It seems like everybody’s talking about it these days.
This unmanned tank that tops 60 mph, can be fitted with a remote gun system and plows over concrete barriers like its a wall of foam.
Colin’s down at the Army Science Conference and they’re raving about it:
Thats the Ripsaw MS1, a tracked unmanned ground vehicle that no less than Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Armys vice chief of staff, called an an amazing piece of gear this morning.
The Ripsaw may be one of those development programs that lawmakers can use to justify earmarks. It was funded by an earmark worth about $1 million pushed through by GOP Sen. Susan Collins, of Maine. The vehicle is on display for the first time at the Army Science Conference here in Orlando.
Built by twin brothers, Geoff and Mike Howe of Barwick, Maine, the Ripsaw can careen at high speed over obstacles that would leave a vehicles crew dazed and bruised. It is operated by a driver in another vehicle using a modular crew station that can be unbolted and placed in a range of Army vehicles, including the Stryker and all the MRAP models.
A weaponised version, modified by the Armys Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, includes a remotely operated M240 machine gun. The gun is operated by a separate person using another modular station that can be put in a range of vehicles.
In addition to impressive firepower, the Ripsaw can carry a payload of 2,000 pounds. It is not armored and each track can be removed as a unit should it be damaged, according to Bhavanjot Singh, ARDEC project officer.
Singh and the Howe brothers are eager to find a sponsor to help get the Ripsaw into production, or at least to get some prototypes built and tested in the field.
At least four congressional aides checked out the vehicle at the conference display here and Chiarelli had a tour of his own. Singh was enthusiastic about both the vehicle and its builders.
They are very good dreamers, he told me.
And Fox called Ward onto the show to talk about it this morning:
How do I get one of these again?
Seriously, it seems like a good idea. And it reminds me of an email I got from a source of mine yesterday who was blowing his top about how Ford is calling itself “the arsenal of Democracy” to try to win a slice of the $25 billion in bailout money. He makes the point that where were the “Big Three” when the services were asking for MRAPs? When have they contributed to any technological advance in manned ground combat systems within the last decade?
Nope, it takes a million dollar earmark from Susan Collins to fund a couple brothers from Maine who want to take a chance on a revolutionary new vehicle.
Good for them and shame on Ford, GM and Chrysler…don’t go waving the bullet-scarred flag at me.
– Christian
I thought AM General was owned by GM?
If we funded a lot of small guys like the Howe brothers we’d probably get a much better ROI than our current mode of operation. It’s the venture capital approach: expect lots of failures but the few that do pan out more than make up for the losses.
um no offense but wouldnt it be a good idea to at least armor this thing against 5.56/7.62?
It makes me queasy thinking about remotely driving the Ripsaw. The track configuration makes it great for climbing over obstacles, but the lack of stabilization would be a serious pain in the neck for anyone driving it via video camera. They should make a simpler version of this with a longer wheelbase (still use tracks if it’s a big deal), and sacrifice a bit of that offroad capability. Presumably, it will be on-road 98% of the time.
They gotta find a way to put a M240, M2, and auto nade gun (can’t remember the designation) on this so it can handle any type of target it encounters.
I suppose that in a combat ready version it will have at least some armor, right? (At FONZIE) They did put a M240 on it.
Also, I remember seeing something on the either the Science Channel or the Military Channel about the brothers who built this.
Pretty sure that our M1s are made by Chrysler who bought AM General, not GM. I could be mistaken.
I really like the promise of unmanned vehicles in combat. Send in a swarm of these instead of a squad of soldiers. Who cares if you lose one or a hundred? Make ‘em cheap and deploy them “red army” style.
But keep ‘em cheap and dumb. We all know what happens if we create a smart robot.
The whole point of the thing being unmanned is that you don’t need to armor it. Obviously you need some around the vital control equipment and gas tank, but that’s it. Like the guy said, keep it cheap so you can make a lot of them, and who cares if they get shot up. I’ll bet you can pump these things out for $500K or less each, especially if you do a large production run. Last I checked, an M1 is $4mil — $5mil, so you could have almost 10 to 1 of these things in the field, going faster, farther, and not putting a 4 man crew in danger for each tank. Let’s see, 1 IED taking out a heavily armored multi-million dollar tank and 4 men, or 1 cheap unarmored robot with no crew and has 9 more right behind it. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
JEFF…
operative term “was”…
The whole point of the thing being unmanned is that you don’t need to armor it. Obviously you need some around the vital control equipment and gas tank, but that’s it. Like the guy said, keep it cheap so you can make a lot of them, and who cares if they get shot up. I’ll bet you can pump these things out for $500K or less each, especially if you do a large production run. Last I checked, an M1 is $4mil — $5mil, so you could have almost 10 to 1 of these things in the field, going faster, farther, and not putting a 4 man crew in danger for each tank. Let’s see, 1 IED taking out a heavily armored multi-million dollar tank and 4 men, or 1 cheap unarmored robot with no crew and has 9 more right behind it. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Posted by: Warren at December 3, 2008 04:59
—————
dude ok wtf is the point of even buying a 500k(seriously 500k?!?! rip off) machine to have it nocked out by a retard with a $300.00 ak47?…kinda stupid, plus all the ammo and the weapons system(btw why not one of the new 50cals?)
end up in enemy hands…bad idea jihadis with m240’s, automatic gernade launchers, and maybe some tow missiles(seriously 60mil an hour tank killers sweet.)
so seriously armor it up im not saying rpgs but most small arms
oh yea and.…
“Let’s see, 1 IED taking out a heavily armored multi-million dollar tank and 4 men, or 1 cheap unarmored robot with no crew and has 9 more right behind it.“
alot of ieds are remote detonated so theyd hit the abrams anyways.….just sayin…not to mention in a crowded street its kinda hard to have the space to manuver or move at 60mph…
I didn’t really mean to imply making these things able to with-stand rpg’s or land mines. But a little bit of plating to repel small arms fire seems reasonable. Not that that is necessary either though.
On another note, any idea on what role a vehicle like this would have in the military?
Ive seen videos well over a year ago on youtube. It showed the first manned Ripsaw and it was awesome. It traversed shallow water and bumpy terrain at high speed and the driver always seemed to be in control.
However in this unmanned role I think it’s a bit overpowered. It is too large, noisy and as someone posted earlier controling it by video will be a hell of a job.
Also putting a larger weaponsystem on top of it makes it heavier whereas it’s low weight is a major contribution to it’s performance.
There is another role that maybe more appropriate and that is that of a M.U.L.E A DARPA funded multi million project. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-mule.htm
If you have a column of these unmanned tanks and the terrorists let them pass the IED w/o setting it off, then it doesn’t matter. The whole point of unmanned is to keep the manned tanks off the battle field. It’s not like you would have an Abrams following the unmanned column, using them as minesweepers / cover.
Also, the main reason you need armor on current tanks or other vehicles is to protect the occupants. I’m sure armoring the “brain” or main components would be a simple task and will be done, but you don’t need this thing to look like a traditional battle tank with armor plating.
As for weapons, it’s still just a prototype that was basically built by a small civilian team who most likely didn’t have access to larger weapons. Once they get that access, swapping out the current machine gun for stronger firepower will be a cinch.
Of course putting armor would be smart for this amazing new weapon. With the new elitist illuminati goverment coming in, it will be interesting to see how much money will be spent on weaponry and defense for our nation… or if the military’s budget will be cut a s a result of pulling out of Iraq
to the guy that said the M1 is made by Chrysler. Correction.…was made by Chrysler. General Dynamics (GD) bought Chrysler defense almost 15 years ago and now maintains the M1. The Stryker which was originally based on a GM product line (in Canada), became a GD product when they bought out GMs share in that deal, taking over the whole LAV product line. I believe AM General is its own company that only uses GM to market it’s Hummer line. It may at one point been part of one of the big 3 but no more. Actually, GD is now partnering up with AM General on JLTV and with their track record, may soon merge AM General into another GD division. My point, the big 3 don’t have much stake in the defense industry anymore, but that doesn’t mean defense will feel nothing if the Big 3 fail.
If you’re going to open discussions on Ripsaw MS1 capablities and performance,get a recent picture and video off of howeandhowe.com. Second, state the facts– this is the worlds fastest, most agile and robust tracked vehicle ever.Ripsaw MS1 can be optimized to perform various mission functions to include not only convoy protection,C-IED, crowd/riot control but also route clearing just to name a few that come to mind right now.The weaponized Ripsaw MS1 is a crucial piece of equiptment that the military cannot afford to pass up at the cost of soldiers getting injured and killed in missions that can be accomplished remotely with Ripsaw MS1.
The Howe brothers created the Ripsaw MS1 to provide the brave men and women in theatre that risk their lives everyday, a tool that will remove them from dangerous situations so that they can come home and enjoy the fruits of their many sacrafices.
Go ahead and judge what the Howe brothers have accomplished, I sincerely doubt any on here can accomplish what they have done with as much skill.So show some respect.
General Motors does not build the Hummer for th3 military.
