UGV and military robot concepts

Mis_TR_Like

Contributor
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
1,298
Reactions
25 4,926
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
APCs aren't going anywhere anytime soon, simply because troops need to be transported safely.

However, the issue with all AFVs is situational awareness. Once you've spotted your enemy, they've likely spotted you too, and it's a game of who shoots first. There is little room for error, as an exposed turret usually means an exposed body too.

Telescopic E/O poles are a step on the right direction, but ideally we should go much further with this.

In my opinion we should use Kaplan UGV as a test bed for a completely new type of turret; a robotic arm that can carry machine guns or missiles. This could be used not only to peak around corners without exposing the body of the vehicle, but also for peering over low buildings and walls.
 

YeşilVatan

Contributor
Messages
485
Reactions
9 1,227
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
APCs aren't going anywhere anytime soon, simply because troops need to be transported safely.

However, the issue with all AFVs is situational awareness. Once you've spotted your enemy, they've likely spotted you too, and it's a game of who shoots first. There is little room for error, as an exposed turret usually means an exposed body too.

Telescopic E/O poles are a step on the right direction, but ideally we should go much further with this.

In my opinion we should use Kaplan UGV as a test bed for a completely new type of turret; a robotic arm that can carry machine guns or missiles. This could be used not only to peak around corners without exposing the body of the vehicle, but also for peering over low buildings and walls.
That would be very useful in urban operations but I have reservations regarding the technical aspects. Can handle the recoil? Will the mechanism that is in the telescopic part be reliable enough? Will all these new stuff take up too much space/weight? Will it be worth it? That kind of thing. I honestly think the telescopic part can be just sensors and something like a mete mini missile.

Also it needs to be named Uzun Hasan (NATO designation: Lanky Boi)
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
964
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,716
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
In my opinion we should use Kaplan UGV as a test bed for a completely new type of turret; a robotic arm that can carry machine guns or missiles. This could be used not only to peak around corners without exposing the body of the vehicle, but also for peering over low buildings and walls.
That is needlessly complicated, completely unnecessary given that most of the scouting is being done by drones these days and utterly ridiculous.
 

Mis_TR_Like

Contributor
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
1,298
Reactions
25 4,926
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
That is needlessly complicated, completely unnecessary given that most of the scouting is being done by drones these days and utterly ridiculous.
Although complicated, it is not exactly far fetched. The technology for it exists.

All around the world UGVs are being made. Most of them are small tracked vehicles with machine guns mounted on them. But we are seeing larger ones such as FNSS Gölge Süvari... These are the first steps towards a battlefield that will be dominated by unmanned assets. Once you remove the need for crew members, you open up the vehicle to new opportunities, such as the robotic arm I mentioned. Add advanced AI into the equation and you've got a literal terminator. The advantage of missiles or machine guns being carried on the tip of the arm should be obvious.

Look at how the war in Ukraine has developed, air defences of both sides have made it difficult to fully utilise air power. Imagine the difference that such vehicles could make.

We need to think outside the box.

That would be very useful in urban operations but I have reservations regarding the technical aspects. Can handle the recoil? Will the mechanism that is in the telescopic part be reliable enough? Will all these new stuff take up too much space/weight?

There's no doubt that there would be a lot of shortfalls initially. But AFV design has stagnated. Yes protection is getting better and all their subsystems are getting more advanced, but their designs have all become very similar. This is largely a result of space for crew members + troops which limits their potential to a box with a low profile turret on top. However if internal space is no longer needed, it can be dedicated to housing and counterbalancing the articulating robotic arm.

The next step after this would be bipedal robot soldiers, but the technology simply isn't there yet.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,955
Reactions
64 7,184
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
@Mis_TR_Like I agree with what @boredaf Is saying ( not the language though🙃)
These are the first steps towards a battlefield that will be dominated by unmanned assets. Once you remove the need for crew members, you open up the vehicle to new opportunities, such as the robotic arm I mentioned. Add advanced AI into the equation and you've got a literal terminator. The advantage of missiles or machine guns being carried on the tip of the arm should be obvious.

As we know this kind of robotic arms are already in use with police and counter terrorism units on small unmanned vehicles. Tbh, they are effective in CQB/CQC.
However, in open terrain full scale conventional warfare an upscaled version of such concept doesn't have
that much of practical use.

Add advanced AI into the equation and you've got a literal terminator.

Okay, that is not going to happen anytime in the near future. Autonomous ground warfare is far more difficult and complicated than autonomous Areal warfare.

And i am not even expecting fully Autonomous areal warfare anytime before 2040 let alone Autonomous ground warfare.
( Later will arrive at least after a decade after the former arrives in doctrinal uses )
Even with Autonomous ground vehicles, human soldier would stil be operating alongside those in future battle field. In this scenario the most logical tactical concept is MUM-T. And to successfully implement that, human in needs to be the one in charge and man in loop.

Otherwise, a literal autonomous killing machine like 'terminator' ( as you described it ) with its own free decision making would simply be a disaster for allied forces.

Not because it is going to trun on against its fellow human soldiers but rather if it's makes decisions on its own and start shooting, there would be tremendous lack of coordination. ( which is the best recipe for disaster in modern battle field ) It is simply bacause human brain's decision making does not works how AI works. And there is no way to integrate them ( except in scie fi movies ) So the command and control of the vehicle is definitley needs to be in human hand. The role of AI should be limited only in search, track, identification and targeting mode.
 

Mis_TR_Like

Contributor
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
1,298
Reactions
25 4,926
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
@Mis_TR_Like I agree with what @boredaf Is saying ( not the language though🙃)


As we know this kind of robotic arms are already in use with police and counter terrorism units on small unmanned vehicles. Tbh, they are effective in CQB/CQC.
However, in open terrain full scale conventional warfare an upscaled version of such concept doesn't have
that much of practical use.



Okay, that is not going to happen anytime in the near future. Autonomous ground warfare is far more difficult and complicated than autonomous Areal warfare.

And i am not even expecting fully Autonomous areal warfare anytime before 2040 let alone Autonomous ground warfare.
( Later will arrive at least after a decade after the former arrives in doctrinal uses )
Even with Autonomous ground vehicles, human soldier would stil be operating alongside those in future battle field. In this scenario the most logical tactical concept is MUM-T. And to successfully implement that, human in needs to be the one in charge and man in loop.

Otherwise, a literal autonomous killing machine like 'terminator' ( as you described it ) with its own free decision making would simply be a disaster for allied forces.

Not because it is going to trun on against its fellow human soldiers but rather if it's makes decisions on its own and start shooting, there would be tremendous lack of coordination. ( which is the best recipe for disaster in modern battle field ) It is simply bacause human brain's decision making does not works how AI works. And there is no way to integrate them ( except in scie fi movies ) So the command and control of the vehicle is definitley needs to be in human hand. The role of AI should be limited only in search, track, identification and targeting mode.
Thanks for the thorough response. I'm going to sleep soon so can't reply to everything you wrote. But I will address the main points.

I think we will be in for a shock. Advanced militaries may launch operations where the entire first phase is conducted by autonomous systems, with or without human input. Not only would this minimise casualties, but it will also demoralise the enemy.

I think a lot of people are underestimating just how good AI is getting. Combine that with the fact that machines don't fear dying...

Countries like China and Türkiye aren't only mass producing UCAVs but also building an entire naval fleet comprised of unmanned vessels. Land is the next frontier, but it will require a radically new vehicle design. It doesn't make sense to use traditional turret designs unless we are purely talking about cost effectiveness and manufacturing ease.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom