US Army testing Stryker robot tank

Engineers with the US Army recently completed tests on a 20-ton unmanned Stryker vehicle, intended to be used as part of a convoy. In the tests, the robot vehicle was able to follow a manned vehicle at speeds averaging 22 miles per hour, topping out at 40 on straightaways. The robotank was also able to detect obstacles laid down by the lead vehicle and maneuver around them. One of the big advantages of the vehicle appears to be the ability to operate without GPS, instead relying on terrain data sent from the lead vehicle and data gathered from on-board sensors; soldiers will remain in the vehicles for now, but in the future, these mech-warriors could be used for tasks like resupplying forces in dangerous environments.

[Armin @ Feb 23rd 2006 11:53AM]

Doesn't really look like a tank... More of an APC, which means that there would be people in it...

Where's the gun(s)?

[KOOB JAPAN @ Feb 23rd 2006 11:55AM]

IN KOOB, JAPAN EVERYONE HAS A TANK
FOR REAL


Koob, Japan by KOOB, JAPAN

[Heath Stahl @ Feb 23rd 2006 12:10PM]

Since it�s an R&D model in the early stages it wouldn't have the weapon systems or at most a mock-up of the systems. There is a Stryker variant known as the "Mobile Gun System" that used the same 105mm cannon that the M1 uses. So they could make that one robot controlled and it would be a "tank" depending upon what you define as a tank. Personally I think a tank needs to have heavy armor, which Strykers do not have. And at least a prayer of a chance against another tank, again Strykers can hardly even survive RPG fire let alone another tank.

One thing of all this... some poor fool has to *lead* this convoy of Johnny 5's at least as they currently describe it. Unless the lead vehicle can be remotely controlled from somewhere safe.

[Guy Via @ Feb 23rd 2006 12:13PM]

Well, its meant as an armored convoy - hence 'used for tasks like resupplying forces in dangerous environments'. I wish they had mentioned if it carried any sort of weaponry, but I doubt Uncle Sam is willing to put bullets in the hands of a computer. Yet.

[ishtar @ Feb 23rd 2006 12:14PM]

If there is no driver, how will it robo-change a flat tire?

[Finished.Law.School @ Feb 23rd 2006 12:16PM]

Nothing will surpass the T100 in looks and effectiveness.

[skype_fan @ Feb 23rd 2006 12:28PM]

What they want to achieve with this ? The solution to the problem is very simple. You only run in problems with convoys if you occupy another country. So just stay home. It's that simple, as long as they continue to invade countries no robots will ever help them from getting lethal feedback from people who don't like them.

[Liam @ Feb 23rd 2006 12:37PM]

Wasn't the DARPA challenge just the other day? Time flies when your talking autonomous robotic vehicles.

[Jack Nguy @ Feb 23rd 2006 12:54PM]

^^ I was just about to say DARPA Challenge at work. Now, lets see if the enemy can own our computer system and use it against us. Watch out for those Koreans!

[Deadbeef @ Feb 23rd 2006 1:09PM]

Looks like Johny got upgraded! (He's still alive)

[Alcaron @ Feb 23rd 2006 1:19PM]

"What they want to achieve with this ? The solution to the problem is very simple. You only run in problems with convoys if you occupy another country. So just stay home. It's that simple, as long as they continue to invade countries no robots will ever help them from getting lethal feedback from people who don't like them."

Ooooh, look kids, a troll!

You know, funny thing...you only need tanks, bombers, fighters, etc. etc. then too, at least in your magical little fairytale world where unless you are at war everyone stops developing better weapon technology.

I would suggest you read a book, educate yourself, and find one of the myriad ways of berating the war in Iraq that don't require you to make an ass of yourself in the process.

Because all your comment conveyed was: Iraq War = Bad AND skype_fan = boob

[grh @ Feb 23rd 2006 2:24PM]

I think I'll wait for the Speler version, thanks.

[Jay @ Feb 23rd 2006 2:33PM]

If it was programmed by women, you know the damn thing will just drive to the mall of america. BELEEEEEVE DAT.

[Joe @ Feb 23rd 2006 2:35PM]

Well said Alcaron, although I don't agree with the war either, skype_fan does indeed = boob. This is not a political forum.

The Stryker is an APC, not a tank. And I doubt this is using technology from the Grand Challenge. If this is being field tested, it has likely been in development for a while. I could be wrong, but I think this is a little too soon to be seeing technology from the Grand Challenge in actual military vehicles.

[Evan Brom @ Feb 23rd 2006 3:09PM]

Could this win the Darpa challange?

