Military Review

Is it worth abandoning conventional tanks, replacing them with unmanned vehicles: reflections on the prospects

55

At the beginning of July, it was reported that new tests were carried out in Russia. tanks T-14 "Armata" in unmanned mode. This news it can be called long-awaited, because our army was expecting the creation of domestic robotic armored vehicles back in 2018.


They were first discussed in 2016. Then the former head of the armored department of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Alexander Shevchenko, announced the creation of an unmanned version of the T-14 "Armata" by 2018. He stated that the main feature of the new Russian robotic armored vehicles will be an open digital architecture, whatever that means.

Actually, "Armata" have not yet entered service, not only unmanned, but also in their usual form. They are still undergoing tests, one of the stages of which was the unmanned version.

Having learned about the tests in this format, some thought that now all T-14s will go to the troops in an unmanned version. They say that this is why these tanks did not enter service, that they decided not to make them in the usual version, but to release them only unmanned.
But can unmanned tanks completely replace traditional ones?

Of course, it is difficult to dispute the fact that unmanned vehicles allow not to endanger the lives and health of the crews, and this is a huge and indisputable advantage. The question is: are they able to cope with tasks that conventional tanks can handle?

First of all, it should be clarified what exactly is meant by unmanned armored vehicles. After all, this can mean both robotic tanks and remotely controlled ones.

A fully robotic tank is both difficult and expensive to make. After all, he must have artificial intelligence capable of independently solving tactical tasks in an autonomous mode without human intervention. In addition, it must continue to function smoothly, including in combat conditions, when the tank is being shot at and even sometimes hit.

With regard to armored vehicles controlled remotely, then another problem manifests itself. The fact is that the operator must be close enough to be able to influence the combat vehicle, but at the same time not find himself in the affected area. It should be borne in mind that a tank is not a stationary object; it moves at high speed and has excellent maneuverability.

Actually, aerial unmanned vehicles are more developed in the world than ground ones. Therefore, its application is able to suggest some ways in which unmanned armored vehicles can develop. As an example, let us recall the joint flight of the Su-57 fighter and the Okhotnik UAV. In this case, the drone was controlled from the side of a manned fighter.

It is possible that the same can be done with armored vehicles. For example, you can take one crew-driven armored combat vehicle with an operator on board, who will coordinate and direct the actions of a group of several unmanned tanks.

Tests of the T-14 without crews does not necessarily mean that these tanks will go into service for unmanned use. After all, it can be just research, gaining experience, etc. It is possible that other armored vehicles will be used as drones, for example, cheaper T-72s.

One thing is clear: talking about a complete replacement of traditional tanks with unmanned vehicles is incorrect. I don't think this will happen. But it would probably be worth working out options for combat interaction between unmanned and traditional tanks.
Photos used:
http://mil.ru/
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757
    rocket757 25 July 2020 14: 04
    +3
    Fiction, which may eventually come true.
    Everyone who is capable of it is working.
    When real results show up, that's a question.
    1. NIKN
      NIKN 25 July 2020 14: 09
      +6
      Is it worth abandoning conventional tanks, replacing them with unmanned
      Is it really a question of abandoning conventional tanks? They are not going to replace it yet, but to supplement it.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 25 July 2020 14: 13
        +2
        So far, an integrated approach. Mixed divisions. Entrusting the whole range of tasks, unmanned vehicles, will not work out soon. This is if it is reasonable to approach this issue! And there, who knows her, who will decide what to do.
        1. Vlad T
          Vlad T 25 July 2020 14: 38
          +1
          For mixed units, new tactics are also needed, and from it and further development ... In such a mixed unit, a reliable network-centric connection with all combat units, both in information and in control, plays an important role. The work is no less costly and important (the Russian Armed Forces have always lost in this) ... Second, for unmanned T-14s, the empty volume in front is no longer necessary, the armor plates should be laid at large angles (Change the base, mean building a new product, later this will be necessary) For the unmanned crew, it is possible to equip rear seats with connectors for control devices, possibly in additional removable containers) ... A new product and new tactics will require many improvements and the born T-14 will grow - improve ...
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 25 July 2020 15: 13
            0
            Quote: Vlad T
            In such a mixed unit, a reliable network centric communication with all combat units, both in information and control, plays an important role. The work is no less costly and important (the Russian Armed Forces have always lost in this) ..

            Much attention is now being paid to this aspect. I hope the previous mistakes will be taken into account and corrected.
            Quote: Vlad T
            The new product and new tactics will require many improvements, and the born T-14 will grow - improve ...

            It's right. So far, at the stage of the experiment, the study of everything and everything, it is permissible in such a way that then make the really necessary changes, in many places.
  2. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 25 July 2020 14: 06
    14
    Another fantasy, and you will have to fight on T72
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 July 2020 16: 28
      -1
      Quote: 7,62x54
      and you will have to fight on T72

      RTK "Alisa" appeared in metal back in 11
      1. 7,62h54
        7,62h54 25 July 2020 16: 35
        +8
        For 9 years, how many of them were produced and put into service?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 July 2020 16: 36
          -3
          Quote: 7,62x54
          For 9 years, how many of them were produced and put into service?

          Whom, T-72?
  3. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 25 July 2020 14: 12
    +3
    There is an unconditional future for remotely controlled equipment at the forefront. But of course, not an immediate one. But in the second order, there will still be people-controlled equipment.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 25 July 2020 15: 16
      0
      Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
      Behind remotely controlled vehicles at the forefront of the unconditional future.

      On the front lines of what? Counter-terrorist military operation?
      TMV does not imply the seizure of territories. It will be problematic for the capitalists to benefit from the contaminated area (we understand perfectly well who and why will organize the wars of the future yes )
      As for tanks with a crew, thermobaric ammunition will cope with this very successfully, and the control of drones can be interrupted by new means of electronic warfare.
      For some reason, it began to strain me that not only the generals are preparing for the last war, but also the modern contingent of civilians and military has a poor idea of ​​the goals, objectives and means of future wars.
      I will tell you honestly and frankly that in Syria, for example, the participation of drone tanks against ISIS could possibly give an advantage.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 July 2020 16: 33
        +1
        Quote: ROSS 42
        As for tanks with a crew - thermobaric ammunition will cope with this very successfully.

        This is unlikely. The tank is too well protected. It is with the BMPshka that you can try to break through the armor if there are no other ammunition.

        Quote: ROSS 42
        On the front lines of what? Counter-terrorist military operation?

        Including....
        It is enough to look at least once in the eyes of the crew getting into the tank with the KMT to understand this.
      2. dauria
        dauria 25 July 2020 23: 40
        +4
        TMV does not imply the seizure of territories.

        Yah ? And earlier I assumed. And a tank breakthrough of a sector of the front after tactical nuclear weapons with access to the uninfected side, until the enemy regained consciousness and pulled up reserves. And they were going to walk up to Biscay, so that the adversaries had no need to land troops in Europe. It is the ground forces together with SNF and made the whole venture pointless with
        exchange of nuclear strikes. Exchanged, and then? Do you think the enemy will fold his legs? With what fright?
        But then, at the end of the 70s, there were an order of magnitude more warheads than now.
      3. PSih2097
        PSih2097 27 July 2020 00: 49
        0
        Quote: ROSS 42
        As for tanks with a crew - thermobaric ammunition will cope with this very successfully.

        Why not 152mm tactical ammunition through a direct hit? But regarding the use of thermobaric ammunition on tanks, read this article, especially the comments on it:
        https://topwar.ru/29511-konstruktivnye-uyazvimosti-osnovnoy-boevoy-mashiny-aoi-merkava-mk4-prodolzhenie.html
  4. pytar
    pytar 25 July 2020 14: 17
    0
    It is possible that other armored vehicles will be used as drones, for example, cheaper T-72s.

    This is logical, because the T-14 is much more expensive and the crew in it is better protected. Although integrating an artificial intelligence system with the T-72 design will be difficult. On the other hand, if this can be done, the combat potential of the unmanned T-72 will increase, and the lives of tankers / most importantly / will not be under threat! Military equipment will more and more switch to robotic, losses in manpower, even minimal ones, are becoming unacceptable in the modern world.
    1. dauria
      dauria 26 July 2020 00: 09
      +4
      losses in manpower, even minimal, in the modern world are becoming unacceptable.

      Boyan, a tank - a weapon of nuclear war. The fact that he participates in modern showdowns on these "dance floors" is a part-time job in a related profession. And in a nuclear war, the "minimum" acceptable losses began with 200 million civilians. It is precisely from the considerations of a nuclear massacre that it is necessary to determine whether the option without a crew is expedient, or a whim. According to the old scenarios, it is an utter happiness. But according to these scenarios, the war in Syria is not a war, but a fight in a pub, and with the rule "do not hit below the waist and with your feet." Here in such refined zavarushki it can and is advisable without people. But to design a tank for them?
      1. pytar
        pytar 26 July 2020 01: 19
        0
        Boyan, a tank - a weapon of nuclear war. The fact that he participates in modern showdowns on these "dance floors" is a part-time job in a related profession.

        Alexey, let us not forget that the tank appeared and fought long before the creation of nuclear weapons. And he is at war in almost all conflicts to this day! Tanks have evolved and will continue to evolve! The most likely direction is robotization and automation. By the way, this applies to most of the types of weapons that are involved in the "first line".
        And in a nuclear war, the "minimum" acceptable losses began with 200 million civilians. It is from considerations of nuclear massacre that it is necessary to determine whether the option without a crew is advisable, or whim

        It is because of the unacceptable damage that nuclear weapons are unlikely. In it, the tanks will not be needed at all, since everything will be reduced to ashes.
        But according to these scenarios, the war in Syria is not a war, but a fight in a pub, and with the rule "do not hit below the waist and with your feet." Here in such refined zavarushki it can and is advisable without people. But to design a tank for them?

        99,9% of wars are like that. So it really makes sense to use the technique without people. The loss of an unmanned tank, drone, combat robot is more acceptable for developed countries than the loss of a crew. In addition, future robotic complexes will be more combat-ready than those with a crew! The artificial intellect is specialized, it does not feel fear. Emu is not hot, not cold. He is quicker to react and is able to process much more information than a human. If we take all the costs, robots will probably be cheaper! It can withstand loads inconceivable for the human body! Of course, it will not do without people, but they will have a different function. hi
        1. dauria
          dauria 26 July 2020 01: 45
          +1
          In it, the tanks will not be needed at all, since everything will be reduced to ashes.


          Hmm. Have you seen a lot of movies from Hollywood? And they showed us another movie. And the whole discipline was - "Weapons of Mass Destruction and Defense of Troops and Objects." With formulas and "beautiful" pictures. With calculations and scenarios. By the way, 30 thousand died in Nagasaki. In a wooden city, where there was no evacuation, no shelters - no measures at all. And only 30 thousand. Is it to ash? But the troops are preparing for these "toys", dispersed and protected. Including the armor of tanks. Apart from a tank and without a tank, there is no one to fight in such a massacre. Yes, there will be no Bolshoi Theater, the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty. They will bury and repay 100 million city dwellers. But there will be troops, reserves and country management. Not ash. And the war only begins with an exchange of missiles, it does not end.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 26 July 2020 06: 49
            0
            Quote: dauria
            By the way, 30 thousand died in Nagasaki. In the wooden city, where there was no evacuation, no shelters - no measures at all. And only 30 thousand. Is it to ash?

            It is foolish to compare the damage from an 18-kiloton bomb dropped on Nagasaki, and the damage from, for example, the Voevoda, whose warhead power can reach 25 megatons, a difference of 1400 times! It's like comparing a 14,5 mm bullet and a 203 mm howitzer projectile. A bullet from KPVT can damage only light armored vehicles and kill one enemy, and a suitcase weighing 100 kg will destroy an entire staircase of a multi-storey building and bury dozens of those who have entered this house.
            1. dauria
              dauria 26 July 2020 10: 52
              +1
              It is foolish to compare the damage from an 18-kiloton bomb dropped on Nagasaki,


              Kuzma kuzmich., They compare not the power, but the cubic root of it. Think why. At the same time, you will understand why bombs over 1 ton are not made in large quantities. And instead of one 25 mgt each, it is better to stick in 10 100 kt.

