Our Future Combat Systems?

[selil]

So let me clarify a few points:

4) Why do any LAV’s still have wheels?

I was watching a Discovery or Travel Channel show awhile back where they were riding in a hovercraft. It was a commercial model and they flew across water, bog, sand and kept on going right into the place where you got on the ride.

Now I'm not willing to base the future heavy transport system of the Marines on a television show but the LCAC1 is nothing compared to the China version. It seems like this is a technology that increases speed without decreasing capability. If it works for heavy transport why not personnel carriers and LAV's? I don't claim to be an expert I'm just looking for the perceived gaps.






7) Why would anybody compare the volatile insecure Internet with highly available secure communications?

WM got it. There seems to be a big push in DHS and DOD to push communications to the Internet or that type of infrastructure. One of the problems is that there is no embedded security in Internet protocols and as a system it requires consistency to be functional (drop a segment and wait minutes or hours to have it return) and the combat/emergency environment is anything but consistent.

[Rob Thornton]

Hi Sam,

Rgr - on #7 - that is something they are working through - there are also issues with roles and security (at least there were) - ex. who do you want to have access to what and where does that reside - how do you reconfigure. You're all over some of the challenges the network faces - but there were (and I assume are) some really talented people working them, so I suspect that where no answers or work arounds can be found, reality will interject itself and we;ll except the limitations of tech and change requirements.

On the LCAC - I suspect JCUSTIS or one of our green amphib brethren could better describe the limitations of that tech, but I'll give it a try - but first a quick anecdote - in the 2000 Armor Conference - back when we were calling it the Objective Force - there was an intro video preceding the Armor School Commandant - I think it was General Bell back then (I was an Infantryman in tanker country attending ACCC), the video showed "hover tanks descending out of a large airborne transport vehicle. The purpose I think was not to put us at odds with reality, or sell us a bill of goods; I think it was to get us thinking - to consider the possibilities of how new technologies "could change" things.

Even when I left Lewis for Knox in Spring 2004, the computer generated images of the FCS MGVs looked like "pontoon" tanks that could hover. Within a year, Industry had come forward with something that although still looked futuristic - it also looked like an evolution of existing combat vehicles - the roles of the vehicles were pretty obvious.

Back to the "hover" tank. I think there is thrust to weight issue primarily. LCACs are pretty much light weight aluminum - I think 1 LCAC can only carry 1 M1A1 tank (60+t). So it takes about that much thrust - look at the size of the fans - for that weight. There is also the distribution of that weight to consider. Now if your MGV was 27t or about 1/2 of a M1A1, it stands that you'd need about 50% of the thrust to move it around. That aslo would not take into account maintaining the mobility provided by the curtain of air in an increasingly dirty battlefield.

An existing (related) technology that is useful on the battlefield is the aerostat or blimp. The JLENS (you can Google this for a better description) which fly high over many a FOB or forward base these days offer allot of capability in terms of hanging all types of sensor (radar, optics, etc.) as well as CRPs (Comms Relay) at a low cost (there is no thrust to maintain altitude as in a UAV for example) - so you can afford a "bigger is better" outlook - because physics still apply. These have the added benefit of sending their data via secure fiber optics. And since they reside in a protected node, they are reasonably secure (AIF have tried to bring down the ones over BALAD/BIAP and elsewhere, but the altitude is too great and they don't seem to provide good target acquisition. Now the penalty for this is also the selling point - its not a technology that lends itself to fast paced operational and tactical maneuver covering deep lines of operation and rearward reaching lines of communication - but it does work for steady state ops like COIN where units manage a set AO.

Also of interest would be the DARPA blimp for strategic mobility (you'll have to Google that one as well). While this may seem like a bad idea - remember its not to tactical or even operational mobility - its strategic and assumes a degree of permissiveness - perhaps over a SEA LOC from CONUS to partner state in an area that we control with respect to the capabilities of our enemy. If you were able to move a large unit set of equipment, or bulk LOG faster then say on a Ro/Ro (roll on/roll off ship), you might free up up your strat air to do other things besides theater to theater moves - particularly if that air was C-17s capable of doing operational (theater) air.

All of the things involve moving stuff quickly, effectively and efficiently to build and sustain combat power, or the stuff needed to work through the rest of the spectrum.

Best, Rob

[Rob Thornton]

Like the article on robotics, I tend to write about the things that I'm working on at the time - both to better understand them, and also to inform the greater community - in this case (early 2005) I wrote about about networked battle command - and how the FCS concept of battle command (BCOTM) was looking in comparison to existing digital battle command - it was published later in 2005. Also like the article on robots, some of what I wrote then has evolved based on new experiences and on new reflections earned through new PME, and just getting some distance. Its what the Army was paying me think about at the time. I think the basis of the article though - about the differences between the analytical and recognitional decision making, how staffs work or might work and about capabilities and limitations of technology to benefit or detract from effectiveness are still pretty sound. What I did not understand then, which a deployment to OIF helped inject (along with some time to consider it afterwards) was how large a role fog, friction and chance play in war.

I think the article will still help others get their arms around some of the ways technology might help us adapt and make decisions faster - while still pointing out that the key is really in the leader's ability to not only recognize changes, but to understand what it means. This link will take you to the Armor Magazine version which has graphics as well as some stock photos the magazine staff inserted. Since you must have AKO authorization to get in, I've also included a word copy of the text.

Best, Rob

[wm]

4) Why do any LAV’s still have wheels?

I seem to remember reading that there are other issues with hovercraft--like sand in fans--that make them potential hangar queens. Plus I think I've read about size issues--Big works fine, small not so well when talking about air cushion vehicles--the cushion generation/propulsion equipment takes up a fair amount of space.
7) Why would anybody compare the volatile insecure Internet with highly available secure communications?

WM got it. There seems to be a big push in DHS and DOD to push communications to the Internet or that type of infrastructure. One of the problems is that there is no embedded security in Internet protocols and as a system it requires consistency to be functional (drop a segment and wait minutes or hours to have it return) and the combat/emergency environment is anything but consistent.

Thanks for the prop.
"Hey, we've got SSL, VPN tunneling, and TACLANEs to secure the links! What security problem could there possibly be with IP-based comms?" he says sarcastically. Ther's also a big push in the voice, data and video comms user world on need for QoS (quality of service) and ad hoc networking--lots of talk but I don't see any great solutions yet. Sorry for the techno dump, but I've been watching the switch from value-added network (VAN) providers with dedicated point-to-point comms for data transactions to internet based transport for a while now and am still not impressed. Add to that the freq spectrum auctions of recent years that have reduced available frequency for DoD use and there's a lot of room to be very cautious.

[120mm]

The "new military technology will bankrupt us!" is old news. Very similar things have been said about rifle technology with the introduction of smokeless powder repeating rifles, modern artillery, aircraft, trucks, tanks, modern fighting ships, etc....

On caseless ammunition:

Truly caseless ammunition just has too many downsides to be practical, in the forseeable future. There are problems with durability, dimensional stability, fire resistence, environmental effects resistence, and once you solve all those, you need to make an action and chamber that will perfectly seal. Which would probably be hard to make function reliably, due to the precision involved.

There is plastic-cased ammunition, that saves you weight, and steel-cased, which saves money to produce, but in the end, brass is worth the extra weight penalty, in that it flows under heat and pressure to ensure a positive seal in the chamber, aiding accuracy and still retaining good extraction properties.

Myself, I'm waiting for my "phased-array plasma rifle in the 40 megawatt range".

[Ski]

A $200B program in a time when we are $10T in debt is going to be looked at very closely.

[Ron Humphrey]

I seem to remember reading that there are other issues with hovercraft--like sand in fans--that make them potential hangar queens. Plus I think I've read about size issues--Big works fine, small not so well when talking about air cushion vehicles--the cushion generation/propulsion equipment takes up a fair amount of space.
7) Why would anybody compare the volatile insecure Internet with highly available secure communications?



Thanks for the prop.
"Hey, we've got SSL, VPN tunneling, and TACLANEs to secure the links! What security problem could there possibly be with IP-based comms?" he says sarcastically. Ther's also a big push in the voice, data and video comms user world on need for QoS (quality of service) and ad hoc networking--lots of talk but I don't see any great solutions yet. Sorry for the techno dump, but I've been watching the switch from value-added network (VAN) providers with dedicated point-to-point comms for data transactions to internet based transport for a while now and am still not impressed. Add to that the freq spectrum auctions of recent years that have reduced available frequency for DoD use and there's a lot of room to be very cautious.

This is something I have discussed a lot with anyone I could to get a feel for it.
Understanding that Existing sec networks are there if we look into the future with integration worldwide what probable solutions do you see besides somehow working within the internet infrastructure to develop tie-ins?

I mean it's always harder to find someone in a warehouse than in a cubicle.
I think the info warriors would tell you how true that can be.

[selil]

I've been preaching a few things I call the truths.

1) The current security paradigm will not last longer than the first big failure.
2) The current computing paradigm is changing to utility computing.

In general computing will have to follow the same path as electricity, plumbing, and automobiles. Information Technology can not last as a silo within organizations much longer. Bruce Schnier this month has an article about it, but it's been discussed for a long time. Information technology won't go away it will just become the walls and furniture. Point of need virtualization, roaming profiles, high capability portable devices, and more are making that vision a reality. Security must be built in (or as Dr. Eugene Spafford says baked in like flour in a cake not applied like icing). Utility computing as a paradigm will make that happen. There will be a time when the soldier on the battlefield will have a high volume/bandwidth connection and able to interact at a level unthought of. the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) program shows that hyper networked (fully meshed) can be built fairly cheap.

[Ken White]

the Signal corps pattern; in WW I, they manned all the radios due to then high tech demands -- and got some really smart people due to that factor. As the systems got more user friendly, the Signal corps mission effectively transmuted during WW II, they got less brainy folks and as the systems got automated and miniaturized, they eventually became not needed for battlefield comm.

That's a gross over simplification but I always figured the 'puters would follow the same pattern. Long way of a non-computer savvy country boy saying I'm absolutely sure you're right...

Now, as an aside, if we can just get rid of LTs as FOs, a process and system that has essentially followed the same pattern (but that final solution is stoutly resisted by the FA)...

[Presley Cannady]

the Signal corps pattern; in WW I, they manned all the radios due to then high tech demands -- and got some really smart people due to that factor. As the systems got more user friendly, the Signal corps mission effectively transmuted during WW II, they got less brainy folks and as the systems got automated and miniaturized, they eventually became not needed for battlefield comm.

That's a gross over simplification but I always figured the 'puters would follow the same pattern. Long way of a non-computer savvy country boy saying I'm absolutely sure you're right...

Well, you're not that far afield, but the reasons why things didn't pan out that way is threefold:

1) IT is full of crooks who invariably claim more knowledge in the brochure than they actually possess.
2) The component reusability and reconfigurability in the hardware realm has not, despite four decades of promises, been replicated to any significant degree in at the software level. This mostly has to do with the fact that IT folks are lazy bums who enjoy automated tools but not putting in the work to implement them.
3) What reusability and reconfigurability exists remains extremely low level compared to the functional spec and still requires almost entirely human hands on know how to use in repairs (bug fixes) or modification (extensibility).

I'm pretty sure this fully explains why you a guy can still rake in $25+/hr knowing little more than how to write loops, if/then blocks and (these days) class declarations. I seriously recommend reading Yourdon's Decline and Fall of the American Programmer. The only thing that's changed much since his lit review came out are new interesting algorithms that then populate and breed in the developer space to the point where today's systems are just as if not more incomprehensibly expensive to maintain and improve.

[Ken White]

Well, you're not that far afield, but the reasons why things didn't pan out that way is threefold:...

I was talking about end users. Given the proliferation of laptops and related devices to the Joe Tentpeg level, we're already there. The esoterics of design and software may still be somewhat problematical at echelons above reality but the end user phenomenon has already panned out...