PDA

View Full Version : US Army Exoskeleton



Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 01:07 PM
This thread proposes discussion of opportunities created by a first generation “mega exo-skeleton”: how such an exo-skeleton will create new individual and networked swarm capabilities based on combinations of mounted and dismounted, operated and robotic units. Essentially, we want to examine how current technology can be employed to provide firepower, protection and weight carrying capacity that will work with soldiers in narrow alleys, courtyards and even facilities.

A series of Tactical Decision Games is proposed as a basis on which to gain insights on a range of new tactics such a system can provide in urban warfare.

First, some information about JAKE, and its definition of a new category of “exo-skeleton”: the JAKE in “alley fighter” configuration is an “exo-skeleton” in a somewhat different sense, figuratively a “Segway on steroids” that one operates at the rear of the vehicle protected by a ‘clamshell’ opening ballistic shield. You will note he has a pintle-mounted, heavy weapon (M249, M240, M134 or M2). The space below the weapons can take either another warfighter/operator within a ballistic protected cockpit and shields, or load of up to 2,000 pounds. A side view picture shows the JAKE in balanced position relative to its load and patrol operation. With more load in the lower bay, the axle automatically adjusts to center the total vehicle’s weight for 95% load on the prime wheels. Likewise, the units adjusts for a warfighter mounting the JAKE, as it does for varied conditions of operation. At higher speeds, the wheelbase lengthens for greater stability. This compact unit allows quick rotation of the loaded vehicle due to rotation being about its center of mass. Though it may be compared to the Segway in ways, the JAKE is always stable, and adjusts to provide maximum stability when firing heavier weapons.

Note the operator is at a level where he can talk with people on the street – not as closely as a person riding a Segway but almost on eye level. By its balancing system, the JAKE maintains full traction of its rear wheels and a “solid stance on its feet”. It is capable of speeds of up to 45 mph. The unit is operational manned and unmanned. In close quarters, this 3,000 lb has agile rotational maneuver, carrying a 2,000 lb payload. It is 5 ft wide, 8 ft long and 6 ½ ft tall, able to rapidly spin around within a 10 foot space (in ‘alley fighter’ configuration). Prime tires are HMMWV size and hybrid electric drive allows operation with diesel engine off, providing a 3 mile “stealth mode”. There are fold down steps on each side so additional warfighters can ride, free to quickly dismount. Next design has a heavier protective step. These hardware capabilities are deployable in 12-18 months.

JAKEs may be operated remotely, or much like cavalrymen, someone has to watch the vehicles if the operators dismount to attend to something else (though units may carry denial-of-approach systems) This may be by a remote operator who is linked interactive with the JAKE operator or by electronically linking JAKEs so that control of his JAKE is turned over to another Marine who remains mounted. The unmanned JAKEs then follow the manned JAKE.

For the initial TDGs, we will stick to existing weapons systems (M249, M240, M134, M2) but JAKE’s cargo capacity and electrical system allow it to support various advanced weapon systems, lethal and non-lethal, area denial systems, sensors and robots.

As the inadvertent “inventor” of JAKE, I clearly state that I have an unavoidable “commercial interest”. However, since Jake is the only unit today that offers this combination of mobility and protection in such a compact agile package, I think it is important to explore the possibilities it offers. Please consider that discussion of the JAKE here also presents risks to “commercial interest”, risks to our costs of development of others now copying and competing. Due to this, not all features of the Jake can be disclosed. For illustration and framing solutions, I am disclosing general information.

In short: I believe that the opportunities to be opened make this worth vetting by Small Wars Council members, stimulating new thinking and exploring national security implications through their eyes.

Further information on JAKE is at Operation American Agility website (http://www.americanagility.com/catalyst.asp) with video in upper homepage text showing units operating, video on Catalyst page of varied people, soldiers and Marines speaking on tactics and capabilities. Answers are also on page “Common Questions”.

marct
02-27-2008, 02:36 PM
Hi Russ,

I can see some possibilities, but it might be more useful if you could toss us a single scenario or question. If it is a longish scenario, it would probably be better for you to give us a short precis and a link to the longer version.

Marc

Tom Odom
02-27-2008, 03:21 PM
Russ,

I would make a more basic recommendation: use English an average reader would understand. When I see "Exploring Tactical Support of Mega Exo-Skeletons in Urban Ops" I can only wonder what you are talking about.

Best

Tom

marct
02-27-2008, 03:23 PM
I would make a more basic recommendation: use English an average reader would understand. When I see "Exploring Tactical Support of Mega Exo-Skeletons in Urban Ops" I can only wonder what you are talking about.

Tom, you mean this isn't about Robotech or MechWarrior :eek:!!!

wm
02-27-2008, 04:01 PM
Why do I have visions of Ripley/Sigourney Weaver in that cargo-handling "exo skeleton" wrasslin' with the Alien?

Tom Odom
02-27-2008, 04:03 PM
Why do I have visions of Ripley/Sigourney Weaver in that cargo-handling "exo skeleton" wrasslin' with the Alien?

Man you and I must have done a Vulcan mind-meld because that is exactly what I thought of..

slapout9
02-27-2008, 04:06 PM
We have had them in Alabama for years. Use em to pick cotton, then go huntin, then go chase the left over hippies at the golf course.

marct
02-27-2008, 04:15 PM
We have had them in Alabama for years. Use em to pick cotton, then go huntin, then go chase the left over hippies at the golf course.

LOL - Some of us never show up at golf courses :cool:. And, if we did, we would definitely be wearing the appropriate "clothing"

http://www.classicbattletech.com/images/gallery/Field_Manual_Crusader_Clans_Cover@800x600.jpg

wm
02-27-2008, 04:51 PM
Man you and I must have done a Vulcan mind-meld because that is exactly what I thought of..
Tom,
Didn't you know that we channel via the Colonial Viper pilot brass? It could also have something to do with spending time in the Atchefalaya Basin or Peason Ridge. Or are we both channeling across the 8th Dimension for the Black Lectroids? I seem to remember seeing a picture of you looking very Rasta/John Parker-ish.

Tom Odom
02-27-2008, 05:00 PM
Tom,
Didn't you know that we channel via the Colonial Viper pilot brass? It could also have something to do with spending time in the Atchefalaya Basin or Peason Ridge. Or are we both channeling across the 8th Dimension for the Black Lectroids? I seem to remember seeing a picture of you looking very Rasta/John Parker-ish.

It would be our combined admiration for Ellen Barkin/Penny Priddy's legs circa 1984

Steve Blair
02-27-2008, 05:04 PM
Tom, you mean this isn't about Robotech or MechWarrior :eek:!!!

I started thinking Warhammer 40k myself....Tau battle armor all around....:D

selil
02-27-2008, 05:07 PM
I understood what he said...... I just want to know what kind of power system, armor, weight, weight to horsepower ratio, and if there will be an Alky burning blower version in matte black available.....

Seriously, looks like a modern day version of the mule.

Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 05:11 PM
We have had them in Alabama for years. Use em to pick cotton, then go huntin, then go chase the left over hippies at the golf course.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Combine this with the image Marc posted and our warriors are ready to go kick butt today, not in 2020.

I have found that one of the biggest mental blocks to powering up our soldiers is Science Fiction images of the future. We are so hung up on thinking an exo-skeleton must have legs...yet we all get onto or into something that has wheels anytime we really want to get somewhere and do it with some speed and attitude...

...legs on all of our tech lab's robots today take all the unit's power to just walk around...this is due to physics of motion...rolling is as simple as it gets. This is why all the robots deployed in theater today are on wheels or tracks...simplicity and reality. Are legged robots and "vehicles" cool? Yes, for sure! Is there a future? Yeah, for sure! (and when we get nano-engines or cold fusion nano-reactors...combined with haptic and robotic active suspending and reactive joint/"muscle" systems...the game will change)

Wheels work...today Our war is today...

The Jake in its next version will be a bit like Marc's image (particularly when you consider the weapon systems in our defense tech labs), but with enough healthy farm shop commonsense to allow us to kick more butt today.

Time to throw some cotton farmers and woodsmen into the mix.

slapout9
02-27-2008, 05:16 PM
Hi Russ, i don't have time but if you go to You Tube there is a guy in Japan that has one of these that actually works!! It shoots tennis balls, looks more like marc's version then yours but it is out there.

Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 05:27 PM
Slapout9,

Yes, I have seen the bot you are referring to and the work in this area is absolutely amazing.

I am just seeking something that works with our guys today...2,000 lb payload, and basic agility that we do not have in urban alleys today...that can lead the way within the military and pull technologies together that really starts this path.

The problem of DARPA with the JAKE was it was deemed "too doable". "We can see how it works" (it wasn't "DARPA hard"...referring to their interest in working on only the tough stuff)

But, I think "it works" would be good for our warfighters.

marct
02-27-2008, 05:41 PM
Hi Russ,


Yes, I have seen the bot you are referring to and the work in this area is absolutely amazing.

It is pretty cool - I've seen shots of it as well. Having said that, as Selil pointed out (indirectly ;)), you can knock it out with a sling.


I am just seeking something that works with our guys today...2,000 lb payload, and basic agility that we do not have in urban alleys today...that can lead the way within the military and pull technologies together that really starts this path.

Well, having gamed a lot of mechwarrior and battletech, I would have to wonder about ways to knock it out. That would get me thinking about things like how well the armour can stand up to an RPG or a buried shaped charge. In some urban areas, especially with winding streets and/or closed walls, it strikes me that if you could knock out 1-2 you could block the entire alley. Right now, I'm playing with an analog of how to knock down heavy men-at-arms (not cavalry) and, once they are down, they are toast.

