Slashdot Log In
US Army Furthers Development of Robotic Suits
Posted by
Zonk
on Thursday April 17, @11:12AM
from the ellen-ripley-is-a-lesson-to-us-all dept.
from the ellen-ripley-is-a-lesson-to-us-all dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports on advancements in the US military's robotic exoskeleton program. It's being spearheaded by Sarcos, a research laboratory in Utah. The firm has designed the XOS exoskeleton for US Army use, a lightweight frame that gives the user greater strength and endurance. 'With the exoskeleton on and fully powered up, Rex can easily pull down weight of more than 90 kilos, more than he weighs. For the army the XOS could mean quicker supply lines, or fewer injuries when soldiers need to lift heavy weights or move objects around repeatedly. Initial models would be used as workhorses, on the logistics side. Later models, the army hopes, could go into combat, carrying heavier weapons, or even wounded colleagues.'"
Related Stories
Firehose:US Army Develops Robotic Suits by Anonymous Coward
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.

Battle of the Future (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
No Iron Man tag? (Score:3, Funny)
Reply to This
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now what I want is a proper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mech [wikipedia.org]. I mean, they just need to make this thing 10m tall and give it a nuclear reactor as a power source, right?
Starcraft II (Score:5, Funny)
And here we have another person that will seem to drop off the face of the planet once Starcraft II ships. Please remember not to play for 48 hours without sleep while consuming only nachos and soda, we wouldn't want you to permanently drop off the face of the planet. OK, maybe not "we" but "somebody" out there would care.
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No Iron Man tag? (Score:4, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:No Iron Man tag? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tanks are only a compromise, since you get only one cannon for 4 to 6 crew: crew members are much harder to replace than tanks or cannons, and they would be a lot more effective and less vulnerable if you could spread them instead of having all 4 in the same place.
During WWI, before armored vehicles became used, old style armor was tried, but it was too heavy: one example here (not in English, but the pictures don't need translation) http://historiasconhistoria.blogia.com/2008/021401-luchas-medievales-en-el-siglo-xx.php [blogia.com]
Reply to This
Parent
Re:No Iron Man tag? (Score:4, Interesting)
Harry G. Stine's old Warbots series seems like a more realistic view of high-tech combat in the future, not as much Starship Troopers, though I would dearly love to have a combat suit like that.
The other factor that made these weapons so effective was a god-like view of the battlefeld thanks to sensory fusion software and tiny observation robots. You know how you can see everything so well in video games but generals on the ground are stuck with maps and radio reports? Imagine having a view of the battlefield as detailed as the video game, and pushing the fog of war back to boot. That's what they're already working on at the Army testing ranges today, using low-observable drones to loiter over the battlefield.
Now if we ever get the quantum entanglement stuff sorted out and can come up with an untrackable instant communication technology like the ansible of scifi, then hooooooly shit. Right now the biggest drawback to remotely operated robots is that the AI's just aren't good enough yet to rely on local control in the event contact is lost. Predator drones can continue their mission on autopilot and fly back in range but the last thing I want to see is an armed combat bot on the ground trying to pick targets without a human to say "no, not a target, bad robot!" If they default to inactivity when jammed, that just means the enemy gets to pick them off as their leisure.
Reply to This
Parent
So, it's official, we're nearly ready for "aliens" (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything with useful commercial life would need power like a forklift, and that is about as small as you can make a useful 'suit' for lifting that is self powered.
Who knows, maybe granny will walk again one day soon. What we do know is that she won't get to compete in the olympics with her new suit!
Won't somebody think of the illegal immigrants? This thing could put the day laborers out of work.
No car analogy yet... forklift was as close as I could get
Reply to This
I wonder though (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize that troops have to carry an ungodly amount of gear, but by the time all the technical challenges of a truly battle-ready suit are met, surely putting a person in it would be a waste.
Reply to This
Re:I wonder though (Score:5, Interesting)
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not though? I'd like to see an airtight argument that practical powered armor is, net, more effective than an ROV. It's not that ROVs can, in the near futu
Re:I wonder though (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the human form really the ideal form for urban warfare? Why not a swarm of robotic bees with taser stings? Furthermore, you aren't restricted to one form factor. You can have robotic spy-flies, robotic sapper-rats, robotic wall battering elephants.
It's not that I can't imagine a force of power armored commandos that can do things that normally equipped ones cannot. It's that I can't imagine the technology that makes that practical not creating even better choices.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:I wonder though (Score:5, Insightful)
Also because the human body is remarkably flexible in its movement and our brains are evolved to be quite good at this type of movement. An augmentation system doesn't have to necessarily PROTECT the wearer - that's what armour is for. It's about enhancing the natural strength of the soldier, who is still one of the most effective weapons in nearly all combat situations. The ability to lift heavier objects (weapons, for instance), and presumably to throw things like grenades further will be useful.
I did find it amusing that the first uses are hoped to cause "fewer injuries when soldiers need to lift heavy weights or move objects around repeatedly". Not much of a combat objective!
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Popsci (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
loading bombs/missiles (Score:3, Insightful)
Reply to This
the path to Heinlein's Starship Troopers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reply to This
What terrain would be suitable for powered suits? (Score:4, Insightful)
'Suits have this problem called weight distribution. Their footprints are about on par with a small car overloaded. When try to move loads on poor terrain, you'll wind up either getting dug out or being picked back up because the soil could not hold you up. Tracks that can handle twice their load can dance on that kind of terrain, even BobCats with tracks can handle soft sands that would try to swallow an average joes' foot.
I can see powersuits working on prepared grounds, Asphalt, cement concrete, macadam with treated substrates, but not thrown into a active combat situation where they would have to slog through mud or soft soils.
Reply to This
The 2nd Amendment (Score:5, Funny)
The right to bare Robot arms shall not be infringed!
Reply to This
Re:obligatory quote... (Score:5, Funny)
It's "Get away from her, you bitch!"
Reply to This
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, you've seen many forklifts in the field unloading Hueys or Blackhawks, or unpacking a palette from a Chinook or Hercules?
Heavy weapons? Is the US military's problem really a lack of firepower? I seriously doubt it.
OK, you obviously never saw the guy carrying the M60 and its ammo.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Weight of more than 90 kilos? (Score:4, Funny)
Translation: "I've never seen the inside of a gym before."
It's okay, this is an understanding crowd for such things.
Reply to This
Parent