Military Review

MAFAT presents new unmanned systems

95



The Israeli Ministry of Defense for the first time presented robotic systems in the field of unmanned ground vehicles, some of which are already operational and are in service with the Israel Defense Forces, and some are currently in the testing phase.

Over the past decade, the Israeli Defense and Armament Technology and Technology Infrastructure Administration (MAFAT) has invested significant resources in developing ground-based robotic systems to increase combat capability, expand the operational capabilities of the IDF ground forces and reduce the risk of infantry units. Now MAFAT introduced the next generation of unmanned systems that are expected to revolutionize the battlefield.

MAFAT presents new unmanned systems


The video shows the land mobile robotic complex (Unmanned Ground Vehicle, UGV) G-Nius, which has been used by the Israel Defense Forces on the border with the Gaza Strip for four years. Land mobile robotic systems have led to fundamental changes in relation to the protection of safety barriers and, as expected, the Israeli Defense Ministry will expand their use in the coming years.



Guardium (developed with G-Nius) is a prototype for autonomous land robotic complexes associated with tasks requiring maneuvering. Compared with the first generation of the complex, which independently moved along the route previously stored in the memory of the system, Guardium can autonomously move along the route indicated on the map, taking into account all possible routes for the area. The operator can simply point to a certain point on the map, and the vehicle will be able to get to it independently bypassing obstacles in its path. Autonomous capabilities developed on the basis of this vehicle can be implemented on additional platforms. In the future, it will be possible to send autonomous vehicles ahead of any convoy before following the main forces.



In addition, you can now see the first unmanned armored personnel carrier in a field test in Israel: an example of the introduction of advanced technologies on board an armored personnel carrier to solve complex operational tasks. Another autonomous robot is an Israeli engineering apparatus. aviation industry (Israel Aerospace Industries). This is an all-terrain vehicle designed to work with explosive devices. This advanced device integrates the capabilities of autonomous movement with the ability to autonomously handle explosive devices - detect explosive devices, remove them and transport them to a safe place.
Originator:
http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=2146
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. MilaPhone
    MilaPhone 27 May 2013 06: 41
    +5
    Guarduim is an interesting option for single or dual patrols of borders, pipelines, perimeters of important objects and other routes.
    The main advantage is that if such a machine hits a mine or receives an RPG on board, then no one needs to be buried. And besides, it’s easier to change operators every N hours than to change crew. To replace the operators, the car does not need to be returned to the base, like a regular patrol.
    Here is a further development, Guarduim Mk 3:
    1. Refund_SSSR
      Refund_SSSR 27 May 2013 07: 11
      +2
      What is better than wheeled transport than an aircraft for the tasks?
      Well, if only in your country along the borders, there is an asphalt track all over laughing
      It’s just that in the Russian Federation, as in most other countries, border territories are impassable.
      Yes, and how much I've seen pipeline routes in my life, but for the most part they are also not in very comfortable conditions.
      But solving engineering problems is another and really necessary thing.
      1. Professor
        27 May 2013 07: 36
        +2
        Quote: We refund_SSSR
        Well, if only in your country along the borders, there is an asphalt track all over

        It’s immediately clear that they didn’t watch the video. There are tracked vehicles there.
        1. xetai9977
          xetai9977 27 May 2013 07: 47
          +2
          Very interesting developments. And very promising!
    2. bask
      bask 27 May 2013 07: 14
      0
      In the Israeli army, a robotic bulldozer is also used to destroy houses and shelters, which are a high-explosive mine threat.
      The Black Thunder Fighting Vehicle is an unmanned version of the Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. They plan to double the existing fleet of robotic bulldozers for flapping.
      1. Professor
        27 May 2013 07: 40
        +1
        There is such a thing. More details here
        Israeli invulnerable 60-ton robot dozer doubles its strength


        1. bask
          bask 27 May 2013 08: 53
          0
          Quote: Professor

          Israeli invulnerable 60 ton

          The logic of Israeli designers and military is clear.
          1.maximum protection of the soldiers dodged. (((MBT ,, Merkava-3,4,, BTR-T ,, Namer, Ahzarit ,,))).
          2.Where it is impossible to use heavy highly protected armored vehicles.
          Sent to fight ROBOTS.
          In Russia, so far they have limited themselves to the use of sapper robots. This is already a big step forward. Reduced the death of sappers.
          DUM - Russian combat robot.
          1. Professor
            27 May 2013 09: 03
            +1
            Quote: bask
            In Russia, so far they have limited themselves to the use of sapper robots. This is already a big step forward.

            As far as I know, the first Russian sapper robots were acquired through the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the same Israel.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 09: 11
              +3
              Our first sapper robot was developed in 1986, the Klin-1 robotic complex based on IMR-2
              1. Professor
                27 May 2013 09: 21
                +1
                I am about robots for police needs.
            2. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 27 May 2013 09: 17
              +3
              Quote: Professor

              As far as I know, the first Russian sapper robots were acquired through the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the same Israel.

