Volume 5, Number 4

Winter 2005

Contents

DoD’s “Other” Combat

Power 1

Director’s Corner 2

FYI 10

in the news 10

WSTIACCourses: 

Directed Energy 11 

Sensors/Seekers 12

Weaponeering 13

Precision Weapons 14

Calendar of Events 15

WSTIAC is a DoD Information Analysis

Center Sponsored by the Defense

Technical Information Center 

WST

WEAPON SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INFORMAT ION ANALYSIS CENTE R

IAC

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DoD's

"Other" Combat Power

by Mark W. Jones

Introduction

Warning... in order to even begin to understand this article on DoD's

"Other" Combat Power, a major paradigm shift will be required to rethink

what is meant by the words "Combat Power". Why? Because we've been

conditioned to primarily associate combat power with programs like Joint

Strike Fighter (JSF), DDX, Future Combat System (FCS), etc...and often

ignore other areas equally critical to the success of our warfighting forces.

One increasingly critical area that impacts every soldier, sailor, airman and

marine and the focus of this paper is the availability of the "other" power

in every single system on the battlefield. DoD defines this power as Mobile

Electric Power (MEP). 

While we tend to take power for granted at home, power on the battlefield

is an entirely different matter. Without the right type, quantity and quality of electric power, most, if not all, of our combat systems will experience

catastrophic failure. This has become increasingly true over the past two

decades where information technology now dominates virtually every

deployed system in a network centric environment. The good news from

a MEP prospective is that information technologies and network centric

environments have resulted in a significant increase in power requirements

on the battlefield. The bad news is that the increased requirements are

being met by a combination of platforms not designed for such power and

87,000+ current force generators fielded to Army, Navy, Air Force and

Marine Corps units worldwide. The worse news is that the vast majority of

DoD's generators were built with 1970-80's technologies, and in addition

to having noise, weight and maintenance issues, are deployed in a vast

number of stovepipe architectures. While it's true that emerging technologies (hybrid electric, fuel cells, etc.) have the potential to power our future

combat platforms, it's also true that their impact on DoD's overall power

requirements will be minimal for several years to come. However, it's not

all gloom and doom. The bottom line up front is that there are several

near-term actions that could significantly improve DoD's "Other" Combat

Power and our support to the warfighter. Continued on page 3 4
2

The WSTIAC Newsletter is the current awareness publication of the Weapon Systems Technology Information Analysis

Center (WSTIAC). WSTIAC, a Department of Defense (DoD) Information Analysis Center (IAC), is administratively managed by the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) under the DoD IAC Program.

WSTIAC Director: Mr Gary J Gray Database Inquiries: Vakare Valaitis

703.933.3317, Email: gjgray@alionscience.com 703.933.3362 Email: vvalaitis@alionscience.com

Internet: http://iac.dtic.mil/wstiac/

All data and information herein reported are believed to be reliable; however, no warrant, expressed or implied, is to be construed as

to the accuracy or the completeness of the information presented. The views, opinions, and findings contained in this publication are

those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Agency position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other

official documentation.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am excited about continuing the theme of "Transformation" in this WSTIAC Newsletter, with a hardhitting article on "Combat Power"....and its affect on Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps Tactical

Units on the battlefield. As a Department of Defense (DoD) level issue, the technical, business and

operational insights into this area are definitely worth understanding as we move forward with a

increasingly complex, systems-of-systems, network-centric capability for the warfighter.

The majority of this article was written by Colonel (Retired) Mark W. Jones, as the former DoD Project

Manager for Mobile Electric Power (MEP), with technical review by PM MEP's former Deputy Project

Manager (Dr. Jim Cross), and the Army's Power & Energy IPT on Fuel Cells and Hybrid Electric

Vehicles. By now you may have figured out that the term "Combat Power" refers to something other

than Joint Strike Fighter, DDX and Future Combat Systems that are typically discussed in this vein.

With that, I will close my opening comments and simply encourage you to read on.

Gary

Director’s

Corner

by Mr. Gary J. Gray
3

"Other" Combat Power (Continued from page 1)

In order to understand these near-term actions, I have organized this paper as follows: 

iDoDD 4120.11 - Standardization of Mobile Electric Power (MEP) Generating Sources

iForce Structure Changes - How the Army re-powered the Stryker Brigade Combat Team

iPotential for Future Hybrid Electric & Fuel Ccell systems - A Reality Check 

iSummary

II. DoDD 4120.11-Standardization of Mobile Electric Power (MEP) Generating Sources

DoDD 4120.11 was established in the late 1960's based on lessons learned during the Vietnam War when an out-ofcontrol procurement system produced over 2000 different power sources on the battlefield creating an unmanageable

training, fielding, and logistics support situation. The Directive established centralized management of tactical power

sources, fostered Joint Service interoperability, and ensured compatible power standards. 

DoDD 4121.11 defines MEP as "all-mobile, engine-driven, electric power generating sources, 750-kilowatt (kW) and

smaller, which are skid-mounted, wheel-mounted, or man-portable that are complete equipment assemblages or a part

of an assemblage, and that are capable of independently producing electric power when operating on diesel, gasoline,

or other fuel from integral or remotely located fuel sources. Included are follow-on power sources; e.g., fuel cells and

thermoelectric devices. Power sources less than 0.5-kW rating, to include batteries, are not included in this definition,

although they obviously play a role in providing power on the battlefield. MEP, alternatively called "Tactical Electric Power",

includes: 

g Small stand-alone generators (2-3kW)

g Auxiliary Power Units (APU), 5-10kW such as those found on the High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheel Vehicle

(HWWMV), Standard Integrated Command Post Shelter (SICPS) and the M1068 Track Wheel Vehicle

g Under-the-Hood Power (UHP), to include belt-driven and Hybrid Electric (HE) platforms

g Skid-mounted generators (5-200kW)

g Generators mounted on trailers, which are defined as either power units (one generator on a trailer) or power

plants (two generators on a trailer)

Concurrent with establishment of DoDD 4020.11, the Department of Defense established a DOD Project Manager for

Mobile Electric Power (PM MEP)(under the US Army as Executive Agent) , with the responsibility to develop, field and sustain all power sources from 0.5kW to 750 kW for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Over the years, PM MEP

has made significant reductions in the number of generators employed within DoD. From thousands of generators, today

the number is less than 50, a major "good news" transformation story. Conversely, there has been a notable lack of

progress in transforming other areas -- which is the focus of the remainder of this paper.

III. Force Structure -How the Army re-powered the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT)

Independent of any power solution or emerging technology, DoD has a significant opportunity to transform the "Other"

Combat Power, simply by addressing how power assets are allocated across the force structure, which in a nutshell is

broke. What that means is that in most units individual generators provide power to one platform or shelter at a time,

with little to no backup, typically oversized for the requirement, and located where noise, fumes and maintenance are

issues. The analogy to how power is typically allocated within units would be if you designed your house such that each

and every room was separately wired, individually powered by a stand-alone generator, and each of a unique size and

shape that the members of your household would separately operate, fuel and maintain. If you take that analogy one

step farther, consider that while even the smallest town or city is supported by a power grid with power management capabilities that monitor usage, isolate failures, and prioritize critical users, in DoD's tactical force structure, this capability is

almost non-existent.

To address such concerns during the design of the Army's new Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT) , a combined team

of PM MEP, I CORPS G7, Training & Doctrine Command's (TRADOC) Brigade Combat Cell (BCC) and the

Communications Electronic Command (CECOM) Research Development Engineering Command (RDEC), conducted the

4

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2005
4

first-ever power assessment of the SBCT at Fort Lewis, WA, from April-December 2001, with an overarching goal to

improve the way the DoD allocates power to tactical units. This effort was unique in that in addition to technical measurements the SBCT Power Assessment addressed key operational and sustainment areas such as fuel requirements,

deployability (weight/size), back-up power, and life-cycle costs. Although this assessment was specifically focused on the

SBCT-1's Tactical Operations Centers (TOCs), lessons learned are already being applied to other Brigade elements.

Modified

M200

Modified

M200

60k W-PU

A

A A

Effects

Coord NOC-V

S2 Ops S3 Ops 1

CIC

60k W-PU

J11 J7 J8 J9 J10 J5 J1

J11 J7 J8 J9 J10 J5 J1

A

A A

A

ISR ISR

M

ACT-E

CTR

FIRE/

Tgt

TGT

NLEC

LOG ADAM

Plans

S3

Plans

CIC

A

10k W-PU 10k W-PU 10k W-PU

10k W-PU 15k W-PU

CGS BSN#1

EPLRS

DTSS-L NCS Trojan

Spirit

SBCT BDE Main TOC 

Power Distribution Alternative B

SBCT BDE Forward TOC 

Power Distribution Alternative B

A A

A A A A

A

T T T T

T T

T

EPLRS

NCS BSN#1 CGS

ISR ISR

Trojan

Spirit

M

ACT-E

CTR

FIRE/

Tgt

TGT

NLEC

Effects

Coord NOC-V

S2 Ops S3 Ops 1 LOG DTSS-L ADAM

Plans

S3

Plans

10k W-PU

10k W-PU

10k W-PU

(x2)

10k W-PU

(x2)

10k W

3k W

5k W

10k W

5k W-PU

10k W-PU

5k W-PU

10k W-PU

10k W-PU

CIC

SBCT Brigade TOC

(Main and Forward Co-located)

Baseline Power Distribution A

T Requires TQG

Has 10kW SICPS APU

Figure 1

4

Power Source

APU (10kW)

3kW Skid

5kW (Skid)

10kW (Skid)

5kW PU

10kW PU

15 kW PU

60kW PU

Total (APU/Gen)

Capacity (kW)

Back Up Power

Annual Fuel

Weight

Life Cycle Cost

Baseline

7

1

1

2

2

9

-

-

7/15

198

36%

7,120

33,551

$493,976 

Alternative B

7

0

0

0

0

4

1

2

7/7

175

57%

5,860

30,268

$377,943

Notes

ALT B - Does not require APU's to operate except as backup

100% Reduction

Eliminates Fork Lift Requirement & Cargo Trailer Safety Issues

Eliminates Fork Lift Requirement & Cargo Trailer Safety Issues

200% Reduction

56% Reduction

Centralized Power - Replaces BSN#1 5kW PU & 10kW PU 

Centralized Power - Main (1 - 60kW PU) and FWD (1-60kW PU)

Both Baseline and Alt B meet TOC Requirement = 134.4kW

Significant Operational Advantage

Significant Cost and Transportation Savings

Reduction

Significant Reduction - Primarily in Unit OMA $$

Table 1
5

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2005

4

The Figure 1 and Table 1 show just one of the alternatives that resulted from the assessment. As a result, in 2003 HQDA G3 approved

a totally new power force structure for not just SBCT-1, but all of the Army's SBCTs. On the left side of Figure 1 are the SBCT Main

and Forward TOCs, with a previous requirement for 15 generators and 7 Auxiliary Power Units (APU) (generators mounted in a vehicle that are operated as a part of the vehicle). There were several issues with the SBCT's original force structure of generators and

APUs:

Excess capacity: The SBCT TOCs were on average 100% overpowered (Capacity = 198kW vs. Requirement = 98kW);

Noise and toxicity: APUs in Standardized Integrated Command Post Shelter (SICPS) produced over 85dB of noise inside the

shelter/crew compartment and their exhaust required a separate adapter kit to port the fumes out of the work area. The noise

was at the limit of DoD safety levels requiring hearing protection. As a reference point, normal conversation is around 50-

at 60DB, street traffic is about 60-70DB and a subway in a tunnel registers around 90DB;

Safety and operational issues: Several of the SBCT's generators were skid-mounted and transported in cargo trailers. For

anything above 3kW, that meant external lift was required to move many of the generators in the field;

Back-up power: The Army's process of allocating a dedicated generator or APU to each shelter, created single points of failure at multiple nodes throughout the TOC. Overall, this meant that throughout the SBCT-1 TOCs less than a third of the

shelters had any type of backup or alternative source of power; 

Support: Finally, one must consider the impact on the soldiers who that had to move, set up, operate, fuel, and maintain

dozens of individual generators in a tactical environment.

The right side of Figure 1 shows the result of months of soldiers working tactics, techniques and procedures in conjunction with the

power assessment team to refine and implement a more centralized approach to powering the SBCT TOCs. The "Xs" on the left represent generators and/or APUs that were eliminated by this more centralized approach. In addition to reducing fuel and weight, the

alternative provided a significant increase in back-up power. It also all but eliminated the noise and toxicity issues associated with running APUs as a primary power source.

Table 1 summarizes for each generator and key decision criteria (weight, fuel, etc.), the advantages of centralized power versus the

baseline configuration (in this case for Alternative B). Note that the centralized approach maintained the same physical layout on the

ground between shelters (even though the picture shows two separate sections for the purpose of explaining the power distribution).

As an aside, noise and toxicity addressed by this centralized approach will have to be revisited with any plan to field Hybrid Electric

(HE) HMMWVs to power external equipment or, in other words, operate them 24x7 as "large generators" inside a unit formation.

The good news is that the SBCT-1's force structure for power was approved before the unit deployed to Iraq. The bad news is that the

vision to take this example and start a process to achieve similar results in other units throughout DoD , appears to have stalled. This

is especially unfortunate given the opportunity to address MEP as a part of such efforts as the Army's Transformation of units as they

rotate back from Iraq. The other unfortunate result of not addressing force structure issues now is that we will wait until it's too late,

to figure out how to best integrate new technologies and, at the same time, fail to realize fuel, maintenance and personnel savings in

not just the tactical units but the entire logistics pipeline as well.

IV. Hybrid Electric & Fuel cell systems -A Reality Check

While there are several individual efforts in DoD to address next-generation power sources, the primary issue that continues to slow

any real progress is widespread ignorance of who, what, where and when it makes sense to take a commercial technology (e.g., fuel

cells), integrate it into a component (stack), design that component into a subsystem (engine), integrate that subsystem into a platform

(fuel cell vehicle), modify or redesign the system for military use (HMMWV) and finally support that military system in a tactical environment with its unique supply, maintenance and readiness requirements (e.g., Iraq). Rather than ask "Why don't we have a fuel cell

vehicle in the field?", the better question would be "Where's the roadmap that addresses doctrine, training, organization, leadership,

material and soldier considerations for DoD's next generation MEP?" To help address at least the material part of that question, let's

examine two of the more popular technologies that many postulate (or believe) could have a major impact on DoD's "Other" Combat

Power" - Hybrid Electric Vehicles (with exportable power) and Fuel Cells.

Hybrid Electric (HE): Several hybrid-electric passenger cars are now being sold and advertised as exceptionally fuel-efficient. Popular

media credits the hybrid electric propulsion system as responsible for this outstanding fuel economy. However, closer examination

reveals that many other significant factors are at work, which have little to do with the fact that a car is a hybrid. These factors should

be clearly identified and considered before crediting the hybrid system with fantastic fuel savings. In fact, the answer to any fuel and/or

maintenance question depends on several inputs, not the least of which is driving cycle and the baseline comparison vehicle. A closer look at the current commercial Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV) reveals the following:

Lightweight Materials -Hybrid cars are very small sub-compacts. Much of their structure is made up of lightweight (and

costly) structural materials not generally used in other models and definitely not designed for a warfighting environment.
6

Engine Controls - Using control software, a hybrid electric car's engine is designed to be shut down during long periods

of idle in order to perform well against the well-known, well-established Environmental Protection Agency driving cycles.Note

that an engine shutdown feature has nothing to do with being a hybrid - as several European manufacturers have developed

conventional vehicles with the same automatic shutdown/rapid-start type engines.

Regenerative Braking - Much is made about regenerative braking. The amount of regenerative braking energy that can

be recovered depends on the driving cycle, the size of the energy storage device and the rate that the device can safely absorb

and discharge energy (system impedance, charge-rate acceptance and rider comfort). On commercial cars, the battery pack

and consequent hybrid boost is quite small in order to meet cost, reliability, system life, weight, and volume constraints. On

military vehicles, the boost requirements are yet to be determined, and battery packs on either type vehicle don't store or deliver enough significant energy to make a very dramatic difference in fuel economy.

Emissions Reduction - On the plus side, because even a small battery can provide short boosts for acceleration, engine

throttling losses and emissions are reduced. Emissions are of primary interest to the commercial sector.

Summary - When all factors are taken into account, the hybrid system on today's hybrid cars only accounts for an estimated 5% or less in fuel savings over an equivalent optimized sized/weight conventional vehicle. It is also revealing to note

that one of the hybrid car manufacturers also makes a similar weight-class, non-hybrid vehicle equipped with a conventional diesel engine in Europe. Their European diesel actually achieves better fuel economy than their hybrid car sold in the U.S.

So where does that leave us relative to when or where hybrid vehicles will make sense in a military environment? To help answer that

question, a combined team of power experts conducted an assessment of the Army's HE HMMWV program during 2002-2003, which

at the time was in the early prototype stage. The study addressed technical, operational and cost issues based on data obtained from

current known sources.

What's shown in Figure 2 is: 1) A simple picture of the prototype HE HMMWV; 2) A slide which graphically shows the systems compared in the HE HWWMV Analysis, and: 3) A graph of the Life-Cycle Cost Comparison. The systems compared in this analysis were:

1) A HMMWV+ SICPS shelter + 15kW generator versus a HE HMMWV capable of producing 15kW of power, and, 2) Two HMMWVs

+ Two 15kW generators versus one HE HMMWV capable of producing 30kW of power + one standard HWWMV. The mission profile (Figure 3) for this comparison was based on the HMMWV Operational Requirements Document (ORD) which specified, during a

96- hour mission (Figure 4), how long the HMMWV was driven, rked and mmaintained, and parked (i.e., operating as essentially a

large generator).

