GXV-T Proposer Day DARPA Sep 2014

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited.
UNCLASSIFIED 1
Ground X-Vehicle Technologies Program Proposers’ Day
GXV-T
Dr. Kevin Massey, Program Manager
September 5, 2014
Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 2
History of Cavalry
420 kg
Horse +Rider
2000BC
1800AD
1600AD
1000BC
500BC
1600BC
3000BC
4000BC
1500AD
500AD
• When the horse was actually domesticated is somewhat in dispute.
• Ancient Sumerians appear to be the first society to use the horse in war
• Horses were ridden without saddles and the horses were probably 350kg
2000AD
Sumerians
Light Horse/Ridden

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 3
History of Cavalry
450kg
Horse
Hittites/Egypt
Chariots
• Horses can carry roughly 30% of their weight, but can pull 8X their weight
• The Hittites and Egyptian developed the war chariot
• Horse size roughly 450 kg
420 kg
Horse +Rider
2000BC
1800AD
1600AD
1000BC
500BC
1600BC
3000BC
4000BC
1500AD
500AD
2000AD
Sumerians
Light Horse/Ridden

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 4
History of Cavalry
450kg
Horse
563 kg
Horse
+
Rider
+
Armor
Assyrians
Light Armored Cavalry
• The Assyrians developed the first crude saddles and horse armor
• Lightly armored cavalry using bronze and leather armor
• In 360BC Xenophon published a book on horsemanship in Greece
Hittites/Egypt
Chariots
420 kg
Horse +Rider
2000BC
1800AD
1600AD
1000BC
500BC
1600BC
3000BC
4000BC
1500AD
500AD
2000AD
Sumerians
Light Horse/Ridden

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 5
History of Cavalry
450kg
Horse
Hittites/Egypt
Chariots 563 kg
Horse
+
Rider
+
Armor
Assyrians
594 kg
Horse
+
Rider
+
Armor
Persians
Heavy Cavalry
• The Persians are considered to be the inventors of heavy cavalry, 500 BC
• Darius of Persia and Philip of Macedon both included cavalry in tactics
• Han Dynasty in China, 200BC
• Horse size around 475kg
420 kg
Horse +Rider
2000BC
1800AD
1600AD
1000BC
500BC
1600BC
3000BC
4000BC
1500AD
500AD
2000AD
Sumerians
Light Horse/Ridden

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 6
History of Cavalry
Hittites/Egypt
Chariots
Sumerians
Light Horse/Ridden
Assyrians
675 kg
Horse
+
Rider
+
Armor
Europe
Heavy Cavalry
Persians
Heavy Cavalry
• The Middle Ages was noted for the heavily
armored mounted Knight
• Wraparound saddle, stirrups and spurs
• Often another horse was ridden to the battle,
then a team armored the horse and the knight
before battle (logistics)
450kg
Horse
563 kg
Horse
+
Rider
+
Armor
594 kg
Horse
+
Rider
+
Armor
420 kg
Horse +Rider
2000BC
1800AD
1600AD
1000BC
500BC
1600BC
3000BC
4000BC
1500AD
500AD
2000AD

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 7
History of Cavalry
Assyrians
Europe
Heavy Cavalry
Persians
Heavy Cavalry
• In the 1300’s masses of English Longbowmen defeated French Cavalry
• Swiss pike formations were able to withstand cavalry charges
• Gunpowder weapons became prevalent
• Dominance of heavy cavalry waned
Hittites/Egypt
Chariots
Sumerians
Light Horse/Ridden
675 kg
Horse
+
Rider
+
Armor
450kg
Horse
563 kg
Horse
+
Rider
+
Armor
594 kg
Horse
+
Rider
+
Armor
420 kg
Horse +Rider
2000BC
1800AD
1600AD
1000BC
500BC
1600BC
3000BC
4000BC
1500AD
500AD
2000AD

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 8
History of Cavalry
• The horse mounted soldier gradually disappeared from the battlefield
• But 6000 years was a good run
• The armored horse disappeared faster (2500 years)
• Horses got bigger – Armor heavier, better, before disappearing
• The 20th century saw the rise of mechanized cavalry via the internal
combustion engine
• 100 years of innovation and
growth in capability

