IDEX 2021 MILREM and John Cockerill unveils new unmanned light tank defense exhibition Abu Dhabi UAE
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лют 2021
- At IDEX 2021, defense exhibition in Abu Dhabi, UAE, Belgian company John Cockerill and Estonian company MILREM have signed an MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) to develop and manufacture a new unmanned light tank using the MILREM tracked robot fitted with a CPWS II unmanned weapon station from John Cockerill.
Read full news at this link www.armyrecognition.com/idex_...
Visit our online defense and security magazine and read more news at:
Army Recognition www.armyrecognition.com
Navy Recognition www.navyrecognition.com
Air Recognition www.airrecognition.com
Army Recognition Group
Global Defense & Security News
Defense & Security News Web TV
Online magazine for defense and security industry
Worldwide Defense & Security News
Marketing and advertising for Defense & Security Industry and Exhibitions
Email: marketing@armyrecognition.com - Наука та технологія
Churchill robot tank
The major problem with these is daily maintenance/ rearming and recovery. It would need a companion vehicle to carry ammunition, and crew that can perform the type of maintenance that a normal afv crew needs to perform. As well as that companion vehicle would likely be able to control them, but also would need to be able to tow and recover them. Another thing nice feature would be for one remote operated vehicle to have a way to hook up and be able of towing another remote vehicle without manned intervention.
Won't be too much of a problem in a small countries like Estonia where facilities to house and maintain these vehicles are practically near by. Most likely, in countries like Estonia where manpower is scarce, the vehicle will be most likely be screening against direct hostile engagements, and will end up being on the defensive. That way the robot will be in immediate danger and prevent human casualties and multiply available firepower out on the field that provides better area coverage for patrols and severe weather conditions such as blizzards.
There is also a 'Self Destruct' option. There were some fascinating proposals on the developement table!
Impressive.
The data link will be its Achilles heel.
Nice video and very informative and very entertaining and very satisfaction more videos.
Another automated pointless reply, that contributes nothing to the discussion.
@@Puzzoozoo nah, dude is not wrong, feedback is feedback, might it be negative or positive.
Top
Should it not have reactive armor to deal with infantry anti tank weapons?
Also should it not have an amphibious characteristic since it will be more of a recon and spec ops tool than a mechanized inf?
Still great job
Level one armor is stupid as you mentioned, not even antitank, 12.7 sniper will take it out of the war..
@@mcpuff2318 yeah but its speed, duration will be way way lower. They specifically tell you the best parts, with 1 and then goes like you can upgrade it. They know that nobody will let it go with level 1 protection after spending that much money.. so they better tell the real specifications of it.. i wish the guy also had enough knowledge, so he could ask the main questions. I wish i was hired to work like that)
@@mcpuff2318 about being amphibious, i agree with you, you can always design one with that capabilities in case you need it.. they better do their main job right.. also, nobody wants big guns in these vehicles, make smaller, cheaper, and add anti tank missiles. More than enough.
@@mcpuff2318 mbt are supported by ifv and the ifv by its infantry that's the beauty of that system. When I say amphibious I do not oblige it to be beach landing but able cross small bodies of water, many modern apc and ifv have that ability installed in their rear with discretion.
Correct but stanag 4 does not protect against rpg and and apfds and reactive armor does. It's also somewhat a light armor option
@@mcpuff2318 In regard to the wingman role I imagine it like an unmanned atgm vehicle hunter but then linking the atgm systems with the operators would be complicated.
An AA weapons carrier would also be good.
Ied and mine hunting would be spectacular.
In regard to amphibious well it is not such a problem as you make it but it is my opinion that it should be a must in these type of vehicles due to its recon capabilities.
Very big considering it’s unmanned
He didnt mention what the control range of it, let me tell you, only 3km. So stupid to invest in them and after moving only 3km, they either stop or you loose the control)
As he said, you can only use each for specific missions, getting the top of the hill and so on... for that, i would rather have small ones with 12.7mm or 40mm guns, cheap, and full electric for complete silent and no thermal signature. Because, Karabakh war showed that those drones on top of them able to see the thermal signature of those diesel engines behind them.. sorry for disappointing some here, just wanted you to know ;)
These are SUPPORT vehicles so there is no reason for them to be even a km from its' controller in an IFV or tank.
