$
fear of failure. One such example of is Program Executive Officer (PEO) for Soldier’s Family of Weapon Sights - Indi- vidual (FWS-I) program.
When PEO Soldier began exploring an advanced night-vision sight, a prototype technology named the Night Reaper caught the attention of capability devel- opers in 2009 during the AEWE at Fort Benning, GA. Te Night Reaper pro- totype demonstrated the capability of a weapon-mounted thermal sight inte- grated with a helmet-mounted image intensifier. While there were some typical issues with the prototype, such as weight and power use, the capability the Night Reaper demonstrated was instrumental in shaping the requirement for the FWS-I.
PEO Soldier, the U.S. Army Communica- tion-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center’s Night Vision Lab and capability developers at the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence
THE PROMISE OF SCIENCE
A Soldier prepares to launch a prototype Soldier-borne sensor during AEWE 2015 at Fort Benning, GA. Experimenting with prototypes saves time and money, and offers more flexibility to explore the possibilities of technology. (Photo by Angie DePuydt, Maneuver Battle Lab)
used the Soldier feedback gathered at AEWE to improve the capability in the lab and later ran a series of user tests to validate the sight’s requirements. Today, the FWS-I is the smallest, lightest ther- mal sight the Army has ever developed. Seeing the capability demonstrated by prototype technologies often helps us understand the art of the possible and the reality of existing science.
Experimentation serves a role in all Force 2025 time horizons. Some government and industry materiel solutions require little
development and can influence
the Army in the near term. At the same time, the Army must look further into the future and examine what may be pos- sible for far-term capabilities that are not
“shovel ready” now. Experimentation pro- vides the Army an opportunity to modify portfolios and guide industry’s internal research and development initiatives. It can assist in cost-benefit decisions and reduce risk for acquisition program mile- stone decisions.
A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT Another example of the value of experi- mentation to enhance innovative modernization is the ongoing exploration of how robotics can enhance the capabili- ties of warfighters and small units through manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T). Robotics shows promise in several areas, including increased flexibility and free- dom of maneuver, lethality, situational awareness and resupply, while reducing Soldiers’ exposure to threats. Experimen- tation on MUM-T includes collaboration from a variety of stake holders, includ- ing government science and technology partners, capability developers, doctrine writers and industry.
Te Marine Warfighting Lab, the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engi- neering Command labs and TRADOC
ASC.ARMY.MIL 125
battle labs encourage collaboration and nonattribution learning environments where there is no such thing as “failure.” In this type of atmosphere, a “test, fix, test” methodology is used to solve prob- lems. Learning that something does not work is just as important as discovering something that does.
CONCLUSION In the future, the Army must seize oppor- tunities to modernize with efficiency, agility and accuracy in order to demon- strate stewardship of valuable resources, proactively innovate and deliver those capabilities needed to maintain over- match. Prototype experimentation provides a means for leaders to make timely, informed decisions before com- mitting time, money and manpower to programs.
Te Army must maximize its modern- ization investments by using prototype experimentation to yield innovative out- comes and accelerate the development of our desired capabilities. Experimentation is true discovery learning that pushes the boundaries of what is possible today and shows us the promise of tomorrow.
For more information, go to http://www.
benning.army.mil/mcoe/cdid/AEWE/ or follow Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiments on Facebook.
COL F. WAYNE BREWSTER II is director of the U.S. Army Maneuver Battle Lab, Fort Benning, GA. He holds an M.A. in military history from Louisiana State University, an M.A. in strategic studies from the U.S. Army War College and a B.S. from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
BBP 3.0
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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208
