ive got an idea for the military

why doesnt the military design a treaded robot with guns (terminator 3 style) that is controlled by a video game controller? i thought of this while virtually killing a freind of mine on a first person shooter game. i know the movie "toys" used this premise but seriously, there would be no casualties (to whatever country owned them anyway) and there is a crapload of kids these days that could take out a whole brigade of soldiers without flinching if this idea was put into service.

There are problems with taking the human element out of the picture. You need people there able to fix any problems that might come up (engine problems, a jam in the gun etc).

It will come I's sure, just not in the near term

They are comming denseuno its only a matter of time but we are seeing the first steps now. We already have packbot which can be armed with a 40mm grenade launcher or a shotgun. Then we have FCS SUGV comming which is packbots new little brother

FCS SUGV


There is also Fire ANT which is a anti-tank robot. R-Gator a multi role ground robot acting as unmanned scout, "point man," perimeter guard, pack/ammo/supply carrier and more. which will enter production in 2005.

Theres another UGV called MULE that looks very good. So they are comming dont know if we will get anything as cool as the T-1s in Terminator 3 though.


irobot.com...

I saw a film like that once, cant remember what it was called but kids on video games were actually using high tech remote control weaponary!!!

A robot war would not be an effective type of war. Robots are replaceable and can be constantly re-deployed for a somewhat never ending fight. With people, as bad as it is, the more that die, the sooner the war ends. People are not replaceable at a point.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
They are comming denseuno its only a matter of time but we are seeing the first steps now. We already have packbot which can be armed with a 40mm grenade launcher or a shotgun. Then we have FCS SUGV comming which is packbots new little brother

FCS SUGV

There is also Fire ANT which is a anti-tank robot. R-Gator a multi role ground robot acting as unmanned scout, "point man," perimeter guard, pack/ammo/supply carrier and more. which will enter production in 2005.

Theres another UGV called MULE that looks very good. So they are comming dont know if we will get anything as cool as the T-1s in Terminator 3 though.


irobot.com...

that is cool
thanks for the info

Originally posted by Zanzibar
I saw a film like that once, cant remember what it was called but kids on video games were actually using high tech remote control weaponary!!!

the movie is toys.
thats what i said in my first post.

Well, first let me say that I don't think robots are ready to fill the shoes of a human. Humans at present are more agile, more versatile, more cost effective, and faster learners. Humans who drink less than 1/5th of vodka a day also have fewer technical problems than machines.

One very useful and immediately possible robot in my opinion would simply be a man portable rotor-blade driven UAV to serve as a scout and artillery observer. It would be nice if it could accept the M-249 saw to be used as a base of fire for squad manuevering.

If I were going to design a T-1, I'd want it to be about man-sized for transport in helicopters or IFVs. It should be able to fire unmodified heavy weapons such as the M2 and Mk19 HMGs. It should be well armored, preferably with carbon fiber. It should have audio and visual recognition and tracking abilities that enable it to count and track the enemy in the engagement area as well as assess their armament.
I'd want a weapon like this to accompany small units carrying out high-risk MOUT (Military Operations on Urban Terrain) assignments.

Originally posted by denseuno

Originally posted by Zanzibar
I saw a film like that once, cant remember what it was called but kids on video games were actually using high tech remote control weaponary!!!

the movie is toys.
thats what i said in my first post.

There was another movie too. Can't remember the name...something like "WarGames". Same premise though...kids controlling weapons through video games.

that is a very good idea, but it would be better to send 100 people into a battle zone rather than 100 robots, The main reason I think this is , an EM weapon (which exist and are being tested for use within the next 20 years.) could take out all the robots where as it would most likely not effect a human with a primitive projectile weapon such as a gun./

There was another movie too. Can't remember the name...something like "WarGames". Same premise though...kids controlling weapons through video games.

I'm not sure about the movie... but I know they did it to an extent in the book Ender's Game. Yes, he did control ships with REAL people, but it was all remote-controlled to an extent.

Originally posted by iori_komei
that is a very good idea, but it would be better to send 100 people into a battle zone rather than 100 robots, The main reason I think this is , an EM weapon (which exist and are being tested for use within the next 20 years.) could take out all the robots where as it would most likely not effect a human with a primitive projectile weapon such as a gun./

hmm, would there be any concivable way to "insulate" a machine from an emp wave?

Originally posted by denseuno


hmm, would there be any concivable way to "insulate" a machine from an emp wave?

Yes there is ways to shield something from a EMP really any dense substance can shield something from a EMP lead,steel, concrete etc.. Most vital systems in the military are shielded from EMPs. I think they use steel plates in places like NORAD.

But I really depends on the level of the EMP for just how much protection you would need, could be a few millimeters could be a few feet.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by denseuno


hmm, would there be any concivable way to "insulate" a machine from an emp wave?

Yes there is ways to shield something from a EMP really any dense substance can shield something from a EMP lead,steel, concrete etc.. Most vital systems in the military are shielded from EMPs. I think they use steel plates in places like NORAD.

But I really depends on the level of the EMP for just how much protection you would need, could be a few millimeters could be a few feet.

right on, thanks for the answer, i wouldent of thought that dense metal would insulate from an emp. then again, my thoughts on it were purely from fictionized(

Some movies get it wrong though so you have to watch out I remember in the Movie Broken Arrow they were hit with a EMP and they turned of there electronics and cars to prevent them from getting damaged but this was not really correct. Even if electronics are turned off the can be damaged from a EMP if they are not shielded. Though they are less likely to be damaged when turned off they are not totally safe.

There are also other ways to "hardened'' equipment from EMPs, things like surge protectors, wire termination procedures, screened isolated transformers, protective enclosures, spark gaps, and filters

well, you have taught me a thing or two! i guess i cant always belive what i see in movies.......or maybe i can and stay ignorant.

remember the emp in goldeneye? that was cool. just thought i would add that.

Originally posted by denseuno
remember the emp in goldeneye? that was cool. just thought i would add that.

Yeah that was a cool movie ,wasnt there a prototype helicopter in that movie that was hardened against EMPs?

oh yeah, thats why wasnt affected, i forgot.

There's always the risk of jamming of the used command delivery media (radio for example), in which case human operator would no longer be able to control the robot. This is not a problem when you're hunting a taliban who hasn't even seen a telephone in his life.

Once you add autonomy to the robot so that it doesn't require human operator, different problems arise. Acoustic torpedos and a heat guided missiles are basically autonomous robots that receive feedback from their own sensors and make logical decisions accordingly. But they get destroyed in the process and there's no significant risk they get captured and become programmed to act against you. If the robot has no hard coded sense of why it exists, and continues functional existence doing a killing task at a time, it may after malfunction or sabotage do something completely unexpected or even turn against the previous owner. There are of course more and less reliable methods if one wishes to prevent this, but nothing absolutely certain.

Something halfway between autonomous and controlled would likely work best. But as long as satellite sensors get installed backwards in the world's most advanced space program, I don't think I want to see what would result from a shot to create robotic army.