July 27, 2020 | International, Land
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on July 27, 2020 at 7:00 AM
WASHINGTON: Field tests and computer models have convinced the Army that future armored vehicles can fight with just two human crew, assisted by automation, instead of the traditional three or more, the service's armor modernization chief told me.
That confidence drove the Army, in its draft Request For Proposals released on the 17th, to require a two-soldier crew for its future Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. The OMFV is scheduled to enter service in 2028 to replace the Reagan-era M2 Bradley, which has the traditional trio of commander, gunner, and driver. (Both vehicles can also carry infantry as passengers, and the Army envisions the OMFV being operated by remote control in some situations).
The Army has already field-tested Bradleys modified to operate with a two-soldier crew instead of the usual three, said Brig. Gen. Richard Ross Coffman, the director of Army Futures Command's Cross Functional Team for Next Generation Combat Vehicles. “As we speak,” he told me in an interview last week, “we've got those Mission-Enabling Technology Demonstrators, or MET-D, actually maneuvering at Fort Carson, Colorado, as part of the Robotic Combat Vehicle test.”
With the benefit of modern automation, Coffman said, those two-soldier crews have proven able to maneuver around obstacles, look out for threats, and engage targets — without being overwhelmed by too many simultaneous demands. “They're doing that both in simulation and real world at Carson right now,” Coffman told me.
“You have two humans with a virtual crewmember that will remove cognitive load from the humans and allow the functions of gunning, and driving, and commanding the vehicle to be shared between humans and machines,” Coffman said. “We think that the technology has matured to the point where ...this third virtual crewmember will provide the situational awareness to allow our soldiers to fight effectively.”
The defense contractors who would have to build the vehicle – even if a government team designs it – aren't so sure. “A two-man crew will be overwhelmed with decision making, no matter how much AI is added,” one industry source told me.
A Persistent Dilemma
For at least eight decades, combat vehicle designers have faced a dilemma. A smaller crew allows a smaller vehicle, one that's cheaper, lighter, and harder to hit – and if it is hit, puts fewer lives at risk. But battlefield experience since 1940 has shown that smaller crews are easily overwhelmed by the chaos of combat. Historically, an effective fighting vehicle required a driver solely focused on the path ahead, a gunner solely focused on hitting the current target, and a commander looking in all directions for the next target to attack, threat to avoid, or path to take. (Many vehicles added a dedicated ammunition handler and/or radio operator as well).
A “virtual crewmember” could solve this dilemma — but will the technology truly be ready by the late 2020s?
The Army actually tackled this question just last year and came to the opposite conclusion. You see, the draft Request For Proposals released last week is the Army's second attempt to launch the OMFV program. In March 2019, the Army issued its original RFP for an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. In most respects, the 2019 RFP was much more demanding than last week's draft: It wanted the vehicle in service two years earlier, in 2026 instead of 2028, and it had such stringent requirements for weight and amor protection that no company managed to meet them, leading the Army to start over. But for all its ambition in other aspects, the 2019 RFP did not mandate a two-person crew; that's a new addition for the 2020 version.
It's worth noting that just one company managed to deliver a prototype by the Army's original deadline in 2019: General Dynamics. They built their vehicle to operate with a crew of three – but with the option to go down to two as automation improved.
At the same time, the Army started experimenting with Robotic Combat Vehicles that had no human crew aboard at all. The long-term goal is to have a single soldier oversee a whole wolfpack of RCVs, but the current proto-prototypes are operated by remote control, with a crew of two: a gunner/sensor operator and a driver. The Army has been impressed by how well these teleoperated RCVs have performed in field trials. If two soldiers can effectively operate a vehicle they're not even in, might two be enough to operate a manned vehicle as well?
The other piece of the experimental RCV unit is the mothership, an M2 Bradley with its passenger cabin converted to hold the teleoperators and their workstations. These modified M2s, called MET-Ds, also operate with just two crewmembers, a gunner and a driver – without a separate commander – and, says Coffman, they've done so successfully in combat scenarios.
The Army is not just adding automation to individual vehicles. It's seeking to create combined units of manned and unmanned war machines that share data on threats and targets over a battlefield network, allowing them to work together as a seamless tactical unit that's far more than the sum of its parts. “This [vehicle] will not fight alone, but as part of a platoon, a company, a battalion,” Coffman said. “The shared situational awareness across that formation will transform the way we fight.”<
What Has Changed?
These ongoing experiments are the latest in a long series. “As far back as 1991, the Army was looking at reducing the number of crew members,” Coffman told me. “Back then, when I was just coming in the Army, the tech had not matured to the point that it would allow a two-person crew.”
But that was then, Coffman said. Three decades later, with the rise of the iPhone, Google Maps, and a booming business in artificial intelligence, the times and the technology have changed.
“Since then, our 360-degree situational awareness has vastly improved,” Coffman said. Instead of peering through periscopes, gunsights, and slit-like bulletproof windows – or just sticking their head out the hatch and hoping there're no snipers around – crews can look at wide-screen displays fed by multiple cameras and other sensors mounted all around their vehicle. Automated target recognition systems can analyze the sensor feeds in real time, identify potential threats and targets, alert the crew to their presence, and even automatically bring the main gun to bear. (The Army still requires a human decision to fire). Waypoint navigation algorithms, obstacle sensors, and automated collision avoidance routines can ease the task of maneuvering 40-plus-tons of metal around the battlefield.
Could all this technology unburden the human crew, allowing just two soldiers to operate a combat vehicle, instead of needing one solely focused on driving, a second solely focused on shooting, and a third giving direction to the other two? The Army now thinks so.
That said, the newly released Request for Proposal is a draft, being circulated specifically to get feedback on what's feasible. If too many companies say the two-person crew won't work, the Army can still change that requirement before the final RFP comes out next April.
“I think they are learning, through their experimentation, that it's a high-risk requirement,” one industry source told me. “However, I think it's like anything else involving technology: Given time — and money — it's achievable.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/two-men-a-bot-can-ai-help-command-a-tank
December 6, 2023 | International, Naval
The Miecznik Class takes its design from the Arrowhead-140PL frigate, similar to the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates but optimized for Polish Navy requirements.
September 25, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON — The Pentagon's proposed plan to lower the rate of progress and performance payments some companies receive on defense contracts is sending shockwaves through the industry and invited a backlash from three large trade associations. To incentivize defense firms to work more quickly and more efficiently for the taxpayer, Pentagon leaders want to create a tiered system that recognizes high performing companies with higher performance-based payments. Contractors, however, are balking at the Pentagon's efforts to make them more accountable. While obscure to the general public, the proposed rule changes have rattled government contractors, which argue they would choke off funding for innovation, shackle them with more bureaucracy, increase the cost of military equipment— and hurt profits. The baseline performance- and progress-based payment rate for larger companies would be reset from 80 percent to 50 percent, with incremental increases or decreases based on new criteria proposed by DoD. If a contractor, for instance, delivers end items on time, hits milestone schedules, or avoids serious corrective action requests, it would win 10 percent bumps for each. (Small businesses would have their own schedule of incentives.) The National Defense Industrial Association is calling on DoD to rescind the regulation and collaborate with industry to create a different rule. One objection it has is the proposed rule would determine payment rates based on companies' overall performance, as opposed to contract by contract. “The marching orders from Congress is we have to be faster, more innovative, to do better for the warfighter,” said NDIA Senior Vice President for Policy Wesley Hallman. But, under the proposed rule, a company that wants to take on a high-risk project that fails, “will later be judged on that thing the following December. They're incentivized to take a low-risk approach.” Though Section 831 of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act encourages DoD to use performance payments, NDIA argues the rule violate's the law's intent and that lessening companies' cash flow would slow payments to subcontractors and sap funding for independent research and development. “We're doing our best to let them know how this will hurt industry,” said NDIA Director of Regulatory Policy Corbin Evans. The trade group's comments were submitted at a public meeting Sept. 14 to consider changes the Pentagon proposed in August to federal acquisitions rules, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement. The Defense Department is holding another public meeting, Oct. 10, before the public comment period ends on Oct. 23. Both the Professional Services Council and the Aerospace Industries Association, which more than 300 companies in the aerospace and defense industry, also offered presentations in opposition. The move toward better stewardship of taxpayer dollars comes amid record Pentagon budget growth and amid a reorganization of the Pentagon's acquisition, technology and logistics office, now due to finish in a few months. The move falls in line with Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord's efforts to halve the timeline of major defense acquisition programs, which are notoriously slow. “I believe the lifeblood of most industry is cash flow, so what we will do is regulate the percentage of payments or the amount of profit that can be achieved through what type of performance they demonstrate by the numbers,” Lord said in a Defense News interview last week. Hence, “we're going to begin to reward companies through profit or through progress or performance payments, as a function of how they manage all of that, as well as quality and delivery and a variety of other things,” Lord said. Though it's unclear whether DoD will formally move ahead with the rule by a Dec. 1 deadline, investors have already responded negatively to a reports on the changes, according to aerospace and defense sector analysts at Cowen and Company. “It will be a scramble for companies and DoD to compile the necessary data to evaluate the rate request. Under the current draft rule, DoD would need to evaluate the rate request in just one month for all its suppliers,” Roman Schweizer, of Cowen and Company, said in a note to investors Friday. “We suspect that will be very hard the first time and suggests this year may be too hard.” Still, Cowen analyst Cai von Rumohr downplayed the near-term effects, especially beyond the major primes. He speculated the proposed rule change will have negligible impact on contractor results in 2019 since it doesn't apply to any current contracts; it's very unlikely to go into effect before 2020, if ever; it will not apply to time and materials and fixed-price commercial terms contracts, and because it will only apply to some cost-plus contracts. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/09/24/defense-industry-fighting-dod-proposal-to-change-performance-payments
March 22, 2023 | International, Aerospace
Bratislava would pay $340 million for the Bell AH-1Z attack choppers in a deal worth about $1 billion that also includes 500 AGM-114 Hellfire II missiles.