It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Future Of War

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
And I saw your bit about nuclear power... How are you going to fit a nuclear power plant, and it's fuel into a UAV? And you said nothing about UCAVs, and UAVs have no battle ability. You might want to fix that little error.


Both the USA and the USSR had nuclear powered Sat's in the 60 ( USA) and 70's ( USSR, a series of 'spy' sat's). Getting a nuclear power plant into space is rather harder i would say?


I still don't see how you can only use UCAVs/UAVs that are nuclear powered and a spotter to fully combat an enemy, the Air Force is only one part of a war, there are many things in a theatre of combat that need to come together precisely in order for a true modern military to take control and come out on top.


Well yes but imagine how you can devastate the enemy when you can call down from either LEO or 5-10 000 feet rockets and bombs within mere minutes of the firefight started? Strategic air power is a great thing but it's not something that saves you in a average counter insurgency type firefight.


I believe that your UAVs are pure fantasy, as the space required for everything you have mentioned would be astronomical, and this job can be done much better coordinated with a simple AWACS and some strike squadrons and some ground troops,


So without the USA deploying it's entire armed forces it wont be able to do much anything? Ucav's revolutionizes that by having a expendable direct presence without feet on the ground.


you can't win a ground war without ground troops, and last time I checked, all wars seem to take place on the ground.


You do not need to hold ground to win a war either. I think what he is suggesting is just having something else carry the firepower which reduces the infantry combat patrols to mere spotters who do not have to be risked en-mass simply to ensure their survival.


Now I'm just being anal and touching up on alot of technical details, but don't get me wrong, I totally understand exactly how you're thinking, and at first it seems like a good idea, but if you think further into it, and the different components of it, then you begin to realize exactly where and why this will go wrong.


' Man will never fly' and going to other planets is hear lunacy. Why do people keep pretending technology is at fault when it's their own narrow mindedness that is the real problem?

Stellar




posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   


Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
And I saw your bit about nuclear power... How are you going to fit a nuclear power plant, and it's fuel into a UAV? And you said nothing about UCAVs, and UAVs have no battle ability. You might want to fix that little error.


Both the USA and the USSR had nuclear powered Sat's in the 60 ( USA) and 70's ( USSR, a series of 'spy' sat's). Getting a nuclear power plant into space is rather harder i would say?


Other points notwithstanding, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Pu238 RTG's produce electrical power for running satellite electronics. Not for propulsion. On a satellite, the weight is a pain in the butt to get aloft, but once there, you don't have to continue expending power against a weight penalty to stay in orbit.

In an aircraft, you have to lift that weight and keep lifting it. And an RTG isn't going to put out anywhere near enough power to do it.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

1)

So without the USA deploying it's entire armed forces it wont be able to do much anything? Ucav's revolutionizes that by having a expendable direct presence without feet on the ground.


2)

You do not need to hold ground to win a war either. I think what he is suggesting is just having something else carry the firepower which reduces the infantry combat patrols to mere spotters who do not have to be risked en-mass simply to ensure their survival.


3)

' Man will never fly' and going to other planets is hear lunacy. Why do people keep pretending technology is at fault when it's their own narrow mindedness that is the real problem?


Stellar


1)I understand that... but UCAVs alone will not win a war for you.

2)Once again, believe it or not, UAVs and UCAVs will not win a war for you without some form of ground intervention. It's a tool that you use, not a strategy or a tactic.

3)What's the relevence of this one? I never blamed technology for anything, if you want something to blame, blame yourself, technology is what man uses, man is at fault for everything that goes wrong in some way or another.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Shattered. You keep repeating that boots on the ground are needed. Now think what the soldigers are used for. Answer: to kill enemies without massive collateral damage. So, if there was a way to surgically remove any threats, then soldiers would become obsolete. Don't just say you will 'always' need soldiers because you just don't know what the future will bring. I know my theory has faults, but it could be easily modified to work using modern technology. Use UAV's that have normal engines rather that laser powered ones. Use missiles with jet assisted shells that are attached to there nose. So that when the missile approaches a target, it fires off the jet assisted shell which then eliminates the target without any collateral damage involved. I know that today we don't quite have the precision needed to pull off what I'm saying, but you and I both know that munitions are getting more and more accurate. Even if my ‘laser’ version doesn’t work, I know my modified version very well could. Do you agree?



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well, the most important purpose that troops have on the ground, is to clear out areas that aircraft have bombarded. Air Power will never solely win a war, and that's a predictable future. Now you nuked an entire area and somehow managed to eradicate all land from sea level to about 1000 feet into the ground to prevent the use of any underground bases, then yeah, airpower might win a war, but... at what cost?

No.

