Warfare Changes

[Centurion Quintus]

As everyone knows, warfare and how it is waged has changed so many times, and in so many ways since it's "birth".

What do you think the next "genre" of warfare will be?

How will it change, and what kind of technoligcal advancements do you think will change it?

[Eusebius]

Originally posted by Centurion Quintus@May 13 2005, 11:39 PM
As everyone knows, warfare and how it is waged has changed so many times, and in so many ways since it's "birth".

What do you think the next "genre" of warfare will be?

How will it change, and what kind of technoligcal advancements do you think will change it?

Good question!!! Yo should go to one of those used bookstore warehouses and find books by Jerry Pournelle - a historical Sci Fi writer - he takes historic events and changes the scenery to the future. He also edits lots of compilations that contain both essays and short stories - very interesting read.

Now the next phase of warfare should be the total amalgamation(sp) of combined arms warfare. That's right, units that will have their own organic infantry, artillary, and armor assets. Now, today we see units formed into teams that do exactly that at the company/troop level. But I am referring to an even lower level - Robert Heinlen called it the MI - Mobile Infantry. We would call it powered armor. Individually armored footsoldiers that have the mobility close to helicopters (jump packs), the firepower of artillary (grenade/ mortar dispensor onback and mini-nukes), adaptablity of infanftry and armored survivability. It migght sound totally SciFi - it is - but I think our generation will live to see it. It is just a matter of small an strong servo motors and a lightt power plant. NOw, heinlen might've been a little prresumptious with the mini-nukes, butt what wbout personal smart weapons? The US Army's next generation assault rifle will have and integral 20mm grenade launcher that can be programed to explode at a prredetermined distance. That means you don't overthrogh your grenades anymore. YOu want them to blow up on the other side of the door and they do! Anyways, I think a true total combined arms force will bee the future.

Oh, and morre smart weapons, too. Like THOR, somthing I just don't have the energy to explain... gettin' old

[Caelius]

Three words: Network Centric Warfare.

[Gelatinous Cube]

I think there's a few major ways warfare could change. For one thing, I believe we'll be seeing more and more unmanned aircraft, although the airforce insists that a full removal of mannedf aircraft would be impractical, as humans come with (and I quote) a "Built in common-sense feature."

However, I think the biggest change will be Nanotechnology. Nanotech is becoming more and more of a reality in the medical world, and it's only a matter of time before it works it's way into the military world.

[Owain_Glyndwr]

I suppose the easiest thing to guess would be the Tank no longer being used. With better anti-tank weaponry carried by infantry, and with jets able to demolish large number of tanks when they move out into the open, the Tank will simply become obsolete.

[Erik]

Originally posted by Gelatinous Cube@May 14 2005, 04:38 AM
I think there's a few major ways warfare could change. For one thing, I believe we'll be seeing more and more unmanned aircraft, although the airforce insists that a full removal of mannedf aircraft would be impractical, as humans come with (and I quote) a "Built in common-sense feature."

Yes, and the same pilots also have a "build in panic feature"
And a "I'm-too-tired-to-tell-friend-from-foe capability"
Plus, those AI planes wil pull much more G's than there human colleagues.
I might be biased because I'm an AI programmer myself (or I just happen to know what I'm talking about) but unmanned aircraft wil be the future for sure.

But the main thing that wil change warfare is the sharing of data between units.
In 20 years time every soldier wil have real time data available about the combat situation, gathered by radars UMV's and other units.
If they see somebody they don't have to check if he's a friendly because this info wil be available in advance.
And if one unit detects an enemy all other units wil instantly know about it.

[Last_Crusader]

NOw, heinlen might've been a little prresumptious with the mini-nukes,

The 'mini-nuke' exists. The 'Davy Crockett' tactical nuke can and has been fired by infantry personnel in testing in the '60s. It has a yield of ~ 0.01 kilotons . Below is a picture of the device itself before testing.

[Erik]

Originally posted by Last_Crusader@May 14 2005, 07:37 AM
The 'mini-nuke' exists. The 'Davy Crockett' tactical nuke can and has been fired by infantry personnel in testing in the '60s. It has a yield of ~ 0.01 kilotons . Below is a picture of the device itself before testing.

Let me guess....
Both the guy in the picture and the photographer died a short time after.

[Tiwaz]

Eusebius, I highly doubt we will ever see the day some kind of mobile armour is usable.

Building strong enough motors to move it, small and powerful enough energy source... Those are big problems still. And at the moment every exoskeleton made is rather cumbersome. Armoured soldiers would be too slow to react and truth in warfare is that in competition of penetrator and protection.... Penetrator always wins since it only has to come in one right way (size, speed, material etc) but protection has to stop all possible methods (which is impossible).

[Centurion Quintus]

And aren't we forgetting one very important feature of unmanned aircraft?

No one dies. :whistle

Wow, I didn't know a mini-nuke existed, that's very horrifying.

[Xiaodun]

Before you guys go on raving about nanotechnology and mobile armour, I will like to remind you that war gets more and more expensice as it gets high tech and whatever country that mass produces expensive fancy weaponary that costs millions to create but only a shell to destroy, is going to be bankrupt within a few months.

Warfare is expensive enough as it is. Chances are, America or some other high tech nation goes to war, loses billions in high tech weaponary, so everyone goes back to using guns.

[Tiwaz]

Originally posted by Centurion Quintus@May 14 2005, 09:34 AM
And aren't we forgetting one very important feature of unmanned aircraft?

No one dies. :whistle

Wow, I didn't know a mini-nuke existed, that's very horrifying.

Human life is cheap in the books of generals and leaders.

The difference in ability of manned and unmanned aircraft is more than enough for them to justify loss of humans.

As for nobody dying... Not likely.

[Faenaris]

Space combat will be the next genre. The moment we are able to colonize new planets, there will be conflict. Only then, we'll be using Laser weapons and other nasty gadgets.

That is, if we manage to stay alive. Because with all the nukes we have on this globe, I don't think good old Earth will live out it's own life. We'll probably nuke ourselves to death.

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by BattleKnight@May 14 2005, 12:03 PM
Space combat will be the next genre. The moment we are able to colonize new planets, there will be conflict. Only then, we'll be using Laser weapons and other nasty gadgets.

How will we even get to other planets. Even if we did managed to travel at the speed of light, its going to take 4 years to get to the closest star.

[Tiwaz]

Originally posted by deathdoom56@May 14 2005, 12:15 PM
How will we even get to other planets. Even if we did managed to travel at the speed of light, its going to take 4 years to get to the closest star.

Most likely some kind of hibernation will be implemented or simple geneseed technology where no actual living humans travel.

As for other planets, you don't need to leave solar system for that. Mars is theoretically possible to terroform. Venus would be a longshot and no forseeable technology would make it possible to live in any other of the planets in our solar system without closed colonies.

[Last_Crusader]

Space combat will be the next genre. The moment we are able to colonize new planets, there will be conflict. Only then, we'll be using Laser weapons and other nasty gadgets.

That is, if we manage to stay alive. Because with all the nukes we have on this globe, I don't think good old Earth will live out it's own life. We'll probably nuke ourselves to death.

If we're going to go into space, wouldn't it be easier to shoot down a spacecraft with a missile? A laser powerful enough to rip through any kind of spacecraft hull would be massive and require a long cool-off period, and so would be unfeasible. More likely, we'll be flying to planets within the solar system in project Orion style ships, and attempting to hit the nuke stores or pusher plates with conventional weapons.

[Gelatinous Cube]

I saw an interesting thing on Nanotechnology earlier today. According to some dude or another in the Pentagon, they've begun reasearch on how to use Nanotech militarily. A couple ways are reallly quite interesting:

1) Uniforms that change color. These would adapt their camoglauge patterns to the terrain.

2) (and this is the most interesting) artificial muscle-suits, that would allow someone to jump forty feet in the air, and perform other ridiculous feats.

3) Body-Armor hundreds of times stronger than Kevlar.

According to the dude, the "Techology is there, all we need is money and time."

[Tiwaz]

Really? Technology is there?

I doubt it. Apparently first nanopipes etc are indeed made but nobody has been able to build single complex nanomachine. And those uses listed would require a very complex system for nanomachines and their controlling mechanisms.

[Gelatinous Cube]

Originally posted by Tiwaz@May 14 2005, 04:18 PM
Really? Technology is there?

I doubt it. Apparently first nanopipes etc are indeed made but nobody has been able to build single complex nanomachine. And those uses listed would require a very complex system for nanomachines and their controlling mechanisms.

His words, not mine. If I had to take a jab at it, I'd say he meant the Discovery was there, and the knowledge that it is possible is there. I wouldn't expect to see this kind of technology come into play for decades.

[Spartan19]

Actually, the most drastic changes in warfare have only come in the last 400 years give or take. All pre gunpowder age warfare was essentially the same, if youre in big open lands youd be practicing your arching, slinging, or throwing skills, maybe horse riding, and if you werent in big open spaces you would be working with a sword or spear or mace or club. The technology definatly changed, making weapons and armor better, and there were little changes, such as a big mob of guys with spears and shields evolved into a phalanx of hoplites in Greece, and then some changes were made from there. Likewise the art of the calvaryman and swordsmen evolved t as well. But the bottom line, that basiclly for 4,000 years the only advancments made we how to bash or stab or cut someone better.

Then the Chinese figured gunpowder out, and a few hundred years later it was widespread to every civilized army with the soldiers now killing at a distance. And then the big use of explosives was discovered, making bombs and artillery rounds availble, now to the modern age where we can drop them into a mailbox or window 50 miles away.

So honestly weve made some huge advancments, but only in the past few hundred years, but where it goes from there I have no idea.