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 9
Snapshot of current combat vehicles
M1126 Stryker (US – 2000)
Interim Armored Vehicle with Greater Strategic Mobility
Transport: 1 in C-130, but not after up armoring
Weight: 19T (23.4T after armor upgrades); Horsepower:
350Hp (450 Hp after armor upgrades); Crew 2+9
M1 Abrams (US – 1980)
Designed to Counter Soviet Armor in European Theater
Transport: 1 in C-17, 2 in C-5
Weight: 68T; Horsepower: 1500Hp; Crew: 4
M2/M3 Bradley (US – 1981)
Designed as Troop Transport to Complement M1 Tank
Transport: 2 in C-17, 4 in C-5
Weight: 36T; Horsepower: 600Hp; Crew 3+6
Namer (Israel – 2008)
Converted from Merkava Heavy Tank, High Survivability
Transport: NOT APPLICABLE
Weight: 68T; Horsepower:1200Hp; Crew 3+9

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 10
• The ‘Good’
• Lethal against other armored vehicles
• Pretty good mobility over most terrain
• Survivability – we have learned a great deal about blast protection
• The ‘Bad’
• Strategic Mobility – vehicles are heavy and difficult to move to theater
• Tactical Mobility – decades of ‘up armoring’ has resulted in heavy vehicles with
restricted off road mobility
• Our dependence on improved surfaces has left vehicles vulnerable to IED attacks
• The ‘Ugly’
• Heavy vehicles with poor fuel consumption leads to long and vulnerably supply
lines which require more vehicles for protection
• Future adversaries will likely continue to base in difficult terrain
• IEDs are becoming more prevalent
Present ground vehicles

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 11
Operational ramifications of armor-based survivability
Mission
Move –
Fight – Win
Needs
Lethality
Survivability
Tactical Mobility
Strategic Mobility
Requires
Heavy Armor to
Survive
Direct Hits
Implies
Low Strategic Mobility
Reduced Tactical Mobility
Extremely Heavy Vehicle
Limited Mobility and Transportation
Limited to Roads
Vulnerable to IED’s
B-kits EFP Protection
More Heavy Belly Armor

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 12
Strategic mobility example - Desert Storm/Shield
85% by Sea

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
• Strategic Mobility – into theater
• Airlift with C-17, C-5, C-141
• Tactical Mobility – within theater
• C-130, V-22, CH-53, CH-47
Present air mobility and ground vehicles
13
30,000 lb
20,000 lb
• Both are achievable with a
smaller, lighter vehicle
C-130 volume
constraint limits
Stryker and Bradley
*altitude & temperature dependent
*
*
Artist’s Concept
Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 14
Present ground vehicles have high tactical mobility on 40% of terrain
• Roughly 55 km/hr on hard terrain
Mobility starts to taper off on softer soils
• 45 – 25 km/hr over 40% of terrain
Wheeled vehicles have almost no mobility over 20% of soils and tracked vehicles
speed continues to decrease
Tactical mobility
MRAP has almost no off-road capability,
due to weight and rollover concern.
‘It’s protected transport, not a combat
vehicle. We never used it in combat.’

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Historically, increased survivability = decreased mobility
Renault LT
Model T
ExpeditionaryMobilityisthecombinationof
TacticalandStrategicMobilityasdefinedbythe
WiedenmanEquationforExpeditionaryMobility.
Steel
RHA
Composite
BoronCarbide
1910-1940
Armor improved by 25%
Weapon effectiveness improved by 13X
M4 Sherman
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅)
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
𝑀𝑀𝑇𝑇,𝑆𝑆 = 𝑓𝑓 �(𝑉𝑉𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 )𝑛𝑛 , �
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
�
𝑛𝑛
, (1 − 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑛𝑛), (1 − 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑛𝑛 )�
15

