Military Robots Get Machine Guns

javaxman writes "Next spring, the U.S. military is expecting to deploy Talon robots with machine guns. They can also be equiped with rocket launchers. Really, they're remote-controlled 'bots, not true autonomous 'bots, so you can save the Skynet jokes for, um, some day in the not-to-distant future. This is just the first, or maybe second step. As for me, I just want to see arena matches between gangs of these suckers. Robot wars indeed!"

Comments

Captured robots

[fembots]

Can these robots be captured and reconfigured to turn against its ex-master, or do they have self-destruction function?

This reminds me of an old Canon printer advertisement, where the Martians use this bubblejet printer to print realistic Mars landscape photos and place them in front of the Mars probe's visual sensor.

Re:Captured robots

[swv3752]

So what happens when someone converts an old microwave to an EMP blaster and shorts out the joystick, then sends thier own signal to the bot?

Sure there are ways to harden the electronics but...

Human oversight

[grunt547]

From the article:

"Driving, observing and shooting are always done with a man in the loop," the Foster-Miller spokesman said. "The labs like autonomy, but the users themselves always like to have control."

It's really not too shocking to think about a computer in charge of deadly force. Sure, think about Arnold in Terminator, but this is not a new idea. We've put computers in charge of our weapons systems for years. Back in the days when strategic bombers with nuclear weapons were our primary deterrent, the computer (such as it existed in the 50s and 60s) was in charge of dropping the bombs. This was even more common on conventional platforms, where accuracy actually mattered. The computer can figure out where the best place to pickle off the bomb is, and all the pilot does is flip a consent switch that actually allows the plane to release a weapon. All the pilot knew was that the bomb would release at some point. This system offers a lot more control to the human operator, who I guess will be playing an FPS in real-life.

Remote controlled war!

[intnsred]

This has to be the Pentagon's dream come true: a remote controlled war.

Now the US can slaughter people in developing countries without the fear that some of our own soldiers -- fighting for "freedom", of course -- will be killed or injured. I suspect we'll see the number of "Operation Freedoms" increase dramatically.

How come I don't think this is progress?

How would you design the interface?

[piotrr]

So.. these drones will be remote controlled? Yes, I read the thread, bear with me. They are going to save on "OUR" human casualties, by killing more of the enemy via a remote link to an actual soldier controlling these mechanoid suckers. Instead of losing lives, "we" will only lose millions of items of immense monetary value, which still is considered the smaller loss. Of course a surviving fighter pilot gets one hell of a scolding if the plane gets lost, but it's basically the same thing here: If you have more tech than soldiers, it's a good thing to empower every soldier with more tech than he or she is worth, so to speak.

Now, what is the interface going to look like? I am assuming a live-feed, encrypted, RF signal with video and audio and not some command line interface thing because we don't have that kind of autonomy in AI yet... unless you count my industry. I am not in defense works, I am a game designer. We have AI that could do the job. Sure, the bots would freeze up for seconds at a time trying to convert the terrain into a pathmap grid, and it will get stuck in odd loops between rocks and hard places, but my point is that some degree of autonomy is possible if the operator is taking a piss or getting another jolt, pizza, mountain dew, what have you.

And so, what interface will the "mechanized infantry" be using against its operator? One 'bot per remote operator "Operation Flashpoint" style (or "Mechwarrior" / "Starsiege" style?) or two to four 'bots per operator, "Hidden & Dangerous"-style or maybe even eight ("Full Spectrum Warrior") or 60 ("Ground Control") 'bots for every operator?

Especially if bots feature some kind of learning, remembering last used commands, path maps, all of these alternatives are more or less feasible. I actually think the "Quake 3" or "OFP" approach is the least appropriate because a bot can be destroyed, chaffed, EMP'd, taken out of range, fall down a hole, lose the connection or start dropping packages like crazy. Controlling a bot lagging over radio with a jerky video feed is not a first person shooter experience you would want to participate in, not even for fun, and especially not when you are sitting in a command bunker undefended save for those ABC mechanoids.

Instead, imagine a setup where each operator shares his or her attention between members of a squad of four or five 'bots. Equip the 'bots with a few different pieces of equipment while they're awaiting deployment, maybe tweak one of them for speed and recon, another for damage soak and a third with a long-range weapon, and so on. Now, keep in mind that a video feed is possible but not speedy enough to make instant point-and-click orders. Thunderstorms, sandstorms, building occluding the signal and so forth will make that much too unreliable. Instead, the operator gives move orders to the 'bots, identifies targets, marks them on the IFF using bandboxing or clicking, the bot remembers distingishing features and asks for confirmation when a takedown is possible.

The only thing the USA has to worry about now is Korea. No matter how smart US operators become, how streamlined their interface or how autonomous their remote controlled heavy weapons platforms, they will remain unable to stop the Zerg rush, kekekekeke.