Loading...
Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) on ASTM standards and related intellectual property is prohibited. Violations will result in suspension of access.
By Jack Maxwell
Aug 29, 2025
In an unpredictable world where economic, humanitarian, and political crises occur with unnerving regularity, the importance of a robust, well-prepared military/defense infrastructure can’t be overstated. A key aspect of this preparedness is the ability to incorporate new options like drones and wearable robotic devices into a country’s security toolkit.
Keeping up with the rapid evolution of these technologies is no easy task, nor is developing standards that support those who design, manufacture, and use them. But that doesn’t stop the members of the ASTM International committees on unmanned aircraft systems (F38) and exoskeletons and exosuits (F48) in particular from continuing to create and refine such standards.
Here we’ll look at how this work is helping to expand the use of advanced technologies in defense and military-adjacent applications. We’ll also examine a new standard from the committee on homeland security (E54) that addresses hazardous material simulants used to evaluate security systems.
Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) – commonly referred to as drones – offer significant advantages in military operations. They enable battlefield reconnaissance, search-and-rescue missions, and precisely targeted attacks to be carried out with minimal risk to soldiers on the ground and pilots in the air. Deployment of UAS in Ukraine and other conflict zones speaks to the efficacy of this relatively new but already battle-tested technology.
Standards developed by various F38 subcommittees since its formation in 2003 have played an important role in the evolution of UAS. These standards were not conceived with military applications in mind but, according to Phil Kenul, flexibility and adaptability were always part of the equation.
READ MORE: Standards to Protect Those Who Protect Us
“The primary focus of F38 is on civilian applications and the safe integration of UAS into the National Airspace System, or NAS,” says Kenul, who is the committee vice-chair. “The committee’s overall scope is broad, covering the safe design, manufacture, maintenance, and operation of these systems. However, specific standards are often technology-agnostic and performance-based, defining requirements that can be referenced across various use cases. The fundamental principles of safety, airworthiness, operational efficiency, and pilot qualification that F38 addresses are inherently beneficial to any professional UAS operation, including those conducted by military or public safety entities. The underlying safety and performance requirements are often transferable.”
Standards developed by the subcommittees on airworthiness (F38.01), flight operations (F38.02), and operator qualifications (F38.03) are applicable in both civilian and military contexts. Kenul notes that a number of those that fall under the aegis of F38.02 are particularly relevant to military drone operations. “For instance, beyond visual line of sight [BVLOS] standards are critical for long-range reconnaissance, early warning, and search and rescue (SAR) in sprawling or inaccessible areas,” he says.
The standard specification for positioning assurance, navigation, and time synchronization (PNT) for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) (F3609) is another F38.02 standard that can be applied in both civilian and military situations. “For tasks like reconnaissance, early warning, and SAR in a combat zone or for homeland defense, precise and assured PNT is absolutely critical. Drones need to accurately know their location relative to targets, areas of interest, or personnel for effective data collection,” Kenul explains.
Take a search-and-rescue operation in an active war zone, for instance. Kenul points out that the ability to accurately map a battlefield or pinpoint a survivor’s location relies heavily on robust PNT. “F3609 establishes requirements, performance measures, and a new classification for communicating PNT performance that is fundamental for the reliability and safety of all UAS operations, including those in dynamic or GPS-denied environments sometimes encountered in military-adjacent or disaster scenarios,” he says.
Standards related to remote ID and UAS traffic management (UTM) also have civilian-to-military crossover potential. “The former are crucial for airspace deconfliction and ensuring accountability, which are vital in any crowded or complex airspace as well as for homeland defense,” Kenul says. “The latter are critical for establishing integrated airspace where both manned and unmanned aircraft, including those performing military-adjacent roles, can operate safely.”
F38.01’s work with detect-and-avoid (DAA) technologies is essential for safe integration of UAS into the local airspace, regardless of whether the mission is civilian or military. The focus on “minimum safety, performance, and flight-proficiency requirements” directly applies to ensuring reliable operations for these critical, non-offensive military support functions, Kenul says.
Much of the work of F38 is done in close collaboration with regulatory agencies like the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, and with awareness of opportunities for harmonization with international standards that can facilitate cooperation during joint military or natural disaster response operations.
Interested stakeholders are also exploring ways to simplify their own standards-development efforts to take advantage of the work already carried out by ASTM committees. Kenul notes that NATO is considering the use, where applicable, of civil standards such as those fashioned by F38 instead of developing separate standards from scratch. In addition, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is designing their UTM architecture to be interoperable with ASTM’s UTM standards.
Exoskeletons are wearable devices that provide an individual with enhanced mobility and the ability to carry heavy loads more easily. Some are relatively simple mechanical designs that essentially redistribute weight from one area of the body – arms and shoulders, for example – to the core, lessening fatigue and reducing the chance of injury. Others are fully powered, offering a tantalizing glimpse of the kind of capabilities that reach their apotheosis in some of the science fiction we see in movies and comic books.
Military exoskeleton users must have confidence in the function of their devices.
Matt Dickinson understands why pop culture is often the first thing people think of when they think of exoskeletons. But he wants people to realize that creating real-life versions of this technology is a multidisciplinary endeavor, not just a feat of engineering, and that the work being done within the committee on exoskeletons and exosuits (F48) focuses as much on how humans interact with exoskeletons as it does on the machines themselves.
