Military Review

Fighting robot for war: draft outline

62
Modern development of combat robots, both domestic and foreign, can be criticized for a long time, they have enough flaws. The main thing, in my opinion, is that now these developments are being made to a greater extent for demonstration purposes, in order to demonstrate the very possibility of creating this type of machines. And indeed, many samples then travel for years from exhibition to exhibition. An exhibition sample is inevitably created in haste, sometimes in the hope of a future order, sometimes in order to show that our defense corporations are no worse than those of a likely foe. That is why it is not thought out, it has many vulnerabilities, and in combat it is suitable well, if partly.


Fighting robot for war: draft outline


Uranus-9 is a good machine, armed with an 30-mm 2-42 cannon, which is closest to the option proposed below, but at the same time retaining all the flaws of exhibition combat robots.

Why not immediately think and create a model of a combat robot that immediately, without any reservations, will be suitable for war? The hastily baked exhibition samples to some extent disorient the command, which is compelled to choose from models obviously unsuitable for combat conditions, when the enemy will beat them out of everything that he has. Hence the well-known coldness of the army to the existing models of combat robots. Now, if there was such a sample, which at first glance would be a fighting machine, then, perhaps, with the order would not rust.

Since the situation in the world is clearly heating up, then, in my opinion, it is advisable to offer some sketches to the draft of the combat robot just for war.

Although I am most inclined towards automatic combat drums, capable of operating mostly autonomously, nevertheless, I think that the creation of a robot within the framework of the established concept of a machine for directly supporting infantry is quite reasonable. Within the framework of this concept, the combat robot found, with closer analysis, an unusually many goals and objectives.

It is better to put a piece of metal under fire

Since the basic requirements for a combat vehicle are determined by the likely tactics of its use, you need to carefully look at what the combat robot will do.

It is usually considered that the robot must be a mobile platform - carrier weapons (usually large-caliber machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, various kinds of guided missiles), the main task of which is to fire, supporting infantry, for example, in attack, in the assault on fortified positions. However, the existing types of robots are, firstly, weakly armed for such a purpose, and, secondly, they duplicate existing military equipment (for example, armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles, which have approximately the same set of weapons and the 30-mm automatic gun that robots have not). In addition, the tank with its gun is an incomparably more compelling argument in the fire support of the infantry than the "machine gun with a motor." One can hardly hope that relatively light combat robots will receive powerful artillery weapons and will be able to replace Tanks or self-propelled guns. A launcher for rockets can be installed on a robot, but this is already the path to an autonomous shock robot, since it is clear that such a robot will not be able to operate with infantry; with each shot, the infantry will be forced to scatter and take cover from a powerful jet of jet gases.

Dead end? Not really. For a small, armored and unmanned car there is an important tactical task, the implementation of which will help to change the outcome of the battle. This task is to collect enemy fire on itself, to help identify its firing points and, partially, as far as the capabilities of the machine suffice, to suppress them. The rest is achieved by other firing means. Thus, the main tactical task of a combat infantry support robot is reconnaissance in force.

There is no need to prove that any reconnaissance in force, for all its necessity, is a very unpleasant type of battle, with high risks and losses. For this task, the best fighters stand out, the losses of which are killed or wounded are very sensitive to any unit. It is better and more expedient to substitute a self-propelled piece of iron for people instead of people.

Hence, three basic requirements for a combat robot of this type. The first is compactness and good booking. The second is sufficient firepower. The third is a developed system of observation, reconnaissance and communication devices.

The height is just over a meter.

Armored vehicles are usually designed to put the crew in them. For example, the average booking capacity for a single crew member is 2,5 cube. meters. This leads to a large amount of armor, a rather large machine size, and a large area and thickness of armor make the armored car rather heavy.

Since there is no crew in the combat robot, its entire reserve capacity can be squeezed to the very minimum protecting the engine, fuel tanks and batteries, weapons, on-board computer, radio station, instruments. Of these, the weapons together with the ammunition will be installed mainly outside the body, electronic equipment and devices do not take up much space, so approximately 3 cube. it is quite enough meters of zabronevy volume to squeeze in it the diesel, a stock of fuel, accumulators and all other necessary equipment.

In accordance with these estimates, the size of the armored hull is quite compact: 3,5 meters in length, 0,8 meters in height and about 1 meters in width. When booking area in 17,7 square. meters and armor thickness in 30 mm, the weight of the armor is obtained 4,5 tons. Along with everything else, the total weight of the machine can be put in 7-7,5 tons. Booking, of course, does not necessarily make such a thick everywhere. It is possible to reduce the thickness of the reservation of the bottom and roof, as well as the stern sheet, but at the same time bring the thickness of the front sheet and side sheets (which will be fired most often) to 60-70 mm. Differentiated booking will make the combat robot a very tough nut to crack.

