We constantly hear about the Army’s various “future combat” systems - essentially, the goal is to link up everything via wireless networks, and make it faster and lighter. Billions are being invested into this kind of technology, from tanks to soldiers.
But is it a losing hand?
The type of fighting we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan does not synch up with the Army’s vision of future warfare. Roadside bombs and RPGs are shredding what military presence we have deployed. HMMWVs in particular have had a poor performance record, with soldiers doing emergency retrofitting in attemts to boost their survivability.
In one instance, the Army’s solution to HMMWVs being attacked by RPGs is to introduce a counteractive anti-missile missile system. This seems to be an insanely costly and risky mode of defense.
Another instance is the capability of uplinking soldiers to a shared network. The question introduced by military analysts is - what is the value of this in a combat situation? The goal is to reduce the “fog of war” - the confusion and chaos of battle. Once engaged in live fire, though, how much value will there be in being linked up? What advantage would soldiers in Iraq have if they were linked up? Most of the attacks are ambushes or urban warfare, which lessens the capabilities of the technology.
Can we compare where the US Army is compared to the Russian or Israeli armies? Both have been engaged in long term urban and guerilla warfare for decades. Their trend is towards heavier vehicles that can take a beating and fire back. This is almost the opposite of America’s strategy. Even the European nations are investing more in heavy armor, whereas the US is investing in basing more and more designs on the HMMWV base.
High-tech military gizmos are very intriguing, but they always remind me of that Arthur C. Clarke short story “Superiority”, about a high-tech galactic army taking on a smaller and lower-tech band of rebels, with counterintuitive results. Strategies that require hooking up combat teams via a computer network make me a little nervous: one bad virus, and ouch.
I think, Zagadka you’re making assumptions about the use of the technology and the nature of wars we may face in the future that aren’t necessarily warranted.
Most of this technology is devoted to improved command, control, communications, and intelligence. The added advantage this gives our forces in any conflict we engage in should be obvious.
In addition to this, systems are made redundant by several layers. In the Navy, our sophisticated internal communications network on the ship was supplemented by a sound-powered phone system, using century-old technology. Should the ship ever lose electrical power, the rugged sound-powered phones could be used, since they required no external current at all.
If this system failed because of massive shipboard damage, internal communications could be maintained throughout the ship via voice tubes or even messenger. In the case of damage control, the messages used a kind of shorthand to show what the damage was and what progress was made fighting it.
All of this was rigorously trained and drilled. I’m sure the Army has a similar mix of high- and low-tech options, ready to be applied as the situation warrants.
Well can the new gizmos make the US soldier WORSE in combat ? Hard too. So overall it tends to add and not subtract from soldier’s capabilities. Unless it does become a distraction.
Remember what killed more Brits in Iraq ? “Friendly” fire from US troops. Digital connection and networks might have avoided that. Especially the overly heavy gunned US army.
If its the best choice for investment is a good debate though… its not terribly effective.
One of the premises of the future army projects is to make each soldier a walking arsenal - point and click and deliver pinpoint artillery or air bombardment. One further question I have in this is - is this a good idea?
Given the nature of combat we have seen, and the havoc wrecked thus far in Iraq, is it necessarily a brilliant concept to give each soldier the capability to level a city block at will? What kind of command and control checks and balances are there on these systems?
Secondly, what of soldiers become dependent on such systems? Someone used to having a GPS map locating each enemy position may be caught more off guard when the system fails.
I’m trying to envision a scenario like the Somolia incident, and how shared battlefield intelligence would have changed the outcome - or if the circumstances changed so rapidly that it would lead to more confusion.
Well, you said it, Zagadka. The key here is command and control. And technology makes it easier to control your forces and command them to achieve objectives.
You don’t think the aim here is to give privates bigger guns and allow them to run around unsupervised, do you? The aim is to better organize the force, so higher-up’s can make the decisions for them.
The other side of this coin is training. Junior officers and NCO’s typically have the ability and flexibility in the field to adjust to conditions there. In the event of all loss of control from above, this leadership on the battlefield will allow the soldiers to meet objectives and bring them home safely, ideally.
The tactics developed to take advantage of these technologies should take this all into account. Soldiers always plan for what happens when their stuff breaks.
We did this in the Navy, too, relentlessly. When I was at a C2 node controlling P3 aircraft, we would drill for what to do if each piece of comms gear went out of commission, or if we lost power. One drill saw a loss of all radio comms, electricity, and the telephone. The watch officer jumped in his car, drove to a snack bar a half-mile away, commandeered the phone, and passed control to our alternate node up in Naples. The whole evolution took about five minutes. Nowadays, with cell phones much more common, it would take a much shorter time.
