DARPA field tests the multi-million dollar Robo-Mule - Why not use a real one?

[+ianh755 196]

Hi all, I've just watched this on a different forum and the logic of it's use/inception escapes me.

 

 

DARPA has spent millions of dollars creating a robotic mule to carry the troops heavy packs, extra water/food/ammo etc through all kinds of terrains but surely the KISS of it would be to just use a real Mule. It's cheaper, better over terrain, quieter (the Robo-Mule uses a diesel engine) and less likely to break down. True, there's some extra costs to buy, house, feed and care for a real mule but it still must work out cheaper per "unit" that the Robot version, surely!

 

There's a smaller "Dog" version which was the original test unit and they'd like to make these too but once again, we've already got trained military dogs which do this job, how is a robo version going to be significantly better enough to justify the costs?

 

The only advantage I can see is that they are less likely to be spooked during contact and run off which is always a possibility with animals.

Edited July 14, 2014 by ianh755

[+RAVEN 414]

Avantege: It won't eat your C-Rat's.

Disadvantages: You can't eat it.

:)

[+Gunrunner 314]

You can't remotely operate a mule, you can't have mules mount weapons (well, you can, but the results might be a tad... underwhelming).

 

Further research/training into real mules won't have them being autonomously useful.

 

Even trained mules have a tendency to wander around, or if under fire, behave erratically, I don't think soldiers under fire would welcome having to deal with a panicked pack mule on top of that...

 

It's easier and faster to deal with attrition with robot mules (field repairs are an option) rather than real mules (who can't get back right to service after changing some parts, meaning you need to have 2/3 times the number of mules you need to replace the casualties).

 

Even not taking into account the higher number of real mules it would take to perform the same mission as robot mules, one should consider that real mules need to be fed, their pens need to be cleaned, there arise a need for field veterinarians, and suddenly the support necessary to operate real mules is superior to the one needed to operate robotic mules, of course the cost, including R&D, of robotic mules still maybe higher, but it's so much easier, more predictable.

 

Robot dogs... a dog sensor package is fixed, varies depending on the individual, requires years of training and gives information fairly incomplete and subject to interpretation, a robot is immediately operational, upgradeable, the efficiency is a given, the readings are supposedly unequivocal, you can send it to it's "death" without batting an eye should the situation require it and so on.

 

Of course it's horrendously costly if you take the R&D costs into account, but the end result has the potential to be far superior and more useful than their biological inspirations.

 

On another note, one can't complain about these programs and still find the F-35 costs entirely justified. (I HAD to ! ^^ )

[macelena 1,070]

Our mountain troops still use, and don´t intend to replace their mules. Indeed, when they bred more than they needed the German Army got to buy some of them. I personally agree that mules are a better solution than what DARPA got so far, but i guess they will eventually find something really useful. Hell, we still had the 22nd Signals Pidgeon Regiment  a couple of years ago.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Follow the money, or rather, public borrowing and public debt. Somebody is, or will be, making a private fortune off these toys, and a few debt funded career "soldiers" are having fun with it on the playground.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

The indisputable arguments in favor of this ridiculous gadget:

• Is panic-proof, NBC-proof, small caliber bullets-proof (G.I.s don't want shrapnells in their peanut butter, do they?), thirst & hunger-proof (useful in the barren holes where the U.S. tend to wage war, mules don't drink oil)...

• Spares the distressing show on Youtube of an agonizing real mule wounded by bullets or IED, it could lower the morale of Western decadent voters at home.

• Contrary to a real mule, sexually frustrates the Talebans in case of capture.

• Is a good first-step experiment to be tested on the battlefield: later increase the size tenhold, replace junk with grunts, and you have a fine StarWars-style AT-AT.

• Allows some Congressmen in the purchasing commision to change their car again and keep a fourth lover.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Capitaine Vengeur

[B52STRATO 215]

Agree Capitaine, more often I first see a quadruped ST-TT, you just need one back mounted 2A44 howitzer.

[+pcpilot 181]

Whooptie do. I'd go with a live trained mule any day. Most military animals were trained around gunfire and shellfire. As long as it wasn't right next to them, it isn't a big deal. Think cavalry here. We are spending billions and trillions on all these new gadgets and neglecting the maintenance of our present forces. We are going to wind up with an American Kursk situation if we aren't careful. They lost a billion dollar sub and 118 lives because they neglected their daily maintenance on their torpedoes. I look at a passing destroyer or cruiser these days and I see as much rust on it as the Russian boats back in the 80's. Anyone tell me what Pensacola NAS looks like these days? We're spending billions on a new Zumwalt "stealth" destroyer that's so expensive we can only buy 3 for the cost of 6 or more Burke class ships. ( $3.5 Billion per unit vs. 1.78 Billion per unit ) Just read an article about what we are going to do when we retire our 20+ year old fleet of cruisers, ie; they don't know! I know we need to keep moving in the technology dept. but you can still have the research done and maintain a lot more less tech advanced military to keep your security and commitments squared away. Countries do it all the time every day.

 

 

By the way, love it Cap'n Vengeur! LOL...