Amerikkalainen sotataito

Onkohan täällä kenelläkään tietoa tästä hankkeesta, puhumattakaan siitä, miten se etenee?

Paha sanoa, kun ei tiedetä, mistä hankkeesta on kyse. Oliko se edes yksittäinen hanke vaiko visionäärien tulevaisuudenkuva? Yhdysvaltain puolustusministeriöllä on muuten yli 685 tekoälyhanketta käynnissä tällä hetkellä...


Kuulostaa kuitenkin siltä, että tuo mistä kirjoitat olisi voinut olla jokin osa näitä isoja Future Combat Systems / Land Warrior / Future Soldier 2030 -ohjelmia.

Recent reports that the Pentagon is planning to spend tens of billions of dollars over the next decade to perfect computerized warfare sound like science fiction. But the plan, Future Combat Systems, is the realization of an old dream. What its designers envision is a 21st-century fighting force of automated tanks, helicopters and planes, remote missile launchers and even troops of robot soldiers -- all coordinated by a self-configuring network of satellites, sensors and supercomputers. A way to get the human out of the loop.


PERSONAL MODELING AND SIMULATION TOOLS
• Facilitate decision-making by providing war-gaming capability with expert system
augmentation (among other things, will be able to mimic decision-making patterns of
other military strategists)
• Provide ability to predict likely effects of fires – both kinetic and non-kinetic (e.g., risk of
noncombatant casualties and likely impact on local support for mission)
• System provides both an operational and training capability
Fire Control
• Micro-sensors/hyper spectral electro-optics/sensor fusion
• Polymer/adaptive and plastic zooming optics
• Optical Augmentation with dazzle/stun features
• Target state estimation and prediction with predicted target de-confliction
• Target geo-location and hand-off
• Laser radar for closed loop target and munition tracking and munition guidance
• Wireless link to Soldier
• Effect based weapon – target pairing algorithm
• Target classification
• Collaborative engagement
• Non-magnetic digital compass


Väriliidunpurijoita vaivaa uskon puute:

 
  • Tykkää
Reactions: EK
Voi jumalauta tuota sotataitoa... Onkohan tätä harrastettu jenkeissä laajemmaltikin, siksikö esim. F-35 on myöhässä?

.On FCS, Gen. Mike Murray said, the Army wrote a detailed wish list of performance requirements before it knew what was actually possible. Today, it’s diligently experimenting to see what’s possible with technology – technology that’s had more than a decade to advance since FCS was cancelled in 2009.

 
Voi jumalauta tuota sotataitoa... Onkohan tätä harrastettu jenkeissä laajemmaltikin, siksikö esim. F-35 on myöhässä?



En muista mistä näin luin, mutta tuo taisi olla jonkun vuosituhannen alkupuolen hallinnon alla kohtuu yleistä asevoimien projekteissa. Visioitiin vaatimuksia hankintaohjelmille niin, ettei (tarkoituksella) huomioitu teknologian valmiutta. Ajatus oli, että jos ei nykyteknologia vaatimuksia täyttäisikään, niin se stimuloisi valmistajien T&K-työtä kun ne pyrkii täyttämään vaatimukset.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
En muista mistä näin luin, mutta tuo taisi olla jonkun vuosituhannen alkupuolen hallinnon alla kohtuu yleistä asevoimien projekteissa. Visioitiin vaatimuksia hankintaohjelmille niin, ettei (tarkoituksella) huomioitu teknologian valmiutta. Ajatus oli, että jos ei nykyteknologia vaatimuksia täyttäisikään, niin se stimuloisi valmistajien T&K-työtä kun ne pyrkii täyttämään vaatimukset.

Puolensa kaikella. Silti tulee mieleen, että jos aikanaan olisi otettu toimintamalliksi "30% parempi, ei 300% parempi", niin nyt Yhdysvalloissa kehiteltäisiin jo Bradleyn ja M109:n seuraajien seuraajia. Sen sijaan on kaadettu miljardeja kaiken maailman Crusadereihin...
 
In the opening days of a future war against China, an F-35 pilot on a mission is tracked and shot down by air defenses. He safely ejects — but is trapped deep inside enemy territory.

