Uralvagonzavod, working on the T-90 robotization, plans to merge several tanks into a single network

Uralvagonzavod engineers are exploring the possibility of combining several robotic tanks into a single network, reports MIC With reference to the deputy general director of the enterprise Vyacheslav Khalitov.




Earlier it was reported that the corporation plans to supply the T-90 tanks with remote control.

“There will be a lot of cars on the battlefield, and if we are to manage, then we will manage a certain number of them. One operator for one tank is not very effective. In perspective, this is a whole managed network. ”- said Halitov.

“Tank robots are under development,” he said. “The desire to implement all this in the shortest possible time, to see how it (the tank) will behave, how it will carry out tasks.”

“We have been working on remote control technologies for a long time,” said the deputy head.

According to him, “Uralvagonzavod” also showed a fire truck with remote control on RAE-2013. “During the demonstration there was an episode when the crew left the car and the operator ran it remotely. She herself moved and extinguished the fire, ”recalled Halitov.
Photos used:
www.military.ir
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. oleg-gr 15 October 2015 11: 53 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    One operator for a platoon or company of tanks? Just like in one of the songs: we will live and live, and press the electric buttons ...
    1. leo3972 15 October 2015 11: 55 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Nowadays, this is no longer science fiction. good
      1. hedgehog in the fog 15 October 2015 12: 03 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        why is science fiction? the flea on the tracks with a machine gun is normal and the tank is fantastic ?? I don’t see the difference, drones fly, why not drive tanks?
        1. Irokez 15 October 2015 12: 08 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: hedgehog in the fog
          Why fiction?

          That's right no fiction. Everyone knows the game "Star craft" and the like when one person controls all the objects in the game. It will be similar here, common commands to everyone and then individual amendments to some: security, patrolling, covering the sector, advancing to the enemy, fire at point X and so on. The game in real mode and in real life is all.
          1. Sauron80 15 October 2015 12: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            But after all, EW funds do not stand still. Remember the movie Iron Man 2? You can intercept the control of an army of drones and direct them against the owner or anyone else.
            1. Wedmak 15 October 2015 12: 23 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              But after all, EW funds do not stand still.

              EW funds still deliver to the battlefield. And somehow they survive there.
            2. avia1991 15 October 2015 12: 42 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Sauron80
              You can intercept the control of an army of drones and direct them against the owner or anyone else.

              Well, I suppose there will be no problems with self-liquidation. But YES: everything can be too expensive. One warms up - for both sides! wink
            3. marlin1203 15 October 2015 12: 49 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              And the fascists of the first drones in the Second World War drove by wire. And the second generation is already on the radio. So the technology is not new.
              1. marlin1203 16 October 2015 15: 03 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And why is it minus? I personally saw these devices in Kubinka.
          2. hedgehog in the fog 15 October 2015 15: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            my favorite strategy after Dune 2
      2. iConst 15 October 2015 13: 09 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: leo3972
        Nowadays, this is no longer fiction.
        - In fact, the concept of management is incomprehensible. This is the hardest part: how will combat units interact with operators, spotters, reconnaissance (ground, air-drones), infantry, radar stations, artillery / mortar detection stations, etc., etc., etc. ... .

        Technical issues (fault tolerance, etc.) are secondary. They are somehow solved.
      3. user 15 October 2015 15: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Nowadays, this is no longer science fiction.


        Only the management of such a network collapses electronic warfare for one, two. Yes, and the action of EMP quickly closes the entire electronic stuffing, for how long is another question.
        1. max702 15 October 2015 15: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: user
          And the action of EMP quickly closes the entire electronic filling,

          Give at least one example of the action of EMR in REAL databases ... Not field tests, but where was there somewhere during the database? Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not consider ..
          1. abrakadabre 16 October 2015 07: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            There are already EMP ammunition with pumping momentum from the detonation of explosives. Yes, until they were used, because in the battle the parties possessing such ammunition did not collide. But the tank is created with the expectation of such a meeting.
      4. NEXUS 15 October 2015 15: 16 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: leo3972
        Nowadays, this is no longer science fiction. good

        Americans upgraded Abrash ... apparently we will have transformers sooner. wink
      5. UREC 15 October 2015 15: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        soldier What do you think the World of Tanks was created for? Yes yes yes for operator training!
        I recommend everyone to download and practice! soldier
    2. lelikas 15 October 2015 11: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: oleg-gr
      One operator for a platoon or company of tanks?

      Yeah - only at first, you need to cross the operator with a spider and Caesar - so that there would be many eyes and good multitasking.
      Then, anyway, create Artificial Intelligence so that the tank can independently choose targets and act in the floor and in automatic mode.
      1. Wedmak 15 October 2015 12: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        only at first, you need to cross the operator with a spider and Caesar - so that there would be many eyes and good multitasking.

