Russia’s Drone Tank Looks Cool In Videos But Is It Tactically Relevant?

Advertisement

Sponsored

Using a satellite data-link is not nearly as viable a command and control communications solution for unmanned ground systems as it is for airborne ones. Mountains, and structures, and even foliage, can still block data-transmission and the fragile equipment needed to make it happen is not conducive to a mini-tank that likes to bust through fiery obstacles like the Uran-9. Also, the bandwidth required is huge and would limit the amount of vehicles that could be used at any given time. There is also the question of how capable Russia’s abilities are when it comes to high-speed satellite data-links in the first place.

There are some partial antidotes to these restrictions, such as using an aircraft or aerostat as a beyond-line-of-sight radio relay, but this too has similar limitations of a satellite system. There is also the question of how susceptible the Uran-9’s radio signals are to electronic attacks and jamming.

With this in mind, when it comes to something like the Uran-9, you end up with is a vehicle that can only support very local missions because the second the signal to its command vehicle is significantly degraded or blocked it becomes a big boulder with a target painted on its side. In essence this means that it could scout an area very close by, depending on the terrain, but its not like it can make an armored charge over the horizon.

Even on a very “local” operations level, the Uran-9 seems to have limited utility. It could provide security for large bases and work as a sentry for checkpoint duty and similar missions, but considering it is packing a large load of very deadly anti-tank missiles, there are few scenarios where such heavy firepower would be needed.

Also, because there are still multiple people controlling and supporting the system when it is operating, the efficiency of it is highly questionable. This prompts the question: why not just use a manned combat vehicle for these types of missions?

In order for this thing to be really useful in a dynamic and fast-moving ground battle, its control vehicle would have to keep up with it as it advances with other forces., a notion that is not highly plausible.

As far as counter-terror operations, the vehicle could take the place of manned armored car, leading troops to access points while giving them cover, but with humans still involved in such an operation, bringing in an unmanned element is a little puzzling. On the other hand, if the intent is to just blow everything up then yes, operators could drive this thing in-front of a structure and just unload on it.

There is also the issues of spatial orientation, intuition and just plain old situational awareness, all of which are highly degraded when you are controlling something on a computer monitor from inside a trailer. This is not an ideal handicap when dealing with highly volatile terrorist situations in urban areas.

So under very specific circumstances, yes, the Uran-9 could be able to mitigate a small amount of operational risk. But “Skynet” it is not. Does its limited capabilities justify its expense? That is hard to say. It does not look cheap though so probably not.

There are potentially ways that unmanned ground-based weapons systems could one day become effective in dynamic combat over reasonable ranges, but it would require an advanced daisy chain of data-links and an active network capable of great bandwidth placed over the battlespace. Even then there are issues and limitations, and really this is all theoretical.

We will have to wait and see exactly how Russia ends up employing the Uran-9 operationally, but maybe building a tactically viable robo-tank is not the goal of the Uran-9 at all.

This heavy armed RC tank is probably more about trying to show that Russia is advancing the unmanned combat space than anything else, and absurd Russian media reports would seem to support this hypothesis.