http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS 

OF HEAD-UP DISPLAYS FOR WEAPON PLATFORMS

Head-up displays (HUDs) have long been a part of weapon

systems. The HUD was first developed for aircraft pilots to aid

in the sighting of their weapons and to provide an artificial horizon for navigation. One

of the early HUDs was an electromechanical

attack sight that was built in the 1950s for

the British Royal Navy (see figure below).

HUDs have evolved significantly since

then. As technology gradually progressed,

HUDs became more sophisticated devices

that were able to provide more information

and more functionality to the human operator. For instance, the technology has evolved

to the point of enabling sophisticated 

displays for dismounted soldiers, known as

wearable HUDs. As the technology becomes more advanced

and able to incorporate more information and media, including images and video, the impact of the HUD on the effectiveness of the human operator continues to be studied.

New visual display systems in many platforms may enhance

the ability of the vehicle operator to perform their primary

tasks, but it is important to do so without negatively impacting

their ability to perform other critical functions, such as locating

improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

It is well known that in the current conflict one of the most

common threats to deployed troops is the IED. The ability to

locate, avoid, mitigate, and defeat IEDs is a top priority. Ideally unmanned ground systems could be used for missions that

may encounter IEDs, but manned systems are still required for

most missions. The operator’s ability to identify and locate 

possible IEDs is potentially augmentable through head up display technology. However, adding some HUD functions could

potentially impair an operator’s ability to identify and locate

IEDs. Therefore, while there are many advantages to implementing head up displays in various manned weapon systems,

research must be conducted to evaluate how it affects the performance of the human operator.

Human operators are limited in their ability to execute

tasks while receiving information. Thus, the effect on operator

performance is an important factor that should be considered

particularly when designing the system and also during training to ensure operators are able to effectively and efficiently

prioritize tasks. Evaluation of simulated operator performance

while using HUDs can help instill the proper balance between

using the display and executing conventional operator tasks.

The feature article in this issue of the WSTIAC Journal

describes a recent study that compared simulated operator 

performance with HUD versus performance with the traditional head-down display. These types of studies are very

important as visual imaging upgrades to military vehicles, such

as the Stryker and Bradley, are being designed and will be

implemented for the purpose of executing embedded training,

mission training, and mission operations.

John Weed, WSTIAC Director

Director’s Corner

The WSTIAC Journal 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. 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. The appearance of an advertisement, announcement, product/service

review, or article in the WSTIAC Journal does not constitute endorsement by the DoD or WSTIAC.

Inquiries about WSTIAC capabilities, products, and services may be addressed to 

J o h n W e e d Ow e n C o n n i f f

D i r e c t o r , W S T I A C B r u c e D u d l e y

9 7 3 . 7 7 0 . 0 1 2 3 T e c h n i c a l I n q u i r i e s

E M A I L : j w e e d @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m 8 7 7 .W S T.U S E R

U R L : h t t p :/ / w s t i a c . a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m / E M A I L : w s t i a c @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:

W S T I A C

ATTN: B EN J AM IN D . C R A IG

201 Mill Street, Rome, New York 13440

P H O N E : 3 1 5 . 3 3 9 . 7 0 1 9 • FA X : 3 1 5 . 3 3 7 . 9 9 3 2

E M A I L : w s t i a c @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

Director

John L. Weed

Core Program Coordinator

Mary Priore

Editor-in-Chief

Benjamin D. Craig

Publication Design 

Cynthia Long

Tamara R. Grossman

Inquiry Services

Owen Conniff

Bruce Dudley

Training

Gina Nash

© Copyright BAE Systems 2011. Buccaneer HUD Pilots Display Unit 

(Courtesy of Rochester Avionic Archives http://www.rochesteravionicarchives.co.uk/, reprinted with permission.) 
ABSTRACT

US Army Research Laboratory researchers designed a head-up display (HUD) that overlays driving information on a switchable vision

block. Bradley and Stryker drivers were surveyed for recommendations to incorporate in the prototype. A simulation experiment was conducted to evaluate a HUD versus a traditional head-down display (HDD). Results about driving task performance were mixed, with the 

HUD associated with poorer performance in some measures and the HDD with others. Participants detected significantly more roadside improvised explosive devices (IEDs) with the HDD than with the HUD; they also detected the IEDs from a farther distance with

the HDD than with the HUD. However, participants’ gauge monitoring performance was better with the HUD than with the HDD.

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 3 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

J.Y.C. Chen

R.V.N. Oden

L. Eifert

A.L. Rodriguez

US Army Research Laboratory

Human Research & Engineering Directorate

Orlando, FL

INTRODUCTION

The Scalable Embedded Training – Mission Rehearsal (SET-MR)

Army Technology Objective (ATO) of the US Army Research 

Laboratory (ARL) – Human Research & Engineering Directorate

(HRED) – Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC) is

developing a new prototype visual imaging system called a switchable vision block (SVB) to be used for embedded vehicle driver

training, mission rehearsals, and mission operations.[1] A vision

block is a solid, periscope-like apparatus that allows the crew inside

a fighting vehicle to see the outside through a series of mirrors, 

one side of which is facing the outside environment and the other

side of which the operator looks through (see Figure 1 for the interior of a Stryker vehicle). A SVB is a way to extend the capability

of a regular vision block system with different operating modes –

normal optical view, combined view (similar to a HUD), and a

synthetic image for displaying additional information, such as a

synthetic environment for embedded training (see Figure 2 for 

a depiction of the SVB).[1] One of the key advantages to using an

SVB is that it gives the crew a common interface for both training

and operation of the vehicle. Additionally, extra elements can be

displayed on the screen, such as maps, enemy/friendly information,

or even relevant training elements, which can be helpful in training

as well as operation.

The SET-MR ATO has sponsored two separate efforts to develop this SVB capability: one utilizing a collimated optical display and

the other using an uncollimated display. As part of the SVB effort,

ARL-HRED designed a HUD for current force vehicles that could

be used in operational settings (i.e., driving), in addition to its purposes for training and mission rehearsal. ARL-HRED efforts were

developed utilizing a collimated optical display. Collimated displays

are widely used in aircraft HUDs; the overlayed symbology appears

to be at an optically infinite distance from the operator.[1]

Head-Up Displays

HUDs have long been used in aviation and have started being used

in automobile driving and racing.[2] The main advantages of

HUDs (as compared to head-down displays) include:

• Reduced scanning distance between instrumentation and the outside world;

• Increased situation awareness (SA) of the external environment

due to more visual attention to the outside world and less headdown time;

Periscope

Eye

Real Imagery

Synthetic Imagery

Mirror

Mirror

Exit Window

Entrance Window

Figure 1. Stryker vehicle interior. Figure 2. SVB concept.[1]

This paper was originally presented in the Proceedings of the 27th Army Science Conference.
• Less visual misaccommodation if collimated displays are used

(i.e., reduced time and effort for the user to refocus the eyes

between near (instrumentation) and far (outside world) domains).

