US Army Furthers Development of Robotic Suits

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports on advancements in the US military's robotic exoskeleton program. It's being spearheaded by Sarcos, a research laboratory in Utah. The firm has designed the XOS exoskeleton for US Army use, a lightweight frame that gives the user greater strength and endurance. 'With the exoskeleton on and fully powered up, Rex can easily pull down weight of more than 90 kilos, more than he weighs. For the army the XOS could mean quicker supply lines, or fewer injuries when soldiers need to lift heavy weights or move objects around repeatedly. Initial models would be used as workhorses, on the logistics side. Later models, the army hopes, could go into combat, carrying heavier weapons, or even wounded colleagues.'"

Comments

So, it's official, we're nearly ready for "aliens"

[zappepcs]

Seriously, this is a good thing but I think some of the 'planned' uses are a bit optimistic. I'm more than willing to be surprised though.

Anything with useful commercial life would need power like a forklift, and that is about as small as you can make a useful 'suit' for lifting that is self powered.

Who knows, maybe granny will walk again one day soon. What we do know is that she won't get to compete in the olympics with her new suit!

Won't somebody think of the illegal immigrants? This thing could put the day laborers out of work.

No car analogy yet... forklift was as close as I could get :)

I wonder though

[hey!]

Why a suit, instead of an armed, semi-autonomous ROV? Why spend weight (and thus battery) protecting the squishy bits inside, when those bits can back home at an army base working eight hour shifts and going home to their families?

I realize that troops have to carry an ungodly amount of gear, but by the time all the technical challenges of a truly battle-ready suit are met, surely putting a person in it would be a waste.

Re:I wonder though

[DarenN]

Because the meat inside gives it decision making capabilities that cannot be matched by AI either now or in the foreseeable future.

Also because the human body is remarkably flexible in its movement and our brains are evolved to be quite good at this type of movement. An augmentation system doesn't have to necessarily PROTECT the wearer - that's what armour is for. It's about enhancing the natural strength of the soldier, who is still one of the most effective weapons in nearly all combat situations. The ability to lift heavier objects (weapons, for instance), and presumably to throw things like grenades further will be useful.

I did find it amusing that the first uses are hoped to cause "fewer injuries when soldiers need to lift heavy weights or move objects around repeatedly". Not much of a combat objective!

Re:I wonder though

[Itchyeyes]

I have to disagree. While robotic units are gaining an increasingly important role in combat operations we are a very, very long way from completely eliminating the human element of the battlefield. So long as human beings are involved in warfare, protecting them will have a key role.

Not to mention that while this kind of technology is being developed for the battlefield, it has uses far beyond combat. Suits like this could increase productivity and decrease injuries in any hundred of industries that require workers to lift heavy loads.

Re:I wonder though

[hey!]

Sure, but don't higher power weapons translate into more rounds fired or higher kinetic energy per round? That's weight. I'm also suggesting that you probably can't add heavier armor without removing other things the soldier carries, or having the soldier's mobility restricted by the system. If he needs to move faster, he'd need to remove the added protection. If the system failed, even partially, he'd have to choose between mobility and protection.

Not that it wouldn't be cool to have power armored soldiers, of course. I'm just suggesting that maybe complicating the decisions a solider has to make in combat by making him dependent on a technology like this for mobility and protection might not be a good thing.

Re:I wonder though

[stubear]

Soldiers, in fully protective battle armor, can make decisions in the field that ROV operators are unable to make due to their distance and disconnection to the situation. Was that airtight enough for you or were you planning on completely panning this concept, trusting AIs to make decisions better then humans?

Re:I wonder though

[hey!]

Well, sure. The robots could be jammed, just like your guys can be killed by a massive fuel air-bomb or a biowarfare agent. It's the same concern, but the costs are different.

The ROV operators can try even harder than the power armored soliders to avoid capture. They can afford to "die".

I'm not suggesting for an instant that ROVs replace live soldiers. I'm saying that the technology to provide practical powered armor to troops could also create highly effective ROVs. It may be that the best choice would be a force with a mix of conventional, power-armored and ROV forces.

On the other hand, it might also be that such a force wouldn't be much if any better than a mix of conventional troops and ROV units. Certainly it would cost more, and at some point that becomes a limiting factor in providing the best equipment.

Re:I wonder though

[hey!]

OK, I'm playing devil's advocate here.

Is the human form really the ideal form for urban warfare? Why not a swarm of robotic bees with taser stings? Furthermore, you aren't restricted to one form factor. You can have robotic spy-flies, robotic sapper-rats, robotic wall battering elephants.

It's not that I can't imagine a force of power armored commandos that can do things that normally equipped ones cannot. It's that I can't imagine the technology that makes that practical not creating even better choices.

Re:I wonder though

[hey!]

Now, put a saddle on that sucker and you have a 21st century Hussar.

Which might not be a bad idea. It's ironic that we're talking about technology like this, when every grunt or soldier I've ever talked to has the same complaint: the Pentagon can't seem to come up with a decent boot.

Do not click on the above link

[Anonymous Coward]

As title...

Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lifting stuff, we have forklifts for that. Much simpler and cheaper.

Heavy weapons? Is the US military's problem really a lack of firepower? I seriously doubt it. Maybe there is a lack of ethics and diplomacy but they can bounce corpses and ashes pretty high already.

Re:Why bother?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Lifting stuff, we have forklifts for that. Much simpler and cheaper.

Really, you've seen many forklifts in the field unloading Hueys or Blackhawks, or unpacking a palette from a Chinook or Hercules?

Heavy weapons? Is the US military's problem really a lack of firepower? I seriously doubt it.

OK, you obviously never saw the guy carrying the M60 and its ammo.

Re:Why bother?

[Chris Burke]

Lifting stuff, we have forklifts for that. Much simpler and cheaper.

But, but, that only works if you stack the stuff on a pallet first! How does the heavy stuff get on the pallet, huh? That's right, guy in power armor.

Heavy weapons? Is the US military's problem really a lack of firepower? I seriously doubt it. Maybe there is a lack of ethics and diplomacy but they can bounce corpses and ashes pretty high already.

They're sick of "Army of One" being a marketing slogan about how they teach you personal strength and confidence and such. Oh, there's widespread clashes between militias and police in Basra? Send in Private Pile in his Army Battle Suit!

loading bombs/missiles

[trybywrench]

this would go a long way in loading bombs or missiles on aircraft. I would imagine in a cramped environment it would be more agile then a forklift or whatever it is they use now. Also, it would be useful when doing stuff like changing a truck tire. Those things are heavy.

the path to Heinlein's Starship Troopers?

[peter303]

The book, not the campy movie, introduces these power suits. (I'm guessing the movie drops this much in the same way Spiderman is always pulling off his mask- the suit hides the humanity of the characters.)

What terrain would be suitable for powered suits?

[TheHawke]

Here's that ages-old question: Where are you going to be able to safely and efficiently operate a powered suit without sinking up to your waist in muck, tipping over due to unstable or uneven terrain, and be able to lift a working payload at the same time.

'Suits have this problem called weight distribution. Their footprints are about on par with a small car overloaded. When try to move loads on poor terrain, you'll wind up either getting dug out or being picked back up because the soil could not hold you up. Tracks that can handle twice their load can dance on that kind of terrain, even BobCats with tracks can handle soft sands that would try to swallow an average joes' foot.

I can see powersuits working on prepared grounds, Asphalt, cement concrete, macadam with treated substrates, but not thrown into a active combat situation where they would have to slog through mud or soft soils.

Re:No Iron Man tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

never going to happen. There just isn't much use for large bipedal tanks, sorry. Too unbalanced. You might end up seeing a four (or more)legged armored vehicle for rough terrain use, but I can't think of any valid reason for two legs.

Re:obligatory quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

o.O
Aliens was the sequel you insensitive clod.

Re:What terrain would be suitable for powered suit

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seriously think that they would limit the suit just because of the terrain do you? We have wheeled vehicles and we have vehicles with tracks. Ever seen a camel? A snowshoe? A duck? Just make a boot/foot attachment/replacement for various terrain. Voila, problem solved.

Captcha: Gelled. Hah, gellin' like a felon.

Re:No Iron Man tag?

[emilper]

Correct ... where I live the concept denoted by "army" includes "navy", "aviation", "infantry", "armored ..." etc.