Defense Speak Interpreted: What’s an RCV, and What Do Electronics Have to Do With It?

In "Defense Speak," RCV does not stand for ranked-choice voting, a remote control vehicle, a riot control vehicle, or a refuse collection vehicle, although the second one is close; it stands for a remote combat vehicle. The concept of letting electromechanical weapons fight wars has been idealized as a way to take human beings out of danger. Long a theme of science fiction and blockbuster movies like “Star Wars,” this concept is rapidly being explored by all three defense service branches. It’s no wonder that the concepts of camera-carrying drones, autonomous automobiles, and radio-controlled airplanes make an easy visualization of this “remote weapons” concept. The U.S. developed and demonstrated the Mars Rover controlled from millions of miles away, and electronics make this possible!

There are two concepts for remote weaponry: the more familiar one using human guidance/decision making, and the evolving concept allowing AI to make instant decisions about detonations. My last column titled “Why Is Defense Hyper about Hypersonics” explored the advantage of the most sophisticated hypersonics: AI-guided decisions about evasive maneuvers and targeting at tremendous forward speeds up to Mach 25. And some of the Defense weapons systems today are being built as optionally manned fighting vehicles (OMFV), meaning that human interaction may or may not be used in the same platform.

The U.S. Army received the most publicity for its RCV work because most civilians think only combat soldiers are to be excluded from the battlefield. The Army has several specialized programs to develop various “fighting vehicle” weapons, all with the firepower traditionally associated with tanks or artillery. If there is no allotted vehicle space for a human crew, a different approach to shape, armor, and propulsion can be taken.

One very recent Congressionally authorized update concerns “The Army’s Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) Program: Background and Issues for Congress,” which was updated on April 16, 2020 [1]. This report details the programs, some with varying degrees of success, to replace the Bradley M-2 vehicle used in various versions since 1981 (almost 40 years). In fact, two significant modernization programs have been canceled since 2000 with this same assigned task.

The current effort is driven by the Army Futures Command, established at Austin Texas in June 2018 and fully functional by the end of July 2019. The “Next Generation Combat VehicleNGCV” work has been headquartered at Detroit Arsenal in Michigan. The Army will be using cross-functional teams (CFTs) to speed the development of this new weapon system. Much of the background can be obtained from the aforementioned report [1].

The original plan for the OMFV was to take nine years to field the vehicle. Initially, under the Futures Command, this was cut to seven years with a target date of 2026. New electronics are a key feature of the upgrade, hopefully using existing Army propulsion and weapons for the OMFV. As technology and logistics concerns have changed, the Army just rereleased the OMFV specification with a new development program and a target date of 2028.

To speed the development, the Army will be using a new contract concept—Middle-Tier Acquisition (MTA)—a rapid acquisition interim approach that focuses on delivering capability in a period of two to five years. The interim approach was granted by Congress in the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act. (NDAA) Section 804. The approach consists of utilizing two acquisition pathways: Rapid prototyping and rapid fielding. It does this by streamlining the testing and deployment of prototypes or upgrading existing systems with already-proven technology [2].

If the Army program for medium-size combat vehicles develops fast enough with improved “energetics” (firepower), the traditional tank may never go un-manned. The conventional M1A2C Abrams tank now boasts new active and passive protection that could help to protect it from the latest enemy weaponry (released in February of 2019). A proposed new manned M1A2D tank is in the plans, with a new infrared sensor and a new laser range-finder, and it will be compatible with AI [3].

The Marine Corps has announced that it is moving away from using “tanks.” They have sufficient evidence to conclude that this capability, despite its long and honorable Marine history, is operationally unsuitable for the highest-priority challenges in the future. Heavy ground armor capability will continue to be provided by the U.S. Army. The Marines are bulking up on a High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). HIMARS is a six-tube rocket launcher mounted on the back of an armored truck [4].


