MR-3815 N E ~ E

Al i I L V ---

MEMORANDUM REPORT BRL-MR-3815

BRL

(N HIGH-RESOLUTION, ITEM-LEVEL WEAPONS MODELING

PAUL H. DErrZ 1)TICSELECTEJUL 3 01990

MARCH 1990

APPRoVM I-OR PUBLIC RELEAS DiSTRBUMON UNLIMTE.

T T Q AD?, AV T A n AD A rrDi rnXXA1 iAMn

BALLISTIC RESEARCH LABORATORYABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

_,riginl oontains oolo,'- "pint93 All DTIO ropraduo't-Ions 3Wil b In b1zio;pad

66

DESTRUCTION NOTICE

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. DO NOT return it to the originator.

Additional copies of this report may be -obtained from the National, Technical Information Service,U.S. Departm&nt of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield; VA 22161.

The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position,unless so designated by other authorized.d'9cuments.

The use .of trade names or manufacturers names in this report does not constitute indorsement ,ofany commerciahproduct.

ti4

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY '

UNITED STATES ARMY LABORATORY COMMANDBALLISTIC RESEARCH I ,/BORATORY

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAN', 21005-5066

REPL.Y TOATTENTION OF

SLCBR-DD-S (380a) 20 July 1990

MEMORANDUM FOR Defense Logisticb Agency, Defense Technical Information Cen-ter, ATTN: DTIC-HAS (Mr. William M. Thompson), Cameron Sta-tion, Alexandria, VA 22304-6145

SUBJECT: Technology Screening of Unclassified/Unlimited Reports

1. Reference:

a. Letter, DTIC-HAS, 21 June 1990, subject as above.

b. BRL Memorandum Report No. 3815, "High-Resolution, Item-Level WeaponsModeling," March 1990.

2. This Laboratory conducts rigorous technical, security and foreign intel-

ligence reviews of all technical reports which it publishes. Sut-4ect area ex-perts and security personnel determined that release of the info-flation found

in reference 1b to the general public would not damage the essential secrecy

of Army or Department of Defense programs. This determination was based onthe reviewers' knowledge of the hostile intelligence threat and the require-ments of Department of the Army and US Army Materiel Command regulations.Distribution statement A is appropriate. Request that the Defense TechnicalInformation Center restore the referenced report's original distributionstatement.

3. Point of contact is Mr. Douglas J. Kingsley, DSN: 298-6960.

FOR THE DIRECTOR:

P. ANN BROWNChief, Security Office

19,36 - c~eroh' 5 1.6e JZrmy for- -7if/y ears - 19&6

UNCLASSIFIED . ,___ _ __ __

U SIFIEDForm Approvod

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE TM8 No. 0704-oig

ftoic iloonng ourtfi o to; n O l ' l of t at' vn e mnmated to a ho"S'g hOr O o er1Oon, .nidngi int tin for reavuw nq ntr..ront. se'1ng einqse, ourt gjgatiefng and ma-nt.jninq the0t edd idO*etg idrveigte~4et of .nformatboil sa men ts ~nnfregardin n q lt a ontaeo n Ue 1Oto itcoteun t ntn~mu=l .ndutn Ius,Ol and rbdiang tif we.t ahqolredvh~src~ '00 ottnm~u O2rIOF "~ Ap0tfs.W of5 JtOan tighway. Wuto Mai4 AtllIgtXfl. VA 2U2-4302. arnd to the Otte oft Maornet and mnudgwt. Pamriewo Redixtion ProI~tt(0704-0t58. Wasininon. 0,3.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) . REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

1214b lOAFinl4. TITLE AND SUTIrL.E 5. FUNDING NUMBERSHigh-Resolution, Item-..evel Weapons Modeling

6. AUTHOR(S)

Paul H. Deitz

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADOR.SS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING i MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND AODRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORINGiMONITORING

US Army Ballistic Research Labo,*atory AGENCY REPOT NUMBER

ATrN: SLCBR-DD-TAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 BRL-MR-3815

1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

This paper is taken with permission frm a seies of four articles presented in the Army RD&A Bulletin (publishedby the U.S. Army Materiel Command, Alexandria, VA 22333-0001), beginning with the MARCH-APRIL and endingwith the SFPrITBER-OCTOBER 1989 issues.

12a. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE -

Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited.

13. 48STRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Modem iem-level weapons analyses call for a computer environment which supports both geometric modeling anda substantial suite of predictive codes. This paper reviews th, generation and interrogation of solid geometric modelsas well as a diverse set of performance-related applications codes. Examples of geometric modeling of armoredfighting vehicles are given, in addition, various structural analysis are illustrated. Such modeling and analyticalmethods are cntical for 1) evaluating dhe bcaefits and burdens of design options, 2) supplying necessary Measures-of-Performance for battlefield modeling, and ^) supporting and complementing the field testing of weapons systems

i

14. SUBJET TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGESGeometnu, Modehng, Wcaponb Mudeling, Vulnerability Aial)sis, Performance Measures, ... .0 ____

Item-Level Analysis 16. PRICE CODE

17. ScCURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION I . SECURITY CLASSFIATON 20.UMTAT1ON OF A3~rimCOF REPORT OF THIS PAGEj OF ABSTRACT

.!NC! ASSIFIED . 1N:CI AISF1r7l3 I 11NCIr _ lFflP. I AR .. .NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)

PrM~Cf.b#0 by ANSI Sto Z39-16UNCLASSIFIED 2ij102 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................................. V

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... vii

1. INTRODUCTION TO ITEM -LEVEL M ODELING ....................................................................... 1

1.1 How is it Performed? ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Early Geometric M odeling ................................................................................................... 2

1.3 BRL-CAD Software Tools ................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Examples of Geometry ............................................................................................................. 2

1.5 Other CAD Issues ...................................................................................................................... 3

2. VULNERABILITY/LETI-ALITY (V/L) OVERVIEWV .................................................................... 3

2.1 Penetration Performance ........................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Framework for Vulnerability Assessment ............................................................................... 7

2.3 Lumped Parameter M odeling ................................................................................................ 7

2.,4 Expected-Value Point Burst M odeling ....................... . ...................................................... 7

2.5 Spare Parts Estimation ............................................................................................................. 11

2.6 Stochastic Point-Burst M odeling ........................................................................................... 11

2.7 Sum mary of Vulnerability M ethods ...................................................................................... 14

3. PREDICTIVE SIGNATURES ......................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Optical Lighting ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Infrared M odeling ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Radar M odeling ........................................................................................................................ 14

3.4 Sum mary of Signature M ethods ............................................................................................. 21

4. OTHER ITEM -LEVEL ANALYSES ............................................................................................ 21

4.1 Other Application codes ............................................................................................................ 21

4.2 Planned BRL-CAD Upgrades ..................................................................................................... 21

4 3 Futiire I ue .. . .. . . 27

,4.4 Summary of Other Application Codes ................................................................. 27

DISTRIBUTION LIST ..................................................................................................................... 29

I Availability C(

DI t Avail and/iii / Dist Special

INTrENToNALL~y LEFT BLANK.

iv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Frontal view of the Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle built and ................................................. 4viewed with the BRL-CAD package.

2. R ear view of the B radley . ............................................................................................................... 5

3. Transparent rendering of the Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle ................................................. 6

4. Concept design for a M obile Protected Gun System ...................................................................... 8

5. Standardl cell plot used to display various estimates obtained ...................................................... 10from vulnerability analyses.

6. Front-left elevated view of the current Abrams target description .............................................. 12with the armor and main armament stripped away.

7. Simulation of a laser designator on the Bradley vehicle .............................................................. 16

8. Simulation of an overhead smart-munition sensor ...................................................................... 17

9. Upper image shows IR field data of S.-,it T62 tank .................................................................. 18

10. Two images of an i48 tank which illustrate tie synthetic ......................................................... 19aperture radar (SAR) process.

11. High-resolution SAR images of an M 48 tank .............................................................................. 20

12. Comparison of 94 Ghz radar data with simuiation for M109 ..................................................... 22self-propelled howitzer.

13. High-density shotline sections through a tank target description ................................................ 23

1,4. Neutron transport calculations for a concept heavy tank ............................................................ 25

15. Structural calculations for a concept light-armored vehicle ........................................................ 26

16. A sam pling of twelve overhead im ages ...................................................................................... 28

V

ImTENTIoNALLY LEPT BLANK.

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Status of Penetration Data .......................................................................................................... 9

II. Status of Behind-Armor Debris (BAD) Data ....................................................................... ....... 13

III. Models vs Input requirements/preparation times ........................................................................ 15

vii

INTENTIONALLY LEFr BLANK.

viii

High-Resolution, Item-Level Weapons Modelingt

Dr. Paul 11. Dcitz

US Army Ballistic Research LaboratoryATTN: SLCBR-VL-V (P. Deitz)

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Mv[D 21005-5000

ABSTRACT

Modern Item-level weapons analyses call for a computer environment which supports bothgeometric modeling and a substantial suite of predictive codes. This paper reviews the generationand Interrogation of solid geometric models as well a diverse set of performance-related applicationscodes. Examples of geometric modeling of armored fighting vehicles are given; In addition, variousapplications codes Including vulnerability, signature (optlcal/IR/MMW), neutron transport, andstructural analysis are Illustrated. Such modeling and analytical methods are critical for 1evaluating the benefits and burdens of design options, 21 supplying necessary Measures-of-Performance for battlefield modeling, and 3) supporting and complementing the field testing ofweapons systems.

1. INTRODUCTION TO ITEM-LEVEL MODELING material to the exterior of a vehicle (maintaining F.ccess for

Item-level weapons modeling involves the stuidy of a personnel, weapons, sights, etc.) can the utility of the

single military system such as a tank, aircraft or approach be assessed. So item-level weapons modeling issin icaior shelterm Thecobjectivenofsuchcraftudr the first instance where many technologies join with systemcommunications shelter The objective of such a study design and the compromises and tradeoffs become

normally involves estimating one or more aspects of item den and t icopb e

performance in terms of its ability to meet a set of identifiable and quantifiable.

requirements. Typically a military system may fulfill Second, the results of item-level modeling form themultiple performance requirements so an item may be basic building blocks from which larger integralexamined from many aspects What are typical examples assessments are performed. For example, all battlefieldof item-level analysis? They include estimates of weight, modeling whether at the battalion, division, -r highersize, ability to withstand enemy fire (vulnerability), levels is built on probability of kill (PK) assessments ofmobility, detectability (across many wave-length bands), various firer/targe, matrices The data for these matricesand ability to inflict damage on a particular target class are all the result of item-level modeling.(lethality). Third, item-level modeling supports and extends the

Item-level modeling and assessment are critical to the utility of actual weapons testing. As is well known, manyDoD for a number of reasons. This is the first level of required field tests are extremely expensive. Item-levelassessment in which a technology can be properly modeling assists in weapons assessment by extending theevaluated in terms of actual benefits. For example, a new utility of test data for conditions and environments formaterial for applique armor may appear promising in off- which tests can't be performed due to constraints of time,line tests. However only when this armor is applied to a costs, or materiel availability.vehicle with due consideration to actual placement andmounting constraints and further subjected to the variousthreats and attack directions, does a reliable pictureemerge as to its true utility Another example might be Item-level modeling can be divided into a two-stepthe develvpment, vt a xada cvatLig fvi the bupple sbiuii uf pfutess The lust is a t Cuputei-Aided Design (CAD)armored fighting vehicle signatures A candidate material phase in which a geometric description of the item ismight show high absorptivity in laboratory tests, however,only when the practical constraints of applying such a

f This paper is taken with permission from a series of four articles presented in the Army RD&A Bulletin (published by the U.6. Army Materiel Command,Alexandria, VA 22333-0001), beginning with the MARCH-APRIL and ending with the SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1980 issues.

assembled The result of this is a mathematical file which Early in the 1980's, the BRL made a study of therepresents the fully described shapes and materials of requirements for a suite of CAD tools necessary to supportwhich the item is composed Phase two involves linking vulnerability and other kinds of item-level modeling. Anthe geometric description to an application code to gain in-depth review was performed of possible commercialunderstanding about the nature or potential behavior of candidates, at the time, none was found capable. An in-the item. house development program was begun which has resulted

in an extensive sat of CAD programs which are now calledThe BRL first embarked on this analysis tack some BRL-CAD Although several commercial products in the

twenty years ago to gain insight into two speci']c forms ofarea of solid geometric modeling have appeared in theweapons performance: survivablity/lethality and neutron market p:ace, none has equaled the Army-developed

transport. Whether a particular anti-tank munition will market a blt n o sualed the Amydsoped

perforate a tank armor is inextricably related to both the package in its ability to support the demands of high-

characteristics of the munition as well as the system under resolution item-level weapons modeling.

