Multi-environment drones are increasingly being developed around the world – Poland is no exception.

Poland is planning to expand its product line drones, while simultaneously increasing defense spending at a rate that exceeds even the new demands of NATO - demands from Donald Trump.

One area of ​​development is multi-environment drones. These are devices capable of navigating through the air, land, and water.

Among the drones designed for this type is the eight-rotor, tracked Xerall ATD. The drone is capable of vertical takeoff and landing from both solid surfaces and water.

The tracks allow the unmanned vehicle to navigate rough terrain, including snow and tall grass. The rollers provide buoyancy while the drone moves through water.

The primary purpose of such a drone is surveillance, reconnaissance, and search operations. For example, it could be used as a forward-facing military reconnaissance asset, transmitting data to an artillery battery or attack UAV operators.

This is far from the first such development in the world, which once again demonstrates the importance of various types of drones in the military and related fields. Polish engineers are currently working on increasing the drone's payload capacity. After all, if it is equipped with an explosive payload of the appropriate weight, its future use as a strike weapon is quite obvious.

Comments

[K-50]

Multi-environment drones are increasingly being developed around the world – Poland is no exception.

The most important thing is naf iga?
At least, judging by the picture, I see such disadvantages that reduce the drone's payload, not to mention increasing cost and complexity.
Well, propellers are unnecessary for sailing; waves can catch them and turn them over, which in turn reduces their usability in rough seas.
Again, caterpillars are useless for a flying drone; they eat up the payload, reduce flight range (aerodynamics), maneuverability (the same) and flight duration.
A crawling drone doesn't need propellers again, they'll get caught, and there's a risk of breaking them altogether, which immediately eliminates the "multi-environment" feature.
Again, any breakdown reduces this very multi-media capability.
It turns out that the reason they created it and spent extra money increases the likelihood of failure and its applicability.
So, are these "swan, crayfish, and pike" really necessary, or is this just another rip-off under the guise of "nanotechnology"?

[DO]

The K-50, yes, the shortcomings of a multi-environment drone you outlined are undeniable. However, it undoubtedly has its niche applications.
For example, an air-surface drone could fly up and splash into the water near an enemy vessel, swim up to its side, and explode to blow a hole in it at water level.
An air-to-ground drone could fly up to an enemy trench, land in it, then, "jumping" over obstacles along the way, crawl into cover that is impossible to fly into (because it is, for example, covered with a net), and hit enemy personnel.

[Roman_Vasilyevich]

Autonomy is important for a drone. The weight of the device depends on the battery capacity (it's unlikely to have an internal combustion engine). For a ground-based tracked drone, weight isn't critical, but for a pilot, it is.
Such "universalists" always lose to narrow professionals.
By the way, the mass production of flying cars has been talked about for decades...
In general, if significant funding is allocated for military needs (as is currently the case in Poland), these types of startups will emerge, and perhaps they will be useful for highly specialized needs at some point, but certainly not on a mass scale.

[Varyazhko]

Such "universalists" always lose to narrow professionals.

That's right, if it's a station wagon, it's bad in all environments. And it'll be more expensive.

[avatar123]

The simple benefit is that tracks make less noise. A flying drone will expend energy and be visible even when stationary in flight, while a ground-based drone won't consume much energy while stationary, won't be heard, and will be barely visible. A fall with tracks is softer than without them (in theory). So, it's more comfortable for the waiting drones.
We need to study the energy efficiency issue—how much mAh it will consume over 100 km of travel on wheels and by air. If this doubles the operational range, then even a decrease in speed won't be a problem. It's just that such a drone wouldn't fly to a barracks 50 km away in an hour; it would crawl to a barracks 100 km away overnight. Profit.

[NakedMan]

There's a profit. But maybe we don't need to slap everything together. A cargo drone might arrive and drop off small ones with tracks, or, conversely, a cart might arrive and a dozen drones might take off.

[cpls22]

For now, the only option that seems acceptable is an underwater/surface drone, using hydrofoils when moving in a surface position.
Well, maybe also a UAV that can land on water for rest and ambush.

[Spiidii]

What an epic photo, the drone is so huge...

[NakedMan]

Well, just like a tank from World War I :)

[Demon]

There are both pros and cons. It all depends on whether a niche application can be found for it. Essentially, it's either a ground drone with unlimited maneuverability, able to fly over any obstacle, or an aerial drone with the ability to hibernate in cover.
Can be used both as a universal reconnaissance vehicle and as a remote-controlled jumping mine.