"Capable of destroying an entire settlement": the US press discusses the development of a robotic MLRS in Russia

The American press is discussing the development of Russia's military-technical potential. In particular, the magazine The National Interest publishes an article by Michael Peck, which examines the work on the creation of an automated (robotic) multiple launch rocket system for the country's armed forces. It is noted that development of this kind weapons is already underway, and the ultimate goal of such a development is to obtain a complex capable of destroying enemy targets with high accuracy while automating the control of an MLRS weapon package.

The American author asks what, in general, is meant by the term "automation" in this context. In his opinion, ultimately Russian specialists plan to create an unmanned (unmanned) vehicle that would house a rocket launcher.

Michael Peck writes that such a car could independently reach the front line and fire, for example, guided munitions at impressive distances with impressive destructive power.

American author:

But for this, the Russians need computerization, the introduction of an artificial intelligence system, which would allow the control of a robotic MLRS. In turn, this will not allow achieving the "flexibility" of firing, which may be inherent in a real crew of a combat vehicle.

The author writes that "a robotic machine stuffed with tons of explosives is an extremely dangerous undertaking." He also adds that such a machine, in the event of a volley fire, is capable of destroying an entire settlement.

In the United States, commenting on the information, they write that the Pentagon is not developing such MLRS for the needs of the American army. At the same time, the question is asked:

Will we not lag behind the Russians in this type of weapons, as we have already lagged behind in hypersonic missiles?

Comments

[NDR-791]

The author writes that "a robotic machine stuffed with tons of explosives is an extremely dangerous undertaking." He also adds that such a machine, in the event of a volley fire, is capable of destroying an entire settlement.
I translate: What is due to Jupiter is not due to the Bull. Only WE - the Great American people have the right to destroy entire settlements with high precision, robotic weapons !!!

[Egoza]

Quote: NDR-791

Only WE - the Great American people have the right to destroy entire settlements with high precision, robotic weapons !!!

The United States will never understand that it is no longer the shark of imperialism, but capelin.

[tralflot1832]

Not capelin, but most likely a cowardly gudgeon. The author is misleading readers, the new system of missile defense systems can destroy not a settlement, but a convoy of US troops on the march or in the area of ​​concentration. We are not at war with settlements.

[URAL72]

The United States will never understand that it is no longer the shark of imperialism, but capelin.

Don't add salt to the wound. In Donbass, smoked capelin went off scale for 490 rubles. Basically, I don’t take it. Let the hucksters choke. I stand in the store near the refrigerator and drip saliva. But I won't. It was TWO TIMES cheaper, then it disappeared, and here it is - half a piece! And on Russian weapons .... So everyone is doing the right thing. Back in the 90s I read an interview with the Air Force Commander-in-Chief: “We don’t buy equipment, but we send funds for R&D. It's time to collect stones ...

[Snail N9]

Capelin ... Minnow ... Well, well.

[NDR-791]

Quote: URAL72

In Donbass, smoked capelin went off scale for 490 rubles.

Come on. We have frozen pollock overtook beef in price. Food of the rich now

[Alexander Pseudonym]

Hello! Strelkov writes that militia soldiers have a salary of about 15. Is that true?

[URAL72]

While in the rear - 16500, in position - 25500. There are year-round surcharges - sniper and driver 1000 per month, sapper and mechanized driver - 1500. We have to pay extra if there is 1% in the range, but I don’t know - we are more in position. There are not enough people, we are staying. And no one wants to join the unit, not only because of the salary.

[Alexander Pseudonym]

It's clear. In Moscow, salaries are higher.

[Shiva83483]

Are objections on the merits accepted? Not a capelin, but a pale spirochete, which you can't really see through a microscope ...

[Babay Atasovich]

And not even sausages, sausage!

[storm]

Robotizing is necessary for rocket launchers such as Buratino and Solntsepek, which operate directly in the combat zone, where there is a real threat to the life of the crew.
What is the point of roboticizing Tornado / Tornado if it "works" for 90-120 km.
Even Tornado-G were able to operate at a distance of up to 40 km, and their main enemy was no longer enemy artillery, but shock drones.

[Lech from Android.]

Well, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they destroyed Dresden without any robotization.
Needless to say that such installations are intended mainly for firing at an area target.
And the Americans are known to be fans of carpet bombing, so such weapons should not fall into their hands.

[URAL72]

This article was written by a journalist who accidentally, twisted in the Internet, found out that the Tornado covers an area of ​​72 hectares. I compared it with the territory of my American Muhosk and went to my pants from the information received.

[Avior]

I doubt that such developments are underway somewhere, and even more so will be adopted. An expensive and pointless venture. MLRS is not a front-line weapon, it does not need such complex solutions that create a lot of problems. MLRS are used not with direct fire, but from closed positions at a distance from the battle line, they can quickly shoot back and change position if there is a threat.
When it is necessary to operate near the leading edge, simple booking will have a much greater effect than this unmanned vehicle, which still needs a crew - what if it gets stuck in the mud?

such a machine, in the event of a volley fire, is capable of destroying an entire settlement.

And how is this connected with the fact that it is unmanned or with the service crew?

[URAL72]

MLRS is not a front-line weapon "

You are right, but war is such a thing ... It happened in 2014 in Donbass that a sniper would fly away to cover the floor of a package, while it could be on the front end, only 10 km to the left and without fuel or without wheels. Anything has happened. The front is changing rapidly, the war is mobile.

[Avior]

Robotization of wheels and fuel will not add
If the MLRS is supposed to work near the leading edge for some reason, then it is not necessary to start development with robotization. Put the wheels there, refuel, for example - robotization will not help this in any way

[Sanichsan]

Do you think that a robotic complex target designation for which you can transmit from the front edge by poking your finger into the tablet is a useless thing, while shouting into the radio "shoot there! No, to the left! That is, to the right!" is it safer and more promising? hope the APU agree with your concept

[Daniil Dmitrienko]

I completely agree, especially since the troops are very skeptical about all this robotization, and simply adding electronics or ASUNO creates a lot of problems in the operation of the complexes

[Nikolaevich I]

Robotic MLRS?

[newcomer]

Yes, it would be nice. I believe ours are ready to design and manufacture any type of robotic machine.

[Piramidon]

Quote: newbie

Yes, it would be nice. I believe ours are ready to design and manufacture any type of robotic machine.

And to fight, sitting on the couch with joysticks in hand.

[newcomer]

Anyone else ..., you are probably a professional in this matter.

[Piramidon]

Quote: newbie

Anyone else ..., you are probably a professional in this matter.

Problems with a sense of humor? At least pay attention to emoticons.

[Mikhail m]

The author writes that "a robotic machine stuffed with tons of explosives is an extremely dangerous undertaking."

The author deliberately does not write that any weapon is an extremely dangerous idea. And the one who controls it makes a weapon dangerous. Without control, it's just iron. We have not yet reached horror stories when robots destroy the world, although we are moving in this direction.

[URAL72]

All the leading powers of the world are moving towards controlling any technique while sitting in a bunker, not in a car. Moreover, not one machine, but hundreds.

[rocket757]

The author writes that "a robotic machine stuffed with tons of explosives is an extremely dangerous undertaking."

The author does not want to ask himself the question that a huge country packed with weapons is a "DANGEROUS ZATEYA"?
Although, you can in fact expand the question broader, stuffed with weapons of the most dangerous type, and other, no less fatal, the whole planet, is this a SAFE ZATEYA ??? Or is everything simple, calm and should cause a feeling of emotion?

[Jacket in stock]

I also don't really understand the meaning of unmanned vehicles.
Yes, a machine gun / ATGM that fight in line of sight is yes, and even then, only on the battlefield. A long-range car, why should she? For a ponto heroic?

[Ross xnumx]

"Capable of destroying an entire settlement": the US press discusses the development of a robotic MLRS in Russia

Yes, on occasion it will turn out to be a good Russian kamikaze. For greater excuse, you can also envisage a variant of self-destruction: you opened some hatch and did not enter the code in time, and you are already in heaven!

[Vladimir Vlasov]

I don't understand the hysterical "military experts". Why they are stupid is unclear. Any military equipment "stuffed" with a large number of warheads, any tank, armored personnel carrier, etc., can be easily destroyed by combat drones, including aerospace drones. NATO and the United States are very effective in using drones to destroy armored vehicles. In Iraq, about 3000 Hussein's tanks were destroyed in three days, the Turks in 10 days in Armenia destroyed 50%, and maybe more, of all heavy military equipment of the Armenians. Until all the drones, including aerospace, are destroyed, there is nothing for heavy military equipment on the battlefield. They will be destroyed 100%.

[Babay Atasovich]

Quote: Vladimir Vlasov

In Iraq, about 3000 Hussein tanks were destroyed in three days,

Did Hussein tell you this? ! About the dummies that the Pentagon calculated, did he not report to you? ... What a shame ...

[Alexander Pseudonym]

Hello! I agree about Iraq and Armenia. I did not understand how such an MLRS would be controlled. Use glonass or what?

[aszzz888]

He also adds that such a machine, in the event of a volley fire, is capable of destroying an entire settlement.

. The projectile itself does not choose the place of the fall (yet). People guide him. Where will they send the shells is another question.

[Vladimir61]

"A robotic machine stuffed with tons of explosives is an extremely dangerous undertaking"

Is it really that serious? That is, the already implemented idea of ​​low-yield American nuclear warheads, in comparison with a conventional multiple launch rocket system, is it just self-indulgence?

[1536]

Why should the Russian army destroy a settlement in the United States? I remember that it was the Americans who destroyed settlements in Vietnam together with their inhabitants. For example, the village of Songmi was destroyed by punishers from the United States. So, to prevent this from happening in Russia, we are creating such systems so that the punishers would not leave the answer.

[Ros 56]

On this topic, the striped ones do not have to worry, they are very far away, but the cretins, such as the Bandera Natsiks, should be worried. And for the striped ones, we have grenades of a different system in store.

[Andrey Gubin]

And figs with him ?! Let them think .... And we need to think about unmanned systems, and remote control ?!

[demo]

First, here is "this"
Michael Peck writes that such a car could independently reach the front line and fire, for example, guided munitions at impressive distances with impressive destructive power.
Then, here is "this".
The author writes that "a robotic machine stuffed with tons of explosives is an extremely dangerous undertaking." He also adds that such a machine, in the event of a volley fire, is capable of destroying an entire settlement.
And in conclusion - this is "this".
Will we not lag behind the Russians in this type of weapons, as we have already lagged behind in hypersonic missiles?
Somewhere "far away" the author's thoughts wander. Far away from his brain.