        Well, you're just like a little one. Have you ever played a strategy? ))))
        1. vorobey 15 October 2015 12: 10 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Wedmak
          Well, you're just like a little one. Have you ever played a strategy? ))))


          played played .. I love military strategies .. only when a herd of tanks you control them they surely like rams go and go and hammer at one point .. and they don’t have a classification of goals ...

          This is a difficult task. artificial intelligence should be close to human for the loss of expensive toys on the battlefield will be great ... and whether one operator will be able to prompt three machines at once .. physically it is very difficult ... but rebooting in real combat is not implied a priori .. I I think so.. repeat
          1. Wedmak 15 October 2015 12: 22 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            artificial intelligence should be close to human

            I do not agree, there is enough intelligence here at the dog level. He gave the command, the tank completed. In mass production, these toys are not so expensive. Given the number of T-72 of all modifications ... you can simply fill up the zerg rush. And probably still the T-55 / 64 in warehouses were overloaded?

            and whether one operator will be able to prompt three machines at once .. physically it is very difficult ...

            Why not? Drive from point A to point B? To the tank? Easy. The operator set the trajectory, the tank drove along Glonass. Destroy the target? The operator set the type of ammunition, indicated the target, the tank was aimed and fired. Just? Just. And driving 3-4 tanks is a matter of skill.
            1. abrakadabre 15 October 2015 13: 34 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              You greatly simplify the task. With someone like you said, really a lot of intelligence is not needed under armor.
              But in reality, the battlefield is much more complicated. Here the tank crew in three heads is struggling. Yes, not with super-intense work. And you offer one, but several units at once.
              This is a really difficult job for AI with the operator.
              1. iConst 15 October 2015 14: 02 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: abrakadabre
                But in reality, the battlefield is much more complicated. Here the tank crew in three heads is struggling. Yes, not with super-intense work. And you offer one, but several units at once.
                - The fact is that such a scheme is not suitable. In a centric battle, there should be no rigid bindings such as a tank operator, etc. Since the exclusion of one of them automatically means exclusion from the battle and the second.

                In a centric battle, each unit fulfills its duties: reconnaissance detects targets and enters their characteristics and coordinates. And the system decides to whom to show this data, and to whom not.

                For example, as an option: out of a dozen tanks fighting the data on the detected firing point, it makes no sense to show the vehicles farthest from this point: they will not be able to effectively affect it themselves out of reach. And excess information only distracts.

                But it all depends on the circumstances - if the vehicles closest to the enemy firing point are not able to destroy it (damage, effective ammunition has ended, etc.), then the system, knowing this, must make a decision and issue a command to other military means to defeat the enemy’s point.

                In the algorithms and the timeliness and accuracy of receiving information from reconnaissance and combat units, the very complexity of such systems.
              2. Wedmak 15 October 2015 16: 11 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Here the tank crew in three heads is struggling.

                Bring one such tank to the start of the 201 * Tank Biathlon. Here is the first real check.
                Due to various sensors, the cost of which is constantly falling, even one person will receive more information than the three in the box. Where the commander did not see the enemy through the triplex, he will see a small drone hanging over the battlefield.
                Everything goes to this, whatever one may say.
            2. lelikas 15 October 2015 14: 07 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              OK - I’ll answer in a detailed way - I love strategies, as the respected Sashka answered for me above — AI even there is extremely dumb.
              I really like little - in my soul I am 12.
              All these Pribluda with one operator are good in the variant - set the direction of point A to point B and only, there you can send at least a company as soon as it comes to a real clash - the operator gets confused even in the picture from three tanks, and there are at least two the channel’s video will go where the car is going and where it’s shooting.
              Let’s digress for a moment and go to our “partners” - they have problems with UAV operators - but it would seem - which is easier ??? sit for 8 hours, stare at the monitor, occasionally adjust the course, but give yourself orders to launch missiles, despite the fact that he hangs himself in the sky, no one particularly attacks him and does not distract the operator - but no.
              We descend back to the sinful earth - let the operator have three tanks - six video channels + three telemetry from each vehicle. - at least nine channels - and then the battle really starts - he can track only one, plus you need to give them commands -
              you can get confused corny. Exit - we transfer part of the control to the AI ​​(which I note, there is no mention of it) - with a great creak, they taught the trucks to drive along the given route. But he also needs to choose the type of target and priority, which is more important and more dangerous, he will have to immediately understand who is the first to shoot - a tank firing at its co-factory, but not paying attention to it or according to the calculation of the anti-tank system, which suddenly appeared on flank and able to kill all their tanks quickly enough.
              To date, there is no such software and machines, in principle, no one, the timing of the appearance is not even predicted. hi
              Now back to my first post and reread it again.
              1. Wedmak 15 October 2015 15: 58 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Now back to my first post and reread it again.

                You set a very high bar for such a robot. Open battle, with a high saturation of attacking means. It is clear that the operator will not cope alone. But what prevents the use of such tanks in individual episodes? Reconnaissance by combat, suppression by fire of a separate firing point and withdrawal, operations with great risk, such as the assault on fortified positions with the identification of fire weapons, the assault on urban buildings, etc.
                Here, one operator can easily cope with 3-4 tanks, well, they will destroy one car, figs would be with it, count three people saved.
                Again, watching a video from Syria, one can often see how tanks are used as moving firing points. He leaned out, salvo and crawled back behind the mound. The robot would allow the operator to divert the enemy with one tank and enter the other two on the flank. And this is not risking the lives of crews.
                1. abrakadabre 16 October 2015 07: 00 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  ACS in a closed position with external target designation will also cope with the quiet suppression of an individual firing point. A tank is an armored car for the front line. Just for the hell itself.
          2. iConst 15 October 2015 14: 09 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: vorobey
            artificial intelligence should be close to human
            “He must be superior to him.” Man is wrong. A car - never.
            1. vorobey 15 October 2015 14: 56 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: iConst
              Man is wrong. Car - never


              yeah ... the car hangs and frankly stupid .. laughing
      2. avia1991 15 October 2015 12: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: lelikas
        that would have a lot of eyes and good multitasking.

        Yeah. In general, it is not entirely clear why ONE operator must remotely (!) Manage to make the crew work out of three !!! person!
        Is it not more reliable to prepare a full-fledged crew to control such a robot?
        1. Wedmak 15 October 2015 12: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          why ONE operator must remotely (!) manage to do the work of the crew of three !!! man!

          And what prevents this from being done? The robot driver can perform the work of the driver mechanics relatively easily. The gunner? Radars and optical scanning instruments to help. Crew commander - if the operator sees all the information on the screen (s), he has a steering wheel / mouse / set of buttons in his hands, why can he not press one button and click on the monitor to do the work of all three?
          1. avia1991 15 October 2015 13: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            why can't he press one button and click on the monitor with the mouse to do the work of all three?

            Because what you are talking about is an autonomous robot, not a remotely controlled one. At the same time, its value will increase at times .. If he can determine his goals, move taking into account the terrain, evade enemy attacks - what remains under the command of the commander? Allow open fire? This function is not so complicated as to involve the whole person!
            You yourself said:
            if the operator sees all the information on the screen / s,
            and most likely, there will be at least two screens - and for a quick assessment of the situation you will need 4 eyes, and preferably two left hemispheres laughing Or the tank commander, in real battle, alone manages to see everything?
            1. Wedmak 15 October 2015 16: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It is a standalone robot, not a remote control. Moreover, its value will increase at times.

              An autonomous robot is still far away. The point is not only to remotely control the tank while sitting at the same levers, but also to perform simple actions on its own. Well, what's the point, figuratively speaking, to press three buttons to load a gun, if you can press one?
              1. Cat man null 18 October 2015 01: 35 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Wedmak
                what is the point, figuratively speaking, of pressing three buttons to load a gun, if you can press one?

                What type of shell will the tank choose? Capture the target, froze - too - will the tank itself do?

                I have the impression that lovers of the "Tank Games" gathered here, who had never seen a live machine, and made some kind of "Kremlin dreams" ..

                Ah, we will “manage” 10 tanks with one company. SHCHAAAZZ request
          2. Cat man null 18 October 2015 01: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            The robot driver can perform the driver’s job relatively easily.

            On the highway on the march - so easily. In battle, at the intersection, or, worse - in the city - I doubt it very much ..
      3. iConst 15 October 2015 14: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: lelikas
        Yeah - only at first, you need to cross the operator with a spider and Caesar - so that there would be many eyes and good multitasking.
        - Yes, plant any non-schooler schoolboy-nerd.
        Now they are doing their homework at the same time, playing tanks (by the way!), They are chatting, and some are watching a movie too! laughing
        1. lelikas 15 October 2015 14: 22 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: iConst
          - Yes, plant any non-schooler schoolboy-nerd.
          Now they are doing their homework at the same time, playing tanks (by the way!), They are chatting, and some are watching a movie too!

