1. Program Manager Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad David Tack HumanSystems Incorporated 13 May 2010

2. 2 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

3. MC-LEAP Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program

4. “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)

6. INDIVIDUAL ASSAULT LOAD 50 lb Recommended Maximum Assault Load (3) (1) 97 lb 117 lb 114 lb 132 lb 134 lb 97 lb Actual Assault Loads (NRAC, 2007)

7. “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, 1 st Bn, 3 rd Marines 14 Nov 2006

8. Human Performance Effects NRAC 2007: Adequate models do not exist that incorporate combat effectiveness parameters and predict human performance effects of weight.

9. Marine Burden

10. 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

12. Agility Run Tunnel & Hatch Sprint Tunnel & Hatch

13. Wall Climb Window Obstacles Stair & Ladder Climb Stair & Ladder Climb Wall Climb Window Obstacles

14. Bounding Rushes Casualty Drag or Carry Low Crawl 6’1”, 165 lbs Casualty Drag or Carry Balance Beam Low Crawl Balance Beam

15. Noptel MilTrainer Sensor Pad Stations Questionnaire Kiosks

16. LEAP Data Cloud Stiffness Bulk Weight

17. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY TACTICAL RELEVANCE % body weight (or load distribution) % Survivability (e.g. hit probability) % Performance (i.e. sprint speed) 20 40 60 80100120 100 75 50 25 100 75 50 25 -25-50 0

18. Design Light Initiative

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. ILBE/MTV/Hydration Integration Concept Marines carry 4 shoulder straps/pads and back panels (ILBE, MTV, Hydration and Assault Pack). O nly 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. SIMP Sensor Integrated Modular Protection

25. Sensor Integrated Modular Protection A preliminary functional demonstration using a rapid- prototyping 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.

26. Sensor Integration – SIMP 1

27. Range of Camera Angles (degrees) SIMP Thermal Camera ~ Pitch (x) Close-in and Mid-Range

28. Sensor Integration – SIMP 2

29. HELMET CONTROL MODULE WITH BATTERIES HMV AO CARD BATTERY CABLE TO VIEWER VIDEO INPUT LOCATION DISPLAY BUTTONS AND POWER SWITCH

30. Hearing Protection

31. EYE 0.5% CHEST 3% EAR 23% BACK 5% ABDOMEN 3% PELVIS 1% BUTTOCKS 1% Groin 0% FEET 0% HEAD 16% FACE 9 % NECK 5% SHOULDERS 5% ARMS 13% WRIST 0.5% LEGS 9% ANKLE 2% WIA by Location

32. HEARING LOSS DEGRADES COMBAT PERFOMANCE Impacts of Noise on Tank Gunner Performance and Survival TIME TO IDENTIFY TARGET INCORRECT COMMAND HEARD BY GUNNER CORRECT TARGET IDENTIFICATION ENEMY TARGETS KILLED WRONG TARGET SHOT TANK CREW KILLED BY ENEMY GOOD HEARING POOR HEARING 40 sec90 sec 1%37% 98%68% 94%41% 0%8% 7%28% SOURCE: Tank Gunner Performace and Hearing Impairment (Garinther & Peters, Army RD&A Bulletin 1990, Jan-Feb 1-5

33. USMC MISSION IMPACT Inability to localize and identify sound sources in a combat environment Hearing Loss can place war fighter’s in danger Diminished oral communication skills (sending and receiving) Ineffective command and control at small unit level with a potential for mission failure

34. 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 Millions $ 901,472,784* Major VA Disability Only Costs are approaching $1Billion annually Total $ does not include annual cost for tinnitus disabilities 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

35. Hearing Protection