Army of the Future: Russian combat Robots

The US already has thousands of military robots and unmanned aircraft in Afghanistan. As for the prospect of killer robots stalking the battlefield Russia is catching up, with a Russian team building one too.

This entry was posted in Robots and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Army of the Future: Russian combat Robots

  1. LightCrasher says:

    Tesla was a genius, but he did not invented it, despite a claim.

  2. themostdismal says:

    It was a tactical and human disaster for the Soviets and the territorial gains were very limited. Quite pathetic for a nation that had been preparing for war for at least 2 decades, spending at least 1/3 of its GDP on the military.

  3. 12ock says:

    what would the chinese say?

  4. AWtify says:

    Sure. Because the finns ceded their territory to the Soviets.

  5. Blagger3000 says:

    My mother-in-law is a robot and has been sent to the moon no less than 12 times. Bitch still keeps coming back though!

  6. Nickael7 says:

    Go Check who has the final claim !!! Its Tesla…

  7. LightCrasher says:

    Actually, it`s not correct. Human needs food, education, payment, medicine, clothes etc. Robot needs only construction, energy, maintaining repair and control.

  8. LightCrasher says:

    Actually Popov and Marcony independently from eatch other invented radio.

  9. themok1998 says:

    lol if they going make more of this it will going look like black ops 2 and once they get the codes… hell breaks out xD

  10. whiskeycompany13 says:

    lol kingkong

  11. Nickael7 says:

    Have U KingKong ???

  12. themostdismal says:

    Yeah the Finnish war was a real success for the Soviets haha.

  13. whiskeycompany13 says:

    have u been to space mr.troll? 

  14. Vault87Fallout says:

    more manverable to untill NATO start using big dog

  15. itzxmj1 says:

    The NASA link is related only to budgetary history to emphasize cost of the space programs they conducted, The $170 billion apollo program cost shows private people/companies and even governments would have extreme difficulty conducting moon missions, in comparison to robotic missions. I don’t see you see it as ‘NASA is crap’ especially considering what they got done with their money. The other link has general statistics and is not exclusive to US programs.

  16. Nickael7 says:

    HAHA ! Nasa is crap. Thanks for posting their failures. So the Westerlies has gon into Westerthruth.

  17. itzxmj1 says:

    It takes like 2 seconds to look this stuff up, I’m amazed you need the help. h t t p : / / w w w . thespacereview . com /article/1598/1 This shows failure rate is closer to 10 to 1, not 1000 to 1 like you said. h t t p : / / science . ksc . nasa . gov /shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/Butts_NASA’s_Joint_Cost-Schedule_Paradox_-_A_History_of_Denial . pdf This talks about cost

  18. Nickael7 says:

    You don’t have any proof to say otherwise, again you’re wrong. Another petty excuse of yours. :)

  19. itzxmj1 says:

    I’m not diverting the conversation, my last post relates to it perfectly, you asked why no manned launches occured and I answered. Failure rates are more than 1 in 1000 if you look at records of launches and manned flights are much more complicated. Also, cost concerns prevent just about any individuals or even countries from easily repeating what occured with the apollo program; they are much more expensive than robotic missions, this is probably the most significant reason for no moon travels.

  20. Nickael7 says:

    Nice excuse to divert the conversation, the idea of this is to send a man to the moon and prove otherwise. Disaster happens once a while, but not a every 1000 or even less launches.

  21. itzxmj1 says:

    High technology spacecraft are indeed capable of failure due to their highly complicated natures and the amount of variables that can affect them, though many work, failure rates can still make them dangerous. Even very recent failures have occured in space launches, i.e. phobos-grunt which was to carry Russian/Chinese/US science related equipment into space and should have had high standards. Inflight complications like those on the columbia shuttle’s loss can pose a threat too.

  22. Nickael7 says:

    Good try though. But it doesn’t work that way in reality, that’s why there is what we call -quality inspection- before sending a rocket into space. No idiot in this world will send right away a rocket into space without passing QC inspections.

  23. itzxmj1 says:

    Robots are much cheaper, and safer if the spacecraft has a malfunction, do you ever think of all those spacecraft countries launch that end up crashing or getting blown up? Also I just posted a link on what the van allen belt is and I’m familiar with it, I recommend you read it some more too.

  24. Nickael7 says:

    Check on videos what’s for the Van Allen belt, before looking a link for your own interest. “apollo program cost was close to 170 billion $ adjusted for inflation, no individual has that much disposable cash”. During the 90s they had so much money, why they didn’t send more men to the moon fear of thruth or something ??? Yet, you gave me another Westerlies excuses. The Japanese sent a robot to pick samples in direction to the moon, not long ago, why not a man ???

Leave a Reply