Technology Development for Army Unmanned Ground Vehicles
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; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington 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 ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars 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 technical 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 Academy 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 programs 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 Academy, 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.
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
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
Preface
The Army’s strategic vision calls for transformation to a full-spectrum Objective Force that can project overwhelming military power anywhere in the world on extremely short notice. It must be agile, versatile, and lethal, achieving its objectives through the application of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, information superiority, and highly survivable combat systems. The key to transformation is innovative technology, and the future force will be composed of a family of systems that networks advanced air and ground assets, both manned and unmanned, to achieve superiority in ground combat.
Unmanned vehicles, both air and ground, will play a vital role in such a force structure. There are many tasks that unmanned systems could accomplish more readily than humans, and both civilian and military communities are now developing robotic systems to the point that they have sufficient autonomy to replace humans in dangerous tasks, augment human capabilities for synergistic effects, and perform laborious and repetitious duties.
Unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) have the potential to provide a revolutionary leap ahead in military capabilities. If UGVs are developed to their full potential, their use will reduce casualties and vastly increase combat effectiveness. To achieve this potential, however, they must be capable of “responsible” autonomous operation. Human operators may always be needed to make the critical decisions, even to take control of critical events, but it is impractical to expect soldiers to continuously control the movement of unmanned systems. Technologies needed to enable autonomous capabilities are still embryonic. Given technical success, there will be “cultural” programs as soldiers learn to trust robot counterparts.
Presentations to the committee and the Demo III demonstrations clearly show that the Army has started down that path and is pursuing many of the enabling technologies. However, without specific requirements to focus the technology base and without funding emphasis, the Army’s efforts are less likely to translate into tactically significant unmanned ground vehicle systems. It is particularly important that there be high-level advocacy to coordinate the generation of requirements and the evaluation and acceptance of system concepts.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research and Technology) requested that the National Research Council’s Board on Army Science and Technology conduct this study to evaluate the readiness of UGV technologies. The study was specifically tasked to examine aspects of the Army UGV program, review the global state of the art, assess technology readiness levels, and identify issues relating to implementing UGV systems as part of the Future Combat Systems program. In addition, the committee was tasked with projecting long-term UGV developments of value to the Objective Force.
The committee approached its task by organizing its efforts around the specific technologies and specific charges in the statement of task, subdividing into working groups that could proceed in parallel. Because expertise in many disciplines was necessary to effectively cover all of the elements of robotic vehicles, participants representing many fields were picked from academia and industry (see Appendix A for the biographies of committee members). Several of the committee members had relevant experience in the development, acquisition, testing, and evaluation of combat systems. These members played a vital role, given that concepts for the Future Combat Systems and Objective Force imply many capabilities that have not yet been translated into system requirements.
I want to express my personal gratitude to the members who donated their time to this study. They adhered to a demanding schedule, attended numerous meetings and
demonstrations, and had to review copious quantities of material necessary to effectively carry out the task. The report is theirs and represents the committee’s collective consensus on the current state of technology development for unmanned ground vehicles.
Any study of this magnitude requires extensive logistical and administrative support, and the committee is grateful to the excellent NRC staff for making its job easier.
Millard F. Rose, Chair
Committee on Army Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology
Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Harold S. Blackman, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory,
Johann Borenstein, University of Michigan,
Roger W. Brockett, Harvard University,
Jagdish Chandra, George Washington University,
Paul Funk, LTG, USA, General Dynamics,
Jasper Lupo, Applied Research Associates,
Larry H. Matthies, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and
Robert E. Skelton, University of California San Diego.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Thomas Munz. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Figures, Tables, and Boxes
FIGURES
ES-1 |
UGV technology areas, |
|||
ES-2 |
Time lines for development of example UGV systems, |
|||
1-1 |
Army transformation to the Objective Force, |
|||
4-1 |
Areas of technology needed for UGVs, |
|||
4-2 |
Autonomous behavior subsystems, |
|||
4-3 |
Perception zones for cross-country mobility, |
|||
4-4 |
User interface for controlling a formation of robot vehicles, |
|||
4-5 |
User interface for perimeter surveillance, |
|||
4-6 |
User interface for a facility reconnaissance mission, |
|||
4-7 |
Probability of success, |
|||
5-1 |
Areas of technology needed for UGVs, |
|||
5-2 |
Schematic of typical hybrid electric power train for UGVs, |
|||
5-3 |
System mass as a function of mission energy requirements, |
|||
5-4 |
Hybrid UGV 50-watt to 500-watt systems, |
|||
6-1 |
Life-cycle cost decisions, |
|||
7-1 |
Evolution of UGV systems, |
|||
7-2 |
Possible evolution of UGV system capabilities, |
|||
7-3 |
Notional FCS acquisition program, |
|||
7-4 |
Time lines for development of sample UGV systems, |
|||
7-5 |
Technology development roadmap for the Searcher, |
|||
7-6 |
Technology development roadmap for the Donkey, |
|||
7-7 |
Technology development roadmap for the Wingman, |
|||
7-8 |
Technology development roadmap for the Hunter-Killer, |
|||
7-9 |
Technology roadmap for development of generic “entry-level” systems in capability classes, |
|||
C-1 |
Pedestrian detection, |
|||
C-2 |
Demo III vehicle and PerceptOR vehicle, |
|||
C-3 |
Perception of traversable slope as an object, |
|||
C-4 |
Color-based terrain classification, |
C-5 |
Tree-line detection, |
|||
C-6 |
Geometric challenge of negative obstacles, |
|||
C-7 |
Negative obstacle detection using stereo video, |
|||
D-1 |
Autonomous land vehicle (ALV), |
|||
D-2 |
ALV and Demo II operating areas, |
|||
D-3 |
Demo II vehicle and environment, |
|||
D-4 |
Stereo obstacle detection results, |
TABLES
ES-1 |
Example Systems Postulated by the Committee, |
|||
ES-2 |
Estimates of When TRL 6 Will Be Reached for Autonomous Behavior and Supporting Technology Areas, |
|||
ES-3 |
Capability Gaps in Autonomous Behavior Technologies, |
|||
ES-4 |
Capability Gaps in Supporting Technology Areas, |
|||
2-1 |
UGV Capability Classes, Example Systems, and Potential Mission Function Applications, |
|||
2-2 |
Relative Dependence of Technology Areas for Each UGV Class, |
|||
2-3 |
Searcher: Basic Capabilities for an Example of a Small, Teleoperated UGV, |
|||
2-4 |
Donkey: Basic Capabilities for an Example of a Medium-Sized, Preceder/Follower UGV, |
|||
2-5 |
Wingman: Basic Capabilities for an Example of a Medium-Sized to Large Platform-Centric UGV, |
|||
2-6 |
Hunter-Killer Team: Basic Capabilities for a Small and Medium-Sized Marsupial Network-Centric UGV Team, |
|||
4-1 |
Criteria for Technology Readiness Levels, |
|||
4-2 |
Perception System Tasks, |
|||
4-3 |
Technology Readiness Criteria Used for Perception Technologies, |
|||
4-4 |
TRL Estimates for Example UGV Applications: On-Road/Structured Roads, |
|||
4-5 |
TRL Estimates for Example UGV Applications: On-Road/Unstructured Roads, |
|||
4-6 |
TRL Estimates for Example UGV Applications: Off-Road/Cross-Country Mobility, |
|||
4-7 |
TRL Estimates for Example UGV Applications: Detection of Tactical Features, |
|||
4-8 |
TRL Estimates for Example UGV Applications: Situation Assessment, |
|||
4-9 |
Estimates for When TRL 6 Will Be Reached for Autonomous Behavior Technology Areas, |
|||
4-10 |
Capability Gaps in Autonomous Behavior Technologies, |
|||
5-1 |
Desired Criteria for a High-Mobility UGV Weighing Less Than 2,000 Pounds, |
|||
5-2 |
Current Options for Army UGV Mobility Platforms, |
|||
5-3 |
Summary of Power/Energy Systems, |
|||
5-4 |
Estimates for When TRL 6 Will Be Reached in UGV Supporting Technology Areas, |
|||
5-5 |
Capability Gaps in Supporting Technology Areas, |
|||
C-1 |
Sample Environments and Challenges, |
|||
C-2 |
Imaging Sensor Trade-offs, |
|||
C-3 |
Sensor Improvements, |
|||
C-4 |
Impact of Feature Use on Classification, |
|||
D-1 |
Performance Trends for ALV and Demo II, |
BOXES
1-1 |
A Glimpse of the Future, |
|||
3-1 |
Task Statement Question 2.a, |
|||
3-2 |
Task Statement Question 2.b, |
|||
3-3 |
Task Statement Question 2.c, |
|||
3-4 |
Task Statement Question 3.c, |
|||
4-1 |
Task Statement Question 4.a (Perception), |
|||
4-2 |
Task Statement Question 4.a (Navigation), |
|||
4-3 |
Task Statement Question 4.a (Planning), |
|||
4-4 |
Task Statement Question 4.b (Tactical Behaviors), |
|||
4-5 |
Task Statement Question 4.b (Cooperative Behaviors), |
|||
4-6 |
Task Statement Question 4.a (Learning/Adaptation), |
|||
4-7 |
Task Statement Question 3.d (Autonomous Behavior Technologies), |
|||
4-8 |
Task Statement Question 4.c (Autonomous Behavior Technologies), |
|||
5-1 |
Task Statement Question 4.b (Human–Robot Interaction), |
|||
5-2 |
Task Statement Question 4.b (Mobility), |
|||
5-3 |
Task Statement Question 4.b (Communications), |
|||
5-4 |
Task Statement Question 4.b (Power/Energy), |
|||
5-5 |
Task Statement Question 4.b (Health Maintenance), |
|||
5-6 |
Task Statement Question 3.b, |
|||
5-7 |
Task Statement Question 3.d (Supporting Technology Areas), |
|||
6-1 |
Task Statement Question 5.c, |
|||
7-1 |
Task Statement Question 5.a, |
|||
8-1 |
Task Statement Question 3.a, |
|||
8-2 |
Task Statement Question 5.b, |
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AADL
Avionics Architecture Definition Language
ACC
adaptive cruise control
ACN
assign commercial network
ACS
agile combat support
ALN
adaptive logic networks
ALV
autonomous land vehicle
ALVINN
autonomous land vehicle in a neural network
AMCOM
Army Aviation and Missile Command
AMUST-D
Airborne Manned/Unmanned System Demonstration
AOE
automated ordnance excavator
ARL
Army Research Laboratory
ARTS-FP
All-purpose Remote Transport System-Force Protection
ARTS-RC
All-purpose Remote Transport System-Range Clearance
ARV
armed reconnaissance vehicle
ASA (ALT)
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology)
ASB
Army Science Board
ASTMP
Army Science and Technology Master Plan
ATD
Advanced Technology Demonstration
ATR
automated target recognition
ATV
all-terrain vehicle
AVRE
Armored Vehicle Royal Engineers
BAST
Board on Army Science and Technology
BDA
battle damage assessment
BLOS
beyond line of sight
BUGS
Basic UXO Gathering System
C2
command and control
CAT
crew integration and automation testbed
CCD
camouflage concealment deception
CECOM
Communications Electronics Command
CET
combat engineer tractor
CIS
communications interface shelter
CJCS
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
CMU
Carnegie Mellon University
COP
common operation picture
COTS
commercial off-the-shelf
CTA
Collaborative Technology Alliance
CVA
canonical variate analysis
DARPA
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DGPS
differential global positioning system
DOD
Department of Defense
DOE
Department of Energy
DRP
dynamic remote planning
DSP
digital signal producer
DSRC
dedicated short-range communications
DTED
digital terrain elevation data
DUECE
deployable universal combat earthmover
EEA
essential elements of analysis
EOD
explosive ordnance disposal
EWLAN
enhanced wireless local area network
FCC
Federal Communications Commission
FCS
Future Combat Systems
FDIR
fault detection, identification, and recovery
FFN
friend, foe, or neutral
FLIR
forward looking infrared radar
FOC
Future Operational Capabilities
FOLPEN
foliage penetration
FPGA
field programmable gate arrays
FY
fiscal year
GIPS
giga instructions per second
GIS
geographical information systems
GLOMO
global mobile
GOPS
giga operations per second
GPS
Global Positioning System
HAZMAT
hazardous materials
HCI
human–computer interface
HMI
human–machine interface
HMMWV
high-mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle
HRI
human–robot interaction
IFF
identification of friend or foe
IFFN
identifying friends, foes, and noncombatants
IFOV
instantaneous field of view
IMU
inertial measurement unit
INS
inertial navigation system
IR
infrared
JAUGS
Joint Architecture for Unmanned Ground Systems
JFCOM
Joint Forces Command
JPL
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
JRP
Joint Robotics program
JTRS
Joint Tactical Radio System
JVB
Joint Virtual Battlespace
LADAR
laser detection and ranging
LAN
local area network
LORAN
long-range navigation
LOS
line of sight
LPD
low probability of detection
LPI
low probability of intercept
LSI
lead system integrator
M&S
modeling and simulation
MARDI
Mobile Advanced Robotics Defense Initiative
MARS
Mobile Autonomous Robot Software
MC2C
multisensor command and control constellation
MDARS-E
Mobile Detection Assessment Response System-Exterior
MDARS-I
Mobile Detection Assessment Response System-Interior
MEP
Mobility Enhancement program
MFLIR+R
monocular forward looking infrared plus radar
MILS
multiple independent levels of security
MIPS
million instructions per second
MNS
mission needs statement
MOE
measure of effectiveness
MOP
measures of performance
MOPS
million operations per second
MOUT
military operations in urban terrain
MOV
measure of value
MPRS
Man-Portable Robotic System
MURI
Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
MV+R
monocular video plus radar
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NBC
nuclear, biological, chemical
NC-AGV
network-centric autonomous ground vehicle
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NLOS
non–line of sight
NLP
natural language processing
NRL
Naval Research Laboratory
OAR
organic air vehicle
ODIS
Omni-Directional Inspection System
OMG
Object Management Group
OO
object-oriented
OP
observation post
ORD
operational requirements document
OSD
Office of the Secretary of Defense
PC-AGV
platform-centric autonomous ground vehicle
PerceptOR
Perception off-road
PM
program manager
PRIMUS
Program of Intelligent Mobile Unmanned Systems
QoS
quality of service
RACS
robotics for agile combat support
RAIM
receiver autonomous integrity monitoring
RALPH
rapidly adapting lateral position handler
RBF
radial basis function
RCRV
remote crash rescue vehicle
RCSS
Robotics Combat Support System
RDA
Research, Development, and Acquisition
RF
radio frequency
RGB
red, green, blue
RONS
Remote Ordnance Neutralization System
RSTA
reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition
S&T
science and technology
SA
situational awareness
SAE
Society of Automotive Engineers
SAF-UGV
semiautonomous follower unmanned ground vehicle
SAP/F-UGV
semiautonomous preceder-follower
SARGE
Surveillance and Reconnaissance Ground Equipment
SDD
system development and demonstration
SEAD
suppression of enemy air defenses
SFLIR
stereo forward looking infrared
SLOC
source lines of code
SOP
standard operating procedure
SORC
statement of required capabilities
SPC
software process control
SRS
Standardized Robotics System
STO
science and technology objective
STRICOM
Simulation, Training, and Instrumental Command
SV
stereo video
SWAT
special weapons and tactics
SYRANO
Systeme Robotise d’Acquisition pour la Neutralisation d’Objectifs
TACOM
Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command
TARDEC
Tank-Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center
TGV
teleoperated ground vehicle
TMR
tactical mobile robot
TRAC
TRADOC Analysis Center
TRADOC
Training and Doctrine Command
TRL
technology readiness level
UAV
unmanned air vehicle
UCAV
unmanned combat air vehicle
UDS
UCAV Demonstration System
UGCV
unmanned ground combat vehicle
UGV
unmanned ground vehicle
UOS
UCAV Operating System
URPR
University Research Program in Robotics
USD-AT&L
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
USDOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
UUV
unmanned underwater vehicle
UWB
ultra-wide band
UXO
unexploded ordnance
VCI
vehicle cone index
VTOL
vertical takeoff and landing
XUV
experimental unmanned vehicle