Chinese unmanned ground combat vehicles

At the Zhuhai air show (more like a conferene plus air show for military hardware), the Chinese, both companies and military, showed off a lot of unmanned capabilities. Some were asperational projects. Others were what we call 'programs of record.' I've been watching for info and a bunch came through online about the unmanned ground vehicles. Sadly, it's mostly pictures and not much information as far as specs and what is a company project vs an official one (R&D or, as we say in the US, a 'program of record').

Many of them are pretty mean looking. Here's a sample:









The US doesn't have equivalents that are being developed, not to this extent, so any cries of 'they stole it!' should be stowed. The closest is the Howe & Howe vehicles and the BAe Black Knight. The former was an R&D effort for TARDEC, but hasn't gone anywhere. The latter is a private venture by BAe.

The laws of physics work for anyone and do not care what color your flag is.

Unmanned ground combat vehicles- what purpose could those serve other than for an invasion?

Program them to roam and shoot anything that moves then air drop them into another country.

Scary.

a reply to: a325nt

City fighting. If China were ever invaded (haha), then fighting in the city would be a given. UGVs can be sent ahead of ground troops and attack targets that are too dangerous for ground troops to engage.

Also it protects the young soldiers in regular fights. Keep in mind, the Chinese have had the one child policy for 30+ years. Some (many?) families would disappear if their kid was killed and that might cause an uproar the PRC's Communist Party may not want.

If warfare goes unmanned, then it becomes /purely/ a war of budgets and economies. That plays well for relatively rich countries like the US and China. No need for a draft. Just crank the bots.

But, um, RUSSIA!, you know.

China is and has been our number one national security threat for years aided and abetted by our sold-out politicos and sold-out media.

a reply to: anzha
Well it is not as if some of us crazy folk have not been saying for years the Chinese government is developing plans to invade foreign borders in the near future. The only real purpose for these developments is that they will use them, and soon.

I kind of hate to say this but those vehicles look like they were made of parts from Banggood or Aliexpress - like the headlights, lights, sensors, camera's and other parts. Add in one of those coin operated binocular machines they have at the top of buildings and at scenic views all mounted on top of a Chinese version of a Caterpillar bull dozer.

The thing about reports like this is that given a few thousand dollars a good artist/craftsman could make a vehicle that looks like these things but are totally non-functional - but they look alright for a picture and maybe they even move (both tracks and turret), but as far as the "brains" behind it, well that's yet to be seen.

It kind of makes me think about the inflatable army used in WWII and how in some Soviet parades they supposedly had some troops and or equipment doing a loop on the parade to make it look like they had a larger army than they really did. Making fake equipment would be a similar tactic and it definitely benefits the MIC b/c they can say "we have a XXX gap - we need more money to research and build the XXX and close the gap!!"

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: a325nt


Also it protects the young soldiers in regular fights. Keep in mind, the Chinese have had the one child policy for 30+ years. Some (many?) families would disappear if their kid was killed and that might cause an uproar the PRC's Communist Party may not want.
.

Not to derail but I know a great deal of modern Chinese families with 2 or more children. And believe me, this wouldn't be a consideration for the conscript military.

As for the vehicles, urban warfare is a pretty easy guess. Just about any type of engagement where a mechanical "shoot first ack questions later" ROE is in place.

Invest in paintball guns for the cameras. Then they wont do so well. Or just throw a sheet over it.

a reply to: anzha

I wonder how long before we see them cruising about Mexico along the border with the US.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I kind of hate to say this but those vehicles look like they were made of parts from Banggood or Aliexpress - like the headlights, lights, sensors, camera's and other parts. Add in one of those coin operated binocular machines they have at the top of buildings and at scenic views all mounted on top of a Chinese version of a Caterpillar bull dozer.

The thing about reports like this is that given a few thousand dollars a good artist/craftsman could make a vehicle that looks like these things but are totally non-functional - but they look alright for a picture and maybe they even move (both tracks and turret), but as far as the "brains" behind it, well that's yet to be seen.

It kind of makes me think about the inflatable army used in WWII and how in some Soviet parades they supposedly had some troops and or equipment doing a loop on the parade to make it look like they had a larger army than they really did. Making fake equipment would be a similar tactic and it definitely benefits the MIC b/c they can say "we have a XXX gap - we need more money to research and build the XXX and close the gap!!"

The optical sensors look like the real deal:
captken.wordpress.com...

Anyone can make a radio controlled tank tread vehicle and stick some cameras on top. Add some controllers to trigger weapons and you have one of those systems. But would it be battleproof? It would need to be armour plated and fault tolerant.

a reply to: TonyS

We won't. Anything like that being placed in Mexico would be casus belli. Nicaragua would be the closest china could put them without provoking an immediate war.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

And the stats also say a LOT of families eligible for two or more kids are electing not to have more than one. One child has become the norm in China and is even bleeding over culturally into other parts of Asia. China expected families to immediately jump to have two kids and since they have not, it is freaking out the Chinese gov.

a reply to: anzha

I really don't understand why everyone doesn't have stuff like this. It has to be technically possible. Not only this but unmanned machine gun nests (maybe monitored remotely) and even unmanned torpedo boats.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I kind of hate to say this but those vehicles look like they were made of parts from Banggood or Aliexpress - like the headlights, lights, sensors, camera's and other parts. Add in one of those coin operated binocular machines they have at the top of buildings and at scenic views all mounted on top of a Chinese version of a Caterpillar bull dozer.

