7 ms·

US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

44 points by kjhughes 13y ago

tomphoolery 13y ago
Wow, surprising. Wasn't really expecting the clone wars to happen during my lifetime. ;)
joe_the_user 13y ago
It sounds like they want to shrink the size of a brigade and say they've replaced the soldiers by robot but actually they'll just be shrinking (Edit: It's not like I'd contest the decision to shrink brigade size. The main thing is the claim this will be replacing soldiers with robots, seems like just overly bold PR.). Unless there were a whole lot of articles on robots working outside of rather specialized situations like defusing bombs (where I think a lot of the operation involve remote control activity, not autonomous activity).
- Spooky23 13y ago
  After a decade at war, you need to wind things down and consolidate to get rid of the waste that's accumulated. The Army probably has all sorts of problems because they weren't prepared for urban warfare in 2001, and they got prepared by welding armor to everything that they have. Humvees and trucks with an extra ton of armor lose at least that much cargo capacity.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Well the US military has been operating at a large level as though it's actually larger then it is, which came to the fore after Iraq when it was obvious you can't occupy the country with the standing forces. Shrinking brigade sizes lets you have 12 divisions in a 10 division army (to paraphrase former Gen. Shinseki - the guy who called what would happen in Iraq perfectly and got forced out for it) - the real question is whether robotics actually let you act that way. The only way I can really see it working would be if we're talking about Boston Dynamics types things that are armed in some way. You could certainly pair every soldier with an armed ammo-mule bot and achieve some gains in firepower (a lot of small unit tactics is less about precise shooting then simply blanketing a given area with rounds).
kposehn 13y ago
Interesting. The part that piqued my interest most is that weight is a huge factor in efficiency for the military (kind of surprised I didn't think of that before). By replacing 25% of a brigade with robots, the army could substantially reduce weight without a commensurate decrease in battlefield effectiveness. This would lower fuel costs, increase combat readiness (fewer people to drill) and make time-to-battlefield far shorter. I would think that in the tooth-to-tail equation, robots have a substantial place at both sides. As the saying goes, “Amateurs think about tactics, but professionals think about logistics.” (General Robert H. Barrow, USMC) and making the logistics chain more effective could translate into an overwhelming advantage.
- TrainedMonkey 13y ago
  Because robot do not need fuel, maintenance, or spare parts. If you replace 25% of brigade with robots, you will need to add 2-3% of personnel minimum for maintenance of those robots. And that is before spare parts and supplies. And you definitely need to train people to work together with robots, so I think drilling time will actually go up. So while, there will be reduction and weight and potentially highly increased performance, I do not think it will be pronounced in first few generations.
  - kposehn 13y ago
    > Because robot do not need fuel, maintenance, or spare parts. Actually, they do need those - but most likely have significantly lower maintenance/upkeep costs than the average soldier. Still a big savings. Good point about drilling time. Maybe less man-hours in drilling overall, but more per head?
  - JonnieCache 13y ago
    Now there is an interesting possible future: the american empire is brought low by a massive investment in robotic soldiers from the same contractors that brought you healthcare.gov and the veterans disability payments system.
wildgift 13y ago
Mobile car bombs? Is that what these are, ultimately?
- krapp 13y ago
  I didn't read that in the article anywhere...
pmorici 13y ago
Sounds like they are talking about automating supply chain convoys. Robotization of the military is kind of a mixed bag. One one hand it is great if it makes for a more cost efficient and effective military. On the other hand if it sanitizes the costs of war in the eyes of the public (does anyone care when a drone gets shot down?) or just funnels more money to beltway bandits then we'd be better off w/o it.
- krapp 13y ago
  It could be argued that advances in the technology of warfare have sanitized war to a degree, as well as made combat more survivable, than in the past. Surely the more machines and fewer humans the better?
  - eropple 13y ago
    Fewer humans and more survivability on one, predominantly aggressive, side. I don't think that's necessarily a plus.
    - krapp 13y ago
      It is if you're on the side with the robots.
      - PavlovsCat 13y ago
        Please tell me you were being sarcastic :( What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation of engaging in aggressive warfare? That's like saying making it easier to beat up kids and take their lunch money is a plus, as long as you're the one doing it - and that's the mildest example I could think of, to keep this as nice and friendly as possible. How long will it take until other major and minor powers have them, too? Then that advantage shrinks or even disappears, yet the robots remain. How long until they get turned on citizens? What leg would you have to stand on, morally, if you justify wars of aggression by (thinking you're) profiting from them? If it was profitable to crush dissent with robots, none. This idea of "sides" is very flawed, too. Are US citizens on the side of those who lead them into wars, or do these wars more and more mean profit to a very small subset to them, and huge costs to the rest? Here's a thought, if you post on HN, you're by definition not part of the group who would stand to gain by such things. HN may represent a elite in comparison with other groups, but in comparison with actual elites it still represents peons. Last, but not least: what if you're "on the side of humans", and don't buy into the whole nationality stuff in the first place?
ChuckMcM 13y ago
Its not surprising, having a quadcopter type drone with a video link back to the squad for doing down range recon is a huge force multiplier. The challenge of course is batteries. Soldiers are powered by eating organics, potentially very light weight organics rehydrated with locally available water. They can carry several days worth of rations and be operationally effective for nearly 24/7 of those days. There is no robot on the planet yet which has a battery that will last on 'standby' for multiple days, allow it to engage in active service for several hours each of those days. The weight kills you. It slows you down. Two technologies "win" in the military space. Just enough tech and weight to increase down range lethality over the existing system, and tech which doesn't have to be carried so can be called in remotely.
- downer83 13y ago
  Yeah, but this puts us closer than ever to the brink of a nuclear exchange. For the purposes of a thought experiment, consider the false dichotomy of "America" and "NotAmerica" as two hypothetical opposing forces, where America has nukes and killer robots and NotAmerica has only nukes. If you find yourself living in NotAmerica, your motivation to pre-emptively nuke America, simply to avoid the threat of a horrific death dispensed by killer robots, presents itself as an absurdly simple choice. Even if it means suicide.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    As I am sure you know John, nuclear policy is a bit more nuanced than that. It is completely valid that by having a nuclear arsenal that can destroy any nation, a nation does not need to have a standing army that can repel an invasion (after all if you invaded, you're home country would get obliterated). The discussion referenced by Defense News though is policy around the deployment of Squad and Battalion level forces which are typically engaged in situations where either the nation-state isn't the target (say Somali pirates, of Afghan warlords), and/or the goal is incompatible with mass destruction. Your hypothetical suicide inference leaves out the choice of compliance. One could look at a place like NotAmerica' where no one is at risk of horrific death due to killer robots, versus NotAmerica where death by remote action is a more common occurrence, and look at what is different between the two places. In all the theaters of the world today it's pretty clear what action would completely remove that threat of horrific death. (hint: it isn't going to America and blowing yourself up.)
NAFV_P 13y ago
A long quote from the article: It’s hard to see such a radical change to the makeup of the brigage combat team as anything else than a budget move, borne out of the necessity of cutting the personnel costs that eat up almost half of the service’s total budget. Cone used the Navy as an example of what the Army is trying to do. “When you see the success, frankly, that the Navy has had in terms of lowering the numbers of people on ships, are there functions in the brigade that we could automate — robots or manned/unmanned teaming — and lower the number of people that are involved given the fact that people are our major cost,” he said. If the army goes down this route, it will still have a high cost of personnel. It will require engineers and programmers to build and maintain these systems, and many of these personnel will be required to work on the front line. Well, a ship has a decent power supply. The Nimitz run on nuclear reactors that keep them going for months. A factor in their success is their sheer size, boasting a displacement of 92,000 tons.
cinquemb 13y ago
Kind of interesting that there wasn't a head nod to potential attack surfaces opened with using robots in the article or comments here so far. It was the first thing I thought about before reading the article. Makes you wonder especially in the 21st century urban combat where someone on some rooftop out of view (or across the world) could exploit/take over such machines and that force multiplier will starting to not look like one. But also seeing the trend of armies facing off people of the general populace (regardless of their "enemy combatant" status) and not other standing armies in general, I wouldn't say I'm bothered by the studies/movement in this direction, I might even welcome it.
- TrainedMonkey 13y ago
  I do not think that is a real possibility unless there is a deliberate sabotage or engineering control interface left open. I mean tanks, planes, and drones already contain large amount of "hackable" hardware. Has not happened yet.
  - jrochkind1 13y ago
    How confident are you that it hasn't happened yet? I'm not sure we have had the opportunity to find out if it's happened yet, yet.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      Well only a casual peruse[0][1][2] tells me that I'm confident that it has happened on multiple occasions, has been reported on by media (at least for drones) to some degree, and that we most likely that haven't had the opportunity to see how far down the rabbit hole this can go. [0]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=drones+are+hackable https://duckduckgo.com/?q=drones+are+hackable [1]: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/drone-virus-kept-quiet/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/drone-virus-kept-qui... [2]: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/aerial-drones-vulnerable-to-being-hacked-congress-told/ http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/aerial-drones-vulne...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

44 points by kjhughes 13y ago

Wow, surprising. Wasn't really expecting the clone wars to happen during my lifetime. ;)

It sounds like they want to shrink the size of a brigade and say they've replaced the soldiers by robot but actually they'll just be shrinking (Edit: It's not like I'd contest the decision to shrink brigade size. The main thing is the claim this will be replacing soldiers with robots, seems like just overly bold PR.). Unless there were a whole lot of articles on robots working outside of rather specialized situations like defusing bombs (where I think a lot of the operation involve remote control activity, not autonomous activity).

