Vehicle Defense Today, Tomorrow, and Next Year

Rapid deployability is dictating smaller, lighter future armored vehicles. This need for quick movement to a potential battle area means the Army's approach for armored vehicles needs to include improved lethality and surVivability systems. This improved vehicle survivability will not be achieved by armor alone, due to the size and weight penalties associated with armor. New techniques such as the Vehicle Integrated Defense System (VmS) will be used. In the past, as weaponry's lethality increased, vehicles' protection levels increased by several means: thicker steel, adding reactive armor on top of armor, changing vehicle designs (to maxuruze the effective thickness of armor), or using advanced technology armors. All of these solutions were generally successful, but the penalties were increased size, weight, and cost. Today's armor uses exotic steels, steel laminates, composites, and ceramics which have proven to be very effective against current threats. A good example of the effectiveness of current armor is the MIAl tank's performance in the Gulf War. The M IAI's armor stopped Iraq's antitank weaponry from penetrating into the crew compartment nearly every time. Advancements in the lethality of threat systems and our current defen-IR SeiN-AuIoInaic Command To line or S91t.", Missile Countermeasure C_ Protection System _-- (l<IserSystem) Laser Missile Countenneasun (One or Six Sets) sive approach - armor - have, however, resulted in very heavy armored vehicles. The MIAI main battle tank weighs well over 60 tons and the MIA2 main battle tank approaches 70 tons. The size and weight of U. S. armored vehicles now limits the Army's ability to rapidly transport and deploy armored systems to conflict areas, yet rapid deployment is the key to the Army's new global preparedness and fighting philosophy. VIDS appears to be a solution to this problem of increasing vehicle weight. In simple terms, vms consists of three parts: threat warning systems, countermeasures, and signal processing and decision-making algorithms. Acoustic & Millimeter Wave! Counter-mine System Figure 1. In developing lighter, faster, and more lethal armored systems, such as the Block III main battle tank, the Army has developed VIDS to help these systems meet their survivability goals. 6

Together they provide improved survivability against current and future weaponry. The benefit of VIDS over armor is that survivability is increased without significantly increasing vehicle weight. The U. S. Government. especiaJly the Tank Automotive Command's Research, Development and Engineering Center. has been investigating and developing VIDS and its related technologies since the early 1980s. The work began by adapting advanced survivability concepts and approaches for aircraft. The Government had developed aircraft threat warning and countermeasure systems because aircraft were vulnerable. threats were becoming more lethal, pilots were being killed, and missions were not being completed. The Army evolved these concepts to address the unique threats to armored vehicles. Aircraft warning systems, such as missile and laser warning systems, and countermeasures such as flares, chaff, and radar jarnmers have proven effective in suppressing aircraft threats. Two aircraft systems the Government is considering for ground vehicles application are the AN/AVR2 Laser Detection Set by Hughes Danbury OpticaJ Systems and the ANI AAR-47 Missile Warning System built by LORAL. The AN/AVR2 system is composed of several laser energy receiver units (mounted around the outside of an aircraft) and a signal processing and interface unit. Each receiver unit contains multiple detectors that provide sensitivity to current laser-based threats. These receiver units also contain signaJ processing electronics that condition and process the signals generated by received laser energy. Each receiver unit has a fixed azimuth and elevation field of view and, when combined with the other receiver units of the system, provides 360-degree azimuth coverage and a large elevation threat warning coverage. Additional signal processing and interfacing are provided in an electronics unit. The electronics unit processes the data provided by the receiver units, determines if a laser threat is present, and ties the warning system to the aircraft electronics. The AN/AAR-47 system is a passive electro-optical system that uses temporal pattern recognition signal proc- essing algorithms to detect missile launches and approaching missiles. The system is composed of four receiver units (mounted around the outside of an aircraft) and a signal processing and interface unit. Each receiver unit contains spectraJ filters and a photomultiplier tube that provides sensitivity to energy radiated from missile launch and missile motor exhaust signatures. Each receiver unit aJso contains electronics that condition, process, and format the signaJs generated by received energy and interfaces the receiver to the central processor. Each receiver unit has a fixed azimuth and elevation field of view and, when combined with the other receiver units of the system, provides 360 degrees of azimuth coverage and a large elevation threat warning coverage. The primary signaJ processing and aircraft interfacing electronics are provided in the central processing unit, which determines the presence of a missile threat from data provided by the receiver units and interfaces the warning system to the aircraft electronics. As a start to developing threat warning capabilities for armored vehicles, the Army considered applying the AN/AVR2 and AN/AAR-47 systems to ground vehicles. This was done because laser range finders and antitank guided missiles constitute major threats to armored vehicles. Results of similar systems application in initial field tests have shown that laser warning systems like the AN/AVR2 do provide increased survival capability against laser-based threats. Other systems posing threats to ground vehicles include helicopter based weapon systems; radar and electro-opticaJ target acquisition systems; nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) threats; mines; and semiautomatic command to line-of-sight missiles. To counter these threats, hardware has been developed that uses advanced technology and signal processing techniques. Systems developed so far include millimeter wave, acoustic, and NBC warning systems and RF januners, smokes, flares, chaff. counterrnine devices. laser based countermeasure devices, and missile countermeasure devices. Systems like these must, however. be integrated to provide total combat vehicle protection. This is the philosophy behind VIDS. Millimeter wave detection systems have been developed for use on armored vehicles to warn crews when their vehicle is being illuminated by threat millimeter wave radar systems. These millimeter wave detection systems use one or more antennas (depending on the importance of threat direction data and redundancy of hardware) to receive millimeter wave radiation and electronics units to process acquired data and interface to the host vehicle's electronics. These systems will detect some smart munitions as well as radar target acquisition systems. Acoustic warning systems and NBC detection subsystems have also been developed and tested. Acoustic systems provide non-Iine-of-sight and line-of-sight detection, classification. and identification of airborne and ground vehicles to ranges exceeding those of many of the ground vehicle threats' weapon systems. These acoustic systems use four or more microphones to receive threat acoustic signatures and severaJ microphones to acquire acoustic signatures of the host vehicle to filter out vehicle self-generated signatures. A signal processing and interface electronics unit is used to process all of the received acoustic data and to interface to the host vehicle's electronics. ConceptuaJ NBC warning systems have the capability to detect local nuclear and biological threats, and chemical threats both locally and at some standoff range. To date only the ANNDR-2 Radiation Detection Indicator and Computer (RADIAC) nuclear radiation detection device and the XM22 Automatic Chemical Agent Detector Alarm (ACADA) local chemical vapor detection device have been developed and tested significantly. Several concepts have been assessed for standoff range chemical vapor detection and biological toxins detection, but hardware has not yet achieved acceptable performance. The best RF januners are sophisticated RF transmitting systems. These systems generate and transmit appropriate RF frequencies at power levels sufficient to enter smart munitions both directly and indirectly. Once the RF energy is inside the munition, it interacts with the munition's internaJ electronics, causing guidance signaJ disruption. electronics burnout, and/or 7 warhead fuze detonation. RF jammers for armored ground systems typically radiate in a specific direction rather than omni-directionally. This minimizes the input power required and keeps the jammers from damaging or jamming friendly systems. Both Government and industry have developed smokes that absorb or block energy in the visible, infrared, and the millimeter wave bands. Smokes developed so far are predominantly effective in only one spectral band (visible, infrared, or millimeter wave), but in most cases provide some suppression capability in at least one other band. AU of the armored systems smokes are dispensed by either grenade launching systems (rapid obscuration) or a smoke generating system (obscuration reinforcement). The grenade dispensing system is used when rapid smoke generation is needed (less than 3 seconds) while the smoke generation system is used when sustained smoke generation (up to 10 minutes) is needed. Some Government personnel are also examining flares, chaff, and similar systems for ground vehicles. Teledyne Brown Engineering is now maturing the obscuration reinforcement system on the Armored Systems Modernization program. Countennine systems exist which detonate mines in front of vehicles. Several types of countermine systems could be part of vms, including explosive systems, electromagnetic pulse generation systems, and electromagnetic field generation systems. The first system delivers explosive material on or over a portion of the mine field. When the explosive material is in p}ace, it is detonated, creating sufficient pressure On the mines to detonate them. The electromagnetic pulse generation systems generate a high energy pulse, which is directed toward the minefield. Energy from the pulse interacts with the fuze in the mines and causes mine detonation. The elec-tmmagnetic field generator system, known as the vehicle magnetic signa- ure duplicator (VEMASID), generates a magnetic field in front of the vehicle that dupHcates the magnetic signature of a vehicle and detonates magnetically fuzed mines a safe distance in front of the vehicle. Which of these subsystems is best is yet to be determined, but the Army has several candidates. 8 ceived and developed an approach that integrates warning systems, countermeasures, and armor. Toward this end, TACOM has supported some of the first integrated vms field tests. These tests were conducted at the end of FY92, were successful, and provided the first field test data supporting the potential capabilities of a vms. Teledyne Brown Engineering has analyzed the capability of VIDS to enhance future armored systems survivability under the Armored Systems Modernization program. Teledyne Brown Engineering, one of Team Teledyne's members for the Armored Systems Modemization program. has worked closely with the Government to learn and understand the Government's vms philosophy and the capabilities of VIDS devices being developed by contractors such as LORAL, Northrop, Brunswick, Raytheon, AIL, Hughes Danbury, LTV, Alliant Tech Systems, and Arthur D. Little. In this work, two major advantages of VIDS have been noted: crew warning of an immediate threat does improve the chances of survival on the battlefield, and preplanned smart counteractions to threats are more effective than countermeasures deployed manUally. The warning capability provides the notification that a threat is present while there is sufficient time to do something about the threaL The preplanned smart reaction capability removes the burden of deciding what to do from the crew so they can continue to fight and leaves the threat reaction decision process to a well thought-out logical algorithm that uses all threat and counteraction information available. This allows quicker, more infonned responses to threats than a human can accomplish under intense battlefield conditions. A quick threat response decision means a quick counteraction deployment, increasing the probability of the crew's survival. Teledyne Brown Engineering's role in supporting the vms development primarily involves generating data that illustrates the capability and applications of the vms with respect to the advanced field artillery system (AFAS), future armor resupply vehicle combat mobility vehicle (CMV), Block III Tank, and future infantry fighting vehicle (FIFY). The primary purpose of the Armored Systems Modernization program is to per- form systems and force-on-force analyses in support of the Army's development of concepts for the AFAS, FARV, Block III tank, FIFY, and CMV systems and to develop draft specifications for these systems. Other program goals include development of a systems integration lab to demonstrate integrated performance feasibility, armor research and demonstrations, signature management techniques analyses, and maturation of the

ORS.

Teledyne Brown Engineering has taken advantage of the lessons learned by the Government's VIDS work and has developed a vms concept, for analysis purposes, that uses the VIDS subsystems to warn of a threat's presence and to counter threats, and also uses VIDS to meet the identification friend or foe (IFF) and training objectives the Army has defined for future armored systems. In Teledyne Brown Engineering's vms concept. vms is fully integrated into the vehicle system and functions in anyone of three operational modes: automatic, semiautomatic, or manual. This concept fully supports the Government's idea that vms is not an adjunct or stand alone system, or a set of subsystems, but is integrated into the very heart of the vehicle using the vehicle control and operating system computer(s). The signal processing used to support vms takes advantage of the latest processing techniques to facilitate future growth opportunities. Teledyne Brown Engineering's vms signal processing concept prepares the digital signal processors to evolve to digital signal processing using neural networks which can evolve to hybrid digital and optical neural network processing and, finally, evolution to optical processing, if required. An ASM survivability analysis has shown that the vms improves the survivability of some vehicles more so than for others. For instance, for direct fue or front line armored systems (Block III tank, CMV, FIFY), all of the vms warning and countermeasure systems that can be afforded (cost and vehicle burden) are needed to achieve the survivability requirements set by the Army. However, for systems not performing on the front lines, i.e. AFAS and FARV, vms is currently not needed as much to meet survivability requirements. What does all this mean to future armored systems? It means the U. S. will be able to reduce the size of its armored forces and still protect the interests of the U. S. It means that armored vehicle crews will be able to fight and have a higher probability of survival. It means that as threats evolve, armored vehicles' survivability assets can evolve without suffering significant weight penalties. It means the U. S. can develop systems that weigh less than current ones and still remain survivable on the battlefield even in the presence of improVed weaponry. vms is only in its early stages of development, but it is proving through analyses and tests to be a viable alternative to additional armor. VIDS, in its ultimate form, will improve the survivability of future armored systems yet will be light enough to ensure that the Army can rapidly deploy its assets to any location in the woild. vms will support a leaner and meaner armored systems concept and help reduce defense department costs. And finally, the vms concept will work. The Government and its contractors are making significant progress toward making the vms a reality and a significant contributor to the next generation of armored vehicles' survivability. Frank A. Briglia is a Senior Systems Analyst in the Hardware Systems Strategic Business Unit of Teledyne Brown Engineering. He is currently the Program Manager for the Signature Mocleling Simulation program sponsored by the Army's Tank Automotive Command. In his previous assignment, he supported Team Teledyne's Armored Systems Modernization contract with the Army in the area of fire control systems and vehicle integrated defense systems. 9