Posted on 07/27/2004 6:39:27 PM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4
How will warfare change in the next 30 years? Military leaders, and the people they protect, are always trying to figure this out. There’s an easy way to get a good insight on answering this question. Simply go back to 1884 and note the state of warfare and military technology at the time, then advance, 30 years at a time, until you reach 2004. At that point, making an educated guess at what 2004 will be like will like will be, if not easy, at least a lot less daunting..
In 1884, most infantry were using single shot, black powder rifles. The United States did not adopt the newfangled smokeless powder until 1892, a few years after it became widely available. The modern machine-gun had been invented in 1883, but armies did not start adopting for several years. Artillery was still short ranged, not very accurate, and could only fire at targets the crew could see. Horses pulled or carried stuff, and the infantry marched a lot. Communications still relied on the telegraph, a recent invention that had revolutionized, in only forty years, the way commanders could talk to each other over long distances. They could now do it in minutes. This was a big change for warfare. Very big.. At this time telephones were all local, and not portable. Cavalry was still important for scouting, although less useful for charging infantry (a trend that began when infantry got muskets with bayonets two centuries earlier.)
By 1914, 30 years of unprecedented changes had an enormous impact on warfare. This was largely because the industrial revolution had unleashed so much new technology. This is a process that continues, at an increasing rate. By 1914, all the troops had smokeless powder rifles. This made the infantry much more lethal, and made the modern sniper possible. The new rifles (millions of which are still in use) fired faster, more accurately, without a cloud of smoke, and were far more effective than the 1884 models. The modern machine-gun had arrived, and every infantry battalion had a at least a few of them. Artillery was much more accurate, and capable (due to hydraulic recoil systems). Armies were beginning to use trucks to replace horses, a process that would take another four decades to complete. There were aircraft available now, which proved to be the perfect scouts, able to see what distant enemy troops were up to. Now there was a wireless telegraph (radio), which revolutionized naval warfare. No longer were ships out of touch with their governments for long periods. On the ground, armies were now rapidly laying temporary telephone lines in the field. The critical problem with all this is that the major armies had not figured out exactly what to do with all this new technology. This produced years of stalemate and millions of casualties in World War I.
By 1944, the enormous changes of 1914 had been overtaken by even more dramatic technological advances. Nearly all the major military technologies of the 20th century were present by 1944. This included electronic warfare, smart bombs, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, wire guided missiles, antibiotics (greatly reduced the death rate), assault rifles, radar, aircraft carriers, sonar, portable radios, body armor, armored vehicles, jet aircraft, portable anti-tank rocket launchers, commandoes, operations research, heavy bombers, computers, self guided torpedoes, bottom mines, land mines, chemical warfare, and much more. The transformation was more dramatic than any in history. In less than a century, warfare had become unrecognizable to any pre-20th century soldiers. While the 19th century soldier would be recognizable to someone from the 16th century (when firearms were introduced), change had been relatively show for that three centuries. Military, and political, leaders now had to deal with the speed of change, as well as the changes themselves. It was an entirely new situation in human history.
1974 was, compared to 1944 and 1914, witness to less dramatic change. This was due to one new technology, nuclear weapons (which discouraged wars between the major powers), and the lack of a major war (which always speeded up the development of military technologies.) What had happened by 1974 was that many of the new technologies of 1944 had been perfected, or at least made cheaper and more reliable. There were some new developments. Guided missiles, nuclear weapons, night vision devices, spy satellites, laser range finders and weapons guidance systems, UAVs, remote sensors, ICBMs, SLBMs, composite armor, nuclear submarines, all weather aircraft navigation systems, miniaturized electronics (transistors), heat sensors, and more. Basically, all the neat new stuff from 1944 was now smaller, cheaper, deadlier and more reliable. But the biggest change had not been noted until the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. During that conflict, the speed with which modern weapons and other systems could destroy the enemy, and speed up combat, shocked generals everywhere. At this point, everyone began to ponder the impact of this transformation in the way wars were fought.
In 2004 there were a handful of radical new technologies, like GPS, the Internet, bullet proof body armor, personal (and extremely portable) computers, that transformed warfare more than anyone expected. The 1944 technologies continued to mature, especially when combined with later technologies like miniature computers. The improvements in communications and night vision sensors had made it possible to operate around the clock, and attack with more accuracy and deadly effect. Speed had always been a powerful weapon, but now speed included the ability to quickly move anywhere on the planet and attack with enormous firepower. That was seen with dramatic effect in Afghanistan in late 2001. The maturing technologies of 1994 had become a form of warfare possessing unheard of speed and destructive power.
While a 2004 infantryman would have looked like one from 1914, the changes in weapons and equipment were enormous.
So what does this portend for 2034? Faster and deadlier, for sure. Information war will be more than a buzzword by then, because better sensors and data processing technology will make situational awareness (knowing where you, and your enemy are, knowing it first, and acting on it before the other guy does) more decisive than ever.
If the expected breakthrough in batteries (fuel cells) evolves as reliably and cheaply as expected, the 2030s infantryman will be something of a cyborg. In addition to carrying several computers and sensor systems, he will wear body armor that also provides air conditioning. Satellite communications, of course, and two way video. Exoskeletons are already in the works, and may mature by then. But the big new development will be the continued evolution of robotic weapons. The World War II acoustic torpedo (used by the Germans and the allies, from subs as well as the air) was the first truly robotic weapon. You turned it lose, and it would hunt down it’s prey and terminate it. There may be a lot of public uproar over land based systems that have sensors, can use them to hunt, and have weapons that can be used without human intervention. But those systems will be easy and cheap to build by 2034, and as soon as one nation builds them, others will have to follow. By 2034, machines will be fighting other machines more often than they will be looking for the stray human on the battlefield.
But there will be other developments that are more difficult to anticipate. In 1884, most of the 1914 technologies were already known in a theoretical sense. Same with the 1944 technologies in 1914, and so on. What is most difficult to predict is exactly how new tech will be employed. There will be imagination and ingenuity involved there, and that sort of thing is, by its very nature, resistant to prediction.
Rail gun snipers, vehicle machine guns and tank weapons
EMP devices
Complete battlefield situational awareness extended down to the infantryman (smart helmets)
Personal Fuel air explosives for urban conflicts
Powered combat armor (special units)
Completely sealed batlefield dress
Personal reconnaisance drones
Nanotech
Personal trauma nanbots
Personal bllodstream air supply
Personal reconnaisance
Personal augmentation systems (strength, endurance)
UCAV vehicles with full air to air and air to ground capability
Orbital based kinetic kill vehicles
Autonomous hunter killer armor and low level air vehicles.
Robotic Infantry
Correct, and I accept your premise that static systems have been hit, but has hacking ever influenced a battlefield situation on mobile networked devices ?
Perhaps that would be a better question.
Especially considering the time that hackers require against encryption, strategic and backfield systems can be successfully attacked.
I highly doubt that a networked army with changing encryption codes will be compromised in a tactical environment.
In use by whom? Future historical trends do not look good for the RKBA. How is a citizen's militia with their privately owned arms to make much of a dent in the Imperial Storm Trooper infantry of 2034?
Assymetrical Warfare : first use private arms to take police weapons, then hit isolated military targets.
Failing that, the best way to stop the StormTroopers will be killing politicians (after all, they hold the leash)
I was always partial to Imperial Guard, myself.
Shush! It's 'not time', yet.
You know, not to go OT or anything, but the Iranian girls I've known in LA and around DC and NY are pretty much uniformly stunning.
Well, I could make do with the rifle. For everything else, I'd have to hit a good sporting goods/camping store.
Git their support echelons. Can you imagine what sort of tail a Power Armor platoon is going to need?
As it stands, an "insurgent" is pretty stupid if he takes a shot at an M1A Abrams. But shooting the fuel truck or mechanics is a pretty good trick and almost as effective.
I asked you for specific details.
You provided a list of hackers hacking into 'government' computers. Desktop computers, websites, IBM Servers at the Pentagon are not part of a networked army.
The concept is one of networking air, land and sea units in combat so that they can share information about the battlespace with each other.
The connections back to the DoD and the actual commanders does not run through a LAN line and flow to some Dell computer running Widows XP! Haha...Geez.
Yep. Gotta agreed. Catherine Bell, call your answering service please! I just left you another message.
Sorry you find it a light matter. No matter. I have limited knowledge and what little I know I can't share. Just rest assured that people in the Pentagon have thought out these issues. Still, we have thought out issues in the past and the enemy is also thinking them out. It really doesn't pay to be too cocky.
I took a tour of Cyberdyne at Universal Studios, it was really 'SUPER!'
Hey, neat picture! Australian outfit, I presume?
What happens when Mr. Terrorist gets ahold of a smart helmet from a recently KIA soldier, and suddenly knows where every good guy is hiding?
...uhh...you called?
In battle, the computers reject those targets as ground clutter. In the days of smart bombs, it is smarter to not get in the cross hairs in the first place.
A funny thing about kevalar, you can't blow a hole in it with a .44 mag, but you can stick a knife right through it. So a guy with a spear wearing kevalar on a horse is of more danger to a guy in a foxhole with an M16 than visa-versa. Just re-picture the pajama parade over the hill towards ya at midnight, only this time they are on horses and are bullet proof.
Nasty.
I would imagine that it would be fairly easy to build safeguards in to such a system so that you use biometric information to ensure that only authorized users can access the information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.