SSTRM Workshop 3: Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons Effects, Volume 1 - Report (sept 15)

1. Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap
Workshop 3:
Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons Effects
Toronto, November 24-26, 2009
Volume 1: Report
Department of National Defence
Defence Research and Development Canada
Industry Canada
September 15, 2010

2. Acknowledgements
The Department of National Defence (DND), Defence Research and Development Canada
(DRDC), and Industry Canada (IC) would like to acknowledge the contributions and support
provided by the IC Special Events team that organized the Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons
Effects workshop venue, logistics, and accommodations; the Soldier Systems TRM Lethal and
Non-Lethal Weapons Effects Technical Subcommittee and co-chairs, and the Executive Steering
Committee for sharing their time and expertise; the Strategic Review Group, Inc., for facilitating
the workshop; and the participants from across Canada, the United States, and abroad, who
contributed to making the workshop a success. Special thanks to those who presented at the
workshop, for sharing their time, energy, and knowledge.
Page ii of 117

3. Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... vii
Preface: Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons Effects and the Soldier Systems
Technology Roadmap .............................................................................................. 9
About the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap (TRM) ......................................... 9
Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons and the Roadmap ............................................... 11
The Workshop Process .......................................................................................... 14
Introduction: Soldier System TRM Overview ................................................................. 16
Introductory Presentation Abstracts ........................................................................ 16
Welcome and Opening Remarks, LCol M. Prudhomme (DND) ........................ 16
Soldier Systems Modernization Effort Overview, Maj. S. Dufour (DND) ........... 17
Return on Power and Energy Workshop: Weapons Related
Considerations, Mr. D. Cripe (Rockwell-Collins) ................................... 18
Return on Visioning Workshop: Lethal Weapons, Mr. P. Carr (SRG)............... 18
Part I. Lethal Weapons Effects......................................................................... 19
1. Lethal Weapons Capability Goals, Drivers, Challenges and Gaps .......................... 19
Lethality Session 1 Presentation Abstracts ............................................................. 19
1.1 Overall Integrated Soldier System Requirements and
Related Lethality Aspects, Capt. A. Dionne (DND) ............................... 19
Demonstration: To shoot, or not to shoot? ... what to shoot? ... and
when to shoot? .................................................................................... 20
1.2 Future Soldier Weapon Lethality Capabilities: The Small Arms
Replacement Program, Maj. B. Gilchrist (DND) ................................... 22
1.3 Overview of NATO RTO Soldier Weapons Interoperability
Task Group and Integration Challenges, Maj. L. Bossi (DND).............. 23
1.4 Review of NATO Future Assault Rifle Requirements & CF
Surveys, Mr. D. Tack (HSI) .................................................................. 24
Lethality Working Session 1: Lethality Capability Goals, Drivers,
Challenges and Gaps ...................................................................................... 25
Lethality Working Session 1 Inputs and Instructions ........................................ 25
Lethality Working Session 1 Results: Drivers/Gaps Identified .......................... 27
Page iii of 117

4. 2. Lethal Weapons Sub-Systems: Performance Goals, Challenges, and Gaps .......... 29
Lethality Session 2 Presentation Abstracts ............................................................. 29
2.1 NATO Small Arms Works, Mr. Per Arvidsson, (Sweden) ..................... 29
2.2 Key Soldier Weapon Sensors Future Options, Mr., H. Angel (HSI) ...... 30
2.3 Key Small Calibre Ammunition Sub-Systems,
Mr. P. Lemay (GD OTS) ...................................................................... 31
Lethality Working Session 2: Lethality Devices/Subsystems .................................. 32
Lethality Working Session 2 Inputs and Instructions ........................................ 32
Lethality Working Session 2 Results: Completed Lethal Weapons Effects
Devices/Sub-systems Worksheets ....................................................... 34
3. Lethal Weapons Key Technologies Options, Readiness, Challenges, and Gaps .... 35
Lethality Session 3 Presentation Abstracts ............................................................. 35
3.1 Small Calibre Weapons & Ammunition Technologies
State-of-the-Art Overview, Mr. P. Harris & Dr. V. Tanguay (DRDC) ..... 35
3.2 Soldier Weapons Sensors and Fire Control Systems
State-of-the-Art Overview, P. Merel and P. Laou ................................. 36
3.3 Overview of Weapons Effectiveness Metrics,
Mr. D. Bourget (DRDC) ........................................................................ 36
3.4 Weapons Effects Characterization State-of-the-Art Overview,
Mr. B. Anctil (Biokinetics) ..................................................................... 37
Lethality Working Session 3: Lethality Technologies .............................................. 38
Lethality Working Session 3 Inputs and Instructions ........................................ 38
Lethality Working Session 3 Results: Technology Focus Areas Identified ....... 40
4. Lethal Weapons Future Collaboration/Project Opportunities and Priorities ............. 43
Lethality Session 4 Presentation Abstracts ............................................................. 43
4.1 Luncheon Presentation: Guest speaker Mr. S. Stevens (NRC),
Overview of the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) ........ 43
4.2 Collaboration Tool (ICee) Presentation and Demo,
Mr. V. Ricard (DND) ............................................................................. 44
Lethality Working Session 4: Identifying Collaborations .......................................... 45
Lethality Working Session 4 Inputs and Instructions ........................................ 45
Lethality Working Session 4 Results: Collaborations Identified ........................ 48
1. Target Location/Decision Support .................................................... 49
2. Target Acquisition—IFF—Sensors ................................................... 50
Page iv of 117

5. 3. Target Information Fusion ................................................................ 51
4. Smart Ammunition—Multiple Effects ................................................ 52
5. Power Supply/Management—Powered Rail..................................... 53
6. Fire Control System ......................................................................... 54
7. Enhanced Lethality Ammunition—Lighter, Smaller, Caseless,
Low Weight ...................................................................................... 54
Part II. Non-Lethal Weapons Effects .............................................................. 55
Non-Lethality Presentation Abstracts...................................................................... 55
1.1 Future Soldier Non-Lethal Systems Capability Requirements,
Usage Scenarios, and Roadmap, Maj. S. Dufour (DND) ...................... 55
1.2 Overview of Non-Lethal R&D Program, Mr. D. Bourget (DRDC) .......... 56
1.3 Overview of Non-Lethal Technologies and Systems,
Mr. H. Angel (HSI) ............................................................................... 57
1.4 Luncheon Presentation: Less Lethal Weapons & Use of Force in
Canadian Law Enforcement, Mr. Steve Palmer (CPRC) ...................... 57
Non-Lethality Working Session 1: Non-Lethal Focus Areas.................................... 58
Non-Lethal Working Session 1 Inputs and Instructions .................................... 58
Non-Lethal Working Session 1 Results: Technology Focus Areas .................. 59
Non-Lethality Session 2 Presentation Abstracts ..................................................... 61
1.5 Overview of Crowd Control Modeling and Applications to NLW,
Dr. A. Frini (DRDC) .............................................................................. 61
Non-Lethality Working Session 2: Identifying Collaborations .................................. 62
Non-Lethality Working Session 2 Inputs and Instructions ................................ 62
Non-Lethality Working Session 2 Results: Collaborations Identified ................ 62
1. Directed Energy Weapon ................................................................. 65
2. Constant Energy Weapon ................................................................ 65
3. Improved Dazzler ............................................................................. 65
4. Enhanced Non-Lethal Ammunition—Caseless, Low Weight ............ 66
5. Hostile Intent Sensors/Automated Decision Support ........................ 66
Page v of 117

