ARMY AL&T
and we want to compare these tech- nologies with each other. The data themselves are not so interesting in this case, as our vehicles are different, but the technologies used and their implementations are interesting themes for our engineers.”
Holt said he was particularly impressed with the survivability test fixtures at the Bundeswehr Technical Center for Weapons and Ammunition. “We rely primarily on full-up vehicle blast events, while the [center] leverages an array of specialized test fixtures,” he said. “Our approach provides great data, but it is expensive in terms of vehicle repair and instrumentation.”
Testing Protective Equipment Terek, Chief of the Light Armor Operations Branch in the Weapons Facilities Division of ATC’s Firepower Directorate, has been involved with test- ing personal protective equipment (PPE) for the past 3 years. He is responsible for six ranges at ATC where these systems are tested. Holt tapped him for the visit to Germany because he thought Terek could learn something valuable about German test equipment, ranges, and processes for PPE systems.
Terek said the overall test process of the Bundeswehr appears to be similar to that of the U.S. Army, with a few notable differences. “Their test centers incorporate the research centers all on the same installation, I assume because they have less real estate than the U.S.,” he said. “For example, we visited their automotive test facility, where they have similar courses as we have here, but they also test engines and transmissions on dynamometers, whereas we typically do those tests at our research centers.”
While in Germany, Terek saw a test fixture that could shed light on the formation of explosively formed penetrators, special types of shaped charges designed to penetrate armor at stand-off distances. “This test
51 OCTOBER –DECEMBER 2010
The German army operates under much tighter constraints of test funding. As a result, they have invested wisely in equipment and facilities that can bring down overall test costs.
fixture is designed to contain most of the blast and debris while allowing the penetrator to form and be filmed without the excess debris obstructing the view of the formation,” Terek said.
The test center that interested him the most was the Technical Center for Weapons and Ammunition in Meppen because it conducts the type of PPE testing for which he is responsible at ATC. “It would behoove ATC to see how the German army tests PPE and possibly incorporate their medical research data into evaluating U.S. armor effectiveness,” he said.
An Integrated Process Webb said that exchanging technical information between the Bundeswehr and the U.S. Army is important because both nations are pursuing the development of protected vehicles such as the U.S. military’s MRAP and the Bundeswehr’s Dingo, a mine-resistant vehicle that German troops are using in Afghanistan.
“We are both pursuing the same capabilities for our protected trucks, and it just makes sense to try and share information,” Webb said. “It saves time and resources for both countries to share the expertise that has been developed in addressing our shared concern of under-vehicle attacks.
“In addition, they are significantly involved in the early engineering of systems,” he said of the Bundeswehr. “For vehicles, they test new technolo- gies in models, then in test rigs, then on vehicles. While our vehicle development system is similar, it is on a much larger scale, so these steps would typically be split between ATEC [U.S. Army Test
and Evaluation Command], the Army Research Lab, and the program manager shop or TARDEC [U.S. Army Tank- Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center]. So the German process is much more inte- grated, and their test and evaluation centers take a lead role in developing, testing, and modeling new technolo- gies very early in the acquisition process, even at the subsystem level.
“This is something the U.S. Army has also been working toward,” Webb said. “It is good to see the payoff [the Germans] have achieved in the quality and performance of their vehicles.”
Holt said he hopes this trip to Germany will be the basis for the renewal of cooperation between the Bundeswehr and the U.S. Army. Since Sept. 11, he explained, the scale of coopera- tive efforts has dropped significantly when compared with the 1980s and ’90s, mostly because of the tremendous workload for both the U.S. and German test centers. “I hope this visit serves as a jump start for regaining the deep tech- nical relationship we used to share with key allies,” he said. “We have superb test liaison officers in place here at APG, but I think it is critical to take things to the next level and have a continuous rotation of engineers and technicians between U.S. and allied test centers.”
MICHAEL CAST is Deputy Public Affairs Officer at the U.S. Army Developmental Test Command, APG, MD. He holds a B.A. in journalism from Arizona State University. Cast is a former Army photojournalist and a Keith L. Ware Award winner.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
