Future Mobility

Enhanced Mobility Edition

L e a d · I n n o v a t e · I n t e g r a t e · D e l i v e r

30 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD

See accelerate’s own WARFIGHTER ROUNDTABLE page 20

“ We have to be able to go anywhere in the world.”

— Army Chief of Staff General Raymond T. Odierno

accelerate | ENHANCED MOBILITY EDITION | tardec.army.mil

Legendary physicist Niels Bohr said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” Even though we can’t predict where in the world our military forces may be sent to respond to a cri-sis — and the changing fiscal landscape has the potential to affect ongoing research and develop-ment — these things are certain: If we intend to develop superior technology for future forces, we must start today, and our collaborative partners need to leverage each other’s skills, resources and knowledge bases to deliver advanced technology more quickly and efficiently.

TARDEC teams have devoted tremendous amounts of time, effort and intelligence to mapping out a plan for the future — a 30-Year Strategy. In alignment with the Army’s overall 30-year acquisition strategy, the plan serves to guide our priorities and creates a reference for collaboration — an opportunity to syn-chronize our technical discussion with each other, our PEO counterparts, industry and academia.

This initiative involves more than just reassigning tasks — our goal is to implement a cultural shift that fosters innovation, best practices and excellent performance. This may seem a bit ambitious in this period of declining resources, but we’re looking at capabilities with enduring value and relevance for the Soldiers of 2040 and beyond.

We’re making the strategic pivot to steer research and development in a new direction. That means we dump the “bolt-on approach” (which was nec-essary in a rapid-response environment) in favor of integrated, platform-level solutions designed to fit open architectures. Rather than focusing on single components with near-term applications, we’ll enable “designed-in” adaptability and integrated solutions with current programs of record.

To achieve our goals, we’ll need partners more than ever. We also need to follow a few basic principles:

Get out of our own way. We have to overcome obsta-cles to elevate our performance, unleash our poten-tial and relay knowledge across technical focus areas.

Conduct purposeful engagement with industry and academia. We must maximize partnering opportunities to achieve significant technological breakthroughs during challenging, budget-con-strained times.

Purposeful investment in human capital, labora-tories, and modeling and simulation proficiency. The Army is investing in new facilities here, such as a new Vehicle Characterization Laboratory and the Vehicle Electronics Architecture Systems Integration Technology Hangar. Assets like these, added to our Ground Systems Power and Energy Laboratory, give us a one-of-a-kind collection of world-class research and test facilities.

Although we are in the initial stages of development, our efforts are already bearing fruit. TARDEC is mov-ing forward to develop a worldwide deployable, operationally mobile, survivable ground vehicle capability and is prepared to provide solutions to the challenges set by the Chief of Staff of the Army to decrease the logistics burden and increase opera-tional effectiveness of ground systems. Additional value is seen beyond what we can quantify today. It includes increased communication, increased efficiencies, leveraged internal capabilities and purposefully engaged partners.

We don’t know what the future has in store for us. But we have a powerful vision to guide our journey. We’ll proceed with the knowledge that the nation needs the Army to respond anywhere on the globe with tailorable vehicles that can adjust to emerging threats and unpredictable environments.

Paul D. Rogers, Ph.D., SES TARDEC Director

The 30-Year Strategy and How We Get There

1accelerate | ENHANCED MOBILITY EDITION | tardec.army.mil

On the Cover: The quote from Army Chief of Staff GEN Raymond Odierno expresses this issue’s theme concisely. To remain the best military in the world, U.S. forces must heighten our advantage in mobility. TARDEC has dedicated itself to developing technology that makes that goal achievable.

Michael I. RoddinEditor-in-Chief

Enhanced Mobility Edition


20 Listening to the Warfighter A panel of experienced warfighters share their views on where ground vehicle development should go from here

28 Soldier Innovation Workshop Soldiers, engineers and college design students create visions of tomorrow

30 Working With Energy The Army and Department of Energy find mutual technical interests with potential long-term value

4 Exploring Future Mobility How future vehicles will maneuver with supreme agility

8 Burst of Power Pursuing Advanced Propulsion for Onboard Power — a leap in electric power generation Kimberly Cobb

12 Combat Ready PEO Ground Combat Systems moves forward with vital modernization efforts Bill Good

16 Energy Intelligence Academic partners could improve unmanned vehicles’ capacity to complete missions Dr. Tulga Ersal

DISCLAIMER: accelerate is published by TARDEC. Articles express the written views of the authors and not necessarily official opinion of the Department of the Army (DoA). If articles are reprinted, please cite accelerate, the author and photographer.

Reference herein to any specific commercial company, product, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by the United States Government (USG) or DoA. The opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the USG or DoA and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to: U.S. Army TARDEC, 6501 E. 11 Mile Road, Bldg. 200A, RDTA-ST, Mail Stop #206, Warren, MI, 48397-5000.

4

20 3016

8 12

2 accelerate | ENHANCED MOBILITY EDITION | tardec.army.mil

34 Wireless Recharging Engineers study wireless power transfer in the field, which could increase safety and ease burdens Dr. M. Abul Masrur

38 Blast Test Hub The military turns to Occupant Protection Lab at Selfridge ANGB to reduce injuries TSgt. Dan Heaton

40 CRADA Celebration VIP event spotlights impact of research agreements with partners

42 All-American Bowl Showcasing Army technologies and capabilities for students Amanda Dunford

44 rpm — Info in Brief TARDEC’s 30-Year Strategy, repurposing video game technology and improving HMMWV protection

47 Ask the Expert Explaining how changes in mobility research can lead to best possible off-road systems Dave Gunter

48 Five Things you should know about the Palladin Self-Propelled Howitzer

EDITORIAL ADVISORS CONTRIBUTING EDITORS EDITORIAL STAFFDr. Paul Rogers TARDEC Director

Magid Athnasios Executive Director Systems Integration & Engineering

Jennifer Hitchcock Executive Director Research, Technology & Integration

Dr. David Gorsich TARDEC Chief Scientist

David Thomas Associate Director National Automotive Center

Dave Taylor Chief of Staff

Derhun Sanders Deputy Chief of Staff for G2/3/5 (Security, Operations, Communications & Outreach

Michael I. Roddin Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff, G5 Communications & Outreach

Dr. Tulga Ersal Research Scientist University of Michigan

Dr. M. Abul Masrur TARDEC Researcher

William Good Public Affairs Office PEO Ground Combat Systems

TSgt. Dan Heaton 127th Wing Public Affairs Office Selfridge Air National Guard Base

Kimberly Cobb Editorial Support Ground Vehicle Power and Mobility

Michael I. Roddin Editor-in-Chief

Jerry Aliotta Managing Editor

Dan Desmond Senior Editor /Writer

Brian Ferencz Art Director

Rachel Ferhadson Project Manager

Matt December Writer/Editor

34 38

44

40 42

48


Crystal balls, Nostradamus and time machines aside, pre-dicting the future is, well, nearly impossible and the results are often terribly unreliable and impractical. Unless of course you develop specific criteria as one scientist has related in an article published by the International Herald Tribune. Theoretical Physics Professor Dr. Michio Kaku, City Col-lege of New York, states, “... the laws of physics must be obeyed and prototypes must exist that demonstrate ‘proof of principle.’ I’ve interviewed more than 300 of the world’s top scientists, and many allowed me into laboratories where they are inventing the future. Their accomplishments and dreams are eye-opening.” His bottom-line assessment — science will continue to be the engine of prosperity. TARDEC’s scientists and researchers, in close collabo-ration with Program Executive Office (PEO) Ground Combat Systems (GCS) and PEO Combat Support & Combat Service Support, and other key industry and academia partners, are in-venting the future to ‘predict’ what ground vehicle mobility will hold for Soldiers 30 years from now. A daunting task to say the least. Answers to the research questions being posed by this network of engineers cannot be reliably addressed through traditional straight-line trend analysis or current modeling and simulations algorithms. These approaches, though logical, are lacking because the data and information to support long-term research and development are uncertain at best, by design are incomplete, are continually evolving and are highly susceptible to emerging technology implosions and subsequent threats from hostile entities that have yet to be identified. So what does the future of ground mobility look like? This special mobility edition shows how our engineers are applying scientific techniques to create unique opportunities and risk assessments to address highly complex, long-term issues that will most certainly impact ground vehicle mobil-ity in 2040 and beyond. As they look ahead, multiple mobility options emerge as strong concept contenders, from today’s state-of-the-art to tomorrow’s art-of-the-possible. Join us for a cursory look at how our engineers and scientists are identi-fying plausible future ground vehicle system capabilities and potentiality, leading to alternative mobility futures and a host of potential breakthrough technologies for advanced Soldier mobility systems. Groundbreaking advancements in maneuverability are significant goals driving TARDEC’s 30-Year Strategy. Our lead article features the Mobility Demonstrator, a key Innovation Project that combined a diverse team of engineers charged with thinking into the future and examining how vehicles will maneuver decades from now. Our forward-looking partners at PEO GCS discuss how 12 years of combat experience have informed them how to make dramatic technology advancements that will modernize the Abrams Main Battle Tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle and Stryker Vehicle fleets to provide optimum support on a digi-tized battlefield to Armored Brigade Combat Team formations. Exploring the relational possibilities for managing energy intelligence in unmanned vehicles, Dr. Tulga Ersal, Assistant

Research Scientist at the University of Michigan and Center Research Integration Lead at the Automotive Research Cen-ter, is collaborating with TARDEC engineers on an energy intelligence system that allows a robot to self-determine its internal operating state based on external environmental conditions that impact its mission. The potential for applying this research to future military operational mobility capabili-ties is endless. Further, former Ford Motor Co. scientific lab researcher and current Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Fellow, TARDEC Research Engineer Dr. M. Abul Masrur explores the possible uses and challenges associated with wireless power transfer technology. Find out how “Integrat-ing recharge capabilities using wirelessly transferred power from source-to-load could significantly improve dismounted Soldier operations in remote locations.” Combine a group of seasoned TARDEC engineers, com-bat-experienced Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division and innovative industrial design students from the College for Creative Studies, and you have the catalyst for something magical. These diverse participants explored the conceptual requirements for an Early Entry Combat Vehicle capability for the Army during Soldier Innovation Workshop III held ear-lier this fiscal year. The group explored the concepts for po-tential vehicle interiors, suspension systems, hulls, weapon systems and turrets, vision systems and a variety of vehicle packages, among other mobility enhancements. An absolute must read, TARDEC Soldiers provided the editorial team frank, uncensored and analytical feedback during a Warfighter Panel about how technology can best support future combat operations. Their comments and dis-cussions relating to battlefield mobility might just surprise you. Based on their collective experiences as warfighters and logisticians serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan during the last 12 years, their experience from multiple deployments to theater in both urban and rural environments can help Army planners better understand how vehicle systems must re-spond to countless hostile scenarios and battle conditions. Last, but certainly not least, TARDEC Engineer David Gunter explains how mobility research is changing the face of systems engineering integration, and how TARDEC re-searchers are advancing the art-of-the-possible to improve off-road mobility for all ground vehicle systems. I leave you with this thought. Internationally acclaimed computer scientist Alan Kay sums up technology predic-tions, saying: “Don’t worry about what anybody else is going to do … The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Really smart people with reasonable funding can do just about anything that doesn’t violate too many of Newton’s Laws!” And that, my friends, is exactly what the Army’s ground vehicle community is doing — inventing the future of mobility!

Don’t Predict the Future, Invent it!

Michael I. Roddin Editor-in-Chief


Groundbreaking advancements in vehicle mobility play a significant part in TARDEC’s 30-Year Strategy. Innovation and forward thinking will play an essential role in examining how vehicles will maneuver with supreme agility in the decades to come.

By accelerate Staff

EXPLORING FUTURE MOBILITY


As the ground vehicle com-munity develops future sys-tems in coordination with

the Army’s 30-Year Strategy, U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) associates are exploring the realm of the possible with future mobility systems.

TARDEC engineers and planners are playing a central role in the wide-ranging endeavor to innovate and rethink the notion of mobility, escalating it to new levels of adapt-ability in any operational environ-ment. The concept process started with a TARDEC Innovation Project called the Mobility Demonstrator, and some of those ideas have spun into two other key projects — the Capabilities Demonstration 1 project (guided by the 30-Year Strategy), and the Ground eXperimental Vehicle (GXV) project TARDEC is work-ing on with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

“One of the guiding principles in the TARDEC 30-Year Strategy is developing ground vehicle capabili-ties that will fundamentally change the way Soldiers accomplish mis-sions and provide enduring value for the Army of 2025 and beyond,”

explained Dr. David Gorsich, TARDEC Chief Scientist. “Future mobility systems have to be f lexible, adaptable, agile and deployable in all environments.”

When TARDEC Director Dr. Paul Rogers kicked off the Mobility Demonstrator — one of the first advanced mobility projects — he prepped the engineering team with a simple but liberating message to spark their creativity: “Challenge the existing paradigm.”

“This effort challenged our engi-neers to think differently about future combat vehicle design,” stated Mike Blain, the Ground Vehicle Power and Mobility (GVPM) Deputy Associate Director.

That was December 2012, when TARDEC explored a variety of future mobility concepts that offered modularity, advanced drive trains and component commonality. GVPM engineers took a non-tra-ditional path, performing subsys-tem-by-subsystem evaluations as they delved into the art-of-the-possible. They looked at systems such as common chassis, wheels-to-tracks transformation systems, high-power-dense engines, advanced

suspension systems, electrified pro-pulsion systems, advanced energy storage systems and advanced ther-mal management systems.

“We started talking about: What is the art-of-the-possible for a future mobility platform that is about 40 tons in weight and component com-monality is the primary driver for the design?” Blain recalled.

As the team began work on concept evaluations, they received early design assistance from TARDEC’s Soldier Innovation Workshops. TARDEC has held three of these workshops since December 2012 that combine engineers, active-duty Soldiers and transportation design students from the College for Creative Studies (CCS) in Detroit. As students sketched future con-cepts, engineers began to visualize the feasibility of their ideas. “We created 145 concepts and ideations in three days,” Blain explained. “Not all were possible, but others made us think, ‘You might have something here.’”

SPINNING OFFIn addition, TARDEC is sponsor-ing a CCS transportation design class project to design an Extremely

Drawing by James Scott


Multi-modal Mobility vehicle for the future. This project focuses on capability demonstrations from the 30-Year Strategy that will inform expeditionary and optionally manned capabilities in urban and cross-country environments. The process will help shape requirements by capturing user input to influence TARDEC’s research, engineering and concepting efforts.

The idea factory re-imagining mobility has evolved into bona fide research initiatives, including the Capability Demonstration 1 project and efforts with DARPA on GXV concepts.

The GXV project has initiated sev-eral “seedling” evaluations involving other groups exploring the technical feasibility of advanced — and in some cases, radical — mobility con-cepts and performance assessments for a smaller, lighter, more agile vehi-cle that could move over previously inaccessible terrain.

“Operational forces have been limited in mobility due to the ter-rain they encounter, and TARDEC is helping to research how GXV could travel over different kinds of terrain,” explained Paul Decker, Deputy Program Manager for DARPA GXV and Adaptive Vehicle Make (AVM). “They’ve also looked at the traditional trade space and expanded research into what’s pos-sible. TARDEC is playing a key role in determining what future mobility and performance in military vehicles will mean.”

Virtual tools and techniques are already prevalent in these analyses. TACOM’s Cost and Systems Analysis Group has looked at operational vignettes, and computer-aided design (CAD) models enabling physics-based assessments allow researchers to test scenarios that a GXV may encounter.

TARDEC intends to continue work-ing with DARPA to ensure GXV moves forward as a program.

PRACTICAL MATTERSThe Mobility Demonstrator team looked into future art-of-the-pos-sible mobility-related sub-system technologies. Engineers investigated future technologies such as advanced suspension systems, wheels-to-tracks transformation systems, advanced power packs, novel thermal manage-ment systems, next generation power electronics and advanced energy storage systems. They looked for ways to overcome the primary lim-itation of high-speed travel over the

The bottom line is that this program has really challenged us to think outside the box and look to the future.

— Mike Blain GVPM Deputy Associate Director

Drawing by James Scott


ground — it’s more challenging than travel through the air because of the terrain’s non-uniformity. Advanced suspension systems that react to the changing terrain conditions with preview-sensing technology would permit greater cross-country speeds.

“Currently, our suspension systems jounce and rebound based on an impact,” Blain commented. “You hit a bump and then the suspen-sion reacts. If the vehicle could ‘see’ ahead, it could react to obstructions prior to impact.”

Another challenge for off-road travel is ground pressure. Vehicles with low ground pressure have the capability to traverse softer soils. One potential solu-tion is a wheels-to-tracks transforma-tion prototype technology, which can morph the circular wheel into an oblong track shape. This conversion would create lower ground pressure, allowing a vehicle to be less road-bound and travel off-road across softer soils.

Next, the team explored what ad-vanced power packs may be needed to power vehicles in 30 years. “We want our future engines to be much more power dense and consume less fuel,” explained Blain. “To get the power density we desire, potentially a completely new engine configura-tion may be required.”

Their objective is effective genera-tion of power, minimizing or elim-inating losses through inefficient devices or waste as heat. Future mobility will also most likely be highly electrified for greater control, efficiencies and capabilities, and re-quire highly efficient transmissions and novel thermal management sys-tems. The team envisions high-volt-age electrification for propulsion, weapon and defensive systems, but low voltage inside the crew compart-ment for safety.

TARDEC is already developing intelligent control for electrified

propulsion systems that offer other benefits, such as exportable power sharing, silent mobility and potential fuel economy though the intelli-gent on-off control of devices that continually draw power from the engine. “The bottom line is that this program has really challenged us to think outside the box and look to the future and plan for the next steps,” Blain summarized.

Wherever these concepts and ideas lead, we’re at the dawn of a new era in mobility. As Rogers has pointed out on several occasions, TARDEC has an opportunity to help the Army change the equation for the next generation of warfighters and funda-mentally transform the way we fight. Mobility is a core capability that will help the Army resolve challenges commonly encountered by land forces and achieve overwhelming superiority. ■

Concept from Soldier Innovation Workshop

BURST OF POWERThe never-ending quest for more electrical power to support troops and their missions poses significant challenges to ground vehicle designers. TARDEC engineers are pursuing a solution called Advanced Propulsion for Onboard Power, which represents a leap ahead in electric power generation.

By Kimberly Cobb

accelerate | ENHANCED MOBILITY EDITION | tardec.army.mil8


Increased consumer demand and dependence on electronic devices has spiked exponentially in recent

years, but is nothing compared to the explosive demand for state-of-the-art technology on the battlefield. Nearly all warfighter improvements, regard-less of how incremental, require increased power to provide Soldiers and Marines the most advanced tech-nologies available.

Historically, the solution set for pow-ering new capabilities was developing more powerful traditional alter-nators. Over the past decade, U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) subject-matter experts (SMEs) have worked tirelessly to increase alternator technology from the 10-20 kilowatt (kW) range up to 25-30 kW. Although 25-30 kW alternators are now available and are the short-term vehicle Engineering Change Proposal requirement, SMEs predict that soon even this pow-er-generation capability will not be enough to meet long-term military needs.

Researchers and engineers are ada-mant that the military needs new solutions that provide significantly increased electrical power for future vehicle platforms. Accordingly, TARDEC engineers are research-ing high-voltage inline generators under the Advanced Propulsion with Onboard Power (APOP) project. APOP integrates technology engi-neers believe will generate up to 160 kW of power. This new integrated starter-generator (ISG) technology sits on the drive line between the engine and transmission and is used for power generation, to start the vehicle’s engine and to boost acceleration.

“We can get by with traditional alternators today and with higher power alternators in the short term,” said TARDEC Electrical Engineer Kevin Boice, Ground Vehicle Power and Mobility (GVPM) Advanced Propulsion Team, Principal Investigator for the APOP project. “But that technology can only go so far. Traditional alternators pose sev-eral problems — they become diffi-cult to cool at high power levels, and they do not scale to meet the require-ments we will have in the future. To address these issues, we are develop-ing alternative methods, through the APOP project, to generate the much higher levels of power that will be required,” Boice explained.

APOP technology provides signif-icant benefits, because the huge increase in power generation will handle future Command, Con-trol, Communications, Comput-ers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. These technological advances will also help integrate advanced elec-trified armor and energy weapon technologies. APOP technology will operate large vehicle auxiliary loads more efficiently by increasing the control of cooling fans and air con-ditioning systems. Power can also be exported from the vehicle to support basing operations. This focus opti-mizes controls and efficiency, and enhances vehicle mobility.

A multi-year project, APOP will be completed in phases. During Phase 1, the APOP goal is to gen-erate additional power to support new vehicle systems and capabil-ities. Researchers are standing up a Systems Integration Lab (SIL) in TARDEC’s Propulsion Laboratory to develop advanced controls for

the technology. Once accomplished, engineers will integrate the system into a vehicle demonstrator and evaluate it in TARDEC’s Power and Energy Vehicle Environmental Laboratory, located in the Detroit Arsenal Ground Systems Power and Energy Laboratory.

During later phases, GVPM engineers will collaborate with TARDEC’s Vehicle Electronics Architecture team to develop com-mon architectures with reduced space claims and weight require-ments for Onboard Vehicle Power (OBVP) generation for integration into future platforms. Ultimately, this systems integration will reduce electrical box size and cooling requirements over the vehicle’s life cycle. APOP will provide signifi-cantly more power without increas-ing weight or affecting available vehicle space.

Opposite page: TARDEC Engineer Kevin Boice (left) works with Engineering Technician Gordy Hopper to prepare the Advanced Propulsion for Onboard Power system for another round of evaluations in the Motor/Generator Test Laboratory. (U.S. Army TARDEC photos.)

We can get by with traditional alternators today and with higher power alternators in the short term. But that technology can only go so far. … We are developing alternative methods, through the APOP project, to generate the much higher levels of power that will be required.

— Kevin Boice APOP Principal Investigator GVPM Advanced Propulsion Team


To prove the technology’s viabil-ity, the APOP team will integrate and test High-Voltage Onboard Generators on two vehicles — the Stryker and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV).

Following reliability testing, APOP will increase efficiency through lower fuel consumption, enhanced mobility, enabled power export and capacity for future capability growth. Specifically, APOP will:

• Provide at least five times the generation capability of current combat vehicles with minimum integration impact.

• Improve operational energy effi-ciency and mobility gains.

• Make electrified systems avail-able when the engine is off.

• Become a core technology to enable future grid connectivity.

• Increase TARDEC in-house capa-bility to test and evaluate OBVP technologies at the component and SIL levels.

“We will be developing two different demonstrators to support the APOP project,” said Boice. “First, we will inte-grate the 120 kilowatt [kW] architecture

into the Stryker Demonstrator vehicle in FY 2015, and then we’ll move on to the Bradley in FY 2016 where we’ll demonstrate the 160 kW capabilities in the vehicle in 2018.”

Future project research and devel-opment includes additional uses for OBVP, such as:

• Intelligent Stop/Start: this tech-nology automatically shuts down and restarts the internal combus-tion engine to reduce the amount of time the engine spends idling, thereby reducing fuel consump-tion and thermal emissions.

• “Burst” Power: this technology complements engine horsepower using the ISG to motor and launch the vehicle.

• Regenerative Braking: this tech-nology recoups some energy loss while the vehicle is stopping. This technology is used on hybrid vehicles that use both gas and electricity as sources of power. Recouped energy during braking is saved in a storage battery and used later to power the motor whenever the vehicle is using its electric power source.

Once these technologies are fully developed and tested, demand for them is expected to continue increasing as new potential uses are identified for OBVP, including using it to provide vehicle-to-grid power generation to power a base camp. Further developing this APOP capa-bility will support the Army’s mis-sion to reduce its logistics footprint and provide Soldiers and Marines a renewable energy source while operating in remote locations. Other potential uses are boundless and encompass basically any new compo-nent that can be put on an electrical bus, including electric armor or energy weapons. ■

Boice explains how researchers monitor the APOP system’s performance from another room near the test lab, allowing them to view the device on one screen and data on other screens.

We will be developing two different demonstrators to support the APOP project. First, we will integrate the 120 kW architecture into the Stryker in FY 2015, and then we’ll move on to the Bradley in FY 2016, where we’ll demonstrate the 160 kW capabilities in the vehicle in 2018.

— Kevin Boice APOP Principal Investigator GVPM Advanced Propulsion Team


Editor’s Note: TARDEC Electrical Engineer and Principal APOP Project Investigator Kevin Boice, Ground Vehicle Power and Mobility (GVPM) Advanced Propulsion Team, contributed his insight and expertise to this article.

To demonstrate APOP’s viability, the team plans to integrate and test High-Voltage Onboard Generators on a Stryker test vehicle. (U.S. Army photo by SFC Alan B. Owens.)

Advanced Propulsion for Onboard Power (APOP) system provides Onboard Vehicle Power. Integration of the APOP system in a vehicle brings the following benefits:

} �Electrical power to supply Current and Future Forces

• Provides power for existing C4ISR systems and Soldier equipment

• Enables advanced countermeasures, electrified armor and energy weapons

• Exports power to grid for contingency basing operations.

} �Optimizes fuel efficiency

• Generates power efficiently

• Saves fuel while idling

• Fully controls vehicle auxiliary loads

APOP Advantages


PEO Ground Combat Systems moving forward with modernization changes to Abrams, Bradley and Stryker.

By Bill Good, PEO GCS, Public Affairs

COMBATREADY


Over the course of the last 12 years of ongoing combat operations, the Army has

made dramatic improvements to all their combat platforms in terms of survivability and with a whole host of advancements as it continues to move towards a more digitized battlefield.

Unfortunately, through the course of all of those changes, our platforms have become heavier, less mobile and transportable, and are reaching their limits in terms of automotive capac-ity and power generation to support the vast array of digital systems that are now such an integral part of our combat formations.

As we take a look at the main investments in the ground combat vehicle portfolio that are planned in the next few years, a major por-tion of those efforts are focused

on restoring the automotive per-formance that has eroded as the Army added protection to their vehicles, and upgrading those sys-tems to allow for enough margin for future programs of record to be incorporated.

ARMORED BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMABRAMS AND BRADLEY ENGINEERING CHANGE PROPOSALSEvery vehicle is designed to have space, weight and power (SWaP) margins for incremental improve-ments to be made. However, recent upgrades to the Abrams and Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) platforms have sapped this margin and left little room for future improvements. To help alleviate these SWaP con-straints, the Army has launched Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) programs designed to buy back as

much margin as possible by rede-signing and modernizing many ele-ments of these platforms.

ECPs modify a system without changing the essential capability. That means the Abrams and Bradley will still maintain their classic appearance, but under the hood will be a different matter.

The Abrams ECP program will help ensure the Army can seamlessly incorporate other programs of record (PORs) into the Abrams well into the future without degrading operational performance.

