Volume 4, Number 4

Winter 2004

Contents

Progress in DEW

Part III 1

Director’s Corner

Gary J. Gray 2

Report Forum on Weapon

Systems Effectiveness 9

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

P r o g r e s s i n

Di r e c t e d E n e r g y W e a p o n s

P a r t I I I : P u l s e P o w e r f o r DE W

By Dr. Edward P. Scannell

Chief Scientist, WSTIAC

Introduction

This is the third of a triad of articles on Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs). The

first article by Mark Scott covered High Energy Laser (HEL) Weapons (Vol. 4, No.1,

Spring 2003), and in the second article, by the present author, we reviewed Radio

Frequency DEWs, most often referred to as High Power Microwave (HPM)

Weapons, which constitute the second largest R&D effort in the DEW field. Since

there are other possible types of DEWs, (such as Relativistic Particle Beams (RPBs),

etc.), the previous articles set forth a few definitions that differentiated between

them, especially with respect to their particular applications and target effects,

which bound their usefulness to the warfighters and the platforms they must use

for the whole battlespace. The output parameter limits placed on the various

technologies by the operational requirements and environments, in turn, produced "design drivers" that defined the total integrated DEW system. One of the

major design drivers (perhaps the most important after the target lethality requirements) is the electrical and pulsed power required by all DEWs. The present article will review, what to this time may be called the "Achilles heel," of DEWs, i.e.,

the usually large and heavy Pulsed Power Systems that are necessary to provide

the tremendous power and energy requirements of DEW systems, as well as the

power conversion and conditioning components and subsystems between the

prime power source and ultimate DEW source and radiator, whether it be laser,

microwave or other type of DEW.

Pulsed Power for DEWs -Background

Although perhaps not as glamorous a subject to most as the Directed Energy

Weapon (DEW) sources themselves, unfortunately, as noted above, the Pulsed

Power Subsystem (PPS) usually represents the largest payload weight and volume

penalty in the overall DEW system, and therefore requires serious attention by any

researcher or developer, and ultimately by the end user in the latter's deployment

and combat considerations. To this end, we shall endeavor to define and give as

generic a picture as possible of what represents a PPS and what critical path components go into such an important piece of the overall DEW system itself. To do

this, we must first give some indication of what is "Pulse Power" and what differentiates pulse power from continuous power, especially with respect to DEWs:

(continued on page 3) 4

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
2

Ladies and Gentlemen:

With this newsletter, we are asking our existing and first-time readers for their opinions. Our first-time readers are made up of

many of my former leaders and colleagues that will be seeing the WSTIAC newsletter for the first time. 

To our collective readers, we value your opinions and it is our belief that you may find that we can provide information, products, and services that can help the Department of Defense execute its complex mission more effectively and efficiency. First,

we want to see if you agree. Second, we would like to get your help to continue to improve.

Our first 1000 respondents to our online survey will get a Global Positioning System (GPS) Error Calculator. It can be used to

design a complex weapons system or to determine how far your new GPS-equipped vehicle may be off course.

To help you understand what we are about, below is a sampling of our tasks: 

· Supporting the Director of Defense Research and Engineering's tri-Service Energy and Power Technology Initiative. 

· Supporting Army's Objective Force air and missile defense requirements for the 2015-2020 timeframe

· Supporting the transformation to the Global Information Grid and the Defense Spectrum Office

· Developing an armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicle demonstration for the Army

· Evaluating sensor-based systems to improve mine/minefield detection 

· Supported Red team threat target selection for smart munitions against Future Combat System units

· Developed a comprehensive assessment of Anti-Jam Techniques for GPS 

· Developed the Intelligent Bridge Assessment, Repair and Retrofit Tool to help the soldier determine bridge load assessments

and vulnerabilities.

· Developed Future Strike Fighter trade studies.

As you can see, the type of tasks we can provide is very broad and covers a wide variety of technologies. I hope you get a sense

of the work and the expertise that WSTIAC can provide to help solve your difficult problems. If you want to know more, please

call or email me at 703 933 3362 or gjgray@alionscience.com

Thank you again for your time.

Gary J. Gray

Director

Director’s

Corner

by Mr. Gary J. Gray

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2004

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

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

Information Systems Agency (DISA), 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.
3

What is "Pulse Power"?

iThe application of large stored energies, ε, to a load in time

Τ

iHigh powers are produced, since ε =10 -10,000,000

Joules, and Τ < 1 microsecond (typically)

iExample: 1000 J released in 0.1 microseconds =

10,000,000,000 Watts = 10 large continuous power plants

As can be seen by the huge peak powers quoted above, it is obvious that DEWs require high average power inputs to be converted to extremely high peak values, in order for the DEW sources

(whether lasers, RF/HPM, particle beams, etc.) to produce their

equally tremendous output radiative powers. This is done by

some form of pulse compression or peaking circuit, which forms

a very important part of the overall PPS component train. This is

illustrated below (Fig. 1) in a "typical" example of what are perhaps the most important basic principles to be learned in pulse

power - that of pulse forming or pulse compression and, subsequently, that of impedance matching to the DEW source:

Typical Power Flow Requirements

iDeliver a few kilojoules (kJ) to a DEW source, typically producing an electron beam (CPB or RF-DEW) or laser pump

source or amplifier : 

iTypical values: V ~ 0.5 MV, I ~ 20 kA

iPower ~ 10 GW ⇔ A 60ns pulse contains ~ 600

Joules (About 1/5 power produced by Mid-Atlantic Utilities)

iEnergy Storage, Power Multiplication and Pulse Compression:

Figure 2.

Figure 1.

In the example shown in Fig.1, one can see that, after the first

block, which represents a more or less conventional (but probably customized) power supply that converts the "prime" power

voltage and current (say, from an AC Motor-Generator or "wallplug" value, not shown in Fig. 1) to an indicated DC voltage and

current, the power supply then "charges" an energy storage subsystem or component at this "low" power input of only 50-100

Watts, but for a fairly long period of 20 seconds. The energy

storage element can be any of several types or combination of

components, but it is usually made up of either capacitors or

inductors, for the eventual very high peak powers required by

most DEW sources.

