Heh… its the PROCESSING POWER that’s slowing them down:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/15/robo … index.html
Given how much CPU’s advance every year, that won’t be an issue for long…
Space Marines! FOR THE EMPEROR!!! 8)
For the Emperor. :twisted:
Wow, soon even space will be bathed in blood.
Powered Armor… bah.
I’m still holding out for my personal Gundam. 
I used to think the same, until realism revealed how 50 feet mecha are just cool giant coffins.
Gundam/Valkyrie/EVA are like Dyson Spheres - once you have the technology to build one, you really don’t need to build one. 
The future of warfare, is all about miniaturizing weapon systems and evading detection.
Some have begun to point out, how things like tanks are obsolete, yet modern generals refuse to admit it. Are they deadly? Of course. To the extreme. Can a well trained platoon of standard infantry with up-to-date weapons take one out? Of course. To the extreme. In days gone by, a tank only feared another tank (or low flying aircraft). Now advances in explosives and rockets, take away the fear… and the invincibility. 
Unfortunately true, so giant mecha are decidedly unlikely. 
Combat seems to be sliding back towards favoring the infantry (what with hand held weapons that can destroy and/or disable most enemy machines {tanks and such}) and with the advances in stealth technology coming faster and faster… Eventually war might just become a deadly game of hide and seek, first found is the first to die.
As somewhat of a military enthusiast, I must respectfully disagree with the sentiment that tanks have become obsolete on the modern battlefield. While it is true that infantry now possess powerful weaponry for use against armor, there are problems. First, all man portable anti-armor weapons are bulky (some more than others), which limits how much you can carry. For the most part, the less bulky the weapon is, the less effective it is. Take for example the RPG-7, a fairly portable system. While it can be effective if it makes a direct hit, cage armor (AKA bar armor, slat armor, and standoff armor) defeats the threat due to it’s shaped charge design. On the other hand, you have the FGM-148 Javelin. This weapon pretty much guarantees a kill, but the bulk of it is such that it is assigned to two man teams. Another issue is that generally, the less bulky the system, the less the effective range is for the weapon. Again, let’s look at the examples of the RPG-7 and the FGM-148 Javelin. While the maximum range of the RPG-7 is ~920m, accurate fire is difficult at ranges over 300m. The general rule with this weapon is “The closer you are, the better”; in fact during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the mujahideen tended to use the weapon at ranges of less than 80 meters. As for the FGM-148 Javelin, it’s maximum range is 2,500m, and that is also it’s maximum effective range.
Another thing to keep in mind is the concept of combined arms. In this approach to warfare, tanks are but one small piece of the overall picture, just as infantry is but a piece of the overall picture.
So in closing, I have this to say: Armor will probably always have a role to play. Will it’s role change as the battlefield changes? Of course. However it will still have a role to play.
The other side puts up a compelling argument as well. First off, an RPG-7 is obsolete: RPG-29 is the modernized version… and half assed at that (more on this later). Advances in weapon systems, have greatly outstripped the advances in protective systems. New discoveries in chemistry also favor destruction, rather than resistance (as in explosives vs armor). Weapons progressively get lighter, as their power to negate armor increases.
The next issue is delivery systems and targeting are becoming one and the same. Infantry “paint” a target, long range artillery destroys it. Tanks are the “big guns” than infantry can’t carry ¬ñ but with laser precision, they’ve lost a lot of import. Now infantry (or special forces) can sneak in, while aircraft, naval assets, and/or long range artillery provide the heavy firepower. Modern warfare is more about first strike without detection. Tanks are all about Shock Warfare: which isn’t the future anymore.
As it stands, nations don’t fight each other on the battlefield anymore. Honestly the “first rate” powers never will. In the event one side loses a major tank to tank offensive, the losers will utilize tactical nukes to negate the victory of their enemy. This was the plan for the NATO-Warsaw invasion on both sides… hence another reason why it never happened. MAD applied on the battlefield, just as it did to civilian targets.
