5 ms·
None of the "on a dog" designs make sense to me. Robot tanks have always been able to maneuver over tougher obstacles and much harder to knock over and are sig
by LinuxBender 3y ago
None of the "on a dog" designs make sense to me. Robot tanks have always been able to maneuver over tougher obstacles and much harder to knock over and are significantly faster. Some tanks with the tall tracks can right-side themselves. Stability is important with aimed weapons. A tank can have a turret with multiple projectile devices and could fire any direction. A dog would fall over firing sideways. So why do we keep using the dog form?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoSmaller, lighter, traverses rough terrain better. How will your mini tank deal with stairs or rubble? Rocket launchers also don't have recoil. Edit: Why would a robo dog necessarily fall over? They could take a wide stance and essentially become a tripod if they need stability.
- LinuxBender 3y agoWhy would a robo dog necessarily fall over? That's just what they do. Several Youtubers have fired guns off the robot dogs and even firing straight ahead can knock them over. Non autonomous tanks have navigated stairs just fine for the FBI and SWAT teams they do it all the time.
- pacifika 3y agoI think perhaps the dog is accepted as a human companion so it avoids the whole robocop scenario where we’re having autonomous robots gunning down humans.
- icegreentea2 3y ago"Robo doggo! Get in the house and get to the second floor and provide armed over watch out of the west facing windows!"
- garblegarble 3y agoI'm no expert, but aren't rocket launchers recoilless? As for why the dog form factor, I'm betting it'll be because a dog form factor makes for a much cheaper swarm than a tank form factor. Less mass to move about so a smaller power pack, too
- dmoy 3y agoSome rocket launchers are "recoilless". In particular, shoulder fired ones tend to be, so as to, you know, not knock people over. (LAW, AT4, etc)
- thinkmassive 3y ago> It's interesting to note that the Marines refer to the design tested last month as a "robotic goat" rather than the far more common robot dog description. Maybe four legs provides better all-terrain capabilities at lower parts cost than a treaded vehicle?
- darkclouds 3y ago[dead]
- lenkite 3y agoIt doesn't have a tail and carries a load. So "goat" is indeed the far better metaphor. Trust the marines to get it right.
- CSMastermind 3y agoI'd assume the "dog" designs have better movement in many terrains. Trying to drive through a forest, swamp, jungle, and plenty of other terrains is tricky to impossible while something with legs can easily go through it.
- mcpackieh 3y agoAn M72 is single use, so if the robot falls over after firing it that isn't the end of the world. It can probably right itself and get back on its feet, then return to base for another rocket. Still, I share your skepticism of these robot dogs. They seem like a solution looking for a problem.
- chatmasta 3y agoI'm not sure US marines need a "good reason" to strap a rocket launcher onto a robot dog, other than "because it's awesome."
- RecycledEle 3y agoDogs can jump on and over taller obstacles than can a similarly sized tank. The special forces ideal is small packages with large firepower. I can not imagine anything that better meets that definition than quadracopter scouts and robot dogs with missile launchers. Falling over after the shot is irrelevant. Basic marksmanship training teaches recruits to pull the trigger until the shot going off surprises them. We only care about what happens next if we want a quick follow up shot, which is not possible with single shot rocket launchers.