The Armed Forces of Ukraine received a ground-based kamikaze drone Ratel S for blowing up tanks

The Ukrainian army received a new ground-based Robot-kamikaze called Ratel S. The ground-based drone has already completed testing and has begun mass production. This was stated by Deputy Prime Minister of the Ukrainian government Mikhail Fedorov, who is responsible for the development of various technologies.

The ground-based kamikaze drone has already entered service with the Ukrainian army and has been spotted in one or two directions where fierce fighting is taking place, this is also confirmed by fighters from Russian units. It is stated that the enemy uses it for mining; there are no other details yet. It is known that this drone is capable of operating for up to 2 hours without recharging at a range of up to 6 km, while reaching speeds of up to 24 km/h, but this is on the highway. On rough terrain, and with an anti-tank mine, the speed will be significantly lower.

Ratel S is a ground robot from Ukrainian developers. Soldiers use it as a mobile warhead carrying anti-tank mines or a combat module. Thanks to technology, an operator from a safe place can blow up an enemy tank or dugout

Fedorov said.

About the start of testing this ground-based drone It was reported back in May of this year that it was created from the very beginning as a kamikaze drone capable of delivering a TM-62 anti-tank mine under the bottom tank. During the tests, the drone moved two TM-62 mines at once. Experts doubt that the wheelbase will allow this drone to be used in winter or inclement weather. On the other hand, a tracked base does not provide high speed and is more difficult to manufacture.

It is worth noting that similar ground-based kamikaze drones are being developed in Russia, but so far there have been no reports of them being delivered to the troops.

Comments

[Generator Systems]

Looks like a radio controlled car

[Silver99]

So this is a car, I look at its wheelbase and think it will get stuck in a puddle or overturn faster in a ditch? Again the radio signal is extinguished.

[Constantine N]

tanks seem to prefer a flat surface for driving, rather than some gullies

[Expert]

The quadcopter also looks like some kind of toy crap. “WHAT he can lift, any wind will blow it away and the batteries will last for 5 minutes...” they said. And the radio signal of any "Krasukha" is extinguished! But where do these electronic warfare come from in every trench, where they somehow scrape together the Baofengi?
As for cross-country ability, even from the photo you can see that there is a relatively optimal size for the ratio of light off-road and stealth, and the pressure on the ground is small. The cost, of course, will be a little more than that of budget quad models, but this thing is clearly durable, with a good power reserve, and good load-carrying capacity.

On the other hand, a tracked base does not provide high speed and is more difficult to manufacture.

Roughly speaking, is it expensive to put a rubber track on top?
Why, in fact, is this considered only as an anti-tank kamikaze drone? Obviously, it's almost a platform. Even in the given material there are 2 methods of application. In addition, the device has already passed tests and entered production!
So, here we should not throw our hats in, but at least make a hundred or two such prototypes and send them to our troops for testing. And we’ve been watching advertisements for all sorts of “Nahlebnikov” with “Uranium-9” for a long time, but where is all this? Or was it too expensive?

It is worth noting that similar ground-based kamikaze drones are being developed in Russia, but so far there have been no reports of them being delivered to the troops.

Here, as I understand it, again something is not imported? Or haven’t you figured out how to connect 4 wheels together yet? Electric motors of almost all types are produced, there are factories for the production of springs, some batteries are produced... A camera with giblets can be installed from a quadric. Maybe there is not enough encrypted communication, like on advanced Chinese walkie-talkies?

[Ivan Krasin]

4 wheels is the wrong approach. The basis of such mini-all-terrain vehicles is Argo. It has 6 wheels. That's why our ground drone Tosha has 6 wheels. And it’s not so easy to connect several motor wheels and be happy. There are a lot of pitfalls there. And as for the possibilities of application, we clearly indicate: 1. kamikaze drone (with a carrying capacity of 1 ton, you can destroy entire strongholds 2. reconnaissance drone 3. transportation of the wounded and cargo 4. mining/clearing 5. assault platform for basing a mortar/MLRS /small arms

[Expert]

1 ton carrying capacity is not bad. But we also need something smaller, cheaper, more widespread.

[Ivan Krasin]

I agree, we need a line of similar all-terrain vehicles. As for mass availability and cheapness, 1,2 lyama is the price of a quad or a used car. War itself is an expensive pleasure, and there is always a choice: what is better: 1 tank or a thousand ground drones?

[Irokez]

Soon they will create drones against drones with a friend-or-foe system and AI control.
In general, such a drone is an ordinary mine, only mobile.
You don’t even need a video camera, you just need to launch a reconnaissance drone and use it to adjust the movement and, by the way, control it. In principle, any toy with minimal modifications can do this.

[Enceladus]

Probably they also stock up on Alik? If they laugh at us themselves, the worse we will... we will also laugh And then mopeds with Alike fly in on them, now lawn mowers fly in... continuous complaints

[rocket757]

Experts doubt that the wheelbase will allow this drone to be used in winter or inclement weather. On the other hand, a tracked base does not provide high speed and is more difficult to manufacture.