[3-5]

One area in which HUDs are particularly useful is when visibility of the outside environment is poor, such as rain or fog, because

high-quality HUD images, typically collimated in the aviation

domain, make the user focus further out, which reduces visual

accommodation problems.[2, 3] Researchers found that HUDs are

typically superior to HDDs because they utilize both the ambient

visual system (peripheral vision) and the focal visual system.[6]

They showed that, while ambient vision can support some aspects

of driving (e.g., vehicle control), this lessens as display separation

increases, such as in HDDs. Additionally, since ambient vision cannot adequately support hazard awareness, drivers are likely to miss

obstructions in roadways when looking down at gauges in an HDD

that they might otherwise notice in a HUD.

Although there are many advantages associated with HUDs, past

research has shown various human performance issues that can be

induced by HUDs.[7, 8] There is also some evidence that collimation does not always pull the operator’s visual focus outward to optical infinity and, in some cases, visual misaccommodation may

become worse due to collimated displays.[3] Very high-quality

HUDs have been shown to capture attention too well and can divert

attention away from other sources and channels. This attentional

capture/tunneling phenomenon has been investigated in numerous

studies.[7, 8] Wickens and Alexander defined attentional tunneling

as “the allocation of attention to a particular channel of information, diagnostic hypothesis, or task goal, for a duration that is longer

than optimal, given the expected cost of neglecting events on other

channels, failing to consider other hypotheses, or failing to perform

other tasks.”[8] According to several studies and a meta-analysis,

HUDs were found to result in poorer detection, in terms of speed

and accuracy, of unexpected objects/events compared to HDDs,

although, for expected events, HUDs did support better detections.[3, 5, 9] Additionally, HUDs may create a false sense of awareness in users. Hofer et al. (2001; cited in [3]) observed that users

typically reported that HUDs reduced their workload and believed

that “they are seeing everything because all the information is being

presented in their visual fields when in fact they are not attending

and processing everything.”[3]

While some studies have found clutter to be an issue with overlayed HUDs, Horrey and Wickens found no differences between

superimposed HUDs and adjacent HUDs with respect to driving

performance and secondary task performance.[10] Additionally,

vehicle control is largely achieved by the ambient visual system,

which is less affected by clutter than the focal system. The success of

HUDs in automobiles will largely depend on the usefulness of the

information displayed to the driver by the HUD, such that the

information displayed will have to provide a larger advantage to the

driver than the disadvantages seen.[5]

Driver Surveys

The current research investigated the quantifiable performance

differences in drivers using HUDs and HDDs to determine performance differences between the two displays for the Bradley 

and Stryker fighting vehicles. To understand how drivers use 

visual displays when performing various job-related tasks, thirtyfive Bradley and Stryker

drivers from Ft. Benning,

GA and from the TankAutomotive and Armaments Command in Warren, MI completed surveys

about the use of their current displays and potential

HUDs. The most relevant

data collected for designing

a HUD is summarized in

Table 1.

Additions to the Current

HDD Design

Drivers were asked “Given

any information in the vehicle (i.e., situation aware ness,

command, control, communication, and computer

information), what would

you like to see on the screen?” and “What information might other

crew members have that you currently don’t have convenient access

to, which would you like to have?” Of the thirty-five respondents,

thirty-one (88.6%) said they would add components to the current

HDD design (Table 1). Most of the components that the drivers

wanted to be added were indicators and gauges, with only four items

that were related to other mission elements, such as situation awareness. We concluded that drivers had very little additional need for situation awareness aids, but need more information about basic components of the vehicle so they can drive effectively.

Distractions to Driving with the Current HDD Display

Drivers were asked “Which instruments must you look at a lot now

that may briefly distract you from your driving?” Of the thirty-five

respondents, thirty-one (88.6%) said there were components in the

current HDD design that distracted them while they were driving

(Table 1). All the components that distracted drivers in the current

HDD display were functional components. Also, there was overlap

between what some drivers want to add to the current display and

what distracted some. This could be due to varying display components between the Bradley and Stryker, but could also be due to

driver preference. Implications of this overlap will be discussed later.

Layout of the Future HUD

Drivers were asked “If we could display the information you would

like to see in the new vision block, how do you think it should be

displayed? For example, which area of the screen, colors used, audible alerts, etc.?” Of the thirty-five respondents, thirty (85.7%) gave

suggestions about the layout of the display (Table 1). Most of the

responses were in relation to placement of components on the

screen and color. Also, with respect to color, drivers wanted a traditional color scheme where green indicates something good, red 

indicates something bad, and amber or yellow indicates something

that could become bad in the near future.

Current Study

In the current experiment, we compared driving performance on 

a simulator using a collimated HUD (see Apparatus) versus a tradiThe WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 4 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

Table 1. Bradley/Stryker driver survey

responses.

Item No. Reported

Additions to the current HDD design

Digital speedometer 15

Outside camera views 15

Grid position/map 14

Ammunition count/type 14

Compass/direction of travel 11

Fuel gauge 11

Turret position 10

Oil temperature 9

Battery life 9

Water temperature 8

Oil pressure 8

FBCB2 8

Distractions to driving with the current HDD design

Speedometer 17

Oil/engine temperature 17

Fuel 7

Layout of the future HUD design

Lower part of the screen 15

Red/flashes for alert 14

Green for good/ample 13 
The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 5 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

tional HDD. The primary task was driving a predetermined route,

and the secondary tasks were monitoring the roadways and adjacent

areas for improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and monitoring gauges

for anomalies. It was hypothesized that the HUD would result in

better overall driving performance, as well as subjective self-report

measures, than the HDD because studies have shown that participants are more successful at driving when information is displayed 

in an integrated fashion rather than in separate displays.[6, 10]

METHOD

Participants

Twenty individuals (7 males and 13 females) from the Orlando, FL

area participated in the study. The age range was between 18 and 36

(mean = 26), and a valid driver’s license was required for participation. Participants were paid $15/hr for their participation.

Apparatus

Simulation

The game engine used in this experiment was ManiaDrive®. This

was the environment in which participants navigated in the simulated driving routes. The driving scene was displayed using a collimated display, which is viewed by looking into a display box and

appears to be at an optically infinite distance from the viewer.[1]

A Logitech steering wheel and gas and brake pedals were used for

participants to navigate through the game engine (see Figure 3 for

the experimental set-up).

Head-Up Display

The HUD information unit was placed at the top of the viewing

box (see Figure 3), and its imageries were projected onto the driving

scene via mirrors in the box (see Figure 4). Figure 5 shows a sample

route used in an experimental scenario.