attack. This includes the details of hit point, armor fall-back angle, line-of-sight projection, material properties, 1.3 BRL-CAD Software Toolsetc. So too the propagation of neutrons from a nuclear BRL-CAD is an extensive suite of Army-generated,event through free space and potentially to occupants of an supported and owned software specifically designed for thearmored fighting vehicle is a phenomenon driven by the spore andeowne oftware seal desin fbasic phy-sics as applied to the speciffc geometric 'ad geometric modeling of weapons systems. Consisting of

some 200,000 lines of source code and approximately 70material configuration encountered, individual programs, the heart of the CAD package is a

In the remainder of this section, various aspects of the geometric editor called MGED (for Multiple-devicegeneration of geometry will be discussed. Following Graphics EDitor). This program, when executed on asections will review specific applications suitable computer or engineering workstation, provides the

visual feedback and operator control necessary to build,1.2 Early Geometric Modeling modify, and validate highly complex geometric models of

tanks, aircraft, communications vans, etc.In the years following World War I, when the There are many possible mathematical approaches to

discipline of vulnerability analysis first devloped, analysts describing three-dimensional geometry This is whyutilized blue-prints to project bullets through targets. different modeling schemes are generally incompatible withShotlines were traced manually through a tank or aircraft dferent Olin me ree iompaiewithone another Originally MGED provided for viewing andto catalogue lists of engaged components. Extracted by editing only the basic shapes mentioned earlier which werehand, as well, were points of intersection, surface normals, part of the first modeling scheme developed in the 1960's.thicknesses, and materials, clearly a time-cons-'ing However the BRL-CAD database has been designed to beprocess. extensible to new data representations. The database now

Late in the 1960's, the shothne i.iterrogation process supports the modeling representations used by Denverwas automated to support the first item-level analysis, that Research Institute, a key provider of geometry for theof TOW warhead optimization against a tank To USAF, and a powerful, so-called, spline entity. This latteraccomplish the first of the two-phase process noted above, mathematical form is capable of following complex surfacea so-called target description was assembled of the target shapes such as those found in cast turrets and aircraftvehicle To do this, a method of target description surfaces which are not amerable to modeling via simplerpreparation called solid geometric modeling was developed shapes.in which target geometry is described by a family of closed Another significant set of tools in BRL-CAD supportsthree-dimensional shapes such as cubes, spheres, cones, and Anther Inifi n to supportsthe like. The resulting computer input file consisted of the rayasting i ddition to s u atrequredshaes ad dfinng mterals Upo copleionlethality analyses, rayceasting is also used to simulaterequired shapes and defining materials. Upon completion neutron trajectories and blast waves, calculate moments-of this input preparation phase, a computer program was of-inertia, and compute radar cross sections, Theseinvoked which projected rays (or shotlines) through the utilities are arranged to operate in parallel so as to taketarget description to extract automatically what had maximum advantage of modern computer architecturesformerly been an entirely manual task. with multiple-processors (e.g. Cray, Alliant, Convex etc.).

At this point it was possible to compute literally A third set of BRL-CAD utilities supports thethousands of shotlines on computers which, by today's generation of images via what art called lighting modelsstandards, were modest machines. The bottleneck of These models simulate what the eye wou!d see frombuilding, modifying, and validating target descriptions various positions in space Of note is the fact that theresoon emerged as a substantial problem. Through the1970's, that process was accomplished entirely by hand, are many other utilities available for manipulating images,with nothing remotely approximating today's world of performing comparisons, creating labels, etcinteractive graphics. During the initial design process ofthe XM1 Tank, for example, none of the automated 1.4 Examples of Geometryraycasting analyses could be invoked because it was not Over the past five years as the new CAD tools havepossible to model geometrically the competitive designs by been placed into production at BRL and other sites, manyhand in a timely fashion.

2

scores of target descriptions have been created. Illustrative have been found and limits tested, feedback from usersof the high-resolution end of the modeling spectrum are has contributed to enhanced releases.the images shown in Figures 1 to 3. A high-detail version 9 Sharing of Geometry: Even under the best "fof the Bradley fighting vehicle is shown from the vehicle conditions, the generation of complex targetfront-left (Figure 1) and rear-left (Figure 2). The target descriptions is an expensive investment. However asdescription used for these images was originally created to workers share geometry, an economy-of-scale develops.support standard vulnerability modeling during the Some analyses have been made possible because theBradley development cycle. In 1985, the level of internal geometry has been available when a specific need hasdetail was increased to support the requirements of the arisen. In addition, since the BRL-CAD package is nowLive-Fire testing program. The high level of exterior in use at a significant number of contractor sites, andetail (tracks, hinges, handles) was added later to support option exists for the Army to require a compatiblehigh-frequency signature calculations in both the optical digital database with contract deliverables. Thisand radar bands. greatly reduces the time required to analyze, for

A BRL-CAD lighting model was used to make these example, concept systems and productionimages. The model supports multiple sources of light; improvements.shadows beneath the main gun can be seen in Figure 1 dueto two overhead sources. The amount of specular (shiny) the same intermachine networking standards as used inor diffuse (rough-surface) reflections can be adjusted to the DARPA MILNET/ ARPANET. This means thatsimulate virtually any material, covering, or illumination multiple machines both within a single laboratory orcondition (including stereo-image pairs). literally across the country can exchange files, share

An option exists within the lighting model to assign databases, and even aggregate computing power foroptical transparency to specific parts. Figure 3 illustrates high-demand tasks.this option in which the armor has been made nearly 100%transparent. This makes viewing of the internalcomponents possible. Some reflection has been given to thearmor so that it can be seen. Many other options are 2. VULNERABILITY/LETHALITY (V/L) OVERVIEWavailable including viewing only certain subsets of The vulnerability of a combat system is an &-sessmentgeometry and supporting animation for motion studies. of its susceptibility to damage given a specific encounter

with a particular threat. Therefore the term vulnerability1.5 Other CAD Issues is associated with the ability of military systems to

There are many ramifications to the development and continue fighting subsequent to an interaction with a lethalexploitation of this technology: mechanism delivered by an opposing force. By contrast,lethality is the effectiveness with which an attacking

" Level of Detail: These CAD tools were originally weapon can inflict damage on a particular target.developed simply to generate target descriptions morequickly. However as higher resolution geometry could The assessment of vulnerability plays a key role inbe supported, many new and important applications many Army studies including:have been developed. - Concept Tradeoffs

" Portability The BRL-CAD package now operates over - Vulnerability Reduction & Lethality Optimizationa dozen computer architectures spanning the range

from $10K single-user workstations to $20M • Inputs to War Gamessupercomputers. The ability to retarget code to new • Cost & Operational Effectiveness Analyses (COEAs)machines quickly has made it possible to exploit more 9 Spare Parts Requirements for Repair of Battle Damagefully the growing wealth of DoD computing resourcesand at the same time avoid "vendor lock in" to a * Logisticsnarrow or cost- ineffective hardware base. Over many years the requirements for weapons life-

* Extensibility. Since the software is "owned" by the cycle support in the area V/L have resulted in a set ofgovernment, source code is available to all users estimation tools We give a listing in order of increasingRequired extensions and modifications can be made by complexity:users of the code. New applications typically require • Penetration Performancenew features or extensions.

• Applications Codes: There is a large body of * Lumped Parameter Probability of Kill Modelingapplications codes which are linked to the BRL-CAD - Expected-Value Point Burst Modelingenvironment. Following sections will review some of Spare Parts Estimationthe more prominent ones.

• Stochastic Point-Burst Modeling" Distribution: To date over 450 computer sites,

Government, academia, and industry, have requestedand been sent full source code. As new applications

3

Figure 1. Frontal view of the Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle built and viewed with the BRL-OAD package.The exterior geometry Is highly detailed so as to support high-frequency radar and optical simulations. (Geometricmodeling by K. Applin, BRL.)

4

Figure 2. Rear view of the Bradley.

5

.-

Figure 3. Transparent rendering of the Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle. Using the same target description fileas in Fig. 1, a lighting model option allows armor to be rendered transparent, revealing internal componentplacement.

6

2.1 Penetration Performance 11 Threat/Target Interaction --

Probably the most fundamental vulnerability question 21 Component Damage State(s) --that can be raised about an Armored Fighting Vehicle 31 Loss of Automotive/Firepower(AFV) pertains to the protection from threat munitions Capabilities -+afforded by its armor. The first figures of merit computedat the early concept phases of an AFV are usually 41 Probability of M-Kill/F-Killprotection levels for various threats vs. the ballistic hulland turret (BH&T). In order to accomplish this a number Step 11 defines a particular warhead/target combinationof inputs must be assembled. The threats must be After a shot, a set of damaged components may bespecified, this task is the province of the Intelligence encountered (Step 21) If components or systems are killedCommunity. The target geometry must be constructed which support mobility or firepower, there may be partialusing the CAD tools discussed in section 1.3. Finally or total loss of these functions (evaluated in Step 31). Theappropriate warhead/armor algorithms and data must be reduction in these measures of performance (MoPs) is thenidentified for the threats to be analyzed. related to a probability of M- or F-Kill (Step 41). During

the late 1950's, an armor board was convened to developFigure 4 illustrates a concept target description relationships between severity of AFV damage and M- and

generated for the Mobile Protected Gun System (MPGS) F-Kill values. The result of that study was the Standardprogram a few years ago. Ignoring for the moment he Dmg sesetLs SA) trltsdmg nSe

exterior suspension system and interior components such as Damage Assessment List (SDAL); it relates damage in Step

the crew, main gun, fuel, etc., this geometry is 21 to PKs Step 41 and n modified form is still in use

appropriately detailed to support penetration calculations. today.

Table I illustrates the status of knowledge for variousarmor/threat pairings. In the case of some of the more 2.3 Lumped Parameter Modelingadvanced technology combinations, insufficient data exist The AFV tests of the 1950's together with the killand vulnerability analysts must make projections. definitions and SDAL were used to develop the first ground

Once the target geometry and threat performance vehicle vulnerability model. Called the Compartmentinformation is constructed, a BH&T study can proceed. Code, the model is built on the following data inputs.Normally a four-inch grid is projected onto the target from * Simple geometry such as shown in Figure 4. Thea series of standard aspect angles A single shot-line is BH&T, exterior suspension, main gun, ammunition andpassed through each cell of the grid and the penetration fuel must be represented explicitly.performance calculated. Figure 5 illustrates a cell plot foran AFV for three horizontal attack azimuths. For the case , Penetration relations for the warhead/armors underof perforation, the cells can be color-coded according to the evaluation.magnitude of residual penetration. . Compartment damage correlation curves.

The correlation curves have been developed from field2.2 Framework for Vulnerability Assessment tests and, in effect, relate the warhead/armor interactions

The systematic study of AFV vulnerability originated of Step 11 directly to PKs given in Step 41. Theduring the 1950's when many firings of antitank rounds Compartment Code methodology accounts explicitly forwere performed against full-scale tanks. By 1960 over warhead penetration at the impact point. This process is1400 firings had been completed. A catastrophic kill (K- used to estimate the probably of a K-Kill due to possibleKill) was defined as the total loss of the vehicle through residual penetration interaction with ammunition or fuel.explosion or burning. However it was observed that However the effects of all other damage mechanisms,penetration into interior AFV space did not necessarily including Behind-Armor Debris (BAD), are lumped intoresult in total vehicle loss As a result, new measures of the correlation curves. These curves are then used to makeeffectiveness called probability of kills (or PKs) were the M- and F-Kill estimates. The model is efficient to run,developed for mobility and firepower functions. A and over many years the BRL and other organizationsfirepower kill (F-Kill) results from an inability to deliver have used it as the principal AFV assessment tool.controlled fire within 10 minutes of being hit and the However, because of the way in which many complexdysfunction is not repairable by the crew on the battlefield damage mechanisms combine in a full-up field test, thisA mobility kill (M-Kill) revults from an inability to execute model can only he used to predict shots forcontrolled movement within 10 minutes of being hit and warhead/targets which have already been fired! Itsthe dysfunction is not repairable by the crew on the extrapolatory capability to new vehicle configurations (e.g.battlefield. spall liners, new armors) and/or new weapons is limited.

The steps in the vulnerability logic process can be Although the outcome of any given ballistic event canshown as- be highly random, this model is built by averaging over

many samples of field data. Thus lumped-parametermodeling yields an average (or first-moment) predictor ofPK

7

Figure 4. Concept design for a Mobile Protected Gun System (MPGS). Inspired by four prior TACOM designs,this BRL variant utilized a mix of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA), reactive, and ceramnic armors. Althoughoffering greater protection than the initial designs, the weight burden was increased by five tons. This level of

gcorctrcrnodini~u~dtouppotpeetraionand !urnped-parameter (e.g. ConmPEartmer Code vulrwrbilityvanalyses. (Geometric model due to J. Anderson, BRL.)

.I I I

CI I N- I I i ,I , I

iI I0%0

0cd0- I

u iis

- - I ' I ). "=

Il I -" ,

=I I .

2;- S.. I

i - I"-

-- S. I o.- -. - 4,

r.0 t. I I

*. .2 A2

v V~

00o . 00

a EO0O C C 0 >0

cn~- t2',0 n

Figure 5. Standard cell plot used to display various estimates obtained from vulnerability analyses. Three viewsof a target are shown: 0, 30 and 00 degrees attack azimuth, 0 degrees elevation. Frorai each of three views, a 4" x'" 61 1u la OuP1r- liljuC Oil tiet..,goitr .angc3o l l-d no ch cc... For groussccm.-otIC.Moutputs include a] residual penetration, b] probability of catastrophic kill (P of K-Kill), c] probability of mobilitykill (P of M-Kill), and d] probability of fire-power kill (P of F-Kill). (Calculations by, J. Ploskonka, BRL.)

103

2.4 Expected-Va!ue Point Burst Modeling sufficient to warrant replacement and required repair time.Because of the Compartment Code limitations, In effect the component PK metrics of the Point-BurstBlnecauseity ofalysts t egCompamnthe limitat a methodology were lowered to reflect a damage threshold

vulnerability analysts beginning in the 1970's sought a rather than a kill condition.

form of simulation which could be constructed from a

series of ballistic submodels rather than built on data from The input detail and run constraints for Spare Partsfull-up firings. This model would have the potential to Estimation are commensurate with Point-Burst methods.evaluate AFVs significantly different from previously testedsystems. The cost for this extensibility is the vital need for 2.0 Stochastic Point-Burst Modelingcomplete BAD and component-kill data bases.

Called Expected-Value Point Burst or in some cases In the last few years, many live-fire test programs havebeen initiated as a result of the National Defense

Coponntly odel this clss of sehind-rmuion emas Authorization Act for FY 1987. One of the earliest AFVsexplicitly both the effects of behind-armor warhead tested with overmatching munitions was the Bradley

Fighting Vehicle. When the BRL was confronted with theTo support Foint-Burst vulnerability assessment, the requirement to predict each of some 150 shots before the

following inputs must be assembled: actual firings it chose an existing (Expected-Value) Point-

A highly detailed target description. Every component Burst Code. Since the Bradley had never been extensively• A ighy dtaild trge desripion Evey cmpoenttested with overmatching munitions exercising a version of(both critical and shielding) of the system must appear tee wo ertn g Modl iors n exrcisinarnexplicitly. If components are missing, they can't be the Compartment Model was not possible.

assessed, and the final results may be biased towards a When the field-derived PKs were compared with thelow estimate of vulnerability. Figure 6 illustrates the estimates from the model, certain variations wereinterior of an Abrams target description capable of observed. Critics of vulnerability modeling rated thesupporting this level of assessment. quality of predictions in terms of the percent variation

* As in simpler models, pdnetration relations are needed with field value.

for all warhead/armor pairings that will be There were three substantial problems at the time inencountered; also for all components. using the extant Point-Burst models in support of live-fire

" BAD relations describing spall generation for all armor testing:

burst conditions as a function of penetration * Lack of Randomness: Some reflection on theencounters. complexity of the destructive processes of ballisticComponent PK assessments for all vehicle critical vulnerability soon leads one to the conclusion thatcomponents P(t seshicsenrts f oblityor ei era there are many aspects of armor penetration, fracture,components (those which support mobility or firepower spall generation, and component dysfunction that couldfunctions). The form of the component PK lead to significant shot-to-shot variability were it

characterization and the means used to describe the le to repeat a given shot coniati manyBAD ust e copatile.possible to repeat a given shot configuration many

BAD must be ompatible. times. In practice the costs of testing and the

" A set of fault trees (or "wiring diagrams") which reflect availability of expensive materiel mean that precisionthe system function of all critical components. In the repeated shots are a rarity.course of the computer simulation, if a given critical No Predicted Component Kill Combinations: Thecomponent is judged to have been killed, the extant Point-Burst models predicted the probability ofaccompanying fault tree shows whether residual killing components individually, but not the probabilitymobility or firepower functions remain, of killing components by specific groups. And it is the

In the last decade a half-dozen variants on the Point- latter which is the primary observable in Live-FireBurst model have been generated which differ only in the testing.manner in which spall and component PKs are . Improper Use of Statistics: Various critics ofcharacterized. The status of BAD knowledge is given in vulner melingSratedthe qaiy ofTable I. vulnerability modeling rated the quality of assessments

by comparing directly the single field PKs with the

In addition to the detailed inputs, computer run time (first-moment) predictions. This is the equivalent ofincreases markedly, mainly due to thc Gholt1hnc wimF."*,6 . - gic . ar.ipl from a gauwlan (bell cxinterrogation of the high-resolution target description distribution with the average of the same curve, noneeded to model the spall process. As in the case of the useful inferences can be drawn.Compartment Model, the output of these models is an At the onset of the Abrams Live-Fire program, a newestimate of expected M and F PKs. stochastic point-burst code called SQuASH was developed.

This is a Monte Carlo code which varies a) penetrator hit2.5 Spare Parts Estimation location over a small area, b magnitude of warhead

During the past ten years, interest has grown in the performance, cl deflection of residual penetrator, d] the

areas of battle-field resupply and spare part stockpiling, statistics of spall generation, and el the component PKs.

The point-burst methodology described above was SQuASH was used to predict the 48 Abrams live-firemodified to account for two metrics, component damage shots. Although the model predictions and field

11

>__ 1- 7 .

W-1I

Figure 0. Front-left elevated view~ of the current Abrams target description with the armor and main armamentstripped awe - Generated to support high-resolutioa point-burst vulnerability analysis, this description iscomposed of sorie 5000 indiiidual components Including hydraulic lines and electrical wires. (Geomnetric model due toC. Dively, S. Henry and J. Vanlerbeek, BRL.)

12

I I j

I I

' I

4 C ! 4

4.-II I-4

- I "

I 4n o

o I I .

I1 C!""

4-UI oI - ' -

I.

in8

42~~~ = -- 0

od I. U

r~ P.

0 -l

43*0

U)U

0 ) ~ 4.

0i4.C0 !!l E

C)

13

observations are still being analyzed, it is clear that an has been placed on a ground plane and an optical sourceextraordinarily large number of variations in component simulating the sun positioned above Image 8a (upper left)damage can occur in live-fire testing. In one shot shows a high-definition image, complete with groundsimulation more than 1.8 million disti.ct damage states shadow. To illustrate the processing methods used towtre calculated as possible outcomes (Step 21, 2.2 simulate noise and resolution constraints, the image givenrramework). When these damage states were mapped in 8a was modified via ar, algorithm which introducesvie the SDAL to generate PK histograms, disperse and ill- noise. The result is shown in Figure 8b (upper right) Nextbehaved statistics were observed. In some cases 20% of the a sequence of two optical filtering operations wasPKs were zero, another 20% were unity, and the rest were performed to reduce the image resolution The final resultdistributed between the extremes. Not atypically, the is shown in Figure P- (lower left).average PK (first-moment) occurs where not a single There are also methods to take a two-dimensionaloutcome is found! image (such as a camouflage pattern) and transfer it onto

Much more work, both analytical and experimental, the surface of a target description. This procedure mightwill be required to provide precise uncertainty limits on be used to support optical pattern recognition studiesthis class of computation.

3.2 Infrared Modeling2.7 Summary of Vulnerability Methods Predictive signature modeling can be extended to other

We have reviewed here a set of item-level vulnerability wavelength regions Figure 9 illustrates a simple proceduretools used mainly to evaluate AFVs for various direct-fire which shows how the utility of measurements can bethreats. Although the nature and relative importance of extended greatly In the upper image, an infrared (IR)certain damage mechanisms are different, a similar set of image is shown of an actual Soviet T62 tank. Thecodes can be found in the evaluation of air targets. In temperatures inferred by measurement are made visible bygeneral as an item moves from con-ept towards false-color imaging. A calibration bar below the imagedevelopment and beyond, the vulnerability assessments gives the appropriate color-temperature associations Tobecome more detailed and resource intensive. Table III give greater utility to these measurements, a targetgives time bounds (in man-months) required for the description of a T62 has been configured identically to thevarious models described above, measured vehicle to include the same gun-elevation angle.

In a special mapping procedure, the measuredtemperatures (top) have been mapped (transferred) to thetarget geometry (below). Through this procedure, the

3. PREDICTIVE SIGNATURES target can be viewed from angles other than that of data

In this section, some techniques of predicting military capture; in addition, the target thermal performance cansignatures will be described. The methods used can be u.- -::trapolated to other IR bands via standard algorithms

considered variations on the general approach to item-level of radiation physics.

modeling previously described. Over the past few years the Neweenaw Research Centerand TACOM have developed a predictive IR model. Work

3.1 Optical Lighting is currently in progress to replace many of the tediousmanually prepared inputs with geometric and material

In a previous section the BRL-ighting model was used data converted automatically from BRL-CAD target files.to create simulated optical images of various militarytargets. With this lighting calculation, the amount ofspecular (shiny) or diffuse (rough-surface) reflections can beadjusted to simulate virtually any material, covering or The final examples of predictive signatures involve theillumination condition. Transparency, illustrated with calculated radar properties of military targ ts Historicallyglass armor, was also demonstrated. radars were used to infer target range and closing rates.

The lighting model can also support a geometric For the early radars, a figure of merit, the radar crossThe ighing ode ca als supor a gomericsection, was of key importance, as it represents theconfiguration in which an optical beam is directed towards ecienc wit which ra e a sterebcto the

aefficiency with which radar waves are scattered back to theantrgetro Thonfdigrtion wi i typica kes o lae rm receiver. Certain modern radars, when placed on movinganother This configuration is typical of laser-designator platforms such as aircraft, can be used to form a two-studies of the type needed to support the Copperheadlaser-guided artillery projectile The Bradley vehicle dimensional image of targets. Radar imagery of this class

description is used to illustrate this capability in Fgure 7 is called synthetic aperture radar (SAR) A description ofThe optical scattering pattern is distributed across the an M48 tank has been analyzed with a SAR program (duethet wpile stetergt patte is rdtrbed acrosse- he to the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan), andturret while the target outline is rendered in wire-frame the results are shown in Figures 10 and 11. In the upper

right of Figure 10 the orientation of the target vehicle is

A second optical prediction result is shown in Figure 8. shown as seen with respect to the radar. A horizontalHere the Bradley target descriptio, is used to show the flight path (left to right) is assumed The properties ofview from an overhead optical sensor as might be SAR processing are such that following signal detectionencounted in a smart-munitions simulation. The Bradley and manipulation an image is derived which resolves the

14

A C)

I 0 N

U * 3

~s C. I I

- Ud ccLo La

-~4-0

0~

S ii

E-IC

E- is A. i.,n ~

12 I .

-d

AI7I

____

Fiur 7 imlain f a~' eigatr nth bale ieice.Uin te oel aytage urac onito

rilumination/viwe orieat-inao be use (Lightin moehile esltdg toe G.mos, an tretsrfc)nito

or llmiatonviwe orenaton cn e se. (igtig noelreultdu t G Mss 16.

I

II

Figure 8. Simulation of an overhead smart-munition sensor. A ground plane has been placed under a Bradleyvehicle with the sun positioned overhead (upper left). Noise has been mixed with the firt image (upper right). Inthe lower left image, filtering operations have been performed to reduce the (simulated) resolving power of thesensor. (Lighting model result due to G. Moss and E. Davisson, BRL.)

17

31-138_______

Figure 9. Upper image shows IR field data of Soviet T62 tank. Lower Image shows the field data mapped onto thesurface of a target description. With this method, ..-. siial imagea can be generated for other viewer positions andthermal regions. (JR model result due to G. Moss, BRL.

is

Figure 10. Two images of an MIS tan': which illustrate the s nthetie aperture radar (SA.R) process. In the upper-right is the target as viewed by the radar. Below is the image orientation after radar processing. (Iynages5 due to E.Davisson, BRL.)

19

IFigure 11. High-resolution SAR images of an M 4S tank. In both images, cross range 1s plotted against range. Onthe left, the vertical/ vertical (vv) polarization components are shown; on the right, the vertical/ horizontal (vh).

(Irnage8 due to E. Daviason, BRL.)