November 1, 1986 — AM General working name was changed to LTV Missiles & Electronics Group, AM General Division, as a result of a reorganization of LTV Corporation.
February 1, 1990 — AM General working name was changed to LTV Aerospace and Defense Company, AM General Corporation, as a result of a reorganization of LTV Corporation.
April 30, 1992 — AM General Corporation was sold by LTV Corporation to the Renco Group, Inc.
Only major concern I’d have would be if there is enough secure, difficult to jam, communications bandwidth available. A single UAV currently covers a very large area. You might want dozens and perhaps hundreds of these within close proximity. I recognize the current model is for these to be a companion of a manned vehicle and thus communications may not be long range, but I still have some questions about this. As with UAV’s I believe the solution to bandwidth issues is more navigation and target acquisition autonomy with communications and human controllers only providing firing permission.
Everyone’s talking about adding armor. If any armor is added it should be kept at a minimum, enough to survive small arms fire (not sure if any armor is even needed for that).
You can’t think of these in the old fashioned way. Because of their cheapness these things would be deployed in packs. You would never see one of these alone. They would travel in groups of maybe 5 or more. So you have to look at this pack of 5 as a single distributed ‘organism’. If you want to take it on you’ll have to be ready to kill all 5 simultaneously, otherwise the thing is still alive and it’s angry. When you ambush and instantly kill one or two (no lives lost) the rest of the bunch has your ass. And with each of these unit’s speed and agility they’ll be able to avoid further shots and either shoot you or just run you over.
also, forgot to mention, in regards to IEDs, these things can move so fast and seem to have no trouble going off road over all kinds of obstructions, so basically you’d have to put IEDs over your entire landscape, not just the roads.
I like this machine ;]
First: Are not these remotely-detonated IEDs triggered by wire? Put lowerable rakes on the front of these speedy UAGs and take them out!
Second: Maybe if you are wary of the remote connection to the MS-1 we could relay the signals through UAVs soaring above. This could mean constant LOS and clear connections.
Third: If there are multiple weapons on the vehicle, will there be separate operators for each one? Will the driver have a forward-facing weapon?
Fourth: If you look at the video, you may notice that there is actually quite a lot of stuff in the chassis. It seems to me that to prevent unacceptable levels of damage to it’s systems the MS-1 will require more armor than some posters anticipate. Considerably more. It might be that this changes with direct government funding.
Fifth: With the great speed the MS-1 brings to the field, supplying forward forces may be a useful application. This depends on its control range and its movement range; and also whether or not we expect any troops to be cut off or under-supplied anytime in the future.
Sixth: As I just noted, will we need any more aggressive units currently? Are speed and decisive firepower necessary attributes any more? Should this system be given funds and used in research only, or should it be deployed? The MS-1 is amazingly fun and we may be itching to use it, but can we actually find a place to do so? I am not saying that any of you were saying we need them out there now; rather, this paragraph is reflective commentary.
Finally: Not only do I dislike Fox news in general for aggressive screen appearances, but now I can dislike them for nearly incompetent technology coverage.
I have questions about the actual mobility of “Ripsaw”. What is this extra mobility based on? More ground clearance? Longer stroke (travel distance of wheel to absorb shocks)? Higher technology springs and shock absorbers? New geometry of suspension system? Something else?
What I’m trying to get at is: Suppose we removed almost all armor and weapons from an M-1 Abrams, would it be just as mobile as the “Ripsaw”?
Paid twice as much? FALSE. Wages are being trimmed to $14-$15/hr — same as Nissan.
7 Private jets? SOLD.
Jobs bank employees doing nothing? FALSE. The jobs bank is virtually non-existent now, and those few left on it are gone, per the UAW.
————-
ok be an a$$ but first where did you find the info and when did this happen (seriously even if you want to get all pissy id like info just well cause it is info)and i heard it was 2 aircraft they sold…
and also do you deny that america seems to be a black hole for american auto companies?
That the unions as well as the makers and ceos themselves are to blame?
That the UAW used to force the big 3 to make the plants less flexable and costly so theyd have to hire more ppl and have less options?
Im from the south and most ppl i know dont like unions crap gets stupid when they get involved. Not to mention unions are tied in with the mob. And as for the CEOs and others everytime we help them we say change your ways they say OK and keep on.
Every system breaks down eventually as is ours peace breeds complacency, wealth breeds greed, and democracy (though by god its not perfect but the best style of government so far found) eventualy turns into socalism and breeds weakness.
