gxv-t proposer day darpa sep 2014
Post on 05-Dec-2014
127 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 1
Ground X-Vehicle Technologies Program Proposers’ Day
GXV-T Dr. Kevin Massey, Program Manager
September 5, 2014
Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 2
History of Cavalry
420 kg Horse +Rider
2000 BC
1800 AD
1600 AD
1000 BC
500 BC
1600 BC
3000 BC
4000 BC
1500 AD
500 AD
• When the horse was actually domesticated is somewhat in dispute. • Ancient Sumerians appear to be the first society to use the horse in war • Horses were ridden without saddles and the horses were probably 350kg
2000 AD
Sumerians Light Horse/Ridden
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 3
History of Cavalry
450kg Horse
Hittites/Egypt Chariots
• Horses can carry roughly 30% of their weight, but can pull 8X their weight • The Hittites and Egyptian developed the war chariot • Horse size roughly 450 kg
420 kg Horse +Rider
2000 BC
1800 AD
1600 AD
1000 BC
500 BC
1600 BC
3000 BC
4000 BC
1500 AD
500 AD
2000 AD
Sumerians Light Horse/Ridden
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 4
History of Cavalry
450kg Horse
563 kg Horse
+ Rider
+ Armor
Assyrians Light Armored Cavalry
• The Assyrians developed the first crude saddles and horse armor • Lightly armored cavalry using bronze and leather armor • In 360BC Xenophon published a book on horsemanship in Greece
Hittites/Egypt Chariots
420 kg Horse +Rider
2000 BC
1800 AD
1600 AD
1000 BC
500 BC
1600 BC
3000 BC
4000 BC
1500 AD
500 AD
2000 AD
Sumerians Light Horse/Ridden
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 5
History of Cavalry
450kg Horse
Hittites/Egypt Chariots 563 kg
Horse +
Rider +
Armor
Assyrians Light Armored Cavalry
594 kg Horse
+ Rider
+ Armor
Persians Heavy Cavalry
• The Persians are considered to be the inventors of heavy cavalry, 500 BC • Darius of Persia and Philip of Macedon both included cavalry in tactics • Han Dynasty in China, 200BC • Horse size around 475kg
420 kg Horse +Rider
2000 BC
1800 AD
1600 AD
1000 BC
500 BC
1600 BC
3000 BC
4000 BC
1500 AD
500 AD
2000 AD
Sumerians Light Horse/Ridden
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 6
History of Cavalry
Hittites/Egypt Chariots
Sumerians Light Horse/Ridden
Assyrians Light Armored Cavalry
675 kg Horse
+ Rider
+ Armor
Europe Heavy Cavalry
Persians Heavy Cavalry
• The Middle Ages was noted for the heavily armored mounted Knight
• Wraparound saddle, stirrups and spurs • Often another horse was ridden to the battle,
then a team armored the horse and the knight before battle (logistics)
450kg Horse
563 kg Horse
+ Rider
+ Armor
594 kg Horse
+ Rider
+ Armor
420 kg Horse +Rider
2000 BC
1800 AD
1600 AD
1000 BC
500 BC
1600 BC
3000 BC
4000 BC
1500 AD
500 AD
2000 AD
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 7
History of Cavalry
Assyrians Light Armored Cavalry
Europe Heavy Cavalry
Persians Heavy Cavalry
• In the 1300’s masses of English Longbowmen defeated French Cavalry • Swiss pike formations were able to withstand cavalry charges • Gunpowder weapons became prevalent • Dominance of heavy cavalry waned
Hittites/Egypt Chariots
Sumerians Light Horse/Ridden
675 kg Horse
+ Rider
+ Armor
450kg Horse
563 kg Horse
+ Rider
+ Armor
594 kg Horse
+ Rider
+ Armor
420 kg Horse +Rider
2000 BC
1800 AD
1600 AD
1000 BC
500 BC
1600 BC
3000 BC
4000 BC
1500 AD
500 AD
2000 AD
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 8
History of Cavalry
• The horse mounted soldier gradually disappeared from the battlefield • But 6000 years was a good run • The armored horse disappeared faster (2500 years) • Horses got bigger – Armor heavier, better, before disappearing
