Infantry Vehicles

[markppcli]

I was thinking the same thing. The video only shows in operating on flat surfaces.

And the thing is that there are several Canadian companies (besides GDLS) that manufacture light armoured vehicles and could probably build something similar here at home.

I don’t know that the Sentinel can be converted to carry a tank gun lol.

 

[Kirkhill]

What does Light, Medium and Heavy mean in the robotic world?

The Robotic Combat Vehicle is the service’s foremost program to integrate the technology in the battlefield.

The Army initially envisioned three models — light, medium and heavy — and in 2020 contracted with QinetiQ North America to build light surrogates for experimentation and Textron Systems to build medium versions. However, the service recently decided to develop only one model that falls on the lighter side in terms of weight.

In September, the Army chose four contractors to build additional prototypes.

Army Lays Out Plans for Robotic Combat Vehicles

Army Lays Out Plans for Robotic Combat Vehicles

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

Light, Medium and Heavy differentiation is driven by the amount of armour that you can cram on to a platform and still retain mobility. There is a secondary association with heavy ordinance, meaning guns with lots of recoil force that need ballasting.

The ballasting aspect for heavy weaponry still applies but do robots need to be anything other than light?

More armour means more complexity, more cost, fewer vehicles and less deployability.

Why not just focus on the light end of the scale and buy 3 or 4 replacements rather than trying to buy on survivable unit?

The light version is envisioned as a hybrid electric-powered vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of no more than 8,500 pounds and a maximum payload of no more than 7,000 pounds, the Army has stated.

A 3 tonne truck with no armour and no driver.

As for how they will be employed, officials said they would be in a formation of three, with one crewed control vehicle and two robotic wingmen with a range of possible payloads.

Hope for the TAPV yet.

 

[Kirkhill]

RCV

Wolf-X - the only wheeled RCV offering among the four contractors.
HDT - Team McQ — which comprises McQ Inc., HDT Global and BAE Systems -

Research and testing found the wheeled solution offers “the best mobility, the best reliability and the easiest maintenance,” as opposed to a tracked vehicle, Tom Van Doren, chief technical officer and vice president of engineering at HDT, said in an interview.

The WOLF-X, a hybrid electric diesel vehicle, was designed by Team McQ to support light infantry and to go where manned vehicles cannot, such as narrow trails, steep slopes and dense jungles, he said. An “extremely rugged” vehicle, the WOLF-X “has the traction and pivot-turn capability of a tracked vehicle,” but it runs on easy-to-maintain airless radial tires.

The WOLF-X recharges on the move using internal fuel and battery power, meaning that it is “never forced to stop for recharging and is always 100 percent mission-ready,” company fact sheets stated.

“The Army gets the benefit of mature technology in a brand-new vehicle that was specifically designed for RCV requirements,” Van Doren said. “We waited until the latest round of RCV requirements came out in November, December 2022 before we actually built this prototype, and by waiting, that allowed us to meet all of those requirements with the vehicle that we were testing at the time,” he said.

“We’re going to be testing prototypes in the middle of the next year, to [meet the] key performance requirements,” Van Doren said. “We’re moving very, very quickly to make sure the technology is exactly what the government wants and what the soldiers need.”

GDLS
Oshkosh
Textron

General Dynamics Land Systems’ TRX RCV, or Tracked Robot 10-ton, is being developed and adapted to meet the Army’s RCV requirements off a base platform instead of a clean-sheet design.

Textron Systems’ RIPSAW M3 RCV is a smaller, modified version of the RIPSAW M5 RCV.

Oshkosh Qinetiq RCV-L

 

[KevinB]

What does Light, Medium and Heavy mean in the robotic world?

Army Lays Out Plans for Robotic Combat Vehicles

Army Lays Out Plans for Robotic Combat Vehicles

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

Light, Medium and Heavy differentiation is driven by the amount of armour that you can cram on to a platform and still retain mobility. There is a secondary association with heavy ordinance, meaning guns with lots of recoil force that need ballasting.

The ballasting aspect for heavy weaponry still applies but do robots need to be anything other than light?

