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.

40 of 434 comments (clear)

  1. Two loopholes by powerpuffgirls · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Two loopholes by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this is the case, this RedOwl can easily be fooled where there are multiple gunshots, especially in a battle field.

      it is designed for sniper fire, not battle field fire.

      "By the time a man reacts, the sniper could have fled, or worse, fired another shot at him."
      what do you perpose? that the robot fire back? too much room for error, however once the sniper has been targetted you can:
      Have the robot search in IR.
      Once the person has been spotted, the IR can keep tracking.

      If the sniper fires a second shot from the same location either he is a sniper bent on dying, or has enough support he isn't concerned with return fire.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Two loopholes by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 4, Insightful
      In regards to the robot being to slow returning fire:

      Most sniper doctrine dictates that you a) don't fire frequently, b) don't move suddenly.

      Both of those actions give a sniper away, and a spotted sniper is a dead sniper (they don't have particularly heavy armor, or the ability to rapid fire, at least not to the extent that a normal soilder does.)

      It makes a lot of sense for what we're doing in Iraq, really. If you're walking down a street in Bagdad and take fire, the first thing you do is take cover. Then you try to find out where the baddie is so you can off him. If your killer romba has found him, it just saves you the time of looking.

      As to being fooled, it probably wouldn't be to hard to have it track multiple targets. Navy ships have radars that can track 300+ at once. Well enough to put AA missiles on any of them at a word.

    3. Re:Two loopholes by capt.Hij · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I read that too and thought it was odd that none of the weapons mentioned, ak-47, m-16, pistols, are weapons that snipers use. An M-16 has an effective range of 300-400 meters or so. Snipers are capable of sitting 1000 meters out and hitting their target. The sound of a weapon discharge at that distance is very faint.

      Also, this is picking nits... but... Snipers use smokeless powder. They work very hard at not being seen.

    4. Re:Two loopholes by pudding7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're taking the term "sniper" too seriously. It's not always some dude in a ghili (sp?) suit creeping through the jungle. A dude with a scope and a hunting rifle sitting in a van while his buddy videotapes the shooting is a sniper too.

      Though, I'm sure you're aware of this.

    5. Re:Two loopholes by ZiakII · · Score: 5, Informative

      I read that too and thought it was odd that none of the weapons mentioned, ak-47, m-16, pistols, are weapons that snipers use. An M-16 has an effective range of 300-400 meters or so. Snipers are capable of sitting 1000 meters out and hitting their target. The sound of a weapon discharge at that distance is very faint. Also, this is picking nits... but... Snipers use smokeless powder. They work very hard at not being seen.

      Your post has some incorrect facts
      1) An M-16 has an effective range of 550 meters, and its not hard, every year I have to qualify with my rifle and we fire at the 500 yard range in the prone, at a normal human target I hit 7 out of 10 shots with ease, and I'm far from being a skilled shooter.
      2) Most snipers in the Middle East use an ak-47s with a scope
      3) Snipers are capable of shooting up to 1500 meters away; the record for the longest kill is held by Carlos Hathcock from 2250 meters away (granted he was one of the best snipers around)

    6. Re:Two loopholes by v1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      About two years ago I saw a show that was showing off a new anti sniper tech. It was a very high speed digital camera attached to a computer. It actually looked for bullets, flying through the air. When it found one, it would trace the trajectory, usually seeing the bullet 3-6 times in all, and plot a reverse course which in theory should cross through the point of origin. (the gun)

      There was no weaponry attached, it was merely a computer screen to show the bullets as captured, overlaid on the live view, along with drawing a line showing reverse trajectory. The men in the field still had to interperet it and spot the sniper and deal with him.

      I assume this is the next step of evolution of the system I saw back then. Should have been sufficiently technologically challenging, though I suppose if you could get a more 3-d idea of where the bulllets were, (which would be possible with two cameras I suppose) then use laser rangefinding to calculate distance as you sweep across the reverse trajectory, you should be able to calculate how far away the bullet is from you at any given point in the sweep, and when that number intersects with the laser range finder's distance reading, unless you have crossed an obstacle, there's your target. Actually I suppose it would need an exact match, because if the LRF was showing several feet shorter distance, then you're probably passing an obstacle that's between you and the course of the bullet. It's probably using some variation on that simple idea.

      So we don't quite have a defense drone a la Aliens, but it's not a bad idea for somewhere that you are expecting trouble.

      Problem with snipers is, if they are halfway decent, after the first shot they've already won and it's not going to help much to shoot back.

      REALLY cool would be a gun that shoots lead slugs (like safety slugs, lightly jacketed powered lead) and could take bullets out of the air, Patriot Missile style. That's probably more than a few years out though.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    7. Re:Two loopholes by mjkjedi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Both of you are missing something:

      1. Snipers are mammals.
      2. Snipers fight ALL the time.
      3. The purpose of the sniper is to flip out and kill people.
    8. Re:Two loopholes by loraksus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only that, but after the first shot, someone walks out to within 20 or so feet of the sniper's position (to give the observers a rough idea of where the sniper is) and the sniper must fire the second shot without being detected.

      They actually just fire blanks now and read numbers off cards that the graders are holding. I suppose the "metal plate" method had some drawbacks.

      That said, I read a story on the net once where Charles Hathcock was at a test of a brand spanking new multi million dollar infra-red based sniper detection system. Some time during the demonstration, he snuck away and stalked toward the observers until he was 20 or so feet from them. He stood up and showed them what defeated their system - a $10 plastic umbrella.

      Snipercountry has some excellent articles and some touch on Infra-Red detection.
      http://snipercountry.com/Articles/IRDetection.asp

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  2. Oh, great... by gardyloo · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... as long as there are couches for the anti-sniper robots to go hide under when they run out of juice and get lost looking for their docking units.

    1. Re:Oh, great... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Soldier: Sir the unit took out the enemy sniper sir.

      Commander: Excellent!

      Soldier: Sir the unit also shot 2 ducks for dinner sir.

      Commander: Excellent!

      Soldier: Sir the unit also shot our spy sir.

      Commander: Damn. Just reload for next mission.

      Soldier: Nothing is left sir, the unit used all 7000 rounds on a plastic helmet with a smiley face.

  3. how to keep it from shooting our own guys by soft_guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Besides, he said, 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," he said.


    The article says that the robot would not return fire, it would just pinpoint where the shooting is coming from. So, why does it need to be a robot exactly? Why wouldn't it just be a comptuer with some cameras and microphones?

    One idea is that our soldiers could have a chip in their dogtags that the robot could identify so as to not shoot at them. Then you would have the problem of the enemy stealing people's dog tags, but maybe you could deactivate that code once you knew the enemy had the tag.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  4. Then... by op12 · · Score: 5, Funny

    After shooting the sniper, the robot proceeds to vacuum the battlefield.

    1. Re:Then... by sab39 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That joke really sucked.

  5. Trex Enterprises Built a Sniper Detector Years Ago by OSUJamesC · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work for a company called Trex Enterprises, and we built one of these a long time ago. Go check it out on our website... http://www.trexenterprises.com/laserrad.html

  6. Fucking w4llh4x0r1ng c4mp!ng n00bz! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > Before the smoke of the shot clears away, the REDOWL robot should have the shooter in its sights.

    Getting pwn3d by a .50cal through a wall may not qualify as wallhacking, but still... aimbots vs. campers.

    War may never have been fun, but remember the good old days, when it was supposed to be? :)

    1. Re:Fucking w4llh4x0r1ng c4mp!ng n00bz! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 5, Funny

      kickvote initiated on player REDOWL. Press page up for yes, page down for no.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  7. What does the future hold? by Valarauk · · Score: 5, Funny
    I told my father about this article a few minutes ago and I think his response was comment worthy.

    "I think I saw that movie, the Robots won".

    --
    **insert favorite profound quotation here**
  8. Turtles and Defense by leighklotz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back in the old days, before Rod Brooks started iRobot, I worked part-time at a small MIT AI Lab spinoff making robots for kids called Turtles. The Turtle was an outcome of Logo, and, which itself was an outgrowth of Lisp, and so somehow the company's name got on a list of AI and Robotics vendors. (Sidenote: Lego Mindstorms also came from this same group of people at MIT and industry, though not this particular startup.)

    Anyway, we got a letter from a defense contractor asking for "applications of our AI and robotics products to battlefield logistics" and gave a half-dozen or so areas for us to evaluate our products.

    As you can imagine, puzzlement gave way to amusement, which quickly gave way to mayhem and by 3:05AM we had started writing our response, starting off with "The Turtle enjoys very low observability, due to a minimal radar cross-section and an almost non-existent infra-red signature."

    The letter made the rounds on the photocopy/bulletin-board circuit (there was no electronic copy available outside), and somehow the response got published in an ACM journal. Through the magic of modern imaging, it is available for you to read today in PDF.

  9. Someone please explain to me... by Helpadingoatemybaby · · Score: 4, Funny

    How is this roomba going to fit the dead sniper in the tiny little vacuum cleaner bag?

    --

    The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.

  10. Hunting Over Internet by SenFo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I admit that I know nothing about this technology, at all, but in my imagination, I would like to think that a technology such as the one used for hunting via the internet would be a little better. At least a real human would have the ability to decide when and where to shoot rather than relying on code to decide whether or not the target is friend of foe.

    Just a thought, though I admit that a robot has a lot more of the geek quality many of us would like to see ;-).

