Not sure how this category of vehicles should be used, even though it has appeared popular enough to be tested by the Russians (Uran-9) and Americans (RCV-Medium) as well.

The above vehicle appears to big and expensive to be recon/screen. Flying sensors seems generally a better investment than land ones, especially one that may not be able to get enough bandwidth to make use of the sensors. (I don't think autonomy is in the near future for this category) Long range indirect fires seems generally a better investment in fire support. If you have bandwidth to operate a RCV you have enough to run a battle network to call in fires.

For infantry support vehicles, compact size and terrain crossing ability is likely more important than marginal improvements in firepower and armor.
For big UGVs, the best CONOPS I have seen comes from an old short story collection from about 2000. In the "CAV" story by James Cobb, the UGVs were the point vehicles of a cavalry recon section with a single manned vehicle as their local controller. 2x UGVs and the manned vehicle, all on the same big 8x8 chassis.

The manned vehicle could take local control of the UGVs when going into combat. The UGVs replaced pretty much all the "people carrying" space with weaponry. A big hypervelocity AT gun and some vertical launch missiles on the UGVs, while the manned truck had a telescoping sensor mast with a gun/missile platform on top of it, a VTOL scout UAV, and a team of 4 dismount scouts in the back. Crew of 3 in the truck, driver, TC, and vehicle electronics operator.
 
The widespread adaption of tactical radio relays really makes UGVs much more viable than concept of operations that rely on LOS radio links.

I think for the near future, combat UGV will take the role of anti-entrenchment more than anything. Let look at existing roles

1. Recon: flying is better.
2. Screening: mines and sensors can be air dropped cheaply
3. Fires: long range precision is cheap

The artillery model of warfare is dominant, however:
1. Fortifications are too tough for artillery and ranged fires
2. Mines are too stealthy and cheap to be defeated by artillery

UGV will be the arm that deals with the above problem.

In the medium term however, say 10year (if intensely invested into), UGV will become "robots" that can conduct the fortification role, ejecting infantry from field battle except as command and versatile stopgap.
 
This reported being used on the front lines.

Seems like the simplest vehicle that can carry a turreted gun.
That's just an RWS on wheels...

But I gotta admit that I do expect to see that concept fielded quite a lot in the future. To the extent that an infantry platoon's machine guns and ATGMs are carried by UGVs, not people.
 


0x0.jpg
 
Effective for what it is, but I don't think it's anything remarkable, instead being what is available and supportable in the field. I'm a bit doubtful of this thing shrugging off RPG hits as claimed. Maybe a glancing hit somewhere non-critical but a hit to center mass is bound to break something important. The few millimeters of armor covering vitals is likely barely enough to stop small arms fire.
 
The fact that a force of nothing but drones killed or drove off all enemy infantry is pretty spectacular...
 

RFE/RL said:
Until recently, Ukrainian troops were at risk while getting critical supplies to the front lines. Now they're using fiber-optic ground drones, which are not vulnerable to electronic jamming from Russia, to do the job. The remotely controlled vehicles can deliver hundreds of kilograms of ammo, food, and water to troops, say operators.

Simple but essential, "logistics win wars". Would be relatively cheap to produce thousands (if not more) of these per month for Ukraine within the EU.
 


So people need direct fire support..... well here it is (120mm shell equiv destructive power too)
 
One thing we see in Ukraine like most western UAV's that fell short ,all western UGVs fell flat on their face even harder than UAV's , Themis UGV which was already adopted by multiple miltaries ,is no where to be seen at all , all we see used by both sides are somewhat crude local developments. But also given FPV threat a million dolar UGV will last about as long as 5k$ UGV before it burns down.
 
Err...:

Have you actually seen any pop up in any footage? No ! heard of any mass supply based on successful front line use?No! Its not like funds for it are lacking. But you can assume Ukrainians are not seeing bang for the buck otherwise these would be supplied en masse.

PR articles in magazines do not count . Of course anyone supplying anything gets some PR going as that is one of the main reasons for sending stuff there.
 
Whichever way you want to spin it , Ukraine is not using them much, nor is anyone supplying them in any quantity, and even those supplied are mostly used for EOD after initial ones were lost on front lines , EOD is done at close in control distances and often far from front lines.


Its quite obvious thing is not working out as logistics or combat UGV , otherwise way more than 15 would have been supplied in 3 years, given that is most widely adopted UGV in the world.
But UGVs failure is not to surprising as of all unmanned systems ground ones are the hardest to make work ,aside from demining robots that are controlled by soldiers in close proximity and have been in use world wide for decades.(Technologically, barely remotely controlled variants of farm or construction equipment)

The new batch of six UGVs will join seven ROCUS systems that were previously deployed to Ukraine in 2022. In total, 15 unmanned systems from Milrem Robotics have been delivered to Ukraine.

Milrem Robotics’ THeMIS UGV is currently used in 19 countries, making it the most widely adopted vehicle in its size category. The platform is a key part of numerous national robotics programmes worldwide.


 
Last edited:
Whichever way you want to spin it , Ukraine is not using them much, nor is anyone supplying them in any quantity, and even those supplied are mostly used for EOD after initial ones were lost on front lines , EOD is done at close in control distances and often far from front lines.
Its quite obvious thing is not working out as logistics or combat UGV ,

Moving the goalposts... You stated that "all western UGVs fell flat on their face even harder than UAV's" and that "Themis UGV which was already adopted by multiple miltaries ,is no where to be seen at all". And yet when I show that the Themis has been used you now pivot to a different narrative. Come on, how about some integrity here?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom