Russian Animation about poissble future conflict with the USA

[EmoBorg]

I came across this video and i found it interesting. It is about a possible future Russian conflict with the USA using unmanned ground vehicles.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVszNrz6dQ

 

[publiusr]

Sigh--if only they'd put that and the Sochi money into their space efforts.

 

[EmoBorg]

Sigh--if only they'd put that and the Sochi money into their space efforts.

How much did they spend for Sochi ?

 

[Romulan_spy]

Nice little piece of fantasy and propaganda!

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah, those little "automated" tanks seem a bit too powerful to be believed. The US could toss up a couple aerial drones, find them, and blast them to bits. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?

 

[Yminale]

Sigh--if only they'd put that and the Sochi money into their space efforts.

How much did they spend for Sochi ?

At last count, 50 BILLION!!!

 

[Yminale]

Yeah, those little "automated" tanks seem a bit too powerful to be believed. The US could toss up a couple aerial drones, find them, and blast them to bits. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?

But the Russians have magic super armor and Vodka. There is no defense against VODKA

 

[DarthTom]

I'm not a military expert but ground warfare I'd think is a little passe for most modern military tactics isn't it?

And while this is the fantasy tank battle of the future, the US Navy is actually doing to deploy a ship based laser later this year as well as their electromagnetic rail gun.

Yahoo News

BATH, Maine (AP) -- Some of the Navy's futuristic weapons sound like something out of "Star Wars," with lasers designed to shoot down aerial drones and electric guns that fire projectiles at hypersonic speeds.



That future is now.
The Navy plans to deploy its first laser on a ship later this year, and it intends to test an electromagnetic rail gun prototype aboard a vessel within two years.
For the Navy, it's not so much about the whiz-bang technology as it is about the economics of such armaments. Both costs pennies on the dollar compared with missiles and smart bombs, and the weapons can be fired continuously, unlike missiles and bombs, which eventually run out.
"It fundamentally changes the way we fight," said Capt. Mike Ziv, program manager for directed energy and electric weapon systems for the Naval Sea Systems Command.
The Navy's laser technology has evolved to the point that a prototype to be deployed aboard the USS Ponce this summer can be operated by a single sailor, he said.

 

[Yminale]

And while this is the fantasy tank battle of the future, the US Navy is actually doing to deploy a ship based laser later this year as well as their electromagnetic rail gun.

But you can't fire over the horizon with rail guns or lasers. That's the reason the Navy went with missiles and planes in the first place.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Whether ground combat is passe depends on whether you need to control an area. If you need to control it, you need boots on the ground. That means ground combat.

Denying someone access to an area is, of course, a lot easier: air supremacy and enough bombs will let you blow an area to smithereens and keep everyone out.

The US learned the hard way you absolutely need a good ground game in order to get anywhere. What screwed us in Iraq for so long was over-reliance on air power rather than fighting the insurgency down on the ground, face-to-face.

A ground war with Russia is pretty far out there in terms of likelihood, in any case.

 

[Yminale]

Whether ground combat is passe depends on whether you need to control an area. If you need to control it, you need boots on the ground. That means ground combat..

You need boots on the ground if you want to control a population especially if you are worried that you might be labeled a war criminal. If just want to control an area and don't care about international laws you could inflict enough damage to either kill or force out a significant percentage of the population. You only have to look at America's western expansion to see how it would work.

 

[DarthTom]

You need boots on the ground if you want to control a population especially if you are worried that you might be labeled a war criminal. If just want to control an area and don't care about international laws you could inflict enough damage to either kill or force out a significant percentage of the population. You only have to look at America's western expansion to see how it would work.

Regardless, DARPA and the Pentagon have a real life remote controlled autonomous tank as opposed to a simulation. Crusher as the Pentagon calls it.

And the LS3 which is best described as a dog like robot goes into field testing this year.