DSP Journal (Aug 2001) - True Stories of the · PDF fileicy of the United States Department of Defense. Letters, articles, news items, ... Developmental Test Command Employee Earns

AUGUST 2001

AUGUST–2001

Defense Standardization Council Department of DefenseLouis A. KratzDepartment of the ArmyRenata F. PriceDepartment of the NavyChristine Stelloh-Garner Department of the Air ForceDr. Don DanielDefense Logistics AgencyThomas RidgwayDefense Information Systems Agency Vacant

DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM JOURNAL

Defense Standardization Program Office Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

8725 John J. Kingman Road · Suite 4235Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6221

(703) 767-6870 Telephone(703) 767-6876 Facsimilehttp://www.dsp.dla.mil

[email protected]

Gregory E. Saunders

Director, Defense Standardization Program Office

Sharon Strickland

Editor, Defense Standardization Program Journal

Typesetting and design by New Century Solutions

[email protected]

The Defense Standardization Program Journal (ISSN 0897-0245) is published twice a year by the DefenseStandardization Program Office (DSPO). Opinions representedhere are those of the authors, and may not represent official pol-icy of the United States Department of Defense. Letters, articles,news items, photographs and other submissions for the DefenseStandardization Program Journal are welcomed and encour-aged. Send all materials to Defense Standardization ProgramJournal at 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 4235, Fort Belvoir,Virginia 22060-6221. DSPO is not responsible for unsolicitedmaterials. Materials can be submitted by digital/electronicmeans: by e-mail to [email protected]; or on floppydisks (Windows-formatted only) to Defense StandardizationProgram Journal at the address above. DSPO reserves the rightto modify or reject any submission as deemed appropriate.

DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM

JOURNALFor the Defense Standardization Program Community

AUGUST 2001

The Director’s Forum ..........................................................................3Developmental Test Command Employee Earns Award ..................5Standards EngineeringParticipation By Federal Agencies In Voluntary Consensus Standards Bodies ................................................................................6-10Electronic Proving Ground Launches Starship ................................11GEB1, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages Management Practices........................................................12New Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology andLogistics ................................................................................................13DSP Fall Symposium Announcement ................................................13Roman Chariots, Railroad Tracks, MilSpecs, and Urban Legends....14-16ANSI Announces New Appointment ..................................................17New Navy Standardization Executive ................................................17Pax River Wins Multiple Standardization Achievement Awards ......18-19ASSIST Fun Facts ................................................................................19Voluntary Consensus Standards Win Over the Department of Defense............................................................................................20Standardization Office Case Studies Show Benefits..........................21Keeping Cool In the Military ..............................................................22-25Acquisition Logistics Excellence (ALE) Day September 10, 2001 ....25World Standards Paper Competition ..................................................26Appointee to lead ANSI Public Policy and Government AffairsActivities ..............................................................................................27Distance Learning Course on DoD 5000 ..........................................27Thunderbirds Celebrate 48 Years of Tradition ................................28Blueprint to Military Transformation ..................................................29Editor’s Corner ....................................................................................30Points of Contact ................................................................................31

DoD policy is to promote standardization of materiel, facilities, andengineering practices to improve military operational readiness,reduce total ownership costs, and reduce acquisition cycle time.

DSP Mission: Identify, influence, develop, manage, and provide accessto standardization processes, products, and services for warfighters,the acquisition community, and the logistics community to promoteinteroperability, reduce total ownership costs, and sustain readiness.

3AUGUST–2001

Standardization Lightning –Interoperability Thunder

At the end of May 2001, the Navy held an interoper-ability conference, which had an impressive list ofsenior level speakers not only from the Navy, butfrom the other services, OSD, and major defensecompanies as well. The conference addressed awide variety of interoperability issues, but some res-onated more than others from a DefenseStandardization Program perspective.

It was significant that nearly every uniformedspeaker mentioned the importance of and need forstandards. While none of the speakers dwelled onthe subject of standards, as they shared operationalproblems and challenges, it seemed apparent thathaving the "right" interface standards available, cur-rent, visible, and organized around mission needrequirements, would have gone a long way to solv-ing some of the interoperability issues.

The reason the word "right" appears with quota-tions is to highlight a common complaint at the con-ference that there is no shortage of technical archi-tectures that identify interoperability standards. Thecriticism is that these architectures often represent adata dump of standards which seem more directedat satisfying the owners of the technology ratherthan the stakeholders of the weapon systems andthe stakeholders of the different mission capabilities.While everyone recognizes that architectures toidentify interoperability standards are essential, thereal question is how much interoperability is need-ed? If a technical architecture prescribes too muchinteroperability, it can become technically difficult

or impossible to achieve, and it can become unaf-fordable. What most of the stakeholders at the con-ference seemed to suggest was that technical archi-tectures need to be centered around essential mis-sion capabilities (e.g., air defense, anti-submarinewarfare, reconnaissance, etc.) and that identificationof interoperability standards needs to go beyondthe engineering community and include the missionstakeholders. Implied in these discussions was thatstandards must be more than bureaucratically pro-duced documents if they are to gain widespreadacceptance. Successful standards must have wellidentified users who can readily see the economicand operational benefits from using a standard andthey must involve the interests of key stakeholders.

Another common concern at the Navy confer-ence was that military operations in the last decadeshowed a growing disparity in the interoperabilitycapabilities between the U.S and our NATO allies.This disparity is the result of two trends. First,while the U.S. defense budget has been cut dramati-cally in recent years, the European defense budgets– which were smaller to begin with – have been cuteven more. So as the U.S. upgrades its existing mili-tary equipment, our European allies are becomingout-of-sync. Secondly, our NATO allies are expandingtheir own military industrial base in some areas.Today, a large degree of interoperability is achievedbecause our allies use U.S. weapon systems. For

The Director’s Forum

Gregory E. SaundersDirector, Defense Standardization

Program Office

Mark Twain once observed that while thunder is impressive,it is the lightning that does the work. By this, he meant thateven though most people are taken back by the loud crack ofthunder, the thunder doesn’t happen without first having thelightning. A similar relationship exists between interoperabil-ity and standardization. While the focus is correctly on theoperational warfighting capabilities that interoperability pro-vides, it is the process for arriving at standardization decisionsand documenting those decisions in standards that can makeinteroperability possible.

Continued on next page...

4 DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM JOURNAL

example, today the F-16 is thefighter aircraft of choice for manyof our European allies. But withthe introduction of the EF-2000Typhoon aircraft produced by aconsortium of European nations, itis predicted that by 2015, onlyBelgium, Denmark, theNetherlands, and Norway will beflying significant numbers of U.S.fighters, and the interoperabilitychallenges will become more diffi-cult.

A Rand report published lastyear entitled "Interoperability: AContinuing Challenge in CoalitionAir Operations" echoes many ofthe allied interoperability concernsexpressed at the Navy conference.(A copy of this report may bedownloaded athttp://www.rand.org/publica-tions/MR/MR1235.) The Randstudy suggested that given the cur-rent budgetary restraints on bothsides of the Atlantic, a relativelylower-cost solution to the interop-erability problems among the allieswould be implementation of uni-fied NATO standards, organization-al reform, and joint systems basedon existing technology. The Randstudy does not suggest the unbri-dled development of NATO stan-

dards, but does suggest that stan-dards can be of great value in pro-moting interoperability if they "cod-ify an existing (or a negotiated)consensus on an operational condi-tion."

A final point repeatedly madeat the Navy conference was thatinteroperability is much more thanjust communications or informationexchange, and this point was goodto hear. While C4I interoperabilityis absolutely essential for militaryoperations, standardization of othernon-C4I capabilities is also essen-tial. At the Air Force Association’sAir Warfare Symposium held onFebruary 14-15, 2001, GeneralGregory S. Martin, commander ofthe U.S. Air Forces in Europe, iden-tified several non-C4I interoperabil-ity needs that had to be addressedto close the growing gap in capa-bility between the U.S and itsNATO allies, including aerial refuel-ing, stealth technology, precisionattack, and the ability to operate ina chemical/biological environment.

Unfortunately, there seems tobe a widespread belief in theDefense Department that interoper-ability and standardization areunrelated. Some view interoper-ability as being restricted to making

C4I systems work together, andstandardization to producing car-bon copies of parts and compo-nents. Such a view is incorrectand puzzling. NATO describesstandardization as the process forachieving and maintaining themost effective levels of compatibil-ity, interoperability, interchange-ability, and commonality formateriel, operations, and adminis-tration.

Interoperability and standardi-zation are connected just as thun-der and lightning. Lightning caus-es thunder, and the "right" type ofstandardization and standardsresult in the interoperability thewarfighter needs to win on thebattlefield. The challenge for theDefense Standardization Programwill be to improve our processes,communication, and tools to gen-erate the proper level of stan-dardization lightning for theinteroperability thunder we wantto hear.

Just What is a Yankee Doodle?

So "Yankee-Doodle went to town." And just why should anyone care? Why would anyone ever sing suchgoofus-like lyrics? "Stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni." Really? You must be kidding!

In fact it's ironic that Americans proudly sing a song that originally mocked them and their notion that theyshould be free and independent. It originated as a 14th century nonsense song in Holland about a sillycharacter named "Yankee-Doodle." English school children adopted it to make fun of Oliver Cromwell. Inthe same spirit, the British troops fighting against the colonists in the American Revolution poked fun at theiradversaries with the song. But wouldn't you know it! The Americans not only shot from behind trees at theRedcoats marching in the open formation, they also turned their own song against the British troops, makingof them not macaroni but mincemeat.

(Source: JUST CURIOUS, JEEVES by Jack Mingo and Erin Barrett)

AUGUST–2001 5

The Defense Department pro-gram that develops, managesand promotes standardization

throughout the military recentlyawarded a Developmental TestCommand employee for his work instandardizing environmental-safetytest procedures for rockets, missilesand ammunition. Herb Egbert ofDTC's Directorate for Test andTechnology received recognition inApril as an Army winner of theHonorary Defense StandardizationProgram Achievement Award for2000. He was also chosen fromamong seven winning organizationsto receive the DistinguishedAccomplishment Award for 2000 forwork that is expected to save theDefense Department millions of dol-lars. Only one such award is pre-sented yearly and carries a $5,000prize for the winner.

"Picking one of these winners asmore deserving than the others wasdaunting," wrote Gregory Saunders,director of the DefenseStandardization Program (DSP)Office, in the Defense Standard-ization Program Journal Update, aperiodical published by that pro-gram. "But after careful examination,we selected Herb Egbert, from theArmy Developmental TestCommand, as the winner for his

work in NATO that dramaticallyimproved and standardized on muni-tions safety testing."

The DSP provides access to stan-dardization processes, products andservices for everyone from servicemembers in the field to managers ofacquisition programs, with the aim ofpromoting interoperability andreducing costs throughout the life ofsystems. Based on test costs, theefforts of Egbert and a NATO sub-group are expected to result in a$147.3 million savings in test costsfor the Patriot Advanced Capability-3(PAC-3) missile program. The antici-pated savings in test costs for theTheater High Altitude Area Defense(THAAD) missile program is about$271.8 million.

The NATO subgroup developedfive safety test methods that stan-dardize environmental-safety tests formunitions and explosives throughoutthe U.S. military and among nationsallied with the United States. Egbert,who was also recognized for hispublications on environmental test-ing and tests related to munitions,said he worked in collaboration withthe NATO Group on Safety andSuitability for Service of Munitionsand Explosives. One NATO groupfocused on testing to ensure the safetransportation of hazardous muni-tions, he explained, while anothergroup focused on test procedures for"insensitive" munitions, those thatEgbert described as having "a mini-mized response to unplanned stim-

uli, thus improving the survivabilityof personnel and equipment." Hesaid the standardization efforts,which began about two-and-a-halfyears ago, should result in substantialsavings by standardizing the types oftests done for the two categories ofmunitions and eliminating duplica-tive or nonessential testing.

"To perform all of the requiredtests for both (categories of muni-tions), it would take about 30 sepa-rate tests," he said. "We broughtthe technical experts together andgot them to go through test proce-dures line by line, letting us knowwhat procedures they could acceptworking toward the essentials.

"An example of potential savingswould be the PAC-3 missile that

costs about $2 million per copy totest, and with standardized testingwe get the tests down to three testitems, which is a considerable sav-ings," Egbert added. "Each THAADthat must undergo these tests costsabout $8 million per copy, so we'resaving significantly by reducing thenumber of tests for that program."

Environmental-safety testing onmunitions, ammunition and rocketsinvolves procedures such as subject-ing them to fuel fire, bullet andfragment impacts, and slow heating,as well as testing them to determineif they would be prone to "sympa-thetic reaction" if munitions storednearby detonate or burn, and drop-ping items onto a metal plate from aminimum height of 40 feet.

The following article, reprinted bypermission, appeared in the May 24,2001, edition of the "APG News," aweekly Aberdeen Proving Groundnewspaper. The article describesHerb Egbert's outstanding efforts,which resulted in his being selectedas the year 2000 winner of theDefense Standardization ProgramDistinguished Achievement Award.Congratulations!"

Developmental Test Command Employee Earns Award forStandardization Program that Saves Millions of Dollars

Mike Cast, U.S. Army Developmental Test Command

....after careful examination, we selectedHerb Egbert, from the Army DevelopmentalTest Command

Mike Cast, U.S. Army Developmental Test Command

by Mike Cast, U.S. Army Developmental Test Command

DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM JOURNAL6

Reprinted by Permission of SES

AUGUST–2001 7


AUGUST–2001 9


AUGUST–2001 11

Electronic Proving Ground Successfully Launches ‘Starship’to Support Testing of Developing Army Technologies Mike CastU.S. Army Developmental TestCommand

Innovative software developed bycomputer programmers at theArmy’s Electronic Proving

Ground (EPG) at Fort Huachuca,Arizona, is saving manpower,resources and money. It does thisby remotely and efficiently control-ling test instrumentation and receiptof data at numerous sites duringexercises and tests of state-of-the artmilitary systems. For the past year-and-a-half, the EPG has been usingan exercise or test simulation"engine" called Starship to help theArmy conduct live and virtual testsof command, control, communica-tions, computer and intelligenceequipment such as the Army’sEnhanced Position LocationReporting System and theUnmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV).

Operating on a Windows NTplatform, Starship allows EPG testofficers to direct and monitor a vari-ety of sophisticated test instrumenta-tion for EPG. It not only allows forremote control of test instrumenta-tion, but continually provides infor-mation about their status, alertingtesters to problems if instrumenta-tion is not functioning properly.

“Three programmers at EPGworked jointly to develop the pro-gram, a Windows-type software thatrequires very little in the way ofunique hardware,” said DanielSearls, Chief of EPG’s Test SupportBranch.

"You can control anything youcan define," Searls said, explainingthat the program enables EPG tohave "smart" test instrumentation."Starship has become a very valu-

able tool, not only for the testers,but for the people in the field," hesaid. "It offers another example ofhow to collect more and better-quality data with fewer people.”

In addition to its role in sup-porting tests at EPG, Starship hasbeen used to support UnmannedGround Vehicle (UGV) analysis andsimulations via the DevelopmentalTest Command’s Virtual ProvingGround. It was used in that exer-cise to link various UGV compo-nents at Fort Huachuca, theRedstone Technical Test Center atRedstone Arsenal, Alabama, andDugway Proving Ground in Utahand to display the status of theexercise rather than control equip-ment. “It will be used in futureUGV exercises to start and control"entities" such as test instruments,UGVs or simulations,” said JanetMcDonald, Virtual ElectronicProving Ground program managerat EPG.

Searls said the program wasdeveloped using a "plug and play"approach that makes it relativelysimple to add new "controllableentities" such as test instrumentationand alarms, or alter them. “Starshipis extensible and adaptable,” hesaid, so it can be expanded or cus-tomized to accommodate addedinstrumentation and types of datainput. It is scalable, allowing thesystem to expand in size and config-uration, not only to accommodate agreater number of instruments, butalso a larger number of users.

Starship was developed so thatits components can be distributedacross separate networked comput-ers, to reduce the data load on asingle computer and meet the ever-growing processing demands of

future tests and exercises. It alsoallows variable user settings that canaccommodate changing test or exer-cise conditions and scenarios.

Searls said the program’s userinterface is very flexible and config-urable, much like the Windows-based software familiar to today’scomputer users. Starship users canalso easily group test instruments torespond to the needs of a particulartest or exercise scenario. The pro-gram includes a scenario recorderand player that can log and replayany part of a test or exercise in real,or multiples of real, time.

Starship can communicate overdifferent network types and net-work protocols. It is designed tointerface with other programs viatwo communication protocols inuse by the military for modelingand simulation: DistributedInteractive Simulation (DIS) andHigh Level Architecture (HLA). DIS,a protocol that enables separatemodeling and simulation programsto cooperate and process interactiveinput from various sources in realtime, has been replaced by HLA asa Defense Department and NATOstandard. HLA is an internationallyused software architecture for mod-eling and simulation programs andis designed to support interoperabil-ity and reuse of simulations.Members of the Army’s test team atEPG hope to provide greater capa-bility to customers in less time andat a lower cost by using and furtherdeveloping project managementtechnologies such as Starship. Theintent is to support testing, training,and military acquisition throughcontinued innovation, adaptability,and cost-effectiveness.