Tanks largely suck in urban warfare, if you’re not going for total war ¬ñ which isn’t going to happen between the first rate powers: if Russia is invading New York City with tanks, then its safe to assume we’ve radiated Moscow at some point. Against “third world” nations, using tanks to level the enemy’s city is frowned upon (Soviet-Afgan War; US current battle in Iraq), because most of those wars are morally arguable (i.e. they didn’t invade you; you invaded them). Overall, tanks have been serving a “passive” role in the new wars. They can’t get into the “heart” of an urban area, because it’s a death trap for them. Afgan proved that to the Soviets. Iraq is proving that every day to the British and Americans.
Another issue is how MBT’s are gas turbine. Troops can’t get behind those, because if the heat doesn’t kill 'em, the carbon monoxide will. More and more, APC and Strikers are doing the job that MBT should be doing.
Tanks are primarily designed for combating other tanks. Nations with large tank forces, have equally large anti-tank forces (such as combat copters). Although again, that’s kinda moot.
The issue isn’t that tanks are useless ¬ñ its just that tanks are losing their effectiveness. Battleships aren’t useless… but a Cruiser can do the job just as well, or even better. In fact, the Cruisers are now getting obsolete, with Destroyers being even more deadly. Its not that big ships are weak ¬ñ its just that technology allows smaller ships to do just as much damage: cheaper, stealthier, and faster. Detractors of tanks point out the same parallels (more specialized APC being the alternative).
Yes there’s Combined Arms, but a lot of elements in Combined Arms are also flawed, as we are learning in the conflicts today. Our old Combined Arms were against another superpower… well there isn’t another superpower, and if there is, its not going to be one we’re invading: the EU, China, India, even a reborn Russia aren’t the enemies of old. Thanks to globalization, its best for us to all remain allies. Besides… we’d all just tactical nuke each other anyways…
Are tanks obsolete right now? I don’t think so. Will they become obsolete? I can imagine it. If weapons continue to progress like they have, then MBT’s are going the way of the dinosaur. In fact, plans for future battlefield vehicles, put more focus on stealth, speed, and being light. In essence, more of an APC than a frontline armor unit.
Also keep in mind, that the Army (as well as the Airforce and Navy) are biased in their funding. The Army funds BILLIONS into future tank research, but only several hundred thousand into RPG systems. Why? Because the Brass likes tanks more: even though battlefield analysis has proven over and over, that half-assed modernized RPG’s are taking out ultra modern tanks. As some unfortunate friendly fire accidents have shown, a 1970 National Guard “surplus” missile (Hellfire), defeated an 2000 era tank (Leopard 2A5) with a single shot. 30 year difference… Imagine if infantry carried a state-of-the-art RPG? What kind of havoc would that reign? Sometime ago, it was revealed that a RPG-29 (not exactly the best designed RPG either), punched through the FRONT ARC of a Challenger at 300 meters. THE FRONT!!! No surprise that the Russians are funding for a RPG-30. Tank Commanders who are Generals, don’t want to lose the tank. Just like Air Force pilots who are Generals, hate the idea of total UAV Jet fleets.
I agree that armored vehicles are here to stay: rapid transport is the key to any war. However frontline tanks, I won’t say with certainty, until I see more advances made with them.
I think that this is one of the greatest reasons that ‘powered armor’ will have a definite future. As more battlegrounds become urban, tanks and other large vehicles will progressively become less useful. Now assuming that the very early proto-type in the first post progresses as I think it will, ‘armored infantry’ could bring at least some of the firepower of a MBT into an urban war zone without sacrificing an infantry soldiers mobility or (hopefully) making him a big target. Then again I’m not a military analyst so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Even with this type of equipement, the commando specialized in Urban Guerilla/Warfare will still have a big advantage, they’ll be definitivly have more mobility and the more important point : a far better autonomy since they won’t have to cope with the necessity to refill the energy of a “suit” or different maintenant/electronic problems.