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Renault LT
Model T
Steel
RHA
Composite
BoronCarbide
M4 Sherman
Merkava
M551 Sheridan
M60 Patton
AAV
1940-1980
Armor improved by 2X
Weapon effectiveness improved by 4.5X
M1A2
M1 Abrams
M2 Bradley
T-72
16

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Renault LT
Model T
M4 Sherman
Merkava
M551 Sheridan
M60 Patton
AAV
Army and Marine Designs
Have even less
Expeditionary Mobility
M1A2
M1 Abrams
M2 Bradley
T-72
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
- Trend line of trading mobility for survivability is getting worse
- Never reach parity with threats
- Always easier and cheaper to punch holes
Stryker
Lessons:
17

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 18
Future of Cavalry
• Cavalry with the horse as the power plant grew in weight and effectiveness
before a period of decline in their use
• What is the future of armored vehicles?
• Is it continued weight growth?
• A key criticism of the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program
• Or are we at a similar inflection point in time?
GCV
X
90,000 kg
Main Battle Tank
MRAP (~Category I)
“Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it.”
Santayana (The Life of Reason, 1905)
• Different historians give different reasons for
death of heavy cavalry
• Weapons improved such that heavy cavalry
no longer provided overmatch
• English Longbow and guns
• Too expensive to operate
• Transition in training and tactics – focus on
dismounted troops

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 19
• In the late 60’s and early 70’s, U.S. aircraft were taking unacceptable losses
from SAMs.
• Prior investments in survivability in the form of speed, agility, altitude, and
countermeasures were surpassed by missile technology.
• In 1974, DARPA initiated a program that changed the way military aircraft
were built forever by proposing a new approach to aircraft survivability –
that of avoiding detection.
• For the last 100 years, ground vehicles have relied on the same basic trades
between armor and mobility. It is time to change the way military ground
vehicles are built.
DARPA changes the game
Tacit Blue Have Blue

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
The Ground X-Vehicle Technologies (GXV-T) program
GXV-T Program Objective
Develop new generation of ground combat
vehicle technologies that significantly
improve expeditionary mobility without
sacrificing survivability
GXV-T Program
• X-Plane paradigm
• Technology push (not transition pull)
• Not replacing combat vehicles/IFVs
• Transforming/augmenting them
• Breaks the ‘More Armor’ paradigm
TARDEC Artist’s Concept
20
Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Probability of surviving is a function of combined probabilities of:
1. being detected
2. being engaged
3. weapon hitting vehicle or critical part of vehicle
4. weapon penetrating armor
GXV-T pursues a new approach to vehicle survivability
Present Armored Vehicle Approach
Layer 1: No Penetration
Last 100 years of fielded systems relied on Armor (inner layer)
Avoid penetration:
“I will be detected, I will be engaged, I will be hit”
Layer 2: Avoid Being Hit
Innovation of the Active Protection System
Avoid being hit:
“I will be detected, I will be engaged”
Note: Complex US fielding issues – cost, safety, integration
21
𝑷 𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 = 𝟏 − 𝑷 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅 𝑷 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆 𝑷 𝒉𝒉𝒉 𝑷 𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑
Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Probability of surviving is a function of combined probabilities of:
1. being detected
2. being engaged
3. weapon hitting vehicle or critical part of vehicle
4. weapon penetrating armor
22
GXV-T Approach
Layer 1: No Penetration
“I will not armor entire vehicle, but move armor
to defeat threat.”
Layer 2: Avoid Being Hit
“I will dodge using vehicle agility.”
Layer 3: Avoid Being Engaged
“I will not be engaged through not being where
the enemy expects and through reducing the
effectiveness of targeting systems.”
Layer 4: Avoid Detection
“I will not be detected because the vehicle is
smaller and has reduced signatures.”
𝑷 𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 = 𝟏 − 𝑷 𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅𝒅 𝑷 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆 𝑷 𝒉𝒉𝒉 𝑷 𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑
GXV-T pursues a new approach to vehicle survivability
Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 23
• The Ground X-Vehicle Technologies Program is a 24 month effort to develop new
technologies which ‘break the more armor’ paradigm of ground vehicles.
• Increase expeditionary mobility and survivability AT THE SAME TIME not trade them
against each other
• The core effort is Technology Development
• Subsystem technologies which can be demonstrated at the end of the two year effort
• Example areas which are ripe for development are discussed below
• Supplemented by Analysis
• Concept Definition – define vehicles which showcase the technologies
• Modeling and Simulation – which develop analysis tools for combat simulation
• GXV-T could lead to an X-Vehicle demonstration program which would utilize the
technologies developed and matured to create vehicle demonstrators to prove the
premise that expeditionary mobility and survivability are not mutually exclusive.
What is the GXV-T Program?

