AI Robots & the Future of Modern Warfare

[cdxbow]

A series of articles about large unmanned surface vessels, the first is about deep strike Op-Ed: What Future Armament and Role Options for the U.S. Navy’s LUSV? - Naval News, the next looks at missile/munitions' platforms Op-Ed: LUSV as an Anti-Air and Anti-Ship Missiles Platform - Naval News There are another couple to come. The 'Loyal Seamen' returns. I did like the discussion about self defence and a water canon, the latter could also be used to solve the 'bird sh*t' problem, (on sensors).

 

[hauritz]

One of my favourite old movies ... Dark Star.
In this scene an Astronaut has to try and convince an AI bomb not to explode.

 

[MilitaryIndustrialComplex]

A series of articles about large unmanned surface vessels, the first is about deep strike Op-Ed: What Future Armament and Role Options for the U.S. Navy’s LUSV? - Naval News, the next looks at missile/munitions' platforms Op-Ed: LUSV as an Anti-Air and Anti-Ship Missiles Platform - Naval News There are another couple to come. The 'Loyal Seamen' returns. I did like the discussion about self defence and a water canon, the latter could also be used to solve the 'bird sh*t' problem, (on sensors).

Nice article! There is a need for Large unmanned surface vessels. However, there are hurdles too. Maintaining non stop communication with an unmanned surface combatant in the high seas is a major issue that has yet to be addressed. These unmanned ships could potentially be armed with a dozen long range land attack cruise missiles. Adversaries could jam communication channels of these unmanned ships.

 

[sark]

..humans have been making mistakes in war since there have been wars .....so robots making mistakes would be no different

 

[hauritz]

The Australian military is acquiring unmanned combat vehicles featuring both anti-tank and anti-personnel capabilities.

Autonomous, swarming, bulletproof and able to travel at speeds of up to 80 kilometres an hour the Jaeger-C can be equipped with a medium machine gun, sniper rifle and/or an explosive.

They are designed as cheap, expendable ambush vehicles capable of autonomously identifying and attacking potential targets.

Australia to Acquire Bulletproof Jaeger-C Swarming Attack Robots

The Australian military has contracted GaardTech to supply Jaeger-C unmanned vehicles featuring anti-tank and anti-personnel capabilities.

www.thedefensepost.com

 

[sark]

The Australian military is acquiring unmanned combat vehicles featuring both anti-tank and anti-personnel capabilities.

Autonomous, swarming, bulletproof and able to travel at speeds of up to 80 kilometres an hour the Jaeger-C can be equipped with a medium machine gun, sniper rifle and/or an explosive.

They are designed as cheap, expendable ambush vehicles capable of autonomously identifying and attacking potential targets.

Australia to Acquire Bulletproof Jaeger-C Swarming Attack Robots

The Australian military has contracted GaardTech to supply Jaeger-C unmanned vehicles featuring anti-tank and anti-personnel capabilities.

www.thedefensepost.com

..this site says ''scary and controversial''.........combat zones are ''''scary'''....combat zones are deadly

The Jaeger-C Robotic Vehicle Can Ambush and Destroy Tanks in Full Goliath Mode

This uncrewed wheeled platform that is capable of watching, harassing and attacking tanks, was inspired by the WWII German Goliath

www.autoevolution.com

 

[hauritz]

..this site says ''scary and controversial''.........combat zones are ''''scary'''....combat zones are deadly

The Jaeger-C Robotic Vehicle Can Ambush and Destroy Tanks in Full Goliath Mode

This uncrewed wheeled platform that is capable of watching, harassing and attacking tanks, was inspired by the WWII German Goliath

www.autoevolution.com

It was a very low key announcement but yes there are big implications. The way it is described these things will be used as mobile booby traps using basic AI to pick out their targets.

 

[sark]

It was a very low key announcement but yes there are big implications. The way it is described these things will be used as mobile booby traps using basic AI to pick out their targets.

I don't see the problems if it is a combat/etc zone

 

[hauritz]

I don't see the problems if it is a combat/etc zone

Problem is that combat zones are never that clearly defined. Not only may you find civilians caught up in the fighting but there is also the possibility of friendly forces getting caught up as well. A friend of mine who is currently working on self learning fraud detection software is of the opinion that it would be virtually impossible to program an AI machine to be 100% infallible in a combat situation. He pointed out that even highly trained human soldiers often make poor decisions when in battle.

He speculates that there would probably be a man in the loop most of the time but there would also be some sort of "terminator" mode that would be activated when they were convinced that there were no friendlies in the area, or that those friendlies were equipped with some sort of friend or foe identification system. When in this mode it would attack anything that was in its kill zone.

In some regards that would be no different to firing a missile at an enemy.

Even based on current technology these things would be a pain to deal with on the battle field, particularly a swarm of them.

 

[sark]

Problem is that combat zones are never that clearly defined. Not only may you find civilians caught up in the fighting but there is also the possibility of friendly forces getting caught up as well. A friend of mine who is currently working on self learning fraud detection software is of the opinion that it would be virtually impossible to program an AI machine to be 100% infallible in a combat situation. He pointed out that even highly trained human soldiers often make poor decisions when in battle.

He speculates that there would probably be a man in the loop most of the time but there would also be some sort of "terminator" mode that would be activated when they were convinced that there were no friendlies in the area, or that those friendlies were equipped with some sort of friend or foe identification system. When in this mode it would attack anything that was in its kill zone.

In some regards that would be no different to firing a missile at an enemy.

Even based on current technology these things would be a pain to deal with on the battle field, particularly a swarm of them.

friendly fire and civilians dying in wars is nothing new....the US bombed a hospital
...and in Afghanistan, many friendlies killed and tanked blasted
etc etc
..if civilians are in the ''kill'' zone or combat zone, that's just the way it is

This Isn’t The First Time The U.S. Has Bombed A Hospital

archive.thinkprogress.org

.

Battle of Qala-i-Jangi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ngatimozart]

friendly fire and civilians dying in wars is nothing new....the US bombed a hospital
...and in Afghanistan, many friendlies killed and tanked blasted
etc etc
..if civilians are in the ''kill'' zone or combat zone, that's just the way it is

This Isn’t The First Time The U.S. Has Bombed A Hospital

archive.thinkprogress.org

.

Battle of Qala-i-Jangi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US has a history of friendly fire incidents going back to WW2 that are higher than any of the other FVEY partners and coalition partners. Even with modern technology, they still have high numbers of friendly fire incidents.

Three of my uncles were at the Battle of Monte Cassino during the Italian Campaign in WW2. They fought from the Battle of El Alamein through to Trieste at the end of the European war. They were with the 2nd NZ Armoured Division. They said that there was a saying on both sides during the Italian Campaign. When the British bombed, the Germans took cover. When the Germans bombed, the Allies took cover. When the Americans bombed, everybody took cover. Another uncle of mine was in Korea and he said the same thing as did a cousin of mine who served in Vietnam. So it must be a systemic or cultural problem, or a combination of both.

 

[John Fedup]

The US has a history of friendly fire incidents going back to WW2 that are higher than any of the other FVEY partners and coalition partners. Even with modern technology, they still have high numbers of friendly fire incidents.

Three of my uncles were at the Battle of Monte Cassino during the Italian Campaign in WW2. They fought from the Battle of El Alamein through to Trieste at the end of the European war. They were with the 2nd NZ Armoured Division. They said that there was a saying on both sides during the Italian Campaign. When the British bombed, the Germans took cover. When the Germans bombed, the Allies took cover. When the Americans bombed, everybody took cover. Another uncle of mine was in Korea and he said the same thing as did a cousin of mine who served in Vietnam. So it must be a systemic or cultural problem, or a combination of both.

Systemic or cultural, maybe, but perhaps frequency is a factor. The huge number of missions flown by the USAF and USN aviation assets does provide for increased chances of mission foul ups.

 

[sark]

The US has a history of friendly fire incidents going back to WW2 that are higher than any of the other FVEY partners and coalition partners. Even with modern technology, they still have high numbers of friendly fire incidents.

Three of my uncles were at the Battle of Monte Cassino during the Italian Campaign in WW2. They fought from the Battle of El Alamein through to Trieste at the end of the European war. They were with the 2nd NZ Armoured Division. They said that there was a saying on both sides during the Italian Campaign. When the British bombed, the Germans took cover. When the Germans bombed, the Allies took cover. When the Americans bombed, everybody took cover. Another uncle of mine was in Korea and he said the same thing as did a cousin of mine who served in Vietnam. So it must be a systemic or cultural problem, or a combination of both.

wow!! I just got 3 books on the Italy campaign for my Holiday reading....War on the Gothic Line, which I've had before....Anzio by LLoyd Clark, and The Liberator by Kershaw
......I read about FF on US troops..here, in Anzio page 299--which I just read yesterday:
''''there were a number of 'friendly fire' incidents that afternoon......''
then he goes into detail about it

..my uncle was with the 45th Division 179th Reg. ..I've got his Regimental book ....--I've got numerous memorabilia that he brought home--including a German pistol and 2 Knight's Crosses--[ yes, hard to believe, but true ] ..he mentions L Company.......I've got a letter he wrote about it

 

[sark]

The US has a history of friendly fire incidents going back to WW2 that are higher than any of the other FVEY partners and coalition partners. Even with modern technology, they still have high numbers of friendly fire incidents.

Three of my uncles were at the Battle of Monte Cassino during the Italian Campaign in WW2. They fought from the Battle of El Alamein through to Trieste at the end of the European war. They were with the 2nd NZ Armoured Division. They said that there was a saying on both sides during the Italian Campaign. When the British bombed, the Germans took cover. When the Germans bombed, the Allies took cover. When the Americans bombed, everybody took cover. Another uncle of mine was in Korea and he said the same thing as did a cousin of mine who served in Vietnam. So it must be a systemic or cultural problem, or a combination of both.

not a cultural problem because all armies have FF problems ......it's humans = not perfect.......in the Afghanistan FF incident, they entered the wrong numbers for the ''''''''smart---robot''' bomb

 

[sark]

Systemic or cultural, maybe, but perhaps frequency is a factor. The huge number of missions flown by the USAF and USN aviation assets does provide for increased chances of mission foul ups.

yes........I agree with the increased chances idea .......the US is putting out a lot of firepower ........does anyone have any FF stats on like the Iraq-Iran war? [ of course, what could you believe? ] any stats on FF incidents per airpower vs ground to gorund?

 

[John Fedup]

Probably no data available about FF incidents during the Iran-Iraq war from either side. Ground to ground FF would be two general categories, small arms and artillery. I would assume there were artillery FF incidents in most significant battles involving artillery exchanges prior to GPS smart munitions and even FF stuff can happen with them…incorrect data input. Small arms FF, don’t recall any serious events but could easily have missed.

 

[sark]

Probably no data available about FF incidents during the Iran-Iraq war from either side. Ground to ground FF would be two general categories, small arms and artillery. I would assume there were artillery FF incidents in most significant battles involving artillery exchanges prior to GPS smart munitions and even FF stuff can happen with them…incorrect data input. Small arms FF, don’t recall any serious events but could easily have missed.

..yes--the link I posted about the Afghanistan FF is about how they entered the wrong data for a ''smart''' JDAM bomb

 

[John Fedup]

I guess wrong data can be broken down to actual wrong data and keyboard entry error. Lots of experience with the latter.

 

[ngatimozart]

wow!! I just got 3 books on the Italy campaign for my Holiday reading....War on the Gothic Line, which I've had before....Anzio by LLoyd Clark, and The Liberator by Kershaw
......I read about FF on US troops..here, in Anzio page 299--which I just read yesterday:
''''there were a number of 'friendly fire' incidents that afternoon......''
then he goes into detail about it

..my uncle was with the 45th Division 179th Reg. ..I've got his Regimental book ....--I've got numerous memorabilia that he brought home--including a German pistol and 2 Knight's Crosses--[ yes, hard to believe, but true ] ..he mentions L Company.......I've got a letter he wrote about it

My three uncles all survived the war and came back with a liking for red wine and Italian music. The Kiwi troops used to liberate vineyards by filling their water tankers with wine. It was easier to sneak past the Pommy (UK) and American MPs. GEN Sir Bernard Freyberg VC, GOC 2nd NZ Armoured Division had a standing order that the best hotel in each town / city liberated or garrisoned by the Kiwis was to be commandeered by the Division and to be used for the Division local leave centre staffed by NZ Red Cross and Tuis, Kiwi women who were organised by Lady Freyberg, GEN Freyberg's wife. In one place an American general and his team were installing themselves in the best hotel when the Kiwis arrived. The Americans were convinced that it was in their best interests to look elsewhere. The 27th Māori Battalion had fearsome reputation.

After VE Day whilst occupying Trieste and the surrounding region to prevent a Yugoslav partisan land grab, a section of the Māori Battalion were manning a checkpoint on the outskirts of Trieste. A jeep carrying two Yugoslav partisan and two Russian generals approached the checkpoint and refused to stop. The Māori section shot the jeep up and threw all four generals in the cells. Apparently the Yugoslavs were upset, but the Russians were used to being in cells. Freyberg calmed the situation down but said that he wasn't impressed with his soldiers - their marksmanship requires improvement. The Yugoslavs never tried the Kiwis on after that. They also had been causing problems in Trieste so whilst Freyberg had been polite and tactful with them he drew a line in the sand about what was acceptable conduct WRT the local population and what wasn't. The partisans soon learned not to cross that line because the Kiwis were no pushovers and very capable of handling themselves.

One of my uncles was a water truck driver and one time when his truck was knocked out by enemy artillery he couldn't be bothered waiting for a replacement, which would take time. So he and an offsider liberated one from a Pommy unit that was close by and promptly painted it in Kiwi markings and numbers. Their Sgt turned a blind eye.

 

[John Fedup]

Hardly a surprise that the CCP would love this technology.

China is Building Killer Robots Using Artificial Intelligence

Why are American companies helping them?

andmagazine.substack.com