Russian Army Robots

This is inevitable - a robot soldier/tank/aircraft/whatever could react faster than any human, could be cheaper (when 3d printing really kicks in). When it's destroyed, there is no moral loss and when it's damaged, it does not have to be paid for being a veteran. With advances in AI whole operations could be conducted autonomously with minimal human supervision. In ~50 years only the poorest countries and some rag tag militias will still field human soldiers and will use them only to do some highly specialized tasks.

Wars of the far future are likely to be fought by:
1. Hacking (computers hacking other computers - humans will be too stupid to grasp that powerful tech)
2. Swarms of nanorobots
3. War in space - destroying enemy satellites, with no or minimal human casualties

... provided that we don't merge with computers and dispose of physical bodis entirely.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:This is inevitable - a robot soldier/tank/aircraft/whatever could react faster than any human, could be cheaper (when 3d printing really kicks in). When it's destroyed, there is no moral loss and when it's damaged, it does not have to be paid for being a veteran. With advances in AI whole operations could be conducted autonomously with minimal human supervision. In ~50 years only the poorest countries and some rag tag militias will still field human soldiers and will use them only to do some highly specialized tasks.

Wars of the far future are likely to be fought by:
1. Hacking (computers hacking other computers - humans will be too stupid to grasp that powerful tech)
2. Swarms of nanorobots
3. War in space - destroying enemy satellites, with no or minimal human casualties

... provided that we don't merge with computers and dispose of physical bodis entirely.

Before that happens we will fight with sticks and stones 4 times over. I doubt human intelligence actually understands or will understand what intelligence is. We can't even invent and design artificial stupidity.

We can of course - there are already areas in which computers beat humans - reaction time is one of them. Planning of complex military operations does not require alien technology, just a powerful enough computer doing combinatorics.

In a few decades due to advent of quantum computing a simple hand-held device will possess more processing power than today's most powerful supercomputers - military implications of that will be nothing short of extraordinary.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:We can of course - there are already areas in which computers beat humans - reaction time is one of them. Planning of complex military operations does not require alien technology, just a powerful enough computer doing combinatorics.

In a few decades due to advent of quantum computing a simple hand-held device will possess more processing power than today's most powerful supercomputers - military implications of that will be nothing short of extraordinary.

Doesn't matter how powerful the equipment is. The hardware is only a part of it and actually a small part of it in the grand scheme of what drones are capable of. The entirety is in the software and Artificial intelligence isn't actually intelligence but coding, in the millions. Various if's and but statements that the computer goes through and has a form of calculating which is the course of action to take based upon the check digits. Human reaction is ultimate as it gives the OK. If lets say the drone needs to use some sort of transponder in order to determine a target, and lets say the enemies all have what is needed from dead soldiers whom were fought earlier. The drone wouldn't attack. It would require optical recognition and in most cases, it is impossible to sort out if the person is a target or not. So the drone may not attack. If it is replicated, then no drones would ever attack. So in this case, there needs to be a person behind the console.

Buran used old coding and very old computer hardware, yet it achieved exactly what is being done today. So it really comes down to the whole software aspect of it. As well, evident from Iran's capabilities using old radar technology, was able to take down a $1B stealth drone program on first try. What would happen to drones that came up to a force of modern electronic warfare systems? Manned systems have trouble as it is and we are not mechanical. Imagine what it would do to the drone.

Some of you people have far too much faith in technology. I have first hand experience in seeing them fail miserably and causing lots of issues. Reliance on it is far too stupid and dangerous. Use it as a tool, not as a method of replacing yourself. Cause it wont work. Even with modern solid state semiconductors advancing, they are still nowhere near as safe to use in terms of an electromagnetic pulse. In case a nuke is detonated or an EMP blast from some other source is used, it could effectively take out modern weapon systems (and this is why I am kinda against Armata's unmanned turret but if there is a way they can control it manually, then it is fine).

Human reaction is based upon, many factors, emotions, knowledge, how common or firm they are with something, their surroundings (like being nervous around people and so on. Electronic Sports, champions have reactions beyond what aimbots can do, because they have trained and often when concentrating they get into a trance like state, ignoring most emotions, doubts, their surroundings and base all on their skill and intuations.. They can process informations by prediction and intuation based on long experience, meaning bots can't predict enemy movement pattern without cheating and relying on actual location of enemy, even sporadic access to such information is cheating. Robots will never understand that. I have been playing for many years CS with a friend, since i knew him personally, i could base that knowledge and predict where he is, what he does. He could aswell, it sometimes ended in funny moments, while both knowing each others skills and playing style we both tried to change it, to render the others advantage useless. Both of us tried to play different and usually ended up playing horrible by simply not being common with a different strategy, with different patterns especially since we did not think two steps ahead, just tried to avoid by all means to use our common patterns. Robots will never have such understanding, such intelligence, they will be nothing but coded machines that at best simulate intelligence.