20

target in range and cross-iange (a'ong the flight path) but 4. OTHER ITEM-LEVEL ANALYSESnot in the remaining orthogonal .i' et n. Thus the final Of all item-level applications, the vulnerability andSAR image orientation is similar to th. optical rendering signature methods are the most heavily exploited by theshown in the bottom left of Figure 10. A pair of computed weapons modeling community; nevertheless theSAR images for the M48 is shown in Figure 11. The labels possibilities and potential impact of this class of modelingvv and vh represent two combinations of transmit/ receive go es a nd tetwo ipli n this s einpolaizaion verica! hoizotal)staes.In aditongoes far beyond these two disciplines In this section,apolarization (vertical/ horizontal) states. In addition, brief review will be made of other item-level applicationsthese calculations have been made in a high-resolution which have been developed to date. Finally, some of themode (about two-inch resolution) and are not constrainedwhchaebndvlodtoae.Falysmeftebyde pactical freqncy orresolutonce tcons raind opossibilities and issues connected with growing utilizationby practical frequency or coherence considerations ofofi e - vl m d l ng w lbe is u e .realizable radar systems. In each of these images, the of item-level modeling will be discussed.radar signal is propagating from left to right. Rangeinformation is plotted along the abscissa and cross-range 4.1 Other Application Codesdata along the ordinate. Weights & Moments-of-Inertia: As noted previously,

The scattering of radar waves is determined by both when a target description is assembled, both thetarget shape and material composition. Flat surfaces, geometric shapes (internal as well as external) are fullyparticularly in combination, tend to reflect radar waves defined. In addition, each geometric entity of theefficiently in preferred directions. A number of programs description is assigned a unique name to which specifichave been written to extract from target descriptions those material properties are related. For the task of weighto. rface shapes which are 11 flat only and 21 have dihedral estimation, the material density of each component or(right-angle) elements. The information provided by these part is linked to the geometry. By firing mathematicalprograms can be used as input to certain radar models as rays in a tight grid and viewing groups of these rays,well as providing guidance in the minimization of signal the composition of a target can be seen in highreturn from US systems under design. resolution. Figure 13 illustrates this process in which a

Finally, predicting the performance of high-frequency x 1 matrix of rays was fired through the front of aFinalypreictng he erfomane o hih-fequncyheavy tank target description. Groups of rays in

radars can be particularly challenging because of the horizontal sections were then extracted for individual

geometric detail required as frequency increases. A tool viewing. Two are shown; the various gray levels

which is finding increasing utility is illustrated in Figure (na rendere icolnd the sar et12. he bjetiveis o caraterie rdarscaterig a 94(normally rendered in color) indicate the specific target12. The objective is to characterize radar scattering at 94 materials (armor, ammunition, fuel, crew, air, etc.). If

Ghz to support smart munition as well as armored-fighting the material density information used for viewing is

vehicle design. In the upper right portion of Figure 12, a integrated over all rays in a given section, the weight oi

US M109 self-propelled howitzer is shown from the-left the target is derived for that particular one-inch

rear. This is an optical image of the actual vehicle. The thickness. If all sections are added, the weight of the

middle right image is a plot derived from a 94 Ghz entire system is estimated.

scanning radar (6-inch target resolution) set in a co-

polarized mode. The cross-polarized mode is shown in the Such a process is important in many stages of weaponsbottom right. To simulate this process, a target system evaluation. In all military systems, whetherdescription of an M109 was built to a high-level of detail conceptual or fielded, air or ground, weight is a criticalincluding high-resolution tracks and suspension system. constraint.This target was viewed from the same orientation as the By similar methods the Center-of-Mass and theactual optical image (upper right) and is shown in the Moments-of-Inertia (Mol) of a system can be estimated asupper-left corner. Using the lighting model described well. The Mol are a measure of the torques required toabove, the target was given the properties of a purely change the rotational rate of a mechanical assembly.specular (mirror-like) object. A single light source at theview position was used. The middle-left image shows the The BRL-CAD tools have been used, for example, toresults. A glint image, highly suggestive of the right estimate 11 the baseline weight of an M60, and then 21 themiddle and lower images, is shown. The middle left image change in weight for various configurations of appliquewas low-pass filtered to achieve an even greater similarity armor In addition, Mol calculations were performed withwith the field data shown on the right, the applique layouts in order to estimate the required

changes in the turret slewing hydraulics. These methodshave also seen application in problems such as estimation

3.4 Summary oftSlgnature Methods of vehicle overturning moments due to nuclear (air) blastThis has been a brief review of some state-of-the-art wave and a howitzer undergoing firing cycles.

techniques for predicting military signatures The general * Neutron Transport: When a nuclear weapon ismethods share an approach used for many other kinds ofhighreslutin clcuatios i ite-leel nalyes.Thedetonated, several threats to equipment and personnelhigh-resolution calculations in item-level analyses. The exist. Among these is nuclear radiation. Using aprocedure is based on the construction of computer files computer code developed at Oak Ridge Nationalrepresenting three-dimensional geometry and related Laboratory, the initial radiation output from a nuclearmaterial 'properties. These files are then linked to a Laoa te tal rdeation mpartculr apliatin cde bscdon he equredweapon can be track d from the point of detonation top articular application code based on the required a region within a military vehicle.signature, viewing angle, and other physical attributes.

21

Figure 12. Comparison of 94 0hz radar data with simulation for MIN self-propelled howitzer. Right-handimages are fteld~derived; left-hand are simulations. (Experimental data due to H. Wallace, BRL, predictionis due to T. Karrand E. Daviaaon, BRL.)

I. 22

material~~~....... des1is oillzinsb .Sckig R.

231

A number of years ago this code was used to estimate problem. Linkage can occur via "front-door" avenues,the neutron dosage just below the driver's hatch in a such as through antennae which are designed to collectconcept vehicle. Called the Tank Test Bed, one particular low power microwave signals, or through "back-door"configuration is illustrated in the upper half of Figure 14. channels, such as cracks and seams in the outer vehicleIn this study, the total radiation dose reaching the driver's skin These potential channew, and their unavoidablehead was calculated while monitoring the specific exterior interplay result in the need to analyze systems as aportions of the vehicle through which the radiation leaked. whole in order to achieve reliable target killIn the lower half of Figure 14 the image shading has been assessments. A goal for HPM is development of aadjusted according to the magnitude of neutron flux. computer-based methodology which uses the standardHigher neutron flux surfaces are shown in lighter shades. BRL-CAD target models (perhaps with some

Structural/Acoustic Analysis- Structural integrity is an augmentation) in the assessment of target

important issue in the design, analysis and testing of vulnerability. The development of a computer model

military items. It is clearly a central issue for both has been contracted for and the first-stage deliverables

fixed and rotary-wing aircraft; in the past it has not are under review.

been an issue for heavy tanks, but now has taken on • X-Ray Simulation. Recently an extension was made toincreasing importance with lighter fighting vehicles, the BRL-CAD environment to simulate the behavior ofparticularly as the use of explosive applique armor has X-rays in materials. The radiation source can bebeen considered. placed at an arbitrary point in space. A series of raysA baseline calculation is often employed to yield the are then extended through the object for which the

simulation is to be performed. The material attributesso-called "static case" in which a steady force is applied toa portion of a vehicle. Such a pilot study was performed assigned to the regions of the object can be related to

using a chassis design for a Mobile Protected Gun System at the asde on bjec t e calulaed andrthn(MIPS). The RL-AI5 eomtry ssebledforat the far side of an object can be calculated and then(MPGS). The BRL-CAD) geometry assembled for transformed according to the efficiencies typical of film

vulnerability analysis was translated into the CAD format t etion. rIma g hav e een ie fora ofof a commercial finite-element preprocessor (PATRAN 7"'). detection. Images have been derived for a number ofofside a his c omm ler teen preprocewssordivided iAtRo d e objects including portions of heavy tanks. SuchInside this modeler the chassis was subdivided into discreteofelements and then passed to a finite-element code experimental X-rays normally taken in armor(ADINA "1 where a steady force corresponding to the penetration studies or other noninvasive tests.turret weight was applied to the region of the turret ring.Figure 15 below shows the von Mises stresses calculated The techniques described here and in the previousover the chassis. The results reveal a conservative design, sections represent current methods of high-resolutionfar below the levels at which plastic deformation begins, item-level modeling. By inference, many other kinds of

The same finite-element medium can be used for other applications can be supported, limited only by the

classes of calculations. One study performed involved imagination of the analyst.

calculating the natural harmonic frequencies of this chassisdesign together with the amplitudes of oscillation. Such 4.2 Planned BRL-CAD Upgradesresults can be important in reducing harmonic resonances The capabilities of the current set of tools derivewhich can affect vehicle mobility; they relate as well to the mainly from the distinct requirements of the vulnerabilityacoustic signature of the vehicle, and signature communities. However it is recognized that

" High-Energy Laser. In the 15 years prior to 1984, there are specific extensions which would bring the utilitymany high-energy laser experiments were carried out, of these tools to other users with their own distinctthese tests established an effects data base for lasers of requirements.various wavelengths (primarily 10.6 and 3.8 microns) o Blueprints: For a sgnficant number of weaponsand wave shapes (pulsed and continuous) During the anBlrts oa snc nmbe of eaonssame time vulnerability tests were conducted to analysts today, the world of CAD means aiding thesaestih co nent-damage tresholdse particuly process of blueprint generation. Although the BRL-establish component- damage thresholds, particularly CAD tools can generate elegant optical images as wellfor those utilized in optical systems, missiles and aD tool er ecal m ags suwlaircraft. The information gathered in this testing has as the simpler scaled "wire-frame" drawings, suchbeenuse toassmblea lserdamge efecs mdeloutput falls far short of the requirements forbeen used to assemble a laser-damage effects model dimensioning, tolerancing, and other standard fare ofBRL-CAD LaigeL dwcfipLion:, giviing the three- the industrial-design world Two approaches todimensional geometry and material definitions, serve as gaining this capability are being examined. Onepart of the input This information is combined with involves generating blueprints directly from a BRL-illumination dwell times and damage thresholds to CAD data base via a set of stand-alone software. Thecompute likelihood of component degradation/ target other approach involves creating a mapping codedestruction. capable of transforming target, descriptions generated

" High-Powered Microwave (HPM). HPM weaponry is with BRL-CAD into a format used by a secondcurrently in the exploratory research stage. The modeling system already capable of blueprintcoupling of microwave energy to the components of a generation.target is an extremely complicated, non-separable

24

figure 14. Neutron transport calculations for a concept heavy tank. , Fitdiwsur dat Lu J. Ksii"h, BAL.)

25

1.13030

2. 1 #03

1 .403.2

1.03403J

F~gu'~ 1~ ~rot'tt nriipnt1~~h...tvmn.pdvphrp, Pr~dttzn dn toJ~ Qs1. j, R-U,

26S~j-

* 3-D Mesh Generation. The origins of the current set of The approach taken in the BRL-CAD env;ronment hasBRL-CAD software arose 20 years ago in order to been to modularize those parts of the software in which thesupport vulnerability and neutron transport analyses. mathematical definitions of 3-D shapes play a role. ToolsThe way in which the early analysts chose to link the have been developed so that as new mathematical formstarget descriptions with the applications codes was are required, they can be added easily at these key sectionsthrough ray casting (or ray tracing). This method fits of code. All other parts of the environment, includingconveniently the notion of bullet and neutron interfaces to applications codes, remain unchanged.trajectories, and indeed the majority of codes The first foray into using BRL-CAD as an Armyillustrated in this article use ray casting as the means of standard begins now with the Heavy Forces Modernizationconnection. (HFM) thrust. The objective of HFM is provide the Army

There exists, however, an important body of with the optimum ground-vehicle fleet in the year 2004;applications codes which, rather than depending on ray nearly 30 vehicle types are included. All vendors will betracing, require geometry described in terms of a regular required by contract to submit geometric and materialcollection of facets, or flat approximations to the actual descriptions of vehicle designs in the BRL-CAD format andgeometric surfaces. The BRL has initiated a project to to provide updates at six-month intervals.develop software capable of transforming the standard On the other hand, with too many standards, technicalform of target descriptions into one composed entirely of innovation can be stifled. Such a situation could arise in asuch facets; the size or courseness of such facets would be future weapons procurement if both a solid-modelingset by the user. requirement and the new DoD Computer-AidedAcquisition

The success of this project could open important new and Logistics Support (CALS) system are applied. CALSavenues of analysis. For example, some predictive thermal is a laudable interservice effort to provide standards forcodes (such as the PRISM model developed at TACOM) computer-aided design drawings, text formatting, graphicsrequire facets as the basic building block for analysis. and pictures. However since solid geometric data is aCertain radar codes (such as one in use at Northrop) complete form of specification as opposed to blueprint-levelrequire a target model composed of facets so that specification, the former is not derivable from the latter.numerical integration methods can be applied directly to If the latter were defined to be the primary deliverablethe geometry. Also many of today's most powerfdL under a government contract, it might well preclude theinteractive computer workstations have on-board hardware use of the more advanced technology. These and relatedcapable of performing real-time image generation for issues will provide interesting challenges as the electronicgeometry supplied in a facet format, age advances.

