Technology Development for Army Unmanned Ground Vehicles

181 Pages·2003·4.63 MB·English

by  Committee on Army Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology

Technology
Development for
Army Unmanned
Ground Vehicles
Committee on Army Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology
Board on Army Science and Technology
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, N.W. • Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of
the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The
members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences
and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. DAAD 19-01-C-0051 between the National
Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or
recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-08620-5
Additional copies of this report are available from National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street,
N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; [phone] or [phone] (in the Wash-
ington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol-
ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in
1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and tech-
nical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration
and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for
advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering pro-
grams aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative,
to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad-
emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific
and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of
Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National
Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
COMMITTEE ON ARMY UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY
MILLARD F. ROSE, Chair, Radiance Technologies, Inc., Huntsville, Alabama
RAJ AGGARWAL, Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Idaho
DAVID E. ASPNES, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
JOHN T. FEDDEMA, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
J. WILLIAM GOODWINE, JR. University of Notre Dame, Indiana
CLINTON W. KELLY III, Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, Virginia
LARRY LEHOWICZ, Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia
ALAN J. McLAUGHLIN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory,
Lexington
ROBIN R. MURPHY, University of South Florida, Tampa
MALCOLM R. O’NEILL, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
ERNEST N. PETRICK, General Dynamics Land Systems (retired), Detroit, Michigan
AZRIEL ROSENFELD, University of Maryland, College Park
ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA, CNS Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Virginia
STEVEN E. SHLADOVER, University of California, Berkeley
Board on Army Science and Technology Liaisons
ROBERT L. CATTOI, Rockwell International (retired), Dallas, Texas
CLARENCE W. KITCHENS, IIT Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia
National Research Council Staff
ROBERT J. LOVE, Study Director
JIM MYSKA, Research Associate
TOMEKA GILBERT, Senior Project Assistant
ROBERT KATT, Technical Consultant
iv
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JOHN E. MILLER, Chair, Oracle Corporation, Reston, Virginia
GEORGE T. SINGLEY III, Vice Chair, Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia
ROBERT L. CATTOI, Rockwell International (retired), Dallas, Texas
RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation (retired), Charleston, West Virginia
GILBERT F. DECKER, Walt Disney Imagineering (retired), Glendale, California
ROBERT R. EVERETT, MITRE Corporation (retired), New Seabury, Massachusetts
PATRICK F. FLYNN, Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (retired), Columbus, Indiana
HENRY J. HATCH, Army Chief of Engineers (retired), Oakton, Virginia
EDWARD J. HAUG, University of Iowa, Iowa City
GERALD J. IAFRATE, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
MIRIAM E. JOHN, California Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore
DONALD R. KEITH, Cypress International (retired), Alexandria, Virginia
CLARENCE W. KITCHENS, IIT Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia
SHIRLEY A. LIEBMAN, CECON Group (retired), Holtwood, Pennsylvania
KATHRYN V. LOGAN, Georgia Institute of Technology (professor emerita), Roswell
STEPHEN C. LUBARD, S-L Technology, Woodland Hills, California
JOHN W. LYONS, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland
JOHN H. MOXLEY, Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California
STEWART D. PERSONICK, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
MILLARD F. ROSE, Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, Alabama
JOSEPH J. VERVIER, ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, Florida
National Research Council Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Associate Director
WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Officer
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Senior Project Assistant
DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Research Associate
v

Preface
The Army’s strategic vision calls for transformation to a However, without specific requirements to focus the tech-
full-spectrum Objective Force that can project overwhelm- nology base and without funding emphasis, the Army’s ef-
ing military power anywhere in the world on extremely short forts are less likely to translate into tactically significant un-
notice. It must be agile, versatile, and lethal, achieving its manned ground vehicle systems. It is particularly important
objectives through the application of dominant maneuver, that there be high-level advocacy to coordinate the genera-
precision engagement, focused logistics, information supe- tion of requirements and the evaluation and acceptance of
riority, and highly survivable combat systems. The key to system concepts.
transformation is innovative technology, and the future force The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research
will be composed of a family of systems that networks ad- and Technology) requested that the National Research
vanced air and ground assets, both manned and unmanned, Council’s Board on Army Science and Technology conduct
to achieve superiority in ground combat. this study to evaluate the readiness of UGV technologies.
Unmanned vehicles, both air and ground, will play a The study was specifically tasked to examine aspects of the
vital role in such a force structure. There are many tasks that Army UGV program, review the global state of the art, as-
unmanned systems could accomplish more readily than hu- sess technology readiness levels, and identify issues relating
mans, and both civilian and military communities are now to implementing UGV systems as part of the Future Combat
developing robotic systems to the point that they have suffi- Systems program. In addition, the committee was tasked
cient autonomy to replace humans in dangerous tasks, aug- with projecting long-term UGV developments of value to
ment human capabilities for synergistic effects, and perform the Objective Force.
laborious and repetitious duties. The committee approached its task by organizing its ef-
Unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) have the potential forts around the specific technologies and specific charges
to provide a revolutionary leap ahead in military capabili- in the statement of task, subdividing into working groups
ties. If UGVs are developed to their full potential, their use that could proceed in parallel. Because expertise in many
will reduce casualties and vastly increase combat effective- disciplines was necessary to effectively cover all of the ele-
ness. To achieve this potential, however, they must be ments of robotic vehicles, participants representing many
capable of “responsible” autonomous operation. Human fields were picked from academia and industry (see Appen-
operators may always be needed to make the critical dix A for the biographies of committee members). Several
decisions, even to take control of critical events, but it is of the committee members had relevant experience in the
impractical to expect soldiers to continuously control the development, acquisition, testing, and evaluation of combat
movement of unmanned systems. Technologies needed to systems. These members played a vital role, given that con-
enable autonomous capabilities are still embryonic. Given cepts for the Future Combat Systems and Objective Force
technical success, there will be “cultural” programs as imply many capabilities that have not yet been translated
soldiers learn to trust robot counterparts. into system requirements.
Presentations to the committee and the Demo III dem- I want to express my personal gratitude to the members
onstrations clearly show that the Army has started down that who donated their time to this study. They adhered to a
path and is pursuing many of the enabling technologies. demanding schedule, attended numerous meetings and
vii
viii PREFACE
demonstrations, and had to review copious quantities of cal and administrative support, and the committee is grateful
material necessary to effectively carry out the task. The re- to the excellent NRC staff for making its job easier.
port is theirs and represents the committee’s collective con-
sensus on the current state of technology development for Millard F. Rose, Chair
unmanned ground vehicles. Committee on Army Unmanned
Any study of this magnitude requires extensive logisti- Ground Vehicle Technology
Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individu- Jagdish Chandra, George Washington University,
als chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical exper- Paul Funk, LTG, USA, General Dynamics,
tise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Jasper Lupo, Applied Research Associates,
Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose Larry H. Matthies, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and
of this independent review is to provide candid and critical Robert E. Skelton, University of California San Diego.
comments that will assist the institution in making its
published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the Although the reviewers listed above have provided
report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not
and responsiveness to the study charge. The review com- asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor
ments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect did they see the final draft of the report before its release.
the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank The review of this report was overseen by Thomas Munz.
the following individuals for their review of this report: Appointed by the National Research Council, he was respon-
sible for making certain that an independent examination of
Harold S. Blackman, Idaho National Engineering and this report was carried out in accordance with institutional
Environmental Laboratory, procedures and that all review comments were carefully con-
Johann Borenstein, University of Michigan, sidered. Responsibility for the final content of this report
Roger W. Brockett, Harvard University, rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
ix