Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain
|
Mechanicalbrain PMed me for my opinion on the TALON:
I think the TALON would be very effective, when used the right way. But again, they look to be planning the wrong mission for it. Why would they want to add the weight, complexity (didn’t I read the word “adaptive?”), and loss of mobility – as in increased chance to get snagged – in order to camouflage a robot? Camouflage should be used on high-value targets – such as human beings and the things they ride in. The only exception is to put it on decoys, for obvious reasons.
Who the heck would want to be on the battlefield with a bunch of pistol packing robots running around? Imagine yourself out there with the enemy in front and a bazooka-toting robot behind you, with some former FIRST driver looking into a one square inch eyepiece trying to decide which is which. No thanks!
They do say that the bots are meant to keep soldiers out of harm’s way. So, I would hope that they wouldn’t try to deploy them side-by-side with the GIs. But I wouldn’t put it past them either! Even it they sent a few out in front of the troops, the combination of the fog of war, some twisty streets or trails, and a complete loss of spatial relation on a video screen are sure to make the operator think they’re heading north, when they’re really going south. “Oh! My bad! Maybe the GPS quit, got shot, or was jammed?”
In my opinion, the idea of trying to camouflage a robot or three and sneak them around is just plain stupid. We should want them to draw fire. We should send them in swarms, controlled from way far away, in order to shoot, shock, and awe the other guy into making himself obvious to a flock of Predators circling overhead.
I mean, think about it! We can build robots a whole lot faster than they can make insurgents. Why in the world would we want to conceal them?