Marc

selil
02-27-2008, 05:58 PM
You don't want me looking at how to knock it out.... really...I'd start with a 10Kw microwave burst that should make it funky (take the emitter from a standard microwave oven and juice it up... total cost about $10... steal the oven)... To high tech? Try caltrops... Bad science fiction is fun, but good science fact is hillarious. I like the concept, but I still want to fit a V8 in it, and can I borrow it for Daytona next year... I bet the chicks dig it.

slapout9
02-27-2008, 06:07 PM
Russ, this is to easy:D You boys are talking about my zero turning radius lawn mower. My wife want let me put twin 50 cals on it (yet;) but other than that the mobility you are looking for is there. Add a more powerfull motor and a little kevlar some CB attennas and you have a cheap platform that you could build next week, but as you say the military will never go for it, until one of our enemies builds one...then they will want xbillion dollars to close the attack lawnmower Gap:D Like the report said it was mostly a failure of our immagination.

CR6
02-27-2008, 06:07 PM
You don't want me looking at how to knock it out.... really...I'd start with a 10Kw microwave burst that should make it funky

That's exactly why we should want demented geeks like you looking how to knock stuff out Sam.

BTW Russ, welcome. It's always nice when another genius signs in and reminds me how dumb I am.

marct
02-27-2008, 06:08 PM
Hi Selil,


You don't want me looking at how to knock it out.... really...I'd start with a 10Kw microwave burst that should make it funky (take the emitter from a standard microwave oven and juice it up... total cost about $10... steal the oven)... To high tech? Try caltrops... Bad science fiction is fun, but good science fact is hillarious. I like the concept, but I still want to fit a V8 in it, and can I borrow it for Daytona next year... I bet the chicks dig it.

Yeah. I remember reading something years ago about an economic feasibility cost of any "weapon system" (loosely construed). Take the cost of producing/deploying it and take the average cost to make it inoperable then take those costs as micro-percentages of the deploying sides resources. A system that "costs" more for a side to deploy than for the other side to knock out isn't worth deploying. That's why I always think first about how to knock something out :wry:. 'sides that, it lets my evil brain cook up new ways t make things go BOOM :D.

Caltrops are a neat idea - why not paint on some contact explosives for an added bonus? But for real fun, just think about the possibilities of real time hacking :cool:.

Marc

selil
02-27-2008, 06:24 PM
Caltrops are a neat idea - why not paint on some contact explosives for an added bonus? But for real fun, just think about the possibilities of real time hacking :cool:.



I was following the real time hacking in my brain. We've done some neat stuff with circumventing 3des real time over wireless networks. We can't attack "integrity" of the signal but we can overlay the signal with a sort of "replay" of what we want something to do. Unfortunately nobody wants to fund that as it makes anything UAV or otherwise telemetry controlled basically useless. I'm not complaining though they keep throwing money at me I'll keep spending it.... I'm in conferences the later part of this week as they try and find me collaborators.

Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 06:29 PM
The intent of the Jake, as seen by experienced Afghanistan and Iraq veterans, is as teamed units that move and cover lines of sight and carry gear supporting dismounted warfighters on patrols. It does not replace the foot soldier, but provides him with availability of heavier firepower, ability to better configure or reconfigure a situation, get wounded out, do remote operations desired (without having to wait for a special remote device).


The Tactical Decision Game part of this thread was not on the posting here at the top. It will be posted onto the original thread, available by a link. This can be a good "think through" and a way to consider supporting systems that can help our warfighters.

Until that is updated there, you can go to this site and consider the scenario and what you would do.

http://www.americanagility.com/TacticalDecision.asp

wm
02-27-2008, 06:32 PM
You don't want me looking at how to knock it out.... really...I'd start with a 10Kw microwave burst that should make it funky (take the emitter from a standard microwave oven and juice it up... total cost about $10... steal the oven)... To high tech? Try caltrops... Bad science fiction is fun, but good science fact is hillarious. I like the concept, but I still want to fit a V8 in it, and can I borrow it for Daytona next year... I bet the chicks dig it.
It is pretty cool - I've seen shots of it as well. Having said that, as Selil pointed out (indirectly ;)), you can knock it out with a sling.
Well, having gamed a lot of mechwarrior and battletech, I would have to wonder about ways to knock it out. That would get me thinking about things like how well the armour can stand up to an RPG or a buried shaped charge. In some urban areas, especially with winding streets and/or closed walls, it strikes me that if you could knock out 1-2 you could block the entire alley. Right now, I'm playing with an analog of how to knock down heavy men-at-arms (not cavalry) and, once they are down, they are toast.

Marc

Sam and Marc are on to the real point of my image from "Alien." My image of this JAKE thing after rolling over something as simple as a small AP mine is a very large dying cockroach flailing around on its back--first question is how does the crewman get out safely? Another image (like Marc's) is that ambush scene of the SUVs in the alleys in Colombia from "Clear and Present Danger." I compare those images with a scene from that epic 1964 Richard Widmark/Sidney Poitier Viking movie "The Long Ships" where Russ Tamblyn gets knocked on his butt and is able to execute a quick kip up and get back in the fight immediately. If JAKE can meet this latter vision, we may really be on to something for the light fighters out there. Otherwise we are still at the stage of the Fast Attack Vehicle Dune Buggies of the old 9th ID high tech test bed division.


It would be our combined admiration for Ellen Barkin/Penny Priddy's legs circa 1984 Tom, I think she was still lookin' pretty good in "Ocean's 13" last year.

marct
02-27-2008, 06:32 PM
I keep thinking about how these could be hacked, either real time or via a virus and made to "dance" - the YouTube possibilities are absolutely awesome, to say nothing about the ridicule effect :cool:.

Russ, while we are obviously amusing ourselves (:D), there are some pretty serious points here. It strikes me that JAKE may be about as operable in the field as the first wave of tanks was. In and of itself, that's just normal in the development of a newish technology. Unfortunately, in the current political and perceptual climate, I have to wonder if that will work.

Marc

slapout9
02-27-2008, 07:00 PM
Russ, do you have a prototype? or this just a concept?

Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 07:10 PM
Russ, while we are obviously amusing ourselves (:D), there are some pretty serious points here. It strikes me that JAKE may be about as operable in the field as the first wave of tanks was. In and of itself, that's just normal in the development of a newish technology. Unfortunately, in the current political and perceptual climate, I have to wonder if that will work.

Marc


Marc,

You are onto the main point. There are some serious points and this has to come forward well thought out, particularly in the present climate. It seems much of our thinking in the equipment sector is in a defensive mode rather than offensive. Within this, with the MRAPs, our guys are further from their gear and support on patrols in many urban areas of ops. So our guys are tapped out at what they can carry. Yet some of the technologies they could use to do some pretty freaky stuff, is back on the truck.

Going forward, lets look at what we can do in basic format today. It must be compact, rugged, man operable, and must move like our soldier moves (every 12 yr old who takes a battlebot into the cage knows it has to be able to spin) And they must be able to team and cover each other just like foot maneuvers...this is defense and deterrence. You want a higher view from units, since you may be in amongst other vehicles and it has to be big enough to take the hits of vehicles. It needs to give a great visual (situational awareness) which goes a long ways to reading the game around you and IEDs and suspect IED scenarios. It has to be easy to get on and off (fast, in a fight, as another commented above). And, we haven't gone into the deception tactics that Special Ops guys came up with to make the enemy look silly. And it has to be done in a program where costs stay realistic...commercial equipment level of costs so units can be used as expendable, at times on purpose.

From this, we have to be doing something. Making something, but as a whole in being a working system, not testing it as a singular vehicle, where it is easy to shoot down the concept before it is understood (one wasp circling your head and you laugh and smack at it. Fifty wasps circling and you are running, flailing and cursing like a bandit).

Then it needs to be able to get it into the hands of a bunch of young warfighters in a MOUT facility and see what they expand from there (and not a group told to make this go away). In talking, we can blow up just about anything, at which point as taxpayers we should be pretty darn critical of the billions being spent on today and tomorrow's BIG targets, grouping our guys we present to our enemy (and all of these can be stopped with Laser Guided Energy just as easily as a Jake.)

The Jeep did a ton of work in WWII and on. The question I am posing is: How do we take an idea that is in that direction and get this generation's version of that?

Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 07:20 PM
Slapout9,

Yeah there are a couple prototypes. They illustrate the concepts well and have provided the basis for a lot of input and discussion with experienced warfighters, and thus evolution of ideas and ideas from our defense company labs such as at Raytheon, BAE, L3Com and others. Thus the next generation will be very much on the mark for what the matured technology of 2008 can put together. They will be potent pups.

A LtCol at USASOC JFK Warfighting School who is involved in doctrine within unconventional warfare operated one of the prototypes at Ft Bragg last October and said: "This changes everything" Therein lies the problem. The changing has to be done intelligently and with solid commonsense.

slapout9
02-27-2008, 07:22 PM
Russ, you ever thought of the LE market. Some of the high tech gear that may be impractical for the battlefield would work well in US cities. Just by looking at it I think they would be a lot cheaper than the present US style patrol vehicle. You would not have to defend against as many threats as a battlefiled either but yet it appears you are generally raising the level of protection offered to today's police officers. Patrol cars want stop any kind of bullet, unless it hits the engine block. And they cost way to much for what you get and you don't have that cool factor either.

Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 07:28 PM
Slapout9,

The homeland security and SWAT and police markets have real applications. They don't seem to have money for development (homeland security has tons, but not available) They like to buy what is existing. Would be great opportunity with capital.

I may be warped, but my concern is that we are in a war that needs tactical equipment that fits General Petraeus' strategies that are working. He just needs some more tricks up his sleeve along these lines.

marct
02-27-2008, 07:30 PM
Hey Slap,

Okay, I'm getting more SF images
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/vcs/dennert/archives/robocop.jpg

In a more serious vein, I think Russ is absolutely correct about the capital availability for R&D in the LE sector.

slapout9
02-27-2008, 07:39 PM
Believe me guys I know about R@D money for LE. I came up with a couple ideas and they just....well use your imagination. Although some are actually satrting to come about.

Russ, I agree on your philosophy bend the equipment to the soldier, don't bend the soldier to the equipment. When you are done with the prototype can I have it?...just kidding.

Marct, Robocop was a wimp...all good police officers can already do that stuff.:D:D:D

marct
02-27-2008, 07:50 PM
Hi Russ,


The Jeep did a ton of work in WWII and on. The question I am posing is: How do we take an idea that is in that direction and get this generation's version of that?

Okay, let's play some of this out. First, I have a suspicion that your symbology is at the root of some of the reactions/problems. From what I can see, you are absolutely right that the JAKE is an analog to a jeep but not, however, to a powered exoskeleton. It is better to think of it as a personal vehicle rather than as "armour" (although I am getting occasional flashes of pictures of WW II German mini-tanks :wry:).

One of the potential problems I see with it is in the area of reflexes. I am assuming that the control system is more vehicle like and not a feedback system based on physical movement. If that is correct, then there may well be a problem with shifting people in and out of them in combat situations. You may want to explore any control link options that would use the same musculature as "regular" combat movement to avoid this.

Okay, let me shift out of problems and start looking at some possible solutions. Selling it as a "personal vehicle" has some distinct benefits and it even lets you play with the Mobil Infantry meme created by Heinlein (book, not movie!). That can give you a perceptual advantage since it points towards exo-skeletal armour without claiming that you have it.

If you already have one or two prototypes, it may well be worth seeing if there is any potential LE deployment, a G8 meeting, maybe. I'm not looking for a combat deployment with this, but rather one that has some high visibility and where you can get some measure of the psychological effect a JAKE may have. That should help with selling the feasibility of the project and securing funding.

marct
02-27-2008, 07:54 PM
I may be warped, but my concern is that we are in a war that needs tactical equipment that fits General Petraeus' strategies that are working. He just needs some more tricks up his sleeve along these lines.

Not "warped" :D. What sort of a timeline would you be looking at to operational deployment if money wasn't an issue?

slapout9
02-27-2008, 07:55 PM
Seems like an excellant border patrol vehicle.

marct
02-27-2008, 07:57 PM
Seems like an excellant border patrol vehicle.

That would get some good coverage as well. Hmmm, we need Rank Amateur to turn his marketing brain on here :D.

Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 08:11 PM
Marc,

The concept work, the matured technologies of the defense companies wanting to supply and work with a "program of record", to be pulled together by an agile design team for the basic version of the vehicle (vehicle style controls and remote robotic controls of iRobot's stuff that is on the John Deere R Gator), are in line so that a solid work horse, "mobile toolbox" and basic gun station version could be in theater in an exploratory mode in 12-18 months (most likely into an town security situation in Afghanistan) If money was no object, this timeline could move down to 10 month for 20 units and 300 in 18 months.

Billy Ruffian
02-27-2008, 08:22 PM
Wow, this thing has Rockstar cred as far as I'm concerned.

marct
02-27-2008, 08:25 PM
Hi Russ,

So you could have a proof of concept deployment, say 20 or so, in theatre in a touch over a year. Hmm, have you already applied for the DoD SBIR program (http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/) funding? It's not that much, but every little bit helps.

Back to scenarios, especially in Afghanistan. I think you would have a really good chance of billing the JAKE in a border patrol role, especially in the Kandahar area and along the Pakistan border. You might want to spin out a scenario on that, especially if you have decent IR sensing capabilities and can tie the remote operations controls in easily with a UAV video display.

Marc

marct
02-27-2008, 08:26 PM
Hey Billy!

Think anyone in the armour happy CF would be interested :D?

charter6
02-27-2008, 08:32 PM
In terms of the border control mission, what's the off-road performance of the JAKE like? wouldn't the undersized front wheels cause problems?

slapout9
02-27-2008, 08:43 PM
Russ, I don't know how you feel about this, but the Air Force may be your best bet. What we call COIN they call case 4 general War. The best strategy is to introduce a disrutping technology on purpose (from their point of view). They are looking for properitary technologies for Air Base defense for their Expeditionary Air Force and they love technology. After all they were the ones that pushed the M-16 rifle after the Army kicked it down. I am still at work (day job) but think about it and send me a PM if you want to pursue, can not promise anything but I can tell you who you may want to talk to.

Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 09:21 PM
Charter6,

What is deceiving is that the front wheels are two feet tall. The back one are the size of the Humvee's.

If you were to be in the border region of Afghanistan, I would couple the larger front end of the Jake to have its 4WD version real rough terrain. The "alley fighter" configuration prioritizes spin agility, though the 4WD will still turn very sharp and utlizes the Jake's balancing characteristics to advantage. It picks up some length with the big tires on front also, but not a problem in open terrain.

You can see this a bit in the aerial view image at: http://www.americanagility.com/missionstory.asp


A view of the various configurations possible to match terrain and mission can be seen midway through the 3 minute video at:http://www.americanagility.com/video/20071220/powerourfootsoldier.html

Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 09:55 PM
Russ, this is to easy:D You boys are talking about my zero turning radius lawn mower. My wife want let me put twin 50 cals on it (yet;) but other than that the mobility you are looking for is there. Add a more powerfull motor and a little kevlar some CB attennas and you have a cheap platform that you could build next week, but as you say the military will never go for it, until one of our enemies builds one...then they will want xbillion dollars to close the attack lawnmower Gap:D Like the report said it was mostly a failure of our immagination.


Slapout9

I hadn't caught this post of earlier. You have me laughing. I'd guess there is a reason you have a zero turn mower...the same reason why these buggers have literally swept the landscaping market...Deere made a zero-turn lawn tractor that looked like a lawn tractor (had a steering wheel) and it was only on the market for a year or so...because the market went right past it at warp speed wanting the real thing...full on agility!

Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but when I was doing the wheelchair Jake that caused us to bump into this project, this little feature jumped out at me. Combine this with some unique suspension and develop a balancing system that solves the serious terrain stability and traction problems of zero-turn platforms...then put that V-8 on it and the dual 50 cals and you are starting to get a piece to set on your front lawn in Kabul and be proud of.

Seriously, the coupling of good design, good development with some great warriors, and great new technologies gets pretty cool stuff to happen. We just need to do it in a bigger way now.

Like you say, we just have to pull 'er out of the "failure of the imagination" gear.

Some times I am with your statement on it getting to our soldiers faster if I helped an enemy have this (a stripped out version ;)) This has come up in Army and Marine conversations, though they favor the Israelis, Singapore and the like, rather than the big C word. Becomes a pretty crazy conversation when that comes up.

Billy Ruffian
02-27-2008, 10:23 PM
Hey Marc,

Well my eldest brother piloted UAV's in Kandahar, and often had to go outside the wire in an LAV-III to recover them when they came down. I bet he would have appreciated having a mobile toolbox and weapons platform like this that could link up with a UAV in the air and interface with the nearest ground unit in realtime.

Unfortunately, as I recall, the Sperwer the CF uses is rather clunky and looks like the box other UAV's come in and requires a vehicle for recovery if it comes down outside the wire. But if the CF does get around to purchasing some of those Predators like they say they want to, or if the technology gets smaller, it could be doable for them to be integrated into your design, eh? If a UAV were designed as a part of this weapon's system, deployment and recovery might be simplified.

It would be cool if you could network the JAKE with a UAV in the way that Soundwave from the Transformer's Marvel Comic series was able to (please forgive me for the overt nerdiness, but I reckon it's a suitable analogy). Soundwave was the multi-purpose Deception and had a number of 'allies' who were a part of his design, notably Ravage (stealth), Laserbeak (recon), Rumble and Frenzy (demolition) and Ratbat (computer interface), each with their own unique skill that could be utilized in a given situation. While each had their own function and could operate independently, Soundwave had the ability to network and control all of them simultaneously when he was in combat or directing them from afar. In one scenario from the original Marvel series, all of Soundwave's allies were incapacitated in an ambush, but Soundwave was still able to control their basic functions like patrol, engage, withdraw and self-destruct.

Some of those UAV's are getting pretty darn small, it might not be long before they're in the toolbox as well.

Ron Humphrey
02-27-2008, 10:45 PM
I could see where the utility would be greater in relation to the small Joint stations we have throughout the AO and possibly interlacing some of the monitor / track / transmit capabilities from different units in close proximity to one another. In that context the tech carry capability itself is the real sell with the added benefit of being able to get around tight corners.

It also might not hurt to make sure the systems on board can provide at least 8 hours of HD dvd movie watching and 24 hours worth of mp3 playing without having the be plugged in / started. This would not only get good reviews with its end users but also may help in getting MWR dollars to put it together:D

marct
02-27-2008, 10:50 PM
It also might not hurt to make sure the systems on board can provide at least 8 hours of HD dvd movie watching and 24 hours worth of mp3 playing without having the be plugged in / started. This would not only get good reviews with its end users but also may help in getting MWR dollars to put it together:D

And let's not forget the 2500 watt speakers :D! Nothin' says lovin' like Wagner at 2500 watts!

slapout9
02-27-2008, 11:05 PM
Nothin' says lovin' like Wagner at 2500 watts!

You mean Porter Wagner and Dolly Parton...Man that's the good old stuff marc....glad to see Canadians with good taste.

marct
02-27-2008, 11:17 PM
You mean Porter Wagner and Dolly Parton...Man that's the good old stuff marc....glad to see Canadians with good taste.

Well, I suspect that Dolly could do a great job on it :D. I was thinking a touch more along these lines... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSKL5E3zSjs) Anyway, if that doesn't work, we could always play the Dixie Chicks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GovJ4jAnr14) (:eek:) or Stan Rogers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL8EwN4dsv4) (:D) - now THAT'S culture!

Cavguy
02-27-2008, 11:30 PM
And let's not forget the 2500 watt speakers :D! Nothin' says lovin' like Wagner at 2500 watts!

Oh dear God ... "Pimp my Combat Ride" debuts on the Military Channel shortly.

I think the show is currently called "Futureweapons".

Russ Strong
02-27-2008, 11:31 PM
Hey Marc,

Well my eldest brother piloted UAV's in Kandahar, and often had to go outside the wire in an LAV-III to recover them when they came down. I bet he would have appreciated having a mobile toolbox and weapons platform like this that could link up with a UAV in the air and interface with the nearest ground unit in realtime.