Spooky23 13y ago
After a decade at war, you need to wind things down and consolidate to get rid of the waste that's accumulated. The Army probably has all sorts of problems because they weren't prepared for urban warfare in 2001, and they got prepared by welding armor to everything that they have. Humvees and trucks with an extra ton of armor lose at least that much cargo capacity.
XorNot 13y ago
Well the US military has been operating at a large level as though it's actually larger then it is, which came to the fore after Iraq when it was obvious you can't occupy the country with the standing forces. Shrinking brigade sizes lets you have 12 divisions in a 10 division army (to paraphrase former Gen. Shinseki - the guy who called what would happen in Iraq perfectly and got forced out for it) - the real question is whether robotics actually let you act that way. The only way I can really see it working would be if we're talking about Boston Dynamics types things that are armed in some way. You could certainly pair every soldier with an armed ammo-mule bot and achieve some gains in firepower (a lot of small unit tactics is less about precise shooting then simply blanketing a given area with rounds).

kposehn 13y ago

Interesting. The part that piqued my interest most is that weight is a huge factor in efficiency for the military (kind of surprised I didn't think of that before). By replacing 25% of a brigade with robots, the army could substantially reduce weight without a commensurate decrease in battlefield effectiveness. This would lower fuel costs, increase combat readiness (fewer people to drill) and make time-to-battlefield far shorter. I would think that in the tooth-to-tail equation, robots have a substantial place at both sides. As the saying goes, “Amateurs think about tactics, but professionals think about logistics.” (General Robert H. Barrow, USMC) and making the logistics chain more effective could translate into an overwhelming advantage.

TrainedMonkey 13y ago
Because robot do not need fuel, maintenance, or spare parts. If you replace 25% of brigade with robots, you will need to add 2-3% of personnel minimum for maintenance of those robots. And that is before spare parts and supplies. And you definitely need to train people to work together with robots, so I think drilling time will actually go up. So while, there will be reduction and weight and potentially highly increased performance, I do not think it will be pronounced in first few generations.
- kposehn 13y ago
  > Because robot do not need fuel, maintenance, or spare parts. Actually, they do need those - but most likely have significantly lower maintenance/upkeep costs than the average soldier. Still a big savings. Good point about drilling time. Maybe less man-hours in drilling overall, but more per head?
- JonnieCache 13y ago
  Now there is an interesting possible future: the american empire is brought low by a massive investment in robotic soldiers from the same contractors that brought you healthcare.gov and the veterans disability payments system.

wildgift 13y ago

Mobile car bombs? Is that what these are, ultimately?

krapp 13y ago
I didn't read that in the article anywhere...

pmorici 13y ago

Sounds like they are talking about automating supply chain convoys. Robotization of the military is kind of a mixed bag. One one hand it is great if it makes for a more cost efficient and effective military. On the other hand if it sanitizes the costs of war in the eyes of the public (does anyone care when a drone gets shot down?) or just funnels more money to beltway bandits then we'd be better off w/o it.

krapp 13y ago
It could be argued that advances in the technology of warfare have sanitized war to a degree, as well as made combat more survivable, than in the past. Surely the more machines and fewer humans the better?
- eropple 13y ago
  Fewer humans and more survivability on one, predominantly aggressive, side. I don't think that's necessarily a plus.
  - krapp 13y ago
    It is if you're on the side with the robots.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Please tell me you were being sarcastic :( What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation of engaging in aggressive warfare? That's like saying making it easier to beat up kids and take their lunch money is a plus, as long as you're the one doing it - and that's the mildest example I could think of, to keep this as nice and friendly as possible. How long will it take until other major and minor powers have them, too? Then that advantage shrinks or even disappears, yet the robots remain. How long until they get turned on citizens? What leg would you have to stand on, morally, if you justify wars of aggression by (thinking you're) profiting from them? If it was profitable to crush dissent with robots, none. This idea of "sides" is very flawed, too. Are US citizens on the side of those who lead them into wars, or do these wars more and more mean profit to a very small subset to them, and huge costs to the rest? Here's a thought, if you post on HN, you're by definition not part of the group who would stand to gain by such things. HN may represent a elite in comparison with other groups, but in comparison with actual elites it still represents peons. Last, but not least: what if you're "on the side of humans", and don't buy into the whole nationality stuff in the first place?

ChuckMcM 13y ago

Its not surprising, having a quadcopter type drone with a video link back to the squad for doing down range recon is a huge force multiplier. The challenge of course is batteries. Soldiers are powered by eating organics, potentially very light weight organics rehydrated with locally available water. They can carry several days worth of rations and be operationally effective for nearly 24/7 of those days. There is no robot on the planet yet which has a battery that will last on 'standby' for multiple days, allow it to engage in active service for several hours each of those days. The weight kills you. It slows you down. Two technologies "win" in the military space. Just enough tech and weight to increase down range lethality over the existing system, and tech which doesn't have to be carried so can be called in remotely.

downer83 13y ago
Yeah, but this puts us closer than ever to the brink of a nuclear exchange. For the purposes of a thought experiment, consider the false dichotomy of "America" and "NotAmerica" as two hypothetical opposing forces, where America has nukes and killer robots and NotAmerica has only nukes. If you find yourself living in NotAmerica, your motivation to pre-emptively nuke America, simply to avoid the threat of a horrific death dispensed by killer robots, presents itself as an absurdly simple choice. Even if it means suicide.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  As I am sure you know John, nuclear policy is a bit more nuanced than that. It is completely valid that by having a nuclear arsenal that can destroy any nation, a nation does not need to have a standing army that can repel an invasion (after all if you invaded, you're home country would get obliterated). The discussion referenced by Defense News though is policy around the deployment of Squad and Battalion level forces which are typically engaged in situations where either the nation-state isn't the target (say Somali pirates, of Afghan warlords), and/or the goal is incompatible with mass destruction. Your hypothetical suicide inference leaves out the choice of compliance. One could look at a place like NotAmerica' where no one is at risk of horrific death due to killer robots, versus NotAmerica where death by remote action is a more common occurrence, and look at what is different between the two places. In all the theaters of the world today it's pretty clear what action would completely remove that threat of horrific death. (hint: it isn't going to America and blowing yourself up.)

NAFV_P 13y ago

A long quote from the article: It’s hard to see such a radical change to the makeup of the brigage combat team as anything else than a budget move, borne out of the necessity of cutting the personnel costs that eat up almost half of the service’s total budget. Cone used the Navy as an example of what the Army is trying to do. “When you see the success, frankly, that the Navy has had in terms of lowering the numbers of people on ships, are there functions in the brigade that we could automate — robots or manned/unmanned teaming — and lower the number of people that are involved given the fact that people are our major cost,” he said. If the army goes down this route, it will still have a high cost of personnel. It will require engineers and programmers to build and maintain these systems, and many of these personnel will be required to work on the front line. Well, a ship has a decent power supply. The Nimitz run on nuclear reactors that keep them going for months. A factor in their success is their sheer size, boasting a displacement of 92,000 tons.

cinquemb 13y ago

Kind of interesting that there wasn't a head nod to potential attack surfaces opened with using robots in the article or comments here so far. It was the first thing I thought about before reading the article. Makes you wonder especially in the 21st century urban combat where someone on some rooftop out of view (or across the world) could exploit/take over such machines and that force multiplier will starting to not look like one. But also seeing the trend of armies facing off people of the general populace (regardless of their "enemy combatant" status) and not other standing armies in general, I wouldn't say I'm bothered by the studies/movement in this direction, I might even welcome it.

TrainedMonkey 13y ago
I do not think that is a real possibility unless there is a deliberate sabotage or engineering control interface left open. I mean tanks, planes, and drones already contain large amount of "hackable" hardware. Has not happened yet.
- jrochkind1 13y ago
  How confident are you that it hasn't happened yet? I'm not sure we have had the opportunity to find out if it's happened yet, yet.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    Well only a casual peruse[0][1][2] tells me that I'm confident that it has happened on multiple occasions, has been reported on by media (at least for drones) to some degree, and that we most likely that haven't had the opportunity to see how far down the rabbit hole this can go. [0]: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=drones+are+hackable https://duckduckgo.com/?q=drones+are+hackable [1]: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/drone-virus-kept-quiet/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/drone-virus-kept-qui... [2]: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/aerial-drones-vulnerable-to-being-hacked-congress-told/ http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/aerial-drones-vulne...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]