It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UGV's

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
we have remote controlled UAV's we are even working on autonomous UAV's/UCAV's so why arent there any unmanned ground vehicles in use in the millitary. I dont mean little bomb disposal robots or robots to check round a corner. i mean decent sized things maybe 1.5m long, 1m wide and 1m high. armed with maybe a GPMG and maybe a shotgun or grenade launcher, maybe they could even be fitted with a anti tank gun/RPG launcher for special circumstances. if they had a normal camera, an infra red camera and a night vision scope (cant think of the real name but something that enhances the light to give an image). They wouldnt need a radio with a big range although that might be useful. They would probably be scouts but in a situation like falujah they could have been very useful. UAV's and UGV's working together would have reduced the number of American and Iraqi troops in danger.


Justin

EDIT:spelling

[edit on 17-4-2006 by justin_barton3]

[edit on 17-4-2006 by justin_barton3]




posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
lockheed are working on some projects you may be interested in :

video_clips

has a couple , enjoy



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
There is a simple reason: The ground is NOT without obstacles.

Basically anyone with a little interest in flight sims could steer an UAV. Also, anyone with some knowledge in IT and electrotechnics could put a computer and a GPS into an RC aircraft model, designate some waypoints and flight altitudes and he would have a working UAV (WORKING, not necessarily militarily effective
).

But on the ground things are different. The problem isnt even the vehicle itself. The problem lies in the uncertainty of ground. If the pilot only makes ONE wrong move or steering input and that "UGV" could flip over. Peripheral and spherical perception is much more important on the ground than in the air.

And autonomous steering works even worse: Look up the DARPA Grand Challenge 2005, its a race of robot vehicles that have to follow a precise and very clearly mapped course of 130 miles through the desert... and only 5 of 23 vehicles made it to the finish. The year BEFORE, not a single car drove farther than 7.5 miles.

And we´re talking about big large SUVs here that dont care about a bush or little rock in their way, stuffed to the roof with computers and a sensor array rivalling that of an AWACS airplane...



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
good points , lonestar .

its not just terain either that has to be dealt with , its situational awareness .

the current UAVs are slow and handle like dump trucks - great for long endurance loiter - and sbility of sensors - but a nightmare if it geyts within weapons range of any one who means them harm .

while every one has some sort of UAV , no one yet has a UCAV [ unmaned combat airborne vehicle ] .



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

while every one has some sort of UAV , no one yet has a UCAV [ unmaned combat airborne vehicle ].


Not entirely true, the MQ-1L Predator is able to carry two AGM-114C Hellfire missiles, and they can launch FIM-92 Stinger A2A missiles. This version of the Predator has been in use since 2001. There are also several other UCAV projects underway.

MQ-1L Predator


[edit on 17-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not entirely true, the MQ-1L Predator is able to carry two AGM-114C Hellfire missiles, and they can launch FIM-92 Stinger A2A missiles. This version of the Predator has been in use since 2001. There are also several other UCAV projects underway.

MQ-1L Predator


But the Predator isnt a "real" UCAV because its weapons are aimed and operated by a remote pilot. Its more an UAV with the remote pilot and his AGM-114s/Stingers riding "shotgun".

A "real" UCAV should at least be able to recognize and engage its targets autonomously. Whether there still has to be an operator who authorizes the weapon usage at the UCAV´s request is another question because that depends on the type of mission and the trust the military put into the automated system.

I dont think there is any problem to create any type of computer controlled vehicle - I am sure you could perfectly well put a cmputer in charge of a big bomber or fighter, too. But the problem we have is the virtually non-existant self-awareness of the computers: Image recognition doesnt really work, situational awareness desnt really work, and autonomous decision finding doesnt really work either. All these computers can do is follow their pre-programmed objectives, even if they are programmed on a flexible software basis they can still only be flexible within the parameters that are "set in stone" by the programmers. You cannot trust them to do anything really on their own.

And from what I know this wont change unless someone really builds a computer that can mimick the way our brains function.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And then, welcome SKYNET




[edit on 18/4/2006 by Lonestar24]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join