Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:31:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq  (Read 2637 times)
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 12, 2005, 03:54:13 PM »

Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq

By MICHAEL P. REGAN
   
(AP) Gary Morin, a design engineer for defense firm Foster-Miller, demonstrates the company's weaponized...

ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J. (AP) - The rain is turning to snow on a blustery January morning, and all the men gathered in a parking lot here surely would prefer to be inside. But the weather couldn't matter less to the robotic sharpshooter they are here to watch as it splashes through puddles, the barrel of its machine gun pointing the way like Pinocchio's nose. The Army is preparing to send 18 of these remote-controlled robotic warriors to fight in Iraq beginning in March or April.

Made by a small Massachusetts company, the SWORDS, short for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, will be the first armed robotic vehicles to see combat, years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp. (GD)

It's easy to humanize the SWORDS (a tendency robotics researchers say is only human) as it moves out of the flashy lobby of an office building and into the cold with nary a shiver.

Military officials like to compare the roughly three-foot-high robots favorably to human soldiers: They don't need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle.

(AP) Gary Morin, a design engineer for defense firm Foster-Miller, demonstrates the company's armed...

But officials are quick to point out that these are not the autonomous killer robots of science fiction. A SWORDS robot shoots only when its human operator presses a button after identifying a target on video shot by the robot's cameras.

"The only difference is that his weapon is not at his shoulder, it's up to half a mile a way," said Bob Quinn, general manager of Talon robots for Foster-Miller Inc., the Waltham, Mass., company that makes the SWORDS. As one Marine fresh out of boot camp told Quinn upon seeing the robot: "This is my invisibility cloak."

Quinn said it was a "bootstrap development process" to convert a Talon robot, which has been in military service since 2000, from its main mission - defusing roadside bombs in Iraq- into the gunslinging SWORDS.

It was a joint development process between the Army and Foster-Miller, a robotics firm bought in November by QinetiQ Group PLC, which is a partnership between the British Ministry of Defence and the Washington holding company The Carlyle Group.

Army officials and employees of the robotics firm heard from soldiers "who said 'My brothers are being killed out here. We love the EOD (explosive ordnance disposal), but let's put some weapons on it,'" said Quinn.

Working with soldiers and engineers at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, it took just six months and only about $2 million in development money to outfit a Talon with weapons, according to Quinn and Anthony Sebasto, a technology manager at Picatinny.

The Talon had already proven itself to be pretty rugged. One was blown off the roof of a Humvee and into a nearby river by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Soldiers simply opened its shrapnel-pocked control unit and drove the robot out of the river, according to Quinn.

The $200,000, armed version will carry standard-issue Squad Automatic Weapons, either the M249, which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at a rate of 750 per minute, or the M240, which can fire about 700 to 1,000 7.62-millimeter rounds per minute. The SWORDS can fire about 300 rounds using the M240 and about 350 rounds using the M249 before needing to reload.

All its optics equipment - the four cameras, night vision and zoom lenses - were already in the Army's inventory.

"It's important to stress that not everything has to be super high tech," said Sebasto. "You can integrate existing componentry and create a revolutionary capability."

The SWORDS in the parking lot at the headquarters of the cable news station CNBC had just finished showing off for the cameras, climbing stairs, scooting between cubicles, even broadcasting some of its video on the air.

Its developers say its tracks, like those on a tank, can overcome rock piles and barbed wire, though it needs a ride to travel faster than 4 mph.

Running on lithium ion batteries, it can operate for 1 to 4 hours at a time, depending on the mission. Operators work the robot using a 30-pound control unit which has two joysticks, a handful of buttons and a video screen. Quinn says that may eventually be replaced by a "Gameboy" type of controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles.

The Army has been testing it over the past year at Picatinny and the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland to ensure it won't malfunction and can stand up to radio jammers and other countermeasures. (Sebasto wouldn't comment on what happens if the robot and its controller fall into enemy hands.)

Its developers say the SWORDS not only allows its operators to fire at enemies without exposing themselves to return fire, but also can make them more accurate.

A typical soldier who could hit a target the size of a basketball from 300 meters away could hit a target the size of a nickel with the SWORDS, according Quinn.

The better accuracy stems largely from the fact that its gun is mounted on a stable platform and fired electronically, rather than by a soldier's hands, according to Staff Sgt. Santiago Tordillos of the EOD Technology Directorate at Picatinny. Gone are such issues as trigger recoil, anticipation problems, and pausing the breathing cycle while aiming a weapon.

"It eliminates the majority of shooting errors you would have," said Tordillos.

Chances are good the SWORDS will get even more deadly in the future. It has been tested with the larger .50 caliber machine guns as well as rocket and grenade launchers - even an experimental weapon made by the Australian company Metal Storm LLC that packs multiple rocket rounds into a single barrel, allowing for much more rapid firing.

"We've fired 70 shots at Picatinny and we were 70 for 70 hitting the bull's-eye," said Sebasto, boasting of the arsenal's success with a Vietnam-era rocket launcher mounted on a SWORDS.

There are bound to be many eyes watching SWORDS as it heads to battle. Its tracks will one day be followed by the larger vehicles of the Future Combat System, such as six-wheel-drive MULE under development by Lockheed Martin, a 2.5-ton vehicle with motors in each wheel hub to make it more likely to survive.

The Pentagon's research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also recently awarded contracts to aid research of robots that one day could be dropped into combat from airplanes and others meant to scale walls using electrostatic energy - also known as "static cling."

Many of the vehicles being developed for the FCS will have some autonomy, meaning they'll navigate rough terrain, avoid obstacles and make decisions about certain tasks on their own.

They may be able to offer cues to their operators when potential foes are near, but it's doubtful any of them will ever be allowed to make the decision to pull the trigger, according to Jim Lowrie, president of Perceptek Inc., a Littleton, Colo., firm that is developing robotics systems for the military.

"For the foreseeable future, there always will be a person in the loop who makes the decision on friend or foe. That's a hard problem to determine autonomously," said Lowrie.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2005, 04:34:26 PM »

I made a post about these a while back.




All I have to say - really cool. Smiley
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2005, 05:08:15 PM »

Scary as hell. If these things became common and wars ere still prevalent, that would be extremely bad. The faster we democratize this planet and thereby exterminate wars, the better. And I think we had really better hurry.
Logged
J.R. Brown
Rutzay
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 717
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2005, 05:08:49 PM »

I made a post about these a while back.




All I have to say - really cool. Smiley

All I have to say is the "Matrix"
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2005, 05:22:06 PM »


Do you really think machines that don't even have AI are going to result in a Matrix type situation?
Logged
Cashcow
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2005, 05:46:31 PM »

Why make robots when we can get the man himself?

Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2005, 10:39:49 PM »

Why make robots when we can get the man himself?

Because he costs too much. Wink
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2005, 10:58:38 PM »
« Edited: April 12, 2005, 11:02:06 PM by patrick1 »

The further sanitization of warmaking is troubling. 

The war as video game can separate people from how horrible war actually is. The only thing I am grateful for is that this technology is in "our" hands and we are not on the receiving end.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2005, 11:41:22 PM »

hyperreality
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2005, 12:22:31 AM »

Hyperreality?  Yeah, this is sort of Baudrillardian.

Anyway, all we need for this is to be TRULY scary is for the robots to identify and fire on targets without human interaction. 

Beep
Motion detected
85% chance of moving target of being an enemy combatant
Opening fire
Target destroyed
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2005, 03:18:38 PM »

Didn't Rumsfeld see Terminator?  Or Terminator 2?  Or 3?

Anyway, when I saw the thread title I thought to ymself, hey its good to see Tony Mandarich is working again.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2005, 03:33:36 PM »

The further sanitization of warmaking is troubling. 

The war as video game can separate people from how horrible war actually is. The only thing I am grateful for is that this technology is in "our" hands and we are not on the receiving end.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, if only we could keep the mideveal tradition of having the advocates of war fighting on the front lines....
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2005, 08:12:04 PM »

Not so much medieval. The knights did all the exciting killing, and the drafted peasants did most of the dying. Sure, every now and then something went awry, but then, the U.S. lost a general on Okinawa.

Napoleon, now, he fought at the frontlines. But he was insane or divinely guided, or both.
Logged
TexasPatriot2024
TexasPatriot
Rookie
**
Posts: 141


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2005, 06:08:56 PM »

Not so much medieval. The knights did all the exciting killing, and the drafted peasants did most of the dying. Sure, every now and then something went awry, but then, the U.S. lost a general on Okinawa.

Napoleon, now, he fought at the frontlines. But he was insane or divinely guided, or both.

yes but napoleon didnt have to worry about a divinely guided sniper a thousand yards away Wink
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2005, 06:37:57 PM »

Sure, every now and then something went awry, but then, the U.S. lost a general on Okinawa.

Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr. Smiley Son of a confederate general who surrendered Ft Donelson to US Grant. Smiley
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2005, 07:28:25 PM »

Very optimist look at the future of war

1. Robots replace humans in our  armies
2. Robots replace humans in opponent's armies
3. War is just robots fighting robots
4. Simulate everything on a computer
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2005, 07:35:44 PM »

I hope not. The reason we don't have war everyday is people are hard to replace.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2005, 07:43:04 PM »

Techno-utopia.

There will be no jobs in the future as it will all be automated.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2005, 07:44:50 PM »

I hope not. The reason we don't have war everyday is people are hard to replace.

In step 4, it won't really matter.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2005, 07:56:06 PM »

Techno-utopia.

There will be no jobs in the future as it will all be automated.

There will probably be some jobs. This guy advocates that once enough jobs are eliminated, everyone should get a $25,000 a year paycheck from the government. It's a very interesting read.

http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2005, 09:45:09 PM »

Techno-utopia.

There will be no jobs in the future as it will all be automated.

I've done lots of thinking on this in the past, and I've come up with the conclusion that it just ain't gonna work that way. You can advance technology to a point where many jobs can be eliminated, but it would be virtually impossible to eliminate all of them. There are also other problems. Here's what I came up with.

1. Some jobs machines can't do: Unless you can make a machine that is as intelligent or moreso than humans, there will always be jobs that require humans doing them. Let's go for a few examples. First, politics - can you have a machine determine the laws? Can the machine really understand how humans are and how they are affected by the laws? Probably not - you'll need human lawmakers. How about psychologists? Once again you need an understanding of the human mind, something it would be difficult to make a machine do. What about scientific research? Another area that likely requires humans - machines have to be programmed, and the programmer has to have understanding, unless you can make a machine that can learn concepts outside of it's programming you can't replace humans here. What about video game makers? Once again, takes someone who understands the human mind, who can understand what's cool and not cool, fun and not. There are so many other jobs out there that you'd be hard pressed to replace with a machine.

1 1/2. Those who don't have jobs obviously will get fed by the machines, but what's the incentive for the guys who still have to work? They better receive something extra - of course, it isn't communism then, is it?

2. A commitment to mediocrity: Let's say for the sake of argument that somehow we do fill all the jobs, every one of them, with machines. So now what? What use are humans? We no longer need to do anything but relax. Would there be a point in educating us? Not really, there's no point - the machines do everything for us, we'd have no reason to apply knowledge, so all anyone would ever need to know is how to get what they need from the machines. Seems like a boring existence - someone might get bored and make some bombs, go blow some people up. With nothing to challenge us, I think we'd go insane.

3. Stagnation: Unless you can make a researcher machine, quality will never increase. Nothing will ever get better - and believe me it always can, anyone who tells you otherwise is a quitter. The machines will produce the same stuff, no change at all. There'd be no incentive to introduce new products, because all needs would be met, so what'd be the point of doing all the work in inventing something?

4. Dependence: The human race would be completely and utterly dependent on the machines. If something happened, perhaps some terrorist lunatic out to destroy society succeeding, that resulted in the shutdown of the machines could you even begin to imagine what would happen? Mass starvation, chaos, war over resources, a new dark age.

So, I'm no fan of technological utopia, as it's a rather inhuman system.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2005, 12:43:43 PM »

Techno-utopia.

There will be no jobs in the future as it will all be automated.
3. Stagnation: Unless you can make a researcher machine, quality will never increase. Nothing will ever get better - and believe me it always can, anyone who tells you otherwise is a quitter. The machines will produce the same stuff, no change at all. There'd be no incentive to introduce new products, because all needs would be met, so what'd be the point of doing all the work in inventing something?


Exactly.  Either we'll always need humans to make better machines...or machines can make better machines themselves, in which case humans become redundant, as the machines are smarter than we are.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 11 queries.