              This is based on Internet data, and there is often such crap.
              1. Professor
                27 May 2013 09: 19
                0
                Therefore, I wrote that "As far as I know" because I am not sure, but I saw such a version "a couple of years ago".
                1. bask
                  bask 27 May 2013 09: 58
                  0
                  Quote: Professor
                  That's why I wrote that "As far as I know"

                  As far as I know, the example of Israel on the use of D-9 robotic bulldozers, is contagious,
                  Bundeswehr troops, used since 2010 in Afghanistan, military armored bulldozers. And like mine clearing machines, MineWolf,. Weight - 26 tons. It can be controlled remotely.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 27 May 2013 10: 09
                    0
                    This is not a bulldozer, but a mine trawl. And the experience is not Israeli, but British
                    1. bask
                      bask 27 May 2013 10: 58
                      0
                      Quote: Spade
                      This is not a bulldozer, but a mine trawl. And the experience is not Israeli, but British

                      Not a word was written about Israel.
                      German, more specifically German-Swiss.
                      "" MineWolf demining machine development.
                      The MineWolf concept was developed in collaboration between Germany based on AHWI and system security technologies, and the Swiss RUAG Land Systems (RUAG).
                      The flagship MineWolf was developed in 2002 and successfully tested in 2003 and 2004. The armored bulldozer is equipped with flails and boats that can lift trees from 6 inches, allowing minefields clearance ,, "" "http://www.army-technology.com/projects/minewolf/i
                      Magi
                      /3-minewolf.jpg
                      It can be used as a multi-purpose engineering machine.
            3. DmitriRazumov
              DmitriRazumov 27 May 2013 10: 08
              +2
              Quote: Professor
              As far as I know, the first Russian sapper robots were acquired through the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the same Israel.

              It is not necessary to think that Israeli developments and know-how are used in the Russian law enforcement agencies. The Israeli secret services are really intensely lobbying for the purchase of security systems and other developments through their Russian colleagues. However, the principle in force in the Russian Federation is not to use exclusively foreign-made equipment in safety systems. It is strictly required: disclosure and certification of software codes, joint implementations, in which the partner will not depend on the supplier, etc. Therefore, Israeli developments are often tested and their potential is further assessed compared to existing Russian ones or the potential for joint development. If the partner does not go for the disclosure or transfer of know-how, then such a development cannot be used in systems that ensure security and defense capability.
              1. Professor
                27 May 2013 10: 17
                0
                We are not talking about RSVN, but about police robots. For example, the Russian special services purchased a system "for shooting from around the corner" without "disclosing and certifying software codes."
                Police officers received weapons for firing from around the corner
                1. DmitriRazumov
                  DmitriRazumov 27 May 2013 12: 10
                  +2
                  [img] http://desantura.ru/bitrix/components/bitrix/forum.interface/show_file.php?
                  fid = 176678 [/ img]
                  [Center]
                  Quote: Professor
                  We are not talking about RSVN, but about police robots. For example, the Russian special services purchased a system "for shooting from around the corner" without "disclosing and certifying software codes."

                  This is again the purchase of 10-15 copies. doesn't do the weather. and will be studied.
                  "In 1995, the Russian designer Alexander Golodyaev developed a fiber optic attachment for the sight. The lens of the attachment is attached to the sight eyepiece; the sight lens is attached to the weapon, and the eyepiece is mounted directly in front of the shooter's eye. Now you can conduct aimed fire only with your hand out of cover. at the Rzhevka range gave successful results.At a distance of 100 m, the accuracy of firing in 3 series of 20 shots was up to 200 mm from AK and SVD. Moreover, when firing from AK with a 1PN51 sight, the accuracy was the same both with the nozzle and without it from the position After publications in the press about Golodyaev's work, the designers of NPO Spetstekhnika i Svyaz developed the Drive device, which combined the attachment to weapons from the First and Second World Wars with a light guide sight. "
                  There are other Russian developments, Kotor. allow unlike the Israeli to use full-time weapons.
                  1. Professor
                    27 May 2013 12: 28
                    0
                    Quote: DmitriRazumov
                    There are other Russian developments, Kotor. allow unlike the Israeli to use full-time weapons.

                    Firstly, this papelats uses full-time weapons. Secondly, the weather does not need to be done, this weapon is dying out for one or two fighters and this is good. Thirdly, you are about the development, and I am about accepted for service - feel the difference.

                    Quote: DmitriRazumov
                    It is not necessary to think that Israeli developments and know-how are used in the Russian law enforcement agencies.

                    As you can see, although not much, they are used. And there is nothing shameful about it. hi
                    1. DmitriRazumov
                      DmitriRazumov 27 May 2013 13: 45
                      +1
                      Quote: Professor
                      Firstly, this papelats uses full-time weapons.

                      If I am not mistaken, a very definite gun is put in the container. AK you can’t put in there.
                      We need to feel the difference between the adoption and procurement of some copies, most often through private offices. Samples purchased through "offices", of course, will be used in some places, but they will not be used en masse. And basically the purpose of such purchases, if it comes from the special services, is to study the performance characteristics. Such devices can also be purchased by the security services of private offices, for example, Lukoil, etc., but this is a slightly different direction.
                      Quote: Professor
                      As you can see, although not much, they are used. And there is nothing shameful about it.

                      I have already listed the conditions for using the development of foreign manufacturers in systems that ensure the safety of state bodies of the Russian Federation. Read the previous post.
                      1. Professor
                        27 May 2013 13: 56
                        0
                        Quote: DmitriRazumov
                        If I am not mistaken, a very definite gun is put in the container. AK you can’t put in there.

                        You are not mistaken. A full-time pistol is laid there, for example, Glock. There is no AK, grenade launcher and machine gun. Apparently a pistol at a used distance is quite enough.

                        Quote: DmitriRazumov
                        Samples purchased through "offices", of course, will be used in some places, but they will not be applied en masse.

                        Spetsnaz is generally "not a mass instrument" and is armed with the best. When you need it, and small arms of foreign production, for example, Austrian and not at all "to study performance characteristics", but use as intended. This is a worldwide practice, and even the special forces of such a rich country as the United States practice it. Of course, no one will arm a motorized rifle division with such devices.
                        It all comes down to the issue of cost-effectiveness. If the country needs only a hundred of such products, then none of the sane will begin to engage in development and production. Just buy the finished one.
                      2. DmitriRazumov
                        DmitriRazumov 27 May 2013 15: 51
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        Spetsnaz is generally "not a mass instrument" and is armed with the best. When you need it, and small arms of foreign production, for example, Austrian and not at all "to study performance characteristics", but use as intended.


                        I would like to add the opinion of experts:
                        When asked if there really is no alternative in Russian production, M. Popenker said:

                        “At the moment there is an alternative - these are serial ORSIS T-5000 rifles, in addition, experimental rifles in the same caliber are offered by KBP (VS-8) and Izhmash (SSV-338). In defense of "Mannlicher" we can say that the choice of rifles was most likely made relatively long ago. In addition, these rifles are already in serial production and they can be purchased "right now", while the Tula and Izhevsk rifles still exist only in prototypes, and the serial ORSIS rifles have appeared quite recently.
                        The expert assessed the Austrian Mannlicher sniper rifle as “definitely good”. But he noted: “However, the following factors must be taken into account. First, the rifle is imported, which means that at any time, the supply of these rifles and spare parts for them may stop. Second, the supply channels of these rifles to the army are not clear. They have not yet been officially adopted, how the army purchases them and for what price is an open question. "
                        Those. adoption has not taken place, and therefore, there will be no mass purchases.
                        Vladislav Shurygin:
                        • I want to ask officials of the Ministry of Defense a question - when did the Austrian rifle Steyr Mannlicher SSG 08 be adopted by the Russian Army? The answer to this question will be silence. Because such a rifle was not accepted into service. As the British L-96 rifle, better known in the shooting environment as the “AB” rifle, was not accepted, it was regularly posed by army snipers and even Medvedev, who was put into her arms like an ADOPTED rifle, in front of TV cameras.
                        • Then the following question arises - and on the basis of what law, what document is our Ministry of Defense going to purchase Austrian sniper rifles? And do officials understand that by such actions they grossly violate the laws of the Russian Federation? The army can not use unregistered, not adopted weapons. As a person who has been involved in the issue of the adoption of new weapons and military equipment for thirty-five years, I am well acquainted with the topic.

                        • Before a particular type of small arms appears in the hands of a fighter of the Russian army, an official decision must be made (order, decree) to include a specific, new or modernized model of weapons or military equipment in the state’s armed forces. As a rule, the adoption of the VVVS model should be preceded by the conduct of its military (naval) tests.
                        • The objects of evaluation at military tests are the first leading serial samples of the VVST. With the adoption of samples for armament, organized their mass production and equipping them with formations and parts of the aircraft.

                        So, it was all Serdyukov's "liberties" were, if not worse. So, at the present time, this whole zoo is unlikely to develop in this form.
  2. Siberian German
    Siberian German 27 May 2013 13: 02
    0
    read the science fiction novel - a flaming island - Soviet by the way, they talk about it too - the episode of the pilots of the wrecked cars comes out from one control panel and switch to another - just with the collapse of the USSR we crap finely and we intercepted this banner
  • alex67
    alex67 27 May 2013 07: 44
    0
    A good option for patrolling to save lives
    many border guards.
    Good news on the eve of the border guard day! hi
  • alex67
    alex67 27 May 2013 07: 46
    0
    In Israel, a highway has been laid along the border. It is very convenient when
    patrolling winked
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Metlik
    Metlik 27 May 2013 08: 40
    +2

    In my opinion the same system.
    1. Professor
      27 May 2013 09: 00
      +4
      The system from Google as they say "rules". They drove tens of thousands of kilometers on full autopilot, including rush hours in California, and there were only a few minor accidents, and that was not their fault (the blonde backed up.)
    2. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 27 May 2013 10: 30
      +1
      Quote: Metlik
      In my opinion the same system.

      The Israelis are driving an operator. In this case, the car (probably) independently searches for the path to the designated point. The driver is not here. Yes, the control is robotic, but the principles of controlling a car are different. I think so.
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 27 May 2013 13: 34
        0
        Duplicate operator. If necessary.
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 27 May 2013 08: 58
    +1
    To be honest, I don't quite understand where the "revolution on the battlefield" is here.

    Perimeter patrols? By itself, the thing is ineffective, why create a robotic complex to perform this function?

    Robot sapper? Good thing, but again not for the battlefield.

    Unmanned BTR? In general, an incomprehensible thing. What does he transport unmanned?
    1. Professor
      27 May 2013 09: 16
      0
      Quote: Spade
      Perimeter patrols? By itself, the thing is ineffective, why create a robotic complex to perform this function?

      Perimeter patrols have been, are and always will be, especially in countries with vast borders. Why to create this function to create a robotic complex? At least not to repeat the story with Goldwaser and Regev.

      Quote: Spade
      Robot sapper? Good thing, but again not for the battlefield.

      Quite the contrary. Battlefield Robotics

      Quote: Spade
      Unmanned BTR? In general, an incomprehensible thing. What does he transport unmanned?

      I understand that you did not watch the movie either. sad
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 27 May 2013 09: 35
        0
        Quote: Professor
        Perimeter patrols have been, are and always will be, especially in countries with vast borders.

        The experience of the USSR clearly proved that KSP + technical stationary means + a system of secrets is much preferable to periodic patrolling by a robotic complex, which is unable to make up for 1% of the possibilities of a walking patrol with a dog.

        Quote: Professor
        Quite the contrary. Robotics on the battlefield

        And where is the "battlefield"?
        In reality, completely different things work there. For while the robot will dig, those who are waiting for it will trite banter. The main function of mines on the battlefield is to delay rather than defeat.

        Quote: Professor
        I understand that you did not watch the movie either.

        Looked. There, the expensive complex is used as a track mine trawl. Very much like a native "cut"
        1. Professor
          27 May 2013 09: 53
          0
          Quote: Spade
          The experience of the USSR clearly proved that KSP + technical stationary means + a system of secrets is much preferable to periodic patrolling by a robotic complex, which is unable to make up for 1% of the possibilities of a walking patrol with a dog.

          A comprehensive solution is needed including KSP, patrols, UAVs, rangers and robots.


