From: Sasha Chislenko (sasha1@netcom.com)
Date: Tue Apr 20 1999 - 23:49:23 MDT
This is a proposal I received from Igor Mendelev.
If you have any comments, suggested improvements,
or any other remarks, please send them to the author.
- Sasha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dealing with dictatorships without losing face and soldiers"
Copyright Igor Mendelev (rcfv@netscape.net) v 0.2 April 10, 1999
Technology can't solve world problems - especially if it's a wrong one.
Recent events in Kosovo - being an unmitigated disaster from humanitarian
point of view, a well as politically and militarily for NATO countries (but
not for Milosevic) - forces the question : is there any military (or other)
technology that can really help deal with or - even better - prevent such
problems before they become tragedies.
As we've seen very clearly best air power in the world is unable to deal with
2nd rate army of 3rd rate country to the extent needed to halt slaughter and
mass expulsion of civilians and sending ground troops is unpopular politically
due to unavoidable casualties - small from a point of view of any dictatorship
but way too large for any current Western democracy. Things as they stand now
will only get worse due to low inventory of cruise missiles and laser-guided
bombs (and long manufacturing time for them) and disagreements about political
and military strategy.
It is clear that a very different approach is needed.
Proposed technical solution to this problem is - for the lack of better word -
Remotely Controlled Combat Vehicle. RCCV is a remotely controlled unmanned
buggy-like armed vehicle that will be cheaply mass produced (for under
100K$/piece) and airlifted (in hundreds or thousands depending on the enemy
power) to the areas of regional crises and then remotely controlled by
operators located within few hundreds miles.
It will leverage strengths of Western countries in auto production, air
transportation, electronics and wireless communications (all of which are also
weaknesses of their adversaries like Iraq or Serbia or North Korea) and make
the problem of ground troop losses moot. It's also expected to be highly cost
effective compared to existing alternatives- by at least an order of
magnitude. It is also expected to be highly effective militarily due to very
high firepower/weight ratio and strong negative psychological effect on enemy
soldiers. Obviously, it's also completely unaffected by chemical and
biological weapons and can withstand nuclear attack much better than existing
ground forces of any country.
For the cost of a single B2 bomber ( which couldn't be used to do much since
no one is planning - I hope - to nuke Serbia out of existence) at least 10
thousand RCCVs could have been developed, manufactured and deployed in or near
Kosovo - and that would have changed Serbia's means (because even Milosevic
isn't ready to have military losses measured in tens of thousands since it's a
direct road to loss of power) and consequently goals.
System (anyone can provide better estimates for costs and weight?):
-firepower comparable to (somewhat less then) Bradley armored vehicle
-overall weight under 1000 (1500 ?) lbs (due to lack of need to use a lot of
armor to protect soldiers; only small part of the RCCV needs to be armored -
probably using titanium and ceramic plates - to protect engine, fuel,
electronics etc.)
range at least 500 mi (with about 20-25 gallons of fuel)
-requires 1 remote operator (with a proficiency in playing DOOM-like games;
they will be highly motivated to win -:) )
-built-in self-destruction mechanism (to prevent weapons etc. being studied
and/or used by the enemy)
-development time under 2 years and cost under 100M$ (if done in a way
similar to commercial auto project, not as a military project with 10+ years
time-frame and bloated budget) for initial version of a vehicle
-development time under 1 year and cost under 10M$ for remote operator
software (including training sw) - it's no more difficult than development of
a good game for PC
manufacturing cost under 100K$/each (if developed with consideration of mass
production - in batches of 1000 or more using standard commercial parts and
existing military hardware wherever possible) and more RCCVs could be quickly
manufactured as needed
Armaments :
-attached to rotating telescopic tube located at the center of the vehicle,
it could use technology similar to active suspension to increase precision of
fire when RCCV is moving
-low-caliber (5.56-7.62 mm) machine gun (belt-fed) and several thousand
rounds
-high-caliber belt-fed machine gun (like Hughes 25mm Chain gun [1]) with
several hundred or few thousand rounds
-grenade launcher (40+ mm) and several dozen grenades
-laser range finder
-supply of mines (anti-tank ?) with dispensing unit
few antitank missiles (cost ??)
Transportation:
-4 (or 6) wheels with bulletproof tires driven by electrical motors (which
allows to move silently when needed and also to save fuel) attached to
cart-like frame
-hybrid engine - possibly with Rotapower (http://www.freedom-motors.com)
engine that is cheap when mass-produced ($20/hp), powerful and light -
charging batteries or supercapacitors and powering electrical motors,
communications and weapons systems (which can also work from stored power)
-variable ground clearance (?)
-variable length of RCCV frame (if could be done cheaply and reliably - to
improve transportation density, stability on bad roads etc.)
Communications and control:
-medium-speed (around 1-2 Mbs) encrypted feed to high-flying (15-40 km)
communication platform (aircraft or dirigible) consisting of 2 video feeds
(384-768 Kbs each) and misc. telemetry (256-512 Kbs that includes GPS data,
environment (weather, sounds etc.), vehicle and weapons status); could likely
use off-the shelf commercial wireless G3 gear by the time RCCV is ready for
production. I think overall latency under 15-20 ms (one way) could be easily
achieved using existing communication hardware and software, which makes
system real-time (for the intended purpose).
-low-speed encrypted feed from operator (transmitted through communication
platform) for weapons and vehicle control
-use standard Internet protocols (IPSec and mobile IP) and commercial RTOS
(maybe even Linux with real-time enhancements?) to speed up development
-2 zoomed video cameras (for 3D view; will switch to 2D if one camera is
unoperational) with night-vision capability attached to rotating tube, see
System
-small radar to detect other vehicles, planes etc. (they're really cheap and
small now - even planned for some passenger cars)
-all electronics EMP protected (because portable EMP weapons could be
available to the enemy)
Open issues:
-how difficult and/or expensive is to airdrop RCCV near areas of conflict in
the presence of air-defense systems
-possibility of "hijacking" (hacking) of communication platforms and cost and
time of developing software for it (shouldn't be too difficult since it's
essentially flying router with some extra security +
transmitter/receiver/antenna with EMP protection )
-resupplying fuel (seems doable using simple manipulator), bullets and
grenades (somewhat trickier)
-best way to return it after completion of the mission or for repairs etc.
(even though it might be unnecessary given relatively low - by norms of modern
war - cost of RCCV)
Sources:
1. Ian Hogg "Modern Small Arms" (ISBN 0785800182)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:35 MST