overall Army UGV development program does not currently provide a basis for including UGVs with a high degree of autonomy in the initial FCS. Depending on the FCS requirement for UGVs, however, a special task force for the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisitions, Logistics, and Technology (ASA [ALT]) concluded in early 2002 that a system-level insertion of a UGV system in the semiautonomous preceder/follower class should be possible as a block upgrade to FCS by 2009 and a UGV system in the network-centric autonomous capability class by 2025.¹

Figure 7-4 depicts the most optimistic milestone dates for development of the example applications from a pure engineering perspective. It shows that the particular progression of example UGV system developments postulated by the committee could lead to insertion of a Hunter-Killer UGV in FCS in 2025. But the milestone dates assume that all of the capability gaps, even those identified as difficult and risky, will be filled in a timely fashion (see Tables 4-6 and 5-5 in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively). It is important to note that these milestones depend on knowing the objective capabilities desired for Hunter-Killer at the outset and that they do not take into account the many parallel developments not unique to UGVs, such as the mission-function equipment, high-performance engines, and network-centric communications, that undoubtedly will also be needed for FCS systems.

The examples used in the study resulted in lower TRLs (and more extended time lines) in large part because the committee believes that requirements for FCS UGVs will be much more demanding than indicated in field demonstrations of component technologies. Virtually all of the research and development work is being conducted under conditions that are much less harsh than the battlefield conditions under which UGVs will have to operate to be useful to the Army. In particular, the committee found that technologies that may appear to be relatively advanced when tested in good weather, on known terrain, with difficult obstacles removed, and with no enemy countermeasures are at a significantly lower TRL for military applications that are likely to be conducted in adverse weather over unmapped terrain in the presence of obstacles, obscurants, and electronic countermeasures.

Figures 7-5 through 7-8 are technology development roadmaps for the specific examples described in Chapter 2. As with Figure 7-4, the roadmaps assume that all capability

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)