It is worth noting that similar ground-based kamikaze drones are being developed in Russia, but so far there have been no reports of them being delivered to the troops.

. Maybe not everything, but some “new” is well-forgotten old...
As for the effectiveness of this “new” one... won’t it be the same as with the old one?
The battlefield is not a highway; there are no straight and level roads there.
Although, it’s a cheap thing, with 10 - 20 one will work and that’s not a bad result.
Statistics will show whether it was worth inventing the “bicycle”?

[Pavel_Sveshnikov]

I agree that efficiency will not always be at its best. But somewhere it’s really possible to use it. Especially where there are roads. The problem may be that it will not be at hand at the right time. But for terrorist attacks, this is it. In an urban environment, quietly launch this mine from around the corner and send it under the desired car so as not to light up. Ukry in your repertoire.

[opuonmed]

Reporter Filatov wrote this a long time ago! even a video showed how the air mines

[Arkadich]

I wonder how his cross-country ability is? Any ditch is a problem for him.

[antiaircrafter]

it was created from the very beginning as a kamikaze drone capable of delivering a TM-62 anti-tank mine under the bottom of a tank.

Dogs were used during the Great Patriotic War.
And now it would be possible to thin out the flocks of homeless people and empty the shelters.
Call the Zapashnys for training, there’s no point in them hanging around circuses.

[Sandor Clegane]

Quote: antiaircrafter

And now it would be possible to thin out the flocks of homeless people and empty the shelters

Do you know how long they trained a young dog during WWII? and this is a young dog, don’t you feel sorry for the animal?
look into her eyes when you feed her

[Generator Systems]

It’s a sensible idea, but dogs need to be trained; you can’t just take a random dog from the street, and that means money and time for training.

[Repellent]

Quote: antiaircrafter

During the Great Patriotic War dogs were used

These are legends. For those who have little idea what a tank coming at you looks like. No dog, no price - you won’t drive it under a moving tank.

Those who want to argue - documents on the combat use of "anti-tank dogs" - go to the studio. Do not suggest cheating.

[Arkadich]

From the report of the commander of the 2nd Guards Rifle Division, Colonel A.Z. Akimenko to the head of the Red Army Communications Directorate on the use of tank destroyer dogs (Bryansk Front, 14.10.1941/127/24.09.1941): “The use of tank destroyer dogs gave excellent results in the sector of the XNUMXth Infantry Division in the Glukhovo area on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. Six dogs were destroyed five enemy tanks." This was one of the first successful applications of SIT in practice.

According to the recollections of dog handlers, the efficiency was very low, so they quickly abandoned it.

[Repellent]

This is, as it were, not quite a document. Where did you get this from, may I ask?

Quote: Arkadich

According to the recollections of dog handlers, the efficiency was very low, so they quickly abandoned

According to other sources, the efficiency was... none. It all ended with a testing ground demonstration by some commission. That's all

[Arkadich]

I’ll try to provide the documents if I find them on the internet. This is still not an archive of the Moscow Region.
In my youth, when I was working with dogs, I trained my shepherd dog to jump onto a working tractor.
The efficiency was low, I think for the following reasons
- the kamikaze dog is disposable, which means there won’t be that many purebred ones. Houseyard servants are less well trained.
- the training period is very long and the dropout rate is very high
- successful application occurred due to surprise.

[Repellent]

Quote: Arkadich

on a working tractor, I trained my shepherd dog to jump into the cab

It's a little different though

I also know how to teach dogs all sorts of things. But so that under a tank, but in battle - no, I won’t take it

Quote: Arkadich

The efficiency was low, I think for the following reasons

Yes, there was no efficiency. Because there was no real combat use of “anti-tank dogs”. It’s easy to refute me - provide at least one document about real combat use. But - document, and not chatter from the Internet, as above. Dixie

[Arkadich]

It’s easy to refute me - provide at least one document about real combat use.

https://nvo.ng.ru/history/2018-05-25/14_997_dogs.html
https://coollib.net/b/490312-irina-nikolaevna-stoyan-sistema-voennogo-sobakovodstva-v-velikoy-otechestvennoy-voyne-1941-1945-gg-istoricheskiy-aspekt/read.
Are you interested in veterans' memories?
I'm waiting for a reaction.

[Repellent]

Quote: Arkadich

I'm waiting for a reaction

I asked - not fiction

Quote: Arkadich

Are you interested in veterans' memories?

In the same firebox. Do you understand the words at all?

Quote: Repellent

bring at least one document on real combat use. But - a document, not chatter from the internet

Everything seems to be clearly spelled out.

[Arkadich]

Those. Are you also not interested in the words of the veteran participants?
You remind me of the hero of the poem "Thomas"
Well, you keep us bureaucratic.
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/6DCo/PNNWioeyU
After reading the veterans, I learned another reason for refusing live mines. The dog, having failed to complete the task for one reason or another, posed a threat to the Soviet troops as well; for this reason, shooters were specially placed in the areas where the dogs were used to destroy them.

[Repellent]

Quote: Arkadich

Well, you keep us bureaucratic.
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/6DCo/PNNWioeyU

Great document, thank you. I have no more questions for you

[Arkadich]

Well, sorry. As they say, what are they rich in? I definitely won’t go to Podolsk for evidence.

[Expert]

Quote: Repellent

No dog, no price - you won’t drive it under a moving tank.
According to other sources, the efficiency was... none. It all ended with a testing ground demonstration by some commission. That's all

I don't have any evidence. I came across somewhere on the Internet the figure of 300 tanks. How true this is, I don’t know.

[Repellent]

Quote: Expert

I came across somewhere on the Internet the figure of 300 tanks

I was “in the vastness of the net” and was talking about Cthulhu. Repeatedly

[orionvitt]

Quote: antiaircrafter

During the Great Patriotic War dogs were used

Used so what? All this was frankly, maybe not out of despair, but definitely not out of a good life. Now technology has reached such a level that they haven’t come up with anything to destroy a poor tank. There just aren't enough dogs.

[alexoff]

And the Japanese ran at tanks with bombs on sticks, probably the results were better than the dogs

[flSergius]

Little useful garbage - any fold of terrain wider or deeper than half a meter or a dense bush can become an insurmountable obstacle. Moreover, in the summer, holes and ravines may not be visible in the thickets, in the winter under the snow. In autumn and spring you can see it, but everything is muddy. The Germans had a self-propelled mine SdKfz 303 with the same problems.

[KVU-NSVD]

Dangerous thing. I drove one of these to an enemy position at night and hid. Selected a target from an air drone, then crept up on it on the ground, signal, detonation. What if it is equipped with FPV technology? They will add masking... a lot of things will change in the army and navy after the end of this war, many textbooks and regulations will be rewritten

[Arkadich]

Theoretically yes. But there are serious problems with fitting.

[alexoff]

This thing will be very useful in Gaza soon

[Knell wardenheart]

Damn, I want such crap for myself)) without a mine, of course) Oh, really. looks delicious)

[AndreyKam_Z]

In any store in bulk. Even with internal combustion engines. The question is the price.

[shm_kv]

I seriously doubt that this product will travel far over rough terrain.

[pettabyte]

Now on the fortifications it will also be necessary to dig mini ditches, or rather anti-drone ditches.

[Expert]

Quote: pettabyte

Now on the fortifications it will also be necessary to dig mini ditches, or rather anti-drone ditches.

Given modern developments, this is almost useless. We need large supplies of manual automatic multi-charge grenade launchers. All sorts of AGS, Crossbow, Belarusian variation of ARGB, etc.

[Expert]

This is roughly how it's done.

[Puzoter]

Pampering, up to the first rut. And in general, we still need to catch up with the tank. Flying ones are no more expensive and more versatile. To destroy a tank, it is not necessary to smash it to pieces with a mine, just a PG7 on the side or in the stern - if it doesn’t die right away, then the artillery will finish it off a little later.

[voyaka uh]

"We still need to catch up with the tank" ///
---
Why chase him?
You need to park the car in advance near the forest belt, and when the tank approaches, drive out and wait in the rut.

[RuAbel]

Looks like they opened their own Skolkovo there)))

[Nexcom]

More like "Raspilkovo".

[garm]

And these are synonyms.
The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information

[24rus]

It looks like the fascist Goliath was ripped off

[al3x]

In urban areas/among ruins and even in desert areas, you can camouflage it into any crevice where this thing will be waiting for a target. Such drones do not need to fly, so they can remain in standby mode for a long time. At the moment the target appears, it is simply activated automatically or remotely.

[orionvitt]

I saw a drone video of this. He really didn’t climb under the tank, but he mined the rut. I got the impression that somehow this was not very serious. It can still be used on a flat surface, but in dense vegetation, in mud, or just over rubbish (where there are military operations, there is nothing except rubbish and ruins), it is practically useless. The drone may be more expensive, but it is much more efficient and will not get stuck.

[kamakama]

“Chief, everything has already been stolen before us.” This is Goliath

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%84_(%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0)

[Toorik]

There is a video of a similar drone leaving tmki on the road....

[panzerfaust]

How many Japanese soldiers would have saved their lives if kamikaze drones had been invented 80 years ago?

[Ivan Krasin]

The most interesting question is why Ukraine has a green light for ground-based drones. Where is the green light for Russian developments?

[Expert]

Would you at least click on the star rating at the end of the article to raise this topic higher in the list.

[Puzoter]

This is an initiative civilian development; most of our drones have the same plan, and no one puts a spoke in their wheels