- Link policy
- The Team
- Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center
- Army Research Laboratory
- Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center
- Communications-Electronic Research, Development and Engineering Center
- Edgewood Chemical Biological Center
- Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center
- Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center
NATICK, Mass. (Oct. 2, 2014) — When the going gets tough, Dr. Tad Brunyé wants to help. A member of the Cognitive Science Team at the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, Brunyé is investigating spatial and non-spatial influences on Soldier navigation choices.
Spatial influences pertain to things in an actual space, such as topography, local and distant landmarks, or the position of the sun. Non-spatial influences are a little harder to define and can include a Soldier’s emotional state, level of stress, mission and task demands, skills, abilities, traits, and his or her past experience in a geographical area, all of which can affect navigational choices.
“We are still trying to identify and characterize the full range of spatial and non-spatial influences and how they interact with emerging representations of experienced environments,” Brunyé said. “We all have our current mental states. So, you may see the same landmarks as I do, you may see the same topography that I do, but I might be in a very different state that leads me to interpret and use that same information in very different ways.
“How confident do I feel in my environment? Is there a history of enemy activity? Are there certain areas I want to avoid? Are there certain safe spots that I want to keep in mind? There is always interplay between what you sense in the environment, what you perceive, what you know, what you predict will occur, and ultimately how you act.”
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. (Sept. 16, 2014) — Researchers from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory received the best conference paper award at the 14th IEEE International Conference on Nanotechnology held in Toronto, Canada, Aug. 18-21.
IEEE Nano is one of the largest nanotechnology conferences in the world, bringing together the brightest engineers and scientists through collaboration and the exchange of ideas. There were a total of 263 conference proceeding papers submitted for the conference; 180 oral presentations and 83 posters.
The winning paper was one of the seven finalists selected. It was entitled “Gold Nanocluster-DNase 1 Hybrid Materials for DNA Contamination Sensing,” and was co-authored and presented by Dr. Abby West, biochemist, ORISE postdoctoral fellow at the Weapons and Materials Research Directorate.
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. (Sept. 2, 2014) — The Army of the future may have fewer Soldiers but more lethality thanks to research in precision, scalable effects and improved range.
“Our scientists and engineers are – and have been – redefining the art of the possible to make this enabling technology a reality,” said Dale A. Ormond, director of the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command. “Our strategy is to build from the Soldier out, equipping our squads for tactical overmatch in all situations.”
In the September/October 2014 issue of Army Technology Magazine, the Army showcases research and development efforts to maintain overmatch.
“The Army has global responsibilities that require large technological advantages to prevail decisively in combat – ‘technological overmatch,’” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno wrote for the Army’s official blog. “Just as airmen and sailors seek supremacy in the air and on the seas, Soldiers must dominate their enemies on land. Modernizing, especially as end strength is reduced, is the key to ensuring that the Army’s dominance continues.”
Experts predict an individual Soldier of the future armed with a 40mm grenade may have the same lethal effects as 155mm artillery.
By Michael Zoltoski, ARL
Scientists are unlocking the mysteries of power, energy and lethality in the search for new materials and technologies. The U.S. Army Research Laboratory conducts fundamental research, which endeavors to provide revolutionary capabilities to the Army of 2025 and beyond.
In the science of lethality and protection, we face challenges as we look into the future and wonder what it will be like. We make predictions that guide the research of the underlying science that will have a significant impact 20 to 30 years into the future.
Our mantra is “assured delivery, overwhelming effects.” Our research focuses on ballistic science and builds upon ARL’s legacy as the world’s foremost expert in interior, exterior and terminal ballistics.
By David McNally
RDECOM Public Affairs
The U.S. Army vision for lethality science and technology investment is to enable overmatch in weapon systems for both offensive and defensive capabilities.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said attaining overmatch is critical to the Army of 2025.
“The Army has global responsibilities that require large technological advantages to prevail decisively in combat – ‘technological overmatch,’” Odierno wrote for the Army’s official blog in 2012. “Just as airmen and sailors seek supremacy in the air and on the seas, Soldiers must dominate their enemies on land. Modernizing, especially as end strength is reduced, is the key to ensuring that the Army’s dominance continues.”
To achieve that supremacy, Army researchers aggressively pursue technological overmatch.
“In lethality, overmatch means we can defeat the threat to maintain an advantage,” said Keith Jadus, acting director of the lethality portfolio for the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology. “That means we have an advantage in every sense of the word. Overmatch is much bigger than lethality. We need to be able to see farther, reach farther and to ensure that our forces are protected outside the range and influence of the enemy.”
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. (Sept. 2, 2014) — Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond F. Chandler III gave an exclusive interview to Army Technology Magazine on the future of lethality.
Army Technology: Even with all the firepower and lethality science and technology can offer, what is the Army’s best weapon?
Chandler: The best weapon we have in the Army is still the U.S. Soldier. He or she is also the most precise weapon that the Army has because of a combination of skills, experience and knowledge. A combination of the technology and the Soldier makes us superior on the battlefield and that’s what makes the Army strong.
Army Technology: How have you seen lethality evolve during your Army career?
Chandler: I’m a tanker by background, and when I came into the Army in 1981, I was on an M60A3 Passive Tank, and then I got upgraded to an M60A3 Thermal. When I went to Fort Carson after three years in the Army, I was on a 1964 model year tank. There was the onset of M1 series, then the Bradley series. Digitization has been one of the most significant upgrades that we’ve made in Armor. I can recall being at Fort Hood in the 4th Infantry Division when Force XXI came about with its digitization. However, I believe we need to do a better job of exercising digitization in the Army – we’ve only scratched the surface. There’s much more that we can do.
If you look at something as simple as gunnery for Bradleys and tanks, we don’t force the system to use the full capabilities of the Bradley of Abrams to ensure we place accurate and timely fires to utilize the capabilities of the architecture that is in the systems.
Army Technology: Do you see the role of Armor changing as we focus on increasing Soldier and squad lethality?
Chandler: I think we have a pretty good platform now in the Armor community with the M1A2 SEP Version 2. We’re looking at a SEP Version 3, which provides even greater capabilities. I think the focus on the Soldier is correct because we have all of this technology in our Armor platforms where it’s easiest to carry and manipulate. But, in the Infantry Brigade Combat Team, we have a lot more work to enable the network within the individual warfighter.
I know we are working to give individual Soldiers some of the firepower formerly available only from Armor or crew-served weapons, but there will always be a need for Armor. Over the past 13+ years, we’ve become very good at counter-insurgency operations, but doctrine says we must also conduct unified land operations. We need to remain proficient as an Army with combined-arms maneuver – going out and fighting near-peer competitors with tanks, Bradleys and Artillery. We cannot assume that our next war will be fought the same way as the last one.
Commentary by Dale A. Ormond
Director, U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command
The Army of the future will have fewer Soldiers but will be more lethal. Technology will make that possible, and our scientists and engineers are – and have been – redefining the art of the possible to make this enabling technology a reality.
The Soldier and squad are the foundation of the Army. Our strategy is to build from the Soldier out, equipping our squads for tactical overmatch in all situations. They will connect to an integrated network to give them greater awareness and increased speed for decision-making beyond their adversaries, and they will operate in vehicles that make them more mobile, more lethal, and at the same time, better protected.
The U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command is bringing solutions to these challenge at every point. From aviation to ground vehicles, our researchers and engineers at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., and Detroit Arsenal, Mich., are developing and testing the best technologies to make ground and air vehicles more protective of our Soldiers while providing increased efficiency, affordability and lethality.
By John Andrew Hamilton, ATEC Public Affairs
A guided rocket test conducted at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., April 3 saw the use of a new warhead designed to maintain military capabilities while reducing the danger of unexploded ordnance.
