http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

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

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

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

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

publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Agency position, policy, or decision, unless

so designated by other official documentation. The appearance of an advertisement, announcement, product/service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W S T I A C

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

201 Mill Street, Rome, New York 13440

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

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

Director

John L. Weed

Core Operations Manager

Mary Priore

Editor-in-Chief

Benjamin D. Craig

Publication Design 

Cynthia Long

Tamara R. Grossman

Inquiry Services

Owen Conniff

Bruce Dudley

Training

Gina Nash

Past Issues

In case you missed them, here are some of the articles 

in previous issues of the WSTIAC Journal. We welcome article 

submissions related to weapon systems technology. If 

you would like to contribute, please e-mail 

wstiac@alionscience.com.

V9N4

Feature Article: Cyber Warfare: Understanding

the Threat to Weapon Systems

2nd Article: Cyber This, Cyber that...So What?

V10N1

Feature Article: Mitigating the Risk of 

Counterfeit Parts

V10N2

Feature Article: Steroscopic Display for

Teleoperation of Unmanned Systems

V10N3

Feature Article: Forward Scatter Radar for Future Systems

2nd Article: Low Cost Multibeam Phased Array Antenna for 

Communication with Geostationary Satellites

V11N1

Feature Article: Effectiveness of Head-Up Display for Driver Performance

2nd Article: Defense Standardization Award
ABSTRACT

This article describes the blast pressure waves produced by detonation of both lead styphnate and diazodinitrophenol (DDNP) based firearms

primers measured with a high-speed pressure transducer located at the muzzle of a rifle (without powder or bullet). These primer blast waves

emerging from the muzzle have a pressure-time profile resembling free field blast pressure waves. The lead based primers in this study had

peak blast pressure variations (standard deviations from the mean) of 5.0-11.3%. In contrast, lead-free DDNP-based primers had standard

deviations of the peak blast pressure of 8.2-25.0%. Combined with smaller blast waves, these large variations in peak blast pressure led to

delayed ignition and failure to fire in brief field tests.

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 2 3 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

Amy C. Courtney

BTG Research

Colorado Springs, CO

Michael W. Courtney

US Air Force Academy

USAF Academy, CO

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, there has been a growing interest in

removing lead from ammunition due to environmental and health

concerns. For example, the US Army has issued the new M855A1

load with lead-free bullets to troops in Afghanistan. If lead-free bullets demonstrate field performance equal to their counterparts that

include lead, the only lead needing to remain in duty ammunition

would be lead based centerfire primers. Diazodinitrophenol (2-

diazo 4,6 dinitrophenol, abbreviated as DDNP and also referred to

as diazole and dinol) is regarded as a promising candidate to replace

lead styphnate in centerfire priming compounds. An Air Force study

showed that transitioning to training ammunition with lead-free

bullets and primers can reduce instructor exposure to lead by 70%

in indoor ranges and 41% in outdoor ranges.[1]

Testing of primer performance ultimately requires using ammunition fully loaded as it would be for a given application. However,

it is also desirable to have a method to test and compare primer performance independently of a given cartridge and load to remove

confounding effects of powders, bullets, neck tension, case capacity,

bore friction, etc. so that performance of different primer designs

can be compared more directly. The method employed here for

directly comparing primer performance is to measure the blast pressure wave produced by impact detonation of a primer loaded in a

cartridge case without any bullet or powder. In this study, measurements are presented for eight lead based primers (four large, 5.33

mm diameter, and four small, 4.45 mm diameter), and two DDNPbased primers (one large and one small).

Peter Griess is credited with discovering diazo compounds in

1858.[2] Over the next 50 years, the chemistry of diazo compounds

and their applications were further investigated.[2] US patents for

improved processes for manufacturing DDNP for explosive applications were awarded in 1922, 1935, and 1946.[3-5] In 1932, a

patent for primer compounds including DDNP was awarded to

agents of the Remington Arms Company.[6] In the 1980s, interest

increased in using DDNP as a main component in non-toxic priming compounds, and since 1985 more than a dozen patents have

been awarded for specific applications to small arms. Hoping to further reduce toxicity of gunshot residues, some of these formulations

employ non-toxic oxidizers as well, such as zinc peroxide. Between

2000 and 2009, several American ammunition manufacturers

offered at least one product line with lead-free primers, and DDNPbased primers were being manufactured on a commercial scale at

Muron in Russia.[7]

METHOD

The measurement method was originally described in the Review of

Scientific Instruments.[8] Blast pressures were measured using a highspeed pressure transducer (PCB 102B or PCB 102B15) placed coaxially with the 7.82mm diameter rifle barrel and directly facing the

muzzle with no separation between the end of the barrel and pressure

transducer. Only a primer is loaded in the brass cartridge case (no bullet or powder) and detonated by the impact of the firing pin.

A cable connects the pressure transducer to a signal conditioning

unit (PCB 842C) that produces a calibrated voltage output, which

is then digitized with a National Instruments PXI-5105 fast analog

to digital converter operating at a rate of 1 million samples per second. The voltage waveform is converted to pressure using the calibration certificate provided by the manufacturer with each pressure

sensor. Ten samples each of eight models of widely used lead based

primers were tested along with two DDNP-based primers, a large

rifle primer (model KVB-7E) and a small pistol primer (model

KVB-9E) manufactured in Russia at Muron. Brief field tests were

also conducted comparing two large rifle primers in loaded ammunition and noting muzzle velocities, accuracy, and ignition delays.

