Volume 5, Number 3

Fall 2004

Contents

Vehicle for Change

Army Combat forces1

Director’s Corner 2

Welcoming Mark Jones 7

FYI 8

in the news 9

WSTIACCourses: 

Directed Energy 11 

Sensors/Seekers 12

Weaponeering 13

Precision Weapons 14

Calendar of Events 15

WSTIAC is a DoD Information Analysis

Center Sponsored by the Defense

Technical Information Center 

WST

WEAPON SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INFORMAT ION ANALYSIS CENTE R

IAC

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Vehicle for Change - 

Army Combat Forces

by Andrus Viillu

Introduction

The U.S. Army is taking the lead within the Department of Defense in

transforming its combat forces. At the center of this change is the Future

Combat Systems (FCS) Organizational and Operational (O&O) concept

for Units of Action (UAs) which revolutionizes how Army units will fight in

future conflicts. At the heart of this revolutionary transformation are concepts that will enable commanders to make better informed and time sensitive decisions on the increasingly complex future battlefields. Both the

flow of information and robust on-the-move communications network to

coordinate and implement the Commander's decisions are essential components of the FCS concept. Of nearly equal importance is a revolution

in how the UAs will fight. The concept requires an integrated capability

to acquire and rapidly defeat enemy forces at standoff ranges 10s of kilometers away from supported maneuver elements, limiting casualties

associated with intense direct fire battles. The UA operational tenants are

finish the battle quickly, move rapidly to the next engagement, and substantially shorten the duration of the conflict.

In the midst of this revolutionary change, the U.S. Army more than any

other service, is shouldering the nation's financial and operational burden

of the Global War on Terror and the stability operations in Iraq. This current situation by default forces a balance of current operations versus revolutionary transformation envisioned within FCS. The commitment to revolutionary change within FCS was necessary to move the Army away from

the "branch" bound traditions of the past. The near-term needs of the

Army suggest a more evolutionary approach that introduces FCS capabilities into the current force in discrete increments, permits active duty

units to develop the necessary tactics, techniques and procedures to

incorporate the advanced technologies and, consequently, reduces the

risk of fielding the full suite of FCS capabilities.

Continued on page 3 4
2

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am pleased to have my former boss, Mr. Andrus Viilu, write this edition's feature article entitled

"Vehicle for Change - Army Combat Forces". 

Mr. Viilu is truly a world-renowned expert on this subject and the former Director for Land Warfare,

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics from 1985 until

2003. In this key position, he had oversight of close combat, fire support, air defense, aviation, and

combat support mission areas, where he had a major role in shaping multiple Army and Marine

Corps programs. He possesses tremendous depth and breadth of the technical aspects of these systems, while understanding the warfighting contribution and cost effectiveness, as well. Mr. Viilu's

expertise is still in great demand, as evidenced by his pivotal role in the recent Army Science Board

study on Transformation.

Prior to assuming his position as Director for Land Warfare, Mr. Viilu held various private sector positions and that included advanced armor designs, intelligence projections, helicopter studies and joint

field testing of Army and Air Force deep attack weapons. He also spent time in Viet Nam and

Thailand during the war working to design, field and train combat units with advanced technology

systems designed to attack, defend, gain intelligence and defeat insurgents. 

In closing, I hope you gain a much broader prospective on the Army's transformation from Mr. Viilu's

thoughts.

Gary

Director’s

Corner

by Mr. Gary J. Gray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

official documentation.
3

Army Combat Forces...(Continued from page 1)

The Army has introduced the concept of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) as the basis for future force design, to facilitate

the transition to FCS and, most important, to support on-going force deployments by expanding the base of rapidly

deployable combat elements in the active force from 33 to 43 BCTs (both light and heavy combined) with an end state

of 48 BCTs. The reserve component would be similarly restructured, and create an additional 35 BCTs.

The organizational structure of both light and heavy BCTs is somewhat similar to the FCS UA combined arms design.

However, from a weapons platform and Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and

Reconnaissance (C4ISR) standpoint, the BCTs are, of necessity, equipped with currently fielded systems. The first unit in

the Army that will be restructured is the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), with four BCTs formed under a previously threebrigade division. The next division to be restructured is the 101st Airmobile Division. As the Army executes this transformation, a critical issue is whether the BCTs can be enhanced with any capabilities that can both meet and integrate with

current operations (Iraq) and also accelerate the Army's transition to UA/FCS. If affordable, cost-effective enhancements

to a BCT could go a long way towards the Army's transformation, especially given that as far out as 2020, less than 20

percent of the total Army forces are projected to consist of FCS Units of Action.

New Threat Environment

The Army's future force design envisions an expeditionary force of BCTs that are more deployable, more self-sufficient and

capable of controlling a significantly larger geographic area than current force brigades. Much like expeditionary U.S.

Marine Corps combat units, BCTs will require greater, and much more integrated, support from the air. In reviewing lessons learned from Afghanistan and again in Iraq, it is clear that the Central Command made excellent use of air-delivered precision munitions, but unlike the days of pre-determined air strikes dictated by detailed air operations order (with

inherent latency), a vast majority of aircraft in these engagements received target coordinates after they lifted off from airfields.

The interdependent character of expeditionary forces is further complicated by the nature of the threat encountered in stability operations. While the FCS Operational and Organizational (O&O) Concept discussed earlier focuses on mid-intensity combat, the immediate threat to current force units and BCTs are the terrorist tactics and Improvised Explosive Devices

(IED) in Iraq. The threat in Iraq is pervasive with little notice of enemy preparation for battle. Firefights occur largely based

on the enemy's initiative. The enemy adapts rapidly to take advantage of our vulnerabilities. The enemy attacks our support structure rather than our combat units. Enemy targets are often civilian targets, selected based on political rather

than military considerations. The traditional concept of intelligence preparation of the battlefield and the consideration

of likely enemy courses of action are frustrated by the clutter of civilian activity in large urban areas like Baghdad.

Many of the problems posed by stability operations in built-up areas extend beyond the standard operating procedures

for BCTs on a mid-intensity battlefield and the span of control of a single BCT. When the 3rd Infantry Division rotates

back to Baghdad, it will control 7 BCTs dispersed over an extended geographical region. In addition to the span of control, many of the capabilities required for stability operations are not necessarily central to the BCT organizational and

operational concept. The ability to detect and track the movement of individuals 24 x 7, as an example, is not a core

capability, although essential to protection of both troops and equipment in Iraq. The ability to rapidly and safely screen

civilian vehicles is not a priority for combat operation, but certainly essential to current stability operations. Finally, the

ability to set up a surveillance system along city streets is not supportable by either the engineer or signal components of

a BCT.

Apart from the weapons platforms with their inherent fire power and intelligence capabilities, neither the BCT nor the FCS

UA have focused and/or committed resources to improve the survivability of its non-combat elements within the combat

service support units/structure that has already been curtailed to enhance deployability, which directly affects the sustainability of the entire force. Tactical trucks are not designed with ballistic protection or any features designed to minimize

the effects of insurgent weapons (whether AK-47 assault rifles, "Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG), hand grenade", improvised explosive devices or land mines). As a lesson learned that should not be repeated in the future UA/FCS transformation, the first combat units going into Iraq did not have the means to provide truck convoy protection with Armored

Security Vehicles (designed by the Army to permit military police to provide a modest level of convoy protection) because

the program had been cancelled in favor of the Stryker.

Continued on page 4 4

WSTIAC Newsletter Fall 2004
4

Finally, a major lesson in threat deterrence during stability operations is that we must capitalize on the use of Unmanned

Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), which are particularly well suited to cost-effective surveillance over difficult terrain. While the

Israeli Defense Forces continue to leverage the capabilities of UAVs to inhibit insurgent activities, the Air Force currently

only supports a single continuous Predator A orbit in Iraq, even though 15 could be made available. This seems to suggest that either the Air Force is not as fully deployed as the U.S. Army or the U.S. Army is not organized to take advantage of persistent aerial surveillance for either border security or convoy route security, both of which are widely recognized deficiencies.

BCT Combat Effectiveness Enhancements

As discussed earlier, both the light and heavy BCTs will be initially fielded with current force equipment. The firepower

of the BCTs is limited compared to current practices for brigade organization and deficient compared to the capabilities

envisioned for the FCS UAs. As an example, the restructured BCTs will have either 16 towed 105mm howitzers or 16

self-propelled 155mm howitzers and some mortars for indirect fire support depending on whether it is a light or heavy

BCT, respectively. Past practice has been to allocate one divisional artillery battalion to each brigade, which equates to

36 tubes of artillery in direct support.

In contrast, an FCS UA includes 24 self-propelled mortars with the precision guided mortar munitions, 60 multi-role direct

fire cannon systems with a beyond line-of-sight fire capability with a terminal guided munition, 18 non-line-of-sight cannons with the Excalibur guided artillery round and 24 non-line-of-sight launch systems with the Precision Attack Munition

(later also with the Loitering Attack Munition). In addition, there are four categories of unmanned aerial vehicles in an

FCS UA (110 UAVs in three categories as of 2012) while the BCT would have two Raven UAV platoons (4 UAVs each)

and a platoon of Shadow 200 UAVs at brigade level. FCS envisions armed unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) that

could help reduce casualties in the direct fire zone while near-term UGV technology offers the potential of some reconnaissance and logistics support for BCTs.

The most important difference between the restructured BCTs and the FCS UA is in their communication, command and

control capabilities. The FCS architecture envisions a common operating environment where all users would have access

to the data they need and can communicate effectively with the bandwidth and signal strength required, but efficiently

managed to satisfy priority needs. The BCT will have SINCGARS radios and EPLRS nets that limit the area within which

the brigade can operate and brigades have only limited capability for satellite links to national systems. The Force Battle

Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) system will permit the transmission of formatted messages through the existing

communication links but is subject to significant latency problems when a large number of messages are routed through

the net.

