Slashdot Mirror


US Military Using $600K 'Drone Buggies' To Patrol Camps In Africa (cnbc.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The U.S. military is using an unmanned robotic vehicle to patrol around its camps in the Horn of Africa. The remote controlled vehicle is the result of a 30-year plan after military chiefs approved the concept of a robotic security system in 1985. Now the Mobile Detection Assessment and Response System, known as MDARS, are carrying out patrols in the east African country of Djibouti, under the control of the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa. The area is known as home to a number of hostile militant groups including the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Shabaab. An operator sits in a remote location away from the vehicle watching the terrain via a camera link which is fixed to the chassis. U.S. military software engineer Joshua Kordanai said in a video presentation that the vehicle drives itself, freeing the remote operator to monitor video. "The vehicle has an intruder detection payload, consisting of radar, a night vision camera, a PTZ [pan-tilt-zoom] camera and two-way audio, so the system will be able to detect motion," he added. One report prices the cost of an earlier version of the military 'drone buggy' at $600,000 each.

60 comments

  1. Re:This is Trump's America realized! by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Policing the world so he can prove how much of a big shot he is. Expect more of the same when he gets elected. Nothing but a third world dictator bully.

    For all I care he's free to take out my current rulers & government at any time he want.

  2. Man, I thought Warbots would be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Instead of lame camera-toting trucks, I thought we'd get cool laser-armed chrome titans striding across the battlefield.

    I'm beginning to think I won't get a flying car either.

    1. Re:Man, I thought Warbots would be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you looked at it ? its a golf cart - not even a truck.

    2. Re:Man, I thought Warbots would be cool. by npslider · · Score: 2

      Well, I for one welcome our tiny Par 72 Golf Overlords!

    3. Re:Man, I thought Warbots would be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a long way to go....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank)

    4. Re:Man, I thought Warbots would be cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of lame camera-toting trucks, I thought we'd get cool laser-armed chrome titans striding across the battlefield.

      That's just the stealth mode, disguising the system as an ordinary vehicle. At the touch of a button it can transform into a giant robot.

  3. 30 Years?! by npslider · · Score: 2

    It took 30 years to come up with a Roomba with night vision?

    1. Re:30 Years?! by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      The tech was already there. It took 30 years to percolate through military hierarchy.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:30 Years?! by npslider · · Score: 1

      No wonder their coffee tasted so bad!

    3. Re:30 Years?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the time it's ready, it has become whisky. Add some fresh coffee on it and you've got a Irish coffee, or an F-22.

  4. Pants on fire by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Policing the world so he can prove how much of a big shot he is. Expect more of the same when he gets elected. Nothing but a third world dictator bully.

    You do realize that's the opposite of what he wants to do, right?

    He wants the US to spend less time, effort, and money patrolling the world, and wants other countries to take up the slack.

    But go ahead and throw insults. It is, after all, the only thing Democrats do.

    1. Re:Pants on fire by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Forcing countries like Japan and South Korea to build nuclear weapons because his resolve to continue US's longstanding defense of its allies is not going to make a better world. The last time the United States retreated behind its borders and let its Allies fend for themselves, we ended up with the most destructive conflict in history, and the costs dwarfed what it would have cost to keep a proper military presence in potential trouble spots.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Pants on fire by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He wants the US to spend less time, effort, and money patrolling the world, and wants other countries to take up the slack.

      That's what he says. But the rest of the world isn't going to pick up the tab for Pax Americana. Trump haven't explained how he would downsize the military by laying off troops, mothballing weapon systems and closing bases. Actions that won't be popular with politicians and voters as many government-funded jobs will go away and unemployment increase.

      But go ahead and throw insults. It is, after all, the only thing Democrats do.

      As a moderate conservative, I can say that Trump is an idiot.

    3. Re: Pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unemployment will not increase much because manufacturing will start coming back from China.

    4. Re: Pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey maybe it appears that way from Mars, but to us on earth it's clear that none of the proxy wars the US has sponsored have had a noble cause.

      Vote Hillary if you want a strong ISIS.

    5. Re: Pants on fire by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Can you define "noble". The proxy wars fought during the Cold War had been one reason; containment of the USSR (and to a lesser extent China).

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, Republicunt.

    7. Re:Pants on fire by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Nuclear bombs are obsolete. Precision guided bombs and missiles are cheaper and more effective.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    8. Re:Pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When nukes were restricted to a few countries, we had:
      - accidents involving nuclear weapons that were not disclosed
      - several actual near misses where an air crash, accident involved a nuke burning or exploding conventionally
      - lost cores
      - a race ending up in building thousands of the things, hundreds of long-range aircraft, silos, dozens of nuclear-armed subs
      - serious consideration at cabinet level of going ahead with a first strike
      - smaller ones for battlefield use and as AAMs
      - instances where a nuclear war was minutes away

      Replay history 10,000 times, and you're not here to smarm about how safe the world is in a good number of them.

    9. Re:Pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also thinks nuclear proliferation is a good idea, but isn't aware of the merits of first/second strike and how mutually assured destruction hasdeterred first strikes. Information I gleaned watching the RBC "debates", as though there was mire than one or two people on the stage capable of actual debate.

      But go ahead - tell me more about this non-interventionist policy that includes bombing the shitb out of ISIS.

    10. Re: Pants on fire by mmdurrant · · Score: 1

      The term you're looking for is "just war" and we haven't waged just war since Korea.

      --
      I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
    11. Re:Pants on fire by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      You have a valid point AC, unfortunately I have no points to give today.

  5. Cheap by imgod2u · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Considering the cost of useless toys like the F-35, this is a steal in both utility and price.

    1. Re:Cheap by npslider · · Score: 1

      But can it fly?

  6. Re:This is Trump's America realized! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    oh really? this came about under Obama administration

    maybe you have a problem

  7. And so it begins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robots of the rich and powerful being used to subjugate the masses. It will not be long before this tech is available beyond the military. I guess those taxi drivers are not going to become security guards.

  8. Apropos of nothing... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apropos of nothing...

    Just how hard is it to disable one of these $600,000 mobile golf carts?

    For example, can a high powered rifle pierce any of the antennas, control electronics, or motive hardware? Would an IED be sufficient?

    And having done so, what dangers might the recovery team face?

    1. Re:Apropos of nothing... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The recovery team would likely be safer going in knowing a threat is in the vicinity. A bunch of people on regular patrols would be more susceptible to attacks, the drones reduce the amount of human exposure to attack.

    2. Re:Apropos of nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      are you serious ?
      its a golf cart. literally. it has no armor. you can kick it over with your foot.

    3. Re:Apropos of nothing... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Apropos of nothing... Just how hard is it to disable one of these $600,000 mobile golf carts? For example, can a high powered rifle pierce any of the antennas, control electronics, or motive hardware? Would an IED be sufficient? And having done so, what dangers might the recovery team face?

      The US got massively superior firepower if they can just locate the enemy. And they won't be medics in a hurry because he's bleeding out. Taking out one of these would be announcing to the world here I am, come kill me. And you got them to reveal themselves without putting any soldiers at risk. And if they're plagued with hit and run attacks they can set an ambush of their own like a hidden sniper covering the patrol area or a squad that'll cut them off from behind. And you could probably make dumb decoys for a fraction of the cost for the enemy to waste their time on if they actually start attacking them.

      Sure, some of these might be destroyed but what would be the cost of human patrols, with their armored vehicle and high end gear? If the enemy has high powered rifles and IEDs they could do damage to non-drone equipment and injure or kill soldiers too. Ultimately it's a matter of resources, if the US can get them to waste their sniper rifles and IEDs on non-human targets it's pretty much a win no matter what. It's dead soldiers that zaps the will to fight, the military industry and their lobby will make sure money is not a problem.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Apropos of nothing... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Just how hard is it to disable one of these $600,000 mobile golf carts?

      The best way to disable a military vehicle is to shoot the driver. Since this vehicle doesn't have a driver, it will be less vulnerable.

    5. Re:Apropos of nothing... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They're not $600k, that is obvious just from the idiotic summary. An "earlier version" (prototype) cost $600k, the production version is likely much cheaper. The actual cost is negative, because manned security uses the same sensors and simply costs more because of the desire to protect humans.

      In October 2010 the first MDARS vehicle went online at Nevada National Security Site (NNSS)...

      The MDARS will save NNSS an estimated $1 million in annual force protection labor and equipment maintenance costs. Additionally, use of the platforms will save the site approximately $6 million in infrastructure costs for equipment such as lights, towers, cameras, trenching and burial of cables to support the towers and motion detection units needed to provide protection of remote sensitive areas.

      (From http://www.public.navy.mil/spa... )

      If there is an IED on the base then who cares if it can disable the thing? If the sets it off, it saved lives. Could a high powered rifle damage it? Of course, it has cameras and sensors and stuff. But if snipers are taking up position right outside a base, directing fire onto the base, and you can get them to take pot shots at a robot, that is pretty awesome tactically.

      And yeah, if somebody attacks the base and penetrates the perimeter and damages the robot... a recovery team would need to wait for combat to conclude, and would have all the normal risks of that combat without worrying about the robot.

  9. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another country the US has zero fucking business being in.

  10. Re:This is Trump's America realized! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit. This is a Republican congress doing Republican shit. Trump is going to do the same.

    Sorry but there will be no Trump in my rump, faggot. Queer for The Donald... what a bitch you are.

  11. If USA wasn't there, no Al Qaeda there either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of those false flag "terrorist groups" are funded by the CIA. Tax payers fund the CIA. Tax payers fund those groups and fund to allegedly defend from those groups at the same time.

    You can see here how much they actually spend on this shit. Africa is not a satellite continent of North America the last time I checked.

  12. Golf carts don't kill people, golfers kill people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a combat vehicle, it's meant to patrol around US bases (and not very far out looking at it). It's not meant to defend or attack, it's just meant to alert and take a more vulnerable solider off patrol. Anything energetic enough to take it offline instantly is going to make a lot of noise (RPG, Mine, IED, etc.) and anything that doesn't make a lot of noise probably isn't going to be able to disable it completely before it relays back information. The area has known hostiles so if one just goes off line they're not just going to go strolling out to fix it. I'm sure they'd send and armed force out to investigate and save the actual recovery for daylight hours.
     
    Besides, the bases it's patrolling around are staging areas for US (and allied) SOCOM forces, so a better question is what dangers might someone who disabled it face?

  13. Your pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you can get bulk of Americans to lower their standard of living by a wide margin, jobs coming back to America from (insert favorite outsourcing whipping boy of the week) is about as likely as ... oh... I dunno, Vatican nominating Trump for sainthood?

    1. Re: Your pants on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decimating the ridiculously high military budget should take care of the unemployed. They're gonna lose their jobs to drone buggies anyway, if Hillary manages to rig the elections somehow.

    2. Re: Your pants on fire by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      oh how about this fold the department of education into the department of defense (after all the education of our children is of Strategic Importance) and then have the various "black" orgs focus on getting our children taken care of properly (fed clothed ect).

      BTW a couple things
      1 if you want to be technical Decimate means kill/remove 1 in 10 i think you were reaching for devastating
      2 the US Budget actually has a surprisingly small percent spent on the DOD (last year about 15%)

  14. Seems appropriate... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    What could be more suitable to guard your drone aircraft's landing field and associated infrastructure than drone vehicles?

    1. Re:Seems appropriate... by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      What could be more suitable to guard your drone aircraft's landing field and associated infrastructure than drone vehicles?

      Sounds good; but, it might be funny to suggest American Bees as a defense measure.
      For years, I have been told the USA is being invaded by African Bees; I think maybe American Bees might want some payback.

      Tim S.

  15. No real arguments by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Forcing countries like Japan and South Korea to build nuclear weapons because his resolve to continue US's longstanding defense of its allies is not going to make a better world.

    Then say that.

    Printing lies and insults doesn't make your case, but it to be the only thing the Democrats can do.

    1. Re:No real arguments by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "Then say that."

      He did

      "Printing lies and insults doesn't make your case"

      What is wrong with his case

      "it to be the only thing the Democrats can do"

      And where is your case

  16. This won't last long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking from my many years of experience in Africa -
    If a car, tractor, bus, motorcycle or similar vehicle is left unattended by real people, it will be taken, stripped clean and used for parts in the blink of an eye. The local mechanics are resourceful and can work miracles with castoff parts and homebrew adapter kits.

    Good luck with those drones, Bubba.

    1. Re:This won't last long by sethradio · · Score: 1

      Well in that case, we should mount machine guns alongside the cameras!

      --
      "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race." -Albert Einstein
    2. Re:This won't last long by AHuxley · · Score: 0

      The units will be watched, tracked and mapped. Even if the path taken has some random times and path changes built in per patrol, the locals will soon note the abilities and limitations.
      After that comes a well funded intelligence sniffer to find out how much is an internal dumb database of possible maps or daily changes by human control and a burst of real time commands.
      Any US command and control communications will undergo a full reverse engineering. The main question will be how much hardware crypto was allowed to be placed in each unit at that price point. Will the US allow any crypto to fall into the wrong hands per patrol or keep the device useless if lost? Some optics, a CPU a map, with data sent back..vs a full crypto package rolling around outside just waiting to be exported for a reward...
      A dedicated effort to clone and offer back fake video, audio and motion detection, inject a halt command or induce a service fault on all local devices.
      If that crypto effort fails, just flood and over power the command signal and see how the remote unit reacts - a shut down and wait for recovery, a rapid and very direct return to home, recovery or loss of control and the drone defaults to an anti tampering, avoid capture command?
      Thats why most smarter nations use dedicated human special forces teams to watch over their bases 24/7 over any useful distances.
      It seems the US did not learn much from Vietnam and has a lot of "locals" around its bases.
      If your going to build any base in country, keep all locals a long way away... special forces are great for that every night.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:This won't last long by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      After that comes a well funded intelligence sniffer...

      LOL you watch too many movies, and they weren't even set in Africa! You took a double-dose of derp and even managed to get confused by Vietnam. Kinda strange.

    4. Re:This won't last long by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      So the autonomy is perfected?
      A totally secure command and control link?
      So advanced that no other nation will be able to consider any counter measures?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  17. What the hell? $600K? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    $600,000 for one of these?

    Hell, I could build a functionally similar unit for less than $100K, and it would be better than this glorified golf-cart.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:What the hell? $600K? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Well, get going and do it already. If it can perform the same functions and reliably survive under battlefield conditions, you can probably mark it up by $400K and make a bundle on every unit you sell.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:What the hell? $600K? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Your profits will be eaten up by bribing politicians to buy your drone and dump the primary contractor (who has already bribed the politicians).
      The military-industrial-political complex is very tightly knit. It's hard to break into and requires years of "groundwork". But once you have all the politicians in place, it's gravy.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re:What the hell? $600K? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Well, get going and do it already. If it can perform the same functions and reliably survive under battlefield conditions, you can probably mark it up by $400K and make a bundle on every unit you sell.

      Making a sale to the DOD from an outsider like me is next to impossible. If you're not part of the established military contractor network then you don't stand a chance. I could build a better, stronger, more capable replacement for less and they'd just sneer at me.

      Look at it- is there anything on that jumped-up golf cart that couldn't be replicated at 1/3rd the cost? Nope, I could build 90% of it from COTS gear and get the rest from specialty suppliers. This thing uses no high-tech cutting-edge technology, it's a roving audio-video platform with a modified hunter's deer-finder and some range-finding crap, plus an RC package to drive it. To build one for $100K would be no problem. And mine would have the ability to defend itself from anyone who wanted to take the hubcaps off it, too.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:What the hell? $600K? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Just the accounting you'd need to sell the thing to the government would cost you $100K. Oh, and you'd have to pay yourself or someone else to take part in the bidding process or apply for the granted, and that has to be recouped as part of the sale cost. Er... you were planning on paying yourself for your time, weren't you?

      Also, there's a big difference between building a prototype from junk you scrounged and building a reproducible product. When you build a product the second copy should be exactly the same as the first but cost less. Duplicating a one-off prototype exactly usually costs more. Why? Proof of concept prototypes are cheap because you make them with surplus stuff you have lying around or can buy for fractions of a penny on the dollar. You can be opportunistic. The problem is any particular set of opportunities (e..g the $10,000 assembly you picked up at auction for $50) aren't reproducible.

      I had a colleague whose first job out of school was writing up a detailed specification for a prototype midget submarine a defense research lab built for the Navy. The Navy was pleased at the low cost and so they wanted to be able to build a second one just like it. Well it turned out that a second one would have cost a hundred times as much they'd have had to pay manufacturers to reverse engineer stuff or start up production lines. It was one of the pointless, futile tasks you dump on newbie engineers before you know you can trust their work.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:What the hell? $600K? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If it can perform the same functions and reliably survive under battlefield conditions, you can probably mark it up by $400K and make a bundle on every unit you sell.

      Until he finds out what the article actually said... $600k was reported for an early prototype. It is a bit late to hit that price point; he'd have to compete at production prices, and eat the cost of his own prototypes.

  18. The strenghts and weaknesses of human and machine by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    This sentry combines the grace and agility of a robot with the reflexes and continuous attention of a human! Something like this could never be tricked into carrying a bomb back to base.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  19. Re:This is Trump's America realized! by davester666 · · Score: 1

    good thing it has two-way communications, so they can voice-threaten the terrorists.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  20. How is this an improvement on a soldier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day enlisted men pulled guard duty for pennies an hour. How is this machine better?

    Not a Luddite, but this sounds dumb.

  21. Re: This is Trump's America realized! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have integrated several weapons systems as payloads in the past

  22. Re: This is Trump's America realized! by aliquis · · Score: 1

    "Surely we wouldn't be stupid enough to develop Skynet!" .. except in the west the definition of a terrorist is the person who act without authority of the group who think they should be in power and be the only ones able to use force of violence.

    So.. here we have the drones who will act against humans and try to stop any human using violence .. Now, what if the humans started to attack the machines?