Abrams robotic "wingman"

[wolf90]

My son found this. He thought it might a first step towards Ogres.

I'm so proud!

http://www.wearethemighty.com/articl...-attack-drones

D.

[Buzzardo]

I wonder/worry about the work load on the crew. Oddly, that makes a case for even more automation, right down to removing the crew from the central Abrams tank. And thus do we get on the path to Ogres. :)

[ColBosch]

I'm notso-hotso on the idea. I'm thinking back to my days on the M1A2, and were already under a pretty significant workload just keeping the one vehicle running. I'm not sure who would even control the "buddy" vehicle.

I think it would be better to have a dedicated drone control vehicle tag along with the tanks.

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by ColBosch

I'm notso-hotso on the idea. I'm thinking back to my days on the M1A2, and were already under a pretty significant workload just keeping the one vehicle running. I'm not sure who would even control the "buddy" vehicle.

I think it would be better to have a dedicated drone control vehicle tag along with the tanks.

For air reconnaissance we found it better to automate as much as possible. In our experiment operators could designate specific targets they were interested in, or just what sorts of targets they cared about. Then we automated everything from assigning the task to a plane all the way down to steering the sensor. We had to build fall-back plans for communications problems, and pop-up anti-aircraft systems meant we were replanning constantly. It was "a great learning experience."

One of the hardest problems was interacting with human pilots. We couldn't count on them doing what the system suggested, but had to protect them as best we could. We also couldn't expect a response if we needed info from a pilot - for any number of reasons. The experience made me a big advocate of the Chair Force.

The article is right about airplanes being easier than ground vehicles. I imagine if one of the ducklings is in trouble then the human operator will be hip deep in his own tank's problems, likely unable to communicate in time. The duckling will be on its own.

[Tim Kauffman]

“You don’t need armor on an auxiliary kit,” Michael Peck, Business Development Manager, General Dynamics Land Systems, told Scout Warrior in an interview.

Yeah, I mean WE aren't paying for this 5*&#...in fact the more we get knocked out of service, the more we need to make, and THEN we can have better protection!

LOL...they talk like this stuff doesn't come with a price tag, and they just want more expensive stuff all the time. More expensive does not always mean better(.)

From strictly a maintenance perspective, the more automated, ect they make stuff the more fragile and servicing it will generally require. This is an arms race, and humanity is losing the war.

[brionl]

Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman

“You don’t need armor on an auxiliary kit,” Michael Peck, Business Development Manager, General Dynamics Land Systems, told Scout Warrior in an interview.

That sounded pretty dubious to me too. Even if they aren't as heavily armored as an MBT, you think you'd want it at least resistant to small arms fire. So some goober with an AK-47 couldn't take it out.