GXV-T Proposer Day DARPA Sep 2014

UNCLASSIFIED

Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED 1

Ground X-Vehicle Technologies Program Proposers’ Day

GXV-T Dr. Kevin Massey, Program Manager

September 5, 2014

Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


History of Cavalry

420 kg Horse +Rider

2000 BC

1800 AD

1600 AD

1000 BC

500 BC

1600 BC

3000 BC

4000 BC

1500 AD

500 AD

• When the horse was actually domesticated is somewhat in dispute. • Ancient Sumerians appear to be the first society to use the horse in war • Horses were ridden without saddles and the horses were probably 350kg

2000 AD

Sumerians Light Horse/Ridden

UNCLASSIFIED


History of Cavalry

450kg Horse

Hittites/Egypt Chariots

• Horses can carry roughly 30% of their weight, but can pull 8X their weight • The Hittites and Egyptian developed the war chariot • Horse size roughly 450 kg

420 kg Horse +Rider

2000 BC

1800 AD

1600 AD

1000 BC

500 BC

1600 BC

3000 BC

4000 BC

1500 AD

500 AD

2000 AD


UNCLASSIFIED


History of Cavalry

450kg Horse

563 kg Horse

+ Rider

+ Armor

Assyrians Light Armored Cavalry

• The Assyrians developed the first crude saddles and horse armor • Lightly armored cavalry using bronze and leather armor • In 360BC Xenophon published a book on horsemanship in Greece


420 kg Horse +Rider

2000 BC

1800 AD

1600 AD

1000 BC

500 BC

1600 BC

3000 BC

4000 BC

1500 AD

500 AD

2000 AD


UNCLASSIFIED


History of Cavalry

450kg Horse

Hittites/Egypt Chariots 563 kg

Horse +

Rider +

Armor


594 kg Horse

+ Rider

+ Armor

Persians Heavy Cavalry

• The Persians are considered to be the inventors of heavy cavalry, 500 BC • Darius of Persia and Philip of Macedon both included cavalry in tactics • Han Dynasty in China, 200BC • Horse size around 475kg

420 kg Horse +Rider

2000 BC

1800 AD

1600 AD

1000 BC

500 BC

1600 BC

3000 BC

4000 BC

1500 AD

500 AD

2000 AD


UNCLASSIFIED


History of Cavalry




675 kg Horse

+ Rider

+ Armor

Europe Heavy Cavalry


• The Middle Ages was noted for the heavily armored mounted Knight

• Wraparound saddle, stirrups and spurs • Often another horse was ridden to the battle,

then a team armored the horse and the knight before battle (logistics)

450kg Horse

563 kg Horse

+ Rider

+ Armor

594 kg Horse

+ Rider

+ Armor

420 kg Horse +Rider

2000 BC

1800 AD

1600 AD

1000 BC

500 BC

1600 BC

3000 BC

4000 BC

1500 AD

500 AD

2000 AD

UNCLASSIFIED


History of Cavalry


Europe Heavy Cavalry


• In the 1300’s masses of English Longbowmen defeated French Cavalry • Swiss pike formations were able to withstand cavalry charges • Gunpowder weapons became prevalent • Dominance of heavy cavalry waned



675 kg Horse

+ Rider

+ Armor

450kg Horse

563 kg Horse

+ Rider

+ Armor

594 kg Horse

+ Rider

+ Armor

420 kg Horse +Rider

2000 BC

1800 AD

1600 AD

1000 BC

500 BC

1600 BC

3000 BC

4000 BC

1500 AD

500 AD

2000 AD

UNCLASSIFIED


History of Cavalry

• The horse mounted soldier gradually disappeared from the battlefield • But 6000 years was a good run • The armored horse disappeared faster (2500 years) • Horses got bigger – Armor heavier, better, before disappearing

• The 20th century saw the rise of mechanized cavalry via the internal combustion engine

• 100 years of innovation and growth in capability

UNCLASSIFIED


Snapshot of current combat vehicles

M1126 Stryker (US – 2000) Interim Armored Vehicle with Greater Strategic Mobility Transport: 1 in C-130, but not after up armoring Weight: 19T (23.4T after armor upgrades); Horsepower: 350Hp (450 Hp after armor upgrades); Crew 2+9

M1 Abrams (US – 1980) Designed to Counter Soviet Armor in European Theater Transport: 1 in C-17, 2 in C-5 Weight: 68T; Horsepower: 1500Hp; Crew: 4

M2/M3 Bradley (US – 1981) Designed as Troop Transport to Complement M1 Tank Transport: 2 in C-17, 4 in C-5 Weight: 36T; Horsepower: 600Hp; Crew 3+6

Namer (Israel – 2008) Converted from Merkava Heavy Tank, High Survivability Transport: NOT APPLICABLE Weight: 68T; Horsepower:1200Hp; Crew 3+9

UNCLASSIFIED


• The ‘Good’ • Lethal against other armored vehicles • Pretty good mobility over most terrain • Survivability – we have learned a great deal about blast protection

• The ‘Bad’ • Strategic Mobility – vehicles are heavy and difficult to move to theater • Tactical Mobility – decades of ‘up armoring’ has resulted in heavy vehicles with

restricted off road mobility • Our dependence on improved surfaces has left vehicles vulnerable to IED attacks

• The ‘Ugly’

• Heavy vehicles with poor fuel consumption leads to long and vulnerably supply lines which require more vehicles for protection

• Future adversaries will likely continue to base in difficult terrain • IEDs are becoming more prevalent

Present ground vehicles

UNCLASSIFIED


Operational ramifications of armor-based survivability

Mission Move –

Fight – Win

Needs

Lethality Survivability Tactical Mobility Strategic Mobility

Requires

Heavy Armor to Survive

Direct Hits

Implies Low Strategic Mobility

Reduced Tactical Mobility

Extremely Heavy Vehicle Limited Mobility and Transportation

Limited to Roads

Vulnerable to IED’s

B-kits EFP Protection More Heavy Belly Armor

UNCLASSIFIED


Strategic mobility example - Desert Storm/Shield

85% by Sea

UNCLASSIFIED

Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. UNCLASSIFIED

• Strategic Mobility – into theater • Airlift with C-17, C-5, C-141

• Tactical Mobility – within theater • C-130, V-22, CH-53, CH-47

Present air mobility and ground vehicles

13

30,000 lb

20,000 lb

• Both are achievable with a smaller, lighter vehicle

C-130 volume constraint limits

Stryker and Bradley

*altitude & temperature dependent

*

*

Artist’s Concept

Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


Present ground vehicles have high tactical mobility on 40% of terrain • Roughly 55 km/hr on hard terrain

Mobility starts to taper off on softer soils • 45 – 25 km/hr over 40% of terrain

Wheeled vehicles have almost no mobility over 20% of soils and tracked vehicles speed continues to decrease

Tactical mobility

MRAP has almost no off-road capability, due to weight and rollover concern.

‘It’s protected transport, not a combat vehicle. We never used it in combat.’

UNCLASSIFIED


Historically, increased survivability = decreased mobility

Renault LT

Model T

Expe

ditio

nary

Mob

ility

is t

he c

ombi

natio

n of

Ta

ctic

al a

nd S

trat

egic

Mob

ility

as

defin

ed b

y th

e W

iede

nman

Equ

atio

n fo

r Ex

pedi

tiona

ry M

obili

ty.

Steel

RH

A

Com

posite

Boron C

arbide

1910-1940 Armor improved by 25%

Weapon effectiveness improved by 13X

M4 Sherman

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑅𝑅𝐴𝑡)𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝐴𝑃𝑡𝑡𝐴𝑡 𝐶𝑃𝐶𝑃𝐶𝑡𝐶𝑡𝑡𝐶 𝐴𝑜 𝐶𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑡𝐴𝐶𝐴𝐴𝑃𝐴𝐶 𝑇𝑡𝐴𝑡𝑃𝑡

𝑀𝑀𝑇,𝑆𝑆 = 𝑜 �(𝑉𝑉𝐴𝑃𝑚𝑚 )𝑡 , �𝑃𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑡𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑡𝑡

�𝑡

, (1 −𝐴𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡), (1 − 𝑣𝑣𝐴𝐶𝑣𝑣𝐴𝑡𝑡)�

15

UNCLASSIFIED



Renault LT

Model T

Steel

RH

A

Composite

Boron Carbide

M4 Sherman

Merkava

M551 Sheridan

M60 Patton

AAV

1940-1980 Armor improved by 2X

Weapon effectiveness improved by 4.5X

M1A2

M1 Abrams

M2 Bradley

T-72

16

UNCLASSIFIED



Renault LT

Model T

M4 Sherman

Merkava

M551 Sheridan

M60 Patton

AAV

Army and Marine Designs Have even less

Expeditionary Mobility

M1A2

M1 Abrams

M2 Bradley

T-72

Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)

- Trend line of trading mobility for survivability is getting worse - Never reach parity with threats - Always easier and cheaper to punch holes

Stryker

Lessons:

17

UNCLASSIFIED


Future of Cavalry

• Cavalry with the horse as the power plant grew in weight and effectiveness before a period of decline in their use

• What is the future of armored vehicles? • Is it continued weight growth?

• A key criticism of the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program

• Or are we at a similar inflection point in time?

GCV X

90,000 kg Main Battle Tank

MRAP (~Category I)

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Santayana (The Life of Reason, 1905)

• Different historians give different reasons for death of heavy cavalry

• Weapons improved such that heavy cavalry no longer provided overmatch

• English Longbow and guns • Too expensive to operate • Transition in training and tactics – focus on

dismounted troops

UNCLASSIFIED


• In the late 60’s and early 70’s, U.S. aircraft were taking unacceptable losses from SAMs.

• Prior investments in survivability in the form of speed, agility, altitude, and countermeasures were surpassed by missile technology.

• In 1974, DARPA initiated a program that changed the way military aircraft were built forever by proposing a new approach to aircraft survivability – that of avoiding detection.

• For the last 100 years, ground vehicles have relied on the same basic trades between armor and mobility. It is time to change the way military ground vehicles are built.

DARPA changes the game

Tacit Blue Have Blue

UNCLASSIFIED


The Ground X-Vehicle Technologies (GXV-T) program

GXV-T Program Objective Develop new generation of ground combat vehicle technologies that significantly improve expeditionary mobility without sacrificing survivability GXV-T Program • X-Plane paradigm

• Technology push (not transition pull)

• Not replacing combat vehicles/IFVs • Transforming/augmenting them

• Breaks the ‘More Armor’ paradigm

TARDEC Artist’s Concept

20


Artist’s Concept


UNCLASSIFIED


Probability of surviving is a function of combined probabilities of: 1. being detected 2. being engaged 3. weapon hitting vehicle or critical part of vehicle 4. weapon penetrating armor

GXV-T pursues a new approach to vehicle survivability

Present Armored Vehicle Approach Layer 1: No Penetration Last 100 years of fielded systems relied on Armor (inner layer) Avoid penetration: “I will be detected, I will be engaged, I will be hit” Layer 2: Avoid Being Hit Innovation of the Active Protection System Avoid being hit: “I will be detected, I will be engaged” Note: Complex US fielding issues – cost, safety, integration

21

𝑷𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 = 𝟏 − 𝑷𝒅𝒔𝒅𝒔𝒅𝒅𝑷𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒔𝑷𝒉𝒔𝒅𝑷𝒑𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒅𝒔𝒆𝒅𝒔

Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


Probability of surviving is a function of combined probabilities of: 1. being detected 2. being engaged 3. weapon hitting vehicle or critical part of vehicle 4. weapon penetrating armor

22

GXV-T Approach Layer 1: No Penetration “I will not armor entire vehicle, but move armor to defeat threat.” Layer 2: Avoid Being Hit “I will dodge using vehicle agility.” Layer 3: Avoid Being Engaged “I will not be engaged through not being where the enemy expects and through reducing the effectiveness of targeting systems.” Layer 4: Avoid Detection “I will not be detected because the vehicle is smaller and has reduced signatures.”

𝑷𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 = 𝟏 − 𝑷𝒅𝒔𝒅𝒔𝒅𝒅𝑷𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒔𝑷𝒉𝒔𝒅𝑷𝒑𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒅𝒔𝒆𝒅𝒔

GXV-T pursues a new approach to vehicle survivability

Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


• The Ground X-Vehicle Technologies Program is a 24 month effort to develop new technologies which ‘break the more armor’ paradigm of ground vehicles.

• Increase expeditionary mobility and survivability AT THE SAME TIME not trade them against each other

• The core effort is Technology Development • Subsystem technologies which can be demonstrated at the end of the two year effort

• Example areas which are ripe for development are discussed below

• Supplemented by Analysis • Concept Definition – define vehicles which showcase the technologies

• Modeling and Simulation – which develop analysis tools for combat simulation

• GXV-T could lead to an X-Vehicle demonstration program which would utilize the technologies developed and matured to create vehicle demonstrators to prove the premise that expeditionary mobility and survivability are not mutually exclusive.

What is the GXV-T Program?

UNCLASSIFIED


1. A Vehicle Program • GXV-T program is not developing a replacement for Bradley, Abrams, Stryker, EFV or another

planned program of record military vehicle – it is a technology development program

• GXV-T is envisioned to develop a suite of technologies designed to advance the next generation of military ground vehicles to demonstrate a marked leap in capabilities

2. An Armor Program • The GXV-T does not intend to fund material science or other armor solutions

• DARPA and the services continue to work near/far term ground vehicle armor approaches

3. An Active Protection System (APS) Program • DARPA has previously contributed to the technology development of APS

• Services continue to work technical, doctrinal challenges

4. A Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Weight Reduction Effort • Among other challenges, GCV was too heavy. RDECOM continues to work this.

5. A Point Solution • There is no GXV-T requirement or concept of operations. See #1 above.

• Yes, you should have ideas about operations and put those in proposals.

• Where is the next fight? Jungle? City? Desert? Mountains?

6. A ‘Networked Battlefield System of Systems’ – Part 2

7. An Unmanned Ground Vehicle Program

What the GXV-T Program is NOT

UNCLASSIFIED


• Based on previous seedling efforts and conversations with subject matter experts, DARPA has provided four Technology Development example areas.

• Technology Development proposals are not limited to these areas

• The following serve as; • Inspiration

• Exemplar cases where we have thought of research program objectives, performance criteria and end demonstrations. (i.e. the type of things we expect to see in proposals)

• We put ourselves in your shoes and this is what we came up with

• Go forth and do better! • DARPA and DOD needs your solutions

We need your ideas!

UNCLASSIFIED


Vehicle agility - Survivability with less armor

Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


• Detect launch & maneuver to avoid being hit • Detect launch & reconfigure to avoid being hit or

be hit in a non vulnerable area

Rocket-propelled grenade 75 m launch

0.5 second flight time 100 ms sense time

0.4 second move time 250 kg armor moves 1m

GXV-T could “duck” to avoid oncoming fire from long range tank-fired HE threat

GXV-T finds cover

Vehicle agility - Avoid being hit, avoid penetration

US Army ARL-SLAD Seedling Threat Sensing, Time Quantification

US Army ARL-HRED Seedling Human factors – limits

+Gz = 4G

-Gz = 5G

-Gy = 5G

+Gy = 5G

-Gx = 15G

+Gx = 15G

27

US Army TARDEC Seedling Dynamic Movable Armor

Artist’s Concept

Artist’s Concept Artist’s Concepts

UNCLASSIFIED


• Vehicle Agility could take the place of heavy fixed armor by allowing the vehicle to rapidly react to incoming threats

• Vehicle Agility is NOT limited to the concepts shown • Can the vehicle (or crew compartment) rapidly move out of the way or be reconfigured

such that incoming threats have a low probability of a ‘kill’ without injuring the occupants in the process?

