The Army Is Preparing To Send Driverless Vehicles Into Combat (vice.com) 172
The U.S. Army is getting ready to send driverless trucks into combat. "Next fall, [the Army's] 'Leader-Follower' technology will enable convoys of autonomous vehicles to follow behind one driven by a human," reports VICE News. "It's a direct response to the improvised explosive devices that caused nearly half the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan." From the report: Much of the research and development of these technologies has been done at TARDEC, the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, in Warren, Michigan. Typically human-driven trucks are outfitted with sensors and cameras through a TARDEC-created applique kit. They're not exactly robots, just regular military trucks that have been made a lot smarter. The technology is expected to be ready for field use in September 2019.
is this easy to defeat (Score:2)
I mean... will a can of mud or paint thrown at the cameras sensors, and/or an rf jammer cause the driverless trucks to drive off the road?
Be really hilarious* if it were remotely hackable, and supply trucks just drove away.
* not remotely hilarious if you depended on the supplies of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because the entire national treasure is in that supply convoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing a grenade sized object at a military convoy just to steal some supplies is a pretty poor risk/reward ratio. (Not to mention, good luck hitting all of the cameras with wet mud while it's driving).
And even if you succeed it is still better than you killing a soldier. Supplies are essential, but they're aren't *that* essential.
Re: (Score:2)
Supplies are essential, but they're aren't *that* essential.
Considering that most wars are lost based on the lack of supplies ... or won, by making the enemy suffer from a lack of supplies ... just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that no single truckload of supplies is "essential".
The convey will be monitored by a drone, or several drones. If someone throws paint or mud at the convoy, the drones will see it happen and can follow the perp and direct fire (mortars or artillery) or air support, or even guide nearby infantry to the the target.
You don't win a war by losing lives to steal a few boxes of MREs.
Re: (Score:2)
Supplies are essential, but they're aren't *that* essential.
Considering that most wars are lost based on the lack of supplies ... or won, by making the enemy suffer from a lack of supplies ... just saying.
In defense of im_thatoneguy, while logistics are essential they also fungible. To a well supplied military (like the U.S.) no particular supply vehicle is essential. If an unmanned supply vehicle gets blown up there is another one with replacement materiel that will be along fairly soon. Not so troops. There have been historical periods were troops were "cannon fodder" that is not the case now - every casualty attracts attention and potentially undermines political support.
Also it would be a stretch to argu
Re: (Score:2)
The metrics of winning or losing wars is based on supply count.
Nothing more.
An obvious counter-example is Vietnam. We had way more supplies than the NVA. We lost anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The treaty was a fig leaf to allow America to abandon South Vietnam with "honor".
Probably inspired by PsyOps (Score:3, Interesting)
When they saw how many people have irrational fear of driverless vehicles.
Re: Probably inspired by PsyOps (Score:2)
It's legitimately scary to those who fear machines more than humans. That second half is where the irrationality comes in.
Re: Probably inspired by PsyOps (Score:3)
Now being in the car, subject to whatever the computer (or hacker or bugs) want to do, with zero input into the situation, a complete loss of control on the part of the subject human - a bit scary to most people who are not fanboys.
Are you equally terrified of being in an aircraft, giving up all control to the pilots? Or being a passenger in a car and giving over all control to the driver?
If not, then what I said still applies. If yes then you're a control freak, but at least you're consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be more nervous in the driverless car, but only for the first few trips. After that, I would get used to it, and just relax and enjoy the scenery, or maybe take a nap.
Most other people will be the same. Once the novelty wears off, self-driving cars will just be routine.
Human Drivers also Scary (Score:2)
The less involved a human is with controlling the behavior of a machine, the less you can bank upon are his/her human responses to situations to apply to the machine's behavior. That's legitimately scary.
That depends. In the US alone there are 30,000 accidental deaths caused by humans driving vehicles each year and about 300 deliberate deaths (vehicular homicide). The risks for machine drivers are different but I am not sure that they are objectively any scarier. It seems more like the irrational (but sometimes useful) fear of the unknown and unfamiliar.
Behind? (Score:5, Insightful)
"'Leader-Follower' technology will enable convoys of autonomous vehicles to follow behind one driven by a human, It's a direct response to the improvised explosive devices that caused nearly half the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Umm...wouldn't it be smarter if the unmanned vehicles were in front of the one driven by a human? I mean, they'll hit the IED first...
