Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-12-01 15:17:22
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6387|...

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You obviously don't get it.  A robot is not going to fully replace a foot soldier.  That's just silly. Think of systems like the Predator drone - the human is far removed from the actual battlefield.

Your other points don't stand.  You obviously didn't even bother to look up what the DARPA challenges are - they are challenges specifically catered to building robotic vehicles that can traverse rough terrain (yes, including jungle, mountains and forests).  As for your other 'point', "I heard there's a lot of sand in Afghanistan and robots have a lot of parts so it would be hard to repair and maintain them" isn't a very good argument.
I know what DARPA aims are, but aims alone don't make something work. Check their envisionment of the exoskeleton suit so far. It's grips are very unpractical and the idea hasn't really made that much progress in the past 4-5 years or so.

Military projects tend to be far more ambitious than what is actually possible. You can state that you want it to climb mountains, move through swamps and jungles without breaking, but achieving that in reality is extremely difficult. Not to mention that if they achieve it, the robot will consist of so many different moving parts maintenance would be a nightmare. (not to mention cost).

It's a fact that every vehicle that goes on patrol in Afgh / Iraq has to get all the sand removed on a very regular basis, which can take up to half a day, if not an entire day.

To add complexity robots aren't exactly something that's easily fixed. I believe the predator drone is a great envisionment of how unmanned vehicles can be used, but I just cannot realistically see drones deployed en masse on land warfare.

Last edited by dayarath (2010-12-01 15:31:05)

inane little opines
2010-12-01 15:41:18
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6775
Advances in directed energy weapons and rail guns, though we wont see these mounted on anything smaller than a plane or a tank for a good 30 years I bet, I'm mostly looking at ships and massive aircraft(cargo size).

Continued improvements in active defense. This will eventually negate the effectiveness of normal weapons(bullets, rockets, tank main gun rounds) and lead to an increased development in directed energy weapons and rail guns.

Weapons with double warheads to combat ERA armor. Javelin style, we're gonna have to go this way with pretty much every weapon made to take out a vehicle.

Id recommend checking out the wiki article on DARPA. Here are some things I pick out of it that I thought were interesting.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Zones_That_See
This is interesting but unfeasible. Anyways, there is such a thing as TOO MUCH information.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAHEM
As I was saying above, we're going to need new warheads.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent … ir_Support
Interesting as well. This is more the way I see UAV's going. Surveillance, ground support, and deep strike. Fighter planes will always need pilots, at least for another century.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcos#Powered_exoskeleton
Though this is probably going to more useful on the logistics side. It comes down to a power problem, and I don't see battery's becoming small enough for 25+years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArcLight_%28Missile%29
My comments for the next article work with this one too.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike
Interesting, but Rumsfeld tried this back in '03 I think. Was shot down because of the fear the Russians might think we were launching a nuke. DUH! Anyways its feasable, especially with something like the X-37 being kept in orbit. Could probably strike within a half hour anywhere on the globe. In my opinion though, the next link is a better option.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bo … oject_Thor
This is the best solution to the problem of, well, Prompt Global Strike. I'm sure most of you think I'm insane for proposing this, but I've always been a logical guy, and in a coldly logical way, this is the best solution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense
Check out the Homing Overlay Experiment section. Best way in my opinion to defend the Rods of God. Best missile defense option too. Bet the Russians wouldn't like this. Best solution in my mind is to tie them in with it, or keep it small enough that it wouldn't be a threat to their nuclear arsenal.


Final article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Energ … nse_System
Going with what I said about directed energy weapons. This is the future right here, especially for vehicles. Notice the portion where it talks about mounting on a fighter or Humvee, also how the US is on track with this system.

Last edited by Commie Killer (2010-12-01 16:00:25)

2010-12-01 15:45:22
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5746|London, England

dayarath wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You obviously don't get it.  A robot is not going to fully replace a foot soldier.  That's just silly. Think of systems like the Predator drone - the human is far removed from the actual battlefield.

