"Machine gun with a motor." The undoubted success of Russian designers

101
List of Russian combat models robots recently replenished with a new sample. The developer, this time the Advanced Technologies Foundation, showed a video of the new Marker combat robot. The new car has already driven around the winter range and shot at targets. We will devote this article to the analysis of this development.


Fighting robot "Marker". Photo mirror. In fact, the machine gun is located in the right, and grenade launchers - in the left part of the combat module



"Machine gun with a motor." The undoubted success of Russian designers

A frame from the video, which clearly shows the combat module of the robot

The first thing to note is that the designers and developers clearly read "Military Review", in particular, my articles on the criticism of previous samples ("Companion") and considering what you need for combat robots of this type.

In any case, the "Marker" has outlived many of the shortcomings of the previous models. Further, the developers of the new model, realizing that their car would not be ignored, immediately made a reservation that this was an experimental model designed to demonstrate the technology, and also had not yet presented any tactical and technical characteristics. Well, nobody likes criticism.

However, with regard to this machine, it is worth saying at once that there is nothing special to criticize in it, and in my opinion, this is the best machine in the nomination “machine gun with a motor”. Even more than that, with some relatively easy modification that does not affect the structure as a whole, it can be brought to a combat-ready model.

Undoubted advantages

The first advantage is the "Marker" case. The designers made the robot squat. Judging by the short video frames, the body of the fighter is approximately to the waist, that is, its height hardly exceeds 120 cm. as far as can be judged by the video, also about 160, see, maybe a little more.

This immediately pushes the Marker into the category of machines most suitable for combat, because it is very difficult to get into such a compact and squat car, it is easy to disguise it, and indeed it is hardly noticeable on the battlefield, especially in the presence of vegetation.

The second advantage is the location of the upper and lower front sheets at large angles, which dramatically increases the body's bullet resistance, even with a rather weak booking. Only a small vertical forehead (height about 10 cm) is left, which is quite acceptable. If necessary, you can modify the design of the frontal part of the machine, removing this forehead completely, for example, by installing an additional lower armor plate.

The third advantage: the designers got rid of the protruding caterpillar guide wheel, which was a serious drawback of the previous models. The hull design allows for additional protection of the steering wheel by installing an armor plate or reinforcing the hull with an overlay.

The fourth advantage - the use of standard weapons: 12,7-mm machine gun "Rock" and a block for two RPG-26. Moreover, the unit is equipped with grippers that allow you to dump a tube of a used grenade launcher, and also allow you to quickly install on it a new grenade launcher. On the back of the robot, you can install mounts for several RPGs as mobile ammunition.

The fifth advantage is the remote control of the combat module using an aiming device mounted on a fighter's automatic weapon. This moment caused numerous smiles when the module on the video turned in the direction of the fighter and the barrel of the machine gun was sent to his back. Like, and you can shoot yourself. In my opinion, this is a clever idea, very valuable in a battle. With fire contact with the enemy, the fighter is unlikely to stand upright in front of the robot. Rather, he will control the robot lying down, crawl forward on it to 20-30 meters, and from the shelter he will control the fire of the combat robot that will shoot a machine gun on top of him. In my opinion, this method of control is the easiest, most suitable for combat conditions, intuitive and does not require special operator training. In addition, the operator himself can take part in the battle.

So the "Marker" enough advantages to recognize its most successful machine of this type.

Some modifications

Apparently, the "Marker" in its present form has no reservation. So you can judge by appearance. But this does not mean that the machine has no protection. Bronelistov, protecting the most important parts of the machine, can be located inside the case, the internal volume of which is narrowed down to the lowest possible. In essence, in order to protect the engine, transmission, fuel tanks and electronics, a kind of armor box mounted inside the hull is required, the thickness of which can easily reach 10-12 mm. Even if this is not the case, the hull design fully allows the installation of external screens made of steel, textolite or composite armor.

Further, the combat module on the experimental sample is made at the very minimum and, apparently, is not protected by anything. However, it is quite possible to install an armored guard protecting the turning mechanism, machine gun and devices. If desired, you can make an armored half-tower for the combat module.

Not yet protected and front-view camera mounted on the lower front sheet. But it is not so difficult to close it with an armored mask with triplex.

Some disadvantage is the lack of panoramic cameras, which significantly improve the intelligence capabilities of the combat robot. Apparently, the developers tried to quickly present the car to the test and therefore attributed this moment to the category of secondary. Nevertheless, you can install a telescopic rod with a circular camera on the left side of the combat module, next to the machine gun, opposite the antenna located on the right side of the combat module.

Thus, the modifications that transform the "Marker" from an experimental into a fully combat vehicle are relatively small and can be made fairly quickly.

The most serious question at the moment is the fact that Marker has a real power reserve, speed and operational resource. This information can only be obtained experimentally, during special tests of equipment for wear. Hence the answer to the very important for combat use question: will the robot have enough power reserve and operational resource to follow its course in the same column along with the rest of the combat equipment laid by the motorized rifle unit and then participate in the battle?

If enough, and it is proved by tests, the "Marker" will be in the half-step from adoption.

This is a very important question. The fact is that according to its capabilities, the Marker is fully integrated into the structure of a motorized rifle company. There are two options. First: to give each platoon one robot (with the calculation of two people: the operator-shooter and the operator-mechanic) as a means of strengthening at the disposal of the platoon commander. In this form, the robot replaces the PCM calculation in the command of the platoon commander. Replacement significantly strengthens the platoon, since the commander receives a highly mobile reconnaissance vehicle and a fire weapon replacing the calculation of the machine gun and at least one rocket launcher. The "cliff" or another large-caliber machine gun is a weighty argument that allows you to fight lightly armored vehicles, to suppress and destroy firing points.

The second: to form a robotopulets platoon as part of a motorized rifle company consisting of: 3 BMP, 8 robots and 16 man of calculations, all in the 21 platoon man. Tracked robots are more appropriate for attaching to infantry companies on infantry fighting vehicles, which facilitates their maintenance and possible repairs. Each BMP is followed by three robots, their calculations take the places of the landing, two more robots with calculations follow the BMP commander and are at his disposal. A platoon can act independently or be attached to other platoons in a company as a means of reinforcement. As a result, a motorized infantry company gets 8 self-propelled large-caliber machine guns, which dramatically increases its firepower.

This becomes possible if the combat robot can independently move in a column of armored vehicles of a motorized rifle company and its power reserve and resource is enough for all movements and participation in combat. A robot that requires a conveyor for transportation is very difficult to include in the existing motorized rifle company, since it would turn out to be overloaded with equipment. If the robot is able to move itself, then this problem disappears.

