One of the more interesting angles on RCV for me is the classification of each type in terms of expected life, usage and risk of loss to enemy action
RCV-L is "attritable / disposable / expendable"
RCV-M "durable / attritable"
RCV-H "non-expendable / human survivability levels"
RCV-L is "attritable / disposable / expendable"
RCV-M "durable / attritable"
RCV-H "non-expendable / human survivability levels"
For reference, RCV-L programme being informed and requirements developed via the contract to QinetiQ and Pratt Miller for their bid vehicle, developed from the Pratt Miller Expeditionary Modular Autonomous Vehicle (EMAV).
RCV-M is using Textron Systems, Howe & Howe, and FLIR Systems Ripsaw M5 for their requriement. Again, not a small bit of kit to be in the semi-expendable / durable bracket. Broadly seems to mean
RCV-H still in the works and clearly regarded as a more traditional AFV that cant be routinely lost.
The more judicious attitude to RCV-L and RCV-M are interesting.
Can any country but the US (or even the US) afford to treat this size, complexity and cost of UGV as disposable?
The more judicious attitude to RCV-L and RCV-M are interesting.
Can any country but the US (or even the US) afford to treat this size, complexity and cost of UGV as disposable?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