6. Part III. Next Steps ........................................................................................... 67
Ongoing and Upcoming Roadmap Activities ................................................................. 67
Ongoing Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons Effects Collaborations........................... 67
Sharing Knowledge using the ICee ........................................................................ 67
Upcoming Workshops ............................................................................................ 68
Appendixes
A. The Workshop Agenda ........................................................................................... 69
B. List of Workshop Participants ................................................................................. 72
C. Lethality Working Session 2 Participant Worksheets .............................................. 79
D. Lethality Working Session 3 Participant Solution/Technology Stickies.................... 88
E. Non-Lethality Working Session 1 Participant Solution/Technology Stickies .......... 105
F. Mind Map Exercise and Results ........................................................................... 111
List of Figures
Figure 1. Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap Home Page ...................................... 10
Figure 2. Lethal/Non-Lethal Weapons and the Roadmap .............................................. 11
Figure 3. The Integrated Soldier: a System of Systems ................................................. 12
Figure 4. The Escalation of Force Continuum—from Non-Lethal to Lethal .................... 12
Figure 5. Weapon Technology Radar ............................................................................ 13
Figure 6. The Workshop Process .................................................................................. 15
Figure 7. Lethal/Non-Lethal Demonstration: To shoot, or not to shoot ...
what to shoot ... and when to shoot? .............................................................. 21
Figure 8. Working Session 1 Handout: Lethal/Non-Lethal Visioning .............................. 26
Figure 9. Working Session 2: Devices/Subsystems Worksheet ..................................... 33
Figure 10. Working Session 3: Participants at "The Wall" .............................................. 39
Page vi of 117

7. List of Tables
Table 1. Drivers/Gaps and Visions Identified in Working Session 1 ............................... 28
Table 2. The Grid Approach for Lethality Working Session 3......................................... 38
Table 3. Working Session 3 (Lethal) Results ................................................................. 41
Table 4. Lethality Technology Clusters & Resulting Theme Areas................................. 46
Table 5. Working Session 1 (Non-Lethal) Results ......................................................... 60
Table 6. Non-Lethality Theme Areas ............................................................................. 63
Page vii of 117

8. Executive Summary
This report describes the Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons Effects Workshop held in
Toronto, ON, November 24-26, 2009—the third in a series of technical workshops held
as part of the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmapping (TRM) initiative.
The Preface introduces the Soldier Systems TRM project, which involves industry,
government, academia, and other interested parties in working toward developing an
integrated system for the dismounted soldier. It places Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons
in the context of the project, and describes the process followed during the workshop to
achieve the ultimate goal of identifying research and development priorities and
collaborations for meeting the dismounted soldier's future weapons Sensor needs.
Part I. Lethal Weapons Effects, describes activities on day 1 and 2 of the workshop,
which focused on Lethal Weapons Effects and the dismounted soldier. It provides
abstracts of the presentations made on those days. It also describes the breakout
sessions, during which participants worked together to develop a vision for lethal
weapon effects and the dismounted soldier, identify the challenges and key
functionalities involved in realizing the vision, outline the technologies to work on, and
establish priorities and collaborations for working on those technologies.
Part II. Non-Lethal Weapons Effects, describes activities on day 3 of the workshop,
which focused on non-lethal weapons effects and the dismounted soldier. As with Part 1,
it includes presentation abstracts and working session descriptions and summarizes the
results of the working sessions.
Part III. Next Steps, describes upcoming activities in the ongoing Soldier Systems TRM
project.
Appendixes to the report provide the workshop agenda, list the workshop participants,
provide the details of participant input that is summarized in the main body of the report,
and describe DND's soldier systems mind maps for Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons
Effects.
Page viii of 117

9. Preface: Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons Effects
and the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap
The Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons Effects Workshop held in Toronto, Ontario,
November 24-26, 2009, was one in a series of workshops associated with the
development phase of the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmapping initiative. This
report is one of three volumes that describe the activities and results of that workshop:
Volume 1 Workshop Report; Volume 2 Lethality Slide Decks; and Volume 3 Non-
Lethality Slide Decks.
About the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap (TRM)
The Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap (TRM) initiative is a unique industry-
government collaboration project. It is designed to apply roadmapping principles and
processes to develop a comprehensive knowledge-sharing platform and identify
technology opportunities in support of the Canadian Forces Soldier Modernization Effort.
Participation in the Soldier Systems TRM is free and voluntary and open to Canadian
and international manufacturing, services, and technology-based companies of all sizes,
and to researchers and other experts from academia, government, and not-for-profit
research organizations from Canada and around the world.
The focus of the Soldier Systems TRM – the soldier system – is defined within NATO as
the integration of everything the soldier wears, carries and consumes for enhanced
individual and collective (small unit) capability within the national command and control
structure. It centers on the needs of the dismounted soldier, who is often away from the
supply network and must be self-sufficient for up to 72 hours.
The overarching goal of the Soldier Systems TRM is to understand how today's
technology—and tomorrow's—might contribute to a superior soldier system that
increases capacities and operational effectiveness for the individual soldier in the five
NATO capability areas of Command, Control, Communications, Computers and
Intelligence (C4I); Survivability; Mobility; Lethality; and Sustainability. Although Mobility
and Sustainability areas are not the main subject of a workshop, they will be addressed
and covered at the Protective Personal Equipment (PPE) workshop to take place in May
2010.
The Soldier Systems TRM exercise is governed by an Executive Steering Committee
made up of government and industry representatives, and includes technical sub-
committees dedicated to each capability area.
Page 9 of 117

10. For information about any aspect of the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap project,
visit http://www.soldiersystems-systemesdusoldat.collaboration.gc.ca
Figure 1. Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap Home Page
www.soldiersystems-systemesdusoldat.collaboration.gc.ca
The Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap web site provides access to information about the
TRM, the workshops, and additional related information. It includes links to the Innovation
Collaboration and Exchange Environment (ICee) tool, which provides a database of soldier
systems information and a Wiki where users can share information about soldier modernization,
related needs, technologies, projects, events, and more.
Page 10 of 117

11. Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons and the Roadmap
The Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons Effects Workshop Figure 2. Lethal/Non-Lethal
was the third workshop held as part of the development Weapons and the Roadmap
phase of the Soldier Systems TRM. (Figure 2.
Lethal/Non-Lethal Weapons and the Roadmap).
The workshop focused on weapons sub-systems for the
dismounted soldier in the context of the overall
integrated system of systems approach. (Figure 3.
System of Systems).
Lethal vs. Non-Lethal Weapons
Weapons play a critical role in any soldier system. As Lt.
Col. Bodner noted during the workshop, the soldier
cannot function effectively in the roles/functions he is
called on to perform without the weapons needed for
those roles.1 Without weapons, the soldier becomes a
"boy scout."
As those roles become more varied, including
everything from crowd control to close combat, there is
a need for weapons with a wider range of effects—from
devices for warning and temporarily disabling targets, to
those that deliver deadly force. (Figure 4.The Escalation
of Force Continuum.)
To reflect this full spectrum, days 1 and 2 of the
workshop focused on lethal weapons designed to inflict Overall Roadmap Integration
the maximum possible effect with minimum collateral
damages, and day 3 focused on non-lethal weapons
designed to temporarily incapacitate or repel personnel
with a low probability of fatality or permanent injury, or to disable equipment with minimal
undesired damage or environmental impact. Ultimately, a single device would be able to
cover the spectrum of desired effects over the full engagement range (0-300m).
1
To improve readability, the dismounted soldier is described in the masculine. However, wherever the text
refers to ―he‖ or ―his‖, the reference applies equally to dismounted soldiers who are women.
Page 11 of 117

12. Figure 3. The Integrated Soldier: a System of Systems
The workshop examined lethal and non-lethal weapons effects in the context of the integrated
soldier system. (From "Overview of Soldier Modernization Effort," by Maj. S. Dufour, presented
on day 1 of the workshop.)
Figure 4. The Escalation of Force Continuum—from Non-Lethal to Lethal
As the roles that Canadian Forces personnel perform become more varied – including
everything from crowd control to combat – weapons' effects must vary too. (From Maj. S.
Dufour's presentation at the Visioning Workshop held in June, 2009.)
Page 12 of 117

13. Increasingly sophisticated and integrated weapons
In addition to a wider range of effects, weapons continue to become increasingly
complex and sophisticated. When considering weapons, a wide range of factors must be
taken into account and a wide range of enabling technologies are needed (Figure 5.
Weapon Technology Radar).
At the same time, the need for weapons to integrate seamlessly with other components
of the soldier system remains strong. As a result, any discussion of weapons
requirements and development must take into account power and energy requirements,
C4I and sensors, human factors, and all of the other aspects of an optimal integrated
soldier system. This was reflected in the presentations and discussions that made up the
Lethality and Non-Lethality Weapons Effects Workshop.
Figure 5. Weapon Technology Radar
A wide range of factors and technologies must be considered when discussing weapons
development. (From Soldier Systems Modernization Effort Overview, by Major S. Dufour (DND),
presented during day 1 of the workshop (Source: TNO Nanobook))
Page 13 of 117

14. The Workshop Process
The goal of the Lethal and Non-Lethal Effects Workshop was to:
1. Identify and validate the future capabilities required by the dismounted soldier
2. Identify the devices that can meet those capabilities, and the challenges
associated with developing those devices
3. Identify the technologies that must be developed to meet the challenges and
build the devices
4. Identify theme areas of lethal and non-lethal weapons to be the focus of
technology development efforts in the context of the Soldier Systems TRM
To achieve this goal, the workshop followed a carefully designed process (Figure7. The
Workshop Process). It included presentations and working sessions leading to the
defining of collaborations for which participants could "sign on" for further participation.
During the first two days of the workshop, the process focused on lethal weapons. On
the third day, the process was repeated for non-lethal weapons.
The Presentations: What is Needed, and Why?
Throughout the workshop, presentations provided participants with a wealth of
information to augment their own areas of knowledge and expertise. The presentations
clarified what capabilities the soldier needs and why he needs them, and provided a
catalyst for the working session discussions.
The full presentation slides are available on the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap
home page (http://soldiersystems-systemesdusoldat.collaboration.gc.ca) and in PDF
form in Volumes 2 and 3 of the workshop documentation.
To obtain the maximum benefit from this report, we suggest that readers refer to the
presentation slides before reading each section of the report. Throughout the report—
which deals primarily with participant activities and contributions during the working
sessions—we include abstracts of the presentations that preceded each working
session.
Page 14 of 117

15. Figure 6. The Workshop Process
The workshop process consisted of presentations that provided background information,
interspersed with working sessions. On days 1 and 2, the focus was Lethality; on day 3, it was
Non-Lethality.
Page 15 of 117

16. Introduction: Soldier System TRM Overview
The workshop started with a series of introductory presentations designed to familiarize
participants with the technical roadmapping process and with soldier systems.
Abstracts of those presentations follow. The full presentations are provided in Volumes
2, Lethality Slide Decks, and 3, Non-Lethality Slide Decks. They are also available in the
Innovation Collaboration and Exchange Environment (ICee) tool, which is accessible
from the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap web site: http://www.soldiersystems-
systemesdusoldat.collaboration.gc.ca
Introductory Presentation Abstracts
Welcome and Opening Remarks, LCol M. Prudhomme (DND)
Welcomes workshop
participants. Introduces the idea
that the Soldier Systems
Technology Roadmap is
continually evolving. Explains
that the Roadmap is designed to
be a win-win-win situation for
industry, government, and
academia. Points out the
networking opportunities offered
by the workshops. Invites
participants to participate fully in
the workshop, and to continue
to be engaged in the
roadmapping process following the workshop.
Page 16 of 117

17. Soldier Systems Modernization Effort Overview, Maj. S. Dufour (DND)
Describes the framework for
the Army of Tomorrow.
Outlines the components of
the Land Systems for the
Canadian Forces. Describes
the future security environment
as consisting of complex
terrains and complex battle
spaces.
Describes the adaptive
dispersed operations concept,
and effects-based operations.
Outlines the five NATO soldier
capability areas used as the framework for the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap,
and emphasizes the importance of the human dimension as an integral part of each
area.
Provides a soldier systems R&D
history. Describes soldier systems
technologies and domains,
weapon technology components,
and the Canadian Forces soldier
modernization effort.
Explains the integrated soldier as
a "system of systems." Outlines
the main project portfolios for the
system. Describes related
projects and the roadmap
timeframe.
Places Canadian efforts in the context of the world stage for integrated soldier systems.
Describes global market opportunities. Outlines future weapons development activities,
and describes future soldier systems challenges.
Page 17 of 117

18. Return on Power and Energy Workshop: Weapons Related Considerations,
Mr. D. Cripe (Rockwell-Collins)
Describes the purpose of the Soldier Systems TRM Power and Energy workshop, which
preceded the Lethality/Non-
Lethality workshop . Explains the
key role of power in the soldier
system, and the need to
integrate it with all other
components of the roadmap.
Outlines the components of each
of the six theme areas that
emerged from the Power and
Energy Workshop.
Return on Visioning Workshop: Lethal Weapons, Mr. P. Carr (SRG)
Describes the objectives of the Vision and Future Capabilities Workshop, which
preceded the Power and Energy Workshop. Explains that the process is similar for all
the workshops. Describes the capability domains that make up the TRM.
Describes the report resulting from the Visioning workshop . Provides an overview of the
Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons Effects discussion at the Visioning workshop, and
explains its relevance to the Lethality/Non-Lethality workshop discussions.
Page 18 of 117

19. Part I. Lethal Weapons Effects
1. Lethal Weapons Capability Goals, Drivers,
Challenges and Gaps
This chapter provides abstracts of the presentations that focused on lethal weapon
capability goals, drivers, challenges and gaps, and describes Breakaway Session 1.
Lethality Session 1 Presentation Abstracts
1.1 Overall Integrated Soldier System Requirements and Related
Lethality Aspects, Capt. A. Dionne (DND)
Outlines the Canadian Army
Soldier System vision for today,
tomorrow, and the future.
Describes the components of
the dismounted soldier system
of today. Outlines current
deficiencies. Emphasizes the
importance of limiting the
weight of equipment, and
describes the weight current
soldiers in various roles are
required to carry. Describes the
Integrated Soldier System
Project (ISSP) designed to
enhance tactical level individual
and team lethality, mobility, and C4I performance. Shows the components of ISSP Cycle
1. Explains that Cycle 1 components should be weight neutral, Cycle 2 components shall
be weight neutral, and Cycle 3 components shall be weight reducing. Describes generic
requirements in terms of growth potential and modularity. Outlines lethality requirements
of the ISSP suite, explaining that it should enable the user to compute and distribute the
target location for the purpose of executing a Call for Fire transmitting accurate target
data. Emphasizes the importance of soldier acceptance of new equipment.
Page 19 of 117

20. Demonstration: To shoot, or not to shoot? ... what to shoot? ... and when to
shoot?
To illustrate the dilemma facing the soldier when it comes to using lethal vs. non-lethal
force, Major S. Dufour, acting as an unknown person, and Capt A. Dionne, acting as a
good soldier, provided a demonstration.
Capt Dionne, dressed in battle gear, was approached by an unknown person (Figure 7.
Lethal/Non-Lethal Demonstration: To shoot, or not to shoot ... what to shoot ... and when
to shoot?). Was he an enemy combatant? A suicide bomber? An innocent civilian? To
do his job, and ensure his own safety and that of others, Capt Dionne had to decide
quickly and act accordingly.
Capt. Dionne, the soldier, followed standard procedures as the unknown person
approached, issuing a series of warnings to "Halt." When these were ignored, and the
unknown person continued to approach, the soldier, aware that an improvised bomb can
kill people up to 20 meters, used a Dazzler to temporarily blind the person. Beyond that,
the soldier's only option was to shoot to injure or kill the approaching person.
The questions and observations raised by the demonstration included:
 When should a soldier use non-lethal weapons and when should he use
lethal weapons? If the unknown person was a suicide bomber, waiting too long
to fire would mean the death of the soldier and others in the area. But firing too
soon might result in the death of an innocent civilian.
 What options should the soldier have? The soldier used a non-lethal Dazzler
to temporarily disable the approaching individual. But what other options could be
available? Is there a range of weapons that can be deployed at various stages
along the escalation of force continuum shown in Figure 4—weapons to deliver a
range of effects ranging from temporarily disablement to lethality? If so, what are
they, what are the underlying technologies/barriers associated with developing
them, and how can they be developed?
 How can the soldier's capabilities be improved? Assuming a range of
weapons can be made available, how should they be integrated? Should there
be different weapons for different missions, or one weapon with a full range of
capabilities? How can those weapons be made more effective, more accurate,
lighter, and more integrated with all aspects of the soldier system?
These were some of the questions and issues that the presenters and participants
grappled with during the three day Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons Effects Workshop.
Page 20 of 117

21. The demonstration was followed by an equipment display, which led to the briefing by
Maj. B. Gilchrist.
Figure 7. Lethal/Non-Lethal Demonstration: To shoot, or not to shoot ...
what to shoot ... and when to shoot?
A soldier uses a Dazzler to temporarily blind a possible assailant. When approached by
someone who may or may not be a threat, the soldier needs a range of response capabilities,
both non-lethal and lethal.
Page 21 of 117

22. 1.2 Future Soldier Weapon Lethality Capabilities: The Small Arms
Replacement Program, Maj. B. Gilchrist (DND)
Describes the weapons effect
lethality chain. Explains the
importance of recognizing and
locating a threat, following the
rules of engagement, and
having the desired effects.
Outlines the NATO "error
budget" for shot errors due to
various reasons, such as
geographic grade, wind, and
shooting position. Describes
the typical shooter in terms of
size and requirements,
including power. Defines
lethality, incapacitation, and suppression. Lists important factors associated with
lethality.
Describes current
Canadian Forces (CF)
small arms, their
purposes, and limitations.
Outlines current
capability deficiencies.
Describes Sniper
Systems Project, and the
Small Arms Replacement
Project (SARP II) for
modernizing or replacing
CF small arm capability.
Places weapons in the
context of the soldier
systems network, and
outlines the future vision for an integrated weapon system for the soldier.
Page 22 of 117

23. 1.3 Overview of NATO RTO Soldier Weapons Interoperability Task Group
and Integration Challenges, Maj. L. Bossi (DND)
Describes the purpose, timelines, and membership of the NATO RTO SCI-178 RTG-
043, designed to make progress towards achieving interoperability and identifying
modernization considerations and possibilities in future weapon systems.
Provides an overview of the Power
Sub-Group. Describes concepts of
energy distribution, including the
current "Christmas tree" concept
and its advantages and
disadvantages. Describes
concepts of energy distribution.
Explains the power consumption of
equipment carried on the weapon.
Outlines key challenges associated
with power and the dismounted
soldier.
Provides an overview of the
Human Factors Sub-Group. Describes team goals, collaborative studies in the areas of
human factors and weapons variables, and conclusions and recommendations.
Page 23 of 117

24. 1.4 Review of NATO Future Assault Rifle Requirements & CF Surveys,
Mr. D. Tack (HSI)
Describes the NATO Research and
Technology Organization (RTO)
Survey conducted for eight NATO
countries to gather information about
assault rifle requirements.
Focuses on device locations/controls
on the weapons, ratings of weapon
capabilities in terms of importance,
and national differences in ratings.
Prioritizes functionality and usability
requirements for assault rifle.
Describes surveys of Canadian Forces priorities conducted with subject matter experts
and with infantry soldiers recently returned from Afghanistan. Assesses future battle
space requirements, weapon suitability, weapon features, soldier system functions,
weapon effects, design priorities, and system burdens.
Page 24 of 117