It would be cool if you could network the JAKE with a UAV in the way that Soundwave from the Transformer's Marvel Comic series was able to (please forgive me for the overt nerdiness, but I reckon it's a suitable analogy). Soundwave was the multi-purpose Deception and had a number of 'allies' ....... In one scenario from the original Marvel series, all of Soundwave's allies were incapacitated in an ambush, but Soundwave was still able to control their basic functions like patrol, engage, withdraw and self-destruct.

Some of those UAV's are getting pretty darn small, it might not be long before they're in the toolbox as well.


Ruffian,

You have the view forward that we "are not supposed to talk about".

This is part of the shift in the equation opened by the JAKE that touches on doctrine that goes back to WWI The doctrine is two man buddy system. This causes vehicle requirements guys to want two guys side by side in a vehicle. We have bent it some when the design offers one warfighter in the JAKE's lower cockpit and one in the upper pod (both having full independent sweeps of their guns, and ability for the upper gunner to strafe to either side while the cockpit dude drives)

The step that young warfighters (video gamers) and tech lab guys want is the move to the buddy being remote (one warfighter on the JAKE in the upper pod, with payload, supporting gear and remote weapons (CROWS) below. Here, the singular warfighter is fully independent to react to fire or other situational cause without taking another warfighter with him in his decision...a big deal to a street fighter...his buddy being uncoupled and stationed in a Stryker "mothership" or at McDill AFB, better positioned to do navigation, pull in intel and take over robotic operations, multitask link of UAV and JAKE, coordinating with other JAKEs teamed, feeding his buddy aerial views (focused, cut and pasted, with circles and arrows) of only what he needs so he can focus on his patrol and maintain full situational awareness).

The link here illustrates what you speak of.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/iis/documents/content/cms04_019432.pdf

I am not promoting Raytheon. API, Lockheed and others are working in this area too. Their Universal Command Station, though, shows well what they could do with linking UAV and JAKE (note their UCS is able to accommodate another row of screens to be the JAKE's view) This guy or the guy next to him is also well positioned to operate smaller robots that can be dispatched off of the JAKE.

Just so I am not partial, take a look at the link here of iRobot's Warrior X700 and imagine it launching out of the belly of the JAKE and taking off at 12 mph fully charged (from JAKE's 30 kw power supply)

http://irobot.com/filelibrary/GIspecsheets/iRobot_Warrior_Spec_Rev%200108_v2.pdf

With a UAV launching also, this is where JAKE starts doing the "force multiplier" thing the Marines want on dispersed patrol.

Its a video gamer world (fed by a dispersed node system that maintains your feed)

Your overt nerdiness is forgiven.

slapout9
02-28-2008, 01:15 AM
Lets see we have the Pimp My Combat Ride,The Dixie Chicks,and UAV's being cotrolled by two 19 year olds driving a JAKE:wry: Is this a great country or what.

Russ Strong
02-28-2008, 03:00 AM
Lets see we have the Pimp My Combat Ride,The Dixie Chicks,and UAV's being cotrolled by two 19 year olds driving a JAKE:wry: Is this a great country or what.

Here is where I would love the funds to orchestrate a paintball/laser tag matchup of systems and talent in a large dense MOUT facility and see who and what vehicles would be moving where. I'd put the money on the pimped combate rides moving to some thumping Dixie Chicks, but would this team have to all be so old as 19? Would make a great TV show and we'd see some creativity.

Russ Strong
02-28-2008, 03:32 PM
Interesting discussion yesterday, and maybe we have some introduction to the concepts and some imagination going. Now maybe we need to step into the Tactical Decision Game. The Tactical Decision Game that I intended to get some feedback on is at:

http://www.americanagility.com/TacticalDecision.asp

This takes a look at a scenario representing a possible occurrence within today’s theater of operations, involving a street patrol in a stabilized area, when an car bomb goes off and followed with gunfire ambush from a number of buildings. Two Marines are down and you have to give orders for action. Then, look look at this same scenario with your squad and the two other squads each having a fire team mounted and moving on JAKEs.


It seems several of the contributors here like to think at bit more “out there”. :D To them I propose consideration of the following Tactical Decision scenario: A major opposing force has inserted 2,000 individual warfighter units, that mimic the JAKE, from mainland and into Taiwan overnight and established control. Several key targets have been taken out with TOW and Javelin style weapons and the resulting level of chaos and ever widening area are being controlled by these units’ laser guided energy (500,000 volt shots), active denial systems, and M134 style miniguns (each unit carrying 8,000 rounds). These units, able to move at up to 45mph, are fully engaged and showing they are serious. All airfields and landing areas are secured and armed. A second wave of an estimated 2,000 JAKE-like units are moving in from a number of directions, by varied ships and helicopters (the helicopters laying them down like depositing eggs and leaving, 90 secs on target).

As responsible commander, what forces, equipment and fighting platforms, and in what manner do you respond to Taiwan’s calls for help? You may consider all existing US force at your disposal, including proposed Future Combat System, and consider their speed of deployment.

Ken White
02-28-2008, 07:18 PM
A dispersed Company of infantry that knows what they're doing is really hard to stop. A dispersed company of mounted infantry; not so much.

Russ Strong
02-28-2008, 10:30 PM
A dispersed Company of infantry that knows what they're doing is really hard to stop. A dispersed company of mounted infantry; not so much.


In the example of Taiwan above, I probably should have noted that just as in the original Tactical Decision Game for which the link to its description is given, JAKEs are paired with foot infantry: the JAKEs providing heavy stopping power, anti-aircraft Stingers, directed energy and heavy ground firepower, etc and sustaining ammo, water, food, gear, batteries, etc. This is into an urban environment populated with civilians, where Jakes can maneuver in and under overhangs, garages, entryways. A 2,000 JAKE first wave means 6,000 dismounted infantry.

In the future guy's view, this also means 2,000 remote-linked JAKE buddies feeding info and able to take over operation with the JAKEs robotically, even with inflatable dummies in the JAKEs to create decoys operations.

Ken White
02-28-2008, 11:22 PM
changed my response. Your modified parameters simply make an easy job a little harder. ;)

Civilian casualties are to be avoided when possible. They are a very significant consideration in COIN operations. In a full scale conventional war, they regrettably become very much a far lesser concern. Rightly so.

One presumes you've (a) done the math on the resupply your projected hostile force would require -- my mind boggles at 8K Minigun like rounds for each vehicle that has one mounted; (b) determined that the likely owner of that invasion force has the wherewithal to move said force -- and the resupply -- to Taiwan; (c) removed any US SSNs from play; and (d) determined that the political will to commit US forces exists in your scenario...

slapout9
02-28-2008, 11:31 PM
Russ how would JAKE handle the CRUSHER?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRZ1LKTH2dg&feature=related

Ken White
02-29-2008, 02:15 AM
LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THZvZ6S4C14).

Russ Strong
02-29-2008, 04:54 AM
changed my response. Your modified parameters simply make an easy job a little harder. ;)

Civilian casualties are to be avoided when possible. They are a very significant consideration in COIN operations. In a full scale conventional war, they regrettably become very much a far lesser concern. Rightly so.

One presumes you've (a) done the math on the resupply your projected hostile force would require -- my mind boggles at 8K Minigun like rounds for each vehicle that has one mounted; (b) determined that the likely owner of that invasion force has the wherewithal to move said force -- and the resupply -- to Taiwan; (c) removed any US SSNs from play; and (d) determined that the political will to commit US forces exists in your scenario...


Ken, Good points. Part of the resupply interests are met with the ability to longer sustain the surrounding infantry with the JAKE's carried payload (including larger cannisters for minigun to last much longer and available for what might come up) all things spoken of by Special Ops as key needs when inserted ahead of supply.

You bring a greater awareness of the overall playing field in such an example as I have given, but the concepts I am trying to illustrate are just that, concepts that will have to be worked as a teaming system with its own new doctrines of mutual cover and support (this is where I have seen earlier discussions on concepts like the JAKE fail, due to limiting assessment to singular and separate assessment without the interplay of other new supporting elements...for example: those aircraft carriers would be seen as absolutely vulnerable, and thus easily dismissed, if they were not viewed in teaming with their other sea and air support, but given the total equation, they are a major power to be reckoned with.

I appreciated your 8_11_07 response in the thread: "FCS in Future Conflicts", where you wrote:

"Speaking of the problems in responding to the spread of radical Islam and particularly the fight in Somalia… ...The possible psychological factor is that too many in the Armed Forces have become entirely too risk averse -- that is a current US societal trait and the Armed Forces are a reflection of society but whatever the source, it needs to be fixed... In any event I agree now with his premise -- particularly that JV 2010 was and is dangerous -- as I did when I first read that article nine years ago when I was still a Proceedings subscriber. I disagree that the failure of the sensors, etc. were a significant part of the problem in either case he cites . Rather, over reliance on them became a problem in both cases -- that is a doctrinal and training, not a technological failure. He does sort of allude to that. However, I thought then and still think he needed to offer a prescriptions for improvement. As the old saw says, "Any idiot can find a problem, the genius provides a solution..." Old Boss of mine told me never to mention a problem without having a recommendation to fix it in hand... The prescriptions are simple:The political calculus needs to be refined and finished before commitment. Do not over rely on technology. Do not over centralize C2. Train people well. Let them do their jobs and trust them to do that."


Then Rob Thornton had a following post on 8_22 with good points, summed by;

"Good tech I think is that which enables people to do their jobs better without compromising the required fundamentals. It does not seek efficiency at the expense of effectiveness."


Your comments sum up well and agree with my main point of this thread and with the JAKE as an illustration of how to start to get there: get a good piece of equipment in our soldiers' hands that expands their capabilities, yet lets them also stay close to their fundamentals (in worst case, they have more gear with them as they all engage dismounted and carry any fight forward as warfighters), the game not being tied entirely to counting on technology).

