NEXT-GENERATION 

 FIRE SUPPRESSION TECHNOLOGY: 

 STRATEGY FOR A NATIONAL PROGRAM 

 Department of Defense 

 Office of the Director 

 Defense Research and Engineering 

 July 1996 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fires and explosions are among the greatest threats to the safety of personnel and the 

survivability of military aircraft, ships, land combat vehicles, and facilities in peacetime and 

during combat operations. Halon 1301 is used for both fire extinguishment and explosion 

suppression (hereafter referred to collectively as fire suppression) in most weapon systems and 

mission-critical facilities. Due to its high ozone-depleting potential (ODP), halon was banned 

from production as of 1 January 1994 by the Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal Protocol. 

Current defense research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities are 

focused on the identification of near-term, environmentally suitable halon alternative 

technologies--developed by industry--that are either readily available or could enter commercial 

production in the near future. In general, the outcomes of these activities have demonstrated that 

near-term alternatives result in solutions that have weight and volume penalties, thus 

compromising existing system backfit needs. This could have significant operational impact on 

the Department of Defense (DOD), given that the end of the Cold War has resulted in defense 

budget reductions, downsizing, and the extension of the in-service lives of fielded weapon 

systems. Application of near-term alternatives to fielded weapon systems could require DOD 

weapon system program managers to expend large amounts of funding and time for fire 

suppression system redesign and reconfiguration. 

Meanwhile, other countries are greatly increasing their environmental legislation 

restrictions--forewarning potential international use restrictions--and one ally of the United 

States (Australia) has already collected the nation=s halon supply and is contemplating its 

destruction. To ensure supportability of US forces abroad using existing weapon systems, and to 

preclude any long-term use restriction impacts, a defense technology program to create more 

optimal next-generation fire suppression processes, techniques, and fluids that, to the maximum 

extent possible, eliminate dependency on halon 1301 in fielded weapon systems is a prudent 

course of action. The Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Strategy and its supporting 

Program are designed to satisfy this need. 

Experience has shown that the development and examination of new fire suppression 

technologies is not likely to be brief or easy. The suppressant, its storage support, and delivery 

system must be of light weight (low mass) and low volume--and compatible with host designs of 

existing systems. Successful candidates must also perform satisfactorily in a wide variety of 

tests for the following properties: 

- fire suppression efficiency; 

- reignition quenching; 

- ODP; 

- global warming potential (GWP); 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 

- atmospheric lifetime; 

- suppressant residue level; 

- electrical conductivity; 

- corrosivity to metals; 

- polymeric materials compatibility; 

- stability under long-term storage; 

- toxicity of the chemical and its combustion 

and decomposition products; 

- speed of dispersion; and 

- safety and occupational health requirements. 

The goal of the Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program (NGP) is to 

develop and demonstrate, by 2004, retrofitable, economically feasible, environmentallyacceptable, and user-safe processes, techniques, and fluids that meet the operational 

requirements currently satisfied by halon 1301 systems in aircraft, ships, land combat vehicles, 

and critical mission support facilities. The results will be specifically applicable to fielded 

weapon systems, and will provide dual-use fire suppression technologies for preserving both life 

and operational assets. 

The research approach consists of six parallel Technical Thrusts embodying 24 separate 

research elements, which are closely integrated and structured to achieve specific milestones 

within an eight-year timeframe. The approach was developed collaboratively by government, 

industry, and academic experts in fire science, the contributing technical disciplines, 

instrumentation, testing, and current halon 1301-protected weapon systems. The six Technical 

Thrusts are described below: 

1. Risk Assessment and Selection Methodology develops a process for choosing 

among alternative technologies by applying modern decision-making techniques. 

2. Fire Suppression Principles establish the mechanisms of flame extinguishment using 

detailed experimental studies and computational models leading to new approaches for 

fire control. 

3. Technology Testing Methodologies select, adapt, and develop test methods and 

instrumentation to obtain data on the effectiveness and properties of new suppression 

approaches. 

4. New Suppression Concepts define new ideas for fire suppression based on chemical 

and physical principles. 

5. Emerging Technology Advancement accelerates to maturity a variety of processes, 

techniques, and fluids that are currently under development. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 

6. Suppression Optimization develops the knowledge to obtain the highest efficiency 

of each candidate technology. 

NGP research projects encompassing the 24 elements will begin identifying and 

developing next-generation fire suppression technologies within the first two years of the 

program, and new knowledge will be added continuously throughout program execution. 

Investigation of new suppression concepts and ideas will commence in the first year; and, during 

the next three years, research will transition to the validation of viable fire suppression 

approaches. At the NGP mid-point (FY 2001) the program focus will shift to suppression 

optimization; e.g., the development of knowledge to obtain the highest efficiency of each 

candidate technology. The NGP progression is delineated in the major milestones listed below. 

C Description and tabulation of the broad classes of model fires to be suppressed by the end 

of FY 1998. 

C Implementation of improved laboratory-scale test methods for measuring the 

performance, compatibility, and degradation of new suppressants during the fire 

extinguishment process during FY 1998-1999. 

C Selection for further R&D of the first set of new technologies resulting from a broad 

public solicitation of ideas by the end of FY 1999. 

C Completion of a core methodology for DOD program executives/managers to evaluate 

the impact of selecting alternative fire suppression systems on each weapons system by 

the end of FY 2001. 

C Demonstration of a suite of computer models of the fire suppression processes for 

creating new suppression approaches and optimizing current ones (based on specific 

critical physical and chemical principles) by the end of FY 2001. 

C Identification of next-generation mist, inert gas generator, and powder technologies by 

the end of FY 2001. 

C Establishment of engineering models for an array of techniques to optimize the use of 

next-generation fire suppression technologies by the end of FY 2004. 

C Demonstration of the effectiveness of a wide variety of new technologies and/or 

techniques over the period FY 1999-2004. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 

The NGP will develop and demonstrate next-generation technology alternatives to a level 

that will enable DOD weapon system managers to make prudent decisions based on cost, risk, 

schedule, and capability needs. Real-scale validation testing will demonstrate the viability of 

these technologies for broadly generic applications; however, next-generation technologies will 

not be developed to the level of application for each specific weapon system. 

Required resources for the NGP will be provided by the Military Departments= respective 

Science and Technology (S&T) programs, the Strategic Environmental Research and 

Development Program (SERDP), and participating non-DOD government agencies, as well as 

through collaborative agreements in research partnerships with private sector firms and 

colleges/universities. 

The NGP will be conducted under the guidance and oversight of the Director, Defense 

Research and Engineering (DDR&E), in accordance with the policy stipulated in DOD Directive 

6050.9, Subject: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Halons, dated 13 February 1989. This policy 

requires the DOD Components to conduct research and development (R&D) to identify or 

develop alternative processes, chemicals, or techniques for functions currently being met by 

CFCs and halons; the DDR&E to coordinate R&D programs, as appropriate, on alternative 

chemicals or technologies for fire and explosion suppression; and the Military Departments and 

Defense Agencies to conduct R&D programs, as needed, to support mission requirements, with 

emphasis on substitutes for halons. 

 

The NGP is national in scope and may include international collaboration. Program 

coordination will be provided through the Halon Alternatives R&D Steering Group (HASG). The 

NGP execution will commence in FY 1997 with five projects to be conducted by the Military 

Departments and NIST, and four projects by industry and academia. Funding for these projects will 

be provided primarily by SERDP, with contributions by the performing organizations. In 

FY 1998, the Military Departments and the SERDP Program Office will plan, program, and budget 

the necessary S&T program resources required to support their full participation in the NGP. 

If successful, the NGP will develop and demonstrate the requisite technologies that will 

enable the backfit of halon 1301 alternatives into fielded weapon systems, eliminate DOD 

dependence on a substance no longer in national production, and minimize any readiness impacts that 

could result if halon 1301 use restrictions are imposed in the future. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1 

II. DOD HALON 1301 USE.......................................................................................................... 2 

A. Background ........................................................................................................................... 2 

B. National Commitment to Eliminate Ozone-Depleting Substances....................................... 3 

C. Policy..................................................................................................................................... 3 

III. NEAR-TERM HALON ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.................... 4 

A. Halon Alternatives R&D Steering Group (HASG) .............................................................. 4 

B. Near-Term Technology Strategy and Technology Development Plan ................................. 4 

C. Halon 1301 Alternatives Research........................................................................................ 5 

D. TDP Research Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 6 

E. Current Fire Suppression System Technology Options ........................................................ 7 

IV. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE................................................................................................ 8 

A. Survey and Requirements ..................................................................................................... 8 

B. Performance Properties ......................................................................................................... 8 

V. GOAL........................................................................................................................................ 9 

VI. NEXT-GENERATION PROGRAM APPROACH............................................................... 10 

A. Technical Thrusts................................................................................................................ 10 

B. Research Elements .............................................................................................................. 11 

C. NGP Major Research Milestones........................................................................................ 12 

D. Strategy Evolution .............................................................................................................. 13 

E. Success (Exit) Criteria......................................................................................................... 13 

VII. RESOURCES....................................................................................................................... 14 

A. Estimated Funding Summary.............................................................................................. 14 

B. Funding Sources.................................................................................................................. 14 

C. Project Funding ................................................................................................................... 15 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 

VIII. TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ................................................................... 16 

A. Management Organizational Structure ............................................................................... 16 

B. Program Coordination and Review..................................................................................... 18 

IX. PROGRAM EXECUTION.................................................................................................... 19 

A. Participants.......................................................................................................................... 20 

B. Execution Process ............................................................................................................... 20 

X. INITIATION OF THE NGP ................................................................................................... 21 

A. FY 1997 NGP New-Start Projects ...................................................................................... 21 

B. Integration of NGP Research Element Funding Needs and TDP Activities....................... 21 

XI. ACHIEVING THE NGP GOAL--PROSPECTS AND PAYOFF......................................... 22 

A. Prospects ............................................................................................................................. 22 

B. Payoff .................................................................................................................................. 23 

APPENDIX A: MILITARY DEPARTMENT FIRE AND EXPLOSION SURVEY.................. 24 

APPENDIX B: RESEARCH ELEMENTS .................................................................................. 27 

APPENDIX C: SERDP AND NGP ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES...................... 52 

APPENDIX D: NGP EXECUTION PROCESS........................................................................... 56 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 1

I. INTRODUCTION

Fires and explosions are among the greatest threats to the safety of personnel and the 

survivability of military aircraft, ships, land combat vehicles, and facilities in peacetime and 

during combat operations. For the past two decades, halon 1301 has been the agent of choice for 

fire extinguishment and explosion suppression (hereafter referred to collectively as fire 

suppression) in both weapon systems and facilities in the Department of Defense (DOD), the 

private sector, and for other countries' armed forces and domestic needs. Due to its high ozonedepleting potential (ODP), halon was banned from production as of 1 January 1994 by the 

Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal Protocol. The national response to the Protocol has 

been the rapid initiation of research for halon alternatives. 

 

Current defense research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities focus on 

the identification of near-term, environmentally-friendly and user-safe, halon alternative 

technologies--developed by industry--that are either readily available or could enter commercial 

production in the near future. In general, the outcomes of these activities have demonstrated that 

near-term alternatives result in solutions that have weight and volume penalties, thus 

compromising existing system backfit needs. This could have significant operational impact on 

the DOD, given that the end of the Cold War has resulted in defense budget reductions, 

downsizing, and the extension of the in-service lives of fielded weapon systems. Application of 

near-term alternatives to fielded weapon systems could require DOD weapon system program 

managers to expend large amounts of funding and time for fire suppression system redesign and 

reconfiguration. 

Meanwhile, other countries are greatly increasing their environmental legislation 

restrictions--forewarning potential international use restrictions--and one ally of the United 

States (Australia) has already collected the nation=s halon supply and is contemplating 

destruction. To ensure supportability of US forces abroad using existing weapon systems, and to 

preclude any long-term halon use restriction impacts, a defense technology program to create 

more optimal next-generation fire suppression processes, techniques, and fluids that, to the 

maximum extent possible, eliminate dependency on halon 1301 in fielded weapon systems is a 

prudent course of action. 

 

The Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Strategy, and the supporting 

Program, are designed to satisfy this need. The potential for success is maximized by bringing 

together the nation's best researchers in fire suppression and associated technologies, and by 

leveraging the vital federal and private sector fire suppression RDT&E infrastructure that has 

been created during the ongoing near-term research program. Next-generation technologies will 

have dual-use potential, which could satisfy civil fire suppression requirements created by the 

elimination of halon 1301. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 2

II. DOD HALON 1301 USE 

A. Background 

Nearly 50 years ago, the U.S. Army directed a program that examined a number of 

chemicals for their potential in suppressing explosions in occupied spaces of ground armored 

vehicles. Many of these chemicals were designated "halons," as a contraction for halogenated 

hydrocarbons. The driving "environmental" factor at that time was inhalation toxicity. Halon 

1301 (CF3Br) emerged from that program as the chemical of choice for total flooding 

applications. Its use proliferated due to its additional highly regarded properties: high fire 

suppression efficiency, zero residue, electrical non-conductivity, compact storage, rapid dispersion upon release, and high materials and systems compatibility. Fire protection for most fielded 

weapons systems has been, in fact, designed around halon capabilities. This, combined with its 

low storage weight and volume, results in a minimum amount of system engineering required for 

optimal distribution and design concentration in the development of a broad family of fire 

suppression systems. 

