Posted on Apr 10, 2018
Robots Replace Soldiers in First Breaching Exercise of its Kind
6.4K
22
9
5
5
0
I like this.
Robots Replace Soldiers in First Breaching Exercise of its Kind
Posted from military.com
12B: Combat Engineer
Warfare
Robots
Technology
Future
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
Speaking as someone who has been a combat engineer (USMC 1302) for almost 50 years, it is heartening to see this discussion among and between nearly entirely combat engineers and EOD. Yes, I am in some sense, a dinosaur, but no, my first platoon was not equipped with catapults and trebuchets! I also am, at least for my age group, pretty data/tech savvy. I will never say "never" but there are some things that this whole matter touches on that are not likely to be overcome in the near or even foreseeable future. The first thought is that most all of today's electronic marvels benefit by human input. The main reason is that programming, even programming that "learns" can only deal with what is conceived by those developing the program. Yes, it is far more complex than the "IF ... THEN" format in its simplest examples. But ultimately if that robot does not have some connection to a human who can make judgements OUTSIDE the programming, it becomes battlefield trash when confronted with a reaction not addressed in its programming. As sophisticated as the systems are in current production civilian and military aircraft, there are a multitude of examples of when pilot flying skill, initiative, and imagination do what the automated system could not. The second thought is that the "operator" be he/she directly operating or mostly observing and whether he/she is located in close proximity or half a world away is limited by the visual, aural, and tactile sensors ability to convey the battlefield. The fantastic capability of human sight in an almost 180 degree hemisphere is hard to duplicate with imaging. It can be enhanced with capabilities not possessed by humans such as thermal and electromagnetic imaging, but it still lacks some crucial abilities unique (at least for now) to human sight. Aural is even less well supported by current technology. Human hearing, again with limits that can be offset with some technology, still has unduplicated ability to determine both direction and range for many sounds. That is still beyond the ability of technology to deliver fully to a remote operator. Finally, tactile sensation is easy to transmit at the gross level -- but it unfortunately also complicates the visual! All that said, I am all for ways that keep the young Marine or soldier farther from harm's way. If cost and time are no object, most anything is possible. Reality is that both are relevant. In the mean time, everything is constrained by the ability to maintain uninterrupted communication and as Cpt Hudson points out that's just another fly in the ointment.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Very good points, especially with regard to the limits of AI in its current state.
I think we should consider that we don't need a robot (autonomous or remotely-operated) that can perform all the duties of the Combat Engineer Soldier. We just need one more unmanned systems that can produce lanes through an obstacle that the maneuver commander can exploit. To do that, we can just look at the physical actions necessary to achieve it. Surface-laid mines defeated by sympathetic detonation, or some other such destructive effect, berms cleared by some articulated mechanism, AT ditches breached by gap-crossing equipment or perhaps the British approach of using a fascine, wire destroyed by explosives, et cetera. The systems that do these things don't even need to survive the process to be successful (with the exception of a gap-crossing system which obviously need to still be there or the gap wouldn't be crossed). And since obstacles don't move around, it should be a very doable technical project to design and develop unmanned systems that can carry this out. As far as the EW aspect, that's going to affect lots more than just unmanned breaching systems - that's going to affect everything from aviation to signals and therefore fires as well, not to mention intelligence. So, just as the Army and Marines should still be training to use the lensatic compass and map, you would still want to maintain the ability to breach by the means described in every Combat Engineer Battalion's TACSOP, but if there were an unmanned approach available for as the primary breach, that would make the most sense to me. Now, given that the breach is frequently a decisive point for the maneuver commander, the breach has to work, and therefore the systems used must demonstrate themselves to be reliable, but assuming that is achieved, I favor unmanned approaches in the future.
I think we should consider that we don't need a robot (autonomous or remotely-operated) that can perform all the duties of the Combat Engineer Soldier. We just need one more unmanned systems that can produce lanes through an obstacle that the maneuver commander can exploit. To do that, we can just look at the physical actions necessary to achieve it. Surface-laid mines defeated by sympathetic detonation, or some other such destructive effect, berms cleared by some articulated mechanism, AT ditches breached by gap-crossing equipment or perhaps the British approach of using a fascine, wire destroyed by explosives, et cetera. The systems that do these things don't even need to survive the process to be successful (with the exception of a gap-crossing system which obviously need to still be there or the gap wouldn't be crossed). And since obstacles don't move around, it should be a very doable technical project to design and develop unmanned systems that can carry this out. As far as the EW aspect, that's going to affect lots more than just unmanned breaching systems - that's going to affect everything from aviation to signals and therefore fires as well, not to mention intelligence. So, just as the Army and Marines should still be training to use the lensatic compass and map, you would still want to maintain the ability to breach by the means described in every Combat Engineer Battalion's TACSOP, but if there were an unmanned approach available for as the primary breach, that would make the most sense to me. Now, given that the breach is frequently a decisive point for the maneuver commander, the breach has to work, and therefore the systems used must demonstrate themselves to be reliable, but assuming that is achieved, I favor unmanned approaches in the future.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Robots lacking subjective and intuitive abilities will not replace a real live soldier. Enemy already has capability to jam electronics.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
True, but if using unmanned systems were the primary breach, and using combat engineers in the breach were the alternate, that would be good.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I guess it depends on what kind of obstacles they were breaching. EOD has been using robots since the 1980s. It's nice to see the migration of technology to other MOSs.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
The kinds of obstacles that combat engineers typically breach include (usually a combination of) minefields (surface-laid and/or buried), concertina wire, tangle-foot (barbed wire arrayed on the ground at about ankle-level, anti-tank ditches, berms, and (in certain terrain - roads without bypasses), things like 11-row anti-tank obstacles, log cribs, and abatis (trees felled across the road facing the advancing element but still attached to their stumps). The first combat scenes in Saving Private Ryan are essentially a bunch of American GIs thrown up against an obstacle belt (on the beach and the dunes; but Combat Engineers would not have been quite as close to the bangalore sections that they set-off in the movie as they are shown in the film.)
Even in the case of landmines, the primary danger is from the enemy force overwatching the obstacle, more than from the obstacle itself. As a result, combat engineers rely on the infantry they are supporting to suppress the enemy long enough to complete the breach. During the breach, the enemy doesn't have to be able to see in order to fire effectively upon the breaching element. He can rely T&E mechanisms and registered indirect fire. So, it's the enemy that's the big problem, more than the mines or the rest of the obstacle.
Some of the technologies already developed include the MCLC mine clearing line charge, used by Combat Engineers in mechanized units as part of a breach. The Israelis have a number of remote-control armored vehicles and one of them is a combat engineering vehicle (a variant of the Puma APC/IFV).
Even in the case of landmines, the primary danger is from the enemy force overwatching the obstacle, more than from the obstacle itself. As a result, combat engineers rely on the infantry they are supporting to suppress the enemy long enough to complete the breach. During the breach, the enemy doesn't have to be able to see in order to fire effectively upon the breaching element. He can rely T&E mechanisms and registered indirect fire. So, it's the enemy that's the big problem, more than the mines or the rest of the obstacle.
Some of the technologies already developed include the MCLC mine clearing line charge, used by Combat Engineers in mechanized units as part of a breach. The Israelis have a number of remote-control armored vehicles and one of them is a combat engineering vehicle (a variant of the Puma APC/IFV).
(1)
(0)
TSgt David L.
SGT (Join to see) - I'm well aware of what CE do. There has been lots of advances for minefield clearance. The Norwegians have been testing remote Flail type systems. I think the Germans were working on a similar platform as well. The armored versions have served well in places like Bosnia.
The MICLIC and APOBS seemed to have been pretty effective for their purpose. A CE buddy of mine said that was his favorite method.
The MICLIC and APOBS seemed to have been pretty effective for their purpose. A CE buddy of mine said that was his favorite method.
(1)
(0)
SSG Ronald Bloodworth
I remember the MCLC as being my all time favorite for clearing mine fields during Desert Storm. We pulled them behind our tracks and used them to clear mine fields for armor units. The time it took to employ and detonate the MCLC was almost non-existent in comparison to probing and clearing by hand.
Another system that was fielded for a while to lay mines was the GEMS. (Ground Emplaced Minelaying System) My platoon actually perfected using the GEMS to the point where our methods became the Army-wide SOP. The GEMS didn’t last for very many years though. It was bulky , resembling a big round hay bailer.
It was also expensive and prone to malfunctions and breakdowns that were hard to repair. It was sure a lot of fun to use when it operates correctly though...
Another system that was fielded for a while to lay mines was the GEMS. (Ground Emplaced Minelaying System) My platoon actually perfected using the GEMS to the point where our methods became the Army-wide SOP. The GEMS didn’t last for very many years though. It was bulky , resembling a big round hay bailer.
It was also expensive and prone to malfunctions and breakdowns that were hard to repair. It was sure a lot of fun to use when it operates correctly though...
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Ronald Bloodworth - GEMS - is that the thing that was towed around by a M548? If so, the Volcano mine system did a similar later and could be installed an LMTV or even mounted in a Blackhawk (but had some REALLY heavy components - watch for fingers and toes). Volcano is/was part of FASCAM.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google