Standing between him and his comrades: A bristling array of surface-to-air missiles, radars, enemy fighters and other defenses. If the U.S. Air Force sends a traditional combat search and rescue helicopter into that highly contested airspace, the chances are high it gets shot down, leaving the service with several more pilots and pararescuemen in need of their own rescuing.

Instead, the Air Force tries something new. It sends an autonomous drone — a self-piloting air taxi — whose smaller electric propellers let it operate much more quietly than a helicopter with massive rotors. If the drone is spotted and shot down, the Air Force hasn’t lost another airman and can try again with another drone to save the pilot. His rescue is still far from certain. But at least he’s got a chance.
 

“First, as we think about this problem, I’ve been in the Army for 38 years, and in my entire time in the Army on battlefields in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Syria, I never had to look up," Gen. Clarke said by way of introducing the threat posed by unmanned aircraft. "I never had to look up because the U.S. always maintained air superiority and our forces were protected because we had air cover. But now with everything from quadcopters – they’re very small – up to very large unmanned aerial vehicles [UAV], we won’t always have that luxury."

“The cost of entry into this, particular for some of the small unmanned aerial systems, is very, very low," he added. "I think that this is something that’s gotta continue to go up in terms of our priority for the protection, not just of our forces that are forward today – that’s the current problem – but what’s gonna come home to roost. Some of these technologies could be used by our adversaries on our near abroad or even into our homeland.”

Clarke's remarks echo comments from other senior U.S. military and other government officials in recent years, particularly with regard to the growing threats low-tier drones now pose to American troops even in relatively small conflicts against non-state actors. What he said here also reflects how an increasingly diverse set of actors, including militant and organized criminal groups, as well as various state and state-sponsored entities, are employing these capabilities outside of traditional battlefields for intelligence gathering purposes and direct attacks.
 
The Army’s brigade combat teams may have been the signature units of recent wars, but service leaders believe future conflicts will be dominated by divisions and even corps, officials said Monday.

“The large-scale combat [operations] against a peer threat, the amount of complexity, speed, violence, chaos, leads us to the conclusion that our great brigade combat team commanders are going to be wholly consumed winning the fight they're in,” said Gen. James Rainey, the new chief of Army Futures Command, at the Association of the United States Army’s conference in Washington, D.C.

Operations during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were largely planned by brigade combat teams—some 4,000 troops led by a colonel—and executed by their battalions and companies. Rainey said these BCTs were built in a way that had them hold and operate in an area for a year but were not a “maneuver formation.”

The war in Ukraine has shown what the Army could face in a large-scale conflict, said James Greer, an associate professor at the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies, who spoke on a future-of-warfare panel with Rainey. Ukraine has committed the equivalent of two full corps of troops and is fighting across a vast area, about 150 times larger than the Army’s National Training Center in California, Greer said. A single U.S. Army corps can be comprised of two to five divisions with up to 45,000 soldiers, commanded by a lieutenant general.

“So: very large formations, very large spaces, and of course, everyone's familiar with the lethality, the destruction, the consumption of materiel, ammunition, etc., on a scale that we haven't really thought through in a long time,” Greer said.

Focusing the Army on these larger formations will mean they will be able to work closer with the other services as well as allies and partners, Secretary Christine Wormuth in her Monday keynote.
 
En muista mistä näin luin, mutta tuo taisi olla jonkun vuosituhannen alkupuolen hallinnon alla kohtuu yleistä asevoimien projekteissa. Visioitiin vaatimuksia hankintaohjelmille niin, ettei (tarkoituksella) huomioitu teknologian valmiutta. Ajatus oli, että jos ei nykyteknologia vaatimuksia täyttäisikään, niin se stimuloisi valmistajien T&K-työtä kun ne pyrkii täyttämään vaatimukset.
Tätä harrastetaan meilläkin tällä hetkellä ja siihen on olemassa ihan hankintalain mukainen hankintatapakin. DARPA:n toimintatavoista kopioituna tunnetaan meillä innovatiivisena hankintana.
 
Back
Top