Wikipedia

Talk:Next Generation Combat Vehicle

Latest comment: 25 days ago by 178.203.114.103 in topic software framework
Learn more about this page

Requested move 12 June 2020 edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 15:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


Next generation combat vehicle → ? – To change the name from Next generation combat vehicles to Next Generation Combat Vehicle Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle BigRed606 (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC) BigRed606 (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Note what I am proposing is that the name Next generation combat vehicle be changed to where all the first letters of each word are capitalized. Similar to how Ground Combat Vehicle is named.BigRed606 (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

*Support Because the proper way to write the title is that are all the first letters of each word are capitalized. Example title Ground Combat Vehicle. BigRed606 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

  • Weak Oppose I first said No, because LOWERCASE. But then I realised that the title might be a proper name. I looked at the sources: only the first one capitalizes it as a name. The second doesn't directly refer to the vehicle, and the last two both refer to it without capitals. All of them refer to the Next Generation Combat Vehicle Team that way, but not to the vehicle, apart from the first one. As Wikipedia follows the sources (COMMONNAME), I think it should stay put. But I won't lose any sleep if it gets moved. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose as per Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text. When this is done, the title is simple to link to in other articles... Just because the subject is often referred to by an initialism does not mean it should have every letter capitalized. We have British thermal unit, NOT British Thermal Unit even though this is often kn own as a BTU. WE have Miles per hour, not "Miles Per Hour" to match MPH. We have Armoured personnel carrier, even though this is commonly known as an APC. We have Ground-effect vehicle in spite of the abbreviation GEV. Why should Next generation combat vehicle be an exception? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Note I found a source that Title the name as (Next Generation Combat Vehicle) and not (Next generation combat vehicle). Source https://defence-blog.com/news/army/u-s-army-released-declassified-images-of-next-generation-combat-vehicle.html BigRed606 (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) says Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters says: Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence.[a] Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. Unless all or most sources effectively treat "Next Generation Combat Vehicle" as a proper name, I don't think its use in one or a few sources should override the MOS, capitalization is style, not substance -- we follow sources for substance. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Update I just did some research and discovered that that the government changed (see sources at bottom), the name of the program to Operationally Manned Fighting Vehicle. I now request and Support the name being changed to Operationally Manned Fighting Vehicle. Sources: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R45519.pdf BigRed606 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Note DES, ColinFine would you also support the new name to be changed to Operationally Manned Fighting Vehicle? BigRed606 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • I would want to see multiple sources that indicate that this has now become the usual or common name for this equipment, as per WP:COMMONNAME, and even then I would support "Operationally manned fighting vehicle" not "Operationally Manned Fighting Vehicle", as there is still no reason for the extra caps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 March 2021 edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. If someone wants to debate the hyphen, please re-propose the move as soon as you wish. Do not take me to WP:MRV over this. Make a new request. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 16:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Next generation combat vehicle → Next-Generation Combat Vehicle – It is the name of a U.S. Army program, and as such is a proper name. See, for example, Advanced Combat Rifle, Armored Gun System, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Future Combat Systems, Individual Carbine, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. Equally, it might be worth renaming it Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program, because, as the article says, it is a "program intended to procure a variety of armored vehicles", not just one model of vehicle. RadiculousJ (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 16:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment: Consider MOS:HYPHENCAPS. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Like the examples given by the nominator, this is evidently a proper name of a program. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] There does, however, seem to be fairly split use of the hyphen: the Army itself appears to use the non-hyphen version, so I have a preference for that one. — Goszei (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support  With hyphen. As a matter of editorial style, we can choose the correct form. Styling compound adjectives is a too-common error that we shouldn’t perpetuate. —Michael Z. 17:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • This is a proper name, so should be uppercase. RadiculousJ (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Per hyphencaps, “Next-Generation Combat Vehicle,” capitalized because “except for proper names.” Normally, every major word is capitalized, so Next-Generation (but, e.g., Co-operative, because co is not a word on its own). —Michael Z. 17:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • It is not a matter of whether the phrase as a whole is a proper name. The rule is well described at WP:Manual of Style/Titles § Hyphenation: "The general rule in English [is] to not capitalize after a hyphen unless what follows the hyphen is itself a proper name (as in post-Soviet)" (emphasis added). However, that also says that this rule "is often ignored in titles of works", and that for such works we should "Follow the majority usage in independent, reliable sources for any given subject (e.g. The Out-of-Towners but The History of Middle-earth)." Perhaps we should follow the same guidance here, so that if we can't find sources that use the hyphenated form with a lowercase 'g', then uppercase would be acceptable. I have checked all the sources cited in the article. I found the no-dash form, the dashed-capped form, and one that put the whole phrase in lowercase (as per the current article title) except for one instance in a photo caption. I did not find any that used a dash with a lowercase 'g' and uppercase for the other words. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terminology edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Mobile Protected Firepower"? "Decisive Lethality Platform"? Who comes up with these ridiculous names? They're even worse than "Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon/Mortar"! 104.153.40.58 (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Moved content from Army Futures Command edit

