Military Review

Inhuman war: technologies for future conflicts

23
Inhuman war: technologies for future conflicts



High level drones and combat robots: how Americans are trying to secure technological superiority

Cuts in US defense spending, coupled with psychological fatigue from numerous wars, will soon lead the world's strongest armed forces to a strange state. They will be excessively redundant against those countries with which the United States is not knowingly going to wage any war. And they are insufficient against potential opponents who are few but very strong and by their actions or even by the very fact of their existence they destroy American hegemony.

With the help of technological superiority, the United States defeated a really serious opponent only once - Iraq in the 1991 year. Serbia in the 1999 year, the same Iraq in the 2003 year, not to mention Libya in the 2011 year (with the latter, however, the United States almost did not fight), were too weak to draw any conclusions from the victories over them. At the same time, in 1991, the American army was prepared for losses that were lower than expected and became the benchmark for future wars. Serbia and Libya were completely without losses; during the “second Iraq” they were minimal. Now it is considered that there is simply no other way. However, the losses in the course of the counter-guerrilla phase of the “second Iraq” and the whole counter-guerrilla Afghan war were no longer entirely minimal. Nowadays, however, everyone has become accustomed to the fact that losses in counter-guerrilla wars are much higher than in classical ones. But this does not make it easier for Americans; they have already officially declared that there will not be more campaigns like the Iraqi and Afghan ones.

However, classical wars are now also impossible to carry on, as the Syrian experience has shown. If a large and powerful army, even if equipped with outdated weapons, is facing the Americans, and the leadership of this army and the country as a whole is not ready to capitulate from one type of American military machine, the United States has problems. Yes, they could crush Syria, even without big losses, but it would take a lot of time and cost a lot of money, hundreds of billions of dollars. And this is already a luxury. Thus, a small country, moreover, devastated by civil war, clearly puts a limit to American power. Moreover, there can be no question of waving, for example, on the DPRK.

To have a gigantic army that cannot fight is ridiculous. As a result, the United States will have to either radically reduce the Armed Forces, or enter a new stage of technological superiority. Weapon on new physical principles, which are now spoken of very much, either it is fundamentally impossible to create in the foreseeable future, or it will require such huge investments that the project immediately loses its meaning. But there is a solution - to create combat robots.

The most famous example of crewless systems are UAVs. There are already hundreds of types and tens of thousands of them in the world, with the United States, Israel and China leading in their development with a large margin from all of them. But the vast majority of UAVs - intelligence, do not carry any weapons. For the time being, military drones are being created only by China and the USA. And only the Americans began to widely use them in battle - this is the MQ-1 "Predator" and the MQ-9 "Riper".


MQ-1 "Predator" at the Dubai Air Show, January 2014. Photo: Kamran Jebreili / AP


It was released about 450 "Predators", now continues the production of the most advanced modification of the MQ-1 "Gray Needles". "Reapers" produced more than 100, and it is expected to produce more than 300. The Predator has a maximum speed of just over 200 kilometers per hour, an 1100 kilometers range, and a practical ceiling of about 7600 meters. It is capable of carrying two Hellfire anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) or two small bombs, or four Stinger anti-aircraft missile complexes (MANPADS), in this case acting as air-to-air missiles. The MQ-1 speed increased almost to 300 kilometers per hour, the ceiling - to 8800 meters, the number of missiles doubled. The Riper has a maximum speed of almost 500 kilometers per hour, a range of about two thousand kilometers, an 15200 ceiling, and carries up to 14 Hellfire or several JDAM guided bombs.

The US Navy is actively working on the deck of the X-47V UAV, which recently managed to successfully land on the deck of an aircraft carrier and take off from it. This machine will have a range of almost four thousand kilometers. True, the combat load he will have no more than the MQ-1 and MQ-9. While X-47B is available in only two copies, it is still far from launching it into the series.

The "predators" and now the "Reapers" have been shooting at al-Qaeda and Taliban militants throughout the Near and Middle East for many years, killing civilians as well. This is the maximum possible for these types of machines. They are really useful only in a battle with an enemy who has no air defense at all. The reliability of combat UAVs is still very low, during the operation, for a variety of reasons, almost a hundred “Predators” and about a dozen “Reapers” have been lost. At least four “Predators” were shot down over Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, including such old air defense systems as the Strela-1 and the Strela-2 MANPADS.

But it is not necessary to draw far-reaching conclusions about the low reliability and limited capabilities of combat drones. Manned aviation I started with devices much more primitive. At Ripers, the task of suppressing air defense with the help of both airborne weapons and electronic warfare (EW) is already being worked out. In the case of massive use, such devices, even with their current low characteristics, can create problems for ground-based air defense of most countries of the world.

The possibility of converting old combat aircraft into combat UAVs cannot be ruled out. They can be used to break through and suppress enemy air defenses, including by depleting the enemy’s air defense missiles. In the US, they are already working on using A-10 attack aircraft and F-16 fighter jets in such a role.

The lack of UAVs (both reconnaissance and combat) is one, but very serious: the possibility of losing communication and the lack of programs that guarantee successful autonomous actions in any situation. This means that the enemy can at least “drop” the UAV, breaking its connection with the operator, as a maximum - to take control and, accordingly, to capture the UAV. And the precedent has already taken place: in December 2011, the Iranians were able to capture the most secret American reconnaissance UAV RQ-170 "Sentinel". Apparently, this was done with the help of the Russian or Belarusian EW Avtobaz system. Moreover, "Sentinel" was not shot down, namely, planted. Accordingly, according to this parameter, US combat drones also have a significant limitation so far: they cannot fight against countries that have developed electronic intelligence and combat systems.


Captured by Iranians RQ-170 Sentinel, December 2011 of the year. Photo: Sepahnews / AFP / East News


A fundamental breakthrough in the development of unmanned aircraft would be the creation of an unmanned fighter that buried all fifth-generation vehicles. Such a fighter would have far fewer restrictions on overloading, which would allow it to have high speed and maneuverability. At the same time it makes no sense to create an unmanned strike aircraft, without creating a similar fighter. For example, "Reapers" or prospective combat UAVs can effectively suppress ground defense. But they will not be able to fight enemy fighters, they will shoot off drone drone as on the test site (such as the Russian MiG-29 in April 2008 shot down an Israeli Israeli reconnaissance UAV in the coast of Abkhazia). And if the shock UAV will hide behind the traditional manned fighter, it is not a fact that it will be effective.

To date, there was one air battle between a combat UAV and a manned fighter, which ended as expected - the death of the drone. 23 December 2002 of the Year “Predator” conducted reconnaissance of the southern regions of Iraq before the inevitable invasion of the USA there and ran into the Iraqi MiG-25, the fastest military aircraft in the world. It was created in the USSR in the 60-ies to intercept American strategic bombers, but not to fight small-sized drones. "Predator" was the first to release Stinger against the enemy, but did not hit. The MiG retaliatory strike proved to be successful. However, to draw conclusions from this episode is not worth it, because the "Predator" was not created as a fighter.

However, for an unmanned fighter, the problem of the stability of communication or the creation of programs for autonomous actions is the most difficult, this is not even at the level of concepts. However, almost all experts agree that if the sixth generation fighter can be created at all, it will either be completely unmanned, or it can be used both in manned and unmanned versions.

There is no doubt that Americans will actively work on combat drones. But they will need to solve two fundamental tasks - to achieve a stable connection and low cost (much lower than that of manned aircraft). Without this, combat drones will become only a useful supplement to the current sun, not giving them, however, fundamentally new opportunities.

Another direction of robotization is the creation of ground combat robots. Not sappers, which are already widely used in many countries, though not so much in the Armed Forces, but in counter-terrorist units. And not exotic vehicles such as the useless “Alpha Dog”. All this, of course, will be developed, but here we are talking about combat robots. And the reasoning on this subject can be purely theoretical, since no specific projects have yet been viewed by either the United States or any other country.

Of course, the most important direction should be the creation of the actual combat robots, replacing the infantry. Of course, in the field and especially urban conditions it will be very difficult to organize remote control of a large number of objects, which, moreover, will require a large number of qualified operators. In addition, it is necessary to ensure that the robot has good coordination of movement and maneuverability on the battlefield under the most diverse conditions. At the same time, the robot must have a reasonable price so as not to be, cynically, it sounds more expensive than an ordinary infantryman. On the other hand, the solution of these problems will give a very good effect, ensuring a sharp reduction in losses and, consequently, the need for people. In addition, robots on the battlefield will produce a very strong psychological impact on the enemy, besides forcing him to spend on the defeat of robots a significant amount of ammunition.

An equally important task is the creation of robotstanks. Two options are possible here. The first is the creation of fundamentally new vehicles, which, due to the lack of a crew, can be much smaller in size and carry much larger ammunition than a traditional tank.


Radio-controlled tank "Ripsow". Photo: John B. Carnett / Bonnier Corporation / Getty Images


As for security, the question here is complex. On the one hand, it may seem that the lack of people in a tank allows reducing the thickness of the armor and, accordingly, the mass of the tank. On the other hand, this can lead to a sharp decrease in the survivability of the machine, which will make its creation meaningless. In this case, of course, it is necessary to ensure that the tank-robot was noticeably cheaper than a traditional tank.

The second option is the robotization of existing tanks, primarily obsolete and stored. It is very attractive from the economic point of view, since it gives a “new life” to an already existing, basically exhausted tank. Costs will require only the installation of equipment that provides remote control and automatic loading of weapons. At the same time, such a tank is also economically efficient in the sense that it is almost not a pity, since it was already written off. Accordingly, even if such a tank is destroyed in battle, without achieving any success, it will at least force the enemy to spend at least one expensive anti-tank ammunition (the situation is similar to the version of redesigning obsolete aircraft in combat UAVs). If the tank-robot inflicted at least some losses on the enemy, it will certainly pay for its re-equipment.

Finally, it is possible to create anti-tank robots, that is, carriers of anti-tank systems. Some other options are hardly real. So, senseless unmanned infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, because these machines are designed just to carry people. It is unlikely that artillery will appear without calculations, since, as a rule, it does not directly touch the enemy in combat, which means that replacing people with robots is not so important here.

So far, projects of combat infantry robots and tank robots are not visible. But it was they who would return the US Armed Forces to fully fight. Under the same conditions as for the UAV - low cost and stable communication.

One very serious problem arises in connection with the creation of combat robots. If the robot is remotely controlled by a human, then everything is fine - one person kills another in another new way. It is almost no different, for example, from the use of missiles. But if a robot infantryman (or a combat drone, or a robot tank) gets a program that allows them to operate completely autonomously, then this means that the robot was able to and the right to kill people. And this is a very serious problem, more precisely, a complex of problems. In a narrow practical sense, the danger of intercepting the control of the robot by the enemy remains. Or a complete exit of the robot out of control. And this problem is not only narrow practical, but also broad moral and ethical and even philosophical. And “at the same time” is a threat to the existence of humanity. It is clear that even the battalion of the crazed infantry robots will not destroy humanity. But the very possibility that robots will kill people can lead to very disastrous consequences.
Author:
Originator:
http://rusplt.ru/world/beschelovechnaya-voyna-tehnologii-dlya-voyn-buduschego-9272.html
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ased
    Ased April 16 2014 19: 11
    +12
    Nothing will come of it! Electronics jam effectively, many countries know how.
    There will be no army without soldiers! And it is right!
    1. mamont5
      mamont5 April 16 2014 19: 33
      +5
      Quote: ASed
      Nothing will come of it! Electronics jam effectively, many countries know how.
      There will be no army without soldiers! And it is right!


      Exactly, but making intelligent robots is too dangerous. Who knows their "terminators"?
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 April 16 2014 19: 42
        +4
        High level drones and combat robots: how Americans are trying to secure technological superiority


        Quote: mamont5
        Who knows their "terminators"?


