Military Review

The "Strike" robot continues testing

83

"Strike" with combat module "Boomerang-BM"


In 2015, VNII Signal from the NPO High-Precision Complexes showed for the first time a prototype of the Udar combat robotic complex. Various works on this project are still ongoing, and recently new details became known. Curious information from the press service of High-Precision Complexes and Rostec was published by the TASS agency.

Versatile tests


It is reported that a number of various tests have been carried out, the purpose of which was to test and test the various functions of the new RTK. First of all, the main running capabilities of the "Impact" were tested. The features of interaction with other unmanned vehicles of various types were also checked.

Tests of systems responsible for autonomous movement have been carried out. RTK "Udar" is equipped with the so-called. traffic planning subsystem. It includes a set of sensors and meters with which a map of the area is created. Taking it into account, the control automation independently builds a route and follows it.

Unmanned "Strike" can interact with other autonomous or remotely controlled equipment. This RTK has already been tested in conjunction with an unmanned aerial vehicle. In particular, the joint work with a tethered UAV, which receives energy from the Udar, was tested.


In the aft part of "Udar" can be placed a small-sized lightweight robot of one purpose or another. If necessary, he descends to the ground and proceeds to perform his work. The interaction of a full-size RTK with such a product has also been tested in practice during tests. Proven small-sized robots are capable of solving a wide range of tasks, from reconnaissance to evacuating the wounded.

It is noted that VNII "Signal" creates its own robotic systems by equipping existing samples with new equipment. According to this principle, on the basis of the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle, a platform for the "Impact" was created. In addition, six different fighting compartments of different types have already gone through robotization, installed on the existing chassis.

Serial base


The combat robot "Strike" was first shown several years ago, and in the future, the developers have repeatedly revealed certain features of the project and the desired capabilities of the finished complex. Of the last News it follows that all the declared functions and abilities of the "Impact" have been tested in the conditions of the landfill. In addition, the high efficiency of the basic approach, which provides for the creation of multipurpose robots based on existing technology, has been confirmed.

During the construction of the RTK "Udar", the serial BMP-3 chassis was used. It retained all the main units, although it underwent some structural changes. The chassis is supplemented with a set of video cameras with all-round visibility, remote and automatic control systems, communication facilities, as well as actuators for interaction with control bodies.


Another version of the complex with different weapons

At the experimental "Impact" during its first demonstrations, a combat module "Boomerang-BM", controlled remotely, was installed. Tests were reportedly carried out with other fighting squads with similar and different weapons. Such products received a set of equipment necessary for integration into the general control systems of the RTK.

In order to expand combat and operational capabilities, the complex can be equipped with additional unmanned systems. So, for reconnaissance and relaying signals can be used light helicopter-type UAVs, transported directly on "Udar". Land-based RTKs for various purposes are being developed, capable of monitoring, transporting various cargo, etc.

The "Impact" project provides for the ability to work in different modes. The armored vehicle can operate under the control of the crew on board or by commands from the remote control. In addition, an automated mode is provided, in which it independently moves along a given route, without needing the assistance of an operator.

On the basis of developments in the current "Impact", it is planned to create a multipurpose robotic platform suitable for the construction of samples for various purposes. In the future, the combat vehicle will be supplemented by transport and engineering modifications with different equipment and capabilities.


"Strike" with a combat module "Bakhcha-U"

Challenges and potential


In general, the current Project Strike and the expected multi-purpose platform may be of great interest to the armed forces. With the help of such equipment, it will be possible to solve a fairly wide range of combat and auxiliary tasks. At the same time, it will be possible to reduce risks or obtain other benefits of various kinds.

A combat vehicle, such as the existing experienced "Strike", is capable of patrolling and reconnaissance, escorting convoys, incl. with automated vehicles and even participate in battles using all available types of weapons. In fact, the combat RTK becomes a functional analogue of the BMP or BRM with some differences and advantages.

The engineering vehicle must carry the appropriate equipment, from the dozer blade to the loader crane. It can be used to evacuate equipment, to prepare positions, etc. The least complex equipment will receive robotic vehicles, which will have to transport various goods and people, incl. wounded.

As the tests of the existing combat RTK show, the new models will have several important advantages. First of all, it is the flexibility of the application of technology. It can be used in manned, remotely controlled and autonomous versions. In addition, the proposed electronics complex allows the RTK to be supplemented with various additional means, from combat modules to UAVs.

The "Strike" robot continues testing
Robotic engineering vehicle "Pass-1"

At the same time, the main result of the "Blow" project should be considered an unbuilt combat vehicle and not expected samples on the same platform. Within the framework of this project, VNII "Signal" used and worked out a new approach to the creation of robotic systems. RTK is created by equipping the finished machine with a set of special tools. This makes it possible to do without the creation of a special chassis and speeds up the work, and also allows maintaining a high degree of unification with other military equipment.

This approach is being successfully implemented in new projects. The RTK "Udar" and the robotic engineering vehicle "Pass-1" are being tested. Probably, in the future, they will present new versions of the RTK on an existing base with certain features, created in the same way.

Future issues


To date, our country has created several robotic systems for military purposes with different functions. At the same time, only individual samples, such as the engineering "Uran-6", have been adopted. Newer developments, incl. equipped with weapons and capable of performing combat missions have not yet been adopted and remain at the stage of development.

The latest news on the success of Project Impact shows that work is ongoing and is yielding the desired results. The search and testing of new solutions of various kinds is carried out. This means that the project is progressing and is gradually approaching the expected final. The Ministry of Defense will be able to consider the "Strike" in different configurations and select the most successful for adoption. In addition, the ideas and developments on this project can find application in new complexes that will be presented only in the distant future.
Author:
Photos used:
VNII "Signal", NPO "High-precision complexes"
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 14 February 2021 06: 18
    +15
    And I like the very concept of such machines. We have tens of thousands of outdated combat vehicles in storage bases, so that can be converted into robots and sent into battle, saving people's lives ...
    1. aars
      aars 14 February 2021 08: 36
      +2
      And I don't like the rework from the existing ones - huge volumes intended for people.
      A special chassis can be much smaller with the same armament.
      1. chenia
        chenia 14 February 2021 11: 03
        +4
        Quote: aars
        A special chassis can be much smaller with the same armament.


        Not. This is a first line car. And it should overcome obstacles and obstacles as a full-fledged BMP. And any trench will stop baby carriages.
        1. aars
          aars 14 February 2021 11: 24
          -3
          It is not at all necessary to assemble the stroller, you can also use a joint with even better geometric cross-country ability.
          1. chenia
            chenia 14 February 2021 11: 38
            +6
            Quote: aars
            a joint with even better geometric cross-country ability is also possible.


            It's right. More variety in troops, so much more fun.
            True, the heads of the relevant services (formations, units, divisions) for such a variety, would rape the generator of such ideas.
            1. aars
              aars 14 February 2021 11: 41
              -2
              Controversial.
              It is not rational to carry air, for many reasons.
              1. chenia
                chenia 14 February 2021 12: 29
                0
                Quote: aars
                It is not rational to carry air, for many reasons.


                Existing BMPs (like the base of the robot) can be made lower (but not due to the clearance).
              2. bayard
                bayard 14 February 2021 17: 26
                +3
                Quote: aars
                It is not rational to carry air, for many reasons.

                So fill it up with ammunition.
                There are a lot of old tanks and infantry fighting vehicles in storage bases. In the first line of attack, it is much more profitable to start up just such robotic machines. They do not need to be built - they already exist. You only need a complex of remote / autonomous control, and forward into the attack. They will take all the first fire on themselves, identify firing points, save the lives of l / s.
                And they will not raze the budget with new developments and production.
                And the proposals and the willingness to robotize the existing T-72s have been around for a long time - 5 years ago.
                And on the basis of the BMP-3, it is more rational to make not a combat, but a protected vehicle - for transporting the ammo to the front and evacuating the wounded. Its combat durability (stability) is not too high, and the price is fellow what.
            2. Intruder
              Intruder 14 February 2021 11: 54
              -1
              True, the heads of the relevant services (formations, units, divisions) for such a variety
              "digging from me until lunchtime" and so on for a whole year in an emergency, they would force ... laughing
        2. ironic
          ironic 14 February 2021 17: 47
          -1
          Better as a full-fledged death star!
      2. qQQQ
        qQQQ 14 February 2021 11: 12
        +3
        Quote: aars
        And I don't like the conversion from the existing ones - huge volumes intended for people. The special chassis can be much smaller with the same weapons.

        The price of the issue, one already exists, albeit redundant, and the other to create and produce, and it is not a fact that it will be better and cheaper.
      3. andrewkor
        andrewkor 14 February 2021 11: 56
        +3
        Remember, at least, the use of An-2 unmanned vehicles by Azerbaijan in the recent war for Karabakh. Of course, a disposable product and not at all autonomous, but it successfully fulfilled its purpose. And I also want to note about the life time of any armored vehicle in a fairly intense conflict - minutes! So, in my opinion, modernizing the existing equipment for new tasks is the very thing.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 14 February 2021 15: 43
          0
          0) In my humble opinion (PMSM), there is no need to compare aviation, sea, land and space technology, there are too different conditions and what is suitable in one case does not fit in another.
          1) For example, in the case of aviation, you can easily discard the "noise background" when scanning, but for land vehicles it is much more difficult to do this, and in the case of military equipment of the front edge, this is generally not realistic
          2) Here, the very concept of such equipment is not suitable for the front edge, drones must have different mass dimensions in order to be able to transport drones in trucks and / or inside armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles (those that have a stern ramp).
          2.1) For example, there is a drone for mine clearance "uranium-6", it can be transported by trucks but not inside an armored personnel carrier / bmp, hence the problems when using the robot to break through the defense, it will have to be landed deeper in the rear and wait longer until it reaches the target , all this negatively affects the combat situation, giving the enemy time to react.
          3) PMSM, most of these robots should be either purely aviation with VPS or hybrid. Thus, so that they could be delivered, hidden, and then quickly attacked and left or take an advantageous firing position. Ideally, these should be some kind of "flying turrets with wire control" that will act "jumps", that is, took off => flew up to 5-10 km => attacked reconnoitered targets => took up a defensive position on a certain surface => covered the attacking units => repeat the cycle. I call such drones "jumpers" - this is a certain aircraft with deteriorated performance characteristics instead of improved performance characteristics / performance characteristics.
      4. 4thParasinok
        4thParasinok 20 March 2021 13: 54
        +1
        Absolutely agree. Even the same blow can be shortened by 3 meters by cutting out the control compartment and by placing the turret above the engine. do not forget that there is almost a meter (exaggerating) of free space above the engine. Alternatively, you can reduce the height of the body by about 80 cm and shorten it by 1,5 meters leaving 5 tracks, replace the engine with a smaller engine with a capacity of 300 horses. The size and weight of the entire machine is reduced. By reducing the size of the engine, you can make the car narrower. And the cost of such an option will be much less than the conversion of a "pure" BMP-3 by a lot, and the survivability will increase on the battlefield. Oh yes, put another BM with a 57 mm AU220M cannon.
      5. Aliko Dursun
        Aliko Dursun April 7 2021 14: 08
        0
        In the event of a real conflict, "like - dislike" problems will become irrelevant. All these alterations will quickly come to naught.
    2. My doctor
      My doctor 14 February 2021 09: 39
      -1
      Quote: svp67
      And I like the very concept of such machines. We have tens of thousands of outdated combat vehicles in storage bases, so that can be converted into robots and sent into battle, saving people's lives ...

      BMP-3 is not so much smile And outdated technology may not justify the effort spent on rework.
      1. madrobot
        madrobot 15 February 2021 11: 47
        0
        > And outdated technology may not justify the effort spent on rework
        + 100. In theory, reworking outdated equipment looks very attractive, but in practice, the costs may be even higher than the release of completely new chassis. We should not forget that keeping equipment in storage is also not very free. And you certainly shouldn't forget about spare parts. This issue is partially resolved through cannibalization, but this is not permanent. Yes, at the moment it is possible to assemble from five BMP-3 three operating ones, but this cannot last forever. But we are talking about a reserve for at least 20 years.
    3. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 11: 15
      -3
      All new ground and air vehicles should be optionally unmanned. What would, depending on the tasks, use people or not.
      The efficiency of old equipment converted into unmanned (unmanned) tends to zero. In reality, only suitable for use as moving targets.
      It is necessary to initially include optional or complete unmanned vehicles in the equipment during design.
      1. Intruder
        Intruder 14 February 2021 12: 02
        -1
        It is necessary to initially include optional or complete unmanned vehicles in the equipment during design.
        well, then this is again the versatility that comes from the old "carriage" technology, plus the cost will be the wildest, you need to cram an autonomous control system with a different class of communications, and plus the habitable volume is optional and all systems in the layout are saved for this, we get the complexity of the design in 2 -3 times higher than in the case of the new layout, in a purely "crewless" version of the BBM !? Even the level of armor protection will be different in order to protect the crew of the optionally crewed version, and this increased mass has to be constantly dragged on the structure of such a version of the AFV ...
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 12: 32
          -1
          No, it doesn't work that way. Modern technology is already packed with sensors, sensors, cameras. They already have BIUS. Mechanical control is replaced by electronic, etc. The task is to design all this so that it would be effective to manage this person while in the car and outside. The same Armata, control is electronic, mechanics are minimum. It's not a problem at all to finish it up to a remote controlled one.

          A more everyday example, modern cars. In fact, all controls are electronic. Tesla can be operated without driving.

          The latest car models where there is no mechanical control can be converted to remote / autonomous control.




          Naturally, the rework will be more expensive and less efficient than the originally properly designed car. And most importantly, the car should initially have electronic control, the VAZ 2109 can of course be remotely controlled, but this solution will have too many faults.
          1. Intruder
            Intruder 14 February 2021 13: 48
            -1
            Modern technology is already packed with sensors, sensors, cameras. They already have BIUS. Mechanical control is replaced by electronic, etc. The task is to design all this so that it would be effective to manage this person while in the car and outside. The same Armata, control is electronic, mechanics are minimum. It's not a problem at all to finish it up to a remote controlled one.
            You misunderstood my comment, I meant that the versatility of such implementations leads to a complication of the layout, the need to take into account the habitability conditions for a potential crew in battle and on the march (in the RTK this is simply not necessary, maximum temperature regulation and humidity for various onboard equipment , and there is no extra volume for a live carcass) ..., an increase in the required level of protection in the optional "carriage" for the RTK, as well as in the increase in the final cost of the BBM version .. systems are already appearing), this is already the norm in our time ..!
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 14: 35
              0
              Well, man will still be on earth for the next 15-25 years.
              I'm not saying that you do not need to make completely unmanned combat vehicles, I say you need optionally unmanned and completely unmanned vehicles. We delete the classic combat vehicles controlled only from the inside.
              At the current and promising level of development, it is impossible to create an autonomous tank or BMP. Remote controlled only. Moving on land and fighting is ten times more difficult than in the air or on the water.
              A real possible application when there is a remotely controlled combat vehicle in front, and the control center on an infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier or MRAP is at a distance of several hundred meters.
              If you make clean, unmanned vehicles, you will need to keep several types of them. Separately for transporting people, separately for transporting and driving unmanned.
              For real conditions, uniformity is important. For example, 4 armored personnel carriers with a landing party go to the task, the landing in these vehicles, after disembarkation, 2 crews move to other armored personnel carriers, and their already unmanned vehicles are sent to a dangerous area. Ahead of the group of soldiers either cover from a height or physically cover the infantry during an assault or evacuation, i.e. in cases where the death of the car is extremely likely.
              Clean crewmen are still the lot of special operations, when there is an opportunity to transfer them. Mine clearance, counterterrorism, assault on important and complex objects, etc.
              In the army, it is necessary to make separate companies with unmanned combat vehicles, where there is one command vehicle for 3-4 combat vehicles.
              An interesting application is universal platforms such as RCV. They can be real helpers in many tasks.
              1. Intruder
                Intruder 14 February 2021 14: 52
                0
                Moving on land and fighting is ten times more difficult than in the air or on the water.
                I do not agree here, in fact, more coordinates should be considered in flight and movement, especially under water, plus sighting systems are more complicated, the same CIUS operates more ..., per unit time, the speed characteristics are different for weapons and targets (in the air), more parameters for underwater, of which there are only GAK and SSN in torpedo armament, solid physics, chemistry, thermodynamics with acoustics and hydrodynamics with complex nonlinear parameters, to a heap of gravimetry ... and the cartography of the ocean floor, these are not land, or satellite maps ...
                If you make clean, unmanned vehicles, you will need to keep several types of them. Separately for transporting people, separately for transporting and driving unmanned.
                and now it is not so !? There are also dozens of types, also types for the transportation of motorized riflemen and airborne troops of all types, sea and air, plus special ones for specialists and special operations !?
                In the army, it is necessary to make separate companies with unmanned combat vehicles, where there is one command vehicle for 3-4 combat vehicles.
                Why is it so bold - one for 3-4 RTK? A mobile data center (even on the ground, even in the air, on a ship ...), with peripheral physical accelerators on board, can cope with a hundred in battle or on the march ... ??? Already serial versions, in different price ranges, are being produced, for different computing architectures to choose from and any wallet! The whole question is in the readiness of military customers - weapons operators, for a new paradigm of "digital combat" and in the desire for implementation and operation ...
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 16: 24
                  -1
                  Damn, I wrote a long beautiful answer, the tablet sat down ((
                  Quote: Intruder
                  in fact, more coordinates should be considered in flight and movement, especially under water

                  When moving in air, on water and under water, you need to take into account the coordinates and distance to the ground + collision avoidance system.
                  On the ground, you need to take into account the composition and structure of the soil, obstacles, route, changes after the use of weapons, mining, etc., etc. In fact, there are tens of more factors. Note that autopilots on cars can only drive if there are well-read markings and signs, when visibility deteriorates or is absent, it turns off. Nobody tries to drive off-road.
                  Target detection and identification is nearly impossible. Its soldiers, allies, enemies, militia, peaceful. In war, they have one form of dirt, sweat and blood.
                  It is much easier to identify sea and air targets.
                  Whose soldier is this?

                  Quote: Intruder
                  and now it is not so !? There are also dozens of types, and also types for the transportation of motorized rifles and all types of troops

                  Of course not. A regiment or brigade has a maximum of 5-6 types of equipment.
                  In the entire US Army, there are 11 major types of equipment Abrams, Stryker, Bradley / AMPV, 3 types of MRAP, M109 and 4 types of trucks. HMMWV, M113, M1117 are being written off and replaced. The same applies to other types of troops.
                  We have more variations, of course, but the same type of equipment is assembled in the regiment, no one in their right mind mixes T-72 and T-80.
                  Quote: Intruder
                  Why is it so bold - one for 3-4 RTK?

                  I even deprived it, for one car at least 2 operators (one is responsible for driving, one weapon operator), a commander per platoon. If the platoon is 4 cars, then this is 9 people, 2-3 control cars come out, with this arrangement. And only 6-7 cars + transport for robots, this is already 2 platoons of optionally unmanned vehicles.

                  I am in favor of drones with all my hands and feet. UAVs in general will become the main types of aircraft already in this decade, naval ones on the way there are heavier.
                  But ground-based ones are much more difficult, while there are generally unsolvable problems. Target identification, cross-country driving, and communication. Therefore, only remote control over short distances.
                  1. Intruder
                    Intruder 14 February 2021 22: 48
                    -1
                    Whose soldier is this?
                    a combatant !? And so, hell knows this fellow in a balaclava, I can only with confidence by the arrow in his hands, judge by the zinc lying to his right ... wink
                    It is much easier to identify sea and air targets
                    well ... if you didn’t work with radar surveys of air targets in real meteorological conditions, not in a laboratory or at a test site (I worked and know what I’m talking about), then alas and ah .., but with marine signatures on GAKs , it is necessary to ask the comrades who served, who is really in the subject! By the way, I hope no offense, only to the extent of the discussion ...
                    Target identification
                    I don’t see fundamental problems at all, industrial vision and neural networks with recognition of images and optical signatures are coping with a bang now, there are generally cheap projects from open source software from Google, there are plugins and patterns for signature analysis already available, there are commercial projects bought and implemented quiet where necessary ...
                    In the entire US Army, there are 11 major types of equipment Abrams, Stryker, Bradley / AMPV, 3 types of MRAP, M109 and 4 types of trucks. HMMWV, M113, M1117 are being written off and replaced.
                    if it's elementary to count !? 11 + 3 + 4 = 18 main types come out, here they are still omitted, I hope not on purpose repeat - ACV, AAV-7A1, M88A1 ​​/ A2, AN / TPQ-36 Firefinder, which by the way adds, 3 more types of separate, combined two types of KMP amphibians !!!
                    Nobody tries to drive off-road.
                    but you will have to fight !? and jump over the rubble and drive through everyone's garbage in cities and towns, no one will agree on the march, there will be a map of the area with reconnaissance data and lidars with optics on the RTK in the convoy, they will be able to work ...
                    1. OgnennyiKotik
                      OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 23: 50
                      -1
                      Quote: Intruder
                      And so, hell knows this fellow in a balaclava,

                      You need to decide in a few seconds who he is and make a decision. How to do it? Only a person can do this. He is a LDNR militia, St. George's ribbon at the entrance to the bunker. It's the same with technology. Machine identification of targets in combat conditions is practically impossible. There is no reason.
                      Quote: Intruder
                      Radar surveys of air targets in real meteorological conditions, not in a laboratory or at a test site

                      This is a very difficult task, but feasible, it needs to be assessed comprehensively and not only by the target image of the target. With many parameters, selection can be performed. You can act differently, designate your own, all other enemies. In a specific area of ​​hostilities, civilians no longer fly or swim.
                      This trick will not work on earth. Somehow the technique can be disassembled. Conditional air defense systems and tanks, people, cars are definitely not.
                      Quote: Intruder
                      I do not see fundamental problems at all, industrial vision and neural networks with pattern recognition and optical signatures on

                      Not with a bang, with a certain percentage of rejects, according to clearly defined parameters, with expansion during self-learning. But how can the system be explained that this Afghan or Syrian barmaley is an enemy, this ally, this is not an ally or an enemy, but we are not shooting at him. I can not imagine. On the sea and in the air, there are 3 categories of their own, enemies and neutrals, at which we do not shoot if they do not open fire.
                      There is no such thing on earth. There are allies, not quite allies, not quite enemies, enemies, peaceful people, a huge number of variations. This is simply not a machine to teach
                      Quote: Intruder
                      if it's elementary to count !? 11 + 3 + 4 = 18 main types come out,

                      Are you laughing? Abrams, Stryker, Bradley / AMPV, 3 types of MRAP, M109 and 4 types of trucks (1 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 4 = 11) MRAP are going to replace the Humvee and M1117, AMPV (Bradley) to replace the M113. They change brigade, i.e. will not serve at the same time.
                      Quote: Intruder
                      ACV, AAV-7A1, M88A1 ​​/ A2, Firefinder, AN / TPQ-36 which, by the way, adds 3 more types of separate, combined two types of amphibians KMP !!!

                      I'm talking about the army, not the ILC or the National Guard. Do not interfere with different types of troops, they are completely autonomous from each other.
                      In the KMP there are even fewer options for Abrams (they will be written off by the year 30), LAV, ACV, AAV, Cougar, Oshkosh, HMMWV, F / MTVR (8-9 types)
                      There are a huge number of types of special vehicles, because they are for special tasks and, naturally, unmanned vehicles will go there, I am talking about this. The army can simply buy special equipment from the locals so that elementary tractors or trucks do not move thousands of kilometers. AN / TPQ-36 is a radar.

                      Quote: Intruder
                      and jump over the rubble and drive through the rubbish to everyone in cities and towns, no one will agree on the march, there is a map of the area

                      On the march, not a problem, adaptive cruise control will cope, it is enough to drive the head car.
                      In rough terrain, more than one computer will not cope with driving, there is no talk about a fight at all.
                      1. Intruder
                        Intruder 15 February 2021 00: 18
                        -1
                        He is a LDNR militia, St. George's ribbon at the entrance to the bunker.
                        so I was in doubt, about the St.George ribbon, I just did not specifically mention wink ! So a non-combatant ... laughing
                        You can act differently, designate your own, all other enemies. In a specific area of ​​hostilities, civilians no longer fly or swim.
                        This trick will not work on earth. Somehow the technique can be disassembled. Conditional air defense systems and tanks, people, cars are definitely not.
                        well, there are such things for identification of ground vehicles:
                        IDENTIFICATIONS AND NUMBERS OF COMBAT VEHICLES
                        1. To identify their combat vehicles and determine their belonging to a formation, unit and subunit, identification marks and conditional numbers are applied to them.
                        2. The identification mark of a connection (part) is an image of a geometric figure - a circle, square, rectangle, rhombus, triangle and others. To increase the number of variants of identification marks, it is allowed to draw lines in different directions, numbers, letters, a symbolic image of individual tree species or their leaves, as well as paint over one of the parts of the mark, inside the mark. The identification mark of the formation (unit) is assigned by the senior commander (chief) and is periodically changed.
                        The reference number is a three-digit number. For a certain period, the commander of the unit assigns one or two hundred numbers to each military unit, for example: 200-299 or 800-999. The order of numbering of combat vehicles of subunits is established by the unit commander, while it is allowed to repeat the same numbers for different military equipment. For example, a regiment (battalion) commander's tank and a command post (commander) vehicle may have the same number, and the numbers of tanks in tank companies of a motorized rifle regiment may repeat the numbers of infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers) in motorized rifle companies.
                        3. The identification mark is applied on the right and left sides of the tower (sides of the vehicle) in front of the conventional number.
                        Conditional numbers are applied:
                        on tanks - on the turret from the sides and rear (allowed on the outside of boxes for spare parts, accessories, equipment for underwater driving and crew personal belongings attached to the turret in these places);
                        on infantry fighting vehicles - on the right and left in the middle of the sides and in the upper part of the right aft door;
                        on self-propelled artillery guns - on the turret from the sides and on the aft hatch;
                        on armored personnel carriers such as BTR-60PB, BTR-70, BTR-80 and command and staff vehicles based on them - to the right and left along the sides in front of the inclined armor plates below the level of viewing devices and handrails for landing (in places free from brackets for hanging spare parts and accessories);
                        on the rest of military equipment - on the right and left in the middle or in the front free part of the sides.
                        In summer, the identification mark and the conventional number are applied with white paint, in winter and during operations in deserts, when combat vehicles are camouflaged, with red or black paint.
                        The height of the digits of the conventional number is 20-40 cm, depending on the design features of the combat vehicle. Their width is two-thirds of the height. The size of the identification mark must not exceed the height of the digits of the conventional number, but not less than two-thirds of their height. The thickness of the lines of the identification mark and the conventional number is equal to one-sixth of their height.
                        the appendix to the still Soviet Combat Regulations of the Ground Forces, part 2 (company, battalion), can now be supplemented with all sorts of panels for armor, which is by the way ... so that in different optical ranges the reflection is given, plus transponders in the radio range ... that is already there ...
                        In rough terrain, no computer can handle driving
                        but what about mobile platforms on another planet (Mars), for example!?, where not only the changing operator controls all the time in motion ..., we take into account the delay of the control signal and video-photo data (telemetry) back and forth, and all sorts of bad factors on the surface, even with a meager speed of the movement itself ...

                        There are a huge number of types of special vehicles, because they are for special tasks and, naturally, unmanned vehicles will go there, I am talking about this.
                        And I'm surprisingly about the same, by the way, we did not share the kind of troops, but talked about all the variety of types of ground platforms and armored combat vehicles !? Therefore, I gave both the types of "pieces of iron" and the KMP, but about
                        AN / TPQ-36 is a radar.
                        , I know, but it's just a specialized platform with its own purpose !!!
                      2. OgnennyiKotik
                        OgnennyiKotik 15 February 2021 00: 56
                        -1
                        Quote: Intruder
                        now it can be supplemented with all sorts of panels for armor, which is by the way ... so that they give light in different optical ranges, plus transponders in the radio range ..., which is already there ...

                        All this is for the rear. In marching and combat conditions, there is one camouflage for all, from which I already wrote.
                        The defendants, yes, ideally, to send a rocket towards that defendant.
                        In Iraq, friendly fires accounted for 2-3% of the total losses.
                        On the front lines, no one bears insignia (or they are barely noticeable), this is certain death. Anything that sets you apart from the rest attracts the enemy.
                        It's okay when the enemy is different to states with different equipment.
                        In Donbas, militias and Ukrainians used to walk in the same column, talk to each other and did not understand who was in front of them.
                        Quote: Intruder
                        But what about mobile platforms on another planet (Mars), for example !?

                        It's easy, they shoot everything that is nearby, send it to the ground, 10-15 people handle it on the ground, build a route, approve it and poison it to the rover.
                        Here for example:
                        From late April to June 2005, Opportunity did not move as it got stuck in the dune with several wheels. In order to retrieve the rover with minimal risk, terrain simulations were performed over 6 weeks. Successful maneuvering several centimeters a day eventually freed the rover, thereby allowing it to continue its journey across the red planet's surface.
                        By the way, he is a record holder of 45 km in 14 years.
                        Quote: Intruder
                        by the way, we did not share the kind of troops,

                        How did you not share? In principle, it is impossible to talk without separation. Different types of troops have different divisions, tasks, concepts of warfare. What's good for one person is bad for another. The ILC refuses the Tanks principle, now the Army should refuse?
                      3. Intruder
                        Intruder 15 February 2021 02: 14
                        -1
                        It's easy, they shoot everything that is nearby, send it to the ground, 10-15 people handle it on the ground, build a route, approve it and poison it to the rover.
                        I will add a little, suddenly someone will be interested in:

                        Blind mode is the easiest movement possible. In this case, the rover will follow the instructions sent from the Earth, and not pay attention to anything. Ideally, this is a great method to fly a rover, but conditions on Mars are far from ideal. Often external factors influence the progress towards the goal. This could be, for example, sliding the wheels on the surface, so that the rover, instead of advancing 10 meters, moves 9 or even 5. In general, blind steering is not the best option, but it allows the rover to move quickly, since the system does not you need to stop to take pictures. At maximum speed, the rover can travel the length of a football field in just an hour. But this option is chosen only if there are no potentially dangerous objects around.

                        Visual odometry is used more often by operators. In this case, the rover stops every meter in order to take a picture of the ground with cameras. The on-board computer then evaluates the image, compares it to the previous one, and tries to understand what has changed around, including the location of the rover. The computer then sends new navigation commands to keep you on track. Visual odometry is a balance between speed and movement accuracy. The method is extremely important as it helps to detect obstacles in the path of the rover and avoid them.
                        Auto navigation, or autonav, is the most technologically advanced method. It can be compared to using a drone in a car. We set a common goal and the rover itself searches for a safe and fast path to the goal. The rover has to stop every meter to assess the situation using cameras. But instead of taking one picture using navigation cameras, the rover also uses hazcams (NASA's rovers have several cameras, thanks to which the rover forms a "picture", as if seen with human eyes. There are also hazcams, "danger cameras" that evaluate presence of problems nearby, as well as navcams - navigation cameras that assess the road ahead.). Then the on-board computer combines all this information, forming a "hazard map". Problematic places are marked in red, places where the situation is not so dire are in yellow, and the area most suitable for promoting the router is marked in green.

                        PS The main thing to know is that Mars is very, very far from us. A radio signal sent from Earth reaches the surface of Mars in 22 minutes. Therefore, real-time control is not an option. In addition, Curiosity receives information from Earth once a day. The rest of the time he is left to himself ...
                      4. Intruder
                        Intruder 15 February 2021 02: 19
                        -1
                        How did you not share? In principle, it is impossible to talk without separation. Different types of troops have different divisions, tasks, concepts of warfare. What's good for one person is bad for another. The ILC refuses the Tanks principle, now the Army should refuse?
                        did we have a division !? I missed something, you can see ...
                        Types of equipment, not different types of troops, and it is the divisions in them ...!?
                        The army will never give up on this type of armored combat vehicles, there is no sense in this ... as, by the way, and especially from finding tanks in the ILC!
            2. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 16: 48
              -1
              Concerning unmanned sea ships. The Turks launched and tested the boat. Their purchase is planned in the amount of 100+ pieces.
              By the way, the channel is interesting, it releases videos very quickly, most importantly with English subtitles.
              1. Intruder
                Intruder 14 February 2021 22: 52
                -1
                The Turks launched and tested the boat. Their purchase is planned in the amount of 100+ pieces.
                Duc, they have an example from the Iranians, apparently they take !? Those last year, also decided to themselves coastal forces, thus expanding ... and the capabilities of the protection of coastal zones and the amount of cash from the Iranian Navy!
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 22: 54
                  0
                  Approximately, only there are biorobots. Recently, the Navy received 300+ boats.
                  1. Intruder
                    Intruder 15 February 2021 00: 23
                    -1
                    Approximately, only there are biorobots.
                    just a lot of them were riveted in Iran, or rather on "created" wink , so they decided to put them into business and the boats were assigned to them, or rather them to them !!! laughing
          2. Victorio
            Victorio 15 February 2021 12: 23
            0
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            An interesting application is universal platforms such as RCV. They can be real helpers in many tasks.

            ===
            interesting, low clearance, will sit on its belly in mud and snow, and wide tracks will not help. on the other hand, wide tracks will reduce pressure, will not fall through?
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 15 February 2021 12: 42
              0
              This is a test sample, see what it can, use cases. And there is a whole family of machines on offer.
              In my opinion, a good engineering vehicle to transfer cargo, to clear something, to open it, is excellent for mine clearance.
              Here's the developer's vision:

  2. ironic
    ironic 14 February 2021 17: 50
    -2
    Not every pilot is a good drone. MBT for example. At close range, an unmanned MBT version is not needed in today's realities.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 18: 00
      -2
      MBTs are not needed at all, a dying class of technology.
      1. ironic
        ironic 14 February 2021 18: 04
        +1
        Still needed. But the number is limited.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 18: 16
          -1
          No, not at all. And in modern armies they are not. Abrams M1A2, Leopard 2A7, Merkava 4 in an additional city shed, additional equipment and BC weigh around 80 tons. These are full-fledged heavy tanks. Tasks characteristic of this type of tanks.
          Light and medium tanks will cope with the rest of the tasks; older MBT modifications are now used as them. Moreover, they cope with them poorly, they lack maneuverability and stealth.
          In the near future, in developed armies, MBT will be transferred to heavy tanks, new light and medium tanks will be purchased. However, the contests have already been launched.
          1. ironic
            ironic 14 February 2021 18: 37
            0
            Well, not 80, but somewhere around 70. But yes, they are real MBT, and further development will follow the path of creating a universal combat vehicle for fire support for motorized infantry, in the escort version with 30-50mm cannons and in the PT 90-105mm version and weighing 35-40t.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 18: 53
              -1
              Quote: ironic
              But yes, they are the real MBT,

              Well, they have gone far from the original MBT with 45-55 tons of weight, and there is also a question in the tactics of use. She's closer to Tiger 2 than T-64 or Leopard 2 (without any)
              Quote: ironic
              the escort variant with 30-50mm cannons and the PT version 90-105mm and weighing 35-40t.

              Yeah. Here they can be optionally made unmanned. With remote control panels.

              1. ironic
                ironic 14 February 2021 19: 00
                0
                Well, in the west, MBTs have long been heavy tanks with a weight of over 60 tons. Medium tanks were actually abandoned there in the past, and then they seem to come back, but this is no longer timely, because not really a tank is needed, but a universal platform for the weight of a medium tank. For the rest, we have cosensus. drinks
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 19: 51
                  -1
                  I'm really surprised by the Turks. They are now in serial production of 2 types of medium tracked platforms Kaplan and Tulpar from different manufacturers. In versions of armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles / PT, etc. It's the same with all other types of technology. Everywhere at least 2 manufacturers per 1 position. What makes competition life-giving. In Russia, one unfortunate Kurganets cannot be brought to a series.

                  1. ironic
                    ironic 14 February 2021 19: 54
                    -1
                    Well, in fact, in this case, it is not known which is better, to buy equipment from different manufacturers or to hold a competition and choose one winner platform. Here, Namer and Merkavu are making two conglomerates of firms with subcontractors, and the platform is one. Is it good?
                  2. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 20: 13
                    -1
                    Specifically, that Namer and Markova on the same heavy tracked base is correct. In general, there are few manufacturers of heavy tanks in the world, and in Turkey, Altai has one parent company.
                    But as I understand it, you have rather a compromise Rafael and Elbit alone could make such a tank.
                  3. ironic
                    ironic 14 February 2021 20: 19
                    -1
                    What is the compromise? If the tank is actually made by one, and the BMP is actually the other? And this is a whole set of firms in our country and in the States, not two. The fact that a set is dictated by our characteristics, but why two sets of pancakes?
                  4. OgnennyiKotik
                    OgnennyiKotik 14 February 2021 20: 26
                    -1
                    The task of the state is to enable the development of domestic production. It is impossible to create conditions for the formation of monopolies. If even in a short period of time it has +, then for a long period of time it has some disadvantages. One of the tools is a state order. It is necessary to distribute this money evenly, at least for 2-3 companies. Even if it may harm the specific result.
                    It is necessary to create competition, only in competition there is progress.
                    There is no competition in Russia, that's the result. One parade technique.
                  5. ironic
                    ironic 14 February 2021 20: 55
                    0
                    I see competition in creating, as free as possible from the influence, as we say, vitamin Pi (from patronage), a competitive basis for choosing projects that will then go to the state order, and not in bringing to the absurd situation when it comes to the point that one and the same machine gun in hand and easel versions will be developed by two different companies.

                    PS Now, if Namer and Eitan were made by one group of firms, it would be monopolization. And Merkava and Namer are one platform and separation is more harm than good.
  • Elturisto
    Elturisto 14 February 2021 13: 11
    +1
    And who will serve them, the same robots?
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 14 February 2021 13: 50
      -1
      And who will serve them
      and who serves the "crew" cars !? These will be after retraining, or new ones after training ... laughing
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 14 February 2021 09: 42
    -8
    Yes, whatever you say, but in terms of combat robots, we are ahead of the rest.
    No one else has anything like Uranium-9 in terms of weapon power.
    And "Strike" is an opportunity in a short time to provide the army with thousands of inexpensive robots using existing chassis.
  • looker-on
    looker-on 14 February 2021 10: 26
    0
    As for me, at this stage of development, such a machine will be stopped by an ordinary machine gun or machine gun. All these sensors will literally fly off like a spray from the armor from a couple of bursts. And everything will end there for the robot.
    1. qQQQ
      qQQQ 14 February 2021 11: 14
      +2
      Quote: looker-on
      As for me, at this stage of development, such a machine will be stopped by an ordinary machine gun or machine gun. All these sensors will literally fly off like a spray from the armor from a couple of bursts. And everything will end there for the robot.

      The road will be mastered by the walking one. At the beginning they also laughed at the UAV, now we are intensively catching up.
      1. Vadim Ananyin
        Vadim Ananyin 14 February 2021 12: 36
        +1
        Nobody ever laughed at UAVs in our country, Israel began to master them at the end of the 80s to protect the bases and control the adjacent territories. At that time we had a different concept for them.
        But everything is constantly changing and therefore now we have come to what we have come to.
        Speaking of hang gliders, the same story!
        1. ironic
          ironic 14 February 2021 17: 53
          -1
          Have you noticed what ground drones Israel is currently testing?
  • Niko
    Niko 14 February 2021 11: 31
    +1
    Interesting toys. Let's see how long it will take to reach the "Rise of the Machines" level from "Terminator"
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 14 February 2021 12: 07
      +1
      Let's see how long it will take to reach the "Rise of the Machines" level from "Terminator"
      so, in the films of this franchise: August 4, 1997 - the launch of Skynet (already passed); OK. 2024 * - the appearance of the 800 series terminators ... (in three years, from the present time); July 11, 2029 * - End of the war of humanity against Skynet. Victory for humanity. (The beginning of the film "Terminator 2"). Two throws: 1st Terminator and Reese ship in 1984, 2nd Terminator and T-1000 in 1994/1995. (7 years left ... wink )!
      1. Niko
        Niko 14 February 2021 16: 27
        +1
        Scientists are behind schedule
        1. Vadim Ananyin
          Vadim Ananyin 14 February 2021 18: 41
          0
          Not. I do not think in the subject!
      2. Niko
        Niko 14 February 2021 18: 49
        0
        I think seven years may not be enough to bring BMP 3 to the level where it can seize power in the universe
  • Vadim Ananyin
    Vadim Ananyin 14 February 2021 12: 31
    +2
    People have interesting jobs, I envy.
    And the fact that they do it very well in all respects is not an experience to drink.
    I can not give comments on those. data since I do not own. Although the techie himself was interesting to see with his eyes, he was not supposed to and probably right.
    Therefore, I envy.
  • ironic
    ironic 14 February 2021 17: 45
    0
    The direction of thinking of Russian project management continues to amaze me since the first show of Uranus-9. There is nothing wrong with developing elements of a future drone on the existing element base, but pulling the existing element base onto an unmanned project, and even on the principle of me and my grandfather, I have not yet learned how to do it ... well, I don't know ... For example, the project manager of Uranus, I would immediately suggest that my director be fired if this happened in my company.
    1. Vadim Ananyin
      Vadim Ananyin 14 February 2021 18: 40
      +1
      People work and this is important!
      1. ironic
        ironic 14 February 2021 18: 48
        +1
        Well, the stormy activity for budgetary funds is really loved not only in your country, but the importance in this is only for themselves.
        1. Vadim Ananyin
          Vadim Ananyin 14 February 2021 19: 42
          -1
          Where are you from?
          I will watch you for the second time!
          1. ironic
            ironic 14 February 2021 19: 55
            0
            I didn't even hide the city where I live, let alone the country.
          2. Intruder
            Intruder 14 February 2021 22: 59
            -1
            Where are you from?
            and it is so important, where, color of skin or something else, such as faith and language ??? bully
        2. Vadim Ananyin
          Vadim Ananyin 14 February 2021 19: 44
          -1
          you don’t worry about our budget!
          1. ironic
            ironic 14 February 2021 19: 58
            0
            No, don't worry, I am interested in the issues of the approach to its formation as a whole. I am replenishing erudition. I was taught this way even in the Soviet university.
        3. Vadim Ananyin
          Vadim Ananyin 14 February 2021 19: 46
          0
          Where are you from?
          1. ironic
            ironic 14 February 2021 19: 58
            0
            I live in Israel.
            1. Intruder
              Intruder 14 February 2021 23: 02
              0
              I live in Israel.
              Shalom !!! We are all from Adam and Eve so and so, although it is evident there are also from monkeys ... wink
              1. ironic
                ironic 15 February 2021 13: 33
                +1
                And a good hello to you. smile Well, yes, but someone from Shem, someone from Ham, and someone from Yafet. From the monkeys, it is from the undying Cainists. For in whom else can you see the echoes of the ability to gnaw a brother with his teeth for a woman? request
                1. Intruder
                  Intruder 15 February 2021 15: 59
                  0
                  From the monkeys, it is from the non-extinct Cainists.
                  more precisely, their distant ancestors ... wink
                  For in whom else can you see the echoes of the ability to gnaw a brother with his teeth for a woman?
                  That's right, their reality is so gloomy, only teeth and women ... laughing
    2. Vadim Ananyin
      Vadim Ananyin 14 February 2021 19: 47
      -2
      Again ! Where are you from ?!
      1. ironic
        ironic 14 February 2021 19: 58
        0
        What stuck you or your patience refused?
    3. Victorio
      Victorio 15 February 2021 12: 29
      0
      Quote: ironic
      For example, the project manager of Uranus, I would immediately suggest that my director be fired if this happened in my company.

      ===
      Why so? there is a ready-made all-terrain vehicle (many), why not push it there, but there is a place, weapons, equipment and controls ?!
      1. ironic
        ironic 15 February 2021 16: 37
        0
        Because pushing there is the first rule of how to ditch any project.
        1. Victorio
          Victorio 18 February 2021 20: 45
          0
          Quote: ironic
          Because pushing there is the first rule of how to ditch any project.

          ===
          this is the answer?
          1. ironic
            ironic 19 February 2021 18: 24
            0
            Yes, I do the same at work when I manage projects.
  • Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 19 February 2021 19: 04
    0
    Such a gizmo should support well and as a robot too.
    1. tank64rus
      tank64rus 28 March 2021 18: 20
      0
      This is the Viper forerunner of the BMPT Terminator. And the BMPT saw at the Army2018 a project in the form of a bench model, in the role of a control center for a combat multifunctional robotic complex with operators of 2 Uranov-9 and standard UAVs.