AMREL will be at the SEG International Exposition and 84th Annual Meeting.
Come see us and be sure to ask us about the ROCKY DB6, the super lightweight, fully rugged computer that is being used in researching the Virginia’s Omega Cave system.
Ground wars are winding down (kind of, maybe), so the speeded-up acquisition process for Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) is slowing down. However, American soldiers are still performing explosive ordnance disposal. Not only do they want their UGVs, but they also want them souped-up with more reliable communications, common controllers, and delivery trucks that automatically unload. And they want them now.
National Defense Magazine published a highly informative article on the disconnect between end-user needs and the acquisition of UGVs. If you want to know about the state of UGV development within each military service, or if you just need another reason to rail against the notoriously slow procurement process, you got to read this article.
(The following article originally appeared in National Defense Magazine as Slow Pace of Robot Acquisition Programs Frustrates End Users.)
Ground robots from the outset of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were hailed as life-savers and an example of how off-the-shelf technologies could be sped into the field without the cumbersome Defense Department bureaucracy.
Those days are over.
End users of explosive ordnance disposal robots said at a recent conference that the Pentagon’s procurement process is clearly not working for them.
Meanwhile, a Navy EOD program of record to replace the off-the-shelf Talon and PackBot models has floundered. Entering its seventh year of development, it has failed to field its first lightweight robot, and the Air Force recently pulled out of the program, citing delays.
The Army also wants to produce a multi-purpose ground robot, but the earliest it could be fielded is 2021, a senior official said.
“The way the government acquires things through its acquisitions programs has to change,” said Chief Master Sgt. Douglas Moore, an Air Force EOD technician.
In 2007, the Navy, the executive agent for producing bomb disposal robots, embarked on its Advanced EOD Robotic System (AEODRS) program, which would replace its heavy, Andros platforms that pre-dated the post-9/11 conflicts, as well as the off-the-shelf robots that were sped into the field as roadside bombs became a scourge in Iraq.
A Navy official at the National Defense Industrial Association ground robotics conference in San Antonio in 2008 described the family of three robots. The service would develop the system in three increments. Increment 1 would be a backpackable robot in the 35-pound range. Increment 2 would be around 130-pounds, somewhat similar to the size of the widely used PackBots and Talons, which must be transported in a vehicle. Increment 3 would be a large, towable robot intended for large ordnance. The 485-pound Andros robots those would replace are the only ground robot programs of record in the military today. All others were acquired through rapid equipping initiatives.
[layerslider id=”31″]
The next-generation EOD robots would be based on an open architecture system, where components, sensors and tools could be swapped out as needed.
The Navy later announced that vendors would compete for contracts to supply the components rather than a winner-take-all competition to build and integrate the robots.
Six years later, at the same NDIA conference held in College Park, Maryland, the Navy still had not fielded the basic 35-pound robot, and the Air Force said it would no longer participate in the increment 1 program. The Navy finally released its request for proposals for increment 1 components in June.
“By the time we get it, it’s 10-year-old technology,” said Moore, who had heard the program referred to as “abbreviated.”
“I don’t know what ‘abbreviated’ means. But 10 years is not abbreviated for me. Absolutely not,” he added.
The lack of progress on the Navy’s program of record is prompting the Air Force to seek an off-the-shelf robot weighing under 30 pounds. A request for proposals for 160 systems, including 10 years of support, will be released in the first quarter of 2015, according to Robert Diltz, airbase acquisition branch chief at the Air Force Civil Engineering Center.
Moore said: “That is part of the reason why the Air Force pulled out of the AEODRS increment 1 program. One, there were some slippages to the program that put some money at risk, and the technology by the time we would get it would not be what it is today.”
[layerslider id=”33″]
The Army is also looking to field an upgradable robot with open architecture that would be able to perform multiple tasks, said Heidi Shyu, assistant secretary for the Army for acquisitions, logistics and technology. The current timeline would not have it fielded until 2021, and the Army would have to consider purchasing a “stop-gap” robot in the meantime, she said.
