A company on Russia's doorstep that sent its war robots to Ukraine got a crash course in what soldiers need
The experiences there have led to key changes in its products, the Milrem Robotics' CEO told BI.
He said Europe's militaries should be learning from Ukraine's fight in case Russia attacks.
A military robotics company based in a NATO country bordering Russia says battlefield use of its machines in Ukraine provided valuable insight that led it to rethink its technology and how it could better meet wartime demands.
Estonia's Milrem Robotics makes autonomous ground robots that can be used to gather intelligence, evacuate wounded troops, dispose of explosive devices, and carry weaponry like machine guns.
Its THeMIS model, which can carry a payload of up to 2,645.5 pounds and travel at up to 12 miles per hour, is in Ukraine, clearing mines, carrying cargo, and moving out injured soldiers.
Kuldar Väärsi, the founder and CEO of Milrem Robotics, told Business Insider that Western weapons makers and militaries need to be learning from what's happening in Ukraine and that the company's experiences there have led to some changes in its products.
Väärsi said that developments in Ukraine are "totally different" from peacetime, when weapons are used in training and exercises.
The company has been closely watching for ways to make its robots better, both to help Ukraine and to help Europe if needed.
One key area has been the simplicity of use. He said the THeMIS was "already quite simple and very easy system to control," but the needs on the battlefield meant it had to be even simpler.
He said that in peacetime, equipment might only be used by experienced troops with training. "In Ukraine, in real war, you can't follow that," Väärsi said.
"Basically, anybody who needs that equipment will use it, and the more intuitive and simple you make the user interface and you make the usability, the more certain you can be that actually it'll be properly used and efficiently used and it'll be useful for the troops."
The electronic warfare battle in Ukraine, in which both sides are jamming and spoofing everything — drones, comms, GPS, and more— has also sparked big changes in uncrewed systems technology.
"What we have learned and changed and implemented in our systems is everything related to EW, communication, and cyber," the Milrem CEO said.
Evolutions in countermeasures like electronic warfare have led to developments like fiber-optic drones and AI-enabled drones that are resistant to enemy jamming.
"What we can see as a trend in Ukraine is that technologies around communication change basically weekly," Väärsi said, referring to the combat systems that rely heavily on stable signals. The feedback from Ukraine means "we have changed quite significantly our design and our products," he said.
Väärsi said the company was "very eager" to provide its systems to Ukraine it is based in Estonia, a country once part of the Soviet Union like Ukraine and a current Russian neighbor worried about the possibility of an attack on its sovereignty.
Estonia is among the biggest defense spenders in NATO as a proportion of GDP and one of the countries sounding the alarm the loudest about Russia.
"It's our mission to support Ukraine as much as we can, to help them win this war. And even if it's as little as sending our vehicles, then we should certainly do it," Väärsi said.
He said it's a good business move, too. "If you look at it from the validation perspective, the equipment which doesn't justify itself in Ukraine, why should that be even necessary?"
Milrem was founded in 2013, and Väärsi said that before this war, "quite a lot of people were talking about unmanned ground vehicles in defense," but there were also "lots of doubts around it."
This war "has demonstrated that unmanned ground vehicles have a really important place on the battlefield," he said.
Many Western governments want their countries' battlefield technology in Ukraine so companies can learn how best to be ready for any potential conflict with Russia — something many European countries warn could happen.
It's something many Western defense companies want too. Their products can be battle-tested and updated, proving their worth and increasing sales.
Luke Pollard, the UK's armed forces minister, said last month: "If you are a drone company and you do not have your kit on the front line in Ukraine, you might as well give up."
Väärsi said that Milrem Robotics has a team that regularly visits Ukraine, meets military units, and works directly with the operators who use the company's equipment. It will also soon have a team based in Ukraine to "be closer to Ukrainian forces and to support them even better," he shared.
Many companies work closely with soldiers to aid development. A Ukrainian drone operator previously told BI that he texts and FaceTimes with drone makers about their products to encourage a better iterative design and development process.
Ground robots are particularly useful on the battlefield because they can be used to move a lot more weight than the flying drones and often more than humans can, fire from positions that are not safe for soldiers to fight from, and travel closer to Russian positions than any human fighter can safely.
Väärsi said he sees the robots' role "as a first line of defense or offense," keeping troops safer. That benefits Ukraine, which doesn't have manpower to spare.
"You don't move your troops in front, but you move your unmanned systems," he said.
Väärsi noted Ukraine, which has a rapidly growing defense industry, has also developed a "very capable" ground robots industry.
It's a technology the West and others as well are looking at more and more. Germany's ARX Robotics opened Europe's largest production facility for ground military robots this year, and companies across the continent are making new models.
Milrem is playing a leading role, heading a consortium developing unmanned ground systems that received $56 million in funding from the European Defense Fund. Its robots are capable platforms that Russian researchers actually put a bounty on, encouraging soldiers to try to steal one to advance Russia's work in this space.
The company's other products include larger combat vehicles, like HAVOC, which has a payload capacity of 5 tons. It also has an AI-enabled intelligent functions kit, which lets the vehicles move autonomously. It says that its products are part of robotics programs or in service in 19 countries, including the US, UK, and Germany.
Ground robots are one of many things Ukraine's international partners are watching closely as they look into what sort of tactics, weaponry, and so on they should adopt.
Milrem collaborates with companies that are in Ukraine, and Väärsi encouraged other foreign defense companies to do the same.
"What I consider very important is that in Europe we need to learn and very seriously learn what is ongoing in Ukraine: what works, what doesn't work, what mindsets need to be shifted to be better equipped if — hopefully that never happens — but if Russia decides to expand their activities in the warfare."
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With a 6.4% yield and 25 years of payout growth, is it a no-brainer to consider buying this dividend stock?
When assessing a dividend stock, I think it's important to consider its yield, track record, and recent share price performance. And looking at all three measures, British American Tobacco (LSE:BATS) fares rather well. Based on amounts paid over the past 12 months (237.88p), the stock's presently (11 July) yielding 6.4%. This makes it the eighth-highest yielding share on the FTSE 100. And thanks to its strong cash flows and earnings growth, it's been able to increase its dividend each year for a quarter of a century. Also, the yield for BAT, as it's known, hasn't been inflated by a falling share price. The group's shares are currently changing hands for 28% more than they were five years ago, in July 2020. So far, so good. But the company's moving away from the sale of traditional tobacco-based products towards – in its own words – 'a smokeless world built on smokeless products where, ultimately, cigarettes have become a thing of the past'. This is driven by a fear that, one day, cigarettes will be stubbed out for good. Whether this is because their sale's banned (or restricted) in most parts of the world — or due to an increasingly health-conscious population not wanting to smoke – is largely irrelevant. Either way, the impact's the same. And this poses a big problem for BAT. It's currently able to pay a generous dividend because it produces a cheap-to-make addictive product. This means it earns attractive margins and is hugely cash generative. During the year ended 31 December 2024 (FY24), the group reported a gross profit margin of 69.3% on its traditional combustibles products. By contrast, the margin for its New Products division was 55.7%. This might not sound like a huge difference but apply the lower figure to its FY24 combustibles revenue and the group's profit would have been £2.8bn lower. For context, its profit after tax was £3.2bn. In this scenario, even if the group retained its current policy of returning 65% of its long-term sustainable earnings to shareholders, its dividend would be much lower. Of course, its non-combustible products are still relatively new. As production's scaled-up, I'm sure it will be able to achieve some further efficiencies. Even so, I doubt the group will be able to replicate the margin earned from the sale of cigarettes. That's assuming, of course, that governments don't further restrict the sale of these alternative products. Another potential issue is that product development doesn't come cheap, which could be a problem for a group that already has plenty of debt on its balance sheet. At 31 December 2024, it disclosed borrowings of £37bn. Looking at BAT's accounts, I suspect the demise of cigarettes is still a long way away. The group sold £20.7bn of traditional products in FY24. Its new alternatives accounted for only 13.2% of revenue. Therefore, on balance, I think the group's dividend is secure for a while yet. And analysts appear to agree. The consensus is for both its earnings and its payout to increase over the next three years. However, I like to take a long-term view when deciding whether to invest or not. And in the case of BAT, there are just too many moving parts for my liking, despite the attractive dividend on offer. The post With a 6.4% yield and 25 years of payout growth, is it a no-brainer to consider buying this dividend stock? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool James Beard has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended British American Tobacco P.l.c. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 登入存取你的投資組合
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
Even A.I. Might Not Be Able To Save These New Style Trademarks
North American and European brands have been successfully selling made-in-China goods for decades. It was probably inevitable that many of its small factories would become direct online sellers, perhaps in competition with their former customers. But the trademarks that many of them have been using may not be helping them crack the market. American companies – and startups are certainly no different – give a lot of thought to the best mark, which will personify their product, using a name which helps it to sell, yet also distinguishes it from its competition. All companies should also search their marks to be sure they do not come too close to a potential competitor which may demand a name change, or worse, threaten to sue. Many Chinese startups have taken a different path. They are adopting made-up names which bear little resemblance to the traditional English or Romance language sounding words we usually see. Consider this random assortment I came up with: 'Lvrigfpro' for pharmaceuticals 'Matdg' for jewelry 'Mahcscha' for beach towels 'Bfxlmki' for paintings and paper 'Haisiwlkj' for furniture covers 'RabvPerce' for toys A number of these brands are setting new paradigms by using a combination of consonants and vowels which don't follow familiar patterns, making them arguably a little difficult to recognize and to pronounce. These contrast sharply with now-household names of many Chinese brands with a gigantic U.S. presence – brands such as: 'Tik Tok' 'Alibaba' 'Huawei' 'Shein' 'Haier' Pronunciation can always be a challenge for brands coming into the U.S. from overseas. All of the well-known brands listed above are capable of a pronunciation in English, largely because they still follow certain rules which combine consonants and vowels in a way that makes them understandable, even if initially pronunciation is unclear. Words have a certain flow, creating a kind of familiarity so that made-up words can sound like and be pronounced like a word in the English language. These marks follow the rules in a way that the other marks above which I randomly selected do not. Words are formed of syllables, and syllables are composed of a combination of consonants. The reader needs to build up a 'beat,' and words which are readily recognized will march to that beat. Interestingly, companies could save time and money in the trademark creation process by coming up with something that feels unfamiliar, like 'Haisiwlkj.' One interesting aspect of these marks is that while I always counsel startup companies to adopt a mark that they will be able to protect and to register in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it is also desirable that the words look, appear and sound different from anything already in use in traditional terms; this equates to a stronger, more distinctive trademark. The chances of running into another mark already used with a similar appearance, sound and meaning seem small. So, two of the three goals of brand name creation are fulfilled: (1) first, do no harm (avoid conflicting with others); (2) get something you can protect (make it distinctive as possible); (3) as for the third, which is 'pick a name that will sell the product' – maybe not so much. (Marketers accuse lawyers of preferring 1 and 2 over 3, and in many cases, they're not wrong. What's the use of having a mark if it doesn't help actually sell the product?) The great inherent value to using the right word for a brand is the benefit of projecting the right image, taking into account an enormous range of cultural preferences which range from the literal messages words or portions of words suggest, to a sound of familiarity which elicits good or positive feelings, or reflects certain values. All of that is lost in brand names which are not only fanciful creations, but which fail to send a message to a consumer who is busy trying to figure out exactly what the word is and how you would pronounce it. Given the roles trademarks play in conveying meaning or evoking emotion, these new marks may be losing out on the main branding opportunity. The U.S. market has since the very beginning featured 'foreign' products, and often many of those products have had the greatest of prestige. Not all of them have been inherently easy for American consumers to pronounce, whether from Europe, Asia, or elsewhere. But they have had a certain common element to them much more familiar to the American and English language speaker's ear than this newest generation of trademarks. Over time, people become accustomed to and comfortable with new things. Will these neologisms start to sound familiar once there are enough of them in everyday use, or will they fade in favor of more traditional sounding words? There's always a back story. The explosion in trademark applications from China in recent years has actually been well documented. Lawyers who practice regularly in front of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office also recognize certain patterns among some segment of these applications. A word is created, and a web page is thrown together to show the product being offered for sale. Many of these applications are accused of being filed simply to try to reserve rights, and names are even more blatantly just to get applications on file in the Trademark Office for the benefit of certain subsidies that were being offered by the Chinese government to obtain U.S. trademark registration protection. The flood of these offbeat names in the Trademark Office has its own story. Official investigations by the United States Patent and Trademark Office have indicated the Chinese government, at every level from national to local, has incentivized companies to seek to develop and protect their brands abroad, including in the U.S.A. In many cases some government agency paid the bill not only for the cost of applications in the Trademark Office, but even allowed the trademark owner to end up with a surplus for each trademark application they file in the United States. Over the past few years, the Trademark Office has even taken some enforcement actions where it has found that some of these practices violate the good faith rule that any application exhibits a 'bona fide intent' to use the mark in the United States. Will American consumers accept and become familiar with these names and come to appreciate them as trusted brands? Or is this only a phase during which time these non-U.S. marketers and non-English language natives are making an all-out assault to project and protect brand names into the United States for their own purposes? Putting aside the tariffs in the room, it would otherwise seem that direct-to-consumer marketing from these small China-based enterprises which formerly relied on U.S. entities to sell their wares is not likely to die down. They presumably will change their branding habits – through time, experience, and maybe even the assistance of A.I. – to develop words and names that look more like the types of familiar terms that will motivate American shoppers to trust those brands and remember the names. You might say that this process will be more consonant with consumer expectations.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
While institutions own 37% of MEDICLIN Aktiengesellschaft (ETR:MED), private companies are its largest shareholders with 53% ownership
The considerable ownership by private companies in MEDICLIN indicates that they collectively have a greater say in management and business strategy 53% of the company is held by a single shareholder (Broermann Holding GmbH) Institutions own 37% of MEDICLIN This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. To get a sense of who is truly in control of MEDICLIN Aktiengesellschaft (ETR:MED), it is important to understand the ownership structure of the business. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are private companies with 53% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. Institutions, on the other hand, account for 37% of the company's stockholders. Institutions often own shares in more established companies, while it's not unusual to see insiders own a fair bit of smaller companies. Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about MEDICLIN. Check out our latest analysis for MEDICLIN Institutions typically measure themselves against a benchmark when reporting to their own investors, so they often become more enthusiastic about a stock once it's included in a major index. We would expect most companies to have some institutions on the register, especially if they are growing. As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in MEDICLIN. This can indicate that the company has a certain degree of credibility in the investment community. However, it is best to be wary of relying on the supposed validation that comes with institutional investors. They too, get it wrong sometimes. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see MEDICLIN's historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story. MEDICLIN is not owned by hedge funds. The company's largest shareholder is Broermann Holding GmbH, with ownership of 53%. This implies that they have majority interest control of the future of the company. In comparison, the second and third largest shareholders hold about 23% and 12% of the stock. While studying institutional ownership for a company can add value to your research, it is also a good practice to research analyst recommendations to get a deeper understand of a stock's expected performance. While there is some analyst coverage, the company is probably not widely covered. So it could gain more attention, down the track. The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. Management ultimately answers to the board. However, it is not uncommon for managers to be executive board members, especially if they are a founder or the CEO. Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group. We note our data does not show any board members holding shares, personally. It is unusual not to have at least some personal holdings by board members, so our data might be flawed. A good next step would be to check how much the CEO is paid. With a 10% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over MEDICLIN. While this group can't necessarily call the shots, it can certainly have a real influence on how the company is run. It seems that Private Companies own 53%, of the MEDICLIN stock. It might be worth looking deeper into this. If related parties, such as insiders, have an interest in one of these private companies, that should be disclosed in the annual report. Private companies may also have a strategic interest in the company. It's always worth thinking about the different groups who own shares in a company. But to understand MEDICLIN better, we need to consider many other factors. Be aware that MEDICLIN is showing 1 warning sign in our investment analysis , you should know about... But ultimately it is the future, not the past, that will determine how well the owners of this business will do. Therefore we think it advisable to take a look at this free report showing whether analysts are predicting a brighter future. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
