Short version up front: both McQ’s Team HDT WOLF-X entry and Textron’s RIPSAW M3 are reasonable engineering responses to the Army’s RCV-Light solicitation, but they trade different risks and optimizations. Neither is a finished product and both expose the same hard problems that have plagued small unmanned combat platforms for years - integration complexity, transportability limits, and autonomy maturity. I field-test these concepts in my head and then apply a practical filter. What follows is a focused, no-nonsense review of what each prototype brings to the table and where the real headaches will be during soldier touchpoints and government testing.

McQ - Team HDT WOLF-X (platform prime)

What it is: McQ Inc. is the prime for Team HDT’s WOLF-X, an 8x8 wheeled RCV developed by HDT Expeditionary Systems with armament and situational awareness contributions from BAE. McQ’s role is systems engineering for acoustic ISR, video processing, and safety-critical systems. The team was selected as one of four firms to deliver platform prototypes under the Army’s RCV-Light Phase I prototyping awards.

Key strengths:

  • Mobility-first chassis: An 8x8 wheeled layout favors strategic road and cross-country mobility while keeping logistics simpler than tracked designs. That helps transportability and maintenance in austere conditions.
  • Modular supplier mix: Using HDT for the vehicle and BAE for weapons and sensors means the design benefits from mature vehicle and turret expertise. That reduces single-vendor integration risk for baseline functions.
  • Sensor focus: McQ’s explicit emphasis on acoustic ISR and video processing is sensible. Little tactical autonomy will work without robust, trustworthy perception stacks.

Primary concerns:

  • Weight and payload unknowns: Public material around the WOLF-X release is light on concrete mass and center of gravity numbers. Mobility claims look credible, but without dry weight, payload margin, and transportability metrics it is hard to assess airlift compatibility or vulnerability tradeoffs. The Army’s RCV-L specs emphasize transportability and modular growth; prototypes that lack transparent mass budgets will be penalized in soldier evaluations.
  • Autonomy integration burden: Acoustic ISR and video processing are not plug-and-play. The safety-critical work McQ describes is necessary, but getting perception to feed reliable autonomy in complex terrain and contested electromagnetic environments is a months-to-years exercise, not a sprint.

Bottom line on WOLF-X: The Team HDT approach is pragmatic. It leans on established vehicle builders and focuses in on perception and safety layers where real systems fail in the field. But until we see hard numbers for weight, power budget, and a MOSA-style I/O map, the WOLF-X remains a promising prototype rather than a mature platform.

Textron - RIPSAW M3

What it is: Textron entered the RCV-Light competition with a variant of the RIPSAW M3. The company positioned the M3 as a configurable flat-deck platform with a modular open systems architecture to accept payloads such as CROWS-J and tethered UAS. Reports indicate the final submission targeted roughly an 18,000 lb vehicle mass with about 5,000 lb of payload capacity and a 63 square-foot flat deck. The submission reportedly incorporated a hybrid-electric drive, roughly 10 kW offload power for payloads, and a silent-watch endurance claim in the double-digit hours range. Textron was downselected to the Phase I prototyping list.

Key strengths:

  • Flat deck payload focus: The large flat deck and stated 5,000 lb payload margin make the RIPSAW M3 a flexible integrator. That is exactly what the Army asked for in RCV-L: a platform that can carry sensors, loitering munitions, decoys, or logistics payloads without heavy rework.
  • Hybrid drive and energy offload: A hybrid system with dedicated offload power and long silent-watch capability gives commanders persistent ISR and the ability to power electronics without draining the drivetrain. That is a practical design choice for distributed operations.

Primary concerns:

  • Mass versus deployability: At an estimated 18,000 lb curb weight and a full configuration under 21,000 lb, the RIPSAW approach risks complicating strategic and tactical transport. Airframe lift limits and amphibious options are constrained at that scale. That weight buys capability but sacrifices rapid cross-theatre deployability.
  • Complexity of MOSA claims: Open architecture is necessary but not sufficient. The proof is in the implementation details: common data buses, standardized power and mechanical interfaces, and vendor neutrality in software stacks. Public materials promote MOSA, but the implementation maturity will determine whether soldier teams experience an interoperable, plug-and-play platform or a Frankenstein of point integrations.

Common program-level observations

  • Soldier touchpoints matter: All four firms were required to deliver prototypes for mobility testing and soldier interaction during Phase I. The Army timetable called for two prototypes per company and soldier touchpoints to start evaluating real-world tradeoffs. How these prototypes perform with human operators will be decisive.
  • Autonomy is the gating factor: Both designs emphasize modular payloads and perception capabilities. The real gating factor in transitioning to fielded RCVs is not powertrain or turret integration alone. It is how well autonomy, human-machine interfaces, safety-critical software, and mission-level command-and-control interoperate under realistic stressors like degraded communications, obscurants, and electronic attack.
  • Logistics and sustainment risk: Even well-built prototypes introduce new logistics chains - batteries, cooling for electronics, spare sensor modules, and unique maintenance tooling. The fielding calculus must include lifetime support costs and commonality with existing Army fleets.

Practical recommendations for evaluators

  • Demand transparent mass and power budgets: Without explicit power budgets and mass growth margins, decisions will be driven by marketing rather than engineering realities. Request component-level power draws, peak-power margins, and a credible roadmap for growth payloads.
  • Prioritize soldier interface realism: Simulated autonomy that works over pristine networks is irrelevant. Test with degraded comms, contested GPS, and noisy sensor inputs. Watch for mission creep where platforms become too complex for a single operator to manage.
  • Insist on MOSA test harnesses: If a vendor claims open architecture, require a plug-and-play test harness that shows how a third-party payload can be integrated in a day or a week, not months.

Final verdict

McQ’s Team HDT WOLF-X is a conservative, perception-first entry that leverages existing vehicle and defense integrator strengths. Textron’s RIPSAW M3 bets on payload flexibility and energy systems that enable longer missions. Both approaches are defensible. Which one the Army should prefer depends entirely on the operational concept it wants to prioritize - a lighter, more transportable scout-escort or a heavier, more capable flat-deck integrator. For now, both are prototypes and both will reveal their true value when soldiers try to use them under realistic stress. Until then, moderate expectations and a focus on measurable engineering metrics will keep the program honest.