Halon 1301 is used extensively to protect weapon systems and critical mission support 

facilities from unwanted fires and explosions, often caused by enemy attack. When a fire or 

explosion is detected, the chemical--which is stored as a pressurized liquid--is released from the 

storage bottle(s) as a liquid and gas mixture. The liquid fraction is superheated and flashes into 

the vapor phase. This hastens "total flooding," with the agent rapidly distributing throughout the 

space. When the concentration of halon 1301 reaches its effective level (typically on the order 

of 6-7%), the fire is extinguished or the explosion is suppressed. As long as the chemical 

remains in the atmosphere at inerting concentrations, the fire will not reignite, and the area is 

protected against additional explosion incidents. This capability is especially valuable during 

combat. Halon 1301 applications in fielded weapon systems, by Military Department, are listed 

in Table 1. 

Unfortunately, halon 1301's exceptional performance and success over the years have 

resulted in minimal research into alternative processes, techniques, or fluids for fire suppression. 

The absence of research on alternatives escalated to an international problem when halon 1301 

was found to contribute significantly to stratospheric ozone depletion due to its long lifetime in 

the troposphere and its ready photodissociation by short wavelength ultraviolet light in the 

stratosphere, followed by aggressive catalysis of ozone destruction by the bromine moiety. This 

finding resulted in the Parties to the Montreal Protocol taking action to ban, by law, the 

commercial production of new halon 1301 as of 1 January 1994. As an interim solution for 

mission critical applications, the DOD, other government agencies, and private firms have 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 3

created "banks" of existing and recycled halon 1301 as a temporary means of continuing 

protection while the aggressive search for viable alternatives proceeds. 

Army Navy Air Force

Ground Armored Vehicles 

 - crew compartments 

 - engine compartments 

Aircraft 

 - engine nacelles 

 - APU compartments 

Maritime Craft 

Hand-Held Extinguishers 

 - air/ground/maritime 

Communications Shelters 

Shipboard 

 - propulsion machinery 

 - flammable liquid storerooms 

 - fuel pump rooms 

 - emergency generator rooms 

Aircraft 

 - engine nacelles 

 - dry bays 

 - fuel tanks 

 - crew compartments 

Ground Armored Vehicles 

 - crew compartments 

 - engine compartments 

Aircraft 

 - engine nacelles 

 - dry bays 

 - fuel tanks 

 - weapon bays 

 - cargo bays 

Facilities 

Hand-Held Extinguishers

 Table 1: Fielded Weapon Systems Applications for Halon 1301

B. National Commitment to Eliminate Ozone-Depleting Substances 

The United States is a party to the Montreal Protocol, which initially called for cessation 

of production of halons and CFCs by the year 2000. Title VI of the U.S. Clean Air Act 1990 

Amendments required the regulation of production of halons and CFCs. Citing satellite data, 

which indicated a more rapid depletion of the ozone layer than previously predicted, President 

Bush announced on 11 February 1992 that the United States would accelerate its total phaseout 

of Ozone-Depleting Substance (ODS) production to 1995, and called on the other industrialized 

nations to accelerate their phaseout. Subsequently, the November 1992 Meeting of the Parties to 

the Montreal Protocol in Copenhagen agreed to a production phase-out of halons on 1 January 

1994 and CFCs by 1 January 1996. 

C. Policy 

The DOD policy concerning technology efforts aimed at seeking ODS alternatives is 

delineated in DOD Directive 6050.9, Subject: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Halons, dated 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 4

13 February 1989. The Directive states that DOD Components "... shall conduct R&D to 

identify or develop alternate processes, chemicals, or techniques for functions currently being 

met by CFCs and halons"; that the Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) "... 

shall coordinate R&D programs, as appropriate, on alternative chemicals or technologies for fire 

and explosion suppression and, if necessary, other CFCs"; and that the Military Departments and 

Defense Agencies "... shall conduct R&D programs, as needed, to support mission requirements, 

with emphasis on substitutes for halons." The NGP is consistent with this policy.

III. NEAR-TERM HALON ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY

DEVELOPMENT 

A. Halon Alternatives R&D Steering Group (HASG) 

The Director, Defense Research and Engineering, established the HASG in September 

1991 to formulate (and oversee the execution of) an integrated DOD near-term technology 

strategy and technology development plan to identify suitable alternatives for halons. On the 

recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), 

the charter of the HASG was expanded to include all ODSs. The HASG is chaired by the 

Director, Advanced Technology, in the Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering 

(ODDR&E). The HASG also has 2 vice-chairs: the Deputy Director, Operational Test and 

Evaluation/Live Fire Testing (DDOTE/LFT), Office of the Secretary of Defense; and the Staff 

Specialist for Survivability, Office of Strategic and Tactical Systems/Air Warfare 

(ODDS&TS/AW), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology 

(OUSD(A&T)). 

B. Near-Term Technology Strategy and Technology Development 

Plan 

The HASG formulated the DOD Technology Strategy For Alternatives To OzoneDepleting Substances For Weapon Systems Use, which was approved by the DDR&E on 31 

August 1992 to guide the near-term DOD investigation and performance testing of 

commercially-available and environmentally-acceptable alternatives. The HASG then 

developed an execution plan, the DOD Technology Development Plan For Alternatives to 

Ozone-Depleting Substances For Weapon Systems Use (TDP), which was approved by the 

DDR&E on 28 June 1993 and is updated annually. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 5

The TDP research focuses on identifying commercially available or emerging technology 

alternatives to halons used in fielded weapon systems. (The TDP also focuses on the 

identification and qualification of alternatives to CFCs currently used in weapon systems 

applications for refrigeration and environmental control, and for general and precision cleaning.) 

 The TDP is being executed by the Army, Navy, and Air Force. In general, TDP research goals 

will be achieved in FY 1996, with the possible exceptions of Army research on 

alternatives for explosion suppression in occupied compartments of ground armored vehicles, 

which could continue through FY 1999, and Navy research on alternatives for fire 

extinguishment in shipboard occupied compartments, which could continue through FY 2001. 

The Strategy and the TDP together form the cornerstone of the overall DOD near-term response 

to the impact of the Montreal Protocol on weapon systems. 

C. Halon 1301 Alternatives Research 

Because establishing initial production capability for a new alternative chemical can take 

a decade from laboratory synthesis to production in commercially-viable quantities, the search 

for near-term replacement fluids that could be inserted into current halon 1301 systems has thus 

far focused on chemicals that are, or imminently will be, available in sufficient commercial 

production quantities. Research efforts are mainly investigating aliphatic fluorocarbons--

analogues of halon 1301, but without the bromine atom. Initially proposed replacement 

chemicals were offered by companies that already manufacture fluids for fire suppression, or 

make similar fluids for air conditioning, degreasers, and foam blowing; and were developing 

replacements for these uses. The emerging candidates were typically limited in chemical scope, 

some examples being HFC-227ea (C3HF7), HFC-134a (CH2FCF3), HCFC-124 (CHFClCF3), 

HFC-125 (CHF2CF3), FC-218 (C3F8), and halon 13001 (CF3I). 

Many of these chemicals have been examined in the laboratory and at real scale; 

however, none of the current alternative chemicals offer all the properties of halon 1301.

Nearly all of them are substantially less efficient and will require additional weight allowance 

and storage volume. In addition, the use of nearly all of them will result in a post-deployment 

atmosphere containing appreciable concentrations of acid gases; an atmosphere that is not 

suitable for human occupancy, and which may chemically attack metals, synthetic materials, and 

electronics. 

Because of the unique effectiveness and success of halon 1301, it (like aspirin) has often 

been specified by name rather than by performance. Its successors thus need new guidelines for 

approval. Several efforts have been directed at establishing measurement methods and criteria, 

as well as real-scale performance demonstrations. Because of the diversity of fires types, there is 

a wide range of possible test procedures. With critical review, some of these methods will be 

useful for further searching. The Environmental Protection Agency 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 6

(EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program has provided a focus for several 

of these criteria, using "currently accepted practice" to evaluate ODP, atmospheric lifetime, 

toxicity, and GWP. 

D. TDP Research Outcomes 

TDP research activities have identified three near-term total flooding technology 

alternatives to halon 1301. The first is a replacement fluid, HFC-125, which is now undergoing 

final testing in the development of design equations and criteria for design of aircraft fire 

extinguishment systems. The second alternative is another fluid, HFC-227ea, which is 

undergoing final qualification testing. The third alternative is based on inert gas generator 

technology, which has been extensively tested in specific developmental weapon systems. HFC125 is currently being considered for use in the engine nacelles of the developmental F-22 and 

V-22 aircraft. HFC-227ea is being considered for use in the fixed fire suppression systems 

onboard the lead ship of the new-construction amphibious ship 

LPD 17, and possibly onboard the new-construction aircraft carrier CVN 76. Inert gas generator 

technology is being considered for fire suppression applications in two developmental aircraft: 

the F/A-18 E/F (engine nacelles and dry bay), and the V-22 (dry bay and wing bays). 

HFC-125 and HFC-227ea each have volume and weight penalties 2-3 times that of an 

equivalent extinguishing concentration of halon 1301. Additionally, during suppression they 

generate significant levels of toxic by-products. New weapon systems have been developed, or 

are in development, with fire suppression system designs that take into account the associated 

weight and volume penalties of these total flooding alternatives. But the penalties could negate 

the possibility of backfitting HFC-125 and/or HFC-227ea into fielded weapon systems due to 

costly redesign and reconfiguration of installed fire suppression systems, or the negative impact 

on weapon systems capabilities. 

The effectiveness of propellant-generated inert gas technology has been demonstrated in 

two weapon-system-specific applications (F/A-18 E/F and V-22); however, its effectiveness in 

suppressing fires in larger weapon system applications (e.g., transport aircraft) is unknown. Fine 

water mist technology is also being extensively investigated in the TDP for possible applications 

in aircraft engine nacelles, dry bays, shipboard occupied engineering compartments, ground 

combat vehicle engine compartments, and maritime craft. Due to the need for a broader science 

base in these emerging technologies--in order to fully evaluate their potential for wider 

applications in fielded weapon systems--they will be further investigated in the NGP. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 7

E. Current Fire Suppression System Technology Options 

From a weapon system program manager's perspective, the current TDP near-term halon 

1301 research activity outcomes offer the three fire suppression options listed below. 

1. Utilize Identified Near-Term Replacements. This option accepts the penalties 

associated with the use of HFC-125 and HFC-227ea in fielded, upgraded, 

developmental, and new weapon systems. 

2. Vintage the Existing Halon System. Vintaging of an existing halon 1301 fire 

suppression system is defined as the continued use of halon 1301-based systems 

until the weapon system is retired or backfitted with an environmentally 

acceptable and effective alternative. This option entails the protection of a fielded 

weapon system with banked halon 1301 from the DOD ODS Reserve maintained 

by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). 

3. Cease Fire Protection Altogether. This approach is being used in the private 

sector for many computer facilities, where it is less costly to back-up the 

computer than to provide fire protection. 

Overall, each of the above options presents significant trade-off considerations. The use 

of the near-term alternative technologies or dissimilar fluids, while under investigation, is not 

always feasible for protecting fielded weapon systems. In many cases, significant re-engineering 

of the fire suppression system (and the weapon system) may be required to achieve even a 

marginally acceptable level of protection. The cost of this re-engineering has been estimated at 

several billion dollars for all fielded weapon systems. For aircraft, use of these near-term 

technologies will mean increases in take-off gross weight, or decreases in range/payload 

capability. 

The vintaging of fielded weapon systems requires the acquisition community and system 

operators to depend indefinitely on a substance that is no longer in production, that must be 

stockpiled to ensure continued availability, and which is subject to market fluctuations in cost 

and supply. Furthermore, there is no assurance that environmental regulations will indefinitely 

permit the use of halon 1301; and although vintaging is an acceptable near-term option for some 

fielded weapon systems (e.g., the A-6, F-16, and several classes of ships and land combat 

vehicles), it does not constitute a viable DOD long-term strategy for general fire protection in 

fielded weapon systems. 

The abandonment of fire protection altogether may be an acceptable alternative for some 

computer facilities; however, it is typically not a feasible option for weapon systems. Personnel 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 8

safety is always of critical importance within DOD, and weapon systems survivability is likewise 

a high priority.

IV. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE 

With the end of the Cold War and the resulting force reductions and budget cuts, the 

operational lives of fielded weapon systems are being extended and the acquisition of new 

weapon systems is being stretched out and/or reduced significantly. Fielded weapon systems 

will continue to be dependent on halon 1301 from the DLA ODS Reserve because of the 

potentially prohibitive cost and operational impact of backfitting near-term alternatives. A 

qualitatively different approach from that taken in the TDP is needed to find acceptable 

alternatives to halon 1301 systems. To do so, it will be necessary to capitalize on the potential 

creativity in this field. Already, there are a number of other chemicals and alternative 

suppression technologies being proposed and examined (e.g., powders, misted chemicals, and in 

situ generated chemicals). These require evaluation and development, and additional innovative 

approaches need to be encouraged. 