In general, as we can see, if developers listen to criticism and take into account the considerations expressed, then rather quickly a machine is produced that is very suitable for combat. If the Marker developers carry out the above-mentioned modifications and tests, then within a year or a year and a half we will already have a sample of a combat robot, which can be adopted and incorporated into the combat equipment of motorized rifle subunits.
Combat test video Robot "Marker"

[media=https://youtu.be/HfYuDHphx1M]
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    4 March 2019 06: 01
    Krasyava ... Like in a movie ... He would have even the brains of even an average soldier. And a little instinct for self-preservation
    1. +9
      4 March 2019 06: 10
      Quote: Nathanael
      He would have even the brains of at least an average soldier. And a little instinct of self-preservation

      The soldier who will control the car has all this .. wink
      1. +2
        4 March 2019 15: 13
        Quote: Destiny
        Quote: Nathanael
        He would have even the brains of at least an average soldier. And a little instinct of self-preservation

        The soldier who will control the car has all this .. wink

        Here one of many questions begs:
        If the robot is controlled by a fighter or crew, which will advance forward in front of the robot, then for the enemy the target will be this fighter or crew, and not the robot. By the way, minicopters are shown at the end of the plot, which will be called up for the detection and destruction of operator-guides of such robots. The author of the article, offering us the option of controlling the robot, too arrogantly considered that such a control method is optimal. And it seems to me that this is a big problem, if that's exactly what the creators decided with the robot control.
        The next question is the question of how control will be transferred to other operator fighters in case the main operator or crew dies. Logically, the access code for the robot should be known to many, so as not to lose a working combat unit due to the death of the calculation.
        Of course, there are other questions, but I hope that the developers took them into account or will take them into account in the future, because in any case they will give such a product to the main experts, i.e. military.
        1. +14
          4 March 2019 17: 13
          It seems to me that you understand the essence of the robot a little incorrectly. This is not a radio-controlled machine with a bullet. A robotic system with IR and optical guidance system is an all-weather machine with recognition of targets, movement, silhouettes, radio signals much better than a human operator even in the afternoon, not to mention difficult weather conditions or dust. A handful of such machines in a network-centric system may well advance or defend in a given battle order, covering each other, instantly suppressing enemy manpower in the field of view, firing points, detect and suppress surveillance equipment (set a laser on it with the task of working on glare) , to search for sources of radio signals, whether it be drones or infantry in electronics-stuffed suits. And all this at decent distances.
          Of course, it sounds like science fiction, but as a programmer, I will say that to achieve such capabilities, a cheap processor in an iron bank and the desire of the developers are enough.
          1. +3
            4 March 2019 20: 24
            I think the control system of this robot is simple and effective as an orange. The operator, being in the rear in a disguised position (without firing), puts a mark (marker) on the target, the robot hovers over the mark, the operator gives the command to destroy. What label is not clear, it can be a laser beam as in an ATGM or something less noticeable. She takes the main thing out of the operator’s blow and does not limit him to situational awareness with her cameras (a question of a competently chosen position). Most likely, it does not provide for work at long distances (accordingly, it is easier to protect the communication channel).
            1. +4
              4 March 2019 21: 18
              This is one use case, a "Jewish" shotgun to shoot from around a corner. But at the same time, you do not use either its maneuverability (a standing target is suppressed faster), or reaction speed, or detection means. It seems to me more logical to point two or more robots in the work sector and give them carte blanche for fire use on these sectors, including target exchange, crossfire, and maneuvering. Of course, for this you need to develop and configure software. But if you do not do this, then instead of the "terminator" you will receive only a prosthesis with a trigger. The operator's task should be reduced not to giving commands, but to prioritizing the actions of an electronic fool like "keep to the right", "concentrate fire on such and such a direction." And all targets, ideally, the robot should either find, recognize and instantly react on its own (to flashes of shots, movement, changes in the combat situation) Or receive from other reconnaissance drones or means
              1. +1
                4 March 2019 21: 26
                Why not use agility? Nobody cancels the work of the second number (driver). But the brains of the car are simpler (cheaper), in fact they are absent there. This is the Javilin versus Cornet dispute. Enemy fighters do not have sensors for detecting laser radiation (as on most light armored vehicles.)
                1. 0
                  4 March 2019 21: 40
                  Why such a favor? It seems like he didn’t write anything seditious !!
              2. 0
                4 March 2019 22: 51
                in fact, robotic ground-based systems should work just like similar systems on board MFIs - search and selection of targets by all possible technical means and focusing the operator’s attention on the most important and dangerous ones. The task of the operator will agree with the computer and press the trigger.
                1. 0
                  4 March 2019 22: 59
                  Stick a powerful AI in a wedge? Not fat? After how many years, AI will have intuition, fantasy, ingenuity? What the operator possesses now.
                  He calmly and quickly heals safely, presses the trigger and continues to work.
                  1. 0
                    4 March 2019 23: 40
                    don’t joke about AI fatness. in your Mercia, Volvo and tp buckets you have powerful AIs - and yet these cars of extreme models move quite normally autonomously, along the roadway, slow down and rebuild while detecting a person on the roadway is a priority. Here we have the same optical system and thermal imager and similar software that searches for heat-contrasting moving targets. If you add a radar, then the machine will be able to look for all kinds of movable pieces of iron - a running machine, a moving grenade launcher and, naturally, cars and other equipment.
                    The task of the software is to simply process all the information and set goals for the operator, in principle, all modern automated combat systems work like this - the same on-board computer at the IFI does the same thing - only there are more powerful and more expensive means of technical intelligence.
                    1. +1
                      4 March 2019 23: 49
                      Is it no longer fashionable to disguise yourself? Infromasking uniforms are on the way. No contrasting target; no guidance. We hang radars, infrared sensors, brains on a small platform and get Armata with a machine gun. Be simpler .... (and further in the text).
                    2. 0
                      4 March 2019 23: 54
                      And do not confuse the roadway with a bunch of all kinds of markers in the form of marking the signs of the curbs and the intersection. The variability of situations is orders of magnitude higher.
                      1. 0
                        5 March 2019 00: 27
                        that’s exactly what the variability on the road is many times higher - due to the traffic density, on the battlefield each moving heat-contrast target or piece of iron is an adversary, there is nothing to choose from. And the technical means of finding warm-blooded primates especially armed are now quite successfully developing. It's as simple as finding airplanes in the sky with the help of a radar - if the target found does not respond with a friend or foe, then he is an enemy.
                        And yes, we won’t get Armata because in armature the most expensive is the combat module and the mobile armored box itself, against the general background of technical intelligence means are a penny.
                        In this case, there is optics and a thermal imager on board - this is the standard equipment of any modern cart. Add on board infantry radar type Farah and biped and equipment will be in full view. Optics and a thermal imager can be used in a watch mode - that is, in an ambush, and with the sum of radars it will be applicable during an attack.
                        To understand the equipment needed on board the cart, you just need to look at which combat modules they put on various infantry armored cars - this is usually Optics + Thermal Imager and the same cars with infantry radars. Weapons machine guns, grenade launchers, ATGMs, mortars. The disadvantage of such cars is that they are large, relatively lightly armored and expensive. The plus is that they are also a delivery vehicle.
                        Plus, robotic unmanned carts are smaller - that is, less material consumption and price with comparable combat effectiveness.
                        So you just need to see what is used in combat conditions and draw conclusions.
                        And various armed robots have long been in the arsenal of the Israeli army and guard airfields and other objects - like self-propelled carts that go around and inspect the perimeter with the help of technical means and give out information to the operator - he uses weapons remotely. Many UAVs also work - they themselves seek the target for many hours - the operator makes the use of weapons.
                      2. +1
                        5 March 2019 00: 36
                        I will offer a simple puzzle. A field, bushes, a herd of pigs wrapped in burlap and each pig on its side has a steel corner. Attention question! What does your robot see?

