Military Review

Breaking Defense about American and Russian unmanned vehicles

37
Modern armed forces need unmanned systems of various classes, including those used on land. Various new projects are being developed in this area, some of which have already been brought to mass production and operation. The development of a promising direction continues and naturally turns out to be a cause for concern. In addition, these processes provoke the emergence of certain comparisons of technology from different countries.


The development of unmanned systems was devoted to a recent article in the American edition of Breaking Defense. 18 October, she published the material “Armed Robots: US Lags Rhetoric, Russia” by Sydney J. Friedberg, Jr. The author of this article attended a recent conference of the United States Army Association (AUSA) and carefully studied the state of the art in the field of unmanned vehicles. In addition, he made conclusions about the development of the submitted projects, as well as appreciated well-known foreign developments.

Breaking Defense about American and Russian unmanned vehicles


At the beginning of his article S.J. Friedberg recalls the numerous statements of the American military leadership in the context of unmanned systems. Warlords argue that artificial intelligence will change the face of war in the future. However, at the moment the development of ground-based unmanned systems looks much more modest than expected. Most of such equipment is not large and does not carry weapons. Moreover, the American complexes are inferior not only to hypothetical systems from the plans of the Pentagon, but also to real “tank-like” samples of the Russian development.

In 2017, the US Army spent 521 unmanned and robotic systems with a million dollars. 79% of such spending was used in the field of aircraft. The purchase of ground-based complexes took only 20,6 million - almost all of this money was intended for the purchase of engineering equipment. 91,4 million dollars were also allocated to the development work, and 40% of this amount also relates to developments in the field of combating explosive devices.

In preparing his article, the author of Breaking Defense talked with a specialist of the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) Samuel Bendett. During the exhibition, held at the AUSA-2017 conference, the analyst saw many unmanned systems of various kinds, but most of these developments are small, not equipped weapons and comes with a remote control. According to S. Bendetta, these are sappers, trucks, reconnaissance vehicles and other auxiliary samples, but not full-fledged combat robots.

The exhibition was attended by some samples of military purposes, however, as S. Bendett noted, they belong to light classes - their combat weight does not exceed several hundred pounds. The only exception to this (and even only partial) was a sample of Ukrainian development.

This specificity of the exhibition has disappointed the analyst. He would like to see new US developments in the category of heavy combat unmanned systems. For example, at last year’s Army Association conference, the remote-controlled mini-tank Armed Robotic Combat Vehicle from BAE Systems was presented. However, this project does not have unambiguous prospects. Armored ARCV was developed during the creation of the program Future Combat Systems and was originally called the Black Knight. The refusal of the FCS project had some negative consequences. In particular, S. Bendet could not name another ambitious project of a relatively large car, similar to the ARCV.

Meanwhile, Russian engineers are working in a number of areas and are creating new unmanned systems, including robotic systems the size of a tank. S. Bendett recalled that many of these machines are well armed. In addition, Russia constantly demonstrates such equipment at its exhibitions.

Paul Sharr, director of technology and security at Center for a New American Security, an analytical organization, also addresses Russian developments. According to him, Russia is building a whole "zoo" from a variety of unmanned systems, the largest of which are the dimensions of armored personnel carriers. As an example of the latter, P. Sharr mentioned the Uran-9 system with a combat weight of 11 tons and the 16-ton Whirlwind machine built on the basis of the BMP-3. The analyst also recalled that in the future, Russian specialists may create an unmanned version of the main tank T-14 “Armata” - and this despite the fact that its basic version is only preparing for mass production.

S.J. Friedberg believes that most Russian projects in the field of unmanned systems are, rather, an advertising gimmick, but not practically applicable developments. For example, during the exhibitions a humanoid robot FEDOR (Final Experimental Demonstration Object Research) is demonstrated, capable of simultaneously firing two pistols - one in each manipulator-arm. More realistic Russian-made vehicles are conventional armored vehicles equipped with remote control systems.

The author notes that these are not fully autonomous robots. Such complexes require human control using a separate communication channel - the same as in the case of the Predator UAV. Such models of equipment also need a crew, although in this case people should not be inside the equipment. A remotely controlled car can be attacked or paralyzed. If the enemy can crack the control system, he will be able to take control of the equipment. All this, according to the author of Breaking Defense, reduces the value of such a technique in the context of the fight against a highly developed opponent.

