Standardization

Tactical Shelters

Power Source Systems

Intermodal Equipment

Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Microelectronics and Semiconductors

Joint

Boards
Contents October/December 2006

1 Director’s Forum

3 Intermodal Equipment

Standardizing to Promote Compatibility, Interoperability, Interchangeability,

and Commonality

9 Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Embracing Standards to Achieve Interoperability

13 Tactical Rigid-Wall, Soft-Wall, and Hybrid Shelters;

Special-Purpose Covers; and Shelter Accessories

Bringing New Ideas and Tools to Bear in a New Environment

20 Power Source Systems

Improving Battery Selection and Management

25 Microelectronics and Semiconductors

Leveraging the Work of the Defense Microcircuit Planning Group

to Meet New Challenges

Departments

31 Events 32 People

Gregory E. Saunders

Director, Defense Standardization Program Office

Timothy P. Koczanski

Editor, Defense Standardization Program Journal

Defense Standardization Program Office

8725 John J. Kingman Road

Stop 6233

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221

703-767-6870

Fax 703-767-6876

dsp.dla.mil

The Defense Standardization Program Journal

(ISSN 0897-0245) is published four times a

year by the Defense Standardization Program

Office (DSPO). Opinions represented here are

those of the authors and may not represent official policy of the U.S. Department of Defense.

Letters, articles, news items, photographs, and

other submissions for the DSP Journal are welcomed and encouraged. Send all materials to

Editor, DSP Journal, J-307, Defense Standardization Program Office, 8725 John J. Kingman

Road, Stop 6233, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.

DSPO is not responsible for unsolicited materials. Materials can be submitted digitally by the

following means:

e-mail to DSP-Editor@dla.mil

floppy disk (Windows format) to DSP Journal

at the above address.

DSPO reserves the right to modify or reject any

submission as deemed appropriate.

For a subscription to the DSP Journal, go to dsp.dla.mil/newsletters/subscribe.asp

25

9

Front and back covers: Some images courtesy of DoD.
dsp.dla.mil 1

Director’s Forum

At our last Defense Standardization Program

(DSP) conference in May 2006, we unveiled

a new entity—Joint Standardization Boards

(JSBs). Understandably, the audience had a

number of questions about the purpose of

the boards and how they would fit in with

the existing DSP infrastructure.

The JSB concept came out of the strategic

planning efforts, several years ago, of the DSP

Infrastructure Integrated Product Team, which

was led by the Air Force. One of the team’s key

findings was that many standardization efforts in

DoD took place outside of the DSP and,all too

often, there was a lack of connectivity between

the DSP and the technical organizations engaged

in standardization activities or interested in pursuing standardization.

These disconnects lessened the potential benefits that could be derived from an enterprisewide approach to standardization. In some cases,

parallel, independent standardization efforts were

occurring in each of the services, which may

have benefited the individual service, but could

have resulted in a lack of standardization and

interoperability across DoD. In other cases, standardization efforts were happening in only a single service when there was obvious need and

opportunities throughout DoD. In yet other

cases, the lack of a JSB-type structure stymied

standardization opportunities because there was

no official venue that sanctioned a “coalition of

the willing” to come together. In all cases, visibility was lacking; standardization decisions were

made and communicated among limited communities instead of the broader DoD-wide

enterprise.

The new JSB structure can help address these

issues.Although some Lead Standardization

Activities (LSAs) under the DSP have taken the

initiative to establish working groups to work on

DoD-wide standardization opportunities, most

LSAs have not.Also, standardization opportunities exist in newly emerging technologies—for

example, unmanned aircraft systems—yet no LSA

is addressing them.And standardization opportunities for some technologies cut across multiple

LSAs.The new JSB structure allows for technical

organizations and others outside of the traditional DSP framework to come together to work

Gregory E. Saunders

Director, Defense Standardization Program Office

JOINT STANDARDIZATION

BOARDS
2 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

on DoD-wide standardization issues under the

DSP umbrella.

This arrangement offers several advantages. It

provides ad hoc technical groups with an official

DoD imprimatur in the form of a DSP charter,

which can be useful in gaining participation,

resources, and recognition for the standardization

effort. Having the JSB structure provides a neutral forum in which separate service standardization efforts can come together for the greater

good. Making the JSB standardization activities

visible—through such vehicles as the DSP website, the Journal, the Standardization Awards Program, and the Standardization Directory—allows

them greater recognition and support while

increasing awareness of these activities in DoD,

other federal agencies,and industry.

More important, formally acknowledging these

ad hoc standardization efforts under the JSB

structure makes our traditional DSP standardization offices aware of these efforts and provides

them an opportunity to participate and help the

JSBs with developing, processing, and managing

any documents necessary to capture their standardization decisions.All too often in the past,

standardization decisions by ad hoc group were

not widely disseminated, were not readily available, or were lost in time. By establishing JSBs

under the DSP, the resulting standardization documents can be included in the Acquisition

Streamlining and Standardization Information

System—ASSIST—database, which is one of the

most widely used online standards library in the

world.

As of today, the Defense Standardization

Executive has chartered eight JSBs:

❚ Tactical Rigid-Wall, Soft-Wall, and Hybrid

Shelters; Special-Purpose Covers and

Accessories

❚ Medical Materiel/Equipment

❚ Mobile Electric Power Generating Sources

❚ Power Source Systems

❚ Intermodal Equipment

❚ Tactical Unmanned Aircraft Systems

❚ Microelectronics and Semiconductors

❚ Fuze/Initiation Systems.

These JSBs will play key roles within the DSP

by providing joint forums for high-level oversight and advocacy of strategic standardization

initiatives and establishing priorities to help the

standardization community wisely allocate

resources. Each JSB differs greatly in its focus,

complexity, and desired outcomes. Some JSBs

will focus primarily on piece part standardization, while others will focus on common enditem standardization, on common testing

protocols, or on system or cross-platform standardization. But the one characteristic that all

JSBs share is that they provide a standardizationfocused forum for dialogue among the services,

agencies,and programs to identify, communicate,

and capture key standardization opportunities

within their area of interest.

This issue of the Journal introduces not only 

the JSB concept, but sets the stage for what are

the initial standardization priorities for five of the

boards. JSBs remain a work in progress. It likely

will take several years before they are comfortable with the working of the DSP and vice

versa. But given the wave of enthusiasm I have

seen so far from the chartered JSBs and interest

expressed by other organizations, I have no

doubt that JSBs are a welcome addition to the

DSP and that they will help us do a better job of

supporting the warfighter. If you want to learn

more about the currently chartered JSBs and

keep apprised of future ones, we have created a

JSB section on our website at www.dsp.dla.mil.
dsp.dla.mil 3

By Anna Wojciechowski

Intermodal Equipment

Standardizing to Promote Compatibility,

Interoperability, Interchangeability, 

and Commonality
4 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

I

Interoperability within and among the military services and with our allies is critical to ensuring our readiness and capability to respond to world emergencies. Interoperability is impossible without standardization. Joint Standardization Boards

(JSBs) are DoD’s approach for establishing a comprehensive, integrated structure

necessary to achieve interoperability, promote standardization, develop standards,

and conserve resources in support of joint service and multinational operations.

Through such boards, DoD expects to increase the level of visibility and manage

program funding more effectively and reduce the overall logistics footprint.1

The Joint Standardization Board for Intermodal Equipment (JSBIE) will address

intermodal equipment technology and standardization issues to improve the endto-end intermodal distribution pipeline and to make related standardization decisions. JSB designation provides the ability to jointly set DoD standards through the

Joint Intermodal Working Group (JIWG) and to influence non-government standards.With the authority to set standards for intermodal equipment, JIWG can look

at all aspects of the intermodal pipeline, identify where improvements can be made

through standardization,and determine the best course of action for making them.

Intermodal equipment includes all DoD-owned, -leased, or -controlled ISOconfigured containers, non-ISO containers and system 463L equipment, container- and materials-handling equipment, other supporting equipment, and

enablers—such as radio frequency identification tags, bar-code labels, satellite

tracking devices, readers, and information systems and databases—that support

DoD transportation and logistics operations.The key to optimizing interoperability

among DoD, NATO, and industry is standardization, and the newly chartered

JSBIE holds the key.2

Each time an individual piece of cargo is handled, the likelihood that it will be

lost or damaged increases.As a result, one of the goals of container standardization

is to reduce the number of times the shipped item is handled. In addition, handling

takes time; duplicate orders are frequently placed in an attempt to replace an order

that is still in transit. Effective tracking will reduce the likelihood that an order will

be lost or misplaced, and reduced handling time will reduce the arrival time—increasing customer satisfaction and reducing the cost to the government.

DoD, through the U.S.Transportation Command, relies heavily on the commercial sector to increase its lift capacity and port/terminal services. Industry provides

us access to its assets through a variety of programs.We routinely interface with the

commercial sector to improve and refine our own operations and must continue

partnering with industry to maximize our transportation capability in peace and in

war. National and DoD policy directs use of the commercial sector when doing so
dsp.dla.mil 5

is militarily effective. National Security Directive 28, issued on October 5, 1989,

states that the “U.S.-owned commercial ocean carrier industry, to the extent it is

capable, will be relied upon to provide sealift in peace, crisis, and war.”To encourage that reliance, Part VI of the Defense Transportation Regulation (DoD

4500.9R, issued in June 2002) specifies the American National Standards Institute/ISO standards for the 20- and 40-foot containers as the designated standards

for DoD unit equipment and sustainment.

JIWG standardization goals are to engage air, surface, ocean, intermodal, retail,

and other industry partners through a variety of conferences such as those held by

the Intermodal Association of North America, American Society for Testing and

Materials, ISO Technical Committee on freight containers (TC-104), and National

Defense Transportation Association. Through TC-104, I submitted a shoring slot

addition to ISO 1496. JWIG works through available DoD and other government

forums such as the DoD Standards Conference and NATO meetings and exercises

addressing multinational compatibility and interoperability.

JSBIE established the Standards Committee (SC) to develop standards in accordance with DoD 4120.24-M (“Defense Standardization Program, Policies and

Procedures”) or with non-government standards. The SC’s goal is to achieve,

where possible, common standards for use by DoD, NATO, and industry. The

JSBIE SC will act for the JSBIE to initiate, harmonize, and coordinate intermodal

equipment standardization activities. The SC will draft standards for intermodal

equipment that have reduced inventory and shorter logistics chains, improve readiness, establish liaisons with various standards bodies and industry, and enhance integration and interoperability.

The standardization priority set by the committee is compatibility, interoperability, interchangeability, and commonality. The standards will provide the interface

for commercial/military integration to optimize the DoD distribution process and

improve end-to-end distribution effectiveness and efficiency.The JSBIE SC plans

to standardize intermodal equipment through

❚ implementation of Joint Modular Intermodal Container (JMIC) system 

standards;

Effective tracking will reduce the likelihood that an order will be lost or

misplaced, and reduced handling time will reduce the arrival time—

increasing customer satisfaction and reducing the cost to the government.
6 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

❚ implementation of Joint Modular Intermodal Platform (JMIP) standards;

❚ evaluation of container asset tracking protocols and standards, with the goal

of ensuring that they are part of the intermodal transportation system;

❚ evaluation of existing standards that address limitations for various intermodal

platforms, with the goal of improving the end-to-end distribution process;

and

❚ facilitation of multinational compatibility and interoperability of intermodal

platforms and of transportation and handling assets through ISO TC-104,

NATO, and others.

To bring all these efforts to fruition, JIWG set the Joint Modular Intermodal Distribution System (JMIDS) as an umbrella for intermodal transportation. JMIDS

encompasses the development of JMIC, JMIP, and their interfaces with DoD asset

tracking systems. JMIDS will permit efficient, seamless, and visible movement of

supplies through the distribution system from U.S.-based depots and vendor locations to tactical end users, including movement through a sea base to support forward operating expeditionary and task force units.

Through a JMIDS joint capabilities technology demonstration project, JSBIE will

demonstrate, analyze, and transition joint service, all-mode containers and platforms that are equipped with automated identification technology.The goal of the

demonstration is to make significant contributions to the agility, flexibility, efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, and interoperability of the joint distribution

system.

The ideal JMIC system meets ISO standards for interfaces and is transportable by

land, rail, sea, and air in both commercial and military transportation assets. It is

lightweight and made of durable materials, easy and inexpensive to repair and

maintain, compatible with standard materials-handling equipment, truly intermodal without use of adapters, easily secured, compatible with upcoming emerging technologies, and, when needed, easily configured to specific cargoes.

Moreover, it can be decontaminated if exposed to nuclear, biological, or chemical

agents. The standard will cover multiple-sized containers that combine to effectively build and break down a 20- or 40-foot ISO container or 463L pallet into

pallet or module-sized loads.The goal is to reduce the overall theater logistics footprint, including retrograde, while complementing automated loading, handling,

and storage systems.

To prove the effectiveness of JMIDS, the Army and the Navy developed JMIC

prototypes (made from aluminum or steel).The selected attributes were as follows:
dsp.dla.mil 7

❚ Maximum dimensions of 52 inches long by 44 inches wide by 42 inches

high

❚ Internal footprint that fits a 48-inch by 40-inch pallet

❚ Maximum tare weight of 350 pounds, with a target weight of 250 pounds

❚ Maximum collapsed-to-assembled ratio of 4:1, with a target ratio of 2.5:1

❚ Accessible through two long sides and the top side

❚ Gross weight capacity of 3,000 pounds.

The best container type was manufactured for a combined military/industry unitization demonstration, scheduled to begin in March 2007.

Once the JMIC is proven in the field, the JMIC standard will be completed.The

JSBIE SC is considering the following parameters for JMIC standardization:

❚ Container interfaces

❚ Lifting and tie-downs (MIL-STD 209 and NATO Standardization

Agreement 4062)

❚ Stackability

❚ Locking interfaces

❚ Platform size

❚ Footprint and internal dimensions

❚ Compatibility with transportation modes

❚ Compatibility with common and joint handling equipment.

Containers Built for Utilization Demonstration
8 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

About the Author

Anna Wojciechowski chairs the JSBIE Standards Committee. Her other responsibilities include

research and acquisition support for materials-handling equipment while working for the U.S.

Army Research, Development and Engineering Command’s Tank-Automotive Research,

Development and Engineering Center. She is also the Army’s point of contact for container

issues as they may relate to ISO Technical Committee 104.t

Additional optional standardization may address the following based on specific user

requirements: compatibility with certain harsh environments, desired service life, desired accessibility to contents, need for specific collapsibility to minimize transport of

empty containers, durability, and gross weight capacity.

Continuous improvement through research and development will be important to

the JSBIE. One potential area for research and development is the ability to put two

Container Roll-on/Roll-off Platforms (CROPs) into one 40-foot ISO container. In

addition, the CROP will be investigated for additional interoperability opportunities.

