Mobile Lasers: HEL MD

The High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator, one of the Army's newest development projects, has used directed energy technology to take down mortars and drones in tests. Photo via Army.

The Army continues to develop anti-drone technology, announcing recent successes with the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD). It has reportedly taken down dozens of low-velocity targets such as mortars and unmanned aerial vehicles at its test location in the White Sands Missile Range. Developed by Boeing, the HEL MD uses a radar system to track aerial targets and a directed energy weapon to neutralize them. There are several directed-energy weapons and defense systems being developed by Boeing currently; click here to read more about the Tactical Relay Mirror System, Mk 38 Tactical Laser System, the Free Electron Laser, and the HEL MD.

The Emblem of the White Sands Missile Range, via the White Sands Missile Range.

The HEL MD joins its sibling technology, the LCS-mounted LaWS, and its less-directly-related HPRF cousin, as yet another major development in anti-unmanned systems technology. While all of these technologies can be used to disable explosive devices, the common link between them is that they have all been tested against and specifically reported as being effective against drones and other unmanned systems. The High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) in the White Sands Missile Range is working on even more powerful directed-energy weaponry, and claims to have the most powerful laser "in the Western Hemisphere" called the MIRACL (Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser). In fact, HELSTF claims that most of its 'demonstration' devices such as the HEL MD are designed for missions that "do not need the full power of the MIRACL." Surely we will see lasers continue to become more and more powerful, and it seems we will continue to see an increasing demand for counter-drone technology.

Eyes in the Sky

Clearing IEDs and preventing terrorist bombings is an area of great technical importance to the military and the world's governments. Air support remains one of the most effective tools for ground troops clearing IEDs in Afghanistan. The country does not have a flat terrain, and the ground force's field of vision is cut off beyond the hills, where an enemy could be waiting to strike from. Air support also gives troops the ability to "see" ahead, and clear the way before having visuals on the road beyond. What the Pentagon Channel's video above implies, however, is a third, powerful advantage in enhanced communication with civilians in war zones.

The situation being filmed in this video illustrates how air support can determine the difference between daily life (i.e. farming) and planting roadside explosives. A task force is called to clear a road of suspected IEDs, and multiple truckloads of specialists and a helicopter are deployed. This massive force travels down a small, dusty road in Afghanistan only to find that civilians are digging holes for agricultural purposes. They are able to determine their intentions because of the helicopter flying overhead, which is able to relay this information without the ground forces having to travel ahead and risk an unnecessary confrontation. Bringing a powerful force into a civilian situation can create feelings of mistrust in the local communities, and US forces rely on strong connections with these communities in order to properly combat real terrorist threats. Therefore, air support aids military operations by providing troops with intel that can improve communications with civilians.

In some ways, this video also shows the clear need for increased unmanned air systems deployment in war zones. If one car had a single UAS, they could have involved a third of the troops sent to the area, and the helicopter would not have been needed at all. The valuable intelligence gathered from unmanned systems in the sky helps not only to cut down costs on aircraft but also on the number of missions troops are sent out on. Sending dozens of military personnel and driving/flying tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment to check a dusty road in Afghanistan, only to find farmers preparing their fields, should become a thing of the past now that unmanned systems can gather information remotely and accurately. In fact, the Department of Defense anticipates this and has plans for it in their Drone Roadmap 2010-2035. We can look forward to unmanned systems cutting military spending in the very near future.

NATO Bomb-Detection

The Stand-off Detection of Explosives (STANDEX) research conducted by NATO Allies and Russia could be the next step forward in technology to prevent transport-system terrorist strikes.

The system involves a multitude of sensors that detect explosive materials. They line the halls of a public area, and as a user sets off numerous sensors, authorities can easily track and apprehend the suspect before they reach their target destination. In conjunction with an HPRF directed energy weapon, this could be the best method of identifying and defusing explosives available. The STANDEX system is rather pricy at the moment, but hopefully prices will be lowered enough to make this a regularly utilized counter-terrorist system inside and outside the NATO Alliance.