In a time of shrinking resources, the maintenance of4.3 Future Issues BRL-CAD software and related data bases is receiving

Currently the AMC has a renewed interest in CAD. A increasing attention. At least three aspects are involved:

charter for an AMC Functional Coordinating Group for [1] The CAD package itself has been distributed to overComputer Aided Design-Engineering (CAD-E) was 450 computer sites. Code and documentation mustapproved on 24 February 1989 The CAD-E Group is be written and distributed, bug-fixes performed,directed to make a strategic assessment of AMC CAD-E and extensions made as new capabilities are sought.efforts, evaluate the feasibility of a standard CAD-Esystem and determine how such a system would be [2J Various inhouse applications codes (vulnerability,maintained. signature, etc.) must be maintained, extended, and

distributed within a growing community of users.An issue which is always problematic involves the Also codes developed by outside users need to be

extent to which standards should be imposed on a brought in, examined, and sometimes installed forparticular community of users. Without some standards, inhouse production use.interchange of data may become difficult or impossible 131 Among the community of target-description

The plethora of ways in which geometry can be providers [BRL, Denver Research Institute .(seerepresented is in fact the reason solid geometric data Section 1.3), and other contractors] there now existgenerated by one commercial modeling system generally hundreds of military target descriptions, domesticcannot be used by another vendor's system Sometimes and foreign, in a shareable format. Mechanisms

thE. bdZLS.~ UuLt. L.uhi.u U.A.. i kt AAU.fval I ud li .iui~d ivi btvz jug, 6uialiig

cannot be exactly handed over to another due to and upgrading these valuable assets.mathematical constraints. Another typical incompatibilityarises because most vendors choose to keep the nature and 4.4 Summary of Other Application Codesformat of their data base inaccessible to the user. This is acommercial strategy referred to by some as "vendor lock In this review, many modern computer-based mthodsin". The government-supported Initial Graphics Exchange have been described in support of high-resolution item-Specification (ICES) has been moderately successful at level weapons modeling. Without doubt these methodsdefining standards for sharing wi:e-frame (or drafting- will enjoy increasing use both throughout government andlevel) geometry but is unlikely to provide a common industry. This exploitatiou is possible because of ameta-language specification for the solid modeling world number of factors including the establishment of rigorous

27

algorithms, the uniform support provided by moderncomputer software environments, and the power and low Dr. Paul H. Deitz is Chief of the Vulnerabilitycost of today's computer hardware Methodology Branch, Vulnerability/Lethality Division, of

The development of these tools is due to the efforts of the USA Ballistic Research Laboratory. He holds amany scientists and analysts, it is significait that a nmajor bachelor's degree in physics from Gettysburg College andportion of these modern analytic methods owe their masters and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering fromexistence to Army-sponsored and staffed research, the University of Washington.

28

No of No ofD_ i2rianization CQni Organization

(Unclass., unllmlted)12 Administrator 1 Commander(Uclass., limited) 2 Defense Technical Info Center US Army Missile Command(Cla.sinCd) 2 ATTN: DTIC-DDA ATTN: AMSMI-RD-CS-R (DOC)

Cameron Station Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5010Alexandria, VA 22304-6145

1 Commander1 HQDA. (SARD-TR) US Army Tank-Automotive Command

WASH DC 20310-0001 ATTN: AMSTA-TSL (Technical Library)Warren, MI 48397-5000

1 CommanderUS Army Materiel Command 1 DirectorATN: AMCDRA-ST US Army TRADOC Analysis Command5001 Eisenhower Avenue ATTN: ATAA-SLAlexandria, VA 22333-0001 White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002-5502

1 Commander (Cls. oly) I CommandantUS Army Laboratory Command US Army Infantry SchoolATrN: AMSLC-DL ATIN: ATSH-CD (Security Mgr.)Adelphi, MD 20783-1145 Fort Benning, GA 31905-5660

2 Commander (Unclas. only) 1 CommandantArmament RD&E Center US Army Infantry SchoolUS Army AMCCOM ATIN: ATSH-CD-CSO-ORATrN: SMCAR-MSI Fort Benning, GA 31905-5660Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

(Class. only) 1 The Rand Corporation

2 Commander P.O. Box 2138Armament RD&E Center Santa Monica, CA 90401-2138US Army AMCCOMATrN: SMCAR-TDC 1 Air Force Armament LaboratoryPicatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000 ATrN: AFATL/DLODL

Eglin AFB, FL 32542-50001 Director

Benet Weapons Laboratory Aberdeen Proving GroundArmament RD&E Center Dir, USAMSAAUS Army AMCCOM ATrN: AMXSY-DATrN: SMCAR-CCB-TL AMXSY-MP, H. CohenWatervliet, NY 12189-4050 Cdr, USATECOM

ATTN: AMSTE-TO-F1 Commander Cdr, CRDEC, AMCCOM

US Army Armament, Munitions ATTN: SMCCR-RSP-Aand Chemical Command SMCCR-MU

ATN: SMCAR-ESP-L SMCCR-MSIRock Island, IL 61299-5000 Dir, VLAMO

ATTN: AMSLC-VL-D

I CommanderUS Army Aviation Systems CommandATIN: AMSAV-DACL4300 Goodfellow Blvd.

Si. TLOtiS, %. V 40 6311210-11-17¢ 97 0o

1 DirectorUS Army Aviation Research

and Technology ActivityAmes Research CenterMoffett Field, CA 94035-1099

29

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofcap -CigaiL= Chpies Organization

10 C.I.A. I Office of the Under SecretaryOffR/DB/Standard of Defense, R&EGE,17 HQ ATTN: Dr. William SnowdenWashington, DC 20505 Tile Pentagon, Room 3D359

Washington, DC 20301HQDA (DAMI-FIT, COL O'Connor)WASH DC 20310-1001 1 Cffice of the Asst Dep Dir

of Defense Live Fire TestingHQDA (DtAuMO-ZD, Mr. Riente) ATTN: COL L. StanfordThe Pentagon, Rm 3A538 The Pentagon, Room 3E1060WASH DC 20310-0410 Washington, DC 20301

HQDA (SARD-TN, LTC Fejfar) 2 OSD OUSD (A)The Pentagon, Rm 3E360 GDDDRE (T&E/LFT)WASH DC 20310 ATTN: James O'Bryon

Albert E. RainisHQDA (Asst Chief of Staff fr:" Intelligence, The Pentagon, Rm 3E1060

Joseph Varandore) Washington, DC 20301-3110WASH DC 20310-1067

1 American Defense PreparednessHQDA (Limres Study Group, Association (ADPA)

Shirley D. Ford) ATTN: Bill KingThe Pentagon, Room 1B929 1700 N. Moore Street, #900WASH DC 20310 Arlington, VA 22209-1942

Administrative Support Group 9 Defense Advanced Research Projects AgencyOffice of the Secretary of the Ar-.y ATTN: Mr. B. BandyATTN: LTC Douglas R. Milme Dr. R. KahnRoom 3D715, Pentagon Building Dr. C. KellyWashington, DC 20310 Mr. P. Losleben

Dr. J. LupoOffice of the Assistant Secretary of the Army Mr, F. Patten

(Research, Development, and Acquisition) Dr. ReynoldsATTN: LTG Donald S. Pihl, Mr. S. Squires

Military Deputy COL J. ThorpeWashington, DC 20310-0100 1400 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, VA 22209Office of the Secretary of the Army

(Research, Development. and Acquisition) 2 Central Intelligence AgencyATTN: MG August M. Cianciolo ATTN: ORD/PERD (Ray Cwiklinski)

Deputy for Systems (Tom Kennedy)Management Washington, DC 20505

Washington, DC 20310-01031 Central Intelligence Agency

Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for ATTN: ORD (Jim Fahnestock)Operations Research Washington, DC 20505

ATTN: OUSA (Hon Walt Hollis)The Pentagon, Room 2E660Washington, DC 20310-0102

30

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofnpirs Oganizatinn Loprgniza n

I Central Intelligence Agency CommanderATTN: ORD/IERD (J. Fleisher) US Army Materiel CommandWashington, DO 20505 ATTN: AMCPD (Darold Griffin)

5001 Eisenhower Avenue1 Central Intelligence Agency Alexandria, VA 22333-0001

ATTN: ORD (Marvin P. Hartzler)Washington, DO 20505 1 Commander

US Army Materiel Command2 Central Intelligence Agency ATTN: AMCPD-PM (Jim Sullivan)

ATTN: OIA (Barbara A. Kroggel) 5001 Eisenhower Avenue(Monica McGuinn) Alexandria, VA 22333-0001

Washington, DC 205052 Commander

Central Intelligence Agency US Army Materiel CommandATTN: ORD (Peter Lew) ATTN: AMCPM-LOTA (Robert Hall)1820 N. Fort Meyer Drive (MAJ Purdin)Arlington, VA 22209 5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-0001Chief of Naval OperationsOP-03-C2 1 CommanderATTN: CPT Robert K. Barr US Army Materiel CommandRm 4D537, The Pentagon ATTN: AMCSP (COL Barkman)Washington, DC 20350-2000 5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-00011 Mr. Robert Gomez/OSWR

PO Box 1925 1 CommanderWashington, DC 20013 US Army Materiel Command

ATTN: AMCTD-PT (Alan Elkins)Commander 5001 Eisenhower AvenueUS Army Materiel Command Alexandria, VA 22333-0001ATTN: AMCDE-PM (Dan Marks)5001 Eisenhower Avenue 1 CommanderAlexandria, VA 22333-0001 US Army Laboratory Command

ATTN: AMSLC-AS-TT (K. Zastrow)2 Headquarters 2800 Powder Mill Road

US Army Materiel Command Adelphi, MD 20783-1145ATTN: AMCDMA (M. Acton)

(R. Black) 1 Commander5001 Eisenhower Avenue US Army Laboratory CommandAlexandria, VA 2233.3-0001 ATTN: AMiS,-CG

2800 Powder Mill RoadCommander Adelphi, MD 20783-11,15US Army Materiel CommandATTN: AMCMT (John Kicak) 2 Commander5001 Eisenhower Avenue US Army Laboratory CommandAlexandria, VA 22333-0001 ATTN: AMSLC-CT (J. Predham)

(D. Smith)2800 Powder Mill RoadAdelphi, MD 20783-1145

31

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofC(s Organiation £akS Qrganintion

Commander 1 CommanderUS Army Laboratory Command Armament RD&E CenterATTN: AMSLC-TD (R. Vitali) US Army AMCCOM2800 Powder Mill Road ATTN: SMCAR-FSS-E (Jack Brooks)Adelphi, MD 20783-1145 Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Commander 1 CommanderUS Army Laboratory Command Armament RD&E CenterATTN: SLCTO (Marcos Sola) US Army AMCCOM2800 Powder Mill Road ATTN: SMCAR-TD (Jim Killen)Adelphi, MD 20783-1145 Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Commander 1 CommanderUS Army Materials Technology Armament RD&E Center

Laboratory US Army AMCCOMATTN: SLCMT-ATL ATTN: SMCAR-TDS (Vic Lindner)Watertown, MA 02172-0001 Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

3 Director I CommanderUS Army Research Office Armament RD&E CenterATTN: SLCRO-MA (Dr. J. Chandra) US Army AMCCOM

(Mr. K. Clark) ATTN: SMCAR-TSS(Dr. Wu) Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

P.O. Box 12211Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2211 1 Commander

US Army Aviation Systems CommandDirector ATTN: AMSAV-ESUS Army Survivability Management Office 4300 Goodfellow BlvdATTN: SLCSM-C31 (H. J. Davis) St Louis, MO 63120-17982800 Powder Mill RoadAdelphi, MD 20783 1 Commander

US Army Aviation Systems CommandDirector ATTN: AMSAV-GT (R. Lewis)US Army Survivability Management Office 4300 Goodfellow BlvdATTN: SLCSM-D (COL H. Head) St. Louis, MO 63120-17982800 Powder Mill RoadAdelphi, MD 20783-1145 2 US Army Aviation Systems Command

ATTN: AMSAV-NC (H. Law)Director (S. Meyer)US Army Survivability Management Office 4300 Goodfellow BlvdATTN: SLCSM-GS (Mark Reches) St. Louis, MO 63120-17982800 Powder Mill RoadAdelphi, MD 20783-5071 1 Commander

Belvoir Research, DevelopmentCommander and Engineering CenterArmament RD&E Center ATTN: STRBE-FC (Ash Patil)US Army AMCCOM Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5606ATTN: SMCAR-CCH-V (Paul H. Gemmill)Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

32

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofC p£es Organization £as 029allmatimo

Commander 3 CommanderBelvoir Research, Development US Army Foreign Science and Technology

and Engineering Center CenterATTN: STRBE-JDA (Melvin Goss) ATTN: AIAFRS (Gordon Spencer)Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5606 (John McKay)

(Chip Grobmyer)Commander 220 Seventh Street, NECECOM R&D Technical Library Charlottesville, VA 22901-5396ATTN: ASQNC-ELC-I-T, Myer CenterFort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5000 1 Commander

US Army Foreign Science and TechnologyDirector CenterCenter for Night Vision and Electro-Optics ATTN: AIAFRT (John Kosiewicz)ATTN: AMSEL-NV-V (John Palmer) 220 Seventh Street, NEFort Belvoir, VA 22060-5677 Charlottesville, VA 22901-5396

Director 1 CommanderCenter for Night Vision and Electro-Optics US Army Foreign Science and TechnologyATTN: AMSEL-RD-NV-V (John Ho) CenterFort Belvoir, VA 22060-5677 ATTN: AIFRC (Dave Hardin)