Re: (Score:2)
"'Leader-Follower' technology will enable convoys of autonomous vehicles to follow behind one driven by a human, It's a direct response to the improvised explosive devices that caused nearly half the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Umm...wouldn't it be smarter if the unmanned vehicles were in front of the one driven by a human? I mean, they'll hit the IED first...
Yes. But also a lot harder to pull off since the front car would need to be an almost fully antonymous vehicle. This way all the secondary cars need to do is play follow-the-leader where the leader is a human driver.
A future version will probably have a fully antonymous convoy, or at least one driven remotely, but this is what they can pull off with current tech.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't someone in one of the following vehicles be remotely driving the front one? This would at least force an attacker to make a lucky guess where the human is, and that human can also take over control of one of the other vehicles (even if it's just the one they're in) to peel the surviving convoy members away.
Re: (Score:3)
They would have to get every turn.
Waiting for the recovery of the first and following vehicles after a wrong turn is going to be a long wait while at war.
Spare a drone in the area for hours? A helicopter to stay flying around and around for hours?
Open the safe and read Plan R.
Circle the remaining working robot trucks and wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't someone in one of the following vehicles be remotely driving the front one? This would at least force an attacker to make a lucky guess where the human is, and that human can also take over control of one of the other vehicles (even if it's just the one they're in) to peel the surviving convoy members away.
As I said, that's probably in the plans for the future, but this is just version 1 testing out the concept. If follow-the-leader doesn't work in practice with a human driving the first vehicle then there's no point in developing the remote piloting system for the lead vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
have you ever tried to drive a military truck at night with no headlights and night vision goggles on?
Re: (Score:2)
How is this made any better by putting the human in the front vehicle? If they have to rely on sensors and displays anyhow, why not "lead" from a few vehicles back?
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't someone in one of the following vehicles be remotely driving the front one? This would at least force an attacker to make a lucky guess where the human is, and that human can also take over control of one of the other vehicles (even if it's just the one they're in) to peel the surviving convoy members away.
Most IEDs are place and forget, pressure-plate triggered anyway. It's not like there's a wire running around the corner with a guy waiting to push down a plunger like Wile E Coyote. Ir really would make sense to lead the convoys with an unmanned (probably remote controlled) vehicle that is basically nothing but an engine, armor, and some weight to trigger the IED. Would force insurgents to lay down multiple IEDs or stick around and trigger them manually, both of which would make them more likely to be de
Re: (Score:2)
I have lots of problems with what the military is tasked with doing. I'm also quite skeptical that things like automated armeddrones are going to turn out well. But convoy vehicles that are, at best, moderately armored and lightly armed? It doesn't bother me at all of that particular aspect of warfare is made a little bit safer. It's NOT out killing people itself.
Re: Behind? (Score:2)
kill the local population
What are you talking about?? The fastfood franchises don't come until after we liberate the target.
Re:Behind? (Score:5, Insightful)
We weren't in Somalia to take over or conquer anything, we were there with the UN trying to protect food deliveries to the famine stricken country. But because we and the other UN peacekeepers were protecting the food from the warlords who wanted to take and hoard it all, we and the Other UN forces became targets.
We participate in peacekeeping and emergency response actions around the world. There is always someone who wants to disrupt such. We must be able to transport supplies (ours and relief) in quantity and safety.
None of that requires us to have invaded anywhere. And yes there is the possibility that we may have to act against another country. And we would be foolish to not look to be able to operate in hostile terrain. Both on our own and at the request of the rest of the world that claims to be offended that we can project force, but can't dial fast enough when they realize they need a capable military force.
We tried to disengage and let the world handle thing in the early 90's. That resulted in the Genocide of the Balkan wars that happened right in front of the watching eyes of the gutless UN. So then Europe cried to the US for help and we did the job, yet again.
Re:Behind? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well said.
I'm no militarist or hawk and I certainly don't think for a moment that America's military record is all things pristine and pure but it's incredibly foolish to have such a narrow view of the US military or its needs for modernization as the parent you responded to made.
Re: (Score:2)
No the Famine was not over when the UN went in (accompanied by the US). Any massacre in Mogadishu was the fault of those who spent the night attacking the troops and the efforts to withdraw. They didn't open fire, they were fired on and returned fire. Had they not been fired on it would have been a clean extraction of the targeted individuals. Had the Blackhawks not been shot down it would have been over quick and clean. As it was two transport helo's were shot down. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So the US is apparently planning to invade more countries, kill the local population, steal the resources and be under constant guerilla attack, for targeting and blowing up weddings and funerals, with the odd school bus thrown in for spice or is that spite.
So the US military planning for a future of driving convoys through occupied lands, with subjugated people fighting back, is this the plan for the entire world, perhaps South America next after the middle east.
So what new torture methods are being planned to align with the next convoy systems in occupied lands. The US was already using the world war 2 nazi tactic of murdering surrounding civilians if an attack occurred, perhaps concentration camps so you can more readily execute 1 in 10, you decimate the local population.
Only the USA would brag about developing robotics convoys for use in occupied countries, subjugated populace, the USA will DOMINATE the planet and kill all who oppose US corporate dominance. Let me guess the system is only for defensive purposes and it is what US citizens who are the threat.
Yeah, that's it. You're on to our dastardly plan.
I'll get on the horn to our colonial governments in Japan and Germany and North Africa and the Philippines and Panama and Iraq and everywhere else to be on the lookout for you. You are one crafty dog to figure us out like that.
(We don't even leave our Navy base in freakin' Puerto Rico - though they probably wish we had now ...)
Re: (Score:3)
Cost savings.
The lead vehicle can be a mine proof MRAP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP). Comfortably seat your squishy fragile humans and then follow along behind a convoy of retrofitted Semi trucks. It's a lot easier to retrofit a semi tractor for semi-autonomy than bomb-proof it. And you need fewer drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or Iraq once the Iraqi Military was defeated a
Re: (Score:2)
When the enemy still has the freedom to move around and act, that's not winning.
The past decades of mil command is looking for another tech solution to a very old mil problem.
At some stage the war has to be won and that needs the mil ability to totally stop the enemy from moving around and doing what they want...
Re: (Score:2)
Umm...wouldn't it be smarter if the unmanned vehicles were in front of the one driven by a human? I mean, they'll hit the IED first...
I'm sure that's the plan as well.
But it wouldn't make for a good press release that we'd use a foreign population as guinea pigs for our new self-driving trucks (when we're too afraid of having them on our own soil without a safety driver behind the wheel).
Re: Behind? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lead vehicle is not a cargo truck, it is a vehicle specifically designed to take a bomb blast without damaging the meatbags inside and maybe without even preventing the vehicle from continuing.
Here, look at the all of injuries sustained by the crew of this Caiman [wikipedia.org] after hitting an IED.
Re: (Score:2)
IEDs are typically set and forget mines, which is highly advantageous for guerilla forces which have less manpower available to them to conduct a proper convoy ambush. The lead vehicle is the one that typically triggers the IEDs. Thus, it is sensible for them to make the lead vehicle a MRAP. If it triggers the IED then there's a high probability it will be able to just continue on driving and the convoy keeps on rollin'. Further, since you don't have to have drivers in the supply trucks you don't have the w
Re: Behind? (Score:2)
Actually, believe it or not, no. The best strategy to use when "taking out a convoy" is to wait until about 1/3 has passed the red-line, then blow the explosives, thus dividing your enemy and pinning the first 3rd for further attack. Better yet is to hit the rear of the convoy and the 1/3 to 1/2 way point simultaneously for maximum destruction of your enemy.
I still donâ(TM)t see how this solves a problem. Sure, the guy in the middle car isnâ(TM)t there to die but now you have an ant trail that is blocked by debris and noone in the remaining cars to drive around the debris. Even if they heavily fortify the first vehicle, it seems like you can now randomly disable one of the latter vehicles and disconnect the remaining vehicles from the convoy.
Article checks out (Score:3)
Warren Michigan is pretty close to Detroit. If they can test/drive them in Detroit, most middle eastern countries should be a cake walk.
Cool... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay I guess Russia s
Re: (Score:2)
he US hasn't exercised any imperialistic urges since the end of WWII.
Korea
Vietnam
Phillipines
Kuwait
Iraq
If you are nitpicking you can count Chile, Argentinia, basically every country in mezo america, e.g. Panama.
The US is not building an empire. We conduct regime change, and attempt to stabilize to pull out as quickly as possible
This might be a delicate choice of words, but people call that imperialism. You put up regimes supporting your empire, and wonder why said regimes are fought by revolution forces.
Re: Cool... (Score:2)
lol. The word "imperialism" now means whatever retards need it to mean. Just like the word "Nazi".
