[MB.]

Yah, Wolfman fully, you're definitely right about those figures

and the nearest possibility there looks like quantum computing which is definitely a ways off and still very uncertain.

I have to say I do a bit of a mini-facepalm whenever quantum computing comes up.

I assure you, a quantum computer is not required for military grade robots on combat operations. Indeed, one would much prefer to have simple, robust, and inexpensive conventional (and easily replaceable) micro-processors rather than novelty devices like quantum computers on the battlefield.

[Suska]

I assure you, a quantum computer is not required for military grade robots on combat operations. Indeed, one would much prefer to have simple, robust, and inexpensive conventional (and easily replaceable) micro-processors rather than novelty devices like quantum computers on the battlefield.

my point was for AI to happen we need some new technology that nobody understands right now. Without AI computers need to be tended because they can't tell one soldier from the next, they can't see objects in the way we do. So you're really talking about remote control vehicles not robots. Even in the case you program its waypoints and give it obstacle avoidance capacity its still a remote control vehicle just preprogrammed. Its not autonomous. Its just does what you tell it to. At this point its utterly taboo to give a UGV a gun, the only robots that have guns are the ones being operated by a person.

[Thunderhawk]

Regarding modern combat in urban areas - it doesnt require air superiority fighters nor submarines. Yet the US military will continue to fund and have such craft because they have their uses. Occupation and urban combat is the issue at hand, but that doesnt mean one ignores other possibile situations where the military will be needed.

[War Angel]

Regarding modern combat in urban areas - it doesnt require air superiority fighters nor submarines.

Fighting in urban areas is not isolated. If the skies aren't clean (made possible with air superiority fighters), then the fighters on the ground are at risk.

In recent years, there hasn't been any real challenge for the USA's military supremacy. This could, of-course, change.

[Thunderhawk]

Fighting in urban areas is not isolated. If the skies aren't clean (made possible with air superiority fighters), then the fighters on the ground are at risk.

Clearing the skies above Iraq and especially Afghanistan could have been done with lesser aircraft. However, that isnt the point.

In recent years, there hasn't been any real challenge for the USA's military supremacy. This could, of-course, change.

Thats the point.

[War Angel]

Clearing the skies above Iraq and especially Afghanistan could have been done with lesser aircraft. However, that isnt the point.

Lesser aircraft, sure, and probably less aircraft, as well. But I'm sure the USA won't be battling backwards shitholes forever, and other, more serious challenges may arise.

Thats the point.

So, the F-22 fleet has to be maintained and strengthened, and, dare I say it - work on better, newer pieces? This F-22 junk has been around since the 1980s.

[Thunderhawk]

Lesser aircraft, sure, and probably less aircraft, as well. But I'm sure the USA won't be battling backwards shitholes forever, and other, more serious challenges may arise.

Yes. In which case, the USA should invest in newer superior technology - not just upgrading existing stuff. Why build such air superiority airplanes when you can build super missiles for cheaper insted?
And then there is stuff like the rail/coil guns, lasers, particle beams..

[Igor Antunov]

There could be another revolution in warfare one day, as there was when we moved exclusively to gunpowder weaponry.

What it will look like I cannot say. Perhaps energy weapons but I don't see them as being a massive jump from chemical based projectiles. Perhaps energy weapons so powerful they tear the fabric of time and space itself.

[Nattering Nabob]

I watched a railgun fire last year...it was very loud and fire the length of the barrel came out...

It was epic...

[Typhoon]

Im not a big fan of the rail-gun and see it as a waste of money.

The next generation of hypersonic cruise missiles beyond Brahmos, Yakhont and RATTLRS are going to achieve the kind of ranges and speeds that railguns are aiming for but with a wider range of warheads and sensors and with a more stealthy/adaptable flightpath.

You also wont need a powerplant the size of a house and a couple of crates of spare barrels, thats the reason they create a lot of light and noise when they go off, they are tearing themselves apart.

[Suska]

no doubt we will still have cruise missles for a long time, these are very expensive, the advantages you list are actually quite slight; stealth is not as issue at multiple mach speeds, sensors are everywhere now in the form of satellites and drones if not as usual ground sighting. Railgun slugs will have a somewhat adaptable flightpath, they are essentially smartbombs being dropped from trans atmospheric heights. Yes barrel damage is still an issue, but in engineering terms this is a very straightforward problem which can be dealt with probably as a combination of design and materials solutions. Yes, powerplants are a factor, I do not know the extent of which but I suspect its a matter of straight correlation between more power and faster bullets, how large the minimum useful plant would have to be I don't know but our nuclear ships have huge amounts of electricity available and that output will likely continue to improve.

[Thunderhawk]

Barrel wear is an issue with most guns that have high rates of fire or high speed projectiles. Such barrels are designed to be easily replaced, and it is nothing new.

[Aekos]

Will separatist groups like the FARC and insurgents start to use railguns? Or are homebrew railguns not nearly powerful yet to have any useful military applications?

[MB.]

If you put a functional railgun on a warship it could shoot down MIRVs, destroy satellites, shell capital cities, and pulverize enemy ships in harbor.

Why wouldn't you build them?

[Typhoon]

Cruise missiles may be expensive as compared with a single railgun round but no one really knows the costs of operating a railgun, as a system the rail gun may very well turn out more expensive than the missile.

Its true that sensors are everywhere today but thats what gives an advantage to the cruise missile, it ability to hug the ground keeps it out of the line of sight for the majority of sensors, specifically those that could be used to intercept the missile or the railgun round.

Barrel damage is no trivial issue, current barrel technology for tanks which accelerate projectiles to around Mach 3 have a life of a few hundered rounds, railguns aim to double that velocity with a much more complex barrel. Replacement is also not trivial, more so if it must be done for a naval vessel in theatre.

Today there is more and more of a drain on a ships power resources, especially as the big priority for new vessels is to equip larger and greater numbers of sensors. Unlike missiles which can rely on their own power once launched a railgun will have to compete with other systems for supply, this will also likely make railguns the realm of only larger vessels with the power to operate them.

As a technical curiosity railguns are fine, but as an applied technology then much like the USN's troubled EMALS program its probably not going to be very successful, probably more so.

[Quantum]

Awesome! Now the Army can destroy stuff with even greater ferocity and sink ships Spanish Armada style.

[killim]

Afaik the railguns are far away from practical use due to the enormous energy consumption, the enormous length, the immobility and the fouling in the "barrel". It can not replace missiles, because they have a longer range and enable intelligent around the corner shots.

What concerns the artillery discussion: I assess that large parts of the artillery missions today is carried out by airborne units, but the artillery remains a key unit in the military strategy even if we are faced (today) with asymmetrical warfare in mainly urban areas or hard terrain for artillery or comparable units. The main reason is the that you increase the risk of a conventional war if you don't prepare for one and human wave strategies for example can only be countered by artillery or massive air control and the latter is far more expensive and not available at all times.
What concerns artillery or specifically mortar/RPG use in urban combat that depends on the scenario. Are there civilians, is the area already destroyed, which sort of area (chemical industry?), which sort of opponents, known locations, ressources at hand etc.... we can argue about that for days...

[Igor Antunov]

I don't see whats wrong with cheap, plentiful bullets and guided missiles.

[Zerogouki]

While true, that isn't my complaint with the replacement of humans with robots. It's the casaulties. There are two things that stop countries from going to war over any little thing: monatary cost, and human cost. The economic hit is a small aspect, as can be seen from the War in Iraq (which had no real point, but a huge economic cost). The lose of life is what stops alot of battles and whole wars. The lose of life has ended numerous wars that wouldn't have stopped otherwise. If you take humans out of war fighting, you effectivily end the major reason we don't invade every country that irritates us.

Not true, actually. Elected politicians require the support of their people to stay in power, and popular opinion is very fickle. Dictatorships, meanwhile, simply don't care about casualties; in WW2, Soviet troops were told to kill their enemies by burying them under a pile of Russian bodies if possible. What really discourages wars between dictators is the possibility of losing.