        There was an interesting info regarding the attacks of the SU-24 destroyer "Donald Cook". It is said that it was a Khibin flyby over the impact on Aegis, that after this 27, Cook's crew needed a psychologist and they wanted to immediately leave the Navy -
        The Khibiny is the latest Russian electronic warfare system that will be installed on all promising Russian aircraft. I did not find any data about it, no matter how much I looked, but here it is written that the SU-24 has already been used in exercises in Buryatia. So, nothing can demoralize a military man like his own impotence! In light of the above, I see the situation as follows. On April 10, 2014, the above-mentioned destroyer arrived in the neutral waters of the Black Sea to carry out an intimidation and demonstration of force - in connection with Russia's adamant stance on Ukraine and Crimea. Before that, another American missile destroyer "Trakstan" was in the Black Sea, in violation of the Montreux convention (with a show-off ran aground, everyone believed at once). That is, there was a typical, beloved by Americans, mouse fuss - saber rattling and international rudeness.

        The reaction of Russia was calm, but murderous: on April 12, in neutral waters, an unarmed SU-24 flew in, but with the Khibiny under its wing.

        Further, everything developed approximately according to this scenario: the Cook still noticed the “drying” approach from afar, played a combat alert and froze at the fighting posts. Everything was going smoothly, the radars considered a course of approach with a target, Aegis regularly controlled guidance systems. And suddenly - clap! Everything went out. Aegis does not work, screens show turbidity, even Phalanxes cannot receive target designation! SU-24, meanwhile, passed over the Cook deck, made a combat turn and simulated a missile attack on a target. Of course, successful - because there is no opposition! Then he turned around and imitated another one. And so on - 10 times more! All attempts by technicians to revive the Aegis and give target designation for air defense failed and only then, when the silhouette of the "drying" melted in the haze above the Russian coast, the screens came to life, and the guidance systems faithfully showed a clear April glowing emptiness.

        I summarize. Most likely, after the SU-24 turned on in the immediate vicinity of the Cook, the Khibiny, the entire destroyer air defense failed. The Russians, checking the effectiveness of the electronic warfare system, 12 (!) Times simulated an attack on an American ship. For all this time, the crew of the ship was unable to reanimate the extinguished BIOS. She earned only when the SU-24 went heading for the base. It was then that, realizing their own powerlessness against the EW complex of an ordinary bomber, 27 people submitted reports on leaving.

        FULLY - http://takie.org/news/khibiny_protiv_idzhis_ili_chto_tak_silno_ispugalo_pentagon
        / 2014-04-16-9976
    2. Klepa
      Klepa April 16 2014 20: 36
      +3
      All IT breaks down IT:
      "Conversation of an American aircraft carrier with a Spanish lighthouse at Cape Finisterre (Galicia)
      Spaniards (clutter in the background):
      - ... Says A-853, please turn 15 degrees south to avoid a collision with us. You are moving right at us, a distance of 25 nautical miles.
      Americans (background noise):
      - We advise you to turn 15 degrees to the north to avoid a collision with us.
      Spaniards:
      - The answer is negative. Repeat, turn 15 degrees south to avoid a collision.
      Americans (different voice):
      “The captain of the ship of the United States of America is speaking to you.” Turn 15 degrees north to avoid a collision.
      Spaniards:
      “We do not consider your proposal either possible or adequate; we advise you to turn 15 degrees south so as not to crash into us.”
      Americans (in elevated tones):
      - CAPTAIN RICHARD JAMES HOWARD SPEAKS TO YOU, USS LINCOLN AIRCRAFT COMMANDER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SECOND BY THE MAJORITY OF THE Navy OF THE AMERICAN Navy. We are escorted by 2 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 4 submarines and numerous support ships. I DO NOT ADVISE YOU - I ORDER TO CHANGE YOUR COURSE BY 15 DEGREES IN THE NORTH. OTHERWISE, WE WILL BE FORCED TO TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF OUR SHIP. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY REMOVE OUR COURSE !!!
      Spaniards:
      “Juan Manuel Salas Alcantara is speaking to you.” There are two of us. We are accompanied by a dog, dinner, 2 bottles of beer and a canary, which is now sleeping. We are supported by the radio station and channel 106 “Extreme situations at sea”. We are not going to turn anywhere, given that we are on land and are the A-853 lighthouse on Cape Finisterre of the Galician coast of Spain. We have no idea what place we have in size among the Spanish lighthouses. You can accept everything ... !!! measures that you consider necessary, and do anything to ensure your safety ... !!! ship that will smash into smithereens on the rocks. Therefore, once again, we strongly recommend that you do the most meaningful thing: change your course 15 degrees south to avoid a collision.
      Americans:
      - OK, accepted, thanks. "
  2. JoylyRoger
    JoylyRoger April 16 2014 19: 11
    +2
    I read somewhere about the project of managing one tank from another, and the managed one was without a crew. And so they experimented with ordinary airplanes.
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 April 16 2014 19: 24
      +11
      Quote: JoylyRoger
      I read somewhere about the project of managing one tank from another, and the managed one was without a crew.
      In the 80s, a robotic complex based on the T-80 tank was developed. It consisted of two cars: a highly protected manager, in which the crew was located, and managed. This complex went through a full test cycle and worked to eliminate the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Successfully tested and remotely controlled tanks. The crew not only controlled them from a distance, but also monitored the battlefield, fire from a tank gun, being hundreds of meters from the combat vehicle. There are no technical problems to develop such a technique. But it is desirable to create it on a new base. For example, the new heavy Armata platform is perfect for this. In it, the crew is already in an armored capsule, isolated from the fighting compartment. In fact, the crew controls the combat vehicle remotely, only being inside the vehicle along with all the remote controls. Using the already worked out combination of a control vehicle with a crew and a controlled combat vehicle (or vehicles), it is possible to create robotic combat systems for various purposes, from engineering to tank ones.
      1. Ased
        Ased April 16 2014 20: 06
        +2
        The first Russian robot soldier

        And where to fill in the People’s Commissar’s honeycomb? He is inhuman of some kind. :))
      2. MAG
        MAG April 16 2014 21: 01
        0
        http://twower.livejournal.com/1269248.html вот кое что новое
  3. GRAY
    GRAY April 16 2014 19: 15
    +10
    Rogozin said that we will test military androids, so there will be something to answer the bourgeoisie.
    1. Uncle
      Uncle April 16 2014 19: 38
      +1
      Why bother Alexander Nevsky?
      1. GRAY
        GRAY April 16 2014 20: 02
        +4
        Military equipment should have a decent prototype.
        Option for the Ministry of Internal Affairs:
        1. Uncle
          Uncle April 16 2014 20: 11
          0
          It will do. laughing
  4. Stalker
    Stalker April 16 2014 19: 15
    +2
    Congratulate everyone !!! NATO pisses not RUSSIA and UKRAINE !!!!

    Brussels. April 16th. INTERFAX.RU - NATO countries agreed on a package of military measures in response to the Ukrainian crisis, said Alliance Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen following a meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels.
    According to Rasmussen, the package includes "more aircraft in the air, more ships at sea and more readiness on the ground."
    In particular, airplanes patrolling the airspace of the Baltic region will make more flights, and allied ships will be sent to the Baltic Sea and the eastern Mediterranean. At the same time, the NATO Secretary General said that the North Atlantic Alliance has not yet made decisions on the establishment of permanent military bases in the Baltic countries.
    Rasmussen also said that NATO plans to deploy additional military personnel of the allied countries, the preparation and conduct of exercises.
    The NATO secretary general stressed that the decisions made "relate to defense, deterrence and de-escalation" and are fully consistent with NATO's international obligations, including the protection of allies. He noted that all these plans will begin immediately. When asked how these decisions will be implemented specifically, Rasmussen said that "the practical configuration will be determined in the coming days."
    Rasmussen did not give specific figures, saying only that NATO forces would be sufficient to "be ready for more, if necessary."
    Despite the adoption of military measures, Rasmussen expressed the hope that the four-way US-Russia-Ukraine-EU negotiations scheduled for April 17 will help to diplomatically resolve the crisis in Ukraine.


    1. Klepa
      Klepa April 16 2014 19: 32
      0
      Why do all NATO members / geyropeytsev such a stupid expression? Have you played with eugenics at the beginning of the 20th century?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Stalker
        Stalker April 16 2014 19: 49
        0
        Why do all NATO members / geyropeytsev such a stupid expression?