A. Survey and Requirements 

As a first step, a cursory survey was conducted of fires in which the DOD currently uses 

halon 1301, and which constitute the requirements for fire extinguishment and explosion 

suppression capabilities in weapon systems. Details of the survey are summarized in Appendix 

A. The survey (which does not include all DOD applications) shows an extremely broad range 

of fire conditions. The locations vary in size, shape, function, and whether or not they are 

populated. The fuels are solids, vapors, and liquids; the latter burning as pool fires or sprays. 

The required time for suppression ranges from hundredths of a second to tens of seconds. In 

some cases, the agent must be "clean" and in others, not. The hazards to be avoided include 

harm to people, thermal damage to equipment, post-fire corrosion, loss of visibility, and 

overpressure. Finding a "one-size-fits-all" fire suppression approach that replaces halon 1301 is 

highly improbable. 

B. Performance Properties 

Experience has shown that the development and examination of new fire suppression 

technologies is not likely to be brief or easy. The suppressant, its storage support and its 

delivery system must be of light weight (low mass) and low volume--and, to be backfitted into 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 9

existing systems, compatible with the host design. Successful candidates must also perform 

satisfactorily in a wide variety of tests for the following properties: 

- fire suppression efficiency; 

- reignition quenching; 

- ODP; 

- GWP; 

- atmospheric lifetime; 

- suppressant residue level; 

- electrical conductivity; 

- corrosivity to metals; 

- polymeric materials compatibility; 

- stability under long-term storage; 

- toxicity of the chemical and its combustion and 

decomposition products; 

- speed of dispersion; and 

- safety and occupational health requirements. 

Satisfying this combination of performance characteristic requires a high level of 

technical expertise, a focused commitment of resources, and a clear sense of direction to find 

suitable replacements. Fortunately, in the past 50 years there have been major advances in 

combustion science, sensors, and atmospheric chemistry--so the expertise exists to address these 

issues. Although there are some next-generation fire suppression projects proposed or already 

underway within DOD and other government laboratories, they lack focus on a common goal 

and timeframe. 

V. GOAL 

The goal of the Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program (NGP) is to 

develop and demonstrate, by 2004, retrofitable, economically feasible, environmentallyacceptable, and user-safe processes, techniques, and fluids that meet the operational 

requirements currently satisfied by halon 1301 systems in aircraft, ships, land combat vehicles, 

and critical mission support facilities. The results will be specifically applicable to fielded 

weapon systems, and will provide dual-use fire suppression technologies for preserving both life 

and operational assets. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 10

VI. NEXT-GENERATION PROGRAM APPROACH 

The planned research approach is organized into six Technical Thrusts and 24 research 

elements. In addition to the development and demonstration of new technologies, the integrated 

nature of this program will result in broader understanding and computer models of the 

suppression process, as well as a diversity of tested approaches. New ideas generated during 

validation tests, for instance, will lead to clearer understanding of fire suppression principles and 

refined testing methods for new 

suppression technologies. This will, in turn, enable prompt development of further technology 

should future environmental or weapons systems requirements change. 

The research approach has been developed collaboratively by government, industry, and 

academia experts in fire science, the contributing technical disciplines, instrumentation, testing, 

and current halon 1301-protected weapon systems. It builds on the ongoing TDP research 

activities in fire extinguishment and explosion suppression, incorporating insights gained and 

emerging innovative technology approaches identified. To encourage continued broad 

participation in the NGP by industry, academia, and other government agencies, all NGP 

information on chemicals and systems and their test results will be in the public domain, subject 

only to limitations on commercially-proprietary technology. 

A. Technical Thrusts 

1. Risk Assessment and Selection Methodology develops a process for research 

program managers to choose among alternative technologies for each application 

by applying modern decision-making techniques. 

2. Fire Suppression Principles establish the mechanisms of flame extinguishment 

using detailed experimental studies and computational models, leading to new 

approaches for fire control. 

3. Technology Testing Methodologies select, adapt, and develop test methods and 

instrumentation to obtain data on the effectiveness, toxicity, environmental 

impact, and materials compatibility of new suppressants and their principal 

degradation products during the fire extinguishment process. 

4. New Suppression Concepts define new ideas in processes, techniques, and fluids 

for fire suppression based on chemical and physical principles.
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 11

5. Emerging Technology Advancement accelerates to maturity a variety of 

processes, techniques, and fluids that are currently under development. 

6. Suppression Optimization develops the knowledge to obtain the highest 

efficiency of each candidate technology. 

B. Research Elements 

The NGP has 24 research elements--each a critical component of the approach-- 

organized into six Technical Thrusts. Each element will be performed synergistically and, in 

many cases, concurrently with other elements. The weapon systems information developed in 

Element 1.a will serve as guiding criteria for what constitutes acceptable retrofit technologies for 

fielded weapon systems. As technologies emerge, this new knowledge and other relevant 

information will be used to channel further research. The research elements, described in 

Appendix B, are listed below by Technical Thrust. 

1. Risk Assessment and Selection Criteria 

a. Development of Model Fires from DoD Fire Data 

b. Ullage Inerting In-Flight Data Collection 

c. Relative Benefit Assessment of Fire Protection System Changes 

2. Fire Suppression Principles

a. Mechanisms of Ultra-High Efficiency Chemical Suppressants 

b. Suppression Dynamics of Fine Droplets and Particles 

c. Stabilization of Flames 

d. Explosion Inhibition Processes 

3. Technology Testing Methodologies

a. Suppression System Effectiveness Screening 

b. Agent Compatibility With People, Materials and the Environment 

c. Instrumentation for Gaseous Fuels, Oxygen, and Suppressant 

Concentration Measurements During Suppression of Flames and 

Explosions 

4. New Suppression Concepts

a. Powder-Matrix Systems 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 12

b. Evaluation of Highly Effective Chemical Suppressants 

c. Super-Effective Thermal Suppressants 

d. New and More Effective Fire-Suppression Technologies that are Presently 

 Conceptual 

5. Emerging Technology Advancement

a. Liquid Mist Systems 

b. Advanced Flame Arresting Foams for Fuel Tank Inerting 

c. Active Suppression for Fuel Tank Explosions 

d. Advanced Propellant/Additive Development for Gas Generators 

e. Enhanced Powder Panels 

6. Suppression Optimization

a. Fire Suppressant Dynamics in the Fire Compartment 

b. Suppressant Flow Through Piping 

c. Mechanism of Unwanted Accelerated Burning 

d. Development and Evaluation of Automatically Actuating Pre-Dispersed 

 Agent Storage Containers 

e. Full-Scale Optimization of Advanced Fire Suppression Technologies 

C. NGP Major Research Milestones 

NGP research projects encompassing the 24 elements will begin identifying and 

developing new fire suppression technologies in FY1997 and establishing ways to determine 

their effectiveness; new knowledge will be added continuously throughout the program 

execution. These efforts will soon be accompanied by research to pursue variations on recently 

proposed fire suppression approaches. At the NGP mid-point (FY2001), the program focus will 

begin shifting to the development of knowledge to obtain the highest efficiency of each 

candidate technology and demonstrating the efficacy of the new technologies. The NGP 

progression is delineated in the major milestones listed below. 

C Description and tabulation of the broad classes of model fires to be suppressed by the end 

of FY 1998. 

C Implementation of improved laboratory-scale test methods for measuring the 

performance, compatibility, and degradation of new suppressants during the fire 

extinguishment process during FY 1998-1999. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 13

C Selection for further R&D of the first set of new technologies resulting from a broad 

public solicitation of ideas by the end of FY 1999. 

C Completion of a core methodology for DOD program executives/managers to evaluate 

the impact of selecting alternative fire suppression systems on each weapons system by 

the end of FY 2001. 

C Demonstration of a suite of computer models of the fire suppression processes for 

creating new suppression approaches and optimizing current ones (based on specific 

critical physical and chemical principles) by the end of FY 2001. 

C Identification of next-generation mist, inert gas generator, and powder technologies by 

the end of FY 2001. 

C Establishment of engineering models for an array of techniques to optimize the use of 

next-generation fire suppression technologies by the end of FY 2004. 

C Demonstration of the effectiveness of a wide variety of new technologies and/or 

techniques over the period FY 1999-2004. 

D. Strategy Evolution 

This Strategy is meant to be a "living" document. As presented, it represents the best 

current thinking for achievement of the program goal and objectives. The goal will remain fixed. 

 Approaches and timelines may be adjusted. As new knowledge emerges, technical efforts will 

be adjusted accordingly. For example, breakthroughs may find more direct channels toward the 

conclusion, or complications may necessitate further analysis and research. Further toxicity or 

real-scale proof testing could be required in the latter years. 

E. Success (Exit) Criteria 

The NGP will develop and demonstrate next-generation fire suppression technology 

alternatives to a level that will enable DOD weapon system managers to make prudent decisions 

based on cost, risk, schedule, and capability needs. Real-scale validation testing will 

demonstrate the viability of technologies and methods for broadly generic applications; 

however, new technologies will not be developed to the level of application for each specific 

weapon system. The NGP technology development process is considered complete when the 

generic technical know-how exists to design next-generation cost-effective alternatives to halon 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 14

1301 systems. In this regard, it is important to note that this effort does not include programs 

which will ultimately be required to incorporate these alternatives into specific weapon systems. 

 Programs of this nature are beyond the scope of science and technology efforts. 

VII. RESOURCES 

A. Estimated Funding Summary 

The NGP is scheduled to commence in FY 1997 and reach completion by FY 2004. 

There are currently ongoing and proposed DOD, industry, and academia activities which 

could advance the NGP timetable and reduce the estimated costs. Collaborations with these 

programs--both domestically and internationally--could reduce the funds needed to enable 

accomplishment of the research goal and objectives by requiring that: 

C government organizations whose laboratory capabilities are advanced by participating in 

this program share setup costs (especially for facilities that will remain after the 

conclusion of the program); 

C laboratories performing similar or related research work cost-share their projects to the 

extent that these existing efforts relate to proposed activities; 

C industrial firms that will find new markets share the costs of performed work in their area 

(this is especially true for holders of patented or proprietary technologies that are under 

consideration); and 

C other, non-DOD government agencies (including foreign government agencies) provide 

in-kind support, as their constituencies would benefit from the new fire suppression 

capabilities.

B. Funding Sources 

The NGP will be supported by Military Department Science and Technology (S&T) 

funds, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) funds, Other 

government funds (those from other non-DOD participating government agencies), and 

collaborative funding by research partners in the private sector. These funding sources are 

described below. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 15

1. Military Department S&T Programs. Military Department S&T programs are 

used to fund Basic Research (6.1), Exploratory Development (6.2), and Advanced 

Development (6.3) projects. To eliminate unnecessary duplication, Military 

Department next-generation fire suppression research projects supported within 

current S&T budgets are to be incorporated into the NGP Thrust areas by 

integrating them, as appropriate, with the research elements listed in Appendix B. 

2. SERDP. SERDP addresses high-priority, defense-mission-related, environmental 

requirements through basic and applied R&D. (The annual SERDP Program 

development schedule is shown in Appendix C.) Since halons have been banned 

from production because of their environmental impact, the search for new fire 

suppression technology is a DOD environmental requirement. Environmental 

research is focused on alternative technologies having zero ODP and minimal 

GWP; therefore, SERDP is a reasonable and appropriate funding source for 

research on next-generation fire suppression technology. 

3. Other Government Funds. It is anticipated that non-DOD government 

agencies, such as the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and 

the Department of Energy (DOE), will participate in the NGP. Funds provided 

for NGP research projects conducted by non-DOD government agencies are 

categorized as Other government funds. 

4. Cooperative Research. As designed, this program should quickly begin 

producing a steady flow of ideas for further development and examination. Those 

ideas showing promise will be pursued to the point of practical demonstration. 

To the extent that a given approach is appealing to industry, cooperative research 

and development agreements (CRADAs) and partnerships will be arranged to 

facilitate development and demonstration. Cooperative research efforts will also 

be pursued within the international community. 

C. Project Funding 

 The Military Departments will support their respective research projects with S&T 

funds, SERDP funds, or a combination of S&T funds and SERDP funds. The NGP and SERDP 

organizational points-of-contact (POCs) for facilitating the coordination of NGP statements-ofneed, project proposals, and project funding, include the HASG Secretariat, the Technical 

Program Manager (TPM), the SERDP Pollution Prevention Program Manager (PP PM), and the 

Pollution Prevention Technical Thrust Area Working Group (PP/TTAWG) co-chairs, as depicted 

in Appendix D. CRADAs with the private sector will be pursued by all performing 

organizations, as feasible. Additionally, through teaming with other government agencies, tasks 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 16

within Military Department projects can be accomplished with other government funds, as 

agreed by the teaming partners. 

VIII. TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

To achieve the NGP goal and objectives, DDR&E will conduct oversight of NGP 

research projects conducted by the Military Departments, DOD agencies, other government 

agencies, industry, academia, and, as appropriate, international agencies. This will be 

accomplished through the HASG. The overall program technical management structure is 

depicted in Figure 1. 

