Enemy return fire rips through the light robots\u2019 unarmored hulls, but their computer brains keep on transmitting target coordinates to the rest of the force. Precision-guided long-range shells pound the enemy position as larger robots move up, 10-ton mini-tanks called RCV-Mediums that boast machine-guns, missiles, and 30mm chainguns. And the third wave follows not far behind: a hard core of humans in M1 Abrams tanks, escorted by wolfpacks of cannon-toting 30-ton RCV-Heavies.<\/p>\n This vision is years from reality, but the Army is experimenting <\/a>with \u00a0surrogate unmanned vehicles. <\/a>Contractor Qinetiq has already delivered the first of four experimental RCV-Lights; Textron is making four Mediums<\/a>. Building a prototype Heavy awaits progress on Active Protection Systems, miniaturized missile defenses meant to make a modestly armored 30-ton vehicle as survivable in battle as a 70-ton main battle tank.<\/p>\n The whole Robotic Combat Vehicle family will use common navigational software<\/a> and control interfaces already being field-tested. Each variant will use the same electronic and mechanical standards, a so-called modular open architecture that should let soldiers in the field plug and play a range of payloads, from missiles to smoke generators to radio jammers.<\/p>\n \u201cWe understand four soldiers working with a red-lens flashlight in the middle of the night aren\u2019t going to be able to pull off a 30mm turret,\u201d said Maj. Corey Wallace, a young armored cavalry officer with extensive robotics experience now serving on Army Futures Command\u2019s Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team. But, he told the NDIA Armaments, Robotics, and Munitions<\/a> (ARM) conference last week, the goal is that \u201cmost<\/em> things are modular\u201d and troops in the field can \u201cswap payloads in 30 minutes or less.\u201d<\/p>\n What The Army Wants<\/strong><\/p>\n The NGCV team has already drafted seven desired \u201ccharacteristics\u201d \u2013 not formal, mandatory requirements \u2013 for the RCV family:<\/p>\n The priority is assured wireless control<\/strong>, with autonomy<\/strong> in second place. That\u2019s because the Army always wants a human gunner deciding whether to fire<\/a>. For now, as well, the robots will need a remote-control driver as well, so each RCV requites two human operators<\/a>, plus a sergeant coordinating each pair of robots.<\/p>\n Why? The software is increasingly adept at navigating around obstacles cross-country, well-trained humans are still better at maneuvering under fire from one covered position to another. So the current plan is to let the robots autonomously make their own way to the front line, but, as they close with the enemy, humans take over by remote control.<\/p>\n Based on field experiments so far, Wallace said, the rule of thumb is that the minimum<\/em> effective range of the control link between the robot and the manned control vehicle should be at least half the effective maximum<\/em> range of the control vehicle\u2019s main weapon. That lets the control vehicle shoot at targets the robot spots, while keeping it out of ambushes and minefields the robot stumbles into.<\/p>\n The third and fourth characteristics are that the vehicles should have margin for growth<\/strong> and a modular<\/strong> design, compliant with standards such as the Pentagon Interoperability Profile<\/a> and VICTORY 2<\/a>. That way, instead of rewiring proprietary interfaces every time you make an upgrade, you can easily swap in new technologies and specialized payloads from any vendor as they become available.<\/p>\n The top priority payload, based on digital simulations and soldiers\u2019 feedback? Defense against small drones<\/strong>, said Wallace. ISIS has already mounted hand grenades<\/a> on drones, while Russia used drones to spot targets for artillery in Ukraine, so a future adversary is likely to flood the zone with swarms of scouts. The Army looked into drone-killing lasers, Wallace said, but the power supplies are still too bulky for the lighter RCVs. What\u2019s far more compact and feasible, he said, is a jammer that keeps the drone from reporting your position to enemy artillery.<\/p>\n That brings us to the next priority: electronic warfare<\/strong>. Drones aren\u2019t the only thing the Army wants to jam.<\/p>\n \u201cYes, you are very lethal [if you] blow the \u2026 turret off a tank,\u201d Wallace said, \u201cbut you are even more lethal if you paralyze that formation\u2019s ability to communicate.\u201d<\/p>\n Defensively, he said, sometimes the best way to hide from enemy sensors is to pump out so much electromagnetic distortion that they know you\u2019re out there, but they can\u2019t tell where or how many of you there are. And if radiation-seeking missiles do find the jammer, well, it was unmanned.<\/p>\n The third-priority payload plays a similar role: smokescreen<\/strong> generation. Just as jamming hides the force from radio-frequency sensors, smoke hides it from visual ones \u2013 including infrared sensors<\/a>.<\/p>\n The fourth priority: a multi-purpose deathzone detector to warn the human troops of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear<\/strong> (CBRN) contamination. There\u2019s no major-war scenario where CBRN detection isn\u2019t<\/em> useful, Wallace said. While it\u2019s costly to build manned vehicles that can detect poison gas and radiation without endangering their crews, every RCV can have, as standard equipment, a compact short-range detector to warn the human troops following well behind. A long-range detector might be its own full-up mission package. MY ADD<\/strong> DARPA has done a great deal of work on smaller sensors to detect such things.<\/p>\n The fifth priority is handling another type of hazard: minefields and other obstacles<\/strong>. The Army already has an unmanned minesweeper, the M160<\/a> flail. Recently, it\u2019s been experimenting with different specialized robots that can work together to clear obstacles while keeping human combat engineers out of range of enemy fire.