Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Future Wars => Topic started by: tnjrp on 22 February 2013, 06:29:57 AM
-
On the current trends in combat suit developement:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130121-batman-meets-iron-man-in-combat/1
-
Unable to view in the UK :(
-
Try searching the BBC website for 'Iron Man to Bat Man' matey.
But it's nothing you haven't seen before ;)
-
Ya know what I hope it inspires.
Short rotund little myopic warriors in exo frame suits.
Enhancing the unenhanceable via technology.
short version - what if the humans in Wall-E went to war.
That is a scary vision of the future :o .
The trouble is... I can see where you are coming from. 'Too fat to fight' would become a thing of the past and the interaction between exo frame and obese human would eventually tone and improve the condition of the wearer. A lot of vision problems could be sorted with technology; the obvious one being laser surgery but enhancement with sensors and optical devices could also help.
On the other side of the coin... the 'too fat to fight' brigade could be plonked in the 'gaming chair' and fight from there using the increasing range of UAVs / UGVs... rendering all this exo armour redundant :) . Obviously that would raise the now contentious issue of being 'divorced' from the situation... but there will come a time when that will be brushed under the carpet.
When push comes to shove, it all comes down to powering the equipment and until we can do that with a quiet and efficient system, these things will remain a laboratory toy.
-
I am afraid drone development will be much faster than this, which is even better for obese soldiers killing in front of screens with Joysticks......
-
I am afraid drone development will be much faster than this, which is even better for obese soldiers killing in front of screens with Joysticks......
As sad as it is, I completely agree. There is much more investment in UAV / UGV technology that robot suits for troops.
-
Unmanned vehicles won't do a take over, though they certainly will see development faster, and the range of things we can use them for will increase. Although you can bet your eyes they will probably develop ways of countering unmanned vehicles, same for them making counters for practically anything else that will prevent a particular item from dominating the field.
I wouldn't call it a contentious issue; its quite obvious they won't replace live troops as that's missing the whole point of combined arms, but they will be another useful asset in waging wars and they will see a lot of use.
The only big argument when it comes to all of this technology is; is it really sustainable?? Given the amount of money and resources and time required to make them, and the time and money placed in training people to use it. If there was to be a major conflict that stops just short of a nuclear exchange, where there would be heavy casualties and massive loss of equipment; would any of these really expensive high tech gizmoes really be practical??
Answer is probably no.
-
I want an exit strategy when it is time for one. Leave too soon and the whole thing was a waste of lives.
HOWEVER... this thread isn't about that, it is about future tech and as much as I agree with a lot of what Brummie says, there is huge investment in UAVs at the moment and the contentious issue I mentioned wasn't about their use, it was the fact that some UAVs have the potential to destroy without a pilot being involved and even with a pilot being involved, there is the worry that they get blind to the fact they are taking lives (because they are often miles away in the safety of a porta-cabin) and are divorced from the situation.
You would be amazed at the discussions going on about the psychology of UAV use and the ethical questions that have surfaced.
That said... what price life? A UAV lost is a pilot saved.
-
<snip>
You would be amazed at the discussions going on about the psychology of UAV use and the ethical questions that have surfaced.
<snip>
Not really, we have them at work regularly.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
I am aware of that (24 years and counting in the RAF has brought me into contact with many pilots) but not all (if any) UAV pilots are actually pilots and many have not seen the effects of what they have done up close.
The thought is that, even though they are tested and trained, there can be a tendency to get so used to watching a screen that the enormity of their decisions can become 'hazy'... possibly leading to a missile being fired when it shouldn't have. The whole Playstation thing...
The difference is that a UAV pilot is in no danger when he is flying his aircraft. A military pilot is in danger and it is either 'kill or be killed' or 'an eye for an eye'.
Many UAVs are piloted from a different continent to where the UAV is actually flying so they are perfectly safe.
-
I wonder how this topic is NOT political and against the forum rules........
not that I mind 8) 8)
-
I wouldn't say it was political (I thought I steered it away from 'bringing the troops home' quite nicely ;) ) more philosophical. The ethics behind pulling the trigger from far away in a place of safety.
But it has transgressed from powered suits though.
I think that the Japanese 'powered leg' system that has been trialled around Tokyo, is a good starter for ten in the powered suit race. It has its own power source and is quiet and efficient. it only aids the wearer rather than doing all of the work and it has a fairly limited range but it is better than the tethered versions I have seen for the US and also quieter than the 'Big Dog' system of robot carriers.
-
Allright then, let's lift the third wheel
Since when was "sane" an aspect that counted in the military world?
Yes, of course the mindset should be extremely important!
on a more humorous note - look at the more excentric military men of the past 100 years or so:
T.E. Lawrence, Geoffrey Spicer-Simson, Orde Charles Wingate
to name but a few, might have not been so remarkable in theit fields with a more "normal" mindset...
I guess the coin is rather double sided here.....
-
I wonder how this topic is NOT political and against the forum rules........
not that I mind 8) 8)
I think everyone is being very sensible on this thread, and as Inso said have got back on track - its produced some well thought out points.
If we look even further into the future....the ratio of combat to support troops has been on an upward trend since 1800s with the establishment of formal logistical support. This accelerated post-industrial revolution as weapon systems became more complicated, and wars were fought over greater distances - if we extrapolate that into the future we would have a very small number of extremely well-equipped combat troops supported by a huge tail of logistical support, and remote vehicles (either AI or piloted from operators back at base as they are now).
In the realms of science-fiction, IF we make it to other systems and have a disagreement with the local jellyfish, mass/space would be at a premium.....do you take a bunch of troops that need cryo, or a bunch of bots that need a mechanic? :D
-
Allright, then back to topic
@Akula You are basically describing Adeptus Astartes and comparable for me. And I thought the invulnerabilty myth would have been deconstructed in movies like "Aliens" or more recent "Avatar" ?
-
I think that there will always be a need for human involvement. When push comes to shove, if someone is taking the responsibility, they would never trust judgement to anything other than a human. Would a robot be capable of making the right choice when detonating a nuclear device on a distant continent?
As a result, I think that the logistic support that Akula mentioned is probably the way it will go. Highly protected individuals with lots of logistics at their disposal.
... so I guess we've talked ourselves into building powered armour again :)
-
the culture novels are a very good point here
however, the a priori implication there is that they are kind of "good dictator", which is also a good criticism on the concept itself in the novels. apart from the deus ex machina automatism in storytelling
-
It may be worth considering how other technologies are moving a long that could dictate how future wars will be fought; to an extent. In truth I don't see them being fought with any big difference in how they are fought today, the impacts technology has on war is limited, especially when its only limited to a select group of states/organisations.
Gun technology for instance has practically reached a dead end; aside from occasional nifty changes to the size of the bullet, or the barrel etc, a Gun from 60/70 years ago is just as good as a gun today. The only major leaps are the things you can attach to it or the materials you can use to make them. Although many could argue the whole thing with making them out of plastic etc, instead of metal is a step in the wrong direction, as similar to having high-tech tanks and jets, they tend to require a lot of maintenance and support. If that support vanishes or diminishes in anyway then the amount of time your troops can spend operating in the field drops rapidly. Whereas the blokes with the trusty AK, eating berries, suddenly have the upper hand.
Drones would suffer from a similar problem; if these vehicles are high maintenance, unless you have a workshop that can provide short-term refuelling and repairs then whats the point?? They may be able to give your guys some extra eyes in the sky, or provide extra firepower and fill in on dangerous roles to reduce the chance one of your troopers gets killed, but for how long?? Machines don't have any sort of self-preservation, and even if piloted by a human, there is not the risk you will be harmed so you may not be as careful with a billion $$$$ piece of kit as you would with your life. I know you can get some real cheapo Drones; Hamas etc have been reported using them, but I'm supposing their range and what their capable of is limited.
As for big combat suits, if the tech will ever be there its a way off.
I like how they are used in Planetside 2; Effectively a (fairly) mobile weapons platform, that either supplements or provides a temporary replacement for deployable weapons, is intimidating, and a right pain in close quarters. However it isn't invincible; guys with assault rifles can take it out fairly quickly with good co-ordination, and it still needs to use cover. Although it is covered in armour that protects it from a reasonable amount of fire/shrapnel etc that would kill other men, getting caught out in the open in it is fatal.
I think future body armour though would lean more towards, monitoring a soldiers health, giving feedback to H.Q about how he/she is handling the environment etc, and maybe, if that person is injured their suit could even provide limited medical care that keeps them alive just that bit longer for medics to intervene/get them to a hospital.
There will be no room for fatties though.
-
Yes, since the invention of rifled barrels actually ;)
or to be more precise, nitro-propellant and modern metallurgy too
but ethics should have evolved since then,or not?
-
Yes, since the invention of rifled barrels actually ;)
or to be more precise, nitro-propellant and modern metallurgy too
but ethics should have evolved since then,or not?
I don't think our ethics have evolved. Fluctuated is probably the best way to describe it??
-
The problem with "remote" drones is that in the not too far future they will be electronically countered. This means, due to the "man in the loop" requirement, that that man will have to be a lot closer than a continent away, as they are today.
Eventually I believe that the future model of warfare will evolve into a situation in which you have a manned platform which controls a "squad", "flight" or "group" of machines be that ground, air or sea... a Queen Bee kinda concept with the Queen Bee being a human platform. The "bees" (machines) will provide the "sensors" for information gathering the Queen requires to base decisions, be that maneuver or combat.
This will be easier to implement for air and naval forces than ground forces... but eventual all services will move to this model.
The question than devolves into how close does the Queen need to be to the bees. Answer that question and you then determine whether or not a human in power armor is a requirement. Something tells me that this will be too cumbersome and vulnerable and as such some other means will be used to control ground "bees."
Perhaps the Queen will also be a machine which relays real time information to a human command component stationed close to the fight but not within its reach.
The future, however, most assuredly is not super men, genetically modified and clad in power armor...
-
For an entertaining read of how "technological" warfare may become have a look at "The Eylau Sequence", covers robotics, auto systems and nanotech weapons. Possibly a bit "sci fi" at the moment but still (IMHO) a potential development route.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0080XZNUQ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0080XZNUQ)
Written by Jim Burbeck the guy behind War Times Journal. It is the first part of a series. There is a set of wargame rules and some amazing gaming models that work with it.
-
I do not wish to be contentious but in a post cold war world will the opponents of the West have the technology to outsmart the smart weapons arrayed against them?
A mujaheddin with his AK 47 can take pot shots at a drone but he is unlikely to be able to "jam" it. I know with the proliferation of technology it may soon be possible to do that by mobile phone but won't the military be ahead of that? Well the Arms Dealers certainly will! And sell it.
If the wars ahead are to be technology v fanaticism then the body count will be in favour of tech but the war may go the other way? Troubled times and I am glad I will not be around to see it.
Technology doesn't win wars though. I think thats the big issue everyone skips around. It will only be there for as long as the resources and money is available to develop and make it; and even then it will only happen if people -think- it is a worthwhile investment.
These things will only exist for as long as we have the means to keep them going. Given that current way of life is extremely unsustainable anyway in the longterm, the structures that we currently have that enable us to have these things may just vanish in the future, and we will have to go back to the drawing board and develop new forms of technology.
-
These things will only exist for as long as we have the means to keep them going. Given that current way of life is extremely unsustainable anyway in the longterm, the structures that we currently have that enable us to have these things may just vanish in the future, and we will have to go back to the drawing board and develop new forms of technology.
We are in the process of entering into a new era due to rapid advances in multiple technologies. The "old way" is being destroyed to make room for the "new way." Out current way of life is changing due to these advances as, for example, robotics replace humans. What the "new way" will look like is something that folks really haven't come to terms with as yet and indeed at the present all efforts seem to be aimed at preserving the "old way" at all costs.
Some say "watch Japan" to get a glimpse at how the "new way" will take shape as demographically their population is declining whiling technologically it is moving rapidly forward.
-
Check this out...
German Gladius Combat System (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/20/gladius_soldier_system_the_german_military_embraces_video_game_style_heads.html)
-
The stuff is all interesting in theory, but the simple fact is: cost.
You're more likely to see back-rank logistics guys wearing power suits before the grunts on the frontline are.