There are a number of technologies available in the near term that will facilitate this transition from the current force

command, control and communication systems to the radically different system envisioned for FCS and, thus, assure the

backward compatibility of FCS UA with current force BCTs. The first step could be to increase the reach and reliability

of communication links. The Army can join the Air Force technology demonstration for the Joint Airborne

Communication Node and expand BCT access to commercial L-band satellite with mobile ground stations and, subsequently, to Ka-band links with the Wide-band Gap Filler satellites, as steps toward the FCS multi-altitude communication

system.

The Army has already invested in the Command Post of the Future (CPoF) with the 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq and is in

the process of enhancing the capabilities of CPoF while fielding it with the 3rd Infantry Division as it rotates back to Iraq.

The CPoF provides distributed planning, collaboration and digital mapping capabilities for the division and brigade level,

and the capability will be subsequently made available down to the battalion level. With the help of Joint Blue Force

Tracking and data provided by the Army Battle Command System (ABCS) (6.4 software), it is possible to begin to learn

how the FCS command and control system should function. The transition to the FCS System of Systems Common

Operating Environment should be similarly managed by integrating some FCS software in BCTs, including the Task

Integration Network, and service enabling some ABCS applications and taking maximum advantage of commercial offthe-shelf software for E-mail, file sharing, instant messaging and web meetings.

To provide the proper learning environment for the transitional steps toward FCS command and control capability, it is

necessary to build on existing simulation facilities like the combination training and simulation facility at Ft. Hood. There 

4
5

is no better measure (short of war) of the effectiveness of unit command and control than the quality and the timelines

of command decisions made under the stress of the controlled simulation environment.

Similarly, the Army needs to work out the tactics, techniques and procedures for the employment of the full spectrum of

FCS precision munitions. As the initial step, the Army and Air Force need to come to a common understanding how precision munitions will be used to support combat operations on the future battlefield. The combat experiences of

Afghanistan and Iraq, although successful, do not appear to be sufficient. The Air Force has used the DPPDB terrain

data to deliver GPS guided munitions against stationary targets. It is evident that the UTM grid is not adequate for delivery of GPS guided munitions (note variance to local datum on map sheets), especially for the much smaller GPS guided

warheads fielded by the Army. One near-term approach could be to use precision delivered marking rounds to align the

photo images of the target area with GPS coordinates.

The Secretary of Defense has testified to Congress that the Army is two decades behind the Air Force in employment of

GPS guided precision munitions, and recent Army statements that the Army cannot afford to train with precision munitions because of their cost sounds like the same complaint made 30 years ago when recoilless rifles were being replaced

by TOW and Dragon anti-tank guided missiles. The problem is less with the cost of precision munitions than the lack of

doctrine and planning procedures for the effective integration of precision munitions into combat operations. The precise location of targets and the digital transfer of target coordinates, along with the criteria for employing a particular

munition and fuze against the selected target, in the close proximity to friendly troops (or non-combatants) are more

important than the Terminal Trajectory of the guided munition, although that can also become important in a built-up

area. Joint Service exercises with guided rounds are needed to overcome the institutional inertia to adapting combat

operations planning to take full advantage of joint precision munitions delivery capabilities and assure that Service munitions acquisition plans support warfighter needs.

Additional Force Development Needs

There are a number of transformational force development needs that go beyond the mid-intensity warfare focus of BCTs

and the FCS UA. While UAVs are viewed as one of the principal means for precise location of targets, and thereby

enabling the delivery of precision munitions beyond line-of-sight of maneuver units, the function UAVs need to perform

in support of stability operations are quite different. Looking through an optical soda straw for targets, within an area

selected based on other intelligence, is not the same task as persistent surveillance of large geographic areas or extended national borders. It requires different platform and sensor characteristics and a different output than precise target

location. In order to track the movement of individuals or small groups, the platform needs to be elevated and stationary and mount a radar sensor capable of detecting movement of low velocity objects. In addition, techniques such as

tagging may be needed to distinguish insurgent activity from the background of civilian traffic. Storage of surveillance

imaging is needed to trace insurgent movement before and after incidents and change detection is helpful in discovery

of ambushes and improvised explosive devices. These techniques, although technically feasible, do not readily conform

to brigade-level combat unit-operating patterns.

Similarly, the combat support and combat service support components of the brigade are not designed to operate in a

front-line environment. The Army acquires tactical trucks for equipment and personnel transport and, while some trucks

may have a requirement for off-road mobility, there has not been a requirement for vehicle survivability when attacked

with light infantry weapons. Even soldier's personal weapons like the M-16 or M-4 are difficult to operate from inside a

truck cab or a seat within a HMMWV because the weapons are too large. Tactical vehicles, when upgraded with ballistic protection, lose payload, lack durability and safety because the protection system is top heavy and leads to rollover.

Trucks operating in the combat zone must be designed to be upgradeable in their ballistic protection as dictated by the

threat. Additional payload capability, along with attach points for the ballistic protection, must be designed into the vehicles. The submachine gun version of the XM-8 could be a good weapon for vehicle crews. The Armored Security Vehicle

was designed for the military police with some of the needed ballistic protection and on-road mobility characteristics to

escort convoys, but has only recently been funded for deployment in Iraq.

One final goal of Army transformation is operational mobility of FCS UAs based on vertical lift of the combat elements

in a configuration that is ready to fight. The value of such a capability was demonstrated during Desert Storm by the

101st Airmobile Division by its ability to lift light infantry into battle. The technology is available to lift FCS UAs into battle under "high, hot" conditions but it is bulky and expensive. It is not likely that the Department of Defense can afford

the needed fleet of aircraft until the scheduled replacement of the C-130 fleet in 2018.

WSTIAC Newsletter Fall 2004

4
6

Summary

· The Army needs an integrated strategy for upgrading BCTs and reducing the risk of fielding FCS UAs.

· The Army must balance the force development needs imposed by stability operations and mid-intensity combat. One

is not a subset of the other; the BCTs must be tailorable.

· Finally, while development of interdependent joint combat capabilities is essential, it should not obscure the need to

fully integrate sensor and weapon delivery capabilities. The armed Predator A is an example, as is the AC-130 gunship.

The ability to transmit Predator A video to the AC-130 has been useful. The fundamental rationale for forward observers

can be altered if the video of the target area and Blue Force Tracking can be shared at the fire direction center.

Technology is also available for a platoon engaged in urban warfare to launch its own sensor and weapon combination

as the need arises, rather than wait for external support. ♦

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Andrus Viilu is a WSTIAC Subject Matter Expert for land warfare and related

technologies. He has recently retired from the Office of the Under Secretary of

Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logiostics), where he served as Director

of Land Warfare. In this capacity, he maintained management oversight of close

combat, fire suppoprt, air defense, Army aviation and combat support mission

areas. He managed milestone decision reviews for major land warfare weapon

systems, participated in program budget decisions and contributed to defense

guidance and the military services' five-year plans. In the past, he was Vice

President at Aeronautical Research Associates of Princeton, a memeber of the

research staff of the Systems Evaluation Division at the Institute for Defense

Analyses and director of Tactical Weapons Technology at The System Planning

Corporation. He holds a B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT and a

Masters degree in Applied Mathematics from the University of California.

Future Combat System

Photos courtesy of the U.S.Army

Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE)

Vehicle

Class I Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Medical Vehicle

Non-Line-Of-Site Mortar (NLOS-M) Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV)
7

WSTIAC Newsletter Fall 2004

Col (Ret) Mark Jones Joins WSTIAC Staff

WSTIAC is pleased to introduce Col (Ret) Mark Jones who joined

the WSTIAC technical staff in September 2004. His expertise

includes systems acquisition, research & development, strategic

planning and business case analysis spanning command and control systems, force protection, power generation, information technology and distance learning.

Colonel Jones was born in Pensacola, Florida, on May 12, 1956.

He graduated from West Point and was commissioned a second

lieutenant in the Field Artillery in 1978.

He has held a wide variety of military assignments to include Fire

Direction Officer and Battery Executive Officer in III Corps, 2nd

Battalion 12th Field Artillery; Operations and Maintenance Officer

in the 558th United States Army Artillery Group, Drama, Greece;

Commander, HHB, 5th Battalion, 29th Field Artillery, 4th ID; and,

Battalion/Brigade Fire Support Officer in support of the 1st

Mechanized Infantry Brigade, 4th ID.

Colonel Jones’ first acquisition assignment was as the Contingency Contracting Officer for the 7th Transportation Group.

He subsequently served as the Operations Officer and Material Acquisition Management Officer for the Army Training

Support Center; Executive Officer to the Program Executive Officer for Command, Control & Communications Systems;

Assistant PM-Test for Project Manager Maneuver Control System at Fort Monmouth, NJ, and Chief, Acquisition

Proponency Branch in the Pentagon. He was then selected as the Product Manager, Defense Information Systems

Network CONUS and later as the Product Manager, DoD Metropolitan Area Network, both with the Defense Information

Systems Agency. Colonel Jones’ assignment prior to PM MEP was as the Director, Aviation & IEW systems in ASA(ALT).

Colonel Jones holds an undergraduate degree in engineering from the United States Military Academy at West Point, a

master of business degree from the Florida Institute of Technology, and a master of resource management from the

Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

His military education includes the normal military officer schools, the Greek Language School at the Presidio of Monterey

California, the Project Managers Course at the Defense Systems Management College, and the Senior Service College.

Colonel Jones’ awards include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal

with 3 OLC, Army Commendation Medal with OLC, Army Achievement Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, the

Parachute Badge and the Army Staff Badge.

Colonel Jones is married to the former Doris M. Wilson of Atlanta, GA. They have two children and reside in Prince

William County, Virginia.♦

From all of us at WSTIAC...

