America's Robot Army

Popular Mechanics explores the increasing level of reliance the US military has when it comes to robotic assistance. In the last few years, robot drones have reached an all-new level of sophistication, with several models already deployed in the field. Now, the next generation of robot helpers is nearing the end of its test phase. PM offers up a preview of what we could expect to see in the field within the next five years. "The MULE (Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment) is roughly the size of a Humvee, but it has a trick worthy of monster truck rallies. Each of its six wheels is mounted on an articulated leg, allowing the robot to clamber up obstacles that other cars would simply bump against ... Barely a year old, the prototype is a product of the Army's Unmanned Ground Vehicle program, which began in 2001. It has yet to fire a single bullet or missile, or even be fitted with a weapon. Here at the test track it's loaded down with rucksacks and boxes, two squads' worth of equipment."

Comments

More tanks

[CRCulver]

"The MULE (Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment) is roughly the size of a Humvee, but it has a trick worthy of monster truck rallies. Each of its six wheels is mounted on an articulated leg, allowing the robot to clamber up obstacles that other cars would simply bump against.

Sounds like a tank. And haven't retired generals criticized the DoD in the last couple of decades for developing the tank technology we wished that we had in World War II instead of concentrating on anti-guerilla strategy?

Re:More tanks

[peragrin]

anti-guerilla strategy? that's easy don't be an ass, and don't invade other countries on false intel, with the misguided hope that they will think you are saviors just because you deposed their idiot leader.

I highly doubt if that will happen though.

To truly fight guerilla you must fight them like you fight pirates. You take away the economic/political incentive for it to begin with.

Re:More tanks

[MrNaz]

Many long time Slashdot readers remember the days when militant rednecks didn't come here, and they were able to comment on what an intelligent foreign policy would look like without having to put up with the "let's go shoot us some bad guys!" clowns. Sadly, those days are gone, as you have just demonstrated.

Re:More tanks

[Octorian]

> Sounds really like a tank with no one to get injured in it.
You really have no clue what a tank is? Or the difference between a tank and a truck? This is *not* a tank. It is a utility vehicle! The variant currently being shown is design to haul crap around so soldiers don't need to. Of course it does have armed variants that are designed to shoot weapons, keeping soldiers from harm. But, still, it is not heavy armor.

And w.r.t. air strikes, do you realize what the alternative is to our current approach of guided weapons? Yes, carpet bombing. Creates a lot more civilian casualties. Instead of killing civilians who the bad guys are hiding next to, they'll also kill the civilians in the buildings down the street.

Robots?

[Porchroof]

I hope none of these so-called robots are simply radio-controlled devices. Anything under human control does not rate being called a robot. (When have you ever heard of a radio-controlled model airplane being called a robot?)

Re:Robots?

[timeOday]

I hope none of these so-called robots are simply radio-controlled devices.

Autonomous-vs-not-autonomous is a nonsense argument since neither extreme is practical. There will always be a level of human control (at minimum, to specify the commander's intent) and a level of autonomous control (at minimum, coordinated moving of wheels or legs to move as directed). In between is where all practical applications lie.

Over-reliance on tech

[Wowsers]

Thinking in "James Bond" film mode for a moment, what happens IF some enemy lets off an EM pulse, what happens to your (over) reliance on technology?

They should consider low tech options.

[Digestromath]

Millions of dollars in developing advanced robotic military hardware. Individual unit prices no doubt in the 6 or 7 figure range. High training costs for operating personnel, maintenance, some sort of expensive high tech ammunition and long tech support calls.

All of it to be ultimately undone by a hundred dollars worth of high explosive, some household shrapnel and a triggering device operated by a guy living a cave who MAY have spent a total of three weeks at the local militant training camp.

We are living in the age of guerilla warfare. It's no longer about the size of your Deathstar. Its about how many plucky farm kids you can convince to join the cause.

I guess there new moto could be "Army of 00000001"

Re:They should consider low tech options.

[Xest]

I agree with your sentiment but I think the benefits of high tech. weaponry are often overshadowed by the typical scenario you mention whereby something like a multi-million dollar vehicle is taken out by a cheaply made IED.

When we hear news reports of raids on insurgent strongholds by our forces you often hear about how 10s, 100s were killed compared to maybe 2 or 3 allied soldiers. It's the very fact we have high tech. weaponry that allows this, be it simple things such as night vision to full on portable video link ups with drones above the battlefield - the fact is high tech. weaponry is saving the lives of our soldiers.

Similarly, I understand that an expensive roboting land vehicle like this could be blown apart but if it can traverse more difficult terrain than your average hummer can then surely that allows us to transport things off standard roadways and across tougher terrain hence avoiding the sides of the road where IEDs are often hidden? Surely the best defense against a trap is to be able to not walk into it in the first place?

There's a lot to be said for the point you make - that we mustn't start using technology in warzones for the sake of it. Used well however it can and already is making our forces a lot better off than they ever have been previously. Whilst 4,000 odd US soldiers may have died in Iraq to insurgents, that figure is dwarfed by the number of insurgents that have died to high tech. weaponry in US hands.

One final point is that Iraq and Afghanistan are fairly different in terms of weaponry and tactics used, the typical IED made by a taliban tribesman living in the mountains isn't going to do an awful lot to an MBT, but as soon as you go to Iraq where you have insurgents potentially armed by the Iranians using charges shaped specifically to penetrate tank armour it's a different story. The insurgents the US is dealing with in Iraq aren't the same insurgents you describe in your post (i.e. next to no training and only using cheap weaponry) that are more commonly found in Afghanistan. Many insurgents in Iraq have been given vast amounts of training and are aquiring some pretty expensive weaponry themselves. The problem is now that some of the tactics in Iraq are spilling over into Afghanistan.

Technology does matter in the warzone when it comes to saving soldiers lives, sure a multi-million dollar MULE may get blown to pieces, but I'd rather see that than a patrol of actual humans suffer the same fate.

Our Future

[Kittoa]

Once again, the Simpsons has an applicable quote:

Commandant: The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.