Stumble This | You should also watch “Real world force field for combat vehicles” |
BAE Systems Land and Armaments XM1203 Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS Cannon) is a 155 mm cannon intended to provide improved responsiveness and lethality to the "Unit of Action" (UA) commander as part of the US Army's Future Combat Systems project. This mobile armored artillery piece provides networked, extended-range targeting, and precision attack of point and area targets in support of other combat units with a suite of munitions that include special purpose capabilities. The Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon provides sustained fires for close support and destructive fires for tactical standoff engagement. The NLOS Cannon uses technology from the cancelled XM2001 Crusader.
Though I think this would put MarineGunrock out of a job...
EDIT: Anyone else think the FCS design spec is really overly reliant on technology, networking and a level of information overload most troops would find detrimental to their combat experience?
Also, this is only for self-propelled artillery. Towed guns will be around for many years to come, as they are much more reliable and much cheaper than SP versions.
At the beginning of this year, the Marine Corps started fielding a new 155mm howitzer, the M777 lightweight howitzer. It's much easier to operate, much faster to employ, and requires less men. Also, it's half the weight.
I was talking about the Future Combat System program as a whole, from grunt level to command level with integration of armor, artillery and air power under network centric warfare.
It seems to me to be hopelessly over reliant on technology and sensitive electronics, and then providing a mountain of new information to individual soldiers, how will they then deal with informational overload, especially in combat settings where snap decisions need to be made.
All the trail runs of the FCS were heavily controlled so far, and showed mundane encounters between hostiles at long range, and a level of pre-operational intelligence that does not exist on the battlefield.
As far as the information overload - well, you'd be surprised at the amount of information troops have to know already - Whether it's the proper techniques of clearing a building, and remembering all the small things, or first aid, or how to properly call for air support if the radio man gets taken down. Having to know how to operate this wouldn't be a big deal, because that's where training comes in. After training enough, anything can become second nature. So, to sum it up: Snap decisions can be made flawlessly, no matter how much information needs to be processed, because U.S. troops are some of the most highly-trained troops on Earth.
something about actually needing to put a human on the battlefield kinda keeps things in check, don't you think?
Personally I think it's because robots don't have a moral compass, and their operators who will most likely be miles away will be playing a video game, firing at targets at human targets on the screen.
I mean look at how the US military presents war to the public, highly detached bombing mission runs from the Air Force.
The US military is big .. really big when compared to the rest of the world. No one disputes this. Seems to me that the only two things having any deterence power over our new form of imperialism .. er .. democratic persuasion is A) military casualties and B) cost. Military programs like this drastically radically reduce these two barriers.
But lower American casualties sound great, right? Well, imagine 10~20 years from now when America is a few revs into optimizing these machines for production cost and lethality. And you know we'll be stockpiling them (oh, how we like to build 'em big and in plenty). Now you have a overwhelming fighting force that can be parked on the lawn (or sand dune) of any nation that dares to disagree with our policies.
So far these (NLOS, predators w/ hellfires, etc.) haven't been flagged as an atrocity by the general public as nuclear weapons are, they're simply seen as a non-traditional way of fighting conventional warfare. But the devastation unleashed by autonomous military vehicles could be just as massive to civilian casualities if done in the right numbers, especially since the conflict is so impersonal. Think about the history of conflict, advancing from hand to hand, to ranged guns/artillery/mines, to aircraft bombs .. and how many more civilians die as collateral damage in modern warfare. The military tech advantage would ensure that we keep a monopoly on this warfare for a good number of years. If we had them today, I bet we'd already have invaded Iran with little debate on the subject.
Ideally this would be a good thing. Less casualties. Perhaps in a "noble" war where we clearly have the moral high ground (though even WWII had its firebombing atrocities). But with a government you can't trust, a country with a military budget far exceeding the rest of the world combined, a looming energy crisis, and an ignorant public, this has got to be one of the scariest things on the horizon.