ-ments. To achieve this will requiredevelopment of systems to allowaccess and application of the lethalassets from within the squad andhigher echelons, a family of light-weight direct and indirect fire soldierweapons, and nonlethal capabilities.

Survivability. The future dis-mounted warrior will be exposed tothreats intended to create casualtiesor significantly reduce performance.These threats will be from ballistic,blast, directed energy, fire/incendi-ary, chemical/biological, nuclear,physiological, environmental, andvibration/impact sources. Inresponse to these threats, the OFWmust provide effective protectionunder all battlefield conditions andthe ability to see the enemy first,avoid exposure, and mitigate conse-quences. Key technology elementsare as follows:

• Advanced sensors will allow theOFW to see the enemy first across afull spectrum of battlefield environ-ments with emphasis on urbanterrains.

• A lightweight soldier suit willintegrate signature management,chemical and biological weapon pro-tection, advanced lightweight armor,physiological monitoring, and casu-alty care. The Institute for SoldierNanotechnologies is a major Armyinitiative for achieving this capability.

• A personal thermal manage-ment system (microclimate condi-tioning) will allow operation in allenvironmental conditions.

Knowl-edge. The

OFW will enablethe warrior to com-

prehend data gatheredthrough the Objective Force C4ISRsystem and quickly evaluate possibleactions and their outcome. Specifi-cally, the OFW will have a nearlycomplete picture of the battlefieldand the tools to rapidly exchangecritical information across the fullspectrum of military operations. Theinformation-enabled warrior requireson-demand connectivity and deci-sionmaking capability. Key technol-ogy elements are as follows:

• Miniaturized, rugged, net-worked squad radio;

• Data visualization tools;• Systems for near real-time sol-

dier information processing systems;and

• Advanced decisionmaking toolsand software “intelligent agents.”

Agility. The OFW must haveunprecedented agility with enhancedhuman performance. A specific goalis to reduce the weight carried by thedismounted warrior to 40 pounds orless. Key technology elements in-clude the following:

• Approaches to offload, lighten,and assist the warrior to includeleverage of the Defense AdvancedResearch Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s)exoskeleton program and semi-autonomous robotic mules;

• Warfighting simulations andvirtual prototypes of warrior systems;

ObjectiveForce Warrior

SeeFirst

ActFirst

FinishDecisively

UnderstandFirst


• Enhanced warrior performancethrough human modeling and phar-macological advances; and

• Embedded and small-unitleader training capabilities.

Sustainment. Both the physicaland mental health of the OFW areimportant in addition to anautonomous ability to sustain theindividual warrior across the spec-trum of battlefield conditions. Specif-ically, the OFW must provide for 72-hour organic sustainment capabilitysupplemented by an emergencyresupply system. Key technology ele-ments include:

• Compact soldier high-powersystems through leveraging ofDARPA’s Palm Power Program,

• Water generation and purifica-tion methods, and

• Novel materiel delivery systemsto provide never-late, warrior-specific resupply.

Strategy The warfighter is central to the

Objective Force, and the transition ofOFW technologies and capabilitiesrequires integration with FCS. Tocoordinate with FCS milestones, theOFW effort will be pursued in twoseparate science and technology(S&T) phases, the first occurringfrom FY02 through FY06 and the sec-ond from FY07 to FY11.

The FY02-06 phase will be pur-sued through the execution of twoparallel program elements. The firstwill be a system-of-systems conceptdesign of the OFW using up to twolead system integrators. This pro-gram element will evolve through aconcept exploration phase to prelim-inary system design, and then to sys-tem prototyping and demonstration.The second program element will bethe pursuit of high-risk, high-payofftechnologies and component devel-

opment. Both program elements willbe initiated in FY02 and continueuntil transition to system develop-ment and demonstration (SDD)activities in 2006. These activities willlikely be followed by low-rate initialproduction and fielding beginning inthe 2010 period. This schedule alignsOFW production with FCS Block Iproduction.

The second phase of the OFWProgram begins in 2007 with aplanned transition to SDD in 2011.This phase will integrate and demon-strate technologies that are cur-rently in the early stages of research(for example, exoskeleton andmicroclimate-conditioning technolo-gies) and require further develop-ment to determine their potentialcontribution to the OFW. The PhaseII schedule is structured to coincidewith that of the FCS block upgrade.

ConclusionNearly 85 percent of all U.S.

casualties in World War II, in Korea,and in Vietnam were inflicted on ourdismounted warriors. The Army’sS&T community, through develop-ment of the OFW, fully expects a dif-ferent result on future battlefields.That result will be an unfair fight thatsignificantly favors the U.S. Armywarrior.

Note: The Institute for CreativeTechnologies, in collaboration withthe Office of the Deputy Assistant Sec-retary of the Army for Research andTechnology, has produced a digitalvideo disk (DVD) to dramatize avisionary concept for a revolutionaryapproach to the Objective Force War-rior. The DVD depicts a series of dis-mounted warrior vignettes set in the2015 timeframe and illustrates leap-ahead warfighting capabilities thatmay be in the realm of possibility.Information about the DVD can beobtained by [email protected].

DR. A. MICHAEL ANDREWS IIis the Deputy Assistant Secretary ofthe Army for Research and Tech-nology and Chief Scientist of theArmy. Before coming to the Penta-gon in 1997, Andrews was a seniorexecutive at Rockwell Interna-tional Corp., with leadership expe-rience in technology development,business management, and strate-gic planning. He holds a Ph.D. inelectrical engineering from theUniversity of Illinois and M.S. andB.S. degrees in electrical engineer-ing from the University of Okla-homa. He has 5 patents and 49publications, and he is a recipientof Rockwell’s Engineer of the YearAward.

DR. PAMELA BEATRICE is theliaison for the U.S. Army Soldierand Biological Chemical Com-mand (SBCCOM) in the Office ofthe Deputy Assistant Secretary ofthe Army for Research and Tech-nology. She holds a doctoral degreein materials science and engineer-ing from the University ofPennsylvania.

PHILIP BRANDLER is theDirector of the Natick Soldier Cen-ter at SBCCOM, Natick, MA. Hehas a bachelor’s degree in physicsfrom Columbia University andadvanced degrees in physics,industrial engineering and opera-tions research, and businessadministration. He is a member ofthe Army Acquisition Corps.

ROY COOPER is a Consultantwith Information InternationalAssociates, Oak Ridge, TN. He pre-viously served as the Special Assis-tant to the Deputy Assistant Secre-tary of the Army for Research andTechnology and the Chief Scientistof the Army.


Army transforma-tion, incorporating rev-olutionary employ-ment concepts andcutting-edge technol-ogy, creates significantchallenges not only forprogram managerswho support it, butalso for those whomust meet today’s userrequirements. ProjectManager (PM), SoldierSystems employs the“soldier-as-a-system” concept, alongwith a soldier systems architecture, toaddress current requirements andestablish a strong foundation for trans-formation to the Objective Force.

The soldier systems architecture isa framework that considers requiredfunctions, establishes system modular-ity, and specifies internal and externalinterfaces among system modules thatare integrated into a variety of plat-forms to satisfy the soldiers’ needs.This architecture relies on commonal-ity—for functions, modular compo-nents, and module interfaces—thatapplies to a series of warrior (soldier)platforms. For example, instead of pro-

ducing a component uniquelydesigned for the infantry rifleman, wedevelop modules applicable to alltypes of infantry that can also be used for armor, artillery, aviation, support services, and joint Servicerequirements.

The obvious benefits are reducedcycle time to field new platformsthrough commonality and reuse,improved sustainment, and cost sav-ings resulting from much larger pro-duction quantities. However, the sol-dier systems architecture helps us domore. For example, by using modularcomponents, incorporating new com-mercial technology, and developingproducts via transformation-related

research and develop-ment (R&D), we canmore economicallyproduce multiple plat-forms. This can beaccomplished in paral-lel fielding events syn-chronized with theArmy’s Unit Set Field-ing Plan.

User InvolvementUser-needs genera-

tion is the initial stepfor developing the soldier systemsarchitecture. For example, users arecurrently developing requirements inother combat domains includingarmor, aircraft, special operations,medicine, combat engineering, andartillery. Support-type requirementsare also being developed for platformsin areas such as maintenance andlogistics.

The soldier-as-a-system conceptapplies to user requirements as well.PM, Soldier Systems has been workingwith the U.S. Army Infantry Center asthe lead proponent to coordinate therequirements definition process. Theidea, illustrated in Figure 1, is that

DEVELOPINGTHE SOLDIER SYSTEMS

ARCHITECTURECOL Theodore Johnson

Figure 1.


materiel solution requirements can behandled much more efficiently whenthe users consider a core set of func-tions that are satisfied by modules cur-rently in the soldier systems architec-ture. New capabilities build upon thebasic functions, meaning developmentand production are only needed forthe “delta” requirements. New solu-tions, in turn, update the architecture,providing an expanded basis for otherplatforms and subsequent systems.

The Soldier Systems ArchitectureWorking Group interacts with the usercommunity to establish and maintainthe soldier systems architecture. Theworking group also provides a link tothe R&D community to incorporatenew technology developments into thearchitecture. The products of thisprocess are the operational require-ments document and the soldier sys-tems architecture. Both will be used bythe acquisition community when anew warrior platform is approved andfunded.

Architectural ApproachThe expandable soldier systems

architecture facilitates plug-and-playfunctionality for sensors, weapons,electronics, and soldier equipment. Itis the foundation for all warrior plat-form designs to satisfy a wide varietyof soldier requirements. The architec-ture framework evolves more slowlythan the solutions and the technologyassociated with individual modules.The framework includes open systemsinterfaces—widely available andconsensus-based interface standards.Existing government items and legacycomponents use adapters to fit intothe architecture when needed.

By concentrating on a modulararchitecture framework, the Army willdevelop warrior platforms that takeadvantage of future technology such asfaster, low-power computer chips;improved materials; and new ballisticprotection. Through close coordina-tion with the R&D community andcontinuous market analysis of com-

mercial technologies, we plan to lever-age change as it occurs.

Soldier Systems Architecture The soldier systems architecture of

functions, modules, and interfaces isbest viewed as a multidimensional fig-ure. A portion is illustrated in Figure 2.

The user needs—functional archi-tecture—are on the front face of eachcube. The physical architecture—system modularity—can be related toeach element of the functional archi-tecture and is shown on the top ofeach cube. Corresponding technicalarchitecture interfaces, on the rightside of the cube, apply to every mod-ule. The horizontal plane forms thephysical architecture, while the othertwo planes define the functional andtechnical architectures. The totalthree-dimensional representation is asoldier systems architecture that meetsuser requirements, incorporates mod-ularity, and defines all interfaces.

Figure 2.

��


The functional architec-ture identifies the require-ments derived from theuser. Managing a set offunctions and their modularsolutions allows us to mini-mize stovepiped develop-ment efforts for multiplesystems, reduce procure-ment time through modulereuse, and maintain com-mon sustainment concepts.

The physical architec-ture includes all hardwareand software components.The work breakdown struc-ture captures physical archi-tecture decisions. It defines the subsys-tems and major components thatrelate to user requirements in thefunctional architecture. Software mod-ularity, part of this process, directlyaffects the complexity of future modifi-cations and the software portability tomultiple platforms. Logistics concepts,use of existing government or com-mercial items, and potential for reuseall affect module-partitioningdecisions.

The technical architectureaddresses interoperability among dif-ferent platforms and systems. The jointtechnical architecture (JTA) and theJTA-Army (JTA-A) define a required setof interface standards and develop-ment guidelines for joint and Armyprograms that electronically produce,use, or exchange information.

The soldier systems technicalarchitecture defines interfaces, bothexternal and internal, that connect thesystem, subsystem modules, and insome cases, the internal components.The JTA provides choices for human-to-computer, data transfer, informa-tion processing, and information secu-rity activities. The soldier systemsarchitecture takes these into account,but goes beyond informationexchange. We are concerned withissues such as the following:

• Module interfaces on the sol-dier’s load-carrying equipment,

• Sensor mounts on weapons,• User interface controls,

• Common connectors, • Standardized menu screens, and• Adapters for legacy components

and external systems.

Architecture CoordinationWe are employing the soldier sys-

tems architecture for warrior platformsnow in development. The technicalarchitecture interfaces form the frame-work and are key to the plug-and-playsystem evolution. Because other Armyand government agencies developequipment that is part of the physicalarchitecture, coordination with theseagencies and suppliers is important.For example, PM, Night Vision/Recon-naissance Surveillance and TargetAcquisition continually develops newsensors with the potential for use onwarrior platforms. If we intend toincorporate new night vision sensors,the plug-and-play concept only workswhen interfaces are consistent with thetechnical architecture. We cannotoperate in a vacuum, but must beproactive, working with warrior plat-form users, government developmentagencies, and commercial suppliers.

Evolving ArchitecturePM, Soldier Systems is now coordi-

nating the technical architecture ele-ments with interested Army and othergovernment agencies. When the workis complete, we plan to update the sol-dier systems annex in the JTA-Army.The soldier systems architecture willeventually be fully coordinated and

documented, but it willnever be finished. We recog-nize that change will alwaysbe a factor. The functionalarchitecture evolves eachtime there is a newly identi-fied user requirement or newwarrior platform. This drivesre-evaluation of the physicalarchitecture. Physical archi-tecture changes, along withadvances in technology andmarketplace developments,will require us to re-examinethe technical architecture inthe future.

On the requirementsside, PM, Soldier Systems and theArmy Infantry Center are presenting aroadshow for users and developers.This explains the rationale and bene-fits for upfront requirements coordina-tion and use of the architecture as afoundation for future platforms.

We know that requirements willcontinue to evolve and expand. Thesoldier systems architecture is funda-mental to implementing a responsiveand effective acquisition process thatmust solve today’s needs, but is flexibleenough to cope with the future. Weexpect that the interfaces will havemuch longer life spans than the mate-rials, processes, and designs of systemmodules. However, the soldier systemsarchitecture is not static, and the inter-active user-developer managementprocess will guide changes with time.This will help us define and developnew warrior platforms for the InterimBrigade Combat Teams and, ulti-mately, the Objective Force.

COL THEODORE “TED” JOHN-SON is the PM, Soldier Systems. Hehas a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. ininternational relations, and anM.S. in national resource strategy.He is also a distinguished graduateof the Industrial College of theArmed Forces.

We know that requirementswill continue to evolve and expand.

The soldier systems architectureis fundamental to implementing

a responsive and effectiveacquisition process

that must solve today’s needs,but is flexible enough

to cope with the future.


IntroductionThe Objective Force Warrior (OFW)

will integrate advancing technologiesto enhance the effectiveness of soldiersand small units. The potential of thesetechnologies will only be realized, how-ever, when soldiers, leaders, and unitsare trained to optimize the capabilitiesof the new technologies. This articledescribes Army research, plans, andtraining guidelines designed to solvethe training challenges associated withemerging Objective Force technologies.

Technology ImplicationsConsider the capabilities and con-

ditions that define the training chal-lenges for Objective Force soldiers andsmall units. Objective Force soldierswill deploy almost anywhere in theworld on very short notice. Increas-ingly, they will fight in urban andrestricted terrains. Compressed time-tables and rapidly changing rules ofengagement will be the norm. Objec-tive Force units will operate a mix ofLegacy, Interim, and Objective Forcesystems. They must defeat mixes ofconventional, unconventional, or non-state enemy forces and execute stablesupport operations. To further compli-cate operations, most missions will beunder national and internationalscrutiny.

The futuristic array of capabilitiesis considerable. Small-unit communi-cation systems will allow soldiers tocondense information from manysources including their immediateenvironment. New navigation andnight vision capabilities will permitgreater mobility. Integrated physiologi-cal sensors in advanced combat uni-forms will provide continuous moni-toring of soldier health status and willpermit remote medical triage of battle-field casualties. Small units will use

organic air and ground robotic capabil-ities, including scouts and loadcarriers.

Advanced weapons will permitsmall units to engage the enemy faster,in greater numbers, and with morefocused devastation. New capabilitieswill allow soldiers to attack close or dis-tant targets from concealed or evenremote positions. Soldiers may also usean array of nonlethal capabilities. Theywill have a greater variety of tools thanever before. They must develop compe-tence and confidence in using the newtools under stress, understand how allthe tools interact, and be able to con-tinue the mission when the tools fail.There will be many training challenges.

Future Training RequirementsNew technologies will produce

obvious and some not-so-obviousdemands for more effective and effi-cient training. Training will increasinglyfocus on the use of information sys-tems and will, therefore, emphasizecognitive skills in conjunction withpsychomotor skills. At all levels, sol-diers and leaders must be trained tooperate sophisticated information sys-tems. More important, they must betrained to make rapid, accurate deci-sions with enormous implications onmission success.

Training GuidelinesIn recent years, Army science and

technology training research taught usmuch about what we must do to trainsoldiers to operate complex systems,but significant challenges remain. Theyinclude how best to tailor training toOFW technologies, operational condi-tions, and new training environments.Some specific training guidelinesfollow.

• Develop tailorable training. Thegoal of training should be to raise thelevel of proficiency of all soldiers. “Onesize fits all” training is essentially sub-optimal. To maximize efficiency, train-ing should be individually tailored tothe knowledge and skill levels of thetraining population.

• Ensure soldiers have the prerequi-site knowledge and skills. Increasingly,all soldiers will require basic computerskills. Recently, 36 percent of enlistedpersonnel in infantry courses ratedthemselves as computer “novices.”OFW-enabled soldiers must masterskills that are not taught until theadvanced noncommissioned officerlevel.

• Develop tools to help leaderstrain. Effective trainers must not onlybe able to use a system, they must beskilled at training. Trainers must beable to diagnose underlying causes ofpoor performance of both soldiers andequipment. This is difficult with com-plex systems, especially with anincrease in the number of tools andsubsystems. For example, while recentadvancements such as the thermalweapon sight and aiming light provideextraordinary capabilities, they dra-matically increase the number of fac-tors that can cause a soldier to miss atarget.

• Apply demonstrated principles incognitive skills training. Research bythe U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI),among others, identified effective tech-niques for training cognitive skills,including learner control, hierarchicalsequencing, and the use of advancedorganizers.

• Provide effective, efficient per-formance feedback. Performanceassessment and feedback mechanismsunderpin effective training. Trainingexercises, especially large collectiveexercises, provide an experience ratherthan actual training for small units.Collective live-fire training shouldaccount for detailed measures of targethits and task performance. Digital sys-tems should provide new capabilitiesto permit combat trainers to see howsoldiers and leaders are using newtechnological systems.

• Develop new “building-block”approaches for collective skills. Newtechnologies require new strategies tosystematically move soldiers throughtraining of individual skills, to buddy

OBJECTIVE FORCEWARRIOR:

NEW WAYS TO TRAIN

Dr. Scott E. Graham and Dr. Jean L. Dyer


team (pairs), to fire team, to squad.More than ever, the risk of anindividual-to-collective training gapis likely. Individual soldiers, or staffelements, may be proficient with aparticular system in isolation, butincreasingly less effective when othersystems are incorporated.

• Develop training exercises thatdemonstrate and stress full-systemcapabilities and limitations. Soldiersand units must be trained to under-stand the capabilities and limitationsof all of the subsystems and their inter-relationships. Soldiers not adequatelyexposed to all system features areunlikely to use the system well. Collec-tive exercises can be carefully con-structed to encourage and reward indi-viduals using optimal combinations ofsubsystems.

• Understand the differencebetween basic proficiency and full mas-tery. Developing soldiers and units tofully exploit the technological capabili-ties of new systems takes time. “Go/nogo” standards are generally not appro-priate for cognitive tasks. The Army hastrained high-performing teams for itswarfighting experiments but at anextraordinary cost of resources and sta-bilization. Moreover, it is increasinglydifficult to estimate training resourcerequirements for new systems. Mini-mal proficiency may require 8 hourswhere mastery-level skills needed toexploit technology may require 120hours.

• Emphasize training basics. Prac-tice, practice, practice—with feed-back—under increasingly difficult con-ditions, to include replication ofstresses from the expected battlefield.

Training EnvironmentsWhen people think of training

technologies, many focus on the hard-ware and software of training systems.While these are important, effectivetraining is largely a function of trainingcontent, instructional design, and feed-back. The following are some consider-ations for OFW training environments.

• Embedded training. The lure ofembedded training is great. The logic isthat if you have a digital system, youshould easily be able to use the sys-tem’s processing capacity in training. Inpractice, it is never that simple.Embedded training adds to the com-plexity of a system, increases system

usage and subsequent maintenance,and may not always be available fortraining (e.g., when locked up in anarms room). Many individuals haveadvocated the cost-effectiveness ofembedded training for some time, butfew detailed studies fully validate theapproach. Moreover, significant train-ing research challenges remain aboutwhat to train and how best to build insound instructional features. Embed-ded training, at least in the near term,will more easily address individual andprocedural tasks than collective andcognitive tasks. One key to the successof embedded systems will be how wellthey can incorporate automated per-formance assessment and feedback.

• Virtual environments. Immersivetraining technologies for dismountedsmall-unit leaders and soldiers con-tinue to become less expensive andmore realistic. Simulating dismountedsoldiers walking, talking, and usinghand-and-arm signals remains consid-erably more difficult than simulatingmechanized forces. However, progressis being made. In the near term, virtualenvironments will be most appropriatefor training leader skills (e.g., trainingObjective Force platoon and squadleaders supported by computer-generated forces). The fact that thereare 243 rifle squads in a typical infantry division demands that cost-effectiveness and ease of access befundamental considerations in thedevelopment of small-unit virtualenvironments.

• Distributed/Web-based training.Certainly multimedia instruction andWeb-based training will play importantroles in soldier and small-unit training.Advances in authoring tools, instruc-tional management systems, gamingtechnologies, and the use of sharablecontent objects are making qualitytraining development easier andpotentially less expensive. The chal-lenge remains in developing scenariosthat train more advanced thinkingskills. There remains an overarchingissue of how to incorporate intelligentfeedback, especially for training cogni-tive skills.

• Field training. While each of thementioned training environments willplay a useful and vital role, field train-ing will remain essential. Given thelethality and complexity of systemsusing emerging OFW technologies,new field training approaches must

ensure that all individual-to-collectivecapabilities can be trained across thefull spectrum of operations. This is nosimple task. In particular, there is aneed for improved performanceassessment to help optimize the workof observers and controllers.

Field TrialsHistorically, the development of

new training approaches and new tac-tics and fighting techniques has laggedbehind the development and fieldingof new systems. As a result, the fullvalue of new systems rarely is realizedearly on. To help the OFW effort avoidthat problem, ARI, in conjunction withthe U.S. Army Simulation, Training,and Instrumentation Command, plansto develop prototype training methodsin parallel with other OFW develop-ments. The new and alternative train-ing methods would be compared andevaluated in a series of field trials usingprototype tactics and techniques.

A field-trials approach can providea highly flexible laboratory for evalua-tion of alternative training approachesand emerging technologies. The trialswill be designed to explore what is pos-sible, practical, and likely. The newtraining approaches and prototypicalfighting techniques will be passed toArmy training, combat, doctrine, andmateriel developers.

ConclusionIf we are to transform the Army

during this decade, we will need vali-dated training approaches that accom-pany, not trail, the implementation ofnew warfighting technologies and thetactics they will bring. The training tri-als would provide an essential link inthe path to Army transformation.

DR. SCOTT E. GRAHAM is theChief of the U.S. Army ResearchInstitute’s Infantry Forces ResearchUnit at Fort Benning, GA. He has aPh.D. in cognitive psychology.

DR. JEAN L. DYER is a ResearchTeam Leader with the U.S. ArmyResearch Institute, Fort Benning,GA. She holds a Ph.D. in measure-ment and evaluation from Michi-gan State University.