Your other points don't stand.  You obviously didn't even bother to look up what the DARPA challenges are - they are challenges specifically catered to building robotic vehicles that can traverse rough terrain (yes, including jungle, mountains and forests).  As for your other 'point', "I heard there's a lot of sand in Afghanistan and robots have a lot of parts so it would be hard to repair and maintain them" isn't a very good argument.
I know what DARPA aims are, but aims alone don't make something work. Check their envisionment of the exoskeleton suit so far. It's grips are very unpractical and the idea hasn't really made that much progress in the past 4-5 years or so.

Military projects tend to be far more ambitious than what is actually possible. You can state that you want it to climb mountains, move through swamps and jungles without breaking, but achieving that in reality is extremely difficult. Not to mention that if they achieve it, the robot will consist of so many different moving parts maintenance would be a nightmare. (not to mention cost).

It's a fact that every vehicle that goes on patrol in Afgh / Iraq has to get all the sand removed on a very regular basis, which can take up to half a day, if not an entire day.

To add complexity robots aren't exactly something that's easily fixed. I believe the predator drone is a great envisionment of how unmanned vehicles can be used, but I just cannot realistically see drones deployed en masse on land warfare.
Sand removal? We washed our trucks once when I was in Iraq and that was at the customs clearance station in Kuwait when we were flying home. Yeah, sand gets everywhere but you get used to it. Keeping your weapons clean is about all that's a hassle. Engines are sealed units dontchaknow.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-12-01 15:48:25
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6775

JohnG@lt wrote:

dayarath wrote:

I don't think fully automated systems will ever truly enter in the army on a very large scale... they're too expensive. Even if you'd bring the argument of mass production that doesn't negate the fact that many of them use scarce resources, have many different parts and are generally difficult to make.

Take the ammunition that explodes over a target f.ex. or homing ammunition, that sort of stuff is unaffordable. You can only shrink your active fighting force so much.

(also this doesn't really sound like much D&ST)
It costs millions of dollars to train up a single soldier. If you instead train one soldier and have him control a platoon of robots, it's more cost effective.
This is gonna sound a little crazy but think of something like Company of Heroes. The problem is, computers can't adapt fast enough. In that game, your controlling what? Maybe 20 guys? When I used to play that game I used to get fed up because no matter what, your still controlling a computer that doesn't understand its best to take cover behind the tree instead of standing in the field. Now imagine doing that with 30 guys, when your not viewing them from above, when they enemy is not a computer, and when your getting shot at.

I don't see this happening for a LONG time and frankly I hope it never does. Once war becomes blowing up machines and machines only, we're gonna have a problem. The whole moral thing will go right out the window and war becomes acceptable.
2010-12-01 15:53:43
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6387|...

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sand removal? We washed our trucks once when I was in Iraq and that was at the customs clearance station in Kuwait when we were flying home. Yeah, sand gets everywhere but you get used to it. Keeping your weapons clean is about all that's a hassle. Engines are sealed units dontchaknow.
my bad then... guy was complaining of sand getting in the engine all the time.
inane little opines
2010-12-01 16:08:03
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5746|London, England

dayarath wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sand removal? We washed our trucks once when I was in Iraq and that was at the customs clearance station in Kuwait when we were flying home. Yeah, sand gets everywhere but you get used to it. Keeping your weapons clean is about all that's a hassle. Engines are sealed units dontchaknow.
my bad then... guy was complaining of sand getting in the engine all the time.
If you're talking turbine engines like Abrams' have then yeah. For the rest of the troops with diesel engines, you just have to shake out the air filter.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-12-01 16:22:59
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,990|7020|949

dayarath wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You obviously don't get it.  A robot is not going to fully replace a foot soldier.  That's just silly. Think of systems like the Predator drone - the human is far removed from the actual battlefield.

Your other points don't stand.  You obviously didn't even bother to look up what the DARPA challenges are - they are challenges specifically catered to building robotic vehicles that can traverse rough terrain (yes, including jungle, mountains and forests).  As for your other 'point', "I heard there's a lot of sand in Afghanistan and robots have a lot of parts so it would be hard to repair and maintain them" isn't a very good argument.
I know what DARPA aims are, but aims alone don't make something work. Check their envisionment of the exoskeleton suit so far. It's grips are very unpractical and the idea hasn't really made that much progress in the past 4-5 years or so.

