Today was a big day for us and a tremendous learning experience. We began the day by assessing where we were in terms of understanding what the problem was. We then came to the conclusion that our problem was indeed detection of explosive devices, and that through a new application of current technology, a solution could be achieved. That solution would also solve many of the pains our beneficiaries currently face relating to detecting explosive devices. To gain some exposure for our hypothesis, we fleshed out an initial MVP that focused on utilizing an Unmanned Aerial System combined with spectral sensors and ground penetrating radar to assist, enhance, and expedite the detection of explosive devices. We then tested the hypothesis with multiple interviewees throughout the day.

As a result of our interviews, we believed that the drone based system was feasible and could solve the problems we are looking at. There are still many questions and further research we must complete, however, we feel that we are moving in the right direction now.

Interview with Mr Jeffery Neil (Joint Expeditionary Team JET and Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Organization JIDO) and CPT Tyler Marshall 

– A drone IED detection platform may introduce multiple problems on its own- A drone may require soldiers to learn it on the fly in the field if training is not received stateside (might be unlikely)

– Drone batteries last about 18-30 minutes condition dependent, extra batteries weigh down an already burdened platoon

– In almost every situation operators aren’t swinging a detector around for hours- People and operators are smart, detectors are only brought out at obvious chokepoints or areas with a high statistical chance of anomalies

– Training is a huge issue, but with so many other training opportunities being prioritized over IED detector training there is not much commanders can necessarily do

– Even so, predeployment training for detectors takes care of most issues

– Drive to improve IED prioritization for training is simply not there, army is shifting focus away from them and towards conflict with near-peer threats

Interview with MSG Michael Brock

-Drone could certainly help

– EOD people like MSG Brock approach IEDs much more carefully and deliberately than say an infantry platoon which just needs to clear a path

– One problem regarding training is that the detectors used have changed multiple times, requiring operators to start from zero and retrain to use newer products

– Regarding GPR, the current detectors are about as good as they are going to get

– GPR systems  simply be too large and slow for a drone

– Two substitute technologies to consider are magnetometers and spectroscopy but MSG Brock has little experience with them

– Regarding IED detector training, it simply is not a high priority until operational time

– No fundamental distinction between IED and conventional explosives that might be used in a near-peer scenario

– Can contact again at 301-833-5205, or 443-454-8434 (personal cell, can contact michael.brock.mil@mail.mil as well)

CPT Alex Kerns 

– minehounds are only effective when clearing a path for a one-person wide movement 

– carrying the detector takes that person out of the fight 

– drone detector idea is cool but you have to think about all of the possibilities 

– ideally the device would need to be light/small enough to fit in an assault pack 

– need to think about battery life 

– training prepares soldiers to use the minehounds, but knowing how to use it and implementing its use into deployment tasks and drills is very different 

– most units lack the knowledge needed to incorporate detector tools into their deployments

Dr. Clay Fox

-Current detection capabilities are good and the newest Vallon detectors incorporate digital readouts and location capabilities

-Using an Aerial drone would increase capabilities and speed of detection

-The way to increase

Friday and throughout the weekend, our group continued to refine and develop more hypotheses for our problem. We reached out to a number of beneficiaries involved with EOD, route clearance, drone and radar technology development, and explosives detection.

We interviewed the following people below, helping us to flesh out our MVPs and find avenues of further research.

Beneficiary Interviews

Name	Hypothesis	Experiments	Results	Actions
CPT Anne Blank Former Route Clearance PL	MVP 2.0 is superior to current methods (speed, detection area, cognitive overload)	Discussing the abilities and limitations of detectors that use GPR	MVP could work but should focus more on explosive detection rather than the detection of buried objects	Update MVP, look into further technology that is geared toward finding explosives rather than penetrating the ground
Mr. Kelly Foster C-IED instructor, 7th SFG	MVP 1.0 is superior to current methods (training, speed, cognitive overload)	Show picture, discussion of the possibilities in MVP	He said that the MVP is a great idea, may be loud, need to focus on the goals of the project-physical detection is still superior	Update MVP, find better technology for MVP
MAJ David Feltner	SOP discussion, MVP 1.0/2.0 is superior to current methods	Show picture, discussion	MVP is good idea, but it is limited by current technologies, what does the customer need?	Look into other MVP’s, update technology, focus on user needs
Dr. Derek Anderson	Information gathering; MVP is superior to current methods	Discussion of technology and MVP	Possibly combine GPR and EMI and thermal in MVP, switch modes	Look into combining various technologies into MVP
Mark Holden FLIR	Thermal and Spectral imaging can be used to detect and map out IEDs	Discussion of current technology developed by FLIR and MVPs	MVP 1 and 2 have great potential and FLIR imagers are currently able to detect minute changes in ground temps to detect change	Find how to integrate FLIR imagery with drones to ID and detect IED evidence

Name	Hypothesis	Experiments	Results	Actions
Mr. Charlie Richter (APOPO U.S. Director)	APOPO rats can be used mark IEDs as well as conventional landmines	Interview, discussion about how the rats are used and if they could be applied to IED detection	Both dogs and rats can be used for IED detection, but rats potentially have the upper hand due to cost, size, and better detection abilities	Better identify specific problems faced by EOD units, and interview beneficiaries with EOD experience to see if this solution set would benefit them
MSG Michael Brock	Rats could be used for more efficient route clearance and other EOD missions	Discussion of the pros and cons of animal use in explosive ordnance detection as well as a discussion of their history in the modern army	Dogs have already been used to some success, however they have many issues. Rats could feasibly be applied to both route clearance as well as when EOD teams are attached to maneuver units.	Interview more beneficiaries with EOD experience to see if MSG Brock’s comments are corroborated. Look into what would need to occur in order to implement them
Dr. Feodor Ivanov  Dr. Traian Dogaru Radar Technology	Ground penetrating radar can accurately take readings from aerial drones or be miniaturized	Interview, discussion about radar tech and capabilities	Radar has the capability and GPRs operate at relatively low power levels, requiring less battery usage of the overall system	Reach out to other beneficiaries to see if this product, which is feasible, is practical for a platoon level unit

Minimum Viable Products

MINEHOUND	MVP 1.0	MVP 2.0	MVP 3.0	MVP 4.0	MVP 5.0
Slow	Faster	Faster than minehound	-Speed unknown	-Faster	-Not faster
Heavy	Lighter: no physical contact with operator during use	Lighter: no physical contact with operator during use, possibly inflatable	-Lighter; little physical contact with operator	-Likely lighter than minehound, weight spread across formation	-Heavy, pounds added to operator
Training Intensive	Minimum training & skills required	Minimum training & skills required	-Minimum skills required	-Minimum skill requirement	-Minimum skill requirement
GPR	Multispectral bands, GPR, and Multiple wavelengths	GPR, metal detection	-Rat detection	-GPR, EMI, change detection/thermal	-EMI, thermal/change detection
Takes guns out of the fight	Keeps guns in the ground	Keeps guns in the ground	-Guns in the fight	-Guns in the fight	-Guns in the fight
Single scan type	Multiple scanning and sensing technologies	Multiple scanning and sensing technologies	-Single “scan” type	-Multiple scanning devices=redundancy	-Multiple scan types

Deployment

When we began to consider deployment for our solutions, we looked at the DOTMLPF to provide a basis for implementation. So we considered doctrinal changes, organizational and training considerations, material acquisition, leadership changes that may be required, and potentially new or alternate personnel and facilities that would be needed.

Today our group recieved helpful feedback on our initial problem statement and solution. From our discussions and interviews, we began to pivot away from changes to current handheld detectors and towards a novel drone solution which utilizes GPR and multi-spectral imaging. This approach would have autonomous capabilities that searches and detects for explosive devices while maintaining its position with the monitoring soldier and unit.

We believe this solution would assist our beneficiaries because many operational soldiers and officers have brought up the issues of weight, capability degradation, and training costs associated with current detectors. The current detectors hinder units by requiring trained and dedicated personnel, a task that is often detracts from the actual training and mission focus of the individuals in the field as well as their operational speed.

Name	Hypothesis	Experiments	Results	Action
Special Agent Jonathan Francke	The FBI has different tools to deal with IEDs that are successful	Discussing the various ways to scan for IED’s	Introduction to new technology	Attempt to integrate new technologies into MVP
LT Marvin Grimmetp	The current IED detection devices need to be improved	Discussing improvements to current detectors	Minor improvements to be made, focus on situational awareness
MAJ David Feltner	The standard infantry platoon is issued at least 8 IED detectors	Discussion	At least 2 detectors per platoon	Understanding IED detection in a standard platoon
MAJ William Mackenzie	Infantry platoons use IED detectors often and know what can be improved	Discussion of C-IED methods in Ranger Regiment	No detector use, good planning defeats most IED’s-he wants a drone with 360 degree scanning	Implement drone idea
Zeke Topolosky  (Problem sponsor)	Current IED detectors can be improved with lightweight materials and collapsable features	Discussion and presentation by ARL on current IED and mine detectors as well as shift from combating insurgents to near-peer threats	Commercially-available detectors are not actually lighter, currently used military IED and mine detectors already have space-saving features  The shift to combating near-peer threats places budget constraints on any solution development	Attempt to find solutions that would not have a prohibitively expensive procurement cost
CPT Hayden Pecha	Insufficient training may be leading to lower and incorrect usage of IED detectors	Discussion on a general lack of training opportunities available for things such as IED detection, especially regarding opportunities for proficiency Maintenance	Providing more thorough and more consistent training to IED detector trained soldiers could reduce usage hesitation in the field	Investigate further into training deficiencies