Best Wishes 

for a Happy Holiday
8

fyi.... Publications of interest

Recent NDIA conference proceedings

Precision Strike Technology Symposium

Accelerating Joint & Coalition Technology Advances for

Precision Strike

12-14 October 2004

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/

Precision Strike Summer PEO Forum

Balancing Precision Strike for the Joint Force Commander

across Asymmetric Battlefield

7-8 July 2004 

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/

International Armaments Technology Symposium &

Exhibition

June 14-16, 2004

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/

Center for Strategic and International Studies

IRAQ Briefing book: War and postwar analysis

There are a large number of full text reports on such topics as Post-War Iraq, The Lessons of War, Iraqi Order of

Battle, The Cost of War, Iraq and the War on Terrorism,

at: http://www.csis.org/features/iraq.cfm

A few titles of interest include:

Low Intensity Conflict and Nation-Building in Iraq: A

Chronology - Stephen Lanier November 12, 2004

Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Lessons of Recent Conflicts in

the Middle East - Anthony H. Cordesman October 21,

2004

Iraq War Note: The Changing Role of Airpower - Anthony

Cordesman April 05, 2003

Iraq War Note: The True Nature of Urban Warfare -

Anthony Cordesman March 30, 2003

Managing to Survive in Washington

Norman R. Augustine Foreword by Sam Nunn

With each presidential transition in Washington, a host of

capable individuals are drawn from the private sector,

academia, and the nonprofit world to assume critical positions in government. The transition, however, is not nearly

as straightforward and efficient as many new officials

would hope it to be. Although the institutions and processes underpinning government can and do benefit from the

skills and experiences gained from other disciplines, the

reality is that management in government often bears little resemblance to management in other areas.

National Academy of Sciences

The Engineer of 2020:

Visions of Engineering in the New Century

To help maintain the nation's economic competitiveness

and improve the quality of life of the world's population,

engineering education in the United States must anticipate

and adapt to dramatic changes in engineering practice in

the coming decades. The report recommends ways to

improve engineers' training and prepare them for the complex technical, social and ethical questions raised by

emerging technologies.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10999.html

Meeting the Energy Needs of Future Warriors 2004

The central characteristic of the evolution of the combat

soldier in recent years is an increasingly sophisticated array

of sensing, communications, and related electronics for

use in battlefield situations. The most critical factor for

maintaining this evolution will be the development of

power supply systems capable of operating those electronics effectively for missions up to 72 hours long. To address

the challenge, it is important that new approaches be

sought on how to integrate and power these electronics. To

assist in addressing this problem, the Army requested the

National Research Council to review the state-of-the-art

and to recommend technologies that will support the rapid

development of effective power systems for the future warrior. This report presents the results of that review. It provides an assessment of various technology options for different power level requirements, power system design, and

soldier energy sinks. The report also describes future

design concepts, focusing on low-power systems.

Recommendations for technology development and system

design are presented.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11065.htm

Army Science and Technology for Homeland Security:

Report 2—C4ISR (BAST)

Shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S.

Army asked the National Research Council (NRC) for a

series of reports on how science and technology could

assist the Army meet its Homeland defense obligations.

The first report presented a survey of a road range of technologies and recommended applying Future Force technologies to homeland security wherever possible. In particular, the report noted that the Army should play a major

role in providing emergency command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities and that the technology and

architecture needed for homeland security C4ISR was

compatible with that of the Army’s Future Force. This second report focuses on C4ISR and how it can facilitate the

Army’s efforts to assist the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS) and emergency responders meet a catastrophic event.
9

WSTIAC Newsletter Fall 2004

i n t h e n ews . . . Weapon System Effectiveness

Call for Papers

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(AIAA) National Forum on Weapon System Effectiveness is

a biennial event dedicated to promoting and sharing

knowledge about the complex nature of modern weapon

systems. The 4th Forum has been scheduled for 18 - 20

October 2005 and will be hosted by the Institute for

Advanced Technology in Austin, Texas. Technical paper

abstracts are being solicited now for presentation at the

meeting.

The key objective of the 2005 Forum will be addressing

the themes of major weapon systems, test and evaluation,

performance analysis, and future systems, with particular

emphasis on:

iChallenges, threats, experiences, and lessons

learned with current weapon systems 

iFuture challenges and future weapon systems 

iEmerging weapon system technologies 

iWeapon system effectiveness methodologies 

This CLASSIFIED event is structured to provide maximum opportunities for technical experts and government

leaders interested in the technologies and applications

associated with weapon systems to meet at an outstanding

event that provides a review of the state of the art across a

broad spectrum of disciplines, as well as a forward-looking series of invited presentations concerning future challenges.

Submission of UNCLASSIFIED Abstracts

Authors are invited to submit UNCLASSIFIED abstracts

that describe the objectives and content of proposed final

presentations on any of the conference themes, topics, or

additional topics that relate to weapon systems effectiveness. Final presentations may be classified up to SECRET.

Each abstract submitted will be assessed for relevance to

the Forum themes and to the advancement of weapon systems effectiveness discipline. Technical papers will be evaluated for depth and the degree to which results are shown.

This event is CLASSIFIED and includes presentation

and discussion of both classified and unclassified papers.

Categories and Topics

Major weapon programs, including future weapon systems 

Weapon system performance analysis and measures of system effectiveness 

iWeapon system test, evaluation, and training 

iNew advances in weapon system technologies 

iWMD threat and negation issues 

iDirected energy weapon systems 

iKinetic and chemical energy weapon systems 

iNon-lethal weapon systems 

iRobotic and unmanned weapon systems 

iSensors, target acquisition, battle damage assessment 

iNetwork-centric operations 

All abstracts must be UNCLASSIFIED and cleared for

public release with unlimited distribution. Authors are

reminded that technology transfer guidelines have substantially extended the time required for reviews. All reviews are

the responsibility of the author. 

