Armed Ground Robots Prepare for Action

The conflicts in Southwest Asia have been an incubator for the development of military robots. Over the past eight years, airborne and ground-based robots—once considered little more than curiosities—have evolved into vital tools supporting warfighters in theater. Much like their airborne cousins, unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) now are used in a variety of bomb-disposal and reconnaissance missions and are poised to begin combat operations.

A range of technological and cultural obstacles have prevented the use of armed UGVs, but an ongoing series of robot prototypes that soon may see active service now are being tested. The Army is evaluating the modular advanced armed robotic system (MAARS) robot, which was designed based on lessons learned from its predecessor, the special weapons observation reconnaissance detection system (SWORDS). According to Lt. Col. Matt England, USA, chief of electronics and special development, soldier requirements division at FortBenning’s Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCOE), these armed robots represent the result of years of UGV research and testing.

Col. England has been involved with Army UGV development for eight years, and he helped introduce the first robots to search caves in Afghanistan in 2002. At first, he was skeptical of robots, battlefield capabilities and performance. “I’m an infantryman—I spent all my time as an airborne ranger and infantry—and I couldn’t imagine how a UGV would have any significance,” he relates.

But the robots performed so successfully in Afghanistan that the experience changed his mind about the potential of UGVs. Inspired, the colonel began writing requirements documents for the use of small UGVs that focused on specific missions to support troops, such as reconnaissance and cave searches.

It was not until the introduction of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq that the need for robots became widespread, the colonel contends. Robots originally were only issued to explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) units. But these teams were few in number and often not available, which forced infantry units to slow down operations or use soldiers to identify IEDs physically. The colonel wrote new specifications to provide infantry units with a small UGV equipped with a manipulator arm, a chemical sniffer and a camera to identify and examine suspect IEDs remotely.

The MCOE also worked with Foster-Miller, a subsidiary of QinetiQ North America that designed and manufactured SWORDS and MAARS. SWORDS, a modified Talon EOD robot, had many limitations, including top-heavy weapons placement and uncontrolled movements of its weapon. A mistake involving an armed robot, especially the accidental death of a civilian, could set UGV research back a decade, the colonel warns.

Col. England was against the combat deployment of SWORDS for two reasons: the robot’s safety in terms of mechanical reliability and ineffective training. “Nobody had the remotest idea of how to employ a ground robot,” he says.

The 3rd Infantry Division did deploy a handful of SWORDS robots in Iraq, but they were heavily constrained in operations. The robots were placed in fixed defensive sandbag positions and used only for static defense. Despite this limited showing, the deployment provided a glimpse of the operational potential for armed ground robots. “I’ve always believed that there’s a place in the Army for a small, armed ground robot, but right now we don’t know what that is, and we can’t afford to get that wrong,” he says.

The colonel wanted a realistic assessment for a small, armed ground robot. The goal would be to provide troops with a UGV, train them, then give the unit a mission. This type of operational experience would allow the center to develop the doctrine and training to properly deploy small, armed robots. When the right robot equipment, unit training and doctrine come together, the Army will be closer to understanding how to use and deploy them, he believes.

Noting that SWORDS was a valuable prototype, Col. England adds that an armed UGV system had to be designed especially for infantry use. MAARS was a result of the feedback from the SWORDS development. The colonel convinced Foster-Miller to design MAARS by combining all of the advantages of and experience from SWORDS in a platform that warfighters could use to develop training and doctrine.

Besides small armed and utility robots, Col. England also was involved with introducing micro-robots—very small machines that weigh one and a half to two pounds—to Army infantry units. They are designed for soldiers to throw into buildings to provide vital intelligence before troops enter the structure. The center partnered with the U.S. Defense Department’s Joint Ground Robotics Enterprise, which provided a number of small robots for testing.

The final area of robotics development Col. England oversees is load-bearing robots such as the multi-function utility/logistics and equipment (MULE) robot originally developed for the Future Combat Systems (FCS); however, he chose not to use MULE in an assessment scheduled for this month. While MULE was developed to support FCS, it is not a device that current Army units want, so unless the service’s leadership presses the MCOE to use it, he will not accept MULE, he explains.

The colonel is against using MULE for many reasons; one of its key drawbacks is its weight. The robot, designed to support a platoon of infantry by carrying equipment and recharging batteries, has become too big with the addition of capabilities such as communications systems. A CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter can carry it, but the aircraft cannot also carry the platoon the robot will support.

Instead, Col. England explains that he has gone back to the drawing board to create requirements for a load-bearing robot designed to support an individual squad. Such a robot must be small and semi-autonomous as well as feature a battery-charging capability. What he does not want, he maintains, are too many bells and whistles—it should be focused on supporting a squad.

More information about MAARS will be available in the September issue of SIGNAL Magazine, in the mail to AFCEA members and subscribers September 1, 2009.