RESULTS

Figure 1 shows blast pressure waveforms of four primer types. The

arrows in the figure denote the range of peak blast pressures for a

sample size of 10. Compared with its average peak blast pressure, the

DDNP-based KVB-7E has a much larger variation in peak blast

pressure than other primers. (Waveforms for different models are

offset in time to facilitate comparison.) Simple blast waves are usually characterized by peak overpressure, duration, and impulse (the

area under the curve of pressure vs. time). Since the durations and

basic shapes are similar, the impulse is nearly proportional to the

peak pressure, and the peak pressure is the main distinguishing characteristic of these blast waves. Therefore, the results and discussion

will focus on the average peak magnitude and the standard deviation

of peak magnitudes for each primer type.
The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 2 4 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

Table 1 shows average peak pressures along with standard deviations from the mean for the primers in this study. Primers of diameter 5.33 mm are labeled “large”, and primers of diameter 4.45 mm are

labeled “small” by manufacturers. Except for the DDNP-based large

rifle primer, large rifle primers produce stronger blast waves than small

primers, and “magnum” rifle primers (Fed 215M, CCI 250) produce

stronger blast waves than non-magnum primers of the same size.

There are significant differences in the standard deviations observed

for different primer types, and it is notable that so-called “Match”

primers are not always more consistent than non-match primers. Perhaps most notable is that in each group (large and small), the standard

deviation of the DDNP-based primer is the largest percentage of its

mean value. For the large rifle primers, the standard deviation of the

DDNP-based primer (25%) is more than twice the standard deviation of any lead styphnate based primer that was tested.

Since it is of interest to know how much these blast pressure differences impact field performance, some brief field testing was conducted comparing 10 shots with the DDNP-based KVB-7E rifle

primer with 10 shots of the lead styphnate based Fed 210M in each

of two otherwise identical loads: 1) a 30-06 load using 51.0 grains of

H414 (a ball powder) in Remington brass with a 220 grain Sierra

MatchKing bullet and 2) a 7.62x51mm NATO load using 46.0

grains of Varget (an extruded powder) using Remington brass with a

Berger 155.5 grain Fullbore boat tail bullet. Both tests were conducted with Remington 700 rifles in HS Precision stocks. The most obvious difference between the lead based and DDNP-based primers was

a perceptible delay between firing pin strike and ignition in 15 of 19

shots with the DDNP-based primers (and one misfire); in contrast,

there were no misfires or perceptible delays in ignition with the lead

based primer. (In fact, in over one thousand rounds using lead based

primers in these two rifles, the authors have never observed a perceptible delay in firing nor a misfire.) Figure 2 shows the primer which

failed to ignite the powder charge and resulted in a misfire.

Excluding the misfire, the average velocity of the 30-06 load was

lower (703 m/s) for the DDNP-based primer compared with the

lead based primer (727 m/s). The standard deviation in muzzle

velocities was comparable for the DDNP-based primers (4.8 m/s)

and for the lead based primers (4.4 m/s) in the 30-06 load, and the

average 5 shot group size (extreme spread measured at 200 m) was

2.5 minutes of angle (MOA) for the DDNP-based primers and 2.4

MOA for the lead based primers.

In the 7.62x51mm NATO load, both primers produced an average muzzle velocity of 823 m/s with the DDNP-based primer giving a smaller standard deviation (2.8 m/s) than the more powerful

lead styphnate based primer (6.5 m/s). This agrees with the hypothesis that having a primer that is not more powerful than needed to

reliably ignite the powder charge produces more consistent muzzle

velocities than a more powerful primer.[9] The delay in ignition in

6 of the 10 shots with the DDNP-based primer suggests that this

primer is at the low end of strength needed to reliably ignite 46

grains of an extruded powder. This ignition delay is the most likely

cause of the larger average group size (2.5 MOA) of the DDNPbased primers in the 7.62x51mm NATO load compared with the

lead styphnate based primers (1.8 MOA) at 200 m.

DISCUSSION

It is possible that DDNP-based primers from other suppliers might

yield more consistent results. Unfortunately, Winchester, Remington, and ATK were all contacted but chose not to provide lead-free

primers for testing. None of these companies offer lead-free primers

as stand-alone components, and to our knowledge, DDNP-based

primers are currently only available in training ammunition, with

no major supplier offering service caliber or hunting ammunition

for self-defense, law-enforcement, hunting, or military duty.

In the explosives literature, DDNP is reported to have a higher

detonation velocity but a lower deflagration point and impact sensitivity than lead styphnate and lead azide.[10] The higher detonation velocity and pressures were reported to sometimes cause breech

Figure 1. Largest and smallest blast pressure waves are shown for

two DDNP-based (KVB-7E and KVB 9E) and two lead based (Fed

210M and Fed 205) primers.

Table 1. Peak pressure averages and standard deviations from the

mean (SD) with a sample size of 10.

