Slashdot Mirror
Army Eyes Anti-Sniper Robot
Hiawatha writes "iRobot has teamed up with Boston University to create a robot that can spot enemy snipers on a battlefield. Before the smoke of the shot clears away, the REDOWL robot should have the shooter in its sights." iRobot is the same company that brought you the popular Roomba robotic vacuum.
Testers struck pieces of metal to simulate gunshots. REDOWL quickly aimed its infrared camera and laser rangefinder at the source of the noise, just as it did in tests at a Medfield gun range.
If this is the case, this RedOwl can easily be fooled where there are multiple gunshots, especially in a battle field.
While system could fire back at an enemy, it would be dangerous to have a weapon-toting robot that could open fire on its own. You need to have a man in the loop.
By the time a man reacts, the sniper could have fled, or worse, fired another shot at him.
But what happens if the sniper's first shot takes out your REDOWL unit? Are these things armoured, and would a robot with enough armour to stop an AP round have the endurance to keep up with soldiers? Shoot, this is a good idea (no pun intended) but is it practical for the battlefield?
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Besides, any *smart* sniper moves from his position after each shot and rarely double taps.
"Hey, that guy's dead... but we know where the guy who killed him is!"
Isn't that better than "Hey, that guy's dead... and so is another guy! And another guy! And me... I'm dead, too!"
Just because I sniper rolls away from a window in some abandoned building doesn't mean we have to let that floor of the building continue to exist. And we nice things like predators to look down and watch for anyone leaving the building. Sometimes it is worth trying to catch someone like that, too - they usually are part of a larger, more organized effort.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It doesn't need to be -- ou just get many of them. Mounted on the top of every Humvee, it'd be a serious challenge to snipe each of them out individually.
I hate it when people point out the blindingly obvious limitations of something as if they are some devastating flaws that render it useless.
The sniper might run away? Wow such insight!
In reality encouraging snipers to run away is still going to be a win on the battlefield. Presumably most snipers hole up in a reasonably secure, hidden vantage point and remain there. If a technology makes that unfeasible then you've gone a long way to decreasing their effectiveness as their initial tactical advantage is neutralised on their first shot. A sniper who's legging it isn't shooting at you and if you have a camera automatically pointing in his direction then tracking him is a possibility.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Step 2, get a single-shot gun on that puppy, and let a local controller make the decision on whether or not the bot can take the shot from a short distance. Have a soldier then reload the shot, and repeat.
Step 3, have a single controller controlling a small set of turrets, each have many bullets, but a very limited firing rate, and low-calibre. These are mostly used for guarding, but can auto-locate and prioritise potential targets for highlight to the user as they appear. Guards are replaced. A speaker system will warn long before any shots are taken, and will require keyed permission before any weapon may be fired.
Step 4, fully-automatic, mobile turrets with extremely basic quasi-AI. Simple patrol routines, many bots to a controller, controller is given the highest priority input at any given time, though each device still requires digital oversight before a weapon may be fired. Speaker and microphone system allows basic use in social settings. Simple anti-theft devices are unsuccessfully installed to prevent black market aquisition.
Step 5, regular quasi-infantry replacement. Still no regular AI, but simple stair-climbing and object manipulator add-on components allow regular use of this cheap, modular little turret. Increases patrol coverage ability of the reduced-size army, and is used even in the most quiet occupied zones. Emits teargass or similar irritant if not opened correctly, and each device has a fairly unique set of openning steps. Becomes the common fictionalized face of the modern army.
Step 6, increased use and acceptance of such tools allow isolated private use of non-lethal mobile turrets. Wars and occupations that used to be implausible even today are actively considered. AI is still considered taboo on these units, but they do get more advanced quasi-AI never-lethal automatic modes with simple yet elegant rule sets for more situations.
Step 7, news reports of incidents and possible tragedies involving these units no longer phase much ofthe occupying nation's citizens. All controlled-weapon-robotic activity are redundantly monitored, and the guilty are regularly punished - the system is widely trusted and highly valued. Simple social-use AI robots gain a small level of utility (rather than entertainment), and limited acceptance. The solar system has a wide array of weak-AI devices, both public and private, on each planetoid. The use of humans in the army is mostly that of tactical oversight of unmanned weapon platforms of many types.
Will the end result be a good thing... can't tell. But something like this progression seems innevitable given existing technology, and the needs of both our economy and the perception of our military circumstances.
Ryan Fenton
As has been proven time and time again, having a "man" in the loop doesn't keep your own people from getting killed.
The best way to not get killed by accident in a war zone is to stay home and make babies.
The enemy would be able to locate your soldiers by their tags too. I wouldn't want to carry an ID beacon on a battlefield...
--
the best free palm games
> Yeah it does buy a bit of time, but if the robot is away from the
> sniper, well, the sniper has no reason to shot, if it finds a
> reason to shot, say a person, and the robot is away, it's purpose,
> preventing human lives from being lost, is sort of defeated.
Snipers often miss. Even when they don't, with this system they get off only one shot before coming under fire themselves. That's a huge improvement over taking several casualties, being pinned down for half an hour, and having the sniper sneak of before you can locate him.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
> What if the robot is shot?
Then a man wasn't. And the other robot will have located the sniper.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
What's stoping the sniper from shoting the robot?
Not much. So you deploy two robots -- let's see him shoot both at once.
-- Alastair
I'd have thought this would be modded +5 Funny, because it is. But maybe people seriously think that the military no longer needs to deal with snipers. Unfortunately, the presence of suicide bombers does not negate the presence of snipers, and that Iraq is not the only place the US military finds itself these days.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
1100 fps is slow. Army snipers are using 300 Win Mags at 2800+ fps with a 200 gr bullet. Then think about the Barrett 50 shooting a 400 gr slug at 3500+ fps. That gives you enough time to duck out of sight on a 1000+ yd shot. The idea of the sniper round is extreme accuracy and a flat trajectory. This is only obtained by speed and bullet design. 1100 fps is a 12 ga shotgun with target loads, (Win AA 1 oz #9 shot). I reload my 357 Mag with 140 gr hollow points at 850 fps.
Suppresors only work on subsonic rounds otherwise you can hear the bullet go buy when it breaks the sound barrier, thats the crack like the snapping of fingers. If you have ever heard that, you were in the wrong place, or serving in combat.
Beware of cold war vintage sub sailors, we are a devious, sneaky bunch. And proud of it.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
The mood of the average person in the U.S. now is that they are willing to pay to kill. They area willing to pay an endless amount of money for killing, but very little for making relationships.
It's all part of the thinking of the Military-Industrial Complex: If you disagree with someone, just kill them.
Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in World War Two and former U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower said in a famous speech that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here's a quote:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
Another quote:
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded."
Since it must be mounted in the clear to ensure it is getting direct path sound, the sensors will be the sniper's first target. The added psychological impact of the troops seeing their sniper protection shot to hell is a sniper's dream. Thats what sniping is all about, sowing fear.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.