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 24
1. A Vehicle Program
• GXV-T program is not developing a replacement for Bradley, Abrams, Stryker, EFV or another
planned program of record military vehicle – it is a technology development program
• GXV-T is envisioned to develop a suite of technologies designed to advance the next
generation of military ground vehicles to demonstrate a marked leap in capabilities
2. An Armor Program
• The GXV-T does not intend to fund material science or other armor solutions
• DARPA and the services continue to work near/far term ground vehicle armor approaches
3. An Active Protection System (APS) Program
• DARPA has previously contributed to the technology development of APS
• Services continue to work technical, doctrinal challenges
4. A Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) Weight Reduction Effort
• Among other challenges, GCV was too heavy. RDECOM continues to work this.
5. A Point Solution
• There is no GXV-T requirement or concept of operations. See #1 above.
• Yes, you should have ideas about operations and put those in proposals.
• Where is the next fight? Jungle? City? Desert? Mountains?
6. A ‘Networked Battlefield System of Systems’ – Part 2
7. An Unmanned Ground Vehicle Program
What the GXV-T Program is NOT

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 25
• Based on previous seedling efforts and conversations with subject matter
experts, DARPA has provided four Technology Development example areas.
• Technology Development proposals are not limited to these areas
• The following serve as;
• Inspiration
• Exemplar cases where we have thought of research program objectives, performance
criteria and end demonstrations. (i.e. the type of things we expect to see in proposals)
• We put ourselves in your shoes and this is what we came up with
• Go forth and do better!
• DARPA and DOD needs your solutions
We need your ideas!

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 26
Vehicle agility - Survivability with less armor
Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
• Detect launch & maneuver to avoid being hit
• Detect launch & reconfigure to avoid being hit or
be hit in a non vulnerable area
Rocket-propelled grenade
75 m launch
0.5 second flight time
100 ms sense time
0.4 second move time
250 kg armor moves 1m
GXV-T could “duck” to avoid oncoming fire
from long range tank-fired HE threat
GXV-T finds cover
Vehicle agility - Avoid being hit, avoid penetration
US Army ARL-SLAD Seedling
Threat Sensing, Time Quantification
US Army ARL-HRED Seedling
Human factors – limits
+Gz = 4G
-Gz = 5G
-Gy = 5G
+Gy = 5G
-Gx = 15G
+Gx = 15G
27
US Army TARDEC Seedling
Dynamic Movable Armor
Artist’s Concept
Artist’s Concept
Artist’s Concepts

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 28
• Vehicle Agility could take the place of heavy fixed armor by allowing the vehicle
to rapidly react to incoming threats
• Vehicle Agility is NOT limited to the concepts shown
• Can the vehicle (or crew compartment) rapidly move out of the way or be reconfigured
such that incoming threats have a low probability of a ‘kill’ without injuring the
occupants in the process?
• Proposed efforts should focus on advancing concepts to laboratory or surrogate
testing over a 24-month period
• e.g., Movable armor concept could be demonstrated by moving a piece armor to
intercept an inbound threat using a fixed platform
• e.g., Burst acceleration could be demonstrated on a surrogate vehicle at multiple
speeds on multiple surfaces
• The closer to operational capability the demonstration, the better
• Sensing technology should be leveraged from existing APS work when possible
• System weight should be less than 10% overall vehicle weight
• If a design is scalable to multiple vehicle classes, that is better
• The more threats the design addresses, the better
Vehicle agility example area

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 29
Extreme mobility – Avoid engagement

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Green: 0-15% slope Go Area
Yellow: 15-30% slope Go Area
Red: >30% slope No-go Area
Extreme mobility – Greater terrain access
M2A3 Bradley
Green: 0-8% slope Go Area
Yellow: 8-15% slope Go Area
Red: >15% slope No-go Area
GXV-TTerrain sample – Ft. Benning
2km x 2km
(equivalent to Germany Dry conditions)
30
• Get off the roads!
• Avoid choke points and IED emplacements.
• Be less predictable.
• Produce tactical surprise.
• Take the high road.
• Or the low road.
• See more of the world.
TARDEC concept
Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
M2A3/OIF GXV (two man)
PersonnelLosses
Personnel Survivability Comparison
Extreme mobility = avoid being engaged
COMBAT XXI Operational
Engagement Simulation
• US Army validated simulation comparing
M2 Bradleys with GXV-T class vehicles
• For same overall vehicle tonnage
simulation showed increased vehicle
and personnel survivability for larger
numbers of more mobile vehicles
Not Driving on Roads is the
Best Technique for Surviving IEDs
31
Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 32
Enabling extreme mobility
Extreme Hydraulic Travel
could provide the
capability to traverse large
obstacles at speed!
Hydraulic Extreme Travel
Pratt&Miller Seedling
TARDEC Seedling
Mobility can aid in
Urban Operations
Extreme Hydraulic Travel
could enable jump capability.
Simulation results
Artist’s Concept Artist’s Concept Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 33
• Radically enhanced vehicle mobility could enable tactical surprise, enhanced
survivability and enhanced operational effectiveness.
• Vehicle mobility is NOT limited to the concepts shown and should:
• Demonstrate improved speed in mixed
environments:
• 120kph off-road (3X M2A3 Bradley)
• <5% No-Go terrain access
• across all standard NRMM-like conditions
• Equal to or exceeds 3X M2A3 overall
• Absorbed power in crew positions of <6W
• 60o slope; 30o side slope
• Proposed efforts should focus on advancing concepts to laboratory or surrogate
testing over a 24 month period
• e.g. 40 inch travel suspension system demonstrated off-road on surrogate vehicle
• e.g. In-hub wheel motors and electric steering demonstrated at high speed on & off road
• e.g. Novel ground engagement beyond wheels or tracks
• The closer to representative operational capability the demonstration, the better
Extreme mobility example area

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 34
Crew augmentation – Smaller crew & vehicles
Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
• Aircraft-inspired operator cockpit
• No windows – enhanced survivability
• 360° Projection – enhanced situational
awareness
• Driver Assist
• Perception-based onboard and offboard
driving assistance – virtual crewman
• Path Planning
• Navigation and Driving workloads reduced
• Safer operations at higher speeds across
more terrain types
• Automated classification,
targeting, weapon selection, and
loading
• Replace gunner and loader functions
Platforms of smaller
weight, volume,
profile
Crew functions of today’s
3-4 operators accomplished
by 1-2 GXV-T operators
Semi-autonomous
functions
Enhanced
Expeditionary
Mobility
Crew augmentation example area
35

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 36
• Crew augmentation could offer the ability to reduce the size of vehicles and
provide safer operations while also enhancing survivability
• Crew augmentation is NOT limited to the concepts shown
• Can a function done today by the crew be automated with a 90% success rate?
i.e., the crew acts more in a supervisory capacity
• Can greater situational awareness be provided to
the occupants while limiting susceptibility to
external threats?
• Proposed efforts should focus on advancing concepts to laboratory or
surrogate testing over a 24-month period
• e.g., Demonstration of automatic target detection, weapons selection, gun slewing
and tracking
• e.g., Demonstration of route planning and driver assist technologies at operational
speeds and environments on surrogate vehicle
• The closer to operational capability the demonstration, the better
• Technologies should be applicable across multiple classes of vehicles
Crew augmentation example area
Terrain Classification Example

