Future Armour

[Colin Parkinson]

The problem is going to be how do you communicate with them when you have an enemy with a significant EW presence and a capable long range artillery presence that will zero in on any RF source? 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

A single EMP burst and everything is dead.

 

[Spencer100]

Are not the electronics in say a LAV EMP "hardened?"  Or a LEO?

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem is going to be how do you communicate with them when you have an enemy with a significant EW presence and a capable long range artillery presence that will zero in on any RF source?

And recceguy is right about the EMP. 

That is in large part why I think the robotics should be "within" the vehicle and not "between" the vehicles.  Each vehicle should retain at least one operator with the internal robotics designed to enhance the operator's capabilities.

That improves the odds that most platforms will be able to continue fighting even if not at the best pace possible when all comms are up and running. 

Additional benefits:

Dispersion of the human assets - improving their survival chances

Although armour will be required to protect the operator the weight and volume of armour required will be considerably less than than required of a 4-man crew while being considerably more than an individual can carry on his legs - a 2 tonne pod instead of a 40 tonne behemoth (excluding the weight of weapons, ammo and system) or instead of 10 kg of PPE.


And yes, maintenance and the ability to stay in the fight and return to the fight will suffer, but, as noted previously, that is going to suffer in any case.

I almost used the word endurance in the previous sentence but decided against it.  If the vehicles can operate autonomously, like a self-driving car, then the operator can get some z's while relying on a combination of his vehicle and his team mates in the other vehicles.  In fact, assuming the EMP never happens, the other operators can fight his vehicle for him.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I find an EMP burst far less likely than EW warfare with jamming and spoofing. I suspect that the designers of these cool toys have never lived without connectivity and can't truly fathom it. While machine AI is getting better, do you really want a armed robot that you can't communicate with on a peace making mission?

 

[Underway]

Jamming and spoofing is harder to do then you might think.  There are ways to defend yourself, with simple techniques like spread spectrum etc...  Jamming or spoofing a mil grade comms system with modern crypto is very hard. Only a near peer might be able to do it, but odds are the cost (both in money and in letting everyone know exactly where you are) wouldn't be worth it for these small vehicles.  Now if you want to jam the whole fronts comms before a big attack, well that seems to me a better investment of your jamming capability.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Don't forget the Russians have always been big on EW warfare and even the USAF is seeing that currently, plus they add the joy of Grad strikes onto transmitters and to run all those nifty toys, you need some hefty signals, including video feeds which should show up nicely on the battlefield.

 

[Underway]

Not wanting to get in an argument but yah there could be a lot of wideband signals if you are using a spread signal setup which generally look like noise.  Not sure what a control signal on a UAV like a Pred looks like, I suspect there is plenty of anti-jam in them.  There is also the capacity for the vehicle to have an auto mode should they lose the signal,  like a return to base or backtrack until they get comms again.  There is still a long way to go for land based ROV's that are not LOS.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I can see AU vehicles being good in urban assault, where there is a high likelihood of it being killed in the process and sight lines to the vehicle are a couple of hundred meters. I can also see ARV type vehicles being good to rescue damaged AFV's underfire again minimizing risk. The more these vehicles appear on the battlefield, the faster the counter measures will be produced. I predict that small drones will lose significant effectiveness once vehicle mounted lasers become common. I wonder if you could disable a AU vehicle with a tight beamed microwave/RF signal focused onto it? Basically brute forcing it 

 

[Kirkhill]

I can see AU vehicles being good in urban assault, where there is a high likelihood of it being killed in the process and sight lines to the vehicle are a couple of hundred meters. I can also see ARV type vehicles being good to rescue damaged AFV's underfire again minimizing risk. The more these vehicles appear on the battlefield, the faster the counter measures will be produced. I predict that small drones will lose significant effectiveness once vehicle mounted lasers become common. I wonder if you could disable a AU vehicle with a tight beamed microwave/RF signal focused onto it? Basically brute forcing it

You Don't Need to Shoot Down a Drone to Destroy It Anymore
Directional radio frequency jammers score a soft kill on flying threats.


By Kyle Mizokami
Oct 8, 2015

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/a17717/you-dont-need-to-shoot-down-a-drone-to-destroy-it-anymore/

Enter the Blighter Anti-UAV Defense System (AUDS). The Blighter works by severing the invisible tether of radio frequency commands that connects the drone with its operator. Cut the tether and the drone can no longer receive commands. The drone will fall out of the sky or fly on until it crashes.

Blighter consists of three pieces of equipment. The first, an air security radar, scans for incoming drones. Once detected, it hands off the target to the EO (electro-optical) tracker. The EO tracker, which features a 12x zoom and thermal imager, locks onto the drone and allows the operator to visually inspect it.


Once the operator decides the drone must die, he activates the Directional Radio Frequency Inhibitor. This is the "gun" of the system, which "fires" directed radio signals at the same frequency as the drone's controls. Unable to receive further commands, the drone is effectively neutralized.

:cheers:

I'll have another one.  Your shout, I believe.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just like the real thing, it'll stop when it bogs to the turret.

There is too much maintenance on a track for a single person. Much of the stuff requires a full crew. The bigger the track, the more to do.

Besides, you'd have to follow doctrine while deploying them. One of the CAFs saving graces is that no one follows doctrine and our battlefield solutions are often off the cuff and spur of the moment. We have human crews that think for themselves and come up with crazy ideas that seem to work in the end.

Obviously, there is going to be some kind of drone vehicles rolling around out there. I just can't envision a signifigant meeting engagement of cyber tanks.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just like the real thing, it'll stop when it bogs to the turret.

There is too much maintenance on a track for a single person. Much of the stuff requires a full crew. The bigger the track, the more to do.

Besides, you'd have to follow doctrine while deploying them. One of the CAFs saving graces is that no one follows doctrine and our battlefield solutions are often off the cuff and spur of the moment. We have human crews that think for themselves and come up with crazy ideas that seem to work in the end.

Obviously, there is going to be some kind of drone vehicles rolling around out there. I just can't envision a signifigant meeting engagement of cyber tanks.

How about cyber-anti-tank guns? (With an on-board gunner - kind of like a pilot in an F-35).

 

[Underway]

Besides, you'd have to follow doctrine while deploying them. One of the CAFs CAs saving graces is that no one follows doctrine and our battlefield solutions are often off the cuff and spur of the moment. We have human crews that think for themselves and come up with crazy ideas that seem to work in the end.

After being in a number of Army AAR's where the discussion was basically "Well it worked, sooooo good job, you all get a gold star!" I can certainly agree.  The RCN feels far different.  Ship staff: "Well it worked, the fire is out, bad guys are dead, we all lived, medals and rum for everyone!", Sea Training: "Yah but you didn't follow the proper procedure listed here that has changed three times since you went to sea so you get a UNSAT on that".

 

[blacktriangle]

Even with manned platforms (AFVs, ships, aircraft) you still need to be concerned with Cyber/EW threats. Malware can do some pretty amazing things.

 

[Good2Golf]

Hover tanks with optical, quantum computers and laser-based wideband communications - EMP and mobility problems solved!  :bowing:

 

[Kirkhill]

Hover tanks with optical, quantum computers and laser-based wideband communications - EMP and mobility problems solved!  :bowing:

Would that be an HIGE "Tank" or an HOGE "Tank"?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

From todays BBC:

Russia to showcase robot tank in WW2 victory parade
8 May 2018

Officially the Uran-9 is called a "multi-purpose robotic fighting complex"
Russia's big Victory Day parade on Wednesday will feature a remote-controlled tank and other new weapons systems combat-tested in Syria.

The Uran-9 tank is armed with anti-tank rockets, a cannon and a machine-gun.

President Vladimir Putin restored the Soviet-era tradition of parading the latest armour and missiles on 9 May. It is the day Russians honour the millions who died fighting Nazi Germany.

New infantry buggies, drones and an anti-ship missile will also go on show.

Russia's Gazeta.ru news reports (in Russian) that the Uran-9 and a "robot sapper" - a mine-clearing vehicle - called Uran-6 have both performed well for Russian forces fighting in Syria.

Russia has deployed special forces and a big array of warplanes to help Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against various rebel groups, including Islamic State (IS).

Gazeta.ru reports that the Uran-9 can locate a target itself but the decision to fire is taken by a commander sitting in an armoured truck up to 3km (1.8 miles) away.

The Uran-6 robot-sapper was used to clear mines in the Syrian hotspots of Palmyra, Aleppo and Deir al-Zour. Its controller steers it from a distance of up to 1km.

The Uran-6 blew up mines at a safe distance from government troops, enabling them to move into rebel-held areas, Gazeta.ru said, quoting Russian Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov.

For the first time the parade will include all-terrain, two-man infantry buggies. They are basically Russian-made quad bikes, which can be fitted with a machine-gun.

The small AM-1 vehicle is designed for infantry or special forces scouting missions and raids in especially rugged terrain, such as the Arctic, deserts or marshes.