After a natural and/or designed "charging" time, through some

sort of "switching" circuit or series of switching components

(another very important technology that will be discussed in some

detail later), the power in the storage element is released (or

"switched-out," or "dumped") in a much shorter time - in this case

in 0.6 microseconds (1 μsec = 10-6 sec = 1 Billionth of a second). Since the overall energy losses (say, due to ohmic, or resistive, heating) are very low in this process, and are not counted in

this example, the power, being the energy released into the next

stage per unit time, is conserved (remains constant), and is now

POWER

SUPPLY ENERGY

STORAGE DIODE

PULSE 

FORMING

LINE BEAM

50-100W

20 Sec

~ 1 GW

0.6 μSec

~ 10 GW

60 nanosec

V

HIGH

VOLTAGE

LOW

CURRENT

SUPPLY

LOW

VOLTAGE

HIGH

CURRENT

SUPPLY

V

+

_

+

_

HIGH

RESISTANCE

LOW

RESISTANCE

CLOSING

SWITCH

TO

LOAD

TO

LOAD

OPENING

SWITCH

L

CAPACITOR

Energy Storage

Capacitive - Closing Switch 

Inductive - Opening Switch

4

C

"compressed" into a very much higher "peak" value of around 1

Gigawatt (1 GW = 1 Billion or 109 Watt)! Although already at

a very high value, DEW sources most often require even further

compression/peaking, and sometimes further "shaping," so that

the final voltage and/or current pulse applied to the DEW source

generating components results in the most efficient transfer of

"pulse power" to output "radiative" power by the DE source. This

latter transfer process is sometimes referred to as "impedance

matching," in which only a theoretically maximum amount of the

voltage and/or current pulse can be effectively transferred to the

DE source.

The next stage in our pulse power example, the "Pulse Forming

Line" (PFL) subsystem, can be an actual transmission line (or set

of "lines" or cables), but is quite often just another set of capacitors and inductors arranged in a specific way (then becoming a

Pulse Forming "Network" or PFN) to further tailor or "shape" the

pulse for better matching to the final source stage. This PFL/PFN

stage is also often termed, because of its function, a "pulse conditioning" or a "pulse modulation" stage. Some examples of the

most common types of these will also be given in the following.

This final stage in the pulse forming train results in our example

in another order-of-magnitude increase in the peak power up to

10 GW, as a result of the shortening of the pulse in this case by

four orders-of-magnitude, from 0.6μsec down to 60 nanoseconds (1 ns = 10-9 seconds)! 

Pulse Power for DEWs -Energy Storage Subsystems

The fundamental principles of capacitive and inductive energy

storage are illustrated in Fig. 2 below, where it is shown that each

is utilized and, in fact, requires either a high voltage-low current

power supply or vice versa, respectively. In the case of the

capacitive energy storage example at left, "C" is most likely a

bank of capacitors (i.e., a capacitor bank or CB), adding their

individual capacitance to the total, thereby increasing the energy storage capacity. While switch S is open, current flows

through the "charging" (or current "limiting") resistance R from the

prime power or generator source, until the capacitor bank is fully

charged to its maximum capacity, which then (assuming that its

"hold-off" voltage is sufficient to avoid high-voltage breakdown

of the internal dielectric insulator material in the capacitors)

decreases the charging current to zero. At such time as is

required by the user or control electronics, switch S is closed to

initiate the sequence of discharging the energy stored in the CB

to the next stage in the PPS or directly to the DEW (or any other

kind of electrical load), if the PPS is somehow already matched

to the load impedance.
4

The inductor, or coil, example on the right of Fig. 2 represents a

virtual opposite to the capacitive energy storage system on the

left, especially in the physics of their charging and discharging

mechanisms. For capacitive storage, the energy is stored in the

electric fields produced by the opposite electric charges on the

"plates" or conductors separated by the dielectric medium of the

individual capacitors. It is this electric charge that provides the

voltage in parallel across the load, which, when connected to the

load by closing the "closing switch," provides the electromotive

force, or EMF, that produces, in turn, the current through the

load. In the inductive case, however, the energy is stored in the

magnetic field of the inductor, or coil, which is produced by the

low-voltage, high-current supply passing through the low "charging" resistance and then through the inductor and closed opening

switch and back to the power supply, thereby completing the

closed circuit. Magnetic fields around conductors, which are

maximized by wrapping conductors into various coil shapes, only

exist as long as the current persists; so, unlike the energy stored

in the electric fields of the CB, which will remain more or less

intact for long periods (until leakage reduces it over time), the coil

or inductor example must be discharged virtually immediately

after it reaches its maximum designed value of magnetic field

energy, so that the high current power supply and the closed

opening switch, conductors, and other components do not

exceed their own breakdown design values. When the opening

switch is opened in the inductive circuit, the magnetic field energy in the inductor L is released (or re-routed) to the load. As anyone who has flipped on a light switch in the dark knows, there

sometimes can be a substantial spark emanating from the switch.

This is an even larger problem when one is trying to interrupt a

circuit carrying the very large (sometimes Megamps = 1 million

amps) currents required of DEW sources for very brief times (as

with Explosive Driven Pulse Generators, which will be discussed

later), and some process for quenching or extinguishing these

large and dangerous arcs must be provided in the switch design.

Pulse Power for DEWs - Energy Storage/Power

Conditioning Subsystems

We have been discussing CBs and inductors as both energy storage and pulse compression or "power conditioning" elements of

our PPS, and noted two major categories - PFLs and PFNs for the

latter. We have also discussed the fact that there is a maximum

amount of energy that can physically be transferred, if certain

conditions of impedance matching exist. All of this is summarized

in the following:

Energy Storage/Power Conditioning -Line Type Pulser

iThe energy is stored in a continuous or lumped element (i.e.,

"artificial") transmission line

iLumped elements serve as energy storage elements, as well as

pulse-shaping elements during discharge -this is then called a

Pulse Forming Network or PFN

iTwo classes of Line Type Systems:

Voltage fed Current fed

W E = 1⁄2 CV2 W B = 1⁄2 LI2

Closing switch used Opening switch used

iVoltage fed is more common

iIf load impedance matches the line impedance:

V LOAD = V CHARGE / 2 (Maximum)

Line Type Pulser - Pulse Forming Line (PFL)

41 meter coaxial cable corresponds to about 5ns delay

4 Pulse forming lines, PFLs, are used to generate “square” pulses with durations

usually less than several 10’s to 100’s of nanoseconds

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2004

Figure 3. 4

So, how does the PFL or PFN actually "shape" the pulse, and how

does one "match" the impedance of the former to the load? The

answer to the first question is illustrated in Fig. 3 below, where a

power supply is seen to be applying a charging voltage, VC ,

through a charging resistance to a coaxial line of length l. When

the switch is closed, the charged line dumps its energy at voltage

VL across the load, which here is represented as a resistance R,

equal to the characteristic impedance of the line, Z0 . The two

graphs below the schematic indicate the voltage variation over

time at the end of the line and across the load, respectively. In

the top graph, the applied voltage is shown at the charging voltage, VC (represented by the original "step" voltage, due to the

charge on the line), until at time t0 the switch is closed and the

charged line dumps its energy into the load, and the voltage

drops to a value equal to one-half of its original value, because

the line is "terminated" in a resistance equal to the line's characteristic impedance.

Physically, this occurs because, when the line is suddenly terminated in RL = Z0 , half of the static electric field due to the charges

on the line is converted into a dynamic electric field by means of

a time-varying magnetic field, which can be calculated by means

of Maxwell's electromagnetic equations. Another way of putting it,

is that one-half of the initial charge voltage is converted to a traveling wave within the pulse risetime (which is usually not considered in simple circuit theory), and one-half remains as a static

electric field with the charges on the line. An electromagnetic

voltage "wave" reflects back toward the source end of the line,

opposite in phase from the original traveling wave with amplitude

one-half of its applied value, thus canceling half of the applied

pulse amplitude (when the pulse is reflected from the "open" end,

the traveling-wave voltage remains at one-half the source voltage, but the static electric field and charge are reduced to zero).

The time it takes for all this to occur (the pulselength, τ ) depends

on the physical and material properties of the line, as given by its

length, permeability (magnetic properties/constant, μ) and permittivity (dielectric properties/constant, ε), as shown in the equations on the right. The resulting pulse now looks like the one in

the bottom graph, for the values of relative permeability and permittivity shown, after the reflected negative pulse has re-reflected

from the source and essentially cancelled the pulse front end.

P.C.

Power

Supply

( )1

2

P 0 r0r

2L 2L c τ μμεε = =′

r r 1, 2.2

c 20 cm

ns

μ ε = =

→ =′

VC A RL VLOAD

PFL

VLINE

VLOAD

R Z L 0 =

Vc

2

Vc

2

VC

t

t

t=0 t=TP

VLINE
Many other configurations of the basic Rayleigh, or lumped Tline, shown in Fig. 5 are possible, each with source and load

connection characteristics that benefit the particular application.

Some of these different configurations are shown in Fig. 6 below:

Figure 6

5

Figure 4.

This produces the usual "square-wave" type of pulse, unless some

resistive and/or radiative losses are included, which leads to the

trapezoidal shape shown. The resulting pulselength is twice the

delay time of the line.

The importance of the above discussion is that these fundamental principles and mechanisms provide the means by which

almost all PPS energy storage, pulse shaping (peaking, compression, modulation, etc.) and power multiplying circuits operate.

For example, in order to not be restricted to having just half the

applied voltage of a pulser appear at the load, or DEW source,

one can use the traveling voltage (and current) waves explained

above in a Blumlein Circuit, which utilizes the reflections from an

open end of multiple concentric coaxial lines to double or add

at each reflection, much like a sound wave reflects from the open

end of an organ pipe, adding up to give a loud resonance. This

is shown in Fig. 4 below.

Figure 5

Up to this point, we have also been only concerned about an

exact match of the pulser to the load, in order to obtain maximum

energy transfer between them, for consequent maximum efficiency of the PPS. However - especially since this is rarely obtainable

in practice - it is useful to point out here that an exact match is

not really necessary, since there is a considerable variation about

the matched situation that still allows for high values of energy

transfer efficiency, as is shown by the relatively flat portions of the

impedance-matching curve in Fig. 7 around the RL / Z0 = 1

(matching) midpoint:

Voltage Multiplication - Blumlein Circuit

OUTER CYLINDER

INNER CYLINDER

CYLINDER

INTERMEDIATE CHARGING

INDUCTOR

BLUMLEIN

SWITCH

Τ

-V0

Advantage - Full, rather than half charging voltage at load.

In this case, a fast acting switch acts just as the traveling pulse

arrives at one end to change the state from a closed to an open

circuit, so that the reflected pulse adds, rather than cancels, the

outgoing pulse, thereby doubling the pulse amplitude at each

reflection, as many times as is either necessary, or as can be handled by the high voltage limits of the circuit and its components.

