PDA

View Full Version : SWORDS: Robot Soldiers


Cipherous
01-24-2005, 10:38 PM
http://springfield.news-leader.com/business/today/0123-Gunslingin_1.jpg
http://springfield.news-leader.com/business/today/0123-Gunslingin_2.jpg

By Michael P. Regan
Associated Press

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.

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.

It's easy to humanize the SWORDS as it moves out 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.

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 gun-slinging SWORDS.

It was a joint development process between the Army and Foster-Miller, a robotics firm bought in November by QinetiQ Group PLC.

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.

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' 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.

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 Tordillosi 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,"



http://springfield.news-leader.com/business/today/0123-Gunslingin-285627.html

bluemonq
01-24-2005, 10:44 PM
one word: skynet.

pikachupacabra
01-24-2005, 11:13 PM
"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."

hmm...HMMM...HMMMM...i still don't trust em.

Bhodi_Li
01-25-2005, 07:22 AM
Robot soldiers are cool.

bluemonq
01-25-2005, 09:33 AM
so are robotic sex slaves. damnit, it's 2005; where the hell are my android geishas?

A.R.A.M.
01-25-2005, 12:52 PM
"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."

Because we know writing letters home to the parents of slain soldiers is such a chore.

Well, maybe the article didn't mean to make military officials looks so callous. But then again, Rumsfeld refused to sign letters for a long time, so maybe they are seen as a bothersome chore.

bluemonq
01-25-2005, 02:47 PM
"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."

Because we know writing letters home to the parents of slain soldiers is such a chore.

Well, maybe the article didn't mean to make military officials looks so callous. But then again, Rumsfeld refused to sign letters for a long time, so maybe they are seen as a bothersome chore.
the point wasn't that writing letters is a chore. the point is that sending back a box full of scrap metal is better than sending a coffin with a corpse. so maybe he should have said, "and there are no coffins to send home if they meet their demise in battle." whatever.

A.R.A.M.
01-25-2005, 03:13 PM
the point wasn't that writing letters is a chore. the point is that sending back a box full of scrap metal is better than sending a coffin with a corpse. so maybe he should have said, "and there are no coffins to send home if they meet their demise in battle." whatever.

Uh, I know. That's why I said, "Well, maybe the article didn't mean to make military officials looks so callous." But maybe you didn't understand what I meant by the article not intending to make military officials look callous, so I will lay it out for you. I feel that the article was thoughtlessly written. Consider that the paragraph makes training, feeding, clothing and housing humans seem to be burdens that makes them less attractive than robots. After compiling this list of burdens that don't need to be met to field robot soldiers, the author states that you don't have to write letters home to their survivors. Of course the author thinks that it's a good thing robots will be in harm's way instead of people. But in that context, it seems like the writing of letters is yet another chore, like feeding, clothing, housing, and training. But, whatever.

And the last part of my post was a dig at Rumsfeld, who did feel that signing letters was too much of a burden.

thaite
01-25-2005, 05:29 PM
so, they really aren't carrying swords. Ah, well, that's disappointing.