Originally Posted by Jakain
You have to be kidding me if you think military robots won't require daily maintenance, and if you're not I would love to be schooled and read the source. Everything from the standard rifle to airborne drones require maintenance because of the very nature of military use and the low bidder contract wars. Why are you comparing military robots to a civilian car? Military vehicles do require daily maintenance especially in sandboxes like Iraq, and if you think you can drive a Nissan without mechanical problems in a war zone then godspeed
That robot infrastructure sounds expensive and even with optimal modular parts you're going to need specialized human maintenance workers for when things inevitably fail, along with their latrines. Human soldiers are still more versatile and likely cheaper and more effective than relying solely on heavy, clunky, and limited robots in the near future. But in reality both humans and robots be working together instead of replacing eachother like the robots in the OP or like Air Force drones. Sorry if the post sounds hostile
I still dont know why robots would need daily maintenance. You made that assertion first so you have to prove it. Some places will require more maintenance than others, but it is still going to be cheaper than medical technology, surgery, perscription drugs, food supplies, etc. I.E. all the other daily maintenance requirements that regular soldiers already have ten fold.
Regular tanks commonly take 3 day convoy trips in Afganistan and dont need any maintenance unless they are hit by an IED. Why do you think reliability is so poor? Stuff is designed for long term missions where going back to base for daily maintenance isnt always an options.
Also I don't know why robots need to be heavy, clunky, or limited. If anything robots will have superior endurance, they wont have psychological problems, they wont need boot camp for 6 months, they will have superior accuracy because of computer algorithms/metallic supports, they will be able to support larger armaments, they wont require water, and they will be able to go on suicide missions without a PR disaster. Robots will also be able to take more damage than a traditional soldier, since they have metal plating, and they will be able to accomplish night missions more effectively since they give off much fewer infrared rays. Robots also dont need to be paid. One soldier for one year cost $850,000 dollars. A robot would not cost anywhere near that price. Finally, a robot will be immune to biological warfare, and wont require vaccines. You might make the claim that robots could be hackable, but sufficient security and autonomy would make up for that in addition to the fact that anything, such as cruise missles/artilery/tanks/predator drones could be hacked just as easily.
The prevention of loss of human life is another huge factor on top of everything--the average person is worth around 5 million dollars and no more families need to be devastated.
Finally, robots could simply be printed using a battlefield 3D printer with the appropriate electronics, making armies replenish able. Either way, the cost of the robots will also decrease over time due to the rapid development of technology, making robots even more logical to use on the battlefield.
Edit: A machine could also be designed to remove modular components, test their inputs and outputs to see if broken, then replace it with a new module, effectively getting rid of any need for technicians.Edited by serp777 - 10/27/13 at 11:12pm