Also, the Marines are moving to autonomous helicopters, including a venerable Huey that can fly itself. The Marines and Air Force are moving to “kits” that allow most any helicopter or airplane to fly itself to perform repetitive or boring missions. The unmanned concept was demonstrated in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2013 using tablet or laptop computer controllers [5].

Probably the best known remote combat weapon for 20 years is not really a vehicle; it is the Air Force drone program that has been weaponized as the “Predator” and “Reaper.” This stealth weapon has changed the face of war in the Middle East and Africa. Today, 30 countries have weaponized drones [6].

Two new Air Force programs are in testing. The first is a platform to demonstrate the limits of AI in unmanned flight. This first program will examine simple take-offs and landings and extend to more complicated tasks like gathering intelligence. It is possible the concept will evolve to “swarms” as the cost target per unit is in the low millions of dollars. One article speculates that in the future, 20 unmanned planes might be fielded for every manned aircraft [7].

The second program in the article is more directed at “wingman drones” [7]. Many of us can visualize a robot wingman taking the place of Goose in the 35-year-old movie “Top Gun.” The Air Force effort is trying to multiply the effectiveness of a fighter pilot by accompanying him with a robotic plane, taking higher G forces, being lighter, and having no human sustainment issues like oxygen. I-Connect007 recently reported on a joint Boeing/Royal Australian Air Force “loyal wingman” effort [8]. Using extensive AI and new fabrication techniques, this prototype is going into ground testing with the first actual flight expected before the year-end.

The U.S. Navy has two unique environments for robotic combat weapons—the ocean surface and undersea—but these are not exactly “vehicles” either. This strategy is contained in the 2020 report to Congress [9]. There, two sizes of unmanned surface ships and one unmanned undersea vessel are planned. With an extensive fleet of aircraft carriers, why is the Navy hedging its bets with unmanned vessels? Being fixated on defending the carrier fleets, the Navy feels stretched thin in the vast Pacific Ocean. The concept of smaller, robotic vessels was initiated as the “Sea Hunter” program at DARPA. These smaller, much more numerous weapons could be characterized as “sensors and shooters” [10].

The undersea robotic ship size is reflected in the launch capability. Smaller unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) could be launched from torpedo tubes or submarine missile silos. However, the larger UUVs would have to be transported to the general area of deployment. Much more detail is available in the previously mentioned report to Congress [9].

The advance of AI electronics allows a discussion of human control or complete autonomy of these robotic weapons. Very serious moral debates now rage over the use and control of remote vehicles. So far, international law has promoted four concepts for warfare [6]:

  1. Military necessity
  2. The distinction between military and civilian objects
  3. The prohibition of unnecessary suffering
  4. Proportionality

But in this age of irregular war, sometimes called asymmetric warfare, do the provisions of international law hold? That becomes a political topic beyond the scope of “Defense Speak Interpreted.”


  1. Congressional Research Service, “The Army’s Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) Program: Background and Issues for Congress,” April 16, 2020.
  2. AcqNotes, “Acquisition Process: Middle Tier Acquisition (Section 804),” December 31, 2019.
  3. D. Axe, “Meet the M1A2C Abrams: The U.S. Army's New Tank,” The National Interest, February 24, 2019.
  4. K. Mizokami, “After Nearly a Century, the U.S. Marine Corps Is Ditching Its Tanks,” Popular Mechanics, March 24, 2020.
  5. K. Mizokami, “The Marine Corps Is Testing a Fully Autonomous Huey Helicopter,” Popular Mechanics, December 14, 2017.
  6. Wikipedia, “Unmanned combat aerial vehicle.”
  7. R.S. Cohen, “Meet the Future Unmanned Force,” Air Force Magazine, April 4, 2019.
  8. Boeing, “Boeing Rolls Out First Loyal Wingman Unmanned Aircraft,” I-Connect007, May 5, 2020.
  9. Congressional Research Service, “Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress,” March 30, 2020.
  10. D.B. Larter, “U.S. Navy moves toward unleashing killer robot ships on the world’s oceans,” Defense News, January 15, 2019.