        Their leadership believes that when the ambassador smiles, he looks like an idiot .... wassat
    2. sniper
      sniper April 16 2014 19: 32
      +3
      Quote: Stalker
      In particular, airplanes patrolling the airspace of the Baltic region will make more flights, and to the Baltic Sea

      And where does Ukraine ??? This, like our possessions ... or did I miss something ???? wassat
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Stalker
      Stalker April 16 2014 20: 08
      0
      Congratulate everyone !!! NATO pisses not RUSSIA and UKRAINE !!!!


      Sorry, reservation ... NATO pisses not RUSSIA but the Ukrainian people, militias !!!

      The latest data ... The company of the Airborne Forces of Ukraine refused to fight with its people !!! soldier Left its weapons to the militias !!! Glory to the Airborne of Ukraine !!! We Slavs will still be together against a common enemy - USA - NATO - EU !!!!
  5. hrych
    hrych April 16 2014 19: 15
    +8
    Loan day.
  6. mad
    mad April 16 2014 19: 16
    +4
    Americans are afraid to fight, they are used to raking in heat with the wrong hands. For them, a cut finger tragedy and a reason to leave the battle as the three hundredth wassat
    1. from punk
      from punk April 16 2014 19: 31
      0
      Quote: mad
      Americans are afraid to fight, they are used to raking in heat with the wrong hands. For them, a cut finger tragedy and a reason to leave the battle as the three hundredth

      well, while people are managing these robots. so I don’t think this is some sort of a breakthrough. but such developments are very necessary
  7. Little Muck
    Little Muck April 16 2014 19: 17
    +1
    Loss in Iran. Interception in the Crimea.
    And this is not a complete list. For intelligence, yes. For "work" - it is fraught with problems, and such a wagon has accumulated.
    And interception is a loss of technology and Know-How.
    Many for, and many against. Time will tell.
  8. ya.seliwerstov2013
    ya.seliwerstov2013 April 16 2014 19: 19
    +7
    When the Russians arrive, robots will not save you.
  9. mountain
    mountain April 16 2014 19: 19
    +2
    a little more and fiction, it will be true.
  10. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov April 16 2014 19: 20
    +1
    Not in the near future for sure, but in the future it may well be.
  11. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov April 16 2014 19: 23
    +4
    The new format of covert warfare is "little green men." or in other words, "polite and well-armed people, small in number, without identification marks" This is a new Russian brand ..! Robots .. UAVs are a good thing, of course .. they kill stupidly .. (according to the parameters in the program .. or the operator ..) The look of an intelligent and self-confident "green man" cannot be replaced by any robot I think so ..
    1. Uncle
      Uncle April 16 2014 19: 42
      +2
      Quote: MIKHAN
      polite and well-armed people, few in number, without identification marks "This is a new Russian brand ..!

      I agree, it can be called Putin’s secret weapon without any exaggeration.
  12. Giant thought
    Giant thought April 16 2014 19: 27
    +1
    A lot of the work of a drone depends on the operator working with it, especially if it is combat. And then the mattresses have problems, they are so complex that they often get into unpleasant situations. Given the situation of a clash between us and NATO, it seems that drones will not be an insoluble problem for us in their current technological development.
    1. Ased
      Ased April 16 2014 19: 31
      +1
      The Russian Air Force received a complex of electronic warfare (EW), capable of precisely turning off enemy radars and UAV control systems, without drowning out its own communication lines. (C)

      The original is here:
      http://dokwar.ru/publ/vooruzhenie/aviacija_i_flot/porubshhik_budet_glushit_vrazh
      eskie_bespilotniki / 15-1-0-778
  13. Russ69
    Russ69 April 16 2014 19: 28
    +5
    Nice poster ...
    1. Ased
      Ased April 16 2014 19: 39
      0
      Quote: Russ69
      Nice poster ...


      How old were they given to the guy?
  14. delfinN
    delfinN April 16 2014 19: 35
    +1
    One of the commanders said that fighting spirit is one that refers to the rest, as one in three. Something like this. And like it was Napoleon. There will never be any winning robots in the past or in the future. Only when the foot of an enemy soldier sets foot on the occupied territory, only then will this territory be conquered. And with a ballista or there with drones you can only fire the Papuans.
  15. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov April 16 2014 19: 47
    +1
    The coolest robot (at least at that time) This is the Buran project (almost all the stuffing was on our elementary base) Such a colossus in unmanned mode was launched into space and, most importantly, on autopilot landed normally .. And then the collapse of the USSR began. .. (our orbital space station was flooded in the ocean and from Buran, if I'm not mistaken, a cafe seems to have been made ..) I may be mistaken, but for some reason they don’t really like to remember this and in vain .. It was a breakthrough (albeit expensive. .) If yes, if only ... eh
    1. Uncle
      Uncle April 16 2014 20: 05
      +1
      Quote: MIKHAN
      The coolest robot (at least at the time) This is the Buran project

      A Lunokhod !!! And the station Luna? !!! The Americans did not do this in those years. They wanted, didn’t want the second question, the fact that they didn’t
      1. Vitaly Anisimov
        Vitaly Anisimov April 16 2014 21: 01
        +2
        Quote: Uncle
        Quote: MIKHAN
        The coolest robot (at least at the time) This is the Buran project

        A Lunokhod !!! And the station Luna? !!! The Americans did not do this in those years. They wanted, didn’t want the second question, the fact that they didn’t

        Yes, there were times .. If the USSR didn’t collapse on the Moon, there would definitely be a station (we were able to concentrate the resources and scientific potential of the country at that time ..) Now the dollar exchange rate .. stock exchanges .. where to eat a cool car and buy .. and no flight of thought, creativity and spirit of creation .. (Dulles project works so far ..)))
  16. Ulairy
    Ulairy April 16 2014 19: 48
    +1
    Robotic army is not able to assess the situation on the battlefield. This is to the fact that High level drones and combat robots: how Americans are trying to secure technological superiority All their droids are controlled by a person with a joystick staring at the screen - for him, the goals are ants rushing around the screen in the infrared range, including women and children and simply unarmed. And here it is: But if a robot infantryman (or combat drone, or robot tank) receives a program that allows it to operate completely autonomously, then this means that the robot has the opportunity and the right to kill people. And this is already a very serious problem, more precisely, a complex of problems., then amers should read their own science fiction writers. In particular, Sheckley's "Guardian Bird". Who knows will understand.
    "Until the foot of a common infantryman stepped on enemy ground, this is not your land." I hope the Americans have firmly forgotten this truth, judging by the fatigue of their servicemen from the wars of 91-12 ...
  17. -Patriot-
    -Patriot- April 16 2014 19: 52
    0
    Robots as a perspective, not bad, of course, but as realities now, alas, not so long No.
  18. Ruswolf
    Ruswolf April 16 2014 20: 01
    0
    I think that so far all this electronics, with its indicative use, is nothing more than a means of squeezing money out of Congress. I saw it there worse than ours. And even more so if the question is about research, testing, development, then it is practically impossible to calculate the costs of the fact.
    There our "youngest" as 65 years old celebrate and say they will tear anyone:
    This is their "Combat Tractor" is called
  19. serge siberian
    serge siberian April 16 2014 20: 12
    +1
    to say "good or bad, you need to think it over carefully and trnzvo. But in any case, a person follows the technique, and nobody canceled the foolish factor. He can panic. And how they like to" smoke pot "the whole world is already vkurse. and about "povayevat" - we have more-less percent 45-60% of the accounting. I was taught this in the 80s, but reluctant to fight. God forbid that I had to.
  20. nvn_co
    nvn_co April 16 2014 20: 17
    +2
    No offense to the author ... A good essay of a senior student of the VTUZ.
    1. Ulairy
      Ulairy April 16 2014 22: 00
      0
      hi In-in ... Baumanka, only. where does the technical colleges?
  21. philip
    philip April 16 2014 22: 59
    0
    Our opponents, or partners, do not know how to say, because of the alleged remoteness from Europe, it was believed that they were not available.