The new warhead being developed by the Precision Fires Rocket and Missile Systems program’s Alternative Warhead Project is expected to replace the cluster munitions being phased out by the U.S. military.
Cluster munitions are designed to disperse a large number of small grenade-like bomblets over a large area. While highly effective against area targets, all the bomblets don’t always explode and can remain on the battlefield for some time, posing a risk to civilians or servicemembers working in the area. This danger resulted in the United States banning the export of cluster munitions to allies and setting limits on their future use.
“At the end of 2018 our inventory is no longer usable, and there are constraints on its use today,” said Col. Gary Stephens, project manager for the Alternative Warheads Program. “The Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, or GMLRS, alternative warhead is the materiel solution replacement to meet that still remaining requirement for an area weapon.”
Redesign to help infantrymen become more lethal, safer
By John B. Snyder, Watervliet Arsenal Public Affairs
The U.S. Army has lightweight mortar systems, range and a significant amount of lethal and destructive fire to close-range combat. Why would anyone think about tweaking something that has already been proven very capable in training and in combat?
“It is all about our troops maintaining the competitive edge over potential adversaries,” said Wayland Barber, chief of the Mortars and Recoilless Rifle Branch at Benét Laboratories at Watervliet Arsenal, N.Y. “Even without funding for new weapons research, Army scientists and engineers are always seeking opportunities to improve weapons systems that are in the field.”
“No sooner than we field a new mortar system, our customers demand that we make it better in regards to extended range, increased lethality or capability, and reduced weight,” Barber said. “This triggers the entire Army research community, from those who improve the lethality of ammunition to those who design the delivery system, to work on parallel and converging fields of science to achieve a common goal.”
By Ed Lopez and Cassandra Mainiero, Picatinny Arsenal Public Affairs
As engineers design new weapons or modify existing ones, reducing time and money on development can be critical in providing Soldiers with improved weapons without undue delay.
A new sight may be planned for the M4 rifle, but how well does a prototype design work? Where would be the best place to mount it for the most accuracy and ease of use? Or new, nonlethal weapons may be needed, but will they perform as expected at different ranges?
Using a combination of artificial intelligence, cameras and computers loaded with ballistics data, engineers at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., have developed a testing environment that can help to answer many critical questions about the performance of existing weapons and new ones planned.
“People are surprised how realistic our simulated environments look,” said Keith Koehler, a mechanical engineer at the Weapons Technology Branch, part of the Weapons Software Engineering Center, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center. “We had a few friends, who were deployed Soldiers, walk into the scenarios and you could tell to a degree that they lost themselves in the environment.”
By Ryan Keith, AMRDEC Public Affairs
One of the world’s smallest guided missiles has a big job to do.
The Miniature Hit-to-Kill, or MHTK, guided missile is about 27 inches long, 1.6 inches in diameter and weighs just 5 pounds. It has no warhead. Rather, as the name implies, it is designed to intercept and defeat rocket, artillery and mortar threats with kinetic energy during a direct hit.
The Aviation and Missile Research Engineering and Development Center is currently developing, fabricating and demonstrating MHTK as part of the Extended Area Protection and Survivability Integrated Demonstration, or EAPS ID. In June, the Army announced plans to complete development of MHTK, proposing a five-year follow-on contract with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control to complete missile development.
“The technologies being developed and integrated at AMRDEC are truly revolutionary,” said Loretta Painter, AMRDEC EAPS program manager.“The level of miniaturization being achieved with respect to seekers, sensors, control actuation, and electronics packaging is remarkable. Missile components of this size and functionality have never been developed and flight demonstrated; until now.”
By Jason B. Cutshaw, SMDC
The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command has used a solid-state high-energy laser testbed to engage and destroy threat representative targets in tactical scenarios.
The Solid-State Laser Testbed, or SSLT, is part of an Army test designed to investigate military applications and validate the operational utility of high-energy lasers. Results from testing in April have confirmed that solid-state lasers can negate unmanned aircraft vehicles and rocket, artillery and mortar threats in flight.
“The Army-Northrop Grumman team put in a lot of work to complete these impressive demonstrations,” said Richard P. De Fatta, director of theSMDC Emerging Technology Directorate. “We still have a lot of lethality and performance data to collect for model refinement, but the success of these demonstrations represent extremely important technical milestones. These demonstration results reduce overall program and technical risk while increasing confidence in the community that we can deliver this revolutionary capability to our Soldiers.”
SSLT will be used to evaluate the capability of a high-energy solid-state laser to accomplish a variety of missions. Those results will be the basis for directing future development of solid-state lasers for use on the battlefield.
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command researchers explore high-energy lasers
By Charles LaMar, SMDC Technical Center
High-energy laser research has been ongoing since the 1960s. But the Army is now getting to the point where demonstration systems are shooting down mortars and unmanned aerial vehicles with high-energy lasers.
“This is a future capability for our Army,” said Keith Jadus, acting director of the lethality portfolio for the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology. “When you deal with what we call disruptive technology, where the capability is so divergent from how we currently do business, we are required to consider more than just the lethal impacts. We must consider the doctrinal implications on how we fight in the future. Technology such as this creates opportunities to fight a different fight, and can impact the full spectrum of warfare.”
With high-energy lasers, Jadus said there is still a lot to work out.
“We recently had some impressive demonstrations using a commercial laser and supporting beam control, power, and thermal subsystems all integrated onto a mobile military truck, yet we still need to further mature the technology,” he said. “Our laser programs are achieving promising results in the laboratory, and we are developing support subsystems to enable long run-times at these laser’s higher power levels.”
As Army researchers validate the technology, officials remain optimistic about its potential.
The High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator, or HEL MD, is the culmination of the Army high-energy laser technology development and demonstration program, according to officials. It is a completely contained HEL weapon demonstrator mounted on an Army truck with a significant track record for engaging and destroying mortars.
By Eric Kowal, ARDEC Public Affairs
How does the warfighter launch a grenade at the enemy and ensure it hits the target, especially when the enemy is in what is known as defilade, or concealment, behind natural or artificial obstacles?
Steven Gilbert and a team of about 10 engineers within the Joint Service Small Arms Program are trying to solve that counter-defilade puzzle, which also doubles the grenade’s lethality in the process.
Gilbert is a project officer with the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center. The engineering team is in the final phase of a project known as Small Arms Grenade Munitions, or SAGM.
The goal is to provide warfighters with the capability of shooting a 40mm low-velocity grenade out of an M203 or M320 rifle-mounted grenade launcher–with the certainty that if their target is hiding under cover or behind an object, damage will still be inflicted.
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. (Sept. 2, 2014) — Brig. Gen. L. Neil Thurgood, Program Executive Officer for Missiles and Space at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., gave an exclusive interview to Army Technology Magazine on the future of lethality.
What is the rationale for increasing firepower and lethality?
The U.S. Army is undergoing a transformation. After a decade of war, Soldiers and equipment are returning to an environment of declining budgets, drawdowns and a shift in operational focus. The Army is facing difficult decisions regarding force structure and modernization divestment. Unfortunately, the threat continues to increase in complexity as we reset, modernize and transform. These challenges are addressed by the Chief of Staff of the Army’s Force 2025 initiative. Force 2025 will prioritize those technologies that support a leaner, more expeditionary force that exceeds current capabilities, allowing for increased firepower and lethality. In this fiscally constrained environment, modernization decisions will be balanced with technology investments to ensure readiness through the transformation.
How do you see technology empowering Soldiers with greater lethality in the future?
