• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Robot military

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
36
Points
560
Talk about a combat multiplier. There are a lot of issues to still be resolved, like bandwidth usage/conservation, the ability of robots to operate autonomously and of course the weaponization of robots, but in the end, pragmatism will win out:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/11/15/045201/military-robots-expected-to-outnumber-troops-by-2023

Military Robots Expected To Outnumber Troops By 2023
Posted by samzenpus on Friday November 15, 2013 @01:51AM
from the why-did-you-program-me-to-feel-pain? dept.
Lucas123 writes

"Autonomous robots programmed to scan city streets with thermal imaging and robotic equipment carriers created to aid in transporting ammunition and other supplies will likely outnumber U.S. troops in 10 years, according to robotic researchers and U.S. military officials. 5D Robotics, Northrop Grumman Corp., QinetiQ, HDT Robotics and other companies demonstrated a wide array of autonomous robots during a display at Ft. Benning in Georgia last month. The companies are already gaining traction in the military. For example, British military forces, use QinetiQ's 10-pound Dragon Runner robot, which can be carried in a backpack and then tossed into a building or a cave to capture and relay surveillance video. 'Robots allow [soldiers] to be more lethal and engaged in their surroundings,' said Lt. Col. Willie Smith, chief of Unmanned Ground Vehicles at Fort Benning, Ga. 'I think there's more work to be done but I'm expecting we'll get there.'"
 
Until there is a localized EMP burst, a capability that already exists.

Then all you have is scrap metal.

I'm only guessing, but to effectively shield all these small, individual pieces of equipment would make them ungainly and very cost prohibitive for the net gain.
 
The simple solution is to enclose the electronics in a Faraday Cage, which can be made out of a conductive wire mesh. The CPU and circuit boards are probably from a laptop, and the enclosure is probably the size of a ruggedized "toughbook", so the cage need not be very large. Using fiber optics to send and receive control signals is already "state of the art", so the wiring harness isn't going to send electrical energy into the controls.

A larger problem will be the generator and electrical motors operating the limbs, although if the mechanism is hydraulic, then that issue is averted as well.

A longer term solution may be found in the "Metamaterials" thread, EMP pulses could be passively guided "around" the robots and never intersect sensitive electronics at all.

No solution is ever 100%, but the arms/countermeasures race will simply continue in new and possibly unexpected directions.
 
Perhaps not the right thread to post this in, but is demonstrates the difficulty of forecasting. The US Army wargame seems to be a linear extension of today's trends, yet I think that many of the concepts the US Army is trying out are hopelessly outmoded, almost like someone in the 1800's predicting "Steam Cavalry". The USN had a taste of this several years ago, when during a naval wargame the USN was heavily pressed in the Persian Gulf during a wargame that featured the Red Team swarming US ships with speedboats and light aircraft, and I have seen very little to date to suggest that positive means to deal with AA/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) weaponry has been achieved. For that matter, alternative opposition strategies like 4GW or Unrestricted Warfare, that expand the modalities of warfare and the temporal and spatial dimensions of war have not been addressed either (and this wargame definitely suggests that is not the case).

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2013/12/heres-what-army-thinks-war-will-look-2030/74969/?oref=d-mostread?oref=d-interstitial-continue

Here’s What the Army Thinks War Will Look Like in 2030

Even with new innovations and evolving threats, the Army’s vision of what war might look like and the challenges they would face in the year 2030 isn’t all that different than today.

Army leaders recently conducted a “deep future” war game to play out a military conflict 15 years from now, coined “Unified Quest,” and held at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pa.  Defense One was invited to listen in as dozens of Army brass and civilian and foreign counterparts conducted an after-action review at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C.

AUTHORStephanie Gaskell is associate editor and senior reporter for Defense One. She previously covered the Pentagon for Politico. Gaskell has covered war, politics and breaking news for nearly 20 years, including at the Associated Press, the New York Post and the New York Daily News. She has reported ... Full Bio

Here’s the scenario they used: There’s been a chemical attack inside the United States and the terrorists responsible for the deadly attack are from a nuclear-armed landlocked nation surrounded by some less-than-supportive neighbors.

The U.S. military has strong ties with one of the enemy’s bordering neighbors, who also happens to have a port, and through a “coalition of willing” and a U.N. Security Council vote approving military action, others bordering nations offer access as well. The Marines swoop in, followed by several divisions of a now smaller Army. Navy ships steam toward the region.

The U.S. is still facing budget constraints in 2030 and the Army and is leaner, “doing more with less,” but there have been investments in new innovations on the battlefield in the Army’s “best-case” scenario. There are ground combat vehicles that weigh just 30 tons, helicopters that can fly faster and longer, extended-range missiles and ammunition with advanced sensors, hybrid-powered rechargeable equipment and a massive vertical lift aircraft capable of moving an entire battalion.

