I Air-to-Ground ,arget 1 Acquisition i · Air-to-Ground ,arget 1 Acquisition i byi Aermpoa M~edical Remerch Laborstorv Wright-lftmerson Air Force: banm, ... (Uý The Nfffff of Hutrk

-......-- ~ - - r' -- - - _-_-.-_- .. .-•_0

NWC TP 6740

The Effect of Muzzle" Flashes on IAir-to-Ground ,arget 1

Acquisition i

byi

Aermpoa M~edical Remerch Laborstorv

Wright-lftmerson Air Force: banm, Ohio

Rormid A. Erickslon

Human F~oam Branch

Awnsnft Sytians Dmerment

MARCH 1976

A'rrrlovw for rublic rele,8se;

distribution U01Iimie'd.USNlO Itr, 8 5erre 7-)

SLAKE. M1 4A

Air-TIO-Grun TargetCA

INOMATIO SoERV .HICEor

RoadA Erickso

A~roacuMaliul m~sch Lbortor

Naval We~apons CenterAN AZITMTY OF TH-E NAVAL. MATERIAL COMMANR G Frsmen. III, RAdrn, USN ... ....... ConiarndairG. 1. Hollrnpworth .............. .... lechni.dl Director b

FOREWORD

Thib technbcall report documents work conducted from July to September 1q74 atWright.Pattervon Air Forcc Base, Ohio and Naval Weapons Center. China Lake. California. The wcrkis part or a joint service program on air-to-ground isarpi acquisition funded under authorizationARAB RA 05 75. The effort was initiated aI the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory i .n responseto Operations Lvaitiation Group Assistant Chief of Staff, Studies and Analysis (Al ,'SAVJ ProjectOrder SAV-74,002. MAM R. Jenwn served as the ordering component program monitor.

The Joint TechnicalI Coordinathig Group for Munitions Effectiveness has established a TargetAc-quisition Working Group (TAWG) under the Joint Munitions Eftectivenes~s Manual/ Air -to -SurfaceDivision. TAWG tasks that have been completed include the definition of problem areas in both fastJand slow airborne forward air controller operations, rtsearch on target acquisition by fiarelliglt.summary of' existing target acquisition field test data. anid the evaluation of mathematical models (ifftJ visual target acquisition process. Work iis continuing oin the camouflage of targets, terrain andfoliage masking, and math model evaluation and development. This study .aeports a laboi'atoryexperiment conducted to assets the effects of muzzle flashes on air-to-ground target acqutsition.

Released by Under authority ofP. B. HOMER. Hesid M. M. ROGE~RS, HeadWeapons Systems 4nalysis Divisto.. Airruft S~ ilems I)eparrment20 March 1975

NWC Technical Publication 5740

Publiahed by..................................... Technical Information DepartmentManuscript...................................................... ý. MS175_443Collaitoni.................................................... cover, 10 leavesFirst pritnting............................................. 245 unnumbered copies

I INCI AC5VI~F]Fnl__SEUIyCLAISIVICATION of ?MIS PACC (ftein Cwa. attlee.E)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE _________COPLTI__GFORM

I REPORT UM "" -GOVT AcCESSION1 NO0 1 RICOPid"110 CATALOG loUSER*

NWC TP 5740

4 TITLE (&,it Su.btite)~ S Type OF aEPORt 6 111,91Oo Coveato

THE EFFECT OF MUZZLL FLASHES ON AIR-TO-GROUND July -September 19~74

TARGET ACQUItSITION 6 PtRPoRputoo oOfd. Reave" WNVUNER

7. AuTeollrogj 0 CONTRAZT 64 GRANT NummiERws)

MA] Robert L. HiIgendoff. Wright.Pattetaon AFDRonald A. Erickson, Naval Weapons Centel

6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION %AMR AN4O ADCORESS IS ROAM. NlT ROcTTAUl

Naval Weapons CenterChina Lake, Calif. 93555 ARAB RA 015 75

CONTROLLING OPPICE NAME AMID ADDRESSII 115 REPOR1T OAVIS

March 10~5Naval Weapons Center it NUMBER Ol PAGES

China Lake, Calif. 935S5 1814 MONITORING AGENCY N At 4 A001198Sag 114#401 dd.I fm. ConMiVSIIM Ofice.) Ia SECURITY CLASS. W. IA,. #W141)

UNCLASSIFIED

oo. OSCa.ASSIU C Arlo% COWN 1GRACING

160S ITRISJUTION STATEMENT loteft Flopeff-

IT OISTRIOUTION ITATEMENOT (of tho 41141tyo 40tooin Blok .1 fl, tlaltff. decid Rap...

IS SUPP.EMEN$TARY NOTES

Io IStaV *Oftol (Cwthi.. w - ". offs.. itS, ftoope.y OW toeplit~ ba Stock ,J

Muzzle Cusl'.

See back of form.

DD 1473 EadITON or ,I2 vilv s s o~doLaTE 0 UNCLASSIFIED

9ECUfITY CLA8SIVICATIOW Of V6NIS VAB*E (who 30. L

UNCLASSIFIED.- IV CLA %I O IC&?O1066OF 'IMSPAGS11,O.I.*40 egd

(Uý The Nfffff of Hutrk bbiitsh cm Atf-O-GAAnd TrgwwAtcittsithm. by MAJ Robert L. Hflpridotf. WfisiePotN~erson Air Foruv raweand R~'nad A. Lmitsaon. Na"a Weapons C'enter. China lake, Calif.. NavalWeapons Coente. March 1973. is pp. (NWC iF 5740, publicationUN(LASSIFIED.)

(U) Two laboratory expertmoents were conducted on a terrain nmodelto evaluate the effect of muulek fluashs ont visual. air-tolgrotnd targetacquinsition. Obsuervers were 'flowrn" over the model at sim~alted alit~t des ofI =10 ad 3.000 ft and a velocity of 300 knots. They were required tosearch for sfnil tanks or mobile air defense units. The guns on some ofthese vehucles were firing ont half of the runs (Amulated by flashing fiberotitc extenstions on the barrels-but no smoke)

WU) There was no signiicant difference between the number oftargets detected from I1.000 ft altitude when they wore flashing or whenthey were not Flashing, the nolh pet wc did not Steatly improve twiletacquisitiont Signil'i"aaly motre targets Walshing and non-flashing combined)were detected oem the runs Ahcn somet tt the targets were flashing, howeverOpposite results were ottainerd hom', the 300 ft altitude conditionsipificantly more targets were dirtered when they were fleshing than whenthey were not flashing, There was tit) ditferenice between total targetdetections (falashng and non-flashing) oti runs when sone targets wereflashing versus when none flashed

UNCLAWMIDIv. aecuft-Y CLAe,,.Ca?1. ew turn, Witelegm Dan b.aftia

IWC TIP 5740

CONTENTS

Intrtbdudlmn ..... . . ....... . . . ......

M eih td .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4

Ip . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . .. . . . . .. 4

SuhJ do l ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Apr•ualus ... ... . .

Prt..edure . . . . . . ... . .. ... .

R e ,.u lls ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IUxpefrin en ! I i I.(MA.) I I Alliudel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ipcrlmen! I 13,UM) H Altirude) . ..... . I.

Limilatims . . . . . lb

SU1nima1%. . .... ... ...... . ..b)

lI

I I I •'1 I

NWC, TP 5740

INTRODUCTION

A joint-services Target Acquisition Working Group (TAWC) was estab-lished in March 1712 and tasked with pursuing a number of studies of vis-ual. air-to-ground tar~gt acquisition. The work has includd mathematicalmodeling, laboratory simulations, analysis, data summry, and field test-Ing.

A question arising In naony of these arms has to do with the targetsignatures and associated cups that help or hinder visual scr4,lsetion.Questions have been ariked concerning the effects of smze, target mot'on.dust, and musill flashes. Almost no'ne of the field tests that have been con-ducted included these factors ine controlled way, if at all. The appropriate-nest of using simulator as well as field test data in predicting ft.quisitionperformance In a mid-intensity scenario can be questioned because thesefactors have not benm included.

This report describes two laborhtory experiments that were conductedto provide data on one of these factors: muule flash. One of the •uestionst.%st has been posed by operations analysts is, does the firing of the gunsaffeA the dutection and recognition of the firing vehicle? The experimintsdescrlbe*u here are *Intended to provice a preliminary answer to this ques-tion.

I P

!" '! II-rqt • "• r !'11 3 ,. sIcn 11 T pI" laank •1-,• ,. .

j t4'WC T? SY40

METHOD

Smeall vehicle targets were ircAto.d on a model of terrain similar to thatfound In central Europe. The terrain was predominantly gret~n In Ccior andcontained trees. hedgerows, buildings, a road and bridge. and a small air-.strip.

The targets were tanks and mobile air defense vnit; (AE'U's) equippedwith fiber optic extensions on the guns so that muzzle flashes could besimulated. The main indepandant variable was the presence or absence ofsimulated gunfire. It wais hypothesized that the simulated muzzle flash wouldprovide additional viesul cues and thereby enhance target acquisition per-formence.

Obsovers wore "flown, cvor the terrAin model in a transpert mechan-Ism and required to search for the targets. They reported sightings bycalling out Wtt~ type of vehic!o. The repJr is were used to calculate percenttargets detected arti reconizod, and the tirae of the report was used tocalculate the ranga to the target.

DESIGN

The twte extpe-iments were Identical except fzr one factor: observer alti-tidt was a simulated 1. 000 feet in the first, and a simulated 3. 000 feet In thesecond. The design, apparatus, procedure, and %coring were the same Inboth experiments.

Each experiment used two grou;ps ot ten subjects. None of the targetswas flashing d~uring the "flight" for one group of subjects. Four of the eighttargets (Q tanks hnd 2 ADU's) were flashing (simulating firing? during theflight of inis seco~nd group. This design resulted I" two Independent groups-)f subjects whose pewfrtremen~ data were suitable for testing for statisticalsignificance with the Student's t distribution.

The four targets which had a capability to simulate firing by flashingwere also used In a non-flashing mrode (with the first group of subjects).Hence, there was both a flashing and non-fleshing mode, and flashing andn*An-flshing targets.

The dependent variables ware number of target detections, number ofcorrect target recognitions, end response time for' each response. Slantranges were calculated from the latter measure.

4

NWC TP 5740

SUBJECTS

Four groups of ten subjects each participated in the study (two groupsfor each experiment). All subjects were male and were college students,active military, or contractor personnel. All had corrected or uncorrectedfar, binocular visual acultf of 20/20 or better.

APPARATUS

Terrain Model

The 1: 200 scale teraein model used as the background over which thesubjects searched for the targets was 21 x I feet and simulated a mile longstrip of lend about a quarter of a mile v'ide (Figare 1). The model containsvarotus topographical and cultural features typical of Central Europe.

7argets

The targets were 1: 200 scale model tanks and A)U's, representing realworld military targets measuring approximately I1 feet in length. Two ofthe tanks and the two ADU's were mnodifled to enable their gun barrels tosimulate a muisle flash. This was accomplished by threading fiber opticsinto the gun barrel and down to the body of the vehicle where a IS-volttminiature Ienp was installed. To simulate the appropriate gun firing rate,the lamps were pulsed by two Hunter timers (Series D, Model Ill-C), wiredto cycle continuously. Two timers were used for each firing target. Thefidelity of simulation of the firing rate is considered hiqh whl;e the slmu-latud intensity of the muazlt Caits could be somewhat questionable due tothe lack of complete real -world data to use as a guide in constructing themodels.

For this experiment, the luminmnce contrast for a single target elementwas deflned as:

C - (Lt Lb),Lb

where: C luminance contrast between a single target and background

Lt -average luminance over a single target area

L b average luminrnce over a single target bcckground aretaken V) be 10 limes the target area The t~rget shadow

was excluded.

ii5

AB- --

NW( 'TP 5740

41-

To

TI

T 2

TI

FMt

Figure 1. Terrain Model With Target Locations Shown

NWC TP 5740

A Pritchard Model 1910 photoneter was employed for the luminance moesure-ments. Five measurenments were taken of each target and its respective background in the non flashing modes. Examples of the tirgets are shown inFigure 2 and a description Is given In Tabh, 1; nutaticr correqponds to thatshown In Figure 1.

Aljlib4!1 , IP4

TA NK Ai)U

Figure 2. The Two Model Targets Used in tne Tarjet AcqIbition Tests.

Subject Transport Mechanism

The subject was seated un a motorized, remntely-contrullvd bricicle andcarriage system ,uspendod over the terrain mocitl. The bridge .1r.d carriOgewas capable of movement along the longitudinal axis of the torr'.in ri•odel.

The subject's sbat was positioned on the assembly so the eye level of theaverage subject was maintained at about either five or fifteen feet above themean level of the terrain model. This corresponded to simulted ,altituides c,f1.000 and 3,000 feet. The simulated velocity was 300 knots.

PROCEDURE

Initially, the subject was taken to a room with a sm.•ll terrain fricdel fororientation and training. He was shown the actual sizes of the tanks andAOU's for which he would be searching during the experimental se.ssion.The firing modes for the guns of the tanks and ADU's were also demonstrated.The subject was then given instructions on how to respond if he detected %target, Each subject was told to sea; ch only for tanks and ADLi's and thatnone, some, or all of the targets might be in their firing modes.

7

NWC TP 574()

Table 1. Target nescriptkn.

-- Groind Ranne L ,TnracTarget* Mad** _Fet) Conltrast Remarks

T non flashing 1.000 -0.20 At intersection of two0 tree-lined roads

T non-flo.ihing 2,000 0,34 On a tree lined road

T2 non-fleshing 2.000 0.39 On 3 tree-lined road

T non-flashing 3,000 -0.10 In a clearing nlext toa primitive runway

T4 flashing 3,000 -0 3Q in a cim ring circledby trees

T flashing 4,000 -0.04 On the top of a h1l1

Q1 flashing 4,000 -0.10 Or, top of a smallknoll near terrainmodel edqe

Q flashing 4,S00 -0.01 On top of a hill withsparse vacatation

"*T Indicstas tanks; Q Indicates ADU's (or Quads),**Flashing (simulated firing) targets were also used In a nort-flashing mode.

Each subject was given only one pass over the terrain model. The timefor each pass was just under II seconds, the time required to simulate the300-knot airspeed. Upon completion of ths pass, the subjdct was debriefedand target detections and recognitions were verified.

SCORING

A detfecton was defined as a subject's response to a target (ty callingout the name "tank" or "ADU") regardless of what the target wits. A r,.cog-nilion was defined as a correct call-out, so that detection and recognitionoccurred at the same time.

8=

N'WC TP 5740

RESULTS

EXPERIMAENT I (1, 000 FT ALTITUDE)

Percent Detections and Recognitions

The percent of the time that the targets were detected and recognizedis shown in Table 2 for each target. It can be seen that there is a largevariability between targets: T 0 , T 2 , and 14 were never seen, whereas Q2was always seen. The simulated muzzle flashes on 3 of the 4 targets didnot make the ta;rgets more detectable. Although a "firing" 01 was seenmore often than when it was not firing, the difference is not statisticallysignificant.

Table 2. Pe.-cent Ta rgets Detected and R ccogn Ized, 1, 000 Feet AlItitude

Total Number Percent Detected Perce-n-t I.ecognizediTarget of Non- Non-

Number Possibilities Flashing Flashing Flashing Flashing

T 20 0 00

T1 20 10 10

T2 20 0 0

T3 20 70 70

T4 10 0 0 0 0

T 5 10 40 40 40 4t0

Q 1 10 20 60 20 60

Q 2 1 0 100 100 60 so

A number of comparisons can be made at a lower level of detail amongthe targets using the Student's t test on the two groups of subjects. Thetarget classification and number of detections made by all subjects areshown In Table 3.

9

iNC TP 5740Il

Table 3. Classification of Targets and Number ofDetections Made

Target Type

Mode Non-flashing Flashing Capability

(TO, T 1 . T 2 # T 3) (T 4 , T$, Q 1 , Q21

No Targets 716Flashing

//

T 4 TS, Q1" and Q2 9 20

Flashing

It is seen that over twice as many of the targets which could flash weredetected *han non-flashing targets when none of the targets was flashing(;6 vs 7). This difference is statistically significant (t = 4.02, p < .01); itsuggests the possibility that the location of the flashing targets toward theend of the run (Figure 1) resulted in better performance.

About twice as many flashing targets were detected as non-flashingtargets under the flashing condition also (20 vs 9). The fact that this ratiois the same as (and not greater then) that for the non-flashing condition in-dicates that the flashes per so did not aid in detection. Target characteris-tics or placement may have been more important factors.

Other t-tests showed that:

1. Non-flashing targets were not seen any more often under the flash-ing than the non-flashing condition.

2. Flashing targets were not seen any more often under the flashingthan the non-flashing condition.

3. Performance across all targets was better under the flashing condi-tion (29 vs 23 detections) ao indicated by a one-tailed t = 1.89,p < . 05. The latter result comes from summing Ihe non-significanttrends shown in Table 3 (9 higher than 7, 20 higher than 16).

10r

-- • .... .• _ t-e_'.~7

NWC TP 5740

Contrast

The absolute value of the luminance contrast of the targets (Table 1) isshown plotted against percent detection (Table 2) in Fiqure 3 for the rnon-flashing targets.

100

U so

2e0

0 0.2 0.4

TARGET CONTRAST

Figure 3. Target Contrast .s Percent Detections

It can be seen that there is an inverse relationship between the variables;the higher the contrast, the fewer targets detected. This unexpected rela-tionship is statistically significant (r = -0.78 ; p < .05). and is contrary toall expectations. However, it supports the possibility that location and place-ment of the target were more important than luminance contrast in this search-for-targets of-opportunity type of task.

In addition, another consideration often overlooked is the relationshipbetween the color of a target and the color of Its background di¢rountingluminance contrast. An experiment concerned with examining thtj effects

11

NWC TP 5740

of variations In color and brightness on acquisition performance Indicatedthat the effects of coiur may have more impact then was traditionally thought.,

An analysis of target Q2 provides a good Illustration that location and.olor contrast may be factors important in target acquisition. Q2 was moreconsistently detected and recognized than any other target, regardless ofIts simulated firing mode. However, its luminance contrast with Its back-ground Is the lowest of all the targets. On the other hand, It was locatedat the top of a hill towards the center plane of the terrain model with fewclutter elements around it. Finally, it subjectively appeared to have tyod"color contrast" with its background: olive drab against light brown.

Detection Range

The range data calculated in this study is only approximate. The rangewas determined by recording the subject's response time when he statedthat he detected or recognized a target. The dlant range for this responsetime voas then calculated by determining the position of the subject's headrelative to the target. There was a subject response time lag and an experi-menter's response lag plus the rounding off of the response times to thenearest second. This r'•sulted in considerably less than precise data, anddiscrete steps in the data. I

When the non-flashing ADU's (Ql and Q2 ) were detected and/or recog-nized, It always occurred at the sarme approximate range (1,025 feet). Thisobviated the possibility of developing detection/recognition probabilities asa function of range for these targets in this mode. Figure 4 shows the cumu-lative percent detections a5 a function of range for the flashing ADU's andthe non-flashing tanks. The cumulative percent of recognitions for thesetargets are effectively the same curves.

EXPERIMENT II (3,000 FT ALTITUDE)

Percent Detections and Recognitlons

There was the same large variation among targets as seen in Experiment1; To, T , T 2 , and T 4 were never seen, and a flashing Q2 was seen by all

subjects (Table 4).

":Aerospce Medical Research Laboratory. SEEKVAL Project IA 1: Effects 'ifColor and Brightneas Contrmat on Target Acquisition, by Robert L.Hilgendorf and John Malenski, Wright-Patterson A. F. Base, Dayton, Ohio,AMRL, July 1974 (Report No. AMRL-TR-74-SS, publication UNCLASSIFIED).

12

NW.C TP 5740

sw I.O- 1 .m 2,000 2 ,4DSIMULATED RANGE. FT

Figure A.. Cumulative Percent Detections and Recognitionsfor Flashing ADU's and Non-Flashing Tanks

Table 4. Percent Targets Detected and Recognized, 3.000 Feet Altitude

Total Number Percent Detected Percent RecognizedTarget of Non Non-

Number Possibilities Flashing Flashing Flashing Fleshing

T 20 0 0

T 1 20 V 0

T 2 20 0 0

T 20 2S 25

I T 10 0 0 0 0

T S 10 30 0 30 0

10 a 0o 0 40

Q'0 o0 11oo 10 1002

!U

I

INC TI 57•40

There was no statistically significant difference between the totalnumber of targets detected or recognized under the flashing versus non-flashing modes. For only the targets that could flash, however, signifi-cantly more were detected and recognized when they were flashing thanwhen they were not flashing (Table 5).

Table S. Flashing versus Non-Flashing Targets

All Targets Fleshing Targets Only

Mode Mode

Flashing Non-Flashing Flashing Non-Fleshing

Tote I Number 7Detected Iq1

Mean across .2 l.I 0 7Subjects

StandardDeviation 0.5 0.14 0..

Student'sn t 1 0.t4 2. 60*

Total Number 1: 9 :..Recognitions II l

M e an ac ro s s1 .0 91 .0 4Subjects

StandardDeviation 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5

Student'st 2.06 CI3(n =18)

*Significant at p < 0.01

The data are also shown in a format similar to that of Table 3 (1 able 6).

14

I4NWC TIP 5740

Tablo 6. Classification of Targets and Number ofDeCtecions Made

Target Type

made Non-flashing Flashing Capability

(TV T.TT) TV T 5 1 . Q2 )

Targets S7Aashing

"TV T 01and0/ Flashing

4i

About the same number of non-flashing and flashing targets were do-tacted in the non feshing mode (5 vor*us 71 In tht flashing mode, hnww-ever, none of the non-flashing targets was seen, but flnahng targets werereported 1l times by the 10 subjects. This result is more in line with whatwas expected before the experiment began.

Contrast

The higher contrast targets (T 0 ' TV, T 2 and T 4) were never detected

from the simulated 3, 000 foot aft!tude. T.lis result, similar to that fromExperiment I. can be interpreted as an indication tha' luminance contrastwas not a factv,. in the target acquisition process in these experiments.Perhaps contrast wait confouncred w4ith target location and clutier, so thatit was not a driving factor In the search.

Detection Range

The most distant target was a simulated 4, 500 feet ground range from the",ubject's starting point, and he was at a simulated 3,000 feet above the terrain,a condition resulting in steep look-down angles In most cases. When thetargets were reported, the subject was looking almost straight down upon them.detection range Is therefore not a meaningful measure of performance In thehigh altitude part of these tests.

NWC Ti 511.0

LIMITATIONS

This study was conducted on a terrain model with subjects who madeonly one pass over the model. The view of the nodel was relatively un-restricted, as compared to cockpit limitations In most fixed-wing aircraft.In the higher altitude tests, the subjects were looking alost straight downwhen they reported the targets.

There were no atmospheric effects, and no stress of %ask loading (e.g..piloting) on the subjects. It is not appropriate to ust the data to estimateth. absolute parformence of an obsewver in the fHld. It Is felt that the dataare useful, however, to estimate the relative performance when searchingfor flashing and non-flashing targets.

SUMMARY

In summary, the condition with targets exhibiting muzole flashes re-suited In more target detections and recognitions than the no-flash condition.When searching from a simulated 1,000 toot altitude, subjects reported moretargets (both fleshing and non-fleshing) when some of the targets wereflashing. The targets that had the flesh capability were not seen cw* oftenwhet they were flashing then when they were not flashing, howevs'.

The flash effect was more Imporoint when seea from J, 000 !'et altitude:twice as many of the targets that could flash were seen and recognized whenthey were flashing than when they were not flashing.

16

YWC TI 5760i

In

140ITIAL DIrThISUTION

32 Naval Air Systems Co mndAIR-•4. (1)AIR-104 (1)AIR-30212 (2)AIR-304F (1)AIk-3605 (1)AIR-410 1)AIR-50174 (2)AIR-510 (1)AIR-5102 (1)

AIR-5103 (1)AIR-5105 (1)

AIR-5108 (1)AIR-51OBB fl)AIR-5109 (1)AIR-5313 (5)AIR-532 (1)AIN-5321 (1)AJR-5322 (1)AIR-5323 (1)AIR-533 (1)AIR-533B1 (1)AIR-533F3 (1)

AIR-5332 (1)

AIR-5333 (1)AIR-5333E2 (1)AIR-535 (1)

3 Chtef of Naval OperationsOP-098 (1)'0P-0982 (1)OP-55 (1)

I Chief of Naval Material (,4AT-03Tt Knute Takle)I Naval Sea Systems Command

SEA-03 (I)SEA-09G32 (2)

2 Chief of Naval Research, ArlingtonONR-4.55 (1)OtdR-461 (1)

I Bureau of Medicine & Surgery (Code 513)S1 Comandant of the Sarine Corps

I Air Test & Evaluation Squadron 41 A.'r Test 4 Evaluation Suadron 5

17

Iq

INC T? 574O

! Naval Agrosp.ir ?iqdlcsl Research Laboratory, Panama Citv (Code L")4 Nov-! Air Development Center, Johnsvill.

Code 402 (1)Code LSE (()Code LaE-2 (i)

I Naval Air force. Atlan~tic Vledt

I Naval Air e orch. Pacb ic FloatI Naval Air Teh t Center. Patuxent nRiver oST-3531)I Naval Ammunition Depotd Caent (eode 50a2 C. u ..b a e Labora, tory)

e Naval Avionics Facility, Indianapolis (Technical lihrar))I Nava Electroninc Laboratory Center. San odiego (Code 5330)3 Naval ofsaile Center, Point MuLu

Code 5342.I.-•Una (1)

R. Kennedy (1)Technical Library (1)

3 NavOl Pos•alrldtate School. Honteror,Dr. Javaa Arima (11)Dr. Gary Poo,.k (1)Tichnical Libcaty (1)

2 Naqal Rastarch L.nboratory

1 Naval Ship of R esrch a n. d .)eveltoýpnt Center. LcthesdL 'Code 721.J. C. Alone)

I Navrl Submarine t edical Center, .mvAl Submarine gas*, New London2 ANyvCo Surface eapopmn C denter, White tiok

Code m;A Fred Clodpus (i)Technlc,/] Library (1)

SNaval Training Dquipnent c:enter, Orlando (Code 21n. LCDR Funrro)I nffice of Naval Research Branch Office, Pasaden•a (R. Lawaon)1 Operational reast and Lvalua,_lon Force

A Office Chief of Reosntch and Development (LTdt L CiAn yoiolr)I Army Armiment Command. Rock Island (A) AR-SAA)I Army Combat Dr4#lcpmontd CoRst nd. Armor Agency. Fort Knox (David Fink)I Army Combat Developmenis Comand.Av Fort Ruke r (ort RoberI Arm, Combat Developments Command. Expertsntateon Commind, Fort Ord

(DCS Ptoglrwmi & Projects Analysis. 4rthod(,logv Dliiison)

2 Army Combat Developments Command, Field Artillery Agency, Fort Suid

1 Army Naterial Som and aRobern Coroy)I At-my Missie CoAmand. Redstone Arsenil (ANSM)-RLH. rr'ld Chaikin)1 Army Training & Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe1 Army Aerowedicel Research Laboratory, Fort Rucker (Dr. Robert Wrigbt)I Army ballistict. Ro,.edrch Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground2 Army Humn Engineering Laboratory, Al~erd~etn Proving rround

27 Army Maceriel, Svmtemi ,%nalyain Agent-.%, Aberdeen Proving GroundASX'Y-D, Dr. Jloseph Sperrazza (1)

AMqXY-R. Arend Reid (5)

AKSXY-S. John W. Kramer (20)Technical Library (1)

18

2 Army ;PAWKrcb Institutge, Arlington (Dr. A. V. alrob.u)20101st Aviation (Vrotip, CbT. Fort Cang.111 Pert Nueebmas Ueadqsartere, Port Nuamchuca (Technical Libtary)2 Prank ford Arsenal

3IIJIA-UO1OOO. Gardea Sipamad (1)I?1IVA-AX-V, floury Zaadborg (1)

% Plectifty AresealIANPI1m (1)£*WUA-AD-C (i)

A.l.aibiader (1)

31WJA-P1L-P, k~bert X. h0avi (1)A Prejocc MUM8S. West Port Rood

LiTOL (ocreity (2)D Iir: etor AirsiCombangiecoae (2UI-A-)

1 Wirectr Serd ItlieRats DirSTotAt ()I Air rorcsý fogiorics Cowid, Wright -Pattersoon Air Force Some, (M")1 Aly Fore* I?.st.. Cemommi, Andrew* Air force Bass (SOW1, Roter Bartmeyer)I Taelctic Air Cc.innd, Lwaley ate Force lase1 Okiahoon City 4tr Material Are&, Ti~aker Alie Force Sees (W. P. Wilcox)2 Aeroniuticel System Division, Wrl~hc-Pecto~rsos "tr Vorce base

cod e am WCtAd R0 (1)

3 Asenspace Medice) Resnarch Lsbora42ry, Wright-Psttesma Air Force Bass

10 Air Force Aninamt Labor..'ory, Win. Air Porce lesoin.:?, JO.-tv maes -1)

3246 TV (TOM) (1)

W &Itr Force Tes a e4 taluati~on Canker, Kirtlond Ait Pov'coe*I. (SIflVAL)I Air Ikaieersity Library, Maxwell Air Force Sass (AUL-6238)1 !ect~cal 7igbter Weapons Center, Rallis Air Force Bass (OR)

12 Def ense bow.mvýtios Center1 Vlractcr of W~ee"e $A@ercb 4 Xoginesring (TIT6E. kMchatd I . Ladesm)1 Wanes Intelligence Agency (Lk-171, Raymond Bsuer)I Langley we~arch Center (Technical Library)'acmape Scieaecee 13*orporated, Feet& barbara, Calif.

I Applied Phyics !Aboratorye JUU, Silver Spring, NI. (Di * Jack Gabbard)I Aiatmotics/Rachamell Istersattemas Corp.,* Amaboim, Calif.

(Dr. C. P. Ofeeatas)I Battelle IW.simoia IvAetituts, Columus~, Ohio (Techritcal Library)* CWepa. Corporation. Dftfalo, lenw York (Life Sciences Avionics Dept.)I Grmaa LAreoeace Cnrp.. lethpap. N.T. (fachmicni Zatoruatlon Center)I bm#u Atrcroft Coops". Culver City, Calif. (Valter Carel)I loo ftctors 3oomrc~h Inc., Goleta. Calif.2 Institute for i)efoee 4alyses, Arlington, Ve.

* 1e~ort 9. L. Jobenoo (1)Tichaical. Library (1)

I LIJe-Tino-VT4eht AeroseautIc Divisiou, Dallas*, Tax. (Human Factors

I ll 1le .l l D ala. Csoporatiol, Lang lBeach, Calif. (Director Scientificasosibh, DAD Aircraft Di•lslos)

I asftIal Douglas Corporation, St. Lousi, Me. (Dr. Edward Jones)I "tmaw State 1swrarln ty, loesiomn, most. (Dr. William alins)I k walls• t Kervstoviel Corporatin., Coluibus, OhioI Shdla Lbolatorle, AlboquerqueeMw Hex. (3141, Techaical Library)I System d Iemarekh Meter, Rimnmoapolia, Mnn. (Dr. Leon G. William)I TMe &etmi C aMpty, Seattle, Mosh. (Jams. D. Gilmuur)I Th Martln-lHuietta Corporatica, Orlando, Fla. (Dr. Daniel Jones)1 Utivwe•ity of CalLtorals, Scripps Vieibility Laboratory. San Diego,

Calif*I VTrgInLA Polytechato Institute, llacksburg, Va. (Dr. arry Snyder)

.me.---IU,--