          Quote: Spade
          And where is the "battlefield"?


          And you read the article. There are many examples given.

          Quote: Spade
          There, the expensive complex is used as a track mine trawl. Very much like a native "cut"

          Darling? A soldier is more expensive, literally. A life-long family allowance will pay off not a single system. They use it not as a mine trawl (although this should be done by someone), but as an advanced scout, and the enemy does not even have a clue whether the crew is or not.

          PS
          Bedouin Rangers
          1. DmitriRazumov
            DmitriRazumov 27 May 2013 10: 14
            +1
            Quote: Professor
            PS
            Bedouin Rangers

            But these guys really stand in the company of ordinary soldiers each and no robot tracker can replace them!
            1. Professor
              27 May 2013 10: 47
              +1
              One balloon with a radar and thermal imager at the state border replaces the company of trackers. However, there are situations that such a pathfinder is priceless.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 27 May 2013 10: 50
                +1
                And how many new observation balloons could be purchased instead of these machines with minimal capabilities?
                1. Professor
                  27 May 2013 12: 13
                  -1
                  Question do I understand rhetorical? If your border passes in the steppes of the Kherson region or the swamps of Florida, then they are very effective. However, the mountains of the Caucasus or the hills of Galilee create many dead zones for them. Just in this case, the GNIUS ground drone with the same headset as the aerostat is very effective. As shown in the attached video.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 27 May 2013 14: 17
                    +1
                    In the mountains even easier, there are enough hospitals on the towers. It is cheaper than balloons.
                    1. Professor
                      27 May 2013 14: 28
                      0
                      And they also set up towers (by the way, they’re not cheaper at all, the sensors are the same), but you won’t put a tower on every hill, expensive. So they overlap and duplicate with mobile intelligence.
                      PS
                      I don’t remember something in the Caucasus using balloons. Tell me.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 May 2013 15: 04
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        but you won’t put a tower on every hill, expensive. So they overlap and duplicate with mobile intelligence.

                        I do not understand what is the point in them. Are the Palestinians so brainless that they are unable to hide from the ground patrol, conducting exclusively visual observation, and not full, but on the screen? He lay down for about 15 minutes, waited, and that's it
                      2. Professor
                        27 May 2013 15: 18
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        I do not understand what is the point in them. Are the Palestinians so brainless that they are unable to hide from the ground patrol, conducting exclusively visual observation, and not full, but on the screen? He lay down for about 15 minutes, waited, and that's it

                        You obviously looked bad at the movie. Pay attention to 2:50, the device moved to a position, deployed sensors and observes 5 km around it in the visible, thermal imaging and radar spectrum. If the terrorists are so smart that they can hide and wait 15 minutes, then they would not be terrorists, but would work as programmers in Skolkovo.

                        Think of it as a mobile observation post equipped with the most modern equipment.
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 May 2013 15: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Think of it as a mobile observation post equipped with the most modern equipment.

                        This is a parody of him.
                        Take the three cars, put on one of them a mast with modern equipment. Placing children in cars that can immediately realize intelligence. This is a mobile observation post.
                      4. Professor
                        27 May 2013 15: 50
                        -1
                        I'm tired. Stay with your opinion. I believe that these kids are in the top three cars and there are potential two hundredths. Where this can be avoided, it should be avoided. Instead of sending a soldier to check what is ringing on the fence and getting him back almost as if he were alive, it is better to send a "glamorous car". They will buy one more maximum.
                        By the way, where they are now being used, there were no perimeter breakthroughs, although attempts do not stop.
                        All the best. hi
                      5. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 May 2013 16: 04
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Instead of sending a fighter

                        Why send? He will shoot there. Implement intelligence. information.

                        Quote: Professor
                        By the way, where they are now being used, there were no perimeter breakthroughs

                        "Do you see a gopher? - No. - And I am not. And he is" (c)

                        It is more appropriate to write "where they are used now, no perimeter breakouts were noticed"
                      6. Professor
                        27 May 2013 16: 22
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Why send? He will shoot there. Implement intelligence. information

                        Are you sure that you are an artilleryman? Know what to do with the information received? wink


                        Quote: Spade
                        It is more appropriate to write "where they are used now, no perimeter breakouts were noticed"

                        You are not familiar with the realities. Where there is a perimeter breakthrough, a new Shalit or Goldwaser appears.
                      7. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 May 2013 16: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Are you sure that you are an artilleryman? Know what to do with the information received?

                        I would not use artillery against small groups in the area where expensive sensor systems are located. Pairs of sniper pairs with cover groups are enough for the eyes.

                        Quote: Professor
                        You are not familiar with the realities. Where there is a perimeter breakthrough, a new Shalit or Goldwaser appears.

                        What for? Here, for example, the border of the USSR. What, all the breakthroughs were solely in order to carry out sabotage?
                      8. Professor
                        27 May 2013 20: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        I would not use artillery against small groups in the area where expensive sensor systems are located. Pairs of sniper pairs with cover groups are enough for the eyes.

                        If you have snipers capable of hitting a target at a distance of 5 km, then I envy you. I have not met such. In the Golan, Tamuz’s firing points are now striking.

                        Quote: Spade
                        What for? Here, for example, the border of the USSR. What, all the breakthroughs were solely in order to carry out sabotage?

                        In the USSR, nobody would be given anything for a captured corporal, and Israel gave 1027 majahideen for this. Now I understand why?
                      9. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 May 2013 21: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        If you have snipers capable of hitting a target at a distance of 5 km, then I envy you.

                        Do your opponents have? Otherwise, where could the threat to your fighters come from?

                        Somehow everything is too awkward. Strange terrain. On the one hand, it allows the use of weapons at 5 km. range, on the other hand, radio-controlled cars are needed there, which will drive up to the objects of observation almost closely, because hospitals and balloons are ineffective
                      10. Professor
                        27 May 2013 21: 13
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        Do your opponents have? Otherwise, where could the threat to your fighters come from?

                        Somehow everything is too awkward. Strange terrain. On the one hand, it allows the use of weapons at 5 km. range, on the other hand, radio-controlled cars are needed there, which will drive up to the objects of observation almost closely, because hospitals and balloons are ineffective

                        They have Cornets. Have you heard of such? Here you have the terrain and truckers snipers. fellow
                      11. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 May 2013 21: 33
                        0
                        It’s very difficult to get into the hospital tower with a cornet
                      12. Professor
                        27 May 2013 21: 49
                        +1
                        Of course, at a distance of 8-10 km (as the manufacturers promise) it’s almost impossible to get there, but with 20x optics at a distance of 3-4 km I can even hit a static target, I estimate the probability of hitting 5% at 50 km.
                        But this is not the main problem. He is a hospital for that and a hospital so that its location is known ... And here is the same "hospital", but on wheels and can appear there where it is now more needed.
                      13. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 27 May 2013 22: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        It’s a hospital and a hospital so that its location is known ...

                        The location of the door lock is also known. If you do not put it on the ceiling, it will be able to work quite effectively.
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 27 May 2013 10: 23
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    A comprehensive solution is needed including KSP, patrols, UAVs, rangers and robots.

    And why are there ground-based robots? Saw the money? Well, with this money it’s better to buy more motion sensors and seismic sensors. It may not be glamorous, but much more effective.

    Quote: Professor
    And you read the article. There are many examples given.

    I read it. No one. Exclusively the tales of the Vienna forest from manufacturers of expensive but unnecessary gadgets.

    Quote: Professor
    Darling? A soldier is more expensive, literally.

    Which will die anyway, because this system is ineffective. You don’t know that when attacking the columns they break through always? No need to consider the enemy idiots. Most likely, when using such tactics, this remotely controlled machine will remain the only whole of the entire column.
    1. Professor
      27 May 2013 10: 56
      -1
      Quote: Spade
      And why are there ground-based robots? Saw a denyuzhku?

      Of course, money, but not to cut, but to save. These robots are already really guarding the international airport and saving the lives of soldiers on D9.

      Quote: Spade
      I read it. No one. Exclusively the tales of the Vienna forest from manufacturers of expensive but unnecessary gadgets.

      Speak not necessary? http://topwar.ru/23633-robototehnik-na-pole-bitvy.html
      I remember two tragic incidents that have become a kind of turning point. The first incident occurred in the summer of 1993 in Wadi al-Faresh in southern Lebanon, when the vanguard of the sappers of the Golani infantry brigade was ambushed by an IED, then eight people died. During the subsequent rescue operation, the tracker and the engineer of the engineer unit Avi Fisher were killed. After this incident, Tsakhal set about improving and modernizing his abilities against IEDs.

      In fact, the improvement was achieved only after a corresponding incident that occurred in the area of ​​the Apharsek-Taibe line in September 1995. By this time, the robot to neutralize explosive devices had already been acquired, but had not yet entered service and was still being tested. In the course of this incident, an engineer from the engineering unit, Nitai Shaftes, was engaged in clearing the route. Both of the deceased officers died from an explosive device "at chest level" (a term that led to a revision of the concept of fighting IEDs) without having any special means, and paid for it with their lives. This led to a change in technology and the development of an excellent concept for the disposal of explosive devices, in particular the use of robots.

      In fact, the robot replaced the fighter at the stage of initial treatment with the VCA. This stage is carried out after the completion of several preliminary activities of a more general methodical, comprehensive procedure for processing the arena of an VCA. This procedure is called "Noal Kvarnit" (captain procedure).


      Quote: Spade
      Which will die anyway, because this system is ineffective.

      They convinced, well, they are stupid these bourgeois and do not understand anything in the conduct of hostilities. Just don’t be surprised then when the situation is like with UAVs and you have to buy them from the same bourgeoisie.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 27 May 2013 11: 16
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        Of course, money, but not to cut, but to save.

        How to save? How can an inefficient system do this?


        Quote: Professor
        In fact, the robot replaced the fighter at the initial stage of handling the IEDs.

        You simply cannot understand one thing: there is no "initial communication with IED" on the battlefield. As soon as the enemy discovers a stopped unit "communicating" with a mine, a division of 152-mm howitzers will mix it with the ground. Together with the robot, sappers and the charge itself, which fulfilled its function to detain.

        And so with everything else. All these battlefield gadgets not applicable.

        Quote: Professor
        They convinced, well, they are stupid these bourgeois and do not understand anything in the conduct of hostilities.

        Maybe they understand. But the rollback makes it difficult to talk.

        Quote: Professor
        Just don’t be surprised then when the situation is like with UAVs and you have to buy them from the same bourgeoisie.

        We already have a remotely controlled tank. Installation of equipment is possible on any combatant T-72. Full control, not use as an expensive "trick"
        1. Professor
          27 May 2013 12: 21
          0
          Quote: Spade
          How to save? How can an inefficient system do this?

          It was you who decided that it was not effective, but the bourgeoisie decided differently. D9 with remote control is not effective? Does a management system cost more than a soldier’s family allowance? Three girls sitting at the monitors replace 6 fighters who previously patrolled the perimeter of the airport. So much for saving money.

          Quote: Spade
          You simply cannot understand one thing: there is no "initial communication with IED" on the battlefield. As soon as the enemy discovers a stopped unit "communicating" with a mine, a division of 152-mm howitzers will mix it with the ground. Together with the robot, sappers and the charge itself, which fulfilled its function to detain.
          And so with everything else. All of these gadgets on the battlefield are not applicable.

          I understand everything. Do you think this is a war when the army is in the army, but in Chechnya or in Lebanon this is a children's walk? And they don’t bring soldiers from Chechnya in zinc boxes? It's not for me to teach you about sluggish current conflicts.

          Quote: Spade
          Maybe they understand. But the rollback makes it difficult to talk.

          When people look at everything through the prism of kickbacks, it’s useless to cover me. request

          Quote: Spade
          We already have a remotely controlled tank. Installation of equipment is possible on any combatant T-72. Full control, not use as an expensive "trick"

          I saw this tank in YouTube. And you tell me, did anyone see him in the army?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 27 May 2013 14: 42
            0
            Quote: Professor
            It was you who decided that it was not effective, but the bourgeoisie decided differently.

            Wow, how did you immediately generalize. These glamorous cars only you use. But among the bourgeois on the Korean Peninsula, where the most protected border in the world is located, there are exclusively hospitals with machine guns.



            Quote: Professor
            I understand everything. Do you think this is a war when the army is in the army, but in Chechnya or in Lebanon this is a children's walk?

            Not a walk. But also not a full-fledged battlefield on which PR specialists from MAFAT make "revolutions". It is necessary to be more modest.

            Quote: Professor
            I saw this tank in YouTube. And you tell me, did anyone see him in the army?

            At least it is in hardware, and not in computer graphics.
            1. Professor
              27 May 2013 14: 54
              -1
              Quote: Spade
              These glamorous cars only you use. But among the bourgeois on the Korean Peninsula, where the most protected border in the world is located, there are exclusively hospitals with machine guns.

              You have already been shown that not only "here" (sapper robots are now generally ubiquitous), but on the Korean Peninsula, I am not sure that only hospitals. The same balloons are actively used in NATO.

              Not a walk. But also not a full-fledged battlefield on which PR specialists from MAFAT make "revolutions". It is necessary to be more modest.

              I repeat, not in every war the army goes to the army and uses nuclear weapons. There are also sluggish conflicts, such as in the North Caucasus, where "hyped" "glamorous cars" can save the lives of real soldiers. How, for example, are saving real soldiers' lives by sapper robots and "unmanned" bulldozers. That's all modesty. At one time in the USSR they also laughed with the UAV and the train left. Now you have to chase him.

              Quote: Spade
              At least it is in hardware, and not in computer graphics.

              This one is in the gland and I saw it, but as I understand it, the troops did not see it. It's a pity. sad
              1. bask
                bask 27 May 2013 15: 09
                0
                Quote: Professor
                like in the North Caucasus, How, for example, safer robots and "unmanned" bulldozers save real soldiers' lives. Here

                In the North Caucasus, it is desirable to have, if only just bulldozers of the D-9 type.
                But UAVs, reconnaissance and strike UAVs are simply necessary.
                A media report of the type ,,,, employees will pursue the remains of a gang in the mountains ,,,, The remains of gangs must finish UAVs
                Quote: Spade

                Not a walk. But also not a full-fledged battlefield on which PR specialists from MAFAT make "revolutions". It is necessary to be more modest.

                I agree. But new technologies save the lives of soldiers.
              2. Lopatov
                Lopatov 27 May 2013 15: 38
                0
                Quote: bask
                In the North Caucasus, it is desirable to have, if only just bulldozers of the D-9 type.

                What for?
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 15: 25
              0
              Quote: Professor
              You have already been shown that not only "here" (sapper robots are now generally ubiquitous), but on the Korean Peninsula, I am not sure that only hospitals. The same balloons are actively used in NATO.

              And I am completely and completely for balloons and other robotic aircraft systems. I am entirely for sapper robots as an aid. I am for robotic hospitals.
              But I consider your "patrol" radio-controlled overgrown cars a banal cut.

              Quote: Professor
              I repeat, not in every war the army goes to the army and uses nuclear weapons.

              However, a normal army is designed for this. And to create a weapon applicable only against a weaker enemy, equipped with only light weapons, and at the same time yelling about a "revolution on the battlefield" is somewhat presumptuous.

              Quote: Professor
              At one time, the USSR also laughed with UAVs and the train left.

              Did they do it while laughing? Here you are already presumptuous.
            3. Professor
              27 May 2013 15: 44
              0
              Quote: Spade
              But I consider your "patrol" radio-controlled overgrown cars a banal cut.

              Answered in another comment here.

              However, a normal army is precisely for this purpose.

              It turns out that Russia is not a normal army because it is fighting terrorists in the Caucasus? And what difference does mother have for what the army is intended if God forbid her son does not return alive.

              Did they do it while laughing?

              They laughed like many here calling it "model airplane sport" and always referred to the "weak opponent". Themselves did not bother with real-time mode and made jet monsters for aerial photography whose efficiency turned out to be below average. Therefore, these monsters, when they turned out to be useful in the fight against a "weak" enemy in the same Caucasus, turned out to be useless. But the flying lawn mower really saved the lives of Russian fighters.
            4. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 15: 58
              0
              Quote: Professor
              It turns out that Russia is not a normal army because it is fighting terrorists in the Caucasus?

              Normal. Because its main purpose is "the army goes to the army and use nuclear weapons"

              Quote: Professor
              They laughed like many here calling it "model aircraft sport" and always referred to the "weak opponent". Themselves did not bother with real-time mode and made jet monsters for aerial photography whose efficiency turned out to be below average. Therefore, these monsters, when they turned out to be useful in the fight against a "weak" enemy in the same Caucasus, turned out to be useless.

              Yes? And the same "Tipchak" is also a "jet monster"? "Bee"? I am saying that you are too arrogant.
              "Bee" - development of 1990
            5. Professor
              27 May 2013 16: 07
              -1
              Just me about these lawn mowers (listened how they howl?), Made them right after 8 years after the debut of bourgeois drones. Prior to this, everyone laughed, winked and created jet cameras that nobody needed. hi
            6. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 16: 21
              0
              Quote: Professor
              Just me about these lawn mowers (listened how they howl?), Made them right after 8 years after the debut of bourgeois drones.

