Watch Out Iraq - Here Comes Robosoldier.

[Dan T.]

Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq

By MICHAEL P. REGAN, AP Business Writer

ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J. - The rain is turning to snow on a blustery January morning, and all the men gathered in a parking lot here surely would prefer to be inside. But the weather couldn't matter less to the robotic sharpshooter they are here to watch as it splashes through puddles, the barrel of its machine gun pointing the way like Pinocchio's nose. The Army is preparing to send 18 of these remote-controlled robotic warriors to fight in Iraq beginning in March or April.

Made by a small Massachusetts company, the SWORDS, short for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, will be the first armed robotic vehicles to see combat, years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp.

It's easy to humanize the SWORDS (a tendency robotics researchers say is only human) as it moves out of the flashy lobby of an office building and into the cold with nary a shiver.

Military officials like to compare the roughly three-foot-high robots favorably to human soldiers: They don't need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle.

But officials are quick to point out that these are not the autonomous killer robots of science fiction. A SWORDS robot shoots only when its human operator presses a button after identifying a target on video shot by the robot's cameras.

"The only difference is that his weapon is not at his shoulder, it's up to half a mile a way," said Bob Quinn, general manager of Talon robots for Foster-Miller Inc., the Waltham, Mass., company that makes the SWORDS. As one Marine fresh out of boot camp told Quinn upon seeing the robot: "This is my invisibility cloak."

Quinn said it was a "bootstrap development process" to convert a Talon robot, which has been in military service since 2000, from its main mission — defusing roadside bombs in Iraq_ into the gunslinging SWORDS.

It was a joint development process between the Army and Foster-Miller, a robotics firm bought in November by QinetiQ Group PLC, which is a partnership between the British Ministry of Defence and the Washington holding company The Carlyle Group.

Army officials and employees of the robotics firm heard from soldiers "who said 'My brothers are being killed out here. We love the EOD (explosive ordnance disposal), but let's put some weapons on it,'" said Quinn.

Working with soldiers and engineers at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, it took just six months and only about $2 million in development money to outfit a Talon with weapons, according to Quinn and Anthony Sebasto, a technology manager at Picatinny.

The Talon had already proven itself to be pretty rugged. One was blown off the roof of a Humvee and into a nearby river by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Soldiers simply opened its shrapnel-pocked control unit and drove the robot out of the river, according to Quinn.

The $200,000, armed version will carry standard-issue Squad Automatic Weapons, either the M249, which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at a rate of 750 per minute, or the M240, which can fire about 700 to 1,000 7.62-millimeter rounds per minute. The SWORDS can fire about 300 rounds using the M240 and about 350 rounds using the M249 before needing to reload.

All its optics equipment — the four cameras, night vision and zoom lenses — were already in the Army's inventory.

"It's important to stress that not everything has to be super high tech," said Sebasto. "You can integrate existing componentry and create a revolutionary capability."

The SWORDS in the parking lot at the headquarters of the cable news station CNBC had just finished showing off for the cameras, climbing stairs, scooting between cubicles, even broadcasting some of its video on the air.

Its developers say its tracks, like those on a tank, can overcome rock piles and barbed wire, though it needs a ride to travel faster than 4 mph.

Running on lithium ion batteries, it can operate for 1 to 4 hours at a time, depending on the mission. Operators work the robot using a 30-pound control unit which has two joysticks, a handful of buttons and a video screen. Quinn says that may eventually be replaced by a "Gameboy" type of controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles.

The Army has been testing it over the past year at Picatinny and the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland to ensure it won't malfunction and can stand up to radio jammers and other countermeasures. (Sebasto wouldn't comment on what happens if the robot and its controller fall into enemy hands.)

Its developers say the SWORDS not only allows its operators to fire at enemies without exposing themselves to return fire, but also can make them more accurate.

A typical soldier who could hit a target the size of a basketball from 300 meters away could hit a target the size of a nickel with the SWORDS, according Quinn.