  11. Han *must* shoot first by MBraynard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Find me a sniper detecting robot that can find them BEFORE the first shot...

    Besides, any *smart* sniper moves from his position after each shot and rarely double taps.

  12. Roomba...pff by EdwinBoyd · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it's from the makers of roomba, all the sniper has to do is stand in a corner and that bot will never be able to get him.

  13. Re: How about three? by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can just imagine the way that the robot alerts the soldiers with it:

    We Are The Targeting Robots
    We Are Here To Protect You
    The Sniper Is Detected
    The Sniper Has Gone Down The Stairs

    ***

    We Are The Targeting Robots
    Grandpa Is Detected
    Grandpa Is Detected At The Bottom Of The Stairs
    I Am Here To Protect You
    I Will Direct Fire On Top Of Grandpa

    --
    "'If one must live then one must die.' - oh, the truth must be funnier than this..." -- MammÃt
  14. Loopholes? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Loopholes? by pi_rules · · Score: 4, Informative
      Presumably most snipers hole up in a reasonably secure, hidden vantage point and remain there.

      Negative. Snipers do NOT fire from the same location. Now, a sharpshooter might if they're in a fortified location (like in an urban setting) but a sniper out in the wild gets their behind out of the area once they've taken their shot.

      Take a gander at the book 'Marine Sniper' some time. It's the story of Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam. There's some pretty amazing tales in there. I'll give one great example.

      He was dropped off to take care of a Vietnamese offical in one of his toughest jobs. He knew it was nuts, but took it because if he didn't he knew they'd get some other guy to do it that wasn't as good as him, and the guy would probably die.

      The building where the official would be dropped off was about, IIRC, 2800 meters away from the tree line. It was just a big field after that with tall grass. Hathcock knew he'd only have one shot at this, so he had to get in close -- which for him was 800 meters. He spent about 2 days straight crawling through the weeds out there between the tree line to a depression in the field where he could take his shot and then get out parallel to the way he came in and then await extraction.

      He took his shot, saw it was a definate hit and then "booked" outta there.. it took him hours and hours to crawl out of there on his belly. You don't just get up and start running, you still have to maintain stealth.
    2. Re:Loopholes? by CHESTER+COPPERPOT · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "In reality encouraging snipers to run away is still going to be a win on the battlefield."

      It depends on what you mean by "win." You see, for the case in Iraq at the moment their fighters are culturally influenced by Asian and Steppe fighting methods (the history of this stems from Sun Tzu and other cultural writings being moved along the Silk Road and also from Mongol invasions) which posits that running away is in fact winning in their mindset. The western mindset, which you so eloquently put in your example of winning, is about fighting the enemy in a decisive battle and if the enemy runs that is a "win" in our mindset. So at a tactical level our western mindset might see it as a win but for the enemy it is part of a longer term strategic culture that champions running away to fight again another day.

  15. Some choice quotes by gardyloo · · Score: 4, Funny

    [...] ground troops will find it hard to spot even at very close range.

    [...] our research department is currently engaged in the testing of a 100-mile C3 for the Turtle. The thrust of this research is towards the development of an Extended-Range Turtle II. While this does result in a shorter tooth-to-tail ratio, we feel it could significantly enhance the battlefield capabilities of Turtle installations.

    3. Installation Cost
      The Terrapin Turtle is designed for installation at no cost by children and elementary school teachers. We feel that military installation cost should be under $10,000/unit.


    4. Annual Cost of expendable supplies and spares per unit.
    Ball-point Pen refills $0.59(one spare included)
          In the rugged terrain of the battlefield, under rigorous load conditions, it may be necessary to occasinally replace the Turtle Tires. Due to fluctuations in the world rubber market, quotation of exact prices is not possible.


            I love it.

  16. Re:Trex Enterprises Built a Sniper Detector Years by uradu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I few years ago I think one of the Discovery channels had something on an optical bullet tracker, I'm not sure if it was from Trex or not. Basically, it took advantage of the fact that bullets move much faster than anything in their vicinity, so the only major differences between successive images from a high-speed digital camera would most likely be the bullets. They had a cool demo system where the camera was pointing at a shooting gun in the distance, and it was highlighting the trajectories of the bullets it detected on a computer screen, with all of the lines converging on the gun. Couple this optical system with acoustic triangulation, and you have the best of both systems: zero in the camera quickly on the general source of the shots using sound, then pin-point the exact source of the bullets optically. Eventually this system could be made compact enough to fit on top of a rifle like a digital scope.

  17. This could spawn a whole new class of robots... by Sialagogue · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow, a robot that detects snipers after they've fired their first shot.

    Maybe they could use this technology in other applications, like detecting suicide bombers from the sound of the blasting cap that sets off the dynamite. Or maybe a robot that catches serial killers by counting the victims -- once they reach eight it sets off an alarm.

    --
    The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
  18. Re:Body Heat by Ryvar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ghillie suits utilizing evaporated aluminum minimize the IR signature of the person wearing them. Thwarting thermal vision required a change of tactics and slightly more specialized gear on the sniper's part - which is exactly what will happen with acoustic tracking devices. Muffling the report of the gunshot down to nearly nothing can be performed without significantly altering the ballistics of the bullet being fired by using conventional suppressors. Which means that this particular technology can be defeated more or less for 'free' where 'free' equals hundreds of hours in training to adjust to the subtle ballistic effects of a suppressor and the weight of said suppressor. What can't be reduced for free is the 'zipping' sound from the bullet exceeding the soundbarrier (all common bullets except .45ACP do this). To do that requires the use of special subsonic ammunition with extremely poor ballistics. No more one-shot kills on Taliban fighters from a mile and a half off (second from bottom).

    --Ryvar

  19. Human error by icepick72 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd hate to be standing on the battlefield having a calm smoke and accidentally drop my plank.

  20. Re:But... by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Hate to introduce facts into this discussion, but here we go:

    • bullet speed: twice the speed of sound
    • range: 1000 meters
    • time for bullet to reach target: 1.47 seconds
    • time for gunshot sound to reach target: 2.94 seconds
    • time for sniper to duck after confirming hit: 1.47 seconds

    First rule of sniping: never fire from the same position twice. All this is going to do is weed out the snipers that are stupid enough to keep their heads sticking up after firing at US troops.

    --
    Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
  21. In related news . . . by ln+-sf+head+ass · · Score: 4, Funny

    . . . eBay has expressed interest in the technology for as yet unspecified applications.

  22. Re: How about three? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Funny

    First rule of government contracting:

    Why build one when you can build two at twice the price?

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  23. Too late. by jcr · · Score: 3, Funny

    The perps aren't sniping anymore, they're blowing themselves apart with dynamite.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  24. Re:Trex Enterprises Built a Sniper Detector Years by interiot · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The original poster seemed to be assume a video sensor that didn't cover the whole sky/horizon. Obviously a visual sensor with wider range is needed, and the audio sensor is on the whole not useful for locating a sniper.

    In terms of government hands, there are no doubt many cases where it would be useful for INDIVIDUALS to quickly find out who shot first, so as to lay blame at the very least (1970, 1976, and I thought there was an incident during the revolutionary war, but I can't find it at the moment).

    And there are no doubt certain cases where people WANT the government to know where the shot(s) came from (1963).

  25. Thoughts from a former sniper by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used to be in the US Marines and was trained as a Designated Marksman, which is an urban sniper, and worked with many of the Scout-Snipers which are the "classic" snipers.

    My first comment is that a good sniper can hit someone at ~1500 meters with a .50 caliber rifle (A.K.A. Special Application Sniper Rifle (SASR)). This means 5 seconds until the sound is heard and means the sniper can get a decent head start running away, if they want, which they probably don't or they can just stand up, wave, and be happy they are outside the range of any weapon their target is carrying. This is assuming they don't fire from the crest of a hill and slowly back down off of it removing themselves from any danger of direct-fired weapons. Yes, indirect fire is still a problem, but it has always been a problem. If you know where the sniper is, you can always call for mortar or artillery fire. However, this is hardly cost effective, and even calling in a strike on their position does not guarantee a kill - especially if they choose their location wisely.

    Second, snipers are some of the sneakiest people I have ever met. If you tell them there is a robot that will respond to the noise they make, they will just set up a booby trap a hundred meters away and have their spotter trigger it at the same time they shoot. (Snipers always work in teams.) There is no way the robot is going to hear a bullet fired when it is being over-loaded by the sound of 2 pounds of C4 being detonated. If the snipers find out that it can still hear them, they will daisy chain a couple of claymore mines together with some det cord just to make things more confusing.

    Finally, on a sort-of-related-but-side note, I have seen bullets fly through the air and it is pretty cool. When standing behind a shooter, just focus on the air about half-way to their target. After a few shots, your eye will start focusing on the bullet.

    --
    Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
  26. AK-47 by Descalzo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Change weapon purchase/development from AK-47s to IEDs, mortars, grenades, and bomb belts. Etc.

    The reasons that so many guerilla movements use the AK-47 are because it is cheaper than any other gun (of similar effectiveness), it is easier to maintain (they are notoriously rugged), any idiot can fire one (if I can do it, how hard can it be?), and they are everywhere. You make it sound as though they had a purchasing department. I would be very surprised if they did.

    I realize that not all of the potential enemies we might face fall into the guerilla category, but that seems to be our enemy right now.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
  27. new kind of infinite loop by meekg · · Score: 3, Funny

    1. place two auto-firing REDOWLs in the street.
    2. make one of them fire.
    3. sit back and enjoy.