Abstracts should be limited to 750 words. 

Abstracts must be submitted no later than 28 February

2005. 

Authors will be notified of paper acceptance by 18

March 2005. 

AIAA will not consider any paper that has been presented or published or that is currently under consideration

for presentation or publication elsewhere. 

Submit abstracts online at:www.aiaa.org/ 

(Click on "Conferences & Events") 

Questions?

Michelle Ramsey

Phone: 512-232-4451; 

FAX: 512-471-1379

e-mail: ramsey@iat.utexas.edu

4

Planning a Conference or Seminar?

WSTIAC can assist with technical support:

· Call for papers · Announcements

· Local arrangements · Author kits/paper selection

· Registration · Security, meals, transport

· Exhibits, receptions · Proceedings
10

Improvised Explosive Devices

As the Marine Corps look for answers to the deadly dangers of improvised explosive devices in Iraq, and the Navy

seeks to protect ships from sea mines and anti-ship missiles, the Office of Naval Research is exploring radically

new approaches to designing metals that could lead to

effective blast shielding for military units—and protection

for civilian targets against terrorist attack.

In an effort prompted in part by the October 2000 terrorist attack on the Navy destroyer USS Cole in Yemen that

killed 17 Navy personnel, ONR’s Engineering, Materials,

and Physical Science division is sponsoring pioneering

work at Northwestern University. A team of crack engineering students that calls itself Team BlasTruss is being led by

veteran metallurgist Greg Olson to develop “recipes,” or

toolboxes for the design of super-hard steels.

ONR program manager Julie Christodoulou explains that

metals aren’t monolithic substances, but vary widely in

composition and structure. Different types of steels are

composed of crystal-like “micro-structures” that are neither

uniform nor homogenous. Metallurgists typically develop

new types of steel and other metals through trial-and-error

by combining, for example, percentages of certain steels,

nickel, and other known metals to produce the desired

degree of strength, endurance, and other characteristics.

That approach works backward from the structural level to

determine the usable combinations of materials for desired

applications. Instead, Northwestern’s Team BlasTruss first

identifies the desired characteristics of the steel. It then

looks at elementary molecular-level composition of materials in order to determine the optimal mix of metallic ingredients needed to meet Navy requirements.

The BlasTruss team used available research data on metals

to identify and demonstrate the performance of a new

metal, designated BlastAlloy-160, for use in fabrication of

a folded-plate truss, a blast-resistant steel structure that

could be used in construction of a rugged vehicle such as

the commercial Hummer, as well as a safe room, trash

receptacle, and a Boeing 747 cargo bay. The team also

has looked at the potential for using BA-160 for a blastresistant luggage rack for trains that would protect passengers from the kind of blast that killed many of the victims of

the Madrid bomb attack of March 11, Christodoulou says.

Office of Naval Research Public Affairs For additional information contact Ed Walsh, 703-588-1010 or email:

Edward_Walsh@onr.navy.mil.

n ews . . . ( c o n t)

Airborne Laser Achieves “First Light” 

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced that it

completed a test on November 10 that successfully fired all

six modules of the megawatt-class Chemical Oxygen

Iodine Laser (COIL) for the Airborne Laser, a landmark

achievement in the development of a directed energy system that will be mounted aboard a modified Boeing 747

aircraft and when deployed will provide a capability to

destroy a hostile ballistic missile soon after it is launched,

in the “boost” phase of flight. 

The test, internally called “First Light,” lasted only a fraction

of a second and was conducted in a special laser research,

development and testing facility in the ABL section of

Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. It was the first time that multiple modules of the powerful laser had ever been fired

while linked together as a single unit.

In the test, the laser light produced by the six modules was

fired into a wall of metal called a calorimeter or beam

dump. The temperature rise of the metal was used to validate that laser power was generated. 

While the COIL lasers were being tested in the special lab,

the ABL aircraft, YAL-1A, was parked nearby preparing for

its own major test – a return to flight for the first time in

almost two years. It was taken out of service in December

2002 for modifications to the airframe and the installation

of the complex laser beam control system. 

Initially, only the passive sensors of the beam control system will be tested. The ABL Track Illuminator Laser (TILL)

and Beacon Illuminator Laser (BILL) will be installed early

next year and the full beam control system will be tested in

flight. After completion of additional tests, the COIL will be

installed on the flight test aircraft. Ground and flight tests

of ABL will continue, and planning is now underway to

incorporate the laser system in a test that will include

shooting down a ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean.

No date has been set for the test. 

Missile Defense Agency Office of Public Affairs

For additional information contact: Ken Englade, ABL

Public Affairs – 505-846-7681

DTIC Administrator Kurt Molholm retires 

During his 20-year tenure as Administrator, he has been

very active in the scientific and technical information community and has received numerous professional awards

and honors. 
11

Directed Energy Weapons Course

Instructor: Dr. Edward Scannell, WSTIAC

Course Description: 

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

Energy Weapons (DEWs). The technologies behind each

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

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

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

developments and deployments. The key DEW programs

in High Energy Lasers and RF-DEWs or High Power

Microwaves will be fully described.

