Rifle toting robots go into battles in Iraq

This robot looks just like the battlebots on TV. A very interesting concept. Potentially the soldier can be sitting in an air conditioned building in California and be battling insurgents in Iraq remotely.

shell> ssh swords215.army.mil "moveto 62.118/81.776; turn --degrees 12.87; shoot

--rounds 13; retreat --dest bridge.madiya"

formatting link

The U.S. Army quietly entered a new era earlier this summer when it sent the first armed ground robots into action in Iraq.

So far, the robot army's entrance into the war has been a trickle rather than an invasion.

Only three of the special weapons observation remote reconnaissance direct action system (SWORDS) have been deployed so far.

The Army has authorized the purchase of 80 more robots -- which are being touted as a potentially life-saving technology -- but acquisition officials have not come forth with the funding.

"As [soldiers] use them and like them, Ive heard positive feedback, they want 20 more immediately. Its a shame we cant get them to them," Michael Zecca, SWORDS program manager, told National Defense.

The three robots, which tote M249 rifles and are remotely controlled by a soldier through a terminal, have been in Iraq since April and are with the 3rd Infantry Division, 3rd Brigade.

After three years of development at the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., the robots were formally approved for combat use in June. Their exact whereabouts and missions are classified, but Zecca could confirm that they have been used in reconnaissance tasks and street patrols.

He did not know of any incidents of the weapon being fired so far.

SWORDS is designed to take on high risk combat missions, according to an Army statement. A specialist controlling the robot could send it into a potentially dangerous situation, such as a narrow street infested with snipers, seek targets and take them out before a foot patrol follows.

Anytime you utilize technology to take a U.S. service member out of harms way, it is worth every penny, said John Saitta, a consultant with Smart Business Advisory and Consulting and a major in the Marine Corps reserves, who has been trained as a weapons and tactic instructor.

These armed robots can be used as a force multiplier to augment an already significant force in the battle space, he added.

The 80 robots approved under an urgent materiel release, a mechanism designed to speed potentially life-saving technologies to the battlefield, are being held up due to limited funding in fiscal years

2006-2007, said Lt. Col. William Wiggins, a spokesman for the office of the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology.

While SWORDS is currently not a program of record, the Army has initiated a memorandum of agreement between ARDEC and Robotic System-Joint Project Office to expedite establishing a funded program to meet Army needs," Wiggins said in a written statement.

Additional details about the SWORDS program and the future of robots in the battlefield will appear in the September 2007 issue of National Defense Magazine.

Reply to
Ignoramus24409
Loading thread data ...

--Bad design and virtually worthless: it's designed to be backpacked, which means it's light and low caliber. Also it's not armoured, so it's easy to pick off. Someone's making a pile of money tho; "follow the money", eh? ;-)

Reply to
steamer

If it draws fire then the troops know there is enemy in the area. Think bait.

Wes

Reply to
Wes

And if the enemy sees it and holds fire, the troops won't know there is enemy in the area until it's too late.

Think dumb?

Reply to
Doug Miller

I have to respectfully disagree with steamer. The robots are valuable, not too easy to disable (compared to people), and have no fear. Plus their "casualties" do not need to be reported to the public.

After a while of development, they could learn to maneuver randomly so that they are very hard to hit and yet keep their weapons and cameras pointed on targets.

I would completely shit my pants if I was facing a "robot charge attack", personally.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus18364

So, in other words, the US is deploying terroristic robots? Or would that be robot terrorists?

Isn't that the definition of terrorism - to terrify the enemy?

Thanks, Rich

Reply to
Richard The Dreaded Libertaria

Usually it's defined as acts intended to coerce or intimidate a civilian population, rather than to intimidate an opposing military force. Attacks on the morale of a military force are pretty standard military tactics and have been for thousands of years.

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Only in your deranged imagination, apparently. The rest of the world seems to understand that terrorists target non-combatants in order to instill fear in same.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

Where did it say backpacked. I have a feeling it is much bigger than that.

Wes

Reply to
Wes

--You've got a point; still you could do that with a toy from Radio Shack and probably get the same effect, heh.

Reply to
steamer

Uh, it carries an M249 squad automatic rifle. I doubt if it will fit in a backpack.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

There was some kind of a strange flying thing, which did look like it could fit into a backpack.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus18364

But that was MY job!

I've been outsourced - to a robot?!?!?

Golly....

Reply to
cavelamb himself

Mine, too, sitting outside the gate with a camera so I could photograph the license plate when the two MPs chased the terrorists away with their 45's. I much prefer staying home and building camera- toting robots.

jw

Reply to
Jim Wilkins

Walked point a lot, eh?

For my money, the robot can have the job!

Reply to
John Husvar

That and to reduce the population's confidence in their government to protect them -- which was never a government's job anyway, but thinking it is has gained so much currency that individual reluctance to self-defend has almost become both normal and encouraged.

Reply to
John Husvar

Not exactly. Terrorist acts are meant to force the government to apply repressive and unpopular countermeasures. If these prove effective the 'useful idiots' (as the KGB called them) loudly protest that they weren't needed.

jw

Reply to
Jim Wilkins

Nah, that would take bigger balls than I ever had.

Crew chief / gunner on Scout helicopters. First Squadron - 9th Cav 1st Cav - 1968 - 1969

ie: Bait...

Pretty good at it too!

Hmmm, come to think of it, you may have reasonable a point there!?!

Reply to
cavelamb himself

That took BIG balls...

My respects

Gunner

Reply to
Gunner

There was an article one day, (for a few hours) about the invisible recon helicopter. Backpacked, and thrown like a frisby to launch. Looked like a boomerang. Since it spun, with no center "hub" it was nearly invisible. Props on the "arms" to drive it. Remotely operated, and I assume a bunch of electronics to stabilize the image. Now That looked like an innovative piece of gear!

Reply to
Half-Nutz

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.