Talk:Foster-Miller TALON

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dimensions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  This is the values I've managed to dig up on  so hopefully will be some what accurate. -- Shimirel (Talk) 20:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prices 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  last paragraph 

message: "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)
replies: text: Small Arms was wiki-linked at some point. That page explains the terminology. Briefly, it refers to a weapon that can be carried by infantry. [I realize I'm answering an ancient objection, and am just answering for the benefit of new readers.] -- SpareSimian (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Description 

message: 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)
thread_title:  That .50... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Advertising-like Writing

message: 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)
replies: text: This system is fly-by-wire. To hack it, you'd need to cut the wire and plug in your own controller. And the wire isn't that long. Cutting it will give away your position, allowing the squad of soldiers operating the system to kill you without the location aid of their robot. -- SpareSimian (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoots back 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Department of Defense

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  User experience? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maybe bug 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plug pulled on SWORD 

message: This Israeli site: [Haaretz] claims that With self-detonating grenades, thinking bullets and robot warriors, humans on the frontline could soon be a thing of the past.Agre22 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel's military avatar: Robots on the battlefield

message: I propose that Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System be merged into Foster-Miller TALON, as it is identified as a subdivision of the TALON program and/or its logical successor. The MAARS article is a stub and would do well as a section on this page, just as SWORDS does. Bronsonboy HQ 13:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/civil/foster_miller/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Foster-Miller TALON. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060311211055/http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/civil/foster_miller/ to http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/civil/foster_miller/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foster-Miller TALON. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060311211055/http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/civil/foster_miller/ to http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/civil/foster_miller/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Foster-Miller TALON. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205083139/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4252643.html?page=2 to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4252643.html?page=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to a TEDx talk in Hamburg (on AI will kill us), at a demonstration, one of these started panned at the assembled observers but was talked and turned on its side by a marine. Is this true?  37.99.42.146 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has there been a malfunction?