Russia To Create Robotized Multiple Launch Rocket System To Hit Helicopters And Drones: State-Run Media

Donate

Russia To Create Robotized Multiple Launch Rocket System To Hit Helicopters And Drones: State-Run Media

Source: Donat Sorokin/TASS

The Russian state-run news agency TASS reports (source):

Russia’s Tecmash Research and Production Group plans to develop a small-caliber multiple launch rocket system with robotic elements capable of striking helicopters and drones, Tecmash Deputy CEO Alexander Kochkin said at the ArmHiTec-2018 exhibition on Friday.

The new weapon is intended for use in the Airborne Force, marine infantry and Special Forces, the deputy chief executive said.

“We are setting the aim of creating a system capable of hitting both ground and air targets. It will be capable of striking helicopters and drones in the close proximity of 1.5-2 km and at an altitude of no more than 1 km,” Kochkin said.

The company plans to work out technical specifications jointly with the Defense Ministry for the new multiple launch rocket system in the near future, he said.

“I believe that the Airborne Force, marine infantry and Special Forces that operate in separation from the main military contingent will display interest [in the new weapon]. They need fire support from these systems,” the Tecmash deputy chief executive said.

According to Kochkin, the new multiple launch rocket system will fire specially designed shells and 50-80mm aircraft rockets already accepted for service and will incorporate robotic remote control elements.

The new weapon will also get automated reload and land navigation systems. The robotic multiple launch rocket system will feature an automated multichannel guidance and fire control system allowing it to effectively hit targets at night and amid smoke and dustiness on the battlefield.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Hrky75

    Every wonder weapon very soon get’s it’s counter measure – usually simpler and much cheaper to invent and field. Lately US and Israel have been bragging about drone swarms that could – in theory – overwhelm enemy AA and destroy troop concentrations. In essence – Russia may have S-400 and radar systems that can track “invisible” US flying shit-bricks the tax payers spent trillions on – but we’ll just drone them and retain air-supremacy. That narrative begs the question – If you can drone important and well defended targets, why did you spend trillions on un-flyable un-stealthy pieces of crap in the first place. And also – did they really think Russia will be doing absolutely nothing about drone swarms? And from pure marketing point of view – the more US/Israel trumpets their new drones, more orders for Russian counter measures – perfect PR without spending a dime…

    • as

      Exactly my point when i argued with these zombies.
      It’s a paradoxical concept.
      A Fighter planes that did not excelling in fighting
      A surface combatants vessel that can’t handle surface combat.

      I said to them that why they make it manned if in the end the software corrected their handling and their target were acquired from someone else ?

      Why they make a surface combatant vessels that can’t survive damage ?

      • Hrky75

        Because the government needs to employ people, MIC needs to siphon off the taxes for them to stay afloat and morons like Wolfowitz and Bolton need “wunderwaffen” so they can keep dreaming of US hegemony and “full spectrum dominance”. Also somewhere along the line some genius probably suggested that the new arms race on steroids would bring down Russia and China the same way it took out USSR. Only this time around Putin will keep his spending at 3-5% of GDP building effective defensive systems and making his own hi-tech staff in much smaller numbers – keeping costs low and pissing-off-neocons factor high. In this arms race the US will be spending cash and Russia will be reaping all the benefits – until China kills off the Petrodollar and the Empire goes bust….

    • Barba_Papa

      Why spend all that money? Because the US defense budget exists as a giant trough from which private business can feed at the tax payer’s expense, so Congressmen and senators can claim they provide jobs to their constituents while they pay off their corporate campaign contributors. Made easier because in the US when there is a perception that there is a foreign enemy to be defeated the instinct is not to work smarter, but to throw more money at it.

      • Hrky75

        “Private enterprise” and “capitalism” in a country where the biggest private companies work almost exclusively for the government and live off the budget – could someone point to the subtle difference between US 21st century “capitalism” and communism?

        • Attrition47

          Fascism, not communism; the USSR never was communist, the Bolsheviks saw to that in 1921.

        • goingbrokes

          Yep, the difference is this: in communism the government controlled the corporations. In the present day version of “capitalism” the corporations control the government (with the help of the massive unaccountable intelligence organisation). The former is communism/bolshevism, and the latter is fascism.

        • Barba_Papa

          Well, the government can be a customer too. Even in a complete laissez fair style free market capitalist environment the government still would have to spend some money. And its not like private citizens can order advanced jet fighters, tanks and carriers. I think that even the most laissez fair capitalist disciples still see national defense solely as a role for the government. So you make military hardware, it will have to be sold to governments only.

          Now if the defense companies had been government owned, THEN it would have more in the line of communism.

          • Hrky75

            … if the defense companies (at least the biggest ones) had been government owned – it would be more in line of UK, Russia, France and Israel and not communism…But when “private” companies have Congress on the pay role, write their own defense budget, have civil servants going from company boards to government ministries and back on a revolving door principle and get bailed by the government every time the fuck up – just call it projects “being over budget and behind schedule” – now that my friend is semi-communism i.e. profits are private, but production costs and project overruns are shared by the community…If would be “real” communism if CEOs were shot at dawn every time a project ran behind schedule – but then we’d have F-35 up and flying long ago, even in rain and with birds around ;-D

    • EoF

      The drone swarm countermeasure already exists… it’s called the Pantsir, usually deployed together with the s400. The kikes are kidding themselves.

  • TiredOfBsToo

    I heard today that the EU is planning to rebuild their roads so that the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization can run their military hardware towards Russia’s borders. If the EU truly represented the people of the EU, they would realize that there is no need for such an endeavor as nukes don’t require roads and therefor, that money would be better spent on making the lives better for the people of the EU, which they supposedly represent, rather than prostrating themselves before the alter of the corrupt government of the US.

    • as

      Well in the end the money would lining their pockets one way or another. It just look like it’s for something else.

    • Hrky75

      …yes but when ALL road rebuilding contracts are given to Halliburton – EU pays it’s protection money to the Neocon cabal…and don’t you worry, they won’t REALLY repair the roads – just charge a REALLY big invoice for no work what so ever – like they did in Iraq…

      • Bob

        Fill a few hole and respray road lengths in ‘tarmac black’ – and then contract charge for initial and ongoing engineering assessments, remedial works, full reconstruction works, and post-works safety and compliance engineering inspections. Tidy profit for laying some gravel mix and bitumen paint.

        • Justin

          What they wont do in the USA!

    • FlorianGeyer

      Well said .

      • TiredOfBsToo

        Thanks

    • Attrition47

      Autobahnen, niiiice.

    • goingbrokes

      It is an old problem with NATO. US military planners never checked before proceeding, but a huge number of European bridges, particularly in the East, cannot cope with Abrams tanks (or the carrier trucks) driving over them. A lot of them would just collapse. Tactically the tanks would have to be off-loaded from ships very close to active battle fields. This makes a mockery of offensive operations – and that’s why the planned upgrading.
      Unfortunately the EU unelected officials are all globalist whores (not US specifically) and will do anything for NATO, including sucking the proverbial American rooster.

  • Julius Meinel

    Given Russia’s demographic problems and the vastness of its territory it makes sense to develop robots for tasks that can be performed remotely; the challenge is that the control better be wired (which will certainly limit the range of any robot), otherwise it will be prone to electronic jamming and fall in the same trap that the US war gadgets are likely to come across to when facing an opponent that prefers to read math and physics books rather than the Koran.