Technology demonstrations are not new. What is new are the scope and depth of the technology demonstrations, the increased importance of their role in the acquisition process, and the increased emphasis on user involvement to permit an early and meaningful evaluation of overall military capability. The following sections provide an explanation of TDs, ATDs, and ACTDs, as well as systems/system upgrades/advanced concepts (S/SU/ACs).

The primary focus of TDs is to demonstrate the feasibility and practicality of a technology for solving specific military deficiencies. They are incorporated during the various stages of the 6.2 and 6.3 development process and encourage technical competition. They are most often conducted in a nonoperational (laboratory or field) environment. These demonstrations provide information that reduces uncertainties and subsequent engineering costs, while simultaneously providing valuable development and requirements data.

Within each Army mission area, specific ATDs are being structured to meet established goals. Detailed roadmaps to guide their progress are being developed, as well as exit criteria to define their goals. ATDs are risk reducing, integrated, proof–of–principle demonstrations designed to assist near–term system developments in satisfying specific operational capability needs. The ATD approach has been promoted by the Defense Science Board (DSB) and the Army Science Board (ASB) as a means of accelerating the introduction of new technologies into operational systems. They are principally funded with advanced technology development (6.3) funds. ATDs facilitate the integration of proposed technologies into full system demonstration/validation (6.4) or engineering and manufacturing development (6.5) prototype systems. As such, they provide the link between the technology developer, program manager, program executive officer, and the Army user. The criteria for establishing an ATD are:

The Army currently has 20 ATDs that have been approved by the Army Science and Technology Working Group (ASTWG). These ATDs are identified in Table III–1, along with the primary Army mission area each supports. All ATDs are discussed in the applicable Chapter III sections. More detailed information, including exit criteria for each ATD, can be found in Volume II, Annex NO TAG. Science and Technology Objectives (STOs) for each ATD are in Volume II, Annex NO TAG.

Four ATDs were successfully completed in FY97. Table III–2 provides details on the results of these ATDs, addressing the product, warfighting capability, and transition of the technology. Additionally, brief descriptions of these ATDs follow.

Hit Avoidance ATD (1995–97). The ATD demonstrated through Battlefield Distributed Simulation (BDS) warfighting experiments improved battlefield effectiveness and developed battlefield tactics for an integrated hit avoidance technology to include sensors, countermeasures, and active defenses against both top attack and horizontal threats. This ATD developed and demonstrated a commander’s decision aid (CDA). This is a hardware/software logic module that fuses sensors with countermeasures for automated or aided crewman response. It is a key component of the vehicle protection architecture and can be battlefield tailored to a specific set of threats and used horizontally across multiple combat and tactical vehicles.

Total Distribution ATD (1994–97). This ATD provided the commanders/logisticians at strategic, operational, and tactical levels an enhanced capability to plan, analyze, mobilize, deploy, sustain, and reconstitute materiel, personnel, and forces in combat or crisis–response situations while reducing logistics timelines and support costs. The ATD demonstrated automated logistics planning tools, computer simulation and modeling techniques, interfaces to advanced microelectronics and satellite tracking, and network communications management and integration technology to support an advanced logistics supply capability. To its credit the ATD successfully participated in Prairie Warrior Exercises ’94–’97 and Joint Warrior Interoperability Demonstrations in ’95–’97 and provided logistics deployment, sustainment and redeployment planning and operational support to Operation Joint Endeavor, and is deployed to the Atlantic Command (ACOM), the European Command (EUCOM), and Central Command (CENTCOM) as the baseline for the Joint Logistics ACTD. Additionally, the ATD is migrating its log anchor desk (LAD) tools to the combat service support control system (CSSCS) and the Army global command and control system (AGCCS) legacy logistics C² systems.

The ACTD is an integrating effort to assemble and demonstrate a significant, new military capability, based upon maturing advanced technology(s), in a real–time operation at a scale adequate to clearly establish operational utility and system integrity. ACTDs are jointly sponsored and implemented by the operational user and materiel development communities, with approval and oversight guidance from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Technology (DUSD(AT)).