Primer Diameter Peak SD SD

(mm) Pressure (kPa) (%)

(kPa)

Fed 210M 5.33 2908 223 7.7%

Fed 215M 5.33 3811 192 5.0%

CCI 200 5.33 2561 270 10.7%

CCI 250 5.33 3587 404 11.3%

DDNP

KVB-7E 5.33 1186 296 25.0%

Rem 7 1⁄2 4.45 2303 186 8.1%

Fed 205 4.45 1469 103 7.1%

CCI 450 4.45 1602 104 6.5%

Fed 205M 4.45 1434 103 7.2%

DDNP 

KVB-9E 4.45 1331 109 8.2%

Figure 2. DDNP-based KVB-7E primer which produced a misfire in a

30-06 test load. The crater suggests the misfire was not due to a light

primer strike. The other nine 30-06 test loads with this primer demonstrated a perceptible delay in ignition.
The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 2 5 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

damage. In response, manufacturers of training ammunition have

attempted to compensate by making various changes such as enlarging the flash hole, crimping the primer more tightly, and moving to

a smaller primer diameter.[11][12] It is possible that the lower pressures and larger pressure variations reported here may be due to

instability in shipping and storage rather than an inherent quality of

newly manufactured DDNP based primers. The development of

DDNP as a priming compound continues. Recent work suggests

that improved manufacturing methods for a spherical DDNP may

improve purity and decrease the impact sensitivity.[13]

While a main impetus for developing DDNP-based priming

compounds was to reduce toxicity due to heavy metal compounds,

it has been reported that there may be different health risks associated with exposure to their residues. Specifically, DDNP may activate an inappropriate immune system (allergic) response. Also, in

enclosed rifle ranges, there are health risks associated with the use of

compositions such as Sintox, which are mixtures of DDNP,

tetrazine, zinc peroxide, and titanium. In part because of these risks,

work is ongoing to develop non-toxic primers based on other compounds.[14] The assumption that lead-free ammunition is nontoxic has also been called into question by an Air Force study reporting a rise in health related complaints following the transition to

lead-free ammunition, even though measured contaminant levels

were all below occupational exposure levels.[15] Transitioning to

lead-free ammunition does not reduce the ventilation requirements

for ranges, as was believed at one time.

The history of primer technology is somewhat cyclical with several notable instances of new primer chemistry being introduced to

better meet an environmental or gun maintenance concern with several decades passing before the new chemistry became reliable. In

2010, the Office of the Product Manager for Maneuver Ammunition

Systems projected that green primer formulations for use in the US

military will be evaluated and candidates selected in FY 2011, and

that ammunition with green primers will be at full production by the

end of FY 2012.[16] At the turn of the 20th century, primer development was driven by the need for a non-corrosive formulation. In

the following years, changes in primers used by the military were necessary due to lack of shelf-stability, which led to misfires. This was a

reason the US military moved from mercury fulminate-based

primers prior to WWI to a formulation based on potassium chlorate,

antimony trisulphide and sulphur. However, this formulation was

associated with misfires and corrosion, forcing another change.[7]

The lesson of primer history is that care is needed to prevent

another large scale move to new primer technology that will compromise field performance and produce unintended consequences.

Since difficulty obtaining consistent field performance from leadfree rifle primers was observed in this study and has been noted by

others [17][18], the authors recommend independent testing

demonstrate the following characteristics before any DDNP-based

primer is adopted for duty:

1. Peak blast wave magnitude and consistency comparable with lead

based primers.

2. Misfire rates at or below those with lead based primers.

3. Shelf-life and long term stability comparable with lead based

primers.

4. Muzzle velocity consistency and peak chamber pressure comparable with lead based primers.

5. Ignition delay times comparable with lead based primers.

6. Comparable accuracy with lead based primers in both machine

rests and hand-held testing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge and appreciate the use of equipment from

Force Protection Industries, Inc. We are also grateful to German

Salazar for providing helpful discussions and resources.

REFERENCES

1. Cameron, E.J., “Comparative Analysis of Airborne Chemical Exposure

to Air Force Small Arms Range Instructors,” Air Force Institute of Technology, AFIT/GES/ENV/06M-01, March 2006. DTIC Doc.: ADA450111

(http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA450111) 

2. Cain, J.C., The Chemistry of the Diazo-Compounds, Edward Arnold, London, 1908. Reprinted in 2003 as Diazo Chemistry – Synthesis and Reactions,

Watchmaker Publishing.

3. Dehn, W.M., “Process for Increasing the Sensitiveness and Power of

Explosive Compositions and Product Thereof,” US Patent 1,428,011,

1922.

4. Hancock, R.S., and L.C. Pritchett, “Method for Producing Diazodintrophenol and the Product Thereof,” US Patent Re. 19,645, 1935.

5. Garfield, F.M., and H.W. Dreher, “Manufacture of Diazodintrophenol,”

US Patent 2,408,059, 1946.

6. Burns, J.E., “Ammunition,” US Patent 1,862,295, 1932.

7. Warlow, T.A., Firearms, the Law and Forensic Ballistics, CRC Press, 2004,

pp. 100-102.

8. Courtney, M., and A. Courtney, “A Table-Top Blast-Driven Shock

Tube,” Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 81, No. 12, 2010. p. 126103.

9. Salazar, G.A., “A Match Primer Study in the 6BR Cartridge,” Precision

Shooting, June 2008.

10. Meyer, R., J. Kohler, and A. Homburg, Explosives, Wiley-VCH Verlag

GmbH & Co., 2002.

11. Petty, C., “Brass from Non Toxic Ammo,” American Handgunner, NovDec, 2003.

12. Petty, C., “Lead-free Ammo: When Solutions Beget Problems,” American Handgunner, May, 2005.

13. Yang, Z., Y. Liu, D. Liu, L. Yan, and J. Chen, “Synthesis and Characterization of Spherical 2-Diazo-4,6-Dinitrophenol (DDNP),” Journal of

Hazardous Materials, Vol. 177, No. 1-3, 2010. pp. 938-943.

14. Huynh, M.H.V., M.D. Coburn, T.J. Meyer, and M. Wetzler, “Green

Primary Explosives: 5-Nitrotetrazolato-N2-Ferrate Hierarchies,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 103, No. 27, 2006. pp. 10322-

10327.

15. Moran, M.P., and D.K. Ott, “Lead Free Frangible Ammunition Exposure at United States Air Force Small Arms Firing Ranges, 2005-2007,” Air

Force Institute for Operational Health, May2008. DTIC Doc.:

ADA487506 (http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA487506)

16. Woods, J., “Small Caliber Ammunition Enhancing Capabilities,”

NDIA Joint Armaments Conference, May 2010. (www.dtic.mil/ndia/

2010armament/ThursdayLandmarkBJeffreyWoods.pdf)

17. Ayoob, M., Gun Digest Book of SIG-Sauer, Krause Publications, 2004.

18. Sweeney, P., Gun Digest Book of the AR-15, Volume 2, Gun Digest

Books, 2007, p. 43.

Amy Courtney earned a Ph.D. in medical engineering and medical physics in a joint Harvard/MIT program. She has served as a research 

 scientist at the Cleveland Clinic, on the physics faculty of the United States Military Academy, and as a scientific consultant for Force Protection

Industries, Inc. She has published papers in the fields of biomedical engineering, blast injury, blast physics, ballistics, acoustics, and education.

Michael Courtney earned a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He directed the Forensic Science Program at Western Carolina University and developed

test systems for design validation and manufacturing quality assessment for Cisco Systems. He currently serves on the faculty of the United States

Air Force Academy where he directs the Quantitative Reasoning Center, teaches mathematics and studies ballistics and blast injury.
in the news...

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 2 6 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

NAVY CONDUCTS

JSOW C-1 FREEFLIGHT TESTING

The U.S. Navy completed the first free-flight testing of the Joint Standoff Weapon C-1

variant at Point Mugu Sea Range California, July 26. Free-flight

tests are done to verify that the weapon's characteristics meet the

performance requirements in the design. This event was the first

end-to-end functionality test of an inert JSOW C-1, from pre-flight

to target impact. “The successful outcome of free-flight testing

marks another important milestone achieved by the dedicated men

and women of PMA-201,” said Capt. Carl Chebi, Precision Strike

Weapons (PMA-201) program manager. “JSOW C-1 will provide a

much needed Network Enabled Weapon capability to the fleet.”

A team from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 31 deployed

the test weapon from an F/A-18F Super Hornet. On shore, an Integrated Battlespace Arena asset, an advanced simulation facility, maintained the Link 16 network – a secure military tactical data exchange

– and managed the network messages. The target for the test was an

unmanned 260-foot long Mobile Ship Target (MST). After the

weapon achieved Link 16 net-entry, it was launched and began

receiving in-flight target updates via the weapon data link on the

moving target. It successfully acquired the MST autonomously and

guided to the predetermined aim point on the ship.

“The accomplishment of this free-flight test has advanced the

program closer to providing a standoff weapon that the aircrew can

provide target updates after weapon separation,” said Lt. Cmdr.

Samuel Hanaki, JSOW Deputy Program Manager. “Precisely engaging moving maritime targets is a needed capability for the warfighter and we are working diligently to provide this weapon to the fleet.”

The JSOW is an air-to-ground, medium-range precision guided,

glide weapon that employs a GPS/inertial navigation system and an

infrared seeker for terminal guidance. The JSOW C-1 variant adds

a Link 16 weapon data link for in-flight target updates and upgraded seeker software to autonomously target and strike a specific aim

point on a moving ship. The JSOW C-1 will be the first Network

Enabled Weapon in the military’s inventory and the first weapon

with the capability to precisely strike moving maritime targets.

This test was the first of two planned developmental test freeflights. Following the developmental test phase, the program will enter

an integrated test series of free-flights prior to operational testing. 

Initial operating capability of the JSOW C-1 is scheduled for 2013.

PMA-201 is responsible for the research, development and

acquisition of the fleet's air-to-ground precision guided weapons,

general purpose bombs, and aircraft armament-related equipment.

SOURCE: 

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4717

ONR LIGHTENS BURDEN FOR NAVY EOD TEAMS

From Office of Naval Research Public Affairs

A lightweight power system developed by the Office of Naval

Research's (ONR) TechSolutions Program to cut the 50 pounds of

battery devices hauled by the Navy's explosive ordnance disposal

(EOD) teams was delivered July 22.

Responding to a request from the Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Training and Evaluation Unit (EODTEU) 2, to create a lightweight

power device to charge their specialized equipment, TechSolutions

partnered with Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, Ind., and Protonex Technology Corp. to develop the Power Management Kit

(PMK). Five units were shipped to the team for a trial. “The PMK

gives the warfighter a very significant weight reduction in batteries,

chargers and adapters, while also increasing real-time awareness of

power usage and availability,” said Phil Robinson, Protonex's vice

president and ONR's principal investigator for the PMK project.

The kit is a lightweight, portable system containing common

military rechargeable batteries, a solar-powered blanket, a onepound Soldier Power Manager (SPM) unit and “smart” cables to

link the SPM with EOD equipment. The PMK is centered around

the SPM, which can harness energy from a variety of sources to

charge batteries and provide power to attached gear. Any new equipment added to the EOD team's arsenal can be supported by merely providing a new cable. Therefore, the SPM itself never requires an

upgrade.

By enabling teams to use alternative energy sources, such as a

solar cell-covered blankets and fuel cells, the PMK reduces the team's

logistics footprint. Few of the Navy's EOD teams' primary tools and

equipment use the same power sources, so Sailors and Marines must

carry multiple single-purpose batteries to power their gear.

"Currently, if one were to collect all the battery chargers allocated to an EOD platoon, they would fill a 4-foot by 4-foot table,"

according to EODTEU 2 Combat Development staff. "The PMK,

with all of its cables, and the SPM in a soft roll case weigh only nine

pounds, replacing up to 50 pounds of specialized chargers and related equipment."

A graphical interface displays information about batteries and

sources, power usage, state of charge and operational details. This

data is stored and analyzed, providing EOD teams with unpreceThe Navy completes

the first free-flight testing of the Joint Standoff Weapon C-1 variant

at Point Mugu Sea

Range 

California, July 26.

(U.S. Navy photo)

Explosive Ordnance Disposal

technician 2nd Class Justin

Eaton, from Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit

(EODMU) 6, speeds across the

monkey bars while going

through an obstacle course

during a training exercise.

(U.S. Navy photo by Mass

Communication Specialist 2nd

Class Kori Melvin/Released)
in the news...

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 2 7 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

dented visibility, safety, situational awareness and readiness when

planning future missions.

TechSolutions accepts recommendations and suggestions from

Navy and Marine Corps personnel on ways to improve mission

effectiveness through the application of new technology. The TechSolutions team provides Sailors and Marines with prototype technologies to rapidly address immediate needs. TechSolutions works

closely with the fleet and force to meet specific requirements that

cannot be readily satisfied with commercial off-the-shelf technologies. Typical turn-around time for a working prototype is 12-18

months.

ONR provides the science and technology necessary to maintain

the Navy and Marine Corps' technological advantage. Through its

affiliates, ONR is a leader in science and technology with engagement in 50 states, 70 countries, 1,035 institutions of higher learning and 914 industry partners. ONR employs approximately 1,400

people, comprising uniformed, civilian and contract personnel, with

additional employees at the Naval Research Lab in Washington,

D.C.

SOURCE: http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=61732

FLY-BY-WIRE TECHNOLOGY NOW USED 

IN ARMY UTILITY HELICOPTERS

Randy Siniard, RDECOM

In use in other Defense Department aircraft for years, fly-by-wire

now replaces the conventional manual flight controls in some Black

Hawk helicopters with an electronic interface. In older aircraft,

cables run from the pilot's controls to various control systems such

as rudders, ailerons and, in the case of helicopters, the pitch controls

on the rotor blades. With fly-by-wire technology, the flight-control

movements are converted to electronic signals and sent to flight

control computers that use them to determine how to move the aircraft. This technology can automatically perform functions without

input from the pilot, such as systems that automatically stabilize the

aircraft. "The fly-by-wire variant of the UH-60M Black Hawk

offers increased handling capability, lower maintenance burden,

decreased pilot work load, and full-authority digital engine control,"

Maj. Jeffrey Stvan, assistant program manager UH-60 Modernization, said. 

This technology greatly decreases the workload of the pilots,

allowing them to focus on their surroundings and reduce fatigue, by

permitting them to better control the loads. "Fly-by-wire offers

increased handling capabilities and decreased pilot workload. This

allows the pilot to focus on his current mission," Stvan said. "One

aim of the fly-by-wire system is to allow the pilot to keep more of

his concentration outside the cockpit and on his surrounding environment."

Maj. Carl Ott, an Army experimental test pilot for the Aviation

and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center's

Aeroflightdynamics Directorate at Moffett Field, Calif., has done

testing for the Utility Project Office and Sikorsky, involving fly-bywire technology. He said fly-by-wire technology is geared toward

making the aircraft highly stable and more predictable. 

This technology will also help troops on the ground, when a

pilot can focus more on the surroundings and efficiently making

deliveries and place payloads that will be a great advantage, officials

said. "The fly-by-wire is an enabling technology that will allow for

more advanced, adaptive, flight controls and sensors to be integrated into a helicopter making them easier and safer to fly," Ott said.

SOURCE: http://www.army.mil/article/63427/Fly_by_wire_technology_now_

used_in_Army_utility_helicopters/

ESC AWARDS CONTRACT FOR LIGHTENED INSTRUMENT

LANDING SYSTEM

Patty Welsh, 66th Air Base Group Public Affairs

Officials at the Electronic Systems Center issued an $8.8 million

contract award to Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Network

Systems Division Aug. 12 to provide the Air Force a deployable precision approach landing capability to support contingency operations or humanitarian missions across the globe. The fixed-price

contract is for the Deployable Instrument Landing System, which

will provide guidance to aircraft on final approach during low visibility, or low ceiling weather conditions. 

