Talk:Foster-Miller TALON

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foster-Miller TALON is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, an attempt to standardise coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

All comments moved here from redirected pages -- Shimirel (Talk) 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Dimensions

What are the dimensions? Width, length, height

Good question you can find the info on http://www.foster-miller.com/literature/documents/TALONBrochure.pdf
Vehicle Dimensions
Height (arm stowed): 11 in. (27.9 cm)
Height (arm extended): 52 in. (1.3m)
Width: 22.5 in. (57.2 cm)
Length: 34 in. (86.4 cm)
Horizontal reach: 52 in. (1.3m)
Below grade reach: 24 in. (0.6m)
Ground clearance: 2.75 in. (7 cm)
Deployable mast height from ground 40 in. (1m)
Hope that helps! -- Shimirel (Talk) 10:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Isn't the image a SWORD, and isn't that different from a TALON (slightly modified)? If not, then shouldn't the SWORDS page have a different picture? Or are they similar enough? Blah. --Karch 03:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes your right of course its the weapon carrying version of the Talon in the pictures. The picture says that now. -- Shimirel (Talk) 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prices

"In comparison to train a US soldier to a basic level of expertise with OSUT or AIT would cost $50,000 to $100,000[2]. To train them for positions in Armor or Cavalry would cost approximately $100,000 to $200,000[3]." -Answers.com figures? -Not accurate in any sense of the word. How are these figures being calculated? A dartboard guess by someone who thinks they know? Or actual costs associated with the recruitment, evaluation, accession, inprocessing, issuing, administration, training, maintenance of facilities and equipment, barracks ... beans ... bullets ... bandages, pay ... allowances, etc, etc, etc ...? The answer 4 is cited, the 2 + 2 = is not.

Who takes years to get to operational status? An infantry Soldier can be trained and operational in as little as 14 weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.251.162 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"The current price of one unit is $230,000, but when it enters mass production the price is expected to drop to between $150,000 and $180,000. Even in cold economic terms, the SWORD is still cheaper to destroy than a soldier, who takes years and approx. $50,000 USD to get to operational status."

What the darn? $150,000 is clearly not cheaper than $50,000. - 69.232.168.198 09:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes its obviously a serious mistake if you can train a soldier even to private level for $50,000 US then I would be very surprised. I must confess I don't know how much it would be here in the UK or in the states but I don't think for one second its that low. You have the lodgings, food, wages, and then the training itself. I think its correct the robot would be cheaper but can't really back that statement up with anything concrete. -- Shimirel (Talk) 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the values I've managed to dig up on [1] so hopefully will be some what accurate. -- Shimirel (Talk) 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] last paragraph

Sorry, but the last paragraph is hilarious. "On the firing range, these two-foot little high robots are lethal" ?? Whow, they shoot living beings as targets on firing ranges ? But anyway, this is not the point, right, since the shooting range is clearly the most accurate and appropriate way to evaluate the quality of a weapon system, especially a robot ! Come on !

And "the SWORDS are the snipers motto, "one shot, one kill""... Can't it be made slightly less like a builder's advertising prospectus ?

I won't even mention the fact that we are talking about a waepon system, designed to kill living people, who would typically deserve more respect than the price for their burial or the comparison with paper targets on a shooting range... Rama 14:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

lmao you do have a point it does come off very odd, though I don't think for one second its builders would describe it that way. Must redo it but I'm a bit stumped at the second of a good way to reword it. -- Shimirel (Talk) 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Description

"The SWORDS system allows soldiers to fire small arms weapons by remote control from as far as 1,000 meters away" This says small arms would you describe the M202-A1 or M2 machine gun has small arms? I would take it stright out but it seems to me it depends on a POV of what a small arms is. Just wondering if you think it should be changed to "to fire weapons by remote". -- Shimirel (Talk) 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That .50...

Is it a Barret semiauto or is it an M2HB?

Its a Barrett .50 cal M2 Browning machine gun (m2hb) at least thats what the article says I can't recall where that comes from but my guess is if you dig around the foster-miller site it will confirm that. -- Shimirel (Talk) 10:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising-like Writing

This page is written in ad copy-like prose. I'm going to change it to be a little less over enthusiastic. I have a feeling some PR men for the company got to this article. -Danspalding 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shoots back

How do you prevent an armed remote-control robot from being hacked and turned against you? A farm guy from Utah turned GI Joe is much harder to brainwash into an islamic fanatical warrior compared to a few lines of PHP script needed for a robot to change sides. Effectively the enemy can now gain an upper hand by learning expert computer hacking instead of spending billions on arms to countr US military might. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Department of Defense

I've heard from a few different places (places that aren't really reference quality) that this is the first robot the Department of Defense granted the license to kill. Is this true or just anti-american/conspiracy bs?Sigtauiota 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not autonomous, it's just a remote-controlled gun mount, so it's not granted to make a decision to kill if that's what you mean. As for being the first, it depends on what you call a robot. Is the Phalanx CIWS a robot? It can actually ID and shoot targets automatically when turned loose. The Predator aerial drone has reportedly fired missiles over Afghanistan, whereas this TALON article only mentions service in Iraq. --Howdybob 07:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's not as simple as I hoped. Thanks for clearing that up, there's no need for a blurb in the article then.Sigtauiota 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User experience?

How well (or not) can the user sense the environment through the remote control? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hukkinen (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Extremely poorly. Here is an eye-witness account about the many problems crew experience:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=520198&cid=23047528 91.83.0.204 (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe bug

Regular (IED/OED) TALON: Carries sensors and a robotic manipulator... Shouldnt it be EOD instead OED up there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.135.230.208 (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plug pulled on SWORD

The SWORDS was pulled from Iraq before it could fire a single shot in anger, because in some cases it swinged the on-board machine gun in the wrong direction without any commands and the soldiers had to duck like crazy. General says possibly ten years needed before US Army lets robots in the battlefield once more.

Here is the write-up: http://gizmodo.com/378523/combat-robot-attempts-rebellion-against-human-masters-in-iraq-army-pulls-plug-for-10+20-years

Me thinks japanese catgirl androids would fare much better, or at least they are more pleasing to look at with their miniskirts ... 91.83.0.204 (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)