Re: Tank vision systems

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/3/00 8:18:26 AM Central Standard Time, 
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:
> 
> << 
>  Get out and look?  Why, when your tank is not only feeding you
>  the world enhanced but the sattelite imagery is feeding you 
>  realtime pictures at .5 meter resolution and you have copies
>  of a full scan when the satellite is "unavailable"?
>   >>
> 
> Yes! Get out and look - but besides that - even if they do look at a
360 scan 
> down to the smallest ant on the battlefield: 1)Human beings will still
want 
> to observe with their EYES

they will rapidly learn to prefer electronic senses when those senses
become as or more reliable and accurate than the eyeball, human, mark 1.
an analogy is the uptake of guns; when they first came in, one wouldn't
dream of using guns to the exclusion of pikes, but today, a soldier with
a
sharp stick is a soldier trying to get a psychiatric discharge.

> 2) The more eyes looking and brains processing the 
> better

and if those eyes and brains can be looking at images that are the
result
of the fusion of data from tens to thousands of sensors, with extensive
digital preprocessing, then that's better yet.

> 3) Crewed weapopns are more efficient killing machines from the point 
> of view of human psychology and one man doth not a crew make

i would like to draw a parallel with the horsemen of old here; a one-man
tank is more like cavalry than a modern tank, in a way. perhaps the team
spirit within the tank crew will be replaced by a team spirit within the
platoon.

obviously, a one-man tank is only possible with serious computer
assistance; think of the computerised driving system as a little like
the
horse in wetware cavalry: it can't do tactics, but it can travel in the
desired direction, deal with obstacles and varying terrain and is
somewhat
controllable though channels other than those used to direct weaponry
(you
can nudge a horse with your legs somewhat, i think (i've ridden a horse
exactly once)). plus, the fire control, comms, EW, surveillance and PDS
will all have to be highly automatic. for a good SF example of a one-man
tank, see 'hardwired', Walter Jon Williams iirc. top stuff.

> 4) Outside 
> sensors are easily foxable or knocked askew or out of operation in the

> artillery barrage that precedes an attack or counter-attack.

the human eye is also vulnerable to a host of insults - smoke, laser
blinding, an unstable platform, darkness (the human eyeball can be
replaced by night-vision goggles, read using said eyeball) - all of
which
can be tolerated by well-designed electronics. remember that many of the
sensors won't even be on the tank, they'll be in RPVs hundreds of metres
up or klicks behind the battle, with the info downlinked by maser, or on
other elements on the battlefield, sidelinked by the battlefield data
net.

> The Human Eye 
> will still be the primary sensor of any human operated or human
moderated 
> system in the forseeable future

<rotfl/>

> - even when you turn the battle over to the 
> computer (al a Aegis system) their is human moderation of the event -
at 
> least as soon as the magazines are dry.

i think that saying the eye is a primary sensor because the commander is
looking at his tactical display with it is a bit much.

tom