          Yeah, and at the same time 15-0 merge, and now we will add antitank artillery, helicopters, anti-tank artillery calculations, infantry with grenades to HER in addition to 15 enemy tanks and see how they howl howl - and this time, one artillery in the enemy’s team is tearing farts.
          1. abrakadabre 16 October 2015 07: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And we’ll add smoke, more shaking from the real movement of technology, constant tears around, dirt sticking to triplexes ...
    3. dr.Bo 15 October 2015 11: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Cool! I hope that the tanks are not crazy soldier
      -
      1. vorobey 15 October 2015 12: 12 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        Quote: dr.Bo
        Cool! I hope that the tanks are not crazy


        The terminator bent over in the bathhouse for soap and immediately an inscription appeared on the board - a new device was found ... laughing
        1. avia1991 15 October 2015 12: 36 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: vorobey
          Immediately on the scoreboard there was an inscription - a new device was discovered ...

          laughing laughing laughing Aaaaaaaaaaaa !!!! I’m going to die of laughter !!! ... Damn, it was a surprise on Schwartz’s face! "Terminator5": Russians win! laughing
        2. lelikas 15 October 2015 14: 08 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: vorobey
          The terminator bent over in the bathhouse for soap and immediately an inscription appeared on the board - a new device was found ...

          -The device can work faster ...;)
        3. VadimSt 15 October 2015 14: 37 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: vorobey
          The terminator bent over in the bathhouse for soap and immediately an inscription appeared on the board - a new device was found ...
          Thank! A charge of vigor for the rest of the day.
    4. marlin1203 15 October 2015 12: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "Skynet" ... the uprising of cars is just around the corner! laughing
    5. a52333 15 October 2015 14: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      laughing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      1. TOR2 15 October 2015 16: 10 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yes, besides a tank in the forest and without a crew. laughing
  2. Mikhail m 15 October 2015 11: 58 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Robovyna on the ground. Soon the terminator will die of envy.
  3. Yars 15 October 2015 12: 00 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    good news, I'm sure Russian scientists will surprise us more than once
  4. combat66 15 October 2015 12: 02 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    We already have a whole generation of ready-made operators. Tank game prepared in excess of professionals!
    It remains only to shift everything to the necessary devices. What a trifle! And hold on to the adversaries! laughing
    1. biznaw 15 October 2015 12: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There would be tanks ... and fuel for them and ammunition and trawls for transportation and intelligent mechanics
      But something from my personal experience says that after the battle, the remaining operational tanks with a file and a sledgehammer will be brought into manual control.
      1. Petrix 15 October 2015 12: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: biznaw
        lead to manual control.

        It’s in now, but in the future ...
        There will be no people there. Radiation, chemistry, biological weapons, or simply the lack of atmosphere. A tank without a crew will go everywhere. It's like a UAV in the sky. Replace people, definitely.
    2. kil 31 15 October 2015 12: 11 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: combat66
      We already have a whole generation of ready-made operators. Tank game prepared in excess of professionals!
      It remains only to shift everything to the necessary devices. What a trifle! And hold on to the adversaries! laughing

      Here it is. So these toys are MO order. Just like in the 30s, young men and women went to the courses of gliders, tractor drivers, parachutists and Voroshilov arrows. hi lol
      1. wadulya 15 October 2015 13: 05 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        or maybe World of Tanks was created to train not so much people as AI who monitors the game, analyzes and learns from the mistakes of millions of people, and also comprehends human logic. Moreover, it also pays for itself. bully
        1. kil 31 15 October 2015 13: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: wadulya
          or maybe World of Tanks was created to train not so much people as AI who monitors the game, analyzes and learns from the mistakes of millions of people, and also comprehends human logic. Moreover, it also pays for itself. bully

          Are you writing a script for the new part of Terminator? Take me to the main role. Arnold doesn’t roll, now small and thin are relevant. I will wet everything and everything in all toilets. laughing hi
    3. lelikas 15 October 2015 14: 15 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: combat66
      We already have a whole generation of ready-made operators. Tank game prepared in excess of professionals!
      It remains only to shift everything to the necessary devices. What a trifle! And hold on to the adversaries!

      Already discussed - :))))
  5. Wedmak 15 October 2015 12: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    For starters, I would like to see the real control of one tank. If an automatic machine is installed there, in theory the tower will cease to be inhabited. And you can easily insert the 152mm gun there, there is enough space. Get a remotely controlled breakout tank.
    If at all the whole tower is not replaced with a combat module from the T-14. Not to say that this is not real.
    1. Cube123 15 October 2015 12: 55 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Wedmak

      If at all the whole tower is not replaced with a combat module from the T-14. Not to say that this is not real.

      As soon as the crew was put into a separate armored capsule in the T-14, the question immediately arises: why should this capsule be inside the tank and not be a few km from it? Technically, the difference is very small. And inside the tank a lot of useful space will be freed up and life support equipment can be eliminated.
      1. Wedmak 15 October 2015 13: 04 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        and not be a few km from it? Technically the difference is very small

        I guess, yes. Establish an information exchange channel and make executive mechanisms.
    2. voyaka uh 15 October 2015 13: 05 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      We have unmanned buggy patrols running around the fence with Gaza.
      They can move on their own route along a photo of the area, or they can
      remotely using an operator with a joystick.
      These semi-robots are easy to manage. And the tank will not be difficult.
      Problems - and very serious ones - begin when in the zone
      the work of robots appears soldiers (their own) and inhabited equipment.
      Friend or foe, fire on one’s own, how to organize tactics - difficult tasks.
      1. Gloomstar 15 October 2015 13: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        and it’s not necessary to organize when it’s better to take control of yourself or turn it off altogether, all the same weapons are not toys and it’s not worth the risk once again, and why should people do it if they can do it
      2. Petrix 16 October 2015 10: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Friend or foe, fire on one’s own, how to organize tactics - difficult tasks

        Set on the map a “spot” - not a shooting area in the area of ​​the appearance of soldiers. But this must be done by the operator. Well, or friend or foe, for example camouflage in the form of a bar code.
    3. ronin201 15 October 2015 14: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The t14 module requires a larger reserve volume, similar to the BMP-3 and the module for Kurgan
  6. Engineer 15 October 2015 12: 07 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    So from the T-90 to the T-800 is not far wink
  7. dsi
    dsi 15 October 2015 12: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    the ability to combine several robotic tanks into a single network,

    On the other hand, if the field is plowed when the tractor driver is not in shape, I’ll tell you better than the Amers to offer to cooperate on important aspects ...
  8. roskot 15 October 2015 12: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Everything is like in Hollywood. Only on sinful earth is it not so simple.
  9. 3 Gorynych 15 October 2015 12: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: dr.Bo
    Cool! I hope that the tanks are not crazy soldier
    -

    He’s not crazy, but his eyes are red — not a zombie!
  10. BOB044 15 October 2015 12: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Soon there will be a battlefield as in a strategy game. Yes, technology does not go, but runs in front.
  11. Fight cat 15 October 2015 12: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    news of 2020 at the test site in Alabino, successfully tested the new Russian automated platform based on the T-90 tank with the T-900 index. However, due to a series of incidents, which included the brand new “ZIL-4112R” deputy chairman of the government crushed into a cake, and the bottle of collectible cognac destroyed by the chief of the general staff that was destroyed along with it, the project was sent for revision. Funding under the "tank 2020" program was continued with the involvement of an additional number of young specialists from e-sportsmen honing the driving of tanks on realistic simulators! as we see the results turned out to be very positive, the speed of deployment and navigation and self-training came to the top of perfection. Even an unidentified UAV disguised as a bird managed to shoot down over the T-900 range, an incident with an unidentified UAV showed how the combat potential of our army increased with the adoption of a new automated platform! laughing soldier
  12. Shurik70 15 October 2015 12: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    A robotic remote-controlled tank is good.
    But how about an interception of control?
    So the crew should be. It’s just that all the sensors of all devices (both tanks and UAVs) will converge into a single center, from where they will command in Real Time.

    But the Americans will definitely make a fully unmanned tank.
    Well, the flag in their hands ... Until the first hacker to take control.
    1. iConst 15 October 2015 13: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Shurik70
      But how about an interception of control?
      - But in any way. Almost impossible. Theoretically, subject to a series of "if" - yes. But all the same, this will require frantic resources, which are fantastic to create, concentrate and apply immediately.
      Believe me - I know what I'm talking about.

      It’s easier to try to cut channels.
    2. abrakadabre 15 October 2015 13: 40 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Or until the first EMP, which will burn out the remote controls of the operators. Or before turning on the electronic warfare, that nothing will burn out, but it will clog all around.
    3. abrakadabre 15 October 2015 14: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      But nothing about the interception. Enough non-very-many-bit encryption with regular automatic key changes so that an attempt to quickly intercept and decrypt it becomes impossible.
      Of course, using a network of supercomputers and sorting out combinations within a few months might work. But who in battle will wait so much?
      Really only clogging of channels.
  13. avia1991 15 October 2015 12: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The desire is to realize all this as soon as possible, to see how he (the tank) will behave, how he will carry out the tasks. ”
    Let’s see, see .. the main thing - do not let go of the “reins”. As fiction, in the light of current events, shows us not at all fiction - when gaining independence, robots quickly get out of hand .. laughing
    Well, what: robotic jeeps participate in the rally - why can't tanks? We will wait for new reports! good
  14. rotor 15 October 2015 12: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Give the tank biathlon robots! laughing
    1. castle 15 October 2015 13: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Guys, have you still not realized that Robotization and Remote Control are different concepts?
      1. rotor 15 October 2015 13: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        We discovered America. Dashing trouble began, first telecontrol, then a full-fledged robot.