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 37
• Reduction in signature makes vehicles:
• Harder to detect
• Harder to identify/classify
• Harder to track
• Harder to engage
• Harder to hit
• Signatures should be reduced in one of more of the following areas:
• Visual
• Thermal
• Acoustic
• Infrared
• Electro-magnetic
• Dust
• Ground tracks/”footprints”
• Proposers should be aware that signature management technologies may be
of a classified nature; they should refer to the GXV-T Security Classification
Guide for further guidance.
Signature management example area
Artist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 38
GXV-T – The program plan (subject to change)
Technology Development Efforts
• TD-Y1 – 12 month Base, Multiple Awards
• TD-Y2 – 12 month Option
Utility, Maturation, Plan, Cost (BIC receive option)
Concept Definition Efforts
• Investigate Application of Technologies
• 15 month Concept Definition efforts
Modeling and Simulation
• Not part of this BAA but will support program

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Planned technology development timeline and deliverables
GXV-T Technology Development
Reviews and Deliverables
Event Expected Timing
TD-Y1 Kickoff Review 0 MAA
TD-Y1 Initial Technology Review
(ITR)
5 MAA
TD-Y1 Technology Readiness
Assessment (TRA)
10 MAA
TD-Y1 Final Package Submission 11 MAA
TD-Y2 Kickoff Review 13 MAA
TD-Y2 Mid-Build Review 15 MAA
TD-Y2 Technology Readiness Review 18 MAA
TD-Y2 Final Demonstration 22 MAA
TD-Y2 Prelim. Demo Data Results 23 MAA
TD-Y2 Final Data, Reports, Outbrief 24 MAA
TD Monthly Reports 1, 2, 3, … MAA
*MAA = Months After Award
39

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 40
• The initial round of awards would explore a larger spectrum of technologies.
• As these technologies are being matured through the first year, DARPA
would be evaluating both contractor performance and military utility.
• DARPA would be making a decision on which Technology Development
Options to fund for a 2nd year (around month 11).
• Note that more funding is available in the second year, but larger demonstrations
are anticipated to cost more
• What factors would be considered?
1. Military Utility – As the effect of the technologies on vehicles are better understood (through the TD,
CD, and M&S efforts) certain technologies are likely to show greater overall operational utility.
2. Maturation of Technology in Year 1– Hardware demos are more desirable.
3. Maturation Plan – How good is the plan to reach a hardware demonstration of
the subsystem technology by the end of Year 2?
4. Cost – There is a fixed budget and not enough for all technologies to go forward.
• Remember, the post GXV-T program goal is to be able to directly transition
each technology to a future X-Vehicle and/or existing military vehicle.
Technology development – Planned year 2 options

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 41
• Terramechanics – Ground Engagement – measurement of forces imparted to
different soils using various ground engagement techniques at different rates
• Human Factors – further studies on factors (level, profile, restraints) influencing
human injury under elevated g-loads
• POCs to contact about conducting final demonstrations on military ranges:
• US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence
Ted Maciuba
Deputy Director, Mounted Requirements
706.545.2078
ted.maciuba@us.army.mil
• USMC
Ben Garza
Coordinator, JCGV, PEO LS, Marine Corps
703.432.5124
ruben.garza@usmc.mil
Ongoing efforts and POCs

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 42
Concept definition effort notional events and timing
GXV-T Concept Definition Reviews and Deliverables
Event Expected Timing Deliverables
CD Kickoff Review 0 MAA Review briefings
Schedule-driven CDDP
CD Initial Systems Concepts and
Architecture Assessment
2 MAA Review briefings
Trade Studies
Initial Systems Concepts and
Architecture
CD Systems Concepts and Architecture
Mid-Definition Review
8 MAA Review briefings
Preliminary Systems Concepts Package
Preliminary Systems Architecture
Package
Analysis Plans
CD Systems Concepts and Architecture
Final Definition Review
13 MAA Review Briefings
Final Systems Concepts Package (Full
Technology Integration)
Final Systems Architecture Package
(SWAP, etc.)
Final Analysis Plan
Demonstrator Build Assessment
Final Systems Concepts and Architecture
Submission
15 MAA Final Report
Monthly Reports 1, 2, 3, … MAA Monthly Report
*MAA = Months After Award

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 43
• Call for proposals in SINGLE Technology Development efforts
• Proposers may submit multiple proposals, but each proposal can only address one
technology (this will speed up the award process)
• Abstracts (3 page limit) can be submitted until October 24
• DARPA response is intended to minimize efforts on proposals which are unlikely to be funded
• Responses, if applicable, from DARPA in approximately 7 days
• Response does not prohibit an ability to submit a full proposal
• Proposals due December 5, 2014 to be considered for main round of funding
• BAA will remain open 11 months and proposals after this date may be considered
(as funding allows)
• Call for proposals in Concept Definition efforts
• DARPA BAA-14-58 for Concept Definition efforts to be released in near future
• This will enable Concept Definition Proposers to tailor proposal towards specific technology
areas
• Official deadlines, dates, guidance are contained in the BAA and supersede the
above
• Refer to BAA for submission information and how to handle classified material
GXV-T – The BAA and submission deadlines

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 44
Security Classification Guide (SCG)
GXV-T Security Classification Guide
must be requested per the
instructions provided in the BAA.

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 45
• Proposals will be evaluated in part on the proposed approach to intellectual
property.
• Technologies developed will have to be shared with the Concept Definition
teams as well as the Modeling and Simulation team.
• It is DARPA’s intent that further realization of the technologies developed will
occur on demonstrator vehicles in a follow-on program
• To facilitate these efforts, Government rights to all technology developed will
be imperative
Intellectual property

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED 46
DARPA-BAA-14-50
(Technology Development)
DARPA-BAA-14-58
(Concept Definition)
http://www.fbo.gov
GXV-T – Funding opportunities

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
0.1
1.0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
ExpeditionaryMobility
Survivability
Proposed Vehicles
Armor Only Trade Space
Ground X-Vehicle Technologies Goals
Example
Area
Technical Challenges
(Examples for BAA Topics)
Vehicle
Agility
• Avoid incoming RPGs & ATGMs without
harming occupants (burst accelerations,
shock absorption)
• Ballistic & blast protection (capsules,
compartmenting, jettisoning)
• Actively reposition armor
Extreme
Mobility
• Ability to traverse diverse terrain, including
slopes and various elevations
• Advanced suspensions, novel track/wheels
• Extreme speed, off-road mobility
• Rapid omni-directional mobility changes in
3-D
Crew
Augmentation
• Full vehicle local situational awareness
(“glass canopy” sensing, perception,
onboard computations)
• Semi-autonomous driver assistance &
automation of payload sensing, slewing,
cueing functions
• Crew interfaces & visualization with all
occupants
Signature
Management
• Reduction in visible, IR, acoustic, EM
signatures
Additional
Capabilities
• Support overall program goal: Significantly
improve expeditionary mobility without
sacrificing survivability of crew or vehicle.
How do we plan to measure success?
Success would enable a better design space for ground vehicles.
Technical Success
Reduce Crew by 50% - More Mobility
47
Technical Success
Increase Speed by 2X – More Mobility
Technical Success
Access 3X More Terrain – More Survivability
Planned Metrics for Success
Access 3X More Terrain – More Survivability
Reduced Signatures – Harder to Detect, Engage, Hit
GXV-T Trade Space

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Potential future demonstrator program
Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by
unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions. ~ Sun Tzu
48
A successful GXV-T program could lead to a
follow-on Demonstrator program.
Future approval of such a program would
require innovative technologies, strong
vehicle concepts, and M&S that indicates:
• Realizable X-vehicles
• Viable TTPs
Artist’s ConceptArtist’s Concept

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
www.darpa.mil
49

GXV-T Proposer Day DARPA Sep 2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to GXV-T Proposer Day DARPA Sep 2014

Similar to GXV-T Proposer Day DARPA Sep 2014 (20)

More from Tom "Blad" Lindblad

More from Tom "Blad" Lindblad (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

GXV-T Proposer Day DARPA Sep 2014