However, work is underway in the field of artificial intelligence. Russian experts have created an autonomous gun turret, suitable for installation on a variety of vehicle vehicles. However, according to S. Bendett, this product has serious problems with the identification of objects; offline, it hardly distinguishes its from others. With all this, Russian politicians often mention developments in the field of autonomous combat systems.

The representative of CNA believes that the Russian programs for the development of unmanned systems are now aimed primarily at creating autonomous complexes capable of performing certain actions when communication is lost with the operator’s console. However, the automatic execution of the attack is not yet the goal of such projects.

Difference of concepts

S.J. Friedberg asks an important question: who is leading in the field of land unmanned systems. P. Sharr found it difficult to answer whether Russia is ahead of the United States in the field of autonomously operating systems. However, he noted that the two countries are developing different concepts of such technology.

The author recalls that in war concepts are as important as technology. So, in the UK and France in the 1940, there were more tanks than in Germany, and besides, their equipment was distinguished by better armor and weapons. However, German troops used their equipment better and more intelligently. Germany had a long and difficult work on the formation of the so-called tactics. blitzkrieg She created new equipment, and also equipped her with communication tools to fully coordinate the maneuvers.

According to Paul Sharr, there is currently a situation in the field of unmanned vehicles that is similar to the position of tanks in the 1919 year. Then it was obvious that the tanks will have a great impact on the war of the future, but no one could say exactly how this can be achieved. Exactly the same now is the case with unmanned technology and robotic complexes.

P. Sharr believes that the US military is really thinking about the need for autonomous armed unmanned systems, but, for some reason, is not in a hurry with the development of this area. Even in the distant future it is planned to create only remotely controlled systems. At the same time, Russian generals openly talk about the desire to get fully autonomous machines.

An American expert found an explanation for such caution by the United States. He believes that one of the prerequisites for it is ethics. At a time when “the Russian army leveled Grozny with the ground and helped Assad’s“ barrel bombardment ”in Syria,” a whole generation of American soldiers grew up with strict observance of the rules of war. Robots simply can not take into account all the tactical and ethical nuances, as people do. In addition, artificial intelligence, having no program for a specific situation, can respond to it with stunning stupidity.



However, ethical issues may not be the only cause of the current state of affairs. P. Sharr fears that another problem is the banal lack of imagination in command. Are the generals so interested in new technologies, and do they really want to introduce them in the army? The analyst does not yet see signs of a necessary attitude to this area.

Caravan of mules and robotic trucks

In such a situation, the author asks a question: what does the US Army do? During the AUSA-2017, visitors were attracted by the S-MET (Squad Maneuver Equipment Transport) program. The required unmanned vehicle should be a mechanical "mule" capable of accompanying the infantry, carrying its weapons, ammunition, provisions and other heavy loads. To date, several prototypes of technology have been presented with this capability: an autonomous lightweight buggy, a small device with a fairly large cargo hold, etc.

The S-MET program was launched in April last year, and was joined by eight software companies. This fall, eight prototypes were tested in the mountains and in swamps, after which four of the most successful samples were selected. Next year they will go to army units for operational tests.

Brigadier General David Komar, who occupies one of the leading positions in the Army Capabilities Integration Center, told Breaking Defense about the essence of the new program. According to him, S-MET products should not lead to revolutionary changes in the work of the ground forces, but they should be made easier. At the same time, the army wants the capabilities of the technology to match the capabilities of the people and not impose restrictions on the actions of the units.

D. Komar also noted that a number of necessary technologies are already being used in the civilian sector, but not all the necessary ideas are present there. The fact is that commercial unmanned systems do not need to reduce noise, capable of giving out their location, and in addition, they usually do not move over very rough terrain.

The author recalls that the operation of unmanned vehicles has so far led to ambiguous conclusions. S. Bendett notes that small-sized equipment requires special attention from the soldiers, even in the absence of impact from the enemy. The overturned machine will not be able to return to its normal position on its own. People can pass on different surfaces and landscapes, including extremely difficult for small-sized equipment. If the robot gets stuck or gets damaged, then people will have to throw an expensive product, or start a “rescue operation”, which takes time and effort. Similar problems are present in all new projects, and their developers must find some solution.

General D. Komar spoke about the largest US ground vehicle equipped with automated systems. This year, the LFAGR (Leader-Follower Automated Ground Resupply) multipurpose vehicle is being tested. Such a project provides for the refinement of cars HEMTT-PLS by installing special equipment. LFAGR trucks are supposed to be convoys headed by a car and crew. Automation will follow the "leader" and move after him. Already in October, a demonstration of this complex should take place.

According to the general, a system with a leader and slave machines is valuable even by itself. It allows you to perform existing tasks with minimal risk for personnel. In addition, the LFAGR project lays the foundation for various new developments. It should lead to the emergence of new technologies that will further help in the creation of autonomous technology with the ability to move through complex landscapes, including as part of tactical formations.

S.J. Friedberg asked the brigadier General D. Komar of the creation of armed unmanned ground complexes. The representative of the military, thinking for a while, said that the Pentagon is considering this possibility. However, his answer was left without any specifics and without information about promising projects.

At the end of his article “Armed Robots: US Lags Rhetoric, Russia” Sydney J. Friedberg Jr. quotes General D. Komar, who commented on the main points of current and future programs. Whatever changes are made to the projects, whatever opportunities are put into the equipment and, ultimately, into the defense doctrine - the Ministry of Defense does not intend to remove the operator from the control systems of armed equipment. The final decision on the use of weapons will remain with the person.


Article "Armed Robots: US Lags Rhetoric, Russia":
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/armed-robots-us-lags-rhetoric-russia/
Author:
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. chidoryan
    chidoryan 27 October 2017 08: 40
    +2
    "The analyst also recalled that in the future, Russian experts can create an unmanned version of the main tank T-14 Armata - and this despite the fact that its basic version is only preparing for serial production."

    and also flying, yeah
    1. 210ox
      210ox 27 October 2017 09: 00
      +2
      Yeah. Leah beginning-beginning .. And there .. Eyes are afraid, and hands do
      Quote: chidoryan
      "The analyst also recalled that in the future, Russian experts can create an unmanned version of the main tank T-14 Armata - and this despite the fact that its basic version is only preparing for serial production."

      and also flying, yeah
    2. viktorch
      viktorch 27 October 2017 11: 55
      +5
      I think you need to immediately insert anti-gravity, so for sure

      I don’t understand how a country that doesn’t have a production of high-performance calculating electronics is going to design automatic systems with advanced analytics?

      among the mega-hats from the General Staff there is at least one who really understands what tasks need to be solved to create an automatic tank? not a drone with remote control, but an independent unit.
      1. cariperpaint
        cariperpaint 27 October 2017 12: 11
        +1
        Well, you can design and on other people's hardware. it's harder to build
      2. ALEXXX1983
        ALEXXX1983 27 October 2017 13: 30
        0
        Well, some part of the Russian military computer hardware is not bad (though the technological process is a bit big), and the rest will be purchased abroad (for example, all optics on Armata are German).
        1. viktorch
          viktorch 27 October 2017 13: 46
          +2
          it’s not that it’s not bad for the tasks that are now, the fact is that an automatic tank, in other words an autonomous drone, is generally prohibitive, electronic brains to which you can stick at the moment unless in the form of a cloud of servers dash where, full autonomy now it an outrageous task, so I wonder where in Russia they produce such super-electronics.

          ps we are talking about conventional radio-controlled drones. most likely, but about autonomy - P and P.
          1. Mih1974
            Mih1974 27 October 2017 20: 44
            +2
            Why are you driving us around here? You do not know anything about the algorithms necessary for the full automation of the “armata”, and without this, it is unrealistic to make at least some assumptions about the required estimated resources !!
            1. viktorch
              viktorch 28 October 2017 10: 48
              0
              yeah, yeah, I don’t know about specifically about the military and armature, but you know it seems, tell me don’t be shy
              What super-algorithms can be applied in the civilian sector?
          2. ZVO
            ZVO 30 October 2017 19: 50
            0
            Quote: viktorch
            it’s not that it’s not bad for the tasks that are now, the fact is that an automatic tank, or an autonomous drone, is generally an extraordinary weight.


            Well, actually look for DARPA contests for independent movement of equipment over rough terrain - and this is already 90% of autonomy.
            These competitions have been held for 10-15 years. And now very good results.
            For student-builders. Although there are not always students there ...

            the remaining 10% are algorithms for choosing a target, striking. protection - have long been worked out and partially implemented in automatic mode in some existing samples of military equipment.
            And by the way, there are very few "brains" there ...
            1. viktorch
              viktorch 31 October 2017 10: 06
              0
              only one
              90% is the autopilot mule probably? 10% some suspicious target selection algorithm, from what?
              and all
              profit, skynet battle robot created

              Do not want to develop your idea in the form of an article?
              1. ZVO
                ZVO 31 October 2017 12: 04
                0
                Quote: viktorch
                only one
                90% is the autopilot mule probably? 10% some suspicious target selection algorithm, from what?


                If you do not know what the DARPA Grand Challenge is, then you do not know. where did it all come from. And what results were 10 years ago and where they went then ...
                1. viktorch
                  viktorch 31 October 2017 12: 59
                  0
                  don’t merge, answer in a detailed way since you are so smart and well-read, you can even copy-paste from darpa reports, although what relation do the controlled robots from darpa projects have to automatic combat systems, the question is, but you’ll light it up, let's.
                  1. karabas-barabas
                    karabas-barabas 31 October 2017 19: 58
                    0
                    You are right that many robots call drones, such as Atom9, in which nothing seems to be robotized at all, everything is controlled by operators. As soon as we have learned to ride autonomously on smooth roads, it will take another 10 years to perform reliability tests and grinding, but how at the moment the machine should operate autonomously across the intersection, it really has a lot of work so far, because the only ones who can are mules and humanoids like Pac-men also operate on calculations with measured feet at a step, (angle, position, etc. ..) the wheel-caterpillar equipment will have a different hemorrhage, a powerful sensor will be needed. Of course, DAPRA is 20 years ahead of all others and it only takes children's steps, and where is the Russian Federation now in this area, especially without the best suppliers of elements needed for practical development, initiators, etc. crap, preferably from Siemens or Bosch .., well, them not much in the market and Russia access is closed.

                    P.S. Almost all DAPPA developments are commissioned and funded by the Pentagon. It is Pakman that is being developed for the US Army, when as an Atlas for all kinds of disasters.
                  2. ZVO
                    ZVO 1 November 2017 19: 37
                    0
                    Quote: viktorch
                    don’t merge, answer in a detailed way since you are so smart and well-read, you can even copy-paste from darpa reports, although what relation do the controlled robots from darpa projects have to automatic combat systems, the question is, but you’ll light it up, let's.


                    Hey, you would have learned some materiel ...
                    wise guy .. shallow ...
                    where did you find managed robots in Darpa Challenge?
                    You read about these pieces of iron ...

                    The start and end points are set there.
                    That's all.
                    entire route - the system selects on its own. based only on optical, laser systems.
                    No external control.
                    Wise guy, yeah. merged ... you don’t understand what you are writing about. decad.

                    1. viktorch
                      viktorch 1 November 2017 19: 59
                      0
                      yeah, a bot with a simple autopilot = autonomous, do not carry nonsense.
                      autopilot - 90% of the problems of an autonomous combat drone - solved, in your opinion,
                      it’s strange why then still manned aircraft exist.

                      in short, you don’t understand anything at all on the topic, read a couple of articles on darp program toys and imagined yourself a great and terrible expert, no less great and terrible than dudes carrying nonsense in an interview.

                      in general, you can run to Moscow Region, offer your mighty intellect and boundless knowledge to create Russian terminators.
        2. karabas-barabas
          karabas-barabas 31 October 2017 19: 47
          0
          Quote: ALEXXX1983
          and the rest will be purchased abroad (for example, all optics on Armata are German).

          Quote: ALEXXX1983
          and the rest will be purchased abroad (for example, all optics on Armata are German).

          So, in this, respected, the whole problem lies with the completion of a bunch of projects, from simulators for the coats of MBT crews, up to armor of panels-materials, matrixes for TCEs and a bunch of other UVZ received from specific Germans and French, Nexter and Reinmetall KMW. Cooperation, of course, is unthinkable after 2014, now Chinese or your own ...
      3. Uryukc
        Uryukc 27 October 2017 17: 52
        +2
        Quote: viktorch
        among the mega-hats from the General Staff there is at least one really understanding

        Yeah, where is it to them, to the height of the flight of your thoughts ..
    3. Yarhann
      Yarhann 2 November 2017 00: 38
      0
      and what is the problem of creating an unmanned system with a fully automated fire control system, a loading system and an automated target search system in the thermal and radio frequency spectrum. Put the onboard computer powerfully calculated by computing power for independent movement of the machine and carry out combat missions along the specified route and load into the machine’s memory thermal and radio signatures of targets. Nothing special is the exact same automation that is in the UR - it's just that all the systems will be on board the tank.
      And those experts who write about high-performance computing systems here are generally far from programming and process automation. 40k years ago, missiles flew with onboard computers and GSNs and searched for and select targets themselves and computers were far from ideal and now quite a lot onboard computers for a rocket is not a question at all but for a tank and even more so considering that there is no need to save on weight and size.
      To send a complete robot is not a question - it is much easier than making a car with remote control over the radio channel - since it is necessary to ensure the continuity of the communication channel and at the same time partial robotization of the machine due to the fact that the connection will disappear like you might.
      And those guys who believe that heaps of servers are needed to automate the tank - you guys have cotton wool in Bosko - write such a bright nonsense. You still say that you need to create software on Windows)))) to automate the tank - what a game))) experts on automation and programming)))
  2. Mestny
    Mestny 27 October 2017 12: 47
    +2
    Quote: viktorch
    I don’t understand how a country that doesn’t have a production of high-performance calculating electronics is going to design automatic systems with advanced analytics?

    among the mega-hats from the General Staff there is at least one who really understands what tasks need to be solved to create an automatic tank? not a drone with remote control, but an independent unit.

    Yes, to one.
    Because people who have at least some relation to these same “analytical systems with advanced analytics” understand something completely different, and they are successfully doing this. I answer.
    Both among the "megalos" and among normal specialists there are many who really understand the necessary tasks. Moreover, here is a surprise for sofa meshes - most of them.
    1. viktorch
      viktorch 27 October 2017 13: 35
      +1
      do not highlight personalities, preferably with a proof of publication of works in a subject area, I want to admire the geniuses of the Russian land,

      ps I am faced with working with titans of video analytics, for some reason they are not in Russia.
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 30 October 2017 19: 52
        0
        Quote: viktorch

        ps I am faced with working with titans of video analytics, for some reason they are not in Russia.



        And now it was a shame ... -)
        As far as I understand, the superiority of the Russian school of recognition of living images and faces - no one can shake the last 3-5 years ...
        1. viktorch
          viktorch 31 October 2017 09: 56
          0
          hint at intelligence and others like him?
          Well, in principle, yes, here I agree, internationally and for less money, but with regard to the topic of discussion - the issue of iron is more important.
  3. san4es
    san4es 27 October 2017 13: 18
    +2
    The required unmanned vehicle must be a mechanical “mule” capable of accompanying infantry carrying its weapons, ammunition, provisions and other heavy loads.

  4. Wolka
    Wolka 27 October 2017 16: 22
    0
    the working equipment on the battlefield is good, but it has its own niche, and the main thing here is not to mix it up, where is the price and tactical expediency of use, otherwise everything will turn out like a Yankee with F-35 ...
    1. karabas-barabas
      karabas-barabas 31 October 2017 20: 10
      0
      If it works out like the F-35, then the Africans will again have a child prodigy, which will give them an advantage for 15-20 years again. Now everyone wants light and inconspicuous multi-functional aircraft, and only not many are developing - these are the Chinese, Japanese, French and Swedes, their 4 generations are pumping elements and materials that significantly reduce EPR. The Russian Federation is still working on a heavy fifth-generation aircraft, it’s still far from easy, even there are no hints.
  5. erofich
    erofich 27 October 2017 16: 29
    0
    Yeah, with strict adherence to the rules of the war - air bombs on residents - that means good!
  6. Uryukc
    Uryukc 27 October 2017 18: 00
    0
    At a time when “the Russian army was leveling the ground with Grozny and helping Assad’s“ barrel bombing ”in Syria, a whole generation of American soldiers grew up with strict observance of the rules of war

    Yeah, that's right, ethics in the USA is the most important thing)))

    1. karabas-barabas
      karabas-barabas 31 October 2017 20: 29
      0
      Remind about Chechnya? According to official figures of the deceased civilians, more than 80 of the Mio, Chechens talk about 000, all who are seriously involved in this topic talk about 300 of them several tens of thousands of children. Photos and videos, despite the fact that then the mobile was not even, not to mention smartphones, is full on the internet. I know an eyewitness who was one of the first in Samashki after they arranged for the Vovans there. ISIS nervously smokes aside what they did there ... This is only one episode. During the storming of Grozny, only 000 Russians died, mainly from artillery, aircraft and missiles .. Abu Graib is a disgrace, of course, but the Americans investigated it and the warders received more time ... but the truth is that Rumsfeld should sit with them .. But for the lawlessness over civilians in Chechnya on the part of representatives of the Russian army, Ulman and Budanov boarded tens of thousands of crimes, none of the command. But what if there was no one sentenced for betrayal, for which it is necessary to kill, then what unfortunate chichi are there ... After all, weapons, BC, routes, conscripts, etc. were only sold to militants in this way, all the same in oil. So before rummaging through Pindo’s underpants, looking for specks there and shouting waving these underpants overhead, it would be nice to clean the stables at your place, not to throw it off for the next generations, hoping that they say they will forget it anyway ..
      1. cost 75
        cost 75 2 November 2017 08: 31
        0
        Remind about Iraq. How many died there?
        1. cost 75
          cost 75 2 November 2017 08: 36
          0
          So how many people died from democratic bombs in Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Iraq?
          1. karabas-barabas
            karabas-barabas 7 November 2017 05: 39
            0
            Come on, tell me. Compare. How many where did someone dunk. You learn the real numbers, then you will understand what and who acted like that. In Iraq, how much, under 200 thousand? But it’s only the Shiites with the Sunnis who sausages each other. Namely from the Americans if civilians died, this is a couple% of the total over 10 years. Yugoslavia is generally ridiculous, there the civilian population was virtually unaffected by NATO / USA, in contrast to the Bosnians, who are more than 100000 killed only with the support of Milosevic. Chechnya and Chechens, who were directly nightmarized by Russian troops, the territory of Russia and Russian citizens, who are only 25% killed under XNUMX%! Once again, before the moralist writhes, they say look at what American punishers do not interfere with their crimes.
  7. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 27 October 2017 22: 44
    +2
    He believes that one of the prerequisites for it is ethics. At a time when “the Russian army was leveling the ground with Grozny and helping Assad’s“ barrel bombing ”in Syria, a whole generation of American soldiers grew up with strict adherence to the rules of the war.

    I can’t laugh, author still
    1. Okolotochny
      Okolotochny 28 October 2017 21: 30
      +5
      Have they ever been Grozny? Further along Lavrov - DB
      1. karabas-barabas
        karabas-barabas 31 October 2017 21: 24
        0
        What does "modern Grozny" have to do with it? In the course how many died and became disabled? Apart from a thousand lives, mostly conscripts? The fact that they built the Grozny is certainly good .., but only for the allocated money, 3 of such Grozny could be built. People with disabilities who have lost family members may need Grozny City? Or Kadyrov’s motorcades of Royls-Royces and Gelikov and his other amusements for hundreds of myo $? I’m aware that Russia was the leader in the number of refugees in Germany until the fall of 2015, until refugees from Syria surged, Russia with about 15 people a year led in front of Syria and Afghanistan, 000 and 14 thousand, although there seems to be no war in Russia for the last 13 years . So the bulk of the refugees are Chechens, even they don’t see the state bill, but they’re tired of admiring the marble facades in the center.
  8. misti1973
    misti1973 27 October 2017 22: 53
    0
    They are there these zhurnalyugi live in another reality? Do we really have algorithms on which AI can work?
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 28 October 2017 02: 20
      -1
      So it ... And he generally even works on algorithms for EI ... Or, if you like, on models by combining them. At least for the majority. laughing
    2. viktorch
      viktorch 31 October 2017 16: 40
      0
      it’s not a matter of fact, the thing is that everything is confused between a controlled drone and an autonomous one, it’s like an automated system and an automatic system - the words are similar, but in essence the difference is fundamental.
      creating a fully automatic drone is not a problem, it is by no means autonomous, if it does not depend on a person, it will depend on external servers, which will lose the whole point of such work,
      The autopilot for ground-based drones in the themes of darp has been created more than once, only it is far from complete independence as far as the Chinese tyconauts from Mars.
      reliable automatic target detection and recognition systems for ground vehicles can theoretically be created - but here it all comes down to an absolutely stubborn analysis of information received from sensors, the quality of information received for analysis of a ground drone is an order of magnitude worse than for a flying one, respectively, a hardware-software complex is needed next to which worthy of the Nobel iron and f35 nervously smokes on the sidelines, in such an autonomous machine such a complex is not currently crammed.
      the algorithms by which the machine will respond to the threat - simply, only if it is a naughty noise in any suspicious heat spot or reflected on the radar signal or all together.
      to force the equipment to seek shelter and competently move between them, well, the task "head on" is basically solved, but again it will require a huge calculation of the environment, for external servers it can be solved, for an autonomous system there.