Future or Past?
The term "robot" itself is rather vague even in our high-tech age. This is both an autonomous device that independently makes decisions, and an operator-controlled vehicle - in fact, a remotely controlled battle tank. The now famous "veteran" of the Syrian war "Uranus-9" is just such a robot. It is operated by a nearby operator. A person can control his “protégé” through video communication, supplementing this, if possible, with direct observation.
Strictly speaking, there is nothing new in the combat robots themselves. Suffice it to say that all modern unmanned aerial vehicles can also be called "robots". And back in 2014, the US military had at its disposal about ten thousand small UAVs alone. Ground-based robotic systems will also not seem like a novelty to a person interested in this topic. Even during the Second World War, the Germans quite actively used the tracked "Goliath". This is a small disposable tankette with an explosive, which was controlled by an operator via a wire, which, of course, did not increase its combat potential. It was also slow and expensive.
Why, then, is there so much information noise around Uran-9? Everything is simple and complex at the same time. Before us, of course, is not a combat mech from a science fiction movie, but in terms of armament, the Russian robot can compete with a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, and in some situations it is quite capable of dealing with an enemy tank. Standard armament includes a 30mm 2A72 cannon and four Attack anti-tank guided missiles. Solid arsenal.
But in practice, the robot is seen not so much as a "berserker" of the battlefield, but as a reconnaissance and strike unit. However, this modest role, as you know, is not easy. The machine must meet the high requirements of modern warfare. It is likely that it will take years, if not decades, to determine the place of ground-based robotic systems in the combined arms structure.
Speaking specifically about the Russian army, there may simply be no time for Uranus. After all, she has yet to finally define the tasks for the "Terminators" - the new controlled BMOS / BMPT. Of course, the massive use of unmanned combat vehicles in addition to these vehicles (as well as the very diverse composition of main battle tanks) clearly does not contribute to unification and will not benefit the armed forces. If we talk about the narrow use of "Uran-9", for example, for the elimination of unexploded ordnance, the questions become even greater. In this case, the robot's armament seems completely redundant. The weight and dimensions are too large. Therefore, Western SWORDS or Russian RTOs can be called more successful examples of robot designs for such tasks.
Syrian experience
Not so long ago it became known that "Uran-9" was modernized taking into account the experience of its use in Syria. The robot additionally received twelve Bumblebee flamethrowers: an updated version was shown at the Army-2018 military-technical forum. Flamethrowers are assembled in two revolver-type launchers on the sides of the robot tower, each of them contains six flamethrowers. The presented version also has its own standard armament in the form of a cannon and ATGMs.
One of the reasons for the modernization was the shortcomings, which were previously announced by experts from the third central research institute of the Ministry of Defense. They concerned control, mobility, firepower, as well as reconnaissance and observation functions. Experience has shown that when the "Uranus" moves independently, the low reliability of its chassis - support and guide rollers, as well as suspension springs - makes itself felt. Another problem is the unstable operation of the 30-mm automatic cannon, as well as malfunctions in the thermal imaging channel of the optical sighting station.
But those described here, as well as some of the other issues that have been highlighted by the media, are referred to as "childhood illnesses." That is, they can be eliminated over time. Much more unpleasant is the design flaw in the face of the range of application, which is limited to a few kilometers. In addition, the operator, even in the absence of interference and generally "ideal" communication, will not be able to perceive the surrounding reality as well as the crew of a combat vehicle. Of course, in a real war, no one will run after the robot, and the "blind" complex can become an easy target for an ordinary RPG-7. In general, the main conclusion of the report looks like this: in the next ten to fifteen years, ground-based combat robotic systems are unlikely to be able to fully perform tasks in combat conditions. It's hard to argue with that.
Uranus 9: What's Next?
It is not surprising that many rushed to "bury" the project, claiming that it was a banal embezzlement of money. But in this case, the Armed Robotic Combat Vehicle (ARCV) complex being developed by BAE Systems, which was recently presented in an updated form, will also have to be called "fraud". We are not talking about the strange Ukrainian "Phantom-2" (the chances of its serial production are scanty), as well as a number of similar developments from different countries of the world. Why are such complexes still on the agenda?
The current trend is quite obvious - more or less wealthy countries of the world are trying to make the war unmanned. On land, at sea and, of course, in the air. At the same time, purely conceptually, for all their shortcomings, such complexes as "Uran-9" look better than a robot created on the basis of the T-90, T-72 or any other main battle tank. In the latter cases, the vehicle will inherit from the manned version a number of units and mechanisms that are completely unnecessary for it, which will not significantly reduce the mass and dimensions of military equipment. That is, the tank, originally designed as a controlled vehicle, will not work to make it an effective drone. It will be large, expensive, and most likely more vulnerable than the controlled modification. So it is better in this case to use a new base.
In this sense, Uranus-9 cannot be called a waste of money. He gave Russian engineers invaluable knowledge of the design of complex unmanned systems, and the military - a possible understanding of the place of such machines in the general structure of the army of the future. Of course, the "Uran-9" itself is unlikely to become something revolutionary, and foreign customers, most likely, will not be interested in this machine due to its price and the technical problems described above. But, again, all of the above is relevant for a number of other unmanned combat vehicles that are currently being tested.
So what will be the future combat robot that will come (if it comes) to replace the tank? We probably won't see large bipedal mechs: this concept makes the car unnecessarily complex, vulnerable and expensive. It is more likely that a tracked platform will appear, comparable in terms of its weight and dimensions with the Uran-9 complex. However, it will probably no longer be controlled by an operator, but by an artificial neural network.
The latter gives rise to a whole series of new moral and ethical questions, and also raises the question of the banal security of the allied forces. However, all this is already a separate topic for discussion. Let's note another thing: when AI appears, to which people can entrust their lives, the Uran-9 design will probably have time to become outdated, and this is where the experience gained during its creation may come in handy. For a new car. Some, by the way, say that the so-called weapons based on new physical principles, for example, combat lasers or railguns, will take the place of the usual guns or ATGMs. But specifically here everything looks even less certain than with robots like Uranus-9.
