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.

TABLE G-4 Force Protection Sensor Technology Gap Assessment

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


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement