SSTRM, - - Maj Dufour Soldier Modernization - Lethal Effects


Published on

Major Dufour Lethal workshop November 2009

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Thanks, Mike. What I would like to do it to give a quick explanation of technology roadmapping, describe our experiences at Industry Canada with Technology Roadmaps, provide an introduction to the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap, and the governance structure, particularly the Steering Committee and the Technical Sub-Committees.
  • The essence of ADO is the ability to conduct coordinated, interdependent, full-spectrum actions by widely dispersed teams across the moral, physical, and information planes. ADO calls for networked and integrated land manoeuvre forces alternatively dispersing and aggregating over extended distances. Dispersion, in this context, is in relation to time, space, and purpose. Not a “new” concept but one that is evolving rapidly because of technological enablers , and that still remains limited by the human dimension.
  • 1995 TB -> PPA IPCE + approved IPCE TD as Defn Phase 1 IPCE & funded for $16M $13M Contract awarded to CDC to build prototype, then 30 sets Excellent • QFD - Quality Function Deployment - process EMC/EMI - Electromagnetic Compatibility/Electromagnetic Interference Plan Systems Engineering Plan But - Quite frankly Design sucked - HF were ignored Crown bailed after $7M downrange & not enough funds remained for even 1 prototype Took a step back and asked - Different from Allies How do soldiers do their jobs - what are their information requirements - and why would technology help them, i.e. Why technology not What technology IPCE TD failure led directly to World-class R&D -> SIREQ TD -> $13M (SIREQ lesson learned) -> Soldier Integrated Headwear System - SIHS TD -> $6M Chem – Bio Plus - CB+ TD -> $6M (Day-use uniform) Army Soldier Advanced Power (ASAP) TD->$8M (Sources / Harvesting / Management) Dr Bob Walker -> excellent R&D support to acquisition -> Tracking technology maturity is essential -> ISSP SA on proj team -> When technology not what -> R&D Roadmap
  • This radar map, illustrate the key technologies areas which will influence the soldier capabilities in the 2015 and 2025 timeframe. Some of these technologies are still in their infancy but are expected to become mature over this time horizon. These include smart materials and weapons, micro-technologies, small networked sensors, advanced medical treatments, as well as protection and communications systems that are cheaper, lighter, smaller, and highly energy efficient. These technologies combined with ubiquitous computing and artificial intelligence could lead to key advances, such as all pervasive sensing, robotics, autonomous vehicles and networks, and real-time language translators. Seamless command and control, shared situation awareness and permanent, mobile connection to the future defence networks is also anticipated. In 2025, nano-devices such as nanobots would also likely emerge and could be used for military applications. Other innovations such as brain-computer interfaces, highly adaptive clothing and camouflage will also emerge.
  • Overview of the Project, i.e. what Canada calls a soldier system Clearly a System of Systems Representative Items only Each soldier system is made up of PAN & number of sub-systems Point out example sub-systems Depending on maturity and availability of COTS MOTS technology & components, would only pursue a sub-set for Cycle 1 Next slide: In other words, field only technology available for each cycle
  • Concept of Implementation Cyclical Approach endorsed by PWGSC, TB Analysts and SPAC Performance-based, Best Value Competitive Contracts for “Systems Integrator” Maximize available COTS and MOTS components & systems available in NATO & Industry Progressive “Builds” to achieve full capability, each Build fielding available technology Cyclical approach critical so we can use feedback from field trials & user training, and TTP lessons learned in the design of the next cycle
  • In terms of how the global market breaks-down by submarkets corresponding to 5 key solder modernization capability domains identified by NATO, Visiongain’s estimates and forecasts suggest that C4I is the lead submarket. Beyond C4I, innovators with capabilities relevant to the remaining 4 domains may also be able to pursue significant future opportunities. Over the next 10 years, future sales appear relatively closely distributed between: Lethality, Mobility, Sustainability (which here includes energy related products like batteries), and Survivability.
  • SSTRM, - - Maj Dufour Soldier Modernization - Lethal Effects