This short course will be of great benefit to people who

need to understand the basic concepts, technologies,

design requirements and practical applications of DEWs,

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

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

Training at Your Location:

WSTIAC can conduct this course at your location to reduce

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

to discuss.

Fee:

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

Location: Huntsville, Alabama

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

Notice: WSTIAC reserves the right to cancel and/or

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

registered participants will be individually informed.

WSTIAC Newsletter Fall 2004

Questions to be examined include:

iWhat is Directed Energy and what are the different

types of Directed Energy Weapons?

iWhat are the advantages and disadvantages of

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

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

practical systems?

iHow may threat DEW effects be countered and how

can we protect our own systems?

iWhat are the major U.S. and international DEW

programs that are being pursued?

iWhat is the prognosis for future DEW development?

About the Instructor: 

Dr. Edward Scannell is the Senior Program Manager of

the Engineering & Technical Division, Chief Scientist for

WSTIAC, and formerly Chief of the Directed Energy and

Power Generation Division of the U.S. Army Research

Laboratory. He has 30 years of experience in technical

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

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

(HPM), and pulse power physics. 

Security Classification:

The information presented is kept at the unclassified level,

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

UNCLASSIFIED.

Handout Material:

Each student will receive a comprehensive set of course

notes covering the material presented. 

For additional information, contact: 

Mrs. Kelly Hopkins, Seminar Administrator, 

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

khopkins@alionscience.com
12

Introduction to Sensors and Seekers for Smart Munitions

and Weapons Course

Instructor: Mr Paul Kisatsky, WSTIAC

Location: Huntsville, Alabama

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

Course Description: 

This 3-day short course provides an introduction to the

most commonly used sensors and seekers employed in

smart munitions and weapons (projectiles, missiles and

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

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

understanding of the sensors they must deal with, but who

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

An undergraduate technical degree is recommended.

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

foundation for those scientists and engineers who desire to

pursue this discipline to intermediate and advanced levels. 

The course covers:

iClassification of seekers and sensors

iFundamentals of waves and propagation

iFundamentals of noise and clutter

iFundamentals of search footprints

iIntroduction to infrared

iIntroduction to radar

iIntroduction to ladar

iIntroduction to visionics

iIntroduction to acoustics

iFuture projections and interactive brainstorming

Noise and clutter, the predominant obstacles to success in

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

and non-imaging, and acoustic sensors are individually

covered. Of special interest is the discussion on human

visionics versus machine recognition, since this concept is

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

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

sensors are also briefly discussed. System constraints,

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

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

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

solicit student views.

About the Instructor: 

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

nationally recognized expert on sensors and seekers for

smart munitions and weapons and has more than 30 years

of hands-on experience developing sensors and seekers

fielded in modern smart munitions and weapons.

Security Classification:

This course is unclassified.

Training at Your Location:

WSTIAC can conduct this course at your location to reduce

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

to discuss.

Fee:

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

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

same time, are charged $950 per person.

Handout Material:

Each student will receive a comprehensive set of course

notes covering the material presented. 

For additional information, contact: 

Mrs. Kelly Hopkins, Seminar Administrator, 

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

khopkins@alionscience.com

Notice: WSTIAC reserves the right to cancel and/or

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

registered participants will be individually informed.
13

Weaponeering Course 

Instructor: Professor Morris Driels, US Naval Postgraduate School

Course Description: 

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

graduate-level weaponeering course developed by

Professor Driels and taught at the Naval Postgraduate

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

overview of the fundamentals of the weaponeering

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

Munitions Effectiveness Manuals (JMEMs) produced by the

Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions

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

Services to plan offensive missions and allow the planners

to predict the effectiveness of selected weapon systems

against a variety of targets. 

Training at Your Location:

WSTIAC can conduct this course at your location to reduce

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

to discuss.

Fee:

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

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

same time, are charged $950 per person.

Notice: WSTIAC reserves the right to cancel and/or

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

a schedule change or cancellation, registered participants

will be individually informed.

WSTIAC Newsletter Fall 2004

The short course is divided into three parts. 

Part I covers the basic tools and methods used in 

weaponeering:

iThe weaponeering process

iElementary statistical methods

iWeapon trajectory

iDelivery accuracy of guided and unguided 

munitions

iTarget vulnerability assessment

Part II covers the weaponeering process for air-launched

weapons against ground targets:

iSingle weapons directed against point and 

area targets

iStick deliveries (point and area targets)

iProjectiles (guns and rockets)

iCluster munitions

iWeaponeering for specific targets: bridges,

buildings, etc.)

iCollateral damage modeling

About the Instructor: 

Professor Driels is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering

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

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

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

He has taught a quarter-long weaponeering course at NPS

for three years and he has published a textbook on the

subject.

Security Classification:

The security classification of this course is UNCLASSIFIED.

Handout Material:

Each student will receive a comprehensive set of course

notes covering the material presented. 