Currently, the only true interoperability is between the flatrack and the truck. Additional interoperability between the flatrack and the load through tie-downs and other

standard container interfaces will greatly increase the utility of the CROP. Savi Technology, Inc.,“tattle tags” also warrant additional research and development. An addition to the current Savi tag that could alert when measured parameters are out of

bounds must be considered. Examples of parameters that the tattle tags will be able to

report on are temperature, acceleration, Global Positioning System, door openings

and at what time,and water intrusion.

In conclusion, standards will be based on operational needs and limitations and will

promote compatibility, interoperability, interchangeability, and commonality to reduce

cost and logistical footprint and optimize the DoD distribution process. Intermodal

standards will leverage existing standards; new standards will be developed only when

necessary.The DoD standards will be developed within the JIWG to promote the joint

intermodal transportation of DoD equipment and logistics sustainment through the

defense transportation system. In the near future, the SC will publish a draft JMIC standard. The draft standard for the Joint Modular Intermodal Platform is planned for

FY07. All the currently developed standards should be implemented into DoD by

FY09.

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Gary Adams, David Krawchuk,Tom Kozlowski, and

Joshua Peterson in writing this article.

1

Letter of Authorization, Honorable Kenneth Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,

Technology and Logistics, February 3, 2006.

2

Memorandum from James D. Hall, DoD Standardization Executive, Office of the Under Secretary

of Defense, to Joint Intermodal Working Group, Subject: “Joint Standardization Board for Intermodal Equipment,” June 8, 2006.

Composition of JSBIE

Standards Committee

The JSBIE Standards Committee has

members representing the following

organizations:

❚ Defense Logistics Agency, Defense

Standardization Program Office 

❚ Defense Logistics Agency, Joint

Operations 

❚ Defense Logistics Agency, Operations 

❚ U.S. Air Force Materiel Command,

Logistics Support Office/Transportation 

❚ U.S. Army Materiel Command,

Logistics Support Activity

❚ U.S. Army, Armament Research,

Development and Engineering Center

❚ U.S. Army, Research, Development

and Engineering Command, TankAutomotive Research, Development

and Engineering Center

❚ U.S. Army, Surface Deployment and

Distribution Command, Transportation

Engineering Agency

❚ U.S. Marine Corps, Headquarters

❚ U.S. Navy, Naval Inventory Control

Point 

❚ U.S. Navy, Naval Surface Warfare

Center, Indian Head Division

❚ U.S. Transportation Command,

Strategy, Plans and Policy Directorate.

Committee advisors include the Office

of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary

of Defense (Transportation Policy); U.S.

Army Materiel Command, Surface

Deployment and Distribution Command;

U.S. Army Materiel Command, Joint

Munitions Command, Defense

Packaging Policy Group; Defense

Standardization Program Office combatant commands; and other DoD, government, and industry representatives by

invitation.
dsp.dla.mil 9

Tactical Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems

Embracing Standards to Achieve 

Interoperability

By Andrew Kirschbaum and Steve Daniel
R

10 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

Recent efforts have demonstrated the recognition,

acceptance, and strong industry buy-in of the need to

develop and leverage standards to achieve the interoperability of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs).

These efforts include the following:

❚ Multiple workshops at the 2006 North

American Conference of the Association for

Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.The

workshops addressed numerous aspects of standards relating to all types of unmanned systems

(underwater, maritime, ground, and air).

❚ A MITRE study sponsored by the Joint UAS

Material Review Board.This study investigated

how to improve commonality of payloads and

ground control stations (GCSs), as well as

improve interoperability and data dissemination

through further adoption of common standards

and a common communication architecture.

❚ The implementation of NATO standardization

agreement (STANAG) 4586 Edition 2 in the

GCSs of the U.S.Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine

Corps, United Kingdom, and Germany.

❚ The work of the newly formed NATO Joint

Capability Group for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

(UAV) and the STANAG 4586 Custodian

Support Team to develop a conformance test

plan for component, system, and interoperability

testing.These two groups are also working on

Edition 3 of STANAG 4586 to address the

trends toward a network-centric concept of

operations, increased system autonomy, and collaboration among systems.

All these efforts are focused on making UAS interoperability a reality in the not-too-distant future.

Currently, the Navy/Marine Corps team, through the

Program Office for Unmanned Air Systems, and the

Army are the leaders in the military’s drive to leverage commonality and interoperability throughout

their legacy UASs and their future family of UAS.

Two examples of efforts to better leverage current

and future standards are the Marine Corps’s upgrades

to the Pioneer and the Navy’s changes to the Vertical

Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV).

The Marine Corps’s Pioneer sustainment solution

relies on a great degree of commonality with the

Army’s Shadow 200 tactical UAS, manufactured by

AAI Corporation. The Pioneer’s new electro-optic/

infrared plug-in optronic payload 300 offers greatly

increased resolution and magnification, a reliable engine, and a launcher/trailer combination for radically

improved mobility—all of which have been proven in

combat by the Shadow 200. The upgraded Pioneer

will also incorporate a Command and Control Tactical Common Data Link (rather than the current 

C-Band propriety link) and use a STANAG 4586

(Edition 2 Errata 2) Army “One System” GCS.These

upgrades will continue to enable the venerable Pioneer system to successfully deploy in Operation Iraqi

Freedom, as well as in other complex operational environments.

The VTUAV Model B upgrades include several features:

❚ Tactical Common Data Link for payload

imagery
❚ Ethernet/Generic Framing Protocol format

with Ethernet ports and Internet Protocol

Version 6 capability (both part of the Naval Air

Systems Command Common Data Link

Interoperability Profile)

❚ Advanced weapons standards

❚ STANAG 4586 (Edition 2 Errata 1) software

within the Navy’s Tactical Control System (TCS).

Through its VTUAV program, the Navy is a strong

advocate for the proper incorporation of standards

upfront. Incorporating standards during the initial developmental phase of a program makes it easier and

more cost-effective to incorporate advances to the

system as it matures in the field.The two efforts that

have received the most attention are the weapons

standards and the TCS.

The VTUAV team is working with the Society of

Automotive Engineers–Aerospace and the Weapons

Interface Standards Organization to develop two

UAS standards: Miniature Munitions Interface Standsp.dla.mil 11

dard and Micro Munitions Interface Standard.These

standards address the electrical interface between

aircraft-carried miniature/micro store carriage systems and miniature/micro stores. Specifically, the

standards address the physical, electrical, and logical

(functional) aspects of the interface to provide a

common interfacing capability for the initialization

and employment of smart miniature munitions.The

VTUAV team is also working with NATO on plugand-play weapons capability and is monitoring the

Air Force’s effort to develop a universal armament

interface. Although the VTUAV is currently not required to carry weapons, the groundwork regarding

standards is being carefully built into the VTUAV so

that, when required, weapons can be successfully integrated into the system.

The TCS will be the basis for the VTUAV ground

control system.A TCS tenet has always been to improve interoperability for the warfighter. The Navy

is fully backing a STANAG 4586-compliant TCS as

“The” Navy control system. The TCS’s nonpropri-
12 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

etary, open architecture uses numerous internal standards—including the Global Positioning System and

the Joint Mapping Tool Kit—and external standards

such as the following:

❚ Moving Picture Experts Group-2 Digital Video

❚ American National Standards Institute/Society

of Motion Picture and Television Engineers

170M Analog Video

❚ Variable Message Format/U.S. Message Text

Format

❚ MIL-STD-2500A/B for image formats.

