Program Manager Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad

David TackHumanSystems Incorporated

13 May 2010

2

MERS Mission• Manage the Squad as a System. • Integration, modernization, and configuration management of

everything that is worn, carried, and consumed by the squad.• Lead and equip the Marine Infantry Rifle Squad in an

integrated, holistic and systematic fashion that increases the overall fighting ability of the entire unit across the spectrum of its missions.

• Coordinate integration of the squad into mobility platforms.• Provide the ability to conduct systems engineering, human

factors, integration assessments, and spiral development in a reduced time cycle by operating the Squad Integration Facility, “Gruntworks”, as a Systems Command provided resource.

• Ensure integration and technology insertion in the Distributed Operations / Enhanced Company Operations fielding and implementation process

MC-LEAPMarine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program

“We are careful not to load a mule with more than a third of his own weight.”

Col. S.L.A. Marshall The Soldiers Load (1950)

“Pack animals must not be overloaded.”

Small Wars Manual FMFRP 12-15 (1940)

INDIVIDUAL ASSAULT LOAD

020406080

100120140160

Rifleman AutomaticRifleman

AssistantAutomaticRifleman

Fire TeamLeader

Squad Leader Corpsman

Load

in P

ound

s

50 lb Recommended

Maximum Assault Load

(3)(3)

(3)(3)

(1) (1)

97 lb117 lb 114 lb

132 lb 134 lb

97 lb

Actual Assault Loads

(NRAC, 2007)

“We were ordered to wear everything everywhere in the mountains all the time…Even if you were in great shape, you couldn’t keep up with the enemy.”

- Commanding Officer,1st Bn, 3rd Marines

14 Nov 2006

Human Performance Effects

NRAC 2007: Adequate models do not exist that incorporate combat

effectiveness parameters and predict human performance effects of weight.

Marine Burden

Weight

BulkStiffness

Program Aims

• Produce a large dataset of current Marine clothing and equipment combat loads– unloaded baseline, billet load-outs, armor combinations, etc.

• Assess the effects of different combat load decisions, different integration designs, packing/load out decisions, and different items of clothing and equipment in procurement and design evaluations

• Provide essential guidance to infantry leaders to better understand the impact of different combat load decisions on the effectiveness of Marines in battle

• Provide direction for the most promising areas and avenues for research and development

Agility Run

Tunnel & Hatch

Sprint

Tunnel & Hatch

Wall Climb

Window Obstacles

Stair & LadderClimb

Stair & LadderClimb

Wall Climb

Window Obstacles

Bounding Rushes

Casualty Dragor CarryLow Crawl 6’1”, 165 lbs

Casualty Dragor Carry

Balance Beam

Low Crawl

Balance Beam

Noptel MilTrainer

Sensor Pad Stations

Questionnaire Kiosks

LEAP Data Cloud

StiffnessBulk

Wei

ght

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

TACTICAL RELEVANCE

% body weight (or load distribution)

% Survivability

(e.g. hit probability)

% P

erfo

rman

ce

(i.e.

spr

int s

peed

)

Marching Distance in 8 Hours

0

5

10

15

20

25

30 50 70 90 110 130 150Load (pounds)

Mile

s

20 40 60 80 100 120

100

75

50

25

100

75

50

25

-25 -50

0

Design Light Initiative

Process

• Number of pieces of equipment:– approximately 150

• Number of weight, volume and human factors improving findings: – Over 200 recommended weight

and/or volume saving opportunities in various levels of difficulty, cost and timeline.

Initial Findings

• Integration, Materials and COTS alternatives can reduce weight and volume on the Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad’s (MERS) loadout.

• Experienced outdoor/technical garment designers with knowledge of advanced textiles will improve human factors and reduce weight.

• Auto-industry based electronics design and packaging technology will further reduce weight and volume.

• Must look at Squad as a system - “Stove Pipe” development adds weight and negatively impacts human factors.

ILBE/MTV/Hydration Integration Concept

• Marines carry 4 shoulder straps/pads and back panels (ILBE, MTV, Hydration and Assault Pack). Only one is useful.

• Integration will provide improved protection, save weight and improve human factors and functionality.

MERS will be provided with a prototype integrated system in Summer 2010

Weight savings estimate 4 – 7pounds

Significant human factors improvement

Materials, COTS, Design and Manufacturing Process Opportunities

• Design / COTS Alternative Examples– Camera Bag – 15% weight reduction– Tent – 35% weight reduction– Sleeping System, Cold Weather Gear – 15% weight reduction– Power management system – 35% weight reduction

• Materials and Manufacturing Process Alternative Examples– Shear thickening fluid (elbow/knee pads) – 50% weight reduction– Electronics potting compound – 5 – 10% weight reduction– Auto-industry electronics comm packaging – 30% weight reduction– “Space mesh” alternative to foam padding – 5% weight reduction– Seam welding vs. spot weld magazines – 1% weight reduction

• Effect: potential savings of 10 to 20 pounds per infantryman, combined with better human factors = less fatigue, more comfort, and better functionality.

Packaging and Re-Design

Repackaging electronics with new 2009 award winning breakthrough in auto industry technology can

produce significant weight savings in comm gear

Multiple volume saving opportunities with cased electronic systems

SIMPSensor Integrated Modular Protection

Sensor Integrated Modular Protection

• A preliminary functional demonstration using a rapid-prototyping concept mock-up.

• Mock-up design includes modular protection components and novel attachment system for seamless integration.

• Distributed power/data architecture to support modular sensors and displays.

• Sensor integration includes a quick-disconnect solution.

Sensor Integration – SIMP 1

Range of Camera Angles (degrees) SIMP Thermal Camera ~ Pitch (x)

Close-in and Mid-Range

Sensor Integration – SIMP 2

HELMET CONTROL MODULE WITH BATTERIES

HMV AO CARD

BATTERY

CABLE TO VIEWER

VIDEO INPUT LOCATIONDISPLAY BUTTONS AND POWER SWITCH

Hearing Protection

EYE

0.5%

CHEST

3%

EAR

23%

BACK

5%ABDOMEN

3%PELVIS

1%BUTTOCKS

1%

Groin

0%

FEET

0%

HEAD

16%FACE

9%NECK

5%SHOULDERS

5%ARMS

13%

WRIST

0.5%

LEGS

9%

ANKLE

2%

WIA by Location

HEARING LOSS DEGRADES COMBAT PERFOMANCE

Impacts of Noise on Tank Gunner Performance and Survival

TIME TO IDENTIFY TARGET

INCORRECT COMMAND HEARD BY GUNNER

CORRECT TARGET IDENTIFICATION

ENEMY TARGETS KILLED

WRONG TARGET SHOT

TANK CREW KILLED BY ENEMY

GOOD

HEARING

POOR

HEARING

40 sec 90 sec

1% 37%

98% 68%

94% 41%

0% 8%

7% 28%

SOURCE: Tank Gunner Performace and Hearing Impairment (Garinther & Peters, Army RD&A Bulletin 1990, Jan-Feb 1-5

USMC MISSION IMPACT

Inability to localize and identify sound sources in a combat environment

Hearing Loss can place war fighter’s in danger

Diminished oral communication skills (sending and receiving)

Ineffective command and control at small unit level with a potential for mission failure

Veterans Affairs Hearing Loss Disability Costs

Cost of Hearing Loss as a primary disability for All Veterans (1977-2006) Total = $8,385,892,465 BILLION

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05

Millions $ 901,472,784*Major VA Disability Only

Costs are approaching $1Billion annually

• Total $ does not include annual cost for tinnitus disabilities• Total $ does not include treatment costs, e.g., hearing aids, retraining• Total $ does not include disability paid to the 3x more veterans with hearing

loss as a non-primary disability

Hearing Protection