Military Review

British robots now serve on the Russian Black Sea Fleet

British robots now serve on the Russian Black Sea Fleet

Adopting the Black Sea fleet Russia received the British deep-sea robots of the latest generation Tiger. This was reported with reference to the Fleet Information Support Group by the Russian military television channel Zvezda. According to him, with the help of Tiger, Russian submariners equipped with the latest Canadian Gard Suite suits are capable of performing a wide range of tasks - from ship repair to underwater reconnaissance.

According to the naval information group, metal robots are capable of dropping to a depth of one thousand meters and carrying loads weighing up to half a ton. They have powerful manipulators and four video cameras. "Tiger" can be combined into teams of up to eight each and synchronize their actions. They can be involved in rescue and repair operations, and for intelligence.

The other day in some local online forums there were reports that with the help of "Tiger" Russians will take under their full control all the Sevastopol bays, in addition, the devices can be used for sabotage.

Sergey Kulik, director of the Sevastopol analytical security center Nomos, refutes these allegations and the data from the Russian military television channel Zvezda about the intelligence capabilities of Tiger.

According to him, it is very difficult to use this apparatus in reconnaissance, and even more so in sabotage actions. After all, this device is controlled by wires and will not go far from the ship. “It’s quite difficult to sabotage with it,” says Sergei Kulik.

At the same time, according to his data, the deep-water robot "Tiger" can be used both for inspection and for damage to underwater gas and oil pipelines.

The fleet equipment was not coordinated by the British vehicles with the Ukrainian side

According to information from Ukrainian military sources, the Russians did not agree with the official Kiev on the issue of equipping the Black Sea Fleet with British deep-sea robots. The same was confirmed by the head of the Russian Black Sea Fleet Information Support Group, Captain 1, Vyacheslav Trukhachev.

According to him, this does not need to be done, because underwater robots are not weapons. “This is life-saving equipment. And we got it not yesterday, but much earlier. Indeed, it is new for us and is now in the process of development. In general, this equipment, and it is not a weapon, "- said Vyacheslav Trukhachev.

However, he said that he did not have information about when the modernized Su-24M attack aircraft would arrive on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. In the first half of July, the head of the marine aviation Black Sea Fleet Major General Alexander Otroshchenko in an interview with the naval newspaper "Flag of the Homeland" said that new planes will be transferred to the Crimea at the end of this month.

The Black Sea Fleet Informational Support Group also does not report on coordination with the official Kiev on this issue.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rustam
    Rustam 30 July 2011 09: 53 New
    English robots !!!!!!!! spacesuits are Canadian !!!! WHERE ARE THE PRODUCTS OF THE NATIONAL MIC (something is not visible)
    1. Oleg
      Oleg 30 July 2011 12: 48 New
      I represent Rustam's indignation when he finds out where the fins, masks, scuba gear, hoses, mouthpieces came from, not to mention the welding machines used, wrenches and other things, etc. .....
      1. Rustam
        Rustam 30 July 2011 21: 08 New
        I meant that our VPK cannot give such a technique (sarcasm to those who believe that our VPK can do everything
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 31 July 2011 01: 20 New
          And ours is all sold to China and other countries, why do you think you could not save the Kursk crew?
  2. yuvit
    yuvit 30 July 2011 15: 43 New
    The article is intended for people unfamiliar with modern search and rescue tools and equipment, including robotic underwater technology. Moreover, the equipment has so far been used only in demonstrative actions at ostentatious exercises. His search and rescue capabilities are very limited, and sabotage actions are not possible at all, see TTD
    The listed equipment was ordered on the basis of an analysis of the causes of failures in operations on the Kursk nuclear submarines and today it’s morally and physically outdated, although some of them built houses for themselves in Moscow during kickbacks.
    The suits of the Guard Suite are generally der ... moo, and there are only a few operators for them on the fleets.
  3. mitrich
    mitrich 31 July 2011 11: 39 New
    What is our British technique? In my opinion, the answer is in the second part of the last sentence.
    1. yuvit
      yuvit 31 July 2011 13: 38 New
      Mitrich, hello!
      You are right, we are “forever” behind the “West” in the development of quality and technology for creating weapons and equipment, the reasons for this are clear and do not require explanation. The equipment indicated in the article is not new and has been successfully operated in the Navy for 7 years, today we need more advanced equipment and it is in Russia, specialists of the General Staff of the Navy are well aware of this. But my remark was not about that.
      I’m trying to understand the purpose of this site, along with sensible articles, posted deliberately perverse and false information, what was the intent of the site from the beginning? You can’t blame everything on the moderators ...
      Regards, Yuri.
      1. cabin boy
        cabin boy 1 August 2011 12: 04 New
        "... what was the site’s intent from the beginning?"
        As far as I understand, gather people interested in military affairs, weapons, etc.
        "... You can’t blame everything on the moderators ..."
        As far as I noticed, by the mistakes that appear in the articles, they are just one of those people who are only INTERESTED in military affairs, weapons, etc., but who have no relation to the military. Therefore, I am critical of the posted materials and, as far as possible, help to correct the errors I noticed.
  4. mitrich
    mitrich 31 July 2011 13: 48 New
    remember how 10 years ago we attracted specialists from the UK to raise our bathyscaphe with people. Peter the Great was not shy about studying, why can't we?
  5. datur
    datur 31 July 2011 18: 10 New
    mitrich, - when this happened, it turned out that all our aid funds that were no worse or even better than foreign ones were sold out and looted. like that!
  6. mitrich
    mitrich 31 July 2011 18: 25 New
    You are mistaken, DATUR!
    The rescue equipment was then “foreign”, but the specialist was on vacation, and the one who tried to cut the cables quickly broke the Aglitz equipment, so the British had to be called up with new equipment. So it was ...
    We didn’t know how to do underwater equipment, however sad it may be. The famous "Worlds" are made in Finland, some note. So in the purchase of some samples of foreign equipment there is nothing surprising or terrible for our defense capabilities.
  7. yuvit
    yuvit 31 July 2011 20: 21 New
    With Mitrich? Indeed, we did not know how to do equipment, either diving, or to perform underwater technical work. Vivid examples of this are: the first equipment for deep-sea divers GKS-3M created in 1951 on the basis of the donated by the Americans in 1843, complexes of long-term stay of divers under increased pressure on rescue vessels Elbrus and Alagez, but almost everything, everything, with the exception of SVG-200. Our underwater vehicles are heavy, difficult to control, have weak energy, not reliable automation and telemechanics, underwater orientation, etc. But we would be able to overcome this with an “ax” if it weren’t for the endless reorganization of the aircraft and uncertainty about tomorrow, there’s no stability, no frames. Unless in the last year there were hopes for a revival of the fleet.
  8. mitrich
    mitrich 1 August 2011 12: 22 New
    I think your tooth hurts today wink ! The mood is bad, respectively ...
    1. cabin boy
      cabin boy 1 August 2011 20: 20 New
      When an article is written about R-36, and a photograph is given of “Scuda” or is written about P-15, and a photograph is pr. 956, you will inevitably guess that the one who posts the article does not understand these things, and the content of the article sometimes resembles abstracts students of the military department, sort of about the military, but in abbreviations, terms a complete mess, at least in what I understand
  9. Oleg
    Oleg 1 August 2011 22: 29 New
    What yuvit says, affirm.
    + relevant article was about 7 years ago.
    + they can be combined into brigades only theoretically - for lack of a quorum.