                        A bunch of goals.

                        The operator scans the entire force in sequence and loses time. Add terrain, bushes, enemy, smoke, etc.
                      3. 0
                        5 March 2019 06: 15
                        I would also add that the robot still in the main mode should destroy the found targets itself, and not wait until the operator clicks the button. Or an adversary from the Russian Academy of Sciences. One of the advantages of the car is just an instant reaction. And the radar is not particularly needed here, because enough passive surveillance tools + data received over the network.
                        And as for pigs, I’ll say that this is not what they think in a military operation. By default, everything in front of the front line is the goal, and there is no time to choose which one.
                      4. 0
                        5 March 2019 16: 38
                        You have too high an opinion about the speed of reaction of machines, the process of recognizing normally masked targets will be much higher than that of a person. In addition, a person being, as it were, from the side will be more situationally aware than the machine.

                        And I repeat: Saturation of the battlefield with cheaper systems will be higher and, as a result, more effective.

                        A battlefield where only cars will be, this is not a very fast future, and most likely this will mean that humanity is no longer there.
                      5. 0
                        5 March 2019 23: 42
                        I absolutely agree with you that robotic systems are much faster and more efficient than humans, precisely because of the near-surface air defense systems of the fleet there are robots. And the whole ship combined with a BIUS such as Sigma or Aegis is essentially a large armed robot capable of operating almost completely in an automated mode.
                        Ground robots can also be given the right to open fire on their own - for example, a drone receives a task in a certain sector or perimeter to destroy all targets without a friend or foe, or stupidly everything.
                        The problem is just as for me in one thing - if a living target or a machine can be somehow determined, then how will the robot determine that the target is hit (man, machine), otherwise it will quickly end the BC. because it seems to me that until they solve this problem, people will press the descent.
                      6. 0
                        6 March 2019 13: 49
                        Dear you saw the size of these systems? And the data exchange protocol there is different.
                        Have you seen the bushes over the sea, and the ravines, and the hills? No? A small barely warm meat rockets in camouflage with branches tied? And how many 30mm shells are needed to hit one target?
          2. 0
            5 March 2019 12: 19
            hi
            give each platoon one robot

            will the robot have enough power reserve and operational resource to follow its own course in one column along with the rest of the combat equipment
            Author: Dmitry Verkhoturov

            Dear author, isn’t it too bold?
            Do you really believe that:
            1) in the near future, robots will replace machine guns of the company level?
            2) will robots (teletank) under their own power make a forced march of tens of kilometers?

            For special operations - I agree. Will fit.
            And in the face of intense opposition, the teletanka is practically useless even for occasional use.
            This is confirmed by their extremely limited use over many decades.
            1. -1
              April 13 2019 19: 11
              "Will robots (teletanks) make marches for tens of kilometers on their own?" ///
              ----
              No, this is impossible. They must be brought to the line of fire on truck tractors.
              But it is real. And the concept is correct.
              In this we must begin: a radio-controlled machine gun platform for reconnaissance in battle.
        2. +1
          5 March 2019 11: 58
          hi
          The most serious question at the moment is what the "Marker" has a real power reserve, speed and service life.
          Author: Dmitry Verkhoturov

          The main point - the quality of software and noise immunity.
          In particular, from the enemy EW funds.
          Without these two factors, the best mechanism turns into a pile of iron.

          In 2014, in Nikolaev, they tried to clone the Platform-M complex.
          Project "People's Tank", author Gennady Nechiporuk.

          The author admitted that a delay of a few seconds when sending a picture to the screen of the operator negates all other achievements.
          Even when moving forward, the tank will have time to drive a few meters, until it receives a signal from the operator to change course or stop.
          And what about shooting?
          In the end, the project was closed.
        3. +1
          5 March 2019 16: 16
          And why should a gunner be made not as a gunner pushed forward, but a sniper at some (eg 400) distance behind this unit?
    2. -1
      4 March 2019 08: 42
      Quote: Nathanael
      .And a little self-preservation instinct

      Exactly ! The other day, some "nenasha tovarischi" bragged about their "spice" ... they say, they are so "smart" that show the pictures and order ... and it will fly ... even into the toilet, even into the wine cellar! What's next? Hana further! And he will not think that "we live once"! In general, "smart", but "fool"! No "self-preservation instinct"! So with this ... anti-tank robot ... well, it recognizes the target ... it will fire accurately ... but what next? Does it ever occur to him that for the sake of self-preservation and in a cesspool you can dive ?!
    3. +8
      4 March 2019 12: 05
      And a little instinct for self-preservation
      What would he send everyone and leave?)
      1. +12
        4 March 2019 13: 29
        The tests of the latest Russian smart bomb ended in failure: it was never succeeded in persuading it to detach from the plane.
    4. 0
      5 March 2019 18: 52
      Or maybe a little sacrifice?
  2. +17
    4 March 2019 07: 25
    The author's thoughts on the required improvements and the possible integration of this technology into the structure of the ground forces, frankly, are not indisputable. Give "Marker" to every platoon! Smiles of course :) The angle of inclination and the degree of reservation of the front sheets is important, but perhaps only in the third, if not in the fourth, order. a lightweight robot will in any case "take" a 12,7 mm caliber. If you make his frontal projection well armored, it will make him heavier, but it will be pointless, because There are few willing opponents to arrange a machine-gun duel with a robot in the forehead - they will shoot at it from RPGs or mortars, and this is already a reservation level unattainable for the "Marker" or from SVD and PKM to the sides. Therefore, he does not need a powerful armored frontal part, but a bullet circular booking from 7,62x54. The issue of protection is generally quite simple here. Much more important is how this technique is controlled - on a wire or on a radio channel and how protected this radio channel is from interception and suppression, how far it works on rough terrain or in urban development. That's what's important. The requirement to march in a convoy of armored vehicles is also rather strange. The weight of this device is small, it can be taken on a trailer by any army truck (just roll a cart under it), or a civilian container ship. And on the battlefield, he will move himself. Providing him with fuel reserves and a transmission resource for long marches is a different weight, a different cost and, therefore, in the end, an unfavorable price / efficiency ratio for MO.
    1. +3
      4 March 2019 09: 40
      Quote: Slon1978
      The angle of inclination and the degree of reservation of the front sheets is important, but perhaps only in the third, if not the fourth, turn