The AM-1 is a far cry from the massed infantry attacks of Russia's past

Russia plans to display an all-weather drone called Korsar, which can be used for missile attacks, reconnaissance or delivering supplies.

It can fly for up to 10 hours, at heights of up to 6km and its maximum range is more than 160km.

According to Mr Borisov, the Russian military has various types of drone (also called unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs), but just two will be in the parade: the Korsar and a helicopter-style one called Katran.

If Moscow has good weather on Wednesday there will also be a big fly-past, including fighters, bombers and helicopters.

For the first time MiG-31 fighters are to fly armed with Russia's new Kinzhal hypersonic anti-ship missiles. They are designed to destroy aircraft carriers and anything smaller.

Article Link (with photos)

Here is video of the Uran-9 being tested.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Wow! That thing is really good at taking out piles of old tires.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Wow! That thing is really good at taking out piles of old tires.

Probably thinking of street protesters building barricades.

 

[a_majoor]

USMC considering creating a vehicle which would be the "F-35" of ground combat. Interestingly enough, it seems they only want @ 500 of them, which would be about the same size as our entire LAV fleet. But like the F-35, the real key is using the sensor suite and information processing capabilities to enable other elements (imagine this something like a FOO/FAC team capable of directing all kinds of hurt at the enemy, only faster and more accurately). Of course ambitious projects like FCS or GCV haven't fared well:

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/marines-want-armored-recon-prototypes-by-2023-f-35-on-wheels-or-fcs-redux/

Marines Want Armored Recon Prototypes By 2023: F-35 On Wheels Or FCS Redux?

t's important to explore a wide range of options and not lock down requirements too early, Lt. Gen. Walsh said. (By contrast, FCS set precise objectives and only then looked to see if they were possible). "We're trying to solve the problem of what is reconnaissance (and) counter-reconnaissance in the future," he said, not simply replace an old vehicle with a new one.
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
on May 10, 2018 at 3:16 PM

WASHINGTON: By 2023, the Marine Corps wants prototypes for a radically new scout unit they want to be the ground version of the F-35 — scouting ahead into hostile territory, killing key targets, and feeding data back to the rest of the force. Though called the Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle, the project has evolved well beyond a straightforward replacement for the aging Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) into a networked family of manned vehicles, ground robots, and drones, collectively capable of not only reconnaissance but also electronic warfare and long-range precision strikes.

Industry response has been overwhelming. Interested companies have submitted some 282 white papers and counting, deputy commandant Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh said last week. These aren’t just traditional prime contractors proposing manned vehicles, but a host of smaller companies proposing also unmanned systems, sensors, networks, EW, weapons, and more, Walsh and his staff said. The Office of Naval Research (ONR), which is running the $42 million science, technology, and prototyping effort for the Marines, has actually had to push back deadlines to sort through this embarrassment of riches.

That’s a stark contrast to the Marines’ first stab at the Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle, when a small number of big contractors proposed modest improvements on the 1980s-vintage LAV. “The reason we did this (i.e. reboot the program and work with ONR): I wasn’t seeing the bright ideas coming from industry,” Walsh said.

By contrast, the former fighter pilot said, “I could see it on F-35,” which started in the 1990s as a stealthy strike fighter but has evolved into an electronic/cyber warfare platform that can gather and “fuse” a vast amount of data to guide the rest of the force. Walsh wanted to see the same ferment of new tactics and technologies for ground reconnaissance. Now, by all accounts, he’s getting it.

Big Ambitions

The Marines have big ambitions for the ARV. “The vehicle should be able to launch a UAS (Unmanned Aerial System), scout deep, and then use precision fires (and) electronic warfare,” Walsh said last week. Speaking, at the Modular Open Systems Summit, he emphasized the importance of an open architecture design that could be “constantly” upgraded with new technologies as they become available.

What kinds of technologies? His staff and online materials for a January 9 industry day lay out a long wishlist:

• the ability to operate for extended periods with minimal resupply, part of the emerging Army and Marine Corps focus on “distributed operations” where units disperse and keep on the move to avoid presenting easy targets for precision strikes.
  
• better amphibious performance than the current LAV while remaining as easy to transport on landing craft (four vehicles per LCAC hovercraft).
  
