Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the out-of-harm's-way dept.

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.

39 of 60 comments (clear)

  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 npslider · · Score: 2

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

  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!

  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 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.
    4. 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!
    5. 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...
    6. 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. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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%)

  13. 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
  14. 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!
  15. 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.

  16. 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. 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?