Being a hybrid it can run on batteries only for no heat signature and charge batteries later. Range is limited by size of batteries. Besides, the control vehicle will always be the more tempting target.
@@RTmadnesstoo i totally understand that its good to have the diesel engine for longer distances, but why to chose it if in reality you cannot be controlled more that 3km away.. i hope you understand my concerns..
Also, why to put big guns, which need to much energy and most probably that why they switched to diesel engine. You can put anti tank missiles against tanks.
@@tankconquerer5428 The Diesel engine is just a battery charger and probably only the primary source. I'm sure it can be charged through other methods. Increasing battery capacity would decrease need for charge frequency.
You keep worrying about the 3km limit but it is never going to be that far from the vehicles and/or people it is supporting. It is NOT an autonomous vehicle. If that becomes the purpose the radios can easily be upgraded.
@@RTmadnesstoo if its not far, those people who control it will also be under mortar, artillery or even antitank missiles range. Or air to ground bombs from opposite sides or UAVs.
Adding more battery adds weight too, you better add fuel that has 6 times more energy with same weight ;) as you got the engine with whole weight unless you dont want transmission as hybrid
Could use for recon or decoy
IDEX Weapon New Type X Vehicle World 👍👍
OK, now the Terminator has been made. I just had been waiting when they put heavy guns on top of the robot wheels. ⚠
1:02 kurtlar vadisi :)))
Estonia should pack there armed forces with these.
We must not rely too much on killer robots, it would be dispoyalty and dishonor. Because robots don't have a soul, a heart and they don't know loyalty and honor. Winning wars requires human soldiers who have hearts, souls, and who know loyalty and honor!
reminds me of zut 37
imo to complicated. sometimes simple is better
It seems too big and way under gunned for it's intended mission, why not make Wiesel recce vehicle sized 1 man full electric highly automated tank where the 'pilot' capsule is heavily armored with a respectable 50mm autocannon to bring the pain in a tiny stealthy package?
This thing is only good for patrolling cities to enforce Coof lockdowns against pathetic soft civilians.
500
Too many sensors, and all exposed.
try to hit them while it's moving a km away, even a good sniper might not, and when it takes a hit from a mbt, or something like a javelin then it's out anyways, so there is no real point in it, also it's open architecture so u can easily replace a pair of them later on. A pair of more armored sensors would cost more, and a pair of more hidden sensors would greatly drop performance, and make it harder to maintenance.
@@tankart3645 You don't need to shoot it with snipers a mile away. Almost anything could damage, destroy or render the sensors useless like: mortar and artillery near hits, by concussion. Mines, IEDs and UXOs by proximity. RPG, or more precise missiles, just exploding onto the hull. Any .50 platform and above, beign antimateriel or HMG. Any and all autocannons above 20mm with exploding shells, not counting AP, which have a different effect but still deadly. Any near hit by MBT grade munitions such HE, HESH and DP. In short, any weapon above an assault rifle is an insta kill sensors wise, even not taking into account the lucky AK shot or grenade explosion.
@@tankart3645 I forgot that the sensors are at the corners of the vehicle, just above the tracks. That means guarateed dust, snow and mud to block the lens, and probably damage from foliage and battlefield debris. Having said that, as a demonstrator it delivers what is supposed to do, that could work, but I pretty much doubt that the final and functional product could show so blatant weaknesses.
@@Furri1bia yea that's what I meant, the tank doesn't really have much of a armour, like what they said, level 1 armour or something, I think that a good shot from a 50.cal could allready take out the tank, what you think? And also don't you think that more sensors are better, they aren't really that expensive, and if you take out maybe like one in one corner you still got like 4 others in the other 4 corners to navigate the terrain.
@@tankart3645 and if you take one down, enemy saved manned battletank. Those are just support.