why d we spend so much time & resources to wipe ourselves out ? can't we think of peace,unity& harmony!remember aftermath of wars dont leave smiles on d victim's faces

Posted by: ibrahim at November 13, 2007 05:51 AM

I WATCHED ... THE ROBOTS DID FINE . THE HUMAN GEEKS NEED A TUNE - UP ...

Posted by: SIR at November 6, 2007 05:03 PM

As long as Microsoft have NOTHING WHATEVER to drive-by-wire, I'll give it a go . . . . . .

Posted by: Dave at November 3, 2007 06:18 PM

So, what WILl a computer do with rear-view mirrors?

Posted by: nano at November 2, 2007 10:35 PM

Night vision is the ability to see in a dark environment. Whether by biological or technological means, night vision is made possible by a combination of two approaches: enhanced spectral range, and enhanced intensity range. Image intensifiers were invented by Vladimir Zworykin, an employee of U.S. company RCA during World War II. His work and creation of the first generation 0 device became the basis for the sniperscope and snooperscope. Parallel development in Germany occurred by AEG in 1936, producing a prototype for the Pak anti-tank gun in 1939, which were later mounted on panzer tanks, and the 'Vampir' man-portable system for infantry with MP44 rifles.

The L85 is a gas operated, magazine fed, selective fire rifle of bullpup layout. The barrel is rifled for a NATO-standard 5.56mm ammunition, with 1:7 twis, and is fitted with a NATO-standard flash hider, which allows to launch the rifle grenades from the barrel. The L85 is fed using NATO-standard (STANAG) magazines, similar to M16 type magazines, with the standard capacity of 30 rounds. The SUSAT is mounted on a quick-detachable mount at the top of the receiver, and features an emergency backup open sights at tits top.

Posted by: lance belle rasmussen at November 2, 2007 02:29 PM

Night vision is the ability to see in a dark environment. Whether by biological or technological means, night vision is made possible by a combination of two approaches: enhanced spectral range, and enhanced intensity range. Image intensifiers were invented by Vladimir Zworykin, an employee of U.S. company RCA during World War II. His work and creation of the first generation 0 device became the basis for the sniperscope and snooperscope. Parallel development in Germany occurred by AEG in 1936, producing a prototype for the Pak anti-tank gun in 1939, which were later mounted on panzer tanks, and the 'Vampir' man-portable system for infantry with MP44 rifles.

The L85 is a gas operated, magazine fed, selective fire rifle of bullpup layout. The barrel is rifled for a NATO-standard 5.56mm ammunition, with 1:7 twis, and is fitted with a NATO-standard flash hider, which allows to launch the rifle grenades from the barrel. The L85 is fed using NATO-standard (STANAG) magazines, similar to M16 type magazines, with the standard capacity of 30 rounds. The SUSAT is mounted on a quick-detachable mount at the top of the receiver, and features an emergency backup open sights at tits top.

Posted by: lance belle rasmussen at November 2, 2007 02:28 PM

Not touched on as far as I could tell were the basic advantages and disadvantages of such systems. And could it do right in all cases? Do we Soldiers do right in all cases? What is or would be the error ratio between the two.

If a Soldier is driving 5,000 gallons of fuel down a city street in a hot zone and a child runs out in front of the truck does the driver hit the brakes and try to avoid the child? You may think this is harsh but it is a decision we expect them to make on the spot in a split second. No it is not as simple as following orders. We are expecting them to know if there is danger to the convoy if they slow or stop. Was it planning for the child to stop the convoy for ambush or is the child just running after his or her dog? Can a team working years on what the device should do in response to certain inputs resolve that problem?

Let’s glance at why that convoy would be attacked in the first place. The loss or destruction of a convoy is almost nothing compared to the loss or capture of our Soldiers. They are the target. Perhaps I am not seeing the truth because I don’t want to. Perhaps my answer is based more on minimizing the chances of putting Soldiers in such situations or any other situation where they could be killed or captured when robotics could be substituted. Maybe I just want the nightmares of out troops to stop. But, if there are no Soldiers in the trucks there will be no POW or KIA.

Posted by: Rick at November 2, 2007 11:56 AM

Boy, what easy pickings for the enemy. Now we can not only "Not" get supplies to our troops, we can supply the enemy at the same time, brilliant. Instead of "trained, armed soldiers" who can actually fight back if required, we have a bunch of microchips/batteries and twice as many soldiers required to "protect" the smart trucks. Oh, and don't forget the myriad of "support tech's" required to keep em going.

Common sense anyone?

Posted by: slider at November 2, 2007 08:47 AM

re: fly-by-wire concerns.
Do you really understand that these are autonomous, robotic vehicles? You won't ever have your butt in the seat to worry about positive feedback from the brake pedal on your tootsies. Fly by wire is not even close to these "fly by net-link" vehicles!

Posted by: alignme at November 2, 2007 08:39 AM

please this is to tell that i ogbata an airforce officer was embarased by a nigerian soidier who stoped the vehicle i was in the pretense of collecting the some of #20 ,which i refused and presented my identity, please i want know when you can responed to us here in nigeria by seding the equipments we ordered by oour government, the pentagon carr is good , in your weebsit we canot used our master card. americane expresscard.

Posted by: ferdinand ogbata ibe at November 2, 2007 08:26 AM

Wonder what these guys use for shock absorbtion for the electronics. I probably would opt for Wire Rope Isolators to keep in spec with Military Standards.

Posted by: Arauthator at November 2, 2007 06:58 AM

I don't know why people are afraid of drive by wire. We kill people remotely on a regular basis with UAV's. It reminds me a bit of my elderly uncle who is afraid of doing business on the internet while cheerfully handing over the credit card to a minimum wage waitress so she can take it to the back of the restaurant. Personally, I would trust triple redundant fly by wire over single redundant mechanical linkage.

Posted by: Rix at October 29, 2007 12:39 AM

"Nearly every new military and commercial aircraft in the world, from high performance fighters to jetliners circling the world -- and NASA's fleet of space shuttles -- incorporate DFBW flight control systems." http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2001-02-DFRC.html

Fly by wire stuff making 40 changes pre second. People are ok with flying in huge aircraft thousands of feet above the ground that are fly by wire but a humvee that won't go over 70 mph and won't get off the ground and might not actually have anyone in it is a problem? Human wreck a few cars every years. Software isn't he only that with glitches, brake cables fuel lines all that can mess up just the same. I am not saying we are ready to hand it all over but to say that a computer will never be as good... I don't go there.

Posted by: txzen at October 28, 2007 03:20 PM

"Though if you take away the soldiers, who will protect the convoy from ambush?"

Automated guns on the trucks! :)

Posted by: Dan at October 28, 2007 12:08 PM

Annexes..’
Union maker took the games.
Follow camps are fellows made.
Natures on stories are going down.
Forms reformed to make to grow.

China fit the washing deeds.
Cold in hearts but warm the spheres.
Cold in hearts are china here.
China he are used in there.

Yielding get a tyrant trees.
Yielding gets a wonder spirits.
Power lances are hunt to see.
Power lances are weapon picked.

Annexed bodies are boiling points.
Annexed worlds are evil coins.
Annexed mergers have little pitch.
Annexed merger a world is sin.
----------Cheung Shun Sang=Cauchy3----------

Posted by: cheung shun sang at October 28, 2007 04:31 AM

fly by wire and drive by wire scare me a bit. I'd like to have the mechanical linkage between my brake pedal and the actual brake, for example, and no software in between to screw up.

Posted by: greg at October 27, 2007 02:07 PM

Pretty pessimistic about computers, fly by wire anyone?

Posted by: txzen at October 27, 2007 02:00 PM

As far as the developing technologies argument, when the Army cancelled Crusader, they kept giving the company R&D money basically saying "we don't want the Crusader, but we still want the gun you designed." That cannon is now being fielded as part of FCS.

Posted by: TB at October 27, 2007 03:21 AM

I don't know that I want to see vehicles driving themselves in combat either really, but there are going to be some unmanned ground vehicles soon, since congress has mandated that 1/3 of all ground vehicles be unmanned by 2015 or something. Maybe on supply convoys they could have a couple of the vehicles be "followers" so that they can just follow the lead truck and not require as many soldiers to be around. that could save some soldiers lives in an ambush situation. Though if you take away the soldiers, who will protect the convoy from ambush?

Posted by: greg at October 27, 2007 12:24 AM

I can foresee using robot trucks to sweep for and detonate IEDs. Much rather lose a robot than a soldier.

Posted by: David at October 26, 2007 11:20 PM

Ok, just as long as they arnt actually thinking about replacing the combat truck driver. I've got mixed feeling on the whole "computers with brains idea." But maybe its just me.

Posted by: 22lr at October 26, 2007 09:12 PM

22lr,

True, this system may never be as good as driving a truck itself, but the benefit of these challenges is not to just to find a truck that can drive itself but to foster new technologies and development of new ideas. The technologies used in these vehicles will be applicable many other places, like maybe a UAV. You people are always complaining about these "gold plated" products that the military supports and buys all the time that seem to have no relevance, but you fail to reallize that the main benefit isn't the sole vehicle that is produced, but the technologies and lessons learned.

Ok, I may be a bit biased, because I am involved in the FCS program. I see its faults, too, and doubt whether the ground vehicles are really needed, but I also see that even if they cancel the production of those vehicles, the program will have fostered many new technologies that will be fielded on many other vehicles. When an article popped up about putting FCS technologies on other vehicles (which is already happening) somebody made a comment that its bad for the program because it makes the FCS vehicles useless, but it doesn't because it means that even if the vehicles never get fielded, the technology that was developed for them will still be available for other vehicles, ultimately making a big impact in the army. Same thing is going to happen with these Challenges.

I'll say it again, the main thing they're looking for is not just a vehicle that can safely maneuver through a city street by itself, but the technologies that make it possible, and that will aid the development other "robotic" or unmanned systems.

Posted by: greg at October 26, 2007 09:02 PM

Here we go, spending a boat load of money on a system that will never be as good as just driving the dang truck yourself. Why do we need this again?

Posted by: 22lr at October 26, 2007 07:58 PM