Future Military Technology

[All Seeing Eye]

Every time I watch films set in the future or which show the future such as 'Terminator' or every time I play on games set in the future such as 'Empire Earth' I cant help but be amazed at the types of Military vehicles and technology the designers come up with and cant help but wonder why the military's of the world today don't develop vehicles and technology like this?
Just look at the jet aircraft from Terminator 3, it looks to me like it could actually be built and work, there's nothing about it that cant be developed right now and its a highly maneuverable craft capable of high speed could carry large weapons and transfer troops.
What about other vehicles that could be built that we see on Terminator, why do we still rely on tanks? vehicles could be developed such as the T-1 Terminator but much more advanced and sophisticated, why not build a Tank size one which utilises missiles and flame throwers aswell as machine guns which when under heavy fire could pack itself up into a protective shell and then pop out and open fire.

Why are we still using Tanks, humvees and stationary missile vehicles?

We're behind the times people!!

http://www.mattracks.com/assets/images/T1-2001a.jpg
http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/00/02/57/86/p4.jpg

Just imagine building these heavily armoured tank size machines with missiles, machines guns and flame throwers being sent into an intense Iraqi/Afghan warzone. Our troops would never die again.

 

[ex nihilo]

The numbers are legion as to why these things do not exist in deployment, but the most prominent is cost.

The military, like all government agencies, is driven by economics, not some R&D guy’s new “kewl” weapon of the week. One must remember that these things do not simply come to be out of the ether; it takes many years of R&D just in basic design, let alone the coordination of major systems and subsystems. Once a weapon or platform has been proven useful and applicable to the military’s needs there are still years ahead before production can deliver for deployment (all of the production logistics, tooling, and acquisition of skilled labor needs to take place).

I seriously doubt we will ever see the explosion of variation and numbers and incredible turnaround time of vehicles and weapons we saw in WWII. The current world environment does not place any locale out of harm’s way, even to some of the most ill supplied militaries.

If major powers ever come to blows it will be a war won with first strike capabilities, not the ability to overwhelm or fight a long-term war of attrition (which defined WWII until the deployment of “the bomb”).

There is no doubt that automation is the watchword of the future; however, I do not foresee the deployment of anything above rudimentary AI ever taking place. Humans, despite our willingness to explore dangerous ideas and concepts, seldom enter a damning situation on purpose. Relinquishment of control over the forces of the military would only happen by mistake, not by design.

Finally, flamethrowers are no longer considered a viable weapon by the US military and have not seen service since 1978. Although they are not outlawed by any International Treaty, most major militaries have fallen into a similar mindset that the danger to the user far outweighs its effective use on the battlefield (in addition, flame weapons have always carried a bit of a PR risk since they seldom bring instantaneous death and do not have a well controlled kill zone).

 

[rType]

^ Doesn't the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons cover flamethrowers amongst other incendiary devices?

EDIT: Only against civilians, and the United States hasn't ratified the relevant protocol anyway. My bad.

 

[FordSVT]

What would you rather have: a single giant robotic war machine that shoots lasers and flames and missiles, presents itself as a gigantic target and only moves at 30 kph, or:

The ten or so Abrahms tanks you could build with the same money. I know what I'd take.

Weapon systems in sci-fi are about being cool, weapon systems in real life are about killing people.

 

[USS KG5]

Every time I watch films set in the future or which show the future such as 'Terminator' or every time I play on games set in the future such as 'Empire Earth' I cant help but be amazed at the types of Military vehicles and technology the designers come up with and cant help but wonder why the military's of the world today don't develop vehicles and technology like this?

Because they look good on TV but are by and large rubbish....

Just look at the jet aircraft from Terminator 3, it looks to me like it could actually be built and work, there's nothing about it that cant be developed right now and its a highly maneuverable craft capable of high speed could carry large weapons and transfer troops.

Why combine the two functions? Surely you want a fast jet that flies in, blows the defenses up then flies off, hopefully before it gets destroyed itself.

THEN - you send in a highly manoeverable reasonably speedy craft called a helicopter full of troops which is a lot safer.

What about other vehicles that could be built that we see on Terminator, why do we still rely on tanks? vehicles could be developed such as the T-1 Terminator but much more advanced and sophisticated, why not build a Tank size one which utilises missiles and flame throwers aswell as machine guns which when under heavy fire could pack itself up into a protective shell and then pop out and open fire.

The question is not why NOT do it but why DO IT? A tank is the way it is because years of experience have proven a small squat heavily armoured vehicle is the best kind of armoured vehicle - the higher it is the more difficult for it to find cover, being squat and square makes it easier to armour, and so on...

The robot thingies in Terminator are very cool but would make lousy real world weapons.

Just imagine building these heavily armoured tank size machines with missiles, machines guns and flame throwers being sent into an intense Iraqi/Afghan warzone. Our troops would never die again.

Sadly, the kind of police work and general peacekeeping the allied forces are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan will always be dangerous work and technology cannot change that.

No technology will make war clean and pleasant - it just fundamentally is not - it involves lots of young people dying prematurely. The technology is cool and lots of us here think so and respect those who serve their country using it - but no wars at all will always have to be the goal.

 

[MarianLH]

THEN - you send in a highly manoeverable reasonably speedy craft called a helicopter full of troops which is a lot safer.

I'm definitely not an expert, but I wonder if VTOL might not be an actually practical improvement over helicopters. It seems like there's a helicopter crash every other month in the news. With no ubervulnerable rotors and the redundancy of two engines, a VTOL might be more survivable.

But A) I might be wrong and B) even if I'm not the fuel requirements of a VTOL might be prohibitive. What do I know?


Marian

 

[USS KG5]

I'm definitely not an expert, but I wonder if VTOL might not be an actually practical improvement over helicopters. It seems like there's a helicopter crash every other month in the news. With no ubervulnerable rotors and the redundancy of two engines, a VTOL might be more survivable.

Well it is all much of a muchness - you just have a vulnerable jet engine instead of a vulnerable rotor. The tail rotors of choppers are vulnerable but not nearly as easy to hit as Black Hawk Down makes it look.

It is also worth noting the only true VTOL jet aircraft of note in history, the Harrier, has only one engine.

Practically I think there have been no jet powered VTOL transports because they would burn so much fuel to lift a smaller weight - as my post earlier was essentially saying a lot of these ideas seem cool but have never proven a good enough idea to provide an economical piece of hardware.

 

[John Picard]

I'm definitely not an expert, but I wonder if VTOL might not be an actually practical improvement over helicopters. It seems like there's a helicopter crash every other month in the news. With no ubervulnerable rotors and the redundancy of two engines, a VTOL might be more survivable.

Well it is all much of a muchness - you just have a vulnerable jet engine instead of a vulnerable rotor. The tail rotors of choppers are vulnerable but not nearly as easy to hit as Black Hawk Down makes it look.

It is also worth noting the only true VTOL jet aircraft of note in history, the Harrier, has only one engine.

Practically I think there have been no jet powered VTOL transports because they would burn so much fuel to lift a smaller weight - as my post earlier was essentially saying a lot of these ideas seem cool but have never proven a good enough idea to provide an economical piece of hardware.

A VTOL mechanic told me they hate those things, because they literally shake themselves apart from the constant vibration of trying to hover. Military planes undergo a certain number of post-flight maintenance, and for something like the Harrier, it's twice the amount of time of a regular plane.

 

[zephramc]

^^^Furthermore I believe the Harrier can hover for only 60-90 seconds, before it's engine overheats. Helicopters can stay in-place for alot longer.

I'm not sure what function the VTOL HKs in Terminator serve. It seems they be far too large, inefficient and loud to serve as a reconnaissance craft. They're probably not very well armed or armored. I don't think the resistance has any sort of aircraft, or certainly no large squadrons, so there's no need for a better aircraft.

Seems to me Skynet would better utilize it's resources with more Terminator units, or small aircraft like the Predator UAV currently employed by the Air Force.

They do look cool though.

 

[USS KG5]

^^^Furthermore I believe the Harrier can hover for only 60-90 seconds, before it's engine overheats. Helicopters can stay in-place for alot longer.

Well to be fair it is a 40 year old design (essentially) that has never been replaced - the Harrier has done its job very well, it won the Falklands War for the UK and provided NATO with a unique capability in the Cold War.

I'm not sure what function the VTOL HKs in Terminator serve. It seems they be far too large, inefficient and loud to serve as a reconnaissance craft. They're probably not very well armed or armored. I don't think the resistance has any sort of aircraft, or certainly no large squadrons, so there's no need for a better aircraft.

Well the HKs also get shot down A LOT by men with little lasers on trucks - I'd say they come across as thoroughly lousy.

Seems to me Skynet would better utilize it's resources with more Terminator units, or small aircraft like the Predator UAV currently employed by the Air Force.

They do look cool though.

