Finding ways to overcome physical limitations so that humans can dive deeper and stay underwater longer has been an ongoing quest. Back in the 15th century, Leonardo Da Vinci drew sketches of a submarine and a robot. Had he thought to combine the two concepts, he would have created a prototype of an unmanned underwater vehicle, or underwater drone. Instead, the world had to wait another five hundred years.

Drones (i.e. quadrotors) are a popular and increasingly widespread product used by consumers as well as in a diversity of industrial, military and other applications. Historically under the control of human operators on the ground, they’re becoming increasingly autonomous as the cameras built into them find use not only for capturing footage of the world around them but also in understanding and responding to their surroundings. Combining imaging with other sensing modalities can further bolster the robustness of this autonomy.

As the demand for greater control and functionality increases, position-sensor-instrumented hydraulic cylinders are becoming more important in the heavy industry, mobile equipment, and subsea worlds. Position sensors for feedback in hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders have typically used one of three technologies: Linear Variable Inductance Transducers (LVITs), variable resistance potentiometers (Pots), or magnetostrictive transducers (MLDTs). While other sensor technologies have occasionally been used in these applications, the focus of this article is a comparison among these three popular technologies. Ultimately, a user or systems integrator must determine the exact requirements of the application and which technology best satisfies them on a total installed cost versus performance basis. The strengths and weaknesses of linear variable inductance, variable resistance pots, and magnetostrictive sensors are all examined below, together with a feature-by-feature comparison chart.

It’s a crisp November day in Michigan, and a convoy of British and American resupply vehicles are rumbling along at a comfortable 25 miles per hour. In the lead is a British Army Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles (RMMV) HX-60 truck, trailed closely by two U.S. Army Oshkosh Light Medium Tactical Vehicles (LMTVs). In total, there are zero humans operating this convoy.

The US Army’s Futures Command is the most important administrative reorganization of the modern Army. Responding to the world’s changing priorities— especially the “near peer” threat of ascendant Russia and China—the Army is no longer modernizing, but re-inventing its ground vehicle fleet against new realities. Just like the U.S. Air Force stopped inventing better jets and pilot aids and moved to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for “dull, dirty and dangerous” missions, the Army envisions multiple autonomous vehicle concepts. Instead of a heavier Abrams main battle tank, or a replacement to the aging M113 APC, autonomous “wingman” vehicles may replace some of the human-heavy tasks on the future battlefield.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.
San Diego, CA
858-762-6700
www.ga-asi.com

The U.S. Air Force’s new Block 50 Ground Control Station (GCS) – developed by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) – for the first time controlled an MQ-9 Reaper^® on January 8th from the GA-ASI Gray Butte Flight Operations Facility near Palmdale, Calif.

MBDA
Le Plessis-Robinson, France
+33 1 71 54 10 00
www.mbda-systems.com

At the end of 2018, MBDA successfully demonstrated the use of the Mistral missile against fast boats such as FIACs (Fast Inshore Attack Craft). A number of foreign delegations attended the demonstration firing that was performed from a SIMBAD-RC automated naval turret firing from the land against a fast moving remotely-controlled semi-rigid boat more than 3 kilometers off the coast. The scenario was intended to be representative of the self-protection of a vessel against an asymmetric threat (commando or terrorist attack).