The D-ILS will have the ability to convert a bare forward-operating base into a precision-approach-capable operating airfield, can

augment an existing airfield, or be used at damaged airfields for conducting humanitarian operations. "I think the D-ILS is going to

become an important asset for the Air Force," said Matthew MacGregor, the D-ILS program manager, "There will always be a need

to support contingency operations and, if weather situations continue to ravage the world, the ability to assist in humanitarian operations will become very important." While fixed-based instrument

landing systems are a time-tested solution, they are large structures

that need to be transported on multiple aircraft and require installation of concrete, electronics and cabling. 

The new D-ILS will be able to be transported on one C-130

Hercules and set up in 120 man-hours, which equates to two personnel being able to complete the task in about a week. "It was

critical to the user community that the system have the ability to

be set up and maintained by a small number of people," MacGregor said.

The contract is for 34 systems with a five-year period of performance. If all the potential options on the contract are exercised,

the value could increase to almost $58 million. Production is

anticipated to happen around the middle of 2013 with initial

operating capability slated for early fiscal year 2014. "We're glad

Maj. Carl Ott, of the

Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, Moffett Field,

Calif., stands with a Black

Hawk helicopter which is

integrated with the 

fly-by-wire technology

prior to a flight test.

Photo Credit: Paul

Langston, RDECOM
to get this effort started," said Col. Jimmie Schuman, Aerospace

Management Systems Division director. "My team is looking 

forward to getting the system developed, tested and fielded as

quickly as possible."

SOURCE: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123268992

OFFICIALS CONDUCT STUDY OF AIRCRAFT OXYGEN 

GENERATION SYSTEMS

Master Sgt. Amaani Lyle, Air Force Public Affairs Agency

Air Force officials continue to conduct an Aircraft Oxygen Generation study, with members of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board

taking the leading role. Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley

directed the quick look study in the wake of recent F-22 Raptor

incidents. Officials seek to identify a common thread among the

incidents and will report their findings to senior Air Force leaders to

help prevent such incidents from occurring in the future.

In a July 13 memorandum to the secretary of defense, Secretary

Donley noted that pilots flying the F-22 have reported in-flight,

physiological events at a rate three times higher than crews from

other similar aircraft. The symptoms are similar to those resulting

from an inadequate oxygen supply which affected the performance

of the pilots experiencing them in varied ways. "The Air Force takes

flying-related incidents seriously. We met with leaders, operators

and maintainers in the F-22 community to talk about the Scientific Advisory Board's oxygen generation study," said Lt. Gen. "Hawk"

Carlisle, the deputy chief of staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. "As part of the meeting we

were able to provide the latest information on the status of the study

and address their concerns regarding a timely return to fly."

"This board is the secretary's brain trust," said Lt. Col. Matthew

Zuber, the Air Force SAB executive director. "It utilizes the nation's

best scientists and engineers to advise Air Force senior leadership on

science and technology issues." The SAB, composed of special government employees, works with Air Force officials to conduct three

to five studies per year and advises the secretary and the chief of staff

on the findings, Zuber said. Zuber added the Air Force has expanded the scope of the scientific investigation beyond the F-22 to

include such platforms as the F-35 Lightning II, T-6A Texan II, F-16

Fighting Falcon and the A-10 Thunderbolt II. The study has incorporated extensive ground testing and limited flight testing as well.

The SAB study panel investigation is supported by the F-22 

System Program Office, the Air Force Safety Center, industry partners, Naval Air Systems Command and Air Force Research Labs.

"We're all in the same room and not holding back any effort to

determine whether these events are related to hypoxia, air contaminants or other factors," Zuber said, adding that no possibilities have

been eliminated. This particular investigation, Zuber explained,

involves a strong fact-finding analysis with deliberation among a

cross-section of experts.

The study will benefit from technical data generated by flight

test activities conducted at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., laboratory tests conducted by Air Force Research Labs, and contractor personnel, he said. "The zero-risk solution is not to fly, and that's not

a long-term option; it's an inherently dangerous business to fly and

fight wars," Zuber said. "We want to make sure we mitigate risks to

a level that's appropriate for the urgency of the mission."

The SAB AOG study plans to provide the Air Force secretary

and Air Force chief of staff interim reports prior to the final report

projected for later this fall. Once complete, the product will be

releasable to the general public. Until the report is submitted, it

would be inappropriate to speculate on potential outcomes of the

study, Zuber said.

SOURCE: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123268093

ARMY ANNOUNCES GROUND COMBAT VEHICLE 

CONTRACTS

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Public Affairs

The Army announced today the award of contracts to BAE 

Systems Land and Armaments, L.P., of Troy, Mich., for $449.9 million, and General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., of Sterling

Heights, Mich., for $439.7 million, for the Ground Combat Vehicle program technology development phase. These contractors have

been selected to develop competitive, affordable and executable

designs for a new Army Infantry Fighting Vehicle, or IFV, over the

next 24 months.

The contract awards follow the Department of Defense's formal

approval of the Ground Combat Vehicle, or GCV, program to enter

the technology development phase. Approval of this first major

milestone builds on months of ongoing collaboration between the

Army and the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, to successfully develop, build and

field an affordable, effective and suitable IFV. "The Army enthusiastically welcomes the formal launch of the Ground Combat Vehicle program, which will provide much needed protection and

mobility to soldiers in combat," said Secretary of the Army John

McHugh. "Given the economic environment the nation currently

Members of the 36th Communications Squadron and civilian contractors use a crane to erect an instrument landing system at Andersen

Air Force Base, Guam, in 2009. Officials at the Electronic Systems

Center issued a contract award Aug. 12, 2011, for a deployable

instrument landing system to provide a leaner system that will be

more easily transportable and require less personnel to set up.