The ACTD concept is a cornerstone in a procurement strategy that relies on prototyping and demonstration programs to maintain the U.S. military technological edge in the face of declining procurement budgets. ACTDs are a more mature phase of the ATDs. They are 2– to 4–year efforts in which new weapons and technologies are developed, prototyped, and then tested by the soldiers in the field for up to 2 years before being procured. This 2–year residual capability is a unique attribute of an ACTD.

ACTDs are not new programs, but tend to be a combination of previously identified ATDs, TDs, or concepts already begun. They include high–level management and oversight to transform disparate technology development efforts conducted by the various military services into prototype systems that can be tested and eventually fielded. The ACTD becomes the last step in determining whether the military needs and can afford the new technology.

The Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) program is a comprehensive management and technical program to improve total system (soldier, equipment, and unit) performance by focusing on soldier performance and reliability. This is achieved by the continuous integration of manpower, personnel, training, human engineering, system safety, health hazard, and soldier survivability considerations throughout the materiel life cycle.

Throughout the design and development phases, MANPRINT ensures that an emphasis on soldier considerations is maintained as a high priority in system design and that system operation, deployment/employment, and maintenance requirements are matched with soldier capabilities, training, and availability. The value added of MANPRINT has been demonstrated in programs such as Comanche and Longbow Apache, where application of MANPRINT has led to significant cost avoidance and enhanced mission effectiveness. With MANPRINT, Army systems will become increasingly user–centered, reliable, and maintainable, leading to significant reductions in life–cycle costs and increased mission effectiveness.

The development of the next set of systems requires prior demonstration of the feasibility of employing new technologies. New systems are those next in line after the ones currently fielded or in production. For these systems, most technical barriers to the new capability have been overcome. Generally, these systems can enter engineering and manufacturing development relatively quickly as a result of the successful demonstration of enabling technologies. Based on current funding guidance, the number of new systems is in a sharp decline. Systems included in this chapter must have a funded 6.4 or 6.5 development program or production dollars in the POM/Army RDA plan.

In the absence of new systems, the Army is pursuing incremental improvements to existing systems to maintain its technological edge and capabilities. For the purposes of this plan, these improvements have been designated as "system upgrades." System upgrades are brought about through technology insertion programs, service life extension programs, preplanned product improvement (P³I) programs, and block improvement programs. System upgrades included here must have a 6.4/6.5 funding wedge in the POM/Army RDA plan. These upgrades are based primarily on the success of funded 6.3 ATDs/TDs. The 6.3 ATDs/TDs either are the basis for the system upgrade or have a high probability of forming the basis for the system upgrade. Descriptions of systems and system upgrades may be found in the book Weapon Systems, United States Army 1997.

Advanced concepts are systems concepts further out in time. For these, significant technical barriers remain, and questions of military worth, including tradeoffs within emerging doctrine and force structure limits, are less clear. Advanced concepts help provide the focus for the earlier stages of technology development (6.1 and 6.2 programs) and outyear projected 6.3 demonstrations. In many cases they are conceptual in nature, and actual system definitions may change significantly by the time technologies and demonstrations are more fully understood. Advanced concepts represent an option that is thought to be technologically achievable and useful on a future battlefield, but without a prior commitment by either the Department of the Army or the user community for development or production. Inclusion of advanced concepts in the ASTMP is based on planned/funded 6.3 ATDs/TDs.

The purpose of an AMP is to formally state the Army’s plan for force development and modernization and to clearly articulate specific goals. The AMP is the key planning document in providing long–term continuity within functional areas, while assisting in program prioritization and integration of the total Army force. The AMP is constrained to available structure and programmed resources. It provides the structure and guidance necessary to integrate functional mission area solutions in a constrained resource environment. It is responsive to changing external factors such as emerging capabilities, funding levels, force structure, technology breakthroughs or delays, and the national military strategy. The current functional area annexes to the AMP are listed in the following Section NO TAG.

Due to the changing world situation, low–intensity conflict (LIC) and operations other than war (OOTW) (e.g., humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping operations, peace enforcement) are becoming increasingly important areas that must be addressed by the development community. This is reflected in the Combat Maneuver Annex (Close Combat Light) to the AMP. New technology is being used to develop systems that support the LIC/OOTW mission. This usually equates in operational terms to equipment being lighter, smaller, more mobile, and less detectable. In each section of this chapter, where appropriate, ties to the Close Combat Light mission area are noted. Additional material is presented in Section III–H.