Robotic complex "Cultivator"

10 983 37
Robotic complex "Cultivator"
General view of the product "Cultivator"


The domestic defense industry develops, manufactures, and supplies a wide range of systems, complexes, and prototypes to the army. Furthermore, the necessary products are often created and assembled by army units. The latest intriguing example of such technical creativity in the military is the "Cultivator" strike robotic system. This product has already been deployed in combat and is demonstrating its capabilities.



Homemade and self-propelled


Izvestia reported on a new Russian robotic complex on February 17. Information about it was obtained literally firsthand—from the military personnel who developed and built it. Key details about the robot and its capabilities were revealed. Furthermore, initial conclusions can be drawn from the publicly available data.

The "Cultivator" project was developed by service members of the Burevestnik Separate Unmanned Systems Regiment, part of the Volunteer Corps. They are currently deployed to the Special Operations zone, operating various types of unmanned and unmanned systems. They applied their accumulated experience with such equipment to the development of their own project.

It's not clear when work on the "Cultivator" began. However, a system has now been built and is now in use on the front lines. The RTK has reportedly demonstrated its firepower and inflicted some damage on the enemy. Moreover, the robot lives up to its name: it literally plows up enemy positions.


According to the Izvestia publication, only one example of the "Cultivator" system currently exists. However, the robotic complex shown bears the letter "4." This may indicate a build of several robots. However, it's also possible that the number doesn't indicate the system's serial number and has another meaning.

In any case, one of our army's units independently developed and built a new combat RTK. The "Kultivator" is now being used on the front lines, complementing other equipment and assisting in the destruction of enemy targets. Perhaps more such systems will appear in the near future, further enhancing the combat capabilities of the Burevestnik Regiment.

Weapon platform


The "Cultivator" is distinguished by its relatively simple design, which is primarily due to its origins. The robotic complex is designed as a tracked platform with a minimum of necessary components and remote control. Mounted on this platform is a unique launcher based on readily available products.

The basic chassis has a fairly simple design. It consists of a frame made of metal sections, onto which all other components are mounted. Atop this frame is a flat rectangular platform. The nose is equipped with a grille to improve maneuverability and protect the main components. The launcher is located in the center of the platform. missiles.


The "Cultivator" has an electric propulsion system. Two electric motors of an unknown type are responsible for propulsion. They are located in the forward section of the hull, and each drives the drive wheel of its own track. Power is supplied by a battery located inside the hull.

The tracked undercarriage has several small-diameter road wheels on each side. The suspension design is unclear. Solid rubber tracks are used. It's noteworthy that the tracks are almost completely covered at the front and top by other platform components.

The platform is remotely controlled via radio. However, the exact electronics and their capabilities are unknown. In particular, the control and guidance principles for entering the platform are questionable.

The overall length of the "Cultivator" is likely no more than 1,8-2 meters. Its width and height are approximately 1 meter. Its combat weight is unknown, but should not exceed several hundred kilograms. The ammunition load alone weighs at least 120 kg. Performance and maneuverability characteristics have not been disclosed. It can be assumed that the RTK does not achieve high speeds, although it has good cross-country ability.


In firing position

Weapons for the platform


The Kultivator platform houses a unique launcher for unguided rockets. It is manufactured using off-the-shelf components, which play a key role. The launcher is designed to use mass-produced ammunition, which our army has in large quantities.

The basis of this launcher is a metal frame. Its rear section is hinged on supports, while the front section has a remotely controlled electric drive for vertical aiming. Horizontal aiming, in turn, is accomplished by rotating the entire vehicle.

Two blocks of unguided UB-16-57 rockets, borrowed from aviationEach of them has 16 tubular guides of 57 mm caliber for launching into the forward hemisphere. Launch control is electrical, using the standard unit devices.

