The Future of the Military -- Perhaps

The most ambitious weapons program in Army history calls for a whole new arsenal of connected gear, from helicopter drones to GPS-guided missiles. But what happens if the network that links it all isn’t ready?

By James Vlahos Posted 04.07.2009 at 5:06 pm 10 Comments

Fast Fire: The Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon can fire six shells a minute—three times as fast as current mortars—that strike simultaneously, depriving the enemy of the chance to take cover after the first one hits Courtesy Program Manager/ Future Combat Systems

But there's a tradeoff to the svelte build of the NLOS-C. When it comes to armored vehicles, less weight traditionally means less protection for the soldiers inside. To compensate for this potential weakness, FCS designers are trying to perfect advanced armor that provides more protection with less bulk. But the armor isn't ready yet. The second core technology still under development is a system that is supposed to detect incoming enemy missiles and shoot them down before they hit the tank. And finally, there's the not-yet-functional FCS network itself. One reason designers thought they could get away with lighter-weight vehicles is they figured that the soldiers would have such good intelligence from the network that they could detect enemies and strike them first -- the best defense is a good offense, essentially. "The designs of the vehicles and everything else depend on the quality of service [the network] provides," Francis says. "It would have been a better approach to have demonstrated the network's quality of service before you proceeded with the design of all the vehicles that depend on it."

Stick 'Em Up: Soldiers will set sensors inside buildings that can detect motion and capture images Courtesy Program Manager/ Future Combat Systems

A Precise Aim

Toward the end of the day, I stood under the scalding Texas sun next to a tan metal container stuffed with missiles. This was the Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS), a portable system that could fire GPS-guided missiles so accurately that they could strike enemies hunkered down in a narrow alley. Two soldiers standing by shouted out mission orders and then clicked a button on a screen marked "execute." At this point, I was supposed to imagine a missile blasting forth and streaking toward its target. But it was a Fourth of July firework that went off with a whistle and no pop.

Schaill looked on approvingly and then gave a little speech. The theme was borderline pacifist for a military man and seemed to sum up the hopes for FCS -- that more information would result in less bloodshed. "Over the next 30 to 40 years, we'll be doing a lot of operations in populated areas," Schaill said. "What that means is we have to be able to precisely gain target information, because I don't want to hurt civilians. I don't want to hurt anybody I don't have to hurt. This [launch system] gives us the capability to get these missiles precisely where they need to be on the battlefield."

A reporter standing near me cleared his throat and said, "at least more precise than in current systems. Precise and war are generally two concepts that don't go well together." Schaill looked straight at him. There was a long pause before he responded. "Historically, perhaps. But a sword is pretty precise. I think this will be much more precise as well."

Previous Article: See The Mount Redoubt Eruption From Space

Next Article: The Top 10 Telescopes of All Time

Want to read more articles on the military, aviation, and space? Subscribe to Popular Science and enter to win $5,000!

10 Comments

link to this comment

ford2go

04/08/09 at 1:46 am

Lots of gee whiz tech here, but the comm system is really an issue. Expecting to have nearly universal availability of secure, reliable, and high tech comm seems an unrealistic expectation.

If the enemy finds a way to jam the net, system effectiveness plummets

Individual radios will be subject to breakdown, batteries, and any comm obstacles (metal walls, etc)

The enemy could capture one or more radios and get an immediate intelligence boost. Worst case scenario, they might figure the system out.

The pentagon has historically been in love with tech as a solution to all of our problems. I'm all for saving as many soldiers lives as possible. But, this system looks as if it might be compromised too easily -- with disastrous reults.

link to this comment

tdar

04/08/09 at 12:31 pm

tdr

All our military personal are giving up their home lives, and/or their LIVES in war. You'd think the RICH would take interest in this and get on board in some way. Like maybe Bill Gates, whose life revolves around tech.

link to this comment

Oakspar77777

04/09/09 at 2:40 pm

Most of this just seems too horizontal for my taste. American war should be verticle. We have unquestioned air superiority, so our assits should be airborn. Why put a cannon on the ground to be a target, when you can just arm your UAV?

When the enemy has nothing to shoot, what will he shoot?

American war should look like this:

1) Unmanned high altitude recon of anti-air and communications tech. (if necessary)
2) Coordinated long-range fire on anti-air and communications tech. (if necessary)
3) Cargo UAV deposites armed UAVs to warzone.
4) Using a high altitude communication UAV, guys in Nowheretown Nebraska, command the weapon systems on these UAV drones to eliminate targets (using onboard weapons or relaying coordinates for long range fire)
5) UAVs settle in stategic spots (sniping, survealance, etc) when flight time diminishes to continue to police the contained area.

24 control of any area with the only risk being money and carpel tunnel syndrom for our soldier-techies. End a riot or fight a war with no assets on the ground. That alone takes away any incintive for retaliation and increases American reach by removing barriers to engagement.

"The safty and speed of an ICBM, the descretion of a soldier." (I should TM this and have the military pay me a few million).

link to this comment

mdtmaverick

from Ionia, Michigan

04/11/09 at 11:46 am

How long did it take to develop the field artillery's communication system for faster round on target? I can see this moving along with the same enthusiasm.

link to this comment

Mike Cook

from Kent, WA

04/14/09 at 11:54 pm

Battlefield advantage forever has started from the high ground downward. Today's high ground is outer space. Don't control that and you soon don't control anything.

link to this comment

xf843a

04/15/09 at 4:38 pm

The UAV Class 1 as Hover looks impressive but it seems to be easy recognized/identidied by the enemy per the picture with Hover parked on the wall outside the building. This is similar to the platform moving on the battlefield which builds with very height multibands antennas to support COTM, what happens if the enemy shoot down or disrupt the device or platform as mentioned? They are easy target recognized/identified by the enemy.

link to this comment

cowboy82

04/16/09 at 6:37 pm

Re: oakspar77777 commentary, to wit:

I dunno, sounds a lil' too George Orwell to me.
Since when did modern day warfare become a videogame
my kid could play from his bedroom.

Anyone else disturbed by this trend? Or am I the
only one who remembers Mathew Broderick in "War Games"?

By the way, what's new on the cyber terror front?
Anyone paying attention?

I'm just sayin'.

link to this comment

ih8school4797

04/16/09 at 6:48 pm

I thought it was pretty cool that they took WALL-E from the movie and put him out in real life in the Army.

link to this comment

loveandwar

04/22/09 at 6:46 am

think the enemy could only listen in only if we were doing a mission anywhere near them

link to this comment

loveandwar

05/06/09 at 6:36 am

the ds has wiifi and you can only be 30ft away fro;m the host but if their is another berson between you and the host then u can be 30ft away from them and be well out of the host range and still be able to talk on pictochat

so maybe the army should widen the length of hte wyfiee conection ar somthing maybe encrypt it