Flexibility is key. Overreliance on one thing is a vulnerability. The military is fully aware of this.
Ah, a chance to natter about my area of experience, C3I (Command/Control/Communication/Information) Systems.
Since Mr. Moto already covered a lot of the ground here, I’ll just note that the powers that be aren’t focused solely with high-tech gizmos and bigger and better guns. The President might be obsessed with a missile defense system that’s useless against terrorisms, but the military leaders are aware that what will ultimately ensure military supremacy is “situation awareness” – being able to know who’s where in the battlefield, both friend or foe, at all times. It’s not a stretch of hyperbole to say that the long-term vision of warfare would be like a real-life version of Command and Conquer, with real-time information updates coming from boots on the ground, UAVs overhead, observation satellites in orbit, etc.
All the firepower in the world won’t do you any good if you don’t know where the enemy is, or mistake friendly troop movement in the next ridge as a foe, or can’t allocate a safe-flight corridor for your air support in the middle of an artillery barrage. Communications radios and dynamic wireless networking may not be as sexy as laser-guided smart bombs or reactive armor, but it’s the backbone of the modern battlefield, and can be applied to both traditional large-scale combat situations and street-level urban combat.
As a theoretical enemy commander, my only option in facing this type of setup (without a similar setup of my own) is to rely increasingly on deception, concealment, and constant movement. In essence, forcing urban warfare.
I’m curious to see how this will work out in practice.
My god! I have to say that rjung hit this one squarely on the head with this post:
Information…data…is the life blood of the modern military. And situational awareness is the key to US current military supremacy, now and in the future. Knowing where the enemy is important…equally important is knowing where all of your troops and other assets areare as well. And if the battlefield ever gets fully integrated (thats the goal), where every tank, truck, jeep, plane, soldier, etc, is reporting back not only where they are but what they are seeing, and if that data can be manipulated in real time, coordinated, and re-desiminated back to the troops in real time…it will be a capability that is beyond a doubt decisive on the battlefield. In addition, coordinated logistics that also is aware of real time conditions is another huge benifit of the coming system.
Actually, we are transitioning our light forces (soldiers from the ‘light infantry’ divisions, and eventually all non-mechanized forces), to the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle. Early deployments in Iraq have generated lots of positive feedback, especially for its armor system. The base vehicle has some armor. More can be bolted on. On top of that, so-called slat amor can be tacked on to that. So far, so good.
European nations are investing less in heavy armor, and more in vehicles comparable to the Stryker, such as the XA-200 and the Pandur II. Heavy armor has its place, but its a pain in the ass to move, and the best armor in the world is pointless if you can’t get it to the fight. Wheeled ‘medium’ vehicles are far more portable.
I will give you that Russia and Israel have taken a ‘different’ route. Somewhat ironically, both use converted T-55 tanks as urban APCs. Russia, obviously, had a bunch lying around. Israel captured so many over the years that not only do they use modified variants of them, they now are a leading provider of upgraded spare parts for them. Also, Russia has developed a ‘convoy escort’ Kort-B, a variant on the T-72.
If we had shorter supply lines, such as Russia or Chechnya, we probably wouldn’t be dorking around with wheeled vehicles. But since we need to get our stuff thousands of miles away, heavy tracked vehicles are just too darned ineffiecient.
And what we have is working. Even the humble Hummer is doing a pretty decent job, given the overall numbers. The Stryker is even better. (Much, much, better, it seems.) The Bradley is better yet, but is inefficient at counter-insurgency operations. We’ll be using a mix of Hummer, Stryker, and Bradley, for the forseeable future.
In Texas hold 'em, there is a term that refers to the river (5th card drop) giving the victory to the player that previously had very, very little chance to win the hand: a suckout.
American government is in danger for a big suckout.
Can we compare where the US Army is compared to the Russian or Israeli armies? Both have been engaged in long term urban and guerilla warfare for decades. Their trend is towards heavier vehicles that can take a beating and fire back. This is almost the opposite of America’s strategy. Even the European nations are investing more in heavy armor, whereas the US is investing in basing more and more designs on the HMMWV base.
Is the US betting the farm on a pair?
[/QUOTE]
Anything you can plate with steel can be pierced. It is cheaper to build piercing weapons than it is to build armored vehicles. Putting 20 people in an armored vehicle just makes it easy to kill 20 people all at once.
It is pointless to build weapons for urban warfare because it is impossible to win a war that way. Wars are won by defeating armies and destroying property. The civil unrest that follows a war is decided by the actions of the victor and ultimately the will of the defeated.
When comparing American weapons systems in guerilla warfare situations (vs Russian systems) it is obvious that inter-connective weapons systems work well. The Russians retreated after years of fighting in Afghanistan and it was a matter of weeks for US lead troops to splinter OBL’s forces. Predators, which can be directed from anywhere on earth, were quickly adapted to carry missiles. They can also roam for hours with a remote pilot and relay the information gathered to virtually any launch platform. Command centers using them can literally direct a weapon from a ship, a fighter, a bomber, a gunship or a platoon.
The latest weapon deployed was an anti-tank “bomb”. It is directed by spotters and is then dropped as a single glide-to-target system, which then breaks into multiple heat seeking missiles. Saddam lost an entire column of tanks to one of these. A single B-52 can carry a wide range of weapons that can be deployed over a very wide expanse of land with each weapon directed by information from any member of the armed forces. This is rapidly becoming yesterday’s technology. We are at a point now that technology has exceeded application.
They are still trying to finance “Star Wars” too… and they don’t have good urban warfare tech “tank”. Well urban warfare isn’t exactly the place to use tech for a big advantage… not current tech.
You’re comparing combat systems of 1975 to 2005? The US spent more time bombing the holy f* out of Vietnam and Korea with less effect than the Soviets had.
While the performance of the US troops in Afghanistan was indeed impressive, it is also worth noting that 70% of the country remains in the hands of regional warlords, and anywhere outside of a city is considered prohibitively dangerous. Additionally, the Taliban still controls most of the southern part of the country, and the majority of Al Qaeda suspects, leaders, and fighters escaped before captured or KIA.
Pinpointing targets with elite troops brought in by helicopter to direct precision (GPS/laser) guided weapons launched from platforms hundreds of miles away will do a lot to blow sh*t up, but it is pretty ineffective for holding territory.
Additionally, the United States was paired up with local Afghan forces who were already fighting a civil war, and they were making headway anyhow. If you will remember, a good amount of the ground fighting was done by Northern Alliance forces with American air support.
Iraq’s military largely laid down and played dead. The conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq were too much of sickeningly mismatched forces, with one side trying to avoid direct confrontation, and without sustained effect, for them to be considered apt demonstrations of the US military superiority.
Too bad it does diddly squat to fight insurgents O_o
I’ll grant you that. However, I refer you to my Invincible Soldier theory - the better you are, the more your enemy avoids direct conflict, and the harder they try to kill you. Which is what we see happening.
Additionally, this battlefield bravado, while certainly impressive, does little to hold ground. IMHO, this has always been America’s weak point - we are known for excessive bombardments followed by a quick strike. Literally, carpetbomb and sweep up. While effective against battlefield troops, these tactics are incredibly INEFFECTIVE against insurgents and in urban warfare. Following my IS theory and basic logic, the enemy will increasingly rely on these methods and avoid where we shine. We can keep them from fielding a massive army of tanks, but god help us if they’re inside a city. Then we just tend to lay siege and letting corpses pile up, which is incredibly bad for international politics.
So, my question is more related to what is going on in urban/insurgent warfare, where we are more likely to fight our future battles.
Are lightly armored mobile platforms with linkups and laptop computers for every soldier worth the investment in urban warfare?
I look to the experts on these situations - people who have been engaged in this type of warfare for decades - for answers. I don’t see Humvees with guided rockets being used in most of these conflicts.
In the short-term, I am positive that money could have been put to ‘better’ use. But such projects need massive funding over lengthy periods of time before they become effective. We can’t just frantically say, “OK, we allocate 100 billion dollars to NMD” as the missle is on its way to Hawaii.
Obsolete? By what measure? What dated or old-fashioned technology is it going to be using that makes it obsolete?
Certainly, the air threat from the Warsaw Pact is no more, but with the Russians selling Su-27 and variants to anyone with the dough, I certainly think that America should keep at least some number of a clearly superior aircraft around. We can afford supremacy. And I bet any Raptor pilots that some day may be tangling with Chinese Su-27 pilots near Taiwan would agree.
Like it or not, the F-15 is getting long in tooth, and the Air Force ain’t about to buy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, so they need a new ‘Premium Fighter’. The F-35 will be our next F-16, and it sensible to get a F-15 replacement as well. Somehow, I don’t think that congress would sign the check if we wanted to buy a bunch of Rafales or Eurofighters…