Chris O’Donnell, staff specialist at the joint ground robotics enterprise at the office of the secretary of defense, said $1 billion has been spent on ground robots over the past 10 years.
“Unfortunately as the war ended and the [overseas contingency operations] money started to dry up, the requirements weren’t really there to go, ‘Where is the next phase of development for ground robotics?’” he said.
Interest in the technology within the Defense Department remains high, he said. Many senior officers have grown up with ground robots, he noted.
But the services now have to go back to “programs of record” and more rigorous test-and-evaluation standards, O’Donnell said. He listed about a half dozen organizations in the department that will be involved in deciding the future of ground robots in the military, including his own. The purpose of the OSD’s joint ground robotics enterprise is to encourage the services to work together.
O’Donnell was asked in an email after the conference why the Army would take so long to field a robot that, on the surface, sounded identical to what the Navy has spent seven years developing: a standard, open architecture system where components, sensors and tools could be added as needed.
“The Navy and Army technical folks have been working together for the last few years to refine an open architecture that they can both use for future efforts,” he replied. It is called the “unmanned ground vehicle interoperability profile.”
The long-wait periods were because of funding issues, he said. “The DoD funding cycle waits for no one, and the services have done a good job in identifying capability needs and getting those capabilities resourced in the out-year service budgets,” O’Donnell wrote.
It will be his job to ensure the Army and other services leverage the work done on the open architecture system, he added.
Moore was joined on a panel by six other EOD technicians, many of whom had served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and had returned from the war zone within the last six months.
They had a laundry list of features that they would like to see incorporated into current or next-generation bomb disposal robots, although most were cynical that they would see them anytime soon.
Army Master Sgt. David Silva wanted better communications connectivity in his EOD robots. This was an example of something that is available today, but hasn’t found its way to the field yet — at least not for ground robots. He sometimes loses his feeds from his robots after a couple hundred meters.
Meanwhile, an infantryman serving with him hand-launches a light-weight unmanned aerial vehicle “and he’s getting a positive feed and is controlling this thing six clicks away. Clearly it’s not a weight issue. It’s a big robot, and I’m not bound by weight,” he said.
“He has a high-definition feed, and I’m saying ‘What in the world do you have that I don’t have?’”
Moore said he would like to see some basic autonomy. Why can’t operators when arriving on scene push a button and let the robot unload itself from a truck? That would let the team focus on other tasks for 15 minutes.
Cars can parallel park themselves nowadays, he noted. “I’m not exactly sure why we’re not there yet.”
Air Force Master Sgt. Gregg Wozniak would like to see a common controller allowing all the different robots to be operated from a tablet.
Army Capt. Thomas Kirkpatrick warned that the next generation of robots may have to operate in “immature theaters.” Iraq and Afghanistan had repair depots where malfunctioning or damaged robots could be sent. That may not be the case in future conflicts where EOD technicians may be operating without a well developed logistics tail. They should have kits containing common parts that can be easily swapped out.
Similarly, other technicians speaking at the conference asked for self-diagnostics. They would like the robot to inform them what is wrong with it so they don’t waste time swapping out parts that actually work.
Silva said the new generation of off-the-shelf robots designed for dismounted operations in Afghanistan are not wholly satisfying. Their batteries lose their charges after one operation, for example. And a system that weighs a total of 35 pounds with controller and other accessories is still too heavy.
“Once the battery is dead it is useless,” he said. There needs to be a way to recharge it in the field.
The light-weight robots “can’t go where we want [them] to go.” Technicians have to carry them closer to the target, which means more risk, Silva said.
The specialists are “currently compromising safety and distance because we don’t have the platforms that allow us to do what we want to do,” he added.
Moore said 35 pounds is still above the spectrum the lightweight robots should weigh.
“Pounds equal pain,” he said. “For every pound we have to put in that backpack, that is a pound of something we can’t take.”
[layerslider id=”31″]
The EOD specialists were generally lukewarm to the idea of having a small remotely controlled drone to provide aerial reconnaissance, especially if they are only providing video feeds. Such concepts were tried in the field in Iraq but were not embraced. They did provide some security if an operator wanted to see what was over a wall. But troops currently have camera masts on their vehicles to give overhead views of bombs.
A drone with an infrared sensor, or other features that could directly help them diagnose the composition of bombs or find command wires buried in the ground, would be more useful, they said.
Other items on their wish lists were stronger arms, self-navigation and better cameras to see at night.
Silva said the current robots aren’t designed for the tactics, techniques and procedures EOD technicians employ to disarm unexploded ordnance and IEDs.
“They don’t mirror how we would inherently approach an IED. … what we are doing is we are changing the way we handle IEDs to adapt to the equipment that is available,” he said.
Moore said: “Everything that we’re asking for costs a ton of money. And everything we’ve asked for, quite honestly, the services can’t fund today. We have dwindling dollars. … From an Air Force standpoint, it’s probably safe to say that if doesn’t revolve around an airplane, it is probably going to be pushed a little bit further back into the closet.” The same could probably be said of the Army and tanks and the Navy and ships, he added.
Other speakers echoed this frustration. Despite having a dangerous job, one that others depend upon so they can maneuver freely on the battlefield, their technology budget is miniscule compared to others.
Still, the moribund acquisition system, which cannot seem to put already mature technology into the hands of robot operators, is making matters worse, they said. Two vendors attending the conference spoke to the frustrations they had encountered.
One said there simply wasn’t any path for him to get the technology he has to offer into the technicians’ hands. He had quit attempting to win military contracts.
Another had developed an infrared sensor specifically for EOD technicians under a government contract. The Technical Support Working Group, which funds inventors and researchers to tackle tough counterterrorism problems, paid his company to design the sensor.
Noting that one of the EOD technicians said during the panel that he needed better infrared sensors, the vendor said he produced it more than three years ago, and that he could manufacture them for about $60 apiece.
“It’s ridiculous that I can’t get technology that the government paid to develop … over to you so you can use it. … It’s insane. It’s absolutely insane,” he said.
The panel moderator, Thomas Gonzalez, senior vice president of corporate development at Stratom Inc., a small business that provides EOD training and consulting services, said there was a lot of frustration among users and vendors.
“After such a long, drawn out war for them to be asking for stuff they were asking for 10 years ago, in my mind is a little bit of a tragedy,” he said.
Silva said the attitude in the military is, “Until it’s a problem, it’s not a problem.”
With the Afghanistan war winding down, IEDs are not affecting most people’s day-to-day lives.
“It’s not a priority. We understand that. We’re going to be here [doing our job] regardless.”
The unmanned community has been demoralized by the tightening of the Defense money spigot. Specifically, many are concerned that American leadership in this important field will fall behind as the Defense funding decreases. In a previous post, this blog reviewed “The Looming Robotics Gap” (Foreign policy) and found its fears of failing American unmanned superiority unwarranted.
However, it’s hard to keep a depressing idea down. A more recent article, “Do Drones have a future?” (War on the Rocks), written by Paul Scharre, an expert with the prestigious and influential think tank Center for a New American Security, maintains the steady drumbeat of fear about American decline.
The two articles have much in common. They both complain of the restriction of unmanned systems to niche areas (technological ghettos), and the hostility of the pilot culture to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). Both used detailed information to support their points. Whereas the earlier Foreign Policy article focused on competition by nation states and the threats posed by widespread commercialization, the later article is mostly concerned with attitudes within each military service. Although, I remain skeptical of the alarm raised by the Scharre’s article, I do appreciate its comprehensive overview of each service branch. You can follow the above link to read the whole article, or read my summary and analysis below.
Air Force
Considering the Air Force is the epitome of pilot culture that has restricted the development of unmanned systems, Scharre is surprisingly mild in his assessment of this service branch. He is especially complimentary of the Air Force’s new Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Vector. However, he criticizes it for not being funded.
Rob Culver, AMREL’s Director of Business Development Programs (DOD), who has many years of experience in procurement, finds this criticism wanting.
“For one thing the Vector document is not meant to be funded” he explained. “It is a ‘Vision and Enabling Concepts’ document. It is for ‘Guidance’.”
Culver also sees the debates about the role of unmanned systems as typical for new technology.
“In some ways it mirrors the advent and adoption of armor versus horse cavalry, fixed wing aircraft versus rotary wing aircraft,” he argues. For a discussion about the adoption of machine guns, he recommends Grim Reaper: Machine-Guns and Machine-Gunners in Action by Roger Ford.
Scharre disparages the Air Force for not making the top position in overseeing unmanned systems a pathway to promotion. He also advocates deploying autonomous, multiple, low cost, “expendable” UAVs in swarms. It is not clear from the article if the Air Force is considering this or if Scharre is mentioning it, because he thinks it’s a good idea.
[layerslider id=”33″]
Army
Compared to the Air Force, the influence of pilot culture in the Army is minimal. Perhaps, this is why, according to Scharre, that it is furthest along in integrating unmanned systems. He praises (rightly, in my opinion) the development of unmanned-manned teams.
He also discusses swarms again. Specifically, he criticizes the lack of funding for autonomy research. Culver counters that there is funding for this (at least DARPA is doing research), and wonders if Scharre’s pro-swarm agenda is the real point of this article.
Navy
In his discussion of the Navy, Scharre resists the urge to mention swarming. He does criticize the specifications of Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS). He writes that they are not “relevant against more sophisticated adversaries” (the “adversaries” to which he is obliquely referring consist of a large unidentified Asian country, whose name rhymes with “Dinah”). He also voices the often-heard suspicion that the Navy deliberately downgraded the requirements, so as to not compete with next generation of manned fighters.
Both Culver and I think Scharre is jumping the gun in regards to UCLASS. The program is a work in progress, and the Navy has a process to follow through.
Frankly, I am amazed at the amount of progress that the Navy has already made. One of the most difficult missions in the military is using a maritime platform for the deployment of combat aircraft. The fact that the Navy has already landed a UAV on a carrier suggests that they are not dragging their feet on unmanned systems.
Marines
The Marines do not have a lot going on with unmanned systems. They don’t like using the assets of other services, but their amphibious boats do not have much room for additional equipment. Perhaps, the Marines would be more enthusiastic about adopting robots if they could find one that boasts that it’s tougher than all the other unmanned systems.
Conclusion
Scharre concludes that we are all doomed. Well, no, he doesn’t actually write that. In fact, he outlines a sophisticated vision for the role of unmanned systems, and warns that the US lead is “fragile.”
Both Culver and I feel that Scharre made some interesting points, and agree with most of what he said. We are a little dubious of some of his criticisms and feel that the adoption of unmanned systems is facing obstacles similar to ones that challenged other new technologies in the past. Despite their skeptics, machine guns, airplanes, and armored vehicles have a firm place in modern forces. So will unmanned systems.
Speaking for myself, I am glad that the unmanned community has advocates like Scharre. However, I still feel that in spite of bureaucratic obstinacy and funding problems, the US is in an excellent position to maintain unmanned dominance for some time to come.
To learn more about DoD’s unmanned plans, contact
Rob Culver at (603) 325-3376 or robertc@amrel.com
Recently, someone asked a question on Quora about which military technology is more advanced than its commercial counterpart. How would you have answered this question? What military technology will disrupt future commercial markets? A modified form of my answer follows:
I think the question is based on a premise that may be outdated. Traditionally, the military has funded pioneering Research & Development (R&D). Eventually, these technological breakthroughs would be transferred to the civilian market. The Internet and personal computers are examples of this paradigm.
However, the explosive growth of civilian electronics has changed all that. The civilian market is way bigger, much more dynamic, and often more advanced than the military one.
During Desert Storm, officers noticed that combat personnel were ignoring government-issued electronic equipment, and bringing items bought on the civilian market into front-line combat areas. They also noticed that the consumer items were frequently superior to the military ones. An example that is often given is SIGINT troops using RadioShack scanners to gather intelligence on digital data, because their government collectors were designed for old-fashion analog signals. An ex-Marine told me that, during the 90s, he and his buddies bought their own walkie-talkies, because the government issued ones had overly large and clumsy batteries.
[layerslider id=”31″]
This change in technological development is an especially serious problem for the American military, which relies on a hi-tech edge to maintain superiority. Why spend a fortune developing something when the enemy can buy the same or superior product at a local store?
The Department of Defense is desperately trying to adapt to this new situation. R&D is much more limited, and there is a greater emphasis on purchasing Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products. However, this transition has not been without is challenges (See COTS – the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly).
However, there are still some items used by the military that I have not seen in civilian markets, and that may be ripe for commercial use:
What do you think?
Tell us about the next big military-to-civilian tech transfer by emailing editor@amrel.com
Thinking of buying tablets for your construction business? Here are 5 things you should consider before you lay your money down.
1) Do you really need a tablet, rather than just keep on using paper and pencils? This is probably a no brainer, since the advantages of tablets are so clear:
About the only disadvantage tablet has over the traditional paper and pen method is the learning curve, i.e. it takes time and effort for the workers to learn how to use them and for the organization to adapt. However, this initial inconvenience is overwhelmed by the eventual benefits.
2) Should you buy a rugged device? Traditionally, there are two downsides to a rugged device; expense and bulk, but both of these disadvantages are rapidly disappearing. A report by VDC Research demonstrated that in the long run, rugged computers save money. Fewer downtimes, less lost data, and less lost work more than make up for the higher initial cost. This is especially important on a construction site, where work can grind to a halt due to a cracked screen. In addition, rugged computer developers have made a lot of progress in reducing the size and weight of their products. Even rugged laptops have gotten smaller. For example, the ROCKY RS11 rugged laptop is only an inch thick.
[layerslider id=”31″]
3) How can I tell if it is rugged? This can be difficult. There is no regulatory agency that determines “ruggedness.” In theory, I could stick a power supply on a banana and call it a rugged computer. Some unscrupulous computer manufacturers claim ruggedness, or invent marketing terms, such as “semi-rugged,” or “business rugged,” when the only things their products have in common with their more durable cousins is the higher price. To be certain, only buy rugged computers that have been independently certified to MIL-STD 810, the military standard for environmental ruggedness.
4) Should you buy a laptop or tablet? Tablets are more mobile (smaller form factor), have quicker boot-up times, and all the cool kids use them. Laptops have a keyboard (good for quick onsite reports), more powerful processors, and your Dad uses one. However, the single most important difference is the size of the screens. When scoping out a minute detail on a blueprint, or trying to get an overall sense of a project, nothing beats a big screen. Sometimes your Dad is right.
One laptop that has been popular with AMREL’s construction clients is the ROCKY RF10. Its 17-inch display is the largest on the rugged laptop market. For folks who want a laptop with a minimal footprint there is the ROCKY RS11, which is the thinnest, lightest rugged laptop in the world.
However, if you do decide to get a rugged tablet, you can get one that easily runs full Windows. Both the 8.4” ROCKY DR10 and 12” ROCKY DK10 tablets have speedy i7 processors. If you are ambivalent, you can get a ROCKY DT10 tablet, which has a built-in keyboard, or even a convertible, such as the U12CI.
5) Batteries. Everyone runs low on battery power. Find out if your rugged computer has an option for a second battery.
