- Related Stories
-
Can Roomba maker iRobot clean up on Wall Street?
July 27, 2005 -
Photos: Robot makers converge at confab
May 10, 2005 -
iRobot readies for war--and the household
October 24, 2004
On Monday, the company announced a prototype system designed to pinpoint incoming rounds from rifles and mortars, and also to provide surveillance and targeting capabilities. The remote-controlled gear, named Redowl (short for "robot enhanced detection outpost with lasers), is designed to work with iRobot's PackBot combat device.
The PackBot is a robot small enough to be carried by a single soldier. It has already done tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Redowl features a laser pointer and illuminator, an acoustic localizer and classifier, a thermal imager, GPS (Global Positioning System), an infrared and daylight camera, and two wide-angle cameras. iRobot, which also makes the Roomba household vacuum robot, developed the Redowl system in conjunction with the Photonics Center at Boston University.
In field tests, the PackBot-Redowl combination had a success rate of 94 percent in locating the source of rounds fired from 9mm pistols, and M-16 and AK-rifles, at a range of more than 100 meters, the company said.
"Snipers have had the advantage of being effectively invisible--making them a deadly threat on the battlefield and in urban settings," retired U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Joe Dyer, general manager of iRobot's government and industrial robots unit, said in a statement. Redowl "is a mobile system, which means snipers can run but they cannot hide anymore."
See more CNET content tagged:
iRobot Corp., robot, soldier, GPS, laser
loading a "battlebot" with extra junk it doesn't need is wasteful, but
when you're talking about the stuff its using to complete its
mission what exactly does it not need?
sounded to me like all the stuff they listed was part of a mission
essential loadout. Cameras and GPS for navigation, laser
designator for artillery/airstrike spotting, and acoustic locator for
actually finding the sniper/mortar.
loading a "battlebot" with extra junk it doesn't need is wasteful, but
when you're talking about the stuff its using to complete its
mission what exactly does it not need?
sounded to me like all the stuff they listed was part of a mission
essential loadout. Cameras and GPS for navigation, laser
designator for artillery/airstrike spotting, and acoustic locator for
actually finding the sniper/mortar.
This morning, by coincidence since I read this article today, they showed on the news how frustrated some american soldiers were in one city b/c people were shooting at them and they couldn't locate them. Later, they got a lil desperate and were commanded to shoot w/ their judgement. Shortly, some civilians were shot, and they came out crying at the soldiers. All the soliders could say to justify it was "this is a battle in an area where civilians are nearby. these things unfortunately just happen."
I was actually thinking "Man it sucks. It would be nice if they had that machine I saw on discovery channel a few years ago where they showed a machine that can detect the source of the shooter". Then I see this article. Then I see all these negative and sarcastic posts regarding this little gadget. I'm anti-Iraq war, but I still think this is useful.
- Drive the robot into the sniper area (hopefully hidden, but with good all-around hearing).
- Wait for sniper shot.
- The robot illumniates the sniper position with it's laser designator.
- Send in a LD-enabled round from the ground, or air, to destroy the sniper position.
Granted, the sniper must stay put for a while, or the response must be immediate. For an urban setting, ideally a whole network of shot-detection devices are deployed that can report back to a centralized network.
The article clearly says that the robot locates the shooter via sound and angle of shot. It doesn't say if those two are independent, but given the cameras and laser on the robot. . in addition to the acoustic localizer, i feel confident in assuming that they are.
Now, here is a flaw in your argument. You claim that sniper rifles fire shots which hit the target before you hear the sound. Umm. . . the robot cannot intercept bullets anyway? How in the world would it matter if the robot hear the sound while the bullet was in the air or after it hit. . . The robot was not made to intercept and stop bullets, it was made to locate shooters.
Some people have been saying stuff like the robot is too visible. . . well, if a sniper is shooting at you. . .then you are probably too visisble. And seeing that the robot is smaller than most humans a sniper could shoot at. . .I'd give the robot a larger chance of survival. Like I mentioned before. . the robot is designed to find who IS actually shooting at you. If you were not in a position to be shot, the robot wouldn't be doing anything. If you can be seen to be shot, then what would hiding the robot do for you?
This morning, by coincidence since I read this article today, they showed on the news how frustrated some american soldiers were in one city b/c people were shooting at them and they couldn't locate them. Later, they got a lil desperate and were commanded to shoot w/ their judgement. Shortly, some civilians were shot, and they came out crying at the soldiers. All the soliders could say to justify it was "this is a battle in an area where civilians are nearby. these things unfortunately just happen."
I was actually thinking "Man it sucks. It would be nice if they had that machine I saw on discovery channel a few years ago where they showed a machine that can detect the source of the shooter". Then I see this article. Then I see all these negative and sarcastic posts regarding this little gadget. I'm anti-Iraq war, but I still think this is useful.
- Drive the robot into the sniper area (hopefully hidden, but with good all-around hearing).
- Wait for sniper shot.
- The robot illumniates the sniper position with it's laser designator.
- Send in a LD-enabled round from the ground, or air, to destroy the sniper position.
Granted, the sniper must stay put for a while, or the response must be immediate. For an urban setting, ideally a whole network of shot-detection devices are deployed that can report back to a centralized network.
The article clearly says that the robot locates the shooter via sound and angle of shot. It doesn't say if those two are independent, but given the cameras and laser on the robot. . in addition to the acoustic localizer, i feel confident in assuming that they are.
Now, here is a flaw in your argument. You claim that sniper rifles fire shots which hit the target before you hear the sound. Umm. . . the robot cannot intercept bullets anyway? How in the world would it matter if the robot hear the sound while the bullet was in the air or after it hit. . . The robot was not made to intercept and stop bullets, it was made to locate shooters.
Some people have been saying stuff like the robot is too visible. . . well, if a sniper is shooting at you. . .then you are probably too visisble. And seeing that the robot is smaller than most humans a sniper could shoot at. . .I'd give the robot a larger chance of survival. Like I mentioned before. . the robot is designed to find who IS actually shooting at you. If you were not in a position to be shot, the robot wouldn't be doing anything. If you can be seen to be shot, then what would hiding the robot do for you?
We had these Sheridan Tanks. Not a bad tank in itself, but it had this canvas extension, good for fording deep streams. I guess it worked well in testing, but nobody figured that the canvas would tear when bumping into things, or that bullets and shrapnel would quickly make it useless.
And there were the gasoline powered Armored Personel Carriers. The ones where we had to weld extensions on the controls and ride on top. There were far too many hand held weapons on the enemy side that could shoot into the gas tanks and make it like riding in a bomb.
That's what this device seems like to me. It might be fine for police work but what about under combat conditions? What if there are deep ditches, trees, uneven ground, enemy fire like mortars that tip it over or shake it up? What if you have to suddenly move out quickly? Have you got time to play with those little controls and wait for the thing to catch up? Just how indestructible is it? Is it actually better than something that you can, say, just throw out into the open and move the lenses around with the same controls. Something cheap and small that can be abandoned in a pinch, and wouldn't attract attention from the enemy?
Oscar, the war, Rat
We had these Sheridan Tanks. Not a bad tank in itself, but it had this canvas extension, good for fording deep streams. I guess it worked well in testing, but nobody figured that the canvas would tear when bumping into things, or that bullets and shrapnel would quickly make it useless.
And there were the gasoline powered Armored Personel Carriers. The ones where we had to weld extensions on the controls and ride on top. There were far too many hand held weapons on the enemy side that could shoot into the gas tanks and make it like riding in a bomb.
That's what this device seems like to me. It might be fine for police work but what about under combat conditions? What if there are deep ditches, trees, uneven ground, enemy fire like mortars that tip it over or shake it up? What if you have to suddenly move out quickly? Have you got time to play with those little controls and wait for the thing to catch up? Just how indestructible is it? Is it actually better than something that you can, say, just throw out into the open and move the lenses around with the same controls. Something cheap and small that can be abandoned in a pinch, and wouldn't attract attention from the enemy?
Oscar, the war, Rat
www.TechRD.com
Brian Glassman Technology
- To noticeable !!!!
- by Briangsurfer January 24, 2006 5:14 AM PST
- I hope the final version of this robot will be less noticeable than the current picture of that shiny metal can. I am sure snipers will love to shoot the robot just as much as people.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(26 Comments)www.TechRD.com
Brian Glassman Technology