The Autonomous ISV....

[KevinB]

Interesting choice of vehicle to use as the baseline.

Army picks 3 startups to fast-track self-driving squad vehicle

The Army has struggled to achieve fully-autonomous vehicles because of the inherent challenges on a modern battlefield not found on predictable roadways.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[OldSolduer]

I couldn't find the self driving cab gif so this will have to do.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting choice of vehicle to use as the baseline.

Army picks 3 startups to fast-track self-driving squad vehicle

The Army has struggled to achieve fully-autonomous vehicles because of the inherent challenges on a modern battlefield not found on predictable roadways.

www.militarytimes.com

Is the US continuing past practice of pursuing "what might be" at the expense of "what is"?

I hope at least some of the effort will be applied to nearer term opportunities like follow-the-leader and remote or tethered control rather than trying to figure out how to navigate jungles and deserts without GPS, maps or comms.

 

[KevinB]

Is the US continuing past practice of pursuing "what might be" at the expense of "what is"?

I hope at least some of the effort will be applied to nearer term opportunities like follow-the-leader and remote or tethered control rather than trying to figure out how to navigate jungles and deserts without GPS, maps or comms.

It is known this is a R&D effort.

FtL and Wired don’t offer a lot for an in combat system. Wired systems exist for certain applications, and FtL for Logistics applications.

 

[Kirkhill]

It is known this is a R&D effort.

FtL and Wired don’t offer a lot for an in combat system. Wired systems exist for certain applications, and FtL for Logistics applications.

I agree.

That is why this effort surprises and concerns me.

In my opinion automation works well in predictable environments.

Specifically: mines, factories, warehouses, railways and docks.
Roads are entering the discussion but are an immature technology environment. Elon notwithstanding FtL convoys and packages seem to me to be a more immediate benefit.

The US Army was pursuing a logistics focused limited autonomy (cruise control plus) and that, again in my opinion, made sense. The closer you are to the factory, the further you are from the front, the more predictable things are. The more you can expect things to run like clockwork.

As you get closer to the front the more unpredictable things get and the more you need to rely on the commander's intent and individual initiative. I don't think the technology is any place close to that kind of autonomy.

On the other hand I do see lots of opportunities for tethered remote control in both the artillery and the engineers, both wired and wireless.

Hobart's Funnies are being emptied of crews. The same is true of guns, missile launchers and sensors. But all of them are still under direct human supervision and control.

I can see the rationale for downgrading the Ripsaw program. I can't understand taking the focus off the 10 tonne trucks and putting it on the jeeps.

 

[KevinB]

I believe the program is a first ‘step’ in crawl, walk, run.

ISV’s are relatively cheap and current. The FTV’s and HEMTT are after that, and then the AFV’s.

 

[Kirkhill]

Using the ISV as an experimental UGV platform instead of Argos, Sherps, various exotic tracks and even automated MRZRs, does make sense.

But I hope it is a parallel, concurrent program to those that would benefit the logistics types as well as the gunners and engineers.

Otherwise I see potential for a lot of wasted time and opportunity.

 

[KevinB]

Using the ISV as an experimental UGV platform instead of Argos, Sherps, various exotic tracks and even automated MRZRs, does make sense.

But I hope it is a parallel, concurrent program to those that would benefit the logistics types as well as the gunners and engineers.

There must be a harder stupider way, Go Army...

Otherwise I see potential for a lot of wasted time and opportunity.

Potentially.

I think you will see the ISV program gates being passed on to the logistic and tactical vehicle fleets. So when ISV successfully passes Gate 1, Gate 1 integration will occur in FTV and HEMMT fleets, etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

There must be a harder stupider way, Go Army...


Potentially.

I think you will see the ISV program gates being passed on to the logistic and tactical vehicle fleets. So when ISV successfully passes Gate 1, Gate 1 integration will occur in FTV and HEMMT fleets, etc.

I hope...

 

[KevinB]

I hope...

Same, we are a pretty good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Kirkhill]

Using the ISV as an experimental UGV platform instead of Argos, Sherps, various exotic tracks and even automated MRZRs, does make sense.

But I hope it is a parallel, concurrent program to those that would benefit the logistics types as well as the gunners and engineers.

Otherwise I see potential for a lot of wasted time and opportunity.

@KevinB

My comment about gunners an engineers got me to wondering about tankers.

Should Assault tankers have the opportunity to dismount their vehicles and fight them remotely by tether?

EG.

Next Ukrainian push.

EW jamming.
Loads of UAVs and LAMs in the air.
Arty running fiber linked Air Defence and CUAS batteries.
Tethered SPHs and HIMARS jockeying in and out of battery between ammo caches and alternate firing positions.
Engineers clearing lanes and filling trenches and traps with RC versions of their current fleet.

Tankers following tight with the Engineers with tethered tanks.

Crewed tanks and infantry in IFVs following on behind.

FtL convoys feeding the FEBA.

 

[FJAG]

I'm with both of you up until the idea of crews dismounting and then operating tethered tanks.

It seems to me that there is a major design difference between tanks which start off being crewed and during a specific phase being dismounted and tethered and ones which operate either tethered or autonomously in the first place and are never crewed. The latter can be smaller, lighter, probably less armoured and cheaper. In essence its a different vehicle from the get-go.

I tend to think of tethered as the first step of autonomous. There are two components to these vehicles: the brute mechanics and the brain. In tethered the brain is the human which provides the input to the brute mechanics. Effectively you can use the same brute mechanics later if and when the human brain AI substitute becomes efficient.

I agree entirely that there needs to be parallel development with one thread to be the brute mechanics capable of operating under either a tether or AI inputs and threads for each of tethers and AI to be able to operate the base vehicle. Undoubtedly the tethered solution will come first (and I think in the near horizon) and will allow you to build the fleet and then slip in the AI if and when it reaches IOC.

 

[KevinB]

@KevinB

My comment about gunners an engineers got me to wondering about tankers.

Should Assault tankers have the opportunity to dismount their vehicles and fight them remotely by tether?

I’d suggest dedicated Breaching Vehicles can be done by tether. But you can’t have a lot of jockeying vehicles (especially tracked ones) and not end up tearing up the tether.

EG.

Next Ukrainian push.

EW jamming.
Loads of UAVs and LAMs in the air.
Arty running fiber linked Air Defence and CUAS batteries.

Tracking so far.

Tethered SPHs and HIMARS jockeying in and out of battery between ammo caches and alternate firing positions.

See my comments about the limits of tethering above. Additionally there are security concerns about fleets of tethered systems, as one dude with a box cutter can easily disable them if the tether is out of range of the Mk1 eyeball and a rifle/carbine.

Engineers clearing lanes and filling trenches and traps with RC versions of their current fleet.

That’s somewhat being done currently. Not at the scale it needs to be - but a lot of demining is done via remote, and there are remote engineering systems for bridging, earthworks and breaching in testing.

Tankers following tight with the Engineers with tethered tanks.

Where are the tankers. Sitting in a linked ‘simulator’ ? How are they protected?

Crewed tanks and infantry in IFVs following on behind.

I think the robot dogs and things like the Ripsaw are much better for a screen - less complexity to move, and no big deal if one gets lost due to a severed tether

FtL convoys feeding the FEBA.

Honestly that could be done now.
The issue is still security. FtL breaks down when manual labor is required to conduct tire changes etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm with both of you up until the idea of crews dismounting and then operating tethered tanks.

It seems to me that there is a major design difference between tanks which start off being crewed and during a specific phase being dismounted and tethered and ones which operate either tethered or autonomously in the first place and are never crewed. The latter can be smaller, lighter, probably less armoured and cheaper. In essence its a different vehicle from the get-go.

I tend to think of tethered as the first step of autonomous. There are two components to these vehicles: the brute mechanics and the brain. In tethered the brain is the human which provides the input to the brute mechanics. Effectively you can use the same brute mechanics later if and when the human brain AI substitute becomes efficient.

I agree entirely that there needs to be parallel development with one thread to be the brute mechanics capable of operating under either a tether or AI inputs and threads for each of tethers and AI to be able to operate the base vehicle. Undoubtedly the tethered solution will come first (and I think in the near horizon) and will allow you to build the fleet and then slip in the AI if and when it reaches IOC.

Speed of fielding enters the chat. It is faster to convert an existing vehicle than it is to create a new vehicle.

Industry has a lot of experience converting crewed vehicles to optionally crewed or uncrewed vehicles. The Brits have decided to exploit that by converting their decommissioned Warriors into an engineering fleet of automatons for breaching. I liken this phase to that phase of steamship development where people were experimenting with both paddles and propellers while keeping sails because novelties weren't trusted and the skills necessary tp produce sailing ships were more common and cheaper.

...

One thing about tethered tanks and SPHs (as well as mortars). They will require autoloaders. That means that converting existing Soviet vehicles to assault support with tethers is more likely than NATO designs. In the Ukrainian context I can see a tethered T72 being more popular than riding on top of the autoloader and ammo.

Keep the NATO vehicles for the follow-on assault troops.

....

One other thing ... I note that the Brits are converting their relatively light 25 tonne Warriors. Easier to transport and move generally?

If converting to heavier armament, or adding autoloaders with more ammunition then less mass is wasted due to previously accommodating humans.

Also they have lots of them.

 

[KevinB]

@Kirkhill the Brit’s Warrior fleet was deemed surplus to their needs after the modernization effort was cancelled in 2021. So rather than scrapping them, they are being used for a new purpose.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’d suggest dedicated Breaching Vehicles can be done by tether. But you can’t have a lot of jockeying vehicles (especially tracked ones) and not end up tearing up the tether.



Tracking so far.

See my comments about the limits of tethering above. Additionally there are security concerns about fleets of tethered systems, as one dude with a box cutter can easily disable them if the tether is out of range of the Mk1 eyeball and a rifle/carbine.

Points taken.

Security needs to be managed. Perhaps ensuring that there is a fair mix of gun-vehicles in the forward element could help with that. For example, if the Brits are going to reuse their Warriors, perhaps some of them could swap out their Rardens for the 30mm Bushmaster and then fill the passenger compartment with ammunition.

Tether management and Loss-of-Signal is an obvious problem but the current battle field suggests its own solution I believe.



On loss-of-signal a couple of options present themselves:
The Command Vehicle, knowing where the Remote Vehicle is, sends out another cable (there will be a need for an easy connection system to trap, cut and splice the cable)
The Remote Vehicle, has a multiple fibre-optic UAVs on board and on loss-of-signal, dispatches a UAV with a replacement fibre to its own lines. Once behind its own lines then the UAV could be directed back to the mother vehicle.

That’s somewhat being done currently. Not at the scale it needs to be - but a lot of demining is done via remote, and there are remote engineering systems for bridging, earthworks and breaching in testing.

One of those more-faster situations.

Where are the tankers. Sitting in a linked ‘simulator’ ? How are they protected?

My novel isn't completed yet.

A couple of thoughts - Some are sitting in Nevada, some are in Warminster. Some are sitting in CPs in Ukraine and/or Poland. Some are in Boxers and M113s. Some are sitting in K2s, KF51s and AbramsXs. All of the above.

I think the robot dogs and things like the Ripsaw are much better for a screen - less complexity to move, and no big deal if one gets lost due to a severed tether

No fan of the dogs. Strike me as overly complex. Unless you have personal experience of them?
The Ripsaw I do like but I think we will likely use up the existing fleets of vehicles as conversions before we start dedicating serious cash to dedicated replacements.

Honestly that could be done now.
The issue is still security. FtL breaks down when manual labor is required to conduct tire changes etc.

And here is the answer to that security issue.



Every packet gets two properly established CUAS ASVs (TAPVs in Canadian parlance) - one to lead and one to chase - and both with MRT teams.

 

[KevinB]

Points taken.

Security needs to be managed. Perhaps ensuring that there is a fair mix of gun-vehicles in the forward element could help with that. For example, if the Brits are going to reuse their Warriors, perhaps some of them could swap out their Rardens for the 30mm Bushmaster and then fill the passenger compartment with ammunition.

Honestly why, have it mount a plow and a MICLIC with trailer for the line.
You can over watch from a bit back - you will need a bunch of extras as they will get smashed in the breach and need more to finish the clear and then the secondary clear when the Russians launch scatterable mines from rockets.

Tether management and Loss-of-Signal is an obvious problem but the current battle field suggests its own solution I believe.

View attachment 95543

On loss-of-signal a couple of options present themselves:
The Command Vehicle, knowing where the Remote Vehicle is, sends out another cable (there will be a need for an easy connection system to trap, cut and splice the cable)
The Remote Vehicle, has a multiple fibre-optic UAVs on board and on loss-of-signal, dispatches a UAV with a replacement fibre to its own lines. Once behind its own lines then the UAV could be directed back to the mother vehicle.

I like the Remote Vehicle application, other than it needs the CP/Hub location which it compromised gives the enemy a HVT.

Sending from the Command Station leads to issues with tying into the vehicle.

One of those more-faster situations.

Agreed.

My novel isn't completed yet.

A couple of thoughts - Some are sitting in Nevada, some are in Warminster. Some are sitting in CPs in Ukraine and/or Poland. Some are in Boxers and M113s. Some are sitting in K2s, KF51s and AbramsXs. All of the above.

Bandwidth hogs.
The digital battlefield is going to demand more bandwidth at an exponential rate.

No fan of the dogs. Strike me as overly complex. Unless you have personal experience of them?

I’ve seen demo’s (not of my favorite fire breathing one though). Limited battery life, but fairly stable over a lot of terrain.

The Ripsaw I do like but I think we will likely use up the existing fleets of vehicles as conversions before we start dedicating serious cash to dedicated replacements.

Agreed - but most of the existing fleets are either way larger than necessary, or not optimal for the role for other reasons.
I think the Ripsaw would actually be a cheaper option all in all.

And here is the answer to that security issue.

View attachment 95545

Every packet gets two properly established CUAS ASVs (TAPVs in Canadian parlance) - one to lead and one to chase - and both with MRT teams.

You will need more than that.
You need that Escort, a MRT and a Cordon force to protect the stopped vehicles. Plus a small assault force to take the fight to the enemy so they don’t do it again tomorrow.

 

[ArmyRick]

So rather than scrapping them, they are being used for a new purpose.

What new purpose are they getting?

 

[KevinB]

What new purpose are they getting?

@Kirkhill pointed out their new role as automated breachers.