The centerpiece of the Abrams ECP upgrade will be restoring the power margin through the integration of a larger generator, improved slip ring, battery management system and the new power generation and distri-bution system. The ECP program is

Tank crew members from the “Desert Rogues,” 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, circle their M1A2SEP Abrams tank in preparation for their qualification attempt during the Gunnery Table VI event at Fort Stewart, GA. The Army uses this event to certify that crews are combat ready and proficient at operating and maneuvering their tank and its weapon systems. (U.S. Army photo by SGT Richard Wrigley.)


set to posture the tank to accept the Army network components in the near term, while building the neces-sary margin to accept future capa-bilities in the decades to come.

Other major Abrams ECP upgrades will focus on communications, data transmission and processing, and survivability. The communications upgrade will integrate the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and Handheld, Manpack, & Small Form Fit (HMS), replacing the current sin-gle-channel ground and airborne radio system (SINCGARS). Initial Abrams ECP production is slated to begin at the Joint Services Manufacturing Center in Lima, OH, in 2017.

Like the Abrams tank, the BFV’s space, weight and power plus cooling (SWaP-C) limits have been reached within its current configuration.

To ensure the vehicle can enable the Army’s network investment and incorporate other Army PORs with-out further degrading operational performance, engineers will make basic improvements as part of the upcoming Bradley ECP program.

The current Army plan breaks the Bradley ECP changes into two iter-ations. ECP 1 is designed to address weight with early delivery of mature products. It includes four capabilities:

• Extended life track.

• Heavyweight track designed to handle larger vehicle weights.

• Heavyweight torsion bars that restore ground clearance lost to increased weight, improving cross-country mobility and under-belly blast protection.

• Improved durability road arms

and shock absorbers designed to reduce operating costs and main-tenance intervals at increased vehicle weights.

ECP 2 focuses on meeting electric power generation and computing requirements for network systems. ECP 2 will include an upgraded gen-erator and power distribution system, but will also require an engine and transmission modification to ensure Soldiers will not lose automotive capability while powering network systems.

Computing and data handling capa-bility will also factor heavily into the ECP effort. The Bradley’s digital bus architecture will be improved by incorporating common intel-ligent displays, an improved slip ring, improved Ethernet switch and VICTORY computing architec-ture standards — all of which will

U.S. Army Soldier from the 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, pulls security next to an M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle during Decisive Action rotation 13-03, at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, Calif. (U.S. Army photo by SGT Eric M. Garland II.)


contribute to the integration and handling of the large volumes of data the new Army network systems require.

GCS plans to apply both ECPs to 10 brigades. Some ECP 1 components are projected to be delivered to the field during fiscal years 2014 through 2018, depending on future defense budgets. ECP 2 began the engineer-ing design phase in FY 2013, and is scheduled for initial fielding in FY 2018.

STRYKER BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM (SBCT)STRYKER ENGINEERING CHANGE PROPOSALThe Army is working on extensive upgrades of both the Stryker Flat Bottom Hull (FBH) and Double-V Hull (DVH) variants through an ECP program. The Stryker ECP program’s goal is to address current SWaP-C-related deficiencies within the platform and lay the founda-tion for success of future platform improvements.

“The Stryker ECP program is designed to give us the best of both worlds — the improved survivabil-ity and mobility that came with the DVH design, while buying back some of the lost automotive perfor-mance due to increased weight and electrical demand on the alterna-tor,” explained David Dopp, Project Manager for the SBCT.

The Army currently fields Strykers with two different hull structures — the traditional FBH and the improved DVH. That means that the ECP pro-gram has to account for two types of vehicles that look very different under the hood. All Stryker FBH and DVH variants will receive in-vehicle net-work and electrical power upgrades.

DVH Strykers will also receive a new engine and suspension, which will allow the platform to buy back

significant power and mobility. This change will also mitigate the mechanical power gap associated with weight and parasitic electrical load growth experienced over time. The new chassis, suspension and tires are optimized to match the new engine and significantly increase the vehicle’s mobility. Stryker ECP upgrades are scheduled to begin in late FY17. ■

AUTHOR BIO: Bill Good is a public affairs spe-cialist for Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems. He holds a BAS in Broadcasting from Siena Heights University and an MA in Public Relations and Organizational Communica-tion from Wayne State University.

An M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle delivers cavalry scout contestants to the range to perform live small arms fire at night while competing in the Gainey Cup Competition at Fort Benning, GA. (Photo by Marvin Lynchard.)

Soldiers dismount from a Stryker, which will receive upgrades including a new engine and suspension. These key engineering changes allow the platform to buy back significant power and mobility. (U.S. Army photo courtesy of PEO GCS.)


Energy IntelligenceRobot energy intelligence can improve an unmanned vehicle’s capacity to complete a mission. An Automotive Research Center team studied an energy intelligence system that allows a robot to determine its internal operating state and the external environmental conditions that could disrupt its travel.

By Dr. Tulga Ersal

U-M Assistant Research Scientist Jason Siegel consults with Prof. Anna Stefanopoulou.


Mobility is the main purpose and the Achilles’ heel of any ground robotic platform.

The Automotive Research Center (ARC) focused one of its case studies this past year on the challenge of enhancing mobility by giving robots energy intelligence.

Led by the University of Michigan (U-M), the ARC is the Army’s Center of Excellence (CoE) for ground vehi-cle modeling and simulation (M&S) sponsored by TARDEC. The ARC’s basic research portfolio spans a wide range: from vehicle dynamics to human-centric design to vehicle sys-tem optimization and to advanced materials, structures and power-trains. Each year, case studies from several projects are shared among researchers to foster synergy and reap benefits far beyond what a single project could contribute.

Because robot mobility is limited by the amount of energy that can be car-ried onboard, one of the key

components for enhancing mobility is to intelligently use their energy. For a robot to determine if it has enough energy to complete a certain task or mission, it must be aware of both its current internal operating state and also the state of the external environment that encompasses the mission at hand, including the effects of the specific terramechanics of the path, the ambient temperature and the thermal operating constraints of its batteries. The combination of this information provides the energy intelligence ARC researchers have demonstrated in this case study.

PLANNINGTo optimize robotic mobility, energy intelligence must be embedded into every step from planning through mis-sion execution. If the robot is given a search mission, such as covering a given area to search for hazardous objects, there are many different algo-rithms that could be utilized to deter-mine how the robot should cover the area. ARC researchers are the first to

introduce robotic energy intelligence into the planning of the mission.

The algorithms they use can be incorporated into any path planning algorithm to determine both the shape of the path, and the velocity profiles that will reduce energy con-sumption based upon what is known about the terramechanics of the mis-sion. This reduces the energy spent per distance travelled and extends the robot’s mission duration. “Our algorithms allow robots to accom-plish their missions in the most ener-gy-efficient way possible,” stated U-M Prof. Dawn Tilbury.

TERRAMECHANICSTerramechanics is the study of land locomotion, which is particularly important with off-road vehicles. Physical properties of the terrain — especially the strength and deforma-tion of the soil — greatly affect a vehicle’s mobility. A robot’s energy intelligence can be further boosted by incorporating physics-based

U-M research students John Broderick (left) and Steve Vozar test robot capabilities using an energy intelligence program.


mathematical models of its interac-tions with the terrain.

According to U-M Prof. Huei Peng, “Propulsion power is a large percent-age of the total power consumption of robots, and it is possible for a robot to completely lose mobility on soft terrain. Understanding through terr-amechanics how the robot will per-form on a specific terrain is a critical element of energy intelligence.”

Another element that affects a robot’s performance is the amount of energy required for turning, which can be as much as 14 times what is used for straight driving. Understanding this concept and leveraging it properly can mean the difference between the robot completing a mission success-fully or running out of energy. Prof. Peng’s group has developed validated models that capture how different soil types, turning radii, robot speeds and robot design parameters affect mobility energy requirements. His team is also working to make the com-putations run efficiently as real-time applications that will help predict the amount of energy required, and to improve the robot’s mobility when traversing a particular terrain.

BATTERY DYNAMICSOnboard batteries are currently the sole power source for robots, and the complexities and limitations of bat-teries — particularly those related to temperature — need to be factored into a robot’s energy intelligence.

If the operating temperature of a bat-tery exceeds its limits and overheats, the battery control system will tem-porarily shut down operation and enter into a cooling-down period. During this stage, the robot is essen-tially paralyzed. ARC researchers have shown that an example 1.5-hour baseline field-testing drive cycle can cause batteries to overheat, and raise the battery temperature from 25°C to approximately 60°C, which puts the robot into cool-down paralysis.

To address this problem, a team of researchers led by U-M Prof. Anna Stefanopoulou has developed and validated an electro-thermal battery model, as well as an algorithm that leverages this model to predict the voltage and temperature response of the battery. When the algorithm pre-dicts that the battery is about to reach unsafe temperatures, it limits the power drawn from the battery to thwart overheating, which allows the

battery to operate at its maximum temperature limit and prevents cool-down paralysis.

Results of the ARC robotics case study predict that a robot using this algorithm could complete a mission up to one-and-a-half times faster than a robot that does not use it.

TRACKING AND PREDICTIONAlthough actual mission execution may differ significantly from M&S exercises, the simulation predictions are still useful. In fact, ARC research-ers have found a way to fuse prior knowledge with the data from real-time measurements for a more accu-rate prediction of whether the robot has sufficient energy to complete a mission as planned or if compromises will be required to complete the task.

Professors Galip Ulsoy and Judy Jin noted that, “We may think we have enough energy to complete the mis-sion based on real-time data only, but that may be incorrect, because rely-ing only on the current data is equiv-alent to assuming that the terrain conditions are uniform and do not change. However, combining prior knowledge with real-time data will

ARC researchers track a robot’s velocity, battery power and battery temperature to predict energy availability.


provide a much more accurate pre-diction of mission energy requirements.”

ARC researchers have incorporated all of these models and algorithms into an integrated approach that could provide new capabilities for energy intelligence to Army robots. A TARDEC/ARC research team is working to transition the new tech-nology to TARDEC. The delivery of the ARC-developed M&S software for predicting thermo-electric bat-tery response is just the beginning of a long-term collaborative effort between the ARC and TARDEC.

There are many complementary efforts under way that can further enhance robotic capabilities. For example, Tilbury’s group also studies tele-operation interfaces for land robots with the goal of improving that capability. Additionally, William Smith, a Ph.D. student, is studying

the terramechanics of wheeled robots. Smith is a DoD Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation (SMART) Scholarship student who works at TARDEC each summer during his graduate studies and will become a full-time employee after graduation. This arrangement permits TARDEC to leverage his expertise and benefit from the resulting technology transfer.

TARDEC also has an in-house research program on terramechanics led by Dr. Paramsothy Jayakumar and supported by ARC researcher Dr. Corina Sandu from Virginia Poly-technic Institute and State University. The successful melding of all these research results will lead to improved robot mobility.

In addition to providing new energy intelligence capabilities for TARDEC robots, the new technology can be used to perform robotic trade space

analyses and help support informed tradeoffs for optimal performance. The models can help answer ques-tions such as whether adding another battery pack will help a robot per-form a longer mission, or instead add too much weight and negatively impact mobility. Ultimately, the answers to this and other questions will help TARDEC deliver better and more useful robotic platforms to Soldiers. ■

AUTHOR BIO:Dr. Tulga Ersal is an Assistant Research Scientist at the University of Michigan and the Automotive Research Center’s Research Integration Lead and the Dynamics and Control of Vehicles Thrust Area Leader. He has a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan in Mechanical Engineering.

U-M Prof. Dawn Tilbury with student John Broderick program a robot to increase its energy efficiency.


What has the ground vehicle community done right? What can it do better? A panel of experienced warfighters who now work at TARDEC gave feedback on those questions and others. You may be surprised at what they say about the Humvee, “parrot” drones and the Battle of the Bulge.

LISTENING TO THE WARFIGHTER

Soldiers with the 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) perform off-road maneuvers with light tactical all-terrain vehicles (LTATVs) at Fort Bliss, Texas, during a training exercise. The Warfighter Panel endorsed the concept of smaller, faster vehicles employing maneuver warfare tactics. (U.S. Army photo by SPC Steven Young.)


accelerate Magazine editors recently sat down with five TARDEC associates — four active-duty Army officers and one Marine who’s now a civilian associate. We lobbed a few questions at them to hear their views on how vehicles and technology could elevate our Future Force’s effectiveness in the field.

We premised this roundtable discussion with the Jan. 23 comment by Army Chief of Staff GEN Raymond Odierno, because it ref lects a recurring theme in the Soldiers’ observations as they speak about mobility and its essential importance in maintaining kinetic, offensive capabilities on the battlefield.

The editors want to acknowledge the National Defense Industry Association’s (NDIA’s) Michigan Chapter because we borrowed the Warfighter Panel concept from them. Each year at the NDIA’s annual Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium (GVSETS), the conference features a similar panel with unfiltered feedback from Soldiers and Marines who recently returned from theater. The conversation with our Soldiers (and former Marine) occurred earlier this fiscal year.

Here are the participants:

LTC Sherwood BakerQuality advisor with the Center for Systems Integration. Baker has a Mas-

ter’s degree in manufactur-ing and works with various product and project man-agers, depots and arsenals. He has also

worked in the Project Manager (PM) office for construction engineering equipment, and as a software engineer at Future Combat Systems. Baker is a Military Intelligence officer, who has served in intelligence assignments all over the world. He has deployed to Iraq three times and Afghanistan three times, most recently returning from Afghanistan in July 2013.

LTC Michael PowellPowell is the Acting TARDEC Mil-itary Deputy. Previously, he worked

in PM Trans-portation Sys-tems and was the Product Director for the Armored Security Vehi-cle (ASV). He previously had

a two-year assignment at the Pentagon in the Office of the Assistant Secre-tary of the Army (Acquisition, Logis-tics and Technology), and a train-ing-with-industry assignment with General Dynamics Land Systems. As a Major, he served as Assistant Product Manager for Light Tactical Vehicles where he managed the Up-Armored HMMWV [High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle] fleet from 2005 to 2008.

MAJ Chris OrlowskiOrlowski serves as Assistant Prod-uct Manager – Man Transportable

Robotic Sys-tem Incre-ment II in the Robotics Systems Joint Project Office. He began his TARDEC career in

Ground Vehicle Robotics and deployed in support of the Joint Robotics Repair Detachment in Afghanistan for six months. Since his return, Orlowski has worked on the M-160 Mine Clearing System and the TALON robot system.

MAJ Stephen TeggeTegge is special project officer on the Early Entry Combat Vehicle (EECV) program. EECV involves

Over the last several years, what we’ve done is trade mobility for survivability — we’ve got to get back in line. I need tactical mobility for the future. So we need to move toward mobility and figure out how do we sustain survivability while increasing mobility.

— GEN Raymond Odierno U.S. Army Chief of Staff


an air-droppable firepower platform and the next-generation close-com-

bat vehicle. He taught doctrine at Fort Benning, GA, at the Infantry Cap-tain’s Career Course, and previously

commanded Alpha Company 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment in Iraq and led a rif le platoon in Afghanistan.

LCpl Brock BraniBrani works at the TARDEC Soft-ware Engineering Center. Projects

include the MRAP Digi-tal Backbone. Previously, he worked with Special Operations Command (SOCOM)

on engineering changes for SOCOM vehicles. In the U.S. Marine Corps, LCpl Brani served as an Infantryman with Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 24th Marines Regiment in Iraq and Peru.

Q: Let’s talk about mobility. What did you find were the best options on the battlefield?

LTC Baker: The last time I was in Afghanistan, it was with the Special Operations community. They had a different mission. They liked to use the smaller vehicles. They can get in and out, they can be air-dropped, they can drive off the back of another vehicle. The Special Operations guys go way back where regular troops don’t go. But there was a gap in capa-bility. They had M-ATVs and they had the smaller vehicles but there was nothing in between. [Warfighters] are willing to sacrifice some protec-tion for more mobility.

MAJ Tegge: To me, mobility far out-does protection. I would have thrown away plates and equipment to get the mobility.

LTC Baker: The trouble with that is, if you have a casualty, you have a commander who has to explain to his commander, who has to explain to a congressman, who has to explain to the parents why that Soldier wasn’t wearing his protective gear.

LTC Powell: Protective gear is one thing, but when we start talking about vehicles, especially the HMMWV, there is a big tradeoff between survivability and mobility. As Major Tegge alluded to, mobility is essential because it enables vehi-cles to get out of the way of enemy attacks.

Take the HMMWV for example. Some would argue that we added too much armor on the side of a vehi-cle that was initially not designed to support that weight. It caused a lot of cascading effects associated with the suspension system, the engine and so forth. If you are going to increase survivability, you are also going to have to increase other vehi-cle components such as engine size

and transmission. There are a lot of increases that need to take place to go along with those survivability impacts.

MAJ Tegge: The HMMWV was the savior for my guys. I had the most Purple Hearts of any unit in my brigade but had no KIAs [killed in action] when I was in command because we were able to fight them more on our terms by virtue of using HMMWVs. We would take out our Bradley [Fighting Vehicles] and tanks once in a while — we used those when we had to go where we knew there were IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. When we took out the HMMWVs, we could drive through neighborhoods, we could whip through traffic, we could go anywhere, and we wouldn’t tear down their power lines. You could send three platoons in three different directions and converge on the objec-tive from multiple angles.

The key to survival was going to where the IEDs weren’t. All we have done by increasing our [armor] pro-tection and increasing the vehicle’s weight and height is limit ourselves to going where the IEDs are going to be. Yes, we will survive [a blast], but [the enemy] will make a big-ger bomb. With the body armor we lose the mobility. You have to take a knee, return fire and call in artil-lery instead of maneuvering on the enemy. Mobility gives you the abil-ity to fight smartly. In my opinion, the focus has to be on faster, lighter, smaller vehicles. You are not going to be able to hit me with an ATGM [anti-tank guided missile] or shoot me with a tank if I am going 70 mph and we’re in and out of the ter-rain. We wouldn’t have traded our HMMWVs for anything.

LTC Powell: One of the challenges we had back then is that we were basically armoring a “beer can.” We had the GVW [gross vehicle

The Special Operations guys go way back where regular troops don’t go. They liked to use the smaller vehicles. They can get in and out, they can be air-dropped, they can drive off the back of another vehicle.


weight] at a certain level and we had exceeded that weight tremendously by the time I had left that program office. The HMMWV was never intended to be used as a combat plat-form; it was intended to be a utility vehicle. As we look out to the future, whatever capabilities we come up with, we have to make sure that they are f lexible because we never know what that vehicle or platform will ultimately be used for. Just like we never thought that the HMMWV would be a combat platform, but it was used that way in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Brani: I agree with Major Tegge. Our base platform in the Marine Corps at the time in the city of Fal-lujah was the up-armored HMMWV and it wasn’t even the fully upgraded armor; it was the plate armor at the time, when I got in country. It still had a little bit of maneuverability but being in the city, you are still subjected to turning into a small alley and being shot at, or being hit with a complex IED attack. If we had to move a bunch of Marines at the same time, we would usually ride the Armadillo, which is a seven-ton plat-form with just armored sides.

Maneuverability was the biggest thing with the vehicles, but they kept getting bigger and bigger as we started leav-ing. The M-ATV [All-Terrain Vehi-cle] wasn’t there yet, but that would have been nice. Of all the MRAPs [Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected] so far, it’s the most proficient com-bination of speed and survivability. But it’s still a target compared to what

you could do if you have something smaller, lighter and quicker.

MAJ Orlowski: I was in Afghani-stan last year and two things: What I observed was units requesting just plate carriers — a [personal armor] vest that carries just a front and back plate. I assume that it increases their [dismounted] mobility — you get some of those effects back and you are protecting your core.

Second, we could see the effort put into route clearance, making sure the vehi-cles were up, making sure there were multiple solutions. The materiel solu-tion options would drive operational procedures. For example, there are cer-tain sensors that can only be effective if you are driving very slow to counter the IEDs. So now you have engineer-ing route clearance platoons driving [slowly] in kinetic operations, so you

need weapons teams with those forma-tions to protect them. The patrols that started with three or four vehicles bal-looned to 10 vehicles, all up-armored, and you are adding up-armored kits to them because the enemy was building bigger bombs.

MAJ Tegge: Our billion-dollar solution was thwarted by their $30 innovation.

Q: What are some of the chal-lenges with moving technology forward?

MAJ Tegge: We tend to validate everything through modeling and simulation and most of that is fire-power ratios thrown in a box. You never get to see how the thinking guy employs his resources. One of my NCOs [noncommissioned officers] at one point said, ‘If you modeled

A CH-53E Super Stallion assigned with Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 462 transports a HMMWV at Kajaki, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Oct. 7, 2013. Soldiers said that HMMWVs proved valuable in operations because of their maneuverability and agililty. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Gabriela Garcia)

Mobility gives you the ability to fight smartly. In my opinion, the focus has to be on faster, lighter, smaller vehicles.


the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans would win every time.’ Because you can’t account for how Americans used the tools at their disposal. People want something you can quantify. You can-not quantify human intellect and how they employ the weapons they have.

[TARDEC Director] Dr. Rogers is pushing that with these Soldier Inno-vation Workshops — bring Soldiers in and get their take, and you can build a core of information on what Soldiers want and what they see as best.

LTC Powell: I understand that we are focused on S&T improvements and advancements, but whatever we come up with, we have to think about the holistic and systematic approach to it and not just build a component, per se. You’ve got to determine how it is going to fit on the platform. We have to integrate it at some point.

Q: Does mobility equal survivability?

LTC Powell: I wouldn’t say mobil-ity equals survivability. I would say it could be a bigger part of survivability. I don’t think the two are equal.

MAJ Tegge: I have always said that there has to be an intersection. There is an intersection point somewhere so that the amount of survivability built into a vehicle does not destroy our ability to fight a fight. There has to be a break-even point where you stop the madness.

We are trying to fight a war without getting anybody killed but in the pro-cess we are losing our ability to take the offensive. We get attacked at their disposal — we just tend to survive a little more. The military is now start-ing to talk about the smaller, lighter vehicles — more transportable and

more mobile. At least the dialogue has begun. Maybe we’ll learn something from the way we’ve fought the last 12-15 years.

LTC Baker: Mobility depends on what country you’re in too. The roads in Afghanistan are, “what roads?” In Iraq, you had a more advanced coun-try with better highway systems.

Q: This sounds like a question of doctrine and how we fight.

MAJ Orlowski: I would not say doctrine, I would say JCIDS [Joint Capabilities Integration and Develop-ment System] — the way we procure systems is the limiting factor. The way the rules work is we can’t spend money unless we have a requirement.

It’s gotten so silly that — now this may be getting a little off track — we have thousands of excess robots. We can’t give them to units unless they were bought with dollars for Afghanistan — that’s the guidance. Unless a unit is going to Afghanistan, they cannot have robots unless they’re bought for Afghanistan.

LTC Powell: We all have our role though. In the PM shops, we can’t spend money without a require-ment. But you have DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], RDECOM [Research, Development and Engineering Command], TARDEC and so forth, you have organizations that aren’t requirements-driven organizations. As long as PMs focus on being the materiel developer and the research and development personnel — such as DARPA, ARL and RDECOM — focus on developing new technology, it’s a win-win for everyone involved.

MAJ Tegge: I’d like to see TARDEC build small, fast, light demonstrators — build several of them and hand them to platoons of Soldiers and ask them, “How would you use these

Soldiers from 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 7th Infantry Division, move to their objective during a live-fire exercise at Yakima Training Center, WA. Warfighter panelists said Stryker and the similar LAV have advantages as combat vehicles because they move Soldiers quickly. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Christopher McCullough.)


things?” And that could address the doctrine we were talking about. We have doctrine for counterinsurgency now. Counterinsurgency [COIN] should be f ly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants tactics that you apply in the rear echelon as you’re invading some-where. COIN should go the route of trench warfare. It’s applicable in cer-tain situations but we shouldn’t have an entire doctrine built around it. Let’s get beyond this.

MAJ Orlowski: It’s a collection of best practices.

MAJ Tegge: That’s what it is. We started talking about these smaller, lighter vehicles and the minute you pitch something like that to MCO [Major Combat Operations], they say, “How does that fit into the light-heavy Stryker concept?” It doesn’t — it’s a new concept. I would hope that technology can push us beyond this construct.

The Germans learned that with an airplane, a radio and a tank, you can revolutionize warfare and roll right over a trench. And they didn’t say, “Well how do we fit this into our World War I doctrine?” They took the technology available and applied it in a different way and totally revo-lutionized warfare. We’re still using that same doctrine. We need to ask, “Where do we go now? What if we went another way?” If we can build some demonstrators and throw them in Soldiers’ hands and say fight the other guys, then you can start build-ing new doctrine to better utilize the technology. That’s tech push — that’s what we need.

Q: Do we have the technological edge — do you have that confi-dence in the field?

Brani: Technologically, yes, we’re superior. But it doesn’t change the fact that the simplest technique of one person shooting and scooting,

and then hiding can render 20 people ineffective. One [enemy] guy can take a few shots, get his job done, then run away and do it again another day. They’re little mosquito bites that eventually lead to a sickness.

Q: What are your ideas on the platforms currently in the system?

MAJ Tegge: If Special Ops guys adopt a specific vehicle or system, chances are it’s pretty good, and they picked up Strykers. Rangers use Strykers on all their urban missions. We replaced a Stryker Brigade when I went into Mosul — my guys rolled out on mis-sions with those vehicles and they loved them. When they did their IOTE [ini-tial operational test and evaluation] in the 501st Airborne, I donned guerilla clothing and we went out in Kentucky and fought against them. When they employed the vehicles correctly, you couldn’t hear them coming — all of a sudden there was infantry everywhere. But the robust capability you have with Strykers and the amount of infantry you can put on the ground, and how quickly you can move them from point A to point B is well worth it. If you’re in a maneuver fight and need to get Soldiers to places pretty fast, they’re wonderful.

MAJ Orlowski: I would see them running around Kandahar last year. They looked like battle wagons and had multiple weapons on them. They were shorter than MRAPs and the center of gravity was lower. I rarely saw reports of Strykers getting hit — especially when

they had double-V hulls — and Sol-diers losing their lives.

Brani: I don’t have much experience with Strykers, but I have worked with LAVs [Light Armored Vehicles — a similar Marine Corps vehicle]. I’ve seen those things operate with just three or four wheels at most — you may have two shot off on one side and two shot off on the other side, and it can still move through about 3 feet of sludge, mud or whatever surface you have. They can still get the job done. But if you try to do that with a 4x4 or 6x6 MRAP, you’re pretty much immo-bile, and you may have to wait about 45 minutes to replace one of those.

MAJ Tegge: The funny thing about MRAPs is, sure it was considered an acquisition success, but the only guys I’ve met who really liked MRAPs were engineers who had to clear the routes, because they had to go where the IEDs were. We had to rescue a team whose [MRAP] vehicle got hit — they sur-vived. But we wound up in a sustained firefight getting them out of there and getting sensitive items out of the vehi-cle. We all survived. But guys like me who have to cruise around and fight all the time didn’t want MRAPs — they were just too much. They are a great acquisition success — the vehicle is good for limited things but they’re very purpose-oriented.

Q: How does implementing Capa-bility Set 13 (a communications package) affect operations?

