Weasel | 04 Sep 2014 5:58 p.m. PST |
What will military technology look like in 100 years, particularly from the perspective of the grunt? Educated guesses, trends and wild speculations all welcome |
Battle Phlox | 04 Sep 2014 6:03 p.m. PST |
"Iron Man" style body armor, "predator" style cammo, Rail guns mounted on the personal armor. Maybe laser pointers for drones that carry bigger payloads. |
Weasel | 04 Sep 2014 6:32 p.m. PST |
Computer controlled light tanks maybe? Basic weapons probably still slug throwers but higher velocity, more integrated gadgets and whatnot. Ground support Vehicles probably still on the ground rather than anti-grav widgets. |
Frederick | 04 Sep 2014 7:08 p.m. PST |
Computers implanted in the mastoid Nanobots to fix injuries Exoskeleton armour |
War Monkey | 04 Sep 2014 7:17 p.m. PST |
|
Weasel | 04 Sep 2014 7:32 p.m. PST |
Interesting idea, nanobot med-kits. Smaller injuries could be recovered fairly quickly, maybe even restoring the trooper to the action. |
Baron Trapdoor | 04 Sep 2014 7:38 p.m. PST |
|
Whatisitgood4atwork | 04 Sep 2014 8:00 p.m. PST |
Fewer, even more highly-trained soldiers, commanding more firepower and with a even longer support and tech tail behind them than today's troops. Each soldier controlling a small group of drones and robots, aided by AI. One drone in the air to look over the soldier's personal horizon, and to find and possibly paint targets. Weaponry launched from another remote robot/drone on the ground or on the air. Launching weapons may mean a high likelihood of a rapid kill on the launch platform, so best if weapons are not launched from a human being. Another drone/robot as a decoy/jamming platform. A swarm of replacement drones waiting just behind the lines to replace assets as they are knocked out. That's just guesswork based on expanding on current trends of course. I'm sure the actual future will surprise. |
Lion in the Stars | 04 Sep 2014 9:05 p.m. PST |
Probably caseless ammo, finally. Electronic 'primer', too, so a bare round is going to be nearly inert. 50/50 as to slightly larger caliber for the basic trooper's weapon (6.5mm or 6.8mm slug comparable to what exists today) or an itty-bitty thing (like 5mm or smaller) at ~1200m/s. Possibly both, but it's looking like small super-fast slugs don't have enough armor penetration or wounding potential. If the basic trooper's weapon goes to a 6.something mm, I expect the 'bigger' guns to be 8.5mm (.338cal, equivalent to .338 Lapua or Norma). 6.5mm Grendel is good out to 1200m (where it finally drops subsonic), and the .338 is good to 1700m. Both caseless, but with similar performance to cartridges existing today. The M2 .50cal Browning will STILL be in service, as will the 1911 pistol. Railguns for personal weapons will depend on a huge breakthrough in capacitors, something that will give a couple orders of magnitude greater power density than what is possible today. We might see railguns in some specialty fields like man-portable anti-tank guns. Lasers will still be target designators, not weapons in and of themselves, even if the capacitor breakthrough railguns need happens. "Iron Man" suits for a lot of troops, though some might be running a lighter version such that conventional soft armor can be worn over the exoskeleton. Might not have everyone in powered armor, either, as some operations will not work well if the troops don't look human (still gotta win the hearts and minds). Every trooper, whether in powered armor or not, has a 'wearman' personal computer providing IFF and datalink, as well as allowing any trooper to call for fire support (and logging whose computer made the call). Suit will have a heads-up display with night-vision, thermal, and probably ultrasound and millimeter-wave radar. It will also have a gunshot detector and triangulation as well as an IED jammer. It may have an IED pre-detonator, something that induces electrical currents into the detonators before the troop in the suit sets off the charge. Infantry squads will have drones of several types. Some tiny recon drones, at least one pack mule, and maybe a couple 'pointman' units. An infantry platoon will have organic indirect fire capability, but I doubt the individual squad will (beyond hand and launched grenades, anyway). The platoon will have UAVs, which may or may not be armed. If they are armed, it would probably be something like the XM395 Precision-Guided Mortar