Russia and the United States, being the leading countries in the field of military technology, are now developing promising robotic systems of different classes. Such equipment is planned to be used in various fields to solve a wide range of combat and auxiliary tasks. At the same time, the new projects of the two countries differ significantly from each other. Different approaches are taken to solve different problems. The National Interest has tried to find out whose methods and ideas are better.
On August 11, in The Buzz, the newspaper published a new article by Charlie Gao “Russia vs. America: Which Nation Will Dominate Unmanned Ground Vehicles? " - "Russia versus America: which country will dominate in the field of ground-based unmanned vehicles?" As the title suggests, the author not only considered actual projects, but tried to establish which of them have advantages already at the conceptual level.
At the beginning of the article, the author recalls the recent combat use of Russian combat robots "Uran-9" in Syria. The very fact of sending such equipment into the combat zone at one time became the reason for the emergence of different assessments and versions regarding the use of robots in future conflicts. Ch. Gao believes that the first episodes with the participation of "Uranus-9" were not particularly successful, but technologies are developing, and this will lead to understandable results. The next mission in the hot spot will have to end with different results.
In parallel, the United States is developing its own projects of ground-based robotic systems for the army. In this regard, the author proposes to compare the latest Russian and American developments. In addition, he considers it necessary to establish whether such a comparison is worthwhile at all?
The author recalls that most of the information about the plans of the United States in the field of military robots can be found in the white paper "The U. S. Army Robotics and Autonomous Systems Strategy ". Among other things, it identifies five main tasks for the robotics direction. Remotely controlled and automated systems should increase the situational awareness of the human operator, reduce the load on him, improve logistics, optimize maneuverability on the battlefield, and provide protection and fire support.
The strategy lists these goals and objectives in the order in which they are planned to be solved and implemented in practice. From this, in particular, it follows that the US army is in no hurry to create full-fledged combat robots. First of all, it is planned to improve the capabilities of the army in intelligence, for which it is planned to create unarmed ground unmanned vehicles with appropriate equipment. The emergence and implementation of new unmanned logistics platforms should simplify the transfer of troops, as well as reduce the burden on people and other equipment. At the same time, the performance of the transport will remain at the required level and will ensure the correct work of the soldiers.
The construction of unmanned trucks, suitable for use in military transport, is already planned. From such equipment it will be possible to make up whole convoys capable of transporting large volumes of cargo. The advent of unmanned or remotely controlled convoys will ensure the right logistics while reducing personnel risks. In addition, the need for labor will be reduced through automation.
Not so long ago, the US Army published materials demonstrating the alleged appearance of a military operation in an urban environment in 2025. Among other things, an infantry unit was presented there, which has several types of robotic systems. With their help, it carried out reconnaissance and solved transportation tasks. At the same time, there were no combat systems.
Combat robotic systems answer in "The U. S. Army Robotics and Autonomous Systems Strategy "only for solving the last two problems. With their help, it is proposed to protect and support personnel, and in addition, they must increase the unit's maneuverability. Equipment of this class will have to have its own protection, corresponding to the assigned tasks, the necessary mobility and weapons.
The Russian approach to the creation of robotic systems for the army is markedly different from the American one. Apparently, Russia is focusing its efforts on combat systems. Thus, the well-known land-based UAV "Uran-9" was created, first of all, as a carrier of weapons. At the same time, it has a modular architecture that allows the use of different interchangeable devices equipped with a variety of weapons. Due to this, the complex can operate in different conditions and solve different combat missions.
Ch. Gao believes that Uran-9 and other Russian developments in this area are primarily intended for participation in offensive operations. In close cooperation with the personnel, robots must advance on enemy positions, attack them and achieve their goals. The active participation of robots in combat should reduce losses among personnel, including during combat work in urban conditions.
However, according to the author of The National Interest, the approach to the choice of weapons does not correspond to the intended roles on the battlefield. "Uran-9" can be equipped with an automatic cannon, machine gun and rocket-propelled flamethrowers with thermobaric ammunition. Such weapons were tested in battle during the war in Chechnya and proved to be a convenient means for conducting battles in the city.
Also, the Russian industry creates robotic systems based on existing military equipment. The BMP-3 armored vehicle, as well as the T-72B3 and T-14 Armata tanks are being transformed into drones. These developments, in terms of their overall concept and role on the battlefield, hardly differ from the Uran-9 project. They are also intended for open combat with the enemy.
