Darpa's Cyborg Insect Spies, Now Nuclear-Powered

oh no... Whats next Nuclear bombs strapped to bugs!!!
Osama better keep a Good Fly Swatter next to him

Remember the cartoon "Atom Ant"? Somehow this just ain't the same.

I am not holding my breath wondering when DARPA is going to come up with a 100 year battery powered death ray. I will start to get concerned when they achieve a nuclear reactor powered death ray but before then it simply is not on my ultra sensitive radar screen.

Since military advancements by one party beget slightly better advancements by the other party -- the arms race -- I predict that some foreign counterpart of DARPA is even now working on a beta-particle bug zapper.

Well I'm sure there are other applications than only warfare. Maybe it could be used for rescue operations I don't know there's a lot of potential here.

That would be the perfect homing device for anti tank munition. Bug flies. Bug finds tank. Bug starts emitting. Tank evaporates.

Replace word "tank" with any other noun.

You get the picture?

Didn't the CIA try this back in the cold war - to put surveillance equipment into cats and have them roam through the Kremlin (which cats were allowed to do).

Only the one cat they caught and surgically put the recording devices into was hit by a car while crossing the street.

More government waste.

Uhhhmmmm... Swarms of deadly bugs...Where have I heard about these guys... oh in the Bible: Revelation 9,
"3 Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth. 4 They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5 They were allowed to torment them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings someone. 6 And in those days people will seek death and will not find it. They will long to die, but death will flee from them.

7 In appearance the locusts were like horses prepared for battle: on their heads were what looked like crowns of gold; their faces were like human faces, 8 their hair like women's hair, and their teeth like lions' teeth; 9 they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the noise of their wings was like the noise of many chariots with horses rushing into battle."

Locust with armor and crowns (electronics on their heads) and hair (the antennas for communication)And they are used to attack only people (warfair). Think about it!

@ trueperspective

I thought about it and its "warfare" not "warfair" unless that it some type of crazy cool type of new bug that has its own monarchy and jams out to 70's Glam rock. That would be very cool we could name the new species "warfair" in your honor of course.

@itadekimasu,
Your typing skills are far superior to mine to which I appreciate your wise council. Also, your idea ROCKS!(pun intended)

@ trueperspective,

Thanks Happy Friday ;)

Ah, at it again, Someboy?

Please research ECM and ECCM. They are pretty important military terms. Party A develops a spy bug. Party B develops ECM to counter it. Party A develops ECCM to thwart Party B's ECM.

Think about this: Bug flies. Bug finds and lands on tank. Bug starts radiating signal. Tank detects signal. ECM in tank jams signal.

The spy bug becomes a tool, but not one that renders Party B into prey on its back with its belly exposed. It simply doesn't work like that except in WOW.

What is your woody about tanks?

The most potent anti-tank weapon by far is another tank.

See your Army recruiter. Tell him the MOS you are interested in is 19K. When you get back in 4 years, tell us all about your subject matter expertise.

You don't give up QIII...

You claim to have military experience but don't even have a clue about the basics. It is of course true that the military has a hard time recruiting competent people.

A tank is a sitting duck. It only survives if the enemy uses 80s or older weapons technology. Not all enemies trust in WWII Soviet technology.

A tank has no means of defending against a modern anti tank missile or guided grenade. NO MEANS. The question still remains: What can a tank do against a missile or grenade fired from 10 miles away? Don't worry. The missile will find it's target. It can be coordinates, painted, a bug with an IR LED, ATR or some other technology that you haven't even heard of. Seriously. The era of the tank is ending very soon.

The only pro tank argument you have come up with is that the tank next to you makes you feel good. How safe does it make you feel when the tank pulls in fire and tries to fend off incoming fire with counter measures. You'd be dead before the tank crew gets it.

19K. Forget it! I'm not suicidal. Why do you insist on beating a dead horse? The likes of you made Pearl Harbour, Mogadishu, Beirut etc possible. The world is changing but some fail to notice.

Sorry, Someboy. I have presumed too much. I always thought that modern warfare was conducted in a Combined Arms approach so that tanks were not left out on the battlefield to their own devices without protection. They just sit there waiting.

I defer to your expertise. I certainly have no clue.

You'd think that after 23 years in the Regular Army as a Commissioned Officer and having actually commanded units in real war, I'd have a clue.

But I don't.

Thank you for your explanation. I trust you will pass your insight on to the Pentagon?

QIII

Apology accepted.

Commissioned officers are good at following strategies made by professionals. Creating new strategies? Hardly...

"Combined Arms approach so that tanks were not left out on the battlefield to their own devices without protection. They just sit there waiting."

So in order for a tank to operate you need to make sure that no enemies can see it or no missiles or grenades can reach it. That means that you first need to nuke the area. What do you need the tank for if the area is nuked? To protect the crew from radiation?

Don't worry. The Pentagon alredy knows all of this. The

QIII

Apology accepted.

Commissioned officers are good at following strategies made by professionals. Creating new strategies? Hardly...

"Combined Arms approach so that tanks were not left out on the battlefield to their own devices without protection. They just sit there waiting."

So in order for a tank to operate you need to make sure that no enemies can see it or no missiles or grenades can reach it. That means that you first need to nuke the area. What do you need the tank for if the area is nuked? To protect the crew from radiation?

Don't worry. The Pentagon alredy knows all of this. The

Apology accepted.

Commissioned officers are good at following strategies made by professionals. Creating new strategies? Hardly...

"Combined Arms approach so that tanks were not left out on the battlefield to their own devices without protection. They just sit there waiting."

So in order for a tank to operate you need to make sure that no enemies can see it or no missiles or grenades can reach it. That means that you first need to nuke the area. What do you need the tank for if the area is nuked? To protect the crew from radiation?

Don't worry. The Pentagon already knows all of this. The M1 will probably be the last MBT.

Oh. Sorry again.

I always thought it was the Commissioned Officers who were the professionals that created the strategies.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought General Officers were Commissioned Officers.

Thanks yet again for your correction of my understanding of "the basics".

Just as a historical sidenote, my beloved teacher, the demise of the tank has been predicted by other teachers since 1916. It would be interesting to know, teacher, when the tank first appeared on the battlefield.

I wonder why the DoD has plans to keep the M1A2 in service until 2050.

I've also wondered why the DoD is developing the M1A3 for field testing in 2014 to eventually replace the M1A2.

And why did we ever come up with other armored vehicles like the Stryker?

Clearly, the Pentagon does not have your insight.

I think you should tell them.

"So in order for a tank to operate you need to make sure that no enemies can see it or no missiles or grenades can reach it."

Are you familiar with the Logical Fallacy known as the Non Sequitur?

Are you familiar enough with the rank structure of the military to tell me where Commissioned Officers fit in so I can have that straight?

Thanks.

So, in order for an Infantryman to operate you need to make sure that no enemies can see him or no missiles or grenades can reach him.

Oh, Someboy.

Do please instruct me.

QIII,

You seem to be confused. It's good that you don't work at the Pentagon. Did you resign on grounds of ill health?

So what happens in your mind to an enemy soldier that gets seen and is in the reach of your weapons? You buy him a beer? No. You don't use a $100k missile or grenade to take out a single enemy infantryman. You have cheaper ammo for that.

Yes. I was terribly confused.

So confused that I don't understand a basic concept like the fact that Commissioned Officers are the professionals who develop strategy, tactics and procedures.

Reduce your scope. You do not even understand when you are being played.

Does a sniper rifle render the use of Infantry obsolete?

And no. I did not resign due to ill health. There was a small issue involving a number of surgeries, fused vertebrae, steel plates and screws and such.

You know.

Stuff that happens when one is actually there, as opposed to the tendonitis caused by holding a Tom Clancy novel at an odd angle while you are reading it in bed while watching Saving Private Ryan on DVD.

QIII

Yes. You sound like a very confused young man. The damage you have received explains a lot. Sounds like somebody has been driving drunk and forgot to put on his seat belt... Head trauma leaves often permanent damage on your cognitive abilities. But so does drinking too. Or did you hit somebody else who needed surgery? Playing? Sure. The sooner you accept that you don't have the capacity to play anybody, the better for everybody. Get a puppy if you want to play.

"Does a sniper rifle render the use of Infantry obsolete?"

No. What's your point? A sniper can make the operation of an infantry unit impossible. But a sniper cannot replace the infantry. Try to think what happens if the sniper uses remotely operated guns that fire smart or guided munition...

Infantry with access to guided or smart heavy munition does make the tank obsolete. The enemy with access to guided or smart heavy anti armor munition makes the operation of the tank impossible.

But you're right at one point. A lot of wars in the future will take place against enemies having outdated Soviet ordnance. Such wars can be fought with outdated American ordnance. It looks better than scrapping the equipment.

snipers use direct fire on the battlefield, they can also radio for indirect fire.
Infantry squads typically have two types of indrect fire already in the teams, as well as the ability to radio for indrect fire. Trained enemy snipers are usually accurate at the greatest distance of 1 mile, however hitting a moving target at that distance is not easy, so they typically wait till around 1000 meters. at that range it is still difficult to hit a target but you have a good chance at hitting them.
A well trained infantry team can take out a single sniper because of numbers, but usually disengage because of the risk of casualties and call in for indirect fire.
One last thing most of the enemies the US has fough have not had the ability to call in indirect fire.

Thank you Azorus for a well-informed answer. Facts and arguments. No CV. Beautiful!

Yes. That is how things are now.

The question is what happens when things change. What happens when the "radioed" indirect fire becomes as precise as direct fire?

What happens when the sniper has smart bullets that are accurate from two miles even on a moving target? What happens when he can take on several targets with simultaneous hits, from that distance?

How does the battle field change? What is the role of the tank in such a scenario? My view is that either you hide or get destroyed. The tank has terrible stealth features...

How long can the US Army trust that the enemy has outdated ordnance?

Yes. Confused "young" man with grandchildren. Quite young indeed. I was quite entertained by the "head injury" comment in particular. This coming from an "expert" such as yourself, who didn't know that Commissioned Officers are the "professionals" who develop strategy and tactics. Your expertise was thereby demonstrated. By the way: are Warrant Officers, NCOs and junior Enlistedmen not "professionals" as well? Do you really think that an Army or Corps Commander developing his strategy does not turn to his Sergeant Major for input? Does a Brigade or Battalion Commander not turn to his Sergeant Major during the development of his tactical plan to support that strategy? Those very senior NCOs have had long careers and are the Commanders eyes and ears with the Enlisted. Does the Sergeant Major not know whether the Enlistedmen are well-trained and provisioned enough to do what will be asked?