It is most expedient to make a robot with maximum use of parts and assemblies from existing combat equipment. Firstly, it will significantly simplify the production of combat vehicles. Secondly, it will simplify maintenance and especially repair of combat robots, which they will need very often. Therefore, in my assumptions I was guided by those nodes that are already used in military equipment.

The engine is, of course, diesel, for example, UTD-20С from BPM-2 or KAMAZ-7403 from BTR-80. These engines are quite compact in size, but at the same time they have a lot of power, which will make the combat robot, whose weight will be about half of the weight of the BTR-80, fast and mobile.

The running gear of the robot must, of course, be wheeled. The wheel suspension is simpler and more reliable than the tracks, the wheeled vehicle is more difficult to immobilize compared to the track, and the wheel is more stable when it explodes on a mine. The wheel with the suspension can also be taken from the BTR-80. In determining the size of the combat robot, I proceeded from the fact that its wheel formula would be 6х6, that is, three wheels for each board. Wheel diameter - 1115 mm, clearance 475 mm. With a height of an armored hull of the order of 800 mm, it will rise above the wheel just 160 mm - 16 centimeters, or so. Total from the ground to the roof about 130 cm in height.


The red lines mark the approximate dimensions of the armored combat robot in comparison with the BTR-80.

In such a low and flat machine, the enemy will be very difficult to get. A small target projection area in combination with a good reservation will make it invulnerable to large-caliber machine guns. Theoretically, a robot can be destroyed by shooting from an RPG, but it will take a very good shot to achieve hitting and hitting even a standing machine. In addition, the side, except for armor, also protected by wheels.

30-mm gun and lift combat module

In my opinion, a machine gun is too weak a weapon for a combat robot. It is best to focus on the 30-mm automatic gun 2А72 (it has the same ammunition for the gun 2А42, but the recoil when fired is smaller, and therefore it can be put on lightly armored cars). Guns of this type are relatively light and compact. The weight of the gun itself - 115 kg, weight of ammunition from 500 shots - 400 kg. For the Mi-28 helicopter a turret for the 2А42 cannon was developed, which can be taken as a basis for the turret of a combat robot cannon. The height of the turret is about 30 cm.


2A42 gun on aviation turrets. It is not at all necessary to make a large tower for it, as on Uranus-9.


This gun is surprisingly compact and lightweight. Just what you need to arm combat robots. In addition to the gun, I think it is advisable to add AGS-30, the weight of which is just 16 kg, and also 13,7 kg - a box for 30 shots.

The very compact size and relatively small weight of the gun and the grenade launcher make it possible to place them in one combat module, paired. This module is a very important part of the whole machine, on which all the combat capabilities of the robot depend. Since the height of the machine is small, it is advisable to make the module lifting. In this case, the robot has the opportunity to fire from shelters: trenches, walls, earthworks. The module is best done in the form of "glass" of armor steel, which rises up with a hydraulic drive. Inside the "glass" mounted rotary device and placed ammunition for the 30-mm gun. The gun itself and the grenade launcher paired with it on the rotary turret are mounted above the upper edge of the “glass” and protected by an armored guard (or a small turret). Thus, the "glass" is stationary, and the turret can be rotated, providing circular fire. An armored "glass" is needed so that in the raised state of the module, the shelling of the enemy could not hit the turret mechanisms and the ammunition. When folded, only the turret under the armor rises above the roof (its height can be approximately 30-40 cm, which gives the overall height of the vehicle along the top of the 160-170 combat module; see, but the smaller the better). In the raised position, the module can rise 70-80 cm, then the turret will be raised more than 2 meters above the ground.

It seems that such a set of weapons is quite sufficient for a combat robot, since it allows you to hit most of the targets that appear on the battlefield.

Surveillance and intelligence devices

Fighting robots are usually equipped with a fairly decent list of cameras and devices that are absolutely necessary for him to confidently control. However, installing cameras on the sides of such a low-height hull of a combat robot will result in the reconnaissance value of the robot being small, due to the very limited sector of the review. Requires additional equipment and appliances.

Optical equipment. In addition to the cameras intended for control, it would be advisable to add several more surveillance cameras. The first one is a circular camera installed in a hemisphere of bulletproof glass on the roof of the combat module (in addition to the cameras designed for aiming the gun and the grenade launcher installed inside the module).


A typical example of a circular camera review. Transparent sphere can be made of bulletproof glass.

The second - the camera is also a circular view, mounted on a telescopic telescopic bar, rising vertically. This kind of periscope is intended for cases when it is necessary to examine the terrain from a large viewing angle, or to glance unobtrusively from behind a cover or obstacle. The third is a front-view camera mounted on a telescopic bar that extends horizontally forward. In a city battle, such a camera will give an opportunity to glance behind the corner of a building without being noticed.

All cameras should capture the infrared range, which will allow to use them as the simplest thermal imagers. A full-fledged thermal imager is better to use in the set of aiming gun optics.

Sound equipment. Modern systems for processing acoustic signals have led to the creation of a compact and highly efficient set of equipment that makes it possible to detect firing points from the sound of shots. They are very simple, compact and versatile. This can be seen at least in the "Owl" system, which uses the intersection of the shock wave from a flying bullet. Acoustic measurement data processing allows you to accurately detect the location of a shot of any type of small arms with a caliber of up to 14,5 mm, and data processing takes no more than two seconds, and the number of simultaneously determined targets reaches ten.

A combat robot can have an automatic firing mode, when it fires high-explosive fragmentation projectiles of the enemy’s target with a sound system without the operator’s participation.

The value of a combat robot for reconnaissance and battle management is very high, and much more than you can imagine at first glance.

First, a combat robot with good surveillance devices can be considered as a mobile NP. The fact that he constantly broadcasts the video signal is not very good. But, since this is done, it is necessary to extract the maximum benefit from it. Through the cameras on the battlefield, not only the combat robot operator can look, but also the higher-level commanders (the control system of the robot must be able to be connected by the command). The opportunity to look directly at the battlefield from headquarters with your own eyes is a very valuable opportunity.

Secondly, for the accompanying infantry, these are also “eyes” and “ears”, as well as a mobile radio transmitter. Any combat robot has a fairly powerful radio station that provides its control, and then the combat robot can serve as a mobile communications center. To do this, on the aft side of the robot, you need to install a remote with a screen, camera controls and a handset to communicate with the operator (such as was put on American tanks, starting with at least M4 Sherman). After contacting the operator, the infantry can request a transfer to the aft camera control panel to see for themselves. This will be most effective in urban combat.


A frame in which you can clearly see how the fighter is talking to the crew of the M4 Sherman tanker on the telephone set at the stern of the tank. April 1945, the Battle of Okinawa.

Thirdly, a robot equipped with devices for detecting targets, determining one’s own position and measuring the azimuth and distance to targets can be an excellent artillery or air gunner. If the robot delivers the exact coordinates for firing mortars, self-propelled guns and aircraft, then heavy armament is not necessary for the destruction of, say, tanks or strong fortifications.

In my opinion, a combat robot of direct infantry support is not a “machine gun with a motor” at all, but rather a mobile observational, reconnaissance and corrective station, with the ability to independently hit some targets. Such a combat robot will indeed be very useful in combat operations.
Author:
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 26 March 2018 06: 30
    +3
    and where is the sketch? a bunch of everything is listed, but how it should look all together I personally do not quite understand. and many points are debatable, like this:
    The chassis of the robot must, of course, be wheeled. The wheel suspension is simpler and more reliable than the tracks, the wheeled vehicle is more difficult to immobilize compared to the track, and the wheel is more stable when undermining a mine.
    1. wehr
      26 March 2018 19: 57
      +1
      This is some stereotype associated with tanks. Yes, the caterpillar on the tank, of course, better wheels. And if the tank was “blown away,” then there is a driver who will drag the caterpillar.
      And with a robot on tracks like? Here he “stole” on a mine, from enemy fire, well, or just from a sharp maneuver on soft ground. His mechanic is somewhere out there, perhaps a mile away from the location of the robot. During the time he gets to him, the enemy has the ability to finally turn the padded robot into metal.
      Hence the idea that the wheels are better. Even if one of them is blown off by an explosion, the remaining five will be enough for the robot to crawl to the rear and wait there for repair.
      1. Cxnumx
        Cxnumx 27 March 2018 03: 32
        +1
        Quote: wehr
        Hence the idea that the wheels are better. Even if one of them is torn off by an explosion, the remaining five will be enough for the robot to crawl to the rear and wait for repairs there. Here he is "swollen" in a mine, from enemy fire, or simply from a sharp maneuver on soft ground. His mechanic is somewhere out there, perhaps miles from the location of the robot. During the time that he gets to him, the enemy has the opportunity to finally turn a wrecked robot into metal.

        1) if there is an explosion, then it will definitely tear off not one. 2) different efforts are needed to damage the track and wheel. 3) the caterpillar patency is still better than the wheel (still the best all-terrain vehicles on caterpillars). 4) judging by the shots of explosions on mines of wheeled vehicles that are shown on TV and in the internet, while the wheels tend to fly apart no worse than caterpillars, especially the rubber component. on rims on the ground / sand he drives no better than a tank without caterpillars. therefore, the topic of mechanics equally applies to both options.
        that wheels are cheaper - yes, they have a softer ride - yes (suspension of tracks with a soft ride is much more expensive), better handling - yes. but definitely saying "wheels" is better - it's ridiculous.
        1. wehr
          27 March 2018 12: 22
          0
          Arguing abstractly, of course the caterpillar is better than the wheel. But I consider a specific and typical situation: during the battle, the robot interrupted the caterpillar. there is no mechanic nearby, infantry repairing tracks is, of course, untrained. What will you do?
          1. Cxnumx
            Cxnumx 27 March 2018 12: 44
            0
            Quote: wehr
            Arguing abstractly, of course the caterpillar is better than the wheel. But I consider a specific and typical situation: during the battle, the robot interrupted the caterpillar. there is no mechanic nearby, infantry repairing tracks is, of course, untrained. What will you do?

            mine blast? call a mechanic, and with the help of soldiers nearby remove the section from the armor and pull it on.
            and now consider the situation of wheel undermining in a mine: one flew completely / skewed into the trash (is it not tracked rollers for you - did one fly away? and x with it); two others from different sides demolished / burned rubber. what will you do?
            it’s not necessary to call a mechanic anymore, but a full-fledged tow truck. because it’s much harder to replace a wheel than a caterpillar, no one carries them on the sides, they don’t drive rims without rubber on the ground, and the rest aren’t enough.
            Yes, if it’s not a mine, but one wheel is bent off, the equipment will leave (if it’s not a steering wheel and there are at least 3 on each side).
            the wheels are full of positive aspects. but not for cutting edge technology. and that’s where robots should be, no?
  2. Sergey985
    Sergey985 26 March 2018 06: 53
    0
    Initially, this is not so. How is any equipment adopted? The customer, represented by the Ministry of Defense, issues a design specification for development, which indicates all the requirements and, accordingly, the assigned tasks to the product. All these exhibitions with samples are held only in order to attract attention. For more, you need an order for development and appropriate financing.
    1. wehr
      26 March 2018 20: 01
      +1
      The role of the initiative is also very important.
      Steel Krupp guns appeared, for example, contrary to the orders of the military. Krupp made a few pieces, drove them to landfills for many years, fired, showed, and then the military believed that bronze tools were better. Then, in many respects, under the influence of Krupp agitation, their opinion changed and a new era came in the military.

      The robots are new, and one can hardly expect that the MoD knows all the possibilities of the industry so well and so clearly imagines their use that it will immediately make an order.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Waltasar
    Waltasar 26 March 2018 07: 21
    +3
    And this prodigy will cost one and a half T-72. Who will send it for reconnaissance in battle?
    You have described at least 3 robots.
    1. For reconnaissance in battle, strong and not very expensive
    2. For city battle - with extendable bars
    3. Scout and gunner - low, inconspicuous and with excellent optics.
    You can also add shock modification.
    And to do everything in one is expensive and impractical. Everything will be able to, but badly.
    1. alstr
      alstr 26 March 2018 11: 44
      +2
      It remains to add that
      -scout and gunner - this is not a ground vehicle, but an air one, because best reconnaissance from the air (hello UAV for Almaty). Ground reconnaissance is needed only for buildings and bunkers, but this is a different class of equipment. Those. something like a small camera on wheels.
      - for urban combat - the rods will not help either. Here, again, there are simply two tasks: conducting the battle in the streets and conducting the battle in the building. They have mutually exclusive requirements.
      For battle on the street - it’s easiest to make the same Terminator unmanned (more precisely, remotely controlled) ..
      And for the battle in the building you need almost the same scout, but with a grenade detonated either by signal or by program. but at the same time there are very high requirements for patency. Relatively speaking, you need a cockroach with a grenade.

      In any case, so far everything should have a remote control, but at the same time have some degree of autonomy.
      In the current reality, the most appropriate use cases are the protection of stationary objects (here you can include full autonomy), as well as escort of columns (combat protection and replacement of column drivers).

      In this sense, the Chinese have gone the right way (IMHO) - they use old equipment and put remote and autonomous control modules on it.
    2. wehr
      26 March 2018 20: 13
      0
      The main part of the cost of the robot practically does not change depending on the modifications proposed by you: armor, diesel, gun, computer. The size of the machine is limited by the size of the diesel engine (which, of course, cannot be left open) and the fighting compartment. A different set of optics and equipment will be good if 20% of the cost of the machine.
      Therefore, in my opinion, it is more expedient to combine all these functions in one machine.

      You can make a very small scout, but then he will have a limited radius and time of action. More trouble and hassle with him.

      Impact modification is a separate topic. Although my most favorite laughing
  5. Strashila
    Strashila 26 March 2018 07: 34
    +1
    The main customers of such vehicles are the Ministry of Defense and the Russian Guard, until the customer decides on the place of the robot in the combat formation and the tactics of its application ... there will be no specifics. developers are now offering their vision on this issue, but how time will actually tell. And yet ... how many fighters are needed to serve this miracle.
    1. wehr
      26 March 2018 20: 02
      0
      All this can be premeditated.
  6. Strashila
    Strashila 26 March 2018 07: 50
    +2
    The point is to create special ammunition against such a technique ... when applied it will create a cloud of finely dispersed dye (paint over optics) of a bright color (so that you could see far if it goes away) ... with a name like Glaucoma.
  7. tasha
    tasha 26 March 2018 08: 23
    0
    Horses-people mixed in a bunch.
    It all started with the wrong input:

    It is generally believed that a robot should be a mobile platform - a weapon carrier (usually large-caliber machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, various kinds of guided missiles), the main task of which is to fire while supporting infantry, for example, in an attack, in the assault on fortified positions .


    Modern combat robots are universal robotic platforms that learn to perform various tasks, from patrolling the terrain to, indeed, supporting assault operations. The composition of equipment and weapons may vary. And it is right.

    a mobile observation, reconnaissance and correctional point, with the ability to independently hit some targets. Such a combat robot will really be very useful in military operations.

    There will be no doubt. In some future. In the meantime, "Universalism is harmful" by IV Stalin.
    1. wehr
      26 March 2018 20: 16
      0
      This designers are going the wrong way. wink
      1. tasha
        tasha 27 March 2018 05: 50
        +1
        It goes without saying. :)

        The situation with robots is reminiscent of the dawn of aviation. Enthusiasm went off scale ... The designs were the boldest ..
  8. shinobi
    shinobi 26 March 2018 08: 52
    0
    While the robot is controlled by radio or cable, it's all toys. Let them shoot and dangerous, but toys. Full-fledged AIs are still cumbersome and extremely expensive. So while combat cyber fates are fantastic, strategic missile forces, and large anti-aircraft systems.
    1. wehr
      26 March 2018 20: 04
      0
      In my opinion, the combat robot does not need an AI at all. Enough and modern computers. Not much is required of him: to drive independently from point A to point B, bypass or overcome typical obstacles, shoot at the specified targets and reload.
      What is it, what is AI for?
    2. Katanikotael
      Katanikotael 26 March 2018 21: 37
      +2
      These "toys" were able to shoot all living things and return to base without operators in the last century. The main problem is how to teach them tactics and recognition of those who cannot be shot.
      1. wehr
        27 March 2018 12: 23
        0
        What for? It should be like in the navy: any enemy ship encountered.
        That is, the robot is given the command that in such and such squares all the targets are enemy, there are none.
        1. Katanikotael
          Katanikotael 27 March 2018 18: 35
          +1
          Have you ever played strategy and simulations and did not bang your head on the table due to the fact that one of the units considered that he knew better and didn’t need to move a few degrees to the side, while shooting his own unit in the back?
          I mean, a robot without strategic thinking and attacking in the forehead like a ram gate is a little harmful to the army and the military industry.
          1. wehr
            29 March 2018 01: 21
            0
            For this you need a special robot, made specifically for the attack in the forehead.
            The most interesting thing is that this is not so difficult to do.
  9. Yrec
    Yrec 26 March 2018 09: 26
    +1
    Everything that the author has described has been around for a long time. The problem of our robots (primarily Uranus-9) is an attempt to create a remote-controlled tank for combined arms combat. This is unrealistic. Saturation of the leading edge and operational depth of the enemy with anti-tank weapons, other weapons, electronic warfare systems, active and passive reconnaissance systems, air reconnaissance / strike systems, etc. etc. leaves no chance for such a robot to at least partially complete a combat mission. There is a niche of specialized robots. For example, a robot sniper. He leaves for the position, and the operator wired (so as not to burn on the radio) steers them from the trench. Or a robot to storm buildings, which calls into the room in front of the assault group. Trusting AI is absolutely impossible to kill people.
    1. prodi
      prodi 26 March 2018 10: 21
      0
      Well, what does this scheme look like: each tank controlled as part of a platoon has 1-2 drones with the same weapons, the first to advance in the offensive, to occupy key positions and further intelligence
    2. KCA
      KCA 26 March 2018 19: 35
      0
      Control over the wires is possible only with rectilinear movement, it is easier to place several cheap radio transmitters in direct line of sight from the operator and transmit data from them and to them via a laser beam, they will detect, cover one repeater, switch to another
    3. wehr
      26 March 2018 20: 19
      0
      I summarize: everything is there, but nothing laughing

      I have a couple of questions?
      1. What do you think, how many shots will the sniper-robot have time to do before it is covered?
      2. How do you imagine the use of robots when storming multi-storey buildings, well, for example, standard 9 floor constructions?
  10. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 26 March 2018 09: 31
    +3
    It’s good to argue AFTER, but all the arguments to argue after ... It's bad ...
  11. andrewkor
    andrewkor 26 March 2018 10: 05
    +3
    As a child, I also liked to draw tanks in the classroom.
    , on the last sheet of the notebook!
  12. Clueless
    Clueless 26 March 2018 11: 35
    0
    All this is wrong, because it is very expensive. The task of the robot is to detect the enemy, in which case cover people with fire.
    For the robot is now stupid and stupid, suppressing the firing points to them is the same as extinguishing a fire with gasoline. For this, there are people with aviation, artillery, tanks, etc.
    Those. a modern robot should be compact (like Uranus), have a strong armor reservation and on top a cheap setting with some kind of machine gun, camera. For in the case of a battle with people, all this will immediately be taken to ruin, and then the chassis can then be repaired and again the robot reconnaissance in battle.

    In general, I am a supporter of the fact that in modern realities, the robot should be stupidly engaged in intelligence, i.e. have good cameras, thermal imagers, drones on board, in a pinch, a machine gun and a self-destruction system. People more effectively suppress the enemy, knowing where he is.
    And then they try to make terminators on tracks, current without artificial intelligence, controlling by wire or radio, fastening a cloud of weapons on it. This is not a flying drone, where the reaction time is not very important, the missile will find the target, and then until the operator realizes, a signal will come, this robot will be dismantled for spare parts.
  13. garri-lin
    garri-lin 26 March 2018 12: 00
    +1
    I read to the phrase "the robot must be wheeled." I realized that it was absurd but decided to finish reading. In general, I was not mistaken. Absurd. The only thing I agree with ceme is the size of the case. What I do not agree with.
    1 wheels. Patency should be like that of an infantry Vanya with Kalash and RPG 7 and this will work only with tracks. So the wheels do not fit.
    2 weapons. 30 mm have a minimum high explosiveness. And strong returns. For a light compact car, this is critical. The complex is best suited: a machine gun (7,62 or 12,7 is mounted according to the situation.) Automatic grenade launcher (AGS30 or a new one with 57 mm caliber.) Rockets with wire control and various warheads (fragmentation. Cluster. Cluster bomber. High-explosive. land mine.)
    It isn’t rational to put forward a combat module on an armored glass. A lot of excess weight on the armor of a glass will go away.
    Surveillance devices on rods are rationally vulnerable. Need multiple duplication. You can add an overview quadrocopter on cable ropes. Cameras with a shift to the infrared region is not enough. We need full-fledged thermal imagers.
    1. wehr
      26 March 2018 20: 26
      0
      1. Ask the repaired caterpillar of the enemy robot to fix it? I just don’t understand how you can ignore such an obvious situation.
      2. 30-mm is better than 12,7 mm (which, by the way, has even less explosives than the 30-mm projectile). In addition, the gun 2А72 has a much smaller return compared with the previous version and is placed on light armored vehicles.
      3. AGS-30 and so is offered in the set of weapons.

      You just casually read the article, that's all.

      You can, if necessary, do without such a "glass". But I would suggest making a version with a lifting module and thoroughly testing it.
      1. sergeyezhov
        sergeyezhov 26 March 2018 21: 58
        0
        Well, to the heap the following opinion:
        1. Wheels. 6 wheels are expensive and not necessary. 4 is enough.
        2. The engine is a small turbine from an airdron, power up to 200 hp
        2. 12.7 mm machine gun.
        3. AGS.
        Bulletproof booking. The robot must have a low cost, it is not designed for long-term use in battle.
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 27 March 2018 19: 06
        0
        I apologize for the delay in responding.
        1 The fact that it can kill a modern caterpillar will definitely destroy the wheel. For three-axis (6 * 6) it is almost critical. Especially on soft soils. So the question is open. Specialists know better. As an option, caterpillars but with all-wheel drive. By type of tank BT 7 or tetrarch.
        2 but how do you like a 57 mm grenade launcher. Automatic grenade launcher. Further development of the Kozlik and the Balkan. And beyond the barriers and because of the barriers and the explosiveness is higher.
        3 Modular weapons are optimal. Before the fight, put that hosh. You want Ags 30, you want 57 mm. You, too, did not quite carefully read my post.
        1. wehr
          29 March 2018 01: 32
          0
          Those caterpillars, which are usually placed on robots now, are unlikely to resist an anti-personnel mine. An anti-tank mine or a landmine controlled will end both with a caterpillar and a wheel. So the choice is dictated by the fact that the wheel does not require the mechanics to run after the robot and to pull the fallen caterpillar, that is, the typical problem is removed.
          In general, I am a supporter of the auger.

          Not bad But heavy, its weight should be at least 450 kg (say, "Cornflower" 2B9 - 632 kg). With ammunition will be approximately 700 kg. It's a lot.
          Only a gun or only a mortar - this limits the firepower of the robot. That's why I stopped at AGS-30. For a pair of guns, he's good. The only problem that requires a design solution is the clip for shots, because the standard is too small.

          But in general, the modification of a robot with a mortar (the same "Cornflower") is an interesting idea. An automated and mobile mortar battery with a good portable ammunition will be a very strong argument.
  14. Vyacheslav Anosov
    Vyacheslav Anosov 26 March 2018 12: 24
    +2
    inspired! ... so it's the same well-forgotten old ...

    from 19 minutes
    1. VictorZhivilov
      VictorZhivilov 28 March 2018 21: 47
      0
      Thank you for the movie, I love Soviet films - naive, but sincere to tears. By the way, the "War Chariot" shown in the episode is a real existing prototype. Who walks can read in detail:
      http://armedman.ru/tanki/1900-1918-bronetehnika/t
      sar-tank.html
  15. Romka47
    Romka47 26 March 2018 12: 50
    +3
    Oh brother, you do not need to write articles, but work in the design office, then of course they will begin to find fault in comments (such as where the drawings are), but it’s understandable why not, you’re doing a good job in bold + article. Although I would put such an apparatus on the tracks. But seeing how enthusiastically approached the matter, I probably would agree with the wheels, if I were in the Moscow Region I would have ordered and accepted for service. bully
  16. 82т11
    82т11 26 March 2018 13: 48
    +1
    The article is curious, but the logic is lame.

    1. Intelligence is best entrusted to unmanned aerial vehicles, they have a better overview.

    2. For the army, MBT with external control is better suited for reconnaissance in battle. The adversary will not know whether or not he is with people, and will take him seriously. It is not rational to use a small six-wheeled robot for reconnaissance in battle, until this thing to put it mildly, will drive up to the enemy to burn it. And the view from the ground is limited. And then the enemy, seeing a robot, will not fire from all means, but using the folds of the terrain, he will be picked up and destroyed.

    3. So it turns out that you can only use equipment such as Uranus-9 (it doesn’t matter wheeled or tracked) only in a place with special forces for counter-terrorism activities. There, clean the building, etc.
    1. wehr
      26 March 2018 20: 38
      0
      I think that the possibilities of drones are exaggerated. They are very good to quickly inspect a large area for the presence of the enemy, but to detect and rivet the embrasure somewhere in the city ruins - this cannot be drones.
      Wheeled robot, rather, for tactical intelligence - identifying firing points, the fire system of some enemy stronghold.

      Of course, they will try to fire him. So this is what we need for intelligence purposes. As for the burn, they will have to try. Even against the RPG, which theoretically takes 30-mm armor, you can oppose the old technique against cumulative grenades: a screen or a grid in front of armor for premature grenade firing.
      After trying to pick it up from machine guns and grenade launchers, the enemy will move and begin to pull up a large caliber, if he has one. And here, and our self-propelled guns at the ready.
      1. 82т11
        82т11 26 March 2018 21: 02
        0
        And drones do not need to rivet the embrasure, the main thing for them to find it. And artillery or the same tank will destroy.

        And at the expense of the robot, the question arises 1. What viewing angle will the camera have in it?
        2. They will shoot at the robot so that the construction would leave before the answer arrives. And then what will be intelligence if the enemy is no longer in that place?
        3. If I am not mistaken, then these mesh screens do not help at all against shells with armor-piercing cores. So what to burn this robot will find quickly. Moreover, as I understand it, from the text of the article he will go without cover.
        1. wehr
          27 March 2018 13: 04
          0
          A robot with a cannon can immediately destroy many of the detected targets.
          Cameras for driving or aiming usually have a limited overview, but here I propose to supplement them with a rotating camera of a circular view.

          A robot with a gun can immediately respond, and in addition, you can organize the pursuit of a departing enemy.

          From shells with cores helps a large angle of armor.
          1. 82т11
            82т11 28 March 2018 22: 08
            0
            The best ground mechanism with a cannon is a tank, which means there is no need to invent a wheel. It is enough to transfer the tank to external control.
            PS with this approach, for older tank models, a second chance appears.
            1. wehr
              29 March 2018 01: 35
              0
              T-55 with automatic loader and automation kit will probably be quite good.
  17. Leomobil
    Leomobil 26 March 2018 15: 57
    +1
    All this is certainly wonderful, but it is a transfusion from empty to empty. Chassis, wheels, gusli, armor, thermal imager .... Not the most important thing - WEAPONS! There are no remotely controlled small arms, and no one is working in this direction, so you can talk about armor and harp for at least a hundred years. If you attach a rope (electric trigger) to the Kalash, this is not a remote weapon. Any remote control system should not only shoot, but also clearly answer questions about its condition, that is, have a system for monitoring the status of actuators, etc. etc.
    1. wehr
      26 March 2018 20: 29
      0
      This is a good topic. Indeed, the existing types of weapons are hardly suitable for the automation of war.
      1. tasha
        tasha 27 March 2018 05: 52
        0
        existing types of weapons are hardly suitable for automating war.

        Expand the thought. What types of weapons are we talking about?
        1. wehr
          27 March 2018 12: 26
          0
          About any rifle.
          1. tasha
            tasha 27 March 2018 12: 30
            0
            "Existing types of small arms are not suitable for automating war."
            I can not grasp the idea. The topic is interesting.
            1. Leomobil
              Leomobil 27 March 2018 14: 29
              +1
              Monitoring the condition of the "Shoulder" hand weapon is carried out by a person during use, he also provides safety and repair (misfire, jamming, blowing, etc.) malfunctions. Charging-discharging, respectively. In the remote control of the rifle modules, at the moment, the discharge process is completely absent. Even the fact of the shot is recorded by indirect signs (like the camera is moving). In short, such weapons can be considered remotely controlled with great reservations, it follows that the entire module or self-propelled system is limited by a number of very important parameters, and the main one is operational safety.
              1. tasha
                tasha 28 March 2018 05: 15
                0
                Not sure if this is a real issue. At least now (although there are exceptions, read about anti-aircraft guns in South Africa, 2007god).
                Additional sensors, modules, drives will not affect reliability very well. And security, by the way, too. The metal pin is the best stopper :)
                1. Leomobil
                  Leomobil 28 March 2018 11: 16
                  +1
                  "..Additional sensors, modules, drives will not affect reliability very well. And security, by the way, too. "- this is just a classic of utterances of 99% of opponents. I’ll ask you a counter-question - which is safer and safer, a Tula samovar or an electric kettle from tefal? And what is easier to automate with the remote control task? You can of course automate a samovar - no questions asked (gas burner , electromagnetic faucet, etc. :).) But you think about it, the Mosin rifle and the electric kettle are peers, where are the bolt rifles now and where is the kettle from the point of view of convenience. We’ll buy a samovar and a chimney into the wall, coals and ignition for everyone in five :).
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 28 March 2018 12: 37
                    0
                    I didn’t seek you as an opponent; for some reason you yourself wrote me down there. laughing It is possible that the problem exists, but "Well, horror, horror .. But not Horror! Horror!" ... I think so ...
                    1. tasha
                      tasha 28 March 2018 12: 45
                      0
                      What about dummies and samovars. My teapot dripped (well, at least not the roof wink ), from expensive. The service life is three years ... And I have a samovar since ancient times, I carry it with me to the forest ... Although I can also take a teapot. The result will only be different ...
                      It all depends on the conditions, right?
            2. wehr
              28 March 2018 13: 13
              0
              Well, let's estimate what we automate.
              1. Equipment clip (tape) cartridges.
              2. Loading.
              3. Aiming and shot.
              4. Elimination of delays and failures.
              5. Cleaning and lubrication.
              If you do all this, you get a monstrous and extremely complex robot, the reliability of which will always be in question.
              1. Leomobil
                Leomobil 28 March 2018 15: 53
                +1
                All wrong!
                1. Clip cartridge (ready-made set of ammunition for installation in the combat module).
                2. Loading - unloading without loss of ammunition, and combat readiness.
                3. Monitoring the status of the complex without compromising availability, and ghosting in the initial state after a power failure from any intermediate position.
                4. Capturing and tracking the target, readiness shot with anticipation, ball calculator, etc.
                5. The tightness of the system in constant readiness (plug on the barrel), and temporary preservation of the barrel to the nearest MOT after a single use (exit from the battle to replenish the ammunition).
                There is nothing complicated about it! Dimensions swell only from the conservation system (bologna with Forrest foam, nozzle in the chamber .. and there little things). The main problem, stubborn from the Aun Kalash sect :).
                1. wehr
                  28 March 2018 19: 32
                  0
                  Sorry, but for now this is a bare declaration, and not, say, an outline of a technical design.
                  1. Ok, clip cartridge. And now, please, the device that will insert and remove it.
                  2. Good, but how, technically? How will such typical problems be corrected as a chamfer of the cartridge, an attachment, or, for example, a broken sleeve?

                  Well, and so on. I will add to this that all this should be done by mechanics, manipulators or by some other device, completely without a person.
                  1. Leomobil
                    Leomobil 29 March 2018 19: 48
                    +1
                    The scheme is as simple as the world! Each action is separated into separate rectilinear movements using the simplest actuators (servo). Any movement is designed in such a way that dual readability cannot occur physically. A detachment of the bottom of the sleeve is possible, but even in this case (force majeure, you must agree), the catfish system will detect a malfunction and stop the loading process. and don’t have to say “And if it’s in battle” - units of soldiers are able to eliminate such a malfunction. In short, the problem is not how to make (this is solved) the question - who needs it? Kalashnikov needs to sell his machine gun, in a tower, in a robot, in jo ... e. We are not thinking about how to defend our homeland, but how to fill our pockets!
              2. garri-lin
                garri-lin 28 March 2018 19: 27
                0
                Important points 2,3 and 4 the rest is superfluous. Best the enemy of the good.
  18. SASHA OLD
    SASHA OLD 31 March 2018 18: 35
    0
    Skynet is getting closer and closer, but John Connor will help us, in each city it is necessary to create cells of activists, make weapon caches, fight against cars using guerrilla tactics ...
    if you read this - you are RESISTANCE ...
    1. wehr
      31 March 2018 19: 29
      0
      Will not help. Unlike the movie, the real Skynet will sprinkle you with cobalt-60.
    2. Leomobil
      Leomobil April 1 2018 00: 17
      +1
      It may be possible in America, but there is a country where cyborgs freeze in swamps, get lost in three pine trees, and in this area half of the inhabitants live as partisans :)
  19. The comment was deleted.
    1. Leomobil
      Leomobil April 25 2018 12: 37
      0
      This is if it flies, and if it creeps - then the "Beseprikazhnik" with an uninhabited tower!