(Read more about the future of defense and national security by downloading our new app)

It takes the Army just five days to get in. Their mission is to secure and stabilize the enemy’s cache of chemical weapons. There’s plenty of combat, but within 24 days, there’s a cease-fire and the WMDs are secured, yet the enemy regime remained in power. (The war game ended there and did not address whether U.S. soldiers stayed to hold their gains or do any post-conflict nation-building operations or simply turned around and went home.) There were major shortages of fuel, however, and being lighter and more maneuverable paid off at first, but the Army’s tail quickly became difficult to build and sustain.

That was one scenario.

But knowing that most of these imagined and costly new weapons and vehicles are unlikely to debut on the battlefield in the next years, the Army simultaneously war gamed a second 2030 scenario without their wish list. The results were markedly different. This time, the Army took four weeks to enter the imaginary country, and after 85 days of combat, the WMDs were lost.

What’s interesting to note is that the enemy the Army sees itself fighting at all. Despite the Pentagon’s much-touted pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, the Army’s future adversary resembles Syria and Pakistan more than China or North Korea. The 2030 war game isn’t all that different from what unfolded this summer as President Obama stared down the Assad regime after it used chemical weapons. While there was never a threat of putting American boots on the ground and no direct attack against the United States, many of the challenges are the same.

Army leaders said being lighter and faster helps. “Speed created more time to make decisions,” one official said. One lesson learned: the Army wants to move faster at setting up secure communications without all the bulky equipment that comes with it. One official said he wants to find a way to harness private-sector capabilities with military-grade security, a future where a soldier can talk to his commanders with just an iPhone. “Al Qaeda is doing it. Hezbollah is doing it. They leverage existing networks. Five to six years from now, that’s what I want,” one official said. “That’s the kind of innovation we need.” The problem, even in 2030, is logistics. What’s the point of having 21st century equipment when you have 20th century logistics, said another official.

The Army of the future also sees its soldiers serving repeated rotations in the same geographic regions to boost their expertise; linguistics will be a key skill, as well. Another key to success the Army already knows will be to build and maintain strong ties with militaries around the world, so when a crisis erupts they’re already there. And even if a 30-ton vehicle or a vertical lift that can move a battalion probably won’t be available in 15 years, the Army knows it must innovate and reshape after fighting two long, massive ground wars. The enemy might not be that different in 2030, but the economic climate has changed. “We have no choice to innovate,” one leader said, “because of the budget.”
 
Robots may be the death of the human race.

http://www.realcleartechnology.com/articles/2013/12/06/our_final_invention_how_the_human_race_goes_and_gets_itself_killed_816.html

I'll repeat that: In 267 brisk pages, Barrat lays out just how the artificial intelligence (AI) that companies like Google and governments like our own are racing to perfect could -- indeed, likely will -- advance to the point where it will literally destroy all human life on Earth. Not put it out of work. Not meld with it in a utopian fusion. Destroy it.
 
I think the forecast of the apocalypse is a bit premature.

Robots and AI in general have reached the stage where they are about on par with cockroaches, but require the entire industrial infrastructure of Earth to operate. (Think of "I Pencil", which suggests that not one person on Earth could unravel or describe the entire intricate system that allows 2B pencils to be mass produced). Of course, cockroaches are also small enough to hide when you walk in the room, while a Boston Dynamics load carrying robot is not.

On a more fundamental level, I don't think AI's, when fully developed, will even interact with us very much. Electrical signals travel @ 1,000,000 faster than nerve impulses, so AI's would "think" orders of magnitude faster than we could. To an AI, humans would be totally uninteresting, indeed frozen in place on any time scale the AI would use. Manipulating objects in the real world might actually be problematic, since the manipulation of the physical will still be far slower than the AI would be thinking or planning. An AI project could become obsolete by the time the first shovel of earth is moved. (Of course, this also means a real AI robot soldier would shoot center of visible mass every time, and in a direct matchup like the Transformers movie the battle would end in @ 30 seconds with every human soldier killed with a single shot to the head).

The final issue is where is the competition? AI's will not be seeking food or water from the biosphere, and indeed may "live" by creating silicon "trees" that gather solar energy and run "roots" of communications cables to each other. (Even I can write bad Science Fiction).

I suspect in the fullness of time, AI's will be incorporated into the ecosystem somewhat like our gut bacteria are into us: they will be everywhere, we interact on some level which we are not concious of and mostly are unaware of.
 
"Terminator", "Short Circuit" or Surrogates, anyone? ;D

Defense News

US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots
Jan. 20, 2014 - 04:21PM  |  By PAUL McLEARY


WASHINGTON — The postwar, sequestration-era US Army is working on becoming “a smaller, more lethal, deployable and agile force,” according to Gen. Robert Cone, head of the service’s Training and Doctrine Command.

