Re: Telepresence Android Scout/Commando
From: Abrigon Gusiq (abrigon_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/02/04
- Next message: john-locke: "Re: ICBM warheads"
- Previous message: Tony Williams: "Re: The Foresight War: alternative WW2 novel"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 23:56:26 -0900 To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org
You mean a UGV?
So far, it is in the "lets see if we can get a robot across the desert
stage" unless it is doing better?
Mike
sanman wrote:
>
> Okay, after watching a movie preview for the upcoming "I,Robot"
> starring Wil Smith, I'd really like to float this idea once again.
>
> How about a remote-controlled robotic android type of platform, that
> could be remotely piloted via telepresence?
>
> The point of this android type of platform is that it can go where
> only human beings can go, over rough terrain and building/structure
> interiors where manned vehicles cannot.
>
> Mountain warfare, jungle warfare, swamps, irregular terrain, and also
> inside buildings, houses, tunnels, etc.
>
> By "telepresence", I refer to video/audio/tactile feed from the drone
> that could make the pilot feel like he/she is right there, where the
> drone is.
>
> These days, we keep hearing every day of soldiers getting killed by
> carbombs, boobytraps, improvised explosive devices -- IED is now a
> common acronym, since it is a weapon of common resort. Now that
> hit-and-run guerrilla attackers have gotten smart and avoid direct
> engagements in favor of remote bombs, conventional armies need to
> upgrade to deal with this new reality, or risk inviting adversaries to
> increasingly use these tactics.
>
> A mass-produced remote-controlled robotic patrolman could make IEDs,
> car-bombs and obsolete.
>
> As a machine, the robot would not need all the layers of protective
> gear (flak-jacket, etc, etc). You wouldn't need army medics for a
> robot -- just pull and replace modules that have been damaged, or
> scrap the whole unit and let the pilot login to a new one. If the
> robot gets captured -- so what, blow it up, and let the pilot login to
> a new one. No more POW worries. No worries about crying families,
> spouses, kids, parents.
>
> The pilot would not be situated on the immediate frontline, but would
> rather be located some distance behind it. Or even above it, in a
> support aircraft. For example, the drone could be para-dropped from
> the aircraft into the heart of the enemy-infested area and reconnoitre
> it, while the support aircraft maintains a safer distance.
>
> The drone would be impervious to NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical)
> weapons. It would not need special adaptive gear for cold, hot, or
> harsh environments. As a mechanical chassis, it could be made to much
> more rugged standards than the human body could ever meet. It could be
> much lighter, much stronger, run faster, leap farther. It would not
> suffer from physical exhaustion, illness, or need to carry food. It
> could have a lower thermal signature. A fuel cell could power it. The
> same fuel cell could be used as an explosive, should the need arise to
> destroy the robot to prevent its capture, or even a target of
> opportunity.
>
> If you really have to immediately shell or bombard the area where the
> robot is, because there's a high-value target, then you'd rather do
> that to a robot than if there was a human scout there.
>
> For urban terrorist or hostage situations where there might be
> close-quarters combat, it might be better to have an expendable drone,
> so that you could focus on saving the hostages' lives.
>
> I don't think an android/anthropomorphic robot that moves like a human
> is terribly far beyond today's technological capabilities. I also
> don't think that a telepresence link to that robot is terribly far
> beyond today's technology either.
- Next message: john-locke: "Re: ICBM warheads"
- Previous message: Tony Williams: "Re: The Foresight War: alternative WW2 novel"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
