Robots

[Kirkhill]

There were some old fire towers in the west end of the Petawawa ranges that look out onto Algonquin Park (for all that I know they may still be there).

Occasionally, as FOOs, we would use them for firing from. The view is similar to your pictures above. My favourite memory of that was at one fall practice camp when the instructor-in-gunnery with us designated a target for me with "Reference Red Tree ..." At that point in time there were probably about a hundred thousand red trees in sight in the impact area.

The inverse of the Suffield problem .... when "the lone pine" wasn't visible "Reference cloud shaped like Mickey Mouse".

 

[Kirkhill]

So, I was noticing the US Army decision to pause a bunch of vehicles and the RCV/UGV programs. At the same time the US Navy and the US Air Force are struggling with robotic concepts - whether or not to cheap and plentiful or expensive and exquisite.

What if the future is already here?

What if robotics are not a separate class of vehicle but instead just an attribute of existing vehicles? Like a navaids, or cruise control or autopilot?
What if every vehicle fielded has a black box that permits autonomous and remote operation as well as operation by an onboard operator (assuming the vehicle is big enough).

It seems to me that aerial vehicles have been demonstrating remote/autonomous control options for a very long time. Remote Control ships are not exactly new. They have been sailing on ponds and pools for years. The same control systems apply to larger vessels in deeper waters (helm and throttles). Likewise for cars and trucks and construction vehicles.

If the Army is spending half-a-million on trucks and a few million on a support vehicle why not include a few thousand in each contract for black box to permit remote/autonomous operation?

...

And related, tanks were created to drag Lewis Machine Guns and 6 pounder naval guns and their crews within range of their targets. The MGs had an effective range of 800 m and the 6 pdrs had an effective range of 6600 m. Both were more commonly engaging targets in the 200 m range. They were armoured because their targets were shooting back. What happens if you can stand back a few kilometers and adopt the "tank-plinking" tactic adopted in Gulf War 1? But without the Gulf War 1 cost of an airfield, ground crews, F16/A10 and early generation PGMs.

I note that a lot of technologies that were exotic in those days, in particular sensor technologies, are now commonplace in factories, on family vehicles, in homes and on smart phones.

...

I think the US pause on vehicles may presage a major shift for WW1/WW2/Cold War paradigms.

 

[Furniture]

I note that a lot of technologies that were exotic in those days, in particular sensor technologies, are now commonplace in factories, on family vehicles, in homes and on smart phones.

Automation in crewed systems isn't new or exotic. We have been increasing the level of automation steadily over the decades, and will continue to do so.

I think the US pause on vehicles may presage a major shift for WW1/WW2/Cold War paradigms.

I think it's a reflection of the reality that a lot of the programs promised the moon, and failed to achieve even their most modest goals.

It's also likely a reflection of the reality that money isn't limitless, so the US will prioritize improving existing systems over spending huge amounts trying create new platforms.

 

[Kirkhill]

Automation in crewed systems isn't new or exotic. We have been increasing the level of automation steadily over the decades, and will continue to do so.

Agreed

I think it's a reflection of the reality that a lot of the programs promised the moon, and failed to achieve even their most modest goals.

And yet there is enough there, on the software and robotics end of things, to support considerable investor and operator confidence in autonomous systems with remote supervision.

Suncor on track to expand autonomous vehicle fleet by year's end

Suncor's shift to autonomous haul trucks boosts efficiency and safety, but workers still fear their impacts on Fort McMurray.

www.fortmcmurraytoday.com

hhttps://www.canadianminingjournal.com/news/kearl-oil-sands-trucks-all-autonomous-says-imperial/ttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgej7gzg8l0o

It seems to me that there is enough substance in the development of autonomy that it could be applied to logistics and road moves, taking the load off the drivers. Or allowing some portion of the drivers to conduct air-watch, or simply get some rest in their seats, while the rest of the convoy plays follow the leader.

Tactical autonomy is another beast entirely.

It's also likely a reflection of the reality that money isn't limitless, so the US will prioritize improving existing systems over spending huge amounts trying create new platforms.

Also agreed.

Which is another reason that the US may be shutting down the development of one-offs like the Ripsaw and instead looking to the commercial market to supply the kits necessary to provide some degree of autonomy to all of its logistical and tactical fleets.

I would definitely be attracted to the notion of remote operation of high value targets like SPHs, MLRs and GBAD equipment.

 

[Furniture]

It seems to me that there is enough substance in the development of autonomy that it could be applied to logistics and road moves, taking the load off the drivers. Or allowing some portion of the drivers to conduct air-watch, or simply get some rest in their seats, while the rest of the convoy plays follow the leader.

There may be some value in that, but is the potential benefit worth the definite expense?

You'll still need lots of people to provide security when the convoy stops, and when something goes wrong, so the personnel savings would be minimal.

There is also the reality that the roads convoys will be driving on are often in poor repair, and not mapped in absolute detail like the roads on a mining site.

Tactical autonomy is another beast entirely.

The beast that most of the cancelled programs were intended to tackle, which goes back to promising the moon and failing to deliver.

I would definitely be attracted to the notion of remote operation of high value targets like SPHs, MLRs and GBAD equipment.

Remote systems still need to be secured, meaning people still need to be near. A smart enemy will target the people controlling the system, rather than the launchers themselves.

There may be some value in a completely remote launcher system, but again it comes down to cost vs. benefits. How many simple crewed systems can we make vs complex automated ones? It goes back to the Caesar vs Archer argument, and it really comes down to one's perspective on acceptable losses of personnel and kit.

 

[FJAG]

Which is another reason that the US may be shutting down the development of one-offs like the Ripsaw and instead looking to the commercial market to supply the kits necessary to provide some degree of autonomy to all of its logistical and tactical fleets.

It’s kind of funny in that Ripsaw came out of private development and I always saw it as a highly viable weapon carrier that traded armour and weight for high speed and manoeuvrability.

I would definitely be attracted to the notion of remote operation of high value targets like SPHs, MLRs and GBAD equipment.

Me too. In that they can be manually armed and maintained but deployed, operated and redeployed remotely. I think it is not that far away.

 

[Kirkhill]

It’s kind of funny in that Ripsaw came out of private development and I always saw it as a highly viable weapon carrier that traded armour and weight for high speed and manoeuvrability.

Me too. In that they can be manually armed and maintained but deployed, operated and redeployed remotely. I think it is not that far away.

I think the Ripsaw would make a great carrier platform for the Light BCTs. A lot more useful than the Booker.

But I think the Yanks are taking a timeout to figure next steps.

 

[GR66]

I think the Ripsaw would make a great carrier platform for the Light BCTs. A lot more useful than the Booker.

But I think the Yanks are taking a timeout to figure next steps.

Was listening to the War on the Rocks podcast today and it had an interview with US Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Randy George and Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll.

Not sure which one said it but part of the reasoning for pausing on the UGV program was the calculus of a $1 million vehicle that can be taken out by a $800 drone. I couldn't find a publicly listed cost of the latest Ripsaw M3, but the military Ripsaw MS2 was released in 2009 and had a price of $750.000 so the M3 could certainly be in the $1 million plus range.

 

[Kirkhill]

Was listening to the War on the Rocks podcast today and it had an interview with US Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Randy George and Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll.

Not sure which one said it but part of the reasoning for pausing on the UGV program was the calculus of a $1 million vehicle that can be taken out by a $800 drone. I couldn't find a publicly listed cost of the latest Ripsaw M3, but the military Ripsaw MS2 was released in 2009 and had a price of $750.000 so the M3 could certainly be in the $1 million plus range.

So on to CUCV/ISV with Kevlar scrim?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

 

[KevinB]

Was listening to the War on the Rocks podcast today and it had an interview with US Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Randy George and Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll.

Not sure which one said it but part of the reasoning for pausing on the UGV program was the calculus of a $1 million vehicle that can be taken out by a $800 drone. I couldn't find a publicly listed cost of the latest Ripsaw M3, but the military Ripsaw MS2 was released in 2009 and had a price of $750.000 so the M3 could certainly be in the $1 million plus range.

Less of a pause and more of an operational evaluation.

This was the interim version.





I haven’t seen an update to anything at this point -

Several of the larger systems seem to have issues, and there was significant resistance in the ABCT’s to using the AMPV as the base vehicle for the Squad.
It seemed that somewhere there was a disconnect that this was a test, and that the XM-30 MICV would be the host for operational usage once it comes on line - but that the A4 Bradley didn’t have the capability to run all the needed infrastructure (bandwidth?)


There is also a huge C-UAS push going on, and integration of C-UAS effectors into autonomous systems will change the UGV and UAS platoons.