Air power alone will never win a war, will it help? Sure hell yes, no one understands that more than me, I'm a jet boy, I believe in the use of aircraft in combat, but I also believe in manned aircraft being a pilot and all. That's not the point, the point is that what you're asking is for us to trust that our bombs completely and 100 percent accurately vaporized all forms of resistence without ground intervention, and that is just not a predictable future. You have to keep in mind what air power is used for and what ground troops are used for, now no one can predict the future, but relying on a tried and true tactic works alot better than relying on an unproven technology.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Other points notwithstanding, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Pu238 RTG's produce electrical power for running satellite electronics.


Yes but not only for that as ( depending on the conversion rate the USSR could manage) the reactor produced anywhere from 3kW + from 100kW of thermal output.

www.svengrahn.pp.se...


Not for propulsion.


Agreed and certainly not in this instance. It did however power two active radar arrays.


The US-A (later known as RLS) was a nuclear powered RORSAT (Radar Ocean Reconnaisance Satellite). It used an active radar to track naval vessels from space in darkness and all weather.

www.astronautix.com...



On a satellite, the weight is a pain in the butt to get aloft, but once there, you don't have to continue expending power against a weight penalty to stay in orbit.


Agreed but i think we could have done this sort of thing ages ago had we just put our minds to it.

www.newscientist.com...


In an aircraft, you have to lift that weight and keep lifting it. And an RTG isn't going to put out anywhere near enough power to do it.


Probably not and my original post was inaccurate in comparing the two things outright instead of pointing out the missed chances/ future employment.

Thanks for the correction.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
You have to keep in mind what air power is used for and what ground troops are used for, now no one can predict the future, but relying on a tried and true tactic works a lot better than relying on an unproven technology.

Shattered OUT...


I'm guessing you’re a former pilot for the air force or something. An old timer who appreciates the air-cowboy-good-old-days. You seem to not like my theory, not because of technical faults, but because of what it means to your legacy. One thing that I know is going to happen in the future is the phasing out of pilots.



[edit on 9-8-2006 by THE_DARK_KNIGHT]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Well, I am nor old, nor a pilot in the Air Force, I am what you would call, a realist.

Now I do not believe that pilots will ever be phased out, you'll always need pilots in the, that human intervention is a very important thing. And I don't like your theory because of it's technical faults, why are you looking for some other reason?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_DARK_KNIGHT

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
You have to keep in mind what air power is used for and what ground troops are used for, now no one can predict the future, but relying on a tried and true tactic works a lot better than relying on an unproven technology.
Shattered OUT...


I'm guessing you’re a former pilot for the air force or something. An old timer who appreciates the air-cowboy-good-old-days. You seem to not like my theory, not because of technical faults, but because of what it means to your legacy. One thing that I know is going to happen in the future is the phasing out of pilots.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by THE_DARK_KNIGHT]


Dark Knight,

No offence, but you may wish to study the lessons of Viet Nam! Sorry to burst your bubble, but Shattered Skied has you on this one.!History has shown that rushing to use unproven technology to gain the edge can be a serious mistake!

The reason many of our best tactics are old is because they have been battle-tested and stood the test of time. You might also look at World War 2, when the Third Reich decided to rush a whole lot of new technology into the feild before it was well developed and understood. It bought them some time, but in the end they lost the war because they didn't learn how best to use their resources.

Our greatest technologies are the end resualt of years of careful research and development. Case in point: Stealth Technology!

Stealth has been in development in the US since the 1960's. Some aspects of the technology, such as RAM were alrady being used in aircrafts that were design in the 1960's, such as the A-12/SR-71 Blackbird and the D-21 drone!

Will the technologies you're advocating change the way we fight? ABSOLUTLY!

However, if you rush them into the feild before they are ready, It could cost you dearly! Everything has it's time and place. Somethimes you have to stop yourself and say: "I really want this, but I need to wait until it's ready!"

Also, Air, Lane and Sea power all have their place in defense and war! One can't replace the other. In 1991 the US had hoped that air power on it own could win the origional Gulf War. They tried to make it work and learned that aircraft have their limits in war!

Tim



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
1)I understand that... but UCAVs alone will not win a war for you.


That depends on how you define 'win'. Can Ucav's create the type of over watch and observation to kill situation that will make all your other weapons many times more effective? The Germans fought off well armed enemies for a long time during world war two and mostly due to far superior scouting ( willing to enter fights for information) and tactical employment of this knowledge.


2)Once again, believe it or not, UAVs and UCAVs will not win a war for you without some form of ground intervention. It's a tool that you use, not a strategy or a tactic.


Ground intervention may be required to win a 'real war' but we don't often have any of those anymore so why should the US not use UCav's to make political points without risking any lives? You can always keep the manned platforms for a war where you can afford to risk life's.


