Future Weapons

I did not have a change to read Flyboy's earlier article "The Future of Warfare"
untill Simhq published his follow-up article "Spy in Sky".

This article/post is mainly directed towards "The Future of Warfare" article although Spy in the Sky is also partially covered. "Future of Warfare" offers an excellent overview of those scientific and weaponry fields the US military are exploring, however when it comes to Flyboy's speculations and future visions, I discovered some flaws.

The biggest gripe I have with his predictions, is that they seem to ignore the reality of warfare and combat. That reality is that no weapon system operates in a void. As soon as you implement a new system, your opponents will try a) to develop a counter weapon system and/or b) a counter tactic to negate the benefits you get from the new system. What will follow is a point by point dissection of the Flyboy's article with my comments.

1/ Laser weaponry

[quote]The U.S. military is developing laser weaponry, presumably to make ballistic weapons obsolete. This would have its advantages, as there would be no individual "rounds" to manufacture, and no metal casings clogging up the place — meaning less cost and being more environmentally-friendly in the long-run. Another, more pressing advantage, would be that things such as wind and humidity would not affect the performance of such "projectiles" and the time it takes for the shot to hit the target from pulling the trigger to impact would be almost instantaneous[end quote]

Indeed the US is researching lasers as weapons (primarily in the anti ICBM role) and ignoring the fact that current power supplies are either not powerfull enough or too big, there are some practical issues that are will arise in using laser weapons as personal weapons
a/ soldiers will still have to carry a power supply
b/ if the weight of a power supply and the number of shots you can take are not equal or less then the weight of full M-16 Magazine, there is not much gain in swapping bullets for lasers
c/ rain and fog will affect the laser beam
d/ some people at Simhq suggested to mirrors could defeat laser. I am not a scientific expert but I think that the most damage from a "workable" laser would come from "heating" the target. So if you could dissapite the heat from an impacting laser, you would theoritally be safe (I can already imagine grunts using clear bottles of water to reinforce their sandbagged thenches against laser impacts)

[quote]One-shot kills and clean, almost clinical deaths would also minimize ammo loss and friendly fire, as well as less suffering for the people at the target — surely one in the eye for would-be critics and anti-war protestors.[end quote]

One-shot kills and clean deaths: it all depends on the effect of the laser impacting its victim. Will it act like a ray slicing through its victim? In that case, unless you hit a vital organ, your victim will keep fighting. Or will the impact of the laser boil the internal organs of the victim untill he explodes in cloud of bones and flesh?

Minimize ammo loss: most soldiers, in a situation where bullets (or lasers) fly around their head, will turn to a spray and pray method of firing. Only with training can soldiers overcome this reaction.

minimize friendly fire: will laser have an IFF (identification friend or foe) capability? In the heat of battle there is always a change of blue on blue fire no matter how sophisticated your system is.

less suffering for the people at the target: the mark of true cynic, the victems won't be any more less death because they got zapped by a laser.

2/ Kinetic Energy Weapons

[quote]Tanks will no longer fire the more traditional explosive rounds, but all will be kinetic energy weapons. This means that instead of relying on high amounts of explosive to do the job, a penetration dart made of high-density metal such as depleted uranium would be driven through armor by inertia alone. Tank destroyers and anti-tank weapons of all fields including air-to-ground and surface-to-surface would also use this kinetic energy method. This time however, they would be in the form of missiles, but again using a metal penetration dart in place of an explosive warhead[end quote]

Kenetic Energy Penetrarors are already widely in use, but unlike Flyboy's statement it's unlikely that they will totally replace explosive rounds. KE weapons are usefull against armored targets, but if you want to take out a group of infantry, a traditional explosive charge (with the shrapnel) effect would be more cost effective (read you can kill more soldiers with a bomb then with a single oversized dart). An other aspect of KE weapons is that you have to take into account is its requirement for speed. Unless you have a large gun or a huge powerfull rocketmotor you won't be able to hurl the dart with enough speed. In that case you will have to use a classic explosive round in the form of an explosive shaped charge.

3/ Computers

[Quote]Computers will play a much bigger part in all aspects of modern and future warfare. Special forces units are already using a special type of battle gear and clothing that has computer components built into them. These can monitor a soldiers heart rate, blood pressure and position on the battlefield[end Quote]

I agree that computers play and will play a bigger role in combat as situational awarness multipliers. Yet there are some remarks I'd like to make:
a/ it will be a hell of job to make the computers rugged and portable enough
b/ historically soldiers never went into combat with more then 30 kilograms of gear on their back. The increased weight in PC hardware they carry will lead to a reduced offensive load (less ammo)

4/ cyborgs

[quote]The use of nano-technology and even exoskeletons have also been looked at, and the sight of 'synthetic' soldiers and cyborgs (CYBernetic ORGanisms) on the battlefield may soon be more than just the wildest science fiction. ... This highly advanced type of soldier, is envisaged to eventually replace human forces, especially those who are needed at high-priority strategic points, where casualties could be high. No human soldiers would have to be in the line-of-fire, meaning less deaths. This in turn, would seemingly boost morale amongst the humans.[end quote]

This part of the article so far out that it made me laugh. This is more hollywood talk then sound military logic. I consider it extremely unlikely that terminator style robots will one day roam the battlefield. This would require a level programming. Remember this is not talking about a UAV returning back to its home base when the radio connection is broken, we're talking about computers able to learn things they have never been programmed for.

5/ Ammunition

[quote]Ammunition types for small arms are also being developed to give the soldier more punch and penetrating power by constructing armor-piercing-type rounds ... No doubt conventional ballistic ammo will be seen for years to come, but it will differ in being "caseless". This ammo-type doesn't have the bullet case that gets ejected when the round is fired. Instead, the bullet head is encased in explosive that obviously disintegrates upon firing.[end quote]

Again a prediction that is true and which armed forces are already employing or working towards. However one part of the statement needs comment.

[quote]Synthetic materials and high-impact plastics replace the heavy metals, so that the weapon is lighter, stronger, and needs less attention.[end quote]

less attention: during the Vietnam war, GI's were told that the new M-16 rifle required less maintenance. Sadly the GI's discovered that despite its (in those days) futuristic design, the gun could and would jam after long firing without cleaning the weapon. So no matter what technology, it is safe to say that a soldier will always have to clean his rifle.

6/ modular rifles systems

[quote]. Instead of having a separate sub-machine gun, assault rifle and sniper rifle for instance, this new idea makes use of a universal main weapon stock where parts such as barrels, sights, butts and grips can be changed over to quickly convert your single weapon into a series of weapon variations.[end quote]

Indeed a trend to which armies move, but the stated example shows that Flyboy misses the point of these weapons.

[quote]So, if you wanted a sniper rifle and at the moment you had the assault rifle configuration, you would probably want to swap the barrel for a longer one with a bipod attached. Then swap the low magnification combat sight over for a high-powered telescopic night-vision-capable sort, and the standard-type butt and grips for pieces which can be adjusted to suit the shooters needs. Finished sniping? Need to get in close? Then exchange the long barrel for a short one with a built in silencer. Take off the bulky scope and replace with a laser dot sight and remove the butt and replace with a lightweight folding one. All these parts could be carried by each soldier to
give him the ability to cover all types of combat situations, quickly, on the move, without the need for assistance.[end quote]

Armies want modular rifle systems because they offer a set of advantages:
1/ same caliber guns - if all soldiers use the same caliber, there will be less supply issues, soldiers can share ammo in the heat of battle.
2/ common maintenance - since the core parts of the gun remain the same, a soldier will be able to work and maintain each version of the weapon

However the given example does not take into account the reality on the battlefield
1/ soldiers won't carry the parts for the different version, it reduces the amount of ammo they can carry
2/ no soldiers will in the heat of battle, with bullets flying around, disassemble his weapon to reconfigure it to a more suited version.

7/ UAV's

[quote]Vehicles and aircraft on the battlefield will no longer be occupied by actual, invaluable people. Elaborate, remote-controlled creations will grace the ground and skies. ... . These are small planes that are launched, flown and landed entirely by a team of trained crew back at base or forward operating area, out of harms way. Fitted with cameras and even weapons, these aerial units have a high probability of survival. There is no danger to the pilot, because there really isn't one, and they are often small enough to evade enemy radar. Vital recon info can be gained by taking pictures, and pinpoint targets deep inside high-threat areas can be located and acquired for artillery fire or remote missile engagements — either way, the firing platform and its human crew is never exposed to hostile fire.[end quote]

Granted UAV's offer increased protection for the pilot (sitting safe in a container in the US) but the drone itself does not necessarily have a high probability of survival. The fact that UAV's roam freely over Afghanistan and Iraq is because Al Quada and the Taliban have no SAM's or air force to speak of. Faced with a more modern enemy (like Russia or China) it would be likely more costly to operate UAV's (in terms of shot down UAV's).

7/ Jet fighters

[quote]Jet fighters will become much faster with higher agility and those that are manned will be state-of-the-art, with all the latest technology and all analog gauges and dials will be replaced by big multi-function displays (MFDs). [end quote]

This statement does not take into account the reality of dogfighting (and the physics that govern it). Speed is good to get somewhere fast but going fast inevitably means you will loose agility (try taking a turn in your car at 120 kpm and at 50 kpm. At slower speeds you'll turn sharper). Each fighter has an optimum turn rate (where they can turn the sharpest at the fastest speed) and that's rarely if never at their maximum speed. When intercepting they will fly at max speed, but once fight starts they will drop to the lower speeds where they are more agile.

Regarding MFD's: no cockpit will replace all its analog gauges and dials. Gauges will always be there, perhaps as backup but they won't be replaced completely by MFD's

[quote]There will be no heads-up display (HUD), as this limits your targeting capabilities to straight-ahead. Instead, helmet mounted displays (HMD) will be employed[end quote]

Indeed many 5th generation fighters are equiped with HMD, but the guns still fire forward and missiles have a limited turn rate upon firing. So although the pilot could acquire a target at off-bore ranges, he would still have to point the nose of his fighter in the general direction of the target.

8/ VSTOL/STOVL

[quote]VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) or STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) will be a built-in requirement so that aircraft can operate in spots where there is a less than perfect runway.[end quote]

Jet Engine performance is expressed in lb thrust. The Av-8B Hatrrier II (the current vstol aircraft in use) has 21.450 lb thrust. Empty it weighs about 13,968 lb. For VTOL the Harrier is limited to a max weight of 20,755 lb. So it has roughly 7000lb to spare for fuel and bombs. Replacing all your fighters for VTOL aircraft would thus mean that you need more aircraft to haul the same amount of bombs towards the target.

VTOL aircraft have their use on the battlefield but they won't certainly replace the more traditionnal fighters.

9/ Stealth

[quote]Stealth technology will be the norm, instead of only being used on the most advanced and expensive aircraft of today, and all stores will be carried in internal weapon bays to reduce radar cross-section.[end quote]

Like with VSTOL some basic aircraft design principles are ignored. Sure producing more aircraft with stealth technology could reduce the overall cost per aircraft, yet it remains costly and it won't stop opponents from developping more powerfull radars that can burn through the stealth.

Employing weapons in internal bays is a solution to further reduce radar cross section, but it comes at a price in the form of reduced fuel capacity (which in turn affects radius and loiter time).

10/ laser turrets

[quote]Rudimentary counter-measures such as chaff and flare should be replaced with turreted laser devices that lock onto and actually shoot the enemy missile out of the sky with pinpoint accuracy.[end quote]

Although that lasers are far from powerfull enough to destroy or blind an incoming missile there are some major hurdles for such a system

a/ smaller aircraft won't carry them since a turret would impose too much of a drag penalty
b/ larger aircraft could carry them, but then the question rises how should the incoming missiles be detected?

Semi active radar guided missiles are guided by the firing aircraft's radar. The shooter could prevent being lased, by waiting untill the last moment to light up the target with his radar, just when his missile is in close proximity.

Active radar guided missiles could be targeted but unless the laser destroys the missile, a simple home-on-jam

style solution could allow the missile to steer to the last predicted target position, after all larger aircraft don't are as nimble as fighers.

Heat seeking missiles would be virtually undetectable. A solution could be a form of heat signature detecting when the missile is fired, but that would also allow the shooter to fire counter-measures that mimick a missile in order to trick the laser (sort of reverse flares/chaff).

11/ single aircraft

[quote]All aircraft in the inventory will be of one-type, with the ability to interchange parts from jets from other air bases, allowing reduced maintenance costs, shorter repair times, and the importance of being able to upgrade existing aircraft as new technology becomes available.[end quote]

Again, this prediction, fails to acknowledge basic aircraft design and physics. Various mission requirements pose different aircraft design requirements. Fighters must be small and nimble, bombers need lots of fuel and ground support aircraft need long loiter times and ruggedness against ground fire etc. It's impossible to build a plane that would meet all those requirements (the last time the US did it they ended up with the F-111 debacle)

12/ ground systems

[quote]Again, unmanned ground vehicles are in the works[end quote]

What counts for UAV counts also for UGV's. The driver might be safe, but the vehicle will still remain in harms way and be suspectible to destruction.

13/ invisible ships

[quote]there is work being done right now, to increase this advantage and make vehicles / aircraft / ships invisible to the naked eye.[end quote]

Like many other people already pointed out at simhq, a simple heat-sensitive camera won't be spoofed by an invisible ship/aircraft/tank. And don't forget the tell-tale traces like wakes, tire treds and jet wash.

14/ strategy

[quote]Technology alone will not win wars. There is — and likely always will be — the need for highly trained, highly motivated individuals who can employ old and new tactics alike. Strategy has always been a key part of successful battles.[end quote]

This is incorrect: strategy is not a key part of battle, its the decisive part of battle. If you don't use your equipement to its fullest potential, don't respond to the changing enemy tactics towards your tactics, you will surely loose the battle, no matter how high-tech your weaponry is.

15/ luck

[quote]Due to mostly luck, even the most expensive, technologically advanced hardware can be disabled or destroyed with relative ease.[end quote]

There is no luck on the battlefield. The battlefield is like a huge darwinian excercise: Those that fail to adopt to the changing situation end up dead. Those that live long enough learn eventually to attack so called superior weapon systems.

16/ conclusion

Flyboy's article offers a tantalizing view on which fields the US (and other nations) are researching, yet the offered predictions, fail in my view to encorporate one thing: the battlefield is a darwinian enviroment, the technology you bring to it, will force your enemy to react and unless you are able to cope with his reaction, you will end up as the loosing party in the fight.

Regards
KingAlbert