Taking the Point for 25 Years

AEODRS: the Future of UGVs William Finn, AMREL Senior Copywriter & Editor June 15, 2012 What is the future of military UGVs? Is there a single program that we can study for clues? Is it reasonable to think a one program can shape the course of all UGV development for the entire military? Past is prologue At first glance, military UGVs are a mixed lot. Theyre different sizes, made by different companies, and often have proprietary subsystems that are not compatible with other UGVs. However, while robot suppliers and program mangers claim unique properties for their systems, most modern UGVs are based on earlier versions developed from a single program, and thus, share similar characteristics. This single primordial UGV program was managed by Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division (NAVEODTECHDIV). It is not surprising that while there have been multiple efforts at fielding UGVs, NAVEODTECHDIV has been the most successful. The initial mission of most UGVs has been Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), and for over 50 years, the Navy has had Joint Service responsibilities for training, research, and development for this area. Yes, each service has their own EOD division, but the Navy bears the primary responsibility for this mission. During the early 1990s, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded the development of unmanned systems with the mission of clearing mines in shallow waters. Eventually, some of these systems saw action in Bosnia. After a successful demonstration in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), NAVEODTECHDIV spurred production of Man Transportable Robotic Systems (MTRS). The modern era of military UGVs was born. Is there any similar program going on now that will set the standards for the next era of UGVs? AEODRS The only fully funded UGV program today is Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robot System (AEODRS), and it is run by NAVEODTECHDIV (notice the Navy www.commoncontrolnow.com
3445 Fletcher Ave, El Monte, CA 91731-3001 O: 800.882.6735

ocupros@amrel.com

2 connection). If there is a single effort that will determine the future of military UGVs, this is it. The goals of AEODRS may be defined as what it doesnt want. It doesnt want: Proprietary architecture that can only be accessed by a sole vendor Operator Control Units (OCU) that work for only one unmanned system Logistic support burdened by redundancy for proprietary components Upgrade and development process that is expensive, slow, and cumbersome In other words, the military doesnt want what it has now. AEODRS intends to create a Family Of Systems (FoS) for UGVs. Over the next ten years, AEODRS will develop UGVs for: Dismounted Operations Tactical Operations Base/Infrastructure Operations The diminutive Dismounted Operations system will be built first. The AEODRS UGVs will get larger as development proceeds to systems for Tactical Operations and Base/Infrastructure Operations. Designed for reconnaissance, the Dismounted Operations System will also place counter-charges to disrupt a device. Optimal Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) is a must for this backpackable lightweight UGV. The on-the-move OCU will be small and handheld. The Tactical Operations System will be the second member of the AEODRS FoS. The primary missions are reconnaissance and wide-range item prosecution. The Tactical Operations System will be transportable either by a vehicle or two people. The final AEDROS UGV, Base/Infrastructure System, will be sufficiently big that it will be transported only by a large vehicle. Missions will include transport of heavy loads and neutralization (render-safe). Since it is vehicle based, the OCU will be correspondingly larger. However, consistent with the goal of interoperability, the Base/Infrastructure System can be controlled by the OCU of the Dismounted Operations. Modules, modules, and more modules AEODRS not only wants components to be interoperable (communicate with subsystems of other UGVs), but interchangeable. For example, the payload sensor package from one UGV should be easily transferable to any other UGV of the AEODRS family. AEODRS aims to accomplish this by modularizing every subsystem. A partial list of Capability Modules (CMs) includes:

3 Mobility CM Manages propulsion for the UGV. Power System CM- Supplies electricity for all UGV modules. Master CM (CM-MAS) - Provides common system-level services as well as communications management. Communications Subsystem Links the two major subsystems, the UGV and the OCU. Visual Sensors CM Manages and controls multiple sensors as well as formatting and transmission of sensor data. Manipulator CM Controls and operates Manipulator arm. End-Effector CM Attached to the distal end of the Manipulator arm for the purpose of grasping and similar tasks. Autonomous Behaviors CM (CM-AB) Implements autonomous and semiautonomous behaviors.

Interchangeability/interoperability is to be achieved through the government standardizing and controlling the interfaces. The architecture of the interfaces is divided into logical, physical, and electrical. Some details of these interfaces include: Logical o JAUS/SAE AS-4 based o Distributed Physical o Mounting - Simple pattern of -20 threaded holes o Exterior Connectors - MIL-DTL-38999L Series II Connector Electrical o Communications Bus Gigabit Ethernet o Power Scalable Hybrid Power and Energy Architecture Dismounted Variant 24 VDC power bus Tactical Variant and Base/Infrastructure Variants 48 VDC and 24 VDC busses

While determined by the military, the specifications for the interfaces will be available to all. Modules built by vendors may be proprietary, but they must meet commonality standards. As stated above, modules must be interchangeable across all of the AEODRS variants. Some readers might recognize this combination of strict control and complete openness as reflecting the philosophy of the Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA). UGV milestone If successful, this plug and play modular approach would represent an enormous achievement. It not only will resolve the long standing conflict of profitable proprietary systems versus the convenience and cost benefits of interoperability, but also it will provide a quick, agile method of acquiring new technologies.

4 It could change everything, declares Robert Culver, Director of Program Management, AMREL Computer Division. A retired U.S. Army Special Forces soldier with multiple deployments, and approximately 14 years of experience (both in and out of uniform) in the Department of Defense (DoD) Acquisition Programs, Culver has a good understanding how technology affects the warfighter. Currently, upgrades can be a problem, he explains. With the lack of standardization, you never can be sure what will work, but you can be pretty sure it wont be easy. For example, weve all heard of electronic fratricide. RF jammers can prevent remote detonation of IEDs, but they can also interfere with radio control of UAVs and UGVs. If I had a software upgrade that could improve my RF communications in that type of environment, I'd ship it to the field. But which system is it going on? Right now, I'd probably need a separate upgrade for each proprietary system that is out there. If I'm carrying software on a disk or a stick, what sort of I/O for software upgrades does each system have? It has got to be a pain in the 'fourth-point-of-contact for the maintainers. Also, it costs more money and takes more time than it should. Something as simple as sticking an illuminator on a UGV or changing a sensor can seem near impossible. I imagine weve got situations where the operators cant get a much needed upgraded capability or sensor because it might require buying a whole new robot. Thats why Im a fan of AEODRS. Right now, if industry or academia develops a new sensor that increases mission capability, there is still a maze to be negotiated. Which UGV will it go on? Will it get approved if it only works on one UGV, but not the other? Will it even work with the different UGV logical and electrical architecture, let alone physical connectors? With the disciplined approach to standardization that AEODRS brings, its easier. Match the published interface specs and you get instant Proof of Concept. Culvers enthusiasm is echoed in the Technical Digest of Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, Volume 30, Number 3, 2011 (APL is System Integrator for Increment 1, Engineering & Manufacturing Development Phase of AEODRS). The well-defined open and published interfaces will lower the entry barrier for small organizations of specialized capabilities to produce AEODRS-compliant prototypes for evaluation. The well-defined interfaces and module boundaries provide a means to perform incremental integration of new capabilities and modules, reducing time and cost to integrate, evaluate, and deploy new capabilities from even small suppliers and developers.

5 It is the long-term vision of the AEODRS technical team that the AEODRS common architecture will revolutionize the small UGV industry, allowing innovative small firms and organizations to more effectively integrate and demonstrate novel capabilities... What about COTS? AEODRS claims that even though it is setting strict standards, Capabilities Modules do not necessarily have to be made from scratch. Supposedly, many off-the-shelf items already meet the standards. I suspect that Capability Modules made for AEODRS will become productized, and that AEODRS specifications will migrate to future civilian as well as military UGVs. Forward placed distributed intelligence Although I do not recall it being explicitly stated in any AEODRS document, one likely consequence of interchangeable modules will be an unusual degree of distributed intelligence, or more precisely, forward placed intelligence. Onboard computer power will be needed to ease integration of new Capability Modules. Not only could a forward-placed computer help with routing, but it could also assist with spectrum management, by performing analytics. Of course, such a computer will have to be optimized for SWaP, and have a processor strong enough to handle the data-heavy applications used in combat. The future of UGVs The genuinely exciting thing about the AEODRS program is how it addresses so many of the problems that has been plaguing the Defense industry; lack of interoperability, support services overburdened by low interchangeability, and slow acquisition of novel capabilities. Is AEODRS the future of military UGVs? We can only hope so. Learn more You may want to check out a PowerPoint presentation that was dug up by Noah Shachtman of Wired.com. It gives a brief overview of the AEODRS program. However, the source that I really recommend is Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robotic System (AEODRS): A Common Architecture Revolution. The above quote (as well as most of the information in this article) was taken from this highly detailed, very informative reference. If you want to know how AEODRS will impact Defense vendors, I suggest you contact Rob Culver who is quite knowledgeable on this subject. He can be reached at robertc@amrel.com.