In this, find a solution that respects the politican interests of being risk averse (do some serious work to get the soldier more protection and protection tactics through agility), and yet advance your thoughts that in a war their will be casualties, but the warfighter must be there and trusted to get the job done. (as compared to a view that unmanned vehicles and fully armored vehicles can do all of this). Another note, relative to the Somalia example is achieve the maneuver agility to stay unpredictable to the enemy.

The challenge is achieving solutions that do what Rob points out: efficiency, but not at the expense of effectiveness. From what I see in being around our warfighters, ultimate effectiveness in through warfighter intelligence, situational awareness (including interface with civilians), in-theater adaptiveness and fighting spirit.

I appreciate the insights, as these will all have to be rolled in and solutions found as a thinking system if we are to advance with advantage in 4th and 5th GW. Thoughts.

Russ Strong
02-29-2008, 05:28 AM
Russ how would JAKE handle the CRUSHER?


Hey, yeah! The Crusher is a fantastic piece of gear. It has really developed well. I have seen it a CMU NRC and know a number of the guys working on it. This is a whole other class than JAKE, though would be great at teaming. If JAKE were matched to have to take it, the JAKE would count on its mounted warfighter operator's greater reflex, and unit's speed and agility of maneuver in tight spaces and its mounted TOWs, Javelins or LGE.

LGE, now this is some wild stuff. Just requiring an agile 3,000 lb carrier having 35kw source on board, like the JAKE. See: http://www.appliedenergetics.com/government/gov_mil_laserguided.asp

The Crusher video also shows well how technology is advancing for a remote operator to drive a unit with good sensory perception and speed, and this is what is envisioned in what I spoke of as remote teaming with a JAKE and ability for the mounted warfighter operator to dismount and pass control over to his remote operator (immediate force multiplier).


In answer to Ken's link to Textron's dispersing aerial strike "bombs", in an urban setting it would be about the user's political will to create collateral damage within a civilian area, and in anything less than a direct hit on the JAKEs' small footprints, the JAKE's ballistic shields could protect a warfighter from blast shrapnel (better protection than dispersed or grouped foot soldiers plied with the same weapon)

These are great examples that there is great technology out there to be thought through and combined in ways best "bent to the soldier", than "soldier bent to the technology".

Ken White
02-29-2008, 06:33 AM
Few thoughts for you to ponder. Some are with respect to the mechanical aspects, some tactical, some training and some combine two or more of those factors.

The vehicle is high; in combat other than in the desert, height is generally not your friend. I understand the logic of the design but in most situations, that height is an adverse factor. Given a lower vehicle with a CROWS on top, survivability would be better.

That height would also affect lateral tipping action. Much vehicular movement in combat is spent traversing side slopes. IMO, a minimum 30 degree slope must be tolerated by a tactical vehicle. Generally, this mean the vehicle must be as wide as it is tall or very close to it. This is a critical concern in tactical cross country movement and it is at odds with the urban environment requirement

Having been inserted a few times 'ahead of supply' and many more where there would be no supply to speak of -- or resupply could not be guaranteed at much better than 50% probable, I'll have to disagree to an extent with the now serving Special Ops types. The worst thing one can do is take too much stuff. Give a man 120 rounds and he'll fire 'em and make it work -- give him 8,000, he'll fire them and make it work. Given 8K rounds of 7.62, that's about 450 pounds of ammunition. Aside from the logistic problem, that's a training and an operational problem -- too much ammo encourages promiscuous shooting and It's a tactical operating problem as I'd estimate it would take at least 15 minutes and probably longer to reload that ammunition container...

Vehicles tie their operators to the vehicle, they encourage the carrying of extra gear and if they vehicle goes inop, the gear is likely to have to be destroyed or left. Thus, practically speaking, the vehicle should be as small as possible to discourage the carriage of too much gear. No matter it's size and small as it may be, it is a bigger and more attractive target than would be two men and if it is powered, it has a heat signature and that is a certain weapon magnet. Technology moves rapidly, as you've said -- thermal sights and IR sensors can be expected to be in the hands of almost everyone in less than ten years.

The troops can't get far from their vehicles (and generally won't get as far away from them as they could) for obvious reasons thus any organization using the vehicle is going to be constrained in what they can do. A good operator can put a decent vehicle in a surprising number of places -- but good operators take a lot of training time. The vehicle has weapons mounted, the weapons take training time. Both things simultaneously take more training time. The troops can handle that-- I'm not sure the system that is the Army can do so. They fought the Paladin for ten years because it gave too much power to to a Staff Sergeant -- and you propose to give it to Specialist Snuffy. I'd go along with that but my suspicion is that the carpeted office folks might demur.

You said:
"Another note, relative to the Somalia example is achieve the maneuver agility to stay unpredictable to the enemy.Maneuver agility is achieved more by smart tactical thinking than by mode of travel. Somalia is an example on many levels, from the National Command Authority to the operating units (all) of how not to do things.
"In answer to Ken's link to Textron's dispersing aerial strike "bombs", in an urban setting it would be about the user's political will to create collateral damage within a civilian area, and in anything less than a direct hit on the JAKEs' small footprints, the JAKE's ballistic shields could protect a warfighter from blast shrapnel (better protection than dispersed or grouped foot soldiers plied with the same weapon)"The Skeet munition has proven to be great at avoiding collateral damage and I suspect that any commitment to a full blown war would see no hesitation at all in using it downtown. It has an IR seeker and thus would home in on the power pack of the vehicles; due to that IR homing and the fact that it fires an EFP, the only fragments would come from the flying parts of the vehicles that were hit by that EFP, it would be of no consequence to any nearby dismounted troops who could sit back and watch burning vehicles.

Targets are targets.

Russ Strong
03-02-2008, 12:30 AM
Thanks Ken,

Good comments. Sorry, I was away yesterday and these are good aspects to discuss, so shall speak to what I can of this.

Relative to the vehicle being high, this was a key interest of Special Ops in the urban setting in order to see over cars and have good situational awareness, which was also of interest relative to picking out IEDs or suspicious areas (where in the desert they were more interested in a keeping a low target profile on horizon).

Any design with height does need to pay good attention to stability and areas of operation. The JAKE concept we are speaking of here is in its “alley fighter” configuration for urban ops, so favors a compact package with maximum agility. There are traits of the unit’s suspension that address stability. One of the advantages of the modular design of this JAKE platform is that, for example, in re-supply configuration on tracks, this unit can traverse a 40 degree, and greater, side slopes. You can see this within the video on the website: http://www.americanagility.com/video/20071220/powerourfootsoldier.html In fact in the view of the track unit traveling away towards the end of the video, you can see that it is as you say, wider than it is tall. Its balancing features also provide interesting stability advances in going up grades and down.

What you speak of is one of the key problems that I have witnessed in working with the military, where all requirements get tossed on one vehicle, to where the vehicle does everything, and then nothing fully well. This is to the point that they get a unit that can drop into the water and cross the Mekong, yet in an alley, the soldier’s survivability is compromised by carrying all it takes for this capability that the soldier won't use in his total tour. Hence the JAKE’s modular approach, but any one configuration doesn’t meet all requirements (or the one that does, doesn’t provide the urban ops radical agility characteristics that is the reason the JAKE offers interesting opportunities). So here is a problem with the JAKE getting a program in the normal system.

Relative to your thoughts on resupply, the first interest in the JAKE is in carrying soldiers’ gear with them on patrol (mobile toobox), where today they are having to work further and further from their trucks (as the MRAPs get big). This lightens the soldier’s load, thus helping the soldiers’ own speed, agility and patrol endurance, thus survivability. On the use of ammo, if we are going to ask these soldiers to win this war, we have to have them with the training and discipline to execute. I have heard before the feeling that “too much ammo encourages promiscuous shooting”, but I have also heard that this was the reason that the Northern Army didn’t use the seven shot Springfield rifle in the first of the Civil War: fear that they would shoot too much and they were trained to stop and reload. :rolleyes: Anyway, from conversations, I do not see just any soldier being a fighter JAKE operator, as I see these soldiers on fighter JAKEs having to be qualified just as today’s pilots.:cool: The upside on capabilities and firepower can be well worth efforts of study here.

Any vehicle is obviously a bigger target than a soldier. The trick is to get its size reduced as best possible and take the advantage that the soldier in it is more protected and more agile. Carriage of gear must be optimized for the missions. Modularity and varied racking help this, and our soldiers and their leadership are sharp and we can count on their adjusting well to the results they find in varied operations and threat levels and varied durations of patrol. The ready availability of medical evacuation is expressed often as high interest, enabling more of the team to stay in the fight. In urban patrol, a high interest in the JAKEs also comes from its next generation design being with hybrid diesel-electric drive so that there is an hour, or 3 mile, run quiet mode. This is good for speaking with civilians, for stealth operations, for redundancy, available electrical power and power generation. It may also offer advantages to be worked into tactics relative to reducing heat signature in certain operations.

The key, as you point out is to design and then evolve the design to the Soldier and the Marine and the way they find to use and expand capabilities. This will involve new concepts in maneuver and ratios of mounted and dismounted warriors and how they cover each other and also team with larger vehicles supporting operations. I have heard many comments like you have found, that this looks like it will give too much power to the Sergeants and Corporals, but I have also retired Marine Commandant, General A. M. Gray make the pitch at Quantico that we need something like the JAKE (that was standing in front of him) to use as an opportunity to open up what these young strategic Corporals and Sergeants can do. He states that they will think of 100 – 200 things we haven’t thought of…of course this is the reason for the conversation here on this thread: to get what head start we can.

So, I appreciate your insights and your obvious experience in the challenge of shifting the game. As most of the contributors of Small Wars Journal, and I would assume Small Wars Council members, are looking forward, writing on, and asking how we adapt to 4th and 5th GW warfare, there has to be courage taken if we are going to step equipment into this realm also. Of course, from other comments of yours on other threads, I sense you are of the same mind in getting something new and half intelligent into our young soldiers’ hands and see how they advance it. This is where stuff really starts happening.