25. Lethality Working Session 1: Lethality Capability Goals, Drivers,
Challenges and Gaps
The goal of the first lethality working session was to identify the soldier's lethal weapons
future capabilities and needs.
Lethality Working Session 1 Inputs and Instructions
Groups of participants at about a dozen tables, with 10 or more participants at each
table, were given copies of the participant output from the Lethality/Non-Lethality portion
of the Visioning Workshop held earlier in the year (Figure 8. Working Session 1
Handout: Lethality/NonLethality Visioning.)
Based on the preceding presentations, the handout, and the specialized knowledge that
each participant brought to the table, participants were asked to focus on the capability
gaps of the dismounted soldier with respect to lethal weapons effects, and to establish a
vision for 3 years, 5 years, and 10-or-more years into the future.
Specifically, they were asked to address two questions:
1. The dismounted soldier has several needs related to lethal weapons effects,
including power, ―selectability/variability‖, improved accuracy, improved visibility,
integration with other soldier equipment, improved target detection, etc. Based on
the information provided this morning, what do you believe are the 2 or 3 most
important capability gaps concerning a dismounted soldier’s lethal weapons
effects? Why?
2. If your table was asked to develop a ―vision‖ for the dismounted soldier’s lethal
weapons effects, what would that vision be? (e.g., With respect to lethal weapons
effects, in 3 years, the dismounted soldier would be able to …: in 5 years the
dismounted soldier would be able to …; in 10 years …)
Page 25 of 117

26. Figure 8. Working Session 1 Handout: Lethal/Non-Lethal Visioning
As a starting point for Working Session 1, participants were given results from the Lethality/Non-
Lethality session of the Soldier Systems Visioning Workshop held in June 2009.
Page 26 of 117

27. Lethality Working Session 1 Results: Drivers/Gaps Identified
As they worked together to answer the two questions they were given, the participants
posted summaries of their discussion on flip charts. Table 1, Drivers/Gaps and Visions
Identified in Working Session 1, summarizes the contents of the flip charts.
Following the discussions, a plenary session was held, during which the spokespersons
for a number of tables reported their observations to all of the workshop participants.
Participants were asked to keep the recorded results of their Working Session 1
discussions to serve as the starting point for defining devices or products to address the
needs in Working Session 2.
Page 27 of 117

28. Table 1. Drivers/Gaps and Visions Identified in Working Session 1
Participants kept their recorded observations from this session to serve as a starting point for
focusing on devices or products in the next session.
Drivers & Gaps Vision – 3 Years
 Integration of devices (reduced number,  Integration of devices (reduced number and
reduced weight and power requirements)  Selectable lethality
 Improved accuracy  Integrated single weapon system
 Trajectory feedback  Improved usability of existing systems
 Need for a higher "hit-to-shot" ratio (better without adding capability
target acquisition)  Increased power density for weapon
 Ability to identify threat (weapon detection  Start scientific effort for 5-10 years
 Information sharing Vision – 5 Years
 Ability to defeat body armour  Integrated (fused) sensors
 Power (consumption/waste/logistics &  Integrated single power source for weapon
management) system
 Target identification  Auto targets – IFF
 Sound signature concerns (silencer)  Zoom lens for better recognition
 IFF (Identify Friend or Foe)  Standoff exclusion: short acting gas,
microwave, Tasers
 Modularity – task-tailored solutions
 Common link with all sensors
 Simplification and improved functionality of  Integrated target device
weapon system
 Quick ID/Decide/Act capability
 Improved mobility
 Non line-of-sight capabilities
 Reduced weight
Vision – 10 Years
 Data and power transfer capabilities  Selectable lethality
 Lack of training  Autonomous weapon platform controlled by
 Versatility – need to configure for different soldier (like UAV)
tasks  Integrated weapon network
 Sensor uplink needed for sharing targets  Target acquisition, power & data
 Lethality spectrum in a single weapon management automation
 Need for improved detection  Target detection sensors
 Scientific knowledge  Auto decision aids
 Target track/aim over motion capability
 Non line-of-sight weapon systems
 Graceful degradation of power
Page 28 of 117

29. 2. Lethal Weapons Sub-Systems: Performance
Goals, Challenges, and Gaps
This chapter provides abstracts of the presentations preceding the second working
session, and describes Working Session 2: Lethality Devices/Subsystems.
Lethality Session 2 Presentation Abstracts
The following presentations followed working session 1 and preceded working session 2.
2.1 NATO Small Arms Works, Mr. Per Arvidsson, (Sweden)
Describes the history of the two
NATO rifle calibers, benefits of
one over the other, and the
Swedish experience. Points out
there is no NATO rifle.
Describes NATO nominated
weapons. Describes NATO
RTO study and STANAGT 4694
NATO accessory rail. Provides
recommendations, and
describes existing accessories.
Describes assault rifle
development. Outlines
accessories that were not
available 30 years ago.
Emphasizes importance of information exchange among national programs. Describes a
future rifle program and aspects of small arms lethality.
Page 29 of 117

30. 2.2 Key Soldier Weapon Sensors Future Options, Mr., H. Angel (HSI)
Explains that the aim is to introduce
some potential key soldier weapon
sensors future options. Describes
potential adversaries and their
characteristics. Describes potential
weapon sensors. Includes
description of electro-optical
sensors in the visible band, the NIR
band, the SWIR band, the
MWIR/LWIR band, and multiple
bands, as well as multi-function
lasers and illuminators.
Outlines deficiencies in
electro-optical sensors.
Describes a range of devices
and variables, including laser
range finders, GPS and
IMU/INU sensors, digital
non-magnetic compass,
inclinometer,
acceleration/motion/displace
ment sensors, barrel wear
shot counters, ambient and
ammunition temperature,
and barometric pressure.
Describes an integrated fire control system (FCS) and outlines FCS enhancements.
Summarizes requirements for the future soldier weapon system.
Page 30 of 117

31. 2.3 Key Small Calibre Ammunition Sub-Systems, Mr. P. Lemay (GD OTS)
Provides information about modern SAA
military calibres, weapon launched
grenades, cartridge types, ammunition
sub-components. Describes weight
issues associated with small calibre
ammunition sub-systems. Explains
factors associated with internal ballistics,
external ballistics, and terminal ballistics.
Describes small arms ammunition (SAA)
manufacturing and testing. Discusses
ammunition-weapon compatibility, NATO
interchangeability, training, and the
possible future of SAA.
Page 31 of 117