So far, we have been discussing the simplest form of pulser, that

of a Pulse Forming Line, or PFL. However, as mentioned above,

if the capacitance and inductance per unit length distributed

along the transmission line is replaced by lumped components,

i.e., actual capacitors and coils, then one has what is called a

Pulsed Forming Network, or PFN. This configuration has many

advantages - especially the power handling and energy storage

capabilities - and is illustrated in Fig. 5 below, with the equations

indicating how its design and output parameters are calculated:

L L L L L

C C C C C

Line Type Pulser - Pulse Forming Network (PFN)

4Pulse Forming Networks, PFNs are used to gnerate “square” pulses with durations grater than 100s of nanoseconds

4PFNs are lumped elements transmission lines

4Example: Rayleigh line of lumped T-line (equal caps and inductors)

RL

T

T

P

T PFN

P

T

PFN

L nL

C nC

T L Z

2

T C

2Z

=

=

=

=

T

PFN

T

max

rise

L L L length Z

C C C length

1 2

T π LC

= = ⋅⋅⋅⋅=

∫= ≈

Output

Switch

and

Load

C2 C4 C6 C8

L8 L6 L2 L4

C2A

L2N

L1

C1

L2

C2

L3

C3

L4

C4

L5

C5

Output

Switch

and

Load

Output

Switch

and

Load

M M M M

L0

C C C C C

L1 L1 L1 L1 L1

L0 L0 L0 L0

Line Type Pulser - 

Pulse Forming Network (PFN) Types

Type A PFN

Type C PFN

Type E PFN

1.0

0.5

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0

Line Type Pulser - Effect of Load

Effect of load mismatch on power transfer

Mismatch of 20-40% is not very critical for the sake of higher power delivery.

t

0

R

Z

P

P

t

0

R

Z

Figure 7

The main reason for mismatches of the pulser to the load is that

the load itself is almost always nonlinear in one form or another

- i.e., its resistance, or impedance (usually complex, in the algebraic, as well as physical sense) - varies with the applied voltage

and/or current. In Fig. 8 below, a simple resistive load is compared with a nonlinear RF-DEW, or HPM, load (a magnetron in

this case), where it is seen that the impedance matching condition for the nonlinear magnetron is a function of the applied and

the cathode bias voltages (along with the plate resistance). 4
To provide even better impedance matching capabilities for really nonlinear loads, as in the magnetron treated in simplistic fashion in Fig. 8, an additional power conditioning component can

be added, in the form of a Pulse Transformer, as shown in Fig. 9,

which shows a relatively complete Line-Type PPS, complete with

switches, a CB-based PFN, and impedance-matching Pulse

Transformer, hooked up to a nonlinear HPM-type DEW source.

However, for both cases, the power delivered to the load is given

by the same relation for the matched condition.

Line Type Pulser - Biased Diode Load

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

6

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2004

+

-

I

t Z0

V0

S Rl

+

-

Z0

V0

Vt

Vs -

+

rl

Vl

S

I

l

0

0 l 0l

0 S

V Z R matched for Z r V 2V

= ← → =⋅ −

Simplified equivalent circuit

for a line-type pulser with a

purely resistive load

Simplified equivalent circuit

for a line-type pulser with a

biased-diode (magnetron)

2

0

l

0

V Inboth cases : P

4Z

=

Rp

ZN LL

Le

Cl

LD

v(t)

Re

CD

V8

rt

CsN

Line Type Pulser - Power

Equivalent discharging unit for a complete line type pulser

Pulse transformer needed to efficiently deliver the

power to a high impedance load.

SWITCH

PULSE-FORMING

NETWORK

PULSE 

TRANSFORMER

LOAD

Having introduced the more common lumped element PFN, starting with the transmission line PFL, we can now introduce voltage

multiplication by means of another lumped element concept

analogous to the Blumlein multiplier circuit, which uses a set of

concentric transmission lines for voltage doubling. This is a very

common type of pulse generator, or pulser concept, called a

Marx Generator, a series of circuits with the general characteristic of charging a bank of capacitors initially connected in parallel, thereby each having the same charging voltage, and then discharging the bank by re-connecting the capacitors in series by a

set of high-voltage switches (as simultaneously as possible),

thereby having their voltages add for a large output voltage and

current. This is shown schematically in Figs. 10 and 11. In Fig.

10, the basic Marx voltage multiplication circuit idea just

described, is shown along with the two most prevalent discrete

(lumped) and distributed (transmission line) circuit types are listed. In Fig. 11, a typical "Marx Bank" circuit is shown. In the latter, when the switches S1 through S4 are open, one can see that

the individual capacitors in the CB are connected in parallel

across the charging voltage source V0. Then, when the switches

S are triggered (theoretically) simultaneously, the capacitors are

connected in series, and their individual voltages add, leading to

the sum of their voltages, V, being applied across the load. The

capacitances and inductances shown connected by dashed lines

are stray values that result from the connecting wires and other

leakage or coupling paths, and these contribute so much to the

overall parameters of the Marx Bank, that they usually play a pivotal role in the design and operation of the pulser and, hence,

must be taken into account either theoretically or experimentally

(preferably both), when a Marx Generator is built.

Voltage Multiplication

+

V

-

E

+

nV

-

Basic idea for “Voltage Multiplication”

g Discrete Elements (Capacitors)

Multiple Switches

iMarx Generator

iLC-Inversion Generator

g Distributed Elements (Transmission Lines)

Single Switch

iBlumlein Generator

iSpiral Generator

C1 C1 C1

Ca Ca Ca

S1

L L L

S2 S3

L

C C C C

L L

S4

V0

R0

V

TO 

LOAD

Voltage Multiplication - Marx Generator

The switches used in Marx Generators are usually spark gaps,

which, despite their long history of troublesome operation, still

provide both the speed and power handling required of the very

high voltage machines needed for DEW (and many other) applications. In actual operation, simultaneous operation of a series

of spark gaps is problematical (they provide much of the "stray"

(Ca and C1) capacitance shown in Fig. 11, and also interact both

electrically and optically through UV radiation from the "sparks"),

and output pulse "jitter" results in not very repeatable waveforms.

Typical triggerable spark gap switch designs and their opera4
Pulse Power for DEWs -Explosive-Driven Pulse Generators

As a last topic, we shall treat the special case of ExplosivelyDriven Pulse Generators (XPGs). These are variously termed

"Magnetic Flux Compression Generators" (MFCGs), "MagnetoCumulative Generators" (MCGs), or by any number of other

terms, mostly depending on the country of origin, historically. The

basic principles of MFCGs are stated and illustrated in Fig. 15

below:

7

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

The universe of high-power switches is illustrated in Fig. 13 below,

where it is seen that the power handling capability of these types

of switches varies as their main switching medium goes from the

solid to liquid to gaseous to plasma states, depending on their

energy or current density handling requirements.

