Future soldier
batteries to more recharge-use batteries,” says Browning, “A sort of mixed blended space at the moment.” Asked about US standardisation, he says, “We’ve yet to take a view as to whether [STUBs are] the right answer for us. But it may well be the right approach, because we don’t wish to reinvent the wheel and have a unique battery for ourselves, unless there’s a reason to.” However, that’s not to say the UK isn’t carrying out research of its own. The Generic Soldier Architecture (GSA) concept, introduced in 2021, has helped shape the future development of technologies for soldiers, while trying to ensure they are as standardised and open-system as possible; underpinned by the principles that systems should be modular, scalable and free from restriction of use.
As a result, the plug and socket – the interface – used on the batteries being deployed is now largely consistent, increasing interoperability across UK armed forces and other militaries, with the US and other Nato members opting for the same approach. “[While] not adopted by everybody, yet,” explains Browning, “we now have a standard power interface for dismounted soldier equipment, which will be suitable for a large range of equipment – not everything, but a large range of it.” Yet, with some operations lasting days rather than hours, there are only so many batteries that can be taken into operations. Therefore, field-based charging is critical, as the first of the GSA whitepaper series in the UK highlighted. “Understanding the potentially viable options for soldier battery charging across bases, vehicles and autonomous platforms is seen as an area that needs immediate clarity,” it stated, adding that there needed to be a better understanding of how to make use of current and future supply chain elements, power harvesting and scavenging.
Long-lasting solutions
Browning says one possible resource – energy harvesting solutions that draw power from kinetic energy released by a soldier’s movements – simply doesn’t meet soldiers’ needs very well. Likewise, renewable energy like solar power, although of huge interest in other realms of defence, is not suitable, largely due to its power density being far lower than traditional battery or fuel energy sources. The reality is that for dismounted operations, conventional battery solutions are the answer – at least for now. Therefore, it will be innovations in batteries that will garner most interest, along with the power management and recharge systems that supply them. “I don’t see soldiers deploying, in my lifetime, without batteries,” predicts Browning. But, he says, batteries will get better and will be augmented by other technologies. Right now, a huge amount of work to develop new materials and enhance the density of batteries is ongoing in laboratories around the world.
“Over the next few years or so, we may be able to double the energy density of a battery, with some compromises,” Browning believes. “So, you [might] get a battery with twice the energy, but it won’t cycle quite as well and will cost more.” However, he believes that ultimately fewer compromises will be needed, saying that “when [these new batteries] get closer towards the cycle life you can expect today, the cost will come down. That’s probably the main step-change I see in soldier battery technology.” Browning’s vision is that defence forces will eventually have centralised batteries operating soldiers’ body-worn devices, while monitoring and managing their power supply and usage. This will be enabled by standardised and interchangeable batteries, shared between the individual, their squad, the wider platoon and even allied forces. He also forecasts a future where power and data are king – brought together with a USB-C socket as standard. But there’s work to do yet. This is where OEMs have a huge role to play. They have already been supporting the MoD in writing standards via working groups and other engagement. However, says Browning, that work so far has been focused on the battery connector. Adding that the effort to standardise batteries is early on in its journey, he says OEMs will be critical going forward by ensuring their future equipment is compatible and that there’s a resilient enough supply chain for the batteries themselves. “It’s very much a two-way journey,” he declares. “There’s no good [in] the MoD stipulating a battery if either nobody makes it, or no radio or equipment manufacturer wants to adopt it.” How militaries around the world power the growing amount of technology they’re deploying in the field is a question everyone is trying to answer – and some may perhaps be close to doing just so. When they find that solution and what that answer might be remains uncertain, for now. However, one thing is clear – dismounted soldier technology will continue to advance and the power it needs will only keep increasing. ●
Defence & Security Systems International /
www.defence-and-security.com
US Army C5ISR Center adviser demonstrating a Small Tactical Universal Battery (STUB) integrated into a mock rifle.
33
Dan Lafontaine, DEVCOM C5ISR Center Public Affairs, US Army
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