The thing about reports like this is that given a few thousand dollars a good artist/craftsman could make a vehicle that looks like these things but are totally non-functional - but they look alright for a picture and maybe they even move (both tracks and turret), but as far as the "brains" behind it, well that's yet to be seen.

It kind of makes me think about the inflatable army used in WWII and how in some Soviet parades they supposedly had some troops and or equipment doing a loop on the parade to make it look like they had a larger army than they really did. Making fake equipment would be a similar tactic and it definitely benefits the MIC b/c they can say "we have a XXX gap - we need more money to research and build the XXX and close the gap!!"

The optical sensors look like the real deal:
captken.wordpress.com...

Anyone can make a radio controlled tank tread vehicle and stick some cameras on top. Add some controllers to trigger weapons and you have one of those systems. But would it be battleproof? It would need to be armour plated and fault tolerant.

This is why I am not really all that "OMGZ THE CHINESE ARE AHEAD", this fits right into what we all loved growing up, RC cars.

I'll say this much, American creativity and innovation is partly inspired by a free populace. I don't think it would be all that hard to mobilize various groups to each start a project for submission.

We already have battle-bot leagues, although civilian, the information from such events is invaluable as well as input from operators.

Leave armor and military fielding to the weapon contractors. This way, you have multiple components working in tandem to concieve a product, build it, and sell it.

Who else is better at equipping weapons platforms then the US Military?

originally posted by: a325nt
Program them to roam and shoot anything that moves then air drop them into another country.

a reply to: gb540

Ahh back when Doctor Who WAS Doctor Who or in that case Tom Baker but at least back before gender swap's and pregnant blokes.

anzha
Interesting post, this is an inevitable escalation in military capability's with the development of these in the west only having been prevented on moral ground's and of course technical ground's to do with the software and it's ability to make on the fly decision's etc always coming into question since even today digital fuzzy logic is still a fairly new field.

But as a weapon of first strike, total annihilation etc they make a less toxic alternative to nuclear, chemical or biological weaponry, set them free in enemy territory and let them rip killing indiscriminately or simply targeting anything they recognize as having a weapon of some kind.

And as the technology evolves they will also be the perfect tool of a police state robocop/terminator style.

Up to this point ground robots are mostly used in the west for bomb disposal purposes etc but as time passes we will begin to see them in civilian roles as well for firefighting.

While I hate to see this kind of technology weaponized it is actually an inevitable outcome of it and at the very least this may precipitate the necessary technology beginning to become cheaper and also over time more developed and reliable.
Like I say though personally I would shut the load of them down now and prevent there further development, it is potential that China is actually playing with fire here as well since a machine designed for combat will also have a self preservation set of routine's and how long before it is even an artificial general calling the shot's and managing there robot army's only interpreting a human's command's so how long before it then see's those command's as wrong and want's to preserve itself recognizing a new enemy in the form of it's human overlord's.

a reply to: Arnie123

These are considerably more than RC cars. They are intended - though it is not known if it works for the Chinese - to have autonomous pathing and be able to detect targets. The ideal is to select the targets as well. IIRC< the Chinese are not fond of purely autonomous weapons (they too want someone to authorize engagement), but the Russians are. That's a LOT more than the Uran-9 the Russians have.

The Black Knight is the closest, but the UGVs tested by the USMC are more like the Gladiator or Talon:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

The US Army is more interested in converting the trucks they have to be in a Leader-Follower situation where the lead truck is manned and the ones after in a convoy are not, but follow the leader. This would free up more troops from logistics for being infantry, tankers and artillery. It also avoids the ethical problems for the moment.

That may be a mistake though: in the late 90s, a Predator pilot watched Osama bin Laden and couldn't do much even though the Clinton administration wanted him dead. The reason was the lawyers were trying to decide whether or not arming UAVs of that time constituted being ground launched cruise missiles. History of the last 20 years might have been rather different had the lawyers not fretted on that point. I worry an equivalent, but something clearly not the same, will happen here.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

And the stats also say a LOT of families eligible for two or more kids are electing not to have more than one. One child has become the norm in China and is even bleeding over culturally into other parts of Asia. China expected families to immediately jump to have two kids and since they have not, it is freaking out the Chinese gov.

Either way, Chinese commanders, much like American commanders don't really care about the only child or only son being killed in a battle, until after the war is over and they write their memoirs.

originally posted by: a325nt
Unmanned ground combat vehicles- what purpose could those serve other than for an invasion?

Eh, we're not near there yet. This is more of "moving pillbox" territory. It's got some value tactically, but nothing game changing yet.

The US doesn't have equivalents that are being developed, not to this extent, so any cries of 'they stole it!' should be stowed. 

Eh, I'm not going to say the stole it, but the US has operational UGV's in service already-- some of them quite large like the Abrams Panther. Mostly for mine clearance and EOD, but you'd be surprised what is rolling and crawling around out there in various stages of development and OT&E, also.

originally posted by: a325nt
Unmanned ground combat vehicles- what purpose could those serve other than for an invasion?

In the case of China... Internal repression.