Indeed they do

 

[ex nihilo]

Because they look good on TV but are by and large rubbish....

No technology will make war clean and pleasant - it just fundamentally is not - it involves lots of young people dying prematurely. The technology is cool and lots of us here think so and respect those who serve their country using it - but no wars at all will always have to be the goal.

Excellent post, USS KG5, your point by point response does an outstanding job of pointing out the major issues with the cinematic portrayal of military future tech versus that of reality.

The last part of your post (the major portion I quoted) is one of the most poignant that I have read on this bbs in a long time and I echo your sentiment (especially as one working in the field of development).

Saying, “Nuke-em!” is a hell of a lot easier when there is a layer separating you from the action and its results. It seems to me those that hunger for conflict the most are the ones that have the least amount of first hand experience with it or are the least likely to be directly involved once it starts. I have yet to meet a combat veteran that still lusts for action. It is my sincere wish that war never becomes too sterile for the simple fact that living witnesses to the insurmountable suffering that war brings keeps the want for peace alive even in the most hawkish of individuals.

 

[USS KG5]

It seems to me those that hunger for conflict the most are the ones that have the least amount of first hand experience with it or are the least likely to be directly involved once it starts. I have yet to meet a combat veteran that still lusts for action. It is my sincere wish that war never becomes too sterile for the simple fact that living witnesses to the insurmountable suffering that war brings keeps the want for peace alive even in the most hawkish of individuals.

Thanks for your comments.

Sadly what you say is very true - ironically there is a very good episode of Trek about this exact topic, one of the original series episodes involves a population blind to the needless death because war has become so sterile for them, it really is one of the all time classic trek episodes.

 

[FordSVT]

It seems to me those that hunger for conflict the most are the ones that have the least amount of first hand experience with it or are the least likely to be directly involved once it starts. I have yet to meet a combat veteran that still lusts for action. It is my sincere wish that war never becomes too sterile for the simple fact that living witnesses to the insurmountable suffering that war brings keeps the want for peace alive even in the most hawkish of individuals.

Thanks for your comments.

Sadly what you say is very true - ironically there is a very good episode of Trek about this exact topic, one of the original series episodes involves a population blind to the needless death because war has become so sterile for them, it really is one of the all time classic trek episodes.

A Taste of Armageddon.

I just saw that episode on TV last weekend, it is quite a good episode.

 

[ex nihilo]

It seems to me those that hunger for conflict the most are the ones that have the least amount of first hand experience with it or are the least likely to be directly involved once it starts. I have yet to meet a combat veteran that still lusts for action. It is my sincere wish that war never becomes too sterile for the simple fact that living witnesses to the insurmountable suffering that war brings keeps the want for peace alive even in the most hawkish of individuals.

Thanks for your comments.

Sadly what you say is very true - ironically there is a very good episode of Trek about this exact topic, one of the original series episodes involves a population blind to the needless death because war has become so sterile for them, it really is one of the all time classic trek episodes.

A Taste of Armageddon.

I just saw that episode on TV last weekend, it is quite a good episode.

Yeah, being a TOS nerd I was going to mention this in support of my post, but I did not want to water down the point I was trying make by setting off the "nerd alert" claxon.

Then again, we are on a Trek bbs, right?

 

[FordSVT]

Thanks for your comments.

Sadly what you say is very true - ironically there is a very good episode of Trek about this exact topic, one of the original series episodes involves a population blind to the needless death because war has become so sterile for them, it really is one of the all time classic trek episodes.

A Taste of Armageddon.

I just saw that episode on TV last weekend, it is quite a good episode.

Yeah, being a TOS nerd I was going to mention this in support of my post, but I did not want to water down the point I was trying make by setting off the "nerd alert" claxon.

Then again, we are on a Trek bbs, right?

Yes, the "nerd alert claxon" has by now faded into the background like white noise.

 

[USS KG5]

A Taste of Armageddon.

I just saw that episode on TV last weekend, it is quite a good episode.

Yeah, being a TOS nerd I was going to mention this in support of my post, but I did not want to water down the point I was trying make by setting off the "nerd alert" claxon.

Then again, we are on a Trek bbs, right?

Yes, the "nerd alert claxon" has by now faded into the background like white noise.

Plus TOS is considered a classic for a reason - it might have been cheesy at times but when it hit home boy did it hit home.

"Balance Of Terror" is another one - McCoy's speech at the end about Tomlinson sends shivers down my spine.

I'm 27 as well - I dont have rose tinted specs on TOS - I got into it after TNG.