(Courtesy photo)

in the news...

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 2 8 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly
in the news...

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 2 9 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

faces, the Army recognizes that it is imperative to continually

address requirements as we build a versatile, yet affordable, nextgeneration infantry fighting vehicle." 

The department's GCV acquisition strategy, which emphasizes

affordability and a seven-year schedule, calls for aggressive exploration of GCV IFV capabilities trade-space via continued requirements and affordability analysis during the 24-month technology

development phase. As the Army finalizes GCV requirements during this phase of the formal acquisition process, these efforts will

enable the Army to realize program schedule and affordability objectives. The Army remains committed to a seven-year schedule as the

appropriate amount of time necessary to design, develop, build and

test the next-generation infantry fighting vehicle.

To develop a successful program with well-informed decision

points at each major milestone, the Army will undertake a threepronged approach during the first phase of this effort. First, contractors will work collaboratively with the Army to develop competitive,

best-value engineering designs to meet critical Army needs. Concurrently, the Army will initiate an update to its GCV IFV analysis of

alternatives and conduct separate technical and operational assessment of existing non-developmental vehicles. Results from this

assessment, along with contractors design efforts, will inform GCV

requirements to support the next program milestone and facilitate a

full and open competition for the next phase of the GCV program.

"This is an important milestone in our Army's modernization program. GCV is the first combat vehicle designed from inception for

an IED (improvised explosive device) environment. It will provide

armor protection and the capability to maneuver cross-country with

the nine-man infantry squad," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey. The Army's overall strategy for developing GCV is

consistent with efforts to implement acquisition reform and best

acquisition practices.

SOURCE: 

http://www.army.mil/article/63891/Army_announces_Ground_Combat_Vehicle_

contracts/

ONR’S TECHSOLUTIONS PROVIDING SEALS WITH NEW

GLASSES THAT CHANGE LENS COLOR ON THE FLY

Geoff S. Fein, Office of Naval Research, Corporate Strategic Communications

The Office of Naval Research’s (ONR) TechSolutions department

is set to deliver to Navy Special Warfare Command personnel

later this year new protective eyewear that will eliminate the need

for warfighters to stop to change out colored lenses to accommodate differences in

light levels. The FastTint Protective Eyewear (FTPE) changes

color quicker than

transitional lenses commonly found at an optometrist’s office.

“Transition time is less than 0.5 seconds,” said Stephanie Everett,

ONR’s TechSolutions program manager. 

“Currently, warfighters are using a set of interchangeable lenses

that require them to stop and manually switch lenses to adjust the

goggles to a particular light environment,” Everett said. “But they

can’t take the time to stop and remove and replace the lenses.”

Instead, they often simply remove their sunglasses when moving

inside, leaving their eyes unprotected. The FTPE was designed to

enable them to maintain ballistic protection under all lighting conditions, without interrupting their operational tempo.

Liquid crystal solutions within the lenses contain customized

dyes that transition to amber, blue, dark gray or clear when an electric charge is applied. Lenses can change color automatically as

wearers move in and out of varying environments, or lens colors can

be altered manually by pushing a small button on the side of the

glasses. Additionally, the lenses meet the American National Standards Institute’s ballistic impact safety requirements.

The request for new eyewear came to TechSolutions from

warfighters in July 2009, and the project is almost complete. The

initial delivery was for 30 pairs of the new eyewear, which have

already gone out for evaluation with warfighters who will use them

in training. “They will provide structured feedback on the glasses,”

said ONR’s Command Master Chief Petty Officer Charles Ziervogel, who oversees the TechSolutions department. After this evaluation, Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is expected to take

delivery of the FTPE glasses. “SOCOM is buying 100 units based

on the initial assessment and seeing the results from the current evaluation,” Ziervogel said.

Last August, an earlier prototype was assessed, which led to

design changes, which are incorporated in the current eyewear. “The

user feedback made this prototype even better,” Everett said. Results

from this round of assessments were expected in April. The company, along with Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, Indiana, was

selected to develop FTPE. “We expect additional minor design

changes based on the results of the current assessment,” Everett said.

AlphaMicron will incorporate any changes into what will be close to

a final product.

TechSolutions accepts recommendations and suggestions from

Navy and Marine Corps personnel working at the ground level on

ways to improve mission effectiveness through the application of

technology. It is solely focused on delivering needed technology and

moving the sea services toward more effective and efficient use of

personnel. TechSolutions uses rapid prototyping of technologies to

meet specific requirements. 

U.S. Army graphic. 

NOTE -- Generic 

representation of a 

combat vehicle only. 

The final Army Ground 

Combat Vehicle may 

bear little to no 

resemblance to this 

representation. There 

is no requirement for the vehicle to be either tracked, or wheeled.

WSTIAC contributed to this effort. Matt Luna, Technology

Transition (T2) Team Leader, is the point of contact.

mluna@alionscience.com
(Text is excerpted from “An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2012 Shipbuilding Plan,” Congressional Budget Office, June 2011, DTIC 

Document ADA545315)

The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 2 10 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier 

Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarine 

Los Angeles Class Attack Submarine 

The Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers are the heart of the

battle force fleet. Each carries an air wing of about 60

aircraft, which can attack hundreds of targets per day

for up to a month before needing to be rested. Carriers are by far the largest ships in the fleet, with a

weight (displacement) of about 100,000 tons. Ten of

the 11 current carriers belong to the Nimitz class.