Thanks for joining us!

Today our group reviewed the problem statement given and developed a potential Minimum Viable Product as well as a list of beneficiaries for the product.

Throughout the afternoon, we continued to progress on what problem we were looking to solve and whom we were solving it for. We were able to narrow our range of customers and technologies based on the beneficiaries we interviewed. Below is a brief overview of some of our most helpful interviews.

---

Larry Lyle and Ray Litzinger

Notes:

• IEDs have been around for a long time, but it has been in the last 15 years that they have become more and more popular (As their effectiveness has become more widely known
• From the perspective of Mr. Lyle, and Mr. Litzinger, the army sees current doctrine towards IEDs as good enough
• Current reporting is effective when IED location can be determined, when an IED is detected it’s location is radioed in and sent up the CoC. From this point at the command post the location can be placed on a map overlay
• In an indoor situation robots could be deployed with LIDAR
• Overall, the Army is always trying to reduce the burdens placed on individual soldiers (can use this for the who experiences pain thing)
• As IEDs will remain a threat, those who face the greatest risk remain primarily dismounted infantry (as well as mechanized units)

Over the last 16 years, the frequency of IED attacks increased significantly. 

– The precision of detecting, locating, and reporting of IEDs increased as well. 

– In areas where GPS does not work, e.g., valleys radios have been used to report possible IEDs to the higher ups and neighboring units. 

– For underground, where neither GPS nor radio works, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) are being used. 

– Robots should also be used in place of soldiers to minimize casualty in the detection process. 

– Stakeholders are the soldiers, EOD Personnel and anyone directly impacted by the IED. 

– The new detectors should be lighter, compact, digitalized, and able to counter the electric and magnetic storms.

Austin McCray, EOD Special Forces 

– talked about the use of physical markings in IED detection (chalk, chem lights, poker chips) 

– hololens: besides the obvious technological problems (jammers, etc) that could arise, you have to think about the signal it puts out/receives, and it is another piece of equipment that hinders a soldier’s ability to see the ground and their surroundings 

– limitations come from equipment availability and lack of training 

– you must think about what type of IEDs you are dealing with (those with high metallic signatures can be detected easily and those with low metallic signatures are harder to detect) 

Will Cunningham, Director of Innovation EHD Sensors and Electronic Systems 

– uses 3 different methods for detection (GPR, metal detector, and wire detector) 

– recommends a screen on the detector that uses the local position reference to paint a picture on the connected screen (possible 3D imagery) 

– problem with ^ is that you can see the picture of the detection path but its location 

– thinks hololens is a good idea if one can see the relevant data that was captured before them 

– if you’re detecting IEDs with GPR, soil composition can affect your ability to detect how far you can see into the ground, and without enough signal in the ground you can’t distinguish between IEDs and soil 

– when using a metal detector, mineralization/metal properties you’re going to have a hard time discriminating IEDs from background materials (normalizing background) 

– using handheld sensors means you can’t accurately map with reference to terrain (relative positions of the sweeps) 

– you must decide whether you are using absolute accuracy or relative accuracy

SSGT Tesar, USAF EOD

GPR & metal detectors

Digital readouts, not necessarily noises for devices are already present. However, not utilized by the Army

Current Devices:

• Man-portable
• Find nonmetallic IEDs
• MINAR
• Bulky, Heavy, Uncomfortable
• Widely Used

Problems

• Clear minimum working area
• Mapping is marked, not necessarily on a map
• Few communication issues
• Training is important to use mine-hound 
• Very complicated and heavy for Infantry units 
• MINELABS NDS10
• Portability
• Batteries, not universal
• Visual aids  needed 
• Better audible tones, varying ranges needed 
• Simplify for easier training