backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 86 comment(s) - last by judasmachine.. on Dec 4 at 1:42 PM

BAE Systems Black Knight   (Source: Defense Update)
BAE Systems' Black Knight is a formidable weapon for the battlefield

In early October, DailyTech brought you the story of Foster-Miller's MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System). The MAARS followed in the footsteps of previous battlefield robots like the REDOWL PakBot and the SUGV Early.

The 300-pound MAARS, on the other hand, brought serious firepower and technology to the table. The MAARS features a M240B Medium Machine Gun and uses GPS tracking to reduce the risk of friendly fire.

While the MAARS is an impressive piece of machinery, BAE Systems is taking battlefield robots to the next level with its Black Knight. The Black Knight is a semi-autonomous 9.5 ton tank based on the Bradley fighting vehicle.

The Black Knight can be controlled from the traditional commander's station or by remote control via the Dismounted Control Device (DCD). Due to its advanced programming, the Black Knight can also autonomously plan routes and avoid obstacles without user intervention.

When it comes to the Black Knights armament, human intervention is required to fire rounds (thankfully). Considering that the Black Knight is armed with a 30mm gun and a coaxial machine gun, it's good to know that this tank won't be rolling around firing at anything that moves.

BAE Systems detailed how admirably the Black Knight performed during a demonstration in early 2007.

"While the Bradley Technology Demonstrator was engaging an enemy target from cover in a support by fire position, the Black Knight was able to autonomously move to a covered position and observe the target, using its sensor package to provide battle damage assessment data back to the Bradley," explained BAE Systems.

"If the enemy target needed to be re-engaged, the Black Knight could effectively neutralize the target, but the command to fire would always be made by a remote Soldier and only after the data necessary to make positive identification is received."

It may be years before such potent machinery is available for use on actual battlefields, however.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Playing with fire
By CRimer76 on 11/8/2007 12:06:54 PM , Rating: 1
Haven't these people seen the Terminator movies?!




RE: Playing with fire
By DarkElfa on 11/8/2007 12:15:30 PM , Rating: 4
Asta la vista, friendly.


RE: Playing with fire
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/8/2007 12:20:28 PM , Rating: 3
Hollywood plays on people's fears about machines because it sells tickets. Using something like "The Matrix" or "Terminator" as an example is rediculous.

People complain that during a war it's unacceptable to have people die. Well, hate to break it to you but that's what happens in war, people die accept this and move on. The military is moving towards Unmanned boats, trucks, tanks, airplanes, recon aircraft, satellites, etc.... We are further removing people from the front lines to curb loss of life so people stop complaining. At the same time of course the reality is that machines can outperform a human at tasks if they are designed for it (Think 12g acceleration and banking turns). Now people complain that the reliance on machines to fight will cause them to turn on us and take over. Ok, so here are your options, deal with letting the machines do the grunt work in the battle, or stop complaining when people die. Those are your options, there are no others.


RE: Playing with fire
By masher2 (blog) on 11/8/2007 12:49:13 PM , Rating: 5
Despite what some people believe, war has steadily been becoming more civilized, and less calamitous to human life. A few centuries ago, soldiers took their pay directly from civilians populations...the phrase, "rape and pillage" had real meaning. If you were a civilian anywhere around enemy (or sometimes friendly) forces, you were due to be murdered, have all your goods stolen, your wives and daughters raped, and your children sold into slavery.

By the time of WWI/2, civilians were largely insulated from the direct effects of war. Though millions still died from indirect effects resulting from displacement, starvation, disease, it was nothing to the hundreds of millions who would have died had these wars been fought by the methods of earlier times. (And yes, I include Dresden/Hiroshima/etc in this...I did say "largely", after all).

Desert Storm showed us a new kind of war, where even the combatants themselves could be largely insulated from harm. The real war was won with near-zero casualties on the US side and, had Iraq been smart enough to realize when they were beaten, almost the same on the Iraqi side. Once your air and c&c infrastructure is destroyed, there's little point in slogging it out.

With machines like the one above, I can see a future when wars are fought without deaths on either side. When your robot forces are defeated, you simply throw up your hands and surrender...realizing how useless it would be continue in a "conventional" manner.


RE: Playing with fire
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/8/2007 12:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
I concur completely.


RE: Playing with fire
By Darkskypoet on 11/8/2007 2:56:39 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree wholeheartedly. In case you haven't noticed, no two major powers have fought anything other then satellite wars since WW2. In fact, I'd hazard to guess that we more then likely won't see another major power war for quite some time. (Economic collapse, or threat thereof being the only thing possibly dragging a certain missile shield toting Hegemon into one.)

So in essence, eventually the US / EU / Russia / China, won't have to worry about a Mogadishu line scenario if sacking a small state. However, said small state will have to fight humans to robots, much like they do currently in the suicide bomber vs smart bomb era of asymmetrical warfare.

Also, its a damn fine way to make sure that every goddamn satellite you own in the sky is taken down. Considering technology proliferation, It would not surprise me if states subject to such attacks simply started popping satellites. Considering that other states will want to counter such remote attacks as they are not stupid and realize just what lack of body bags can do to embolden a democracy (sane or not) in terms of warfare.

