Military: The Future of Warfighting

[Lord Kelvin]

I was recently reading stuff about Ghost Recon 3 Advanced Warfighter, about how they're trying to incorporate how the army might really look in 2013, and the technology they might really use at that point. I was wondering, how much of what's going to be in that game really plausible? Tom Clancy is normally the best at incorporating realism into video games (hell, if you look into the variables and stuff used by the engine for Ghost Recon 1, they actually incorporate bullet drop, wind factor, real ROF, and such; how accurate they are to the real figures, I don't know), but I was wondering if it will actually be a reality to be using cross-coms and XM-8s (by that time M-8s, I suppose) by that time.

Sorry I don't have any very reliable links, but all I have is an article in which the developers say that they did a lot of research and explain what they're putting in: http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/tomclancysghostrecon3/preview_6129714.html .

[Mr.P]

While the army has advanced in a lot of ways, really, as far as the average grunt, technology hasn't gone that far. The bigger switch has been in military philosophy. Soldiers today are expected to know and be able to perform a LOT more variety of missions and in restricted political enviroments. Most normal grunts today are trained as well as special forces troops in WWII. All and all, today's military is a stronger, better trained, smaller force. Problem is we have a tendancy lately of putting out troops into situations that put them at a major disadvantage. Any time you have a situation where they can shoot you, but you can't shoot first, you're going to have some issues.

As far as technology goes......I'm sure the XM-8 and all will be put into some for of operation, but as has been said on here thousands of times, it offers no improvement over the current generation of weapons other then interchangablity with the OICW, which, might not be regarded as an improvement......

[Shadow]

LOL if you're thinking that the XM8 is all that and the cat's ass, you're wrong. nothing but a rebuilt chassis of the G36 operation. Probably cheaper to buy G36s to tell you the truth.

Looks pretty farfetched to me. Yeah, I can see the armor and tat, but wearing a bloody camera and laser designator on your helmet... that would cost billions to set up every troop with that, and replacement per item would cost more than the military could afford.

[vecdran]

LOL if you're thinking that the XM8 is all that and the cat's ass, you're wrong. nothing but a rebuilt chassis of the G36 operation. Probably cheaper to buy G36s to tell you the truth.

Looks pretty farfetched to me. Yeah, I can see the armor and tat, but wearing a bloody camera and laser designator on your helmet... that would cost billions to set up every troop with that, and replacement per item would cost more than the military could afford.

That's why I realistically see special forces wearing stuff like that, but not normal troops.

[SWATJester_os]

The majority of our technical advantage is in our communications command and control systems.

[GoatChomper]

Yeah, I can see the armor and tat, but wearing a bloody camera and laser designator on your helmet... that would cost billions to set up every troop with that, and replacement per item would cost more than the military could afford.
Don't count on that.....DoD gets the kind of price breaks for buying in bulk that we civilians don't, and the technology gets cheaper every year. When you can buy a laser keychain off the notions rack today at the local convenience store for $1.99 when thirty years ago you could expect to fork over $100 or more for one the size of a shoebox from the Edmundsen catalog, guess how cheaply they can be had for military applications.

Example: DoD was buying M16A1s from Colt for $400 each back in 1985.

[gYmBaG]

didnt they even give up on xm8's? or did they just kind of slow down on them, i havnt heard of anything about them in awhile.

[Shadow]

Don't count on that.....DoD gets the kind of price breaks for buying in bulk that we civilians don't, and the technology gets cheaper every year. When you can buy a laser keychain off the notions rack today at the local convenience store for $1.99 when thirty years ago you could expect to fork over $100 or more for one the size of a shoebox from the Edmundsen catalog, guess how cheaply they can be had for military applications.

Example: DoD was buying M16A1s from Colt for $400 each back in 1985.

Goat, I'm aware of that, however, Nothing beats Mk. I Eyeball. If you can see it you can kill it. If you can't kill it, you can blow it up. If you start relying on all that digital bullshit, and it fails, you're fucked for certain. Fair enough that technology is miniaturizing all the time, it makes it easier for us to carry our gear, but completely relying on technology to win a combat action is stupidity. I for certain wouldn't run around with a helmet with a piece of perspex over one eye - for one, i smash into something, I'm gonna end up with that shit in my eye or cutting my face up, it would make an awful reflection to enemy and yourself.

The XM8 Issue, In project total, it'll cost more to "develop" when realistically, the weapon's already been developed but only repackaged.

didnt they even give up on xm8's? or did they just kind of slow down on them, i havnt heard of anything about them in awhile.

Last I heard, the US Army was taking tenders from American firearms manufacturer so that the money spent would be kept inside the borders.

[GoatChomper]

Goat, I'm aware of that, however, Nothing beats Mk. I Eyeball.
Except your eyeball doesn't emit a beam on which a GBU or Hellfire can target.

[Mr.P]

Except your eyeball doesn't emit a beam on which a GBU or Hellfire can target.

Yet.....

[t00bsoks]

I was recently reading stuff about Ghost Recon 3 Advanced Warfighter, about how they're trying to incorporate how the army might really look in 2013, and the technology they might really use at that point. I was wondering, how much of what's going to be in that game really plausible? Tom Clancy is normally the best at incorporating realism into video games (hell, if you look into the variables and stuff used by the engine for Ghost Recon 1, they actually incorporate bullet drop, wind factor, real ROF, and such; how accurate they are to the real figures, I don't know), but I was wondering if it will actually be a reality to be using cross-coms and XM-8s (by that time M-8s, I suppose) by that time.

Sorry I don't have any very reliable links, but all I have is an article in which the developers say that they did a lot of research and explain what they're putting in: http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/tomclancysghostrecon3/preview_6129714.html .


I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing about everything, but to me it just looks like they're just trying to cut down of production costs by advertising for Oakley, Blackhawk, Crye, and anyone else I missed.

But that's just my uninformed opinion.

[akodo]

maybe we will se the XM8, probably won't see the whole OWwhatsicalledthing. Probably will see a 338 laupa sniper rifle and a m-14 based designated marksman's rifle and the new AR-10 in 300 short fat mag the army is getting. Did the last ghost recon have FN p90s and five-sevens? if not, i'd bet this one does.

Possibly the game will have an XM-9 or AR-15+ firing a 6.5mm round.

asside from that, i don't know what else would be new in the catagory of lead throwers.

armor on the troops. humm. Sounds like an excuse to allow the player to get hit and take 10x less damage than the guys he is fighting. It always seems that in 'realistic' games 1-2 shots kills the bad guys, but 4-6 kill the player. Now probably 20 hits will take you down.

seems like the game is going to be allowing to you do stuff it kinda already did. A device that allows you to see what your team-mates are seeing. Well hey, just switch to that other trooper and you can see exactly what he is seeing. Although in multiplayer team play this would be useful.

this up and comming technology probably makes the heads up display you see in most games a bit more realistic. maybe that part will be keyed up.

On, i bet you can ask for drones to be launched on oyur behalf and look at mapfiles of the area ahead.

[Lord Kelvin]

I think the entire idea of the IWS is that you can communicate with all of your allies, including support (artillery, airstrikes, attack choppers) and recon (UAVs, etc.); after all, being able to give up-to-date intel to every soldier in the field is an invaluable asset.

[Lord Kelvin]

Sorry to double-post, but I just had another idea. What if the Army's not only making their soldiers more advanced, but also making them so advanced that less of them would be needed? They'd cut down on recruiting quotas, and the need to purchase so much equipment at the same time. They'd become more like the Navy or Air Force, in terms of technology-vs-manpower, ie. the Navy has a several aircraft carriers and battle groups instead of a crapload of small cruisers or whatnot.

[gYmBaG]

I dont see the army cutting down on its quotas let alone its soldiers. the army and marines are both ground forces, both need men for battle, and war, unlike air force and navy, i know the navy is pretty big, but they dont really lose men everyday overseas

[Lord Kelvin]

I was thinking more in terms of fighters. For example, in WWII, planes were pretty crappy, but they were also a lot cheaper than the three-or-so-million-dollar Falcons and Hornets on carriers today. There are far less aircraft on carriers and at AFB's today, but what aircraft they have is basically state-of-the-art expensive and good. Maybe the Army's going along those lines; it may take longer to train soldiers to use the equipment, but they'll be so advanced that they won't even need as many IDs as there are now.

[gYmBaG]

oh yeah i can understand that, better air craft, so that 2 man crews wont be needed, only one man. that i can understand, but i dont know if the army has enough air craft like that, to actually effect its quotes if things were to change

[Ch33zy]

That would only work for the actual fighting, but for say... invading another territory... Sure, you could kill all the resistance, but holding the territory would be rather difficult. God forbid urban setting.

[Shadow]

I was thinking more in terms of fighters. For example, in WWII, planes were pretty crappy, but they were also a lot cheaper than the three-or-so-million-dollar Falcons and Hornets on carriers today.

Try more like $30-40 Million dollars a piece for a Falcon or Hornet.


There are far less aircraft on carriers and at AFB's today, but what aircraft they have is basically state-of-the-art expensive and good.

Nimitz/Roosevelt class CVNs carry between 80-100 aircraft at a time.

[[hk]renegade]

It really doesnt matter the tech. you still gotta have alot of guys on the ground, between supply comm the grunts intel and yes even admin, you gotta still have all these things plus alot more for any ground unit to be effective.

