Retour aux nouvelles

2 septembre 2020 | International, Terrestre, Autre défense

Army Wants Industry Input For Reliable Exoskeleton (Not Iron Man, Yet!)

By

SOCOM couldn't build a bulletproof Iron Man. But Army experiments with more modest lower-body exoskeletons have shown real-world potential to help overburdened foot troops.

WASHINGTON: Army Futures Command is drafting a formal requirement for a military exoskeleton and will seek feedback from manufacturers at a November industry day. The Army's top priority, officials told me: rapidly prototyping a system that helps the wearer “move faster, travel further, and carry heavier loads” – without breaking down in the heat of battle.

“Reliability is a huge issue that needs to be resolved,” said Ted Maciuba, deputy director of robotic requirements for Futures Command.

Now, don't expect a full-body bulletproof suit that can fly and access huge databases out of science fiction. “We are not going after the Starship Troopers/Iron Man system right off the bat,” said Rich Cofer, a former soldier who's now the Army's lead “capabilities developer” on the exoskeleton project. “We're not going to jump right in and expect Tony Stark... Expectation management is key.”

(That's a stark contrast to Special Operations Command's highly publicized TALOS program, which explicitly compared itself to Iron Man but produced nothing of the kind).

So instead of Iron Man, think Iron Leg. In a “soldier touchpoint” last December at Fort Drum, NY, Army soldiers from more than two dozen Military Occupational Specialties — ranging from infantry to supply — tried out various types of “lower-body exoskeletons,” including the Lockheed Martin ONYX that our own Paul McLeary tries out in this video. In essence, these are motorized knee braces and other wearable reinforcements for the legs that lighten the load on overburdened soldiers as they march for hours with heavy packs, manhandle artillery shells and such. The goal isn't to give the wearer superpowers, but to reduce fatigue and risk of injury.

During the Fort Drum trials, “there were significant increases in the effectiveness of soldiers,” Maciuba told me. “The soldiers were able to do more with the exoskeleton than they could without.”

That said, “we learned [that] there needs to be enough reliability engineered into our systems so that there is a very high probability they will not fail in use,” Maciuba continued. “It's one thing to be wearing a boot whose sole flips off. You can always take some 100-mile-an-hour tape and tape that back on your foot. It's another thing to be wearing an exoskeleton” that requires specialized training and tools to fix. So reliability will be a high priority when the Army speaks to potential vendors in mid-November.

By that point, Maciuba & co. expect to have a draft Abbreviated Capabilities Development Document for industry to review and offer comment on. (Army Futures Command officially gave them the go-ahead to write the ACDD on Aug. 14th; the exoskeleton project falls under the command's Soldier Lethality team, with input from PEO-Soldier acquisition officials, Natick Soldier Systems Center researchers, and capability managers for infantry, armored, and Stryker units). While unclassified, the document will be considered sensitive and only released to qualified contractors.

While the ACDD is formally considered a requirements document, Maciuba told me, it's not going to set rigid technical specs as would a traditional Army requirement. The technology is advancing way too fast to get that detailed at this early stage. Instead, he said, it will outline “desirable characteristics” but leave industry plenty of leeway to innovate on specific ways to achieve them – and the Army is open to revising those desires based on what industry says is actually achievable.

“We want industry to grade our work,” Maciuba said. The industry day – which will be held online unless there's some miraculous breakthrough with COVID-19 – will include both a general session open to all contractors and one-on-one meetings with specific contractors so they can discuss their technology without competitors listening. Afterwards, Maciuba, Cofer, & co. will compile the feedback from all the companies, revise the ACDD, and send it to Army leaders for approval.

The final Abbreviated Capabilities Development Document should be out by the end of 2021, Cofer estimated. The next step? Use a streamlined acquisition process known as Section 804, intended to field a working prototype within five years – that is, Maciuba cautioned, if the Army can find the funding.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/09/army-wants-industry-input-for-reliable-exoskeleton-not-iron-man-yet/