Strategic ballistic missile submarines carry the major

part of the U.S. nuclear deterrent, up to 24 Trident missiles with four to eight nuclear warheads apiece. The

Navy has 14 Ohio class ballistic missile submarines in

the strategic role and has converted 4 more to a conventional guided missile (SSGN) configuration, each of

which displaces about 19,000 tons submerged. Those

SSGNs carry up to 154 Tomahawk missiles as well as

special-operations forces.

Attack submarines are the Navy’s premier undersea

warfare and antisubmarine weapon. Since the end of

the Cold War, however, they have mainly performed

covert intelligence gathering missions. They have also

been used to launch Tomahawk missiles at inland targets in the early stages of conflicts. The Navy has 53

attack submarines, 44 of which belong to the Los Angeles class. At 7,000 tons, they are less than half the size

of ballistic missile submarines.
The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 2 11 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ship 

Wasp Class Amphibious Assault Ship 

Austin Class Amphibious Transport Dock 

Large surface combatants – which include cruisers

and destroyers – are the workhorses of the fleet. They

defend the Navy’s aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships against other surface ships, aircraft, and submarines. They also perform many day-to-day missions,

such as patrolling sea lanes, providing an overseas presence, and conducting exercises with allies. In addition,

they are capable of striking land targets with Tomahawk

missiles. Different types of surface combatants have displacements ranging from 9,000 to 15,000 tons.

Small surface combatants are frigates and, in the

future, littoral combat ships. Frigates today are used to

perform many of the same day-to-day missions as large

surface combatants. Littoral combat ships are intended

to counter mines, small boats, and diesel electric submarines in the world’s coastal regions. More routinely,

they will also participate in patrolling sea lanes, providing an overseas presence, and conducting exercises with

allies. These ships range in size from 3,000 to 4,000

tons.

The Navy’s two classes of amphibious assault ships

(also known as large-deck amphibious ships or helicopter carriers) are the second largest ships in the fleet at

40,000 tons. They form the centerpiece of amphibious

ready groups, and each can carry about half the troops

and equipment of a Marine expeditionary unit. They

also carry as many as 30 helicopters and 6 fixed-wing

Harrier jump jets, or up to 20 Harriers.
The WSTIAC Journal, Volume 11, Number 2 12 http://wstiac.alionscience.com

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

The many logistics and support ships in the Navy’s

fleet provide the means to resupply, repair, salvage, or

tow combat ships. The most prominent of those vessels

are fast combat support ships, which operate with carrier strike groups to resupply them with fuel, dry cargo

(such as food), and ammunition. These ships can be as

small as 2,000 tons for an ocean-going tug or as large as

50,000 tons for a fully loaded fast combat support ship.

Wasp Class Amphibious Assault Ship 

Supply Class Fast Combat Support Ship 

The Navy has four other classes of amphibious warfare

ships, and such ships are divided into two types:

amphibious transport docks and dock landing ships.

Two of those ships together provide the remaining

transport capacity for a Marine expeditionary unit in an

amphibious ready group. They range in size from

16,000 to 25,000 tons.
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

WSTIAC Directory

WSTIAC DIRECTOR

John L. Weed

100 Valley Road, Ste 102

Mount Arlington, NJ 07856

973.770.0123; Fax: 973.770.1808

Email: jweed@alionscience.com

WSTIAC PROGRAM COORDINATOR

Mary Priore

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440

315.339.7135; Fax: 315.337.9932

Email: mpriore@alionscience.com

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

Attn: IAC Program Office (DTIC-I)

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Ste 0944

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218

703.767.9120; Fax: 703.767.9119

Email: iac@dtic.mil

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

TECHNICAL INQUIRIES

Owen Conniff

Bruce Dudley

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440

877.WST.USER; Fax: 315.337.9932

Email: wstiac@alionscience.com

TRAINING COURSE COORDINATOR

Gina Nash

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440

315.339.7047; Fax: 315.337.9932

Email: gnash@alionscience.com

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

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/calendar

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

Create a professional foundation

Learn the fundamental concepts that will allow you to

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

Accelerate at your pace

Who has time for one week training sessions? 

Our courses are designed to get you up to speed 

in 2-3 days. Courses are continuously offered, allowing

you to advance when it is most convenient for you. 

Connect with experts

Our instructors have a combined 100+ years of 

experience in weapon systems technology, with a 

proven track record in their areas of expertise.

Meet your challenges and your budget

Whether your training budget includes one, two or 

all of our courses, our offerings are designed 

to accommodate your time and budget constraints.

Current Course Offerings

• Introduction to Weaponeering

This course is based on a very successful

graduate-level weaponeering course

developed by Professor Driels and taught

at the Naval Postgraduate School, 

Monterey, CA. It provides an overview 

of the fundamentals of the weaponeering

process and its application to air-tosurface and surface-to-surface engagements. The course explains the analytical

basis of current weaponeering tools

known as the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals (JMEM’s) produced by the

Joint Technical Coordinating Group for

Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME).

GET UP TO SPEED FAST ON WEAPON SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY

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

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

FOR CURRENT COURSE OFFERINGS AND PRICING:

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

877.WST.USER

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

201 Mill Street, Rome, NY 13440-6916

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/quarterly

Please update...

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