Re: Cool... (Score:2)
By that definition any diplomatic agreements are a form of imperialism. That's stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
By that definition any diplomatic agreements are a form of imperialism. That's stupid.
If it's a stronger power imposing it's will on a smaller, weaker power then yes, they are. You can have imperialism without armed troops in khakis and pith helmets walking down the street.
Re: Cool... (Score:2)
If it's a stronger power imposing it's will on a smaller, weaker power then yes, they are.
The quoted definition doesn't include the words "stronger", "smaller", "weaker", or "imposing". But yeah, other than that, totally the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything he lists there easily fits that definition.
Right on, so South Korea is part of the American Empire, huh?
Or, maybe that definition you pulled up isn't the universal definition when anyone says "imperialism." Here are some others:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
Imperialism is a state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military force or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy.
So, out of the list of the 5 sovereign nations listed above, which of those sovereign nations does the United States have dominion over?
Re: (Score:2)
You highlight dominion and ignore "power". Nice...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's actually a word that separates them. The word is "and," not "or." Do you know what that means?
If a country does not have dominion over another country, then do they have power AND dominion?
Re: (Score:2)
What's your definition source? I ask because here are six that don't require direct conquest.
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
https://dictionary.cambridge.o... [cambridge.org]
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com] (no idea where google gets its definitions but there it is)
https://www.collinsdictionary.... [collinsdictionary.com]
https://www.britannica.com/top... [britannica.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.oxforddictionaries.... [oxforddictionaries.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell by how those URLs are colored that those are the ones I used. The M-W definition I quoted in full, so you can safely consider that one of my sources.
The Cambridge link seems like it uses conflicting definitions. In one definition a country "rules" others, and in another it has "a lot of power or influence." Those aren't the same.
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia page was also quoted in full in my other post.
The Oxford dictionary points out that the example of US cultural imperialism is a fi
Re: (Score:2)
Oh jesus christ. Your bullshit is astounding. All your doing is refuting given definitions. Let me show you.
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
"or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas"
https://dictionary.cambridge.o... [cambridge.org]
"and economic methods"
"https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=DFzPW_zQGuS70PEPyMC9wAo&q=imperialism+definition&oq=imperialism&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0i131l10.7085.7085..9611...1.0..0.92.243.3......0....1j2..gws-wiz.....0.hSdjwZqWRg0"
Well this
Re: (Score:2)
You're doing the same thing you're accusing me of by ignoring the definitions which don't fit. Look at the Wikipedia article for an example:
Imperialism is a state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.
You're trying to focus on how a state gains power and dominion over another, instead of the fact that the definition requires that the state gains power and dominion at all. It doesn't really matter how a state gains power and dominion over another state, they still have to do that. You're focusing on the "how" instead of the "what."
The United States does not have do
Re: (Score:2)
No, for starters you've yet to post an accurate definition yourself because by your own account "The M-W definition I quoted in full" and yet there's a line that I've quoted from it that was not in your post that completely refutes your claims. You're fucking lying to me.
You're reading specific parts of definitions without reading the full text and saying "Duh, see, this proves I'm right" when I have literally shown you how in every fucking link to a definition that I posted how you are wrong.
When you can r
Re: (Score:2)
You're fucking lying to me.
Don't get so butthurt, princess.
yet there's a line that I've quoted from it that was not in your post
From the M-W definition? OK, let me go back and look at my post. This is what I quoted:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
I pasted that from my post above. This is the M-W definition:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
I pasted that from the M-W site. Now, I didn't use a text compare tool, but I'm pretty sure those are the same and I didn't leave anything out. Unless you're talking about this:
imperial government, authority, or system
Which is kind of a cyclical definition, or this:
broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence
If that's what you're referring to, then I'm going to respond to your fucking claim about how I'm fuck
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't get so butthurt, princess."
If you don't want people treating you like an asshole then don't lie to them.
Here is the M-W entry on this term.
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
Here's what makes you wrong there
": the effect that a powerful country or group of countries has in changing or influencing the way people live in other, poorer countries"
I notice you still don't post links because you're still picking and choosing what you want from where ever you want. I'm fairly certain you don't even understand
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want people treating you like an asshole then don't lie to them.
I'm not lying to you, you're just easily triggered. That's not my fault.
Here's what makes you wrong there
You had to scroll pretty far down to find that one, from the "Learners dictionary" apparently.