• The 20th century saw the rise of mechanized cavalry via the internal combustion engine
• 100 years of innovation and growth in capability
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 9
Snapshot of current combat vehicles
M1126 Stryker (US – 2000) Interim Armored Vehicle with Greater Strategic Mobility Transport: 1 in C-130, but not after up armoring Weight: 19T (23.4T after armor upgrades); Horsepower: 350Hp (450 Hp after armor upgrades); Crew 2+9
M1 Abrams (US – 1980) Designed to Counter Soviet Armor in European Theater Transport: 1 in C-17, 2 in C-5 Weight: 68T; Horsepower: 1500Hp; Crew: 4
M2/M3 Bradley (US – 1981) Designed as Troop Transport to Complement M1 Tank Transport: 2 in C-17, 4 in C-5 Weight: 36T; Horsepower: 600Hp; Crew 3+6
Namer (Israel – 2008) Converted from Merkava Heavy Tank, High Survivability Transport: NOT APPLICABLE Weight: 68T; Horsepower:1200Hp; Crew 3+9
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 10
• The ‘Good’ • Lethal against other armored vehicles • Pretty good mobility over most terrain • Survivability – we have learned a great deal about blast protection
• The ‘Bad’ • Strategic Mobility – vehicles are heavy and difficult to move to theater • Tactical Mobility – decades of ‘up armoring’ has resulted in heavy vehicles with
restricted off road mobility • Our dependence on improved surfaces has left vehicles vulnerable to IED attacks
• The ‘Ugly’
• Heavy vehicles with poor fuel consumption leads to long and vulnerably supply lines which require more vehicles for protection
• Future adversaries will likely continue to base in difficult terrain • IEDs are becoming more prevalent
Present ground vehicles
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 11
Operational ramifications of armor-based survivability
Mission Move –
Fight – Win
Needs
Lethality Survivability Tactical Mobility Strategic Mobility
Requires
Heavy Armor to Survive
Direct Hits
Implies Low Strategic Mobility
Reduced Tactical Mobility
Extremely Heavy Vehicle Limited Mobility and Transportation
Limited to Roads
Vulnerable to IED’s
B-kits EFP Protection More Heavy Belly Armor
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 12
Strategic mobility example - Desert Storm/Shield
85% by Sea
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
• Strategic Mobility – into theater • Airlift with C-17, C-5, C-141
• Tactical Mobility – within theater • C-130, V-22, CH-53, CH-47
Present air mobility and ground vehicles
13
30,000 lb
20,000 lb
• Both are achievable with a smaller, lighter vehicle
C-130 volume constraint limits
Stryker and Bradley
*altitude & temperature dependent
*
*
Artist’s Concept
Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 14
Present ground vehicles have high tactical mobility on 40% of terrain • Roughly 55 km/hr on hard terrain
Mobility starts to taper off on softer soils • 45 – 25 km/hr over 40% of terrain
Wheeled vehicles have almost no mobility over 20% of soils and tracked vehicles speed continues to decrease
Tactical mobility
MRAP has almost no off-road capability, due to weight and rollover concern.
‘It’s protected transport, not a combat vehicle. We never used it in combat.’
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
Historically, increased survivability = decreased mobility
Renault LT
Model T
Expe
ditio
nary
Mob
ility
is t
he c
ombi
natio
n of
Ta
ctic
al a
nd S
trat
egic
Mob
ility
as
defin
ed b
y th
e W
iede
nman
Equ
atio
n fo
r Ex
pedi
tiona
ry M
obili
ty.
Steel
RH
A
Com
posite
Boron C
arbide
1910-1940 Armor improved by 25%
Weapon effectiveness improved by 13X
M4 Sherman
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑅𝑅𝐴𝑡)𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝐴𝑃𝑡𝑡𝐴𝑡 𝐶𝑃𝐶𝑃𝐶𝑡𝐶𝑡𝑡𝐶 𝐴𝑜 𝐶𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑡𝐴𝐶𝐴𝐴𝑃𝐴𝐶 𝑇𝑡𝐴𝑡𝑃𝑡
𝑀𝑀𝑇,𝑆𝑆 = 𝑜 �(𝑉𝑉𝐴𝑃𝑚𝑚 )𝑡 , �𝑃𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑡𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑡𝑡
�𝑡
, (1 −𝐴𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡), (1 − 𝑣𝑣𝐴𝐶𝑣𝑣𝐴𝑡𝑡)�
15
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
Historically, increased survivability = decreased mobility
Renault LT
Model T
Steel
RH
A
Composite
Boron Carbide
M4 Sherman
Merkava
M551 Sheridan
M60 Patton
AAV
1940-1980 Armor improved by 2X
Weapon effectiveness improved by 4.5X
M1A2
M1 Abrams
M2 Bradley
T-72
16
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
Historically, increased survivability = decreased mobility
Renault LT
Model T
M4 Sherman
Merkava
M551 Sheridan
M60 Patton
AAV
Army and Marine Designs Have even less
Expeditionary Mobility
M1A2
M1 Abrams
M2 Bradley
T-72
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
- Trend line of trading mobility for survivability is getting worse - Never reach parity with threats - Always easier and cheaper to punch holes
Stryker
Lessons:
17
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 18
Future of Cavalry
• Cavalry with the horse as the power plant grew in weight and effectiveness before a period of decline in their use
• What is the future of armored vehicles? • Is it continued weight growth?
• A key criticism of the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program
• Or are we at a similar inflection point in time?
GCV X
90,000 kg Main Battle Tank
MRAP (~Category I)
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Santayana (The Life of Reason, 1905)
• Different historians give different reasons for death of heavy cavalry
• Weapons improved such that heavy cavalry no longer provided overmatch
• English Longbow and guns • Too expensive to operate • Transition in training and tactics – focus on
dismounted troops
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 19
• In the late 60’s and early 70’s, U.S. aircraft were taking unacceptable losses from SAMs.
• Prior investments in survivability in the form of speed, agility, altitude, and countermeasures were surpassed by missile technology.
• In 1974, DARPA initiated a program that changed the way military aircraft were built forever by proposing a new approach to aircraft survivability – that of avoiding detection.
• For the last 100 years, ground vehicles have relied on the same basic trades between armor and mobility. It is time to change the way military ground vehicles are built.
DARPA changes the game
Tacit Blue Have Blue
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
The Ground X-Vehicle Technologies (GXV-T) program
GXV-T Program Objective Develop new generation of ground combat vehicle technologies that significantly improve expeditionary mobility without sacrificing survivability GXV-T Program • X-Plane paradigm
• Technology push (not transition pull)
• Not replacing combat vehicles/IFVs • Transforming/augmenting them
• Breaks the ‘More Armor’ paradigm
TARDEC Artist’s Concept
20
TARDEC Artist’s Concept
Artist’s Concept
TARDEC Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
Probability of surviving is a function of combined probabilities of: 1. being detected 2. being engaged 3. weapon hitting vehicle or critical part of vehicle 4. weapon penetrating armor
GXV-T pursues a new approach to vehicle survivability
Present Armored Vehicle Approach Layer 1: No Penetration Last 100 years of fielded systems relied on Armor (inner layer) Avoid penetration: “I will be detected, I will be engaged, I will be hit” Layer 2: Avoid Being Hit Innovation of the Active Protection System Avoid being hit: “I will be detected, I will be engaged” Note: Complex US fielding issues – cost, safety, integration
21
𝑷𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 = 𝟏 − 𝑷𝒅𝒔𝒅𝒔𝒅𝒅𝑷𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒔𝑷𝒉𝒔𝒅𝑷𝒑𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒅𝒔𝒆𝒅𝒔
Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
Probability of surviving is a function of combined probabilities of: 1. being detected 2. being engaged 3. weapon hitting vehicle or critical part of vehicle 4. weapon penetrating armor
22
GXV-T Approach Layer 1: No Penetration “I will not armor entire vehicle, but move armor to defeat threat.” Layer 2: Avoid Being Hit “I will dodge using vehicle agility.” Layer 3: Avoid Being Engaged “I will not be engaged through not being where the enemy expects and through reducing the effectiveness of targeting systems.” Layer 4: Avoid Detection “I will not be detected because the vehicle is smaller and has reduced signatures.”
𝑷𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 = 𝟏 − 𝑷𝒅𝒔𝒅𝒔𝒅𝒅𝑷𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒔𝑷𝒉𝒔𝒅𝑷𝒑𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒅𝒔𝒆𝒅𝒔
GXV-T pursues a new approach to vehicle survivability
Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 23
• The Ground X-Vehicle Technologies Program is a 24 month effort to develop new technologies which ‘break the more armor’ paradigm of ground vehicles.
• Increase expeditionary mobility and survivability AT THE SAME TIME not trade them against each other
• The core effort is Technology Development • Subsystem technologies which can be demonstrated at the end of the two year effort
• Example areas which are ripe for development are discussed below
• Supplemented by Analysis • Concept Definition – define vehicles which showcase the technologies
• Modeling and Simulation – which develop analysis tools for combat simulation
• GXV-T could lead to an X-Vehicle demonstration program which would utilize the technologies developed and matured to create vehicle demonstrators to prove the premise that expeditionary mobility and survivability are not mutually exclusive.
What is the GXV-T Program?
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 24
1. A Vehicle Program • GXV-T program is not developing a replacement for Bradley, Abrams, Stryker, EFV or another
planned program of record military vehicle – it is a technology development program
• GXV-T is envisioned to develop a suite of technologies designed to advance the next generation of military ground vehicles to demonstrate a marked leap in capabilities
2. An Armor Program • The GXV-T does not intend to fund material science or other armor solutions
• DARPA and the services continue to work near/far term ground vehicle armor approaches
3. An Active Protection System (APS) Program • DARPA has previously contributed to the technology development of APS
• Services continue to work technical, doctrinal challenges
4. A Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Weight Reduction Effort • Among other challenges, GCV was too heavy. RDECOM continues to work this.
5. A Point Solution • There is no GXV-T requirement or concept of operations. See #1 above.
• Yes, you should have ideas about operations and put those in proposals.
• Where is the next fight? Jungle? City? Desert? Mountains?
6. A ‘Networked Battlefield System of Systems’ – Part 2
7. An Unmanned Ground Vehicle Program
What the GXV-T Program is NOT
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 25
• Based on previous seedling efforts and conversations with subject matter experts, DARPA has provided four Technology Development example areas.
• Technology Development proposals are not limited to these areas
• The following serve as; • Inspiration
• Exemplar cases where we have thought of research program objectives, performance criteria and end demonstrations. (i.e. the type of things we expect to see in proposals)
• We put ourselves in your shoes and this is what we came up with
• Go forth and do better! • DARPA and DOD needs your solutions
We need your ideas!
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 26
Vehicle agility - Survivability with less armor
Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
• Detect launch & maneuver to avoid being hit • Detect launch & reconfigure to avoid being hit or
be hit in a non vulnerable area
Rocket-propelled grenade 75 m launch
0.5 second flight time 100 ms sense time
0.4 second move time 250 kg armor moves 1m
GXV-T could “duck” to avoid oncoming fire from long range tank-fired HE threat
GXV-T finds cover
Vehicle agility - Avoid being hit, avoid penetration
US Army ARL-SLAD Seedling Threat Sensing, Time Quantification
US Army ARL-HRED Seedling Human factors – limits
+Gz = 4G
-Gz = 5G
-Gy = 5G
+Gy = 5G
-Gx = 15G
+Gx = 15G
27
US Army TARDEC Seedling Dynamic Movable Armor
Artist’s Concept
Artist’s Concept Artist’s Concepts
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 28
• Vehicle Agility could take the place of heavy fixed armor by allowing the vehicle to rapidly react to incoming threats
• Vehicle Agility is NOT limited to the concepts shown • Can the vehicle (or crew compartment) rapidly move out of the way or be reconfigured
such that incoming threats have a low probability of a ‘kill’ without injuring the occupants in the process?
• Proposed efforts should focus on advancing concepts to laboratory or surrogate testing over a 24-month period
• e.g., Movable armor concept could be demonstrated by moving a piece armor to intercept an inbound threat using a fixed platform
• e.g., Burst acceleration could be demonstrated on a surrogate vehicle at multiple speeds on multiple surfaces
• The closer to operational capability the demonstration, the better
• Sensing technology should be leveraged from existing APS work when possible • System weight should be less than 10% overall vehicle weight
• If a design is scalable to multiple vehicle classes, that is better • The more threats the design addresses, the better
Vehicle agility example area
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 29
Extreme mobility – Avoid engagement
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
Green: 0-15% slope Go Area Yellow: 15-30% slope Go Area Red: >30% slope No-go Area
Extreme mobility – Greater terrain access
M2A3 Bradley Green: 0-8% slope Go Area Yellow: 8-15% slope Go Area Red: >15% slope No-go Area
GXV-T Terrain sample – Ft. Benning 2km x 2km
(equivalent to Germany Dry conditions)
30
• Get off the roads! • Avoid choke points and IED emplacements. • Be less predictable. • Produce tactical surprise. • Take the high road. • Or the low road. • See more of the world.
TARDEC concept
Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
M2A3/OIF GXV (two man)
Per
sonn
el L
osse
s Personnel Survivability Comparison
Extreme mobility = avoid being engaged
COMBAT XXI Operational Engagement Simulation
• US Army validated simulation comparing M2 Bradleys with GXV-T class vehicles
• For same overall vehicle tonnage simulation showed increased vehicle and personnel survivability for larger numbers of more mobile vehicles
Not Driving on Roads is the Best Technique for Surviving IEDs
31
Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 32
Enabling extreme mobility
Extreme Hydraulic Travel could provide the capability to traverse large obstacles at speed!
Hydraulic Extreme Travel Pratt&Miller Seedling
TARDEC Seedling
Mobility can aid in Urban Operations
Extreme Hydraulic Travel could enable jump capability.
Simulation results
Artist’s Concept Artist’s Concept Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 33
• Radically enhanced vehicle mobility could enable tactical surprise, enhanced survivability and enhanced operational effectiveness.
• Vehicle mobility is NOT limited to the concepts shown and should: • Demonstrate improved speed in mixed
environments: • 120kph off-road (3X M2A3 Bradley)
• <5% No-Go terrain access • across all standard NRMM-like conditions • Equal to or exceeds 3X M2A3 overall
• Absorbed power in crew positions of <6W • 60o slope; 30o side slope
• Proposed efforts should focus on advancing concepts to laboratory or surrogate testing over a 24 month period
• e.g. 40 inch travel suspension system demonstrated off-road on surrogate vehicle • e.g. In-hub wheel motors and electric steering demonstrated at high speed on & off road • e.g. Novel ground engagement beyond wheels or tracks • The closer to representative operational capability the demonstration, the better
Extreme mobility example area
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 34
Crew augmentation – Smaller crew & vehicles
Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
• Aircraft-inspired operator cockpit • No windows – enhanced survivability • 360° Projection – enhanced situational
awareness
• Driver Assist
• Perception-based onboard and offboard driving assistance – virtual crewman
• Path Planning • Navigation and Driving workloads reduced • Safer operations at higher speeds across
more terrain types
• Automated classification,
targeting, weapon selection, and loading
• Replace gunner and loader functions
Platforms of smaller weight, volume,
profile
Crew functions of today’s 3-4 operators accomplished
by 1-2 GXV-T operators
Semi-autonomous functions
Enhanced Expeditionary
Mobility
Crew augmentation example area
35
TARDEC Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 36
• Crew augmentation could offer the ability to reduce the size of vehicles and provide safer operations while also enhancing survivability
• Crew augmentation is NOT limited to the concepts shown • Can a function done today by the crew be automated with a 90% success rate?
i.e., the crew acts more in a supervisory capacity • Can greater situational awareness be provided to
the occupants while limiting susceptibility to external threats?
• Proposed efforts should focus on advancing concepts to laboratory or surrogate testing over a 24-month period
• e.g., Demonstration of automatic target detection, weapons selection, gun slewing and tracking
• e.g., Demonstration of route planning and driver assist technologies at operational speeds and environments on surrogate vehicle
• The closer to operational capability the demonstration, the better • Technologies should be applicable across multiple classes of vehicles
Crew augmentation example area
Terrain Classification Example
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 37
• Reduction in signature makes vehicles: • Harder to detect • Harder to identify/classify • Harder to track • Harder to engage • Harder to hit
• Signatures should be reduced in one of more of the following areas: • Visual • Thermal • Acoustic • Infrared • Electro-magnetic • Dust • Ground tracks/”footprints”
• Proposers should be aware that signature management technologies may be of a classified nature; they should refer to the GXV-T Security Classification Guide for further guidance.
Signature management example area
Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 38
GXV-T – The program plan (subject to change)
Technology Development Efforts • TD-Y1 – 12 month Base, Multiple Awards
• TD-Y2 – 12 month Option Utility, Maturation, Plan, Cost (BIC receive option)
Concept Definition Efforts • Investigate Application of Technologies • 15 month Concept Definition efforts
Modeling and Simulation • Not part of this BAA but will support program
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
Planned technology development timeline and deliverables
GXV-T Technology Development Reviews and Deliverables
Event Expected Timing
TD-Y1 Kickoff Review 0 MAA
TD-Y1 Initial Technology Review (ITR) 5 MAA
TD-Y1 Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) 10 MAA
TD-Y1 Final Package Submission 11 MAA
TD-Y2 Kickoff Review 13 MAA
TD-Y2 Mid-Build Review 15 MAA
TD-Y2 Technology Readiness Review 18 MAA
TD-Y2 Final Demonstration 22 MAA
TD-Y2 Prelim. Demo Data Results 23 MAA
TD-Y2 Final Data, Reports, Outbrief 24 MAA
TD Monthly Reports 1, 2, 3, … MAA *MAA = Months After Award
39
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 40
• The initial round of awards would explore a larger spectrum of technologies. • As these technologies are being matured through the first year, DARPA
would be evaluating both contractor performance and military utility. • DARPA would be making a decision on which Technology Development
Options to fund for a 2nd year (around month 11). • Note that more funding is available in the second year, but larger demonstrations
are anticipated to cost more
• What factors would be considered? 1. Military Utility – As the effect of the technologies on vehicles are better understood (through the TD,
CD, and M&S efforts) certain technologies are likely to show greater overall operational utility.
2. Maturation of Technology in Year 1– Hardware demos are more desirable. 3. Maturation Plan – How good is the plan to reach a hardware demonstration of
the subsystem technology by the end of Year 2? 4. Cost – There is a fixed budget and not enough for all technologies to go forward.
• Remember, the post GXV-T program goal is to be able to directly transition
each technology to a future X-Vehicle and/or existing military vehicle.
Technology development – Planned year 2 options
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 41
• Terramechanics – Ground Engagement – measurement of forces imparted to different soils using various ground engagement techniques at different rates
• Human Factors – further studies on factors (level, profile, restraints) influencing human injury under elevated g-loads
• POCs to contact about conducting final demonstrations on military ranges:
• US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence Ted Maciuba Deputy Director, Mounted Requirements 706.545.2078 ted.maciuba@us.army.mil
• USMC
Ben Garza Coordinator, JCGV, PEO LS, Marine Corps 703.432.5124 ruben.garza@usmc.mil
Ongoing efforts and POCs
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 42
Concept definition effort notional events and timing
GXV-T Concept Definition Reviews and Deliverables
Event Expected Timing Deliverables CD Kickoff Review 0 MAA Review briefings
Schedule-driven CDDP
CD Initial Systems Concepts and Architecture Assessment
2 MAA Review briefings Trade Studies Initial Systems Concepts and Architecture
CD Systems Concepts and Architecture Mid-Definition Review
8 MAA Review briefings Preliminary Systems Concepts Package Preliminary Systems Architecture Package Analysis Plans
CD Systems Concepts and Architecture Final Definition Review
13 MAA Review Briefings Final Systems Concepts Package (Full Technology Integration) Final Systems Architecture Package (SWAP, etc.) Final Analysis Plan Demonstrator Build Assessment
Final Systems Concepts and Architecture Submission
15 MAA Final Report
Monthly Reports 1, 2, 3, … MAA Monthly Report
*MAA = Months After Award
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 43
• Call for proposals in SINGLE Technology Development efforts • Proposers may submit multiple proposals, but each proposal can only address one
technology (this will speed up the award process) • Abstracts (3 page limit) can be submitted until October 24
• DARPA response is intended to minimize efforts on proposals which are unlikely to be funded • Responses, if applicable, from DARPA in approximately 7 days • Response does not prohibit an ability to submit a full proposal
• Proposals due December 5, 2014 to be considered for main round of funding • BAA will remain open 11 months and proposals after this date may be considered
(as funding allows)
• Call for proposals in Concept Definition efforts • DARPA BAA-14-58 for Concept Definition efforts to be released in near future
• This will enable Concept Definition Proposers to tailor proposal towards specific technology areas
• Official deadlines, dates, guidance are contained in the BAA and supersede the above
• Refer to BAA for submission information and how to handle classified material
GXV-T – The BAA and submission deadlines
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 44
Security Classification Guide (SCG)
GXV-T Security Classification Guide must be requested per the instructions provided in the BAA.
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 45
• Proposals will be evaluated in part on the proposed approach to intellectual property.
• Technologies developed will have to be shared with the Concept Definition teams as well as the Modeling and Simulation team.
• It is DARPA’s intent that further realization of the technologies developed will occur on demonstrator vehicles in a follow-on program
• To facilitate these efforts, Government rights to all technology developed will be imperative
Intellectual property
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 46
DARPA-BAA-14-50 (Technology Development)
DARPA-BAA-14-58
(Concept Definition)
http://www.fbo.gov
GXV-T – Funding opportunities
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
0.1
1.0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Expe
diti
onar
y M
obili
ty
Survivability
Proposed Vehicles Armor Only Trade Space
Ground X-Vehicle Technologies Goals
Example Area
Technical Challenges (Examples for BAA Topics)
Vehicle Agility
• Avoid incoming RPGs & ATGMs without harming occupants (burst accelerations, shock absorption)
• Ballistic & blast protection (capsules, compartmenting, jettisoning)
• Actively reposition armor
Extreme Mobility
• Ability to traverse diverse terrain, including slopes and various elevations
• Advanced suspensions, novel track/wheels • Extreme speed, off-road mobility • Rapid omni-directional mobility changes in
3-D
Crew Augmentation
• Full vehicle local situational awareness (“glass canopy” sensing, perception, onboard computations)
• Semi-autonomous driver assistance & automation of payload sensing, slewing, cueing functions
• Crew interfaces & visualization with all occupants
Signature Management
• Reduction in visible, IR, acoustic, EM signatures
Additional Capabilities
• Support overall program goal: Significantly improve expeditionary mobility without sacrificing survivability of crew or vehicle.
How do we plan to measure success?
Success would enable a better design space for ground vehicles.
Technical Success
Reduce Crew by 50% - More Mobility
47
Technical Success
Reduce Crew by 50% - More Mobility
Increase Speed by 2X – More Mobility
Technical Success
Reduce Crew by 50% - More Mobility
Increase Speed by 2X – More Mobility
Access 3X More Terrain – More Survivability
Planned Metrics for Success
Reduce Crew by 50% - More Mobility
Increase Speed by 2X – More Mobility
Access 3X More Terrain – More Survivability
Reduced Signatures – Harder to Detect, Engage, Hit
GXV-T Trade Space
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
Potential future demonstrator program
Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions. ~ Sun Tzu
48
A successful GXV-T program could lead to a follow-on Demonstrator program. Future approval of such a program would require innovative technologies, strong vehicle concepts, and M&S that indicates: • Realizable X-vehicles • Viable TTPs
TARDEC Artist’s Concept
Artist’s Concept Artist’s Concept
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED
www.darpa.mil
49
top related