No head injury here. And to my knowledge I have never been in a car accident. Certainly not one I caused by drinking, since I don't drink.

Azorus -- I was subject to indirect fire when I was in the US Army. Sorry to burst your bubble. During our initial assault in Iraq, we were subject to indirect fire. Sorry to burst your bubble. My son has been subject to indirect fire in the last few months. Again, sorry to burst your bubble. Mortars are used quite frequently by our enemies in the Middle East even now.

Infantry squads do not "typically" have organic indirect fire capability beyond the MK19 (not really indirect and which leg Infantry would find hard to transport and employ) unless they are 11Cs and not 11Bs. A Platoon Leader might have 11Cs in his Platoon. But they wouldn't be one of his "typical" squads. I'm sure you knew that. I'm sure you know the difference between an 11B and an 11C. You could probably even tell us how that Platoon Leader would employ his 11Cs. Infantry squads can, however, call for indirect fire or close air support. So, by the way, can 19Ks.

Tanks, like Infantry, can be pinned down by a single dug in enemy tank, which they either have to maneuver to destroy -- or they call for support.

"Haul ass, bypass and call for Artillery." But I'm sure you've heard that before.

Both of you: The sniper was "new" technology that had and still has its place. It did not render its intended target obsolete. Tactics and techniques changed. Indirect fire from Artillery did not render Infantry obsolete. Tactics and techniques changed. The tank did not render infantry obsolete. Tactics and techniques changed. The guided anti-tank missile did not render tanks obsolete. Tactics and techniques changed. The RPG did not render tanks obsolete. Tactics and techniques changed. Not to mention that the latter has become significantly less effective against tanks due to improved armor technology -- the tank itself changed.

The demise of the tank has been continuously and repeatedly predicted since shortly after they appeared on the battlefield. Will tanks change? Certainly. They will evolve to meet new challenges. But the basic role of the tank will not disappear from the battlefield.

Do you honestly believe that our tactics and techniques have NOT changed because of our own use of smart munitions? Do you really think that we are that stupid? Do you really think we came up with that stuff without also coming up with countermeasures?

So here is the question I put to each of you.

DARPA belongs to the DoD. DARPA is developing all of these high tech weapons and surveillance equipment. Yet the DoD is going forward with the development of the M1A3 and wants to have working prototypes in 2014. Does that sound at all strange to you? DoD is developing all of these technologies that will render tanks obsolete, yet it is also developing new tanks and other armored weapons platforms. Odd, wouldn't you think?

The funniest thing about all of the expertise you are helping me with, fellas, is what I currently do for a living ...

Well, "young man with grandchildren".

Maybe you get my point? This is anonymous debating. You know absolutely nothing about me and nor do I know anything about you. Inverse ad hominem "argumentation" is useless. Have I claimed to be an US military professional? I could be Colin Powel for what it matters. Or a Chinese engineer developing smart munition... I couldn't care less about how the US army bureaucratic hierarchy is built. That is totally out of the scope of this discussion.

OK. At least you try some analytical argumentation. Even though most is based on the Hume's guillotine logic. It is one thing how things are and another thing how they will turn out to be.

The question is still how the battle field will change when the single soldier has the same fire power and accuracy as a tank in direct fire? What happens if the enemy has the same capabilities?

You complain that enemy mortars are a nuisance. You said earlier that there are effective counter measures... Yet your son is still complaining about the same stuff. What happens when the enemy mortars become accurate to within a yard? What happens when those same mortars fire HEAT grenades? Every tank equipped with a Phalanx CIWS? What happens when the guided anti tank missiles become as commonplace as the RPG-7? What happens when the sniper gets goal seeking ammo? What happens when a sniper can take out a tank? What happens when the sniper gets his view from a sparrow sized drone?

OK. You say that tactics will change. The question is how? You complain that a single dug in tank can pin down other tanks. How useful is that tank when single enemy soldier not only can pin down but also destroy any tanks that he can see?

Try to comprehend the difference of making obsolete and pinning down. A sniper cannot do the foot soldier obsolete but he can prevent him from operating. The infantryman is still needed. He only becomes obsolete if something can replace him.

You don't think that DARPA develops anything that they don't have counter measures for? I understand if DoD doesn't sell such stuff to other countries, but I have a hard time believing that they would stop developing a new HEAT just because they don't have the counter measures. And do you think that e.g. the Iranians stop development just because DARPA doesn't have the counter measures? You trust that the armor will always get stronger and stronger. Well. At some point the tank just becomes too heavy and expensive. That's what happened to the armored knights. That's what happened to the battleship.

My guess is that the tank will be replaced by some kind of a mobile laser based CIWS that offers a protective umbrella against smart munition and drones for the infantry. No armor needed. The platform would need the same defensive capabilities as an aircraft carrier. Only really heavy and expensive munition could get through. OK. You can call it the next gen. tank if you want.

Before I even begin: Not all philosophers agree that Hume's Guillotine is a problem. Not all philosophers agree with Hume. Furthermore, Hume was making a statement about ethics and human nature, not the outcome of particular technological advancements. Please refer to the Book, Part and Section where that appears in "A Treatise of Human Nature". It was not a statement about Logic, nor does it necessarily represent a Logical Fallacy.

I didn't "complain" about anything. And I wasn't talking about the US army bureaucratic hierarchy.

So long as you don't understand that General Officers are Commissioned Officers (as are Lieutenants and Colonels), and Commissioned Officers are the "professionals" who arrive at strategy, tactics and procedures and who recommend and specify the capabilities of new weapon systems, it is clear that you know very little beyond the technical specifications of gadgetry you have learned about.

Your misunderstanding of that simple thing indicates your decided lack of understanding of what all of that MEANS.

So long as you don't understand that our strategy, tactics and procedures change (that we don't know HOW beforehand is immaterial) based on the assumption that our enemies will have capabilities similar to ours, it is clear that you do not understand what all of that MEANS.

So long as you don't understand that there are already other systems (an entire Branch in the Army, ADA, and another Branch of the Service, the Air Force) that provide a protective umbrella already, you do not understand what all of that MEANS.

Put simply, a tank, by whatever name you call it (the term "tank" was an obfuscation that just stuck), is an armored (that need will NOT go away because the threat of arms that can destroy unarmored vehicles) fighting vehicle that combines high mobility with a large caliber direct fire main gun mounted in a turret and other smaller caliber weapons. It provides a commander with immediate tactical offensive and defensive capabilities. Its combination of armor and mobility provide protection for both the vehicle and its crew. Direct fire weapons will still be needed into the foreseeable future. It is ONE weapon system of many working in concert with an array of others.

Just a hint: The M1A3 will be LIGHTER than the M1A2, not heavier. That is the new trend.

That role will not go away. The M1 series certainly will.

If you take its tracks off and have it hover on a force field in a sci-fi movie (or, possible, real life in the future), it is still a tank. If you paint it with materials that keep it from reflecting the illumination needed by ATGMs, it is still a tank. If it sprouts anti-missile defense systems because the ADA units surrounding it are too busy playing poker to bother to create an umbrella, it is still a tank. If you replace the armor with "Independence Day" force fields, it is still a tank. That would still be armor. If you give it long-range indirect fire capability... well, you are replicating systems that already exist.

In your world where high tech wizardry renders every possible vehicle obsolete, a spot on the ground in the middle of a leg Infantry formation (which will be all that is left because IFVs and aircraft will be obsolete, too) can be illuminated and a flechette-bearing GM can burst in the middle of the formation and take out Companies by the number. Who needs Artillery tubes, by the way? Obsolete. We have guided missiles capable of that already.

What does a single tank have to defend itself against an Infantryman with a shoulder fired ATGM? Not much. But tanks don't travel alone. A formation of Armor and Infantry has the option to disburse after the first tank goes down, fire smoke grenades or start smoke generators, obscure their position and pummel the hell out of the Infantry position with coordinated fire.

What does a single tank have to defend itself against a long-range ATGM fired from OTH? Not much. But tanks don't travel alone. A formation of Armor and Infantry can disburse, obscure, seek cover and call for fire support -- while telling the ADA guys to knock off the poker game and create an umbrella.

Again. You are under the tragically mistaken impression that tank crews operate exposed and alone. They do not. Neither do Infantrymen, Engineers, Air Defense crew members, cannon crewmembers or cooks.

Your uninformed and incomplete understanding of the depth and breadth of the modern three dimensional battlefield leads you to inaccurate conclusions. You have made childish assumptions about a world you have never been in, which you have never seen except on screen and which you will likely never have the opportunity to see in real life. You count yourself an expert because you have seen the National Guard transporting their hardware on your local Interstate and you happened once to see a real, live Soldier, Marine, Sailor or Airman at the airport. You have read all sorts of scientific journals singing the praises of the ultimate weapon.

The guys at DARPA read, too.

If you find a single Infantryman, or even a Company-sized element of Infantry, that bears enough armament to destroy every tank it sees, let me know. It would be interesting, since the tank would likely have similar capabilities against Infantry when similarly outfitted with analogous weaponry.

It might interest you to know that one of the additional optional armaments proposed for the M1A3 is a long-range GM. Ironic. We're actually thinking about producing a tank that actually bears the very agent of its own obsolescence.

You can talk smack all you want. You can be as ignorant as you want about what Commissioned Officers are. And you can be convinced that you understand all there is to know about modern warfare.

By the way, I didn't say that DARPA wouldn't develop anything it didn't have countermeasures for, did I?

Typically countermeasures are developed after a threat appears.

Isn't there some saying about idiots and arguing on the Internet?

QIII

OK. Let's put it in other words. It's a logical fallacy to claim that something will be in a certain way just because they are like that now.

You complained that the mortar rounds had caused you and your son nuisance.

"Your misunderstanding of that simple thing indicates your decided lack of understanding of what all of that MEANS."

Ad hominem. "Because you're ignorant, I'm right". Sorry. That is not a valid argument.

"So long as you don't understand that our strategy, tactics and procedures change (that we don't know HOW beforehand is immaterial) based on the assumption that our enemies will have capabilities similar to ours, it is clear that you do not understand what all of that MEANS."

Non relevant. Strategies change. The question is how they will change based on foreseeable weapons technology development. The answer cannot be "they will change". That is a stupid answer.

"So long as you don't understand that there are already other systems (an entire Branch in the Army, ADA, and another Branch of the Service, the Air Force) that provide a protective umbrella already, you do not understand what all of that MEANS."

That umbrella is NOT effective against smart munition. Not even against indirect. Remember those mortars... Air cover is not the same thing as a protective umbrella. The Air Force is even bad at delivering fire support on demand. Too slow and too expensive.

"Put simply, a tank, by whatever name you call it (the term "tank" was an obfuscation that just stuck), is an armored (that need will NOT go away because the threat of arms that can destroy unarmored vehicles) fighting vehicle that combines high mobility with a large caliber direct fire main gun mounted in a turret and other smaller caliber weapons. It provides a commander with immediate tactical offensive and defensive capabilities. Its combination of armor and mobility provide protection for both the vehicle and its crew. Direct fire weapons will still be needed into the foreseeable future. It is ONE weapon system of many working in concert with an array of others."

OK. You know what a tank is. The question is still what happens when (e.g.) the insurgents fire smart HEAT rounds from remotely fired single use mortars. What is the tank needed for when the foot soldier can order in guided fire from outside the battle field. Guided fire that's cheap and immediate (not like the Air Force)

"Just a hint: The M1A3 will be LIGHTER than the M1A2, not heavier. That is the new trend. "

They always are in the planning face...

"If you take its tracks off and have it hover on a force field in a sci-fi movie (or, possible, real life in the future), it is still a tank. If you paint it with materials that keep it from reflecting the illumination needed by ATGMs, it is still a tank. If it sprouts anti-missile defense systems because the ADA units surrounding it are too busy playing poker to bother to create an umbrella, it is still a tank. If you replace the armor with "Independence Day" force fields, it is still a tank. That would still be armor. If you give it long-range indirect fire capability... well, you are replicating systems that already exist."

OK. But why? What are the arguments?

"In your world where high tech wizardry renders every possible vehicle obsolete, a spot on the ground in the middle of a leg Infantry formation (which will be all that is left because IFVs and aircraft will be obsolete, too) can be illuminated and a flechette-bearing GM can burst in the middle of the formation and take out Companies by the number. Who needs Artillery tubes, by the way? Obsolete. We have guided missiles capable of that already."

It's mainly a cost issue. Guided missiles are a lot more expensive than artillery rounds.

"What does a single tank have to defend itself against an Infantryman with a shoulder fired ATGM? Not much. But tanks don't travel alone. A formation of Armor and Infantry has the option to disburse after the first tank goes down, fire smoke grenades or start smoke generators, obscure their position and pummel the hell out of the Infantry position with coordinated fire."

This will change after the salvo of smart HEAT mortar rounds. Which by the way is from hiding. Then tactics will have to be changed...

"What does a single tank have to defend itself against a long-range ATGM fired from OTH? Not much. But tanks don't travel alone. A formation of Armor and Infantry can disburse, obscure, seek cover and call for fire support -- while telling the ADA guys to knock off the poker game and create an umbrella."

You assume that the enemy fire is not very effective... Why does your theory not work for the mortars that annoyed you?

"Again. You are under the tragically mistaken impression that tank crews operate exposed and alone. They do not. Neither do Infantrymen, Engineers, Air Defense crew members, cannon crewmembers or cooks."

They all die alone.

"Your uninformed and incomplete understanding of the depth and breadth of the modern three dimensional battlefield leads you to inaccurate conclusions. You have made childish assumptions about a world you have never been in, which you have never seen except on screen and which you will likely never have the opportunity to see in real life. You count yourself an expert because you have seen the National Guard transporting their hardware on your local Interstate and you happened once to see a real, live Soldier, Marine, Sailor or Airman at the airport. You have read all sorts of scientific journals singing the praises of the ultimate weapon."

Like I told you earlier. You know nothing about me. Do not make assumptions. Still "you are ignorant, thus I'm right" is a bad argument.

"The guys at DARPA read, too.

If you find a single Infantryman, or even a Company-sized element of Infantry, that bears enough armament to destroy every tank it sees, let me know. It would be interesting, since the tank would likely have similar capabilities against Infantry when similarly outfitted with analogous weaponry."

They don't bear it. They order for fire support from outside. That is what will change. The capability of ordering effective fire support.

"It might interest you to know that one of the additional optional armaments proposed for the M1A3 is a long-range GM. Ironic. We're actually thinking about producing a tank that actually bears the very agent of its own obsolescence."

No it doesn't interest me. It interests me only if it supports some argument pro or con.

"You can talk smack all you want. You can be as ignorant as you want about what Commissioned Officers are. And you can be convinced that you understand all there is to know about modern warfare."

It would help if you could come up with valid arguments. It's not enough that you think your a wise grandpa.

QIII

"Do you honestly believe that our tactics and techniques have NOT changed because of our own use of smart munitions? Do you really think that we are that stupid? Do you really think we came up with that stuff without also coming up with countermeasures?"

So who exactly is this "we"? Your family?

Someboy:

I know all I need to know about you based on this statement: "Commissioned officers are good at following strategies made by professionals. Creating new strategies? Hardly..."

I never claimed that anything will be in a certain way just because it is like that now (nor was that Hume's point), other than the fact that the role of the tank will persist. I even said the tank will evolve to meet new threats.

I never said "Because you are ignorant, I am right." I simply stated that your statement, quoted above, indicates your level of understanding well enough.

I didn't complain about mortars. I stated a fact. There are measures Infantry and Armor take in the case of mortar and Artillery attacks. 5 Soldiers die. The rest do not stand still and wait.

Not knowing in advance how tactics will change does not invalidate the argument that they will change based on threat.

The umbrella is effective (currently) because it can take out the aircraft that just deployed the smart munition. Stealth technology will last only as long as we have not developed measures to defeat it. GMs leaving a radar signature can be traced back to their point of origin. They may evade ground radar, but that is not the only tool in the shed. One or two tanks are destroyed. The whole Army does not wait for the rest to be.

The umbrella is effective against indirect artillery. Hence, my reference to counter battery fire. 30 Soldiers and a tank die. The rest of the team does not wait for others to suffer the same fate.

The Air Force is too slow and unresponsive? It sure didn't seem that way to me when they saved the skin on my backside, leaving me here to debate with you. The fast-movers are not waiting on an airfield playing cards. They are part of the plan from the beginning and they loiter nearby.

Remotely guided AT rounds already exist and are accounted for. Armor has changed and is being fitted to current tanks. RPG attacks on top of the turret are no longer a slam-dunk kill.

The argument for a tank? I already stated it. The tactical need for the role will persist.

They do not all die alone. They fight as a team. If they do not, then neither does the enemy, and there will be no use or benefit in war. Happy day. If you can predict that an make it come to pass, I will kiss you on the lips.

Like I told you, "Commissioned officers are good at following strategies made by professionals. Creating new strategies? Hardly..." tells me all I need to know about you.

Effective fire support can already be called. We do it. We assume they can. I was an O/C at the NTC for a long time. The training scenarios and evaluations are based on the assumption and simulation of the enemy having the same capabilities we do.

"We" are those of my former and current profession. "We" is our Republic's Defense establishment.

Valid argument: The role of the tank in ground warfare will persist because Commanders on the ground will continue to need a heavy, mobile, direct fire weapon for the foreseeable future. It will not forever be the M1. That need in naval surface warfare passed and with it the battleship. A rigid analogy drawn between the battleship and the tank is flawed because it assumes that naval surface warfare reflects the same needs and considerations as ground warfare.

Again: Even with our vast technical superiority and with the effective use of smart munitions our enemies did not deploy, we still had to kill Armor and Infantry the old fashioned way in the last couple of scuffles I was a party to.

The real concern is not the high-tech. We can produce high-tech to counter high-tech. We train as though our enemy has high-tech. As a result of that near-sightedness, as demonstrated by current events, we have counted ourselves so technologically advanced that we have had to go back to the drawing board to counter the low-tech.

You consider the argument that one weapon system can defeat another to be valid. One discrete system can often defeat another. Your argument is flawed in that it depends on the implicit assumption (yes, despite what you might say) that a battle is fought between discrete elements with a particular set of vulnerabilities and capabilities. Further, there is the implicit assumption that one new gadget will not be answered by another. Further still is the implicit assumption that future battles will be WWII and anti-Soviet "Fulda Gap" force-on-force engagements. We stopped exclusive training of the Fulda Gap scenarios 20 years ago.

QIII, out.

QIII

So many words. So little substance.

When a single foot soldier aided by a couple of 60 mm mortars can deliver guided 10 HEAT grenades with an accuracy of 2 ft in 10 sec, that's when the tank is scraped.

The mortar squads are long since gone before any counter measures take place. Or then unmanned single use Katjhusa launchers are used. Range 20 miles. Counter measures do no good.

The tank becomes obsolete when a single foot soldier can order in a guided 120 mm round delivered in 10 sec.

When someone can spell "Katusha" or "Katyusha", the accepted English transliterations of the Russian rocket launcher, properly and knows that they are WWII technology, non-guided, an area weapon and not accurate; or explain why mortar sections get mortared and shelled themselves; or why Infantry and Armor units have drills and procedures for reacting to indirect fire attacks (a countermeasure); or when someone can tell me why, after repeated shoot-and-scoot MLRS attacks (ballisic and non-guided, but highly accurate -- but now available with guided missiles) and direct cannon engagements by A-10s, Iraqi tanks still had to be engaged in direct fire battles during the PGW because they did not all immediately vaporize; or when somebody can tell me why we dropped all of those smart munitions in the PGW from stealth aircraft and still had to engage in direct fire battles because all of the Iraqi tanks did not immediately vaporize; or when somebody can tell me why, when we used M-30 GMLRS in Iraq recently and still had to engage tanks in direct fire engagements because all of the Iraqi tanks did not immediately vaporize; when somebody can tell me why we have not already mothballed every tank in the inventory given that other conventional armies have armaments similar to those already and we assume and train as though enemy forces have the same ...

When somebody complains that a transliterated word is misspelled, he has run out of arguments. You don't think they can be equipped with guided warheads? Just because they weren't during WWII...

A quick mortar section doesn't get mortared. They move. Why should they wait for counter action?

Rail guided.

Might be confusing Katyushas with other guided missiles that may use the same launch platforms, such as the Iranian knock-offs of the Chinese Yingji-82?

Mortar sections (and I'm glad you are quick enough to pick up on the fact that they are not "squads") do, in fact, get mortared, shelled and attacked by aircraft themselves -- although they certainly try not to.

From FM 7-90:

"e. Survivability. Mortar crews face many threats on the battlefield including NBC hazards, countermortar fire, and ground and air attacks. These must all be considered when a mortar position is selected. The position should facilitate both active and passive defense measures so it ..."

You can nitpick as much as you want.

The Katjusha is a generic name for all self-propelled artillery rockets based on the Russian WWII design. You can spell it any way you want. The correct spelling is Катюша. Катюша:s are not guided missiles. But they could be equipped with guided warheads. I used them as an example how the firing team (or individual) can evade counter measures by using single use launchers that are fired remotely. Just like Hamas does. You have heard of Hamas? They are not US.

You can use mortar section if that makes you happier. I used it to make you happy. I hoped keeping you happy would keep you focused on the essence of the discussion. You can look up "mortar quad". That can also be used. I'm not discussing the US army specifically. I'm discussing the military in general. Other countries have other names for the same things. What makes you think I'm US?

How long does take for a truck mounted mortar to move away from its firing position? How easy is it to find it in urban environment?

You can nitpick, for sure.

But...

When a single foot soldier aided by a couple of 60 mm mortars can deliver guided 10 HEAT grenades with an accuracy of 2 ft in 10 sec, that's when the tank is scraped.

The mortar squads are long since gone before any counter measures take place. Or then unmanned single use Katjhusa launchers are used. Range 20 miles. Counter measures do no good.

The tank becomes obsolete when a single foot soldier can order in a guided 120 mm round delivered in 10 sec.

QIII

Ps.

Can you figure out why the M-30 GMLRS is not equipped with HEAT warheads? I know the answer. Do you?

When you can tell me how you plan to fit the guidance system and mechanical components operating the control surfaces into a 60mm mortar, give me a ring.

Hamas? Not US? Really, now? You're kidding, right? Is that why they use non-US munitions?

How many Israelis has Hamas killed with all the Kassems they have fired? Katyushas? Were those targeted at professional military, or civilian neighborhoods? Do civilians have pre-prepared positions at known locations with specific battle drills for reaching them in the ten or fifteen seconds warning you might get?

Hezbollah has been using them to great terror effect, too, but that is neither here nor there.

MOUT is a great environment for the use terror/suppression weapons, since most armies are no longer interested in destroying whole cities to root out insurgents and other bad guys.

An unmanned Katyusha launcher can't adjust fire on a moving formation. And dismounts in defensive positions usually have dug-in protective positions. Katyushas (not a general, but a specific term) are area weapons.

PS:

Why do you think that the decreasing likelihood of large scale force-on-force tank battles diminishes the need for the tank? I've known for years that the time of the pitched division-sized tank battle was gone. Like I said, we began phasing out training the Fulda Gap scenarios 20 years ago. Things like the BAT didn't fit the new tactics. As I said, tactics change.

Congratulations. You didn't manage to argue against any of my statements.

"When you can tell me how you plan to fit the guidance system and mechanical components operating the control surfaces into a 60mm mortar, give me a ring."

And based on that you conclude that they never will...

We're discussing how technology will change the battlefield. Not what can be done today.

Try to understand. I'm talking about GUIDED munition. Why do you write BS like "An unmanned Katyusha launcher can't adjust fire on a moving formation.", when we're not even discussing the dumb warheads?

Actually the Israeli civilians do have pre-prepared positions at known locations with specific battle drills for reaching them in the ten or fifteen seconds warning they get. You didn't know that? Have you ever watched anything else than Fox News?

MOUT? You mean UO?

You know BAT!

I'm impressed. It doesn't fit into the US strategy. But how about a mortar fired BAT (equivalent) used by US enemies.

Let me guess. The BAT can only be fired from the M270 MLRS, and thus there is no danger that the insurgents will get a mortar launched version...

Oh. If you didn't recognize the answers to your statements, I am sorry.

Military Operations in Urban Terrain.

Future of weapons: 60mm mortar too small to hold warhead and guidance systems. Something else might.

Don't watch Faux. I'm not a toothless, mouth-breathing, window-licking Republican.

Israeli civilians in a market have fox holes?

Ah. BAT? Yes. The TACMS carrying BATs was fielded around in '98 or '99, as I recall. I was in the Army at the time. And, again, if you can fit something 5 1/5 inches in diameter into a 60mm tube, I'd be willing to hear about it.

5 1/2

HA!

Somebody confusing 5 1/2 inches with 5 1/5 inches doesn't obviously know what he's talking about (using the same great argumentation that you use...)

You really catch the "relevant" points... So what if the necessary HW cannot never ever in the future be fitted in a 60 mm grenade? The point was not the 60 mm mortar. The point was that smart grenades can be launched from a cheap weapon that is easy to operate, hide and move.

And just what makes you think that 60 mm is to small for future warhead and guidance systems? They're planning to do it for .50 cal. Or is it that you have learnt that one mm is so very small?

You don't think that e.g. Iran would be interested in ways of easily take out American tanks?

"Military Operations in Urban Terrain."

The United States military term for urban warfare is UO an abbreviation for Urban Operations. The previously used US military term MOUT, an abbreviation for Military Operations in Urban Terrain has been replaced by UO.

"Israeli civilians in a market have fox holes?"

No. But in those areas that are in reach of enemy grenades, they have shelters that can be reached in time. You don't need a fox hole to survive shrapnels.

If the point were not the 60mm tube, why did you continue to refer to it? Did you miss "Something else might."? Clearly, I understood the threat, dear.

And you have to consider the physics of how much explosive payload can be put into something the size of a 60mm mortar when guidance and control systems are added. Enough to penetrate armor? Perhaps IFVs would be a better target than tanks. But IFVs are going to be vaporize anyway.

60mm mortars are already effective against troops in the open. More economical to use 60mm technology that already exists for that purpose.

MOUT was MOUT for many years, and the term was still used by us old timers at least up until two years ago.