The Army and Navy are working closely together

on the VTUAV Fire Scout program. Costs have been

reduced and commonality between the two services’

air vehicles stands at 92 percent.The Army’s VTUAV

Fire Scout and its next buy of the Shadow 200 tactical UAS and the Extended Range/Multi-Purpose

Warrior UAS will use the “One System” GCS with

STANAG 4586 Edition 2 software.

Standards, such as STANAG 4586, provide benefits

from a cost and economic viewpoint as well as increased battlefield effectiveness through the use of

available nonorganic support assets. Future examples

of the latter would be the use of Army UAV assets to

support Marine Corps counterinsurgency operations

in Iraq or to support Canadian coalition maneuver

elements in Afghanistan. STANAG 4586, via the

command control interface, will also enhance information sharing by providing data to multiple users of

Command, Control, Communications, Computers,

and Intelligence systems.

STANAG 4586 also facilitates the introduction of

new technologies in air vehicles and payloads because

the effect on the GCS is minimal. For example,

STANAG 4586 enables the integration of a vehiclespecific module with the GCS or the addition of new

payload messages to the data link interface. Another

important aspect of STANAG 4586 is the decoupling

of the control station from the air vehicle.The military services will be able to acquire air vehicles independent of other elements of the UAV system (e.g.,

the control station). In other words, the control station can be sustained, upgraded, and produced in

multiple configurations independent of other elements of the system.

People sometimes assume that mandating standards

can stifle innovation and increase costs. Standards, by

themselves, do not guarantee interoperability. Instead,

the keys to achieving interoperability are common

implementation, verification, and certification

through proper testing.The benefits will be vast when

the creativity of our warfighter is matched to this new

capability of interoperable systems. One must look

only toward the vibrant and dynamic information

technology sector and the way it embraces and leverages standards to see that we are following the right

path for unmanned aircraft systems.

About the Authors

Andrew Kirschbaum works for D.P. Associates. He currently

supports the Navy and Marine Corps Unmanned Air

Systems Program Office as a senior analyst for unmanned

aerial systems. In addition, Mr. Kirschbaum is the editor of

STANAG 4586.

Steve Daniel supports the Navy and Marine Corps

Unmanned Air Systems Program Office as the Integrated

Product Team lead for concepts of operations. He is also

the custodian for the STANAG 4586 document and chairs

the STANAG 4586 Custodian Support Team.t
dsp.dla.mil 13

Tactical Rigid-Wall, Soft-Wall, 

and Hybrid Shelters; 

Special-Purpose Covers; 

and Shelter Accessories

Bringing New Ideas and Tools 

to Bear in a New Environment

By Frank Kostka and David Mikelson
14 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

O

On June 8, 2006, the DoD Standardization Executive, James Hall, formally chartered the Joint Committee on Tactical Shelters (JOCOTAS) as the Joint Standardization Board (JSB) for Tactical Rigid-Wall, Soft-Wall, and Hybrid Shelters; SpecialPurpose Covers; and Shelter Accessories.The JSB is empowered to

❚ create and enhance joint processes for improved development and acquisition

of shelters offering common solutions and interoperability,

❚ manage and maintain specifications and standards, and

❚ establish a DoD-wide forum for interoperability coordination, planning, and

decision making.

During its first year of operation, the JSB will develop a detailed organization

plan for approval by senior JOCOTAS board members and the DoD Standardization Executive; hold two meetings, concurrent with JOCOTAS and ASTM International working group meetings, for DoD participation; and identify standardization projects focused on achieving JSB goals.

Challenges for the Shelter JSB

In addressing its standardization mission, the JSB faces three major challenges:

❚ Lack of new formalized service requirements

❚ Plethora of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products competing for the

defense dollar

❚ Lack of formal science and technology programs to develop and deliver standardized shelters, special-purpose covers, and accessories to the warfighter.

Service requirements documents are necessary to initiate and fund developmental

programs.The lack of such documents, plus the tendency to place a low priority

on shelters, makes it difficult to establish a formal program to keep pace with the

shelter needs of today’s warfighters. The clearest indications of this phenomenon

are the current buying practices of field commanders. In the 2006 Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) JOCOTAS production budget, approximately 45 percent of the

next 5 years’ projected procurement activity involves COTS shelters.When added

to shelter buys made directly with the vendor, total dollars expended on COTS

products over the next 5 years could easily exceed $500 million.

Two of the COTS shelters have been formally adopted by the services as Military

Adaptation of Commercial Items. Other buys may fill gaps created by surges in demand that cannot be met by the traditional industrial base during wartime. The

total impact on standardization cannot be fully defined because the DLA contracts

are awarded on an indefinite-quantity basis; actual buys will depend on a variety of

variables. What can be stated is that the funds expended on non-standard items
dsp.dla.mil 15

dwarf the costs associated with the formal development of a military shelter system. Life-cycle costs also are likely to increase due to a lack of competition during

acquisition, non-competitively procured spare parts, interoperability and battlefield

performance issues, and issues related to long-term durability.

In the absence of formal shelter and shelter-related science and technology programs, the services are using the Small Business Innovative Research program and

industry interest, aided by congressional support, to pursue four areas:

❚ Barrier materials that mitigate environmental, detection, chemical/biological

agent, and ballistic threats

❚ Structures that support barrier materials, reduce setup time and labor, and cut

shipping weights and volumes

❚ Anchorage systems that secure shelters from extreme weather and blast waves

❚ Energy management technologies that reduce systems’ logistical footprints.

Ongoing Activities to Enhance the Standard Shelters

Three key initiatives, which are either underway or proposed, will advance the development and delivery of standardized cutting-edge shelter and shelter-related capabilities to the warfighter.

CONFIGURATION OF STANDARD ITEMS INTO SHELTER SYSTEMS

Natick Soldier Center (NSC), in Natick, MA, has been working on several innovative methods to bring improved products to the field while maintaining standardization. One example is the development of a modular command post that can

range in size from 256 to 3,000 square feet. NSC integrated a variety of standard

shelters with the Standard Integrated Command Post System (SICPS) furniture

and lighting. NSC also added an electrical distribution system; heating, ventilation,

and air conditioning units; and advanced solar covers. It then packaged the components into shipping containers specific to the mission.

In the 2006 Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) JOCOTAS production

budget, approximately 45 percent of the next 5 years’ projected

procurement activity involves COTS shelters.
16 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

As a result of this endeavor, the shelters better meet the needs of commanders of

organizations such as rear or support elements, which typically require more space

than highly mobile units. Moreover, this endeavor eliminated the need for units to

purchase non-standard shelters to obtain sufficient space. Finally, because the modular command post does not use interconnected 11- by 11-foot SICPS tents, leakage problems, due to the sloping roof, have been eliminated. (Highly mobile

operations continue to use the SICPS tents, but leakage is an acceptable tradeoff

for quick setup and teardown.)

TRANSITION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY INTO EXISTING SYSTEMS

Two features that are highly valued by shelter users are fast setup and minimal personnel requirements. NSC has worked over the past 15 years to develop inflatable

composite technology to meet this need. “Airbeams”—tubular structures inflated

by a compressor—replace metal frames, significantly reducing the shipping weight

and volume and, most dramatic, reducing the number of hours required to erect a

structure by 70 percent. Airbeams were first fielded in 2002 as part of NSC’s

Chemical and Biological Protective Shelter program.

