Defense Technology International - May 2008 - (Page 11)

TECH WATCH DAVID HAMBLING ROBOTIC RESTRAINT The U.S. Army deployed armed, unmanned ground vehicles in 2007 after years of experimentation. The first three robotic vehicles, called Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems (Swords), made by Foster-Miller, are used for street patrols and reconnaissance in undisclosed locations and have reportedly performed well. Many experts, however, do not consider UGVs like Swords true robots since they are remotely controlled. While an autonomous robot may sound like science ﬁction, much of the technology is in place, and recent developments are pointing toward greater robotic autonomy. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Grand Challenge, for example, showed that sensors and controls make unmanned trucks feasible (DTI January/February, p. 30). Nonetheless, the military is averse to letting robotic systems make life-or-death decisions. The Low-Cost Autonomous Attack Missile was intended to locate and identify targets. But during development, it was announced that there will be a “man in the loop” controlling operations. Non-lethal protection, though, is an option for UGVs. Work by the U.S. Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center focuses on using the Modular Crowd Control Munition in this role. The weapon resembles the M18A1 Claymore mine and ﬁres 600 rubber projectiles. There are times when autonomy is an asset. Stephen Thaler, president and CEO of Imagination Engines Inc. of St. Charles, Mo., has been working on a U.S. Air Force project called “Creative Robots to Defeat Deeply Buried Underground Targets.” This involves developing software for a swarm of autonomous H3 robots that explore and neutralize enemy bunkers. But he is pessimistic about wider applications. “I have doubts that the U.S. military will fully emAviationWeek.com/dti brace autonomous weapons systems,” says Thaler. The reason is the complexity of neural-network artiﬁcial intelligence systems like those his company has developed. Rather than being programmed for operations, neural-network software learns from experiences with various situations. The more intelligent the network is, the greater its complexity. “People want underlying architecture and logic to be understandable so humans can track down potential pathologies within them,” Thaler says. “That doesn’t happen with free-thinking neural systems. These systems become vastly complex on their own and cannot be understood by humans.” Any robot sophisticated enough to be autonomous will not be easy to debug. Commanders likely will not want to deploy a machine whose actions can’t be readily controlled or modiﬁed. Bart Everett, technical director of the robotics branch at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (Spawar) in San Diego, believes autonomous UGVs have a bright future. He says the need for human input limits a robot’s abilities, while the controller may be a liability if he is distracted from the task. “ Some degree of autonomy is essential to the future of robotics in the military, because a purely teleoperated robot imposes too much of a control burden on operators and demands a high-bandwidth communication link,” Everett notes. “We’re trying to change that by providing users with incremental improvements in autonomy and functionality to make robots more of an asset and the controller less of a liability.” Spawar’s approach is not toward a generalized intelligence but techniques that gradually improve a robot’s ability to function on its own. These include simultaneous localization and mapping capabilities, which allow a robot to develop a map of its surroundings as it goes. “The robot no longer needs an a priori map to navigate,” says Everett. “Accordingly, the warﬁghter doesn’t have to devote time and undivided attention to driving it remotely.” Spawar has also investigated a new approach in handling complex environments. In early experiments, robots attempted to identify everything in their surroundings and quickly reached data overload. Now a robot can take a snapshot of anything it cannot immediately deal with and transmit it to another computer or to a human operator for analysis. Such techniques give Spawar robots more autonomy. But Everett believes that free robotic agents are no more likely than freeroaming soldiers, given the role of discipline and hierarchical control in the military. He compares the situation to cruise missiles, where computers do much of the ﬂying and guidance, but a human exercises ultimate control. “I don’t see any indicators that the military needs to abandon this approach,” says Everett. ■ Swords robot has worked well since deployment, but is a long way from being autonomous. 11 FOSTER-MILLER/QINETIQ NORTH AMERICA MAY 2008 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0108/index.php?startid=30 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0108/index.php?startid=30 http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0108/index.php?startid=30 http://AviationWeek.com/dti

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Defense Technology International - May 2008

Defense Technology International - May 2008 Contents Around the World Science Watch Tech Watch Learn and Live Think Again Vive la Difference En Route Out of the Box Package Deal On Watch Inside Job Programs Update The Net Back to the Future Busy Signal Mighty Mites Hull of an Idea Tough Enough Cutting Edge First Person In Review Insight

Defense Technology International - May 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.