www.forbes.com/sites/.../2013/12/.../chinas-newest-city-we-call-it-detroit/

Stupid cunt. Russia raised interest rates to 17% and not one govt dept went bankrupt. Not one finanacial institution went bankrupt. Yet the seppos are sweating over .25% rates hahahaha.

The only thing I would ask is... does it really do any of this better than a UAV? It seems to me that it’s really just a UAV with more limitations, not to mention being a much easier target. The beauty of the UAV is that it doesn’t really have to navigate any obstacles, so some delay from time to time in controls or…

Not for long.

DEWALT OR NOTHING.

Yeah, whether the Russians figured this out or not, Tyler is clearly missing the forest for the trees on this one. He’s envisioning a C2 challenge on the scale of controlling a regiment of these things, when in reality you’re looking at only controlling a handful in the highest-risk situations.

In an open, flat desert this may be a relevant capability for infantry patrols around a forward base or even as a scout platform for advancing ground units. Although UAVs could do both of those jobs just as effectively or better due to their wider field of vision.

This is the article Tyler went full **** .

I’m working under the assumption that a smoke grenade is easier to put in place than a tree or building.

Relevant or not, Russia seems to make all the things that i think up in dreams.

cheaper already existing parts, just add steering, turret activator servos and gas pedal and firing button pusher hydraulics and you are good to go

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. The operators could be riding in a MBT or APC just a mile behind this RC “point man”, which would take the initial fire and expose insurgents.

I could see it being used as a really close screening unit ahead of a manned main battle group. Not quite recce, but still ahead to 1. absorb rounds, and 2. engage anything in sight. The problem with stuff like this is DFing the controller and vehicle wouldn’t be too hard.

Given that this is a Russian system, it likely cost 1/4 to 1/10 whatever the US equivalent system would cost. That changes on side of the “cost effective” question.

Europe’s terrorism problems have been brewing for a long, long time— even before 9/11. France in particular has been having profound issues with their Muslim population since the mid/early-1990s.

I agree with you but the odds of the Europeans actually doing what they should be doing is remote. Even right after the Cold War when European armed forces were at their zenith they couldn’t handle the fractured Yugoslavia on their own.

The Middle East has been throughly destabilized since the fall of the Ottoman Empire due to that debacle for humanity that was WWI. Saddam Hussein was not going to live forever. At some point we would have arrived at the current situation quite naturally

Yeah, because the Middle East hasn’t been a god forsaken tinder box the last 1,000 years...

Miscellaneous civilians, shepherds, people who have Obama’s real birth certificate, weddings, refugees, people who the CIA owes money to, pro-Assad Syrians, our own Special Forces infiltrators, Pro-Russian Syrians, hospitals, an empty patch of desert the NSA swears blind is a high tech training facility based on IP…

“...........and adequate numbers of platforms on paper”Germany have only 225 tanks! That is adequate?Are you kidding?