There are other issues, such as customization and End of Life, but if you can answer the 5 above questions, you’re ready to get started.
For more information, please contact Javier Camarillo, AMREL’s Senior Application Engineer at (800) 882-6735 or javierc@amrel.com
Oregon’s Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for FirstNet, Steve Noel, had a problem. He and the Oregon state outreach team needed to contact hundreds of officials about the ambitious plan to provide interoperable communications for First Responders. Even for communications professionals, FirstNet is not the easiest thing to understand.
[layerslider id=”31″]
Inspired by Pinterest, they put together a bare-bones, fact-filled infographic. This straightforward graphic explanation of basic facts has proven extremely effective and surprisingly popular. Buoyed by success of inforgraphic, Steve created a companion PowerPoint demonstration. If you are looking for a good introduction to FirstNet, view infographic here. For more information, download Power Point.
Suppose you have a bag of plug-and-play hardware/apps for your laptop, what would be in it? AMREL has a proprietary technology that allows you to instantly install hardware in your DVD/CD drive. So far, we have modules for different radio frequencies, biometric enrollment, targeting solutions, operator control units for unmanned systems, and others. What would you like to instantly install in your laptop? CAC card reader? RFID scanner? Coffee cup holder? Please leave a comment.
For more information visit: Flexpedient.
The bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has been rated the “…number one think tank for security and international affairs” (Wikipedia). Power brokers and key influencers staff the CSIS, and when they talk, people listen.
What they have to say about how we spend money on Defense will undoubtedly be heard by important decision makers. The 120-page “Building the 2021 Affordable Military” was created by a CSIS study team over the course of two years. It is “…a methodological approach for how DoD could minimize the impact of a deep budgetary reduction and provide the military capabilities needed for the strategic realities of 2020+.”
They even developed cost calculators for making trade-off decisions. They don’t simply advocate a specific strategy; they tell you the cost of various “alternative militaries.”
The great thing about this study is its unqualified embrace of details. What to find out how many tankers the Air Force Reserve has now? Will need? With or without sequester? With or without the Pacific tilt? This report has an answer for you. Same goes for battalions, submarines, and pretty much anything else you can think of.
One little tidbit I found on page 3 was “In the past, drawdowns ended below $400 billion in constant 2013 dollars; this one will bottom out at over $500 billion. In FY 2017, even though DoD is spending over $100 billion more, it will ‘buy’ an active duty force that is 34 percent smaller than in 1978 and six percent smaller than in 2000. This means not just fewer defense dollars but also a “weaker” defense dollar in terms of its purchasing power.”
So, the people who are complaining that Defense spending is at a historic high (during a drawdown) and those that are warning about “hollowed-out” military capabilities are both right.
“Building the 2021 Affordable Military” is an ideal reference work for those doing serious market research on Defense issues. Download it here.
Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) don’t get much love. Their aerial cousins, usually described by the technically inaccurate term “drone,” receive much more publicity, as well as greater funding. UGV developers fear that the Defense budget squeeze will disproportionately affect them.
However, one federal agency still believes in promoting UGV development. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is sponsoring the DARPA Robotics Challenge, “… a competition of robot systems and software teams vying to develop robots capable of assisting humans in responding to natural and man-made disasters.” In addition to a $2 million prize for the top contestant, this challenge represents a wonderful opportunity to explore capabilities and for developers to network.
This amazing video illustrates how the DB6 is integrated into a lightweight Ground Target Acquisition System (GTAS). Made by the Israeli defense giant, IAI, the GTAS is clearly designed for the classic Special Forces mission, i.e. a small number of soldiers infiltrate enemy territory and locate targets.
American Reliance, Inc.
789 N Fair Oaks Ave,
Pasadena, CA 91103
Office Hours
Monday-Friday:
8:00 am – 5:00 pm PST
Saturday: Closed
Sunday: Closed
Main: +1 (626) 482-1862
Fax: +1 (626) 226-5716
Email: AskUs@amrel.com