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
5IVE 