Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wanted: Special-Ops Battle Suit With Cooling, Computers, Radios, and Sensors

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the paging-tony-stark dept.

The Military 176

An anonymous reader writes "U.S. military researchers are asking industry for ideas on a futuristic uniform for Special Operations warfighters that involves agile air-conditioned armor with embedded computers, sensors, communications radios and antennas, signal processors, wearable displays, and health-monitoring systems. Among the technologies Special Operations Command officials are interested in most (PDF) are advanced armor to protect warfighters from bullets, shrapnel, and other battlefield threats, while preserving their mobility. The suit also may involve powered or unpowered robotic exoskeletons to improve warfighter performance and endurance, while enabling the warfighter to operate silently and unseen."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ummm..... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776845)

Didn't Tony Stark already invent this?

Prior Art (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776903)

Tony Stark was preceded by a few decades by Robert Heinlein's Mobile Infantry in Starship Troopers.

Re:Prior Art (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776977)

Actually more like four [wikipedia.org] years [wikipedia.org] .

Prior 'WORKING' Art (3, Informative)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#44777339)

Actually, both were beat out by real devices! Powered Exoskeletons [wikipedia.org]

In addition, (according to wikipedia) the first fictional reference was E. E. Smith's Lensman series in 1937, although devices were being built before then.

Re:Ummm..... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44778147)

Hah! Is funny because Tony Stark is fictional!

The Army is not the only one who wants this (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#44776849)

Dude, I want a suit like that for myself!

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776901)

It would indeed be an upgrade from plate armor, Sir Garlon.

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (4, Funny)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44777145)

why? you live in Compton or South east LA?

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#44777243)

No, I mostly want it for the air conditioning. And the RF antennas.

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#44777525)

This is just it. Forget about "power armor" with weapons, or even armor.

As far back as Sun Tsu, experts in strategy have written that the worst thing you can do to a military force is make them fight in a swap. That's just as important today. A "battle suit" that does nothing more than keep a soldier comfortable and disease-free in a swap would be a vast strategic advantage. It's as big a deal as the whole concept of drones.

Get that working, and an Iron Man suit might be nice in specific cases, but you've already got 90% without armor and weapon links.

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777727)

What's a "swap"? What does it mean to fight in one?

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44778057)

A swap is like a Gamer convention. Buttloads of stench and disease. Swapfunk in war will take out your entire army in short order.

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (0)

the_B0fh (208483) | about a year ago | (#44778133)

Damn. I wish I hadn't commented earlier because I actually have mod points :) And bonus - you even managed to tie it back to the topic!

Someone, mod parent +funny :)

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | about a year ago | (#44777731)

As far back as Sun Tsu, experts in strategy have written that the worst thing you can do to a military force is make them fight in a swap. That's just as important today. A "battle suit" that does nothing more than keep a soldier comfortable and disease-free in a swap would be a vast strategic advantage. It's as big a deal as the whole concept of drones.

Get that working, and an Iron Man suit might be nice in specific cases, but you've already got 90% without armor and weapon links.

I think that you meant "swamp" not "swap"... Though I have seen how testy housewives can get at swap meets... (grin)

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#44778013)

hehe, and I got it wrong twice! Genius. And I don't think I can blame spell-checker auto-correct either.

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (2)

N_Piper (940061) | about a year ago | (#44777839)

A powered exoskeleton would make any type of heavy lifting trivial, do you have any idea how many man hours are used unloading a truck at one Walmart every single day?

Re:The Army is not the only one who wants this (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a year ago | (#44777159)

With a built in cafeteria and ass-wiper.

Uh-oh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776851)

Sounds like they've been playing too much Crysis.

Re:Uh-oh (1)

HairyNevus (992803) | about a year ago | (#44778219)

I was thinking someone at R&D just got into Gantz [wikipedia.org] .

Just one question (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about a year ago | (#44776911)

Where do you pee?

Re:Just one question (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776969)

Wearing that suit, wherever you like....

Re:Just one question (1)

volxdragon (1297215) | about a year ago | (#44777375)

ROFL! Oh to have mod points today....

Re:Just one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777717)

Thank you, thank you, fans!

I'll be here all week.....

Re:Just one question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777337)

Where do you pee?

Think internal waste collection with a special Jarate feature.

Iron Man (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776933)

Sounds a lot like Iron Man armor to me.

Iron Patriot (0)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#44776939)

I thought the military already built the Iron Patriot [wikipedia.org] suit. Surely they don't think this request is going to get them the real Ironman suit?

Re:Iron Patriot (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about a year ago | (#44777163)

Material science is lagging behind too much.

Re:Iron Patriot (1)

drakaan (688386) | about a year ago | (#44777745)

...or maybe not [ieee.org] ...

Look how the military go for the worst SF... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776941)

They won't pay for a Starship, but they want the troopers from one. Guess they would prefer to kill humans rather than the Bugs...

Re:Look how the military go for the worst SF... (1)

Quila (201335) | about a year ago | (#44777061)

At least they have the focus tighter. They used to call for these goodies for the general troops, but ordering it only for SOF sounds much closer to the mechanized infantry of ST.

Now if we could only get those drop pods.

Re:Look how the military go for the worst SF... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year ago | (#44777377)

... the mechanized infantry of ST.

I think it was "mobile infantry" in ST. In Heinlein's day the term "mechanized infantry" was already in use, troops riding in vehicles along side tanks.

Now if we could only get those drop pods.

Personally I'm hoping for something to drop those pods from. :-)

Re:Look how the military go for the worst SF... (1)

Quila (201335) | about a year ago | (#44777397)

Thanks for the correction. Time to read the book again, it's obviously been too long.

Heinlein, Haldeman, Steakley, Scalzi ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year ago | (#44777889)

Thanks for the correction. Time to read the book again, it's obviously been too long.

I used to recommend reading Starship Troopers (Heinlein), Forever War (Haldeman), and Armor (Steakley) back to back. But I've decided to add Old Man's War (Scalzi) to that suggestion list. The later doesn't have the armored suits of the others but I think fits in well in its own way.

Unpowered exoskeletons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44776961)

The suit also may involve powered or unpowered robotic exoskeletons

How would an unpowered exoskeleton be useful? Wouldn't that be just dead weight?

Re:Unpowered exoskeletons? (1)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44777067)

Prevent broken bones, keep the armor in place, provide mounting points for peripherals, redistribute weight more efficiently.

Re:Unpowered exoskeletons? (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year ago | (#44777127)

It's what we used to call a suit of armour.

Now get thee hence from mine lawne!

Re:Unpowered exoskeletons? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44777697)

Sire, once he is clear, shall the raise the shields? .... What about the drawbridge? Oh, and the oil... shall I put the fire out? Or were we expecting more company?

Re:Unpowered exoskeletons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777709)

If the term is being used accurately, there's a distinction between armor and an exoskeleton.

A skeleton (whether endo or exo) provides structural support. Armor, in and of itself, does not.

Re:Unpowered exoskeletons? (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about a year ago | (#44777995)

I could lock my armor knees and it would hold me upright. Helped in those interminably long bridge battles.

Borat Mankini (1)

Coeurderoy (717228) | about a year ago | (#44776973)

That is what would make me feel really safe (preferably as an internationally enforced soldier uniform world wide)
It would also be much cheaper!

The impossible dream (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777023)

Here we go again, big tax bucks will be spent making multiple versions of this impossible toy that no one will remember.
It's better to ask for something that will always be remembered, like a foursome!

Wanted: Stop wasting my money (0, Troll)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44777039)

Seriously, stop playing Team America World Police. Stop getting into so many wars and taking so many actions, cut the military....in half or more; and spend a good bit of that money on education here, and developing the technology to colonize space. If you INSIST on making it about war, can't we pretend the next force that will need to be mobilized is on the moon or mars?

Re:Wanted: Stop wasting my money (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44777139)

I'm still trying to figure out why everyone argues that we should spend the money elsewhere instead of simply using it as a reduction to our deficit-plagued budget.

Re:Wanted: Stop wasting my money (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44778115)

Well I said good bit, not all of it...they definitely don't need all of it.

That said, the educational system is doing a piss poor job of getting people ready to enter the workforce of 15 years ago, say nothing about the one today or going forward into the future.... so if they were to spend gobs of money on fixing that, I would at least have trouble saying it didn't go to something worthwhile...

Something other than supporting the share price of military contractors.

Re:Wanted: Stop wasting my money (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44778321)

Well I agree they're doing a piss-poor job of it, but it seems that the more federal involvement we see, the worse both the education and the bang-for-the-buck get. Ronald Reagan once said, "If you serve a child a rotten hamburger in America, federal, state, and local agencies will investigate you, summon you, close you down, whatever. But if you provide children with a rotten education, nothing happens, except that youâ(TM)re liable to be given more money to do it with."

Re:Wanted: Stop wasting my money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44778131)

True, we should just nuke a few of the annoying countries and get the whole world back to being scared shitless of us.

