Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Military To Field Test "Throwable" Robots

Posted by samzenpus on from the toss-it-and-forget-it dept.

cylonlover writes "Robots are a perfect tool to give soldiers in the field 'eyes' on a potentially hazardous situation without placing themselves in harm's way. With soldiers often operating in difficult terrain or entering buildings, the easiest way to get such robots into place is usually to throw them. Currently, many units use a small tactical robot called the Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle 320 which is equipped with video reconnaissance technology. However, this robot weighs a not very pack-friendly 32 pounds (14.5 kg), so the call has been put out for a lighter robot that is more easily transportable by dismounted units on the move and is able to be thrown into forward locations such as buildings and caves. To this end, the U.S. military is set to put three different types of lightweight, 'throwable' robots through a series of combat assessments in Afghanistan."

9 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Of course.... by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its hard to see why they need this since they haven't actually needed to DEFEND this country since um.... they were fighting with muskets.

    Seems they would get a lot more bang for their buck by not fighting wars than coming up with all these better ways to do it.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:Of course.... by swanzilla · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hawaii begs to differ.

      --
      0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
    2. Re:Of course.... by Tekfactory · · Score: 2

      Well, we're there and we're doing it. Since we are comitted, maybe the best thing to do now is not get our boys killed running blind into buildings and caves full of people who want to kill them.

      Also I can see DEA and SWAT teams using these in a manner where they typically use fiber optic cameras now.

    3. Re:Of course.... by vlm · · Score: 2

      Also I can see ... SWAT teams using these in a manner where they typically use fiber optic cameras now.

      They already do. Get your police scanner and listen for awhile. I listened to this most recently last week, tossing these things into an "intoxicated man with warrant barricades himself in house" situation. Locally, they call them "camera balls"

      High comedy at the end of every incident they ALWAYS end up unable to find at least one, and have to detail one guy to watch the monitor while the other guy walks around with a flashlight kicking stuff over and opening all the doors. Worse is when it gets broken and they have to search the entire building.

      You'll also hear plenty of radio traffic along the line of "who has the monitor?" and whining about the battery being dead.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Of course.... by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hopefully we can send all the DEA to the fucking unemployment line within the next few years since, once they legalize pot (which is the vast majority of illegal drug users... more than the next big 3 combined).

      Aside from that... just don't include me in your "We". I am disgusted that I even have to pay for a dime of any of this warmongering BS. I am not commited at all, if it were up to me the operative words on ending the wars would be "immediate, and complete". Out of afghanistan, out of Iraq. Hell....out of Korea. Been an utter waste of our money for generations.

      No commitment here. And nobody willing to die for this government is "my boy".

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  2. Yes throw it away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    why not just drop bundles of cash on the battlefield?, i'm sure that Pashtun famer has a much better use for cash than a big bang
    just skip the middlemen and drop raw cash

  3. Obligatory Simpsons: by dark_requiem · · Score: 2

    First mobster: Hey, they's throwin' robots!
    Linguo: They are throwing robots.
    Second mobster: It's disrespecting us. Shut up a'you face.
    Linguo: Shut up your face.
    Second mobster: Whatsa' matta you?
    First mobster: You ain't so big.
    Second mobster: Me an' him are gonna' whack you in the labonza.
    Linguo: Mmmm... AAH!... bad grammar overload. Error. Error.

  4. Robots you can trust by tmosley · · Score: 2

    I'm all for this, after all, you should never trust a robot you can't throw out the window.

  5. Re:uh, oh, Uncle Sam... by idontgno · · Score: 2

    Lego is Danish, not Dutch. That said, both are inaugural members of NATO. They'll monger war right along with the rest of us, and I'm sure if necessary the trademark can be licensed.

    If all else fails, consider that trademarks don't have to be universally distinctive, just distinctive within a particular commercial endeavor, and no one can sanely claim that naming military reconnaissance robots the same as the North American branding of a Lego throwing toy is "passing off".

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.