L3Harris has successfully tested a new prototype for autonomous air defence during this year’s Project Convergence Capstone 4 (PC-C4) field experiment, according to a press release.

The system, developed by the company’s Agile Development Group, integrates long-range surveillance and electronic attack capabilities onto an autonomous combat vehicle, aimed at enhancing ground-based air defence with beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) operations.

During the field tests, which took place over six days and covered approximately 175 kilometres of varied terrain, the prototype was evaluated across multiple mission scenarios.

These included counter-unmanned aircraft system (UAS) surveillance and electronic warfare, where the system utilised an autonomous multi-sensor cross-cueing payload to detect air threats from distances exceeding 26 kilometres.

Jennifer Lewis, President of Airborne Combat Systems at L3Harris, commented on the outcome of the tests, stating, “Our team’s drive to adapt and innovate led to the successful demonstration of these prototypes, providing insights that will inform future developments and operational decisions.”

The prototype’s testing, say the firm, also included assessments of its reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition capabilities using the WESCAM MX-10D multi-sensor imaging system. Additionally, the tests evaluated various communications systems, such as the RASOR modular communications chassis and the Mobile Ad Hoc Network WRAITH, to determine their integration and performance in mission-relevant scenarios.

The results of these tests suggest that autonomous air defence systems could potentially provide more flexible and responsive protection for ground units, with the capability to operate over extended ranges beyond traditional data link constraints.

The development also indicated that automating certain payload functions could be critical in maintaining mission effectiveness in the event of communication disruptions.

While the prototype demonstrated promising capabilities, further analysis and development will be necessary to determine how such systems can be effectively integrated into existing defence frameworks and whether they can meet the evolving needs of future military operations.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

32 COMMENTS

  1. Tra la la,Tra la la la, one banana two banana three banana four (so on and so forth) I’ll probably get banned again but that Buggy sure reminded me of my youth, only a few here will remember and most will have no Idea whatsoever.
    Anyway, apart from all that silliness, how great is all this ?

  2. I’m confused
    Does this vehicle have any kinetic means of “doing” air defence or does it rely entirely on EW to destroy UAS and hinder manned types?
    Which bits are autonomous? Just the movement or the AD as well? If both, then this is a remarkable step forwards. If not, it’s just another AD system but on a different vehicle.
    I don’t know if this is all of the information that L3Harris gave but the article is a bit vague.
    Hey, that rhymes.

      • Yes, that’s what I thought but I was surprised that they were seemingly completely foregoing any sort of interceptor or other means of physical destruction.
        Still, I bet they’ve done a lot more thinking than any of us on the subject.
        Bit odd using passive sensors for a system requiring emissions though.
        I wonder how it would work ORBATly speaking?
        Integrate into other ground units or their own thing?

        • One of the CGS years ago talked of an army 2035 or 2030 or something, I forget, where by the missing mass was provided by this sort of thing.
          He was even talking of all “British Corps”
          Quite something given our reduced scale.
          So ORBAT wise, I got the impression several UGVs would co operate with a single crewed vehicle, and they’d be integral to the existing parent formation.
          Otherwise, us ORBAT “nerds” as Dern once described us, could have a field day, resurrecting lots of defunct unit identities but with minimal personnel and mostly autonomous.
          Robot Wars here we come.

          • Hmm… Robot Wars… You know the TV tournament?
            Would be an interesting way of seeing new ideas and improving technology cooperation if the Army or otherwise held open competitions of that sort for universities, schools and private teams.
            Wouldn’t be quite “smash each other apart in a bulletproof box” but more seeing how well designs can perform logistics and ISR, matched against each other.
            As an example:
            Medevac robots. How quickly can a robot weighing less than 100kgs and capable of being stored on a standard pallet (or other arbitrary dimensions) complete a cross-country course carrying a car crash dummy and staying below a certain stress threshold for the “patient”? There are a variety of shapes and forms of propulsion that could be used so there is scope for creativity.
            Other competitions could be more typical but with combat applications, like drone racing (but with a specified payload weight) or USVs (colloquially known as “radio controlled boats”)
            A good way for the army to “survey the field” and see what capability is available OTS, and a perspective for people who would never otherwise consider the armed forces as a career on the jobs available away from the front lines.
            Not only that, but it’s the sort of thing I love doing so I hope they do it, or something like it.
            Would be interested in hearing yours or other commenters’ opinions on this (even if they are “it won’t work, go away”)

          • Yep, Robot Wars, with Jonathan Pearce.
            We could have the “Pearce Regiment” 🤪
            Seriously, I think it a great idea, and I recall MoD did such a thing a few years ago, I think on SPTA.
            I forget it’s name, inviting small companies and designers to come up with ideas that might have defence applications, and show them.
            Has any of it ever seen the light of day and been brought into service, no idea.
            But I doubt, given our “informing decisions” culture of kicking cans down roads.
            I’m visualising something along the lines of “it’s a knockout” which you are too young to remember but which was hillarious viewing in the 70s and early 80s.😆

          • I’ve only ever watched the reboot but had a look at the original and the newer robots are simply better. More modern, more powerful etc.
            What’s the point of a flipper that can’t flip a robot?

    • There are basically four versions. The Bingo version has a slightly confusing camouflage and, the Fleagle has been designed to lead, a Drooper version has a rather long tail and an ability to blind with yellow glasses and the Snorky can communicate on wavelengths developed by the study of Elephants.

  4. As soon as I saw that, I thought it looked like the buggy in the Banana Splits. Now I cant get the stupid theme tune outa my head. 🙃

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here