PEO Missiles and Space develops, produces, fields and supports U.S. Army, Joint and Coalition missile systems for air and missile defense, direct and indirect fires and aviation platforms. Several of the weapon systems that we manage include Patriot, Javelin, TOW and Hellfire. There is no doubt that the technologies of our missile platforms will be improved through the development efforts of tomorrow. There are several key areas of critical technology development that will empower Soldiers with greater lethality.
Warhead and fuze integration must be developed further. We need single warheads that are advanced enough to be scalable on demand as the mission situation dictates. In the future, the warhead and fuze development must be combined for a single resultant that will provide flexibility while reducing the burden to the Soldier and increasing the effectiveness of the missile system.
Advanced navigation systems that will fuse the single or dual navigation systems of today must be pursued. We must be able to reach off-board the missile system and draw information from other navigation sources that can aid in longer distance engagements and develop more technologies to improve accurate targeting, especially in the end-game.
The development of propulsion energetics should be accelerated. As we reach out further in distance and trend to faster in speeds, we need to reduce the size and foot print of our propulsion systems. This can be done through material synthesis and burn rate enhancement. While we develop these technologies, weapons must remain compliant with insensitive munitions regulations in the ever changing environment of missile applications.
Speed and amount of processing capacity must be increased. In this area, we should develop processing that will increase precision acquisition, especially at the “end game” of the missile engagement. We need to enhance our auto-tracking capabilities. Increased processing must be tied to the next generations of Seeker technology. If we are to combine our current platforms into a single integrated effort, where we can use any sensor to see the threat and the best missile to engage the threat – we need increased ability to process data in real-time. It requires multi-mission platforms with enough processing power and speed to provide a “defense-in-depth” using networked air, ground, naval and space platforms. This will enhance the speed of decision, reduce the kill timeline and subsequently increase the overall probability of success.
By David McNally
RDECOM Public Affairs
Army leaders are looking to the future force and seeking to be revolutionary in their thinking about integrating technology, according to current guidance from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno.
Department of Defense doctrine describes fires as the use of weapons systems “to create a specific lethal or nonlethal effect on a target. All fires are normally synchronized and integrated to achieve synergistic results.” – Joint Publication 3-09
Army researchers are exploring technology solutions to enable improved lethality and fires. Fire support includes mortars, field artillery, air defense artillery, naval and air-delivered weapons. Successful fire support destroys, neutralizes and suppresses enemy weapons, enemy formations or facilities, and fires.
Soldiers stay lethal in any environment
ECBC Public Affairs
Choking, watering eyes, blistering skin and convulsions are symptoms of imminent death from a chemical weapons attack. The lethality of such attacks, most recently in August 2013 in Syria, sends tremors across the globe.
For Soldiers, chemical weapons present a real danger on the battlefield that requires advanced technology to keep them safe. The Army is investing in science and technology to enable Soldiers to operate in a chemical-biological threat environment.
Scientists and researchers at the U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center work to provide better protective equipment, such as the iconic protective mask. As threats evolve, ECBC engineers fielded the next-generation M50 mask to Soldiers stationed in Japan and Korea. The Army is fielding more than 1 million of these masks across the Department of Defense.
“I noticed the difference between the M50 and the old M40 mask as soon as I put it on,” said Sgt. James Tuthill, a training noncommissioned officer stationed at the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C. “I train Marines to be prepared for chemical, biological and radiological hot zones, and this mask provides them with better visibility, easier breathing and greater comfort wearing it. On top of all that, it just looks cool.”
By Kim Bell, CERDEC NVESD Public Affairs
In science fiction, technology problems are solved with the stroke of a writer’s pen. In reality, science and technology research takes time and a lot of effort.
“If you’ve seen the movie Predator, you’ve seen a perfect illustration of the process of lethality,” said Dr. Don Reago, director of the Night Vision Electronics Sensors Directorate of the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center at Fort Belvoir, Va. “First, you must identify your target and if in fact it is a target, then you can move in and eliminate the threat.”
In the movie, the predator identifies targets using thermal technology and deducing whether or not they are carrying weapons.
“If potential targets were unarmed they went unharmed, much like how our warfighters operate at present,” Reago said. “Today, the Army’s goal is to improve situational awareness for Soldiers, resulting in increased survivability, decreased civilian casualties and accurate lethality when necessary.”
At NVESD, Army researchers are developing sensors, like the thermal sensors from Predator, as well as image intensification.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Thomas Russell is director of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory at Adelphi, Md. Russell started his government career as a research scientist at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, White Oak Laboratory, Md. In 1994, he joined the Naval Research Laboratory where he worked in many leadership positions. In 2006, he moved to the U.S. Air Force where he became director of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. He was responsible for the Air Force basic research program in aerospace, chemical and material sciences. Russell has led the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Since March 11, 2013. He holds a bachelor of science in chemistry from Muhlenberg College and a doctorate in chemistry from the University of Delaware. He has been a visiting scientist at the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, an adjunct professor at the Washington State University Shock Dynamics Laboratory and a part-time faculty member at Montgomery College. His principal fields of interest are energetic materials, decomposition and combustion chemistry, detonation physics and chemistry, high-pressure chemistry and physics and spectroscopy. He entered the Senior Executive Service in 2006.
What is the current research strategy for additive manufacturing and 3-D printing?
I think the vision for the lab is to do research guided by a long-term vision. What we want to do is the same kind of thing we’re doing in material design, which is materials by design. In the case of additive manufacturing, it’s really about how do we do structures by design. It’s a voxel-by-voxel assembly of materials. What that would be in a 3-D structure is placing material location by location and building the fundamental building blocks to actually design structures. For ARL, a lot of it is about hybridization. If I’ve got to do hybrid materials, how do I actually improve strength, durability and things that are really directed more toward the Army’s specific applications? In the commercial world, people are doing similar things, but the Army application typically puts our materials in extreme environments. It’s a different set of material science where we’re looking toward solving problems.
What 3-D printing and additive manufacturing does is give us a unique approach to begin to design those materials from the foundations as opposed to using traditional processing techniques.
What is the potential of 3-D printing?
It’s an exciting area at the moment. There’s a lot of work you hear about in the press about plastics. A lot of people have actually talked about plastic guns and how you can design plastic guns, but there’s a lot more than that pushing the frontiers. People today are beginning to do manufacturing of biological materials. In the future through additive manufacturing, we may be able to produce a heart and do transplants. For Soldiers, there are some medical benefits too. Many of the injuries Soldiers receive in the field are not traditional. A lot of the medical community sees this as a new approach to medicine. We can 3-D scan injuries. We can replicate what those injuries are. Surgeons and medics can practice on those specific types of injuries and provide better service to the warfighter.
Logistically there are benefits. One of our biggest challenges in the Army is that there is a huge logistics burden. If we could forward-deploy manufacturing capabilities, we would have the opportunity to manufacture parts in-theater, or repair parts. This is not just about manufacturing a new part, it’s often about how we can repair something that has been damaged. We have the opportunity to do that in-theater and use local materials. It’s an exciting area. I don’t think we’ve realized its full potential.
As additive and other advanced manufacturing technologies continue to emerge, the digital thread connecting design, engineering, manufacturing and maintenance systems evolves as well. This is especially true for the Department of Defense, where today’s two dimensional technical data packages are flat, and proprietary computer-aided designs can be inefficient and ineffective.
President Barack Obama announced the selection of the team to lead the Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute Feb. 25, 2014, The public-private partnership is a consortium of 73 companies, universities, nonprofits, and research labs managed by UI Labs in Chicago.
Under the management of the U.S. Army Research Development and Engineering Command, the institute will link promising information technologies, tools, standards, models, sensors, controls, practices and skills, and then transition these capabilities to the industrial base for full-scale application.
“DMDI will focus on using digital technology and data management to help manufacturers turn their ideas into real world products faster and cheaper than ever before,” Obama said.