Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Hardware

Army Eyes Anti-Sniper Robot 434

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the because-less-thinking-is-good dept.
Hiawatha writes "iRobot has teamed up with Boston University to create a robot that can spot enemy snipers on a battlefield. Before the smoke of the shot clears away, the REDOWL robot should have the shooter in its sights." iRobot is the same company that brought you the popular Roomba robotic vacuum.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Army Eyes Anti-Sniper Robot More

Army Eyes Anti-Sniper Robot

Comments Filter:

  • Two loopholes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by powerpuffgirls ( 758362 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:10PM (#13718248)
    Testers struck pieces of metal to simulate gunshots. REDOWL quickly aimed its infrared camera and laser rangefinder at the source of the noise, just as it did in tests at a Medfield gun range.

    If this is the case, this RedOwl can easily be fooled where there are multiple gunshots, especially in a battle field.

    While system could fire back at an enemy, it would be dangerous to have a weapon-toting robot that could open fire on its own. You need to have a man in the loop.

    By the time a man reacts, the sniper could have fled, or worse, fired another shot at him.
    • Sure the sniper could have fled, but I think you are forgetting that people on both sides of the battle fire guns. I'd rather not trust a robot to abstain from friendly fire.

      Furthermore I think you underestimate a sniper's reflexes; if they know the range and exact location of the enemy sniper, the enemy sniper should be worried.

      • Re:Two loopholes (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rei ( 128717 )
        Furthermore, one shouldn't assume foreigners are stupid, as though the rest of the world isn't intelligent enough to come up with a countermeasure. If that were the case, there would be no insurgency in Iraq right now, with the overwhelming force and technology that we bring to bear.

        They're picking out gunsmoke? Fine, target with a gun on a pivot, string, and a mirror so you're not next to that gun. Or, if you've got them, cheap video cameras like webcams (hey, cell phones are used as IED detonators when

        • Re:Two loopholes (Score:3, Insightful)

          by John Hasler ( 414242 )

          They're picking out gunsmoke?

          Of course not. There is this thing called "smokeless powder". They are relying on sound, infra-red, and pattern recognition.

          Fine, target with a gun on a pivot, string, and a mirror so you're not next to that gun. Or, if you've got them, cheap video cameras like webcams

          And miss most of your shots.

          Change weapon purchase/development from AK-47s to IEDs, mortars, grenades, and bomb belts. Etc.

          All of which reduces their freedom of action and consumes their resources

        • AK-47 (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Descalzo ( 898339 )
          Change weapon purchase/development from AK-47s to IEDs, mortars, grenades, and bomb belts. Etc.

          The reasons that so many guerilla movements use the AK-47 are because it is cheaper than any other gun (of similar effectiveness), it is easier to maintain (they are notoriously rugged), any idiot can fire one (if I can do it, how hard can it be?), and they are everywhere. You make it sound as though they had a purchasing department. I would be very surprised if they did.

          I realize that not all of the potentia

    • Re:Two loopholes (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:15PM (#13718293) Homepage Journal
      If this is the case, this RedOwl can easily be fooled where there are multiple gunshots, especially in a battle field.

      it is designed for sniper fire, not battle field fire.

      "By the time a man reacts, the sniper could have fled, or worse, fired another shot at him."
      what do you perpose? that the robot fire back? too much room for error, however once the sniper has been targetted you can:
      Have the robot search in IR.
      Once the person has been spotted, the IR can keep tracking.

      If the sniper fires a second shot from the same location either he is a sniper bent on dying, or has enough support he isn't concerned with return fire.

    • Re:Two loopholes (Score:3, Informative)

      by Seehund ( 86897 )
      [detected struck pieces of metal]

      If this is the case, this RedOwl can easily be fooled where there are multiple gunshots, especially in a battle field.

      That was probably for demonstration purposes. TFA also mentioned that the system could discern between different types of weapons/ammunition being fired.

      By the time a man reacts, the sniper could have fled, or worse, fired another shot at him.

