Russian 'Marker' Combat Robots to Be Sent to Ukraine Skynetski Ground Sea and Air

If their robots are as good as their artillery, they will be attacking themselves.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: gortex

Only has enough energy or fuel for 3 days.
And then what? A russian soldier has to go pick it up from the battlefield or go recharge it?
Can it be charged or does it use gas?

Most likely they will turn it back a drive it to a refuel area before the 3 days are up. Cut it's time on the field in half.
Or as slayer69 said these drone tanks will only be used in safe areas.

Ummm…it states in the OP that it uses a hybrid system…that usually means a battery electric drive backed up by a fossil fuel engine either operating a generator or providing primary/secondary drive functions…

The three days probably means that it can operate for three days on battery power alone…



YouSir

a reply to: putnam6

Interesting, I bet a lot of folks are very interested to see what they can do, how they tell who's Russian and who's Ukrainian fe reliably that would be impressive.
Also how does it navigate and will it be the next 'joke' constantly stuck on minor environmental obstacles?
Of course if they're actually effective they'll be just driving bounty targets because every weapon developer will like to have a closer look.
And if they're using satellite support, I can't see how they could not use the Russian GPS, I expect a couple of Russian satellites having 'accidents'.

a reply to: putnam6

you are fairly confident the Ukrainians can blow them up?

Do you think they can't then ? You sound like you do.

Anyway.

a reply to: putnam6

Is this a game-changer? Guess it depends on how battled hardened they are and how many Russia can deploy. But Id imagine being hunted by a robotic drone is a different experience than dealing with humans.

yes it is, in the same way the dreadnought or the interceptor was.. but it doesn't give those who get them out first the wining hand, if it did the Nazis would have won.. more often than not everyone else watches what goes wrong and learns from it.. just as the US learnt from the f*ck ups with the DH106 comet to not make the same mistakes and leapfrogged the UK in airline tech..

a reply to: nickyw

yes it is, in the same way the dreadnought or the interceptor was

Oh dear.

n May 2018, the Russian military revealed it had combat-tested its Uran-9 robot tank in Syria. The diminutive remote-control tank is noted for its formidable gun and missile armament. However, just a month later Defense Blog reported that Senior Research Officer Andrei Anisimov told a conference at the Kuznetsov Naval Academy in St. Petersburg that the Uran-9’s performance in Syria revealed that “modern Russian combat Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) are not able to perform the assigned tasks in the classical types of combat operations.” He concluded it would be ten to fifteen more years before UGVs were ready for such complex tasks.

nationalinterest.org...

Just a pile of junk.

a reply to: alldaylong

even if you think it a pile of junk the first battle tanks used only 50% actually got off the starting line, in your world that'd mean tanks where just piles of junk and not game changers.. my first (and only) apple computer had to be soldered together.. again would you have thought it a pile of junk and a junk brand?

these things are game changers.. doesn't mean they'll be game changers for the Russians, the British got the meteor into production first the Germans the me262 into operation first neither where the gamer changers for that war.. they where for the Korean war though as the Russians flew on the British jet engines and the Americans on the German jet engines down.. MiG alley is where British/German game changing tech fought it out..

so we might not even see anything from this war but its a game changer for certain..

a reply to: nickyw

Some innovations can be " Game Changing " i agree.

However some can be a pile of junk. just as this.

The Active Denial System

You might have heard about this system before: the weapons system that was basically the military’s attempt to make a working heat ray. After researching and developing the system for over a decade—and spending $40 million dollars in the process—the weapon was recalled almost as soon as it hit the streets, after about a month of field work in 2010. Why?

Because the Active Denial System did not unleash a concentrated blast of paralyzing heat that would cripple our enemies…it just kind of gave them all terrible sunburns. This, while admittedly irritating, is not exactly something that will keep you from fighting a war. It’s not even something that will keep you from getting ice cream.

www.electronicproducts.com...

Almost all of this program has been a waste of money,

uk.finance.yahoo.com...

Not EVERYTHING that is developed actually works, don't you know.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: putnam6

you are fairly confident the Ukrainians can blow them up?

Do you think they can't then ? You sound like you do.

Anyway.

Let's be clear here of course they can blow them up, I was ragging on you for such a simplistic and basic answer.

Respectfully we are hearing the Russian soldiers are crap and moral is low, we are hearing the Russian weapons are crap and break down. we are hearing the Russian military leaders are crap and are getting replaced constantly, we are hearing Putin is crap, he has cancer and is teetering on regime change in Moscow.

Yet the whole free world is putting billions and billions into supporting Ukraine, they are getting loads of weapons munitions, intelligence, and logistical support. Yet here we are 6 weeks from 1 year of the US, UK, and the European Union supporting Ukraine as much as they can without becoming actual combatants.

And on the map of territory gained our billions in support and tons and tons of military hardware have produced bupkis. zero, nada, nyet. Russians still control all the areas they previously controlled and continue to control a huge area that is close to the area Putin wanted to annex. Sure they wanted Kyiv and Kharkiv but hell they lost Kyiv as much to equipment failure, crappy intelligence, poor morale, and leadership. Kharkiv is the only place where Ukraine has made some territorial gains.

So 10 months in look at the map, and tell me how is this crappy communist backward ill-trained, equipped, and led invasion force still holds virtually all the territory they held previously. If we want to secure all the objectives Zelenskyy wants it will take 3-4 times the financial aid, 3-4 times the military aid, 3-4 times the logistical support, and 3-4 times our intelligence capabilities. Even worse likely 3-4 times the civilian and military casualties and 3-4 times the months are ready invested.

Do the math

That's a helluva cost per acre, so yes in a 10-month-long battle where territorial gains are so small, to begin with. The use of robotic drones could slow the allied victory march somewhat.

a reply to: putnam6

So 10 months in look at the map, and tell me how is this crappy communist backward ill-trained, equipped, and led invasion force still holds virtually all the territory they held previously.

Do they bollocks ?

After conquering 24.4% of Ukrainian territory in March, the Russian army retreated until it controlled only 16.5% in December.

www.lemonde.fr...

Plenty of other sources out there that say the same.

Why can't people just get the simple things correct ?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: putnam6

Interesting, I bet a lot of folks are very interested to see what they can do, how they tell who's Russian and who's Ukrainian fe reliably that would be impressive.
Also how does it navigate and will it be the next 'joke' constantly stuck on minor environmental obstacles?
Of course if they're actually effective they'll be just driving bounty targets because every weapon developer will like to have a closer look.
And if they're using satellite support, I can't see how they could not use the Russian GPS, I expect a couple of Russian satellites having 'accidents'.

It feels like they are just testing them, but if they are even semi-effective in patroling or just defending held territory and produced in enough numbers, it at least frees up soldiers to do other tasks. A force multiplier as another poster says.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: putnam6

So 10 months in look at the map, and tell me how is this crappy communist backward ill-trained, equipped, and led invasion force still holds virtually all the territory they held previously.

Do they bollocks ?

After conquering 24.4% of Ukrainian territory in March, the Russian army retreated until it controlled only 16.5% in December.

www.lemonde.fr...

Plenty of other sources out there that say the same.

Why can't people just get the simple things correct ?

How many lives were lost, 100 billion dollars in aid, and 10 months of fighting for 8% of the territory saved? that's getting bang for your buck.

I mentioned the move on Kyiv and the fact that it was repulsed, all the pink area was free Ukraine before February 28th wasn't it? who controls it now? Even Mariupol has been neutralized.

Bollocks indeed,

The territory held is approximately the same slice Putin always wanted to hold and annex before the invasion. There is plenty of evidence the move on Kyiv was nothing but a feint to draw resources for the defense of Kyiv while Russia solidified its positions in the east.

It's even represented in the chart in your source about the 8%, see the purple part, it's that territory we are fighting for now?

Look at how little progression is in the pink areas of the chart, LOL most of the gains were from the Russian withdrawal in MARCH. At the current rate, it will take as I said 3-4 years of the same support, money, logistics, munitions, blood, sweat, and tears.

a reply to: putnam6

Looks like a single RPG round would decimate the drone pictured.

My understanding is that "Russian Combat Robots" are not exactly the best of the best.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

Looks like a single RPG round would decimate the drone pictured.

My understanding is that "Russian Combat Robots" are not exactly the best of the best.

It's why I asked the question, Im completely open to the idea that they are doing nothing but throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

That said how long have we heard this is the future of warfare with completely AI-autonomous weapons, even if it's a rudimentary version and isn't effective this time? who knows this platform has been around for 5 years according to this thread. Perhaps they have learned and adjusted tactics munitions and capabilities since its first use in Syria.

a reply to: putnam6

It's why I asked the question, Im completely open to the idea that they are doing nothing but throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

Well, Russia are running low on real tanks and APC never mind combat troops that are not green as apples. Think you may be correct about them throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

That said how long have we heard this is the future of warfare with completely AI-autonomous weapons, even if it's a rudimentary version and isn't effective this time?

Oh at some point in the not too distant they are apt to build a better machine soldier than their human counterpart, but i would be barking up the likes of the DARPA tree as opposed to something Russia comes away with.

who knows this platform has been around for 5 years according to this thread. Perhaps they have learned and adjusted tactics munitions and capabilities since its first use in Syria.

I'm wondering how did the platform fair in Syria.

And exactly how easy they are to hack?

a reply to: andy06shake

not exactly the best of the best.

on paper the challenger 2 was always deemed the #ist of the #ty tanks but that is the issue with paper based comparisons they do not compare well to the real world be it British or anyone else.. some Russian stuff has been equally sh*t on paper but then do surprisingly well in the real world.. its rare but it does happen..

who would have thought the sea dart would be the first to take down an anti ship missile when on paper the cws on us ships was better but could only hit chaff..

I'm open minded on this until proven otherwise.. though in the crazy world of battlefield adaptations I'm sure the Ukrainians will come up with an answer anyway.

a reply to: putnam6

It's why I asked the question, Im completely open to the idea that they are doing nothing but throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

that is where crazy battlefield innovation becomes interesting. Its one of the reason I've found Churchill such an interesting figure in terms of diversity of thought/designs..

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: putnam6

It's why I asked the question, Im completely open to the idea that they are doing nothing but throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

Well, Russia are running low on real tanks and APC never mind combat troops that are not green as apples. Think you may be correct about them throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

That said how long have we heard this is the future of warfare with completely AI-autonomous weapons, even if it's a rudimentary version and isn't effective this time?

Oh at some point in the not too distant they are apt to build a better machine soldier than their human counterpart, but i would be barking up the likes of the DARPA tree as opposed to something Russia comes away with.

who knows this platform has been around for 5 years according to this thread. Perhaps they have learned and adjusted tactics munitions and capabilities since its first use in Syria.

I'm wondering how did the platform fair in Syria.

And exactly how easy they are to hack?

I definitely want to know more about them and their capabilities and limitations. I loved to find an online source for all the new weapons both sides are throwing at this war.

Let's face it aerial drones have already been used to great effectiveness, in Ukraine. These Russian ground drones supposedly have jamming equipment to counter those same drones that have worked so well for Ukraine.

For those interested here's an article about Russia's 15 most dangerous weapons from 2016, FWIW already have seen them use the hypersonic missile in Ukraine. Remember when Russia heralds the use of the hypersonic missile? when Russia brings attention to using a new weapon, they probably think it will succeed.

#14 is the combat robot

www.therichest.com...

The irony to me is here is an article from the Sun (admittedly a sensationalistic piece of dung) but this is from last January 2022, pushing this tech and other capabilities rather hard. Now a year later it's rubbish nothing to worry about, mate, Russia doesn't have squat. I don't buy it the truth is somewhere in between the extremes.

a reply to: putnam6

#14 is the combat robot

Which is a pile of junk. Which if you look back i posted on this thread earlier.

Here.

nationalinterest.org...