October 19, 2022 | International, Aerospace
Space Force may seek commercial fleet to augment wartime needs
The service will hold an industry day in January to hear feedback on its concept for a Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve.
January 29, 2020 | International, Land
Artillery Seeks Robot Ammo Haulers
Six companies got $150,000 Field Artillery Autonomous Resupply contracts to study everything from exoskeletons that strengthen human ammo handlers to robots that might replace them.
UPDATED to clarify contract details WASHINGTON: After 100 years of hauling 100-pound howitzer shells by hand, Army gunners are about to get some high-tech help. Last week, representatives from six small and mid-size tech companies trudged through the mud with soldiers at Fort Bliss, Tex., so they could watch close-up as troops moved 155 mm shells from pallets to their M109 Paladins. The six firms are under 12-week, $150,000 contracts to refine their ideas to augment or replace human muscle at every stage of the loading process, part of the Field Artillery Autonomous Resupply (FAAR) initiative run by Austin-based Army Futures Command.
“For every projectile that goes down range, that projectile is picked up no less than five different times by a soldier and moved manually – and each one of those projectiles is 100 pounds,” Maj. Chris Isch told the Army's in-house news service. “We are looking for ways to automate that as much as possible.”
Robotic logistics, from self-driving supply trucks to AI predicting engine breakdowns, lacks the ominous glamour of so-called killer robots. But the sheer complexity of identifying friend or foe amidst the chaos of combat, and deep-rooted Pentagon policy on human control of lethal force, mean that autonomous weapons will take much longer to develop than autonomous supply and support systems, some of which are already in field-tests.
That said, Field Artillery Autonomous Resupply would definitely mark the Army more deadly. Artillery historically kills more troops than any other branch, and after years of letting Russia pull ahead in range and volume of fire, the Army is urgently upgrading its guns. The service's No. 1 modernization priority is what it calls Long-Range Precision Fires, and while hypersonics and post-INF Treaty missiles have dominated the headlines, the LRPF portfolio also includes conventional howitzers. The Army had already begun upgrading the hull and automotive systems of its venerable M109 armored howitzer vehicle under its Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program. Now it's looking to upgrade the gun and turret under what's called Extended Range Cannon Artillery.
A New Beast To Feed
Between a longer barrel, precision guidance and new rocket-boosted shells, ERCA has already doubled the Paladin's range, from 30 km (19 miles) to 62 km (39 miles) in test-shots at Yuma Proving Ground. The goal is to double it again, to over 120 km (75 miles).
ERCA also plans to add an autoloader mechanism to feed the gun, instead of humans manhandling shells into the breech. That should increase the rate of fire from four shells a minute to 10. Assuming standard high-explosive rounds, that means the ERCA gun can go through 950 pounds of ammo in 60 seconds and a ton in just over two minutes.
How do you feed such a beast? Currently, ammo is shipped in crates and pallets to (relatively) safe supply dumps in the rear, where troops load the individual shells into a purpose-built armored vehicle for transport to the front. That M992 ammo hauler has an extendable conveyer belt to transfer shells directly into the howitzer vehicle, but the belt doesn't always work that well in the field. Besides, the ammo hauler holds 95 rounds of high explosive and propellant, which would blow up horrifically if hit, so a standard tactic is to park the ammo transport under cover, well away from the guns, and have soldiers schlep the shells.
The Army's multidisciplinary Cross Functional Team for Long-Range Precision Fires, already working on multiple missiles at once, couldn't develop the ERCA gun and a new loading system at the same time, an officer explained at an AUSA robotics conference last fall. So the team turned to a sister organization within Army Futures Command, the Army Applications Lab, whose in-house Army Capabilities Accelerator reaches out beyond traditional defense contractors to universities, startups, and smaller firms, especially ones which have little experience working with the military.
Five Functions, Six Firms, 12 Weeks
The Applications Lab came up with the Field Artillery Autonomous Resupply concept and sought proposals to revolutionize every step of the process. An online solicitation lists five key functions:
- Robotic ammo handling and transport for the supply depot to move shells from crates & pallets to the ammo vehicle, or even carry it directly to the gun;
- Small unmanned ground vehicles or even drones to drive or fly a few shells at a time – at least 150 pounds payload, i.e. one shell plus packaging — from the ammo vehicle to a gun at least a kilometer away;
- Automated ammo handling for inside the M109 howitzer itself, not only auto-loading the shell into the breech, but also setting charges, adjusting propellant loads for range, and more;
- Exoskeletons, both powered and passive, to help soldiers handle 100-plus-pound objects without fatigue – the main limiting factor on sustained fire – or injury; and
- Command & Control systems to coordinate munitions delivery when GPS and radio are being jammed, including self-directing robot swarms.
The response was vigorous: 83 submissions from 43 states and multiple foreign countries, which the Army weeded down to the six firms that went out to Fort Bliss last week. Each got a $150,000 contract to spend 12 weeks gathering feedback and refining their designs, with a final brief to the Army in Austin on April 1st. (UPDATE: Technically, the six firms are all subcontractors to Alion Science and Technology, which is administering the program for the Army). The Army will then decide which, if any, should advance further towards actual production.
The six companies in the current phase?
- Actuate (formerly Aegis) develops computer vision software that analyzes surveillance feeds in real time to detect intruders and firearms. They're based in New York City, hardly the usual breeding ground for defense contractors.
- Apptronik builds exoskeletons and “human-centered robotics” designed to work with people. It's a four-year-old spin-off of the University of Texas at Austin. The Army picked Austin to be Futures Command's home town precisely because it's a hub of high-tech innovation with few existing ties to the military.
- Carnegie Robotics in Pittsburg is a decade-old spin-off of Carnegie Mellon University's National Robotics Engineering Center. CMU has a strong relationship with the Army and is now host to the Army AI Task Force.
- Neya Systems, also in the Pittsburgh area, develops aerial drones and off-road robots. It's a division of employee-owned defense contractor Applied Research Associates.
- Hivemapper is a Silicon Valley firm that turns surveillance video – including from drones – into digital maps, automatically updated by change-detection algorithms, for both the private sector and the Pentagon.
- Pratt & Miller Engineering, based in Detroit and South Carolina, and most famous for its work on race cars, whose seven-ton EMAV robot just won a field-testing contract for the Army's experimental Robotic Combat Vehicle – Light.
Now, the RCV is still experimental, and Pratt & Miller's win hardly guarantees a production contract, it makes sense for them to offer a variant of the same robot for the artillery resupply program. It would definitely be simpler and cheaper for Army logisticians to use the same robotic chassis for both armed vehicles and ammo haulers.
UPDATE “It's about creating direct, candid engagement between commercial solvers and Army problem owners to open the aperture on the realm of the possible,” said Porter Orr, production innovation lead at the Army Applications Lab, in a statement to Breaking Defense. “The capability presentations ...on April 1st...will be used to help shape thinking and inform future requirements, at a minimum.”
“While it's possible that a single, ‘perfect' piece of hardware could come from the FAAR cohort, that's not the marker of success,” Orr continued. “Rather, it's about giving Army stakeholders better access and insight into commercial solutions with a low, upfront investment, while also creating channels that make it easier for non-traditionals to work with the Army. The FAAR cohort is the first to launch as part of this new model, but the intention is that it will not be the last.”
Corrected 10pm to remove references to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) process: While the Field Artillery Autonomous Resupply (FAAR) initiative is also exploring the use of the SBIR process, the contracts discussed in this article were awarded under a different vehicle.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/artillery-seeks-robot-ammo-haulers
On the same subject
-
-
June 19, 2023 | International, Naval
GDIT Awarded $383 Million U.S. Navy Training Support Services Contract
The contract, awarded on behalf of Surface Combat Systems Training Command (SCSTC), has a one-year base period and four option years.
-
September 25, 2018 | International, Land
SAIC boss tackles Engility acquisition, space market and revenue goals
WASHINGTON — News that SAIC would buy Engility was just the latest in a recent string of acquisitions among the professional services firms. But if you ask the CEO of SAIC, Tony Moraco, unlike some of the company's peers this was not transformational. This was instead a merging of two complementary businesses. In his words, “a momentum builder, as we are stronger together in the marketplace.” It's also the next phase for a company that technically formed five years ago, with the split of the $11 billion legacy company with the same name. Defense News sat down with Moraco to see how the acquisition fits into SAIC's future strategy, and how far the company has come since gaining independence. About a year after SAIC split from Leidos, I asked you about your vision for the company. And you said to return to an $11 billion company. How does this acquisition fit into your vision for SAIC these days? The Engility acquisition is very much consistent with our current strategy. It is not a deviation or a reset, as perhaps some of the other major transactions have been for some of our peers. But it really is about the theme of being stronger together, with [particular] compatibility of the intelligence community ... and also attributes in space market segments that we think we can both serve better. For us, this is opening market access to channels that we didn't have. It's momentum building, a vision and a strategy that was five years in the making, and it's a continuation of that strategy going forward. So have you been looking for an extended period of time? And why Engility specifically? We consistently look at the market. We were not going to be a high-volume buyer, but more selective. The Scitor [acquisition] was more than three years ago. But we felt that we had a good position in the marketplace to grow organically. And we proved very strong performance over five years and since [that last acquisition of] Scitor. And then we've looked at many deals, large and small, to see what makes the most sense to us, staying true to our strategy. The attraction with Engility was probably first sparked by the multi-intelligence agency portfolio that they have. Instead of buying a number of smaller concentrated firms, we could get a couple agencies in one larger deal. The company is large enough, they have a mature system. Again, in contrast to perhaps some of the small businesses, we think it has been through its own cultural shift to align very much to ours. Also of interest is the space market. Today, with denied access and with the threats that we have, space is becoming a much more serious domain. The U.S. wants to invest more in it for a range of reasons. And when we think about space, it does cross, in fact, with the intelligence community, the defense sector with Air Force and the other services, and then also the civilian agencies with NASA, [and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. As that market evolves, I think the U.S. government will be a principal customer. I believe that the commercial space entities will find a way where they'll also require key outsourced space services just as the government had. So for a single transaction at scale where we could in fact use our equity, [and face] probably fewer buyers, filling three or four of our strategic initiatives in market access and in capabilities — we felt it was worth a serious look. But it's not just about space and intel. Defense will still be the largest part of our portfolio — 55 percent after we close [from 61 percent]. With the benefit of having the broader diversification in intel and federal civilian agencies, that serves all of our customers from a technology transfer perspective. We've seen an interesting transition in the market, where the big primes are shedding portions of their services segments. Have we officially returned to the days when manufacturers focus on platforms only and leave the rest to the professional services companies? I think we [for a period of time] faced a market that was uncertain. Our customers were reprioritizing their mission areas, and the industry was doing the same — looking at where they were going to focus their precious dollars, identify businesses they were going to protect, and areas that maybe weren't core. Then as the market started to improve and move away from cost reductions to protect margins to having some cash and some flexibility, you started seeing more portfolio shaping from the larger players. It's not just about scale. There's [a focus on] the diversification because as you know, the whole business is based on past performance and on what qualifications you have in people and in contract vehicles; if you have a broader base concentrated in a few key areas, your ability to compete and win in those domains is improved. There are a lot of technologies that are more heavily influencing the battlefield — whether ISR, electronic warfare, even still cyber, which is evolving. It seems those areas don't fit quite as neatly in one model or the other. We've been around. It's not a body shop service that we run. It is services and solutions. But technology integration is a direct link to the customer's demand for modernization, the interest in innovative solutions from nontraditional players, the ability to field capabilities faster in a much shorter development cycle, and that leads you to a technology integration model that we have. It allows us to take mission understanding and translate requirements into capability needs. So we can integrate, we can innovate with the technology and we can implement the solutions, which is fundamentally what the customer needs to migrate them from a current state to a future state. But we're seeing more and more opportunities through the [Defense Innovation Unit], the [other transaction authorities], and other contract vehicles that provide a little more rapid prototyping flexibility. SAIC bid for the Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle and is now working to compete for the Army's Mobile Protected Firepower program.How does that all fit into the broader strategy? We do see it as a viable area, and I would characterize it as the next tier of complex technology integration, system integration. It's an extension of our command-and-control and ISR integration. I recall we pushed through 30,000 MRAP systematic build packages. That kind of integration of subsystems into a platform is what we felt was a baseline business that we could look to expand; and as the customer looked at, in this case, starting with Assault Amphibious Vehicle. Not a start-from-scratch build — the survivability upgrade really was around the armor, the underbelly and then your armaments protecting the vehicle. And then the related mobility requirements to change out transmissions and engines to support that extra weight. We felt that those subsystems and our mission knowledge afforded us the ability to extend to a little more of the physical platform itself. We're doing work on the next-gen combat vehicle. And we're using a services model for MPF. Again, nondevelopmental, major integration of existing platforms for rapid field development. That fits well into our technology and integration model. We see the ground vehicles and perhaps maritime [areas] as one that was probably more approachable versus, say, airframes. Modernization of aircraft has its own barriers of entry of getting flight readiness and the like. We've extended our test-equipment knowledge to partnering with Lockheed on the propulsion system for torpedoes, for example. So we're just looking for selective areas to do more complex system integration under this broad technology integration umbrella. It just happens to be bigger subsystems. Complex system integration sets us apart from some of the current peers in the marketplace right now. But we're selective in what we go after. How hard of a hit was the loss of the Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle in moving forward with that? It's disappointing. We try to be practical and objective about our market position. It's an alternative model. It's still early in the life cycle. But I think that as we see different opportunities, we learn from it as the customers get more comfortable. So yes, disappointing on ACV, but at the same time we learned a lot from it and I think the customer ultimately got a very good result by having a competitive phase. And we think that the Army [with MPF] will be as successful and come up with [the] best solution if they can maintain a competitiveness early in the process. When the split first happened, you and Leidos were generally two different companies. With this acquisition, and with the Leidos acquisition from Lockheed, have you all started to mirror each other more? I think we may be looking a little more alike. Five years ago I did not expect it. I think we had very clear strategies that [we] were intending to diverge, and therefore we did not have any formal noncompetes. We were looking at the services business model, and Leidos was looking to do more system development. I think their execution of that didn't play out as fast as they'd like. Roger [Krone, Leidos CEO], buying back in the services, more of the information system side, was a bit of a surprise. So if anything, they came back towards us versus us changing direction. So I'd say they probably navigated slightly different than expected. But even today we're still two different companies. We're still very focused on letting our investors and customers know what we do, and Leidos still has a pretty diverse portfolio from health systems and some engineering services. We compete in similar subsegments but not in all. We're also organized very differently, we go to market differently. When the deal closes, where does that put your total revenue at? Right around $6.5 billion. You told me you wanted to get back to $11 billion. Should we expect more? No, not right away. That was very tongue in cheek at the time. You knew I'd remember though. Oh, I know. I remember it too, actually, because we laughed. There are lots of things we can do, but I felt very comfortable then and still do that we've got a great future and can grow the business organically as well as through acquisition. But it's not to chase the size. It really is about the market leadership. Running good margins and providing good mission capabilities for our employees. I think our market is still very motivated by mission. Our employees are very motivated to serve in different capacities whether it's in uniform or not. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2018/09/24/saic-boss-tackles-engility-acquisition-space-market-and-revenue-goals