32. Lethality Working Session 2: Lethality Devices/Subsystems
The goal of the second lethality working session was to describe devices or subsystems
that would address the lethality capability goals, drivers, challenges and gaps identified
in the first working session, and to outline a time horizon for developing those devices.
Lethality Working Session 2 Inputs and Instructions
To help structure information about the devices and time horizons, each table was given
an indelible pen and a laminated, tabloid-size chart (Figure 9. Working Session 2:
Devices/Subsystems Worksheet).
The chart provided space to list the following:
 Y-Axis. Devices/subsystems to address lethality gaps and needs
 X-Axis. Domains/themes, such as projectile, launcher, target acquisition, or
participant-defined domain, under which the device/subsystems could be
categorized. Used to identify enabling technologies and to eventually lead to the
identification of key theme areas.
 A time horizon column. Used to specify whether they believe the device could
be available in 5, 10 or 15 years
Participants used the results of the first working session as the starting point for filling
out their charts. They were assigned these questions to consider when completing the
charts:
1. What devices would meet the dismounted soldier's lethal weapon gaps and
challenges, taking into consideration the vision discussed?
2. What "domains" of weapons would those devices address?
3. What would be the time horizon for bringing each device to the soldier?
Page 32 of 117

33. Figure 9. Working Session 2: Devices/Subsystems Worksheet
Each table of participants filled out a worksheet indicating the devices they believed would
address the dismounted soldier's lethal weapons needs identified during the first working
session. The worksheets were to be used as input to the Technologies Brainstorming that was
done in the third working session, described later.
Page 33 of 117

34. Lethality Working Session 2 Results: Completed Lethal Weapons Effects
Devices/Sub-systems Worksheets
Following the working session 2 exercise, participants at a number of tables shared their
conclusions and observations with all of the workshop participants, based on the
contents of their worksheets.
The worksheets were used to generate a list of devices identified by the participants as
being potential solutions to the problems associated with the drivers and gaps identified
during the first working session, and the likely development timeframes involved. The
eighteen device areas identified by participants are:
1. Projectiles
2. Launchers
3. Target Acquisition Devices
4. Fire Control Devices
5. Human Target Devices
6. Material Target Devices
7. Surveillance Devices
8. Situational Awareness Devices
9. Sensors
10. Common Operational Picture (COP) Devices
11. Lasers
12. Datalink Devices
13. Human Error Devices
14. Devices to address Human Factors
15. Identification of Friend and Foe (IFF) Devices
16. Shot Placement Devices
17. Supply Devices
18. Devices for Other Capability Areas
The detailed participant input for each of these areas is provided in Appendix C, Lethality
Session 2 Participant Worksheets.
Page 34 of 117

35. 3. Lethal Weapons Key Technologies Options,
Readiness, Challenges, and Gaps
This chapter provides abstracts of the presentations preceding the third working session,
and describes Working Session 3: Lethality Technologies.
Lethality Session 3 Presentation Abstracts
Following are abstracts of the presentations that preceded working session 3.
3.1 Small Calibre Weapons & Ammunition Technologies State-of-the-Art
Overview, Mr. P. Harris & Dr.
V. Tanguay (DRDC)
Introduces weapons and ammunition
issues, including capability requirements
and constraints. Sets the stage with
regard to pursing increased lethality in
weapons systems. Outlines a proposed
vision for a fully integrated weapon
system. Describes the present
technological landscape with regard to
fulfilling the vision for an integrated
weapon system. Describes "other
important issues" associated with
achieving the desired outcomes.
Page 35 of 117

36. 3.2 Soldier Weapons Sensors and Fire Control Systems State-of-the-Art
Overview, P. Merel and P. Laou
Describes EO sensors carried
by the Canadian Forces.
Explains the need for better
integration. Describes some
existing multifunction weapon
sights/soldier systems.
Outlines the Canadian Forces
soldier system vision and
effort, including background
and military need. Describes
weapon sensors in the future.
Provides overview of
day/night sights and image
fusion, describing factors
such as fire elevation, standoff distance, and sensor resolution. Explains potential
advantage of SWIR band.
3.3 Overview of Weapons Effectiveness Metrics, Mr. D. Bourget (DRDC)
Defines key terms. Describes
fragmentation device (indirect fire)
efficiency drivers, small arms (direct
fire) efficiency drivers, small arms
projectile armour penetration
capability, and small arms projectile
velocity versus range.
Describes small arms projectile
target protection, small arms
projectile PDW challenge, and small
arms projectile wounding capability.
Introduces ballistic gelatine (or soap)
and discusses advantages and disadvantages as a testing medium. Outlines
international treaties. Provides conclusions.
Page 36 of 117

37. 3.4 Weapons Effects Characterization State-of-the-Art Overview, Mr. B.
Anctil (Biokinetics)
Outlines key factors associated
with weapons effectiveness.
Describes nonpenetrating and
penetrating weapon effects and
projectile behaviour
assessment. Assesses and
compares ballistic gelatin,
ballistic soap, and synthetic
gels as ballistic testing media.
Describes hybrid and biological
alternatives to the above
media. Explains numerical
modeling for projectiles.
Discusses non- penetrating
effects for nonlethal weapons. Provides conclusions about weapon effects
characterization and weapon development.
Describes a "good mix" of optics and optronics configuration for sights in the context of
the future soldier system. Outlines
the challenge associated with
image quality optics vs optronics.
Provides technology definitions
and selections. Describes
configuration possibilities. Gives
examples of dual band weapon
sights. Outlines EO
technologies/capabilities
addressing deficiencies in small
arm weapons. Outlines
conclusions regarding new
sensors and sensing technologies.
Page 37 of 117

38. Lethality Working Session 3: Lethality Technologies
The goal of the third lethality working session was to map the technologies and devices
discussed during working session 2 on day 1 of the workshop to specific areas of focus,
such as sights, ammunition, weapons design, multiple-effects munitions, and other
components related to technology and the soldier system.
Lethality Working Session 3 Inputs and Instructions
During working session 2, participants completed Devices/Subsystems worksheets (See
Figure 9. Working Session 2: Devices/Subsystems worksheet. Following the working
session, those worksheets were collected, and the results were compiled and used to
construct a grid with focus areas across the top and timeframes down the side. (Table 2.
The Grid Approach for Lethality Working Session 3.) The grid was posted along one wall
of the meeting room (Figure 10. Working Session 3: Participants at "the Wall.")
Table 2. The Grid Approach for Lethality Working Session 3
Timeframe Devices/sub-systems
(years) 1 2 3 The 26 focus areas were listed across the top of the grid ... 26
1-3 Participants posted "stickies" in the grid cells to indicate the device/sub-system
technologies to focus on. They used the vertical axis to estimate development
timeframes (1-3 years, 5-10 years, or more than 10 years).
5-10 ...
10+ ...
Participants were asked to consider these questions:
1. What technologies need to be developed to produce the identified devices?
2. What would be your "highest three priority" technologies?
3. What would be the time horizon for developing each technology?
Each participant was provided with two packs of sticky notes, or "stickies"—one yellow,
the other red, and asked to post them on the wall to:
1. Identify as many technologies as they wanted for as many related solutions as
they wanted, writing each on a yellow sticky note and placing it in the appropriate
category and timeline cell.
2. Identify the 3 highest-priority technologies by using the red stickies.
Page 38 of 117

39. Figure 10. Working Session 3: Participants at "The Wall"
Participants mapping lethality technologies for the soldier system in terms of priority and time frame.
(Photo: Mark Gray, Industry Canada)
Page 39 of 117

40. Lethality Working Session 3 Results: Technology Focus Areas Identified
Table 3, Working Session 3 (Lethal) Results, on the next two pages, shows the
participant-generated distribution of stickies on the wall by focus area and timeframe. To
reiterate:
 The 26 areas of focus across the top of the table were compiled by Industry
Canada and DND staff based the participant input collected after working session
2 (See Lethality Working Session 2: Lethality Devices/Subsystems on page 32.)
 The distribution of stickies by the participants indicates the technologies that they
view as the most promising for developing solutions to the challenges associated
with lethal weapons for the soldier system.
The distribution illustrated in the table served as the starting point for identifying priority
theme areas during working session 4, described in the next chapter.
The descriptions written on the stickies by the participants is provided in Appendix D.
Lethality Working Session 3 Participant Solution/Technology Stickies.
Page 40 of 117

41. Projected Development Timeframe (Years)
Areas of Focus
< -15 -- <-- 10 --- <---------- 5 ---------
1 Better weapon ergonomics/physics
2 Directed energy weapon
3 Weapon bio-feedback mechanism
4 Smart training weaponry
5 Lighter/smaller weapons
6 Target location/handoff decision support
7 Target acquisition non-line-of-sight
8 Target acquisition IFF detection
Target sensors – human
9
brainwave/biometrics
10 Target sensors – human (heat)
11 Target sensors – human (other)
12 Auto adjustable focal length lens
13 "Fused" sign – target fusion
Table 3. Working Session 3 (Lethal) Results
14 Sentient projectile (projectile sensor)
15 Lighter/smaller ammunition
Distribution of Stickies on the Wall by Focus Areas and Timeframes
For columns 16-26, see next page.
identifying priority areas for collaboration during working session 4, which followed.
Page 41 of 117
bar, the
Stickies
specified.
timeframe
number of
greater the
focus in the
distribution.
for the area of
The longer the
stickies posted
Red stickies were weighted 2:1 compared with yellow stickies.This distribution served as the starting point for
Distribution of "stickies" on "the wall," indicating recommended areas of focus for Lethal Weapons Effects Projects.

42. Table 3. Working Session 3 (Lethal) Results
Distribution of "stickies" on "the wall," indicating recommended areas of focus for Lethal Weapons Effects Projects.
Red stickies were weighted 2:1 compared with yellow stickies.This distribution served as the starting point for
identifying priority areas for collaboration during working session 4, which followed.
Distribution of Stickies on the Wall by Focus Areas and Timeframes
IFC sniper informatics (wind, pressure,
Integrated fire control system (target-
Integrated "vest" data link – wireless
Intelligent shot placement (autofire
16 Caseless, low-weight ammunition
17 Guided projectiles (smart ammo)
25 Rate of fire control mechanism
Areas of Focus
21 Power supply intelligence
19 Electric ignition projectile
20 Standard data/power rail
18 Multiple effect munitions
control system)
specific focus)
power/data
etc.)
22
23
24
26
<---------- 5 ---------
Projected Development Timeframe (Years)
Stickies
distribution.
The longer the
bar, the
greater the
number of
stickies posted
for the area of
<-- 10 ---
focus in the
timeframe
specified.
< -15 --
Page 42 of 117

43. 4. Lethal Weapons Future Collaboration/Project
Opportunities and Priorities
This chapter provides abstracts of the presentations preceding the fourth working
session, and describes Working Session 4: Lethality Theme Areas Prioritization.
Lethality Session 4 Presentation Abstracts
4.1 Luncheon Presentation: Guest speaker Mr. S. Stevens (NRC),
Overview of the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP)
Describes how the National
Research Council (NRC)
Industrial Research
Assistance Program (IRAP)
can help finance research
and development, provide
customized technical and
business advice, and help
create linkages among
interested parties.
Explains project
qualification requirements.
Summarizes financial
support available. Expands
on R&D support for firms,
the accelerated review process, and the youth program. Summarizes contributions to
organizations. Describes where IRAP representatives are located. Outlines the FY 09-10
Budget.
Page 43 of 117

44. 4.2 Collaboration Tool (ICee) Presentation and Demo, Mr. V. Ricard
(DND)
Introduces the Innovation Collaboration
and Exchange Environment (ICee)
tool—a database and Wiki—and
describes its purpose and goals.
Provides information about ICee user
roles, how to register and start using the
tool, and advantages of using the tool.
Page 44 of 117

45. Lethality Working Session 4: Identifying Collaborations
The goal of the fourth, and final, lethality working session was to use the results of the
third session to identify lethality technology clusters, and to begin to define
collaborations designed to address soldier needs in those areas.
Lethality Working Session 4 Inputs and Instructions
After the workshop participants had populated the wall with stickies in working session 3,
they participated in a discussion to identify "clusters" of stickies that indicated consensus
about theme areas for further collaborative effort.
Seven clusters were identified as areas for possible collaboration for further research
and development. These were bordered with red tape on the wall grid. The table over
the next two pages – Table 4, Lethality Technology Clusters & Resulting Theme Areas—
shows the clusters that were identified on the wall.
The seven areas defined as key research focus areas were:
1. Target Location/Decision Support
2. Target Acquisition—IFF—Sensors
3. Target Information Fusion
4. Smart Ammunition—Multiple Effects
5. Power Supply/Management—Powered Rail
6. Fire Control System
7. Enhanced Lethality Ammunition—Lighter, Smaller, Caseless, Low Weight
Page 45 of 117

46. Projected Development Timeframe (Years)
Theme Areas
< -15 -- <-- 10 --- <---------- 5 ---------
1 Better weapon ergonomics/physics
2 Directed energy weapon
7
3 Weapon bio-feedback mechanism
Enhanced
Continued on next page
Lethality Ammo
4 Smart training weaponry
5 Lighter/smaller weapons
1
6 Target location/handoff decision support
7 Target acquisition non-line-of-sight
8 Target acquisition IFF detection
Target sensors – human
2
9
brainwave/biometrics
IFF--Sensors
10 Target sensors – human (heat)
Target Acquisition
collaboration were identified on the wall.
11 Target sensors – human (other)
Target location/decision support
12 Auto adjustable focal length lens
3
13 "Fused" sign – target fusion
Fusion
Table 4. Lethality Technology Clusters & Resulting Theme Areas
Target Info
14 Sentient projectile (projectile sensor)
Areas of Focus, Development Timeframes, and Distribution of Stickies on the Wall
Page 46 of 117
Based on the clustering of stickies generated in Working Session 3, seven areas of potential

47. Projected Development Timeframe (Years)
Theme Areas
< -15 -- <-- 10 --- <---------- 5 ---------
15 Lighter/smaller ammunition
16 Caseless, low-weight ammunition
4
17 Guided projectiles (smart ammo)
Smart Ammo
18 Multiple effect munitions
19 Electric ignition projectile
20 Standard data/power rail
5
21 Power supply intelligence
Power Mgmt
Integrated "vest" data link – wireless
22
power/data
Integrated fire control system (target-
23
Fire
specific focus)
6
Control
Intelligent shot placement (autofire
24
control system)
7
25 Rate of fire control mechanism
from
page)
Ammo
collaboration were identified on the wall.
Lethality
IFC sniper informatics (wind, pressure,
preceding
Enhanced
26
(continued
etc.)
Table 4. Lethality Technology Clusters & Resulting Theme Areas
Areas of Focus, Development Timeframes, and Distribution of Stickies on the Wall
Page 47 of 117
Based on the clustering of stickies generated in Working Session 3, seven areas of potential

48. Lethality Working Session 4 Results: Collaborations Identified
After the collaboration clusters were identified on the wall (Table 4. Lethality Technology
Clusters & Resulting Theme Areas), a flip chart was placed beside each cluster.
Participants were asked to go to the clusters that interested them, to provide additional
information about the collaboration areas on the flip charts, and to add their names to
collaboration signup sheets.
To stimulate discussion, the following guidelines were posted on each flip chart:
1. What would be a reasonable vision/target for the collaboration to achieve in 3
years? I.e., What would a prototype look like?
2. What could be achieved in the first 18 months?
3. Who would it make sense to involve in this collaboration for any variety of
reasons?
The charts were collected for analysis. What follows is a description of the seven
collaboration areas that were identified, based on the content of the flip charts. To
reiterate, the areas are:
1. Target Location/Decision Support
2. Target Acquisition—IFF—Sensors
3. Target Information Fusion
4. Smart Ammunition—Multiple Effects
5. Power Supply/Management—Powered Rail
6. Fire Control System
7. Enhanced Lethality Ammunition—Lighter, Smaller, Caseless, Low Weight
By necessity, given the interaction of several participants, and the limited time available,
the workshop descriptions are cursory. The goal was merely to make a start.
Page 48 of 117

49. 1. Target Location/Decision Support
Title Target Location/Decision Support
Description Technology designed to locate targets and provide information about how
to address those targets
Vision timeline 18 Months
 define the backbone requirements
 data structure and framework
 battlefield data protocol
Prototype Deliverable (3 years)
A prototype in three years should use wireless technology to deliver a
common operating picture tailored to concerned parties:
 Blue force friendly (location)
 Red force enemy (location)
Updateable
 Yellow force unknown
intelligence on the
(location)
fly
 Common Georeferences
"Maps"
Key players These key players were suggested:
 Prime Integrator L3 Electronics Systems
 PCI Geomatics Canada (Int'l mapping)
 RTI Research
 Aeryon
 CISCO
 LCSS Contractor
 Internet Taskforce
 Industry Canada (spectrum)
 IRAP/NRC
 DLR
 DRDC
Page 49 of 117

50. 2. Target Acquisition—IFF—Sensors
Title Target Acquisition—IFF—Sensors
Description Tech hi-res sensors
 Pattern recognition software (weapons, vehicles, facial, behaviour
recognition + DRDC gesture symbology)
 Expert system to interpret and "change detection" [DRDC Toronto,
ARP 14dk]
Vision timeline 18 Months
 Initial design/concept – logic for deciding on F&F to build on in the
system
Prototype in 3 years
 Breadboard with basic features/functionality for lab trials/proof of
principle
 That includes algorithms, sensors
 Expert systems that will enable the device to give the soldier
sufficient data to decide better and more reliably re: F or F
Conception
 DRDC (ARP, Technical Demonstration Project) or industry
 Prototype: DRDC (TDP) or industry
 Industrialize/militarize; industry
Key players These key players were suggested:
 MDA Brampton
 DRDC Toronto
 Maj McNamara
 Martello Defence Security Consol = threat evaluation and weapon
assignment (TEWA/DRDC Valcartier)
 Philip Bury DLR 5-3-2c
 Marni McVicar Aeryon Labs
Page 50 of 117

51. 3. Target Information Fusion
Title Target Information Fusion
Description Device for gathering and displaying target information
Vision timeline 18 Months
 Embedded algorithms
 Basic resolution
 Color dispha
 Oled for wide temp
3 Years
 In 3 years a proof-of-concept prototype that includes: Basic
math/alg worked out & sensors will be able to present a fused
image that can SW/LW/R visible spectrum requirements
Key players These key players were suggested:
 Armament Technology Inc.
 L3 Communications
 INO
 SAGEM
 Raytheon Canada
 Thales Canada
Page 51 of 117

52. 4. Smart Ammunition—Multiple Effects
Title Smart Ammunition—Multiple Effects
Description Smart ammunition capable of delivering a range of effects
Vision timeline In 3 years time, our prototype should be able to:
 Adapt existing parachute-suspended 40 mm grenade to include
video tracking (DLR 5-3-2c) explosive charge (video camera in
grenade already exists)
 Adapt parachute to use steerable parafoil
We need DND to:
 Characterize existing less-lethal rounds for deliver via existing
lethal platforms – 40 mm, 12 gauge, 410 gauge, and others
Vision
 A prototype that can deliver a range of ammo that delivers a range
of effects for 3 priority lethality priorities for soldier
Key players These key players were suggested:
 Need DRDC Valcartier range and P/c expertise
 DLR to suggest target signature
 GD-OTS Canada
 HFI Pyrotechnics
Page 52 of 117

53. 5. Power Supply/Management—Powered Rail
Title Power Supply/Management—Powered Rail
Description Weapon rail to power the soldier system.
Vision timeline 1. Technology
 Batteries (power source)
 Data and power rail
 Integrated accessories
 Power/data mgmt system
2. 3-year vision – in 3 years, prototype will provide
 Integrated functionality rechargeable battery supply power on gun
to accessories (via rail)
 Connection to soldier power and data (2nd source)
 Power/data mgmt to ss and accessories
 Sleep mode
 ID accessory
 Self diagnostic of rail
 Data recording
 Amount of power availability
 Accessories – std 1/f for data and power
3. 18 months
1 – Powered data rail
2 – Power/data mgmt system
3 – Accessories "on" power/data rail:
 red dot
 holographic
 tactical light
 laser
4 – Control of accessories
5 – Battery on weapon
Key players These key players were suggested:
 Weapons Component (Colt Canada, Cadex)
 Accessory component (Insight technologies, Fidus Systems)
 Power (batteries and other sources) (Kokam USA, H.O.B.)
 DND/DRDC
 Power and data distribution companies (Fidus)
 Users (Soldiers)
Page 53 of 117