• Proposed efforts should focus on advancing concepts to laboratory or surrogate testing over a 24-month period

• e.g., Movable armor concept could be demonstrated by moving a piece armor to intercept an inbound threat using a fixed platform

• e.g., Burst acceleration could be demonstrated on a surrogate vehicle at multiple speeds on multiple surfaces

• The closer to operational capability the demonstration, the better

• Sensing technology should be leveraged from existing APS work when possible • System weight should be less than 10% overall vehicle weight

• If a design is scalable to multiple vehicle classes, that is better • The more threats the design addresses, the better

Vehicle agility example area

UNCLASSIFIED


Extreme mobility – Avoid engagement

UNCLASSIFIED


Green: 0-15% slope Go Area Yellow: 15-30% slope Go Area Red: >30% slope No-go Area

Extreme mobility – Greater terrain access

M2A3 Bradley Green: 0-8% slope Go Area Yellow: 8-15% slope Go Area Red: >15% slope No-go Area

GXV-T Terrain sample – Ft. Benning 2km x 2km

(equivalent to Germany Dry conditions)

30

• Get off the roads! • Avoid choke points and IED emplacements. • Be less predictable. • Produce tactical surprise. • Take the high road. • Or the low road. • See more of the world.

TARDEC concept

Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

M2A3/OIF GXV (two man)

Per

sonn

el L

osse

s Personnel Survivability Comparison

Extreme mobility = avoid being engaged

COMBAT XXI Operational Engagement Simulation

• US Army validated simulation comparing M2 Bradleys with GXV-T class vehicles

• For same overall vehicle tonnage simulation showed increased vehicle and personnel survivability for larger numbers of more mobile vehicles

Not Driving on Roads is the Best Technique for Surviving IEDs

31

Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


Enabling extreme mobility

Extreme Hydraulic Travel could provide the capability to traverse large obstacles at speed!

Hydraulic Extreme Travel Pratt&Miller Seedling

TARDEC Seedling

Mobility can aid in Urban Operations

Extreme Hydraulic Travel could enable jump capability.

Simulation results

Artist’s Concept Artist’s Concept Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


• Radically enhanced vehicle mobility could enable tactical surprise, enhanced survivability and enhanced operational effectiveness.

• Vehicle mobility is NOT limited to the concepts shown and should: • Demonstrate improved speed in mixed

environments: • 120kph off-road (3X M2A3 Bradley)

• <5% No-Go terrain access • across all standard NRMM-like conditions • Equal to or exceeds 3X M2A3 overall

• Absorbed power in crew positions of <6W • 60o slope; 30o side slope

• Proposed efforts should focus on advancing concepts to laboratory or surrogate testing over a 24 month period

• e.g. 40 inch travel suspension system demonstrated off-road on surrogate vehicle • e.g. In-hub wheel motors and electric steering demonstrated at high speed on & off road • e.g. Novel ground engagement beyond wheels or tracks • The closer to representative operational capability the demonstration, the better

Extreme mobility example area

UNCLASSIFIED


Crew augmentation – Smaller crew & vehicles

Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


• Aircraft-inspired operator cockpit • No windows – enhanced survivability • 360° Projection – enhanced situational

awareness

• Driver Assist

• Perception-based onboard and offboard driving assistance – virtual crewman

• Path Planning • Navigation and Driving workloads reduced • Safer operations at higher speeds across

more terrain types

• Automated classification,

targeting, weapon selection, and loading

• Replace gunner and loader functions

Platforms of smaller weight, volume,

profile

Crew functions of today’s 3-4 operators accomplished

by 1-2 GXV-T operators

Semi-autonomous functions

Enhanced Expeditionary

Mobility

Crew augmentation example area

35


UNCLASSIFIED


• Crew augmentation could offer the ability to reduce the size of vehicles and provide safer operations while also enhancing survivability

• Crew augmentation is NOT limited to the concepts shown • Can a function done today by the crew be automated with a 90% success rate?

i.e., the crew acts more in a supervisory capacity • Can greater situational awareness be provided to

the occupants while limiting susceptibility to external threats?