• an arsenal of medium-caliber automatic cannon (e.g. 30 mm) for lightly armored targets, anti-armor firepower for heavy tanks, long-range missiles (the Israeli Spike) or kamikaze drones (Switchblade) for targets over the horizon, and some means to shoot down enemy drones. (The systems in parentheses were listed in the industry day briefings as examples, not mandates).
  
  advanced long-range sensors and a secure communications network to share the data they collect, even in the face of enemy jamming and hacking.
  
  electronic warfare capability to detect, classify, and jam enemy transmissions, to include downing drones by scrambling their control links.
  Active Protection Systems, like the Israeli Trophy APS now being studied by the Army, to shoot down incoming anti-tank warheads before they hit, as well as unspecified counter-IED (Improvised Explosive Device) defences.
  
  passenger capacity for scouts who can dismount and fight on foot (the current LAV carries six, but the number for ARV is not yet fixed).

Now, not all of this equipment has to fit on one vehicle. Even the current LAV exists in multiple variants for different missions: armed troop carrier, mobile command post, mortar carrier, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, and so on. The future ARV, likewise, will be the basis of “Next Generation Armored Reconnaissance Family of Vehicles,” the briefing materials say. And those vehicles will be accompanied by multiple types of unmanned air and ground vehicles, including a small (Group 1) recon/kamikaze drone and larger (Group 3) drones for long-range recon and to air-drop mini-robots to scout targets at ground level.

This kind of complex integration of different systems, emphasizing different ways to gather information, is increasingly typical of US defense programs, not just in the Marine Corps. “The general approach reflects a consistent theme across the services, i.e. attempts to leverage modern technologies involving sensors, communications, and information fusing/analysis to make operators more aware of their environment and forces more effective in general,” said Dakota Wood, a retired Marine now with the Heritage Foundation. “Whether that can be done at acceptable cost and in a reasonable period of time remains to be seen.”

Can They Do It?

Can the Marine Corps, the smallest service, pull together all these disparate technologies into a successful program? With its plan for a family of manned vehicles supported by drones and ground robots, all networked together to share data, the Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle sounds a little like the Army’s cancelled Future Combat Systems, which has become a byword for overreach.

ARV looks a lot more likely to succeed, however, said one experienced observer of ground force modernization programs. “It’s much less ambitious than FCS, though, and it will be bought in fairly small numbers,” the source said. The Marines only aim to buy 500 ARVs — plus associated drones and robots — which is a relatively small number for a defense program.

On a technical level, the source said, “a wheeled vehicle is much less ambitious (than a tracked one as in FCS),” and that’s what the Marines will probably build. There are plenty of wheeled armored vehicles available on the market today, including the Army’s 8×8 Stryker, itself the big brother of the Marines’ LAV, in turn a descendant of the Swiss MOWAG Piranha. Italian and Singaporean designs are currently competing for the Marines’ Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV, not to be confused with ARV or for that matter AAV). All these vehicles are basically bulletproof boxes capable of being reconfigured for a wide range of missions, so the ARV program doesn’t need to invent some radically new vehicle to carry its capabilities, as FCS tried to.

Likewise, there are a lot of different drones available that can perform the missions called for in the ARV briefing materials. Ground robotics aren’t as advanced, but at least the Marines are only looking at scout bots, rather than armed remote-controlled vehicles as in the Army’s Next Generation Combat Vehicle program.

What’s more, while the Army wants to get its first prototype NGCVs in 2019 (with tests running through 2024), the Marines don’t plan to get prototype ARVs until late 2023 (tests will run through 2025). Low-rate initial production of the first 50 vehicles will run from 2026-2027, at which point the first ARV unit will reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC). Full rate production of the remaining 450 vehicles will run through 2032.

“Could we go faster? We absolutely could faster if the money was there,” Walsh told reporters. But in the early 2020s, he said, “we’re bringing on ACV, we’re bringing on JLTV. We’ve got to get through those things” before taking on another ground modernization program.

That tentative timeline — still fairly fast as defense procurements go — gives the Marines eight years to work out the technology. What’s more, the plan is to build two sets of tech demonstrators: one using low-risk, off-the-shelf technology wherever possible, one pushing the envelope in quest of a “revolutionary” improvement. Neither prototype will have to carry the full range of capabilities: Instead, Walsh and his staff said, the objective is to develop “80 percent solutions” designed with an open architecture that will allow easy upgrades in the future, both to improve the baseline ARV and to develop new specialized variants.

It’s important to explore a wide range of options and not lock down requirements too early, Walsh said. (By contrast, FCS set precise objectives and only then looked to see if they were possible). “We’re trying to solve the problem of what is reconnaissance (and) counter-reconnaissance in the future,” he said, not simply replace an old vehicle with a new one.

“If we went to the primes today that build vehicles, they would build a certain box for us and say, ‘this is what we can do,'” Walsh told the modular systems conference. “When you open it up to lots of people, you’re going to come up with lots of different ideas.”