# Stryker:  Robot style



## Gunnar (30 Jan 2004)

Check this out:   

 http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/01/30.html 

I like the picture.   Makes me think of the Terminator War of the Machines.   Wonder if ours will be interoperable?


More Robots for the Army
The Stryker is an 18-ton infantry vehicle, already deployed by the U.S. army in places such as Iraq. Right now, it has human drivers. But that will no longer be the case by 2010, when it will be driven by a robot, tells us the Washington Post in "Stryker, Army's Robot for No Man's Land" (fast and free registration for first-time visitors).

The Stryker, one of the U.S. Army's newest infantry vehicles, is fitted with a "ladar" scanner, the equivalent of a mounted pair of eyes that see by emitting 400,000 laser and radar beams and snap 120 camera images every second. Its brain -- a 40-pound computer system tucked inside its body -- processes that data, and makes instant judgments on how to act and where to go.
The eight-wheeled Stryker has already seen service in Iraq as an armored troop carrier with human drivers. The idea is to teach Stryker to accomplish a mission on its own, as a robot. By 2010, robotic Strykers and similar contrivances are slated to be in use as all-purpose battlefield vehicles, surveying battlegrounds, sniffing for land mines, or transporting supplies and troops to the front line.


These robots are developed by General Dynamics Robotic Systems, Inc. (GDRSI), which received $185 million last November to build between 30 and 60 automated-navigation prototypes to be used in all kinds of military vehicles.

And this money just represents a small tip of a very large iceberg.

Creating automated navigation systems for combat vehicles is part of the Future Combat System project to remake warfare. The Army plans to spend $14.78 billion on a new combat system over the next six years, of which autonomous navigation systems is one part, according to Maj. Gary Tallman, public affairs officer for the Army.
Still, these robots are not very smart and have a lot to learn, according to the manufacturer.

"Now, we have the basic functioning down, and we're trying to make it smarter at something, or better," said Chip DiBerardino, a senior engineer for General Dynamics who works on programming higher intellect into software.
One recent morning, DiBerardino tested a four-wheeled robot called MDARS (short for Mobile Detection Assessment and Response System), a robotic watchdog that patrols the Westminster lab's snow-covered backyard looking for "intruders." It drives several feet, eyes a parking sign and halts, apparently puzzled, until a human attendant reprograms MDARS to move


----------



## a_majoor (26 Nov 2004)

DARPA sponsored a contest where teams were to create robot vehicles (based on any chassis the team desired) to drive unassisted from California to Nevada, a distance of 210 miles. I don't think ANY of the participants got more than 10 miles before the vehicles were terminally confused and could not go any further. This technology has a very long way to go before we can consider using it.

The best use for a "first generation" system would be a "co driver" which could follow the lead vehicle in a convoy for administrative road moves, allowing most of the drivers some time to sleep.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Nov 2004)

I'm with you on this one a_majoor.  I can't see a robo-driver.  I could see a multi-spectral sensing system, designed to pick up things that bone-tired drivers and CCs don't or can't see.  An automatic stop and/or an audio-visual alarm or automatic deployment of non-lethal defence aids (smoke, chaff, lasers, ECMs) could all be good.  Manual over-ride of auto systems will always be a good thing.  Vehicle stopping to decide what to do about mines while enemy engages ambush with RPGs might not result in the best tactical situation for the 8 guys in the back.


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm with you on this one a_majoor. I can't see a robo-driver. I could see a multi-spectral sensing system, designed to pick up things that bone-tired drivers and CCs don't or can't see. An automatic stop and/or an audio-visual alarm or automatic deployment of non-lethal defence aids (smoke, chaff, lasers, ECMs) could all be good. Manual over-ride of auto systems will always be a good thing. Vehicle stopping to decide what to do about mines while enemy engages ambush with RPGs might not result in the best tactical situation for the 8 guys in the back.



A Stryker wouldn't be carying 8 guys in the back, now would it.  If these vehicles COULD be automated though, and also built with a remote-control option to allow operators in other vehicles to take over when neccesary, then the strykers wouldn't need a crew, which would save lives, increase the ammount of ammo they can carry, and allow them to be built with much more armour, making them close to indestructable.




			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> DARPA sponsored a contest where teams were to create robot vehicles (based on any chassis the team desired) to drive unassisted from California to Nevada, a distance of 210 miles. I don't think ANY of the participants got more than 10 miles before the vehicles were terminally confused and could not go any further. This technology has a very long way to go before we can consider using it.
> The best use for a "first generation" system would be a "co driver" which could follow the lead vehicle in a convoy for administrative road moves, allowing most of the drivers some time to sleep.



"Creating automated navigation systems for combat vehicles is part of the Future Combat System project to remake warfare. The Army plans to spend $14.78 billion on a new combat system over the next six years, of which autonomous navigation systems is one part, according to Maj. Gary Tallman, public affairs officer for the Army."

You'd be surprised what kind of innovation $15 billion can buy    Somehow I don't think the DARPA project spent even $15 million.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Nov 2004)

> A Stryker wouldn't be carying 8 guys in the back, now would it.  If these vehicles COULD be automated though, and also built with a remote-control option to allow operators in other vehicles to take over when neccesary, then the strykers wouldn't need a crew, which would save lives, increase the ammount of ammo they can carry, and allow them to be built with much more armour, making them close to indestructable.



I'm a bit confused.  The Stryker already carries 8 Guys in the back in the ISC and Eng versions.

Now if you are talking about the MGS variant of the Stryker that we are talking about for a Direct Fire Support Vehicle then I have to admit .... that does present some interesting thoughts.

Any comments Franko and Lance? How would you feel about riding around in the back of an APC directing 2 or 3 MGS (POS) remotely?

Cheers.


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Nov 2004)

Sorry for the confusion.  The first time I heard the term "Stryker" was when I read it in the Maple Leaf, and at the time they were using it to mean the MGS variant.  So now whenever I hear "Stryker" I automatically think of a LAV3 with a 105mm.  The eng and ISC versions are really just variants of a LAV3 aren't they?  I have to admit I'm a bit confused on that issue.  But anyway, no, I agree there'd be very little point to having any kind of automated driver in those variants.  Since they're meant to carry soldiers, you'd be placing their lives in more danger with no benefit.  An automated weapons platform though....especially if in addition to having it drive itself they could also develop an automated targeting program with the gunners in remote vehicles only providing confirmation on targets....that'd be something worth looking into eh?

Yes I know it's not exactly what this project is geared towards producing.  Right now they're just focusing on developing vehicles which can drive themselves.  That's fine, that's what scientists and engineers do; they create new technologies and improve existing ones.  Once that technology is at a level which is acceptable to the miltary, then it becomes the job of the soldiers to figure out how best to use it.


----------



## Big Foot (28 Nov 2004)

Damn, the Stryker is looking more and more kickin'  :skull:  :skull:


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2004)

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65885,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

More on robots.

The US are deploying armed versions of the little 6x6 bomb disposal crawlers to back up their Stryker equipped infantry units.  Also talking about robot ambulances.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=318

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_5.asp?Offset=3&sKeywords=&sConjuction=&sRadioButton=&sFromDate=&sToDate=
Scientists work on new generation of armoured vehicles 
VALCARTIER, Quebec - A group of scientists is working on what may become a new generation of Light Armoured Vehicles. (Video Story) 
Friday, October 29, 2004

And these links to related work being done by DRES on the LAVs


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2004)

You should fwd these links to the LAV and MMEV threads as well.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2004)

Good Point Maj.

Consider it done.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Aug 2005)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4102201

This is just an update.  I was scanning channels last night and crossed the Discovery Channel.  The image was of two Strykers moving in file cross country at about 30 km/h. This was followed by the Strykers moving down a road at about the same speed.  Further images of the Stryker launching a Javelin from a Remotely Operated Weapons System (mounted along with an HMG) and taking out a tank.

The Strykers had no drivers.  They apparently had no operators either. They were functioning completely autonomously.  

The system was designed and integrated by the people that put together the little Talon/Sword robots used by EOD squads and modified to carry weapons - an outfit called TARDEC.

The really curious point was that I thought I heard them say they anticipated fielding unmanned Strykers in Iraq for convoy duty within the next 18 months or so.

Fascinating and revolutionary as this is, and while I don't mind the idea of robot vehicles in a convoy taking point or just "heads down, tail up" following the vehicle in front - I think I draw the line at robots making shoot to kill decisions.  Presumably human operators would be associated with these convoys as well, either in the convoy or overhead and communicating....  regardless the world is becoming a fascinating place REEEAlly fast.

By the way the linked article contains the world's dumbest statement indicating the utterer just doesn't get the nature of the problem.  Quote: "Well before the end of the century, there will be no people on the battlefield," said Robert Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Management and Technology.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Aug 2005)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/follower.htm

Robotic Follower



> *The goal is to demonstrate an enhanced follower with the capability to maneuver on primary roads with a top speed of between 80kph and 100kph and off-road at speeds of up to 65kph.[/size]* The range of potential *vehicle separation will increase to between 5m and 10km*. Increased focus upon vehicle intelligence and software reliability.
> 
> The program is focused on a series of demonstrations that will successively increase the follower performance and improve the maturity of the software algorithms, soldier-machine interface, and sensor technology for transition to the FCS program. The first live RF experiment in 2Q* FY03 * will employ the Demo III+ XUV systems as well as the selected final platform, which is the infantry carrier that is a variant of the Interim Armor Vehicle (IAV) based on the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV III). *Two mission scenarios* will be demonstrated: (1) *convoying, which is defined by on-road, high speed, line-of-sight following in order to address the supply platoon mission,* and (2) *robotic MULE, which is defined by all terrain, low speed following of a dismounted soldier*. These two vignettes will demonstrate RF capability at a TRL 6. The second live experiment will take place in the *FY05-FY06* timeframe and will *demonstrate and evaluate high-speed, all terrain following with significant spatial and temporal separations.* A virtual development environment will be developed to enable algorithm tests and development, and to conduct modeling and simulation experiments focused on determining technology performance in varying terrain databases.
> 
> ...



Now about those manpower restrictions on Transport.  

Only question left.  How do infanteers feel about riding in vehicles with NO drivers?  ;D

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Aug 2005)

http://tardec.army.mil/news007.htm

Here's another one.

I seem to recally suggesting mounting a Talon or two on the back of a LAV pickup.  It seems it is already being done.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (26 Aug 2005)

I know this is waaaayyyy off, but has anyone seen the different types of potential replacements for the artillery SP guns? One of them is a LAV another looks like an HL type with a 105 mounted, anyways check out sfu.ca/casr if you have time.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (27 Aug 2005)

Way back when, I was involved in a project that studied remote operated vehicles, with the emphasis being placed on tanks, AD and mine clearing vehicles.  The bottom line is that it was, and is, technically capable of being done.  Tanks could roll into positions, and remain under cover, using GPS technology.  Sensors would automatically detect and track and potential targets, and when within range, fire.  It all worked, with no glitches at all.

The problems arise when the vehicles are operated remotely, rather than autonomously.  The bandwidth required is too much to even field a squadron of tanks and a bty of AD.  So, why not operate them autonomously, and save all of the bandwidth?  Our problem was removing the "man in the loop".  The guy that gives the order to fire.  IFF is far from perfect, and the possibility exists for a lot of "blue on blue" incidents.

But, the technology existed, even 6 years ago.


----------



## Spr.Earl (27 Aug 2005)

On Discovery Cahannel last night,many probs. yet too over come.
It was neat watching the 3 Lav III's moving but saw no contact fire from the ROBOTS. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Aug 2005)

No "I,Robot" scenarios please. ;D    Must have the man in the loop.   Although when you think about the navy they have confronted this problem already haven't they?  Aren't their Phalanx and Anti-Air defences are "pre-authorised" to fire in most circumstances?  Not so much "target, fire" as "if appropriate target, fire".  Of course they don't have as many targets and inappropriate targets at sea as the  Army is likely to encounter and even as it is they have been known to get it wrong, especially in congested coastal areas.

Reckon it'll be a while before we see marauding squadrons of robot tanks - hopefully.

On the other hand wouldn't convoy escort be easier if all the vehicles in the convoy played follow the leader, maintained speed and distance and instantly responded to orders?  A crewed LAV with turret front and rear, perhaps a UAV launching LAV in command and a packet or two of unmanned LAVs rolling along in between.

And Sapper, how'd you feel about trading in your Dareod for the remote controlled or autonomous version, a laptop and joystick and a coffee pot?


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Sep 2005)

Why not just have a command vehicle somewhere in the formation, with the rear compartment filled with people looking at screens controlling the other vehicles... 

It would really help with recruiting...but they may have to change the CFAT. To qualify for remote driver, one would have to demonstrate thier abilities playing grand theft auto...

 :dontpanic:


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2005)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Robot Bradley......

See also Future Armour thread


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Feb 2006)

An update on the Stryker (Robotic Follower) programme.

It seems they have got convoy speed up to 40 km/h on the straights.  Progress but room for improvement.



> Army Testing Unmanned Stryker Convoys
> 
> 
> (Source: US Army; issued Feb. 21, 2006)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34


----------

