Link to article and video of the fast closing future...... Missile Men!
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...amikaze-drone/
Printable View
Link to article and video of the fast closing future...... Missile Men!
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...amikaze-drone/
I've seen similar "small drone + grenade" stuff and even "drone with snipe rifle" stuff 6+ years ago.
It's a strange way of killing people, and the consequences of such machines are difficult to anticipate.
I agree we don't know what the consequences of this technology will be, but I suspect we won't keep it the box and it will proliferate rather rapidly to multiple states and non-state actors once again giving more credibility to the super empowered actor. How will the Secret Service and their eqivalents protect their charges against this threat? If non-state actors acquire them and use them to support counter-coalition operation does that mean they'll achieve some version of air power dominance in a small geographical region for a short period of time? Can they swarm three our more into a base camp for example? Can they fly them into our helo's or planes landing or taking off if their positioned properly to make up for the lack the speed? We can all come up with nightmare scenarios for the misuse of any technology, but this one bothers me more than most.
I suspect part of it is our continued reliance on superior technology to dominate in battle instead of focusing on human performance (mental, physical and spirital). Once upon a time it required hard work to transform your body and mind to become a professional warrior/soldier, but now that is becoming less and less relevant. It seems we're entering a new phase where they'll have to make a new movie (of course in High Def and 3D) building upon the previous "The last of the Samurai" movie.
Instead of the biblical "the meek shall inherent the earth" it will become the "the geeks shall dominate humanity". It honestly scares me to have people at the controls of killing devices who have never done anything harder than get up to get another bag of potato chips. They'll lack an appreciation for the horrors of war and be inclined to make life and death decisions without adequate consideration based on the morality of the decision. Killing must easy when you only have to watch a man die on the screen and not have to watch his family surround him as he is dying, crying in anguish and staring through you with a hatred that is so tangible it knocks you back. War becomes something less human with all this technology and puts all at risk in multiple ways.
I understand you dislike artillery profoundly?
How hard is it to fly? How much training will it require? How much continuing practice will it take in order for the driver to maintain proficiency? How many guys in a particular unit will be taught to work the thing? What kind of winds will it handle? How will it do in rain and snow and blowing dust? How will the thing take being stored in wet, very dry, very hot, very cold conditions and air laden with salt? Can the radio link be easily jammed? If you had a really sophisticated enemy could he steal in from you in the air and fly it back at you? What are you going to do if there are a lot of trees around? Does it really give you anything more than a properly developed XM-25 will give you? What if the enemy is hiding under a bush and there are lots of bushes around?
How come nobody tells those guys in the video to settle the hell down and quit trying to see who can get the most excited?
The basic idea has promise but there are a lot of practical difficulties that stand in the way of it being useful. The most important question about something like this relates to something Bill said (and Ken says too), will this really be more worthwhile than good infantry skills developed through proper training?
And lastly, maybe there would be a good thing coming out of the enemy getting something like this. Shotguns for everybody and lots of skeet and trap practice to keep the base safe.
It should scare you more that inevitably the human will be taken out of the equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
That is true and budget cutting isn't going to help either. Smaller forces are going to be expected to do more and right now than is generally done with technology. Anyway from 1956 The Cuff Links "Guided Missiles" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ31FNp66GoQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Isn't Isreael having already this asset? HEAT capacity in this small package will follow in 3 years. At least Spike producer intends to stay in this timeframe.
http://defense-update.com/photos/mini_spike.html
Here is a Special Forces option. Small Drone/Small Misile.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...-missile-gulp/
Posted by Fuchs
Depends if I'm on the receiving end or sending end. Point taken, but I'm referring to my visceral dislike of technology eroding the warrior ethos. I realize that won't be reversed, but simply expressing an opinion.Quote:
I understand you dislike artillery profoundly?
Since you opened this can of worms though, none of this technology replaces the suppressive fire aspect of artillery. Close Air Support, Air Support, drones, etc. are good at taking at targets they can acquire, but that doesn't give the ground commander they capability to rapidly and persistently direct suppressive fire to enable movement. I wasn' there and I hope the infantry folks that were comment (agree or disagree), but I can't help but think we would have taken fewer casualties in the war of movement phase in 2001/2002 if they had artillery. GEN Franks and Rumfield made the decision not to send it, a decision on par with Les Aspen not approving the deployment of armored vehicles to Somalia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
(1) I have no use for a warrior ethos. Soldier ethos - fine. Warriors are primitive and ill-disciplined.
(2) The high lethality of PGMs does suppress, albeit not in the same way as HE or machine gun salvoes do. More like snipers suppress.
The suppression effect restricts first and foremost exposure; especially movement without concealment.
Counterfires will be suppressed less effectively than by the more brute force HE or machine gun salvo counterparts, but let's face the fact that their suppressive fires effect is bought at a hefty price: Own exposure, volume/weight/cost of ammo.
I suspect that suppressive fires are very often the dumber bigger brother of the red-headed stepchild "smoke".