The Kultivator can carry and fire various modifications of S-5 unguided air-launched rockets. These rockets are housed in a cylindrical body up to 880-890 mm long and 57 mm in diameter. The tail section features fins that fold out in flight. Depending on the type, the rocket weighs no more than 4 kg, of which the warhead accounts for up to 800-850 g.

Using a solid-fuel motor, the unguided rocket launches from its launch pad and accelerates to a speed of 720-725 m/s. Ground launch and ballistic flight allow for a maximum range of 4 km. The effective firing range is 2 km.


RTK carries out firing

There are nearly fifteen modifications of the S-5 missile, each with distinct features. Specifically, production models were equipped with various types of warheads—high-explosive fragmentation, shaped-charge fragmentation, flechette-shaped fragmentation, and so on. The UB-16-57 pods are compatible with the entire range of such munitions.

In terms of combat use, the Kultivator is a type of multiple rocket launch system. It is designed to simultaneously launch a variable number of rockets at the enemy, up to a full salvo. The large number of rockets must compensate for their limited accuracy, payload, and firepower.

An interesting example


The Kultivator strike robotic system clearly demonstrates several interesting trends. For example, it demonstrates that combat robotic systems can be developed not only by established industrial enterprises but also by teams of enthusiasts—including in combat zones and military workshops. The Burevestnik robot also demonstrates how existing and new products and components can be combined to achieve desired results.

The resulting combat RTK has several advantages. First and foremost, it is relatively simple and inexpensive in terms of production, operation, and combat deployment. Its design does not use complex or expensive components, and some can even be sourced from existing stockpiles.


Missiles C-5

At the same time, the Kultivator is capable of carrying missiles and attacking the enemy at ranges of several kilometers. It becomes a scaled-down version of existing MLRS systems, capable of performing similar combat missions at a different range.

Like other robotic systems, the Kultivator operates remotely from the operator. While the system may be exposed to risks, personnel remain safe. Proper selection of firing positions and reloading locations minimizes the risk to personnel.

However, the Burevestnik-based RTK is not without its drawbacks. First and foremost is the lack of protection and the exposed placement of critical components. Stray bullets and shrapnel can damage wiring or electric motors. Conversely, targeted fire or missile/UAV hits virtually guarantee the loss of combat capability.

The S-5 unguided rocket imposes a number of limitations on its combat use and effectiveness. It is not the longest-range domestic air-to-air missile, nor does it boast superior combat performance. However, salvo launches and proper operational management will allow these missiles to achieve the best possible results.

At the front and in the rear


Thus, enthusiasts from combat units developed a new type of equipment they needed to accomplish combat missions. Using their own resources and readily available components, the Burevestnik Regiment of the Volunteer Corps created a rocket launcher with multiple rocket launcher capabilities.

Apparently, the "Cultivator" currently exists in a single unit. However, the possibility of developing new models of this type of equipment cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, the system's simple design could attract interest from other units, leading to the development of copies and modifications. All of these would, to one degree or another, improve the army's firepower.
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    18 February 2026 04: 57
    Using its own resources and available components, the Burevestnik Regiment from the Volunteer Corps created a RTK with MLRS functions.
    Well done, craftsmen!
    1. -3
      18 February 2026 07: 50
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      Using its own resources and available components, the Burevestnik Regiment from the Volunteer Corps created a RTK with MLRS functions.
      Well done, craftsmen!

      They need to focus on their direct responsibilities... either the regiment isn't involved in combat operations and they have so much time for "creative work" because they're idle
  2. +4
    18 February 2026 05: 15
    Summarizing the reports on the use of ground-based RTKs during the ̶ ...
    And the described model, in my opinion, is only for directing missiles towards the enemy.
    1. +4
      18 February 2026 06: 13
      In my opinion, only to direct missiles towards the enemy.

      Particularly impressive are the scraps of boards that cover the corner frame on which the whole thing is based.
      Very reminiscent of the famous Odessa tank "NI"* from 1941.
      * "NI" - "To frighten"
      1. +5
        18 February 2026 06: 19
        Quote: Amateur
        Particularly impressive are the scraps of boards that cover the corner frame on which the whole thing is based.

        But this is just nonsense, for homemade equipment it’s normal.
    2. +3
      18 February 2026 17: 42
      This is still much better than using the Ka-52's flight life for firing from a nose-up position, and the S5 missiles, like any other, have a very limited shelf life, after which (possibly a multiple!) they are simply dangerous for use from manned aircraft, but here firing from a nose-up position is quite possible... from a ground-based one.
      1. +1
        19 February 2026 03: 51
        Quote: Dmitry Eon
        This is still much better than using the Ka-52's flight life for firing from a nose-up position, and the S5 missiles, like any other, have a very limited shelf life, after which (possibly a multiple!) they are simply dangerous for use from manned aircraft, but here firing from a nose-up position is quite possible... from a ground-based one.

        It is certainly better, since the military minds did not give the order, and the industry did not master a cheap seeker head like ARKWS.
        Quote: Dmitry Eon
        and here we have quite a bit of shooting "from a pitching position"...from the ground)
        I've been thinking about it, and I think I'll write that I was a bit hasty about "directing it toward the enemy." As a sabotage weapon or for support during an assault, such a drone is suitable.
        1. +1
          20 February 2026 06: 23
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          I've been thinking about it, and I think I'll write that I was a bit hasty about "directing it toward the enemy." As a sabotage weapon or for support during an assault, such a drone is suitable.


          I support this because, theoretically, nothing prevents him from getting closer and firing a BC at point-blank range, especially under the cover of a "colleague's" smoke screen.

          Again, it is always possible to refine a particularly successful and durable option with a file (for example, in the form of a drive for more precise aiming in a limited sector)

          This does not in any way cancel out the previous idea about the irresponsibility of those “responsible” for making timely decisions
  3. +6
    18 February 2026 06: 50
    A pathetic spectacle of surrogate weaponry of forced creativity.
  4. +1
    18 February 2026 08: 26
    Guidance by eye? It's completely invisible. Are they even aligning the platform or launchers? It's completely unclear.
    1. +1
      18 February 2026 10: 06
      Eyeballing?

      hahaha...
      And where do the NURs launched from the same helicopter fly?
      1. +6
        18 February 2026 10: 36
        Quote: Dedok
        And where do the NURs launched from the same helicopter fly?

        At least the pilots have a sight designed for unstabilized rockets. But here we have an S-5 launch from a roughly known launch site on uneven terrain. It's like firing unstabilized rockets from a boat in rough seas using an unstabilized launcher.
        1. 0
          April 12 2026 15: 15
          Well, harassing fire directed at the enemy. The efficiency is similar to pitching, but the platform is orders of magnitude cheaper, and the operator risks significantly less than a pilot of, say, a Ka-52. In certain conditions, it could prove useful.
    2. +2
      18 February 2026 10: 36
      Quote: Foggy Dew
      Guidance by eye? It's completely invisible. Are they even aligning the platform or launchers? It's completely unclear.

      In the first photo, you can see something resembling a camera between the launchers. They probably move the tracks using azimuth. That's why it's called a "cultivator"—it fires over large areas rather than at a specific target.
      1. -1
        18 February 2026 13: 05
        I understand that it's an MLRS. A camera isn't a sight, it doesn't have any scales or bubbles. And even if it were, how would you level the platform? And without that, even an MLRS—I understand they're just MLRS, but tilted to one side, for example—where would all that go? And anyway, MLRS gunners never aim "roughly there"; it's all the same old story, like topographic surveying, and altitude plays a role, of course. Okay, topographic surveying is theoretically possible, but then the platform needs to be leveled precisely, otherwise it's like firing shotgun pellets somewhere in the direction of a duck.
        1. 0
          18 February 2026 13: 42
          Quote: Foggy Dew
          The camera is not a sight at all; it has no scales or bubbles.

          For a long time now, cameras have been available with all sorts of built-in levels, tilt meters, angle meters, and other such devices. Their readings are displayed on the screen.
          1. -1
            18 February 2026 14: 01
            I haven't seen them, even though I work with them a lot. There's no point in producing them—there's no market for them. Even here, it's easier to aim a camera at a sight for, say, a howitzer; the platform simply doesn't have either.
            1. 0
              18 February 2026 14: 05
              Quote: Foggy Dew
              I haven’t seen them, although I work with them a lot.

              What about videos from FPV drones, which feature an artificial horizon and other scales? If they're used on drones, there must be a lot of them in circulation.
              1. 0
                18 February 2026 14: 26
                I've seen this kind of thing physically since the early 2000s. Mobile satellite dishes. They have an electric motor on a base, two drives, and you connect it all to a laptop, plus a GPS module. But the guidance system there is fundamentally different – ​​the drives roughly aim in the right direction, and then the dish wiggles slightly left and right and up and down, homing in on the signal strength. But here there's no signal at all, you can't aim like that, and I don't see any electric motor on the base, or any wires for anything computing, or even an antenna. Oh well – maybe a wired connection. Screw that, you could keep a remote control on a wire in a trench somewhere. But you need drives, and you need the cart to send data, like, the platform is tilted by such-and-such degrees, and is at such-and-such a point. I can't see anything.
                Some kind of cable from the electric motor on the front left to the matchbox on top. Oh, no, there's some kind of pin antenna, but where are the drives, where is the sight, where are the levels?
                1. 0
                  18 February 2026 14: 39
                  Quote: Foggy Dew
                  Ah, no, there is some kind of pin antenna, but where are the drives?

                  They are not here request Unless they use the unevenness of the surface for rough finishing, like when you drive the front onto a bump - the elevation angle increases)
                2. 0
                  18 February 2026 23: 40
                  One can only guess about the design details, but at the beginning of the war, soldiers loaded the motorized vehicle with explosives, put a brick on the gas pedal... this is the kind of wreckage one has to fight with.
                  There's a lot to find fault with and bewilderment about... The tracks here are, of course, useless, and the geometric cross-country ability is worse than that of the Niva...
                  And in general, it's more reasonable to mount combat modules weighing less than three tons on wheeled chassis... like the Belarusian one, for example... But who's going to give them the MTZ-82 for conversion?
                  1. 0
                    20 February 2026 06: 37
                    Quote: also a doctor
                    ...
                    And in general, it's more reasonable to mount combat modules weighing less than three tons on wheeled chassis... like the Belarusian one, for example... But who's going to give them the MTZ-82 for conversion?


                    It depends on what is important to us.
                    Get as close as possible from a completely unpredictable direction (for this purpose, this device has extra-wide tracks, judging by the photo)
                    Or
                    Jump relatively quickly at high speed. This is also necessary, but the tires must be tubeless, because even we ourselves have started throwing spikes from the drone.

                    T. E.
                    We need both, and the third, and the fourth, and so on, in commercial quantities and qualities.
      2. 0
        18 February 2026 13: 12
        IMHO, they were like militias there at first, when there were no mortarmen at all - somewhere to the side there, and adjustments according to sighting)
    3. -3
      18 February 2026 11: 25
      Of course. People on LBS didn't figure it out, but you, an armchair analyst, figured it all out right away. Where do people like you even come from?
  5. +3
    18 February 2026 10: 00
    Where are they going to get the NURSs?
    If they would probably have provided the VOGs/mines, then the ground units hammering the logistics/supply with "give ammunition for AVIATION" will, I suspect, go to hell.
  6. +1
    18 February 2026 18: 23
    Armata!!! Where are you???
    "Your comment is too short and, in the opinion of the site administration, does not provide useful information." - well, of course....

    Still, I wonder what the author would have written about the Cultivator 5 years ago?
  7. 0
    18 February 2026 23: 34
    I'm certainly happy, but... where's the government approach? Where's the factory-scale mass production?
    .
    This particular prototype, of course, has a ton of flaws. But where are our designers? What are they getting paid for?
    .
    And, most importantly, where is the Ministry of Defense, which should be spending money on weapons, and not on who knows where!
    .
    If they'd given me clearance and money at the beginning of the SVO, we'd have real combat robots by now. And any educated person would have been given...
    1. 0
      20 February 2026 06: 29
      Quote: also a doctor
      I'm certainly happy, but... where's the government approach? Where's the factory-scale mass production?
      .
      This particular prototype, of course, has a ton of flaws. But where are our designers? What are they getting paid for?
      .
      And, most importantly, where is the Ministry of Defense, which should be spending money on weapons, and not on who knows where!
      .
      If they'd given me clearance and money at the beginning of the SVO, we'd have real combat robots by now. And any educated person would have been given...


      Designers have chief designers, who have "effective" managers, who have owners, who have customers

      No, just... You know what.
  8. +2
    19 February 2026 02: 55
    A weapon for firing at the enemy. Whatever God sends. :))))))
    ...If the creators of this FAU had nothing better to do with their hands, they could have gone to a porn site. :)))
  9. 0
    19 February 2026 11: 59
    Not "robotic," but "remotely controlled." Bekauri, and then the Germans, devised similar "land torpedoes." 80 years ago.
  10. +1
    19 February 2026 17: 27
    The Kultivator platform houses a unique launcher for unguided rockets. It is manufactured using off-the-shelf components, which play a key role. The launcher is designed to use mass-produced ammunition, which our army has in large quantities.

    It looks like it wasn't prefabricated, but was taken entirely from the mount of an attack helicopter.
    1. 0
      22 February 2026 21: 20
      That's right. Similar "ersatz-MLRS" were manufactured en masse in Afghanistan, Karabakh, Transnistria, and Yugoslavia.
  11. -1
    19 February 2026 22: 11
    Drone enthusiasts have nothing to do with the military-industrial complex.
    This is an opinion from the photographs.
    Volunteer fighters, having given up hope of getting anything worthwhile from the military-industrial complex, cobbled together this marvel of engineering. Kudos to them for that.
    But when will the military-industrial complex, with its insanely high profits, do anything worthwhile?
    Everything in this installation is homemade, which does not detract from the merits of the authors.
    An incomprehensible chassis, helicopter mounts, and an S-5, which pilots don't use because they can only hit "roughly where your hand points when your eyes are closed."
    But herein lies the absurdity of what's happening. People without specialized education, having learned in war, strive and are capable of more than entire corporations.
    And the fat bourgeoisie can only count the profit from the crappy standard weapons.
  12. 0
    28 March 2026 10: 34
    Efficiency is no lower than pitch-up launches.
  13. +1
    April 4 2026 23: 31
    Soldiers on the front lines deserve better weapons than homemade ones!!
  14. 0
    April 19 2026 10: 44
    Well, we've come to this, finally descending to the level of the Syrian Basmachi and African tribes who've been prancing through the sands for decades with similar blocks on jeeps. While proudly telling stories and showing various dugouts or wrecked rural logistics centers where our guys cobble together all sorts of drones and other weapons from "dung and sticks," reporters don't even realize how pathetic and pathetic it looks from the outside. This doesn't diminish the talent and professionalism of our soldiers, who, out of desperation, are forced to invent and innovate in combat conditions amid a severe shortage of essential supplies and logistics. The result of the army's defeat, with the destruction of any prospects for revival in the 90s, its scientific potential, the traditions of the Russian continental army, and the "reforms" based on overseas colonial manuals in the 0s for expeditionary forces, led not by professional strategists and tacticians, but by "effective managers" who made their careers like personal business plans, with complete irresponsibility and permissiveness.
    1. 0
      5 May 2026 19: 58
      There is no limit to a soldier's creativity in war... And there is no need to limit or criticize it.