Overview of NATO RTO Soldier Weapons Interoperability Task Group and Integration Challenges

1. Overview of NATO RTO Soldier Weapons InteroperabilityTask Groupand Integration Challenges By Major Linda Bossi PMO Integrated Soldier System Project 24th November, 2009 Toronto, Ontario

2. Outline NATO RTO SCI-178/RTG-043 Overview Background, Aim, Scope & Structure Introduction of Sub-Groups Brief Overview of Power Sub-Group Effort Summary of Human Factors Sub-Group Collaborative Studies Main Findings & Recommendations

3. Unlike the development of individual infantry weapons in the past, active dismounted soldier modernization programs are currently linking the individual modular weapon system as an integrated component of the soldier�s ensemble of equipment. The weapon systems envisioned in many of the national programs include not only the kinetic small caliber lethality, but also advanced fire control functionality, laser range finders and designators, daylight video, image intensified and thermal imagery, and numerous other advances. Many of these components provide sensory perception to the individual soldier or may provide new methods to employ these weapons on the future battlefield of tomorrow and in the Global War on Terrorism. New technologies coupled with advanced integration concepts will provide a modular weapon system that is tailorable to the threat environment NATO forces will face in the future and leverage the synergistic effects of the weapon as a component of the soldier�s integrated system. Unlike the development of individual infantry weapons in the past, active dismounted soldier modernization programs are currently linking the individual modular weapon system as an integrated component of the soldier�s ensemble of equipment. The weapon systems envisioned in many of the national programs include not only the kinetic small caliber lethality, but also advanced fire control functionality, laser range finders and designators, daylight video, image intensified and thermal imagery, and numerous other advances. Many of these components provide sensory perception to the individual soldier or may provide new methods to employ these weapons on the future battlefield of tomorrow and in the Global War on Terrorism. New technologies coupled with advanced integration concepts will provide a modular weapon system that is tailorable to the threat environment NATO forces will face in the future and leverage the synergistic effects of the weapon as a component of the soldier�s integrated system.

4. Background/Rationale NATO Land Capability Group 1 (LCG1) initiated an Exploratory Team in the area of weapons effectiveness and interoperability, in recognition of several factors: The need to consider the weapon as an integrated and integral component of the whole soldier system Increasing complexity and diversity of weapon components and technologies New technologies coupled with advanced integration concepts will need to provide a modular weapon system that is adaptable and tailorable to the assymetric threat environment NATO forces will face in the future Need to improve on interoperability in light of increased coalition operations NATO LCG1 initiated an Exploratory Team in the area of weapons effectiveness and interoperability, in recognition of several factors: The need to consider the weapon as an integrated and integral component of the whole soldier system The modern weapon sub-system is not limited to only the kinetic small caliber lethality, but also serves as sensor platform as well as control interface for the soldier system as a whole Increasing complexity and diversity of weapon components and technologies Including advanced fire control functionality, laser range finders and designators, daylight video, image intensified and thermal imagery, and numerous other advances Many of these components provide sensory perception to the individual soldier or may provide new methods to employ a range of NATO LCG1 initiated an Exploratory Team in the area of weapons effectiveness and interoperability, in recognition of several factors: New technologies coupled with advanced integration concepts will need to provide a modular weapon system that is adaptable and tailorable to the assymetric threat environment NATO forces will face in the future There is a need to better understand the trade-offs between integration and modularity within and between the soldier system and weapon sub-system Need to improve on interoperability in light of increased coalition operations Several examples of non-interoperable weapon system subcomponents among NATO forces (Picatinney vs Weaver rail attachment systems for sights, lasers, illuminators) Currently there are several examples of non-interoperable weapon system subcomponents in today�s NATO forces. One example is the difference between the Picatinney Rail and the Weaver Rail that are used as the attachment system for sights, lasers, and flashlights today. A thermal weapon sight from the United States using a Picatinney Rail cannot easily be fitted to a Canadian rifle that has a Weaver Rail mount. Problems of this nature will continue to proliferate within NATO as new weapon systems become power intensive and the requirement for modularity increases.NATO LCG1 initiated an Exploratory Team in the area of weapons effectiveness and interoperability, in recognition of several factors: The need to consider the weapon as an integrated and integral component of the whole soldier system The modern weapon sub-system is not limited to only the kinetic small caliber lethality, but also serves as sensor platform as well as control interface for the soldier system as a whole Increasing complexity and diversity of weapon components and technologies Including advanced fire control functionality, laser range finders and designators, daylight video, image intensified and thermal imagery, and numerous other advances Many of these components provide sensory perception to the individual soldier or may provide new methods to employ a range of NATO LCG1 initiated an Exploratory Team in the area of weapons effectiveness and interoperability, in recognition of several factors: New technologies coupled with advanced integration concepts will need to provide a modular weapon system that is adaptable and tailorable to the assymetric threat environment NATO forces will face in the future There is a need to better understand the trade-offs between integration and modularity within and between the soldier system and weapon sub-system Need to improve on interoperability in light of increased coalition operations Several examples of non-interoperable weapon system subcomponents among NATO forces (Picatinney vs Weaver rail attachment systems for sights, lasers, illuminators) Currently there are several examples of non-interoperable weapon system subcomponents in today�s NATO forces. One example is the difference between the Picatinney Rail and the Weaver Rail that are used as the attachment system for sights, lasers, and flashlights today. A thermal weapon sight from the United States using a Picatinney Rail cannot easily be fitted to a Canadian rifle that has a Weaver Rail mount. Problems of this nature will continue to proliferate within NATO as new weapon systems become power intensive and the requirement for modularity increases.