      Of course. That doesn't mean it's not useful to know where fire comes from. Even if a sniper (or whatever) would take

    • Re:Two loopholes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bonhamme Richard ( 856034 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:25PM (#13718368)
      In regards to the robot being to slow returning fire:

      Most sniper doctrine dictates that you a) don't fire frequently, b) don't move suddenly.

      Both of those actions give a sniper away, and a spotted sniper is a dead sniper (they don't have particularly heavy armor, or the ability to rapid fire, at least not to the extent that a normal soilder does.)

      It makes a lot of sense for what we're doing in Iraq, really. If you're walking down a street in Bagdad and take fire, the first thing you do is take cover. Then you try to find out where the baddie is so you can off him. If your killer romba has found him, it just saves you the time of looking.

      As to being fooled, it probably wouldn't be to hard to have it track multiple targets. Navy ships have radars that can track 300+ at once. Well enough to put AA missiles on any of them at a word.

      • Re:Two loopholes (Score:5, Informative)

        by v1 ( 525388 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @09:14PM (#13718700) Homepage Journal
        About two years ago I saw a show that was showing off a new anti sniper tech. It was a very high speed digital camera attached to a computer. It actually looked for bullets, flying through the air. When it found one, it would trace the trajectory, usually seeing the bullet 3-6 times in all, and plot a reverse course which in theory should cross through the point of origin. (the gun)

        There was no weaponry attached, it was merely a computer screen to show the bullets as captured, overlaid on the live view, along with drawing a line showing reverse trajectory. The men in the field still had to interperet it and spot the sniper and deal with him.

        I assume this is the next step of evolution of the system I saw back then. Should have been sufficiently technologically challenging, though I suppose if you could get a more 3-d idea of where the bulllets were, (which would be possible with two cameras I suppose) then use laser rangefinding to calculate distance as you sweep across the reverse trajectory, you should be able to calculate how far away the bullet is from you at any given point in the sweep, and when that number intersects with the laser range finder's distance reading, unless you have crossed an obstacle, there's your target. Actually I suppose it would need an exact match, because if the LRF was showing several feet shorter distance, then you're probably passing an obstacle that's between you and the course of the bullet. It's probably using some variation on that simple idea.

        So we don't quite have a defense drone a la Aliens, but it's not a bad idea for somewhere that you are expecting trouble.

        Problem with snipers is, if they are halfway decent, after the first shot they've already won and it's not going to help much to shoot back.

        REALLY cool would be a gun that shoots lead slugs (like safety slugs, lightly jacketed powered lead) and could take bullets out of the air, Patriot Missile style. That's probably more than a few years out though.

        • Re:Two loopholes (Score:3, Insightful)

          by u38cg ( 607297 )
          It's been done. Trouble is that it turns out it's almost impossible to knock down the interceptee and take it out. It's easy enough to knock it off course, but that's not neccesarily any better.

          My attitude is, if you heard it, you're OK, because it already missed.

    • Loopholes? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:45PM (#13718526) Journal
      I hate it when people point out the blindingly obvious limitations of something as if they are some devastating flaws that render it useless.

      The sniper might run away? Wow such insight!

      In reality encouraging snipers to run away is still going to be a win on the battlefield. Presumably most snipers hole up in a reasonably secure, hidden vantage point and remain there. If a technology makes that unfeasible then you've gone a long way to decreasing their effectiveness as their initial tactical advantage is neutralised on their first shot. A sniper who's legging it isn't shooting at you and if you have a camera automatically pointing in his direction then tracking him is a possibility.

      • Re:Loopholes? (Score:5, Informative)

        by pi_rules ( 123171 ) * on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:08PM (#13718997)
        Presumably most snipers hole up in a reasonably secure, hidden vantage point and remain there.

        Negative. Snipers do NOT fire from the same location. Now, a sharpshooter might if they're in a fortified location (like in an urban setting) but a sniper out in the wild gets their behind out of the area once they've taken their shot.

        Take a gander at the book 'Marine Sniper' some time. It's the story of Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam. There's some pretty amazing tales in there. I'll give one great example.

        He was dropped off to take care of a Vietnamese offical in one of his toughest jobs. He knew it was nuts, but took it because if he didn't he knew they'd get some other guy to do it that wasn't as good as him, and the guy would probably die.

        The building where the official would be dropped off was about, IIRC, 2800 meters away from the tree line. It was just a big field after that with tall grass. Hathcock knew he'd only have one shot at this, so he had to get in close -- which for him was 800 meters. He spent about 2 days straight crawling through the weeds out there between the tree line to a depression in the field where he could take his shot and then get out parallel to the way he came in and then await extraction.

        He took his shot, saw it was a definate hit and then "booked" outta there.. it took him hours and hours to crawl out of there on his belly. You don't just get up and start running, you still have to maintain stealth.

      • Re:Loopholes? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by CHESTER COPPERPOT ( 864371 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:20PM (#13719070)
        "In reality encouraging snipers to run away is still going to be a win on the battlefield."

        It depends on what you mean by "win." You see, for the case in Iraq at the moment their fighters are culturally influenced by Asian and Steppe fighting methods (the history of this stems from Sun Tzu and other cultural writings being moved along the Silk Road and also from Mongol invasions) which posits that running away is in fact winning in their mindset. The western mindset, which you so eloquently put in your example of winning, is about fighting the enemy in a decisive battle and if the enemy runs that is a "win" in our mindset. So at a tactical level our western mindset might see it as a win but for the enemy it is part of a longer term strategic culture that champions running away to fight again another day.

      • "The sniper might run away? Wow such insight!"

        What's really irritating about that dude's post is that he hasn't thought about what it'd be like in a situation like that. Humans can't see where the bullets came from. The best they can do is make an assumption about where the shot came from based on where the bullet struck. In this case, shots fired, everybody ducks, Robot sits there looking in the direction of where the shot came from. Even if the robot doesn't cap the camping faggot, they know where the
    • it would be dangerous to have a weapon-toting robot that could open fire on its own.

      Yeah, it would be a shame to wreck an ordinary, perfectly safe situation such as a war zone with a dangerous contraption like this.

    • If this is the case, this RedOwl can easily be fooled where there are multiple gunshots, especially in a battle field.

      Not necessarily.

      The article (not surprisingly) doesn't go into detail about "REDOWL's microphones" but if they're using a mic array (which would be logical), than the array will be able to distinguish between multiple sources. The only way to fool it would be to a) fire at exactly the same moment and b) fire at exactly the same position (or at equidistant positions at a 90 degree angle f

    • As has been proven time and time again, having a "man" in the loop doesn't keep your own people from getting killed.

      The best way to not get killed by accident in a war zone is to stay home and make babies.
    • By the time a man reacts, the sniper could have fled, or worse, fired another shot at him.

      What if the robot is shot? Even presuming it had a gun it could rotate and fire back nearly instantaneously, if a supersonic round was used, the robot would be lying in pieces on the ground before it picked up sound waves from anything. If the detection system was optical-based, it MIGHT have a chance...

      • > What if the robot is shot?

        Then a man wasn't. And the other robot will have located the sniper.
      • "What if the robot is shot? "

        this isn't a movie, it's hard enough to shoot a target as large as a man at a distance. This thing is a sony digital camera and microphones weighing 5.5 lbs so I imagine it's pretty damn small. At a distance this would be incredibly difficult to shoot, and even if the sniper did shoot the robot first it's done it's job, alerted them to the presence of a sniper so they can take cover.

  • Oh, great... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gardyloo ( 512791 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:13PM (#13718273)
    ... as long as there are couches for the anti-sniper robots to go hide under when they run out of juice and get lost looking for their docking units.

    • Re:Oh, great... (Score:5, Funny)

      by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:37PM (#13718464)
      Soldier: Sir the unit took out the enemy sniper sir.

      Commander: Excellent!

      Soldier: Sir the unit also shot 2 ducks for dinner sir.

      Commander: Excellent!

      Soldier: Sir the unit also shot our spy sir.