It is of importance to note that Russia specifically collaborated with NATO to build this project, as they have been struck with devastating terrorist attacks in the recent years. NATO's other futuristic counter-terrorist technology, the directed energy weapon (or HPRF), will be implemented in 2014. The STANDEX project exemplifies developed nations' continued efforts against terrorism, and the impact terrorism plays and will continue to play in our defense and military spending in the near and potentially distant future.

EMP Stops Car Bombs & Drones

High powered electromagnetic weapons (also known as high power radiofrequency weapons, or HPRFs) are currently being tested by NATO in Norway for non-lethal disabling of cars, bombs, sea vehicles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. This scientific breakthrough is significant for numerous reasons, one being that it can completely power down almost any kind of vehicle without injuring the driver. That means that even a car packed with explosives speeding toward a blockade can be powered down to a full stop and the driver can be apprehended without a bullet fired. Another reason it is an important military technology breakthrough is that it can be highly targeted,disabling only a particular vehicle or device without destroying all electronics in the area. Unlike other directed energy weapons, they can also be operated in poor weather.

An antenna is used to direct the energy generated from a given power source. That power is absorbed by the electronics inside the target and causes operational failure. Research and photo via George H. Baker, 2011.

The military is taking interest in EMPs and directed energy weapons as they are both a valuable asset as well as a threat to critical operational systems and vehicles. Like NATO's car-disabling HPRF, the Laser Weapons System is another directed energy weapons being implemented by the military as soon as 2014. HPRFs are limited by their antenna, and portability is a concern, but they are simple enough that they can feasibly be built from spare microwave oven parts. The Army has been preparing vehicles such as the Abrams tank to withstand EMPs, and more counter-EMP technology will be researched as this counter-technology becomes a more significant threat to critical systems. Research into HPRFs indicates yet another strong counter-drone technological trend among the military and the international community, as these directed energy weapons can cripple any unmanned system within their range. It also brings the world closer to directed-energy weapons making appearances in modern warfare, and the inevitable need to build technologies that can counter directed-energy blasts.

An EMP device is hung above an M1 Abrams tank to test its ability to withstand EMP pulses at the White Sands Missile Range. Such pulses can be generated by HRPFs or nuclear blasts. Photo via US Army.

Open-Source Microsoft Kinect Physical Therapy

"It works, it's not expensive, and we've seen great results from it." - Dr. Glen House, describing NeuMimic's test trials with stroke patients

Seven Air Force cadets have begun collaborating with Dr. Glen House of Colorado's Penrose St. Francis Health Services on a physical therapy system called "NeuMimic." The software for the program runs on a computer and a Microsoft Kinect gaming camera attached. The camera allows the software to track the trainers movements, which the patient must then follow. These movements are represented by colorful stick figures that are first recorded by a trainer, then followed by the patient; the program tracks the patient's ability to accurately follow these movements, and then send the scores back to the trainer. NeuMimic allows for adjustments to difficulty, and sends the patient's progress reports back to the trainer/physician with information about the highest difficulties that patient could achieve. This creates a new metric for tracking rehabilitative progress. Most important of all, it allows for continued physical therapy training and benefits even when the instructor is not in the room, which increases the overall access to care that patients have to physical therapy training and gives the patient more autonomy in their care.

The Microsoft Kinect, seen here taken apart, has been used for many purposes beyond gaming, including robotics, for its ability to track body movements and positioning. Photo via Hacked Gadgets.

NeuMimic helps cut down on costs because it allows for physical therapists and trainers to work with more patients at a time and provide differentiated feedback without being in the room every time a patient wants to practice his or her therapy. Microsoft Kinect's camera is very low cost, and the program is available for free online. The project is now being considered as a remote physical therapy solution for stroke victims, as it has already demonstrated successful rehabilitative potential with stroke patients. The software is available online and can be downloaded and used with a Kinect device for free on any Windows computer: here is the link to the project homepage. Computer science developers have also been invited to collaborate with the cadets on the project, and can download the SDK kit from the NeuMimic website to improve the technology.

Are ICBMs Outdated?

"Since direct wartime nuclear operations against Russia alone, or Russia-China in combination, were Cold War scenarios that are no longer plausible, and since overflying Russia en route to more southerly targets (in China, North Korea, Iran) risks confusing Russia with ambiguous attack indications and triggering nuclear retaliation, the U.S. ICBM force has lost its central utility." - Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report, May 2012, Pages 7-8

The missile test launched at 4:36 A.M.  on December 17, 2013 from Vanderburg Air Force Base in California. Photo via US Air Force.