But just how much smaller might come as a surprise.

During remarks at the Army Aviation Symposium in Arlington, Va., on Jan. 15, Cone quietly dropped a bomb. The Army, he said, is considering the feasibility of shrinking the size of the brigade combat team from about 4,000 soldiers to 3,000 over the coming years, and replacing the lost soldiers with robots and unmanned platforms.

“I’ve got clear guidance to think about what if you could robotically perform some of the tasks in terms of maneuverability, in terms of the future of the force,” he said, adding that he also has “clear guidance to rethink” the size of the nine-man infantry squad.

He mentioned using unmanned ground vehicles that would follow manned platforms, which would require less armor and protection, thereby reducing the weight of a brigade combat team.

Over the past 12 years of war, “in favor of force protection we’ve sacrificed a lot of things,” he said. “I think we’ve also lost a lot in lethality.” And the Army wants that maneuverability, deployability and firepower back.

The Army is already on a path to shrink from 540,000 soldiers to about 490,000 by the end of 2015, and will likely slide further to 420,000 by 2019, according to reports.

Cone said his staff is putting together an advisory panel to look at those issues, including fielding a smaller brigade.


“Don’t you think 3,000 people is probably enough probably to get by” with increased technological capabilities, he asked.

It’s hard to see such a radical change to the makeup of the brigage combat team as anything else than a budget move, borne out of the necessity of cutting the personnel costs that eat up almost half of the service’s total budget.

Cone used the Navy as an example of what the Army is trying to do.

“When you see the success, frankly, that the Navy has had in terms of lowering the numbers of people on ships, are there functions in the brigade that we could automate — robots or manned/unmanned teaming — and lower the number of people that are involved given the fact that people are our major cost,” he said.

Some of Cone’s blue-sky thinking was echoed by Lt. Gen. Keith Walker in a Jan. 6 interview with Defense News.

In what Walker called the “deep future” — about the 2030 to 2040 time frame — he said that “we’ll need to fundamentally change the nature of the force, and that would require a breakthrough in science and technology.”

While Walker, the commander of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, which oversees much of the Army’s modernization and doctrinal changes, didn’t talk about replacing soldiers with robots, he did say the Army wants to revamp its “tooth-to-tail” ratio, or the number of soldiers performing support functions versus those who actually pull triggers.

“Right now our force is roughly two-third tooth and one-third tail
, so as we decrease the size of the Army you may end up reducing one-third tooth and two-third tail, but what if you could slide that fulcrum? Maybe it’s one-half to one-half. The point is you get to keep more tooth, more folks that actually conduct operations on the ground and less supporting structure.”

The Army is already heading down that path in the structure of its brigade combat teams, announcing last year that it was adding a third maneuver battalion to each brigade, along with engineering and fires capabilities. It is adding more punch to its brigade combat teams while reducing the number of teams it fields from 45 to 33 by the end of fiscal 2017, while transferring some of those soldiers to the existing brigades. ■
 
tomahawk6 said:
Robots may be the death of the human race.

http://www.realcleartechnology.com/articles/2013/12/06/our_final_invention_how_the_human_race_goes_and_gets_itself_killed_816.html

I'll repeat that: In 267 brisk pages, Barrat lays out just how the artificial intelligence (AI) that companies like Google and governments like our own are racing to perfect could -- indeed, likely will -- advance to the point where it will literally destroy all human life on Earth. Not put it out of work. Not meld with it in a utopian fusion. Destroy it.

This was an intresting article, I now need to read the book.
 
Canadian news is now reporting on the US Army potentially replacing soldiers with robots:  http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/22/robots-could-replace-thousands-of-soldiers-as-u-s-army-looks-to-cut-50000-troops/
 
If we had robots replacing humans War, would be just another video game and we might see alot more armed conflict.
 
An update:

Another four-star general comes out in in support of a more robotized military.

From DEFENSE NEWS:

Second 4-Star General Talks About Replacing Soldiers With Robots

Seems that the Army’s idea to cut about 1,000 soldiers out of each Brigade Combat Team and replace them with unmanned systems and robots has now been floated by two different 4-star Generals in the Army.

Last week, TRADOC Gen. Robert Cone revealed that the Army is mulling the feasibility of shrinking the size of the brigade combat team from about 4,000 soldiers to 3,000 in the coming years, and replacing the lost soldiers with robots and unmanned platforms.

“I’ve got clear guidance to think about what if you could robotically perform some of the tasks in terms of maneuverability, in terms of the future of the force,” he said, adding that he also has “clear guidance to rethink” the size of the nine-man infantry squad.

In an interview published in the Army Times on Jan.20, the Army’s Vice Chief of Staff Gen John Campbell said essentially the same thing, telling the Times that “our brigades will go to about a 4,500-man brigade, and what we’re looking to in the future is having the same capability or even stronger, but with only 3,000.”