Military projects tend to be far more ambitious than what is actually possible. You can state that you want it to climb mountains, move through swamps and jungles without breaking, but achieving that in reality is extremely difficult. Not to mention that if they achieve it, the robot will consist of so many different moving parts maintenance would be a nightmare. (not to mention cost).
http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/GC05winnerv2.pdf

There's a link.  It's been completed.  Autonomous vehicles have successfully navigated.  Prizes have been awarded.  At the very least give me the respect to do a quick wiki search before you come back and tell me what is practical.  You're making yourself out to be a dumbie.
2010-12-01 18:30:06
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6387|Vortex Ring State

Commie Killer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAHEM
As I was saying above, we're going to need new warheads.
bleh, EFPs seem to be the way into the future. However I don't think we can get EFP technology into an effective anti-tank launcher for both tanks and infantry, it seems better suited to mines and ambush devices, due to the shockwave of the explosion
2010-12-01 20:15:40
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6799|'Murka

Trotskygrad wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAHEM
As I was saying above, we're going to need new warheads.
bleh, EFPs seem to be the way into the future. However I don't think we can get EFP technology into an effective anti-tank launcher for both tanks and infantry, it seems better suited to mines and ambush devices, due to the shockwave of the explosion
HEAT rounds use EFP technology. So do just about every type of AT missile in existence.

Their recent use in IEDs and the ability of insurgents to make them correctly outside of a factory setting is what attracted so much attention...not the EFP technology itself. That's fairly old hat--just requires pretty tight machining tolerances.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-12-01 20:32:47
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6387|Vortex Ring State

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAHEM
As I was saying above, we're going to need new warheads.
bleh, EFPs seem to be the way into the future. However I don't think we can get EFP technology into an effective anti-tank launcher for both tanks and infantry, it seems better suited to mines and ambush devices, due to the shockwave of the explosion
HEAT rounds use EFP technology. So do just about every type of AT missile in existence.

Their recent use in IEDs and the ability of insurgents to make them correctly outside of a factory setting is what attracted so much attention...not the EFP technology itself. That's fairly old hat--just requires pretty tight machining tolerances.
Aren't new EFPs supposed to be longer?

"Extensive research is going on in the grayzone between jetting charges and EFPs, which combines the advantages of both types, resulting in very long stretched rod EFPs for short to medium distances (because of the lack of aerostability) with improved penetration capability."
2010-12-01 21:01:37
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,068|7160|PNW

Uzique wrote:

wait is this Debate & Serious Talk or Conjecture & Fantasy Drivel?
Conjecture and sci-fi drivel.
2010-12-01 23:37:50
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,820|6494|eXtreme to the maX
'Robots' will most likely take over the mundane and dangerous chores on the battlefield much as they have in the rest of industry.

Ferrying supplies, sentry duty, area denial, mine clearance, surveillance etc.

They aren't going to be taking over the dynamic roles where a human brain is required to take decisions, except where they do have an advantage in terms of speed of reaction, for example countering other 'robots' such as missiles, drone fighters etc, shooting down shells, directing strikes onto fast moving launch sites etc.
Fuck Israel
2010-12-01 23:41:26
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,068|7160|PNW

While we're on conjecture, it is inevitable that they will eventually take over tactics and strategy (the reaction time requirements of something like a space battle would give us very little other choice), leaving humans only with the ability to 'decide' to go to war. But at that point, people will probably already be enhancing speed of thought and memory with computers, so who could tell the difference?
2010-12-02 00:51:54
BVC
Member
+325|7084
More automation - UAVs, sentry guns, self-propelled artillery, that sort of stuff.
Energy weapons, mainly in anti-missile/air/space stuff.  No laser rifles or phasers for a while yet, lads.
More cyber/electronic warfare.
I couldn't put my finger on anything, but I think there is a lot more potential for naval advancement than anybody realises, navy-specific stuff.
Battery technology and micro-nuclear reactors - this would have to go hand-in-hand.  Electric tanks, humvees etc.  Benefits would be mostly logistical.
2010-12-02 02:14:15
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,068|7160|PNW

Let's hope politics can struggle hard enough to keep up with technology before the world self-destructs.
2010-12-02 08:32:13
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6387|...