    1. 1. Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap Weapons: Lethal and Non-Lethal Workshop By Maj. S. Dufour, Director of Land Requirements (DLR 5-3) 24-26 Nov. 2009 Delta Chelsea Hotel Toronto Overview of Soldier Modernization Effort
    2. 2. Army of Tomorrow Operating, functional & enabling concepts Land Systems Army Capability Framework <ul><ul><li>Future security environment: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>complex terrains (urban, desert, arctic) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>complex battle spaces (asymmetric) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    3. 3. 2. Network in place & operating 1. AoT Modular Unit Arrives in AO 3. Manned/unmanned sensors operating 4. JFS in place & operating 5. Coys disperse as reqr 6. Pls disperse as reqr 7. Sects disperse as reqr 8. Teams disperse as reqr 9. Sensors/teams ID & locate targets 10. Teams/JFS wpns engage targets 11. Teams/sects, pls, coys aggregate as reqr Adaptive Dispersed Operations
    4. 4. Effects Based Operations
    5. 5. Nato Soldier Capability Areas (AC225/P3 D316 & D346, 1991) <ul><li>The five Nato Soldier System capability areas (AC/225 LG/3 – WG/3, 1993) are: </li></ul><ul><li>Survivability, Sustainability, Lethality, Mobility and C4I </li></ul><ul><li>These capabilities are enhanced by a number of components integrated as a system of systems or sub-systems </li></ul><ul><li>The Human dimension is an integral part of each areas </li></ul>
    6. 6. 1995 – IPCE (Integrated Protective Clothing and Equipment) Contract Award - $$$$ for IPCE TD WHEN not WHAT? WHY not WHAT? Soldier Systems R&D HISTORY Technology Roadmap Mindmap High Level of Support from DRDC R&D -> ASAP TD R&D -> CB Plus TD R&D -> SIREQ TD R&D -> SIHS TD R&D -> SIPES TD R&D -> AMMPHS TD Other supporting R&D and DIRs
    7. 7. Soldier Systems Technologies & Domains Source: TNO Nanobook
    8. 8. Weapon Technology Radar Source: TNO Nanobook
    9. 9. CF Soldier Modernization Effort Aim: Enhance the capability of the future soldier to accomplish his mission and objectives Future Clothe The Soldier +: Level 0 Soldier System Future Army 2040 Future Today 2020-2040 - SARP2 - ISSP - Sniper System - FCU - Soldier 2020 Tomorrow AOT
    10. 10. THE INTEGRATED SOLDIER - a “System of Systems” Power Sources Head Borne Systems Navigation /BCID Systems Weapon & Sensors “ Mother Ship” Support Comms Systems Personal Network Load Carriage Systems Ballistic Protection Systems Sensors Systems UGS Personal Micro-UAV Battle Management Systems
    11. 11. Soldier Systems Modernization Effort Main Projects Portfolio <ul><li>Includes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Clothe the Soldier </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrated Soldier System Project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Small Arms Replacement Project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Future Combat Uniform Project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sniper System Project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Soldier Systems 2020 Project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhanced Night Vision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mid-life Improvements to Ballistic Protection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mid-life Improvements to Load Carriage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Navy, Airforce, SOFCOM projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. FY 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 SARP II Fleet 1 SARP II Fleet 2 SARP II Fleet 3 SARP II OA Sniper Systems Soldier 2020 ISSP Cycle 1 Related Projects & Roadmap Timeframe Future Combat Uniform ISSP Cycle 2 ISSP Cycle 3 <ul><ul><li>Focus on future capabilities and not projects (i.e. capability pull) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emphasis on technologies maturing in 3-15 years (i.e. technology push) & leading to potential significant capability increases </li></ul></ul>Roadmap Influence Zone Roadmap: $2B Program
    13. 13. World Stage – Integrated Soldier Systems Development Belgium - BEST Development Norway - NORMANS Sweden - MARKUS NLD - VOSS Israel - DOMINATOR Australia - Land 125 Canada - ISSP Italy - Soldato Futuro Switzerland- IMESS Spain - COMFUT France - FÉLIN UK - FIST US Army - Land Warrior - Ground Soldier System USMC - MERS Germany - IdZ BS - IdZ ES National Soldier System Programs UORs Iraq 06-07 Main project Defn-Production - Thales NLD Development UORs Iraq Early 2008 Definition - Thales UK Definition - Finmeccanica Contracting in 2010 Definition Development In fielding Effect S&T Development Defn-Production - EADS Defn-Production - EADS Summer 2009 Production - SAGEM Iraq May 07- Apr 08 Production - GD C4S Tendering process Afghanistan Oct 2005 Production - EADS Definition – Rheinmetall Fielded In Contract Dev
    14. 14. Global Market Opportunities Source Note: Charts and estimates based on data from—Visiongain LTD (2009) “ Soldier Modernisation Market 2009-20019 ” © Copyright 2009 by Visiongain LTD, London, UK. <ul><li>Recent forecasts by Visiongain LTD estimated strong growth in sales for 2008-19, and a total global market of US $15 Bn over this period. </li></ul><ul><li>Sales have been highest in traditionally key western markets like the U.S., France, the UK, Germany and Italy. However, by 2019, nations like India, China and South Korea may be among the lead markets. </li></ul>
    15. 15. Future Weapons Development Activities Source: Col. Radcliffe Infantry Conf. 2008
    16. 17. Future Soldier Systems Challenges <ul><li>Capability trade-offs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhance , Integrate and Balance: C4I, Lethality , Mobility, Survivability Sustainability, & Human Dimension </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Technology insertion and obsolescence </li></ul><ul><li>Incremental vs “Big-Bang” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can lead to “Christmas Tree” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can have limited future growth </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Key Performance Parameters </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Size, Weight, Power, Cost & Reliability </li></ul></ul>Lethality / effects
    17. 18. Questions? For more information, please consult: