FireScout robot deathcopter passes engine testing

The Army's FireScout robotic helicopter passed its engine tests today, marking another step on the road for the US armed forces to move away from the sort-of-cute "RC car with a big gun" school of military robotics to the sort-of-terrifying "Skynet becomes self-aware at 2:14 A.M., August 29th" school of deathbots. The robochopper, based on the commercially-available Schweizer 333 helicopter, can stay in the air for eight hours autonomously (five with a weapons payload) and has successfully landed itself on warships at sea. The Navy is considering deploying up to 200 of these things beginning in 2008, and the Army is interested in variants for work in Iraq -- the bird can be towed behind a Humvee and used to scout for explosives. No mention of who gets authority to fire the optional Hellfire missiles, but let's hope that decision stays with the humans for a while longer.

[Via The Register]

[sp @ May 24th 2007 10:16PM]

Yeah, there's no way that humans are going to get taken out of the decision loop ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop ) any time soon. The first time a kid gets killed because of the decision of an armed robot? Heads will roll...

[Yevon @ May 24th 2007 10:44PM]

"Skynet becomes self-aware at 2:14 A.M., August 29th"

LMAO. Extremely witty, I really like your writing style. Keep up the good work.

[Big @ May 24th 2007 11:25PM]

So first America begins losing jobs to illegal immigrants - then to Asia... now our pilots are facing further replacement by robots ever more increasing in lethality and efficiency.

Is America's idea to flood the future battlegrounds with "droids"? Its a good idea considering throwing robot after robot at our enemy's - killing them and maiming them while they defend against soul less hunks of metal would be quite DEMORALIZING but, I feel it would be quite disturbing considering the country with the most money to spend on the bots would be the country with the most devastating bot army.

[Big @ May 24th 2007 11:30PM]

I have an idea - how about a suicide bomber bot which flies around until it identifies its target and then slams into them at 300 mph - detonating its internal C-4 packet!

[DorianGray @ May 25th 2007 10:16AM]

@Big

...you mean a cruise missile?...

[drtekger @ May 24th 2007 11:36PM]

fight, win, prevail!

[xuanyou @ May 24th 2007 11:42PM]

Reply to Big:

Don't we already have that? It's called a Tomahawk.

[cliff @ May 24th 2007 11:51PM]

HAHAHAHAHA.... I LOVE THE SUMMARY.. best writing yet!!!!

[Nichol4sC4rter @ May 24th 2007 11:52PM]

robot deathcopter? so, there's no man in it, is it used to put out the fire?
_____________
MP4 Converter
http://www.mp4-converter.net/

[Bigginz @ May 24th 2007 11:56PM]

"Skynet becomes self-aware at 2:14 A.M., August 29th"

Ha ha! I just watched Terminator 2 last night.

[dUN @ May 25th 2007 12:20AM]

hopefully this can work out, so the troops can pull back!

[alex @ May 25th 2007 12:23AM]

errrr Is that thing in the mist of transforming into a submarine or is it just my fantasical imagination because I'm so stoked about the Transformer movie?

[European Anarchist @ May 25th 2007 4:34AM]

Heheheh. Yeah right. Americans has become too lazy to go to wars they started first, so they will start sending freakin' bots from now on.
Ok, or they are just degraded and moraly bankrupted? Heh, i wander what has become from once brave nation? Pathetic. The last sequel of this proto-droid will be probably some kind of "death-star", i guess?
And by the way, good writing style indeed.

[Key @ May 25th 2007 8:49AM]

Least we can afford to implement technology in such a fashion as to save soldiers lives doesn't make us lazy. Maybe when you can come up with something other than a white flag with an anti-stain coating so you can drink tea during your two month long vacations you'll have room to talk.

Besides, a defense based "Death Star" was proposed during the Cold War in 1983, called the Strategic Defense Initiative, or "Star Wars" for short was already considered. Though that exact plan wasn't executed, it's the basic footprint for the Missile Defense Agency we have now. Go figure.

Anything else you want to cop an attitude about that has nothing to do you in the first place?

[DorianGray @ May 25th 2007 10:25AM]

@European Anarchist

Come on, man. Why do you feel the need to provoke a pissing contest here?

Speaking of which, tell your cousin to pull his c*ck out of your a$$ so you can come pick up your mom -- b*itch has my j*zz all over her t*ts and she wet my bed....

Hope I don't get banned....

[apc @ May 25th 2007 8:35AM]

You mean like a missile?

[Robert Enders @ May 25th 2007 8:41AM]

Are they going to let gamers control this thing with their PS3? That's my solution to bringing the troops home!

[James @ May 25th 2007 9:54AM]

I was going to chip in an "I for one welcome..." comment, but actually, I for one am frickin' terrified of our new missile-firing robocopter overlords.

[huan @ May 25th 2007 1:55PM]

MONEY by pink Floyd :-)

[mastershake3 @ May 25th 2007 3:21PM]

@European Anarchist, not only did we save and or defeat your ass (depending on what country your from) twice in the last 100 years, but get this. I was watching a show on the terrorist that shot all those CIA people on thier way to work '93. He was considered upper class back in the sand box but when he came here his employer said that after half a day of work he gave up and said" Americans work too hard!" went home cried and became a terrorist. Pussy!!!! why can't he just roll over and die when the world is too hard, like that stupid Panda bear in germany? anyway, you reminded me of him. stupid EuroTroll.

[gelato @ May 25th 2007 10:23PM]

A robotic army will make the USA rule the world with the press of a button.

[Jeremy @ May 26th 2007 7:09AM]

Maybe this kind of thing is inevitable but I have three major concerns about the development of robotic warfare:
1. The very human cost of conflict should make a democratic government very cautious about entering into a war of any kind. Having this kind of technology would make the owning government far less concerned about the negative impact of going to war. In my opinion this is bad.
2. The very human involvement in a conflict - bearing in mind that each individual makes a moral judgement about the orders they receive and illegal orders cannot be acted upon - provides a number of safeguards against sub-standard behaviour by increasing the number of people who have to agree on something before it actually happens. Conversely this approach would concentrate power in very few people's hands. This is great if your leadership is incorruptible and respects every human's right to live the way they choose. Sadly, being human, this paves the way to a police state and dictatorship. If you have the ability to exterminate foreigners/gypsies/jews/gays/muslims/your own citizens/people you don't like (just to pick a few historical favourites) without witnesses or fear of retribution, then it's only a matter of time before somebody uses it.
3. These kind of things tend to be very expensive to develop, and one of the inevtiable ways of spreading the company's R&D cost and generating profits is to sell it to other governments. Think how useful these things would have been to Russia in Chechnya, the Sudanese in Darfur, just about everyone in Bosnia/Croatia/Kosovo and Rwanda... I could go on but you get the point. Consider for the moment each government who buys M-16s, or even flys F-16s, having access to this type of weaponry and the hairs on the back of your neck should stand up.

While I'm a great fan of cool gadgets, I believe that since 1945 we have enjoyed the longest period of peace between world powers in history. This peace has not been on the basis of mutual goodwill, but because of international agreements and an understanding that no government could attack another without suffering in return. Unilateral development of robotic warfare destabilises this balance and is not a course we should tread lightly.

[sendeth @ Jul 20th 2007 8:12PM]

yeah, because humans are so much more reliable.....we are almost infallible, right???

if humans are controlling these things indefinitely, i see an enders game type of "social warfare" model arising in the next 50 years. who knows, maybe the cia watches you play splinter cell to pick future recruits. i don't pretend to have all of the answers to the new ethical issues, but putting all of your faith in humans or robots seems like a bad idea. there has to be a mid point.