So again, I wholeheartedly disagree. The nations fielding such tech more then likely will not fight each other as they have no economic incentive to do so, and the conceivable powers that might achieve such a level of automation already possess the very powerful nuclear deterrent.

In essence, they will be used on small states, in small wars, that never seem to turn out right for any of the major powers. (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanastan1, Afghanastan2, etc) Considering how bad the Major powers are at fighting Asymmetrical wars in person, I doubt their abilities to do so at range will be any better. Furthermore, bots don't win hearts and minds, much the same as carpet bombing B52's don't either.


RE: Playing with fire
By joust on 11/9/2007 12:54:13 AM , Rating: 5
If we don't develop this technology, someone else will beat us to it and we'll find ourselves at a comparative disadvantage.

Even if we say we're not developing new military technologies they might not believe us. Regardless, who wouldn't like to seize the upper hand? You get buffer states, security, a nice place in the world hierarchy, etc.

When are wars more likely? When one side will utterly crush the other, or when the two are evenly matched? Countries are rational and when it's obvious they'll lose, they won't go to war. If one thinks it has a fighting chance, then, well... you know what might happen.

I hope the US never loses it's dominance in my lifetime, if only to avoid seeing a hegemonic war. Hegemonic wars are the BIG wars. They reorder the hierarchy of nations and occur when a hegemon loses power. If/when the US loses hegemonic power, it'll be a brutal struggle, on the order of World Wars I or II.

To avoid seeing such a war, a realistic pacifist ought to be in favor of keeping our armed forces so strong nobody will challenge us. It's not merely a matter of patriotism, not ideology, not arrogance that drives this, but rational, logical decision making.


RE: Playing with fire
By Oregonian2 on 11/8/2007 1:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
Or could go one step further and have the war be a computer simulation, and then when a casualty is "calculated" the person has to report to a death chamber to be eliminated. Of course, if we get to that point we are subject to a Federation starship coming by and putting a stop to it, making massive deaths come back on purpose. As has been done once before. :-)


RE: Playing with fire
By Ajax9000 on 11/8/2007 6:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
Brian W. Aldiss "The Dark Light Years" had a subplot about match-play war (for want of a better term).


RE: Playing with fire
By stryfe on 11/29/2007 1:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
Of course that's only if their Captian were to ignore the Prime Directive and we all know that never happens ;)


RE: Playing with fire
By rcc on 11/8/2007 1:36:01 PM , Rating: 3
I agree.

What concerns me though, is that by taking the direct impact (loss of life) out of war, particularly if it's only on one side, the people and leaders become insulated from the reality that is war. It's a mixed blessing, and one that I'm sure has been argued from the advent of the first ranged weapons.

I don't want any more of our boys to get killed than is necessary. However, I'd also hate to see someone in control of a remote controlled platoon wipe out a village because he could, and because it had no real impact on him or his people.


RE: Playing with fire
By masher2 (blog) on 11/8/2007 2:06:42 PM , Rating: 3
But historically, the "realities of war" have never stopped leaders from engaging in them. In fact, I would argue this new style of war may make leaders even less likely to engage in them.

When only robots are destroyed, it means the impact is felt economically, rather than in human life. Starting a war therefore means a hit on your own personal pocketbook, rather than the death of someone else's sons and daughters.


RE: Playing with fire
By TomZ on 11/8/2007 2:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
But the problem with that idea is that the money doesn't come out of the decision maker's pocketbook. And it is clear that politicians in general have very few qualms or reservations about spending taxpayer dollars.

In fact, I would argue that the notion of restraining spending on the part of the federal government has completely gone out the window. I can't even think of the last time that I heard some new spending proposal put down simply because it costs too much. Such proposals only seem to get stopped based on some other principle, e.g., not wanting to spread government-funded health insurance into the middle class.


RE: Playing with fire
By masher2 (blog) on 11/8/2007 2:53:53 PM , Rating: 1
> "But the problem with that idea is that the money doesn't come out of the decision maker's pocketbook"

For a small war, no. For a large-scale conflict, it does, if that person has any investments or financial holdings at all. More importantly, it comes out of the pockets of those who finance and contribute to political campaigns. Take a look at Iraq, for instance. I seriously believe there's been more complaint about the cost of the war, rather the number of US troops actually killed there.


RE: Playing with fire
By TomZ on 11/8/2007 3:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you might be right, but I seriously doubt that, for example, Bush has been personally affected one bit by the Iraq war.

And I'm not sure I agree on the cost vs. casualties point either. I'm personally outraged by the cost of the Iraq war both in human terms and dollar terms, and I think a lot of other people are too.


RE: Playing with fire
By Darkskypoet on 11/8/07, Rating: -1
RE: Playing with fire
By James Holden on 11/8/07, Rating: -1
RE: Playing with fire
By TomZ on 11/8/2007 4:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.S. gets its oil from Canada, not Iraq.

That's not true. The US gets oil from Canada, yes, but it also gets a lot from Iraq as well as a number of other countries in the Middle East:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_...