Russia's Future Technology Weapons

Russian robotic soldier revealed

Edited 28 October, 2009, 20:41

A prototype track-mounted combat platform tailored to use Russian weapons has been unveiled at an arms show in Moscow. Producers say it beats the similar American bot widely used in Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.

The bot, called MRK-27-BT, was produced by the robotics lab of the Moscow Bauman Technical University. It was shown to the public at the Interpolitex-2009 arms exhibition.

MRK-27-BT’s standard armament includes two Shmel rocket launchers, two grenade launchers, a Pecheneg machine gun with a 100 round ammunition belt, and six smoke grenades. It is operated with a couple of joysticks and has a maximum range of 500 meters. All the weapons are standard issue used by human soldiers and can be detached in the field.

http://russiatoday.com/Sci_Tech/2009-10-28/russian-robotic-soldier-revealed.html#

Is this a technology demonstrator only or there are others plans for it?
I personally believe that robots that fight on the ground(air to air fighter drones to)will not have a future until artificial inteligente is developed sufficiently to allow them to be 90%-100% independent.

To Sepheronx:I am curios are you a programmer?

They could be organized in special units compose of robots for Fighting and human technicians for resupply , repair and tactical advise.
I am somehow aware of the difficulties that that fighter robots are facing.

Most of the artificial intelligence systems I have seen are black box systems.
You set some rules and then you set up some scenarios and you train the system with those scenarios that include the answers when it has tried.
After a few thousand goes the program works out which solutions work and which do not for itself, but you can't just print out the new stuff it has learned and you have to hope it has learned the right things.
Once it has been trained then you release it out into the real world and test its reactions.
It is no longer learning, it is just applying what it learned from the examples it was trained on.

One example I have read about was a NATO attempt to develop a computer program that could detect tanks automatically. Basically the program was given thousands of different pictures with tanks in them and some pictures that did not have tanks and the program was trained to learn the difference.

The plan was you install the program on a computer in a tank and connect it to the commanders panoramic sight and it constantly scans the view to find tanks of all shapes and sizes and camouflage schemes.

It got about a 95% success rate in lab tests but when tested in the field it didn't find a single tank.

Because the program was a set of rules and training that it used to create more rules (that cannot be extracted to find out what went wrong) it is called a black box system.

Eventually it was worked out what the problem was... the photos in the training that had tanks in them were all taken on sunny days and the photos with no tanks were darker cloudy days, as was the test. They had spent an enormous amount of money to make a program that detects whether it is a sunny day or not...

No I am not making this up.

"Eventually it was worked out what the problem was... the photos in the training that had tanks in them were all taken on sunny days and the photos with no tanks were darker cloudy days, as was the test. They had spent an enormous amount of money to make a program that detects whether it is a sunny day or not"

That because A.I. technology is in its infancy.Is like laughing at the Right's brothers airplane and saying that planes will never go faster then the speed of sound.

With a few simple rules to follow something that has no intelligence at all can seem semi intelligent because of the way it reacts to certain situations.

If then procedural code is not used in object oriented programming.

You create objects of a specific class that has certain attributes and features.

That because A.I. technology is in its infancy.Is like laughing at the Right's brothers airplane and saying that planes will never go faster then the speed of sound.

AI has certainly moved on since the 1980s when the example I gave took place.
You'd actually be surprised how much AI there is around you right now.

From the auto focus in your digital camera to the auto tuning on your TV.

From the face recognition with the camera in your cellphone to the computer spyware on your computer detecting the site you go to and your internet habits and sending that data to some site on the internet.

All those cameras in Britain would still be useful in solving crime but with face recognition software they can be used to find and track the movements of specific people of interest.

Back to the robot, its purpose is not really to replace all soldiers, its job is to be an expendible point man you can send into places to see what is there.
Otherwise the range of 500m would be a bit useless, but you can roll him around a corner and have him take two shots at an enemy tank without fear of him being killed by return fire.
His camera and mechanisms are relatively small so to defeat him you will either need to shower him in small arms fire in the hope of taking out the gun or the camera or hit him with explosives, which would give away your position.
With his MG he could provide support while your unit is moving, or you could send him around an enemy position to provide flanking fire.
You could even roll him back to high ground to offer a view of the enemy position that could be relayed by the operator to the unit commmander and not even fire a shot... he could just observe and fire if fired upon.
You could send him up to a suspicious vehicle or house that looks undefended.

A prototype track-mounted combat platform tailored to use Russian weapons has been revealed in Moscow. Producers say it beats the similar American bot widely used in Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.
The bot, called MRK-27-BT, was produced by the robotics lab of the Moscow Bauman Technical University. MRK-27-BT’s standard armament includes two Shmel rocket launchers, two grenade launchers, a Pecheneg machine gun with a 100 round ammunition belt, and six smoke grenades. It is operated with a couple of joysticks and has a maximum range of 500 meters. All the weapons are standard issue used by human soldiers and can be detached in the field.

Instead developing 100% artificial intelligence one has to integrate machine within a human; like that of Iron man
Mechanical Humaniods concept is way better than pure Robots

The problem with cyborgs (part man part machine) is that a computer can process somethings faster and has much faster reactions.

I think the best solution would be simply remote control.

It means a human is in control but not in danger.

You get all the advantages of expendable machine with potentially enormous payload of weapons and ammo plus you get human decision making as well.

Last thing you want is AI robots going on a rampage in your own military base because of a short circuit.

Most robot supporters claim that robots can be made safe by using Asimovs rules, but that assumes the robot even comprehends what that means or can understand the consequences of its actions.

ie if it has no sensor that can detect the presence of petrol or explosive gas fumes and it sees a threat and fires a weapon it could kill the person or people it is trying to protect. Also just because it is a robot doesn't mean it can see through walls etc so when shooting an enemy it might get a shoot through of a wall and injure or kill friendlies.

Personally I think the idea of an armed robot you can send forward to look is the best compromise for the moment and we should wait to see how they develop before deciding on what next.

You can't really afford to employ human operators for each system and have it widely used. An autonomous search algorithm would be more realistic and one human controller could be responsible for several systems. Only the human could open fire.

If the robots are performing the roles a soldier would perform then the person who was going to be the soldier doing the job could become the operator controlling the robot to do the job.

GarryB wrote:If the robots are performing the roles a soldier would perform then the person who was going to be the soldier doing the job could become the operator controlling the robot to do the job.

So you have been influenced ny the film Surrogates.....Soldiers will just be playing video game like soldiers in battlefield; isn't this you are referring to controlling...My God then soldiers will be a team of professional gamers!!

Technically it is already happening with aircraft.

Kids who played flight sims in the 1980s and 1990s can now operate recon and even light attack platforms in many militaries in the world right now.

Being used to just seeing what can be seen through a "camera view" on a TV screen would be an advantage over a real pilot that expects a rather better view of his surroundings.

I would expect that in many roles remotely controlled robots are already being used by Russian paramilitary personnel in the role of unexploded ordinance (UXO) disposal and mine removal.
Simply the danger to personnel in working with UXO means the further you can get your people yet still deal with the problem the better.

Obviously most of the time the Russian military will not have the luxury of dealing with mines one at a time so other measures are used like TOS and of course mine rollers on engineer vehicles to deal with land mines.

I have the impression that the robotic soldier they are talking about above would be something that moves around with a normal unit and might be controlled by a specially fitted out vehicle perhaps based on a BTR or BMP that allows the robot to take the most dangerous position... that of point where it will go forward and look around and shoot at any threats it can deal with, but most of the time it will simply be finding targets and the layout so attack plans can be formulated with real information. It could be fitted with a sound system that detects gunshots and therefore plot the location of anyone that shoots at it, which will further aid in the planning of an attack.

New light weight armor utilizing "nano technology". Supposed to be lighter than current army vests while providing "equal or better protection." The final product is supposed to be finished some time this year. What do you guys think?

Interesting....2kg weight is pretty good. Nano tech is very exciting actually. Studied MEMS(Micro) and Nanotech about 7 years ago. Have to say, the lecturer I had told me once that humans will see Nano tech applications in about 5 years time in daily life. Ofcourse he was over-optimistic. Not to forget the dreaded self replicating and changing one material into another, which will form future weapons.

The thing is that I saw that video years ago...

Did you notice the news strip along the bottom of the screen near the end of the article that mentioned presidential candidate Medvedev?

This video is about 4 years old.

And fascinating of course...

If you look through some of the threads on body armour or super soldier systems like Felin, I have mentioned a couple of times in the past that gel type batteries in the form of a vest could be used to power all the stuff a soldier carries while at the same time acting as a trauma barrier under a vest that makes the vest more comfortable to wear and reduces the impact of a bullet hit by absorbing the impact.

The potential for future weapons is frightening... DNA homing bullets that will kill only white people... that will specifically go for the face...

Yes I realized the date, but it is a very interesting concept and the video itself only had a little over a thousand views. Plus if it really is going to be finished this year like the video says then we'll probably start getting more news about it very soon.

It would be very interesting if this technology became a part of Russia's future soldier program.

Yes, the change from a 12-15kg vest to a 2kg vest that offers the same level of protection or better would have a huge effect on that program.

It will be good when they organise an equivalent of DARPA that can make sure technologies like this are applied across the board, as the concept could be used in new armour types for all sorts of vehicles from light to heavy, land based and naval and aircraft too.

GarryB wrote:
It will be good when they organise an equivalent of DARPA that can make sure technologies like this are applied across the board, as the concept could be used in new armour types for all sorts of vehicles from light to heavy, land based and naval and aircraft too.

I actually hadn't considered the possibility of this technology being used on vehicles, but you're right. This could be a huge leap forward in the development of armor for MBT's and other armored vehicles.

Especially where weight is important... over an area the size of a tank you could save several tons, which means your ERA and APS are not adding much extra strain on your engine and transmission and less wear and tear on your running gear.

For very light vehicles it could be used as an anti spall liner, and it would also be useful for helicopters where weight is critical to performance.