Message posted by Rocketfox on March 25, 2001 at 13:29:57 PST:
If the preliminary reports are to be believed, there is a major change taking place within the military on the focus, nature, and strategy of war. There is no doubt that the future of armed conflict impacts the activities at Groom, and it seems if all is to be believed, the future looks promising indeed. According to the papers {take with a grain of salt} the future looks good in the long run for the Air Force, with the possibility of increased production of long-range bombers, stealth systems, and less emphasis on short-range fighter/strike aircraft. Taking into consideration that the focus of strategy seems to be shifting from the Cold War arena of Europe to the vaster ranges of the Pacific Theater, there is a certain amount of sense in this. Looking at the World War Two playbook, there were considerable differences in strategy in those two areas of the world. Korea and China. with more land mass seperated from UIS available operating areas, would justify the need for a lager naval presensce, and the requirement for smaller, more resistant to missle technology aircraft carriers would go a long ways to justify the future of JSF. Having had the pleasure of touring a "pocket carrier" from Great Britain, they are a very effective method of force projection using Vtol/Stovl aircraft. One area that may particularly apply to Groom is the increasing advancement of UAV technology. There is increeasing research currently going on in the field of robotics that may be pertinent. Though still in it's infancy. We have seen the beginning of the creation of the robotic soldier, in the systems developd for SWAT teams here and abroad that have wire controlled units capable of entering buildings. Equipped with TV cameras, microphones, speakers, and shotguns for the purpose of confronting armed criminals without risking human officers. These robots have also been used for bomb disposal. I have also seen reports of the advancement of Neural Net Control Systems for controlling aircraft in flight {a blacker than black project?} through direct nerve-to-control comand input {still in development}. The combination of these two technologies may presage the development of the Warbot as a replacement for the hazardous job of protecting our nation. For a good example of this I would recommend the fictional series Warbots, by G.Harry Stine My concern in the general trend in warfare towards reducing the number of casualties at the expense of equipment however justified and noble it is, is that it seems to directly conflict with the very nature of war itself. there seems to be a paralell here in the direcion Intelligence took at the conclusion of teh Second World War, when the shift to Intelligence gathering by Technical Means came at the expense of the Human {spy in the office} Source. Yes, a tremendous amount of infromation was gathered about what people had, and where it was, but there was little information on what the intent was. This was one of the reasons that we as a nation were continually "surprised" by events worldwide and it is onnly recently that there has been a concerted effort to make up for defienceis in this area. At it's simplest, the role of the military is to "break things and take stuff" . The breaking part, one can do easily from a distance, ask any Air Force Bomber pilot. The taking part, or the occupation of territory, is a whole different matter entirely. Ask any Ground Troop about that one. No, I don't like seeing bodies coming into Dover AFB any more than anyone else does. I've had too many people I know return home that way. Yes, development of remote systems is a good thing, and I hope it continues. Carried too far however, it may lead to a situation where a higher price may be paid in the long run than might have been avioded with more of the human factor figured in earlier. Two good examples of this. In Desert Storm, the Air Force and Naval Air elements did a wonderful job of disrupting communications and fire control systems to a point where, when it was time to engage the ground units, the resistance was demoralised, uncoordinated, and not as willing to put up the resistance they might have otherwise done if conditions were different. This was good coordination, and good use of eqiupment and personnel. Contrast that to Vietnam { though that was a toally different war, and political environment}, where at times, though areas were stated to be under "pacification" the truth was only the areas where the soldiers were dug in were actually under any semblance of "control". If, as the current thought suggests, the area of conflict is in the Far East. it is going to impose severe conditions for any type of military operations in that field. Remote bases, long distances to targets, limitations on the types of Intelligence available, and long supply routes are all going to be important factors in any operation in that hemisphere. Addition of the political instability factor, and our relationship in the Pacific Rim, it's going to be a challenge, indeed. Development of the JSF, F-22 V-22 and all will be no less important in our future than the development of the Huey, the Cobra, the F-4, and the F-16 ,-15, A-10 were in thier respective times. Better, Smarter, Meaner. Let's hope we have some more rabbits to pull out of our hat, too... R*
While the published information alludes to Recon and limited Armed phases in UAV research and development. the overall trend seems to lean towards reducing the hazard to personnel in favor of possible loss only in material. While this is generally a good concept, as it reduces the number of people placed in hazardous situations, it is not without some degree of degradation in the overall effectiveness of combat missions. I'll get back to this in a moment.
which in the framework of a pretty good story situation shows that there is indeed no substitute for a person in the arena of war, regardless of how good the technology gets.
good words for any Military.
Replies: