Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Robots for No Man's Land

Posted by michael on from the you-have-ten-seconds-to-comply dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "The Stryker is an 18-ton infantry vehicle, already deployed by the U.S. army in places such as Iraq. Right now, it has human drivers. But that will no longer be the case by 2010, when it will be driven by a robot. Today, the Stryker has a 'ladar' scanner, which emits 400,000 laser and radar beams and snaps 120 images every second. 'Its brain -- a 40-pound computer system tucked inside its body -- processes that data, and makes instant judgments on how to act and where to go.' These robots are developed by General Dynamics Robotic Systems, Inc. (GDRSI), which received $185 million last November to build between 30 and 60 automated-navigation prototypes to be used in all kinds of military vehicles. This overview contains more details, references and photographs."

8 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, but will it fit on a frickin' shark? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > the Stryker has a 'ladar' scanner, which emits 400,000 laser and radar beams and snaps 120 images every second.

    Yes, but will it fit on a frickin' shark? Is that too much to ask?

  2. 40-pound computer system by jeffmock · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Its brain -- a 40-pound computer system tucked inside its body --"

    You know it's got to be powerful when compute power is measured in pounds...

    jeff

  3. Does war become cheap? by ajiva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets say the US has a fully automated robotic army. Ignorning the whole "SkyNet" issue, does this mean making war is now a no brainer? Because if American's don't have to die, do we just beat up whoever we want whenever we want? I for one think that this will change the world more than the Atom bomb did.

  4. Save the hubble... by Tarwn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, so they can build multi-purpose, multi-terrain robots that have to make life or death decisions with automatic weapons, but they can't make a couple to send up on an unmanned probe to fix the hubble? There's something wrong with the math here...

    --
    Whee signature.
  5. What about radio control? by Nakito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it make more sense to use radio control by human operators, rather than autonomous on-board robots? Can the on-board robot really deal with every possible circumstance? Does it have enough "judgment" to improvise? Isn't human control simpler and hence more robust?

  6. Infantry never going away by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Quoth the article:
    "Well before the end of the century, there will be no people on the battlefield," said Robert Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Management and Technology.
    Dollars to doughnuts says Dr. Bob has never served in the military. Nothing will ever replace a guy with a rifle. Planes, tanks, nuclear weapons, and a whole raft of other innovations were supposed to make the common infantryman obsolete. Guess what, the grunt is still around. Today's infantryman has a lot of tools to make his job easier and make each man more effective, but in the end no matter how fancy your technology it all comes down to a guy with a weapon in his hand standing on a piece of land saying "I'm here to stay". That hasn't changed since the first Australiopithicus picked up a pointy stick, and it probably never will.
    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    1. Re:Infantry never going away by ParadoxicalPostulate · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Reminds me of Starship troopers.

      Even though they were the least respected and sophisticated class, it was the Mobile Infantry that got things done.

      Heinlein isn't the only one who stuck with infantry in the future. The truth is that nothing we create can replace a man (or woman) in the field.

      And if we do manage to create something that can carry out sophisticated reasoning and creative tactics, it sure as hell won't stick around to work for us.

  7. Why The Stryker??? by aluminumcube · · Score: 5, Informative
    For those of you who haven't kept up with the Stryker, it's the latest blundering troop transport hardware that was originally a good idea, but got turned into a scary pile of US soldier killing metal.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/con gress/ 2003_rpt/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

    Highlights?

    - Designed to be transportable by a C-130, but can't.
    - Designed for the modern urban battlefield, but too big to make a U-turn on even the widest streets.
    - Designed to face the weapons of our enemies, but the armor cannot withstand Rocket Propelled Grenades (a hugely prolific weapon in Iraq and Afganistan, even now).

    To top it all off, the light tank varient of the Stryker (which the entire Stryker Brigade concept relies upon for support) cannot fire it's weapon if infantry troops are within 200' (the muzzle blast will fry them due to the huge compensator needed) and the cannon cannot be fired off to the side of the vehicle, or the recoil will knock it over. What a great piece of equipment!

    Not to hijack the thread, but this is just another attempt for General Dynamics to get some good press out of a complete piece of shit program that is endangering the lives of the grunts who are forced to work with it.