Combat Vehicle of the Future?
Looks like those crazy folks at DARPA are trying to partner with industry to build the combat vehicle of the future. There aren’t much in the way of requirements or funding information available on the street right now. Kit Up will be watching for updates in the future and I’ll keep you guys posted. Out of all the R&D agencies DARPA actually does/facilitates some great work now and then. Even though most the guys I’ve met that worked there can’t put on a matching pair of socks…Read below for more. We’d also like to hear your thoughts on what would make a kick ass future combat vehicle. -Brandon out.
Program Summary
The Department of Defense, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Tactical Technology Office (TTO), has a requirement for a Fast Adaptable Next-Generation Ground Combat Vehicle.
Background
DARPA’s TTO mission is transforming the future of warfighting by pursuing high-risk, high payoff tactical technology and development of rapid, mobile, and responsive combat capability for advanced weapons, platforms and space systems.
Requirements
The Fast Adaptable Combat Vehicle effort will seek to exercise META, iFAB, and vehicleforge.mil capabilities in a series of design challenges of increasing complexity, seeking to leverage fab-less design, foundry-style manufacturing, and a crowd-sourced innovation model—and culminating in a complete design and fabrication of an infantry fighting vehicle in the span of one year. If any of you guys can de-code these Acronyms extra points….-Brandon
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
The FANG is clearly "Fast Adaptable Next-Generation", otherwise, not sure.
Five—you rock, I made the change. The other stuff looks made up. -Brandon
That picture's of the "Mako" from the Mass Effect computer game, right? If DARPA's effort is anywhere near as difficult to drive in a straight line as the Mako was, this project's going nowhere!
"iFAB" is DARPAs term for "foundry-style manufacturing capability" – they want to have privately owned factories which produce parts that can then be used in a variety of vehicles, rather than each manufacturer just making their own bits for their own machines – it's dispersed and versatile manufacturing which can lower costs and create lots of logistical benefits (through cross-compatible parts), IF you can get various producers to build to specific standards (and if you can manage your arsenal of equipment so that those set standards are actually doing the job). I don't think that the FAB is an acronym, I think it's just a contraction of "fabrication" with a fashionable "i" stuck on the front.
META is a funding program whose goal is to find ways of making the whole process of inventing new things more efficient and effective – streamlining things from the initial idea to the finalised product. So far as I know it's focussed primarily on what DARPA call "complex cyber-physical systems", which I'd translate as being electronic control over machinery (like fly-by-wire systems in aircraft).
Mr. E…that Mako comment is good stuff…thanks for clarifying for us. -Brandon
very interesting..
this has a little more info. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/25…
Did a little digging to see what this was about. It looks like it is three different, but linked programs. Mr. E got iFAB (Instant Foundry Adaptive through Bits) and META/META II down pretty well, I think, and the FANG GV program mostly explains itself.
From what I can see, DARPA is looking to shake up the Mil-Ind norm by getting rid of a lot of the weight normally involved in the design and manufacture of military vehicles. While this program seems to be aimed specifically at potentially creating the replacement for the Bradley, it's easy to see how revolutionary it could be if it works. It says on the DARPA page that the ultimate goal would be to design and fabricate an entirely new heavy infantry fighting vehicle in a year.
The potential benefits would extend further, of course. The flexible manufacturing concept would allow the military to quickly adapt or change any design it is making, pretty much instantly, or allow multiple version of the same vehicle to seamlessly roll off the same line. It would also be possible to make entirely different vehicles on the same line right next to each other. No more downtime for retooling factories and spare parts could be cranked out like candy from an otherwise idle fab, reducing maintenance costs.
Tech Review did an article on this over here http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/25… They talk more about how the program is aimed at helping revamp the American manufacturing base.
Wikipedia talks about it over here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Vehicle_Mak… They have a nice graphic about the manufacturing facility that the program is aiming at. It also names the people in charge of the program at DARPA. Perhaps one of our intrepid reporters could try to get some further information from them?
And DARPA has a page about it here http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Adapti…
Perhaps worth mentioning is the MENTOR program that falls beneath the FANG umbrella. DARPA is looking to place 1000 3D printers in high schools to help seed the skills and ideas for the next generation of designers and manufacturers.
