AXY News Global

AXY News Global · defense

US Army Names Five Winners of Humanoid Robot Competition

The xTechHumanoid contest tested robots on small-unit tasks, and one participating researcher says the requirements went beyond current technology

By AXY Defense Desk ·

Reporting via Military Times
Reporting via Military Times (Military Times)

Key points

The U.S. Army has named five winners of a competition that examined how humanoid robots could contribute to future military operations, according to Military Times. The Army's program for accelerating new technologies, known as xTech, announced in a Sept. 29 statement that the winners of its xTechHumanoid competition are ACES Group, IHMC Robotics, Hydroplane Limited, Ras Labs and Velocity Explorations. The results offer a first public look at how defense planners and private companies are approaching a technology that the Army is still assessing rather than buying or fielding.

What the competition was designed to test

A humanoid robot is a machine built with a human-like body plan, typically with two legs, two arms and a head or sensor housing. The appeal for militaries is that such machines could in principle move through spaces designed for people, such as buildings, vehicles and rough terrain, and perform tasks that currently require soldiers. Whether that promise can be realized is the central question the competition was meant to explore.

Alex Miller, the Army's chief technology officer, said the service used the program to identify “the problems, mission needs, and opportunities” where humanoid robots could be used most effectively. He described xTech as a way to survey the industry and move quickly on promising technology. “xTech is our method of surveying the industry landscape and fast-tracking promising technology rather than falling victim to years-long studies,” Miller said. He also placed the work in a wider context, saying that “humanoid robots are part of a broader autonomy push to increase the depth and breadth of robotic platforms and components industry can provide for a range of missions.”

Autonomy, in military usage, generally refers to a machine's ability to carry out tasks with limited or no direct human control. The Army's framing suggests that humanoid designs are being considered as one type of platform among many, rather than as a standalone goal.

How the Army chose its winners

The selection process had several stages. According to Military Times, Army officials first reviewed a white paper, a written proposal describing the concept, from each company's humanoid robot. The concepts were judged on several criteria, including military utility, which refers to how useful a system would be in real operations; technical merit, which covers how sound the engineering is; and technological maturity, which measures how close a system is to working reliably outside a laboratory.

Of 103 submissions, the Army selected 10 finalists, and each received $25,000. The service then identified five winners through a live experimentation event. The 2025 competition announcement said the event tested the robots on a series of collective tasks “in the context of a military small unit mission conducted in a combat situation.” Small-unit missions typically involve teams of a few soldiers operating close together, so the scenario asked the robots to function as members of a team rather than as isolated machines.

Officials also assessed two categories of capability. Baseline system capabilities included checkpoint security, gap crossing or obstacle clearing, and firefighting. Advanced subsystems included technologies such as thermal sensors, which detect heat, battery life, and autonomy. Taken together, these categories show that the Army was looking both at whether a robot could perform practical jobs and at the underlying components that make those jobs possible.

A reality check from a participant

Not all of the assessment was optimistic. Robert Griffin, a senior researcher at IHMC Robotics, told Military Times that the competition's individual requirements exceeded what current technology could achieve. “The individual things that were outlined were, in any one element, beyond what is possible given the current state of the art,” Griffin said. The state of the art is the most advanced level of technology that currently exists.

To illustrate the gap, Griffin pointed to the combination of speed, load and endurance the Army described. “For example, you don't have a robot that can run 28 miles an hour while carrying 50 pounds and operating for 24 hours,” he said. “It's not a thing that exists in the world.” Analysts of robotics generally note that demanding several of these traits at once is difficult, because power sources, mechanical strength and cooling all compete for limited space and weight. That is an explanation of the engineering challenge in general, not a finding from the competition itself.

Griffin said the Army's full set of desired capabilities could not be met with current technology, so developers had to decide which parts of their robots' abilities to prioritize for the demonstrations. His team chose to focus on baseline capabilities. “The big thing for us was to have the robot show up at the competition, move around in the world, unsupported, at a reasonable pace, and then respond to commands,” he said.

Video of the competition, as described by Military Times, shows IHMC's robot, named “Alex,” following voice commands to walk through a field and then, under the control of a human operator with a remote, move through woods and across gravel. The robot also grasped a small shovel, began to dig, and attempted to pour dirt into a bucket. Although it did not succeed at that final task, it demonstrated the movement involved. At the end of the footage, Alex collapses and has to be carried out on a gurney.

Companies tested parts of the problem

Several competitors chose to focus on subsystems rather than complete robots. Hydroplane and ACES Group competed with their batteries. Velocity Explorations entered software that allowed its robot to listen to radio traffic between people, interpret their movements and tasks, and use that information to build an understanding of the wider battlespace, which is the physical and informational environment in which military operations take place. Based on that picture, the platform could then decide how to act. Ras Labs tested highly sensitive fingertip tactile sensors, which measure touch and pressure and allow a robot to handle delicate objects.

Multiple companies said they took part because the event offered a chance to test their products in a demanding setting. Dr. Anita Sengupta, founder and chief executive of Hydroplane, said her company has traditionally worked on large structures and aircraft but has recently started developing smaller and portable systems. “We saw a good overlap between developing a power system for a humanoid, whether it's a person or a robot, as well as the drone use case, so it just seemed like an interesting use case for us to take our technology to,” she said.

For the competition, Hydroplane adapted a 10-kilowatt system that it had originally designed for the Marine Corps in 2024, making it smaller because the humanoid needed only a few kilowatts. The device uses a fuel cell, which works like the generator in a vehicle or building in that it produces electricity, but instead of diesel it runs on hydrogen. Sengupta said the approach offers about three times the energy density of the alternative and a higher conversion efficiency. Energy density refers to how much energy a source stores relative to its weight or size, which matters greatly for machines that must carry their own power.

Sengupta noted that Hydroplane did not directly power a humanoid robot with its fuel cell. Instead, the Army tested the system to see whether it could power one. Hydroplane helped establish those standards, and the company intends to eventually collaborate with a humanoid robot team.

What the Army says comes next

In its announcement, the Army said the competition revealed a clear picture of “both the progress commercial industry has made in humanoid robotics and the technical challenges that remain.” The service said the findings will help it direct research toward technologies that offer the greatest return for warfighters, a term that refers to service members who fight in combat operations.

The competition does not, on its own, mean the Army has selected humanoid robots for any operational role. Its stated purpose was to identify promising ideas and clarify what is still missing. Analysts following defense technology would be likely to watch several things next: whether the five winners receive follow-on work, whether companies form partnerships that combine components such as power systems, sensors and software with full robot platforms, and whether the Army names specific missions where humanoid designs offer advantages over wheeled, tracked or aerial machines.

Why it matters beyond the test field

The competition shows that the Army is trying to evaluate new robotics before committing large budgets to it. By testing demanding scenarios such as checkpoint security and firefighting, officials are looking for the point where a robot could reduce risk to people or relieve them from dangerous or repetitive work. For companies, the process offers a route to government attention for technologies that might otherwise take years to reach defense buyers.

Griffin's comments highlight a different reality: the gap between a compelling demonstration and a dependable system. A robot that can walk through a field on command is a meaningful achievement, but it is far from one that can carry heavy loads, move quickly and operate for long periods in combat conditions. The competition's results therefore point to a long road of engineering work, and the Army's emphasis on the remaining technical challenges suggests it sees that road clearly.

Questions and answers

What was the US Army xTechHumanoid competition?

It was a competition run by the Army's xTech program to assess how humanoid robots could contribute to future military operations. Officials reviewed written proposals, selected 10 finalists and then chose five winners through a live experimentation event.

Who won the Army humanoid robot competition?

The five winners named in the Sept. 29 announcement were ACES Group, IHMC Robotics, Hydroplane Limited, Ras Labs and Velocity Explorations.

Did the humanoid robots meet the Army's requirements?

Not fully. IHMC Robotics researcher Robert Griffin said the competition's individual requirements exceeded what current technology can achieve, so developers prioritized some capabilities over others.

What happens next for the Army's humanoid robot work?

The Army said the findings will help direct research toward technologies that offer the greatest return for warfighters. The announcement did not say that the Army has chosen humanoid robots for any specific operational role.

Topics: US Army, Humanoid robots, xTech, Military technology, IHMC Robotics, Hydroplane, Military robotics

Sources: Military Times

https://axynewsglobal.com/article/us-army-names-five-winners-of-humanoid-robot-competition