• Proposed efforts should focus on advancing concepts to laboratory or surrogate testing over a 24-month period

• e.g., Demonstration of automatic target detection, weapons selection, gun slewing and tracking

• e.g., Demonstration of route planning and driver assist technologies at operational speeds and environments on surrogate vehicle

• The closer to operational capability the demonstration, the better • Technologies should be applicable across multiple classes of vehicles

Crew augmentation example area

Terrain Classification Example

UNCLASSIFIED


• Reduction in signature makes vehicles: • Harder to detect • Harder to identify/classify • Harder to track • Harder to engage • Harder to hit

• Signatures should be reduced in one of more of the following areas: • Visual • Thermal • Acoustic • Infrared • Electro-magnetic • Dust • Ground tracks/”footprints”

• Proposers should be aware that signature management technologies may be of a classified nature; they should refer to the GXV-T Security Classification Guide for further guidance.

Signature management example area

Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


GXV-T – The program plan (subject to change)

Technology Development Efforts • TD-Y1 – 12 month Base, Multiple Awards

• TD-Y2 – 12 month Option Utility, Maturation, Plan, Cost (BIC receive option)

Concept Definition Efforts • Investigate Application of Technologies • 15 month Concept Definition efforts

Modeling and Simulation • Not part of this BAA but will support program

UNCLASSIFIED


Planned technology development timeline and deliverables

GXV-T Technology Development Reviews and Deliverables

Event Expected Timing

TD-Y1 Kickoff Review 0 MAA

TD-Y1 Initial Technology Review (ITR) 5 MAA

TD-Y1 Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) 10 MAA

TD-Y1 Final Package Submission 11 MAA

TD-Y2 Kickoff Review 13 MAA

TD-Y2 Mid-Build Review 15 MAA

TD-Y2 Technology Readiness Review 18 MAA

TD-Y2 Final Demonstration 22 MAA

TD-Y2 Prelim. Demo Data Results 23 MAA

TD-Y2 Final Data, Reports, Outbrief 24 MAA

TD Monthly Reports 1, 2, 3, … MAA *MAA = Months After Award

39

UNCLASSIFIED


• The initial round of awards would explore a larger spectrum of technologies. • As these technologies are being matured through the first year, DARPA

would be evaluating both contractor performance and military utility. • DARPA would be making a decision on which Technology Development

Options to fund for a 2nd year (around month 11). • Note that more funding is available in the second year, but larger demonstrations

are anticipated to cost more

• What factors would be considered? 1. Military Utility – As the effect of the technologies on vehicles are better understood (through the TD,

CD, and M&S efforts) certain technologies are likely to show greater overall operational utility.

2. Maturation of Technology in Year 1– Hardware demos are more desirable. 3. Maturation Plan – How good is the plan to reach a hardware demonstration of

the subsystem technology by the end of Year 2? 4. Cost – There is a fixed budget and not enough for all technologies to go forward.

• Remember, the post GXV-T program goal is to be able to directly transition

each technology to a future X-Vehicle and/or existing military vehicle.

Technology development – Planned year 2 options

UNCLASSIFIED


• Terramechanics – Ground Engagement – measurement of forces imparted to different soils using various ground engagement techniques at different rates

• Human Factors – further studies on factors (level, profile, restraints) influencing human injury under elevated g-loads

• POCs to contact about conducting final demonstrations on military ranges:

• US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence Ted Maciuba Deputy Director, Mounted Requirements 706.545.2078 [email protected]

• USMC

Ben Garza Coordinator, JCGV, PEO LS, Marine Corps 703.432.5124 [email protected]

Ongoing efforts and POCs

UNCLASSIFIED


Concept definition effort notional events and timing

GXV-T Concept Definition Reviews and Deliverables

Event Expected Timing Deliverables CD Kickoff Review 0 MAA Review briefings

Schedule-driven CDDP

CD Initial Systems Concepts and Architecture Assessment

2 MAA Review briefings Trade Studies Initial Systems Concepts and Architecture

CD Systems Concepts and Architecture Mid-Definition Review

8 MAA Review briefings Preliminary Systems Concepts Package Preliminary Systems Architecture Package Analysis Plans

CD Systems Concepts and Architecture Final Definition Review

13 MAA Review Briefings Final Systems Concepts Package (Full Technology Integration) Final Systems Architecture Package (SWAP, etc.) Final Analysis Plan Demonstrator Build Assessment

Final Systems Concepts and Architecture Submission

15 MAA Final Report

Monthly Reports 1, 2, 3, … MAA Monthly Report

*MAA = Months After Award

UNCLASSIFIED


• Call for proposals in SINGLE Technology Development efforts • Proposers may submit multiple proposals, but each proposal can only address one

technology (this will speed up the award process) • Abstracts (3 page limit) can be submitted until October 24

• DARPA response is intended to minimize efforts on proposals which are unlikely to be funded • Responses, if applicable, from DARPA in approximately 7 days • Response does not prohibit an ability to submit a full proposal

• Proposals due December 5, 2014 to be considered for main round of funding • BAA will remain open 11 months and proposals after this date may be considered

(as funding allows)

• Call for proposals in Concept Definition efforts • DARPA BAA-14-58 for Concept Definition efforts to be released in near future

• This will enable Concept Definition Proposers to tailor proposal towards specific technology areas

• Official deadlines, dates, guidance are contained in the BAA and supersede the above

• Refer to BAA for submission information and how to handle classified material

GXV-T – The BAA and submission deadlines

UNCLASSIFIED


Security Classification Guide (SCG)

GXV-T Security Classification Guide must be requested per the instructions provided in the BAA.

UNCLASSIFIED


• Proposals will be evaluated in part on the proposed approach to intellectual property.

• Technologies developed will have to be shared with the Concept Definition teams as well as the Modeling and Simulation team.

• It is DARPA’s intent that further realization of the technologies developed will occur on demonstrator vehicles in a follow-on program

• To facilitate these efforts, Government rights to all technology developed will be imperative

Intellectual property

UNCLASSIFIED


DARPA-BAA-14-50 (Technology Development)

DARPA-BAA-14-58

(Concept Definition)

http://www.fbo.gov

GXV-T – Funding opportunities

UNCLASSIFIED


0.1

1.0

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00

Expe

diti

onar

y M

obili

ty

Survivability

Proposed Vehicles Armor Only Trade Space

Ground X-Vehicle Technologies Goals

Example Area

Technical Challenges (Examples for BAA Topics)

Vehicle Agility

• Avoid incoming RPGs & ATGMs without harming occupants (burst accelerations, shock absorption)

• Ballistic & blast protection (capsules, compartmenting, jettisoning)

• Actively reposition armor

Extreme Mobility

• Ability to traverse diverse terrain, including slopes and various elevations

• Advanced suspensions, novel track/wheels • Extreme speed, off-road mobility • Rapid omni-directional mobility changes in

3-D

Crew Augmentation

• Full vehicle local situational awareness (“glass canopy” sensing, perception, onboard computations)

• Semi-autonomous driver assistance & automation of payload sensing, slewing, cueing functions

• Crew interfaces & visualization with all occupants

Signature Management

• Reduction in visible, IR, acoustic, EM signatures

Additional Capabilities

• Support overall program goal: Significantly improve expeditionary mobility without sacrificing survivability of crew or vehicle.

How do we plan to measure success?

Success would enable a better design space for ground vehicles.

Technical Success

Reduce Crew by 50% - More Mobility

47

Technical Success


Increase Speed by 2X – More Mobility

Technical Success



Access 3X More Terrain – More Survivability

Planned Metrics for Success



Access 3X More Terrain – More Survivability

Reduced Signatures – Harder to Detect, Engage, Hit

GXV-T Trade Space

UNCLASSIFIED


Potential future demonstrator program

Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions. ~ Sun Tzu

48

A successful GXV-T program could lead to a follow-on Demonstrator program. Future approval of such a program would require innovative technologies, strong vehicle concepts, and M&S that indicates: • Realizable X-vehicles • Viable TTPs


Artist’s Concept Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED


www.darpa.mil

49

Date post:	05-Dec-2014
Category:	Government & Nonprofit
Upload:	tom-lindblad
View:	126 times
Download:	4 times

GXV-T Proposer Day DARPA Sep 2014

Government & Nonprofit