The constant stream of casualties from close-range fire in Iraq has again raised questions that the US Army's future family of combat vehicles, which will rely on superior intelligence rather than thick armour, could be vulnerable.
-----------
[FCS]...will be ill-equipped to handle threats like improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), some critics say.
--------------
However, critics argue that danger can never completely be avoided and that soldiers could be unprotected in such lightly armoured vehicles. This view has gained currency after higher-than-expected casualties from IEDs and RPG attacks in Iraq.
----------------
"The network is not going to keep you alive," said one army official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The network is probably irrelevant once you make close contact with the enemy, and we're going to continue to make close contact because even [Iraqis], who are pretty unimpressive, have turned out to be sufficiently smart to rapidly reposition, adapt, evolve, and change in order to inflict damage on us."
-----------------
He noted that situational awareness is easier to achieve on the conventional battlefield with an enemy equipped with tanks and other vehicles but much more difficult during peace support operations or counter-insurgency operations when the enemy uses stealth tactics to blend into the civilian population. This is particularly true of military operations in urban terrain.
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw040518_1_n.shtml

The US has gone too far with its hyper technological boom as of late. Is it possible that the US is depending too much of hi-tech weaponry, and loosing sight of the realities on the ground? The US Comanche helicopter has been shelved, the V-22 is that still going on? The F-22 is not worth its weight in gold (many in the US seem to agree), and the Sea Wolf is a relic from a war that never happened. The US is well equipped military, able to beat any conventional military, and threats. But when dealing with close, urban, and psychological combat, the weakness of American power shows. I think the US has gone a tad bit gitty over hi-tech toys, anything that has a LCD display get's some ppl hot. But the reality is that they are merely one part of a military machine, tech is indeed not all. Iraq shows that dangerously enough, considering that M-113’s are being brought in after the disaster that the HUMMER was in Iraq.

we need to hurry up and get powered armor working... not the walking mechs... but just body armor that takes the weight of the armor and the load of his weapon and back pack off the man... letting him walk longer farther faster and have some protection... even if it just countered the weight of the armor would be a world of improvment... have some protection vs. small arms is much better then no protection at all...

Nah, a country that doesn't piss people off with unpopular foreign meddling needs no special protection for its representatives. "Nation building" in some terminator getup will never win "hearts and minds", and stop the assymetrical warfare cat-and-mouse. America's military problems are not technological in the least: We are being politically defeated, and resistance is fertile.

we need to hurry up and get powered armor working... not the walking mechs...

No...no, I think we need the huge mechas. Gigantic robots with huge nuclear reactors battling over entire countries....ahh, what an entertaining way to destroy a world, don't you agree? :)

I think its much more entertaining than just nuking the place like what's probably going to end up happening...

It would be cool to see giant mech's running round kicking the crap out of each other but really unless we imporve armor by a factor of 10 or so there is no way to make a giant mech that could even move under its own waight and not be a sitting duck on the battle field...

An upsized 'battle bot' if you will. Remote control. Armored. With a 7.62mm gatling gun from a Cobra and a 40MM grenade launcher. give it some camera's and go shred some bad guys.

The Little M113's dont do very well against RPG's but then again neither do hummers.

All good responses, but I want to hear what you think about my major statement:

Is it possible that the US is depending too much of hi-tech weaponry, and loosing sight of the realities on the ground?

Is the US too dependant on largely irrelevant tech. in regards to the new reality of war? (i.e. Urban warfare, civilian warfare, etc.) The robot thing brought up by Crazy seems to becoming a reality, but until then, should the US lighten up on the tech and deal more with specialized training?

Alot of projects designed for the cold war continued after the Curtain fell. The F-22 for example. While many of these have managed to adapt, several have proven useless.

Is the US too dependant on largely irrelevant tech. in regards to the new reality of war? (i.e. Urban warfare, civilian warfare, etc.)

There's not much that can be done when one isn't supposed to shoot at 99% of the people around them since they're civilians. Regardless of how armored one is, when that one person in the crowd of many sneaks up with explosives, and has no fear of dying, shit is gonna hit the fan.

If it weren't for all the civilians in the way, we wouldn't have much problem, even when lightly-armored. We'd just blow away everything in sight. This has nothing to do with relying too much on high-tech equipment in regards to urban/civilian warfare. The only thing I can see helping us in that type of combat would be if something more high-tech were available such as putting microchips in every single person to track them and tell the difference between who's an actual civilian and who's an enemy in disguise. That or just start killing a lot more civilians which is a no no.

- N

Since when did 'The future of the US military' become a Jeopardy category?????

Oh... you meant 'jeopardy'.....

For all the powered armor guys - how do you plan to solve the ground penetration problem? Big snowshoes?

Try this simple experiment (with the permission of the shipping yard of course):
1) Go to a shipping yard.
2) Get into a counterbalance truck.
3) Drive it off the yard and onto a grassy area.
4) get off and watch as it sinks into the ground. In particularly soft areas or on a rainy day, it may go down a meter and a half.

Any piece of heavy machinery is going to have this problem, even a smallish one-man assist, because it may not be as heavy as a several-ton forklift, but it will be standing around on two peg-like legs. The giant fusion-powered Battletech kind would be totally hopeless.

perhaps the problem is that when you get unconventional, it becomes tougher to formulate a convention to combat it, which is really what the military is all about, it's a huge set of conventions. unconventional combat requires maximal flexibility from command and control down to the individual soldier. generally speaking flexibility is expensive and has the weakness of susceptability to conventional attacks? i agree that it's obvious that the US needs significant improvement in flexibility to combat unconventional enemies.

just a thought

Flexibility is the cheapest thing in the world, wes. Sometimes you give it away to work with large groups, as wes should well know.

I would recommend an unconventional attack, such as a light dusting of tapeworm eggs over a country.

Hmm.. no BBH I don't think so.

Example:

Build a machine to do a thing.

Then see if it does anything else (assuming it does the thing you intended).

To build a machine that does all things, the expense rises accordingly.

The human does all things by adopting extensions - the extensible tool. That's why the war on terror can't be won. You can't take away a person's "weapon" unless you kill them.

I disagree with that too, I think the war on terror can totally be won. You just have to trick them into thinking they're getting what they want (which could be accomplished by manipulating what they want, but that takes a long time). Well, either that or kill them yeah.

LOL.

So all we have to do is like copperfield, and make the western hemisphere appear to disappear! ;)

I'll stop this though as not to drag off topic.

Is the US too dependant on largely irrelevant tech. in regards to the new reality of war? (i.e. Urban warfare, civilian warfare, etc.) The robot thing brought up by Crazy seems to becoming a reality, but until then, should the US lighten up on the tech and deal more with specialized training?

This is very much the case and I have to disagree with the military's standpoint. With their new armor they are actually pushing to remove the weapon from their hands altogether-bad idea. The name escapes me, but they are making shoulder-mounted boxes that shoot beams at people. What happens when these things break down in the heat of battle? What about relying on scans to find enemies? I played the game Halo a couple of days ago and was struck by the actual similarities between the fictional character and the soldiers they are creating.

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/2069186/2093613/2096662/exoskeleton.jpg

Look at this!

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096973/

It does seem all a bit much doesn't it, let's face facts here. With the rapid availability of expert hackers to enemy gov'ts or organizations the US is putting itself at great peril if she becomes too technological. Yes there is such a thing as "too much of a good thing, is bad a thing". There are many problems associated with this level of sophistication, can a normal American soldier really be able fix any of these things should they break down within a reasonable amount of time? I doubt it. Secondly it would be prohibitively expensive for the US to engage too much in this because the tech isn’t cheap, the training is long and expensive, and during a draft impossible. Also the normal American soldier may feel too superior, he could disregard threats because they aren't deemed important enough, then bang he's a dead man. But most dangerous is the de-humanization of these men. They are not men anymore they seem to be nothing more then walking robots, who are "expendable". They [the soldiers] will be more apt to de-humanize their enemies, which is dangerous at best. Yes this tech. will give the American soldier a tactical advantage but at what cost? Obviously tech is needed, but not irrelevant tech. The US simply can't afford any of this now anyways... the tech is impressive but lacks a human element needed to make wars of the future wars, not holocausts.

You have a bit of a point, Undecided, look at Veitnam. You ever see the movie Soldier? Where's the line?

I'll take "Retreat and Save Lives" for 1000, Alex