IntroductionCombat casualty care (CCC) is

constrained by logistics, manpower,and the hostile operational environ-ment. Although 70 percent of com-bat casualty wounds are not life-threatening, most will require medi-cal intervention because even smallwounds on the battlefield can degradea soldier’s operational effectiveness.Without proper initial treatment, infec-tion can make seemingly minorwounds fatal. Also, the treatment ofmore serious battlefield casualties isexacerbated by long evacuation times.This requires battlefield medics andphysicians to stabilize patients forextended periods. Because approxi-mately 90 percent of all battlefielddeaths occur within the first 30 minutes after an individual iswounded, the ability to rapidly locate,diagnose, and render appropriate ini-tial treatment is vital to reversing thehistorical outcome of battlefieldinjuries. The need to optimize suchcare in the austere far-forward environ-ment with a reduced logistics footprintis the cornerstone around which CCCis built.

The Objective Force and Armytransformation are radical changeswith a goal of a more responsive,deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, sur-vivable, and sustainable force that willbe capable of responding to missionsacross the full spectrum of conflict.Challenges initiated from ObjectiveForce operational concepts will requirerevolutionary thinking and productsunparalleled in the civilian emergencymedical community. The expeditiousdeployment, wide area coverage, andplanned initial independence of Objec-tive Force operations will likely reduceor prevent the availability of pre-positioned military hospitals andnonorganic evacuation assets. This sit-

uation places even greater emphasis on the medic’s ability to perform far-forward stabilization and care ofwounded soldiers. But, medical mod-ernization in support of the Armytransformation is more than justimproving the standard of care. It is theexamination of future warfare and newmedical operational concepts madepossible by advanced technology. Asalways, the soldier is our primaryfocus.

Operational CapabilitiesWith this in mind, we must con-

sider what operational challengesfuture medical units will face and howmedical requirements will be inte-grated into the Future Combat Systems(FCS). The medical version of the FCSwill replace the M577A2 Battalion AidStation and the M113/A2/A3 ArmoredAmbulance as the ground medicalevacuation and treatment platform.The medical version is envisioned to beprecisely the same as the FCS with theexception of mission-unique equip-ment added following production ofthe vehicle. A common-chassisapproach will reduce the logisticalfootprint by eliminating separate repairparts and maintenance while FCS sig-nificantly enable mobility, survivability,and connectivity to the digitized force.The evacuation module of the medicalversion will have the capability to carryambulatory patients and a crew ofthree in a climate-controlled environ-ment. Essential medical equipmentwill include onboard oxygen, a litter, avital signs monitor, and suction capa-bility. The treatment module will allowa protected workspace for the treat-ment of casualties and provide enoughinterior workspace to conduct ad-vanced trauma management on onepatient while another is prepared fortreatment.

Other medical FCS capabilities willhelp lower the killed-in-action rate,reduce morbidity from wounds, reducethe forward-medical footprint, andincrease operational flexibility. Thesebenefits will result from developmentssuch as advanced blood products andvolume replacement fluids, new meth-ods to stabilize and treat combat-related trauma, and applications ofnew drugs to prevent secondary dam-age to tissues and organs. Also, casualtycare and decision-support programswill be enhanced by advances in med-ical information technology, new non-invasive methods to assess patient sta-tus, advanced artificial intelligencesoftware for triage and treatment, newmethods to train medics and surgeons,and new ways to apply medical data.

Medical AdvancesDevelopments such as telemedi-

cine for casualty assessment and med-ical decision support will allow for abroader range of medical skills in thefield, better allocation of limited med-ical assets, reduced need for evacua-tion, and a faster return to duty. Newvirtual-reality technologies willenhance diagnosis as well as medicaltreatment procedures and will enablecombat lifesavers, medics, and physi-cians to develop and maintain criticalmedical skills during peacetime.Telesurgery with advanced haptics(simulating the touch and feel of thehuman body) will eventually allow sur-geons far removed from the battlefieldto perform FCS-based surgery throughthe use of robotic devices and roboticmanipulation.

Robotics, however, will not totallyeliminate first responders from theloop. Thus, Warrior Medic is planned asthe medical version of the Land War-rior System. Sensor suites will detectwounding events and immediately

Supporting The Objective Force . . .

LIFESAVING ADVANCESIN COMBAT CASUALTY CARE

MAJ Robert M. Wildzunas


relay physiological information oneach wounded soldier to the medic’scomputer. Software will allow themedic to instantly obtain the woundedsoldier’s distance, magnetic compassheading, and vital signs. Artificial intel-ligence algorithms will perform triageon the casualty and monitor thepatient remotely while decision-assistalgorithms integrate sensor data intooptimal treatment or resuscitationstrategies.

After detecting an injury, themedic’s first concern for the patientusually is to stop the bleeding. Thus,CCC technologies that focus on meth-ods to stop massive or continuousinternal and extremity bleeding arebeing developed. Technologies includerecombinant synthesis and enhance-ment of natural clotting agents as wellas synthesis of artificial clotting agents.One such agent, the fibrin hemostaticbandage, has shown to reduce bloodloss by as much as 85 percent in casesof severe bleeding. Other hemostatictechnologies include recombinantinjectable clotting agents, the one-handed tourniquet, foams and gels (orother formulations that can be used onnoncompressible hemorrhages), andhigh-intensity-focused ultrasound forinternal hemorrhages. Such advancedhemostatic products represent a majoradvance in the ability of combatmedics to control bleeding on the bat-tlefield and will, undoubtedly, reducesoldier mortality. Additionally, theymay significantly decrease the need forblood on the battlefield.

Notwithstanding advances inhemostasis, current red blood cellproducts require freezing, thawing,refrigeration, and cross-typing andhave a shelf life of only 6 weeks. Longerred blood cell storage of 10-12 weekswill improve medical logistics in thefield as well as increase emergencyblood supplies at home for disasterrelief. Beyond the limitations of shelflife, numerous units are lost annuallybecause of storage bag breakage andembrittlement. Improved blood stor-age bags are being developed to reducebreakage rates. But even if units do sur-vive transhipment intact, thawing ratespreclude the immediate availability ofunits. New fully automated blood proc-essing systems will thaw a unit of bloodin 35 minutes. Other new devices willallow medics to quickly detect infectedblood and disinfect it, thus allowing

safe transfusions directly from one sol-dier to another when blood suppliesare depleted.

Another CCC emphasis is on low-volume resuscitation strategies andoptimized resuscitation fluids to pre-vent cardiac arrest and rebleeding, andto maintain viability of vital organs.This is critical if evacuation times aregreatly prolonged. New resuscitationfluids will augment oxygen-carryingcapacities and support cellular func-tion and organ viability during shock.These fluids and/or adjunct drug ther-apies will extend the duration of shocktolerance for longer periods of time toaccommodate delayed evacuationtimes to reach surgery and resuscita-tive care. Additionally, while still con-sidered at or near the frontier of devel-opment, oxygen-bearing blood substi-tutes will one day replace the need forred blood cells on the battlefield andthe collateral requirements for freezing,thawing, refrigeration, and cross-typing.

Neuroprotection initiatives aim todevelop improved technologies tomanage head trauma and decrease themedical footprint. This includesadvanced, noninvasive sensors andequipment for determining the severityof both closed and penetrating woundsto the head. Also, under developmentspecifically for use by nonphysicianfirst responders is a simple five-pointclinical neurological examination thatcan identify patients suffering fromtraumatic brain injury. This initiativewill also provide the medic with biolog-ics and pharmaceuticals to increasesurvival by reducing secondary effectsof trauma. Such strategies will signifi-cantly improve initial diagnosis and theprognosis for functional recovery of thesoldier following traumatic brain andspinal cord injuries.

Finally, once stabilized, casualtieswill need to be cleared from the battle-field. Future patient holding and trans-port litters must interface seamlesslywith the FCS evacuation and treatmentvehicles. The need to evacuate patientsand treat them en route—up to andincluding possible surgery—impliesthe need for highly capable, compact,transportable, individualized medicalcare. Another new development, thePersonal Information Carrier (PIC), willallow a soldier’s medical record andtreatment history to be downloadedanywhere on the battlefield. The PIC is

compatible with all types of computerhardware; it securely stores text, voice,video, and digital data; its memorycells do not require batteries; and itsdesign allows the system to evolve withtechnology. The Critical Care Systemfor Trauma and Transport (C-STAT) is apatient transport litter that incorpo-rates capabilities normally found onlyin an intensive care ward (such as ven-tilation, suction, defibrilation, intra-venous/drug infusion, and oxygen)into a unit that is 1 foot deep and aslong and wide as the standard NATOlitter. The mini-STAT is a preplannedimprovement to reduce size, weight,and power demands associated withthe C-STAT with little or no loss incapability. Eventually, a future genera-tion transport litter, the transportablepatient pod, will allow patients to besustained autonomously while await-ing evacuation to definitive medicalcare facilities, while controlledhypothermia and metabolic down-regulation will delay cell death and offset costs associated with delayedevacuation.

ConclusionClearly, emerging CCC technolo-

gies will help overcome battlefieldmedical limitations by providing bio-logics, pharmaceuticals, and devicesthat enhance the capability to effec-tively treat casualties as close to thegeographic location and time of injuryas possible. Individually, these tech-nologies will, without a doubt, improvemedical capabilities in the future.Together—as a “system-of-medical-systems”—coupled with the FCS initia-tives, these technologies will greatlyenhance the Army’s Objective Forcecapability to deliver immediate, far-forward, and en route care for soldierssustaining life-threatening injuries onthe battlefield.

MAJ ROBERT M. WILDZUNASis Deputy Director of the CombatCasualty Care Research Programat Headquarters, U.S. Army Med-ical Research and Materiel Com-mand, Fort Detrick, MD. He holdsa Ph.D. in physiological psychol-ogy from the Louisiana State Uni-versity of New Orleans.


IntroductionPrior to reinventing itself, the

Land Warrior (LW) Program was anonsoldier-ready, nonfunctional, andexpensive program that was the sub-ject of General Accounting Office(GAO) criticism. The programbecame a success, however, by usingcommercial business practices; part-nering with industry; using an openarchitecture with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology andcomponents; and using a productversion-based, phased-developmentapproach. This change in businessand contract philosophy contributedto the program’s success by yieldingsignificant results in cost savings,schedule risk reduction, and technol-ogy improvements. Simultaneously,there was an increase in the pro-gram’s support and visibility withinthe Department of the Army, DOD,and Congress.

The LW is the first-generationmodular, integrated fighting systemfor infantry soldiers that combinesand incorporates sensors; comput-ers; lasers; geographic location; andradios with a soldier’s mission equip-ment. This helps to achieve the ArmyChief of Staff’s vision of enhancingindividual soldier lethality, surviv-

ability, mobility, and situationalawareness as a holistic integratedsystem. The systems approach opti-mizes and integrates these capabili-ties without adding to the soldier’scombat load or logistical footprint.

HistoryThe LW Program originated from

a typical cost-plus contract becauseof technical challenges and risks. Thesystem built under this contractfailed many of its May 1998 technicaland performance tests, was tooheavy and bulky, hindered soldierperformance, and was too expensive.

New Business StrategyIn November 1998, the LW Team

implemented a new acquisition andbusiness strategy and philosophy totransition the LW system to a COTSand government off-the-shelf (GOTS)open architecture. This was achievedusing hardware, software, and inter-faces that take advantage of the com-mercial and consumer marketplacewith innovative companies. Under-standing that commercial contrac-tors are structured to provide prod-ucts economically, the LW Teamsought to produce a Land Warriorsystem similar to the way Dell Com-

puter Corp. produces its computersystems for the consumer market-place.

The LW Team changed the tradi-tional contract relationship in whichthe prime contractor is typically theadministrator, developer, technicalintegrator, and producer. Many com-panies, both with and without gov-ernment experience, were invited tosubmit two-page performance state-ments to demonstrate their productsand areas of expertise. The teamassessed each company based on itsdemonstrated flexibility and innova-tion. In addition, the governmentverified they had a viable path to thefuture and could tap the competitivecommercial marketplace. After com-panies were selected, a “consortium”was created as a closely integratedteam with fixed-price deliverables.

During Alpha-type contract dis-cussions, minimal resources wereallocated for overhead costs—with afocus on product development—thusensuring a thin management layerwith two-way visibility between theconsortium and the government.One contractor was designated themanager to act as the administratorand banker, and another was desig-nated as the technical lead and inte-

Land Warrior . . .

MANAGINGA MILITARY PROGRAM

LIKE A COMMERCIAL COMPANYCOL Theodore Johnsonand LTC Scott H. Crizer


grator. The remaining contractorswere to compete and produce com-ponents or subsystems (throughfixed-price contracts) from commer-cial marketplace resources.

This new approach, coupled withthe contract price structure, elimi-nated conflicts of interests andencouraged contractors to seek inno-vative technologies outside theircompanies for use in the LW system.The approach also allowed eachinnovative company to focus on itsown area of expertise without havingto create huge administrativestructures.

The LW Team leveraged a prod-uct version-based developmentapproach using short duration, fixed-price phases, with known exit criteriafor each phase. The intent was tolimit cost growth and provide a moreaccurate picture of progress. Contin-uous assessments were conductedusing this new approach. Changes inthe LW system were allowed only atthe end of each phase to better antic-ipate, evaluate, control, and trackchanges; ensure changes were bettermatched to actual program chal-lenges; and eliminate cost increasesassociated with typical cost-pluscontracts. This approach producesinterim product versions that arebuilt toward the final product witheach successive version addingincreased functionality, reliability,durability, and producibility. Further-more, innovative technology can beevaluated off-line for insertionbetween each phase and versionwithout hindering the success ofeach phase. The product versionmodel uses short, basic phases.

This process resembles the com-mercial business model and version-based market, similar to those ofMicrosoft or Intel. Changes areallowed only at the appropriate timeto provide measurable checkpointsand traceable costs. During LWdevelopment, a clear definition ofeach phase end state was established

to shorten the time between require-ment definition and measurement.This allowed the commercial busi-ness model to evolve with sharedrisk, while controlling the impact oflearning, reducing the motivation forchanges, and providing an incentiveto deliver more products on time andwithin cost projections.

This phased approach closed therequirements and production gap aswell as the risk and cost growth gap,while allowing a mix of COTS (com-puter and software) and GOTS(Integrated Helmet and Display Sys-tem/Position Navigation System)solutions. Savings in developmenttime and costs were achieved bystaying within target bands duringthe phased spiral developmentprocess while simultaneously review-ing requirements and technologies.This approach also produced a spiraldevelopment effort where potentialtechnology changes were assessedand refined at the end of each phase.

Changes and versions yielded abetter convergence of technologywith user requirements. This effortfocused on technology leveragedfrom first applying technologies fromoff-the-shelf sources followed bydevelopment of technologies for theLW system. Because of an openarchitecture, this approach reducedany conflict of interest arising frombuilding proprietary componentstypically associated with cost-pluscontracts. This required closeinvolvement between the LW Teamand the consortium, with the govern-ment staying technically involved.User involvement was expected andencouraged, providing valuableinput through user trials and juriesdirectly connected to the develop-ment process. Consistent govern-ment involvement also allowed morecontrol of intellectual property andrights issues as technology was intro-duced into the LW system.

How Well We DidThe new LW acquisition philoso-

phy was tested and demonstratedwhen the team participated in theSeptember 2000 Joint ContingencyForce-Advanced Warfighting Experi-ment (JCF-AWE) at Fort Polk, LA.Although the new philosophy wasstill in the research and developmentphase, the LW Team demonstratedthat it, along with strong industrypartnering, contributed to successfulfielding of 55 operational LW systemsin less than 9 months. These effortsalso led to other significant achieve-ments as follows:

• The team received the 1999Army Manpower and Personnel Inte-gration Achievement Award for sig-nificantly improving the LW’s weight,bulk, and soldier interface.

• The Department of the Armynominated the LW Program as afinalist for the DOD David PackardAward for Acquisition Excellence for2000.

• The Department of the Army’sOffice of the Deputy Chief of Staff forLogistics selected the LW IntegratedLogistics Support (ILS) Team as thewinner of the 2000 ILS AchievementAward for ILS management.

• The LW Team received theArmy Soldier Biological and Chemi-cal Command Team of the YearAward for 2000.

• The Department of the Armydesignated the LW as one of sevenprograms on the Legislative PriorityList that is critical to Army transfor-mation success.

• Twelve military-unique andproprietary subsystems and compo-nents were transitioned to COTS.

• A commercial computer moth-erboard could be procured from anyof 12 sources for about $440 vice the$32,000 for a military-unique propri-etary motherboard.

• Commercial cables could beprocured for about $65 as opposed tomore than $5,000.

• The weight of the LW systemwas reduced by 8 pounds and thelogistical footprint was reduced by


consolidating 16 previously carriedbatteries into a 4-battery integratedsystem

• The LW was integrated withGOTS open architecture (Army stan-dard load carriage, MOdular Light-weight Load-carrying Equipment).

• The “would cost” unit cost wasreduced from more than $102,000 to$30,000.

Where We Are NowThe LW Program evolved from a

failing program that was the subjectof GAO criticism in November 1998to a successful program that is nowsupported by Army leadership. TheLW Team now does business usingseveral acquisition reform initiativesin addition to those already dis-cussed. These initiatives include thefollowing:

• Using only performance speci-fications based on commercialpractices.

• Using a test and evaluationintegrated product team (IPT) to suc-cessfully streamline the testing andsafety release process to meet a tightschedule.

• Using interactive Web-basedLW IPT sites and an integrated dataenvironment to permit the sharing ofprogram information electronicallywith all participants.

• Using disciplined cost estimat-ing and modeling to control andreduce program costs.

Lessons LearnedA basic premise of the Dell busi-

ness model is that when given stan-dards and standard interfaces, sys-tems integration becomes easy withplug-and-play components availablefrom multiple sources. This new phi-losophy allowed the LW Team todevelop the following lessonslearned.

• Seek out and use small innova-tive companies (they don’t read theCommerce Business Daily) ratherthan the typical large Defensecontractors.

• Eliminate large organizationalstructures and focus on the product.

• Develop products in terms ofversions and use a phased approachto overcome immature and unknownrequirements. This will help controlchanges that typically facilitate costgrowth and will aid in the ability toprogressively increase and measurefunctionality, durability, reliability,and producibility.

• Understand that commercialand consumer companies obtaintheir incentive and rewards by lever-aging off-the-shelf technologies firstand developing technology second.

• Implement a commercialindustry to commercial industry rela-tionship, thus eliminating conflicts ofinterest and overcoming the cost-plus contract math that encourageschanges and keeps products in-house with proprietary solutions.

• Work in totally integrated teamsto ensure vertical and horizontal visi-bility of all partners and efforts.

ConclusionThe commercial and consumer

marketplaces tap the natural com-petitive pressures to bring in newand innovative technology at a lowercost. The government acquisitionprocess must continue to adapt andtransition toward a commercial- andconsumer-based approach—therewards are great. We must think, act,and develop cultures to match andlink to commercial consumerenterprises.

COL THEODORE “TED”JOHNSON is the Project Manager,Soldier Systems. He has a B.A. inpsychology, an M.S. in interna-tional relations, and an M.S. innational resource strategy. He isalso a distinguished graduate ofthe Industrial College of theArmed Forces.

LTC SCOTT H. CRIZER is theProduct Manager, Soldier Elec-tronics. He has a B.S. in economicsand a master’s in business admin-istration. Crizer is also a graduateof the Materiel Acquisition Man-agement Course, the U.S. ArmyCommand and General Staff Col-lege, and the Program Manage-ment Course.

The commercial and consumer marketplacestap the natural competitive pressures

to bring in new and innovative technology at a lower cost.The government acquisition process

must continue to adapt and transitiontoward a commercial- and consumer-based

approach—the rewards are great.


IntroductionHow can the Army science and

technology (S&T) community helpachieve the revolutionary capabilitiesenvisioned for the soldier of theObjective Force? What if it were pos-sible to develop compact soldier-system power sources with increasedenergy and power densities usingtechnology based on nanostructuredelectrodes or novel fuel preproces-sors? What if enhanced displays,antennas, and sensors providingimproved communications andenhanced security could be designedthrough the use of nanoscale de-vices? What if novel materials couldbe engineered to allow the integra-tion of sensors and electronics thatallow active camouflage and self-repairing equipment? To addressthese questions and other potentialapplications of nanotechnology, theArmy Research Office (ARO) spon-sored a workshop in February 2001.Workshop participants concludedthat nanotechnology has the poten-tial to dramatically impact all aspectsof soldier equipment and apparel,not only those areas mentionedabove. In addition, it was resolvedthat the establishment of a center fornanotechnology focused on soldiersystems would provide synergisticbenefits to accelerate nanotechnol-ogy research and development.

To realize the promise that nan-otechnology holds for improving thesurvivability of the soldier, the Assis-tant Secretary of the Army for Acqui-sition, Logistics and Technologyasked ARO to create a UniversityAffiliated Research Center (UARC)entitled the Institute for Soldier Nan-otechnologies (ISN). The ISN will bethe first DOD research facility com-mitted to both basic and appliedresearch in nanoscience and nan-otechnology, with a focus on transi-tion opportunities for soldier tech-nology. The emphasis on the devel-opment of soldier system technologywill also facilitate the integration ofthe warfighter with the Future Com-bat Systems (FCS) and the ObjectiveForce.

BackgroundOn Dec. 29, 1959, Nobel Prize-

winning physicist Richard Feynmanspoke at the annual meeting of theAmerican Physical Society. The titleof his address was “There’s Plenty ofRoom at the Bottom.” His premisewas that the principles of physics donot speak against the possibility ofmaneuvering things atom by atom.Feynman further discussed the chal-lenges and implications of manipu-lating and controlling things at theatomic scale. His speech laid theintellectual foundation for what isknown as nanoscience or nanotech-nology (where nano refers tonanometers or 10-9 meters). Specifi-cally, nanotechnology refers to theability to engineer devices or struc-tures that have at least one dimen-sion of 100 nanometers (0.1µm) orless, and assemble these into usefulmacroscopic systems. (For purposesof reference, a human hair is approx-imately 50,000 nanometers in width.)The advantages this offers are thatdifferent functionalities can be builtinto a material, and combinations ofproperties can be achieved that havenever before been possible.

Recent advances in the field sug-gest that nanotechnology can pro-vide a wide array of new materialsand systems with enhanced capabili-ties. One example is nanoclay-filledpolymers, which have demonstratedunique hardness, strength, andchemical impermeability that makes

them potentially useful for visor andwindscreen applications. The Army iscurrently investigating these materi-als for transparent armor, while theAir Force is looking into possiblecanopy applications. Another exam-ple is the photonic band-gap materi-als, which can effectively block lightof a single wavelength while beingotherwise transparent. These materi-als have obvious potential as protec-tion from laser dazzling or laserblinding. A third example is theblending of nanomaterials withbiotechnology, which has produced anumber of interesting applications inbiological and chemical agent detec-tion. Advances such as these indicatethat it may be possible to provide thesoldier with radical new capabilitieswithout incurring significant weightor volume penalties.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this research cen-

ter of excellence is to develop unclas-sified nanometer-scale S&T solutionsfor the soldier. A single university willhost this center, which will empha-size revolutionary materials researchfocused on advancing soldier protec-tion and survivability. The ISN willserve as the Army’s focal point forbasic research into nanotechnologyfor application to the future soldier.Further, the ISN will be expected toserve as an Army corps of technicalexpertise, providing nanotechnology-related basic research and technicalsupport to Army intramural and

INSTITUTEFOR SOLDIERNANOTECHNOLOGIESWilliam M. Mullins


extramural applied research anddevelopment projects for advancedand enabling technologies requiredby both the soldier and soldier sup-port systems. The ISN will performcooperative research with industry;the Army Research Laboratory; theArmy’s Natick Soldier Center; andother Army research, developmentand engineering centers to transitionnew technologies from the labora-tory to new products for the soldierand to spin-off commercialapplications.

