In recent years, Russia has created a large number of uninhabited combat modules: "Crossbow", "Boomerang-BM", AU-220M "Baikal", "Epoch", etc. The new Russian main battle tank "Armata" received an uninhabited tower with the main weapon system. Despite the fact that uninhabited combat modules have existed for more than a dozen years, their use in battle still raises questions. The main one sounds like this: is such a weapon a tribute to fashion or is it really a necessary technical solution?
The appearance of uninhabited combat modules
Unmanned combat modules, or, as they are also called, remotely controlled combat modules (DUBM), first appeared in the late 1980s. The need for such devices was felt by one of the most howling armies in the world - the Israeli. It was in this country that uninhabited combat modules became widespread, the Israelis installed DBMS on their armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers. The main purpose of the appearance of such installations was to reduce losses among personnel. It also always contributes to a reduction in the number of crews of military equipment. Currently, Israel is actively continuing to develop such types of weapons, fully understanding their importance in modern realities. One of the latest Israeli developments is an uninhabited tower with cannon and rocket armament for the Namer heavy armored personnel carrier, built on the basis of the Merkava tank.
The Israelis immediately appreciated the combat effectiveness of such modules. Their losses in manpower from accidental or heavy fire during operations in the Arab territories decreased several times. At the same time, uninhabited combat modules demonstrated their effectiveness both in the conditions of counter-terrorist operations in open areas and in conditions of dense urban development.
Following Israel, the Americans showed interest in uninhabited combat modules. The US Army felt the need for this type of weapons during the second Iraqi campaign, which began in 2003. Serial production of uninhabited combat modules for the needs of the American army was established in 2006-2008. At the same time, the suppliers of such systems were not only American companies, but also firms from Israel and Norway. Ultimately, the units that performed combat missions in Iraq used about 700 RWS М151 Protector unmanned combat modules manufactured by the Norwegian company Kongsberg, as well as about 200 М101 CROWS modules manufactured by the American company Recon Optical. Usually, DUBM were installed on HMMWV armored vehicles of various modifications, as well as Stryker wheeled armored personnel carriers.
It is worth noting that uninhabited combat modules were previously used in aviation or in the navy, but in the ground forces they began to be actively used only in recent decades. All such installations are implemented within the framework of one concept, when the main armament of a combat vehicle is placed in a separate module, and the crew or crew are either reliably hidden by armor in the hull or capsule, or are located at a distance from the combat module. At the same time, the crew or the crew, being in conditions of maximum possible safety, are able to confidently hit targets on the battlefield, including using high-precision weapons. In modern realities, when local military conflicts arise around the world, the need for such modules that increase the combat capabilities of motorized rifle units and ensure a decrease in personnel losses is only growing.
In Russia today, a large number of various models of DBMS with machine-gun, cannon and cannon-rocket armament have been created. In this regard, Russian designers follow global trends, although in our country such modules are still less common than in the armies of Western countries and are not mass-produced. With the exception of the BMPT "Terminator" released in homeopathic quantities, in which the main armament is placed in a separate remotely controlled combat module.
Dispute about the usefulness of an uninhabited combat module
Despite the fact that uninhabited combat modules with a different composition of weapons are created, mass-produced and used in hostilities, disputes about their effectiveness and usefulness arise from time to time. If such modules were created by only one country and did not find widespread use, this could still be talked about. However, such weapons are being actively developed by a huge number of states, have already been put into service and are used in hostilities. The same Russian BMPT "Terminator" were tested in combat conditions in Syria. Therefore, one should not even doubt the competence of the designers who are constantly working on new remotely controlled combat modules.
The main arguments of the opponents of such combat modules, which are sometimes called weapons for parades and reviews, include the likelihood of being easily hit by small arms fire and fragments of shells and mines of complex optical devices and other important equipment that is part of the fire control system. At the same time, in real combat conditions, all the optics important for the FCS are covered with armored flaps and bulletproof glass. Naturally, sophisticated optics, radars, sensors, like any other equipment, can be disabled by concentrated fire or direct hits, including from large-caliber automatic weapons and automatic cannons. But with the same success it is possible to disable modern panoramic and thermal imaging sights on tanks and other armored vehicles and with manned turrets, which has been demonstrated more than once in the course of local military conflicts in recent decades.
At the same time, dense enemy fire or sniper fire, which poses the greatest threat to modern optics, is dangerous only at a limited range. Most of all in a city, when the enemy can get close to armored vehicles at a close distance. But in this case, it is worth fearing not the defeat of the elements of the MSA, but the destruction of the entire vehicle along with the crew. At the same time, modern uninhabited combat modules are equipped with sophisticated reconnaissance and target designation systems, thermal imagers, automatic target tracking, which significantly increases the fire capabilities of such devices. The presence in their composition of automatic artillery weapons and ATGM allows you to hit targets at a great distance. Therefore, armored vehicles equipped with such modules can confidently hit targets at a distance of up to 3-5 kilometers. At such a distance, vehicles with a DBM are invulnerable to enemy small arms fire, no matter how dense they are. And most snipers of squads or platoons are armed with weapons that can confidently hit growth targets at a distance of up to 600, maximum 800 meters. The use of professional snipers or soldiers of special operations forces, armed with large-caliber ultra-precise sniper rifles (anti-material), capable of hitting targets at a distance of 1.5-2 kilometers, also seems unlikely to combat armored vehicles. In this case, it is much easier to use ATGMs, which, if the outcome is successful for the calculation, can disable any military equipment.
At the same time, not every enemy has in his arsenal a sufficient number of anti-material rifles, anti-tank systems and missiles for them. Modern wars are no longer clashes of armies of equal strength. Often, hostilities are conducted against terrorist or weakly armed separatist formations. In such conditions, armored vehicles equipped with uninhabited combat modules are especially effective, allowing them to confidently hit targets from a safe distance for the crew. As experts note today, thanks to the use of modern SLA in combat modules with good software and computer components, the process of reconnaissance and targeting has been significantly reduced compared to manned turrets. It is the fast pointing phase and the subsequent high-precision hitting of the target that is one of the advantages of modern DUBM.
The disadvantages of such modules are often also referred to as their poor maintainability in the field or in the army's rear. Indeed, modern systems are very complex both mechanically and electronically. With a high degree of probability, it will simply not be possible to repair such a module in a field workshop, which will require sending either the dismantled module or the entire machine for factory repair. On the other hand, in modern local wars this is no longer as critical as it would be in a large-scale armed conflict during the Second World War. At the same time, uninhabited combat modules save the most valuable resource of any country - human lives. The loss of a trained soldier for the state will potentially result in much greater material losses than the repair of the module. So this is no longer a question of price, but a question of the development and improvement of technologies.
Modern remotely controlled combat modules are not a tribute to fashion and are not a waste of money. First of all, these are highly effective and very complex systems that can significantly increase the combat capabilities of motorized rifle subunits while reducing human losses. Modern wars are getting closer to becoming machine wars. This is evidenced by the constant development of unmanned vehicles and a variety of robotic systems. Progress cannot be stopped, uninhabited combat modules are part of this inexorable progress in military affairs, while not the most radical part of it.