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

dayarath wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You obviously don't get it.  A robot is not going to fully replace a foot soldier.  That's just silly. Think of systems like the Predator drone - the human is far removed from the actual battlefield.

Your other points don't stand.  You obviously didn't even bother to look up what the DARPA challenges are - they are challenges specifically catered to building robotic vehicles that can traverse rough terrain (yes, including jungle, mountains and forests).  As for your other 'point', "I heard there's a lot of sand in Afghanistan and robots have a lot of parts so it would be hard to repair and maintain them" isn't a very good argument.
I know what DARPA aims are, but aims alone don't make something work. Check their envisionment of the exoskeleton suit so far. It's grips are very unpractical and the idea hasn't really made that much progress in the past 4-5 years or so.

Military projects tend to be far more ambitious than what is actually possible. You can state that you want it to climb mountains, move through swamps and jungles without breaking, but achieving that in reality is extremely difficult. Not to mention that if they achieve it, the robot will consist of so many different moving parts maintenance would be a nightmare. (not to mention cost).
http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/GC05winnerv2.pdf

There's a link.  It's been completed.  Autonomous vehicles have successfully navigated.  Prizes have been awarded.  At the very least give me the respect to do a quick wiki search before you come back and tell me what is practical.  You're making yourself out to be a dumbie.
I thought you were talking about this sort of stuff



autonomous vehicles aren't exactly what I had in mind when thinking about land drones.

Last edited by dayarath (2010-12-02 08:33:45)

inane little opines
2010-12-02 10:15:17
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6387|Vortex Ring State

Pubic wrote:

More automation - UAVs, sentry guns, self-propelled artillery, that sort of stuff.
Energy weapons, mainly in anti-missile/air/space stuff.  No laser rifles or phasers for a while yet, lads.
More cyber/electronic warfare.
I couldn't put my finger on anything, but I think there is a lot more potential for naval advancement than anybody realises, navy-specific stuff.
Battery technology and micro-nuclear reactors - this would have to go hand-in-hand.  Electric tanks, humvees etc.  Benefits would be mostly logistical.
I think that airburst shells like the ones used in the XM25 might see greater usage in tanks, perhaps for minimizing damage and selective demolition...

the possibilities are endless.
2010-12-02 10:47:10
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5424|Massachusetts, USA
Unless the shell doesn't explode and then you have a room full of angry bad guys and a dud shell.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2010-12-02 14:54:16
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6775

Trotskygrad wrote:

Pubic wrote:

More automation - UAVs, sentry guns, self-propelled artillery, that sort of stuff.
Energy weapons, mainly in anti-missile/air/space stuff.  No laser rifles or phasers for a while yet, lads.
More cyber/electronic warfare.
I couldn't put my finger on anything, but I think there is a lot more potential for naval advancement than anybody realises, navy-specific stuff.
Battery technology and micro-nuclear reactors - this would have to go hand-in-hand.  Electric tanks, humvees etc.  Benefits would be mostly logistical.
I think that airburst shells like the ones used in the XM25 might see greater usage in tanks, perhaps for minimizing damage and selective demolition...

the possibilities are endless.
Those have been around for decades. Not in the exact same type, but still its kind of useless. It takes a while to figure out the exact range, imput it, fire, etc. Also to get it so the price is worth the benefit. Military tried to do way too much, way too fast, with the XM25.
2010-12-02 14:55:27
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5424|Massachusetts, USA

Commie Killer wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Pubic wrote:

More automation - UAVs, sentry guns, self-propelled artillery, that sort of stuff.
Energy weapons, mainly in anti-missile/air/space stuff.  No laser rifles or phasers for a while yet, lads.
More cyber/electronic warfare.
I couldn't put my finger on anything, but I think there is a lot more potential for naval advancement than anybody realises, navy-specific stuff.
Battery technology and micro-nuclear reactors - this would have to go hand-in-hand.  Electric tanks, humvees etc.  Benefits would be mostly logistical.
I think that airburst shells like the ones used in the XM25 might see greater usage in tanks, perhaps for minimizing damage and selective demolition...

the possibilities are endless.
Those have been around for decades. Not in the exact same type, but still its kind of useless. It takes a while to figure out the exact range, imput it, fire, etc. Also to get it so the price is worth the benefit. Military tried to do way too much, way too fast, with the XM25.
It has a laser rangefinder on it dude. Laser rangefinding is one of, if not the most, accurate way to determine range.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2010-12-02 18:41:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6799|'Murka

Trotskygrad wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:


bleh, EFPs seem to be the way into the future. However I don't think we can get EFP technology into an effective anti-tank launcher for both tanks and infantry, it seems better suited to mines and ambush devices, due to the shockwave of the explosion
HEAT rounds use EFP technology. So do just about every type of AT missile in existence.

