Eurobotics: networking is the key to multi-domain capability

Unmanned systems are becoming increasingly important for modern armed forces. The German company Eurobotics GmbH is pursuing an approach that goes beyond the development of individual platforms: systems from different domains are to be networked with one another and combined flexibly into a joint multi-domain network depending on the mission.

The aim is a technological basis that is capable, scalable and remains available under real operating conditions. After all, not every platform has to be able to do everything – what matters is how well different systems work together. In an interview, CEO Raffael Klaschka explains how Eurobotics intends to implement this vision.

Mr Klaschka, how do you think the military system landscape will change in the coming years? Will we increasingly see fully networked overall systems?
In the next five years, we will not yet see a fully integrated overall system in which every military actor can access all data at any time. More realistic are system networks that communicate with one another within a limited area of operations and generate a common operational picture. These networks will consist of a few highly complex, technologically sophisticated platforms, supplemented by a larger number of smaller, cost-effective and scalable systems that can be reproduced at short notice and whose loss does not leave a decisive gap. The real added value, however, only arises from networking these systems.

What does this networking mean in concrete terms?
An unmanned ground vehicle such as the MULE changes its operational picture as soon as it is supplied with air information, and in turn provides data that is relevant, for example, to counter-drone defence. An underwater drone such as the Speartooth in turn extends this operational picture to areas that are hardly accessible to other platforms. The principle is: data must be available where it is needed, regardless of which platform it comes from. Thinking over a period of 20 years, mass becomes a military assessment factor in its own right. This is not about mass for its own sake, but about availability, replaceability and sustainability.

What does Eurobotics’ vision of a multi-domain system look like?
At Eurobotics, we do not only ask about maximum technical complexity, but equally about how a system functions in operations, how it can be connected to other platforms and whether it can be available in realistic numbers. Our long-term vision is therefore not a monolithic overall system, but an intelligent network: high-performance platforms, supplemented by many flexible and economically deployable systems.

What technological prerequisites are necessary for this?
The first prerequisite is a common technical language. Different systems must not only exchange data, but also be able to understand it. A sensor must, for example, describe unambiguously what it has detected, with what degree of certainty the information is available and for which other systems it could be relevant. Without standardised interfaces, data models and communication paths, even technically highly advanced platforms largely remain standing side by side.

“Without standardised interfaces, data models and communication paths, even technically highly advanced platforms largely remain standing side by side.”

What would be the next step?
The next step is data fusion: information from different sensors must be brought together and condensed into a reliable basis for decisions. Artificial intelligence can help by evaluating and prioritising large volumes of data more quickly and recognising patterns. However, a clear distinction must be made between technical possibility and actual operational maturity. Especially for safety-critical functions, certification, traceability and the permissible level of autonomy play a central role. Another factor is operation. Platforms do not have to function identically, but they should be controllable according to principles that are as similar as possible. Anyone switching between different systems should not have to learn a completely new operating logic each time. That saves training time and reduces susceptibility to error, especially under stress.

What role does compatibility play in this?
An unmanned ground vehicle, an air platform and an underwater system naturally have different tasks. Nevertheless, they should be able to process joint tasking as well as status and situational information. It is precisely this compatibility that creates the prerequisite for expanding such a network flexibly later on. At Eurobotics, practical operational experience feeds into such questions: we look not only at ranges or performance data, but also at real conditions such as time pressure, restricted communications, changing priorities and the need to place as little additional burden on personnel as possible. Because in the end, all levels must fit together: the technical language, communications, data processing, the use of AI and the common operating logic.

Where does the optimal balance between human control and autonomy lie?
There is no fixed balance that applies to all situations. The relationship between human control and autonomous action depends on the operational scenario, the tactical situation, the applicable regulations and the rules of engagement. A system must therefore be able to support different levels of autonomy. In one situation, direct human control may be required; in another, it may be sensible or even necessary for the system to act independently within a clearly defined framework, for example when great distances, high speed or particular danger require an immediate reaction. Autonomous systems are particularly suitable for tasks that are fast, repetitive or data-intensive: navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, processing large volumes of sensor data or logistical activities. In longer operations, autonomous functions can also significantly relieve personnel.