It’s pretty clear that this is very much a work in progress, or in Pentagonese, “predecisional” since neither Cone nor Campbell was able to really articulate what this might mean.

“If we downsize a brigade, how can we keep the same types of brigades out there but be smaller?” the vice chief asked. “With technology, how can we do that? Robotics, how can that help us? Do we need a nine-person vehicle, or can we go to six-person? Do we use avatars?”

Great questions, general.
 
 
Can you say:

"Skynet went online at 16:47 ... at 17:23 it developed consciousness and decided to eliminate its greatest enemy ... man"
 
If you reduce the strength of a brigade by 25% you can't make that up.Maybe one day we can build androids to act as infantry,but that day is far far away.Even if we had the means the cost would not make it viable.
 
tomahawk6 said:
If we had robots replacing humans War, would be just another video game and we might see alot more armed conflict.

No kidding! I wonder why more people do not see this.

You take the blood out of the game and war will seem like a more attractive option.
 
The Center for a New American Security weighs in with this, “20YY: Preparing for War in the Robotic Age.”

“20YY: Preparing for War in the Robotic Age” calls upon the United States to prepare for war in new era in which “unmanned and autonomous systems will play central war-fighting roles for the United States, its allies and partners, and its adversaries.”

The authors warn of a not-too-distant future where “guided munitions and battle networking technologies have proliferated widely and are employed by both state and non-state actors,” making all military operations more deadly and costly.

At the same time, and notwithstanding changes in the strategic environment, the spiraling costs of personnel and crewed combat systems means the U.S. armed forces will likely be smaller in the future than in the immediate past. In response to both of these trends, the authors argue that U.S. planners will increasingly turn to unmanned and robotic systems for answers, and these systems will be increasingly capable and autonomous in action.
 
This topic discussed in FT today. Given the advances in many different areas, robotics could make a big dent in several areas much earlier than the 2030-40 time frame suggested. Adopting Amazon.com's robotic warehouse technologies would hugely multiply the productivity of the "back end" of the CSS trade, and many companies are now in the advanced prototype stage of self driving vehicles, which suggests some of the combat logistics could be done by robotic trucks moving from the (robotic) warehouse/supply dump to the DP. Robotic engineering vehicles could take on some of the most dangerous tasks like making breaches through obstacles. With less troops in the "tail", the same amount of "tooth" could be carried in a shrunken down Brigade Combat Team.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/01/26/Robots-Replace-Troops-Battlefield

Robots to Replace Troops on the Battlefield

David Francis
The Fiscal Times

January 26, 2014

The Pentagon is considering replacing thousands of troops with robots, a military commander said recently, marking the first time a DOD official has publicly acknowledged that humans would be replaced with robots on the battlefield.

Gen. Robert Cone, head of the Army Training and Doctrine Command, made the comment at the Army Aviation symposium on Jan. 15, according to a report in Defense News, a trade publication covering the military. He said that robots would allow for “a smaller, more lethal, deployable and agile force.”

Related: Killer Robots—If No One Pulls the Trigger, Who’s to Blame?

“I’ve got clear guidance to think about what if you could robotically perform some of the tasks in terms of maneuverability, in terms of the future of the force,” Cone said.

DOD did not respond to a request for comment on Cone’s remarks.

Cone also said that one-quarter of a 4,000 troop Brigade Combat Team could be replaced by robots or drones. His announcement comes as the entire Pentagon is shrinking, including troop reductions. DOD officials have said that the size of the force would shrink from 540,000 to 450,000 by 2020.

The Pentagon and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have been aggressively pursuing robot technology. DOD has already invested billions of dollars with companies like Boston Dynamics, now owned by Google, to develop the technology.

Related: World’s Most Lethal Drone Just Flew over Florida

So far, the company has developed the AlphaDog robot, designed to haul heavy military equipment for soldiers. Last year alone, DOD spent $7 million on the Avatar Program, which is attempting to find a way to upload a soldier’s consciousness to a robot. It also spent $11 million on a program that is developing robots that act autonomously.

These robots, combined with the already widespread use of drones and robots to detect bombs, are prompting fears that the human element would be removed from combat. Human Rights Watch and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, an international coalition concerned that robots could replace humans, have launched preemptive campaigns to ban their use. 

If more advanced robots are used in battle, it would be years down the line. Lt. Gen. Keith Walker told Defense News that widespread use of robots could not occur until the “deep future” - sometime between 2030 and 2040.

“We’ll need to fundamentally change the nature of the force, and that would require a breakthrough in science and technology,” he said.
- See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/01/26/Robots-Replace-Troops-Battlefield#sthash.EJkNqMPM.dpuf
 
Back
Top