3)What's the relevence of this one? I never blamed technology for anything, if you want something to blame, blame yourself, technology is what man uses, man is at fault for everything that goes wrong in some way or another.

Shattered OUT...


People keep saying things are not possible just because they lack imagination and knowledge on topic. If you can not see how unmanned platforms is the way of the future then that is mostly due to your own limited understanding of technology and just how unnecessary manned flight is to start with.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Yup it'd be much better to build a droid army!!!!!


Maybe in some time cyborg's will be feasable and mil planners are taking ai tech from videogames so i'm not worried.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   
UCAVs open up new opportunities - but don't change a thing. Guns haven't changed warfare and how it is fought - nor did the introduction of airplanes. They added a new element that had certain advantages and certain disadvantages.

UCAVs still need to be serviced, still need fuel, and thus still need a stretch of pavement to set her wheels down on. They still have the weakness of an aircraft, there. Then, beyond that, they need reprogramming or flight instructions (whatever you want to call it) - which will require data links and communications - those areas will then become a potential target for enemy forces.

So, there are advantages and disadvantages.

But they won't change warfare.... it'll still be the dirty, hellacious event it is fought by the same types of people that have fought all of our wars.

Kind of like the commercial for MechAssault (as much as Microsoft slaughtered the Battletech universe with that game...)

"It took a thousand years to develop the perfect combat machine.... but it only takes a second .... to pull the trigger. *cuts to action scenes* Machines have evolved. Man hasn't."

That's what I found attractive about the Battletech story and universe - it was a beleivable future for humanity. People are still people - much like we are today. Much of the technology seems like it hit about 2020 and then stopped - like some sort of plateu - like the 1600s to the 1800s - an era where 'new' technology was not abundant - and the 'old' technology was reaching its peak of development. It's not a HollyWood-ized vision of the future with extremely ornate and smooth vehicles, buildings, clothing, etc. Kind of like many things - if it ain't broke - don't fix it. Current toilets look fine and work fine - they don't need to be covered with chrome and made to look like some sort of space-aged aircraft or alien artifact.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Maybe in some time cyborg's will be feasable and mil planners are taking ai tech from videogames so i'm not worried.


You obviously havn't seen the Terminator Movies, have you?


So we're heading for the rouge compter that kills people senarieo again!

Tim



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
ShatteredSkies.

>>
Well, the most important purpose that troops have on the ground, is to clear out areas that aircraft have bombarded. Air Power will never solely win a war, and that's a predictable future.
>>

A misapprehension of many in that ground forces actually serve two functions:

1. As bait goats to bring in the wolves so that Airpower can obliterate them. See the Normandy Breakout through

2. As post-attack occupation force to plant the flag and start the process of making the new holdings permanent.

See Mortain-Falaise-Argentan. See Khe Sahn (or Dien Bien Phu). The only reason ground forces exist is to provide an undeniable 'fight us or be pushed out' focal point for long range/heavy missile, artillery and AIR centric systems to obliterate the force as it moves up.

_Not the other way around._

The proof of this will be the moment we switch to robotic ground forces because whatever percentage of opfor is not attrited in the marshal and maneuver phase will be obliterated on point of contact (probably open field, so that humans can move back into the valuable habitations) ALONG WITH the friendlies which speed bump them.

Only a completely hypocritical obsession with 'the value of individual human life' keeps us from realizing this truth, even today. You lose more lives fighting nice than you do whooping them all up alongside the head and letting God sort the Foe from Mo.

>>
Now you nuked an entire area and somehow managed to eradicate all land from sea level to about 1000 feet into the ground to prevent the use of any underground bases, then yeah, airpower might win a war, but... at what cost?
>>

The Israelis seem to do just fine with leaflets. The implication of utter destruction is enough when you know you are too weak to own your own land and thus evict the worthless scum who occupy it will-ye-or-nill-ye. Leaving only the realization that if an Israeli sees an 'innocent' standing between him and a terrorist about to shoot an Israeli child, he will _shoot the freakin' collateral_ to get the bad guy.

If we were half this ruthless in the way we treated an ENEMY civillian population, we would have 'solved' Iraq a helluva long time ago.

>>
Air power alone will never win a war, will it help? Sure hell yes, no one understands that more than me, I'm a jet boy, I believe in the use of aircraft in combat, but I also believe in manned aircraft being a pilot and all.
>>

Egotistical little snark aren'tcha? First you state your 'understanding'. Then you claim it's because your a 'jet boy' (which I take to mean fanboy). Then you hypocritically tie that into the notion of WHAT a 'jet' must be, instantaneously degrading it from a Dominator running on hydrogen fuel cells and completely saturating the skies so that nothing happens which is not 'by permission' overwatched. And returning it to the inept hands of your typical Knights Of The Sky white scarfer.