Surferbeetle
03-02-2008, 01:23 AM
Russ,

Welcome. I appreciate your work to get us ahead of the curve.

My initial impression of your vehicle is that it is interesting, and I have some questions:

1) How good is my 360 visibility?

2) Can I toss a ruck, some mre's and some water in this vehicle and somehow prevent the hordes of Iraqi kids from reaching in and snatching whatever I am not wearing when I am parked? If my teammate gets hurt or dead can I haul him out on this?

3) From time to time we would be in areas where the civilians would stone us, what type of protection does this offer?

4) How much metal do I have to touch to drive this thing, Iraqi summers do a heck of a job of heating up metal? Winter ops are no fun either, does it have a heater?

5) How tough are the tires and how easy are they to change out in the field away from help?

6) Silt is a huge issue, it gets into everything, are the moving parts 'silt-proof'?

I am afforded the opportunity to provide civil engineering support along the US border and find that portions of it remind me of the areas and conditions I had to operate in Iraq. I think you could get some heavy duty field testing data by having the Guard and Border Patrol put the Jakes through their paces on the border. If soldiers can break something they will, and they will quickly help you find any issues that may exist. ;)

Regards,

Steve

zenpundit
03-02-2008, 04:00 AM
Exoskeleton, shmexoskeloton....how about some kick-ass cyborgs?

http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/images/Terminator3-09.jpg

SWJED
03-04-2008, 07:17 AM
Tech for Troops (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080304/COMMENTARY03/237166163/1012/commentary) by Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Washington Times, 4 Mar 08.


... What if there were something more we could do, something that might make a real difference — both to the safety of our guys on the ground and to their success? My guess is that millions of Americans would be willing to help.

It turns out that there is something else we as civilians might be able to do to transform the effectiveness and survivability of infantry soldiers and Marine "ground-pounders," troops who are obliged to perform today's tough jobs in urban settings and elsewhere pretty much the same way their grandfathers did in World War II. It involves a device known as a "Jake" — an infantryman's personal mobility, sensor and weapons platform best described as a "Segway on steroids."

The invention of the Jake is a classic American story. It is the brainchild of Russell Strong, a brilliant engineer and innovator known in his industry as "Mr. Tractor" for his revolutionary designs in the agricultural and heavy equipment industries. He started out in 1999 trying to perfect a means of providing revolutionary mobility to wheelchair-bound individuals. When he presented his concept to veterans wounded in Vietnam and Somalia, they urged him to adapt it for their comrades fighting today's wars — and tomorrow's...

William F. Owen
03-04-2008, 09:12 AM
OK, so what does Jake do that I can't get from better training and organisation?

What's all this about "Fire power" yet operating within a civilian population? Western forces do not lack "firepower." If anything they have way too much.

Can't all the Quad bike and "Supacat" designs do this job just as well. 16 Air Assault in the UK has looked at Patrolling with 1 x Supacat in support to carry rucksacks and other impedimenta.

http://www.supacat.com/supacat_products_catMil.htm

Don't know what conclusions they came to, but I can probably find out.

Russ Strong
03-04-2008, 07:46 PM
Russ,

I have some questions: 1) How good is my 360 visibility? 2) Can I toss a ruck, some mre's and some water in this vehicle and somehow prevent the hordes of Iraqi kids from reaching in and snatching whatever I am not wearing when I am parked? If my teammate gets hurt or dead can I haul him out on this? 3) From time to time we would be in areas where the civilians would stone us, what type of protection does this offer? 4) How much metal do I have to touch to drive this thing, Iraqi summers do a heck of a job of heating up metal? Winter ops are no fun either, does it have a heater? 5) How tough are the tires and how easy are they to change out in the field away from help? 6) Silt is a huge issue, it gets into everything, are the moving parts 'silt-proof'?

I think you could get some heavy duty field testing data by having the Guard and Border Patrol put the Jakes through their paces on the border. If soldiers can break something they will, and they will quickly help you find any issues that may exist. ;)



Thanks for the questions. I will try to cover these, realizing that this is yet to be fully worked out with you soldiers in the dirt at full power.

1) A key interest is for the JAKE operator to have 'full head swivel' visibility, good situational awareness (can crank all the way to look through the back ballistic glass), can post a rear view on his display, and if slowed or stopped he can readily rotate the whole unit (much like you would turn around and take in a situation behind you if you were on foot). The ease at which you can do this may answer a comment of William Owen on how this is different than with a Quad bike and "Supacat. Your ballistics protection obviously rotates around with you.

2) When you toss your ruck and gear on, you can elect to place it more secure in its core pallet bin/storage. Some stuff you may put in the operator 'pod' which can be closed when you are out. The future play here is the ongoing overwatch of your unit also by your remote located buddy who may engage evasive maneuvers or active denials...in near-term, you have a closable storage, but this is a great area of discussion, with young techies coming up with humorous solutions. On your more serious note, extracting a buddy from the fight who is wounded is a key interest with the JAKE. There can be fold down stretchers, or stretcher holds across the front. As well, you can drop off a unit's pallet and pull a guy into that area (and work with him, if needed) so a unit's operator can get him out fast. What I have heard is the interest in ability to keep the most warfighters in the game and yet get guys in and out quickly when you are 6 blocks from your supporting truck.

3) Despite this unit being seen by many as a two soldier unit, largely due to existing doctrine and a 'drive and strafe' thinking, I watch the discussions continually move to singular operators (with others jumping on and off the side foot decks when folded out (powered, so others aren't jumping on that you do not want), thus the single operator is in the upper rear 'pod' which provides ballistics protection. Obviously, this can have a transparent shield also on top...getting to question 4...this 'pod' is such that it is able to be heated or cooled (a very real interest with chemical gear, as the JAKE would allow maneuver of soldiers in NBC gear, expanding the soldier's endurance significantly...I have heard others say you are in a war and aren't supposed to be comfortable...I have no idea how you guys do it out there in that heat, so I am with you on the cooling :)

5) The present tires are 'run-flats' and there is some great technologies happening to extend capabilities here even more. Keeping these prime tires as common as possible with JLTV units will enable drawing on the best there is at the time. The front tires are also run-flats, but with the JAKE's balancing system, you can take almost all the weight off the front, and if you have to, you could likely continue movement even 'skidding' a totally destroyed front end around.

6) Silt sand...here is where good engineers talking with good soldiers will do what they can...which goes the same for the well stated ability for soldiers' ability to break stuff ;)

I think border work would be a great place to work these units out, with their teaming and overwatch capabilities, particularly if operated by guys from the urban fight.

I appreciate what you guys do out there for us.

Russ

Russ Strong
03-05-2008, 03:53 PM
Yesterday, I put several videos on Youtube to help answer a number of questions surrounding the JAKE program. The descriptions and links are provided below.

This may aid visualization of the general JAKE characteristics. Please understand that portions of these videos are over 5 years old and concepts have evolved, and applications and configurations of the units have changed. We are not showing elements of the technology or unit’s chassis architecture that enable many of the units’ claimed and future capabilities. I know this frustrates some people (its is an engineer thing :cool:). Since we are at considerable risk relative to our development costs until we partner with the larger defense companies, I ask your understanding here so that we can hold this larger conversation to think through advances in our warfighters’ capabilities.




The "American Agility - Gap in Soldier Power" is a fast moving video that attempts to provide a clear view of the overall situation of the power gap halfway between the foot soldier and the HMMWV. This is aimed at a Congressional audience to help them understand the need for funding in this realm, and may be thought provoking for those within defense think tanks also (5 minutes). This speaks to advances possible in a whole sector, in which the JAKE is only a first illustration of the ensuing opportunities for all defense technology companies…thus full industry efforts relative to SWJ and SWC discussions here in addressing 4th and 5th generation warfare.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LCRkJpvcfLw



The "American Agility - Jake Soldier Power" is video showing units operating and full program view, philosophy of use, engaging discussion of how an agile carrier can open new capabilities (4 minutes)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7uC2hfKpHAQ


The "American Agility - Call to Action" is a video of various people, soldiers and Marines speaking on what Jake means to them, what they see it providing in capabilities and why America should get together on this. This includes images of the JAKEs operating also.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=l4hYVc1QyOg


Russ Strong

William F. Owen
03-06-2008, 07:47 AM
The "American Agility - Gap in Soldier Power" is a fast moving video that attempts to provide a clear view of the overall situation of the power gap halfway between the foot soldier and the HMMWV. This is aimed at a Congressional audience to help them understand the need for funding in this realm, and may be thought provoking for those within defense think tanks also (5 minutes). This speaks to advances possible in a whole sector, in which the JAKE is only a first illustration of the ensuing opportunities for all defense technology companies…thus full industry efforts relative to SWJ and SWC discussions here in addressing 4th and 5th generation warfare.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LCRkJpvcfLw



Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with the premise of this idea that there is a gap in "soldier power" - and that even if there was, that it could be solved by some type of miniature mobility device. The whole argument is founded on a series of catergoric statements, which are mostly incorrect and and misunderstands the nature of infantry operations and role of dismounted patrolling.

I have been writing, researching, and consulting on dismounted operations for the last 5 years and am currently commissioned to write a book on my findings, so I am not "pulling it out of my ass" when I say that
a.) there is no gap in soldier power. There is a misapplication of the dismounted capability.
b.) Infantry capability can be increased with better training and organisation.
c.) The rational application of EXISTING equipment types, more than adequately address the vast majority of operational challenges.

The infantry does not need more equipment.

In my opinion, and I am prepared to argue this with any 3 Star General who wants to, JAKE is seeking to solve the wrong end of a problem derived from asking the wrong question.

Russ Strong
03-06-2008, 04:56 PM
Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with the premise of this idea that there is a gap in "soldier power" - and that even if there was, that it could be solved by some type of miniature mobility device. The whole argument is founded on a series of catergoric statements, which are mostly incorrect and and misunderstands the nature of infantry operations and role of dismounted patrolling.

I have been writing, researching, and consulting on dismounted operations for the last 5 years and am currently commissioned to write a book on my findings, so I am not "pulling it out of my ass" when I say that
a.) there is no gap in soldier power. There is a misapplication of the dismounted capability.
b.) Infantry capability can be increased with better training and organisation.
c.) The rational application of EXISTING equipment types, more than adequately address the vast majority of operational challenges.

The infantry does not need more equipment.

In my opinion, and I am prepared to argue this with any 3 Star General who wants to, JAKE is seeking to solve the wrong end of a problem derived from asking the wrong question.

William,

With all respect, I must ask the one primary question that I posted this thread for: Why, in the middle of a war, with all the discussion of a changing battlespace and changing nature of war, are we not exploring all areas of potential in expanding our capabilities?

I did not identify this area of military interest with the JAKE. Some of our best "ground pounders" did. I have just used my experience and talents to expand concepts and then try to keep up with their next thoughts.

My work is based on over 30 years of product development involving advancing design and exploring new markets, analyzing customer interests through 'focus groups', customer clinics', following trends and what drives them. From this, we work to create product advances. I have worked on over 50 programs with major corporations, including Caterpillar, John Deere, New Holland and CNH.

In all of my work, if there is one recurring theme, it is that building something and getting it in the hands of the user opens new ideas and provides solid advance forward. Committees and talking have rarely led to the conclusions that resulted from building something that many saw of interest (not all, and some vehemently against), and then getting it in the field and working with it. Some of the greatest breakthroughs involved overcoming a swirl of discussion and comments almost identical to yours (A tractor does not need a cab...does not need air conditioning. There is no need for a combine header over 16 ft wide. No one can handle big bales. US farms do not need telescopic loaders. Homeowners can't operate zero-turn mowers...)

So it is my thought, as only one point of reference amongst many, that with an $800 million Army recruiting ad campaign per year, in the midst of a war and recruiting challenges, what would it hurt to spend $10 Million and open mindedly explore new capabilities that already generate excitement with both seasoned warriors and our youngest soldiers. When you hear the spectrum of thoughts, feelings and instincts expressed, this is what generates trends and points to where someone is going to take the future. Let me clearly state that the advances identified with the JAKE will occur. I believe it is good for America to be at the front in exploring this.

As one skeptical soldier admitted: "If Jakes are a total failure, we will still find 50 new ideas that we would never have thought of."

What are we fearing? We can always determine we are fine with what we have.;)

Russ Strong

William F. Owen
03-06-2008, 06:12 PM
William,

With all respect, I must ask the one primary question that I posted this thread for: Why, in the middle of a war, with all the discussion of a changing battlespace and changing nature of war, are we not exploring all areas of potential in expanding our capabilities?


Because the "battle space," and the nature of war are not changing. People with an inadequate military knowledge and understanding, keep trying to suggest it is, but it clearly isn't. The idea that there is some "capability gap", is a pure myth. Gaps that do exist could be easily closed.

Your video is suggesting things as problems to be solved, when these things are not problems in the way you suggest.

I spend a great deal of time exploring how things can be done better and how the infantry can do better things.

JAKE may have some use. I can't tell because there simply is no proper specification or data that I can find to judge. (Weight, dimensions, power pack, mobility specs, 3D drawings, controls, materials etc.)

Soldiers are carrying too much because of poor technical and tactical equipment choices, combined with a lack of training and leadership. The last thing we need to do is to make it possible for them to carry more impedimenta. I predict, if JAKE ever enters service, it's weight will increase 50% in the first 18 months of operations, because folks always ask the wrong question.

I am the last man to discourage innovation, but I am pretty sticky when it comes to the military thought/science and doctrine that backs it up.

Russ Strong
03-06-2008, 08:43 PM
Because the "battle space," and the nature of war are not changing. People with an inadequate military knowledge and understanding, keep trying to suggest it is, but it clearly isn't. The idea that there is some "capability gap", is a pure myth. Gaps that do exist could be easily closed.

Your video is suggesting things as problems to be solved, when these things are not problems in the way you suggest.

I spend a great deal of time exploring how things can be done better and how the infantry can do better things.

JAKE may have some use. I can't tell because there simply is no proper specification or data that I can find to judge. (Weight, dimensions, power pack, mobility specs, 3D drawings, controls, materials etc.)

First, a pretty complete description of specifications and an image showing relative size are provided on the start, or intro, of this thread. And as you note, the JAKE can have a spectrum of uses other than warfare, such as homeland security around ports, critical facilities, airports and borders.

I think where the discussion may be getting thrown off is in the definition of infantry.

Is it best for maintaining doctrinal context to see infantry as the same as today (and now just able to be lighter as they are able to off-load some of their gear onto JAKEs that are moving in some number with their squads)?

Do we need to define a new category of armored maneuver? In a discussion in December, retired General Fritz Kroesen saw the JAKEs as a parallel to the Cavalry. Should we be speaking in terms of the return of the Cavalry? Or is this defined as tanks and LAVs in smaller size, distributed and agile entities? (saying small may bring up the wrong image, since with today's weapon systems a JAKE will be able to carry most all the same firepower in some format, and a 3,000 lb unit with 2,000 lb payload standing taller than a HMMWV, is small relative to what when you are moving down an alley?)

Where the battlespace has changed, as I understand it, is in conflicts being pulled into prolonged events within tight urban environments where the enemy is not necessarily the population. This is not the same battlespace as tanks enjoy in rolling across Iraq or Poland. It seems that this calls for review of weapons (leading to more use of active denial systems, non-lethal weapons, low collateral damage weapons, and so forth). And, if we visualize the use of Bradleys as moving platforms supporting dismounted infantry in such a case, wouldn't it be good if we had units that are more agile than Bradleys, more distributable, smaller value targets for our enemy, less intimidating to civilians carrying on their daily business, able to stay closer to the infantry as the infantry move in smaller alleys and courtyards.

So, the gap in support of the foot soldier is as noted in the video in being halfway between the foot soldier and the HMMWV, and now widened as MRAPs replace HMMWVs (this point is at least in physical size, since whatever fills this gap might carry the full on weapons of the HMMWV or tanks).

What I take William to be saying is don't mess with the definition of infantry.

In the video, noted a couple posts above, it is postulated: "What if you could amplify a select group of these (soldiers) into 'Apache helicopters on the ground', effectively, getting them the firepower so that the whole team (supporting infantry and this select group, as compared to just infantry) can move up to a new level of capabilities?" Would this 'select group' be infantry moved up into 'JAKE jockey' specialists, or would they be armor guys moved down into 'smaller armor'? The interesting thing with JAKEs in use is that the operator will get out of the JAKEs (particularly when supported by a remote located buddy who can take over control of the unit to operate it robotically) and fully function as an infantryman with those infantry men his unit is supporting. (Note this is something that Apache helicopter pilots and jet pilots have little option for...at least not the getting back in and continuing on;))

Interesting thoughts in defining who has the gap. Let's say it is an opportunity to be taken. Maybe that is the problem. No one will claim it because the US Army Rapid Equipping Force called it a "Capabilities Gap" in 2005 (which could denote someone is missing something). Is it possible that we solve this by establishing a whole new branch of the Armed Services?:cool: What would this be called?

Russ Strong

William F. Owen
03-07-2008, 07:51 AM
What I take William to be saying is don't mess with the definition of infantry.


No. Please mess with definitions! It's how we make progress. The ONLY thing I am saying, is that, IMO, your justifications for JAKE are not correctly characterised.

JAKE may have some use in supporting dismounted operations. The work I have done to date clearly shows that there is role for what I call a "Patrol Support Vehicle." - something like a Supacat, or quad-bike.

...but Russ, In order to make this judgement, I and others really need firm facts and figures. How is the dang little gizmo-thing powered and what is it's endurance, loaded and un-loaded etc etc.

From what I have see so far, a low profile (<1.2m) band-tracked JAKE would seem to have the greatest potential.

Hope this helps

marct
03-07-2008, 03:48 PM
Hi Folks,


I think where the discussion may be getting thrown off is in the definition of infantry.

Is it best for maintaining doctrinal context to see infantry as the same as today (and now just able to be lighter as they are able to off-load some of their gear onto JAKEs that are moving in some number with their squads)?

Do we need to define a new category of armored maneuver? In a discussion in December, retired General Fritz Kroesen saw the JAKEs as a parallel to the Cavalry.


No. Please mess with definitions! It's how we make progress. The ONLY thing I am saying, is that, IMO, your justifications for JAKE are not correctly characterised.

JAKE may have some use in supporting dismounted operations. The work I have done to date clearly shows that there is role for what I call a "Patrol Support Vehicle." - something like a Supacat, or quad-bike.

Russ, I think you may be right that part of the problem is with the definition. From what I can see about how you are currently thinking on deployment, JAKEs look like some cross between Dragoons and stirrup-infantry; almost similar to the old (late 15th century) French concept of a Lance (1 knight, 2 squires, 3 men-at-arms).


..but Russ, In order to make this judgement, I and others really need firm facts and figures. How is the dang little gizmo-thing powered and what is it's endurance, loaded and un-loaded etc etc.

From what I have see so far, a low profile (<1.2m) band-tracked JAKE would seem to have the greatest potential.

Totally agree, Wilf. Add in turning radius, centre of gravity (from physics, not Clausewitz ;)), ability on gradiants, ability to deploy non-lethal weaponry on its hardpoints (for political reasons in, say border patrol settings), etc. I'll also note that this type of information should NOT be made available online, which does put all of us in something of a bind :wry: (PMs and emails would be an option, but check with your security personnel first).

Having said all the negative stuff, let me spin out another option. In urban settings, I suspect the high profile will be more useful that Wilf's low profile version; especially in a COIN setting. The ability to shift between high and low profile versions would prove useful. Second, on red teaming the JAKE, I would use a mental analog of heavy cavalry from ca. 1500 supported by infantry "retainers". Base rule would be "hit the Jake first, then decide on the rest". By "hit", I mean anything that would immobilize it, even for a few minutes - the goal would be to get it to shoot and cause collateral damage. The second rule, and I would use it in all pastoralist cultures, would be to make the JAKEs look foolish; not a direct kinetic goal but, rather, a piece of political theatre. I think I'm going to stop now :cool:.

Marc

Russ Strong
03-07-2008, 07:25 PM
The JAKE in “alley fighter” configuration is an “exo-skeleton” in a somewhat different sense, ...This compact unit allows quick rotation of the loaded vehicle due to rotation being about its center of mass. Though it may be compared to the Segway in ways, the JAKE is always stable, and adjusts to provide maximum stability when firing heavier weapons.

Note the operator is at a level where he can talk with people on the street ... By its balancing system, the JAKE maintains ...a “solid stance on its feet...up to 45 mph. The unit is operational manned and unmanned. In close quarters, this 3,000 lb unit has agile rotational maneuver, carrying a 2,000 lb payload. It is 5 ft wide, 8 ft long and 6 ½ ft tall, able to rapidly spin around within a 10 foot space (in ‘alley fighter’ configuration). Prime tires are HMMWV size and hybrid electric drive allows operation with diesel engine off, providing a 3 mile “stealth mode”...existing weapons systems (M249, M240, M134, M2)...JAKE’s cargo capacity and electrical system allow it to support various advanced weapon systems, lethal and non-lethal, area denial systems, sensors and robots. ...not all features of the Jake can be disclosed. For illustration and framing solutions, I am disclosing general information.

Per William Owen's questions above relative to JAKE specifications, I provide reference from start of this thread. As Marc noted in his post above, not all details are to be online. (some are already concerned with descriptions as they are).

I appreciate Wilf's comments and thoughts on definitions, since this is one a main areas of study and why the thread here, with a new system and tactics opened by the JAKE's capabilities. In a program framed up within the Army in 2005 (that got jammed up) there was to be a 2 month, 40 Special Ops guys, 15 JAKEs, a number of HMMWV's and LAVs and a series of mission scenarios within a MOUT facility. The exercise would run varied configurations of force: 3 JAKEs per HMMWV and 9 dismounted infantry, 4 JAKEs (1 remote operated) per HMMWV and LAV and 12 dismounted, or 6 JAKEs per HMMWV and 6 infantry supported by a LAV in remote support, etc... This would have fleshed out a lot of what William F. Owen and Marc are noting (and Marc would have recognized that they were working to take into account that someone like him would be on the Red Team;)) So, comments and the unique perspectives you bring are good. Relative to how easy JAKEs can be dealt with by an opponent obviously depends on how they are employed and how they move with teamed coverage.

Marc noted benefit of a unit having a high profile in the urban environment and COIN, and this was a prime interest of USASOC guys early on, wanting to be able to see over cars and people. They also wanted the unit to be able to take serious hits of cars and trucks, which JAKE configuration provides (same beltline and HMMWV sized tires) and some heft and payload, yet very compact and agile and always a 'ready gun position', or as an infantry guys have viewed it: "mobile foxholes" (something that an ATV isn't configured to be).

It may be interesting to note that the first USASOC interactions were prior to 9/11 with initial interests focused on Central and South American slums where the HMMWH size restricted their "go-zones" significantly. And, they liked that the JAKE could directly convert to tracks for other missions as needed.

In the challenge the JAKE has faced, and still faces, in getting an assessment program as teamed system (rather than normal assessing as a singular unit), it is interesting that after a demo of a JAKE and within ensuing discussions, a Marine will say "just make sure the Red Team doesn't have these".:eek: I second that. Make sure Marc doesn't have them hanging around in the background.:cool:

Russ

marct
03-07-2008, 07:40 PM
Hi Russ,


In a program framed up within the Army in 2005 (that got jammed up) there was to be a 2 month, 40 Special Ops guys, 15 JAKEs, a number of HMMWV's and LAVs and a series of mission scenarios within a MOUT facility. The exercise would run varied configurations of force: 3 JAKEs per HMMWV and 9 dismounted infantry, 4 JAKEs (1 remote operated) per HMMWV and LAV and 12 dismounted, or 6 JAKEs per HMMWV and 6 infantry supported by a LAV in remote support, etc... This would have fleshed out a lot of what William F. Owen and Marc are noting (and Marc would have recognized that they were working to take into account that someone like him would be on the Red Team;)) So, comments and the unique perspectives you bring are good. Relative to how easy JAKEs can be dealt with by an opponent obviously depends on how they are employed and how they move with teamed coverage.

Hokay, that lineup does help a touch with planing. I must admit, I'm a touch surprised that you didn't also include a 3 or 6 remote JAKE option - I would have. And, just because I like political theatre so much, I would make sure that there are life size dummies in the remote versions. This way, the JAKEs could still operate in a fire-support and recon mode but have he added advantage of acting as stalking horses. The downside is that pesky relative cost ration between a JAKE and an IED or RPG.


In the challenge the JAKE has faced, and still faces, in getting an assessment program as teamed system (rather than normal assessing as a singular unit), it is interesting that after a demo of a JAKE and within ensuing discussions, a Marine will say "just make sure the Red Team doesn't have these".:eek: I second that. Make sure Marc doesn't have them hanging around in the background.

But that is a perfect counter scenario :eek:. Especially if they were "appropriated" by the other side <evil grin>. Anyway, I can always come up with other evil ways to play havoc with them, but not in a public forum ;).

Marc

Russ Strong
03-07-2008, 08:54 PM
I'm a touch surprised that you didn't also include a 3 or 6 remote JAKE option - I would have. And, just because I like political theatre so much, I would make sure that there are life size dummies in the remote versions. This way, the JAKEs could still operate in a fire-support and recon mode but have he added advantage of acting as stalking horses. The downside is that pesky relative cost ration between a JAKE and an IED or RPG.

There were quite a number of other mission and force configurations framed up in the earlier assessment proposal. I listed only a couple. As you said, it would quickly grow, or be zeroed in from there with what did the trick for what ops mission.


Yeah, Marc, you are right there with our seasoned Special Ops dudes on this...as they wanted dummies to inflate (even remotely inflate and deflate) to produce a considerable range of deception tactics...the who is where, and who went where? And where the hell are they now?" And to draw sniper fire (where an obviously unmanned unit wouldn't) for marking sniper locations with its sensors (intel with less risk)

Costs of a JAKE lost, versus a warrior, is minimal. If you knew you were going to work some "stalking horses" into the mix, you might want to use "stripped out" units, but cosmetically the same (pretty simple, because the JAKE platform is highly modular) running at a fraction of a warfighter JAKE.

Russ

William F. Owen
03-08-2008, 07:45 AM
Well having had another long look, I can't quite see where JAKE gets us, that is a whole lot further on than Supacat

http://www.supacat.com/supacat_products_catMil.htm

Supacat is just a little bigger, but already proven and in service. It could easily be armoured, and will go almost anywhere in an urban or rural environment.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's wish to make money here, but I see no point in re-inventing the wheel.

Russ Strong
03-08-2008, 05:20 PM
Well having had another long look, I can't quite see where JAKE gets us, that is a whole lot further on than Supacat

Supacat is just a little bigger, but already proven and in service. It could easily be armoured, and will go almost anywhere in an urban or rural environment…. I see no point in re-inventing the wheel.

This is a reasonable question, particularly with the Supracat being a “great piece of kit”, as the British would say. The answer is found in looking at the original warfighters’ interests in the Jake, and how interests have expanded from there. First, alleys and slums present different situations and a whole other terrain to that of open areas. Our warfighters were interested in "powered support" here, meaning heavier weapons, medivac and gear. But, they were only interested if powered support were with incredible agility (ability to individually react, fast rotation, high "dash speed", ability to reconfigure a situation rapidly), all in a compact package (now a key interest is fitting in a V-22 Osprey, which it will).

It comes down to the "powered support" unit having to be able to maneuver the most like a foot soldier maneuvers and splitting up our guys so they are the most independently reactive. There are new technologies that the JAKE incorporates in a new way, that bring new capabilities into this range of what they will consider. And, you can clearly see within the posts of this discussion the significant threshold of performance and characteristics that must be met to even consider altering definitions within infantry style maneuver.

I would not be here continuing to help get our troops new capabilities if there weren't serious seasoned warfighters encouraging me to keep going, that this effort is needed (in fact in a US Army BAA in 2005 titled "Vehicle for Individual Soldier Protection", of 23 submissions covering the range from ATVs to ‘Supracats’ type vehicles, the JAICV (now JAKE) was determined the only "innovation warfighting platform". The key words here being "warfighting" and "innovation". JAKE was noted as an "Agent of Change". This program is suspended due to the Army's issues with armor…and other stuff…:rolleyes:)

The point was, and remains, how do we innovate into a step past incremental change in capabilities? Special Operations sees continued movement of conflict and stabilization efforts into urban environments, and increasing situations requiring rapid insertion of surgical force. So, what can be studied that provides the greatest opportunities for advance for these missions?

As a side note: They encouraged expansion of the JAKE's modular design, since when they can get JAKE "alley fighters", they saw it as highly desirable to be able to configure its common power units, robotics, controls, communications, diagnostics, etc, to other missions with tracks and 6WD so they do not have logistical challenges that come with more and different vehicles in the overall system (an increasing problem as all the stuff gets a bit more sophisticated today). But, the core focus was: "In the alleys, do not be restrained (affecting a warrior's surviveability) by requirements for missions they are not on. This meant, don't limit the guy in the alley with stuff to meet requirements for a mission in the Mekong Delta, and vice versa. When in the alleys, make him an "alley fighter", no holds barred. These guys tend to have some attitude and they make their point very clear.

I'm just trying to honor their insights and the fact they are the ones with their lives on the line.

Russ

selil
04-18-2008, 12:40 AM
What can I say? Terminator? Alien? This suit does it all, video and some text at the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7351314.stm