 

A. Management Organizational Structure 

1. Halon Alternatives R&D Steering Group. The HASG is responsible for 

oversight and guidance of the NGP. Established in September 1991 to 

formulate (and coordinate the execution of) an integrated DOD technology 

strategy and plan for identifying suitable alternatives for halons, the HASG is 

chaired by the Director, Advanced Technology, (DDR&E/AT). The HASG has 

two vice-chairs: the Deputy Director, Operational Test and Evaluation/ Live Fire 

Testing (DDOTE/LFT), Office of the Secretary of Defense; and the Staff 

Specialist for Survivability, Office of Strategic and Tactical Systems/Air Warfare 

(ODDS&TS/AW), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Technology (OUSD(A&T)). The HASG includes representation from the Office 

of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security, the 

Military Departments, DOD Agencies, and liaison personnel from other federal 

agencies. The current HASG membership will be restructured to increase weapon 

system user representation, as nominated by the Military Departments. 

2. Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). The TCC is responsible for 

coordinating the interaction of all thrust areas; reviewing the technical progress of 

individual research elements; assuring the coherence of the research elements; 

assessing progress toward the program goal and objectives; appraising the need 

for changes in technical direction; and coordinating all technical and resource 

issues at the Technical Thrust level. The TCC consists of the Technical Program 

Manager (designated as the Chairman) and the Thrust Leaders. 

a. Technical Program Manager. The TPM is appointed by the HASG 

Chairman from nominees submitted by the Military Departments and non-
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 17

DOD agencies, and serves at the discretion of the Chairman. The TPM is 

accountable to the HASG Chairman for the coordination of all NGP 

technical and resource matters, including program technical direction and 

progress, achievement of Technical Thrust objectives, and the 

accomplishment of the NGP goal. The TPM coordinates all NGP 

Research Elements, Statements-of-Need, solicitations, and broad agency 

announcements (BAAs), and all NGP project proposal reviews, selections, 

approvals, and funding. The TPM coordinates all matters pertaining to 

SERDP-funded NGP Projects with the Office of the SERDP Executive 

Director. 

b. Thrust Leaders. Thrust Leaders are appointed by the TPM from 

nominees submitted by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and other government 

agencies, with the approval of the HASG Chairman. Thrust Leaders are 

selected on the basis of their technical expertise in one or 

more Technical Thrust areas. Thrust Leaders are responsible for 

formulating and coordinating all NGP Projects within their respective 

Technical Thrust, drafting Statements-of-Need, reviewing project 

proposals, recommending proposal selections, and monitoring the 

execution of all projects in their respective thrust areas. 

3. Thrust Working Groups. Thrust Leaders may create informal Thrust Working 

Groups to facilitate coordination of all projects within their particular areas. 

Thrust Working Groups include NGP research project principal investigators in 

Army, Navy, and Air Force laboratories and other government laboratories; and 

principal investigators from industry and academia (as necessary). Thrust 

Working Groups are chaired by Thrust Leaders. 

4. HASG Secretariat. The Secretariat is responsible for all HASG administrative 

matters including scheduling and coordinating HASG meetings (including 

meeting logistics); preparing all HASG reports and minutes; and supporting the 

HASG membership, as required. The Secretariat is assisted by the Program 

Support Office, which provides necessary program and management support to 

the HASG and the TCC. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 18

HALON ALTERNATIVES R&D 

STEERING GROUP 

DDR&E/AT 

 CHAIR 

 SECRETARIAT 

TECHNICAL COORDINATING 

 COMMITTEE 

TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGER 

 CHAIR 

PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICE 

 Figure 1: Program Technical Management Organization 

B. Program Coordination and Review 

The NGP is supported by an efficient and effective methodology for technical program 

coordination and review. It is expected that as many as 50 professionals and 20 organizations 

will be involved during the course of the program. The preferred operation will involve the best 

technical experts making extensive use of capabilities within the government laboratories. There 

is immense value in obtaining the broadest spectrum of new ideas. Therefore, technical 

coordination and cross-pollination of work in progress is essential. The following mechanisms 

will be used to promote technical interactions and the flow of information to sponsors, overseers, 

and potential customers as well as program oversight and coordination: 

1. Semi-Annual HASG Meetings. The HASG reviews NGP plans and progress at 

its semi-annual meetings conducted in the May and October timeframes. The 

TPM presents technical briefings to the HASG concerning proposed NGP 

Statements-of-Need, recommended NGP Project Proposals, status of on-going 

NGP Projects, and the annual NGP Plan. 

2. SERDP Organization Annual Project Review. On-going SERDP-funded NGP 

Projects are reviewed annually by the SERDP organization, usually in May. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 19

3. Annual NGP Research Meeting. An annual NGP Research Meeting is 

convened in the May or October timeframe to provide a peer review and user 

feedback on the ongoing research. Coordinated by the TPM, the Research 

Meeting is attended by Thrust Leaders, program managers, principal 

investigators, weapon systems managers, HASG members, and other interested 

parties. Presentations will summarize overall progress achieved during the 

preceding fiscal year, and future plans in each Technical Thrust and Research 

Element. 

4. Quarterly Progress Reports. Quarterly progress reports are prepared by all 

principal investigators or grantees/contractors, in accordance with SERDP 

procedures, and submitted to the TPM. SERDP-funded NGP Projects will also be 

reported quarterly to the SERDP Executive Director in accordance with SERDP 

procedures. The technical content of these reports will promptly be made 

accessible electronically to all NGP participants in order to promote a more rapid 

flow of information among them. 

IX. PROGRAM EXECUTION

NGP execution will be characterized by rigorous application of scientific and engineering 

principles within a framework of integrated research thrusts and focused scientific and technical 

investigations. Progress will be measured through the attainment of specific milestones 

associated with the NGP Research Elements, which map the path for development of nextgeneration technologies. 

The entire program will be reviewed annually by the TCC to ensure that the work is 

focused and on track, recommend any warranted corrections in the funded tasks, identify the 

priority new-starts for the following year, and make changes in the remaining Research Elements 

resulting from new findings. Program execution will be reviewed semi-annually by the HASG 

and the TCC to ensure that all in-progress and planned NGP research projects support user needs 

and are consistent with the guiding principles of the baseline Research Element 1.a. These 

reviews may result in the acceleration, re-scoping, or the cancellation of some research elements 

and/or projects. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 20

A. Participants 

Program execution will involve a variety of participants, as listed below: 

C ODDR&E; 

C DDOTE/LFT; 

C ODDS&TS/AW; 

C Army, Navy, and Air Force research sponsors, laboratories, and field activities; 

C other government organizations (e.g., NIST, DOE laboratories, foreign governments); 

C private sector companies (both small and large businesses); 

C colleges and universities; 

C designated federal government contracting agency (CA) (for contracting support); 

C the HASG; 

C the TCC; 

C NGP Project principal investigators; and 

C the SERDP organization, including the Council, Executive Director, Scientific Advisory 

Board (SAB), Executive Working Group (EWG), PP PM, and the PP/TTAWG. 

B. Execution Process 

The NGP will be executed through research projects proposed by the Military 

Departments and other federal government agencies in response to Research Element 

Statements-of-Need developed by the TCC. SERDP-funded projects will be coordinated 

through the HASG and approved by the SERDP Council. Non-SERDP funded projects will be 

approved through the HASG. Selected Research Element Statements-of-Need will be solicited 

among industry and academia by SERDP and the CA through the Commerce Business Daily. 

Proposals accepted from industry and academia will be incorporated into the NGP supporting 

programs of the Military Departments or other participating federal government agencies. More 

details on the execution process are provided in Appendices C and D. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 21

X. INITIATION OF THE NGP

A. FY 1997 NGP New-Start Projects 

Due to the urgency of the need to find alternatives to halon 1301, the NGP will 

commence in FY 1997 with nine projects and transition to full program execution commencing 

in FY 1998. In October 1995, the HASG Chairman submitted the FY97 NGP Portfolio to the 

SERDP Executive Director for consideration in the FY 1997 SERDP Program. SERDP solicited 

six NGP Statements-of-Need among government agencies in January 1996. Proposals received 

were evaluated by the PP/TTWAG and the TCC, resulting in the selection of five Directed NGP 

New-Start projects. SERDP also solicited one Statement-of-Need to industry and academia 

through a Broad Agency Announcement by the CA in March 1996. Proposals received were 

evaluated by the TCC and the PP/TTWAG, resulting in the selection of four projects. In May 

1996, the nine proposed FY97 NGP New-Start Projects, scheduled to commence in October 

1996, were coordinated with the HASG and forwarded to the Executive Director by the HASG 

Chairman. 

B. Integration of NGP Research Element Funding Needs and TDP 

Activities 

The NGP Research Element funding needs will be integrated into the SERDP Plan 

beginning in FY 1997, and into Military Department S&T program plans beginning in 

FY 1998. Commencing in FY98, the Military Departments will plan, program, and budget the 

necessary S&T program resources required to support their full participation in the NGP. All 

TDP halon 1301 alternatives research activities will be reviewed by the HASG in FY97 with the 

objective of integrating all next-generation efforts into the NGP in FY98, as appropriate. To this 

end, the Military Departments will review and assess their ongoing or planned halon 1301 nextgeneration alternatives research activities, both within and outside the TDP, and technically align 

these efforts to conform to the goal, technical objectives, and resource requirements of the NGP 

commencing in FY98. This will mitigate duplication of effort, facilitate a coordinated approach 

among all the Military Departments, and ensure that all Military Department halon 1301 

alternatives research efforts are consistent with DOD priorities and support the NGP goal. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 22

XI. ACHIEVING THE NGP GOAL--PROSPECTS AND PAYOFF 

A. Prospects 

Although there is a moderate degree of risk in this research, prospects for achieving the 

program goal are excellent for three reasons: 

1. There are scientific indications that new chemical compounds may potentially 

have the same effectiveness as halon 1301. There are no scientific principles that 

prevent a chemical from being as effective as, or more effective than, halon 1301 

in quenching combustion. Alkaline powders, metallics, and iodine-containing 

compounds, for example, have all been shown to inhibit combustion and suppress 

flames at mass-loadings near or below those required for halon 1301. Even water, 

if properly applied, can be demonstrated to be more effective on a kilogram-forkilogram basis than halon 1301. The majority of the vast number of isomers, 

homologues, and bonding arrangements within other potential families of 

chemicals were not examined in the rapid search for near-term alternatives. 

2. Through a greater understanding of fire suppression principles, it may be possible 

to develop compounds that are as effective as halon 1301, and to develop new 

suppression concepts. Better laboratory scale screening tools are required to 

adequately investigate the fire suppression phenomena of new chemical 

compounds or suppression concepts. The current tools were developed for halons 

and near-term alternatives, and are not suitable for dealing with the heavier, high 

boiling point compounds that will be investigated in the NGP. These new tools 

will provide insights required for better understanding of flame extinguishment 

and fire suppression mechanisms, leading to the development of new combustion 

models required for effective investigation of new compounds and suppression 

concepts. (The new screening tools will also enable the optimization of emerging 

alternative technologies now under development and testing in the TDP; e.g., 

water mists and inert gas generators.) The expertise to develop these screening 

tools, suppression mechanisms, combustion models, and testing methodologies is 

available in government laboratories, industry, and academia. 

3. Maximizing the fire suppression efficiency of new delivery concepts may result in 

system solutions that are as effective as halon-based systems, even though the 

compounds may be less effective. Also, newly emerging technologies are already 

known to exist, but need further optimization. These include gas generator 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 23

systems, explosively-released water mists, and intelligent control of fluid motion 

in a protected space. The large number of options, each of which by itself 

containing some drawbacks, suggests that synergy could follow the invocation of 

combinations of processes, techniques, and fluids. Ideas for novel delivery 

schemes are being explored which could greatly enhance the performance of any 

particular compound and, thus, its probability of success. 

The prospects for successfully achieving the goal are greatly enhanced by the NGP 

technical management team, a highly skilled and experienced group of scientists and engineers. 

The TCC will marshal a strong government, industry, and academia research effort with built-in 

provisions to ensure the lateral exchange of experimental and theoretical information among 

scientists, and the vertical transfer of information from engineers to the bench scientists and 

back. This coordination will allow rapid appraisal of ideas and direct the development process 

onto winning technologies, precluding time and resource-consuming dead-end investigations or 

non-relevant tangential efforts. The technical team efforts will be subject to highly effective 

program oversight and progress assessment by resource sponsors and users on the HASG, 

ensuring that the NGP stays on track and achieves its goal and objectives with minimum 

expenditure of resources and time. 

B. Payoff 

If successful, the NGP will develop and demonstrate the requisite technologies that will 

enable the backfit of halon 1301 alternatives into fielded weapon systems, eliminate DOD 

dependence on a substance no longer in national production, and minimize any readiness impacts 

that could result if halon 1301 use restrictions are imposed in the future. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 24

APPENDIX A: MILITARY DEPARTMENT FIRE AND EXPLOSION 

SURVEY

 

SURVEY FORM AND TABULATION OF FIRE TYPES
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 25

SURVEY FORM: FIRE AND EXPLOSION SCENARIO DESCRIPTION --HALON 1301 REPLACEMENT

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF FIRE/EXPLOSION SCENARIO:____________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IS THIS APPLICATION A RETROFIT? _______ A NEW SYSTEM? _______ 

FUEL(S) (INCLUDING P,T RANGES):_____________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IGNITION SOURCE(S):__________________________________________________________________________________ 

OUTCOME TO BE AVOIDED:___________________________________________________________________________ 

TIME FRAME FOR DETECTION:_________________________________________________________________________ 

TIME FRAME DURING WHICH SUPPRESSION MUST OCCUR:______________________________________________ 

ARE PEOPLE PRESENT DURING SUPPRESSION?__________________________________________________________ 

CAN THEY LEAVE DURING THE FIRE? ________________________AFTER SUPPRESSION? ___________________ 

IS A CLEAN AGENT NEEDED? ______ 

CANNOT WORK WITH MIST ____, GASEOUS ____, POWDER ____ AGENT. WHY? 