Head-Down Display

For the HDD condition, participants still viewed the driving environment through the box as shown in Figure 3 (using the collimated display), but the driving controls were presented in a separate

computer screen placed below the box (to the left of the steering

wheel, see Figure 3), simulating how one would view the instrument panel in an automobile by looking from the windshield down

to the panel.

Surveys and Tests

Participants first completed an informed consent and a demographics questionnaire. Participants completed “The Map Reading

Test” (MRT), which required them to follow a route on a map and

indicate the direction, right or left, at each turn.[11] The participant’s score was the number of correct responses within the time

limit of 20 seconds.

Participants’ perceived workload was evaluated using the

Figure 4. HUD projected onto background (an IED is visible in the

environment [to the right of the road, visually to the left of the 

bottom gauges]).

Figure 3. Collimated 

display viewing box

and simulated driving

equipment.

Figure 5. Sample route used in a scenario.
NASA-TLX questionnaire.[12] The NASA-TLX is a self-reported

questionnaire of perceived demands in six areas: mental, physical,

temporal, effort (mental and physical), frustration, and performance. Participants used this questionnaire to evaluate their perceived workload level in these areas on 10-point scales as well as

completing pairwise comparisons for each subscale. The subscale

of performance was also analyzed on its own. The Simulator 

Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) was used to evaluate participants’

simulator sickness symptoms.[13] The SSQ consists of a checklist

of 16 symptoms. Each symptom is scored in terms of degrees of

severity (none, slight, moderate, severe). A total severity score 

was derived by a weighted scoring procedure and reflects overall

discomfort level.

Experimental Design

The overall design of the study was a within-subject design with

each participant completing all routes. The independent variable

was display type: HUD vs. HDD. 

Procedure

After being briefed on the purpose of the study and signing the

informed consent form, participants completed the demographic

questionnaire, followed by the MRT. Participants then received

training on the driving tasks and were able to familiarize themselves with images of IEDs and with the gauges that showed

anomalies.

For the experimental trials, participants were asked to drive a

predefined route while following certain guidelines, such as speed

limits, lane-keeping behavior, and stop sign behavior. Participants

were also asked to monitor the roadway and adjacent areas for IEDs.

Participants were instructed that if an IED was spotted, they should

press a button to acknowledge the IED. Additionally, participants

were asked to monitor the gauges on the displays while driving, and

to press a button when a gauge had an anomaly. Participants completed four trials using four comparable driving routes – two trials

with the HUD and two with the HDD. Trials were counterbalanced

using a Williams Square to avoid order effects. After each trial, participants assessed their workload and sickness symptoms by using

the NASA-TLX and SSQ, respectively. There was a 5-minute break

between trials. After all trials were completed, participants were

compensated and fully debriefed. Each trial took approximately five

minutes, and the experiment took approximately one hour.

Dependent Measures

Driving performance was comprised of number of collisions, number of stop signs run, number of times vehicle left the roadway, and

average speed. Subjective workload and performance were also

measured, as well as subjective sickness symptoms. Secondary task

performance was comprised of number of IEDs missed, distance to

IED when IED was identified, number of gauge anomalies cleared,

and response time to clear gauge anomalies.

RESULTS

Table 2 lists several measures relating to operator driving per -

formance, secondary task performance, and SSQ score, as well as

subjective workload and performance assessments. All tests were

performed with an alpha level of .05. There were no outliers or

abnormal data unless otherwise noted. Repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed on each variable

between the HUD condition and the HDD condition. Additionally, Pearson’s correlations were run between the MRT and driving

performance variables.

Primary (Driving) Task Performance

Analysis on participants’ driving performance (number of collisions,

number of stop signs run, number of times vehicle leaves roadways,

and speed of driving) showed that there was a significant main effect

of display type, F(3,17) = 22.6, p < .001 (see Figure 6). Analysis

showed that participants had significantly more collisions in the

HUD condition than when in the HDD condition, F(1,19) = 5.1,

p < .05. The test on running stop signs showed that participants ran

significantly more stop signs in the HDD condition than in the

HUD condition, F(1,19) = 70.1, p < .0001. Analysis on average

speed showed that participants drove significantly faster in the

HDD condition than in the HUD condition, F(1,19) = 22.9, p <

.0001. However, the test on number of times the vehicle left the

roadway did not show a significant difference between the HUD

condition and the HDD condition, F(1,19) = 3.5, p = .076. It is

important to note that the difference in average speed might be

attributed to the increased number of collisions in the HUD condition and the increased number of stop signs run in the HDD condition; thus, participants were stopping more in the HUD condition, so that could be why their average speed was slower.

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 6 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

Table 2. Operator task performance and subjective assessments

(standard deviations are presented in parentheses).

Display

Measures HUD HDD

Primary (Driving) Task Performance

Number of collisions* 0.35 (0.5) 0.05 (0.22)

Number of stop signs run** 1.05 (0.65) 1.98 (0.51)

Number of times vehicle leaves roadway 2.28 (1.66) 1.5 (1.84)

Average speed in kph** 26.8 (3.9) 29.8 (3.4)

Secondary (Monitoring) Task Performance

Percentage (%) of IED detected** 15 (8.5) 32 (15.0)

Distance (in meters) to IED when identified* 3.86 (2.50) 8.61 (5.22)

Number of gauge anomalies cleared (max = 1) 0.95 (0.22) 0.93 (0.24)

Response time to clear gauge anomalies 

in seconds* 5.35 (6.3) 13.89 (9.6)

Subjective Assessments

NASA-TLX overall score 30.85 (6.8) 29.5 (7.1)

Performance score - subscale of NASA-TLX 3.78 (1.45) 4.4 (1.76)

SSQ score 8.41 (9.4) 6.26 (5.95)

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Figure 6. Driving task performance (see the axis on the right for the

values of speed).

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

HUD HDD

Collisions

Stops Signs Run

Off Road

Speed (km/min)
The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 7 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

Secondary (Monitoring) Task Performance

Analysis on participants’ monitoring task performance (percentage

of IEDs detected, distance to IED when identified, and response

time to clear gauge anomalies) showed that there was a significant

main effect of display type, F(3,11) = 15.3, p < .0001 (Figure 7). For

percentage of IEDs detected, the analysis showed that participants

detected significantly fewer IEDs when in the HUD condition than

in the HDD condition, F(1,13) = 23.4, p < .0001. Analysis also

showed that participants detected and identified the IEDs from a

farther distance in the HDD condition than in the HUD condition,

F(1,13) = 7.9, p < .05. Participants’ response times to clear gauge

anomalies were significantly longer in the HDD condition than in

the HUD condition, F(1,13) = 6.0, p < .05. 

Map Reading Test Correlations

There was a negative correlation between participants’ MRT scores

and the number of times their vehicle was driving off-road in the

HDD condition, r = -0.44, p < .05. Those with lower MRT scores

tended to drive off-road more frequently than did those with higher MRT scores. There was also a significant correlation between the

MRT scores and self-assessed performance in the HUD condition,

r = .46, p < .05. Those with higher MRT scores tended to assess

their own driving performance as better than did those with lower

MRT scores.

Perceived Workload, Performance, and Sickness

Participants’ self-assessment of workload (composite NASA-TLX

score) was not significantly different between the HUD and HDD

conditions, p > .05. In addition to the overall workload score, the

subscale of performance was analyzed. The difference between the

conditions failed to reach statistical significance, F(1,19) = 4.0, p =

.059. For the sickness symptoms, the analysis showed no significant

difference in SSQ scores between the HUD and HDD conditions,

p > .05.

Participant Preference

At the end of the experiment, the researcher asked participants

which display they preferred. Sixteen participants (80%) indicated

they preferred the HUD to the HDD. Several participants reported

that they preferred not having to scan back and forth so much

between displays. Interestingly, participants’ preferences mostly were

not in accordance with their performance.

DISCUSSION

As the results indicate, the HUD produced slightly worse driving

performance (more collisions and slower driving speed) than the

HDD (more stop signs violations); most of the secondary (monitoring) task performance measures indicate that there is a difference

between HUD and HDD as well. Contrary to our hypothesis, the

HUD did not result in a superior driving performance, although all

the driving-related information was displayed integrally with the

driving scene rather than separately on a different display. This result

could be due to the fact that the routes used in the current experiment were fairly simple (see Figure 5). Had more difficult routes

been used, participants likely would have had to divert their visual

attention more frequently from the driving environment down to the

information needed in the HDD condition, and their driving performance might have been degraded. Indeed, based on the response

times for clearing gauge anomalies, participants detected the anomalies significantly sooner in the HUD condition than in the HDD

condition. This suggests that participants did not monitor the HDD

as frequently as they did with the HUD. Again, significantly more

complicated routes are expected to change this behavior.

In terms of secondary task performance, one important finding

is that participants missed more IEDs in the HUD condition than

in the HDD condition and they tended to notice the IEDs sooner

in the HDD than in the HUD (by 521 msec, on average, in our

simulated environment). This result suggests that, when using the

HUD, participants tended to pay less visual attention to the driving

environment than when using the HDD. In other words, the results

indicate that participants neglected the driving environment and

experienced some attentional tunneling when using the HUD, as

has shown in past research.[3, 5, 7, 8, 9] Again, a caveat to this finding is that the routes used in the experiment were relatively simple

and participants did not need to consult the map display very frequently. As indicated by participants’ gauge-monitoring performance, participants monitored the HUD with a greater frequency

than they did with the HDD, although the road map was fairly

straightforward. Finally, more visual clutter was present in the HUD

condition compared with the HDD condition, and this may have

contributed to the poorer detection of IEDs in the HUD condition.

Furthermore, much as Crawford and Neal found, it appears participants had a false sense of security when using the HUD, as they

rated their performance the same with the HUD and the HDD,

although their actual performance was sometimes worse with the

HUD.[3] According to our surveys, Bradley and Stryker drivers are

in favor of replacing their current displays with a HUD-like display,

and 80% of our participants favored the HUD over the HDD. It is

anticipated that the HUD could provide advantages over the traditional HDD (e.g., easy access to the map and other driving-related

information); however, the attentional narrowing effect of the

HUD, as demonstrated in the current study and numerous previous

studies, needs to be further investigated. More research needs to be

conducted to mitigate the attentional tunneling effect, so HUDs

can be more effective.

Finally, those participants with lower MRT scores drove off-road significantly more times than did those with higher test scores when the display was

HDD. It is reasonable to expect that those individuals with poorer map reading skills may have significantly degraded driving performance if the routes are

more complicated, and they need to consult the map more frequently, especially in a head-down condition.

Figure 7. Monitoring task performance (percentage of IEDs detected,

distance to IED identification, and response times for gauge anomalies clearing).

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

HUD HDD

IE Detected (%)

Distance to IED

When Identified

(Meters)

Gauge RT (Sec)
The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 8 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Currently several prototypes have been developed for the 

STRYKER M17 vision block (both collimated and uncollimated,

monochrome and color). More M17 prototypes were prepared 

for on-vehicle evaluation. These were to be evaluated by the Program Managers for integration into the vehicles as well as utility 

of collimated vs. uncollimated variants. Both variants offer different

trade-offs in cost, space and capabilities while potentially 

providing significant advances in capabilities over the current conventional periscopes. Additionally, Program Executive Office Command Control Communications – Tactical (PEO C3T) is in the

process of developing the Vehicular Integration for C4ISR/EW

Interoperability (VICTORY) Architecture initiative to improve

upon current practices, significantly reduce system cost, and introduce a framework to provide flexibility for new capabilities and

reduce overall life-cycle costs.[14] The vision blocks will be used in

an effort to develop some of the standards and capabilities for the

new architecture. Finally, the Marines have also expressed interest in

adapting this technology for operational use on their M1A1 Tank

Commanders Forward Unity Periscope (FUP). Future efforts

include limited user evaluations, on-board vehicle testing, and sensor fusion, as well as manufacturing and reliability testing.

Future studies should employ routes with various levels of difficulties to determine the point at which driving performance associated with an HDD becomes significantly worse than that with a

HUD. More research needs to be conducted to mitigate the attentional tunneling effect, so HUDs can be more effective. One potential technique is providing declutter capabilities to the driver. (Newman, 1995; cited in [7]) Simply dimming the task-irrelevant

information/symbology was shown to be effective in enhancing

detection of environmental events.[15] Multimodal cueing displays

may also be effective when integrated with HUDs, so the requirement of visual scanning can be reduced.[16] Finally, there is evidence that proper training can significantly mitigate HUD-induced

situation awareness decrements, at least in the aviation domain.[17]

Further research can be conducted to investigate whether similar

benefits of training exist for automotive HUDs. One of the promising techniques is to promote “implicit divided attention” through

training in awareness of the environment.([18] cited in [7]). Past

research has also shown that driver’s scanning effectiveness may be

enhanced through training.[19] Future research can investigate

if/how training on visual scanning of the driving environment can

improve performance when using HUDs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded by the Scalable Embedded Training –

Mission Rehearsal (SET-MR) Army Technology Objective (ATO)

of ARL-HRED-STTC. The authors would like to thank Dr.

Roger Hamilton for his help in collecting surveys from Bradley

and Stryker drivers and the survey participants for their time and

information.

GENERAL REFERENCE

Kruger, J., and D. Dunning, Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties

in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments, J.

Personality and Social Psych., Vol. 77, pp. 1121-1134, 1999.

REFERENCES

[1] Montoya, J., M. Lamvik, J. White, G. Frank, I. McKissick, and G. Cornell, “Switchable Vision Blocks: The Missing Link for Embedded Training,” Interservice / Industry Training, Simulation, & Education Conference

(I/ITSEC), National Training Systems Association, 2007.

[2] Charissis, V., and S. Papanastasiou, “Human-Machine Collaboration

through Vehicle Head-Up Display Interface,” Cognition, Technology and

Work, Vol. 12, pp 41–50, 2010.

[3] Crawford, J., and A. Neal, “A Review of the Perceptual and Cognitive

Issues Associated with the Use of Head-Up Displays in Commercial Aviation.” Int. J. Aviation Psych., Vol. 16, pp. 1-19, 2006.

[4] Martin-Emerson, R., and C.D. Wickens, “Superimposition, Symbology, Visual Attention, and the Head-Up Display,” Human Factors, Vol. 39,

pp. 581-601, 1997.

[5] Tufano, D.R., “Automotive HUDs: The Overlooked Safety Issues,”

Human Factors, Vol. 39, pp. 303-309, 1997.

[6] Horrey, W.J., and C.D. Wickens, Focal and ambient visual contributions and driver visual scanning in lane keeping and hazard detection, Proceedings, Human Factors and Ergonomics Soc. 48th Annu. Mtg., New

Orleans, LA, HFES, pp. 2325-2329, 2004a.

[7] Prinzel, L.J., and M. Risser, Head-up displays and attention capture

(Tech. Rep. NASA/TM-2004-213000), Hampton, VA: NASA – Langley

Research Center, 2004.

[8] Wickens, C.D., and A.L. Alexander, Attentional tunneling and task

management in synthetic vision displays. Int. J. Aviation Psych., Vol. 19, pp.

182-199, 2009. 

[9] Fadden, S., P.M. Ververs, and C.D. Wickens, Costs and benefits of

head-up display use: A meta-analytic approach, Proceedings, Human Factors and Ergonomics Soc. 42nd Annu. Mtg., Chicago, IL, HFES, pp. 16-20,

1998.

[10] Horrey, W.J., and C.D. Wickens, Driving and side task performance:

The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality, Human Factors, Vol.

46, pp. 611-624, 2004b.

[11] Money, J., and D. Alexander, Turner’s syndrome: Further demonstration of the presence of specific cognitional deficiencies, J. Medical Genetics,

Vol. 3, pp. 47-48, 1966.

[12] Hart, S., and L. Staveland, Development of NASA TLX (Task Load

Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research, Human mental workload, P. Hancock and N. Meshkati, Eds., Elsevier, pp. 139-183, 1988.

[13] Kennedy, R., N. Lane, K. Berbaum, and M. Lilienthal, Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness, Int. J. Aviation Psych., Vol. 3, pp. 203-220, 1993.

[14] Southwest Research Institute, personal communication, April 23,

2010.

[15] Ververs, P.M., and C.D. Wickens, Head-up displays: Effect of clutter,

display intensity, and display location on pilot performance, Int. J. Aviation

Psych., Vol. 8, pp. 377-403, 1998.

[16] Chen, J.Y.C., E.C. Haas, and M.J. Barnes, Human performance issues

and user interface design for teleoperated robots, IEEE Trans. on Sys., Man,

and Cybern. – Part C: App. and Rev., Vol. 37, pp. 1231-1245, 2007. 

[17] Williams, K.W., Impact of aviation highway-in-the sky displays on

pilot situation awareness. Human Factors, Vol. 44, pp. 18-27, 2002.

[18] Stuart, G.W., K.I. McAnally, and J.W. Meehan, Head-up displays and

visual attention: Integrating data and theory, Human Factors and Aerospace

Safety, Vol. 1, pp. 103-124, 2001. 

[19] Fisher, D., and A. Pollatsek, Novice driver crashers: Failure to divide

attention or failure to recognize risks. Attention: From theory to practice, 

A. Kramer, D. Wiegmann, & A. Kirlik, Eds, Oxford University Press, pp.

134-153, 2007. 

Comment on this article, email: wstiac@alionscience.com
The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 9 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM ANNOUNCES WINNERS

FOR ANNUAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS 

The Department of Defense today [March 22, 2010]

announced two individuals and five teams have won awards

from the Defense Standardization Program Office (DSPO) for

outstanding contributions during the last fiscal year. The

awards were presented this month during a ceremony at the

Pentagon, Hall of Heroes. 

Since 1987, DSPO has recognized individuals and organizations that have effected significant improvements in quality,

reliability, readiness, cost reduction, and interoperability

through standardization. The DSP mission is to identify, influence, develop, manage, and provide access to standardization

processes, products, and services for warfighters and the acquisition, logistics, and systems engineering communities. In addition, the program promotes interoperability and assists in

reducing total ownership cost and sustaining readiness. 

The following are the Defense Standardization Program

award recipients for fiscal 2010: 

Individuals 

Larry Crane, US Air Force, 520th Software Maintenance

Squadron, D Flight, Common Air Craft Portable Reprogramming Equipment (CAPRE) Program, developed the software

and firmware needed for transferring mission-critical and other

data to aircraft avionics systems. 

Beverly Wilson, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Land and

Maritime, developed and implemented process improvements

to identify and pursue part standardization opportunities by

analyzing weapons systems provisioning data to identify parts

not covered by standardization documents, and where appropriate recommend actions be taken to cover these documents. 

Teams 

An Army team from the Army Materiel Command (AMC)

successfully crafted a business case for implementing a single

contract – rather than 35 separate contracts – for the procurement of industry standards and specifications. Members of

that team include: Tim Edwards, Gloria Miller, Paul Fritts,

Barbara Bishop, and Cynthia Lee. 

An Army team with representatives from four organizations

developed a test method, and the accompanying military standard, for measuring the resistance of materials used on the

leading edge of helicopter rotor blades to protect them from

particle or sand erosion. Members of that team include:

Richard Squillacioti, Marc Pepi, Lynne Pfledderer, David

Stone, and Andrew Phelps. 

An Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC)-led multi-service team supported the

development and approval of a Joint Modular Intermodal 

Container (JMIC) standard that establishes general design

guidelines and associated tests for JMICs. Members of that

team include: Doug Chesnulovitch, Roy Smith, Jay Abernathy,

John Weed, and Gary Adams. 

A Navy-led team developed a Joint Counter Radio-Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Electronic Warfare

System (JCREW) that will defeat evolving RC-IEDs globally,

with less interference with friendly systems and significantly

reduced operating costs. Members of that team include: Mike

Craft, Keith Plumadore, Bruce Strackbein, Adam Webb, and

Jim Ryan. 

A team from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Troop

Support developed a process to standardize and streamline subsistence line items of supply to meet criteria and requirements

of the upcoming commercial off-the-shelf, Common Food

Management System (CFMS). The team standardized the DLA

catalog which required reviewing 110,000 food items and identified more than 54,500 items to be archived or canceled due to

obsolescence or duplications. Members of that team include:

Catherine Capriotti, Carolyn Dempsey, John Robinson, Scott

Koch, Jeffrey Nienstedt, and Carol Willey.

Source: http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14354

Prior to becoming the WSTIAC Director, John Weed was the Army’s Program Manager for the Joint Modular Intermodal 

Distribution System (JMIDS) team. JMIDS is a system of standard sized modular containers, platforms and automated identification technology that enables the delivery of supplies faster, resulting in reduced convoys, reduced soldier exposure to risk and

increased durability. The team was recognized for their outstanding contributions during a recent award ceremony by the Defense

Standardization Program Office. The JMIDS team won the top award. The full news release is provided below.
AIR FORCE’S X-37B HISTORICAL LANDING ADVANCES

SPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

After 224 days in space since its launch April 22 from Cape

Canaveral, FL, the X-37B orbital test vehicle landing marks the

Air Force’s latest step in experimental test missions to improve

the service’s space capabilities, officials said.

The 11,000-pound orbital test vehicle (OTV) made an

autonomous landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA,

December 3, allowing the Air Force to begin evaluation of its

functions as a satellite communications, weather and material

technology asset, said Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force

for Space Programs Richard McKinney.

“We’re in a very serious and important business of providing national security space capabilities for our nation,” Mr.

McKinney said. “Some of those capabilities are state-of-the-art,

highly complex and very technical, ...and for its first flight,

we’re extremely pleased with the outcome of the X-37B.”

Mr. McKinney said the ability to examine such high-tech

technologies as space situational awareness, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and satellite development before

they’re made operational is a long-sought-after capability that

the X-37B provides. “Now we can test those capabilities long in

advance of putting them in operational space,” he said. 

He added that the X-37B functions like other satellites with

operators on Earth monitoring its travels – with one fundamental difference. “The vehicle was commanded to re-enter,

and there’s a pre-determined routine to fold up the solar array

and then do its re-entry burn to reorient to the right position

to survive the heat during re-entry,” said Lt. Col. Troy Giese,

the X-37B program manager for the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office. Lt. Col. Giese explained that there is no way to

“take over” the vehicle upon landing, but 30th Space Wing

range controllers at Vandenberg AFB could terminate the end

of the flight had the X-37B broken any of the pre-determined

safety boundaries. “The ability to bring a small vehicle that’s

able to launch, operate and land autonomously is really quite

an achievement,” Mr. McKinney said. “Hopefully we’ll be able

to provide a new way for us to develop experiments and technologies for our national security.”

Slated to launch in spring 2011, the X-37B OTV-2 orbit

will incorporate lessons learned from OTV-1, Mr. McKinney

said. “The vehicle performed everything it was asked to do this

particular flight, so now we need to see how the materials 

operated in this long duration, and examine the vehicle since it

was designed to operate for long periods of time,” he added.

FACT SHEET

Mission

The X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, or OTV, is an experimental

test program to demonstrate technologies for a reliable,

reusable, unmanned space test platform for the US Air

Force. The primary objectives of the X-37B are twofold:

reusable spacecraft technologies for America’s future in space

and operating experiments which can be returned to, and

examined, on Earth.

FEATURES

The X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle is the newest and most

advanced re-entry spacecraft. Based on NASA’s X-37 design,

the unmanned OTV is designed for vertical launch to low

Earth orbit altitudes where it can perform long duration space

technology experimentation and testing. Upon command

from the ground, the OTV autonomously re-enters the 

atmosphere, descends and lands horizontally on a runway. 

The X-37B is the first vehicle since NASA’s Shuttle Orbiter

with the ability to return experiments to Earth for further

inspection and analysis, but with an on-orbit time of 270 days,

the X-37B can stay in space for much longer.

Technologies being tested in the program include advanced

guidance, navigation and control, thermal protection systems,

avionics, high temperature structures and seals, conformal

reusable insulation, lightweight electromechanical flight systems, and autonomous orbital flight, re-entry and landing.

BACKGROUND

The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office is leading the Department of Defense’s Orbital Test Vehicle initiative, by direction of

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 10 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

in the news...

The X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle sits on the runway

at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, December 3,

2010, during post-landing operations. Personnel

in self-contained atmospheric protective 

ensemble suits are conducting initial checks on

the vehicle and ensuring the area is safe. The 

X-37B launched April 22, 2010 from Cape

Canaveral, FL, allowing teams to conduct onorbit experiments for more than 220 days 

during this first mission. (US Air Force

photo/Michael Stonecypher)

continued on page 10
in the news...

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 11 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology

and Logistics and the Secretary of the Air Force. The Air Force

OTV effort uses extensive contractor and government investments in the X-37 program by the Air Force, NASA and the

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to continue fullscale development and on-orbit testing of a long-duration,

reusable space vehicle.

NASA’s original X-37 program began in 1999 and ran until

September 2004 when NASA transferred the program to

DARPA. NASA envisioned building two vehicles, an Approach

and Landing Test Vehicle, or ALTV, and an Orbital Vehicle.

The ALTV validated flight dynamics and extended the flight

envelope beyond the low speed/low altitude tests conducted 

by NASA from 1998 through 2001 on the X-40A, a sub-scale

version of the X-37 developed by Air Force Research Labs.

DARPA completed the ALTV portion of the X-37 program in

September 2006 by successfully executing a series of captive

carry and free flight tests. NASA’s X-37 Orbital Vehicle was

never built, but its design was the starting point for the Air

Force’s X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle program.

The Air Force’s first X-37B, OTV-1, launched from Cape

Canaveral Air Force Station, FL, April 22, 2010 and performed

a successful autonomous landing at Vandenberg AFB, CA,

December 3, 2010, after approximately 91 million miles and

224 days, 8 hours and 24 minutes in orbit.

General Characteristics

Primary Mission: Experimental test vehicle

Prime Contractor: Boeing

Height: 9 feet, 6 inches (2.9 meters)

Length: 29 feet, 3 inches (8.9 meters)

Wingspan: 14 feet, 11 inches (4.5 meters)

Launch Weight: 11,000 pounds (4,990 kilograms)

Power: Gallium Arsenide Solar Cells with lithium-ion batteries

Launch Vehicle: United Launch Alliance Atlas V (501)

Source: http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=16639

continued from page 9

ARMY LOOKING AT VTOL, BALLOONS TO MEET ISR

REQUIREMENTS

Unmanned air vehicles that can provide persistent stare capabilities and that can launch vertically are something the Army

is investigating now. During the Army Aviation Association of

America’s three-day forum on unmanned aircraft, leaders discussed both vertical take-off and landing aircraft, or VTOL, as

well as the Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle. “The

Army, specifically our folks down at Fort Rucker, the Training

and Doctrine Command capabilities mangers, are always

doing an analysis of what are the emerging capabilities gaps

that are out there,” said Col. Bill Morris, director of Army 

Aviation, G-3/5/7. We’re looking closely at all of the different

joint tests that are being done. The Marine Corps is doing a

joint test on VTOL, and we know SOCOM has a vested interest in their VTOL. Once it comes out there we’re going to look

at that capability.”

Terry Mitchell, the director of intelligence futures, Army 

G-2, said the Army has specific requirements for VTOL capability. “(We’re) looking at a VTOL capability that has long legs.

Something that can stay up for 8-9 hours. Something that can

go up to 20,000 feet. Something that can carry about 1,000

pounds of payload. That kind of started our discussion,” he

said. “(It’s) the ability to stay in a mission over watch where you

watch a team take down a target, to basically hover over them,

to move quickly and keep on them.”

Mitchell said that kind of capability is something that 

can be provided by VTOL aircraft as well as the LEMV aircraft the Army has contracted for. The LEMV, a helium-filled

blimp, provides 21-day persistent intelligence, surveillance

and reconnaissance capability. “When it flies, it has four 

(full-motion video) balls alone,” said Mitchell of the LEMV

aircraft. The intelligence capability it brings is equivalent to

20 flights provided by C-12 aircraft. “That’s a lot of mission

sets,” he said. “What this is bringing is a paradigm shift.” The

vehicle is a football-field-sized hybrid airship and is designed

to operate at 20,000 feet above sea level and provide a 2,000-

mile radius of action.

Source: http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/12/15/49465-army-looking-at-vtolballoons-to-meet-isr-requirements/
in the news...

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 12 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

NAVY SETS NEW WORLD RECORD WITH 

ELECTROMAGNETIC RAILGUN DEMONSTRATION

By Geoff Fein, Office of Naval Research Public Affairs

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) achieved a milestone

December 10, 2010 when it successfully conducted a worldrecord 33 megajoule shot of the Electromagnetic Railgun

aboard Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division.

“Today’s railgun test demonstrates the tactical relevance of

this technology, which could one day complement traditional

surface ship combat systems,” said Rear Adm. Nevin Carr, chief

of naval research. “The 33 megajoule shot means the Navy 

can fire projectiles at least 110 nautical miles, placing Sailors

and Marines at a safe standoff distance and out of harm’s way,

and the high velocities achievable are tactically relevant for air

and missile defense,” he said. “This demonstration moves us

one day closer to getting this advanced capability to sea.”

Besides the extended ranges, the railgun also improves 

safety for Sailors and Marines because it will eliminate the

need for a high-energy explosive warhead and traditional gun

propellants. Removing explosives and chemicals will reduce

the munitions logistic chain.

A megajoule is a measurement of energy associated with a

mass traveling at a certain velocity. In simple terms, a one-ton

vehicle moving at 100 mph [is approximately] a megajoule of

energy. In 2008, ONR conducted a 10 megajoule shot for

media and visitors at Dahlgren. The recent demonstration

showed researchers are steadily progressing toward developing a

gun that could hit targets almost 20 times farther than conventional ship combat systems. A 33 megajoule shot, for example,

could potentially reach extended ranges with Mach 5 velocity,

five times the speed of sound.

The Department of the Navy’s Office of Naval Research

provides the science and technology necessary to maintain the

Navy and Marine Corps’ technological advantage. Through its

affiliates, ONR is a leader in science and technology with

engagement in 50 states, 70 countries, 1,035 institutions of

higher learning, and 914 industry partners. ONR employs

approximately 1,400 people, comprising uniformed, civilian

and contract personnel.

Source: http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=57690
in the news...

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 13 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

ROBOT ‘THINKS’ ITS WAY THROUGH OBSTACLE COURSE

AT ARMY SCIENCE CONFERENCE

By Sarah Maxwell, Army Research Laboratory

Smarter, smaller and more mobile robots the Army Research

Laboratory (ARL) helped fund captured attendees’ attention at

the 27th annual Army Science Conference held in Orlando,

FL, November 29-December 2, 2010. The University of Pennsylvania’s flying robotic platform the “Pelican” perfectly navigated a course on its own, going under, over and around obstacles in front of impressed crowds. “The goal of the project is

to have it navigate through a map without people helping it,”

said Penn’s Nathan Michael, whose research is part 

of ARL’s Micro Autonomous Systems and Technology Collaborative Technology Alliance, or MAST CTA.

The whole thing, including the computer, weighs less than

three pounds, and just a few years ago the technology would

have taken a computer big enough to fill the back of a car, said

Michael. Not only has the robotic platform become much

smaller, but it is also able to perform much more on its own.

“It takes a higher level of thought,” said Michael. 

Equipped with sensing technologies, a laser camera, and a

light-weight, low-power computer to interpret what the robot

“sees” and “feels,” it is able to fly both in- and outdoors, a feat

that takes very complex computing. “It’s asking questions like,

‘Where is my location? How do I plan in that map? How much

wind can I control?’” said Michael. The Pelican then determines its own route by taking into account the environment,

what it needs to do to fly, and even its battery power, he added.

While Michael and other scientists continue perfecting the

platform, they also take into consideration the MAST CTA,

which is driving them toward even smaller scales, possibly

something that could eventually fit in the palm of a hand. 

With Penn’s research leading the CTA’s processing for

automation research area, the overall alliance is actually lead by

BAE Systems and acts as a partnership between ARL, 10 member institutions, eight sub-awardees and three transition partners, according to its website. The overall goal is to develop

autonomous, multifunctional, collaborative ensembles of agile,

mobile micro-systems to enhance tactical situational awareness

in urban and complex terrain for small unit operations. 

ARL acts as the Army’s corporate laboratory and is part 

of the US Army Research, Development and Engineering

Command.

Source: http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/12/01/48864-robot-thinks-its-waythrough-obstacle-course-at-army-science-conference/
in the news...

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 1 14 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

HOW FAST CAN COUNTER-IED TOOLS BE FIELDED?

By Franz Holzer, Joint IED Defeat Organization

Rapid acquisition lets the Joint IED Defeat Organization

(JIEDDO) deliver tools quickly to warfighters so they can

counter improvised explosive devices. Rapid acquisition,

according a JIEDDO official, reduces the buying decision

to as few as two criteria: will it work, and how fast can the

warfighter have it?

A less-than-perfect solution can be implemented, said

Mitchell A. Howell, JIEDDO deputy director for Rapid

Acquisition and Technology, if it meets the immediate

need. “We have two main criteria to consider, as we look

at technology to help the warfighter,” said Howell. “The

real environment determines what tools actually can work, so we

look at those tools in terms of their performance capability, and

how quickly we can get them fielded.”

Ordinary military acquisition processes can take several years,

consider hundreds of competing capacities and limitations, and

keep the ultimate customer waiting. JIEDDO works to develop,

acquire and deliver C-IED capabilities within four to 24 months

of identifying a capability gap. 

One of the major components of rapid acquisition is what

Howell calls “expectation management.” The Joint IED Defeat

Capability Approval and Acquisition Management Process is the

organization’s “hammer” for the rapid acquisition “nail” as

JCAAMP guides tools from the idea stage to the in-hand stage.

“The key to rapid acquisition,” he said, “is multiple approaches

simultaneously. You have performance-based requirements at the

same time you have cost-based requirements.” 

“With performance-based requirements, any tool that makes

the cut gets bought,” Howell said. “But you want to use something intuitive. It has to be something we can pursue to improve

our current successful human skills.” 

Rigorous JCAAMP procedures include exploring public and

private-sector networks for the best “fit” in the capability gap.

Given the dynamics of a modern littoral battlefield, that gap can

appear at any time, he said, as need to fill the gap arises. “You can’t

just produce technology for technology’s sake,” said Howell.

Demand for appropriate tools useful in C-IED continues to

increase as an adaptive enemy finds countermeasures for war -

fighters’ techniques. “We need to anticipate and react to their

changes.” 

Howell cited the example of the victim-operated IED, which

he said now accounts for some 70 percent of fatal IED events. He

examines such data in his risk analysis, as he explores potential

technological solutions, to see if he has the resources he needs,

and if the solutions perform as expected. “We do a facts-based

analysis. Sometimes we find the risk of waiting for the 100-percent solution to be too costly in lives,” he said. “You have the

same dilemma in rapid acquisition as anywhere else. Do you want

it good, or fast or cheap? You can only have two of those,” 

Howell said. “We choose good and fast because that’s what saves

the most lives.”

The deputy director recounted how his International Security Assistance Force coalition counterparts, attending a recent

counter-IED symposium in London, agreed with those two

acquisition criteria, and that the many partners could learn from

one another the best ways to meet the challenges. “Ours isn’t the

only approach,” he said. “We keep an open mind. We look at

trends and the solutions they have, [knowing] we benefit from

staying open to new equipment and capabilities.”

Howell looks at the benefits of collaborative changes in

processes and procedures. “We can always improve the way we

work together [and] a symposium is a place to glean and share

information,” he said. “You can show where these pay off in

terms of lives saved, injuries reduced and a more effective fighting force.”

Learning and applying principles of interoperability have

helped coalition forces point to some better results on the battlefield recently. Afghan and coalition forces frequently have participated together in operations whose results have included killing

and capturing IED facilitators accustomed to operating with

impunity. “Coalition forces leverage what they have learned to

fight a low-cost, high-impact weapon,” said Howell. “It works

both ways – we and our partners try to leverage what benefits us.”

Communication comes first, according to Howell. “We’re still

working on that,” he said. “We had to build the Afghan Mission

Network so we all could communicate. We have our national 

systems, but we now have better communication using new

equipment and techniques.”

Cost also is a factor in acquisition. Any funding used for one

purchase stops its use for another. This component of JIEDDO’s

cost-based requirement has been subjected recently to more

scrutiny as the Department of Defense anticipates budget cuts. 

“I said we could accept less than 100-percent capability if it

will save lives,” Howell said. “That means we are not looking for

the ‘silver bullet.’ We [need] performance and we [need] it now.” 

He returned from the London C-IED symposium earlier this

year saying he saw more enthusiasm for supporting the warfighter in the field. “Other organizations and many of our coalition

partners do not have all the rapid acquisition techniques we use,”

he said. “Sometimes they may buy something we use, as a result.”

Howell described his practical reason for the collaboration

among partners. “If it benefits the warfighter, that’s what we’re

here to do,” he said.

Source: http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/12/16/49580-how-fast-can-counter-ied-toolsbe-fielded/
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

WSTIAC Directory

WSTIAC DIRECTOR

John L. Weed

100 Valley Road, Ste 102

Mount Arlington, NJ 07856

973.770.0123; Fax: 973.770.1808

Email: jweed@alionscience.com

WSTIAC PROGRAM COORDINATOR

Mary Priore

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440

315.339.7135; Fax: 315.337.9932

Email: mpriore@alionscience.com

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

Attn: IAC Program Office (DTIC-I)

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Ste 0944

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218

703.767.9120; Fax: 703.767.9119

Email: iac@dtic.mil

URL: http://iac.dtic.mil/

TECHNICAL INQUIRIES

Owen Conniff

Bruce Dudley

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440

877.WST.USER; Fax: 315.337.9932

Email: wstiac@alionscience.com

TRAINING COURSE COORDINATOR

Gina Nash

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440

315.339.7047; Fax: 315.337.9932

Email: gnash@alionscience.com

For a listing of upcoming weapon systems technology related events, please visit our website: 

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/calendar

january february march april may june july august september october november december 

Create a professional foundation

Learn the fundamental concepts that will allow you to

expand your career further when on the job or in the field.

Accelerate at your pace

Who has time for one week training sessions? Our 

courses are designed to get you up to speed in 2-3 days.

Courses are continuously offered, allowing you to

advance when it is most convenient for you. 

Connect with experts

Our instructors have a combined 100+ years of 

experience in weapon systems technology, with a 

proven track record in their areas of expertise.

Meet your challenges and your budget

Whether your training budget includes one, two or 

all of our courses, our offerings are designed 

to accommodate your time and budget constraints.

Current Course Offerings

• Improvised Explosive Device

(IED)

• Smart/Precision Weapons 

• Introduction to Weaponeering

• Rocket Propelled Grenades

GET UP TO SPEED FAST ON WEAPON SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY

Whether you are on the front line or providing support to our military, you need a fundamental knowledge 

of current weapon systems. Our training program is designed to give you a firm understanding of conventional and directed energy weapons and is focused on getting you up to speed fast.

FOR CURRENT COURSE OFFERINGS AND PRICING:

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/training 315.339.7047
Inquiry Line/Ask the Experts

877.WST.USER

Free Subscription http://wstiac.alionscience.com/subscribe

201 Mill Street, Rome, NY 13440-6916

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

Please update...

your subscription information at: http://wstiac.alionscience.com/subscribe