5. NATO RTO SCI-178 RTG-043 Purpose - to make progress towards achieving interoperability and identifying modernization considerations and possibilities in future weapon systems. Timelines: Exploratory Team Study in 2005 NATO RTO Group formed, commenced 1 Jan 06 and will complete its work by Dec 09 Membership: Involves 11 participating nations, represented by defence & industry personnel: CAN, DEU, ITY, NLD, NOR, ROM, SLK, ESP, SWE, SWE-BEL, USA, USMC

6. Chaired By: Mark Richter, USMC Organization: 3 sub-groups / teams: Technical Interface Team (led by Per Arvidsson, SWE) Power Team (led by Karl-Heinz Rippert, DEU) Human Factors Team (led by Linda Bossi, CAN) Sub-Groups 1&2 were subsequently combined into a Powered Rail Team for the last year of the RTO Task Group (led by Torbjoern Eld, SWE) NATO RTO SCI-178 RTG-043

7. Power Sub-Group Overview By Ed Andrukaitis DRDC Atlantic 24th November, 2009

8. Power Team Power audit/analysis & budget for the weapon sub-system and all of its components/ancillaries Connectors/power transmission review Analysis of power distribution options (centralized vs decentralized vs hybrid) - pros & cons of each design

9. Power Team Cont�d Emergency power distribution Review of alternative power sources and generation Power management Power standard requirement Contribute towards development of a test program (for conductive and inductive powered rails being developed by the Technical Interface team)

10. Concepts of Energy Distribution Christmas tree (current concept) Current advantages Different battery types available � (COTS � ex. AA Alkaline). Familiarity and Reliability from the power standpoint is quite high. Numerous disadvantages! Power limitation (poor battery efficiency < 25% energy available sometimes used � documented!) energy = weight Constantly changing the power sources. Power management difficult to use in this case + interface issues Logistics: More than one type of battery (AA, AAA, CR123, etc). Large �uncontrolled� power demands energy = weight Disadvantages are reason to rethink current practices (power use/distribution on the weapon).

13. Understand the power consumption of equipment carried on weapon Ex. 1- Power draw of the M3X Tactical Illuminator Runtime falls with the Temperature (Only 50% of runtime at -20oC) Ex. 2- Power draw of the PAQ-4C Laser Aimer PAQ-4C - weapon sight emits an infrared laser beam (used with NVGs) Operating time was not met as promised in manual !! - but still operates for 73h at 20oC BUT if batteries discarded after one �short� mission (ie. one day) then large wastage!! (2/3 of energy lost)

14. Key challenges Minimizing energy demand and peak power KEEP ACCEPTABLE � a trade-off with energy consumption. Portable Energy IS EXPENSIVE and a logistic burden Power management functionality required. Energy = weight � Can weight be shifted to better locations including the butt, pistol grip, or �off� the weapon to assist in locating the centre of balance for the weapon (see NATO/RTO HF studies and Interface studies � powered rail)? NATO RTO Report to be complete Dec 09 EVERYTHING A SOLDIER CARRIES has an impact on energy consumption/sustainability of soldier EVERYTHING A SOLDIER CARRIES has an impact on energy consumption/sustainability of soldier

15. Human Factors Sub-Group Overview

16. Human Factors Team Goals To define and outline Human Systems Integration principles and concepts for future soldier weapons systems To support future weapon development & acquisition efforts through: Shared HF knowledge pertaining to small arms Collaboration on several HF studies to fill knowledge gaps Development of user requirements, HF design guidance for future assault rifles Recommendation of standards to optimize user-weapon interfaces, enhance system safety, reliability and effectiveness

17. Collaborative HF Studies Assessment of user needs & priorities Optimal weapon weight & balance Optimization of interface between weapon and future integrated headwear Weapon butt stock design Sight offset to accommodate movement of eye position Headwear facial protection design Requirements, placement and priorities for weapon-mounted controls (weapon and soldier system-related)

18. Weapon Weight/Balance Studies Rationale: More and more components being added to weapons to improve target detection & engagement (grenade launchers, sensors, laser aimers, illluminators, etc) At what point is marksmanship affected? What is the maximum weapon weight that will be tolerated by soldiers? How does weapon balance / centre of mass affect these?

19. Weapon Weight/Balance Studies Aim to determine weight/CofM/mass moment of inertia limits for future assault rifles Approach Biomechanical modeling and analysis Simulator Study to assess impact of altering CoM vertically Range/Mobility Course Field Trials conducted to assess altering weight and CoM horizontally 3 separate studies conducted with US Marines and Canadian soldiers Feb 08 (n= 23 US marines, avg 3 years of service) Aug 08 (n=15 CA reserve soldiers, avg 2.5 yrs) Feb 09 (n=14 US marines, avg 4.8 yrs)

20. Field Studies � Weapon Test Rig

23. Automated Target System Results due to Mass: Shot 2 Accuracy (Feb 09 Study)

25. Obstacle Course Mobility

27. Mass Effects Study Conclusions & Recommendations Weapon mass and balance affect firing performance, speed of engagement, weapon control & handling characteristics, muzzle �rise� & safety Mass of future assault rifles, with all ancillary devices and controls should not exceed 6.9 kg and shall not exceed 7.9 kg Centre of mass for future assault rifles should be at center (as it is for current weapon) or closer to the body, NOT further out Heavier rifle weights may benefit from a CoM that is closer to the shooter Lighter rifles may benefit from additional weight and a CoM that is further forward

28. Studies to Optimize the Weapon/Firer Interface Issue Increasing PPE coverage of soldier to counter IED threat Compatibility with weapon firing is of concern HF Team and national HF efforts are addressing this on several fronts: Characterizing/understanding the clash Studying impact of moving/offset of sighting systems Testing alternative designs of butt stocks and/or headwear/facial protection

29. Headwear and/or Butt Stock Design to Accommodate Weapon-Cheek Weld

30. Offset of Sights to Permit Eye Alignment while wearing Facial Protection

31. Butt Stock Interface Characterization Studies Aims to characterize the interface between soldier and weapon In order to specify future rifle butt stock designs and butt stock adjustability to accommodate the range of Integrated headgear options (SIHS/SIMP variations) Firing postures (prone, kneeling, standing) Sight offset options (horizontal, vertical, rotated inwards) 3 separate studies conducted Feb 08 (n= 23 US marines, avg 3 years of service) Aug 08 (n=15 CA reserve soldiers, avg 2.5 yrs) Feb 09 (n=14 US marines, avg 4.8 yrs)

32. Butt Stock Integration Characterization Test-Bed

33. Butt Stock Height at Cheek Front Resting Section � Standing Position

34. Lateral Adjustment at Front -Standing Position

35. Adjustability is required in weapon butt stocks in order to accommodate the range of soldier firing positions (within and across nations) and potential range of soldier head/facial protection configurations Specific range of adjustability for each of the adjustment parameters is recommended based on limited testing to date Need to replicate the feeling of cheek resting on butt-stock � hybrid face shield preferred over rounded rigid face shields Hybrid face shield allowed for individual adjustment and anthropometric differences

36. Offset of Sights to Permit Eye Alignment while wearing Facial Protection

37. Offset Sight� Test Rig

38. Frequency Analysis: Target Zones

39. Lethality Score: Accumulated

40. Preliminary Conclusions about Off-setting Sights Off-setting sights to accommodate the change in eye position due to headgear appears to offer potential Offsetting the sight to the degree in this study showed little effect on marksmanship or user acceptance Much more study is required to characterize the impact of off-setting sights, not only on marksmanship, but also for issues relating to sight zeroing

41. Control Placement Studies Aim To determine optimal placement of and design parameters for weapon-mounted controls (for weapon ancillaries and/or soldier system): preferred off-hand placement on the rifle forestock range of digit placement locations associated with each preferred hand position preferred placement of a foregrip/post on the rifle forestock preferred buttstock length stop position For a range of rifle mass conditions, firing postures, & limited PPE/clothing configurations Studies Conducted by HF Team: June 2008, Swedish Marines August 2008, Canadian Reserve Infantry February 2009, US Marines

42. Three firing posture conditions: Standing Kneeling Prone

43. Sample ResultsMCP V Location

44. Control Placement Study - Conclusions Preferred placement of off-hand or foregrip is highly variable, depending on: Weapon weight and balance Firing posture PPE configuration National practices & preferences Individual static arm strength Placement of controls on the weapon need to account for this variability Analysis of digit reach are helping to define control placement envelope at a given hand position

45. Other HF Team Initiatives Control Priorities Analysis Identify which weapon ancillary/soldier system controls could potentially be on the weapon Inf SME and HF expert analysis of control priorities, allocation of function (to device or central control), frequency of use, type of control, consequence of misuse, design guidance Needs validation with users Consolidation of current HF knowledge and all lessons learned into HF requirements specification for future assault rifles Standardization of control device labeling & icons Annotated bibliography of all HF references pertaining to the weapon sub-system Open publication of all HF study conclusions & design guidance