LTC Powell: From a communica-tions standpoint, that is obviously important. That gives us the supe-riority we have. Blue Force Tracker, Force 21, all of those types of C4ISR [Command, Control, Communica-tions, Computers, Intelligence, Sur-veillance and Reconnaissance] items are key. It enables us to a do a lot of things our enemies can’t do. There-fore, it is a combat multiplier on the battlefield. Communication is key,

If Special Ops guys adopt a specific vehicle or system, chances are it’s pretty good, and they picked up Strykers.


and the packages we have are what we need. We are definitely going in the right direction in that respect.

MAJ Tegge: You’ve got to filter the communication sometimes because one of the problems you may get is leadership [micromanaging] the guys fighting the fight. When I am a com-pany commander, I don’t need the brigade command post telling me what to do — they are watching me on a screen from a UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] and they are contact-ing me on my direct internal com-pany network because they think I am doing something wrong when they aren’t even in the fight.

Communication is great, situational awareness is great, but there is a ten-dency to micromanage.

Q: Is there also a concern about carrying more communication devices?

Brani: I wanted fewer communi-cation devices. If we were going out for a few days, I had my big assault pack, if it was just for a day, I had a smaller pack. We limited the amount of communications we had to a few people in the squad — we still had two or three radios. Now they are coming out with bigger radios — granted, they are capable of shooting halfway around the world if need be, but if you’re in the city the last thing you need is something half your size to lug around with all of your gear. Being able to integrate multiple things into a smaller package would be ideal. With the technology, where it is currently, it’s not advanced enough to do that. We are working on it though.

LTC Baker: It is important, ISR [intelligence, surveillance and recon-naissance] for the platoon. When fighting an insurgency, you are out on the battlefield and what you have with you is what you have to fight

the enemy — what you carry on your back. The Special Ops guys would come into contact with the enemy, they may see four or five mud huts or something like that. They need to find out where they are, so they like to have small UAVs or some type of surveil-lance or reconnaissance on their own that they can carry on their back and just throw it out there and they have short-range communications. I notice the Special Operations guys prefer that — they make those quick decisions and that’s what they do best. Many maneu-vers need to be decided at the ground level. Communication can be short range.

Q: What do you think of technology aimed at situational awareness, such as small UAVs?

LTC Baker: Don’t most people want to know what’s on the other side of the hill? It also gives you an advantage — you can maneuver and engage enemy on your terms rather than engage on the enemy’s terms.

MAJ Tegge: The enemy will know you’re looking. But with something like a parrot drone — really small ones — they may not know.

LTC Baker: We had some that size — the British Army purchased them and brought them out to test them. They could fly up and you couldn’t hear them until they were feet away from you. That technology’s out there, it just costs money.

MAJ Tegge: Even if they know I’m looking at them, sometimes it doesn’t matter. With the parrot drone, you could control it on a smart phone by downloading an app[lication]. That’s my wish. The ability to know the enemy is right there — to click on a smart phone, zoom in on it, have a 10-digit grid hit call-for-fire app and now rounds are falling on that spot. It takes a second and a half to view my app and, bam, I’ve got rounds on it.

Q: Smaller is better?

MAJ Tegge: Yes. If I’m clearing a building, I have to leave a guy in each room to secure it. What if I had a smart phone or maybe an iPad in a vehicle outside that can be linked to all these little cameras that we can stick on walls? Because with those, I can carry 10 or 12 of them on me. I can leave them in each room and keep my fire team together as we clear rooms, and the dude in the vehicle can say, ‘Hey, somebody just walked into room X’ and tell us what to do. I can secure a building with-out reducing my manpower. If they already have that, that’s awesome.

MAJ Orlowski: Actually, the Infan-try School is working on that require-ment — it’s emerging.

Q: What are important develop-ments for future operations?

MAJ Orlowski: For me, it’s auton-omy. It’s sensor improvement, platform improvement, processor improvement, algorithm improve-ments — a lot of things go into mak-ing “Terminator.” The best way to do those types of things is highly dependent on certain algorithms and LIDAR, which is light radar. They send a laser scan out and map the area of interest. It’s highly dependent on processing power. I don’t think the technology is there yet — it’s not fast enough. A lot of smart people are working on it.

If we had the will and the money, you could have automated convoys go from base to base. What we’re not quite there with, yet, is if a 4-year-old kid steps out in front of an autono-mous vehicle, what is it going to do? But going from point A to point B, we could do that now.

Q: Do you ever see developments in the automotive industry or other technologies and think to


yourselves, “I could use that in a military application”?

LTC Baker: OnStar does telemat-ics — you get a report every month telling you, for instance, your oil has 28 percent life before it needs to be changed, and tracks other vehicle systems. They send a report every month. That kind of stuff is good — it’s expensive but it’s commercially available. If Soldiers see reports like that, maybe it could help them adapt their vehicles.

Brani: The robotics cases we cur-rently have are big, heavy suitcases with a monitor and controller. On the civilian side, there’s Google Glass where it’s just nothing bigger than your eyeglasses and it’s a whole video camera and everything. If we could figure out how to integrate that into a robotic system that’d be pretty cool, based on fact the user is no longer using a table-size platform vs. some-thing he wears right on his head and weighs only a few ounces.

LTC Baker: One of our prob-lems in the field is identifying the enemy. They don’t wear uniforms.

I would love to have a way to “tag” those insurgents with something they can’t remove, or it’s difficult to remove, within 48 hours or so, and then send people in to look for them. In my experience, a lot of insurgents aren’t from that area [they’re oper-ating in] anyway so they might go in there and threaten the locals. If there was a way with a UAV possibly to tag these guys — you don’t neces-sarily have to kill them — but when they go back to where they gather in their safe house, you can nab them that way.

Brani: In Britain, a police sting actu-ally did a test and proved the technol-ogy. They have a light misting product that actually dyes something on the [suspect’s] clothes and exposed skin for a couple weeks and no matter what they do, they cannot get it off. As soon as you put a UV or black light on them, they’re covered in green dye completely, clothes and all.

Q: When you hear about the 30-Year Strategy, how do you feel about that kind of long-range planning?

LTC Powell: I think it’s absolutely critical to plan 30 years out. If we don’t have a plan, we will never meet our long-term goals.

MAJ Tegge: Leading up to those meetings, TARDEC was about stove-pipes. Everyone concentrated on their own world. But during the meetings, the mobility guys were talking to the survivability guys, who were talking to the computer people, and the ana-lytics people were talking to the PIF [Prototype Integration Facility] people. Everybody was talking to each other and in one fell swoop, the silos were shattered. We all understand that we’re intertwined and there was a lot of hor-izontal flow of information happening instead just up and down the silos.

To piggy back on what LTC Powell said, if you look at any business lit-erature, any company that only con-centrates on five years out is doomed to failure. They all fail. Your 30-Year Strategy is like any goal in life: you might not achieve 100 percent, but at least you’re focusing on [a future goal] and being flexible as you try to get there. That’s what it represents to me — becoming more future-minded. ■

Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 508th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division prepare for a mounted patrol in their M-ATVs near the Arghandab River Valley, Afghanistan. Soldiers said M-ATV came close to an effective combination of agility and protection. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Joselito Aribuabo.)


Third Soldier Innovation Workshop Creates Visions of Tomorrow By accelerate Staff

A Soldier’s perspective and a designer’s creative touch are proving to be vital tools when

developing ground vehicle concepts. TARDEC’s third Soldier Innovation Workshop pulled together active-duty Soldiers of various ranks and back-grounds, primarily from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, design stu-dents from the College for Creative Studies (CCS) in Detroit, and engi-neers from TARDEC and other Army labs and research centers.

Dr. Paul Rogers, TARDEC Director, emphasized the importance of bring-ing innovation and fresh perspectives into the design process. “We’re trying to change the paradigm, get out of the typical development process and bring in new ideas,” he explained. “The insight and passion that the students and Soldiers bring makes this such a valuable exercise.”

At the latest session Dec. 16-18 — the third in a series of these workshops — transportation design students cre-ated more than 180 ideations propos-ing concepts within the requirements of an Early Entry Combat Vehicle capability for the Army. The group explored concepts for potential vehicle

interiors, suspensions, hulls, turrets, weapon systems, vision systems, deployment systems, vehicle packages, and cargo and storage systems.

Craig Effinger, the workshop’s Program Manager, said the exercise once again proved its value by giving TARDEC engineers an opportunity to think creatively and envision the art-of-the-possible. “It’s vital that we have this tool to help develop platform con-cepts and designs by getting opera-tional feedback from Soldiers,” he commented. “As we take this thing through the funnel, we want some-thing to come out of it, something that is relevant and valuable.”

SFC Parrish Smith, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC, appreciated the opportunity to participate. “Working with these student design-ers, and engineers, has been great. The designers are excited to do something

for the military — it’s refreshing,” he stated. “They have been receptive to our ideas — our input is very import-ant to them. I have been impressed with the level of work they have put into this.”

The CCS students also saw the value in working with the Soldiers while creat-ing their ideations. “Typically we do a lot of stylized work, and this is way more real,” explained Jordan Mielke, a senior in Transportation Design at CCS. “Working with the Soldiers and engineers provided us with immediate feedback, which was great.”

Aaron Smith, a CCS junior studying industrial design, said that he enjoyed exploring concepts related to hull design and weapon systems and being able to ask the Soldiers if a concept could potentially help them in the field. “We not only get to sketch the Soldiers’ and engineers’ ideas, but we


get to talk about our ideas and find out how viable they are,” Smith stated. “I like to think about how to use exist-ing technology without recycling the same old ideas.”

The second day of the workshop included participation from several Army senior leaders including MG William Hix, Deputy Director/Chief of Staff, ARCIC; BG Christopher Cavoli, Deputy Commanding General-Operations, 82nd Airborne Division; and Tom Bagwell, Deputy Program Executive Officer, PEO Ground Combat Systems (GCS). “They reviewed the requirements and provided feedback,” Effinger stated. “By getting everyone’s input, this pro-cess should help unify the Army’s approach to both mobile protected firepower and next-generation combat vehicle capability developments.”

Former TARDEC Military Deputy COL Charles Dease emphasized that the ideas and concepts generated at the Soldier Innovation Workshops will help the Soldiers of tomorrow. “You are putting your fingerprints on something that your son, your daugh-ter and your grandkids are going to drive in the future,” he remarked. “Open your minds and throw it all out on the table — no idea is a bad idea.”

Rogers expressed an interest in con-tinuing this process by expanding the partnership into the classroom. “I’m hopeful we can pull something to-gether between the Army and CCS and continue to develop these ideas in a classroom setting,” Rogers told them. ■

Top: Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division discussed the benefits and drawbacks of current military vehicle designs with CCS students before the students began sketching future concepts.

Warfighters and TARDEC engineers advise CCS students on the attributes they’re looking for in military ground systems. TARDEC has held three Soldier Innovation Workshops to inject creativity and fresh perspectives into future vehicle concept design. (U.S. Army TARDEC photos by Brian Ferencz.)


Reducing fuel consumption ranks as one of the most critical issues facing the military and the nation. The Army and Department of Energy are collaborating across broad areas of technical interest that will result in long-term mutual value to reach the ultimate goal — substantially increasing energy efficiency.

By accelerate Staff


The Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Energy (DoE) have demonstrated they can accom-plish more together through collab-oration than either agency can alone by taking separate paths to energy security and conservation.

To take advantage of their vehi-cle research and development (R&D) roles, the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) and DoE Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) were chartered to pool their respective resources to overcome technical barriers that will result in more fuel-efficient commercial and military ground vehicles.

“Collaboration like this requires common goals, equally willing partners and a great deal of trust,” DoE VTO Director Patrick Davis commented. “We have the common goals — we both are intently inter-ested in the development of advanced vehicle technologies to achieve our respective missions — and we both are intently interested in leveraging resources and capabilities.”

Davis pointed out the urgency in having the two organizations work with industry partners toward their shared goals. “We are still spending almost $1 billion every day just for the petroleum we consume. So this is an economic issue, this is an energy security issue and it translates to a national security issue. It is also about environmental stewardship,” he asserted.

The organizations collaborate in the following major programs:

• In 2011, the Department of the Army (DA) and DoE chartered the Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance (AVPTA) and since then, VTO and TARDEC have worked closely to identify areas of mutual technical interest

and collaborate on projects that will reduce energy consumption in commercial, passenger and mili-tary vehicles.

• DoE and DA extended the AVPTA enterprise to engage within the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP), an industry-government collaboration among heavy-duty engine manufacturers, medium-duty and heavy-duty truck and bus manufacturers, heavy-duty hybrid powertrain manufacturers and other fed-eral agencies, including the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency.

• The VTO Annual Merit Review (AMR) and Peer Evaluation Meeting enables TARDEC sub-ject-matter experts (SMEs) to review advanced energy projects funded by DoE for technical

accomplishment and future direc-tion. TARDEC SMEs participate on AMR panels that engage in peer interaction among academic, government and industry mem-bers who share and gain insights.

• Another potential area for VTO/TARDEC engagement is the Small Business Incubator Program. The VTO is launching this initiative aimed at high pay-off potential next-generation technologies and approaches supporting commer-cially viable transportation solu-tions, while also promoting small businesses and suppliers.

These partnerships help accelerate the transition of multi-use technol-ogy into deployment by streamlining R&D efforts. Through the AVPTA and the 21CTP, both organizations gain value by pooling funding, expe-rience/expertise and facility resources.

The Multi-Material Joining project under the AVPTA is working to overcome technology gaps that allow for attaching dissimilar materials to each other to achieve weight savings while maintaining safety in commercial and military ground vehicle systems. TARDEC’s recently purchased robotic arc welding cell allows for in-house welding experimentation and process development. (U.S. Army TARDEC photo.)


Collaboration also establishes com-munication paths that enable aware-ness of ongoing activities within the respective organizations and the broader technical communities with which they interface.

TARDEC Director Dr. Paul Rogers echoed Davis’s remarks, adding that DoD’s relationship with DoE will allow the ground vehicle community to replicate the advanced technol-ogies that help the Army achieve its long-term energy efficiency goals. “It’s incumbent upon us in the science and technology [S&T] community to work with industry to mature and transition the advanced technologies this community has developed,” Rogers explained. “Continued collaboration is an effective way to learn each other’s mutual interests, identify dual-use

opportunities, and leverage research and development resources as bud-gets get tighter.”

AVPTAThe AVPTA portfolio contains 13 ongoing projects across seven tech-nology focus areas that include Light-Weight Structures and Materials, Energy Recovery and Thermal Management, Electrified Propulsion Systems, and Energy Storage and Batteries. While the AVPTA pursues these projects in an effort to increase future fuel efficiency, the military must also consider commercially available technology and supply chains to develop solutions required for its unique applications and per-formance requirements.

Two notable ongoing AVPTA projects are Light-Weight Vehicle Structures

and Fuel Bulk Modulus. Within the Light-Weight Structures project a trade-off study was conducted that recommended material substitution for the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) turret enabling significant weight savings. A prototype light-weight turret may be demonstrated in mid- to late 2014. The Fuel Bulk Modulus project has led to the development of five fuel properties test rigs that will be supplied to DA and DoE laborato-ries to conduct round robin testing. Possibly as important as the results of these AVPTA projects, working on these programs enabled the organiza-tions to refine their methods of col-laborating and combining resources, Davis remarked.

“For me, one of the most satisfying aspects of the partnership is the way we both have been able to set aside

TARDEC-DoE projects like the 21st Century Truck Partnership should help the Army meet long-range energy efficiency goals for its truck fleets. “Continued collaboration is an effective way to … leverage research and development resources as budgets get tighter,” TARDEC Director Dr. Paul Rogers said. (U.S. Army photo by SSG Cynthia Spalding.)


whatever differences we have to truly work together, pooling resources to achieve success,” he added.

An integral AVPTA partnership component is the VTO AMR, where the advanced energy proj-ects funded by DoE are reviewed for technical accomplishment and future direction. “This is a critical path element for AVPTA sustain-ment,” explained TARDEC National Automotive Center Senior Engineer Scott Schramm. “The Annual Merit Review exposes TARDEC to a broader technology community and, in turn, allows for broader communications.”

21CTPTARDEC and DoE VTO continue their collaborative efforts through the 21CTP, which focuses on the fol-lowing key technology areas:

• Engine systems

• Heavy-duty hybrids

• Vehicle power demands

• Idle reduction

• Efficient operations

Subtopics include intelligent trans-portations systems, crash avoidance, parasitic loss and idle reductions. The Army’s primary logistics bur-den is shipping fuel and water to forward-deployed operational forces in war zones and remote locations. Through joint programs that exam-ine how to make heavy-duty com-mercial trucks more fuel efficient, the Army can transfer those technologies to its work/administrative use vehi-cles on U.S. bases and, after further reliability and performance demon-strations, to its tactical and combat vehicles in the field.

TARDEC recently hosted the 21CTP Fall Meeting that provided

government and industry represen-tatives a forum to identify candidate areas of mutual technical interest to create the foundation for more proactive DoD engagement and partnership participation. “These semi-annual 21CTP on-site meetings are excellent opportunities for host organizations to interact with an important national transportation sector,” Davis noted. “I was pleased that TARDEC could host the Fall meeting and provide their military perspective to the heavy vehicle industry.”

TARDEC’s Rogers stressed that the Army can define its challenges, but it needs industry partners, such as the transportation industry represen-tatives attending the 21CTP confer-ence, to help deliver solutions. “The laboratory is an important place for us to get together and have this dia-logue, and we are taking full advan-tage of it,” Rogers stated. “It’s our responsibility to define the military

problems and share with you where we think military procurement and capability are going over time. That was the purpose of diving so deep and putting so much energy into our 30-Year Strategy — to share that information with industry over the coming months.

“The better we articulate our chal-lenges and the better we articulate where we’re going over time, the more we enable industry to bring us solutions — affordable, timely solu-tions — that benefit our warfighters,” concluded Rogers. ■

COL Bruce McPeak, Director of Materiel Systems and Operational Energy for CASCOM, listens to TARDEC Engineer Daniel Maslach (left) explain fuel cell research in the Ground Systems Power and Energy Laboratory during the 21st Century Truck Partnership Fall Meeting. The collaborative event helped participants identify areas of mutual technical interest. (U.S. Army TARDEC photo.)


Wireless RechargingAny idea that could reduce a Soldier’s weight burden and increase survivability has merits. Engineers are studying the concept of wireless power transfer in the field, which would accomplish the above objectives for Soldiers and possibly lower life-cycle costs for the Army.

By Dr. Abul Masrur


Non-contact wireless power transfer technology — transmitting power from a distance to energize devices — has attracted attention because it could reduce the Soldier’s weight bur-den, ease logistics challenges and sig-nificantly reduce the risks a Soldier must take to power electronics used on the battlefield.

Wireless power transfer could involve a small battery that powers Soldier equipment or a larger propulsion bat-tery for an electric or unmanned robotic vehicle. Power transmission distance can be a few inches to several hundred feet, and possibly farther. Power levels can be fractional watt, to kilowatts, with the ultimate goal of advancing technology to accommo-date more. Power transmission meth-odology could also be magnetic field-based, inductive mechanisms for short distances and microwaves for longer distances. For line-of-sight (LOS) con-ditions, transmission could also involve laser-based systems.

This article will provide an overview of the technologies, their possible applications, the challenges and potential for deployment. In addition to untethered power transmission, advantages of within-vehicle source-to-load power delivery include easy reconfiguration of source and load locations, along with ease of repair and maintenance by quick removal and replacement of components.

INNOVATIVE RESEARCH YIELDS POTENTIALThe intent of early research was to wirelessly transmit power from one point to another within a vehicle, so that electrical sources and loads could be easily relocated or reconfigured without having to significantly rewire or redesign the engineering each time. Through continued research, we found that dismounted Soldiers who carry a range of electrical equipment may need to charge certain batteries more frequently.

Currently, Soldiers must carry multi-ple spare batteries to keep radios and other equipment operational, leading to additional weight burdens and con-stant need for logistics resupply. Eliminating this challenge and inte-grating other potential vehicular applications and recharge capabilities using transferred power from source-to-load is an innovation that could significantly improve dismounted operations in remote locations.

With Office of the Secretary of Defense funding, the Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) initiated a Phase I Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant for non-contact wireless power transfer. Completed in early 2012, this project delivered system hardware that was demonstrated in a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) environment, showing that power can be wirelessly trans-ferred from a transmitter in the seat to power a device carried by someone sitting on the vehicle or in the seat’s vicinity. This wireless power transfer device has compact packaging, and uses lightweight, flexible repeaters to enhance the power transfer distance as necessary.

Although the initial amount of power transfer for the Phase I SBIR was spec-ified to be small and transmitted over a short distance, the work’s success showed technical feasibility and that the scalability could be enhanced as an initial research endeavor, to the extent of 50 watts to 500 watts. Similarly, the power transmission dis-tance can be extended to around 10 feet initially. The research has signifi-cant impact, because the technology can be integrated to energize electrical devices used by dismounted Soldiers outside the vehicle and recharge other Soldier devices inside the vehicle. Work extension can lead to energizing batteries on robotic vehicles for both propulsion and delivery of power to other loads within the vehicle.

UAV Maintainers from F Company, 1-1 Aviation Regiment, Task Force Knighthawk, recharge the batteries on a UAV following a mission at Forward Operating Base Shank, Afghanistan. (U.S. Army photo by CPT Peter Smedberg.)

Integrating recharge capabilities using transferred power from source-to-load is an innovation that could significantly improve dismounted operations in remote locations.

— Dr. Abul Masrur TARDEC researcher


Applications for wireless power trans-mission for military operations and first responders are nearly limitless. For example, a Soldier in a Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicle could tether and operate a TALON robot from inside the vehicle. Currently, a Soldier needs to retrieve the robot to recharge its batteries. This poses obvious danger to the human operator, who must leave the vehicle to replace the robot’s battery. The danger is significantly mitigated if the robot can be recharged by fully wireless means — remote powering of its bat-tery for propulsion or catering to any other mission load.

The schematic diagram in Figure 1 shows the possible organization of various power and energy (P&E) sources and loads within a vehicle. The haphazard wiring system indi-cated is heavily dependent on the location or placement of obstructing objects (shown in brown). Typically, the source and load are separated by a barrier or obstruction. Now add a new load or new battery-powered piece of equipment to the system to enhance the vehicle’s capability. Because of the load’s location in this wired system, placement will require reshuffling or reengineering the equipment involved.

In many wiring situations, it’s not practical or possible to go around the obstacle because of its three-dimen-sional qualities. Installation can become a nightmare. But if the P&E sources could wirelessly power the loads, then the whole installation pro-cess becomes relatively simple. Metallic objects could potentially obstruct wireless transfer as well. This possibility can be mitigated by using relays where power can be moved in two or more stages, by using a relay-ing system to circumvent obstruc-tions. Similarly, if we intend to reshuf-fle any existing source or load, a wireless power transfer makes the job much easier.

Another challenge is wiring several variants of a military or commercial vehicle. Variants come with different equipment packages and configura-tions depending on mission or pur-pose. The number of sources, loads and placements could be different for each one. If the power transfer can be done wirelessly, power relays can eas-ily accommodate new P&E source and equipment placements in variants, avoiding expensive redesign of the power network. In this way, wireless power transfer can enhance sustain-ability throughout all phases of a vehi-cle’s life cycle, especially usage and maintenance.

POWER TRANSFERIn some cases, connectorless power can be materialized in the form of a regular power transformer. However, there is an air gap where the power crosses wirelessly from one side to the other. This is an example of inductive power transfer. Depending on the power level involved and the distance through which power must be transferred, the core can be made of a specific magnetic material, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Using electromagnetic theory and physics, scientists have shown that the efficiency of power transfer and voltage at the load end depends on the fre-quency of the AC source (correspond-ing to some wavelength), air-gap dis-tance, core material used and size (diameter) of the coils involved. If the core magnetic material of the core is completely eliminated (such as using air core), this constitutes a completely wireless transmission without any (solid) material medium in between. It should be noted that under certain cir-cumstances, the AC-DC conversion stage before the load can be totally eliminated in cases when the load itself is operated with AC frequency, which can come directly from the receiver.

INDUCTIVE RESONANCEThe amount of power transfer between the transmitter and receiver depends on two factors:

Coupling, which depends on the dis-tance between the coils, size of the coil, their alignment, and the material medium involved in coupling the coils.

Quality factor of the networks (electri-cal circuits) between the source to the transmitter and the receiver to the load. This quality factor is frequency dependent and can be significantly controlled by changing the parameters (by using capacitors) in the tuning net-works at both the transmitter and receiver ends. This amounts to imped-ance matching between the transmitter and receiver.

FIREWALL

INSTRUMENT CLUSTER

Figure 1


If researchers use a particular fre-quency, it’s possible to maximize the efficiency by changing the tuning net-work parameters. Under such condi-tions the system is said to be in reso-nance — the transmitting and receiving sides are able to maximize the efficiency and power transfer for a given source power.

Not much can be gained by merely tuning the circuits, especially if the coils are poorly coupled through severe misalignment. By tuning the circuit, you can maximize the amount of power, which itself can be low if the coupling is poor. Ultimately, the designer must choose the optimal coil size and correct frequency. Both of these quantities depend on the distance of power transfer and the amount of power transferred. To maximize the efficiency for a given coil dimension, one can change the frequency and tun-ing capacitor value.

As noted earlier, in both the inductive and radiative methods, the power drops quickly with distance and is related to the wavelength correspond-ing to the particular frequency and source size. For shorter distances, it may be more practical to use the inductive method. As distances increase, the inductive method becomes less viable for wireless power transmission, due to the size of devices involved. For longer distances, meth-ods such as microwave or laser-based transmission might be used. Microwave power can penetrate through non-metallic materials and some other types. For laser-based sys-tems, the operator needs a direct line of

sight for the power to reach its destina-tion. Both microwave and laser-based systems have been used to power unmanned vehicles like robots and small airplanes.

AREAS OF APPLICATIONWireless charging can enhance sur-vivability. It’s safer for the operator in a larger ground vehicle to drive near a robot to recharge it or replace a bat-tery without leaving his vehicle. Also, inductive technology is more benign for a human operator. Because micro-wave and laser-based methods can pose risks, designers should aim for less electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)-related noise and signature, which can adversely affect combat operations. For higher power ranges, engineers must account for any possi-ble health hazards, regardless of the technology used.

To achieve the goal of wireless electrical power system development for military applications, research in the following areas will be necessary:

• Develop mathematical and comput-er-based models for wireless power systems using microwaves and lasers, and study the feasibility through elec-tromagnetic field analysis software, if necessary.

• Study the antenna and receiver sys-tems through models to demonstrate feasibility, and combine this with the model of the vehicular load systems.

• Study and evaluate the effect of elec-tro-magnetic interference and/or other signatures.

• Study the effects of potential health hazards.

The particular technology to be used is dependent on distance, cost and size of the overall system, including the cost of additional items for mitigating EMC-related issues. But because of often hazardous and harsh conditions that Soldiers and their ground vehicles face, wireless power transfer is a way to ease burdens and maintain our forces’ technological edge. ■

Editor’s Note:The SBIR report submitted by CornerTurn LLC to the U.S. Army RDECOM-TARDEC, under a U.S. government SBIR contract, is grate-fully acknowledged, and was used for some of the items included in this article.