Another program in which NSC demonstrated inflatable composite technology

is Force Provider, DoD’s premier 550-soldier Base Camp System. This program,

under the Product Manager–Force Sustainment Systems, expanded to include a

new forward 150-soldier system. High-speed setup with a minimal workforce was

Force Provider Light 150-Soldier Forward Base Camp
dsp.dla.mil 17

critical to the program’s success. Teaming together, the organizations recently

demonstrated a 150-soldier camp at Fort Lee,VA, based on inflatable composite

technology. The entire camp—which included field feeding, water purification,

laundries, showers, and billeting—was set up in less than 4 hours. Several highranking Army officers observed the demonstration and gave the program the green

light to move forward.

DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED STANDARDIZATION STRATEGY

The key proposed initiative is to develop a strategy for integrating standard military

and COTS shelters, recognizing that COTS shelters will continue to be used to fill

gaps resulting from unmet military requirements.The following are some standardization activities that should be pursued to ensure that the mix of shelter assets in

the field can be used as building blocks to meet a hierarchy of needs:

❚ Streamline inter-service use of standard shelters accepted by a single service

without a major “paper” exercise. Currently, a separate type classification is

required.

❚ Broaden the Family of Standard Shelters to create a Standard Family of

Integrated Shelter Systems that includes power distribution, lighting, environmental control, and command post and quality-of-life furniture.This activity

builds on work in progress.

❚ Establish performance and safety requirements, validated with standard ASTM

test procedures, for categories of tents, both DoD and commercial.

JOCOTAS June 2006 Meeting Features Base Camp Setup
18 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

❚ Incorporate standard design features, fabrics, and interoperability requirements in the various tent categories.

❚ Integrate emerging technologies into standard shelters and the commercial

marketplace as appropriate.

Next Steps

Over the past 30 years, JOCOTAS has brought the DoD shelter community together to foster the development of standard components and systems that meet

the warfighter’s needs economically. During that period, many changes have occurred in acquisition practices that present challenges and opportunities for future

standardization.

Where does JOCOTAS, as the JSB for shelters, go from here? The JSB needs to

take a pragmatic approach to advance the standardization of both rigid-wall and

soft-wall shelters.The JSB proposed the following tasks for FY07:

❚ Expand the standard shelter manufacturing base. The JSB, working with DLA,

must identify companies that can provide dual manufacturing capability

(commercial and military) to support the procurement of shelters to meet

surge requirements.

❚ Prepare a building code for military shelters. The code must be based on current

military performance specifications, linked to recognized national building

codes, and validated using ASTM test methods.

❚ Develop a design package that identifies standard military interoperability features

needed on commercial shelters.

The advent of a Joint Standardization Board focused on shelters will facilitate the

application of new ideas and tools to ensure that systems and equipment needed by

the warfighter will be available, interoperable, and sustainable.

About the Authors

Frank Kostka is the executive secretary of JOCOTAS. At Natick Soldier Center, he leads the

Collective Protection Directorate. The directorate develops shelter technology and provides

engineering services to a DoD customer base. Mr. Kostka has been involved in all aspects

of shelter development since joining the organization in 1982.

David Mikelson has served for the past 16 years as chairman of the JOCOTAS Technical

Working Group. In addition, he has served for the past 25 years as vice-chairman of ASTM

E06.53 Subcommittee for Materials and Processes for Durable Rigidwall Relocatable

Structures and assumed the E06.53 chairman’s duties in October 2006. Mr. Mikelson is a

widely recognized expert on tactical rigid-wall shelter design, construction, testing,

repair/refurbishment, and materials and processes. He also has extensive background in

shelter ancillary equipment and shelter transport equipment.t
dsp.dla.mil 19

JOCOTAS was formed in 1975 under the direction of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It was originally

established under a Joint Service Regulation that was later augmented by a charter approved by the Office of

the Under Secretary of Defense. The duties of JOCOTAS are as follows:

● Advance the state of the art in shelter design and shelter ancillary equipment

● Search for common solutions to identified user needs

● Reduce and eliminate duplication of shelter research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E)

● Create a standard shelter family and maximize its use within DoD

● Share information and expertise to solve shelter problems

● Work to promote evolutionary change in processes used for shelter development

● Assist the services with procuring shelters in the most streamlined and cost-effective way

● Ensure that shelters are compatible with commercial and military transportation equipment for worldwide

deployment

● Provide a forum for interaction between JOCOTAS and industry (JOCOTAS sponsors a minimum of two 

Technical Working Group meetings every year and, every 2 years, sponsors a JOCOTAS/industry meeting 

and exhibition)

● Prepare, and update annually, a 5-year multi-service shelter RDT&E and production plan

● Publish, and update periodically, Department of Defense Standard Family of Tactical Shelters.

During the first 20 years of operation, JOCOTAS concentrated its efforts on rigid-wall tactical shelters that are

deployed worldwide and readily transportable by air, land, and sea. Before JOCOTAS was formed, more than

200 types of rigid-wall tactical shelters existed among the four services, creating a huge logistics burden. 

JOCOTAS succeeded in reducing the standard family of rigid-wall tactical shelters to 20 items.

In 1995, JOCOTAS expanded its purview to include soft-wall and hybrid shelters, and added voting member representation from the Defense Logistics Agency, the primary DoD acquisition organization for soft-wall shelters.

An excellent resource for military tent information is http://warfighter.dla.mil/special/basecamp/index.jsp.

JOCOTAS took the lead both in transitioning existing military shelter specifications to voluntary consensus standards and in developing new voluntary consensus standards under the auspices of the ASTM E06.53 Subcommittee on Materials and Processes for Durable Rigidwall Relocatable Structures. Thus far, 28 voluntary

consensus materials, processes, and end-item shelter specifications have been established. (See http://

www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/E0653.htm?L+mystore+weta5733+1156486652.)

JOCOTAS also developed the reinspection criteria and new repair procedures for the Army, Navy, and Marine

Corps families of ISO shelters. The reinspection criteria are included in DoD MIL-HDBK-138, Guide to Container

Inspection for Commercial and Military Intermodal Containers. The new repair procedures are being incorporated into the technical manuals for each shelter type. JOCOTAS also was instrumental in changing the Defense

Ammunition Center and School course instruction to include the training of personnel in the inspection of ISO

shelters and ISO shipping containers for conformance to the International Convention for Safe Containers.

JOCOTAS is chaired by Anthony Melita, Deputy Director, Defense Systems, Land Warfare and Munitions, within

the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics). For a list of the JOCOTAS

officers and principal voting members, see page 45 of Department of Defense Standard Family of Tactical Shelters (available at http://nsc.natick.army.mil/media/print/JOCOTAS.pdf).

Evolution of JOCOTAS
By Adele Ratcliff, John Thompson, and Jim Gucinski

Power Source Systems

Improving Battery Selection

and Management

20 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

Power Source Systems

Improving Battery Selection

and Management

By Adele Ratcliff, John Thompson, and Jim Gucinski
dsp.dla.mil 21

W

Warfighters should not have to make tradeoffs between carrying food, water,

and ammunition or carrying additional batteries to power night vision devices, global positioning systems, target designators, radios, force multiplier

devices, and other items. However, they sometimes must make such tradeoffs

because power sources have not been designed to be interchangeable with

different types of equipment. The use by each service of its own unique

equipment and power sources further compounds this dilemma.The Defense

Logistics Agency (DLA) manages more than 4,500 different power sources.

The lack of battery standardization contributes to the apparent endless proliferation and development of “boutique” batteries. Not only are the development costs high, but the logistics costs associated with managing and

procuring all the various types of batteries are also significant. Moreover,

some “hidden” logistics costs—for example, costs for storage (non-standard

and redundant), maintenance costs for batteries with unique requirements,

and disposal costs associated with environmentally harmful chemicals contained within the cells—are normally not thought of until after fielding. But

the most important cost is incurred when military personnel don’t have the

right power source when they need it.

It is clear that power sources must be standardized. However, accommodating the power requirements of aging deployed systems within the standardization envelope is difficult, frustrating, and all too often expensive. One

solution that has been attempted is to design an adaptor cable that would

allow multiple uses for batteries currently in the inventory. However, this solution has its own problems (for example, adaptors are prone to being misplaced) and hasn’t proven successful.Another approach is to review the legacy

equipment and identify power sources that might be candidates for a standardization effort; this effort could prove worthwhile if the supported systems

are expected to be in the inventory for an extended period. Nevertheless,

standardizing those power systems for legacy equipment will be difficult.

While approaches to standardization are being considered, a key resource for

the interchange of information and the optimization of battery designs is the

web-centric tool—Power Specification Tool—developed by DLA and the Defense Standardization Program Office. The tool can be found at http://

www.JSB-Power.us.The site has an interactive database that contains data for

military (U.S.and foreign) and commercial power systems (batteries, fuel cells,

and hybrids). Government users can link to specifications, weapons usage, and

recent procurement information.The site also has an interactive area where in-
formation can be exchanged to get the very best design to

meet the power needs of our warfighters.

We believe that the most practicable approach to standardizing power sources is to focus on power sources for

new equipment. The U.S. Army CommunicationsElectronics Command (CECOM) has already been successful using that approach, limiting the proliferation and

development of single-purpose power sources. In the

mid-1980s, CECOM managed 440 unique batteries. As

new equipment replaced older, obsolete systems, the

Army was able to reduce the number of batteries managed to 12 standard types. By the late 1990s, the Army

had established a policy focused on selecting batteries for

new applications in a prioritized order beginning with

commercial batteries, then 5 preferred types, then 12 standard types.A new battery could be developed only with

authorization from senior Army command.

Considering CECOM’s lessons learned, the key to standardizing power sources for new equipment is for DoD

to establish a set of systematic procedures and processes

for selecting power sources and an enterprise-wide technology management approach for viable power source

candidates.

The Joint Standardization Board for Power Source Systems (JSB-PS2

) has proposed a three-pronged approach

for improving the battery selection and management

process DoD-wide.This approach, depicted in Figure 1, is

predicated on the use of families of standardized batteries

in the design of new systems.There may be some spillover

effect with legacy systems and their power sources, but

that is secondary to new system design.

The approach proposed by JSB-PS2 is as follows:

❚ Obtain stakeholder buy-in. Stakeholder buy-in is

essential.The U.S. Central Command, U.S. Special

Operations Command, program offices, and original

equipment manufacturers all must recognize the

need for standardizing power sources.They also must

22 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

About the Joint Standardization

Board for Power Source

Systems

The mission of the JSB-PS2, as delineated in its charter, is as follows:

• Provide senior-level—Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,

Technology and Logistics—visibility

for standardization and interoperability initiatives

• Establish DoD standards (in accordance with DoD 4120.24-M,

“Defense Standardization Program,

Policies and Procedures”) or nongovernment standards as applicable

• Improve interoperability of joint and

coalition forces

• Recommend joint doctrine, tactics,

techniques, and procedures

• Establish standardization of parts

and components that have lower

cost, reduced inventories, shortened logistics chains, and improved

readiness

• Develop joint solutions to issues

that impact the power source systems domain

• Propose funding requirements for

specific efforts and projects related

to standardization and interoperability goals and objectives

• Provide the interface for commercial and military integration.

The JSB-PS2 is composed of members

from each service branch, the Missile

Defense Agency, and DLA, as well as

representatives from industry and academia. For further information, contact

Adele Ratcliff (Adele.Ratcliff@osd.mil) or 

John Thompson (John.M.Thompson@

dla.mil).
dsp.dla.mil 23

FIGURE 1. Three-Pronged Standardization Strategy

Joint Standardization Board for Power Source Systems 

recognize that, although the cost of an individual power source may

increase, this additional cost is far outweighed by lower total ownership

costs and the increased availability of equipment to the warfighter due

to the interchangeability of power sources.

❚ Promulgate policy. DoD needs to establish policy that clearly defines the

requirement for using standardized power sources. In addition, the policy needs to address the use of non-standard power sources. For example, DoD might determine that the use of a non-standard power source

or non-standard interface should require a senior-level service manager

to make a recommendation for approval by the Office of the Secretary

of Defense (OSD) Standardization Manager.This is similar to the

Army’s guidance.

❚ Determine the standardization direction. DoD must determine how the

power sources should or can be standardized, considering technological

advances and trends in system development, to ensure maximum interchangeability—within each service, between services, and with our

allies.This effort will require the input of power source experts from

government (defense and civil) agencies, industry, and academia. Other
24 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

key sources of input are the national and international standards-developing organizations such as NATO, the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI), and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

The JSB-PS2 is a key forum for moving forward with the standardization of

power sources.The JSB-PS2 can recommend projects and serve as an advisory

commission to the OSD Standardization Manager. In addition, members of

the JSB-PS2 can provide a presence in commercial organizations such as

ANSI and SAE.They also can serve on NATO teams dealing with power system standardization, ensuring U.S. interoperability with NATO forces. Together, these organizations can ensure that future warfighters never have to

make the tradeoffs between batteries and the other basics that today’s

warfighters must make.

About the Authors

Adele Ratcliff is the oversight executive of the Manufacturing Technology Program

within the Office of Technology Transfer, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Previously, she headed the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program and was the

deputy program manager of the OSD Foreign Comparative Test Program.

John Thompson is the program manager for power sources and special projects at

the Defense Supply Center Richmond and manages the Next Generation

Manufacturing Technology Initiative. He chairs the DoD Power Sources Technology

Working Group and the Joint Standardization Board for Power Source Systems.

Jim Gucinski is a program manager at Tiburon Associates. Previously, he was the

Power Systems Executive Agent for the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane

Division. Mr. Gucinski has more than 35 years of experience in the power sources

field and either chairs or is a member of multiple national and international committees working in this field.t
dsp.dla.mil 25

Microelectronics 

and Semiconductors

Leveraging the Work of the Defense 

Microcircuit Planning Group 

to Meet New Challenges

By David Moore and Thomas Hess
26 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

Background

The JSB on Microelectronics and Semiconductors

evolved from the very successful Defense Microcircuit Planning Group (DMPG).The DMPG was chartered more than 20 years ago by the Defense Standardization Program Office to provide a standardization

forum for the interested military departments, the

Defense Electronics Supply Center (now DSCC),

NASA, microcircuit device manufacturers, and

equipment contractors that design microcircuits into

defense systems.

The DMPG, chaired by DSPO’s Gregory Saunders,

addressed many key issues that affected the standardiT

The Defense Standardization Program Office (DSPO)

has established Joint Standardization Boards (JSBs) to

achieve common, mutually satisfactory solutions to

shared requirements and problems in key commodity

areas.The JSB on Microelectronics and Semiconductors is one of eight JSBs established at the DoD level

and focuses standardization attention on the highvisibility and rapidly changing area of microelectronics and semiconductors.This JSB includes all the key

players from the military services, Defense Supply

Center Columbus (DSCC), Defense Logistics Agency,

DSPO, other defense agencies, and civil agencies, as

well as industry partners from the national standards

bodies,equipment contractors,and device manufacturers.

Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center

Army Communications-Electronics Command

Aviation and Missile Command

Defense Microelectronics Activity

Defense Standardization Program Office

Defense Supply Center Columbus (formerly, Defense Electronics Supply Center)

Electronic Industries Alliance, G-12 Committee

Electronic Industries Alliance, Joint Electron Device Engineering Council, JC-13 Committee

Government and Industry Data Exchange Program

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Naval Surface Warfare Center

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 88 OSS/OSE

Participants in the Defense Microcircuit Planning Group
zation program for the rapidly changing microcircuits

area.The following are some examples:

❚ Standard Microcircuit Drawing (SMD) program. The

DMPG was integral to the genesis and implementation of the SMD program.The previous

specification sheet program under the old MILM-38510 microcircuit specification was found

to be too cumbersome and time consuming to

react to the immediate needs of military users

for the latest microcircuit-based devices.To standardize and characterize device types under the

old program would take—in some cases—years.

In contrast, the SMD program can react quickly

to provide standard microcircuits in SMDs in a

matter of a few weeks or months.

❚ Transition of the qualified products list (QPL) to the

qualified manufacturers list (QML). Another key

area was the transition from the QPL-based

MIL-M-38510 program to the new QML-based

program delineated in the new microcircuit

specification program, MIL-I-38535.This transition enabled the qualification of the manufacturing processes used to make the devices rather

than the tedious, costly, and time-consuming

qualification testing of each device.

❚ Offshore manufacturing. The DMPG was a forum

to discuss the ongoing movement of microcircuit manufacturing to offshore manufacturing

facilities.As a result of those discussions, DoD

can use offshore manufacturing facilities for

defense microcircuits to take advantage of a

microcircuit industry that has become global in

its location of manufacturing capabilities.

❚ Acquisition reform. The DMPG became a forum

to discuss how to address the tenets of the

Acquisition Reform initiatives.The end result

was the very successful transition to DoD performance specifications in the microcircuit programs as follows:

● MIL-I-38535 became MIL-PRF-38535

(monolithic microcircuits)

● MIL-H-38534 became MIL-PRF-38534

(hybrid microcircuits).

The Evolution to a Joint Standardization Board

On September 20, 2005, a DMPG meeting was held

in conjunction with the Electronic Industries Alliance—including the G-12 Committee and the Joint

Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC) 

JC-13 Committee—in Columbus, OH.This became

the kickoff meeting to discuss with the affected agencies and industry the concept of replacing the DMPG

with a JSB to maximize interoperability, promote

standardization, and conserve resources.At this meeting, participants discussed a draft charter, potential

DoD charter members, chairmanship, and industry

participation.

There was a high level of interest from the affected

players in moving from a DMPG to the JSB concept.

The original DMPG players indicated interest in becoming charter members of a superseding JSB.As was

the case in the DMPG, it was deemed essential to

have continued participation from our affected industry partners. The chairman of the G-12 Committee

(representing equipment contractors) and the chairman of the JEDEC JC-13 Committee (representing

manufacturers of microcircuits and semiconductors)

were added as liaison members. In addition, new organizations such as the Defense Missile Agency and

the National Reconnaissance Office have joined the

effort. After further discussion, it was also decided to

broaden the scope of the JSB to cover discrete semiconductors since the areas share many common challenges and issues.

The JSB charter was approved on June 8, 2006, by

James Hall, the DoD Standardization Executive.

dsp.dla.mil 27
28 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

On June 27, 2006, the first formal meeting of the

JSB on Microelectronics and Semiconductors occurred at DSCC, with Gregory Saunders of DSPO

serving as chair.

Final agreement was reached on the concept and

the charter. It was agreed that the JSB would

❚ be a forum to discuss technical issues that have a

major impact on the defense microelectronic

and semiconductor standardization programs;

❚ be a forum to discuss the goals and future program direction with the services, DSCC, NASA,

and industry;

❚ be a forum to discuss standardization documents

and their impact on standardization and interoperability;

❚ facilitate funding for specific projects related to

standardization and interoperability;

❚ provide an interface for integrating commercial

and military components; and

❚ promote standardization of microelectronics and

semiconductors.

Specific Areas of Focus

The following are some of the areas that the JSB will

be addressing:

❚ Parts management program

❚ Fabless foundries and outsourcing

❚ Introduction of new technologies

❚ Lead-free solders (LFSs)

❚ Diminishing manufacturing sources and materials shortages

❚ Fraud

❚ Micro-electro-mechanical systems.

PARTS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Three of the eight critical recommendations of the

parts management reengineering program were to

develop better tools for program managers to help

them select parts and achieve standardization, mandate the inclusion of a parts management program in

contracts, and make parts management a part of systems engineering integration.The JSB will continue

to focus on how to assist with the parts management

reengineering effort and how best to provide the latest information on standard microelectronics and

semiconductors that is available from the Defense

Standardization Program.

FABLESS FOUNDRIES AND OUTSOURCING

Due to the high cost of equipment and labor, more

and more device manufacturers are outsourcing fabrication rather than continuing to have in-house capabilities. The JSB will address the advantages and

disadvantages of this trend and consider how best to

meet the technical needs of the DoD user in this

context.

INTRODUCTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

As new technologies emerge in the microelectronic

programs, there are concerns about the ability of current testing and tools to adequately verify the quality

and reliability of these new devices. DoD and industry

are working on new methods to provide assurance as

to the long-term reliability of these emerging technologies. The JSB, through the affected MIL-PRF38535 and MIL-PRF-38534 programs, and with the

assistance of the G-12 and JEDEC JC-13 committees,

will address how best to delineate the engineering and

technical requirements needed in this key area.

LEAD-FREE SOLDERS

The efforts in the European Union and other foreign

countries to move to LFSs has raised significant technical issues for DoD, which is increasingly reliant on
dsp.dla.mil 29

commercial supply chains for some critical parts.The

JSB will focus on two key areas:

❚ The need to prevent the use of high-tin-content

lead finishes on critical DoD and space applications because of the well-documented tin

whisker reliability problem.This effort will focus

on the necessary prohibitions in the defense

specifications programs to allow tin finishes only

if they contain a minimum of 3 percent lead.

❚ The best approach to introducing LFSs, when the

DoD user community is ready, into the defense

specification programs.This effort will include a

discussion of which LFSs would be acceptable,

the need to use part numbers to differentiate the

LFSs in the specifications,and the testing (for

example, solderability and resistance to soldering

heat) needed to characterize the LFSs.

DIMINISHING MANUFACTURING SOURCES 

AND MATERIALS SHORTAGES

The life expectancy of microelectronics and semiconductors pales in comparison to the life of the average

weapons system.Advancements and production capabilities in the industry force manufacturers to supply

only the latest and greatest, leaving older parts and

technologies to aftermarket suppliers. As the demand

for these older devices increases, the number of counterfeit parts rises as users scour the globe looking for

parts. The JSB will continue to consider this a key

focus area.

FRAUD

A growing concern among the DoD and space users

is the continuing problems that are occurring with

the use of counterfeit parts. It is becoming increas-
30 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

ingly difficult to easily discern the difference between

bona fide standard or manufacturer’s parts by simple

visual examination.The JSB is discussing this particular issue and how best to mitigate the risk of counterfeit parts. More and more, the solution seems to be

carefully controlling the sources of supply to the actual manufacturer, to the approved distributors, or to

distributors that can provide an unbroken chain of

traceability to the original manufacturer.

