"Both Unmanned Surface Vessels (USV) and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) have been identified by the Department of Homeland Security as a welcome layer of protection for ports and harbors. But insufficient attention has been paid to the potential for attacks by similar unmanned systems that could be built cheaply to easily penetrate port defenses. So says Dr. Mark Patterson, director of Autonomous Systems Laboratory at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science [shown].
Patterson focused on the threat of DIY maritime unmanned vehicles in a morning presentation at day two of the AUVSI 2011 Symposium at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C. He says that sites like diydrones.com and robot competitions show that very sophisticated platforms can be built with limited resources.
“The bad robots are coming," said Patterson. "It’s the logical outgrowth of what you can buy off the shelf.” And it is made more likely by the rapid development of subsystems that can be used to build unmanned vehicles, he said."
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
@Geoffrey - Bingo.
One way to secure federal funding for research is to play the fear card. It's a transparent act, but it does work.
Dr. Patterson does have a point, though: the emerging field of low cost autonomy does have its dark side, and this should be studied in a rational manner to develop countermeasures.
Did this guy forget the USS Cole...did not need robots just a lot of explosives and "autopilots" willing to go to the big dev null in the sky (sorry for the mixed hardware / software metaphor).
Yes, he is absolutely right, "very sophisticated platforms can be built with limited resources". They are also very limited in capability(and very small). You could probably build an 8000 lb. submersible to take out an ACC and run it with a few Arduinos and various sensors. You would also need to build the hardware for carrying lots of bad stuff for long distances and high speeds. This is where your limited resources just don't cut it. Gee, I can build this honkin auto sub that cost a few mill and I will run it from an Ardupilot. This guy is going for some DARPA money or what ever.
Van's and small trucks are more of a cargo capable explosive container.
Why would one try to plan such? I have no idea.
History makers?
The correct spelling is Epiphany.
Fear sells.
You can drive a car through a shop window, or use it to hit a group of pedestrians. You could even park one outside a building and fill it full of explosives. That doesn't mean we should fear cars. In my opinion, cars are far more dangerous and effective at executing terrorist activities than a UAS turned bad. The maximum payload of a DIY UAS is measured in fractions of kgs or for larger ones maybe only a few kgs. You can load a car or van with hundreds of kilos of payload.
Also, a manned aircraft is always going to be more effective at terrorist activities than a low cost unmanned one, simply because it has a much higher potential payload.
A UAS seems more dangerous as they can be covert, but a car parked on a hill can be just as covert and has a loiter time measured in days not minutes.
I am confused about the bad robot?
Robots save many from repeated motions today as well as a hand or foot being in the wrong place at productive time to a rate that many companies want.
Possibly a epiphani of some sort needs to be discovered?
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next