Munition, GMM-120, or the Strix mortar round, but dropped from the drone instead of launched. On the grenades, I almost expect to see a unified grenade that you can throw or stick into a launcher and lob. Idea being to reduce supply chain headaches. Something a lot like the Soviet GP30 launcher and grenades, but with a smart fuse. Never run out of throwable grenades, and never run out of launcher grenades. In addition to the man-sized Iron Man suits, it's entirely possible that we will finally see combat walkers that are about 2x mansize, 3.5m-4.5m tall at the largest. Armed about like an IFV with autocannon and big ATGMs. These will be optimized to chase infantry out of built-up areas, kinda like the BMPT Terminator on legs. Still very light, maybe 5 tons each. I expect tanks to be small, 18-20 tons, and with active defenses like a jet. Jammers, chaff, flares, and decoys, plus the usual tank active defenses like Quick Kill, Trophy or Iron Fist. Probably 2-3 separate active hard-kill defenses, like how modern ships have ESSMs, RAM, and finally CIWS, plus the chaff, flares, jammers, and decoys. This doesn't mean that there won't be big tanks like the Abrams or Merkava, just that the light tanks see the most action due to their ability to be rapidly deployed. Small nations will likely have heavier tanks since they have less distance to travel to get into the fight. The 'Marines' will likely have dropships capable of lifting to orbit and putting boots on the ground on the far side of the planet in less than 2 hours. Said dropships might be stationed in orbit, so that the Marines have dustoff capability. |
Coelacanth1938 | 04 Sep 2014 9:15 p.m. PST |
Swarms of nanobots eating up the landscape like soldier ants. |
Insomniac | 04 Sep 2014 11:19 p.m. PST |
It will be more geared for peace keeping and civil unrest. Poor countries will run out of food so the military will be geared to deal with militia style engagements. The tech will remain very similar as man power is cheaper than technology. Tanks will get better sensors and camo. Drones will get bigger payloads and longer range. The biggest improvements will be in cost for similar stuff we have now. A hundred years isn't long. |
John Treadaway | 05 Sep 2014 2:25 a.m. PST |
Three options, I reckon. One is unrecognisable: a hundred years ago there was no mechanised warfare at all and no military component worth noting of heavier than air fighting machines. With the exception of Mr Maxim's work, mostly people were fighting wars with extensions of weapons they'd been using since the middle of the previous century: repeating rifles, artillery and horses. Communications was "getting there" but it was the start of a long climb, I would say, to move away from semaphore and carrier pigeons via morse over telegraph wires (when they weren't being pulled down to make a coral for the horses – true story). A hundred years later, the battlefield is as different as chalk and cheese, I would say: sure, you can argue that people are still flinging lead at each other using explosive powder and they are still wearing DPM uniforms. But the force multipliers from the vast advances in c3(4), the sheer amount of individual firepower, the AFV and air combat and delivery (helicopter etc) role… How much of this could have been predicted accurately in 1914 at the start of WWI? And the rate of change is accelerating.So I think the next century will be – advance wise – more like the last two centuries (in a Moore's law kind of way). Two hundred years ago the chaps in the red jackets wielding single shot Brown Bess muskets were forming squares to stop the French Cuirrassiers… But all this assumes an uninterrupted level of progress. If that's not the vase, let's go to 'plan B': Alternative two (plan B) is much the same as now: if we have a major downturn in the economies of the world (again) or some shifts in blocks of power (again) – both of which history suggests that we might – then we may indeed still be using the 50 cal and – more importantly – the AK: Mr Kalishnakov's handiwork has been arming the world quite successfully for almost 60 years and it throws lead with the best of them. And every madman – and his eight year old son – appears to have one. Alternative three is War Monkeys answer + 2. I'm glad I won't be here to worry about it! John T |
latto6plus2 | 05 Sep 2014 2:33 a.m. PST |
Giant genetically engineered supersoldiers in brightly painted power armour. Probably serving some sort of god emperor Id imagine. |