220 Seventh Street, NEDirector Charlottesville, VA 22901-5396Center for Night Vision and Electro-OpticsATTN: DELMV-L (Dr. R. Buser) 1 Commander?ort Belvoir, VA 22060-5677 US Army Foreign Science and Technology

CenterCommander ATTN: DRXST-WSI (John R. Aker)US .Army Foreign Science and Technology 220 Seventh Street, NE

Center Charlottesville, VA 22901-5396ATTN: AIAF (Bill Rich)220 Seventh Street, NE 1 CommanderCharlottesville, VA 22901-5396 US Army Harry Diamond Laboratory

ATTN: SLCHD-RT (Peter Johnson)3 Commander 2800 Powder Mill Road

US Army Foreign Science and Technology Adelphi, MD 20783-1197Center

ATTN: AIAFRC (T. Walker) 1 Commander(S. Eitleman) US Army INSCOM(R. Witnebal) ATTN: IAOPS-SE-M (George Maxfield)

220 Seventh Street, NE Arlington Hall StationCharlottesviile, IVA 22901-539J6 Arlington, VA 22212-5000

2 CommanderUS Army Missile CommandATTN: AMSMI-RD-GC-T (R. Alongi)Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000

33

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofChpim s rganization C2oirs Organization

Commander 1 CommanderUS Army Missile Command US Army Natick R&D CenterATTN: AMSMI-RD-SS-AT ATTN: STRNC-OI (Stephen A. Freitas)Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000 Natick, MA 01760

Commander 1 CommanderUS Army Missile Command US Army Tank-Automotive CommandATTN. AMSMI-RGT (J. Bradas) ATTN: AMSTA-CF (Dr. Oscar)Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000 Warren, MI 48090

Commander 1 CommanderUS Army Missile Command US Army Tank-Automotive CommandATTN: AMSMI-YTSD (Glenn Allison) ATTN: AMSTA-CK (G. Orlicki)Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5070 Warren, MI 48090

Commander 1 CommanderUS Army Missile Command US Army Tank-Automotive CommandATTN: DRSMI-REX (W. Pittman) ATTN: AMSTA-CR (Mr. Wheelock)Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5500 Warren, MI 48397-5000

Director 1 CommanderUS Army Missile and Space Intelligence US Army Tank-Automotive Command

Center ATTN: AMSTA-CV (COL Kearney)ATTN: AIAMS-YDL Warren, MI 48397-5000Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5500

2 Commander2 Director US Army Tank-Automotive Command

US Army Missile and Space Intelligence ATTN: AMSTA-NKS (D. Cyaye)Center (J. Rowe)

ATTN: AIAMS-YRS, Thomas Blalock Warren, MI 48397-5000Pete Kirkland

Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5500 2 CommanderUS Army Tank-Automotive Command

2 Director ATTN: AMSTA-RGE (R. Munt)US Army Missile and Space Intelligence (R. McClelland)

Center Warren, MI 48397-5000ATTN: AIAMS-YRT, Francis G. Cline

Don A. Slaymaker 3 CommanderRedstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5500 US Army Tank-Automotive Command

ATTN: AMSTA-RSC (John Bennett)Director (Wally Mick)US Army Missile and Space Intelligence Warren, MI 48397-5000

CenterATTN: Randy L. Smith 1 CommanderRedstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5500 US Army Tank-Automotive Command

ATTN: AMSTA-RSK (Sam Goodman)Warren, MI 48090-5000

34

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofOoieC s Organizaitnn £Opips Orcnnization

Commander 1 CommanderUS Army Tank-Automotive Command US Army Vulnerability AssessmentATTN: AMSTA-VS (Brian Bonkosky) LaboratoryWarren, MI 48090-5000 ATTN: SLCVA-CF (Gil Apodaca)

White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002-55136 Commander

US Army Tank-Automotive Command 2 US General Accounting OfficeATTN: AMSTA-ZE (R. Asoklis) Program Evaluation and Methodology

AMSTA-ZEA (C. Robinson) Division(R. Gonzalez) ATTN: Robert G. Orwin

AMSTA-ZS (D. Recs) Joseph SonnefeldAMSTA-ZSS (J. Thompson) Room 5844

(J. Soltez) 441 G Street, NWWarren, MI 48397-5000 Washington, DC 20548

Commander 1 DirectorHQ, '.RADOC US Army Industrial Base Engineering ActivityATTN: Asst Dep Chief of Staff ATTN: AMXIB-MT

for Combat Operations Rock Island, IL 61299-7260Fort Monroe, VA 23651-5000

1 Director2 US Army TRADOC Analysis Center US Army Industrial Base Engineering Activity

ATTN: ATRC-RP (COL Brinkley) ATTN: AMXIB-PS (Steve McGlone)ATRC-RPR (Mark W. Murray) Rock Island, IL 61299-7260

Ft. Monroe, VA 23651-51433 Director

Director US Army Engineer Waterways ExperimentUS Army Cold Regions Research and Station

Development Laboratory ATTN: WESEN (Dr. V. LaGarde)ATTN: Technical Director (Lewis Link) (Mr. W. Grabau)72 Lyme Road WESEN-C (Mr. David Meeker)Hanover, NH 03755 PO Box 631

Vicksburg, MS 39180-0631US Army Corps of EngineersAssistant Director Research and Development 1 US Army Engineer Topographic Laboratories

Directorate ATTN: Technical Director (W. Boge)ATTN: Mr. B. Benn Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-554620 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20314-1000 1 Commander

US Army Operational Test and EvaluationCommander AgencyUS Army Operational Test and Evaluation ATTN: LTC Gordon Crupper

Agency 5600 Columbia PikeATTN: MG Jerome B. Hilmes Falls Church, VA 220415600 Columbia PikeFalls Church, VA 22041

35

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofCohp Or$gnizationo s Qrganization

3 Los Alamos National Laboratories 4 CommanderATTN: MS 985, Dean C. Nelson US Naval Surface Warfare Center

MS F600, Gary Tietgen ATTN: Gregory J. BuddMS G787, Terrence Phillips James Ellis

P0 Box 1663 Barbara J. HarrisLos Alamos, NM 87545 Constance P. Rollins

Code G13Los Alamos National Laboratories Dahlgren. VA 22448-5000ATTN: MS F681, LTC Michael V. ZiehmnUSMC 2 CommanderP0 Box 1668 US Naval Weapons CenterLos Alamos, NM 87545 ATTN: Ed Patterson

Dr. Helen WangSandia National Laboratories Code 3313Division 1611 Bldg 1400, Room B17ATTN: Tom James China Lake, CA 93555Albuquerque, NM 87185

Sandia National Laboratories 1 CommanderDivision 1623 US Naval Weapons CenterATTN: Larry Hostetler ATTN: Mark D. AlexanderAlbuquerque, NM 87185 Code 3894

China Lake, CA 93556-6001Sandia National LaboratoriesATTN: Gary W. Richter 1 CommanderPO Box 969 US Naval Weapons CenterLivermore, CA 94550 ATTN: Melvin H. Keith

Code 39104US Naval Air Systems Command China Lake, CA 93555JTCG/AS Central OfficeATTN: 5164J (LTC James B. Sebolka) 1 CommanderWashington, DC 20361 US Naval Weapons Center

ATTN: Tim HortonNaval Intelligence Command Code 3386ATTN: NIPSSA-333 (Paul Fessler) China Lake, CA 935554600 Silver Hill RoadWashington, DC 20389 1 Commander

US Naval Civil Eng LaboratoriesCommander ATTN: John M. FerrittoUS Naval Ocean Systems Center Code L53ATTN: Earle G. Schweizer Port Hueneme, CA 93043Code 000San Diego, CA 92151-5000 1 Naval Postgraduate School

Department of National SecurityATTN: Dr. Joseph SternbergCode 73Monterey, CA 93943

36

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. of£ iea Organization on Organizatinn

Commander 1 USAF HQ ESD/PLEAIntelligence Threat Analysis Center Chief, Engineering and Test DivisionATTN: PSD-GAS/John Bickle ATTN: Paul T. CourtoglousWashington Navy Yard Hanscom AFB, MA 01730Washington, DC 20374

1 USAF-HQ

Commander ATTN: AFTDEC/JT (COL Victor A.Intelligence Threat Analysis Center Kindurys)ATTN: Bill Davies Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-7nl01Washington Navy Yard, Bldg 203 (Stop 314)Washington, DC 20374-2136 2 AFATL

ATTN: AGA (Lawrence Jones)Commander (Mickie Phipps)Intelligence Threat Analysis Center Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5434ATTN: Ron DemeterWashington Navy Yard, B-213, Stop 314 1 AFEWCWashington, DC 20374 ATTN: AFEWC/SAXE (Bod Eddy)

Kelly AFB, TX 78243-5000CommanderIntelligence Threat Analysis Center 1 AFWAL/AARFATTN: Tim Finnegan ATTN: CPT John PoachonWashington Navy Yard, B-213 Wright-Patterson AFB, OHWashington, DC 20374 45433-6533

Commander 1 AFWAL/FIESIntelligence Threat Analysis Center ATTN: James Hodges Sr.ATTN: Jim Fry Wright-Patterson AFB, OHWashington Navy Yard, B-213 45433-6523Washington, DC 20374

2 Commander2 Commander AFWAL/MLTC

Intelligence Threat Analysis Center ATTN: LT Robert CarringerIntell Image Prod Div Dave JudsonATTN: John Creighton Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

Al Fuerst 45433-6533Washington Navy Yard, Bldg 213 (IAX-O-II)Washington, DC 20374 1 WRDC/AARA

ATTN: Michael L. Bryant2 Commander Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

David W. Taylor Naval Ship andDevelopment Center 1 F D/1S'vm A

ATTN: W. Conley ATTN: Charles DarnellJ. Schot Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

Bethesda, MD 200841 FTD/SDMBU

USAF HQ AD/ENL ATTN: Kevin NelsonATTN: Robert L. Stovall Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433Eglin AFB, FL 32542

37

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofCkpim OrV. nivaiin CkpiM (Qrganizatinn

1 FTD/SQDRA 1 Air Force Armament LaboratoryATTN: Greg Koesters ATTN: AFATL/DLY (James B. Flint)Wright-Patterson AFB, OH Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5000

45433-65081 Commander

1 FTD US Army FSTCATTN: Tom Reinhardt ATTN: AIAST-RA-SGI (Dr. Steven Carter)Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 220 Seventh Avenue

Charlottesville, VA 22901-53961 FTD/SCRS

ATTN: Amy Fox Schalle CommanderWright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 US Army FSTC

ATTN: Greg Crawford1 FTD/SDJEO Chip Grobmeyer

ATTN: Robert Schalle David P. LutzWright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 Suzanne Hall

Charles Hutson1 FTD/SDAEA 220 Seventh Avenue

ATTN: Joe Sugrue Charlosttesville, VA 22901-5396Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

1 Commander1 AFWAL/AARA US Army FSTC/CA3

ATTN: Vincent Velten ATTN: Scott MingledorffWright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 220 Seventh Avenue

Charlottesville, VA 22901-53961 FTD/SQDRA

ATTN: Larry E. Wright 1 CommanderWright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 US Army FSTC (UK)

ATTN: MAJ Nigel Williams1 ASD/XRJ 220 Seventh Avenue

ATTN: Ed Mahen Charlottesville, VA 22901-5396Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

45433 6 Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA)ATTN: Mr. Irwin A. Kaufman

1 AD/CZL Mr. Arthur 0. KresseATTN: James M. Heard Mr. Arthur SteinEglin AFB, FL 32542-5000 Dr. Lowell Tonnessen

Mr. Benjamin W. Turner1 AD/ENY Ms. Sylvia L. Waller

ATTN: Dr. Stewart W. Turner 1801 N. Beauregard StreetDirector of Engineering Analysis Alexandria, VA 22311Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5000

1 Institute for Defense Analyses2 AD/ENYW ATTN: Carl F. Kossack

ATTN: 2LT Michael Ferguson 1005 Athens WayJim Richardson Sun City, FL 33570

Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5000

38

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. of

C~pks Organization Chpkes Orggnimiin

Department of Commerce 1 Aluminum Company of AmericaNational Bureau of Standards ATTN: Charles WoodManufacturing Systems Group Alcoa Technical CenterATTN: B. Smith Alcoa Center, PA 15069Washington, DC 20234

1 ANSERAAI Corporation ATTN: James W. McNultyATTN: H. W. Schuette 1215 Jefferson Davis HighwayPO Box 126 Arlington, VA 22202Hunt Valley, MD 21030-0126

1 ARC C-500ABEX Research Center ATTN: John H. BucherATTN: Dr. Michael J. Normandia Modena Road65 Valley Road Coatesville, PA 19320Mahwah, NJ 07430

1 Armament Systems, Inc.Adelman Associates ATTN: Gerard ZellerATTN: Herbert S. Weintraub P.O. Box 158291 North Bernardo Avenue 211 West Bel Air AvenueMountain View, CA 94014-5205 Aberdeen, MD 21001

2 Aero Corporation 1 Armored Vehicle TechnologiesATTN: David S. Eccles ATTN: Coda M. Edwards

Gregg Snyder PO Box 2057P.O. Box 92957, M4/913 Warren, MI 48090Los Angeles, CA 90009

1 Auburn UnivcisityAFELM, The Rand Corporation Electrical Engineering DepartmentATTN: Library-D ATTN: Dr. Thomas Shumpert1700 Main Street Auburn University, AL 36849Santa Monica, CA 90406

1 A.W. Bayer and Associates2 Air Force Wright Aeronautical Labs ATTN: Albert W. Bayer, President

ATTN: CDJ, CPT Jost Marina City ClubCDJ, Joseph Faison 4333 Admiralty Way

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-6523 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-5469

Alliant Computer Company 1 Battelle Research LaboratoryATTN: David Micciche Columbus Division1 Monarch Drive 505 King AvenueLittleton, MA 01460 Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693

Alliston Gas Turbine 1 Battelle Research LaboratoryDivision of GM ATTN: Bernard J. TullingtonATTN: Michael Swift 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1520PO Box 420, SC S22B Arlington, VA 22209Indianapolis, IN 46260-0420

39

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofCDS OQra~n.atin Qp Organivitinn

The BDM Corporation 1 Booz Allen and Hamilton, Inc.ATTN: Edwin J. Dorchak ATTN: Lee F. Mallett7915 Jones Branch Drive 1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1610McLean, VA 22102-3396 Rosslyn, VA 22209

The BDM Corporation 1 Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc.ATTN: Fred J. Michel ATTN: John M. Vice1300 N. 17th Street AFWAL/FIES/SURVIACArlington, VA 22209 Bldg 45, Area B

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH2 BMY, Division of Harsco 45433-6553

ATTN: William J. Wagner, Jr.Ronald W. Jenkins 1 John Brown Associates

P0 Box 1512 ATTN: Dr. John A. BrownYork, PA 17404 P0 Box 145

Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922-0145Board on Army Science and TechnologyNational Research Council 1 ChamberlainRoom MH 280 ATTN: Mark A. Sackett2101 Constitution Avenue, NW P0 Box 2545Washington, DC 20418 Waterloo, IA 50704

2 Boeing Aerospace 1 Combined Arms Combat DevelopmentATTN: Dr. Robert Chiavetta ATTN: ATZL-CAP (LTC Morrison)

Dr. John Kuras Dir, Surv Task ForceMail Stop 8K17 Ft. Leavenworth, KSP.O. Box 3999 66027-5300Seattle, WA 98124-2499

1 Computer Sciences Corporation2 Boeing Corporation 200 Sparkman Drive

ATTN: MS 33-04, Robert Bristow Huntsville, AL 35805MS 48-88, Wayne Hammond

P0 Box 3707 3 Computervision CorporationSeattle, WA 98124-2207 ATTN: A. Bhide

V. GeisbergBoeing Vertol Company R. HillyardA Division of Boeing Co. 201 Burlington RoadATTN: MS P30-27, John E. Lyons Bedford, MA 01730PO Box 16858Philadelphia, PA 19142 1 Cray Research, Inc.

ATTN: William W. KritlowBooz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. 2130 Main Street, #280ATTN: Dr. Richard B. Benjamin Huntington Beach, CA 92648Suite 131, 4141 Colonel Glenn Hwy.Dayton, OH 45431 1 CRS Sirrine, Inc.

ATTN: Dr. James C. SmithP0 Box 224271177 West Loop SouthHouston, TX 77227

40

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. of£aps Qrgani inn Cnpirs Oranizatinn

CSC 1 DuPont Company FPDATTN: Abner W. Lee ATTN: Dr. Oswald R. Bergmann200 Sparkman Drive B-1246, 1007 Market StreetHuntsville, AL 35805 Wilmington, DE 19898

2 Cypress International 1 Dynamics Analysis and Test AssociatesATTN: August J. Caponecchi ATTN: Dr. C. Thomas Savell

James Logan 2231 Faraday Ave1201 E. Abinjdon Drive Suite 103Alexandria, VA 22314 Carlsbad, CA 92008

DATA Networks, Inc. 1 E. I. Dupont TED FMCATTN: William E. Regan, Jr. ATTN: Richard 0. Myers Jr.

President Wilmington, DE 19898288 Greenspring StationBrooklandville, MD 21022 1 Eichelberger Consulting Company

ATTN: Dr. Robert EichelbergerDatatec, Inc. PresidentATTN: Donald E. Cudney 409 West Catherine Street

President Bel Air, MD 21014326 Green AcresFort Walton, FL 32548 1 Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc.

ATTN: William V. ChiaramonteUniversity of Dayton 2071 Chain Bridge RoadGraduate Engineering and Research Vienna, VA 22180Kettering Lab 262

ATTN: Dr. Gary Thiele, Director 1 Emprise, Ltd.Dayton, OH 45469 ATTN: Bradshaw Armendt, Jr

201 Crafton RoadDelco Systems Operation Bel Air, MD 21014ATTN: John Steen6767 Hollister Avenue, #P202 8 Environmental Research Institute of MichiganGoleta, CA 93117 ATTN: Mr. K. Augustyn

Mr. KozmaDenver Research Institute Dr. I. La HaieTarget Vulnerability and Survivability Mr. R. Horvath

Laboratory Mr. ArnoldATTN: Lawrence G. Ullyatt Mr. E. CobbP0 Box 10127 Mr. B. MoreyDenver, CO 80210 Mr. M. Bair

P0 Box 8618Denver Research Institute Ann Arbor, MI 48107University of DenverATTN: Louis E. Smith 1 E-OIR Measurements, Inc.University Park ATTN: Russ MoultonDenver, CO 80208 P0 Box 3348, College Station

Fredericksburg, VA 22402

41

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofc£pie Qrgani matLin fapi Organization

John Fluke Manufacturing Company, Inc. 7 FMC CorporationATTN: D. Gunderson Ordnance Engineering DivisionPO Box C9090 ATTN: H. CroftEverett, WA 98206 M. Hatcher

L. House3 FMC Corporation J. Jackson

ATTN: Ronald S. Beck M. KrullMartin Lim E. MaddoxJacob F. Yacoub R. Musante

881 Martin Avenue 1105 Coleman Ave, Box 1201Santa Clara, CA 95052 San Jose, CA 95108

3 FMC Corporation 1 GE Aircraft EnginesAdvanced Systems Center (ASC) ATTN: Dr. Roger B. DunnATTN: Edward Berry One Neumann Way, MD J185

Scott L. Langlie Cincinnati, OH 45215-6301Herb Theumer

1300 South Second Street 1 General AtomicsPO Box 59043 ATTN: Chester J. Everline,Minneapolis, MN 55459 Staff Engineer

P.O. Box 856082 FMC Corporation San Diego, CA 92138-5608

Defense Systems GroupATTN: Robert Burt 1 General Dynamics

Dennis R. Nitschke ATTN: Dr. Fred Cleveland1115 Coleman Avenue P.O. Box 748San Jose, CA 95037 Mail Zone 5965

Ft. Worth, TX 76101FMC CorporationNaval Systems Division (NSD) 3 General DynamicsATTN: M -45, Randall Ellis ATTN: MZ-4362112, Robert CarterMinneapolis, MN 55421 MZ-4362029, Jim Graciano

MZ-4362055, Gary JackmanFMC Corporation 38500 MoundNorthern Ordnance Division Sterling Heights, MI 48310ATTN: M3-11, Barry Brown4800 East River Road I General DynamicsMinneapolis, MN 55421 Data Systems Services

ATTN: R. FridshalPO Box 80847San Diego, CA 92138

1 General DynamicsATTN: Jay Lobb1055 Maple RoadClawson, MI 48017

42

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofCopi Organinivflran £agiie Qrgnni7atjnn

3 General Dynamics Corporation I HoneywellATTN: MZ-2650, Dave Bergman ATTN: Fred J. Parduhn

MZ-2860, John Romanko 7225 Northland DriveMZ-2844, Cynthia Waters Brooklyn Park, MN 55428

PO Box 748Ft. Worth, TX 76101-0748 2 Honeywell, Inc.

ATTN: Raymond H. BurgGeneral Dynamics Land Systems Laura C. DilwayATTN: Dr. Paulus Kersten MN38-4000PO Box 1901 10400 Yellow Circle DriveWarren, MI 48090 Minnetonka, MN 55343

General Dynamics Land Systems 2 INEL/EGandGATTN: William M. Mrdeza Engineer LabPO Box 2045 ATTN: Ray BerryWarren, MI 48090 M. Marx Hintze

PO Box 16253 General Dynamics Land Systems Idaho Falls, ID 83451

ATTN: Richard AuyerOtto Renius 1 Interactive Computer Graphics CenterN. S. Sridharan Rensselear Polytechnic Inst.

PO Box 2074 ATTN: M. WoznyWarren, MI 48090 Troy, NY 12181

3 General Motors Corporation 1 International Development CorporationResearch Laboratories ATTN: Trevor 0. JonesATTN: J. Boyse 18400 Shelburne Road

J. Joyce Shaker Heights, OH 44118R. Sarraga

Warren, MI 48090 1 ISAT

ATTN: Roderick Briggs1 Gettysburg College 1305 Duke Street

Box 405 Alexandria, VA 22314Gettysburg, PA 17325

1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory1 Grumman Aerospace Corporation California Institute of Technology

Research and Development Center ATTN: D. LewisATTN: Dr. Robert T. Brown, 4800 Oak Grove Drive

Senior Research Scientist Pasadena, CA 91109Bethpage, NY 11714

1 Kaman Sciences CorporationGTRI-RAIL-MAD ATTN: Timothy S. PendergrassATTN: Mr. Joe Bradley 600 Boulevard South, Suite 208CRB 577 Huntsville, AL 35802Atlanta, GA 30332

43

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofO.Dpies Organization Lopia Orgnization

Ketron, Inc. I Logistics Management InstituteATTN: Robert S. Bennett ATTN: Edward D. Simms Jr.696 Fairmont Avenue 6400 Goldsboro RoadTowsontown Center Bethesda, MD 20817-5886Towson, MD 21204

1 Los Alamos Technical Associates, Inc.Keweenaw Research Center ATTN: John S. DalyMichigan Technological 6501 Americas Parkway, #900

University Albuquerque, NM 87110ATTN: Bill ReynoldsHoughton, MI 49931 1 LTV

ATTN: MS 194-51, Mike LoganLanxido Armor Products PO Box 225907ATTN: Dr. Robert A. Wolffe Dallas, TX 75265Tralee Industrial ParkNewark, DE 19711 1 LTV Aerospace and Defense

ATTN: Daniel M. Reedy2 Lincoln Laboratory PO Box 225907

MIT Dallas, TX 75265ATTN: Dr. Robert Shin

Dr. Chuck Burt 2 Martin Marietta AerospaceP.O. Box 73 ATTN: MP-113, Dan DorfmanLexington, MA 02173 MP-433,.Richard S. Dowd

PO Box 58373 Lincoln Laboratory Orlando, FL 32855-5837

MITSurveillance Systems Group 3 Mathematical Applications Group, Inc.ATTN: R. Barnes ATTN: M. Cohen

G. Knittel R. GoldsteinJ. Kong H. Steinberg

244 Wood Street 3 Westchester PlazaLexington, MA 02173-0073 Elmsford, NTY 10523

Lockheed Corporation 1 Maxwell Laborat ries, Inc.ATTN: R. C. Smith ATTN: Dr. Michael HollandPO Box 551 8888 Balboa AvenueBurbank, CA 91520 San Diego, CA 92123-1506

3 Lockheed-California Company 1 McDonald-Douglas AstronauticATTN: C. A. Burton ATTN: Nikolai A. Louie

R. J. Ricci 530t Bolsa AvenueM. Steinberg Huntington Beach, CA 92647

Burbank, CA 915201 McDornell Douglas, Inc.