WHAT ARE POSSIBLE POST-FIRE LIMITATIONS TO BE AVOIDED? 

CORROSION ___ LOSS OF VISIBILITY ___ TOXIC ATMOSPHERE ___ 

RE-FLASH ___ OTHER (SPECIFY)____________________________________________________________ 

IS A SECOND-SHOT CAPABILITY NECESSARY? YES ________ NO _______ 

ACCEPTABLE VOLUME INCREASE OVER HALON 1301 STORAGE?______________________________% 

ACCEPTABLE WEIGHT INCREASE OVER HALON 1301 STORAGE?______________________________% 

MUST PRESENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM BE USED? YES ______NO ______ 

YEAR FOR NEEDING TO KNOW NEW AGENT/SYSTEM: ________________________ 

YOUR NAME:________________________________ PHONE:________________________FAX_____________________ 

ADDRESS:____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PEOPLE CONSULTED/AFFILIATIONS:___________________________________________________________________ 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

26

Service Facility Fire Type Location Fuel(s) Suppr. 

Time 

Fixed/ 

Hand-Held 

Army watercraft fuel spray engine room 

machinery space 

diesel fuel lube/hydraulic oil . 10 s F? 

Army watercraft . pool fire paint locker paints & solvents . 10 s F Army aircraft fuel spray engine JP-4 or JP-8 seconds F Army aircraft stack fire aux. power unit exhaust JP-4 or JP-8 seconds? F? Army helicopter turbine jet fire engine nacelle JP-4 or JP-8 . 5 s F,H? Army ground vehicle explosion crew compartment solid propellant . 0.1 s F Army ground vehicle mist explosion crew compartment JP-8 . 0.2 s F Army ground vehicle explosion ammo compartment solid propellant < 5 s F Tri-service aircraft explosion dry bay JP-8, hydr. fluid . 10 ms F Tri-service aircraft turbine jet fire engine nacelle JP-4, JP-8 . 5 s F USAF aircraft electrical compartment plastics < 30 s H USAF aircraft wall fire cargo bay plastics . 5 m F (6H) USAF ground pool/wall fires rooms paper, plastics, 

chemicals 

< 5 m F 

USAF engine test spray/pool fires? room JP-4 & JP-8 < 1 m F Navy ship spray/pool fires machinery space diesel fuel lube oil < 1 m? F Navy aircraft fuel spray engine JP-4,5,8 seconds F Navy aircraft fuel spray crew compartment JP-4,5,8, hydrolic <30s H Navy aircraft electrical crew compartment insulation/plastics <30s H Navy aircraft turbine jet fire engine nacelle JP-4,5,8 10-20s F Navy aircraft rapid growth dry bay JP-4,5,8 app.50ms F 

 Hazards include re-flash, over pressure, post-fire corrosion, and loss of visibility & toxic atmosphere (manned compartments)

Table A-1: Tabulation of Fire Types (July 11, 1994)
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 27

APPENDIX B: RESEARCH ELEMENTS 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 28

1. Risk Assessment and Selection Criteria 

1.a. Development of Model Fires from DoD Fire Data (24 months; begin in FY 

1997) 

Objective: Characterization of the nature, frequency, consequences (including personnel injuries), and 

severity of fires previously and currently attacked using halon 1301; tabulation of failures in 

deployment and/or suppression; extension of this description to include weapons systems in 

the pipeline (and new hazards due to advanced component materials) for which halon 1301 is 

intended; identification of the nature of halon 1301 system in each weapon system, the 

limitations presented for retrofit with a new fire suppression technology, and limits of 

acceptable damage and threats to people; use of these analyses to construct a small set of 

representative (model) fires and a retrofit qualification template for other elements in the 

Program. 

Rationale: Development of appropriate new technologies requires knowledge of the fires of concern and 

the characteristics and limitations of the systems they will replace or into which they will be 

fit. No in-depth survey of real-life fuel flows and conditions has been done, including the 

effects of pressure drop during release, although for fires involving disgorging liquid fuels, 

the fuel type, flow type and rate, and droplet size can have a dramatic effect on fire intensity 

and suppression results. 

Approach: A preliminary survey was conducted as a basis for formulating this plan. A more detailed 

survey of data bases and the weapons systems operators will produce more definitive 

information about the fire types and fuel flows in already-deployed systems. Experts on 

systems in the pipeline will be interviewed to identify similarities or significant differences. 

The results will be analyzed and reduced to a minimal number of model fires to focus the 

research tasks. As needed, lab- and full-scale tests will determine the effect of fuel flow on 

suppressant needs. The descriptions of the environments of the current systems will serve as 

boundary conditions for the new technologies to be developed in subsequent Elements. 

Products: Report (a) describing the halon 1301 systems, including limitations for alternative 

technologies, (b) tabulating characteristics of fires to be defended against, (c) the fuel flow 

characteristics during such fires and their impact on suppressant requirements, and (d) 

describing a small number of model fires. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 29

1.b. Ullage Inerting In-Flight Data Collection (24 months; begin in FY 1998) 

Objective: Obtain accurate data on in-flight ullage conditions on which to base a valid fire protection 

strategy. 

Rationale: Fuel tank protection schemes have been designed and fielded without verification of the 

hypothesized ullage conditions in flight. The fuel tank environment may never reach the 

worst-case, stoichiometric conditions. Prior programs to install measurement devices onboard aircraft to measure in-flight conditions have failed to accomplish the task. New or 

modified current devices are needed to measure accurately and remotely, endure the flight 

environment, and potentially be used by pilots to control when inertant is released. 

NOTE: there may be additional fire scenarios needing this type of analysis. 

Approach: Current measurement technologies (including the new equivalence ratio meter) and their 

accuracy will be assessed. Ground tests will be performed to assure capability, and afterward 

ruggedization and packaging for the aircraft environment will be completed. Arrange with 

services for test bed aircraft and install measurement equipment. Collect data through a range 

of flight scenarios. 

Products: Assessment of proper fuel/air conditions needing protection based on accurate ullage fuel 

concentration data and other conditions in flight throughout the flight envelope. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 30

1.c. Relative Benefit Assessment of Fire Protection System Changes (Begin in FY 

1998, continuing)

Objective: Develop means to evaluate the relative desirability of potentially effective changes to fire 

protection systems and changes in fire suppression procedures that would enhance the 

efficiency of the suppression process. 

Rationale: There are potentially high and variable costs associated with the differing changes from the 

features of the conventional halon 1301 fire extinguishing system. Quantification of 

modification costs and identification of decision-affecting considerations (e.g., materials 

compatibility, weight, volume, toxicity, environmental impact) increases the odds of 

identifying a satisfactory solution. Initial studies may also show where the most payoff in 

technology research may be found early. Traditional fire response protocols for halon 1301 

use will be revisited as new suppression technologies are considered. 

Approach: A panel of specialists in and manufacturers of weapon systems logistics will be convened to 

determine ultimate life cycle costs, assess the impacts of modifying different parameters of 

suppression systems, and analyze the fire incidence reports (Element 1.a) to determine 

positive and negative features of the current response procedures. The last includes 

evaluation of time from fire initiation to fire detection, and extinguishant release, discharge 

and transport times. Techniques such as influence diagrams will be used to integrate the 

compiled knowledge. Recommendations for areas for best exploitation will be prepared. 

Alternative technologies will be appraised as they are proposed. 

Products: Methodology for assessing the ultimate impact each change in suppression system 

parameters have upon the effectiveness and cost of the entire weapons system; recommended 

changes in fire suppression protocols. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 31

2. Fire Suppression Principles

2.a. Mechanisms of Ultra-High Efficiency Chemical Suppressants (60 months; 

begin in FY 1997) 

Objective: Determine how chemicals that are as or more efficient than halon 1301 quench flames 

characteristic of those identified in Thrust 1. This entails differentiating between chemical 

and physical effects, heterogeneous and homogeneous chemistry, etc. 

Rationale: Understanding how the flame propagation processes can best be stopped will lead to 

identifying chemicals with the appropriate properties. 

Approach: Quantify flame quenching properties of a range of identified "superagents" for various fuels, 

laboratory burners (laminar and turbulent), and flame strain rates. For a few select 

representative chemicals, measure flame temperatures, and species concentration profiles 

(including flame-suppression-effective by-products of the suppressant) as the flames undergo 

extinction. Determine the rates of those key reactions not yet published. Construct a 

computer model of the chemical extinction process. Determine how these effective 

chemicals work. 

Products: Identification of the most vulnerable steps in flame propagation chemistry; key properties of 

fluid, aerosol, or particulate chemicals that have high impact on those steps; flame chemistry 

model for appraising further candidate chemicals. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 32

2.b. Suppression Dynamics of Fine Droplets and Particles (60 months; begin in 

FY 1997)

Objective: Obtain the data and understanding required to engineer improved heterogeneous agent 

dispersion systems with enhanced fire-extinction capability. 

Rationale: Knowledge of how small droplets and particles (1-100 μm) interact with burning surfaces at 

different temperatures and with flames is needed for identifying, evaluating, and optimizing 

suppression systems employing droplets or particles. 

Approach: Conduct experiments to determine whether small droplets or particles (the latter dependent 

on the outcome of Element 1.a) reach the surface of burning fuels. If so, develop a predictive 

model for the impact and spread of small droplets on surfaces. This would be tested using 

data from single droplet impact experiments as well as experiments to examine the 

impingement of a mist on a burning surface. Develop information on the transport and 

degradation of small particles and droplets in flames. 

Products: A validated model of the dominant suppression process(es) of small particles and aerosols. 

Within the flame, this includes physical and chemical effects; at the burning surface, impact 

and spread of small droplets as a function of aerosol/particle size and velocity and surface 

characteristics and correlations for the heat transfer rate. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 33

2.c. Stabilization of Flames (24 months; begin in FY 1997) 

Objective: Understanding of the extent to which flame stabilization can impact the observed effect of a 

suppressant. 

Rationale: In complex geometries, the stability of the flame may be a dominant factor affecting fire 

suppression. The flame stabilizes either on a bluff body, in a recirculation zone or where 

steady-state conditions are reached in space that can support stable combustion. Thus, the 

capability to extinguish the fire may rest substantially upon decoupling the fire physically or 

otherwise from its stabilized position and preventing its reattachment. Were flame 

stabilization better understood, better techniques for ultimately extinguishing the fire, 

including non-traditional means, may be discovered. 

Approach: Building on current knowledge, appropriate lab-scale burners will be modified to include 

flame-stabilizing geometries. Further testing may be performed at real scale with 

instrumentation to characterize the airflow/flame conditions (Element 3.c). Bench-scale 

simulators may be necessary to understand fundamentals of the interaction. This includes 

turbulent spray burners and basic research apparatus for bluff body studies. Techniques 

based upon these studies can be demonstrated at real scale. 

Products: Reports documenting understanding of the effects of flame stability, instability and bluff 

body effects on fires, and techniques to utilize the behavior to extinguish fires more 

effectively. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 34

2.d. Explosion Inhibition Processes (48 months; begin in FY 1998)

Objective: Develop basis for "designing" explosion inhibitors. 

Rationale: Explosions are the most sudden (and often most critical) threats quenched by halon 1301. 

The criteria for stopping high-speed flames are different from those for buoyant flames. 

Approach: Review existing models of explosion propagation and inhibition, select the most appropriate, 

and develop for current purposes. Select appropriate laboratory combustor(s) and measure 

shock velocities, pressure ratios and combustion wave speeds in inhibited fuel air mixtures. 

Develop relative performance measures for different suppression approaches, including 

aerosols and powders. Use data to verify and improve model. Variants of this type of work 

are underway at a number of research institutions and can be leveraged. 

Products: Verified model of extinction of deflagrations; performance metrics for explosion 0quenchers. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 35

3. Technology Testing Methodologies

3.a. Suppression System Effectiveness Screening (42 months; begin in FY 1997) 

Objective: Select, adapt, or develop test methods to obtain inexpensive fire suppression efficiency 

information on a diversity of suppression technologies. 

Rationale: It is expected that numerous approaches to fire suppression will emerge, involving multiple 

chemicals and other features. The means are needed to obtain accurate relative performance 

data (a) among variations on each approach and (b) among approaches. In addition, 

reignition of fuels and hydraulic fluids at temperatures that can occur on the surfaces of 

engines has been shown to be a dominant event in dictating the quantities of agent required 

for suppression. 

Approach: Conduct workshop to identify the best current suppression effectiveness screens for each 

agent class and fire type (Element 1.a). Several laboratories have developed laboratory scale 

methods for some types of agents and some fire types and some hot surface conditions. Each 

of the chosen methods should be identified as appropriate as is, needing significant 

adaptation for continued use, or needing replacement during this program. Those in the latter 

two categories would be pursued further. Conduct a round-robin of methods as needed to 

enable multi-lab use of methods. 

Products: Techniques for estimating suppression technology performance; apparatus documentation for 

replication by other laboratories. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 36

3.b. Agent Compatibility With People, Materials and the Environment (24 months; begin in FY 

1998)

Objective: Select, adapt, or develop test methods to obtain data on the toxicity, environmental impact, 

and materials compatibility of new suppressants and their principal degradation products 

during the fire extinguishment process. 

Rationale: As new, effective agents are identified, acceptable methods are needed to determine other 

key indicators of their acceptability 

Approach: Conduct a workshop with experts in these areas of testing, leading to selection of the best 

current means for obtaining each type of data. There are three basic types of fire suppression 

agents likely to be proposed: volatile agents, particulates, and mists, contingent on the 

outcome of Element 1.a. For particulates and mists, the agent might consist of both a volatile 

and non-volatile component. The methods should be useful for each of these types. As 

appropriate, the methods should be applied to the agent=s byproducts formed during 

suppression as well. 

For the toxicity of chemicals that may be used in occupied spaces, follow EPA approval 

format as a minimal testing strategy, and obtain consensus on tests for new forms of 

suppressants. As needed, develop appropriate toxicology technology to obtain toxicologydriven agent release concentrations appropriate to the hazard of fire situations. For 

environmental effects, non-volatile components should create only cleanup problems. [ii] For 

volatile components, data is needed to determine the atmospheric lifetimes of the compound 

itself and its volatile reaction products. This requires the measurement or estimation of: 

reaction rate constants, primarily with OH; photolysis cross sections; infra-reed cross 

sections; Henry's Law constants and hydrolysis rates. It is also necessary to review the 

capability of the 2-D atmospheric models used to determine the lifetime and accumulation of 

material in the atmosphere, the ODP and GWP, as well as the 3-D models needed to evaluate 

species with lifetimes less than a few months. Note that if the compound contains atoms 

other than C,H,O,N, or halogens, chemical kinetic additions to the models may be needed. 

[iii] For compatibility with storage container materials, data would be obtained for each 

weapons system to determine the thermal exposure for the stored suppression system, as well 

as any other external forces that might affect the agent's endurance. NIST has developed a 

set of tests for assessing potential degradation of metals and elastomers in the presence of a 

fluid suppressant and degradation of the fluid itself. Protocols are needed for similar testing 

of solid suppressants (e.g., powders), both dry and moist. Reactive chemicals need to be 

assessed for their own integrity. The thermal degradation methods should be useful for 

determining the stability of agents that impact on hot surfaces during fire suppression as well. 

 [iv] The impact of the agent and it=s combustion by-products on downstream weapons 

system materials needs to be determined under appropriate thermal and moisture conditions. 

Each of the methods should be identified as appropriate as is, needing significant adaptation 

for continued use, or needing replacement during this program. Those in the latter two 

categories would be pursued further. 

Products: Methods for obtaining performance measures of the key properties of new agents. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 37

3.c. Instrumentation for Gaseous Fuels, Oxygen, and Suppressant Concentration 

Measurements During Suppression of Flames and Explosions (72 months, 

begin in FY 1998) 

Objective: Develop measurement methods needed for characterization of suppression performance and 

for determining combustion conditions in laboratory-scale apparatus; instrument the existing 

full-scale fire suppression testing facilities, as needed, making them research-capable and 

usable for certification. 

Rationale: Data on, e.g., the concentrations of the principal species, mixing behavior, and velocities are 

essential to understanding why one alternative behaves differently than another and to 

validating hypotheses of the reasons for good/poor flame suppression performance. There 

are limited techniques available for making the measurements on the fast time scale needed 

for many of the key fire types. While data on other flame species and agent breakdown 

products (which may be the active suppressant) would be valuable, a program of this size 

does not justify the additional expense. Additional instrumentation will be needed in order to 

get excellent performance measurements from large-scale facilities. Moreover, when 

anomalous behavior is observed in full-scale tests, there are insufficient data from which to 

derive explanations. Additional measurements are also needed to use these facility for 

experimental verification of laboratory experiments and computational models. 

Approach: Identify the key flame species and properties and key suppressants (as they are identified as 

promising and in conjunction with Element 1.a) to be examined, review the literature to 

identify optimal techniques, and adapt to this context. (Capitalize on combustion and 

particle/aerosol diagnostic research ongoing at a number of laboratories that can be 

redirected to this application.) Convene panel of experts to identify critical variables to be 

measured during intermediate- and full-scale tests (esp. Thrust 6). Adapt lab-scale 

instrumentation as appropriate, design and fabricate access, purchase and install instruments. 

Products: Instruments suitable for measuring fuel/air ratios, agent concentrations, particle size 

distributions, number densities, composition, velocities, and radiant flux as a function of time 

and space in laboratory and, as needed, full-scale suppression experiments. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 38

4. New Suppression Concepts

4.a. Powder-Matrix Systems (84 months; begin in FY 1998)

Objective: Investigate the concept of an agent dissolved in an inert polymeric or inorganic matrix with 

the specific property that it will be released rapidly at a temperature near or below the 

ignition point of the combustible mixture. 

Rationale: Many possible fire suppressants cannot be used due to their atmospheric consequences or 

toxic properties. Further, in any fire situation, much more of the suppressant is used than 

needed to put out a fire. This approach would only release the amount of chemical needed to 

quench the fire and then only in the immediate vicinity of the flames. This Element would 

not be funded if the results of Element 1.a discourage the use of agents that leave residues. 

Approach: Survey current capabilities. Identify potential substrates and determine how much agent a 

given particle can hold using experiences from gas chromatography matrixes. Develop 

surface treatments that would increase holding capacity and increase the release temperature. 

 Evaluate the potential for using polymer substrates, including building the suppressant into 

the polymer itself. Determine how rapidly the agent can be released through heat and mass 

transfer calculations with experimental verification. Work with EPA to ensure consideration 

of environmental concerns. Test chemicals for effectiveness and compatibility using 

methods described under Thrust 3. 

Products: New approach, with specific chemicals, for suppressing fires where cleanliness is not 

essential. 

 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 39

4.b. Evaluation of Highly Effective Chemical Suppressants (72 months; begin in 

FY 1998) 

Objective: Identify and evaluate the full range of chemically active suppressants that are as or more 

effective than CF3Br and sufficiently low in toxicity and environmental impact. 

Rationale: Exploratory studies have shown that several families of compounds are at least as efficient as 

halon 1301 as flame inhibitors and have zero ozone depletion potential (ODP), e.g., 

organometallics and phosphonitrilics. Although some are too toxic, others are potentially 

non-toxic and may have desirable chemical and physical properties. 

Approach: Using the principles emerging from Element 2.a, new ideas arising from Element 4.e, the 

findings from Element 1.a, and the fundamental chemistries of these families, develop a list 

of candidates with high flame suppression efficiency and low toxicity. Synthesize new 

chemicals as necessary. Perform extinguishment and flame structure experiments on strained 

diffusion flames to verify or adapt principles. Perform post-flame analyses to identify 

potential by-products. Run screening tests from Elements 3.a and 3.b for suppression 

effectiveness, toxic potency, environmental impact, and residue to estimate acceptability. 

Products: A list of promising compounds with pertinent information on their physical and chemical 

properties, suppression efficiency, toxicity, storage stability, and breakdown products and 

their properties and toxicities. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 40

4.c. Super-Effective Thermal Suppressants (60 months; begin in 

FY 1997) 

Objective: Determine whether there are practical physical suppressants of efficiency comparable to 

halon 1301. 

Rationale: There may be materials that have very high heats of phase transition and undergo these 

transitions at temperatures and over time scales such that they can effectively extract heat 

from fires leading to suppression. Such materials may be pure materials, e.g., silicates, or 

dissolved aqueous solids, e.g., salt solutions, which evaporate to leave small salt crystals. 

Such materials have the potential for equaling the effectiveness of halon 1301 with zero 

ODP. 

Approach: Survey the chemical literature and perform thermochemical calculations to identify potential 

candidates that also met the requirements identified under Element 1.a. Examine such 

chemicals in diffusion flames to verify concepts and suggest further candidates. Conduct 

appropriate testing from Thrust 3 on best performing candidates.` 

Products: Set of high efficiency fire extinguishing agents. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 41

4.d. New and More Effective Fire-Suppression Technologies that are Presently 

Conceptual (48 months; begin in FY 1997)

Objective: Introduce new and innovative approaches to fire suppression at the onset of the nextgeneration halon replacement program. 

Rationale: There are additional and diverse new ideas that merit screening. Subject to the boundaries 

set under Element 1.a, the best of these should be examined to see if further research is 

needed to develop their full potential for the Program. 

Approach: Conduct one or more RFPs for novel ideas. Provide up to 1-year support for worthy 

proposals (to include proof-of-concept demonstration), refer the successful results to the 

testing facilities, and continue support for those with promise. Convene a workshop on flame 

suppression to stimulate additional thinking. 

Products: New classes of high efficiency fire extinguishing agents and technologies. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 42

5. Emerging Technology Advancement

5.a. Liquid Mist Systems (72 months; begin in FY 1998) 

Objective: Improve small droplet suppression systems. 

Rationale: Some systematic testing of water mist systems has demonstrated their potential. Other fluids 

or additives should be considered as well, including blends of high and low volatility 

components. Issues remain regarding the speed of deployment, dispersal around clutter, and 

sound level in occupied spaces. 

Approach: Identify possible candidates in conjunction with Elements 1.a and 2.b. Perform bench-scale 

suppression experiments to screen candidates. For mixtures, examine the influence of fluid 

composition, droplet velocity, and droplet size on the droplet evaporation rate and the delay 

time for the droplet to burst and release the trapped volatiles within. Consider using 

propellant-generated gases as a dispersing mechanism. Conduct real-scale tests to identify 

additional factors affecting effectiveness. If effectiveness is comparable to halon 1301, then 

perform other tests developed in Thrust 3 and then proceed to mid-scale tests for optimizing 

storage and dispersion conditions, deployment speed and distribution around clutter. 

Determine whether this approach is fruitful for preventing ammunition fires. There are a 

number of research and testing efforts underway that will benefit this effort. 

Products: Enhancements for mist suppression technology; new high efficiency fire extinguishing 

agents. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 43

5.b. Advanced Flame Arresting Foams for Fuel Tank Inerting (30 months; begin 

in FY 2002)

Objective: Develop advanced foams that are lighter, retain little to no fuel, do not degrade or statically 

discharge, and offer acceptable explosion suppression at weight and volume levels equivalent 

to current halon 1301 fuel protection systems. 

Rationale: Foams were adapted from auto racing for aircraft during the Southeast Asia conflict, when 

many aircraft were lost due to fuel tank explosions. Although very successful, a loss in range 

due to fuel retention was observed, and foam degradation and static discharges were also 

problems that were moderately addressed in modest research programs in the 70s and 80s. 

The substantial penalties that persisted led to aircraft such as the F-16 opting for halon 1301 

inerting systems over foam due to lower life-cycle penalties. Dry-bay foam has also been 

used successfully in limited aircraft such as the A-10 in Desert Storm. 

Approach: Delineate the improvements needed to equal the safety afforded by halon 1301. These may 

include density, heat capacity, pore size and structure, and surface tension. Request samples 

of complying materials. Stimulate foam manufacturers to develop improved versions. 

Perform live fire tests, sustained fuel exposure tests and static discharge tests. Work with 

the F-16 Program Office's 4-5 year effort to find a replacement for its halon inerting system. 

Products: New foam technology. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 44

5.c. Active Suppression for Fuel Tank Explosions (24 months; begin in FY 2002)

Objective: Determine the viability of previously-developed alternative systems, such as the LFE (Linear 

Fire Extinguisher), PRESS (Parker Reactive Explosion Suppression System), Walter Kidde 

Canister System, NIBB (Nitrogen Inflated Ballistic Bladder). 

Rationale: Several alternative systems were developed by the Navy and Air Force in the 1980s and 

showed potential in full-scale tests. Implementation of these systems was aborted due to 

nagging operational questions or limitations on research funding to proceed with 

development. 

Approach: The systems mentioned above will be reanalyzed along with recent data. If needed, 

additional research will be performed in association with pertinent system manufacturers, and 

real-scale explosion testing will take place at existing facilities. The manufacturers will, at 

their discretion and expense, develop the systems to withstand the aircraft fuel tank 

environment, minimize maintenance impact and system initial and support costs. 

Products: Improved alternative systems. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 45

5.d. Advanced Propellant/Additive Development for Gas Generators (60 months; begin 

in FY 1998)

Objective: Develop new types of chemically-generated gaseous suppressants. 

Rationale: Proposed and theorized techniques using solid propellants for gas generation to extinguish 

fires have been in existence for decades. [Such devices are the means for the rapid inflation 

of automobile air bags.] Preliminary results from Navy-sponsored research, development 

and testing and Air Force-sponsored research are very promising, with system weight in 

some cases approximating halon 1301 systems. 