An anachronism even in the time when the image was first crafted.

>>
That's not the point, ...
>>

Then why sneak it in?

>>
... the point is that what you're asking is for us to trust that our bombs completely and 100 percent accurately vaporized all forms of resistence without ground intervention, and that is just not a predictable future.
>>

Actually there is a very strong case being made by the admittedly tired and closet-defeatist military that our presence over there is causing more uproar than we are 'providing security' to quash.

I'm going to go a little ways out onto the limg of the hypocrite tree myself to state that _with todays force configurations_ we need /at least/ 300,000 men over there, until it's over, over there. But the reason is that the worthless damn blue suited air pirates are just not doing their damn job well enough with the systems available and they _never will_ so long as they see the need to maintain a 'Day 1/Raid 1' high-intensity force capability as their 'real job'. As a function of either/or'ing a Predator or an F-35. Rather than the logical intermediate step of a UCAV.

And a bunch of A-UAV and other _FIXED WING_ CAS-as-COP assets for the Army.

>>
You have to keep in mind what air power is used for and what ground troops are used for, now no one can predict the future, but relying on a tried and true tactic works alot better than relying on an unproven technology.
>>

Blather. We won't try to see an outcome which removes us from the one, high intensity, emotionally charged, activity we have left by which to plant our boot on someones chest and pull our spear out with wet noise to lean back and roar our 'supremacy' to an unlistening, a-merciful, God.

Despite the proven fact that teenagers are too immature to be empowered as contract killers.

Despite the fact that man /cannot/ (and never will) be able to lug enough gear, far enough, fast enough, to make a damn bit of survives-to-kill difference against an IED artist walking out his back door to plant a little care package down the street.

Despite the fact that 60 grande to train a man to be an ineffective killer. Plus 100 grande when he proves my point as a death benefit STILL doesn't 'justify' the _300 grande_ his parent spent raising him up to be more than a muzzle mutt. Or the 25 cents it took a single bullet nor even the 500 bucks it took a lump of C4 and a radio trigger, as _pure waste_ in killing him.

The sad part is that the primitives of this world breed like rats (6-8 kids in a typical Arab country household) because they have a very low individual value limit put upon life. We cannot afford to throw away our own, rationally self-limiting (1-2 kids per household) reproductive numbers on 'raising them up' off all fours. Which even makes the notional value of _population control_ inherent to fighting for other peoples problems worthless.

Becuase if you don't slaughter with the FULL INTENT OF MAXIMIZING THE KILLS of your enemy, you will be outbred by next generation long before you impress the current one of your military dominance. All the while you teach them how to fight better (smarter) than you.

Using the very COE tactics which YOU are afraid to embrace because it removes YOUR FACE from whatever sense of 'accomplishment' is inherent to humans being an active presence on the battlefield.

Don't make war if you are terrified of winning as much as losing. The essence of war being the amalgamation and refinement of access to strategic, cultural and geopolitical resources that are very much causally 'Your Own' and YOURS TO OWN in victory at least as much in defeat.

If you fail to see this. Then you are not fighting a war. You are policing a staticism that will eventually descend into entropic decay. And so might as well have the least resources expended upon it's wasteful propitiation purely for the sake of Sport Warfare seasonal entertainment.


KPl.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I'll work with UAVs - not the other way around.

That's my position cut and dry and willing to kill over it. Dont' test it.

That wraps up my opinion.

The problem with UAVs being the center of aircraft warfare are the same that we have with computers - and therefor we also have problems with people in aircraft. In a way - I could see UAVs performing as escorts for larger aircraft - such as the B-1 (sort of borrwowed the concept from the E/B-1 Vampire from Dale Brown's Dreamland series) or aircraft yet to be developed. Operating as extended centrys or just there for good looks (seems that gets done a lot today).

The true future of warfare is what we see developing all around us today as we speek - communication. Communication between ground and air forces will become better coordinated, as well as computers assisting in sorting through large sums of tactical data - showing only the requested information based on the officer's preset filters.

We'll see more of a move towards battles that can be taken directly from a simulator and transcripted into the movements of real forces with strictly the computer talking to the crews. In short - we'll become more omniscient and become bombarded with data we never knew we could have in real-time in the heat of the thickest battle. Right down to seeing live satelite footage of the guy on the other side of the concrete wall you're braced against.

Or - we'll kill each other in the next five years and it won't matter, anyway



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Soviet union has built a particle canon.they been shown destroying about 15 inches of metal by one hit.they have a plan too they are going to launch it into space and destroy other sattelites and attack countries.this is all i have have.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Whatever KPL, you take the fun out of all discussion with your banther.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 31-8-2006 by ShatteredSkies]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join