Why don’t we have remote controlled tanks? Is that a bad idea? Why or why not?
How about a remote controlled flame tank.
http://s223.photobucket.com/albums/dd78/floodtl/?action=view¤t=Sickness.jpg
devilsadvocate: What if I install a self-destruct button that blows the thing sky high.
I hope you guys can tell I’m not serious.
Stephen: Not even if they’re radioactive heated iron balls???
http://s223.photobucket.com/albums/dd78/floodtl/?action=view¤t=Dirty.jpg
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
currently all ROV’s are controlled through RF technology that can be jammed if you have the right technology.
What good is a 50 million dollar tank, if you can’t control it in a fight?
Sounds like a good idea. Plans are underway for mechanized robotic soldiers. That would be ideal for urban warfare.
RF interference and compromise of signals could be an issue, but aren’t Predator drones using RF? I’ve never heard of them being compromised. Just interfering with a Predator’s signals would probably crash it.
Although we currently have remote-controlled reconaissance vehicles, these devices depend for much of their defensive capability on stealth – to perform their function without being detected. Remaining undetected difficult for an offensive weapon to accomplish for long. Once such a vehicle is detected, it is subject to attack, or at least more effective attack, by the enemy. To remain effective, the vehicle must be able to repel such attacks or to withstand them, and still perform its function.
A remote-controlled tank must also do a lot more than a reconaissance vehicle, such as identify a target, aim at it, destroy it, navigate through changing terrain, and maintain contact with the base. This requires a lot of on-board intelligence or a lot of real-time sensory equipment and an elaborate communication channel to send this information and receive the necessary control signals in real time.
There is also the possibility for the enemy to capture such a vehicle and turn it against its original controllers. This must also be guarded against.
“We” do.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_Robot_Gladiator_Armed_lg.jpg
Why are you not serious about this? Rather have kids get killed in a tank or play video games?
Unmanned fighting vehicles ARE being developed. They won’t be turning the Abrams into a radio-controlled vehicle, but there will be smaller, specialty-vehicles exiting the pipeline. Your idea of a flame-tank requires much more work, in particular your designated source of ignition. A sparker or incindiary squib will be what works, NOT “Heated iron balls”. Look at the designs of flame throwers already in the field to see how they work. Something to remember is that flame, while terrifying, and a frightfully painful and destructive weapon, is relatively short-ranged. An RFV with flame as a capability in addition to it’s primary weapon would be a better design-option.
One issue could be that the enemy could hack your controls and use it against you.