« Previous · Home · Next »
Listen up, DARPA!
By Charlie
I’ve compiled a top ten list of ideas for military technology that will keep America leap years ahead of the rest of the world. Technology has driven us to fight one of the most high-speed, high-tech wars ever waged today. We have UAVs, every soldier has night vision equipment, units have GPS systems, and the US military keeps pushing the technology barrier. Here are some of my ideas on how to keep up the research:
1. Better Body Armor: The IBA has a pretty good track record- but what if body armor 10 years from now weighed 10 pounds instead of 40 and provided better protection? Perhaps some polymer can be invented that deflects rounds, a system that better protects the extremities, and still allows soldiers freedom of movement to accomplish the mission.
2. PDA sized Direction Finding/Counter Mortar/Sniper system: Imagine if a sniper round shot past a squad, and the squad leader knew exactly where the round came from, and could instantly direct withering fire on the position, or call in FS on a grid square the instant a mortar impacts. They’ve already got humvee-sized DF equipment, let’s make it smaller and better!
3. Universal translators: The biggest obstacle for soldiers to overcome in an asymmetric environment is culture and language. What if there was a device that would listen to what someone is saying, translate it into English for you, and then translate what you say back into the native language? I’d want one.
4. Tactical EMP weapons: Some how figure out how get a non-nuclear Electro Magnetic Pulse to fire off with the range of 600M- 1000M, killing every electronic device in the radius. Put the thing in a 155 shell. Next time we have to clear a route for a cell-phone-detonated IED, fire a couple EMP rounds down the route. When entering a hostile area, prep the battlefield by disabling enemy coms.
5. Visual/imagery integration on the tactical level. Give every soldier eyewear that will allow them to switch between infrared, NVG, forward looking binoculars, and a heads up display of the area from above via UAV.
6. Floating Forward Staging Bases: Make a huge “offshore” platform that performs the same mission as a deep-water port and a FOB. This eliminates lots of the force protection worries we have with local governments, and would defuse basing rights for hostile regimes we need to stage close to.
7. The Drop Ship: Forget the Osprey, forget the Harrier, make an aircraft that can vertically take off/land, and drop off a squad (hell- a platoon! This is a wish list) into battle. Throw some weapons on the thing and then you’ve got an assault platform. Why is this taking so long?
8. Fire Support in Orbit: Let’s put a couple 155 guns on a satellite, and put the thing in orbit. Let’s do this a couple times, and figure out the physics of slinging rounds through the atmosphere to provide direct fire support to any grid square on earth. Yeah, this is technically weaponizing space, but imagine the advantage of a super-empowered SF team with a floating weapons platform backing them up.
9. Post Nuclear Super Weapons: A Star Wars program that actually works. I’d love for Kim Jong Il to know that if he tried to launch any missiles, they’d be zapped by a laser beam from space. Why not make some sort of nano-tech weapon that will disperse metal-eating nano-bots across the battle zone that will dissolve enemy tanks, missiles, and rifles. Let’s make a missile defense shield that really works while we’re at it.
10. (Gratuitous) Develop an Imposing Ground Combat Fire Support/C4ISR Platform:
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/74
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Listen up, DARPA!:
» Dear MilSanta from Target Centermass
OpFor’s Charlie Munn has compiled an interesting wishlist of ten miltech developments he would like to see. While some of them almost seem to border on science fiction, like really good sci-fi they maintain an air of believability.
Go give it ... [Read More]
» Middle East Roundup from Chris At Home
- Israelis kill Islamic Jihad "militant" in car full of rockets befo...
» gps,occupational health gps,gps and rfid,bushnell gps,handheld gps receivers, from gps,occupational health gps,gps and rfid,bushnell gps,handheld gps receivers,
[Read More]
» Dropship from Dropship
Since I began Dropship in 1998 as a way of sharing my ideas on Epic 40,00 with the [Read More]
Comments
they're talking about dropping tungston rods from space platforms, some sort of kinetic energy weapon as I understand it.
Actually I don't understand it, but it sounds cool.
Let's see.....from what I know that DARPA and the rest of DOD are openly working on....
Better body armor is in the works. This is an evolutionary effort, hinging on materials engineering.
Smaller counterbattery hardware? Not sure where this stands.
Universal translator? That IS being worked on. I seem to recollect test units actually being deployed to Iraq.
Tactical EMP? No word. There have been rumors that such a capability may be available, but is a black-world weapon.
Visual integration? THAT'S a good one, actually. Although too mundane for DARPA - it's simply the integration of NVG technology with lightweight HUDs. Not the kind of Buck Rogers stuff that DARPA plays with.
Floating bases? We call them aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. And try Googling for Mobile Offshore Base.
Drop Ship? If you want a V/STOL C-130, it's actually do-able. VERY expensive, but do-able. The British were looking at designs for such aircraft in the 1960s - using about two dozen dedicated lift engines to get the airplane off the ground. You couldn't hover very well, but combining hovering capability with high speed is incredibly difficult.
Fire support from orbit? Why bother? JDAMs do the job cheaper. Even the concrete-filled ones.
Post-nuclear superweapons? Already got it. GPS does not get half the appreciation that it merits. Not to mention the battlefield internet that is being developed. Keep in mind that historically, superweapons are not nearly as useful as supercommanders and supertactics.
Imposing ground combat platform? Well, we still have the plans for the McClellan saddle. And the M1913 saber. Not much more imposing than a man on a big horse chopping you into chutney.
Well, it's not there yet, but they are trying >>>>
http://www.bostondynamics.com/dist/BigDog_Feb-26-2006.wmv
John:
> they're talking about dropping tungston rods
> from space platforms, some sort of kinetic
> energy weapon as I understand it.
>
> Actually I don't understand it, but it
> sounds cool.
I read something a couple of years ago (but after Saddam was routed), that the British wre thinking about not dropping bombs from planes against vehicles. The thing is, with JDM navigation, it is enough to drop a nice piece of concrete. Dropped from a healthy height, with ensuring that it falls where it is supposed to, then it will be the equivalent of a bomb.
Vilmos
> Better Body Armor
This is not about body but car armor. A while ago I read that there are grenades which can burn through a yard of armor. They spit out liquid copper, and it burns through the metal.
I don't know if it makes sense, but how about this? Make an armor which has a lot of air bubbles in it. The pressure in these bubbles should be incredibly high. (Think a glacier, where an air bubble's pressure is 20x higher than in a car tire). When the liquid copper reaches the air bubble, the air will shot out against it, and it will disrupt the flow. Also, since the air expands very fast, it will cool down at a rapid rate and solidify (or at least makes not so liquid) the copper.
Does it make sense?
Vilmos
Why are we engaged in the discussion of esoteric weapons when basic problems are not being resolved? We now have one of the usual suspects, retired General Kalashnikov, claiming that U.S. troops prefer to throw away their M-16 rifles and pick-up captured AK-47 rifles! Absurd? Of course! But no one would blame them if they did so, for the U.S. Army is no longer going to war with a real Assault Rifle. The basic principle behind such a rifle is that it greatly increases the firepower and effectiveness of the average infantryman by providing a controllable automatic weapon. This certainly empowers the average infantryman in any combat situation (except in the role of sniper, for which there are special rifles).
The Germans, in WW II, first demonstrated the effectiveness of the original automatic Assault Rifle, with their StG 44. The Russians immediately took notice! The Allies, including the U.S. Army, did not. That is why we fought the Korean War with World War II type M-1 rifles, against automatic weapons. Finally, exactly 20 years after the Russians adopted an Assault Rifle, the Army officially adopted the M-16 Assault Rifle in 1967! Incredibly, it was the Air Force which had to bring the issue to a head by advising the Army that it was adopting the Assault Rifle, even if the Army did not (God Bless the great Air Force General and Chief of Staff, Curtis LeMay, who always looked after the troops).
The M-16 had some initial problems, but it was a pretty good weapon in comparison with what was available throughout the world. Then, in 1983, having made some basic improvements in the M-16, the Army did a very, very stupid thing. They converted the fully automatic M-16 into a three shot, burst mode rifle. Suddenly, the Army no longer had a real Assault Rifle! This did, of course, resolve some minor logistical problems about which the Brass were concerned. Unfortunately, the Brass were not concerned about empowering the troops! So, the Army no longer has a fully automatic Assault Rifle, such as the Germans had in 1944 and the Russians had starting in 1947. The Marines and Special Forces do not, of course, agree with the Army’s non-automatic M-16 and have adopted their own weapons. They know that no electronic aiming device can compensate for the lack of an automatic Assault Rifle. The Army command is simply and totally not looking out for the troops! Why, after all these years, should we not be surprised?
And finally, let us not forget that even the Krauts, whose logistics in Russia were a joke, managed to deliver trench guns to help out in house to house fighting in Stalingrad. Did we see any trench guns in house to house fighting in Iraq? Golly, I guess I missed that. No doubt the miserable chair warmers in the Pentagon just could not locate the phone number for Remington. And goodness knows, double-ought buck shot is a rare and scarce type of ammo, which can only be found in every local hardware store in the U.S. In the absence of proper trench guns, it sure would be nice to have automatic Assault Rifles for such urban fighting. But maybe the Pentagon is right, we should all just stand back a quarter of a mile and slowly and carefully shoot them down with bolt action Springfield's. Alternatively, we could drag heavy machine guns, hut to hut, as it were. Let's just get the troops a decent automatic Assault Rifle!
Anyone who watched the Star Wars movie knows how hard it was to knock down the armoured stom trooper carrier. I beleive it was high tech fiber ropes.
PS:
The US has at least experimented with using inert bombs filled with concrete.
The hot issue is EID / mines.
They are trouble in Iraq and will be everywhere until countered.
This is the itch that must be scratched.
BTW, I have a solution: but I'm not in the military-industrial complex. How does an outsider even get a hearing for an outside-the-box solution?
I've heard (and maybe this is no news to ya'll) that the new tank platform will include trajectory targeted 'guns' that fire EMP like rounds. It's more of a targeted shock wave to knock out electronics, communications, etc. This allows for the tank squad to field it and fire surface to surface.
But I'd also request 'Matrix' Styled human-robot weapons platforms. Or maybe the Mechs ;).
Harland
1. Being done. In the near term, see the Dragonskin fight. In the long term, expect nanotube-laced polymer hardshells with stiffening gelpacks for the bendy bits.
2. Being done, sort of. Radars aren't being shrunk that much, but any PDA (or CDA as they're calling them) can receive any data posted to the net. It's just a matter of making the radars put that data out there. Countersniper sensors (mostly passive, I believe) are already down to Hummer-sized and should make general issue in a few years when the bugs are worked out.
3. Being done. It's harder than it sounds, because of dialects, slang, and triple entendres. We have limited capability already deployed in limited quantity.
4. We probably already have this. We're not saying, and using it wipes out everything civvie, too.
5. Done. Land Warrior is going to Iraq (finally), and it's pretty much a given that soldiers are going to get personal visual displays of some sort within the next ten years.
6. The Voltron concept has been around since the 70s. The iceberg carrier was designed in WWII. The Navy keeps looking at Voltron and dismissing it. Big downside: one nuke sinks it, and it's expensive. Big upside: About everything else, including ability to soak anything less than a nuke. In the meantime, seabasing is intended to provide similar loggie performance with today's ships.
7. Done. We call them helicopters. Next step: build one that can haul a 20-ton tank.
8. Not really worth it. Even Thor shots don't really work out when you run the cost. Use railguns from cruisers 500 miles away to generate similar target effects with less cash. Railguns are moving slowly, but they still think they can do it.
9. See: laser cannons. Electrically-charged laser performance (as opposed to chemical, which has fuel storage/cost problems) is going through the roof. Expect military-power laser cannons in the lab in 5 years, in the field in 10. Together with hot sensors and comms, this destroys industrial warfare. Big downside: They can be used against us.
10. Done. No reason they have to be on the same vehicle. We're getting some sick vis/IR recon capability, beyond what we already have, and SDB, GPS-guided arty fuses, Netfires, and later, airborne laser cannons make fire support just plain sick.
Translators: There is a lot of work ongoing, and DARPA funds a lot of the work in this area. EG, the International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) at Berkeley's speech group has been involved in some of this work.
The biggest problem has been Darpa, they are going so development/classified that its harder for the researchers to get funding compared with what it used to be.
EMP: Flux Compression generators have been around for a while. You can't fit what you want in an artillery shell, but you can in a 500 lb bomb casing. Good for a couple hundred meters of EM frying.
Floating FOBs: See DefenseTech
Dropships: physics/engineering is a BIG problem. Helicopters are probably the best you can do unless/until there is some revolution in engines.
Sattelite artillery. Why?
If you have the technology for the terminal guidance on the shells, why not just put a BFG on an airplane instead?
You are posting something on the wrong place. If you got ideas, send e-mail directly to the DOD site. If you don't want to threat the country from foreigners watching this post, I would advise you immidiately delete this post. Share ideas only to few you trust, not to the public and on the Internet, or you are going to indirectly kill many many people you don't want to.
5) Visual/imagery integration ...
While Land Warrior did some and some has been fielded, it doesnt do a lot of fusion. But DARPA does have active programs in the area. Check out IXO's
Mantis "a head-mounted, multispectral sensor suite (Vis/ NIR/SWIR/LWIR), digital display and an inertial navigation system, ... targeting handoff ... allowing the soldier to point, click and Kill"
The satellite weapons concept has been studied pretty thoroughly as 'project Thor' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
Yes, a JDAM will do the job just as well. The advantage Thor would provide is - depending on how many platforms are provided - it's always up there, it's unimpaired by weather, and the weapons fall too fast to see.
Drop ship started but Nasa gave up.
Concerning the "Drop Ship"
see: http://www.groenbros.com/ (follow the Gyroliner link) - they're proposing a Fairey Rotodyne like tip jet powered gyrocopter conversion for a C-130. Power is only applied to the rotor for takeoff. VTOL or Extremely STOL. Extremely proven technology that would be easy to adapt to a C-130 and would not only be a whole lot larger, but also a lot safer than the V-22. A C-27 or C-23 might make nice starting test platforms.
Re: Floating bases.
Maybe reconsider using the frozen water/sawdust pykrete concept from WWII. Could make a massive offshore base with runways long enough for even B-52's. Today the pykrete could be encased in a polymer coating adding even more strength... Retire a nuclear aircraft carrier and build the ice base around it. With proper power generation mods to the carrier, you'd have instant housing, control tower, and power to build and continually expand the base - providing fresh water for expansion and cooling to extend the lifespan. The carrier would ultimately be icebound (hopefully in a controlled fashion). Consider building this iceberg in the neighborhood of over 2 miles long by 1/2 mile wide in size.
Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...
Turkmen lawmakers back caretaker as new president..
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
Heh ... your #4 sounds like a great way to *seriously* annoy the locals by frying all their consumer electronics ...