Robots eyed for urban warfare

The American military takes a dim view of urban combat where U.S. troops tend to lose their technological advantage.

Tanks become vulnerable to weapons fired from above. Satellites do not easily see into “urban canyons” as the Marine Corps calls them. Every window is a potential sniping post. Artillery doesn’t work well because buildings get in the way.

What about robots? The Pentagon is funding a lot of research into robotic combat.

“Robot” here does not mean anything remotely looking like a human. It means any vehicle, autonomous or remotely controlled, that goes somewhere dangerous and does something militarily useful.

Take the Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) being developed by IRobot, of Burlington, Mass. It doesn’t exist yet, but will be based on the company’s PackBot, which does.

PackBot is an intelligent application of everyday technology. It weighs about 53 pounds, moves on treads like a tank, and has a vision system and robotic arm to manipulate objects. It is remotely controlled by a cable that pays out behind it. PackBot can climb stairs, curbs and rubble. It is used by bomb squads and SWAT teams, and by the Army in Iraq. At this point it doesn’t carry weapons.

If you are a soldier and want to know what’s down that alley — without getting killed — SUGV is a splendid idea. IRobot says SUGV will weigh about 25 pounds, which means a GI can easily carry it in a backpack. He sits behind something bulletproof, sends the little crawly down the alley, and watches on the equivalent of a laptop screen. It is not a crackpot idea.

From a political point of view, the American public does not tolerate casualties well. But it is something that commanders have to consider. Fighting in cities tends to be bloody. To the extent that robots can take the casualties, American forces will be more able to sustain combat. How much fighting can robots potentially do?

SUGV at this point is supposed to be only for reconnaissance, but putting a simple rocket launcher on top would be possible. Putting a satchel charge or Claymore mine on it would be simpler yet. The Army has thought of all of this.

Mechanical crawlers are inherently expendable. If one gets blown up, just send another.

It is not just little ground vehicles that are being looked at for robotization. The whole American battlefield is leaning toward robotics, and most of the technological pieces are available.

Most people have heard of Predator, the remotely flown little aircraft that can fire serious antiarmor missiles. Larger automated surveillance aircraft, such as Global Hawk, can stay aloft for long periods without risking loss of a pilot’s life. Remotely piloted aircraft that actually fight are a hot topic in military circles. These are a lot trickier to design than SUGV, but probably not impossible.

People who think about armored warfare note that a high proportion of the size, weight, and expense of a tank go into keeping the crew alive. The armor has to protect a space large enough for a gunner, driver, loader and tank commander. A remotely driven tank would be much cheaper, they say.

Finally, robotic weapons can be controlled from anywhere. The possibility of parachuting armed unmanned vehicles behind enemy lines, to be controlled from a fleet offshore, isn’t crazy.