“Our long-term vision is not a monolithic overall system, but an intelligent network: high-performance platforms, supplemented by many flexible and economically deployable systems.”

Where will the human factor continue to play an important role?
Humans remain indispensable where context, responsibility and judgement matter – for example in defining the mission, assessing unclear situations, decisions on escalation and exercising control within the legal and operational framework. The systems should not push humans out of the process, but increase their capacity to act. An operator does not have to control every single movement of a platform if the system can reliably take over this task. However, the operator must understand what the system is doing, which limits apply and when intervention is necessary. How much autonomy is permitted is ultimately decided by the user.

What role does the manufacturer play in the question of autonomy?
Our task as a manufacturer is to provide the technical capabilities required for this and to ensure that the operator can adjust the level of autonomy, change a mission or take back control at any time. Autonomy is not an end in itself. It should be used where it offers a concrete advantage, for example in reaction time, endurance, range or relieving personnel. At the same time, the overall system must remain controllable at all times. The decisive question is therefore not “human or machine?”, but: which task can the system perform better in a specific situation, and at which point must the human lead the decision?

How can your systems work with existing military structures and platforms of different nations?
Interoperability begins with common standards. Our systems must be able to process information, status reports and operational instructions in a form that is compatible with existing military command, communication and information systems. It is not enough for a platform merely to be able to send and receive data. It must fit into existing processes: how does it receive its mission? Where is its sensor data displayed? Who can access it? And how does a piece of information become a concrete action? Ultimately, this is a question of integration. An unmanned system should fit as naturally as possible into the operational picture and the command processes of the respective armed forces. This also applies to the cooperation of several platforms which, from different domains, are to generate an operational picture together and make their data usable for one another.

Which capabilities would you name in addition to technical standards?
Technical standards are, as mentioned, an important foundation. Equally decisive, however, are training, operating concepts and joint planning with the respective partners. Personnel must not only know how to operate a platform, but also how it is integrated into their own command and operational processes and where its limits lie. It is precisely under real operating conditions that it becomes clear whether an integration actually works. Time pressure, incomplete information, disrupted communications or changing priorities cannot be represented in a data sheet. Precisely such conditions must therefore already feed into development and testing. Which combination of systems and capabilities makes sense ultimately depends on the mission, the existing structures and the respective national requirements.

How will the use of unmanned systems develop in the coming years?
We are only at the beginning of a larger development in the use of unmanned systems. The systems will become more autonomous, more versatile and more strongly networked. The decisive question is not whether a few complex platforms or many smaller systems will prevail. We will need both. There will continue to be platforms whose development takes many years and which provide highly sophisticated capabilities. At the same time, systems will gain importance that are available in larger numbers, can be reproduced at short notice and can be operated economically. As a result, the relationship between capability and availability is becoming increasingly important.

“In future, customers will not need an isolated platform for every scenario, but systems that can be combined with one another and adapted flexibly to the respective mission.”

In what way?
A technically outstanding platform is of only limited use if too few of them are available or if a loss can hardly be compensated for. Conversely, a less complex system can have a high operational value if it is available in sufficient numbers and can be used for several tasks. An underwater system such as the Speartooth exemplifies this consideration. If a system is designed from the outset for economical production and scalable use, the user can factor possible losses into operational planning differently. This increases the sustainability of the entire network. The same applies to versatility. Depending on its equipment, an unmanned ground vehicle can be used as a sensor carrier, load carrier or transport vehicle. A counter-drone system can operate independently or as part of a network.

So the future belongs to systems that can be combined with one another …
Exactly. In future, customers will not need an isolated platform for every scenario, but systems that can be combined with one another and adapted flexibly to the respective mission. Recent conflicts have also shown that wear and losses must be taken into account more strongly in planning. Armed forces must ask themselves how quickly systems are available, how easily they can be replaced and what overall effect is retained despite losses.

What is Eurobotics’ guiding principle in this?
Our own ambition can be summarised in three ideas: systems must be capable enough to make a real difference within the network. They must be available in sufficient numbers. And they must remain economical enough for technical capability to translate into lasting, usable operational effect. The future therefore belongs to a tiered network of a few high-performance key platforms and many flexible, scalable autonomous systems. The decisive yardstick will be how well this network functions under real conditions.