The research will emphasize inte-gration of a wide range of functions,including multithreat protectionagainst ballistics, sensory attack, andchemical and biological agents; cli-mate control through possible devel-opment of chameleon-like garmentsthat insulate and respond to cold andhot temperatures; biomedical moni-toring; and load management. Theobjective is to enable a revolutionaryadvance in soldier survivabilitythrough the development of novelmaterials for integration into theObjective Force Warrior system. To beeffective, the research solutions mustbe compatible with a variety of com-plicating factors, including soldiermission requirements, limited energyresources, communication needs,and requirements for ruggedizationto perform in extremes of tempera-ture, humidity, storage, damage, andsoilage.

A major goal of the ISN is tocreate an expansive array ofnanotechnology-based innovationsin a variety of survivability-relatedareas that will be harvested by theindustrial partners for future Armyapplication. To facilitate this, the ISNwill aggressively garner industrialparticipation. The interrelationshipbetween university innovation andindustrial integration will be con-stantly evolving, driven by opportu-nities arising from cutting-edgeresearch and responding to changingArmy requirements. The ISN’s man-agement must provide a flexiblemeans for managing the industrialparticipation and adapting to change

while maintaining focus on the coregoals of the ISN. A criterion for selec-tion will be a comprehensive andcompelling plan for creating innova-tion and managing technology tran-sition from the laboratory to practicalinnovative applications.

Solicitation And ScheduleThe university host will be

selected through a limited competi-tion with the intention of creating aunique national asset for conductingrevolutionary materials research. TheArmy will invest more than $10 mil-lion annually in the ISN. The univer-sity host will provide a dedicatedfacility for this UARC and, along withits industrial partners, will commitsignificant infrastructure, resources,and personnel to complement thegovernment’s investment. The uni-versity will create cooperative part-nerships with industry that willensure that the technical innovationsemerging from the research will tran-sition rapidly into militarily relevantapplications and result in producibletechnologies. Partnerships withindustry are expected to be a key fac-tor in the success of the ISN. Industrypartners are expected to place per-sonnel at the ISN, to bear the cost oftheir onsite personnel, and to co-invest in the development and/oroperation of the ISN.

The initial announcement and adraft of the Broad Agency Announce-ment (BAA) were published in thesecond half of 2001. In addition, sev-eral advertisements have beenplaced in technical journals andtrade magazines. Several news arti-cles have also appeared during thistime period, bringing more attentionto the pending solicitation. A Website (http://www.aro.army.mil/soldiernano/index.html) was set upto serve as a single source for currentinformation about the solicitationand to post answers to frequentlyasked questions about the ISN andthe Army’s intentions.

In mid-August 2001, a series ofmeetings were held to announce theArmy’s intention to establish the ISN,

to answer questions about the draftsolicitation, and to hear concernsfrom potential bidders on the scopeand requirements. A number of uni-versities have expressed interest inhosting the institute, and the Armyexpects to receive between 30 and 40proposals for consideration.

The final version of the ISN BAAwas approved and officially postedOct. 15, 2001, with a proposal dead-line of Jan. 3, 2002. Evaluation of pro-posals began in early January andwill result in a source-selectionauthority decision in March 2002.Once the Director of DefenseResearch and Engineering approvesthe UARC core competencies state-ment, a contract will be awarded.This is expected to occur in June2002.

ConclusionModern warfare is placing new

demands on the soldier for rapidresponse and flexibility. The Armyrecognizes this new reality and isevolving to meet it. The immediategoals are manifested in the FCS andthe Objective Force Warrior Program.Future research programs that seekto integrate functionality to enhancethe soldier’s survivability, mobility,flexibility, and lethality will comple-ment these goals. The Army’s Insti-tute for Soldier Nanotechnologieswill work to develop new technolo-gies that improve this integration andhelp soldiers of the future betteroperate in their battlespace.

WILLIAM M. MULLINS is theProgram Manager, ISN at ARO. Hehas a B.S. in engineering fromWright State University and anSc.D. in materials science from theMassachusetts Institute of Tech-nology. In addition, he is a regis-tered Professional Engineer.


IntroductionThe future dismounted warrior will

be equipped with new and moresophisticated equipment and will haveat his disposal a variety of new lethalmechanisms that will assist him inseeking out and destroying the enemy.For example, squad leaders will have afar broader view of their immediatebattlefield. Remote and local networkedsensors will provide the entire squadwith increased situational awareness toinclude the locations of threat andfriendly targets. Decision aids willenable squad leaders to better plan andaccomplish their missions.

Networked fire control within thesquad will allow for the handoff of tar-gets to the best shooter with the bestweapon. Several members of the squadwill be equipped with significantlymore lethal precision airbursting muni-tions weapons, and the remainder ofthe squad will have significantly lighterweight weapons than they have today.In addition, individual soldiers willhave the ability to call and direct firefrom remote weapon platforms or fromrobot vehicles.

Current LethalityThe current lethality for a light

infantry squad is represented by theM16A2 rifle for the fire team leadersand riflemen, the shorter M4 carbinefor the squad leader, the M249 SquadAutomatic Weapon for the automaticriflemen, and the M16/M203 grenadelauncher for the grenadiers. Perform-ance of these systems is limited to thewarrior’s ability to point and aim theweapons. Soldiers become quite profi-cient with these weapons ratherquickly. However, in times of stress,when there are multiple targetsexposed for short amounts of time and targets that are moving and life-threatening, weapons are often point-fired and not aim-fired. Under theseconditions, a soldier’s hit performance

is significantly reduced. In addition,because of the nature of conflict, many threat targets go unseen andundetected.

The current fielding of thermalweapon sights and heads-up displayswill provide the increased capability ofengaging targets remotely withoutexposing oneself, as well as throughobscurants and at night. The futuredismounted warrior is expected to pos-sess many additional capabilities thatwill make him far more lethal andsurvivable.

Information TechnologyDismounted warriors, along with

the rest of the force, will benefit fromthe information age. Target-relevantinformation from various sources willbe available at the squad level. Fusedimage sensors; auto trackers; multi-functional, steerable laser range findersand transmitters; acoustic recognitionsensors; and combat identification sen-sors will be networked to supplementthe individual soldier’s current visualtarget detection with automated detec-tion and target state sensing. Detectedtargets will be analyzed and cued forpriority either by range, motion type, orother attributes. In addition, future dis-mounted warriors will be networked,providing greater flexibility and multi-ple alternatives to accomplish lethalmissions. Distributed firing will alsoallow any warrior in the squad toengage a preferred target. This will alsoprovide the ability to mass-fire againstkey targets.

Networked fire control will alsoallow indirect or non-line-of-sight tar-get engagement. This can be eitherfrom an improved grenade launcher orfrom a remote platform. Firing can bein the form of range and azimuth fur-nished from an individual warrior’slocation, grid coordinates, or an actualaiming reticle provided from the dis-tributed network. A future grenade

launcher will be able to engage line-of-sight and non-line-of-sight targets to arange up to 500 meters. The future dis-mounted warrior will also have the abil-ity to directly control and fire weaponson remote unmanned robotic plat-forms to provide a non-line-of-sight capability to a range beyond 500 meters.

Situational AwarenessThe dismounted soldier must keep

his eyes on the battlefield to maintainawareness of his environment. He losesthis awareness whenever he is requiredto look at something else or performanother task such as aiming and firinghis weapon. The future warrior will beable to fire the weapon without bring-ing it to his shoulder to aim. An off-weapon aiming device will project anaiming reticle in the soldier’s naturalfield-of-view periphery through a head-mounted visor. This is similar to thedisplays seen by fighter pilots. Speedand quickness of firing result from thesoldier not having to take his eyes offthe target to engage. As he brings hisweapon to bear, he will see the aimingreticle in his normal field of view. Hesimply needs to get the aimpoint on thetarget and pull the trigger, thus main-taining full awareness of the battlefield.

Ammunition resupply will be pro-vided by robotic vehicles, perhaps thesame vehicles that provide remote-weapon capability. Real-time ammuni-tion consumption will be monitoredwith warnings provided to the soldier atlow-ammunition thresholds. Leaderswill receive automated reports and beable to summon automated resupply,thus reducing the soldier’s load andallowing him to carry the right amountof ammunition and call for resupplyprior to actual need.

Increased LethalityIncreased lethality will be possible

by integrating technology into the

FUTURE LETHALITYFOR THE DISMOUNTED WARRIOR

Vernon E. Shisler


individual soldier’s weapon. Throughthe use of laser range finders, ballisticcomputers, and miniature electronicfuzes, the soldier will be able to pre-cisely place and explode a fragmentingwarhead at or near the target. The abil-ity to direct-fire airbursting munitionsto a target not only increases the war-rior’s lethality or probability of incapac-itating the target, it also gives him theability to defeat individual solder tar-gets that are in defilade or behindobstacles and not posing an immediatethreat. This capability will be providedby the Objective Individual CombatWeapon (OICW) (Figure 1), which willfire 20mm-high explosive munitionscapable of airbursting to a range up to1,000 meters. However, this significantincrease in capability comes at theexpense of weight and cost. Theseweapon systems will therefore be lim-ited to a few individuals in the squad.

Lighter WeightThe remaining individual warriors

will also be equipped with newweapons. The main new feature ofthese weapons is their significantlyreduced weight. These weapons will beof a simple design and made of nearly

100-percent composite lightweightmaterial. They will fire plastic-cased orcaseless ammunition that is up to 50-percent lighter than today’s brass-casedammunition. The legacy M4 Carbineweighs 7.4 pounds fully loaded. Thenew system will weigh approximately 5 pounds and may look similar toFigure 2.

Likewise, the fully loaded M249Squad Automatic Weapon weighs 23.3pounds. A new, high-rate-of-fireweapon with the same number of light-weight rounds of ammunition couldweigh 14 pounds. A new compositegrenade launcher to replace the M203would fire the same 20mm round ofammunition as the OICW. Without thesophisticated fire control of the OICW,the high-explosive round would func-tion in the point-detonate mode asdoes the current M203 round. Six 30-round magazines currently carried bythe soldier weigh 6 pounds. The samenumber of rounds of lightweightammunition with equivalent perform-ance could weigh only 4 pounds. Thenew lightweight round of ammuni-tion will also be used for the bullet-launching portion of the OICW tofurther reduce its weight. To keep the

weapon as light as possible, all aimingdevices and displays will be kept off theweapon as much as possible. This alsoimproves battlefield awareness.

Future Warrior SquadThe future warrior squad will be

equipped with an entirely new suite ofweapon systems and a networked con-nectivity that does not exist today. Thefuture warrior squad will carry only tworounds of ammunition as it does today.Its weapons suite will include a familyof significantly lighter weapons capableof firing a lightweight round of ammu-nition and the highly lethal, more capa-ble airbursting OICW with its 20mmhigh-explosive ammunition. For exam-ple, the squad leader could beequipped with the lightweight weaponand the grenadiers with the lightweightweapon with the new 20mm attach-ment. The automatic riflemen will carrya high volume of the fire version of thelightweight weapon, and the highlycapable OICW would go to the teamleaders and riflemen.

ConclusionThe future warrior squad may look

like the current light infantry squad, butnew weapon systems and individualwarriors will be linked in a network notavailable today. Improved target detec-tion, situational awareness, and deci-sion aides, along with the networked,more lethal and lightweight weapons,will make the future warrior squad alethal, highly maneuverable team with-out equal. However, if all the newsophisticated systems fail and batteriesdie, the projection of lethality when thetrigger is pulled must remain.

VERNON E. SHISLER is theHead of Plans, Programs, andProjects in the Joint Service SmallArms Program Office at the Tank-automotive and Armaments Com-mand’s Armament Research, Devel-opment and Engineering Center,Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. He has abachelor’s degree in physics fromTemple University and an M.E. fromthe Pennsylvania State University.He is a member of the Army Acquisi-tion Corps and is Level III certifiedin systems planning, research, devel-opment and engineering.

Figure 1.Objective Individual Combat Weapon

Figure 2.New, lightweight weapon


IntroductionThe computer and Internet revolu-

tions have substantially changed thedirection of entertainment from deliv-ery in a mass medium such as televisionto a mass customized experience via theWeb and personal computers. However,the art of entertainment still requiresstories, characters, and direction tomake the experience meaningful andenjoyable. The U.S. Army faces the samechallenge of adapting to the changesbrought about through the mass mar-keting of supercomputing via platformssuch as Sony PlayStation 2, MicrosoftXbox, and low-cost 3-D graphics.

There is also an urgent requirementfor representing the human dimensionsof war and conflict to provide trainingfor the difficult decisionmaking prob-lems our soldiers must face. Our ex-periences in Kosovo, Bosnia, andAfghanistan have shown that we needtroop leaders who can handle thedilemmas posed by ethnic and socialstrife.

To provide such expertise, we mustdevelop interface technologies such asnatural-dialogue systems and intelligentagents that can simulate real-worldproblems. A 1997 study initiated byAnita Jones, then Director of DefenseResearch and Engineering, documentedthis need. Early in 1999, the Army lead-ership recognized a need for a majortransformation of our forces to over-come the limitations of our current sim-ulation technologies. Effecting thistransformation requires developing newtraining and simulation systems to dealwith future conflicts that leverage thecapabilities of both the entertainmentindustry and academia.

The U.S. Army and DOD selectedthe University of Southern California(USC) as a strategic partner in the devel-opment of the Institute for CreativeTechnologies (ICT) because of USC’sunique confluence of scientific capabili-ties and entertainment-industry rela-

tionships, which the Army deemed nec-essary for simulation leadership.

Prime ObjectiveThe prime objective, as reaffirmed

by Dr. A. Michael Andrews II, DeputyAssistant Secretary of the Army forResearch and Technology and Chief Sci-entist of the Army, is to build a specialpartnership with the entertainmentindustry and academia.

Some of USC’s unique qualifica-tions arise from its location in Los Ange-les, CA, hub of both the entertainmentand aerospace industries. USC’s qualifi-cations further arise from its standing asa leading private research university andfrom the capabilities and stature of itscomponent units and the working rela-tionships they have developed withindustry. For example, USC’s top-rankedSchool of Cinema-Television grew side-by-side with the entertainment industryand continues to maintain close tieswith it.

Under the auspices of the U.S.Army Simulation, Training and Instru-mentation Command (STRICOM), USCestablished the ICT to develop the artand technology for providing syntheticexperiences so compelling that partici-pants react as if the simulations are real. In other words, ICT will provideverisimilitude—the quality or state ofappearing to be true to synthetic experi-ences. The remainder of this articleaddresses one of these experiences—theMission Rehearsal Exercise (MRE).

Mission Rehearsal ExerciseThe MRE seeks to create a virtual-

reality training environment in whichsoldiers will confront dilemmas thatforce them to make decisions in realtime under stressful and conflicting cir-cumstances. By allowing soldiers to seethe consequences of their actions anddecisionmaking skills in a simulator, theArmy expects to better prepare itstroops for dealing with similar dilem-mas in the real world.

Since the end of the Cold War, theneed for this kind of training has grownmore acute because the variety of U.S.military operations has expanded enor-mously. In addition to conventionalcombat operations, U.S. military per-sonnel frequently undertake a broadspectrum of missions that includepeacekeeping operations, disaster-reliefefforts, and noncombatant evacuations.Because these actions may requiretroops to deploy to virtually any loca-tion across the globe, providing advancetraining tailored to a wide variety of spe-cific situations presents a dauntingchallenge.

Technical And Creative TeamBuilding the MRE system required

assembling a diverse group of individu-als and organizations with a broadrange of talents. On the technical side,artificial intelligence researchers fromUSC/Information Sciences Institute(ISI) and USC/ICT created the auto-mated reasoning and emotion modelingtechnology for the virtual humans.Audio researchers from USC’s Inte-grated Media Systems Center createdthe immersive sound system and mixedand synchronized the effects and back-ground sounds. Researchers fromUSC/ISI worked with AT&T’s Next-GenTTS (text to speech) speech synthesissystem to create the most natural-sounding output. Finally, programmersand system developers experienced increating real-time graphics tweaked thegraphics system to provide acceptableperformance.

To create the content for the MREsystem, we needed an art director todesign the environment’s overall look;actors to serve as models for the virtualhumans; and artists to model the ani-mated characters, buildings, and envi-ronmental details.

Entertainment IndustryAs the MRE development team

worked on conceptualizing the MRE

INSTITUTE FOR CREATIVE TECHNOLOGIES GENESIS

Dr. Michael R. Macedonia, Richard D. Lindheim,and Dr. William R. Swartout


simulation, a core divergence emergedas to how the Army, computer scientists,and entertainment people viewed theproject. The entertainment people usu-ally took an approach diametricallyopposed to that of established scientificand military procedures. This is becauseentertainment people who work onsimulations focus on the project’s con-cept, theme, and story, shaping theseelements to create the simulation’sdesired impact.

The Army’s concept of story, how-ever, differs considerably from that ofthe entertainment industry. What theArmy considers a story, Hollywoodlabels an event list. A sequence of eventsdoes not itself create a story; a storyrequires linking events in a way thatbuilds to a dramatic climax.

To date, simulations have, at best,made rudimentary use of characterdespite the critical importance thatentertainment veterans place on thiscomponent. Yet any simulation fortraining people to work with oneanother in decisionmaking tasks must,by definition, place a premium on real-istically depicting how individuals—even simulated ones—react to eachother. Given the technical challengesinvolved and the high priority placed onimplementing the capability, integratingcharacter into the MRE simulationproved to be the project team’s most dif-ficult task.

The MRE Story In the MRE, we seek Hollywood’s

influence most strongly in the rich storystructure that guides, but does not com-pletely determine, how our simulationunfolds. A good story sequences eventsso that emotions and tensions build andebb. Plot twists and surprises maintaininterest and involvement. The MRE usesstory structure to build toward thedilemmas the trainee must resolve,offering different paths through thestructure to reflect the different optionsthe trainee can choose, thereby makingit possible to see vividly the conse-quences of each decision.

For example, in our demonstration,the computer generates all the sce-nario’s characters except for the trainee,a young first lieutenant. The first lieu-tenant has been instructed to ren-dezvous with his troops at a stagingpoint before proceeding to help quellcivil unrest occurring in a small town.The action unfolds as follows:

Surprise. When the first lieutenantarrives at the staging area, his platoonsergeant informs him that one of hisHigh Mobility Multipurpose WheeledVehicles has collided with a local civiliancar. The first lieutenant sees a small boyon the ground, seriously injured, theboy’s frantic mother kneeling besidehim.

Dilemma. Should the first lieu-tenant continue with his mission orstop, render aid, and arrange for a med-ical evacuation (MEDEVAC)?

Complication. A TV cameramanshows up and starts filming. Any mis-take the first lieutenant makes couldappear on the international news.

Complication. If the first lieutenantdecides to arrange for a MEDEVAC viahelicopter, the MRE may challenge himby relaying a radio call from troopsalready in town that reports intensifyingunrest, shots fired, and a request forassistance.

Dilemma. Should the first lieu-tenant split his forces, sending someahead while keeping others behind tohelp with the MEDEVAC, or should hekeep his unit intact?

When confronted with thesechoices, the trainee may receive assis-tance from the virtual platoon sergeant.Because sergeants usually possess sub-stantially more field experience thannew first lieutenants, the Army teachesits entry-level officers to listen to theadvice their sergeants offer. The virtualsergeant thus embodies Army doctrineand coaches the first lieutenant towardthe most appropriate course of action.

Technology Goals When we began developing the

MRE system, we knew we would needto push the technology’s boundaries inseveral areas to attain the kind of com-pelling, immersive experience wedesired. Although we sought to achieveadvances in particular areas, we alsorecognized that much of the experi-ence’s immersiveness would come fromcombining components that had thusfar never been integrated. Further, wefelt that integrating these componentswould grant us a better understandingof the technology and how the basicresearch should proceed in individualareas.

Thus, we wanted to make the MREsystem fully integrated as early as possi-ble while continuing to enhance thecapabilities of some components. These

concurrent goals presented a dilemma:You can’t integrate components still indevelopment. We resolved this dilemmaby adopting a hybrid approach to sys-tem development. This allowed us tocreate an integrated system that usedrudimentary versions of some capabili-ties, which acted as placeholders untilmore sophisticated capabilities becameavailable.

Taking a hybrid approach alsoallowed us to introduce new technolo-gies where they would make the mostdifference, while saving us effort inareas where simple techniques wouldsuffice. Hybrid solutions also let us cre-ate a complete mission rehearsal sce-nario so that we could assess how itworks as a whole, without having tosolve all the subproblems in the mostgeneral way. We expect to incrementallyimprove the MRE system over time byreplacing simple solutions for control,speech, and sound with more sophisti-cated techniques as our research inthese areas progresses.

Note: Portions of this article werereprinted from “Forging a New Simula-tion Technology at the ICT,” from theJanuary 2001 issue of COMPUTERmagazine.

DR. MICHAEL R. MACEDONIAis the Chief Scientist and TechnicalDirector at STRICOM. He is a grad-uate of the U.S. Military Academyand has a Ph.D. in computerscience.

RICHARD D. LINDHEIM is theExecutive Director, Institute for Cre-ative Technologies. He has a B.S. inelectronic engineering from theUniversity of Redlands and com-pleted postgraduate studies intelecommunications and engineer-ing at USC. Lindheim is the authorof several publications, includingtwo textbooks on television.

DR. WILLIAM R. SWARTOUT isthe Director of Technology, Institutefor Creative Technologies, and aResearch Associate Professor atUSC. He received his bachelor’sdegree from Stanford Universityand his M.S. and Ph.D. in com-puter science from the Massachu-setts Institute of Technology.


IntroductionThe dismounted soldier needs a

power source that is safe, smallenough not to interfere with the sol-dier’s actions, light enough to be amanageable burden, affordable, andreliable. It must provide sufficientenergy for the soldier’s needs and notbecome a liability because of thermal,acoustic, or other signatures.

This article outlines basic issuesrelative to soldier power and tries toassess how well a number of tech-nologies under consideration by thepower community might contributeto providing soldiers with the powerneeded. To provide a useful basis forconsidering soldier power sources,researchers assume the average powerrequired by soldiers is 20 watts. Scal-ing the systems described up or downby a factor of two or so is not likely topresent major difficulties. The 20-wattestimate for power is somewhat lowerthan power requirements used in aLand Warrior demonstration held in2000 and somewhat higher than pro-jected values for later versions ofLand Warrior.

Power generation is the conver-sion of some stored form of energy,the fuel, to the desired form of energy(typically electrical power). At themost basic level, the choices of thestarting form of the energy are chemi-cal (fuels or batteries), radiant (solaror beamed energy), or nuclear.

Solar EnergySolar energy is rather diffuse, so

the solar collector must be inconve-niently large to collect sufficient solarenergy to power a soldier. To collectthe 240 watt-hours required for aday’s energy, a 10-percent-efficient(typical of current flexible photo-voltaic collectors) solar collector(spread out in bright sunlight for 6hours) must be about 0.4 m2 or about16 by 40 inches. The collector must bekept nearly perpendicular to the sun’sincoming rays; therefore, the soldierwould have some difficulty maneu-vering and keeping a low visual pro-file. Other forms of beamed energyhave comparable difficulties.

Nuclear EnergyNuclear energy is noteworthy

because it can be stored at energydensities more than 1,000 timesgreater than that of chemical fuelssuch as diesel fuel. However, society’sconcerns with scattering nuclearmaterial over a battlefield make use ofnuclear power sources very unpopu-lar. Technically, a large problem withnuclear sources is that they tend tooperate continuously regardless ofwhether the power generated isneeded. Therefore, nuclear sources ofhigh power tend to have short shelflives, and sources of acceptable shelflife cannot be tuned to deliver highpower. Despite these shortcomings,

the very high energy density ofnuclear sources suggests that someresources should be spent trackingdevelopments that might make themmore useful to the military.

Chemical SourcesThe most practical sources of

energy for the soldier are chemicalsources. These typically belong in oneof two classes: fuels that react withoxygen from the air, and electrochem-ical batteries that contain all of thereactants within the battery. Thesefuels may react with oxygen to pro-duce electricity directly (as in fuelcells); may be burned to generate heatfor engines, thermoelectrics, or simi-lar systems; or may be processed toother types of fuels (hydrogen) beforebeing used to generate power. Oneadvantage of these liquid fuels is therelatively high energy density—hydro-carbon fuels produce about 10kilowatt-hours of energy per kilogramof fuel when reacted with oxygen fromthe air. A significant disadvantage,however, is the requirement for air. Abattery can produce only 1 to 2 per-cent as much energy as an equalweight of fuel. However, batteries areself-contained and the energy pro-duced is electricity, thus the typicallyinefficient steps of converting theenergy of the fuel/oxygen reaction toelectricity can be avoided.

POWER FORTHE DISMOUNTED

SOLDIERDr. Richard J. Paur and

Dr. Thomas L. Doligalski


BatteriesThe most common portable

power sources are batteries. Modernprimary (disposable) batteries canprovide roughly 300 watt-hours perkilogram of battery weight. Secondary(rechargeable) batteries generallystore about one-half the energy of anequal size primary. Furthermore, sec-ondary batteries are not 100-percentefficient. Therefore, more than 120watt-hours of charging energy may berequired to get 100 watt-hours out ofthe rechargeable battery.

Batteries are the power sources ofchoice when the mission energyrequirement is small enough that areasonably light load of rechargeablebatteries can supply the mission. Atsomewhat higher energy require-ments, primary batteries are excellenttechnical choices, but are often veryexpensive solutions with costs in therange of $1,000 per kilowatt-hour.Although batteries are incrementallyimproved with each passing year, bat-tery chemistry comes from a limitedrange of materials, and energy gains—while maintaining safety—are very

difficult. Modern military batteriescontain more than 200 watt-hours ofenergy compared with 260 watt-hoursin a standard M61 hand grenade.

Rechargeable batteries can pro-vide roughly one-half the energy ofprimary batteries on a weight basis.They provide a more economicalpower source when recharging is nottoo difficult or dangerous and are auseful source of energy for manytraining missions. However, recharg-ing under battlefield conditionsrequires personnel to man the charg-ing stations and transport relativelylow-energy density batteries betweenthe troops and the chargers. Modelsof the cost of operation seldom takeall realistic variables into account.

Fueled SystemsFueled systems are of great inter-

est because the energy of reaction ofmany fuels is large compared to theenergy that can be stored in a battery.This difference is primarily becausethe heaviest reactant, oxygen, is takenfrom the air during use and does nothave to be carried. This weight advan-

tage must be traded against the seri-ous disadvantage of using systemsthat need air to function. Fueled sys-tems also tend to have some acousticsignatures and greater thermal signa-tures than batteries. To take advan-tage of the high energy density of thevarious fuels, the energy conversiondevice must be very light. (See accom-panying chart for representative fuelsand energy content.)

Fuel CellsFuel cells have recently received a

great deal of attention, both in themedia and in the technical commu-nity. Fuel cells are devices that con-vert the energy of the fuel/oxygenreaction directly to electricity bychanneling some of the electrons thatmove during chemical reactionsthrough the electrical load beforeallowing them to move to the reactionproducts. The simplest fuel cells arehydrogen/air fuel cells (HAFCs),which have reached a high state ofdevelopment because of their use inspace missions during the last threedecades.

SPECIFIC ENERGY OF VARIOUS CHEMICAL SYSTEMSIN WATT-HOURS/KILOGRAM

Source Specific Energy Specific Energy(Theoretical) (Practical)

Steel springs 0.25 0.15Rechargeable batteries 35-200Primary battery—Li/SO2 1,400 175Primary battery—Li/SOCI2 1,400 300Zinc air 300-400TNT 1,400 N/AMethanol* 6,200 1,500-3,100Ammonia* 8,900 1,000-4,000Diesel (JP-8 is similar*) 13,200 1,320-5,000Hydrogen* 33,000 1,000-17,000Nuclear 2,800,000 190,000

*Data is for energy of combustion in air


The primary drawback to HAFCsis that they need hydrogen as the fuel.Although hydrogen is an excellent fuelin many respects and has a very highenergy density on a weight basis, it isdifficult to store. Even liquid hydrogencontains only about one-half as muchhydrogen per liter as does a hydrocar-bon fuel such as diesel fuel. Hydrogenmust be kept extremely cold to re-main liquid, and large quantities ofliquid hydrogen are relatively less safethan fuels such as diesel fuel.

Processing (reforming) hydrocar-bon fuels to produce hydrogen can beaccomplished during a reasonablerange of conditions, but sulfur andother materials that make up logisticsfuels present a challenge that cannotbe adequately handled today. Anotherform of fuel cells, solid oxide fuel cells(SOFCs), avoid some of the fuel pro-cessing difficulties by operating at ahigh temperature and being relativelytolerant of impurities in the fuelstream. One trade-off is a muchslower startup time. SOFCs are muchless a mature technology than HAFCs,and no good examples of soldier-sizeunits exist.

One approach to minimizing fuelprocessing is to use direct oxidationfuel cells such as units that convert

methanol to electricity, water, andcarbon dioxide at modest tempera-tures of about 70 C. Current units areabout twice as heavy and bulky asHAFCs, but the fuel supply, liquidmethanol, is relatively compact.

Other SourcesA fairly recent approach to small

power sources, the microturbine, hasgained considerable attention. Thesedevices are very small turbo machinesoperating at more than 1 million revo-lutions per minute. Complete powersystems have not yet been fabricated,and issues such as cost, longevity, andsignature will remain open questionsfor several more years. The devicesappear to be very lightweight energyconverters, but the early units are notexpected to be very efficient and willrequire a significant amount of fuel.

Another recent approach to sol-dier power is alkali thermal-to-electricconversion (AMTEC). This technologyuses a heat source (a JP-8 fueledburner is one possible source) to ion-ize a small amount of sodium metal.The resulting ions and electrons canbe used as a power source prior torecombining them at the lower tem-perature end of the device. Thesedevices have demonstrated 18-

percent thermal-to-electric conver-sion and are likely to provide overallefficiencies of fuel to electricity rang-ing from 15 to 20 percent. With inno-vative approaches to lowering theweight of the systems, the energy den-sity may be a factor of 3 to 5 betterthan primary batteries when sized fora 72-hour mission.

ConclusionIn addition to the power sources

addressed in this article, a variety ofother soldier-size power sources arebeing studied. It is likely that in thenext 3 to 5 years, small hybrid-powersources that use a battery for startup,are air-independent, stealthy, andhave a fueled system to keep the bat-tery charged, will provide soldierswith more electrical energy per unitweight than current batteries. Fortu-nately, there is a sizable commercialmarket for similar sized powersources to provide the volumerequired to keep the units affordable.

DR. RICHARD J. PAUR is Chiefof the Electrochemistry Branch ofthe Army Research Laboratory’sArmy Research Office. He holds aB.S. in chemistry from the Univer-sity of North Dakota, an M.S. inbiochemistry from the Universityof North Dakota School of Medi-cine, and a Ph.D. in physicalchemistry from Indiana Univer-sity. He is a member of the ArmyAcquisition Corps.

DR. THOMAS L. DOLIGALSKIis Chief of the Fluid DynamicsBranch of the Army Research Lab-oratory’s Army Research Office. Heholds a B.S. in engineering sci-ences from Purdue University, anM.S. in aerospace and aeronauti-cal engineering from Purdue Uni-versity, and a Ph.D. in mechanicalengineering and mechanics fromLehigh University. He is a memberof the Army Acquisition Corps.

Cross section of a microturbine: The device is 3.7mm thick by 21mm long.


IntroductionThe Army manufacturing technol-

ogy community was twice recognizedfor outstanding achievements late lastyear at the annual Defense Manufac-turing Conference 2001 (DMC 2001) inLas Vegas, NV. Hosted by the Depart-ment of the Army, the conference drewmore than 900 leaders from govern-ment, industry, and academia. Thepurpose was to address critical DODmanufacturing and sustainment initia-tives. For the second consecutive year,the Army received the Defense Manu-facturing Technology AchievementAward. In addition, it shared an R&D100 Award presented by R&DMagazine.

Defense ManufacturingTechnology Achievement Award

The Director of Defense Researchand Engineering and the Joint DefenseManufacturing Technology Panel(JDMTP) sponsor the annual DefenseManufacturing Technology Achieve-ment Award, which was established in1999. The purpose of this award is torecognize and honor the individualsmost responsible for outstanding tech-nical accomplishments in achievingthe vision of the DOD Manufacturing

Technology (MANTECH) Program.That vision is to “Realize a responsive,world-class manufacturing capabilityto affordably meet the warfighters’needs throughout the defense systemlife cycle.”

CriteriaThis award is made to the individ-

ual or small group from the govern-ment and/or private sector mostresponsible for a specific innovativemanufacturing technology achieve-ment that has had a significant impacton one or more of the following: rapidtransition of Defense-essential orDefense-unique technologies, afford-ability, cycle time, readiness, quality,and/or decoupling cost from volume.

NominationsManufacturing technology projects

that were considered for the 2001Defense Manufacturing TechnologyAchievement Award were completedand/or demonstrated in FYs 00 or 01and were funded through the DODMANTECH Program.

The JDMTP subpanels made nomi-nations. The selection committee con-sisted of the four JDMTP subpanelheads, the Office of the Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense for Science andTechnology ex-officio member of theJDMTP, and senior Service and DefenseLogistics Agency representatives.

RecipientSelected from among six nomi-

nees, the winner of the Defense Manu-facturing Achievement Award was ateam headed by the Natick SoldierCenter, Natick, MA. The team wascited for its Enhanced ManufacturingProcesses for Body Armor Materialsproject. Award recipients were James

ARMY MANTECH COMMUNITYRECOGNIZED

AT DEFENSE MANUFACTURINGCONFERENCE 2001

Joseph E. Flesch andDr. Robert S. Rohde

�� !�"� �� # �� "�� $�� %�� &�� $�� "��'��$��(#�( �� "� ��)��$��*� ��) ��+ �� ,��-��$��(� ��


Mackiewicz and Janice Knowlton, U.S.Army Natick Soldier Center; RobertMonks, Simula Safety Systems Inc.,Phoenix, AZ; and Richard Palicka,CERCOM Inc., Vista, CA. Dr. Ronald M.Sega, Director of Defense Research andEngineering, stated, “Thanks to the

dedicated and outstanding efforts ofthe award-winning team, the soldiersand Marines who may be in harm’s wayparticipating in Operation EnduringFreedom will be wearing the best bal-listic protection available in the worldtoday.”

The current interceptor bodyarmor jacket can stop 9mm handgunbullets. Now, because of the work ofthis team and the success of thisMANTECH project, two highly effec-tive, lightweight ceramic armor materi-als have been developed that vastlyenhance the interceptor’s capabilities.Siliconized silicon carbide and boroncarbide plates that can stop rifle ormachine-gun fire, which was not possi-ble with this jacket in the past, are nowavailable to insert in the jacket’s pock-ets. Simula Safety Systems Inc., with aproduction capacity of 5,000 plates permonth, has already delivered 45,000 ofits siliconized silicon carbide platesand is under contract to deliver 140,000more. Twelve thousand CERCOMboron carbide plates have also beenfielded. The new armor plates are 55percent lighter than traditional bodyarmor and cost approximately 60 per-cent less than the high-performancearmor plates that were available at thestart of this project.

It is also noteworthy that this proj-ect uses not only Army MANTECHmoney but also significant fundingcontributions from Army and MarineCorps program offices and privateindustry.

R&D 100 AwardsThe R&D 100 Awards, which were

established in 1963, are considered themost prestigious honor in appliedresearch. Winners are selected by theeditors of R&D Magazine, based on thevotes and comments of a panel of out-side judges chosen from among profes-sional consultants, university faculty,and industrial researchers with supe-rior expertise and experience. The goalis to pick the 100 most technologicallysignificant new products from amongthe entries.

CriteriaProducts considered for the R&D

100 Award must have been available forsale or licensing during the calendaryear preceding the judging. The keycriterion is technological significance.This can basically be defined asimprovements resulting from majortechnological breakthroughs. Thejudges look for “leapfrog” gains in

2001 Defense MANTECH Achievement Award Recipient:Army MANTECH Enhanced Manufacturing Processes

For Body Armor Materials

� ��.�$�� *�� &�� &��

R&D 100 Award. Shown left to right are award recipients Stanley P. Kopacz, U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command; Walter N. Roy, U.S. Army Research Laboratory; CarolGardinier, Program Manager for MANTECH, HQ, AMC; Dr. Robert S. Rohde, Deputy Director forLaboratory Management, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Researchand Technology, OASAALT; and Harvey Pollicove, Director of COM. Dr. A. Michael Andrews II,Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology, OASAALT, is shown farright. (Award recipients Don Golini, President of QED Technologies, and Robert T. Volz, U.S.Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, are not pictured.)


performance, not routine or expectedincremental improvements.

Army MANTECH ProgramSelected

During DMC 2001, the ArmyMANTECH Program was recognized asco-winner of an R&D 100 Award. Theother recipients are the Army Centerfor Optics Manufacturing (COM) at theUniversity of Rochester, and QED Tech-nologies, LLC, a COM spinoff companyheadquartered in Rochester, NY. Theindividuals recognized were DonGolini, President of QED Technologies;Harvey Pollicove, Director of COM; Dr.Robert S. Rohde, Deputy Director forLaboratory Management, Office of theDeputy Assistant Secretary of the Armyfor Research and Technology, Office ofthe Assistant Secretary of the Army forAcquisition, Logistics and Technology(OASAALT); Carol Gardinier, ProgramManager for MANTECH, Headquarters,U.S. Army Materiel Command (HQ,AMC); Walter N. Roy, U.S. ArmyResearch Laboratory; and Stanley P.Kopacz and Robert T. Volz, U.S. ArmyTank-automotive and ArmamentsCommand.

This award-winning DOD-university-industry team developedand improved a revolutionary manu-facturing technology that advancedoptics polishing from an art to a sci-ence. The Army COM, supported byArmy MANTECH efforts, has been verysuccessful in commercializing deter-ministic processing for optics manu-facturing through the advent of theQ22 system built by QED Technologies,LLC.

The team developed the technol-ogy to use the unique properties ofmagnetorheological fluids to form apoint polishing source with a constantremoval rate. The computer-controlleddeterministic optical finishing technol-ogy, magnetorheological finishing(MRF), makes possible an affordablemanufacturing process for producingthe high-precision optics that arerequired to enhance the target acquisi-tion, identification, surveillance, and

communication capabilities of today’sand tomorrow’s warfighters and theirweapon systems.

MRF is a revolutionary process. Itsextreme accuracy and computer-controlled stability allow the fabrica-tion and polishing of exceptionally pre-cise spherical, aspheric, and nontradi-tional free-form optical shapes. Itstechnology enables improvements forall optical and electro-optical systemsand has application in both militaryand commercial arenas. MRF willenable new technologies and special-use optical products that are beingdeveloped for miniaturized opto-electromechanical systems, megapixalrecording devices, optical communica-tions, computer storage, and integratedcircuit fabrication.

The Q22 MRF system is commer-cially available and has received indus-try acclaim. Every manufacturer ofphotolithographic optics and severalmajor precision optic shops in theUnited States have already installedmultiple Q22 MRF systems to produceultrahigh precision spheres andaspheres 24 hours a day. The bottomline is that this technology is imple-mented on the factory floor.

JOSEPH E. FLESCH is a Princi-pal Project Analyst with GRCInternational (GRCI), an AT&TCompany. He co-authored thisarticle while on a contract assign-ment in the Office of the DeputyAssistant Secretary of the Army forResearch and Technology.

DR. ROBERT S. ROHDE isDeputy Director for LaboratoryManagement in the Office of theDeputy Assistant Secretary of theArmy for Research and Technol-ogy, OASAALT and oversees theArmy MANTECH Program.

MRF is arevolutionary

process.Its extreme

accuracy andcomputer-controlled

stabilityallow

the fabricationand polishing

of exceptionallyprecise

spherical,aspheric, and

nontraditionalfree-form

opticalshapes.


IntroductionAn Army concept

known as Simulationand Modeling forAcquisition, Require-ments and Training(SMART) is improvingthe implementationof acquisition policyand collaborationacross a variety ofArmy communities.SMART can helpachieve greater oper-ational readiness byreducing life cycle costs (LCCs) andfielding systems more quickly.

This article covers five models thatimprove acquisition logistics policyimplementation and collaboration toachieve SMART readiness and totalownership cost (TOC) goals. Any U.S.government agency or its contractorsmay use these models. Three of thefive models are Army standard mod-els. The other two, developed by theArmy Communications-ElectronicsCommand (CECOM), are stand-alonetools that also link to the Army stan-dard models. Each of the five modelsis identified in Table 1 and is furtherdescribed in the following paragraphs.

ASOARThe Achieving a System Opera-

tional Availability Requirement(ASOAR) model is a tool for early-onanalysis of reliability, availability, andmaintainability (RAM) and supporta-bility. The ASOAR model optimallyallocates a system operational readi-ness rate requirement to determinethe operational availability (Ao) goals

for each end item being separatelyacquired. ASOAR end item Ao outputscan be used as Ao goal inputs for sup-portability optimization models whendata for items within an end itembecome available. The ASOAR modeluses a top-down analytical approachrequiring only system- and end-item-level inputs. The ASOAR model helpsto derive and generate system RAMrequirements that support the user’sreadiness objectives early in theacquisition cycle. The model also per-mits early-on RAM and supportabilitytrade-off analyses for “system-of-systems” situations. When equipmentavailability is considered, ASOARresults can be used with performancesimulations to determine systemeffectiveness. The ASOAR model canbe obtained from the CECOM DeputyChief of Staff for Operations and Plans(DCSOPS) Systems Analysis Division.The Systems Analysis Division willalso perform analyses for governmentagencies and provide a help desk forall ASOAR users.

SESAMEThe Selected

Essential-Item Stockfor AvailabilityMethod (SESAME)model is the Armystandard initial provi-sioning model thatoptimizes the mixand placement ofspares to achieve anend item Ao require-ment or the maxi-mum Ao for a dollargoal input. Essen-

tially, the readiness goal is achieved ata minimum cost or the maximumamount of readiness is bought for aninitial provisioning budget. To useSESAME, the maintenance concept foreach essential item must be known orproposed. SESAME can also be usedin an evaluation mode to estimate theAo being proposed or experienced.This Ao is based on the proposedsparing of items, their demand rate,and logistics response times associ-ated with their support concept. TheAssistant Secretary of the Army forAcquisition, Logistics and Technologystrongly encourages using SESAME todetermine initial spares requirements.The SESAME model and training canbe obtained from the Army MaterielCommand’s (AMC’s) Army MaterielSystems Analysis Activity.

COMPASSThe Computerized Optimization

Model for Predicting and AnalyzingSupport Structures (COMPASS) is theArmy standard level of repair analy-sis (LORA) model that optimizes

GET SMARTIN ACQUISITION

LOGISTICS PLANNINGBernard C. Price

Table 1.Linked/Integrated Army Models

Acronym Model Name TypeASOAR Achieving a System Operational Availability Requirement ReadinessSESAME Selected Essential-Item Stock for Availability Method ReadinessCOMPASS Computerized Optimization Model for Predicting Readiness

and Analyzing Support Structures and CostACEIT Automated Cost Estimating Integrated Tools CostLCET Logistics Cost Estimating Tool Cost


maintenance concepts to achieve anend item Ao at the least total cost. ALORA determines where each item iscost-effectively repaired. SESAMEalgorithms are embedded inCOMPASS to simultaneously opti-mize maintenance and supply sup-port. Thus, COMPASS enables sup-portability optimization prior to field-ing. COMPASS can also be used as asource of repair analysis (SORA)model. A SORA model determineshow each item is cost-effectivelyrepaired. Therefore, COMPASS can beused to compare the total costs associ-ated with government depot repairversus contractor depot maintenancein achieving the same Ao goal. Ofcourse, such a best-value analysiswould apply to noncore depot work.

COMPASS was designed to deter-mine steady-state, full-deployment

LORA and SORA decisions by compar-ing the net present-value logistics costestimates that vary by maintenancepolicy. COMPASS requires informationabout the line replaceable units(LRUs) used to restore the end itemand higher failure rate shop replace-able units (SRUs) used to repair LRUs.Thus, it has the fidelity to permit aRAM analysis of the detailed design toshow life-cycle support cost impactsassociated with each item modeled inthe equipment. Support costs associ-ated with design improvements can becompared to the baseline design toassess the improvement’s potential toreduce life-cycle support costs. Thishelps supportability analysis tobecome an integral part of systemsengineering. The COMPASS modeland training can be obtained from theAMC Logistics Support Activity.

ACEITThe Automated Cost Estimating

Integrated Tools (ACEIT) model is anArmy standard for LCC estimating.ACEIT is an automated architectureand framework that integrates severalsoftware products to be used for costestimating. ACEIT integrates cost-estimating functions and allows thecost analyst to tailor data for the proj-ect. The tool is often used to generateprogram office estimates and LCCestimates for project managers. Theprecision of the estimates is depend-ent on the cost-estimating relation-ships or methodology of other modelsand data used to feed ACEIT. Withregard to all costs except logistics, pastusage of ACEIT tends to provide credi-ble acquisition cost estimates. TheACEIT model and training can be

Table 2.When Ao Optimization Models Can Be Used


obtained from the Army Cost and Eco-nomic Analysis Center.

LCETThe Logistics Cost Estimating Tool

(LCET) is a user-friendly model thatestimates all time-phased logisticscosts associated with equipmentreadiness, use, and support. LCETconsists of two modules: Time-PhasedCOMPASS and the Logistics CostSpreadsheet. The Logistics CostSpreadsheet may be used in conjunc-tion with Time-Phased COMPASS orby itself. Using it in conjunction withTime-Phased COMPASS requires moredetailed data, but this combinationprovides a more credible cost estimatethan using it as a stand-alone tool. Thedata file of a selected COMPASS runmay be imported to LCET and thetime phasing of support costs com-puted. LCET also computes the worthof a warranty to automatically adjustthe time-phased COMPASS results.The logistics costs not covered byCOMPASS can be computed using theLCET spreadsheet. All the logisticscost results in LCET can be electroni-cally copied into ACEIT. Therefore,LCET improves the estimation oflogistics costs and can supplementACEIT to provide more credible life-cycle logistics cost estimates. TheCECOM DCSOPS Systems AnalysisDivision provides the model and ahelp desk for all LCET users.

Operational ReadinessTable 2 depicts when to use mod-

els that optimize supportability to Aorequirements or goals. ASOAR can beused early enough in the acquisitioncycle to evaluate RAM and supporta-bility requirements. ASOAR analyzesthe mission reliability aspect of RAM,while COMPASS and SESAME analyzethe logistics reliability aspect of itemdemand rates requiring equipmentsupport. If maintenance policies forLRUs and high failure rate SRUs areproposed, COMPASS can be used insource selection evaluations to deter-mine RAM-related support costs.Additionally, if LRU sparing is pro-posed, SESAME can be used toevaluate the Ao proposed in source-selection evaluations. COMPASSand/or SESAME are highly recom-

mended to determine optimum main-tenance or supply concepts prior toequipment fielding. If SESAME is usedto initially provision LRUs, the modelcan later be used to quickly evaluatethe end item’s Ao based on the reliabil-ity determined from equipment test orexperienced data.

LCCAll of the models support early,

informed decisionmaking across thedomains of many different communi-ties to help provide collaborativeanalyses. Used together in an inte-grated manner, COMPASS, LCET, andACEIT are useful for estimating equip-ment LCC by significantly improvingthe fidelity and credibility of logisticscost estimates in LCC estimates. Mod-els that improve LCC estimating aid inthe analysis and management ofTOCs, leading the way to TOC reduc-tion. The rigorous computation ofyearly logistics costs in LCET enablesmore accurate computing of systemTOC when used with ACEIT.

The integration of COMPASS,LCET, and ACEIT provides a struc-tured approach to optimize supporta-bility and compute LCC concurrently.COMPASS optimizes among viablesupport concepts to achieve aninputted Ao goal. It determines theleast cost initial provisioning associ-ated with each potential maintenanceconcept. COMPASS also optimizesamong maintenance trade-offs todetermine whether it is more cost-effective to use 2-level, 3-level, or 4-level maintenance support; returnLRUs or SRUs to depot for repair; useorganic or contractor depot repair;and throw away or repair items. TheTime-Phased COMPASS module in theLCET can be used to compute RAMand maintenance-related costs on anannual basis. The LCET spreadsheetalso estimates the other logistics costsnot covered by COMPASS. ACEITbecomes a much better LCC estimat-ing tool when LCET results are elec-tronically copied into it. This alsohelps to improve the modeling oftrade-offs to LCC. Applying the inte-grated models truly helps to makesupportability equal to cost, schedule,and performance when acquiringequipment.

ConclusionSMART improves collaboration

and achieves more operational readi-ness for less LCC by using modelingand simulation during equipmentdevelopment. The Army modelsdescribed in this article already existand have an excellent potential toaccomplish some of the SMART objec-tives. DOD and Army acquisition poli-cies encourage use of these linked orintegrated models, but they are sel-dom applied today. To better accom-plish SMART objectives and imple-ment acquisition logistics policies,individuals need more training toimprove awareness and promote cul-ture changes. To significantly improvemodel usage and collaboration, allArmy communities need to acceptand use Ao more as a user require-ment. Identifying Ao as a key perform-ance parameter in requirements docu-ments will promote increased usage ofsupportability optimization models.Additionally, if contractor logisticssupport (CLS) is going to be usedextensively, Ao may be evaluated inCLS buys because the contractor’sdesigned reliability and maintainabil-ity, proposed sparing, and logisticsresponse times are driving the enditem’s Ao prior to fielding and readi-ness after fielding. Another key to sig-nificantly improve model usage andcollaboration is to start optimizingsupportability in LCC evaluations.Applying these linked acquisitionlogistics models will lead to reducedTOCs in achieving readiness require-ments. When less money is spent toachieve system effectiveness, addi-tional dollars are available to purchasemore equipment or to buy increasedperformance, which in turn improvesoperational effectiveness.

BERNARD C. PRICE is Chief ofthe DCSOPS Systems AnalysisDivision at CECOM and a Certi-fied Professional Logistician. Hereceived a master’s degree in indus-trial engineering from Texas A&MUniversity and a master’s degree inelectrical engineering from Fair-leigh Dickinson University.


IntroductionOne of the Army’s latest inven-

tions, SmarTruck, is a concept vehi-cle designed to provide the Army acommercial vehicle platform to test,integrate, and showcase cutting-edge, dual-use automotive technolo-gies. SmarTruck allows the Army toinvestigate the latest in wireless com-munications, situational awareness,and soldier safety technology forpotential insertion into its light-weight tactical wheeled vehicle(TWV) fleet.

The idea for SmarTruck origi-nated in response to Army Chief ofStaff GEN Eric K. Shinseki’s vision forthe Army of the future: “Soldiers onPoint for the Nation . . . Persuasive inPeace, Invincible in War,” with thegoals to become more “Responsive,Deployable, Agile, Versatile, Lethal,Survivable and Sustainable.” Armytransformation represents theactions that must occur for the Armyto accomplish Shinseki’s goals. To dothis, the Army must change the wayit currently thinks, trains, and fights.This change must also be reflected inits vehicle fleet. The Army needs todevelop strategies to modernize andequip its light TWV fleet with dual-use technology and also devise vehi-cles that are capable of plug-and-play functionality.

As Shinseki’s Army transforma-tion plan began to take shape, mili-tary strategists questioned how theywould put his vision into action.Specifically, they were seeking a truckthat was lighter, faster, and safer,while also being affordable.

The U.S. Army Tank-automotiveand Armaments Command’s

(TACOM’s) National AutomotiveCenter (NAC) took the initiative tosupport Shinseki’s transformationgoals and prove that specific com-mercial technologies, which met mil-itary mission requirements, could beintegrated on a single testbed. Theytook an innovative approach bybrainstorming ideas about futuristicvehicle weaponry systems.

After NAC personnel gatheredideas, they assembled a team of com-mercial partners, including DelphiAutomotive Systems, Integrated Con-cepts and Research Corp., and MSXInternational, with whom they couldshare both state-of-the-art tech-nology and the costs of developingthe SmarTruck. Through this cost-sharing approach, NAC produced astate-of-the-art concept vehicle,which uses commercially availableoff-the-shelf products, within 7months from inception to comple-tion. In addition, SmarTruck can bequickly repaired with minimal costbecause it is built on a standard FordF-350 platform. SmarTruck couldhave been built on any commercialplatform that fit the specifications,i.e., Dodge or General Motors; how-ever, the team chose Ford.

What Is SmarTruck?SmarTruck is the Army’s newest

technology demonstrator, equippedwith the latest in automotive assetsand nonlethal weaponry. The engi-neers at NAC modified a standardFord extended crew cab F-350 meas-uring 8 feet (including mirrors) by 6feet by 22 feet and weighing 10,000pounds. They added 1,000 pounds tothe standard chassis, lowered the

body by 2 feet, outfitted everythingbut the floorboards with Armormax(a Kevlar-like ballistic cover), andadded 1-inch-thick bulletproof glass(3-A rated) to the front, back, andside windows. On the doors, theengineers provided additional pro-tection by installing a 3-A rated bal-listic covering for protection againstsmall arms such as .44- and .357-caliber Magnums, 9mm handguns,and M-16s. The cost of armoring theentire demonstration vehicle wouldhave been prohibitively expensive.

The truck seats four—a driverand three crewmembers. The seats inthe back of the vehicle slide to allowthe user greater access to three flat-screen panel displays and a joystickcontrol, which operate the onboardcountermeasures and weapons sta-tion. User identity is confirmed usinga biometric fingerprint identificationdevice. Once access is granted, theuser can deploy the onboard coun-termeasures (dazzling lights; high-voltage door handles; and oil slick,smoke screen, pepper spray, and tackdispensers) and the night visionsystem. At the touch of a button,pepper spray can be dispensed fromthe top of the vehicle to disorientrioters at a distance of up to 12 feet.High-voltage door handles delivering110 volts/30 amps, enough voltage totemporarily stun an intruder orthwart would-be attackers, can alsobe activated from the same flat-screen panel.

The smoke screen, which pumpssmoke out of the vehicle’s exhaustpipe, obscures pursuers’ vision, as dothe dazzling lights mounted on thefront and rear bumpers. The lights

THE ARMY’S SmarTruck:A TRUE TECHNOLOGY

DEMONSTRATORGerMaine P. Fuller


temporarily disorient enemies sothat they cannot look directly at thevehicle or pursue it. The front lightscan pan and tilt 90 degrees, givingthe user additional effectiveness.When activated, oil from the truck’sreservoir is released through a pipewith several small holes in it, causingpursuers to lose control of their vehi-cle. Should the pursuers evade the oilslick, the SmarTruck can dispense 30to 35 2-inch tacks, which always hitthe ground with one sharp point inthe upright position, immediatelyblowing out the tires of the pur-suing vehicle. Run-flat tires on theSmarTruck ensure that the user cancomplete his or her mission in theevent of a flat.

Some of the other capabilities ofthe SmarTruck include the following:

• Bomb detection system. Anarray of sensors placed around thevehicle detect any disturbances inthe magnetic field. Should any dis-turbances occur, the LED blinks,warning the driver of danger.

• Vehicle PC. A ruggedizedonboard event recorder, much likethe black box of an airplane, can beattached to cameras that record out-side via the weapons control station.

• Truck PC. SmarTruck uses atouch screen monitor to displayNational Imagery and MappingAgency maps. It also displays

vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-base e-mail communications andload-management status via satellite.

• ECLIPSE Commander. Thisreplaces the existing radio on thedashboard and provides limitedGlobal Positioning System (GPS)capability to guide the driver to newlocations and pinpoint selected des-tinations. The radio, cell phone, andpower door locks can be controlledvia voice activation.

SmarTruck ObjectivesEngineers at NAC thought long

and hard about what the SmarTruckcould be and do. The SmarTruck Pro-gram supports the Army’s transfor-mation goal for the next generationof military vehicles as well as the 21stCentury Truck Initiative. (See articleon Page 23 of the September/Octo-ber 2000 issue of Army AL&T maga-zine.) The SmarTruck testbed wasdesigned to show that the technologyexists today to give soldiers the abil-ity to employ nonlethal weapons todefend themselves within the con-fines of the rules of engagement forpeacekeeping operations. SomeArmy missions today are peacekeep-ing and policing activities. TheSmarTruck was also designed to givethe soldier the ability to control a sit-uation using nonlethal measures,coupled with the ability to use deadlyforce in case the situation escalates.

Some of the other objectives forthe initial SmarTruck Programinclude the following:

• Integrate and demonstrate ahybrid-electric drivetrain forimproved fuel economy in the longrange;

• Increase voice-activation capa-bilities within the vehicle;

• Develop and evaluate asatellite-linked data acquisitionsystem and flight recorder box forimproved soldier safety;

• Lower maintenance, operating,and support costs using onboardcomputers for improved and fasterdiagnostics and service;

• Demonstrate multiple databusnetwork on military trucks;

• Reduce cost-of-vehicleupgrades by embracing plug-and-play commercial off-the-shelf tech-nology; and

• Share the cost of research anddevelopment with private industry.

Why SmarTruck?SmarTruck can potentially be

deployed on peacekeeping missions,be used to transport and protectAmerica’s dignitaries in times ofunrest, or help thwart terroristattacks on our foreign embassies orhere at home. It can also be used toperform policing duties, as the Armyis increasingly deployed in urban

SmarTruck PC/custom dash SmarTruck exterior


environments. Because of its resem-blance to a sport utility vehicle(SUV), the SmarTruck does not drawattention to itself and can be used forsuch assignments as transportingdiplomats, members of Congress, orthe president in motorcades. A longlist of agencies—the Drug Enforce-ment Administration, the U.S. BorderPatrol, the Federal Bureau of Investi-gation, the U.S. Marshals Service,U.S. Army Special Operations, theNew York Port Authority, the SecretService, and local sheriff depart-ments—have already expressedinterest in a vehicle like theSmarTruck.

The SmarTruck is not yet beingproduced. It is considered to be atechnology demonstrator, one thatcan be customized for the needs ofthe agencies listed above or otherinterested parties.

Partnering Produces Results By partnering with leaders in the

automotive industry, using readilyavailable commercial products and acommercial platform, the militaryconsiderably reduces the cost ofproducing and maintaining theSmarTruck. According to Paul F.Skalny, Associate Director of theNAC, “It makes sense to share thetask of introducing technologies thatconsumers want and that our sol-diers need. By working together, wecan get the job done better, faster,and cheaper. Everyone wins.” Theautomotive companies are just asexcited about the partnership andthe opportunity to showcase newtechnologies and see how they holdup under demanding test conditions.Delphi Automotive Systems is usingthe SmarTruck as a testbed for itsQUADRASTEER four-wheel steeringsystem, which grants full-size vehi-cles greater maneuverability at lowspeeds and improved stability andhandling at higher speeds. LarryTomczak, Director of Engineering atDelphi’s Saginaw Steering SystemsDivision, says, “The key attribute [ofparticipating in the SmarTruck Pro-gram] is being able to evaluateQUADRASTEER. We can get a better

assessment on how the vehicle canbe exposed. It’s a chance to learnabout how well our technologyworks.”

SmarTruck IINAC engineers and their partners

have begun planning the second iter-ation of the SmarTruck concept vehi-cle. The next SmarTruck will be com-bined with the NAC’s COMBATT(COMmercially BAsed TacticalTruck), which leverages commercialtechnology to fulfill military missionneeds. Vehicles that are currently partof the COMBATT Program haveshown that using this approachresults in better off-road mobilityand payload capacity. An added ben-efit is being able to provide continu-ous improvement via automotivetechnology developed by the privatesector at no cost to the Army.

The COMBATT Program hasproven that economies of scale andcommercial state-of-the-art technol-ogy result in lower operating andsupport costs. The future SmarTruckwill integrate COMBATT andSmarTruck technologies and bedesigned with an urban environmentin mind. The platform for the nextiteration vehicle has not yet beenchosen. However, the vehicle will notbe camouflaged like the currentCOMBATT vehicles; instead it willlook more like an SUV.

Future CapabilitiesThe future SmarTruck will

include multidatabus electrical archi-tecture (J-1850, IDB-CAN, J-1939,MOST, and wireless); an alternativepropulsion system (most likelyhybrid electric); voice activation; androbotic reconnaissance capabilities.Upgrading to multidatabus capabili-ties means that the standard vehicleoriginal equipment manufacturer’sdatabus will be combined with afiber-optic databus, giving theSmarTruck multimedia capabilities.

SmarTruck passengers will beable to view electronic repair, opera-tor, and parts manuals. Dependingon the system chosen, the alternativehybrid-electric propulsion system, in

addition to allowing the vehicle tooperate in stealth mode, will enablethe vehicle to reach a speed of 100kilometers per hour in less than 7seconds. By adding a state-of-the-artvoice activation system, the user willbe able to vocally control the non-lethal countermeasures, the GPS sys-tem, and the communication sys-tems. The future iteration of theSmarTruck will have robotic recon-naissance capability, which will allowthe user to deploy a robot frombeneath the vehicle to investigate apotentially dangerous situation froma remote location. Other additions tothe next iteration SmarTruck includethe following:

• QUADRASTEER by Delphi, asteering system that uses all fourwheels to steer. It gives the truckincreased maneuverability and theability to make extremely sharpturns.

• A central tire inflation system,which allows vehicles to move overall types of terrain with ease, thusimproving mobility, traction, andcomfort.

• A nuclear, biological and chem-ical detection system.

• A collision warning system thatalerts drivers about impendingdanger.

• A fingerprint identification sys-tem for entry to the vehicle.

Soldiers traveling through enemyterritory in the SmarTruck will haveenough technology to protect them-selves, disorient the enemy, andcomplete their mission. What will theNAC engineers think of next?

GERMAINE P. FULLER,SmarTruck Program Manager, hasbeen employed by TACOM for 12years, the last 3 years at NAC.Fuller has a B.S. in electrical engi-neering from Lawrence Technolog-ical University in Southfield, MI,and an M.S. in technical manage-ment from Embry Riddle Aero-nautical University in DaytonaBeach, FL.


IntroductionRecent combat actions, most

notably Operation Allied Force,showed pronounced shortcomings inArmy and Air Force joint training andinteroperability. The Kosovo/Opera-tion Allied Force After Action Reviewnoted that Operation Allied Forcevalidated the need for joint, inte-grated training and underscored thecriticality of interoperability training.In fact, this need is clearly evident inthe Joint Surveillance Target AttackRadar System (JSTARS) Program.Although the Army and Air Forcehave solved many JSTARS trainingand interoperability issues, difficul-ties still remain, especially for theCommon Ground Station (CGS).Realizing this, a team of governmentand industry experts developed theJoint Distributed Virtual CombatRange (JD-VCR). This virtual battle-field lays the foundation for solvingjoint training, testing, and mission-

rehearsal issues for the CGS andfuture network-centric warfaresystems.

Why A Virtual Range?The CGS comprises a “system-of-

systems” using a number of jointsensors and communication links.The primary sensor is provided bythe JSTARS—an Air Force operatedasset that gives the joint task forcecommander a wide area surveillancecapability. Joint warfighters fromregiment and brigade up throughtheater rely on the CGS to supporttheir diverse targeting and combatinformation needs. CGS crews needfrequent opportunities to work withjoint staffs and full sensor arrays tomaintain their skills. Opportunitiesto do this are limited because of thelack of appropriate-size ranges,transportation dollars, and opera-tional and personnel tempos.

TrainingThe primary reason for a JD-VCR

is the lack of live and simulated exer-cises that address joint interoperabil-ity training at the tactical level,specifically at the division level andbelow. The U.S. Joint Forces Com-mand (JFCOM) recognized this defi-ciency in its Final Report on theTraining Center for Joint Interoper-ability (JI) Study. The report states, “ . . . only a few selected units get theopportunity to conduct joint interop-erability training; when they do, it isnot enough to advance beyond the‘crawl’ stage.”

At the simplest level of jointinteroperability, CGS crews have dif-ficulty sustaining skills that enablethem to maintain linkage with theJSTARS aircraft. This is attributable tothe lack of training opportunities. Forexample, high-density E-8C flightsites such as Fort Bragg are only ableto link with the JSTARS aircraft about

JOINT DISTRIBUTEDVIRTUAL COMBAT

RANGEMAJ Raymond D. Pickering

The primary reasonfor a Joint Distributed Virtual Combat Range

is the lack of liveand simulated exercises

that address joint interoperability trainingat the tactical level,

specifically at the division level and below.


three times a month for about anhour each time. In addition, low-density flight sites may only be avail-able once a quarter or less. Duringthese training opportunities, theJSTARS radar is normally looking atcivilian traffic on local highways, pro-viding little or no tactical trainingvalue for intelligence analysts andtargeting staffs. Commanders find itdifficult to quantify this type of adhoc training using the Army’s formalteaching process of “tasks, condi-tions, and standards.” More complexlevels of training are offered duringNational Training Center rotationsand at warfighter exercises, but theseoccur only once every 2 years. WhatCGS crews and their warfightingstaffs need are monthly opportuni-ties to work with JSTARS and othermembers of the joint “kill chain.”

TestingOperational testing requirements

for systems-of-systems like the CGSmirror those of joint interoperabilitytraining. The JFCOM report states,“The testing and evaluation commu-nity has requirements similar tothose of the training community inthe areas of simulation, networkinfrastructure, and data collection,and the need for operational forcesto validate capabilities and systemsas would be employed in joint inter-operability training exercises.” Likethe training community, the CGSoperational test community faces thesame hurdles.

Mission RehearsalCGS mission rehearsal in support

of real-world operations also suffersfrom the inability to synchronize gar-rison forces from dispersed locations.The JFCOM echoes this point formany systems-of-systems, “ . . . inmany cases the only opportunity totrain the joint force is between thetime the joint force is activated andwhen it must engage the enemy inbattle!” This situation will rarelyresult in a properly rehearsed jointoperation.

JD-VCRWith the concerns of training,

testing, and mission rehearsal inmind, the components of the JD-VCRbegan to take shape in concept andscope. The first component is the vir-tual battlespace or “hub.” The hubmust meet the operational needs forall of the Services. In addition, itmust meet the fidelity of the entirecustomer base, most specifically thestringent requirements of the testand evaluation community. Finally,the hub must be affordable andsupportable.

At first, the modeling and simula-tion (M&S) team sought to build avirtual battlespace from scratch. Ini-tial cost estimates looked unafford-able until the CGS M&S team discov-ered the Theater Aerospace Com-mand and Control SimulationFacility (TACCSF) at Kirtland AFB,NM. This high-tech, $250 billionfacility quickly became the topchoice for the joint hub. The new Air

Force Chief of Staff recently desig-nated TACCSF as the joint distributedtraining hub for the Air Force. Thisfacility already has an integrated net-work of simulators, a robust infra-structure, and expertise in place fordistributive simulation training.TACCSF currently maintains a closeworking relationship with the 93rdAir Control Wing (JSTARS) and con-ducts quarterly exercises called“Desert Pivots” or “Virtual Flags.” TheDesert Pivot exercises focus on battlemanagement and work every piece ofthe air component kill chain fromtarget detection, to target attack, tobattle damage assessment. WhileTACCSF primarily supports Air Forceneeds, it eagerly supports expansioninto the joint arena. According to LTCJames “Boomer” Henry, TACCSFDirector, “The ground and air com-ponents have to learn to worktogether, and we think that this is theperfect venue to do that.”

To fulfill the role envisioned bythe CGS M&S team, TACCSF agreedto have the Army integrate some ofits own simulation and digital com-munication capabilities into theTACCSF federation. These includeFIRESIM (Indirect Fire Support Sim-ulator), a dismounted version of theCGS called the Joint Service WorkStation, an All Source Analysis Sys-tem (ASAS), and an Advanced FieldArtillery Tactical Data System(AFATDS). In addition, the TACCSFsupports establishment of a perma-nent Army presence within its facil-ity. This Army cell will bring theground component to the fight dur-ing the quarterly Desert Pivotexercises. It will also manage themonthly, distributed training events(3-5 per month) that run on the vir-tual combat range.

Having identified the hub, theteam then shifted its attention toputting together the network thatwould tie the hub to the player unitsaround the world. The team antici-pated that this could be the costliestpiece of the virtual combat range,and might in fact be cost prohibitive.Fortunately, the CGS M&S team dis-covered that the National Guard

At its end state, the Joint DistributedVirtual Combat Rangewill enable CGS crewsand warfighting staffs

to hone joint interoperability skills,rehearse complex military operations,

and train in realistic combat environmentswithout leaving their home stations.


Bureau (NGB) already has a networkin place and is willing to share it. TheNGB calls this the Distributive Train-ing Technology Project or “GuardNETXXI.”

GuardNET XXI is an existing net-work of T-1 lines and DC-3 circuitsthat provide integrated voice, video,and data products to all 50 states and4 U.S. territories. The network sup-ports hundreds of high-tech digitalclassrooms where soldiers train. For-tunately for the CGS M&S team, mostof these classrooms are in close prox-imity to Active duty CGS garrisons.The partnering of GuardNET XXIwith the JD-VCR also helps solveArmy National Guard (ARNG) train-ing issues. If joint interoperabilitytraining is difficult for the Active dutyforce, it is exponentially more diffi-cult for the 15 ARNG units that arescheduled to receive CGSs beginningin FY02. The NGB agreed to allow theCGS M&S team to use its GuardNETXXI as long as the JD-VCR accommo-dates the unique training needs ofthe ARNG.

The final piece for the CGS M&Steam to put in place was the outsta-tion locations or “Warrior World.”The team’s intent here is to set up aninfrastructure that allows the CGSsand their staffs to roll-up and plugright into the virtual combat range.The CGS M&S team also needed tomake the sensor and communica-tions linkages as real as possiblebecause link maintenance is one ofthe identified training deficiencies.

Instead of injecting simulated E-8C radar data directly into eachCGS, this information is broadcastover an emulator that physicallyreplicates the data link on the air-craft. Each CGS will receive JSTARSinformation via its actual grounddata terminal. Unmanned aerialvehicle (UAV) telemetry and videoinformation is brought into the CGSvia a MetaVR simulator that repli-cates the UAV Ground Control Sta-tion (GCS). When the actual TacticalUAV GCS becomes available, it will

be able to easily integrate into thevirtual battlespace because MetaVRis built into its software. The CGSswill receive intelligence broadcastservices via the Commander’s Tacti-cal Terminal or Joint Tactical Termi-nal via the actual links using a train-ing format. Outstation CGSs will beable to link with ASAS and AFATDSterminals locally or with these sys-tems at the TACCSF via GuardNETXXI. The M&S team plans to havenearly 40 outstations plugged intothe VCR.

Evolutionary ApproachUsing quarterly Desert Pivot

exercises as “waypoints,” the CGSM&S team is taking an evolutionaryapproach to building the VCR. Theintent is to use the quarterly DesertPivot exercises to incrementally growthe JD-VCR. At each step, the cus-tomer base of trainers, testers, andmission planners will be able toassess the performance of the rangeto support their specific areas ofinterest.

The crawl phase (concept viabil-ity) of the JD-VCR occurred in April2001. During a Desert Pivot exercise,five CGSs from the U.S. Army Intelli-gence Center and School at FortHuachuca, AZ, participated in asouthwest Asia scenario. The FortHuachuca CGSs interoperated with asimulated E-8C aircraft manned by areal JSTARS aircrew at Kirtland AFB.The CGSs also received UAV teleme-try/imagery from the Army’s HunterUAV and used their voice communi-cations over the network.

By the time this article is pub-lished, the team will have completedthe “walk” stage (GuardNET XXI via-bility) at Desert Pivot 01-4 in Septem-ber 2001. The CGS from the Army’snewest unit, the Interim BrigadeCombat Team (IBCT) at Fort Lewis,WA, will join the JD-VCR by linkinginto GuardNET XXI. As such, theIBCT will monitor JSTARS and UAVoperations from its Fort Lewis loca-tion. In addition, the Army’s Intelli-

gence Center will establish a digitaltactical operations center to supportits CGS and its schoolhouse. TheM&S team will also equip theTACCSF with an AFATDS system totest the digital messaging capabilityof the JD-VCR.

The CGS M&S Team plans toreach the “run” stage in the summerof 2002 to include the ARNG duringanother Desert Pivot exercise. Theteam hopes to be executing all orportions of the CGS’s follow-on testand evaluation on the JD-VCR in thefirst quarter of 2004. The CGS teamalso envisions that the JD-VCR willevolve beyond just the CGS. In fact,the JD-VCR has the potential tobecome a fundamental componentin the development, testing, andtraining of the Distributive CommonGround System-Army (DCGS-A).

The New VisionAt its end state, the JD-VCR will

enable CGS crews and warfightingstaffs to hone joint interoperabilityskills, rehearse complex militaryoperations, and train in realisticcombat environments without leav-ing their home stations. The JD-VCRwill also provide the test and evalua-tion community a cost-effectivevenue and tools to assess systems-of-systems like the CGS and the futureDCGS-A.

MAJ RAYMOND D. PICKERINGwas the Modeling and SimulationTeam Chief at PM, CGS when hewrote this article. He is presentlyenrolled in the Command andGeneral Staff Officers Course andthe Acquisition Graduate DegreeProgram at Fort Leavenworth, KS.He is a graduate of New MexicoState University.


IntroductionIn October 1998, a team was estab-

lished to design, construct, operate,and—ultimately—close the AberdeenChemical Agent Disposal Facility(ABCDF) at Aberdeen Proving Ground(APG), MD. This $616 million ABCDFpilot plant will dispose of the mustardagent (HD) currently stored at theEdgewood area of APG. Overseen by theProgram Manager for Chemical Demili-tarization, the ABCDF is a prototypicalresearch, development, test and evalua-tion (RDT&E) project that will usehydrolysis and biotreatment for HDdestruction.

Risk management is critical to thesuccess of any RDT&E project or pro-gram. In the case of the ABCDF project,the Army and its systems contractor,Bechtel National Inc.-Aberdeen, areidentifying challenges to the projectthat may arise from federal and stateregulators, community scrutiny, designissues, construction and operationalneeds, budgets, and schedules. To assistin the identification, evaluation, andmanagement of probable risks, theABCDF project team developed a man-agement tool, the risk list, in conjunc-tion with the project’s Earned ValueManagement System, while revising itsestimate at completion (EAC). The proj-ect team spent 1 year assembling adetailed bottoms-up cost estimate forthe revised EAC. The resulting risk listallows project managers to document,evaluate, prioritize, and manage majorrisks, thus avoiding or minimizingimpacts to cost and schedule.

This article highlights how ABCDFproject managers are using the risk listand how its implementation benefitsthe project.

Defining The Risk ListDeveloped in 1999, the risk list is a

detailed spreadsheet of actual, proba-ble, or potential risks that are priori-tized, evaluated, and rated for manage-ment action and follow-up. The listincludes any risk that the ABCDF proj-ect team deems significant in answer-ing three basic questions: What is thelikelihood that a particular event willhappen? If the event does happen, whatwill be the magnitude of its impact? Arewe able to mitigate the risk now?

Soliciting input from all the projectteam members helped the team to cre-ate an initial list of risk items that couldimpact the ABCDF project. The teamidentified major assumptions regardingcost (e.g., staffing ramp-up/levels),schedule (e.g., construction and opera-tion timelines), and those items per-ceived to be vulnerable to certain risks(e.g., hiring required staff). A risk inven-tory (accompanying chart) and theABCDF Work Breakdown Structure Dic-tionary were used to identify otherapplicable risks.

Risk-List AdvantagesThe primary benefit of using the

risk list is that major risks are identifiedbefore they occur, thus allowing man-agement to develop mitigating actionsin a timely manner.

Secondary benefits include moreeffective partnering and team buildingby Army and Bechtel-Aberdeen person-nel and the historical documentationgenerated while addressing potentialrisks. In addition, the historical docu-mentation can be used as a referencetool for other demilitarization projects.The risk list also meets requirements ofDoD Directive 5000.1, The Defense

Acquisition System, which instructs pro-gram managers to use risk manage-ment tools and continually assess pro-gram risks.

However, the overall benefits to theproject are cost and schedule savings.For example, the ABCDF project teammade aggressive assumptions whenpreparing the project’s EAC timeline,which must be properly managed toprevent cost overruns. One of theseassumptions included scheduling lessthan 4 months of lead time for new per-sonnel to obtain clearances to work onthe chemical demilitarization program(the typical lead time could be morethan 12 months). Because the time foremployee clearances was identified as apotential cost and schedule risk, theproject team is managing this risk andavoiding a cost increase of more than$6 million.

Generating Risk RatingsIn April 2000, the risk-list rating

system was revised to help focusABCDF’s resources on the most criticalissues. The risk-list format allows theuser to enter issues or events and theirassociated risks and document thebasis for the risk assessment and anyassociated risk-mitigation action plans.The scales and level of detail selectedfor the risk factors were based on theproject team’s assessment of the degreeof accuracy that realistically could beapplied to most risk items.

Each risk item is assigned a proba-bility (P), an impact to performance (I)(i.e., cost and schedule), and anurgency factor (U). The risk rating (RR)is determined by multiplying thesethree factors (P x I x U = RR) and thenranking the risk item relative to allother risk items. The probability factoris based on a scale of one throughthree. One is low (less than 25 percentprobability of occurrence); two repre-sents medium (25-75 percent probabil-ity of occurrence); and three meanshigh (greater than 75 percent probabil-ity of occurrence). The impact to per-formance factor scale also uses the onethrough three rating format. However,for use on other projects, the ratingscale should be project-specific andadjusted to measure risk impacts to theproject’s expected total cost and sched-ule. For example, the risk of a 1-dayschedule delay during the course of a 1-week project will register a higher

Managing Risk . . .

THE ABERDEENCHEMICAL AGENT

DISPOSAL FACILITY

Robert J. Cavallo and G. Thomas Howard


rating than a 1-week delay on a 5-yearproject.

The urgency factor is configured ona slightly different scale of 0.1 to 1.0 andestimated to the nearest 0.1. It is anestimate of the need to address a riskitem based on the project’s status andthe team’s ability to reduce the proba-bility or impact. A rating of 0.1 to 0.3 islow and does not warrant immediateattention. A 0.4 to 0.7 rating is consid-ered medium, which means there is areasonable need for mitigating the riskfactor in question. A rating of 0.8 to 1.0is high and indicates that mitigationsteps must be taken immediately. Oncethe risk ratings are calculated, they areranked from highest to lowest. How-ever, the risk list is a living document,and risk ratings can move up or downbased on changing conditions. The listalso can be sorted in a number of wayssuch as by probability, impact, andurgency.

Risk-List AdministrationCo-chairpersons (one Army and

one system contractor representative)are selected by senior members of theABCDF project team to oversee the risklist. They maintain the list, periodicallyassess risk items, and request andcompile updates. In addition, the co-chairpersons assign risk-item leadpersonnel (subject to managerialapproval), normalize data as appropri-ate, schedule and lead the risk-listmeetings, and communicate key riskitems and responsibilities.

Any ABCDF project member orstakeholder may recommend risk itemsbe added to the list or provide input on existing items via the risk-list co-chairpersons. Once a risk item is identi-fied, a minimum of two leads—oneArmy and one system contractor repre-

sentative—are assigned to monitor therisk item. The lead personnel are alsoresponsible for documenting and main-taining the risk item(s) on “backup”sheets, which typically include a risk-item description, potential impact(general description), risk-factor ratings(P, I, and U), the basis for the risk-factorratings, proposed action plan, and ahistory documenting all activities asso-ciated with the item.

Lead personnel must reachconcurrence with their co-leads on risk-item documentation. Individual risk-item backup sheets are then compiledto formulate the risk list. The co-chairpersons review the risk list toensure uniformity in scoring and riskrating before the list is reviewed andused by project team members. If anidentified risk item does not requirefurther action, it is archived for futurereference.

Working groups meet periodicallyto ensure that the risk list is current andthat action plans for identified risks areappropriate and progressing. Duringthese reviews, risk items that have beenmitigated or are no longer valid arearchived to ensure that a history ismaintained. Risk items that havereceived a high ranking are discussed atthe system contractor’s weekly staffmeeting and at the Army and systemcontractor operations/managementintegrated product team meetings.

The project team also hostsbiweekly Risk List Working Group meet-ings in addition to formal quarterlyreviews and updates of all risk-listitems.

ConclusionThe risk list aids ABCDF project

managers in evaluating and quantifyingrisk, which is not an exact science.

However, being able to reasonablyassess a project’s risks regardless of itslife span or budget is critical to the suc-cess of that endeavor. On any project,the first step is to decide what type ofrisk management tool will be used andimmediately implement it to assess andmanage potential risks.

ABCDF’s management teamembraced risk when it decided to makea series of assumptions; weigh themagainst external, internal, and technicalvariables; and assign levels of probableimpact to the project. All of this is doneto identify issues and scenarios toensure the successful conclusion of theABCDF project. The effective partneringand teamwork by the Army and its sys-tems contractor in the mitigatingpotential risks is an added benefit.

Managing risk for the ABCDF isproving to be a valuable tool in the safeand cost-effective disposal of Edge-wood’s mustard agent stockpile.

ROBERT J. CAVALLO is LeadOperation Engineer, Office of theProject Manager for AlternativeTechnologies and Approaches,ABCDF Field Office. He received hisbachelor’s degree in civil engineeringfrom Temple University.

G. THOMAS HOWARD is Man-ager of Projects for Jacobs Engineer-ing Group Inc. and is providing tech-nical liaison support to the Alterna-tive Technologies and ApproachesProject, U.S. Army Chemical Demili-tarization Program. He received abachelor’s degree in mechanicalengineering from the University ofTennessee.

Typical Sources Of RiskExternal Internal TechnicalPersonnel Technical Operational EnvironmentData Maturity System EnvironmentSupplier Viability Changing Requirements Environmental ImpactRegulations Design Errors Software Language Political Actions Schedule Configuration ManagementEnvironmental Unrealistic Requirements Parts QualityTransportation Incomplete Identification of Tasks Design Errors

Cost External/Internal InterfacesDesign and Configuration MaintenanceCompetitive Environment


The National Automotive Cen-ter (NAC) at the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Com-mand’s Tank Automotive Research,Development and Engineering Center(TACOM-TARDEC), Warren, MI, hasdeveloped a software tool that providesmuch of the information needed todesign occupant safety into vehicles.The Occupant Crash Protection Devel-opment Guide for Ground Vehicles is amultimedia tool that can educatebeginners in the many facets of occu-pant protection or assist technicalexperts in developing new systems.

The Army’s ground vehicle fleetneeds the best possible occupant crashprotection to prevent injuries to oursoldiers. This requires upfront knowl-edge and planning prior to develop-ment. Determining the causes ofinjuries, developing system require-ments, and extensive test and evalua-tion are essential to the initial phase ofan occupant protection program. Engi-neers and managers must have accessto information resources on occupantcrash protection systems. Engineeringand biomechanic topics that must beconsidered and used include mecha-nism of impact injuries; injury thresh-olds; existing and emerging crash pro-tection technology; principles of occu-pant crash protection; lessons learnedfrom previously developed systems;existing applicable standards; and test,simulation, and analysis methods.

The Occupant Crash ProtectionDevelopment Guide for Ground Vehiclesconsolidates and organizes thisresource information into an interac-tive, Web-compatible CD-ROM. Thetask-oriented organization of the CD,coupled with the multimedia format,maximizes comprehension of occupantcrash protection concepts for diverseaudiences. Additionally, the guide’s useof visual aids effectively conveys theinformation. Internet compatibilityallows the guide to be updated and pro-vides users direct access to other Inter-net resources through integrated hyper-

links. Further, the electronic guide canbe navigated through the use of hyper-links, find features, and bookmarks.

The occupant crash protectionguide provides essential vehicle occu-pant safety information for Armyprogram managers, acquisition man-agers, developers of operationalrequirements, system safety engineers,project engineers, and others who areresponsible for preparing the detailedoccupant protection specifications forwheeled ground vehicles.

The guide runs on Microsoft Win-dows 95, NT 4.0, or more current oper-ating systems. It uses the client’s Inter-net browser to display text, charts, andvideo and audio files to assist them inunderstanding issues related to groundvehicle occupant protection.

The guide contains safety informa-tion from several major sources includ-ing the Federal Motor Vehicle SafetyStandards, the Society of AutomotiveEngineers, the U.S. Army Safety Stan-dards, and the U.S. Army Crash SurvivalDesign Guide.

To accommodate the needs of indi-vidual users, the guide presents theprinciples of occupant crash protectionin three levels of increasing intensity.The Overview is an executive summary;the Tutorial discusses the significantelements in the development process;and the Handbook provides detailedinformation about the design, develop-ment, test, and evaluation of occupantprotection systems. The Handbook fur-ther explains the principles of occupantcrash protection, human injury toler-ance, crash test methodology, dataanalysis, and crash protectiontechnology.

Another key feature of the guide isthe Toolbox, which contains severalanalytical tools to assist users withanalysis of test data and injury assess-ment. The Toolbox is comprised of soft-ware to calculate potential for spinaland head injury, to calculate and plot acrash pulse, and to calculate majorbody dimensions; a knowledge base to

understand human tolerance to accel-eration; and hyperlinks to governmentand commercial Web sites.

The final section of the guide isResources. This section contains hyper-links to Web sites of various govern-ment and industry offices that areinvolved in occupant crash safetyincluding Army, Navy, and Air Forcesafety centers; the Insurance Institutefor Highway Safety; the Human Factorsand Ergonomics Society; and the Soci-ety of Automotive Engineers.

The best way for the Army to meetits goal of reducing the number of crashrelated fatalities 50 percent by 2010 isby improving in-cab occupant crashprotection, installing crash avoidancesystems, and improving driver educa-tion programs. The Occupant CrashProtection Development Guide forGround Vehicles provides the informa-tion and tools needed to assist manage-ment in making choices that willachieve the optimal occupant crashprotection for ground vehicles. Use ofthis interactive computer-based guidecan lead to enhanced protection of oursoldiers and provide increased poten-tial for success of their missions.

Note: To order the Occupant CrashProtection Development Guide forGround Vehicles, send an e-mail withyour business address, phone number,and the number of CDs required [email protected].

MICHAEL L. GEDEON is theProject Manager for NAC’s ArmyVehicle Intelligence and Safety Pro-gram. He has a B.S. degree inmechanical engineering fromWayne State University, is a mem-ber of the Society of AutomotiveEngineers, and has 20 years experi-ence in Army ground vehicleresearch and development.

NAC’s GROUND VEHICLEOCCUPANT PROTECTION GUIDE

Michael L. Gedeon


IntroductionThe term “lost-time accident”

refers to a job-related injury or illnessthat results in an employee beingunable to work. In August 2001, theChemical Demilitarization TrainingFacility (CDTF), a five-building com-plex located in the Edgewood Area ofAberdeen Proving Ground, MD, com-memorated 10 years without a lost-time accident. The CDTF serves as ahands-on, agent-free training facilityfor personnel who operate and main-tain the U.S. chemical weaponsstockpile disposal facilities. TheCDTF is a unique facility dedicatedto training the workforce for the dis-posal program.

In 1985, Congress directed DODto safely dispose of its chemicalweapons stockpile. The Secretary ofthe Army announced that disposalfacilities would be established underthe administration of the ProgramManager for Chemical Demilitariza-tion’s (PM, CD’s) newly formedChemical Stockpile Disposal Projecton Johnston Island, 825 miles south-west of Hawaii, and at eight othersites across the country. Shortlythereafter, PM, CD identified theneed to construct a dedicated train-ing complex that would provide pro-grammatic training support to per-sonnel who would operate andmaintain the disposal facilities.

In 1989, General Physics Corp.(GP), based in Columbia, MD, wasawarded the initial contract to con-

struct the CDTF. GP not only builtthe $17 million complex but alsodeveloped the CDTF’s training pro-gram to include the use of disposalfacility equipment such as rocketshear and multipurpose demilitariza-tion machines.

This article describes the suc-cessful safety, training, and manage-ment practices that have allowed theCDTF to achieve its zero-accidentrecord.

Safety As A PriorityTen years without a lost-time

accident is an accomplishment inany industry. The CDTF credits itsOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration Voluntary ProtectionProgram (VPP) for its successfulaccident-free record. The VPP is theunderlying structure of the CDTF’ssafety program, which consists of butis not limited to the followingelements:

• Involving top management in the structure and operation of theprogram,

• Inspecting sites regularly forsafety and health,

• Investigating accidents and“near-miss” incidents,

• Identifying all hazards by con-ducting baseline work-site surveys,

• Analyzing injury and illnesstrends, and

• Training to ensure that allemployees understand the hazards

to which they may be exposed toprevent harm to themselves andothers.

The Project Manager for Chemi-cal Stockpile Disposal (PM, CSD)assigns responsibilities for all aspectsof the program so that managers,supervisors, and employees knowwhat is expected of them. This helpscreate an atmosphere where allworkers are accountable for uphold-ing safety requirements and ensuringthat their teammates adhere to them.

CDTF Training Since its inception, the CDTF has

conducted more than 5,600 classesand trained more than 28,000employees from various chemicaldemilitarization program areas. Thetraining facility was also the firstorganization to systemize the multi-purpose demilitarization, projec-tile/mortar disassembly and minedisassembly machines, and bulkdrain station. Test plans and controlcodes from the CDTF were used tosupport the disposal startup effortsat the Tooele Chemical Agent Dis-posal Facility (TOCDF) in Tooele, UT,and the Johnston Atoll ChemicalAgent Disposal System in the Pacific.

System Simulator UpgradeThe CDTF training program also

makes use of a process control sys-tem simulator (PCSS), which GPrecently upgraded at the request of

Putting Safety First . . .

CHEM DEMIL FACILITYHAS ACCIDENT-FREE

DECADEKenneth W. Findley


PM, CSD. The new PCSS consists ofsix operator control stations and oneinstructor station. Each station oper-ates as an Ethernet LAN running on aWindows NT server. Each of the sixoperator control stations consists ofa single PC and two monitors. Theinstructor station allows the user toinsert faults and monitor and controleach of the six control station simu-lations concurrently.

The GP CDTF Simulation Groupheaded the design and implementa-tion of the upgraded PCSS. Requiredsoftware licenses and hardware wereidentified and purchased andprocess software was developed tofunction with the LAN-based PCSS.Other product designs and imple-mentations included systemization,product documentation and trainingmaterial design and development,and advanced training system andequipment fault scenario develop-ment. The improved PCSS servesseveral functions within the chemicalstockpile disposal training program.For example, in addition to evaluat-ing hazardous waste incineratoroperators, it provides:

• Initial skill and knowledgetraining for hazardous waste inciner-ator operators,

• Control room team skill train-ing, and

• Self-paced practice in relevantjob skills.

The system upgrade has alsoallowed a larger number of studentsto concurrently operate independentcopies of the equipment or system,increasing the time students canspend performing and practicing allof the required skills and techniques.For example, individual traineeperformance and practice timeincreased from 8 to 32 hours percourse.

GP’s PCSS hardware and softwareupgrade is a cost-effective expansionof CDTF’s training simulator capabil-ities. The PCSS is in full operation at

the CDTF and at the TOCDF. At thetime this article was submitted forpublication, the system was beinginstalled at the Umatilla ChemicalAgent Disposal Facility, Hermiston,OR, and the Anniston ChemicalAgent Disposal Facility, Anniston, AL.The PCSS is also scheduled to beinstalled at the Pine Bluff ChemicalAgent Disposal Facility, Pine Bluff,AK.

CurriculumAlong with simulator training,

the CDTF offers 2,000 hours of cur-riculum ranging from basic introduc-tory courses such as toxic area train-ing to highly specialized workshopsand emergency response training.For example, toxic area training pro-vides students with the knowledgeand skills needed to work with chem-ical agents. Consisting of 8 hours ofclassroom instruction followed by 40hours of hands-on practical exer-cises, toxic area training includesinstruction in emergency responseprocedures and the proper use ofprotective clothing and decontami-nation equipment. Practical exer-cises are also conducted in a non-toxic environment and are designedto build employee confidence in hisor her ability to work safely in a haz-ardous environment.

After individuals successfullycomplete training at the CDTF, theyare considered qualified to performtheir assigned duties at their respec-tive chemical disposal facilities.Upon returning to their facility, theformer CDTF students receive fur-ther classroom and on-the-job train-ing. Individuals must successfullycomplete all training and evaluationsbefore being certified by the chemi-cal demilitarization facility systemscontractor.

Managing For SuccessThe systems contractor for train-

ing, GP, currently administers theCDTF. GP is responsible for providingprogrammatic skills and training on

common and demilitarization-unique equipment and systems. Thecompany oversees a team of profes-sionals responsible for safety, qualityassurance and control, project sup-port, instructional systems, trainingoperations, and engineering. Thisteam specifically does the following:

• Analyzes the work to be per-formed at the various disposal sitesand determines necessary training,

• Recommends training materialsto be developed,

• Updates and maintains theintegrity of the training,

• Achieves the highest level ofcost-effective CDTF availability, and

• Provides public affairs support.

ConclusionCDTF personnel have success-

fully shown that when maintainingand operating a chemical disposalfacility, there is no room for error.This dedication to preserving thesafety and health of the public hasearned the CDTF its zero-accidentrecord.

“I am proud of and impressed bythe CDTF’s accomplishments overthe past 10 years,” said James Bacon,Program Manager for ChemicalDemilitarization. “It has providedPM, CD with a dedicated, well-trained workforce that is aware of itsimportance to the success of our dis-posal program.”

KENNETH W. FINDLEY is theCDTF Contracting Officer’s Repre-sentative and the Site ProjectManager for the Project Managerfor the Chemical Stockpile Dis-posal Operations Division. Hereceived his bachelor’s degree inengineering from the U.S. NavalAcademy and a master’s in indus-trial relations from West VirginiaUniversity.

AAsskk TThhee AAccqquuiissiittiioonnSSuuppppoorrtt CCeenntteerr

I applied to the Acquisition Tuition Assistance Pro-gram (ATAP) Board last October, but I did not receivetuition assistance. I updated my Acquisition CareerRecord Brief (ACRB) before I applied and thought I hada good application. Why wasn’t I selected?

Feedback from the board indicated that some ACRBswere not updated correctly. Remember, ACRBs must beupdated through your Acquisition Career Manager(ACM). In addition, ACRBs forwarded to the board musthave the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) watermark. Manywere turned in without complete information. A completeACRB provides board members a good feel for who youare and what you have accomplished.

Another problem was that many applicants whorequested funding for a degree appeared to have little orno Defense Acquisition University training and/or certifi-cation. The AAC encourages a balance of education, train-ing, and experience. Certification in your career field atthe level required by your present position should beobtained before seeking education and training beyondthat which is required for certification.

Many applicants appeared to have the required train-ing, experience, and education for certification, but nocertification was listed. Remember, certification is notautomatic once you have met the requirements. Further,many applicants requested funding for a full degree when24 semester hours of business would have been moreappropriate.

Although the ATAP application form provides spacefor supervisor comments, this section was left blank onseveral applications. Supervisor comments are valuable toboard members, and you should use every tool availableto help your application stand out. Additionally, severalapplications did not contain a Senior Rater PotentialEvaluation, which is required for all GS-13s and above (orequivalent personnel demonstration broadband levels).Don’t forget this!

To ensure that your application receives favorableconsideration, review the ATAP policy, procedures, andapplication form at http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil prior toapplying. We also recommend that ACRBs and applica-tion packages be reviewed by your ACM prior to submit-tal. A list of ACMs is available at the above Web site.

I became a member of the Army Acquisition Corpsas an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel/O-5 severalyears ago. I am now in the retired Reserve. In addition,I was selected in 2001 as a member of the Navy Acquisi-tion Corps as a GS-1102-13. I decided to accept a GS-1102-12 with save-pay to join the Army civilian


CAREER DEVELOPMENT UPDATE

Many of you have read COL Richard P. De Fatta'sarticle in the January-February 2002 issue of Army AL&Tmagazine outlining the impact of the HQDA reorganiza-tion on operations in the Office of the Assistant Secretaryof the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. Aspart of this reorganization, the Acquisition Career Man-agement Office (ACMO) and the Army Acquisition Exec-utive Support Agency (AAESA) have been consolidated toform the Acquisition Support Center (ASC). As the newdirector of the ASC, I am pleased to work with dedicatedprofessionals under this combined managementstructure.

The 21st century has dawned as a period of unprece-dented change and challenge. What worked only a fewyears ago is no longer effective as we shift into an elec-tronic world where new organizational logic is required.Reorganization not only involves change, it enables revi-talization that will allow us to act more efficiently andresponsively without sacrificing operational effective-ness. While the ASC combines related functions andtransitions to a new organizational structure, the key ele-ment remains people: the people who are part of thisorganization, and the people we serve—acquisition pro-fessionals—and, ultimately, soldiers in the field.

To better serve acquisition workforce members,especially during this reorganization period, Army AL&Tmagazine will continue to publish responses to some ofthe most frequently asked questions submitted to theASC. Your comments are welcome, and your suggestionsfor improving our operations are important to us.

I also want to congratulate the 28 Materiel Acquisi-tion Management Course graduates (), the newlyaccessed AAC members (Pages 43-44), and the Com-mand and Staff College selectees (Page 45).

I look forward to working with all of you.

COL Mary FullerDirectorAcquisition Support Center

FROM THE DIRECTORACQUISITION SUPPORTCENTER

team and leave the Navy. Is my membership still validfrom when I was selected as an Army Reserve officer, ordoes my Navy membership transfer even though I amnow a GS-12 vice a GS-13? I am also Defense Acquisi-tion Workforce Improvement Act Level III certified.

Actually, either way works. The Services have anagreement to recognize each other’s certification withoutfurther qualification, thus your Navy certification auto-matically applies to the Army. Regardless, your originalArmy membership is also good. Technically, AAC mem-bers are GS-13 and above (or equivalent personnel demon-stration broadband level); however, we don’t remove mem-bers who take a voluntary downgrade, so you are stillgood.

One of the requirements for membership in theArmy Acquisition Corps is 4 years of acquisition experi-ence in DOD or in a comparable position in industry orgovernment. Do you have a written definition of whatqualifies as acquisition experience?

Acquisition experience is experience gained whileassigned to an acquisition position, to include intern,exchange, education, training with industry, and otheracquisition developmental assignments. This includesexperience in DOD acquisition positions and in compa-rable positions outside DOD. In reality, the position codeidentifies a particular position as acquisition (e.g., con-tracting, program management, quality assurance, orindustrial engineering). For the academic community, itwould include experience as an instructor in the areas ofcontracting, procurement, program management, etc.

Tuition Assistance ProgramThe Acquisition Tuition Assistance Program (ATAP)

assists civilian acquisition workforce members in obtainingundergraduate and graduate degrees and/or the businesshours required for Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) member-ship. Acceptance into the program is through a competitiveboard process. Applicants apply by submitting the requireddocuments and identifying the opportunity being sought.

The last ATAP board for FY02 is scheduled for June 2002.Look for the ATAP announcement in early April on the AAChome page (http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil). Applications willbe accepted until May 31, 2002.

Don’t wait! If you are interested in this opportunity, con-tact your Acquisition Career Manager to update your Acquisi-tion Career Record Brief and to get help putting your packettogether.

Certification RequirementsThe 2002 Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Catalog

includes changes to certification requirements mandated bythe Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act. Avail-able on the DAU Web site at http://www.dau.mil, the catalog

should be used by individuals seeking certification. In partic-ular, they should review certification requirements for theircareer field and determine if minimum education, experi-ence, and training requirements have been met. Once applicants feel they have met the 2002 requirements, or ifquestions arise, they should contact their Acquisition CareerManager (ACM) to continue the certification process. Con-tact information for ACMs is on the Army Acquisition Corpshome page at http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil.

AAC Regional Training ProgramThe Acquisition Support Center (ASC) supports training

opportunities for the Acquisition and Technology Workforceas an essential part of career development. As such, the ASChas established the Army Acquisition Corps Regional Train-ing Program. This program provides leadership and career-broadening opportunities locally, which are unique to theneeds of the region. Each fiscal year, the ASC centrally fundscourses that meet acquisition leadership competencies. TheFY02 Regional Training Program has been approved, andclasses in the areas of leadership, team building, communi-cation and presentation skills, conflict management, andpersonal career goals are available within the regions. Forfurther information, contact your regional Acquisition CareerManager.

AETE Catalog AvailableThe 2002 Acquisition Education, Training and Experi-

ence (AETE) Catalog is available on the Army AcquisitionCorps home page at http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil. The AETECatalog is an important reference tool for career develop-ment information and outlines all available training, educa-tion, and experience opportunities.



CDG Program Proves SuccessfulSince its inception in 1997, the Competitive Develop-

ment Group (CDG) Program has been heralded as the pre-mier leadership development program in the Army Acquisi-tion Corps. This 3-year program is comprised of competi-tively selected GS-12s and GS-13s (or equivalent personneldemonstration broadband level) who are provided the edu-cation, training, and experience necessary to assume keyleadership positions within the Department of the Army. Ofthose who have completed the program, 78 percent havebeen promoted, many before they graduated. In fact, 56 per-cent of civilian CDG members from year group 2001 havebeen promoted already, and they’re not even halfwaythrough the program.

If you want a challenging, career-broadening opportu-nity with exciting developmental assignments and promo-tion potential, apply for the CDG Program today. Details canbe found at http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil. Point of contact atthe Acquisition Support Center is Maria Holmes at (703) 604-7113 or [email protected]. Good luck!


28 Graduate FromMAM Course

On Nov. 30, 2001, 28 students graduated from theMateriel Acquisition Management (MAM) Course, Class02-001, at the Army Logistics Management College, FortLee, VA. One international officer from the Philippine AirForce attended the class. CPT William Pearson receivedthe Distinguished Graduate Award.

The 7-week MAM Course provides a broad perspec-tive of the materiel acquisition process and its imple-mentation and includes a discussion of national policiesand objectives that shape the process. Areas of coverageinclude acquisition concepts and policies, research anddevelopment, test and evaluation, financial and costmanagement, acquisition logistics, force integration,production management, risk assessment, and contractmanagement. Emphasis is on developing midlevel pro-fessionals to effectively manage the acquisition process.Graduates are awarded equivalency with two DefenseAcquisition University courses, ACQ 101 and ACQ 201.

Research and development, program management,testing, contracting, requirements generation, logistics,and production management are some of the materielacquisition work assignments offered to MAM Coursegraduates.

The names of the graduates and their academic hon-ors follow.Graduates Academic HonorsBritt, Arthur CPTCalhoun, John CPT Honor GraduateCash, Jonathan CPTClark, Philip CPT Honor GraduateCude, Craig CPTDebany, Richard CPTEvans, Anthony MAJEverton, Michael CPT Honor GraduateHall, Roy MAJHanner, Frank CPTHearon, Robert CPTHight, William MAJHolmes, Angela CPTJohnson, Kenny CPTLagala, Ronilo MAJMose, Edward CW3Odum, Marcus CPTPearson, William CPT Distinguished GraduateRansom, Audrey CPTRansom, Wilton CPTRew, Scott CPT Commandant’s ListScott, Lance MAJ Honor GraduateSmart, Peter MAJSmith, Keith CPT

Snodgrass, William CPTTeran, Dora CPTVerser, Garrett CPTWatts, Robert CPT

PERSCOM Notes . . .Acquisition Candidate

Accession Board ResultsThe annual U.S. Total Army Personnel Command

(PERSCOM) Acquisition Candidate Accession Board(PACAB) convened Oct. 29, 2001, to select officers foraccession into the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC). ThePACAB reviewed the records of 209 officers requestingconsideration for AAC membership. Below is the list of132 officers from year groups 90-95 who were approvedfor accession. These officers are now controlled as Func-tional Area 51 (Acquisition Corps) and are managed byPERSCOM’s Acquisition Management Branch.

NAME YEAR BRANCHGROUP

Aarsen, Thomas H. 1995 INAkindayomi, Adejuwon N. 1994 AGAlessio, Paul E. 1995 ODAnderson, Henry L. 1992 INArmenta, Lewis R. 1995 ARAtkinson, Charles W. 1994 ARAyala, Alejandro 1994 TCBadar, Patrick J. 1993 AVBails, Joseph W. 1995 CMBaker, Patrick J. 1995 MPBallenger, Thomas M. III 1995 AVBates, Archie P. III 1993 TCBergantz, Eric A. 1995 AVBledsoe, Elizabeth E. 1992 SCBolshazy, Michael S. 1994 ODBooker, Ronnell 1995 QMBowler, Matthew R. 1995 FABowser, Charles W. 1994 INBridges, Frank D. 1994 ARBrown, Christopher L. 1992 AVBrumlow, David G. 1993 CMBushnell, James A. 1995 ODByers, David B. 1992 ARCalvaresi, Chad A. 1993 INCheney, David R. II 1994 AVChurch, Robert B. 1995 ADClark, Nicole N. 1995 QMClements, Andrew 1990 INClift, James L. 1995 ADCooper, John M. 1996 TCCrawford, Jacob E. III 1993 AG



Crawford, Leo R. Jr. 1992 INCrosby, Troy W. 1993 QMCunningham, Craig H. 1993 INDaniel, Dexter C. 1993 MIDavis, Gary J. II 1994 ENDavis, Joseph M. 1995 ODDolan, Brian J. 1995 TCDomke, Timothy 1994 INDrazenovich, John A. 1995 ODDudley, Jeffrey J. 1994 AVEllison, Kevin L. 1992 FAEvans, Jeffrey G. 1992 AVFagan, Joseph E. 1995 ARFeathers, Robert S. 1995 FAFegley, Eric B. 1995 INFeuerborn, Thomas A. 1992 AVFowler, Jonathan L.B. 1992 ARFrancis, Sabrina E. 1991 CMGaddy, Roland M. Jr. 1992 INGambles, Kenneth L. 1992 ARGastan, Gregory J. 1994 ARGayle, O’Neil A. 1994 ADGearhart, Timothy M. 1994 ODGosline, Edward C. III 1995 QMGreer, Joel M. 1995 ODGrimes, Rudolph C. 1995 ARGrizio, Vincent 1994 INGruchacz, Brian J. 1993 MIHamann, Scott A. 1991 MIHarris, Richard L. Jr. 1994 FAHenrie, Mark E. 1992 SCHill, Kim Melisia 1994 ODHoecherl, Joseph A. 1993 AVHollister, Carl J. 1992 INHughes, Anthony V. 1995 ENHyman, Terry C. 1994 MIHynes, Cheryl L. 1994 SCIrvine, Marguerite D. 1993 AGJackson, Johnny M. 1992 ARJohnson, Jeffrey H. 1992 AVJones, Ernest C. 1992 ADKemmer, Joseph T. Jr. 1995 FAKim, Glenn T. 1995 SCLaw, Robert N. 1992 ADLindsey, John D. 1995 SFLorenz, Matthew C. 1994 AVMagras, Patrick G.L. 1990 AVMann, Justin L. 1995 ARManning, Christopher P. 1995 SCMarsh, Adrian A. 1994 ENMartin, Reginald G. 1995 ADMcCurty, Michael J. 1994 QM

McNair, Fritzgerald F. 1992 SCMcWhorter, Rodney S. 1994 INMessina, Christopher G. 1995 SCMiddleton, Robert E. 1992 ODMikesh, Robert J. Jr. 1995 AVMurray, Robert C. 1995 QMNerenberg, Steven L. 1993 INNeumann, Joseph A. 1994 TCOelschig, Carl S. 1995 QMOllison, Sheila M. 1995 ADOrwig, Brian K. 1994 AVPack, Arthur A. 1995 INPatterson, Neil P. 1993 FAPeacock, Ossie L. Jr. 1994 AVPearman, William F. 1992 ADPennington, Stephanie T. 1995 SCPhillips, Bryan K. 1993 AVPhillips, David C. 1995 AVPoppenberger, Ross C. 1994 ENPowell, Michael T. 1994 ODPowers, Arthur B. 1993 SCPrice, Freddie B. 1995 MIProwell, Kerry S. 1995 SCRalston, Robert 1994 MPRoa, Alvaro F. 1995 AVRoberson, Rochelle C. 1991 ODRoberts, Joseph W. 1993 INRupkalvis, Gregory M. 1993 ODRyba, Bruce A. 1992 FASanders, Larry G. 1994 ENScuteri, Michael F. 1993 AGShanhols, Connie E. 1995 ODShea, Thomas E.W. 1992 SFSheehan, Mark A. 1994 MPSibaja, Rosiher A. 1993 SCSingleton, Keith L. 1994 INSloane, Michael E. 1992 QMSmith, Joey R. Jr. 1994 FASnyder, Kent M. 1994 SCSt. Clair, Thane C. 1995 ARTaylor, Michael R. 1994 INTerry, Ingrid M. 1992 SCThomas, Robert J. 1992 ARThornton, Anthony M. 1994 MPTorres, Enrique P. 1995 INVerdicchio, Joseph S. 1995 QMViera, Michael A. 1993 INWilliams, Michael T. 1990 INZahuranic, Michael R. 1995 QM



FY01 Acquisition CorpsResident Command And Staff

CollegeOfficer Selection Results

The FY01 Command and Staff College (CSC) Selec-tion Board results for academic year (AY) 02/03 werereleased Dec. 13, 2001. Sixty-seven Army AcquisitionCorps (AAC) officers from year groups (YGs) 90 and 91were selected for resident attendance, and 69 AAC offi-cers from YGs other than 91 were revalidated.

Under the two-look system, 50 percent of each YG isselected to attend the resident CSC. Thirty percent ofYG91 was selected by the FY01 board. The remaining 20percent of YG91 will be selected by the FY02 board.

Allocation of seats for AY 02/03 has not been final-ized, but the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command’sAcquisition Management Branch anticipates approxi-mately 69 seats against the total population of 136selectees, including deferments from other YGs. At thetime this article was written, slating decisions wereexpected to be finalized around mid-January 2002.

Congratulations to the following officers selected forAY 02/03 CSC resident attendance.


Bailey, George D. Jr.Bailey, Michelle M.Bamburg, James A.Barrie, Robert L. Jr.Bruce, Jeffrey A.Cash, Jonathan G.Chambers, FloydCote, Courtney P.Craft, Jason T.Cummins, Robert W. Jr.Davis, Rodney A.Edens, Clayton W.Fugate, Thomas M.Gautreaux, Jay P.Hamilton, Andrew B.Herres, Roger A.Hollingsworth, Shawn L.

Holmes, Angela M.Hughes, Frederick J. IVHunt, Kristen L.James, Dannie E. Sr.Jaynes, Howard R. Jr.Johnson, Eddie A.Kelley, Thomas C. IIIKennedy, James R.Kerish, John F.Kirk, Eric D.Kollhoff, Joy N.LaChance, Eric M.Lee, Jong H.Lonardo, Richard J.Maloney, Patrick W.McRae, Timothy R.Mobley, Kevin D.

Morano, Anthony M.Moses, Kathaleen D.Munster, Matthew G.Nakano, Victor M.Nash, Kevin M.Nichols, Walter G. Jr.Nugent, John O.Paul, Gregory J.Perryman, Theodore M.Peterson, Samuel L.Phillips, Joel R.Phillips, Mark E.Rew, Scott A.Rieman, Joel B.Rodriguez, Michael L.Russell, William M.Schliesman, Steven G.

Shaw, Trevor W.Short, Daniel R.Spencer, Gary T.Starostanko, Timothy A.Stein, Cynthia H.Stephan, Vincent N.Stewart, Maurice H.Terrell, Paul D.Tschida, Carol M.Tyler, Scott A.Washington, David B.Williams, Andrea R.Williams, Kevin D.Wizner, Anthony M.

FY01 Colonel PromotionBoard Results

The release of any promotion list is always followed byan exhaustive data analysis to “map” the characteristics ofthe considered and selected population. This article sum-marizes the analysis of the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC)population for the FY01 Colonel Promotion Board.

Overall AAC ResultsThe selection board chose 37 AAC officers for colonel

from all zones of consideration. Board members reviewedthe files of 55 AAC officers in the primary zone. From thispopulation, 32 officers were selected for promotion. Theresulting selection rate of 58.2 percent was slightly belowthe Operational Support Career Field rate of 58.4 percentand above the Army Competitive Category rate of 53.9percent. (Army Competitive Category rates are based onpublished career field statistics.)

Board members also reviewed the files of 32 AAC offi-cers from above the zone. From this population, two offi-cers were selected for promotion, a selection rate of 6.3percent. The above-the-zone Operational Support CareerField selection rate was 4.6 percent, and the above-the-zone Army Competitive Category selection rate was 3.5percent.

Board members further reviewed the files of 80 AACofficers from below the zone. From this population, threeofficers were selected for promotion, a selection rate of 3.8percent. The below-the-zone Operational Support CareerField selection rate was 3.5 percent, and the below-the-zone Army Competitive Category selection rate was 2.8percent.

Primary Zone PromotionsOf the 32 officers selected in the primary zone, 31 (97

percent) were either current or previous centrally selectedproduct managers (PMs) or acquisition commanders


(ACs). Of these 31 officers, 30 had at least one commandOfficer Evaluation Report (OER) in their board file. Four ofthe 32 selectees (13 percent) in the primary zone were notSenior Service College (SSC) graduates or selectees priorto the FY01 Colonel Promotion Board.

The average number of command OERs for primaryzone officers selected was three. Only four officers hadone or more DA Form 67-8 command OERs; all other offi-cers had only DA Form 67-9 command OERs. Regardingonly DA Form 67-9 OERs, selectees had an average of twoabove-center-of-mass (ACOM) command OERs and anaverage of just under one center-of-mass (COM) com-mand OER. The officers selected had ACOM and COM+files.

The majority of selectees had been or currently serveas a Command Select List (CSL) PM or AC. No trends werenoted with respect to any other category of positions.

Eighty-one percent of the officers selected haveserved tours in the Military District of Washington(MDW). Thirty-five percent of the officers had also servedat Fort Monmouth, NJ (if Picatinny Arsensal is included,this percentage increases to 42 percent). Other previousacquisition tour locations included Alaska, Arizona, Cali-fornia, Florida, Michigan, Texas, Utah, Canada, Germany,Korea, Kuwait, and Turkey. Several officers also had servedshort-term rotations in Haiti, Honduras, Kosovo, andSaudi Arabia.

A large portion of selectees were assigned to the ArmyMateriel Command (AMC) (71 percent) or the ArmyAcquisition Executive Support Agency (AAESA) (65 per-cent). However, this is not indicative of any trend; it issimply a result of which commands “own” positions.

Above And Below The ZoneAll officers selected above and below the zone were

current or former PMs or ACs. Eighty percent of theseselectees completed or were selected to attend SSC. Dutylocations during their acquisition careers varied(Alabama, Florida, Fort Monmouth, Kwajalein Atoll, etc.)Eighty percent of these officers served in the MDW. Aswith the primary-zone selectees, the above- and below-the-zone officers served in a wide variety of commands,and all of them were assigned to AAESA at some point intheir career.

TrendsBased on this analysis, officers competitive for pro-

motion to colonel generally are serving or have servedsuccessful tours as a PM or AC. Command performanceevaluations include (on average) two ACOM ratings andone COM rating under the new DA Form 67-9. Overall filequality was ACOM or COM+ (i.e., performed well in anypositions they have held).

Who Was Not Promoted? Of the 23 officers in the primary zone not selected for

promotion to colonel, 13 were either current or formerPMs or ACs. Nine officers not selected for promotion hadnot served as a lieutenant colonel PM or AC.

As with selectees, no trends were noted regardingduty positions other than CSL PM or AC. With respect toassistant PM and deputy PM positions, officers selectedfor promotion did not hold these positions at any greaterrate than did officers who were not selected.

Sixty-five percent of these officers served a tour in theMDW. Other previous tour locations included Alabama,California, Kansas, Kentucky, Germany, Greece, Turkey,and the United Kingdom. Several officers also servedshort-term rotations in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. Theseduty locations are similar to the duty locations listed forthe officers selected for promotion.

A large portion of these officers were assigned to AMC(78 percent) or AAESA (48 percent). These are the samecommands in which the largest number of officersselected for promotion served. Again, this is not indicativeof a trend; it is simply a result of who “owns” a large num-ber of positions within the AAC. Officers not selected forpromotion (regardless of whether they had been or werenow PMs or ACs) had an average of one ACOM and twoCOM DA Form 67-9 OERs. The majority of officers notselected for promotion had overall COM+ or COM per-formance files.

TrendsOfficers with straight COM OERs are not competitive

for promotion to colonel. Officers with COM+ and ACOMfiles are competitive if they have performed well (strongCOM+ or ACOM) as a lieutenant colonel PM or AC. Lateselection for PM or AC can result in nonselection if theofficers do not have any, or a significantly less than aver-age number of, PM or AC OERs in their board file. Lateselection is defined as being selected or activated from thealternate list on your third or fourth look for lieutenantcolonel PM or AC (i.e., timing such that you could notexpect to have the average number of command reportsbefore your primary zone look for promotion to colonel).

Duty positions (with the exception of PM or AC), dutylocations, and specific commands do not show any typeof trend.

General Observations The file quality of officers selected for promotion con-

tinues to be strong. Because of the tough competition, notall successful PMs or ACs will get promoted. Early selec-tion for lieutenant colonel PM or AC can improve thechances of selection simply because of the additionalcommand evaluations available for the board’s review



(assuming the evaluations support promotion). COMevaluations should have substantive narrative comments,provided by senior raters, which focus on an officer’spotential.

Summary Competition for promotion to colonel remains very

high. Strongly documented duty performance (includingcommand) is the key to selection. Additionally, officers inall zones should personally review their Officer RecordBrief and microfiche to ensure the information is accurate

and complete. Photos that are more than 2 years old, arein full-length format, are not current (e.g., awards), or arenot particularly good should be replaced. The bottomline: promotion to colonel is very tough, and overall filequality in addition to ACOM/COM+ performance as alieutenant colonel PM or AC is crucial.

FY01 AAC Colonel SelecteesThe following is a list of acquisition officers selected

for colonel by the FY01 Colonel Promotion Board:


Barber, Jesse LeeBell, Anthony BernardBliss, Gary LeeBrewster, Robert Ethan Jr.Cantor, Michael EricCastaldo, Albert AnthonyChase, Deborah JaneCoker, David WilliamCoppola, Alfred Anthony Jr.Crizer, Scott Hampton

Diego-Allard, VictoriaDriessnack, Charles HenryFritz, Gregory JohnFuller, Peter NelsonGreen, Allen Lawrence IIIGreene, Harold JosephGwilliam, Jeffrey LawesHayne, Ronald JamesHogan, Thomas HaroldHuff, Donald Clifford Charles

Kreider, Stephen DanielMaddux, Jonathan AlanMcCoy, Edward DanielMcDaniels, Lloyd EdwinMcQuain, Paul MichaelNeumann, Markus RalphNichols, Camille MarieNorgaard, Kevin RobertNorwood, John DavidParker, Wilbur Anthony

Patterson, William NealPayne, Jerome FranklinPolczynski, Kennith DeanRust, Stephen LayneSmith, Michael JosephStone, Jesse MikeWilley, Jeffery David

BOOKS

Now, Discover Your StrengthsBy Marcus Buckingham and Donald O. Clifton, Ph.D.Simon & Schuster, New York, 2001

Reviewed by LTC John Lesko (U.S. Army Reserve), a Deci-sion Coach and Group Facilitator with Anteon Corp. Lesko isa member of the Army Acquisition Corps and a frequentcontributor to Army AL&T. He can be contacted [email protected].

According to Marcus Buckingham and DonaldClifton, both from the Gallup Organization, “Most of ushave little sense of our talents and strengths, much lessthe ability to build our lives around them … Guided byour parents, by our teachers, by our managers, and bypsychology’s fascination with pathology, we becomeexperts in our weaknesses and spend our lives trying torepair these flaws, while our strengths lie dormant andneglected.”

This particular observation may or may not be truefor today’s Army program manager, acquisition execu-tive, or career government employee, for throughout thevarious stages of the careers of this group, officials havetaken any number of psychometric instruments, person-ality tests, or interest surveys such as the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator, the Kirton Adaption-Innovation In-ventory, and the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory.Now there is an Internet-based questionnaire and self-assessment called the StrengthsFinder Profile.

The StrengthsFinder Profile introduces 34 dominant“themes” with thousands of possible combinations.These themes initially help the survey participant alonga journey of self-discovery. Progress along this journey isbased on the premise that we will “succeed in life” byfocusing first on our individual strengths and talents.The authors suggest that these talents are “hard-wired”into our very being, or at least into our brains runningalong the many parallel synapses that have been formedfrom our total experience, reinforcing one’s naturallearning tendencies.

Now, Discover Your Strengths is the product of a mul-tiyear study of data collected for Buckingham’s earlierwork, First Break All the Rules, and of related study proj-ects completed by the Gallup Organization’s Interna-tional Research and Education Center. This book is easyto read and works well to explain the results one getsfrom taking the online survey. The back matter containsan appendix that outlines the research underpinning forthe StrengthsFinder Profile instrument.


For those who are too busy or who cannot take theonline survey, the gist or essence of Now, Discover YourStrengths is based on two core assumptions: each per-son’s talents are enduring and unique, and each person’sgreatest room for growth is in the areas of the person’sgreatest strength.

This reviewer suggests that to periodically remindoneself of these two thoughts is acceptable if one is tofocus on gaining the most from a team member, officemate, or colleague—particularly during a short-termassignment. After all, the energy required for a radicalchange in behavior may be counterproductive or adiversion of much needed energy focused “on task.”Such insights may help in the assignment of tasks to themost appropriate members of a team or work group.

For those who accept these assumptions, this bookwill help them examine their own “theme” strengths.Furthermore, this book’s insights may help managers orindividuals better understand their colleagues, co-workers, or direct reports.

One criticism of this book comes from the authors’tendencies to coin new words or labels for their 34themes or profiles. Readers must work through the intro-duction of new terms such as “ideation,” “intellection,”“maximizer,” “positivity,” and “woo.”

In conclusion, it is this reviewer’s opinion that themost practical application of this book comes fromapplying any one of four suggested problem-solving andcoping strategies offered by the authors. In short, whenfaced with a situation where one’s talents or strengthscannot address a challenge, consider the following:

• Get just a little better at the skill needed.• Design a support system for yourself that comple-

ments your strengths and bridges your weaknesses.• Find a partner.• Stop doing or attempting to do something for

which you are not hard-wired or capable.

Now, Discover Your Strengths is a book best read dur-ing an annual retreat, between major projects, or enroute to a new job. I’d recommend that it be integratedinto the nonresident portion of the Advanced ProgramManagement Course at the Defense Systems Manage-ment College and/or into the curriculum of the Indus-trial College of the Armed Forces.

BOOKS

Have You ReadA Good Book Lately?

To inform our readers of recently published booksthat may be of interest to them, the Army AL&T magazinestaff welcomes book reviews. Submissions should be nomore than two double-spaced typed pages and includethe book’s complete title, publisher, and year of publica-tion, and the reviewer’s full name, title, address, andphone number. Book reviews can be e-mailed [email protected] or sent to DEPART-MENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY AL&T, 9900 BELVOIR RD,SUITE 101, FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567.

CONFERENCES

Force ProjectionSymposium III

The third annual Force Projection Symposium will be held May 7-8, 2002, at the WilliamsburgMarriott, Williamsburg, VA. The Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat ServiceSupport’s Project Manager for Force Projection sponsors the symposium in partnership with theNational Defense Industrial Association (NDIA)-Michigan chapter. The theme of this year’s sympo-sium is “Intratheater Transportation and Distribution.” The featured exhibit is Joint Venture (HSV-X1), a 96-meter, high-speed sealift catamaran.

For more information or to receive a registration form, contact the NDIA Office at (586) 445-2041 or via e-mail at [email protected].


MRICD SponsorsToxicogenomics ConferenceOn Nov. 9, 2001, the U.S. Army Medical Research

Institute of Chemical Defense (AMRICD) sponsored amission-associated toxicogenomics conference.Founded within the fast-moving field of genomesequencing, toxicogenomics is an evolving disciplinethat applies recent advances in the molecular sciencesinvolving deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), ribonucleic acid(RNA), and protein to the problem of toxicology. Bydefining which genes are affected during toxicity andwhich are important to successful treatment, scientistscan further their effort in many areas of chemical war-fare agent research.

The importance of this research area was realized in1997 when AMRICD scientists started an effort to vigor-ously apply recent advances in game expression tech-nology to the challenge of medical chemical defense.Other government laboratories such as the U.S. Air ForceResearch Laboratory, the U.S. Army Center of Environ-mental Health Research, the U.S. Army MedicalResearch Institute of Infectious Diseases, the U.S. ArmyEdgewood Chemical Biological Center, and the WalterReed Army Institute of Research expressed similarresearch interests. The conference was planned so thatscientists at these laboratories could meet to discussrecent technological advances, share data, and planfuture directions for their research.

COL James A. Romano Jr., Commander of AMRICD,opened the conference by challenging its participants todetermine how advances in gene technology can beapplied to understand and medically defeat chemicalwarfare agents. In addition, Romano hoped that partici-pants would gain a better understanding on how tech-nologies are being applied in chemical defense and howfostering collaboration among scientists would enableDOD laboratories to leverage intellectual power withthat of industry and academia.

Organized by Dr. John Schlager, one of theAMRICD’s Principal Investigators, and LTC Harry Slife,Chief of AMRICD’s Pharmacology Division, the confer-ence brought together scientists from 14 different labo-ratories, representing industry, academia, and govern-ment. Topics included the application of new toxicoge-nomics technologies to the study of specific chemicalwarfare agents, the use of alternative species and cul-tured cells as models, the use of toxicogenomics in envi-ronmental monitoring, and emerging methods ofresearch and data analysis in the field.

According to Slife, the conference met the comman-der’s expectations. He said that the informal discussions

helped promote collaboration and informationexchange and went a long way toward promoting theprogram.

Romano agreed. As the conference concluded, heobserved that the ability to identify DNA changes as wellas advances in computer software development arealready effectively being used in medical chemicaldefense research. He added that the willingness of theparticipants to intensely share intellectual interestsoffers the potential for remarkable advances in medicalprotection against chemical warfare agents.

For more information, contact Cindy Kronman at(410) 436-1866 or by e-mail [email protected].

Ground Vehicle SurvivabilitySymposium

The 13th annual U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Sur-vivability Symposium is being held April 8-11, 2002, in Monterey, CA. Sponsored by the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command’s Research,Development and Engineering Center, the symposiumwill provide a setting to discuss the implications ofground vehicle survivability technology on the ObjectiveForce and Future Combat Systems. A broad range of ses-sions will address how survivability will enhance capa-bilities of the Objective Force, both near and far term.The conference will be classified up to and includingSECRET U.S. ONLY.

For additional symposium information, contact JoeMoravec at (586) 978-3106, fax (586) 978-3131, or atmoravec_ [email protected].

CONFERENCES

“10-Mile-High”Communications Tower

As far-fetched as the concept of an ultrahigh com-munications tower may seem, we are living in a timewhere what was once impossible is now probable.Twenty years ago, DOD funded a classified effort todevelop an unmanned solar-powered aircraft with thepotential to endure 3 to 6 months of continuous flight at50,000-65,000 feet (9.46 to 12.3 miles) above the Earth’ssurface.

The Pathfinder project was the predecessor totoday’s Helios 1. In the early 1980s, a number of brightminds in DOD came up with the idea of using anultrahigh altitude communications platform that would also serve as an intelligence, surveillance, and

NEWS BRIEFS


reconnaissance gatherer. Despite economic concerns,the program has continued to develop at the same paceas the technology used on the vehicle.

A solar array is the vehicle’s primary power sourceand greatest expense—approximately $10 million peraircraft. Solar technology is slow in development andcost-prohibitive, except when benefits outweigh thecosts. The good news, however, is that the extra kilowattof power produced by the solar panels will power asmuch as 220 pounds of command, control, communica-tions, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and recon-naissance (C4ISR) enabling equipment, not to mentionthe cost savings and availability when compared to satel-lite usage.

Currently, Helios 1 performs day flights characteristi-cally flown to a predetermined altitude of 50,000-80,000feet, and then gracefully descends toward the surface.On Aug. 13, 2001, Helios set a world record by ascendingto 96,863 feet before beginning its descent. The next stepin development of the platform is Helios 2, which willreach altitudes of 100,000 feet and carry a 700-poundpayload.

Commercial industry has seen the benefit of anultrahigh communications tower and plans to launchfixed and mobile broadband, voice, and direct broad-cast audio and video using this platform. (See www.skytowerglobal.com.) In the summer of 2002, Helios 1 isscheduled to launch with a commercial communicationspackage and, later in the year, the Japanese plan to testremote sensor equipment on it.

Why should the Army and the other Services also beinterested in developing C4ISR packages for this plat-form? Other than this being a shining example ofbeyond-line-of-sight communications, the answer iscost, availability, survivability, mobility, deployability,duration, and an area of coverage in excess of a 400-milediameter line-of-sight footprint. It also affords thecapability of communicating with space-based andterrestrial-based communication assets, whether fixed or

mobile, ship-to-ship, unit-to-unit, or across thebattlefield.

The Fort Gordon Battle Command Battle Lab, alongwith NASA and the Space and Naval Warfare SystemsCommand, are aggressively examining candidate tech-nologies for use on the platform, including a number ofcommunication packages. In addition, there are numer-ous ISR tools that are viable for consideration on thisplatform. A daunting factor in considering technologies,however, is the frequency spectrum. For example, in theUnited States, there is a 1,000-foot limitation on the Sin-gle Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System as wellas a 54-kilohertz ceiling on the operational spectrum.Similar issues affect each option under consideration.The management of the frequency spectrum is nothingnew, which is why a spectrum-request package thataddresses both foreign and domestic frequency use isunder development.

The development of Helios for use in military opera-tions is a smart move—the sky is literally the limit. Anumber of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine futureoperational capabilities will be realized sooner byemploying this platform.

For further information on this project, contact CPTShawn Hollingsworth at (706) 791-4819, DSN 780-4819,[email protected], or [email protected].

President HonorsCECOM Deputy

To The Commanding GeneralIn a ceremony late last year at Constitution Hall in

Washington, DC, President George W. Bush honored theDeputy to the Commanding General of the U.S. ArmyCommunications-Electronics Command (CECOM), FortMonmouth, NJ, for his exceptional federal service. VictorJ. Ferlise was one of only four Department of the Armyexecutives recognized with the 2001 Distinguished Exec-utive Award. Each year, the president presents the Dis-tinguished Executive Award to those members of theSenior Executive Service (SES) who have excelled asleaders over an extended period.

During the proceeding, Bush praised the selectgroup of SES members who attained this distinction.“Those of you in high places of government are morethan administrators and experts. You hold the ideals andhopes of the Nation in trust,” Bush said.

Ferlise said the award was the result of the supporthe received from thousands of CECOM civilians and sol-diers. “It was a humbling experience to win this award,and an honor to represent the wonderful and hard-working people of CECOM. My thanks go out to every-

NEWS BRIEFS

��


one in our command who serves our Nation so well eachday,” Ferlise said. He was credited for achievementsranging from acquisition reform initiatives to being thesole architect of a revolutionary wholesale logistics mod-ernization program.

Ferlise was the first civilian to be appointed Deputyto the Commanding General of a major subordinatecommand within the Army Materiel Command. Hisleadership was recognized as a major factor in CECOM’s

centers garnering the Research and Development Labo-ratory of the Year Award, Secretary of the Army Award forProductivity Excellence, the first David Packard Awardfor Acquisition Excellence, and the Presidential QualityAchievement Award.

Prior to his appointment as the Deputy to the Com-manding General, Ferlise served as the Chief Counsel ofthe Legal Office at Fort Monmouth.

NEWS BRIEFS

ACQUISITION EXCELLENCE

The U.S. Army Contracting Command Europe(USACCE) Regional Contracting Office (RCO), Secken-heim, Germany, recently awarded USACCE’s first award-term contract. The contract, valued at more than $49 million over a 10-year period, provides base-maintenance services to the 6th Area Support Group,Stuttgart, Germany.

The contract term was set at 10 years including abase year, two 1-year options, and seven 1-year award-term periods. The award-term plan was established inaccordance with a provision in the contract that calls forperiodic evaluations of the contractor’s performance.The contract can be extended based on the contractor’sperformance in meeting its requirements. Ratings of“good” or better in the initial 2 years will earn the con-tractor additional performance periods. But perform-ance ratings of “very good” during the third year and“excellent” in all other years must be earned to meritcontract extensions beyond contract year three. Withconsistent scores of “excellent” during succeeding years,

the contractor will continue to earn incremental con-tract period extensions up to the maximum of 10 years.

On Oct. 30, 2001, the RCO, Seckenheim awardedUSACCE’s second award-term contract. Thisperformance-based service contract was awarded as anaward-term contract with a base year, 4 option years,and 5 award-term years. The contract value over 10 yearsexceeds $1.4 million. The contractor will be responsiblefor all management services, personnel, and equipmentneeded to perform required tasks. In addition, the con-tractor will help individuals in finding homes and willperform relocation and referral services.

USACCE’s use of award-term contracts is a signifi-cant step toward the Army’s goal to “incentivize the con-tractor to execute orderly transition of workload, providesuperior support to the government, and control pricesthrough extensions or reductions of the term, baseddirectly on performance.”

For additional information, contact Monti Jaggers at(703) 681-7571 or [email protected].

Award-Term Contracts in Europe

IMPORTANT NOTICEIf you are an individual who receives Army AL&T magazine and you have changed your mailing address, do not con-

tact the Army AL&T Editorial Office! We cannot make address changes regarding distribution of the magazine. Pleasenote the following procedures if you need to change your mailing address:

• Civilian members of the Army acquisition workforce must submit address changes to their Civilian PersonnelAdvisory Center (CPAC).

• Active duty military personnel must submit address changes to their Military Personnel Office (MILPO).• Army Reserve personnel must submit address changes to the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command

(ARPERSCOM) in St. Louis, MO.• National Guard personnel must submit address changes to the Army National Guard Acquisition Career Manage-

ment Branch at [email protected] or call DSN 327-7481 or (703) 607-7481.

Your attention to these procedures will ensure timely mailing of your magazine.


ARMY AL&T WRITER’S GUIDELINEShttp://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil/

Army AL&T is a bimonthly professional development magazine published by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,Logistics and Technology. The address for the Editorial Office is DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900 BELVOIR RD, SUITE 101, FORTBELVOIR,VA 22060-5567. Phone numbers and e-mail addresses for the editorial staff are as follows:

Harvey L. Bleicher, Editor-in-Chief [email protected] (703)805-1035/DSN 655-1035Debbie Fischer-Belous, Executive Editor [email protected] (703)805-1038/DSN 655-1038Cynthia Hermes, Managing Editor [email protected] (703)805-1034/DSN 655-1034 Sandra R. Marks, Contract Support [email protected] (703)805-1007/DSN 655-1007Joe Stribling, Contract Support [email protected] (703)805-1036/DSN 655-1036

Datafax: (703)805-4218/DSN 655-4218

PurposeTo instruct members of the AL&T community about relevant processes, procedures, techniques, and management philosophy and to dissemi-

nate other information pertinent to the professional development of the Army Acquisition and Technology Workforce (A&TWF).

Subject MatterSubjects may include, but are not restricted to, professional development of the Army’s A&TWF, AL&T program accomplishments, technology

developments, policy guidance, and acquisition excellence. Acronyms used in manuscripts, photos, illustrations, and captions must be kept to aminimum and must be defined on first reference. Articles submitted to Army AL&T will not be accepted if they have been scheduled for pub-lication in other magazines.

Length of ArticlesArticles should be approximately 8 double-spaced typed pages, using a 20-line page, and must not exceed 1,600 words. Articles exceeding

1,600 words will not be accepted. Do not submit articles in a layout format or articles containing footnotes, endnotes, or acknowledgement lists ofindividuals.

Photos and IllustrationsA maximum of 3 photos or illustrations, or a combination of both, may accompany each article in a separate file from the manuscript. Please

ensure that artwork is accessible for editing and not embedded in the manuscript. Photos may be black and white or color. Illustrations must beblack and white and must not contain any shading, screens, or tints. All electronic files of photos must have a resolution of at least 300 dpi(JPEG or TIFF). If they do not meet this requirement, glossy prints of all photos must be submitted via U.S. mail, Fedex, etc. Photos andillustrations will not be returned unless requested.

Biographical SketchInclude a short biographical sketch of the author/s that includes educational background and current position.

ClearanceAll articles must be cleared by the author’s security/OPSEC office and public affairs office prior to submission. The cover letter

accompanying the article must state that these clearances have been obtained and that the article has command approval for open publication.Individuals submitting articles that report Army cost savings must be prepared to provide detailed documentation upon request that verifies the

cost savings and their reinvestment. Organizations should be prepared to defend these monies if higher headquarters has a higher priority for them. Allarticles are cleared by the Acquisition Support Center.

Submission DatesIssue Author’s DeadlineJanuary-February 15 OctoberMarch-April 15 DecemberMay-June 15 FebruaryJuly-August 15 AprilSeptember-October 15 JuneNovember-December 15 August

Submission ProceduresArticle manuscripts (in MS Word) and illustrations/photos (300 dpi JPEG or TIFF) may be submitted via e-mail to bleicheh@aaesa.

belvoir.army.mil, or via U.S. mail to the address in the first paragraph at the top of this page. All submissions must include the author’s mailingaddress; office phone number (DSN and commercial); and a typed, self-adhesive return address label.


The current revolution created by digital camerasallows individuals to take and instantly download photosto their computer. This revolution, however, presentschallenges to publications, including Army AL&T. Forprinting purposes, the Army AL&T magazine editorialstaff needs photos shot at the highest resolution and inthe largest frame size that the digital camera allows.

We prefer to receive glossy prints from traditionalfilm cameras. This allows us to scan and work the photosin our publishing software and ensures each electronicimage has the high-quality resolution we require. How-ever, if you must send us electronic photos, please readthe following steps.

• Shoot the Picture. When taking a picture, set thecamera on the largest image size and the highest qualityresolution settings that the camera will allow. The largestimage size is usually “Full” or “XGA.” The highest resolu-tion settings are usually called “High,” “Super Fine,” or“Ultra-High.” (Cameras set at “Standard” or “Basic” qual-ity produce images only good enough for Web sites.)

Do not shoot a small photo on a low-resolution set-ting to save data storage space in your camera. Shootingsmall images at low resolution will allow you to takemore photos per shooting, but we won’t be able to pub-lish any of them. Higher settings create larger photosand files, and generally a higher quality product.

If your camera gives you the option, shoot the photoas a PC TIFF file. We also accept JPEG files. When savinga file as a JPEG, choose a quality setting of “Maximum”or “10” and the format option of “Baseline (Standard).”

• Download the photo in raw data . Whendownloading a file from your camera or its remov-

able storage card to another drive, save the image in raw

data. Do not manipulate the data by resizing or editingthe image. Let Army AL&T take care of that.

And please don’t try to “beef up” the resolution ofthe small, low-resolution photo you shot. For example,shooting a 500-kilobyte image and enlarging the pixelsper inch until the file size is 1.5 megabytes will not makethe image clearer—it only makes the image larger (big-ger dots, not more of them).

• Send us the digital photo. Following the firsttwo steps will create a large file for each photo. One

way to get your photos to us is to save them on a 100- or250-megabyte Zip disk or a CD and mail or express shipthem to DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900BELVOIR RD, SUITE 101, FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567.In some cases, a JPEG file will fit on a 3.5-inch floppydisk, but do not resize the JPEG photo to make it fit.

You may be able to e-mail photos one at a time. Besure each message with a photo attached includes a cap-tion of who’s doing what, when, and where in thatimage; the title of the article it is intended to illustrate;and the name and phone number of the author.

If you have questions, call Debbie Fischer-Belous,Executive Editor, Army AL&T at (703) 805-1038 or DSN655-1038 or e-mail [email protected].

The majority of our digital shooters are not profes-sional photographers. You are our authors and photogra-phers—soldiers and civilians in the Army Acquisitionand Technology Workforce. Help us illustrate your articlewith your photos—follow these instructions for takingand sending us digital photos. Good Shooting!

��

��

��

�

�

PERIODICALSARMY AL&T

ISSN 0892-8657

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY ALT

9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567

PERIODICALSARMY AL&T

ISSN 0892-8657

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY ALT

9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567