Sur le même sujet

  • UK seeks new technologies for future Royal Navy fleet

    14 juin 2019 | International, Naval

    UK seeks new technologies for future Royal Navy fleet

    By Hemanth Kumar and Talal Husseini The UK Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) is set to launch a new competition to seek intelligent systems and technology solutions to develop a comprehensive future Royal Navy fleet. Known as ‘Intelligent Ship – The Next Generation', the competition will be officially launched in London on 19 June. Through the competition, the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) is looking for proposals for novel and innovative projects to facilitate the wider use of intelligent systems within future warships. The MOD said in the competition document: “This aim is based on a future vision where elements of automation, autonomy, machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) are closely integrated and teamed with human decision makers. “It is expected that this will ensure timely, more informed and trusted decision-making and planning, within complex, cluttered, contested and congested operating and data environments.” DASA will offer £1m in funding for innovative proposals under the first phase of the future Royal Navy fleet competition. An additional £3m will be made available to fund subsequent phases. The adoption of advanced technologies is seen as a pivotal move in the efforts to reduce decision times in order to meet future threat capabilities. Interested companies will have to showcase through their proposals how they would improve automation, autonomous functions, and AI-enabled decision aides. The scope also includes demonstrating how the proposals could improve speed and/or quality of decision-making and mission planning in a future naval operating environment. The MOD clarified that it does not want proposals that do not “offer significant benefit to defence and security capability”, or “offer no real long-term prospect of integration into defence and security capabilities”, or “offer no real prospect of out-competing existing technological solutions”. The MOD went on to say: “It is important that over the lifetime of DASA competitions, ideas are matured and accelerated towards appropriate end-users to enhance current or future capability. “How long this takes will be dependent on the nature and starting point of the innovation. Early identification and appropriate engagement with end-users during the competition and subsequent phases are essential.” Parties will have time until 23 July 2019 to pitch their ideas for the competition. https://www.naval-technology.com/news/uk-future-royal-navy-fleet/

  • BAE Systems Australia unveils first homegrown military drone

    27 février 2023 | International, Aérospatial

    BAE Systems Australia unveils first homegrown military drone

    BAE Systems Australia and another local manufacturer on Tuesday unveiled a new uncrewed military aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing, the first to be designed, manufactured and armed in Australia.

  • US Navy makes progress on aircraft carrier Ford’s bedeviled weapons elevators

    24 juillet 2020 | International, Naval

    US Navy makes progress on aircraft carrier Ford’s bedeviled weapons elevators

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is over the halfway mark in certifying the new aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford's 11 advanced weapons elevators, which have been at the center of an ongoing controversy over delays in getting the Navy's most expensive-ever warship ready for its first deployment. In a news release Thursday, the Navy announced it had certified Lower Stage Weapons Elevator 1, the sixth certified working elevator. LSWE 1 moves bombs from the forward magazine up to a staging area beneath the flight deck, where the weapons are armed and sent to the upper-stage weapons elevators that go to the flight deck. Crews had already certified the elevator that brings bombs from the aft magazine to the staging area. The elevators are designed to reduce the time it takes to get bombs armed and to the flight deck to mount on aircraft. “LSWE 5 has given us the capacity to move ordnance from the aft magazine complex deep in the ship through the carrier to the flight deck with a speed and agility that has never been seen before on any warship,” Rear Adm. James Downey, program executive officer for aircraft carriers, said in a statement. “LSWE 1 doubles-down on that capability and ramps up the velocity of flight deck operations. LSWEs 1 and 5 will now operate in tandem, providing a dramatic capability improvement as we proceed toward full combat system certification aboard Ford.” The remaining five weapons elevators are on track for certification by the time the ship goes to full-ship shock trials in the third quarter of 2021. The weapons elevators became the center of a firestorm last year and contributed to the firing of former Navy Secretary Richard Spencer. In January 2019, Spencer announced he'd told the president that if the weapons elevators aren't functioning by midsummer, then the president should fire him. But within months Spencer had to admit that the weapons elevators would not be finished until the end of 2021 or maybe 2022, which he blamed on Huntington Ingalls Industries for a lack of adequate communication. Turnover The Ford has had a witch's brew of technical problems and delays since construction of the ship began in 2005. The latest hiccup came in June in the form of a fault in the power supply system to the electromagnetic aircraft launch system, which is replacing the steam catapult system on Nimitz-class carriers. The fault curtailed flight operations on the ship for several days while the crew and contractors tried to identify the issue. In the wake of that incident, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts fired Capt. Ron Rutan as Ford's program manager, citing “performance over time.” Geurts installed Capt. Brian Metcalf as program head. Making the Ford deployment ready was a focus of former acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly, who likened the ship to an albatross around the Navy's neck. “The Ford is something the president cares a lot about, it's something he talks a lot about, and I think his concerns are justified,” Modly said. “It's very, very expensive, and it needs to work. “And there is a trail of tears that explains why we are where we are, but right now we need to fix that ship and make sure it works. There is nothing worse than having a ship like that, our most expensive asset, being out there as a metaphor for why the Navy can't do anything right.” Conceived in an era when the Defense Department was looking to make giant steps forward in military technology while it had no direct peer competitors, the lead ship was packed with at least 23 new technologies. Those included a complete redesign of the systems used to arm, launch and recover the ship's aircraft. All those systems have, in their turn, caused delays in getting the Navy's most expensive-ever warship to the fleet, which was originally to have deployed in 2018, but now will likely not deploy until 2023. The Ford cost the Navy roughly $13.3 billion, according to the latest Congressional Research Service report on the topic. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/23/the-us-navy-is-making-progress-on-the-carrier-fords-bedeviling-weapons-elevators/

Toutes les nouvelles