<\/p>\n Other potential mission modules worth considering, Wallace said, range from anti-aircraft weapons like Stinger missiles to retransmission nodes for battlefield communications \u2013 both priority targets for high-tech enemies and at high risk of destruction. Air defense in particular, he said, \u201cthat\u2019s the first thing the enemy wants to kill.\u201d<\/p>\n Firepower & Armor<\/strong><\/p>\n Besides these specialized load-outs, the Army wants all Robotic Combat Vehicles to be able to spot targets for the rest of the force \u2013 especially for artillery \u2013 and to have some onboard firepower and protection. The bigger the RCV variant, the bigger the weapons package and, since it\u2019s less expendable, the heavier the armor.<\/p>\n RCV-Light<\/strong> will carry a single anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) to give it one shot against the toughest targets, but otherwise it\u2019ll be designed to fight infantry and unarmored trucks. That could mean anything from .50 caliber machineguns like the 12.7mm M2, to a grenade launcher like the 40mm Mark 19, to even a 30mm M230 chain gun. A \u201cmissile boat\u201d variant might carry a whole rack of ATGMs instead, firing on targets laser-designated by other RCVs . \u201cWe want you all in industry to innovate,\u201d Wallace told the NDIA conference.<\/p>\n Defensively, though, it\u2019s not worthwhile to weigh down RCV-Light with armor. Instead, the essential sensors, radio uplink, and computer core should proof against a 7.62 rifle round, so they can keep transmitting target data even when the vehicle is totaled.<\/p>\n \u201cIf it loses its ability to fire its weapon, it\u2019s not a big deal. If it loses the ability to move, kind of a big deal but not absolutely a game-changer,\u201d Wallace said. \u201cBut it needs to be able to sense and have its brain protected.\u201d<\/p>\n RCV-Medium<\/strong>, by contrast, is a lot more like a tank. The Medium will carry a pair of anti-tank missiles to counter tanks and high-velocity 30mm<\/a> autocannon to kill light armored vehicles like BMPs. The Army looked at a 50mm gun, Wallace said, but the weight was too much. Weight may also limit secondary weapons: The Army wants a machinegun atop the turret, able to aim independently at quick, high-angle targets like rooftop snipers, but it may not fit on the Medium.<\/p>\n How heavy is too heavy? Textron\u2019s experimental RCV-M is 10 tons, just three tons heavier than Qinetiq\u2019s RCV-L<\/a>. While those are not the final designs, the Army does to want keep the Medium well under 20 tons.<\/p>\n Unlike RCV-Light, RCV-Medium will have armor, but not a lot. After studying heavier armor packages, Army decided the Medium only needs to withstand heavy machinegun fire \u2013 12.7mm DShKs and the like \u2013 with optional add-on armor against greater threats. And it doesn\u2019t have to be equally well-protected all over, just the brains (as on RCV-L) and the gun turret.<\/p>\n \u201cIts critical function is to be able to shoot,\u201d Wallace said. \u201cIt\u2019s not really a big dealbreaker if it can\u2019t move anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n RCV-Heavy <\/strong>is the least clearly defined. It\u2019s meant to be a \u201crobotic tank\u201d with firepower and survivability comparable to the M1 Abrams, Wallace said, but at less than half the weight: 20 to 30 tons, vs. 60 to 70 for Abrams depending on the model and armor kit.<\/p>\n But why does the RCV-Heavy need to be as survivable as an M1 tank, I asked over email, if it doesn\u2019t have human troops inside? Unlike the Lights and Mediums, Wallace responded, the Heavies aren\u2019t mean to operate far ahead of the manned force, but alongside it. It\u2019s intended as a \u201cwingman\u201d maneuvering with the manned tanks, he said, so it has to withstand the same intensity of attacks. You don\u2019t want a barrage of mid-caliber cannon fire can strip the M1s of their RCV-H escort.<\/p>\n \u201cThe RCV (H) cannot fulfill its fundamental purpose if it cannot maneuver alongside a tank while in contact with a threat,\u201d Wallace told me. \u201cIf medium cannon rounds bounce off an M1A2V3 while they destroy the RCV (H) outright, then one can no longer consider the RCV (H) a decisive lethality wingman.\u201d<\/p>\n Now, making a 20-plus-ton armored vehicle as survivable as 60-plus-tonner is one of the multiple Missions Impossible that sank the Future Combat System 11 years ago. Wallace is well aware of that. A decade later, the Army is urgently putting Israeli-made Active Protection Systems on the M1 Abrams and the 45-ton M2 Bradley. But current APS technology can only shoot down incoming anti-tank missiles, not stop armor-piercing shots from a tank cannon, which move much faster.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s why we\u2019re not going forward with the RCV-Heavy at the same pace, [because] we are acutely aware of the issues that programs like FCS had<\/a>,\u201d Wallace said. \u201cWe\u2019re pumping the brakes with RCV-Heavy. We\u2019re continuing to experiment with surrogates\u201d to test technologies and tactics, he said, \u201cbut we don\u2019t want to go full bore until we understand how to do lethality and survivability.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/tanque1.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/tanque2.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/tanque3.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/EMAV_PressRelease_1200pix-768x512-1.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/Ripsaw-Cropped-1024x576-2.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.fie.undef.edu.ar\/ceptm\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/tanque4.jpg\")