# Popular Science: Robotic Armour



## blacktriangle (27 Dec 2005)

I was reading an article in popular science, and it was focused heavily on how robotic vehicles will replace manned armour and support vehicles.

I was wondering what the collective thoughts are on this? The article does agree that full autonomous vehicles won't be around for some time, but where will things such as these leave armour/fire support/ recce? My only idea would be two reduce the ratio of people, while feilding a still sizeable, if not larger force. Build everything on a common chassis, both the robots and human operated vehicles, maybe on a 2:1 ratio of robots against humans. I'm assuming that at first, these will be remotly operated, but it worries me to think that the militaries are looking at putting some people out of a job. However for convoys in iraq and afghanistan, it might just be the trick.

I have no military experience, so I would greatly appreciate input on how this would best be worked.

Thank you for bearing with me on my attempt to organize my thoughts..i'll try to get some pictures up later.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2005)

If they can't even get an automatic loader to work properly in a tank, why believe that robots will suddenly be taking over other roles?


----------



## Gayson (30 Dec 2005)

I Guess some people got to excited over the concept of UAV's.

I wouldn't doubt the use of robots in the battlefield.  I've read the article, and I think robots are further off into the future than popular science and the pentagon think.


----------



## John Nayduk (30 Dec 2005)

Who knows?  With the pace that technology advances, it could be sooner than we think.  Who would have guessed that it would take less than a century for man to go from discovering how to fly to going to the moon and back?  I think about my Grandmother who was born in 1900.  Just think about the changes just in her lifetime.  Remember when personal computers like the VIC-20 came out?  In what is really a very short amount of time, look at where computers are now and think of where they will be in 10 or 20 years.  If someone want robots on the battlefield bad enough, it will happen, when is just a matter of want.


----------



## Old Ranger (30 Dec 2005)

Look at video games....the training has already begun.

There will be many stepping stones, but I think we will see the future sooner than we think.


----------



## Gayson (5 Jan 2006)

The problem with robots, and the reason why I think they won't be around for awhile, is that they're chosing how to react to a particular scenario would be too selective.

I'm no computer programmer, but I remember the days when I was playing with Visual Basic on my old Coleco, complete with tape drives!

If someone were to program a vehicle to have an automated weapon system, something that would identify a target and act accordingly seems like a complicated task.  It's more difficult to give a computer some ROE's and expect it to work.

I do think that computer systems WILL play a greater role in assisting soldiers.  It seems unpractical to me that these vehicles would work independantly, however, having features similar to an autopilot for example is do able and would allow the crew to maintane a greater situational awareness (not having to drive).

Also, leaving a computer to do a soldiers job seems dangerous as well.  Looking at all the virus's, adware and spyware floating around the internet provides a great example of this.  Like insurgents figuring out how to counter the armour on some very advanced platforms stems from the same cause.  The amount of enemy, and therefor brains that a fleet of robots would have to combat is always going to be more than the small number of engineers who would routinely upkeep these vehicles.  That's why there's always people's computers getting screwed over despite having the newest version of Norton Antivirus, the techies who write virus definitions can't keep up.  Thus the programming, and design of a robot will never be able to keep up with the inginuity of Aziz and his Taliban buddies.

I hope this post makes sense.


----------



## BernDawg (8 Jan 2006)

Hey what about Isac Asimovs first rule of robotics? > ;D


----------



## Gayson (8 Jan 2006)

What rule is that?


----------



## brihard (8 Jan 2006)

The article was excellent- it focused more on robots as a support role; logistics, etc. Ferrying water and ammo, robotic ambulances, and such. Combat robots are much farther off in the future, but such support roles could be practical.

In the interim, remotely controlled vehicles would be more combat-useable. Not completely autonomous, but guided by humans at a base station. Again, combat roles won't be immediate, but ferrying supplies is a viable possibility.


----------



## BernDawg (8 Jan 2006)

J.:

      1.  A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

      2.  A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

     3.  A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. 


 ;D

Of course it's a bit of a highjack but I couldn't resist being a sci-fi fan and all.


----------



## Gayson (9 Jan 2006)

Thanks.

Sounds like the rules from irobot.


----------



## FoverF (10 Jan 2006)

'I Robot' was written by Isaac Asimov in 1949


----------



## BernDawg (10 Jan 2006)

Damn! You beat me to it.
 ;D


----------