2 Lockheed-Georgia Company ATTN: David HamiltonATTN: Ottis F. Teuton PO Box 516

J. Tulkoff St. Louis, MO 63166Dept. 72-91, Zone 419Marietta, GA 30063

44

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofOnpies Oranizadtn iop e Oganization

McDonnell Douglas, Inc. NAVIR DEVCONATTN: Alan R. Parker ATTN: Frank Wenograd3855 Lakewood Blvd., MC 35-18 Code 6043Long Beach, CA 90846 Walminstor, PA 18974

McLean Research Center, Inc. 1 North AircraftATTN: Robert D. Carpenter ATTN: Dr. Athanosis Varvatsis1483 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 205 Mail Zone 3622/84McLean, VA 22101 1 Northrop Ave

Hawthorne, CA 90250Megatek CorporationUnited Telecom Computer Group 1 Northrop CorporationATTN: J. Phrohaska Electro-Mechanical Division7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 106 ATTN: Engh R. ByronFalls Church, VA 22043 500 E. Orangethorpe Ave., 7270

Anaheim, CA 92801Memex CorporationATTN: Charles S. Smith I Northrop Corporation91 Belleau Ave. Research and Technology CenterAtherton, CA 94025 ATTN: James R. Reis

One Research ParkMicro Electronics of North Carolina Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274ATTN: Gershon KedemPO Box 12889 1 Norton CompanyResearch Triangle Park, NC 07709 ATTN: Ronald K. Bart

1 New Bond StreetMIT Worcester, MA 01606-2698ATTN: Dr. S. BentonRE15-416 1 The Oceanus CompanyCambridge, MA 02139 ATTN: RADM Robert H. Gormley,

(Ret)The MITRE Corporation PO Box 7069ATTN: Edward C. Brady, Vice President Menlo Park, CA 940267525 Colshire DriveMcLean, VA 22102 1 Okalahoma State University

College of Engineering, ArchitectureNASA-Ames Research Center and TechnologyATTN: Dr. Alex Woo ATTN: Thomas M. Browder, Jr.Mail Stop 227-2 PO Box 1925Moffett Field, CA 94035 Eglin AFB, FL 32542

NASA-Ames Research Center 1 Pacific Scientific/Htl DivisionATTN: Leroy Presley ATTN: Robert F. AldrichMail stop 227-4 1800 Highland AvenueMoffett Field, CA 94035 Duarte, CA 91010

45

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofCopi Organization Cps OrganiatLinn

Perceptronics, Inc. 1 Sachs/Freeman Associates, Inc.ATTN: Dean R. Loftin ATTN: Donald W. Lynch21111 Erwin Street Senior Research PhysicistWoodland Hills, CA 91367 205 Yoakum Parkway, #511

Alexandria, VA 22304Physics InternationalATTN: Ron Gellatly 1 SAIC2700 Merced Street ATTN: Dr. Alan J. ToepferSan Leandro, CA 94577 2109 Air Park Drive, SE

Albuquerque, NM 87106PRI, Inc.ATTN: W. Bushell 1 SAICBuilding E4435, Second Floor ATTN: John H. McNeilly,Edgewood Area-APG, MD 21010 Senior Scientist

1710 Goodridge DriveRGB Associates, Inc. McLean, VA 22102ATTN: R. BarakatBox B 2 SAICWayland, MA 01778 ATTN: Terry Keller

Robert TurnerRockwell International :Suite 200ATTN: Dr. H. Bran Tran 1010 Woodman DriveP.O. Box 92098 Dayton, OH 45432Department 113/GBOlLos Angeles, CA 90009 1 SAIC

ATTN: Dav1, R. GarfinkleRockwell International Corporation Malibu Canyon Business ParkATTN: Keith R. Rathjen, 26679 W. Agoura Road, Suite 200

Vice President Calabasas, CA 913023370 Miraloma Avenue (031-HA01)Anaheim, CA 92803-3105 1 Sidwell-Ross and Associates, Inc.

.?N: LTG Marion C. Ross,Rome Air Development Center (USA Ret)ATTN: RADC/IRRE, Peter J. Costianes Executive Vice PresidentGriffis Air Force Base, NY 13441-5700 PO Box 88531

Atlainta, GA 30338

Rome Air Development Center 1 Signua Research Inc.RADC/OCTM A.TTN: Dr. Richard BossiATTN: Edward Starczewski 8710 148 Avenue, NEBuilding 106 Redmond, WA 98052Griffis Air Force Base, NY 13441-5700

1 Sikorsky AircraftS-Cubed Division of United TechnologiesATTN: Michael S. Lancaster ATTN: R. Welge1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 420 North Main StreetAlexandria, VA 22314 Stratford, CT 06602

46

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofCapies OrganizaLion Loae Organization

Simula, Inc. 2 TASCATTN: Joseph W. Coltman ATTN: Charles E. Clucus10016 South 51st Street Darrell JamesPheonix, AZ 85044 970 Mar-Walt Drive

Ft. Walton Beach, FL 32548Alan Smolen and Associates, Inc.ATTN: Alan Smolen, President 1 TASCOne Cynthia Court ATTN: Harry I. Nimon, JrPalm Coast, FL 32027-8172 1700 N. Moore Street, Suite 1220

Arlington, VA 222093 Southwest Research Institute

ATTN: Martin Goland I Technical Solutions, IncAlex B. Wenzel ATTN: John R. RobbinsPatrick H. Zabel P.O. Box 1148

6220 Culebra Road Mesillia Park, NM 88047San Antonio, TX 78238

1 Tradeways, Ltd.3 Sparta, Inc. ATTN: Joseph G. Gorski,

ATTN: David M. McKinley PresidentRobert E. O'Connor 307F Maple Avenue WestKaren M. Rooney Vienna, VA 22180

4901 Corporate DriveHuntsville, AL 35805-6201 2 TRW Operations and Support Group

ATTN: K. Dankers3 Structural Dynamics Research T. Heim

Corporation (SDRC) One Space ParkATTN: R. Ard Redondo Beach, CA 90278

W. McClellandJ. Osborn 1 United Technologies Corporation

2000 Eastman Drive Advanced Systems DivisionMilford, H 45150 ATTN: Richard J. Holman

10180 Telesis CourtSyracuse Research Group San Diego, CA 92121ATTN: Dr. Chung-Chi ChaMerrill Lane 1 United Technologies Research CenterSyracuse, NY 13210 ATTN: Dr. Brian J. MeCartin

Senior Research MathematicianSystem Planning Corporation East Hartford, CT 06108ATTN: Ann Hafer1500 Wilson Blvd 1 University of IdahoArlington, VA 22209 Department of Civil Engineering

ATTN: Dr. Dennis R. HornSystems Science and Software Assistant ProfessorATTN: Robert T. Sedgwick Moscow, ID 83843-4194PO Box 1620La Jolla, CA 92038-1620

47

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. of£os Organi itnn opis Qrganizalinn

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2 University of Washington

Department of Civil Engineering 409 Department of Electrical

and Environmental Studies Engineering, FT-10

ATTN: Dr. E. Downey Brill, Jr. ATTN: Dr. Irene Peden

208 North Rc'mine Dr. Akira Ishimaru

Urbana, IL 61801-2374 Seattle, WA 98105

University of Illinois 1 Van Es Associates, Inc.

Department of Electrical and Computer ATTN: Dr. John D. Christie

Engineering Vice President

ATTN: Dr. Shung-Wu Lee Suite 1407, 5202 Leesburg Pike

1406 W. Green Falls Church, VA 22041

Urbana, IL 618011 Virginia Polytechnic Institute

The Johns Hopkins University and State University

Applied Physics Laboratory Industrial Engineering Operations Research

ATTN: Jonathan Fluss DepartmentJohns Hopkins Road ATTN: Robert C. Williges

Laurel, MD 20707 302 Whittemore HallBlacksburg, VA 24061-8603

University of NevadaEnvironmental Research Center 1 Vought Corporation

ATTN: Dr. Delbert S. Barth ATTN: Paul T. Chan

Senior Scientist PO Box 225907Los Vegas, NV 89154-0001 Dallas, TX 75265

University of North Carolina 1 XMCO, Inc.

ATTN: Professor Henry Fuchs ATTN: LTG Robert J. Baer,

208 New West Hall (035A) (USA Ret), Senior Vice President

Chapel Hill, NC 27514 11150 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA 22091-4399

3 Ohio State UniversityElectroscience Laboratory 1 XONTECH

ATTN: Dr. Ronald Marhefka ATTN: John Dagostino

Dr. Edward H. Newman 1701 N. Fort Myer Drive

Dr. Prasbhaker H. Pathak Suite 703

1320 Kinnear Road Arlington, VA 22209Columbus, OH 43212

1 Zernow Tech Services, Inc.

3 University of Utah ATTN: Dr. Louis Zernow

Computer Science Department 425 West Bonita, Suite 208

ATTN: R. Riesenfeld San Dimas, CA 91773E. CohenL. Knapp 2 SURVICE Engineering

3160 Merrill Engineering Bldg ATTN: Jim Foulk

Salt Lake City, UT 84112 George Lard1003 Old Philadelphia RoadAberdeen, MD 21001

48

DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. of No. ofopks Or~ganizatinn C2 pim Orgamzaraon

I Georgia Technical Research Institute 1 Dr. Edward R. Jones,Systems and Technical Laboratory Private Consultant

ATTN: Dr. Charles Watt 9881 Wild Deer Road1770 Richardsons Road St. Louis, MO 63124Smyrna, GA 30080

1 MG Robert Kirwan (USA Ret)1 Duke University 10213 Grovewood Way

Department of Computer Science, Fairfax, VA 22032VLSI Raycasting

ATTN: Dr. Gershon Kedem I Donald J. Krejcarek236 North Building US Army Field Artillery BoardDurham, NC 27706 4717 NE Macarthur Circle

Lawton, OK 735111 Dr. Robert E. Ball

642 Tyon Drive 1 Mr. Robert B. Kurtz,Monterey, CA 93940 Private Consultant

542 Merwins Lane1 Mr. Michael W. Bernhardt Fairfield, CT 06430-1920

Rt. 1, 12 Arthur DriveHockessin, DE 19707 1 Dr. Roy A. Lucht

Group M-B MS-J9601 Mr. H. G. Bowen Jr. Los Alamos, NM 87545

408 Crown View DriveAiexandria, VA 22314-4804 1 Mr. Donald F. Menne

617 Foxcroft Drive1 Mr. Harvey E. Cale Bel Air, MD 21014

2561 Meadowbrook LaneCarson City, NV 89701-5726 1 MG Peter G. Olenchuk (USA Ret)

6801 Baron Road1 Mr. Robert L. Deitz McLean, VA 22101

Perkins Coie1110 Vermont Avenue, NW 1 Mr. Albert E. PapazoniSuite 200 1600 Surrey Hill DriveWashington, DC 20005 Austin, TX 78746-7338

1 Thomas Hafer I Dr. A. E. Schmidlin1500 Wilson Blvd. 28 Highview Road14th Floor Caldwell, NJ 07006-5502Arlington, VA 22209

14,, Arth r qtain

1 Mr. William M. Hubbard, ConsultantConsultant 30 Chapel Woods Court

613 Eastlake Drive Williamsville, NY 14221-1816Columbia, MO 65203

1 Dr. Dora Strother1 Mr. Charles E. Joachim 3616 Landy Lane

PO Box 631 Ft. Worth, TX 76118Vicksburg, MS 39180

49

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Aberdeen Proving (Groind

Dir, USAMSAAATTN: AMXSY-A, W. Clifford

J. MeredithAMXSY-C, A. ReidAMXSY-OR, A. MillerAIMY-CS, 1P. Beavers

C. CairnsD. Frederick

AMXSY-G, J1. KramerAMXSY-GA, W. BrooksAMXSY-J, A. LaGrangeAMXSY-L, J. McCarthyAMXSY-RA, R. Scungio

M. Smith

Cdr, USATECOMATTN: AMSTE-CG, C. Drenz

AMSTE-LFT, D. GrossR. Harrington

50

USER EVALUATION SHEET/CHANGE OF ADDRESS

This Laboratory undertakes a continuing effort to improve the quality of the reports it publishes.Your comments/answers to the items/questions below will aid us in our efforts.

1. BRL Report Number BRL-MR-3815 Date of Report MARCH 1990

2. Date kReport Received

3. Does this report satisfy a need? (Comment on purpose, related project, or other area of interestfor which the report will be used.)

4. Specifically, how is the report being used? (Information source, design data, procedure, sourceof ideas, etc.)

5. Has the information in this report led to any quantitative savings as far as man-hours or dollarssaved, operating costs avoided, or cfficiencies achieved, etc? If so, please elaborate.

6. General Comments. What do you think should be changed to improve future reports? (Indicatechanges to organization, technical content, format, etc.)

Name

CURRENT OrganizationADDRESS

Address

City, State, Zip Code

7. If indicating a Change of Address or Address Correction, please provide the New or CorrectAddress in Block 6 above and the Old or Incorrect address below.

Name

OLD OrganizationA D D R E S S A d d r e s s

Address

City, State, Zip Code

(Remove this sheet, fold as indicated, staple or tape closed, and mail.)

--..--- ..--.----...........-------------------------- FOLD HERE -------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY l iD~irector LNO POSTAG:E

U.S. Army Ballistic Research La1btiory ( , NECESSARYAn'N: SLCBR-DD-T IF MAILED

IN THEAbxrden Proving Ground. MD 21(X)5-5066 UNITED STATESOFFICIAL BUSINESS

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL ,FIRST CLASS PERMIT No 0001, APG, MD 9

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE

DircctorU.S. Army Ballistic Research LaboratoryATN: SLCBR-DD-TAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-9989

--.-.-----.-----...........----------------------------- FOLD HERE -------------------------------------------------------------