More armour means more complexity, more cost, fewer vehicles and less deployability.

Why not just focus on the light end of the scale and buy 3 or 4 replacements rather than trying to buy on survivable unit?

Because those light ones can be easily wiped out by air bursts from Mortars, Arty etc.

Some tasks require a heavy vehicle.

Breaching would be the primary role I see a Heavy Robotic system conducting.

A Heavy Breaching Robotic Tank, can mine plow, fire heavy MICLIC, conduct recovery of vehicles and personnel under fire etc while not exposing any crew to a very dangerous role.

The same for an AVBL, one can deploy and position a bridge span without exposing crew.

The list goes on to what one can do with heavy systems.

A 3 tonne truck with no armour and no driver.



Hope for the TAPV yet.

It will still roll over

 

[Kirkhill]

Because those light ones can be easily wiped out by air bursts from Mortars, Arty etc.

Some tasks require a heavy vehicle.

Breaching would be the primary role I see a Heavy Robotic system conducting.

A Heavy Breaching Robotic Tank, can mine plow, fire heavy MICLIC, conduct recovery of vehicles and personnel under fire etc while not exposing any crew to a very dangerous role.

The same for an AVBL, one can deploy and position a bridge span without exposing crew.

The list goes on to what one can do with heavy systems.


It will still roll over

And the breaching machine is based on the 10 tonne platform and not the 1 tonne with the 3.5 tonne payload.

As to the TAPV....it can ride on the roads controlling packets of robot TCVs or managing robot scouts and CUAS vehicles.

Big expensive vehicles can be killed as well. I put my money on lots of cheap vehicles that can be turned out rapidly.

 

[KevinB]

And the breaching machine is based on the 10 tonne platform and not the 1 tonne with the 3.5 tonne payload.

As to the TAPV....it can ride on the roads controlling packets of robot TCVs or managing robot scouts and CUAS vehicles.

Big expensive vehicles can be killed as well. I put my money on lots of cheap vehicles that can be turned out rapidly.

Right now it is all just throwing shit on a wall and trying to see what sticks.
Tracked Robot 10-ton (TRX)
The GDLS Tracked Robot 10 ton (TRX) is designed for the medium role - and it doesn't have the power or mass to do breaching for tank lanes.

The "Light" doesn't even have a firm set of parameters, and it is the furthest ahead.

I'm all for a bunch of systems - but just like crewed systems there needs to be a holistic systems approach - in that there are roles for heavy items, roles for medium, and roles for light.

 

[Kirkhill]

Right now it is all just throwing shit on a wall and trying to see what sticks.
Tracked Robot 10-ton (TRX)
The GDLS Tracked Robot 10 ton (TRX) is designed for the medium role - and it doesn't have the power or mass to do breaching for tank lanes.

The "Light" doesn't even have a firm set of parameters, and it is the furthest ahead.

I'm all for a bunch of systems - but just like crewed systems there needs to be a holistic systems approach - in that there are roles for heavy items, roles for medium, and roles for light.

I agree that everything is in the mix just now. Just as it was when the first horseless carriages and aeroplanes were being introduced.

It is way too early to be restricting innovation with standards. When we don't know the range of the possible than the correct solution is to try everything.

And that is at odds with the Bell Laboratories industrialization of WW2 and the Cold War era.

WW1 was a much more innovative society that built on the entrepreneurial spirit of the Georgians, Victorians and Edwardians. Steam Punk was a thing.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

RCV

Wolf-X - the only wheeled RCV offering among the four contractors.
HDT - Team McQ — which comprises McQ Inc., HDT Global and BAE Systems -

View attachment 81766





GDLS
Oshkosh
Textron


View attachment 81767View attachment 81768

View attachment 81770



View attachment 81771

There was some recent footage of a Ukrainian FPV drone taking out a Russian unmanned cargo carrier attempting to resupply frontline troops near Avdiika

 

[Kirkhill]

There was some recent footage of a Ukrainian FPV drone taking out a Russian unmanned cargo carrier attempting to resupply frontline troops near Avdiika

Also lots of footage of drones taking out manned cargo carriers.

@daftandbarmy just posted this about a Bradley taking out 2 or 3 vehicles

Bradley is rackin' 'em up...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1735054751652278355

I take issue.

The Bradley didn't take out those vehicles. The M242 Bushmaster did. And a Bushmaster does not need a multi-million dollar Bradley to mount it.


Here is a light UGV with a 30 mm Bushmaster.



Two or three of those under control of a remote operator in a deep hole far far away could supply the same fire coverage as the Bradley with out exposing 6 to 9 crew members to enemy fire or having to sustain them.

A battalion MG platoon of, for example 8 crews equipped with C6s, M2s or GMGs could step up to 16x 30mm Bushmasters.

 

[FJAG]

Textron. The company that brought you the TAPV.

I do like anything on a Rip Saw

 

[Kirkhill]

Textron. The company that brought you the TAPV.

I do like anything on a Rip Saw

I don't care whose badge is on the metal. The point is that UGVs are a thing and that they can carry ordnance equivalent to Bradleys without having the mass or bulk or cost.

 

[Kirkhill]

Personally I prefer the Wolf-X.

HDT Global’s WOLF-X UGV features familiar 30mm armament

US engineering and defence design company HDT Global has displayed an armed ‘WOLF-X’ unmanned ground vehicle at the 15th Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering Technology Symposium in the United State

www.defenceconnect.com.au

 

[FJAG]

I don't care whose badge is on the metal. The point is that UGVs are a thing and that they can carry ordnance equivalent to Bradleys without having the mass or bulk or cost.

I'm not sure why this rant re the Bradley. The two vehicles have entirely different roles. The Bradley's purpose is to bring an infantry squad into the thick of the fight and offer it protection and supporting fire. A UGV can't do that. It can do stuff. But not that.

UGVs are things looking for a role. It's going to take some time to find a good fit for them. One role I see is as part of an air defence picket line. One problem with these little buggers is that guns jam and run out of ammo quickly. Somewhere there have to be some hands nearby to fix and feed them. The reality is that if you need to keep some people around for that job then pretty soon someone gets the bright idea that maybe we just should put a crew on board and give them armour protection.

For me that's the big issue. Everything looks cool on a display or in a demonstration shoot but then you need to run through the tactics and logistics of how to use them and pretty soon the glossy brochure looks a little weak.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure why this rant re the Bradley. The two vehicles have entirely different roles. The Bradley's purpose is to bring an infantry squad into the thick of the fight and offer it protection and supporting fire. A UGV can't do that. It can do stuff. But not that.

UGVs are things looking for a role. It's going to take some time to find a good fit for them. One role I see is as part of an air defence picket line. One problem with these little buggers is that guns jam and run out of ammo quickly. Somewhere there have to be some hands nearby to fix and feed them. The reality is that if you need to keep some people around for that job then pretty soon someone gets the bright idea that maybe we just should put a crew on board and give them armour protection.

For me that's the big issue. Everything looks cool on a display or in a demonstration shoot but then you need to run through the tactics and logistics of how to use them and pretty soon the glossy brochure looks a little weak.

It is not about the Bradley. It is about putting as many vehicle killing guns in the field as possible for the least amount of money and the with the smallest number of people.

It is about holding the line with the least effort.

It is an update of the WW1 practice of pulling the rifles back from the front lines and leaving them to the Emma Gees and the listening posts while the rifles were held in the rear training for set piece assaults.

I agree with you on the picket line.

And Brutinel's arrmoured cars were derided as an enthusiasts toys looking for a role.

As for jamming and running out of ammo - that is why you site in twos and threes and take advantage of their mobility to run them in and out of battery so that they can be serviced under cover while still keeping the field covered by fire. Absolutely no different than operating a FNC2 gun group.

....

And putting crew demands volume and armour
volume increases size
armour demands weight
weight demands power
power demands fuel
and all along the line costs go up.

When all I wanted was a couple of guns to cover an approach.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Challenge is that they are electronically dependent on information, both to observe and receive orders. Yes you could give them fire and forget orders, but that could end badly.