Chevy makes the best trucks on the road, GM used to make a damn good product also still do in alot of ways Ford and chrysler same way but what is the point of saving them if they dont learn dont adapt? Ford i believe will survive its more flexible than the others.
Do i want to see them go no way in hell. I just cant see the sence in thowing money at a problem but not fixing it. Do i like the idea of ford or GM turning out these things by the thousands heck yea i want them to succeed but not at the cost of my country. After all what happens when OUR creaditors come calling?
——————-
Also does anyone know where the f35s are supposed to be built?
The Nazis could have thrown something like this together 70 years ago without much thought. We’re not really breaking any new ground here.
Stephan,
I think a lot of the advances in mobility for this unit has to do with the fact that it is unmanned. This vehicle can handle a hell of a lot more jarring drive because it doesn’t have the limitations of a human being strapped inside bouncing around to get injured or sick. There may be some other high tech reasons, but I think the above reason is a big one.
Yes, it looks cool. But what good is it? What can you use it for? Ward didn’t answer the question to my satisfaction. Yes, you’ve got a big freakin’ vehicle with all-terrain capability and a RWS. What are you going to use it for? Recon? I’m not satisfied that a remote ground vehicle can give enough situational awareness to be effective in that role, and simpler robots like PackBot for close-in work. Supporting dismounted infantry? They already have Strykers, Bradleys, and even Humvees for that.
Perhaps, given more development and the right weapons fit, this could be used for raids or in support of recon teams. Right now all I see is a solution in search of a problem, and a lot of rather silly suggestions. Impress me, guys!
doubletapping to say
@Ruppkopf
re: situational awareness
this thing is never going to be alone; it integrates into sensor nets just like everything else. the onboard sensors enable driving, they don’t (need to) provide the whole picture.
“The Nazis could have thrown something like this together 70 years ago without much thought. We’re not really breaking any new ground here.“
.
Actually, the Nazis DID invent remote-controlled tanks, mostly for demolishing tasks (carry a bomb onto a bridge and such).
.
There’s really not much new in military technology; get a copy of “Jane’s Weapon Systems” from the 70’s and you’ll see what I mean.
There’s alot of “small picture” narrowed speculation present in this blog. The fact is that Ripsaw MS1 represents a faster, more mobile, more lethal yet safer more effective future armed forces. Yes, it can be armoured or house dual dillions or even javolines, but the Howe brothers illustrated just how slow and anoquated our current military is. we can do better with the help from H&H, GM, Chyrlser, and Ford.… It just took a rather large spark from an unlikely sourse. Its happened time and time again through out history
Neat but hardly new. There is an entire project office in the Army devoted to the ground robotics. And this capability is not new. The fact that it has not been adopted by the services means it is subject to being “engineered” to death. But there are other company out there with similiar capabilities already. Check out Foster Millers TALON and MAARS. They are well into the fight now.
This thing will be easy to hijack via radio jamming and wireless electronic hacking. The russian and chinese cyberwarriors will own it in no time and turn it against the creators, the americans.
In contrast, try to convince an M1 Abrams crew that the cause of the red banner represents the utmost good and they shall defect and join the DRPK Army. Good luck with that…
Maybe with a million dollar bribe you could that, there have been isolated cases of traitors among the GI Joe, but modern UAV tech is more dangerous, because a simple IT vulnerability would allow whole fleets of remotely operated vehicles hijacked by enemy hackers at once.
Man-in-the-loop is a great value which shall not be abandoned. Free men understanding and treasuring the value of liberties are the greatest asset in a war, not UAVs.
they saying is actually “dont go waving the bloody flag,” not “bullet scarred flag”
FOX NEWS: Official news network of the Republicans.
REPUBLICANS: Official party of ignorance.
Fox News = News for the ignorant.
Too bad that we did not have this UGV at the start of the war. Looks like to me, the Ripsaw MS1 is versatile enough that it could be set up in a numerous amount of ways. When it comes to dealing with an I.E.D. I believe the MS1 would save the lives of many of our troops. I would rather see my tax dollars go into an effort like this. Besides, just think of the fun our Marines and Soldiers could have, chasing down one of the bad guys with one of these things. God help me, I love the thought of that!
Too bad that we did not have this UGV at the start of the war. Looks like to me, the Ripsaw MS1 is versatile enough that it could be set up in a numerous amount of ways. When it comes to dealing with an I.E.D. I believe the MS1 would save the lives of many of our troops. I would rather see my tax dollars go into an effort like this. Besides, just think of the fun our Marines and Soldiers could have, chasing down one of the bad guys with one of these things. God help me, I love the thought of that!
que te ffo