out a viable plan for integrating evolving UGV technologies and capabilities into the FCS roadmap. In the absence of definitive requirements, the acquisition community has struggled to identify where to place the emphasis for technology development. In April 2002, as one of its first actions the LSI for FCS requested industry proposals for 43 different technologies for FCS, including three UGV systems:

1. Soldier UGV—a small soldier-portable reconnaissance and surveillance robot

2. Mule UGV—a 1-ton vehicle suitable for an RSTA or transport/supply mission

3. Armed Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV) UGV—a 6-ton vehicle to perform the RSTA mission, as well as a fire mission, carrying a turret with missile and gun systems.

While the FCS program may lack system requirements, there is general agreement that autonomous mobility from point A to point B, known as “A-to-B mobility,” is a key if not the key enabler for future UGV systems. Requirements for autonomous mobility have consisted of describing speed of maneuver over differing classes of terrain. They do not include descriptions of which tactical behaviors may be required to perform mission functions in combat, including such actions as:

• Terrain reasoning—The ability to use information about natural terrain features (elevation, vegetation, rocks, water), manmade features (roads, buildings, bridges), obstacles (mines, barriers), and weather

• Military maneuver—Using terrain reasoning, mission, friendly and enemy locations to determine the best maneuver and selection of positions for stealth and to support mission package needs (e.g., hull down for direct fire, clear of overhead obstructions for indirect fire)

• Agility—Using rapid, significant changes in speed and direction to reduce an enemy’s ability to acquire and hit a UGV

• Self protection—Sensing threats (e.g., mines, weapon systems, humans) in sufficient time for the UGV to avoid them; using onboard weapons systems or command and control (C2) links to friendly weapons systems to neutralize an enemy.

For UGVs to act as part of a system of systems, dynamic, extended range, redundant, and networked communications are essential. The FCS statement of required capabilities describes communications that are

• Highly integrated, self-organizing, ubiquitous, distributed, extendable, and capable of increased yet scalable data rates

• Open, multilayered with multiple paths that provide redundancy for assured communications, with voice and data routing around inoperative nodes without interruption

• Using platforms as integrated nodes that do not rely on stationary attended nodes.

The category of ground-traversing vehicles without a human operator onboard covers a broad range of mission capabilities and degrees of autonomy with respect to command and tasking functions, terrain reasoning, military maneuvering, and mobility design. For this reason and to facilitate its analysis the committee characterized four generic classifications of UGV capabilities based on relevance to potential Army missions and level of autonomy and the challenge required to implement.

The classes are described, with a specific example system for each, in the sections that follow. Table 2-1 lists the UGV capability classes with potential mission function applications.

Each of the four classes (teleoperated, semiautonomous, platform-centric autonomous, and network-centric autonomous) varies in its need for different UGV technologies. For example, the dependence on technology in the communications area varies as follows:

• Teleoperated ground vehicle (TGV): high requirement at all times

• Semiautonomous preceder/follower (SAP/F-UGV): mostly moderate requirement (placing “breadcrumbs”), except when it moves off course or when a crisis situation (e.g., minefield, enemy attack) arises

• Platform-centric autonomous ground vehicle (PC-AGV): little need for human control, minimal connectivity requirements while executing its mission

• Network-centric autonomous ground vehicle (NC-AGV): little need for human control, high need for network connectivity.

Table 2-2 summarizes the committee’s assessment of the relative dependence of relevant technology areas to each of the defined UGV classes. As can be seen, differences also exist in the other applicable technology areas including perception, navigation, planning, behaviors and skills, learning/ adaptation, human–robot interaction, mobility, power/ energy, and health maintenance.

The four capability classes categorize UGVs in order of increasingly complex military applications. For each class the committee developed an example military application to provide a “mark on the wall” against which to measure tech-

Front Matter (R1-R20)

Executive Summary (1-12)

1. Introduction (13-16)

2. Operational and Technical Requirements (17-29)

3. Review of Current UGV Efforts (30-41)

4. Autonomous Behavior Technologies (42-71)

5. Supporting Technologies (72-93)

6. Technology Integration (94-103)

7. Roadmaps to the Future (104-110)

8. Findings and Recommendations (111-115)

References (116-120)

Appendix A: Committee Member Biographical Sketches (121-124)

Appendix B: Meetings and Activities (125-126)

Appendix C: Autonomous Mobility (127-150)

Appendix D: Historical Perspective (151-160)