The better accuracy stems largely from the fact that its gun is mounted on a stable platform and fired electronically, rather than by a soldier's hands, according to Staff Sgt. Santiago Tordillos of the EOD Technology Directorate at Picatinny. Gone are such issues as trigger recoil, anticipation problems, and pausing the breathing cycle while aiming a weapon.

"It eliminates the majority of shooting errors you would have," said Tordillos.

Chances are good the SWORDS will get even more deadly in the future. It has been tested with the larger .50 caliber machine guns as well as rocket and grenade launchers — even an experimental weapon made by the Australian company Metal Storm LLC that packs multiple rocket rounds into a single barrel, allowing for much more rapid firing.

"We've fired 70 shots at Picatinny and we were 70 for 70 hitting the bull's-eye," said Sebasto, boasting of the arsenal's success with a Vietnam-era rocket launcher mounted on a SWORDS.

There are bound to be many eyes watching SWORDS as it heads to battle. Its tracks will one day be followed by the larger vehicles of the Future Combat System, such as six-wheel-drive MULE under development by Lockheed Martin, a 2.5-ton vehicle with motors in each wheel hub to make it more likely to survive.

The Pentagon (news - web sites)'s research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also recently awarded contracts to aid research of robots that one day could be dropped into combat from airplanes and others meant to scale walls using electrostatic energy — also known as "static cling."

Many of the vehicles being developed for the FCS will have some autonomy, meaning they'll navigate rough terrain, avoid obstacles and make decisions about certain tasks on their own.

They may be able to offer cues to their operators when potential foes are near, but it's doubtful any of them will ever be allowed to make the decision to pull the trigger, according to Jim Lowrie, president of Perceptek Inc., a Littleton, Colo., firm that is developing robotics systems for the military.

"For the foreseeable future, there always will be a person in the loop who makes the decision on friend or foe. That's a hard problem to determine autonomously," said Lowrie.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050122/ap_on_hi_te/gunslinging_robot

[afparent]

i liked to see a demonstration

[Dan T.]

Originally posted by afparent

i liked to see a demonstration

The link has a photo, but no video I could find. . .

[Baculus]

Oddly enough, I was thinking about the viability of robotic soldiers in an environment such as Iraq. It would be a nice concept if we could load up a remote-controlled armed APC for patrol purposes and such. So many troops in Iraq are being injured by roadside bombs, so it'd be nice if there was some way to be able to patrol while reducing risk to the soldiers.

[jpillian]

"Johnny 5 is ALIVE!"

[Tarhog]

This is a lot of nonsense.

Honestly guys, let me give you the scenario. Robo-grunt is deployed a mile away. I spot the bad guys. Breathe-relax-aim-squeeze-

And waaalah! The Squad Automatic Weapon, mounted on a highly accurate stable robotic platform, does what it typically does....every damn day of the year.

It jams.

Hmmm.

Okay rocket scientists. Anyone think they've added a robotic, let-me-unjam-my-fallible-mechanical-squad-automatic-weapon arm?

Didn't think so.

Stuff like this always cracks me up. Don't get me wrong. Technology is an amazing thing. And the advances that've been spawned by the never ending drive to find ever new and creative ways to help our enemies on their quest to meet Allah (or whomever else our particular enemy at any given time worships) can be dazzling at times. I could see this kind of technology being used, say, in a long-distance sniper role. But the bottom line is that we will never take the ground-pounder out of the picture as the ultimate arbiter of violence.

And I'd never want us to.

War is ugly. And it ought to be. On both ends of the fight. The day we start fighting wars on the ground like they are challenging video games, without being accountable for the taking of human lives? Well, thats the day I want nothing to do with it. Some things are worth fighting for. Thing is, if thats true, we ought to have to do the fighting.

[jpillian]

Tarhog, you're right on target in your thinking, as always.

Though, I would imagine putting on some sort of device that actually can charge the weapon would fix 95% of the jams you'd have. At least that's been my experience with the 240.

And I don't know if I agree with the anti-technology warrior ethos drumbeat you've got going -- though I can definitely identify with it. In most cases, the more simpler, the more better!!

On the other hand, "soldier"-testing of new fielding initiatives seem to be pretty good these days. All of the new gadgets and gizmos that were introduced to us in the Army's "Digital Division" (4ID) prior to going to war, turned out to be pretty damn nifty. Digital maps linked to GPS; laser range finders linked into that so you could call 10-digit fire missions to whatever you were aiming at -- and the list goes on and on.

I for one am pumped up by some of these "toys" -- have you read up on the Army's FCS and some of the technologies they are developing for that? Very, very cool stuff. Globalsecurity.org has a decent summary on it here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs.htm

It all comes down to our soldiers gaining dominance over the ground fight through better situational awareness, lethality, and survivability (yadda, yadda) than the bad guys have got. The fly boys have had this for quite sometime. It's time for us ground pounders to get in on the "smart weapons" where and when we can.

[Baculus]

Well, plus, I figured any enemy, after one or two encounters with "robo soldier" or any sort of automated mechanized device would figure out a way to ambush and attack the device. Similiar to the Germans response to the early British tanks after the first response of terror wore off. Yeah, it is a great idea, but as Tarhog said, probably not viable.

Plus, I'd be worried about friendly fire as well if you cannot see the target well enough, in addition to the increased chance of collateral damage.

[Tarhog]

I probably sound more anti-technology than I am. When we fought the first Gulf War, my guys benefitted from some cutting edge stuff. Had it not been for the first primitive GPS devices, it would've been damn near impossible to locate positions....the traditional terrain features aren't plentiful there, believe me. We also had night laser sights and NV goggles which, in a night assault or defense, would've given us an overwhelming edge. I think advances in communications are also impacting the grunts lifestyle...hell, even email - I got to talk to my loved ones maybe twice in 9 months of Desert Shield/Storm - email would have been a huge morale booster.

Anyway, I hear ya, and I know we've already moved in the direction of 'joystick warfare' with some of our air capabilities, cruise missile technology, and even armor assets (hell, the standoff kill distance of an Abrams is almost UNFAIR to the enemy). But I'd never want combat to be antiseptic. Because then we lose sight of how ugly it is. It may be necessary at times, but we should never lose sight of the death and destruction we're inflicting, even if its on those that deserve it and would inflict it on us if they could.

[DieselPwr44]

" You lose insurgents..."

[Baculus]

I personally LOVE the idea of armored jumpsuits, ala Starship Troopers, but that probably isn't realistic for now. I've also always wondered why the limbs aren't protected more, especially with the nature of the roadside bombs and such and, statistically, the chance that a limb will be injured. But I assume it is due to the limitations of body armor technology, the weight and bulkiness of the armor, and the sheer cost of armoring 3/4 of a soldier's body. (I suspect the weight and movement factor would play a huge role in this.)

[Mickalino]

Originally posted by Tarhog

The day we start fighting wars on the ground like they are challenging video games, without being accountable for the taking of human lives? ....... But I'd never want combat to be antiseptic. Because then we lose sight of how ugly it is. It may be necessary at times, but we should never lose sight of the death and destruction we're inflicting, even if its on those that deserve it and would inflict it on us if they could.

In general, I would agree. But this war on terror is an exception. We are dealing with animals who are lower than life. Sick Lunatics. Suicide bombers. Guerrillas. Fanatics, who don't give a squat about the humane rules of war. I have NO problem being antiseptic on these scumbags, if it saves the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians and guardsmen, and revered U.S soldiers, who would have been otherwise killed by some sick militant, posing as an ambulance driver, with a bomb in the back.

[The Sisko]

Interesting take on the SAW Tarhog. The army was just starting to integrate these when I made my exit....yeah, I've just dated myself. What do you think of the 7.62 version of the SAW or did you get a chance to use it ? I was an M60 gunner and was wondering how the SAW compares to old trusty??

[Baculus]

In general, I would agree. But this war on terror is an exception. We are dealing with animals who are lower than life. Sick Lunatics. Suicide bombers. Guerrillas. Fanatics, who don't give a squat about the humane rules of war. I have NO problem being antiseptic on these scumbags, if it saves the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians and guardsmen, and revered U.S soldiers, who would have been otherwise killed by some sick militant, posing as an ambulance driver, with a bomb in the back.

You have to realize that, if you start being "antiseptic," you will most assuredly kill or injure more of the folks that you are trying to protect. Then we are just as bad as the "bad guys."

[DeaconBlue]

I think some of you are missing one quite obvious advantage. Iraqi bomb destroys two military robots does not carry nearly the same effect as iraqi bomb kills 10 american soldiers.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by Yusuf06

Interesting take on the SAW Tarhog. The army was just starting to integrate these when I made my exit....yeah, I've just dated myself. What do you think of the 7.62 version of the SAW or did you get a chance to use it ? I was an M60 gunner and was wondering how the SAW compares to old trusty??

I'm in the same boat you are, never saw the 7.62mm version. When I got out, we'd recently gotten the SMAW (did you get a chance to see it - cool weapon, bunker busting rocket, you'd zero in with small arms tracers then fire the big boy - very effective), and we'd the AT-4 and ditched the LAAW for a couple of years. We were still using grease pencils and boards to adjust mortars. I'm sure now its all computerized.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by Mickalino

In general, I would agree. But this war on terror is an exception. We are dealing with animals who are lower than life. Sick Lunatics. Suicide bombers. Guerrillas. Fanatics, who don't give a squat about the humane rules of war. I have NO problem being antiseptic on these scumbags, if it saves the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians and guardsmen, and revered U.S soldiers, who would have been otherwise killed by some sick militant, posing as an ambulance driver, with a bomb in the back.

Originally posted by DeaconBlue

I think some of you are missing one quite obvious advantage. Iraqi bomb destroys two military robots does not carry nearly the same effect as iraqi bomb kills 10 american soldiers.

I won't deny I have some similar sentiments in this kind of war Mick and thats a valid point. And DeaconBlue, you are right of course, and anything we can do that saves American lives is good. However, only if we can still accomplish the mission. Robots of any kind, in their current form, are going to be applicable and beneficial in only a very limited way. I'd argue that for the foreseeable future, you are going to need boots on the ground to do the dirty work.

Theres a danger in the creeping belief that we can fight wars without risk, without casualties. Its already beginning to seep into our culture. You have to ask yourself, were we faced with a WWII like decision, knowing the tremendous casualties we'd have to be prepared to incur, would the US public have the stomach to stand up to a REAL adversary, such as China, if it became necessary.

I'm not saying a reluctance to commit forces and placing a higher value on our soldiers lives is a bad thing. I'm not pining for a return to a 'get on line Marines and rush into the defender's machine gun positions' mentality. Theres a revolution thats been going on in both the Army and the Marine Corps to avoid just that kind of stupidity. The military, above all others, has an incentive to fight wisely and use force as effectively as possible. They WANT to survive. I just think theres a line you risk crossing where you allow the promise of technology to rob you of the very aggressiveness and willingness to sacrifice that is sometimes the most crucial aspect of winning an engagement.

[du7st]

If WWIII broke out tomorrow, I bet we could build amazing robots that could rival things seen in movies. I don't think we are there yet simply because there is not a critical level of urgency. During WWII, both sides came up with incredible new technology because the other side was doing the same. So let's hope its a long time until we see terminators fighting our wars.

[Dan T.]

As important as creating the technology is developing the right strategy for when and how to use it.