The LGM-30G Minuteman III is an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) that can reach targets over 6,000 miles from launch. It weighs roughly 80,000 pounds and travels 15,000 miles per hour (Mach 23). According to the US Air Force, there are currently 450 Minuteman missiles in the US ICBM arsenal. There are a number of difficulties with Minuteman III's silo-based launch tactics, including its flight trajectory toward N.Korea, Syria, and Iran going over Russian airspace; Russia's nuclear arsenal is cited as the only one capable of wiping out the US's weapons, and a launch to strike a more southern target could trigger a retaliation response.

Launch ranges from Minuteman III sites, Malmstrum, Minot, F.E. Warren, and a few others. The team from Malmstrom was involved in the most recent launch from Vanderburg. (Global Zero US Nuclear Policy Commission Report, Page 7)

The Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report, authored by Gen. James Cartwright, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Amb. Richard Burt, Gen. Jack Sheehan, and Dr. Bruce Blair reports that the Minuteman land-based missile systems would be "eliminated." Read the full report here.

Our nation's leadership has shifted its public stances on nuclear weapons over the past decade from necessary deterrent technologies to dangers that must be dismantled, and President Obama's administration has widely promoted a public and international rhetoric of removing nuclear weapons from our arsenal. In the Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel even states that the Minuteman III missiles must all be dismantled in the hopes of creating a nuclear-free world. (Page 6) Nevertheless, the military continues to upgrade and maintain Minuteman III missiles; they've been called "the US's prime nuclear deterrent" and are promised to continue being implemented as such "through 2020", according to ATK, an aerospace and defense contracting firm. Despite efforts to lower the number of nuclear weapons, the administration continues to improve the range and destructive capabilities of these technologies, implying that the US is not yet completely ready to give up the Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) thinking of the Cold War era.

US Army Sends 800 to S. Korea

The entrance to Camp Stanley, South Korea. The camp was established in 1955 as a tent city, and has since become something of a memorial for Korean war veterans. Photo via Camp Stanley Korea.

On January 7, one day after US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel met with South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se, the US Army announced a rotational deployment of an 800-person cavalry unit from Fort Hood, TX to two bases, Camps Hovey and Stanley, in South Korea. The Department of Defense press release states the mission of the "combat-ready" US Army's 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 1st U.S. Cavalry Division:

"This combined arms battalion, comprised of approximately 800 soldiers and its own wheeled and tracked vehicles, will deploy to conduct operations in support of U.S. Forces Korea and Eighth Army. This action supports the United States' defense commitment to the Republic of Korea as specified by the mutual defense treaty and presidential agreements."

The deployment information released by DoD does not mention any unmanned systems to be deployed in the Koreas, but the release does state that the equipment "will remain in country for use by follow-on rotations" and that the battalion's missions are part of an "enduring rebalancing effort within the Asia-Pacific region" that "allows for greater responsiveness to better meet theater operational requirements." Knowing the DoD's roadmap for increased deployment of unmanned systems in the Pacific Theater and greater Asia, one can only assume that these systems will arrive in the Koreas at some point in the future if they have not been deployed already.

A map of the 22 recorded US Military camps in the Korean DMZ area shows the clear emphasis on the thin border and naval area separating North and South Korea. Image via GlobalSecurity.

Camp Hovey, located in the Gyeonggi Province, is right on the border between North and South Korea, while Camp Stanley, a helicopter refueling and landing base, is only twenty miles from Seoul, South Korea's capital. Each base is currently home to about 2,500 troops and personnel. Before assuming that these bases are solely focused on militarism, consider for a moment the Facebook photos posted by Area I Red Cloud Casey, part of the collective bases that includes Camp Stanley. They feature musical performances, comedy acts, talent shows, and visitations from the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Even the cast of Sesame Street came to entertain the families' children on an October USO Tour. The welcome video shown below details the many hospitable aspects of deployment in Area I, including access to frequent entertainment, shopping, dining, and other amenities.

