The new CROWS (Common Remotely
Operated Weapons System) guns that are making their way into Iraq not only provide protection for soldiers by allowing
remote operation, but are turning out to be especially suited to FPS junkies. The guns cost $260,000 each and can mount
a variety of lethal weapons. Currently around 15 CROWS units make it to Iraq each month, but the Army is hoping for 9000
of them, partly due to their success with all the gamers currently serving in the infantry. The joystick operated gun,
while much safer, is obviously limited in field of vision in comparison to a man mounted turret gun, but former FPS
players have found plenty of success with the weapons. We're glad to know all those hours spent in front of the screen
didn't go to waste, now we just wish there was a better use for short-form tech prose in the service of the country.
[Via
The Raw Feed]
posted Mar 21st 2006 1:49PM
BOOM, HEADSHOT!!!
This is one situation where you *really* don't want to rack up the teamkills...
Ugh, I'd hate to be the guy who has to reload those bastards...
Did anyone by any chance ever watch Gundam Wing? It is definitely a good thing that less people will be dying, but if machines start doing all the fighting, people will take war less seriously and it could all just become a huge game. Leaders would more readily attack practically defenseless countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) knowing that hardly anyone would die. Good that less people would be dying, bad because combat would be taken less seriously.
Personally, I'm of the view that the Commander and Chief of the armed forces of the USA must have served in actual combat before once in his life. He has to have lost good friends in battle to understand just how bad it is. Instead our president goes on month long vacations while 70,000+ people have died (including actual Iraqis, they have suffered much worse than our forces)
The president who for all purposes could just be a plain civilian has no business running the armed forces in my opinion.
i always thought it would be sweat to man one of these, especially if it meant you were safe in the us and were controlling it half way around the world. No risk involved, just straight up killing.
all we need now are some RFID tags, to turn on/off Friendly Fire
These look just like the sentinels from Aliens
I think #5 Nizzy's post illustrates my point perfectly...
Who uses a joystick anymore? Give the operator a Razer Copperhead and a Logitech G15 fer Pete's sake! Turn on mouselook and map the movement keys to strafe!
It's time to bring war into the early 90's baby!
It's rather unnerving to hear that the prospect of remote controlled death is something to be lusted for #5. I suppose baudrillard and virilio are things you've chosen to not read, but mediated warfare is anything but "sweat" and the prospect of veiling war in a series of hyper-simulations is a terrifying one indeed.
Ahh yes, another day gone, another day closer to Judgment Day.
I agree with you Andrew. Sadly this spiral is already in motion and we'll be fighting wars from our desktops soon enough, and then one day, hey, look at that, our desktop just shot someone we didn't say to...oops!
Sad, sad times. War becomes less real every day. Our grandfathers and forefathers would be appalled
Anybody remember the movie The Jackal? Bruce Willis played an assassin who had a very similar gun built for his hit. Seem to recall that Jack Black, before he became a big star, was target practice for it.
If I had that gun, I think I'd first off shoot #5 nizzy1115. It takes something special to be so moronic. Ah sadly, most Americans are nizzys...
all i have to say RL-FPS its a new genre... Real Life First Person Shooter... frame rates are insane
Iraqi insurgents, you have been pwned!!!111one
I can only hope that the hypocrisy in #10 and and #12's posts is intentional humor. If not, you two are both critically sad.
I can see it now. The US army releases a game where you can shoot the enemy from home. So while you sit at home, the Sentinal guns shoot at enemies thousands of miles away. Wholesale slaughter, a game the whole family can play. :(
So do my second amendment rights include the right to bear remote-operated-rapid-fire-large-caliber arms? Or since I'm not really "bearing" this are they excluded?
I can't get "Ender's Game" out of my mind for some reason...
I hope the price drops if the army wants 9000 of them
#16 - We already have that. It's the unmanned Predator drone carrying a set of Hellfire missles. You can sit in your comfy chair in Langley sipping coffee and blow away bad guys 7000 miles away in Yemen.
to #4.....2 things
First off I would rather trust the founding fathers to lay out the line on who should be prez instead of someone on a blog, and 2nd off I would say we all lost good friends in 9-11. Keep your idealism to yourself.
#16. Sounds like you've read Ender's Game. :P
I for one am glad to see a system like this being put into use. Having a soldier exposed while operating a weapon system is extremely unsafe for the operator. I'm really glad we're finally taking this step to protect the gunners. Theres a link on the site to the Army page that talks about the system. Its a pretty good read.
The "armored vehicle" they're showing is a Humvee, which isn't the best of armored vehicles, but the system's enhanced optics which seem to be helping in the spotting of risks before coming in threat range.
On the note of remote vehicles, and wars fought from afar, its near the same idea with the Air Force. No matter how much technology and firepower you have, you can't effectively hold ground without the land troops. Weapon systems operated remotely from miles away will be no good at holding ground without the troops.
"Personally, I'm of the view that the Commander and Chief of the armed forces of the USA must have served in actual combat before once in his life. He has to have lost good friends in battle to understand just how bad it is."
If this was a law it would mean that, were there to be be a significant era of peace, your pool of candidates would quickly become extremely limited, and also older.
It also would skew the country towards an even greater military focus.
#21, you are totally right. The founding fathers were ridiculously intelligent, educated men. They knew very what they were doing and assumed that their followers likewise would. However this has not been the case.
Case in point, Thesis 36 from George Washington's Farewell Address
" The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. "
George Washington knew this. All of the founding fathers would be horrified if they saw what was happening now.
In addition, 9-11, God rest their souls, had little to do with Iraq
#19 I know but imagine your average joe doing it instead.
Of course this could turn into that Ray Bradbury story where we take 1000 volunteers from each side and the last man standing wins the war. If you are just don't rape your best friend.
I'm just wondering how many of the guys over there have set up the speaker system with UT Announcer dialogue. "RAMPAGE."
...and I'm sure the George W. foresaw a world where there was instantaneous communication around the world...where nations can rain death down upon each other on a scale unimaginable during his time...where nations can destroy the very air and water we all depend on. Yea, isolationism is a good idea in our time.
Sometimes advice from our founding fathers is a lot like advice from our real fathers, out of date and just plain wrong.
I've long held the notion that the main reason FPS games(especially the violent gory ones)aren't frowned upon more in this country is because, in the back of some people's minds, it's early training and desensitization for young, potential recruits.
This platform is probably designed with the gamer in mind. Possibly some games are or will be designed with this platform in mind. All according to plan I say.
I like to play a good shoot-em-up on occasion but anyone who's ever been around real actual violent death would never relish the idea of killing unless they were seriously defective.
#27 I just referenced 9-11 because I didn't figure you remembered the USS Cole bombing and the embasy bombings that HAVE been linked back to Al Qeuda / Bin Laden / Saddam.....if we can have less of our troops die in the pursuit of freedom and safety then more power to 'em.
"You have been punished for a teamkill" Just because im excellent at aiming and shooting dosent mean im gonna win a war for you. You better have damn good optics otherwise using plain old eyes and sticking your neck out might not look so bad.
"Personally, I'm of the view that the Commander and Chief of the armed forces of the USA must have served in actual combat "
Crap I'd be happy if there was a mandate that the Commander and Chief was required to have a brain. At which point Bush would definitely be out of the running and Gores eligibility would be questionable at best.
Surur: Zing. Shite.
here is the thing.
Im not religious, so im looking at this from an objective perspective
In roam, muslims are free to go about thier business, heck they can go shake hands with the pope.
Now in the colective group of countries we call the middle east a man was recently tried and conviced to death for a hadus crime, reported to the authorities by his very own family. what be this crime you ask? converting to chritianity
rrrrrrrright
im just glad the americans are the ones with the big guns, not the oter way around, granted, id rather noone has them, but the chances of that are slimer than, well, something realy realy slim
#28 I dont think George Wash. was emphasizing isolationism in that thesis . Afterall he was a farmer and thus a trader. I think he was just trying to say that it is good to have as many commericial relationships as possible (which most people agree on) but that generall POLITICAL relationships are bad and thus he said "here let us stop." And to be honest I think he was right.
Past examples? Vietnam and soon to be Iraq. We have no business imposing our politics on them. It's been nothing but costly. With Vietnam we had to stop backing our dollars with gold and now are Federal Debt has been allowed to increase to 9 trillion dollars. Sure as a % of GDP it might not be as big as it has been in the past. But keep in mind that when Bush Jr. took office, the federal deficit did not exist (we had a surplus) and our debt was only around 5-6 trillion. In 5 years this one man has increased our federal debt by almost 50% due to trying to mandate our political views on others. These "political connexions" as George Wash. put it, lead us nowhere and are a bad idea.
I think the job of president should pay a flat $75,000 a year with benefits. No lobbyist, campaign, or special retirement money.
The Prez should be in the same boat financially as his/her constituents. Just to keep em honest.
Since you can't see me I'll add I was unable to keep a straight face while writing the honesty part.
Gosh, I can't wait until the government installs these in my neighborhood to fight crime. It'll be extra awesome when they save money by outsourcing it to India.
(I'm sure you could nitpick the analogy, but what it feels like for you to have this in your community is probably exactly what it feels like to Iraqis.)
Flying "lite" version, by RC terrorists amateurs: http://www.ezprezzo.com/videoclips/helicopter_armed_with_shotgun.html
Man! And I thought nanotube displays were a politicaly controversial topic! As a former sniper in the Canadian Army (don't laugh, we hold the record for the most distant sniper kill: 2.6 Km) I can say that this could be revolutionary. Normally, a sniper lies prone in the middle of the desert (for instance) wearing a really uncomfortable suit that makes him look like a shrub, pissing and pooping where he lies, and staying up for 48 hours at a time, staying completely silent and not moving the whole time; he does this several times a week and may /once/ get a kill. But imagine if you could drop a CROWS somewhere, outfit it with some advanced cammo (like our CanPad) and a 50 cal. sniper rifle. You have some FPS junkie sitting at a computer, monitoring the CROWS' camera, and making the shot when it comes along. The guy won't be tired, hot, uncomfortable and in any danger, and he can go to the latrine any time he wants. That makes for a much better chance at getting the kill when it comes along.
Does anyone else think that a lot of these high tech toys we send into battle could be easily disabled by a sniper using a 50cal rifle at range.... One 50cal bullet through the sensor battery on the side of this thing and its a 260k paperweight...
Wow, cool, I hope they make a civilian version of it for hunting... I hate getting up before the crack of dawn and having to sit in those cold woods all day!
sorry for getting off the ethics of war(and leadership there of) topic but...
I think these make it far safer for the soldier, but far less effective than a soldier. In this case I think video games that have "ideal" sentry gun technology (never mind the fact in video games you can get shot 50 times and still live) are a good example. Even as the weapon may or many not be in your opinion "ideal" in such cases, there are ALWAYS ways to circumvent the weapon(the hall wasn't working for the aliens, so they went under the floor and above in the ceiling), I feel you lose a TREMENDOUS amount of awareness when you're looking at a monitor (you cant hear directionally as well if at all, you cant see as well, you cannot smell the air). These things have to be mounted to humvees, walls, tanks. So why not, walk around them? why not damage the weapon and the vehicle either is forced to withdraw, or someone(or a team of someones) has to (personally) go out and repair/reload it. I feel that this is what happens/will happen from the lack of awareness of actually being there.