My mother’s Husband was a French Marine Commando (RPiMA and he did the ex-yougoslavia and some special OP in Africa (like the Rwanda)) and he always said that they were better without hightech stuff in many case, because to rely too much on them can mean the demise of the squad if a technical problems arise
I totally agree with ya there. Realistically, advanced powered armor is going to be gainly ponderous like the Space Marines from 40K or Starcraft; rather than something like the Ninja from Metal Gear or Marvel’s Ironman, so “unarmored” troops will always have a place on the battlefield. Even then, that’s probably armor beyond our lifetime. I suppose the powered armor we’ll be seeing in the next three or four decades, will be more like the Powerloaders from Aliens or the Wolverines from Command and Conquer 2, seeing how that prototype exoskeleton looks.
I agree that tanks do need to evolve some, seeing as how the majority of warfare seems to happen in urban areas now. I thought I should point out though that the RPG-29 points out what I was saying above: it’s loaded weight is around twice that of it’s outdated (at least against modern tanks) predecessor, the RPG-7.
I agree. It’s a heavy son’nava gun. But its a poorly designed RPG too; using Soviet era technology. With all the new plastics, composite explosives, and computer assisted designing that’s been developed since the 1990’s, a MODERN redesign would have all the punch at a much lighter weight… perhaps even a greater range.
I suppose a surge in future urban warfare is only natural… mankind is crawling towards 7 billion. :shock:
Then again, with Global Warming, we might want to also consider amphibious vehicles too.
Sad isn’t it, that all this technological innovation is geared towards killing people. 
Way of the world I suppose… 
Humans are a naturally aggressive species. Had to be… our survival depended on it. Not like the Earth is exactly a peaceful paradise: animal, plants, virus, bacteria, weather… everything is out to kill us. Unfortunately, our growing awareness and intellect has not diminished our destructive nature. On the bright side, most if not all of our weapons technology, can be applied to peaceful applications. Even the Free Internets was originally planned as a military system.
On another bright side: it better to be a species WITH weapons and a will to fight, than a species WITHOUT weapons and a will to fight. We still aren’t certain if we’re alone in this Universe after all.
I think we will have powered armor fairly soon. Say— 15 to 25 years.
Why? Well, the Army is driving hard to replace all it’s soldiers with robots. The current plan is to have platoons with only 4 humans in the whole thing… 2 “command” (who are also back up maintenence) and 2 “maintenence techs” (who are also back up command) deployed with the platoon by 2015. Being the Army, they’ll be late by a decade or so… But the plans is that Rear Echelon MFs will be able to monitor and even jump in and take over any particular front line unit. Normally though, the meat would be on the front line with the robots or at most back at the deployment point with the cargo pods the units egressed from. I think those front line command and maintain will need high amounts of armor— and if you can deploy that sort of tech for being your basic disposable grunt, they’ll focus in on making the closest grain matter armored up sufficently to be able to survive a few nearby high explosions and ignore any small caliber fire. Also, by being a powered suit, they can effectively let the suit have a “grunt” brain, so the person inside can pay attention to giving commands to their units, and let the suit drive until things around the suit demand their attention.
A significant portion of the AF is hot for UACVs— removing the pilot (or putting him outside the fighting vehicle) lets you design fighting craft that can do more then 8 to 10 Gs. Big Brass really likes the idea of being able to go log into their work comp, and assign the UACVS with the mission of destroying all power plants in any nation with a couple of mouse clicks, and everything needed to make that happens, happens— with no human brains or hands involved after that. And that’s the direction they are driving. AF says it will be there somewhere between 2017 and 2025, last I read. I for one look forward to our new airborne robot lords, and greet them eagerly. I hope they realize that I will still be physically capable of aiding them by working in the oil fields or other manual labor positions that they do not want to waste an Army robot platoon to labor at…
CNN finally got around to what most of us already knew:
Airforce needs more combat UAV’s
Sheesh… they call this news? :roll: