A new study conducted by J'son & Partners Consulting aimed to analyze the global and Russian fire robotics markets. The report contains a detailed analysis of the characteristics and capabilities of both mobile (including UAVs) and stationary robotic firefighting equipment. According to the results of ranking by key criteria, analysts of the company carried out a preliminary selection of fire robots for use in the most difficult conditions when extinguishing fires at oil and gas facilities.

 

Prospects for mobile fire robotics in Russia and the world

 

Our country-initiated work on creating multifunctional robotic systems that could operate autonomously or remotely in harsh operating conditions due to the surge in a number of anthropogenic disasters in the 1980s and, above all, after the Chernobyl disaster. Taking into account the need to extinguish fires in radioactively infected areas, chemical industry enterprises and warehouses of explosives in harsh conditions like heavy smoke and air pollution with highly toxic substances, for the first time in domestic and international practice in 1986-1988, a self-propelled fire monitor named SLS-100-54 "Soyka" (“Jay” in Russian) was created. This mobile robotic complex is controlled remotely via radio or wire and considered now the progenitor of all firefighting robots in Russia and determines their hereditary characteristics – first of all, their heavy and super–heavy weight (many tons), tracked chassis and increased protection that pushes the potential boundaries of their use as far as possible.

 

At the same time, the tragic experience of eliminating anthropogenic disasters has also become one of the main factors that determined Russia's leadership in the development of firefighting robotic systems, which tend to be designed as heavy reconnaissance robots, while the rest of the world tends to create lighter robots. Heavy complexes are used for extinguishing forest fires, ammunition depots, other dangerous areas like oil and gas facilities, etc. Light firefighting robots usually also have tracked chassis. They are quite maneuverable and compact in size, which allows them to pass through doorways and move along staircases inside of buildings. Such robots are equipped with fire monitors that are connected through sleeves to external water sources and water irrigation devices for their own protection from high temperatures. They are capable of directing a water jet or air-mechanical foam to fire at a distance of tens of meters. Their use is justified in conditions of excessive risk for fire brigades; in particular, not long ago, when extinguishing a fire in the Parisian Cathedral of Notre Dame French fire robots Colossus were used.

 

Historically, Russia has been a pioneer and the largest player in the segment of mobile robotic firefighting. Only China can compete with Russia in this regard and only in the segment of light and medium-sized fire robots.

 

 

This J’son & Partners Consulting study includes the following objectives: a review of existing samples of robotic fire extinguishing equipment from Russian and foreign manufacturers, its classification and analysis of its compliance with the regulatory framework. The analysts made a rating on the basis of key criteria, which were reduced to several summarizing indices. They took into account, first of all, explosion protection as one of the key indices for extinguishing fires at oil and gas facilities, as well as mobility and battery life. Another key index was the distance of remote control (and in exceptional cases, the ability to work in fully autonomous mode), the availability of additional equipment (cameras, sensors, attachments), and the availability of operating certificates.

 

In general, the study included 69 models of mobile firefighting robots from 22 countries (Russia and China are the market leaders by a number of models). The analysts conducted a detailed analysis of the technical characteristics of the most mature models (the key criteria in this analysis were their commercial readiness and explosion protection). As a result of the selection, 27 models from 10 countries remained on the shortlist. And the first position of the rating table was given to the Special Fire Engine manufactured by Omsktransmash. The top 10 positions were occupied by: 4 Russian, 5 Chinese, and 1 French model of firefighting robots.

 

At the same time, it is worth noting that all these years the best models of Russian mobile robots of medium and light class were created using the experience of foreign countries, in particular Austria, Croatia, and China. Therefore, the biggest barrier to the development of domestic fire robotics for this period are various sanctions-related restrictions on the supply of components and finished products from the above-mentioned EU countries. However, this does not interfere with fruitful cooperation with Chinese fire robots’ developers.

 

Stationary fire extinguishing equipment

 

Paragraph R 53326-2009 of the Russian State Standard defines a robotic triad of stationary fire extinguishing means as "fire monitor – robot – installation". In this part, the Russian standards differ from the Western regulatory framework, in which the concept of "robot" or "robotic" is not usually used in relation to stationary firefighting equipment. In Western countries, a robot is considered a device that moves independently or is controlled by a person at a distance, i.e. mobility is a defining feature. Abroad they usually distinguish another triad ecosystem of stationary fire extinguishing means:

 

- Remote-controlled fire monitors (according to J'son & Partners Consulting estimates, about 50% of all fire monitors on the market are remote-controlled)

 

- Fire alarm systems

 

- Automated fire fighting control systems

 

Due to the wide variety of solutions from the first two categories (hundreds of models from dozens of manufacturers), J'son & Partners Consulting analysts focused on automated firefighting control systems.

 

The analysis showed that the technological level of Russian products is almost equal to that of foreign analogs. The difference between the domestic and Western markets for stationary firefighting equipment is the structure of the market. While the Western market is saturated with high-tech companies that manufacture such equipment, the Russian market has a much higher level of monopolization. The dominant position in our market is occupied by only one manufacturer, which actively participates in the formation of the regulatory framework/standards in its segment.

 

Working on the demonopolized market, foreign manufacturers of automated control systems often declare the invariance of their solutions to specific types of fire monitors and fire alarm devices, which gives a wide scope for the architecture of the most complex modern fire extinguishing systems for any extreme conditions and allows to take into account any customer's wishes.

 

Prospects for using UAVs to extinguish fires

 

As for the third segment of the market, in the world, there are not more than two dozen UAV models that can directly participate in firefighting. Even abroad, against the background of the rapid development of various unmanned vehicles, fire UAVs are not perceived as a serious trend. Only the American concern Lockheed Martin is trying to support this investment direction, even despite the existing legal restrictions in the United States. If we talk about Russia, the study presents two initiative projects of fire UAVs at the prototype stage and one concept that does not yet have a real implementation. Against this background, the project of a heavy unmanned platform designed by one of the Russian manufacturers stands out. Its successful flight tests and potential availability of a manufacturing base allows to hope for the appearance of a really useful heavy fire UAV in our country.

 

Speaking about the barriers that hinder the development of unmanned firefighting equipment in the world, first of all, it is necessary to note legal restrictions. So far, the contradiction between the lengthy procedure for approving the UAV flight conditions and the need for a rapid departure of a fire drone in the event of an emergency looks unsolvable all over the world. The high dependence on weather conditions also affects the operation of such fire drones. According to experts' calculations, the possibility of using regular UAVs of the EMERCOM of Russia in emergencies in bad weather conditions is only 5%. Another obvious deterrent is the still unresolved issue of safety in the joint use of UAVs and manned aircraft in emergency zones. For example, American pilots of fire tankers refuse to fly in clouds of smoke near drones. In the Russian Federation, apparently for the same reasons, the EMERCOM regulations as of the end of 2019 did not consider the possibility of firefighting using UAVs.

 

At the end of 2019, there was no reason to believe that there was any serious use of UAVs in firefighting, not only in Russia but also in the world as a whole. So far, the participation of UAVs is limited only to monitoring and reconnaissance functions, which are occasionally performed by conventional UAVs that are not specialized for work in emergency situations.

 

___________________________

This information note was prepared by the J'son & Partners Consulting. We work hard to provide factual and prognostic data that fully reflect the situation and available at the time of release. J'son & Partners Consulting reserves the right to revise the data after publication of new official information by individual players. 

 

Copyright © 2020, J'son & Partners Consulting. The media can use the text, graphics, and data contained in this market review only using a link to the source of information - J'son & Partners Consulting or with an active link to the JSON.TV portal

 

™ J'son & Partners [registered trademark] 

 

For more information, please contact:
Key account manager  +7 926 561 09 80    news@json.ru J'son & Partners Consulting	101990, Moscow, Armenian Lane, 11/2a b. 1B Tel.: +7 (495) 625-72-45, www.json.tv

 

 

Detailed results are presented in the full version of the report: 

“Firefighting robots. Prospects in Russia and the world”

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Report Parameters

1.2. Sources

1.3. Methods

1.3.1. Data collection through targeted queries

1.3.2. Estimation of parameters missing in specifications

1.3.3. Ratings of equipment and software

2. CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE EXTINGUISHING EQUIPMENT AT OIL FACILITIES

2.1. Current and planned requirements and state standards related to fire extinguishing at oil facilities in the Russian Federation

2.1.1. Current legal framework

2.1.1.1. General documents regarding fire safety

2.1.1.2. Current state standards

2.1.1.3. Temporary regulations

2.1.1.4. Technical regulations of the EEU

2.1.2. Planned regulatory framework

2.1.2.1. International standards

2.1.2.2. Russian state R60 complex standards

2.1.2.3. International standards

2.1.3. Specifics of the oil industry regulatory framework 

2.1.3.1. General requirements

2.1.3.2. Guidelines for the use of ground-based robotic tools in fire fighting

2.1.3.3. Institute of industrial safety and labor protection 437-2008

2.1.3.4. SET OF RULES SP 155.13130.2014

2.1.3.5. SP 231.1311500.2015

2.2. Analysis of regulatory barriers to the introduction of various types of robotic firefighting equipment and ways to overcome them

2.2.1. Ground-based fire extinguishing equipment

2.2.2. Regulatory barriers for UAVs equipped with fire extinguishing tools

2.3. Systematization of robotic mobile firefighting equipment

2.3.1. Types of mobile robotic systems

2.3.2. Classes of mobile robotic systems

2.3.3. Classification by design features

2.3.3.1. Platform mobility

2.3.3.2. Chassis

2.3.3.3. Drive

2.4. Types of control of robotic mobile fire extinguishing means

2.5. Regulatory framework for stationary fire extinguishing equipment

2.5.1. Basic regulatory documents

2.5.2. Basic concepts

2.5.3. Classification of stationary robotic fire extinguishing systems

2.5.3.1. By type of fire monitor stationing

2.5.3.2. Depending on the fire monitor drive type

2.5.3.3. By type of fire detection devices

2.5.3.4. Depending on the robotic fire extinguishing system functionality 

2.5.3.5. Depending on the flow rate

2.5.3.6. Depending on the installation site

2.5.3.7. Depending on the error of targeting, positioning and testing of the trajectory

2.5.4. Control of stationary robotic fire extinguishing systems

2.6. Types, advantages and disadvantages of substances used by robotic fire extinguishing systems

3. ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF MANUFACTURERS AND EXISTING MODELS OF GROUND-BASED MOBILE ROBOTIC FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT

3.1. CIS

3.1.1. Russian Federation

3.1.1.1. Self-propelled fire monitor SLS-100-54 "Soyka"

3.1.1.2. Rapid response vehicle 1 and robot 2

3.1.1.3. Robotic fire complex 3

3.1.1.4. Robotic middle-class fire extinguishing system 4

3.1.1.5. Firefighting robotic complex 5

3.1.1.6. Mobile fire extinguishing system 6

3.1.1.7. High-power mobile fire and rescue complex equipped with a robotic gas-water extinguishing system 7

3.1.1.8. Tracked fire truck 8

3.1.1.9. Mobile fire extinguishing system 

3.1.1.10. Robotic complex for fire detection and extinguishing 10

3.1.1.11. Mobile robotic fire extinguishing system 11

3.1.1.12. Mobile robotic fire extinguishing kit 12

3.1.1.13. Special fire engine 

3.1.1.14. Fire robot 14

3.1.1.15. Robotic firefighter 15

3.1.1.16. Mobile robotic fire extinguishing system 16

3.1.1.17. Mobile radio-controlled firefighting system 17

3.1.1.18. Robotic firefighter 18

3.1.1.19. Multifunctional robotic firefighting complex 19

3.1.1.20. Robotic foam firefighting system 20

3.1.1.21. Robotic chemical protection and explosion and fire prevention complex 21

3.1.2. Belarus

3.1.2.1. Fire robot 22

3.1.2.2. Robot X (Belarus/China)

3.2. Europe

3.2.1. Austria

3.2.1.1. Solution 23

3.2.1.2. Solution 24

3.2.1.3. Solution 25

3.2.1.4. Solution 26

3.2.2. United Kingdom

3.2.2.1. Solution 27

3.2.3. Hungary

3.2.3.1. Solution 28

3.2.4. Germany

3.2.4.1. Solution 29

3.2.4.2. Solution 30

3.2.4.3. Solution 31

3.2.5. Israel

3.2.5.1. Solution 32

3.2.6. Norway

3.2.6.1. Solution 33

3.2.7. Turkey

3.2.7.1. Solution 34

3.2.8. France

3.2.8.1. Solution 35

3.2.8.2. Colossus

3.2.8.3. Solution 37

3.2.9. Croatia

3.2.9.1. MVF-5

3.2.9.2. Solution 39

3.2.9.3. Solution 40

3.2.10. Czech Republic

3.2.10.1. Solution 41

3.2.11. Sweden

3.2.11.1. Solution 42

3.3. Asia

3.3.1. China

3.3.1.1. Solution 43

3.3.1.2. Solution 44

 

………………………...