              And it will not be in Penza, as in Nagasaki - there are evacuation plans, shelters, reserves (there should have been, at least) and even so everyone will rush into the region - the war will not start suddenly.
              1. Kot_Kuzya
                Kot_Kuzya 26 July 2020 20: 12
                +1
                And which is more: the cubic root of 18 thousand or 25 million? Think better.
                Bombs do not make more than one ton because there are no targets for such bombs. If there were targets, they would do, as they did in WWII bombs weighing 5 and 10 tons to destroy railway tunnels and hangars for submarines.
          2. pytar
            pytar 26 July 2020 11: 16
            0
            Alexey, I once served in the army of the country as a member of the Department of Internal Affairs! I remember very well what we were taught! I don't have time to watch Hollywood movies. When thermonuclear !!!! war all infrastructure will be destroyed. You won't have anything to refuel your tanks with ... I'm not talking about the losses in the railway station. and the global consequences for the planet, which will be dire.
            As for robotization, I see how all developed countries are investing colossal funds in this area. The trend is clear! Whether we like it or not, this is a new level and it will be so! hi
    2. georgiigennadievitch
      georgiigennadievitch 3 August 2020 08: 23
      +1
      Logically, one T-14 should manage a dozen (company) T-72s or 80s, 90s, etc. on the battlefield. Then its too high price will be somehow justified. If business develops in this direction , then it will make sense to simultaneously produce a whole range of relatively inexpensive unmanned armored vehicles-robots and highly protected armored vehicles-command posts For this purpose, if it is possible and profitable, at least at first in order to save the budget, previously released tanks can be used and BMP True, you need to think about how they look no different, because. the adversary will seek and destroy these command posts first.
      1. pytar
        pytar 3 August 2020 09: 19
        0
        Quite a logical construction! The structure of the 21st century! good
  5. Mouse
    Mouse 25 July 2020 14: 40
    +4
    At this stage, the human factor has not been canceled ... but there, there, there ... let's see ...
    1. cniza
      cniza 25 July 2020 19: 46
      +3
      And in a future stage, he will have a leading role ...
  6. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 25 July 2020 14: 58
    +2
    But it would probably be worth working out options for combat interaction between unmanned and traditional tanks.

    Who would doubt it ... The point is that unmanned ground vehicles have a very limited range of capabilities and are much more expensive to operate than aerial drones.
    The combat capabilities of a tank can be limited by the development of anti-tank weapons, where the same ATGM can negate all the characteristics - what's the difference, why a tank with a crew (or a drone) cannot move if its chassis is damaged? belay
  7. From Tomsk
    From Tomsk 25 July 2020 15: 02
    0
    "The point is that the operator must be close enough to be able to influence the combat vehicle, but not be in the affected area."
    And right there
    "For example, you can take one crew-driven armored combat vehicle with an operator on board, who will coordinate and direct the actions of a group of several unmanned tanks."
    That is, the operator is in the affected area, but the crew is not)))
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 25 July 2020 23: 03
      +2
      Quote: From Tomsk
      the operator must be close enough to be able to act on the combat vehicle, but not be in the affected area. "

      Quote: From Tomsk
      For example, you can take one crew-driven armored combat vehicle with an operator on board, who will coordinate and direct the actions of a group of several unmanned tanks. "
      That is, the operator is in the affected area, but the crew is not))

      The operator may not be in the "affected area" (!), But operate without crewed combat vehicles through the UAV!
  8. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 25 July 2020 15: 06
    +1
    Is it worth it to suffer this very ... the site will not miss ... No, not worth it. And for the sake of realizing this fact, it is ridiculous to write an article.
  9. parusnik
    parusnik 25 July 2020 15: 34
    10
    ...... The battle is won, ”whispered Supreme Commander Vetterer, looking up from the television screen. “Congratulations, gentlemen.” The generals smiled wearily. They looked at each other and let out a cry of joy. Armageddon was won and the forces of Satan were defeated, but something was happening on their television screens.
    - How! This ... this ... - began General McFee and fell silent. For along the battlefield, between the heaps of warped, shattered metal, Grace walked. The generals were silent. Grace touched the disfigured robot. And the robots stirred throughout the steaming desert. Twisted, burnt, melted pieces of metal were renewed. And the robots got to their feet.
    “McPhee,” Supreme Commander Vetterer whispered. `` Press on something - let them, or something, kneel down. '' The general pressed, but the remote control did not work. And the robots were already soaring into the sky. The angels of the Lord surrounded them, and robotic tanks, robotic infantry, automatic bombers ascended higher and higher.
    - He takes them alive to heaven! Ongin exclaimed hysterically. - He takes robots to paradise!
    R. Sheckley Battle
  10. svp67
    svp67 25 July 2020 16: 08
    +6
    One thing is clear: talking about a complete replacement of traditional tanks with unmanned vehicles is incorrect. I don't think this will happen.
    While. While the level of technology does not allow to completely release some robots on the battlefield, but it is already clear that sometime, possibly and faster than we imagine, this will happen. In the meantime, everything will start with "teletanks" ... as part of conventional tank units
  11. Alf
    Alf 25 July 2020 16: 37
    +3
    then another problem appears. The fact is that the operator must be close enough to be able to influence the combat vehicle, but at the same time not find himself in the affected area.

    This is a big problem. But not the biggest one. Dear author, are you aware that there are electronic warfare systems that can completely paralyze this control?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 July 2020 16: 59
      +2
      Quote: Alf
      This is a big problem. But not the biggest one. Dear author, are you aware that there are electronic warfare systems that can completely paralyze this control?

      With electronic warfare, in fact, everything is much more complicated than it seems.
      In short, electronic warfare is not a wunderwaffe.

      There is also the problem of range / visibility. Between the RTK and the antenna control system / repeater, this is ground-based equipment and not a UAV in the rear of the enemy
      Here is the problem of the vulnerability of electronic warfare
      Well, in the end, the operator of the RTK can be located directly in the tank itself.
      1. Vlad T
        Vlad T 25 July 2020 17: 47
        -1
        Perhaps in the future, with electronic warfare and other interference, the programs created for this case will be laid before the battle or the task, and in the autonomous mode the robot performs the task with a return to the original one, as is now accepted ...
  12. Cer59
    Cer59 25 July 2020 16: 38
    -2
    As always, cadres will decide everything. the slightest mistake in the software and the whole technique.
    a combined version is quite possible as a remote control option.
    from my point of view, on the contrary, tanks weighing more than 1000 tons and more will go into battle. rather, they are battle platforms from science fiction films.
    at all times, everything depended on the power plant. Now, with the advent of compact reactors, no questions remain. and questions about counteracting them are a thing in itself. you can quite safely carry the armor so the tone for 600 other weapons and other.
    the study on a computer of a khulyovina weighing 5 perplexed, armor of three meters, any weaponry, the cost is commensurate, the type of chassis is a classic plus an air cushion skirt. average speed up to 000-300 kilometers per hour. sizes? yes on a drum. can only be stopped by a vigorous bomb.
  13. sen
    sen 25 July 2020 17: 38
    +4
    Is it worth abandoning conventional tanks, replacing them with unmanned

    Of course not, but thanks to the introduction of AI, it is possible to reduce the crew to two people, and in the future, thanks to the symbiosis of AI and the human brain, to one.
  14. fif21
    fif21 25 July 2020 18: 18
    +4
    In modern conditions of conducting hybrid wars, tanks with controlled crews will have to say goodbye. So it was with the cavalry, so it was with the archers, so it was with the fortresses ... Destruction of enemy manpower with the most effective means of warfare. Analyze the conduct of hostilities by a potential enemy and you will understand that war according to the regulations of the 20th century is no longer possible. hi
  15. Metlik
    Metlik 25 July 2020 19: 21
    +1
    “As for remotely controlled armored vehicles, another problem appears. The point is that the operator must be close enough.” Where does this conclusion come from? Most aerial drones are operated from long distances, even from the other side of the planet.

    It looks like the author wanted to make only one statement:
    "One thing is clear: talking about a complete replacement of traditional tanks with unmanned vehicles is incorrect. I think this will not happen."
    That is, the state has no money for new developments.
  16. Poetry
    Poetry 25 July 2020 19: 37
    +4
    Now there is no need to graduate from the ChVTKU or the Kharkov School as before. It is enough to be a strong player in the World of Tanks. Progress, Christmas trees, panicles.
  17. cniza
    cniza 25 July 2020 19: 43
    +2
    But it would probably be worth working out options for combat interaction between unmanned and traditional tanks.


    Everything is changing rapidly, so we need to consider various options, depending on the tasks ...
  18. Tank jacket
    Tank jacket 25 July 2020 19: 53
    -1
    Remote controlled tanks coupled with artificial intelligence are the future of tank building. Whoever has AI will rule the world ...
    "Mathematicians won the war" (c) film "Mind Games". German Oskarovich will not let you lie ... wassat
    1. iConst
      iConst 26 July 2020 00: 01
      +4
      Quote: Tank jacket
      Whoever has AI will rule the world ...

      At first, until the AI ​​thinks about why it needs these imperfect humans ... belay
      1. Tank jacket
        Tank jacket 26 July 2020 11: 06
        +1
        This Anglo-Saxon AI will be like a terminator, and our Russian AI will fight for peace ...
    2. Selevc
      Selevc 27 July 2020 13: 26
      0
      Quote: Tank jacket
      Remote controlled tanks coupled with artificial intelligence is the future of tank building. Whoever has AI will rule the world ...
      "Mathematicians won the war" (c) film "Mind Games". German Oskarovich will not let you lie ...

      You will ask absolutely any tank mech-driver how many times during his entire service he used mathematics and how many times with an ordinary crowbar with such and such a mother ??? ... The answer is obvious ...

      I absolutely cannot imagine unmanned vehicles in long-distance march mode ... It seems to me that with the current level of development of electronics and robotics, at best 50% of them will reach the front line !!! Ha-ha - and it would be cool to see these wunder-waiflies along the ditches along the front roads !!! Considering the harsh reality of the roads of Mother Russia !!!
    3. chingachguc
      chingachguc 1 August 2020 12: 21
      0
      chemist: chemists won the war
      Physicist: Physicists won the war
      engineer: engineers won the war
      economist: the economy won the war
      SOLDIER: SOLDIERS WIN THE WAR
  19. Ryaruav
    Ryaruav 25 July 2020 20: 36
    +2
    when all anti-radar missiles, infrared anti-missiles are fired, and the electronic warfare systems will work, then everyone will feel like they are in a tank in 1944
  20. MrFox
    MrFox 25 July 2020 21: 26
    0
    Before talking about such tanks, you need to overcome, as it is now fashionable to say, technological barriers. This is at least the transfer of data and AI, which is based on powerful computing facilities.

    But money will still be given to tankers
  21. iConst
    iConst 25 July 2020 23: 56
    +3
    We were surprised by the absolutely categorical statements of the author:
    A fully robotic tank is both difficult and expensive to make. After all, he must have artificial intelligence capable of independently solving tactical tasks in an autonomous mode without human intervention.
    Where did the author get the idea that it is "both difficult and expensive"? All modern technology - both tanks and airplanes are all kinds of servos, and levers and buttons are nothing more than an interface for a person. So from "expensive" is AI.
    But, first, the point of AI is that it is self-learning. Those. AI cannot be closed within the framework of one combat unit (of course it can, but this is cretinism of the highest degree).
    Those. each machine can (and most likely will) have a copy of the AI. But it must constantly "communicate" with the central AI. And share experiences with him. Which will immediately apply to other combat units.
    AI is already working - Siri, Alice. Somehow, Gugel and Yandex managed and did not go broke. The cost of developing and maintaining the same "Windows" costs hundreds of millions, but "spread" over a hundred million users translates into a couple of hundred greens per copy.
    In addition, the absence of a puzzle of human protection greatly simplifies and reduces the cost of the design (see above about levers, etc.).

    In addition, it must continue to function smoothly, including in combat conditions, when the tank is being shot at and even sometimes hit.
    I didn't understand this at all. Are there other requirements?

    With regard to armored vehicles controlled remotely, then another problem manifests itself. The fact is that the operator must be close enough to be able to influence the combat vehicle, but at the same time not find himself in the affected area.
    and right there
    It should be borne in mind that a tank is not a stationary object; it moves at high speed and has excellent maneuverability.
    How to "influence"? Give commands by voice?
    American operators quietly operate drones from their Emerke thousands of kilometers away.
    Hence the only problem arises - to provide the operator with sufficient situational awareness and reliability of the data exchange channel. These tasks are currently quite solvable without any extra costs.
  22. Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 26 July 2020 00: 49
    -1
    Aerial unmanned vehicles have two characteristics that explain their usefulness:
    1. An unmanned fighter is not limited in overloads during maneuvers.
    2. The UAV can carry radar and detect targets for the main forces earlier, which is decisive in aerial combat.

    Everything is different on earth.
  23. aiden
    aiden 26 July 2020 01: 08
    0
    An anti-tank electronic warfare will appear and either steal it or shoot its own
  24. tank64rus
    tank64rus 26 July 2020 21: 10
    0
    At the Army 2018, two mock-ups of combat robotic complexes were presented: the first one with a BMOS control machine with operators, and two unmanned robots Uran-9, the second control machine based on Armata and two robot tanks based on T-72,80, 90. Plus the UAV on both complexes. After all, Armata was already developed as a control tank for network-centric warfare. Therefore, such difficulties with implementation are hampered not only by liberals from the Ministry of Finance. Everything is unusual, everything requires a lot of rethinking.
  25. certero
    certero 27 July 2020 13: 30
    0
    Making an unmanned aircraft that does not require operator control is a hundred times easier than the same tank.
    Selecting targets in the air is much easier than on Earth
  26. fider
    fider 29 July 2020 18: 27
    0
    At first, a tractor would have been made without a tractor driver, I saw attempts 50 years ago, and they are still doing it. wassat
  27. chingachguc
    chingachguc 1 August 2020 12: 17
    0
    I see no point in an unmanned version. It will be much worse than manned, but more expensive. It makes sense only in specialized drones