MICRO-ELECTRO-MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

Another key area of interest is the emerging technology of micro-electro-mechanical systems.This emerging technology would seem to be ideal for DoD applications.The JSB has agreed to evaluate this area, including how to standardize the technical templates

and tests and how best to construct a new defense

standardization program with the necessary quality,

reliability, and qualification requirements to meet the

needs of the DoD and space user for micro-electromechanical devices.

Future Activities

The JSB on Microelectronics and Semiconductors

expects to meet at least two times each year.The next

meeting of the JSB is planned for January 2007 and

will be held in conjunction with the G-12/JEDEC J-13

meeting in Savannah, GA. The second meeting in

FY07 is anticipated in Columbus, OH, in June 2007.

Summary

The JSB on Microelectronics and Semiconductors is

a natural evolution of the DMPG. The JSB has the

broad support of DSPO, DSCC, the affected military

departments, NASA, and industry players such as the

equipment contractors and device manufacturers.

The rapidly changing microelectronic and semiconductor fields present considerable standardization and

engineering challenges for DoD users.The ability of

the DSP and its programs—such as the SMD program, the MIL-PRF-38535 and MIL-PRF-38534

microcircuit specification programs, the MIL-PRF19500 semiconductor programs, and their associated

QML systems—to respond to these changes is even

more of a challenge. The goal is to cost-effectively

provide a pipeline of proven standard parts to DoD

users, and eventually to the warfighter, with the requisite high quality and high reliability and with a

small logistics footprint.The JSB provides a valuable

forum for joint efforts by the military, civil agencies

such as NASA, and industry to meet and plan longterm strategies for addressing the challenges.

About the Authors

David Moore is a supervisory electronics engineer and the

chief of the Document Standardization Unit at DSCC. That

unit is the preparing activity for all DSCC-managed specifications and standards programs. Mr. Moore has more than

30 years of experience with standardization issues in electronics.

Thomas Hess is a supervisory electronics engineer and the

chief of the Active Devices Team at DSCC. That team is the

preparing activity for MIL-PRF-38535, MIL-PRF-19500,

and MIL-STD-750. Mr. Hess has 20 years of experience in

the standardization of microelectronics, semiconductors,

and radiation-hardened devices.t
dsp.dla.mil 31

Upcoming Events and Information Events

November 13–16, 2006, Tucson, AZ

Joint PMRIPT/PSMC Meeting

The Parts Management Reengineering Implementation Process Team

(PMRIPT) and the Parts Standardization and Management Committee

(PSMC) will hold a joint meeting in

Tucson,AZ.

The PSMC recently voted to be chartered by the Defense Standardization

Program Office (DSPO). The new

charter will be discussed, along with

the PSMC’s role in supporting the

PMRIPT’s efforts to reengineer the

DoD Parts Management Program.

Presentation topics include the following:

❚ Future Vision of Parts Management (Greg Saunders, DSPO)

❚ Missile Defense Agency Parts

Management (Glenn Benninger,

Naval Surface Warfare Center,

Crane Division)

❚ Product Standards as Digital Data 

(Al Sanders, Boeing)

❚ Diminishing Manufacturing

Sources/Material Shortages 

(John Becker, DSPO).

For more information, please contact

donna.mcmurry@dla.mil,703-767-6874,

or ronald.a.froman@boeing.com,

314-777-7181.

July 9–13, 2007, Chantilly, VA

Standardization within NATO 

(U.S.-Based Track) 

The International Cooperation Office, Defense Standardization Program

Office, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Standardization Agency

(NSA) will host the first Standardization within NATO course in the

United States in July 2007, in Chantilly, VA. This course is designed to

present an overview of domestic and

international standardization practices

within the United States as it relates to

interoperability with allies and partners. Thus, the course is intended for

military, DoD civilian, and federal

government personnel who have little

knowledge of international standardization or knowledge in distinct areas

but have never taken the Standardization within NATO course. Non-DoD

federal government employees and

defense contractors who are involved

in NATO standardization and interoperability activities are also eligible

for this course, depending on space

availability. For more information,

contact Latasha Beckman at 703-767-

6872 or latasha.beckman@dla.mil.

March 13–15, 2007, Arlington, VA

Defense Standardization Program

Outstanding Achievement Awards

Ceremony and Conference

The Defense Standardization Program

Outstanding Achievement Awards

Ceremony and Conference will be

held March 13–15, 2007, at the Westin

Arlington Gateway Hotel in Arlington,VA.The Westin Gateway Hotel is

accessible by metro and is close to National Airport, the Pentagon, and

Washington, DC. Rooms will be offered at the government per diem rate.

This year’s event will be administered

by the Society of Automotive Engineers and promises to be top notch in

every respect. Although details are still

being worked out, there will be a

Standardization Executive Panel, discussion of new initiatives regarding

parts management, and presentations

on NATO and international interoperability. Tutorials will be presented on

the Berry Amendment, ITARS/

EARS, RFID, updates to the DoD

4120.24-M, and much more. For more

information, go to http://sae.org/

events or http://www.dsp.dla.mil/ or

call 703-767-6870.
32 DSP JOURNAL October/December 2006

Farewell

Craig Hammond retired on August 31, 2006, after 25 years of federal service, including

11 years in the U.S. Navy. Since 1995, Mr. Hammond has been chief of the Standardization

Program Branch, supervising the Defense Standardization Program at Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR). He was responsible for managing the Lead Standardization Activity, the Specification Preparing Activity, and the Qualification Activity at DSCR. He helped

transition the transfers of about 3,000 specifications to DSCR from other DoD activities

during the military specification reform years.

Promotions

On August 6, 2006, Kendall Cottongim was promoted to chief of the Standardization

Unit in the Operations Support Directorate at the Defense Supply Center Columbus. He

leads teams that cover Parts Management, Item Reduction, Lead Standardization Activities,

Defense Logistics Agency Hazardous Material Minimization, Packaging, Diminishing

Manufacturing Source and Materiel Shortage, and General Emulation of Microcircuits.

Most recently, Mr. Cottongim was the chief for the Land Customer Operations Support

Unit, serving as the Land Lead for Customer Relationship Management initiatives as well

as overall administrative support to the Land Customer Operations Directorate. Before that,

he was the team chief for the Electronics Component Team as part of the Document Standardization Unit.

On September 1, 2006, Greg Pobiak was promoted to chief of the Standardization Program Branch at DSCR, replacing Craig Hammond. Previously, he worked 6 years in the

Standardization Program Branch at DSCR and was responsible for several hundred specifications and standards associated with aircraft instrumentation and engine components as

well as with the qualification of those components.

People People in the Standardization Community
dsp.dla.mil 45

Upcoming Issues—

Call for Contributors

We are always seeking articles that relate to our

themes or other standardization topics. We invite

anyone involved in standardization—government

employees, military personnel, industry leaders,

members of academia, and others—to submit proposed articles for use in the DSP Journal. Please let

us know if you would like to contribute.

Following are our themes for upcoming issues:

If you have ideas for articles or want more information, contact Tim Koczanski, Editor, DSP Journal,

J-307, Defense Standardization Program Office,

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6233, Fort

Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 or e-mail DSP-Editor@

dla.mil.

Our office reserves the right to modify or reject

any submission as deemed appropriate.We will be

glad to send out our editorial guidelines and work

with any author to get his or her material shaped

into an article.

Issue Theme

January–March 2007 IT Standardization

April–June 2007 IT Standardization

July–September 2007 Parts Management