Knowing full well that these are skewed with propaganda in mind, these kinds of resources put into perspective the current situation for troops on the ground in South Korea. If conflict were to arise, these bases could once more become heavily active resupply stations for air forces.

Drone Hunters

"Whereas, many Western communities in rural America provide monetary incentives (bounties) for the killing of predators that are injurious to Man and his interests, the Town of Deer Trail likewise establishes hunting licenses and bounties for the killing of unmanned aerial vehicles, in keeping with the Western traditions of sovereignty and freedom." - Phil Steel, 'Ordinance to Defend the Sovereign Airspace of the Town of Deer Trail, Colorado.'

Deer Trail, Colorado has postponed voting on an ordinance that would award licenses and bounties to citizens who "kill" federal drones flying above their property, or anywhere in the town until spring of 2014. The ordinance was written and proposed by Phil Steel, a resident of the under-600-resident town who hopes to create a system that would grant drone hunting-licenses for citizens to shoot down unmanned aerial vehicles in the "sovereign airspace of the town of Deer Trail, Colorado." There are a number of legal violations involved in shooting down government aircraft, but the ordinance is more of an emotional stand against the invasion of privacy rather than a stand for establishing a viable drone-hunting protocols.

A prototype 'Drone Hunting License' posted online by the Professional Drone Hunters. Image via Droneshooters.com

The wording of the ordinance is highly emotionally charged, displaying a passionate yet logically flawed explanation for the imminent need for Deer Trail's citizens to "kill" drones. The introduction to the ordinance is a lenghty portrayal of the town of Deer Trail as the last holdout of liberty against tyrannical government forces, non-government organizations, and 'powerful corporate interests'. In the eyes of its author, these evil organizations used covert and aggressive forces to such a point that Deer Trail's residents must now fight for their very existence. Steel, the author, unabashedly claims the citizens of his town "have and maintain a distinctive way of life that emphasizes independence, freedom, and social/political/economic self-determination" that is currently under threat from surveillance and privacy invasion of unmanned aerial systems. He proposes that the motion to pass this ordinance rests on the historical abuse of government abuse of the residents of his town. Steel writes,

"State and federal governmental entities, non-governmental organizations and powerful corporate interests have previously encroached on the freedoms and liberties of the Town of Deer Trail and its citizens, even to the extent of conducting violent armed assaults against targeted members of our community while jeopardizing the lives and safety of members of the community."

It should be noted that there is no mention of any governmental maliciousness or violence toward the town on the Deer Field public websites, nor in any historical references located online. Still, the ordinance continues with even more hyperbolic statements, saying that world governments, and international interests are all threatened by Deer Trail's "traditional American ideas of Liberty and Freedom." Steel even equates the intentions of the government and of corporations to terrorist groups, referring to them all in the same statements that put Deer Trail on the opposite end of the "Tyranny - Liberty" spectrum.

"State and Federal entities, non-governmental organizations, international interests, state and non-state actors, terrorists and others are threatened by traditional American ideas of Liberty and Freedom, and heritage of such principles remains inherent in the common way of life by ranchers, farmers, cowboys and Indians, as well as contemporary citizens of the Town of Deer Trail." (Drone Ordinance)

The practicality of catching and taking down a drone over such a small tract of land seems unlikely, but if Deer Trail is successful, other towns that are equally afraid of unmanned air systems will likely raise their barrels to the sky. Image via City Data.

In an unexpected twist of levelheadedness, Phil Steele's counter-drone ordinance does take into account several safety precautions so that the 'drone hunters' and bystanders are as protected from harm as much as possible. The ordinance calls for public education of drone configuration and capabilities so that citizens may distinguish militarized drones from commercial 'toy' unmanned air vehicles; accidental engagement with toy aircraft will result in the shooter fully reimbursing the toy owner. To control for the spread of pellets and to protect bystanders, gun sizes and ammunition types are limited. Such regulations include:

• Shotguns 12 gauge or smaller, having a barrel length of 18+ inches
• Shot sizes between 2 and 7.5 may be used (90-350 pellets per ounce)
• Shots may be lead, steel, depeleted uranium, or any other metal alloy commonly used in shotgun ammunition
• Exploding ammunition may NOT be used