Figure 14

Figure 15

A number of possible geometries of MFCG designs are possible,

as shown in Fig. 16 below:

tion in a 2 Megajoule CB are shown in Fig. 12 below (courtesy

of Ihor Vitkovitsky, from his book "High Power Switching," Van

Nostrand-Reinhold Co., 1987):

HIGH VOLTAGE

ELECTRODES

HIGH VOLTAGE

ELECTRODES

MIDPLANE

TRIGGER

ELECTRODE

TRIGGER

ELECTRODES

INSULATOR Parallel spark gaps firing a 

2 MJ capacitor bank

Triggered Spark Gap

Switches

SOLID LIQUID GAS PLASMA

SOLID GAPS

LIQUID GAPS

FUZES

GAS GAPS

SOLID PTC.

PLASMA SWITCH

SEMICONDUCTOR

VOLUME DISCHARGE IN GAS

THYRATRON

1011

1010

109

108

107

106

105

106

1012

ENERGY

DENSITY

(J/m3)

CURRENT

DENSITY

(A/m2)

High Power Switches

Thus, it can be seen that we have come "full-circle" (or "full-circuit"); to connect our Pulse Power Subsystem into the full DEW

System, as can be seen by a diagram of an HPM System from

our last article on RF-DEWs, recreated in Fig. 14:

ANTENNA

MICROWAVE

PRIME POWER

MODULATOR

CONTROL SYSTEM

HOUSEKEEPING

(Safety interlocks, cooling, etc)

POWER

CONDITIONING

HPM System Basic Block Diagram

Load Load

High Explosive

Pre-Detonation Mid-Detonation

Magnetic Seed Field Compressed Magnetic Field

Seed Current Amplified Current

High Explosive

Figure 16 4

Magnetic Flux Compression (MFC) Geometries

B

I

P CYLINDRICAL 

FIELD GENERATOR

Liner

Explosive

HELICAL MCG

Explosive

Liner

Helix

I

D

PLATE MCG

Explosive

I

Explosive

I

I

COAXIAL MCG

I

I

Explosive

COAXIAL MCG with 

AXIAL DETONATION

D

I I

DISK MCG

Explosive D

I

Explosive

LOOP MCG

I

(MFCGs) -Basic Principles

i Magnetic Flux, Φ=LI, provided by a "seed field" power

supply (battery, capacitor, etc.) is trapped between the armature (inner conducting cylinder surrounding explosive) and

outer stator (coil, helix, etc.) and is compressed as detonation

proceeds from left to right

i Since the total flux is conserved or remains constant during the compression time, i.e., initial flux = final flux, or L0I

0

= LfI

f,, then the shrinking inductance, L, due to reduction in

coil length is accompanied by an equally increasing current, I,

giving the huge output pulse
+

8

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2004

Even MFCGs (especially because of their high-current, relatively

low-voltage outputs) also must match their output impedances to

their respective DEW loads, and normally, a power conditioning

element must therefore be inserted in between the MFCG and

the load, usually in the form of a pulse transformer or, at the minimum, a fuzable link or switch, as shown in Fig. 18:

MFCGs -Coaxial or Helical?

i Coaxial generator physics quite well understood

- Output current calculation successful if current diffusion,

ohmic heating, etc. is taken into account

i Coaxial generator has small theoretical current gain due to

small initial inductance.

i Most coaxial generators are centerline detonated - expensive

i Helical generator physics less well understood

- Output current calculation unsuccessful if same physical

mechanisms as for the coaxial generator are taken into account

i Helical generator has large theoretical current gain due to

large initial inducatance (gain: 100s.....1000s)

i Helical generators are relatively cheap to build and assemble

Microwave Pulser with Explosive Generator

By now, it is hoped that the reader should recognize familiar components and subsystems in these examples that Pulse Power engineers utilize in their designs, regardless of the prime power source

- whether conventional or explosive-driven - for a myriad of DEW

applications. Ultimately, the biggest challenge facing the Pulse

Power scientists and engineers, is whether or not they can tailor

the Pulse Power Subsystem to fit the platform and the operational

parameters, in order to accomplish their intended mission.

A numerical example of a typical MFCG schematic circuit for a

PPS test setup is illustrated in Fig. 19, compared with an equivalent CB pulser, both powering an HPM load (courtesy of Dr.

Magne Kristiansen of Texas Tech University). A physical configuration of an AF laboratory PPS powering a Klystron HPM source

is illustrated in Fig. 20.

Figure 17

Figure 18

4

MFCGs Power Conditioning

Each has its own advantages and disadvantages; however, the

coaxial and helical MFCGs are the most commonly used designs.

Their pros and cons are compared in Fig. 17.

MCG Load Opening

Switch

Closing

Switch

Closing

Switch

L1 L2 Load

M

Transformer

Basic inductive energy storage

Two basic schemes to alleviate

the basic problem with MFCGs:

they produce large currents and

rather low voltages

Inductive energy storage with

transformer

I Spark_Gap 1

Cbank

67.2μF

Lo

10 μH

V

IC=20000

Fuze I

Action_Fuze_exp1

R_fuze=21m

R_max=250k

Beta=10MEG

BlowLim=4.2E4

Sq_mm=0.884

Mass=1.67

Inductance=100nH

I_ini=0.0

Action_Fuze_exp1

R_fuze=21m

R_max=250k

Beta=10MEG

BlowLim=4.2E4

Sq_mm=0.884

Mass=1.67

Inductance=100nH

I_ini=0.0

R_min=50m

R_start=10k

Voltage=600kV

Radius=9.0

Gap=4.0

P_Vel=3MEG

R_min=50m

R_start=10k

Voltage=800kV

Radius=9.0

Gap=4.0

P_Vel=3MEG

Voltage=200kV

T_Close=25ns

R_Open=250k

R_Closed=50m

Ron=1m

Roff=100k

Von=1.0V

Voff=0.0V

Voltage-200kV

T_Closed=25ns

R_Open=250k

R_Closed=50m

L_T_line_a

162nH

10.4pF

C_T_line

162nH

L_T_line_b V +

Gap

C_peak

4.0nF

- V

-

L L_net=30uH

Cbank

67.2μF

V_gnd

+ -

Load

seed Lo I L_T_line_a Spark_Gap 1

Load

-

+

- -

+

out -

out +

I_ini=0.0 I V V + V

IC=7000

1μH

Fuze L_T_line_b

162nH 162nH

Gap

2μH

V_expl

V_Explosion

C_T_line

10.4pF

C_peak

4.0nF

Microwave Pulser with Capacitor Bank

Figure 19

MFCGs - Test Circuit with HPM Source Load

MCG Opening

Switch
9

Figure 20

About the Author: Dr. Edward P. Scannell, WSTIAC Chief

Scientist, is an experimental physicist with

over 30 years of experience in a broad

range of technical areas, in both conducting and managing research and

development programs. He received his

B.S. in Physics from Tulane University in

1965, and his Ph.D. in Physics from

North Carolina State University in 1976.

His areas of technical expertise include:

plasma physics; alternative energy

sources, such as controlled fusion, magnetohydrodynamic (MHD)

generators, nuclear isomers, and fuel cells for both large scale

industrial and compact military applications; electromagnetic

(EM) accelerators for EM guns, space propulsion and nuclear

weapons simulation; and high power microwave (HPM), particle

beam, laser and pulse power physics for directed energy (DE)

applications.♦

techniques for improving performance against separating BMD

targets and laser bioeffects, among others. The progress being

made in tactical high energy lasers was quite impressive, as evidenced by the papers that described the Mobile Theater High

Energy Laser (MTHEL) and the Advanced Tactical Laser ACTD.

Dr. James Walker, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), gave a

very interesting talk that described debris impact testing and

analysis performed by SwRI, NASA and others in support of the

Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The SwRI/NASA tests

showed that the shuttle wing leading edge could be severely

damaged by foam debris striking it under conditions consistent

with those occurring during the Columbia STS 107 launch. The

damage observed in these tests was not all that surprising since

the foam delivered more than five times the kinetic energy and

twenty times the momentum of a Springfield 30-06 hunting rifle

bullet fired at point blank range. 

Forum participants were given an opportunity to tour the Boeing

C-17 Globemaster production line in Long Beach. The C-17

employs a "supercritical" wing designed to delay and reduce the

drag rise at high subsonic speeds, thus enhancing fuel efficiency

and speed. This aircraft can rapidly deliver more than 100 troops

or approximately 85 tons of cargo to main operating bases or

forward bases in a deployment area. C-17s have recently supported U. S. deployments during Operation Enduring Freedom

and Operation Iraqi Freedom and in the future are expected to

transport the Future Combat Systems. 

The classified proceedings from this AIAA Forum are expected to

be available in February 2004 from the Defense Technical

Information Center, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Ft.

Belvoir, VA 22060-6218. Requesters must be registered DTIC

users and must also be approved to access classified information.

Dr. Wes Kitchens

Vice President, Hicks and Associates

McLean, VA

(703) 676-6292

Report from the AIAA 3rd Biennial National

Forum on Weapon Systems Effectiveness

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

3rd Biennial National Forum on Weapon Systems Effectiveness

was held 18-20 November 2003 at the Boeing Company in Seal

Beach, CA. This classified Forum was organized by the AIAA

Weapon Systems Effectiveness Technical Committee. 

The Forum featured technical sessions that covered the Future

Combat Systems (FCS), ballistic missile defense systems, naval

weapon systems, weapons of mass destruction mitigating solutions and technologies, emerging technologies, laser weapon

systems and technologies, and test and evaluation for weapon

systems. Two keynote talks discussed the military effectiveness of

U. S. weapon systems, such as JDAM, JSOW, Hellfire and the

GBU-16 Laser Guided Bomb. MG James Amos, Commanding

General, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, discussed the use and effectiveness of advanced weapon systems during Operation Iraqi

Freedom, and Lt Col Harry Conley, Chief, System Analysis

Branch, USAF Air Combat Command, discussed the effectiveness of air-to-ground weapons during Operation Enduring

Freedom in Afghanistan. The Honorable Phil Coyle, Senior

Advisor, Center for Defense Information, and former Director of

Operational Test and Evaluation, Office of the Secretary of

Defense, gave a keynote talk that presented his personal views

on the measurement of BMD systems effectiveness. Dr. Sandra

Slivinsky, Air Force Research Laboratory, gave a keynote talk that

described the future of prompt global strike and showed how the

Common Aero Vehicle will permit us to perform a variety of

future precision deep strike missions.

Many technical papers of interest to WSTIAC users were presented at the Forum, including papers on topics such as FCS military operational effectiveness, unmanned ground vehicle technology, survivability/lethality modeling, integrated C4ISR for networked fires, anti-jam techniques for improving guided weapon

performance, Aegis BMD testing, novel penetrator lethality, naval

surface fire support, countermeasures to chemical and biological weapons, miniature kill vehicle system effectiveness, penetrator guidance technologies, advances in electromagnetic launch

technologies, impact of UCAVs on future airpower, guidance 

Editor’s Note: Dr. Kitchens served as Director of WSTIAC

2000-2002.

Banshee Pulsed Power Modulator Driving Annular Beam 

Klystron & Magnet

160 caps

PFN/Blumleins

50 kV PFN Modulator

Thyratron-Switched Line-Type Modulator 

-800 kV, 4 kA

-Continuous operation at 5 Hz 

-> 1 msec pulse width

Facility -

-10 kG DC solenoid magnet w/ 1/2

MW prime power & cooling

-Vertical operation of ABK

Lift table
10

THAAD is the only missile system specifically designed to intercept

and destroy incoming ballistic missiles both inside and outside the

earth's atmosphere. The program will be entering its next phase

of flight testing at White Sands Missile Range later this year.

Missile Defense Agency Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

Project Office Huntsville Ala. (256) 842-0561 – Pam Rogers

ARMY ANNOUNCES INITIAL RESULTS OF 

AVIATION REVIEW

The Army announced today the initial results of its ongoing review

of Army aviation. The comprehensive review has produced several strategic recommendations that will be acted on now to ensure

Army aviation meets the current and future challenges of an

evolving operational environment and incorporates lessons

learned from the Global War on Terrorism.

The review and lessons learned from the last two and a half years

of war reinforce recent decisions to make the Army more joint

and expeditionary with balanced and integrated capabilities

between the Active and Reserve Components. Army formations

are currently transforming into more lethal, agile, modular, strategically flexible and cohesive units that can train, deploy and fight

together in full-spectrum operations.

Lessons learned and the aviation review also reemphasized the

importance of maintaining versatile and survivable aviation formations that are effective in both combat and stability operations.

Therefore, the Army must replace and recapitalize its current helicopter fleet to increase aircraft survivability, sustainability and

operability.

Army Aviation will restructure in order to: accelerate air crew protection and Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) initiatives to

meet the evolving threat and provide every aircraft with the best

possible equipment; modernize approximately 1,400 helicopters

to extend aviation capabilities beyond 2020; transform Reserve

Component aviation; purchase approximately 800 new aircraft;

accelerate the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program to add

platforms that extend battlefield awareness and strengthen

manned-unmanned teaming; and balance current and future

Army Aviation capabilities.

The President and the Secretary of Defense have approved the

Army’s recommendation to submit a budget amendment to

Congress for the FY ’05 budget request that would allow the

Army to terminate the Comanche program and reallocate

approximately $14.6 billion (FY 04 – 11) to restructure and revitalize Army aviation to meet current and future needs. This important Army recommendation was made after months of comprehensive studies and consideration of numerous alternatives.

Reallocated funds and aviation restructure will also allow the

Army to pursue Joint aviation programs, modularize and standardize aviation formations across the Active and Reserve

Components, and accelerate the resourcing of the Army’s tactical UAV programs. This also requires the industrial base to

increase its production capability to meet the Army’s requirements for new and modernized aircraft. The net result of this reallocation will be the new purchase, upgrade, recapitalization, or

modernization of over 70 percent of the rotary winged fleet.

Strengthening Army aviation reaffirms and energizes the Army’s

commitment to Department of Defense and Army Transformation

and Future Combat System (FCS). Using resources currently allocated for 121 Comanche platforms, the Army can accelerate

transformation through the next two decades to meet its aviation

needs. Army Public Affairs Washington DC.

HYBRIDS ON THE HIGH SEAS: FUEL CELLS FOR

FUTURE SHIPS

As hybrid electric cars become more commonplace on America’s

highways, the Navy is working to bring hybrid electric ships to the

high seas. The Office of Naval Research is developing innovative

propulsion systems based on new fuel-cell technology for efficient

generation of electrical power - and greater design flexibility - for

future ships.

To ensure a relatively quick transition to this promising technology, ONR is funding development of a method to extract hydrogen

from diesel fuel. A diesel reforming system would take advantage

of the relative low cost of the fuel and the Navy’s established

infrastructure for buying, storing, and transporting it.

Unlike gas turbines and diesel engines, fuel cells do not require

combustion, and therefore don’t produce pollutants such as nitrogen oxide. Fuel cells are also far more efficient than combustion

engines. ONR program officer Anthony Nickens explains that "the

Navy’s shipboard gas-turbine engines typically operate at 16 to

18 percent efficiency because Navy ships usually sail at low to

medium speeds that don’t require peak use of the power plant.

The fuel cell system that ONR is developing will be capable of

between 37 to 52 percent efficiency."

Moreover, fuel cells will permit design of a "distributed" power system, since unlike conventional engines, they can be dispersed

throughout the ship instead of being co-located with the ship’s

shaft. This added flexibility will improve ship survivability. Nickens

says that the Navy’s DD(X) land-attack destroyer program is very

interested in fuel cell technology as a supplemental power

source. Fuel cells combine improved efficiency, low emissions,

and design flexibility, all of which help slash shipbuilding costs -

a bottom-line goal of the Navy’s current "transformation" efforts.

ONR is testing a 500-kilowatt diesel fuel reformer, or "integrated

fuel processor," that is compatible with a proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell, at the Department of Energy Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho

Falls. Reforming diesel is especially tricky due to the sulfur present in the fuel. The integrated fuel processor heats and vaporizes

the diesel, then the sulfur in it is converted into hydrogen sulfide.

The hydrogen sulfide is then exposed to zinc oxide, oxidizing the

sulfur into sulfur dioxide, and separating it from the hydrogen.

The testing will continue through June 2004 to prove out the

reforming process. Meanwhile, ONR is looking at design

approaches to reduce the size of the processor, which consists of

an arrangement of valves, water-gas shift reactors, an oxidizer,

and other components, so that it won’t take up too much space

on a Navy ship.

Office of Naval Research Ed Walsh, 703-588-1010; e-mail:

Edward_Walsh@onr.navy.mil.

THAAD Name Change

The Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) System has

undergone a name change to more accurately reflect its position

in the multi-layered Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). The

"T" in THAAD will now stand for "Terminal," indicating its position

as a terminal element of BMDS. THAAD is designed to intercept

targets as they enter the terminal, or last, phase of a ballistic trajectory. The name change was directed last week in a decision by

Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, director of the Missile Defense Agency.

in the news. . .
WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2004

11

Directed Energy Weapons Course

Instructor: Dr. Edward Scannell, WSTIAC

Course Description: 

This one day short course provides an introduction to the

basic principles and techniques of Directed Energy

Weapons (DEWs). Weapon system applications will also

be thoroughly analyzed. 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 DEW developments and

deployments in the international arena. The key DEW programs in High Energy Lasers and RF-DEWs or High Power

Microwaves will be fully described.

This short course is provided by the Weapon System

Technology Information Analysis Center (WSTIAC). It 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. 

These and many other critical questions will be examined:

Fee:

The registration fee for this one day course is $700 for U.S.

government personnel and $800 for government contractors. Contractor teams of 3 or more, registered at the

same time, are charged $700 per person. 

Location: Huntsville, Alabama

6 April, 27 July, 30 November 2004

(Course starts at 0800 and ends at 1700 hours)

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.

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 a senior member of Alion's technical staff and also serves as WSTIAC's Chief Scientist. Dr.

Scannell was Chief of the Directed Energy and Power

Generation Division of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory.

He has over 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 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO) and

is export controlled. The security classification of this

course is SECRET (U.S. citizens only) to facilitate discussions.

Handout Material:

Each student will receive a comprehensive set of course

notes covering the material presented.

Training Location:

The course is taught at 215 Wynn Drive, Suite 101,

Huntsville. AL 35805 

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: Paul Kisatsky or Mark Scott, WSTIAC

Location: Huntsville, Alabama

2-4 March, 25-27 May, 17-19 August, 28-30 September 2004

(Course starts at 0800 Tuesday and ends at 1630 Thursday)

Course Description: 

This 3-day 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 

About the Instructors: 

Both Paul Kisatsky and Mark Scott are Senior Technology

Scientists with Alion Science and Technology. They are recognized as Subject Matter Experts on sensors and seekers

for smart munitions and weapons and both have more

than 25 years of hands-on experience in sensors and seekers analysis of modern smart munitions and weapons.

Security Classification:

This course is unclassified.

Training Location:

The course is taught at 215 Wynn Drive, Suite 101,

Huntsville, AL 35805.

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.

"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.
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.

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 is preparing a text book on the subject.

Security Classification:

The 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

20-22 April, 31 August-2 September, 7-9 December 2004

(Course starts at 0800 Tuesday and ends at noon Thursday)

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2004
14 14

Training Location:

The course is taught at 215 Wynn Drive, Suite 101,

Huntsville, AL 35805

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

17-19 February, 30 March-1 April, 11-13 May, 13-15 July, 19-21 October, 

16-18 November 2004

(Course starts at 0800 Tuesday and ends at noon Thursday)

Course Description: 

This 21⁄2-day short course provides a general 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 Muniion (JDAM), Joint Air-to-Surface

Standoff Missile (JASSM), Javelin, Line-of-Sight AntiTank (LOSAT), Excalibur, Extended Range Guided

Munition (ERGM), Common Missile, Tomahawk,

Standoff Land Attack Missile - Expanded Response

(SLAM-ER), Cluster Bomb Munitions and Non Line

of Sight - Launch Systems, 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) and is export controlled. The security classification of this course is SECRET (U.S. citizens only) to

facilitate discussions.

About the Instructors: 

Mr. Mark Scott and Mr. Hunter Chockley are Science

Advisors with Alion. Each instructor has more than 25

years of experience with weapons technology and/or

smart/precision weapons. They have conducted

advanced concept studies, weapon system/subsystem

analyses and comparison of alternatives, subsystem

assessments to include Seekers /Sensors, CM/CCM,

and simulation/analysis tool development.
15

March 2004 ch 2004

15-18 March 2004

2004 Joint Undersea Warfare Technology Spring

Conference

"Understanding the Littoral Undersea Warfare Challenges"

SECRET/NOFORN

Naval Postgraduate School

Monterey, CA

For additional information

Email: kwilliams@ndia.org 

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

&SID=_1400KR1FM&MID=4260

22-25 March 2004

2004 Interoperability and Systems Integration

Conference

Denver, CO

For additional information

Email: pedmonson@ndia.org 

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

&SID=_1400KR1FM&MID=4120

22-26 March 2004

2nd Missile Defense Conference and Exhibit

SECRET - US-ONLY

Washington DC

For additional information

http://www.aiaa.org/calendar/index.hfm?cal=5&luMeetingid

=945

28 March-1 April 2004

10th International Conference on Robotics and Remote

Systems

Gainesville, FL 

For additional information

Contact Prof. Carl D. Crane III

ccrane@ufl.edu 

http://urpr.nuceng.ufl.edu/March2004.htm

29-30 March 2004

Second Annual Military Fuel Cell Conference

Las Vegas NV

For additional information

http://www.ttcus.com/mfc/index.html

30-31 March 2004

Combat UAV 2004

Arlington, VA

For additional information

E-mail: info@idga.org

http://www.idga.org 

29 March - 1 April 2004

DTIC Annual Users Meeting and Training Conference

Alexandria, VA

For additional information

E-mail: coninfo@dtic.mil

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/annualconf

April 2004 April 2004

13-16 April 2004

39th Annual Gun & Ammunition / Missiles & Rockets

Conference & Exhibition

Baltimore, MD

For additional information

dkhan@ndia.org 

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

&SID=_1400KR1FM&MID=4590

26-28 April 2004

48th Annual Fuze Conference

Technology in Fuzing

Charlotte, NC

For additional information

POC: cohara@ndia.org 

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

&SID=_1400KR1FM&MID=4560

26 Apr - 29 Apr 2004

PLANS 2004

2004 IEEE Position, Location and Navigation

Symposium

Monterey, CA 

For additional information

http://www.plans-ieee.org/ 

26 April-01 May 2004 

2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and

Automation

New Orleans, LA 

For additional information

http://www.icra2004.org/ 

29 April 2004

2004 Strike, Land Attack & Air Defense (SLAAD)

Annual Symposium

Applied Physics Lab

Laurel, MD 

For additional information

POC: kwilliams@ndia.org 

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

&SID=_1400KR1FM&MID=4100

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

Upcoming Conferences and Courses

WSTIAC Newsletter Winter 2004
16

Inside this issue

Progress in DEW Part III

Director’s Corner Gary J. Gray

Weapon Systems Effectiveness

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)

1901 N Beauregard Street,Suite 400

Alexandria VA 22311-1705