References from page 10 article Participation By Federal Agencies....1. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities," February 10, 1998.2. Federal Register/Volume 63, No. 33/Notices/Part IV, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget OMB

Circular A-119 "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity AssessmentActivities;" Notice, Thursday, February 19, 1998.

3. Public Law 113-104 "National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995," May 7th, 1996.


Diminishing ManufacturingSources and MaterialShortages (DMSMS) is an

increasingly difficult problem forDoD weapon systems because themanufacturing lives of many criticalitems get shorter while the lifecycles of military weapon systemskeep increasing. Traditionally,efforts to mitigate the effects ofDMSMS have been reactive; that is,the effects are addressed onlywhen they are seen. This reactiveapproach to DMSMS solutionsleads to decisions that put a premi-um on faster solution paths withattractive short-term gains in orderto avoid system inoperability, whileignoring the long-term solutionpaths that would lead to genericfamilies of solutions or larger-scalesolutions with the capability ofavoiding future DMSMS issues. Inorder to solve DMSMS issues withlower overall cost, DMSMS solu-tions must change from reactive toproactive. The building blocks ofeffective proactive management ofDMSMS are established during thedesign and development of sys-tems. If systems are designed withthe inevitability of DMSMS in mind,

early solution paths with large-scalesolutions can be started at anappropriately early time to enableintelligent choices without theimminent threat of system inoper-ability. Such generic large-scalesolutions and a consensus onwhere DMSMS threats are mostprevalent can be better forecast bythe use of a standard set of DMSMSmanagement practices used by theforemost members of industry.

The Government Electronicsand Information TechnologyAssociation (GEIA) G-12 SolidState Devices Committee developeda set of DMSMS management prac-tices that can be used by originalequipment manufacturers (OEMs)during the design and developmentof electronic systems to mitigatethe effects of DMSMS. A technicalpaper presenting an overview ofEIA Engineering Bulletin GEB1,Diminishing Manufacturing Sourcesand Material Shortages (DMSMS) Management Practices is availableat…http://www.geia.org/sstc/G12/geb1.html. GEB1 includes proac-tive DMSMS mitigation methods,such as technology independence(e.g. use of VHDL, software porta-

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages(DMSMS) Management Practices

bility,), technology road mapping,technology insertion, planned sys-tem upgrades, life-cycle analysisand DMSMS monitoring. Whileproactive mitigation methods arethe primary focus of the G-12 com-mittee's work, GEB1 also addressestraditional responses to DMSMSevents, such as alternate sourcing,substitution, redesign/design modi-fication, reverse engineering andreclamation.

GEB1, Diminishing ManufacturingSources and Material Shortages(DMSMS) Management Practices isavailable through Global EngineeringDocuments at... http://global.ihs.com

For further information on the G-12 Solid State DevicesCommittee and GEB1, contactchairman Michael Cooper([email protected]) orvisit the G-12 web siteat…http://www.geia.org/sstc/G12/

by Henry Livingston

About the Author Henry Livingston has over twenty years of engineering and engineering management experience in the Aerospace Electronics indus-try. He manages Component Engineering at BAE SYSTEMS Information and Electronic Warfare Systems. Henry is Vice-Chairman ofthe Government Electronics & Information Technology Association (GEIA) G-12 Solid State Device. The G-12 Committee develops solu-tions to technical problems in the application, standardization, and reliability of solid state devices. Henry received the ElectronicsIndustries Association Engineering Department Distinguished Contribution Award for exemplary leadership and outstanding contri-butions to the defense electronics industry, to the Defense Department, and the Electronics Industries Association in the field of solid statedevices. Henry is the third recipient of the GEIA E. J. Nucci Memorial Excellence Award for Engineering Excellence for his many yearsof dedicated service to G12 and the high reliability solid state devices industry. Henry is a member of the IEEE Components, Packaging,and Manufacturing Technology Society, the IEEE Electron Devices Society, and IEEE Reliability Society.

AUGUST–2001 13

Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge,Jr., was sworn in on May 8,2001, as the Under

Secretary of Defense forAcquisition, Technology andLogistics. Prior to this position,he served as chief executive offi-cer of the Aerospace Corporation,a non-profit organization dedicat-ed to solving critical nationalproblems through science andtechnology.

Previous positions include theSecretary of the Air Force (1986-88) and President of McDonnellDouglas Electronic Systems (1988-1992). He has received awardsfrom numerous societies, includingRotary National Award for SpaceAchievement in 1994. He is affili-ated with numerous associationsand societies, including the

American Institute of Aeronauticsand Astronautics, where he servedas President from 1997-98.

In the 1980's, Aldridge was atone time an astronaut-in-trainingin preparation for his participationas a payload specialist on the firstplanned mission from VandenbergAir Force Base, Calif., which wascanceled because of theChallenger accident.

Aldridge was born in Houston,TX, in 1938 and spent his youthin Shreveport, LA. He earned hisBachelor's Degree in aeronauticalengineering from Texas A&MUniversity in 1960, and a master'sdegree in aeronautical engineeringfrom Georgia Tech in 1962.

In his role as Under Secretaryof Defense for Acquisition,Technology and Logistics,

A Fall symposium wil lbe held November 27-29, 2001, at the Omni

Shoreham Hotel , Washington,D. C. This symposium is ajoint partnership betweenthe Defense Standardizat ionProgram Off ice (DSPO) andthe Government Electronicsand Information TechnologyAssociat ion (GEIA) and wil lbe open to goverment andindustry at tendees. Watchthe DSPO Web Si te for fur-ther information concerningregistrat ion, fees, topics and

New Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technologyand Logistics Sworn In

Defense Standardization Program Office AnnouncesFall Symposium for November 27-29, 2001

other i tems of interest . Theweb si te is located at :www.dsp.dla.mi l

Although the agenda andspecifics are still being worked,the theme of this educationalsymposium is "The Shape ofThings to Come: Acquisition &Logistics Excellence ThroughStandardization." Topics willinclude major DoD acquisitionand logistics initiatives impact-ing the DSP, current DSP poli-cies and procedures, implemen-tation of the DSP StrategicPlan, InternationalStandardization, and new/future

Aldridge will be the principaladvisor to the Secretary ofDefense for all matters relating tothe acquisition of weapons andmateriel, including research anddevelopment, testing and evalua-tion, production, logistics, militaryconstruction and procurement.

automation tools. When thefinal agenda is set, the informa-tion will be posted on the DSPWeb Site.

Also, read the next Journal Updatefor final agenda information, orcall or write with any questions toSharon Strickland at 703-767-6870or [email protected].


Every culture has its urban leg-ends. While myths, fairy tales,folklore, and traditional legendsare generally considered fictional,allegorical, or exaggerations of thetruth, urban legends are reportedas fact and are widely believed tobe factual among the masses.Urban legends are extremely diffi-cult to combat even when evi-dence exists to disprove thembecause they seem reasonable,they fit comfortably into an indi-vidual’s personal beliefs, and mostpeople are not inclined to go insearch of "the truth."

American history is especially fullof urban legends. Most Americansthink they know about suchthings as the Pilgrims landing onPlymouth Rock

1, U.S.

Independence Day2, the Liberty

Bell3, and hundreds of other "his-

torical facts." What mostAmericans know, however, are theurban legends.

The world of standards andstandardization also has its shareof urban legends, which seem tobe on the increase because of theInternet and email. One standardi-zation urban legend that has beenmaking the rounds over the lastseven years or so deals with theconnection between Roman chari-ots, railroad tracks, and MilSpecs.The story begins with a questionasking why the U.S. standard rail-road gauge (the distance betweenrails) is 4 feet 8-1/2 inches, whichseems an odd number. Theanswer given is that English ex-patriots built U.S. railroads, and 4feet 8-1/2 inches was the standardrailroad track gauge in Englandbecause the railroad tracks werebuilt on top of road ruts created

by the Romans to accommodatetheir war chariots. Supposedly, theRomans had a MilSpec that set thewheel spacing at 4 feet 8-1/2 inch-es for their war chariots, and thatthe wheel spacing was based onthe hind-ends of two Roman warhorses. Eventually, railroad trackswere laid on top of the road ruts.The final punch line is that the U.S.standard railroad gauge derivesfrom the original MilSpec for anImperial Roman army war chariotproving that MilSpecs and bureau-cracies live forever.

The only problem with thisstory is that none of it is true,except the fact that the standardU.S. railroad track gauge today isindeed 4 feet 8-1/2 inches. Overthe years, I estimate that peoplehave sent me over 200 email mes-

sages transmitting this story, and Ihave heard it repeated at manyconferences. I would like to try tocounter this urban legend withsome historical facts.

For starters, the Roman armydid not use chariots for warfare.Chariots were technologically obso-lete by 600 BCE, centuries beforethe rise of Rome. While chariotswere a technological leap whenthey came into use around 1800BCE, they were far from the idealweapon portrayed by Hollywood.Chariots were unstable and restrict-ed in use to open and flat terrain.

They were also expensive and dif-ficult to make and maintain. Thearmies of the ancient world usedchariots because the horses avail-able to them were too small tocarry a mounted soldier in armorand with weapons. Once horseswere introduced that were largeenough to carry a fully equippedsoldier, cavalry quickly replacedcharioteers. Cavalry was far moremobile, easier to maintain, andmade more effective use of man-power since a chariot required adriver and fighter, whereas a sin-gle soldier could ride and fight onhorseback.

4

The Roman legions that con-quered the ancient western worldwere made up primarily ofarmored infantry supported bycavalry, light infantry, archers, and

engineers. The Roman legionsnever used the technologicallyinferior chariot. Chariots were verypopular in the Roman circusgames and for ceremonial proces-sions, but they were not used mili-tarily or commercially. The sug-gestion that the Roman armydeveloped a MilSpec for chariotwheel spacing that necessitated theplacement of road ruts at 4 feet 8-1/2 inches is pure fiction.

The other aspect of this stan-dardization urban legend that ispure fiction is the suggestion thatthe standard track gauge in the

Roman Chariots, Railroad Tracks, MilSpecs, and Urban Legends

The most significant contribution of the government for standardizing track gauges,however, was to serve as a catalyst in bring-ing together industry to promote railroadcooperation during the Civil War.

by Stephen Lowell, Defense Standardization Program

AUGUST–2001 15

gauge accounted for more thanhalf the track in the U.S., it madesense from a military and econom-ic viewpoint to promote this as thestandard gauge. More than 4,000miles of new track was laid downin the North during the war, mostof which conformed to the 4 foot8-1/2 inch track gauge.

8In some

cases, the Union forces altered thetrack gauges of capturedConfederate rails. For example, the5-foot gauge of the Norfolk &Petersburg rail was changed to 4

foot 8-1/2 inch gauge.9In other

cases, the government succeededin convincing nonstandardNorthern railroads, such as theNew York Central, to change theirtrack gauge.

10Finally, the Pacific

Railway Act of 1864 mandated thestandard 4 foot 8-1/2 inch gaugefor the Transcontinental Railroad.

11

The most significant contribu-tion of the government for stan-dardizing track gauges, however,was to serve as a catalyst in bring-ing together industry to promoterailroad cooperation during theCivil War. In February of 1862,Secretary of War Stanton and othergovernment leaders met with theowners of the major railroads todiscuss a number of issues, includ-ing standardization of trackgauges.

12These meetings contin-

ued throughout the Civil War.Following the war, industry contin-ued to meet, and on September18, 1867, representatives fromtwenty-nine railroads formed theMaster Car Builders Association.At the top of their agenda was the

U.S. has always been 4 feet 8-1/2inches. At the beginning of theAmerican Civil War in 1861, therewere more than 20 different rail-road track gauges in the U.S. rang-ing from 3 feet to 6 feet.

5In fact,

5 feet was by far the most preva-lent gauge in the South

6, so if the

Confederacy had won the war, thestandard size in the U.S. might bedifferent today. The table belowshows some of the variety ofgauges in the U.S. and Canada atthe beginning of 1861.

7

Probably more than any othersingle event, the American CivilWar is why the U.S. has the onestandard track gauge today. TheCivil War was the first war inwhich railroads played an impor-tant part in transporting troops,equipment, and supplies. The vari-ety of track gauges forced armyunits to unload and then reloadcargo at the junction pointbetween lines with differentgauges. Such delays were incon-venient, expensive, and annoyingfor civilians during peacetime, butfor an army to experience suchdelays sometimes meant the differ-ence between victory and defeat.

While the U.S. government didnot mandate conversion to a stan-dard track gauge, it did take stepsthat accelerated standardizationtowards the 4 foot 8-1/2 inchgauge. In 1862, the United StatesMilitary Railroad Organization wascreated to address a number of railtransportation issues, includingstandardization of track gauges.Since the 4 foot 8-1/2 inch track

standardization of track gauge inthe U.S. It would take anothernineteen years, but through thecooperative efforts of industrybrought together initially by gov-ernment, commercial railroad trackgauges in the U.S. were at laststandardized to 4 feet 8-1/2 inchesin 1886.

13

The original question of justhow did such an odd track size of4 feet 8-1/2 inches come to be stillremains. The truthful answer isthat no one really knows. Somepeople believe that train trackswere merely laid on top of roadruts left by wagons and that thewidth of the wagons were deter-mined by the width of two horsesside by side hauling the wagon.While it does seem reasonable thattrain tracks were often laid on topof wagon wheel ruts, the distancebetween wagon wheel ruts wasnot universal.

Everyone seems to agree thatthis odd track size did originate inEngland from a railway pioneernamed George Stephenson whoused the 4 feet 8-1/2 inch trackgauge when building the first pub-lic rail line, the Liverpool &Manchester Railway, in 1830. Whyhe chose this odd size is a matterof conjecture. Some historiansmaintain that the rails were origi-nally laid 5 feet apart on top ofwagon wheel ruts, but because theearly edge rails were 1.75 inchesacross the top and early trains ranon the inside edges, Mr.Stephenson had to subtract 3-1/2inches for the railroad car wheelspacing making them 4 feet 8-1/2inches. As railroad track technolo-gy improved so that the trainwheels ran on top of the tracks,the tracks were moved closer to fitthe rail car widths. Still othersmaintain that Mr. Stephenson origi-


Variety of Railroad Track gauges in the U.S. and Canada at the beginning of 1861.

Track Gauge Miles of Railroad Track Percentage of Total Mileage

4’ 8-1/2" 17,712 53.34’ 10" 3,294 9.95’ 0" 7,267 21.85’ 6" 2,896 8.76’ 0" 1,777 5.3Others ------ 1.0


nally designed the track gauge tomeasure 4 feet 8 inches, but duringconstruction, he added in an extrahalf inch to allow for a little moreleeway between rails and wheelflanges.

However, the 4 foot 8-1/2 inchtrack gauge happened, it’s clear thatthe Roman Military Specification forChariots, War, Two-Horse had noth-ing to do with it. While manythings "standardized" today were

first documented in either Militaryor Federal specifications – four-inchspacing of faucet’s for lavatories,standard sizes for floor tiles, rulesfor statistical sampling – someoneelse gets credit for track gaugespacing. Many believe that once anurban legend makes it to theInternet, it can never be undone.Perhaps. But we in the standardscommunity have a reputation forrequiring data to support con-tentions, and then challenging thedata. So challenge the legend –

References1The two publications written by the Pilgrims themselves about their arrival in the New World, William Bradford’s 1620 journal and abook published in 1622 known as Mourt’s Relation, never mention any rocks. The urban legend of Plymouth Rock supposedly has its ori-gins in 1741 when a 95-year old man named Elder Faunce, distressed over the town’s plan to build a wharf over the rock, began a pub-lic campaign to block construction by proclaiming that his father had told him that this granite rock is where the Pilgrims first set foot inthe New World. His emotional appeal struck a chord with the public, and despite a lack of supporting evidence, the Plymouth Rockbecame part of American history.2Americans celebrate July 4th as Independence Day, but the historical records and newspapers clearly show that the Continental Congressdeclared independence on July 2nd. The reason Americans celebrate July 4th is because it is the date on the Declaration ofIndependence. The document announcing independence came to overshadow the act of declaring independence. 3Because of a fictional story written by George Lippard in 1847 about an old bellman ringing the Liberty Bell at the moment that theContinental Congress declared independence, the Liberty Bell has become a venerated icon of the American Revolution. In fact, it wasnot called the Liberty Bell until 1837, when the bell became the symbol of the abolitionist movement because of the inscription on the belltaken from Leviticus: "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof." The historic fact is that the Liberty Bellsymbolized the quest for liberty for enslaved African-Americans and not the colonists. But once again, the urban legend prevailed.4Martin Van Creveld, Technology and War from 2000 B.C. to the Present, Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1989, pp. 12-17; and JohnKeegan, A History of Warfare, Key Porter Books, 1993, pp. 257-263. 5Robert L. Frey, ed., Encyclopedia of American Business History and Biography, Railroad in the Nineteenth Century, Bruccoli ClarkLayman Book, 1988, p. 333.6Thomas E. Griess, ed., Atlas for the American Civil War, The West Point Military History Series, Avery Publishing Group, Inc., Atlas MapNo. 2.7Frey, op. cit., p. 343.

8Thomas Weber, The Northern Railroads in the Civil War, 1861-1865, King’s Crown Press, 1952, p. 15.

9Allan Nevins, The War for the Union: War Becomes Revolution 1862-1863, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1960, p. 462.

10Allan Nevins, The War for the Union: The Organized War 1863-1864, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971, p. 23.

11Achsah Nesmith, "A Long, Arduous March Toward Standardization," Smithsonian Magazine, March 1985, p. 83.

12Phillip Shaw Paludan, A People’s Contest, The Union and Civil War 1861-1865, Harper & Row Publishers, 1988, p. 141.

13Frey, op. cit., p. 333.

Continued from previous pagewhen confronted with the chariotstory, email back the truth. Justmaybe we can knock this one leg-end off the tracks – whatevergauge they may be.

Steve Lowell is a Program Analystin the Defense StandardizationProgram Office

AUGUST–2001 17

Ms. Christine Stelloh-Garner wasselected as the Navy's AcquisitionReform Executive (ARE) in May 2001.She reports directly to the NavyAcquisition Executive and is thefocal point for matters pertaining tothe management and execution ofthe Navy Acquisition ReformProgram. Ms. Stelloh-Garner is alsothe Department of the Navy'sStandardization Executive and theExecutive Director of the DONAcquisition Reform Senior OversightCouncil (NARSOC).

Ms. Stelloh-Garner was born atthe Millington Naval Air Station inMemphis, Tennessee, and spent heryouth in the United States and

Japan before joining the Naval AirSystems Command as a clerk-typistin 1974.

As an upward mobility programtrainee, she transitioned to programand management analysis, servingin positions involving various facetsof program and facility manage-ment. Additionally, she served onthe Command Federal Women'sProgram Committee. Program man-agement assignments included thejoint-service V-22 Deputy forProgram Appraisal, CaribbeanRegional Operations CenterUpgrade Program Manager, andProgram Manager for the AH-1Night Targeting System.

Briefly leaving the Naval AirSystems Command in the mid-1980s, Ms. Stelloh-Garner remainedactive in naval aviation as a Booz-Allen & Hamilton consultant at theNaval Aviation Depot in CherryPoint, North Carolina, and as familyreadiness advisor for MarineMedium Lift Helicopter Squadron(HMM) 264. She also representedAdvanced Technology, Inc., as aprogram consultant.

Ms. Stelloh-Garner joined the

President and CEO of the American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI) Announces New Appointment

New Navy Standardization Executivestaff of the Program ExecutiveOfficer (PEO) for Tactical AircraftPrograms as a Deputy forAcquisition before assuming respon-sibility as Deputy ProgramExecutive Officer for Air Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Assaultand Special Mission Programs inMarch 1998. In this capacity, sheprovided oversight and insight forover 150 efforts from the followingprogram teams: MaritimeSurveillance Aircraft (P-3, S-3, EP-3,ES-3, VPU), Multi-missionHelicopters (CH-60, SH-60, HH-60),MH-53, Air ASW Sensors andSonobuoys; Marine assault aircraft(AV-8, AH-1, UH-1, CH-53, V-22);Executive Helicopters (VH-3, VH-60), T-45 Training System, and E-6Airborne Command Post.

Ms. Stelloh-Garner serves as theDefense Acquisition ManagementFunctional Advisor, a responsibilitythat she assumed in early 2000. Agraduate of the Defense SystemsManagement College ProgramManager's Course, Ms. Stelloh-Garner also holds a Bachelor of Artsin Business Administration fromMount Vernon College.

Ms. Christine Stelloh-Garner

Ray Kammer

Mark Hurwitz, President and CEOof the American National Standards

Institute, has announced that ANSIhas established a consulting relation-ship with Ray Kammer, formerDirector of NIST, effective June 1,2001. Ray will serve as "Counselorto the President/CEO." In his newcapacity, Ray will work with ANSIto help the new Administrationunderstand the vital role that stan-dards play in trade, safety, andthe environmental issues. Hewill be able, from first-handexperience, to advocate theneed for a strong public-privatepartnership to advance U.S.interests internationally.

Ray's extensive experienceworking with Members of Congressand high level government officials,his in-depth knowledge of thecomplex issues facing our commu-nity, and his history of strong sup-port for the National StandardsStrategy will make him an invalu-able asset to ANSI.

Mark W. Hurwitz President/CEO,ANSI, 1819 L Street, NW,Washington, DC 20036 202-331-3605 [email protected]


Ron A. McIntire, Joe A. Paglierani,James R. Goodwin, Robert Nelson,and Joseph E. Cooper. Capt. WalterL. Rogers is the Program Managerfor PMA 209. Standardization result-ed in cost savings, cost avoidanceand space and weight savings esti-mated at more than $790 million intotal life cycle costs.

The Air Combat ElectronicsTeam that produced the standard-ized GPWS addressed an issue thatwas the leading cause of aircraftmishaps between 1991 and 1998.The team, also from NAVAIR PMA209, included Thomas Anderson,Annette Barnhart, Jessica Blackwell,Paula Jackson, and Charles Shaffer.The team overcame the difficulty of

developing a standard set of systemsolutions that worked in each typemodel and series of aircraft, takinginto account the unique missionrequirements, architecture, anddesign constraints. The GPWS isscheduled for installation in 3,500aircraft throughout the armed servic-es, saving the lives of pilots andcrews, and saving as much as $200million per year in aircraft replace-ment costs.

The standardization of theAN/APM-480 Transponder Set TestSet was accomplished by PMA 260at NAVAIR, the Common AviationSupport Equipment, Communica-tion/Navigation Integrated ProductTeam. Michael Flynn, John Hester,

Ed Snyder, Jim McConnel, ElaineLovering, Wladyslaw Dzwonkowski,John Redmond, and DwayneSchnakenberg produced the Test Setthat addressed a need for an all-encompassing system that would bevital to the survivability of armedforces in the probable co-location ofmultiple platforms in the battlefieldof the future. The unit would besmaller, more rugged, more highlyadaptable and more mobile.Leveraging the recent advances insemiconductor electronics technolo-gy for cell phones, the AN/APM-480provides a cost-effective and capa-ble replacement solution for a num-ber of pieces of equipment nearingthe end of their service life. Savings

and cost avoidance is expected toexceed $270 million per service bysupporting every conceivable air-craft, ship, submarine, landing vehi-cle, air defense system, unmannedaerial vehicle, as well as systemscurrently under development.

The Joint Service SpecificationGuide (JSSG) Development Teamconsisted of members from theNavy, Air Force, Army and Industrythat produced a set of tri-service,performance-oriented specificationguides to be used by Governmentand Industry Program Offices.Team members Harold Hinkle(NAVAIR, JSSG Team Leader),

At the April 12, 2001,Honorary DefenseStandardization Program

(DSP) Achievement Awards ceremo-ny at the Pentagon, the Naval AirSystems Command (NAVAIR),Patuxent River, Maryland, receivedfour of the seven DSP awards forthe year 2000. NAVAIR teams wonthree awards, one each for develop-ment of a standardized digital com-munications system; for a standard-ized aircraft Ground ProximityWarning System (GPWS); for stan-dardization of a Transponder SetTest Set; and a fourth award as thelead organization in a Departmentof Defense joint service team thatdeveloped a standardized set ofprocurement specification guides.

Each winning team demonstrat-ed an accomplishment that solved aproblem brought on by a lack ofstandardization among the militaryservices--problems that caused addi-tional expenditures, created lagtimes in the development of neededequipment or processes, andincreased concerns about the safetyof people and equipment.

The awards were announced bythe DSP, and Mr. Lou Kratz,Principal Deputy Under Secretary ofDefense for Logistics Plans andPrograms, made official presenta-tions during a ceremony held in thePentagon.

The NAVAIR Air CombatElectronics Team developed, fieldedand supported an ARC-210 Elect-ronic Protection Radio that is in useon more than 40 types of aircraft,ships, and ground-based platforms.The team, under the ProgramManagement Air (PMA) 209, Com-mon Avionics, included members

Naval Air Systems Command, PAX River, Scores Big at the2000 Honorary Defense Standardization ProgramAchievement Awards

Each winning team demonstrated an accom-plishment that solved a problem brought onby a lack of standardization among the military services


AUGUST–2001 19

Thomas Broadhurst (NAVAIR),Robert A. Gibler (Air Force),Donald J. Sedor (Air Force),Timothy Hughes (Army), HarlanHammond (Lockheed Martin), andGordon Neary (Boeing) managedthe development of a set of eightseparate guides addressing AirSystems, Air Vehicles, Avionics,Engines, Air Vehicle Subsystems,

Vehicle Control ManagementSystems, Structures, and AircrewSystems. The team harmonizedcommon key aviation system andsubsystem requirements across theServices. In doing this, they iden-tified the detail requirements typi-cally used by the three Servicesand Industry and translated theserequirements into generic per-formance terms. The team pub-lished the resulting requirements

in a manner that allows programteams to extract and tailor thegeneric requirements into pro-gram-unique specifications. Use ofthe JSSGs will enable Governmentand Industry program teams todevelop procurement specifica-tions that foster industry innova-tion in meeting essential militaryaviation requirements.

In April 2001, The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,Technology & Logistics), Logistics Plans and Programs, released "MilSpec ReformFinal Report, An Ending:A New Beginning." This publication can be fully down-loaded from the web at http://www.dsp.dla.mil. Make sure to read the report!

1. Between Oct 23, 2000, and Mar 18, 2001, there were 594,357 logins to ASSIST.2.Three of the top 25 documents most requested by users to be alerted of changes are

cancelled documents (MIL-STD-105, MIL-STD-973 and MIL-I-45208).3.The most popular Standardization Area/FSC requested by alert service users is QCIC.4.There are 195 preparing activities in ASSIST.

The next time there is a lull in the conversation around the dinner table or on a date, here are some fun facts about ASSIST that are sure to spice things up.

ASSIST Fun Facts

Continued from previous page


Most people in the stan-dards community wouldagree that making "stan-

dards" sound sexy or even interest-ing to outsiders is a great PR chal-lenge. And yet, the results of stan-dards programs—increased coop-eration, higher profits, reducedspending and waste, and enhancedperformance—grab headlines inmany of the most widely readbusiness journals.

"It’s frustrating," admitsGregory E. Saunders, ANSI boardmember and Director of theDefense Standardization ProgramOffice (DSPO), the organizationwithin the Department of Defense(DoD) credited with working withthe private-sector to convert thou-sands of military specifications orMilSpecs (a government term forstandards) to voluntary consensusstandards. "Standards people arenot recognized for their contribu-tions to industry or their country.We initiated the DefenseStandardization ProgramAchievement Awards to honorthose individuals and groupswhose work has led to greatermission readiness, improved oper-ational capability, and reducedcosts for the U. S. military and itsallies."

The winners of the 2000Defense Standardization ProgramAchievement Awards were hon-ored for their contributions tonational security during a ceremo-ny on April 12, 2001, at thePentagon in Washington, D. C.Meeting the award criteria requireda significant contribution toenhanced technical performancewhile simultaneously reducinggovernment spending. TheSpecifications Development Team

of the Defense Supply Center,Philadelphia, was one of the win-ners that met this complex andlofty goal. They did so by con-verting 868 government standardsto voluntary consensus standardsand inactivating over 2,000MilSpecs, which led to an estimat-ed savings of $32 million USD forthe DoD—and taxpayers.

An award of this caliber to amilitary agency that used voluntaryconsensus standards as a formulafor success emphasizes the govern-ment’s increasing reliance on pri-vate-sector standardization to real-

ize two of the primary objectivesof the DSP—reduced spendingand enhanced performance. "Thevalue of converting MilSpecs tovoluntary standards," explainsSaunders, "is that it achieves inte-gration within the commercial mar-ketplace and allows the DoD todraw its needs from a commercialindustrial base rather than a DoD-funded base. Working with indus-try on performance-based stan-dards helps to relieve the engi-neering crunch that we face.Moving documents for commonproducts to the public sector bene-fits everyone in that both govern-ment and contractor leverage theirtechnical resources by working inthe same forum."

Standardization is one of thetools that the DoD uses to ensure

a level playing field for competi-tion among independent contrac-tors. In order to buy from a com-mercial marketplace more effec-tively, the DoD had to work withthe private-sector contractors tostreamline its standards and makethem consistent across governmentand private-sector lines.Saunders pointed out that achiev-ing these goals is the work of veryspecial people who are not onlytechnically competent, but theirspecialized work demands thatthey be "persuasive, concise,diplomatic, persistent and

patient"—attributes that, while notsexy, are certainly worthy of inter-est and recognition. And, at leasta headline or two.

(Reprinted with permission fromANSI REPORTER)

Voluntary Consensus Standards Win Over the Department of Defense

They did so by converting 868 governmentstandards to voluntary consensus standardsand inactivating over 2,000 MilSpecs, whichled to an estimated savings of $32 millionUSD for the DoD—and taxpayers.


The Defense Standardization Program Office (DSPO) recently completed six case studies aimed at demon-strating the benefits of standardization practices. These case studies, targeted for educational and promo-tional purposes within DoD, encompass such vital standardization issues as non-government standards use,market research exploration and strategic standardization application. These case studies can be accessedat the DSPO Web Site (www.dsp.dla.mil) or you may contact Judy Ireland to request printed copies bycalling 703-767-6888, or e-mailing [email protected]

Conversion of MIL-STD-100 to a Non-Government StandardDiscusses the development of a non-government standard to replace MIL-STD-100, Engineering DrawingPractices. Development of a fully acceptable replacement standard required interaction among the MilitaryServices, non-government standard bodies, industry, and other government agencies. The replacement ofMIL-STD-100 demonstrates the complex process that is necessary to realize the goals of acquisition reform.The greatest obstacle was the natural human aversion to change, requiring persuasion and compromise toreach a broad consensus. This conversion illustrates important lessons in building a partnership betweenthe military and industry to find a mutually satisfactory solution.

Aircraft Batteries and ComponentsIllustrates how the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Crane Division, achieved cost avoidancesthroughout the Military Services by applying design improvements across several aircraft battery systemsand related equipment. At the same time, this effort contributed to aircraft reliability and mission readi-ness.

NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS)Demonstrates the far-reaching benefits of strategic standardization. One military system, the NAVSTAR(Navigation Satellite Timing and Ranging) GPS helped transform military strategy and logistics, affectedmany commercial industries, and became the worldwide standard for navigation. GPS, the largest avionicsprocurement and installation program in DoD’s history, illustrates how strategic standardization can haveglobal impact.

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff MissileIllustrates the application of important standardization practices including strategic standardization, marketresearch, and item commonality. This study exemplifies how the Air Force and Navy worked together toapply innovative technology to produce a next-generation missile, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.

Navy Self-Contained Breathing ApparatusPoints out how the Navy applied market research to achieve significant qualitative and quantitative benefitsby using a standard commercial product for self-contained breathing apparatus acquisition.

Mechanically Attached Pipe FittingsDemonstrates how the Navy’s mechanically attached fitting (MAF) life-cycle manager chose to work withindustry to develop a single non-government standard for MAF testing which increased competition, stimu-lated innovation and helped drive down unit costs in the shipboard piping system arena.

DSPO plans on continuing to focus on standardization activities that demonstrate how our program assistsin achieving improved productivity, greater cost reductions, and enhanced interoperability. Within the nextfew weeks we will begin reviewing current standardization award winners for possible case study develop-ment. Since award winners are only one source for study candidates, please let us know of a noteworthystandardization effort that is fertile for further review.

Defense Standardization Program Office Case Studiesby Trudie Williams,

Defense Standardization Program Office


Have you ever walkedthrough a spray mistcooling station at an

amusement park, fair, or out-door summer festival? Spraycooling of electronic componentsworks in much the same way.

The use of Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) electronics in mili-tary systems has become a factof life. Because the militaryhas become such a minor cus-tomer, it has lost most of itsleverage to drive design ofthese products. There hasbeen a large reduction in thenumber of manufacturers will-ing or able to supply "ruggedi-zed" electronics that will meetthe stringent environmental,reliability and space/sizerequirements of military pro-grams, yet the military must stilldeploy the most capable sys-tems possible in these harshenvironments. So we have hadto look for innovative ways tomeet the demands with thecomponents that are available.

Military system designersuse two basic techniques todeal with the problem. One isto seek out vendors who offerruggedized products that aredesigned to meet the harshrequirements and build the sys-tem in a traditional enclosure.This approach often works, butthere are many limiting prob-lems, such as very few sourcesfor critical parts, tight design

tolerances, and mechanical/material issues. Enclosures forthese systems offer some pro-tection from the external envi-ronment, but are often limitedto the level that the ruggedizedcomponents can tolerate.

The other approach is todesign enclosure-based protec-tion for the off-the-shelf prod-ucts so that the demandingexternal environment doesn’taffect the more delicate internalelectronic parts. The enclosure,in this case, becomes morethan just a box to hold theparts together and serve as astatic heat sink. This enclosurefunctions as a key element ofthe total system solution.

One of the major challengesin designing such an enclosureis thermal management. AsFIGURE 1 shows, there is atrend for increasing power den-sities in emerging electronictechnology. However, tradi-tional cooling techniques great-

ly limit the choice of compo-nents available to the militarysystem designer.

There are some enablingtechnologies on the horizonthat look promising for COTSinsertions in military systems.The Defense StandardizationProgram Office (DSPO) has ini-tiated an investigation of apromising technology calledspray cooling. Spray cooling isa technique where a mist ofinert liquid coolant is directedupon the components inside asealed enclosure by pumps andnozzles. The vapor generatedafter the liquid contacts the hotcomponents can be condensedon the chassis walls, or in aremote heat exchanger. Heatremoved to the chassis walls isexternally carried through natu-ral or forced convection. In thecase of a remote heat exchang-er, air is forced over the heatexchanger core in order toreject the heat. See FIGURE 2

Keeping Cool In The Military

FIGURE 1. Chip/Component Level Trends

Gerald W. Thomas, CNIN, NSWC Crane Division, Navy

AUGUST–2001 23

for a typical system diagram.One of the promising attrib-

utes of this system is that aCOTS module can be used withno special modificationsrequired. In some cases, boarddesigners have taken advantageof this technology and eliminat-ed redundant items such asheat sinks and on-componentfans, adding the additional ben-efit of size and weight reduc-tion of the system.

The DSPO has tasked NavalSurface Weapons Center(NSWC), Crane Division, toevaluate the suitability of thistechnology in military systems.A market survey by NSWC,Crane, identified one source,Isothermal Systems Research(ISR), in Clarkston, WA, as theonly provider of spray coolingsystems that has a productioncapacity. This poses some riskas far as systems availability isconcerned. However, ISR hasin place a risk mitigation planthat covers the possibility of aproduction shortfall. They areable to subcontract for the nec-essary surge production capaci-ty to meet a sudden demand forthis technology. The companyhas progressed from an initialR&D project with the Air Forcein 1998, to supplying productsfor government agencies includ-ing National Security Agency(NSA), Defense AdvancedResearch Projects Agency(DARPA), Navy, NationalScience Foundation (NSF), andNational Institute of Standardsand Technology (NIST). Theyhave also acquired major SmallBusiness Innovation Research(SBIR) contracts with theMarine Corps AAAV (FIGURE 3)and EA6B programs.

NSWC, Crane, began their

FIGURE 2. Closed-Loop Spray Cooling System.

FIGURE 3. Marine Corps Spray Cooled Chassis/Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle.


217, "Reliability Prediction ofElectronic Equipment," usecomputed or measured valuefor temperature of heat produc-ing parts such as microcircuitsand discrete power semicon-ductors. Components such aspassive parts that produce littleor no heat are assumed tooperate at the ambient temper-ature of the module or system.

In the spray-cooled environ-ment, the operating tempera-ture of the non-heat producingcomponents is actually elevat-ed to the spray temperature.While spray cooling provides amore uniform temperature dis-tribution and a decrease in thetemperature of the active com-ponents, the increase in oper-ating temperature of the pas-

evaluation phase by acquiring aportable spray-cooled laborato-ry unit (see FIGURE 4) fromISR.

The objective of this phasewas to evaluate the thermalperformance characteristics ofspray cooling in comparisonwith a standard air-cooled VMEsetup. Early test results indicatea significant heat removal gainis achieved by employing ISR’sspray cooling technology ascompared to air-cooling thesame modules. The followingtwo graphs reflect the overallcomparisons at 24 and 55degrees C room ambients.

The next area of investiga-tion undertaken by NSWCCrane was to evaluate the effectspray cooling has on compo-nent reliability. Traditional reli-ability predictions conducted inaccordance with MIL-HDBK-

FIGURE 4. Portable Spray-Cooled Laboratory Unit.

AUGUST–2001 25

sive parts will impact reliability.Although the effect of increasedtemperature on the passivecomponents will yield adecrease in mean time betweenfailures (MTBF) at the compo-nent level, it is yet to be deter-mined how this will effect theoverall module reliability.NSWC Crane component/relia-

bility experts are in the processof modeling the reliability ofCOTS modules slated fordeployment in a spray-cooledmilitary application. The pur-pose of this reliability predic-tion exercise is to quantify theeffect on system reliability of aconstant operating temperatureprovided by spray cooling.

This report will be availablethrough the DSP by late July.The technical point-of-contactfor this project is GerryThomas, NSWC, Crane (812-854-1797).Gerry Thomas may be contactedat [email protected], orat 812-854-1797

The Defense StandardizationProgram Office (DSPO) is fullyparticipating in the events ofALE week, starting with the bigevent at the campus of theDefense Acquisition University,Fort Belvoir, Virginia, onSeptember 10. All DoDemployees are encouraged tovisit the displays and exhibitsthat will line Belvoir Road infront of the main DAU building.

The DSPO will host an exhibitof the new Spray CoolantSystem, developed by the Navyat their Crane, Indiana, facility (see previous article).Also exhibited will be a laptoppresentation of the new ItemReduction Website CapabilitySystem (IRWSC). The IRWSCenhances the review, coordina-tion, and evaluation processesthat will result in item reduction

studies being completed fasterand with more reliableauditable history records. It isestimated that the DoD willsave $500,000 annually by elim-inating paper output for itemreduction studies.

We encourage everyone tocome to the ALE Day at FortBelvoir.

Acquisition Logistics Excellence (ALE) Week Begins September 10, 2001, at Fort Belvoir


The StandardsEngineering Society(SES), in conjunction

with the World Standards Day(WSD) Planning Committee,has announced the theme,awards, and rules for participa-tion in the 2001 WSD PaperCompetition. "Standards andthe Environment" is the papertopic. All winners will beacknowledged and receivetheir awards during the annualWSD Dinner on Wednesday,October 10, 2001, inWashington, DC.

The author(s) of the firstplace winning submission willreceive $2,500, along with aplaque; second and third placewinners will receive cashawards of $1,000 and $500respectively. The winningpapers will be published in theSES Journal, StandardsEngineering, and be posted to theSES website (http://www.ses-stan-dards.org/). The first place winningpaper will be published as aspecial article in the ANSIReporter (online at:http://www.ansi.org/).

The paper competition,open only to US-based organi-zations and individuals, isintended to focus on the over-all theme of the general topicand specifically illustrate issues,concerns, and applications ofstandards vis-à-vis our environ-ment. While "the environment"often is viewed in narrow

terms, e.g., air and/or waterpollution, topics to beaddressed can be much broad-er in scope. Papers mayexplore such ideas as: volun-tary standards vs. governmentregulations; domestic standardsin a global environment; envi-ronmentally friendlyproduct/process/quality stan-

dards and their benefit oradded cost to consumers; andeconomic impact of environ-mental standards upon indus-try. Other arguments related tothe topic are welcome.A panel of independent judgesselected by SES and approvedby the WSD PlanningCommittee will review thepapers. The SES ExecutiveDirector must receive all sub-missions and accompanyingofficial entry forms by August31, 2001. Entry forms, alongwith a complete set of rulesand eligibility requirements,can be obtained from the SESOffice, 13340 SW 96th Avenue,Miami, FL 33176; (305) 971-4798; fax (305) 971-4799;email: [email protected] through the SES Home Page:http://www.ses-standards.org/

Established in 1947, theStandards Engineering Societyis a not-for-profit professionalmembership society whosemission is to promote the useof standards and to enhancethe knowledge of standardiza-tion. It is the member bodyfor the United States andCanada in the International

Federation of Standards Users(IFAN) and is accredited by theAmerican National StandardsInstitute (ANSI). SES membersare primarily involved in theapplication and use of compa-ny, government, national,regional, and internationalstandards.

World Standards Day Paper Contestentry forms and requirements, canbe obtained from the SES Office,13340 SW 96th Avenue, Miami,FL 33176; (305) 971-4798; fax(305) 971-4799; email: [email protected] or throughthe SES Home Page:http://www.ses-standards.org/

World Standards Day Paper Competition

...intended to focus on the overall theme ofthe general topic and specifically illustrateissues, concerns, and applications of stan-dards vis-à-vis our environment.

AUGUST–2001 27

Press Release, Washington,DC, June 15, 2001: TheAmerican National

Standards Institute (ANSI), a pri-vate non-profit organization thatadministers and coordinates theU.S. voluntary standardizationand conformity assessment sys-tem, has announced the appoint-ment of Mr. David Karmol as theInstitute’s new director of publicpolicy and government affairs.

Mr. Karmol comes to ANSIfrom his position as generalcounsel and director of publicaffairs at the National Spa andPool Institute (NSPI), a positionhe held for more than ten years.Prior to his tenure with NSPI,which is also an ANSI memberand accredited-standards devel-oper, he served as press secre-tary and special assistant to thedirector of the United StatesMint; general counsel for the CanManufacturers Institute; associatecounsel to the U.S. House ofRepresentatives JudiciaryCommittee; member of the OhioHouse of Representatives, andassistant prosecuting attorney inOhio.

"David is a highly talentedand motivated individual," notedANSI president and CEO, Dr.Mark W. Hurwitz, CAE. "Hebrings to ANSI a thoroughknowledge of the issues impor-tant to the standards and con-formity assessment communityand an intimate understanding ofthe system and its procedures.His track record of successworking on policies, strategiesand programs in close liaisonwith federal, state and local gov-ernments will be a definite assetas ANSI strengthens its public-sector outreach and moves for-ward with implementation of theU.S. National Standards Strategy."

Commenting on his appoint-ment, Karmol said, "I am veryexcited about joining ANSI andam looking forward to the chal-lenges and opportunities of bet-ter educating staff in the govern-ment at all levels on the value ofthe voluntary consensus stan-dards system and helping ANSIto advance the NationalStandards Strategy."

Mr. Karmol, who received hisJ.D. from the Ohio State

University College of Law and isadmitted to practice law inVirginia, the District of Columbiaand Ohio, will join ANSI staffeffective July 10, 2001. He willbe located in the Institute’sWashington, DC headquarters,and will lead and coordinate theefforts of an expanded advocacyteam consisting of two publicpolicy consultants, Ms. JaneSchweiker and Mr. Ray Kammer.

ANSI’s mission is to enhanceU.S. global competitiveness andthe American quality of life bypromoting, facilitating, and safe-guarding the integrity of the vol-untary standardization system.ANSI is the official U.S. represen-tative to the InternationalAccreditation Forum, theInternational Organization forStandardization and, via the U.S.National Committee, theInternational ElectrotechnicalCommission. ANSI currently hasoffices in New York City andWashington, DC.

For more information, StacyLeistner may be contacted atANSI on 212-642-4931.

David Karmol Appointed to Lead ANSI Public Policy andGovernment Affairs Activities

By Stacy Leistner, ANSI

The Office of the Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense forAcquisition Reform (DUSD (AR))and the Defense AcquisitionUniversity have announced theavailability of a distance learningcourse on DoD 5000. The course

is designed to accelerate communi-ty understanding of the principlesand practices associated with thisrecent major policy change.

Go to http://dod5000.dau.mil/ fora comprehensive overview of all

the new policies. The coursetakes only a few hours to com-plete and may be credited towardthe DoD acquisition personnelbiannual professional developmentrequirement.

Distance Learning Course on DoD 5000


Thunderbirds Celebrate 48 Years of Tradition The Defense Standardization Program salutes the standardization com-munity members that support the Thunderbirds. We thought we shouldprovide some real facts about the fabulous Thunderbirds.

•The United States Air Force Demonstration Squadron thunderbirds will celebrate its 48th

anniversary with a busy season. The team will perform more than 60 demonstrations in 29

states. The team will also return to the Pacific for the first time since 1994.

•The team’s first performance was June 8, 1953, at Luke Air Force Base, AZ. Since then, the

Thunderbirds have flown before more than 315 million people at more than 3,500 air demon-

strations in all 50 states and 60 foreign countries.

•“Our job is to demonstrate the professional qualities the Air Force develops in the people who

fly, maintain and support the aircraft,” said Lt. Col. John Venable, the team’s commander/leader.

“We are a mirror-image of every other front-line fighter unit in the Air Force. Every member of

the team is critical to the success of the mission.”

•The Thunderbird diamond formation, flying an average distance between 18 inches and 3 feet

apart, represents the skills and training of every U. S. Air Force pilot. “Because of the aircrafts’

proximity to each other, there’s little margin for error,” explained Major Doug Larson, left wing.

“With my canopy 18 inches below the leader’s wingtip, I have to have tremendous confidence

that he won’t flinch during a maneuver.”

•Watching a Thunderbird performance provides only a small glimpse into how 378,000 Air

Force professionals perform every day. “It’s an honor for us to represent the Air Force,” said

Chief Master Sgt. Michael Mlodzik, maintenance superintendent. “It means a lot to all of us rep-

resenting the quality of the pilots, maintainers, and aviation support people who continue to

make the U. S. Air Force the best in the world.”

AUGUST–2001 29

WASHINGTON, July 11, 2001 -If you read the newspapers orwatch television you are hear-ing a lot about the QuadrennialDefense Review. What exactlyis this QDR and how does itaffect service members?

The QDR is the vehicle DoDwill use to transform theAmerican military. Defenseleaders will use the informationgenerated by the QDR to shapethe budgets. DefenseSecretary Donald H. Rumsfeldhas sped up work on the 2002QDR so officials can use theinformation generated by themassive study in building thefiscal 2003 DoD budgetrequest.

In short, the QDR processwill address U.S. strategy, forcestructure and efficient resourcemanagement for the long term.

The QDR as it is configuredis a new creation. This is onlythe second time DoD has gonethrough the operation, but therehave been similar studies

Blueprint to Military TransformationBy Jim Garamone,

American Forces Press Service

before. During the first BushAdministration there was areview of the military thatresulted in the "Base Force." In1993, then-Defense SecretaryLes Aspin ordered a "Bottom-upReview." Both these studiestried to envision the U.S. mili-tary as it confronted a post-Cold War world. From thesecame the two major regionalcontingencies model the servic-es use as a force-shaping struc-ture. The Military ForceStructure Act of 1996 orderedthe first QDR and the Fiscal2000 National DefenseAuthorization Act made therequirement permanent.

Planning for the QDR inprogress began last year.Service, DoD, Joint Staff andJoint Command officials beganputting together the informationused in the QDR analysis. Theprocess slowed a bit while theBush administration formed.The President charged Rumsfeldto conduct a strategic review of

the Defense Department. Thereview is finished and theSecretary used the informationfrom the reviews to set theterms of reference for the QDR.

The final QDR product is dueto Congress by Sept. 30, 2001.The next QDR will be conduct-ed in 2005.

Integrated Product Team News

Greg Saunders, Ray Aragon, and BillLee are shown at the Albuquerque,New Mexico, retirement party for Mr.Aragon, who recently retired as theDTRA Departmental StandardizationOfficer. Mr. Saunders and Mr. Leewere in Albuquerque as part of theIntegrated Product Team ongoingwork.

30 AUGUST–2001DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM JOURNAL

By the time this publication has been delivered toour readers and posted to the web, I will have cele-brated three major American events – MemorialDay, Flag Day, and our own Independence Day.Because I am a real lover of Americana, we have alot of flag "stuff" in our house (and outside thehouse on an exterior front side is a plaque desig-nating our house as "Patriot House.") We trulyhonor the military men and women in our familythat have served and are presently serving ourwonderful country.

On Memorial Day, I celebrated with my family in acustom that is still around but doesn’t get a lot of hypeanymore. Our many family members gathered at ourfamily cemetery in the quaint town of Hillsville,Virginia, and on Memorial Day Saturday we decoratedthe graves of our deceased loved ones. The warfight-ers buried in this wonderful three-century-old cemeteryserved their country in the Revolutionary War, the CivilWar, two World Wars, the Korean War, and in Vietnam.I stood proudly on this hallowed ground and I thoughtof all these people and their bravery. I am free tostand in this very special place where my parents areburied, my grandparents, my great-grandparents, andmy cousins and aunts and uncles and all the greatsthat go with having a large family. I am free to viewthe mountains and the beautiful sights that mark thisspecial place and I can do this because family mem-bers freely served their country. I often think my workisn’t really significant, but on this special day I trulyreflected and thought of all the civilians like myselfthat work in the government and do the small thingsthat make it possible for warfighters to win. I feltproud! Former president John F. Kennedy asked thatwe serve our country and in 1966, I heard that call andwent to work for the Federal government. Thirty-fiveyears later, I am still here and feel even better that thework I do does make a difference.

We are now moving towards Veteran’s Day and asour standardization community members celebrate withtheir families, think about all the support we provideto the warfighters. We do make a difference and thisEditor feels very proud to work in this wonderful com-munity. Have a memorable Veteran’s Day and I lookforward to seeing everyone at the November 26-29symposium.

Editor’s Corner

Sharon StricklandEditor, Defense Standardization

Program Journal

Mind Your Life

"It's a very funny thing about life; if you refuse to accept anythingbut the best, you often get it."

–—William Somerset Maugham

Passings

•Farewell to one of our own.The DSPO family recently attended the funeral of our ownThomas Ballantine, who died in early May. We were very sad-dened to learn that he was gone, but we will always rememberhis humor and the fun he brought to finishing a job well. Tomcame to our office after serving in the Army DepartmentalStandardization Office and he left us with so many memories.

•The Defense Standardization Program Office was informedthat Carl Berry, a long time co-worker and former member ofthe standardization and data management communities, passedaway on June 10. He will be missed.