New UGCV

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 07:52pm

Check this out:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/auto/artic ... 96,00.html

What do you all think?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-13 07:58pm

Schweet!

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-13 08:01pm

Looks like a toy.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2003-01-13 08:02pm

The crazy military school instructer was right, our jobs will be to build and maintain those robots.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-13 08:02pm

They're gonna have problems with the bay rotation mechanism. That's my prediction, and I'm sticking to it. Seems like a cool idea, but there's something nagging at the back of my mind that I can't think of that makes me nervous.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 08:05pm

I'm not sure if this vehicle will be effective. True, it could roll back up when it runs over a land mine, but its wheels would be fucked.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-13 08:06pm

jaeger115 wrote:I'm not sure if this vehicle will be effective. True, it could roll back up when it runs over a land mine, but its wheels would be fucked.

So would most other vehicles. The rollover is for if it hits a tree/ravine the teleoperator or computer doesn't see.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 08:08pm

So would most other vehicles. The rollover is for if it hits a tree/ravine the teleoperator or computer doesn't see.

Should we then keep men in our MBTs?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-13 08:47pm

jaeger115 wrote:
So would most other vehicles. The rollover is for if it hits a tree/ravine the teleoperator or computer doesn't see.
Should we then keep men in our MBTs?

Unless and until computers become more effective at all parts of battlefield combat, yes, we do need humans in our MBTs. Right now, computers don't have flexible enough logic and teleoperations don't have the response time to be battlefield capable for armor. With teleoperations, certain land features could also cause problems (the Predator drone does not fall into that problem because it flies over most such obstacles; same with Global Hawk). Combat efficiency was and should be the goal of the military.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-01-13 08:48pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Looks like a toy.

Reminds me of some thing from Terminator.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-13 08:48pm

This isn't an MBT though, it is a light scout by the looks and design of it.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-13 10:46pm

My Aviation teacher (yes, we have aviation class at my high school) once told the whole class that we were the last generation of would-be fighter-pilots, because robotics would take over soon. I don't know whether to believe him or not, since dogfighting requires that you outsmart the enemy assuming your plane is about equal to the enemy's.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-13 11:05pm

There's not enough radio channels and bandwidth for remote control tanks and other heavy armor to be practical on any large scale, and we don't have the computer tech to make them effective as pure drones. If might work if the controller always has LOS to the tank and we can use UHF links, but that wont be possibul in most terrain.

What where going to see is something like a Bradley linked to a half dozen automatic unmanned rocket launchers plugged directly into the fire control net. The Brad could park a few hundred meters away, safe from counter battery fire while acting as a radio relay.

Something like this project would probably be used as a scout to help flush out ambushes or enter unknown towns.