Those machines need controllers. They can only see what the lens sees. They are largely untested in combat with the exception being the aircraft
drones. They are largely successful in open, deforested terrain.
They will be of limited use in many other areas of the world.
For the little tracked vehicle with the weapons mounted on board, vulnerabilities would include the lenses, antennas, and tracks. No lens, no see.
No antenna, no see. No tracks, no go. And I'm really curious how fire-proof they are. That ammunition starts cooking off . . .
Oh. I wonder how good it is at driving over a deadfall hole? If it crashes through, will soldiers come to pull it out? And won't that leave them
vulnerable to a well-placed shot, or remotely detonated mine?
What if some jerk does just that, and using a deadfall weight, flip the thing over as it passes over a cable? Can it flip itself back over? Or is it
now vulnerable?
The little vertical hover craft? Ever seen a harpoon used? Shot straight up? You can bring down a full-sized helicopter with one of those, and just
how hard will it be to bring down one of these smaller craft? A fiberglass javelin? An arrow with lightweight monofilament will really foul up a
rotary aircraft.
Nice toys, some uses of course, but they aren't mature technologies.
Our loss in Viet Nam was caused by whiz kids who relied on too many bells and whistles, too much reliance on technology, and forgot all about
blistering, intuitive leadership.
The technology will only enhance knowing, intuitive leadership. Not replace it.



