Headquarters Department of the ArmyPB-70-02-2Headquarters Department of the ArmyPB-70-02-2

MARCH–APRIL 2002MARCH–APRIL 2002

In This Issue:• Acquisition Logistics

Planning

• The Army SmarTruck

• Army MANTECHAchievements

Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimited

In This Issue:• Acquisition Logistics

Planning

• The Army SmarTruck

• Army MANTECHAchievements

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: bleicheh@aaesa.belvoir.army.mil.

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

4 Army AL&T March-April 2002

• 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 contactingofwvideo@saalt.army.mil.

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.

March-April 2002 Army AL&T 5

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.

6 Army AL&T March-April 2002

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.

����������������������������

March-April 2002 Army AL&T 7

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.

8 Army AL&T March-April 2002

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

March-April 2002 Army AL&T 9

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.

10 Army AL&T March-April 2002

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

March-April 2002 Army AL&T 11

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.

12 Army AL&T March-April 2002

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

March-April 2002 Army AL&T 13

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

14 Army AL&T March-April 2002

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.

March-April 2002 Army AL&T 15

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

16 Army AL&T March-April 2002

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.

March-April 2002 Army AL&T 17

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

18 Army AL&T March-April 2002

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 capabi