US Marines to Storm Beaches with Machine Gun-Toting Robots, Transforming Boats

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Apr 27, 2017.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,004
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    There’s some cool stuff going down at Camp Pendleton (Oceanside, CA). The Navy and Marine Corps are testing a whole bunch of new technologies for storming the beaches: these include miniature tank-like robots that will charge through the sands for advance assaults, quadcopters and other drone stuffs, and even speedboats that can transform into submarines. Thanks to Kyle for this one.

    For the past two weeks, the Navy and Marine Corps have been quietly testing about 50 new fascinating technologies out at Camp Pendleton, at the Ship-to-Shore Maneuver Exploration and Experimentation Advanced Naval Technology Exercise 2017, in California. The exercise is investigating how the military can leverage the latest technological advances for ship-to-the-shore, or the space between the Naval ship and the beach where they could potentially land. Sailors and Marines have been experimenting with the technology and evaluating the wide range of sea, air and land innovations in a variety of realistic scenarios.
     
  2. Galvin

    Galvin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,695
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Some day wars will be all fought from a cubical, no boots on the ground.
     
  3. Bigdady92

    Bigdady92 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,767
    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    MIchael bay seen taking advanced footage for Transformers: Fucking Kill 'em All.
     
    Vaulter98c likes this.
  4. TheBuzzer

    TheBuzzer HACK THE WORLD!

    Messages:
    12,549
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Can just see the other side using jammers to jam the signals to make all the robots useless, unless they have some kind of ai that will just kill all targets they see
     
    Rahh and mesyn191 like this.
  5. Bigdady92

    Bigdady92 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,767
    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    /me sees Michael Bay scribbling notes labeled "Megatron's Master Plan"
     
  6. Bandalo

    Bandalo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    Sure. But the other side needs jammers, and to have them in the right place at the right time, and to know what frequencies and signals the robots are using, and have high enough power to overcome the good guy's signals, and the robots need to agree not to use frequency hopping or DSS or any other anti-jam technologies. Don't forget and put the jammers in place too early or else the good guys will blow them up before the invasion!

    I'm not saying it's not possible, because it's a real concern. I'm just saying it's not THAT easy.
     
  7. Anarchist4000

    Anarchist4000 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,659
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2001
    Isn't that what most speedboats do after running into ground?
     
    c_porter likes this.
  8. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,579
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    God, let's hope not.
     
    Extra-Titanian likes this.
  9. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,579
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    The Marines ..... You know the Army showed these guys the best way to get ashore over 75 years ago.

    It's called a parachute;

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    But the Marines never claimed to be fast learners :ROFLMAO:


    All in jest brothers, all in jest (y)
     
    rgMekanic, cptnjarhead and bbenz33 like this.
  10. otherweeb

    otherweeb Gawd

    Messages:
    860
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Your never gonna get a tan jumping outta perfectly good airplanes lcpiper. Everybody knows the party's at the BEACH.
     
    flashoverride and lcpiper like this.
  11. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,579
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I wish I had a snappy comeback, but what kinda dweeb argues with "party at the beach" ?

    I'd rather have a cold one with you so I'll jump out of my plane and walk on over;

    and you can grab something really heavy, jump out of your boat, and run like hell.

    See ya when I see ya :sneaky:
     
    otherweeb likes this.
  12. grtitan

    grtitan Telemetry is Spying on ME!

    Messages:
    1,266
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    For this crap we have plenty of money, but no for poor students that have to pay for their school lunch and for teachers to buy supplies and stuff with their own money.

    Our priorities are fucked up.
     
    spaceman, Wizard220 and Reality like this.
  13. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,579
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    So a company, a defense contractor company, who comes up with good ideas that can save soldier's lives, that's crap to you ? A business employing people paying salaries that provide tax revenues that fund education, Crap.

    We should go back to the draft right? Go low tech, easier to train the troops if you don't ask so much of them. Train that cannon fodder at the last minute and rely on their fortitude and courage, the young are easy to inspire and don't fear death ... much .... until it's in their face. Of course that's usually when they are dying so....

    So kids can have fewer Mommies and Daddies, one is all they need anyway right.

    I wonder, if we did go back to the draft and your name was in the pot. Would you still feel the same?

    Edited:
    I'm being a little harsher then perhaps you deserve. I want to point out two things and try and put some perspective on my comments above.

