Laser and Biological Standoff Detection
Document ID: 152
Deepak, Adarsh1
Kozakoff, Dennis J.2,6
Rivercomb, Henry E.3
Killinger, Dennis K.4
Philbrick, C. Russell5
1 Science and Technology Corporation, Hampton, VA, U.S.A.
2 DeVry University, Aphretta, GA, U.S.A.
3 University of Wisconsin, Space Science and Engineering Center, Madison, WI, U.S.A.
4 University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, U.S.A.
5 The Pennsylvania State University, Lidar Laboratory, University Park, PA, U.S.A.
6 Science and Technology Corporation, Marietta, GA, U.S.A.
Presented: Peer Review Panel: Future Exploratory Development Needs At Edgewood Chemical-Biological Center (ECBC)
Aberdeen, Maryland, 30 April - 1 May 2001
Abstract
PREFACE
This report contains the deliberations and recommendations of the Blue-Ribbon Panel on the Laser and Biological Standoff Detection Program at Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC), convened at Aberdeen, Maryland, 30 April - 1 May 2001. The Panel consisted of the following five experts in remote sensing of aerosols and gases from universities and industry: Drs. Adarsh Deepak, President, Science and Technology Corporation (STC), Hampton, VA (Panel Chair); Dr. Dennis K. Killinger, Professor of Physics, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida; Dr. Dennis J. Kozakoff, Professor of Electrical Engineering, DeVry Institute of Technology, Alpharetta, Georgia and Senior Scientist, Science and Technology Corporation; Dr. C. Russell Philbrick, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Director of PSU Lidar Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania; and Dr. Henry E. Revercomb, Director, Space Science and Engineering Center (SSEC), University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Highlights of their curriculum vitae are given in Appendix A.
This effort was sponsored by William Loerop, Business Area Manager of Standoff Detection at ECBC, Aberdeen Proving Ground Edgewood Area, MD. The work was performed by Science and Technology Corporation (STC).
The general task for the Panel was to conduct a peer review of active and biological standoff detection exploratory and advanced programs for chemical and biological defense at the ECBC, except those technologies (i.e., the Hyperspectral Imaging) that were recently evaluated; and to recommend future courses of action to accomplish the program goals. The range of expertise of Panel members covered active and passive remote sensing in the various regions of electromagnetic spectrum, from UV to Microwave.
The areas of primary focus in this review were to (1) assess past performance as well as planned work as a function of mission needs and requirements; (2) identify technology gaps with respect to user requirements, and suggest possible technical solutions; (3) compare the ECBC program with other active/passive standoff detection programs in the United States, and to other standoff detectors available at other sites; and (4) make suggestions for future program plans in the active and passive standoff detection effort at ECBC. The secondary objective was to produce a Panel report containing the deliberations, conclusions, and recommendations of the Panel members.
The Panel met 30 April and 1 May (morning) 200 I, at Aberdeen, Maryland, for a briefing presented by the following scientists and engineers of the ECBC Team: Kirkman Phelps, Commodity Area Manager for Contamination Avoidance; William Loerop, Business Area Manager of Standoff Detection; Cynthia R. Swim, Team Leader, Laser Standoff Detection; Ernest N. Webb, Jr., Principal Investigator, Biological Standoff Detection; Dr. James Jensen, Principal Investigator, Passive Infrared Biological Detection; Dr. Alan C. Samuels, Principal Investigator, Millimeter Wave Technology; and from Science and Technology Corporation: Dr. Avishai BenDavid, Senior Scientist. Their briefings provided the Panel with an overview of the status of the ECBC's Laser and Biological Standoff Detection program, covering both active and passive remote sensing systems for chemical and biological warfare agent defense, except the hyperspectral imaging systems since they had been reviewed by a previous Panel; and the current distribution of the manpower, funds, and other resources.
After the briefings, the panel members secluded themselves to deliberate on the tasks they were charged to address. A series of preliminary conclusions were arrived at, and a format for the Report was prepared. Each member was then asked to send written comments on the topics of their interest to the panel chair. The written comments were edited and incorporated, by the Chair, into a smooth-reading version of the draft of the report that was sent to the panel members for their final review. Although the panel did not formally meet thereafter, the panel Chair continued to hold further discussions on these topics with the panel members individually and through full-panel teleconferences.
In addition, the panel members were provided, as read-ahead material, with copies of: (I) Defense Technology Objectives (CB.07-Laser Standoff Chemical Detection Technology, and CB.35-Standoff Biological Aerosol Detection), which include the annual milestones and metrics; and, (2) a reprint of the paper entitled "WILDCAT chemical sensor development" by David B. Cohn, et al. (1995). These documents are incorporated here by reference.
The editor wishes to acknowledge the enthusiastic support and cooperation of the panel members, Technical Monitor, and the presenters from ECBC and industry, for making this a successful and stimulating Panel. My task, as Editor, was made much easier by the high quality of write-ups and the verbal comments that were received from the Panel members. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the efficient logistical support provided by Diana McQuestion, Sue Crotts, and Linda Schofield, of SIC Meetings Division, in the coordination of the panel meeting and teleconferences, and preparation of the report.
It is hoped that this panel report will serve as a beneficial review of the Laser and Biological Standoff Detection Program at ECBC.
Adarsh Deepak Panel Chair
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC) is the lead laboratory in the free world for the development of standoff detector systems used to protect soldiers from possible CBW attack. The main focus of the ECBC technology has been on both active and passive sensing using scattering, absorption and emission observations in the infrared where the heavy molecules applied as CW and BW agents have prominent spectral features. The current program consists of three main efforts, Laser Standoff Chemical Detection (LSCD DTO CB.07), Standoff Biological Aerosol Detection (SBAD DTO CB.35), and Chemical Imaging System (CIS DTO CB.19). There are two additional projects scheduled to begin in the next FY, Wide Spectral (WideSpec) and Joint Surface Contamination Detector (JSCD). In addition, early research and exploratory development (6.2) phase studies are being done in some areas, such as spectral properties of BW agents in millimeter wave and microwave regions. The JS WILD development is expected to transfer to a Navy managed development program, ARTEMIS, at the beginning of FY02. The SBAD effort continues with a focus of developing a useful standoff detection capability for biological agents. The Joint-Service Wide Area Detection (JSWAD) Program, which was previously evaluated, will continue to develop passive imaging technology for wide area standoff detection.
The goal of the JSWAD Program, scheduled for 2006 with infusion of 6.4 funding, is to produce a light-weight passive wide area sensing system that maintains high chemical and biological detection sensitivity while operating at very high acquisition rates. Ideally, the goal is to develop the capability to detect "on-the-move", to "look" everywhere at once, and to do it with "no-moving part" sensors, that can detect, with high sensitivity, CW and BW agents at relatively low concentrations in the presence of interferents at distances of up to several kilometers. The user wants a wide area detection (WAD) coverage for both CW and BW agents from sensors aboard ground- and ship-based and airborne mobile platforms. Even though the WAD limits are not defined yet, they are being proposed to be: an hemisphere of 5-km radius and 60-degree scan for sensors both at fixed sites (e.g., airports and seaports) and aboard armored vehicles (moving at ~15-40 mph); an hemisphere of 20-km radius and 180-degree scan for sensors on ships; and, 20 km x 20 km for airborne sensors aboard a helicopter (~120 mph) or an unmanned aerial vehicle (~100 mph), or an aircraft or > 100 mph).
Passive standoff detection of CW agents and simulants at moderate concentrations and close ranges has been demonstrated for some time. Sensors, such as the JSLSCAD (Joint-Service Light-weight Standoff Chemical Agent Detector) and M21 (Remote Sensing Chemical Agent Alarm), are currently being used for detecting these chemicals. Recent chamber tests, using BW simulants, suggest Passive Standoff Detection techniques in the IR can be also applied to biological detection problems. The M2 l (already fielded) operates as a static sensor that detects CW at standoff distances of 5 km, whereas LSCAD (currently in development) can detect CW at 5 km from a mobile platform, such as a recon vehicle and an option to operate from an airborne platform.
Active standoff detection of CW agents and simulants at moderate concentrations and moderate ranges has also been demonstrated for some time. Sensors, such as the Frequency Agile Lidar, are currently being used to investigate hardware and analysis issues needed for detecting these chemicals. The JSWILD (Joint-Service Warning and Identification Laser Detector), containing a more powerful CO2 laser to increase its CW agent standoff detection range up to 20 km, is the follow-on system under development, and is a subject of the present review.
1.2 GENERAL TASK NEEDS
This effort was sponsored by the ECBC. The primary objective of this task was to conduct a technical review of the Standoff Detection Program at ECBC and recommend future courses of action, funding required and resources needed to accomplish the program goals. The two areas of primary focus in this review were to (1) examine and analyze the current laser and biological standoff detection program and its effectiveness compared to the stated goals, and (2) to make suggestions for future program plans in the active and passive standoff detection effort at ECBC. The secondary objective was to produce a panel report containing the deliberations, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel members.
The general task for the Panel was to conduct a peer review of all active and passive standoff detection exploratory and advanced programs for chemical and biological defense at the ECBC, except those technologies that were previously evaluated, i.e., the Hyperspectral Imaging Systems that were examined by another blue-ribbon panel in March 2001; and to recommend future courses of action to accomplish the program goals. The range of expertise of panel members covered active and passive remote sensing in the various regions of electromagnetic spectrum, from UV to Microwave.
1.3 SPECIFIC TASK NEEDS
The specific tasks for the Panel, to be performed independent of government supervision, direction or control, were to:
- Conduct a peer review of the laser and biological standoff detection program at ECBC;
- Conduct a peer review of the laser and biological standoff detection program at ECBC;
- Assess past performance as well as planned work as a function of mission needs and requirements;
- Compare the ECBC program with other active/passive standoff detectors available at other sites;
- Evaluate future technical directions with respect to user needs;
- Make recommendations for meeting user needs; and
- Provide a panel report suggesting future directions for active/passive standoff detection in ECBC and within the entire Joint Service program.
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
1.4.1 Meetings of the Panel
The Panel held a meeting at Aberdeen, Maryland, on 30 April - 1 May (morning) 2001, to receive briefings from the program managers, scientists and engineers working on ECBC's Standoff Detection Program including their invited expert from industry. The Panel meeting agenda is given in Appendix B. After the presentations, the panel members secluded themselves to conduct their deliberations, arrive at some conclusions, and receive writing assignments from the Panel Chair. The panel members conducted several teleconference sessions to arrive at the conclusions and recommendations.
1.4.2 Report Organization
This report is presented in three sections: Section 1 presents background information, tasking to the Panel, panel agenda and activities, report organization, and scope of the review. Section 2 provides a summary of technical review deliberations and the conclusions reached. Section 3 contains both short- and long-term recommendations for future courses of action to be undertaken by ECBC.
1.5 SCOPE
The Panel recommended that in order to perform these tasks effectively and within the time constraints, the scope of the Panel Review should be limited to the following level of effort:
- Focus on the laser and biological standoff detection systems.
- Limit review to sensors operating in the spectral range of UV fluorescence, near-IR, 8-12 micrometers, millimeter waves, and microwaves.
- Confine discussions to standoff detection systems deployable on ground-based, ship based and airborne mobile platforms.
- Limit the standoff range for wide area detection, in the absence of any requirements presented, for ground- and ship-based systems to a hemisphere of 5- to 20-km diameter, and for airborne systems (at speeds of 80-150 mph) looking in the nadirviewing direction from altitudes of up to 15,000 to 25,000 ft maximum.
- Restrict analysis scenarios, in the absence of any requirements presented, to those involving realistic battlespace, with interferents present along with CW and BW in its environment.