As a result, as the author notes, a fundamental difference appears in the approaches to the formation of concepts and the creation of new models of military equipment. The United States Army focuses on freeing up the workforce in its robotics plans. In addition, she plans to reduce the risks to personnel by more actively collecting information about the current situation.
However, the US military is already discussing the issue of creating combat systems. In such discussions and disputes, a proposal is often made to develop combat vehicles capable of operating autonomously. They will be able to move, search for targets and attack them on their own, without the direct involvement of the operator.
Russian designers also see and understand the prospects for artificial intelligence, but they propose to use them differently. According to Russian views, such systems should remain on the sidelines and solve auxiliary tasks, complementing the remote control from the operator's console. Thus, part of the tasks must be solved by a person, others - by automation under his supervision.
Ch. Gao notes that both "design schools" agree on the same opinion. A military-purpose robotic complex must independently pass through dangerous areas of the terrain, leaving a person outside of them. Moreover, American engineers, unlike Russian ones, believe that the robot should do this completely independently.
Both approaches to building robots have their own strengths. Thus, the Russian concept has advantages over the American concept in the context of a sudden low-intensity conflict. If all the technical tasks of the project are solved, then combat robots will be able to take on part of the missions and thereby reduce human losses. In conditions of local conflict, reducing losses has a higher priority compared to reducing labor costs and the required labor force.
At the same time, it is easy to see why the American army has a desire to get unmanned systems for logistic purposes. The organization of supply based on a large number of convoys is a rather complicated matter, and in addition, it is associated with known risks. Obviously, the loss of an unmanned truck from an improvised explosive device is better than blowing up a car with a crew.
Charlie Gao believes that both approaches proposed by the leading countries have the right to exist and are quite capable of performing the assigned tasks in the context of low-intensity conflict. As for their differences, they are primarily related to the fact that Russia pays more attention to the defeat of the enemy.
At the same time, according to the author, American ideas are able to facilitate the gradual systematic development of the entire field of robotic systems. The industry can create a ground-based reconnaissance drone, which will be able to work out all the necessary means of observation, communication and control. Further, these developments can find application in projects of military equipment. As a result, machines that are completely ready for such work will go into battle.
Using such an approach, according to Ch. Gao, will allow getting rid of some unpleasant situations in the future. So, he recalls that during the tests of "Uranus-9" in Syria, an extremely controversial incident took place. Due to communication problems, the combat vehicle did not obey the operator for 15 minutes. The systematic development of technology will prevent such events.
The existing position of the leading armies of the world is not least due to their desire to master fundamentally new directions. Currently, one of the most interesting and promising sectors is military robotics, and therefore Russia and the United States pay special attention to it. Significant results have already been obtained, and new achievements are expected in the near future.
The article “Russia vs. America: Which Nation Will Dominate Unmanned Ground Vehicles? examines the current state of affairs in robotics in the two countries and notes the characteristic differences between the current programs. At the same time, despite the presence of a question in the title, the article does not give an unambiguous answer. Charlie Gao points out that the Russian and American approaches have certain advantages that matter in certain conditions, but still refrains from answering the question.
It should be noted that the approaches and strategies for the development of military ground drones described in The National Interest concern only priorities. When developing a project for an unmanned army truck, the US industry does not forget about robotic systems of other classes. In the same way, in addition to the combat Uran-9, other projects for other purposes are being created in Russia. In fact, both countries are developing and improving equipment of all major classes. However, some areas of development of robots receive higher priority in comparison with others. In addition, they can be more visible through appropriate lighting.
It should also be noted that the current strategies of the two countries as described by Ch. Gao have some common points. It turns out that both Russia and the United States are creating robotic systems to work in a local conflict. And the difference between the two programs lies in the fact that the Russian military wants to use robots, first of all, in the front line, and the American ones in the rear, where certain risks are also present. In general, both the one and the other approach should ensure the growth of the army's combat capability.
The article in The National Interest does not directly answer the question that became its title. However, this answer does not seem to exist yet. The situation continues to evolve, and what it will lead to is not completely clear. Only one thing is clear: the leading countries of the world are seriously engaged in military robotics, and they are moving in different ways towards solving similar problems.