      Commander: Damn. Just reload for next mission.

      Soldier: Nothing is left sir, the unit used all 7000 rounds on a plastic helmet with a smiley face.

      • In seriousness, I can just imagine how dumb the soldiers would look if their robot tells them to target the cartriges that the insurgents rigged to go off in random locations every five seconds, while the insurgents fire smokeless powder from rooms with fans blowing the gasses into the building/vent/chimney/pipe/whatever.

  • how to keep it from shooting our own guys (Score:5, Interesting)

    by soft_guy ( 534437 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:14PM (#13718278)
    Besides, he said, it would be dangerous to have a weapon-toting robot that could open fire on its own.
    ''You need to have a man in the loop," he said.

    The article says that the robot would not return fire, it would just pinpoint where the shooting is coming from. So, why does it need to be a robot exactly? Why wouldn't it just be a comptuer with some cameras and microphones?

    One idea is that our soldiers could have a chip in their dogtags that the robot could identify so as to not shoot at them. Then you would have the problem of the enemy stealing people's dog tags, but maybe you could deactivate that code once you knew the enemy had the tag.

    • The article says that the robot would not return fire, it would just pinpoint where the shooting is coming from. So, why does it need to be a robot exactly? Why wouldn't it just be a computer with some cameras and microphones?

      It is just a computer with some cameras and microphones. The article indicates that it was mounted on iRobot's existing "PackBot" robot. It is an add-on to an existing battlefield system, not a dedicated robot. Besides, this gives the detector a stable platform to work from, and m

    • One idea is that our soldiers could have a chip in their dogtags that the robot could identify so as to not shoot at them

      Right. I think people here need to realize that the real world isn't like a video game. Having 'robots' automagically shooting things is bad, especially in urban environments where our soldiers spend alot of time these days. Some little kid makes a loud noise or is near a discharging weapon and gets his brains blown out.

      Computers provide information. People make decisions.

    • Impractical (Score:3, Insightful)

      by heavy snowfall ( 847023 )
      The enemy would be able to locate your soldiers by their tags too. I wouldn't want to carry an ID beacon on a battlefield...

      --
      the best free palm games [arpx.net]

  • But... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Sediyama ( 527384 )
    A good sniper needs only one shot to have his job done.

    • Re:But... (Score:2, Funny)

      by tarogue ( 84626 )
      Ah, but snipers don't work that way.

      First, shoot the point-man in the belly and a long, slow, agonizing death happens. Other members of the unit will try to save their guy. The sniper then picks them off one-by-one, safe in his hidey-hole.

    • Re:But... (Score:3, Funny)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      It will be hard to find snipers that are willing to die after that one shot.

      a sniper needs to use 1 shot at a time.

      those time will probably be far apart, one this week, one next month, one next hour, etc. so it kind of ruins the snipers schedule if they are dead.

      • Re:But... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Rolo Tomasi ( 538414 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @09:24PM (#13718755) Homepage Journal
        Hate to introduce facts into this discussion, but here we go:

        • bullet speed: twice the speed of sound
        • range: 1000 meters
        • time for bullet to reach target: 1.47 seconds
        • time for gunshot sound to reach target: 2.94 seconds
        • time for sniper to duck after confirming hit: 1.47 seconds

        First rule of sniping: never fire from the same position twice. All this is going to do is weed out the snipers that are stupid enough to keep their heads sticking up after firing at US troops.

    • I saw that movie [imdb.com] too.

      I think they're talking more of the crazy insurgent camped out ina building with a 40 AK-47 type of Sniper.

  • Then... (Score:5, Funny)

    by op12 ( 830015 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:15PM (#13718294) Homepage
    After shooting the sniper, the robot proceeds to vacuum the battlefield.