Crowdsourcing vehicles is DARPA's new buzz activity. They just completed a project with Local Motors (see: http://www.local-motors.com/XC2V).
The concept might work well for a short while, but once it becomes common knowledge that there is very little return for the contributors (if any) the ideas will dry up quickly. It also makes it easy for OPFORCE to know the capabilities (and limitations) of your hardware since the design is built out on the public internet.
1. People love to do stuff, even if they don't get rewards. Look at all the crowd sourced stuff out their right now, and you'll see what I mean.
2. The capabilities and limitations of most of our vehicles are already well known thanks to the internet. This wouldn't change much at all.
3. The initial requirements that would serve as a starting point for crowd sourcing is exactly that, initial requirements. The crowd sourced ideas are simply a starting point for the company/government to begin with. They will change, adjust, and improve the idea to fit their required specifications, which may or may not have been taken into account in the initial design. I am completely confident that no idea that's put forth by what's literally strangers on the internet will go directly into production.
Okki,
I'm a proud employee and team member of Local Motors, and I assure you, the designer of that vehicle, Victor Garcia was well compensated, to the tune of $7500. Second and third placed won $1500 and $1000 respectively, not including the notoriety they all received (Victor not only has a full production vehicle under his belt, but also met with President Obama regarding his achievements. Heck of a thing to put on a resume.)
I think you bring up a good point regarding OPFOR and the nature of open source design, but any vehicle, regardless of method of development, can be reverse engineered. Jeeps aren't exactly top secret–I highly doubt opsec is the focus here. It's get from point A to B fast.
Wish I could edit comments-when talking about Jeeps, I was referring to the recent J8 article.
It will be contract supplier driven, or not at all. AM General, Fiat, etc., will design a winner, and if necessary spin off a subsidiary CONUS based to build it. FN/Berreta/Glock are one category in that example.
Look to a downsized MRAP on a 1ton chassis. These guys can't do something "right sized" that fits into the look of the local economy, it opens them up to the commercial competitors. They could organize an industry focus group and create a "standardized" modular concept that hands DARPA a controlled "fabless" design and prints, making them appear as if they are the good guys.
"Design challenges of increasing complexity" is exactly the PROBLEM, not a viable GOAL. It's exactly what IS happening in the constantly rolling demands. Look at where it started – the CJ2, through the M151, then the HMMV, and now the MRAP. Throw in a half track and a 5/4 ton for good measure, as they also fit.
If they want modularity and off the shelf, they need to just stick to the older live front axle 4WD 1 ton truck chassis from Ford/Chev/Dodge, and dictate what cells to coordinate in a chinese menu of options. The protective engine bay would be standard to all, offer a couple of cabs, a few different cargo beds, with open and closed designs. And suck it up – armor is NOT going to be a viable option. It's been the deal breaker all along. 4200 pounds max with a 6 cylinder commercial Diesel engine, or it's SNAFU again.
The new Cummins 4.7 V6, Dana 60 portal axles front and rear, coil springs in a high articulation design, the cowl/dashboard as the forward engine module, a narrow body, and a maximum overall height governed by off road center of gravity as priority, not a top mounted gun port. The gunner should NOT be standing up unless his feet are in the footwells, not over the drive train.
What I expect from a Corporation would resemble an uparmored beer truck. What should result is something they would mock as a Junkyard Wars project.
Fab-less design and foundry-style manufacturing are terms from CPU manufacturing. Fab-less refers to the fact that you can design a chip anywhere in the world and send your designs to a dedicated fabricating facility to get it made. By separating design from manufacturing, small "fab-less" companies can still compete with large companies. In theory, more competitors should equal lower costs.
I'm not entirely sure what they mean by foundry-style manufacturing, but I suspect the two terms together mean "adopt the system that works well for CPU design and manufacturing". This is obviously the brainchild of a person with a background in IT. It remains to be seen whether this model will work for armored vehicles. It might be a good idea.
However, they're probably dreaming if they think they can crowd-source development of an armored vehicle. Crowd-sourcing works for software because the tools are cheap, widely-available, work at home, and are built for collaboration over the Internet. CAD software is not cheap, not widely-available, and not great at collaboration. Unless DARPA is handing out CAD licenses like cookies, expect this part of the project to underwhelm.
With the budget dead I don't see this going anywhere. Prefer tracked vehicles also.