The future of the military

[Robin S]

Military science fiction is a popular genre for novels, films, computer games and in fact almost any medium you care to name. Even when the sci-fi isn't explicitly militarily-themed, future military developments are often given at least a passing mention. There exist a wide variety of fictional alternatives, some obviously more realistic than others. Many don't bother with the realities of science, hence anti-matter projectiles as practical weapons, nano-sized robots able to self-locomote, warp-based cloaking technology and so forth. But what do you think the future might really hold for the military (assuming it continues to be maintained in some form)?

[PS_Mouse]

I'd like to see remotely (or even AI) piloted drones become a part of air forces.

[grim heart]

I think we'll always see some aspect of human combat troops, insofar as sometimes the best result is achieved simply by putting boots on the ground. That said, with GPS, GIS, and all-those-other-acronyms-I-don't-know-anything-about, the current trend of remote information gathering will continue, and definitely expand into areas of unmanned fighter aircraft, reconnaissance and combat vehicles, etc.

Over the long term, it's my belief that political integration will lessen the presence and importance of respective militaries, or shift their focus to peacekeeping/disaster response.

[Robin S]

What about terrorist organizations?

[grim heart]

What about terrorist organizations?

They are not immutable, if that's the suggestion. Northern Ireland is a decent example of how a political context changes in time. I suspect similar gains can be made with Islamic extremism, though undeniably that's much larger in scale.

Edit: I think it's relevent to note that in my first post I was thinking in terms of > 200 years.

[Amicitia]

I'm thinking around the lines of 1984.
I don't think we have flying fortresses yet.

[Sunshine]

I'm a rabid military nut, and as far as I have noticed, most Western nations have been shifting attention to knowledge-based warfighting systems. That is, developing methods to move intelligence from reconnaissance, through operational command, and to the appropriate combat representatives, quickly and smoothly.
Many countries (Britain, France, Australia, Germany, USA, Israel, etc) are working on programs known as "future warrior" programs, designed to enhance the combat troopers' situational awareness in the field. This usually manifests itself in live satellite uplinks, reworked communications networks, improved optics (infrared, NVG's, that lot) for soldiers, and improved methods of gathering information.

On the subject of robotic warfare, I know that the USA has Predator class scout drones currently in operation, and the Reaper class gunship drone has just entered service. About the size of an A-10 fighter, the Reaper can move at 300km/h, carry multiple Hellfire missiles or conventional ordinance, and is completely unmanned. It is controlled via satellite by operators in Nevada.

In addition, the Israeli Defence Force has recently deployed the Viper scout robot. This little guy has treads like a tank, can fit in your backpack, and can have a grenade launcher, 9mm Uzi with red dot sight, gripper arm or mapping tool attached to it. It's used in urban combat environments for scouting out buildings and such.

I think the future of warfare lies in improving intelligence and knowledge, so that every member of a warfighting force knows the situation entirely, how much force to apply, and what the consequences will be. Hopefully pursuing these aspects of warfare will help minimise collateral damage and civilian casualties.

[Amicitia]

If by minimise, you mean "kill the people we don't like."

[Vaniver]

Armies, as they have been known for the majority of history, will no longer exist. We no longer need grunts to destroy the enemy; now we need occupying forces and the occasional special forces unit. Enemy military targets will either be hopeless outclassed and easily destroyed by the air force, or they won't be targets. The threat of MAD is a powerful incentive for peace, with the exception of those with nothing left to lose. So, what's left is controlling civilians with the softest touch possible; a job that, I have argued elsewhere, is hopeless, but it is more likely that idealism will continue than cruel pragmatism will return to the halls of power.

If by minimise, you mean "kill the people we don't like."

He did specify collateral damage.

[Swordfish]

Future Combat Systems

Thats a quick look on what the U.S. Military is working on. I actually think Wikipedia's stuff on FCS is a bit better though. One interesting thing to note about FCS is the lack of a Main Battle Tank. The U.S. Defense Department has declared/acknowledged that the Main Battle Tank is obsolete, so what you'll see with FCS is a much faster and much lighter armored vehicle that essentially amounts to be a self propelled fire support. A big thing that makes the tank obsolete is that in any kind of terrain or environment it can be out classes and destroyed by something much cheaper and more mobile. The key part of that last sentence being the words "more mobile." Mobility is the name of the game for warfare in the future, and it's one thing that FCS hopes to accomplish.

Another thing that FCS stresses is communication. With all sorts of equipment and units on so many different levels flawless communication is something that will be needed to effectively engage in combat, and flawless communication is something that the U.S. Military is currently lacking in (example: The Marines were apparently using Line of Sight radios in Fallujah).

There is a limit on how much you can do with unmanned aircraft, armored vehicles, whatever, though. Unmanned systems will mostly be relegated to reconnaissance roles. Specifically speaking, the Class IV UAV is not designed to operate autonomously, but it will rather be one of a number helicopters in a team, one of which will be manned.

The most information about FCS you'll be able to find is about the Future Force Warrior, which is the U.S. Army's model for future infantry. There are some interesting plans for that, one being a new concept for body armor, consisting of iron filaments suspended in a silicate oil.

All in all, Future Combat Systems looks to be the U.S. Military's answer for everything, from fighting guerrilla type resistance to taking on the armed forces of another nation. Once again, the keys are communication and mobility. There is no situation where those won't give you an advantage.

[Dark Ragnarok]

Personally, I speculate the military will develop more super weapons that will cause the same problems as in the Cold War. And then on top of that, we (America) will find a way to abuse it's new most extravagant defense system to get away with something.

Eh, technology always grows, so as long as no majority gets horridly behind, not a whole lot will change.

Hm, i also speculate some new weapon testing on the moon or likewise.

[Maurog]

I think Metal Storm weapons are way cool.

[The Cosmic Fool]

Active armies will inevitably become smaller. This is commonly the case where force projection and quality of equipment outmatch mass numbers. Besides, despite what people may say about the state of human society and politics at the moment; we're farther from violence at this point than we've ever been. 90% of the world adheres to the post-Cold War order, so most countries are spending more time making their armies more lean and effective for combat. (Rather than a consider build up of soldiers.)

Side thought though, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are putting the U.S. military (and several other countries to note) under intense stresses. Like, from an article I read, the U.S are pretty much at their max capacity in terms of control of the two separate situations.

(Makes the question of military really relevant anymore. I think more raw power is with the politics and general framework in which we live. Like the U.S could never invade Canada tomorrow. It wouldn't happen. Sorry you Orwellian thinkers.)

As for technology, I think while there is some pretty intense technology that is being developed. However, bullets and bombs still work just as effective as they did in World War 2. I believe we'll be stuck with updated concepts of old technology for awhile.

[Malice]

I'd like to see remotely (or even AI) piloted drones become a part of air forces.

Not until we have true AI will this be possible.

I mean, on a commercial airliner, you can tell the computer, "Adjust so that you stay at such a speed and such an altitude," and it'll do it, but you still need a pilot to take off, land, and take care of any events that should arise.

And that's just getting from point A to point B. Combat adds a whole new set of problems that, basically, computers aren't equipped to handle just yet. You need a human being in the cockpit who can make decisions and react to events and think creatively.

[evilbeanfiend]

it might not be that far away

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/15 ... bot_darpa/

[Malice]

Yeah.

Actual combat missions, though? I don't think so.

[zenten]

Yeah.

Actual combat missions, though? I don't think so.

That depends on the monetary value you place on a soldier's life, and a soldier's death though.

[Shinju]

I quite 'liked' (and that's liked in huge inverted commas) the idea of remote drones fighting the wars being controlled by children playing the equivalent of todays computer games except it was really battle simulations. Came up in a book I read once. Given how aggressive children are it seemed to make sense, might even work better with teenagers going through puberty.
Well if you absolutely have to have a war.

Please note this is absolutely NOT something I would like to see, I merely present it for your consideration.

[Maurog]

A counter-point to you: computers play better than humans. There is no point using children.

[bbctol]

Came up in a book I read once.

Umm... Ender's Game, by any chance? I think practically everyone on the fora (and in the world) has read that.

[SecondTalon]

Came up in a book I read once.

Umm... Ender's Game, by any chance? I think practically everyone on the fora (and in most Western geekdom) has read that.

Fix'd it for you.

As for computers playing better... most of the time this is accomplished by allowing the computer to cheat, rather than programming actual skill. Any AI programer will tell you that sound AI routines are an absolute bitch to program. Possible, sure, but not today.

In my lifetime, however.. yeah, I expect it. Probably not in a "Two guys and three bots walk into a combat zone".. more of a "One guy points the killbot in the right direction and runs away before activating it, as it's basically programmed to level the area before shutting off."

See Also : Zap Brannigan's Killbot Solution.

Seriously, I see AI as being more like that.. LookFor Target , Found Target, identify if weapon present, if yes open fire, if no Disregard, LookFor Target

Good enough to not fire on people without weapons, but not sophisticated enough to tell friend from foe. The obvious solution would be to have some kind of radio badge that sends out a "DON'T SHOOT" signal to the killbot, but those would be easy to replicate by the enemy... so it'd be easier to just have the Killbot destroy everything with a gun, grenade, rocket launcher, pointy stick, whatever.

[zenten]

Good enough to not fire on people without weapons, but not sophisticated enough to tell friend from foe. The obvious solution would be to have some kind of radio badge that sends out a "DON'T SHOOT" signal to the killbot, but those would be easy to replicate by the enemy... so it'd be easier to just have the Killbot destroy everything with a gun, grenade, rocket launcher, pointy stick, whatever.

Oddly enough this is almost the same problem when it comes to humans. Thus all the "friendly fire" issues.

[Gunfingers]

Interestingly alot of equipment (such as aircraft and, i think, tanks) have Identification Friend/Foe broadcasts to try to avoid this and the Army Combat Uniform has small infrared patches on it with the hopes of easing identification in the dark.

[zenten]

Also, now that I think about it, as long as everything has a clock, it should be possible to broadcast a signal that would be damn hard to crack, unless you get a hold of a transmitter that is.

[SecondTalon]

Interestingly alot of equipment (such as aircraft and, i think, tanks) have Identification Friend/Foe broadcasts to try to avoid this and the Army Combat Uniform has small infrared patches on it with the hopes of easing identification in the dark.

Sure, but those patches can be stolen/replicated by the enemy. I've heard that the Iraqi folk have gotten ahold of some..... now, how accurate that report was, I have no idea.

[Shinju]

Came up in a book I read once.

Umm... Ender's Game, by any chance? I think practically everyone on the fora (and in the world) has read that.

No actually its was a Dr Who book. I don't doubt they nicked the idea from enders game.

A counter-point to you: computers play better than humans. There is no point using children.

I dont know whether this is actually true, but in the book they did start off with computers running it, but both sides computers were equally good and they ended up with a stalemate, the only way to break the stalemate was to reintroduce the human element, make mistakes and confuse the enemy.

[zenten]

Came up in a book I read once.

Umm... Ender's Game, by any chance? I think practically everyone on the fora (and in the world) has read that.

No actually its was a Dr Who book. I don't doubt they nicked the idea from enders game.

A counter-point to you: computers play better than humans. There is no point using children.

I dont know whether this is actually true, but in the book they did start off with computers running it, but both sides computers were equally good and they ended up with a stalemate, the only way to break the stalemate was to reintroduce the human element, make mistakes and confuse the enemy.

That episode of Doctor Who actually predates Ender's Game.

[Shinju]

Not quite, assuming your talking about 'Destiny of the Daleks', which is where the robot stalemate came from, the book I was talking about follows on from that, but was written much later.

[zenten]

Not quite, assuming your talking about 'Destiny of the Daleks', which is where the robot stalemate came from, the book I was talking about follows on from that, but was written much later.

Ah, ok, sorry.

[jack]

Future of the Military, by Jack

We will solve poverty and hunger using nano-technology, AI and other advanced science.

People will spend less time working, and more time pursuing creative and leisure endevours.

Personal wealth will be irrelevant in a world where objects can be constructed at will, and resources are carefully managed by AI and bots.

As a result, there will no longer be so many cross and angry people with inferiority complexes and hate. Countries will not fight.

Military technology will no longer be worked on.

Then aliens will land and blow us all to shit.

[SecondTalon]

As a result, there will no longer be so many cross and angry people with inferiority complexes and hate. Countries will not fight.

You forgot religion, political ideology, skin color, lineage, proximity, handedness, whether one is pro or anti skub, and any number of idiotic reasons that people fight.

Simply being in a different country is more than enough reason to blow the shit out of the other guy. Especially if it's a nation on the other side of the world full of brown people of a different religion.

[zenten]

As a result, there will no longer be so many cross and angry people with inferiority complexes and hate. Countries will not fight.

You forgot religion, political ideology, skin color, lineage, proximity, handedness, whether one is pro or anti skub, and any number of idiotic reasons that people fight.

Simply being in a different country is more than enough reason to blow the shit out of the other guy. Especially if it's a nation on the other side of the world full of brown people of a different religion.

I would suggest that people are more likely to blow the shit out of someone relatively close to them than someone on the other side of the world.

[SecondTalon]

While I admit I may be wrong, I'd guess that it's easier to get your population behind blowing up someone on the other side of the world as contact is limited with them, so you're somewhat free to demonize them as you see fit.

[Robin S]

Also, the radioactive fallout is less likely to affect your own civilians.

[ArchangelShrike]

Although the smarter ones will want to progress to 4th gen warfare, and 5th gen (space combat?) and beyond, we will get involved in a pissing war of super weapons designed to maximize profits for a few companies.

Meanwhile, small groups with nothing to lose will remember the tactics of their forefathers, combine it with the technology of today and go hunting.

Eventually the military will become leaner and slowly adapt, becoming smaller as time goes on. Paramilitary forces/Civil Defense Units are created only to maintain peace and order in cities/countries.

But I hope only the third becomes true.

[theonemephisto]

I think that military trends are going towards knowledge/information based systems. Basically, militaries will turn more and more towards relying on smaller, highly trained, well-equipped, well-organized, and coordinated troops conducting more surgical strikes. Of course, another trend is the "I push a button and a missile/bomb comes from out of nowhere and blows you up" warfare. But considering how troops will operate, I think that more and more they'll turn into more special-forces-esque forces.

[ICDB]

Relating to all of the AI posts
Anyone read the National Geographic about getting inspiration for computer models from ants, bees, etc? The rules that an ant uses in its work seem to be simple enough to program into many, many small robots (according to the article). Once you got a lot of these working together, the equivalent of a functioning ant colony will result (so that could be an effective attack or just a good job cleaning your house).

[Robin S]

Hence this thread.

[Gelsamel]

Anyone seen the 2057 "documentary" thing?

[Gadren]

Anyone seen the 2057 "documentary" thing?

For about 5 minutes, then I turned it off in disgust. Why make a stupid drama, Discovery?

Anyway, I think that the main change in the military won't be technological, but rather a rise of mercenary groups. We already see Blackwater controlling a lot of things.