| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Angst Over Arming Robots |
| 2006-06-21 |
| June 21, 2006: Once American infantry got their hands on reliable, and portable, UGVs (unmanned ground vehicles), they did two things. First, they used their small robots as much as possible, especially for dangerous jobs like checking for roadside bombs, or bad guys lurking inside buildings or caves. The second thing the troops did was ask the UGV manufacturer to put weapons on the robots. So far, the Department of Defense has backed away from proposals to arm these MTRS (Man Transportable Robotic System), because of safety concerns. It's not that the armed robots would just be turned on, and turned lose. They would be controlled by their human operator, but there is a reluctance to having the troops equipped with an armed robot. Such systems are more prone to friendly fire incidents. But the troops want them, and the manufacturers of the robots, are spending their own money to develop armed versions of its UGVs. One of these armed robots is the PakBot, made by iRobot. There are several models of Packbot, but the most popular job for these remote controlled vehicles (that look like a miniature tank, with an extendable arm where the turret should be) is checking out possible roadside bombs, or booby traps, or the insides of caves or buildings believed to hold hostile gunmen. For over a decade, there have been larger (over a hundred pounds) remote control vehicles like this for bomb squads. But better designs, and smaller electronics, have made the man-portable (under 50 pounds) units possible. Two years ago, there were several different MTRS systems in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the iRobot equipment has emerged as the most popular, and most effective. This means troops no longer have to get close to possible bombs, and risk getting blown up when nearby terrorists detonate the device. But for combat use, PackBot has limitations. Human troops can move a lot faster, and speed is often more important than having an expendable trooper (the robot) in the lead. Armed with a weapon, say a shotgun for opening a locked door, the robot would be more useful. An armed robot would also be more effective when taking the lead in many urban combat situations. Currently, troops continue to find new uses for the unarmed version, like spotting snipers, standing guard and carrying remotely controlled explosives to targets covered by enemy fire. But to be really useful, the troops want armed droids. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #19 Now, how does Robby determine the cold ones ? He will see in the infrared. Cold beers are black. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-06-21 21:34 |
| #18 NGuard hits most of the reasons why you have not yet seen armed UGV's fielded to date. The bulk of the time is the testing and safety analysis that has to be done to minimize the number of issues to be discovered in the field. No one wants to see these things screw up as this is the real future direction for the services. The guy who wrote the article is off base on some aspects. First off, the Packbot has no real weapon capability at this time. It is too small. There are limits on how small you can go given that the robot has to carry the M-240 or M-249 and planty of cameras for effective situational awareness. The weaponized TALON, referred to with the acronym SWORDS, is about as small as you can get. It is also the only deployment-ready system out there. There is no armed UGV using the Packbot. The sentry characterization for the TALON is also BS. The real mission is armed recon. Send the unit out to draw fire with the ability to respond as the enemy moves from cover. The deployment is getting close, IMO. There is a definite desire for these remote systems (remote is the correct characterization). They should prove to be extremely effective. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2006-06-21 16:04 |
| #17 Once we get the robot to pull a pin on a grenade, he can get the beer. Now, how does Robby determine the cold ones ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-06-21 15:53 |
| #16 Less than lethal? On a killbot? Puh-leese. You are overlooking one minor detail-- The ID10Ts up in the Echalons Above Reality are if anything less enthusiastic about less than lethal weapons than the killbotz. This is because if the Less than Lethal weapon actualy kills someone, well, feeding frenzy by the traitor antiwar crowd just barely begins to cover it. We have enough trouble with ginned up outrage over weapons like WP, ICM, CBUs, etc. as it stands. IIRC Strategypage.com has had an article or two recently about this phenomena. Combining the two, killbotz and LtL weaps. = total procurement constipation. Sorry if I seem such a doom sayer, but articles like this just push a lot of my buttons. I truly despise moral cowardice by my nominal superiors. |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-06-21 15:47 |
| #15 Two possible solutions are to arm the robot with less-than-lethal weapons, and to mostly use the robot to draw fire. One of the big problems with LTL weapons is delivering them. It's hard to get close enough to someone with a lethal weapon to use a LTL weapon on them. Enter the "pester-bot". As an example, with almost all your emphasis on a robot that can move quickly through rubble. Once that is done, equip the robot with a high-pressure cannister of CS gas. As soon as it sees the bad guyz, or anyone ahead of its departure line, it gives them a big whoosh of tear gas. For their part, the bad guyz light up the robot big time, revealing their positions, with their movement making them even more attractive targets for another woosh from the robot. In other words, frustrating as hell for them, and that is the "philosophy" of the design. To piss them off. Spotting them through protected eyepieces also reveals the bad guyz position back to the friendly side. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-06-21 15:18 |
| #14 Can't all these problems be discovered and ironed out at Fort Irwin? No. Try as we will, there is no substitute for actual deployment in the field. A training environemt will inevitably restrict operations. Especialy if the operations involve shooty type activitys. Either for safety or cost considerations. Such is the price we pay for peacetime garrison thinking. |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-06-21 13:58 |
| #13 It's not that the armed robots would just be turned on, and turned lose. They would be controlled by their human operator... That means they're not robots. "Drones", "remotes", or "waldoes" would be more appropriate, though not nearly as sexy. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-06-21 13:11 |
| #12 Can't all these problems be discovered and ironed out at Fort Irwin? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-06-21 12:57 |
| #11 1.A bad case of Not Invented Here, the here being the higher echelons of the procurement shop. ROTS = Robots Off the Shelf! Circumvent the standard Army 29 year acquisition process....? Lets DO IT! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-06-21 12:40 |
| #10 What is the DoD problem? How is it different from a Predator armed with a Hellfire? Several reasons: 1.A bad case of Not Invented Here, the here being the higher echelons of the procurement shop. The echalons above reality hate it when the junior enlisted 2. It will be a cheap system. Not enough $$ to interest the pork meisters on the hill. But it will have to be paid for, and the money will have to come out of someone's budget. 3. It is not directly controlled by a company or field grade officer, like preadator. 4. It gets too close to the cultural nightmare of "killbotz" that the press will have a field day with if an "incident" occurs. 5. Its new. The military is innately sceptical of all new technologys on the battlefield, and rightly so. I, and some of the other vets around here could tell you about some of the ideas we've seen come and go that did not work out in the real world... 6. Lastly, there are genuine safety and proceedural issues involved with a remote controlled weapons system. While I'm glossing over them, they are not trivial. I was in IZ when we started fielding the CROWS remote turrets on up-armors. A good system, but we did have to solve some unforseen problems, and address a safety issue or two. I suspect the same or similar problems will appear with the killbotz. No, I'm not going to say exactly what these problems were, in case hajji is reading this. I want hajji to find out the hard way. preferably with lots of hajji casualties. |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-06-21 12:37 |
| #9 Cool, phil_b, thanks! |
| Posted by: Omirong Snumble8439 2006-06-21 12:24 |
| #8 It's not that the armed robots would just be turned on, and turned lose. They would be controlled by their human operator, but there is a reluctance to having the troops equipped with an armed robot. Same f*****n attitude that had Marines at the Beruit barrackes without rounds in the chambers. Oh, my, someone may actually pull a trigger. No, no, no, can't have that. But the troops want them Ever hear of field expedient? Troops are very creative. If you don't do it, they will. "She'll make point five past lightspeed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself." Wonder if they've stuck a claymore on the front plate so when it turns a corner and see Hadji armed for trouble, Hadji get a present. |
| Posted by: Cheagum Cleatch4688 2006-06-21 12:18 |
| #7 I have a novel about armed autonomous robots that explores these issues. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-06-21 12:16 |
| #6 You have nought seconds to comply. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2006-06-21 12:03 |
| #5 Guns don't kill people, robots kill people. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-06-21 11:28 |
| #4 I, for one, welcome the arrival of our new robot point man. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-06-21 10:50 |
| #3 Remote control toy trucks loaded with a frag grenade should be standard gear, esp. for clearing houses. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-06-21 10:01 |
| #2 Good soldiers these bots. I've not hear a single report of one not turning up for duty using oft heard refrain..... "my p***y hurts!" |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-06-21 09:51 |
| #1 What is the DoD problem? How is it different from a Predator armed with a Hellfire? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-06-21 09:48 |