How Robotic Armies Will Function

"The Terminator" gave us a glimpse into a future where legions of intelligent, humanoid robots engage in warfare against humanity. While this remains firmly in the realm of science fiction, numerous countries, including the United States, are actively exploring the development of robotic soldiers. In fact, the 2001 Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act established a target for the U.S. Armed Forces: create an unmanned combat vehicle fleet that would make up one-third of all vehicles in use. While today's robot designs aren't quite like the Terminator, they hold the potential to be just as deadly.

The U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) strategy is a thorough effort to upgrade the military's infrastructure across all branches. The initiative envisions a unified battle system composed of various vehicles that share up to 80 percent of their components, cutting-edge sensors for gathering intelligence in the field, and unmanned missile systems capable of targeting enemies beyond the horizon, along with several robotic units.

The robots are classified into four main types:

The MULE and ARV vehicles may signify the dawn of a new era in warfare. There are three proposed versions of the MULE, all of which operate on wheels. Two of these variants—one for transporting over a ton of equipment and another designed to locate and neutralize anti-tank landmines—are comparable to existing military robots. The third variation, the Armed Robotic Vehicle-Assault-Light (ARV-A-L), is equipped with a reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) system along with integrated weaponry. Essentially, this robot functions like a human soldier, capable of engaging in combat.

ARV robots resemble tanks more than they do soldiers. In fact, the U.S. Army's plan is to deploy ARV-A robots to support manned vehicle operations. For example, a tank commander could utilize ARV-A robots to broaden the influence of his squadron without requiring additional soldiers. These robots would be placed in the most hazardous positions, providing support whenever manned vehicles enter combat zones.

Due to budget cuts, many of the higher-cost projects within the Future Combat Systems (FCS) initiative may face delays or be indefinitely postponed. The MULE and ARV vehicles are part of this category. Consequently, it could be several years before U.S. robots are actively deployed in military operations. Nevertheless, the U.S. military remains committed to investing in robotic technologies with the hope that, one day, robots could replace human soldiers in perilous combat situations.

In this article, we will explore how these robots function and how robotic soldiers could potentially transform warfare forever.

Next, we will examine the role of robot soldiers in modern military operations.

Robot Squads

Ideally, robot soldiers should be capable of fulfilling the same military objectives as human units. They need to operate autonomously, with the ability to identify targets, distinguish between friendly and enemy forces, engage in combat, and communicate with others in ways that go beyond simply using weapons. Currently, most robots are remotely controlled by humans stationed at a command center, though some have limited autonomy, enabling them to navigate from one location to another with minimal oversight. For a robot army to be an effective fighting force, it's crucial that each robot can assess situations and make decisions independently of human control.

The Army is collaborating with government agencies like NASA, universities, and private companies to advance research in this area. A key aspect of the Future Combat Systems Program is the Autonomous Navigation System (ANS) project, which aims to create a modular navigation system for both unmanned and manned ground vehicles. This system will incorporate navigation sensors, global positioning systems (GPS), inertial navigation systems (INS), perception sensors, and software for detecting obstacles.

A major concern for both the military and engineers is the risk of robot malfunctions. There is a real fear that robots might mistakenly target friendly forces or innocent civilians, a scenario frequently discussed when considering the use of armed robots. While this may sound paranoid, there have been instances in the past where malfunctioning robots caused significant alarms. In 1993, a bomb squad robot in San Francisco went haywire during a mission to deactivate a bomb, spinning uncontrollably just before it could grasp the explosive device. Luckily, the robot did not trigger the detonation [source: The New York Times].

Military officials argue that the purpose of deploying unmanned vehicles and robots is to engage in combat without risking human lives, or at least minimizing casualties on our side. Even though robots come with a hefty price tag, they could prove to be less expensive than deploying human soldiers — robots need maintenance but do not require healthcare or retirement benefits. Additionally, robots might be able to serve for much longer periods than human soldiers.

While many people believe that robots will never fully replace human soldiers, they are expected to play a crucial role in particularly hazardous or repetitive missions. Since robots don’t experience boredom, they are perfect for tasks like guard duty or long-term surveillance. For instance, South Korea plans to utilize robots to patrol its border with North Korea. These Intelligent Surveillance and Guard Robots, equipped with both regular and infrared cameras, are capable of detecting intruders up to 2.5 miles away. Once they are within 10 meters of a potential intruder, the robots demand a coded access number. If the target fails to provide the correct code, the robot can trigger an alarm or even fire a weapon at the intruder.

In this upcoming section, we will explore the types of equipment required to bring robot soldiers to life.

Robot Tools and Weapons

At present, there are robots available that are capable of carrying and firing various weapons, including shotguns, pepper spray, grenade launchers, and even Hellfire missiles. The MULE ARV-A-L robot can operate a line-of-sight gun and anti-tank weaponry. Remote-controlled TALON robots are versatile, able to carry an M240 machine gun, a .50 caliber rifle, grenades, and rocket launchers. Meanwhile, the South Korean patrol robot can either shoot non-lethal rubber bullets at intruders or be equipped with a K-3 machine gun, a light machine gun comparable to the M249.

The U.S. Marine Corps' Gladiator Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle (TUGV) is capable of carrying a variety of both lethal and non-lethal weapons, including:

A large, heavy-duty robot could be tasked with handling weapons that are too bulky, dangerous, or powerful for human use. The ARV-A, for example, can carry a medium-caliber cannon, a missile system, and a heavy machine gun. The Army's plan is to deploy robots like the ARV-A mainly as support for manned vehicles, so their armament needs to be on par with that of a tank.

In addition to weapons, robots will be equipped with various sensors and cameras to enable them to perceive and navigate through dangerous environments. For instance, the Gladiator robot will feature thermal imaging cameras, which detect heat and produce images visible to humans. Most robots will also be outfitted with standard video cameras.

A primary objective of the FCS project is to develop a universal platform that the Army and other military forces can integrate into their systems moving forward. One of the military's longstanding challenges has been the use of a disparate array of equipment, vehicles, and software that are not interconnected, making coordination in battle and tactical discussions more difficult. The goal is for all military robots to share a unified platform, allowing commanders to deploy multiple robots on complex missions. For example, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles could maintain surveillance over a region, transmitting information to Unmanned Ground Vehicles entering that area.

In the upcoming section, we will explore why some individuals are worried about the potential emergence of robot armies.

Effectiveness, Economics and Ethics

The major obstacle to creating a fully operational robot army lies in technology — no one has yet figured out how to develop robots that are truly autonomous. Nonetheless, there has been impressive progress in recent years. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a research and development branch of the Department of Defense (DoD), offered a $1 million challenge in 2004 to technicians and engineers nationwide to design a robotic vehicle capable of navigating a 200-mile course autonomously. Though 15 vehicles entered, none were able to complete the course.

The following year saw more promising results. A group of engineers from Stanford University won the grand prize of $2 million after their autonomous vehicle successfully completed a 132-mile course in 6 hours and 53 minutes. Three other robots finished within the 10-hour limit, demonstrating that it is indeed possible to create a robot capable of navigating terrain on its own at speeds comparable to most military vehicles.

In 2007, DARPA set forth a new challenge: navigating through a complex, simulated urban environment. The vehicles must execute a military supply mission within a city, which entails merging with traffic, avoiding obstacles, and adhering to a designated route. The team with the quickest vehicle in the qualifying rounds will be awarded $2 million.

While navigation is a significant hurdle in achieving robotic autonomy, the stakes rise when a robot is tasked with identifying and engaging enemy combatants. Developing a system that allows a robot to distinguish between enemies, allies, and innocent bystanders is a time-consuming process.

Beyond the technical challenges, the cost of robotic research and development is substantial. In 2006, the DoD projected a $1.7 billion investment in robotics from 2006 to 2012 [source: Development and Utilization of Robotics and Unmanned Ground Vehicles]. As war expenses soar and budgets tighten, the Army faces tough choices, postponing some projects while putting others on indefinite hold.

Ethical questions also arise in debates surrounding robotic soldiers. Could a nation with robotic forces be more prone to invade another, knowing that the invasion would likely result in minimal casualties? Does removing human soldiers from warfare make it more inhumane? When a robot malfunctions during a mission, should we send humans to recover and repair it? How can we ensure robots know when to cease fire, especially if an enemy surrenders?

Though we may be years away from deploying a functional robotic fighting force, many argue that we should address these questions now. By considering these ethical concerns in their designs, scientists and engineers can create better robots. If not, the threat of battalions of Terminators might edge closer to becoming a reality.