For additional information, contact: 

Mrs. Kelly Hopkins, Seminar Administrator, 

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

khopkins@alionscience.com

Part III covers the weaponeering process for ground

engagements:

iIndirect fire systems - artillery and mortars.

iDirect fire systems - infantry and armored vehicles.

iMines - land and sea.

Location: Huntsville, Alabama

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

Training at Your Location:

WSTIAC can conduct this course at your location to

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

Hopkins to discuss.

Notice: WSTIAC reserves the right to cancel and/or

change the course schedule and/or instructor for any

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

informed.

Handout Material:

Each student will receive a comprehensive set of course

notes covering the material presented. 

For additional information, contact: 

Mrs. Kelly Hopkins, Seminar Administrator, 

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

khopkins@alionscience.com

Smart/Precision Weapons Course

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

Location: Huntsville, Alabama

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

Course Description: 

This 21⁄2-day short course provides a comprehensive

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

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

and foreign smart weapons, to include system

description, concept of employment, performance

characteristics, effectiveness and program status.

A variety of ground, sea and air smart/precision

weapon systems are discussed, to include fielded

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

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

Standoff Missile (JASSM), Small Diameter Bomb,

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

Excaliber, Extended Range Guided Munition

(ERGM), Common Missile, Tomahawk, Standoff

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

among others, as well as representative foreign

smart/precision weapons.

The objective of this course is to inform materiel and

combat developers, systems analysts, scientists,

engineers, managers and business developers

about smart/precision weapons, to include:

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

foreign smart weapons systems;

iEmployment concepts

iSmart weapons related systems, subsystems,

and technologies; and

iTechnology trends.

Fee:

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

U.S. government personnel and $1150 for government

contractors. Contractor teams of 3 or more, registered

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

Security Classification:

The information presented is kept at the unclassified

level, but is designated FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

(FOUO), export controlled, and attendance is limited

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

is UNCLASSIFIED.

About the Instructors: 

Mr. Mark Scott and Mr. Hunter Chockley are Science

Advisors. Each instructor has more than 25 years of

experience with weapons technology and/or

smart/precision weapons.
15

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

Upcoming Conferences and Courses

WSTIAC Newsletter Fall 2004

January 2005

5-7 January 2005

AUSA Aviation Symposium & Exhibition 

Arlington, VA

703-907-2687 emanning@ausa.org

https://www.ausa.org/www/ia.nsf

24-26 January 2005

Intitute of Navigation 2005 National Technical Meeting

San Diego, CA

http://www.ion.org

26-27 January 2005

Network Centric Warfare 2005

Washington, DC

http://www.idga.org/cgibin/templates/document.html?topic=329&event=551

7&document=44407

30 January-3 February 2005

MEMS 2005

8th IEEE International Conference on

Micro Electro Mechanical Systems

Miami Beach, Fl

http://www.mems2005.org/

February 2005

1-2 February 2005

Tactical Power Sources Summit

Fueling the Future Force

Arlington, VA

http://www.idga.org/cgibin/templates/genevent.html?topic=329&event=5878

&

2-4 February 2005

16th Annual NDIA SO/LIC Symposium & Exhibition

Washington, DC

asaliski@ndia.org

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

chure&SID=_1E30UNHS1&MID=5880

6-8 February 2005

2005 Tactical Wheeled Vehicles Conference

Monterey, CA

adekleine@ndia.org 

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

chure&SID=_1E30UNHS1&MID=5530

February 2005

9-10 February 2005

NAVWAR Conference

Melbourne, Fl

Conference Classification SECRET

http://www.crows.org/EVENTS/2005/020905_NAVWA

R/05NAVWAR_Preview.htm 

9-11 February 2005

2005 Munitions Executive Summit

Washington, DC

cohara@ndia.org

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

chure&SID=_1E30UNHS1&MID=5650

23 February 2005

Technical Support Working Group APBI 

Washington, DC

mdowd@ndia.org

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

chure&SID=_1E30UNHS1&MID=5090

March 2005 ch 2005

14-17 March 2005

Third Directed Energy Modeling & Simulation

Conference

Tampa, FL

http://www.deps.org/

15-16 March 2005

Military Technologies Conference

Evolving technologies driving military transformation

Boston, MA

E-mail: lgowern@pennwell.com

http://mtc05.events.pennnet.com/

15-18 March 2005

Second Annual High Energy Laser Lethality Conference

Tampa, FL

http://www.deps.org/

22-23 March 2005

UAV Summit: Combat & Micro

Washington, DC

http://www.iqpc.com/cgibin/templates/singlecell.html?topic=222&event=6250
16

Inside this issue

Vehicle for Change: Army Combat Forces

Director’s Corner

Welcoming Mark Jones

in the news 

WSTIACCourses 

Calendar of Events

Please return this form to:

WSTIAC

ATTN: Publication Department

1901 N Beauregard Street, Suite 400

Alexandria VA 22311

or fax....

703.933.3325

Telephone:

Fax:

E-mail:

Name:

Organization:

Address:

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

WSTIAC

WSTIAC

1901 N Beauregard Street,Suite 400

Alexandria VA 22311-1705