sugv standardised unmanned ground vehicle with open ... · answer: 6 ugv architecture approach b as...
Post on 19-Apr-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
SUGVStandardised Unmanned Ground Vehicle with Open
ArchitectureArchitecture Key Requirements
17.CAT.OP.047
EDA, Workshop IBrussels, 21st June 2018
VRC
Workshop 2 – June 21st, 2018 – Brussels
2
Contents
▪Architecture Approach
▪Associated Standards
▪Questions
3
Architecture Approach
Requirements
Specifications
Architecture
Detailed Design
Implementation
Testing
Integration
Validation
Commissioning and Maintenance
▪ UGV Standardisation based on Generic Architecture
▪ Generic Requirements and Specifications / Standards dictate the
Generic Architecture Approach
4
SUGV Target Architecture Requirements Approach
International Generic
Standard Requirements
(eg NATO)
National Generic
Standards Requirements
(eg UK DefStan)
UGV Specific Requirements
Role / Mission Specific
Requirements
SUGV Generic
Architecture
Requirements
Example: Reference Architecture Requirements
Use Cases
5
Question 1
Considering that the SUGV scope is to investigate standardisation of Data, Control
and Power Infrastructure of UGV Systems:
Question 1: Would a Generic Architecture Standard (similar to the approach taken
by NGVA STANG 4754) be the correct way forward alongside a few example
Reference Architectures based on Use Cases (see previous slide)?
Answer:
6
UGV Architecture Approach
BASE UGV
UGV Payload
GW
GW
GW
GW
▪ UGV divided into (a) BASE with standard functions related to its mobility and (b) Payload depending on its mission(s).
▪ Gateways (GWs) on both the UGV BASE and Payload provide Standard Interfaces (power, data and control) for interconnection.
▪ Both the UGV BASE and Payload have their own power, data and control infrastructures, and can therefore function independently OR cooperatively.
UGV
7
Question 2
Considering the previous slide:
Question 2: Is this generic architecture approach acceptable? Would you suggest
anything to enhance the approach? If not, what would be acceptable?
Answer:
8
UGV Remote Control Architecture Approach
▪ UGV Remote Control Station divided into (a) BASE UGV Remote Control with standard functions related to its mobility and (b) UGV Payload Remote Control depending on its mission(s).
▪ Gateways (GWs) on both the UGV BASE and Payload provide Standard Interfaces (power, data and control) for interconnection.
▪ Both the UGV BASE and Payload have their own power, data and control infrastructures, and can therefore function independently OR cooperatively.
BASE UGV Remote Control
UGV Payload Remote
Control
GW
GW
GW
GW
Remote Control Station for UGV
9
Question 3
Considering the previous slide:
Question 3: Is this generic architecture approach acceptable? Would you suggest
anything to enhance the approach? If not, what would be acceptable?
Answer:
10
UGV System Architecture Associated Standards
▪ Internal Architecture for the UGV and its Remote Control Station to specify
NGVA/LAVOSAR approach considering them as Mission Systems.
▪ External Architecture (ie at C4I) specify IOP/JAUS
▪ Standardisation will be required on the GWs ie Interconnection of IOP/JAUS and
NGVA/LAVOSAR.
BASE UGV Remote Control
UGV Payload Remote
Control
GW
GW
GW
GW
Remote Control Station for UGV
BASE UGV
UGV Payload
GW
GW
GW
GW
UGV
GW GW
C4I
IOP/JAUS
Control
Feedback
NGVALAVOSAR
NGVALAVOSAR
11
Question 4
Considering the previous slide:
Question 4: Is this generic architecture approach acceptable? Would you suggest
anything to enhance the approach? If not, what would be acceptable?
Answer:
12
Question 5
Question 5: Would you consider acceptable the use of NGVA / LAVOSAR
architecture approach for the internal UGV and its Remote Control Station
infrastructure acceptable? If not, which other standards would you consider?
Answer:
13
Question 6
Question 6: Would you consider acceptable the use of IOP/JAUS Standards
architecture approach for the external communication between the UGV and its
Remote Control Station acceptable? If not, which other standards would you
consider?
Answer:
14
Question 7
Considering UGV Size and Type
Question 7: Based broadly on the NATO UGV Classification whattypes of UGVs would you see in each of the size categories below?
Heavy (13 tonnes and above)
▪ (eg Combat, engineering, building inspection …)
Medium (1 – 13 tones)
Small (200 – 1000 Kg)
Light (15 – 200 Kg)
15
Question 8
Considering UGV Size and Baseline Capabilities /Subsystems
Question 8: What baseline capabilities / subsystems would youconsider for the different UGV sizes?
Heavy (13 tonnes and above)
▪ (Please add eg Mobility, situation awareness …)
Medium (1 – 13 tones)
Small (200 – 1000 Kg)
Light (15 – 200 Kg)
16
Question 9
Considering UGV Type and Baseline Capabilities /Subsystems
Question 9: What baseline capabilities / subsystems would youconsider for the different UGV types?
Combat
▪ (Please add eg Weapons, Active Protection, ISTAR…)
Engineering
Logistics
Recce
17
Question 10
Considering Environment Specific Capabilities / Subsystems
Question 10: What specific capabilities / subsystems would youconsider for different Environments?
Cluttered
▪ (Please add eg SA, GPS Denial …)
Non-Cluttered
Weather
Terrain
18
Question 11
Considering Infrastructure Specific Capabilities / Subsystems
Question 11: What baseline capabilities / subsystems would youconsider related to infrastructure?
Urban
▪ (Please add eg GPS, Satellite Comms …)
Rural
Line of Site
19
Question 12
Considering Baseline Control Capabilities
Question 12: What would you consider as baseline control capabilitiesconsidering the Size, Type and Mission, Environment and Infrastructure?
User (s) (Please add/modify)▪ Combat
▪ Weapon full control (target acquisition, fire …)
▪ Mobility
▪ Engineering
▪ Manipulator
▪ Logistics
Autonomy (Please add/modify)▪ Combat
▪ Target acquisition
▪ ADAS
▪ Engineering
▪ ADAS
▪ Obstacle avoidance
▪ Logistics
20
Question 13
Considering Specific Control Capabilities / Subsystems
Question 13: What would you consider as specific control capabilitiesconsidering the Size, Type and Mission, Environment and Infrastructure?
User (s) (Please add/modify)▪ Combat
▪ Gun
▪ Missile
▪ Engineering
▪ Bridge
▪ Arm
Autonomy (Please add/modify)▪ Combat
▪ Target acquisition
▪ ADAS
▪ Engineering
▪ ADAS
▪ Obstacle avoidance
▪ Logistics
▪ Platooning
21
Question 14
Business case analysis and roadmap: number of units for the coming years.
Question 14: What number of UGVs are expected to acquire (for users) or to
deliver (for industries) in the coming years?
Answer:
We could consider three periods of time:
Mine/IED Detection &
Clearing
BuildingInspection
Recce Combat Logistics
Short term (1-3 years)
Medium term (3-6 years)
Long term (>6 years)
22
Question 15
Business case analysis and roadmap: UGV electronics life cycle.
Question 15: What number of operation hours do you expect for the product before
a major upgrade or replacement?
Answer:
23
Question 16
Business case analysis and roadmap: Cost.
Question 16:
a) What is the total price of the electronics in current UGVs with regard to the
vehicle (ex. percentage)?
b) What it the maintenance annual cost with regard to total price of the vehicle (ex.
percentage)?
Answer:
24
THANK YOU
top related