Interestingly, the ordinance stipulates that the drone education program's annual funding must not exceed $10,000 and that the majority of efforts must come from volunteer teachers. (DroneShooter ordinance, point f) The limited amount of funds and reliance on volunteer efforts might be effective for the town of Deer Trail, but other towns of larger populations will have to structure counter-drone programs differently in order to sustain their efforts. Considering Deer Trail is only a population of five-hundred, the cost per citizen will be roughly $20 in taxes per person per year, not including the cost of 'drone hunting accessories' such as drone-hunting licenses ($25), gun registration fees, range-finding devices, weapons, and munitions. These are not trivial costs and should be taken into account as each citizen decides how much finance he or she is willing to put into personal counter-drone technologies.

Occupational demographics show that virtually everyone in Deer Trail works in a blue collar industry. The majority of men are truck drivers and mechanics, while women are mostly in 'other management' besides farming. Information via City Data.

When compared with the state of Colorado, Deer Trail's average education level is significantly lower. Information via City Data.

Deer Trail's demographics reveal a side of the story left untold by most media reports on the town. This town has under 600 residents, with an estimated mean household income of $49,000; the town is so small that the number of non-white residents amount to less than 30 citizens. This means that Deer Trail is potentially small enough to raise serious concerns about elected officials being biased toward proposed legislative motions. Though a District Court judge in Colorado recently rejected a legal claim that the town clerk responsible for bringing the drone-shooting law to a vote was 'biased,' it is still entirely possible that this act was used as a political maneuver. The town government consists of a mayor and six trustees, and there are two full-time government employees. Other ordinances in the hands of the eight elected officials include three different medical marijuana prohibitory laws, three nuisance ordinance amendments, a curfew for minors, and fence regulations, to name a few. The town seems to be tackling a great deal of personal initiatives and is heavily concerned with morality- and privacy- centric social issues, while it is less concerned with its clear education gap. When it comes to marijuana or being a minor, the town government of Deer Trail has no problem being heavily involved in peoples' private lives, but when it comes to drones, Phil Steel and certain townspeople fear for their last shreds of privacy.

The town is almost split down the middle when it comes to national party politics, indicating there is a diversity of opinion among this small group. Info via City Data.

The fundamental question for DroneShooter supporters is: even without drone surveillance, how much privacy can you have in a town of less than 600 people?

New Combat Ship Comes Home

After nine months of testing at sea, a new addition to the Navy's family has returned to home port. Littoral combat ships (LCS) are a new class of warship being introduced to the Navy, and they possess several advantages over other ship models in coastal (littoral means coastal) operations. The LCS uses waterjets instead of propellors to move through the water, which will save the Navy roughly $100 million in dry dock costs alone. They are faster than most destroyers, and they are highly customizable. Weapons systems and rescue technologies can be installed, moved, and adjusted to fit mission requirements; these are referred to as mission modules. They can carry two Seahawk helicopters and an assortment of vehicles for deploying forces. The LCS is also adept at minesweeping and deployment of unmanned air and maritime systems, making it an ideal replacement vessel for aging minesweeper ships.

USS Freedom, the LCS that returned to home port in San Diego on December 24. Photo taken by MC1 James R. Evans, US Navy. Hosted by Stars and Stripes.

LCS models have been identified as early candidates for the Laser Weapons Systems (LaWS) designed by the Navy to take down aircraft with high-powered lasers instead of bullets. This makes it a strong counter-drone technology for coastal combat. It is admittedly weaker at surface-to-air combat than most destroyers, but its ability to deal with shallower waters provides more mission versatility than other boats with landing pads.

The USS Independence, the second of the first two LCS in the Navy's ranks. Photo via Wikipedia.

The LCS is cited by the Navy as primarily being a surveillance and anti-access technology. This means that it will primarily take out small vessels, such as speedboats, submarines, and drones. The development of this boat should come as no surprise, as the military has frequently mentioned the need to control the growing development of drone technologies in China and generally in the Pacific Theater. Possessing the ability to deploy its own unmanned systems, as well as the potential for a LaWS installation, the LCS could be the cornerstone to a new counter-drone strategy.

Organs on Chips

Harvard University's Wyss Institute is collaborating with the US Army's Edgewood Chemical Biological Center to further develop "organ on a chip" technology. These chips are small collections of human organ cells that can mimic the function of human organs; for example, the human lung cells can actually be kept alive with a blood flow, and are able to expand and contract with the help of two vacuum tunnels, further simulating the function of the human lung. Organs-on-chips can potentially be used to test prototypic treatments in a more effective manner than animal testing. 

The human Lung-on-a-chip (top) and Gut-on-a-chip (bottom). Researchers at the Wyss Institute hope to create ten different types of organ chips that will all interact with one another in a way that mimics the human body. Photo via Wyss Institute.

The organ-on-a-chip is see-through, which allows researchers clearer visibility of the interactions between chemicals and cell structures. The organs can experience a wide range of responses seen in the human body, such as inflammation and infection. At the top of the list of potential research benefits, organs-on-chips give researchers the opportunity to examine cellular interactions with harmful chemicals without harming animal test subjects. This offers the hope of developing treatments for soldiers and civilians exposed to chemical warfare in war zones. It is also a "paradigm-shifting" technology as far as the pharmaceutical world is concerned. These companies may one day find themselves partially, if not entirely, rid of the costly process of preclinical and clinical research thanks to organ-on-a-chip technology. Cosmetics companies may never have to use animal subjects for testing again.

A diagram explaining the way the Lung-on-a-chip mimics a real lung's breathing motions. The vacuums on the side chambers expand and contract, causing the tissue to stretch as human lung tissues would. Image via Nature.

As stated by the Wyss Institute, organs-on-chips can be utilized in many different markets, including chemical and nanotechnology industries, cosmetics research, animal health research, EPA and FDA regulatory and toxicity testing, and stem cell and regenerative companies. What has the defense and military industries excited is the opportunity to develop rapid testing of chemical, biological, and radiation countermeasures. The human body is far more complex than just ten chips can define, but the implementation and further development of this technology could one day revolutionize animal testing, clinical trials, and our understanding of the human body.

Laser Weapons Systems

The Laser Weapons System (LaWS) is a directed-energy weapon that is capable of locking onto and terminating aircraft without firing bullets or ballistics. It uses a series of laser beams to lock onto the craft, disable any cameras or recording devices, then cause a tremendous amount of concentrated heat to burn the target out of the sky. While it is ineffective in poor weather conditions and is currently unable to take down rapid missiles and fighter jets, it is extremely effective against small aircraft and boats.

The blue beam tracks the location of the target, while the red beam disables any cameras or monitoring equipment mounted below. This would make it highly effective against drone technologies.

The heat generated by the main laser beam causes the visionless plane to combust.

There are a range of benefits to utilizing the LaWS system over surface to air missiles. LaWS is limited by its energy capacity, rather than the amount of ammunition supplied on a ship. Utilizing LaWS means that a ship would need to carry less ammunition, both freeing up space on board as well as lowering the amount of weight (and thus energy needed for transportation) aboard the vessel. While laser technologies are still in prototype phases, they promise to significantly cut costs on ammunition and will be utilized by the Navy in the near future. Rear Admiral and Chief of Naval Research Matthew Klunder says that, although the technology cost the government $40 million to develop, it costs "less than one US dollar" to fire a LaWS blast, as opposed to thousands and "sometimes millions" spent per smart bomb or missile. The first system will be installed and utilized to disable patrol boats and spy planes in the Persian Gulf in 2014.

Maybe one of the most effective uses of this technology is in counter-intelligence and the ability to disable cameras and vehicles without injuring passengers. As opposed to the heavily destructive impact of missiles, LaWS can be adjusted to blind and disable cameras, engines, and more without harming the vehicle's operators. This is a major advancement for naval non-lethal weapons technology, and hopefully it will cut down on war casualties. 

DoD ABCs

Every month, the Department of Defense updates a nearly 500 page-long dictionary of military terminology that is chock full of surprising definitions. Some entries are bafflingly longwinded ways of describing simple things:

"Beach - 1. The area extending from the shoreline inland to a marked change in physiographic form or material, or to the line of permanent vegetation (coastline). 2. In amphibious operations, that portion of the shoreline designated for landing of a tactical organization."

