sugv standardised unmanned ground vehicle with open ... · answer: 6 ugv architecture approach b as...

1

SUGVStandardised Unmanned Ground Vehicle with Open

ArchitectureArchitecture Key Requirements

17.CAT.OP.047

EDA, Workshop IBrussels, 21st June 2018

VRC

Workshop 2 – June 21st, 2018 – Brussels

2

Contents

▪Architecture Approach

▪Associated Standards

▪Questions

3

Architecture Approach

Requirements

Specifications

Architecture

Detailed Design

Implementation

Testing

Integration

Validation

Commissioning and Maintenance

▪ UGV Standardisation based on Generic Architecture

▪ Generic Requirements and Specifications / Standards dictate the

Generic Architecture Approach

4

SUGV Target Architecture Requirements Approach

International Generic

Standard Requirements

(eg NATO)

National Generic

Standards Requirements

(eg UK DefStan)

UGV Specific Requirements

Role / Mission Specific

Requirements

SUGV Generic

Architecture

Requirements

Example: Reference Architecture Requirements

Use Cases

5

Question 1

Considering that the SUGV scope is to investigate standardisation of Data, Control

and Power Infrastructure of UGV Systems:

Question 1: Would a Generic Architecture Standard (similar to the approach taken

by NGVA STANG 4754) be the correct way forward alongside a few example

Reference Architectures based on Use Cases (see previous slide)?

Answer:

6

UGV Architecture Approach

BASE UGV

UGV Payload

GW

GW

GW

GW

▪ UGV divided into (a) BASE with standard functions related to its mobility and (b) Payload depending on its mission(s).

▪ Gateways (GWs) on both the UGV BASE and Payload provide Standard Interfaces (power, data and control) for interconnection.

▪ Both the UGV BASE and Payload have their own power, data and control infrastructures, and can therefore function independently OR cooperatively.

UGV

7

Question 2

Considering the previous slide:

Question 2: Is this generic architecture approach acceptable? Would you suggest

anything to enhance the approach? If not, what would be acceptable?

Answer:

8

UGV Remote Control Architecture Approach

▪ UGV Remote Control Station divided into (a) BASE UGV Remote Control with standard functions related to its mobility and (b) UGV Payload Remote Control depending on its mission(s).

▪ Gateways (GWs) on both the UGV BASE and Payload provide Standard Interfaces (power, data and control) for interconnection.

▪ Both the UGV BASE and Payload have their own power, data and control infrastructures, and can therefore function independently OR cooperatively.

BASE UGV Remote Control

UGV Payload Remote

Control

GW

GW

GW

GW

Remote Control Station for UGV

9

Question 3

Considering the previous slide:

Question 3: Is this generic architecture approach acceptable? Would you suggest

anything to enhance the approach? If not, what would be acceptable?

Answer:

10

UGV System Architecture Associated Standards

▪ Internal Architecture for the UGV and its Remote Control Station to specify

NGVA/LAVOSAR approach considering them as Mission Systems.

▪ External Architecture (ie at C4I) specify IOP/JAUS

▪ Standardisation will be required on the GWs ie Interconnection of IOP/JAUS and

NGVA/LAVOSAR.

BASE UGV Remote Control

UGV Payload Remote

Control

GW

GW

GW

GW

Remote Control Station for UGV

BASE UGV

UGV Payload

GW

GW

GW

GW

UGV

GW GW

C4I

IOP/JAUS

Control

Feedback

NGVALAVOSAR

NGVALAVOSAR

11

Question 4

Considering the previous slide:

Question 4: Is this generic architecture approach acceptable? Would you suggest

anything to enhance the approach? If not, what would be acceptable?

Answer:

12

Question 5

Question 5: Would you consider acceptable the use of NGVA / LAVOSAR

architecture approach for the internal UGV and its Remote Control Station

infrastructure acceptable? If not, which other standards would you consider?

Answer:

13

Question 6

Question 6: Would you consider acceptable the use of IOP/JAUS Standards

architecture approach for the external communication between the UGV and its

Remote Control Station acceptable? If not, which other standards would you

consider?

Answer:

14

Question 7

Considering UGV Size and Type

Question 7: Based broadly on the NATO UGV Classification whattypes of UGVs would you see in each of the size categories below?

Heavy (13 tonnes and above)

▪ (eg Combat, engineering, building inspection …)

Medium (1 – 13 tones)

Small (200 – 1000 Kg)

Light (15 – 200 Kg)

15

Question 8

Considering UGV Size and Baseline Capabilities /Subsystems

Question 8: What baseline capabilities / subsystems would youconsider for the different UGV sizes?

Heavy (13 tonnes and above)

▪ (Please add eg Mobility, situation awareness …)

Medium (1 – 13 tones)

Small (200 – 1000 Kg)

Light (15 – 200 Kg)

16

Question 9

Considering UGV Type and Baseline Capabilities /Subsystems

Question 9: What baseline capabilities / subsystems would youconsider for the different UGV types?

Combat

▪ (Please add eg Weapons, Active Protection, ISTAR…)

Engineering

Logistics

Recce

17

Question 10

Considering Environment Specific Capabilities / Subsystems

Question 10: What specific capabilities / subsystems would youconsider for different Environments?

Cluttered

▪ (Please add eg SA, GPS Denial …)

Non-Cluttered

Weather

Terrain

18

Question 11

Considering Infrastructure Specific Capabilities / Subsystems

Question 11: What baseline capabilities / subsystems would youconsider related to infrastructure?

Urban

▪ (Please add eg GPS, Satellite Comms …)

Rural

Line of Site

19

Question 12

Considering Baseline Control Capabilities

Question 12: What would you consider as baseline control capabilitiesconsidering the Size, Type and Mission, Environment and Infrastructure?

User (s) (Please add/modify)▪ Combat

▪ Weapon full control (target acquisition, fire …)

▪ Mobility

▪ Engineering

▪ Manipulator

▪ Logistics

Autonomy (Please add/modify)▪ Combat

▪ Target acquisition

▪ ADAS

▪ Engineering

▪ ADAS

▪ Obstacle avoidance

▪ Logistics

20

Question 13

Considering Specific Control Capabilities / Subsystems

Question 13: What would you consider as specific control capabilitiesconsidering the Size, Type and Mission, Environment and Infrastructure?

User (s) (Please add/modify)▪ Combat

▪ Gun

▪ Missile

▪ Engineering

▪ Bridge

▪ Arm

Autonomy (Please add/modify)▪ Combat

▪ Target acquisition

▪ ADAS

▪ Engineering

▪ ADAS

▪ Obstacle avoidance

▪ Logistics

▪ Platooning

21

Question 14

Business case analysis and roadmap: number of units for the coming years.

Question 14: What number of UGVs are expected to acquire (for users) or to

deliver (for industries) in the coming years?

Answer:

We could consider three periods of time:

Mine/IED Detection &

Clearing

BuildingInspection

Recce Combat Logistics

Short term (1-3 years)

Medium term (3-6 years)

Long term (>6 years)

22

Question 15

Business case analysis and roadmap: UGV electronics life cycle.

Question 15: What number of operation hours do you expect for the product before

a major upgrade or replacement?

Answer:

23

Question 16

Business case analysis and roadmap: Cost.

Question 16:

a) What is the total price of the electronics in current UGVs with regard to the

vehicle (ex. percentage)?

b) What it the maintenance annual cost with regard to total price of the vehicle (ex.

percentage)?

Answer:

24

THANK YOU