{"id":13619,"date":"2025-05-27T14:47:39","date_gmt":"2025-05-27T12:47:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tgm.solutions\/?post_type=fallstudien&p=13619"},"modified":"2025-05-27T15:13:53","modified_gmt":"2025-05-27T13:13:53","slug":"comparison-of-armored-unmanned-combat-vehicles","status":"publish","type":"fallstudien","link":"https:\/\/www.tgm.solutions\/en\/fallstudien\/vergleich-gepanzerte-unbemannten-gefechtsfahrzeuge\/","title":{"rendered":"Comparison of armored, unmanned combat vehicles (UGCVs) and their lightweight construction potentials"},"content":{"rendered":"

This technical report provides a comprehensive analysis of selected armored unmanned combat vehicles (UGCVs) with autonomous operational capability. The comparison includes key figures such as empty weight, payload, payload efficiency, drive architecture, speed and lightweight construction strategies. The aim is to understand the technological design and implications for holistic lightweighting principles, including structural, systemic and material-related lightweighting.<\/p>\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n

Technical comparison<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The following table provides an overview of the main technical data of selected UGCVs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vehicle<\/td>Empty weight (kg)<\/td>Payload (kg)<\/td>Payload\/empty weight<\/td>Max. Speed (km\/h)<\/td><\/tr>
CS\/VP16B Lynx<\/td>1200<\/td>1100<\/td>0.92<\/td>120<\/td><\/tr>
Mission Master SP<\/td>750<\/td>600<\/td>0.80<\/td>40<\/td><\/tr>
THeMIS<\/td>1630<\/td>1200<\/td>0.74<\/td>20<\/td><\/tr>
RCV-L<\/td>4000<\/td>2722<\/td>0.68<\/td>64.37<\/td><\/tr>
Titanium UGV<\/td>907<\/td>454<\/td>0.50<\/td>24<\/td><\/tr>
Warthog UGV<\/td>590<\/td>272<\/td>0.46<\/td>18<\/td><\/tr>
Ripsaw M5<\/td>10500<\/td>3629<\/td>0.35<\/td>72<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Drive architecture and lightweight construction effect<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The drive concepts of the UGCVs vary greatly and influence both the performance and the integration capability in the context of systemic lightweight construction. Hybrid drives such as in the RCV-L and THeMIS offer flexibility in design and enable modular system integration. Pure electric drives such as the Titan and Warthog UGV reduce mechanical complexity, but are limited in range. Conventional diesel systems such as the Mission Master SP and Ripsaw M5 deliver high performance at the expense of weight and efficiency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Holistic lightweight construction principles<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Structural lightweight construction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • Application of topology optimization and FEM to reduce mass.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Use of monocoque and modular frames.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    Systemic lightweight construction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    • Hybrid electric drives reduce mechanical components.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Modular sensor and control system reduces cable harnesses and weight.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      Lightweight material<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      • Use of high-strength aluminum alloys and composite materials.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Elastomer materials for mine protection with low additional weight.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        Estimated lightweight construction optimization potential<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        The following table shows the estimated optimization potential in various lightweight construction areas:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Lightweight construction<\/td>Estimated potential (%)<\/td><\/tr>
        Structural lightweight construction<\/td>10-20%<\/td><\/tr>
        Systemic lightweight construction<\/td>15-25%<\/td><\/tr>
        Lightweight material<\/td>10-30%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        The analysis shows that diesel-electric hybrid and electric vehicles are superior in terms of payload efficiency and system integration, while conventional diesel platforms dominate in terms of power output. In order to achieve a balance between protection, mobility and autonomy, all aspects of holistic lightweight design must be consistently applied in future UGCVs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Literature sources<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
          \n
        • Ashby, M. F. (2010). *Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material Choice*.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Fiebig, W., et al. (2014). \"Structural optimization in lightweight vehicle design.\" *International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management*.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Mollenhauer, K., & Tsch\u00f6ke, H. (2010). *Diesel engine handbook*.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Gro\u00dfmann, R. (2022). *Lightweight System Design - Principles and Applications in Mobility*. Springer Vieweg.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Davies, G. (2001). *Materials for Automobile Bodies*.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Callister, W. D., & Rethwisch, D. G. (2014). *Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction*.<\/li>\n<\/ul>","protected":false},"featured_media":13622,"template":"","fallstudie-kategorie":[151,153,152],"class_list":["post-13619","fallstudien","type-fallstudien","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","fallstudie-kategorie-ganzheitlicher-strukturleichtbau","fallstudie-kategorie-materialleichtbau","fallstudie-kategorie-systemleichtbau"],"meta_box":{"branche-fallstudie_from":["13552"]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tgm.solutions\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/fallstudien\/13619","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tgm.solutions\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/fallstudien"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tgm.solutions\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/fallstudien"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tgm.solutions\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13622"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tgm.solutions\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13619"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"fallstudie-kategorie","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tgm.solutions\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/fallstudie-kategorie?post=13619"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}