              And when was the "debut of bourgeois drones"? 1975?
            7. Professor
              27 May 2013 16: 37
              -1
              Actually in 1973, but the beginning of the hour - exit with a benefit - was in 1982 in Bekaa.
            8. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 16: 44
              +1
              And the first Soviet "Bumblebee-1" flew in 1983. So the development began somewhere in 80-81. Something about "in 8 years" - a big bust
            9. bask
              bask 27 May 2013 17: 50
              0
              Quote: Spade
              And the first Soviet "Bumblebee-1" flew in 1983. So the development began somewhere in the 80s.

              Development 83 years !!!!
              Stunned. It’s even scary to think, if not for the hunchback and shit.
              What UAVs did RA have?
            10. Professor
              27 May 2013 20: 59
              -1
              Let's do arithmetic how many years have passed from 1973 to 1983?
              and. 5 years
              b. 10 years
              at. 8 years
              d. all answers are correct
              wink
            11. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 21: 04
              0
              Quote: Professor
              They laughed like many here calling it "model aircraft sport" and always referred to the "weak opponent". Themselves did not bother with real-time mode and made jet monsters for aerial photography whose efficiency turned out to be below average.


              Look at the dates. Both "Bumblebee-1" and "jet monsters" were developed almost simultaneously. So how is your thesis about "laughing"?
            12. Professor
              27 May 2013 21: 19
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Look at the dates. Both "Bumblebee-1" and "jet monsters" were developed almost simultaneously. So how is your thesis about "laughing"?

              AT "almost simultaneously"word stress"practically"?
              Bumblebee-1 - reconnaissance UAV. The first flight made in 1983. Work on the creation of mini-UAVs started in OKB im. A. S. Yakovleva in 1982, based on the experience of studying the combat use of Israeli UAVs in the 1982 war.

              Flying photoapp with black and white film:In the mid-sixties, the Tupolev Design Bureau began creating new unmanned reconnaissance systems for tactical and operational purposes. On August 30, 1968, the Council of Ministers of the USSR issued a resolution N 670-241 on the development of a new unmanned tactical reconnaissance complex "Reis" (VR-3) and the unmanned reconnaissance aircraft "143" (Tu-143) included in it. the Resolution stipulated: for the option with photographic reconnaissance equipment - in 1970, for the option with equipment for television reconnaissance and for the option with equipment for radiation reconnaissance - in 1972.

              Have a good laugh together? wink
            13. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 21: 37
              0
              Quote: Professor
              Work on the creation of mini-UAVs started in OKB im. A.S. Yakovleva in 1982 based on the experience of studying the combat use of Israeli UAVs in the 1982 war

              In one year, the complex was created? Cool. Turns out it was that easy?

              Quote: Professor
              for option with television intelligence equipment

              That is, it was the very machine with which the Americans "copied" their Global Hawk? And, probably, they also laughed at "Flight".
              And you still don’t have such a car. Although it is needed.
            14. Professor
              27 May 2013 22: 00
              -1
              Quote: Spade
              In one year, the complex was created? Cool. Turns out it was that easy?

              As they managed to do in a year, it flew. After finishing up as they could.
              http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bpla/shmel1.html

              Quote: Spade
              That is, it was the very machine with which the Americans "copied" their Global Hawk? And, probably, they also laughed at "Flight".

              Do you want to bring the dialogue to the point of absurdity? The flight flew along a predetermined round-trip route and only 70 km, well, just the Global Hawk. laughing

              Quote: Spade
              And you still don’t have such a car. Although it is needed.

              This is not, there is better. wink
            15. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 22: 17
              0
              Quote: Professor
              As they managed to do in a year, it flew. After finishing up as they could.

              Rather, just the information for the date had to be customized on this site. So there was a game about the fact that a year has passed from the development decision to the first flight


              Quote: Professor
              Do you want to bring the dialogue to the point of absurdity?

              You have already done this yourself. With his statement about "At one time in the USSR they also laughed with the UAV and the train left."
              And the train did not leave, and no one laughed, but worked.

              All our lagging behind in this area is "merit" of the collapse of the USSR. And not underestimating the capabilities of the UAV. Work on which was carried out for a very long time, since the mid-60s

              Quote: Professor
              The flight flew along a predetermined round-trip route and only 70 km, well, just the Global Hawk.

              And what is the difference between them in decades?
            16. Professor
              27 May 2013 22: 34
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Rather, just the information for the date had to be customized on this site.

              Yeah, the airwar is lying. laughing

              Quote: Spade
              This is our lag in this area, "merit" of the collapse of the USSR. And not underestimating the capabilities of the UAV. Work on which was carried out for a very long time, since the mid-60s

              The development of cars in the USSR also engaged in decades. What came out of it everyone knows.

              You amused me today with fame. I have the honor. hi
            17. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 22: 39
              0
              Quote: Professor
              Yeah, the airwar is lying.

              Of course not. He is the ultimate truth.

              June 12, 1983 - the first flight of the DPLA-60 “Bee-1M”,
              And in accordance with a 1982 government decree, the DPEL-61 “Bee-1T” was created, which first flew on April 26, 1986.

              Quote: Professor
              The development of cars in the USSR also engaged in decades. What came out of it everyone knows.

              Do you have anything to boast about in this area?
            18. Professor
              28 May 2013 07: 31
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              Of course not. He is the ultimate truth.

              Convinced they are lying. Provide your source of information on the beginning of the creation of the Bumblebee UAV. wink

              Quote: Spade
              Do you have anything to boast about in this area?

              I have something
  • ICT
    ICT 27 May 2013 10: 42
    0
    when a little earlier, the technique changed fences
  • bask
    bask 27 May 2013 10: 04
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    The main function of mines on the battlefield is to delay rather than defeat

    In the modern terrorist war, just the BASIC GOAL of terrorists is to inflict the maximum defeat !! ((suicide bombings in Makhachkala)). Is that not a war ???
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 May 2013 10: 27
      0
      Quote: bask
      THE BASIC TARGET OF THE TERRORISTS, MAKE THE MAXIMUM DESTRUCTION !! (((suicide bombings in Makhachkala))

      And which robot could prevent the explosion of this suicide bomber?
      1. bask
        bask 27 May 2013 15: 29
        0
        Quote: Spade
        which robot could prevent the explosion of this suicide bomber?

        intelligence to reveal where terrorists take refuge.
        And an unmanned bulldozer to level the house.
        Or help the storm group to neutralize the militants without loss.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 May 2013 15: 42
          +1
          An unmanned robot that equals homes, the number of terrorists will only increase.
          1. bask
            bask 27 May 2013 17: 57
            0
            Quote: Spade
            An unmanned robot that equals homes, the number of terrorists will only increase.

            I think the opposite.
            The more unmanned bulldozers, UAVs, sapper robots.
            New armored vehicles MRAP-manned. There are fewer losses among military personnel.
            And more terrorists annihilated. Everywhere they respect and fear only STRENGTH AND THE IMMEDIATE OF PUNISHMENT. Under the ruins of their own house where the militants took refuge !!!
  • Ezhaak
    Ezhaak 27 May 2013 10: 23
    0
    Quote: Spade
    patrolling by a robotic complex, which is unable to make up for 1% of the possibilities of a walking patrol with a dog.

    Allegedly, protecting their warriors from attack and launching a robot car instead of fighters, it seems that they do not take into account one trifle. Upon the destruction of that robot, by any means necessary to send fighters. There is no guarantee that they will not be nagged here.
    Sometimes these are the right things, I understand. But it feels like these cars are being created so that car racing fans can play around. Do not play enough!
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 May 2013 10: 30
      0
      Quote: Hedgehog
      But it feels like these cars are being created so that car racing fans can play around. Do not play enough!

      Rather, that cunning kids put a denyuzhku in your pocket.
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 27 May 2013 10: 35
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Rather, that cunning kids put a denyuzhku in your pocket.

        Right. But the remote control technique also needs to be developed. The first time this is not easy.
      2. Pimply
        Pimply 27 May 2013 13: 40
        0
        Doesn't it seem to fit in your head that this might just be plain security?

        You exclude systems other than UAVs - and UAVs do not always give a hundred percent result. For example, they cannot show a hole in the fence, or they can’t see a person behind a stone, under a tree, exit from a tunnel, etc.

        And you - cut, cut ...
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 May 2013 14: 50
          0
          I rule out inefficient systems. And ground patrolling by robotic complexes is absolutely inefficient. Even full-fledged walking patrols have limited capabilities. Check the status of the PCB, check the operation of the sensors, nothing more.
          Do not count on the stupidity of the enemy.
          1. Professor
            27 May 2013 14: 57
            0
            Quote: Spade
            I rule out inefficient systems. And ground patrolling by robotic complexes is absolutely inefficient.

            Well, they are stupid, what can you take from them? You should consult bourgeois for money, otherwise they will go broke. After all, they have no idea what is effective and what is not, and their adversary is purely virtual and never even tries to infiltrate through the guarded perimeter. Yes, and against the tank, these "glamorous cars" well nowhere. wink
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 15: 27
              0
              The bourgeoisie would only have to cut a denyuzhku, and here they do not need my consultations. They do it very well.
              1. bask
                bask 27 May 2013 18: 07
                0
                Quote: Spade
                The bourgeoisie would only have to cut a denyuzhku, and here they do not need my consultations. They got it great.

                Theirs ,, bourgeois ,,, technicians, armored vehicles, anyone to choose from to ... I.
                And we don’t have anything, just floating tin cans that don’t protect against anything.
                And, what is KamAZ, Ural ,, Typhoons ,, SMP-3, Meved ,, They are in the troops and the Ministry of Internal Affairs ZERO!
                The bourgeoisie care about the lives of their soldiers.
                And our bourgeois nonsense ...
          2. Pimply
            Pimply 27 May 2013 18: 32
            +1
            You simply do not take into account that the system does not work alone, but in a complex. And each part of the complex overlaps its own site. Ground patrolling is effective:
            1) It creates the effect of presence
            2) It complicates the task of penetration, and this means - the enemy’s passage plan, and the probability that he will make a mistake
            3) It allows you to eliminate the potential danger of the VCA or IU by going along the road along which the transport should go.
            4) Modern devices are capable of engaging in battle and linking enemy forces before the approach of a combat unit
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 May 2013 21: 41
              0
              Quote: Pimply
              You simply do not take into account that the system does not work alone, but in a complex.

              And from this complex it is the only one that can be thrown out, while maintaining its effectiveness.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 27 May 2013 13: 37
      +1
      To begin with - it must be destroyed 8). There are no absolute guarantees and cannot be. But it reduces the risk factor for soldiers.
  • DmitriRazumov
    DmitriRazumov 27 May 2013 10: 20
    +1
    The article is certainly interesting. You should carefully study the achievements and developments in this unconditionally promising industry of all existing serious developers. Of course, not all of the presented samples will exactly comply with the terms of reference and demonstrate unconditional effectiveness and reliability in real-world conditions of use or in combat conditions. But even if 1 out of 100 developments will have the necessary qualities and be effectively used in the troops, this is a great success. In this sense, learning from the experience and mistakes of others is very useful so as not to go in advance by false paths and not spend money on unnecessary decisions.
  • Egen
    Egen 27 May 2013 10: 35
    +1
    "G-Nius which has been used by the IDF for four years now" - 4 years? But.