Response to the rising cost of advanced military hardware

[gf0012-aust]

I think one has to remember that when people talk about reducing human casualties they are talking about their own ones and not about enemy ones.

I've seen some remarkable US military medical tech driven by the need to either "repair" or rehabilitate their men. from a country selfish perspective, its far more beneficial to bring that experience back into use, even if its not on the same battlefield, they're fit enough to pass on experience. Countries just can't afford to bleed experience in hi-tech militaries

And even this thinking goes out the window in a full all out war for national survival. A society, especially a democratic one, naturally has a lot of problems with sending their young men and women into harms way when the majority of the population is not sure about wether it is worth the casualties or not.
This is the sole reason why relatively small insurgencies can be such a pain in the a** for nominally much more powerfull countries.

In an all out war were things like Stalingrad or D-Day happen the society couldn't care less abouth some few dozen pilots which were saved due to the air force using drones instead of manned planes.

the glaring examples of what the public will accept is one day in the somme - and one day in afghanistan

 

[rip]

I've seen some remarkable US military medical tech driven by the need to either "repair" or rehabilitate their men. from a country selfish perspective, its far more beneficial to bring that experience back into use, even if its not on the same battlefield, they're fit enough to pass on experience. Countries just can't afford to bleed experience in hi-tech militaries





the glaring examples of what the public will accept is one day in the somme - and one day in afghanistan

If you guys want to change the theme of this thread to the pros and cons of automated warfare that is fine with me.

The two major trends are one, to create weapons that are more selective in that they kill and destroy things you want to destroy but not cause collateral damage. And two, is the changing role of the man in the loop is not any longer to make the weapon work but to keep the weapon from destroying too much or the wrong things which is at some level a political decision.

The rules of engagement on the modern battlefield can tie even a lawyer into knots much less some advanced AI system.

 

[Ananda]

If you guys want to change the theme of this thread to the pros and cons of automated warfare that is fine with me.

The two major trends are one, to create weapons that are more selective in that they kill and destroy things you want to destroy but not cause collateral damage. And two, is the changing role of the man in the loop is not any longer to make the weapon work but to keep the weapon from destroying too much or the wrong things which is at some level a political decision.

The rules of engagement on the modern battlefield can tie even a lawyer into knots much less some advanced AI system.

Sorry no intentions to change the topic . However at least in my oppinion, since the topic talking on how to handle the problem of rising costs on modern defense system, incresed on Automations and AI (eventhough will be expensive in the beggining) will have potential in the long run to reduce the overall costs of Defense Equipment.

think that there is a general unawareness also that when we look at future technology warfighting tech, we just don't look at the widgets. A significant amount of effort goes into the human factors element - ie we look at how people think, react, interface with technology, and the differences in the way that people behave.

gf, I for my self admitted that I rather bafled on what the purpose of weapons trend at this moment. In one hand seems want to improved the efectiveness of man operators interact with the technology and using the best tools available to improved operators awareness on battle environment, however on the other side there's also a trend (at least on my reading/understanding) that want to (in the end) take away the operators altogehter.

Seems the weapons designers (the early atari generations already in the 40's and 50's anyway) and even those from earlier generations always want to increase the effectiveness of the operators. This just like you said increase the costs for main purpose providing much improve battle environment awareness. I think on the long run the costs can be much reduced, since you will not (for one of the major reasons) need much larger manned operators on you force.

This in which I still think deep down some of the designers wants to relly altogether for AI in the future.

 

[rip]

Sorry no intentions to change the topic . However at least in my oppinion, since the topic talking on how to handle the problem of rising costs on modern defense system, incresed on Automations and AI (eventhough will be expensive in the beggining) will have potential in the long run to reduce the overall costs of Defense Equipment.



gf, I for my self admitted that I rather bafled on what the purpose of weapons trend at this moment. In one hand seems want to improved the efectiveness of man operators interact with the technology and using the best tools available to improved operators awareness on battle environment, however on the other side there's also a trend (at least on my reading/understanding) that want to (in the end) take away the operators altogehter.

Seems the weapons designers (the early atari generations already in the 40's and 50's anyway) and even those from earlier generations always want to increase the effectiveness of the operators. This just like you said increase the costs for main purpose providing much improve battle environment awareness. I think on the long run the costs can be much reduced, since you will not (for one of the major reasons) need much larger manned operators on you force.

This in which I still think deep down some of the designers wants to relly altogether for AI in the future.

The one element of containing military costs which have traditionally been used but has not been brought up so far in this discussion is that of having large and ready reserves. I know that the trend today is to have a compleatly professional Army and there are good reasons technically for this, though I think the increasing separation between the professionals and the country they are intended to defend are very dangerous trends, both for the countries themselves and to the very definition of what the meaning of citizenship means. Is the concept of a citizen army obsolete and to have citizen reserves still an effective one?

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you guys want to change the theme of this thread to the pros and cons of automated warfare that is fine with me.

I'm not.

I'm talking about what it actually causes us increased costs in identifying and supporting new systems

there is an extraordinary amount of money now tied up with soft options - unfort most people only see the "hard" elements of platform procurement - and it does distort what the actual expenses are in buying and sustaining that capability.

this is beyond the killer cost variable of integration and acceptance testing.

 

[rip]

I'm not.

I'm talking about what it actually causes us increased costs in identifying and supporting new systems

there is an extraordinary amount of money now tied up with soft options - unfort most people only see the "hard" elements of platform procurement - and it does distort what the actual expenses are in buying and sustaining that capability.

this is beyond the killer cost variable of integration and acceptance testing.

How true, the tail of the best grows much faster than dose its teeth. But part of that is trying to always be at the cutting edge of technology and if that is where you want to be, I cannot see how you can avoid it.

Why?

Because in most cases you are trying to do things that have never been done before or they are more complex that anything that has ever been tried or you are trying to integrate things that have never worked together before and sometimes and this is the worst of all, is when you try to wrap everything up into some Giant cross-platform, maulti-mission, cross-service multinational program like the f-35 or the fb-111 as just two examples.

 

[Doomownage94]

And the 'Cylon' is comming to fruition, the thing in 'Caprica' will repeat again then Humanity will have to build another Battlestar to find new home somewhere out there and start all over again

Seriously though, even this dream of fighting drones with powerfull Artificial Inteligences protocols mostly come up from generations that grow up with Atari and Dos Based VGA Simmulators, but can we afford to take out the human nature from war (the soul of war if you prefered) ?

It can potentially reduce the human costs operators but can it reduce the human costs as collateral damages ? The costs of electronics on time will be reduced significantly that having drones, AI as fighting forces will be tempting for the war planners and think-thank all over the world.

Can we trusts AI to conduct our war ?
It will be a 'grand idea' though if two neighbours disputed, then they just take out their drones and have them fight somewhere, whille the rest of their Human populations conducts business as ussual, and watch the result of drones fight in coffee shop (gee I spend to much time watching sci-fi channel).

Eventually (actually, probably immediately) someone will realize that everyone is too busy conducting their business as usual and watching drones in coffee shops to listen to what they have to say. They will probably squeeze the comparative circumstances of a war without bloodshed to the advantage of a belligerent (not a robot belligerent, mind you). Then what?