Honestly one 30Kiloton bomb on whatever city we think that scumbag running Syria is and the whole thing is over. AS soon as it drops, we need to make a world brodcast where the president says only one sentence...

"That is what happens when you fuck with us."

then let the little pissants think about what just happened. Mister Jihad goes off his rocker, nuke the country he is from. Yes nuke an entire city over the actions of one nutjob, and the rest of the world might start taking care of the nutjobs in their own backyards.

Hey Muslims, you are peace loving... round up your nutjobs and you will not have any more problems. Because it's time for the USA to say "fuck it" to the rest of the world.

"warfighter"? (1)

tirerim (1108567) | about a year ago | (#44777041)

Is there something wrong with the word "soldier"?

Re:"warfighter"? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777131)

Yes. Soldier is the term typically used for someone in the Army. As opposed to Airmen, Sailors, and Marines. Warfighter is the more general term for anyone int he military.

Re:"warfighter"? (2)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year ago | (#44777231)

"Warfighter" is jargon. "Service members" is the general term for anyone in the military.

Re:"warfighter"? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year ago | (#44777551)

"Warfighter" is jargon. "Service members" is the general term for anyone in the military.

"Warfighter" seems to be trying to distinguish between those service members who are in combat roles and those who are in non-combat roles.

As far as old terminology goes I think "troops" would be a better fit, something that can apply to soldiers, Marines, sailors in a shore party, etc.

Re:"warfighter"? (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44778299)

And not just anyone in the military will be wearing this suit. Warfighter is used for someone who does the killing. Someone who works in admin, intel, logistics, or any other job behind a desk is a service member but not a warfighter. Warfighter is not meaningless jargon; it's the right word in this context and what we use (Defense contractor and former Marine, here).

Re:"warfighter"? (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | about a year ago | (#44777133)

Agreed. "warfighter" is a stupid fucking word (er, portmanteau).

Re:"warfighter"? (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44778307)

And yet it's what we use in the military to distinguish between combat roles and non-combat roles.

Re: "warfighter"? (2)

OECD (639690) | about a year ago | (#44777187)

Not Grar! enough. Same reason all the Pentagon flunkies are riding the Metro in camo.

manifest density (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#44777345)

so when are we dumping "defense department" and going back to "department of war" ? And does that mean we're going back to slaughtering the natives and taking their land?

Re:manifest density (3, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#44777821)

The War Department didn't become the Defense Department. It became the Department of the Army and was removed from the cabinet, as was the Department of the Navy (which didn't get a name change). The Defense Department was, by necessity, a new department because it was created to oversee the Army, Navy and the new formed Air Force, whereas the War Department had been responsible for only the Army since 1798 (nine years after its founding).

Re: "warfighter"? (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about a year ago | (#44778279)

Nah, don't be stupid. The deskbound "warfighters" are riding the Metro in camo because it's easier to maintain than dressier uniforms.

The easiest way is ALWAYS the way the soldier will try to take. To beat your opponent you have to be a little harder and a little more willing to put up with nasty shit.

Re:"warfighter"? (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#44777207)

The buzzword is meant to be inclusive. Technically, Army personnel are soldiers, Air Force personnel are airmen, Marine Corps personnel are marines, and Navy personnel are sailors. It's easier to say "warfighter" than to say "soldier, sailor, airman, and/or marine" every other sentence -- or, apparently, to risk offending anyone by leaving one or more of the service branches out. (I would think the military is the last place where one should have to worry about whiners, but whatever.)

I read an op-ed by a retired soldier who lamented the rise of the new buzzwords "warrior" and "warfighter." To be a solider implies a certain code of honor. That's why, he said, the term had become unfashionable-- a scathing commentary on military culture.

Re:"warfighter"? (2)

Dzimas (547818) | about a year ago | (#44777215)

The military is marketed to 18-year-olds, and "soldier" is a passive term that simply doesn't convey the thrill and excitement of getting shot at.

Re:"warfighter"? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#44777729)

Is there something wrong with the word "soldier"?

Marines tend to object violently to being called "soldiers". Soldiers are in the Army.

Re:"warfighter"? (2)

cookYourDog (3030961) | about a year ago | (#44778317)

actually, the term is used to distinguish combat troops from their paper pushing comrades. For every single infantryman, there are 11 support soldiers - from cooks to supply to drivers. I'll leave you to judge how efficient that may seem.

Air Conditioning... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#44777057)

Why air conditioning? Wouldn't it be simpler, lighter, and more efficient to cool with conduction than convection? I'm thinking pads that stick to the skin running water to a heat pump or even Peltier devices to make the whole thing solid state.

Re:Air Conditioning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777173)

Peltier devices are horribly power inefficient. Bad enough that they would reduce battery life, and increase the suit's heat signature considerably more than a actual AC.

With the right setup and say putting someplace to dump the heat internal (say an ICE block) you could minimize the heat signature of the suit for a short time to limit high-tech detection.

Re:Air Conditioning... (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#44777211)

What you want is Cool Chips [coolchips.gi] at 55% carnot efficiency.

I've already figured out how to use these to make 1000+mpg cars. They don't even have viable production yield yet. This is a keystone technology that I can personally put to a hell of a lot of use making a ton of shit that doesn't exist now (some could but would be expensive and impractical; some is physically impossible to substitute a compressor for).

Re:Air Conditioning... (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | about a year ago | (#44777255)

Sounds good. For the places they're probably wanting to use it, shame you can't make it nice and reflective to bounce a lot of solar energy away, but having troops wandering around lit up like disco balls probably isn't the thing they're after! Having a 'stillsuit' type thing under any armour should help with the cooling/attachment of external armour too, perhaps a combo system? the pads to a heat pump for general use, and an 'active' system in the external armour to crank up when needed, then flip off to save power/go dark when needed. When traveling, could plug in to use the extra power for cooling so wouldn't need to remove the armour when seated Don't they suffer a lot of injuries in road side bombs? having a decent amount of cooled body armour might help here too and you'd be able to bulk up a bit knowing they're not needing to schlep too far, at least for the drivers. I guess the main issue is if/when you do run out of power. Would they be ok or need to strip off the extra as without power, it's more weight/heat to worry about?

Re:Air Conditioning... (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#44777279)

I didn't read the PDF, but probably what the DoD asked for was "cooling," and the poster or editor mistook "air conditioning" for an exact synonym. I am sure the DoD would be happy with any cooling mechanism that worked.

Re:Air Conditioning... (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#44777383)

I am going to make the assumption that the army wants to protect their soldiers from concussive blast (from bombs, RPGs, etc.), chemical, and nuclear fallout. In order to protect from these threats you need a air tight seal which then bright up issues on how to cool the soldiers. Look back at Gulf War I and what soldiers had to endure under the threat of chemical attack.

I am also going to assume that the army does not mean “AC” when the article says “AC”. I would think any cooling system would work. I have seen some weird studies about how to cool soldiers down.

Wanted: (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44777063)

Sharkskin jackets with lasers - Contact DoD.

They really can't distinguish fact from fiction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777099)

Comment from the 'Starship Troopers' wiki entry: ... In 2012, an article on the US military buying ballistic face masks specifically referenced the "big steel gorilla[s]" of Starship Troopers...

There is a little history in that fiction ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year ago | (#44777707)

Comment from the 'Starship Troopers' wiki entry: ... In 2012, an article on the US military buying ballistic face masks specifically referenced the "big steel gorilla[s]" of Starship Troopers...

And Starship Troopers use of the term "big gorillas" was in reference to WW1 (1914-18) slang. IIRC anti-ballistic steel face masks were also tried out in WW1. There is a little history mixed in with that fiction.

Just watch. (4, Interesting)

some old guy (674482) | about a year ago | (#44777117)

One the Army gets them, the nazis over at the DEA will want them too, and in no time at all Andy Taylor and Barney Fife will get a Homeland Security law enforcement grant so they can add this to their local sheriff's arsenal of M-16's, M-60's, and infantry fighting vehicles...so they can morph into Judge Dredd and fight the swarms of evil terrorists we see on every street corner.

And... (1)

chill (34294) | about a year ago | (#44777167)

Also on the list, a pony. Preferrably one with a frickin' laser beam on its head.

User death imminent. (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year ago | (#44777179)

Morphine administered.

Re:User death imminent. (1)

Aelanna (2695123) | about a year ago | (#44777329)

Maximum Armor.

Life imitating art (1)

Mr.Intel (165870) | about a year ago | (#44777209)

Okay... so it's not particularly good art, but it is art [amazon.com] nonetheless. If they invent e-balls as well, I totally want to see one of these in action!

"warfighters" (1)

Medievalist (16032) | about a year ago | (#44777213)

Because a soldier isn't technologically advantaged to disincentivise enemy combatant functionality utilizing post-9/11 paradigms.

Bugs, Mr. Rico. Zillions of 'em! (1)

Chacharoo (977107) | about a year ago | (#44777225)

Come on you apes, you wanna live forever?

