Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Army Is Preparing To Send Driverless Vehicles Into Combat (vice.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the remote-control dept.

The U.S. Army is getting ready to send driverless trucks into combat. "Next fall, [the Army's] 'Leader-Follower' technology will enable convoys of autonomous vehicles to follow behind one driven by a human," reports VICE News. "It's a direct response to the improvised explosive devices that caused nearly half the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan." From the report: Much of the research and development of these technologies has been done at TARDEC, the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, in Warren, Michigan. Typically human-driven trucks are outfitted with sensors and cameras through a TARDEC-created applique kit. They're not exactly robots, just regular military trucks that have been made a lot smarter. The technology is expected to be ready for field use in September 2019.

17 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Probably inspired by PsyOps by gweihir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When they saw how many people have irrational fear of driverless vehicles.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re: Probably inspired by PsyOps by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Now being in the car, subject to whatever the computer (or hacker or bugs) want to do, with zero input into the situation, a complete loss of control on the part of the subject human - a bit scary to most people who are not fanboys.

      Are you equally terrified of being in an aircraft, giving up all control to the pilots? Or being a passenger in a car and giving over all control to the driver?

      If not, then what I said still applies. If yes then you're a control freak, but at least you're consistent.

  2. Behind? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "'Leader-Follower' technology will enable convoys of autonomous vehicles to follow behind one driven by a human, It's a direct response to the improvised explosive devices that caused nearly half the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan."

    Umm...wouldn't it be smarter if the unmanned vehicles were in front of the one driven by a human? I mean, they'll hit the IED first...

    1. Re:Behind? by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

      Why can't someone in one of the following vehicles be remotely driving the front one? This would at least force an attacker to make a lucky guess where the human is, and that human can also take over control of one of the other vehicles (even if it's just the one they're in) to peel the surviving convoy members away.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    2. Re:Behind? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      Cost savings.

      The lead vehicle can be a mine proof MRAP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP). Comfortably seat your squishy fragile humans and then follow along behind a convoy of retrofitted Semi trucks. It's a lot easier to retrofit a semi tractor for semi-autonomy than bomb-proof it. And you need fewer drivers.

    3. Re:Behind? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      That would need some sort of driver deep in an immersive simulation of the road as seen from the very front of the convoy.
      They would have to get every turn.
      Waiting for the recovery of the first and following vehicles after a wrong turn is going to be a long wait while at war.
      Spare a drone in the area for hours? A helicopter to stay flying around and around for hours?

      Open the safe and read Plan R.
      Circle the remaining working robot trucks and wait.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Behind? by dwillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you would rather we just pretend that the odds are very good that we'll have to send troops into other countries where some portion of the population doesn't want us?

      We weren't in Somalia to take over or conquer anything, we were there with the UN trying to protect food deliveries to the famine stricken country. But because we and the other UN peacekeepers were protecting the food from the warlords who wanted to take and hoard it all, we and the Other UN forces became targets.

      We participate in peacekeeping and emergency response actions around the world. There is always someone who wants to disrupt such. We must be able to transport supplies (ours and relief) in quantity and safety.

      None of that requires us to have invaded anywhere. And yes there is the possibility that we may have to act against another country. And we would be foolish to not look to be able to operate in hostile terrain. Both on our own and at the request of the rest of the world that claims to be offended that we can project force, but can't dial fast enough when they realize they need a capable military force.

      We tried to disengage and let the world handle thing in the early 90's. That resulted in the Genocide of the Balkan wars that happened right in front of the watching eyes of the gutless UN. So then Europe cried to the US for help and we did the job, yet again.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    5. Re:Behind? by dwillden · · Score: 2

      Behind the lines? Wake up, it's the 21st century. The age of asymmetric warfare. There are no lines. Take Afghanistan for example. The nations is ostensibly controlled, but our troops require supplies brought in over the road from Pakistan. That's several hundred miles of road it has to cover to the main base at Baghram and even further down to Kandahar. Those convoys cross no "lines" but can be hit at any point along the route by small groups of Taliban.

      Or Iraq once the Iraqi Military was defeated and Hussein was defeated, supplies had to come up from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the Iraqi port of Basra, again through hundreds of miles with no lines, but plenty of insurgents who loved to strike convoys.

      Or how about when there are still lines, and a wrong turn took Pvt Jessica Lynch's convoy across the very flexible and rapidly changing lines.

      And all it takes to take on a "protected convoy" is a few pounds of Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer, a little diesel fuel and a blasting cap. Cheap, widely available and easy to do.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    6. Re:Behind? by skam240 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well said.

      I'm no militarist or hawk and I certainly don't think for a moment that America's military record is all things pristine and pure but it's incredibly foolish to have such a narrow view of the US military or its needs for modernization as the parent you responded to made.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    7. Re:Behind? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      How else are we going to get global governance? As it stands now, the USA is the only power capable of crushing all the dissenters and disrupters of the rules based liberal world order. They've got to do the job because nobody else can. Yes this means running convoys through populations that are being subjugated in their own best interests. How else can liberal governments be installed, like what happened in Iraq?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  3. Article checks out by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    Warren Michigan is pretty close to Detroit. If they can test/drive them in Detroit, most middle eastern countries should be a cake walk.

  4. Re:Cool... by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    That could be a real Blue Screen of DEATH

  5. Great idea! by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Just get the one with the driver in it, Achmed. The rest will stop and wait for us to unload them."

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    1. Re:Great idea! by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Just get the one with the driver in it, Achmed. The rest will stop and wait for us to unload them."

      The lead vehicle will be an armored MRAP which doesn't bother hauling cargo, just lots of protection for the driver and response fire team. Oh, and a turret-mounted heavy machine gun or light autocannon.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. Re:An even bigger target by dwillden · · Score: 2

    Yep, they don't even have to disable that lead vehicle, Disable the first follow vehicle and hit the lead with enough firepower to make the human occupants decide to flee and you've just given the opposition a supply train full of supplies, most likely including fuel, ammo, some weapons and food. And they can just do the same thing the next day and the next. Make "the bad lands" dangerous enough and they don't even need the entire convoy, just pick off the last 2/3 and make sure the guide vehicle driver knows it's too dangerous to stop.

    A great system for resupplying the enemy is what this is.

    And no matter how you design the lead vehicle it can still be taken out. MRAP's are great but they still get blown up. They are more survivable when that happens but blowing off the front axel still disables the vehicle, and only takes a little anfo. Tanks are tough against other tanks and combat vehicles, they are like tin cans for an IED, you only need enough blast to break the tracks and it's immobilized. Any convoy in hostile terrain needs a sizeable combat component mixed in along the entire length. It should be well armed and obvious. That is a deterrent that gets the supplies through reliably.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  7. Uber by Daralantan · · Score: 2

    Nice, they found a use for Uber's deadly driverless technology. From failure to innovation!

  8. Re:An even bigger target by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

    How is your fear any different than today?

    Shoot the lead vehicle in the 100% human-driven convoy, and the convoy stops - there's a burning truck now blocking the road. Btw, you also shoot the last vehicle so there's a burning truck blocking that end of the road too.

    It's not like the human-driven convoy has a battalion of heavily armed soldiers with it.

    Also, if there aren't any friendly humans left there - for example, the attackers follow your "make the first vehicle flee" plan - then it's nice and safe for an airstrike or artillery to obliterate the convoy and the attackers attempting to loot it.