[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
SAN DIEGO -- Bart Everett, technical director for robots at the
Navy's space and naval warfare systems center, acknowledged that
the military isn't ready for the next generation of mechanized
soldiers.
He is nevertheless overseeing the development of a robot soldier.
One that will enter into a building alongside a human companion uses
sensors to seek out enemies, then fire lethal or nonlethal weapons to
eliminate targets.
He calls the concept the "war fighter's associate"
and likens the human-robot relationship to that of a hunter and a
bird-dog.
"What we have to do is work with the war fighter and figure
out what [he] will accept.... If I lay this on him right away, it's
going to freak him out," Everett said.
The problem boils down to the classic disconnect between those who
work on cutting edge technologies in the lab and the users in the field,
he said. The engineers have no idea what the soldier really needs and
the conditions he encounters. And the soldiers don't know what
technologies are available to them and what they can do.
Everett said the lab is about 10 years ahead of where he expected
to be in terms of achieving autonomy for robots.
Autonomy means little or no need for an operator to use a joystick.
A reconnaissance robot, for example, can be sent into a bunker without
any radio link, and come out with a complete map populated with icons
showing the location of people, weapons, or evidence of weapons of mass
destruction.
And it may mean allowing that robot to have a weapon to defend
itself in case it comes under attack.
That by itself could cause skeptics to shake their heads. Letting a
robot enter an enclosed space with a weapon, and giving it the ability
to defend itself, could be too far of a leap for the military community
to accept, he said.
As Everett sees it, the way robots are controlled has not evolved
since World War II.
The fact that there were robots used that long ago in wartime is a
surprise to most even those in the industry, he said. The Germans built
8,000 Goliath suicide robots. They were a few feet long, moved on
tank-like tracks and were loaded with explosives. They were designed to
drive up to bunkers or tanks and then blow up.
One reason that they are largely forgotten today is that they were
not very successful, said Everett. who is writing a book on the topic.
They were tele-operated--meaning that they needed a soldier to
control the machine through a radio link. These links failed, and
therefore, so did the robots.
When the U.S. military invaded Iraq more than six decades later, it
arrived with about 170 robots--about 7,800 fewer than the Germans had.
And when these radio-controlled machines lost their links, they also
failed.
After spending about a billion dollars on robotics research and
development funds, Everett said he finds it lamentable that the United
States is still using tele-operated robots, Controlling a robot in a
battle zone is an engrossing task for the operator, and therefore
dangerous. That's why his lab. and others, are intensely working on
achieving autonomy.
"The problem we have is the war fighter is just getting used
to World War II technology," he added.
In the SPAWAR laboratories, work continues on some of the
leap-ahead concepts that he said the military is not ready to accept.
One of these systems, Robart III, carries a gun and a small rocket
launcher. Electronics Engineer Brandon Sights gave it a command to
"follow" and it kept pace with him through the room and door
into the California sunshine.
Sights picked up a rifle and pointed it towards the sea and
Robart's weapons did the same.
SPAWAR is not researching how to make the robot walk up and down
stairs. There are other laboratories and organizations such as the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and its Big Dog project,
working on walking robots. At some point, these two
technologies--autonomous function and human or animal-like mobility--may
be married, he predicted.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Another breakthrough has been in the realm of vision. Everett
decided about two years ago that current algorithms--designed to let a
robot see and understand what is around it through camera lenses--were
too complicated.
When a man walks down the street, his brain is only taking in on a
conscious level a small percentage of what he is seeing. The rest is
filtered out and pushed down to the subconscious. If something catches
his attention, then he will turn his head and focus on that object.
SPAWAR robots were already outfitted with ladars to help them
navigate rooms and avoid obstacles. Ladars send out laser pulses to
measure distances. The epiphany was to make the ladar the
"subconscious." If it picks up an anomaly--an object leaning
against a wall--then it can move over to the target, switch on the
vision, and decide what it is by comparing the shape of the object to
those stored in its memory. Is it shaped like a rifle? If it is a common
weapon like an AK-47, it should be able to identify it.
Earlier experiments were making robots walk into a room, then try
to identify everything within its field of view. They became overloaded
quickly.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
"In the event it can't be identified, take a picture of
it, and ID it later," Everett said.
This realization was one of the breakthroughs that led to SPAWAR
being ahead of where it expected to be in terms of autonomy, he said.
"Because of the change in our approach, we've made a lot
faster progress."
Just as a hunting dog picks up on his master's non-verbal
cues, the war fighter's associate robots are doing the same,
Everett said.
Like dogs, "robots can do some things humans can't and
vice versa."
If put together as a team, the robot can be sent ahead to do
missions that keeps the soldier out of harm's way.
Like a dog's ears and nose, a robot's sensors are
superior to a human's.
"We're setting the bar pretty high if we want the robot
to be as perceptive as a Everett admitted. But there is one way to
cheat.
Programs such as the Army's land warrior integrated modular
fighting system, which envisions a sensor embedded uniform that can
monitor a soldier's vital signs, can be linked to the just as the
weapon's status has ready been tied to Robart. The robot could then
pick up on the same non-verbal cues that dogs can read.
"No one is controlling it, no one is talking to it, and yet
it's right there with the doing what it is supposed to be
doing," Everett said. "We have so many elements of that
working right now, it's spooky."
However, an armed robot entering close quarters with humans is
another big leap in terms of acceptance. Fratricide is the first problem
that comes to mind.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Everett has installed five different sensors into the robot so it
can keep track of friendly forces.
These technologies can be married to modern day fire control
systems, which are highly accurate. Such systems can already track and
destroy a target from a moving Apache helicopter at distances measured
in miles. Scaling those capabilities down to meters does not pose a
problem, he said.
An armed robot with body armor could walk into an ambush,
"coolly find targets, and prioritize them, without getting scared,
without making a mistake." He said the robots may actually have
fewer friendly fire incidents than their human counterparts.
"In a constricted environment you don't want to go one on
one with a computer controlled weapon system. You're not going to
win that one. The robot is going to get you before you get it. He's
got sensors that can see in the dark, see through smoke, whatever."
Whether the military will embrace such a system is unknown.
Meanwhile, laboratories and programs such as his continue to move in
that direction.
Barriers in "acceptance" continue to be broken, he said.
The first was robots themselves and the belief that they could not
perform as well as humans. The highly successful explosive ordnance
disposal robots, although tele-operated, broke that wall down, he
asserted.
Next came armed robots. Some said it would never happen. But last
summer, the special weapons observation remote reconnaissance (SWORDS)
armed robot entered combat toting a M249 light machine gun. Again,
Everett dismissively noted that humans control the guns and platform
through radio frequencies. But nonetheless, it was another barrier
broken.
Now, there are already inquiries as to whether these robots can be
outfitted with nonlethal weapons so they can independently protect
themselves from tampering, he said.
This summer, the military will see some of the first fully
autonomous robots on bases throughout the United States.
The SPAWAR-built mobile detection and assessment response system
(MDARS) will patrol domestic installations under a program run by the
Army, which has tri-service responsibility for base security.
"There's no human driving this thing. It is all
automatic," Everett said.
MDARS will use 360-degree sensors to detect motion for distances of
up to 300 meters. Once it spots "purposeful movement"--in
other words an object displaying human-like motions--its speaker blares
out a warning:
"Intruder Stop! Stop and be identified."
If there is no response, it shoots a swath of pepper balls in front
of the intruder. It can track up to six targets at a time.
COPYRIGHT 2008 National Defense Industrial
Association Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.