BAE SYSTEMS PROPRIETARY AND EXPORT CONTROLLED

1
Non-Pyrotechnic SAR Marker (TS-00442) Proof of
Concept Demo and Single Design Selection John
KapelesDirector, Product Development, Less
LethalDecember 8, 2009
EXPORT CONTROLLED DATA. This document contains
technical information whose export is governed by
the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR).
This information must not be transferred to a
foreign person/entity without proper
authorization of the U.S. Government. Violations
may result in administrative, civil or criminal
penalties. This document includes data and
information that shall not be disclosed outside
the Government and shall not be duplicated, used
or disclosed in whole or in partfor any purpose
other than to evaluate this product. This
information shall not be released nor disclosed
outside the Government under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) nor under any
other circumstances.
2
Topics

• Safariland/Defense Technology Overview
• History/Organization
• Products/Military Contracts
• Facilities
• SAR Project Overview
• SAR Team/Task Structure
• Requirements/Technical Approach
• Grenade Design
• Hardware Concepts
• Smoke Formulation
• Simulated Operational Testing
• Drop/Flammability
• Demonstration Test Plan

3
Defense Technology History

• Defense Technology is the world leader in
  development and manufacturing of non-lethal
  solutions for law enforcement, corrections, and
  military customers, with a company history dating
  back to 1926.
• History
• 1930s Lake Erie Chemical, Cleveland and Rock
  Creek, OH
• 1967 Purchased by Smith Wesson
• 1987 Def-Tec Corporation formed
• 1991 Defense Technology Corp. of America formed
  in Casper, WY, acquiring certain assets from
  Def-Tec Corp.
• 1996 DTCoA acquired by Armor Holdings, Inc.
• 1998-2000 Acquired Federal Laboratories, Guardian
  Products
• 2007 Armor Holdings acquired by BAE Systems, Inc.
  (BAE Systems Products Group)
• 2009 Consolidated business units under
  Safariland, LLC
• Full-line manufacturing and development
  facilities in Casper, WY
• 100 employees, including manufacturing,
  engineering, QA, customer service, accounting

4
Products Group Organization
Scott OBrien President, Safariland
Ian Graham VP General Counsel
Cheri Navarro Executive Assistant
Glenn Katz VP Sales and Business Development
Alan Leukhardt VP Engineering Quality
Scott Detillo VP Operations
Rich Shafer VP Marketing
Matt Ketsdever VP Finance
Adam Goldman VP Human Resources
Joseph Papay Director, Western Region Operations
Jack Francis Controller
Scott Carnahan VP Marketing, Duty Gear
Cally Bonestroo HR Manager
Less Lethal Engineering PD, Casper, WY John
Kapeles, Director, Engineering PD John
Hultman, Mechanical Engineer Michael Kramer,
Project Engineer Corey Rutz, Electrical
Engineer Chris Wilson, Mechanical Engineer
Danen Lynn, Manufacturing Engineer Lucian
Stoenescu, Chemical Engineer Julie Gerlock,
Admin. Assistant Mark Willar, Quality Manager
Darin Lane Plant Manager, Casper Operations
James Morgan Product Category Manager, Less Lethal
Luz Garcia Pennock HR Generalist
Lori Kemper Accounting Manager
5
Defense Technology Products

• Aerosol Projectors
• Impact Munitions
• Chemical/Smoke Grenades and Projectiles
• Distraction Devices
• Single and Multi-Shot Launchers
• Gas Masks

6
Defense Technology Military Products

• Military Style Smoke Grenades, W52P1J-08-D-0068
  167,130 produced to date
• M37 Mid-Size Riot Control Disperser (MRCD)
  W52H09-08-D-0452 5,792 produced to date

• M1013 12 Ga. NL Area Control Cartridge
• DAAE30-03-C-1079 648,326 produced
• W15QKN-07-C-0081 956,397 produced to date

• M1012 12 Ga. NL Point Control Cartridge
• DAAE30-03-C-1079 391,600 produced
• W15QKN-07-C-0081 1,068,529 produced to date

• M1030 12 Ga. Breaching Cartridge,
  W15QKN-08-C-0240 710,326 produced to date

• M1029 40MM NL Crowd Dispersal Cartridge
• W15QKN-06-C-0169 1,129,293 produced to date

• XM1091 40MM Extended Range NL Cartridge
• W15QKN-06-C-0169 24,872 produced to date

• XM1116 12 Ga. Extended Range NL Point Control
  Cartridge
• W15QKN-07-C-0078 155,000 produced to date

7
Defense Technology - Facilities

• 67 acres, 3 locations
• 8 Buildings
• 78,859 combined square feet

• Automated Aerosol Fill Line
• 100 Product Testing

• Class C Explosives Building
• Climate Controlled

• Operating under DEQ Permit
• In Compliance with WAQSR

• Munitions Assembly Lines
• Incorporates LEAN Mfg.

• Tear Gas Manufacturing Plant
• Tested to Mil-R-51029C

8
Facilities Defense Technology, Casper, WY

• Test Ranges
• 100 Meter Indoor Ballistics Range
• Tear Gas and Smoke Grenade Indoor Test Range
• 800 Meter Public Projectile Range
• US Army National Guard Range Guernsey, WY

• Development Facilities
• Prototype Machine Shop
• Engineering Labs
• Class C Explosives Building

9
Engineering Capabilities
Computer Aided Design/Analysis SolidWorks/COSMOS
Projectile Design/Trajectory Modeling
Rapid Prototyping Hardware, Electronics
10
Test Capabilities Defense Technology

• Performance
• Velocity
• Hit Probability
• High Speed Video

• Ballistic Impact Testing
• NIJ Std. 0101.03 (Body Armor Testing)
• Penetration Testing
• Ordnance Type Gelatin
• 3-Rib Chest Structure (Wayne State University)

11
Engineering, Less-LethalStrategic
Partnerships/Joint Development
US Army Research Laboratory 40 MM eXact
iMpact Sponge Round
Metal Storm, Inc. High-Volume NL Munitions
Delivery System
Beretta Defense Division - 12 Gauge Constant
Kinetic Energy System and Ammo
Sandia National Labs Fuel Air Distraction Device
12
Safariland Team/Task Structure

• Safariland SAR Team
• John Kapeles Program Manager
• Corey Rutz Project Lead
• John Hultman Mechanical Design
• Lucian Stoenescu Smoke Formulation
• Subcontract issued by Penn State University
• Task 1 Flameless Grenade Prototype Development
• Task 2 Proof of Concept Demo and Single Design
  Selection
• Task 3 Full Functional Testing on Selected
  Prototype
• Task 4 User Field Test
• Task 5 Product Transition Package
• Task 6 Reporting
• Task 7 Meetings and Presentations

13
Tasks and Deliverables
14
Technical Approach

• Flameless Grenade Concepts
• Insulated Pyrotechnic
• Develop cooler smoke formulation
• Numerous insulation materials evaluated
• Minimizing cost and complexity while meeting
  requirements
• Non-Pyrotechnic Aerosol
• Particulate dispersion, chemical fog generation
• Initiation/Delay Concepts
• M201A1 Type Fuze
• Lanyard
• Electronically timed
• Survivability Concepts
• Deformable structure for energy dissipation
• Drag features to orient grenade for impact,
  reduce impact velocity (fins, drag chutes)

15
Technical Approach

• Insulated Pyrotechnic Grenade
• Based on DTC Flameless Tri-Chamber Smoke Grenade
  concept
• Can-within-a-can design
• Develop cooler smoke formulation
• Use insulation to reduce heat conduction to
  components
• Control burn time to minimize heat soak
• Eliminate ignition flame
• Prevent impingement of smoke discharge on
  combustible materials
• Incorporate structure to dissipate impact energy
  from drop
• Advantage
• Performance equivalent to baseline smoke marking
  grenades
• Disadvantage
• Some heat generation unavoidable

16
Technical Approach

• Non-Pyrotechnic Aerosol Grenade
• Based on DTC T-16 Aerosol OC/CS Grenade concept
• Use compressed gas to discharge fine particulate
  material
• Use optimal marking compound particle size to
  maximize hang time
• Maximize volume to increase discharge time
• Standard M201A1 fuze initiation
• Incorporate structure to dissipate impact energy
  from drop
• Advantage
• No heat generation
• Disadvantage
• More volume required to increase marker duration
  and survive drop

17
Technical Challenges/Issues

• Surviving impact in any orientation when dropped
  from 300 ft.
• Eliminating flammability potential for
  pyrotechnic concept
• Reducing smoke temperature for pyrotechnic
  concept without degrading color quality or burn
  rate performance
• Improving smoke quality and duration for aerosol
  concept
• Minimizing the physical envelope and cost of the
  grenade
• Balance design solutions against requirements
• After 95 solution is achieved, cost increases to
  get last 5
• Over-designing adds complexity and cost
• Designing for extreme limits of requirements
• Designing for test requirements that are not
  representative of the operational use

18
Performance vs. Requirements