The bottom line from a life-cycle cost standpoint was that no time is a HE HMMWV, which only produces 15kW of power, a cost-effective solution. However, the analysis does show that over time, a HE HMMWV that could produce 30kW of power (i.e., enough to

power more than just one shelter or system) could be a cost effective solution.

80kW Diesel Fueled

Motor/Generator 

288V Battery Pack

Auxiliary Power Distribution System 

(APDS) 33 kW of available power

Electric Traction

Motors - 1 per axle

Figure 2

8
However, even if DoD could

develop a cost effective >30kW

HE HMMWV, there are several

technical issues recently documented by the Army's Power &

Energy Integrated Process Team

(IPT) that need to be addressed

relative to HEVs in a military environment:

g Performance and Economy

Baselines - To justify a hybrid

acquisition on the basis of fuel

economy, decision makers and

planners must know approximately how much fuel will be saved.

The simple fact is that the fuel

economy of a vehicle is directly

related to how it is used. Without

having a representative driving

cycle, one cannot make that

determination. Consequently,

there is a fundamental need to

develop and use realistic, standard, accepted military vehicle

driving cycles. This is also true of

"Silent Watch", which to date is a rather poorly defined requirement.

g Army Fuel Economy Measurement - Existing Army test protocols are only suitable to support RAM testing, engineering tests and

cruising range estimates. Two fuel economy test courses currently exist at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG): the Standard Fuel Course

and the Harford Loop Fuel Course. Neither course can be used to predict fielded fuel economy in a mission context. APG fuel economy test courses are not traceable to how vehicles are actually driven in the real world - nor were they designed to be. Without using

a representative driving cycle, there is no controlled, scientific baseline for vehicle comparison.

g Reliability and Battery Life - Putting performance and economy aside for the moment, the driving cycle affects HEV component/system life and reliability. HEV battery life can vary significantly depending upon how the vehicle is used, or abused. Without a

representative driving cycle and adequate testing, DoD has no way to assess or predict HEV battery pack life. This single unknown

easily has the potential to drive HEV operations and sustainment costs beyond the point of acquisition program affordability, and create major readiness issues in the field.

7

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2005

HE

HE

HMMWV ORD

Mission Profile

(96 Hr)

15 kW

30 kW

HE versus Baseline

System

PU

801 HV

HMMWV

HE

HMMWV

HV

HMMWV

Acq Cost

Fuel Cost Per 96 hr Event

Maint Cost Per 96 hr Event

PMCS

Scheduled

Unscheduled

Total O&S Per 96 hr Event

$144,000.00

890.2

207.7

33.49

459.1

$1,590.47

$37,272.00

2449.44

80.41

28.12

180.23

$2,736.19

Acq Cost

Fuel Cost Per 96 hr Event

Maint Cost Per 96 hr Event

PMCS

Scheduled

Unscheduled

Total O&S Per 96 hr Event

$140,000.00

1573.84

103.85

16.74

1021.2

$2,715.63

$72,000.00

445.11

103.85

16.74

229.55

$794.24

Acq Cost

Fuel Cost Per 96 hr Event

Maint Cost Per 96 hr Event

PMCS

Scheduled

Unscheduled

Total O&S Per 96 hr Event

$72,000.00

445.1

103.85

16.74

229.55

$794.24

$18,636.00

1224.75

40.21

13.06

90.14

$1,368.15

Acq Cost

Fuel Cost Per 96 hr Event

Maint Cost Per 96 hr Event

PMCS

Scheduled

Unscheduled

Total O&S Per 96 hr Event

$140,000.00

1573.84

103.85

16.74

1021.2

$2,715.63

HV HMMWV PU 801

2 HV HMMWV 2 PU 801

HE HMMWV

HE HMMWV HV HMMWV

Figure 3

700,000.00

600,000.00

500,000.00

400,000.00

300,000.00

200,000.00

100,000.00

0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

BASELINE

30kW

BASELINE

15kW

HE HMMWV

15kW

HE

HMMWV

$

HMMWV ORD 96 Hr Missions

15kW: No Business Case

30kW: ROI ~ 17yrs* 

Figure 4

8
8

Fuel Cells - Even more popular than FCS, DDX JSF and HE, are the emerging fuel cell technologies. From a military standpoint, fuel

cells appear to be attractive due to the potential electrical efficiencies and the fact that the fuel stack is virtually silent (although the

cooling and other system components are not). However, industry's efforts with fuel cells are based on using non-logistic fuels such as

hydrogen and methanol, with only an insignificant amount of funding programmed to examine JP-8/diesel reformers for fuel cells.

Why? There are several reasons: 1) JP-8 has a much more complex chemical structure making the reforming process for JP-8 fuel

significantly more difficult than other fuels; 2) JP-8 has a by product of sulfur, which acts as to "poison" a fuel cell stack; 3) Hydrogenbased fuel cells hold much more promise to "fit" within President Bush's challenge for a totally hydrogen-based infrastructure by 2020;

4) Industry isn't necessarily motivated nor constrained by the same warfighting requirements that support DoD's Single Fuel Policy (i.e.,

safety, transportability, low flash point, etc.). DoD's recent Fuel Cell Report best summarizes this point by stating that "several fundamental technologies will have to be developed before successful fuel cell propulsion.... or APU...system can be developed".

In addition, there are several other technical issues relative to fuel cells, which include:

. g Energy Storage - HEV battery packs are not just bigger cell phone batteries. These are large, very complex electrochemical energy storage systems that must incorporate battery pack housing design, thermal management and charge equalization. Battery life is affected by the depth of discharge, the number of discharge cycles, and overcharging. The larger the

capacity of the battery the better, but that increases system weight and size. Despite the marketing claims of enthusiastic energy storage manufacturers, there is currently no large-scale industrial base for military HEV batteries and energy storage systems. Commercialization of advanced energy storage is several years and millions of dollars away.

g Energy Storage System Size - With energy storage devices, there are known-knowns, known-unknowns and

unknown-unknowns. As HEV system size goes up, energy storage system design (and heat management/dissipation) becomes

more complex. This helps to explain the technologically misleading, but commercial "success" of lightly-boosted, sub-weightclass hybrid cars. It also helps to explain the lack of progress for heavier military HEVs.

g Efficiency - Although functional advantages exist at the "cell" level (low thermal and audio signatures), when you consider the system's fuel efficiency and use a starting point of liquid hydrocarbon fuel (which must be reformed into hydrogen),

fuel cell systems today do NOT confer greater energy efficiencies than conventional fossil fuel engines (despite media statements to the contrary).

g Energy Density - Developments focused on mobile power applications to date, point to the reality that practical

hydrogen-based fuel cell systems do NOT offer sufficient energy density to power most military requirements. Longer-term (>

3 days) missions or specialty niche applications reveal that fuel cell systems hold weight/power advantages; but the life-cycle

analysis and logistical impacts of such systems in the field, have yet to be determined.

g Environment - Packaged fuels, such as methanol, are advantageous for soldier-borne fuel cells. But a Direct

Methanol Fuel Cell (DFMC) system is not expected to reach Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 for two to three years... unless

an aggressive program is established. In addition, in a field environment, fuel cells will be subject to battlefield contaminants,

which will require engineering of components that add weight, bulk and complexity, all of which have significant impacts to

the overall system. Another environmental issue that has yet to be addressed in a military environment is that fuel cells do

not perform well at low temperatures.

g Systems Engineering - While fuel cells have been around for a long time, cost-effective fuel cell systems that produce reliable power are still TBD.

The reason that is true is because

from a systems engineering standpoint, there are several years of

design, weight, cube, heating,

cooling, environmental, and control issues that have yet to be

addressed -- even for commercial

systems. The Figure 5 helps to

illustrate the point that the "cell or

stack" is only one small part of the

system - and the real challenge

may be in integrating the balance

of plant equipment within the

size/weight limitations imposed on

military equipment. In addition, if

the fuel cell system has to operate

at extreme temperatures and in a

contaminated battlefield (dust,

smoke, different ambient chemicals), degradation due to poisoning of cathode air supply must be 

Fuel

Processor

Fuel

Power

Section

Power

Hydrogen Conditioner Rich Gas DC AC

Air

Heat & Water

Clean Exhaust

Figure 5. 8

CELL
9

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2005

V. Summary 

In closing, this paper was intended to provide you with a baseline understanding of the current status, recent successes and future possibilities relative to DoD’s “Other” Combat Power, which, I submit, is absolutely critical to the continued success of our warfighting

forces. Although there are several Integrated Process Teams (IPTs) addressing numerous aspects of power, technical discussions of a

“collaborative” nature don’t always come to closure on the key areas that largely determine when we get a capability to the field (cost,

schedule, performance, force structure, training, etc.). With that in mind, I have limited my recommendations to the following two priorities:

Recommendation #1 - Initiate an effort to baseline the current force structure of generators, APUs, etc. in DoD. This could be done

on a relatively small scale using a representative sample size of tactical units in each Service. The baseline would need to account for

quantities of power systems, how they are allocated to meet unit requirements, any power management capabilities and supportability. The baseline would serve as the necessary input to the next logical step, which would be an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) similar

to that done for the SBCT. As an aside, it's key to note that what I've just described is a different task than trying to determine the optimum power solutions for future platforms/systems.

Recommendation #2 - DDR&E should sponsor a joint technical study of Industry and DoD's Science & Technology (S&T) and Research

& Development (R&D) efforts related to Mobile Electric Power. However, to be truly value-added, such an effort would need to include

developing a discrete set of operational and business case metrics, which when combined with Technology Readiness Levels (TRL),

would provide a much better means to prioritize the efforts required to mature power technologies into warfighter capabilities...which

at the end of the day, is what it's all about. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mark W. Jones 

Mark W. Jones recently retired as a Colonel from the U.S. Army, with his

last assignment as the DoD Project Manager for Mobile Electric Power

(MEP) and Army Project Manager for Measurement, Electric Power and

Protection (MEP2). He is a recognized expert in both the operational and

technical areas of tactical electric power and has addressed numerous military and industry forums on this subject. He is a graduate of the United

States Military Academy, has Masters Degrees from Florida Institute of

Technology and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces and is Level III

certified in Program Management, Test & Evaluation and Communications

and Computers.

Mark W. Jones

Director, Integration

Alion Science & Technology

mwjones@alionscience.com

703-933-3354

mitigated by a yet-to-be-determined filtration system. Last but not least is the fact that every component required to make the

fuel cell work, adds to the complexity of the system, which in turn directly affects reliability and readiness.

g Supportability/Infrastructure -Most of the media attention given to hydrogen systems and the hydrogen economy is

directed specifically at hydrogen-based fuel cells for the commercial automotive industry. DOE is currently soliciting for public fleet demonstrations of light-duty passenger cars to begin next year, leading to initial introductions by 2012 and commercial acceptance by 2040. In a warfighting situation, logistics support and infrastructure is a much more complex issue.

While industry leans forward to support commercial propulsion that includes hydrogen refueling or a reforming infrastructure,

there is no known way to deploy such an infrastructure on the tactical battlefield.

Acknowledgement:s:

I would like to acknowledge two recognized experts in the area of Power Generation for their outstanding

reviews/advice in writing this article:

Dr. James B. Cross, former Deputy Project Manager, Mobile Electric Power

Mr. Robert Crow III, Associate Director for Power & Energy and Lethality, U.S. Army Research, Development

& Engineering Command

Mark W. Jones
10

PEO for Missiles and Space

Two of the Army's program executive offices were merged

to form a new office. Both the PEO for Air, Space and

Missile Defense and the PEO for Tactical Missiles were

deactivated and a new office, the PEO for Missiles and

Space, was activated. The new office will manage all programs formerly assigned to the deactivated PEOs. Brig.

Gen. Mike Cannon was designated as the Program

Executive Officer. Cannon formerly served as PEO for

Tactical Missiles. 

Maj. Gen. John Urias, who served as the PEO for Air,

Space and Missile Defense since 1999, has been named

commander of the Joint Contracting Command-Iraq and

head of the Contracting Authority for Iraq. He will be leaving for his tour of duty in Iraq later in the month.

Both PEOs had been in existence in one form or another

since 1992. The PEO for ASMD began as the PEO for

Global Protection Against Limited Strikes. It was renamed

the PEO for Missile Defense in 1993, and the name was

changed to PEO for Air and Missile Defense in 1996. The

latest change came in 2003 with the addition of the Army's

space programs and the name was changed to PEO for

Air, Space and Missile Defense. 

The PEO ASMD managed the Lower Tier Air and Missile

Defense Project Office, responsible for the Patriot system

(including Patriot PAC-3) and the Medium Extended Air

Defense System; the newly-created Cruise Missile Defense

Systems Project Office, the result of a name change of the

Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) Project Office and

realignment of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense

Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) Project Office; the Joint

Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS) Project Office; the Army

Space Program Office and the Army Core Space Control

System Office.

In addition to managing these project offices, the PEO

ASMD established two initiatives: the Single Integrated Air

Picture (SIAP) and System of Systems. When combined, they

will provide a more effective defense than is possible with

traditional stove-piped systems.

The PEO for Tactical Missiles was formed from the PEOs for

Fire Support and Close Combat Missiles and is comprised

of four project offices: Aviation Rockets and Missiles, Close

Combat Weapon Systems, Precision Fires Rocket and

Missile Systems and Joint Common Missile; and the NonLine of Sight Launch System Task Force.

The PEO's recent focus has been to improve current systems to maintain technological and combat superiority

over potential adversaries. Tactical Missiles has also developed significant warfighting capabilities for the Future

Combat System.

https://redstoneappsrv1.redstone.army.mil:4443/pao_o/p

ao_display?p_cat_id=5

195 TEAMS SIGN UP TO COMPETE IN THE

DARPA GRAND CHALLENGE 

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

announced today that 195 teams filed applications to

compete in DARPA Grand Challenge 2005. DARPA will

award a $2 million cash prize to the Grand Challenge

team that builds a completely autonomous ground vehicle

that trave ls the fastest time in under 10 hours across

approximately 175 miles of treacherous desert roads and

trails. DARPA created the Grand Challenge to accelerate

the development of autonomous vehicle technology to

replace manned vehicles in dangerous missions and save

lives on the battlefield. The Grand Challenge will be held

in the southwestern United States on October 8, 2005.

For additional information please visit the DARPA Grand

Challenge website at

www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge. 

fyi.... Publications of interest

Bridging the Gap: Providing an overview of DARPA

and its programs, this document also serves as DARPA's

strategic plan. 

http://www.darpa.mil/body/news.html

MDA UPDATE NEWSLETTER WINTER 2004-5

Quarterly publication from the MDA Technology

Applications Program features the most recent information

on MDA technology research initiatives

http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/pdf/52_win05.pdf

Munitions Executive Summit Proceedings,

February 9-11, 2005, Washington, DC 

http://www.adpansia.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Meet

ings_and_Events/Past_Events/5650_Munitions_Executive_

Summit.htm

16th Annual NDIA SO/LIC Symposium &

Exhibition Proceedings

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005solic/2005solic.html 

i n t h e n ews . . .
11

Directed Energy Weapons Course

Instructor: Dr. Edward Scannell, WSTIAC

Course Description: 

This one-day classified short course provides an introduction to the basic principles and techniques of Directed

Energy Weapons (DEWs). The technologies behind each

type of DEW will be examined, and the critical path components will be identified and explored with respect to their

effect on future DEW development. In addition, advantages that can be achieved by employing DEWs will be

discussed, as well as the status of U.S. and foreign DE

developments and deployments. The key DEW programs

in High Energy Lasers and RF-DEWs or High Power

Microwaves will be fully described.

This short course will be of great benefit to people who

need to understand the basic concepts, technologies,

design requirements and practical applications of DEWs,

including program and business managers, political decision makers, engineers, scientific researchers and military

personnel. An undergraduate technical degree is recommended. Mathematics is kept to a minimum, but important formulas are introduced. 

Training at Your Location:

WSTIAC can conduct this course at your location to reduce

your travel time and cost. Please call Mrs. Kelly Hopkins

to discuss.

Fee:

$700.00 for government personnel; $800.00 for government contractors.

Location: Huntsville, Alabama

24 February, 18 May,10 August, 16 November 2005

Notice: WSTIAC reserves the right to cancel and/or

change the course schedule and/or instructor for any reason. In the event of a schedule change or cancellation,

registered participants will be individually informed.

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2005

Questions to be examined include:

iWhat is Directed Energy and what are the different

types of Directed Energy Weapons?

iWhat are the advantages and disadvantages of

each type of DEW and what are their target effects and tactical and strategic capabilities?

iHow do DEWs work and what are the critical technologies that must be developed for their eventual use in

practical systems?

iHow may threat DEW effects be countered and how

can we protect our own systems?

iWhat are the major U.S. and international DEW

programs that are being pursued?

iWhat is the prognosis for future DEW development?

About the Instructor: 

Dr. Edward Scannell is the Senior Program Manager of

the Engineering & Technical Division, Chief Scientist for

WSTIAC, and formerly Chief of the Directed Energy and

Power Generation Division of the U.S. Army Research

Laboratory. He has 30 years of experience in technical

areas related to DEWs, including: plasma physics; conventional and alternative energy sources, electromagnetic

(EM) guns, particle beam, laser, high power microwave

(HPM), and pulse power physics. 

Security Classification:

The information presented is kept at the unclassified level,

but is designated export controlled and limited to U.S. citizens only. The security classification of this course is

UNCLASSIFIED.

Handout Material:

Each student will receive a comprehensive set of course

notes covering the material presented. 

For additional information, contact: 

Mrs. Kelly Hopkins, Seminar Administrator, 

at (256) 382-4747, or by e-mail 

khopkins@alionscience.com
12

Introduction to Sensors and Seekers for Smart Munitions

and Weapons Course

Instructor: Mr Paul Kisatsky, WSTIAC

Location: Huntsville, Alabama

19-21 April, 7-9 June, 18-20 October, 6-8 December 2005

Course Description: 

This 3-day short course provides an introduction to the

most commonly used sensors and seekers employed in

smart munitions and weapons (projectiles, missiles and

wide area mines). It is oriented to managers, engineers,

and scientists who are engaged in smart weapons program development and who desire to obtain a deeper

understanding of the sensors they must deal with, but who

do not need to personally design or analyze them in depth.

An undergraduate technical degree is recommended.

Mathematics is kept to a minimum, but important formulas are introduced. This course also provides an excellent

foundation for those scientists and engineers who desire to

pursue this discipline to intermediate and advanced levels. 

The course covers:

iClassification of seekers and sensors

iFundamentals of waves and propagation

iFundamentals of noise and clutter

iFundamentals of search footprints

iIntroduction to infrared

iIntroduction to radar

iIntroduction to ladar

iIntroduction to visionics

iIntroduction to acoustics

iFuture projections and interactive brainstorming

Noise and clutter, the predominant obstacles to success in

autonomous seekers, are given emphasis. The major sensor types are classified and each is discussed. In particular, infrared, radar, optical laser radar (ladar), imaging

and non-imaging, and acoustic sensors are individually

covered. Of special interest is the discussion on human

visionics versus machine recognition, since this concept is

of central importance to understanding autonomous versus man-in-the-loop sensing systems. The implications of

"artificial intelligence", "data fusion", and "multi-mode" 

sensors are also briefly discussed. System constraints,

which force tradeoffs in sensor design and in ultimate performance, are also covered. Time permitting, a projection

of future trends in the role of sensors for smart munitions will

be presented, followed by a "brain-storming" session to

solicit student views.

About the Instructor: 

Mr. Paul Kisatsky is a Senior Physical Scientist. He is a

nationally recognized expert on sensors and seekers for

smart munitions and weapons and has more than 30 years

of hands-on experience developing sensors and seekers

fielded in modern smart munitions and weapons.

Security Classification:

This course is unclassified.

Training at Your Location:

WSTIAC can conduct this course at your location to reduce

your travel time and cost. Please call Mrs. Kelly Hopkins

to discuss.

Fee:

The registration fee for this 3-day course is $950 for U.S.

government personnel and $1150 for government contractors. Contractor teams of 3 or more, registered at the

same time, are charged $950 per person.

Handout Material:

Each student will receive a comprehensive set of course

notes covering the material presented. 

For additional information, contact: 

Mrs. Kelly Hopkins, Seminar Administrator, 

at (256) 382-4747, or by e-mail 

khopkins@alionscience.com

Notice: WSTIAC reserves the right to cancel and/or

change the course schedule and/or instructor for any reason. In the event of a schedule change or cancellation,

registered participants will be individually informed.
13

Weaponeering Course 

Instructor: Professor Morris Driels, US Naval Postgraduate School

Course Description: 

This 21⁄2-day short course is based on a very successful

graduate-level weaponeering course developed by

Professor Driels and taught at the Naval Postgraduate

School(NPS), Monterey, CA. The course will provide an

overview of the fundamentals of the weaponeering

process and its application to air-to-surface and surfaceto-surface engagements. The course explains the analytical basis of current weaponeering tools known as the Joint

Munitions Effectiveness Manuals (JMEMs) produced by the

Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions

Effectiveness (JTCG/ME). The JMEMs are used by all

Services to plan offensive missions and allow the planners

to predict the effectiveness of selected weapon systems

against a variety of targets. 

Training at Your Location:

WSTIAC can conduct this course at your location to reduce

your travel time and cost. Please call Mrs. Kelly Hopkins

to discuss.

Fee:

The registration fee for this 21⁄2-day course is $950 for U.S.

government personnel and $1150 for government contractors. Contractor teams of 3 or more, registered at the

same time, are charged $950 per person.

Notice: WSTIAC reserves the right to cancel and/or

change the course schedule for any reason. In the event of

a schedule change or cancellation, registered participants

will be individually informed.

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2005

The short course is divided into three parts. 

Part I covers the basic tools and methods used in 

weaponeering:

iThe weaponeering process

iElementary statistical methods

iWeapon trajectory

iDelivery accuracy of guided and unguided 

munitions

iTarget vulnerability assessment

Part II covers the weaponeering process for air-launched

weapons against ground targets:

iSingle weapons directed against point and 

area targets

iStick deliveries (point and area targets)

iProjectiles (guns and rockets)

iCluster munitions

iWeaponeering for specific targets: bridges,

buildings, etc.)

iCollateral damage modeling

About the Instructor: 

Professor Driels is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering

at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey,

California. He has worked with the JTCG/ME on a variety

of topics in support of the JMEMs for a number of years.

He has taught a quarter-long weaponeering course at NPS

for three years and he has published a textbook on the

subject.

Security Classification:

The security classification of this course is UNCLASSIFIED.

Handout Material:

Each student will receive a comprehensive set of course

notes covering the material presented. 

For additional information, contact: 

Mrs. Kelly Hopkins, Seminar Administrator, 

at (256) 382-4747, or by e-mail 

khopkins@alionscience.com

Part III covers the weaponeering process for ground

engagements:

iIndirect fire systems - artillery and mortars.

iDirect fire systems - infantry and armored vehicles.

iMines - land and sea.

Location: Huntsville, Alabama

29-31 March, 21-22 June, 4-6 October, 29 November -1 December 2005
14

Training at Your Location:

WSTIAC can conduct this course at your location to

reduce your travel time and cost. Please call Mrs. Kelly

Hopkins to discuss.

Notice: WSTIAC reserves the right to cancel and/or

change the course schedule and/or instructor for any

reason. In the event of a schedule change or cancellation, registered participants will be individually

informed.

Handout Material:

Each student will receive a comprehensive set of course

notes covering the material presented. 

For additional information, contact: 

Mrs. Kelly Hopkins, Seminar Administrator, 

at (256) 382-4747, or by e-mail 

khopkins@alionscience.com

Smart/Precision Weapons Course

Instructors: Mr. Hunter Chockley and Mr. Mark Scott, WSTIAC

Location: Huntsville, Alabama

1-3 March, 24-26 May, 26-28 July, 13-15 September, 1-3 November 2005

Course Description: 

This 21⁄2-day short course provides a comprehensive

understanding of smart weapons and related technologies. This course is aimed at providing general knowledge about smart weapons technology

and a source of current information on selected U.S.

and foreign smart weapons, to include system

description, concept of employment, performance

characteristics, effectiveness and program status.

A variety of ground, sea and air smart/precision

weapon systems are discussed, to include fielded

and/or developmental U.S. systems such as Joint

Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Joint Air-to-Surface

Standoff Missile (JASSM), Small Diameter Bomb,

Javelin, Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank (LOSAT), XM982

Excaliber, Extended Range Guided Munition

(ERGM), Common Missile, Tomahawk, Standoff

Land Attack Missile - Expanded Response (SLAMER), Cluster Bomb Munitions and Airborne Laser,

among others, as well as representative foreign

smart/precision weapons.

The objective of this course is to inform materiel and

combat developers, systems analysts, scientists,

engineers, managers and business developers

about smart/precision weapons, to include:

iState-of-the-art of representative U.S. and 

foreign smart weapons systems;

iEmployment concepts

iSmart weapons related systems, subsystems,

and technologies; and

iTechnology trends.

Fee:

The registration fee for this 21⁄2-day course is $950 for

U.S. government personnel and $1150 for government

contractors. Contractor teams of 3 or more, registered

at the same time, are charged $950 per person.

Security Classification:

The information presented is kept at the unclassified

level, but is designated FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

(FOUO), export controlled, and attendance is limited

to U.S. citizens. The security classification of this course

is UNCLASSIFIED.

About the Instructors: 

Mr. Mark Scott and Mr. Hunter Chockley are Science

Advisors. Each instructor has more than 25 years of

experience with weapons technology and/or

smart/precision weapons.
15

C a l e n d a r o f E v e n t s

Upcoming Conferences and Courses

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2005

March 2005 ch 2005

21-22 March 2005

Defense 2005

Washington, DC

For additional information:

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=

1154

21-24 March 2005

Net Centric Operations, Interoperability & Systems

Integration Conference

Norfolk, VA

For additional information:

http://register.ndia.org/interview/register.ndia?PID=Brochure

&SID=_1G10TDOCO&MID=5120

22-23 March 2005

UAV Summit: Combat and Micro

Washington, DC

For additional information:

http://www.iqpc.com/cgibin/templates/singlecell.html?topic=221&event=6318

28-31 March 2005

Joint Undersea Warfare Technology Conference

San Diego, CA

THIS CONFERENCE IS CLASSIFIED SECRET U.S. ONLY

For additional information:

http://register.ndia.org/interview/register.ndia?PID=Brochure

&SID=_1G10X40W5&MID=5260

28 March-1 April 2005

Defense and Security Symposium 2005

Orlando FL

For additional information:

http://spie.org/conferences/programs/05/dss/

April 2005 April 2005

5-7 April 2005

49th Annual Fuze Conference

Seattle, WA

For additional information:

http://register.ndia.org/interview/register.ndia?PID=Brochure

&SID=_1G10TDOCO&MID=5560

7 April 2005

Strike, Land Attack & Air Defense Division Annual

Symposium

Laurel, MD

http://register.ndia.org/interview/register.ndia?PID=Brochure

&SID=_1G10TDOCO&MID=5100

11-15 April 2005

3rd Missile Defense Conference & Exhibit

Washington, DC

For additional information:

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid

=1133

19-20 April 2005

Military Robotics

Washington, DC

For additional information:

http://www.iqpc.com/cgibin/templates/singlecell.html?topic=221&event=6414

19-21 April 2005

6th Annual Science and Engineering Technology

Conference

North Charleston, SC

For additional information:

http://register.ndia.org/interview/register.ndia?PID=Brochure

&SID=_1G10TDOCO&MID=5720

25-28 April 2005

40th Annual Armament Systems: Gun - Ammunition -

Rockets - Missiles (GARM) Conference & Exhibition

New Orleans, LA

For additional information:

http://register.ndia.org/interview/register.ndia?PID=Brochure

&SID=_1G10TDOCO&MID=5590

2-5 May 2005

2005 Joint Service Power Expo

Tampa, Florida

For additional information:

http://register.ndia.org/interview/register.ndia?PID=Brochure

&SID=_1G10TDOCO&MID=5670

3-5 May 2005

Joint Electronic Warfare Conference (JEWC)

Monterey, CA

For additional information:

https://jewc.mugu.navy.mil/purpose.asp

9-12 May 2005

IEEE International Radar Conference

For additional information:

http://www.radar05.org/

18-20 October 2005

Weapon System Effectiveness

Austin, TX

Classified - U.S. Only

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid

=1242&viewcon=submit
16

Inside this issue

Combat Power

Director’s Corner

fyi...

in the news 

WSTIACCourses 

Calendar of Events

Please return this form to:

WSTIAC

ATTN: Publication Department

1901 N Beauregard Street, Suite 400

Alexandria VA 22311

or fax....

703.933.3325

Telephone:

Fax:

E-mail:

Name:

Organization:

Address:

Add my name to the WSTIAC Newsletter mailing list Correct my address information (see below)

WSTIAC

WSTIAC

1901 N Beauregard Street,Suite 400

Alexandria VA 22311-1705