Other entries define common phrases in ways that reveal a great deal about the differences between civilian and military mindsets:

"Act of mercy - In personnel recovery, assistance rendered to evaders by an individual or elements of the local population who sympathize or empathize with the evaders' cause or plight."

"Acceptability - The joint operation plan review criterion for assessing whether the contemplated course of action is proportional, worth the cost, consistent with the law of war, and is militarily and politically supportable."

Several definitions caught my eye as they pertain to technologies and sciences that are not commonly mentioned outside of the military world. In the coming weeks I hope to explore the DoD vocabulary further and find relevant technologies and terminologies to discuss. Below are three definitions to start. Get excited!

An air-breathing rocket uses oxygen from the atmosphere to cause combustion, as opposed to a liquid oxidizer. Conventional rocket technology propels the air-breathing rocket to twice the speed of sound before the atmosphere's oxygen can be used. Image via Oracle.

"Air-breathing missile - A missile with an engine requiring the intake of air for combustion of its fuel, as in a ramjet or turbojet."

The different phases of twilight have varying consequences for whether or not artificial lighting effectively aids our natural vision. Image via Wikipedia.  

"BMCT, or Begin morning civil twilight - The period of time at which the sun is halfway between morning and nautical twilight and sunrise, when there is enough light to see objects clearly with the unaided eye. At this time, light intensification devices are no longer effective, and the sun is six degrees below the easter horizon."

Chaff is like a smokescreen for fighter jets to confuse SAM (surface to air missile) technologies. It is made of small glass fibers coated in zinc. Image via aerospaceweb.

"Chaff - Radar confusion reflectors, consisting of thin, narrow metallic strips of various lengths and frequency responses, which are used to reflect echoes for confusion purposes."

US Army Drone Roadmap 2035

"There have been many technologies introduced during this 8 1/2 years of war. However, I don't think any has made a greater impact than unmanned aircraft systems." - Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli, April 15 2013

The first page of the UAS Integrated Roadmap. Download the entire report here.

The US Army released its updated roadmap for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), planning ahead to the year 2035. The roadmap is updated every two years, and serves as a "strategic communication tool... for UAS development in terms of capability and employment." (US Army) The strategy is broken up into near-term (2010-2015), mid-term (2016-2025), and far-term (2026-2035). Here are the summarized goals stated by the Army's website for each phase.

• "Near-term: Continued rapid integration of UAS into tactical organizations meets the Warfighter's current combat requirements. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance are the dominant UAS capability requirements. Systems in the near-term include: Extended Range Multi Purpose (ERMP), Hunter, Shadow, and Raven UAS."
• "Mid-term: The Army fully integrates UAS. Technological advances increase AUS autonomy and support rapid and fluid operations. UAS resolution and net-centric force capability improve. Optionally piloted vehicles (OPV) and lighter than air (LTA) vehicles emerge to continue to bridge the gap between manned and unmanned capabilities."
• "Far-term: Technological advancements increase endurance and carrying capacity while size, weight, and power (SWaP) requirements decrease. The Army leverages advanced vertical takeoff and landing, cargo, Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) and Nano UAS Technology."
• "Why this is important: Army UAS are the 'eyes of the Army' and support the achievement of information dominance by providing the capability to quickly collect, process, and disseminate relevant information to reduce the sensor-to-shooter timeline."

Budgetary projections for unmanned systems, broken down by type and by research/development (RDTE), procurement (Proc), and operations and maintenance (OM) costs. The vast majority of funding continues to go toward unmanned air systems. Ground systems obtain roughly 1% the amount of funds granted to air systems. (Roadmap, page 3)

Interestingly, near-term plans have been heavily affected by the President's Budget, as it reduces available funds for UAS research and development, testing, evaluation and procurement (RDTE and Proc) by 33.4%. (Roadmap, v-vi) This has made cost-effectiveness an imperative in all military technology decisions in the foreseeable future. Changing political climates and combat operations in the Asia-Pacific Theater are heavily cited as driving forces in unmanned systems development. The Army proposes that it must consider methods by which unmanned systems will enter "more complex environments involving weather, terrain, distance, and airspace while necessitating extensive coordination with allies and host nations." (Roadmap, v) This reveals a great deal of information about where the military sees its attention shifting over the next two decades. Despite facing budgetary constraints, the Army remains optimistic about the progress of unmanned technology integration in the far-term.