Their recent use in IEDs and the ability of insurgents to make them correctly outside of a factory setting is what attracted so much attention...not the EFP technology itself. That's fairly old hat--just requires pretty tight machining tolerances.
Aren't new EFPs supposed to be longer?

"Extensive research is going on in the grayzone between jetting charges and EFPs, which combines the advantages of both types, resulting in very long stretched rod EFPs for short to medium distances (because of the lack of aerostability) with improved penetration capability."
Now you're talking about "new" EFPs instead of EFP technology in general. Your quote refers to developments in a seam/gap between technologies.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-12-02 21:28:50
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6775

UnkleRukus wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:


I think that airburst shells like the ones used in the XM25 might see greater usage in tanks, perhaps for minimizing damage and selective demolition...

the possibilities are endless.
Those have been around for decades. Not in the exact same type, but still its kind of useless. It takes a while to figure out the exact range, imput it, fire, etc. Also to get it so the price is worth the benefit. Military tried to do way too much, way too fast, with the XM25.
It has a laser rangefinder on it dude. Laser rangefinding is one of, if not the most, accurate way to determine range.
Yeah. This is probably pretty stupid, but I cant figure out for the life of me how you are supposed to laze the range to the air over a foxhole. Its not like you can shoot for the ground around it, its a bitch to do something like that if your at the same level.
2010-12-03 06:00:57
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6387|Vortex Ring State

Commie Killer wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Those have been around for decades. Not in the exact same type, but still its kind of useless. It takes a while to figure out the exact range, imput it, fire, etc. Also to get it so the price is worth the benefit. Military tried to do way too much, way too fast, with the XM25.
It has a laser rangefinder on it dude. Laser rangefinding is one of, if not the most, accurate way to determine range.
Yeah. This is probably pretty stupid, but I cant figure out for the life of me how you are supposed to laze the range to the air over a foxhole. Its not like you can shoot for the ground around it, its a bitch to do something like that if your at the same level.
aim slightly down or to the side?

in the example Teds cited, you see the soldier lasing the wall, not the air above the wall, then aiming upwards above the wall and firing.

Last edited by Trotskygrad (2010-12-03 06:01:47)

2010-12-03 06:47:30
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5424|Massachusetts, USA

Trotskygrad wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:


It has a laser rangefinder on it dude. Laser rangefinding is one of, if not the most, accurate way to determine range.
Yeah. This is probably pretty stupid, but I cant figure out for the life of me how you are supposed to laze the range to the air over a foxhole. Its not like you can shoot for the ground around it, its a bitch to do something like that if your at the same level.
aim slightly down or to the side?

in the example Teds cited, you see the soldier lasing the wall, not the air above the wall, then aiming upwards above the wall and firing.
You take an approximate range and then adjust the shell to explode a few meters from the measured range, is it so hard to understand? So if the range was 500m behind your targets, and 490m in front of them you can adjust the grenade to explode in the middle, at 495m. Do you get what I am saying?
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2010-12-03 06:53:55
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6387|Vortex Ring State

UnkleRukus wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:


Yeah. This is probably pretty stupid, but I cant figure out for the life of me how you are supposed to laze the range to the air over a foxhole. Its not like you can shoot for the ground around it, its a bitch to do something like that if your at the same level.
aim slightly down or to the side?

in the example Teds cited, you see the soldier lasing the wall, not the air above the wall, then aiming upwards above the wall and firing.
You take an approximate range and then adjust the shell to explode a few meters from the measured range, is it so hard to understand? So if the range was 500m behind your targets, and 490m in front of them you can adjust the grenade to explode in the middle, at 495m. Do you get what I am saying?
hence the + and - buttons on the gun

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard