Article

2006-06-21 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-06-21 08:50|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 What is the DoD problem?
How is it different from a Predator armed with a Hellfire?

Posted by 3dc 2006-06-21 09:48|| 2006-06-21 09:48|| Front Page Top

#2 Good soldiers these bots. I've not hear a single report of one not turning up for duty using oft heard refrain..... "my p***y hurts!"

Posted by Besoeker 2006-06-21 09:51|| 2006-06-21 09:51|| Front Page Top

#3 Remote control toy trucks loaded with a frag grenade should be standard gear, esp. for clearing houses.

Posted by ed 2006-06-21 10:01|| 2006-06-21 10:01|| Front Page Top

#4 I, for one, welcome the arrival of our new robot point man.

Posted by Mike 2006-06-21 10:50|| 2006-06-21 10:50|| Front Page Top

#5 Guns don't kill people, robots kill people.

Posted by Perfesser 2006-06-21 11:28|| 2006-06-21 11:28|| Front Page Top

#6 You have nought seconds to comply.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2006-06-21 12:03|| 2006-06-21 12:03|| Front Page Top

#7 I have a novel about armed autonomous robots that explores these issues.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-06-21 12:16|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-21 12:16|| Front Page Top

#8 It's not that the armed robots would just be turned on, and turned lose. They would be controlled by their human operator, but there is a reluctance to having the troops equipped with an armed robot.

Same f*****n attitude that had Marines at the Beruit barrackes without rounds in the chambers. Oh, my, someone may actually pull a trigger. No, no, no, can't have that.

But the troops want them

Ever hear of field expedient? Troops are very creative. If you don't do it, they will.

"She'll make point five past lightspeed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself."

Wonder if they've stuck a claymore on the front plate so when it turns a corner and see Hadji armed for trouble, Hadji get a present.

Posted by Cheagum Cleatch4688 2006-06-21 12:18|| 2006-06-21 12:18|| Front Page Top

#9 Cool, phil_b, thanks!

Posted by Omirong Snumble8439 2006-06-21 12:24|| 2006-06-21 12:24|| Front Page Top

#10 What is the DoD problem?
How is it different from a Predator armed with a Hellfire?

Several reasons:
1.A bad case of Not Invented Here, the here being the higher echelons of the procurement shop. The echalons above reality hate it when the junior enlisted ~~serfs~~ ~~scum~~ soldiers come up with an excelent idea, and a good, clear reason to have it implemented right now. Do you have any idea how much things like this disrupt schedules and budget planning....

2. It will be a cheap system. Not enough $$ to interest the pork meisters on the hill. But it will have to be paid for, and the money will have to come out of someone's budget.

3. It is not directly controlled by a company or field grade officer, like preadator.

4. It gets too close to the cultural nightmare of "killbotz" that the press will have a field day with if an "incident" occurs.

5. Its new. The military is innately sceptical of all new technologys on the battlefield, and rightly so. I, and some of the other vets around here could tell you about some of the ideas we've seen come and go that did not work out in the real world...

6. Lastly, there are genuine safety and proceedural issues involved with a remote controlled weapons system. While I'm glossing over them, they are not trivial. I was in IZ when we started fielding the CROWS remote turrets on up-armors. A good system, but we did have to solve some unforseen problems, and address a safety issue or two. I suspect the same or similar problems will appear with the killbotz.

No, I'm not going to say exactly what these problems were, in case hajji is reading this. I want hajji to find out the hard way. preferably with lots of hajji casualties.

Posted by N guard 2006-06-21 12:37|| 2006-06-21 12:37|| Front Page Top

#11 1.A bad case of Not Invented Here, the here being the higher echelons of the procurement shop.

ROTS = Robots Off the Shelf! Circumvent the standard Army 29 year acquisition process....? Lets DO IT!

Posted by Besoeker 2006-06-21 12:40|| 2006-06-21 12:40|| Front Page Top

#12 Can't all these problems be discovered and ironed out at Fort Irwin?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-21 12:57|| 2006-06-21 12:57|| Front Page Top

#13 It's not that the armed robots would just be turned on, and turned lose. They would be controlled by their human operator...

That means they're not robots. "Drones", "remotes", or "waldoes" would be more appropriate, though not nearly as sexy.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-06-21 13:11|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-06-21 13:11|| Front Page Top

#14 Can't all these problems be discovered and ironed out at Fort Irwin?

No. Try as we will, there is no substitute for actual deployment in the field. A training environemt will inevitably restrict operations. Especialy if the operations involve shooty type activitys. Either for safety or cost considerations. Such is the price we pay for peacetime garrison thinking.

Posted by N guard 2006-06-21 13:58|| 2006-06-21 13:58|| Front Page Top

#15 Two possible solutions are to arm the robot with less-than-lethal weapons, and to mostly use the robot to draw fire.

One of the big problems with LTL weapons is delivering them. It's hard to get close enough to someone with a lethal weapon to use a LTL weapon on them.

Enter the "pester-bot".

As an example, with almost all your emphasis on a robot that can move quickly through rubble. Once that is done, equip the robot with a high-pressure cannister of CS gas. As soon as it sees the bad guyz, or anyone ahead of its departure line, it gives them a big whoosh of tear gas.

For their part, the bad guyz light up the robot big time, revealing their positions, with their movement making them even more attractive targets for another woosh from the robot.

In other words, frustrating as hell for them, and that is the "philosophy" of the design. To piss them off.

Spotting them through protected eyepieces also reveals the bad guyz position back to the friendly side.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-06-21 15:18|| 2006-06-21 15:18|| Front Page Top

#16 Less than lethal? On a killbot? Puh-leese.

You are overlooking one minor detail--
The ID10Ts up in the Echalons Above Reality are if anything less enthusiastic about less than lethal weapons than the killbotz.

This is because if the Less than Lethal weapon actualy kills someone, well, feeding frenzy by the traitor antiwar crowd just barely begins to cover it.

We have enough trouble with ginned up outrage over weapons like WP, ICM, CBUs, etc. as it stands. IIRC Strategypage.com has had an article or two recently about this phenomena.

Combining the two, killbotz and LtL weaps. = total procurement constipation.

Sorry if I seem such a doom sayer, but articles like this just push a lot of my buttons. I truly despise moral cowardice by my nominal superiors.

Posted by N guard 2006-06-21 15:47|| 2006-06-21 15:47|| Front Page Top

#17 Once we get the robot to pull a pin on a grenade, he can get the beer. Now, how does Robby determine the cold ones ?

Posted by wxjames 2006-06-21 15:53|| 2006-06-21 15:53|| Front Page Top

#18 NGuard hits most of the reasons why you have not yet seen armed UGV's fielded to date. The bulk of the time is the testing and safety analysis that has to be done to minimize the number of issues to be discovered in the field. No one wants to see these things screw up as this is the real future direction for the services.

The guy who wrote the article is off base on some aspects. First off, the Packbot has no real weapon capability at this time. It is too small. There are limits on how small you can go given that the robot has to carry the M-240 or M-249 and planty of cameras for effective situational awareness. The weaponized TALON, referred to with the acronym SWORDS, is about as small as you can get. It is also the only deployment-ready system out there. There is no armed UGV using the Packbot.

The sentry characterization for the TALON is also BS. The real mission is armed recon. Send the unit out to draw fire with the ability to respond as the enemy moves from cover.

The deployment is getting close, IMO. There is a definite desire for these remote systems (remote is the correct characterization). They should prove to be extremely effective.

Posted by remoteman 2006-06-21 16:04|| 2006-06-21 16:04|| Front Page Top

#19 Now, how does Robby determine the cold ones ?

He will see in the infrared. Cold beers are black.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-06-21 21:34|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-21 21:34|| Front Page Top

15:37 Old Patriot
23:53 Janos Hunyadi
23:48 crazyhorse
23:42 RD
23:28 RD
23:17 Frank G
23:16 Monsieur Moonbat
23:10 trailing wife
23:06 RD
23:06 Janos Hunyadi
22:55 RJB in JC MO
22:51 RJB in JC MO
22:46 Mark Z
22:44 trailing wife
22:38 badanov
22:20 trailing wife
22:16 Slineger Flaique8971
22:09 Chuck Simmins
22:00 Captain America
21:54 Chuck Simmins
21:49 Captain America
21:48 anymouse
21:47 Al Gore
21:38 Frank G