"If the technical, logistics and sustainment, training, and cooperation challenges are addressed by accomplishing the projects and tasks described in this Roadmap, advances in capability and affordability can readily address the needs dictated by the plans, policies and operating environments. These advances will achieve well beyond what is attainable today." (Roadmap, vii)

Currently, the most deployed drones are small, handheld aerial battlefield devices seen in the "Group 1" category. The vast majority of deployed devices are multi-service, or shared between military branches. This trend will likely continue as budgets are constrained. (Roadmap, 5)

There is a clear trend toward nano UAS in the far-term. The Army seems to envision a greater need for drones under 20 lbs, and prefers this small size to advanced speed and maximum altitude. At a glance, it also seems that there are more plane-type models than copter models envisioned for deployment. (Roadmap, 6)

There will be a boost in nano robotics for unmanned ground vehicles as well for air systems. Interestingly, Boston Dynamics' quadropedal and bipedal UGV models do not appear as part of this diagram. (Roadmap, 7)

Developments in the UMS category seem less innovative than the UAS category, but the size of each device on average is greater. Nano robotics is not a focus in this area, and instead mine-clearing and maritime surveillance and security enforcement takes the lead. (Roadmap, 8)

Building Iron Man

"We are really looking at stretching the bounds of science and technology." Michael Fieldson, TALOS Project Manager, Socom

U.S. Special Operations Command (Socom) and the Department of Defense are reporting an initiative led by U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command (RDECOM) to develop an "Iron Man" suit titled T.A.L.O.S. The acronym stands for "Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit," and has the ambitious goal of providing the wearer with "superhuman strength [and] greater ballistic protection." Unlike the Iron Man suit, it cannot fly, but that's about the only difference. The suit will utilize on-board computers to "provide operators with more situational awareness around them and of their own bodies." These computers, coupled with in-suit antennae, will also provide the wearer with real-time battlefield information. The materials that construct the suit will be resistant to small firearms, giving the wearer increased protection from ballistic harm. T.A.L.O.S. regulates the wearer's body temperature, heart rate, and hydration levels, and the engineers managing the project claim it could theoretically administer life-saving oxygen and hemorrhage controls if the wearer is wounded.

Lockheed Martin's HULC exoskeleton will enable wearers to carry greater loads. Photo via CNN.

In order to provide wearers with superhuman strength, technology companies are designing suits known as "exoskeletons." They are essentially robotic arms and legs a user can wear to enable greater carrying capacity than humanly possible. Current models, such as the Lockheed Martin HULC, can enable a user to carry up to 200 lbs. in weight while enabling a walking and jogging speed between 3 and 10 mph.

A diagram of the Hybrid Assistive Limb (HAL) exoskeleton designed by Japanese firm Cyberdyne.

Exoskeletons also promise to help the disabled to walk and move freely again in ways unimaginable by current technologies. The HAL-5 by Cyberdyne is the first exoskeleton to be widely used in a country; Japanese hospitals have put hundreds of them to work assisting patients with spinal cord damage. Other models include the Argo 'Rewalk' which enables patients to move themselves, and the Muscle Suit from Kobayashi Labs that enable nurses and assistants to help elderly and immobile patients.

A potential design for the T.A.L.O.S. propsed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. This is titled 'Warrior Web.' Photo via US Army.

What separates the T.A.L.O.S. from exoskeletons in development is the integration of multiple computer-based and protective technologies into one package. The ability to give improved battlefield intel, lift heavy objects, run faster, deflect bullets, heal the wearer if injured, make it seem a work of science fiction. "There is no one industry that can build it," admits a senior enlisted advisor at Socom. Dr. Thomas Sugar, associate professor at ASU's College of Technology and Innovation, cites battery life and accurate interpretation of user's motions are the two biggest hurdles the technology needs to overcome before it will be a common sight. However, these obstacles have not stopped the military from setting a deadline for a T.A.L.O.S. prototype within the next year and a field testable unit within five years. Below is a video of DARPA's Warrior Web in prototype stage of development.