  • Trex Enterprises Built a Sniper Detector Years Ago (Score:5, Informative)

    by OSUJamesC ( 614361 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:16PM (#13718299)
    I work for a company called Trex Enterprises, and we built one of these a long time ago. Go check it out on our website... http://www.trexenterprises.com/laserrad.html [trexenterprises.com]

    • Re:Trex Enterprises Built a Sniper Detector Years (Score:5, Interesting)

      by uradu ( 10768 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:49PM (#13718550)
      I few years ago I think one of the Discovery channels had something on an optical bullet tracker, I'm not sure if it was from Trex or not. Basically, it took advantage of the fact that bullets move much faster than anything in their vicinity, so the only major differences between successive images from a high-speed digital camera would most likely be the bullets. They had a cool demo system where the camera was pointing at a shooting gun in the distance, and it was highlighting the trajectories of the bullets it detected on a computer screen, with all of the lines converging on the gun. Couple this optical system with acoustic triangulation, and you have the best of both systems: zero in the camera quickly on the general source of the shots using sound, then pin-point the exact source of the bullets optically. Eventually this system could be made compact enough to fit on top of a rifle like a digital scope.
  • I sure hope it's better than the Roomba at its job... a friend of mine had one of those a year or two ago. It always managed to get itself stuck behind shoes, and didn't even do that good of a job vacuuming the floor.

  • Fucking w4llh4x0r1ng c4mp!ng n00bz! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:17PM (#13718307)
    > Before the smoke of the shot clears away, the REDOWL robot should have the shooter in its sights.

    Getting pwn3d by a .50cal through a wall may not qualify as wallhacking, but still... aimbots vs. campers.

    War may never have been fun, but remember the good old days, when it was supposed to be? :)

  • What does the future hold? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Valarauk ( 670014 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:19PM (#13718319)
    I told my father about this article a few minutes ago and I think his response was comment worthy.

    "I think I saw that movie, the Robots won".

  • We would locate the sniper after we got killed while we were in freelook waiting to respawn. Then we'd charge them, no matter how many lives it took to get them.

  • Turtles and Defense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leighklotz ( 192300 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:20PM (#13718326) Homepage
    Back in the old days, before Rod Brooks started iRobot, I worked part-time at a small MIT AI Lab spinoff making robots for kids called Turtles. The Turtle was an outcome of Logo [c2.com], and, which itself was an outgrowth of Lisp, and so somehow the company's name got on a list of AI and Robotics vendors. (Sidenote: Lego Mindstorms also came from this same group of people at MIT and industry, though not this particular startup.)

    Anyway, we got a letter from a defense contractor asking for "applications of our AI and robotics products to battlefield logistics" and gave a half-dozen or so areas for us to evaluate our products.

    As you can imagine, puzzlement gave way to amusement, which quickly gave way to mayhem and by 3:05AM we had started writing our response, starting off with "The Turtle enjoys very low observability, due to a minimal radar cross-section and an almost non-existent infra-red signature."

    The letter made the rounds on the photocopy/bulletin-board circuit (there was no electronic copy available outside), and somehow the response got published in an ACM journal. Through the magic of modern imaging, it is available for you to read today in PDF [acm.org].

    • Hehe, this is hilarious!

      Reminds me of the day when military applications really were a cause for (possibly comic) revulsion. Nowdays if you responded in such a fashion to the military you would be branded a terrorist. sigh.

    • Some choice quotes (Score:5, Funny)

      by gardyloo ( 512791 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:45PM (#13718527)
      [...] ground troops will find it hard to spot even at very close range.

      [...] our research department is currently engaged in the testing of a 100-mile C3 for the Turtle. The thrust of this research is towards the development of an Extended-Range Turtle II. While this does result in a shorter tooth-to-tail ratio, we feel it could significantly enhance the battlefield capabilities of Turtle installations.

      3. Installation Cost
        The Terrapin Turtle is designed for installation at no cost by children and elementary school teachers. We feel that military installation cost should be under $10,000/unit.

      4. Annual Cost of expendable supplies and spares per unit.
      Ball-point Pen refills $0.59(one spare included)
            In the rugged terrain of the battlefield, under rigorous load conditions, it may be necessary to occasinally replace the Turtle Tires. Due to fluctuations in the world rubber market, quotation of exact prices is not possible.

              I love it.
    • Through the magic of modern imaging, it is available for you to read today in PDF [acm.org]

      Sadly, only for members of the ACM. You can't even register for access unless you're a member.

  • Okay... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Tavor ( 845700 )
    But what happens if the sniper's first shot takes out your REDOWL unit? Are these things armoured, and would a robot with enough armour to stop an AP round have the endurance to keep up with soldiers? Shoot, this is a good idea (no pun intended) but is it practical for the battlefield?

  • Someone please explain to me... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Helpadingoatemybaby ( 629248 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:21PM (#13718334)
    How is this roomba going to fit the dead sniper in the tiny little vacuum cleaner bag?

  • Hunting Over Internet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SenFo ( 761716 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:21PM (#13718335) Homepage
    I admit that I know nothing about this technology, at all, but in my imagination, I would like to think that a technology such as the one used for hunting via the internet [msn.com] would be a little better. At least a real human would have the ability to decide when and where to shoot rather than relying on code to decide whether or not the target is friend of foe.

    Just a thought, though I admit that a robot has a lot more of the geek quality many of us would like to see ;-).
  • setup a test using the ever popular younger brother [slashdot.org] as a target?

  • Han *must* shoot first (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MBraynard ( 653724 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:23PM (#13718353) Journal
    Find me a sniper detecting robot that can find them BEFORE the first shot...

    Besides, any *smart* sniper moves from his position after each shot and rarely double taps.

  • The report is only a fragment from a probe droid in the Hoth system, but it's the best lead we've had.

  • Roomba...pff (Score:5, Funny)

    by EdwinBoyd ( 810701 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:30PM (#13718408)
    If it's from the makers of roomba, all the sniper has to do is stand in a corner and that bot will never be able to get him.
  • ...in order to kill Juba [guardian.co.uk], the elusive sniper that has sapped morale in Baghdad.

  • Step 1, complete... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @08:50PM (#13718556)
    Step 2, get a single-shot gun on that puppy, and let a local controller make the decision on whether or not the bot can take the shot from a short distance. Have a soldier then reload the shot, and repeat.

    Step 3, have a single controller controlling a small set of turrets, each have many bullets, but a very limited firing rate, and low-calibre. These are mostly used for guarding, but can auto-locate and prioritise potential targets for highlight to the user as they appear. Guards are replaced. A speaker system will warn long before any shots are taken, and will require keyed permission before any weapon may be fired.

    Step 4, fully-automatic, mobile turrets with extremely basic quasi-AI. Simple patrol routines, many bots to a controller, controller is given the highest priority input at any given time, though each device still requires digital oversight before a weapon may be fired. Speaker and microphone system allows basic use in social settings. Simple anti-theft devices are unsuccessfully installed to prevent black market aquisition.

    Step 5, regular quasi-infantry replacement. Still no regular AI, but simple stair-climbing and object manipulator add-on components allow regular use of this cheap, modular little turret. Increases patrol coverage ability of the reduced-size army, and is used even in the most quiet occupied zones. Emits teargass or similar irritant if not opened correctly, and each device has a fairly unique set of openning steps. Becomes the common fictionalized face of the modern army.

    Step 6, increased use and acceptance of such tools allow isolated private use of non-lethal mobile turrets. Wars and occupations that used to be implausible even today are actively considered. AI is still considered taboo on these units, but they do get more advanced quasi-AI never-lethal automatic modes with simple yet elegant rule sets for more situations.

    Step 7, news reports of incidents and possible tragedies involving these units no longer phase much ofthe occupying nation's citizens. All controlled-weapon-robotic activity are redundantly monitored, and the guilty are regularly punished - the system is widely trusted and highly valued. Simple social-use AI robots gain a small level of utility (rather than entertainment), and limited acceptance. The solar system has a wide array of weak-AI devices, both public and private, on each planetoid. The use of humans in the army is mostly that of tactical oversight of unmanned weapon platforms of many types.

    Will the end result be a good thing... can't tell. But something like this progression seems innevitable given existing technology, and the needs of both our economy and the perception of our military circumstances.

    Ryan Fenton

  • Wow, a robot that detects snipers after they've fired their first shot.

    Maybe they could use this technology in other applications, like detecting suicide bombers from the sound of the blasting cap that sets off the dynamite. Or maybe a robot that catches serial killers by counting the victims -- once they reach eight it sets off an alarm.

  • Maybe they could just merge the roomba and the Sniper bot and create the "iSoomba", a sniper robot that efficiently cleans up the dead body when it's done killing!

  • A poster above mentioned the possibility of a .50 caliber rifle shooting through a wall. But brute force aside, what about the extremely long range of these sniper rifles? Even with a high-zoom camera I doubt that the robot would catch the puff of smoke from one of these monsters 2,000 meters away:

    http://www.barrettrifles.com/military.htm [barrettrifles.com]

    Mind you, these rifles won't just kill people at that range, but they'll punch holes through armor or engine blocks in vehicles and aircraft from that distance. Talk

  • ... this kind of thing ruined Counterstrike.

  • Spotlight (Score:3)

    by MourningBlade ( 182180 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @09:17PM (#13718720) Homepage

    In the article they mention that the machine can illuminate the target and can work on a mobile platform or can be mounted.

    It would seem to me that this would be excellent to have either moving with troops and/or mounted around the barracks in an urban area. If someone takes a shot at you, the sniper is lit with a spotlight which a) prevents them from seeing very well, and b) lets everyone and their dog know where the shot came from. This would be quite useful.

    Yes, there are problems, but I'd be interested to see how it worked out.

    The holy grail, of course, would be a system which puts a bullet in the head of anyone who takes a shot at you, but that's just not going to happen - way too many unsolvable problems.

    Even a system that put a tranq dart or something like that would be very hard to do properly - it's not the tranq dart that's the hard part so much as the problem that your troops might not be able to fire at something, or that a handyman would hammer in something at just the wrong pitch[1].

    [1] - on the other hand, they DO get paid by the hour. 10 minutes a nail might be pretty good cash. ;-)

  • Human error (Score:3, Funny)

    by icepick72 ( 834363 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @09:18PM (#13718728)
    I'd hate to be standing on the battlefield having a calm smoke and accidentally drop my plank.

  • In related news . . . (Score:4, Funny)

    by ln -sf head ass ( 585724 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @09:25PM (#13718761)
    . . . eBay has expressed interest in the technology for as yet unspecified applications.

  • Just sound won't do it.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @09:30PM (#13718793)
    Just using sound won't do it for detection. Silicing is possible if you keep your bullet from moving more than ~1100fps, and long range accurate fire is still possible with that muzzel velocity if the ballistic coefficient is high enough (think sptitzer/boattail .308 around 275 grains). Even if you stay wtih "standard" ammo, you can alter the sound of it using "silencer" technology, to the point where it isn't really recognizeable as a gunshot.
    • If you force all snipers to use special equipment you eliminate most of them.
    • 1100 fps is slow. Army snipers are using 300 Win Mags at 2800+ fps with a 200 gr bullet. Then think about the Barrett 50 shooting a 400 gr slug at 3500+ fps. That gives you enough time to duck out of sight on a 1000+ yd shot. The idea of the sniper round is extreme accuracy and a flat trajectory. This is only obtained by speed and bullet design. 1100 fps is a 12 ga shotgun with target loads, (Win AA 1 oz #9 shot). I reload my 357 Mag with 140 gr hollow points at 850 fps.

      Suppresors only work on subsonic roun

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @09:52PM (#13718909)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • No more snipers? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Infonaut ( 96956 )
      The perps aren't sniping anymore, they're blowing themselves apart with dynamite.

      I'd have thought this would be modded +5 Funny, because it is. But maybe people seriously think that the military no longer needs to deal with snipers. Unfortunately, the presence of suicide bombers does not negate the presence of snipers, and that Iraq is not the only place the US military finds itself these days.

  • Thoughts from a former sniper (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bender0x7D1 ( 536254 ) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @11:39PM (#13719404)
    I used to be in the US Marines and was trained as a Designated Marksman, which is an urban sniper, and worked with many of the Scout-Snipers which are the "classic" snipers.

    My first comment is that a good sniper can hit someone at ~1500 meters with a .50 caliber rifle (A.K.A. Special Application Sniper Rifle (SASR)). This means 5 seconds until the sound is heard and means the sniper can get a decent head start running away, if they want, which they probably don't or they can just stand up, wave, and be happy they are outside the range of any weapon their target is carrying. This is assuming they don't fire from the crest of a hill and slowly back down off of it removing themselves from any danger of direct-fired weapons. Yes, indirect fire is still a problem, but it has always been a problem. If you know where the sniper is, you can always call for mortar or artillery fire. However, this is hardly cost effective, and even calling in a strike on their position does not guarantee a kill - especially if they choose their location wisely.

    Second, snipers are some of the sneakiest people I have ever met. If you tell them there is a robot that will respond to the noise they make, they will just set up a booby trap a hundred meters away and have their spotter trigger it at the same time they shoot. (Snipers always work in teams.) There is no way the robot is going to hear a bullet fired when it is being over-loaded by the sound of 2 pounds of C4 being detonated. If the snipers find out that it can still hear them, they will daisy chain a couple of claymore mines together with some det cord just to make things more confusing.

    Finally, on a sort-of-related-but-side note, I have seen bullets fly through the air and it is pretty cool. When standing behind a shooter, just focus on the air about half-way to their target. After a few shots, your eye will start focusing on the bullet.

  • I hope... (Score:3, Funny)

    by catdevnull ( 531283 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @12:10AM (#13719527)
    I hope it's as good as the bots in UT2K4--those things kick my ass when you crank them up!

  • Military-Industrial Complex: If you disagree, kill (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:25AM (#13719801) Homepage
    The mood of the average person in the U.S. now is that they are willing to pay to kill. They area willing to pay an endless amount of money for killing, but very little for making relationships.

    It's all part of the thinking of the Military-Industrial Complex: If you disagree with someone, just kill them.

    Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in World War Two and former U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower said in a famous speech [yale.edu] that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here's a quote:

    "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

    Another quote:

    "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded."

  • Enemy at the Gates (Score:3, Interesting)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@RABBIT ... minus herbivore> on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @01:43AM (#13719857) Homepage
    If you're interested in the subject of snipers in general you might want to read this story [216.198.255.120] (and elsewhere) about a WWII Russian sniper named Vasily Zaitsev, and his duel with a German sniper sent to eliminate him. Various versions have the two adversaries stalking each other through the rubble-strewn streets of Stalingrad for days or weeks. The tale is often disputed and could have been Soviet propaganda, but it's a good story. I think it was also the basis for the movie "Enemy at the Gates."

  • new kind of infinite loop (Score:3, Funny)

    by meekg ( 30651 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @02:25AM (#13719979) Homepage
    1. place two auto-firing REDOWLs in the street.
    2. make one of them fire.
    3. sit back and enjoy.

  • This is how it starts . . . (Score:3, Funny)

    by sunspot42 ( 455706 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @03:59AM (#13720272)

    iRobot is the same company that brought you the popular Roomba robotic vacuum.

    Great. This is how it starts, people. First they make household robots. Then they make sniper-spotters for the military. Pretty soon you've got a Cylon rebellion on your hands. Then the Cylons go away for 50 years, return as human cyborgs, and begin having wild sex with your brilliant computer science guys.

    Hey, maybe those Roomba guys are just /. readers looking to get laid in their old age. Way to plan ahead, fellas!

  • Will last exactly one shot in the field (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fygment ( 444210 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @08:46AM (#13721183)
    Since it must be mounted in the clear to ensure it is getting direct path sound, the sensors will be the sniper's first target. The added psychological impact of the troops seeing their sniper protection shot to hell is a sniper's dream. Thats what sniping is all about, sowing fear.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close