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.

24 thoughts on “Army of the Future: Russian combat Robots

  1. 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.

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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