Sergeant Paper | 05 Sep 2014 11:23 a.m. PST |
B-52s will soldier on. C-130s will have just been retired. |
Legion 4 | 05 Sep 2014 11:46 a.m. PST |
Like JT said, it can go a few ways … but we'll all be dead … so … |
wminsing | 05 Sep 2014 11:50 a.m. PST |
I agree with John Treadway, though I'm a relative youngin' and there's a chance I'll live long enough for medical marvels to allow me to see this. Assuming it's not Alternative Three! -Will |
infojunky | 05 Sep 2014 12:39 p.m. PST |
|
Lion in the Stars | 05 Sep 2014 2:33 p.m. PST |
Good call on the AK still being in use. (Amusingly, the Infinity game system, set 175 years into the future, has TWO factions using an AK derivative design as their primary small arm!) The tech will remain very similar as man power is cheaper than technology. Tanks will get better sensors and camo. Drones will get bigger payloads and longer range. Yes and no. It takes at least 8 years to grow a (child) soldier, and closer to 18 years to grow an adult soldier, plus 6 months or more to train one to Western standards. So nations that have the technology will spend a lot of time and effort working on ways to minimize casualties. |
Mkultra99 | 05 Sep 2014 3:30 p.m. PST |
Near Earth Orbital assets. Possibly the ability to drop troops and gear into a combat zone at a moments notice from NEO. Just as the 'air'above the battlefield was the big break through in the last 100 years, I imagine that NEO might be in the next.. or, what War Monkey said. |
Mkultra99 | 05 Sep 2014 3:34 p.m. PST |
Hmm.. what about engineered clone soldiers? They could be kept in hibernation in NEO.. then woke up, thawed out and launched at whatever "terrorist" is in need of an attitude adjustment anywhere on the planet. |
Mkultra99 | 05 Sep 2014 3:39 p.m. PST |
The moon and asteroids also might be valuable property in teh not too distant future.. the moon is loaded with H3 (which is NOT cheese they tell me). Japan and other groups are already looking at harvesting asteroids.. possibly even moving them into orbit with the earth. |
Weasel | 05 Sep 2014 4:28 p.m. PST |
Genetic manipulation, provided it becomes socially acceptable, would definitely be a factor. I imagine in 100 years, we'll have some level of cybernetics as well. An interesting setup would be if weaponry continues to increase in accuracy, range and lethality to the point where physical defences can't hold them up, effectively putting an end to the "battle tank" as we know it. |
Milites | 05 Sep 2014 7:38 p.m. PST |
Even if Moore's law is predicted to slow by 2013 the processing power in a hundred years time (doubling every three years) will be staggering. This in turn will lead to a series of ground breaking technologies which mean prediction is difficult. I'd say combat with with semi-autonomous to near autonomous robots, linked to humans with bio-mechanical implants. Weaponry will be interesting, as chemically propelled small arms munitions are already losing the race with ballistic protection systems. I think it will really depend on the continuing development of ever faster processors the miniaturisation of battery technology, research on super-conductors, breakthroughs in nanotechnologies and AI. I seriously doubt any humans will be fighting each other directly, unless it's a grotesque tech mismatch somewhere. As for the demise of the tank, it's been predicted every time we turn a technological corner, but it will have to evolve significantly. |
Mark Plant | 05 Sep 2014 9:22 p.m. PST |
It will be more geared for peace keeping and civil unrest. Poor countries will run out of food so the military will be geared to deal with militia style engagements. Every century for the last 12 has had more food. There seems little likelihood that trend will reverse based on some idea that we have "too many people" (in 100 years the world's population is expected to be declining by most demographers). It is the constant predictions from Rev. Malthus on that we would run out soon that have been shown wrong. I do agree however that soldiers will be increasingly directed at civil unrest. Already we see that almost all wars are civil wars (albeit other parties sometimes get dragged in). How many wars of annexation have their been since WWII? Kuwait. Malaya. Falklands. I'm sure there are others, but they're rare and getting rarer. |
Paint it Pink | 06 Sep 2014 4:50 a.m. PST |
What I know about predictions is that generally they are wrong more often than they are right. Mad ideas include meat bodies run by AIs, because allowing yourself to be run by a machine increases your chance of surviving the battle. Directed Energy Weapon installations making conventional aircraft largely obsolete. Antarctica will be the new battlefield for resources and expansion. |
CAPTAIN BEEFHEART | 06 Sep 2014 6:27 a.m. PST |
JT's take on it. In 1914 telephones were cumbersome fixtures, tough to set up and balky to work. I guess we saw what they morphed into by 2014. Mainframes computers, box cameras, home movie cameras, all purpose controlers for the home, etc. In 1914 a sensor suite was a pair of binoculars, the list goes on. If the tech is tough to guess then the tactics/strategy is downright impossible. Considering the rapidly changing social mores and worldviews, the reasons for armed conflict could be equally difficult to predict. A thought provoking thread indeed. |
Lion in the Stars | 06 Sep 2014 10:50 a.m. PST |
Considering the rapidly changing social mores and worldviews, the reasons for armed conflict could be equally difficult to predict. That's where I disagree. Every conflict throughout history has boiled down to fighting over resources. We may see fights starting over different resources (drinking water?), but that's it. |
Weasel | 06 Sep 2014 9:24 p.m. PST |
Resources or ideology. That reminds me, maybe we need a thread about ideologies that will be struggling against each other in 100 years. |
Mark Plant | 06 Sep 2014 10:14 p.m. PST |
Every conflict throughout history has boiled down to fighting over resources. Mostly ideology/religion these days, as noted by Weasel. That's what fuels almost all civil wars. But also money/power. Or historical and/or ethnic antagonisms. Or increased security. And sometimes just plain spite. |
Legion 4 | 07 Sep 2014 8:08 a.m. PST |
Of course … if the aliens land before 100 years … this could all change, or as noted – sharp sticks and rocks ! |
Weasel | 07 Sep 2014 9:08 a.m. PST |
Mark – or the oldest reason of all: "Because we can" :) |
badger22 | 07 Sep 2014 2:37 p.m. PST |
Probably my favorite 1950s scifi picture is of a space pirate climbing aboard a ship, laser pistol in hand, and sliderule in his teeth. I am not sure we are any better at predicting things now. Some things that we are sure are going to be dominate will not work out for a number of reasons. And something we have not forseen will be huge. As for causes, Most of the things Mark mentions are also resources, just not naturla ones. money is a resource, as are religous followers. Sometimes a group will want to wipe out the other side, but most fo the time they ant to convert them. So human resourses. I freely admit that old conflicts that nobody rfemembers the why of are different, but probably most of those started as resource control. |
capncarp | 07 Sep 2014 3:09 p.m. PST |
But Badger, remember: the slide rule is not subject to EMP effects! |
Lion in the Stars | 07 Sep 2014 6:57 p.m. PST |
And I've seen a couple of the older Quartermaster and even a torpedo Fire Control Technician bust out slide rules for things (predicting time of impact for the torpedoes, actually). The FT could actually beat the computer to a solution half the time! As far as ideological conflicts go, aren't the believers a kind of resource, too? Not to mention all the resources controlled by the believers? |
John Treadaway | 08 Sep 2014 2:10 a.m. PST |
Probably my favorite 1950s scifi picture is of a space pirate climbing aboard a ship, laser pistol in hand, and sliderule in his teeth.I am not sure we are any better at predicting things now. One of the things I lve about old SF is the way that the art always prtrayed things as 'today's tech with bigger knobs on. So in the Victorian era, the space ships often look like flying ocean liners (complete with promenade decks). In the 20's they tend to look like huge airships. In the 50's they look like enormous V2s (until 'flying saucers' came along). It makes me a) think, smugly, about how 'wrong' 'they' got it and then, b) remind me that we are going to get things just as wrong! Cheers me up anyway :) Oh, and slide rules: in a hot nuclear environment, unless you put the whizzy device in a Faraday cage, slide rules, er… rule! John T |
Weasel | 08 Sep 2014 12:50 p.m. PST |
New post apocalypse SciFi rules: "AK's and slide rulers" ? :) |