        Then, the remote control tank can independently return to base, in the event of a disconnection, is it a robot or not? smile
      2. abrakadabre 15 October 2015 13: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        What is more interesting is this: a modern fighter is not at all simpler than a tank, armed with at least a nomenclature of weapons, makes maneuvers at greater speed and in three-dimensional space. At the same time, one pilot completely copes with his management. Of course there are subsystems that help in flight. But nonetheless. Why doesn't it roll on a tank?
        Technologies of combined reality and all-round visibility are no longer the cutting edge of technology, but quite a well-developed product, even for the mass consumer. For pilots - in one form or another, there is even longer. Why is this not implemented for tanks?
        In theory, an armored capsule with a life support system for just one person will occupy radically less space in the tank. This means that the mass of armor and dimensions of the tank will decrease, or while maintaining the dimensions, the number of fillings and armor resistance will increase.
        The development cost in the presence of an aviation reserve for helmets and similar systems, I think it will not be as high as when developing from scratch.
        Why, given the high complexity of the pilot’s work, one person has long been flying and controlling an aircraft, but 3-4 armored vehicles?
        1. rotor 15 October 2015 13: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Why, the plane was also controlled before the 2nd, now, due to computerization, it’s already 1.
          1. abrakadabre 15 October 2015 14: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This is when the fighter was controlled by two? But the tank is essentially a ground fighter.
            This LA-5 or IL-2 chtol became the first computerized fighter? Or MiG-16 yes 21st
        2. Petrix 15 October 2015 20: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: abrakadabre
          Why, given the high complexity of the pilot’s work, one person has long been flying and controlling an aircraft, but 3-4 armored vehicles?

          Still, the sky is not a Persian terrain. Let the pilot try to simultaneously go on a shaver and fire at various targets. Not cope.
          Further specifics of weapons: one pilot can shoot uncontrollable only in the direction of movement (gun, NURS) or homing missiles (let go, forget). You can’t stop the gun on the tank - you can’t always turn the body of a cannon like on an airplane.
          Overview. They do not put radar on tanks. Goals and threats on earth appear much more intense and more difficult to identify. (Compare anti-aircraft missile launch or anti-tank missile shot).
          Repairs. You can’t fix anything in flight. And the tanks on the campaign constantly serve in isolation from the base. An extra pair of hands is very useful.

          Well, in general, in my opinion, today pilots are much more loaded than tankers, precisely due to the reduction in crew members.
          1. abrakadabre 16 October 2015 07: 17 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, I understand. But still:
            1. Unlike an airplane, a tank cannot fall to the ground. That is, driving in two coordinates greatly simplifies the task and increases safety. Yes, the terrain on the battlefield is complex and obstacles must be avoided. But this does not happen at airspeed. Anyone who drives a car easily copes with driving in the field at a speed of 10-20 and at least 40 km / h while admiring the scenery and talking with passengers. Modern telemetry in the manner of helmets for pilots can provide the necessary visibility.
            2. What prevents the installation of an aim-and-forget automatic gun control system? With a circular panorama, the tanker does not have to toss the cannon for observation. Noticing the target, taking it on the sight and giving the command it is technically possible that the automation itself would accompany the target and fire a shot while the tanker is already focused on the following actions. On the same helicopters, the mode is used when the automatic turret is synchronized with the pilot's helmet and its sight follows the turns of the head.
            3. Goals and threats in the near dump of air combat even more intensely flicker. Moreover, at the limit of visibility or just behind it. Which, given the significant physical exertion from vigorous piloting, does not facilitate the pilot's task. The telemetry displayed on the helmet allows you to highlight the targets and the pilot already chooses whether to attack or not and with what ammunition. The technology has been worked out for a long time.
            4. Yes, the tank constantly requires repair. But how often is it being repaired, not after, but in the midst of battle, under intense fire?
            1. Petrix 16 October 2015 09: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: abrakadabre
              driving in two coordinates greatly simplifies the task

              1.This is on a clean field. There is one obstacle in the sky - the earth. On the ground, mountains, pits, their own infantry, houses, swamps, rivers, .... They mainly drive along the roads, there is generally one degree of freedom, turned a little and turned over. There is a autopilot for a long time, but the car is still being worked out - this is direct evidence that the earth is much more complicated.
              Quote: abrakadabre
              while the tanker is already focused on the following actions.

              2. At that time when you need to search for a target or think about which one to choose, tank control is disabled. The tank is either standing or autopilot (have not yet worked, see point 1). And the plane can fly as it is tumbling (if there is altitude) while the pilot takes aim.
              3.
              Quote: abrakadabre
              in the near dump of air combat

              Compare the number of planes (which are all in sight) in the landfill and the number of threats in the tank (grenade launcher from any angle, land mines, tanks, aviation). The dynamics of a duel are faster to direct, shoot, reload, hide, turn around for a tank more intensively than air combat.
              Quote: abrakadabre
              Moreover, at the limit of visibility or just behind it.

              Ate at the limit, then no intensity. Intensity is when a sharp turn so that the target does not go into the back hemisphere.
              4. Means that in isolation from the base. A tank, if it works, is always out of base. The plane is always at the base (sometimes an alternate aerodrome) or a catapult and all. You don’t eject from the tank, you want to survive - repair the trucks.
        3. wanderer_032 18 October 2015 01: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: abrakadabre
          Why, given the high complexity of the pilot’s work, one person has long been flying and controlling an aircraft, but 3-4 armored vehicles?


          Because in the armored vehicles on the ground, everything is more complicated than in the air on a combat aircraft.
          A tank is a combat vehicle with a functional division of duties among the crew. One person is not able to take on the functions of controlling movement, fire, search for targets and interaction with other ground forces. Even if the tank is crammed with electronics on the most nimag, then nothing will come of it.
          And the tactics of warfare on earth are significantly different from tactics of warfare in the air.
          And above all, this is due to the limited maneuver. There is more space in the air for this. And on earth there are many natural and artificial obstacles, as well as other restrictions.
          For this reason, in armored vehicles, a collective crew is needed, not an individual one.
  15. MIKHAN 15 October 2015 12: 37 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    A beautiful tank is nevertheless powerful ... Ural steers! And I am wary of the robot (if global robotics) ...
  16. Gloomstar 15 October 2015 13: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Shurik70
    A robotic remote-controlled tank is good.
    But how about an interception of control?
    So the crew should be. It’s just that all the sensors of all devices (both tanks and UAVs) will converge into a single center, from where they will command in Real Time.

    But the Americans will definitely make a fully unmanned tank.
    Well, the flag in their hands ... Until the first hacker to take control.


    It is almost impossible to seize control, all this is in films and cartoons, firstly the signal is not analog, it will not work with modulation, secondly, modern cryptography is at its best, they can only suppress, and even then there is enough logical program to control, insert no artificial intelligence you can’t and don’t need to go into the tank

    a human-controlled tank is not quite a robot, it’s a weapon but a controllable one, possibly with software elements, for example, in case of loss of communication, return to the base, or find targets, all this is already present in modern tanks, it’s left behind

    but the idea of ​​the control center of the tank is, in my opinion, it’s just a wonderful idea, something like this: a tank is traveling, and after it there is the same armored vehicle at a distance of 10 kilometers, all the main targets are cleared, and after that they’ll go the same tanks but with people for a more thorough cleaning, but already safe, because all the slaughter, including the ATGM, were taken over by robots,
    1. Shurik70 16 October 2015 13: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: GloomStar


      It’s almost impossible to take control ... modern cryptography at its best



      Well yes. The signal of the robot - CPU is undoubtedly encrypted. The signal can not be decoded.
      But what prevents TsU itself from infecting?
  17. Alexey RA 15 October 2015 13: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Uralvagonzavod, working on the T-90 robotization, plans to merge several tanks into a single network

    Tanks n / a 220, 121 and 410 united in a dynamic platoon! smile
  18. glavnykarapuz 15 October 2015 14: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I didn’t like the article, I liked the picture.
    What the article says is the level of, if not rumors, then the level of "reasoning", because the presence of only one manufacturer of the tank (UVZ monopoly) gives rise to a sense of “worthlessness” among them and they produce trams (here with reservations), and wagons (they do it well), and tanks (which is well-developed and theirs), and automated control systems, then briefly ACS (here doubts are already creeping in).
    But here it is indiscriminately believed that “UVZ” and the automated control system of the level of armored formations rivets this, I personally doubt very much, because the range of technical tasks and problems in this area is off the charts (there is more than one specialized research institute to create these tasks) - for understanding, please read this nice article here on the site [media = http: //topwar.ru/84324-russkiy- skaynet-kotorogo-net.html # comment-id-50914
    34].
    I am a patriot of Russia, but my head should be sober.
  19. Shuttle 15 October 2015 15: 09 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    On 90-ke will work out the application strategy.
    T-14 has specific structural elements.
    And the tank will eventually be new.
    Not a complete standalone robot, but telecontrolled. Totally crewless. That is, of course, to control the engine, it is even possible to move from one point to another, he will direct the weapon at the target. Most of the operations will be telecontrolled. The operator will sit in a protected command post, and the tank will rush across the field.

    Due to the lack of crew, the layout will radically change. There will be no empty reserved space, seats, triplexes, filter-ventilation system, lighting, intercoms, hatches. The sighting system will become fully television excluding thereby a huge optical sight as a class of devices. Surely it will become all-weather, round-the-clock and all-aspect. A more powerful computing system will appear. Most likely she will be hidden somewhere in the depths between the engine and the gun compartment. This will be the "brain". It is likely that the tank control channel will be non-synchronous. Over time, the tank's AI will learn to carry out more and more complex orders.
    One day he will become so "smart" that he can "go on guard" independently ...
  20. wanderer_032 15 October 2015 15: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    “There will be many cars on the battlefield, and if you already manage, then manage a certain number of them. One operator per tank - this is not entirely effective. In the future, this is a whole managed network, ”Khalitov said.

    Yes Yes. I propose to immediately leave only the TR and TB commanders, give them cops and let them try to control all their tanks in such a composition. In total, in the field PU there will be in this case 4-re of the person, 3 com. TP + 1 com. TB
    Each TR - 10 machines.

    Only with this I immediately propose to work out something else.
    Namely: What will happen to all this heap of iron and these 4 people when the enemy detects this field launcher and applies tactical nuclear weapons on it? Or will he use massively electronic warfare systems? Well, or to the extremes, it simply detects this field launcher and tries to destroy it.

    And further. How many people will need to be sent to the cutting edge to eliminate malfunctions / failures / damage to equipment that occurred during the operation? Even the smallest. And most importantly - how long will it take? Which in a combat setting is priceless.

    And what will happen to all the equipment, in which damage / failures / malfunctions will appear in turn? Or what will happen to her when they cover a field PU?

    And also: How much strength and medium are needed in order to defend this field PU so that the enemy does not make a mass grave from it?

    It seems like this whole “idea” of radio-controlled car games: A dream game is a disease of the mind. And it does not carry anything good.
    1. Petrix 15 October 2015 20: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: wanderer_032
      when will the enemy detect this field launcher and use tactical nuclear weapons on it?

      It will happen the same as when the ordinary headquarters was bombed. Chaos with an unfinished question or the launch of Plan B, with an elaborated one.
      Quote: wanderer_032
      How many people will need to be sent to the cutting edge

      In those days, a person (specialist) would be much more expensive than a car, and sending robotic tow trucks is easier.
      Quote: wanderer_032
      Or what will happen to her when they cover a field PU?

      Will execute the last order (a list of tasks by importance). They will start sending alarms to another control unit.
      1. wanderer_032 16 October 2015 00: 52 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Petrix
        It will happen the same as when the ordinary headquarters was bombed. Chaos with an unfinished question or the launch of Plan B, with an elaborated one.


        Quote: Petrix
        In those days, a person (specialist) would be much more expensive than a car, and sending robotic tow trucks is easier.


        Quote: Petrix
        Will execute the last order (a list of tasks by importance). They will start sending alarms to another control unit.


        It was smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines, and walk on them. (Russian proverb)
        1. Petrix 16 October 2015 10: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: wanderer_032
          yes forgot about the ravines

          The enemy also does not have smooth asphalt. And it is better to fill up ravines with scrap metal than hats (that is, people).
          1. wanderer_032 18 October 2015 00: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Then immediately go to the tank with artificial intelligence:



            On this, the issue of tank robotization can be safely closed.
  21. TOR2 15 October 2015 16: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well done that did not abandon the development begun in 2009. based on the T-72. Networked tanks will be able to exchange information with each other. And this is the automatic distribution of goals, and the transfer of data to other systems.
    As for management, there are several options, 1 operator for 1 tank or several. The correct answer will tell only the practice. It will be necessary to conduct many exercises so that people learn how to interact with robotic complexes.
  22. ZAV69 15 October 2015 17: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Science fiction writers have already worked on this topic in great detail. For example, the same Livadny. As liberals say, 146% of the probability there are several military research institutes dealing with this topic, well, they cannot but exist. Surely the topic worked out in much more detail than that of writers, and not only theoretically. And in sight only articles about the fact that we don’t have a skynet .....