laser. Both solutions would probably require a tripod mount to avoid operator-sensor interaction. Advantages of the radar solution include its ability to penetrate clothing and perhaps armor. The laser can detect small, repetitive motion consistent with respiration. While a technological solution seems viable, given the absence of a specific program or deployed product, this mission area receives a yellow assessment.
Gaps in Force Protection Sensor Technology
Table G-4 assesses the gaps in force protection sensors. As in the preceding section, squad-level constraints—specifically, SWAP, mobility, CONOPS, and ease of deployment—dictate a more pessimistic assessment of the currently available technology.
|Mission||Description||Relevant Sensor Technology||Technology Gap Assessment|
|SA||Dismount detection and engagement||Radar, SIGINT, FMV, IRST, WAMI||Deployment platform, scaling, TCPED, autonomy|
|SA||Vehicle detection and engagement||Radar, FMV, IRST, WAMI, acoustics, seismometer||Deployment platform, scaling, TCPED, autonomy|
|SA||Through-wall surveillance||Radar, SIGINT||Deployment, robustness, CONOPS|
|SA||Foliage obscured target surveillance||Radar, LADAR, SIGINT||Radar aperture size|
|SA||Spectrum surveillance||SIGINT||Obscuration, deployment, TCPED|
|SA||Navigation in GPS-denied environments||Radiofrequency sensor technology||Multi-transmitter deployment|
|SA, force protection||Concealed weapons detection||Millimeter-wave radar, metal detectors, magnetometers||SWAP|
|SA, force protection||Life signs monitoring||Millimeter-wave radar, acoustics, lasers||SWAP, deployment, CONOPS|