Re:Bugs, Mr. Rico. Zillions of 'em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777289)

Always laughed at that line - because the obvious answer is "Um, yes.."

Re: Bugs, Mr. Rico. Zillions of 'em! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777675)

It's a reference to ancient Sparta, where "May you live forever" was a curse.

Advanced armor w/embedded tech. (3, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#44777239)

... a futuristic uniform for Special Operations warfighters that involves agile air-conditioned armor with embedded computers, sensors, communications radios and antennas, signal processors, wearable displays, and health-monitoring systems. ... officials are interested in advanced armor to protect warfighters from bullets, shrapnel, and other battlefield threats, while preserving their mobility.

Problem solved [wikipedia.org] . Some mobility may be limited.

Bear Proof Suit (1)

djlemma (1053860) | about a year ago | (#44777273)

I thought Troy Hurtubise was trying to shop around a suit of armor [wikipedia.org] similar to what they're looking for. Seems like a crazy guy, but the documentary about the bear proof suit was cool.

Re:Bear Proof Suit (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | about a year ago | (#44777957)

The only problem with Bear Proof Suit development is cleaning out the failed prototypes.

Re:Bear Proof Suit (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#44778051)

Here's a video [youtube.com] , if anybody's wondering.

Easy. (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#44777275)

anti-ballistic, computerized, walking.

Pick 2.

Must also... (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | about a year ago | (#44777297)

Float...

Not obscure the vision of the wearing when enemy fires "flour bombs" at wearer...

Also work in the dense jungle (we know how well our high-tech worked against the pajama wearing VC...

Re:Must also... (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#44777803)

I think we can be fairly confident that US troops will never fight another jungle war. Deserts and cities, that's what they're thinking of, and no matter how valuable Resource X in the jungle is, US troops aren't going to be committed to "securing" it. Those Viet Nam scars run deep.

StarCraft Terran Marine suit (1)

Dajhan (1294718) | about a year ago | (#44777313)

sounds like they want something like the Terran Marine Suit in StarCraft

Re:StarCraft Terran Marine suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44778237)

You must construct additional supply overlords.

Lets hope they freeze your sperm first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777363)

Because something like that is guaranteed to cook your nuts.

Sounds like ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44777475)

... Gundam [wikipedia.org] . The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture have been covering up their involvement in this technology, so that might be a good place to start looking. Why not contact them?

OH OH OH! (1)

Nov8tr (2007392) | about a year ago | (#44777725)

With a FRIKIN LASER BEAM on the head!!

And, um, (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about a year ago | (#44777775)

" agile air-conditioned armor with embedded computers, sensors, communications radios and antennas, signal processors, wearable displays, and health-monitoring systems."

And low observable - infrared, RF, you know.

Oh, wait. That is gonna be harder.

How long before the battlefield is cluttered with little RF bots crawling around pretending to be communicating with themselves and Central Command, attracting DIY drones and quadcopters spewing hostile fire? And of course lighting themselves up to be found and neutralized by other drones loitering for just such a chance, to strike anything afloat in the 100'-1000' range, doing less than say 50 knots that doesn't ping back IFF that is recognized?

The coming battlefield will be full of autonomous machines looking for opportunities to deal with obvious, plain threats, stuff in kill boxes and even in more fluid spaces. And countermeasures. At some point, visible spectrum or even infrared video-based drones may be blinded by a bright source, just left there to deny surveillance over a certain area as troops etc move through. By the time the drone(s) clear their vision, the troops are through. The visible/IR 'jammer' may even be smart enough to shut down, hide, and then catch up with its owners, to repeat the cycle. Other handy devices may just crawl along behind carrying supplies and being close enough to be helpful, far enough away to survive an attack or give away positioning.

What a mess. You will need sensors, mapping, etc, just to keep track of your friends.

Gargoyles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44777779)

ala "Snow Crash"

So I wonder about something (1)

kilodelta (843627) | about a year ago | (#44777885)

Is it going to be shielded from RF stuff. I'm thinking HERF here but any directed energy weapon will do.

Beskar'gam (1)

anakin876 (612770) | about a year ago | (#44777977)

Where are they going to get the beskar to make these?

Sounds like Starship Troopers (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year ago | (#44778145)

The book, not the movies.

Stupid Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44778167)

Instead of more unmanned vehicles they want robocops. Well the rest of the world can be thankful but just how stupid is the American military to go this route? They will probably have them made in China and cut corners on costs too I am betting! LOL!!

Re:Stupid Americans (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44778267)

When an unmanned drone can walk into a building, kill hostiles, and retrieve friendlies then let me know. Until then, you'll need a human.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?