8/12/2019 Park et al. (2003) - OFW

1/7

TECHNOLOGY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE U.S. ARMYS

OBJECTIVE FORCE WARRIOR PROGRAM

George Park1, Elizabeth Lu

1, Mark Lester

2, John Pye

1, Randy Sullivan

3, and Gary Riccio

1

1Exponent

149 Commonwealth DriveMenlo Park, CA 94087gpark@exponent.com

2Booz Allen Hamilton121 South Tejon Street, Suite 900Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903

3The Wexford Group International931 Front Avenue

Columbus, GA 31901

Abstract: The U.S. Army embarked on the Objective Force Warrior Concept and Technology Demonstration

program to develop a concept for a system of systems that could revolutionize Soldier and Squad operationaleffectiveness in the areas of lethality, mobility, survivability, situational awareness, and sustainability. A centralelement of this program was the identification and evaluation of technologies that could enable advanced operationalcapabilities. To achieve this goal, the Army engaged a group of companies collectively known as the Wolfpackand including Exponent, Booz Allen Hamilton, and the Wexford Group. This paper summarizes the process used toidentify and assess technologies, laying out a background of the Wolfpacks scope of activities and strategy,describing its search approach, and finally discussing the assessment process. Examples from the ~1,000technologies assessed are provided to illustrate this process.

1. INTRODUCTION

The goal of the U.S. Armys Objective Force Warrior (OFW) Phase I program was to develop and demonstrate a

concept for a revolutionary increase in the operational effectiveness of the Soldier and Squad through an integratedsystem of systems approach to equipment, including weapons, power sources, body armor, sensors, medicalsystems, etc. The OFW system would allow U.S. soldiers to see first, understand first, act first, and finish decisivelyalong a full spectrum of operations. To achieve this goal, the Army engaged a group of companies includingExponent, Booz Allen Hamilton, and the Wexford Group, collectively known as the Wolfpack.

The OFW vision rests heavily on the incorporation of current and emerging technologies to enable advancedcapabilities. To meet this vision, Wolfpack conducted a six-month program to identify and recommend technologiesfor insertion into OFW. A key element of Wolfpacks efforts was its scientific approach to technology developmentwhich depends on (1) an honest broker perspective on technology assessment, and (2) collaboration betweenscientists, engineers and users in an open and replicable assessment process. User representation was led by aspecial group of former soldiers with personal experience in close combat operations, military technologydevelopment, and in leading and fighting with a range of users from inexperienced combatants to elite fighting units.This representation guaranteed that the best, most operationally relevant, technologies were considered and selectedfor spiral development. The premise of this approach is that lack of vested interests in productization and open,collaborative, multidisciplinary assessments are necessary to ensure that OFW would transition from AdvancedTechnology Demonstration into procurement and fielding.

2. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGY

The OFW system will rely on high-impact technologies to achieve greater than twenty-fold performanceimprovements in such areas as lethality, mobility, survivability, situational awareness, and sustainability. To fulfillthese needs, Wolfpack conducted a survey and assessment to identify and recommend technologies for integrationinto OFW, as well as to track key technologies that may provide leap-ahead capabilities for follow-on efforts.

8/12/2019 Park et al. (2003) - OFW

2/7

In order to manage this process, the broad scope of technologies of relevance to OFW was categorized intoeight general areas: Knowledge and Smart Systems, Human Perception and Performance, Netted Communications,Sensors and Sensing, Soldier Protection, Load Carrying, Energy and Power, and Weapons, Munitions, andExplosives. In order to both bound and direct these activities, a number of strategy elements were identified fromthe outset, as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Elements of the Technology Search Strategy

Strategy Element Description and Rationale

Wide net to identify technologies fromindustry, Government, academia

In order to identify best-in-class technologies, a broad range of sources wereconsidered

Government R&D efforts as a baselineGovernment is a significant player in many relevant R&D areas, and it clearly has amore direct focus on soldier systems than other institutions.

Standardized definitionsIn order to have a rigorous method of assessing technologies, standardization isnecessary in addressing both operational and technical assessment criteria.

Link with Life Cycle and Risk teamsIncorporation and future insertion of technologies into the system will affect fieldingand operational costs, production and performance risks, etc.

Documented process for transfer toGovernment

Documentation is important so that the Government has an understanding of therationale behind technology choices.

3. TECHNOLOGY SEARCH AND ASSESSMENT APPROACH

Wolfpack has developed a process (shown in Figure 1) and a test-bed centered at Fort Benning (Georgia) to gatherdata for the assessments. This framework begins with Technology Identification that considers the wide range ofpossible technologies relevant to OFW. Technologies with a positive set of initial assessments may go throughTechnology Search Events, Quick Looks, and Modeling and Simulation experiments (as defined in the followingsections) in order to capture additional data and experience to continually add to and refine the early assessments.

Figure 1. Technology Search and Evaluation Framework

3.1 Technology Identification

The technology search effort began with the identification of possible technologies suitable for insertion into OFW.A wide variety of candidate sources were used, including the following:

a. Open Review - The Government-sponsored Open Review was held in October 2002. During the event,numerous technologies from both Government laboratories and Government-sponsored research werepresented.

8/12/2019 Park et al. (2003) - OFW

3/7

b. Broad Industry Announcement Wolfpack released industry-wide announcements in various media in anoutreach effort to the general Government, commercial, and academic marketplace. Recognizing thepotential value of the FedBizOpps registry as such a medium, Wolfpack issued a Broad IndustryAnnouncement in early October 2002.

c. Known Industry Contacts - All Wolfpack member companies have extensive knowledge and contacts in awide range of technology areas. d. Targeted Technology Needs Search - Using gap analyses and input fromoperational experts, technical areas that required more targeted search efforts were identified.

e. Known Technology Focuses from the Special Operations Community - The Wolfpack has close ties with theSpecial Operations community and leveraged the knowledge and experience of the communitys technologyevaluators who have been evaluating a broad range of technologies for operational insertion.

f. Literature, News, and General Technology Searching - Literature searches, targeted and broad web searches,and cascading lead research were used to discover the state of the art and future of various disciplines.

3.2 Technology Search Events

Universities, companies, and government laboratories identified with promising technologies were invited toparticipate in two Technology Search Events (TSEs) held during the weeks of 28 October and 21 November 2002 atFort Benning. The participating organizations gave presentations and hands-on demonstrations of theirtechnologies.

An assessment team of at least three members evaluated each participating organizations technology. At least

one member had a background in the infantry to ensure that operational issues were evaluated. In addition to theformal evaluators for each technology, other members of the Wolfpack team (including both technologists andoperational specialists) as well as government representatives were in attendance. This mix supported discussionsand questions from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and perspectives in an open forum, providing helpful input forthe formal evaluators.

Each evaluator completed formal assessment forms that solicited inputs relevant to the attributes ofFightability, Soldier Acceptability, and Technology Maturity (discussed further below). After the TSE, selectedtechnology area leaders compiled the individual assessments of each participant into a single summary assessment.A decision was made to either eliminate a candidate technology or to move it forward into a Quick Look orModeling and Simulation experiment to further refine the assessment.

3.3 Quick Looks

The Quick Look (QL) process took the filtered set of technologies from the technology identification as input, andconducted experiments to refine and expand upon the early assessments. This process placed these technologies inoperational environments where they interacted with other elements of the system. The QLs served as opportunitiesfor soldiers to evaluate Wolfpack concepts and generate early answers to important questions about operationalcharacteristics of technologies, as well as to foster innovation. The results of QL evaluations were used to supportand define subsequent experimentation and Modeling and Simulation activities.

The first QL took place at Fort Benning in the third month of the project and focused on Human Perceptionand Performance as well as Knowledge and Smart Systems. During this event, a variety of information displaydevices (including head-mounted displays and PDA screens) were operated in a nighttime environment to examineissues of usability and performance. Second and third QLs took place in the fourth and fifth months of the project.Successive QLs included technologies from a broader range of areas and, thus, fostered increasing consideration ofintegration issues.

The QL provided a more sophisticated assessment of both technology/engineering metrics as well as higher

order operational/conceptual ones, allowing a more refined assessment of Fightability and Soldier Acceptability.The iterative refinement of everything from assessment methods to metrics represents an important part of ourapproach: any innovative system of systems requires the concurrent spiral development of component technologiesand of a test bed commensurate in scope and complexity to the system of systems under development. Theintegration issues implicit in such development and assessment require an equally innovative multidisciplinaryapproach to assessment that addresses the operational and programmatic, as well as the technical, challenges tointegration and fielding. As with the TSEs, QLs were open forums attended by a mix of technologists and users, ofGovernment and contractors, sufficient to address the broad range of integration issues. QLs thus were valuable toanalysis and trades during architecture development and design.

8/12/2019 Park et al. (2003) - OFW

4/7

3.3 Modeling and Simulation

The Modeling and Simulation (M&S) team participated in the design of QL assessments because M&S depended tosome extent on quantitative and qualitative data gained from the QLs. M&S provides assessment data for situationsthat are difficult or impossible to test in the real world, such as a theatre-wide campaign. It takes information aboutparameters and model structure as inputs (for example, device power draw and weight from vendor data, TSEevaluations, QLs, etc.), and provides outputs to support operational assessments of Fightability and SoldierAcceptability. As technologists and operational experts formed opinions of a candidate technology, members of theWolfpack assessment team examined the technology from the M&S perspective, making judgments concerning howthe technology would be measured and possibly integrated into a simulation model for more extensive andintegrative analyses. Thus, for example, imaging sensor systems could be measured in terms of field of view,resolution, spectral sensitivity, power draw, and weight. Prototype technologies built or acquired for QLs helpedground model parameterization in something real, or at least realistic. This illustrates an important element of theapproach: a high priority was placed on utilizing prototypes in service of assessment. This represents afundamentally different use of prototypes than that of a company with vested interests in eventual productization ofa new technology. The prototypes developed for these purposes required only enough fidelity to show the art ofthe possible and to address specific scientific, technical and operational questions. This allows us to conceive,prepare, and conduct assessments as early and often as we are capable of building prototypes and putting them intothe field. This approach is revolutionary and arguably necessary to acquisition reform.

3.4 Evaluation Process Example: Optical Fusion

Technology search for Optical Fusion technologies were conducted in the following manner. Enhanced vision viathe fusion of image intensified (I2) and thermal (IR) imagery was identified as candidate OFW technology at thegovernments Open Review in PM Soldier Sensors presentation of the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle. Furthertechnical information about this technology was collected during the course of the technology search, including apresentation during a TSE by InSight Technology of their fusion system. Based on these efforts, assessments weremade regarding technical attributes, such as resolution of the thermal image and the overlay method of fusing thethermal image onto the I2.

Experiments were performed on this optical fusion technology to determine its potential operational impact asa function of the resolution of the thermal image. In the experiment, simulations of fused imagery were shown onlaptops to operators, who indicated whether they detected a target in the scene. In the course of the experiment, theresolution of the IR component of the scenes was varied. The experimenters measured the change in the individual

operators probability of detection (Pd) as a function of IR resolution.The Pd data empirically collected by the experiment were used as input into the Joint Conflict and Tactical

Simulation (JCATS) model to determine a corresponding individual operators probability of kill (Pk) associatedwith the optical fusion system. By extending the model to include Call for Fire capabilities with non-organicplatforms, a corresponding Pk within an augmented unit was assessed. Figure 2 illustrates how this technologyflowed through the assessment process.

Figure 2. Optical Fusion Assessment Process

Tech SearchReview of Optical Fusion

techs from Open Review,

Tech Search Event, etc.

ENVGInsight

Assessment:IR resolutionOverlay methodEtc.

ExperimentationLaptop-based simulationswith varying IR resolution

M&SJCATS scenarios with

Pd inputs Assessment:Pk for individualPk with non-organic fires

Assessment:Pd(resolution)

8/12/2019 Park et al. (2003) - OFW

5/7

4. ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The OFW Solicitation states the following: The OFW goal is to develop the Objective Force Unit of Actionwarrior and small combat team system of systems that is lightweight, low power, fightable, overwhelmingly lethal,maximally survivable, highly mobile, strategically deployable, sustainable, and cost effective by employingemerging technologies that can demonstrate a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 6 or 7 (depending on the finalfunding levels) by the end of FY06. To meet this objective, Wolfpack assessed technologies from the technologyidentification effort, including those from the Open Review, to the following four categories of measures:

Fightability with regard to the operational characteristics Technology Maturity with respect to the objective TRL of 6 in 2006. Affordability of life-cycle costs Soldier Acceptability of the weight, power, logistics, and training burdens of the technology

4.1 Fightability

Fightability evaluates candidate technologies on their ability to meet the operational needs of the soldier and smallunit. Seven sub-attributes comprise fightability: lethality, mobility, training, task organization and direction,situational awareness, sustainability, and survivability. Candidate programs were evaluated on their merits to meetthe needs (as applicable) of each sub-attribute. Rankings are outlined in Table 2, below.

Table 2. Fightability Rankings

0 No applicability

1 Major modifications required to support

2 Minor modifications required to support

3 Meets needs

4 Exceeds needs

4.2 Technology Maturity

To be relevant to OFW, all technologies under consideration must be able to meet a minimum TRL level of 6 by2006. There are two components in analyzing this attribute: the projected TRL in 2006 and the risk associated with

meeting that TRL. For this analysis, best practices from the risk management community were used to merge theTRL and associated risk into a single Technical Maturity score; this is reflected in Table 3.

Table 3. Technical Maturity Score

Projected 2006 TRL

Risk Level 6 7 8 9 10

High 1 2 3 4 5

Med-High 3 6 9 12 15

Medium 5 10 15 20 25

Med-Low 7 14 21 28 35

Low 9 18 27 36 45

4.3 Affordability

Cost considerations include (1) expected final product cost, where equivalent technologies are compared to aconsistent standard of performance, and (2) expected life-cycle costs, specifically the cost to sustain the technology(including maintenance and repair) where technologies are compared to equivalent life-cycle durations.

4.4 Soldier Acceptability

Soldier Acceptability addresses the burdens technologies place upon the soldier and small unit. The candidatetechnology must meet Fightability capabilities while placing minimum burdens of weight, power, logistics, and

8/12/2019 Park et al. (2003) - OFW

6/7

training. The solicitation states that the Objective Force Warrior will enable soldiers to conduct dismountedmaneuver with load bearing equipment and load not to exceed 40 pounds over the course of a 24 hr mission withoutresupply, and must be sustainable within the Unit of Action, which has a requirement to operate for 72 hours withoutresupply. However, due to the early state of OFW concept development, dividing the overarching quantitativespecifications of weight and power into sub-systems was not specifically considered. For example, it was not pre-determined whether the standard-issue weapon should be assigned 5, 10, or 15 pounds of the 40-pound overarchingspecification. Rankings of acceptability are given in Table 4.

Table 4. Soldier Acceptability Rankings

0 Unacceptable burden

1 Major burden

2 Minor burden

3 Meets acceptability

4 Exceeds acceptability

8/12/2019 Park et al. (2003) - OFW

7/7

5. EXAMPLE ASSESSMENT

Using the criteria above, a template for assessing technologies was created. Nearly 1,000 technologies wereevaluated using this format. An edited example in the area of Human Perception and Performance is shown below.

One-Handed Tourniquet

U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research/WRAIR6900 Georgia Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20307-5001

General Description

This one-handed tourniquet is a lightweight, double-looped tourniquet intended to stop seriousarterial or venous hemorrhage. Either the individual or a buddy can apply this tourniquet within30 seconds. This tourniquet can provide effective care at all levels of pre-evacuation care.

Capability-Based Assessment

Use of tourniquets is a medical method or technique to create hemostasis during serious situations. These productsoffer possibilities for an injured soldier or buddy to control bleeding that cannot be controlled by other means (e.g.,pressure).

Capability Title Capability Description Assessment Source ID #

One HandedTourniquet

OFW soldier shall havea one handed tourniquet that permitssoldier to reduce or eliminate bleeding in an extremity by

pulling a pre-positioning band located in both upper arms /legs. Tourniquet shall be embedded in the uniform.

!!!" CAT 1 FCSBlock 1 (Sustain-ability - Treat onthe Move)

OFWC147

Maturity Assessment

One-handed tourniquets are currently being fielded to Special Operations Forces. Minorimprovements are needed for the lengths of the loops, to provide greater leverage to thesoldier when applied. Modifications can be ready in FY 2004.

Affordability Assessment

Criteria Assessment RationaleS&T Cost to Complete $50K Although currently fielded, loop lengths need to be optimized.

Goal Product Cost $25 per item Costs are expected to decrease, as the product has relevance to other services.

Life Cycle Costs Low No maintenance; replacement necessary only in case of loss or damage.

Matching Dollar Ratio !!"" Multi-service interest.

Soldier Acceptability Assessment

Criteria Assessment Rationale

Weight !!!! Tourniquets are lightweight and can be compressed to fit in confined areas.

Power !!!! No power requirements.

Logistics !!!! Product has an indefinite shelf life.

Training !!!" Training is required.

Timeframe TRL

2003 7

2006 9