      Quite right! For such a "radio tank", the control system is primarily important. And, if you have strained with artificial intelligence, it is very important to fully engage the operator. And how to use it if it rides through the fields with a gun? It seems that such a pychekhaz should be controlled remotely. The operator must be seated under the armor and have a good view to maximize the operator's senses. His peripheral vision (either a set of monitors in a circle, or a virtual reality helmet), his hearing - the robot must carry an acoustic reconnaissance unit. And it seems that the price of the mobile component of the complex should be minimal.
    2. -2
      4 March 2019 15: 10
      Quote: Slon1978
      The author’s considerations of the required improvements and the possible incorporation of this technique into the structure of the ground forces, frankly, are not certain.

      As for the robot in every platoon, you needlessly sneer. The MSR can perform various tasks, both in full strength and as part of platoons. I agree on round-trip booking. I believe that the dimensions of the machine should be minimal, and the protruding guides should not be visible. This "brother" will be indispensable for the intensive work of snipers and the destruction of DOSs. Where it is simply unwise to send a soldier to certain death.
      As for the presence in each platoon - how do you imagine the situation of transferring equipment from one platoon to another? Give me - do I need more? No need to spare money if necessary. And you need to check in battle ...
      PS The one who put you a minus will still be accepted ... Yes
    3. -1
      4 March 2019 18: 41
      You can use ceramic armor based on Boron carbide - it is lightweight, but has a high impact strength.
    4. -1
      April 13 2019 19: 13
      "Give" Marker "to each platoon!" ////
      ----
      I would start with a battalion level.
  3. +4
    4 March 2019 07: 38
    He is very big for his weapons. It’s easier and cheaper to make a transport robot for transporting the same machine gun.
    1. -2
      4 March 2019 19: 06
      Absolutely right, for the tasks shown - replacing a fighter, you need several times less, even with improved weapons. So far, as always, we are making "the largest computers" ...
  4. +1
    4 March 2019 07: 46
    Here's more about movement with other armored vehicles. How will the device be controlled? Will the operator be constantly at work even while driving, or will the robot automatically follow the BMP? If he himself will go behind the BMP, then it would be nice that he would distinguish "his" BMP from the neighboring ones. Also, during escorting, a build mode could be set, and for example a security program. Roughly speaking, with two robots that follow the BMP (or on the left / on the right) when stopped, they would automatically follow the sectors of fire, etc. And if the head BMP is destroyed, what will the robots do?
  5. +1
    4 March 2019 08: 45
    Well, they can (if they want)! And the chassis / body is more stable than the "comrades-in-arms". And there is no "overload" with weapons. Now it remains to make an armored transporter / carrier / hardware.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. 0
    4 March 2019 09: 19
    too many ifs in the article. and what kind of robot is it if it needs 2 (!) operators for control. ordinary remote-controlled weapons, the Germans did this back in the war, it's called a goliath, however, it was controlled by wires, and this one, apparently, on the radio, although ...
  8. +1
    4 March 2019 09: 52
    Let's just say that a person is still needed to control the system.
    My vision of such a machine.
    Hybrid propulsion system, electrics + engine. On the march it goes on the engine + charges the battery, on the front line it is put forward on the electrician for stealth.
    The control is mixed, in the design to provide a place for control during the march directly by car, in the battle is remote.
    In armament, this system is clearly a distant battlefield.
    Such a system is better than what it is possible to implement on it that is not acceptable to portable weapons due to dimensions and weight, a system without sound and without fiery fire for large-caliber small arms weapons. It can turn out an excellent anti-sniper system or suppression of firing points, without dust and excessive noise ..
    1. 0
      4 March 2019 13: 45
      This hybrid rig eats up a lot of reserved volume.
      It is more effective in my opinion to apply soundproofing of the engine compartment and give the released volume to additional fuel tanks.
      1. +1
        4 March 2019 19: 29
        Here the essence of the hybrid installation is concealment in the thermal spectrum, so that about a dozen keme would be enough for movement, a purely hidden maneuver in the area, quietly approach the position, work on the target and just as quietly leave ..
        1. 0
          5 March 2019 00: 02
          Your argument is clear.

          Only then you always have to wait until the "charger" cools down.
          Or what external generator should be given to a battalion only for charging these machines.

          .
  9. +6
    4 March 2019 09: 56
    twenty five again
    The same problems as Kalashnikov’s:
    there is no autopilot - at least any ground-based drone should be able to roll back to their positions due to loss of communication, that the Kalashnikovs did not do what’s here (this is noticeable due to the absence of lidars)
    crooked placement of unstabilized weapons - the machine is capable of fighting only as a stationary firing point, but for this it is not armored, and is too noticeable.
    well, and at the end - a review, there is none, any ground-based drone should be equipped with all-round cameras and microphones (since hearing with a difficult terrain is the first means of detection)
    that the drone itself will conduct target selection, or have complex detection-recognition-action algorithms, can only be talked about, it’s from the same section as the flight of Ukrainian astronauts to Mars

    ps another super-mega-device - a case from the factory - an engine from a moped- electronics with ali, they stuck a machine gun and said that it was mega-clothing, hello to the mail of Russia and its drones

    ps.2 all the return on entoy device - videos on YouTube as he presses the next journalism
    1. MMX
      0
      5 March 2019 18: 32
      Quote: viktorish007


      ps another super-mega-device - a case from the factory - an engine from a moped- electronics with ali, they stuck a machine gun and said that it was mega-clothing, hello to the mail of Russia and its drones

      ps.2 all the return on entoy device - videos on YouTube as he presses the next journalism

      This is more of a category - give 20 billion rubles for a super-mega development from Chinese components. There are such "KB" cars and a small cart all over the country.
  10. +2
    4 March 2019 11: 46
    I wonder how they ustyustirovat the sight of the machine gun soldier and the sight of the robot, so that the robot shoots where the soldier aims. Frankly, the task is not trivial.
    And humor about shooting down oneself or someone else is more than appropriate, with such an aiming scheme, the situation is quite real.
    1. -1
      4 March 2019 12: 56
      It is easy, a couple of position sensors on the machine that would get an approximate sector, plus a laser backlight, but I doubt that someone began to bother so much
      1. +2
        4 March 2019 13: 02
        Quote: viktorish007
        It is easy, a couple of position sensors on the machine that would get an approximate sector, plus a laser backlight, but I doubt that someone began to bother so much


        Not easy. What kind of position sensors? Type of gyros? They have very low accuracy, over time there will be a growing mismatch, it will have to be adjusted constantly. Magnetic - an even greater error + the influence of third-party technical and natural factors.
        Laser backlight? Perhaps, but it will no longer be a laser pointer, but a full-fledged target illumination device, rather bulky. In theory, in combination, all this will work, but in combat conditions, given how quickly the situation on the battlefield is changing, I would not risk using such a scheme. The operator who sees with the "eyes" of the robot is much more reliable.