“What often gets overlooked is that this field isn’t just for biomechanical experts or engineers. It’s far broader. We need contributions from everyone: psychology, textile design, human factors, and beyond,” says Dickinson, chair of the subcommittee on maintenance and disposal (F48.04) and cochair of the subcommittee on design and manufacturing (F48.01).
He points to work being done in the subcommittee on human factors and ergonomics (F48.02) – such as the standard guide for evaluating potential ergonomic risks from exoskeleton use (F3688) – as emblematic of this multifaceted approach: “There’s a lot of focus on understanding the human-exoskeleton interaction and what these devices can offer users.”
F48.01 is developing a comprehensive framework for classifying exoskeletons. “This group is exploring system design approaches and is currently putting together a classification method for these devices, similar to how we categorize vehicles like cars or RVs,” says Dickinson. “Application-based categorization will help us better align exoskeleton designs with their intended uses and also support regulatory bodies in evaluating these systems more effectively. We’re also exploring standardized attachment methods, which I often describe as a kind of ‘Picatinny rail’ [a type of universal mounting system used on firearms] for exoskeletons, to allow modular and flexible integration of components.”
Dickinson adds that F48.04 is concentrating on setup procedures, developing processes to ensure that all functions of the exoskeleton are properly checked and validated before deployment in the field.
As is the case with much of the work of the UAS subcommittees described here, the scope of the standards being promulgated by F48 covers a wide spectrum of use cases.
“They’re generally not limited to specific areas like military use but instead aim to cover a broader range of applications,” Dickinson says. “Take a shoulder exoskeleton. It might be used for overhead work, which could apply to both load carriage on a military base and tasks in construction. While the application varies, the underlying activation principles are quite similar.”
As a senior lecturer in mechanical engineering at the University of Central Lancashire in the U.K. and founder of an exoskeleton startup company, Dickinson has a unique perspective on the benefits exoskeleton technology can provide, particularly in the gray area between strictly civilian and strictly military scenarios such as SAR missions and disaster relief.
“Based on conversations I’ve had with military personnel from around the world, it’s clear that such opportunities are coming. NATO’s current focus, as reflected in the DIANA [Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic] challenges, shows a strong emphasis on emergency evacuation and first responders, areas where exoskeletons are likely to play a key role,” he says.
The civilian-military crossover of the drone- and exoskeleton-related standards discussed here are examples of ASTM standards that are designed with adaptability to the needs of different end users in mind. However, some address processes rather than equipment.
One such example is the standard guide for development, verification, validation, and documentation of explosive and contraband simulants for security screening systems (WK85823). This work item is currently in progress under the aegis of the committee on homeland security applications (E54) subcommittee on CBRNE [Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives] detection and CBRN protection (E54.01).
FOR YOU: A New Era for UAS Standards
Simulants are inert materials that mimic or replicate the physical and/or chemical features of actual explosives or other hazardous materials and are used in testing. Development of this proposed new standard began about two years ago, according to E54.01 member Michael Brogden, building on work begun by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “There was a clear need from end users for proof that the simulants they were purchasing were valid and performed as claimed by the manufacturers. At the same time, commercial simulant manufacturers were also requesting an official process to verify and validate their products. Up to now, there has been no regulatory authority overseeing these products,” he says.
Brogden notes that the primary issue is demonstrating that a simulant’s properties accurately match those of the target material and documenting that information in a way that provides end users with the necessary evidence to confirm the simulant will perform as intended. “The new standard guide will help fill the regulatory vacuum by offering a standardized approach that simulant developers can use to provide the information end users need in the absence of a formal validating authority,” he says. “It will provide guidance on the properties that simulants could match but doesn’t specify the exact methods for characterizing those properties.”
When the work item is eventually approved and published, it will join a strong roster of ASTM standards that deal with the detection and characterization of various elements of the CBRNE arsenal that threaten military personnel, as well as domestic security screeners and first responders.
Dickinson says he gained an insight in discussions with potential exoskeleton users – one that can and should be considered in any situation where new technologies are emerging and standards are being created to further their evolution and ultimately their suitability for different use cases.
“Last year I spent three months traveling around the world, speaking with companies and end-users to better understand their real-world challenges,” he recounts. “I had the privilege of sitting in a room with NATO representatives and local special forces. While there, I asked one of the special operations personnel if an exoskeleton is something he’d actually wear during operations in the field.
“His response was incredibly insightful and really stuck with me. He said: ‘We train every day to stay in peak physical condition. That gives us confidence because we can move freely and react quickly. If you build a device that, even for a moment, makes me feel like I can’t move as well, then I won’t feel as safe – and that makes me a liability to my team.’”
Dickinson’s takeaway was that creating a “cool wearable device” is just the beginning. “Adoption depends on much deeper cognitive and psychological factors,” he says. “That’s why we need a multidisciplinary approach when developing standards: to ensure we’re capturing all the critical elements that impact usability, safety, and trust.”
The adaptability of the standards mentioned here across very different environments is a testament to the fact that the men and women who offer their free time to do the work of ASTM understand this fundamental fact. Their efforts reflect this awareness, and help ensure that the standards they promulgate will enable military personnel, first responders, and other individuals who put their lives on the line for all of us to do their jobs as safely and effectively as possible. ●
Jack Maxwell is a freelance writer based in Westmont, NJ.
September / October 2025
