Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
National Defense > Blog > Posts > Future of Armed Ground Robots in Combat Still Debated
Future of Armed Ground Robots in Combat Still Debated
By Stew Magnuson


A QinetiQ modular advanced armed robotic system fires during a demonstration at Fort Benning, Ga., in 2010.

The Smithsonian Institution recently acquired a special weapons observation remote reconnaissance direct action system, or SWORDS, robot for its collection. The National Infantry Museum at Fort Benning, Ga., now has one as well, according to an industry executive.
 
In 2005, the SWORDS “mechanized soldier” became the first armed ground robot to see action on a battlefield, which apparently sparked the interest of museum curators.
 
The question now is whether armed ground robots will more often be seen on battlefields or on display at these institutions.
 
The debate over gun-toting robots and if they have a place in operations is still being discussed in the military, Lt. Col. Stuart Hatfield, soldier systems and unmanned ground systems branch chief, Army G-8, said at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International conference in Washington, D.C.
 
“There is a lot of thought, but it’s waiting for technology to catch up,” he said.
 
One of the main concerns is collateral damage, he said. If an armed remotely piloted aircraft shoots a Hellfire missile from above, and the operator misses the target, the warhead strikes the ground. If a robot firing parallel to the ground misses, the bullet keeps going.
 
The projectile can go far beyond the sensor systems that are mounted on the robot. A 7.62 mm machine gun’s tracers go about 800 meters, but the bullet goes much farther, Hatfield said during a panel discussion.
 
“You don’t want to miss the target that you clearly identified, and hit something that you don’t intend beyond that, whether it be a civilian or anything else that and cause collateral damage,” he added.
 
There is agreement in the military that they will not shoot autonomously. “Department of Defense policy is that there will always be a man in the [decision] loop when applying deadly force. Period,” Hatfield said.
 
Bill Powers, research fellow at the Potomac Institute, and former deputy director of the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned in Quantico, Va., said there are indeed active discussions and research into armed ground robots within the Marine Corps.
 
“Most Marines or soldiers don’t want to start shooting out there randomly without having some person in the loop, making the decision that it should be firing at whatever it is out there,” he said.
 
Hatfield pointed out that there are already remotely operated weapon stations inside ground combat vehicles. The guns are fired from within the cab.
 
“The question is: how far do we stretch that remoteness?” he asked.
 
SWORDS was never deployed as envisioned. They carried M249 light machine guns, but were placed in fixed locations, and did not move, according to reports in 2008. Operational concepts would have had them going around buildings to shoot at snipers or other enemy combatants, without exposing soldiers to deadly fire. However, senior military officials at the time did not feel comfortable using them in that manner, and they were placed behind sandbags.
 
Charles E. Dean, director of business development at QinetiQ North America’s unmanned systems group, said perimeter defense was an important mission, and despite press reports claiming that SWORDS was only briefly in Iraq, the robots served there for six years. Reports from combatant commanders passed on to him said they had saved lives.
 
“They performed a combat role. There is nothing wrong with serving the protection of a site,” he said.
 
SWORDS was based on Foster-Miller’s Talon robotic system and developed at Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.
 
QinetiQ, which has since acquired Foster-Miller, is still actively pursuing the armed robot business. It brought its follow-on to SWORDS, the modular advanced armed robotic system (MAARS), to the conference to display.
 
“The U.S. military’s interest in armed robots has not waned. It is not lukewarm. It is actually increasing over time,” Dean told National Defense.
 
The Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning is asking for a demonstration of MAARS this fall, and the Marine Corps continues to investigate the possibility of employing it as well, he said.

Photo Credit: Stew Magnuson

Comments

Re: Future of Armed Ground Robots in Combat Still Debated

“Department of Defense policy is that there will always be a man in the [decision] loop when applying deadly force. Period,” Hatfield said.

Actually, that is not DoD policy at all:

http://thebulletin.org/us-killer-robot-policy-full-speed-ahead

There are lots of ways to fudge this. One is to redefine what you mean by "the loop." Proponents of autonomous weapons now frequently argue that humans are present in the form of code. Robots have to be programmed by humans, so that's where you have humans "in the loop." Of course this is equivocation, playing games with words. That's what propagandists do.

Then of course, there is the simple option of developing the technology and tactics of autonomous weapons and announcing, at some later date, that the policy has changed.
Mark Gubrud at 10/7/2013 12:05 PM

Add Comment

Items on this list require content approval. Your submission will not appear in public views until approved by someone with proper rights. More information on content approval.

Name: *

eMail *

Comment *

Title

Attachments

Name: *


eMail *


Comment *


 

Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.

Characters *

  

Legal Notice *

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 

 

Bookmark and Share