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The Army Futures Command article had accumulated a lot of detail that better belongs here. PRRfan (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

(text pt1)

Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) portfolio:[1][2][3][4]

The use of modular protection is a move toward modular functionality for combat vehicles.[5][6][7]

At Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), Firestorm (a Project Convergence AI node)[8][9][10] sent targeting coordinates to Remote Weapons Stations, which were proxies for the Robotic Combat Vehicles and Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicles. A CROWS was slewed to the aimpoint, awaiting the human commander's order to fire.[11] Firestorm aids and partakes of the Common operational picture (COP) shared by the AI hub at Joint Base Lewis-McChord.[11][12] Satellite-based, F-35 based, and Army ground-based targeting data were shared in real-time during Firestorm's operation with the AI hubs to produce effects at YPG.[13][14]

Firestorm was made possible by a mesh network—improvising a medium earth orbit (MEO, at 1200 mile altitude), and then a geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO, at 22,000 mile altitude) satellite link between Joint Base Lewis-McChord to Yuma Proving Ground.[15] Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) has gained full-rate production approval.[a] A ground mobility vehicle competition, bids closing 26 October 2018[20]

The JLTV was approved for full rate production in June 2019.[21] Joint Modernization Command (JMC) is supporting a TCM Stryker study on the optimum number of JLTVs for light infantry brigades.[22] Electrification microgrid standards[23][24] AFC's Futures and concepts center is proposing a strategy to guide the electrification of the GCVs, using the JLTV as an example for a step-by-step pathway and transition plan for electrification.[25][26][27][28] Loren Thompson cautions that electrification per se could harm further fielding due to scope creep in specifications for the JLTV.[29] The Army has not requested a hybrid electric JLTV.[30]

The Maneuver CDID (MCDID) is undertaking the requirements development for electrification of Tactical and Combat Vehicles in September 2020;[31] General Wesley had previously announced a plan in April 2020 for the modernization of Tactical and Combat Vehicles using the JLTV electrification plan as a prototype template of the electrification process.[31][27] After prototype JLTV electrification, the Army is seeking ideas[32] for an electrified Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (LRV) by 2025.[33] The LRVs would complement the Infantry Squad Vehicles (ISVs),[33] and electrified versions of Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle - Dragoon which are already fielded.[34][b] GM Defense has since converted one of its bid vehicles for the ISV to an all-electric version.[36][37]

 
Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)[38]

Mobile Protected Firepower[39][40] approved by joint requirements oversight council.[3] Two vendors were selected to build competing prototype light tanks (MPF), with contract award in 2022.[41] A unit of 82nd Airborne Division will begin assessment of prototype MPFs beginning in March 2020.[42] General Dynamics Land Systems will build 42 MPFs, a battalion of light infantry tanks by FY2025.[43][44]

Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV):[45] soliciting input, in requirements definition stage; the 2018 requirement was that 2 OMFVs fit in a C-17.[3][46][27][28] A request for proposal for a vehicle prototype was placed 29 March 2019.[45][47] On 16 January 2020 the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle solicitation was cancelled, as a middle tier acquisition in its early stage; the requirements and schedule are being revisited.[48] The FY2021 budget request has been adjusted accordingly.[49][50][51]

An Army development team will not be an OMFV competitor as of 17 September 2020.[52] NGCV optionally manned fighting vehicle: OMFV is getting some industry silhouettes[53] which may be incorporated in digital designs for 2023, prototypes by 2025.[50] A fifth OMFV bidder (a small business) is still a contender in the competition, includes large consortia.[54] However, Mark Cancian points out that OMFV might not be suitable for a pivot to the Pacific theater.[55][56]

A hybrid electrified Bradley Fighting Vehicle is slated for January 2022 by RCCTO.[57] Robotic Combat Vehicles (RCVs) are underway:[58][45] General Murray envisions that by FY2023 critical decisions will be made on RCVs after years of experimentation.[59][60][61] Russia's Uran-9 (Уран-9) is not a robotic tank; rather it is an unmanned radio-controlled drone tank. A Next Generation main battle tank[62][63][64][65] remains a § Future concept. PRRfan (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notes edit

Notes

  1. ^ AMPV has reached full-rate production,[16] after Limited User Tests[1][3][17] General purpose variant supports Blue force tracking[18]: p.40  An Advanced Powertrain Demonstrator, compact enough for AMPVs, Bradleys, OMFVs, or RCVs, can generate 1,000 horsepower from diesel.[19] Alternatively, the demonstrator can generate electrical power: 160 kiloWatts for SHORAD high-energy lasers, or for propulsion of a 50-ton vehicle in quiet mode, for brief periods.[19]
  2. ^ Strykers upgraded with autonomous operation would need more control by wire, in order to experiment with autonomy.[35]