Gas generator extinguishers primarily suppress a fire by the high concentration of inert gas 

enhanced by the high specific volume achieved by the very hot gas. Navy and Air Force 

tests indicate that the extinguisher is also blowing out the fire. Further, the strong gas 

momentum may be primarily in a linear direction, and extinguishing obstructed fires may 

prove difficult. In addition, it was shown that filtered systems and gas/liquid "hybrids" could 

in some instances prove more effective than conventional all-propellant systems. 

Mechanistic hypotheses remain to be checked. 

Approach: This work would begin with a literature search for alternative, less exothermic (or even 

endothermic) propellant chemistry and gas/liquid hybrids, identifying candidates for study, 

consistent with the results of Element 1.a. Samples of these would be synthesized, along 

with additives (which can even add solid brominated products that can be vaporized and 

released, then condense back to solid form after release to prevent atmospheric uptake), for 

evaluation in both small- and full-scale tests. Hybrid systems that employ high-boiling liquid 

agents, with the propellant both vaporizing and propelling the liquid, would also be 

evaluated. All three services have efforts underway which would synergize with this effort. 

To the extent that new suppressants are generated, they would be tested for toxicity and 

compatibility as in Thrust 3. 

Products: New solid propellant gas generators and an understanding of the fundamentals of their 

behavior. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 46

5.e. Enhanced Powder Panels (36 months; begin FY 1999)

Objective: Advance protection against penetrating shells in those applications where halon 1301 is 

currently used in conjunction with powder panels. 

Rationale: Powder panels provide passive, lightweight, effective fire protection against ballistic impact, 

which release powder into the fire zone to inert the space before the adjoining fuel spills into 

the space and is ignited by incendiaries. Preliminary results with simple powders were 

impressive. Cleanup remains a concern. Powder panels add weight based upon the surface 

area of the fuel wall/fire zone interface, as opposed to the volume of the fire zone, so the 

relative benefit of the panels are dependent upon the configuration of the particular bay. 

Recent testing of conventional panels showed promise for final implementation, but they are 

in essence the same design that has existed for decades. 

Approach: An in-depth study of the mechanisms of ballistic penetration and behavior, and the nature of 

dry bay fires, will first be conducted. Features necessary for successful use of powder panels 

will be identified, and requirements for integration into aircraft structure will also be 

assembled. New designs of panels and new powders will be tested in small- and full-scale 

facilities. Evaluations of operational suitability such as vibration, shock and temperature 

resistance will also be performed. Make use of the current Army program in this area. 

Products: Enhancements to current powder panel technologies. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 47

6. Suppression Optimization

6.a. Fire Suppressant Dynamics in the Fire Compartment (48 months; begin in 

FY 2001) 

Objective: Develop understanding of the interaction between the suppressant flow, the fire field, and the 

concentration needed for extinguishment, leading to providing the technology base needed to 

develop physical injection systems that are uniquely relevant to advanced fire suppression 

methods, such as flashing injection, mist generation, and gas-generator product injection. 

Rationale: Because of the high efficiency of halon 1301 and the absence of alternatives, little has been 

done to optimize delivery system engineering. Furthermore, flow fields dramatically affect 

fires and their suppression. This is further complicated if the fire's combustion products are 

re-entrained into the flames, and a directional flow can prematurely sweep the agent from the 

fire vicinity, leading to a need for more suppressant and inviting re-ignition of residual hot 

fuel. Moreover, recent experiments have shown that significantly enhanced agent dispersion 

can result from improvements in the suppressant delivery system and that obstacles can 

discriminate against some types of suppressants. These considerations are especially 

important for less effective agents and for those fire types that must be suppressed in 

fractions of a second. A general-purpose technology needs to be developed. 

Approach: This project requires a combination of modeling and experimentation for each of the model 

fires developed under Element 1.a. Experiments will develop systematic data on the rate of 

delivery and degree of dispersion of the suppressant, mixing patterns, and gas phase flow 

fields for several important, generic and realistically obstructed fire suppressant scenario 

applications (Element 2.c). As needed, additional data will complement prior data on agent 

concentration needs for extinction as a function of the flow field, strain rates, etc. New 

instrumentation from Element 3.c will facilitate obtaining the key concentration and flow 

field information from these experiments. The results of the experimentation will be 

incorporated in 3-D computational fluid dynamic (CFD) calculations for a variety of fires, 

agent injection rates, flow patterns, and nozzle locations/design. The combustion chemistry 

will be simplified to reduce the computational burden. The results of the computations will 

be assessed using full-scale tests, which will be obtained by piggy-backing on other 

programs. Reanalysis of the Tri-Service/FAA Halon Replacement Program statistical data, 

including differentiating independent effects of variables and quantifying the magnitude of 

the effects under different conditions will assist in the design of the full-scale tests. 

Products: Design information on the penetration, the rate of production and the nature of the injected 

gas, liquid or solid suppressant. Documented computer simulations of the effect of fireinduced and external flow fields on suppressant concentration distribution and the amount of 

agent needed for suppression that will accelerate the currently-lengthy suppression system 

development process, permit the optimization of candidate designs, and incorporate 

quantitatively into the design process the results of the detailed studies of physical and 

chemical phenomena developed elsewhere in this program. Engineering design tools (either 

in the form of data correlations or simple mathematical models) to optimize nozzle 

placement. Guidance for how to test alternative suppression technologies at full scale and 

how to rank their relative performance. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 48

6.b. Suppressant Flow Through Piping (24 months; begin in FY 1998)

Objective: Develop and validate calculation methods for flow in pipes of single-and 2-phase fluids with 

widely varying physical properties and flow conditions. 

Rationale: New generation fire suppression agents have different physical properties from water and 

halon 1301. The equations in commercially developed "black box" calculation programs 

based on halon 1301 may not be suitable for fluids with different densities, boiling points, 

viscosities, critical behavior and transitions, and other properties. Equations used to 

calculate friction losses in piping flowing water may include simplifying assumptions about 

the "normal" ranges of temperature and pressures encountered in piping systems. New 

water-mist systems may operate in regions of high flow rate, higher turbulence and smaller 

diameter piping than previously considered. There is, therefore, a need to re-visit flow 

modeling to ensure inclusion of all properties. The solution codes should be non-proprietary, 

and made available to all researchers and engineers. 

Approach: Survey and evaluate existing public and proprietary codes to identify the optimal starting 

point. Modify as needed to include friction losses, discharge pressures and flow rates in 

piping, including terms for all physical fluid mechanical properties. [Consider gaseous 

suppression agents, liquids, and dry powder distribution piping, as determined by Element 

1.a.] Determine the set of agent properties needed for the model(s) so that unknown values 

can be estimated or measured. Conduct laboratory tests to validate the computer solutions to 

the equations for gaseous agents involving 2-phase flow and for water under a wide range of 

temperatures and pressures. Produce a model usable by project engineers. 

Products: Validated computer code for calculating single- and two-phase flow in pipes, for fluids of 

diverse physical properties. Laboratory data on flow rates, pressure losses, discharge 

pressures of agent flow in pipes, empirical friction coefficients, Reynolds numbers, etc., for 

water and other suppression system fluids in pipes, under the needed range of pressures and 

flow velocities. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 49

6.c. Mechanism of Unwanted Accelerated Burning (36 months; begin in FY 1999) 

Objective: Characterization of the mechanisms responsible for the enhanced burning which is 

sometimes observed when fire extinguishing agents are first applied to flames. 

Rationale: Application of some agents to flames is observed to accelerate burning momentarily or to 

enhance combustion at low concentrations under certain conditions, but to retard it at higher 

concentrations. 

Approach: Compile results of laboratory studies and practical observations, leading to guidance on the 

conditions under which accelerated burning occurs for agents likely to meet the performance 

criteria under Element 1.a. Adapt appropriate laboratory burners to determine if the source 

of acceleration is physical (e.g., enhancing fire air entrainment or fuel vaporization) or 

chemical. Pursue intermediate-scale testing as appropriate to verify phenomena and 

determine scaling effects. Perform kinetic evaluation of accelerated systems as needed. If 

warranted, a modeling element would be added or element 6.a would be enhanced. 

Products: Tabulation of test conditions to be replicated (if accelerated burning is a concern for that type 

of fire) and real-scale conditions to be avoided. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 50

6.d. Development and Evaluation of Automatically Actuating Pre-Dispersed 

Agent Storage Containers (48 months; begin in FY 2001) 

Objective: Develop new technology for minimizing the quantity of agent needed, while enhancing the 

delivery efficiency. 

Rationale: It would be advantageous to locate agent storage containers in the immediate vicinity of the 

equipment they are protecting. These would actuate automatically in response to a fire and 

discharge agent over a limited area encompassing the protected equipment and personnel. 

Ideally the container would be flexible so as to allow it to be draped over or around critical 

equipment perhaps as an outer layer or blanket. Fire exposure or other release signals could 

actuate a fusible plug or raise the vapor pressure so that a relief device would actuate to 

discharge the agent. The advantages of this type of system are that it would eliminate costs 

for piping (design, installation and inspection as well as material costs), and would reduce 

the required amount of agent since only part of the enclosure volume would have to be 

protected. 

Approach: Determine from Element 1.a for which, if any, applications this technology is applicable. 

Build on existing materials and thermodynamic data to build a prototype. Test in reducedscale compartments. Coordinate with Elements 5.d, 5.e, and 6.a. Partner with commercial 

firms for further development. 

Products: Usage, design and performance criteria for new technology. Prototype device(s). 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 51

6.e. Full-Scale Optimization of Advanced Fire Suppression Technologies (60 

months; begin in FY 2000) 

Objectives: Obtain full-scale verification of the factors affecting suppression performance; demonstrate 

the effectiveness of selected new fire suppression technologies. 

Rationale: Full-scale testing is needed to examine the optimization variables, to verify the predictions 

from the models of fire suppression performance, and to know which factors need further 

research emphasis. Such testing is also needed to verify the efficacy of new technologies 

developed under this program. 

Approach: The services have each generated quantities of performance data, mostly on halocarbon fluid 

suppressants. These data will have to suffice in the near term as the bases for evaluating 

laboratory-scale apparatus and computational models. Upon completion of any upgrades 

from Element 3.c, panels of experts will recommend initial technologies and models to be 

examined. Final performance testing would include fire suppression effectiveness and speed, 

residue effects, and an evaluation of impact on personnel egress. 

Products: Verification of the effectiveness of new fire suppression technologies and the implementation 

factors that affect suppression efficiency. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 52

APPENDIX C: SERDP AND NGP ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT 

SCHEDULES 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 53

I. ANNUAL SERDP PROGRAM AND NGP PLAN DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES

The annual SERDP Program development schedule is illustrated at Attachment 1 for FY 

1997. The annual NGP Plan development schedule is shown at Attachment 2. The sequence of 

events in the NGP Plan development schedule is keyed to the sequence of events in the SERDP 

Program development schedule. Development of the (CFY+1) NGP Plan and the (CFY+2) NGP 

Portfolio commence in July. After the SERDP Council approves the (CFY+1) SERDP-funded 

NGP New Start Projects in September, the (CFY+1) NGP Plan is approved by the HASG 

Chairman in October, and published in October/November. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

54
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

55
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 56

APPENDIX D: NGP EXECUTION PROCESS 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 57

I. NGP EXECUTION PROCESS

The NGP execution process is comprised of 10 sub processes conducted annually within 

each fiscal year cycle. These sub processes consist of tasks and decisions required to formulate 

and approve statements-of-need, solicit proposals, evaluate and rank proposals, approve and fund 

proposals as new-start government projects, and to contract with industry and academia as 

necessary. The 10 sub processes are described in the following sections, beginning with a 

definition of terms used in the execution process. 

A. Definition of Terms

The following definitions are provided for clarity in discussing the NGP execution sub 

processes. 

C NGP Research Element is a body of scientific or technical investigations conducted in 

support of a Technical Thrust. It contains an objective, rationale, approach, and a 

description of the output products. 

C NGP Research Element Statement-of-Need is a summary statement of the specific 

nature and scope of a particular research project based on a Research Element. It is the 

vehicle for soliciting project proposals for a given Research Element. 

 

C (CFY+1) NGP Portfolio is the compilation of all the NGP Research Element 

Statements-of-Need to be addressed in the fiscal year following the current fiscal year 

(CFY+1). The Statements-of-Need are allocated to two categories: Designated Project 

Statements-of-Need and Industry/Academia Project Statements-of-Need. 

C NGP Project is any research project supporting the objective of an NGP Research 

Element. 

C NGP Designated Project is a research project conducted by a Military Department or 

another federal government organization (i.e., NIST, DOE) a research project conducted 

by a private sector industrial firm or a college/university under a contract with a Military 

Department or other federal government organization, which supports the technical 

objective(s) of an NGP Research Element. 

C NGP Industry/Academia Project is a research project conducted by a private sector 

industrial firm or a college/university, and supporting the objective of an NGP Research 

Element. 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 58

C NGP Foreign Project is a collaborative research project conducted and funded by a 

foreign government organization, and supporting the objective of an NGP Research 

Element. 

C NGP Project Proposal is a proposal submitted in response to an NGP Statement-ofNeed or Broad Agency Announcement (BAA). 

C (CFY+1) NGP New-Start Project is an NGP Project to be initiated in the fiscal year 

following the current fiscal year. 

C (CFY+1) SERDP NGP New-Start Project is an NGP Project to be initiated in the fiscal 

year following the current fiscal year, and funded in part or in full by SERDP. 

C NGP White Paper is a document addressing an NGP Industry/Academia Research 

Element Statement-of-Need. It is used, as desired, by the Military Departments, DOD 

agencies, or other federal government agencies to request that an NGP 

Industry/Academia Research Element Statement-of-Need be changed to an NGP 

Designated Research Element Statement-of-Need, and provides the appropriate 

justification. A White Paper includes a description of the unique government 

organizational capabilities (personnel and facilities) and resources (manpower and 

funding) that would justify sole-source performance by a government organization. 

White Papers are limited to three pages in length and must be submitted to the TPM five 

working days prior to presentation of the draft Portfolio to the HASG. 

C NGP Plan is a document consisting of all ongoing, new-start, planned, and completed 

NGP Projects, and all Research Elements not yet solicited for NGP Project Proposals. It 

is developed by the TPM, through the TCC, coordinated with the HASG, and approved 

by the HASG Chairman. The Plan structure is based on the six Technical Thrusts. Each 

Thrust includes all NGP Projects pertaining to its respective Research Elements. The 

NGP Plan is updated, revised, and published annually, incorporating the approved (CFY 

+1) NGP New-Start Projects. 

B. Sub Processes 

The program execution process consists of 10 sub processes as described in the following 

paragraphs.

1. Development of the (CFY+1) NGP Portfolio. This sub process is accomplished 

by the TPM, through the TCC, and includes the following tasks: 

a. determining the Research Elements to be addressed in CFY+1; 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 59

b. developing the estimated funding needs of the (CFY+1) Research 

Elements; 

c. drafting and coordinating the corresponding (CFY+1) Research Element 

Statements-of-Need; 

d. allocating the (CFY+1) Research Element Statements-of-Need into two 

categories: NGP Designated Project Statements-of-Need and NGP 

Industry/Academia Project Statements-of-Need. (The allocation of 

Statements-of-Need into these two categories will adhere to the SERDP 

principle of competition in the award of all projects, as feasible); 

e. integrating and prioritizing the (CFY+1) Research Elements and 

corresponding (CFY+1) Statements-of-Need into a draft (CFY+1) NGP 

Portfolio; 

f. distributing the draft (CFY+1) NGP Portfolio to the Military Departments 

and other federal government organizations for coordination; 

g. reviewing and resolving White Papers submitted by federal government 

organizations; and 

h. incorporating White Paper decisions into the draft (CFY+1) NGP 

Portfolio, as appropriate. 

2. HASG Coordination and Approval of the (CFY+1) NGP Portfolio. This sub 

process includes the following tasks: 

a. briefing the draft (CFY+1) NGP Portfolio and White Papers to the HASG 

by the TPM; 

b. coordinating the draft (CFY+1) NGP Portfolio within the HASG by the 

TPM; 

c. approving the (CFY+1) NGP Portfolio by the HASG Chairman; and 

d. forwarding the (CFY+1) NGP Portfolio to the SERDP Executive Director 

by the HASG Chairman. 

3. SERDP Review of the (CFY+1) NGP Portfolio. The SERDP Executive 

Director will review the (CFY+1) NGP Portfolio and determine the 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 60

appropriateness of SERDP funding for each proposed (CFY+1) Research Element 

and corresponding Statement-of-Need. The review sub process includes the 

following tasks: 

a. reviewing all (CFY+1) NGP Research Elements and corresponding 

(CFY+1) Statements-of-Need by the PP/TTAWG and PP PM, in 

coordination with the TPM; 

b. identifying the (CFY+1) NGP Research Element Statements-of-Need to 

be considered for the (CFY+1) SERDP Program by the PP/TTAWG and 

PP PM, in coordination with the TPM; 

c. compiling and rank ordering all Pollution Prevention Pillar Statements-ofNeed recommended for the (CFY+1) SERDP Program and forwarding to 

the Executive Director by the PP/TTWAG Co-Chairs, in coordination 

with the TPM; and 

d. forwarding the Pollution Prevention Pillar Statements-of-Need 

recommended for the (CFY+1) SERDP Program to the EWG by the 

SERDP Executive Director. 

4. Solicitation of (CFY+1) NGP Project Proposals. The sub process for soliciting 

proposals addressing the (CFY+1) NGP Designated Project Statements-of-Need 

and NGP Industry/Academia Project Statements-of-Need includes the following 

tasks: 

a. forwarding all NGP Industry/Academia Project Statements-of-Need to the 

CA by the SERDP Executive Director, through the TPM; 

b. issuing a call for proposals, through the EWG, to the Military Departments 

and other federal government agencies for (CFY+1) NGP Designated 

Project Statements-of-Need to be funded in part or entirely by SERDP, by 

the SERDP Executive Director; 

c. issuing a call for proposals by the TPM, through the HASG Secretariat, to 

the Military Departments and other federal government agencies for 

(CFY+1) NGP Designated Project Statements-of-Need not funded by 

SERDP; 

d. publishing a call for proposals or a BAA in the Commerce Business Daily 

addressing (CFY+1) NGP Industry/Academia Project Statements-of-Need 

by the CA; 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 61

e. receiving all (CFY+1) NGP Designated Project proposals seeking SERDP 

funding (in part or in full) by the SERDP Office; 

f. receiving all (CFY+1) NGP Industry/Academia Project proposals by the 

CA; and 

g. receiving all (CFY+1) NGP Designated Project proposals not seeking 

SERDP funding by the TPM. 

5. Evaluation and Selection of Acceptable (CFY+1) NGP Industry/Academia 

Project Proposals. The TPM will create and chair a Source Selection Evaluation 

Panel (SSEP) composed of at least 3 evaluators, normally members of the TCC, 

the SERDP PP/TTAWG, and/or other selected reviewers, as designated by the 

SSEP Chairman. The SSEP is responsible for evaluating, ranking, and 

recommending acceptable (CFY+1) NGP Industry/ Academia Project proposals. 

The TPM will present the recommended proposals to the HASG for coordination. 

 These proposals will be then be forwarded to the SERDP Executive Director by 

the HASG Chairman. The PP/TTWAG and the SSEP will select a subset of the 

acceptable proposals for award which will construct a balanced program, meeting 

the needs of the NGP. These proposals will then be reviewed by the SERDP 

Scientific Advisory Board as proposed SERDP new-starts. NGP 

Industry/Academia Project proposals which are subsequently approved as 

(CFY+1) SERDP NGP New-Start Projects will be integrated into the NGP 

program of a Military Department or other participating federal government 

organization during the contractual process. This will be accomplished by the 

designation of a Contracting Officer=s Technical Representative (COTR) from the 

respective Military Department or government organization, coordinated by the 

TPM through the TCC and the PP PM. The NGP Industry/Academia Project 

proposal evaluation and selection sub process includes the following tasks and 

decisions: 

a. forwarding all (CFY+1) NGP Industry/Academia Project proposals to the 

TPM by the CA; 

b. creation of a SSEP by the TPM; 

c. coordinating the distribution of all (CFY+1) NGP Industry/Academia 

proposals to the SSEP by the TPM; 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 62

d. evaluating and ranking all proposals and recommending acceptable 

proposals on the basis of responsiveness, demonstrated capabilities, 

quality, cost, and collaborative funding, by the SSEP; 

e. briefing the recommended (CFY+1) NGP Industry/Academia proposals as 

proposed (CFY+1) NGP New-Start Projects to the HASG by the TPM, 

and showing their linkage to an NGP Designated Project; 

f. coordinating the recommended proposals as proposed (CFY+1) NGP 

New-Start Projects with the HASG by the TPM; and 

g. forwarding the recommended (CFY+1) NGP Industry/Academia 

proposals as proposed (CFY+1) NGP New-Start Projects to the SERDP 

Executive Director by the HASG Chairman. 

6. Evaluation and Selection of Acceptable (CFY+1) NGP Designated Project 

Proposals. The sub process for evaluating (CFY+1) NGP Designated Project 

proposals received and selecting acceptable proposals includes the following 

tasks and decisions: 

a. forwarding all (CFY+1) NGP Designated Project proposals seeking 

SERDP funding to the PP/TTAWG and TPM by the SERDP Executive 

Director; 

b. evaluating all (CFY+1) NGP Designated Project proposals seeking 

SERDP funding by the PP/TTAWG and the TCC, as coordinated by the 

TPM and the PP PM; 

c. evaluating all (CFY+1) NGP Designated Project proposals not seeking 

SERDP funding by the TCC, as coordinated by the TPM; 

d. recommending acceptable SERDP-funded (CFY+1) NGP Designated 

Project proposals on the basis of responsiveness, demonstrated 

capabilities, quality, cost, and funding contribution (or collaborative 

funding) by the TCC, as coordinated by the TPM; 

 

e. recommending acceptable non-SERDP-funded (CFY+1) NGP Designated 

Project proposals on the basis of responsiveness, demonstrated 

capabilities, quality, cost, and funding contribution (or collaborative 

funding) by the TCC, as coordinated by the TPM; and 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 63

f. rank ordering of acceptable (CFY+1) NGP Designated Project proposals 

(both SERDP-funded and non-SERDP-funded) as proposed (CFY+1) 

NGP Designated New-Start Projects by the TPM, through the TCC. 

7. HASG Coordination and Approval of Proposed (CFY+1) NGP Designated 

New-Start Projects. The sub process for HASG coordination and approval of 

Proposed (CFY+1) NGP Designated New-Start Projects consists of the following 

tasks and decisions: 

a. briefing the proposed (CFY+1) NGP New-Start Projects to the HASG by 

the TPM; 

b. coordinating the proposed (CFY+1) NGP New-Start Projects within the 

HASG by the TPM; 

c. approving non-SERDP-funded (CFY+1) NGP New-Start Projects by the 

HASG Chairman; and 

d. forwarding by the HASG Chairman proposed (CFY+1) NGP New-Start 

Projects to the SERDP Executive Director for funding as (CFY+1) SERDP 

new-start projects.

[NOTE: Included for information only to the SERDP Executive Director is 

the identification of approved non-SERDP-funded (CFY+1) NGP NewStart Projects.] 

8. SERDP Approval of (CFY+1) NGP New-Start Projects. The (CFY+1) SERDP 

Program consists of (CFY+1) SERDP new starts and ongoing SERDP projects. 

(CFY+1) NGP New-Start Projects include NGP Designated Projects and NGP 

Industry/Academia Projects. The sub process for reviewing and approving 

proposed (CFY+1) NGP New-Start Projects as SERDP new-starts consists of the 

following tasks and decisions: 

a. briefing the proposed (CFY+1) SERDP NGP New-Start Projects to the 

PP/TTAWG by the TPM; 

b. integrating and prioritizing the proposed (CFY+1) SERDP NGP New-Start 

Projects into the overall SERDP Pollution Prevention Pillar list of proposed 

(CFY+1) SERDP new-starts by the PP/TTAWG, in coordination with the 

TPM and the PP PM; 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 64

c. compiling and forwarding a list of recommended (CFY+1) SERDP newstarts to the SERDP Executive Director by the PP/TTAWG Co-Chairs, in 

coordination with the TPM and the PP PM; 

d. reviewing the recommended (CFY+1) SERDP new-starts (and all on-going 

projects over $900K in annual SERDP funding) by the SAB; 

e. reviewing the recommended (CFY+1) SERDP Program by the EWG; 

f. approving the (CFY+1) SERDP Program by the SERDP Council; and 

g. notifying the HASG Chairman of all approved SERDP-funded NGP 

Projects [both ongoing SERDP-funded NGP Projects and (CFY+1) SERDP 

NGP New-Start Projects] by the SERDP Executive Director. 

9. Implementation of Approved (CFY+1) NGP Designated New-Start Projects. 

Following the approval of (CFY+1) NGP Designated New-Start Projects, funds for 

all new and ongoing projects are distributed by the Resource Sponsors as follows: 

a. SERDP funds are distributed directly to the performing organizations as 

expeditiously as possible after they have been appropriated, by the SERDP 

Executive Director; and 

b. S &T and/or Other Government funds are distributed to the performing 

organizations through normal government channels. 

10. Contracting of Approved (CFY+1) NGP Industry/Academia New-Start 

Projects. The CA will provide contracting support for NGP Industry/Academia 

New-Start Projects solicited by the CA in sub process 4 above. The sub processes 

for contracting these projects includes the following tasks: 

a. transmitting the approved (CFY+1) NGP Industry/Academia New-Start 

Projects and authorized SERDP funds to the CA by the SERDP Executive 

Director; 

b. designation of a COTR by the TPM; and 

c. executing a contract for each funded (CFY+1) NGP Industry/Academia 

New-Start Project by the CA . 
Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology 

 65

C. Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

In view of the fact that members of the TCC could potentially be assigned to a Source 

Selection Panel to evaluate NGP Designated Project proposals in which they have a direct interest, 

the TPM will take appropriate precautions to preclude possible conflicts of interest in the source 

selection process. Conflict of interest issues concerning NGP Designated Project proposals that 

cannot be resolved by the TPM will be referred to the HASG Chairman. The TPM will also take 

necessary precautions to preclude possible conflicts of interest in the evaluation and selection of 

NGP Industry/Academia proposals, in accordance with Source Selection Plans approved by the 

contracting agency contracts management office director and the Executive Director, SERDP.