[Mr.P]

Weapon for weapon, other then the M1 Garand and the nuclear bomb, the Germans had the Allies beat technologically in nearly every category. It would take 5 Shermans to take out 1 Tiger, but the Tigers still got killed. There really is no substitute for raw numbers provided there is at least some technological parity.

[Lord Kelvin]

Yes, but I'm not talking about something at that scale. Sure, if you outnumber a Tiger five-to-one it's going to get killed, even if it's a helluva lot tougher than Shermans, but I'm still thinking along the example in Ghost Recon 3, where you're basically fighting a crapload of gun-wielding revolutionaries that have little to no training whatsoever. In that case, yes, a small group of highly advanced infantry can take out a company at a time, given all the support and intel provided by the communications technology, but I'm not saying that it'll work against the present day Wehrmacht. Not to mention, even though the Germans had very highly advanced weaponry in the 40s, they were still stretched very thin, fighting two fronts at the same time. Besides, IIRC Hitler sent his best units to Russia, where they were crushed by the Soviets.

[[hk]renegade]

most 3rd world countries have better trianing then you think, and if not trianing its combat exp, take somilia or syria for example

[Mr.P]

We also face, particularly in areas with fundamental Muslims as our main combatants, people who are willing to truly die for their cause, just or not. One guy willing to throw his life away with a large bomb strapped to himself, or a large car bomb, can quickly kill or maim a number of our highly trained and well equiped soldiers. Terrorism is a force multiplier. We use technology as a force multiplier, using less troops to do a job with better equipment. In Iraq we're facing a numerically superior enemy, but one with little to no true war technology. Using technology, they can overcome their weaknesses. 1 dead American is a tragedy, 20 dead insurgents is a statistic. They know that. There is no shortage of young Muslims in and around Iraq willing to give their lives up for the chance to kill some American soldiers, and as long as that is the case there will always be some way to combat our technological advantage.

[Thatguy]

I think the real problem with future warfight is what has been said before: philosophy and doctrine. Philosophy and doctrine dictate where money is spent, and how and to what ends research is conducted. What you have in the United States at the moment is an amazing amount of money out of an amazing budget, going as has been said primarily to strategic enterprises, like command and control, communications, and stand-off weapons (as well as, aerial launch platforms).

Tactical developments have continually been confused and seemingly unguided, with requirements and ideas in constant flux meaning that of dozens of programs initiated for tactical development, only a scant few have provided significant improvements or dramatic changes in the actual grunt fighting. The examples coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq are plentiful.

Weight appears to remain the dominant factor in small arms development meaning that money that could be spent on new technology in fact often goes to miniscule weight reductions on existing systems. The XM8 is a fine piece of equipment, but it does little but attempt to reduce weight of the system and its components. Soldiers in the field have continually noted in Lessons Learned reports that existing rifles and carbines are perfectly reliable when properly maintained (note the sand attracting lubricant issue), but personal modifications have been plentiful, although none have been investigated on a larger scale, in favor of a protracted and costly project, now back to square one with the opening of the contract the XM8 was to get to outside competition.

Only now, are we investigating a plan to get to caseless ammunition, working first through telescoped ammunition, but with the emphasis and inciting interest still rooted in weapon weight, not in any desire to improve the technology, which has essentially peaked in this field.

Likewise in other tactical developments, like vehicle armoring, and other infantry systems, are only now becoming of importance, and it would appear that the US Army post-Vietnam had almost a low-intensity conventional weapons deficit. Vehicle armoring has also gone to an extreme, perhaps a product of responding to a public outcry and armoring everything, rather than selective and pertinant armoring that might have been more warmly recieved by combat troops as well as being more practical. Also, thermobaric munitions, used by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and in Chechnya, are only now being developed and fielded by US forces, a crude and effective subset of weapons probably not thought about since the removal of the M202A1 Flash from inventory.

It remains my belief that the emphasis on high technology in US military planning continues to leave the grunts out in the cold, and without them, until we develop robots to replace them, there is nothing. Also remember, that this has all been an outsider's opinion, even if its coming from an informed outsider.

[Lord Kelvin]

My opinion of why the Army may be moving towards this path is because of something used during the Gulf War that made things really easy: GPS. Tanks and artillery were able to target enemies from well outside their ranges and pulverize them, and bombers were able to guide in bombs very accurately. I don't know how accurate FSW was in portraying infantry fighting, but in that game, both of your TLs (all three when you got a Charlie Team) had GPS units to help move around; I don't know if real soldiers in the field carry GPS.

But my point is, since GPS made a remarkable difference in making tank/artillery barrages more accurate, maybe the Army is considering adding more situational-awareness gear to the basic soldier's arsenal. Just conjecture.