References edit

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

References

  1. ^ a b Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (5 Apr 2021) Faster, Tougher, Smarter: Army's Future Armored Force EXCLUSIVE AMPV, OMFV, MBT, RCV
  2. ^ GVSC Public Affairs (7 October 2019) Virtual experiments helping shape Next-Generation Combat Vehicle
  3. ^ a b c d Bob Purtiman, NGCV Cross-Functional Team (17 September 2018) Preparing for future battlefields: The Next Generation Combat Vehicle
  4. ^ Defense & Aerospace Report (12 Oct 2016) US Army Ground Combat Systems Chief on Armored Vehicle Programs
  5. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (17 Feb 2021) Army Tests New Active Protection For Abrams, Bradley, AMPV & Stryker
  6. ^ Defense & Aerospace Report (11 Oct 2017) US Army's Bassett on Trophy Active Protection Decision, AMPV, Future Vehicle Tech
  7. ^ Marty Beckerman (17 October 2018) A serious participation Trophy
  8. ^ Spc. Carlos Cuebas Fantauzzi, 22nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment (11 September 2020) Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team converges efforts during Project Convergence 20 Shortened time developing Common operating picture to 30 seconds
  9. ^ Sgt. 1st Class Will Reinier (10 September 2020) Campaign of learning: U.S. Army, AFC introduce Project Convergence
  10. ^ Army Futures Command (Monday, 14 September 2020) Project Convergence
  11. ^ a b Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (16 September 2020) A Slew To A Kill: Project Convergence
  12. ^ Matthew Cox (20 Sep 2020) Army's New Target Tracking System Aims to Quicken Artillery Kills "artificial intelligence to improve human decision-making; autonomy; and robotics"
  13. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (24 September 2020) Marine F-35s Share Targeting Data With Army: Project Convergence
  14. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (23 September 2020) Pushing Data 'From Space To Mud': Project Convergence
  15. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (21 Sep 2020) 'Improvised Mode': The Army Network Evolves In Project Convergence used a mesh network—50th Expeditionary Signal Battalion—Enhanced (ESB-E) was able to improvise a MEO satellite link in June 2020, to complete the link from JBLM to YPG
  16. ^ Jen Judson (4 Aug 2023) US Army greenlights armored vehicle for full-rate production
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference ndaa2020Cuts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference asaWSH2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ a b Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (12 Dec 2019) Army Revs Up High-Tech Tank Engine
  20. ^ Jen Judson (9 October 2018) US Army triggers start of possible ground mobility vehicle competition after long delay
  21. ^ Program Executive Office for Combat Support & Combat Service Support (21 June 2019) Army approves JLTV Full-Rate Production
  22. ^ Jonathan Koester, Joint Modernization Command http:[dead link]//fortblissbugle.com/2019/09/10/newest-army-vehicle-arrives-on-fort-bliss/ (10 September 2019) Newest Army vehicle arrives on Fort Bliss.
  23. ^ Yasmin Tajdeh (5 Oct 2021) Army Investing in Hybrid Power Microgrids Electrification microgrid and network standards: TMS, HPS
  24. ^ Jaspreet Gill (18 Oct 2022) As Army begins electrification push, C5ISR office aims to smooth bumps in the road $6.8 billion for Army's climate strategy, including tactical microgrids.
  25. ^ Matthew Cox (22 April 2020) Army Officials Working on Proposal That Could Lead to Electric JLTVs
  26. ^ Jen Judson (17 Mar 2020) US Army ventures down path to electrify the brigade
  27. ^ a b c Lt. Col. Thomas "Bull" Holland, PhD, U.S. Army (15 January 2019) Proposed Army Futures Command Process Tenets
    1. 'Scientific research is a fundamentally different activity than technology development';
    2. Incorporate 'scientific research into "Appendix C: Functional Concepts" and specify pathways for technology development';
    3. Buy into the 'fail fast' mentality;
    4. '6.3-funded projects to produce knowledge (technical data) that can be consumed by requirements developers as opposed to PMs';
    5. Use 'evidence-based requirements process' (early hypothesis testing) with citations for evidence:
      • All projects will be executed in no less than two increments.
      • No new requirements once an increment is started.
    6. Summary: 'advances on the battlefield requires comprehensive, coordinated changes in the entire acquisition system';
  28. ^ a b The RAND Corporation (2000) Discovery and Innovation: Federal Research and Development in the Fifty States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico RAND MR1194 Appendix B: Government-Wide and DOD Definitions of R&D Archived 6 March 2021 at the Wayback Machine See Appendix B p.615 for DOD Financial Management Regulation (Volume 2B, Chapter 5)
  29. ^ Loren Thompson (29 Jan 2021) Turning The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Into A Science Fair Would Be Dangerous For Warfighters
  30. ^ Andrew Eversden (25 Jan 2022) Oshkosh Defense announces first hybrid electric JLTV
  31. ^ a b Matthew Cox (22 Sep 2020) Army Takes First Step Toward Equipping Tactical, Combat Vehicles with Electric Engines
  32. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (22 April 2021) Electric Battlefield: Army Awards $600K For R&D
  33. ^ a b Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (7 October 2020) Army Seeks Electric Scout By 2025 ELRV to complement Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV), hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel-powered mobile charging sites for these expeditionary vehicles.
  34. ^ Jeff Martin (2019/10/22) Video: 30mm cannons and a new network: Here's what the Stryker brigade of the future will look like Video interview, Col. William Venable
  35. ^ Andrew Eversden (16 Jun 2022) Autonomy on a Stryker? 'It'll be challenging,' general says
  36. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr. (4 May 2021) GM Defense: New President, New Factory, New Electric Truck
  37. ^ Jen Judson (21 May 2021) Army wraps up industry demo for future electric light recon vehicle eLRV: A possible future prototyping program
  38. ^ Battle Order (1 Jul 2022) How America's NEW Light Tank Units Will Work 7:39
  39. ^ Jen Judson (10 Oct 2018) Decision coming soon on who will build prototypes for a new Army light tank
  40. ^ Battle Order (July 2022) Explaining the MPF Light Tank's Future Role (U.S. Army)
  41. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (17 December 2018) Army Picks BAE, GD For MPF Light Tank Prototypes: Upstart SAIC Is Out
  42. ^ Sean Kimmons, Army News Service (27 June 2019) 82nd Airborne infantry Soldiers to test light tank next year
  43. ^ Jen Judson (28 Jun 2022) US Army unveils contract to build new light tank for infantry forces General Dynamics Land Systems
  44. ^ Andrew Feickert, Congressional Research Service (5 Jan 2023) The Army's Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) System CRS report IF11859 105mm
  45. ^ a b c Gary Sheftick, Army News Service (3 April 2019) Army 'Shark Tank' enabling quick prototyping of new systems
  46. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (7 February 2020) Army Reboots OMFV, 2026 Deadline Dropped OMFV project starts over again; drops requirement that 2 fit on a C-17 as premature, does not insist on 2026 deadline; approach is less top-down
  47. ^ Andrew Feickert, CRS Report for Congress, R45519 (10/10/2019) Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) Program: Background and Issues for Congress --Updated 10 October 2019 abstract. Details in pdf
  48. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (21 January 2020) Army 'Fully Committed To Replacing The Bradley': Gen. McConville Bradley fighting vehicle replacement is still a project
  49. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (10 February 2020) Army Boosts Big Six 26%, But Trims Bradley Replacement FY2021 budget request
  50. ^ a b Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (10 April 2020) Army Revamps OMFV Bradley Replacement For Russian Front OMFV digital designs by 2023, prototypes by 2025, operational by 2028
  51. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (19 April 2021) OMFV: Korea's Hanwha Is Officially In Partner with Oshkosh
  52. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (18 Sep 2020) OMFV: Army Team Won't Compete For Bradley Replacement
  53. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (15 Apr 2021) OMFV: Army gets BAE, GD Designs For Bradley Replacement: BAE's press release features a shadowy silhouette of a previously unseen vehicle. Could this be BAE's proposal for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle?
  54. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (20 Apr 2021) OMFV: Why Small Biz MettleOps Has A Shot
  55. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (26 Apr 2021) OMFV: Army's Bradley Replacement Faces Hill, DoD Skeptics
  56. ^ Capt. Sean Minton (23 April 2022) US Army equips first unit with modernized Bradley with transition plan to OMFV. 5 Bradley brigade sets planned.
  57. ^ Andrew Eversden (29 Nov 2021) Army plans to turn on first hybrid electric Bradley in January
  58. ^ Army ALT Magazine, Commentary (20 March 2019) Driving the Future
  59. ^ Army.mil "Robotic combat vehicles could change way Army looks, fights". www.army.mil. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
  60. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (20 November 2019) The Army's Got A Universal Robot Driver
  61. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (12 Oct 2022) Lighter, hybrid, & highly automated: the Army's next-gen armor "Experimental Robotic Combat Vehicles and virtual designs for Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicles" .. "OMFV will be entirely based on open-architecture standards"
  62. ^ David Vergun, Army News Service (9 October 2018) Next Generation Combat Vehicles to replace Bradley starting fiscal year 2026
  63. ^ Binkov (3 Mar 2021) Will Abrams be replaced with a new tank? And what will it be?
  64. ^ Ashley Rocque (6 Sep 2023) America's next tank: Army greenlights more aggressive M1 Abrams upgrade best features of M1A2 SEPv4 → M1E3Abrams for 2040s
  65. ^ Christina MacKenzie (22 Sep 2023) French, German defense ministers throw support behind future tank effort "After a high-level meeting, both stressed a separate European Defense Fund effort is no competition for the Main Ground Combat System". They seek a €20 million grant for a French & German study of a Main Ground Combat System (MGCS).
@PRRfan: Are you proposing to add this content to this article? If so, then I would suggest you just go for it. - wolf 06:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Right now, I'm just cleaning up a really bloated Army Futures Command. This doesn't belong there, but I certainly wouldn't want somebody's (misplaced) effort to go to waste. So I moved this here, for me or whomever to do with as they like. PRRfan (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

More content from Army Futures Command edit

Perhaps this will be of more use here than in the Army Futures Command article. PRRfan (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

(text pt2)

NGCV Next generation combat vehicle[1][2]

  • Much smaller and lighter ground combat vehicles, optionally unmanned[3] (Dedicated short-range communications for robotic vehicles[4]
     
    Small Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S-MET) candidate robotic mules for transporting infantry squad equipment[5]
    • If robotic combat vehicles (RCVs) do not need to be manned, neither would they need to be armored (see Uran-9); use of sensors and batteries could replace the armor.[6][7] Soldiers have learned to remotely operate the weapons on such RCVs in several days;[6] the CCDC RCV Center and CFT are placing RCV prototypes and the Soldier's vehicle prototypes in company-level scenarios in Europe, in 2020 and forward.[6] Modified Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M113s at Fort Carson went through unit-level operations to gain experience with RCVs in July and August 2020.[8] Future breaching operations will be affected in detail by the robotic breaching concept, according to the panel at the AUSA October 2020 meeting.[9][10]
  • Robotic warfare, as a concept or capability at the Joint Corps echelon, was demonstrated at the operational level using Joint Warfighting assessment (JWA) 18.1 in April 2018.
    • JWA 19 (April–May 2019): I Corps, at Joint base Lewis-McChord, is getting modernization training on the robotic complex breaching concept (RCBC),[11] and the command post computing environment (CPCE)[12] from Joint modernization command (JMC) training staff.[13]
    • Create decisive lethality:[14][15][16] Robotic experiments[17][18]
      • Jen Judson reports that Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley is proposing that the brigades begin to electrify their vehicles using hybrid,[19] or all-electric propulsion.[20][21][a]
      • Smaller brigades and stronger division-level maneuver, with robotic aerial reconnaissance vehicles, robotic combat vehicles (RCVs), and long-range precision fires (LRPFs) are under consideration.[29][30]
      • Modified M2 Bradleys (MET-Ds) and other RCVs operating at Fort Carson, and in Europe have used robotic software to operate the vehicles, for both logistics and also for combat maneuver.[31] As of August 2020, the RCVs are able to perform limited waypoint navigation; multiple vehicles can be controlled by one human operator.[31]

Notes edit

Notes

  1. ^ Perhaps using other mobile power plants (2020), using TRISO fuel[22] (2022)—Idaho National Laboratory will assemble a Project Pele transportable nuclear reactor, and test it for up to three years;[23] if test performance warrants it, this type of reactor will generate a nominal 2 MWe (1 to 5 MWe— megaWatts, electrical) for up to 3 years, for isolated areas such as the Arctic, or for an island;[24] the reactor will be gas-cooled;[25][26][27] the fuel will be high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU);[28] experiments for handling the nuclear fuel will be performed at Idaho National Labs Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT), or the Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF) during the three year test period.[27] Mobile Microreactor startup testing at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC), or at the Critical Infrastructure Test Range Complex (CITRC).[27] Assembling, operating, and disassembling, and transporting the Mobile Microreactor at the MFC, or at the CITRC.[27] Transporting the disassembled mobile microreactor to temporary storage at the Radioactive Scrap and Waste Facility (RSWF), or at the Outdoor Radioactive Storage Area (ORSA).[27] Potentially conducting mobile microreactor and spent nuclear fuel post-irradiation examination (PIE) and disposition at Idaho National Lab.[27] Produce reliable electrical power on a CITRC electrical grid that is separate from the public utility grid at Idaho National Lab.[27]

References edit

References

  1. ^ Todd South (14 Jul 2021) Tanks are here to stay: What the Army's future armored fleet will look like
  2. ^ SARA ARL (29 Jun 2021) Army program introduces new software for robot autonomy AIMM ERP (Artificial Intelligence for Maneuver and Mobility Essential Research Program)
  3. ^ Bob Purtiman, NGCV Cross-Functional Team (17 September 2018) Preparing for future battlefields: The Next Generation Combat Vehicle
  4. ^ Mark Gardiner The New York Times (Friday 21 Sep 2018) p.B4
  5. ^ Sean Kimmons, Army News Service (4 June 2020) Small robotic mule, other unmanned ground systems on the horizon
  6. ^ a b c Sean Kimmons, Army News Service (11 July 2019) Soldiers to operate armed robotic vehicles from upgraded Bradleys (Mission Enabler Technologies-Demonstrators, or MET-Ds)
  7. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr. (14 October 2019) Army Robots Go Rolling Along – Ahead Of Schedule Robotic combat vehicles in "Four Years, Three Phases, Three Weight Classes"
  8. ^ Mandy Mayfield (2 Oct 2020) Army Puts Robotic Combat Vehicles Through Paces
  9. ^ USACE (6 Oct 2020) Future Combined Arms Breaching Technology to be highlighted at AUSA 2020
  10. ^ Office of the Chief of Public Affairs (10.13.2020) AUSA 2020 Warriors Corner - Future Combined Arms Breaching Enabled by Technology
  11. ^ Daniel Lafontaine, CCDC (21 May 2019) Army Futures leveraging mission command for effective Soldier, robot teams
  12. ^ Devon L. Suits (26 July 2018) CERDEC unveils more than a dozen new technologies for mission command CPCE COE MCE
  13. ^ Maj. Rich Marsh, Joint Modernization Command (14 February 2019) JMC sets the stage for largest annual modernization exercise
  14. ^ Jen Judson (9 October 2018) The Army's future tank may not be a tank Buy back size, weight, and power
  15. ^ Economist.com (12 Sep 2020) Tanks have rarely been more vulnerable Taiwan would have an advantage defending.
  16. ^ Army.mil "Robotic combat vehicles could change way Army looks, fights". www.army.mil. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
  17. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr. (11 September 2019) Titan Robot Test-Fires Javelin Anti-Tank Missile Remote-controlled test-fires of FGM-148 Javelin antitank missiles from unmanned ground vehicle
  18. ^ David Miller (20 August 2020) The Future of Unmanned Ground Systems in the Operational Environment names 7 countries using UGSs
  19. ^ NANCY JONES-BONBREST (16 July 2020) ARMY AWARDS CONTRACT FOR HYBRID ELECTRIC PROTOTYPE
  20. ^ Jen Judson (17 Mar 2020) US Army ventures down path to electrify the brigade
  21. ^ Major Matthew Wood (Nov 2019) The Future of Hybrid and Electric Technology for Army Archived 23 March 2020 at the Wayback Machine Australian Defence Force
  22. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (8 April 2020) New TRISO Nuclear Mini-Reactors Will Be Safe: Program Manager DoD project: 3 competing designs (1-year contracts, with a possible 1 year follow-on) for 1 prototype of an inherently safe reactor (no meltdowns). Fuel rods are composed of spheres: three layers of uranium, carbon, silicon carbide—TRISO has been tested to be safe at 3200°F, hotter than the melting point of steel. A molten salt reactor is a possibility.
  23. ^ Jaspreet Gill (13 Apr 2022) Idaho National Labs to build Pentagon's mobile 'nuclear microreactor'
  24. ^ Todd South (15 Apr 2022) Pentagon to build nuclear microreactors to power far-flung bases Ft Greeley
  25. ^ DoD SCO (13 Apr 2022) DoD to Build Project Pele Mobile Microreactor and Perform Demonstration at Idaho National Laboratory
  26. ^ Jeff Waksman (Mar 2020) Project Pele Overview
  27. ^ a b c d e f g DoD Office of the Secretary, SCO (15 Apr 2022) Record of Decision for the Final Construction and Demonstration of a Prototype Mobile Microreactor Environmental Impact Statement
  28. ^ BWX Technologies (BWXT) (9 Jun 2022) BWXT to Build First Advanced Microreactor in United States for Project Pele
  29. ^ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (6 Nov 2020) Army Wants Smaller Brigades, Stronger Divisions & Lots O' Robots First contact with the enemy to be unmanned. Lists a portfolio of Common robotic systems (CRSs)
  30. ^ Spc. Garrison Waites (12 Jun 2022) Soldiers get hands-on experience with new tech during Combined Resolve Using RCVs with Javelins and CROWS
  31. ^ a b Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (7 August 2020) Robots & Puddles: Surprises From Army RCV Test

PRRfan (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

software framework edit

Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/robotics/2024/04/03/anduril-to-supply-robotic-combat-vehicle-software-to-us-army/ The U.S. Army and Defense Innovation Unit selected Anduril Industries to develop a software framework thought foundational to testing and deploying future robotic combat vehicle payloads. 178.203.114.103 (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Next_Generation_Combat_Vehicle&oldid=1218187194"