ARMY NEWS
Comments (3)
Lets get real. Unless there is a way to prevent thrown tracks, any 25-28 ton autonomous armored vehicle with tracks will require some sort of recovery capability (either a manned crew or robotic means) to recover from thrown tracks, dirty sensors, etc. As far as I recall, the FCS program only investigated autonomous vehicles to serve as load bearing carriers for infantry squads. That seems to be a far cry from what this concept is proposing.
Matthew Di Fiore at 12:53 PM
This is long overdue. A US Army robotic combat vehicle would add immense firepower to Airborne, Ranger, Light Infantry, and US Marine formations. It would help for airfield, Embassy, Forward Operating Bases, and patrol/sentry duties. Here is a chance to airlift and add cheaper quantity armor compared to limited heavy quality armor like Bradley and Abrams. It could be the lighter and cheaper alternative than the Mobile Protected Firepower light tank, and yet pack more armor and firepower than a robot toting a .50cal or 40mm grenade launcher. It would provide mobile armor protection for troops to follow behind and take shelter.
A US Army robotic combat vehicle could help Special Forces deploy with more firepower than just a MRZR or DAGOR that fits inside a MH-47.
Such a robot should have more firepower than a JLTV, HMMWV, DAGOR, and M-ATV. By that I mean it should carry heavier armament than the standard M2HB and MK-19. Arming it with a 25mm to 30mm cannon, Javelin, AT-4s, 90mm to 120mm cannon, or SHROADs would give US infantry firepower they never really had before without a heavy armored vehicle. The Russian Uran-9 comes to mind.
God's speed in your robotic efforts.
David Andrich at 11:15 AM"It is only by doing things others have not that one can advance."
- General George S. Patton, Jr