AUTHOR BIO: M. Abul Masrur, Ph.D., leads research projects with the U.S. Army RDECOM-TARDEC. He pre-viously worked at the Scientific Research Labs for Ford Motor Co., and brings more than 30 years of experience from the industry and government. Masrur is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and has more than 90 publica-tions — 60 of which are in public domain journals/conferences. He holds eight U.S. and two for-eign patents. He earned his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Texas A&M University.

Figure 2

SOURCEDC to AC

CONVERSION

TRANSMITTER RECEIVER

LOAD

AIR GAP

A B

AC to DC CONVERSION


The Blast Test HubVehicle incidents in war zones are a whole different science than conventional crash studies. To examine and reduce potential injuries, the military turns to the Occupant Protection Lab.

By TSgt. Dan Heaton, 127th Wing Public Affairs Office

A test lab at Selfridge Air National Guard Base (SANGB) in Harrison Township, MI,

helps keep Soldiers safe on the road. At the Occupant Protection Lab (OPL), a U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) Ground System Survivability labora-tory component, Army civilian engi-neers and technicians conduct exhaustive testing on different types of seats that could potentially end up in a variety of Army tactical vehicles.

OPL associates work closely with their TARDEC colleagues at the Detroit Arsenal in Warren, MI, in the joint military facilities at SANGB, where technicians go about their business a few hundred yards away from military aircraft that routinely take off and land at the air base.

When the Army considers making changes to vehicle interiors, OPL engi-neers can conduct a variety of tests that simulate how a vehicle’s occu-pants are likely to be affected in a

crash, explosion or rollover. A number of crash-test facilities exist in the automotive industry in and around the Detroit area, but the Army’s lab at Selfridge is among the few — and per-haps the only one — that tests the impacts caused by bomb blasts target-ing a vehicle.

“We do testing on a variety of com-mercial options available for use in Army or other military applications,” said OPL Lab Manager Chris Felczak. “We have some specialized concerns,

OPL Lab Manager Chris Felczak adjusts a test dummy in a lab impact simulator at SANGB. The lab creates various scenarios to test different types of seats to help keep Soldiers safe inside different types of tactical vehicles. (U.S. Air National Guard (ANG) photo by Brittani Baisden.)


obviously, because of the environment that some of our vehicles work in, but it certainly does benefit us to be here in the Detroit area, where all of the automotive people are clustered.”

In addition to testing seats and vehicle occupant compartments, the lab also conducts testing on the survivability of incident recorders — similar to the familiar “black boxes” found on air-liners — that are carried in many mil-itary vehicles today.

The OPL already contains the Head Impact Protection (HIP) Laboratory, which evaluates vehicle energy-atten-uating technologies for performance during head impacts in blasts and crashes, and the Sub-System Drop Tower device, which simulates the effects of underbody blast events.

TARDEC now intends to add a major piece of equipment — the Crew Compartment Underbody Blast Simulator (CCUBS), a testing device that will accommodate up to four test dummies in a vehicle’s occupant area.

CCUBS will allow technicians to place the dummies in a configuration that would mirror a squad of Soldiers seated in the rear of an armored personnel carrier, as an example, and then create a number of impact scenarios to test what happens to the dummies. The new test equipment is expected to be installed during the current fiscal year [FY2014]. Once the CCUBS is installed, it will likely be the only system in the world that can conduct four-occupant cabin testing in which simulated blasts can occur from under the vehicle, Felczak explained.

In addition to examining what hap-pens to test manikins as a result of the initial blast incident, the lab’s engineers also examine how place-ment of different equipment in the vehicle can impact Soldier safety. “We’re even looking at, if there is an impact, will the driver bump into another occupant? Is there a way to minimize that?” Felczak commented.

The OPL runs the tests and records the data and then turns that

information over to Army and U.S. Marine Corps ground vehicle pro-gram managers, who then work with industry to build the safest possible vehicles for Soldiers and Marines. Given ever-changing battlefield threats, the Army is constantly evolving its systems to meet these emerging threats.

The Selfridge OPL is one of several Army research facilities at the sub-urban Detroit base, which also hosts TARDEC’s Bridging Technology Lab and Freshwater Treatment and Test Facility. In addition to several other TARDEC-related programs, the Michigan Army National Guard also f lies CH-47 Chinook helicopters at the base, and is also home to U.S. Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Customs and Border Protection units.

Felczak added that, while the Army will keep seeking ways to improve vehicle occupant safety, there is still one simple way to greatly increase survivability — buckle up!

“The best seat in the world is not going to protect you if you aren’t strapped in to it,” Felczak concluded. ■

AUTHOR BIO:TSgt. Dan Heaton is a photojournalist with the 127th Wing, Michigan Air National Guard, assigned to Selfridge Air National Guard Base. In 2012, TSgt. Heaton was named the Air National Guard’s Print Journalist of the Year. Off-duty, TSgt. Heaton is the author of “Selfridge & Collins” and “Forgotten Aviator,” both biographies of early military pilots. He is currently at work on his third book, tracing the history of every fort and military installation in Michigan since French colonial times.

In this scenario, a test dummy faceplate is positioned on the end of a piston poised to impact a hatch cover on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Lab technicians conduct tests to determine how to best keep occupants safe in crashes, explosions and other impact scenarios. (ANG photo by Brittani Baisden.)


Event Spotlights Impact of Research Agreements with PartnersTARDEC has entered into more than 300 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) with industry and academic partners to drive technology advancement. The latest mutually beneficial agreement is a collaboration with General Motors to study hydrogen fuel cells.

By accelerate Staff

Not every Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) generates a celebration with a group of distinguished guests from Washington,

D.C., to the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC). But after entering 327 CRADAs over a span of 20 years, it was time to applaud the impact of these collaborations and the technologies they have generated with the Michigan repre-sentatives who helped nurture them.

U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and U.S. Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) joined TARDEC Director Dr. Paul Rogers and General Motors (GM) Executive Director of Global Fuel Cell Activities Charlie Freese in a ribbon-cutting ceremony recently in the Ground Systems Power and Energy Laboratory (GSPEL) at the Detroit Arsenal. That’s where GM and TARDEC will share three Fuel Cell Automated Testing Systems to evaluate and demonstrate hydrogen fuel cell technology. Sen. Levin emphasized the importance of


these two respected partners working toward a common goal — clean energy.

“All across the world, companies and governments are hoping to build the next ‘Detroit’ — the next interna-tional center of innovation and mid-dle-class prosperity,” Levin stated. “This [agreement] is about assuring that the next ‘Detroit’ stays right here in Michigan. This is a competition we cannot afford to lose for the sake of our troops, our economy, our security and the environment.”

Speakers at the Dec. 16 Fuel Cell Ribbon Cutting Ceremony reflected on the long-term impact of CRADAs, which have aligned government, pri-vate sector and academic partners to optimize resources and accelerate advancements for at least 20 years. Levin actively supported the U.S. Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 — the law that established the Federal Laboratory Consortium and enabled federal labs to enter into CRADAs and negotiate licenses for patented inventions made in the lab.

Rogers pointed out that TARDEC has entered into 327 CRADAs since its first blanket agreement to work with Big Three automakers in 1993, and has 64 active agreements with indus-try and academic sources today. “This agreement with GM offers the U.S. Army a unique opportunity to collab-orate with a phenomenal partner — a partner that is a world innovator in automotive technologies,” Rogers stated. “The laboratory is our meeting place where we can bring the best and brightest ideas from government and industry to solve the hardest problems the military faces.”

These dual-use arrangements make sense for the region’s economy, plus Levin believes we have an obligation to pull together the best ideas and brightest minds or we put ourselves at a disadvantage.

“Twenty years ago, an engineer here told me, ‘engineering is a contact sport.’ It’s not enough to share data and information through technical papers, conferences and word of mouth,” Levin related. “Engineers are hands-on folks. They want to bounce ideas off each other. They need to work next to each other to discuss and debate the best approaches to tough problems. Many of us have been working to bring together play-ers in this contact sport, here in Southeast Michigan — the most important hub of vehicle innovation on earth.”

GROWING THE TECHNOLOGYHydrogen fuel cells are a dual-use technology with benefits for both partners. GM plans to use the research results to build its portfolio of alternative energy vehicles for the automotive market. The automaker began its Project Driveway demon-stration in 2007, when it released a f leet of 119 fuel-cell powered Chevrolet Equinox vehicles on the road. Those vehicles have collectively driven nearly 3 million miles, saved 157,894 gallons of gasoline and avoided more than $552,631 in fuel costs, according to GM estimates in Fall 2013.

In the military domain, engineers are developing fuel cell technology to use for auxiliary power units (APUs) that reformulate Jet Propellant (JP)-8 fuels into hydrogen, which can then be con-verted into electricity. This conversion process can provide quiet, efficient onboard power for in-vehicle elec-tronic systems or robots. TARDEC engineers are working on a hydrogen fuel cell demonstrator to assess its readiness level for insertion in an Abrams tank. The demonstrator con-sists of two parts — one section refor-mulates the JP-8 fuel commonly used in military vehicles into hydrogen, and then the fuel cell stacks convert the hydrogen into electric power.

TARDEC engineers say that conver-sion would lead to a projected 33-per-cent savings in fuel use (versus running in-vehicle electronics off the main engine) and provide quieter operation.

“These fuel cell test stands are capable of testing a 10-kilowatt system, which is about one-tenth the size of a fuel-cell system that goes into a car,” explained TARDEC Engineer Herbert Dobbs. “By testing a subscale system like this, we can affordably experi-ment with variations for the best per-formance, durability, efficiency and cost. It helps us understand the mili-tary potential of fuel cell technology.”

GM’s Charlie Freese explained that hydrogen fuel-cell technology has already been propelled by joint research. “On a morning like today, with single-digit temperatures, you can turn the key in one of those vehi-cles and it will start in the cold — just 10 years ago, that was impossible. Through CRADAs like this one, we learn as partners how to advance these important technologies.” ■

The TARDEC-GM CRADA will be in effect until February 2016. Here are some examples of other research conducted under CRADAs:

• Lithium-ion battery testing• Battery monitoring systems• Ultracapacitor testing• Ground vehicle survivability

studies• Synthetic fuels• Materials for protective

netting• Robotic appliqué kits for

vehicles• Hybrid electric studies• Water purification• Advanced powertrain systems• Run-flat tire testing• Lightweight multi-material

joining.


Robots, interactive booths and technology displays provided an opportunity for Soldiers and

Army civilians to connect with the next generation of Soldiers, engineers and scientists during the 13th annual U.S. Army All-American Bowl in San Antonio, TX.

Army Soldiers and personnel gathered elite technologies in the Army Strong Zone at the Alamodome, Jan. 3-4, to provide visitors with a glimpse into Army life. Key themes such as Strength through Teamwork, Strength to Heal, Strength on the Move and Strength through Technology helped pull in

more than 5,000 visitors from across the country to experience various aspects of Army values and learn about the many opportunities the Army has to offer. Visitors to the 129,000-square-foot interactive display area experi-enced night vision, robotics, VEX Robotics Competition, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) trailer, ballistic glass, Army canine training shows and the chance for look through the scope of an Army sniper rifle.

U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) associates helped support U.S. Army

Marketing and Research Group (AMRG) experts during bowl week by providing technology demonstrations for community outreach. A robust technology presence in the Army Strong Zone, supported by the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC), highlighted robotics capa-bilities and the importance of engi-neers, technicians and scientists.

“The Army Strong Zone was successful because visitors were able to recognize that there is not only one side of the Army,” SGM Steven Robertson, Program Executive Office Ground

All-American Bowl Showcases Army Technologies

Visitors take the controls of a mini robot while Soldiers explain how this technology is used to keep them safer in the field. (U.S. Army TARDEC photos by Amanda Dunford.)

By Amanda Dunford

43accelerate | OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY EDITION | tardec.army.mil

Combat Systems explained. “This event allowed students to ask questions and learn the range of opportunities the Army has to offer.”

Through title sponsorship, the All-American Bowl program allowed RDECOM and TARDEC to engage scholars, athletes, teachers and stu-dents about Army core values, unex-pected opportunities for education, training and skills, and the lifelong foundation for success that service can bring. The All-American Bowl pro-gram provides the Army with the unique opportunity to tell the Army story and develop partnerships with key stakeholders and influencers.

New this year, TARDEC supported a VEX Robotics Competition featured in the Strong Zone. On Jan. 4, students from across the country competed in an interactive competition using their STEM skills to build their very own robots. “The Army is proud to show-case the incredible talents of these win-ning teams and all the students who took part in this competition,” said COL John Keeter, Deputy Director, AMRG, during the VEX awards cere-mony. “Science, technology, engineer-ing and mathematics are critical, not just to our Army’s success, but to the success of our nation. And we recog-nize the importance of encouraging STEM interest and excellence in today’s youth.”

Visitors experienced aspects of the Army life in four distinct displays:

• Strength Through Teamwork — The Army displayed its diversity and invited visitors to meet today’s per-sonnel from Drill Sergeants to Special Forces Soldiers. The Army Strong Zone featured elite teams such as the Army Combatives Program and K-9 unit.

• Strength to Heal — With more than 150 different career opportunities, the Army offers more than any

other service. Members of the renowned Forward Surgical Team from the premier medical post at Fort Sam Houston showed visitors how they help save lives and dis-played the Mobile Medical Hospital and medical Stryker vehicle.

• Strength on the Move — Visitors curious about Army Basic Training tested their physical stamina and discovered what it takes to be Army Strong. Army Drill Sergeants showed visitors how today’s Soldiers are trained to be more agile and mobile, let them stroll through the American Soldier

Adventure Van and allowed them to jump in the cockpit of an Apache Helicopter simulator.

