Please Lower Your Weapon. You Have 15 Seconds To Comply

[jerome_oneil]

Gah!

Robot Cannon Kills 9, Wounds 14

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki.html

[SlakeMoth]

Damn, beat me to it.

I welcome our new robot overlords....

[RexRider]

 

[UFO]

Robots with weapons...not a good idea.

[atypical1]

Well, these are nothing new. Our ships carry these types of weapons as defense against missiles. I don't really know about these specific weapons though.

The concept of them is great. They just need to be perfect in their execution.

james

[Real Bad Attitude]

I wonder if it micro stamps the cases    

[UFO]

Well, these are nothing new. Our ships carry these types of weapons as defense against missiles. I don't really know about these specific weapons though.

The concept of them is great. They just need to be perfect in their execution.

As long as they are created by and run by humans...this will never happen.  We haven't even come close to perfecting ourselves, thus nothing we create will ever be perfect.

[atypical1]

OTOH, we are not perfect either. Plenty of friendly fire incidents out there to prove that. Bottom line is that all weapons are, by their very nature, dangerous and deadly. You don't see too many bullets with airbags because they are not meant to be safe. They are meant to harm.

I think that these make sense in an environment where everything moving at you is hostile (in the case of ships). It can be used as anti-aircraft but I think that a better solution would be to have an identifier (think RFID) in all friendly equipment. But that is impractical right now.

james

[jerome_oneil]

 It can be used as anti-aircraft but I think that a better solution would be to have an identifier (think RFID) in all friendly equipment. But that is impractical right now.

I don't know how impractical it is.  We've got IFF in all aircraft right now.

[toddrod]

They need an Easy button on one of those things...

or at least an emergency shut off

[bizarro]

How do you put a deadman switch on something that's unmanned?

[Shhted]

How do you put a deadman switch on something that's unmanned?

We need a safe word.  

[toddrod]

We need a safe word.  

How bout 'David Hasselhoff'

[Req]

Robots with weapons...not a good idea.

I don't know how else you plan on directing fire at a low-altitude strike aircraft.  The days when you could line up an ME-109 in your gunsight are long gone.  Willing to bet the only way you can accurately hit a fast aircraft or god forbid a cruise missile from a ground platform is to let the robots do the aiming.

[atypical1]

I don't know how impractical it is.  We've got IFF in all aircraft right now.

That's true. But you really need that in all equip including ground weapons too. At least I would want it in all ground equip. That would add to what those weapons could do.

james

[jerome_oneil]

That's true. But you really need that in all equip including ground weapons too. At least I would want it in all ground equip. That would add to what those weapons could do.

james

I certainly agree that any safeguard is a good one, but I think of weapons systems like CIWS (the R2D2 looking gun on most navy warships) and what it's intent is.   It is intended as a last ditch defense against inbound missiles and aircraft.   The way that thing operates is you turn it on, and it kills everything it can see until it's out of ammo.   So once the decision is made to arm it, it's generally a matter of seconds before you're blown up.

Tough choices.  I guess the rule is "keep your head down."

[Rogue]

We already employ a semi-automotous anti-aircraft gun mounted on all our ships:  The CWIS.  Close In Weapon System.  It has its own radar and is able to automously track and destroy incoming hostile aircraft.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

[jerome_oneil]

We already employ a semi-automotous anti-aircraft gun mounted on all our ships:  The CWIS.  Close In Weapon System.  It has its own radar and is able to automously track and destroy incoming hostile aircraft.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

That there is just what I was talking about.  That thing *by design* destroys everything in it's target field.

[Req]

We already employ a semi-automotous anti-aircraft gun mounted on all our ships:  The CWIS.  Close In Weapon System.  It has its own radar and is able to automously track and destroy incoming hostile aircraft.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

Per Jerome's post, I fixed that for you.

edit:  the linked article makes a good point that the Phalanx CIWS has an effective engagement time of about 1/3 of a second before a missile closes from maximum engagement range to impact.  Hence why it's important that it's completely autonomous and that there aren't any humans in the loop.

[atypical1]

I certainly agree that any safeguard is a good one, but I think of weapons systems like CIWS (the R2D2 looking gun on most navy warships) and what it's intent is.   It is intended as a last ditch defense against inbound missiles and aircraft.   The way that thing operates is you turn it on, and it kills everything it can see until it's out of ammo.   So once the decision is made to arm it, it's generally a matter of seconds before you're blown up.

Tough choices.  I guess the rule is "keep your head down."

True about the intent of the weapon. The CWIS certainly falls into the last ditch effort category.

But if you look at these weapons as potentially offensive in nature or broaden their defensive scope (perimeter security against all targets ground and air) then you would have to have some way of identifying what is friend and what is foe. In our multi-national environment that might be hard. Imagine these type of weapons against a car bomber for instance and their impact on troop morale.

james

[atypical1]

Per Jerome's post, I fixed that for you.

edit:  the linked article makes a good point that the Phalanx CIWS has an effective engagement time of about 1/3 of a second before a missile closes from maximum engagement range to impact.  Hence why it's important that it's completely autonomous and that there aren't any humans in the loop.

Very true. From my limited ship experience, we were not allowed anywhere near them when they were armed.

james

[LENSMAN]

Robots with weapons...not a good idea.

Asimov must be turning over in his grave!  

[jetapumper]

Gah!

Robot Cannon Kills 9, Wounds 14

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki.html

Now if only I could figure a way to mount it on the front of the connie.....sure take care of the cagers on the cell phone!

[veefer800canuck]

How bout 'David Hasselhoff'

I hear he's big in Japan.  

[Wilbur]

That's true. But you really need that in all equip including ground weapons too. At least I would want it in all ground equip. That would add to what those weapons could do.

james

FBCB2.

[DredheadV2.0]

Very true. From my limited ship experience, we were not allowed anywhere near them when they were armed.

james

A friend of mine once described being very nervous crossing the bridge between San Diego and Coronado island.  He noticed the Phalanx guns on one ship were tracking the cars going over the bridge.  Good thing the fcukers weren't loaded.

[atypical1]

I don't believe that they should have even been armed while docked. That does not sound right to me. When I have deployed with the Navy they normally did not have them armed until we were out of US territory.

james

[DredheadV2.0]

I don't believe that they should have even been armed while docked. That does not sound right to me. When I have deployed with the Navy they normally did not have them armed until we were out of US territory.

james

That's what I thought.  Someone should have gotten in deep shit for that (kinda like flying nuclear-tipped missiles over the continental US)

[Johnny Monsoon]

That's true. But you really need that in all equip including ground weapons too. At least I would want it in all ground equip. That would add to what those weapons could do.

james

Already is on heavy ground equipment.  Cannot equip infantry with this (with any sort of practicality) due to the way that system works.  My job is largely dependent on this concept.  

[atypical1]

Already is on heavy ground equipment.  Cannot equip infantry with this (with any sort of practicality) due to the way that system works.  My job is largely dependent on this concept.  

That is good to hear. We had several casualties due to A10's thinking Amtraks and Bradleys were BMP's.

james

[Johnny Monsoon]

That is good to hear. We had several casualties due to A10's thinking Amtraks and Bradleys were BMP's.

james

That surprises me; A10 drivers are very up close and personal type guys.  It's very unlikely they'd make that sort of mistake.  However, I can see it happening from ATG missile launches or GTG missile launches.  Our weapons systems are very, very sophisticated these days and, more often than not, employ visual tracking for accuracy review/target strike confirmation/analysis.

It's bad business, unfortunately, that we can't put IFF on all our weaponry.  You can't allow that system to be in a unit that's likely to be captured.  The way you keep the IFF current (think Return of the Jedi when the Imperial guys are talking about how the rebel forces are trying to use an old code) prohibits the use of this system deployed to very light assets.  

Now, the good news is that our battlefield awareness is MUCH more advanced than it ever has been.  We have an extremely good picture about what is where, and who is who.  It won't ever be perfect, which sucks, but our friendly-fire occurrence is dramatically reduced.

[jerome_oneil]

That's what I thought.  Someone should have gotten in deep shit for that (kinda like flying nuclear-tipped missiles over the continental US)

Odds are that the gun wasn't loaded.  These kinds of things are really two different systems.  The radar and guidance systems, and the chain gun.   Different teams maintain them separately.

[Wilbur]

That surprises me; A10 drivers are very up close and personal type guys.  It's very unlikely they'd make that sort of mistake.

Marines were fired on by an A10 in March 2003 in Nasiriyah, Iraq. How many were killed or wounded by the incident is not known as the Marines were heavily engaged at the time. It happened again in Afghanistan in 2006 against Canadians, killing 1 and wounding at least 30. This was also an A10.

Up close and personal is a very relative phrase. It's much less close and personal than it was during WWII and plenty of mistakes were made then.

[waz]

The concept of them is great. They just need to be perfect in their execution.

I guess South Africa is regretting that contract with Harley Davidson Weapons Division.

[Johnny Monsoon]

Marines were fired on by an A10 in March 2003 in Nasiriyah, Iraq. How many were killed or wounded by the incident is not known as the Marines were heavily engaged at the time. It happened again in Afghanistan in 2006 against Canadians, killing 1 and wounding at least 30. This was also an A10.

Up close and personal is a very relative phrase. It's much less close and personal than it was during WWII and plenty of mistakes were made then.

The Canadian incident was actually an Apache, and there were two instances of the pilot trying to confirm that he was indeed to fire on those guys.  I had that video at work.

The former is more plausible; if they weren't in larger vehicles, it is very, very hard to tell who is who; or worse, that there are friendly forces on the ground.  Our camouflage is really, really good.  I'll do some research on this incident and see if I can review the video.