    One, I signed up long ago. I didn't do it out of some sacrifice hero idea. The Army offered a job and I thought it sounded good at the time. I liked it, I stayed in. I made those choices for me, not so you could be free or any of that.

    Second, You are correct that our government spends a lot of money wastefully. The way I see it, it's the nature of the beast and the more you ask the government to do for you, the more they will waste in the process.

    So I actually hope that if you understand my point of view better, it will take some of the sting out of it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2017
    rgMekanic likes this.
  14. Lucas BD

    Lucas BD n00b

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
  15. grtitan

    grtitan Telemetry is Spying on ME!

    Messages:
    1,266
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Was going to provide a lengthily response, but the fact that you admitted that you served and your lack of understanding that all our wars have being faked for that reason, to maintain the war machine, makes no much sense to respond.

    Just answer to yourself, when was the last time that any country attcked us and which one of the wars from the last 30 plus years was really necessary. The answer is for yourself, not me.
     
  16. schoenda

    schoenda Gawd

    Messages:
    860
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    No comments yet about slaving the robots to a first person shooter interface and letting the gamerz control them instead of some military personnel hiding with that remote? Come on Trump, think of the savings...we would pay for the opportunity, and the extra expense of the satellites and bandwidth would be good for the infrastructure anyway. Win/Win.
     
  17. 4saken

    4saken [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,971
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    :rolleyes: All of our wars? or just in the last 30 years. If you are going to try to make a case, make a case.
     
  18. tunatime

    tunatime 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,170
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Wars are good. Take wars away and we would still be living in the stone age. Look how much technology advanced because of all the wars
     
  19. flashoverride

    flashoverride Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    496
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    "all our wars have being faked".....

    Ummm, what? They were all pretty real. Now, you can say that you believe the reasoning for them was flawed, and then make a case based on that, but good luck with that one too. Like the man said, “It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means”. von Clausewitz
     
  20. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    This is all reeaaaalllly easy to do. Like depressingly easy. Even with old 1970's or 80's tech. A few trucks for generators, fuel, and a large mobile antenna and you can jam a broad spectrum of radio frequencies for 10's of miles. Craptastic 3rd world govt's with hilariously underfunded militaries can accomplish this. A few dozen "teams" of trucks and a few hundred men to run them can jam communications for hundreds of miles of contested borders.

    Quality hardware from a major world power, like the Russian KRET Richag-AV, can jam pretty much anything for over a hundred miles.

    There are no silver bullets against broad spectrum radio frequency jamming, certainly none of those are. And frequency hopping doesn't do much anyways against even specific frequency jamming, its mainly used to keep people from "listening" in on communications.

    This is also really easy to do. They just camo the trucks while they're deployed and turn them off until the attack craft have moved on then turn them on when they see bots getting deployed.

    Realistically of course there are all sorts of counter measures for such tactics and counter measures for those too. Generally speaking though they're way more effective and difficult to put out of action then you're making it out to be.
     
  21. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Tech advances in peace time too.

    We might possibly not be as advanced as we are now or have some types of tech (ie. microwave ovens) without war time advances but its complete nonsense to say we'd still be in the stone age.
     
    grtitan likes this.
  22. Reality

    Reality [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,889
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Nobody said to cut the military budget to nothing. It currently sits above 54% of our federal budget. Education is at 6%. We're currently running out of middle eastern countries to invade, we ran out of bombs in Syria. This country can easily afford what the gentleman you quoted was asking for.

    Know what saves soldiers lives? Keeping them at home, defending when necessary.
     
    grtitan likes this.
  23. flashoverride

    flashoverride Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    496
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Defense doesn't make up 54% of the Federal Budget. When you start off that wrong, it's hard to take you seriously when you start making declarative pronouncements, especially when you then go on to state "we ran out of bombs in Syria".

    I get that you don't like war/the military/etc. That's fine. Just don't say stupid stuff that's laughably incorrect.
     
    rgMekanic likes this.
  24. the-one1

    the-one1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,982
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    I'd rather have peace and living in a hut than all the technologies than came from war.
     
    grtitan likes this.
  25. NeoNemesis

    NeoNemesis 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,397
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    They're going to be using these things against people in wattle huts in some backwater mid eastern country. I think the chances of them being able to jam these things is pretty low.
     
  26. Reality

    Reality [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,889
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    In 2015, defense department made up 54 percent of the discretionary federal budget. It's since went up in January of this year. Let me guess, the word discretionary tears my statement apart. Lmao.
     
    grtitan likes this.
  27. Reality

    Reality [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,889
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    2016 discretionary budget numbers.
     

    Attached Files:

  28. flashoverride

    flashoverride Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    496
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Yes the word discretionary certainly does, when it eliminates the other 60% of the budget. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt make up 60% of the Federal Budget. In relation to that, we spend 15% on national defense. Given that this is one of the primary functions of the Federal government, I don't think that's unreasonable.
     
    tunatime likes this.
  29. cptnjarhead

    cptnjarhead Crossfit Fast Walk Champion Runnerup

    Messages:
    1,669
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Cool stuff... its great to see tech like this, anything that helps save the life of an infantrymen out in the field...im in.
    As for you complainers... fuck strait the fuck off!... seriously... fuck off..

    Keep that shit up buddy.... :)


    Always faithful...
     
  30. iamjanco

    iamjanco Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    441
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2016
    I think they're going to have to speed it up a bit. Doesn't look like it'd be very good at ducking/running for cover, to get out of the way of incoming.
     
  31. Bandalo

    Bandalo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010

    Broadband jamming isn't effective over any significant range. It just takes far, far too much power, and newer receivers (especially "military grade") stuff, is tuned fairly well. Combine that with directional antennas and it's not as easy to jam things as you might think.

    There are quite a few defenses against broadband jamming, but no real "silver bullet" as you say. Frequency hopping and DSS are two good ways to avoid it though. The wider the ranges of frequencies you use, the harder it is for the adversary to jam them. He's either got to employ more and more jammers, or significantly reduce the power he's putting out at a given frequency.

    It's not that easy for the bad guys to "just camo the trucks". They've got to move them from garrison (and we watch for that), they've got to move them close enough to the area to be effective, and then conceal them well enough that all the EO/IR assets we have can't find them. Oh, and they can't do ANY live testing or setup ahead of time, or else we'll pick that up and geolocate their site. And lets not forget they're going to be fighting for space and resources with all the other elements of their force in a constrained space. The more air and land defenses they set up, the easier they are to locate. And once they do start transmitting, they've just given us their precise location.
     
  32. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,579
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Your idea of necessary and my idea will likely be two different things entirely but this is not what you were talking about in your comment or my response to it. You were talking specifically about bad priorities for national spending. All those toys that are part of this topic are paid for by companies who want to sell them. They are not developed with federal dollars unless there is a specific development contract let for the product. Either way, it's still just business.

    Now you might think that we don't need to make such a big business of weapons and war but ask yourself a question, if we don't sell our weapons to country X, will they buy them from country Y? Someone wants to buy them, no reason US companies can't make them. Ours seems to work pretty good.

    The last significant attack was
    The United Nations is technically still at war with North Korea and with whatever the Chinese Peoples' Volunteer Army has become in this day. That war has never ended and the armistice that was intended to stop hostilities until a permanent peace could be agreed upon isn't really in force any more. Both sides have accused each other over the decades of breaking rules of that agreement and;
    Therefore every attack between these two acrossed that border or at sea is part of that very old conflict. The US is certainly involved and always has been since the Korean War began. An attack on our Allies is an attack on the United States. Of course this isn't the most resent, but you sound like you are more interested in legitimacy so.

    To maintain the war machine. What a foolish concept. I served from 1981 until 1998. In those years, the only notable combat actions were Granada, Panama, Kosovo, and the first Gulf War. I wasn't directly involved in any of them.

    I'll say it for your benefit one more time; the Volunteer Military means that service is an individual choice. We could just as well have a draft instead, but the results might not be so popular with many. It's easy to forget that the alternative could just as well be a letter in your mail box telling you when and where to report.

    My career as a soldier allowed me to get pretty damned good at the job. If I had been asked to do the job after only 2 months of rushed training I am not so sure I would have achieved the same level of skill. The art of modern combat is complex and if you don't keep a standing army then you are going to go to war with a bunch of amateurs. If you do it this way then the only way to come out on top is to bring a lot of bodies. Are you certain that this is in the best interest of the American people?

    Is there any room in your thinking that allows for the possibility that if the US Military wasn't so powerful, that there could be a lot more mischief going on in the world and a greater chance that we would have to sign up the boys and girls for a big one because we don't have a means to intervene and stop situations until they get so bad that we have to mobilize our entire country behind the effort?
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
    flashoverride and Bandalo like this.
  33. Vaulter98c

    Vaulter98c [H]ard|DCer of the Month - October 2009

    Messages:
    5,712
    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Angry civies crying about the "war" machine lol

    I bet you're the same kind of liberal that says men should have no say in the abortion process because they have never been pregnant

    Well, do some years over seas then you can bitch about things all you want if that's your stance

    And if we were at war forever and kept that shit on their soil, I'm fine with that, if you've ever actually seen war then you would agree

    You do know if we pull out and do nothing but defend eventually that will be the only life you know because it will be all against one, not a fan of those odds
     
  34. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,579
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    I don't really want to be too harsh with him. He thinks that being in the service blinds me to things .... brainwashed, unable to see some reality.

    But when I was in College, before I joined, the USSR had just invaded Afghanistan, Soldier of Fortune magazine had stories about the Muhadjeen resistance, maybe hints that the CIA were helping them. But although I heard some stories about the USSR and it's Army, and I knew a little about tanks and such, or though I did. It wasn't the same as when I got in and really learned and more importantly, had to live with the reality that I might have to put my ass right out there in front of that shit. You get a different appreciation for things in that situation. It's a sobering thought when older Sergeants tell you that the current estimates are less then 3 weeks for Russian Tanks to reach the French Mediterranean. That only our tactical nukes might slow them down and that they will probably use chemical weapons on us.

    Chemical Weapons, nerve and blood agents, that shit scared me more then nuclear weapons did. I was young and didn't really think about dying much, but that shit made me think about it and I knew I didn't want to go that way.

    So I can see how someone who has never had this reality put in front of their face while in a position that they could be put right in front of it to deal with it. I can see how they wouldn't every have the same view of it all as I might.

    But that massive Army was there, and that government was intent on protecting itself by maintaining a domination military position in the world. And while some people see these wars as faked to support the machine, we know they were not one sided conflicts. The tiniest one, Granada, go to the wiki I link and look at the "combatant forces" on the right side of the page and remember this was 1983 and the USSR was alive and well and currently trying to subdue Afghanistan. The Cold War was still on.

    Of course, not all of us were alive and living that time.


    According to this video, this is a single Soviet Tank Division, they had dozens of them and then they had the Motorized Rifle and Infantry Divisions. More than a hundred total to our 18 Divisions which most were not in Europe and needed a week to get to the fight. 10 to 1 in tanks. 20 to 1 in Artillery, 50 to 1 in Infantry, that was the formula the USSR wanted to achieve in any given battle.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  35. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    It absolutely is. Yes it needs a lot of power (10's of KW of transmitting power generally for a large area) but any large generator strapped to a 2 ton+ truck can do it and 2 ton+ trucks aren't exactly hard to get for any military nor are the generators. That Russian system I mentioned can, reputedly there is no solid public information I'm aware of on it, jam a Aegis' weapon system from 10's of miles away and that thing fits on a helicopter.

    Directional antennas are only effective against broad spectrum jamming at long ranges and even then they're not all that great and are subject to intermittent jamming. At short (10 miles or less) ranges they'll lose their effectiveness very quickly and at very short ranges (1 mile or less) aren't effective at all for stopping a military power, even a 3rd rate one, from jamming you.

    If the military trying to jam your signals also figures out you're using directional antennas they'll just use their own for very long range jamming by pointing them at you or the source of the signal you're trying to get.

    This is all easy to do, and yes there are counter measures for that too but then there are counter counter measures for those as well! Again this is all much more complicated and effective than you're making it out to be as well as more difficult to try stop too.

    This is true but jammers are hilariously cheap and easy to build and deploy for even a crap 3rd rate military so this isn't much of a negative from a practical perspective.

    Quickly? No its not easy. In a prepared defensive area? Yes it is easy. You can try to watch for it but you can't watch all the time everywhere and frequently the enemy will know when and where you're observing to evade you. Space won't be a issue since they'll be spread out over miles or 10's of miles easily. Its easy to hide a group of large trucks in a sq. mile area.
     
  36. schoenda

    schoenda Gawd

    Messages:
    860
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Don't you all knoe HARRP is really about long range unjammable combot control? Duh!
     
  37. Bandalo

    Bandalo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    I'm a bit curious where you're getting your info...I've been in the Navy for >20 years, and I'm not familiar with a helicopter mounted system that can jam "Aegis" from 10's of miles. (which is pointless, because if you're 10 miles away, you've been in weapons range for a while, and you're probably over water) "Aegis" is also a collection of individual systems, and not something you can just "jam".

    Directional antennas work well at range, but once you're very close, they're less effective, which is true. But you also have body masking and a few other factors to consider. In this scenario of this thread, you're controlling robots on shore from a presumably sea-based platform in LOS, which mean a challenging environment for the adversary.

    Low power, low frequency jammers are cheap and easy. High power jammers are harder, especially higher frequency. Almost any military can jam UHF. No one can jam EHF, and not many can jam higher bands of SHF. And again, broadband jamming across wide ranges requires ridiculous amounts of power. How much energy do you really think you can dump across the entire Ka band at one time? How about X or C band?

    And you've got a contradiction in your arguments there. You acknowledge in one part you need lots of 10kw generators, HPAs and antennas for every band you're trying to jam. Then you mention how easy it'll be to hide all those trucks. And running generators that put lots of IR. And transport in all the fuel. And keep the operators fed and housed. All while keeping as close to the "front" as possible to maximize your effectiveness.
     
  38. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    The best public information on this is the Russian's own claims unfortunately. AFAIK there are detailed public information sources on their hardware that you can use to confirm what it actually does. According to them they jammed a Aegis weapon system off the coast of Syria with that system that I mentioned. Vague and not technically correct (as you note, Aegis is a bunch of systems, so what exactly got jammed?)? Yeah, but there isn't much to go on but neither is there much reason to disbelieve them here either. There doesn't seem to be much skepticism on the US military's part regarding such claims.

    Those issues flip over too neatly to be considered in favor of remote controlled attack bots though since they'll also effect your attempts to communicate with the attack bots too.

    Huh? You can jam EHF. If you can transmit at that frequency than a jammer, by default, can be made to target it. Jammers are just noisy transmitters. EHF is said to be resistant to jamming but that is a relative statement. There is nothing inherent about the signal or tech that is immune to jamming at all.

    I'd point out too that most of the very high or EHF stuff is relatively short range. You need to be able to communicate with the bots over 10's or 100's of miles since you have to have your command boat/post/whatever far enough away to be safe from attack.

    Off hand I have no clue. But I know they can do it easily.

    I said they need a few large trucks and some guys per "team" that is indeed all that is needed. Housing?! These guys will be sleeping in tents in a warzone at best. Food will be typical rations. Fuel is brought along with them and a single truck can run for quite a while off all that fuel. They don't need to run 24/7 remember, its intermittently ran as threats are detected. You won't see any heat from a cold truck and warm idle engine for one won't be that much different from any other large truck motor.

    Again, as I've said many times already, there are things a attacker can do to counter them but this not a cut n' dry thing nor is it as easy as you're making it out to be to counter them.
     
  39. Bandalo

    Bandalo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    So essentially this didn't happen. You can maybe jam one band of the radar, but not all. You might cause some interference with part of the system, but not all.
    You have no idea how real-world EHF works, in particular SATCOM forms of EHF. Real-world jamming of military systems requires a hell of a lot more than just a "noisy transmitter".

    So you don't have any idea how it works, but you know it's a piece of cake? I'm not trying to be insulting, but I deal with a lot of this stuff for a living, and it's not easy by any means. If it was, every country would do it, and the US and all high tech countries would be totally blinded by some dude in a 2 ton truck with a generator and a "noisy transmitter".

    Ka band alone covers everything from 26.5-40Ghz (so a 13.5Ghz band). So if you want to jam that effectively, how many frequencies can you cover? Say you're dealing with 1Mhz channels, that's 13,500 channels to cover...so you're gonna need 13,500 trucks to jam the entire Ka band.

    Housing IS tents. And they need comms back to HQ, and they need detection gear to know what frequencies they should be jamming and when they should be jamming. How long do you think these guys will be in the field? They're going to need medical services, and resupply, water and food, etc. My point is you can't conceal these things in a constrained space for a long period. A few days of casual searches? Maybe. But to try to hide these guys within close range of a place the US is looking to storm the beach? No way. There's going to be EO/IR and ELINT all over that place 24/7 for weeks leading to the invasion date.
     
  40. XViper

    XViper Gawd

    Messages:
    836
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    So basically gamers and FPS players would dominate then? Have them think it's a game and then have them slaughter the other side. I think I saw this in a movie once...