Well, here's a question, then - what happens when there are two definitions that are in opposition? Because the main definition, the one that I've pasted numerous times, from the top of that page (you know, right under the heading "definition of imperialism") is in opposition to that "learners definition," they don't mean the same thing.
Obvio
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not lying to you..."
Yes you are, you're lying to me by omission. You are purposely leaving out inconvenient parts of the term's definition.
", you're just easily triggered."
Easily trigger by people lying to me? Yeah, sure.
"Well, here's a question, then - what happens when there are two definitions that are in opposition? Because the main definition, the one that I've pasted numerous times, from the top of that page (you know, right under the heading "definition of imperialism") is in opposition to that
Re: (Score:2)
You are purposely leaving out inconvenient parts of the term's definition.
I'm using the classic definition of what imperialism is. This isn't difficult. Imperialism historically requires dominion over another territory.
Anyways, this part is largely irrelevant because I have clearly sited multiple formal definitions where the original parents use of the word clearly fit.
*cited
This discussion has reached its conclusion, in fact it did a while ago. I'm using the classic historical definition of imperialism, and you're not. That's all there is to it, there's nothing else to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Several problems with your rant.
First, the followers are apparently optical. So jamming RF isn't going to do you any good.
Second, jammers are a lot harder than shooting the truck. Shoot the first and last truck. Ta-da! You've captured the convoy.....and we've been doing it that way as long as truck convoys have existed.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure? You're suggesting that they feed a false camera image to the vehicles and trick their sensors into going off course? Or what exactly do you think the counter is to this? What "sort of electronic jamming tech" is going to fool the camera? If a vehicle loses contact with the one it's following, what do you think they have it set to do? Just drive around randomly in an area without air cover?
Great idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Just get the one with the driver in it, Achmed. The rest will stop and wait for us to unload them."
Re:Great idea! (Score:4, Interesting)
"Just get the one with the driver in it, Achmed. The rest will stop and wait for us to unload them."
The lead vehicle will be an armored MRAP [wikipedia.org] which doesn't bother hauling cargo, just lots of protection for the driver and response fire team. Oh, and a turret-mounted heavy machine gun or light autocannon.
Re: (Score:2)
...so take out the second vehicle? Wouldn't that make a sufficient mess that the lead vehicle may struggle to turn around and go back, and that subsequent followers can't proceed any further forward?
I suppose though, all following vehicles could be out-fitted with some internal explosives. You wouldn't want to haul such things if you were in the cab, but if you're 50 yards ahead, you can just press the self-destruct and the entire road-train blows up just enough to make it worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
...so take out the second vehicle?
Today: Shoot the first truck to stop the convoy, shoot the last truck to prevent the convoy from escaping.
After this: Shoot the second truck to stop the convoy.
Not really all that different from a stopping-the-convoy perspective. Just a lot safer for the humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those are so effective against IED's.
Re: (Score:2)
"Just get the one with the driver in it, Achmed. The rest will stop and wait for us to unload them."
"Thanks, Mo. Your request to Achmed told us right where the air support needs to go."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, good luck triangulating the half-second cell phone signal that triggered a king-size IED.
Gotta love Americans...no wonder you're still thrashing around in Afghanistan with no plan, no exit strategy and no way to win.
Re: (Score:2)
Next headline: American air strike takes out children's hospital. Nice work, Forest.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is this different than today?
You shoot the first and last truck. Ta-da! You've captured the convoy.
It's not like there's a battalion of soldiers in each convoy.
Re: (Score:2)
"OK Miles, I shot at the tank, and it did stop but now the gun is turning towards me. And I hear something in the sky,"
An even bigger target (Score:2)
convoys of autonomous vehicles to follow behind one driven by a human
So by taking out the lead vehicle, the entire convoy just stops?
Not only is the crucial vehicle now obvious (it's the one at the front), but all the firepower and bombs can be directed solely towards it. Once that is destroyed or disabled, none of the other vehicles in the convoy can follow it. They can then be eliminated at leisure.
While being a military driver has always made a person a prime target, this sounds like the job has become almost suicidal in the risks involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: An even bigger target (Score:2)
Disable the first follow vehicle and hit the lead with enough firepower to make the human occupants decide to flee and you've just given the opposition a supply train full of supplies, most likely including fuel, ammo, some weapons and food.
Which they will get to enjoy for all of 15 minutes until an A10 strafes the convoy destroying all the material and anyone foolish enough to be trying to unload it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: An even bigger target (Score:2)
Your insistence on characterizing every conflict as "people fighting against US agression" makes it obvious that you're retarded, but even you must realize that the US only lost a single A-10 during the entire 15 year involvement in Iraq, and that one was shot down by a SAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Which they will get to enjoy for all of 15 minutes until an A10 strafes the convoy destroying all the material and anyone foolish enough to be trying to unload it.
Just wait until the A-10s are mothballed and replaced with F-35s and all of them are grounded because they found another performance-critical flaw. Free convoys for everyone!
Re: (Score:2)
And they can just do the same thing the next day and the next.
In that case you just revert to the basics. Any officer continuing to send in supplies like that would get shitcanned fast.
Re: (Score:3)
How is your fear any different than today?
Shoot the lead vehicle in the 100% human-driven convoy, and the convoy stops - there's a burning truck now blocking the road. Btw, you also shoot the last vehicle so there's a burning truck blocking that end of the road too.
It's not like the human-driven convoy has a battalion of heavily armed soldiers with it.
Also, if there aren't any friendly humans left there - for example, the attackers follow your "make the first vehicle flee" plan - then it's nice and safe fo
Re: (Score:2)
So by taking out the lead vehicle, the entire convoy just stops?
What do you think happens if you take out the lead vehicle in a convoy driven by humans? The entire convoy just stops because there's now a fiery hunk of metal in the way. At this point you also shoot the last vehicle, so there's a fiery hunk of metal blocking the other end of the road and you've captured the convoy.
What this thing allows is for the lead vehicle to be heavily armored, since it's the only one with people. So now the bad guys shoot the 2nd vehicle to stop the convoy because they can't stop
Uber (Score:2)
Obviously (Score:2)
Remember DARPA?
Of course they wanted to use this for war.
Great! (Score:2)
Little common sense here (Score:2)
You all realize that the way the system is currently being demonstrated and how it may actually be implemented are two vastly different things. TARDEC is currently in the process of demonstrating the full extent of the capability, perhaps define the boundaries and gaps of the capability to inform future development. The next step in the fielding process will be the handing off of the technology to commanders for use extensively in war games. Both experienced and novice commanders will be given an opportun
First vehicle (Score:2)
Not driving back anywhere - a hitchless trailer (Score:2)
All it can do is follow, it can't drive autonomously. It's a trailer, with an electronic hitch.
Other programs in development have significant autonomy. Those will, as you said, require a lot of attention to security. Fortunately, I've noticed a lot of the recruiting for security expertise comes is from companies with military contracts. Some of them, like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, are taking it very seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this spam?
Re: (Score:2)
So the vehicle comes back from its patrol route
What patrol route? Did you read the same summary I did? Why would a military patrol consist of one vehicle with people in it followed by a bunch of vehicles with no one in them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the enemy now know that they can kill one person and get all the loot without trucks full of soldiers to defend it.
1. The vehicle with the human can be heavily armored. It could be a truck or hummer with extra steel plate and a sandbagged floor, or it could be a Bradley or even an Abrams. It will not be a soft target.
2. A convoy will be operating in an area covered by artillery or mortars, and monitored by aerial assets, usually a drone. An unmanned convoy will be easier to support with indirect fire since there is much less risk of friendly casualties. So if anyone tries to "loot" the convey, they will be hit wit
Re: (Score:2)
Since the enemy now know that they can kill one person
Why one person? What do you think, the convoy is headed by an un-armored golf cart driven by 1 person? Why can't it be lead by a tank? If they want to attack the tank, OK, good luck.
By the way, watch out for the drone providing air cover.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a lot of tanks ready for duty and its factory production of new tanks has not halted.
That like totally protected.
Tanks can drive on normal roads for hours and hours right?
Re: lead vehicle will be armored (Score:2)
Too slow, and likely to destroy the roads. Better off using an MRAP or something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think an Abrams is slower than a cargo truck?
Re: lead vehicle will be armored (Score:2)
Top speed of the Abrams is 45 mph, but you wouldn't even want to go that fast if you plan on using the roads in the future. The faster you go the more damage you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, this system allows you to optimize the first vehicle for protecting the people since that's the only vehicle with people now.
So have the lead vehicle be a tank or similar heavily armored vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
You put the driver in an armored vehicle. Then you have squishy trucks follow it.