• Strength Through Technology — Soldiers need not just physical strength, but also mental strength to operate some of the most elite tech-nologies in the world. RDECOM associates and Soldiers displayed technology and explained how it helps keep the Army Strong. Technology demonstrations ranged from night vision to advanced robot-ics to command-and-control multi-touch enabled technologies. ■

Students check out the Fuel Efficient Demonstrator in the Army Strong Zone at the All-American Bowl.

During the All-American Bowl, middle-school and high-school students participated in the VEX Robotics Competition, a major STEM activity.


info in brief

30-Year Strategy — TARDEC Maps Vision to Army of 2040

TARDEC’s venture to craft its 30-Year Strategy is founded on one essential principle — enduring value.

At the Secretary of the Army’s request, the U.S. Army’s ground systems organizations have adopted 30-year vehicle and equipment mod-ernization strategies that provide a roadmap of future capabilities across the acquisition life cycle. TARDEC’s 30-Year Strategy establishes the long-range model that will fill potential capability gaps, explore future pro-grams of record (PORs) and provide engineering services that will support Soldiers of today and tomorrow.

Three Value Streams (VS) serve as the foundation for the 30-Year Strategy. They provide the end-to-end process TARDEC uses to deliver a variety of products and services.

• VS1: Shape Requirements for Future Programs of Record — focuses on developing new concepts and designs for the Future Force.

• VS2: Develop New Capabilities for Current Ground Systems — focuses on developing and integrating new technologies and capabilities that support existing PORs.

• VS3: Provide Engineering Support and Services — focuses on providing the overall best engineering service and value to TARDEC partners throughout vehicle life cycles.

“Over the past 10 years, our core investments have been primarily focused on what is now known as VS2 — developing capabilities for current ground systems,” explained TARDEC Strategic Technology Planning (STP) Team Leader Michael Rose. “What the 30-Year Strategy acknowledges is our renewed commitment to VS1 and VS3, which emphasize the impor-tance of developing new concepts for the Future Force and supporting the acquisition community with advanced engineering service capabilities in areas like systems engineering and modeling and simulation.”

Emerging from the Value Streams will be system-level capabilities that enable the Future Force to be adaptable, flexible, smart and agile — ensuring continued dominance across the spectrum of missions and future battlefield environments.

“The 30-Year Strategy is meant to guide associates in a new way of thinking about their role here, as part of a larger organization rather than as parts of an individual director-ate,” Rose continued. “The strategy also engages collaborative partners to leverage resources and streamline the process to deliver products and services. We need to work as a uni-fied whole with common long-range objectives if we are truly going to be the Army’s leading ground system integrators.” ■


Many of today’s Soldiers regularly play video games. The technology they employ for entertainment may play a vital role in the future of ground combat vehicle design as U.S. Army engineers explore the concept of Early Synthetic Prototyping (ESP) and its ramifications.

ESP, a concept born at the Army Capa-bilities Integration Center (ARCIC) under the leadership of MG William Hix and his team, is a process and tool-set that would enable Soldiers to assess

emerging technologies in virtual environments to provide feedback that would inform both science and technology research and, potentially, Army doctrine.

Dr. Rob E. Smith at the U.S. Army Tank Auto-motive Research, Devel-opment and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in Warren, MI, said ESP may have long-term bene-fits. “Gaming isn’t new to the Army. What is unique about Early Synthetic Prototyping is the idea of launching an ongoing experiment and gaining access to hundreds of Soldiers’ feedback,” he explained. “Imagine a future development process where Soldiers co-develop vehicles that optimize the combina-

tion of technologies and tactics, maybe even before we invest S&T dollars in the technology.”

Smith said that a social component would allow Soldiers to discuss what worked for them, as well as borrow sug-gestions from other Soldiers who have played the game. “If you combine the idea of customizable vehicles with the breakthroughs in rapid manufacturing and computerized logistics, we can develop mission-optimized vehicles,”

Smith said. “In fact, the technology already exists to fly UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] over an area and practice a virtual fight scenario on the actual scenario. Ultimately, the idea is to let Sol-diers, engineers and acquisitions have a dialog and develop a deep, shared vision.”

If used as envisioned, ESP would gen-erate cross-organizational discussions that would lead to innovation in the design process, as well as potential shifts in Army doctrine as Soldiers discover new and innovative ways to use and field current and future technology. “There are a lot of people talking about the idea that the U.S. will face techni-cal parity in the future. The barrier of entry to UAVs, computer technologies, networks and high-effects munitions is very low and commercially available,” Smith explained. “The U.S. needs to find a way to put technologies and tac-tics together in a more lucid and rapid manner to maintain a significant edge over our adversaries. We need a process breakthrough.”

Smith said that as ESP grows, it could become an integral step in future sys-tems engineering processes. “If we can better design a vehicle, and handle the complexity involved with manufactur-ing custom platforms, then why couldn’t we build vehicles that are custom-tuned to the specific mission?”

The project has an aggressive schedule that aims to have Soldiers participating in ESP at battle labs and simulation cen-ters as early as June 2014. ■

Not Just a Game: Virtual Domain Influences Vehicle Design

Early Synthetic Prototyping would allow Soldiers to explore emerging technologies in virtual environments.


Like a fighter going the distance, the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) keeps answering the bell when the battles begin.

During their first two decades of service, HMMWVs did not require armor protection. Asymmetrical war-fare in Iraq and Afghanistan changed that, and Army engineers developed bolt-on armor kits to increase crew survivability.

Now, TARDEC engineers have responded to another user request — to identify potential future survivabil-ity upgrades for the HMMWV fleet, keeping Soldiers safer in the field, and to ensure design changes would be operationally feasible. They designed a prototype solution for HMMWVs using aluminum-based armor and a triple-V hull underneath to build stronger layers of protection against blasts and small arms fire.

“This armor is designed for the crew to survive a blast,” TARDEC Center

for Systems Integration Associate Director, Engineered Solutions, John J. Schmitz stated. “The aluminum armor solution proved to be the key because you can only load so much weight on an HMMWV

chassis. The prototype vehicle is the same weight but with significantly increased survivability.”

The Army’s current priority for the ground fleet is a successful Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program, which will fill a critical capability gap in protected mobility between the MRAP and HMMWV fleets and dramatically improve our balance of payload, performance and protec-tion. Because the Army will continue using HMMWVs for years, it has also been preparing for any contingencies that would require urgent improve-ments to that fleet’s survivability and performance.

“Our mission is to ensure that the HMMWV fleet remains viable for the next three decades,” commented Steve Rienstra, Product Director Light Tactical Vehicles (PD LTV).

Engineers in TARDEC’s Ground Systems Engineering Assessment and Assurance group performed modeling

and simulation research to confirm the Blast Cab team’s design and struc-tural changes. Also, engineers in the Occupant Protection Laboratory at Selfridge Air National Guard Base conducted Sub-System Drop Tower tests to validate the seats, which are hinged to partially absorb blast energy. The cab flooring includes a crush zone area under passengers’ feet to add protection near the blast point.

Live blast tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, last fall indicated the TARDEC design substantially improves survivability and that future investments could be examined.

Other survivability factors include the chassis height — engineers raised it to provide more stand-off margin under the vehicle to better mitigate a blast. The triple-V hull design chan-nels blast energy away from the crew compartment and limits how far the vehicle can be thrown in the air. Both effects should reduce the risk of Soldier casualties.

“Our partners’ efforts help to not only baseline vehicle capabilities, but also validate the possibility of meeting blast objectives for MECV [Modernized Expanded Capacity Vehicle]-like requirements. These results provide government-owned designs that are scalable and action-able solutions,” stated Clifton Ellis, Engineering Chief at Product Manager Light Tactical Vehicle (LTV).

info in brief

Team Aims to Improve HMMWV Blast Protection


Ask the ExpertTARDEC Engineer David Gunter explains how mobility research is changing

Q: With all-terrain vehicles play-ing a larger role in Army logistics, how does TARDEC develop the best possible off-road vehicle mobility systems?

A: Validating mobility has always involved live testing, and lots of it. The only way to determine tractive effort has been to drive real vehicles over rocks, bumps, sand and mud, and analyze the results after the vehicle gets stuck or a part fails.

TARDEC engineers have launched a program to modernize the way we perform mobility analysis, employ-ing computational tools that allow less reliance on live testing. The new tools will help save on costs, improve accuracy and move faster toward the ultimate purpose — keeping vehicles from getting immo-bilized in off-road situations.

Metrics used to measure mobility include five factors:

• Cone Index — the minimum soil strength over which the vehicle must be mobile.

• Ride quality — the maximum speed over a rough course during which the driver or occu-pants do not exceed a human vibration tolerance criteria due to vertical acceleration.

• Tractive effort to weight — a ratio of the traction force

developed by the vehicle applied to the ground-to-vehicle weight.

• Top speed — maximum speed the vehicle can achieve.

• Speed on grade —minimum speed the vehicle must maintain on a longitudinal sloped surface.

We have modeling and simulation (M&S) tools to predict vehicle perfor-mance for these metrics — primarily commercial tools used by both the military and auto industry. However, because soft-soil mobility mainly con-sists of military and agricultural mar-kets, commercial tools aren’t available. We still use a model originally devel-oped in the 1960s by TARDEC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center (USACE-ERDC) to predict soft-soil mobility.

This model’s databases represent several decades of Army vehicle test results. They don’t account for many of today’s military vehicle technol-ogies, such as active suspension, electronic stability control, antilock brake systems or even radial tires. While programmers made changes to address some deficiencies, the model could use a major refresh to account for today’s advanced suspension technology.

The most cost-effective method of testing vehicle mobility today is high performance computing (HPC) and

M&S. The Computational Research for Engineering and Science – Ground Vehicles (CRES-GV) Project is an ongoing Department of Defense (DOD) HPC Modernization Program project involving TARDEC and USACE-ERDC. The goal is to address the ground vehicle community’s gaps and needs through M&S. This under-taking includes the development of an end-to-end mobility server that uses physics-based models to make soft-soil predictions for today’s vehicles.

This ambitious project will use high-fidelity track-to-soil and tire-to-soil interface models, propulsion models for drivetrain performance, high-fidelity multi-body dynamics models for vehicle dynamics, com-putational fluid dynamics models for powertrain cooling and vehicle fording, and will include new updated predictions, such as urban assault mobility (traversing rubble piles) and urban maneuverability (steering in confined city streets).

CRES-GV is in year one of a five-year program and includes other tools development, but the mobility prediction tool is ongoing because it clearly fills the needs of the Army and Marines.

Dave Gunter is Acting Deputy Associate Director for Analytics at TARDEC

FIVE THINGS ABOUT

SPH


The 600-volt Power System provides enhanced network capability and situational awareness over the 28-volt system employed on the M109A6 Paladin. The generator can produce 70 kilowatts (kW) of power — three times more capability than the Paladin produces. With this added capability, PIM accepts the Army’s current and future networks and meets the need to maintain network capability with the forces it supports.

Five Things You Should Know About the SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZER

The Self-Propelled Howitzer (SPH) and its teammate, the Carrier Ammunition Tracked (CAT) vehicle, form the new Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) family of vehicles — a modernized and re-engineered tandem of battlefield assets that provide long-range fire support to Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs). With its new pivot steer capability

and ability to fire up to four rounds per minute from its 155mm cannon (aided by a precise electric loading system), SPH offers “shoot and scoot” effectiveness when backing up Infantry, Strykers, Bradley Fighting Vehicles (BFVs) and Abrams tanks. Limited production is scheduled to begin in 2014.

SPH also utilizes common suspension and track components with BFVs to minimize the logistics footprint and unique parts. The upgraded suspension and track components address the No. 1 operation and sustainment maintenance issue on the currently fielded Paladin systems.

The newly designed upgraded chassis allows for growth potential to accept future requirements and technology insertions with SWaP (size, weight and power) as the critical enabler. At 68,500 lbs, the currently fielded M109A6 Paladin already exceeds its design weight. The new PIM, at 84,000 lbs, offers potential weight growth of up to 110,000 lbs.



The PIM 675 hp powertrain delivers increased mobility, providing the ability to maintain the tempo of the supported force, Armored BCT, and support Full Spectrum Operations (FSO). The heavyweight and lower 440 hp powertrain of the current M109 FOV prevents it from meeting this need. SPH shares its powertrain with the BFV, minimizing the logistics footprint, with fewer unique components.

PIM provides increased force protection and survivability — a scalable system that allows the commander to provide full spectrum indirect fire support to any Army BCT formation. Crews can accomplish the mission from a fixed firing position or hasty position on the move. Protection upgrades include a new chassis, increased ground clearance, improved crew seating, added Chief of Section protection and increased hull thickness. PIM can also accept modular add-on armor kits including underbelly protection.

There’s more TARDEC news and info online:• TARDEC’s robotics engineers displayed the possibilities of unmanned

tactical vehicles in the Autonomous Mobility Appliqué System (AMAS) Capabilities Advancement Demonstration at Fort Hood, Texas, recently. Driverless vehicles navigate around traffic, pedestrians and obstacles in the demonstration, which can be viewed on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HseUNLP6q24

• Check our Facebook page for Energy Wednesday — the day we high-light stories on the Army’s quest for more energy-efficient systems for its vehicle fleets and on its installations. On Facebook, search for U.S. Army TARDEC.

FOLLOW US:

On Facebook at U.S. Army TARDEC

On Twitter at TARDEC_PAO

Find enhanced content in the electronic edition of accelerate Magazine: http://tardec.army.mil

UNCLAS: Dist A. Approved for public release. TARDEC requests that any reproduction of these articles and electronic media give appropriate credit to the original source (publication, author, photographer).

6501 E. ELEVEN MILE RD.WARREN, MI 48937-5000

Documents

Future Mobility