Do I think the Iranians would be interested in ways to take out US tanks? Gee, do parties to warfare actually want to destroy the other guy?

And I'm quite familiar with the metric system and the relative relationship between it and English units of measure.

Let me give you my take, military wizard.

Much of what you are talking about can be defeated by a technology that already exists and is even now being developed for military applications.

That technology will require new technologies well beyond the capabilities you are talking about.

They will be developed one day, and so it goes.

The mobile, high caliber, direct fire weapon system will still be there. It won't be an M1.

Just had a brief discussion with my Sapper Tab. Sapper doctrine still referred to MOUT as of March-April 2003.

My Ranger Tab just keeps saying "Hoo - Ah! Ranger!" over and over, so I can't get much help there.

"If the point were not the 60mm tube, why did you continue to refer to it? Did you miss "Something else might."? Clearly, I understood the threat, dear."

That would clearly be the first time luv. I used the 60 mm mortar as en example of a commonplace enemy weapon that I suppose even you find difficult to defeat. If you're lucky you get a warning, sometimes from AN/TPQ-37 or similar or sometimes from the first round that is off it's target and have time to take cover. With smart grenades you don't get the warning as often. Instead you have 10 rounds hitting the target accurately at once.

"And you have to consider the physics of how much explosive payload can be put into something the size of a 60mm mortar when guidance and control systems are added. Enough to penetrate armor? Perhaps IFVs would be a better target than tanks. But IFVs are going to be vaporize anyway."

This might actually be your first lame try for a valid argument. Commonplace weapons are of small caliber and can thus not hold an sufficient amount of explosives even for a HEAT round. But change the 60 mm tube for an M40 type of weapon, and the situation changes. Or why not a RPG for indirect fire with BAT type munition. IFVs are great against unguided indirect WWII weapons. Just like the MBT.

"60mm mortars are already effective against troops in the open. More economical to use 60mm technology that already exists for that purpose."

60 mm mortars with guided munition would be effective against troops in any terrain.

"MOUT was MOUT for many years, and the term was still used by us old timers at least up until two years ago."

Yes. It's still in use. But it's phasing out. Better to use just one acronym for one thing. Or is it UO performed by grandpas?

"Do I think the Iranians would be interested in ways to take out US tanks? Gee, do parties to warfare actually want to destroy the other guy? "

I got a little confused since it seems that you don't think anybody else would find use for weapons phased out by the US because it doesn't fit the Fulda Gap scenario.

"And I'm quite familiar with the metric system and the relative relationship between it and English units of measure."

Great! I'm seeing some progress here!

"Let me give you my take, military wizard.

Much of what you are talking about can be defeated by a technology that already exists and is even now being developed for military applications."

Great. Why don't you then tell me the details. I might be wrong but you just haven't proved me wrong.

"That technology will require new technologies well beyond the capabilities you are talking about."

OK. Any details? Or are you just making this up?

"They will be developed one day, and so it goes."

Aha! You're talking about possible future development that is still unknown. But you're sure that it will be something that defeats any threat to the MBT that costs less than the tank itself. Even a guided KE munition fired from hundred of miles away from a rail gun. 100 pound DU sabot coming in at mach 10...

"The mobile, high caliber, direct fire weapon system will still be there. It won't be an M1."

Sure. And it will be placed outside the battle field to deliver munition with indirect fire on demand. You can call it the MAAU (mobile armored artillery unit)

No sabot with railgun. My mistake.

thanks great post

This gotta be kidding, no wonder so many bugs went through my window during night. Lol. Technology has become more advanced, it's growing fast.

Mr. Petrillo
____________
www.mmapound.forpound.com

I can't find anything on Nickel-23 except that there are 23 isotopes of Nickel. 63Ni has a half life of 100 years so maybe that's what the author meant.

The locust swarms from the bible are quite a possibility with these things. But I still think it's really cool.

I predict that some foreign counterpart of DARPA is even now working on a beta-particle bug zapper.
www.eprostateproblems.com/

First things first. Tanks are not out dated, and I'm not even a tanker. I've seen tanks direct hits from HEAT, and EFP, and EFER rounds, and still keep fighting. Including hits from russian Sagger WGATM, which is comparable to the TOW, or Hell fire systems we use today. anyways back to the bugs, its a interesting tech. The tech can be used in other applications other then painting targets, and spying. The use for say disaster relief, mine collapses, other dangerous tasks hazardous to human workers. Just because its a military/ federal program does not mean the application is just for that specific use, or that it will only belong to said program. If it proven to even be viable. As far as the biblical references, who cares so much stuff can be construed to correspond the every from the bible, to Nostradamus, it not even pertinent to discussion of the technology.

Somebody -

You are an A$$hat. Go back to playing wow where you belong.

QIII -

Very good, logical arguments, appreciate everything you and yours are doing and have done for this country.

Correction

*Someboy is the wow playing A$$hat.

cavalry has been around in warfare since the times of the Pharaohs, tanks are called armored cavalry units, so where is the logic in proclaiming their demise, sure does appear shortsighted and egotistical to assume that simply because of a few advancements that somehow a greatly important part of an effective warfare strategy would disappear.

They should use GMO bees with lethal venom and make them sting the bad guys. I bet if you injected the bee with some sort of hormone to make it angry it would sting the person it landed on.
By the way, there's no way you could put a nuclear bomb on an insect, because you need to have a critical mass of fissile material, otherwise you can't get a chain reaction.