In the battlefield of this Twenty-First Century, when an entire platoon can be stalked by an overhead UAV, without even hearing the overhead threat - everyone is wiped out with one high explosive blast.
The use of night vision and low-light intensity cameras, will enable all human movement at night to be observed in real time, and hostile combatants eliminated with clean surgical strikes.
Air strikes can make pin-point hit causing little collateral damages - so long as the targets are clearly identified, and the kill zone is free from causing damages to non-combatants.
Fortunately, the threat and insecurity is placed on the hostiles:-
F-16 Kill 16 terrorist ... with 1 shot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij5Yd7_lLNo&feature=related
Insurgent Sniper Killed While Trying to Escape
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4_g7kdF2Qo
UAV Kills 6 Heavily Armed Criminals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNNJJrcIa7A&feature=related
Terrorists planting an IED blown to hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux6twHtveqA&feature=related
More Insurgent Deaths, Apache 30mm and UAV Airstrikes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3GtOlrfYO0
Indeed, technology has slightly even the odds of the aggressor by allow them to have more consistent first strikes. The problem is to not fight "yesterday's war". Surely while two conflicts are similar, they are never the same.
Air superiority is a requirement but the ground battles decide the outcome of the war. Often, we learn from mistakes because someone has paid the price for our lesson. The slew of technologies being brought forth over the past few years have mostly been a result of the war in Iraq - urban warfare, US + Israel now have a huge store of knowledge to learn from the many years which they face these problems of insurgents hiding amongst civilian in build up areas.
*cough* I ramble to much. Without much personal experience, i doubt the practicality of UAVs should the environment be that of thick vegetation (compared to desert/urban) Everyone knows that noise travels very far in the forest which can be masked in the daily urban setting. Radios dont work as well, rain, mud hides warning lines, pits, mines and booby traps( those who build them dont even have to be in the area once these are set up); Comparable but lower end equipment procured in larger numbers, including their own UAVs, sensors and C2/3/4i.
That's the difficulty of the problems faced to keep up the edge over would be opponents in the region. I suppose this is the battlefield which we face in the 21st century.
Originally posted by Atobe:
In the battlefield of this Twenty-First Century, when an entire platoon can be stalked by an overhead UAV, without even hearing the overhead threat - everyone is wiped out with one high explosive blast.
The use of night vision and low-light intensity cameras, will enable all human movement at night to be observed in real time, and hostile combatants eliminated with clean surgical strikes.
Air strikes can make pin-point hit causing little collateral damages - so long as the targets are clearly identified, and the kill zone is free from causing damages to non-combatants.
Fortunately, the threat and insecurity is placed on the hostiles:-
UAVs and CAS will certainly have a major role to play in future battles. That makes being a soldier on the ground more difficult. However, it can also make soldiering easier. The technology now is such that the average soldier has the ability to point out the enemy position with a great deal of accuracy and call down deadly, accurate fire. The average soldier has more firepower at his disposal than ever before.
I have to point out though that all these low light devices cannot see through the jungle canopy. Good field craft therefore still has a major part to play.
Re noise of UAVs, after having heard how noisy they are, I made that point to some bloke who operates UAVs. He said that the UAV can fly very very high such that the noise is negated.
In any analysis of weapons systems, you not only have to consider the capabilities of the weapon, but also the cost and limitations-- For example, regardless of the billions spent on UAVs, they cannot find a properly hidden human target (Osama) whereas human intelligence was able to find Saddam pretty quickly. As has been said, such UAVs still cannot penetrate the Jungle, and in the end, machines are unable to establish effective ground control, as has been shown in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, they are a useful tool in a toolbox, as long as we don't obsess too much about them.
in the world, both sides will develop lar...new technology can help you in the long stuff...but when the enemy is 2m in front of you...skills will still save the day...
but actually... i think such new tech is actually best applied in desert warfare...with large open spaces...litreally a giant sand table......but for dense environmental conditions (eg jungle) the role of technology would be limited and pushed down....(remember 'nam?)