 

[KevinB]

It is not about the Bradley. It is about putting as many vehicle killing guns in the field as possible for the least amount of money and the with the smallest number of people.

Sometimes you actually need people to occupy ground.

You have a great deal of faith in some rather experimental items.

It is about holding the line with the least effort.

It is an update of the WW1 practice of pulling the rifles back from the front lines and leaving them to the Emma Gees and the listening posts while the rifles were held in the rear training for set piece assaults.

I think you are missing a big part of the picture if that is what you’re thinking for them.

I agree with you on the picket line.

And Brutinel's arrmoured cars were derided as an enthusiasts toys looking for a role.

As for jamming and running out of ammo - that is why you site in twos and threes and take advantage of their mobility to run them in and out of battery so that they can be serviced under cover while still keeping the field covered by fire. Absolutely no different than operating a FNC2 gun group.

Yeah about that….
Being equivalent to a FNC2 group is not exactly a stellar recommendation

....

And putting crew demands volume and armour
volume increases size
armour demands weight
weight demands power
power demands fuel
and all along the line costs go up.

When all I wanted was a couple of guns to cover an approach.

Except for someone decided to drop arty on your couple guns covering that approach…

We aren’t yet there with UGV’s to a point that they are something that can be viewed as stand alone. They are simply extra enablers that can be used to provided additional support, less risk to personnel, and that’s about it.

They also have huge vulnerabilities to EW. And I don’t think anyone is thinking that enabling an AI UGV is a good idea.

 

[markppcli]

It is not about the Bradley. It is about putting as many vehicle killing guns in the field as possible for the least amount of money and the with the smallest number of people.

Which is not going to happen. Because the Bradley does the fire power while providing protected mobility. The need for protected mobility isn’t going away. Having two vehicles to achieve that effect is only ever going to increase cost.

It is about holding the line with the least effort.

See above

It is an update of the WW1 practice of pulling the rifles back from the front lines and leaving them to the Emma Gees and the listening posts while the rifles were held in the rear training for set piece assaults.

Please provide an example where rifle companies, and Bns were not longer I the line in favour of MG Bn.

I agree with you on the picket line.

And Brutinel's arrmoured cars were derided as an enthusiasts toys looking for a role.

No one is saying no UGV, we’re saying “not only UGV”.

As for jamming and running out of ammo - that is why you site in twos and threes and take advantage of their mobility to run them in and out of battery so that they can be serviced under cover while still keeping the field covered by fire. Absolutely no different than operating a FNC2 gun group.

Can’t move them when jammed

....

And putting crew demands volume and armour
volume increases size
armour demands weight
weight demands power
power demands fuel
and all along the line costs go up.

When all I wanted was a couple of guns to cover an approach.

No you wanted a means to ge through the approach while protected

 

[Kirkhill]

Sometimes you actually need people to occupy ground.

You have a great deal of faith in some rather experimental items.

I think you are missing a big part of the picture if that is what you’re thinking for them.

Yeah about that….
Being equivalent to a FNC2 group is not exactly a stellar recommendation

Except for someone decided to drop arty on your couple guns covering that approach…

We aren’t yet there with UGV’s to a point that they are something that can be viewed as stand alone. They are simply extra enablers that can be used to provided additional support, less risk to personnel, and that’s about it.

They also have huge vulnerabilities to EW. And I don’t think anyone is thinking that enabling an AI UGV is a good idea.

I dont have faith in experimental items.

I simply want to experiment.

A lifetime of years wasted because of people saying you cant do that it will never work.

Only to discover that it did and it does.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Tanks and crews working in practiced coordination with each other and using the Mark1 Eyeball to identify targets and assess the situation, in real time, are hard to beat. It takes a well equipped and dedicated enemy to take that kind of attack on.

We can take the ground, but only the infantry can hold it.

Having a battle on the monitor, like you're playing World of Tanks, is still a bit of a ways off.

 

[Dana381]

Also A Bradley crew is much harder to turn against its owners than a UGV which can be hacked.