US Army Exoskeleton

[slapout9]

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]

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...otsoldier.html

[Russ Strong]

Russ, this is to easy 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 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]

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]

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

[marct]

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

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

[slapout9]

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]

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 . I was thinking a touch more along these lines... Anyway, if that doesn't work, we could always play the Dixie Chicks () or Stan Rogers () - now THAT'S culture!

[Cavguy]

And let's not forget the 2500 watt speakers ! 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]

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/ste...s04_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/GIspec...%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]

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 Is this a great country or what.

[Russ Strong]

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 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]

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”. 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]

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]

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]

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]

Russ how would JAKE handle the CRUSHER?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRZ1L...eature=related

[Ken White]

LINK.

[Russ Strong]

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]

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/gov...aserguided.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".