Program Manager
Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad
David Tack
HumanSystems Incorporated
13 May 2010
MERS Mission
• Manage the Squad as a System.
• Integration, modernization, and configuration management of
everything that is worn, carried, and consumed by the squad.
• Lead and equip the Marine Infantry Rifle Squad in an
integrated, holistic and systematic fashion that increases the
overall fighting ability of the entire unit across the spectrum of
its missions.
• Coordinate integration of the squad into mobility platforms.
• Provide the ability to conduct systems engineering, human
factors, integration assessments, and spiral development in a
reduced time cycle by operating the Squad Integration Facility,
“Gruntworks”, as a Systems Command provided resource.
• Ensure integration and technology insertion in the Distributed
Operations / Enhanced Company Operations fielding and
implementation process
2
MC-LEAP
Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program
“We are careful not to
load a mule with more
than a third of his own
weight.”
Col. S.L.A. Marshall
The Soldiers Load (1950)
“Pack animals must not
be overloaded.”
Small Wars Manual
FMFRP 12-15 (1940)
INDIVIDUAL ASSAULT LOAD
Actual Assault
Loads
160
132 lb
Load in Pounds
140
120
100
117 lb
134 lb
114 lb
97 lb
97 lb
80
60
40
20
0
Rifleman
(3)
Automatic
Rifleman
(3)
50 lb
Recommended
Maximum Assault
Load
Assistant
Automatic
Rifleman
(3)
Fire Team
Leader
Squad Leader
(1)
Corpsman
(1)
(3)
(NRAC, 2007)
“We were ordered to wear everything
everywhere in the mountains all the
time…Even if you were in great shape, you
couldn’t keep up with the enemy.”
- Commanding Officer,
1st Bn, 3rd Marines
14 Nov 2006
Human Performance Effects
NRAC 2007:
Adequate models do not exist that incorporate combat
effectiveness parameters and predict human performance
effects of weight.
Marine Burden
Weight
Stiffness
Bulk
Program Aims
• Produce a large dataset of current Marine clothing and
equipment combat loads
– unloaded baseline, billet load-outs, armor combinations, etc.
• Assess the effects of different combat load decisions,
different integration designs, packing/load out decisions,
and different items of clothing and equipment in
procurement and design evaluations
• Provide essential guidance to infantry leaders to better
understand the impact of different combat load decisions
on the effectiveness of Marines in battle
• Provide direction for the most promising areas and avenues
for research and development
Agility Run
Sprint
Tunnel &
Hatch Tunnel &
Hatch
Window Obstacles
Window Obstacles
Stair
& Ladder
Wall
Climb
Stair
& Ladder
Climb
Climb
Wall Climb
Balance
Beam
Balance
Beam
Bounding
Rushes
Casualty Drag
Casualty
Drag
Crawl
orLow
Carry
or Carry
Low Crawl
6’1”, 165 lbs
Questionnaire Kiosks
Sensor Pad Stations
Noptel MilTrainer
Weight
LEAP Data Cloud
Stiffness
TACTICAL RELEVANCE
Marching Distance in 8 Hours
25
20
100
100
15
75
75
10
50
50
5
25
25
0
30
50
20
70
40
90
60
110
80
% body
weight
Load
(pounds)
(or load distribution)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
130
100
0
150
120
% Survivability
(i.e. sprint speed)
Miles
-50
(e.g. hit probability)
% Performance
-25
Design Light Initiative
Process
• Number of pieces of equipment:
– approximately 150
• Number of weight, volume and
human factors improving findings:
– Over 200 recommended weight
and/or volume saving opportunities
in various levels of difficulty, cost
and timeline.
Initial Findings
• Integration, Materials and COTS alternatives can
reduce weight and volume on the Marine
Expeditionary Rifle Squad’s (MERS) loadout.
• Experienced outdoor/technical garment designers with
knowledge of advanced textiles will improve human
factors and reduce weight.
• Auto-industry based electronics design and packaging
technology will further reduce weight and volume.
• Must look at Squad as a system - “Stove Pipe”
development adds weight and negatively impacts
human factors.
ILBE/MTV/Hydration
Integration Concept
• Marines carry 4 shoulder straps/pads and back panels (ILBE,
MTV, Hydration and Assault Pack). Only one is useful.
• Integration will provide improved protection, save weight
and improve human factors and functionality.
MERS will be provided with a
prototype integrated system in
Summer 2010
Weight savings estimate
4 – 7pounds
Significant human factors
improvement
Materials, COTS, Design and
Manufacturing Process Opportunities
• Design / COTS Alternative Examples
–
–
–
–
Camera Bag – 15% weight reduction
Tent – 35% weight reduction
Sleeping System, Cold Weather Gear – 15% weight reduction
Power management system – 35% weight reduction
• Materials and Manufacturing Process Alternative Examples
–
–
–
–
–
Shear thickening fluid (elbow/knee pads) – 50% weight reduction
Electronics potting compound – 5 – 10% weight reduction
Auto-industry electronics comm packaging – 30% weight reduction
“Space mesh” alternative to foam padding – 5% weight reduction
Seam welding vs. spot weld magazines – 1% weight reduction
• Effect: potential savings of 10 to 20 pounds per infantryman,
combined with better human factors = less fatigue, more
comfort, and better functionality.
Packaging and Re-Design
Repackaging electronics with new 2009 award
winning breakthrough in auto industry technology can
produce significant weight savings in comm gear
Multiple volume saving opportunities
with cased electronic systems
SIMP
Sensor Integrated Modular Protection
Sensor Integrated Modular Protection
• A preliminary functional
demonstration using a rapidprototyping concept mock-up.
• Mock-up design includes modular
protection components and novel
attachment system for seamless
integration.
• Distributed power/data
architecture to support modular
sensors and displays.
• Sensor integration includes a
quick-disconnect solution.
Sensor Integration – SIMP 1
Range of Camera Angles (degrees)
SIMP Thermal Camera ~ Pitch (x)
Close-in and Mid-Range
Sensor Integration – SIMP 2
HMV AO CARD
BATTERY
CABLE TO VIEWER
DISPLAY BUTTONS AND POWER SWITCH
VIDEO INPUT LOCATION
HELMET CONTROL MODULE WITH BATTERIES
Hearing Protection
WIA by Location
FACE
9%
SHOULDERS
HEAD
EYE
16%
0.5%
EAR
NECK
CHEST
5%
3%
BACK
5%
ARMS
5%
ABDOMEN
13%
3%
WRIST
PELVIS
0.5%
1%
BUTTOCKS
LEGS
1%
9%
Groin
0%
ANKLE
FEET
2%
0%
23%
HEARING LOSS DEGRADES
COMBAT PERFOMANCE
Impacts of Noise on Tank Gunner Performance and Survival
GOOD
POOR
HEARING
HEARING
40 sec
90 sec
INCORRECT COMMAND HEARD BY GUNNER
1%
37%
CORRECT TARGET IDENTIFICATION
98%
68%
ENEMY TARGETS KILLED
94%
41%
WRONG TARGET SHOT
0%
8%
TANK CREW KILLED BY ENEMY
7%
28%
TIME TO IDENTIFY TARGET
SOURCE: Tank Gunner Performace and Hearing Impairment (Garinther & Peters, Army RD&A Bulletin 1990, Jan-Feb 1-5
USMC MISSION IMPACT
Inability to localize and identify sound sources in a
combat environment
Diminished oral communication skills (sending and
receiving)
Ineffective command and control at small unit level
with a potential for mission failure
Hearing Loss can place war fighter’s in danger
Veterans Affairs Hearing
Loss Disability Costs
Cost of Hearing Loss as a primary disability for All Veterans (1977-2006)
Total = $8,385,892,465 BILLION
$ 901,472,784*
$1,000
Major VA Disability Only
$900
$800
• Total $ does not include annual cost for tinnitus disabilities
$700
• Total $ does not include treatment costs, e.g., hearing aids, retraining
• Total $ does not include disability paid to the 3x more veterans with hearing
loss as a non-primary disability
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
Costs are approaching $1Billion annually
01
03
05
Hearing Protection