 

3.3.2. Korea

3.3.2.1. Solution 55

3.3.2.2. Solution 56

3.3.3. Japan

3.3.3.1. Firefighting robot

3.3.3.2. Fire suppression system 58

3.3.4. Malaysia

3.3.4.1. Solution 59

3.3.4.2. Solution 60

3.3.5. Singapore

3.3.5.1. Solution 61

3.4. North and South America

3.4.1. Brazil 62

3.4.1.1. Solution 63

3.4.2. Canada

3.4.2.1. Solution 64

3.4.3. USA

3.4.3.1. Solution 65

3.4.3.2. Solution 66

3.4.3.3. Solution 67

4. ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF MANUFACTURERS AND EXISTING MODELS OF GROUND-BASED STATIONARY ROBOTIC FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS

4.1. Russian stationary fire extinguishing equipment

4.1.1. Robots (company 1, Petrozavodsk)

4.1.1.1. Stationary firefighting robots, industrial version

4.1.1.2. Firefighting robots, explosion-proof version

4.1.1.3. Portable firefighting robots

4.1.1.4. Mini firefighting robots

4.1.1.5. Robotic firefighting systems

4.1.2. Robots by company 2 (Petrozavodsk)

4.1.2.1. Robotic fire extinguishing system X

4.1.2.2. Robotic fire extinguishing system Y

4.1.3. Robots by company 3 (Moscow)

4.1.3.1. Fire robots X

4.1.3.2. Robotic fire extinguishing system Y

4.1.4. Robots by company 3 (Miass)

4.1.4.1. Robotic fire extinguishing system

4.1.5. Autonomous fire extinguishing systems by the Federal Center for Dual Technologies "Soyuz"

4.1.5.1. Fire suppression system X

4.1.5.2. Fire suppression system Y

4.1.5.3. Fire suppression system Z

4.1.5.4. Mobile extinguishing system

4.2. Foreign stationary automated fire extinguishing systems

4.2.1. Robotic or automated?

4.2.2. General properties of modern foreign automated firefighting control systems

4.2.2.1. Requirements for remotely controlled monitors for use in automated fire extinguishing systems

4.2.2.2. Features of control systems for automated stationary fire extinguishing systems with monitors

4.2.3. Examples of control systems for automated fire extinguishing systems

4.2.3.1. Control system by company 1 (Germany)

4.2.3.2. Control system by company 2 (Norway)

4.2.3.3. Control system by company 3 (France)

4.2.3.4. Control system by company 4 (Italy)

4.2.3.5. Control system X by company 5 (Sweden)

5. ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF EXISTING SAMPLES OF FIRE EXTINGUISHING EQUIPMENT INSTALLED ON UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVs)

5.1. Practice of using UAVs for fire fighting

5.1.1. World experience in the use of UAVs in emergency situations

5.1.2. Modern UAV fleet of EMERCOM of the Russian Federation

5.1.3. Tasks of Russian EMERCOM UAVs in emergency situations

5.1.4. Regulatory requirements for the use of UAVs

5.1.4.1. Requirements for the use of UAVs in the Russian Federation

5.1.4.2. Legal restrictions when using UAVs in the United States

5.2. Domestic samples of firefighting UAVs

5.2.1. Solution 1 (Kazan)

5.2.2. Solution 2 (Moscow)

5.2.3. Solution 3 (Moscow)

5.2.4. Solution 4 (Moscow)

5.3. Foreign samples of firefighting UAVs

5.3.1. Project 5 (USA)

5.3.2. Fire hexacopter bomber 6 (USA)

5.3.3. System of two UAVs (Lockheed Martin, USA)

5.3.4. System of four UAVs (Lockheed Martin, USA)

5.3.5. Project 7 (Spain)

5.3.6. Project 8 (Latvia)

5.3.7. Project 9 (China)

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1. Mobile fire extinguishing equipment

6.1.1. Conclusions about the development of mobile fire robotics in the world and the Russian Federation

6.1.1.1. Longlist 

6.1.1.2. Shortlist

6.1.2. Conclusions about the barriers and implementation opportunities

6.1.3. Conclusions about the applicability of mobile robotic technologies in the conditions of the Far North and insufficiently developed infrastructure

6.1.4. Recommendations for testing

6.2. Stationary firefighting equipment

6.2.1. Conclusions about the development of stationary fire robotics in the world and the Russian Federation

6.2.2. Conclusions about the barriers and implementation opportunities

6.2.3. Conclusions about the applicability of stationary fire robotics in the conditions of the Far North and insufficiently developed infrastructure

6.2.4. Recommendations for testing

6.3. Firefighting UAVs

6.3.1. Conclusions about the development of firefighting UAVs in the world and Russia

6.3.2. Conclusions about barriers and implementation opportunities

6.3.3. Conclusions about the applicability of firefighting UAVs in the conditions of the Far North and insufficiently developed infrastructure

6.4. Rating of ground-based mobile robotic firefighting equipment

6.4.1. Rating algorithm

6.4.1.1. General description and rating stages

6.4.1.2. Stage 1

6.4.1.3. Stage 2

6.4.1.4. Stages 3 and 4 

6.4.2. Implementation of the algorithm

6.4.3. Rating results: partial indices

6.4.3.1. Design index

6.4.3.2. Performance index

6.4.3.3. Control index 

6.4.3.4. Equipment index

6.4.3.5. Firefighting index 

6.4.3.6. Operation index

6.4.3.7. Purchasing index 

6.4.4. Rating results: final indices and ranking

 

List of tables

Table 1. Name and designation of mobile robotic firefighting system types

Table 2. Types, classes, and type parameters of ground-based robotic firefighting systems

Table 3. Classification by chassis (the type of propeller)

Table 4. Classification by drive type 

Table 5. Classification by type of communication on remote and local control panels

Table 7. Characteristics of fire-extinguishing substances

Table 8. Tactical and technical characteristics of the SLS-100-54 "Soyka"

Table 9. Tactical and technical characteristics of complex 2

…………………………….....

 

Table 63. Tactical and technical characteristics of complex 56

Table 64. Nomenclature of common industrial versions of stationary fire robots

Table 65. Tactical and technical characteristics of complex

Table 66. Application of fire robots and automatic fire extinguishing systems in 2012-2018

Table 67. Nomenclature of explosion-proof versions of fire robots

Table 68. Tactical and technical characteristics of complex 57

Table 69. Nomenclature of portable fire robots 58

Table 70. Tactical and technical characteristics of complex 59

Table 71. Nomenclature of mini fire robots

Table 72. Tactical and technical characteristics of complex 60

Table 73. Nomenclature of robotic fire complexes by Y

Table 74. Performance of robotic fire complex

Table 75. List of certificates for robotic water and foam firefighting systems by company Y

Table 76. Performance of the radio-controlled firefighting system by company 61

Table 77. Performance of the firefighting system by company 62

Table 78. Performance of autonomous fire extinguishing systems by the company

Table 79. Oscillation regimes of an automated sprinkler system

Table 80. System of regular Russian EMERCOM UAVs

Table 81. Tasks and limitations of using UAVs in emergencies

Table 82. Possible effects of various types of damage factors on UAVs

Table 83. Technical characteristics of the UAV by company 63

Table 84. Technical characteristics of the UAV by company 64

Table 85. Technical characteristics of the UAV by company 65

Table 86. Shortlist: title information

Table 87. Points scoring system (fragment)

Table 88. System of weighing

Table 89. Top 10 positions by design index

Table 90. Top 10 positions by dynamics index

Table 91. Top 10 positions by control index 

Table 92. Top 10 positions by equipment index

Table 93. Top 10 positions by firefighting index

Table 94. Top 10 positions by operation index

Table 95. Top 10 positions by purchasing index

Table 96. Top 10 mobile fire robots (final rating)

 

List of figures

Fig. 1. Appearance of the SLS-100-54 "Soyka"

Fig. 2. Appearance of complexes 2 and 3

Fig. 3. Design variants of complex 3

Fig. 4. Fire robot control panel

Fig. 5. Appearance of fire extinguishing machine 4

Fig. 6. Appearance of pumping and bagging machine 4

Fig. 7. Summary of characteristics of robot 4

Fig. 8. Robot 4 on tests

Fig. 9. Appearance of robot 5

Fig. 10. Robot 5 control panel 

Fig. 11. Robot 6 in Russia with different marking variants

Fig. 12. 360 nozzles creating a flow of thinly sprayed water

Fig. 13. Remote control for robot 6

Fig. 14. Appearance of a mobile high-power fire rescue complex 

Fig. 15. Appearance of mobile robot system 7

Fig. 16. Mobile robot system 7

Fig. 17. Remote control for mobile robot system 7

Fig. 18. Appearance of complex 8

Fig. 19. Complex 8 in operation

Fig. 20. Appearance of complex 8 with a dozer blade

Fig. 21. Example of application of complex 8

Fig. 22. Design options for complex 8

Fig. 23. Appearance of complex 9

Fig. 24. Operation of complex 9

Fig. 25. Summary of characteristics of complex 10

Fig. 26. Variants of extinguishing substances feed

Fig. 27. General view of complex 11

Fig. 28. Dimensions of complex 11 (in combat deployment)

Fig. 29. Remote control 

Fig. 30. Mobile robotic radio-controlled firefighting system 12 on tests

Fig. 31. Mobile robotic radio-controlled firefighting system 12, preparation for work

Fig. 32. Appearance of complex 13

Fig. 33. Appearance of robotic firefighting system 14

Fig. 34. Appearance of fire robot 15

Fig. 35. Appearance of mobile fire extinguishing system 16

Fig. 36. Appearance of mobile fire extinguishing system 17

Fig. 37. Mobile radio-controlled fire extinguishing system 17 on tests

Fig. 38. Remote control for mobile fire extinguishing system 17

Fig. 39. Appearance of robot firefighter 18

Fig. 40. Robot 18 on tests

Fig. 41. Appearance of robot 19

Fig. 42. Robot 19 in operation

Fig. 43. Appearance of robotic system 20

Fig. 44. Appearance of complex 21

Fig. 45. Robotic complex 21 on tests

Fig. 46. Appearance of tractor 22, fire modification

Fig. 47. Presentation of Chinese robots 23 and 24 in Belarus

Fig. 48. Chinese robot 24 at the presentation in Belarus

Fig. 49. Appearance of mobile fire extinguishing system 25

Fig. 50. Design of mobile fire extinguishing system 25

Fig. 51. Use of complex 25 as part of a fire and rescue train

Fig. 52. Appearance of a transport trailer complex

Fig. 53. Appearance of mobile fire extinguishing system 26

Fig. 54. Complex 26 in operation

Fig. 55. Design of complex 27

Fig. 56. Complex 27 with firefighting livery

Fig. 57. Complex 27 in a passenger elevator in Thailand

Fig. 58. Complex 28 delivered to China

Fig. 59. Appearance of fire robot 28

Fig. 60. Appearance of mobile robot 29

Fig. 61. Appearance of complex 30 (left) and 31 (right)

Fig. 62. Remote control for fire engine 30

Fig. 63. Fire engine 30 in China

Fig. 64. Remotely controlled robot firefighter 31

Fig. 65. Appearance of robot 32

Fig. 66. Robot 32 in action

Fig. 67. Appearance of robot 33 (left) and 34 (right)

Fig. 68. Tests of firefighting robot 34

Fig. 69. Variants of firefighting equipment on robot 35

Fig. 70. Rapid change of the payload on robot 35

Fig. 71. Robot 36 control panel

Fig. 72. Appearance of the Colossus firefighting robot

Fig. 73. Colossus robot in operation

Fig. 74. Appearance of fire-fighting robot 38

Fig. 75. Comparative size of the Colossus and robot 38

Fig. 76. Robot 39 design

Fig. 77. Robot 39 control panel 

Fig. 78. Transportation of robot 39

Fig. 79. Multifunctional robotic fire extinguishing system 39 in operation

Fig. 80. Appearance of robot 40 with factory livery

Fig. 81. Robot 40 when extinguishing a forest fire in Germany

Fig. 82. Robot 41 when extinguishing a forest fire 

Fig. 83. Modular architecture of robot 42

Fig. 84. Conceptual control model of robot 42

Fig. 85. Robot 43

Fig. 86. Robot 44

…………………………...

 

Fig. 99. Robot 58

Fig. 100. Fire extinguishing system 59

Fig. 101. A prototype of complex 60

Fig. 102. A prototype of complex 61

Fig. 103. A prototype of complex 62 as part of solution X

Fig. 104. The appearance of robot 63

Fig. 105. Firefighting robot 63 on tests

Fig. 106. Fire robot 64: top view

Fig. 107. Fire robot 64 extinguishes a burning plane

Fig. 108. Robot 64 control panel

Fig. 109. Transportation of fire robot 64 in the back of a pickup truck

Fig. 110. Robot 65 and its control panel

Fig. 111. Robot 65 on tests

Fig. 112. Robot 66 in a waterproof suit

Fig. 113. Design features of robot 66

Fig. 114. Robot 66 design in 2015-2017

Fig. 115. Robot 66 on tests

Fig. 116. Appearance of fire robot 67

Fig. 117. Appearance of a prototype of robot 67, an unmanned landing aid vehicle

Fig. 118. Appearance of fire robot 68

Fig. 119. Appearance of a fire monitor in an explosion-proof version with automatic nozzle 69

Fig. 120. Appearance of fire robot 70

Fig. 121. Appearance of mini robot firefighter 71

Fig. 122. Typical schematic of protection of an object with robotic fire complexes by company 1

Fig. 123. Appearance of radio-controlled firefighting system 72

Fig. 124. Radio-controlled firefighting system 72 in the Moscow Kremlin

Fig. 125. Appearance of robots by company 2

Fig. 126. Appearance of fire extinguishing system 73

Fig. 127. Complex 74 design

Fig. 128. Design of the gas generator of complex 74

Fig. 129. Line of autonomous fire extinguishing systems

Fig. 130. Appearance and operation of mobile system 76

Fig. 131. Mobile system 76 on tests

Fig. 132. Control system for a stationary fire extinguishing system with monitors by company 3

Fig. 133. Control cabinet for a stationary fire extinguishing system by company 4

Fig. 134. Control system for fire monitors using an automat by company 5

Fig. 135. Command console in the control system of complex 77

Fig. 136. Console 78 in explosion-proof design

Fig. 137. Bypass of faults in control system circuit 79

Fig. 138. How the control system by company 6 works

Fig. 139. Record breaking UAV by company 7 and its creators

Fig. 140. Design of unmanned aircraft platform ...

Fig. 141. UAV ... in flight

Fig. 142. UAV control center ...

Fig. 143. Appearance of UAV 2

Fig. 144. Appearance of UAV 3

Fig. 145. Fire helicopter 3 in manned and unmanned versions

Fig. 146. Appearance of a drone by company 4 ...

Fig. 147. Appearance of a plane by company 5 ...

Fig. 148. Hexacopter bomber 6 on tests

Fig. 149. Ball drop (the photo was taken from the board …)

Fig. 150. Unmanned synchropter 7 (rear) and aircraft-type UAV 8 (foreground)

Fig. 151. Unmanned synchropter 7 (bottom view)

Fig. 152. Unmanned fire seaplane 8 (side view)

Fig. 153. Unmanned fire seaplane 8 (front view)

Fig. 154. Advantages of UAV 9 when extinguishing high-rise objects

Fig. 155. UAV 9 on tests

Fig. 156. Preparing UAV 9 for operation

Fig. 157. Geographical distribution of mobile fire robot developments

Fig. 158. Segmentation by robot type (by purpose)

Fig. 159. Segmentation by robot class (by weight)

Fig. 160. Explosion protection of fire robots

Fig. 161. Number of fire robot models by country

Fig. 162. Shortlist: segmentation by robot type (by purpose)

Fig. 163. Shortlist: segmentation by robot class (by weight)

Fig. 164. Rating algorithm stages 

Fig. 165. Robot firefighter SPM, the winner of the rating