38 comments

[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 41.7 ms ] thread
"It takes infantry to hold territory" is still true I guess, but now it's a single operator in a bunker.
I’ve been wondering when modern battlefields would get Team Fortress 2 sentries.
This is on my 2026 bingo card of things that never happened.
This smells more like military propagand, i.e., bullshit.

There is no way this is honest or real, i.e., it somehow fought off a tactical unit trying to take the frontline that this drone was holding? Or was it just parked in some area where there was no tactical point of even taking the territory?

Just by virtue of its nature, a single drone and/or a well placed dumb grenade, not even to mention likely a smoke grenade could have easily defeated this thing within seconds of deployment if there was any interest in taking the area this toy was "controlling".

Someone is doing a literal con job to get military graft and fraud contracts.

Are these the ones controlled by Steam Decks?
Is there some sort of hybrid flying/stationary drone that flys in an sits to hold a ground position?
We really are trying our best to make Terminator reality aren't we?
The proportion of videos featuring drones taking out other drones is increasing.
Someone here said "[Russian] tactical units", "smoke grenades". They must be joking.

A drone like this is defending against 2-3 50-year-olds without military experience wading through a bombed out tree-line into almost certain death, because there are literal firing squads waiting if they don't. With a huge round like 12.7, all you have to do is fire pot shots in the general vicinity while drone pilots do the rest. Also, these can be life-savers for an outpost when weather conditions ground all drones.

This is a fluff piece, but these machines might become very real very soon. They're already used for resupply and dropping mines. We have plenty of videos of that from both sides. A few months ago we had a video of one of these taking out an infantry carrier. This is not vaporware. It's a bad approach at worst, but I wouldn't be surprised if this grows exponentially for many years to come.

From the video with one of these robots (maybe the one in the story?)

>We prepared for the combat use of these modules for a very long time. It was a very difficult sector on which the enemy was constantly conducting assault actions. That's why the infantry needed reinforcements. But the robot drone didn't just drive onto the position for a day. Instead of real fighters, an iron one held the line for a month and a half and actually fooled the Russians because they didn't even think about something like this. (https://youtu.be/Ir6sNgW91Hw?t=226)

"Very difficult" and constants assaults doesn't sound like what you describe.

I have to say if I was defending against Russians trying to kill me I'd much rather operate the gun remotely from behind a hill than sit there in range.

> 2-3 50-year-olds without military experience wading through a bombed out tree-line into almost certain death

Yeah, excepts apparently these good for nothing oldtimers are taking 5 to 10 square kilometers per day against entrenched integrated force, capable of launching dozens of killer drones per target at a moment notice. Do you feel the inconsistency here? I do.

Reading between the lines of the article it seems advanced but not too surprising.

I assume that at night when it "withdrew to a covered location" there was opportunity for maintenance, battery swaps, etc.

The article says that it successfully carried out "multiple calls for fire." That sounds like over those 45 days there were multiple missions to provide suppressive fire. They're not explicit about what that means but it sounds like, "if you see anything moving in this arc, take a few shots at them". Presumably there's some AI to prevent it from wasting ammo on really dumb decoys.

A "simple" mobile automated turret has been around for a while. The novelty they would be demonstrating is essentially battlefield robustness. They aren't claiming that this machine can operate completely autonomously for 6 weeks but the incremental pieces are still hard.

I don't understand how it doesn't just get hit by a drone? Is it because the Russian drone pilots all operate from out of theatre and the loss of starlink disabled this?
Nice marketing pitch. In reality it was probably parked at an empty crossroads 10 miles behind the frontline, taking potshots at "suspected" enemy positions.
So what happens in a few years when a submarine pulls up some miles off US coast and unleashes 100 super-automated drones to terrorize the country?

Heck maybe not even a sub needed, some smaller country could have an automated tiny raft too small to be seen on radar tow in the drones

They could charge via phantom power from powerlines and will find a way around GPS jamming

But what if it gets hacked by the russians?
Are these called drones? I thought drones flew.

The article calls this a "Ukrainian unmanned ground vehicle armed with a machine gun" and the headline calls it a "Ukrainian Combat Robot". Not a "drone" like the submitter's title has.

Edit: it seems like the creator calls it a "droid". Is that just them, or is that becoming standard terminology for a kind of ground-based "soldier-robot"? See:

https://devdroid.tech/en/catalog/droid-tw

> each evening, it withdrew to a covered location.

Why? Isn't the advantage that it can stay in a position indefinitely? Does it not have infrared cameras, etc?

Powered by what, exactly? Neither lugging around a few tons of fuel or painting a bullseye on yourself via solar panel array sound practical.
At this point might as well just play strategy video game and call it a day?

Both sides staring at screens, controlling drones fighting each other.. why use physical drones at all? abstract it away and play video game?

In the near future, war might be about who can build faster/better and hit the other economy more effectively, and those who can't produce any more drones, lose.

If you think about, we moved human one-on-one battles to MMA and combat sport, this allowed channeling individual human aggression in a controlled environment. The future war might be not very different, swarm of drones fighting other swarm of drones while others watching on the news, who can build, manage and deploy smarter and more effective drones. If one side economy collapses and their manufacturing collapse, then what is left? they could easily kill the people, but other nations won't allow it, so it will stop at economical defeat.

>> At this point might as well just play strategy video game and call it a day?

Do you agree in case your team lose to be relocated to the remote territory and also be stripped of your language, history and national identity?

> At this point might as well just play strategy video game and call it a day?

> Both sides staring at screens, controlling drones fighting each other.. why use physical drones at all? abstract it away and play video game?

But then how will you gain new territory for oligarchs and billionaires? Are you really ready for the sacrifice that their next yacht will be smaller instead of larger? Do you really want them to withdraw from London's real estate market?

This is surely the future. At some point we will eventually have battles fought entirely by pilot(less) drones? And then war becomes purely economical.
(comment deleted)
But how it was not destroyed by flying Russian drones? Did it shot them down? Or did it have some anti-drone support unit helping it?
> each evening, it withdrew to a covered location.

Interesting - why?