[furtim @ Feb 23rd 2006 3:12PM]

The Stryker sits in kind of a weird place. Technically, it's replacing the HMMWV, but it seems to share a bit in common with the Bradley in terms of battlefield role. I don't think there's an easy classification for it: you can't call it an "APC" or "Infantry Fighting Vehicle" since it has other roles. Probably the best name for its class is what the Canadians call their equivalent, namely "Light Armoured Vehicle".

It seems like they want to deploy these in transport convoys, which is awesome. Judging by news reports, convoy duty in Iraq (and certainly in future conflict areas, as well) is almost as dangerous -- if not moreso -- than actual combat positions. I'm not for the War in Iraq, either, but I *am* for anything that prevents or reduces loss of life.

[skype_fan @ Feb 23rd 2006 3:25PM]

@Alcaron, @Joe
Of course this is a tech blog, however if you can't see where such a technology leads you won't get it anyway. Technology always tries to solve a problem. As we have seen it is impossible to stop certain nations to invade others at will (and it is more or less always the same nation that goes out and causes big messes). So if such a technology reduces the human cost for them it won't make things better, rather worse for the world. Today the human cost is the only measure can stop such empire building / controlling for economical benefits adventures. I'm not living in a fantasy lala world but I can see who is always messing with others affairs. Such technology makes it again much easier to kill people in other places.

[B @ Feb 23rd 2006 3:53PM]

Evan: No, but it could sure come in second.

[matt @ Feb 23rd 2006 4:03PM]

This thing seems nuts to me -- a difficult, complex way to solve a marginally interesting problem. The technology is all designed around leading the tank (or whatever) around behind another tank. A convoy of these would all stop if the lead machine stopped, so in a war situation, the enemy would concentrate their resources on killing the lead machine. That convoy isn't likely to get where it's going. (Also, I agree it probably doesn't build on the DARPA great race stuff - those machines are designed to go by themselves.)

My kids can buy remote controlled cars that go about 20 mph. It cannot be that difficult to design a life-sized version of that with guns and cameras. It seems to me that building such a thing and operating it remotely would be simpler and more valuable than designing a tethered robot with limited independent functionality. And designing a robot that's independently functional enough to fight against something controlled by a person seems way beyond current capabilities.

[ThePete @ Feb 23rd 2006 4:48PM]

Big deal--I have an R2 unit that can do all that an more!

He can follow me all around the house, scare my cats and more. He can even hold a beverage. Can that thing hold a beverage??

[glucoseboy @ Feb 23rd 2006 5:00PM]

So, these automated supply trucks will be part of a manned convoy, so when the convoy, is attacke, there will be fewer armed troops to protect the automated trucks. New tactic, target automated supply trucks and just steal/destroy the supplies...

Until the robots can defend themselves, I don't think they are ready for a true "hostile" environment

[EBA @ Feb 23rd 2006 5:01PM]

Check this out.
http://www.rec.ri.cmu.edu/projects/upi/index.htm

[Derek Katz @ Feb 23rd 2006 5:41PM]

Yeah, not a tank. It's an AFV- an Armored Fighting Vehicle. It's got light armor, but it's not meant to fight tanks; rather like a Bradley.

But why would they choose such a crappy vehicle with which to test this program? The Stryker is ineffective enough without adding a bug-prone next-gen guidance system.

[Snappy! @ Feb 23rd 2006 8:42PM]

I think the convoy could be multi-noded rather than root-node. ie, If the first vehicle breaks down ... or is destroyed, immobilized etc, the second vehicle takes over or something.

Having such a convoy would mean that field personnels are deployed only in areas where necessary. ie, field staffs like drivers and vehicle commanders will be reallocated for non-front line duties.

Two highlights I guess:
1. if they can mass produce this, then they can possibly reduce cost for troop deployment, since logistic has always been a nightmare for any army.
2. I think most people would give less (if at all) of a hoot to hear that some auto stryker #ASAPC2245-EH1 was blown up vs a fellowman being hurt in an ambush.

That said, I'm not for war. Make love, not war. ... not that stupid! :p

[matt @ Feb 23rd 2006 8:55PM]

#3 the M1 uses a 120mm cannon- the upgrade was completed several years ago, like 5-6

[Lui @ Feb 24th 2006 7:14AM]

How it distinguishes enemies?

[army ranger @ Dec 18th 2007 3:48PM]

As it advances the time, it also advances the technology; and all the efforts that become will be for protecting the life of the soldiers. In order to read more about this subject you would visit http://www.usarmyrangers.info/