Dennis Fritz was a 20-year direct employee of MacDermid Inc. and has just retired after 12 years as a senior engineer at (SAIC) supporting the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Indiana. He was elected to the IPC Hall of Fame in 2012.



Defense Speak Interpreted: What’s an RCV, and What Do Electronics Have to Do With It?


In "Defense Speak," RCV does not stand for ranked-choice voting, a remote control vehicle, a riot control vehicle, or a refuse collection vehicle, although the second one is close; it stands for a remote combat vehicle. Denny Fritz explores this concept and its defense applications.

View Story

Defense Speak Interpreted: Why Is Defense Hyper Over Hypersonics?


Perhaps you have noticed that the term “hypersonics” is now a buzz phrase in a big part of the Department of Defense research effort. What does hypersonic mean, and why is so much work needed in this weapons field? Dennis Fritz explains.

View Story

Defense Speak Interpreted: Be Prepared for CMMC


If you are a current or future Defense Department contractor or subcontractor, you need to be prepared for the next cybersecurity requirements coming online during 2020. This is the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or CMMC, in Defense speak. Dennis Fritz explains how there will be five levels of cybersecurity requirements for various amounts of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) you handle, with increasing requirements from one (least) to five (most).

View Story

Defense Speak Interpreted: The Missile Defense Agency


The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has its roots in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), known as 'Star Wars' in the 1980s as proposed by President Ronald Reagan. In this column, Denny Fritz provides an overview of how the MDA operates and describes types of missiles and phases.

View Story

Defense Speak Interpreted: What in the World Is MINSEC?


The Defense program designated MINSEC (Microelectronics Innovation for National Security and Economic Competitiveness) is probably one that you have never heard of but will likely gather more headlines in the future. Dennis Fritz explains.

View Story


Defense Speak Interpreted: The Continuing Resolution


The topic of the continuing resolution (CR) has been sneaking past other hot Washington topics, such as impeachment, candidate debates, and why the Redskins are so bad. Dennis Fritz provides an update concerning a CR and the 2020 fiscal year.

View Story

Defense Speak Interpreted: Executive Agent


After reading my previous column, you may have realized that electronics packaging technology development came from the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Indiana. One of its core responsibilities is the assignment of “executive agent” for PCBs and electronic interconnects. But what is this “executive agent” thing, frequently shortened to EA? Dennis Fritz explains.

View Story

Defense Speak Interpreted: PCB-related OTAs from NAVSEA Crane


In my previous column, I described how Other Transaction Authority (OTA) projects were speeding up the development of new technology for the Defense Department. Much of this improvement has to do with the speed of contracting and the less restrictive selection and payment process involved. Specifically, I would like to call out projects under the National Security Technology Accelerator (NSTXL).

View Story

Defense Speak Interpreted: Other Transaction Authority


DIU grants contracts under a joint OTA and a parallel process called commercial solutions opening. Most of the five DIU focus areas depend on electronics: artificial intelligence (AI), autonomy, cyber, human systems, and space. At the end of 2018, DIU had funded 104 contracts with a total value of $354 million and brought in 87 non-traditional DoD vendors, including 43 contracting with DoD for the first time.

View Story

Defense Speak Interpreted: DARPA ERI


DARPA ERI stands for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Electronics Resurgence Initiative. This tongue-twisting acronym is the latest Department of Defense (DoD) effort to catch up and surpass world semiconductor technology for the secure IC chips needed by advanced defense electronics systems.

View Story


Defense Speak Interpreted: PERM—Pb-free Electronics Risk Management


In this column, we explore PERM—the Pb-free Electronics Risk Management Consortium. No, the group members do not all have curly hair! The name was chosen around 2008 by a group of engineers from aerospace, defense, and harsh environment (ADHE) organizations.

View Story

Defense Speak Interpreted: Defense Electronic Supply Chain Issues


On October 5, 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) highlighted issues with the release of the 146-page report “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States” from President Donald J. Trump

View Story
Copyright © 2020 I-Connect007. All rights reserved.