        All this is also necessary to encrypt, and then who will take control, and vupit the owners of the robot in the back.
        1. +1
          4 March 2019 13: 09
          if you want super accuracy then it’s not easy, but it’s still rather useless weight, in the form in which it is demonstrated, I think the developer himself understands this very well,
          in general, in the form in which we are hitting all these machine gunners with cameras, ground-based drones have no future, the Kalashnikov’s Syrian experience - more precisely, the absence of a victorious screech on all channels according to the results of running in super-mega-drones makes it very clear that the value of these crafts on the battlefield is close to zero
          1. 0
            4 March 2019 13: 11
            So far, yes, good is not enough - low autonomy, poor maneuverability, maneuverability, inconvenient, non-intuitive controls, communication channels that can be silenced. And over time, let's see who knows what this is going to develop.
            1. +1
              4 March 2019 13: 16
              Well, let's wait when the Americans get into another ground company, all this machinery was late in Agan, but at least drones in the supply column for new ground disassemblies of amers will already begin to be purchased
        2. 0
          7 March 2019 17: 34
          And where did you get that this * robot * has high accuracy?
  11. 0
    4 March 2019 11: 59
    In general, the combat option is still far away. In 1960, they could make wedges with radio control, and even before. But AI plus the work inside modern secentric combat control systems is already a new quality, giving the machine gun on the tracks the required characteristics for smart work in the right sections of the front. In another case, this is just a target, because trenches for it will not be dug.
  12. +4
    4 March 2019 12: 08
    The idea is right. A machine gun wedge to support infantry, and mainly reconnaissance in combat.
    But again it turned out to be large and heavy. How do you get her to the front lines? On its own - no. On a tractor, then. But how many of these tankettes will fit "in the back"?
    Three to four, preferably.
    An Estonian wedge of this kind looks awkward, but very compact. You can toss them on
    line of fire at once a lot and get
    mass effect with the onset of infantry.
    1. +3
      4 March 2019 13: 23
      Does the Estonian machine gun have 7,62? and here with caliber 12 it’s still slightly different requirements. Plus Estonian sizes are 220 by 240. If you are about TheMIS. The model from article 160 to 160, that is, just fit more. The Estonian is a multi-platform, there and how the stretcher can be used. Such models are in the army of the Russian Federation. In general, there is a search for various design solutions around the world, but only war will show what is needed.
      1. +7
        4 March 2019 13: 56
        For the war, it is necessary to prepare a "marketable quantity" in advance, and, most importantly, run it in a series of exercises. Because one of the difficulties: we have to restructure the tactics of the offensive of the infantry platoon-company taking into account these tankettes. And new positions appear; operators of such tankettes. Where will they be physically located? Under whose command? After all, ground officers are usually conservative. They do not like innovations.
        According to our tactics, each infantry company is assigned a "personal" Merkava tank. He strictly supports his company with fire, does not go into detachments. And is under the command of a company commander.
        But in real battles, the tank commander (sergeant) often began to command the battle. Since the tank sees better, it shoots further. Everything is tied around him. And the lieutenant was actually under the command of the sergeant. Therefore, before the fight, these two sat side by side and "made friends", throwing off the ego, so as not to take offense at each other in battle.
        What I mean is that tankette operators can be a decisive force on the front lines and "take command."
        And officers should be prepared for this.
        1. 0
          10 March 2019 15: 17
          Quote: voyaka uh
          For the war, it is necessary to make a "commercial quantity" in advance

          And what the hell is this for us? Would you take this to your army?
    2. +1
      4 March 2019 14: 04
      with ground-based drones - the only reasonable option now is kits for unmanned control of old tanks with control from the CP, and sculpt individual light platforms? Well, only as a conveyor, both ammunition and stationary turrets with remote control, except that this is all the machinery too noticeable, has too poor passability, and has no combat stability, the tank is another matter
    3. +1
      4 March 2019 18: 47
      In such an army tractor
      - two such cars fit, another place for ammunition with a grab of a grab. And there are babies
      1. 0
        4 March 2019 19: 21
        Clear. In general, when designing such wedges, you need to think over the dimensions and weight in order to quickly transfer them to wheeled (and preferably caterpillar) equipment.
  13. +3
    4 March 2019 12: 39
    "...The first thing to note, so this is what the designers and developers clearly read "Military Review", in particular, my articles criticizing the previous designs ("Companion") and considering what is needed for this type of combat robots. ....."
    ==============
    Yeah ..... If you believe the saying: "Modesty beautifies"- then, Dmitry Verkhoturov -" beautified "clearly - NOTHING !!! Such a concept as MODESTY is clearly not for him !!!
    I just want to quote the well-known film "Volga, Volga": "Thanks to My system! Under My" sensitive guidance "!
    Well, or more modern statements of the Ukrainian "prezydent" Poroshenko: "I ordered ... I decided ... I did ..... I indicated ... On my initiative .."
  14. +2
    4 March 2019 13: 38
    An interesting machine, but I would still like to point out its shortcomings. Alas, they are the same visible. The author praises this "non-nuclear motor with a machine gun" for its low silhouette, well, delight is a personal matter, but the low silhouette will very quickly become its disadvantage, since you will have to fight not on level training grounds, but in real terrain conditions, and "height" is 160 cm , this is still not enough, apparently it is required to equip this "motor" with a device for lifting the combat module at least a meter above the hull, which can really make it very dangerous, as it will allow you to strike from behind various shelters
    Further armament, for such a BM it still makes more sense to have a machine gun of a caliber of at least 12,7-mm or an automatic grenade launcher on equipment, and it is better to equip a part with a machine gun, and some with a grenade launcher. But it is very difficult to do, with such an arrangement of the machine gun. Maybe you should consider installing the type of ZPU T-90M?
  15. +7
    4 March 2019 13: 47
    The first thing to note is that the designers and developers clearly read the "Military Review", in particular, my articles on criticism of previous models ("Companion") and consideration of what is needed for combat robots of this type.

    Haberdashery and cardinal - this is power!
  16. 0
    4 March 2019 13: 48
    The fifth advantage is the remote control of the combat module using the sighting device mounted on the soldier’s machine gun.
    "
    This is genius! No kidding, such a simple but effective idea. It solves so many problems in management. Starting from the fact that in the event of the loss of the fighter in charge of the robot, the commander, by pressing one button, transfers control to the next in the hierarchy. Finishing that in case of loss of a fighter, it is possible to remove the aiming device from it, and put another fighter on the machine. In theory, there is a switch button on this device, for those cases when the fighter needs to lower the barrel, but the robot should not.
    1. 0
      4 March 2019 15: 19
      Brothers, the pointer from the machine is not a control, this is just a hint to the operator no more,

      There are two options for its implementation, it’s either a synchronization of sensors with a laser backlight - but then the fighter should be next to the machine, relatively, depends on the field of view of the optics and the laser receiver,
      or a more complex system with mutual positioning - what is it that the
    2. 0
      6 March 2019 01: 13
      So I already wrote about this in my two articles: https://topwar.ru/146812-vremja-roboto-pehoty-prishlo-ili-net.html and https://topwar.ru/146867-vremja-roboto-pehoty -predvaritelnye-prikidki-prodolzhenie.html - such laser designators / rangefinders (albeit usually in the form of binoculars) with the transfer of coordinates / direction / range on digital radio are already changing the essence of the work of spotters artifacts and mortars. It remains to implement the same target designation from a laser range finder / sights for machine guns / infantry rifles for infantry robots marching in 50-150 meters in front of an infantry chain.
  17. +5
    4 March 2019 14: 35
    "The first thing to note ..... the designers and developers have clearly read the Military Review, in particular, my articles ..". "In general, as we can see, if the developers listen to criticism and take into account the considerations expressed, then pretty quickly they get a machine that is very suitable for battle."
    Entire KBs were silent somewhere, various research institutes wiped away their tears in impotent envy .. Here he is, a real thinker. One article, huh? What? Only one pen! Laurel crown to the studio !!! (not very boiled)
    1. 0
      5 March 2019 12: 59
      Quote: Jurgens
      One article, huh? What is it like? One pen only!

      Yeah, like that haberdasher: One my word saved France!
  18. 0
    4 March 2019 17: 27
    and what, "Kord" could not be installed? Also AGS, "Bumblebee" .. When this thing went to a soldier in the back, I somehow felt uncomfortable
  19. 0
    4 March 2019 20: 32
    The hull size and chassis design reminded a small floating tank T-40. But there is a round reservation of 10 ... 15 mm of cemented rolled steel, two crew members, ICE driven by a screw and armament with ammunition in a manned tower (two machine guns - 12,7 mm DShK + 7,62 mm DT). Is the weaponry weak for such a large machine?
  20. +2
    4 March 2019 20: 51
    No one said the main thing. With such a mass, the machine gun should be at the center of mass and strictly along the axis of rotation of the tower.
  21. 0
    4 March 2019 21: 20
    Another "Chinese toy", they have already done a lot, I will not list, their combat effectiveness is "0". The reason is simple, this "tachanka" with its "eyes" and "ears" will never be able to realize the capabilities of the weapon installed on it, even when operated by the operators. And they will not help motorized riflemen in battle, they will only be a burden ... And what technologies they are going to work out on it, only the FPI is known. They are pushing the creators of "Fedor", it seems that they are going to send him into space, but it is not clear how to be with his backup operator ... There ... or will they be left on earth?
  22. -1
    4 March 2019 22: 49
    Instead of "Armata" - at least "a machine gun with a motor" laughing -as the saying goes- "with a black sheep, at least a tuft of wool"
  23. +1
    4 March 2019 22: 52
    The effectiveness of such a "robot" is approximately the same as from a suicide bomber. This is at its best. And the cost is 100 times higher. But you need to try in combat. They alone are the real test of ideas.
    In my opinion, a robot will be better than a machine gunner for buggies only when it will be several times smaller, quieter, more accurate and faster. In the meantime, these are just test platforms.
  24. +1
    4 March 2019 22: 58
    Quote: Jurgens
    Entire KBs were silent somewhere, various research institutes wiped away their tears in impotent envy .. Here he is, a real thinker. One article, huh? What? Only one pen! Laurel crown to the studio !!! (not very boiled)

    And what? It happens. Real discoveries are made by individuals. The teams then either attach themselves, or find themselves grabbing. Here, independence of thinking is important. If your superiors are constantly overwhelming you with their central controllers, you simply lose initiative ... Therefore, sometimes the design bureau also needs a push from the outside.
  25. 0
    5 March 2019 01: 12
    Well, if you take robots "in tow" to the point of battle, then the power reserve parallel to the operator should be enough. But if a soldier with a "sighting device" is killed, you need to either switch to an available "device" (aka target marker), or autonomous work on moving objects, or self-destruction, because getting such a machine into the hands of the enemy can further reduce the advantage to "no"! Is it logical? Even a simple machine gun and RPG will hit the enemy - already a minus! ..
  26. 0
    5 March 2019 01: 29
    Quote: meandr51
    Quote: Jurgens
    Entire KBs were silent somewhere, various research institutes wiped away their tears in impotent envy .. Here he is, a real thinker. One article, huh? What? Only one pen! Laurel crown to the studio !!! (not very boiled)

    And what? It happens. Real discoveries are made by individuals. The teams then either attach themselves, or find themselves grabbing. Here, independence of thinking is important. If your superiors are constantly overwhelming you with their central controllers, you simply lose initiative ... Therefore, sometimes the design bureau also needs a push from the outside.

    Yes, here are the armor plates at an acute angle ... If the ISs had been made like this before, the Germans would have surrendered at the beginning of the war! Then there were no ATGMs "attack from above"! Here in Armata the sides would still be "acute-angled" and then the tank's survivability would have increased! But the budget, standards, economy ... Paper stores many beautiful drawings, but funding puts them in a very long box somewhere in the dusty archives of Russian research institutes ... And only the spirit of "no analogs in the world" hovers in the media, intimidating the world with single prototypes! Tanks, planes, ships, rockets ... Who will collect something, and how much did they collect? :( The army will soon keep the enemy at bay on rare T-34s! ..
  27. 0
    5 March 2019 05: 15
    Modern. Goliath.))) Doubtful value))
  28. 0
    5 March 2019 16: 27
    Booking options can be very limited by GP chassis ...
  29. 0
    5 March 2019 17: 35
    Frankly, those who come up with such videos themselves do not realize what they are shooting ..
    This robot, in theory, was invented so that the operator and the enemy did not get into visual contact for the most part ..
    That is, the robot should have cameras and the operator should sit with the joysticks behind the monitor in a safe place.
    And here it turns out the opposite - the operator should lean out under the bullets and point his machine gun with personal belongings at the enemy ..
    1. 0
      5 March 2019 18: 32
      I agree with you. I add that if you hang this device with high-quality cameras, then it needs a broadband communication channel. With minimal delay and packet loss. Such a channel is possible in the microwave frequency range. But in the microwave you need direct visibility between objects, and for this, the antenna must be raised high, unmasking all this beauty. The farther the operator, the higher. And in the VHF range, where direct visibility is not needed, the channel capacity is such that HD video does not crawl .... In short, it’s so bad and so bad. Is that over the operator and machine gun hang a UAV repeater broadband channel. But this is a completely different story ...
    2. 0
      6 March 2019 00: 50
      Quote: Mikhail Malakhov
      And here it turns out the opposite - the operator should lean out under the bullets and point his machine gun with personal belongings at the enemy ..

      Because it is not an operator, but a soldier-infantryman. Who has an additional opportunity: at any time to call the robot on the target and not soared about the consumption of ammunition (not he wears them).
      This concept is somewhat opposite to the wretched idea of ​​"for each robot - one operator in the rear" - this idea degrades modern infantry to a computer game. Instead of infantrymen, there will be a bunch of operators in the army who have no idea how to survive and fight themselves in an infantry battle.
      I wrote about this in my article here: https://topwar.ru/146812-vremja-roboto-pehoty-prishlo-ili-net.html
  30. +2
    5 March 2019 19: 43
    I have not written comments for a long time, but I could not resist here. And the matter is not in the merits of this combat robot, which are more than enough, but in the fact that the author sincerely believes in his exclusivity.

    "... the designers and developers have clearly read the" Military Review ", in particular, my articles on criticism of previous samples (" Companion ") and consideration of what is needed for combat robots of this type."

    I read and I want to cry. What a great specialist lost Russian design thought. It seems that the author of the article could become shoulder to shoulder with Rogozin himself, raising the domestic rocket and space industry. This is at least.

    If serious. The site describes dozens of samples of promising military equipment, which was not, is not and never will be in the Russian army. So maybe it is not worth the people on the ears ride?
    1. 0
      6 March 2019 00: 46
      I think the author has exaggerated a little. Obviously, the same thoughts can come to different heads almost simultaneously. I thought about it a year ago, I am sure that in the Russian Federation, the USA and other countries many designers are in a similar vein.
  31. 0
    5 March 2019 22: 11
    Quote: Slon1978
    a lightweight robot will in any case "take" a 12,7 mm caliber.

    There are technical solutions that make it possible to set a caliber even more, then the range of tasks to be solved will increase significantly, and to make more sense from this robot, I think that it should work in tandem with a flying drone.
    1. 0
      5 March 2019 22: 37
      The range of tasks will increase along with the mass of the device, which draws the need for a more powerful engine, an increase in size, cross-country issues, etc.
      I'm wondering how many technical support units are needed to service such machine guns? Refuel, repair, evacuate, transport with operators, spare parts, ammunition? When combining these with a machine gun into one unit with a UAV, the drones must also be serviced. Doesn't it seem that the machine gun will turn out "golden"? At the same time, the UAV reconnaissance relay itself must be defended. Then a shock UAV is needed to the heap.
      1. 0
        5 March 2019 22: 49
        Quote: Tavrik
        how many technical support units are needed to service such machine guns?

        As much as for servicing personnel, however, there will be a replacement - "live" personnel for iron. However, in today's realities, there are seven supporters for one belligerent. And what about increasing the mass of the device with increasing caliber - you can do it without increasing it.
  32. 0
    6 March 2019 00: 30
    Thanks for the article, the robot is really interesting.
    Not amazing, not prestigious, but quite promising. I agree with the idea that a robot infantryman should be smaller, lower. To survive longer on the battlefield. And armor is by no means necessary everywhere.
    I also wrote on this topic here in two articles (I did not fit into one): https://topwar.ru/146812-vremja-roboto-pehoty-prishlo-ili-net.html and https://topwar.ru/146867 -vremja-roboto-pehoty-predvaritelnye-prikidki-prodolzhenie.html - tried not only to describe the robot, but also the method of application, the tactics of the robotois (conventional infantry + robotopekhots = half-infantry) in the offensive and in the defense.
    The main thing that I used from the description I described was the tip of the robot with an infantry gun. And this is a step in the right direction, but this road is long, not for one year.
  33. 0
    6 March 2019 00: 43
    Quote: credo
    , how will transfer control to other fighter operators, if the main operator or the calculation will die.

    He described his version of the article: https://topwar.ru/146812-vremja-roboto-pehoty-prishlo-ili-net.html
    Briefly: the robot goes on the attack with an approximate azimuth of movement from the commander (on the tablet before the attack drew), and then focusing on the soldiers of his squad / platoon who go to 50-150 meters behind (they stopped - the robot stopped, they took to the left - the robot accepted left). Plus a voice recognition radio channel: any soldier can give him a command like "A23 Robot: 275 course, small forward!"(Also for emergency stop shooting).
    Target designations to the robots come from the soldiers in the chain behind him: they aim their assault rifles / rifles at the target, press the laser-rangefinder-target designator button, the digital signal goes to the robots of this squad, the nearest robot will aim at the "laser spot" and fire at this target while on it "bunny" (or replies over the radio network with a message such as: "busy firing at another target", "faulty", "no line of sight to the target"). In the future, it is possible to improve the scheme so that you do not have to constantly keep the target "highlighted" - after the first illumination of the target, you need to calculate the exact direction to the target (azimuth, elevation) and range right in the sight on the soldier's machine gun - then send it to the company's radio network along with the coordinates fighter (the fighter must have a Glonas sensor) - the computers in the squad's radio network will calculate the absolute coordinates of the target from these data - then the coordinates relative to the robot will be transmitted to the robot.
    A soldier can search for / bombard the next target.
    Operators connect only to robots that get lost, confused, get stuck.
  34. 0
    6 March 2019 00: 54
    Quote: Likant
    But if a soldier with a "sighting device" is killed, you need to either switch to an available "device" (aka target marker),

    In my article (https://topwar.ru/146812-vremja-roboto-pehoty-prishlo-ili-net.html), I offered a simple radio-network solution: two such (or smaller) robots per branch (messing around with BMP / BTR), all machine gunners and a sniper of the squad can target these robots with their laser target indicators (range finders) mounted on their weapons. Robots will receive target designation as long as there is at least one efficient soldier in the unit with such a working target designator and while the radio network is working.
  35. 0
    6 March 2019 00: 58
    Quote: Likant
    Even just a machine gun and RPGs will get to the enemy - already a minus! ..

    And by the way: I have always believed that robots with a machine gun advancing in the infantry chain (in front of the infantry chain) need not give grenade launchers (so as not to burst near their own). But if the control is network-centric, and not of the type "one personal operator for each robot," then it is banally dangerous to give an RPG - in the heat of battle, the target designator will point in the wrong direction and the missile will be fired in the wrong direction.
    But if he comes apart completely from the infantry, then please.
  36. 0
    6 March 2019 01: 08
    Quote: meandr51
    the robot will be better than a machine gunner on a buggy only when it is several times smaller, quieter, more accurate and faster

    I agree, because it should be even smaller and lower.
    I wrote in my article (https://topwar.ru/146812-vremja-roboto-pehoty-prishlo-ili-net.html); " conclusions on dimensions: width no more than 1100 mm (even better within 1000 mm), and length no more than 1500 mm. The weight of the robot should be around 300 kg, including the weight of the turret and machine gun with ammunition and drives"(such a robot can be transported on an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle and a couple of soldiers can at least lift / pull it out of the pit if something happens).
    And now I think so: maybe a bit longer and heavier, but obviously low, not higher than the 1 meter. And most importantly: simple and cheap: a machine gun robot is a consumable element of a company (going ahead, collecting enemy's bullets, usually intended for living infantrymen), lightly armored aluminum punching. That is how it should be treated.
    The most difficult thing is to debug target designation, accurate guidance and interaction with your infantry, safe for your infantry. Therefore, I think that only a clinical Down can run in front of such a robot - its infantry with designators should be at the back / side, and the robot should have a sector of shelling on the horizon no more than +/- 45 degrees ahead.
  37. 0
    6 March 2019 01: 10
    Excuse me, how long has our industry mastered small-cubed motors with an injector, water cooling and balancer shafts? And at the same time reliable variators?
    And do not tell me about the advanced technologies of the Stealth company, I swam, I know.
    This development either runs on a Chinese quadric engine and transmission with a carburetor and a 2000km resource if you are lucky and there was no factory defect. Or on a pair of electric motors with ali and a KAMAZ battery, then there’s nothing to talk about at all.
    There is simply no domestic motor in this class. And in the near future will not be. If Yamaha and Suzuki can’t repeat Honda 100%, then where do we go. The only option is to buy a license from Honda. So will not sell the same.
  38. 0
    6 March 2019 01: 14
    Quote: voyaka uh
    to quickly transfer them to the wheeled (or better tracked) technique.

    I thought of mounting such babies (for 300-400 kg) on ​​conventional BMP / BTR with minimal modifications. I recommend two of my articles on the topic of robotic infantry: https://topwar.ru/146812-vremja-roboto-pehoty-prishlo-ili-net.html and https://topwar.ru/146867-vremja-roboto-pehoty- predvaritelnye-prikidki-prodolzhenie.html
  39. 0
    6 March 2019 01: 17
    Quote: Mister X
    The author admitted that a delay of a few seconds when sending a picture to the screen of the operator negates all other achievements.

    Yeah, that's why I am targeting infantrymen near the robot (advancing in 50-150 meters behind it) - they see the battlefield with their own eyes, it’s obvious to them which goals are more important, and the signal from their target indicators reaches the robots even with interference (100 meters of ). And the hare from the laser designator is generally not suppress any interference. Only smoke / aerosol.
  40. 0
    6 March 2019 01: 21
    Quote: Dietmar

    And why should a gunner be made not as a gunner pushed forward, but a sniper at some (eg 400) distance behind this unit?

    Can. If he sees the battlefield well, then the option is generally convenient.
    But after all, it is possible to make not one fighter, but everyone in the squad, as a gunner. And do not keep them in front of the robot (a place for suicides - if the robot closes something or turns it off), but behind it (either in 20 meters just behind the stern, or in the chain in 50-150 meters behind). And the robot is strictly limited to the front sector of fire. Write about this in the article: https://topwar.ru/146812-vremja-roboto-pehoty-prishlo-ili-net.html
  41. 0
    6 March 2019 01: 24
    Quote: viktorish007
    or a more complex system with mutual positioning - what is it that the

    Why hardly?
    For mortars, this guidance has already been done (see the articles: https://topwar.ru/149646-vremja-roboto-pehoty-robot-minometchik-razvitie-karmannoj-artillerii.html and https://topwar.ru/114565-minometnye- kompleksy-mobilnost-prezhde-vsego.html) but for robots with machine guns will not work? Why?
  42. 0
    6 March 2019 01: 31
    Quote: AVM
    The operator who sees with the "eyes" of the robot is much more reliable.

    All this is also necessary to encrypt, and then who will take control, and vupit the owners of the robot in the back.


    No, it is not safer.
    First of all, he is not on the battlefield, he perceives everything detachedly (he does not see the whole picture, cannot rotate his head right and left like an ordinary soldier), he is safe. He will be trained as an operator, not as an infantryman.
    Secondly, it is far away, and at any moment the picture may disappear, the connection is interrupted (weather, lightning, interference, equipment failures, broken cameras) - the operator will become a useless ballast of the unit.

    If the robot is controlled (by the voice and target indications of laser rangefinders on the weapon) by the infantrymen in the chain BEHIND the robot, then they can see more clearly and more clearly which goals are more important. And the robot can move itself, being guided by its infantry from behind. By restricting the robot to the shelling strictly by the front sector and banning the infantry from being thrust forward by the robot, you can solve the problem of soldiers getting under the distribution of their robot.
  43. 0
    6 March 2019 01: 34
    Quote: Angrybeard
    In another case, it is just a target, because the trenches for it will not dig.

    Why not dig a trench for the robot in advance when it is on the defensive? Or even a ditch (depth ditch in 30-40 cm + roller in front of it) over which the robot will drive and fire from the stops (In Syria, this was done for tanks and in the Iran-Iraq war too). He wrote about machine-guns in defense here in the article: https://topwar.ru/146867-vremja-roboto-pehoty-predvaritelnye-prikidki-prodolzhenie.html
  44. 0
    9 March 2019 08: 11
    In warehouses, a huge number of real tanks from which it is necessary to make crewless cars and not to spray money on toys like this one described in the article.
  45. 0
    9 March 2019 11: 07
    The main thing is that the insidious enemy does not take control of the robots.
  46. 0
    10 March 2019 15: 53
    Very impressive! Well done, Designers! As the "Classic" said - "More! Better! More!" Something like that...
  47. The comment was deleted.
  48. 0
    13 March 2019 13: 31
    The author read. Izh you.