I just can't wait until soldiers have Master-Chief like helmets -> bulletproof, night vision capable, streaming critical information through a head-up display or an augmented reality system like Google glass.

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/362128,us-army-reveals-android-powered-iron-man-helmets.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/05/bae-systems-are-essentially-building-an-iron-man-helmet-for-soldiers_n_7211330.html

PapaDragon wrote:
"Nerehta" combat robot:











http://twower.livejournal.com/1802537.html

Some more information about Nerehta:

1.) Can carry up to 700 kg's of payload.

2.) It's command post will be capable of controlling 18 drones at a time, with a maximum range of 20 km's.


Also some information about the drone T-90, which can be controlled up to 5 km's away.

What surprises is preparing the Russian military-industrial complex

Cyrus the great wrote:I just can't wait until soldiers have Master-Chief like helmets -> bulletproof, night vision capable, streaming critical information through a head-up display or an augmented reality system like Google glass.

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/362128,us-army-reveals-android-powered-iron-man-helmets.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/05/bae-systems-are-essentially-building-an-iron-man-helmet-for-soldiers_n_7211330.html

You know at least on paper it does make sense to develop full head protective helmets, i believe we are at least 20 or 30yrs away from implementation of such gear.

What is needed is a helmet that:
1) Bullet proof glass that can withstand 7.62AK rounds.

2) HUD that uses See-Through OLED displays

3) Depending on army or navy,ext the helmet must have for it's own breathing filters like a simple dust filters along with room to place much larger filters for chemical/biological threats and in the case of the navy room for oxygen tanks as well.

4) An assortment of sensors (not sure whether i should call it a Fire Control Suite) from Motion tracking, IR scanning, Friend-Foe-Identification, target acquisition, laser range finder, (for Snipers) wind speed acquisition and finally Target calibration.

5) Microphone and speakers (because your ears are gonna be in the helmet as well) with protection for the soldiers hearing (one of the biggest problem on the battlefield is the loss of hearing).

6) Photochromic Bullet proof glass.

7) And the most difficult to implement especially for the U.S, ease of maintenance.  

GarryB wrote:The problem with fully bullet proof helmets is that by the time you perfect such a thing... ie reliable 360 degree protection, but with optics that allow decent vision... ie think of the helmet in Star Wars with the blast shield down so you can't see anything... then mount a camera on the sides and project the view of the camera to the person wearing its eyes... they can see... perhaps even with a 360 degree view in various wavelengths but the helmet offers full protection of the entire head... but of course no matter what level of protection the helmet provides... data-linking that view to a guy well behind friendly lines in a van controlling a robot with guns is much safer for the operator anyway...

Uuhm Garry i think you misunderstood, when i said See-Through OLED displays, i meant something like this:


You know Halo like, not blast shield like.

And robot can't completely replace soldiers yet.

DIC has completed testing of complex robot control

"Unicum" enables the machines independently solve tasks



The combined instrument-making corporation gave the customer an automated control system of robots groups for different purposes. The software package "Unicum" allows machines to solve tasks without human intervention.

"This is Russia's first system of this level, which was successfully tested, recognized and accepted by the final customer of the state - said the deputy director general of the Joint instrument-making corporation, Sergei Skok. - It was made by the specialists of our enterprise "management systems". In fact, this is another step towards the creation of a full artificial intelligence, granting mechanisms almost humanly possible. "

Technology "Unicum" allows in automatic mode to manage up to 10 robotic systems at the same time makes it possible to operate the machines on the battlefield alone or in groups. The robots can independently assign roles within the group, chosen from its ranks "senior", to replace the decommissioned, occupy advantageous positions, look for the target, request authorization from the operator. The system is suitable for use on civilian targets. For example, to protect, to ensure order during mass events, rescue operations and other purposes.

"The software package allows the complete exclusion of a person from the management process and the transition to independent problem solving, - said the head of the" System Management "Sergey Grishin. - This control can be both a centralized, when the operator gives the task to each individual robot and decentralized, when the job gets the group as a whole and within yourself is itself determines how to solve the problem: who is intelligence, and who performs such functions defense or attack. In both cases, robotics has the ability to act independently of the person only when needed at the operator requesting permission to perform some action. "

The software package "Unicum" successfully passed inspection commission of Industry and Trade of Russia and delivered to the customer. Now elaborate on the introduction of technology in real samples of civil and military robots, including unmanned aerial vehicles.

http://rostec.ru/news/4517337

Article on RT regarding trials of software for control of autonomous militray robots:

https://www.rt.com/news/319082-russia-military-artificial-intelligence/

As with all military tech, the main issue is one of application - ie how to use these new toys effectively.  I can foresee the use of autonomous robots as anti-saboteur systems for patrolling remote strategically vital facilities such as missile bases, the refuges used by mobile ICBMs or fixed missile warning radars, at least as an outer defense to supplement human-based security forces concentrated at the actual facilities.  These areas would be openely and publically declared as closed installations, fenced in and sign-posted to warn of lethal safeguards in effect, and robots would roam the area primed to detect unauthorised entry, to remotely perform IFF, and then autonomously eliminate the threat should it fail to signal as a friendly.

The robots could be located near roads and the natural ingress areas, and programmed to patrol an area bounded by GPS co-ords, backed up by a form of inertial navigation based on its track movements if GPS becomes unavailable, and spend much of their time hunkered down in low power mode scanning with low light TV, imaging thermals and acoustic pickups.  On detection of movement, the robot remains hidden but attempts to identify the target using radio IFF (which all authorised vehicles and personnel will need to carry).  A lack of response within an acceptable timeframe results in "executive action".

In peacetime, such action could be remote imaging of the target and upload of images with embedded GPS coords to central command via a satellite or radio link.  A human operator could then take control and operate remotely as needed.

In wartime, the robot would alert command as above, and then, depending on the DEFCON level, it could either (a) fire a warning shot and broadcast a pre-recorded PA message, or (b) go weapons-hot and eliminate the target without warning, choosing between a HMG for personnel and light vehicles, or ATGMs for anything larger as automatically determined by its onboard threat evaluation criteria.

In such a scenario, robots would be EXCELLENT security guards.  They never get tired, never get bored, never suffer from attention deficits, never get cold or hungry, and always obey orders to the last letter.  As long as their on-board power systems can sustain them, they can stay in the field and remain online for weeks or months at a time, especially if they spend most of their time "lurking".

This raises the question of power systems, as they will invariably require electrical power for transmission and sensor/weapons systems.  I can foresee the use of VLRA batteries (or similar) for their superior low temperature tolerance, coupled with a high-efficiency liquid fuelled combustion engine for battery charging duties and activities requiring peak power consumption (eg high speed pursuits).  Its also seems feasible to provide automated refuelling facilities where robots can return to fill their tanks as needed (or even a refueller robot that can rendevous with a combat model if required).

The only limit here is human innovation and political will.  There will doubtless be criticism from those who fear the "killer robots" of Cyberdyne Systems but the key to the technologies acceptance will be in applying the tech in the right areas.  Defensive security systems will be perfectly acceptable for vital strategic and national defense facilities where it is reasonable to assert that to trespass is to invite a quick death, whether it by robot or human soldier...

Center of robotics at the Foundation for Advanced Studies will create at the beginning of 2016

GarryB wrote:If you want real protective helmets why put openings vulnerable to projectiles in them?

There are no windscreens on Tanks for the same reasons...

If you are going to have screens in front of the persons eyes then why not project more than just HUD data?

You could give the person 360 degree views with day/night and all weather capability even an optical zoom function...

Well first of all it'll look less cool more creepy.
And those guys in the tank aren't gonna have in there eyes 24/7

As for 360 view, isn't that impossible, when i think about it all i can picture is something like the gundam cockpit from gundam V.

GarryB wrote:If you want real protective helmets why put openings vulnerable to projectiles in them?

There are no windscreens on Tanks for the same reasons...

If you are going to have screens in front of the persons eyes then why not project more than just HUD data?

You could give the person 360 degree views with day/night and all weather capability even an optical zoom function...

There are a few issues but a most well deserved +1, Garry.

Start up a company and build them.

GarryB wrote:Creepy or not is irrelevant.

Actually the creepyness can provide useful psychological impact on the enemy.

GarryB wrote:Creepy or not is irrelevant.

If you are going to use optics for visual information why not use multiple optics all around the helmet... you could compress the front field of view to half its vertical height and then put the rear field of view also at half height below or above it.


The human eye only focuses on a very small dot of area in the centre of vision with the rest of the field of view out of focus.

To be more precise the sensors in your eyeball in the centre of the point of aim of your eyes see with incredible detail while the outer sensors are far less detailed but are better for seeing motion.

Having two high definition screens in front of your eyes showing what is in front of you and behind you at one time would result in your peripheral vision scanning for movement... which is what it normally does anyway and your central vision scanning details of what you are focusing on.

With sensors detecting where your eyes are actually focused you could display a HUD of data and information in the users field of view all the time with information the user might be interested in.

Well, i guess that's another way of doing it, but i still prefer having a visor, anything happens to the cameras id still be able to see and my eyes don't have to burn out by having a constantly illuminating screen on them.

GarryB wrote:

Well, i guess that's another way of doing it, but i still prefer having a visor, anything happens to the cameras id still be able to see and my eyes don't have to burn out by having a constantly illuminating screen on them.

Well if the enemy are using any sort of weapons targeting your eyes do you care about the tiny cameras on your helmet getting damaged? The alternative is you being blinded... I think I would keep my helmet on and be captured or killed rather than have your helmet and be blinded and then captured or killed.

Ooh, come on Garry, i doubt even with today's military sunglasses it wouldn't be easy to blind someone, that's why i added Photochromics in my list, and are you saying cameras can't be blinded?

Even if the enemy doesn't use blinding weapons why protect the sides of your head but not the front?

It's not like your front is going to be completely naked, and it's not easy to hit either.

Your eyes are the most vulnerable part of your head while their performance can be replicated and even bettered with different optical devices.

No arguments here, just differences in implementation.

And for the same reasons I would not have gaps for the soldiers ears... microphones on the outside and headphones on the inside. You can have capable powerful direction finding microphones with dampening so rifle fire does not deafen the soldier nor artillery injure their ears and you can also have backup basic microphones in case the primary ones fail.

There's a difference between having a speaker in your ear and having a screen constantly shining in your eyes, the later degrades your eyes over time.

For optics you can have dozens of tiny lens cameras all around the helmet including low light and thermal lenses for night vision.

you could blue tooth the view from your rifle scope too for shooting around corners without sticking your head around corners... plus a chest camera in case the cameras on your helmet are taken out... odds are they wont all be take out of course, but you could have 50 camera lenses in your helmet the thickness of a human hair but with 10 exposed and working. If some are damaged or get dirt in them and you can't get it out easily then uncover another 10 cameras and still have 30 lens apatures covered and ready if needed using fibre optics you might only actually have one or two cameras protected inside the helmet... as shown with modern mobile phones they can be tiny yet very powerful.

Although most of what can be done with such a helmet can also be accomplished with one that has a visor, the back-up camera thing would be indeed very useful.

Perhaps a hybrid approach, is in order.

Add in navigation and communications and range finding with a digital data link and anything you see can be photographed or videoed and sent up the line to HQ... including its location on a battle map...

Agreed, that's much is logical for both.

Actually the closest thing that exists and comes to the protection you want is the russian TIG helmet.

It withstands pistol rounds up to the calibre of Tokarev 7.62x25mm which is a very powerfull calibre for pistols and penetrates most BP vests of class 2-3.

GarryB wrote:

Ooh, come on Garry, i doubt even with today's military sunglasses it wouldn't be easy to blind someone, that's why i added Photochromics in my list, and are you saying cameras can't be blinded?

Camera lenses can of course be damaged and dazzled, but if you have large numbers of small cameras like those on tablets or phones around the helmet when one is dazzled or destroyed then backup models can be turned on with visors so only the immediate area is visible to allow the soldier to find cover quickly while sending a warning to nearby troops that blinding lasers are in operation in the area.

If you had a visor the first thing you know that you are being attacked by blinding lasers... is when you can't see... that sounds like more fun than it probably is...  

It's not like your front is going to be completely naked, and it's not easy to hit either.

I don't know of any transparent material visors that will stop bullets or lasers...

No arguments here, just differences in implementation.

So you agree the brain is vulnerable and should be protected with a helmet, and presumably a persons hearing is important and needs to be covered and protected but that a persons sight is not worth giving full protection to?  Fair enough.

There's a difference between having a speaker in your ear and having a screen constantly shining in your eyes, the later degrades your eyes over time.

If the alternative is a 5 watt laser beam then I will go for the screen every time....

Perhaps a hybrid approach, is in order.

A visor creates a large weak spot right in front of the face. I can understand having a hard visor that can be opened in case resusitation is needed, or for food or drink... but perhaps I have been playing too much Stalker but I think helmets can become more than just tin pots to protect the top and sides and rear of the head...

Build in optics and comms and indeed breath filtering systems like a gas mask... the options are endless...

things to be considered include.. do you fix the helmet to the shoulder support body armour like a diving bell helmet with displays in front of the eyes showing a full 360 degree view... or do you have a fixed helmet with VR and let the user turn their head with the information displayed on glasses they wear inside the helmet... or allow the head to move and only show where the user is looking rather than displaying everything...

Taking all points in account a hybrid of the two methods would be solid, visor when thing are calm and cameras when thing heat up.