Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Army Furthers Development of Robotic Suits

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the ellen-ripley-is-a-lesson-to-us-all dept.

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.'"

10 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Battle of the Future by locokamil · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll bludgeon you to death with my wounded comrade!

  2. Re:obligatory quote... by Nick+Number · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Obligatory" in this case meaning "incorrect".

    It's "Get away from her, you bitch!"

    --
    Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
  3. I wonder though by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:I wonder though by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Remote control will probably never be quite as good as having a human brain inside guiding it. The idea is to augment a soldier's physical abilities. As we know they already have battle robots that are operated remotely. This fills a different need. It's hard to judge how fast technology progresses or will progress, but I can conceive of Starship Trooper (the book, not that horrid movie) style gear in a hundred years or less.

    2. Re:I wonder though by DarenN · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
  4. Popsci by howjan · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was an article in this month's Popular Science about suits like this. If this kind of thing trips your trigger that article is worth a read.

  5. Starcraft II by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want an advanced armored exoskeleton. Make it fly too. I can do without the repulors if I MUST, but please do give me a big flamethrower and a chaingun on my model. Maybe some shoulder mounted RPG's too?

    And here we have another person that will seem to drop off the face of the planet once Starcraft II ships. Please remember not to play for 48 hours without sleep while consuming only nachos and soda, we wouldn't want you to permanently drop off the face of the planet. OK, maybe not "we" but "somebody" out there would care. ;-)

  6. Re:Why bother? by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. The 2nd Amendment by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Funny
    I hope the 2nd Amendment covers these things when they start being released commercially.



    The right to bare Robot arms shall not be infringed!

  8. Re:No Iron Man tag? by emilper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Heinlein was in the army in his youth. No need to predict "the future of the military": armor has to be heavy to be truly effective, but if it's heavy, it limits the mobility of the soldier. Generals have been drooling for ways to make soldiers able to carry bigger guns and thicker plates for millennia.

    Tanks are only a compromise, since you get only one cannon for 4 to 6 crew: crew members are much harder to replace than tanks or cannons, and they would be a lot more effective and less vulnerable if you could spread them instead of having all 4 in the same place.

    During WWI, before armored vehicles became used, old style armor was tried, but it was too heavy: one example here (not in English, but the pictures don't need translation) http://historiasconhistoria.blogia.com/2008/021401-luchas-medievales-en-el-siglo-xx.php ...